Improved rice establishment and productivity in Cambodia and Australia

1,137 views

Published on

Rice-based Systems Research: Regional Technical Workshop June 2012 Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)

Som Bunna CARDI on behalf of project team

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,137
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
55
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Improved rice establishment and productivity in Cambodia and Australia

  1. 1. Improved rice establishment and productivity in Cambodia and Australia [ACIAR CSE 2009/037] Som Bunna CARDI on behalf of project team
  2. 2. Cambodia Role Partnerships RoleDr. Seng Vang DD, in charge research Mr. Geoff Beecher Project leader/CSE-37, divisions(CARDI I&I NSWMr. Som Bunna Project coordinator Dr. David Johnson Weed scientist, IRRI /CARDI/CSE-37Mr. Ngin Chhay D, Rice crop department Dr. Jacky Desbiolles Agriculture research/ /GDA Unty . South AustraliaMr. Chourng Dean Agronomy faculty/ Dr. Rajinder Pal Singh Socio economist , I&ISophal RUA NSW
  3. 3. BackgroundChanges in rice growing in Cambodia Spread of direct seeding vs transplanting Irrigated dry season rice Mechanisation Increased export of rice Adoption of modern technologies and approachesCapacity building / knowledge needs of Cambodian researchers
  4. 4. Relationship between number of tractors and areas plowed by tractors Source: Nhem Sokha, DAM (2012)
  5. 5. MechanisationUsing existing / available equipmentTimelier crop establishmentReduced variability in crop establishmentIncrease cropping intensityOvercome shortages in labour availability
  6. 6. Aim Enhance rice system productivity in rainfed and irrigated lowland systems of Cambodia through better matching of production systems to soil type, water availability and mechanisation. Provinces: Kampong Thom, Takeo, Kampot
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. Socio-Economic Assessment of Baseline Survey of the Rain fed Lowland Rice Eco Systems in Cambodia Key objectives - Benchmark farmer agronomicLocation of the and management practices,target areas resource use, mechanization usage, and productivity levels in various rice eco systems in 150 farmers 9 villages the three selected provinces 5 communes 3 districts - Help develop corresponding 151 farmers research and extension 9 villages 150 farmers 9 villages 8 communes 3 districts strategies to raise productivity 7 communes 3 districts of rice in different low land rice eco systems451 farmers, from 27 villages, 20 communes, 9 districts from 3 provinces
  9. 9. Key messagesSize of holding – very small, fragmented into number of fieldsLevel 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% TakeoInput 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, marketsKey measures to improve productivity and profitability- Farmers perceptions – Water availability, quality seeds, weed control, fertiliseruse, better extension services
  10. 10. CLEAR1,000,000 Wet season rice harvested 4 5 7 6 9 , 800,000 Dry season rice harvested 3 4 6 9 5 , 600,000 Total 3 6 0 4 5 , 7 0 8 1 4 , 5 1 0 4 , 5 7 8 3 , 0 1 7 3 400,000 , 200,000 9 6 2 1 , 9 6 5 3 1 , - Kampong Kampot Takeo ThomFig 1. E
  11. 11. Crop establishment options evaluated300200100 0 Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Se pt Oct Nov De c Jan Fe b M ar dry seeding transplanting wet seeding
  12. 12. Weed control optionsHydro tillers for recession Rotary weeders for linerice areas planted rice Knapsack sprayers Grass or Broadleaf (low-drift nozzles, mini- weeds? boom)
  13. 13. Planting method and weed control comparisonsTR Planting methodsT1 Farmer’s practiceT2 Broadcasting seed rate 250 kgha-1T3 Broadcasting seed rate 200 kgha-1T4 Broadcasting seed rate 150 kgha-1T5 Broadcasting seed rate 100 kgha-1T6 Broadcasting seed rate 60kgha-1T7 Drum seeder seed rate 80 kgha-1T8 Drum seeder seed rate 60 kgha-1 Transplanted with 2-3seedling/hill ( seedling age 20days rowT9 spacing 20cm x 20 cm) Transplanted with 1 seedling/hill, seedling age 10 days, rowT10 spaces 25cm x 25cm)
  14. 14. Table1. ANOVA result for PM & WC at 6 location on grain yield for WS 2010Planting method CARDI Takeo Kampot Kg. Thom Kg. Speu Prey Veng MeanFarmers 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 3,194Transplanting 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 3,043LSD5% 972(NS) 650(*) 715(ns) 655(**) 721(*) 443(ns)Combined analysisLocation (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
  15. 15. Table 2. Effect of weed control on grain yield for WS 2010 Grain yield(kg/ha) Location Mean None weeding WeedingCARDI 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 3,213LSD at 5% 540(ns)
  16. 16. Result of Dry season 2011Fig 2. Effect of planting method at 6 locations(DS)Fig 3. Interaction effect PM x WC for DS Pie1. Effect of weed control on grain yield
  17. 17. Table 3. LOC x WC on grain yield(kg/ha) Grain yield Location None weeding Weeding Mean CARDI 2570 3432 3001 Takeo 2516 3926 3221 Kampot 2450 2833 2641 Kampong Thom 4001 4299 4150 Kampong Speu 2366 2834 2600 Prey Veng 2627 2656 2641 Mean 2755 3330 3042 LSD at 5% 372**Fig 4&5. effecting of seed rate on weed biomass andgrain yield for direct seeding
  18. 18. Fig6. Weed biomass at differences planting method at 6locations
  19. 19. Figure 7. Main planting method for WS
  20. 20. Figure 8. Main planting method for DS
  21. 21. ConclusionFor wet season rice 2010-High seed rate > 200kg/ha result for grain yield not sogood;-Seed rate 150Kg/ha > 60kg/ha suitable-Among direct seeding (broadcasting and drum seeder) nota significant difference-Transplanting with 10day ages with 1 seedling per hill didnot advantage over transplanting of 20-30day old seedling2-3 seedlings per hill and-Weeding increased rice yield 378kg/ha or 9.8%
  22. 22. For Dry season rice 2011-None weeding control, high seed rate high grain yield asweed biomass reduced-Transplanting still perform good-There was interaction for PM *LOC due mainly Kg.Thomsite-There were not a difference among direct seeding-Weeding increased rice yield 575kg/ha or 8.2%
  23. 23. ICE Farming systems experiment Early Wet Season Wet Season Dry Season1 DSR + FT TRP Rainfed favorable:2 2 Crops (EWS, WS) DSR + ZT TRP3 DSR + FT WSR Fallow DS/recession:4 2 crops (EWS, DS) WSR WSR+ZT WSR5 DSR + FT TRP WSR Fully irrigated: 3 crops (EWS, WS,6 WSR TRP WSR DS) 2012, 2013 EWS 2011. Starting of 2012. Total: 2 crops the experiment Experiment in DSR: Dry seeding 2012, 2013 WS progress WSR: Wet seeding Total: 3 crops 2013 DS FT: full tillage TRP: Transplanting Total: 2 crops ZT: Zero tillage
  24. 24. Results-CARDI (2011 WS)Treatme Plant Panicles Shoot Straw Grain • Presented values arents No. Density DM DM yield means of 4 reps and 2 (Tillers) WdCtrl. • No significant difference (ns) (No./m2) (No./m2) (kg/ha) between the testedT1 152 149 2413 6322 5187 treatments. • The mean value forT2 159 154 2185 6158 5242 rice yield isT5 159 154 2363 6088 4881 reasonably high, 5097T6 150 145 2101 6776 5076 kg/ha.Mean 155 151 2265 6336 50975%LSD 29.4 28.8 485.8 1247.6 961.1F-probvalue ns ns ns ns ns
  25. 25. Results-CARDI (2011 WS)Treatme Plant Panicles Shoot Straw Grain • Presented values arents No. Density DM DM yield means of 4 reps and 4 (Tillers) estab. methods. • No significant (No./m2) (No./m2) (kg/ha) difference (ns) between the testedHW 157 153 2215 6151 5000 treatments.CW 153 149 2316 6520 5193 • No weed DM since no presence of weeds.Mean 155 151 2265 6336 5097 • The mean value for rice yield is reasonably5%LSD 20.8 20.4 343.5 882.2 679.6 high, 5097 kg/ha.F-probvalue ns ns ns ns ns
  26. 26. Demonstration results
  27. 27. Extension and advisory activities• Field days• Farmer field schools and training
  28. 28. 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

×