IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

Research article
erd

Resilience of Rice-field and Mountain-based Native Beef
Cattle Raising: A Case Study in Nakhon Panom Province,
ThailandTHEERACHAI HAITOOK*
Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
Email: theeha@kku.ac.th, pae-ait@hotmail.com

KRITAPON SOMMART
Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand

THEWIN VONGPRALUB
Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand

SURADEJ PHOLSEN
Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand

MONGKOL TAUON
Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand

WAREERAT PANNARAT
Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
Received 15 December 2011

Accepted 7 February 2012(*: Corresponding Author)

Abstract Native beef cattle raising by small-scale farmers in the rural areas of Thailand isvulnerable to ecological, institutional and technological changes. Decrease of vulnerability
can be achieved by increasing resilience. The study of the resilience of rice field andmountain based native beef cattle raising in Nakhon Panom province, Thailand wastherefore conducted as a case study to assess the resiliency level of the system. A focusgroup workshop and survey were used in this study. Animals were raised in harvested
rice-fields and shifted to a free-grazing area in a forest-mountain area over the wet season.
The results indicated that the system was resilient. For this reason, it is felt that native-beefcattle raising in these two ecologies are sustainable. The resilience of the system can be
manifested into eight elements: 1) good governance among rural communities and nationalparks in terms of policy and cooperation; 2) socio-economic enhancement and a sound andsustainable livelihood; 3) well integrated natural food resources in the forest with abundantcrop residues and natural grasses in the rice field; 4) adaptation of land-use and the lesssignificant need to support the basic infrastructure; 5) sound orientation and awareness ofrisks in the system (therefore, risk reduction stems from the integration between
indigenous technical knowledge (ITK) and proper technology for herd management); 6)
farmers’   awareness   of   early   warning   signs   of   identified risks that alert them to prepare,protect and prevent the loss of animals; 7) well preparedness and undertaking ofprocedures established for animal protection such as diseases outbreak, heavy rain andsupporting networks; and 8) in-place plans of action for the recovery of food resources anda herd management plan. Improvement needed, farmers focus on value adding within
integration to husbandry practices and increasing an adaptation capacity for changes in the
future.
Keywords mountain, native beef cattle, resilience, rice-fieldⒸ ISERD

55

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

INTRODUCTION
The native beef cattle production system in the northeast of Thailand, has played an important rolein the sustainable livelihood at household and community levels over the past century. The system
is a natural synergism of agriculture and the forest ecosystem. Rice cultivation is a major crop in
the region and is well integrated in the raising of native beef. Accordingly, changes in socioeconomics and the ecosystem have greatly affected production of native beef cattle. As a result, theproduction system has a resilience level which reflects sustainability (Adger, 2000). Adopting thetools to assess the level of resilience will assist the understanding of the system, further improving
and promoting production in the region. The aim of the study is then to assess the existingproduction system in the realm of ecosystems. Nakhon Panom province has been selected as thetarget ecosystem where native beef cattle are raised under natural conditions.
METHODOLOGY
Focus   group   is   composed   of   group’s   leaders   and   members   of   native   beef   cattle   raising,   mixed  gender with age of 40-70 years old. Discussions were held to assess the resilience of rice-field andmountain-forest beef cattle raising systems in the Nakae district of Nakhon Panom province. Dataand information were collected by application of the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tool,
integrating the modification guidelines from the Coastal Community Resilience (CCR) developedby the US Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System (US-IOTWS, 2007). The eight basic elementsof CCR represent the desired conditions necessary to support resilience of the system. Eachelement contains benchmarks that can help determine the extent to which the element is addressedor operating to enhance resilience. The eight elements are: 1) governance, 2) society and economy,3) natural resource management, 4) land use and infrastructure, 5) risk knowledge, 6) early warning
system, 7) emergency response, and 8) recovery. Interviewees were asked to rate the level ofresilience for each element presented in the questionnaire. A rating score of 1-5 was provided,
where 1 = very low, 2 = low, 3 = moderate, 4 = high, and 5 = very high. A weighted average index(WAI) is then calculated for each element and illustrated in the spider diagram as shown in Fig.1.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Characteristics of the ecosystem and overall resilience in the production system
The components of the studied ecosystem consist of a rice-field, which is adjacent to both amountain and a settlement. The rice field serves as a habitat, with available feeding resources, suchas straw, grass and drinking water in the dry season.

Fig. 1 The resilience diagram reflects resilience levels of native beef cattle raising in the ricefield and mountain forest-based system in Nakhon Panom province, Thailand (blueline)
Level of resilience: Low resilience (less than 3); resilience (equal to 3); and higher resilience (more than 3)Ⓒ ISERD

56

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

The mountain location provides natural grass, plant leaves, forest fruit, medicinal herbs, anddrinking water. Resilience of the native beef cattle raising system in the component ecosystem is
illustrated in Fig.1. Every element has a WAI score greater than three. It clearly indicates that theoverall dimension of the production system is highly resilient. This reflects a system ofsustainability over the past century. The details of each element are described in the following
sections.
Governance of community-based, native beef cattle raising management
Good governance facilitates the consensus on development, responsibility, accountability andsuccessfulness. The main focus is on institutional context, as the study is initiated formally via
farming groups. The aim is to coordinate and strengthen the production system. The group has
cooperated within and has been linked closely to policies from the Provincial Department ofLivestock Development (DLD). The DLD supports technical services, including the developmentof in-place production plans and guidelines. Management and implementation of procedures wereclosely monitored by the committee. The group exhibited great cooperation with national parks
regarding conservation and utilization of forest resources. Forest use purposes were for either
native beef raising or sustainable household living. The community attempted to make significant
contributions to protect, conserve and rehabilitate the forest ecosystem.
Community-based socio-economics of native beef cattle rising
Socio-economics reflects the production  system’s  resilience  and  is  well  integrated  to  the  livelihood  of the community. Native beef cattle production is highly resilient in term of socio-economics andis adapted to both society and culture. The agricultural system of the study area, dominated withnative beef cattle, rice cultivation and non-timber forest production, has provided a sustainable
livelihood  for  more  than  a  century.  Regarding  beef  cattle  farming  today,  it  is  said  that  “native  beef  cattle   raises   the   farmer”   rather   than   the   cattle being raised by farmers. It is ranked second inimportance   after   the   paddy   field.   It   provides   security   as   the   community’s   food   source,   either  directly or indirectly; and a significant annual cash income. Additionally, cattle manure used as
fertilizer to sustain soil fertility (Pholsen, 2005) is an equally important by-product. Normally,
native beef cattle are ready to be sold when they return from the mountain-forest. One to two headof cattle per farmer are expected to be sold, at either a community event or outside market. Due tolow production costs, farmers may decide not to sell their cattle if the price is too low or experiencea high demand to sell, when prices are high. They normally decide to keep the herd though
maintaining the herd size is not cost effective.
Community-based natural resources management for native beef cattle
Overall community-based forest resource management reflects the high resiliency for sustainabilityof the beef raising system. In the study area, farmers allow the native beef cattle to graze for six
months in the mountain-forest during the rainy season, and six months in the post harvest ricefields surrounding the village in the dry season. This is the normal practice for the typical
combination of two ecosystems. As previously reported (Duanyai, 2009), the switching of the two
ecosystems was due to insufficient feeding resources in the mountains and unavailable grazing land
during rice cultivation. Natural resources in the ecosystem are considered to be most important forbeef cattle raising. In general, natural resources are well protected and monitored by communities,
local government and national parks. These communities demonstrate strong leadership in terms ofconservation and forest resource management, with national parks and other stakeholders. The
greatest reduction in beef cattle capacity is due to the prohibition of the use of rice fields
surrounding the village and/or national parks. The number of cattle may be reduced to only one
from ten in proportion. This reflects the importance of the rice-field ecosystem for the production
system. The sensitivity of habitats, ecosystems and natural resources are protected and maintained
to reduce risks from hazards such as forest fire, logging, hunting, collecting and otherⒸ ISERD

57

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

encroachments. Communities are actively engaged in planning and implementing forest
management activities, which are well integrated to their livelihoods.
Community-based land use and infrastructure for raising native beef cattle
Communities expressed a high resilience for the land use system. They have established measuresthat reduce the risks from forest fires and other hazards that negatively impact their livelihood andbeef cattle raising in the long term. In general, communities have incorporated a better
infrastructure in raising native beef cattle, such as creating a reservoir or canal to supply water tothe rice fields. This serves agricultural activity in the dry season, enhances household income, andincreases the security of beef cattle raising. Other infrastructures in the community are maintainedsuch as a tap-water supply pipe, road accessibility, a broadcasting system, and effective mobilephone communications. Therefore, marketing systems for beef cattle are well established between
merchants and farmers regarding both the exchange of information and the sale of cattle. An
equally important infrastructure is the servicing network of animal production from the DLD. The
establishment of livestock volunteers in the community link villages for the purpose of disease
prevention and other services.
Risk knowledge and mitigation measures on native beef cattle raising
Communities are aware of the risks and hazards that affect beef cattle raising, as seen in Table 1.
The table shows all possible risk factors affecting the different levels of the native beef production
system  in  the  study’s  two  combination  ecosystems.  The  highest  risk  factors  (scoring  7-10) show theunavailability of food resources in the mountains, rice straw in the rice fields, capital for firstinvestment, and prohibition from national parks. Most risk factors are reduced via proper
mitigation   measures.   This   knowledge   has   been   integrated   into   the   community’s   livelihoods   by  means of both formally and informally exchanging information related to activities learned fromthe past. Other minor hazards are fever, injury, and lesions and/or wounds due to scratching in theforest. Disease outbreaks are a major hazard risk that can heavily affect the loss of cattle
nationwide. However, mitigation measures provided regular vaccinations for cattle prior to placing
them in mountain-forest areas. And, while forest fires in the dry season damage natural mountaingrasses, fires in successive seasons may permanently damage natural grass, affecting native beef
cattle raising in the rainy seasons as well. The measure to protect forest fires in the dry season has
been taken with the cooperation of national parks., conducting preparedness to protect forest-fires
in the dry season. In the rainy season, the hazard risk is at low level. Therefore, market pricefluctuation is generally less affected, due to the existence of more marketing channels and seasonal
summer events; such as marriages and festivals. Improving the quality of native beef meat byfattening is unfavorable among Thai farmers, as the return from the fattened beef is not
significantly higher than from natural raising. It therefore leads to higher risk from increased
investment.
Community-based early warning system for native beef raising
Effective warning mechanisms and understanding early warning messages helps to reduce the lossof   beef   cattle.   Since   farmers’   awareness   of   hazards   and   information   of   risks,   including   their  accessible capacity of cattle, provide a better herd management and advance preparedness in
reducing the loss of animals. For enhancing a faster recovery of the production system, thecommunity has established a communication network within the community, DLD, national parks,
and beef cattle merchants. These networks facilitate a better flow of information for vulnerable
beef cattle rising activities, such as any unidentified causes of death, diseases outbreaks, andgovernment policies related to the DLD, agriculture and national parks, as well as market price andsupply and demand within the local area. The community has various teams to monitor the native
beef cattle activity in the mountain-forest area. Any cause for alarm will reach the cattle ownerwithin a few hours so that they can respond swiftly.
Ⓒ ISERD

58

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

Table 1 Risk factors affecting native beef cattle raising, from 1 (lowest) to 10 (highest)
Risk Factors

Rankof
Impact1. No community person fortreatment of traditional
disease
2. Impact due to suddenchange of season
3. Less food resources in theforest-mountain
4. Onset of disease outbreak

5

5. Risk from lack of skill in
new farmers

2

6. Fluctuation on price ofbeef cattle
7. Unavailability of native
beef market

2

8. Unavailability ofconcentrated feed
9. Unavailability of rice straw

1
10

10. Unavailability of capital10

11. Risk from type of current
breed of cattle

1

12. Fattening program fornative beef cattle
13. Hybrid Brahman beef
cattle.
14. Prohibition from nationalparks
15. Unavailability of rice
fields surrounding thecommunity
16. Accidents causing death.
17. Onset of forest fire

6

1
8
4

1

4
7
9
<1
9

18. Unavailability of village
livestock volunteers
19. Unavailability of groups

3

20. Unavailable DLD Officers

65

Description and Mitigation Measures
Number of farmers will be decreased about 50% as they are
unsure of the survival of cattle in the forest-mountains due tolack of services for sick or injured cattle
No effect on native beef cattle, as they have a high capacity
for adapting to the change of weather
Without food resources in the forest-mountain, it is of no use
to raise native beef cattle in the forest-mountain
Available volunteers service at the right time of disease
outbreakAnyone can start raising 1-2 head of cattle without knowledge
background, due to husbandry techniques based on indigenous
technical knowledge, transferred from generation to
generation
Low production costs and low risks. Farmers can continue
raising them until the price is better
It can be sold at farm-gate by local merchants or thru thecommunity’s   consumers   mostly   through   local   events   and  festivals.
It is unnecessary for native beef cattle. It is needed for theskinny beef. Fattening is unnecessary
It is the major feed resource. Farmers reserves rice-straw athome sufficiently throughout the dry season and partly in wet
seasonNecessary for starting the business. But it is not considered asa riskThe native breed is the most suitable to the natural resourcesand environment. It has high tolerance to weather, insects,
parasites and diseases, therefore adapting to the low quality of
feed resources
Fattening programs are a risk, considered unnecessary
because prices are insignificant to normal raising beef cattle
Low adaptation capacity and low reproductive performance.
A high effect, especially in the rainy season, when insufficient
rice straw may reduce the numbers of beef cattle around 70%
Significantly affect the long term, as rice fields provide year
round resources, which may be reduced around 90% of thecurrent total
Less effect to the number of cattle, as it is rarely happens
Complete damage to the natural grass in the forest, for 1-2
years.
Important in providing services, but has little effect to the herdsize.
For better coordination among members and otherorganizations
Lack of support for disease prevention and for emergency care

Mitigation, preparedness and emergency response for native beef cattle raising
Proper actions taken to reduce the loss of animals, enhance the resilience of the production system.
Farmers are experienced in emergency response procedures to prevent the loss of animal life in the
production system. Many emergency cases such as cattle fever, injury and wound require special
treatment. In addition to the groups and beef cattle owners, village volunteers are key people inⒸ ISERD

59

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

emergency response to such cases, as well as right-time artificial insemination, and search andrescue of missing cattle. This includes accessibility to Provincial DLD for all emergency cases. In
the area of risk management, and in the case of cattle evacuation or relocation; the shorter-route
will be taken. That is to say, that the owner would decide to slaughter the animal rather than moveit. Well preparedness and mitigation measures provide shelter from changing weather, andsafeguard the welfare of the beef cattle; including guarding and monitoring the herd and populationof cattle in forest-mountain areas.
Community-based native beef cattle raising recovery
The collapse of raising systems may be caused by various risk factors. The advance collaborationof related organizations would reduce risks from policy changing. However, this rarely takes place,due to the current policies of the DLD and national parks as well as community-based participationand co-management for forest protection, conservation, and utilization. Therefore, government
policies are in place for damage compensation due to the loss of an animal from disasters, drought,
flood, storm, and thunderstorms. The subsidies have been undertaken by local authorities, andprovincial disaster prevention and mitigation through the Ministry of Interior. Thus, groups ofnative beef cattle raising farmers were formed to support the recovery function, especially in theloaning of feed resources and coordination support. Hence, social cohesion and strong leadershipamong groups have encouraged adaptation to change and facilitated a rapid product system
recovery.
Challenge and sustainable development
The results of this study of the native beef raising system in a dual combination ecosystem reflect a
synergism between man, native beef cattle and the ecosystems. It is agreed that ecosystems are themost vital component of the production system. A change in the ecosystem due to policies,
technology, and damage caused by man-made or natural disasters, have a severe effect on animalhusbandry. This has been clearly realized by stakeholders in the area. Native beef cattle adapt innature with the abundance of natural resources in the ecosystem. Management adapts theIndigenous Technical Knowledge (ITK) integrated with new technology. This approach facilitates
unsophisticated adoption and enhances the resilience of the production system. Sustainability of
production systems is strengthened through concrete plans for conservation and rehabilitation of
the two ecosystems, with a proper utilization of natural resources and proper land-use planning.
Establishments of beef cattle raising group can promote self reliance. Strengthening the capacities
is crucial via training courses, technical advisement, encouraging the development of planned,
assistance in implementing, following-up, and evaluating the successfulness of the program.
CONCLUSION
Native beef cattle raising in the two ecosystems is a highly resilient system. Vulnerability of the
production system is reduced from various mitigation measures undertaken to sustain the
production system. It is recommended that the sustainability of native beef cattle can be enhanced
via maintaining the ecosystems and increasing the capacity of stakeholders in conservation practiceand proper utilization of natural resources and land-use planning.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to give thanks to the Northeastern Agricultural Research and Development
Center, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University for the funding support. Sincere thanks to
the Nakhon Panom Department of Livestock Development and group of native beef cattle raising
farmers in supporting valuable information of the native beef cattle production system.

Ⓒ ISERD

60

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2012) 3-1

REFERENCES
Adger, N.W. 2000. Social and ecological resilience: Are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24 (3),347-364.
Duanyai, S. 2009. Natural beef production: Carcass and meat quality.  Kingmongkut’s   Agricultural   Journal,  28 (2), 9-16.
Pholsen, S., Lowilai, P. and Sai-ngarm, Y. 2005. Effects of urea and cattle manure on yield and quality ofsignal grass (Brachiaria decumbens Stapf. cv. Basilisk) in northeast Thailand. Pakistan Journal of
Biological Science. 8,1192-1999.
US-IOTWS 2007. How resilient is your coastal community? A Guide for Evaluating Coastal Community
Resilience to Tsunamis and Other Coastal Hazzards, IOTWS Program. Bangkok, Thailand.

Ⓒ ISERD

61