Lao Swedish Upland Agriculture and Forestry Program September 2003

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute

LSUAFRP Field Report No. 03/09

Progress Report on Farming Systems Research Planning in Phonsay and Nam Mo Districts

2003 Season

Farming Systems Research/Extension Component, LSUAFRP

Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute

LSUAFRP Field Report No. 03/09

Progress Report on Farming Systems Research Planning in Phonsay and Nam Mo Districts

2003 Season

By Farming Systems Research/Extension Component, LSUAFRP, September 2003

Table of Contents 1. OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH PLANNING ...................................................................................................1

1.1 DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH AGENDA .......................................................................................................1 1.2 RESEARCH AT INDIVIDUAL FARMER SITES................................................................................................2 1.3 RESEARCH AT GROUP-BASED SITES ...........................................................................................................3

2. METHODS AND RESULTS OF RESEARCH PLANNING.........................................................................5 2.1 FARMER STUDY TOUR..................................................................................................................................5 2.2 VILLAGE RESEARCH PLANNING ...................................................................................................................7 2.3 RESEARCH PROTOCOL WRITING ...............................................................................................................10

REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................................10 ANNEX 1. UPLAND AND LOWLAND RESEARCH TOPICS PRESENTED TO VILLAGES IN PHONSAY AND NAMO DISTRICTS AND RESEARCH & EXTENSION STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION .....................................................................................................................................11 ANNEX 2. NUMBER OF FARMERS SELECTED FOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH OF THE ON-FARM RESEARCH TRIALS. WET SEASON, 2003 .........................................................................................................12 ANNEX 3. NUMBER OF FARMERS SELECTED FOR PARTICIPATION IN EACH OF THE ON-FARM RESEARCH TRIALS. WET SEASON, 2003. ........................................................................................................13

1

1. OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH PLANNING This report provides an update of the research planning process for the 2003 season from February – June. It describes the development of the research agenda after the Annual Research Review and Planning Workshop at NAFRI in February and two field trips to the two target districts in March and May in which an upland and lowland research agenda were presented to villagers and research protocols were drafted.

1.1 Development of research agenda Annual Research Review and Planning Workshop. In the Annual Research Review and Planning Workshop results of on-farm experiments carried out in the 2002 wet season were presented along with presentations of other components of the programme (NAFRI, 2003). At this workshop time was allocated for other components to provide suggestions and recommendations for topics to be included in the 2003 research agenda. Subsequently researchers of the FSR/E and forestry component divided up into a lowland and upland group and brainstormed on a draft research agenda. The recommendations from other components, the results of diagnostic field work of 2002 and the results of the last year's experiments were taken into account to come up with a draft list of research topics. Upland – lowland research groups. The division of research into upland and lowland groups was done to reflect the different landscapes in which the trials take place and also to conveniently group research topics according to the start of the growing season. The upland research group deals with components of the farming system that are further away from the village and are located along or on top of the hill slopes and are linked to the shifting cultivation system. The upland growing season starts early in the season (April/May). The lowland research group deals with components of the farming system that occur in and around the village and houses and are those that are located on the lowest area of the village land and are usually linked to the lowland rice system. The lowland season starts later in the season around June/July. In table 1 the research topics of this year's are tentatively divided into the two groups. Despite the division into two groups all the on-farm research can be considered to be upland research as all villages are located in an upland and sloping land setting and not in larger plains. Lowland technologies, however (aquaculture, vegetable and lowland rice production) are in some instances important components of the farming system. The technology development of these "lowland technologies" in our target villages however is different than in the plains and has to be adapted to the general upland ecosystem. This might require the development of specific adapted technologies. For rice or aquaculture this might involve e.g. the development of technologies suited to small scattered rice paddies or mini-fish ponds etc.

2

Table 1. Division of research topics into upland and lowland groups Discipline Upland group Lowland group

Crops Upland crops • upland annual crops • fruit trees, perennials • agro-forestry systems • forages

Lowland crops • lowland rice • vegetables

Livestock Large livestock • cattle, buffalo • goats

Small livestock • pigs • poultry: chicken, ducks

Aquaculture Fish culture • Integrated fish pond systems

Frog culture The research agenda that was developed during the workshop resulted in 7 lowland and 10 upland research topics (Annex 1). Individual and group-based trial sites. The research planning and implementation of the experiments this year took place both at individual farmer plot sites and at group-based sites. For most of the topics individual farmer sites were used and the step implementation was similar as last year. E.g. (1) present research options (2) identify interested farmers (3) select suitable plot sites. The integrated sloping land system trials were planned for implementation at group sites (see 1.3) which implied that the sequencing of steps was different: (1) identify group sites (2) identify farmers at sites (3) design research options for site with farmers.

1.2 Research at individual FARMER sites Presentation research options. The rough details of each experiment were further discussed at meetings of the FSR/E group and refined. The upland and lowland research options were presented in a series of village meetings to the farmers in two separate field trips. These meetings took place in March for the upland – and in May for the lowland research agenda. The team was split up in two in order to reduce the number of staff going to the field together, to be able to limit the meetings to half a day per village and to provide a balanced number of research options each time in time with the upcoming upland or lowland growing season. Research protocol development. The presentation of the research options both in March and May was followed up with on-the job-trainings in writing up simple research protocols in Luang Prabang. The completion of the proposals, screening, revision and budget approval took place in April and June for respectively the upland and lowland proposals. From April onwards a start was made in implementation of the various upland experiments. Table 2 provides a short overview of the research activities carried out from February – July.

3

Table 2. Schedule of research activities from February – July 2003 Period Research activities

End Feb LSUAFRP's Annual Research Review and Planning meeting • Present FSR/E results of 2002 • Develop draft upland and lowland research agenda for 2003

Early March Meetings with FSR/E team to refine draft research agenda UPLAND RESEARCH GROUP Mid – Late March

Field trip to target areas. Upland village research planning • Farmer study tour to IUARP • Discuss sloping land trial for group research sites with farmers • Present and discuss upland research options in 9 villages in

Phonsay and Namo, • Select farmers and sites • Workshop on writing upland research protocols

April End April

Complete, revise and approve upland research protocols Implement upland trials

• Small team implements corn trial May Implement upland trials

• Small teams implement 6 more upland cropping trials June Implement upland trials

• Small teams implement sloping land + cattle raising/feeding trials LOWLAND RESEARCH GROUP May Field trip to target areas. Lowland village research planning

• Present and discuss upland research options in 7 villages in Phonsay and Namo, select farmers and sites

• Workshop on writing lowland research protocols June Complete, revise and approve lowland research protocols Early – late July

Implement lowland trials • Small teams start implementing lowland rice, vegetable, small

livestock and aquaculture trials

1.3 Research at Group-based Sites NAFRI has been interested in trying to do research with groups of farmers who have land adjacently on a hill side or mini-watershed. This would have the benefit of concentrating research on certain sites and not at scattered locations and also would lead to visible and concentrated research and demonstration impact. It therefore requested the FSR/E component to look for research sites at pre-selected areas at accessible locations nearby the road.

Selection of research topics for group sites. In order to comply with this request the FSR/E component started in December 2002 already to try to identify suitable sites for the 2003 season. In discussions within the FSR/E component it was decided that perennial land use technologies on sloping land would be the most suitable for testing on these sites as this would give a visible impact for a longer period. Research with groups of farmers on sloping land technologies was also thought to provide labour saving benefits to farmers as they then could jointly carry out fencing, fire and cattle control of the whole group site instead of doing this individually for each plots. Integrated garden production with fruit trees, bi-annuals, annuals and/or teak was thought to be one of the most promising technologies for testing on

4

these group sites. Testing of other technologies like aquaculture, vegetables, upland crops or small livestock production technologies would be less suited for testing at group-based sites as farmers are managing these enterprises on an individual basis or are shifting sites year by year (upland annual crops). Table 3 outlines the steps used in planning and implementation of the group-based experiments. Table 3. Steps used in planning and implementation of group-based research activities

Month Research activities in group sites Mid Dec Identify potential sites. Discussion with villagers of 2 districts to identify

potential sites for group-based research. Use of following site/farmer group selection criteria:

• group of farmers (5 – 10) who have land adjacent to each other on a hillside or mini-watershed

• group of farmers interested in testing perennials, starting in 2003 • site near the road on sloping land • site suitable for growing perennials (fruit trees)

Mid Jan – mid Febr

Mapping of sites. Detailed maps with farmer names and plot locations of potential group-research sites produced by the Land management team. Household interviews with participating farmers on choice of crops and perennials (fruit) to plant at sites. Start preparing sites by farmers.

Mid Mar Farmer study tour. Study tour by participating farmers to see sloping land agricultural technologies in IUARP, Luang prabang. Discussions with participating farmers on the design and final mix of annual crops, bi-annuals, hedgerows and perennials (fruit) for the group sites.

End March – Apr

Prepare research proposals. Prepare draft proposals at training. Group individual preferences for fruit and hedgerow species into a limited number of different treatment sets. Calculate inputs. finalize and approve proposals.

May Site preparation. Stake out and prepare plots, contour lines and planting holes. June Implement trial. Purchase planting material and implement trials Site selection group-based research sites. In the end group sites suitable for testing sloping land technologies could be identified in two villages, one in each district (B. Tha Pho and B. Phou Xang). In Tha Pho the group sites were mainly located along a stream next to some paddy land, while in Phou Xang former opium fields close to the village and road were selected as group sites. In the other villages, land suited for testing perennials close by the road was not available or it was only possible to find suitable sites of individual households but not of group sites. At last it was decided to test sloping land technologies on a number of individual farmer sites as well, so a comparison with the group sites could be made.

5

2. Methods and results of Research Planning

2.1 Farmer study tour Introduction. A study tour was organized for farmers of both target district interested in testing sloping land technologies to selected IUARP sites in Pak Ou district, Luang prabang province. The objective was to provide farmers with exposure to ongoing farmer experimentation elsewhere to enable them to get a better idea of which technologies or components they would like to try out. As most of the pre-selected group research sites were located in B. Tha Pho and Phou Xang, farmers of these villages were over-represented in the group. Representatives, however of most villages were invited as well (Table 5). The details of the tour are presented in Table 4. Table 4. Schedule of Farmer's Study Tour for farmers of Phonsay & Namo to target villages of IUARP (Integrated Upland Agricultural Research Project), March 11: Timing Schedule 7.00 – 8.30 Pick up villagers Phonsay & Namo and meet at Pak Ou district centre. Continue

to IUARP site. Record names of all participants. 8.30 – 12.00 Group Namo: start at B. Huay Luang, Group Phonsay start at B. Lattahe.

Visit the following sites: • agro-forestry trials (pine apple/fruit with Stylo, B. Lattahe, 3 agro-

forestry treatments + fruit tree nursery, Mr Mai Kong, B. Pakcheck), • sloping land erosion experiment IWMI, B. Pakckeck • teak pruning trial (B, Latahe), rattan experiment (in teak, paper

mulberry and forest), • improved fallow (B. Huay Leuang), • fish pond & frog management (B. Pakcheck)

Method: Ask the host farmer to explain the experiment in the field and which steps were involved in implementation. The responsible (research/extension) staff can provide additional information. Allocate plenty of time to have the visitors understand the experiment and the practice and facilitate discussion between visitors and host farmer. Make notes of content of discussion. In total about 30 min. for each technology including travel/walking.

12.00 – 13.30 Joint lunch and informal discussion between farmers of 2 districts and host farmers at Nam Ou river

13.30 – 15.00 Group discussion per village and ranking of research topics based on suitability for their villages.

15.00 – 16.00 Presentation group work to all participants. 16.00 – 17.00 Return travel to Namo and Phonsay district Results tour. In total 45 farmers participated from 8 of the 9 target villagers. Women participation was almost 50 % (Table 5). The group discussions after the study tour revealed that farmers liked the good management, cultural practices and high productivity of the visited sites (Table 6). Fish pond technologies were considered most suitable for testing in individual sites while integrated gardens with pine apples, paper mulberry and/or fruit trees were suited for both individual as group sites (Table 7). Farmers in Namo were most

6

interested in integrated gardens and village fruit tree nurseries, while in Phonsay paper mulberry and teak pruning were most preferred (Table 8.). The differences are likely related to the good market prospects and existing experience with paper mulberry and teak in Phonxay. Table 5. Participants in the IUARP study tour

District/village Participants District/village Participants PHONSAY M F Tot NAMO M F Tot Gr. Tot

B. Huay Man 2 1 3 B. Pang Thong 3 1 4 B. Nam Bo 2 2 4 B. Pang Dou 2 1 3 B. Tha Pho Tai & Neua 6 7 13 B. Phou Xang 7 5 12 B. Huay Maha 1 1 2 B. Mixay 2 2 4

Total 11 11 22 Total 14 9 23 45 Results group discussion. The farmers were split into four groups according to district and gender and discussions took place around a couple of questions. Results of the group discussion were presented to the whole group by group representatives at the end of the session. Division in discussion groups No Group Description Responsible staff Group 1 Phonsay – men 2 DAFO Phonsay, NAFRC, Saysongkram Group 2 Phonsay – women 2 DAFO Phonsay, Toui, Vichit Group 3 Namo – men 2 DAFO Namo, Vaya, Petsamai Group 4 Namo – women 2 DAFO Namo, Prasith, Bounhom

1. Discuss the technologies that you have seen this morning in the group. What was your group's impression?

Table 6. Result group discussion Group 1. Name technology Impressions and observations farmers Paper mulberry Grow in domesticated gardens, not only kept by retaining natural

stands; good growth Pine apple Good spacing, planted in rows, along contour Fruit trees Watering in dry season, good management Fish pond raising Fast growth, good feeding, high income Integrated gardens Efficient use of land, as more crops are grown simultaneously on same

area Teak management Pruning and improved management results in better teak growth Fruit tree nursery Use of improved material as propagation is done by air-layering and

grafting Improved fallow Good stand of pigeon pea in block, expected to increase rice yields, can

be used for raising sticklac as well Paper mulberry inter-cropped with rattan

Efficient use of land, as more crops are grown simultaneously on same area

7

2. Which of the tested technologies do you think are suitable for trying out in your villages in the coming season? How could this be supported by the village/farmers? Table 7. Result group discussion Group 1.

Name technology Suitable for group site Suitable for individual site

Pine apple Fish ponds Paper mulberry Paper mulberry Fruit trees (but some areas too steep or windy)

Fruit tree

Outside support is needed for:

• technical support in developing productive paper mulberry gardens • pine apple suckers, fruit tree planting material • ways to control flooding in fish ponds • fingerling inputs, e,g. for catfish raising

3. Ask every participant to rank the technologies tested and select 2 which they think are in principle most appropriate for their farm. (Use list) Table 8. Results of discussion with farmers of Namo and Phonsay Rank Preferred top 2 technologies No farmers

Namo –men No farmers

Phonsay – women 1 Integrated gardens 13 3 2 Intercropped paper mulberry and rattan 3 10 3 Fruit tree nurseries 9 - 4 Teak pruning - 8 5 Improved fallow 1 - 6 Frog raising 1 Total 26 22 No major differences observed between responses of men and women in same district 2.2 Village research planning The methodology and steps used in developing village research plans were quite similar as last year’s (NAFRI, 2002 and Table 9). This year however, the upland and lowland technology options were presented at separate set of village meetings that took place resp. in March and May 2003. Table 9. Methods used in village research planning Steps used in village research planning 1. Prepare posters and presentations (for each technology option) including information on:

• The results of experiments carried out last year (only for 2nd year trials) • Details on proposed technology option • Criteria for participation of farmers

[1 – 2 days per district, decide beforehand which research menu to present where] 2. Presentations posters at village meetings [half a day, 1 village/day, 6 – 7 technology options] 3. Small group meetings with each farmer interest group, pre-select farmer participants [1 – 2 h] 4. Site visit to farmer fields + final selection farmer participants [1 – 2 h]

8

This year the involvement of researchers of the Northern Agricultural and Forestry Research Centre (incl. Huay Khot & Thong Khang) and the districts was much greater than last year and a more varied menu of research options could be offered to the farmers (Annex 1). In total about 30 staff took part in the village research planning process, and efforts were made to assign district and NAFRC researchers to all of the 17 topics. For eight technology options, NAFRC could provide most expertise and became the lead research agency, without needing support from a Vientiane-based research centre. The village meetings were well attended and a total of 351 farmers in 9 villages of Namo and Phonsay attended the upland technology options meetings. For the lowland options respectively 211 farmers of 7 villages showed up. Women participation was about 25 % (Table 10). Most farmer interest was shown for participating in sloping land, corn, forage and lowland rice technology testing in Namo, while in Phonxai chicken feed, vegetable, frog and forage technologies were most preferred (Annex 2 and 3). Table 11. Participants at upland & lowland village research planning meetings held respectively in March and May 2003. Data presented by village and gender. District/Village Lowland options Upland options Total PHONSAY M F Tot M F Tot M F Tot B. Huay Man 21 13 34 20 10 30 41 23 64B. Nam Bo 30 10 40 47 0 47 77 10 87B. Tha Pho Tai & Neua 40 14 54 40 20 60 80 34 114B. Huay Maha 0 0 0 46 12 58 46 12 58Total 91 37 128 153 42 195 244 79 323NAMO B. Pang Dou 0 0 0 21 15 36 21 15 36B. Pang Thong 33 6 41 27 10 37 62 16 78B. Phou Xang 0 0 0 10 3 13 10 3 13B. N. Neua 25 5 30 38 11 49 63 16 79B. Mixay 7 5 12 13 8 21 20 13 33TOTAL 67 16 83 109 47 156 176 63 239GRAND TOTAL 158 53 211 262 89 351 420 142 562 Tentative plans were made to do a total of 381 farmer-research activities (171 in Namo and 210 in Phonxai) consisting of 17 different experiments. The total sum of upland and lowland research activities from both districts is quite similar. In Namo however more upland (111) than lowland (60) experiments are planned, while in Phonxai with the interest in frog and vegetable production, more lowland (141) than upland trials are (69) anticipated. During implementation the number of farmer-research activities will undoubtedly change and likely decrease, but anyhow these numbers give a good indication of the keen interest that farmers have in being involved in the testing of farming technologies. It was interesting that the 2002 experience with the testing of frog raising in two villages resulted in different decisions amongst ethnic groups to continue or quit this activity in the following year. Despite the fact that the Hmong in B. Nam Bo were quite successful in frog cultivation, most of them decided not to continue experiments in 2003. Reasons given were that (i) they prefer to be involved in other more economic interesting farming activities like

9

wet season vegetable production and (ii) that women are not comfortable in collecting earthworms for feeding frogs. Most of the lowland Lao and Khamu on the other hand are intent on continuing and expanding frog raising and a few have even tried frog breeding on their own. For these ethnic groups earthworm collection is not much of a problem and frog raising is not competing in labor with other economic activities. Vegetable production is also less practiced. It is good that our research can outline the differences in uptake amongst ethnic group and individuals. This shows again that there no general solution that fits all. The success of last year wet season tomato experiments was also apparent during the field trips. The three farmers that tested tomato production in 2002 have all continued and have expanded their areas considerably and a new group of Hmong farmers have taken up this activity in 2003. Challenges remain to expand this successful activity to other villages with suitable land and to diversify into other valuable vegetables. Also the use of of dangerous herbicides and pesticides need to be reduced as frequent sprayings and large quantities of e.g. “Follidol” are used for pest control. Analysis of research planning. The village research planning process went quite well though there remains room for improvement (Table 11). For next year it should be decided to do the planning process again into two separate trips or to present all options in one meeting per village. The first option is quite time consuming for both researchers as well as farmers but involves a more detailed and balanced planning process. The presentation in one trip will save time, but will require that all researchers will have to be ready to present their options at the same time and that for each village a strong selection of the research menu should be made. Table 11. Strengths and weaknesses in the village research planning process.

Strengths Constraints Presentations 1. DAFO staff involved in doing presentations 2. A number of presentations done in local language (Hmong, Khamu) by researchers Overall process 1. Enough time allocated per village (1 full day) 2. Good recording of farmer participants 3. Farmers show interest and participate in large numbers Participatory research 1. Some treatments and designs revised to meet farmer’ requirements (use matrixes to assess particular farmer interest)

Presentations. 1. Lack of communication skills presenters, 2. Unclear or too formal presentations (limited use of aids like photos, VDO, plant material etc) 3. No clear criteria worked out for participation of farmers (site and farmer criteria, farmer/project contribution, pay back of inputs etc) Interest group discussions. 1. Too many farmers allowed to participate in some topic (no limits set) 2. Farmer interest group discussions not very systematic (no formats or questionnaires) Field visits. 1. Visits to farmer’s fields too rushed

10

2.3 Research Protocol Writing Two workshops of 3 – 4 days were held in March and May to develop research protocols for the “upland” and “lowland” research topics. Support was provided by the Information Management unit and jointly a format was developed that was presented at the workshop Participants included the research and extension staff responsible for each of the experiments, in total about 20 staff for each of the training (Annex 2). On-the-job training was provided by 3 – 4 senior Lao researchers and the FSR/E adviser to assist in improving the protocols. At the end of the workshop some draft protocols were presented to the whole group. Most of the protocols could not be finished during the workshop and had to be completed upon return to Vientiane. After submitting the draft protocols these were screened, revised and approved by the Farming System Research Unit prior to the start of trial implementation. A complete set of all of the 17 research protocols was collected and copies were distributed to the districts and NAFRC. It is planned to print a document containing all the research protocols after the editing of each proposal is completed. The protocols are of a reasonable standard and form a good basis for research and are a good indicator for research progress. LSUAFRP is one of the few programmes in which research protocols have been produced by Lao researchers. The following constraints were noted in the writing of protocols:

• It took a long time to complete the protocols after completion of the writing workshop, as staff were assigned with other duties upon return to Vientiane and no proper incentive system is in place

• Some protocols were too ambitious and expensive and included trials with large groups of farmers or on large areas and had to be revised

• Not all protocols used the exact same format in Lao language • The data collection part of the protocol needs strengthening

References NAFRI, 2002. Report on village research planning in Phonsay and Namo districts and follow-

up. Lao Swedish Upland Agriculture and Forestry Research Programme, NAFRI, Vientiane

NAFRI, 2003. Report on Annual LSUAFRP Research Review and Planning Workshop. Lao

Swedish Upland Agriculture and Forestry research Programme, NAFRI, Vientiane

11

Annex 1. Upland and lowland research topics presented to villages in Phonsay and Namo districts and research & extension staff responsible for planning and implementation

Responsible staff Research topics Farming System Research/Extension Lead agency Centre Region* P.Xai Namo

On-farm experiments - lowland group 1a Lowland rice variety trial (glutinous – medium 1) NAFRC - Buavan Bounchan Chanthon 1b Lowland rice variety trial (glutinous – medium 2) NAFRC - Buavan Bounchan Chanthon 1c Lowland rice variety trial (glutinous – late, gall midge resist.) NAFRC - Buavan Bounchan Chanthon 1d Lowland rice variety trial (ordinary – medium 1) NAFRC - Buavan Bounchan Chanthon 1e Lowland rice variety trial (ordinary – medium 2) NAFRC - Buavan Bounchan Chanthon 2 Wet season vegetable production – vegetable species HRC Paivan Kouan Khamsonpheng Khampan 3 Duck raising in paddy fields - duck feed LRC Soukan** Souvan Vongsit Bounthavee4 Pigs - animal feed LRC Soukan** Vaya Vongsit Bounthavee5 Chicken – animal feed/method of raising LRC Soukan** Vaya Vongsit Bounthavee6 Frog culture - stocking rate Larrec Visone Bounsaveng Vongsit Bounthavee7 Integrated fish pond - pig system; animal feed Larrec Aloun Souvan Vongsit Bounthavee

On-farm experiments - upland group

1a Local improved upland rice variety trial (glutinous) NAFRC - Khamla Thongsamai Chanthon

1b Local improved upland rice variety trial (ordinary varieties) NAFRC - Khamla Thongsamai Chanthon

2 Improved fallow using crop rotation (p.mulberry, pigeon pea) NAFRC/AF - Viengmanee Bounchan Khampan 3 Corn variety trial AFRS - Prasith*** Khamsonpheng Thongkham4 Job's tears - legume relay cropping AFRS - Prasith*** Khamsonpheng - 5 Intercropped paper mulberry - spacing trial AFRS - Prasith*** Khamsonpheng Thongkham6 Sugarcane - legume cover cropping AFRS - Prasith*** - Thongkham7 Mulberry variety trial AFRS - Prasith*** - Thongkham

8 Integrated sloping land system – test fruit tree sp., econ. hrows HRC, Soil, AFRS Says,Vichit Don Sayvongsa Chandam 9 Forage species trial LRC, AFRS Petsamai** Vaya Vongsit Bounthavee

10 Cattle - raising systems/animal feed (forages) LRC, AFRS Petsamai** Vaya Vongsit Bounthavee

Grand total (lowland + upland): 17 topics 8 staff 10 staff 6 staff 6 staff

NAFRC (Nat'l Agriculture and Forestry Research Centre and AFRS (Agro-forestry Research Station) ** later replaced by Somchan ***later replaced by Outhai

12

PHONSAY DISTRICT Annex 2. Number of farmers selected for participation in each of the on-farm research trials. Wet season, 2003 Research topics Where Phonxai Farming System Research/Extension PX NM Hman N.Bo T.Po H.Maha Total On-farm experiments - lowland (no proposed topics) 6 7 5 4 6 2

1a Lowland rice variety trial (glutinous - medium) X X 2 11 13 1b Lowland rice variety trial (glutinous - late) X X 0 1 1 1c Lowland rice variety trial (ordinary – medium) X X 2 2 4 1d Lowland rice variety trial (ordinary – IRRI set) X X 1 1

2 Wet season vegetable production - vegetable species X X 4 16 10 30 3 Duck raising in paddy fields – duck feed X X 5 0 12 17 4 Pig – animal feed X X 3 1 4 5 Chicken - animal feed/method of raising X X 4 19 16 39 6 Frog culture - stocking rate X X 5 5 6 16 32 7 Integrated fish pond - pig system, animal feed X 0

Total experiments – lowland 21 26 62 32 141 On-farm experiments - upland (no proposed topics) 8 9 5 6 6 7

1a Local improved upland rice variety trial (glutinous) X X 3 1 3 7 1b Local improved upland rice variety trial (ordinary varieties) X X 2 2 4

2 Improved fallow using crop rotation (p.mulberry, pigeon pea) X X 0 0 3 1 4 3 Corn variety trial X X 1 3 3 3 10 4 Job's tears – legume relay cropping X 0 1 7 8 5 Intercropped paper mulberry - spacing trial X X 0 7 4 11 6 Sugarcane – legume/cover crop intercropping X 7 Mulberry variety trial X 8 Integrated sloping land system - test fruit tree sp., ec. Hrows X X 9 0 9 9 Forage species trial X X 4 10 14

10 Cattle raising systems/animal feed (forages) X X 1 1 2 Total experiments – upland 4 11 30 24 69 Grand total (lowland + upland) 14 16 25 37 92 56 210

13

NAMO DISTRICT

Annex 3. Number of farmers selected for participation in each of the on-farm research trials. Wet season, 2003.

Research topics Where Namo Total Farming System Research/Extension PX NM P. Dou P.Thng N.Neua P.Xang Mixay Total PX &NM

On-farm experiments - lowland (no proposed topics) 6 7 0 4 3 0 5 1a Lowland rice variety trial (glutinous - medium) X X 3 3 16 1b Lowland rice variety trial (glutinous - late) X X 3 3 4 1c Lowland rice variety trial (ordinary - medium) X X 9 3 12 16

1d Lowland rice variety trial (ordinary – IRRI set) X X 1 1 2 2 Wet season vegetable production - vegetable species X X 7 7 37 3 Duck raising in paddy fields – duck feed X X 6 6 23 4 Pig - animal feed X X 5 2 7 11 5 Chicken - animal feed/method of raising X 2 1 3 42 6 Frog culture - stocking rate X X 8 8 40 7 Integrated fish pond - pig system, animal feed X X 5 5 10 10

Total experiments – lowland 0 21 20 0 19 60 201 On-farm experiments - upland (no proposed topics) 8 9 7 5 4 5 6

1a Local improved upland rice variety trial (glutinous) X X 2 2 2 6 13 1b Local improved upland rice variety trial (ordinary varieties) X X 1 1 1 3 7

2 Improved fallow using crop rotation (p.mulberry, pigeon pea) X X 3 0 0 3 7

3 Corn variety trial X X 10 8 3 7 28 38 4 Job's tears – legume relay cropping X 8 5 Intercropped paper mulberry - spacing trial X X 2 2 13 6 Sugarcane – legume/cover crop intercropping X X 1 1 1 7 Mulberry variety trial X X 3 3 3 8 Integrated sloping land system - test fruit tree sp., ec. Hrows X X 7 4 21 6 38 47 9 Forage species trial X 4 14 2 4 24 38

10 Cattle raising systems/animal feed (forages) X 1 0 2 3 5 Total experiments – upland 23 30 10 28 20 111 180 Grand total (lowland + upland) 14 16 23 51 30 28 39 171 381

14

ANNEX 4. PHOTOS

Photo 1. Farmer field day at IUARP Photo 2. Farmer interest in upland rice varieties

Photo 3. Posters used at village presentations

15

Photo 4. Farmers involved in selecting crop combinations for sloping land trials Photo 5. Visit to potential site for forage trial Photo 6. Site selection for group-based sloping land research at former opium fields

16

Photo 7. Upland rice variety trial, Namo

Photo 8. Fruit trees planted at sloping land trial, B. Tha Pho Photo 9. Corn variety trial, B. Huay Man

17

Photo 10. Job’s tears - groundnut intercropping trial, B. Tha Pho

Photo 11. Expansion of wet season tomato production, B. Nam Bo

Photo 12. Upland landscape in B. Tha Pho, Phonxai

18

Photo 13. Good sized frogs kept for breeding, B. Nam Bo

Photo 12. Start of new frog trials, B. Tha Pho

Photo 14. Workshop on research protocols writing held in Luang Prabang