You are on page 1of 34

The Socio-economic Characteristics of Rubber

Smallholding Farms in Southern Thailand


: Case Study in Songkhla Province

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Buncha Somboonsuke (Faculty of Natural Resource/PSU)

Dr. Benedicte Chambon (Cirad)

Mr. Chaiya Kongmanee (Faculty of Economics/PSU)


Important of Rubber in Thai Economy
Manufacturing;
134,378.29;
88.35%
Total value of exports by product
group; 2007

Other; 1,188.13;
0.78%
Total value of exports: 152,097.74 m.US $
Mining;
2,173.37; 1.43% Agriculture; •Manufacturing products: 134,378.29 (88.35%)
Forestry; 32.99; Fishery; 11,852.48;
0.02% 2,472.46; 1.63% 7.79%
• Agricultural products: 11,852.48 (7.79%)

Total value of exports of agricultural


product; 2007 Duck and Chicken,
Others, 116.22,
MaizeFresh
and and Frozen,
35.25, 0.30% 0.98%
Maize Products,
Total value of exports of agricultural Fruit, Fresh 112.19, 0.95%
Misc.
Agricultural
and Frozen,
products 274.08, 2.31%
Products, 803.42,
Rice, 3,467.47,
29.26%

• Rubber 5,640.05 (47.59%) Tapioca Products,


1,403.76, 11.84%

• Rice 3,467.47(29.26%)
• Tapioca 1,403.76 (11.84%)
Rubber, 5,640.05,
47.59%

Source: Bank of Thailand, 2008 Unit: million US$


The Situation of Natural Rubber in Thailand, 2008

North Rubber planting area


64,354 ha North-East • Total planting area 2.46
(2.6 %) 342,913 ha million hectares
(14%) • Tapping area 1.77 million
hectares (72% of total
planting areas)

Thai Rubber farm size


East and Central
• Number of rubber farm
271,675 ha
household; 1.25 million
(11%)
farms
– 93% (1.16 million farm)
of smallholder farm size
– 5% (0.06 million farm)
South medium farm
1.78 m. ha – 2% (0.03 million farm)
(72.4%) estate farm

Source: Office of Agricultural Economics, 2008


Rubber Production and Yield, 2007
3000000
2500000
• Total rubber
P ro ductio n (T o ns)

2000000 production: 3.02 million


1500000 tons
1000000
500000 • South: 2.54 million tons
0 (84 % of total rubber
North North-East Central South
production)
Region

Smallholder sector Estate sector

28%

•Rubber production of
smallholding sector:
72%
2.17 million tons
Source: Office of Agricultural Economics, 2008
Rubber Production in Southern Thailand
Rubber Area Tapping Area Production
Province (rai) (rai) (Tons)
Chumphon 459,039 391,891 103,067
Ranong 125,625 100,859 22,053
Surat Thani 1,830,161 1,551,660 394,270
Phangnga 658,427 525,936 139,154
Phuket 101,985 93,929 26,018
Krabi 610,147 523,836 136,721
Trang 1,309,313 1,094,765 322,956
Nakhon Si Thammarat 1,400,808 1,102,911 280,535
Phatthalung 538,411 477,842 140,008
Songkhla 1,444,012 1,241,698 366,301
Satun 289,811 227,955 65,651
Pattani 294,607 246,725 64,149
Yala 1,046,438 837,858 233,762
Narathiwatt 1,004,532 888,501 249,669
Overviews of Rubber Farm Situation in Songkhla Province,
2007
Rubber area (ha.)
2,000,000
1,800,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
-

la

at la
bi

So ng
ra ng

t
Ph ani

th t

ni
et
ga
Ra n

am g

at
a

tu
o

kh

a
Th an
ra
uk

Ph mar

tta
u
Su no

w
gn

Y
ph

Sa
al
K
Tr

ng

hi
Ph
tT

Pa
an
um

at

ar
Ch

N
Si
n
ho
ak
N
• Total area: 231,041 ha
• Tapping area: 198,671 ha
• Total production: 366,301tons
• Yield: 1843.7 kg/ha
• 81,254 households
Source: 1) Office of Agricultural Economics, 2008
2) Songkhla agricultural Office, 2008
Objective of Study
• To describe the rubber smallholding
farm characteristics in terms of
agricultural system approach , with a
socio-economic perspective, in
Southern Thailand.

• Identifying the current issues: labour


issue, tapping system and economic
performance.
Methodology
• Study Area: 5 Districts of Three
Rubber ecolgical Zones in
Songkhla Province: Khuanneng,
Bangklam, Hat yai, Namom and
Rattaphum

• 118 Rubber smallholding farm


samples

• Structure interview and In-depth


interview

• Data collection period : August


2007 –Feb. 2008
Methodology (cont.)
RSF Production System Model: Agricultural System
Components and Interlinkage

FarmObjective
Farm Objective FarmPhysical
Farm PhysicalCharacteristics
Characteristics

Socialand
Social andEmpowerment
EmpowermentAspect
Aspect

Farmrecommendation
Farm recommendation
FarmConstraint
Farm Constraint
andAdvantage
and Advantage

Farmachievement
achievement Farmimplementation
Farm implementation
Farm

Source: Somboonsuke, 2000 adapted from Conway 1985


Methodology (cont.)
RSF Economics Analysis Model

Farm
Farm efficiency
efficiency measurement
measurement

Physical
Physicalefficiency
efficiencymeasurement
measurement Financial
Financialefficiency
efficiencymeasurement
measurement

Farm capacity and productivity

Investment appraisal

Sensitivity analysis

Source; Somboonsuke, 2002


Result of Study
Typology of Smallholding Rubber-Based Farming System
in Songkhla Province, Thailand

Rubber timber System

Rubber integrated System

10% 7% Rubber Monoculture System


Rubbe –livestock Systm
30%
4%

17%
Rubber-fruit tree System
13% 19%
Rubber-rice System Rubber intercrop System

Classified by criteria of farm household activities from previous research of


Buncha Somboonsuke, 2002.
Seven Major Types of Smallholding Rubber -Based Farming System in
Southern Thailand (Farm-household activity classification)

Rubber Monoculture System Rubber-intercropping System Rubber-rice System

Rubber-fruit tree System Rubber-livestock System Rubber-integrated System Rubber-Teak


Rubber Agro ecological Zones in Songkhla Province
Characteristic III II I

Topographic High land Unfolded Plain Flooded plain


High altitude (m) 100-500 20-100 0-20
Slop 20-30 10-20 <10
Soil texture Loam soil, Sandy clay soil Loam clay soil, Clay soil, Sandy loam soil, Sandy
Sandy clay soil clay soil
Soil pH 4.5-5.5 4.5-5.5 5.0-5.5
Temperature (c) 26.5 28.2 28.0
Relative Humidity 76 73 73
Rainfall (mm.) 1,969 1,505 1,916
Rubber-based • Rubber monoculture •Rubber monoculture • Rubber monoculture
farming system • Rubber-fruit tree farm •Rubber-intercrop • Rubber-intercrop
• Rubber-rice farm •Rubber-rice farm • Rubber-rice farm
• Rubber-timber •Rubber-fruit tree farm • Rubber-fruit tree farm
•Rubber-livestock • Rubber-livestock
•Rubber-integrated farm • Rubber-integrated
farm
Typology of Smallholding Rubber-based Farming System of Rubber
Agro Ecological Zone
Zone III: High land Zone II: Unfolded plain Zone I: Flooded plain

60 25 30
50 20 25
40 15 20
% 30 55 % 25
22 20 % 15 26
10
20 13 15 10 18 20 20
25 5
10 15 5 5 10
5 6
0 0 0
R1 R4 R6 R7 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6
System system system

Legend; R1: rubber-monoculture, R2: Rubber-intercrop, R3: Rubber-rice, R4:


Rubber-fruit tree, R5: Rubber-livestock, R6: Rubber-integrated, R7: Rubber-
timber
Sources: Interview and Department of Agricultural Extension
Zone I: Flooded Plain Area
• Flooded area in rainy season with low soil
fertility (clay-sandy soil).
• In case of new rubber planting (Paddy field
area), not recommended by ORRAF and
RRIT.
• For rubber production:
- More than 50% of rubber trees have
girth less than 50 cm girth. (at 1.5 m. from
ground) of 7.2 year old trees.
- High cost of production such as land
preparation , fertilizer, labor management.
- Long unproductive period 7.2 years.
- Yield 1,331.25 kg./ha.
- Still use RRIM 600 in poly bag and
bud stump.
• Future trend shows change from rice to
rubber and oil palm???.
Agricultural Production System of Zone I: Flooded Plain Area
Farm’s objective and goal Characteristics of Agroecozone
Income of family  Plain land and Coastal area Rainfall: 1,916 mm.
Main occupation of family High in altitude: 0 – 100 m. Temperature: 28C
Improve living standard Slop: < 10 o Relative Humidity: 73%
Soil type: Loam-Sandy clay
pH:5.0 – 5.5

Farm’s constraint and Potential


Farmer’s recommendation Low productivity due to Farm Owner
• Establish farm’s group for buy input and sell Re-planting rubber in old paddy rice area Good farm management
rubber product High cost of Input Good skill of tapping labor
• Increase to use organic fertilizer and makes its by Labor shortage Better infrastructure
farm’s group Disease and pest Member of farm’s group
• Reduce frequency of tapping Flooding in some year High soil fertilizer
• Provide government policy for reduced price
fluctuation, price of input and marketing
Farm’s conduct and management
Land: Total area 17.97, total farm area 16.06, rubber area 13.96 rais.
Tapping Labor: Total labor 1.89, HL 1.60 (M0.86:F0.74), SC 0.29
(M0.12:F0.17) person
Capital: Farm expenditure 31,537; rubber 13,581, other farm7,956
Farm’s achievement bath/year
•Rubber yield 213.0 kg/ria/year Breed: RRIM600,BPM24, space 3x7, Nb.tree per rais 72
Total Income 248,600 bath/year Chemical Fertilizer:15-15-15, Quan. 55.9 kg/ria, Freq. 1.46 time/year
Total farm income 220,600 bath/year Organic Fertilizer: Bio-fertilizer, Quan. 54.8 kg/ria, Freq. 1.3 time/year
 Rubber income 212,00 bath/year Plant disease and Past: 94.7%, Quan. 50.2 kg/ria, Freq. 3.1 time/year
 Other farm income 86,000 bath/year Weed: 95.4%, Mechanical method, Freq. 1.3 time/year
Off-farm income 28,000 bath/year Initial tapping age: 7.0 yearsCurrent rubber age: 16.0 years
Household Saving 66,200 bath/year Tapping system:1/3S 3d/4, 1/2S 2d/3, 1/2S 3d/4, 1/2S d/2
Total Expenditure 117,800 bath/year Product form: Latex
Household Dept 171,200 bath/year Benefit share ratio: 55:45, 50:50
Market: Local Market
Zone II: Unfolded Plain Area ( Rolling Area)

• Unfolded plain area or rolling area


with soil type with clay and loamy
clay soil.
• High rubber diversification.
• Mainly 2rd-3th round of ORRAF
replanting program and more than
70% of the farm participating in
ORRAF’s replanting program.
• Approximately 90% used RRIM
600.
• Long unproductive period (7 years)
• Yield 1,562.5 kg./ha
Agricultural Production System of Zone II: Unfolded Plain or Rolling Area
Farm’s objective and goal Characteristics of Agroecozone
Income of family Rolling area  pH: 4.5 – 5.5
Main occupation of family High in altitude: 20 – 100 m. Rainfall: 1,505 mm.
Improve living standard Slop: 10 – 20 o Temperature: 28.2 C
Household consumption Soil type: Loam clay soil, Clay soil Relative Humidity: 73%
Sandy clay soil

Farm’s constraint and Potential


Farmer’s recommendation High cost of Input Farm Owner
•Establish farm’s group for buy input and sell rubber Labor shortage High soil fertilizer
product Disease and pest Convenience to sell in Local
Small rubber area market
•Increase to use organic fertilizer and makes its by
farm’s group Deficient capital for investment No flooding
•Provide tapping system properly with rubber age Better infrastructure
•Provide government policy for reduced price
fluctuation, price of input and marketing Farm’s conduct and management

Land: Total area 20.17, total farm area 14.11, rubber area 13.56 rais.
Tapping Labor: Total labor 2.06, HL 1.45 (M0.76:F0.69), SC 0.61
Farm’s achievement (M0.41:F0.20) person
Capital: Farm expenditure 25,222; rubber 17,833, other farm7,388 bath/year
•Rubber yield 250.4 kg/ria/year
Breed: RRIM600, space 3x7, 3x6, Nb.tree per rais 74
Total Income 153,100 bath/year
Chemical Fertilizer:15-15-15, Quan. 53.3 kg/ria, Freq. 1.50 time/year
Total farm income 135,600 bath/year Organic Fertilizer: Bio-fertilizer, Quan. 54.0 kg/ria, Freq. 1.4 time/year
 Rubber income 135,600 bath/year Plant disease and Past: 66.7%, Stop tapping and chemical, Freq. 3.1
 Other farm income - bath/year time/year
Off-farm income 17,600 bath/year Weed: 95.0%, Mechanical and chemical method, Freq. 2.5 time/year
Total Expenditure 91,500 bath/year  Initial tapping age: 7.4 years Current rubber age: 16.9 years
 Household Saving 73,000 bath/year Tapping system:1/3S 3d/4, 1/2S 2d/3, 1/2S 3d/4, 1/2S d/2
Household Dept 217,500 bath/year Product form at present: Latex
Benefit share ratio: 55:45
Market: Local Market
Zone III: High land (Mountain Area)
• High slop in more than 30% and normally
40% of the total rubber planting area is the
illegally area (national park, forest). Rubber
small holders have no land ownership that
affect the technology development
opportunity.
• High cost of management such as tapping,
fertilization, transportation that affect the
benefit ratio.
• Long unproductive period 6.5 years.
• Yield 1,437.5 kg./ha.
Observation: Increased disease and the land
slide due to clone, wind and land
preparation???.
Agricultural Production System of Zone III: High land or Mountain Area
Farm’s objective and goal Characteristics of Agroecozone
Income of family •High land or Mountain area
Improve living standard High in altitude: 100 – 500 m. Rainfall: 1,969 mm.
Household consumption Slop: 20 – 30 o pH: 4.5-5.5
Soil type: Loam soil, Sandy clay soil Temperature: 26.5 C
Loam soil Relative Humidity: 76%

Farm’s constraint and Potential


•High cost of Input
Farmer’s recommendation  Farm Owner
Disease and pest
•Establish farm’s group for buy input and sell rubber High soil fertilizer
High slop of land
product Better infrastructure
High Weed
•Provide government policy for reduced price
Deficient capital for investment
fluctuation, price of input and marketing

Farm’s conduct and management


Land:Total area 20.0, total farm area 15.60, rubber area 9.80 rais.
Tapping Labor: Total labor 2.0, HL 1.4 (M0.7:F0.7), SC 0.6 (M0.4:F0.2)
person
Capital: Farm expenditure 27,000; rubber 14,600, other farm 12,400
bath/year
Farm’s achievement
Breed: RRIM600, space 3x7, 3x6, Nb.tree per rais 70
•Rubber yield 171.6 kg/ria/year
Chemical Fertilizer:15-15-15, Quan. 46.0 kg/ria, Freq. 1.75 time/year
Total Income 126,300 bath/year
Organic Fertilizer: Bio-fertilizer, Quan. 50.0 kg/ria, Freq. 2.0 time/year
Total farm income 122,400 bath/year
Plant disease and Past: 80.0%, Stop tapping and chemical, Freq. 1.0
 Rubber income 115,600 bath/year
time/year
 Other farm income 6,800 bath/year
Weed: 100%, Mechanical and chemical method, Freq. 2.5 time/year
Off-farm income 3,900 bath/year
 Initial tapping age: 7.0 years Current rubber age: 19.5 years
Total Expenditure 80,800 bath/year
Tapping system: 1/2S 2d/3, 1/2S 3d/4
Household Saving 16,000 bath/year
Product form at present: Latex, Un-smoked sheet
Household Dept 102,500 bath/year
Benefit share ratio: 55:45
Market: Local Market
Tapping System
38
40
35
Four main current
30
25 21 tapping system :
16
%

20 13
15
10
5
6
2 2 1 1
1/3S 3d/4, 1/2S 2d/3,
0
1/2S 3d/4 and 1/2S d/2
1/3S 3d/4

1/2S 2d/3

1/2S 3d/4

1/2S d/2

1/3S 2d/3

1/3S 4d/5

1/3S 5d/6

1/3S 6d/7

1/2S 4d/5
Tapping system

Average (day per moth) Average (day per year)

200
Average tapping day per 150
142.81 138.31 140.11
116.02
136.12 144.75 140.02 135.21 141.21

month:21.52 Day 100

50 21.25 21.31 22.36 20.1 23.1 24.14 25.1 22.47


Average tapping day per 13.85
0
year:137.17
1 /3 S

1 /2 S

1 /2 S

1 /2 S

1 /3 S

1 /3 S

1 /3 S

1 /3 S

1 /2 S
3 d /4

2 d /3

3 d /4

2 d /3

4 d /5

5 d /6

6 d /7

4 d /5
d /2
Tapping system
Factors Relate to the Decision Making Selected Tapping System

Topography
Labor Situation and Farm size

Socio-economic Clone
status Condition of
decision to select
tapping system Farm practice and
Tapping Method management
and Management

Extension from
Tapping system
government
Experiences
Labour Issue
• Two types of rubber labor force
1) Household labour (72 %).
2) Shared cropper labour (28 %) (high mobilization
and migration).
• Rubber production requires 5-8 hrs/day/ha
• The quantity of rubber labor per household
2 persons.
• Labor efficiency:
- Production/labor 6.46 kg./hr. (household labor)
and 5.35 kg./hr. (share cropper labor).
- Total income/labor 439.9 baht/hr. (household
labor) and 364.3 bath/hr. (shared cropper labor).
Economic Analysis
Cost and Income : Study in Rubber Monoculture System
Items 1/3S 3d/4 1/2S 2d/3 1/2S 3d/4 1/2S d/2
1. Total cost 55,715.31 59,115.18 63,905.25 54,750.30
(baht/ha/year)
2. Total variable cost 52,950.43 56,708.50 60,377.31 50,945.93
(baht/ha/year)
3. Fixed cost 2,764.87 2,406.68 3,527.93 3,804.37
(baht/ha/year)
4.Total farm income 136,857.50 120,190.62 100,096.87 110,237.5
(baht/ha/year)
5.Netfarm income 81,142.19 61,075.44 36,191.62 59,291.25
(baht/ha/year)
6.Return to total 2.45 2.03 1.56 2.01
cost(baht/ha/year)
7.Return to variable 2.58 2.11 1.65 2.16
cost(baht/ha/year)
8.Return to fix 49.49 49.94 28.37 28.97
cost(baht/ha/year)
Farm Efficiency Measurement
: Study in Rubber Monoculture System
Measurement 1/3S 3d/4 1/2S 2d/3 1/2S 3d/4 1/2S d/2

1. Physical efficiency measurement


1.1 Aggregate measurement
1) Total area (ha/household) 3.17 3.84 2.96 2.35
2) Total plantation area (ha/household) 2.41 3.00 2.68 2.19
3) Total tapping area(ha/household) 1.29 1.80 1.77 1.2
4) Total production (kg/year) 2,105.5 1,849.08 1,539.95 1,831.25
1.2 Ratio measurement
1.2.1 Land use efficiency
1) Yield per area (kg/ha/year) 1,667.00 1,537.87 1,173.75 1,331.25
2) Production efficiency (PE, %) 102.52 81.86 71.85 108.20
3) Crop year index (CYI, %) 114.56 105.68 80.66 91.48
4) Crop intensity (CI, %) 15.52 17.93 15.59 11.38
1.2.2 Labor efficiency
1) Total labor (md/ha/yr) 178.0 99.6 115.1 142.4
2) Productive manpower (kg/md) 9.4 15.4 10.2 9.3
Farm Efficiency Measurement
: Study in Rubber Monoculture System
Measurement 1/3S 3d/4 1/2S 2d/3 1/2S 3d/4 1/2S d/2
2. Financial efficiency measurement
2.1) Aggregate measure
1) Total cost (baht/ha/year) 55,715.31 59,115.87 64,849.68 54,750.03

2) Total variable cost(baht/ha/year ) 52,950.43 56,708.50 60,377.31 50,945.93

3) Total fixed cost(baht/ha/year ) 2,764.87 2,406.68 4,472.37 3,804.37

4) Total farm income (baht/ha/year) 136,857.50 120,190.62 100,096.87 110,237.5

5) Net farm income (baht/ha/year) 81,142.19 61,074.75 35,247.19 59,291.25


2.2) Ratio measure
1) Gross output per gross input 2.46 2.03 1.54 2.01
2) Fertilizer per unit area 312.50 362.50 330 482
2.2.1 Cost ratio
1) Operation cost ratio 0.39 0.47 0.60 0.46
2) Fixed cost ratio 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03
3) Total cost ratio 0.41 0.46 0.64 0.50
4) Total cost per area 1,100.55 837.03 934.77 1,168.01
2.2.2 Income ratio
1) Net farm income per area (baht/ha) 62,900.92 33,930.41 19,913.66 49,409.37
Investment Appraisal

Index 1/3S 3d/4 1/2S 2d/3 1/2S 3d/4 1/2S d/2


BCR 2.17 1.83 2.09 1.76

NPV 64,286.22 53,015.88 69,439.42 35,853.46

IRR (%) 25 23 28 20
Sensitivity Analysis
Indicators 5% 10% 15% 5% 10% 15%
capital capital capital production production production
Increase Increase Increase decline decline decline

1/3S BCR 2.07 1.98 1.89 2.07 1.96 1.85


3d/4
NPV 61559.3 58832.4 56105.5 58345.0 52403.7 46462.5
IRR 24.0 23.0 22.0 24.0 23.0 21.0
1/2S BCR 1.90 1.81 1.73 1.89 1.79 1.69
2d/3
NPV 55,256.4 52,331.50 49,406.70 52,347.30 46,513.40 40,679.50
IRR 24.00 23.00 22.00 24.00 22.00 21.00
1/2S BCR 1.99 1.90 1.82 1.99 1.88 1.78
3d/4 NPV 66,277.20 63,115.00 59,952.80 62,805.20 56,171.00 49,536.90
IRR 27.00 26.00 25.00 27.00 25.00 24.00
1/2S BCR 1.68 1.60 1.53 1.67 1.58 1.50
d/2 NPV 33,511.5 31,169.60 28,827.70 31,718.80 27,584.3 23,449.70
IRR 19.00 18.00 17.00 19.00 18.00 17.00
Conclusion
• Although RRIT has recommended the tapping system
appropriate to the particular area, In fact, the smallholders do
not always adopt but they have modified the tapping system in
accordance with the factors differing in each area.
•The limitations regarding the land tenure ship in protected
land and natural forests are important factors in the
smallholding rubber development in the future.
•The biological diversity in Rubber smallholding farms is an
indicator for adoption of smallholder in unfolded plain and
flooded plain ecological zone.
•In the future, there is a trend of shortage of household labor
due to the migration of skillful labor as a result of changing in
socio-economic condition and preference, replaced by unskillful
labor (From neighboring country), that effect the quality,
productivity and farm practice management.
Thank you….
ผลการศึกษา (ตอ)
ปริมาณน้ําฝน คาการระเหยน้ํา อุณหภูมิสูงสุด อุณหภูมิต่ําสุด
ปริมาณน้ําฝนและการคายระเหยน้ํา (มิลลิเมตร) อุณหภูมิ (องศาเซลเซียส)
390 40
360
330 35
300 30
270
240 25
210 20
180
150 15
120
90 10
60 5
30
0 0
ม.ค. ก.พ. มี.ค. เม.ย. พ.ค. มิ.ย. ก.ค. ส.ค. ก.ย. ต.ค. พ.ย. ธ.ค. ม.ค. ก.พ. มี.ค.

2550 2551
ภาพที่ 8 ลักษณะภูมิอากาศของอําเภอหาดใหญ จังหวัดสงขลา ระหวางเดือนมกราคม
2550-เดือนมีนาคม 2551
ที่มา: สถานีตรวจอากาศเกษตรคอหงส ตําบลคอหงส อําเภอหาดใหญ จังหวัดสงขลา
ผลการศึกษา (ตอ)
จํานวนวันกรีด 164 วัน
จํานวนวันกรีดที่คาดหวัง จํานวนวันกรีดที่กรีดไดจริง
30
จํานวนวัน (วัน)

20
10
0
เม.ย. พ.ค. มิ.ย. ก.ค. ส.ค. ก.ย. ต.ค. พ.ย. ธ.ค. ม.ค. ก.พ. มี.ค.
เดือน
2550 2550

ภาพที่ 9 เปรียบเทียบจํานวนวันกรีดที่คาดหวังกับจํานวนวันกรีดที่กรีดไดจริง ใน
ระบบกรีด 1/3S 2d/3

You might also like