Study on Effects of Organic and Conventional Planting Modes on Quality and Economic Benefits of Rice in Yunnan

doi:10.11923/j.issn.2095-4050.cjas2024-0048

Abstract

Abstract:

The aims are to develop green organic agriculture, promote organic planting models, vigorously advance sustainable development strategies, explore effective organic planting models, and study the cultivation of organic and conventional rice under the rotation mode of ‘rice + broad bean + rice’. The experiment adopted adjacent planting in the field, set up duplicate and control groups, and the detection of various indicators was determined according to the corresponding national standards. Based on the experimental results, the impact of different planting modes on the quality and economic benefits of rice in Yunnan was analyzed. The results showed that the cadmium and arsenic levels in the organic planting mode were lower than those of the conventional rice, and the contents of lead, chromium, and copper were all higher than those of the conventional rice. The organic⁺ mode had higher contents of other heavy metals except for cadmium, which was lower than that of the conventional rice. Through analysis of variance, P>0.05, the differences in various safety quality indicators between different treatments were not significant; the nutritional quality of rice was higher than that of conventional planting, except for dietary fiber, which was lower than that of conventional planting. All nutritional quality indicators of the organic+ mode were higher than those of conventional planting. The overall nutritional quality of the organic planting mode was higher than that of conventional planting. Organic planting could improve the nutritional quality of rice to a certain extent, but after analysis of variance, P>0.05, the difference was not significant; Organic planting had high initial production input costs and lower yields than conventional planting. However, the market price advantage of organic rice was obvious, and the final profit was 2.5 times that of conventional planting, with good economic benefits. By comparing the two different modes of conventional planting and organic planting, this study provides a theoretical basis and practical reference for further optimizing the rice industry structure in Yunnan and improving the planting mode in some areas.

Key words: organic planting, conventional planting, Yunnan rice, quality impact, economic benefits, rice quality, sustainable development

ZHANG Peng, YANG Xukun, CHEN Lu, WANG Wenzhi, MI Yanhua, LIU Zhenhuan, LI Maoxuan, SU Wen, WANG Xiangquan, YANG Yanxiong, GUO Lujun. Study on Effects of Organic and Conventional Planting Modes on Quality and Economic Benefits of Rice in Yunnan[J]. Journal of Agriculture, 2025, 15(5): 12-19.

Figures/Tables 9

References 34

[1]	王敏羽, 戴志刚, 余德芳, 等. “水稻-再生稻”种植模式专用肥轻简施用对产量、肥料利用率及经济效益的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2022, 36(5):531-542. doi: 10.16819/j.1001-7216.2022.210808
[2]	纪洪亭, 周炜, 郭智, 等. 猪粪有机肥替代化学氮肥对水稻农学效应、安全效应及经济效益影响的综合评价[J]. 江苏农业学报, 2021, 37(6):1451-1459.
[3]	金淑, 席运官, 王磊, 等. 有机与常规种植稻麦品质的比较研究[J]. 生态与农村环境学报, 2018, 34(6):571-576.
[4]	彭东海. 有机农业发展现状及其对农业可持续发展的促进作用[J]. 农产品加工, 2021(13):90-91+95.
[5]	张振芳. 有机水稻标准化生产技术[J]. 现代农业研究, 2021, 27(1):113-114.
[6]	崔莹莹, 周波, 唐劲驰, 等. 华南山地茶园有机肥高效施用模式[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(22):172-179.
[7]	崔莹莹, 周波, 陈义勇, 等. 广东茶区土壤肥力时空变化分析与综合评价[J]. 中国农学通报, 2023, 39(1):85-95. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-1176
[8]	张慧, 赵建坤, 夏兆刚, 等. 有机农业助力脱贫攻坚的模式与成效研究[J]. 农产品质量与安全, 2021, 110(2):21-24.
[9]	谭春华. 浅谈有机水稻种植模式及生态农业技术推广[J]. 南方农业, 2021, 15(29):65-66.
[10]	ARUNRAT N, SEREENONCHAI S, CHAOWIWAT W, et al. Carbon, nitrogen and water footprints of organic rice and conventional rice production over 4 years of cultivation: A case study in the Lower North of Thailand[J]. Agronomy, 2022, 12(2): 380.
[11]	CAVITE H J, MANKEB P, SUWANMANEEPONG S. Community enterprise consumers’ intention to purchase organic rice in Thailand: the moderating role of product traceability knowledge[J]. British food journal, 2022, 124(4): 1124-1148.
[12]	SUSWADI, VINOLIA A S, PRASETYO A, et al. Analysis of organic rice farming contribution to farmer household income in Andong Village, Boyolali Regency[J]. IOP Conference series: Earth and environmental science, 2021, 905(1):012078.
[13]	焦翔, 修文彦. 国际有机农业发展经验及对中国的启示[J]. 世界农业, 2021, 511(11):74-80+100.
[14]	马晨怡, 张伟贵, 李洪艳, 等. 绿色有机稻米与常规稻米的品质相关研究[J]. 中国食物与营养, 2022, 28(8):39-42.
[15]	陆桂清, 何松银, 衡丽, 等. 有机及常规栽培条件对不同优良食味水稻品种的产量和品质影响试验[J]. 北方水稻, 2021, 51(1):26-28.
[16]	刘洋, 张玉烛, 柏连阳, 等. 有机、绿色与常规栽培对水稻产量、品质及土壤肥力的影响[J]. 湖南农业科学, 2017(12):71-74.
[17]	王蒙. 广东省典型区域水稻有机与常规栽培的对比分析研究[D]. 广州: 华南农业大学, 2016.
[18]	代福林. 银桥镇有机水稻栽培技术初探[J]. 云南农业, 2016(1):24-25.
[19]	王紫. 云南农垦建设环洱海绿色有机水稻生产基地[N]. 农民日报, 2021-03-22(8).
[20]	伍世惠, 李才荣, 罗贤成. 云南大关县有机水稻栽培技术[J]. 农业工程技术, 2022, 42(32):62+66.
[21]	王锦华, 李春天. 有机产品认证发展现状与高质量发展路径探索[J]. 农产品质量与安全, 2022, 116(2):20-23.
[22]	云南省市场监督管理局. 全国有机产品认证机构名单及云南省有机产品证书及获证组织名单[EB/OL]. 2021-07-01. http://amr.yn.gov.cn/info/1030/15724.htm
[23]	刘丽媛. 有机肥配施对稻田土壤环境质量的影响及驱动机制研究[D]. 北京: 中国农业科学院, 2021.
[24]	韩爱民, 蔡继红, 屠锦河, 等. 水稻重金属含量与土壤质量的关系[J]. 环境监测管理与技术, 2002(3):27-28+32.
[25]	金淑, 席运官, 王磊, 等. 广东省典型区域水稻有机与常规栽培的对比分析研究[D]. 广州: 华南农业大学, 2016.
[26]	韩雪梅, 许俊伟, 杨秋平, 等. 施用植物源有机肥对水稻产量形成及养分吸收利用效率的影响[J]. 浙江农业科学, 2023, 64(4):798-803. doi: 10.16178/j.issn.0528-9017.20220559
[27]	张三元, 张俊国, 金京德, 等. 有机栽培环境对水稻产量构成及稻米品质的影响[J]. 吉林农业科学, 2005(2):13-16+20.
[28]	侯立刚, 马巍, 孙洪娇, 等. 有机栽培对水稻产量和品质影响的研究[J]. 吉林农业科学, 2012, 37(1):1-3.
[29]	黄丽芬, 张蓉, 余俊, 等. 有机栽培对杂交粳稻产量和品质的影响[J]. 作物学报, 2015, 41(3):458-467.
[30]	王祥斌. 水分管理对滴灌水稻产量和营养品质的影响机理[D]. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2023.
[31]	王德仁, 卢婉芳, 陈苇. 施氮对稻米蛋白质、氨基酸含量的影响[J]. 植物营养与肥料学报, 2001(3):353-356.
[32]	戴湘桂, 赵一童, 宋肖肖, 等. 粒肥施用对籽粒蛋白质含量组分及米质性状的影响[J/OL]. 分子植物育种,1-22 [2025-05-13]. http://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/46.1068.S.20220829.1738.004.html
[33]	邱诗春, 周静, 卿晨, 等. 有机肥用量对水稻产量、净光合速率及土壤生物活性的影响[J]. 江苏农业科学, 2023, 51(22):107-113.
[34]	邱尧, 刘备, 何霖, 等. 增施生物有机肥对水稻产量和土壤肥力的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2020, 36(13):1-5. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb19020032

安全品质指标	常规、有机	常规、有机⁺	有机、有机⁺
铅	0.359	0.764	0.522
镉	0.318	0.574	0.638
总砷	0.675	0.833	0.534
铬	0.720	0.175	0.289
铜	0.688	0.689	0.999

安全品质指标	常规、有机	常规、有机⁺	有机、有机⁺
铅	0.359	0.764	0.522
镉	0.318	0.574	0.638
总砷	0.675	0.833	0.534
铬	0.720	0.175	0.289
铜	0.688	0.689	0.999

营养品质指标	种植模式
营养品质指标	常规、有机	常规、有机⁺	有机、有机⁺
蛋白质	0.218	0.154	0.808
脂肪	0.289	0.417	0.781
淀粉	0.706	0.254	0.421
总糖	0.525	0.594	0.914
膳食纤维	0.895	0.965	0.860

营养品质指标	种植模式
营养品质指标	常规、有机	常规、有机⁺	有机、有机⁺
蛋白质	0.218	0.154	0.808
脂肪	0.289	0.417	0.781
淀粉	0.706	0.254	0.421
总糖	0.525	0.594	0.914
膳食纤维	0.895	0.965	0.860

种植模式	有效穗/ （万穗/hm²）	平均穗粒数/粒	结实率/%	千粒重/ g	理论产量/ (kg/hm²)
常规	1.0693	71.943	84.7	32.2	21.0067
有机	1.0679	68.076	85.3	30.5	18.8933
有机⁺	1.0284	68.125	86.8	31.6	19.1733