Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development Project 013/06VIE BASELINE INFORMATION Date 24 th October 2007 1 Baseline survey with qualitative and quantitative measures from farmers, extension workers, and input suppliers to include: 1. Information on knowledge, skills, attitudes and practices of target groups on the potential impact of rhizobia (rhizobial inoculants) on the productivity of legume crops and contribution to soil nitrogen 2. Current farmer practices, experience on use of inoculants, constraints and reasons for non-use 3. Details of availability, production and distribution by commercial companies, quality assessment of products, and quality assurance systems for production and distribution of inoculants 4. Assessment of efficacy of current strains of inoculants, potential for project interventions to improve efficacy, and analysis of associated risks including commercial sustainability of an effective inoculant program Sumary of Outcomes Parts 1 and 2 – potential impacts of inoculants and current situation The survey of 281 farmers and 44 extension officers (advisors) from the regions and provinces was conducted during August-December 2007. Of the 281 farmers, 153 (54%) grew groundnut and 168 (60%) grew soybean. The responses indicated that the farmers: • had very little knowledge of inoculants and what they did (only 15% had heard of inoculants and understood what they did), • did not use inoculants (99%) principally because they knew nothing about them. Those that did have knowledge of inoculants did not use them because they were not available in the market place • would use them if they could purchase them (99%), based on the belief in new technology bringing yield and economic benefits (85% and 94%). There was little interest in possible environmental benefits (19%) • currently apply fertiliser N to their groundnut and soybean (95%) at average rates of 25–80 kg N/ha. Responses of extension officers indicated that while they had more knowledge of inoculants than farmers (ie almost 70% had heard of inoculants and understood what they did) almost none used inoculants because of lack of availability in the marketplace. Their interest in using inoculants (100% if they were available) and current use of fertiliser N with legumes was similar to the farmer responses. Part 3 – current inoculant production, inoculant quality and quality assurance (QA) systems The potential for current production of inoculants in Vietnam is around 15,000 packets annually. Actual production is far less than that, probably in the order of 1,000–2,000 packets annually. Production has been greater in the past, i.e. >10 years 2 ago, particularly at IAS and CU. As far as we are aware, there is no (zero) commercial production of rhizobial inoculants currently in Vietnam. Quality of inoculants produced at IAS, OPI and SFI were evaluated on three occasions during 2007. Numbers of rhizobia in the inoculants were enumerated using direct plate counting and plant-infection, most probable number (MPN) counting. With direct plate counting, rhizobial numbers ranged from <10 6 to >10 9 . The plant- infection MPN counts were very similar to the plate counts. The variation in rhizobial counts for the different batches resulted from differences procedures and expertise amongst the three laboratories, effects of peat moisture content, and probable effects of the different sources of peat used by the three laboratories. The current inconsistency in inoculant quality, ie number of viable rhizobia and the level of contamination, indicate that improvements are still required. However, the data from this series of testing also indicated general progress through 2007 in improving quality. The quality assessment process at OPI worked extremely well and, clearly, the foundation has been laid for a formal and expanded QA program in Vietnam in line with the proposed expansion of inoculant production. There are currently no specific standards for rhizobial inoculants in Vietnam, rather there are standards for nitrogen fixing microbial fertilizers (The Vietnam National Standard for Nitrogen-Fixing Microbial Fertilizers – TCVN 6166-1996). The question was considered as to whether those standards are appropriate for rhizobial inoculants or whether they should be modified within the framework of this project. We concluded that a number of modifications to the National Standard for Nitrogen- Fixing Microbial Fertilizers may be justified to make it more relevant to rhizobial inoculants, based on production technology and efficacy requirements, e.g. revised requirements for minimum numbers of rhizobia, moisture contents of the carrier, testing for toxicities, testing for strain trueness, testing for efficacy. The new standard would largely utilize the well-constructed and comprehensive framework of the current standard. Part 4 – Rhizobium strain efficacy and potential improvement, and commercial inoculant production sustainability Field experiments to compare efficacy of evaluations of Australian strains CB1809 for soybean and NC92 for groundnut and local Vietnamese strains revealed superiority of the Australian strains. Further evaluation of strains for effectiveness, manufacturability and acid tolerance will be done during the remainder of the project and will result in commercial inoculant strains. Analysis of risk and potential of commercial inoculant production sustainability showed there is generally low risk and great potential for interventions. The project will focus on all aspects of the supply chain of inoculants, i.e. peat/carriers selection, process and packaging peat/carriers, fermentation, dilution technique for inoculant production, and storage and distribution. Farmers and extension officers will be convinced about the benefits of inoculation, know more about inoculants and inoculants use through field demonstration, workshop training and extension materials. Finally, we envisage private sector involvement in production and marketing with high-level support from the Government institutions. 3 Parts 1 and 2. Baseline survey of farmers and advisors in the target areas of Vietnam on knowledge of and potential use of rhizobial inoculants for groundnut and soybean and their perceived environmental and economic benefits. Introduction The purpose of the survey was to determine current knowledge and use of rhizobial inoculants and gauge the potential interest of farmers and extension officers in using inoculants in the future. The survey was constructed to be short and simple but to provide the critical information that could be evaluated against a similar survey at the end of the project. Comparison of the two surveys will demonstrate if production of inoculants and their availability in the marketplace is increased (project Objective 1) and if the extension programme is effective in increasing interest in and knowledge of inoculants (project Objective 2). Methodology The survey was done with farmers as well as extension workers and local agricultural technicians who are responsible for extending technological advances and innovations, such as inoculation of legumes, at agricultural localities. The survey (form attached as Appendix 1) consisted of 9 questions: 1. Have you heard about legume inoculants? 2. Do you understand what they do? Give details 3. If yes, who told you about inoculants? 4. Do you use inoculants on your soybean or groundnut? 5. If no, why not? 6. Can you purchase inoculants in the market place? 7. Would you use inoculants if you could purchase them in the market? Give reasons 8. Do you apply fertiliser N on your soybean and groundnut crops? 9. If yes, how much do you apply? The questions were framed to be quantitative with Questions 2, 3, 5 and 7 providing qualitative details about what inoculants do (Q. 2) the sources of information on inoculants (Q.3), reasons for non use of inoculants (Q.5) and expectations for inoculant use and issues that the farmers see as important in their use (Q.7) In framing Q.5, we sought to reveal the main reasons why farmers and extension workers do not use inoculation and, as a consequence, there were many prompts with the question (see Appendix 2). As it turned out, there were just two overwhelming reasons why they didn’t use inoculants – they didn’t know about them or they weren’t available in the market place. Question 7 was designed to determine farmer interest 4 and requirements for the future use of inoculants particularly in relation to benefits of inoculants (biological, economic and environment benefits), inoculation technique, extension program and any other suggestion. The responses to Q.7 indicate a very strong interest in the future use of legume inoculants. At the end of the project, farmers and extension officers who were associated with the planned 39 field experiments and 39 field demonstrations, as well as those participating in field days and training sessions, will be given an opportunity to provide survey feedback based on their real/factual experience. The surveys were conducted in project target areas in Vietnam (Table below). They were Son La province (Northern Highland), Nghe An (Coastal North), Binh Dinh (Central Coastal South), DakLak and DakNong (Central Highlands), Binh Thuan and Tay Ninh (South-east Upland), Dong Thap, An Giang and Tra Vinh (Mekong Delta). The locations were selected after discussion with personnel of the Extension Service to target expanding areas of soybean and groundnut within each province. Region Province No. farmers Groundnut Soybean No. advisors Northern Highland Son La 24 0 24 6 Coastal North Nghe An 24 24 0 4 Central Coastal south Binh Dinh 24 12 12 4 Central Highlands Dak Lak 20 20 20 3 Dak Nong 20 20 20 0 South-east Upland Binh Thuan 25 25 0 6 Tay Ninh 28 28 0 5 Mekong Delta Dong Thap 41 0 41 5 An Giang 51 0 51 8 Tra Vinh 24 24 0 3 Total 281 153 168 44 Farmers participating in the survey have grown legumes for a considerable period and are experienced in agricultural practices. The participating farmers were suggested by local advisors. Of the 281 farmers, 153 (54%) grew groundnut and 168 (60%) grew soybean. Results The following is a summary of responses to the survey. The complete dataset of responses is attached in Appendix 2. 5 Question 1. Have you heard about legume inoculants? Region Province % Farmers % Extension Officers Yes No Yes No Northern Highland Son La 0 100 100 0 Coastal North Nghe An 0 100 0 100 Central Coastal south Binh Dinh 8 92 50 50 Central Highlands Dak Lak 5 95 33 67 Dak Nong 10 90 - - South-east Upland Binh Thuan 0 100 0 100 Tay Ninh 14 86 20 80 Mekong Delta Dong Thap 32 68 80 20 An Giang 33 67 100 0 Tra Vinh 20 80 100 0 Total 15 82 69 31 Only 15% of farmers had knowledge of legume inoculants, compared with about 69% of the extension officers. Almost all of the farmers with knowledge of inoculants were from the Mekong Delta, perhaps reflecting the influence of the Rhizobium group at Cantho University. Surprisingly, extension officer knowledge varied substantially between regions, from 100% in some areas (e.g. An Giang and Tra Vinh provinces in the Mekong Delta) to zero in others (e.g. Nghe An in the Coastal North) Question 2. Do you understand what they do? Region Province % Farmers % Extension Officers Yes No Yes No Northern Highland Son La 0 100 100 0 Coastal North Nghe An 0 100 0 100 Central Coastal south Binh Dinh 4 96 0 100 Central Highlands Dak Lak 5 95 33 67 Dak Nong 10 90 - - South-east Upland Binh Thuan 0 100 0 100 Tay Ninh 14 86 20 80 Mekong Delta Dong Thap 32 68 80 20 An Giang 33 67 100 0 Tra Vinh 20 80 100 0 Total 14 86 61 39 6 Responses to this question basically mirrored Q1, with almost all identifying microorganisms, root nodules and increased N/nutrient supply for the legume as the mode of action of inoculants. One farmer and two extension officers had heard of inoculants but did not know what they did. Question 3. If yes, who told you about inoculants? For farmers, the major sources of information were institute experiments, extension workshops, school, family and friends. For extension officers, the major sources of information were institute experiments, extension workshops, newspaper and radio messages. Question 4. Do you use inoculants on your soybean or groundnut? Region Province % Farmers % Extension Officers Yes No Yes No Northern Highland Son La 0 100 0 100 Coastal North Nghe An 0 100 0 100 Central Coastal south Binh Dinh 0 100 0 100 Central Highlands Dak Lak 0 100 0 100 Dak Nong 0 100 0 100 South-east Upland Binh Thuan 0 100 0 100 Tay Ninh 0 100 25 75 Mekong Delta Dong Thap 1 99 0 100 An Giang 2 98 0 100 Tra Vinh 0 100 0 100 Total 1 99 11 89 The responses to this question were very clear-cut. Only three farmers of the 281 farmers in the survey used inoculants and five extension officers used them. Although not specifically determined, it was assumed that extension officers grew the legumes as part of their work as well as privately on farms. Question 5. If no, why not? Responses to this question were as follows: Responses % Farmers % Extension Officers Do not know about them 88 49 Not available to buy 11 51 7 With farmers, the overriding reason that they do not inoculate their groundnut and soybean crops is because they do not know about the practice (consistent with Q1 and Q2 above). In the case of extension officers, who as a group have a better understanding of inoculants and what they do, the reason for non use is split almost evenly between lack of knowledge and lack of availability of the product in the marketplace. Question 6. Can you purchase inoculants in the market place? Region Province % Farmers % Extension Officers Yes No Yes No Northern Highland Son La 0 100 0 100 Coastal North Nghe An 0 100 0 100 Central Coastal south Binh Dinh 0 100 0 100 Central Highlands Dak Lak 0 100 0 100 Dak Nong 0 100 0 100 South-east Upland Binh Thuan 0 100 0 100 Tay Ninh 0 100 0 100 Mekong Delta Dong Thap 0 100 0 100 An Giang 0 100 0 100 Tra Vinh 0 100 0 100 Total 0 100 0 100 These responses indicate that inoculants are not available in the markets in the survey areas. Not one respondent had access to inoculants in the market place. We presume the few respondants that use(d) inoculants (see Q. 4) sourced them on an ad hoc basis from government institutions, such as Cantho University. Question 7. Would you use inoculants if you could purchase them in the market? Region Province % Farmers % Extension Officers Yes No Yes No Northern Highland Son La 100 0 100 0 Coastal North Nghe An 100 0 100 0 Central Coastal south Binh Dinh 100 0 100 0 Central Highlands Dak Lak 100 0 100 0 Dak Nong 100 0 100 0 South-east Upland Binh Thuan 100 0 100 0 Tay Ninh 100 0 100 0 Mekong Delta Dong Thap 100 2 100 0 An Giang 96 4 100 0 Tra Vinh 100 0 100 0 Total 99 1 100 0 8 There were very strong intentions of both farmers and extension officers to use inoculants if they were available (only three farmers of 281 farmers said they will not use inoculants). This is intention only and actual use of inoculants would certainly depend on demonstrated biological and economic benefits. Nonetheless, such a high level of intent indicates that commercial inoculant production and sale in Vietnam would be economically feasible. Farmers responses to what they consider to be the benefits to them and the likely issues of using inoculants in the future (%) Region Province Yield benefits Economic benefits Environ benefits Inoc. technique Extension Other Northern Highland Son La 50 75 1 92 100 8 Coastal North Nghe An 50 96 17 88 100 13 Central Coastal south Binh Dinh 100 100 17 83 100 21 Central Highlands Dak Lak 100 100 20 60 100 5 Dak Nong 100 100 25 65 100 5 South-east Upland Binh Thuan 84 92 28 60 92 28 Tay Ninh 96 96 21 57 100 4 Mekong Delta Dong Thap 76 80 7 76 100 39 An Giang 100 100 20 83 100 58 Tra Vinh 92 100 38 92 100 54 Total 85 94 19 76 99 24 The expectation of farmers of the benefits of inoculants was different between regions. With the benefits of inoculation, only 1% of farmers in the Northern Highland expected environmental benefits compared with up to 25% in the South- East Upland (19% overall). Farmers were generally convinced about yield and economic benefits from inoculation (85% and 94% overall) including savings from replacing costly N fertilizer inputs with relatively cheap inoculants, resulting in a higher income. However, in all regions, farmers were very positive about inoculants, were interested to gain more knowledge about them, they trusted in the concept of inoculants (perhaps reflecting trust in the extension officers) and almost all would use them (99%). They agreed on the need for field demonstrations, workshops documentation such as flyers and a good distribution system (i.e. it should be easy to purchase inoculants in the market). They would also need to be guided in how to use inoculants. On average, 76% of farmers considered inoculation technique (e.g. ease of use) critical to their adoption of the technology. They were also interested in learning about advanced/new technologies, particularly in the Mekong Delta. 9 Question 8. Do you apply fertiliser N on your soybean and groundnut crops? Region Province % Farmers % Extension Officers Yes No Yes No Northern Highland Son La 79 21 100 0 Coastal North Nghe An 100 0 100 0 Central Coastal south Binh Dinh 100 0 100 0 Central Highlands Dak Lak 85 15 100 0 Dak Nong 80 20 100 0 South-east Upland Binh Thuan 100 0 100 0 Tay Ninh 100 0 100 0 Mekong Delta Dong Thap 100 0 100 0 An Giang 98 2 100 0 Tra Vinh 100 0 100 0 Total 95 5 100 0 The use of fertiliser N on groundnut and soybean is widespread in Vietnam, with application by 95% of farmers and 100% of extension officers. Interestingly, the two regions in which the practice was not universal were both highland areas, indicating possible problems with supply or cost, or both, in those areas. Question 9. If yes, how much do you apply? Average rates of application of fertiliser N varied from 25 kg N/ha in the Northern Highland to 80 kg N/ha in the Mekong Delta. Region Average rates of application (kg N/ha) Northern Highland 25 Coastal North 72 Central Coastal south 38 Central Highlands 30 South East Upland 63 Mekong Delta 80 Conclusion We conclude from this survey that there is great interest by farmers and extension officers in future use of legume inoculants for soybean and groundnut in the target areas in Vietnam mostly because of economic reasons and because of their interest and desire to utilise new and novel technologies. The lack of use at this current time 10 [...]... inoculants are and what they do and lack of availability in the market place The survey indicated that legume inoculants would be adopted readily in Vietnam provided they were accessible and easy to apply Increasing production and supply of high quality legume inoculants in Vietnam, coupled with an effective extension program, should result in high adoption of inoculants Concurrently, the extension program... groundnut S: soybean 30 Farmer’s survey of inoculants and inoculant use in MeKong Delta (Dong Thap – left; Tra Vinh – right) Part 3 Baseline survey of availability, production and distribution by commercial companies, quality assessment of products, and quality assurance systems for production and distribution of inoculants Introduction The purpose of the inoculant quality and quality assurance (QA) benchmarking... testing and lab code for the samples Products were mainly peat-based inoculants for groundnut and soybean Some liquid inoculants were submitted by OPI (OPI-L-S-B3-CB1809, OPI-L-S-B3-SL1, OPI-L-S-B3-SL2) NC 92, CB 1809 and 4 local strains (GL1, GL2 for groundnut and SL1, SL2 for soybean) were used in the inoculants The number of samples tested was 78 from a total of 195 samples received (30 from IAS, 90 from. .. associated with low moisture contents (OPI Batch 1) and high levels of contamination (e.g IAS Batch 3) (Table 3) With two of the batches (IAS Batch 3 and ISF Batch 1) counts could not be done because of the plates were overrun with contaminants The quality of inoculants in this survey was clearly affected by the presence of high levels of contaminants The probable source of the contaminants was from the... from differences procedures and expertise amongst the three laboratories, effects of peat moisture content particularly at OPI and probable effects of the different sources of peat used by the three laboratories Current and future R&D will focus on improving the carrier through selection of more suitable peats and amelioration of the peats with addititives such as coir and worm castes (current research... from IAS, 90 from ISF and 75 from OPI) Moisture content of inoculants varied from 20% to 60%, because of different qualities of the carriers and production technologies (Table 2) For peat inoculants, around 40– 50% moisture content is optimum Numbers of rhizobia in the inoculants were enumerated using direct plate counting and plant-infection, most probable number (MPN) counting With direct plate counting,... increased farmer incomes and the relieving of poverty in many agricultural areas 11 Appendix 1 Survey form 1 General information Province: District: Village: Date of survey: Name of person who ask questions Name of farmer /extension officer/agricultural local technician who answer questions 2 Questions: Question 1 Have you heard about legume inoculants? Question 2 Do you understand what they do? Give... newly established, controlled-environment growth room at OPI, using the specifications from the second training program of 2007 at Suranaree University of Technology, Thailand To assess current QA systems for production and distribution of inoculants in Vietnam, information was sourced from the Ministry of Science and Technology Results Quantity of production in 2007 The potential for current production... quality information will be used to revise quality standards for legume inoculants in Vietnam Methodology For the first question on production of inoculants, discussions were held with the likely government institutions, e.g Soils & Fertilisers Institute (SFI), Hanoi, Institute of Agricultural Science (IAS), HCM City, Cantho University (CU), and with the 31 commercial companies, e.g Fitohoocmon (Hanoi),... numbers ranged from 109 (Table 3) The plant-infection MPN counts were very similar to the plate counts (Table 4) The necessity of MPN counting was highlighted with IAS Batch 3 and ISF Batch 1 when plate counting was impossible because of the large background populations of contaminating organisms (Table 5) 32 The variation in rhizobial counts for the different batches resulted from differences . 013/06VIE BASELINE INFORMATION Date 24 th October 2007 1 Baseline survey with qualitative and quantitative measures from farmers, extension workers, and input suppliers. The survey of 281 farmers and 44 extension officers (advisors) from the regions and provinces was conducted during August-December 2007. Of the 281 farmers, 153 (54%) grew groundnut and 168. with high-level support from the Government institutions. 3 Parts 1 and 2. Baseline survey of farmers and advisors in the target areas of Vietnam on knowledge of and potential use of rhizobial