Impacts of Adoption of Rice Combine Harvesters on the Economic and Social conditions of Farmers in Tung Kula Ronghai

Transcription

1 àπ µ 37 : (2552). KHON KAEN AGR. J. 37 : (2009). 349 Impacts of Adoption of Rice Combine Harvesters on the Economic and Social conditions of Farmers in Tung Kula Ronghai Sorat Praweenwongwuthi 1*, Suwit laohasiriwong 2 and A. Terry Rambo 3 Abstract: The Tung Kula Ronghai (TKR) area in Northeastern Thailand is widely believed to produce the best quality Hom Mali rice in the country and accounted for onethird of the 9.2 million ton of rice exported in Due to a growing labor shortage in recent years, adoption of combine harvesters has become widespread in the TKR. The objectives of this research were to study the impacts of adoption of combine harvesters on the Hom Mali rice agroecosystem in the TKR and describe the coping strategies farmers employ to cope with those impacts, in order to better understand the socioeconomic impacts of combine harvesters in the TKR. It was found that socioeconomic impacts on rice farmers due to the use of combine harvesters include 1) an increase of 30.3 % in net benefits compared to manual harvesting, and 28 % of migrant labor can continue working in the city. Keywords: Socioeconomic impacts, combine harvesters, The Tung Kula Ronghai Introduction The Tung Kula Ronghai (TKR), which is a large area of seasonally flooded land in Northeast Thailand, is regarded as the best production area, in terms of quality, of Hom Mali rice in the country. Approximately twothirds of the total area producing Hom Mali rice is in the TKR (Katawatin et al., 1998). Out of the total rice exported by Thailand (9.19 million tons in 2007), more than 3.06 million tons, or 33%, was Hom Mali rice (OAE, 2007). However, in recent years, increasing labor shortages and rising wages for agricultural labor have become a problem for rice production. These problems have arisen as the result of outmigration of workers from rural areas to take jobs in the industrial sector (Hussain and Ismail, 1983). Consequently, farm mechanization has in recent years become an essential part of the rice production process. Combine harvesters have rapidly replaced manual harvesting with their use by the farmers increasing greatly between 1996 and Recent models of the combine harvester have been designed to harvest, thresh, clean, and bag in one operation. The main advantage to the farmers of using mechanized harvesting is the saving of labor costs. However, other impacts of the adoption of combine harvesters on overall economic and social conditions have not been closely examined. Therefore, this study was designed to find out the impacts of the combine harvesters on economic and social conditions of farmers in Kukasingh village, TKR, where combine harvesters have been intensively used for rice harvesting for some time. Materials and Methods Kukasingh village, Kaset Wisai District, RoiEt Province, was selected for the detailed study because 1 Lecturer, Program on Plant Science, Faculty of Agriculture and Technology, Nakhon Phanom University, Nakhon Phanom, Thailand. 2 Associate Professor and Coordinator, Program on System Approaches in Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Thailand 3 Special Professor, Program on System Approaches in Agriculture, Department of Plant Science and Environment, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen * Corresponding author: sorat_p@hhotmail.com

2 350 it is located on a flood plain that represents the main physical feature of the TKR and more than 90 % of the 229 households have currently adopted combine harvesters. A questionnaire was designed to collect data on use of combine harvesters, rice yields and losses during mechanized harvesting, manual harvesting, and the profitability of different harvesting methods. After pretesting, the revised questionnaire was used to interview 20 households (9 %) for testing and then collected all 229 households.due to incomplete data, 23 households of the same village were reinterviewed using the same questionnaire. Semistructured interviews were used to collect qualitative data related to village background and farmer coping strategies from Village leaders, combine operators and combine harvester brokers. Secondary data related to population and numbers of households were obtained from village records. This research was conducted in harvesting seasons in the years of 2007 and Partial budgeting was use to compare profitability between manual harvesting and threshing and combine harvesting. Data analysis The quantitative data were analyzed using simple statistics, such as percentiles. This quantitative information was used to support the qualitative data. Some contradictory and unclear information was discovered during the analysis of the household questionnaires. Therefore, 23 households for which information was incomplete were reinterviewed. Results and Discussion Village background The study village is located in the floodplain and was originally established about 200 years ago. The Lam Sieo Yai River flows through this area from àπ µ 37 : (2552). northwest to east. Runoff from the upper catchments of this river is discharged into the village causing frequent and prolonged flooding. The village is accessible by good quality roads, in all seasons. Most of the village agricultural area is covered by paddy fields. In an average flood year, a significant part of the area, usually the strips of 25 km wide along the river are inundated. In addition, because the direct rainfall on this plain is drained by overland flow (from paddy field to paddy field) for many kilometers the evacuation of excess water occurs very slowly. More than 90% of the farm households have now adopted combine harvesters for their rice harvesting where previously manual harvesting was the primary harvesting method. The total of 229 households in this village could be classified into 3 categories according to land holding size. The households with large landholding size (more than 50 rai 2 ) usually raise larger numbers of cattle. Households with medium landholding size (26 to 50 rai) raise fewer numbers of cattle. Households with small landholding size (1 to 25 rai) raise few cattle but raise more small livestock such as pigs and poultry. These households need to rent land from landlords or engage in sharecropping or off farm activities. Almost half of the households (45 %) belong to the medium landholding group, 27.9% are large landholding households and 27.1 % are small landholding households. Economic impacts of adoption of combine harvesters Rice harvesting and threshing methods Two methods of harvesting and threshing are commonly used in this village. The traditional method, manual harvesting, is still in use to a limited extent, while the combine harvesting, which was introduced in the early 1990s, is now the dominant method (Table 1).

3 àπ µ 37 : (2552). 351 Table 1 Rice harvesting methods in village No.1. Methods Small Medium Large Total (n=62) (n=104) (n=63) (n=229) Combine Harvesting (%) (24) (6) (0) (30) Combine Harvesting (%) 51.6 (32) 86.5 (90) 93.6 (59) 79.0 (181) Mixed Harvesting methods (%) (6) (8) (4) (18) At the time of this study, about 80 %, 13 % and 8 % of the farmers used Combine Harvesting, manual harvesting and mixed harvesting methods respectively. The vast majority (94 %) of large landholders use only combine harvesting whereas slightly more than half of small landholders only use this method. Manual harvesting During manual harvesting, farmers use hand sickles to cut the panicles. The bundles of panicles are usually stacked in the field, to be sun dried, until the farmers have completed harvesting. Then, the paddy bundles are transported to the threshing yards to be threshed by mechanical threshing machines. Human labor may be used to transport the paddy bundles from the field to the threshing yards. Once at the threshing yards, the paddy is usually threshed immediately or stacked for a certain period depending on the weather or household grain requirement for consumption. Prior to threshing, the threshing yards must be well prepared. The threshed grain then is winnowed, measured, and transported to store at the houses of the farmers. Table 2 shows a calendar of manual harvesting and threshing and the methods of transporting rice grain. The harvesting begins at the end of September, but the peak of these activities is in November, when 56.6 % of the farmers harvested. According to the farmers, the labor requirement for manual harvesting ranged from 2.0 to 3.0 workerdays / rai, depending on crop density. Therefore, the value of 2.5 workerdays / rai was used in the profitability analysis. Table 2 Times of manual harvesting and threshing and methods of transporting rice of small and medium farmers. Timing and Activities small medium Large Total (%) (n=24) (n=6) (n=0) (n=30) Time of harvesting October (5) November (17) December Method of transport (8) Power Tiller 1/ (16) Pickup truck 2/ Commencement of threshing (14) October (3) November December (19) 26.6(8) 1/ All of large farmers use combine harvesters 2/ Base on road condition from paddy field to main road

4 352 àπ µ 37 : (2552). Labor for post harvest operation is consisting of harvesting, stacking in the field, stacking in threshing yard, transportation, threshing and winnowing respectively. Most farmers left their paddy heaped in the field after harvesting until they had finished harvesting all of their land. Then, they transported the paddy to the threshing plot where it was heaped again before it is mechanically threshed. In the study village, the first heaping took 0.05 workerdays / rai. Similarly, farmers used 0.05 workerdays / rai to heap the paddy at the threshing plot. About 0.4 workerdays / rai were required to transport the rice bundles to the threshing plot. Three main factors that affected the amount of labor required for transporting the paddy bundles were: 1) distance from the field to the threshing plot, 2) utilization of rice straw, and 3) mode of transport. Some farmers, who use the rice straw for animal feed, thresh their paddy bundles near their homesteads, whereas those farmers who do not use rice straw for animal feed thresh near their paddy fields. Methods of Table 3 Labor (day/rai) requirement for post harvest operation. transportation could also influence the amount of labor required. More than half of the farmers used motorized hand tillers (çiron buffaloé) to pull trailers to transport paddy from the field to the threshing yards, while 45 % of the farmers used pickup trucks, which can carry a larger load of paddy bundles than the trailers. The average pickup truck rental service cost 400 baht per trip. Harvesting by Combine Harvesters Combine harvesters have substantially reduced the labor requirement for rice production. The combine harvesters are popular in the study village due to their suitability to the area in terms of topography, landholding size, infrastructure, proximity to repair and maintenance services, and, especially, because of the shortage of household labor and the high cost of hired agricultural workers. Almost all of the farmers (96.0%) rented the services of combine harvesters from private owners. The peak requirement for combine harvesters (48.7%) is during late October (Table 4). Post harvest operation Labor Average time 1/ No. of farmers Harvesting Human Stacking in the field Human Stacking in threshing yard Human Transportation Human Transportation Power Tiller Threshing Human Threshing Thresher Winnowing Human / Average working time per day is 8 h for humans. Table 4 Sources of combine harvesters and timing of harvesting. Village No.1 n=199 Source of Combine Harvesters and Timing Small Medium Large Percent (n=38) (n=98) (n=63) of farmers Source of Combine Harvesters Farmerowned combine harvesters Rented combine harvesters Time of harvesting October November December

5 àπ µ 37 : (2552). Farmers who do not own their own machines can easily gain access to the services of combine harvesters by renting them. Some farmers directly contact the machine owners but most of the farmers obtain the service through brokers who arrange the services with the owners of the combine harvesters. The brokers play a major role because they are able to ensure economy of scale in their use. In order to operate with maximum efficiency and profitability, the combine harvesters need to operate in a large and continuous area of rice fields. To do the service efficiently, the combine harvester owners must rely on the brokers to contact the paddy field owners for them because most of the owners are not permanent residents of the Northeast region. 353 Comparison of yields by harvesting and threshing methods The rice yield from using combine harvesters is 10 % (0.35 vs ton/rai) higher than that obtained by manual harvesting. Rice management practices (excluding land preparation and variety selection) are not significantly linked to methods of harvesting. According to Chounudom (1998), yield loss from manual harvesting and threshing was 10.0 % higher than from combine harvesting was which is in agreement with the results of this study. Financial profitability analysis Partial budgeting was used to compare the profitability of manual and combine harvesting of paddy in the study area. The partial budget is a way of analyzing the profitability of two or more competing enterprises or technologies by considering the difference in costs and benefits among the two technologies (Table 5). Table 5 Financial profitability comparisons between manual harvestingthreshing and combine harvesting. Items Village No.1 Yield (ton/rai) Manual harvestingthreshing Gross return 1/ 0.32 Costs of manual harvesting (Baht) Labor 2/ 3,200 Harvesting 3/ 500 Heaping 3/ 100 Transportation 3/ 400 Threshing 4/ 200 Storage 5/ 100 Food 250 Cost of combine harvesting (Baht) Rent of combine harvester Rent of truck to transport grain Storage Labor Food Total costs 1,550 Net income 1,650 1/ Price of rice in Kaset Wisai District = 10,000 Baht/ton (average FebruaryApril û07) 2/ Labor for manual harvesting is taken from Table 4 3/ Labor cost for harvesting, heaping, and transportation = 1,000 Baht/day (Field study 2007) 4/ Labor cost for threshing = 20Baht/1sacks(30kg) (Field study 2007) 5/ Storage cost = 100 Baht / day Combine harvesting , ,350 2,150

6 354 The yield from combine harvesting is somewhat higher at 0.35 ton/rai (t=3.9; p<0.01) than the yield from manual harvesting of 0.32 ton /rai (t = 5.1: p<0.01). The labor requirements for manual harvesting are much higher than for combine harvesters. Cost of human labor for manual harvesting and threshing was obtained from field survey. These material requirements for manual harvesting can be either purchased or homemade but all have a market value. Material costs could determine by first using the price per unit and then calculating the cost in baht/rai. It was expected that, on average, the materials had different service lives. The costs of combine harvesting include the service charge, which were based on the current price of diesel fuel and the brokerûs fee (30 baht/rai). In this study area, the average charge was 550 baht/rai including the brokers fee, however this varied with the condition of the combine harvester the new series with big grain tank charged 600 baht/rai, while old series charged 500 baht/rai. Fiftyeight percent of the farmers who used combine harvesters also have to pay 300 to 500 baht for grain transportation by rented pickup trucks. The transporting cost was calculated based on the distance of the fields to homestead or to the mills. The farmers must also pay the cost of the meals provided to the combine harvesterûs driver and his helpers (50 to 100 baht / day). Labor cost incurred by farmer was grain cleaning. Farmers worked for about 0.1 day/rai to clean their grain. Overall, the cost per rai of manual harvesting and threshing is higher than combine harvesting by 200 baht/rai. It is clear that manual harvesting produces higher costs (1,550 baht/rai) and lower gross returns (3,200 baht/rai) than combine harvesting which costs 1,350 baht/rai and gives a gross return of 3,500 baht/rai. Therefore, the net benefit of using combine harvesters is 2,150 baht/rai while that from manual harvesting is 1,650 baht/rai. The net benefit of combine harvesting is about 30.3% higher as àπ µ 37 : (2552). compared to manual harvestingthreshing. In view of this considerable differential, it is hardly surprising that the adoption of combine harvesters by farmers is increasing yearly. Social impacts of combine harvesters Employment of labor The farmers perceive that, even though shortage of household labor was initially an incentive for the wide adoption of combine harvesters, the Combine Harvesters have now reduced the overall labor requirement for Hom Mali rice production. The displaced labor may, of course, be absorbed to some extent in other activities created by the increase of farm mechanization such as manufacturing, repair and service shops and the sale services. At the time of this study, there were only 3 garages servicing the combine harvesters in the village, which is insufficient at the harvesting season. Aggarwal and Mehra (1973) and Mishra and Sundram (1975) reported a displacement of casual laborers by combine harvesters in India, while Rao (1974) found not only that combine harvesters displaced labor in harvesting but, at the same time, generated new opportunities for laborers in other activities. Before the adoption of combine harvesters, most of the household labors would temporally return from doing offfarm activities elsewhere to help their families to harvest their paddy. Currently, with widespread adoption of combine harvesters, 48% of the surveyed households indicated that the offfarm members do not return for harvesting. The remaining household labors, who do not go away for offfarm activities indicated that they use saved time from farm mechanization for maintenance of their homestead (25 %), looking after their children and education (22 %) and relaxation and entertainment (Table 6).

7 àπ µ 37 : (2552). 355 Table 6 Alternative uses of labor time saved by using Combine Harvesters. Type of household Small Medium Large Total Activity (n=62) (n=104) (n=63) (n=229) Working in the city 62.9% 52.8% 23.8% 48% (39) (55) (15) (109) Maintenance of farmstead 35.4% 20.1% 22.2% 25% (22) (21) (14) (57) Childcare and education 22.5% 13.4% 34.9% 22% (14) (14) (22) (50) New employment opportunities for young farmers As the number of combine harvesters increased during the harvesting season, the demand for maintenance and servicing of the machines also increased. Many households trained their younger household members to do machinery maintenance and repair and now run local garages to provide services for the combine harvesters. At the same time, they also sell the spare parts ordered from the central region. The knowledge and skills of machinery repair and maintenance are transferred to their younger generation by their fathers or uncles through apprenticeships. Incomes from maintenance service depend on their skills and experiences Acknowledgement This article is based on the doctoral thesis of the first author (Praweenwongwuthi 2009) which was completed while he was a graduate student in the Program on System Approaches in Agriculture of Khon Kaen University. The first author would like to express his greatest appreciation to the farmers in Kukasing subdistrict for their assistance without hesitation and hospitality throughout the time he worked in the village. Finally, the author is deeply indebted to Asst. Dr. Suchint Simarak who spent weeks with him cleaning the data, analyzing the results, and writing and formatting this article. References Aggarwal, P.C. and Misra, M.S The combine harvester and its impact on labor: A Study in Ludhiana. Indian J. Industrial Relations, 9: Chounudom, S A Study on Harvest Losses of Hom Mali Rice Due to Manual Harvesting System and the Use of Combine Harvester. Master Degree Thesis, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen. Gavian, S., and Gemechu, D The profitability of wheat production in Ethiopia: The case of Tiyo Woreda in Arsi Region. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 1: Hussain, A,and Ismail, T Increasing the impact of engineering in agricultural and rural developmentû IRRI (International Rice Research Institute) Small farm equipment for developing countries. Proceedings of the International Conference on Small Farm Equipment for Developing Countries: Past Experiences and Future Priorities, 26 September Sponsored by USAID and IRRI Katawetin, R., Polthanee, A., Pannangpetch, K., Phalaraksh, W. and Siri, B Land classification for improvement of production efficiency of Hom Mali rice in northeast Thailand In: The New Technologies for the Development of Sustainable Farming in Northeast. Proceeding of JIRCUS ITCAD Seminar, Khon Kaen, Thailand, March 24, 1998.

8 356 Mishra, P., and Sundram Some aspects of the economics of harvest combines in Punjab. Economic & Political Weekly, 10:39. OAE, Office of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Statistics of Thailand Crop Year 2007/08, Bangkok. àπ µ 37 : (2552). Praweenwongwuthi, S Impacts of Combine Harvesters on Production Systems of Hom Mali Rice in a village of the Tung Kula Ronghai Region. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis in Systems Agriculture, Graduate School, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen. Rao, C.H Technological Change and Distribution of Gains in Indian Agriculture. Institute of Economic Growth. The MacMillan Company of India Limited, Delhi.