An ecological economic comparison between integrated rice-fish farming and rice monocultures with low and high dikes in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam

Abstract

This study makes an ecological economic comparison between three different rice farming strategies in the Mekong Delta. Interviews were made with 30 farmers with two crops of rice and low dikes (2RLd), 30 farmers with three crops of rice and high dikes (3RHd) and 18 farmers with two crops of rice and one crop of fish (2RF). 2RF farmers had the highest annual net income and benefit cost ratio, because of low production costs and high yields of rice and fish. 2RLd farmers had the lowest annual net income. 3RHd had the highest annual rice yield, but also used the highest amount of rice seeds and agrochemicals, generating the lowest benefit cost ratio. Most farmers (70%) preferred two crops because of a higher production efficiency. High dikes and frequent use of pesticides and fertilizers were seen to decrease the water and rice quality, connectivity and biodiversity in farms with three crops. It is concluded that rice farming with two crops, and especially if integrated with fish and applying IPM, provides a sustainable alternative to rice farming with three crops and high dikes, because it makes use of the high connectivity within the rice-field ecosystem for an efficient production of healthy food through increased recycling of nutrients and natural pest control mechanisms.

Assessing Stakeholders’ Preferences for Future Rice Farming Practices in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam

“…Thus, similar to Factor 4, they seemed to be in a transition towards a view that favors less intensive systems but were not yet willing to make any substantial sacrifices in terms of rice yields. This is similar to rice farmers in An Giang, who increased their resilience, and especially the environmental and social dimensions, by reducing the number of crops from six to five rice crops in 2 years, but were not yet willing to only have two crops per year, although that would improve the resilience and profit even further [3,26]. These stakeholders were obviously not fully convinced of the benefits of less intensive farming systems, and systems such as integrated rice farming and organic agriculture were somewhat dissented (Stat-3: −2; Stat-16: −2; Stat-33: −2).…”

“…They agreed that integrated rice-based farming could offer organic products that were safer and better for consumers (Stat-31: +2) [25]. Pesticides were not seen as the most efficient way to control pests and to increase rice yields (Stat-27: −3), and they acknowledged that alternative strategies, such as IPM, helped to reduce the costs for pesticides (Stat-25: +3) [26]. These economic incentives were the main reasons for these stakeholders to support more sustainable farming strategies, and with increasing evidence of the long-term negative effects of high dikes and overuse of agrochemicals on both rice and fish yields [5] and clear examples of how an enhanced use of ecosystem services can help to decrease cost and increase profits, could provide incentives for these stakeholders to start with more sustainable rice farming practices [9].…”

“…Still, these stakeholders' comparatively strong insights of the benefits provided by the rice field ecosystem provide valuable assets to build on (Stat-3: −2; Stat-16: −2; Stat-33: −2). They disagreed that integrated rice farming is difficult to operate and only viable in a few locations (Stat-34: −3), and well-designed farmers' field experiments providing clear examples of how integrated farming systems can help to both increase farmers' income and environmental protection through a more efficient use of ecosystem services could probably steer these stakeholders towards more sustainable farming practices [26].…”

“…Recent research and these stakeholders' perceptions indicate that intensive rice farming might have fulfilled its mission of being a prime provider of food security and economic growth and that it now is time to focus on more sustainable farming systems. Indeed, under the complication of high-dike systems and upstream dams among others, rice yield growth has slowed particularly for smallholders due to the increased input requirements [20,26,27]. More sustainable farming strategies, such as organic and nature-based farming [28], are gaining traction and emerge as potential solutions to rice yield stagnation in the triple rice crop schemes [4,27], as these less intensive systems, if well designed, can strengthen ecosystem services, which are beneficial to agriculture [26,29].…”

A Case Study in Sleman: A Feasibility Analysis of Rice-Fish Farming Based on Resources Productivity

“…Rice-fish farming has been shown to improve labor productivity and generate higher land and labor productivity measured in value output compared to rice field fisheries and rice monocultures. It also provides a good return on investment and can lead to increased yield, improved household nutrition, and income for farming families (Li et al, 2023& Berg et al, 2023. The following is a breakdown of labor costs in the family incurred by farmers.…”