In years of bouncing around Southeast Asia, I've had many a conversation with locals and expats about the seeming superiority of Cambodian rice. I am not alone in my assessment. But why? Is it really better than rice in Thailand (my home for the past three years and therefore my natural point of comparison)? Or is it just my imagination? I have my own ideas (Cambodian rice is mostly grown and harvested by hand, the land tilled by buffalo, the soil largely free of pesticides). But Khmers have their opinions, too--not necessarily based on science. "In Thailand, they eat for food, not for taste," a Khmer journalist told me. Thailand, the world's leading rice exporter, grows good rice, he said, but it's the low-quality varieties that generally make it to local restaurant tables. In Cambodia, where cheap rice is for soldiers, he said that even the poorest villagers scrape together to buy the best rice they can. It also has to do with rice cycles. Good rice takes six months to grow during the rainy season. This accounts for the majority of Cambodia's harvest. Much less popular is the lower-quality "fast rice" grown between December and February, during the dry season. Farmers in other countries often plant second-crop rice in order to make more money, a Phnom Penh restaurant owner explained. Fast rice doesn't taste as good or last as long, but it certainly adds income. But few people outside Cambodia get to taste the beauty of its rice. The country simply doesn't have the facilities to process mass quantities for export. Neither does it have the water for a "fast rice" crop (a mere 7 percent of Cambodian crops are irrigated). Last but not least, Cambodians proudly keep the best for themselves.
Pinterest
