Special Section : Agrarian transformation in Thailand – commodities, landscapes and livelihoods
Sukanlaya Choenkwan, Micah R. Fisher
Introduction to the special section: Agrarian transformation in Thailand - Commodities, landscapes, and livelihoods
Anan Polthanee
Cassava as an insurance crop in a changing climate: The changing role and potential
applications of cassava for smallholder farmers in Northeastern Thailand
Uraiwan Tongkaemkaew, J. Sukkul, Narathorn Sumkhan, Phantip Panklang, Alain Brauman, Roslan Ismail
Litterfall, litter decomposition, soil macrofauna, and nutrient contents in rubber monoculture and rubber-based agroforestry plantations
Chalee Gedgaew, Suchint Simaraks, A. Terry Rambo Factors influencing long term tomato seed production under contract farming
Kanchana Duangta, Yos Borisutdhi, Suchint Simaraks Knowledge management of pomelo production system in Northeast Thailand: A case study of the pomelo farmer group in Ban Thaen district
Forest and Society categorized the research field for open access journals to be published bi-yearly, in April and November. Forest and Society is also possible to published special issue. A special issue/special section enables us to publish papers focusing on specific themes, often related to a “hot topic”. Forest and Society is an international and interdisciplinary journal, which publishes peer-reviewed social, political and economic research relating to people, land, and forests. Forest and Society has a specific focus on Southeast Asia but we do not limit research possibilities that compare between and across regions.
Published by: Forestry Faculty of Hasanuddin University
Copyright © 2018
VOLUME 2 ISSUE 2, NOVEMBER 2018
Published by: Forestry Faculty of Hasanuddin University
Editor-in-Chief: Muhammad Alif K. Sahide, Forest Policy and Entrepreneurship
Laboratory, Forestry Faculty, Universitas Hasanuddin., IndonesiaAssociate Editor-in-Chief:: Micah Fisher, University of Hawaii at Manoa, United
StatesEditor
1. Sukanlaya Choenkwan, Department of Agricultural Extension, Faculty of
Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, 40002., Thailand2. James Thomas Erbaugh, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, School for
Environment and Sustainability, Ann Arbor, United States3. Diana Parker, University of Maryland, United States
4. Do Thi Huong, Vietnam National University of Forestry, Viet Nam
5. Nong Huu Duong, Department of Agroecology, Faculty of Environment, Vietnam
National University of Agriculture, Viet Nam6. Lukas Giessen, University of Goettingen, and European Forest Institute,
Germany7. Md Saifur Rahman, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Bangladesh 8. Dian Intarini, University of Twente, Netherlands
9. Mohd. Hasmadi Ismail, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
10. Bimbika Sijapati Basnett, Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR),
Indonesia11. Nurhady Sirimorok, Perkumpulan Payo-Payo, Indonesia
12. Seca Gandaseca, Faculty of Forestry, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia
13. Willem van der Muur, the Van Vollenhoven Institute, Leiden University,
Netherlands14. Yeon-Su Kim, Northern Arizona University, United States
15. Juan Magboo Pulhin, University of the Philippines Los Banos, Philippines 16. Irendra Radjawali, Kemitraan, Partnership, Indonesia
17. Michael Howlett, Simon Fraser University, Singapore 18. Makoto Inoue, Waseda University, Japan
19. David Gritten, RECOFTC, the centre for people and forest, Thailand
20. Ahmad Maryudi, Center for Forest Policy and History Studies, Yogyakarta.
Forestry Faculty, Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia
21. Ahmad Dhiaulhaq, Australian National University, Australia
Forest and Society is ardent to promote erudite, pragmatic, and contemporaneous
research, which make a clear theoretical/conceptual and methodological contribution to existing international literatures. These may include, but are not limited to, planning- management and economics, sociology, land use, anthropology, history, international and regional regimes, jurisprudence, and psychology research on forests. Forest andSociety has a specific focus on Southeast Asia but we do not limit research possibilities that
compare between and across regions.FOREST AND SOCIETY
Vol. 2. Issue 2, November 2017
24. Christine Wulandari, University of Lampung, FKKM (Indonesian Communication
Forum on Community Forestry), Indonesia25. Agung Wibowo, University of Palangkaraya, Indonesia Board of Administration:
1. Adrayanti Sabar, Hasanuddin University, Indonesia
2. Emban Ibnurusyd Mas'ud, Forestry Faculty, Hasanuddin University, Indonesia 3. Nasri Nasri, Fakultas Kehutanan, Universitas Hasanuddin, Indonesia
Special Section: Agrarian transformation in Thailand - commodities, landscapes, and livelihoods
Introduction to the special section: Agrarian transformation in Thailand - Commodities, landscapes, and livelihoods
Sukanlaya Choenkwan, Micah R. Fisher
112-120
Cassava as an insurance crop in a changing climate: The changing role and potential applications of cassava for smallholder farmers in Northeastern Thailand
Anan Polthanee
121-137
Litterfall, litter decomposition, soil macrofauna, and nutrient contents in rubber monoculture and rubber-based agroforestry plantations
Uraiwan Tongkaemkaew, J. Sukkul, Narathorn Sumkhan, Phantip Panklang, Alain Brauman, Roslan Ismail
138-149
Factors influencing long term tomato seed production under contract farming
Chalee Gedgaew, Suchint Simaraks, A. Terry Rambo 150-161
Knowledge management of pomelo production system in Northeast Thailand: A case study of the pomelo farmer group in Ban Thaen district
Kanchana Duangta, Yos Borisutdhi, Suchint Simaraks 162-172
List of Content
FOREST AND SOCIETY
Vol. 2. Issue 2, November 2017
http://journal.unhas.ac.id/index.php/fs http://dx.doi.org/10.24259/fs.v2i2.5356 Special Section: Agrarian transformation in Thailand - commodities, landscapes, and livelihoods Review Article
Introduction to the special section: Agrarian transformation in Thailand - Commodities, landscapes, and livelihoods
Sukanlaya Choenkwan1,*, Micah Fisher2
1 Department of Agricultural Extension and System Approaches in Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Thailand. E-mail: [email protected]
2 University of Hawaii at Manoa, United States
* Corresponding author
Abstract: This is an introduction and review for a special section on agrarian transformation in Thailand. The article seeks to guide greater attention toward issues affecting rural Thai landscapes and livelihoods. Through the examination of specific commodities across various geographies, the paper seeks to refocus research towards decision making processes among rural communities. The research draws on field study cases that follow various aspects of particular commodities, including rubber, pomelo, tomato, cassava, and furthermore, incorporates complementary research in Forest and Society on coffee, ginger, jujube, and agrotourism in Thailand. Through the factors shaping engagement with these agricultural commodities, we examine issues including labor, soil fertility, contract farming arrangements, drought resistant crops, climate change, and others. In this way we seek to draw attention to the complex dynamics taking place on the Thai rural landscape and the factors that are reshaping land relations. Through initiating a research network on similar research approaches we identify and envision broader opportunities for helping to re-imagine future possibility in rural Thailand.
Keywords: Agrarian transformation; commodities; landscape; agrarian change; livelihood; Thailand
1. Introduction
Over the last two decades, there have been extensive discussions about the priorities and processes of agrarian and rural transformation in Thailand. The production and value systems surrounding agricultural transformation involves the overall restructuring of a subsistence-oriented economy to a market-oriented one. Agricultural households are increasingly prioritizing and becoming more dependent on intensive and specialized production of cash crops. Rural livelihoods are also relying more on off-farm income generated by local urban centers or remittances sent back from migrant workers. Although outmigration and the remittance economy has supported rural households, there are also other consequences, most evident in the scarcity and changing labor practices in agricultural sectors.
This transformation is affecting rural society in perplexing ways, both with perceived positive and negative impacts. On the one hand, Thailand has seen a decline in poverty rates, improving access to education, and other development indicators (Office of The National Economic and Social Development Board, 2016). But on the other hand, there are growing indicators of increasing economic differentiation, the perceived withering of community solidarity, and certain people left behind through these changes. These trends of agrarian transformation are reshaping broader developments in Thai society, taking place alongside dynamics of increasing population, urbanization, new approaches to rural policy interventions, natural resource limitations, and changing societal values. In short, what will become of rural Thailand?
This special section attempts to provide a picture of transformation by examining the changes taking place across rural communities in Thailand. We begin through the lens of agricultural
commodities, which are increasingly shaping much of life in rural Thailand. We believe that explaining the multiple sources and effects of certain commodities in particular locations in Thailand provides distinct explanatory potential. For example, rubber, a crop originally grown in the South of Thailand has been widely introduced in the northeast region for the past 30 years, affecting local community dynamics, creating new projects, changing cultivation practices, and initiating new ways of interacting with the state and international markets. Farmers are facing new choices between planting staple crops and cash crops, or to seek out labor opportunities elsewhere by migrating long term or seasonally to find work in other sectors. In this special section we also follow example of other commodities. Other surprising examples include agricultural commodities (Fisher et al., 2017) geared to supporting a vision of agrotourism (Choenkwan and Fisher, forthcoming), illicit agricultural production of poppies in upland and border areas (Anderson, 2017; Anderson and Jongruck, 2017), ginger production in forest lands (Choenkwan, 2017) new boutique crops like arabica coffee and jujube, and a multitude of other trends.
Agrarian transformation provides perplexing, contradictory, and paradoxical effects, which can at once empower and dispossess. The papers herein describe a series of commodities and their role in agrarian transformation. These include rubber (Tongkaemkaew et al., 2018), cassava (Polthanee, 2018), tomato (Gedgaew et al., 2018), and pomelo (Duangta et al., 2018). We also engaged with some other preliminary research on aging farmers and youth perspectives that are complex areas of research still being developed for future publication. We recognize that the breadth of the topic of agrarian transformations in Thailand requires sustained engagement and hope that some of the findings in this special section can continue to provide answers to these timely questions.
In this introductory piece we begin with a broader picture of agrarian transformation in Thailand, focusing on the macro level trends of agricultural and development. In the subsequent section we lay out some broad summaries of the papers in the special section and highlight some preliminary findings based on this research. We conclude by laying out areas of future research that sustains engagement on the topic of agrarian transformation in Thailand.
2. Trends of agricultural development in Thailand
The agricultural sector in Thailand has long been described as the “backbone” of development.
Agriculture used to be the most important sector in the Thai economy. Before manufacturing and the service sector began to play an increasing role in the Thai economy in the late 1970s, the agricultural sector generated almost all of the country’s export income (Singhapreecha, 2014). The share of agricultural-related GDP has since decreased substantially and continuously. In 2010 agricultural products accounted for about 11% of GDP and decreased to 9% in 2017 (The world bank, 2017). However, the agricultural sector still continues to play a central role in the Thai economy for both labor and livelihood. Although there has been an expansion of industrial scale agriculture, the sector is still dominated by smallholders. As of 2016, there are about 6.8 million farm households or about 17 million people (about 25% of total population) that still earn their living from agriculture (National Statistical Office, 2016). Therefore, the agricultural sector shapes the lives of most of the rural landscape in Thailand.
Agrarian transformation is continuing to take place in new ways, indelibly affecting a large percentage of the Thai population. Farmers are especially experiencing change in the ways they engage with agriculture, shifting a larger part of their cultivation strategies from subsistence activities to market oriented ones. The introduction of agricultural technologies, new machinery, and inputs, have played an increasing role in transforming agriculture in Thailand over the past thirty years. Rambo (2017) for example, describes that buffaloes were the main power for plowing in the Northeastern region of Thailand until the 1980s, which were subsequently replaced by two-wheel hand tillers. In 1983, there were only a few thousand hand tillers in use in the Northeast, but by 2003 they numbered 1.25 million, which are now being phased out in favor of four-wheel tractors.
Moreover, in the 1990s, combined harvest equipment began to replace hand harvests. In 1993 only 1% of households used these machines, but by 2003 they were employed by 14% of farm households (Grandstaff et al., 2008).
Wongsaichue (2010) has also shown that agricultural land holding sizes are decreasing. In the early 1980s, the average household smallholder plot size was about 35 rai1 (Hays, 2014). In 2006, the average land holding reduced to about 23 rai, and in 2016, approximately 17 rai (Information and Communication Technology Center, 2016). The National Statistical Office (2016) records show that of the total of about 321 million rai (51.4 million hectares) of Thailand’s total land area, one third is cultivable as crop land. However, the National Statistical Office (2016) also shows that agricultural land areas has slightly decreased since 2007. There were about 150,615,116 rai in 2007, which by 2016 had decreased to 149,260,157 rai (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Statistics of land utilization under agricultural land during 2007-2016
In this regard, about 70 million rai or 47% accounts for paddy area, 31 million rai (21%) are for field crops such as sugar cane, cassava and maize, and 23 million rai (15%) account for fruit trees and tree crops (especially rubber), and about 1 million rai (0.7%) is for vegetables and ornamental plants (National Statistical Office, 2016). However, figure 2 provides a more detailed description within each of these categories. Rice land and field crops have experienced a sharp decline, and as detailed in figures 2-4, the sharp increases in tree crop area cultivation is the direct impetus for these changes.
Agrotourism is also increasingly recognized as a new form of agriculture in Thailand. The tourism industry creates a large amount of income in Thailand and it plays a central role for the Thai economy. Turner and Freiermuth (2017) estimates tourism receipts showing that the sector had a total contributes to 20.6% of GDP in 2016 (USD 82.5 billion). The statistic also shows that tourism directly supported 2,313,500 jobs (6.1% of total employment). Agrotourism is a type of tourism that integrates farmer’s lives and agricultural activities as part of the tourism destination. Tourism thus is envisioned to support agriculture and farmers by creating new markets, especially in possibilities from the sale of agricultural products. Farmers could thus sell products to tourists directly with higher prices than those negotiated with middlemen. Agrotourism allows tourists to gain the knowledge of agriculture, experience agricultural activities and appreciate the unique agricultural and rural landscape. Agrotourism is promoted officially throughout Thailand in 1999 in as a strategy
1 1 rai = 016 hectare
for rural development. Agrotourism is expected to help to generate additional income for farmers, provide new occupations for unemployed people, and enhance local rural economies (Srisomyon, 2010). The government launched an agrotourism project with funding of approximately US$ 4 million to develop and promote agrotourism destinations in several parts of the country (Srisomyon, 2010). In 2012, more than 400 villages were officially promoted as agrotourism destinations (Na Songkhla and Somboonsuk, 2012). However, no official records of numbers from agrotourism are available. Presently, agrotourism has vastly been expanded throughout the country in both forms of community-based tourism and in partnership with the private sector.
Figure 2. Statistic of land utilization under paddy land during 2007-2016
Figure 3. Statistic of land utilization under field crops during 2007-2016
Figure 4. Statistic of land utilization under fruit trees and trees crops during 2007-2016
These figures and descriptions of macro-level trends transforming rural Thailand provide a description of the broader issues. However, when scaling to some of the local dynamics some surprising findings emerge. We next shift our attention to the various research included in this special section to highlight a more nuanced and reflexive engagement on the drivers and dynamics behind rural transformation in Thailand.
3. Following commodity case studies: Articles in the special section
In this special section engaging on agrarian transformation in Thailand, we begin by examining various commodities. In this issue we have compiled four articles studies engaging on four different types of commodities, including: cassava (field crop), rubber (tree plantation crop), tomato (vegetable) and pomelo (fruit tree). The different locations of the studies are shown below in Figure 5.
We begin the special section with cassava, one of the most important economic crops in Thailand, especially in drought prone areas. Cassava is not a staple food for Thai people however, serves as a cash crop grown among smallholders. In 2017, there were 544,774 households growing cassava (Office of Agricultural Economics, 2017). Although Thailand is the second largest cassava producer in the world, it is the largest exporter in the world (Thanabadeephat, nd). About 80% of production is exported. The total area of cassava in Thailand during the crop year 2016-2017 was about 8.9 million rai with the production of about 30 million tons (Office of Agricultural Economics, 2017). Half of the planting area (about 53%) were planted in the northeast region by 349,066 households. In this special section, Anan Polthanee describes the important role of cassava for small holders in the northeast region. He highlights how cassava adapts to physical conditions as topography, climate and soil. He also presents some social and economic performances such as labor, income and marketing in order to provide a synopsis of the role of cassava for smallholder farmers in Northeastern Thailand. These findings highlight that cassava will continue to play an important role in future agricultural systems of the region, particularly due to the increasing observable stressors from a changing climate.
The second article is about Rubber. Thailand is one of the top producers and exporters of natural rubber in the world. It was first planted in the 1990s in the southern and eastern parts of the country where environmental conditions are favorable for rubber plantation. Upon successful harvests cultivation expanded across the country as part of a concerted government policy in 2011 (Win, 2017). In 2016, rubber was planted in 70 provinces including a total land area of 24.7 million rai, and producing over 7.6 million tons. In total, by 2016, about 1.2 million households were planting rubber (Information and Communication Technology Center, 2016). In this issue, Uraiwan Tongkaemkaew et al. takes a slightly different approach among the broader trends around rubber.
They observe the overall ecological effects of various rubber cultivation approaches. The authors investigate litterfall, litter decomposition, soil macrofauna and nutrient content in rubber monoculture and rubber-based agroforestry systems. Their comparison, shows that agroforestry yields better results for soil health than rubber monoculture, providing important considerations about the long term effects of particular cultivation trajectories. They also highlight how extension services might further play a role within the sector.
The third article examines the longer-term complexities within contract farming schemes of hybrid tomato seed. Thailand is one of the pioneers in the development of contract farming in Asia.
Many crops are structured through contract farming arrangements, especially sugarcane, tobacco and an expanded number of vegetable crops, seeds and processed foods such as canned fish, pineapples and tomato products (Saenjan 1998; Singh 2005; Sriboonchitta and Wiboonpongse 2008). However, the contract system has raised serious concerns regarding social justice,
environmental sustainability and corporate control and has, in many cases, become an elaborate way of exploiting small farmers (Siamwalla 1996; Delforge 2007). Chalee Gedgaew et al., in this special section, examine a village in Khon Kaen province that has successfully and continuously been under contract farming for hybrid tomato seed production for more than 30 years. Although such arrangements have declined and ended among many other villages in Thailand the case study site highlights longstanding partnership between farmers and corporate actors. This article shows some more nuanced effects of contract farming arrangements beyond the commonly presumed negative impacts. They also noted some factors that can yield positive effects, such as generating high profits for growers that had established mutual trust between the grower and company. The study also highlights the precursors for farmers to establish and maintain negotiating power with the companies.
The last paper examines the increasing incidence of a particulation fruit orchard: pomelo production. Pomelo or pummelo is one of the tropical fruits widely grown in Asia. In Thailand, it is grown in all regions, but in the past it was most commonly planted in the central and southern regions. In 2013, the total pomelo production area in Thailand was about 186,928 rai, which is about 40% of total production from the central region, and 50% in the southern region (Athipanyakul and Chancharat, 2014). However, Kanchana Duangta et al. in this special section presents pomelo production in a village in the northeast region that is now successfully growing pomelo. The northeast however, was previously known as an unsuitable place for growing pomelo due to the frequent droughts and poor soil fertility of the region. In 2013, the area consisted of about 10,000 rai (~5%) of total area production in the country. Pomelo production is considered as a recently introduced fruit crop in the northeast region and this paper shows how a village in the Northeast was able to successfully introduce and manage pomelo productions.
Figure 5. Map on different location of articles and titles included in the special section
4. Conclusion
This special section has sought to engage on large topics on agrarian transformation in Thailand.
This introduction article has grounded the broader interests on research in rural Thailand by first contextualizing the macro level trends changing the country and countryside. This includes a shift from agricultural production to other sectors such as manufacturing and the service sector, as well as the increasing incidence of tourism in all parts of the economy. New commodities are emerging across the rural landscape, such as boutique, illicit, and other creative projects, including agrotourism and other type of commoditization arrangements. Labor dynamics are shifting as are the demographics of those that shape the landscapes, such as migration, aging farmers, and a re- imagining of youth in rural areas.
The papers in this special issue have attempted to engage with a sliver of these issues by committing to engagement with these macro issues through richly contextualized local case studies.
Herein, the studies follow a set of commodities across its many different facets, engaging on labor, ecology, production scheme, climate change, and more. Such an approach also points to some key strengths and some shortcomings from this engagement on rural transformation.
First, all the papers in this special section examine cash crops. Each of the papers are also single crop studies. As we see in this special section, such approaches can tell us a lot about value chains, economic trends, and how they interact with local livelihoods. While these dynamics provide a unique baseline for understanding commoditization and shifting priorities of production systems, they can also overlook one of the fundamental roles of the agricultural sector, namely food production. Future studies that examine key staples and subsistence factors (around for example, rice and other crops that shape the Thai diet), provides an important complement to issues of agricultural production in Thailand. Furthermore, the move to monoculture cash crops seems an unquestioned ethos in agrarian transformation as prescribed in development programs. These articles show that such changes should not go unquestioned.
Second, the studies on rubber and cassava highlight the importance of ecological and environmental factors. The rubber case shows how soil health is often overlooked for the primacy of production, but that over the long term such consideration are important for a variety of sustainability issues. The cassava paper in particular, further pointed to the stark impacts of climate change to an already drought prone region, which will only experience greater stressors in the future. It also positions the increasing role that cassava will play in future production systems.
Third, we are able to see issues of labor and identity come through in each of these papers.
However, the dynamics that shape aging rural labor alongside fleeing younger generations, as well as complementary factors of migration, are central to understanding not only rural transformation, but also the residual effects that they can have in urban areas. Further examination of who work particular agricultural systems are still an area of under-examined research that can tell us a lot about agrarian transformation.
Finally, a unique element among these papers, is a perspective premised from a tradition of extension, one with the continued emphasis on seeking solutions. Both in cassava and rubber, researchers provide recommendations about how to prioritize ways to enhance production from a local perspective. Research complemented by principles of extension can really help to justify local improvements to livelihoods and the environment.
Overall, much research is still needed to understand the perplexing dynamics reshaping agrarian transformation in Thailand. These articles convincingly show however, that although research in recent years has shifted to examining challenges taking place in urban regions, just how important the role of rural spaces continue to play for its effects on people’s lives far and wide.
References
Anderson, B. (2017). People, Land and Poppy: the Political Ecology of Opium and the Historical Impact of Alternative Development in Northwest Thailand. Forest and Society, 1(1), 48-59.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.24259/fs.v1i1.1495
Anderson, B., & Jongruck, P. (2017). Forestry, illegibility and illegality in Omkoi, Northwest Thailand. Forest and Society, 1(2), 98-109. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.24259/fs.v1i2.2809 Athipanyakul, T., and S. Chancharat. (2014). Production system and marketing of pomelo in the
upper Northeast region, Thailand project. Full report: Thailand Research Fund
Choenkwan, S. (2017). Mysterious ginger: Enclaves of a boom crop in Thailand. Forest and Society, 1(2), 144-153. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.24259/fs.v1i2.2117
Choenkwan, S. & Fisher, M. (forthcoming). Locating the urban in the rural: A political ecology of agrotourism in Northeastern Thailand
Delforge, I. 2007. Contract Farming in Thailand: A view from the farm. Focus on the Global South CUSRI. Bangkok, Thailand: Chulalongkorn University Social Research Institute.
Duangta, K., Borisutdhi, Y., & Simaraks, S. (2018). Knowledge Management of Pomelo Production System in Northeast Thailand: A case study of the pomelo farmer group in Ban Thaen District, Chaiyaphum Province. Forest and Society, 2(2), 162-172.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.24259/fs.v2i2.5122
Fisher, M., Maryudi, A., & Sahide, M. (2017). Forest and Society: Initiating a Southeast Asia Journal for Theoretical, Empirical, and Regional Scholarship. Forest and Society, 1(1), 1-7, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.24259/fs.v1i1.1369
Gedgaew, C., Simaraks, S., & Rambo, A. (2018). Factors influencing long term tomato seed production under contract farming in Northeast Thailand. Forest and Society, 2(2), 150-161.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.24259/fs.v2i2.4340
Grandstaff, Terry B., Somluckrat Granstaff, Viriya Limpinuntana, and Nonluck Supanchanimat.
(2008). Rainfed Revolution in Northeast Thailand. Southeast Asian Studies 46 (3): 289-376.
Hays, J. (2014). Agriculture in Thailand: History, Land use, Indebted farmers, Irrigation and food.
http://factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/Thailand/sub5_8h/entry-3319.html#chapter-3;
Accessed 31 October 2018.
Information and Communication Technology Center. (2016). Rubber in 2016.
http://www.agriinfo.doae.go.th/year60/plant/rortor/perennial/rubber.pdf; accessed 1 November 2018.
Na SongKhla T., Somboonsuk, B. (2013). Interactions between agro-tourism and local agricultural resources management: A case study of agro-tourism destinations in Chang Klang district, Southern Thailand. Discource Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences 1(3): 54-67.
National Statistical Office. (2016). Agriculture and Fisheries Branch.
http://statbbi.nso.go.th/staticreport/page/sector/en/11.aspx; accessed 31 October 2018 Office of Agricultural Economics. (2017). Cassava. https://goo.gl/xBBUqg; accessed: 1 November
2018.
Office of The National Economic and Social Development Board. (2016). Analysis of poverty situation in Thailand. http://social.nesdb.go.th/social/Portals/0/PDF%20รายงานความยากจน ฯ%202559.pdf: accessed 6 November 2018. (in Thai)
Polthanee, A. (2018). Role of Cassava for Smallholder Farmers in Northeastern Thailand. Forest and Society, 2(2), 121-137. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.24259/fs.v2i2.4275
Rambo, A. Terry. (2017). The Agrarian Transformation in Northeastern Thailand: A Review of Recent Research. Southeast Asian Studies 6(2): 211-246.
Saenjan, V. 1998. Future Prospect of Small and Medium Size Agribusiness in Thailand. In Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Agribusiness and Its Impact on Agricultural Production
in Southeast Asia (DABIA II), ed. A. Patanothai, and P. Keerati-Kasikorn, 159-180. Khon Kaen, Thailand: Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University.
Siamwalla, A. (1996). Thai Agriculture: From Engine of Growth to Sunset Status. TDRI Quarterly Review 11(4): 3-10.
Singh, S. (2005). Contract Farming System in Thailand. Economic and Political Weekly December 31, 2005: 5578-5586.
Singhapreecha, Charuk. (2014). Economy and Agriculture in Thailand. Food and Fertilizer Technology Center for the Asian and Pacific Region. http://ap.fftc.agnet.org/ap_db.php?id=246; accessed 31 October 2018
Sriboonchitta, S., and A. Wiboonpoongse. (2008). Overview of Contract Farming in Thailand: Lessons learned. ADBI Discussion Paper 112. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute.
Srisomyong N. (2010). Agricultural diversity into agritourism: The case of Thailand. International Journal of Agricultural Travel and Tourism 1(1): 107-118.
Thanabadeephat, Supat. (n.d). Changing situation of cassava production. Bang of Thailand. Office of northeastern region.
The world bank. (2017). World Development Indicators: Structure of output.
http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/4.2; accessed 31 October 2018.
Tongkaemkaew, U., Sukkul, J., Sumkhan, N., Panklang, P., Brauman, A., & Ismail, R. (2018). Litterfall, litter decomposition, soil macrofauna, and nutrient contents in rubber monoculture and rubber-base agroforestry plantations. Forest and Society, 2(2),138-149.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.24259/fs.v2i2.4431
Turner, Rochelle and Freiermuth, Evelyne. (2017). Travel and Tourism Eonomic Impact World 2017.
World Travel and Tourism Council. London: United Kingdom
Win, Hnin Ei. (2017). Economic Importance of Rubber in Thailand.
http://ap.fftc.agnet.org/ap_db.php?id=819.; Accessed 1 November 2018.
Wongsaichu, T. (2010). 1986-2006 Land use in Thailand.
http://pirun.ku.ac.th/~fedutnw/20101112.html; Accessed 31 October 2018. (in Thai)
http://journal.unhas.ac.id/index.php/fs http://dx.doi.org/10.24259/fs.v2i2.4275 Special Section: Agrarian transformation in Thailand - commodities, landscapes, and livelihoods Research Article
Cassava as an insurance crop in a changing climate:
The changing role and potential applications of cassava for smallholder farmers in Northeastern Thailand
Anan Polthanee1,*
1 Program on System Approaches in Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.
E-mail: [email protected]
* Corresponding author
Abstract: Approximately 80 percent of the 22 million people in Northeastern Thailand are engaged in agriculture, and the per capita income of the region is lower than in any other part of Thailand. The major constraint to crop production is rainfall. Although the region has an average annual rainfall greater than 1200 mm, the seasonal distribution of rainfall makes for challenging agricultural cultivation opportunities. The climate is characterized by rainy (May-October) and dry (November-April) seasons. Most (90%) farming is cultivated under rainfed conditions. In addition, most soils are characterized by a sandy texture, high acidity, low organic matter, low level of plant nutrients and low water holding capacity. Due to these conditions, and an increasingly unpredictable climate horizon, cassava has come to play an important economic role for smallholder farmers in the region. The inherent tolerance of cassava to stressful environments, requires minimal care, less investment, and provides greater flexibility in planting and harvesting. Although cassava is grown as a monoculture crop, it can also be grown profitably as a second crop in rice-based cropping systems without supplemental irrigation during the dry season, as well as intercropped in rubber plantations at early growth stages. Given the importance of cassava in farmer income, export values, marketing, and labor, this paper discusses the broader socio-economic and biophysical aspects of cassava due to its important role in future agrarian change for the region.
Keywords: Cassava; stakes-soaking; double-cropping; intercropping; socioeconomics of smallholders;
agrarian change; climate change; Thailand
1. Introduction
Thailand is divided into four regions (Northern, Northeastern, Central Plain and the Southern region) and in each region agriculture is the main occupation. It plays an important role in the economic development of the country. The Northeastern region consists of one-third of the total population (22 millions) and approximately one-third of the total land area (17 million hectares) of the whole country (Department of Provincial Administration, 2016). However, household income in the Northeast is the lowest (US$ 7,194) while the Central Plain is the highest (US$ 14,504) (Office of Agricultural Economics, 2017). This gap is largely due to the region being drier than that of other regions, thus providing less agricultural opportunities. Furthermore, irrigated areas is available for only 18% of the whole region (Royal Irrigation Department, 2008). Most of the soils are infertile and have poor moisture retention capacity (Noble, 2005).
The purpose of this research is to examine the description of the general topography, climate and soil of Northeastern Thailand. Special attention is devoted to cassava production trends, crop adaptation to drought stress, low input production and some economic performance such as labor, income and marketing in order to provide a synopsis of the role of cassava for smallholder farmers in Northeastern Thailand. These findings highlight that cassava will continue to play an
important role in future agricultural systems of the region.
2. Physical conditions in the Northeastern Region 2.1. Topography
The landscape is predominantly characterized by a gently sloping to undulating landform.
Upland areas located in the top of sloping, while the lowland area presented in the bottom of sloping. Main crops grown in the upland areas are cassava, sugarcane, and maize. The lowland areas generally have alluvial soils that are suitable for rice cultivation. About 750,503 ha of the upland areas is devoted to cassava (Office of Agricultural Economics, 2018). In general, cassava is suitable to cultivation in a gently sloping landform. Cassava has been grown for many years as an insurance crop for many of the smallholder farmers of the rural population in Northeastern Thailand, and this increasingly true under more recent variability with global warming. Since, cassava is particularly well adapted to drought. However, some farmers have also elected to switch their cassava crops to focus on rubber tree plantations in the last ten years, due to rubber tree provided higher cash income than that of cassava.
2.2. Climate
Northeastern Thailand has a semi-humid tropical climate which is characterized by rainy (May-October) and dry (November-April) seasons (Goto et al., 2008). There is a distinct rainy season from May to October that exhibits a bimodal pattern with a first peak in May to June and the second in July to October (Polthanee, 1990). Average annual rainfall varies from 1,200 mm to 1,500 mm, based on isohytes (Lacombe et al. 2017). The critical climatic factor affecting agriculture however, is the extreme variability of rainfall both within a year and between years, rather than the total amount of rainfall.
The year can be divided into three seasons. This includes the rainy season that begins in May and ends in October. The winter season that starts in November through January, and the dry season that begins from February to the end of April. Climate is the primary factor for agricultural production. Due to climate changes in the past decade, the beginning of rainy season has experienced increased variability (Atichart et al., 2013). Mean annual rainfall increased 66 mm when comparing the periods 1981-1996 and 1997-2012 (Polthanee and Promkhambut, 2014). Changes in temperature also increased between the maximum and minimums in Northeastern Thailand as has been reported by Polthanee and Promkhambut (2014). The mean maximum temperature increased in the rainy season (0.25oC) and winter season (0.89oC), and the mean minimum temperature in the rainy season also increased (0.33oC), as well as the winter season (1.33oC) when comparing the periods between 1981-1996 and 1997-2012 (Polthanee and Promkhambut, 2014). These climatic changes resulted in greater risk for farming ventures in recent year due to the increased temperature and highly variable rainfall pattern.
2.3. Soil
Northeastern Thailand soil consist of nine sub-orders: Usterts, Aquepts, Tropepts, Ustolis, Aqualfs, Aquults, Ustults and Udults (Survey Division, 1996). Ustults area is the largest and mainly used for field crops. Aquults areas is flat and mainly used for paddy rice (Tongpoonpol et al., 2012).
The soil texture is characterized by sandy or sandy loam to sandy clay loam with low organic matter content, low cation exchange capacity, low level of plant nutrients and acid reaction (Idhipong et al., 2012). In general, cassava provides a higher yield on light loams (Wilson, 1997). However, cassava is extremely tolerant to acid soil, growing well even at a pH as low as 4.2-4.5 and at 75-80%
Al saturation (Howeler, 2002).
3. Cassava in Northeastern 3.1. Cassava production trends
Cassava planted areas vary year by year depending heavily on favorable cassava prices compared to those of competing crops, especially sugarcane. However, cassava planted areas in Northeastern Thailand was stable at around 739,000 hectares since 2015 (Figure 1).
Source : Office of Agricultural Economics (2017) Figure 1. Cassava planted area of northeastern Thailand 3.2. Cassava as an insurance crop
Sugarcane provides higher cash income than cassava. The farmers who grow sugarcane must receive a certain quota of planting areas from the factory. Sugarcane will be harvested for sale only during the period of sugar factory operation. For cassava, farmers are able to harvest and sell any time during the year and it is increasingly becoming an important source of cash income for smallholder farmers. As noted in the biophysical sections above, cassava is a drought tolerant crop and has a great ability to survive under uncertain rainfall patterns (Cock, 1985; El-sharkawy, 1993).
In addition, cassava is tolerant to acidic soil conditions and it can grow on poor soils (FAO, 2010; De Tafur et al., 1997).
3.3. Cassava requires minimal care and less investment
In general, cassava production is not seriously affected by insect and diseases damage in Northeastern Thailand. However, pests can cause yield losses if the crop is not adequately weeded during the early stages of plant growth, especially near the cassava planting date in the late rainy season. Weed competition can be reduced by planting in the late rainy season when weed growth is less vigorous. Therefore, most farmers switched from planting in the early rainy season to the late rainy season to solve the weed problem. In general, one hand weeding done at one month after planting is recommended for weed control before canopy closure.
Planting material is one of the advantageous aspects of reducing production cost. Cassava is normally planted using stem cuttings, also called “stakes”. The stems are cut when the mother plant is 8-12 months old. In general, farmers use stem cuttings from their fields after harvest in the previous season as planting material.
3.4. The long stem cutting storability of cassava before planting
After cassava harvest, farmers keep the stem by placing it under the shade of a tree and wait for long periods of time before having to plant. Cassava stems, even when stored for longer than 2-3 months, can help to wait for conditions of sufficient rainfall and soil moisture. The cutting
stems (15-20 cm) had little effect on germination percentage and sprouting rate. Polthanee (2018) found that stems placed under a tree for 2 months retain stake moisture (50-55%) and still produced high germination percentage (83-100%), depending on cassava cultivars. Furthermore, cassava cutting stems from mother plants stored for 3 months experienced stake moisture reduction of 40- 47% at planting and decreased germination percentage (50-67%), depending on cassava cultivars.
Due to the capability of stem cuttings from mother plants to store for longer time with little effect on germination percentage, farmers can wait for adequate soil moisture conditions for planting in the event of delays in rainfall conditions in the upcoming season (see Figure 2)".
Figure 2. Cuttings of mother stem stored by farmers before planting, Northeast Thailand 3.5. Low investment of improving cassava stakes viability
As described previously, the cassava stem cuttings from mother plants stored for 3 months retain stake moisture of 40-47% and experience a reduced germination percentage by 50-67%.
These rates can also further be improved by soaking stakes before planting. Polthanee (2008) observed that stakes were soaked in water or 10 gm of urea diluted in 5 liters of water for 1 hour and resulted in improved germination percentages from 50-67% to 90-100%, depending on cultivars. The stakes that received sufficient carbohydrate enables plants to retain vigor for a longer period even under adverse conditions like drought (Nedunchezhiyan et al., 2006)
Table 1. Effect of soaking stakes in chitosan and wood vinegar solutions at different concentration rates on early growth (21 days after planting) of cassava
Treatment Leaf area
(cm2/plant) Stem dry weight
(gm/plant) Root length
(cm/plant) Root dry weight (gm/plant) Bio-activator across concentration (B)
Chitosan 283.9 0.46 1358.0 a 0.31
Wood vinegar 250.2 0.38 980.2 ab 0.26
Nil-soaking 229.5 0.34 934.4 b 0.25
Concentration across bioactivator (C)
5 cc 229.4 0.34 723.5 b 0.18 b
10 cc 283.9 0.40 1488.0 a 0.32 a
15 cc 250.2 0.46 1061.2 ab 0.26 ab
F-test
B ns ns * ns
C ns ns * *
B x C ns ns ns ns
ns = Not significant, * Significantly different at P≤0.05. Mean in the same column with different letters are significantly at P≤0.05 by LSD. Source: Adapted from Polthanee and Bamrungrai (2016)
The stakes viability can be improved by soaking in chitosan (10 cc diluted in 10 liters of water) for enhancing shoot and root growth at early growth stages (Table 1). This was due to chitosan induced photochemical process of the plant and result in more vigorous growth (Reddy et al., 1999).
Figure 3. Comparison of soaking stakes (chitosan) and nil-soaking at early growth stage of cassava, greenhouse experiment
Cassava stakes germination practices and early growth conditions also influence nutritional content. Polthanee and Manuta (2015) studied the effect of nutrition content of stakes on early growth of cassava. They reported that high nutritional content (total N=0.386%, total P= 0.110%, total K=2.648%) provided for higher plant growth rates than those of low nutritional content (total N=0.274%, total P= 0.091%, total K=1.115%) (Table 2). Similar findings were reported by Molina and El-Sharkawy (1995).
Table 2. Effect of stakes nutritional content and soaking of different nutrient solution on early growth (21 days after planting) of cassava
Treatment Fine root
(no./plant) Fine root fresh weight (gm/plant)
Sprouting
(no./plant) Shoot fresh weight (gm/plant) Nutritional status across nutrient soaking (N)
High 32.3 a 5.8 a 5.1 a 5.4 a
Low 15.6 b 1.9 b 3.3 b 1.9 b
Nutritional soaking across nutritional status (S)
N solution 21.9 2.9 b 4.3 2.9 ab
P solution 28.1 5.5 a 3.4 5.2 a
N+P solution 24.4 4.9 a 4.9 3.8 ab
Nil-soaking 21.5 2.2 b 4.1 2.6 b
F-test
N ** ** ** **
S ns ** ns *
N x S ns ns ns ns
ns = Not significant, Significantly different at P≤0.05 (*) and P≤0.01 (**)
Mean in the same column with different letters are significantly at P≤0.05 by LSD.
Source: Adapted from Polthanee and Manuta (2015)
3.6. Cassava as a drought-tolerant crop
In general, cassava can withstand significant periods of drought stress. Mechanisms of drought tolerance in cassava have been identified such as partial stomatal closure to reduce transpiration (El-shaarkawy and dock, 1984; Alves and Setter, 2000), reduction in leaf canopy (Connor and Cock, 1981; Ike and Thurtell, 1981, Polthanee et al., 2016a) and extensive root systems (El-sharkawy, 2007). Farmers normally practice two planting times under rainfed conditions in Northeast Thailand. Cassava planting in the early rainy season will be exposed to prolonged drought at late growth stages, while planting during the late rainy season will be subjected to drought at an early growth stage.
Climate conditions in the Northeast as detailed above are characterized by rainy (May- October) and dry (November-April) seasons. Cassava is harvested at 8-12 months. Polthanee et al.
(2016) studied growth and yield of different cassava cultivars grown in the early rainy season under rainfed conditions. They reported that cassava cultivars had a significant effect on tuber yield. The maximum tuber yield was obtained in Rayong-7 cultivars, but did not experience a significant difference with Rayong-72 and Huaybong-80 cultivars (Table 3). This indicates that the three cultivars adapted to water stress at late growth stages better than Rayong-11 cultivar.
Table 3. Growth and yield of four cassava cultivars planted in the early rainy season (2013-2014) of Northeast Thailand under rainfed conditions
Cultivar Leaf dry weight
(t/ha) Stem dry weight
(t/ha) Storage root
(no./plant) Yield (t/ha)
Rayong-7 4.94 a 3.65 12.90 33.70 a
Rayong-11 3.86 ab 4.86 11.20 20.30 b
Rayong-72 2.83 b 2.69 11.30 29.40 ab
Huaybong-80 3.69 ab 4.29 12.50 27.60 ab
F-test * ns ns *
CV (%) 21.2 33.3 14.3 20.1
ns = Not significant, * Significantly different at P≤0.05.
Mean in the same column with different letters are significantly at P≤0.05 by LSD.
Source: Adapted from Polthanee et al. (2016a)
Polthanee and Wongpichet (2017) studied the effect of planting methods and cassava varieties on tuber yield and starch content of cassava grown in the late rainy season under rainfed conditions. They stated that vertical planting methods (stakes inserted vertically into the soil on top of ridges) gave significantly higher tuber yields than those of stakes planted horizontally (making a long furrow on top of ridges and laying the stakes down and covering with soil) (Table 4). The Rayong-7 variety gave the highest tuber yield but without significant differences in comparison to Rayong-11, Huagbong-80 and E-dum varieties (Table 4).
Table 4. Effect of planting methods and cultivars on yield and starch content of cassava planted in the late rainy season (2014-2015) of northeastern Thailand under rainfed canditions
Treatment Storage root
(no./plant) Weight storage root
(kg/plant) Yield
(t/ha) Starch content (%)
Planting method across cultivars (M)
Vertical 10.7 a 6.1 60.6 a 28.1
Horizontal 8.9 b 5.3 54.3 b 27.8
Cultivar across planting methods (C)
Rayong-7 10.3 a 6.7 a 67.4 a 28.5 ab
Rayong-11 10.8 a 5.4 ab 54.6 ab 28.9 a
Rayong-72 7.7 b 5.3 ab 49.7 b 26.4 b
Huaybong-80 10.1 ab 4.8 b 55.0 ab 29.4 a
E-dum 10.2 a 6.1 ab 60.4 ab 26.6 b
F-test
M * ns * ns
C * * * *
M x C ns ns ns *
ns = Not significant, Significantly different at P≤0.05 (*) and P≤0.01 (**)
Mean in the same column with different letters are significantly at P≤0.05 by LSD.
Source: Adapted from Polthanee and Wongpichet (2017)
Figure 4. Leaves senescense of cassava during water stress at early growth stage, northeastern Thailand
Cassava is regarded as a relatively drought-tolerant crop as it reduces water use by following leaf area reduction and stomatal closure. However, water stress causes yield reduction, especially water stress during early growth stages. Polthanee and Srisutham (2017) studied supplementary irrigation for cassava planted in the late rainy season of Northeast Thailand. They reported that all supplementary irrigation water regimes (based on daily cumulative pan evaporation) increased the leaf area index and tuber yield of cassava versus no-irrigation (control) during the dry season (Table 5). This indicates that supplementary irrigation to the crop during the dry season can be attained leaf area index higher than that of no-irrigation which the crop experienced to water stress during the early growth stage.
Table 5. Effects of each irrigation regime and variety on leaf area index and tuber yield of cassava planted in the late rainy season
Treatment Leaf area index Tuber yield (t/ha)
120 240
---Days after planting--- Variety across irrigation regime (V)
Huaybong-80 0.60 4.79 92.5 a
Rayong-11 0.57 5.38 60.6 b
Irrigation regime across variety (I)
I-15,40 mm 0.64 ab 5.45 a 79.2 ab
I-15,60 mm 0.53 ab 4.84 ab 74.9 b
I-30,40 mm 0.67 a 5.77 a 85.6 a
I-30,60 mm 0.65 a 5.59 a 54.6 c
I-0 0.43 c 3.77 b 51.1 c
F-test
V ns ns *
I ** * **
VxI ns ns ns
Figure 5. Leaves senescense of cassava during water stress at late growth stage, Northeast Thailand
In addition, Polthanee and Srisutham (2018) studied supplementary irrigation at different time (saving water), during the dry season for cassava planted in the late rainy season when the crop experienced to water stress during the early growth stage. They reported that supplementary irrigation water (based on daily cumulative pan evaporation value reached 40 mm the crop received 15 mm of water) from planting to 2 months after planting (MAP) or from 3 to 4 MAP significantly increased stem weight, leaf weight, root yield and starch content versus no-irrigation (control) during the dry season (Table 6).
Table 6. Effects of drip irrigation at different times during the dry season on growth, yield and starch content of cassava planted in the late rainy season
Treatment stem leaf Tuber yield Starch content
(gm/ plant) (t/ ha) (%)
Variety across irrigation regime (V)
Huaybong-80 2309.9 348.3 41.68 a 32.16
Rayong-11 2742.9 444.6 36.75 b 30.96
Irrigation time (I)
Planting – 2 MAP 2938.8 a 500.4 a 47.00 a 33.19 a
3-4 MAP 2865.6 a 379.8 b 45.38 a 33.20 a
5-6 MAP 2278.5 b 369.9 b 38.94 ab 29.70 b
No-irrigation (control) 2016.6 b 335.8 c 25.63 b 30.16 b
F-test
V ns ns * ns
I ** * * *
V x I ns ns ns ns
ns = Not significant, Significantly different at P≤0.05 (*) and P≤0.01 (**), MAP = Month after planting.
Mean in the same column with different letters are significantly at P≤0.05 by LSD.
Sources: Adapted from Polthanee and Srisutham (2018)
Figure 6. Supplementary by drip irrigation during the dry season 3.7. Cassava a minor crop for additional farm income
Cassava is generally found to be more resilient under harsher climatic conditions than other crops. Therefore, farmers cultivated cassava profitably as a second crop (rice-cassava) and intercrop (rubber+cassava) under rainfed conditions in Northeast Thailand.
Rice is the major crop of farmers in Northeast Thailand. In general, farmers cultivate only once a year in the region, during times when the rainy season allows for its cultivation as a monoculture. During the dry season these rice field areas are used as cassava cultivation. Cassava is a drought-tolerant crop that can be grown after rice by 6-7 months harvest using residual soil moisture and early rainfall in the rainy season (Table 7). Therefore, the farmers earn additional farm income by growing cassava after rice instead of leaving the paddy fields to fallow in the dry season.
Table 7. Growth, yield and starch content of cassava at harvest (6 months), and net income of cassava grown after rice by farmers
Farmer/Paddy field type
Aboveground biomass (gm/plant)
Storage root (no./plant)
Yield (t/ha)
Starch content (%)
Net income*
(US$.) Farmer A
Upper paddy 417.5 5.5 10.9 21.8 89 (0.16 ha)
Medium paddy 583.9 6.8 18.4 20.3 530 (0.48 ha)
Farmer B
Medium paddy 775.4 8.9 23.8 23.9 720 (0.48 ha)
Mean 592.4 7.1 17.7 22.0
* Net income over fertilizer cost. Source: Adapted from Polthanee et al. (2014a)
Polthanee et al. (2014b) studied cassava cultivars suitable for growing after rice in rainfed lowland areas. They reported that Rayong-7 cultivar produced the maximum fresh storage root yield, while the Rayong-72 gave the highest dry root yield (Table 8).
Table 8. Storage root number, fresh and dry storage root yield and starch content of different cassava cultivars grown after rice without irrigation in dry season
Cultivar Storage root (no./plant)
Yield (t/ha) Starch content (%)
Fresh Dry
Rayong-7 7.0 28.2 a 723.8 ab 19.6
Rayong-11 6.3 21.3 ab 720.6 ab 23.7
Rayong-72 5.3 27.8 a 955.1 a 19.1
Kasetsart-50 4.8 23.2 ab 642.9 ab 25.9
Huaybong-80 6.8 19.2 b 613.4 b 25.7
F-test ns * * ns
CV (%) 26.4 17.1 17.2 16.9
ns = Not significant, * Significantly different at P≤0.05
Mean in the same column with different letters are significantly at P≤0.05 by LSD.
Source: Adapted from Polthanee et al. (2014b)
Figure 7. Cassava grown after rice without irrigation in dry season
Rubber has a long time lag of about 6-7 years to provide farm income before tapping. Some farmers intercropped rubber with cassava during the immature phase of rubber. Polthanee et al.
(2016b) reported that storage root yields obtained 24 t/ha by crops sampled in the 4th year of intercropping cassava with rubber in the farmer field, and providing cash income about 763 US$/ha/year.
Figure 8. Rubber intercropped with cassava in the farmer’s field, northeastern Thailand
Moreover, Polthanee and Promsena (2010) studied different cash crops including cassava intercropped in rubber plantations. They found that cassava intercropping generated an average net income over materials cost and variables cost (material cost + labour cost) at about 714 and 391 US$/ha (Table 9).
Table 9. Yield, production cost, gross income and net income of cassava and peanut intercropped with rubber at 1 and 2 years after plantation
Item First year Second year Average
1.Yield
- Cassava (t/ha) 22.4 24.8 23.6
- Peanut (t/ha) 1.6 1.2 1.4
2.Material cost
- Cassava (US$./ha) 172.1 172.1 172.1
- Peanut (US$./ha) 173.2 173.2 173.2
3.Labour cost
- Cassava (US$./ha) 292.9 292.9 292.9
- Peanut (US$./ha) 322.3 322.3 322.3
4.Gross income
- Cassava (US$./ha) 841.8 872.7 857.3
- Peanut (US$./ha) 761.7 544.3 658.0
5.Net income over material cost
- Cassava (US$./ha) 667.9 759.2 713.6
- Peanut (US$./ha) 588.5 381.1 484.8
6.Net income over material and labour cost
- Cassava (US$./ha) 375.0 407.6 391.3
- Peanut (US$./ha) 266.2 58.8 162.5
Source: Adapted from Polthanee and Promsena (2010)
Figure 9. Rubber intercropped with peanut of researcher experiment
Figure 10. Rubber intercropped with cassava of researcher experiment 4. Socioeconomic characteristics
4.1. Land and labor
Most cassava farmers in Northeast Thailand are ethnically Thai, have their own land and land certificates. The average cassava cultivating area was about 2.46 ha, with an average farm labor of 2.87 persons (Ketkaewliang et al., 2015).
The Northeast Thailand landscape is predominantly of an undulating landform, which is divided into three types of land, namely upland field, upper paddy field and lower paddy field. In general, household labor cultivates crops grown under three types of land during a given year.
Cassava is cultivated in upland fields while rice is grown in the paddy fields. Rice is a major crop of the smallholder farmers in Northeast Thailand. It plays an important role of food for home consumption, and the excess yield is sold for additional income. The first labor priority is allocated for rice production. In fact, cassava planting and harvesting time coincides with seasonal farm labor distribution and strategically does not overlap with rice cultivation (Figure 11).
Type of land Feb
. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov
. Dec. Jan.
Upland field Harvesting 1 year round Harvesting 1 year round
Cassava Date 1 /////////////
/
Planting and weeding Date 2 /////// Planting and weeding
Lower paddy field
Late maturity rice Planting and weeding //////////////// Harvesting /////
Upper paddy field
Early maturity rice Transplanting and weeding /////// Harvesting /////
Figure 11. Seasonal distribution of labor for a farmer cultivating small plots on upland, lower paddy and upper paddy fields
4.2. Case study of investment and income
The profitability of cassava production in Namyuen district, Ubonratchatani province, Northeast Thailand is calculated based on primary yield and production cost/income price data collected during individual farmer interviews. This helps to provide a comparison between traditional farmer practices and improving practices through drip irrigation that is recommended by the researcher and shown in more detail in Table 10.
Table 10. Average production cost and income of cassava cultivation based on traditional practices under rainfed and improving practices under supplementary drip irrigation
Category Traditional practices (N=50) Improving practices (N=50)
Labor cost (US$ per ha) 496 662
Materials cost (US$ per ha) 284 487
Tuber yield (ton per ha) 33 41
Gross income (US$ per ha) 2078 2635
Net income (US$ per ha) 1298 1486
Note: Materials cost = fertilizer, pesticides, gasoline Source: Prawanne (2015)
The net income of traditional practices averaged 1,298 US$/ha, while the net income of improving practices averaged 1,486 US$/ha. Therefore, improving practices through drip irrigation increased net income over traditional practices 188 US$/ha (15%). Farmer in Nakornratchasima province practiced supplementary drip irrigation and earned a net income that averaged around 2,172 US$/ha (Bannalai, 2016). However, farmers who adopted drip irrigation for supplementary water in the dry season were located in areas that could access underground water by pumping from tube wells.
4.3. Marketing
In general, cassava farmers sold their output immediately after harvest. Individual small farmers transport the tuber root product to cassava merchants who give a high price of tuber root located nearby their farm. The cassava price varies year to year (Table 11), depending on demand of the main trade partner from China. Moreover, Vietnam sold tapioca products at a lower price than that of Thailand also affecting price competitiveness and demand.
Table 11. Cassava price by year, 2013-2017
Category 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Farm gate price (US$ per ha) 67.7 70.3 68.7 51.3 48.4
Tapioca chips price (US$ per ha) 222.6 231.9 233.5 197.4 183.9
Tapioca pellet price (US$ per ha) 242.3 245.5 262.3 246.5 200.0
Tapioca starch price (US$ per ha) 460.0 440.9 457.7 397.4 358.7
Source: Adapted from Office of Agricultural Economics (2018)
Figure 12. The tuber roots were loaded from farmer’s cassava field to merchant for sell
Major markets for tapioca products are mostly in Asia. Tapioca chips export to China.
Tapioca pellets export to Turkey and Japan. Tapioca starch exports to China, Indonesia, Taiwan and Malaysia. Modified starch exports to Japan, China, Indonesia and South Korea (Office of Agricultural Economics, 2018). The domestic demand of cassava is approximately 20 percent while 80 percent is for export. Cassava export values by year in Thailand is shown in Table 12.
Table 12. Cassava export values (million US$) by year, 2013-2017 of Thailand
Year Tapioca chip
(million US$) Tapioca pellet
(million US$) Cassava starch Total
Raw Modified
2013 1274.7 13.1 1125.2 646.4 3059.4
2014 1576.5 4.6 1324.3 697.6 3603.0
2015 1673.2 9.4 1327.9 691.8 3702.4
2016 1262.4 2.6 1290.2 685.3 3240.5
2017 1180.6 7.6 1148.4 664.5 3001.1
Source: Adapted from Office of Agricultural Economics (2018)
Cassava serves as an economic and social link. In general, there are twelve ceremonies
