1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Scaling-up SLM practices by smallholder farmers (IFAD)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

National Agriculture and Forestry Research Institute (NAFRI) - Lao People's Democratic Republic

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

11/01/2017

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Effective micro-organism (EM) is a liquid concentrate which can be used as a pre planting treatment, for actively growing vegetables and helps to increase beneficial soil microorganisms and suppression of harmful ones.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

Farmers have practiced household gardening for a considerable period of time in order to increase food security and generate an income. However some farmers have experienced difficulties in cultivating vegetables due to various challenges such as the soil type, for example clay or compacted soil, ineffective water seepage as well as the soil’s low nutrient content making it unsuitable for agricultural purposes. Consequently, the problems that the farmers often faced included vegetables of inferior quality, outbreaks of diseases, as well as surges of insects and pests which typically reduce yields by approximately 30%. In order to increase production and cultivate at a preferable period of time, farmers often applied chemical fertilizer in combination with animal compost. However the production outputs and quality of the produce were not up to expectations if compared to agricultural practices that do not involve the use of chemicals. It has been noted that vegetables grown with the use of chemical fertilizers cannot be kept for a long period of time as they tend to spoil more quickly, despite the increase in production yields. In 2015 an International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) Programme introduced a technique to produce effective micro-organisms (EM) and encouraged people to use these to improve the nutrient content of the soil and thereby enhance the quality of home garden vegetables as well as other potential crops. The farmers gained an interest in EM and began to produce it according to the programme’s instructions. The production of EM is actually relatively easy, and farmers can use organic waste from vegetables such as Chinese mustard (Brassica juncea), morning glory and water spinach mixed with 1kg of sugar and 0.5 kg of molasses (if available, or it can be excluded, but it should be available at an agricultural produce outlet). Firstly the organic waste should be sliced/chopped into small pieces and then sugar and molasses are added which are then all mixed in a 20 litre container. Then a one metre long stick should be used to mix all the ingredients and the container lid should then be sealed properly. Once these steps have been completed, the EM production container should avoid sunlight and be stored in the shade so as to ensure the quality of EM. After one week the container can be opened to mix the ingredients again and then it can continue to remain in the shade for another month. Thereafter, EM mixture is ready for use and one table spoon should be added to 10 litres of water, and once this has been mixed well it can be applied to the vegetables in the home garden by using water cans. Watering involves pouring the solution from the leaves to the stems or to the roots of the vegetables. After the application of the EM solution it was noted that there were more earthworms around the vegetable plots and also that there was an increase in soil moisture and nutrients. Furthermore it was also noted that the soil was previously relatively white and compacted and not black and porous allowing for good water seepage. In this way water is absorbed by the soil in the plot rather than running off over the surface. Plant pathogens and pests/insects such as red ants and leaf worms was reduced. As a result, the vegetables grew well with a good average weight, and there was an increase in both the quality and the yield. As a comparison, in the past farmers used to be able to harvest 5-6 kg per plot, but now they are capable of securing 12-15kg per plot. However, weeds still remain a problem and these include Eleusine indica and thorny grass which compete for nutrients with the crops. It is a challenge for the farmers to control these weeds including other natural vegetables.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2015

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
• create beneficial economic impact

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

3.3 Further information about land use

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

Number of growing seasons per year:

• 2

3.4 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated soil fertility management
• home gardens

3.5 Spread of the Technology

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If the Technology is evenly spread over an area, indicate approximate area covered:

• < 0.1 km2 (10 ha)

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation
• adapt to land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 Technical specifications/ explanations of technical drawing

This bio-extracting technique can be done easily and farmers can use local waste materials such as cabbage, pineapple, spinach and so on. With the following ingredients: 3 kg of vegetables, 1 kg of sugar, 0.5 liters of molasses. Then bring the vegetables to chop thoroughly and then bring the sugar and mixed molasses into a 20 liter tank prepared and mixed together, the area of the bio-extracted technique is 2 meters x 2 meters, Then put about 1 meter of wood to mix it and close the barrel to keep it in the air when practicing all the techniques and then we will bring a bio-extracted tank to a sunny shade to preserve the quality of detergent, Then one more week, we can open the tank for all the ingredients again, so we can do this for a period of time, up to a month, and then add the biological extracts 1 spoon / 10 liters of water to mix and then irrigate the vegetable.

4.3 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

Kip

Indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (if relevant): 1 USD =:

8500.0

4.4 Establishment activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing
1.	Collect the waste vegetable	Agronomic	After harvesting
2.	chop to small size	Other measures	After harvesting
3.	Mix with sugar and molasses	Other measures
4.	Irrigate vegetable	Other measures

4.5 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Labor	person	1.0	50000.0	50000.0	100.0
Equipment	Knife	peice	1.0	20000.0	20000.0
Equipment	irrigation tank	peice	1.0	30000.0	30000.0
Equipment	Bucket	peice	2.0	25000.0	50000.0
Plant material	Molasses	kg	1.0	8000.0	8000.0	100.0
Plant material	Sugar	liter	2.0	7000.0	14000.0	100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					172000.0

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

FNML ( Food and Nutrition Market Linkage ) project support an equipment

4.6 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Type of measure	Timing/ frequency
1.	Collect the waste vegetable	Agronomic	After harvesting
2.	chop to small size	Other measures	After harvesting
3.	Mix with sugar and molasses	Other measures
4.	Irrigate vegetable	Other measures

4.7 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Labor	person	1.0	50000.0	50000.0	100.0
Equipment	Knife	piece	1.0	20000.0	20000.0
Equipment	irrigation tank	piece	1.0	30000.0	30000.0
Equipment	tank	piece	1.0	25000.0	25000.0
Plant material	Molasses	kg	1.0	7000.0	7000.0	100.0
Plant material	Sugar	liter	2.0	8000.0	16000.0	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					148000.0

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

FNML ( Food and Nutrition Market Linkage ) project support an equipment

4.8 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labor

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

5.7 Average area of land owned or leased by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• individual

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

	Season	Type of climatic change/ extreme	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual temperature		increase	moderately
seasonal temperature	dry season	increase	moderately
annual rainfall		decrease	not well
seasonal rainfall	wet/ rainy season	decrease	moderately

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	moderately
local windstorm	not well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
drought	well

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
insect/ worm infestation	well

Other climate-related consequences

Other climate-related consequences

	How does the Technology cope with it?
extended growing period	not well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 10-50%

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 90-100%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Yes

If yes, indicate to which changing conditions it was adapted:

• changing markets

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Easy to find the vegetable waste and not complicate process.
Reduces household expenses for input cost as the cost of producing of EM is cheaper than buy chemical fertilizer
Increased household income from vegetables and improved food security

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Environmentally friendly and good for land user's health.
Increased both quantity and quality of vegetable production.

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
EM solution also encourages more grass/weeds to grow especially leusine indica and thorny grass that challenge for farmers to control weed.
Sometimes, it is difficult to find molasses in general grocery

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

ນຳ້ຳສະກັດຊີວະພາບ (ປຸຍນຳ້ຳ), ສພກສຍ (SEADA)

URL:

http://lao44.org/content/1652