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)

Decision Support for Mainstreaming and Scaling out Sustainable Land Management (GEF-FAO / DS-SLM)

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

Land Development Department (Land Development Department) - Thailand

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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:

Salinity and associated land degradation in parts of the Northeast of Thailand limits production. Knowledge of saline soil management was integrated into an organic agriculture system: dolomite application adjusted pH levels, manure increased the soil's organic matter, while fermented bio-extracts stimulated root systems. Yields of chili pepper and parsley improved greatly.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The problem of soil degradation in regions with saline soil such as parts of the Northeast of Thailand shows up as chemical and physical deterioration and low fertility, which are significant limitations to land use. These issues are exacerbated by water shortages in the dry season and excessive rainfall during the cropping season.
To address this, a group of farmers interested in learning effective soil management strategies has formed. Their aim is to mitigate the effects of salinity and improve crop productivity on their farms. The group has received support in the form of production inputs, including microbial activators for producing organic fertilizers and bio-fertilizers, vetiver grass of the Songkhla 3 variety, and dolomite. Additionally, they have implemented guidelines based on learning, observation, and trial and error to develop a 0.04-hectare vegetable plot.
Previously, this area was characterized by low soil fertility and salinity, which resulted in reduced crop yields. The sandy clay loam soil, though slightly saline, had very low moisture content during the dry season. Furthermore, the area lay outside the irrigation zone. To answer these questions, farmers in the community of Moo 5, Ban Kok Phrom, Non Thai Sub-district, collaborated to develop sustainable farming practices. With support from the Land Development Department, they integrated knowledge of saline soil management into an organic agriculture system.
This technology began with soil analysis and appropriate measures for managing saline soil before land preparation. Farmers combined their wisdom with Land Development Department technologies, such as dolomite application to adjust pH levels and eliminate pathogenic microorganisms affecting chili pepper growth. Manure was applied to increase the soil's organic matter, while fermented bio-extracts containing beneficial microbes stimulated root systems.
To conserve soil moisture, drip irrigation technology was installed in the chili planting plots, and the soil was covered with straw. Vetiver grass was also used to further conserve moisture as a grass barrier strip. After these soil amendments, the soil structure improved, becoming friable and suitable for planting chili peppers—specifically the Amphawa Gold variety, which has a high market demand.
Additionally, parsley was intercropped between plots to optimize land use. On average, the chili pepper yields reached 400 kilograms per 400 square meters over 180 days, with a market price of about 2.50 USD per kilogram. Parsley, as a by-product of watering the chili pepper plants, produced just over 100 kilograms per 400 square meters per production cycle of chili peppers.

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:

2022

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Farmer groups in Non Thai Subdistrict and nearby areas transfer knowledge through the volunteer soil doctor network.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

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

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

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

3.4 Water supply

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

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

Comments:

The area is outside the full irrigation zone and has a local or community small size water sources.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated soil fertility management
• integrated pest and disease management (incl. organic agriculture)

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:

• prevent land degradation
• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

Specify currency used for cost calculations:

• USD

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Drip irrigation system installed	Before mulching/ cropping (March)
2.	None
3.	None

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Drip lines	metre	4.6	1.76	8.1
Labour	PVC tubes	metre	10.0	0.59	5.9
Labour	1000 litre tank	piece	1.0	67.65	67.65
Labour	None	None
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					81.65
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					81.65

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Cultivation plot preparation
2.	Planting and maintenance
3.	Harvesting yields
4.	In case of an anthracnose epidemic, destroy the chili pepper stricken with the disease. During an outbreak of aphids, spray with plain milk at the point of the outbreak. Leave it for 20 minutes and then wipe it off.
5.	Remove leaves of the chili peppers when they are 45-50 days in order to make the trunk expose to the sun. This helps chili peppers grow well and increase their yields.

4.6 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	Ploughing to prepare plot	Person days	1.0	8.08	8.08
Labour	Soil preparation	Person days	1.0	4.41	4.41
Labour	Cultivation, watering, plot maintenance	Person days	1.0	24.25	24.25
Labour	Harvesting	Person days	1.0	137.64	137.64
Equipment	Tractor/ cultivator maintenance	Fuel etc	1.0	75.0	75.0
Plant material	Chili peper plant	plant	1200.0	0.029	34.8
Plant material	Parsley seeds	gram	600.0	0.01	6.0
Plant material	Rice straw	kilogram	180.0	0.1	18.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Fermented bio-extracts	liter	120.0	0.29	34.8
Fertilizers and biocides	Dolomite	kilogram	13.6	0.73	9.93
Fertilizers and biocides	Dung	bag	35.0	2.5	87.5
Other	Drip line	meter	4.6	1.76	8.1
Other	PVC tube	meter	10.0	0.59	5.9
Other	1,000 liter bucket	bucket	1.0	67.65	67.65
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					522.06
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					522.06

Comments:

Drip irrigation systems have no maintenance costs but they are replaced after 2 to 3 years.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

1. Labour costs

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?

Yes

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 used 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

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

Specify assessment of on-site impacts (measurements):

Information from a questionnaire

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

Information from a questionnaire

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	increase or decrease	How does the Technology cope with it?
annual rainfall		decrease	well

Comments:

Rainfall has decreased due to climate change, a result of global warming.

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

• 11-50%

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

• 11-50%

Comments:

The land users are responsible for covering the cost themselves. Supported by agricutural production factors from LDD.

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

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

Yes. Use the drip system for morning watering with organic fertilizer.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Farmers manage soil and water and use integrated farming methods, leading to additional income opportunities.
Farmers in the area are committed to overcoming challenges and limitations related to soil, water, and environmental conditions.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Support for forming farmer groups in the area to exchange knowledge on soil management for increasing crop yields and addressing local farming issues, as well as developing professions for community farmers. This includes promoting the production of safe, non-toxic crops and creating value for products, leading to increased household income for farmers.

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?
Farmers who use the technology must learn to follow procedures carefully.	Training and experience

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The technology used is precision farming. Farmers who use the technology must pay attention to every step.	Training

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Sustainable soil management practices in Asia

URL:

https://e-library.ldd.go.th/library/Ebook/bib10906.pdf