Economics of growing mungbean after rice in the rainfed lowlands of Cambodia. Sareth Chea
14
Economics of growing mungbean after rice in the rainfed lowlands of Cambodia Chea Sareth, Rob Cramb and Shu Fukai School of Agricultural and Food Sciences CARDI
-
Upload
joanna-hicks -
Category
Education
-
view
1.208 -
download
0
description
A presentation at the WCCA 2011 event in Brisbane.
Transcript of Economics of growing mungbean after rice in the rainfed lowlands of Cambodia. Sareth Chea
Economics of growing mungbean after rice in the rainfed lowlands of
Cambodia
Chea Sareth, Rob Cramb and Shu FukaiSchool of Agricultural and Food Sciences
CARDI
Constraints• Rainfed lowland - 84% of rice land• Single rice crop• Subsistence level of rice production• Erratic rainfall, low soil fertility, insect pests • Large families but 0.5 ha of paddy land• Risk of below subsistence
Potential for second crop
• IR66 in early wet season (EWS) is profitable– Requires high supplementary irrigation
• EWS mungbean with no supplementary irrigation has problem
• Non-rice crops following wet season rice– ACIAR project identify mungbean to be most
suitable – Different methods of irrigation – manual, gravity
and pump
Objectives• Project
– To develop profitable double-cropping options for rice/non-rice crops
– To define the water requirements for non-rice crops and predict level of risk
• Paper– To conduct economic analysis of mungbean
cultivation following rice– To examine net returns with 3 irrigation
methods
Methodology• Mungbean cultivation
– Paddy fields with typically sandy soils of low fertility from January to April
– Raised bed condition – a broadbed formation– Two levels of irrigation and three irrigation methods
• Economic measures – Yield and gross incomes (cash)– Outlay of cash for inputs– Family labour input– Net cash return per unit of family labour (NCRL)
NCRL =No. labour-days
Gross income – Cash expense
Agronomic range of irrigation
Water level (mm)
Yie
ld (
kg/h
a)
Yields response to irrigation
477
689
400
500
600
700
800
0.9ML 1.3ML
Irrigation levels
Yie
ld (
kg/h
a)
Inputs requirement for irrigation
195
282
5 80
50
100
150
200
250
300
0.9ML 1.3ML
Irrigation levels
La
bo
ur-
da
y
Manual
Gravity
50
72
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
0.9ML 1.3ML
Irrigation levels
Pu
mp
ing
ho
urs
Total labour inputs
136 149 136 149 136 149
195
282
5 8 0 0
-
100
200
300
400
500
0.9ML 1.3ML 0.9ML 1.3ML 0.9ML 1.3ML
Manual Gravity Pumping
Lab
ou
r-d
ays
Irrigation
Other acitivities
Costs and returns
Irrigation level
(ML/ha)
Gross income
(USD/ha)
Cash costs (USD/ha)
Net cash returns (USD/ha)
M/G P M/G P
0.9 716 179 213 536 503
1.3 1,034 179 227 854 806M: manual watering; G: gravity-fed; P: pumping
Net cash returns to labour(grain price: USD 1.5/kg)
1.61.9
3.6
5.3
3.7
5.3
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
0.9ML 1.3ML
Irrigation levels
NC
RL
(U
SD
/day
)
Manual
Pumping
Gravity
Net cash returns to labour(grain price: USD 2.0/kg)
2.32.7
5.3
7.6
5.4
7.5
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0.9ML 1.3ML
Irrigation levels
NC
RL
(U
SD
/day
)
Manual
Pumping
Gravity
• Rural wage: USD 2/day• Minimum wage: USD 1.25/day• Industrial wage: USD 1.7-2.8/day
Benchmark
Conclusion• Economic potential if agronomic issues
resolved• Access to supplementary irrigation at
between 0.9 and 1.3 ML/ha• Manual irrigation gives low returns (NCRL)• Pumping or gravity methods give a
reasonable return • Improving returns
– increasing effective demand – improved access to fertiliser and credit – electrification
• Irrigation and labour limit production
Acknowledgement• Australian Centre for International
Agricultural Research• The University of Queensland
