By Dr. A. Nugawela, Deputy Director Research, Rubber Research Institute of Sri Lanka
The Rubber Research Institute of Sri Lanka (RRISL) has developed technology to achieve productivity levels of ca. 2500-3000 kilograms of dry rubber per hectare per annum (YPH) from commercial rubber cultivations. What is actually achieved is only ca. 900 YPH by the plantation sector and ca. 750 YPH by the smallholder sector of the rubber growers. Among the many reasons for this yield gap between the potential and actual, use of poor quality planting material, inadequate use of fertilizer, neglect of soil conservation practices and disease control methods, non-adoption of correct tapping systems, lack of adequate skilled tappers and loss of tapping days due to rain are some important factors. Basically the adoption rate of appropriate technology with regard to the above is at a low level.
The technologies developed at RRISL are disseminated to the plantation sector through the staff of the RRISL and to the Smallholder Sector through the extension wing of the Rubber Development Department (RDD). The technology transfer to the extension staff of RDD is again done by the staff of the RRISL. Moreover, the National Institute for Plantation Management conducts training programmes targeting different categories, i.e., worker level to management, using resource persons from the RRISL and other relevant institutions. The technology developed at RRISL is also disseminated to the relevant stakeholders through its publications. Further, in recent times plantation companies through their Human Resource Development programmes have been conducting staff and worker level training programmes, utilizing resource personnel from the RRISL and other relevant institutions.
Though the mechanism exists for those involved in rubber cultivation to have easy access to the latest technology, the adoption of such technology is rather poor, leading to poor productivity. Discussions with the relevant stakeholders and regular monitoring work undertaken by RRISL reveal that poor or no returns from rubber lands is a major constraint on adoption of correct technology. Therefore, cultivation and upkeep costs are reduced at the expense of some important agronomic practices, as the growers are not sure of a reasonable return for their investment because of poor trading they often experience. In the light of this situation the knowledge gathered through technology transfer progra-mmes escape the minds of the estate staff and workers.
Nursery practices
If correct nursery practices are not adopted the resulting planting material will be of poor quality. Rubber cultivations based on such plants are unable to give the potential yield of the particular clone planted. Surveys done on both plantation and smallholder sectors reveal that high yielding trees make up only a minority, i.e., 10-15% of all the trees in our rubber cultivation. Also, with sub-standard planting material field establishment success and survival rates during the early years are low leading to a poor productive stand. Currently this is as low as 250-350/ha in our rubber cultivation whereas RRISL advocates 500 productive trees per/ha.
One other cost reduction method widely adopted in both plantation and smallholder sectors is non or partial adoption of fertilizer use and soil conservation methods. As we are all aware current rubber cultivation in the country is about the 3rd or 4th generation. Uprooting of rubber at the end of each replanting cycle leads to soil erosion. Further, if adequate soil conservation methods are not adopted the soil is vulnerable to erosion until replanting provides complete canopy cover to the soil. Therefore, the current soil physical and chemical characters demand adequate fertilizer and soil conservation methods to realize potential yield levels of recommended clones.
White root disease is an economically important disease widely prevalent in our rubber cultivations. This causes death of plants resulting in poor stands per unit area of land and hence poor productivity levels. Adequate measures to control such diseases are also overlooked due to financial constraints.
In a situation where productivity levels are low resulting in a high Cost of Production (COP) coupled with low rubber prices which hurts profits, attempts are often made to enhance productivity by increasing the tapping intensity. The rubber trees will not positively respond to this as inputs are curtailed and also because the rubber tree has a limit to what it can yield. Therefore, such attempts will not realize the ultimate objective of achieving profitability through enhanced productivity. What often happens is that both tapper and land productivity levels will further decline leading to a vicious cycle.
Rain
Interference by rain is a major constraint on harvesting latex, leading to low productivity levels. But adoption of rainguard technology to overcome this situation is not practiced by the majority of the plantations and smallholders. Poor returns from rubber cultivations don't motivate rubber growers to invest in such technologies.
The problem of lack of sufficient tappers can be addressed by low frequency tapping together with the use of yield stimulants, e.g., 2 chloroethyl phosphoric acid. Though such technology could help in reducing COP whilst maintaining productivity levels of conventional d/2 frequency tapping, adoption is again poor. Hesitation to adopt new technology and also the fear that productivity levels will further decline resulting in further loss of income may be some reasons. With low frequency tapping, i.e., d/3 tapping, a tapper is given three tapping blocks and each block will be tapped once in 3 days. With the currently adopted conventional d/2 system of tapping, a tapper is given only two tapping blocks and each block is tapped once in two days. Therefore with d/3 tapping, the tapper requirement is less by 33%. With d/3 tapping the use of yield stimulants is advocated to maintain productivity levels that could be obtained from d/2 tapping and not to exceed the potential yield levels.
Price drop
When rubber prices drop to low levels resulting in loses to the growers the widely adopted cost reduction methods are curtailing use of fertilizer and soil conservation methods, poor upkeep of nurseries and new clearings and inadequate attention to disease control. Further, some stop tapping on Sundays and Poya days, i.e., the days on which the daily wage of a worker is higher by about 50% than on a normal working day. Such methods whilst reducing the productivity levels further will also demoralize the workers. Workers look forward to work on a Sunday or a Poya day to earn an additional income. Therefore, the implications of current cost reduction methods need to be carefully analyzed and the plantation management companies and rubber growers need to look into more appropriate ways of cost reduction.
In the plantation sector the COP of a kg of crepe rubber is currently in the range of Rs. 40-65. The cost of management, land rental and amortization, depreciation, i.e., general charges, vary from Rs. 5 to 25 amongst the different plantation companies in 1999. Hence, it is evident that there is a wide variation in this management component of the COP, being relatively high in some management companies. Therefore, it appears that there may be areas for cost reduction with no adverse effects to the productivity of the estates.
The main driving force for the adoption of technology to improve productivity is the farmgate price. This was evident when rubber prices were high during the 1995-1996 period. Tea cultivation, especially among the smallholder sector, is expanding. Moreover, recommended agronomic practices are adopted by tea growers to enhance profits. The impetus for this is the consistent and high farmgate prices enjoyed by the growers for this commodity.
The local rubber prices are mainly determined by the international market trends and ultimately governed by the supply and demand situation. As our contribution to global production is a mere 1.2% we cannot make an impact on international rubber prices by influencing the supply and demand situation. However, local rubber prices will be slightly higher than world market prices if local consumption of rubber for value addition is increased. This will be due to increased demand for natural rubber within the country. Currently the local product manufacturers consume 50% of our total annual rubber production and this has increased local rubber prices slightly above the world market prices. Therefore, it is important for the government to adopt policies to attract reputed foreign manufacturing companies to invest in Sri Lanka.
Raw rubber
The market value of raw rubber will depend on its quality and consistency. The methods of presentation to the end user are also important in this regard. Nevertheless, there is no incentive for rubber growers to produce quality RSS as purchasing is done on a bulk system paying the growers the price of low grades, i.e., RSS No. 3 and 4, for all their produce. This system of trading should also be changed to motivate the rubber grower to produce good quality rubber in order to obtain a good price for their produce both locally and internationally. There is an urgent need to introduce methods to enhance the price paid for rubber to motivate growers to improve the adoption rate of technology and improve productivity. If this is done the grower will receive a higher price, which will encourage him to further increase productivity through increased adoption of recommended agronomic practices. Also, a smallholder-friendly system to channel the latex of growers to raw rubber and rubber products manufacturing factories in the area will lead to more efficient processing of latex leading to both quality and price improvements. One other strategy will be to assist growers in adoption practices like fertilizer and rainguards. These two practices could enhance productivity by 30-40%. Therefore, the cost of production will reduce by a similar magnitude enabling growers to realise profits.
Also, in the traditional rubber growing areas it might become necessary to select areas with minimum constraints, i.e., good soils and availability of labour for investment on rubber cultivation to be profitable. On such land with a good adoption rate of appropriate technology one hectare of rubber may be equivalent to 2-3 ha. of normal rubber cultivation in terms of total production. Apart from land suitability, labour shortage and the influence of wet weather on tapping are other constraints on improving productivity and profitability in traditional rubber growing areas. Considering these factors it may become necessary to limit rubber cultivation only to ideal localities in the traditional rubber growing areas and to diversify the remaining land to other environmentally-friendly and less labour - demanding projects, e.g., forestry. Anyhow, the total rubber production in the country should not be allowed to decline and this objective can be achieved by maintaining high standard in the limited extends of rubber grown and by expanding rubber into non-traditional areas. Limiting rubber growing to ideal conditions in the traditional area will minimize the capital and up-keep costs drastically whilst maintaining similar total reduction resulting in a high rate of return on the investment.
Large extents of land are available in the Southern, Uva, North Western and North Central provinces for expansion of rubber. The soil is relatively richer than in traditional areas and labour availability is more favourable than in traditional areas. The annual rainfall is relatively low, ca. 1000-1500 mm, but technology is available for establishing rubber plantations under such rainfall regimes. This is proven in the Moneragala and Bibile areas where rubber is now extensively planted by smallholders.
Good soils, availability of labour and higher numbers of tapping days possible due to dry weather will combine to give high productivity levels making rubber economical to grow even under poor trading conditions.
Finally, achieving high land productivity by growers is the strategy to sustain profitability as evident from other rubber growing countries like Thailand and India.
|
