Fairy land

The mythical world

Prominent news the past few weeks is a nondescript article in IRRI's Rice Today.

IRRI is feeling the heat (Rice Today, Oct. 8) and responds to it's critics of the development of Golden Rice (GR). 

GR essentially implies adding genes to traditional varieties giving them higher vit. A traits. 

The myths of GR:  

'First is the notion that Golden Rice is some sort of unnatural, monster rice. 
...
Second is the idea that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are unsafe, cause cancer or other major health risks, or pose serious environmental problems. 
... 
Finally, there is the idea that Golden Rice is being developed to be sold by big biotechnology companies to profit from poor farmers'.

But in reality it does nothing to allay these fears. See here:

- Approving GR is just a way to soften up resistance to hybrid and GM rice. 

- If GMOs are safe why is there so much public resistance? Why not approve labelling then, is this not a win-win solution?

- Well, big companies are all well versed in PR. Give a crumb here, reap the world there. Syngenta's involvement gives them some pay-back elsewhere with IRRI, for sure ...

Still, kudo's for IRRI facing the music.

Just an afternote: too close for comfort Bayer Cropscience has a big do in Delhi, India called ricefutureforum with IRRI as co-host and has also managed to get Germany's public development agency Giz on board ...

The future according to Bayer is a hybrid one. Yeah, right.

Oh and this. An interesting article from farmanddairy (Oct. 10) highlights recent research which focuses how herbicide resistance can pass from the GM crop to similar weeds: 

'Rice containing an overactive gene that makes it resistant to a common herbicide can pass that genetic trait to weedy rice, prompting powerful growth even without a weed-killer to trigger the modification benefit, new research shows'. 

Though this does not imply that it will happen obviously there may be more risks than we think.

Domestic and global affairs

There's surprisingly little to report on, in Cambodia.

Despite export figures up by 100%, it still falls way behind what the government would like to see (PPP, Oct. 9). Reality check.

Production will remain the same. Is this despite of the floods? Or because of the floods? Source is the Cambodian Herald (Oct. 4).

The Strait Times (Oct. 12) notes how India is becoming Singapore´s source of rice, leaving Thailand behind. No reasons given, is it the price? Consumer preference for Basmati? A miracle?

Some good news for Thai government. The Wall Street Journal (Oct. 14) highlights China's lower than expected rice production. Partly brought on by drought/heat conditions earlier this year it also delves up info on productivity which also is slipping: 

'Analysts cite a shift in land use toward industrial and residential by farmers in the humid southern regions where rice grows best. Production has increasingly moved to more arid northern regions where big yields are harder to get, said Rabobank agriculture analyst Chenjun Pan.

Ms. Pan and other analysts say the rice-yield plateau shows that affordable technological innovations to increase yields may have also reached their limits. Chinese academics have developed a strain of "super rice," capable of doubling the yield to 13.5 tons a hectare, but the hybrid grain remains financially out of reach for most farmers.

A trend of lower Chinese rice production, if sustained, would afford further opportunities to global rice exporters in what is becoming an increasingly attractive market. Overall grain imports are rising along with domestic wealth and worries over illegal levels of toxicity in many kinds of Chinese-produced food'.

More significant I found this snippet: 

'Grain imports in China are a politically sensitive issue. China's military has weighed in publicly against rising corn imports in recent months, with a major general from the People's Liberation Army publishing an essay in a popular newspaper in August arguing that genetically modified corn imports may be a way for the U.S. to threaten China's food security'. 

Well, if this is the view then the expansion of global hybrid rice fuelled in part by Chinese interests might well imply that the intentions need not be humanitarian, nor economic. But a way to strategically gain leverage? Hidden agenda?

The FAO put out another of their quarterly overviews of the world's cereal markets (Oct. 3). It notes the continuing fall of rice prices and the slow expansion of production. The immediate future sees prices going lower yet, not really encouraging for any producers.

And the saga continues

The Nation (Oct. 1) mentions that maybe the Thai rice pledge will continue indefinitely as losses are nowhere near what everybody thinks.

The institutionalizing of the programme has required a need for more storage capacity. The Bangkok Post (Oct. 1) reports on how the Thai state Public Warehousing Organisation hopes to be able to expand compensation. 

However they are up against fraud suspicions as in their previous attempt to expand, the bid winner was announced before the tender process started ...!

Even though exports have dropped since the start of the rice pledging scheme, the Thai government is still comfortable with the ability to export 8-10 million tonnes. So mentions the Nation (Oct. 9).

Funny, to date export volumes for 2013 are nearly 2.5 million tonnes, down more than 30% on the 2012 figures. Let's see where the 8 million come from.

Accounting for losses means that the government hopes to not include humanitarian assistance in it's books, i.e. this should be a write off at full purchase price, rather than the world market price. Who cares? The Nation, Oct. 10.

The accounting section was also at a loss to find out that they had actually bought more rice in the past 2012-2013 season than intended and need another 9 billion Thai Baht (nearly 0.3 billion $US), so reports the Bangkok Post (Oct. 10). Why not?

A blog entry by the Wall Street Journal. Posted on Oct. 7 it gives a good introduction to current issues on the rice pledging scheme. However it also mentions to instil it's own philosophies. For instance it mentions that continuation of current government policies is ill-advised and will lead to increased dissatisfaction with the government. Me thinks the opposite.

Spin doctoring at it's best. A Thai government official notes that food insecurity issues are driving those affected countries into Thai arms and will receive nice quantities of rice imports if they ask politely. 

Or so it seems. 

Reported in the Nation (Oct. 14) it implies that storing most of the globe's exports will result in positive paybacks for the service offered. But what if over-priced in a climate where prices are trending downwards?

The Bangkok Post provides us with news: rice pledging leads to lower global prices (Oct. 15). Nothing new. Stocks in Thailand will increase, by 24% so estimates the USDA. Global prices will drop by 10% by April next year. In the article it refers to Bloomberg's article of 15 Oct. 2013.

Thailand's BAAC needs another 140 billion bath ($4,.5 billion US$) to finance next years pledges, so reports Bangkok Post (Oct. 21). Hope somebody is adding all this up.

 

Bangkok Post (Oct. 11) repeats Thai government assertions that it will be able to sell 1 million tonnes of rice to China. Spread over 5 years ... And bought from private traders not the government. And the same article notes that previous government claims appear to be wishful thinking.

The deal with China is preliminary, concedes Thai PM (Bangkok Post, Oct. 16). Apparently it's just an intention. Salient detail: there might be swap, rice for high speed trains! 

The Nations mentions that exporters are in no mood for cheering (Oct. 15) despite announcements of deals with China. It also notes that the Thai PM is vague on details (Oct. 16). While a day later the Bangkok Post emphasizes the PM implied the agreement was an informal one, i.e. no deal at all. Opposition were making hay with implying the government were imagining deals.

At a loss

Coming from another corner, a former Deputy PM (Pridiyadhorn Devakula) advises the government to hand out the cash directly to the farmers rather than establishing an intricate and fraud-fraught system based on producing rice (Bangkok Post, Oct. 15). 

On the face of it, it does seem more just, but in the end the only thing that ties recipients into the slower growing areas is the production of rice. Fail to reward agricultural production would result in everyone moving into Bangkok and using proxies to earn their share of the pie. Now at least there is some multiplier effect and if the scheme had been introduced before the height of rice prices it would have produced quite an effect. However now the scheme is draining public funds, encouraging fraud while it may well be never-ending.

Bite:

'He [Pridiyadhorn Devakula] cited figures showing that in the two years since implementing the programme, with a total of 48 million tonnes of paddy involved, the government had lost at least 425 billion baht, but rice farmers gained benefits amounting to only 210 billion baht.

More importantly, those who were not farmers gained more than 115 billion baht in benefits, showing that the government had failed to prevent corruption in the rice scheme, he said'. 

High in pointing out current short-comings there seems to be little thought of over how an alternative plan would work, nor how fraud might be avoided. 

As always the Nation chimes in likewise. Or is it vice-versa?

Government refutes Pridiyadhorn Devakula claims. The Nation (Oct. 17) gives air to government rebuttals: nobody knows what the losses are! Not even the government!

Despite assurances to the contrary, former deputy PM / Finance minister (Pridiyadhorn Devakula) sees losses only going up (Bangkok Post, 22 Oct.). The neat sum of losses would be 466 billion baht or nearly 15 billion $US since it's induction.

'Last week, MR Pridiyathorn, also known by his nickname of Mom Oui, gave a press conference in which he called the government's rice-pledging scheme the biggest loss-incurring project ever conceived. At the time, he estimated that if the government could sell all of the pledged rice stockpiles by 2015, it would make losses of at least 425 billion baht _ 205 billion baht from the 2011/2012 crop and 220 billion from the 2012/2013 crop. MR Pridiyathorn's comments prompted government ministers to defend the project. Finance Minister Kittiratt Na-Ranong said MR Pridiyathorn, also a former governor of the Bank of Thailand, does not understand the programme's accounting system. Deputy Prime Minister Niwatthamrong Boonsongpaisan, who is also commerce minister, said actual losses from the scheme as of January were only about 100 billion baht. In response to MR Pridiyathorn's latest estimates, Deputy Commerce Minister Yanyong Phuangrach yesterday said it was impossible for the rice scheme to cause as much as 466 billion baht in losses. He said the government has spent about 600 billion baht on the project. It expected to earn 200 billion baht from rice sales by the end of this year. "That means there is a gap of 400 billion baht. But we have more than 10 million tonnes of rice in stock. Even if we sell the rice at half price, we would still earn about 200 billion baht," Mr Yanyong

insisted. He added that his calculation means the government will be only about 200 billion baht short, which amounts to a loss of about 100 billion baht a year. MR Pridiyathorn insisted yesterday that number was impossible based on the rice release information from the ministry itself. "It's clear the ministry's argument is completely wrong. The issue is whether the ministry understands the issue but conceals the loss figures, or if it does not understand anything," MR Pridiyathorn said'.

Alt

Some rice not going into the rice pledge scheme is organic rice. The Bangkok Post (Oct. 14) reports on how a Singaporean entrepreneur is importing into Singapore as well as exporting to other markets northern Thai organic rice priced at 10% above the governments pledging prices. Business is expanding by 10% per annum with current exported quantities heading towards the 1,000 tonnes. 

The Nation carries the same story.

The Nation (Oct. 21) concludes that organic rice is better than feeding off the national rice pledge scheme. Another feel good story about how organic rice has the potential to avoid pitfalls of the industrial lead rice schemes, i.e. by avoiding taking on debt. Pity the story from Thailand's Khon Kaen is scarce on economics.

Lead or the lead?

As usual we could lead this update with the newest on the Thai rice pledge scheme, loads of info to be had on this. But we're not.

Instead let's look at what would have been an unknown study on lead levels in rice. If not for what?

A popular way to scare away the foreign competition (from the US of A) is to label them unsafe.  The tool: studies into consumption rice lead levels. It revealed that  foreign rice has lead levels in excess of standards set by the US-FDA (but has no reference on domestic rice):

'New research has revealed that samples of imported rice sold in the retail markets in the U.S. contain levels of lead that are higher than permissible levels, according to a report by the BBC.

The study was conducted by Dr. Tsanangurayi Tongesayi of Monmouth University in New Jersey, US, and his team. The study found that lead levels in some samples exceeded the "provisional total tolerable intake" (PTTI) set by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by a factor of 120. High levels of lead can affect the kidney, brain and other parts of the human body.

Rice from Bhutan, Italy, China, Taiwan, India, Israel, the Czech Republic and Thailand were used in the tests, and almost the samples had high levels of lead. "When we compared them, we realized that the daily exposure levels are much higher than those PTTIs," said Dr. Tongesayi. "According to the FDA, they have to be more than 10 times the PTTI levels (to cause a health concern), and our values were two to 12 times higher than those 10 times," he told BBC News. Tests on imported rice from other countries are in the process'.

The  above was reported from Oryzae.com (Apr. 11). Further scaremongering: 

'According to the research, rice from China and Taiwan had the highest lead levels. One of the reasons why rice samples contained high lead levels is the fact that some countries use raw sewage effluent and untreated industrial effluent to irrigate rice fields, said Dr. Tongesayi. He added that there is a need for international regulations over production and distribution of food grains'.

But why are there high levels of lead in rice from Thailand? Or from Bhutan? 

The BBC then adds:

'Update 24 April 2013: This story has been amended to emphasise the preliminary nature of the results, which are under review both by the authors and the journal to which they were submitted for publication'.

And from Natural News (Apr. 21): 

'A recent scientific paper that concluded imported rice was heavily contaminated with lead has been suddenly withdrawn by its author. Natural News has confirmed from the author, Monmouth University Chemistry Professor Tsanangurayi Tongesayi, that the paper is "recalled until further notice."

...

Here's another clue worth considering in all this. In 2012, Consumer Reports published results of its lead analysis of 223 brands of rice. They also measured arsenic and cadmium in rice.
If you click the link above, the chart you'll see is shown in parts per BILLION. These numbers, in other words, are 1/1000th the value of numbers given in parts per million. As a reminder, 1000 ppb = 1 ppm.
If someone asks you, "Would you rather each 500 ppm of lead, or 500 ppb of lead?" the correct answer is ppb.
The Tongesayi team was announcing that it found rice to contain high ppm of lead. But the Consumer Reports team -- which of course has decades of experience running tightly-controlled lab analysis activities -- was only reporting lead at ppb in rice.
Somebody is off by a factor of 1,000. That's three orders of magnitude. And I'd bet my favorite pair of hiking boots it's not Consumer Reports'.

! 

IRRI wakes up (May 3): 

'“The most important issue for me at this point is to make sure the data is accurate,” Dr. Tongesayi said. “If it is not accurate we will obviously not publish the paper.”'

Too late?

Cambodia + rice

Cambodian rice exports are on the upswing. Oryza.com mentions (May 2) figures of +130% for the first 4 months! 

It also notes that Thailand is one of the principal destinations ...

Another destination is the Philippines according to Cambodia Daily (Apr. 8):

'Commerce Minister Cham Prasidh has signed a rice deal with the Philippines, as Cambodia tries to find new markets for its increasing supplies of domestically milled rice'.

The Cambodian Daily (Apr. 18)  reports on energy from biomass from rice:

'A U.S.-based energy company has announced that it is planning a biomass project using genetically modified rice in Cambodia, in a purportedly massive deal about which little information has been made public'. 

Particularly the section on GM rice seems interesting: 

'According to the statement, Sino Bioenergy’s “super rice” seeds, which are produced in laboratories, “are disease resistant, high yielding genetically improved rice with the transgenic rice grain length increased by 25% over normal rice.”'. 

Oddly it points to the company's own seeds, though on it's website they don't mention rice seed as one of their activities. Are they going to be duped ...? 

Oh and the Cambodian Daily adds: 

'The company’s [Sino Bioenergy] listed phone number in Hong Kong connected to a person who declined to give her name, but said, “Sino Bioenergy is using our registered address. This is not their office.”'

!

Another company involved are Sky Energy. 

'To enhance Cambodian rice yields, the government should encourage private development of rice-seed production and focus its efforts on farmers’ education and regulations that ensure the quality of seed, industry experts say'. 

So reads an article by the Phnom Penh Post (Apr. 25). Oddly, private sector investment and rice seed are not a natural symbiosis globally and Cambodia is not different. There's simply not enough financial reward for the hard work of breeding. So why this call?  The article isn't clear. It does note:

'After a number of attempts, MAFF declined to comment.' 

Yawn.

Setting standards for rice: 

'Building an industry based on a uniquely Cambodian standard will give rice producers a clear target to work towards and instil confidence in buyers, said a panel of both government and private sector representatives at a rice quality workshop in Phnom Penh on Tuesday'.  

Source: Phnom Penh Post (May 2)

The Asiafoundation.org reports (May 1) on Cambodia's potential:

'If Cambodia’s rice export sector were to reach its full potential, it could produce 3 million tons of milled rice, with the total export value amounting to $2.1 billion (approximately 20% of the GDP) and an estimated additional $600 million (approximately 5% of the GDP) to the national economy. It would also boost employment and income for agricultural farmers who make up more than 70 percent of the population living in rural areas'.

It also knows where the problem lies:

'Most Cambodian farmers cultivate paddy rice once per year during the rainy season, while farmers in Vietnam’s delta region cultivate 3.5 times annually. Such low productivity is mainly a result of high energy prices and poor transportation infrastructure'.

Well, it forgets the value of irrigation, even during strict Communist times with little or no energy at all, the Mekong delta still could produce more than 1 crop a year. The two sources mention are only impediments in achieving global competitiveness.

The guru of SRI (System of Rice Intensification), Norm Uphoff, visits his favourite son, Cambodia (Cornell News, May 2): 

'In his remarks at the conference, the minister [ Cambodia's minister of agriculture, forestry and fisheries] reported that use of SRI methods in Cambodia has expanded from small trials done by 28 farmers in 2000 to more than 200,000 farmers. Yields are 50 to 100 percent higher for paddies using SRI, and those yields are achieved with lower production costs. As a result, he said, farmer incomes from rice production can be doubled or more with SRI'.

Thailand is facing a crunch in supplying the world with maize and cassave. So now all of a sudden the Thai's are doing their best to open the borders for this produce (Phnom Penh post, Apr 23): 

'In order to boost the Kingdom’s trade performance and improve the quality of lives of farmers along the Thai-Cambodia border, Thailand has agreed to remove import restrictions on Cambodian cassava and maize'. 

Expect restrictions to be re-imposed once the export markets of Thai turn.

Woeful

An editorial from the Bangkok Post (Apr. 4) asks the government to admit defeat

'Come clean [on rice pledging]

Finally, the government has agreed to accept the hard truth that it can no longer buy every grain of paddy from rice farmers as promised when it launched the populist rice pledging scheme two years ago'.

The Thai government are hopeful (The Nation, Apr. 6) of offloading 6-7 million tons of rice this year:

'As the government is able to continue to release rice from the stockpiles, he said, the country should be able to get some return the total outlay of Bt410 billion during two years of the pledging programme'.

But, says the Bangkok Post (Apr. 7), exporters are in the camp of the non-believers: 

'Korbsook Iamsuri, president of the Thai Rice Exporters Association (TREA), said it remains difficult to assess whether the government could sell its rice stocks, as it has yet to call an auction for exporters'.

If all fails, exporters have a solution (The Nation, Apr. 9): 

'A source from a giant rice-export company said the government should release its older stockpiles for use in feed-meal production, to make way for new-harvest rice that will need to enter the warehouses.
"The government needs to clear its rice stocks urgently, in particular rice from previous harvests since 2005 because it is deteriorating in quality. These rice stocks could be used for supplying feed-meal producers," said the source'. 

Blasphemy? Why not name the source ...? 

Bloomberg has a good article (Apr. 18) on the rice-pledge saga. Note: 

'Rather than sell the rice on the open market—and risk embarrassment as private dealers see the haircut the government is taking—Thailand is trying government-to-government deals that allow buyer and seller to keep prices secret.

...

The Thais are selling into a soft market. “There is just no demand for this rice,” says Jac Luyendijk, CEO of SAT Swiss Agri-Trading. “You have to dump it.” Swiss Agri-Trading now buys about 30,000 tons of Thai rice, down from about 200,000 tons before 2011'.

Separately Bloomberg (Apr. 20) sums up the pro's of the scheme and estimates the costs: 

'Given the extra income for farmers, which is also helping to increase consumption in many rural areas, the government is unlikely to completely abandon the scheme despite the cost, but the rice pledging scheme is seeming to be like a snowball. At the beginning, the problem doesn’t look so big. An extra 45 billion billion for such increased income is something that the government would be prepared to take a hit on. However, unless there is a change in the international market, exports are likely to decline again, production to increase (and thus increased costs), and more rice stockpiles. If costs are 140 billion for October 2012-September 2013, what will they be for the following year'

The loss has just increased, as the price has just eased  ...

Adding to Thai woes are the price of the bhat whereas if you want to sell on the international market the price is in $ US. So with the bhat increasing one can blame failure on the international finance. Bangkok Post (May 1): 

'Commerce Minister Boonsong Teriyapirom has blamed the soaring baht for hampering government-to-government (G-to-G) rice export deals'.

And even more. Bangkok Post, May 3: 

'The Thai baht's rally to the highest level in 16 years is hindering exports from the world's biggest rice shipper, curbing the government's efforts to diminish record state stockpiles and threatening to increase its losses.

...

"Any success in offloading stocks will result in heavy losses for the government," said Darren Cooper, a senior economist at the London-based International Grains Council, which monitors global markets and promotes food security. "So the baht strength will merely add to what are likely to be very hefty losses."'

A plus:

'Higher rice reserves in Thailand may help increase global inventories to a record 173 million tonnes, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation, which forecasts that world production will exceed demand for an eighth year'.

Outmarketed?

More foreign misunderstandings? The Nation (Apr. 17) reports that China based importers are mixing the expensive Thai rice with that of cheaper (and lower ?) grades. Consumer protection is still in it's infancy in China so don't expect the government to step in.

'"Although Thai jasmine rice is highly favoured by Chinese consumers, its too-high price during the past few years has encouraged traders to mix it with other grains. This is to ensure that we [traders] get some profit from rice selling because, if the price is too expensive, traders will get a lower return," he [Shua Hong Bing, a rice wholesaler and retailer operating in Beijing and Shantou] said. Consumers prefer to buy cheaper rice even though they know the grains have been mixed, because the price of pure jasmine rice is too high for them when it comes to their daily staple, he added.

...

The combination ratio is generally 8:2 or 7:3, with the Thai jasmine rice blended with smaller amounts of cheaper grain.

...

Fang Yi Ming, a 73-year-old housewife, said her family had always favoured Thai jasmine rice since she was very young. However, with the rocketing price of Thai rice, she has had to adjust and now consumes mixed rice.
"I can hardly find pure 100-per-cent jasmine rice in the shops, as most of it has been mixed. Even in restaurants, they have turned to cooking mixed rice or using Vietnamese rice because it is cheaper while having a similar taste to Thai jasmine rice," she said'.

Ms Ming seems to possess more economic sense than the whole Thai government!  

Not only are Chinese consumers turning their backs on expensive jasmine rice, the Bangkok Post (Apr. 17) notes that farmers in the Isaan are changing the varieties they grow. With the for farmers profitable rice pledging, farmers are now looking at fast ways to cash in: shorter duration varieties with high yields.

Brooding

Research on economic returns of hybrid rice in U.S.A. points to economics on hybrid cultivation being sound: 

'Researchers Lawton Lanier Nalley, an associate professor of agricultural economics at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, and his research assistant Nathaniel Lyman concluded that hybrid rice cultivars are found to have significant yield advantages over the best-performing conventional alternative'.

This could well be the case in high management input systems with good information available and consumer ignorance ... 

However for Asia this is often not the case, management is poor, plot sizes small, inefficiencies elsewhere and at the end consumer preference lies elsewhere .. 

The American researchers conclude that hybrid rice growing has better economic returns in the state of Arkansas (Agro Professional, Apr. 19). That's if the price is not discounted .... Which it is.

GM rice / hybrid rice, still not enough rice is being produced according to agenda's for futurologists. Yuan Longping (of hybrid rice fame) will now have to search for super rice (China Daily, Apr 9): 

'China will launch a special scientific research project to develop a new super rice strain, expected to produce a bumper harvest of 14.9 metric tons a hectare, Minister of Agriculture Han Changfu said on Tuesday'.

Elsewhere Mr Longping has been promoting waterfalls of rice (Globalpost.com, Apr. 15) : 

'Ping likened these grains into cascades of water that stream toward a bounty, have potential yield of 13.5 tons per hectare'. 

Lots of flowery text to mask the hybrid source. The underlying thought is that science and technology will save us from oblivion. Not economical sense. Nor consumer power.

An odd article from Pakistan's Nation (Apr. 22): 

'Public sector institutes like Rice Research Institutes of Kala Shah Kaku and Dokri have failed to develop new successful and popular hybrid rice varieties during the last several decades of their existence.
As a result the basmati export is decreasing day by day'.  

But is this the case? 

'Experts said that massive electricity loadshedding and gas management has hit its business like never before. As per estimates, power loadshedding has reduced the milling capacity by 50 per cent. Gas management has been exceptionally delayed drying process. Both of them have very badly affected the entire chain — drying, husking and milling — up to 50 per cent, making it hard for them to meet export orders even when they have them.
Two other factors are high domestic prices and loss of Iranian market, which was the biggest for Pakistani rice.' 

Economics thus. Note that hybrids will do nothing to help exports ...

Competition

Myanmar's rise to prosperity through rice production. Assisted by Japan. Japandailypress (Apr. 15): 

'Japan is helping to boost Myanmar’s quest to regain its status as a top rice exporter by importing long-grain rice from the former military ruled Southeast Asian country for the first time in 45 years. Even more importantly, companies like Mitsui are investing in rice production to ensure the longevity of the industry. Myanmar Rice Industry Association Chairman Chit Khaing said that Japan is very enthusiastic about investing in the country’s rice industry'.

Vietnam is considering (Vientamnet, Apr. 18) more investment in plants which can produce parboiled rice, an interesting niche?

And more

IRRI's Bas Bouman has more (Apr. 30). A plead to follow in the steps of the EU?

'So, why did I dwell so much on this Mansholt Plan? Well, despite its controversial aspects and despite the differences in location and times, I see some striking similarities between a number of conditions besetting European farmers then and those besetting rice farmers in Asia today. Asia has about 120 million rice farms with average sizes of mostly 1 to 2 hectares only. Returns to rice cropping are low, with values of US$200–600/ha/season being most common. So, even with a farm size of 2 ha and two rice crops a year, income from rice farming is only $800–2,400/year. So, how can any family live off the income from rice farming? The fact is, they don’t, and most farming families have additional off-farm income. In recent years, labor migration from rural to urban areas has accelerated tremendously in many rice-growing areas of Asia. Since it’s usually the able-bodied young men who migrate, the remaining farming population is aging and “feminizing.” Already, women contribute at least half of the total labor inputs in rice production, and now they increasingly have to take on decision-making and management roles as well as doing tasks that were traditionally men’s work (e.g., land preparation, spraying of chemicals, and fertilizer application). Despite this labor outmigration over the last decades, farm size has kept on decreasing and the number of farms increasing. So, just as in the 1960s in Europe, we have to wonder about the future of farming in Asia—and then specifically in the rice sector. With so few prospects of earning a decent income, who will produce our rice in the (near) future?'

So female lead agriculture is not good? And small is not beautiful? 
Well, look at what Mansholt plan produced: huge reserves of untradable commodities. A bit like the Thai rice pledge scheme. 
Mechanization comes through changes in labor (opportunity) returns, not through government plans. Bigger farms through economic processes.

IRRI's Samarendu Mohanty has a good overview (Apr. 11) of the situation of rice prices in the near future. Three factors to account for. China's domestic price policies, Thai government willing to sell below price and the monsoon.