Rice-based Systems Research: Regional Technical Workshop June 2012 Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) Som Bunna CARDI on behalf of project team

1. Improved rice establishment and
productivity in Cambodia
and Australia
[ACIAR CSE 2009/037]
Som Bunna CARDI on behalf of
project team

3. Cambodia Role Partnerships Role
Dr. Seng Vang DD, in charge research Mr. Geoff Beecher Project leader/CSE-37,
divisions(CARDI I&I NSW
Mr. Som Bunna Project coordinator Dr. David Johnson Weed scientist, IRRI
/CARDI/CSE-37
Mr. Ngin Chhay D, Rice crop department Dr. Jacky Desbiolles Agriculture research/
/GDA Unty . South Australia
Mr. Chourng Dean Agronomy faculty/ Dr. Rajinder Pal Singh Socio economist , I&I
Sophal RUA NSW

4. Background
Changes 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 approaches
Capacity building / knowledge needs of Cambodian
researchers

5. Relationship between number of tractors and areas
plowed by tractors
Source: Nhem Sokha, DAM (2012)

6. Mechanisation
Using existing / available equipment
Timelier crop establishment
Reduced variability in crop establishment
Increase cropping intensity
Overcome shortages in labour availability

7. 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

8. 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

9. Socio-Economic Assessment of Baseline Survey of
the Rain fed Lowland Rice Eco Systems in Cambodia
Key objectives
- Benchmark farmer agronomic
Location 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 systems
451 farmers, from 27 villages,
20 communes,
9 districts from 3 provinces

10. 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

11. CLEAR
1,000,000 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
Thom
Fig 1. E

12. Crop establishment options evaluated
300
200
100
0
Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Se pt Oct Nov De c Jan Fe b M ar
dry seeding transplanting wet seeding

13. Weed control options
Hydro tillers for recession Rotary weeders for line
rice areas planted rice
Knapsack sprayers Grass or Broadleaf
(low-drift nozzles, mini- weeds?
boom)

14. 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
Transplanted with 2-3seedling/hill ( seedling age 20days row
T9 spacing 20cm x 20 cm)
Transplanted with 1 seedling/hill, seedling age 10 days, row
T10 spaces 25cm x 25cm)

15. Table1. ANOVA result for PM & WC at 6 location on grain yield for WS 2010
Planting method CARDI Takeo Kampot Kg. Thom Kg. Speu Prey Veng Mean
Farmer's practice 3,883 3,422 1,853 4,260 3,500 2,930 3,308
Broadcasting 250kg/ha 3,602 2,940 1,672 2,409 2,233 2,738 2,599
Broadcasting 200kg/ha 3,345 3,517 1,911 3,068 2,583 2,932 2,893
Broadcasting 150kg/ha 3,474 3,021 2,282 3,518 2,714 2,889 2,983
Broadcasting 100kg/ha 3,836 3,152 2,558 3,029 3,095 3,002 3,112
Broadcasting 60kg/ha 3,544 3,086 2,347 3,059 2,905 3,199 3,023
Drum seeder 80kg/ha 4,012 3,035 2,842 3,523 2,560 3,072 3,174
Drum seeder 60kg/ha 3,778 2,346 2,289 3,056 2,857 3,074 2,900
Transplanting 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 3,055
Mean 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 ns
Planting method (PM) 221**
PM x L **
PM x WC ns
PM x L x WC ns

16. Table 2. Effect of weed control on grain yield for WS 2010
Grain yield(kg/ha)
Location Mean
None weeding Weeding
CARDI 3,352 4,096 3,724
Takeo 2,768 3,202 2,985
Kampot 1,988 2,427 2,208
Kampong Thom 2,944 3,572 3,258
Kampong Speu 3,014 2,840 2,927
Prey veng 2,945 3,141 3,043
Mean 2,835 3,213
LSD at 5% 540(ns)

17. Result of Dry season 2011
Fig 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

18. 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 and
grain yield for direct seeding

19. Fig6. Weed biomass at differences planting method at 6locations

20. Figure 7. Main planting method for WS

21. Figure 8. Main planting method for DS

22. 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%

23. 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%

24. ICE Farming systems experiment
Early Wet Season Wet Season Dry Season
1 DSR + FT TRP
Rainfed favorable:
2 2 Crops (EWS, WS)
DSR + ZT TRP
3 DSR + FT WSR
Fallow DS/recession:
4
2 crops (EWS, DS)
WSR WSR+ZT
WSR
5 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

25. Results-CARDI (2011 WS)
Treatme Plant Panicles Shoot Straw Grain • Presented values are
nts 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 tested
T1 152 149 2413 6322 5187 treatments.
• The mean value for
T2 159 154 2185 6158 5242
rice yield is
T5 159 154 2363 6088 4881 reasonably high, 5097
T6 150 145 2101 6776 5076 kg/ha.
Mean 155 151 2265 6336 5097
5%LSD 29.4 28.8 485.8 1247.6 961.1
F-prob
value ns ns ns ns ns

26. Results-CARDI (2011 WS)
Treatme Plant Panicles Shoot Straw Grain • Presented values are
nts 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 tested
HW 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 reasonably
5%LSD 20.8 20.4 343.5 882.2 679.6
high, 5097 kg/ha.
F-prob
value ns ns ns ns ns

27. Demonstration results

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

29. 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