improved rice establishment and productivity in cambodiaand australia

Improved rice establishment and productivity in Cambodia

and Australia [ACIAR CSE 2009/037]

Som Bunna CARDI on behalf of project team

Cambodia Role Partnerships Role

Dr. Seng Vang DD, in charge research divisions(CARDI

Mr. Geoff Beecher Project leader/CSE-37, I&I NSW

Mr. Som Bunna Project coordinator/CARDI/CSE-37

Dr. David Johnson Weed scientist, IRRI

Mr. Ngin Chhay D, Rice crop department/GDA

Dr. Jacky Desbiolles Agriculture research/ Unty . South Australia

Mr. Chourng Sophal

Dean Agronomy faculty/ RUA

Dr. Rajinder Pal Singh Socio economist , I&I NSW

Background

Changes in rice growing in CambodiaSpread of direct seeding vs transplantingIrrigated dry season riceMechanisationIncreased export of riceAdoption of modern technologies and approaches

Capacity building / knowledge needs of Cambodian researchers

Relationship between number of tractors and areas plowed by tractors

Source: Nhem Sokha, DAM (2012)

MechanisationUsing existing / available equipmentTimelier crop establishmentReduced variability in crop establishmentIncrease cropping intensityOvercome shortages in labour availability

Aim

Enhance rice system productivity inrainfed and irrigated lowland systemsof Cambodia through better matching of production systems to soil type, water availability and mechanisation.

Provinces: Kampong Thom, Takeo, Kampot

Project activities 2010-2012• Farmer survey – agronomy practices, yields,

access to machinery, weed control• CLEAR- Cambodia Land Environment Atlas and

Resource• Rice establishment studies • Weed control options • Mechanisation

Socio-Economic Assessment of Baseline Survey of the Rain fed Lowland Rice Eco Systems in Cambodia

Location of the target areas

150 farmers9 villages5 communes3 districts

150 farmers9 villages7 communes3 districts

151 farmers9 villages8 communes3 districts

451 farmers, from 27 villages, 20 communes,

9 districts from 3 provinces

- Benchmark farmer agronomic and management practices, resource use, mechanization usage, and productivity levels in various rice eco systems in the three selected provinces

- Help develop corresponding

research and extension

strategies to raise productivity

of rice in different low land rice

eco systems

Key objectives

Key messages Size of holding – very small, fragmented into number of fields

Level of mechanisation - very low

- Two wheel power tillers ~5% (KPT), ~7% (Kampot), 10% (Takeo)

- Herbicide sprayers – ~10% (Takeo and Kampot), 20% (KPT)

- Water pump : ~15% (KPT), 20% (Kampot) and ~55% Takeo

Input use:

- Very low input use – fertilisers, herbicide, insecticide, pesticide,

certified seeds

- Micro finance major lender, lending short term crop loans with group

security, high rate of interest (24-36%)

- Lack of infrastructure –roads, electricity, irrigation, markets,

extension / training centres, institutional finance

- Lack of knowledge - insects/insecticides, diseases/fungicides, markets

Key measures to improve productivity and profitability

- Farmers perceptions – Water availability, quality seeds, weed control,

fertiliser use, better extension services

CLEAR

-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

Kampong Thom

Kampot Takeo

418,

007

387,

885 59

6,43

9

122,

629

13,5

69

371,

107 54

0,63

6

401,

454

967,

546

Wet season rice harvested

Dry season rice harvested

Total

Fig 1. E

Crop establishment options evaluated

0

100

200

300

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar

wet seedingtransplantingdry seeding

Weed control options

Knapsack sprayers (low-drift nozzles, mini-boom)

Grass or Broadleaf weeds?

Rotary weeders for line planted rice

Hydro tillers for recession rice areas

Planting method and weed control comparisons

TR Planting methods

T1 Farmer’s practice

T2 Broadcasting seed rate 250 kgha-1

T3 Broadcasting seed rate 200 kgha-1

T4 Broadcasting seed rate 150 kgha-1

T5 Broadcasting seed rate 100 kgha-1

T6 Broadcasting seed rate 60kgha-1

T7 Drum seeder seed rate 80 kgha-1

T8 Drum seeder seed rate 60 kgha-1

T9Transplanted with 2-3seedling/hill ( seedling age 20days row spacing 20cm x 20 cm)

T10Transplanted with 1 seedling/hill, seedling age 10 days, row spaces 25cm x 25cm)

Planting method CARDI Takeo Kampot Kg. Thom Kg. Speu Prey Veng MeanFarmer's practice 3,883 3,422 1,853 4,260 3,500 2,930 3,308Broadcasting 250kg/ha 3,602 2,940 1,672 2,409 2,233 2,738 2,599Broadcasting 200kg/ha 3,345 3,517 1,911 3,068 2,583 2,932 2,893Broadcasting 150kg/ha 3,474 3,021 2,282 3,518 2,714 2,889 2,983Broadcasting 100kg/ha 3,836 3,152 2,558 3,029 3,095 3,002 3,112Broadcasting 60kg/ha 3,544 3,086 2,347 3,059 2,905 3,199 3,023Drum seeder 80kg/ha 4,012 3,035 2,842 3,523 2,560 3,072 3,174Drum seeder 60kg/ha 3,778 2,346 2,289 3,056 2,857 3,074 2,900Transplanting 2-3 plant/hill 3,965 2,811 1,933 3,237 3,690 3,525 3,194

Transplanting 1 plant/hill 3,801 2,517 2,391 3,420 3,131 3,067 3,055Mean 3,724 2,985 2,208 3,258 2,927 3,043 LSD5% 972(NS) 650(*) 715(ns) 655(**) 721(*) 443(ns) Combined analysis

Location (L) 437**Weed control (WC) 221**( None weeding=2835kg/ha), (weeding yield=3213kg/ha)L x WC nsPlanting method (PM) 221**PM x L **PM x WC nsPM x L x WC ns

Table1. ANOVA result for PM & WC at 6 location on grain yield for WS 2010

Table 2. Effect of weed control on grain yield for WS 2010

LocationGrain yield(kg/ha)

MeanNone weeding Weeding

CARDI 3,352 4,096 3,724Takeo 2,768 3,202 2,985Kampot 1,988 2,427 2,208Kampong Thom 2,944 3,572 3,258Kampong Speu 3,014 2,840 2,927Prey veng 2,945 3,141 3,043Mean 2,835 3,213 LSD at 5% 540(ns)

Fig 2. Effect of planting method at 6 locations(DS)

Pie1. Effect of weed control on grain yieldFig 3. Interaction effect PM x WC for DS

Result of Dry season 2011

LocationGrain yield

MeanNone weeding Weeding

CARDI 2570 3432 3001Takeo 2516 3926 3221Kampot 2450 2833 2641Kampong Thom 4001 4299 4150Kampong Speu 2366 2834 2600Prey Veng 2627 2656 2641Mean 2755 3330 3042LSD at 5% 372**

Table 3. LOC x WC on grain yield(kg/ha)

Fig 4&5. effecting of seed rate on weed biomass and grain yield for direct seeding

Fig6. Weed biomass at differences planting method at 6locations

Figure 7. Main planting method for WS

Figure 8. Main planting method for DS

Conclusion Conclusion

For wet season rice 2010

-High seed rate > 200kg/ha result for grain yield not so good;

-Seed rate 150Kg/ha > 60kg/ha suitable

-Among direct seeding (broadcasting and drum seeder) not a significant difference

-Transplanting with 10day ages with 1 seedling per hill did not advantage over transplanting of 20-30day old seedling 2-3 seedlings per hill and

-Weeding increased rice yield 378kg/ha or 9.8%

For wet season rice 2010

-High seed rate > 200kg/ha result for grain yield not so good;

-Seed rate 150Kg/ha > 60kg/ha suitable

-Among direct seeding (broadcasting and drum seeder) not a significant difference

-Transplanting with 10day ages with 1 seedling per hill did not advantage over transplanting of 20-30day old seedling 2-3 seedlings per hill and

-Weeding increased rice yield 378kg/ha or 9.8%

For Dry season rice 2011

-None weeding control, high seed rate high grain yield as weed biomass reduced

-Transplanting still perform good

-There was interaction for PM *LOC due mainly Kg.Thom site

-There were not a difference among direct seeding

-Weeding increased rice yield 575kg/ha or 8.2%

For Dry season rice 2011

-None weeding control, high seed rate high grain yield as weed biomass reduced

-Transplanting still perform good

-There was interaction for PM *LOC due mainly Kg.Thom site

-There were not a difference among direct seeding

-Weeding increased rice yield 575kg/ha or 8.2%

2012, 2013 EWS Total: 2 crops DSR: Dry seeding WSR: Wet seeding FT: full tillageZT: Zero tillage

2011. Starting of the experiment2012, 2013 WSTotal: 3 crops TRP: Transplanting

2012. Experiment in progress 2013 DS Total: 2 crops

Early Wet Season Wet Season Dry Season

WSR WSR

DSR + FT TRP

DSR + ZT TRP

DSR + FT WSRTRP

DSR + FT

WSR

WSR

TRP

1

2

3

4

5

6

Fallow

WSR

Rainfed favorable:2 Crops (EWS, WS)

DS/recession:2 crops (EWS, DS)

Fully irrigated: 3 crops (EWS, WS,

DS)

WSR+ZT

ICE Farming systems experiment

Results-CARDI (2011 WS)

Treatments No.

Plant Density (Tillers)

Panicles Shoot DM

Straw DM

Grain yield

(No./m2) (No./m2) (kg/ha)

T1 152 149 2413 6322 5187

T2 159 154 2185 6158 5242

T5 159 154 2363 6088 4881

T6 150 145 2101 6776 5076

Mean 155 151 2265 6336 5097

5%LSD 29.4 28.8 485.8 1247.6 961.1F-prob value ns ns ns ns ns

• Presented values are means of 4 reps and 2 WdCtrl.

• No significant difference (ns) between the tested treatments.

• The mean value for rice yield is reasonably high, 5097 kg/ha.

Results-CARDI (2011 WS)

Treatments No.

Plant Density (Tillers)

Panicles Shoot DM

Straw DM

Grain yield

(No./m2) (No./m2) (kg/ha)

HW 157 153 2215 6151 5000

CW 153 149 2316 6520 5193

Mean 155 151 2265 6336 5097

5%LSD 20.8 20.4 343.5 882.2 679.6F-prob value ns ns ns ns ns

• Presented values are means of 4 reps and 4 estab. methods.

• No significant difference (ns) between the tested treatments.

• No weed DM since no presence of weeds.

• The mean value for rice yield is reasonably high, 5097 kg/ha.

Demonstration results

Extension and advisory activities• Field days• Farmer field schools and training

Capacity building in weeds and weed management

• Three training schools on weed identification, herbicides, backpack sprayers, weed control in rice

• 85 participants in total• Conducted across the sites –CARDI,GDA,RUA• Training resource – IRRI staff