Dr. Chuong Sophal presented on 'Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) in Cambodia' at Regional Review and Planning Workshop 2017, Hanoi, Vietnam

1. Sustaining and Enhancing the Momentum for Innovation and
Learning around the System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in
the Lower Mekong River Basin (SRI-LMB)

2. Outline:
1- Introduction
2- Objective
3- Project Involved
4- Research Methodology
5- Result
6- Some Observations
7- conclusion

3. • Cambodia is a country in Lower Mekong River Basin (LMB) and economic of
population depend on agriculture
• Rice production technique is still challenged by small-scale Cambodian Farmers,
• An average rice yield was still moderated (< 3 t/ha) in compare with neighbored
countries ( 4 to 5 t/ha ),
• SRI is an appropriated technique contributed to increase rice yield,
• SRI has been promoted into its National Development Plan by MAFF since 2006,
• FFS is an appropriated method to disseminate new technology to farmers.
1.Introduction

4. 2.Objective
• To understanding the pattern of change among different
group of farmer due to direct and indirect effects of
farmer’s Participatory Action Research (FPAR)
• Evaluate the SRI adaptation of FPAR by FFS,
• Identify the main limitations of SRI adaption,
• Evaluate the FFS efficiency

5. Takeo Province Kampong Speu
Province
Kampot Province
1. Ms. Sous Sreynom
2. Ms. Nob Sreynoch
3. Mr. Pak Pov
1. Ms. Sal Chantheara
2. Mr. Nou Vitou
3. Mr. Mann Sokun
1. Mr. Mean Heng
2. Ms. Seng Nayhiek
3. Mr. Phang Thai
3.Projet involved
• Assoc.Prof. Chuong Sophal National researcher
• Mr. Tuy Chantrea Research assistant
• Local Monitors:

6. 4. Research methodology
• Survey was used as main method for the research:
- Survey was conducted in January 2017
- 3 provinces and 3 districts per province were selected to
study the SRI adaptation,
• 120 farmers were selected in each province within 3
districts:
Province Sample or farmer
Takeo 120
Kampong Speu 120
Kampot 120

7. • In each district, Farmers were divided as FPAR, Non-
FPAR and control
4. Research methodology
Group Number of farmers surveyed in each Province
FPAR
FPAR1 24
72FPAR2 24
FPAR3 24
Non-FPAR 24
Control 24
Total 120

8. • Studied Areas

9. 5. Result

10. 5.1- Farmer’s Household Situation
Diagram 1: Agricultural Labours of Farmer Household
Diagram 1 shows 60% of farmers household ( FPAR, Non-FPAR and Control) have 1 to 2 persons,
37% of them have 3 to 5 persons and only 3% of them have more than 5 persons involved in
agricultural activities.
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
1-2pers 3-5pers >5pers
Percent
Agricultural Labours of Farmer' Household
FPAR
NFPAR
Control

11. Diagram 2: Rice field holding(ha) of Farmer’s Household
Mostly farmers in studied areas have rice field less than 1ha. 20 to 23% of them have rice field
from 1.1 to 2ha and small amount farmers ( 3% ) have more than 2ha of rice field. Mostly FPAR
farmers (38%) have rice field from 0.51 to 1ha, 33% of them have rice field less than 0.5ha, 23%
have 1.1 to 2ha and 3% family have rice field areas more than 2ha.
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
0.1 to 0.5 0.51 to 1.0 1.1 to 2.0 > 2 ha
Percent Agricultural Land of Farmer's Household
FPAR
N-FPAR
Control

12. 0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
More Lady Not different More Men
Percent Gender of FPAR
Diagram 3: Gender of farmer participatory action research
Diagram 3 shows 65% of FFS participated more lady while 28% of FFS were not different
between man and women. However around 5% of FFS participated more men than women.

13. Diagram 4: Rain fall situation
Diagram 4 presents the farmer evaluation of rain fall in last year 2016. Mostly
of them mentioned the rain fall in 2016 was normal and less than normal. Only
2% indicated that more rain in 2016.
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
Normal Less than normal More than normal More rain
Percent
5.2 Climate condition
FPAR
NFPAR
Control

14. Diagram 5: Rice planting technique of farmer
Diagram 5 show mostly farmers ( FPAR, Non- FPAR and control ) from 44 to 64% applied
direct seeding ( dry seed broadcasting) to grow rice followed by transplant technique which were
32 to 40% and small amount of farmers from 2 to 15% used broadcasting with wet seed.
5.3 Rice Production Technique
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Transplanting Direct Seedling Broadcasting
Percent
Sowing Technique
FPAR
NFPAR
Control

15. Diagram 6: Seedbed preparation
Diagram 6 present wet or flooded seedbed were mostly used by farmers of each farmers group
to produce rice seedling. However around 6% of FPAR, 4% of Non- FPAR and 2% of control
farmers used dry seedbed.
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
Dry seedbed Wet/flooded seedbed Growing in seedling tray
Percent
Seedling raising method
FPAR
NFPAR
Control

16. Diagram 7: Land preparation technique
Diagram 7 present 87% of FPAR, and 81% of Non- FPAR and control farmers ploughed rice
field 2 times before rice seeding. Around 10% of each group of farmer ploughed 3 times the
fields and small amount of Non- FPAR (6%) and control farmers(4%) ploughed only one time.
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
1 time 2 times 3 times
Percent
Rice field preparation technique
FPAR
NFPAR
Control

17. Diagram 8: Seed rate for transplanting technique
Diagram 8 illustrate 23% of FPAR used seed rate by transplanting from 25 to 50Kg/ha,10%
used seed rate from 51 to 100 Kg/ha, 5% applied seed rate less than 25Kg/ha and only 1% of
them used seed rate from 101 to 150Kg/ha. In contrast mostly of Non-FPAR and Control used
seed rate from 51 to 100Kg/ha, 11 to 12% used seed rate from 25 to 50Kg/ha, around 10%
used seed less than 25Kg/ha and 2% of Control farmers used seed from 101 to 150Kg/ha.
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Less than 25kg 25-50kg 51-100kg 101-150kg more than 150kg
Percent
Seed rate for transplanting
FPAR
NFPAR
Control

18. Diagram 9: Seed rate for Direct seeding technique
Diagram 9 present 27 to 44% of three farmer groups ( FPAR, Non-FPAR and Control) used
seed rate by direct seeding from 51 to 100Kg/ha, 7 to 17% used seed rate from 101 to 150
Kg/ha, 6 to 12% applied from 25 to 50Kg/ha and small amount of them from 1 to 5% used
seed rate more than 150Kg/ha.
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Less than 25kg 25-50kg 51-100kg 101-150kg More than 150kg
Percent
Seed rate for Direct seedling
FPAR
NFPAR
Control

19. Diagram 10: Seed rate for Broadcasting technique
Diagram 10 shows mostly FPAR and Non-FPAR applied seed rate from 51 to 100Kg/ha
followed by 25 to 50Kg/ha and small amount of them ( less than 2%) used seed more than
150Kg/ha , while all most Control farmers applied seed more than 150Kg/ha by broadcasting
(wet seed) technique.
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
25-50kg 51-100kg 101-150kg More than 150kg
Percent
Seed rate for Broadcasting
FPAR
NFPAR
Control

20. Diagram 11: Basal Fertilizer application
Around 62 to 75% of farmers of three different group used organic fertilizer more than
150Kg/ha as basal application. 10 to 18% of farmers used chemical fertilizers ( NPK, Urea, DAP )
less than 50kg/ha and 2 to 10% of farmers used chemical fertilizer more than 50 to 100kg/ha.
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Lessthan50kg
51-75kg
76-100kg
101-125kg
126-150kg
Morethan150kg
Lessthan50kg
51-75kg
76-100kg
101-125kg
126-150kg
Morethan150kg
Lessthan50kg
51-75kg
76-100kg
126-150kg
Morethan150kg
Lessthan50kg
76-100kg
101-125kg
126-150kg
Morethan150kg
NPK Urea DAP Other
Percent Basal Fertilizer Application
FPAR
NFPAR
Control

21. Diagram 12: Source of Organic fertilizer
Diagram 12 present 63 to 82% of three farmer groups ( FPAR, Non-FPAR and Control) used
own organic fertilizer. Only 2% of them bough organic fertilizer from market and other source.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Home-made Market Other
Percent
Source of Organic Fertilizer
FPAR
Non-FPAR
Control

22. Diagram 13: Top dress fertilizer application
28 to 40% of three different group farmer( FPAR, Non-FPAR and control ) applied Urea less than
75kg/ha as top dress, while 10 to 20% of them used DAP and NPK. 17 to 28% of three group
farmers applied Urea from 76 to 110 Kg/ha, while 5 to 12% of them used DAP and NPK. Only 3
to 10% used chemical fertilizers more than 111Kg/ha. FPAR used less chemical fertilizer in
compare with other two studied groups.
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Lessthan75kg
76-110kg
111-150kg
151-175kg
176-200kg
Morethan200kg
Lessthan75kg
76-110kg
111-150kg
151-175kg
176-200kg
Morethan200kg
Lessthan75kg
76-110kg
111-150kg
151-175kg
176-200kg
111-150kg
176-200kg
Morethan200kg
NPK Urea DAP Other
Percent Top dressing fertilizer application
FPAR
NFPAR
Control

23. Diagram 14: Transplanting Method
Diagram 14 presents mostly farmers of three studied groups (FPAR, Non- FPAR, Control) used
conventional technique ( un-straight line ) by transplanting. Around 12% of FPAR, 2% of Non-
FPAR and 4% of Control farmers applied with straight line by transplanting.
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
straight Conventional
Percent Transplanting method FPAR
NFPAR
Control

24. Diagram 15: Seedling age
Diagram 15 shows 11 and 13% of FPAR used seedling age from 16 to 22days and from 23 to
30days respectively, while around 5% of Non-FPAR and Control used seedling from 16 to
22days and 11 to 12% of them used seedling from 23 to 30days of seedling age. Only 4% of
FPAR used more than 40days seedling, however 11% of Non-FPAR used it.
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
8 days 9-15days 16-22days 23-30day 31-40days > 40 days
Percent
Seedling Age for Transplanting
FPAR
NFPAR
Control

25. 0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
1-2 seedlings 2-3 seedlings 3-4 seedlings 4-5 seedlings > 5 seedling
Percent
Number of Seedling per Hill
FPAR
NFPAR
Control
Diagram 16: Number of seedling per hill
Diagram 16 illustrates 29% and 9% of FPAR used 1 to 3 and 4 to 5 seedling per hill respectively.
However 12% and 27% of Non- FPAR used 1 to 3 seedling and 4 to more than 5 seedling per hill
respectively, while 18% of Control farmer applied 2 to 3 seedling and 14% of them used 4 to 5
seedling per hill.

26. Diagram 17 : Rice transplant spacing of farmer
Diagram 17 shows mostly of three studied groups farmers applied transplant spacing from
15X15 to 20X20. The spacing less than 10x10 was used by Non-FPAR and Control more
than FPAR famer, while the rice spacing from more than 10X10 to 15X15 and more than
20X20 to 30X30 were applied by FPAR more than Non-FPAR and Control farmer. The
spacing from more than 30X30 were applied by small amount (2%) by all three studed
groups(FPAR, Non-FPAR and Control).
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
< 10 x 10 >10 x10 and
<15 x 15
>15 x 15
and<20 x 20
>20 x 20 and
<30 x 30
>30 x 30
Percent
Rice transplant spacing
FPAR
NFPAR
Control

27. Diagram 18: Weed control application
Diagram 18 reveille the weed control practice of farmer. It shows that mostly(60 to
81%) of three studied groups farmer (FPAR, Non-FPAR and control) applied
mechanical weed control. However 10 to 22% of them used chemical method and other
1 to 8% combined both chemical and mechanical method and as well non weed control
practice respectively.
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
Manual Chemical Both None
Percent Weed Control Method
FPAR
NFPAR
Control

28. Diagram 19: Irrigation practice
Diagram 19 presents more than 50% of three studied groups farmer (FPAR,
Non-FPAR and Control) did not used irrigation for rice production in rainy
season. Especially less than 30% of control farmer and 48% of FPAR and Non-
FPAR applied irrigation for their rice fields.
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
Yes No
Percent
Irrigation Practice
FPAR
NFPAR
Control

29. Diagram 20: Frequency of irrigation
Diagram 20 presents mostly farmers from 12 to 22% applied irrigation 1 to 2
and 3 to 4 times and only 2 to 8 % of them applied irrigation more than 5times
in their rice fields.
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
1-2 times 3-4 times More than 5 times
Percent Frequency of Irrigaiton
FPAR
NFPAR
Control

30. Diagram 21: Expenditure of Rice production
Diagram 21 illustrates mostly farmer ( 35 to 41%)of three studied group
(FPAR, Non-FPAR and Control) expended 301 to 400$/ha, while 25 to 28% of
them paid more than 400$/ha. However, small amount of farmer from 14 to
18% expended less than 250$/ha. In general the FPAR expended the production
lower than Non- FPAR and Control farmer.
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Less than 250$ 251-300$ 301$-400$ >400$
Percent Rice Production Expenditure ($) FPAR
Non-FPAR
Control

31. Diagram 22: Rice Yield(t/ha)
Diagram 22 shows the Non-FPAR and Control farmers got rice yield less than
2t and 2.1 to 2.5t/ha more than FPAR farmer. In contrast the FPAR farmers got
rice yield from 2.6 to more than 4tons per ha more than Non-FPAR and Control
farmer. In general, the FPAR farmer got more rice yield than Non-FPAR and
Control farmer.
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
<= 2tons 2.1 to 2.5t 2.6 to 3 t 3.1 to 3.5 t 3.6 to 4 t > 4 tons
Percent Rice Yield (t/ha)
FPAR
N-FPAR
Control

32. Diagram 23: Constrain of SRI adaptation
Diagram 23 presents the constrain of SRI adaptation of FPAR farmer. 40% and
25% of them identified the lack of labour and lack of water are the main
constrain of SRI technique adaptation. However, 8% of FPAR farmer explained
that SRI is difficult to apply.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
No labor No water Difficult Lack variety Just train
Percent Constrain of SRI Adaptation

33. Diagram 24: Farmer suggestion
Diagram 24 shows four farmer suggestions. High price rice and low cost of
chemical material were suggested by mostly farmer followed by water access
New technique in crop production and new variety.
0
10
20
30
40
New tech High price
rice, Low cost
Chemical
Water Access New Variety
Percent
Farmer Suggestion
FPAR
N-FPAR
Control

34. 6. Some Observations
1- The agricultural labour of household farmer is low
( 1 to 2 persons per family), therefore it is not
enough labour to apply SRI technique.
2-The direct seeding is more applied by all three
groups of farmer.
3- However, it found most of SRI criteria like the
number of seedling per hill, seedling age, transplant
spacing, fertilizer application and weed control were
better applied by FPAR farmers, that show the FFS
approach is appropriated to disseminate the new
technique to farmers.

35. 4-The water source to access irrigation system is not
enough in studied areas.
5-The lack of labour and water shortage are main
constrain of SRI application.
6-It seem lower expenditure for rice production
applied by FPAR than by Non-FPAR and Control
farmer.
7- However, the rice yield was higher by FPAR
application than by those of Non-FPAR and Control.
8- High price rice and water access for agriculture are
crucial suggestion of farmer.

36. - FFS is an appropriated approach to disseminate SRI
technique to farmer.
- FPAR are applied rice production technique better
than Non-FPAR and Control farmer.
- Rice yield is increased by SRI technique application.
- SRI technique is applicable if water access, enough
labor and agricultural equipments are available.
- Climate is strongly affected on SRI adaptation.
- External factors like high price rice generate the
motivation of farmer to adapt SRI technique.
7-Conclusion

37. 8.Activities of survey

38. 8.Activities of survey