1 Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development ________________________________________________________________ Milestone 2 Baseline Study Report Project Name Introduction of the principles of GAP for citrus through implementation of citrus IPM using Farmer Field Schools Vietnamese Institution Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Plant Protection Department Vietnamese Project Team Leader Mr Ngo Tien Dung Australian Organisation University of Western Sydney Australian Personnel Oleg Nicetic, Robert Spooner-Hart, Elske van de Flierd Date commenced March 2007 Completion date (original) February 2010 Completion date (revised) Reporting period Contact Officer(s) In Australia: Team Leader Name: Oleg Nicetic Telephone: +61245701329 Position: Research Associate Fax: +61245701103 Organisation University of Western Sydney Email: o.nicetic@uws.edu.au In Australia: Administrative contact Name: Gar Jones Telephone: +6124736 0631 Position: Director, Research Services Fax: +6124736 0905 Organisation University of Western Sydney Email: g.jones@uws.edu.au In Vietnam Name: Mr Ngo Tien Dung Telephone: +84-4-5330778 Position: National IPM coordinator Fax: +84-4-5330780 Organisation Plant Protection Department Email: ipmppd@fpt.vn 2 Deliverables The agreed deliverable for this milestone is to update baselines available from the South and new baselines from North Vietnam of all stakeholders to obtain quantitative and qualitative measures to include: 1. Information on knowledge, skills attitudes and practices of PDD, SRPCC, NIPP, CU, SOFRI, VACVINA, VinaFruit and SPC on GAP and the integration of IPM into GAP. 2. Knowledge and skills on GAP/IPM of 15 Master Trainers, 90 Trainers and a representative sample of 2880 participating farmers 3. Current GAP/IPM practices of representative sample of participating farmers including production levels and financial analysis of costs and returns 4. Analysis of key markets for GAP/IPM compliant citrus and expected market demand and premiums 5. Identification of opportunities for project interventions to provide economic, social and environmental benefits to smallholders. Introduction This is the third AusAID CARD project that has been conducted on citrus in Vietnam. The first two projects had a major focus on IPM. Although this project retains IPM as a key component, the major focus is on GAP. When this project is completed in 2010 it will be very important to have an objective picture about what has been achieved by our intervention and the significant investment made by AusAID CARD into the Vietnamese citrus industry over the previous decade. In order to measure the impact of the FFSs and associated activities financed from our projects, a systematic impact assessment has been planned and budgeted as a part of the current project 037/06 VIE. Impact assessment was not carried out as the part of the first (pilot) CARD project that ran from 2001 to 2004 but it became an important part of the second project 036/04 VIE even though it was not initially planned or properly funded. The emphasis of the impact assessment conducted in 036/04 VIE was on the Knowledge Attitude and Practices (KAP) survey that was conducted pre- and post intervention. Nearly all farmers (more than 2000) participating in FFSs completed the survey. But as the project progressed and the project team learned more about impact assessment, the KAP survey was complemented with profiling of production practices in two villages in each province where FFSs were conducted. Profiling was done as part of a baseline study and included: planting, pruning and fertilizing practices, flushing and harvesting management, irrigation practices, pest and disease management and an estimate of net income per hectare. Interviews were also conducted with local pesticide suppliers. At the end of the project semi-structured interviews were conducted with at least 5 FFS participants per province. These additional assessments provide much greater rigor by allowing triangulation, but they were not budgeted in the project and were possible only because the Vietnamese partners showed great enthusiasm for the project and conducted all interviews without additional funds. At the end of the project all major stakeholders (other than farmers) completed a survey and 3 key project managers have written their observations of the project impact. The impact was presented disaggregated as economic, social and environmental impact. Economic benefits were compared with the cost of FFS. 3 The methodology for the impact assessment for the current project 037/06 VIE was developed as the result of the project management team (Mr Ngo Tien Dung, Mr Ho Van Chien, Mr L Q Quong and Oleg Nicetic) meeting in My Tho on 31/05/2007 and workshops held in Ha Noi on 26/09/07 and in My Tho on 30/09/07. The workshop in Ha Noi was attended by PPD staff, staff from Regional Plant Protection Centre 4 and trainers from Nghe An and Ha Tay provinces. The workshop in My Tho was attended by staff from the Southern Regional Plant Protection Centre and trainers from Tien Giang and Can Tho Provinces. Trainers that attended the workshops will be directly involved in the project impact assessment over next 2 years. Impact assessment will be done in two ways: at the beginning and at the end of the project (B&E) using similar methodology used in project 036/04 VIE and b) using continuing monitoring of two groups of farmers: FFS group and non-FFS group. B&E impact assessment will be performed in all 13 provinces included in the project. It is based on longitudinal comparison (i.e. before and after FFS intervention) of farmer’s attitudes towards GAP, change in practices used in citrus orchard management and change in the social and environmental situation. Data collected will be based on self-evaluation by farmers and other project stakeholders. A limitation of this method is that it can be biased and overstate benefits of the FFS. However, this limitation will be minimised by using large sample sizes and triangulation: KAP surveys, semi-structured interviews and field observations. The baseline study performed in June 2007 and presented in this report is an integral part of the B&E assessment. The baseline study will be repeated again in June 2008 for FFSs that started in 2008. Impact assessment with continuous monitoring is currently being undertaken with farmers that commenced FFS in 2008, in order to obtain reliable data on farmer inputs and outputs as well as orchard management practices. Monitoring commenced in February 2008 before the start of FFS and it will continue throughout 2008 and for one year after completion of FFS. However as it is not financially feasible to continuously monitor impact in all 13 provinces, the continuous monitoring is conducted only in 2 provinces in the South (Tien Giang and Can Tho) and 2 provinces in the North (Nghe An and Ha Tay). Two trainers in each of 4 provinces selected for continuous monitoring have the role of auditors of on-farm record keeping and they will perform regular observations in the orchard. Every farmer participant in impact assessment monitoring will be visited twice a month. In each province 2 groups of 10 farmers have been selected: (a) farmers attending FFS in 2008 and (b) farmers not participating in FFS as a control group. Trainers have been monitoring and reviewing farmer records of economic, social and environmental impact indicators. Final interviews with participating farmers will be conducted in November 2009 jointly with UWS and PPD staff. This report will present the findings of a baseline study undertaken from the 1 st to 28 th June 2007. This baseline will be used as the benchmark against which impact of the project will be assessed. The baseline study was undertaken by combining observations made in the field, interviews with farmers in the field, surveys of FFS participants, interviews and surveys of trainers, interviews with key project personnel and informal interviews with Directors of SubPPD and/or Directors of Provincial Agriculture Departments. 4 Material and Methods 3.1. Baseline of farmers and trainers In 2007, two FFS were conducted in each of 13 provinces (Table 1). These provinces have been grouped into 3 regions for the purposes of this baseline study. The regions are the Mekong Delta (Can Tho, Vinh Long, Ben Tre, Dong Thap, Tien Giang), Northern-Central Vietnam and 2 adjacent provinces that are south of Hanoi (Ha Tinh, Nghe An, Hoa Binh, Ha Tay,) and the third region includes provinces north of Hanoi (Phu Tho, Yen Bai, Tuyen Quang, Ha Giang). One of the two FFS in each province was randomly chosen to undertake the baseline study. During visits to the FFS selected for the baseline study, the following activities were undertaken: 3.1.1 visit the farmer who’s orchard was used as the teaching orchard for the FFS to observe the orchard, undertake an audit of compliance to GAP and interview the farmer 3.1.2 visit pesticide shop in the village where the FFS was held 3.1.3 survey 5 randomly selected farmers from the FFS 3.1.4 survey 2 trainers In the Mekong Delta the farmer who provides their orchard as the teaching orchard also provides their house as the meeting place for FFS, whereas in northern central and northern Vietnam, the FFS meetings are held in the village community centre. Interviews with farmers were conducted in the usual FFS meeting place. 3.1.1 Interview with farmers in the orchard Oleg Nicetic conducted all interviews through an interpreter. The key information sought was the size of the orchard, species planted, distance between trees, number of flushes per year, number of harvests and timing of those harvests, number of sprays applied, application method and pesticides used. This information was obtained by questioning the farmer, observing the orchard, pesticide storage area and pesticide disposal site. Trees were also inspected for pests and diseases. At the same time a quick audit of farmer compliance with EurepGAP requirements was conducted. Information was recorded on site using a 6 page form (Appendix 1). 3.1.2 Visit to pesticide shop After visiting orchards, the local pesticide shop was visited. The shop owner was interviewed by Oleg Nicetic through an interpreter. Information was sought on the 3 most commonly used insecticides and fungicides, and how the shop owner provided recommendations to the farmers. Information was recorded on site using the same form. 3.1.3 Survey of 5 randomly selected farmers The surveys of farmers were conducted by trainers under the supervision of Mr Cuong in the south and Mr Loc in the north. The survey took about 20 minutes for each farmer to complete and results were recorded in a 10 page form in Vietnamese (Appendix 2). Data were summarised per province and region and results are presented in the Tables 6 to 15. Data for the source of planting material presented in Table 6 were weighted by multiplying the number of respondents who obtained all their planting material from one source by 3, the number who obtained most planting material from one source by 2 and the number who 5 obtained little planting material from one source by 1. Calculated score per category was then divided by the maximal possible score per province to obtain a proportion. Indices of perceived importance of pests and diseases shown per province in Table 7a and per region in Table 7b were calculated by multiplying number of respondents that perceived a certain pest as very important by 2, important by 1 and not important by 0. The resulting score was than divided by the number of respondents per province. Pests that scored an index of 0 were deemed to be not important, an index of 0.1 - 0.5 marginally important, an index of 0.6 - 1.0 moderately important, 1.1 - 1.5 important and 1.6 - 2 very important. Data for the pattern and frequency of sprays shown in Table 8a represent the percentage of respondents in each category (i.e. preventative spray for insects, preventative spray for diseases and curative spray) per province and region. Indices of spray intensity applied for specific pests and diseases shown per province in Table 8b and per region in Table 8c were calculated by multiplying the number of respondents that sprayed more than 3 times per year by 5, that sprayed occasionally (from 1-3 times) by 2 and not sprayed at all by 0. The resulting score was then divided by the number of respondents per province. Sprays were not applied for pests that scored an index of 0, few sprays were applied by the minority of farmers for pests that scored 0.1-1, few sprays were applied by the majority of farmers for pests that scored 1.1-2, frequent sprays were applied by minority of farmers for pests that scored 2.1 and 3 and frequent sprays were applied by majority of farmers for pests that scored more than 3. The data shown for pest management activities, other than pesticide sprays, shown in Table 9 represents the percentage of farmers per province and region that practice a certain pest management activity. Data for level of use of protective clothing and other protective equipment during pesticide application shown in Table 11 represents the percentage of farmers per province and region using certain protective equipment or clothing. Data presented in Table 13 represents the percentage of farmers per province and region that gave correct answers in regard to requirements of GAP (shown in the category “Understand major requirements of GAP”), in regard to implementation issues of GAP (shown in the category “Understanding of implementation issues”) and the percentage of farmers that believe that implementation of GAP will give them economic benefits (shown in the category “Belief in economic benefits”). The index for the level of farmer skill that was assessed by the farmers themselves (self assessment), presented per province in Table 14 and per region in Table 15, was calculated by multiplying the number of farmers that stated they were able to apply certain skills independently and confidently by 3, independently but without confidence by 2, with assistance of other person by 1 and the number that do not have a certain skill by 0. The total score per province was divided by the total number of respondents in the province to get an average score per province. The maximum score is 3. Scores of 2.5 and above indicate a high level of confidence (over 80% of total score), scores of 1.5 and below indicate a lack of confidence in the majority of farmers, while scores between 1.5 and 2.5 indicate that the majority of farmers have confidence in their skills but many farmers still need improvement in their skills to be confident. 6 Table 1. Location of Farmer Field Schools (FFS) and major citrus type grown Province District Village Latitude Longitude Altitude (m) Major crop Mekong delta Can Tho Phong Dien Nho 10º00’18”N 105º38’04”E 10 Sweet orange (intercropping with banana) Vinh Long Binh Minh My Hoa 10º00’41”N 105º50’57”E 10 Pomelo Ben Tre Ben Tre City Phu Nhuan 10º13’11”N 106º22’32”E 7 Pomelo Dong Thap Lai Vung Long Hau 10º17’19”N 105º36’56”E 4 Tieu mandarin Tien Giang Cai Be My Loi A 10º21’15”N 106º05’58”E 5 King orange Northern Central Vietnam Ha Tinh Huong Son Son Truong 18º28’14”N 105º26’17”E 25 Orange Nghe An Anh Son Dinh Son 19º01’41”N 104º38’09”E 50 Orange (Van du) Hoa Binh Cao Phong Group 6 Cao Phong Company 20º43’37”N 105º19’18”E 203 Orange Ha Tay Phuc Tho Van Ha 21º08’58”N 105º37’12”E 23 Pomelo and oranges Northern Vietnam Phu Tho Doan Hung Que Lam 21º39’38”N 105º05’13”E 52 Pomelo Yen Bai Yen Bai Dai Binh 21º40’57”N 105º04’27”E 50 Pomelo and sour orange Tuyen Quang Ham Yen Tan Yen 22º03’22”N 105º02’40”E 200 Orange Ha Giang Vi Xuyen Viet Lam 22º40’09”N 104º55’42”E 250 Orange 3.1.4 Survey of trainers Interviews with trainers were conducted by Mr Cuong in the south and Mr Loc in the north, after farmer interviews were completed. The interviews took 15-20 minutes and results were recorded in a 4 page form in Vietnamese (Appendix 3). Data were summarised per province and region and results are presented in the Tables 16 to 18. Data for trainer beliefs and attitudes about GAP shown in Table 16 represent the number of trainers per province that agreed with the presented statements. The index for the level of trainer skill that were assessed by the trainers themselves (self assessment), presented per province in Table 17 and per region in Table 18, was calculated by multiplying the number of trainers that stated they were able to train farmers in certain skills independently and confidently by 3, independently but without confidence by 2, have knowledge of the skill but cannot train farmers by 1 and do not have knowledge about the 7 certain skill by 0. Total score per province was divided by the total number of respondents in the province to get average score per province. The maximum score is 3. Scores of 2.5 and above indicate a high level of confidence (over 80% of total score), scores of 1.5 and below indicates a lack of confidence in the majority of trainers, while scores between 1.5 and 2.5 indicate that the majority of trainers have confidence in their skills but still many trainers need improvement in their skills to be confident. At the bottom of Table 17 and Table 18 the score of trainer’s knowledge test is shown. There were 5 open ended knowledge questions (see Appendix 3). For each question the score was 0 for incorrect answers, 0.5 for partly correct answers and 1 for correct answers. Scores for two trainers were added and presented in the tables. 3.2 Baseline of key Vietnamese institutions In November 2007 Dr Zina O’Leary (UWS) was invited to participate in review workshops for CARD project 037/06VIE, as an independent reviewer. She conducted interviews with a total of six key informants from the 26 th November to the 2 nd of December in order to explore conceptions of good agricultural practice (GAP). The interviews were generally informal in nature and conversational in style. Rather than following a set of standardized questions, the interviews engaged the participants in conversation along particular themes related to the knowledge, value and implementation of GAP in Vietnamese citrus farms. Stakeholders were asked to reflect on the following six key themes: 1. their conceptions of GAP prior to the commencement of the project 2. whether or not those conceptions had changed since project commencement 3. what elements of GAP they feel are most critical in Vietnamese citrus production 4. what elements do they feel would be most readily transferable to farmers in ways which could effectively modify practice 5. the role that farmer field schools can/ should have in the transfer of knowledge related to GAP 6. the benefits of transfer for GAP knowledge to farmers for the stakeholder’s own organization Each interview ran for approximately 10-20 minutes. Interviews were recorded as a written summary. 3.3 Analysis of key markets for GAP citrus fruits Information about key markets for GAP citrus fruit was obtained from informal interviews conducted with Provincial Agriculture Department Officials and Dr Vo Mai, the Vice president of VacVina and until recently the president of VinaFruit. The informal interviews were conducted with Directors of Sub Plant Protection Departments and/or Directors of Provincial Agriculture Departments in each province. The focus of the interviews was citrus production and comparisons between citrus production and other major crops grown in the province. Data for total area of citrus and rice crops per province were collected, as well as average income per hectare (see Table 19). Marketing of citrus and the importance of GAP was also discussed. In the interview with Dr Vo Mai also discussed current and prospective export markets for Vietnamese citrus. 8 Results and discussion 4.1 Baseline of farmers and trainers 4.1.1 Interview with farmers in the orchard/4.1.3 Survey of 5 randomly selected farmers Results from interviews with farmers and farmers’ surveys are presented below and where relevant they are discussed together. 4.1.1.1 Dominant citrus species In the Mekong Delta mandarins (King and Tieu varieties) are the dominant yielding varieties of citrus. Pomelo plantings are increasing and as the recently planted orchards reach bearing age pomelo will surpass mandarins (Table 1). In Northern Central Vietnam and Hoa Binh province oranges are by far the most dominant species while in Ha Tay province orange variety Canh and pomelo variety Dien are equally important. In provinces North of Hanoi oranges are the dominant species but the area of pomelo is increasing, especially in Phu Tho province. It is interesting that in some orchards in Thuyen Quang and Ha Giang province citrus are intercropped with tea. Intercropping model of tea and citrus should be further investigated in 2008. It should be noted that every province has its own varieties, and some of these varieties are performing better than others, but it does not seem that there is any attempt to select the higher performing varieties and introduce them to other provinces. 4.1.1.2 Orchard layout and growth dynamic In most provinces in the Mekong Delta mandarins and oranges are planted at higher densities (1500 to 2000 trees per hectare) than in the North of Vietnam (400 to 660 trees per hectare). There is less difference in the density of pomelo planted in the north (270 to 490 trees per hectare) and south (330 to 500 trees per hectare) (Table 2). In the Mekong Delta there is a clear orchard replacement plan with young trees being planted between existing mature trees. In the north there is no planning and many visited orchards have passed their peak production age. The exception is Ha Tay province where the many of orchards were young or just reaching their peak production age, which is clearly reflected in the higher net income per hectare (Table 2). The additional benefit of a tree replacement program is that in the provinces where it is practiced, there are significantly less trees with visible symptoms of huanglongbing. In the north there are 3-4 clearly defined flushes of which only one bears fruit. In the south there are 4-6 flushes but in many places there is continuous flushing, particularly in pomelo. In the North there is only one harvest from October to December in Northern Central Vietnam from November to January in provinces around Ha Noi, and from December to January in the Far Northern part (Thuyen Quang and Ha Giang provinces). In the South, with the exception of Dong Thap province, harvesting is all year round. In Dong Thap province farmers manipulate the fruit bearing flush to produce only one harvest, at Tet. 9 4.1.1.3/ 4.1.3.1 Dominant pests and diseases Farmers have great difficulty identifying pests and diseases, and in many cases are unable to separate damage caused by pests or diseases. In most cases the farmers intervene when it is too late to provide effective control of the causal agent. A typical example of late intervention is with leafminer. Farmers also apply pesticides unnecessarily to visible pests that do not cause economic damage. A typical example of this unnecessary application of pesticides is with aphids. In the Mekong Delta, farmers nominated psyllids (1.80), scale/mealybug (1.64) and mites (1.28) as the major pests (Table 7b) while in Northern-Central Vietnam farmers nominated mites (1.50), leafminer (1.45) and psyllids (1.40). In northern Vietnam leafminer (1.35) is considered by far the most important pest. It is interesting that citrus greening (1.20) is nominated as an important disease but psyllids (0.50) were considered to be an unimportant pest in the farmers mind indicating that farmers do not understand the importance of psyllids in the transmission of this disease. However there is lot of variation in farmers’ perception of importance of specific pests between provinces within each region (Table 7a). Psyllids are perceived as very important in all provinces of the Mekong delta except in Vinh Long where psyllids are regarded as just moderately important. Pomelo is less susceptible to huanglongbing and the dominance of pomelo in Vinh Long province is the most likely reason for this difference in perception. Mealybugs scored very highly in most provinces of the Mekong delta, reflecting the problem of mealybugs on roots. The exact taxonomy of the mealybug species infesting citrus roots is still unknown and it appears that there has not been much effort directed to solving the problem of mealybugs since it appeared as a pest a few years ago. The mealybug populations increased after farmers regulated water levels in canals to prevent flooding of the citrus trees. Mealybugs on roots were the major farmer concern in our baseline study in 2005 but the level of farmer concern seems to have decreased over the past 2 years, indicating that the pest does not cause serious damage. In provinces that were included in previous CARD project (036/04 VIE) farmers’ perception of the relative importance of leafminer in comparison to other pests changed from being very important in the 2005 baseline study, to moderately important in this study. In provinces where FFS were conducted for the first time in this project, leafminer scored highest or equal highest score with another pest in 6 out of 7 provinces while leafminer was not ranked most important alone or with another pest in any of the provinces included in the previous project. This indicates that interventions of the previous CARD project may have extended beyond the FFSs participants into the wider farming community since the farmers surveyed in this project were not the same farmers that participated in 2005 and 2006 FFSs. Mite damage is noticeable in every orchard of Northern Central Vietnam and in most orange orchards of Northern Vietnam (project team observations and farmers’ statement during the interviews- Table 3b) but hardly any mite damage was observed in the Mekong delta (Table 3a). The reason for mite damage is at least partly due to the overuse of synthetic pyrethroids and partly due the incorrect timing of sprays in the north. Citrus greening disease (huanglongbing) is more noticeable in Nghe An and Ha Tinh provinces than anywhere else and there are several reasons for the greater prevalence. First in these provinces oranges are the major citrus crop and they are the most susceptible variety of citrus to citrus greening disease. Secondly the average age of trees in the orchard is much higher than in the Mekong delta where the orchard regeneration is well planned and practised. It is evident from interviews conducted with farmers in the North of Vietnam, that farmers do not plan or budget for orchard regeneration and they maintain their trees long after their production peak has passed. Farmers do not depreciate orchard value or include 10 the value of depreciation into the cost of production. With no funds in reserve for the regeneration of the orchards and with the very limited credit facilities available to the farmers it is hard to manage citrus greening in the most affected provinces of Northern Central Vietnam. The third reason for the high incidence of citrus greening is insufficient use of insecticides for control of psyllids. In Northern Central Vietnam there are 4 distinctive flushes (Table 2) but only one (the spring flush) bears fruit. Farmers only concentrate on protecting the fruit-bearing flush while other flushes are exposed to psyllids and citrus greening infection. This problem was addressed during training of trainers and farmers and the impact of this training on changes in farmer practice will be evaluated during this project. It should be noted that Nghe An and Ha Tinh provinces have above average use of planting material from certified nurseries but still have the highest incidence of citrus greening, demonstrating that that use of disease free planting material without proper follow up management strategies is not an effective way to reduce citrus greening. Phytophthora was observed in every region and province visited and although it appears to be as serious a problem as citrus greening, most farmers were not too concerned about the disease. Unfortunately phytophthora was mistakenly not included in the survey questionnaire, so we do not have score for it. Citrus canker is present in many orchards but it only causes serious damage in a few. It was perceived as a very important disease in Dong Thap, Hoa Binh and Tuyen Quang provinces. In most other provinces it was seen as an important disease. From interviews with farmers and our own observations in most orchards regular sprays with copper based fungicides keep citrus canker under control. 4.1.1.4/4.1.3.2 Pesticide use, storage and disposal of pesticide containers Pesticides were generally not overused in the regions and provinces visited. The only exception is Dong Thap province where many farmers use pesticides more than 20 times in a season (Table 2). In the Mekong delta 36% of surveyed farmers used frequent preventative sprays against pests and 32% against diseases, while in Central Northern Vietnam 80% of farmers frequently applied preventative sprays against pests and 50% against diseases (Table 8a). In Northern Vietnam 40% of farmers applied frequent preventative sprays against pests and 30% against diseases. The majority of farmers spray pests after they have been detected in the orchard. A total of 76% farmers applied curative sprays in the Mekong delta, 32% more than 3 times and 44% 1 - 3 times. In Central Northern Vietnam all farmers (100%) applied curative sprays, 70% frequently and 30% occasionally. In Northern Vietnam 65% farmers sprayed pesticides after pests were detected, 45% frequently and 20% occasionally. It is interesting to note that 35% of farmers surveyed in Northern Vietnam have never used pesticides in their citrus orchard. Even though pesticides may not be overused, timing of spraying and the type of pesticide used needs to be optimised. In Nghe An province the number of sprays can be reduced if timing is optimised, but in Northern Vietnam the number of sprays needs to be increased for effective pest and disease control. As circumstances differ between regions a standard recommendation about the minimum number of sprays necessary cannot be given for the whole of Vietnam. In areas where citrus greening is present each flush should be sprayed at least once to prevent spread of the disease by psyllid, which equals 4 sprays in the North and about 6 sprays in the Mekong Delta. It can assumed that a few more sprays are also necessary for control of mites, so it could be estimated that 6 - 10 well timed sprays per year is the optimum number. However, in some years and regions, up to 15 sprays could be justified. Application of over 15 sprays may be considered as overuse while over 20 sprays is certainly overuse. Overall, the most frequently sprayed pest was leafminer (index 2.88) closely followed by mites (2.81) (Table 8c). Mealybugs and scales (2.78) and psyllids (2.09) were also frequently sprayed. However, there were significant differences in [...]... 1.5 2. 4 1 .2 0.8 0.7 0 0.5 1.8 4.4 3 .2 2 .2 2.3 0 1 1.4 0.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.3 0 1.5 1.4 1.4 3 .2 2.8 3.8 4.4 3 2 1.5 2. 6 2 0 0.8 1 .2 1.6 0.4 1.3 0 0.5 1.8 0.7 2 1 1 .2 0.8 2. 2 0.8 1.3 0 0.5 1.8 1.6 0 5 2. 8 2. 2 3.4 5 4.4 4 0 0.5 1.4 2. 2 1.6 0.7 5 3 .2 2 3.8 4.4 1.6 2. 3 5 1 3 .2 2.70 2. 16 1.07 3.67 1. 62 1.58 2. 36 2. 86 2. 12 2 .25 0.70 1.00 2. 12 * 0 no spray, 0. 1-1 few sprays applied by minority of farmers, 1. 1 -2 ... 1.15 psyllids 2. 90 2. 20 1.18 2. 09 thrips 2. 62 1.80 1.05 1. 82 leafminer 1.88 4.40 2. 28 2. 85 caterpillar 1. 32 0.40 0.90 0.87 fruit fly 1. 42 0.80 0.90 1.04 mites 2. 56 4.40 1.48 2. 81 diseases 2. 54 1.60 2. 88 2. 34 Overall 2. 24 2. 12 1. 52 1.96 * 0 no spray, 0. 1-1 few sprays applied by minority of farmers, 1. 1 -2 few sprays applied by majority of farmers, 2. 1-3 .0 frequent sprays applied by minority of farmers, >... Scales and mealybugs 1.4 2 2 1.6 1 .2 1 .2 0.8 1 1.8 1 0.4 0.8 1.4 aphids 1 1 0 .2 1 0.6 0.8 1 .2 1.4 1 .2 0.8 0 .2 1 .2 1.4 whitefly 1 1 .2 0 .2 0.8 0 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6 0 0 .2 0.4 0.6 psyllids 2 1 2 2 2 1 .2 1.6 1.6 1 .2 0.4 0 .2 1.4 0 thrips 1 0.8 0.4 1.6 1 0 0.8 1 0.6 0.6 0 1.4 0 .2 leafminer 1 0 .2 1 .2 1.4 0.4 1.6 1 .2 1.6 1.4 1 1.4 1.6 1.4 caterpillar 0.8 1 .2 0 .2 1 .2 0 .2 1 .2 1 .2 1.4 0.6 0.6 1 .2 1 0.8 fruit fly 0.6... intensity applied for specific pests and diseases Sprays applied to control: Index of spray intensity for each province * Vinh Long Ben Tre Ha Tinh Nghe An Hoa Binh 3.8 2. 6 2 5 2 2 2. 8 2. 2 3 .2 aphids 2. 8 1.6 1.3 2 1.6 1.6 1.8 3 .2 whitefly 2. 8 3 .2 1.3 2 0 .2 0.8 0.8 psyllids 3.8 2. 2 0.7 5 2. 8 1 .2 thrips 3.4 2. 2 1.3 5 1 .2 leafminer 3.8 1.6 0.7 2 caterpillar 0.8 1.8 2 fruit fly 0 .2 3 .2 mites 3.4 diseases... 40 0 80 20 0 80 20 0 50 50 0 70 30 0 Phu Tho 40 20 40 0 40 60 40 20 40 Yen Bai 20 0 80 20 0 80 20 0 80 Tuyen Quang 60 40 0 40 60 0 60 20 20 Ha Giang 40 40 20 60 20 20 60 40 0 40 25 35 30 30 40 45 20 35 52. 00 20 .30 27 .70 37.33 33.33 29 .33 49.00 31.00 20 .00 Mekong Delta Northern-Central VN Northern Vietnam Overall Never Often >3pa Occasionally 1-3 pa Occasionally 1-3 pa Never 29 Table 8b Index of spray... (percentage of farmers applying) appear (% of farmers applying) Often >3pa Occasionally 1-3 pa Never Often >3pa Can Tho 0 40 60 0 40 60 60 40 0 Vinh Long 60 20 20 20 60 20 40 60 0 Ben Tre 20 0 80 20 0 80 0 60 40 Dong Thap 80 20 0 100 0 0 20 0 80 Tien Giang 20 0 80 20 0 80 40 60 0 36 16 48 32 20 48 32 44 24 Ha Tinh 60 40 0 0 100 0 40 60 0 Nghe An 100 0 0 60 40 0 80 20 0 Hoa Binh 60 40 0 80 20 0 80 20 0 Ha... 1 .2 1 .2 0.8 1 1 0.6 mites 1.6 0.8 1 1.6 1.4 1 .2 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.8 0 .2 2 0.8 2 0.6 0.8 2 1.6 1 .2 1.8 1 .2 1.4 0.8 1.4 1 .2 1.4 Canker 1.4 0.8 1 1.6 1.4 1 1 1.6 1.4 0.4 0.8 1.6 1 Overall 1 .25 0.95 0.87 1. 42 0.95 1.04 1.15 1 .27 1 .20 0.65 0.64 1 .24 0.87 citrus greening 0=not important, 0. 1-0 .5 marginally important, 0. 6-1 .0 moderately important, 1. 1-1 .5 important, 1. 6 -2 .0 very important 27 Table 7b Index of. .. involved in the development of Viet GAP and they have good knowledge of GAP principles However they do not have experience with or define method of GAP implementation 4 .2. 2 Changes in interviewees’ conceptions about GAP since commencement of the project The interviewees’ concept of GAP has been broadened and enhanced They can see the need to connect production with post-harvest management and markets They... December 20 09 The collection of input and output data has been organised in 4 provinces from 20 farmers per province and will be used for the profit analysis at the end of the project Marketing of citrus fruit in all provinces is mainly through the ‘middle man’, who comes and buys fruits at the farm A very small percentage of the fruit is sold by the farmers in markets in their local towns while farmers... and the likelihood for successful project implementation is reduced It seems that trainers as well as farmers (see 4.1.3.5) are missing the central point of the concept of GAP which is that it is driven by the retailers However, a majority of trainers (69%) believe that retailers should pay for the training of farmers because the retailers will benefit the most from GAP implementation About half of the . by the minority of farmers for pests that scored 0. 1-1 , few sprays were applied by the majority of farmers for pests that scored 1. 1 -2 , frequent sprays were applied by minority of farmers for. present the findings of a baseline study undertaken from the 1 st to 28 th June 20 07. This baseline will be used as the benchmark against which impact of the project will be assessed. The baseline. Name Introduction of the principles of GAP for citrus through implementation of citrus IPM using Farmer Field Schools Vietnamese Institution Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development,