Journal Search Engine
Search Advanced Search Adode Reader(link)
Download PDF Export Citaion korean bibliography PMC previewer
ISSN : 1225-8504(Print)
ISSN : 2287-8165(Online)
Journal of the Korean Society of International Agriculture Vol.35 No.1 pp.40-49

Smallholder Farmer’s Willingness to Pay for Urea-Molasses Block: Evidence from Laos

Ryeong Im Kim*, Taeyoon Kim**†
*Milk for Lao, Pakxapmai village, Xaythany district, Vientiane Capital, Lao PDR
**Graduate School of International Agricultural Technology, Institutes of Green Bio Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Korea

This paper is an extensive revision of Ryeong Im Kim’s M.S. thesis entitled “Can Livestock Farmers Overcome Barriers of Improving Productivity through Urea-Molasses Block? Evidence from Lao PDR”, Seoul National University, August 2020.

Corresponding author (Phone) +82-33-339-5706 (E-mail)
February 7, 2023 March 7, 2023 March 7, 2023


In Laos, smallholder cattle farmers rely primarily on natural grassland grazing, which needs to be improved for fattening. Notably, most cattle prices are determined by the middleman, by looking, so buyers tend to undervalue their price, which makes cattle farming a minimal investment. Urea-Molasses Block (UMB) supplements can effectively enhance a nutrient diet in low-quality roughage systems. This study aimed to determine factors affecting UMB and farmers’ Willing To Pay (WTP) for UMB as a new input material with data from six villages, two districts of the Vientiane Capital, in January and July 2019. The results indicate that farmers with relatively high education, consent to the positive effect of UMB, and previous experience purchasing feed during the dry season are more likely to pay a high positive WTP. The average WTP for UMB ranges from USD 5.7 to 6.5 per month for one cattle, which is approximately 10.2~11.6% of current annual costs for average smallholder cattle farmers. These findings will be significant in improving productivity at the initial development stage of farms in Laos, especially for smallholder farmers.

당밀요소블록에 대한 라오스 축산 소농의 지불의향 추정

김 령임*, 김 태윤**†
**서울대학교 국제농업기술대학원



    The value added from agriculture, forestry, and fishing accounts for 16.1% of the gross domestic product in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR, commonly known as Laos), while agricultural employment consists of 61.4 percent of the total employment in 2019 by ILO-modeled estimates (FAOSTAT). However, since most farmers are engaging in conventional agriculture without using modern technology due to low investment, the Laos government adopted the 9th National Socio-Economic Development Plan (NSEDP) 2021-2025 (MPI, 2021) to implement its national strategy on socio-economic development 2025 and vision 2030, which addresses the importance of encouraging high-yield technologies and farmer’s organization in agriculture to continue sustainable economic growth (Sengsouriya et al., 2022).

    In agriculture, livestock is regarded as a kind of insurance to cope with crop damage caused by severe weather or climate change due to the stability of crops (Taylor and Reardon, 2006). As Lao’s livestock production increased from $682.5 million (11.4% of total agriculture) in 2016 to $995.2 million (19.4% of total agriculture) in 2019 (FAOSTAT), it can be effective for smallholder farmers to increase their income in collaboration with the crop sector.

    However, beef production in Laos faces significant challenges, such as feed intake with low nutritional value and irregular feed supply by season (Bush et al., 2014). In addition to being used as a source of food protein and draught animals, ruminants are considered essential assets available in emergencies as a safety net, so smallholders act like livestock keepers rather than producers (Napasirth et al., 2018).

    According to the Laos Census of Agriculture (LCA) 2010/11, 79% of farmers with livestock depend heavily on natural grazing, with 51% of smallholders providing rice straws as livestock feed (Makkar et al., 2007). Significant dependency is on fibrous feed, especially during dry seasons, far short of meeting minimum nutritional requirements such as nitrogen, minerals, and vitamins to maintain or increase weight. In addition, during the rainy season, there is only feed intake (Napasirth et al., 2018). Nampanya et al. (2017) also explain poor systems in the livestock industry due to low productivity, poor animal husbandry skills, inadequate agricultural extension services, and an unstable market for smallholders. Furthermore, one reason for the low input-output system is that the cattle price is determined by the eyes of the middlemen, not by the weight (Nampanya et al., 2014).

    Thus, proper intervention is needed to transform the current system into a medium-sized, market-oriented production to induce smallholders to invest. For example, Urea Molasses Block (UMB), one of the technologies used as a feed supplement in ruminant livestock, has a positive relationship with productivity and income in tropical countries such as Thailand and Vietnam (Wongnen, 2007;Duc Vu et al., 1999).

    Boosting cattle productivity in developing countries is usually related to inputs such as vaccines and forage systems (Millar et al., 2010). A few studies cover the effect of UMB but are not related to the price. Also, most countries in tropical regions have difficulty supplying a sufficient nutrient diet of ruminants, mainly from natural pasture and crop residues during the dry season (Makkar et al., 2007). Despite efforts from many international organizations and academia, dissemination of the UMB could be faster. Some studies insist that various restrictions hamper the sustainable use of UMB, such as the high cost and unavailability of molasses in the area, lack of farmer awareness, and extension services (Upadhyay, 2018).

    This paper aims to determine factors affecting smallholders’ WTP for Urea-Molasses Block (UMB) and find whether UMB can overcome the barriers to improving productivity in Laos’s low-input cattle system. Furthermore, clarifying the current investment situation of smallholders will help researchers and decision-makers understand better what is essential to improve productivity at its current status.


    The Urea-Molasses Block (UMB) is a lick block and a fine supplementary feed that can increase the digestion of roughages and supply protein and energy to ruminants. It helps microbial growth in the rumen, increases digestion and consumption of fiber feed, allows animals to be maintained, and often increases productivity. Significant positive effects of UMB revealed through prior studies, such as rumen microbial growth, feed intake, digestibility, body weight gain, growth rate, and milk production (1-1.5 kg/ day), further support the necessity of its use as a supplement to ruminants including cattle (Mengistu et al., 2017).

    Each ingredient of UMB plays a vital role in ruminants. Urea is the non-protein-nitrogen source used to compensate for nitrogen deficiency in fibrous feed mainly ingested by ruminants. It improves digestibility, intake rate, and nutrient absorbability by optimizing rumen fermentation (Mengistu et al., 2017; Upadhyay et al., 2018; Windsor et al., 2018). Moreover, urea is a cheap and good nitrogen source for ruminants, but too much intake can cause sudden death due to its high toxicity. As a result, they made it hard in blocks in the best way to safely supply it, allowing ruminants not to chew at once and consume adequate amounts by licking blocks (Makkar et al., 2007). Molasses is a source of readily fermentable carbohydrates. It is a binder and makes the block more palatable. Although UMB has many advantages, the price farmers pay is a critical component of the sustainable use of UMB (Misra et al., 2008).


    1. Contingent Valuation Method

    The Contingent Valuation (CV) is the most widely used economic valuation to estimate a consumer's Willingness To Pay (WTP) for a good or service (Kabyanga et al., 2018). The CV approach derives the value of a specified product by presenting respondents with a description of a hypothetical scenario and requires their WTP under positive changes. This method can also be used to compare the credibility of WTP estimates derived from the Conjoint Experiment (CE) method, which measures the value of the different attributes of a product (Zapata et al., 2014).

    The CV method is mainly used in environmental economics, especially in estimating “passive-use” values that consumers do not experience directly or are assigned to new areas (Cawley, 2008). One idea was to create a virtual market through a survey and ask people to find the potential value of public goods where market prices do not exist (Hanemann, 2011). For example, the lawsuit over the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster led both Alaska and Exxon state to conduct CV studies on damaged environmental assets and determine whether CV research is accurate and helpful in general.

    The hypothetical bias from valuing public goods with CV questions can lead to overestimating the valuation (Carson 2012). CV questions on new products with reasonably short time horizons also tend to overestimate the valuation (Carson and Hanemann, 2005). CV for public goods such as covid19 vaccine might differ by the level of countries’ income (Yuliani et al., 2022). CV for the environment can differ by means of monetary or non-monetary payment (Petcharat et al., 2022).

    The UMB used for this study is a new product in Laos, although the similar one is imported from Thailand. Various questioning techniques can measure WTP, such as open-ended questions, payment cards, and dichotomous choice questions (Lopez-Feldman, 2012). This study uses bids from the pretest results by considering a similar product marketed in this region to eliminate the hypothetical bias of the overestimation of the valuation.

    This study designs a questionnaire using dichotomous choice questions with a follow-up and double-bounded model, which can be a practical method for measuring the value of a new product when there are a few survey respondents.

    2. Empirical approach

    The double-bounded CV with STATA 16 (StataCorp, 2019) is used following the maximum likelihood estimation (Lopez-Feldman, 2012). Hanemann (2011) explains that the response to the double-bounded CV questions gives four possible discrete results (D): (1) the respondent was not willing to purchase UMB even at the half-price (“no”, “no” to both bids); (2) the respondent was not willing to purchase UMB at the initial price, but was willing to buy as the half-price (“no”, “yes”); (3) the respondent was willing to purchase UMB at the initial price but not the double-price (“yes”, “no”); or (4) the respondent was willing to purchase UMB at both the initial price and doubleprice (“yes”, “yes”). The double-bounded model enables us to place the household’s WTP into one of four intervals: (-∞, BH), (BH, BI), (BI, BD), (BD, +∞) where BH, BI, and BD are half, initial, and double bids, respectively.

    D = { W T P < B H ( N o , N o ) B H W T P < B I ( N o , Y e s ) B I W T P < B D ( Y e s , N o ) B D W T P ( Y e s , Y e s )

    where WTP is the household’s willingness to pay for UMB 10kg for one cattle per month for this research. Hanemann et al. (1991) argued that the double-bounded CV is asymptotically more efficient than a single dichotomous question. A mathematical model for WTP is a function of explanatory variables and an error term for household i:

    WTP i t υ ( z i t υ , α t , γ υ , u i t υ ) = z i t υ β + α t + γ υ + u i t υ , u i t υ N ( 0 , σ 2 )

    where zitv is a vector of explanatory variables of individual i, time t and village v, β is a vector of parameters, αt is a set of time-fixed effects capturing unobserved village-invariant factors, γv is a village-fixed effect taking into account unobserved time-invariant factors, and uitv is an error term assuming normality with zero mean and variance (σ2). Discovering explanatory variables that constitute vector z is a meaningful output of modeling CV and understanding the determinants of smallholders’ WTP for UMB (Campbell et al., 2019).

    Lopez-Feldman (2012) suggests that the information derived directly from individual i is simply a dichotomous answer (yi = 0 if the individual answers no and yi = 1 if the answer is yes), given the question of paying a previously presented amount (ti, random amounts presented by individuals). This research classifies consumer responses into four types. The first type of response is “Yes/No”, in which the researcher answered yes to the first question ( y i 1 = 1 ) and no to the second question ( y i 2 = 0 ). Its probability model is as follows.

    Pr ( yes,no ) = Pr ( t 1 WTP < t 2 ) = Pr ( t 1 z i β + α t + γ υ + u i t υ < t 2 ) = Pr ( t 1 z i β α t γ υ σ u i t υ σ < t 2 z i β α t γ υ σ ) = Φ ( t 2 z i β α t γ υ σ ) Φ ( t 1 z i β α t γ υ σ ) = Φ ( z i β σ + α t σ + γ υ σ t 1 σ ) Φ ( z i β σ + α t σ + γ υ σ t 2 σ )

    Pr(yes, no) shows the probability that participants will accept the first offer and reject the next one. t1 and t2 indicate the amounts proposed for the first and second proposals, respectively. zi is the vector of the explanatory variables and ui is the error term. The last part of Equation (3) uses the symmetry of the normal distribution.

    The second type of response is “Yes/Yes”, which the researcher answered yes to both the first question ( y i 1 = 1 ) and the second question ( y i 2 = 1 ). Its probability model on the basis of Bayes’ theorem is as follows:

    Pr ( yes,yes ) = Pr ( W T P > t 1 , W T P t 2 ) = Pr ( z i β + α t + γ υ + u i t υ > t 1 , z i β + α t + γ υ + u i t υ t 2 ) = Pr ( z i β + α t + γ υ + u i t υ > t 1 | z i β + α t + γ υ + u i t υ t 2 ) = Pr ( u i t υ t 2 z i β α t γ υ ) = 1 Φ ( t 2 z i β α t γ υ σ ) = Φ ( z i β σ + α t σ + γ υ σ t 2 σ )

    The third type of response is “No/Yes”, which the researcher answered no to the first question ( y i 1 = 0 ) and yes to the second question ( y i 2 = 1 ). Its probability model is as follows:

    Pr ( no,yes ) = Pr ( t 2 WTP< t 1 ) = Pr ( t 2 z i β + α t + γ υ + u i t υ < t 1 ) = Pr( t 2 z i β α t γ υ σ u i t υ σ < t 1 z i β α t γ υ σ ) = Φ ( t 1 z i β α t γ υ σ ) Φ ( t 2 z i β α t γ υ σ ) = Φ ( z i β σ + α t σ + γ υ σ t 2 σ ) Φ ( z i β σ + α t σ + γ υ σ t 1 σ )

    Finally, the fourth type of response is “No/No”, which the researcher answered no to both the first question ( y i 1 = 0 ) and the second question ( y i 2 = 1 ). Its probability model is as follows:

    Pr ( no,no ) = Pr ( W T P < t 1 , W T P < t 2 ) = Pr ( z i β + α t + γ υ + u i t υ < t 1 < t 2 ) = Φ ( t 2 z i β α t γ υ σ ) = 1 Φ ( z i β σ + α t σ + γ υ σ t 2 σ )

    Using equations (3), (4), (5), and (6), the likelihood function for the double-bounded model is derived:

    i = 1 N [ d i s n ln( Φ ( z i β σ + α t σ + γ υ σ t 1 σ ) Φ ( z i β σ + α t σ + γ υ σ t 2 σ ) ) + d i s s ln( Φ ( z i β σ + α t σ + γ υ σ t 2 σ ) + d i n s ln( Φ ( z i β σ + α t σ + γ υ σ t 2 σ ) Φ ( z i β σ + α t σ + γ υ σ t 1 σ ) ) + d i n n ln(1- Φ ( z i β σ + α t σ + γ υ σ t 2 σ ) ) ]

    where d i s n , d i s s , d i n s , d i n n are indicator variables that represent the values of survey response. By maximizing the likelihood function (7), we can directly obtain β ^ and σ ^ to estimate WTP, which might be affected by whether or not the time- and village-fixed effects are added.


    1. Research area

    This survey was conducted twice in January and July 2019, collaborating with the faculty of agriculture National University of Laos (NUOL). The survey has six villages in the Vientiane Capital, three villages each in Xaythany (January) and Parkngum district (July) shown in Fig. 1.

    The survey area was chosen for Vientiane Capital, about 56% of Lao Cattle in the province unit (Napasirth and Napasirth, 2018). Village leaders from the District of Agricultural and Forestry Official (DAFO) recommended the survey participants of cattle farmers randomly. Accordingly, 103 were selected in the Xaythany district and 155 in the Pakngum district, so a total of 258 farmers participated in this survey.

    The three villages of the Xaythany district have more than 80 percent of all residents engaged in agriculture, including livestock. The Napok village has difficulty in agricultural activity during the dry season due to a lack of irrigation facilities. It is directly linked to the issue of the daily water requirements for cattle when grazing. The Somsamai village mainly consists of Hmong people, one of the minority tribes in Laos, who engages in agriculture for self-sufficiency. The Paksapmai village is near the NUOL, which has more agricultural benefits than other villages.

    In the three villages of the Parkngum district, more than 93 percent of all residents are engaged in agriculture. The Nalerth and Nong Phou Vieng villages also struggle during the dry season due to a lack of irrigation. However, the Narson village has irrigation facilities during the dry season. The rates of raising cattle in the Nalerth, Nong Phou Vieng, and Narson villages are 29%, 22%, and 17%, respectively.

    2. Survey procedure

    The survey is designed to assess potential factors of UMB adoption and Willingness to Pay (WTP). Before surveying respondents who agreed to participate, we gave explanations to help them understand what UMB is and the virtual scenarios caused by UMB, including its effects. The first section of the survey questionnaire includes questions to help us identify the status of raising cattle in Laos and to understand cattle owners’ perceptions of feed inputs, including UMB. The second part consists of double- bounded dichotomous choice questions asking respondents representing a household if they are willing to pay UMB at randomly suggested bids; 20,000, 30,000, and 50,000 LAK equal to USD 2.2, 3.3, and 5.6, respectively, with the amount set through a preliminary survey. The amount of the second bid increased (double price) or decreased (half price) depending on the respondents’ answer to the first bid amount, as shown in Fig. 2. For example, if the respondent answered that they had no intention of purchasing UMB with the 20,000 LAK as the first bid, the second question would ask if they were willing to pay UMB with 10,000 LAK, half the amount of the first bid.

    Although the questionnaire surveyed in January included basic knowledge of UMB and willingness to pay for it, it wasn’t easy to understand the current system of feed inputs for smallholders in Laos. To make up for this, we added questions such as whether to provide or purchase feed and grazing in the native grassland during the dry or wet seasons.

    The survey was conducted with verbal consent using both survey results and average information from farmers aged 19 or older raising cattle. The survey took about 20 to 25 minutes with the help of seven surveyors of the NUOL, and small refreshments were given as a token of appreciation for joining the survey.

    3. Summary statistics

    Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the 258 samples, of which 155 responded to the current situation of raising cattle in Laos. About 24% of farmers have already heard about the UMB. Besides, 91% of them agreed with its effect after explaining the overview of UMB. However, only 1.2% of them have purchased UMB during the dry and wet seasons.

    The average education is six years, meaning that at least farmers graduated from elementary school. About 52% of participants are female, and the average age is in their midthirties. In addition, 60% are household heads, and about 65% have an average annual income of more than or equal to 9 million LAK (USD 1,016). The income from nonagricultural activities and livestock accounts for 66% of total income. As for the total expenditure of inputs, 71% spent less than 500,000 LAK (USD 56) per year on cattle. Furthermore, the farmers own an average of 11 heads, and about 60% are smallholders who raise less than ten cattle.

    The information about raising cattle in Laos is as follows. The experience of providing feed to cattle was investigated by classifying them into the dry and wet seasons to see if farmers consider the seasonal changes in grass intake. The dry season is from November to April, while the wet season is from May to October. 92% of them mainly depend on native grassland for raising cattle, and there are difficulties in using grasslands by season. In dry seasons, native grass does not grow well, and the energy required to eat fresh grass daily is much bigger than the energy from grass intake. Therefore, it is necessary to supply feed other than native grass. On the other hand, there is another problem with grass intake compared to the dry season, as the range of grass intake to protect rice paddies from cattle is limited during the wet season. About 72% of them have provided feed other than native grass in the dry season, while about 77% have provided feed such as salt, rice straw, and hay in the wet season.

    In addition, 32% of them purchased the feed, and the rest gave cattle rice straw, banana leaves, and cassava pulps, which are by-products of agricultural activities, rather than buying them. Of them, 61% were raising cattle for sale, while the rest were for sale and self-consumption purposes. It reflects the shift in the purpose of cattle breeding from self-sufficiency to commerce. In addition, 77% of them have sold an average of five cattle over the past three years, with an average price of 260,000 LAK (USD 29) and the average cattle being 30 months old when sold.


    1. Response from the bid

    Initial bids of 20,000, 30,000, and 50,000 kips come from discussions with farmers and experts’ opinions. Tables 2 and 3 show the yes and no responses from the first and second bids. Overall, there is a negative relationship between the bid amount and the yes response, which fits the law of demand. The average of yes responses for the first bids is 75.6%, while each response for 20,000, 30,000, and 50,000 kips is 91.0%, 76.1%, and 58.5%, respectively, in Table 2.

    The average of yes responses for the second bid is 45.7%, and each yes response for 10,000, 15,000, 25,000, 40,000, 60,000, and 100,000 are 62.5%, 61.9%, 64.7%, 55.0%, 43.3%, and 10.4% in Table 3. The overall pattern of the negative relationship is similar between the first and second, while the yes rate for the second bid is slightly lower than that for the first bid.

    2. Estimation Results

    The first column in Table 4 shows the results using 258 data with villages effects using the maximum likelihood estimation. Agreement on the effects of UMB (Agree_ UMB) is positively related to their WTP. Once farmers get the UMB information from the experts, they tend to agree with UMB’s function and effects. Therefore, farmers’ agreements on the effects of UMB could alleviate their uncertainty over new agricultural technologies. Furthermore, the household with a high level of education (Edu_- years) is positively related to their WTP. Since farmers are reluctant to take the new technology due to a lack of skills and understanding, general education can be an excellent tool for adopting new technology (Supaporn et al., 2013).

    The second column in Table 4 shows the results using 155 data from the Parkngum district. It has seven additional questions, which help us better understand the situation of raising cattle in Laos. First, farmers’ agreement on the UMB’s effect (Agree_UMB) shows a positive relationship with WTP. Second, farmers who provided feed during the dry season (Provide_feed_dry) are more willing to buy UMB than those who didn’t. It implies that farmers who have invested their time and resources in feed for cattle during the dry season tend to invest in others like UMB since nutrition for cattle during the dry season is not enough through native grasslands. Third, farmers with previous experience buying similar UMB (Puchased_feed) are likelier to have high WTP than those without. A previous positive experience is essential to continue to have UMB.

    On the other hand, Female (Gender_Female) has a negative relationship with WTP. It might be because of female farmers’ lack of information on UMB or unfamiliar attitude toward UMB. In addition, the number of raising cattle (No. of cattle) is negatively related to the WTP, which indicates that UMB is not so attractive to large farmers.

    3. Willingness to Pay for UMB

    The average WTP is a linear function of the vector of explanatory variables multiplied by the vector of estimated parameters, which can be either positive or negative. Table 5 shows the average WTP and confidence interval in each village. The average WTP estimate with 258 data is about 49,400 LAK ($5.7) for a monthly purchase of 10kg of UMB for one cattle. Likewise, WTPs for the Xaythany and the Parkngum districts are 49,500 LAK (5.7 USD) and 56,900 LAK (6.5 USD), respectively.

    The average WTP from Narlerth and Nong Phou Vieng villages in the Parkngum district is higher than others. It might be because the two villages do not have an irrigation system and tend to provide feed during the dry season, which makes them work hard to overcome their situation through investments such as UMB.


    To increase the productivity of the livestock industry, the Lao government currently tries to transform smallholders into commercial farms, which requires appropriate interventions. The Urea-Molasses Block (UMB), a fine supplementary feed for cattle, can be an effective way for smallholder farmers in the early stage of a commercial farm. Farmers’ WTP for UMB provides potential prices and factors that are useful in inducing investment to improve cattle productivity.

    The results show that the average WTP ranges from USD 5.7 to 6.5 per month for one cattle, which is approximately 10.2~11.6% of current annual costs (USD 56) for most smallholder cattle farmers. Since it costs a lot compared to their current expenditure, it can be a good yardstick for determining the future price of UMB in Laos. Farmers who agree with the effects of UMB, such as rumen microbial growth, feed intake, digestibility, body weight gain, growth rate, and milk production, have a high WTP. Women are primarily in charge of managing household funds in Laos. However, male farmers show a high WTP in the Parkngum district, where 90% of households are engaged in agriculture. Farmers with previous experience providing feed in the dry season indicate high WTP. Also, once farmers have purchased feed at their own expense, they tend to show higher WTP than those who didn’t invest in feed. Finally, of course, the level of education has a positive impact on WTP. Since most smallholders are reluctant to accept the new technology and there is a lack of extension service to farmers, it is recommended first to provide UMB-related education for farmers with high education levels to spread the positive information to others.

    적 요

    1. 라오스 축산업은 소 사료를 방목에 의한 초지에 의존하고 있어 비육이 대단히 취약한 실정인 바, 당밀요소블록 (UMB)은 축산발전의 초기 단계에서 가장 효과적으로 비 육을 개선할 수 있는 유력한 방안이다.

    2. 당밀요소블록(UMB) 영양제는 고체형으로 간단히 만들 수 있으며, 반추위 미생물 성장, 사료 섭취 및 소화력 증대, 소의 성장 등의 효과가 있으며, 특히 소가 영양분을 효과 적으로 흡수하는데 큰 도움을 준다.

    3. 라오스 수도에서 1~2시간 거리에 있는 6개 마을에서 축 산 농가 258가구를 대상으로 설문조사한 결과 소1마리가 평균 1달 정도 먹을 수 있는 가상의 당밀요소블록(UMB) 에 대한 평균 지불의사액은 5.7~6.5달러 수준으로 나타났 으며, 이는 일반 축산농가들의 연간 평균 지출액 대비 10.2~11.6%에 달하는 것이다.

    4. 교육수준이 높을 수록, 당밀요소의 효과에 대한 동의수준 이 높을수록, 건조시기때 소 사료를 직접 구매하여 제공 한 경험이 있는 농가일수록 당밀요소블록(UMB)에 대한 구매의향이 높은 것으로 나타났다.



    Map of the Study Area in Lao PDR.


    Bid amounts description in the WTP activity.


    Summary Statistics.

    Response from the first bid (N = 258).

    Response from the second bid (N = 258).

    Determinants of Farmer’s Willingness to Pay for UMB.

    Average Willingness to Pay and Confidence Interval for UMB.


    1. Bush, R.D. , Page, B. , Macdonald, T. , Young, J.R. , Nampanya, S. , Suon, S. , Windsor, P.A. 2014. Target feeding for improved smallholder beef production in the Mekong region: Lessons from Cambodia and Lao PDR. Animal Production Science. 54:1219-1223.
    2. Campbell, Z.A. , Otieno, L. , Shirima, G.M. , Marsh, T.L. , Palmer, G.H. 2019. Drivers of vaccination preferences to protect a low-value livestock resource: Willingness to pay for Newcastle disease vaccines by smallholder households. Vaccine. 37:11-18.
    3. Carson, R.T. 2012. Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative when Prices aren’t available. Journal of Economic Perspective. 26:27-42.
    4. Carson, R.T. , Hanemann, W.M. 2005. Chapter 17 Contingent Valuation. Handbook of Environmental Economics. 2:821-936.
    5. Cawley, J. 2008. Contingent valuation analysis of willingness to pay to reduce childhood obesity. Economics and Human Biology. 6:281-292.
    6. Duc Vu, D. , Xuan Cuong, L. , Anh Dung, C. , Ho Hai, P. 1999. Use of urea-molasses-multinutrient block and urea-treated rice straw for improving dairy cattle productivity in Vietnam. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 38:187-193.
    7. Hanemann, M. , Loomis, J. , Kanninen, B. 1991. Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 73:1255-1263.
    8. Hanemann, W.M. 2006. Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Response Data: Reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 71:1057.
    9. Hanemann, W.M. 2011. Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 8:19-43.
    10. Kabyanga, M. , Balana, B.B. , Mugisha, J. , Walekhwa, P.N. , Smith, J. , Glenk, K. 2018. Are smallholder farmers willing to pay for a flexible balloon biogas digester? Evidence from a case study in Uganda. Energy for Sustainable Development. 43:123-129.
    11. Lopez-Feldman, A. 2012. Introduction to contingent valuation using Stata. MPRA Paper. 41018:1-16. University Library of Munich, Germany. Retrieved from
    12. Makkar, H. , Sanchez, M. , Speedy, A.W. 2007. Feed supplementation blocks - past, present and future. Retrieved from
    13. Mengistu, G. , Hassen, W. 2017. Review on : Supplementary Feeding of Urea Molasses Multi-Nutrient Blocks to Ruminant Animals for Improving Productivity. International Journal of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science. 2:43-49.
    14. Millar, J. , Connell, J. 2010. Strategies for scaling out impacts from agricultural systems change: The case of forages and livestock production in Laos. Agriculture and Human Values. 27:213-225.
    15. MPI (Ministry of Planning and Investment).2021. The 9th Five-Year National Socio-Economic Development Plan (2021- 2025). Retrieved from
    16. Nampanya, S. , Khounsy, S. , Rast, L. , Young, J.R. , Bush, R.D. , Windsor, P.A. 2014. Progressing smallholder large-ruminant productivity to reduce rural poverty and address food security in upland northern Lao PDR. Animal Production Science. 54: 899-907.
    17. Nampanya, S. , Khounsy, S. , Young, J.R. , Napasirth, V. , Bush, R.D. , Windsor, P.A. 2017. Smallholder large ruminant health and production in Lao PDR: Challenges and opportunities for improving domestic and regional beef supply. Animal Production Science. 57:1001-1006.
    18. Napasirth, P. , Napasirth, V. 2018. Current situation and future prospects for beef production in Lao People’s Democratic Republic - A review. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences. 31:961-967.
    19. Petcharat, A. , Jo, J.H. , Lee, Y. 2022. Comparing Local Residents’ Willingness to Pay (WTP) and Willingness to Volunteer (WTV) for Water Onion (Crinum thaianum) Habitat Conservation. Forests. 13:706.
    20. Sengsouriya, P. , Sibounnavong, P. , Kim, J. 2022. A Study on the Farmers’ Participation in Local Farmer’s Organization: The Case of the Banana Farmer’s Production Groups in Savannakhet Province, Lao PDR. J. Korean Soc. Int. Agric. 34:110- 121.
    21. Supaporn, P. , Kobayashi, T. , Supawadee, C. 2013. Factors affecting farmers’ decisions on utilization of rice straw compost in Northeastern Thailand. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics. 114:21-27.
    22. Taylor, J.E. , Reardon, T. 2006. Agroclimatic Shock, Income Inequality, and Poverty: Evidence from Burkina Faso. World Development. 24:901-914.
    23. Windsor, P.A. , Nampanya, S. , Kinnavong, B. , Phommasone, P. , Bush, R.D. , Khounsy, S. 2018. Do triclabendazole medicated molasses blocks have a role in control of Fasciola gigantica in smallholder cattle production in Lao PDR?. Animal Production Science. 59:787-793.
    24. Wongnen, N. 2007. Feed supplementation of dairy cattle with UMMB in the northeastern region of Thailand. pp.111-124. Retrieved from
    25. Yuliani, R.P. , Kristina, S.A. , Endarti, D. 2022. Willingness-To- Pay for COVID-19 Vaccine in Low and Middle-Income Countries Compared to High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review. Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International. 34:1-13.
    26. Zapata, S.D. , Carpio, C.E. 2014. The theoretical structure of producer willingness to pay estimates. Agricultural Economics (United Kingdom). 45:613-623.