IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-2

Research article
erd

Agroforestry Systems for Upland People in Lao PDR:Production,  Benefit,  and  Farmers’  Satisfaction  Analysis  THIPPHAPHONE DOUANGSILA*
Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
Email: tounic77@gmail.com

SUPAPORN POUANGCHOMPU
Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
Received 15 December 2011

Accepted 12 March 2012(*: Corresponding Author)

Abstract With an increasing population and governmental land-use restriction, shortened
fallow periods of some traditional farming systems have contributed to the reduction ofagricultural production in the uplands of Lao P.D.R. In response, systems which integratetrees, crops, and/or animals, such as agro forestry have been applied. However, the promotion of agroforestry as an alternative choice for upland farmers has become very challenging as a result of long-term economic incentives. The objectives of this study were to identify agroforestry systems employed, cost and returns, and the satisfaction of farmers, aiming to promote more benefits of agroforestry. Information described in this paper camefrom a survey of 80 agroforestry farms under a project support in nine villages of twonorthern districts. The results implied that three main agro forestry systems, based on nature components, have been employed. 81 percent of farmers employed Agrisilviculture,
where trees and crops were combined in the same parcel. 14 percent applied Agrosilvopastoral (trees, crops, and pasture/animals), followed by 5 percent who applied Silvopastoral(trees and pasture/animals). In terms of production cost, initial investment in Agrisilviculture cost on average US$ 575 ha-1; while Agrosilvopastoral farmers spent around US$ 795
ha-1 and Silvopastural farmers, an estimated US$ 282 ha-1. After three-years of establishment, most farmers achieved success meeting their food sufficiency needs and obtained
additional income from extra production, with average returns from each system about
US$ 186 ha-1, US$ 632 ha-1, and US$ 104 ha-1 respectively. With biological and economic
advantages produced by natural components in each system, most of farmers were similarly satisfied. Although the systems could not provide immediate-profitable returns, they
were able to sustain food production and were profitable for a long-term use. A particularattention and continual technical support from relevant agencies are still required to enhance application of agroforestry.
Keywords upland farmers, agroforestry systems, production cost and benefits, farmers’satisfaction.

INTRODUCTION
In Lao PDR, 80 percent of the land area is classified as mountainous, including much of the Northern region. This is a main obstacle for the development of social infrastructure. Still, the majorityof upland population employs shifting cultivation as the main agricultural activity (Seidenberg etal., 2003). Along with the main shifting cultivation, agroforestry, an ancient process of cultivating
trees and crops in combination with one another, has also been employed. These practices havebeen classified as indigenous or traditional agroforestry, practiced in home gardens, intercropping
systems, and livestock grazing practices (Sodarak et al., 2004). Under population pressure and government restriction on deforestation, traditional shifting cultivation as well as indigenous agroforestry practices has faced the problem of shortened fallow periods, consequently contributing to thedegradation of soil fertility and crop yield (De Rouw, 2005). In response, the government has imⒸISERD127

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-2

plemented policies and programs aiming at providing better options for sustainable agriculture inthe uplands (GoL, 2004). One of those methods employed is alternative agroforestry. An integration of annual crop, upland rice, with medium-term fruit trees and longer-term fruit trees has been
set up for upland farmers (Lai et al., 2004). After several years of introduction, it seems the extension of alternative agroforestry is still limited due to a lack of immediate returns. Thus, this study
aims at analyzing the alternative agroforestry systems applied, production, benefits, and the farmers’  satisfaction  regarding  the  technology  support.  Information  presented  in  this  study  is  believed  to  be useful for farmers who are interested in applying agroforestry as well as development agencies
involved in the promotion of agroforestry in uplands.
METHODOLOGY
The study was conducted in two northern districts, Namor in Oudomxay province and Phonxay inLuangprabang province, where alternative agroforestry has been practiced under field-based research of a foreign project. Hence, purposive sampling was applied to collect data. From a project
document’s  review,  120  families  had  been  in  the  agroforestry  trials.  However,  after  the  real  survey  only 80 families continued applying this system, as some had stopped. Thus, the total number ofsamples interviewed was 80 families. The study used structured interview and randomly visited
farms during 20 March to 03 May 2011 in both districts. Questions were asked mainly on agroforestry systems details, production cost and income, and satisfaction of farmers regarding advantages
received. All data collected was processed by the computer program SPSS for Windows Version
17.0. Descriptive statistics were applied, such as percentage, means, and figures, to support thequalitative  data.  The  farmers’  satisfaction  levels  for  agroforestry  advantages  were  analyzed  by  using interval mean scores, dividing into five interval levels that were calculated by using the equation.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Agroforestry systems and component species
From the data analyzed, three main systems of agroforestry, based on their nature components,
have been employed (Table 1). Agrisilviculture, where only trees and crops including shrubs/vines
integrated together, was mostly applied, accounting for 81 percent of agroforestry in the community.
Among farmers applying this system, about half preferred to integrate fruit trees like prunes, pomelo, lychee, mango, longan, orange, and others. At least, two kinds of fruit trees were used in a same
parcel. Woody trees like rubber tree, agarwood, and teak were also used, but only a single specy
was planted with other crops or sometimes with fruit trees and a single crop. In this system, various
kinds of crops were applied and the popular crops were pineapple, soybean, galingale, upland rice,maize, and others. Mostly, farmers liked to add only pineapple as it was easy to grow and needed
less care compared to other kinds.
Table 1 Agroforestry systems applied
Agroforestry Systems

Percentage (%)

Agrisilviculture (trees and shrubs/tree, or and crops)

81.25

Agrosilvopastoral (trees, crops, and pasture/animals)

13.75

Silvopastoral (trees and pasture/animals)

5.00

Another prevalent agroforestry system found on farms was Agrosilvopastoral, a system inwhich trees, crops and pasture/animals are planted together, accounted for 14 percent. Within thissystem, several trees, crops, and animals were incorporated. Over half of the farmlands employing
this method planted fruit trees, mostly litchi and longan. Woody trees such as rubber trees, teak,ⒸISERD128

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-2

and agarwood were also applied. With the integration of crops, farmers preferred to grow pineapple,
galingale, soy bean, maize, and sesame. The most commonly raised livestock was poultry which
was naturally free-grassing. Additionally, 5 percent of farmers employed Silvopastoral, where pasture land or animals are integrated in the tree plantation. The most popular trees were litchi, prunes,orange, and rubber tree, combining with some animals like pigs, goats, and cattle, mostly roaming
freely in the day time and confined in a pen at night. As nearly all of the farmlands situated on
hillsides, the most common cropping pattern applied in all systems was alley cropping in whichtrees are planted in rows at wide spacing with companion crops grown in the spaces between thetree rows.
Farm Production
In each system, the levels of production were dissimilar, in conjunction with the different amountof trees, crops and animals integrated. Analyzed data in Table 2 showed the average yield, and saleof extra production annually. Genarally, most farmers could harvest the production from fruit trees
after three years of farm establishment. While only some rubber plantations were able to reap benefits from sales of rubber cup lump last year. In crop production, farmers could gain benefits within
the first year of integration. Farmers indicated that they could sustain food self-sufficiency fromharvested crops (i.e. pineapple, maize, soybean, galingale, and sesame) and could also sell some of
the crops surplus to generate household income. Combined with animals, some families who raised
cattle could generate a very good profit.
Table 2 Average yearly production, amount of consumption and sale per hectare
Systems and components
Agrisilviculture
Woody trees
Fruit trees
Crops
Total
Agrosilvopastoral
Fruit trees
Crops
Animals
Total
Silvopastoral
Woody trees
Fruit trees
Animals* Unit of animals yield was counted in head

Yield (kg/ha)

SD

Sold (kg/ha)

SD

18.61
129.91
1,635.68

63.45
182.16
2,921.40

18.61
86.33
465.6163.45
168.04702.61338.751,000.00
32.20

563.701,026.37
46.98

329.25863.6420.60

569.19914.1647.06

16.50
196.257.00

23.33
278.052.83

16.50
122.501.50

23.33
157.56
2.12

Among the families participating in Agrisilviculture trials, only few families could collect theproduction from woody trees, due to the fact that most of the rubber tree as well as teak and agarwood were not yet fully formed. Only a few rubber plantations were ready for tapping with the average yield of 18.61 kg ha-1. As fruit trees were mostly grown to sustain food production, the average yield was 129.91 kg ha-1, mainly from prunes, pomelo and lichee. Of these, some was used forhome consumption and the extra yield was sold in the local market. The average yield gained fromcrops, such as pineapple, soybean, galingale, upland rice, maize, and sesame was 1,635.68 kg ha -1.
In Agrosilvopastoral, the number of farmers engaged in this system was smaller, so the average of
production seemed higher than the first system. For fruit trees, farmers could harvest fruit about
338.75 kg ha-1, largely from litchi, longan, prunes, and pomelo. The production from crops was
1,000 kg ha-1, mainly from pineapple. Besides, several kinds of animals were raised, the most preferred being poultry, goat, and pig, with total offspring averaged from all kinds about 32 head ha -1.
ⒸISERD129

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-2

Chicken made up the highest proportion. In the mean time, the Silvopastoral farmers had obtained
the production of some mature rubber trees, approximately 16.50 kg ha-1 of rubber cup lump. Thefruit trees production was mainly harvested from litchi, prunes, and orange, and averaged a combined total of about 196.25 kg ha-1. The most frequently used animals in this system were pig andgoat, generally fed by free-roaming in the day time and confined in pens at night. Average animal
production from both was about 7 head ha-1 year-1.
Cost and benefits
Due to the use of various species components applied on each farm, the cost of production was analyzed by the three main systems of agroforestry. Table 3 shows average cost of production per hectare at the time of initial investment by each natural component (trees, crops, and animals), calculated from labor and material input costs. The labor inputs for each system were land preparation,planting, farm management, harvesting, and transporting. The total labor needed for each systemvaried due to the different amount of trees and crops planted. The material inputs were mostlyseeds, including trees seedlings and crop seeds, followed by organic fertilizer, which was applied
only in the first two years. The remaining expense was farm equipment, such as knives, hoes, shovels, and spades, which were purchased only one time. The material inputs for animals were different. They included medicine, forage, and fencing. The investment in animals only occurred at thetime of the first acquirement.
Table 3 Average cost of initial investment by nature components and annual income
Systems and components

Amountintegrated (ha)SD

Initiative cost
(US$/ha)Annual income(US$/ha)Agrisilviculture
Trees (plant)

275

275

372

58

Crops (kg)

1,980

3,406

203

128

575

186

Total
Agrosilvopastoral
Trees (plant)

329

305

313

170

Crops (kg)

2,065

2,070

262

146

20

23

219

316

795

632

Animals (head)
Total
Silvopastoral
Trees (plant)

387

625

218

85

Animals (head)

776419282

104Total* 1 $UDS=8,000 LAK

In Agrisilviculture where only trees and crops were integrated, the average number of tree
seedlings used at the beginning was about 275 plants ha-1, including both woody and fruit trees.
The price of trees varied, depending on species. In fact, all trees were funded by the project. However, the cost of trees seedlings was still calculated as a material input. For intercrops, farmers weresupported by the project in the first year. After that, farmers had to invest on their own for the annual crops, excluding pineapple. In total, the initial investment in Agrisilviculture was around
US$ 575 ha-1. In Agrosilvopastoral, the cost of production was higher due to the higher quantity oftrees, crops, and animals used. Due to the variation of animals applied, the cost of animals wassummed up and estimated in average including cost for relevant materials such forage, fencing, andmedicine. Total initial expense, estimated for the use of 329 trees, 2,065 kg of different crops and amixture of 20 animals, was about US$ 795. In Silvopastural, where there were only trees and animals, the initial investment was less compared to other techniques. The total expense was estimatedⒸISERD130

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-2

to be around US$ 282 ha-1 for the integration of 387 trees with 7 animals. Farmers stated that normally feed their livestock naturally by free-grazing, and as such, there was no expense for forage.
The only fencing cost paid for was nails, as other materials like timber could be taken from the forest.
In each system, monetary returns were dissimilar due to the different amount of trees, crops
and animals integrated. Most farmers established farms with the aim mainly to produce food forhome consumption. However, they also used surplus fruit and crops harvested to generate additional income. Analyzed data in Table 3 also showed the average income gained annually from the saleof extra production. Among the families participating in Agrisilviculture trials, they could harvest
the production from all components and make additional income equivalent to US$ 186 ha-1 year-1.
In the Agrosilvopastoral system, the average income was the highest, estimated at US$ 632 ha-1, inrelation to the higher amount of natural components combined, as well as the higher rate of production sold. Silvopastoral obtained the lowest profit, approximately US$ 104 ha-1 as the benefit could
be reaped only from trees and livestock, particularly poultry. If comparing the cost of production
and income in all three systems, although it seems that their cost of initial investment was higher
than income, the yearly average return still gave the satisfactory benefits. Particularly, farmers
claimed that they could sustain their food production and also increase household income, enabling
their ability to purchase more food and daily goods for their families.
Farmers’  satisfaction  to the agroforestry advantages
This  study  also  examined  the  differences  of  farmers’  satisfaction  with  the  agroforestry  advantages
generated by the interaction of its natural components through the use of Chi-square test of difference (Table 4).
Table 4 Satisfaction on biological and economic advantages of agroforestry
Agrisivil-

Percentage
Agrosilvo-

Silvo-

culturepastoralpastoralSatisfaction on trees

81.25

13.75

Satisfaction on crops

84.06

Satisfaction on animals-Crops production increase

NMeanSD

X2

5.00

80

3.46.826.177ns

15.94

-

69

3.67

.852

4.429**

78.57

21.43

14

3.64.497

1.479ns

81.25

13.75

5.00

80

3.36.830

6.311**

Increase food production

81.25

13.75

5.00

80

3.46.745

1.843 ns

Variety of farm production

81.25

13.75

5.00

80

3.20.818

1.033 ns

Save household labors

81.25

13.75

5.00

80

3.53.927

2.048 ns

Increase income

81.25

13.75

5.00

80

3.46.810

1.034 nsVarious income from intercrops

81.25

13.75

5.00

80

3.34.728

4.798 ns

81.25
13.75
5.00
80
3.34
Buy more goods and servicesnsNote: Differences are compared using Chi-square test; = Non-significant, ** Significant at 5%.762

4.123 ns

Agroforestry advantages
Biological advantages

Economic advantages

Investigated data indicated that the satisfaction to biological advantages from trees and animals were insignificant differences among three systems. Farmers were commonly satisfied withtrees since trees and animals integrated were suitable to the environment. For satisfaction on animals raised, there was also an insignificant difference among three groups since farmers werelargely satisfied with an increase of household income from sales of livestock. Nevertheless, there
is a significant difference of 5% among farmers who integrated crops. The given reason by farmer
who applied Agrisilviculture was that the combination of crops created a good environmental, conⒸISERD131

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-2

tributing to the increased of crops yield; meanwhile, farmers who employed Agrosilvopastoral
claimed that crops were difficult to take care at the time of fruit-bearing due to damage by insects
and rodents, often resulting in crops failure. In addition, some crops like pineapple were small insize and sour in taste, resulting in unsellable production. To economic benefits, the satisfaction offarmers of three systems was not significantly different. Mostly, they were satisfied that the varietyof crops could not only sustain food supply but also could make additional cash income from surplus production to buy more goods and services supporting daily life. Yet, there is a significantly
different satisfaction at 5% to the crops production increase as Agrosilvopastoral farmers reported
differently that crops yield gradually decreased year by year.
CONCLUSION
Through the introduction of agroforestry for farmers in the hilly areas, three main agroforestry systems have been employed: Agrisivilculture, Agrosilvopastoral, and Silvopastoral. The most prevalent system was Agrisivilcuture where only trees and crops were put together in the same plot. In
each system, various kinds of trees, crops, and animals were diversely incorporated. The initial costof production was considerably dissimilar. Among three systems, Agrosilvopastoral farmers had thehighest cost of production, due to the fact that all three main nature components, trees, crops, andanimals, were integrated. In regards to the estimated profitable returns, all systems could provide
levels of production to support the food sufficiency of families and gain additional income fromsales of surplus production. The most profitable was Agrosilvopastural, since various kinds of species  were  applied.  In  addition,  the  differences  of  farmer’s  satisfaction  on  biological  and  economic
advantages of all agroforestry systems are mostly non-significant. Only some showed their significant different satisfaction to the benefit of crops integrated, in accordance with the difficulty offarm management during fruit-bearing times as a result of insect and rodent damage, resulting insome crop failure. To this point, the need for farm management techniques are required to preventthe production loss as it is a key motivator to help the expansion of agroforestry systems. Moreover,some on-going technical and advisory assistance from related agencies, especially government andprojects, is still needed to facilitate the application of technologies introduced and to provide information about solving problems on farms to enhance effectiveness. Hence, farmers will feel more
confident with the new farming systems offered that could help them improve their food production
and create better livelihood conditions.
REFERENCES
DeRouw, A.J. 2005. Weed control in shifting cultivation. Improving livelihoods in the upland of the LaoPDR. Initiatives and approaches, Vientiane. 1, 78-84.
GoL. 2004. The national growth and poverty eradication strategy. Government of Laos (GoL), Vientiane. 5355.
Lai, C., Sodarak, H., Keoboualapha, B. and Linquist, B. 2004. Integrated fruit tree systems in Luangprabang:
Scaling-up sustainable technologies and process. Poverty reduction and shifting cultivation stabilizationin the uplands of Lao PDR: Technologies, approaches and methods for improving upland livelihoods,
Laos, 353-359.
Seidenberg, C., Mertz, O. and Kias, M.B. 2003. Fallow, labour and livelihood in shifting cultivation: implication for deforestation in northern Lao PDR. Geografisk Tidsskrift, Danish Journal of Geography, 103(2),71-80.
Sodarack, H., Ditsphorn, C., Thammavong, V., Ounthammasith, N. and Forshed. O. 2003. Indigenous agroforestry practices in two districts in the northern part of Lao PDR. Poverty reduction and shifting cultivation stabilization in the uplands of Lao PDR: Technologies, approaches and methods for improving upland livelihoods, Laos, 213-228.

ⒸISERD132