SpringerLink
Log in

Production Performance and Adoption Opinion Toward Wet and Dry Farming of GAP and Non-GAP Farmers in Suburban Bangkok, Thailand

  • FULL-LENGTH RESEARCH ARTICLE
  • Published:
Agricultural Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Technology adoption requires technical information to support decision-making and encourage broader acceptance. Recognizing the significance of alternate wetting and drying technology in sustainable agriculture, this study aims to promote the adoption of this technology among both Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and non-GAP farmers in Suburban, Bangkok, Thailand. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire, which gathered information on farmers' cost and return values, as well as their adoption opinions. The collected data were then analyzed using cost and return analysis, as well as stochastic frontier analysis. The results indicate that non-GAP farmers face significantly higher total costs due to increased fixed costs compared to GAP farmers. While there were no significant differences in yield between the two groups, GAP farmers achieved significantly higher total income and net profit due to lower total costs and higher selling prices. Furthermore, the analysis suggests that both groups of rice farmers have the potential to improve their efficiency levels, with non-GAP farmers showing a higher potential for improvement. In terms of adoption opinion, both farmer groups recognize the advantages of wet and dry farming technology over traditional flooded rice farming. This study highlights that the adoption levels of both GAP and non-GAP farmers can be significantly improved through the implementation of best management practices. Overall, the findings emphasize the importance of trustworthy information dissemination to encourage the adoption of wet and dry farming technology, as it enhances farmers' trust in the received information and their engagement with the technology. The study concludes by providing policy implications and recommendations to promote the wider adoption of wet and dry farming technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Canada)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Akinyi DP, Ng’ang’a SK, Ngigi M, Mathenge M, Girvetz E (2022) Cost-benefit analysis of prioritized climate-smart agricultural practices among smallholder farmers: evidence from selected value chains across sub-Saharan Africa. Heliyon 8(4):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Atwill RL, Krutz LJ, Bond JA, Golden BR, Spencer GD, Bryant CJ, Mills BE, Gore J (2020) Alternate wetting and drying reduces aquifer withdrawal in Mississippi rice production systems. Agron J 112(6):5115–5124. https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Boyd D, Spencer R (2021) Sustainable farmer-to-farmer extension - the experiences of private service providers in Zambia. Int J Agric Sustain 20(4):443–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2021.1939592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cavite HJ, Kerdsriserm C, Llones C, Direksri N, Suwanmaneepong S (2022) Farmers’ perception of consumer information and adoption intention towards organic rice farming: evidence from community enterprise in rural Thailand. Outlook Agric. https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270221135250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cavite HJM, Kerdsriserm C, Suwanmaneepong S (2021) Strategic guidelines for community enterprise development: a case in rural Thailand. J Entrep Commun 234:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-05-2021-0062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ciaian P, Paloma SG, Delince J (2013) Literature review on cost of production methodologies. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cooperative Promotion Department (2019) Annual statistics of cooperatives, agricultural groups and vocational groups in Thailand 31st December 2018. Information and Communication Technology Center, Cooperative Promotion Department, Bangkok, Thailand

  8. Cramb R (2020) White gold: the commercialisation of rice farming in the lower Mekong Basin. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0998-8

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Enold A, Kanjanamaneesathian M, Yoshidaa AK (2021) Factors affecting the adoption of GAP by growers in producing crops in Phetchaburi province, Thailand. Acta Hortic 1312:539–543. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2021.1312.76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Enriquez Y, Yadav S, Evangelista GK, Villanueva D, Burac MA, Pede V (2021) Disentangling challenges to scaling alternate wetting and drying technology for rice cultivation: distilling lessons from 20 years of experience in the Philippines. Front Sustain Food Syst 5(1):1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.675818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. FAO (2019) Country fact sheet on food and agriculture policy trends (Thailand). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/3/I8683EN/i8683en.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2021

  12. Gonzalvo CM, Tirol MSC, Moscoso MO, Querijero NJVB, Aala WF (2020) Critical factors influencing biotech corn adoption of farmers in the Philippines in relation with the 2015 GMO Supreme Court ban. J Rural Stud 74(1):10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.11.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Howell KR, Shrestha P, Dodd IC (2015) Alternate wetting and drying irrigation maintained rice yields despite half the irrigation volume, but is currently unlikely to be adopted by smallholder lowland rice farmers in Nepal. Food Energy Secur 4(2):144–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.58

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Joedsak A, Suwanmaneepong S, Thunmathiwat D (2022) Knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding good agricultural practices among rice farmers under the large agricultural plot scheme (LAPS) in Khlongudomchonlajorn, Chachoengsao Province, Thailand. World Rev Entrep 18(3):249–261. https://doi.org/10.1504/WREMSD.2022.122529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kassem HS, Alotaibi BA, Aldosari FO, Herab A, Ghozy R (2021) Factors influencing smallholder orange farmers for compliance with GobalGAP standards. Saudi J Biol Sci 28(2):1365–1373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.11.070

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kassem HS, Alotaibi BA, Aldosri FO, Muddassir M (2021) Exploring the relationship between information-seeking behavior and adoption of biofertilizers among onion farmers. Agron 11(6):1–17

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kerdsriserm C, Suwanmaneepong S, Mankeb P (2018) Comparative analysis of the technical efficiency of different production systems for rice farming in Eastern Thailand. Asian J Sci Res 11(4):480–488. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajsr.2018.480.488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kılıç O, Boz İ, Eryılmaz GA (2020) Comparison of conventional and good agricultural practices farms: a socio-economic and technical perspective. J Clean Prod 258(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120666

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kramol P, Suebpongsang P, Ekasingh B (2020) Farmer organizations in ubon Ratchathani Province. In: Cramb R (ed) White gold: the commercialisation of rice farming in the lower Mekong Basin. Springer, Singapore, pp 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0998-8_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Meelua N, Suwanmaneepong S (2021) Rice production technical efficiency in a highly urbanised area in Samut Prakan Province, Thailand. Int J Entrep Small Bus 1–10

  21. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (2009) Good agricultural practices for rice: Thai agricultural standard TAS 4401-2008. https://www.acfs.go.th/standard/download/eng/GAP_rice.pdf

  22. National Economic and Social Development Board (2017) Summary of the twelfth national economic and social development plan (2017–2021)

  23. Nodin MN, Mustafa Z, Hussain SI (2022) Assessing rice production efficiency for food security policy planning in Malaysia: a non-parametric bootstrap data envelopment analysis approach. Food Policy 107(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Oo SP, Usami K (2020) Farmers’ perception of good agricultural practices in rice production in Myanmar: a case study of Myaungmya district. Ayeyarwady Region Agric 10(7):249

    Google Scholar 

  25. Pearson KA, Millar GM, Norton GJ, Price AH (2018) Alternate wetting and drying in Bangladesh: Water-saving farming practice and the socioeconomic barriers to its adoption. Food Energy Secur 7(4):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Pongsrihadulchai A (2018) Thailand’s rice industry and current policies towards high value rice products. In: Paper presented at the international seminar on promoting rice farmers’ market through value-adding activities. Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand, 6–7 June 2018

  27. Prasad R, Shivay YS, Kumar D (2017) Current status, challenges, and opportunities in rice production. Rice production worldwide. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47516-5_1

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Preedasak P (2004) Principles of microeconomics, 4th edn. Thammasat University Press, Bangkok

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ruensuk N, Rossopa B, Channu C, Paothong K, Prayoonsuk N, Rakchum P, Malumpong C (2021) Improving water use efficiency and productivity in rice crops by applying alternate wetting and drying with pregerminated broadcasting in farmers’ fields. Agric Nat Resour 5(1):119–130

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sathapatyanon J, Kuwornu JKM, Shivakoti GP, Soni P, Anal AK, Datta A (2018) The role of farmer organizations and networks in the rice supply chain in Thailand. J Agribus Dev Emerg Econ 8(3):554–578. https://doi.org/10.1108/jadee-01-2017-0016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sattaka P, Muengpak S, Xuan HP, Mueangkhot T (2020) Comparison of glutinous rice production systems for sustainable development in Sakon Nakhon Province. J Int Soc Southeast Asian Agric Sci 26(1):54–62

    Google Scholar 

  32. Seenuankaew U, Rattichot J, Leenaraj B (2018) Farmers’ information behaviors that facilitate the strengthening of their management capacity from passive to active community enterprises: Nakhon Si Thammarat. Thailand Inf Learn Sci 119(5–6):260–274. https://doi.org/10.1108/ils-07-2017-0070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Senthilkumar K (2022) Closing rice yield gaps in Africa requires integration of good agricultural practices. Field Crops Res 285(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Stuart AM, Pame ARP, Vithoonjit D, Viriyangkura L, Pithuncharurnlap J, Meesang N, Suksiri P, Singleton GR, Lampayan RM (2018) The application of best management practices increases the profitability and sustainability of rice farming in the central plains of Thailand. Field Crops Res 220(1):78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Suebpongsang P, Ekasingh B, Cramb R (2020) Commercialisation of rice farming in Northeast Thailand. In: Cramb R (ed) White gold: the commercialisation of rice farming in the lower mekong Basin. Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore, pp 39–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0998-8_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  36. Suwanmaneepong S, Kerdsriserm C, Lepcha N, Cavite HJ, Llones CA (2020) Cost and return analysis of organic and conventional rice production in Chachoengsao Province. Thailand Org Agric 10(1):369–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13165-020-00280-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Suwanmaneepong S, Mankeb P, Kuhaswonvetch S, Kerdsriserm C, Cavite HJ, Llones C (2022) Production performance and efficiency of rice farming in suburban areas of Bangkok, Thailand. J Manag Inf Decis Sci 25(4):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  38. Tabatabaei S, Mozaffari MR, Rostamy-Malkhalifeh M, Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F (2022) Using DEA models for ranking compounds as Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in the management of Alzheimer’s. Iran J Sci Technol Trans A Sci 46(1):189–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40995-021-01207-z

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  39. Taherzadeh H, Tohidi G, Hsiao B (2020) Efficiency evaluation in a centralized system based on data envelopment analysis. Iran J Sci Technol Trans A Sci 44(4):1075–1084. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40995-020-00897-1

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  40. Tasila Konja D, Mabe FN, Alhassan H (2019) Technical and resource-use-efficiency among smallholder rice farmers in Northern Ghana. Cogent Food Agric 5(1):1651473. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2019.1651473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Vortia P, Nasrin M, Bipasha SK, Islam MM (2021) Extent of farm mechanization and technical efficiency of rice production in some selected areas of Bangladesh. GeoJournal 86(2):729–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-019-10095-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Voss RC, Jansen T, Mané B, Shennan C (2021) Encouraging technology adoption using ICTs and farm trials in Senegal: lessons for gender equity and scaled impact. World Dev 146(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wehmeyer H, Malabayabas A, San SS, Thu AM, Tun MS, Thant AA, Connor M (2022) Rural development and transformation of the rice sector in Myanmar: introduction of best management practices for sustainable rice agriculture. Outlook Agric 51(2):223–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270221086008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Wu W (2019) Estimation of technical efficiency and output growth decomposition for small-scale rice farmers in Eastern India A stochastic frontier analysis. J Agribus Dev Emerg Econ 10(2):139–156. https://doi.org/10.1108/JADEE-05-2019-0072

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang with grant number 2563-02-04-001.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Agricultural Technology, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang (KMITL), Bangkok, 10520, Thailand

    Suneeporn Suwanmaneepong, Kulachai Kultawanich, Lampan Khurnpoon, Phatchara Eamkijkarn Sabaijai, Chanhathai Kerdsriserm & Harry Jay M. Cavite

  2. Sasin School of Management, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand

    Harry Jay M. Cavite

Authors
  1. Suneeporn Suwanmaneepong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kulachai Kultawanich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lampan Khurnpoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Phatchara Eamkijkarn Sabaijai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chanhathai Kerdsriserm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Harry Jay M. Cavite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study conception and design was contributed to SS; data collection was contributed to SS, KK and LK; analysis and interpretation of results were contributed to CK and HJMC; draft manuscript preparation was contributed by SS, HJMC and PES. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Harry Jay M. Cavite.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Suwanmaneepong, S., Kultawanich, K., Khurnpoon, L. et al. Production Performance and Adoption Opinion Toward Wet and Dry Farming of GAP and Non-GAP Farmers in Suburban Bangkok, Thailand. Agric Res 13, 169–181 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-023-00668-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-023-00668-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation