If small landholders take into account cost-benefit analysis, they could not survive. Generally they use household/family labour and do not consider it as input, they survive in a condition of loss. Consider a situation of informal sector where fruits vendors sell fruits on cart. They purchase fruits, bring them from wholesale market on the cart, sell it in small amount, many of fruits get rotten and thrown, when they return home they have some money surplus to the money invested in purchasing fruits. They manage food for the family. If one calculate the cost of their labour and and cost of rotten fruits, an economist will find a net loss, but they survive.

I totally agree Dr. Khan. Given this challenge (what you just indicated), this is why any approach which seeks to contribute to the livelihoods of smallholders has to be rigorous and robust considering all these unlisted parameters so that we could proposed policy packages that could address those needs and 'truly' transform the lives of those in need than just surviving, while the rest of us are have more.

what is the meaning of using biochar-based treatments and the control. Can you explain it in detail. After that i would like to give my feedback

This research seeks to accomplish the following objectives:

1. To assess whether or not rice husk biochar inoculated with cow manure and manure tea plus NPK amended in soil increase soil nutrient status and improve crop yields relative to the traditional farming practice.

2. To assess the potential of biochar to improve soil water availability.

3. To evaluate the costs and benefits of agricultural productivity relative to each treatment on smallholder irrigators' livelihoods compare to the traditional farming practices.

My point here is that while it is true to work with smallholders to employ environmentally friendly climate-smart agriculture capable of substantial benefits not only to environment, it is important to evaluate all the costs and benefits to be able to determine the impacts on smallholders' livelihoods; given that, smallholder farmers decide to use these treatments.

We could argue that the initial costs during the first growing season would be high relative to net benefits, but than, costs would decrease over time and benefits increase because of the overall stability effects of biochar in agricultural soils. 

Since this project was done for only one growing season, our analysis would be to use the initial net benefits to initial cost ratio to predict how smallholders net revenue relative to total cost would be impacted in the next few years (2-5 yrs), given that agricultural inputs in terms of fertilizer application decreases (assumption).

Are these enough information to get you speed up to what my central ideas are?

The experiment whole oats to substitute equally for whole corn, results are useful for small producers  who harvest their own grain, particularly in areas where corn production is limited by environmental conditions. Other considerations such as higher cost of corn than oats, regional availability and transportation add to the potential benefits of feeding oats as a substitute for corn on animal performance and beef quality, which deserves further research. Tabular nutritional values of oats and corn are useful practical guide in many situations.

http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0718-58392013000300009&script=sci_arttext

Dear Jenkins 

While I think CBA has some value  and the question you raise is a good one, CBA  has its limits. The fact remains that costs or perceived monetary costs are only one of a number of factors that smallholder farmers consider when making decisions. Or so has been my experience. Time is one issue it is important to consider in your model and another is the perceived market and return on investment. The latter is shaped by other factors than fact or by issues you may be able to find written down anywhere. 

Its also importnat to consider how the farmer consider these costs - do they see them as linear and continuing or high at first and tapering off later to be afforable.

Sustainability, which you also raise, is another important element and that is definitely one they consider. But it might not just be environmental sustainability but economic and social as well? How long can i afford this and will this take me where I want to go socially? Also, is this something they are doing because it is fashionable and there is money in it or are they are interested in this as part of their livelihoods strategy. I think CBA has some limits in terms of how it will capture some of these more qualitative factors. For a test of an approach,  CBA linked with focus groups and participatory appraisal might work. When it moves into being established policy, I think Poverty and Social Impact Assesment becomes very important.  

One option though is working with the farmers beforehand to identify the range of  costs and benefits which would be important to them and consider these in defining your values. I honestly think that would bring you closer to the mark.

I also agree with Netra that clarifying the benefits from biochar etc would also be good to clarify.  I can think of low-carbon benefits, circular economy benefits and food quality ones depending on approach immediately. Sustaining agriculture livelihoods and food production as well as income would also be likely. What else were you thinking of?

Excellent pointers! 

Hi Leisa,

No model can accurately and precisely account for every little aspects of smallholder's livelihoods (e.g. non-farm and off-farm income generation done between growing seasons) as trying to go through that path would be practically unrealistic and exhaustive, given the time we had.

Just so you know that this project is part of an on-going 6-year project led by the International Water Management Institute (http://gw-laos.iwmi.org) funded by the Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) on groundwater use for agricultural productivity in Laos.

The objectives of this project (my research) is very clear and precise. The IWMI's socioeconomic team are currently doing the socioeconomic constraints and opportunities for groundwater feasibility in Laos and that process is more robust and rigorous than the 8-month project I did. My interest specifically is what would be the impact on smallholders' livelihoods (economic livelihoods) should in case they want to employ treatments and farm management practices used in the experimental trial? Prices of inputs and outputs were determined based on market prices and farmers inputs; given that, most research done in the biochar field rarely investigate these variables? Some prices have to be assumed based on national data.

The benefits of biochar are clearly defined in the literature (agricultural, environmental, social, economic, etc) and narrating everything here would be a little more burdensome.

The results of the field trial confirms some of what have been established in the scientific community about the use of biochar to enhance agricultural productivity. The estimation of costs were time sensitive and ROI were also calculated. But there is little we can do given that the trial was only done for one growing season (March - June 2014), thus our analysis would be confined only to that growing season with fewer predictions assuming that all other factors remain constant, etc.

Globally, the increased frequency of heat stress, droughts and flooding events caused by climate change threaten to reduce crop yields and livestock productivity in many areas, while increased risks of fires and pest outbreaks will have negative consequences for forests. At the same time, the agriculture and forestry sectors are important for mitigation of climate change. Together, agricultural production and deforestation account for up to 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, second only to the energy sector. Projections suggest losses in some areas and at the same time potential gains in others. The sectors also offer important opportunities for carbon sequestration, such as through aforestation or minimum tillage agriculture. But while aggressive mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions should continue to be a priority, most experts now agree that climate change is already happening

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ECAEXT/Resources/258598-1243892418318/ECA_ClimateChangeAdaptation_AgricultureRepor.pdf

As several replies imply or note: it is difficult to assess cost-benefit although monetizing every transactions helps - there are many that fall outside the linear functions of finance. For smallholders, the optimization opportunity you seek to offer them, is necessarily incomplete. Optimized decisions where small farmers depend on farming for a substantial part of their livelihood tend to also integrate other, less tangible factors that range from time and opportunity cost to market or labor availability to vital social and ecological factors that have proven to be the game-changers in more than one project or assessment.

Based on the experience of a number of institutions and tens of thousands of our own surveys, we strongly suggest taking a multi-dimensional perspective to such calculations so as to avoid the "economic-only" trap that can miss key deciding factors that farmers and their communities value. The Committee on Sustainability Assessment (COSA is a non-profit consortium of institutions and agencies) and other organizations are pioneering such approaches and, as an intro to the indicators that can support your process, here is a link: http://thecosa.org/what-we-do/our-approach/define-the-pathway/#smart-indicators.

http://thecosa.org/what-we-do/our-approach/define-the-pathway/#smart-indicators

If you monetized every transaction in the cost-benefit evaluation, the outcome will portray merely the actual and perceived economic gain or loss by the smallholder farmers, but not the social aspects which are missing and are difficult to measure.