1

Key messages

Using inorganic chemicals in conventional peanut cultivation may result in declining soil quality and increased sensitivity to drought.

After one season, there were minor differences in peanut quality or yield among the conventional, organic (no inorganic chemicals) and partly organic (restricted inorganic chemicals) practices. However, organic peanut cultivation returned the highest profit.

Improved management strategies and weed control in organic peanut farming can potentially increase peanut yields.

Market links and supporting government policies are essential to encourage the adoption of organic practices.

BACKGROUND

Over the past decades, inorganic chemical

fertilizers have increasingly applied in many

countries for improving crop yields (Robertson

et al. 2014, FAO et al. 2013). However, over

use or misuse of chemical fertilizers has caused

biodiversity loss, reduction of soil organic

matter and increased greenhouse gas

emissions (FAO et al. 2013), resulting in

enhanced crop’s sensitivity to climate

variability, pests and diseases. Topsoil

degradation is projected to increase with

climate change, aggravating the demand for

chemical inputs to maintain crop production and

causing further harm to the environment (FAO

2017).

Recent trends have shown a shift away from conventional production, with a 20% increase in organic farmland between 2016 and 2017 (Willer & Lernoud 2019). In Vietnam, the Prime Minister issued Decree 109/2018/NĐ-CP1 on regulations and support for organic production. Furthermore in 2020, the Prime Minister issued Decision No. 885 / QD-TTg2 to approve projects on organic development in agriculture for the

1http://vanban.chinhphu.vn/portal/page/portal/chinhphu/hethongvanban?class_id=1&mode=detail&document_id=194623

period 2020-2030. According to this Decision, the area agricultural land for organic production is planned to reach 1.5-2% and 2.5-3% of the total agricultural land area by 2025 and 2030, respectively.

Organic farming is a way of conserving soil organic matter and biodiversity, as well as providing ecosystem services (Tsiafouli et al. 2014, Pimentel et al., 2005b, Mäder et al. 2002). Some previous studies showed that organic cultivation significantly increase crop yield (Malligawad 2010; Pimentel et al., 2005b, Lotter et al., 2003). However, some others showed that the average reduction of leguminous crop yield under organic practice ranged from 5% to 12% (Forster et al., 2013, Seufert 2012, De Ponti 2012, Malligawad 2010) and highly variable among crop types, management practices, climate conditions, regions and timescales (table 1). This calls into question whether organic agriculture can meet increasing global food demands.

In My Loi Climate-smart Village, Ha Tinh

province, Viet Nam, conventional peanut

2 https://luatvietnam.vn/nong-nghiep/quyet-dinh-885-qd-ttg-de-an-phat-trien-nong-nghiep-huu-co-giai-doan-2020-2030-185210-d1.html

2

production uses chemical inputs to increase

crop yield. However, farmers have also

experienced negative impacts on the

environment of the conventional practice and

shown their interest in testing organic farming.

However, farmers expressed concerns

regarding: (1) the potential decrease in crop

yield; and (2) the difference in market price

between conventionally and organically grown

peanuts.

This report presents the findings from an

experiment in My Loi village in dry season 2019,

comparing yields, quality and economic

benefits of peanuts grown organically versus

conventionally. We make some

recommendations for the expansion of organic

or partly organic peanut production in the

province, with the aim to encourage adoption

among local partners in on-farm experiments

and farmer-field school activities.

Table 1: Yield gap between organic and conventional practices

Crop name Organic vs.

inorganic yield (%)

Possible reasons Notes Country Reference

General

Various crops Lower (-13%) The same (after 10- 13 years)

Organic farming: improved soil structure (higher soil organic matter and aggregation), reduced groundwater nitrate concentrations, and plant-parasitic nematode.

2001–2013 experiment

Netherlands Schrama et al. 2018

Various crops Lower (-15.5-22.9%)

Multi-cropping and crop rotations could mitigate yield gaps between organic and conventional production.

Meta-analysis

Global

Ponisio et al. 2015a,

Various crops Lower (-19-20%)

NA Meta-analysis

Global De Ponti et al. 2012

Leguminous crops

Peanut Higher (+18%)

Better soil moisture holding capacity in organic practices accounted for higher crop yields.

Dry spell for 38 days right after crop establishment

India

Malligawad 2010

Soybean

Higher (+50%)

As above in Malligawad, 2010.

5 drought years during 1988 to 1998. Organic was started in 1981

Pennsylvania, USA

Pimentel et al. 2005b, Lotter et al. 2003

Soybean The same Over time, organic soil held moisture more efficiently than conventionally managed soil.

Higher organic matter content made organic soil less compact so root systems could penetrate more deeply to find moisture.

Organic systems had 15% and 20% higher water percolation, resulting in higher ground water recharge and reduced runoff.

Normal rainfall conditions 22 years experiment (1981-1999)

Pennsylvania, USA

Pimentel et al. 2005b

Bean

The same Over time, soil organic matter levels appeared to stabilize, resulting in more nitrogen availability.

Organic systems increased the soil organic carbon content and stored nutrients’ pools.

8-year experiment (1988-1996)

UC, Davis, USA

Clark et al. 1999

Peanut The same Organic farming Could improve soil physical-chemical

properties Substantially increased soil microbial biomass

species diversity

Pot experiment

China (2010)

Lin et al. 2010

Soybean Lower (-7%)

Small yield gaps: soybean has the ability to fix nitrogen, thereby avoiding potential nitrogen shortage for optimal plant growth

For four harvest years

India (2007-2010)

Forster et al. 2013

Legumes Lower (-5%)

Small yield gaps: legumes have the ability to fix nitrogen, thereby avoiding potential nitrogen shortage for optimal plant growth

Meta-analysis, Rain-fed, weak-acidic to weak-alkaline soils

Not specific Seufert 2012

3

Crop name Organic vs.

inorganic yield (%)

Possible reasons Notes Country Reference

Soybean/ pulse

Lower (-8-12%)

Low yield gap may be explained by ability to fix nitrogen.

Meta-analysis

USA De Ponti 2012

Peanut Lower (-12%)

Too high soil moisture levels in organic plot lead to poor aeration and decreased activity of soil microorganisms, influencing the nutrient availability.

Wet situations, High & fairly well distributed rainfall (2005-2006)

India

Malligawad 2010

Soybean Lower NA From 1981-2001

The USA

Pimentel, et al. 2005a

Peanut Lower NA Kenya Kipkoech et al. 2010

Other crops

Wheat, barley

Higher NA Semi-Arid Regions

Ethiopia Edwards et al. 2007

Maize Higher (+31%)

The higher soil water content in the organic systems accounted for the higher crop yields.

5 drought years during 1988 to 1998. Organic was started in 1981

Pennsylvania, USA

Pimentel et al. 2005b Lotter et al. 2003

Sorghum Higher (+ 23-42%)

Mulching (by straw) in organic treatment provided greater water conservation in semi-arid regions.

Poor seasonal rainfall distribution, no rainfall during the late grain filling stage

Ethiopia The dryland areas

Al-Tawaha et al. 2005

Tomato, maize

Higher/ the same/ lower

Lower yield: Less nitrogen availability and weed competition

The same and higher yield in the last two years: more nitrogen availability as soil organic matter levels appeared to stabilize; organic systems increased the soil organic carbon content and stored nutrients’ pools.

From 1988-1996

UC, Davis, USA

Clark et al. 1999

Maize Tomato

The same NA 15-year period Pennsylvania, USA

Drinkwater et al. 1998

Tomato The same

NA Third season California, USA

Poudel et al. 2002

Maize Lower 1981-1985

Over time, organic practices hold soil moisture more efficiently than conventionally managed soil

1981-2003

The US

Pimentel et al. 2005a

The same 1985-2003

Cotton, wheat

Lower (-37-42%) in cycle 1

In cycle 2, the conventional systems were affected by rainfall and water logging in the harvest period.

An additional nitrogen fixing green manure pre-crop in the organic systems may have contributed to the observed stability in organic yields.

Cycle 1: 2007-2008 Cycle 2: 2009-2010, rainfall and water logging in the harvest period

India

Forster et al. 2013

The same in cycle 2

Cereal Lower (-26%)

NA Meta-analysis Not specific Seufert 2012

Vegetables Lower (-33%)

NA Meta-analysis Not specific Seufert 2012, Brumfield et al. 2000

Potato Lower (-58 - 66%)

Low potassium supply and the incidence of Phytophtora infestans

Central Europe

Mäder et al. 2002

Lower (-10%)

Soil quality and microbial populations were restored

Third rotation

Wheat, barley

Lower Higher fertilizer-N inputs under conventional management

New Zealand Nguyen & Haynes 1995

NA: No information

4

METHODS

The study area

The field experiments were conducted in the

dry season between 5th February and 28th May

2019 near the Rao Tro river plain in My Loi

village, Ky Anh district, Ha Tinh province

(Figure 1). Weather conditions were drier and

hotter than normal and compared to the

previous two years. The highest temperatures

also peaked earlier than normal, at 38-39°C in

April and May, which were 2-3°C higher than in

2017 and 2018.

Peanut variety

The common peanut variety L14 was used in all

experiments. This variety is resistant to pests

and diseases such as bacterial wilt, leaf spot

and rust disease (Field crop research institute

2003). The seed rate of all treatments mirrored

the conventional practice: 120kg peanut with

shell per hectare and planting density of 30-35

plants/m2. Under conventional management, a

normal yield for L14 ranges from 2-2.3 ton/ha in

the region (Ky Anh district portal 2017).

Farm layout

Field trials were established using a split-plot

method. Each plot was split into three parts, one

for each treatment. There were three

treatments: CT1, CT2 and CT3 and four

replications per treatment. Table 2 gives an

overview of the treatments, with their layouts

and locations mapped in Figure 1. Descriptions

of each plot can be found in the Appendix 1.

Table 2. General description of treatments

Treatment Code Inorganic fertilizer Pesticide Herbicide

Organic CT1 No No No

Partly organic CT2 Restricted No No

Control/conventional CT3 Yes Yes Yes

Site 1 Site 2

Site 3 Site 4

Figure 1. Location of experiment sites in My Loi village and spatial layout of treatments

CT3.3

200m2

5

Management

Field trials were implemented on peanut fields

of three volunteer households. Field records

were done by Ha Tinh Farmers’ Union (FU),

District Agricultural Extension Office, and

farmers. There were at least five visits by the

extension officer and three visits by researchers

to assist farmers and examine peanut growth.

For organic (CT1) and partly organic treatments

(CT2), the fertilizer and herbicide applications

were recommended by FU (Ha Tinh Farmers’

Union 2019). No chemical herbicides or

pesticides were used. Weeding was done

manually when needed. The biological pest

control method (FAO n.d.) was introduced by

FU to participating farmers. The fertilizer rate

used for the treatments is described in table 3.

The fertilizer and herbicide applications by

farmers are detailed in Appendix 2.

Table 3: The recommended fertilizer management by the Farmer’s Union

Treat- ment

Fertilizer rate (kg per ha)

Herbicide Antaco 500EC (100ml-bottle

/ha)

Farmyard manure (FYM)

Bio-organic

fertilizer 3

Lime CaO

Super Phosphate

Tecmo

Urea4 CO (NH2)2

With N: 43.6%

Potassium Cloride 5 KCl

With K2O: 61%

CT1 12 3 400 600 0 0 0

CT2 12 3 400 600 60-80 100 0

CT3 4 0 600 400 50-80 50 20 Note The application was conducted three times.

Basal application: 100% FYM, 50% lime, 50 % phosphate

Vegetative stage when peanut plant has 2-3 true leaves: 60% Urea, 50% Potassium

Flowering stage: 50% lime, 50% phosphate, 40% Urea, 50% Potassium The amount recommended in the table is for either FYM or Bio-organic fertilizer. FYM and bio-organic fertilizer can be used together, depending on the household available resources. One ton of bio-organic fertilizer equals four tons of FYM.

Observed variables

Peanut yields were measured for each experimental replication (Picture 1). The harvested nuts of

replications were dried with shells (pod yield) and weighed separately (Picture 2). Samples of

replications were sent to laboratory for seed quality tests, including (1) protein and lipid contents; (2)

aflatoxin content; and (3) pesticide residues. Quality indicators and testing methods are shown in Table

4.

Table 4: Seed quality tests and methods

Test Test methods Conducted by

Crude protein content

TCVN 4328:2007 Standard for determination of nitrogen content and calculation of crude protein content. Issued by Vietnamese Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST)

National Institute of Animal Science (NIAS)

Lipid content

TCVN 4331:2001 Standard for determination of fat content. Issued by MOST

National Institute of Animal Science (NIAS)

Aflatoxin ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) method. Veratox kit approved by USDA/GIPSA 2012-010 AOAC-RI 050901

Plant Protection Research Institute (PPRI)

Pesticide residues

EN 15662:2008 Analysis of pesticide residues in foods of plant origin. Issued by European Committee for Standardization

Institute for Agricultural Environment (IAE)

3 http://www.phanbonquelam.com/vi/san-pham/phan-huu-co-cac-che-pham-sinh-hoc/phan-huu-co-vi-sinh-que-lam-01_t347c370n2939 4 http://pmb.vn/dam-phu-my/dam-phu-my-urea 5 http://pmb.vn/kali-phu-my

6

Cost-benefit analysis

A simple cost-benefit analysis was done to

evaluate effectiveness of each treatment. The

input cost included the cost of seeds, FYM,

chemical fertilizer, herbicide, lime and labour.

One labour day (8 hours) was converted to VND

0.15 million. FYM was made by farmers using

crop residues and livestock waste, converting

to the cost of VND 0.5 million per ton.

The qualitative benefits included observations

by farmers and district extension official on the

growth and development of peanut under each

treatment. The quantitative benefits were

calculated as profit (total revenue minus total

cost) and investment efficiency (profit divided

by total cost).

RESULTS

Peanut pod yield (dry yield with shell)

There was no significant difference between the

average yields of any treatments. The organic

yield was 2.03 ton/ha, followed by the control

(1.92 ton/ha) and the partly organic treatment

(1.88 ton/ha). These values were all in range of

the normal yield of peanut L14 in the region.

However, there were significant yield

differences among the experimental sites. The

yields of all treatments in Site 1 were

significantly lower than those in the other sites,

although the same fertilizer rates were applied

(Table 4, Figure 2). This can be ascribed to

differing soil type, texture and moisture

conditions, which influences soil water-holding

capacity and nutrient retention.

Seed quality and food safety

Table 5 presents the quality of peanut seeds by

treatment.

Protein and lipid content: The average protein

and lipid contents across the three treatments

ranged from 31 to 33.4%, and from 43.3 to

45.8%, respectively. Anova analysis showed no

significant difference among the three

treatments.

Aflatoxin: The average aflatoxin concentration

in the partly organic treatment (CT2) was lower

than the maximum threshold of 15 nanograms

per gram (Vietnamese Ministry of Science and

Technology 2015). The conventional (CT3) and

organic (CT1) treatments had higher average

aflatoxin concentrations than the maximum

threshold. However, only one sample of four

from each treatment (CT3 and CT1) showed

higher aflatoxin level than acceptable aflatoxin

levels. Specifically, aflatoxin levels of CT3.2

and CT1.3 were 63.9 and 309 ng/g,

respectively. The details of aflatoxin

concentration of samples from each treatment

are shown in appendix 3.

Pesticide residue: No pesticide residue was

detected in any of the peanut samples.

Figure 2. Peanut yields of experimental sites by treatments. Experimental sites are described in Figure 1 and appendix 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

1 2 3 4

Yiel

d (

ton

/ha)

Experimental site

CT1- organic CT2 – partly organic CT3 - control

7

Table 5. Measurement of qualitative variables

Indicators

Treatment

CT1- organic (n=4)

CT2–partly organic

(n=4)

CT3- conventional

(n=4)

Total aflatoxin concentration, ng/g 78.2 4.1 17.8

Protein concentration, % 33.4 32.0 31.1

Lipid concentration, % 43.3 45.8 45.5

Pesticide residues, mg/kg Not detected Not detected Not detected

Cost and Benefit Analysis

Table 6 summarizes the result of cost-benefit

analysis for the three treatments. In general,

organic and partly organic treatments required

higher input cost but generated higher profit

than the conventional one.

Costs. Farmers estimated that 80 days per ha

(12 million VND/ha) was needed for hand-

weeding in the organic or partly organic

cultivation, compared to 4 days per ha (0.6

million VND/ha) with herbicides in conventional

cultivation. Excluding labour cost, the total input

cost of organic and the partly organic

cultivations were slightly higher than

conventional cultivation due to the cost for bio-

organic fertilizer.

Profit. While having similar productivity,

organic cultivation returned the highest profit,

followed by the partly organic and then the

conventional cultivation. Excluding labour

costs, the profit from organic treatment was 1.8

and 1.6 times higher than that of the

conventional and the partly organic cultivation,

respectively. Including labour costs, the organic

treatment still returned the highest profit,

around 1.5 times higher than the control.

The differences depended on: (1) market price

– VND30,000 per kg for organic peanuts and

VND25,000 per kg for partly organic meant

around a 40% and 20% respective increase

compared to conventional peanuts (VND

18,000 -21,000 per kg); (2) the amount of labour

required for weed management; and (3) the

type of fertilizer applied.

Labor cost likely does not influence the

investment efficiency of cultivation measures.

The investment efficiency of the organic

cultivation was highest, followed by the

conventional and the partly organic cultivation

(Table 6).

Table 6: Cost and benefit analysis for peanut by treatment.

Category

Treatment

CT1- organic (n=4)

CT2 – partly organic (n=4)

CT3 – conventional (n=4)

Labour excluded

Total input cost 19.1 20.9 16.8

Revenue 60.9 46.9 40.2

Profit 42.0 26.0 23.4

Investment efficiency 2.2 1.2 1.3

Labour included

Total Input cost 40.7 42.5 27.1

Revenue 60.9 46.9 40.2

Profit 20.1 4.3 13.1

Investment efficiency 0.49 0.1 0.48

Unit: million VND/ha

8

Other benefits. Peanut leaves were greener,

and plants looked stronger with organic

treatment than conventional, despite there

being drought conditions during the

experimental period. Both district extension

staff and farmers said that this may relate to

positive effect of biological fertilizers, which

improved soil-organic matter and water-holding

capacity, therefore plants flourished with the

organic treatment.

Farmers’ feedback and willingness to adopt

organic farming

Participating farmers weighed the increased

labour requirements for organic and partly

organic production against the benefits of

decreased exposure to toxic chemicals, safer

products and reduced pollutants in the soil,

water and atmosphere. They were surprised at

the small yield differences between organic and

conventional practices. They also found they

were able to negotiate an acceptable price for

organic peanuts and expressed the willingness

to continue the organic cultivation. Farmers

cited three key factors to accelerate the

adoption of organic practices: (1) demand from

buyer; (2) higher farm gate price to compensate

for extra labour costs and leads to higher net

income; and (3) increased awareness of the

impacts of toxic chemicals.

Limitations

These initial results are only indicative due to

the limited sample size, geographical location

and duration of the experiment. Moreover,

residues of chemical fertilizers from the

previous cropping season may have influenced

the obtained results.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Organic-oriented production with

appropriate management practices did not

reduce peanut yields

This study showed similar leguminous (peanut)

crop yields under organic and conventional

practices in the condition of My Loi village

during experimental period. Some studies on

legumes also reported the same or even higher

organic yields in compared with conventional

cultivation under drought conditions (table 1).

Common reasons cited for higher or similar

yields included: (1) the high levels of soil

organic matter in organic practices helped

conserve soil and water resources and proved

beneficial during drought years; and (2) the

atmospheric nitrogen fixing ability of

leguminous crops contributed to avoiding

potential nitrogen shortages for optimal plant

growth.

Conversely, some studies have reported lower

organic yields (table 1). However, yield gaps for

leguminous crops were generally small (5-12%)

because of their nitrogen fixing capacity

(Forster et al. 2013, Seufert 2012). In addition,

a recent meta-analysis by Ponisio et al. (2015)

found that crop yield gaps decreased with

appropriate management practices (e.g. multi-

cropping and crop rotations) and long-term

organic cultivation, as soil quality and microbial

populations are restored (Schrama et al. 2018,

Ponisio et al. 2015, Forster et al. 2013, Pimentel

et al. 2005a, Mäder et al. 2002, Clark S et al.

1999). However, there are no clear findings

about the time needed to close the gaps. To

better understand the performance of organic

peanut farming, systematic analyses of long-

term organic cultivation under different

management practices and in wider biophysical

conditions are important.

Weed control needs an integrated

management approach

In this study, farmers spent 80 days per ha for

hand weeding in the organic and partly organic

cultivations, compared to 4 days with herbicides

in the conventional cultivation. Although organic

peanut cultivation requires additional labour per

ha, labour is more evenly distributed over the

year (Granatstein 2003, Brumfield et al 2000,

Nguyen & Haynes 1995).

Integrated weed management practices

(Johnson 2019) may be adapted for the needs

of organic peanut farmer groups.

Cultural weed control recommended for

organic peanut cultivation is a series of

practices to suppress weeds by promoting

uniform peanut growth, including:

- Optimizing the planting calendar to

ensure seed placement, germination and

emergence in suitable environmental

conditions, e.g. soil temperature at 5-cm

depth three days after planting should be

above 27°C and below 35°C. This will

result in healthy and competitive plants.

For this, weather information services

must be considered.

9

- Rows’ distance should be 20 to 28 plants

per meter. This can help to have suitable

peanut stand and canopy closure to

adequately suppress weeds in organic

cultivation.

- Intercropping practices (i.e. peanut and

cassava) and crop rotation (peanut,

maize/sweet potato/sesame) have

already been implemented for years in

My Loi village and can be an

environmentally friendly option for weed

control. Other suitable rotation crops for

peanut include vegetables and small

grains, e.g sorghum (Guerena & Adam,

2008). However, the geography, climate

and irrigation capacities are important

factors for choosing suitable rotational

crops.

- Manure applications can act as a source

of viable weed seeds, so weed seed

density in organic fields is significantly

greater than conventional fields (Fess &

Benedito, 2018),. Therefore, proper

composting (Le et al., 2018a.) should be

considered to reduce weed seed in

organic fertilizers. Farmers can use

effective homemade (Le et al., 2018b) or

commercial microorganism products

(EM) to properly accelerate the

composting process.

Mechanical weed control is the use of tools

or manual labor to remove, cut, or disrupt

weed growth. In My Loi village, farmers are

using hand weeding as a supplement to

other weed control efforts.

Bio-chemical weed control: Herbicides that

can be used for organic production must be

derived from natural products. A

comprehensive list of herbicides suitable

for use in certified organic crop production

is available in the Vietnamese organic

production standard, TCVN 11041-2:2017

(Ministry of Science and Technology

2017).

Reducing the risk of aflatoxin contamination

Aflatoxin contamination in peanuts can occur at

all stages of production. As the concentrations

of aflatoxin were generally low in the

experiment in My Loi, the high levels in two of

the samples are most likely the result of post-

harvest management rather than soil

environment or input materials.

Recommendations to reduce aflatoxin

contamination include:

Pre-harvest: implementing agricultural

practices to improve soil water-holding

capacity and/or irrigation control (e.g. late

season irrigation) and reduce heat and

drought stress; forecasting aflatoxin risk

based on actual meteorological and soil

conditions to take proactive measures in

preventing infection (Torres et al., 2014).

During harvest: harvesting at optimum

maturity is essential, as too many

overmatured or immature pods at harvest

time often create breeding grounds for

aflatoxin. Rapid drying after harvest could

reduce contamination risks, therefore

harvesting during dry days is advised

(Torres et al. 2014).

Picture 1. Harvesting peanut on the experimental field

10

Post-harvest: screening to remove

contaminated seeds using manual sorting;

correct storage – kernels can be stored for

a year with controlled kernel moisture

content at 7% (for shelled peanut) and 9%

(for unshelled peanut), under 70% ambient

relative humidity at 25-27°C (Waliyar et al.

2015).

Biocontrol: adding competitive non-

toxigenic strains of A. flavus or A.

parasiticus to the soil can reduce aflatoxins

before and after harvest, by outcompeting

naturally occurring toxigenic strains.

Furthermore, soil inoculation with

nontoxigenic strains has a carryover effect

which may prevent contamination during

storage (Torres et al. 2014).

Technical guidance for aligning peanut

production to organic farming standards must

be developed for specific contexts, to

recommend companion crops for integrated

peanut-based systems and to avoid chemical or

pesticide residues or contamination in organic

production. FYM also needs to be properly

decomposed to avoid pests and diseases.

Needs-specific training can be organized as

farmer field school activities or demonstration

plots, for testing intercropping combinations,

preparing organic inputs and preparing

composts.

Market links and government support are

essential to foster and sustain the

transformation of farming practices

During the initial years of shifting production

methods, the unclear benefits may be tempting

to revert to conventional practices. Participating

farmers in this study were motivated to change

to organic practices, as they had seen the

negative impacts of chemical inputs on the

environment and had previous experience with

organic cultivation. They also expected to sell

peanuts at a higher price to compensate for the

labour spent on manual weeding.

As organic foods often fetch higher prices, the

economic return per hectare is similar or higher

than that of conventional products (Pimentel et

al., 2005b, Brumfield et al., 2000). Land-use

planning that sets aside permanent areas for

organic production with buffer zones can avoid

contamination from neighboring fields and

provide easier sourcing and monitoring of

organic standards. Connecting farmers with

organic peanut buyers or providing financial

incentives can encourage farmers to shift to

organic practices.

Picture 2. Peanut sampling for laboratory analysis

11

REFERENCES

Al-Tawaha ARM, Mesfine T, Abebe G. 2005.

Effect of Reduced Tillage and Crop Residue

Ground Cover on Yield and Water Use

Efficiency of Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.)

Moench) Under Semi-Arid Conditions of

Ethiopia. World Journal of Agricultural

Sciences, 1(2), 152–160. https://www.idosi.org

/wjas/wjas1(2)/9.pdf

Brumfield, RG, Rimal A, Reiners S, Mill L,

Cucurbita L. 2000. & Marketing. Specialist,

10(December), 785–793.

Clark S, Klonsky K, Livingston P, Temple S.

1999. Crop-yield and economic comparisons of

organic, low-input, and conventional farming

systems in California’s Sacramento Valley.

American Journal of Alternative Agriculture,

14(3), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1017/s08

89189300008225

De Ponti T, Rijk B, Van Ittersum MK. 2012. The

crop yield gap between organic and

conventional agriculture. Agricultural Systems,

108, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2011.

12.004

Drinkwater LE, Wagoner P, Sarrantonio M.

1998. Legume-based cropping systems have

reduced carbon and nitrogen losses. Nature,

396(6708), 262–265. https://doi.org/10.1038/

24376

Edwards S, Araya H, Berhan Gebre Egziabher,

T. 2007. Impact of Compost Use on Crop Yields

In Tigray, Ethiopia by Natural Resources

Management and Environment Department.

FAO. n.d.. 8 Cách làm Thuốc trừ sâu sinh học

tự chế thân thiện môi trường. Retrieved

December 4, 2020, from https://www.fao.org.vn

/bvtv/thuoc-tru-sau-sinh-hoc/

FAO. 2017. The future of food and agriculture:

Trends and challenges. www.fao.org

/publications

FAO, IFAD, WFP. 2013. The State of Food

Insecurity in the World 2013. The multiple

dimensions of food security.

Fess TL, Benedito VA. 2018. Organic versus

conventional cropping sustainability: A

comparative system analysis. Sustainability

(Switzerland), 10(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/

su10010272

Field crop research institute. 2003. Giống Lạc

L14 - Viện Cây lương thực và Cây thực phẩm |

Viện Cây lương thực và Cây thực phẩm.

http://fcri.com.vn/sanpham/giong-lac-l14/

Forster D, Andres C, Verma R, Zundel C,

Messmer MM, Mäder P. 2013. Yield and

Economic Performance of Organic and

Conventional Cotton-Based Farming Systems

– Results from a Field Trial in India. PLoS ONE,

8(12), e81039. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.

pone.0081039

Granatstein D. 2003. Tree Fruit Production with

Organic Farming Methods. Wenatchee (WA):

Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural

Resources, Washington State University.

http://organic.tfrec.wsu.edu/OrganicIFP/Organi

cFruitProduction/OrganicMgt.PDF

Guerena M, Adam K. 2008. Peanuts: Organic

Production. Production, 20.

Johnson WC. 2019. A Review of Weed

Management Challenges in Organic Peanut

Production. Peanut Science, 46(1), 56–66.

https://doi.org/10.3146/ps18-12.1

Kipkoech A, Okiror M, Okalebo J, Maritim H.

2010. Production efficiency and economic

potential of different soil fertility management

strategies among groundnut farmers of Kenya.

Science World Journal, 2(1). https://doi.org/

10.4314/swj.v2i1.51714

Ky Anh district portal. 2017. Huyện Kỳ Anh:

Năng suất lạc ước đạt 20 tạ/ha.

Http://Kyanh.Hatinh.Gov.Vn. http://kyanh.hatin

h.gov.vn/kyanh/portal/read/thong-tin-ve-nong-

nghiep/news/huyen-ky-anh-nang-suat-lac-uoc-

dat-20-taha.html/20170613125434

Le et al. n.d.. Sharing her own CSA success

story. 2018. Retrieved August 30, 2020, from

https://ccafs.cgiar.org/blog/sharing-her-own-

climate-smart-agriculture-success-story#.

X0vYrcgzZnL

Le et al. 2018. How to make effective

microorganism product in Vietnamese

Language.

Lin XA, Wang FA, Cai HA, Lin RA, He CA, Li

QA, Li AYA. n.d.. Effects of different organic

fertilizers on soil microbial biomass and peanut

yield.

Lotter DW, Seidel R, Liebhardt W. 2003. The

performance of organic and conventional

12

cropping systems in an extreme climate year.

American Journal of Alternative Agriculture,

18(3), 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1079/

AJAA200345

Mäder P, Fließbach A, Dubois D, Gunst L, Fried

P, Niggli U. 2002. Soil fertility and biodiversity in

organic farming. Science, 296(5573), 1694–

1697. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1071148

Malligawad LH. 2010. Effect of organics on the

productivity of groundnut and its residual effects

on succeeding safflower under rainfed farming

situations. World, August, 2004–2007.

Ministry of Science and Technology. 2017. Tiêu

chuẩn quốc gia TCVN 11041-2:2017 về Nông

nghiệp hữu cơ - Phần 2: Trồng trọt hữu cơ.

https://vanbanphapluat.co/tcvn-11041-2-2017-

nong-nghiep-huu-co-phan-2-trong-trot-huu-co

Nguyen ML, Haynes RJ. 1995. Energy and

labour efficiency for three pairs of conventional

and alternative mixed cropping (pasture-arable)

farms in Canterbury, New Zealand. Agriculture,

Ecosystems and Environment, 52(2–3), 163–

172. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(94)005

38-P

Pimentel D, Hepperly P, Hanson J, Douds D,

Seidel R. 2005a. Environmental, energetic, and

economic comparisons of organic and

conventional farming systems. In BioScience

55(7), 573–582. American Institute of Biological

Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568

(2005) 055[0573:EEAECO]2.0.CO;2

Pimentel D, Hepperly P, Hanson J, Seidel R,

Douds D. 2005b. Organic and Conventional

Farming Systems: Environmental and

Economic Issues. https://ecommons.cornell.

edu/handle/1813/2101

Ponisio LC, M’gonigle LK, Mace KC, Palomino

J, Valpine PDe, Kremen C. 2015.

Diversification practices reduce organic to

conventional yield gap. Proceedings of the

Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,

282(1799). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.

1396

Poudel DD, Horwath WR, Lanini WT, Temple

SR, Van Bruggen AHC. 2002. Comparison of

soil N availability and leaching potential, crop

yields and weeds in organic, low-input and

conventional farming systems in northern

California. Agriculture, Ecosystems and

Environment, 90(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/

10.1016/S0167- 8809(01)00196-7

Robertson GP, Gross KL, Hamilton SK., Landis

DA, Schmidt TM, Snapp SS, Swinton SM.

2014. Farming for ecosystem services: An

ecological approach to production agriculture.

BioScience, 64(5), 404–415. https://doi.org/10.

1093/biosci/biu037

Schrama, M, de Haan JJ, Kroonen M,

Verstegen H, Van der Putten WH. 2018. Crop

yield gap and stability in organic and

conventional farming systems. Agriculture,

Ecosystems and Environment, 256(January),

123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.

12.023

Seufert V, Ramankutty N, Foley JA. 2012.

Comparing the yields of organic and

conventional agriculture. In Nature 485(7397)

229–232. Nature Publishing Group.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11069

Tiêu chuẩn Việt Nam TCVN 4832:2015 của Bộ

Khoa học và Công nghệ ban hành năm 2015.

(n.d.). Retrieved August 31, 2020, from

https://luatvietnam.vn/thuc-pham/tieu-chuan-

viet-nam-tcvn-4832-2015-bo-khoa-hoc-va-

cong-nghe-156710-d3.html

Torres AM, Barros GG, Palacios SA, Chulze

SN, Battilani P. 2014. Review on pre- and post-

harvest management of peanuts to minimize

aflatoxin contamination. In Food Research

International 62, 11–19. Elsevier Ltd. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.02.023

Tsiafouli M, Sgardelis S, Birkhofer K. 2014.

Intensive agriculture reduces soil biodiversity

across Europe MULTAGRI-Rural development

through governance of multifunctional

agricultural land-use View project Acoustic

Ecology View project. https://doi.org/10.

1111/gcb.12752

Waliyar F, Osiru M, Ntare BR, Vijay Krishna

Kumar K, Sudini H, Traore A, Diarra B. 2015.

Post-harvest management of aflatoxin

contamination in groundnut. In World Mycotoxin

Journal 8(2), 245–252. Wageningen Academic

Publishers. https://doi.org/10.3920/WMJ2014.

1766

Willer H, Lernoud J. 2019. The world of organic

agriculture: Statistics and emerging trends

2019. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture

(FiBL), Frick, and IFOAM– Organics

International, Bonn. https://doi.org/10.4324/

9781849775991

13

Appendix

Appendix 1. Description of experiment sites

Site Treatment Area (m2) Plot characteristic Annual crop rotation

Spring Summer Winter

1 CT1.1 200

Degraded soil, light coarse texture; mixed with small stones. Land between paddy fields and hills; gentle slope

Peanut Maize Bean or maize

CT2.1 200

CT3.1 150

2 CT1.2 200 Fluvial soil, light texture. Terraced field

Peanut Bean or maize

Peanut or maize CT2.2 202

CT3.2 250

3 CT1.3 100 Degraded soil, light texture; fluvial materials Land between paddy fields and hills land; flat

Peanut Bean or maize

Bean or maize CT2.3 150

CT3.3 200

4 CT1.4 100 Fluvial soil, light texture. Terraced field

Peanut Bean or maize

Peanut or maize CT2.4 150

CT3.4 500

Appendix 2. Fertilizer and herbicide application rate per treatment (converted to kg/ha)

Treat- ment

Fertilizer rate (kg per ha) Herbicide

FYM

Bio-organic fertilizer

Lime CaO

Super Phosphate

Tecmo

Urea CO (NH2)2

With N: 43.6%

Potassium Clorua KCl

With K2O: 61%

NPK6

Antaco 500EC (100ml-

bottle/ha)

CT1.1 0 3000 900 600 0 0 0 0

CT2.1 0 3000 900 600 80 100 0 0

CT3.1 0 2000 800 600 60 40 0 0

CT1.2 7500 1500 700 600 0 0 0 0

CT2.2 7426 1500 693 604 79 99 0 0

CT3.2 6000 600 400 600 40 60 0 20

CT1.3 8000 1500 1000 600 0 0 0 0

CT2.3 8000 1500 1000 600 80 100 0 0

CT3.3 0 0 1250 300 100 0 1250 20

CT1.4 8000 1500 1000 600 0 0 0 0

CT2.4 8000 1500 1000 600 80 100 0 0

CT3.4 6000 0 760 0 40 60 0 20

Appendix 3. Measurement of aflatoxin concentration (ng/g)

Site Treatment

CT1- organic CT2 – partly organic CT3 - conventional

1 2.2 3.7 3.0

2 2.7 1.4 63.9

3 306.0 2.9 0.9

4 2.0 8.3 3.3

6 https://www.dpm.vn/phan-bon-phu-my/npk-phu-my-15-15-15te

14

Acknowledgements

This document summarizes the findings of participatory organic peanut experiment with three

households in My Loi CSV in 2019, funded by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change,

Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). Ella Houzer edited the brief.

Authors

Tam Thi Le (l.tam@cgiar.org) is a researcher for CCAFS projects at World Agroforestry (ICRAF

Vietnam). She provided background orientation, complemented experimental design and completed

the report.

Yen Tan Bui (yenbt.sfri@mard.gov.vn) is a researcher working at the Soils and Fertilizers Research

Institute, specializing in soil science, geographic information systems, and modeling. He designed the

field experiment, supervised field activity and initiated the technical report.

Elisabeth Simelton (e.simelton@cgiar.org) is a climate change scientist and CCAFS project leader at

World Agroforestry (ICRAF Vietnam). She initiated the development of the experiment and

complemented the report.

Hoa Dinh Le (dinhhoafuht@gmail.com) is provincial Farmer’s Union staff. He joined My Loi CSV project

activities in 2015. He coordinated field activities, provided technical support to farmers, collected field

data and complemented information.

Toan Thi Nguyen is a researcher at World Agroforestry (ICRAF Vietnam). She supported the literature

review and complemented information.

Giang Thi Nguyen is technical staff at Ky Anh district extension center, which is called the Center for

Applied Science and Technology as well as Protection of Plant and Livestock. She provided technical

support to farmers, collected field data and provided field observation.

This work was implemented as part of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture

and Food Security (CCAFS), which is carried out with support from the CGIAR Trust Fund and through

bilateral funding agreements. For details please visit https://ccafs.cgiar.org/donors. The views

expressed in this document cannot be taken to reflect the official opinions of these organizations.

Creative Commons License

This brief is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial 4.0 International

License.

Photos: Tran Ha My, ICRAF Vietnam

© 2020 CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) and

World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF).