IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2011) 2–1

Research article
erd

Organic Rice Farming Systems in Cambodia:
Socio-economic Impact of Smallholder Systems in Takeo
Province
SA KENNVIDYRoyal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Email: kennvidy@yahoo.com
Received 19 December 2010

Accepted 25 January 2011

Abstract Organic farming is recognized as an important system of agriculture and foodproduction, that is environmentally sustainable and can generate several positive impacts
to rural society. The development of organic farming in Cambodia is in its early stage.
Thus, the objectives of this research were to   identify   the   farmers’   perception on organic
rice farming and to analyze the economic effects of the system. Data collection was carriedout through a pretested interview schedule, two types of questionnaires and a personalobservation schedule while descriptive and inferential statistics were analyzed with the useof statistical package for the social sciences or SPSS software. The results showed that themajority of farmers converted their farms into organic farms because of premium prices onorganic products and 15% increase from their farm incomes compared to conventionalfarms. Adapting organic rice farming is able to increase rice yields by 5% accounting from
2.46 to 2.59 tons per hectare. The increased amounts of rice production were equivalent to21%. Furthermore, organic farming systems could be more stable since the analysis of its
economic efficiency was higher than conventional farming system.
Keywords organic rice, farming system, potential, constraints, smallholder systems

INTRODUCTION
Rice production in Cambodia is considered as the dominant crop in the agricultural sector like theneighboring countries in Southeast Asia (Deichert and Yang, 2002) which provides food, incomeand employment. Most Cambodians consume rice as staple food and over 80% of farmers cultivate
rice as the primary crop. Rice production accounts 9% of GDP (ACI, 2002) which directly
connected to about 65% of Cambodians (Deichert and Yang, 2002).
Takeo province is one of the main rice farming areas in Cambodia. From 85% to 90% of
population depend on agricultural sector. Rainfed rice cultivation is the main source of income ofthe farmers (Sath et al., 2008). In this region, farm sizes are classified into 3 extents; as small scale
farming at an average of 0.8 ha, medium scale farming at an average of 2 ha and large scale
farming at an average of 4.5 ha. Although farmland areas are limited in the region, agricultural
cultivation method is still in a traditional way of farming (Saruth and Gee-Clough, 1998). Most
farmers use synthetic fertilizer to increase crop production. In 2000, farmers in Takeo province
initiated to use about 100% of inorganic fertilizers (Ieng et al., 2002, Pracilio et al., N/A).
According to the survey, using excessive amounts of fertilizer have only little effect on riceyields. In addition, poor practices in the application of agrochemicals can affect directly to humanhealth, decline soil fertility and reduce aquatic resources (Mary et al., 2000).
An organic rice association (CEDAC) basing in Tramkok District, Takeo Province which
produced organic rice, supports local farmers on technical knowledge in organic farming andfacilitates marketing of organic rice products from the local farmers. However many farmers in theregion could not adapt organic rice farming possibly due to the lack of education on the benefits oforganic farming. Thus, the result in this study is expected that could contribute to the adaptation of
the local farmers in organic farming.
© ISERD115

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2011) 2–1

The goal of this research is to analyze socio-economic impact of smallholder systems inTramkok district. In this connection, the objectives of this study are to (1) identify the difference on
production  techniques  and  farmers’  perception  of  organic  rice  farming in Tramkok district, Takeo
province and (2) analyze the economic performance between organic and conventional farming.
METHODOLOGY
The results presented in this paper are based on qualitative and quantitative methods of primarydata collection and inquiry. In order to study the differences of two rice farming systems, total of
60 farmers whom 30 farmers are dealing with organic farming and other 30 farmers fromconventional farming were subjected for the interview in this study.
Furthermore, qualitative and quantitative methods such as semi-structured and in-depth
interviews, identification of key-informants, and field visits were used to fulfill the necessary dataneeded in this study. Data was collected through a pretested interview schedule, two types ofquestionnaires and a personal observation schedule then descriptive and inferential statistics wereanalyzed with the use of SPSS software.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 1 shows the differences between organic and conventional rice farming. It was observed thatorganic farming can save around 50% of seeds per hectare of rice field along with wider spacing onplanting of rice seedlings in organic farming than that in conventional farming. Regarding withfertilizers, big amounts of organic fertilizers are necessary to be applied into the field than that ofsynthetic fertilizers. However the price of organic manures is much cheaper, that cost 10 riel per
ton of cow manure than that of synthetic fertilizer that cost around 1600 riel per kg.
Table 1 Differences between organic and convention rice farming
Pre-cultivation

Cultivation

Post-harvest(1)(2)

Production Stage
Farm location
Seed / haOrganic farms
Near from the village
20 kg

Conventional farm
Disperse
More than 40 kg

Land preparation

2 or 3times

Cultivation method

Transplantation

2 times or lessDirect seeding /transplantation
More than 20 days
< 20 cm
Chemical fertilizers
50-100 kg
Hoes and Hands
No
RainfedSeedling age
Space between line and row
Fertilizers
Amount of fertilizers
Weed control
Pest control
Irrigation

12 - 15 days
25 - 30 cm
Organic fertilizers(1)3 - 4 tons
Hoes and Hands
No
RainfedStorage12-13% of moistureseparately with otherproducts

No restriction

Organic fertilizers including compost, animal manure such as cattle dung …    Farmers in the research area did not use pesticide or herbicides in their rice field.

Motivations on transforming to organic farming
According to the data collected through individual interview, farmers have different motivations intransforming to organic farming. Farmers shifted to organic farming in order to reduce the expenses
on synthetic fertilizers, to avoid the negative effects of synthetic fertilizers to health, to utilize the© ISERD116

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2011) 2–1

available resources in the neighborhood, to conserve the environment as well as soil and water
quality and to acquire the beneficial prices on organic products.
Fig. 1 shows that the low cost production and high price of organic rice products are theremarkable reasons for converting the conventional farming to organic farming accounting for 63%
and 57% respectively. Meanwhile some of the farmers were encourage converting to organic
farming due to its increasing effects on rice yields which accounts 40% of the interviewed farmers
while 17% of them stated for health benefits.

Fig. 1 Farmers’  motivation  on transforming to organic farming

Perception of organic farmers
Farmers slowly realized the advantages on cultivating rice through organic farming which results
the increasing number of households along with the increasing area of paddy fields in rural villages
in the region. In addition, most of the organic farmers pursue to continue on carrying out organic
farming. As shown in Fig. 2, 80% of organic farmers were motivated to pursue organic farming due
to the higher net income from organic products. Also, the high market demand and high quality oforganic products was 57% and 30% respectively. Other farmers, constituting 15%, were favored tokeep the products for their own consumption.

Fig. 2 Perception of organic farmers

Perception of conventional farmers
Fig. 3 shows that 60% of conventional farmers were convinced to convert their rice field into
organic while the other 40% stated to remain the conventional method of rice farming.
Reasons from farmers who intend to shift into organic rice farming;
・Production cost is getting higher every year with the increasing prices of chemicalfertilizers
・More amounts of synthetic fertilizers needed to be applied into conventional rice fields
to maintain its production output© ISERD117

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2011) 2–1・Prevent the side effects of applying agrochemicals on human health・Economically favorable for them since they can produce compost by themselves
・Promote social relationship among local farmers through ideas and knowledge sharing
・Farmers can have a benefit of acquiring technical support on organic farming fromNGOs
Reasons from farmers who intend to continue the conventional methods on rice farming:
・High labor cost of transporting manures or organic fertilizers to the rice fields
・Excessive use of synthetic fertilizers results more rice yields
・Poor soil quality will be improved by using synthetic fertilizers.
・There is no enough labor to carry out organic rice farming.
・Rice cultivation is considered as the second source of income in their families
・Lack of understanding on the benefits of organic rice farming

Fig. 3 Proportion of conventional farmers to convert into organic farming

Economic performance in organic and conventional rice farming
Based on the data collected at the research site, it was found out that the gross revenue atconventional rice farming was 2,460,059 riel while at organic rice farming was 2,081,110 riel. For
clear comparisons of economic performances between organic and conventional farming, indicators
were used as follows; net revenue, total cost, break-even yield, net revenue/cash expense ratio.
The net revenue was calculated per hectare of the field and as shown in Table 2, it is clearly
indicated that organic rice farming was higher of net revenue at 21% than that in conventional rice
farming. This could be attributed to the higher yields and higher prices of organic rice products.
Total cost of production includes noncash and cash form. It was found out that conventional rice
farming had higher cost production for 45% than that in organic rice farming. This was due to thehigher cost of synthetic fertilizers accounting to 90% of cash cost. In this connection, to produce 1
ton of unmilled organic rice will cost 81,040 riel compared to conventional rice which will cost
147,061 riel. Break-even yield is the yield that will pay for the total cost variable cost. Since thetotal cost of production was mainly due to the higher cash cost of production, the break-even yield
was the highest in the conventional farm followed by organic farm. Organic fields could produce
212 kg per ha at a price of 950 riel per kg of rice compensating for the total cost of 201,071 riel.
Meanwhile, conventional fields could produce 343 kg per ha at a price of 848 riel per kg of ricecompensating for the total cost of 290,946 riel. Net revenue/cash expenses are the ratio between thenet return over the cost of production. Due to the high cash costs and the lower net revenue in theconventional farming, the net revenue/cash expenses values were lower than that in the organic
farming. The economic efficiency of organic rice farming was at an average of 19 higher than thatof conventional rice farming at an average of 9. Therefore, it was clearly indicated that the organic
rice farming is economically more beneficial than conventional rice farming.
According to these results, organic rice farming has become the priority for the development© ISERD118

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2011) 2–1

in agricultural sector in Cambodia, especially for small scale farmers. Although, organic rice yields
increased only at 5%, its net revenue was higher than that in conventional rice farming. It was alsoobserved that organic rice farming saves up to 50% of rice seeds compared to conventional rice
farming by controlling the spaces between planting of rice seedlings.
Table 2 Economic performances between organic and conventional rice farming
Items
Gross revenue (riel)
Yield (t/ha)
Price (riel/kg)
Total cost (riel)
Noncash cost (riel)
Cash cost (riel)
Net revenue (riel)
Net revenue/cash expenses
Break-even yield (kg/ha)
Total cost to produce 1 ton of rice
Economic efficiency

Organic farm
2,460,059
2.59
950
201,071
82,494
118,577
2,258,987
19
212
81,04019

Conventionalfarm
2,081,110
2.46848290,946
53,959236,988
1,790,1648343
147,061
9OF-CF∆%378,9490.13
102-89,875
28,535-118,411
468,823
11-131-66,021
1015%
5%
11%
-45%
35%
-100%
21%
58%
-62%
-81%
53%

Significantlevel
**
n.s
*
**
*
*
**
**
**
**

n.s : no significant, *: significant at 0.05 level, **: significant at 0.01 level
OF : Organic farming, CF : Conventional farming∆% : Difference in percentage between organic and conventional farming

CONCLUSION
The findings presented throughout this study indicated that organic rice farming is not only
environment friendly but also gains more profit and economic efficiency than that of conventionalfarming with the use of high amounts of synthetic fertilizers. Farmers were also proposed to expand
the area of organic rice fields to increase organic rice production. Moreover, farmers became awareof the risks and effects of chemical pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, thus, most of theconventional rice farmers in the study area proposed to stop using agricultural chemicals.
In conclusion, with the positive perception of farmers in Tramkok District, Takeo Province onorganic rice farming, 60% of farmers adapted and converted their rice fields into organic farming.
Organic rice farming also contributed to the improvement of economic situation to the farmers
where its net revenue was higher than that on conventional rice farming.
REFERENCES
Agrifood Consulting International (2002) Rice value chain study: Cambodia, report prepared for the worldbank, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 13-27.
Deichert, G. and Yang, S.K. (2002) Experiences with system of rice intensification (SRI) in Cambodia,Cambodian Center for Study and Development in Agriculture (CEDAC), 01.
Mary, C., Vann, K. and Sun, V. (2000) Survey on environmental and health effects of agrochemical used inrice production in Takeo province, CAMBODIA, 9-17.
Pracilio, G., Bell, R.W., Cook, S., Ros, S. and Seng, V. (N/A) Mapping rice yield and its fertilizer response atprovincial-scale in Takeo, Cambodia.
Saruth, C. and Gee-Clough, D. (1998) Agricultural mechanization in Cambodia: a case study of Takeo
province, agricultural mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America, Tokyo, Japan, 51-56.
Sath, K., Borin, K. and Preston, T.R. (2008) Survey on feed utilization for cattle production in Takeo
province. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 20, supplement.

© ISERD

119