improved fallow systems in the luang prabang area, lao pdr - Afaci

Minor Field Studies No. 110IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANGPRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASEDON FARMER EXPERIENCES.ByULRIK RESTORPSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesInternational OfficeUppsala, May 2000ISSN 1402-3237

The Minor Field Studies series is published by the International Office of the Swedish Universityof Agricultural Sciences.Minor Field Studies are carried out within the framework of the Minor Field Studies (MFS)Scholarship Programme, which is funded by the Swedish International Development CooperationAgency (Sida).The MFS Scholarship Programme offers Swedish university students an opportunity to undertaketwo months' field work in a developing country to be analysed, compiled and published as an indepthstudy or graduation thesis work. The studies are primarily made on subjects of importancefrom a development perspective and in a country supported by Swedish development assistance.The main purposes of the MFS programme are to increase interest in developing countries and toenhance Swedish university students' knowledge and understanding of these countries and theirproblems and opportunities. An MFS should provide the student with initial experience ofconditions in such a country.The International Office of the Swedish University of Agricultural. Sciences administers the MFSprogramme for the rural development and natural resources management sectors.The responsibility for the accuracy of information presented rests entirely with the respectiveauthor. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of theInternational Office.Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesInternational OfficeBox 7070SE-750 07 UPPSALASwedenTelephone: +46 18 672309Fax: +46 18 673556E-mail:Monica.Halling@adm.slu.seTryck: SLU/Repro, Uppsala 2000IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 i

AbstractThis study is a follow-up of two earlier projects on improved fallow systems in shifting cultivationareas of northern Laos. During, these projects leguminous species such as Leucaenaleucocephala and Cajanus cajan were introduced at experimentation plots on farm level, aimingat quicker soil recovery during the fallow period of the upland rice cropping cycle. Throughinterviews with involved farmers some conclusions on farmers' opinions, performance of plot andimproved fallow species could be drawn.In the farmers' opinions plot performance is increased by plantation of leguminous species. andthis is to some extent supported by collected yield data. The best-suited species for improvedfallow is Leucaena leucocephala, as it can maintain stable yields with higher land-pressure and itsurvives multiple cropping periods. The main threat to an extended use of the methods is theextra work to which the farmers are exposed at sowing time, when the labour situation oftenalready is critical.Keywords: shifting cultivation, improved fallow. agroforestry, LaosIMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ONFARMER EXPERIENCES.ii20040940

AbbreviationsCTA Centre Technique de Cooperation Agricole et RuraleDoF Department of Forestry, VientianeFAO Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United NationsGPS Global Positioning SystemLSFP Lao-Swedish Forestry ProgrammeMFS Minor Field StudySCRP Shifting Cultivation Research Project, Luang PrabangSida Swedish International Aid Co-operation AgencySUAS Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeIMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ONFARMER EXPERIENCES.iii20040940

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – in analysis based on farmer experiencesForewordThis thesis for a Master's degree in Physical Geography is the result of a field study in Laosduring the fall of 1999. Earlier in 1999 I had contacted Mr Carl Mossberg, Senior Forestry Adviserin the LSFP, to get some ideas on a study in Laos. His quick and positive reply to my inquiriesmade the study possible.The supervisor in Laos was Mr Paul Overgoor, Agricultural Research Adviser in the SCRP. Healso outlined the main objectives of the study and is a principal source of information. I owe him alot for all the time and effort he put into this work.The Swedish supervisor was Associated Professor Lars Franzen at the Department of PhysicalGeography, Göteborg University.Reviews of the draft versions of this report were made by PhD student Mira Ovuka and Dr BjornHolmer, both at the Department of Physical Geography. Their opinions on the material werehighly valuable when finalising the work.Working in the villages surrounding Luang Prabang and the Thong Khang research station wouldnot have been possible without the assistance of Mr Saysanna and Mr Prasith, both working inthe SCRP. The person who made the interviews possible at all was Mr Bounma at DoF. Hefunctioned as a translator between Lao and English and as a fantastic guide to the customs ofLao villages. Last. but not least, I would like to thank the farmers of the Luang Prabang area fortheir warmth, hospitality and willingness to spend their time on interviews.The Sida Minor Field Study programme financed the study.IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 iv

Table of ContentsTable of ContentsIntroduction...................................................................................................1Lao People's Democratic Republic ............................................................................................1The Luang Prabang Area..........................................................................................................1Shifting cultivation ..................................................................................................................2Concepts ................................................................................................................................2Shifting cultivation in upland Laos.................................................................................................2Improved fallow ........................................................................................................................3Studied projects......................................................................................................................3The Shifting Cultivation Research Project.......................................................................................3FAO/UNDP Program LA0/82/006 ................................................................................................4Study objective.........................................................................................................................4Methods........................................................................................................5The choice of villages ..............................................................................................................5Data collection........................................................................................................................6Interviews................................................................................................................................6Kalong....................................................................................................................................6Crop cuts ................................................................................................................................6Data analysis..........................................................................................................................7Separation of data.....................................................................................................................7Graph construction....................................................................................................................7Results.........................................................................................................8Implementation and adaptation .................................................................................................8Yield and fallow.......................................................................................................................8The effect of "bad" years..........................................................................................................9Improved and normal fallow......................................................................................................9Crop cuts ...............................................................................................................................9Change in fallow time ............................................................................................................10Yields of the study plots compared with area averages ..............................................................10Performance of different improved fallow species .....................................................................11Yields ..................................................................................................................................11Survival ...............................................................................................................................11Discussion..................................................................................................12Sources of errors ..................................................................................................................12Interpretation of the results ....................................................................................................12Too much work? .....................................................................................................................12Improved fallow?.....................................................................................................................13Preferred species....................................................................................................................13Conclusions................................................................................................15References..................................................................................................16IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 v

Table of ContentsList of FiguresFigure 1. Laos and surrounding countries.......................................................................................1Figure 2. Climatic data Luang Prabang Weather Station (305 m a.s.l.), average 1971-1990.......................1Figure 3. Rotational shifting cultivation system with a three-year cycle. ................................................2Figure 4. Visited villages in the Luang Prabang area. (After maps E-47-12, E-47-24, E-48-1, E-48-13 ServiceGeographique D'Etat, scale 1:100000) ...................................................................................5Figure 5. The effect of "normal" and "bad" years on yields..................................................................9Figure 6. Yields after improved fallow compared with normal fallow......................................................9Figure 7. A verage rice yields from the crop cuts performed in section a, b and c. ...................................9Figure 8. Fallow time of the experiment plots before and after experiment implementation (all=SCRP+FAO/UNDP).....................................................................................................................................10Figure 9: SCRP study area average yields and improved fallow plot yields "good" and "bad" years. ..........10Figure 10. Yields of plots with different improved fallow species (leuc.=Leucaena, p.p.=Pigeon pea). ........11Figure 11: Survival of different fallow species after repeated cropping cycles........................................11Figure 12: Same as figure 6, but presented as bars with confidence interval. .......................................12Figure 13: Same as figure 7, presented as bars with confidence interval. ............................................12List of TablesTable 1. Outline of the question succession. ...................................................................................6IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 vi

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesIntroductionIntroductionLao People's Democratic RepublicLao PDR or Laos, is landlocked country with a totalarea of 237,000 km 2 and 4.8 million residents (Sida1996). The income per capita is among the lowest inthe world and aviculture is the most importanteconomic sector. It the main source of income forabout 85 % of the labour three and more than 80% ofthe cultivated area is devoted to the main staple food,rice (Saphangthong 1998).About 75%) of Laos is hilly to mountainous withaltitudes Taming from 1000 to 2000 m. The restconsists of lowland, alluvial plains and terraces nearthe Mekong, River (Souvanthong 1994.). Monsoonforests and upland cropping cover the hills andmountains, while the lowlands mainly are used in wetrice production.••The Luang Prabang AreaFigure 1. Laos and surrounding countries.Luang Prabang City lies by the Mekong River in the northern part of the country (Figure 1). Thesurroundings are mountainous and covered by forests. Roads are few and generally in poorcondition which makes transportation a serious problem. Many villages in the area are at a fewhours walking distance from the nearest road, affecting their access to markets. This conservespoverty and exposes upland villagers to starvation in years of bad crops.The area has a mix of different ethnic groups. These are often divided into the Lao Lum (LowlandLao). Lao Theung (Upland Lao) and Lao Sung (High Lao). The division of ethnicity into "heightclasses” may be questionable, but is used widely. A very simplified view of the division of landbetween these groups is that the Lao Lum lives in the valleys and alone the rivers, cultivating wetpaddy rice. Lao Theung and Lao Sung are mainly cultivators of dry upland rice on less fertile landand in less accessible areas (Souvanthong 1994).Two seasons characterise the weather pattern: arainy season from April through October, and a dryfrom November to March. The dry season includesa cool period from November to February and ahot period starting in February and extending intothe rains season (Figure 2). About 90% of theannual precipitation is accounted for by the rainyseason. Large variations occur in the annualrainfall pattern, with a range during 1970 -90 of1035 - 1841 mm. The onset of the monsoon-rainsalso varies, with precipitation figures in Aprilranging from 0 to 267 mm. This exposes the earlyestablished crops to a risk Hansen et al. 1996).Figure 2. Climatic data Luang Prabang WeatherStation (305 m a.s.l.), average 1971-1990.IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 1

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesIntroductionElevations vary in the study area from about 300 to 1400 m. The altitude range induces differentclimatic conditions, which in turn affect soil properties, vegetation, crop suitability, etc. Hill slopestake up most of the area and soils found there are mainly Haplic Alisols, and Dystric and FarallicCambisols. Common rock types are siltstone, sandstone, limestone, schist and phyllite. About 70percent of the cultivated upland areas are planted with upland rice. Other crops include paddyrice, maize, sesame, Job's tear, beans, cotton, tobacco vegetables, etc. (Sodarak et al. 1997).Shifting cultivationConceptsShifting cultivation is quite undefined and is often called "slash-and-burn" or "swiddening".Generally it consists of cutting the natural vegetation, leaving it to dry and burning it for croppingthe land. This is followed by a fallow period longer than the cropping phase (Chazee 1994).There are several types of shifting cultivation and there are many opinions on how they should bedefined. One quite simple view is that there are two main types- pioneering- (or transitional-) androtational shifting cultivation.Pioneering shifting cultivation comprises land-less and small farmers who enter the forests oftenin the wake of forest harvesting operations. They often lack the knowledge of sustainable use ofshifting cultivation and upset the balance between people and land. This is a real problem for theindustry and threatens the environment (Sandewall et al. 1998).Rotational shifting cultivation is based on short periods of cultivation altering with longer periodsof fallow, when natural vegetation will again cover the land. If the fallow is sufficiently long soilfertility is restored and potential weeds are repressed by forest re-growth. With fallow periods of 5to 15 years, shifting cultivation can sustain repeated cycles of cropping (LSFP 1994). An exampleof the plot rotation in a very short, three-year cycle is presented in Figure 3.The rotational system, if well managed,allows a diversified production with steadypotential yields and virtually no soildegradation. The plant takes nutrientsfrom the soil mineralised thanks toburning, and structured by the roots andbiological activities linked to the precedingnatural vegetation. Yields are irregular,since they highly depend on climate andcrop pests (Chazee 1994).Year 1Year 2Year 3ricefallowfallowfallowricefallowfallowfallowriceFigure 3. Rotational shifting cultivation systemwith a three-year cycle.Shifting cultivation in upland LaosShifting cultivation is widely practised in the uplands of Laos, particularly in the northern parts ofthe country. The traditional system typically consists of upland rice cropping for one year andthen a long fallow until the next use of the plot. However, the fallow periods are becoming shorterwith an unsustainable cropping system as a result.The shortening of fallow periods is caused by a number of factors. Government restrictions onshifting cultivation and clearing of older forest and a land allocation program force farmers toreduce the number of plots in the shifting cultivation cycle. The tendency is strengthened by arising population density through migration to areas with access to roads.IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 2

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesIntroductionSoil degradation through leaching of nutrients and an increase in weeds and pests leading toyield losses are the results of shorter fallow periods. The farmers face a future of increasingpoverty and uncertainty (Sodarak 1996).Improved fallowThere are a number of methods to make land less exposed to degradation and make it moreprofitable for the farmer. Examples of these are alley cropping, rice terraces and differentagricultural combinations of trees, crops and pasture (LSFP 1999). Although many of thesedefinitely could improve the situation in upland Laos, they are often not suited for immediateintroduction. Many methods are very labour intensive at the implementation stage and are simplyimpossible for farmers to use without massive outside help. Availability of fertilisers is very limiteddue to lack of infra structure and money, which is another problem when planning for systemswith more permanent cropping.A good way to stabilise the situation would be to improve the rotational shifting cultivation systemalready in use. One way of doing this is to make the shorter fallow period more effective.Hopefully this would not mean too much extra work and could be used in all areas of shiftingcultivation. The idea of improved fallow is to minimise the yield losses caused by shortened fallowperiods. Alternatively, improved fallow could give increased yields after normal length of fallow.Burning of the fallow returns most of the nutrients, such as P. K and Ca in the ash and most ofthe organic matter as charcoal. The main nutrient lost in the burning process is N (Reading et al.1995. Fujisaka 1991). In an improved fallow, the vegetation should yield higher levels of N andaccumulate more organic matter than the natural fallow it replaces (CIA No. 16). Leguminoustrees and shrubs accumulate N in the soil in two ways. First the legumes fix atmospheric Nthrough symbiotic association with rhizobium bacteria, and secondly, they take up deeply locatedN inaccessible to conventional crops (Rao et al. 1998). Many species are also fast growing,which means quick accumulation of biomass, more competition against weeds and better erosionprotection.Studied projectsThe Shifting Cultivation Research ProjectThe SCRP in Luang Prabang province was established in 1989. It is a part of the Lao-SwedishForestry Programme, which is implemented by the Department of Forestry with support fromSida. Up to 1995 the project used a wide combination of research, training and practicaldevelopment in the fields of forestry, crop production, horticulture and animal husbandry. Later(1996 – 1999) the project concentrated more on applied research, aiming to find methods forsustainable and productive land use in the uplands (Sodarak et al. 1998).In 1992 the SCRP initiated a number of on-farm experiments with improved fallow in villagesclose to the Thong Khang research station, some 70 km south of Luang Prabang City. Thespecies used were leguminous: such as Leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala) and Pigeon pea(Cajanus cajan) and some pasture grasses, such as varieties of Stylo. These species were usedtogether with upland rice in different crop systems, mainly for one or two years. and then left tofallow for a number of years until the next rice crop.After 1992 little or no follow-up has been done on these experiments, so the adaptation andperformance of the systems has been unknown, but is of great interest to ongoingexperimentation in the field.IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 3

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesIntroductionFAO/UNDP Program LA0/82/006This project became operational in 1985 and was concluded in 1989. The main objectives wereto plan and implement a training, demonstration and development program in improved land use,watershed management and community forestry (FAO 1991). The project demonstratedtechniques such as terracing, plantations of fruit trees and plantations of fast growing, N-fixingtrees, mainly Leucaena.The demonstration plots could, if used for cropping since the establishment of Leucaena, giveinformation on the performance of a Leucaena fallow. The FAO/UNDP plots are mainly within tenor so kilometres from Luang, Prabang City.Villages in this study are mainly Lao Theung or Lao Sung villages, or a mix of these ethnicgroups. They are generally very poor and depend entirely on their rice crops.Study objectiveThis study's aim is to find out what happened to the experiment plots in the 1992 SCRP and 1985FAO/UNDP projects: How was the experiment implemented? How were yields affected? Whatare the farmers' opinions on the experimentation? From this it should be possible to drawconclusions on what systems and fallow species could be of interest in the future.IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 4

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesMethodsMethodsThe choice of villagesDocumentation on both the SCRP and FAO/UNDP experiments does not detail theimplementation of the projects; i.e. introduced species and system design. The question of whatwas done and which farmers were involved had to be left for village headmen to answer.Villages relevant to this study were found by combining a list of participants in the 1992 SCRPexperiments with information from staff involved at the time. In addition, the FA0fUNDP projectfinal report was also utilised.Villages studied were chosen based on the number of involved farmers and accessibility. Of the16 villages visited (Figure 4), deeper interviews were carried out in Huay Sala, Dan, Pha DongLom, Hoay Oun, Tuhoy, Pha Haen, Pha Kuang, Lac Sip and Naxao. Twenty-two farmers wereinterviewed in depth and are presented in Appendix: Plot data.Figure 4. Visited villages in theLuang Prabang area. (Aftermaps E-47-12, E-47-24, E-48-1,E-48-13 Service GeographiqueD'Etat, scale 1:100000)SCRP villages:1. Huay Sala2. Dan3. Thali4. Thong Khang5. Pha Dong Lom6. Hoay Oun7. Tuhoy8. Pha Haen9. Pha KuangFAO/UNDP villages:10. Lac Sip11. Lac Pet12. Saat13. Naxao14. Sing15. Thapen16. NakhaPaved roadGravel roadIMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 5PathMountainous

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesMethodsData collectionInterviewsData were mainly collected through farmer interviewswith the help of a translator, following a questionnaire.The questions were quite open-ended in order tocapture the farmers' adaptation and experiences withthe introduced system. Simple sketches were drawntogether with the farmers to visualise the plots atdifferent stages. Questions were aimed at finding outsystem design and plot performance before and afterthe implementation. Of particular interest were also thefarmers' opinions on the methods; views on whether thetechniques were worth the extra labour input,performance compared with traditional methods andpros and cons. An outline of the questions asked andtheir succession is presented in Table I.In addition to the interviews, plot visits were made (timeand accessibility permitting) if the plot containedanything remaining of the introduced system.Positions of villages and plots visited were establishedthrough GPS.KalongDuring the interviews the concept kalong was used toquantify plot areas and harvests. A kalong is a twinedbamboo basket, holding about 10 kg rice. that mostupland farmers use in their field work. It takes fivekalongs of rice (50 kg) to plant one hectare. To estimatethe plot area used by a farmer, he was questioned howmany kalongs he used for planting. In the same way,plot production could be determined through the number of kalongs harvested. From this the plotyield can be calculated. The use of kalong as a weight and area unit is a standard method inSCRP's work and helps in getting more accurate data from the farmers, as they normally do notuse kilos and hectares.One kalong of unpeeled Peanut is 5 kg and peeled is 12 kg. For peeled Black beans and Mungbeans one kalong is 14 kg.Crop cutsTable 1. Outline of the question succession.1. Initial experiment design- When?- Description of components- Plot performance2. Earlier plot history- Length of fallow- Description of components- Plot performance3. Plot development- Length of fallow- Description of components- Plot performance4. Farmer’s views- Labour input- Performance compared to normalmethodsPlot components: Crop(s), improvedfallow species, plantation pattern, newgermination, changes.Plot performance: baskets of plantedbaskets of harvested crop, numbers ofweeding, pests, diseases, rain.Another SCRP standard method is to gather yield data through crop cuts. By doing this, yieldscan be measured directly, before the cropping season is over and without the insecurities ofinterviews. In this study, crop cuts were performed only at one rice plot; divided into threesections based on different fallow periods. Over the area nine 2x2-meter squares were marked,harvested and weighed. 200 gram rice samples were taken from each cut and left to dry until nomore change in weight could be observed. From the weight ratio between wet cut and wetsample, and the dry sample weight, dry yields could be determined for each cut (equation 1).Yields of each cut were established, as well as average yields of the plot's different parts and arehere analysed together with the historical yields, determined through interviews.IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 6

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesMethods(1)ycdc=wsw× sacdYcd is the dry yield of the cut, Cw wet cut weight, Sw wet sampleweight, Sd dry sample weight and ac cut area.Data analysisSeparation of dataWhen analysing the collected data, FAO/UNDP and SCRP plots have mainly been treated as oneset of data together, the primary reason being the problem of statistical certainties (consideredfurther under "Discussion") is made worse by separating the plots of the two project into twosmaller groups. Points of data are simply too few to be separated into entirely homogeneousgroups. For instance, the effect on yields caused by different combinations of fallow speciescannot be accounted for at the same time as yields before and after introduction of the improvedfallow systems are analysed.Some main separations have nevertheless been made: An important factor is how long the fallowtime preceding the year of cropping was. This means that the data should be divided into groupsof different fallow time. In the same way, the effect of "bad years" (see below) influences yielddata to the extent that "normal" years have to be separated from "bad" years.Graph constructionWhen analysing yield data in Figures 5, 6 and 9, separations of "normal" and "bad" years havebeen made together with a grouping of yields into different fallow times. The dataset was alsodivided with respect to whether the fallow prior to the cropping was normal or improved. In Figure9 another separation was made: FAOTINDP data are omitted in a comparison between datacollected by SCRP through crop cuts and data collected in this stud\ by means of interviews inthe same area.The graph in Figure 7 is based on data from one plot in one year, so data separation asdescribed above was not needed. Figure 8, on the other hand, shows a graph where a separationof the dataset into a FAO/UNDP group and a SCRP group has been made. Here the division into"normal" and "bad" years was unnecessary as fallow times, not yields, are analysed. This gives adataset large enough for the FAO/TM: DP – SCRP separation.Again, in Figure 10, -bad" years have been omitted, a division into fallow periods has been madeand the FAO/UNDP SCRP dataset has been grouped into different combinations of fallow,species.Finally, Figure 1 I shows survival rate of the different fallow species. The number of plots (in thewhole dataset) where an improved fallow species was originally introduced was counted. Thisserved as a basis for calculations of the number of plots where the species were still present aftera number of cropping periods. All years after the experimental implementation were accountedfor, as this graph does not deal with yield data.IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 7

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesResultsResultsThe results presented here are almost entirely a product of the farmer interviews. Important partsof these data cannot be quantified and are more impressions and opinions discussed during themeetings. Main trends presented below are an interpretation of these discussions.Implementation and adaptationIn the SCRP experiments, plots were mainly cropped with rice in 1992. Together with the rice,rows of Leucaena or alternating rows of Leucaena and Pigeon pea were planted. Spacing wastypically 0.5 to 1 meter in the rows with 5 to 10 meters between rows. In some cases grasses(mainly Stvlo) were broadcast after weeding the plot. Most farmers expressed a view that theimplementation of the system cost them some extra planting work.Typically, the plots were then left fallow for two or three years after this, until used again on thethird or fourth year after implementation. Almost half the number of plots were used in a thirdcropping period in 1998 or 1999. For these years. Job's Tears were the main crop at almost allexperimental plots. Usually. Leucaena and Pigeon pea were cut to between 0.5 and 1 meterbefore burning of the plot.Two farmers in Ban Dan present an interesting exception from this pattern. Here, rice was grownwith alternating rows of Leucaena and Pigeon pea for two years. In the third year, beans (blackseeded Cow pea and Soybean) were grown between the rows. Branches and leaves from theLeucaena and Pigeon pea were put in the rows to reduce erosion. Probably, attempts were madeto implement alley cropping (a form of permanent agriculture) here. but the fields were left tofallow again after three years and the systems became improved fallow systems.The FAO/LJNDP plots are in most cases initially Leucaena plantations, with no other crop in thefirst years, planted between 1984 and 1987. Some of these have been used for cropping sincethen and are of interest to this study, while others have been left to become small Leucaenaforests. In 1988, plantations were started in a number of extension villages. Here, Leucaena wasgrown together with rice in the first year. Spacing in the earlier plantations was about 1x10meters, while it was denser in later plantations.These plots have in most cases gone through several cycles of fallow and cropping. A usualcycle seems to be about five years, but most plots have been used for two years in a row at leastonce.Usually, the plots do not offer any special weeding problems. Typically, new germinations ofLeucaena and Pigeon pea are weeded quite easily and new branches on old Leucaena are cutwithout major effort. The only main problem seems to have been the introduced grasses. Thesecan be very competitive and offer most farmers extra weeding work.Yield and fallowIt seems as if an overwhelming majority of the farmers are convinced that planting Leucaena andPigeon pea is good for their plots, and they all say that it gives them better yields than traditional,unimproved, methods.When looking at the yield data given by the farmers it is hard to find grounds for their positivestatements, which leads one to suspect that they give an answer they think might please. Whenasked why all farmers in the village do not use the method (if it is so good), the extra work atimplementation is sometimes used as an explanation. However hard it may be to believe such apositive picture of the methods, the farmers usually insist that it is so.IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 8

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesResultsThe effect of "bad" yearsOne reason why it is so hard to seeany actual improvements might bethat any positive effects areovershadowed by the impacts thatweather, pests, rats, etc. (what afarmer would call a "bad year") haveon yields. Questions concerningwhether the years of cropping werenormal or bad were asked, and couldbe help in analysing the yield data.Figure 5. The effect of "normal" and "bad" years on yieldsThe importance of a "bad year" could be illustrated in the form of a graph. In Figure 5 "normal"and "bad" years are separated and presented for different lengths of fallow prior to die cropping,year. Yields in 'normal" years show an increase with the number of years of fallow, as expected.A mean of all years (both "normal" and "bad" years) is strongly affected by the influence of "bad"years and shows no yield improvement with longer fallow periods.Improved and normal fallowBy separating yields (in normal years)after improved fallow from yields after anormal fallow in Figure 6, somecomparisons between the two mightalso be made. Presented yield figuresare averages for the same set of plotsbefore and after implementation ofexperimentation. Both the FAO/UNDPand the SCRP figures are included. Thegraph shows a yield increase forimproved fallow compared with normalfallow after 3 – 4 years.Crop cutsThe crop cuts were performed over aSCRP plot where various sections haddifferent fallow histories. One section(a) was newly opened from forest (15year fallow), while two other sections(b & c) had had 6 and 3 years,respectively, of improved fallow beforerice cropping in 1999. For the nine cutsmade, the averages of each sectionare presented in Figure 7. The newlyopened section (a) has a slightly loweryield than the sections with improvedfallow. Of these two, the 6-year fallowsection (b) yields a bit better than the 3-year fallow section (c).Figure 6. Yields after improved fallow compared withnormal fallow.Figure 7. A verage rice yields from the crop cutsperformed in section a, b and c.IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 9

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesResultsChange in fallow timeChances in the fallow cycle time mightbe an important indicator of a change inproductivity. Improved plots, withincreased productivity might be usedmore frequently than they were beforeintroduction of the improving techniques.Of course, a change in cycle time mayhave other, more socio-economicreasons, as discussed in theintroduction.Figure 8. Fallow time of the experiment plots before andafter experiment implementation (all=SCRP+FAO/UNDP).The plots studied here have, on average, shorter fallow cycles after project implementation thanbefore. This is true for the SCRP plots, but the pattern is the opposite for the FAO/UNDP plotsdiscussed on page 17.Yields of the study plots compared with area averagesThe SCRP has performed crop cuts in itsstudy area for a number of years. 1998 wasa dim' year and 1999 was a wet year andthese two years can probably be seen asrepresentatives for a bad and flood year.Average yields in the SCRP area for thoseyears have been compared with averageyields of the improved plots in the samearea of this study ("normal" years separatedfrom "bad" years). The yield figures arepresented for different lengths of fallow.Figure 9: SCRP study area average yields andimproved fallow plot yields "good" and "bad"years.Figure 9 indicates that the SCRP average yield for a "bad" year is a bit better than the mean ofthe improved fallow plots in the same area for fallow periods shorter than 10 years. In "normal"years compared to 1999 the two are almost identical.IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 10

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesResultsPerformance of different improved fallow speciesYieldsAn attempt was made tocompare yields of plotsunder differentcombinations of fallowspecies in the study area.The yields are presented foreach combination ofspecies grouped intodifferent fallow periods. Toreduce the effect of badyears. only normal yearsare represented.Figure 10 shows thatcombinations withLeucaena give a higher yield thanthe Pigeon pea and grasscombination.Figure 10. Yields of plots with different improved fallowspecies (leuc.=Leucaena, p.p.=Pigeon pea).SurvivalThe farmers were askedwhether the introducedfallow species had beenobserved at different timesthrough plot history.Figure 11 shows that abouthalf the introduced Pigeonpea and grass speciessurvived cropping at leasttwo times, while Leucaenacan survive many more. Inalmost all cases whereLeucaena was introduced itis still present, if notspecifically cut away by thefarmer.Figure 11: Survival of different fallow species after repeated croppingcycles.New germination spreads Pigeon pea and Leucaena outside the original rows and this shouldalso explain the survival of the annual Pigeon pea.IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 11

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesDiscussionDiscussionSources of errorsThe reliability of the results presented above can be questioned from a statistical point 3f view. Inorder to compare yields, for instance, under the same conditions, very few points of data could beused. Mainly, mean values were used for comparisons, but the actual data ranges can givesecond thoughts about their accuracy. Examples of this are given in Figures 12 and 13, where95% confidence intervals for the means are shown.Figure 12: Same as figure 6, but presented asbars with confidence interval.Figure 13: Same as figure 7, presented as barswith confidence interval.Figure 12 reveals large and overlapping confidence intervals for the mean yields in thecomparison between normal and improved fallow (the last confidence bar is not missing –there isonly one data point). Of course, this is a serious threat to the reliance of the presented result. Onthe other hand, the diagrams can be seen as a visualisation of a theoretical relationship that issupported by the farmers views.Figure 13 shows that the mean yields over the three parts of the plot are almost the same. withoverlapping confidence intervals. This makes conclusions drawn from average figures highlyuncertain. The data variances could be due to mistakes in the crop cuts: the 2x2-m. squaresmight have been marked incorrectly and harvesting could have been careless. Anotherinterpretation is that the plot actually showed very varying yields over- and within the parts This issupported by the author's impression from the field.The interviews are almost the only source of information and data may, as shown above, haveerrors. It may be hard to remember correctly how much rice was planted and harvested ten yearsago. Another problem is that the conversion from kalong is based on mean figures that may differfrom the real relations at the plot. This means that areas, production and yields all have someerrors, but must be accepted as the farmer's memory is the only way to vet this information.Interpretation of the resultsToo much work?A main problem may be that most farmers say there was additional work in introducing theimproved fallow species. As labour availability at sowing is often critical, additional support fromthe project might be needed. This is a threat to the spreading of the methods to other farmers andplots in the village. After implementation there seems to be little extra work for the farmers,except where grasses have been introduced.Another problem might be the availability of seeds from the legumes in the quantities needed, butthis was not specifically expressed.IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 12

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesDiscussionImproved fallow?A good reason to believe that the introduced fallow systems really improved the plotsperformanceis the farmers' opinion that they did. As mentioned earlier, it may be hazardous tofully trust such a statement, mainly because of a will to give a pleasing, answer. This problemwas known during the interviewing work and steps were taken to avoid it: Questions wererepeated from different angles and problems were specifically asked for. The translator and theSCRP staff also had a good opportunity to decide if answers were genuine. In their opinion, thepositive picture is what the farmers actually think.When trying to find grounds for this opinion in the collected data. years with "normal" conditionsshould be studied. The effect of "bad" years seems to over-shadow any positive effect of theimproved fallow systems (Figure 5). A problem when studying the limited set of data is thestatistical significance (Figure 12), and the result presented in Figure 6 should be seen as anindication of an improved plot performance after improved fallow. The figure shows animprovement of about 20% after a 3 to 4-year fallow and a bit more after 5 to 10 years.Another indication of increased plot performance could be the shorter fallow cycles afterintroduction of improved fallow species (Figure 8). The villages in the SCRP area show such apattern, while the FAO/IJNDP villages show increasing fallow cycle times. This can probably beexplained by their access to markets in Luang Prabang, which give them the opportunity of usingother crops than rice. disturbing the crop rotation pattern.The data on crop cuts (Figure 7) show an expected pattern but shares the problem of statisticaluncertainty). Of the two sections with improved fallow (b & c), the b-section, with the longer fallowperiod also has a higher yield than the c-section. Compared with the plot section newly openedfrom forest, both improved fallow sections have a higher yield. This could mean that on this plotan improved 3-year fallow is as good as a newly opened section, but also that the data haserrors. As the mean yield data are so similar and have overlapping confidence intervals (Figure13), the variation between the three sections probably has little importance. It was also unclearwhat the farmer thought about differences between the sections.In Figure 9 an attempt is made to compare the improved fallow- plots within the MI. & area withother plots in the same area. For normal years, yields after different lengths of fallow are almostidentical with the area averages for 1999 (a "good" year). As mean yield figures of the improvedfallow areas are compared with a wet„ "good" year, it can be seen as an improvement. A mainproblem with this comparison is that many different SCRP plots yields for two years (1998 and1999) are compared with data on improved fallow plots from other years. Also, the comparison ismade between different plots, while a relationship in Figure 6 is based on data for the same set ofplots. Another complication is that farmer estimates are compared with crop cuts.When considering the shown effects of a "bad" year, a quite unpredictable yield variation. thecomparison between improved and unimproved plots for these years seems even moreuncertain.With the available data it is hard to give a distinct picture of an enhancement of the plots'productivity after improved fallow. For the time being, the farmers' opinions are the main reasonto believe that the plantation of Leucaena and Pigeon pea may be of benefit to yields.Preferred speciesTo get an idea about how different combinations of improved fallow species perform, yield datafor different fallow species combinations were p4lotted against years of improved fallow Figure 10indicates that the combinations where Leucaena are present give higher yields than combinationswithout Leucaena. The grasses offer extra weeding work and are quite competitive, which mayhave an effect on yields.IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 13

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesDiscussionFrom this information Leucaena appears to be the best choice of species. This is also supportedby its survival abilities. Leucaena survive by far the highest number of cropping cycles, being stillpresent at almost all plots (Figure 11).IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 14

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesConclusionsConclusions• The cropping, systems introduced by the SCRP in 1992 and by FAO/UN DP during theeighties are largely present in altered forms. Leucaena is the main surviving species from theexperiments.• Crop data collected through interviews indicate an increase of yields after introduction ofimproved fallow, although statistical uncertainties exist. Species combinations includingLeucaena give higher yields than combinations without. Leucaena also have a higher survivalrate than Pigeon Pea and grasses.• In the farmers opinions the introduction of leguminous species in the fallow improves theiryields compared to the yields after traditional fallow. They also think that Leucaena andPigeon pea offer few problems, while the introduced grasses give extra weeding work.Grasses are generally disliked and should probably be avoided.• The main problem in spreading the techniques May be the implementation phase, whichrequires extra work during a season when the availability of labour is critical.IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 15

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesReferencesReferencesChazee L. (1994): Shifting Cultivation Practices in Laos. Report of the Nabong TechnicalMeeting, Nabong Agriculture College, Vientiane, pp 66-97.CTA: Agroforestry. Agrodok-series No. 16, Agromisa, Wageningen, pp 42-49.FAO (1991): Forest development and watershed management in the north Lao. Project findingsand recommendations. Rome, 35 pp.Fujisaka S. (1991): A diagnostic survey of shifting cultivation in northern Laos: targeting researchto improve sustainability and productivity. Agroforestry Systems 13. pp 95 – 109.Hansen P. K., Sodarak H. (1996): Environment, socio-economic conditions and land-use in BanThong Khang Sub-district, northern Laos. SCRP, Luang Prabang. 19 pp.LSFP (1994): Shifting Cultivation Stabilization Sub-programme. Organization and Activities.Luang Prabang. 11 pp.LSFP (1999): Manual of Agroforestry Research. Development and Extension. DoF. Vientiane,120pp.Rao M.R., Kwesiga F., Duguma B., Franzel S.. Jama B.. Buresh R. (1998): Soil fertilityreplenishment in sub-Saharan Africa. Agroforestry Today, Vol. 10. No. 2, pp. 3 - 8.Reading A. J., Thompson R. D., Millington A. C. (1995): Humid Tropical Environments. Blackwell.Cornwall. 429 pp.Sandewall M., Olsson B., Sandewall K. (1998): Peoples' Opinion on Forest Lana- (. se –workingpaper no. 2. SUAS, Uppsala, 66 pp.Saphangthong T. (1998): Common soils in the Lao PDR –their properties and use. SUAS.Uppsala, 55 ppSida (1996): Laos. Sida. Stockholm, 2pp.Sodarak H. (1996): Introduction to the Shifting Cultivation Research Sub-programme. SCRP.Luang Prabang, 5 pp.Sodarak H., Overgoor P. (1998): Shifting Cultivation Research Sub-program: its institutionalarrangements, constraints and future vision. DoF. Vientiane. 8 pp.Sodarak H., Ya V., Souliyavongsy S., Ditssaphone C., Hansen P. K. (1997): Livestockdevelopment by the Shifting Cultivation Research Project in-Luang Prabang Province. Lao P.D.R.SCRP, Luang Prabang. 11 ppSouvanthong P. (1994): Shifting Agriculture in Lao PDR. DoF, Vientiane 35 ppIMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 16

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesAppendix A Plot dataAppendix APlot dataIMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 17

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesAppendix A Plot data1 kalong rice =10 kg, =0.2 haYears in bold indicate year of experiment1 kalong peanut =5 kg unpeeled, 12 kg peeled1 kalong beans -14 kg peeledFallow(yrs)CropInput(kalong)Area(ha)Prod.(kalong)Prod.(t)Yield(t/ha)Weedings Leucaena PigeonpeaGrasscommentB. Pha KuangIntroduced speciesMrs Man1992 7 rice 0.8 2.5 3.1 X X X Estimated area.1996 3 rice 4 0.8 2 2.5 X XMr Leua1992 rice 6 1.2 200 2 1.7 X X X1995 2 rice 5 1.0 150 1.5 1.5 X X XMr Yankam1992 rice 14 2.8 400 4 1.4 X X Estimated area. Competition from p.p1995 2 rice 3 0.6 100 1 1.7 X X Used by mr boundjan, prod. UncertainCrop cuts1999 15 rice 1 0.2 1.98 3 Opened 1999 by mr Teuy.1999 6 rice 4 0.8 2.19 4 X Used by mr Teuy. Improved area.1999 3 rice 4 0.82.04 3 x Used by mr Soun. Improved area.B. Pha HaenMr NusuaIMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMER EXPERIENCES.20040940 18

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesAppendix A Plot dataFallow(yrs)CropInput(kalong)Area(ha)Prod.(kalong)Prod.(t)Yield(t/ha)Weedings Leucaena PigeonpeaGrasscomment1992 3 rice 1.0 1.8 1.8 X X1996 3 rice 1.0 2.2 2.2 XB. DanMr Sientoman1992 4 rice 3 0.6 80 0.8 1.3 2 X X Normal yield1993 0 corn 0.5 0.6 1.0 1.7 2 X X Better than normal1997 3 rice 8 1.6 204 2.4 1.5 3 X 5 yr fallow area added. Teak planted.Mrs Soupa1986 rice 5 1.0 100 1.0 1.0 Bad weeding1992 5 rice 5 10 150 1.5 1.5 3 X X Some competition1993 0 rice 5 1.0 200 2.0 2.0 3 X X1994 0 Blackbean1999 4 Job’stear10 kg 0.2 0.2 0.8 X X Not so good production1.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 X Estimated production. Not so goodMr sienoun1986 rice 5 1.0 100 1.0 1.01992 5 rice 2 0.4 80 0.8 2.0 3 Only rice in this treatment1992 5 rice 3 0.6 120 1.2 2.0 3 X X Rice+contour linesIMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMER EXPERIENCES.20040940 19

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesAppendix A Plot dataFallow(yrs)CropInput(kalong)Area(ha)Prod.(kalong)Prod.(t)Yield(t/ha)Weedings Leucaena PigeonpeaGrasscomment1993 0 rice 3 0.6 100 1.0 1.7 3 X X Dry year, pest. On improved treatment.1994 0 Soy-bl.bean22 kg 0.6 0.5 0.8 2 X (X) Only few p.p.1998 3 rice 3 0.6 130 1.3 2.2 3 X X On improved treatment.1999 0 Job’stear2 0.6 1.0 1.7 X X Estimated prod. On inproved treatmentB. Huay salaMr Sienonta1987 rice1992 4 rice 5 10 120 1.2 1.2 3 X X1996 3 rice 5 1.0 130 1.3 1.3 3 X No good rains1999 2 Job’stear4 1.0 3.0 3.0 X Est. production 2-4 t.Mr tang1992 4 rice 5 10 125 1.3 1.3 3 X X Uncertain fallow1996 3 rice 5 1.0 130 1.3 1.3 3 X X1999 2 Job’stear5 1.0 Job’s tears looks goodIMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMER EXPERIENCES.20040940 20

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesAppendix A Plot dataFallow(yrs)CropInput(kalong)Area(ha)Prod.(kalong)Prod.(t)Yield(t/ha)Weedings Leucaena PigeonpeaGrasscommentB. Pha donglomMr khamoun1980 rice 6 1.2 220 2.2 1.81981 0 rice 6 1.2 120 1.2 1.0 Weeds1982 0 rice1986 3 rice 6 1.2 240 2.4 2.0 21987 0 rice 6 1.2 80 0.8 0.7 4 Dry year1988 0 rice 6 1.2 78 0.8 0.7 31990 1 rice 5 1.0 220 2.2 2.2 Basin terrace1991 0 corn 10 kg 0.7 1.5 2.2 Good production1992 0 rice 6 1.2 160 1.6 1.3 4 X X1994 1 corn 10 kg 0.7 1.5 2.2 2 X X All corn planted on the same half1995 0 corn 7 kg 0.5 0.8 1.6 3 X1998 2 corn 10 kg 0.7 1.4 2.1 3 X1998 5 Job’stear1999 0 Job’stear6 kg 0.6 0.8 1.3 3 X Job’s tears on the other half12 kg 1.2 1.5 1.3 4 X Est. production. Natural weed problems.IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMER EXPERIENCES.20040940 21

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesAppendix A Plot dataFallow(yrs)CropInput(kalong)Area(ha)Prod.(kalong)Prod.(t)Yield(t/ha)Weedings Leucaena PigeonpeaGrasscommentMr siengkam1989 rice 10 2.0 150 1.5 0.8 Short fallow1992 2 rice 8 1.6 100 1.0 0.6 4 X X Problems with Imperata grass1993 0 corn 15 kg 1.0 1.5 1.5 2 X (X)1994 0 corn 7 kg 0.5 0.8 1.6 2 X Good production1999 4 Job’stear5 kg 0.5 0.8 1.6 2 X Late plantation1999 4 peanut 8 kg 0.2 26 0.13 0.81 2 X Mixed with job’s tear. Two plantationB. Hoay OunMr pui1988 rice 6 1.2 350 3.5 2.91992 3 rice 10 2.0 350 3.5 1.8 4 X X X1998 5 rice 4 0.8 90 0.9 1.1 3 X X X Not enough rain (mr kauli, b Tuhoy)Mr Siengpai1987 rice 14 2.8 260 2.6 0.9 Not enough weeding1992 4 rice 5 1.0 120 1.2 1.2 4 Dense plant. Uncert. Area. Notimproved.1992 4 corn 2 kg 0.1 0.2 1.5 2 X X Not enough rain.1992 4 peanut 20 kg 0.4 48 0.24 0.6 2 X X Not enough rain.IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMER EXPERIENCES.20040940 22

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesAppendix A Plot dataFallow(yrs)CropInput(kalong)Area(ha)Prod.(kalong)Prod.(t)Yield(t/ha)Weedings Leucaena PigeonpeaGrasscomment1992 0 Blackbean1.5 kg 0.4 0.2 0.5 2 X X Not enough rain. Same area as peanut,corn.1999 15 rice 9 1.8 163 1.63 0.9 3 Added area. Dense plant. Estimatedarea.1999 6 rice 3 0.6 86 0.86 1.4 3 Not impr. Area. Dense plant. Est. area.1999 6 rice 2 0.4 20 0.2 0.5 3 X X Impr. Area. Dense plant. Est. area.1999 15 rice 5 1.0 130 1.3 1.3 3 Added area. Dense plant. Estimatedarea.1999 6 Job’stear24 kg 2.4 2 X X Mainly on improved area. Looks goodB. TuhoyMr Viengphon1983 rice 8 1.6 250 2.5 1.61992 8 rice 4 0.8 100 1.0 1.3 3 X On improved area1992 8 rice 2 0.4 60 0.6 1.5 3 On peanut and bean area.1996 3 rice 4 X Rice looks same on both sides.Mr Djunting1984 rice1992 7 rice 5 1.0 100 1.0 1.0 3 X X XIMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMER EXPERIENCES.20040940 23

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesAppendix A Plot dataFallow(yrs)CropInput(kalong)Area(ha)Prod.(kalong)Prod.(t)Yield(t/ha)Weedings Leucaena PigeonpeaGrasscomment1999 6 rice 5 1.0 60 0.6 0.6 X X X Pests. 0.5 kalong on ext. area from1993Mr Siengto1983 rice 8 1.6 110 1.1 1.7 Bad rice seeds.1992 7 rice 6 1.2 150 1.5 1.3 3 X X X1995 2 rice 6 1.2 150 1.5 1.3 4 X X P.p. dies after this.Mr Kiama1982 rice1992 8 rice 8 1.6 200 2.0 1.3 4 (X) X X1995 2 rice 8 1.6 150 1.5 0.9 4 (X) Short fallow.Plots in FAO-UNDP experimentationB. Lac SipMr Soumpet1985 rice 1 X Here are all yields are farmer’sestimation!1986 0 rice X Sinking yield.1987 0 rice X Sinking yield.1989 1 rice 1 XIMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMER EXPERIENCES.20040940 24

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesAppendix A Plot dataFallow(yrs)CropInput(kalong)Area(ha)Prod.(kalong)Prod.(t)Yield(t/ha)Weedings Leucaena PigeonpeaGrasscomment1992 2 rice 1 X1995 2 rice 1.2 X1998 2 rice 1.9 X Good weather.1999 0 Job’stearXMr Ounchan1983 3 rice 3 0.6 100 1.0 1.71984 0 rice 3 0.6 60 0.3 1.01985 0 LeucaenaXLeucaena plantation.1988 3 rice 3 0.6 70 0.7 1.2 3 X Rats.1989 0 peanut 10 kg 0.2 59 0.3 1.5 2 X Areas uncertain for this year.1989 0 corn 2 kg 0.13 2 X Good production, but no memory offigures.1989 0 Soy bean 1 kg 0.02 0.02 1.0 3 X1993 3 rice 3 0.6 45 0.45 0.8 3 X Bad yr everywhere. No rain, bad seeds.1998 4 rice 2 0.4 30 0.3 0.8 3 X Rice grows fine, but gives no seeds.1998 4 Job’stear1 0.33 0.7 2.1 2 XIMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMER EXPERIENCES.20040940 25

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesAppendix A Plot dataFallow(yrs)CropInput(kalong)Area(ha)Prod.(kalong)Prod.(t)Yield(t/ha)Weedings Leucaena PigeonpeaGrasscomment1999 0 Job’stear2 0.67 2.0 3.0 2 Estimated production.Mr Boun1982 rice 4 0.8 250 2.5 3.11985 2 LeucaenaXLeucaena plantation.1998 15 rice 4 0.8 150 1.5 1.9 X No rain. Rats.1999 0 Job’stear1 0.33 1 3.0 X With fruit trees, pineapple. Areauncertain.B. NaxaoMr Sienghuan1983 rice Uncertain memories of plot history.1988 4 rice 2.5 0.5 24 0.24 0.5 X Dry year1993 4 Blackbean1994 0 Blackbean5 kg 0.1 0.2 2.0 2 X2.5 kg 0.05 0.08 1.6 2 X1999 4 rice 2 0.4 30 0.3 0.8 3 X Early rice. Problems with buffaloes.1999 4 beans 3 0.4 0.1 0.3 X After rice and 3 rd weeding. Mung-, BI.BeanMr SoumdiIMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMER EXPERIENCES.20040940 26

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesAppendix A Plot dataData source of figures 5, 6 and 12.Rice yields for all farmers grouped into fallow periodsRice yields before improved fallow1-2 3-4 5-10 >10Rice yields after improved fallows1-2 3-4 5-10 >10Mrs Man 3.1 Mrs Man 2.5Mr Leua Mr Leua 1.5Mr Yakam 1.8 Mr Yakam 1.7 2.04 2.19Mr Nusua 1.3 Mr Nusua 2.2Mr Sientoman 1.5 Mr Sientoman 1.5Mrs Soupa 2 Mrs SoupaMr Sienoun 1.2 Mr Sienoun 2.2Mr Sienonta 1.3 Mr Sienonta 1.3 bad yearMrs Tang 2.2 2 Mrs Tang 1.3 bad yearMr Khamoun 0.6 Mr KhamounMr Siengkam 1.8 Mr SiengkamMr Pui (4) uncertain Mr Pui 0.9Mr Siengpai 1.3 Mr Siengpai 1Mr Viengphon 1.5 Mr Viengphon1 Mr Djunting 0.6 bad yearMr Djunting 1.3 Mr Siengto 1.5Mr Siengto 1.3 Mr Kiama 1.5Mr Kiama Mr Soumpet 1Mr Soumpet 1.7 1.2Mr Ounchan 0.5 1.9Mr Boun 1.3 Mr Ounchan 1.2Mr Sienghuan 0.8Mr Soumdi 1Mr Boun 1.5 bad yearMormal years 1.37 1.45 1.63 Mr Sienghuan 0.8IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 28

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesAppendix A Plot dataMr SoumdiNormal years 1.47 1.91 2.19bad years 1.08 0.75 1.5Data source of figures 7 and 13.Crop cut data from mr Yankam's plot, Ban PaKuangCut area 2x2 m.All yields in t/haall years 1.47 1.53 1.17 1.5plotcutsectio wet sample wet cut-sample sample cut drycut no n veriety type weight weight ratio dry weight weight cut dry yield1 a Meo late 0.940 0.200 4.700 0.150 0.705 1.762 a Meo late 1.230 0.200 6.150 0.155 0.953 2.383 a Meo late 0.905 0.200 4.525 0.160 0.724 1.81plot section average 1.99standard deviation 0.28confidence 95% 0.324 b Meo late 0.725 0.200 3.625 0.160 0.580 1.455 b Meo late 0.955 0.200 4.775 0.160 0.764 1.916 b Eo late 1.600 0.200 8.000 0.160 1.280 3.20plot section average 2.19standard deviation 0.74confidence 95% 0.847 c Eo late 0.980 0.200 4.900 0.160 0.784 1.968 c Eo late 0.745 0.200 3.725 0.155 0.577 1.449 c Eo late 1.280 0.200 6.400 0.170 1.088 2.72plot section average 2.04standard deviation 0.52confidence 95% 0.59average yield 2.07IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 29

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesAppendix A Plot dataData source of figure 8Comparison between fallow cycle length before and afterimplementationbeforeafter Before afterSCRPUNDP/FAOmrs Man 7 3 mr Soumpet 0mr Leua 2 0mr yankam 2 16 23 2mr Nusua 3 3 2mr Sientoman 4 0 03 mr Ounchan 3 3mrs Soupa 5 0 special 0 00 0 34 4mr Sienoun 5 0 special 00 mr Boun 2 153 00 mr Sienghuan 4 4mr Sienonta 4 3 02 4mrs Tang 4 3 mr Soumdi 0 82 2mr Khamoun 0 1 special0 03 20 50 0IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 30

Improved fallow systems in the Luang Prabang area, Lao PDR – an analysis based on farmer experiencesAppendix A Plot data100mr Siengkam 2 0 Mean fallow time (yrs)Before0 implementation implementation4 SCRP 3.41 2.324 UNDP/FAO 1.57 2.67mr Pui 3 5 all 3.41 2.32mr Siengpai 4 6mr Viengphon 8 3mr Djunting 7 6mr Siengto 7 2mr Kiama 8 2Data source of figure 11.Survival of introduced species in SCRP and FAO experimentation1st cropping is the year of implementationStill present4-5th cropping2nd-3rdcroppingafter 1stcroppingDied after 4-5thcroppingDied after 2nd-3rd croppingDied after 1stcroppingStill presentInitial number ofplots% valuesLeucaena 20 19 1 100 100 95 95Pigeon pea 16 6 3 7 81.3 37.5 37.5Grasses 8 4 3 1 62.5 50 50IMPROVED FALLOW SYSTEMS IN THE LUANG PRABANG AREA, LAO PDR - AN ANALYSIS BASED ON FARMEREXPERIENCES.20040940 31