RSS | Register/註冊 | Log in/登入
Site search:
Home>FFTC Document Database>Extension Bulletins>Economics of Balanced Fertilization in Irrigated Rice Farms
facebook分享
Economics of Balanced Fertilization in Irrigated Rice Farms
Rogelio N. Concepcion, Perfecto P. Evangelista & Edna D. Samar
Bureau of Soils and Water Management, Diliman,
Quezon City, Philippines, 1999-07-01

Abstract

More than 100 half-hectare on-farm demonstration sites in the Philippines were planted in irrigated rice during the first and second cropping seasons of crop year 1997-98. A cost-and-return analysis was done for rice farms adopting balanced fertilization, and farms following conventional practices. A comparative analysis was done to determine the economic impact of balanced fertilization technology. The analysis revealed that balanced fertilization was economically viable in each of the five identified fertilizer groups. This technology makes a positive contribution from the viewpoint of the farmers, the community and the economy as a whole.

Abstracts in Other Languages: 中文(1288), 日本語(1258), 한국어(1458)

Introduction

In 1997, the government of the Philippines began the balanced fertilization strategy (BFS). This is a three-year project which aims at providing location-specific fertilizer recommendations, in order to reduce the effects of variations in soil and climatic conditions in various rice producing regions of the Philippines.

Balanced fertilization refers to the optimum use of organic and inorganic fertilizers, at the proper grade and in the proper amounts to supply the correct ratio of plant nutrients, and to ensure that the soil will sustain high crop yields over long cropping periods. Balanced fertilization strategy is primarily designed to supplement limiting nutrients (Govit and Kaore 1997 in Concepcion et al. 1998). Deficiency of any nutrient will impair the crop uptake and utilization of any other nutrient (Balasubramanian 1996 in Concepcion et al. 1998). Balasubramanian futher stated that timely correction of deficiencies of all nutrients is vital to sustain high crop yields and that this can be solved by adopting balanced fertilization through integrated nutrient management, through the judicious and combined use of all nutrient sources. Oluf et al. 1996 in Concepcion et al. 1998, further advised that fertilizer use and management are not limited to having a balanced fertilizer nutrient ratio but likewise, the needs and removals of plant nutrients must be given due consideration. It must not be taken as application of only major soil nutrients but likewise micro-nutrients such as zinc and sulfur and other limiting essential nutrients, depending on soil nutrient status and crop requirements.

The various soils devoted to irrigated rice were classified into five soil fertilizer groups. Each of these fertilizer groups had an initial balanced fertilizer recommendation for rice, as prepared for the rice-growing areas of the Philippines (Concepcion 1997). The results from various demonstration sites during the initial two cropping seasons led to changes in these fertilizer recommendations. To date, there are now seven soil fertilizer group (Concepcion et al. 1998).

The BFS fertilizer recommendations promote the combined usage of both organic and inorganic fertilizers. Organic fertilizers include both commercial products, and locally available farm manure, compost etc. The BFS demonstration sites tend to utilize commercial organic fertilizers, because they are considered more practical (see BSWM 1997).

The BFS was initially implemented on more than 100 demonstration sites, each about 0.5 ha in size. For a more detailed discussion of these demonstration sites, see Concepcion et al. (1998). The promising results from these demonstrations led to the implementation of this technology on compact farms of 10 and then 20 hectares. From the agronomic standpoint, balanced fertilization was promising. Further evaluation was necessary to evaluate its economic impact. This economic evaluation is the basis of this paper.

The Demonstration Sites

A total of 141 demonstration sites were planted in irrigated rice in the first cropping season of the crop year 1997-98, and 131 sites in the second cropping season. An economic survey was carried out, which covered both the demonstration sites and the adjacent farms representing farmers' current practices.

A cost and return analysis of the two groups (BFS and conventional) was done. A comparative analysis of these two groups in each of the five fertilizer groups was also carried out, to determine the economic impact of balanced fertilization. The economic contribution of this approach at the farm, community and national level was evaluated.

Agronomic and Economic Impact of BFS

A. Farm Level

The agronomic results of irrigated rice production in five fertilizer groups were classified into three categories, namely: low, medium and high yield. The results are presented in Table 1(1178) and Table 2(1332). The average national data for each fertilizer group was used in this study, as the basis for economic evaluation of the impact of balanced fertilization.

The yield data in Table 3(1345) shows that on average, the balanced fertilization strategy gave yields of at least 5 to 6 mt/ha on demonstration sites in each of the five fertilizer groups. This represents an additional yield of about 0.39 to 1.47 mt/ha, compared to conventional practices. On an annual basis, the new technology generated an extra yield ranging from 1.22 mt/ha in fertilizer group 5 to 2.47 mt/ha in fertilizer group 4. In value terms, it contributed US$231 (group 5) to US$487 (group 4) per hectare per year ( Table 4(1166)).

Farmers adopting BFS required an additional investment ranging from about US$22 ha/year in fertilizer group 3 and US$189ha/year in group 4 ( Table 5(1220)). In the case of fertilizer group 3, a lower investment was needed during the first cropping season.

Fertilizer usage on both BFS sites and conventional farms in the five fertilizer groups is summarized in Table 6(1218). The equivalent cost of these fertilizers is presented in Table 7(1466).

The additional capital requirements needed for BFS were recouped, since farmers realized an additional gain of US$135/ha in fertilizer group 5, and as much as US$335/ha in fertilizer group 3 ( Table 8(1262)). In terms of net profits, the BFS farmers made substantial earnings from extra yields, despite the higher costs.

Translated into net cost-benefit ratio, BFS technology ranged from a break-even result in the case of fertilizer group 5, to an additional US$0.30 profit per dollar investment in fertilizer group 3. However, a net loss of US$0.03 per dollar investment in fertilizer group 4 was noted ( Table 9(1342)).

B. The Community

Farming communities from the demonstration sites realized aggregate additional farm earnings of US$19,398, from the additional yield of about 118 mt of unpolished rice. The urban community benefited from the extra rice supply, which provided enough for a year consumption of about 746 persons.

C. The National Economy

The BFS demonstration sites covered a total area of 136 ha, which together contributed US$24,335 worth of rice. While the farming community retained the option to prepare their own organic fertilizer on their own farms, most farmers preferred to buy commercial organic fertilizers. The BFS technology led to additional sales of about US$1,039 worth of commercial organic fertilizers.

Conclusion

The BFS demonstration project proved to be economically viable on sites only 0.5 hectare in size. It provided substantial benefits from the standpoint of the farmer, the community and the economy as a whole. The total area of 136 ha of BFS demonstration sites provided an average additional rice supply of 0.87 mt/ha/season from each site, enough to meet the annual consumption needs of five persons. It increased profits by an average of US$179ha/season, 79% of which went to the farmers themselves.

On a per site basis, the BFS technology brought the greatest benefit to fertilizer group 4, in terms of the rice yield and its equivalent monetary value. However, there is a declining net benefit per dollar investment in fertilizer group 4. This need not be discouraging, if we look further into the initial environmental results of the BFS technology. A comparison of the changes in the soil organic matter content before and during the BFS implementation in the first cropping season of 1997-98 showed considerable improvement in OM content in all the soil fertilizer groups (see Concepcion et al. 1998). Table 10(1427) shows the increase of organic matter content over time in some sites.

Further evaluation of BFS on larger farms of 10 and 20 ha is needed, to determine the economies of scale in implementing this project. In addition, the environmental impact of the BFS technology requires further study.

References

  • Bureau of Soils and Water Management. 1997. Economics of balanced fertilization. Paper presented at the National Consultation on Balanced Fertilization in April 21, 22 and 23, held at Kabacan, Cotabato, Cebu City and Philrice, Nueva Ecija, Philippines, respectively. (Unpublished mimeo).
  • Concepcion, R.N. 1997. The Eight Basic Facts from Gintong Ani Balanced Fertilization Program. Paper presented at the National Consultation in Balanced Fertilization. April 21 to 23, 1997, Cebu City, Philippines. (Unpublished mimeo).
  • Concepcion, R.N., Evangelista, P.P., Hernandez, L.G., Santos, I.E. and Palis, M.J. 1998. Balanced Fertilization Strategy: Reformulating National Fertilizer Recommendation for Rice. Paper presented during the 10 th DA-BAR National Research Symposium - Soils and Water Category held at BSWM, Quezon City, Philippines on September 17-18, 1998 (Unpublished mimeo).
  • Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils and Water Management. 1997. General Protocol on Balanced Fertilization Strategy Technology Demonstration Project. Project Document on Gintong Ani Program. Quezon City, Philippines. (Unpublished mimeo).

Index of Images

Table 1 Nationwide Results of Balanced Fertilization Strategy (BFS) in Irrigated Rice by Yield Category and by Fertilizer Group, 1ST Crop, 1997-98

Table 1 Nationwide Results of Balanced Fertilization Strategy (BFS) in Irrigated Rice by Yield Category and by Fertilizer Group, 1ST Crop, 1997-98

Table 2 Nationwide Results of Balanced Fertilization Strategy (BFS) in Irrigated Rice by Yield Category and by Fertilizer Group, 2ND Crop, 1997-98

Table 2 Nationwide Results of Balanced Fertilization Strategy (BFS) in Irrigated Rice by Yield Category and by Fertilizer Group, 2ND Crop, 1997-98

Table 3 Comparative Yield of Irrigated Rice Production on Demonstration and Conventional Farms by Cropping Season and by Fertilizer Group, 1997-98

Table 3 Comparative Yield of Irrigated Rice Production on Demonstration and Conventional Farms by Cropping Season and by Fertilizer Group, 1997-98

Table 4 Comparative Gross Crop Income from Irrigated Rice Production on BFS Demonstration Sites and Conventional Farms by Cropping Season and by Fertilizer Group, 1997-98

Table 4 Comparative Gross Crop Income from Irrigated Rice Production on BFS Demonstration Sites and Conventional Farms by Cropping Season and by Fertilizer Group, 1997-98

Table 5 Comparative Production Cost of Irrigated Rice Production on BFS Demonstration Sites and Conventional Farms by Cropping Season and by Fertilizer Group, 1997-98

Table 5 Comparative Production Cost of Irrigated Rice Production on BFS Demonstration Sites and Conventional Farms by Cropping Season and by Fertilizer Group, 1997-98

Table 6 Fertilizer Usage on BFS and Conventional Farms by Fertilizer Group, First Crop, 1997-98

Table 6 Fertilizer Usage on BFS and Conventional Farms by Fertilizer Group, First Crop, 1997-98

Table 7 Average Production Costs (Us$/Ha) of Irrigated Rice Farming on BFS and Conventional Farms by Cropping Season and by Fertilizer Group, 1997-98

Table 7 Average Production Costs (Us$/Ha) of Irrigated Rice Farming on BFS and Conventional Farms by Cropping Season and by Fertilizer Group, 1997-98

Table 8 Comparative Net Crop Income from Irrigated Rice Production on BFS and Conventional Farms by Cropping Season and by Fertilizer Group, 1997-98

Table 8 Comparative Net Crop Income from Irrigated Rice Production on BFS and Conventional Farms by Cropping Season and by Fertilizer Group, 1997-98

Table 9 Comparative Net Benefit Cost Ratio from Irrigated Rice Production in BFS and Control Sites by Cropping Season and by Fertilizer Group, 1997-98 by Cropping Season and by Fertilizer Group, 1997-98

Table 9 Comparative Net Benefit Cost Ratio from Irrigated Rice Production in BFS and Control Sites by Cropping Season and by Fertilizer Group, 1997-98 by Cropping Season and by Fertilizer Group, 1997-98

Table 10 Organic Matter Content and Yield on Irrigated Rice Farms before and during the BFS Project by Cropping Season and by Fertilizer Group in Selected Sites

Table 10 Organic Matter Content and Yield on Irrigated Rice Farms before and during the BFS Project by Cropping Season and by Fertilizer Group in Selected Sites

Download the PDF. of this document(797), 271,311 bytes (265 KB).