DOCUMENTATION

DESCRIBING THE EXPERIENCE

The implication of the local knowledge in the increasing integration of animal husbandry in the farming systems of disadvantaged communities


Components
Activities
Main Achievements
Difficulties faced
Unexpected results

C1. Fodder development, improved fallow, integrated cropping system (leguminous crops).

C2. Soil erosion control and water management.

C3. Fertilizer management.

C4. Social approach

C5. Booklet publication.

C1. -Experimental plots- on-farm, scaling up.
-Training, FFS.
-Results and discussion exchange with farmers.

C2. -Experimental plots (1 and 5 m2)
-Chemical and hydrological analysis and monitoring.

C3. -Demonstration site.
-Training (FFS).
-Results, discussion, scaling up.
-Experimental plots.

C4. Interview, questionnaire, mapping analysis.

C5. -Collect information with the scientists.
-Writing process with farmer colleagues and NARS.

-Editing.

C1a. Exptl plots: -Selection of adapted forage species (temperate and tropical), -Selection of leguminous and non-leg (pigeon pea and paper mulberry), -Farmers’ adoption.
C1b. Training: Farmer’s knowledge improved.
C1c. Discussion&Results:
Better understanding of each other.
C2a + b. Exptl plot + Chem Analysis: -Hydrological and erosion processes. -Decide on erosion control species. -C and N balance and ecology and fertility management. Papers published.
C3a,b,c. Demonstration site: farmer adoption, scaling up, capacity building, improve farmer knowledge in fertilizer management. Also field visit and student training.
C3d. Exptl plot: Increase crop yield.
C4a. Interview: Description of driving force.
C4b. Questionnaire: Description/report on farmers’ decision and land use mapping. Changes in income documented.
C4c. Mapping: GIS analysis of environmental control and markets driving force. Land use map, LUC map.

Reporting:
-Quarterly report,
- Scientific papers,
- Seminars,
- Documentary film (25 minutes).

Capacity building:
- For farmers and involved stakeholders,
- Field visit for external visitors,

- Students training

C1. -Local climatic and soil conditions
-Misunderstanding scientists/farmers
-Too short duration.
-Conflict Crop/Animal management (first point underlined by Bon&Bao).
-Access to farmers difficult due to lack of free time.
-Rapid change of land owners.

C2 and C4. -Local conditions (e.g. rainfall pattern, soil quality).
-Limited time to interact with agronomist colleagues.
-Access to database and local information.
-Limited availability of farmers

C3. -Access to farmers knowledge.
-Project duration too short.
-Limited availability of farmers.
-Farmers change strategy without letting others know.

And :
-Equipment stolen, data lost, difficulties for farmers to manage so may foreigners.
-Language difficulties.
-Duration of project too short to publish and disseminate results inside the project time.

Also little time to exchange results within different groups and moreover between the 2 countries, implication to make guidebook.

Positive:
Forage – increase in area covered outside the pilot communes/farmers.

Number of farmers involved inside commune increased very fast – but difficulties with supply of inputs.

Biogas and vermicompost development.

Jatropha in Lao as innovation.

 

Negative:
Less hectares of forage planted that expected – farmer agreement/engagement or reality different.

Drought.

Farmer’s decisions and strategy were changing.

Experimental plot destroyed, equipment lost (difficulties for scientist because loss of data and farmers embarrassed with the police).
Go back   Go forward to the analysis
   
Comments:No user contributed comments
Add a comment