Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:09:13.935Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

WHAT DETERMINE SMALLHOLDERS’ FERTILIZATION PRACTICES DURING THE MATURE PERIOD OF RUBBER PLANTATIONS IN THAILAND?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2017

BÉNÉDICTE CHAMBON ,
XUAN LAI DAO ,
URAIWAN TONGKAEMKAEW  and
FRÉDÉRIC GAY
BÉNÉDICTE CHAMBON*
Affiliation:
CIRAD, UPR Systèmes de pérennes, F-34398 Montpellier, France CIRAD, UPR Systèmes de pérennes, HRPP, Kasetsart University, 10900 Bangkok, Thailand
XUAN LAI DAO
Affiliation:
Montpellier SupAgro Warm Region Institute (IRC), F-34398 Montpellier, France
URAIWAN TONGKAEMKAEW
Affiliation:
Faculty of Technology and Community Development, Thaksin University, 93110 Phatthalung, Thailand
FRÉDÉRIC GAY
Affiliation:
CIRAD, UMR ECO&SOLS, F-34398 Montpellier, France
*
‡‡Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Fertilization of rubber plantations has been poorly documented despite the huge economic and ecological impact of this tropical perennial crop, especially in Southeast Asia. The main objective of this paper is to provide information on the fertilization practices of rubber smallholders in Thailand and to investigate the drivers of these practices. Data were sourced from individual interviews conducted with 414 rubber smallholders. The results showed that 99.4% of the mature rubber plantations were fertilized with either chemical or organic fertilizers, or both. The average dose of chemical fertilizers was 105/53/92 kg ha−1 of N/P/K that is consistent with the national recommendations. We estimated that almost two-thirds of the plantations had intensive or very intensive fertilization practices. Geographical location, especially the distinction between historical and new rubber-producing areas, appeared as a major factor explaining differences in fertilization practices. Several drivers commonly found in the literature did not affect the fertilization practices of the rubber farmers, highlighting some specificity of perennial crops and a context where access to fertilizer was not an issue. The high economic and environmental costs of intensive fertilization practices, while their benefit to the yield of rubber plantations continues to be debated, show the need to conduct research on sustainable fertilization practices in rubber smallholdings.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 54 , Issue 6 , December 2018 , pp. 824 - 841
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Akpan, S. B., Nkanta, V. S. and Essien, U. A. (2012). A double-hurdle model of fertilizer adoption and optimum use among farmers in Southern Nigeria. Tropicultura 30 (4):249–253.Google Scholar
Ariga, J. and Jayne, T.S. (2011). Fertilizer in Kenya: Factors driving the increase in usage by smallholder farmers. In Yes Africa Can. Success Stories from a Dynamic Continent, 269–288 (Eds Chuhan-Pole, P. and Angwafo, ). Washington, DC, USA: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank.Google Scholar
Besson, I. (2002). The Development of Rubber Cultivation in Peninsular Thailand: Synthesis of the Original Characters of Natural Rubber Production From the Study of Agrarian Dynamics of a Malay Village in the Deep South Pattani Province (in French). Ph.D. diss., Institute National Agronomique Paris-Grignon, Paris, France.Google Scholar
FAO (2015). World Fertilizer Trends and Outlook to 2018. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Fox, J. and Castella, J. C. (2013). Expansion of rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) in Mainland Southeast Asia: What are the prospects for smallholders?. The Journal of Peasant Studies 40 (1):155–170.Google Scholar
Fufa, B. and Hassan, R. M. (2006). Determinants of fertilizer use on maize in Eastern Ethiopia: A weighted endogenous sampling analysis of the extent and intensity of adoption. Agrekon, 45 (1):38–49.Google Scholar
Gohet, E., Saaban, I., Soumahoro, M., Uche, E., Soumahoro, B. and Cauchy, T. (2013). Sustainable rubber production through good latex harvesting practices: An update on mature rubber fertilization effects on latex cell biochemistry and rubber yield potential. In Proceedings of International Rubber Research and Development Board workshop on Latex Harvesting Technology, Rubber Research Institute of Vietnam, 19–22 November 2013, Ho Chi Minh city, Binh Duong, Vietnam.Google Scholar
Kangpichadan, N. (2009). Recommendation for rubber fertilizer. Bangkok, Thailand: Rubber Research Institute, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.Google Scholar
Karthikakuttyamma, M., Mercykutty, J. and Sasidharan Nair, A. N. (2000). Soils and nutrition. In Natural Rubber: Agromanagement and Processing, 170–198 (Eds , P. J. George, and , C. K. Jacob, ). Kottayam, India: Rubber Research Institute of India.Google Scholar
Martey, E., Wiredu, A. N., Etwire, P. M., Fosu, M., Buah, S. S. J., Bidzakin, J., Ahiabor, B. D. K. and Kusi, F. (2014). Fertilizer adoption and use intensity among smallholder farmers in Northern Ghana: A case study of AGRA soil health project. Sustainable Agriculture Research 3 (1):24–36.Google Scholar
Minot, N., Kherallah, M. and Berry, P. (2000). Fertilizer market reform and the determinants of fertilizer use in Benin and Malawi. MSSD discussion paper No. 40, Markets and Structural Studies Division, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Nkamleu, G. B. and Adesina, A. A. (2000). Determinants of chemical input use in peri-urban lowland systems: Bivariate probit analysis in Cameroon. Agricultural Systems, 63:111–121.Google Scholar
NSO (2013). Advanced report 2013 agricultural census. National Statistical Office, Ministry of Information and Communication Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.Google Scholar
Nualkaew, H., Poonpakdee, C., Kaewmano, C. and Onthong, J. (2013). Fertilizer usage and soil management approach of rubber plantation in lowland and upland areas in Songkhla province. Journal of Yala Rajabhat University, 8 (2):147–159.Google Scholar
OAE (2015). Office of Agricultural Economic website. http://www.oae.go.th/.Google Scholar
Olayide, O. E., Alene, A. D. and Ikpi, A. (2009). Determinants of fertilizer use in Northern Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences 6 (2):91–98.Google Scholar
Rajsic, P. and Weersink, A. (2008). Do farmers waste fertilizer? A comparison of ex post optimal nitrogen rates and ex ante recommendations by model, site and year. Agricultural Systems 97:56–67.Google Scholar
Sherin, G. and Phebe, J. (2011). Natural rubber plantation: a nutritionally self-sustaining ecosystem. Natural Rubber Research 24 (2):197–202.Google Scholar
Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A, Naylor, R. and Polasky, S. (2002). Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671–677.Google Scholar
Viswanathan, P. K. (2008). Emerging smallholder rubber farming systems in India and Thailand: A comparative economic analysis. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development 5 (2):1–20.Google Scholar
Wanyama, J. M, Mose, L. O., Rono, S. C., Masinde, A. A. O. and Kariuki, N. (2010). Determinants of fertilizer use and soil erosion control measures in maize based production system in greater Trans Nzoia disctrict, Kenya. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 5 (5), 425–434.Google Scholar
Watson, G. A. (1989). Nutrition. In Rubber, 291–348 (Eds Webster, C. C. and Baulkwill, W. J.). Harlow, UK: Longman Scientific and Technical.Google Scholar
Wimalagunasekara, T. U., Edirisinghe, J. C. and Wijesuriya, W. (2012). Neighbours’ influence on farmer adoption of fertilizer recommendations in rubber cultivation. Journal of Rubber Research 15 (3):179–186.Google Scholar
Wiredu, A. N., Zeller, M. and Diagne, A. (2015). What determines adoption of fertilizers among rice-producing households in Northern Ghana?. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 54 (3):263–283.Google Scholar
Zhou, Y., Yang, H., Mosler, H. J. and Abbaspour, K. C. (2010). Factors affecting farmers’ decisions on fertilizer use: a case study for the Chaobai watershed in Northern China. Consilience: The Journal of Sustainable Development 3 (1):80–102.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Image

Chambon supplementary material S1

Supplementary Figure

Download Chambon supplementary material S1(Image)
Image 184.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Chambon supplementary material S2

Supplementary Table

Download Chambon supplementary material S2(File)
File 15 KB
Supplementary material: File

Chambon supplementary material S3

Supplementary Table

Download Chambon supplementary material S3(File)
File 15.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Chambon supplementary material S4

Supplementary Table

Download Chambon supplementary material S4(File)
File 18.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Chambon supplementary material S5

Supplementary Table

Download Chambon supplementary material S5(File)
File 15.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Chambon supplementary material S6

Supplementary Table

Download Chambon supplementary material S6(File)
File 16.6 KB