0637 Comparison of the System of Rice Intensification with Conventional Practice in Dung Toung, Kampot Province

1,796 views

Published on

Presenters: Chuong Sophal and Sras Phanny

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,796
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
82
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
56
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

0637 Comparison of the System of Rice Intensification with Conventional Practice in Dung Toung, Kampot Province

  1. 1. COMPARISON OF THE SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION WITH CONVENTIONAL PRACTICE IN DUNG TOUNG, KAMPOT PROVINCE By : Mr. CHUONG Sophal : Mr. SRAS Phanny Supported by Cambodian Agricultural Research Fund (CARF)
  2. 2. Objectives To study on the conventional practices To study the system of rice intensification (SRI) Comparison the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) and Conventional Practice Economic analysis
  3. 3. METHODOLOGY
  4. 4. <ul><li>STUDY AREA </li></ul>STUDIED AREA Study Area
  5. 5. <ul><ul><li>DURATION : 3 MONTHS, FROM OCTOBER TO DECEMBER 2006 </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Data collection is divided into two steps: 1-Primary data : interview with farmers. 40 farmers were selected: -20 SRI farmers : 10 local variety used-farmers and 10 modern variety used-farmers -20 Non-SRI farmers: 10 local variety used-farmers and 10 modern variety used-farmers 2-Secondary data : collecting from libraries . Data collection
  7. 7. COMPARISON BETWEEN THE SYSTEM OF RICE INTENSIFICATION WITH CONVENTIONAL PRACTICES
  8. 8. Technique of Cultivation
  9. 11. Spacing Spacing 29.85 23.4 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 SRI Non SRI cm
  10. 15. Results of the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) and Conventional Practice
  11. 21. SRI Yields 5.1 3.921 4.00 3.405 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Riangchey N = 5 6 kour N=8 Riangchey N = 6 6 kour N = 8 NON SRI T/ha
  12. 22. Summary of analyzes by ANOVA ** ** ** ** 1000-seed weight ** ** ns ns Grains per panicle ** ** ns ns Yield ns ns ** ** Panicle length ** ** ** ** Tillers/hill Non-SRI 6 Kour SRI 6 Kour Non-SRI Rang Chey SRI Rang Chey
  13. 23. Grains per panicle 234 . 219 222 196 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 Riangchey 6 kour Riangchey 6 kour SRI NON SRI grains
  14. 24. Weight per 1000 grains 25.8 22.8 22.4 21.5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Riangchey 6 kour Riangchey 6 kour SRI NON SRI grams
  15. 25. Number of plants per hill 11.12 9.05 9.06 10.73 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Riangchey 6 kour Riangchey 6 kour SRI NON SRI
  16. 26. Panicle length 28.8 26.6 25.6 25.5 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Riangchey 6 kour Riangchey 6 kour SRI NON SRI cm
  17. 29. Correlation between SRI Score and Yield Yield y = 30.694x + 3098.3 R 2 = 0.1637 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Score
  18. 30. Economical analysis Table11: Expenditure on SRI and Conventional practice 415.050 193.997 Total 230.616 66.572 Labor (riel/ha) 25.958 45.160 Irrigation (riel/ha) 158.476 82.265 Chemical fertilizers (riel/ha) Traditional technique SRI Expenses
  19. 31. Table12 : Expenses, Income, Profits of SRI and Conventional practice 381.493 1.120.470 1.501.963 Profits 221.053 415.050 193.997 Expenses 160.440 1.535.520 1.695.960 Income Differences Traditional SRI Description
  20. 32. Observation <ul><li>The yield of SRI is higher than conventional practice. </li></ul><ul><li>The SRI score is not strongly correlated with the yield. </li></ul><ul><li>The SRI can get more profits than traditional practice in term of using family labor. </li></ul>
  21. 33. Recommendation <ul><li>Conduct more farmer-field trials for more insight in gross margin between conventional, SRI and Best Management Practice (BMP). </li></ul><ul><li>Keep high involvement of farmers </li></ul>
  22. 34. THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION !

×