Agroforestry Systems for Upland People in Lao PDR: Production, Benefit, and Farmers’ Satisfaction Analysis - Agroforestry Systems for Upland People in Lao PDR: Production, Benefit, and Farmers’ Satisfaction Analysis - ALiSEA

Thông tin khác

Miền	Giá trị
Data last updated	12 tháng 11, 2024
Metadata last updated	30 tháng 7, 2025
Được tạo ra	12 tháng 11, 2024
Định dạng	PDF
Giấy phép	License Not Specified
Datastore active	False
Datastore contains all records of source file	False
Has views	True
Id	59a8790b-32ab-44ee-8a72-1c2843f860cf
Mimetype	application/pdf
Name translated	{'en': 'Agroforestry Systems for Upland People in Lao PDR: Production, Benefit, and Farmers’ Satisfaction Analysis ', 'km': 'Agroforestry Systems for Upland People in Lao PDR: Production, Benefit, and Farmers’ Satisfaction Analysis ', 'lo': 'Agroforestry Systems for Upland People in Lao PDR: Production, Benefit, and Farmers’ Satisfaction Analysis ', 'my_MM': 'Agroforestry Systems for Upland People in Lao PDR: Production, Benefit, and Farmers’ Satisfaction Analysis ', 'vi': 'Agroforestry Systems for Upland People in Lao PDR: Production, Benefit, and Farmers’ Satisfaction Analysis '}
Package id	d8a1b75a-32d6-4b61-8562-bd0057a787b2
Position	0
Resource description	{'en': 'With an increasing population and governmental land-use restriction, shortened\r\nfallow periods of some traditional farming systems have contributed to the reduction of\r\nagricultural production in the uplands of Lao P.D.R. In response, systems which integrate\r\ntrees, 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 came\r\nfrom a survey of 80 agroforestry farms under a project support in nine villages of two\r\nnorthern districts. The results implied that three main agro forestry systems, based on nature components, have been employed. 81 percent of farmers employed Agrisilviculture,\r\nwhere 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\r\n(trees and pasture/animals). In terms of production cost, initial investment in Agrisilviculture cost on average US$ 575 ha-1\r\n; while Agrosilvopastoral farmers spent around US$ 795\r\nha-1 and Silvopastural farmers, an estimated US$ 282 ha-1\r\n. After three-years of establishment, most farmers achieved success meeting their food sufficiency needs and obtained\r\nadditional income from extra production, with average returns from each system about\r\nUS$ 186 ha-1\r\n, US$ 632 ha-1\r\n, and US$ 104 ha-1 respectively. With biological and economic\r\nadvantages produced by natural components in each system, most of farmers were similarly satisfied. Although the systems could not provide immediate-profitable returns, they\r\nwere able to sustain food production and were profitable for a long-term use. A particular\r\nattention and continual technical support from relevant agencies are still required to enhance application of agroforestry. ', 'km': 'With an increasing population and governmental land-use restriction, shortened\r\nfallow periods of some traditional farming systems have contributed to the reduction of\r\nagricultural production in the uplands of Lao P.D.R. In response, systems which integrate\r\ntrees, 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 came\r\nfrom a survey of 80 agroforestry farms under a project support in nine villages of two\r\nnorthern districts. The results implied that three main agro forestry systems, based on nature components, have been employed. 81 percent of farmers employed Agrisilviculture,\r\nwhere 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\r\n(trees and pasture/animals). In terms of production cost, initial investment in Agrisilviculture cost on average US$ 575 ha-1\r\n; while Agrosilvopastoral farmers spent around US$ 795\r\nha-1 and Silvopastural farmers, an estimated US$ 282 ha-1\r\n. After three-years of establishment, most farmers achieved success meeting their food sufficiency needs and obtained\r\nadditional income from extra production, with average returns from each system about\r\nUS$ 186 ha-1\r\n, US$ 632 ha-1\r\n, and US$ 104 ha-1 respectively. With biological and economic\r\nadvantages produced by natural components in each system, most of farmers were similarly satisfied. Although the systems could not provide immediate-profitable returns, they\r\nwere able to sustain food production and were profitable for a long-term use. A particular\r\nattention and continual technical support from relevant agencies are still required to enhance application of agroforestry. ', 'lo': 'With an increasing population and governmental land-use restriction, shortened\r\nfallow periods of some traditional farming systems have contributed to the reduction of\r\nagricultural production in the uplands of Lao P.D.R. In response, systems which integrate\r\ntrees, 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 came\r\nfrom a survey of 80 agroforestry farms under a project support in nine villages of two\r\nnorthern districts. The results implied that three main agro forestry systems, based on nature components, have been employed. 81 percent of farmers employed Agrisilviculture,\r\nwhere 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\r\n(trees and pasture/animals). In terms of production cost, initial investment in Agrisilviculture cost on average US$ 575 ha-1\r\n; while Agrosilvopastoral farmers spent around US$ 795\r\nha-1 and Silvopastural farmers, an estimated US$ 282 ha-1\r\n. After three-years of establishment, most farmers achieved success meeting their food sufficiency needs and obtained\r\nadditional income from extra production, with average returns from each system about\r\nUS$ 186 ha-1\r\n, US$ 632 ha-1\r\n, and US$ 104 ha-1 respectively. With biological and economic\r\nadvantages produced by natural components in each system, most of farmers were similarly satisfied. Although the systems could not provide immediate-profitable returns, they\r\nwere able to sustain food production and were profitable for a long-term use. A particular\r\nattention and continual technical support from relevant agencies are still required to enhance application of agroforestry. ', 'my_MM': 'With an increasing population and governmental land-use restriction, shortened\r\nfallow periods of some traditional farming systems have contributed to the reduction of\r\nagricultural production in the uplands of Lao P.D.R. In response, systems which integrate\r\ntrees, 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 came\r\nfrom a survey of 80 agroforestry farms under a project support in nine villages of two\r\nnorthern districts. The results implied that three main agro forestry systems, based on nature components, have been employed. 81 percent of farmers employed Agrisilviculture,\r\nwhere 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\r\n(trees and pasture/animals). In terms of production cost, initial investment in Agrisilviculture cost on average US$ 575 ha-1\r\n; while Agrosilvopastoral farmers spent around US$ 795\r\nha-1 and Silvopastural farmers, an estimated US$ 282 ha-1\r\n. After three-years of establishment, most farmers achieved success meeting their food sufficiency needs and obtained\r\nadditional income from extra production, with average returns from each system about\r\nUS$ 186 ha-1\r\n, US$ 632 ha-1\r\n, and US$ 104 ha-1 respectively. With biological and economic\r\nadvantages produced by natural components in each system, most of farmers were similarly satisfied. Although the systems could not provide immediate-profitable returns, they\r\nwere able to sustain food production and were profitable for a long-term use. A particular\r\nattention and continual technical support from relevant agencies are still required to enhance application of agroforestry. ', 'vi': 'With an increasing population and governmental land-use restriction, shortened\r\nfallow periods of some traditional farming systems have contributed to the reduction of\r\nagricultural production in the uplands of Lao P.D.R. In response, systems which integrate\r\ntrees, 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 came\r\nfrom a survey of 80 agroforestry farms under a project support in nine villages of two\r\nnorthern districts. The results implied that three main agro forestry systems, based on nature components, have been employed. 81 percent of farmers employed Agrisilviculture,\r\nwhere 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\r\n(trees and pasture/animals). In terms of production cost, initial investment in Agrisilviculture cost on average US$ 575 ha-1\r\n; while Agrosilvopastoral farmers spent around US$ 795\r\nha-1 and Silvopastural farmers, an estimated US$ 282 ha-1\r\n. After three-years of establishment, most farmers achieved success meeting their food sufficiency needs and obtained\r\nadditional income from extra production, with average returns from each system about\r\nUS$ 186 ha-1\r\n, US$ 632 ha-1\r\n, and US$ 104 ha-1 respectively. With biological and economic\r\nadvantages produced by natural components in each system, most of farmers were similarly satisfied. Although the systems could not provide immediate-profitable returns, they\r\nwere able to sustain food production and were profitable for a long-term use. A particular\r\nattention and continual technical support from relevant agencies are still required to enhance application of agroforestry. '}
Size	1,3 MiB
State	active
Url type	upload
Tên	Agroforestry Systems for Upland People in Lao PDR: Production, Benefit, and Farmers’ Satisfaction Analysis
Sự miêu tả	With an increasing population and governmental land-use restriction, shortened fallow periods of some traditional farming systems have contributed to the reduction of agricultural production in the uplands of Lao P.D.R. In response, systems which integrate trees, 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 came from a survey of 80 agroforestry farms under a project support in nine villages of two northern 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 particular attention and continual technical support from relevant agencies are still required to enhance application of agroforestry.