Gov. Pulls Rug Out From Under Rice Farmers Feet

[Ed.Lee]

Friday, October 27, 2006

Rice prices cut to more 'realistic' levels

Measure will help exporters but might also hurt farmers

The new government's decision to lower rice prices for its pledging programme could create more competitive opportunities for exporters, but may cause trouble for farmers, experts said yesterday.

The government yesterday announced rice prices for the 2006-07 harvest season from November to February, with decreases for all types of rice under the pledging programme. The programme will target a total of about 9 million tonnes of paddy rice.

The government's targeted price is Bt8,700 to Bt9,000 per tonne for jasmine rice and Bt6,100 to Bt6,500 per tonne for white rice. For the 2005-06 harvest season, the targeted prices were was Bt9,700 to Bt10,000 per tonne for jasmine rice and Bt6,700 to 7,100 per tonne for white rice.

Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister MR Pridiyathorn Devakula said the government of ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra had set the pledging price 30 per cent above the market price, which caused the country's rice-export volume to decrease.

Thailand has been able to export only 5.3 million tonnes of rice from early this year to September, while export volume exceeded 10 million tonnes in 2004. The government retains about 3.7 million tonnes of rice in stockpiles, because of the higher price.

He said Thai rice was unable to compete with rice from elsewhere, because the price was too high. "The government believes farmers should accept the new price, because it's fair to both farmers and exporters," Pridiyathorn said.

But Thai Rice Growers' Association president Suwan Kathawuth said the government should not reduce the price for the new harvest season, because farmers would suffer.

"I do not agree with the decision to decrease the rice price at this stage, when the government has no plan for helping farmers yet," he said.

Suwan said the costs of rice farming had increased this year, but farmers would receive a lower price as a result of the government's rice-pledging.

He said the government should find a suitable method to help farmers and come up with a new programme to stabilise rice prices as soon as possible.

Rice Exporters' Association president Chookiat Ophaswongse said exporters were surprised the government had decreased the rice price in the pledging programme.

He said the price reduction would be good for Thai rice, because it could then compete with Vietnamese rice, since the price gap would be narrower. However, the government must find a method to help farmers soon, since they would lose income.

Meanwhile, the Foreign Trade Department yesterday launched a new campaign to promote Thai jasmine rice during the Loy Kratong Festival.

Department director-general Rachane Potjanasuntorn said the department would work with the country's leading hotels nationwide to promote jasmine rice to tourists during the festival, which begins on November 5. The hotels will set up special booths to promote Thai jasmine rice on their menus, in order to create awareness among foreign tourists.

Petchanet Pratruangkrai

The Nation

You know guys, I am amazed that there are not more coup's in Thailand.

In a country who's Government can change policy seemingly on the turn of a coin or if the wind changes direction and with no measure in place to counteract the economic shortfall such absurdity creates for those who survive from working the rice fields.

Imagine a thai farmer who has worked all season on the assumption that the rice harvest price would remain unaltered as it has done for many moons only now to be told 3 weeks before the harvest comes in that he or she is to lose out.

Ok it might be only 1 baht or 1.3 baht a kilo but the margins for these farmers is not high. The farmers I know work hard to find the money to buy fertilizers to keep thier rice strong and healthy, most of them rely on others to help cut the rice and dry it. All of which comes out of their profits.

It is not so much the decrease in the form of the Government pledge but rather the calous disregard to give any subsedies or more importantly any warning to the millions of families who this is going to hurt.

How in the world can those in positions of power weild such a sword against thier own kind with no warning or measure of help in place. I am amazed that a government could show such disregard for its people. From what I have been told, these folks have had no reason to imagine anything would change from last year or the year before. Which begs the question who came up with this plan and when, surely giving 3 weeks notice before you cut the legs out from under these people is anti Thai?

Don't these idiot's have any brains? All they needed was to announce these changes now but for implementation in 12 months time to allow these people a chance at re-budgeting.

Again it seems those in power in Thailand have come up with an A1 plan to rape the most needy.

Pisses me off terribly.

Thoughts?

[Thaddeus]

Well, re-valuing the Baht to help exports would hurt the wealthy too

[chownah]

Most farmers know that until the gov't sets the price they can not be sure of what the price will be. Those who make unwarranted assumptions do so at their own risk. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the gov't's actions in this matter....I'm only saying that most farmers know that until the price is set thay can not be sure of what the price will be....the price you will receive for your crop is one of many uncertainties of farming.

Chownah

[Maizefarmer]

EDLEE - you raise good points - yes, the government has done little to help the farmers in Thailand -not only the current regime but those preceeding it - mainly rice farmers because it's the main cultivated crop, but low farmgate prices are across the board. Even Thaksin's "policies" amounted to little more than maintaining "subsistance" farming

Speaking for myself this is why I have never cultivated maize or other forage grasses to sell on the open market - but use it all on the farm to support my own livestock: the return from selling it as a farmgate product is simply to low.

But there is another side to - and just quite how responsible the government is I don't know. Take the rice crops for example. In Thailand they are half what they could be potentialy per unti area. Places like China and Vietnam are reapeaing crops that are 2 - 3 times as productive per unit area than the Thai paddies are.

And this inefficeiency in crop production per unit area is not restricted to rice. Maize is another example. The typical maize harvest in Thailand is 1/3 - 1/2 per unit area when compared to the USA. While I can't speak for rice, I do know that in the case of maize the discrepency is to a large extent because Thailand has a very restricted policy regards the use of GM seeds, whereas in the USA, GM seed is used extensively. In the case of rice, high production in Vietnam and China is down to the development of hybrid strains - which Thailand does permitt to be cultivated here. I have never understood why those hybrids are not cultivated here.

In any event, however you look at it - Thailand's ag industry is very inefficient. Thailand is a country which sits on a fence bewteen the 3rd world and the 1st world i.e. it has the potential to be firmly in the 1st world when it comes to production, but remains frimly in the 3rd world when looked at from an efficiency point of view.

Coupled with this is one other factor: its called free trade. In the dairy industry the problem manifests it's self throguh the amount of skimmed & dried dairy products that are produced in Europe by and industry that is heavily subsidised - the excess of which is dumped on the Asian market at prices which are below Thai production prices, let alone post production processing and transport costs. It never cease to amaze me how Netsle can import dry skimmed milk into Thailand and retail it at less cost than it costs Thai farmers to produce the milk from which the stuff is made.

It is a huge contradiction.

But that all said, it is interesting to note that the Thai ag indistry does survive without artificial government support. I don't know a European farm producing anything that would survive if it didn't receive continued and regular governemnt support.

Tim

[chuchok]

Coupled with this is one other factor: its called free trade. In the dairy industry the problem manifests it's self throguh the amount of skimmed & dried dairy products that are produced in Europe by and industry that is heavily subsidised - the excess of which is dumped on the Asian market at prices which are below Thai production prices, let alone post production processing and transport costs. It never cease to amaze me how Netsle can import dry skimmed milk into Thailand and retail it at less cost than it costs Thai farmers to produce the milk from which the stuff is made.

It is a huge contradiction.

But that all said, it is interesting to note that the Thai ag indistry does survive without artificial government support. I don't know a European farm producing anything that would survive if it didn't receive continued and regular governemnt support.

Tim

Another amazing thing is that NZ Dairy Products warrent quite a hard time from the EU .NZ can normally produce product a lot cheaper than the Europeans, after paying duties and shipping it there....and that's with no subsidies at all.

[chownah]

And this inefficeiency in crop production per unit area is not restricted to rice. Maize is another example. The typical maize harvest in Thailand is 1/3 - 1/2 per unit area when compared to the USA. While I can't speak for rice, I do know that in the case of maize the discrepency is to a large extent because Thailand has a very restricted policy regards the use of GM seeds, whereas in the USA, GM seed is used extensively. In the case of rice, high production in Vietnam and China is down to the development of hybrid strains - which Thailand does permitt to be cultivated here. I have never understood why those hybrids are not cultivated here.

I believe that you are mistaken in saying that rice production is in large part lower in Thailand than elsewhere because of the varieties of rice grown. Hybrid rice varieties are created in Thailand at agricultural research facilities. I don't know if they are the best in the world but it seems that hybrid rice is available and grown. There is alot of evidence that low yields of rice in Thailand are due to cultural practices, i.e. how the rice is grown. I have posted extensively on this topic in other threads and will not repeat it here.

As to GM corn...I'm not a corn farmer yet but you are implying that GM corn can double yields for the average farmer....is this what you are meaning to say or am I misunderstanding your post. I was under the impression that GM corn was mostly made to be herbicide resistent and that the genomic yield potenital was basically unchanged.

Chownah

[Maizefarmer]

Chownah

I was making a comparative statement, highlighting yields of hybrids in other places (e.g. Vietnam and China) versus yields in Thailand (hybrid or otherwise) – and that in general efficiency in Thailand was notably lower.

Yes – it most certainly is partly down to cultural practise, no question about it (I accept that), and in fact I think it would be fair to say that the whole of the Thai ag industry suffers inefficiency from cultural practises.

The statement was very much a broad statement about Thai rice harvests – which amongst other things, could be significantly improved with hybrid type (as well of course with cultural practise, and government aid, mechanisation), and IRRI makes that observation as well as the observation that cultural practise is significant role, although they don’t categorise one or the other as been more significant – and neither do I.

So quite why you felt you need to make a point about which aspect is more significant than the other I don’t quite see, other than I notice you are quick to make these little “corrections” whenever you get the chance – almost as if when someone comments on something you have written a lot about, you feel as if your toes are been stepped on.

As far as maize goes – “Roundup Ready” maize (a genetic addition, which for the benefit of all, has been introduced into all sorts of crops – including rice in the USA) yield improvements are min. Rather the production costs are reduced as the application of post emergence herbicide is cheaper than pre-emergence (“Roundup Ready” crops are resistant to the application of broad leaf herbicides).

But over and above that, genetic “modification” of maize to increase its height is returning maize growths that are 4 meters high with 5 plus ears/cobs per plant, whereas the best Dekalb Genetic maize seed in Thailand is reaching no more than 2.7meters with a max of 3 ears (more typically 2) per plant, which are some 25 -30% smaller in size – an overall yield that is (depending on local conditions) as much as double what Thailand is producing.

In summary, genetic, hybrid, cultural – or otherwise: Thai crop yields are far less than what they potentially could be, and so far as rice goes the best hybrids in use at the moment in Thailand are producing somewhere around 3 ton p/hectare, against an average of around 2.1 ton per/hectare. (figure quoted from International Rice Research Institute)

China is currently averaging 5.7 ton per hectare (figure quoted from International Rice Research Institute).

That same hybrid grown by KK Uni produced 4.9 ton p/hectare (figure quoted from International Rice Research Institute).

Back to the broad point I was making/asking: why is it that Thai ag production is so low?

Hybrid types? – most certainly yes. Well then, why don’t they change those practises – is it a reluctance to change or is it that for some or other reason they can’t?

Cultural practise? – most certainly yes. Well, ditto ditto…..

Tim

[the gent]

Inefficient farming, certainly in crop cultivation, could be rooted ( excuse the pun ) in land ownership which sees ever smaller plots of land being split up and parcelled out to surviving kin on the death or ' retirement ' of village landowners. How these strips of land could be anything other than subsistence fodder is difficult to envisage. In China and Vietnam the legacy of collectivism may well account for increased production ratios as compared to the Thai.

According to 2005 economic review, government figures revealed that nearly 48% of the recorded workforce was engaged in agriculture which contributed approx. 8% of the then GDP. Quite how many of that 48% were also engaged in construction and transport is anybody's guess but I should imagine the proportion was considerable. Presumably, if you derive income from hybrid sources as the Thai agrarian workforce do , then it is not unexpected that subsistence level farming remains attractive. The French have been doing it for years albeit at the cost of the EU taxpayer.

Musing on this I couldn't help but think that in failing to repay loans taken out by thousands during the reign of Thaksinomics the struggling Thai farmer will eventually lose land to the banks in such volume that the rise of the corporate agri-combines will be inevitable and not too long in coming.

Then we shall no doubt see increased efficiency but the bucolic charms of the Isaan village life may well evaporate forever.

[Maizefarmer]

The Gent - good points. Do we deduce from that communism is a sound agricultural policy!?

I did not know that 48% of the people contributed only 8% of the GDP - that must make the Minsitry of Money cringe when they read those figures.

Yup -subsitance farming is a mugs game, no question about it. I don't know how any of them crawl from one season to the other. Combines and large scale and comercial approaches will ultimately be the only way to keep ones head above the water.

What wil happen when those poor Isaan folk loose the shirt of their back - you danm right it happenes year in year out and next year is going to be one of thsoe years.

Tim

[chownah]

So quite why you felt you need to make a point about which aspect is more significant than the other I don’t quite see, other than I notice you are quick to make these little “corrections” whenever you get the chance – almost as if when someone comments on something you have written a lot about, you feel as if your toes are been stepped on.

Maizefarmer,

The portion of your post that I have recreated above is called a "flame". This paragraph of yours contains no information about the topic of this thread and its only purpose is to attack my character and to whine because of your need to feel like you know everything about farming and anyone who disagrees with you is a fool......flaming is not supposed to be allowed here....I hope you will stop flaming me.

In a couple of your earliest posts you claimed that it didn't bother you if people disagreed with you.....what has happened since then?....it seems that when I disagree with you your response is a fit of whining. Can you still honestly say that it doesn't bother you if I disagree with you? If so then stop whining about it. When you misrepresent the facts I don't whine about it and demean your character.......I respond with facts and opinions that are relevant to the topic at hand please grow up before it's too late.

This post of mine could be viewed as a flame and I am only posting it in an attempt to stop your attacks on my character.

Chownah

[chownah]

Maizefarmer,

What variety of GM maize are you referencing when you talk about taller plants and more ears? I want to check it out myself.

Chownah

[chuchok]

chow,don't be a baby.

[chownah]

I did not know that 48% of the people contributed only 8% of the GDP - that must make the Minsitry of Money cringe when they read those figures.

Tim

Maizefarmer,

Good point. Do we deduce from this that the reason for a farmer's existence is to contribute to the GDP?

Chownah

[chownah]

chow,don't be a baby.

Baby?.....who is getting spanked here......I don't feel like I'm getting spanked.....yet.

Chownah

P.S. Please note that I have been on topic or replying to issues raised by others in all of my posts. I'd just as soon be talking about farming but others have broadened the topic so I just follow along.

Chownah

Edited October 30, 2006 by chownah

[Ijustwannateach]

Guys, let's stay on-topic, please.

[Maizefarmer]

One thing I've always liked about this forum (other than it is a subject that suits me just fine) is that we are good at staying on track, and not veering off on some or other "political agenda".

Ijustwannateach is right on - lets stay on the subject.

..... and where we? inefficiencies in Thai farming was it?

Poor crop strains/hybrids when compared to our neighbours?

Poor cultural practises?

Not very good conditions to start with?

Poor pricies paid to farmers?

Poor logistics?

Free trade?

Lack of government support?

... overall a rather inefficient buisness one way or the other??

Tim

[the gent]

I did not know that 48% of the people contributed only 8% of the GDP - that must make the Minsitry of Money cringe when they read those figures.

Tim

Maizefarmer,

Good point. Do we deduce from this that the reason for a farmer's existence is to contribute to the GDP?

Chownah

Grief!!

My point was self evident, or so I thought but it seems to have had some philosophical meaning not originally intended.

For my own part, I am somewhat ambivalent on the subject as to the reasoning behind anyone's existence. In truth, I would at a push probably plump for the notion that existence does not require a reason, one simply just is and any belief in God is simply a bit of whimsy invented by frightened ignorants who cannot accept the reality that nothing matters very much and very little matters at all.

As regards my reference to GDP, well, I don't like it much either as a means of valuing worth but in the absence of any other guide it remains the universal economic indicator used on this planet.

[C-sip-degree]

One thing I've always liked about this forum (other than it is a subject that suits me just fine) is that we are good at staying on track, and not veering off on some or other "political agenda".

Ijustwannateach is right on - lets stay on the subject.

Poor crop strains/hybrids when compared to our neighbours?

Poor cultural practises?

Not very good conditions to start with?

Poor pricies paid to farmers?

Poor logistics?

Free trade?

Lack of government support?

... overall a rather inefficient buisness one way or the other??

Tim

Back on the subject ..... and where we? inefficiencies in Thai farming was it?

MF crack the whip why don't ya,

Poor crop strains, "I don't think so" If getting more water was a viable option don't you think the TF would, Hybrids sure only for the farmer's that have available water supply during the hot season.

Poor cultural practised? Name some please

Not very good conditions to start with? Sure this is the subject it goes from one extreme to the other super hot - super flooded. What can we do here then.

Poor prices paid to farmes, sure can this change.

Poor logistics, buisness wise or what, maybe your looking in the mirror here. So we will all give you a A+ and i'll post you a trumpet if you want.

Inefficient buisness, what keeping food on the table for there family and making enough to do it again next year.

Maybe your in a league of your own, if you are trying to help full credit to you.

IF you feel that you can out work a rice farmer let us know, as for me I have the utmost respect for how hard they work with all of the above conditions.

regards

Matt

[RamdomChances]

I've got no problems if you guys want to branch this out into more general areas of the efficency of rice farming in Thailand...........you don't have to agree with each other but keep it nice and flame free. I'll just delete/edit anything thats not

[chownah]

C-sip-degree,

As to the poor cultural practices...if you'd like to learn about some go to the link below and read through it...its not too long and I made a few posts that talks about several cultural practices that if changed could (probably) make a big difference in crop yields in Thailand.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=86307

Chownah

[Maizefarmer]

One thing I've always liked about this forum (other than it is a subject that suits me just fine) is that we are good at staying on track, and not veering off on some or other "political agenda".

Ijustwannateach is right on - lets stay on the subject.

Poor crop strains/hybrids when compared to our neighbours?

Poor cultural practises?

Not very good conditions to start with?

Poor pricies paid to farmers?

Poor logistics?

Free trade?

Lack of government support?

... overall a rather inefficient buisness one way or the other??

Tim

Back on the subject ..... and where we? inefficiencies in Thai farming was it?

MF crack the whip why don't ya,

Poor crop strains, "I don't think so" If getting more water was a viable option don't you think the TF would, Hybrids sure only for the farmer's that have available water supply during the hot season.

Poor cultural practised? Name some please

Not very good conditions to start with? Sure this is the subject it goes from one extreme to the other super hot - super flooded. What can we do here then.

Poor prices paid to farmes, sure can this change.

Poor logistics, buisness wise or what, maybe your looking in the mirror here. So we will all give you a A+ and i'll post you a trumpet if you want.

Inefficient buisness, what keeping food on the table for there family and making enough to do it again next year.

Maybe your in a league of your own, if you are trying to help full credit to you.

IF you feel that you can out work a rice farmer let us know, as for me I have the utmost respect for how hard they work with all of the above conditions.

regards

Matt

Poor Cultural practises - it was actually Chownah who emphasized this point as a primary factor in the overal inefficency of Thai rice farms - so your question is best addressed to him I think.

But I will higlight one cutural carry-over if that is way to describe it. It is the size of the avearge Thai rice paddy versus the size of rice paddies elseweher in Asia. In Thailand the cultural practise has been for each farmer to work his land dependantly form those around him. Further reducing the size of the average Thai rice farm, is the fact that children of the farmer would in turn get a slcie of dad's rice farm when they grew up. This practise further reduced the saize of the farm, and introduced additonal people into the equation - not all of whom adopted the same farming farming practise(s).

Buy contrast, places like Vietname and China have NOT practised rice farming like this. They have operated as collectives and combines.

The main differance here is scale of economy, buying power (and selling power). The fact is that the larger a farm is, the better the scales of economy are and the more profitable that farm is.

That is proberbly the most significant cultural practise differance between Thailand and Vietname and/or China, but I am sure there are others as well.

AS far as water goes - yes, you raise a valid point, but not in the context that I understand you wish to use it in your argument. For example if you wish me to put a name to some of the hybrids I used in illustrating making my point, I will do so. How or why is that of any relivance? Well, per unit area (which is a point I made in what I stated) it can be seen that water is not an issue. Further more it is also a fact that the growing cycle of many of these high perforamce hybrids is littl different to the amount of time taken to grow rice in Thailand i.e for the given period of time required sufficient water was/is avalible.

As for thinking I can out work a Thai farmer - I wouldn't even try to. They work there butts off day in day out. Your final paragraph suggests you feel I was critisizing Thai rice farmers. Not at all, and I can't understand why you felt that.

I raised some questions in respect of the inefficiencies in Thai rice farming - and it is inefficient. How ever you look at the subject Thai rice yields per unti area are les sthan half of what they could be - and that is not my exclusive opinion, it is also the opinion of the UN, and more importantly it is also the opinion of the IRRI (International Rice Research Institute) - who have conclude that Thailand's rice production is just above 1/3 of what it potentially could be per unti area of cultivated rice.

They also highlight many of the factors that contirbute towards that inefficiency - some of them been: water, cultural practise, hybrid types (for which Thailand does not have the IP rights to grow i.e. it could be grown but China has not been willing to release the intellectual property rights to Thaialnd to permitt icultivationa here - amongst other factors), mechanisation levels, supporting infrastructure and logistics.

These were not consideration soff the top of my head - these are documented facts which I touched on int he hope that as the subject had so often been discussed in the past on this forum in detail (and all credit to Chownah - because he has been the prime mover on that subject), in the hope that it could be used to further the discussion.

I stand by what I said, and the documented evideance is pretty much in line with the points I raised.

Tim

Edited October 31, 2006 by Maizefarmer

[pnustedt]

I missed this topic as I've been harvesting rice all week!

We knew over a month ago that the government would be buying less rice this year and that the prices would be lower.

In my opinion one reason why yields are lower, in Isaan anyway, is because the fields are left year after year without replanting. It is a real pleasure when you get to harvest a fresh paddy where the yields are higher and cleaner.

We have problems getting enough people for replanting and mechanisation in this area is almost non existent. There has been little investment in agriculture in Thailand and I think that this a conscious policy. I quote speaches from His Majesty The King:

On Appropriate Technology, October 18, 1975

"Heavy development of advanced and more efficient machinery creates joblessness because people are robbed of their jobs by machines. . . Therefore we should think of tools and plans that are easy and practical, making the most of the energy and other resources available in our country. Such plans may not look glamorous or modern and give not as much in terms of yield, yet the produce obtained would be enough for consumption. More than that, most people will have jobs and be able to earn the decent living they wish for."

On October 18, 1980

"The majority of our people earn their living from agriculture and labour. Employing large-scale technology in these major fields will cause problems, such as excessive investment and serious unemployment."

With these sorts of policies lower yields must be anticipated.

[chownah]

pnustedt,

You have mentioned twice now your belief that leaving land fallow reduces yields. I have not read much about the effect of leaving land fallow but it seems to me that in many circumstances it is recommended to leave land fallow to increase yields. I'm not saying I disagree with you because I really don't know but I don't know of any mechanism that would cause lower yields if land is not cultivated and I can think of mechanisms that would cause higher yields. Do you have some links to information talking about leaving land fallow produces lower yields?

Also, I agree whole heartedly with H.M. the King's ideas about appropriate use of machinery in agriculture. The increased yields that might be achievable with large equipment would not really make much of a difference in the income of small land holders and most lease farmers but it would deprive alot of them of thier livelihood as it would tend to aggregate the small plots into bigger ones and effectively force the small farmer out of a job. When small farmers produce enough for their needs and have a part time job to supplement their income (an arrangement which is what the vast majority of farmers around where I live have) then thier quality of life is good and they prefer this life to the slave wage existence which is the alternative. Frankly I prefer it too.

Chownah

Edited November 4, 2006 by chownah

[Maizefarmer]

Pnustedt

You observation is that the land is sitting unused,– why is that:

a) because the yields are so low as to make it not worth farming that land.

because the price is so low as to make it worth planting

c) because the labour is not there to farm the land

d) because water is insufficient

A, B and C are all calculations which are very much related to the cost of planting versus what will be returned at harvest time.

It would strike me that a combination of higher yield hybrid and mechnisation could turn and otherwise loss scenario into a profitable venture.

What effect does it have on a paddy if it is left year after year without replanting (do you mean they farmers are repeatedly trying to reap a crop from an old planting, or is it a case of the paddy just been left fallow for long periods of time?). I too can’t understand this.

If labour was in short supply, would mechanisation not address that problem - even if the rice price was low I would have thought that mechanised planting and harvesting would overcome the problem?

How long can harvested/processed rice be stored for? i.e. okay, the government doesn’t purchase it all this year, is it still not worth growing a crop and then storing it for some time later when it can or will be purchased? That would appear to me to be the ideal time to mechanise the process.

Yes – you are quite right when you say that there has been little investment in the ag industry in Thailand – the result is it has become very inefficient (however you look at it) and not only rice – the dairy industry too is a laugh by & large. To give you an idea of just how inefficient it is you just have to look at the ag industry contribution to GDP. It is 6%. Okay, so what many may say, the problem is, is that this 6% of the GDP is generated by 48% of the population!! – and therein lies the problem.

Now then – keeping the above in mind, or choosing to ignore it (which way you may wish to consider it – while His Majesty’s comments are quite valid in their own place, I can’t see how they make any sense where you have land just sitting doing nothing.

[chownah]

The gov't could do alot to help small farmers by simply running the irrigation projects which already exist in an efficient manner. If farmers could predict how much water they would get and when they would get it they could use irrigation practices that would boost yields. If water was distributed fairly then it would stop the practice of those at the head of the canal wasting water wantonly while those at the tail end of the canal lose yield for lack of water. There is alot that the gov't could do to help the small farmer but frankly the only politician that has shown much interest in helping rural poor people is not allowed in the country at the moment....I'm not especially hoping for a repeat of the past few years....I am just trying to point out what a low priority helping the small farmers has been.

I have no interest in seeing industrial agriculture take over the bulk of the land area in Thailand. It mostly benefits the rich and the fact is that the majority of people around the world who inhabit urban slums are displaced rural farmers. So far Thailand has to a large extent avoided this. Large scale mechanization may seem like a good thing...boost the GDP, be more efficient, frees up manhours for....for....for what?...for slaving away in rathole slums? So far this has mostly been avoided and it seems that H.M. the King is promoting policies that will (if followed) help to avoid its occurance in the future. For me the debate here should be framed as "what would be best for the lifestyle of the rural poor?" while others might want to frame the debate as "what will increase the GDP the most and increase wages?".

Chownah

Edited November 4, 2006 by chownah

[pnustedt]

pnustedt,

You have mentioned twice now your belief that leaving land fallow reduces yields.

I am not saying that the land is left fallow as such - the rice grows each year even though nothing is done to the land, but without replanting, each year the land is left to look after itself the crop yield is lower and less efficient to harvest.

Rice can be stored for quite a long time, prices usually rise in the following summer, and we usually hold on to our rice until then.

Edited November 4, 2006 by pnustedt

[chownah]

pnustedt,

You have mentioned twice now your belief that leaving land fallow reduces yields.

I am not saying that the land is left fallow as such - the rice grows each year even though nothing is done to the land, but without replanting, each year the land is left to look after itself the crop yield is lower and less efficient to harvest.

Rice can be stored for quite a long time, prices usually rise in the following summer, and we usually hold on to our rice until then.

I'm not sure but it sounds like you are saying that in some fields when they don't plant rice in a particular rice season then some rice grows on its own but it does not yield much. Is this correct?

In classifying rice plants they are refered to as "annuals". This means that the plant lives for one season, makes its seed, and dies. In a natural environment the death of the plant after making seed is inevitable and unavoidable. If rice plants are growing in a field without a farmer planting seed then it must be from seed that was dropped (whether intentional or accidental) from a previous growth of rice. This happens in rice fields somewhat but it is usually just a scattered smattering of plants...nothing that would be recognized as a "crop". If enough rice was dropped so that a field grows a stand of rice the next year that is harvested as a crop then either this is a new type of rice culture (which according to what I have read would be a ridiculously ineffeicient waste of acreage) that I have never heard of or else the harvesters have dropped way to much rice either through carelessness or waiting too long before harvest so the bundles of rice seed become brittle and break when handled so the rice seed falls out.

Since you are in Isaan and I'm in the north then maybe this phenomena is simply something I've never seen before. Can you ask a farmer who harvests this unplanted crop of rice about it....was the rice accidentally dropped or was it intentionally left on the ground? Also ask why the land wasn't plowed and planted the usual way? Also can you ask what the yield in kg per rai was for this small crop? It almost sounds to me like a farmer tried direct seeding the rice into the field instead of transplanting seedlings and had a crop failure for some reason or other and just harvested the sparse crop anyway.

Chownah

[pnustedt]

Can you ask a farmer who harvests this unplanted crop of rice about it....was the rice accidentally dropped or was it intentionally left on the ground? Also ask why the land wasn't plowed and planted the usual way? Also can you ask what the yield in kg per rai was for this small crop? It almost sounds to me like a farmer tried direct seeding the rice into the field instead of transplanting seedlings and had a crop failure for some reason or other and just harvested the sparse crop anyway.

Chownah

I've just been harvesting a field which was not ploughed for a couple of years. I can't give precise figures but the crop is weaker and more difficult to harvest than a new field. It is quite normal in Isaan to leave fields like this. There is always rice seed dropped prior to and during harvest which germinates for next years' crop.

Such fields are not ploughed or replanted for expediency.

We are now investing in equipment which will make this process easier but a large number of the fields are left in this way.

[chownah]

Can you ask a farmer who harvests this unplanted crop of rice about it....was the rice accidentally dropped or was it intentionally left on the ground? Also ask why the land wasn't plowed and planted the usual way? Also can you ask what the yield in kg per rai was for this small crop? It almost sounds to me like a farmer tried direct seeding the rice into the field instead of transplanting seedlings and had a crop failure for some reason or other and just harvested the sparse crop anyway.

Chownah

I've just been harvesting a field which was not ploughed for a couple of years. I can't give precise figures but the crop is weaker and more difficult to harvest than a new field. It is quite normal in Isaan to leave fields like this. There is always rice seed dropped prior to and during harvest which germinates for next years' crop.

Such fields are not ploughed or replanted for expediency.

We are now investing in equipment which will make this process easier but a large number of the fields are left in this way.

I'm surprised at this. Is seed dropped intentionally....sort of scattered? In our manual harvest techinque we would never accidentally drop enough seed to plant a crop for the following year.

Has anyone else seen this type of cultivation? Maybe it is peculiar only to certain lazy landowners in pnustedt's neighborhood....

Chownah

[Maizefarmer]

The gov't could do alot to help small farmers by simply running the irrigation projects which already exist in an efficient manner. If farmers could predict how much water they would get and when they would get it they could use irrigation practices that would boost yields. If water was distributed fairly then it would stop the practice of those at the head of the canal wasting water wantonly while those at the tail end of the canal lose yield for lack of water. There is alot that the gov't could do to help the small farmer but frankly the only politician that has shown much interest in helping rural poor people is not allowed in the country at the moment....I'm not especially hoping for a repeat of the past few years....I am just trying to point out what a low priority helping the small farmers has been.

I have no interest in seeing industrial agriculture take over the bulk of the land area in Thailand. It mostly benefits the rich and the fact is that the majority of people around the world who inhabit urban slums are displaced rural farmers. So far Thailand has to a large extent avoided this. Large scale mechanization may seem like a good thing...boost the GDP, be more efficient, frees up manhours for....for....for what?...for slaving away in rathole slums? So far this has mostly been avoided and it seems that H.M. the King is promoting policies that will (if followed) help to avoid its occurance in the future. For me the debate here should be framed as "what would be best for the lifestyle of the rural poor?" while others might want to frame the debate as "what will increase the GDP the most and increase wages?".

Chownah

Yes - slums do consist of large groups of 1st & 2nd generation "displaced" rural people, but the reasons for their displacement are as varied as the countries in which that displacement takes place.

In most cases where the trend from rural to urban environments is taking place it is because of the collapse in crop prices. This is a universal problem.

The next biggest reason is climatic (global warming) – and interestingly, this imay well be changing from an occasional occurrence to a “trend”.

The next biggest reason – large scale “development” e.g. the 3 Gorges dam in China – and we can argue all night the pro’s & cons’s of the kind of rural displacement.

While you correctly note that, whatever the reason, rural displacement has largely been avoided in Thailand (and quite rightly so in my opinion as well), where mechanisation has occurred in Thailand, it has been almost always beneficial.

In reality, mechanisation and improvements in farming account for little loss in farming jobs/employment, and in those cases in which mechanisation is the primary cause for loss of rural jobs, it needs to be looked at in its correct context and is not always a bad thing

Take the rice industry in Thailand as an example.

In contrast to what you suggest Chownah, Thai farmers’ welcome the opportunity to “mechanise”.

Why?

Because historically rice farmers have had to rely on “free” family labour, which could otherwise be freed to seek gainful/paid employment elsewhere, contributing to the family income – an income which is more and more restricted not because of mechanisation, but because it is low yielding, and labour intensive.

Mechanisation by it’s self is not in my opinion a bad thing. It offers tremendous economic benefits. To use the words in your own argument, i.e. “what would be best for the lifestyle of the rural poor?” such mechanisation as described above is an example of just that: it has the potential to improve the lifestyle of the rural poor.

Where it does become negative, feeding the bad aspects you highlight, are when it is used in conjunction with forced removal of farmer’s from their land,

Yes, there have been a few cases of that in Thailand, notably the building of the Choan Dam, and in Burma, the building of the Salween dam (by a Thai company ironically!).

These are in any event note examples of farming development/mechanisation, but examples of development to keep up with the regional development – another subject.

I see little evidence of “mechanisation” having impacted negatively on Thailand’s agricultural industry, but I can envisage and picture many examples where it has the potential to contribute to and support rural Thai incomes – and it is in this field (excuse pun) that the government to date has failed it’s rural communities utterly and completely. I am also a little suspect about the long term sustainability of Thaksin’s rural policies. They were very “selective” and were motivated only by short term poltical policies – policies which overall have been thrown out with him. Still, it can be argued they were better than nothing.

There remains a need for this country to boost ag industry productivity. Mechanisation, as can be seen, need not have a negative impact on rural lifestyles. Rather it can be used to support rural lifestyles.

Tim