 ที่มา:กองนโยบายเทคโนโลยีเพื่อการเกษตรและเกษตรกรรมยั่งยืน สำนักงานปลัดกระทรวงเกษตรและสหกรณ์หัวเรื่อง:บทบาทความหลากหลายของการเกษตรที่มีต่อชุมชนในที่ราบภาคกลางของประเทศไทย |
ที่มา:กองนโยบายเทคโนโลยีเพื่อการเกษตรและเกษตรกรรมยั่งยืน สำนักงานปลัดกระทรวงเกษตรและสหกรณ์หัวเรื่อง:บทบาทความหลากหลายของการเกษตรที่มีต่อชุมชนในที่ราบภาคกลางของประเทศไทย หัวหน้าโครงการ: ดร.ธันวา จิตต์สงวน, ผู้ช่วยศาสตราจารย์ |
 |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
ที่มา:การประชุมทางวิชาการประจำปี 2550หัวเรื่อง:กระบวนการปรับเปลี่ยนการทำนาสู่เกษตรกรรมยั่งยืน ตำบลท่างาม อำเภอเมือง จังหวัดปราจีนบุรี |
ที่มา:The 10th International Asian Folklore Society Scholarship Conferenceหัวเรื่อง:ทิศทางการปลูกข้าวในไทย: จากเกษตรกรรมสมัยใหม่สู่เกษตรกรรมยั่งยืน
|
|
 Researcherดร. ณัฐวุฒิ ยันตรวัฒนา, อาจารย์ที่ทำงาน:ภาควิชาวัสดุศาสตร์ คณะวิทยาศาสตร์ สาขาที่สนใจ:เคมีอนินทรีย์, ออร์แกโนเมทัลลิกส์, การเร่งปฏิกิริยาพอลิเมอร์ไรเซชัน, เคมีพอลิเมอร์, วัสดุศาสตร์ Resume |
 หัวเรื่อง:ตัวชี้วัดการปรับเปลี่ยนสู่เกษตรกรรมยั่งยืน: การปรับเปลี่ยนกระบวนทัศน์ การมีความรู้และการพัฒนาความรู้และเทคนิคและการพึ่งตนเองทางเศรษฐกิจ ผู้เขียน: Nuntiya Hutanuwatr, Narong Hutanuwatr สื่อสิ่งพิมพ์:pdf AbstractThis study was aimed to investigate a set of indicators relating to changes from conventional farming to sustainable farming of a group of 32 northeastern Thai farmers. These farmers have transformed from Thai conventional farming to more sustainable systems. Their farms are located in three districts of Yasothon province, namely, Gudchum, Saimun and Muang. An action-research approach was employed in this study. The period of study was from October 2002 to June 2004. This study indicated that there are three main indicators relating to the transformation of conventional farming to sustainable farming. They are shifting in paradigm, receiving relevant knowledge, and becoming economically self reliant. The paradigm shift indicators of this study are further classified into five sub indicators. These are (1) changing in belief and thinking process, (2) changing in farming practice, (3) changing in the way of life, (4) becoming decisive and (5) consistent. Shifting in belief and thinking process leads to changes in farming practices and the way of life. To shift to a new belief, they have to learn sustainable farming practices by doing. Simultaneously, their ways of life change accordingly. All processes occurred repeatedly until their belief is well established. Consequently, their farming practices gradually become more and more sustainable. In addition, their ways of life adapt accordingly to the new farming practices. All sub indicators of paradigm shift indicators in this group have to harmonize or synchronize with each other. The changes in farming practices have been depended mainly on receiving relevant knowledge. Farmers have to have the needed knowledge and skills to make their farming more sustainable. Therefore, receiving relevant knowledge is one of the main indicators. It consists of 4 sub-indicators. They are (1) having an active learning habit, (2) being practical, (3) being able to find new knowledge when it is needed, and (4) having creative ideas in developing a sustainable farm. The last main indicator is becoming economically self reliant. This consists of 4 sub-indicators. These are (1) relying more on home-grown food, (2) relying more on home-made farm inputs, (3) earning sufficient cash from farming for daily life and (4) decreasing debts and increasing assets. These three main indicators are inter-related in their roles of transforming from conventional farming to sustainable farming. The paradigm shift leads the farmers to a consistent sustainable farming which is vital under the dynamic changes of social, economical, political and environmental forces. To cope with this situation, they have to receive the right knowledge at the right time. The ability to manage a vital sustainable farm leads to better economic self-reliance in terms of food consumption, farming inputs and financial status. |
หัวเรื่อง:ระบบเกษตรกรรมยั่งยืน: การผลิดในฐานสังคมวัฒนธรรมและทรัพยากร ผู้เขียน:Nuntiya Hutanuwatr, Narong Hutanuwatr สื่อสิ่งพิมพ์:pdf AbstractThis study was aimed at investigating the models of sustainable farming based on Socio-Culture and
Resource background of a group of 32 northeastern Thai farmers. These farmers are transforming Thai
conventional farming to better sustainable agricultural systems. Their farms are located in three districts of
Yasothon province, namely, Gudchum, Saimun and Muang. An action-research approach was employed in
this study. The period of study was from October 2002 to June 2004.
This study found that the sustainable farming models could be classified into five types, namely: 1)
paddy farm model, 2) paddy and tree farm model, 3) paddy and field crop and cattle farm model, 4) paddy
and field crop and cattle concentrated vegetable farm model, and 5) paddy and field crop concentrated cattle
farm model. Paddy farm model was the most favorable type. Each model has similar farming key elements
but is different in details. Differences were made by six factors. They are: 1) suitability of resource base,
2) production skill on cultural base, 3) labor and machine of family base, 4) marketing experience of family
base, 5) location and transportation of village base, and 6) influence of group process on making decision.
Each farm model has eight production activities. They are: rice growing, crop before rice and crop
after rice growing, herbal growing, tree growing, animal raising, fish raising, soil fertile managing, and water
management. These activities in sustainable farming have been integrated and are complementary with each
other which leads to efficiency of utilization of these activities. Therefore, farmers have to be conscious about
suitable management and about the complementary and diversity aspects of their farms. This management
has been involved with three factors. They are: 1) using a by-product of one activity to be useful to another,
2) distributing resources such as land, labor, money and time in running an integrated farm, and 3) distributing
risk in farming.
If farmers mismanage diversity and integration of production, there will be a conflict among activities
instead of being complementary. Furthermore, if they mismanage labor and time between farm activities and
community activities, they may be involved in a battle among themselves and their families. |
|
|
|