4.6 Article

Rice productivity improvement in Cambodia through the application of technical recommendation in a farmer field school

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14735903.2016.1174811

关键词

Farmer field school; integrated pest management; rice; technically recommended practice; traditional farmer practice

资金

  1. Nagoya University Asian Satellite Campuses Institute of Japan under its Transnational PhD Program
  2. Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA)
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15H02644] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Innovation in rice (Oryza sativa) productivity improvement is a major goal for rice research. However, many studies have tended to analyse the various factors that affect productivity separately, while farmers invest their scare resources in farm inputs that impact on multiple factors in the real farm. This study assessed the effectiveness of integrated pest management practised during farmer field school (FFS) training in Cambodia on the production efficiencies, yields and profitability of rice farming. In total, 270 FFSs on rice cultivated in the early wet, wet and dry seasons were randomly selected from three provinces in 3 years to analyse the production practices and productivity using six cost-related factors: seed, planting methods, field management, fertilizer use, pesticide application and harvesting. It was found that yields and profits were significantly higher with the technically recommended practices (TRs) than with traditional farmer practices (FPs). However, the reverse was true for production costs due to the overuse of seed and pesticides in FP, neither of which are correlated with yield increase for both FP and TR. Thus, the FFS approach is a knowledge-intensive field management tool that enables the rational use of farm inputs and that is expected to be highly effective for sustainable rice production improvement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据