The Adoption of Smallholder Rubber Production by Shifting Cultivators in Northern Laos: A Village Case Study - Smallholder Tree Growing for Rural Development and Environmental Services - page 124

Table 5.7 Production and sale of rubber in Hadyao Village, 2002-2004 (Hadyao Village, 2005)
Year Households tapping Production Price Total revenue

No. kg Yuan/kg Yuan

2002 23 22,000 3.5 77,000

2003 67 95,000 4.5 427,500

2004 67 150,000 5.5 825,000

1 Yuan = 1,300 Kip; 1 USD = approx. 10,000 Kip

Table 5.8 Average yields over 3 years of tapping in Hadyao (kg/ha)
Calendar year

Year of tapping Average

1 2 3

2002 1,009 (n = 21) - - 1,009 (n = 21)

2003 843 (n = 42) 1,566 (n = 21) - 1,045 (n = 63)

2004 1,209 (n = 4) 1,295 (n = 42) 1,999 (n = 21) 1,470 (n = 67)

Average 904 (n = 67) 1,380 (n = 63) 1,999 (n = 21) -

Hadyao farmers, hence yields increased as they improved their tapping skill. The
average yields of the initial three years of tapping in Hadyao are consistent with the
average annual yields for smallholders in North East Thailand (1,500 kg ha −1 ) and
Southern China (1,200-1,300 kg ha −1 ) as reported by Alton et al. (2005).
Some of the factors affecting the production of tub-lump rubber were investi-
gated by multiple regression analysis. It was hypothesised that production would be
positively influenced by the number of rubber trees tapped, the full-time equivalent
household labour force, the education level of the household head, and the year of
tapping, and negatively influenced by the total rice area and the age of the house-
hold head (Table 5.10). The model explained 39 percent of the variance in produc-
tion in 2004. However, only the coefficient for the number of trees tapped was
significantly different from zero. That is, neither the availability nor quality (age,
education) of labour, nor competition for labour from rice production, were affect-
ing rubber output. The likely reason is that, at this stage, the household labour force
was able to handle the tapping work as the number of rubber trees tapped was not
large. The average labour force of 3.0 equivalent full-time workers was sufficient
to undertake tapping and attend to other tasks. Moreover, the restricted area for rice
production reduced the degree to which rice competed with rubber for household
labour. In the future, when farmers have more rubber trees to be tapped, their avail-
able labour may not be enough to do the tapping, and then labour may become one
of the main factors determining the production of rubber.
Chinese traders come to the village to buy 'tub-lump' rubber usually once a
month. In the first two years of selling, rubber was bought using a grading system.
In 2004 rubber was bought in one grade only. The Chinese traders were the only
source of price information and hence set the price. However, the price offered has
increased in line with the world price. Hence the total revenue from rubber for the
village increased from 77,000 Yuan in 2002 to 825,000 Yuan in 2004 (Table 5.7).
Although there is no formal marketing contract between the rubber farmers and the