Why farmers choose agroforestry? A case study from the
province of Sa Kaeo, Thailand
Mirka Valo
Master’s thesis
University of Helsinki
Department of Agricultural Sciences
Plant production Science / Agroecology
April 2014
HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO HELSINGFORS UNIVERSITET UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI
Tiedekunta/Osasto
Fakultet/Sektion
Faculty
Laitos
Maatalous-metsätieteellinen tiedekunta
Tekijä
Författare
Institution
Department
Maataloustieteiden laitos
Author
Mirka Valo
Työn nimi
Arbetets titel
Title
Miksi viljelijät valitsevat peltometsätalouden? Tapaustutkimus Sa Kaeon provinssissa,
Thaimaassa
Oppiaine
Läroämne
Subject
Agroekologia
Työn laji
Arbetets art
Level
Aika
Maisterintutkielma
Tiivistelmä
Referat
Datum
Month and year
Huhtikuu 2014
Sivumäärä
Sidoantal
Number of pages
50
Abstract
Riisi, maniokki ja eukalyptus ovat tärkeitä lajeja Thaimaan taloudelle ja niitä käytetään laajasti
peltometsätaloudessa Thaimaassa. Tässä tutkimuksessa tutkitut peltometsätalouden tuotantotavat
olivat puiden rajaistutus sekä kujanneviljely riisin, maniokin ja eukalyptuksen kanssa, mutta
myös monia muita peltometsätalouden tuotantotapoja on käytössä Thaimaassa. Riisi on
maailman sekä myös Thaimaan tärkein viljelyskasvi ja sen kysyntä on kasvussa väestönkasvusta
johtuen. Maniokki on ollut tärkeä kasvi Thaimaassa ja myös sen kysyntä kasvaa uusista
teollisuuden aloista johtuen. Metsien määrä Thaimaassa on vähentynyt 1960-luvulta lähtien
metsäkadon jatkuessa yhä ja tämän takia eukalyptuksen istuttamista ollaankin edistetty
uudelleenmetsitystarkoituksessa. Eukalyptuksen kysyntä on myös kasvussa paperin kulutuksen
kasvun vuoksi, mikä johtuu Aasian talouskasvusta sekä luonnonmetsien hakkuukiellosta
Thaimaassa vuodesta 1989 lähtien. Näistä syistä eukalyptuksen sopimusviljely on erittäin
tärkeää sellu- ja paperiteollisuudelle ja se on ollutkin kasvussa.
Tämän tutkimuksen tarkoituksena on ollut löytää syitä, miksi viljelijät ovat valinneet
peltometsätalouden ja mitkä ovat sen hyödyt sekä haitat. Tutkimus oli puolistrukturoitu
haastattelu ja se toteutettiin 25 viljelijällä. Varmoja tuloksia asioista, jotka vaikuttavat
viljelijöiden omaksumiseen, viljelijöiden jatkoon sekä kokemuksiin peltometsätalouden
hyödyistä, ei noussut esiin aineistosta. Viljelijät mainitsivat kaikista useimmiten syiksi
peltometsätalouden omaksumiseen saatavilla olevan maan sekä maan sopivuuden, heidän omat
kokemuksensa ja tietonsa. Viljelijät näkivät peltometsätalouden mahdollisuutena kasvattaa
tuloja, parantaa kannattavuutta sekä monipuolistaa heidän tuotantoaan. Suurin osa viljelijöistä
aikoi jatkaa peltometsätalouden käyttöä myös tulevaisuudessa.
Avainsanat
Nyckelord
Keywords
Eucalyptus camaldulensis, riisi, maniokki, peltometsätalous, Thaimaa, innovaatioiden
omaksuminen
Säilytyspaikka
Förvaringsställe
Where deposited
Maataloustieteiden laitos ja Viikin kampuskirjasto
Muita tietoja
Övriga uppgifter
Further information
Työtä ohjasi Juha Helenius
HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO HELSINGFORS UNIVERSITET
Tiedekunta/Osasto
Fakultet/Sektion
Faculty
Laitos
Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry
Tekijä
Författare
Institution
UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI
Department
Department of Agricultural Sciences
Author
Mirka Valo
Työn nimi
Arbetets titel
Title
Why farmers choose agroforestry? A case study from the province of Sa Kaeo, Thailand
Oppiaine
Läroämne
Subject
Agroecology
Työn laji
Arbetets art
Level
Aika
Master's thesis
Tiivistelmä
Referat
Datum
April 2014
Month and year
Sivumäärä
Sidoantal
Number of pages
50
Abstract
Rice, cassava and eucalypts are important species for Thailand's economy and they are widely
used in agroforestry systems in Thailand. In this research the studied agroforestry systems were
boundary planting and alley cropping with rice, cassava and eucalypts, but there are also many
other systems in use in Thailand. Rice is the most important crop in the world and also in
Thailand and the demand of rice is increasing due to the population growth. Cassava has been an
important plant in Thailand and also the demand of cassava is growing due the new potential
industries. The amount of forests in Thailand has decreased from the 1960's while deforestation
still continues due to that the planting of eucalypts is promoted for reforestation purposes. Also
the demand of eucalypts is increasing because the consumption of paper is growing with the
economic growth of Asian countries and due to the logging ban on natural forests in Thailand
since 1989. Due to that contract farming of eucalypts is critical for pulp and paper industry and it
has been increasing.
The aim of this study was to find out the reasons why farmers have chosen agroforestry and what
are the advantages and disadvantages of the used systems. The research was semi-structured
interview and it was conducted with 25 farmers. Confirmative results on factors affecting
farmer's adoption, continuation and experience on benefits of agroforestry did not emerge from
the data. Farmers mentioned most often availability and suitability of the land, own experiences
and knowledge as the reason for adoption. Farmers saw agroforestry as a way to increase their
income, improve profitability and diversify their production. Most of the farmers were going to
use agroforestry systems also in the future.
Avainsanat
Nyckelord
Keywords
Eucalyptus camaldulensis, rice, cassava, agroforestry, Thailand, adoption of innovations
Säilytyspaikka
Förvaringsställe
Where deposited
Department of Agricultural Sciences and Viikki Campus Library
Muita tietoja
Övriga uppgifter
Further information
Supervisor Juha Helenius
Preface
This thesis has been executed in Memorandum of Understanding between the
University of Helsinki and Kasetsart University and it is continuation to the tight
teaching and research cooperation between the universities which has started already in
1966. Viikki Tropical Resources Institute (VITRI) which is the most important part of
this Memorandum of Understanding was responsible for organizing the needed
connections to Kasetsart University for this research to be conducted.
I would like to thank the Department of agricultural sciences of the University of
Helsinki and Tellervo and Juuso Walden foundation for providing financial support for
this study.
I would also like to thank Prof. Juha Helenius for his help and all of his advices, Prof.
Emer. Olavi Luukkanen for arranging the connections to Thailand and Prof. Monton
Jamroenpruksa for all the help I had in Thailand.
There was one major unexpected factor in the research, flooding. Flooding in the fall of
2011 in Thailand was worst in 60 years. This challenged us and changed the whole
research plan and created a lot of uncertainty and difficulties in the process. I would like
to thank the staff of the international students dormitory of Kasetsart University for
arranging the accommodation during the evacuation and Suwan research farm for
providing us a place to stay and continue our work.
I want to thank my friend Renato de Moraes Bonilha for his help in the research and all
of his support. I would also like to thank my fiancé Aki Niemelä for his encouragement,
help and support.
I would like to show my deepest gratitude to Mr. Dissaro and Mr. Apibansri from FIO
(Forest Industry Organization) for their help with the practical arrangements of the
interviews in Sa Kaeo and for having us part of their community.
I would also like to thank Tassanee Muksuwan and Tor Wasan for their help with the
interviews and translations and Mr. Rachit from Suan Kitti for his help with the
practical arrangements of the interviews and arranging the meetings with the farmers.
Helsinki, 2014
Mirka Valo
TABLE OF CONTENT
1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 6
1.1 Agroforestry...............................................................................................6
1.2 Adoption of agroforestry by farmers......................................................7
1.3 Eucalypt agroforestry in Thailand...........................................................7
Thailand......................................................................................................... 7
E. camaldulensis in Thailand.........................................................................8
Key agricultural crops.................................................................................. 10
Rainfed lowland and wastelands................................................................. 12
2 OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................. 12
3 MATERIALS AND METHODS........................................................................ 13
3.1 Study area................................................................................................ 13
3.2 Materials...................................................................................................14
3.3 Material collection................................................................................... 14
3.4 Methods....................................................................................................15
4 RESULTS.........................................................................................................16
5 DISCUSSION...................................................................................................23
Adoption.......................................................................................................23
Advantages of agroforestry......................................................................... 25
Disadvantages of agroforestry.....................................................................28
E. camaldulensis in agroforestry................................................................. 28
Rice and cassava in agroforestry................................................................ 29
Yields and cultivation areas......................................................................... 30
Crop rotations of field crops.........................................................................31
Labor............................................................................................................31
Knowledge gaps.......................................................................................... 32
6 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................. 33
REFERENCES................................................................................................... 34
APPENDIX 1: THE INTERVIEW FORM............................................................ 46
6
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Agroforestry
“Agroforestry is a form of land-use where trees are cultivated in association with crops
and/or animals on the same area of land” (Valo 2011). ICRAF's (which stands at the
present for World Agroforestry Center) definition of agroforestry is: "Agroforestry is a
collective name for land-use systems and practices where woody perennials are
deliberately integrated with crops and/or animals on the same land management unit.
The integration can be either in spatial mixture or temporal sequence. There are
normally both ecological and economic interactions between the woody and non-woody
components in agroforestry" (Lundgren & Raintree 1983). With agroforestry systems
farmers can stabilize their livelihood, increase biodiversity and also use the area for crop
production all at the same time (Wise & Cacho 2002, Ashley et al. 2006).
Agroforestry systems can be classified in many ways. One division is into four classes:
agrosilviculture, silvopastorialism, agrosilvopastorialism and other techniques. In this
thesis the focus is on agrosilviculture. In agrosilviculture agricultural crops are grown
with woody components. In this research farmers used two different kinds of
agrosilvicultural methods: boundary planting and alley cropping. In boundary planting
trees are planted on the boundaries of the field and the crop is cultivated on the field
(Figure 1). In alley cropping trees are planted in widely spaced rows with arable crops
cultivated in the alleys between the tree rows (Figure 1). In this study eucalypts with
rice was cultivated in boundary planting and eucalypts with cassava was cultivated in
alley cropping.
Figure 1. Examples of tree and crop arrangements. Boundary planting on the left and
alley cropping on the right (modified from Gliessman 2007).
7
1.2 Adoption of agroforestry by farmers
Adoption is a process where adopter learns about the new innovation and then decide to
adopt or reject it (Rogers 1983). Adoption of agroforestry requires establishment of a
new system and learning of new techniques and due to these factors it is more complex
than monocropping (Rafiq et al. 2000, ref. Mercer 2004). Many different matters affect
adoption (Feder et al. 1985). Farmer's adoption of new cultivation system depends on
economic, social and cultural matters (Mercer 2004). There are five stages of adoption
in the innovation-diffusion model and they are described by the adopters: innovators,
early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards (Rogers 1983). Farmer's
reasons for adoption varies depending on stage of adoption, socioeconomic group and
over time (Feder et al. 1985). Adoption is also an ongoing process, which is never fully
completed (Pannell 2003).
Uncertainty and risk are two important factors affecting farmer's decision making
whether to choose an innovation such as agroforestry or not (Pannell 2003, Feder et al.
1985). Farmers are cautious in adoption of new systems which are radically different
from their own (Pannell 2003).
1.3 Eucalypt agroforestry in Thailand
Thailand
The Kingdom of Thailand is situated in Southeast Asia between 5° and 21° N latitude
and 97° and 106° E longitude and it shares border with Myanmar in the West, Lao PDR
and Cambodia in the Northeast and Malaysia in the South. Thailand has a land area of
510 890 km2. Agricultural land covers 38.6% of the area, 29.9% is arable land and
28.2% is forest (Trading economics 2011). The amount of forests has decreased
dramatically since 1960's from 57% due to expansion of cultivated land resulting from
structure change of agriculture from subsistence farming to large-scale cultivation
(Boonkrid 1979, ref. Boonkird et al. 1984, Trongkongsin 1987). The total population of
Thailand was 66.4 million in 2011 and agriculture employs 41.7% of the population
(Trading economics 2011). The average age of farmers in Thailand is 55 (UNDP 2012).
GDP per capita was 3164 US dollars in 2011 (Trading economics 2011). Industry covers
8
44.6% of the GDP in Thailand, services account for 43% and agriculture only 12.4%,
but because 66% of the population is rural agriculture is still important activity in
Thailand (IRRI 2013). The most important agricultural products are rice, cassava
(tapioca), rubber, corn, sugarcane, coconuts and soybeans (CIA 2011). Agroforestry is
emerging in different forms, there are many different kinds of agroforestry systems in
use and agroforestry is acknowledged farming method by farmers and the government
in Thailand (Boonkird et al. 1984, Makarabhirom 1991).
E. camaldulensis in Thailand
Eucalyptus
camaldulensis
is
an
economically
important
tree
in
Thailand
(Luangviriyasaeng 2003). The area of planted eucalypts has been growing, in 1986 it
was 53 524 ha, in 1995 it was 348 927 ha and in 2009 it was about 443 000 ha (FAO
2009, Mahannop 2004). Of this 443 000 ha about 10% is in rice paddy fields (FAO
2009).
There has been a lot of debate concerning eucalypts in Thailand and also in other Asian
countries. In 1990's the use of eucalypts was criticized heavily. The negative
environmental and social impacts of eucalypts have been written since that in many
different publications (Fumikazu 2001, Niskanen 1998, Pousajja 1993, Usher 2009). In
1988 there was devastating floods and landslides due loss of forest cover in two villages
in the province of Surat Thani (Niskanen 1998). After this incident the environmental
awareness of the public rose (Boulay & Tacconi 2012). In the 1980's E. camaldulensis
was promoted widely in Thailand and that resulted rapidly in social issues (Boulay &
Tacconi 2012). People protested against plantation schemes, because there had been
land use conflicts between farmers, forest entrepreneurs and the government (Niskanen
1998, Boulay & Tacconi 2012). Farmers were concerned about losing their access to the
land, because the government was evicting farmers due to the reforestation program
(Usher 2009, Puntasen et al. 1992). Eucalypts has got a lot of attention from NGOs
compared to other cash crops like rubber with similar potential negative environmental
effects (Barney 2004). As it was mentioned by Bennett (2010) “Eucalypts will likely
remain a controversial, though widely grown, tree for the next decade or more.”
9
Eucalupts are mainly used as firewood, charcoal, construction and furniture material or
as wood chips and raw material for pulp and paper production in Thailand (Pousajja
1996, Fumikazu 2001). There has been a ban on logging in natural forests in Thailand
since 1989. This has increased Thailand's dependency on imported wood and wood
based products and increased the need for domestic tree planting (Boulay & Tacconi
2012, FAO 2009). There is increasing demand for eucalypt production due to the acute
demand for wood and due to the increasing consumption of paper in domestic and
international markets as the economic growth of the Asian countries continues
(Luangviriyasaeng 2003, Masaki 1996).
In Thailand one of the most important industries is the pulp and paper industry (Pousajja
1996). About 70 to 80% of the produced eucalypts are used in pulp and paper industry
and most of this is produced by small-scale farmers who own usually less than 8 ha of
land (FAO 2009, Pousajja 1996). About 95 % of eucalypt production area is privately
owned and about 70% is grown by contract farmers of pulp and paper companies
(Boulay 2010, ref. Boulay et al. 2012). Pulp and paper companies are dependent on
small-scale farmers for raw material supply, because they own almost all of the private
land in Thailand and because the Reserved Forest Act has limited the size of plantations
in Thailand (Boulay et al. 2012, Boulay & Tacconi 2012, Bennett 2010). The popularity
of contract farming of eucalypts has increased in Thailand and it is now occurring on
large scale, especially near the pulp and paper factories (Boulay & Tacconi 2012). In
contract farming pulp and paper company signs a contract with farmer and sells them
good quality low-price seedlings and fertilizers, farmers grow the trees on their farm
and the company provides them technical advice and training and they guarantee a
minimum price of the harvested wood for the farmers (Pousajja 1996, Masaki 1996,
Boulay & Tacconi 2012). Eucalypt tree farming is an important alternative and
additional income source for small-scale farmers (Boulay et al. 2012). Eucalypt
production in the research area in the province of Sa Kaeo is local. The pulp and paper
factory is located 60 km away in Prachinburi and the transport distances are short and
due to this transport costs stay low. Eucalypt production is interesting for farmers
because the price of wood as a raw material has been increasing (Wiriyapong 2008).
Planting of eucalypts is promoted for reforestation purposes in Thailand to answer to the
10
demand for timber and also because eucalypts can be grow on depleted soils in harsh
conditions (Boulay & Tacconi 2012). The area of natural forests has been decreasing in
Thailand and deforestation is still continuing mainly due to deforestation on buffer
zones and forest edges of protected areas and due to forest conversion to rubber and oil
palm plantations (Stibig et al. 2007).
Key agricultural crops
Rice is the most important food crop in the world and also the most important crop in
Asia (Duwayri et al. 2000). More than 90% of the rice is produced and also consumed
in Asia-Pacific region (Papademetriou 2000, Chaudhary 2000). Rice consumption and
demand are increasing with the population and the economic growth of Asia and Africa
(IRRI 2013). The consumption has been estimated to grow from 439 million tons in
2010 up to 555 million tons in 2035 (IRRI 2013).
There are two important rice species in the world, Oryza sativa, which is grown
worldwide and O. glaberrima, which is grown only in parts of West Africa (IRRI 2002).
In this thesis the focus is on O. sativa.
Thailand is one of the world's biggest producers of rice and the biggest rice exporter in
the world (IRRI 2013). Rice is the most important crop in Thailand, over half of the
cultivated land is used for rice production and the average annual consumption of rice
per capita is high (133 kg) compared to the average consumption in Asia (77.2 kg)
(IRRI 2013, FAOstat 2013). In Thailand rice production can be divided into four
different systems: irrigated, rainfed lowland, deepwater and upland (Kupkanchanakul
2000). In the research area in Sa Kaeo the production of rice is rainfed lowland
production and most of the farmers have only one rice crop per year. On the irrigated
areas in the Central Plains of Central Thailand farmers can have two to three crops of
rice per year. The average yield of rice in Thailand is low, often less than 2 t/ha, which
is one of the lowest in the world (Kupkanchanakul 2000, IRRI 2002). This is partly due
to farmers preference to use traditional rice varieties which are high-quality but low
yielding (IRRI 2002). Rice cultivation is done on small plots of land by using large
amounts of human labor (IRRI 2013). The production is mainly for subsistence use and
11
only the excess amount of rice is sold usually on the local markets (IRRI 2013). Less
than half of the production goes for sale and only about 6.9% goes to international trade
(IRRI 2013).
Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) is an important crop in Thailand and they are the
world’s biggest cassava exporter (Sriroth et al. 2001, UNCTAD 2012). The planted area
of cassava in 2011 was 1 140 000 ha and the average yield was approximately 19 t/ha
(FAOstat 2013). In Thailand cassava is mainly used as animal feed and for industrial
purposes, but in other Asian countries it is mainly used as human food (Howeler 2005).
There is increasing demand for cassava in industrial processes such as paper and textile
industry and in production of biodegradable plastic, ethanol and food (Hershey &
Howeler 2001). This new industrial sector has a huge growth potential (Saleh et al.
2001). The price of cassava has been increasing from the beginning of 2000's and this
makes it an attractive option for farmers (UNCTAD 2012).
Unlike rice, cassava is primarily cultivated in intercropping systems instead of being
produced as single crop (Moreno 1991). Cassava is a good plant for agroforestry
systems because it has wide spacing and it can produce fairly good yields on both of the
used plants (Tongglum et al. 2001). Intercropping also helps in preventing erosion,
because cassava grows quite slowly at the beginning of the development (Tongglum et
al. 2001). During this early growth stage there could otherwise be wind and water
erosion causing damage.
In Thailand chipping cassava for animal feed is common. Cassava production in Sa
Kaeo is local, there are many cassava chipping yards in the area. There is also local
demand for feed because of cattle farming. In the chipping process the fresh cassava
tubers are taken to chipping yards where tubers are put through a chipping machine and
chipped tubers are spread on a concrete floor to dry in the sun. These dried chips can be
used as such or refined to pellets in pelleting factories where cassava chips are ground
to meal and extruded to pellets (Sriroth et al. 2001). Cassava pellets are easy to transport
and not as dusty as chips are (Howeler 2005).
12
Rainfed lowland and wastelands
Even though Sa Kaeo is part of the Central region of Thailand, agriculture in the area
differs from the Central Plains intensive and mainly irrigated rice production (IRRI
2013). In Sa Kaeo agriculture is rainfed lowland production like over 80% of the rice
cultivation area in Thailand (Kupkanchanakul 2000). The average yield of irrigated rice
in Thailand is about 4 t/ha and the national average rice yield is only 2 t/ but the
potential rice yield is around 10 t/ha (Papademetriou 2000, Kupkanchanakul 2000). The
average cassava yield in Thailand is about 12 t/ha, but the potential yield is around 40
t/ha or as Saleh et al. (2001) wrote it could be even 100 t/ha (Wargiono et al. 2001). For
both rice and cassava the potential yields are a lot bigger than the received yields and
there would be a lot of potential for bridging the gap between these yields (IRRI 2002,
Hershey & Howeler 2001). It is harder to bridge the yield gaps in rainfed production
systems than in irrigated systems due to the environmental factors which can't be
controlled (Kupkanchanakul 2000). The rainfed lowland production of rice and cassava
in agroforestry systems needs more research to be able to improve the yields an bridge
the yield gap.
Wastelands and areas where other crops can't grow can be taken into use with
agroforestry by using plant species which can grow in places where others can't survive.
The bunds in rice paddy fields are often seen as wasteland and they are sprayed with
herbicides (IRRI 2013). Instead of this farmers could take these areas into use by
planting eucalypts on them. Farmers can get increased stability and additional income
from these areas and the biodiversity is increased at the same time.
2 OBJECTIVES
This research was done for master's thesis and the subject was chosen because it is
current in Thailand. In this thesis the focus is on boundary planting and alley cropping
in the province of Sa Kaeo. The two production methods in this research, eucalypt with
rice and eucalypt with cassava, are not directly proportional, but they are the two most
commonly used agroforestry systems in the area.
13
The aim of this study was to find out the reasons why farmers are using agroforestry
instead of monocropping and what are the advantages and disadvantages of using the
agroforestry systems in Sa Kaeo.
Research questions:
1. Why farmers have chosen agroforestry?
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using agroforestry?
3. Are farmers going to continue the use of agroforestry?
3 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Study area
Thailand is divided into four regions geographically: Northern, Northeastern, Central
and Southern. The research area was situated in Central region in Eastern Thailand, in
the province of Sa Kaeo. The neighbouring provinces are Chanthaburi, Chachoengsao,
Prachin Buri, Nakhon Ratchasima and Buri Ram. The farmers were chosen to represent
Figure 2. Map of the locations of the interviewed farmers (Google maps 2013).
14
the basic farmers of the province of Sa Kaeo from the districts of Khlong Hat,
Aranyaprathet, Mueang Sa Kaeo, Khao Chakan, Wang Nam Yen and Watthana Nakhon.
The spatial distribution of the interviewed farmers can be seen in the Figure 2.
3.2 Materials
The research material was collected by interview research. The interviewees were
selected randomly by Suan Kitti1 officer Mr. Rachit. The individual farmers are quite
hard to reach in the area and that is why Mr. Rachit contacted the farmers. He had been
working in the area for a long time and he had good connections to the farmers. We
interviewed all together 25 small-scale farmers, 9 of who were cultivating E.
camaldulensis with rice, 12 of who were cultivating E. camaldulensis with cassava and
4 who were cultivating both, E. camaldulensis with rice and E. camaldulensis with
cassava.
3.3 Material collection
The data was collected by semi-structured interviews (Appendix 1). The interviews
were conducted in the fall of 2011. The interviews were conducted at the farm or at the
farmer's house.
In 3 of the interviews the interviewed were a couple, in 12 they were men and in 10 they
were women. There were two interviewers. One was asking the questions and the other
one was writing down the answers and translating them, so there was a possibility to ask
additional questions related to answers if needed. Each interview lasted approximately
two hours. The farmers were excited to participate in the research and to answer the
interview questionnaire. They received small gifts after the interview as an
acknowledgement.
All of the questions were not asked from all of the farmers for unknown reasons. There
1
Suan Kitti is a subsidiary company of the Advanced Agro pulp and paper
company, which is one of the three biggest pulp and paper companies in Thailand.
Advanced Agro uses Suan Kitti to source wood for raw material.
15
was also a problem with the translations. The number of received answers is marked on
the same row with the question in Appendix 1.
At the same time as the interviews, also some field observations were made at the farms
of the interviewees. This helped in comprehending the whole picture of the farm
functions and to see in practice how the systems were structured and managed. Garmin
GPSMAP 60CSx was used in marking the locations of the interviewed farmers.
3.4 Methods
Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected in the research. The survey
included both closed questions and open-ended questions. Closed question were used to
find out basic information and functions of the used system or systems. Open-ended
questions were used to find out what had effected farmers choices and how farmers
would act in the future. The collected data provided household-level information about
the agroforestry production in the area. During the interviews some of the themes were
emerging to be more important than others.
The basic steps of agroecosystem analysis by Conway (1985) were used in the planning
of the research. In system definition objectives were defined and systems were mapped
out roughly. System boundaries were quite extensive, different from another and
dependent on the farm. The boundaries were discussed more with farmers during the
interviews. In pattern analysis four patterns were included: space, time, flow and
decisions, in finding out the key functional relationships of the system. These four
patterns helped in describing the system properties and these all were also included in
the interview questions. Key questions of the research were sketched, the research
design was planned out and put to implementation. During the research there was all the
time feedback back to the previous steps of the analysis.
In the analysis of the data cross-tabulation and chi-square test (χ2) were used. The data
was analyzed with OpenOffice (version 3.4.0, Apache Software Foundation, Forest Hill,
MD, USA) and SPSS (version 22.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
16
4 RESULTS
The reasons the farmers had chosen agroforestry can be divided into two categories,
biological and socio-economic reasons. Biological reasons were increased productivity
and increased space utilization. Socio-economic reasons were reduced costs and
increased income opportunities. Farmer's sources of information were different. Fifteen
farmers had learned agroforestry from Suan Kitti, seven farmers had learned it from
other farmers and one from TV. There wasn't significant association between the reasons
farmers had chosen agroforestry and farmer's age, gender, farm size or how long they
had used agroforestry. When the use of rice or cassava or both species was compared to
the reasons why farmers had chosen agroforestry, only cassava farmers had mentioned
all of them. Also the farmers who were going to continue the use of agroforestry
mentioned all the reasons. The farmers who worked only at the farm had mentioned all
reasons with the exception of increased income opportunities.
The farmers listed advantages and disadvantages of agroforestry. Also these can be
divided into the same two groups as the reasons, biological and socio-economic.
Biological advantages were increased space utilization, increased productivity, reduced
erosion and improved nutrient recycling. Socio-economic advantages mentioned by the
farmers were increased income opportunities, variety of products, reduced costs and
reduced weeding requirements. There wasn't significant association between the
advantages of agroforestry and gender, age, farm size or how long farmers had used
agroforestry. All advantages except variety of products and reduced costs were
mentioned by the farmers who were going to continue the use of agroforestry. The
disadvantages farmers mentioned were only biological. Those were increased
competition between species, pests and diseases, complex management and reduced
amount and quality of yields. There wasn't significant association between
disadvantages of agroforestry and gender, age, farm size or how long farmers had used
agroforestry. All the disadvantages were mentioned by farmers who were going to
continue the use of agroforestry except diseases. Ten of the farmers mentioned that
agroforestry doesn't have any disadvantages.
Most of the farmers were going to continue the use of agroforestry. Five farmers were
17
not certain if they were going to continue the use of agroforestry and three were going
to change their production method. The reasons why farmers continued the use were
because the system is efficient, the cultivation area can be taken into use more
completely, there is possibility for crop rotations, it is a good method, otherwise empty
land areas can be taken into use and because farmers can get two yields from one land
area. The reasons for farmers who hadn't decided whether they were going to continue
the use of agroforestry were that they wanted to wait to see the price development and
the yield or to possibly change to some other species. The reasons why farmers were not
going to continue the use of agroforestry were because they think they can get more
income from monoculture, farmer doesn't have the time to manage agroforestry system
and farmer plans to plant perennial species in the area. All the farmers who had both E.
camaldulensis with rice and E. camaldulensis with cassava were going to continue the
use of agroforestry.
The average age of the farmers was 53. The age range was from 26 to 72 (Figure 3).
The average age of men was 54 and for women it was 50. There wasn't significant
association between farmer's age and their choice of were they going to continue the use
of agroforestry.
Farmers in the research had used agroforestry from less than 1 year up to 20 years. On
average farmers had used agroforestry for eight years. There wasn't significant
association between how long farmers had used agroforestry and were they going to
continue the use of it in the future.
Figure 3. Distribution of farmer's age in years.
18
The average age when farmers cut E. camaldulensis for sale was 3.9 years. K7 was the
most popular E. camaldulensis clone to be used by the farmers. Farmers chose it
because it is suitable for the area, it is high yielding, disease resistant, flood tolerant,
best clone for first plantation, it was the first clone introduced to them, it was introduced
and favoured by Suan Kitti, they followed their neighbour and it is fast growing clone.
K62 was the second most popular clone. It was chosen because it is suitable for the
area, it is high yielding, it is more disease resistant than other clones, it is a new clone
and it has high price. K58 was used because it is suitable for the area and it was
introduced to farmers by Suan Kitti. SK was told to be disease resistant and it was
introduced to farmers by Suan Kitti. Also clone K51 was used. Most of the farmers
acquired their E. camaldulensis seedlings or part of them from Suan Kitti. The rest was
bought from sellers, markets or from other farmers. Manual pruning was used on most
of the farms. It was done for aesthetic reasons to keep the trees slim and to reduce
shading to the crop grown under the trees. On rice fields the spacing of E.
camaldulensis on the paddy bund ranged from one to three meters (Figure 4). One meter
was the most used spacing on rice. In all of the farms there was only one row of E.
camaldulensis trees on the paddy bund. On cassava fields there were five different
designs for E. camaldulensis spacing, 1x3 m, 1.5x3 m, 2x3 m and 3x3 m (Figure5). The
spacing of 2x3 m was the most popular. Most of the farmers sold their wood to Suan
Kitti and the rest of the farmers used contractors. Only four farmers took wood for their
own use. All of the farmers who had already harvested E. camaldulensis once used
coppicing for the second rotation. Some of the farmers used coppicing also for the third
rotation. On the first time they left two to three stems and on the second time three to
seven stems were left depending on the surrounding environment.
Figure 4. Distribution of distance (m) of E. camaldulensis trees on rice paddy bund.
19
Figure 5. Distribution of spacing (m) of E. camaldulensis trees on cassava fields.
Rice was planted in May or July and harvested in November. Mali 105 was the most
popular rice cultivar. It was chosen by farmers because it has good price and big seeds.
The second most popular cultivar was AB 6 (Ko Kho 6). Four other cultivars used were
Mali Daeng which was chosen because it is drought tolerant, Khao Phatum which was
chosen because it produces high yields and it is suitable for the area and also Khao Ta
Haeng and Lao Taek cultivars were used. Rice seedlings were acquired from different
places, mostly from other farmers, but also from rice research center, rice department,
provincial agriculture extension office and district agriculture extension office. All the
farmers used the rice mainly themselves and sold only the excess. Excess rice was sold
to local markets.
Cassava was planted around the year from January to May and from September to
December. Most of the farmers planted cassava in November. The harvesting was done
in January, June, July and from September to November. Most of the harvesting was
done in January. There were many reasons for choosing the cultivar. Kasetsart 50 was
the most used cassava cultivar. It was chosen because it has big tuber, the price is high,
the cuttings are easy to acquire, the tuber has good quality, it has high yield and it is
tolerant and resistant variety. Hui Bong was the second most used cultivar and it was
chosen because it was easy to acquire and it was suitable for the area. Rayong 5 was the
third most used cultivar and it was chosen because it is easily to acquire, it produces
multiple tubers, it has high yield and it is easy to harvest. Kled mungkorn was chosen
because it has short growth time. Farmers had chosen to use also EeeKeow, EeeLuang
and Rayong 90. The spacing of cassava varied. Most of the farmers had two rows of
cassava between E. camaldulensis on the first year and one row on the second year, but
20
10
8
6
Rice
Cassava
Both
4
2
0
0-5 ha
5-10 ha
11-24 ha
Figure 6. The number of farms using the different species divided according to their
cultivation areas.
some farmers had one row of cassava on the first and also on the second year. Most of
the farmers used spacing of 80 cm between cassava cuttings. Farmers acquired their
cassava cuttings mostly from other farmers, but also markets, provincial agricultural
extension office and other provinces were used. Farmers sold their products to markets
or cassava markets. Only one farmer sold cassava straight to tapioca factory. Cassava
was used for animal feed and none of it was taken to farmers own use.
Most of the farms were under 3.2 ha. The farm size range was wide, from 0.8 to 24 ha.
The average cultivation area for E. camaldulensis with rice was 2.7 ha and it ranged
from 0.8 to 5.6 ha (Figure 6). For E. camaldulensis with cassava the average cultivation
area was 5.3 ha and it ranged from 0.8 to 24 ha (Figure 6). There wasn't significant
association between the size of the farm and were the farmers going to continue using
agroforestry.
The yields farmers reported were estimates, not exact measured yields. E.
camaldulensis yield from cassava fields were reported as t/rai and from rice fields as the
number of trees/rai. E. camaldulensis yields from rice fields were about 56 t/ha and
from cassava fields yields ranged from about 94 to 125 t/ha (Table 3). Rice yields were
about 3 t/ha and cassava yields ranged from 19 to 25 t/ha (Table 3).
Only six of the farmers were using crop rotations on field crops. The species they used
in the rotations were sugarcane, soybean, watermelon, corn and sesame. Two farmers
21
had a second rotation of rice after the first one and seventeen farmers did not use crop
rotations at all.
Farmers used different NPK fertilizers depending on the needs. On E. camaldulensis the
most common NPK fertilizer was 15-15-15. Seven farmers didn't use any fertilization
on E. camaldulensis. On rice 16-20-0 and 46-0-0 were the most commonly used NPK
fertilizers. All farmers used fertilizers on rice. On cassava 15-15-15 was the most used
NPK fertilizer. Only one farmer didn't use fertilizers on cassava. Glyphosate and
Gamoxone herbicides were used on E. camaldulensis, but also manual weeding was
done. There were eight farmers who didn't use any herbicides on E. camaldulensis, six
of these were the same who didn't use fertilization. Farmers who had rice used
Glyphosate herbicide and hormones. Four of the rice farmers didn't use any herbicides
or hormones on rice. Both, Glyphosate and Gamoxone were used on cassava. Only one
farmer didn’t use any herbicides on cassava.
E. camaldulensis harvesting was done by chainsaws on most of the farms, but also
mowers, axes and handsaws were used. Only one of the farmers used combine harvester
for rice, the other farmers used labor in rice harvesting. For cassava ten of the farmers
used tractor and labor and five used only human labor for harvesting and one of the
farmers hadn't yet done harvesting for the first time. There wasn't significant association
between the use of machinery and farm size on either of the systems. The farmer who
used combined harvester had only 1.6 ha.
The farmers had faced some problems in the production with pests, diseases,
competition between species, yield amounts and quality, shading and E. camaldulensis
branches impeding during harvesting time. The problem of pests was solved by using
chemicals, by changing the planting time and by coppicing. The disease problem was
solved by using chemicals. The farmers who had a problem with competition between
species hadn't solved it yet. The decreased yields were improved by pruning the trees to
decrease shading, by changing the used clone or cultivar and by planting cassava for
two years instead of just one year to get more yield. The yield quality problem and the
problem with E. camaldulensis branches impeding during the harvesting time were
solved by supporting the E. camaldulensis branches, by pruning the trees and using new
22
cultivars and clones.
Farmers told that they had access to funding from BAAC (Bank for agriculture and
agricultural cooperatives), village fund, Suan Kitti, personal sources or neighbor.
Farmers got help for E. camaldulensis related problems from Suan Kitti or other
farmers and for rice and cassava from district agricultural extension office or neighbor.
The number of family members working at the farm ranged from one to five persons.
On average farmers hired 6.5 people ranging from 1 to 20 persons and 5 of the farmers
didn't hire labor at all. The cultivation area and the amount of hired labor didn't have
significant association as was expected (Table 1). Farmers who had the most area didn't
hire more people than the ones who had smaller farms.
Twelve of the farmers worked only at the farm and the other twelve had also non-farm
jobs outside the farm. There wasn't significant association between farmers working in
non-farm jobs and intention to continue the use of agroforestry (Table 2). Also the
amount of hired labor by farmers who worked in non-farm jobs didn't have significant
difference to farmers who worked only at the farm.
0-3.5 ha
Over 3.6 ha
Number of hired full time workers during a year
1-4
5-9
Over 10
0
6
1
2
3
3
4
2
2
Table 1. How farm size effects the number of hired full time workers.
Intention to continue agroforestry
Farming only
Farming and non-farm job
Yes
7
10
No
3
0
Uncertain
2
2
Table 2. Dependence of farmer's intention to continue E. camaldulensis agroforestry on
working outside the farm.
23
5 DISCUSSION
Adoption
Many of the interviewed farmers said that agroforestry is a good cultivation method and
they have seen other farmers use it successfully and that has inspired them to try it. It is
easier for farmers to adopt new innovations if they have seen others use them
successfully before. Neighbours and other farmers are important sources of information
for the adopters (Foster & Rosenzweig 1995). One of the biological reasons for farmers
for choosing agroforestry was increased productivity. The benefit of having two yields
from one cultivation area was mentioned the most often by the farmers. Many farmers
stated that one of the biological reasons was the suitability of the area for agroforestry
production. These kinds of biophysical factors are important for farmers (Mercer 2004).
If the conditions are not proper for the production method farmers won't be able to
produce high yields. Interviewed farmers told one of the socio-economic reasons to be
that agroforestry saves costs in the production and it helps to stabilize their income.
Agroforestry can increase farmer's income and their profitability (Mercer 2004).
Farmer's expectations about stability of outputs and increasing productivity affect their
choices (Mercer 2004). Economic factors are the most important thing affecting farmer's
adoption decision at the final level (Pannell 2003). Interviewed farmers stated that
agroforestry increases the space utilization on farm and farmers can increase land use
efficiency by using agroforestry. One reason for farmer's adoption of agroforestry is the
population growth and increasing demand for agricultural products which results in
pressure against land (Boserup 1965). This is why farmers need ways to intensify their
land use and produce more at the same time. In 2010 there was about 10 million ha of
paddy rice and 1 million ha of cassava planted in Thailand (Khlangsap 2010). These
areas could be potentially used for agroforestry with species like eucalypt, which could
help to optimize land use efficiency (Khlangsap 2010).
Farmer's knowledge and skills affect their choices (Franzel et al. 2002). The lack of
information can inhibit farmers from choosing an innovation (Foster & Rosenzweig
1995). According to Glendinning et al. (2001) access to information is an important
thing affecting farmer's decision making. The ability to transfer information to the new
24
adopters is crucial (Boahene et al. 1999). In this research farmers had obtained their
information about agroforestry from different sources ranging from Suan Kitti to TV.
Most of the farmers had learned agroforestry from Suan Kitti, which provided them
knowledge about the new system and helped them to see that agroforestry is a well
working production method.
Agroforestry systems are more complex than monoculture systems. The establishment
of a new system requires new mix of plant species, other components and new
techniques (Rafiq et al. 2000, ref. Mercer 2004). The management of agroforestry
systems is more complicated and it requires quite long period of time for testing the
system and modifying it compared to traditional agriculture (Mercer 2004). One of the
interviewed farmers had started to use agroforestry after his own tests. Agroforestry
systems can be quite time demanding, because establishment and management of the
system require time (Franzel & Scherr 2002). One of the farmers mentioned that she
didn't have the time to manage her agroforestry system and due to that she was going to
chance the production method. Also the cost of maintenance in agroforestry systems can
be high in some cases (Mercer 2004). Usually agroforestry systems need three to six
years for the benefits to be visible, when from traditional agriculture it can take only
few months (Franzel & Scherr 2002). Agroforestry also needs longer period of time to
become self-sustaining (Amacher et al. 1993).
The effect of farm size to adoption varies depending on for example cost of adoption,
access to credit, farmers risk preferences, land tenure, need to hire labor and so on
(Feder et al. 1985). In this study there were both smaller and bigger farms involved, the
farm size varied from 0.8 to 24 ha. In this study there wasn't significant association
between the farm size and the reasons farmers chose agroforestry.
Also the existing capital of farmer's, available resources to invest into new system and
the cost of establishment are important to farmers in adopting a new system (Current et
al. 1995, Boahene et al. 1999, Mercer 2004). In addition to these also access to credit
affects farmers adoption (Mercer 2004). This was not a problem in the research area,
because all the farmer's had access to credit and funding. The profitability of
agroforestry, the produced products and the returns are important factors for farmers in
25
adoption (Mercer 2004). “Farmers will invest in agroforestry when the expected gains
from the new system are higher than the alternatives for the use of their land, labor and
capital” (Mercer 2004).
In some areas land tenure is very important matter when farmers are choosing a
cultivation system (Feder et al. 1985). In this area it wasn't a problem. According to
Boulay and Tacconi (2012) land tenure has been one of the two principal drivers of
adoption for small-scale farmers in Thailand, the other one has been Thai policies. This
differs from many other places, because the lack of proper policies for agroforestry is a
problem. Human capital and labor availability are important things to be considered in
adoption (Feder et al. 1985). In the research area those weren't problems due to the
proximity of the Cambodian border. There is plenty of Cambodian workers migrating to
Thailand to earn money. Access to markets and market incentives have big influence on
farmer's choices (Mercer 2004). Farmers in the research are had easy access to markets,
because Sa Kaeo is situated about 180 km east from Bangkok. There is also a pulp and
paper factory for E. camaldulensis near the research area and there are a few cassava
chipping yards located in Sa Kaeo.
Of course household preferences and compatibility with value systems have major
influence on farmer's adoption (Boahene et al. 1999, Pattanayak et al. 2003). If
something works against farmer's preferences they are not going to adopt that kind of
innovation because they can't see the benefits of it. Farmers mentioned in the research
some problems they had faced with agroforestry production and how they had solved
them. Farmer's conception about will they be able to cope with possibly arising
problems affects their adoption decision (Franzel et al. 2002). If they think that the
problems are something they can't overcome they won't adopt the innovation. Age and
education can have an effect on adoption, but gender is more important factor according
to Pattanayak et al. (2003). In this research gender or age didn't have any clear effects
on the adoption.
Advantages of agroforestry
The farmers told that agroforestry has many advantages. One of the socio-economic
26
advantages mentioned by them was opportunity for increased income. Agroforestry can
create additional income for farmers and increase their earnings by providing multiple
products for the use of the family and also for sale (Franzel & Scherr 2002). The income
is also divided more evenly throughout the year and not only to peak seasons. Farmers
told that the variety of products was one of the socio-economic advantages. There can
be many different kind of products produced on the same land area: food, feed,
firewood, medicines and so on. The products farmers can get from agroforestry can
decrease the pressure against natural forests and help in deceasing deforestation
(Franzel & Scherr 2002, Bhagwat et al. 2008). Agroforestry systems can act as buffer
zones in areas where humans live near the edge of protected areas by providing the
supply of wood and non-timber forest products to farmers so they don't need to acquire
them from natural forests (Bhagwat et al. 2008, Franzel & Scherr 2002).
Farmers stated also that reduced costs were one of the socio-economic advantages.
Agroforestry can help farmers to save costs. Farmer can save money for example due to
reduced irrigation needs or reduced need for fertilizer use. There can be also reduced
costs if farmers don't have to use as much herbicides as in monocropping. Also the risks
related to the inputs are reduced because agroforestry systems can produce some
ecosystem services, for example nutrient recycling. This results in farmers being less
dependent on inputs coming outside the farm. According to Scherr and Franzel (2002)
the maintenance and harvest is done usually with help from the family, so there is less
need to hire labor. Agroforestry can also help to level out the work peaks because the
management and harvesting of trees can be done outside the peak seasons (Arnold
1987). Another socio-economic advantage mentioned by farmers was reduced weeding
requirements. Farmers told that agroforestry helps to keep weeds in control on the rice
paddy bunds. There can be fewer problems with weeds in agroforestry systems
compared to monocultures due to the complex structure of the system (Alteri &
Nicholls 2008). The amount of needed herbicides can also usually be reduced in
agroforestry systems because trees are perennial (Calfapietra et al. 2010).
One of the biological advantages was increased productivity. It was the most often
mentioned advantage of all the advantages. Farmers mentioned that they can get the
benefit of having two yields from the same land area instead of having just one. It helps
27
them to stabilize their income and get profit from an area which in some cases wouldn't
have otherwise been utilized. Some farmers told also that the yields they got were
bigger than from other production methods. In agroforestry the natural resources can be
taken into use more completely, because different species need different amounts of
different nutrients and that can result in improved productivity. Plant interactions in
agroforestry can be beneficial if the trees and crops don't compete for the same natural
resources (Schroth et al. 2001). Another biological advantage was increased space
utilization. The total biomass production of agroforestry systems can be bigger than in
monocultures depending on the used system. For example Huang et al. (1997) wrote
that the yield from one ha of agroforestry system would need 1.51 to 2.53 ha of
monocultures to be able to produce the same amount of yield.
One biological advantage of agroforestry was reduced erosion. Farmers told that using
trees on the rice paddy bund helps to hold the bund intact better due to the tree roots
which bind the soil. Many agroforestry systems can help in erosion control, for example
by binding the soil with roots and by decreasing wind speeds by trees or shrubs (Franzel
& Scherr 2002, Huang et al. 1997). Farmers stated nutrient recycling to be one of the
biological advantages of agroforestry. Farmers told that the falling leaves of E.
camaldulensis trees fertilize the crop underneath. Agroforestry systems can improve the
nutrient cycles and the soil fertility can be improved by using the tree leaves for
substitutes or complements to chemical fertilization (Young 1989, Franzel & Scherr
2002). One biological advantage of agroforestry was improved microclimatic
conditions. Farmers told that rice was growing faster in agroforestry systems. The
extreme temperature and moisture condition can be reduced in agroforestry systems due
to the shading of the tree canopy and the stress levels of plants can be reduced
(MacDicken & Vergara 1990).
In the research cassava farmers and farmers who were going to continue the use of
agroforestry mentioned all the advantages listed above. Farmers who were only working
at the farm mentioned all but one, stable income.
28
Disadvantages of agroforestry
Agroforestry has also disadvantages and the farmers listed also those. All of the
disadvantages were biological. One of the most important disadvantages was increased
competition. Farmers told one of the things causing problems to be root competition
between the species. If trees have shallow rooting systems they can be at the same level
with crop roots and this creates competition. Farmers mentioned also reduced amount
and quality of yields to be one disadvantages. The amount of yield can be reduced due
to the competition and farmers stated also that E. camaldulensis shades the crop below
and that can decreased yields, quality and slow the growth of the crops. In complex
agroforestry systems trees and crops can compete for same natural resources and the
productivity can decrease due to that (Torquebiau 2000, Wise & Cacho 2002). It was
interesting that some farmers had mentioned high yields to be an advantage and some
farmers had mentioned low yields to be an disadvantage. Another disadvantages
mentioned by farmers were pests and diseases. Pests and diseases can cause problems in
agroforestry systems, because for example trees can act as potential habitats for them
(Sileshi et al. 2008). One of the disadvantages mentioned by the farmers was the
complexity of the management. For example if the paddy bund breaks for some reason
it is harder to repair due to the tree roots. The management of agroforestry systems is
usually more difficult than in monocultures because agroforestry systems are more
complex (Huang et al. 1997).
E. camaldulensis in agroforestry
Most of the farmers acquired their E. camaldulensis seedlings from Suan Kitti. It is
common that E. camaldulensis seedlings are purchased from pulp and paper companies
(FAO 2009). Some of the farmers who didn't have contract with Suan Kitti bought
seedlings from them also. The most common rotation period for E. camaldulensis in
Thailand is three to five years depending on the use of the wood (FAO 2009). The
average age of the harvested trees in Sa Kaeo falls just in the middle of this scale with
four years. Depending on the design of the used agroforestry system intercropping
under eucalypts can be done for about three years, after that the canopy shades the
intercrop too much (Petmak 1991). In this research intercropping with cassava was done
mostly for two years. Intercropping with rice can be done every year, because the trees
29
are located around the field and the canopy doesn't shade the crop too much even at the
later stages of the rotation. The spacing of the trees also varies depending on the use of
the wood (FAO 2009). On rice fields in Sa Kaeo there were five different spacing
distances of the E. camaldulensis (Figure 4) and on cassava fields there were four
(Figure 5).
Rice and cassava in agroforestry
Planting of rice was done within the common planting seasons between May to
September and harvesting was done in November (Sachchamarga & Williams 2004).
Farmers used only chemical fertilizers on rice. The use of fertilisers has been increasing
in Asia for the past four decades (IRRI 2013). In Thailand the use is still quite low
compared to many Asian countries but it has been increasing all the time (IRRI 2013).
Different kind of NPK fertilizers were used on all of the rice farms depending on the
needs. The use of organic fertilizers could be an option for the farmers. The use of
organic fertilizers could prevent and help to reduce negative environmental impacts of
chemical fertilizers (Khamwichit et al. 2006). There is cattle farming on the area and
maybe the farmers could take advantage of this. Chemical fertilizers are relatively
expensive and cattle farmers can have a problem of having too much manure. Not all of
the fertilization needs to be organic, but organic fertilizers could be used in combination
with chemical fertilizers to be able to sustain high yields and to improve the soil
productivity at the same time (Siavoshi 2011, Sampanpanish 2012). Most of the rice
harvesting is still done by hand in Thailand, as it was done on most of the farms in the
research area, but mechanization is increasing all the time (Pingali et al. 1997).
According to Thepent (n.d.) 57.2% of the rice paddies were harvested manually, 35.2%
with combine harvesters and 7.6% with reaper.
Cassava is cultivated by small-scale farmers also in Sa Kaeo (Sriroth et al. 2001). The
average size of planted area for cassava was 5.3 ha, but the median of the farm sizes
was smaller, only 2.7 ha. According to Sriroth et al. (2001) Kasetsart 50, Rayong 5 and
Rayong 90 are the most widely used cassava cultivars in Thailand. All of these were
also used in Sa Kaeo. Tongglum et al. (2001) wrote that the best time for cassava
planting would be during rainy season from June to October. Most of the cassava in Sa
Kaeo was planted outside this time in November. The growth time of cassava varies a
30
lot because it can be stored in the ground for several months and harvested only when
needed. Cassava harvesting was done mostly with tractors and labor but some farmers
used only labor in harvesting. According to Ratanawaraha et al. (2001) it was still more
common to do the harvesting with labor in 2001, but mechanization has been increasing
on cassava farms all the time.
Yields and cultivation areas
On normal monocrop rice paddy the rice yield is about 2.9 t/ha, on normal monocrop
cassava field the average yield of cassava is about 19 t/ha, on eucalypt plantation the
average yield of four years old trees is about 81 t/ha and the average yield for three
years old eucalypt sprouts is about 57.5 t/ha (Table 3) (Khlangsap 2010, FAOstat 2013).
E. camaldulensis yields from rice fields in the research were smaller than the average
yield of E. camaldulensis trees from plantations, but the yield from cassava fields were
bigger than the average (Table 3). Both rice and cassava yields in one year were on
average a bit bigger compared to monocultures, but the total yield of cassava after four
year rotation was smaller because it was cultivated only for two years and not the whole
four years (Table 3). If farmers want to produce two different species on the same area
they need to settle for trade-offs. Farmers can't necessarily get bigger yields form both
species compared to monocultures, but the idea is that the combination of yields is
bigger. The yields farmers reported were only rough estimates, because farmers didn't
have any kind of written accounting for their production. Writing down the yields and
used materials would be a good way to follow the production and make changes in to
the used methods and inputs to improve the productivity. It would be good to follow the
yields, used amount of fertilizers and herbicides and so on.
Years
Eucalyptus from rice fields
Eucalyptus from cassava fields
Agroforestry
Rice
Cassava
Eucalypt
Monoculture Rice
Cassava
1
0
0
3.5
17.5
0
2.9
19
2
0
0
3.5
17.5
0
2.9
19
3
0
0
3.5
0
0
2.9
19
4
56
109.5
3.5
0
81
2.9
19
Table 3. The average yields on different years from agroforestry systems and
monocultures.
Total (t/ha)
56
109.5
14
35
81
11.6
76
31
Most of the farms were quite small, under 3.2 ha. The average farm size in Thailand is
3.5 ha and about 95% of farmers own less than 10 ha (Pongsrihadulchai 2009). The
average cultivated area for E. camaldulensis with rice was under the average farm size
in Thailand and the cultivation area for E. camaldulensis with cassava was over the
average farm size. The size of the farms where farmers had both E. camaldulensis with
rice and E. camaldulensis with cassava was over the average farm size in Thailand.
Crop rotations of field crops
Only six farmers used some kind of crop rotations on field crops. Crop rotations are
something also other farmers could take into consideration, because continuous use of
monocropping decreases the soil productivity (Cassman et al. 1997). It is a general
belief that crop rotations improve nutrient balance, because different crops have
different nutritional needs. The use of crop rotations can also improve the soil quality,
because different kinds of rooting systems help to modify the structure of the soil. Also
the use of leguminous species can improve the soil properties. Rotating different species
prevents the spread of diseases and pests. If the farmer cultivates the same species year
after year the diseases and pests start to accumulate in to the soil. The use of different
species helps to cut this cycle. Crop rotations also help to prevent weeds when in
different years different species occupy the niche. The use of different species also
increases diversity of the system. Crop rotation can also increase farmer's income by
creating additional earnings from the species used in addition to the main crop and to
spread the income more evenly around the year also outside the peak seasons.
Labor
Labor scarcity and the increasing cost of agricultural labor are becoming bigger
problems in many areas, also in Thailand during the peak seasons (IRRI 2013,
Sachchamarga & Williams 2004). This is due to urbanization, industrialization and
growing farm sizes (Papademetriou 2000). One problem related to Cambodian migrant
workers in Thailand is illegal work (Walsh & Ty 2011). This problem is something that
needs more research in the future to be able to reduce the amount of illegal workers in
Thailand and to help them to work there legally.
32
It is usual for farmers to work outside the farm in a non-farm job in addition to their
work on the farm (Foster 2012). This was common also in the research area. None of
the farmers who worked at non-farm jobs were going to stop using agroforestry and
three of the farmers who worked only at the farm were. This was unexpected. It was
expected that the farmers who were not going to continue would have had non-farm
jobs also and that could had been the reason for the time problem farmers faced.
Working at a non-farm job outside the farm doesn't necessarily effect farmer's
continuation as was expected. The farmers who were not going to continue agroforestry
hired none, five or nine people and had one or three family members helping at the
farm. The farm size of these farmers varied quite much, they were 1.6, 3.7 and 8 ha.
Knowledge gaps
Lack of knowledge is one of the most important problems in agroforestry. In designing
agroforestry systems farmers need to have knowledge about plant species ecology and
how they interact with other species in different arrangements to be able to create an
optimal system without competition.
Farmers need information about how agroforestry practices work to be able to make
decisions to adopt the new practices or to improve their already existing agroforestry
production. This is important because many of the agroforestry systems are managed
poorly and the proper management requires resources, knowledge and time (Huang et
al. 1997, Franzel & Scherr 2002). Also feedback is for the researchers and extension
officers is important for them to be able to improve the practices (Franzel & Scherr
2002).
It seems that there is a lot of knowledge about eucalypt, rice and cassava agroforestry,
but the problem seems to be that the information is not reaching the farmers. As
Balasubramanian et al. (2000) mentions there is knowledge gap between the
researchers, the extension officers and the farmers. Bridging this gap could also help to
bridge the yield gaps mentioned earlier in the text (Papademetriou 2000).
Communication is important and should it be done in the form that farmers can
understand it. The question is how the important information could be transferred to the
use of the farmers? What would be the best channels to get the information to them?
33
More research in how to bridge the knowledge gap between researchers, extension
officers and farmers is needed in the future.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Adoption of agroforestry was enhanced by availability and suitability of the land.
Farmers also reflected adoption decisions to their past experiences and to observations
they had made when others had used agroforestry and about the systems complexity.
Farmers saw agroforestry systems as an opportunity to diversify, stabilize and increase
their income, save costs, improve their production and as a way to increase land-use
efficiency. In general they saw it as a good and sustainable method for them.
The advantages were very similar to the reasons farmers had chosen agroforestry. It was
surprising that farmers hadn't mentioned any socio-economical disadvantages. Most of
the farmers stated that they would continue the use of agroforestry as was expected.
Factors that would systematically and significantly explain farmer's decisions and
attitudes were not found. The data was rather small, but it covered the farming types of
Sa Kaeo well. The results from this study were closely related to the results of the
previous studies. Any generalizations can't yet be made out of this research. Also the
questionnaire could have been improved much, but due to the time limitations it wasn’t
possible.
Agroforestry is a good alternative form of agriculture. It is diverse and economically
sound production method. We need to understand the reasons why farmers make the
decision to choose agroforestry to be able to promote it also to other farmers. We need
to know what are the advantages and disadvantages of agroforestry to be able to
improve the system. Due to these and many other aspects there is need for agroforestry
research in the future.
34
REFERENCES
Altieri, M.A. & Nicholls, C.I. 2008. Ecologically based pest management in
agroforestry systems. In: Batish, D.R., Kohli, R.K., Jose, S. & Singh, H.P.
Ecological basis of agroforestry. Boca Raton, Fl, USA: CRC Press/Taylor and
Francis Group, pp. 95-108.
Amacher, G., Hyde, W. & Rafiq, M. 1993. Local adoption of new forestry
technologies: an example from Pakistan’s NW frontier province. World
Development Vol. 21 (3): 445-453.
Arnold, J.E.M. 1987. Economic considerations in agroforestry. In: Steppler, H.A. &
Nair, P.K.R. (eds.). Agroforestry a decade of development. Lusaka, Nairobi:
Printfast Kenya Limited, pp. 173-190.
Ashley, R., Russell, D. & Swallow, B. 2006. The policy terrain in protected area
landscapes: challenges for agroforestry in integrated landscape conservation.
Biodiversity and Conservation 15:663–689.
Balasubramanian, V., Bell, M. & Sombilla, M. 2000. Yield, profit, and knowledge gaps
in rice farming: Causes and development of mitigation measures. In:
Papademetriou, M.K., Dent, F.J. & Herath, E.M. (eds.). Bridging the rice yield
gap in the Asia-Pacific region. Bangkok, Thailand: FAO RAP Publication
2000/16. pp. 163-177.
Barney, K. 2004. Re-encountering resistance: Plantation activism and smallholder
production in Thailand and Sarawak, Malaysia. Asia Pacific Viewpoint
45(3):325-339.
Bennett, B.M. 2010. The El Dorado of forestry, The eucalyptus in India, South Africa,
and Thailand, 1850–2000. IRSH 55, pp. 27–50.
35
Bhagwat, S.A., Willis, K.J., Birks, H.J.B. & Whittaker, R.J. 2008. Agroforestry: a
refuge for tropical biodiversity? Trends in ecology and evolution 23(5):261267.
Boahene, K., Snijders, T.A.B. & Folmer, H. 1999. An integrated socioeconomic
analysis of innovation adoption: the case of hybrid cocoa in Ghana. Journal of
Policy Modelling 21(2): l67- 184.
Boonkird, S. 1979. Agroforestry practice in Thailand. In: Chandler, T. & Spurgeon, D.
(eds). International cooperation in agroforestry. Proceedings of an international
conference, ICRAF, Nairobi, pp. 145-148. In: Boonkird, S.-A., Fernandes,
E.C.M. & Nair, P.K.R. 1984. Forest villages: an agroforestry approach to
rehabilitating forest land degraded by shifting cultivation in Thailand.
Agroforestry Systems 2:87-102.
Boonkird, S.-A., Fernandes, E.C.M. & Nair, P.K.R. 1984. Forest villages: an
agroforestry approach to rehabilitating forest land degraded by shifting
cultivation in Thailand. Agroforestry Systems 2:87-102.
Boserup, E. 1965. The conditions of agricultural growth. London, UK: Allen & Unwin.
124 pp.
Boulay, A. 2010. Contract tree farming and smallholders: drivers of adoption and
livelihood impacts in Thailand. PhD thesis, Australian National University,
Canberra. In: Boulay, A., Tacconi, L. & Kanowski, P. 2012. Drivers of adoption
of eucalypt tree farming by smallholders in Thailand. Agroforestry Systems
84:179–189.
Boulay, A. & Tacconi, L. 2012. The drivers of contract eucalypt farming in
Thailand. International Forestry Review 14(1):1-12.
36
Boulay, A., Tacconi, L. & Kanowski, P. 2012. Drivers of adoption of eucalypt tree
farming by smallholders in Thailand. Agroforestry Systems 84:179–189.
Calfapietra, C., Gielen, B., Karnosky, D., Ceulemans, R. & Scarascia Mugnozza, G.
2010. Response and potential of agroforestry crops under global change.
Environmental Pollution 158:1095–1104.
Cassman, K.G., Olk, D.C. & Doberman, A. 1997. Scientific evidence of yield and
productivity declines in irrigated rice systems of tropical Asia. IRC Newsletter
46:7-27.
Chaudhary, R.C. 2000. Strategies for bridging the yield gap in rice: A regional
perspective. In: Papademetriou, M.K., Dent, F.J. & Herath, E.M. (eds.). Bridging
the rice yield gap in the Asia-Pacific region. Bangkok, Thailand: FAO RAP
Publication 2000/16. pp. 201-214.
CIA. 2011. The world fact book. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-fac
tbook/geos/th.html. Washington, USA; visited 4.10.2011.
Conway, G.R. 1985. Agroecosystem analysis. Agricultural Administration 20:31-55.
Current, D., Lutz, E. & Scherr, S. 1995. Costs, benefits, and farmer adoption of
agroforestry. In: Current, D., Lutz, E. & Scherr, S. (eds.). Costs, benefits and
farmer adoption of agroforestry: Project experience in Central America and the
Caribbean. Washington, DC: The World Bank, pp. l-27.
Duwayri, M., Tran, D.V. and Nguyen, V.N. 2000. Reflections on yield gaps in rice
production: How to narrow the gaps. In: Papademetriou, M.K., Dent, F.J. &
Herath, E.M. (eds.). Bridging the rice yield gap in the Asia-Pacific region.
Bangkok, Thailand: FAO RAP Publication 2000/16. pp. 26-45.
37
FAO. 2009. Thailand forestry outlook study. Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook
Study II, Working Paper Series, Working Paper No. APFSOS II/WP/2009/22.
FAO RAP Bangkok, Thailand. 106 pp.
FAOstat. 2013. http://faostat.fao.org/site/291/default.aspx. Visited 12.2.2014.
Feder, G., Just, R.E. & Zilberman, D. 1985. Adoption of agricultural innovations in
developing countries: A survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change
33: 255-298.
Foster, A. 2012. Creating good employment opportunities for the rural sector. Asian
Development Review 29(1):1-28.
Foster, A.D. & Rosenzweig, M.R. 1995. Learning by doing and learning from others:
Human capital and technical change in agriculture. Journal of Political Economy
103(6):1176-1209.
Franzel, S. & Scherr, S.J. 2002. Introduction. In: Franzel, S. & Scherr, S.J (eds.).
Trees on the farm: Assessing the adoption potential of agroforestry practices in
Africa. Norfolk, UK: Biddles LTD., pp. 1-10.
Franzel, S., Scherr, S.J., Coe, R., Cooper, P.J.M. & Place, F. 2002. Methods for
assessing agroforestry adoption potential. In: Franzel, S. & Scherr, S.J (eds.).
Trees on the farm: Assessing the adoption potential of agroforestry practices in
Africa. Norfolk, UK: Biddles LTD., pp. 11-36.
Fumikazu, U. 2001. The expansion of eucalyptus farm forest and its socioeconomic
background: A case study of two villages in Khon Kaen province, Northeast
Thailand. Southeast Asian Studies 39(3): 417–436.
38
Glendinning, A., Mahapatra, A. & Mitchell, C.P. 2001. Modes of communication and
effectiveness of agroforestry extension in Eastern India. Human Ecology
29(3):283-305.
Gliessman, S.R. 2007. Agroecology – The ecology of sustainable food systems. Second
edition. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. pp. 408.
Google Maps. 2013. Sa Kaeo, Thailand. Referred February 2014. Available from:
http://maps.google.fi/.
Hershey, C.H. & Howeler, R.H. 2001. Cassava in Asia: Designing crop research for
competitive markets. In: Howeler, R.H. & Tan, S.L. (eds.). Cassava’s potential in
Asia in the 21st century: Present situation and future research and development
needs. (Proceedings of the 6th Regional Workshop, 21-25 February, 2000, Ho
Chi Minh city, Vietnam). pp. 110-146.
Howeler, R.H. 2001. Cassava agronomy research in Asia: Has it benefitted cassava
farmers? In: Howeler, R.H. & Tan, S.L. (eds.). Cassava’s potential in Asia in the
21st century: Present situation and future research and development needs.
(Proceedings of the 6th Regional Workshop, 21-25 February, 2000, Ho Chi Minh
city, Vietnam). pp. 345-382.
Howeler, R. 2005. Cassava in Asia: Present situation and its future potential in agroindustry. pp. 1-36. http://ciat-library.ciat.cgiar.org/articulos_ciat/CASSAVA_IN_
ASIA___PRESENT_S.pdf. Visited 7.4.2014.
Huang, W., Kanninen, M., Xu, Q. & Huang, B. 1997. Agroforestry in China: Present
state and future potential. Ambio 26(6):394-398.
IRRI. 2002. Rice almanac, Source book for the most important economic activity on
39
Earth, 3rd edition. (Edit. Maclean, J.L., Dawe, D.C., Hardy, B. & Hettel, G.P.)
CABI Publishing. Oxon, UK. 253 pp.
IRRI. 2013. Rice almanac, Source book for the most important economic activity on
Earth, 4th edition. (Edit. J. Maclean, B. Hardy & G. Hettel) Los Banos
(Philippines): International Rice Research Institute.
Khamwichit, W., Sanongraj, W. & Sanongraj, S. 2006. Study of environmental impacts
before and after using the organic-chemical fertilizer in rice paddy fields.
Walailak Journal of Science & Technology 3(1):51-68.
Khlangsap, N. 2010. Financial return of Eucalyptus camaldulensis planting in
agroforestry systems. Presented in the 2nd International conference on
agroforestry education, 15 December 2010, Maejo University, Chaing Mai.
Kupkanchanakul, T. 2000. Briding the rice yield gap in Thailand. In: Papademetriou,
M.K., Dent, F.J. & Herath, E.M. (eds.). Bridging the rice yield gap in the AsiaPacific region. Bangkok, Thailand: FAO RAP Publication 2000/16. pp. 146-156.
Luangviriyasaeng, V. 2003. Eucalypt planting in Thailand. In: Turnbull J.W. (edit.)
Eucalypts in Asia (Proceedings of an international conference, 7–11 April 2003
Zhanjiang, Guangdong, People’s Republic of China). Canberra, Australia: Elect
Printing. pp. 28-31.
Lundgren, B.O. & Raintree, J.B. 1982. Sustained agroforestry. Reprinted from
Agricultural research and development: Potentials and challenges in Asia. 1983.
The Neatherlands: The Hague, ISNAR. 26 pp.
MacDicken, K.G. & Vergara, N.T. 1990. Introduction to agroforestry. In: MacDicken,
K.G. & Vergara, N.T. (eds.). Agroforestry: Classification and management. USA:
Wiley-interscience publication. pp. 1-30.
40
Mahannop, N. 2004. The development of forest plantations in Thailand. In: Enters, T.
& Durst, P.B. 2004. What does it take? The role of incentives in forest
plantation development in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok, Thailand: FAO RAP
Publication 2004/27. pp. 211-236.
Makarabhirom, P. 1991. Agroforestry in Thailand. In: Mellink, W., Rao, Y.S. &
MacDicken K.G. (eds.). Agroforestry in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok,
Thailand: FAO RAPA Publication 1991/5, pp. 168-181.
Masaki, M. 1996. Eucalyptus planting and community development in North East
Thailand. In: Kashio, M. & White, K. (edit.) Reports submitted to the regional
expert consultation on eucalyptus - Volume II. Bangkok, Thailand: FAO RAP
Publication 1996/44.
Mercer, D.E. 2004. Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: A review.
Agroforestry Systems 61(1):311-328.
Moreno, R.A. 1991. Recent developments in cassava agronomy. In: Machin, D. &
Nyvold, S. (eds.) 1991. Roots, tubers, plantains and bananas in animal feeding.
(Proceedings of the FAO Expert Consultation, 21–25 January 1991, Cali,
Colombia) pp. 27-40.
Niskanen, A. 1998. Value of external environmental impacts of reforestation in
Thailand. Ecological Economics 26:287–297.
Pannell, D.J. 2003. Uncertainty and adoption of sustainable farming systems. In:
Babcock, B.A., Fraser, R.W. & Lekakis, J.N. (eds.). Risk management and the
environment: Agriculture in perspective. Dordrecht, The Neatherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publicers. pp. 67-81.
41
Papademetriou, M.K. 2000. Rice production in the Asia-Pacific region: issues and
perspectives. In: Papademetriou, M.K., Dent, F.J. & Herath, E.M. (eds.).
Bridging the rice yield gap in the Asia-Pacific region. Bangkok, Thailand: FAO
RAP Publication 2000/16. pp. 4-25.
Pattanayak, S.K., Mercer, D.E., Sills, E. & Yang, J-C. 2003. Taking stock of
agroforestry adoption studies. Agroforestry Systems 57:173-186.
Petmak, P. 1991. Effects of intercropping on tree and crop production in Sisaket,
Thailand. In: Mellink, W., Rao, Y.S. & MacDicken K.G. (eds.). Agroforestry in
Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok, Thailand: FAO RAPA Publication 1991/5, pp.
301-304.
Pingali, P.L., Hossain, M. & Gerpacio, R.V. 1997. Asian rice bowls: The returning
crisis? Norfolk, UK: Biddles Ltd. 341pp.
Pongsrihadulchai, A. 2009. Use of farmers' registration for agricultural policy
implementation ins Thailand. STAT-EMPOWER-11. Expert Consultation on
Statistics in Support of Policies to Empower Small Farmers Bangkok, Thailand,
8 -11 September 2009. FAO RAP Publication 2009/17. 10pp.
Pousajja, R. 1996. Eucalyptus plantations in Thailand. In: Kashio, M. & White, K.
(edit.). Reports submitted to the regional expert consultation on eucalyptus Volume II. Bangkok, Thailand. FAO RAP Publication 1996/44. pp. 213-223.
Puntasen, A., Siriprachai, S. & Punyasavatsut, C. 1992. Political economy of
eucalyptus: Business, bureaucracy and the Thai government. Journal of
Contemporary Asia 22(2): 187–206.
Rafiq, M., Amacher, G.S. & Hyde, W.F. 2000. Innovation and adoption in Pakistan’s
Northwest frontier province. In: Hyde W.F. & Amacher G.S. (eds.).
42
Economics of forestry and rural development: An empirical introduction from
Asia. USA: University of Michigan press. pp. 87-100. In: Mercer, D.E. 2004.
Adoption of agroforestry innovations in the tropics: A review. Agroforestry
systems 61(1):311-328.
Ratanawaraha, C., Senanarong, N. & Suriyapan, P. 2001. Status of cassava in
Thailand: Implications for future research and development. In: FAO. 2001. A
review of cassava in Asia with country case studies on Thailand and Viet Nam.
pp. 63-102.
Rogers, E.M. 1983. Diffusion of innovations. 4th edition. New York, USA: The Free
Press. 460 pp.
Sachchamarga, K. & Williams, G.W. 2004. Economic factors affecting rice production
in Thailand. Texas Agribusiness Market Research Center (TAMRC)
International Research Report No. IM-03-04. 24 pp.
Saleh, N., Hartojo, K. & Suyamto. 2001. Present situation and future potential of
cassava in Indonesia. In: Howeler, R.H. & Tan, S.L. (eds.). Cassava’s potential
in Asia in the 21st century: Present situation and future research and
development needs. (Proceedings of the 6th Regional Workshop, 21-25
February, 2000, Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam). pp. 47-60.
Sampanpanish, P. 2012. Effect of organic fertilizer use in rice paddy to reduce
greenhouse gases. ScienceAsia 38:323–330.
Schroth, G., Lehmann, J., Rodrigues, M.R.L., Barros, E. & Macedo, J.L.V. 2001.
Plant-soil interactions in multistrata agroforestry in the humid tropics.
Agroforestry Systems 53:85-102.
43
Siavoshi, M., Nasiri, A. & Laware, S.L. 2011. Effect of organic fertilizer on growth
and yield components in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Journal of Agricultural
Science 3(3):217-224.
Sileshi, G., Schroth, G., Rao, M.R. & Girma, H. 2008. Weeds, diseases, insect pests
and tri-trophic interactions in tropical agroforestry. In: Batish, D.R., Kohli, R.K.,
Jose, S. & Singh, H.P. Ecological basis of agroforestry. Boca Raton, Fl, USA:
CRC Press/Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 73-94.
Sriroth, K., Rojanaridpiched, C., Vichukit, V., Suriyaphan, P. & Oates, C.G. 2001.
Present situation and future potential of cassava in Thailand. In: Howeler, R.H.
& Tan, S.L. (eds.). Cassava’s potential in Asia in the 21st century: Present
situation and future research and development needs. (Proceedings of the 6th
Regional Workshop, 21-25 February, 2000, Ho Chi Minh city, Vietnam). pp. 2546.
Stibig, H-J., Stolle, F., Dennis, R. & Feldkötter, C. 2007. Forest cover change in
Southeast Asia – the regional pattern. JRC Scientific and technical reports. 44
pp. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/111111111/477/1/eur
%2022896%20forest%20change%20pattern%20se-asia.pdf. Visited 15.3.2014.
Thepent, V. n.d. Country report – Agricultural machinery and mechanization situation
in Thailand. 14 pp.
Tongglum, A., Suriyapan, P. & Howeler, R.H., 2001. Cassava agronomy research and
adoption of improved practices in Thailand – Major achievements during the
past 35 years. In: Howeler, R.H. & Tan, S.L. (eds.). Cassava’s potential in Asia
in the 21st century: Present situation and future research and development needs.
(Proceedings of the 6th Regional Workshop, 21-25 February, 2000, Ho Chi Minh
city, Vietnam). pp. 228-258.
44
Torquebiau, E.F. 2000. A renewed perspective on agroforestry concepts and
classification. Life Sciences 323:1009–1017.
Trading economics. 2011. Thailand, economic indicators. http:/www.tradingeconomics
.com/thailand/indicators, New York, USA; visited 13.10.2011.
Trongkongsin, K. 1987. Land use and agroforestry in Thailand with special reference to
the southern region. Kasetsart Journal (Social Sciences) 8:189-202.
UNCTAD. 2012. INFOCOMM Commodity profile, Cassava. http://www.unctad.info/e
n/Infocomm/AAP-Products/COMMODIRY-___PROFILE---Cassava. Visited
8.3.2014.
UNDP. 2012. About Thailand. http://www.undp.org/content/thailand/en/home/countryin
fo/. Visited 12.2.2013.
Usher, A.D. 2009. Thai forestry: A critical history. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm
Books. 238 pp.
Valo, M. 2011. What is agroforestry and what does it serve for? Bachelor's thesis,
University of Helsinki, Department of agricultural sciences, Finland. 33 pp.
Walsh, J. & Ty, M. 2011. Cambodian migrants in Thailand: Working conditions and
issues. Asian Social Science 7(7):23-29.
Wargiono, J., Widodo, Y. & Utomo, W.H. 2001. Cassava agronomy research and
adoption of improved practices in Indonesia – Major achievements during the
past 20 years. In: Howeler, R.H. & Tan, S.L. (eds.). Cassava’s potential in Asia
in the 21st century: Present situation and future research and development
needs. (Proceedings of the 6th Regional Workshop, 21-25 February, 2000, Ho
Chi Minh city, Vietnam). pp. 259-278.
45
Wiriyapong, N. 2008. Siam Cement Group eyes concessions in Laos, Cambodia.
Bangkok Post, 09 May 2008.
Wise, R. & Cacho, O. 2002. Tree-crop interactions and their environmental and
economic implications in the presence of carbon sequestration payments.
Working Paper CC11, ACIAR Project ASEM 2002/066.
Young, A. 1989. Agroforestry for soil conservation. Exeter, UK: BPCC Wheatons Ltd.
pp. 276.
46
APPENDIX 1: The interview form
Questionnaire:
name..................................................................coordinates x…………..y……….......
address...........................................................................................................................
date……………………………………………………………………………………
Number of Eucalyptus:
Eucalyptus:
Possible Answer:
acceptable
answers
n=20
1. How old the
1. เกษตรกรตัดต้นยู
eucalyptus trees are คาฯเมื่ออายุเท่าใด?
when the farmers cut
them down?
n=25
2. What are the
2. ต้นสายยูคาฯ ที่ใช้
clones they are
สายพันธุ์อะไร? ทำไม
using? Why they
ถึงเลือกใช้สายพันธุ์
have chosen those?
นี้?
n=25
3. Where do they get 3.เกษตรกรได้กล้าไม้
the seedlings? Do
มาจากที่ไหน? ได้ใช้
they use coppicing?
หน่อที่แตกออกมา
หรือเปล่า?
n=25
n=25
n=20
4. Do they prune the
trees? Why?
4. เกษตรกรมีการลิ่
5. How wide is the
spacing of the trees?
What is the design?
5. ระยะปลูกของ
6. Where do they
sell the trees? Do
they get some wood
for own use?
6. เกษตรกรขาย
งกิ่งหรือเปล่า?
ต้นไม้เท่าใด?
ต้นไม้ที่ไหน? ได้นำ
ไม้มาใช้สอยในครัว
เรือนหรือไม่?
47
n=24
n=25
Rice:
7. What is the
growth time of the
rice? Planting and
harvesting month?
ข้าว:
7. ฤดูปลูกข้าว ให้
8. What are the
cultivars they are
using? Why they
have chosen those?
8. เกษตรกรใช้สาย
ผลผลิต เดือนไหน?
พันธุ์ข้าวอะไร? ทำไม
จึงเลือกสายพันธุ์นี้?
n=25
9. Where do they get 9. ได้เมล็ดพันธุ์มา
the seedlings?
จากที่ใด?
n=25
10. Where they do
10. เกษตกรขายข้าว
sell the rice? Do
ที่ไหน? ได้เก็บไว้
they take some
บริโภคในครัวเรือน
amounts to own use?
หรือไม่?
n=23
n=24
n=25
Cassava:
11. What is the
growth time of
cassava? Planting
and harvesting
month?
12. What are the
cultivars they are
using? Why they use
that?
มันสำปะหลัง:
11. ฤดูปลูกมัน
13. Where do they
get the seedlings?
13. ได้เมล็ดพันธุ์มา
สำปะหลัง ให้ผลผลิต
เดือนไหน?
12. เกษตรกรใช้สาย
พันธุ์มันสำปะหลัง
อะไร? ทำไมจึงเลือก
สายพันธุ์นี้?
จากที่ใด? ขนาด/อายุ
ของเมล็ดพันธ์เป็น
n=25
Possible Answer:
อย่างไร?
14. เกษตกรขายผลิต
14. Where they do
sell the cassavas?
มันสำปะหลังที่ไหน?
Do they take some
ได้เก็บไว้บริโภคใน
amounts to own use?
ครัวเรือนหรือไม่?
Possible Answer:
48
n=25
Not used
n=7
Not used.
n=25
Other
15. What is the size
of the farm?
พืชควบอื่น ๆ
15. ขนาดของฟาร์ม
16. What species
and what cultivars
are they using?
(Other than rice,
cassava and
eucalyptus)
16. ชนิดอะไรและสาย
17. How big yields
they have had
before?
17. ผลผลิตมีมากน้อย
18. How the area is
divided between the
different species?
(Area sizes)
18. แบ่งพื้นที่ปลูกพืช
เป็นเท่าใด?
พันธุ์อะไรที่ใช้? (นอก
เหนือจากข้าว มัน
สำปะหลัง และยูคา
ลิปตัส)
เพียงใด?
แต่ละชนิดกัน
อย่างไร? (บอกขนาด
พื้นที่)
19. Do they use crop 19. เกษตรกรมีรอบ
rotations? What kind หมุนเวียนการปลูกพืช
of?
หรือเปล่า? ถ้ามีชนิด
อะไร?
n=25
20. What chemicals
they use? For what
purpose? How
much?
n=25
21.How the weeding
is done?
n=23
23. How the
harvesting is done?
23. มีวิธีการเก็บเกี่ยว
อย่างไร?
Possible Answer:
49
n=25
24. Why they have
chosen agroforestry
and for how long
they have used it?
24. เหตุผลใดที่เกษตร
ปฏิบัติวนเกษตรหรือ
ปลูกพืชควบ และทำ
แบบนี้มานานเท่าใด
แล้ว?
n=24
n=25
25. Where they have
learned this way of
farming?
25. ไปเรียนรู้วิธีการ
26. What advantages
and disadvantages
have they noticed
with this farming
practice?
26. มีข้อดี ข้อเสีย
ทำฟาร์มแบบนี้มาจาก
ไหน?
อะไรบ้างที่เกษตรกร
ได้เรียนรู้จากการ
ปฏิบัติการทำฟาร์ม
แบบนี้?
n=25
27. Have the farmers 27. เกษตรกรได้มี
faced any problems? ปัญหาอะไรบ้าง?
Why? How they
เหตุผลใด? มีวธ
ิ ีการ
have solved them?
แก้ปัญหาอย่างไร?
n=25
28. Are they going
to continue farming
the same way in the
future?
28.เกษตรกรยังคงใช้
29. Do they have
access to funding?
29.เกษตรกรได้รับ
n=25
วิธีการทำฟาร์มแบบนี้
ต่อไปในอนาคตหรือ
ไม่?
การสนับสนุนจาก
รัฐบาล หรือจากแหล่ง
อื่นบ้างหรือไม่? (รูป
แบบเป็นเงิน
n=10
30. If they need help
with something,
whom they contact?
ธกส.ฯลฯ)
30. ถ้าเกษตรกร
ต้องการความช่วย
เหลือ จะไปติดต่อ
ใคร?
Not used
31. Who lives at the
farm?
50
n=22
32. Does anybody
from the house work
at the farm?
n=25
33. Do they hire
people? How many?
n=24
34. Do they work
only at the farm or
do they have other
occupation? How
the time is divided
between the jobs?
n=25
Not used
35. How much the
hired labor is paid?