Dự án nông nghiệp " Baseline survey with qualitative and quantitative measures from farmers, extension workers " ppt

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
reflects poor knowledge of what rhizobial 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 would need to emphasise the
replacement of fertiliser N inputs, which represent a substantial part of the cost of
growing these crops. The whole package should lead to 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 details
Question 3. If yes, who told you about inoculants?
Question 4. Do you use inoculants on your soybean or groundnut?
Question 5. If no, why not?
- Benefits
+ Biological benefits
Yield loss
Lower yield compared to N chemical fertilizer use?
+ Economic benefits
Still use of high doses of N chemical fertilizers?
High price of inoculants?
Lower income?
- Inoculation technique
Not easy to use?
Considerable labour expenditures added when inoculate?
Changed cultivation practices?
Not easy to preservation of inoculants?
Comments for further improvement of inoculation techniques
- Extension program
Do not know/poor knowledge of inoculants and inoculants use?
Farmers are convinced?
Availability of inoculants?
Not easy to purchase?
- Other

Question 6. Can you purchase inoculants in the market place?
Question 7. Would you use inoculants if you could purchase them in the
market? If so, give reasons
- Benefits
+ Biological benefits

Yield increase?
Yield maintained compared to N chemical fertilizer use?
+ Economic benefits
N chemical fertilizer saving?
Reasonable price of inoculants?
Higher income?
+ Enviroment benefits

12

13
Enviroment friendly/biological products
- Inoculation technique
Feasibility of the inoculation technique/ easy to use?
Inconsiderable labour expenditures added when inoculate?
Unchanged cultivation practices?
Easy to preservation of inoculants?
Comments for further improvement of inoculation techniques
- Extension program
Well knowledge of inoculants and inoculants use?
Farmers are convinced?
Easy to purchase?
- Other
Farmers interest in new/advanced techniques?
Other

Question 8. Do you apply fertiliser N on your soybean and groundnut crops?
Question 9. If yes, how much do you apply?

Appendix 2




Farmer survey
Crop Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9
Village District Province
Ground
-nut
Soybean Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N
Northern Highland
Muong Chum Muong La Son La 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 8 0 3 5 15
Co Noi Mai Son Son La 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 8 0 8 0 30
Chieng Ban Mai Son Son La 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 8 8 0 8 0 30

0 24 0 24 0 24 0 24 0 24 24 0 19 5 25
Coastal North
Dien Phong Dien Chau Nghe An 6 0 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 6 0 6 0 80
Dien Ky Dien Chau Nghe An 6 0 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 6 0 6 0 80
Nghi Phong Nghi Loc Nghe An 6 0 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 6 0 6 0 60
Nghi Thinh Nghi Loc Nghe An 6 0 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 6 0 6 0 70

24 0 0 24 0 24 0 0 24 0 0 24 24 0 24 0 72
Central Coastal South
My Hoa Phu My Binh Dinh 6 0 1 5 0 6 0 6 0 6 6 0 6 0 46
My Duc Phu My Binh Dinh 6 0 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 6 0 6 0 30
Nhon Hau An Nhon Binh Dinh 0 6 1 5 1 5 0 6 0 6 6 0 6 0 38
Binh Thanh Tay Son Binh Dinh 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 6 0 6 0 38

12 12 2 22 1 23 0 0 24 0 0 24 24 0 24 0 38
Central Highlands
Quang Hiep CuMGar DakLak 20 20 1 19 1 19 0 20 0 20 20 0 17 3 32
Nam Dong CuJut DakNong 20 20 2 18 2 18 0 20 0 20 20 0 16 4 27
40 40 3 37 3 37 0 0 40 0 0 40 40 0 34 7 30
South East Upland
Duc Phu Tanh Linh Binh Thuan 10 0 0 10 0 10 0 10 0 10 10 0 10 0 57

14
Luong Son Bac Binh Binh Thuan 15 0 0 15 0 15 0 15 0 15 15 0 15 0 68
Loc Ninh Duong Minh
Chau
Tay Ninh 6 0 0 5 0 5 0 6 0 6 6 0 6 0 60
Truong Mit Duong Minh
Chau
Tay Ninh 9 0 2 7 2 7 0 9 0 9 9 0 9 0 50
Bau Don Go Dau Tay Ninh 5 0 1 4 1 4 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 0 82
Phuoc Dong Go Dau Tay Ninh 8 0 1 7 1 7 0 8 0 8 8 0 8 0 68
53 0 4 49 4 49 0 0 53 0 0 53 53 0 53 0 63
MeKong Delta
Tan My Lap Vo Dong Thap 0 3 2 1 2 1 1 2 0 3 3 0 3 0 68
Tan Khanh
Trung
Lap Vo Dong Thap 0 5 2 3 2 3 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 0 88
Long Hung A Lap Vo Dong Thap 0 5 1 4 1 4 0 5 0 5 4 1 5 0 76
Hoa Thuan Cao Lanh City Dong Thap 0 3 2 1 2 1 0 3 0 3 3 0 3 0 79
Hoa An
Tinh Thoi
Cao Lanh City Dong Thap 0 5 1 4 1 4 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 0 78
Tinh Thoi Cao Lanh City Dong Thap 0 5 2 3 2 3 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 0 77

My Tho Cao Lanh Dong Thap 0 5 1 4 1 4 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 0 86
My Hoi Cao Lanh Dong Thap 0 5 1 4 1 4 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 0 107
Binh Hang
Tay
Cao Lanh Dong Thap 0 5 1 4 1 4 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 0 83
Binh Thuy Chau Phu An Giang 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 4 0 4 0 85
Khanh Hoa Chau Phu An Giang 0 5 2 3 2 3 1 5 0 5 5 0 5 0 75
Binh My Chau Phu An Giang 0 5 1 4 1 4 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 0 62
An Chau Chau Thanh An Giang 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 4 0 4 0 62
Phu Hoa Thoai Son An Giang 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 106
Hoi An Cho Moi An Giang 0 7 1 6 1 6 0 7 0 7 6 1 7 0 117
An Thanh
Chung
Cho Moi An Giang 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 0 73
Long Kien Cho Moi An Giang 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 0 69
Tan An Tan Chau An Giang 0 5 3 2 3 2 1 4 0 5 4 1 4 1 55
Phu Vinh Tan Chau An Giang 0 5 1 4 1 4 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 0 73

15
Long Phu Tan Chau An Giang 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 5 0 5 0 65
My Long Nam Cau Ngang Tra Vinh 8 0 3 5 3 5 0 8 0 8 8 0 8 0 79
My Long Bac Cau Ngang Tra Vinh 8 0 1 7 1 7 0 8 0 8 8 0 8 0 88
Hiep Thanh Duyen Hai Tra Vinh 8 0 1 7 1 7 0 8 0 8 8 0 8 0 89
24 92 29 87 29 87 23 114 0 0 116 113 3 116 1 80

Overall 153 168 41 240 40 241 0 3 278 0 0 281 278 3 268 13



Extension officer

’
s

survey

Crop Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

Q6 Q7 Q8


Village District Province
Ground-
nut
Soybean Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N
Northern Highland

Muong Chum Muong La Son La 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0


Co Noi Mai Son Son La 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0

Chieng Ban Mai Son Son La 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0
0 6 6 0 6 0 0 0 6 0 6 6 0 6 0
Coastal North

Dien Phong Dien Chau Nghe An 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0

Dien Ky Dien Chau Nghe An 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0

Nghi Phong Nghi Loc Nghe An 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0

Nghi Thinh Nghi Loc Nghe An 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
4 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 4 4 0 4 0
Central Coastal South

16

My Hoa Phu My Binh Dinh 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0

My Duc Phu My Binh Dinh 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0

Nhon Hau An Nhon Binh Dinh 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Binh Thanh Tay Son Binh Dinh 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
2 2 2 2 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 4 0 4 0
Central Highlands

Quang Hiep CuMGar DakLak 3 3 1 2 1 2 0 3 0 3 3 0 3 0

Nam Dong CuJut DakNong 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 3 1 2 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 3 3 0 3 0
South East Upland

Duc Phu Tanh Linh Binh Thuan 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0

Luong Son Bac Binh Binh Thuan 4 0 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 4 0 4 0

Loc Ninh Duong Minh
Chau
Tay Ninh 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0

Truong Mit Duong Minh
Chau
Tay Ninh 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 0

Bau Don Go Dau Tay Ninh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Phuoc Dong Go Dau Tay Ninh 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 0
11 0 1 10 1 10 0 5 6 0 0 11 11 0 11 0
MeKong Delta
Tan My Lap Vo Dong Thap 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Tan Khanh
Trung
Lap Vo Dong Thap 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Long Hung A Lap Vo Dong Thap 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Hoa Thuan Cao Lanh City Dong Thap 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hoa An
Tinh Thoi
Cao Lanh City Dong Thap 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Tinh Thoi Cao Lanh City Dong Thap 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
My Tho Cao Lanh Dong Thap 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
My Hoi Cao Lanh Dong Thap 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

17
Binh Hang
Tay
Cao Lanh Dong Thap 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Binh Thuy Chau Phu An Giang 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Khanh Hoa Chau Phu An Giang 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Minh My Chau Phu An Giang 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
An Chau Chau Thanh An Giang 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0

Phu Hoa Thoai Son An Giang 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Hoi An Cho Moi An Giang 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
An Thanh
Chung
Cho Moi An Giang 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Long Kien Cho Moi An Giang 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tan An Tan Chau An Giang 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Phu Vinh Tan Chau An Giang 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0
Long Phu Tan Chau An Giang 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
My Long Nam Cau Ngang Tra Vinh 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 3 0
My Long Bac Cau Ngang Tra Vinh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hiep Thanh Duyen Hai Tra Vinh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 15 15 3 13 5 0 0 16 0 18 18 0 18 0

Overall 23 26 34 15 30 19 0 5 39 0 49 49 0 49 0












18
Survey Question 5 – reasons farmers do not use inoculants

1. Yield loss
2. Lower yield compared to N chemical fertilizer use
3. Still use much N chemical fertilizers
4. Expensive price of inoculants
5. Lower income
6. Not easy to use
7. Labour costs
8. Change considerably cultivation practices
9. Not easy to preservation of inoculants
10. Comments for further improvement of inoculation techniques
11. Do not know/Poor knowledge of inoculants and inoculants use
12. Farmers were not convinced
13. Availability of inoculants
14. Other

Farmers – Q5
Crop

Village District Province G S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Northern Highland
Muong
Chum
Muong La Son La 0 8 - - - - - - - - - - 8 - - -
Co Noi Mai Son Son La 0 8 - - - - - - - - - - 8 - - -
Chieng
Ban
Mai Son Son La 0 8 - - - - - - - - - - 8 - - -

0 24 - - - - - - - - - - 24 - - -
Coastal North

Dien
Phong
Dien Chau Nghe An 6 0 - - - - - - - - - - 6 - - -
Dien Ky Dien Chau Nghe An 6 0 - - - - - - - - - - 6 - - -
Nghi
Phong
Nghi Loc Nghe An 6 0 - - - - - - - - - - 6 - - -

19
Nghi
Thinh
Nghi Loc Nghe An 6 0 - - - - - - - - - - 6 - - -

24 0 - - - - - - - - - - 24 - - -
Central Coast South
My Hoa Phu My Binh Dinh 6 0 - - - - - - - - - - 6 - - -
My Duc Phu My Binh Dinh 6 0 - - - - - - - - - - 6 - - -
Nhon Hau An Nhon Binh Dinh 0 6 - - - - - - - - - - 5 - 1 -
Binh
Thanh
Tay Son Binh Dinh 0 6 - - - - - - - - - - 6 - - -
12 12 - - - - - - - - - - 23 - 1 -
Central Highlands
CuMGar DakLak 20 20 - - - - - - - - - - 19 - 1 -
Nam
Dong
CuJut DakNong 20 20 - - - - - - - - - - 18 - 2 -
40 40 - - - - - - - - - - 37 - 3 -
South East Upland

Duc Phu Tanh Linh Binh Thuan 10 0 - - - - - - - - - - 10 - - -
Luong
Son
Bac Binh Binh Thuan 15 0 - - - - - - - - - - 15 - - -
25 0 - - - - - - - - - - 25 - - -
Loc Ninh Duong Minh
Chau
Tay Ninh 6 0 - - - - - - - - - - 6 - - -
Truong
Mit
Duong Minh
Chau
Tay Ninh 9 0 - - - - - - - - - - 7 - 2 -
Bau Don Go Dau Tay Ninh 5 0 - - - - - - - - - - 4 - 1 -
Phuoc
Dong
Go Dau Tay Ninh 8 0 - - - - - - - - - - 7 - 1 -
28 0 - - - - - - - - - - 24 4 -
53 0 - - - - - - - - - - 49 4 -
Mekong Delta
Tan My Lap Vo Dong Thap 0 2 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 -
Tan Lap Vo Dong Thap 0 5 - - - - - - - - - - 3 - 2 -

20
Khanh
Trung
Long
Hung A
Lap Vo Dong Thap 0 5 - - - - - - - - - - 4 - 1 -
Hoa

Thuan
Cao Lanh
City
Dong Thap 0 3 - - - - - - - - - - 2 - 1 -
Hoa An Cao Lanh
City
Dong Thap 0 5 - - - - - - - - - - 4 - 1 -
Tinh Thoi Cao Lanh
City
Dong Thap 0 5 - - - - - - - - - - 3 - 2 -
My Tho Cao Lanh Dong Thap 0 5 - - - - - - - - - - 4 - 1 -
My Hoi Cao Lanh Dong Thap 0 5 - - - - - - - - - - 3 - 1 1
*


Binh
Hang Tay
Cao Lanh Dong Thap 0 5 - - - - - - - - - - 4 - 1 -
0 40 - - - - - - - - - - 28 - 11 1
*
Binh Thuy Chau Phu An Giang 0 4 - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - -
Khanh
Hoa
Chau Phu An Giang 0 4 - - - - - - - - - - 2 - 2 -
Binh My Chau Phu An Giang 0 5 - - - - - - - - - - 4 - 1 -
An Chau Chau Thanh An Giang 0 4 - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - -
Phu Hoa Thoai Son An Giang 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - -
Hoi An Cho Moi An Giang 0 7 - - - - - - - - - - 5 - 1 1
*

An Thanh
Chung
Cho Moi An Giang 0 5 - - - - - - - - - - 5 - - -
Long Kien Cho Moi An Giang 0 3 - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - -
Tan An Tan Chau An Giang 0 4 - - - - - - - - - - 2 - 2 -
Phu Vinh Tan Chau An Giang 0 5 - - - - - - - - - - 4 - 1 -
Long Phu Tan Chau An Giang 0 5 - - - - - - - - - - 5 - - -
0 47 - - - - - - - - - - 39 - 7 1
My Long
Nam
Cau Ngang Tra Vinh 8 0 - - - - - - - - - - 5 - 3 -
My Long
Bac
Cau Ngang Tra Vinh 8 0 - - - - - - - - - - 7 - 1 -

21
Hiep
Thanh
Duyen Hai Tra Vinh 8 0 - - - - - - - - - - 7 - 1 -
24 0 - - - - - - - - - - 19 - 5 -
24 87 - - - - - - - - - -

Overall 153 166 - - - - - - - - - - 243 - 31 2


22

Survey Question 5 – reasons advisers do not use inoculants

1. Yield loss

2. Lower yield compared to N chemical fertilizer use
3. Still use much N chemical fertilizers
4. Expensive price of inoculants
5. Lower income
6. Not easy to use
7. Labour costs
8. Change considerably cultivation practices
9. Not easy to preservation of inoculants
10. Comments for further improvement of inoculation techniques
11. Do not know/Poor knowledge of inoculants and inoculants use
12. Farmers were not convinced
13. Availability of inoculants
14. Other


Extension officers – Q5
Crop

Village District Province G S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Northern Highland
Muong
Chum
Muong La Son La 0 2 - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - -
Co Noi Mai Son Son La 0 2 - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - -
Chieng
Ban
Mai Son Son La 0 2 - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - -

0 6 - - - - - - - - - - 6 - - -

Coastal North
-
Dien
Phong
Dien Chau Nghe An 1 0 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - -
Dien Ky Dien Chau Nghe An 1 0 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - -

23
Nghi
Phong
Nghi Loc Nghe An 1 0 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - -
Nghi Thinh Nghi Loc Nghe An 1 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4 0 - - - - - - - - - - 4 - -
Central Coast South

My Hoa Phu My Binh Dinh 1 0 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - -


My Duc Phu My Binh Dinh 1 0 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - -


Nhon Hau An Nhon Binh Dinh 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - -


Binh
Thanh
Tay Son Binh Dinh 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2 2 - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - -

Central Highlands



CuMGar DakLak 0 3 - - - - - - - - - - 2 - 1 -
Nam Dong CuJut

DakNong 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

0 3 - - - - - - - - - - 2 - 1 -
South East Upland
Duc Phu Tanh Linh Binh Thuan 2 0 - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - -

Luong Son Bac Binh Binh Thuan 4 0 - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - -



6 0 - - - - - - - - - - 6 - - -
Loc Ninh Duong Minh
Chau
Tay Ninh

0 0 - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - -


Truong Mit Duong Minh
Chau
Tay Ninh 2 0 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 -
Bau Don

Go Dau Tay Ninh 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Phuoc
Dong
Go Dau Tay Ninh 2 0 - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - -


4 0 - - - - - - - - - - 3 1 -


10 0 - - - - - - - - - - 9 1 -
Mekong Delta
Tan My Lap Vo Dong Thap 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 -

24
Tan Khanh
Trung
Lap Vo Dong Thap 0 2 - - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 -
- - 1 - Long Hung
A
Lap Vo Dong Thap 0 1 - - - - - - - - - -
Hoa Thuan Cao Lanh City Dong Thap 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hoa An Cao Lanh City Dong Thap 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 -
Tinh Thoi Cao Lanh City Dong Thap 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My Tho Cao Lanh Dong Thap 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My Hoi Cao Lanh Dong Thap 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - -
-

- - - -

Binh Hang
Tay
Cao Lanh Dong Thap 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 6 - - - - - - - - - - 2 - 4
-


Binh Thuy Chau Phu An Giang 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 -
Khanh Hoa Chau Phu An Giang 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 -
Binh My Chau Phu An Giang 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 -
An Chau Chau Thanh An Giang 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 -
Phu Hoa Thoai Son An Giang 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 -
Hoi An Cho Moi An Giang 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-

An Thanh
Chung
Cho Moi An Giang 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 -
Long Kien Cho Moi An Giang 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Tan An Tan Chau An Giang 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 -
Phu Vinh Tan Chau An Giang 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 -
Long Phu Tan Chau An Giang 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
0 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 -

My Long
Nam
Cau Ngang Tra Vinh 3 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 -
My Long
Bac
Cau Ngang Tra Vinh 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hiep
Thanh
Duyen Hai Tra Vinh 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

25