Farmers paid to not grow second-crop rice next year

[webfact]

Farmers paid to not grow second-crop rice next year

By Thai PBS

 

 

The cabinet on Tuesday (Dec 12) agreed to allocate a fund amounting to 1,687 million baht to pay rice farmers to not plant second-crop rice next year in a bid to reduce rice-cultivated area by 150,000 rai.

 

Deputy Agriculture and Cooperative Minister Luck Vajananawat said the fund would be used to convince farmers to skip planting second crop rice next year in 53 provinces by providing farmers who agree to accept the deal 2,000 baht per rai of up to 15 rai each.

 

Full story: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/farmers-paid-not-grow-second-crop-rice-next-year/

 

-- © Copyright Thai PBS 2017-12-13

[worgeordie]

I wonder if there will be any checks to see ,if after the cash is paid,

that the farmers just dont go ahead and grow anyway .

regards worgeordie

[bheard]

I wonder if there will be any checks to see ,if after the cash is paid,
that the farmers just dont go ahead and grow anyway .
regards worgeordie

Checks and balances, auditing - not part of Thainess.

Sent from my BLL-L22 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[PatOngo]

I feel a spike in unemployment coming on...........what are they going to watch growing now???

[faraday]

Why do they want to reduce rice growing areas?

[billd766]

The EU has been doing that for years.

 

It is a good idea really as it saves on fertiliser costs, labour costs and gives the rice paddies a chance to recover a bit.

 

IIRC it is called fallow farming.

 

1 minute ago, faraday said:

Why do they want to reduce rice growing areas?

 

If less rice is produced than the general price of rice will rise (there will be less on the market) and farmers will make a little more money for doing less work.

[lordblackader]

Wait... wasn't there a former PM who got into trouble over using government funds to manipulate the rice market?? can't possibly think of who it was, must have been a long time ago. 

[billd766]

1 hour ago, lordblackader said:

Wait... wasn't there a former PM who got into trouble over using government funds to manipulate the rice market?? can't possibly think of who it was, must have been a long time ago. 

 

I wonder who that PM was and where they are now?

[Araiwah]

Reminds me of a couple of years back when they begged and offered to pay farmers to not grow a second crop. The farmers merely scoffed and planted one anyway and within weeks were begging the govt for money because there wasn't enough water. You really can't make stuff like this up 5555+

[Knee Jerk Reaction]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

The EU has been doing that for years.

 

It is a good idea really as it saves on fertiliser costs, labour costs and gives the rice paddies a chance to recover a bit.

 

IIRC it is called fallow farming.

 

 

If less rice is produced than the general price of rice will rise (there will be less on the market) and farmers will make a little more money for doing less work.

A friend of mine is a tenant farmer in the UK in an area of many tenant farmers. Wealthy landowners are claiming the set-aside payments on their tenanted land including the fields left fallow in rotation. Set-aside is a good system for farmers who own their own land but not for hard working tenant farmers with greedy landlords.

[Srikcir]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

If less rice is produced than the general price of rice will rise

True for domestic market.

But on the global market rice exporters like India will be perfectly happy to pickup Thailand's rice supply reduction. Yingluck suffered that miscalculation.

Prayut has shown otherwise that he wants Thailand to remain the world's No.1 rice exporter. http://www.thaitradeusa.com/home/?p=23273

It may be more a case of national pride in the eyes of the junta vs. sustainability for rice farmers that prevails.

[bogozy]

A lot of rice farmers are sitting in the mud of debts. They are enforced to work, for their livelihood.

 

[rickudon]

Hmm, how will they know which farmers were going to grow a second crop and which were not?

[seajae]

have to wonder how many actually know what they are talking about in here, every year we see them plant second crops then lose everything when the ground dries up and all the crops are lost. Can see all the usual apologists trying to make this out to be a bad thing when its the opposite, if they actually knew farming they would realize this will benefit many and stop others from losing everything, this is why it is done in many other countries, they know it works better. Farmers can get money for not growing and go out and find other work to earn extra money, its nothing like the rice scam as they are benefiting small farmers as well not just the bigger ones and those from other countries as well as not paying billions for rotten rice, bit hard to do gtg deals too for fallow land. This isnt political its common sense to stop the stupidity of some farmers planting crops when they dont have the water to do so plus only get a pittance for all the work they do or just break even, should have been doing it for years 

Edited December 16, 2017 by seajae

[473geo]

Well they could start with the areas where the dam run off is stored when there is a little oversupply of water. This would save compensation for the crop and thus would not actually increase the current annual budget.

 

Note also. The less profitable price of rice in recent years has encouraged farmers to grow grass and support more cattle as an earner, rather than rely totally on rice. This action is quite widespread little parcels of grassland appearing. Important for the government to get the balance correct.

Consideration also needs to be given to the reduction in rubber production requested by the government. Should there be a move from rubber to rice this could negate the planned result of a non second crop subsidy.

Then of course, if rice becomes profitable there may be a move back from the cattle.

Interesting times, but good to see action from the government to support farmers.