AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterIntegration of Production Technologies for Organic Vegetable Soybean
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterAVRDC Organic Vegetable Soybean Research Team Crop & Ecosystem Management Unit • Dr. Chin-Hua Ma, Soil Scientist and Project Leader • Dr. Peter Juroszek, Weed Management Agronomist • Dr. Manuel C. Palada, Crop Management Specialist • Mr. L. H. Chen, Senior Field Assistant • Ms. Ida Tsai, Research Assistant Legume Breeding Unit – Variety Evaluation • Dr. Motoki Takahashi, Associate Plant Breeder • Ms. Miao-Rong Yan, Principal Research Assistant Entomology Unit – Pest Management • Dr. Ramasamy Srinivasan, Entomologist • Ms. Mei-Ying Lin, Principal Research Assistant • Mr. Fu-Cheng Su, Principal Research Assistant Mycology Unit – Disease Management • Dr. Tien-Chien Wang, Mycologist • Mr. Chien-Hua Chen, Principal Research Assistant Nutrition Unit – Quality Evaluation • Dr. Ray-Yu Yang, Associate Specialist & Biochemist • Ms. Wan-Jen Wu, Research Assistant • Ms. Ying-Chuang Chen, Laboratory Assistant
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Manuel Celiz Palada Vegetable Production/Ecosystem Specialist Head, Crop & Ecosystem Management Unit, AVRDC Education: PhD Hort Science-Vegetable Crops, Univ. of Florida; MS Agronomy, Univ. of the Philippines; BS Plant Science, Central Philippine Univ. Positions held: Research Professor, Univ. Virgin Islands USA; Senior Agronomist, IITA Nigeria; Research Scientist, Rodale International, USA; Senior Research Assistant, IRRI Philippines; Asst Professor, Central Philippine UniversityResearch and development work: Field and vegetable crops production, sustainableagricultural systems, farming systems research/extension/training, organic/ecologicalagriculture, agroforestry systems, multiple cropping/cropping systems, small farmdevelopment, microirrigation, indigenous and specialty vegetable crops, herbs and spices,medicinal and aromatic plants/herbs, peri-urban agriculture.International work experience: More than 35 years in profession. Has worked in South,Southeast & Central Asia, West, Central & East Africa, the Caribbean & South Pacific.Traveled to >40 countries.Publications: 30+ peer reviewed journal articles; 90+proceedings; 80+ abstracts; 55technical bulletins; edited 5 conference proceedings and gave >100 technical presentationsin national, regional and international scientific meetings and conferences.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Outline• Introduction• Objectives• Cultivar evaluation• Soil and fertilizer management• Insect management• Disease management• Weed and crop management• Quality improvement - nutrition• Expected impacts• Summary
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center The role ofAVRDC – The World Vegetable Center ____ Research that promotes development
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Founded in 1971 as the Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center with a research focus on Asia Now: The World Vegetable Center with a global mandate Its research and extension are not-for- profit Its products of research are global public goods Staff: Increasing - almost 350 worldwide (2007) 48 Internationally Recruited Staff 293 Nationally Recruited Staff Budget: Over US$ 18 millions (2007)
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Focus of AVRDC HEALTH INCOME DIVERSITYVegetables are the most Vegetables create more jobs Preserving and working withaffordable and available than other agricultural diversity is an investment for source of essential activity the future micronutrients --- --- --- Vegetable production helps Diverse varieties are theVegetables are a healthy create new income source for applied breeding answer to malnutrition opportunities along the and obesity value-added chain --- --- --- Vegetable production and Improved safety for High value vegetables processing diversifies producers and provide marketing economic activities andconsumers through safer opportunities income production Training and capacity building for sustainable impacts!
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Mission and Strategy Mission: “Alleviate poverty and malnutrition in the developing world through increased production and consumption of safe vegetables.” Strategy: “To build partnerships and mobilize resources from the private and public sectors to promote production and consumption of safe vegetables in the developing world.” … to peri-urbanFrom production to consumption From rural … and urban areas
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Priority outcomes of research for developmentIncrease productivity Enhance nutrition Ensure food Reduce pesticide and income safety misuseIncrease Protect the Gender: Focus on Empower the poorsustainability environment women
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Vegetable Soybean in Taiwan• Number 1 processed frozen food for export.• One of the most important cash crops• Good quality, proper moisture content, high sugar content, better flavor.• Increased yield and improved quality – key points for enhancing superiority in international markets.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center ChallengeIncreasing concern onenvironmental quality, humanhealth and safer agriculturalproducts has led to thedevelopment of organicagriculture, hence, organicvegetable soybean.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Challenge• Development of cultivation technologies and expansion of export markets for organic vegetable soybean is a challenge for sustainable organic vegetable production and enterprise.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Vegetable Soybean• High protein, P, Ca and isoflavone• Nutrition value higher than other beans• Low fertilizer requirements• Shorter growth duration• Symbiotic N fixing ability suitable for organic farming – leguminous crop
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Project Objectives• Integrate production technologies and standard cultivation knowledge for organic vegetable soybean.• Provide production guidelines for organic vegetable soybean farmers.• Extend improved production technologies for organic vegetable soybean to other farmers in the tropics.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center AVRDC Organic Experimental FieldOrganicresearchfields Since the summer of 2004, fields of total 6 ha area are in conversion from conventional to organic farming (see fields in blue color). In addition to vegetable crops, arable crops, green manure species, catch crops, banana, and tropical fruit trees are also grown in order to increase the biodiversity and stability within the system.
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterLand Preparation for Organic Vegetable Soybean
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterLaying out plots
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterLaying out plots and treatments
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterIntegration production technologies for organic vegetable soybean - An AVRDC’s Approach ` 2008.1.30 Maejo University, Chiang Mai
Research on production technologies of organic vegetable soybean Variety Crop & Evaluation Organic- Organic- Organic-Evaluation Fertilizer pod/seed IDM IPM IWM Manage- quality ment Varietal differenceSelect Innocula- Effects on Integrateddevelopedthe best tion Isoflavone disease/pest technologiesfrom Balanced Compare Develop new technologieslocal fertilization betweenvarieties organic & conventional Integrated production technologies for organic VSB Disseminate the technologies through field demo & field guide
Field Trial for OVSB in Spring 2006 AVRDC, Taiwan
Field Trial for OVSB in Autumn 2006 AVRDC, Taiwan
Field Trial for OVSB in Spring 2007 AVRDC, Taiwan
Field Trial for OVSB in Autumn 2007 AVRDC, Taiwan
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Standards for graded pods of VSB• Vegetable soybean is grain soybean harvested at R6 stage while the pods are still green and fully developed. The seeds of vegetable soybean are commonly larger, sweeter and more tender than grain soybean.• Export standard graded pods are green pods without diseases and pest damages, with two or more seeds per pod, pod size with width 1.3 cm and pod length 4.5 cm, in 500 g pods contain about 150~170 pod numbers.• Other requirements are: gray pubescence on pod, short cooking time, easy-to-squeeze pod texture after cooking, and sweet taste.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Cultivar Evaluation Vegetable Soybean Varieties• V1 – Cha-Mame (fragrant)• V2 – Tainan – ASVEG 2• V6 - Kaohsiung 6• V9 – Kaohsiung 9
Tainan-AV No.2 Days to maturity in spring is 85 , and 71 days in autumn. It is a mid to late maturity variety Resistant to Downy mildew powdery mildew Graded pod yields in spring is 10.7 t/ha, 8.7 t/ha in autumn.。 Pod large and green with good flavor and tastes
KS-No. 6 Medium maturity variety, days to maturity is about 73. Graded pod yields in spring is 8.3 t/ha, 5.9 t/ha in autumn. Seeds tasted the sweetest among all cultivated varieties. Susceptible to Anthracnose.
KS-No. 9 High yielding variety Graded pod yields in spring is 8.9~9.8 t/ha, and 9.0~9.5 t/ha in autumn. Higher graded pods with three seeds per pod. Good flavor and taste ：better than KS -6. But the seeds are harder than KS-6.
ChamameJapan’s varietyWith Taro-flavor, high sweetnessWith brown seed skin color, white flower colorVery early maturity, yield is lower than other variety
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Yield of Vegetable Soybean Varieties under Organic Management System AVRDC, TaiwanVariety Total pod yield (t/ha) SP-2006 AU-2006 SP-2007 MeanCha-Mame 12.5 ab 9.7 a 10.8 a 11.0Tainan – 14.0 a 10.4 a 11.2 a 11.9ASVEG 2Kaohsiung 6 11.8 b 7.1 b 8.5 b 9.1Kaohsiung 9 13.6 a 9.2 a 10.3 a 11.0Mean separation in columns by Tukey’s Test, P<0.05.SP = SpringAU = Autumn
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Yield of Vegetable Soybean Varieties under Organic Management System AVRDC, TaiwanVariety Graded pod yield (t/ha) SP 2006 AU 2006 SP 2007 MeanCha-Mame 8.3 a 5.9 a 6.3 a 6.8Tainan – 8.3 a 5.2 ab 4.5 b 6.0ASVEG 2Kaohsiung 6 7.6 a 4.5 b 4.6 b 5.6Kaohsiung 9 7.6 a 5.2 ab 5.2 b 6.0Mean separation in columns by Tukey’s Test, P<0.05 SP = Spring AU = Autumn
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Evaluation of varieties• TN-AV2 produced the highest total pod yield, followed by KS9 and V1-Chamame. However, the differences were not significantly different. The growing period for TNAV2 was the longest, and that for Chamame was the shortest.• As the graded pod yields were compared, Chamame had the highest graded pod yield, followed by TNAV2 or KS-9. The differences among varieties were also not significant. Chamame variety has great potential to be cultivated in organic farming system.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Fertilizer TreatmentTrt Solid Organic Fert Organic Fert Solution Index of total (kg N/ha) (kg N/ha) pod yield Basal Side 1 Side-dressed at F3 as 100 R1 15 DAS R1 R4 R5 VI V2 V6 V9F1 60 - 7.5 7.5 - - 104 101 106 99F2 60 - - 7.5 7.5 - 105 105 99 98F3 60 15 - - - - 100 100 100 100F4 60 15 - - 7.5 7.5 99 106 100 100 V1 = Cha-Mame V2 = Tainan ASVEG-2 V3 = Kaohsiung 6 V4 = Kaohsiung 9
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Fertilizer managementEf cso f ri i ai nt e t e t nt t l p dyed n r d dp d f e t f etl z to r amnso oa o i l sa dga e oyed fog n al r w e ea l o b a i t r eco p g ma i l so r a i l ygo nv g t b c es y e n n he r p i ( e n no 4v rei s. f ai te ) T t lp d i l oa o Y d e G dd o Y l r e pd i d a e (/ a th ) (/ a th )F ri i ai n 2 0 etl z to 06 20 06 20 07 20 06 20 07 20 06Te t e t S rn At m S rn S rn uu n S rn r amn pi g uu n pi g pi gAt m pi g F1 1. a 31 90a . 1. a 04 80a . 51a . 54a . F2 1. a 30 89a . 1. a 00 78a . 51a . 50a . F3 1. a 28 91a . 1. a 02 80a . 51a . 51a . F4 1. a 30 93a . 1. a 01 79a . 54a . 52a .
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Fertilizer Management The effects of fertilizer treatment on total pod yield varied among varieties. However, there were no significant differences among different fertilization methods. These results might be due to small differences in the fertilizer treatments. Side dress applied at early growing stage appeared slightly better than applied at later growing stage. VSB seeds were inoculated with local strains of rhizobia before sowing. Solid Organic fertilizer, equivalent to 60- 90 kg N/ha was broadcasted as basal fertilizer, then 15~30 kg N/ha of solid organic fertilizer was side-dressed along the beds and banked with soils by manual cultivator at flower initiation or R1 stage. Liquid organic fertilizers were supplemented at flowering initiation stage and pod filling stages.
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterMajor and minor insect pests: Soybean webworm (Omiodes indicata) is the major pest after third week of sowing, whereas common armyworm(Spodoptera litura) and Taiwan tussock moth (Porthesia taiwana) are the minor insects in the initial stages of crop growth.The population of soybean webworm increased continually from fourth to seventh week after sowing. Bean pod borer(Maruca vitrata) occurred during the pod formation stage in this season. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) consisting of sex pheromones and sticky paper traps, bio-pesticides such asBacillus thuringiensis (Bt), neem and nucleopolyhedrovirus (NPV) have been followed to manage the major insect pests.IPM was demonstrated against an untreated Check.Pest monitoring: Sucking insects such as leafhopper, whitefly and thrips were monitored using insect adhesive trap paper (IATP) atweekly intervals from the date of sowing. Sex pheromone traps were used for Spodoptera exigua, S. litura andHelicoverpa armigera.Pest management: During the first leaf stage of the crop growth, Bt and neem were sprayed for preventing stem, root and leaf-minerdamages. Application of neem after two weeks of sowing (WOS), combined application of Bt and neem after five WOSand combined application of Bt and MaviNPV after seven WOS were followed to control foliage-feeding and pod-damaging insect pests in the IPM plots.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Insect Pests and Their Management in Organic Vegetable Soybean Insect pests monitored at regular intervals from two weeks after sowing Tomato Fruitworm, Beet Armyworm,Helicoverpa armigera Spodoptera exigua Defoliators feeding on the leaves in early stages
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterCommon Armyworm, Soybean Webworm, Spodoptera litura Omiodes indicata Cabbage looper, Taiwan Tussock moth, Trichoplusia ni Porthesia taiwana Major defoliators feeding on the leaves throughout the season
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Stink bug, Nezara viridulaMajor sucking insect on the pods Aphid LeafhopperMajor sucking insect on the leaves
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterLimabean podborer, Etiella zinckenella (Major pod borer in Spring season) Bean podborer, Maruca vitrata (Major pod borer in Autumn season)
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Integrated Pest Management• Insects were regularly monitored from sowing to harvest during autumn 2006 (7 Sept to 17 Nov), spring 2007 (14 Feb to 4 May) and autumn 2007 (1 Oct to 15 Dec)
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Integrated Pest Management• Sex pheromone traps for: Spodoptera exigua, S. litura and Helicoverpa armigera• Yellow sticky paper traps for: whitefly and small green leafhopper• Neem spray for: early season sucking insects and defoliators• Neem and Bt sprays for: defoliators 3x during the growing season• Blue sticky paper traps for: thrips• Spraying of MaviMNPV for: legume pod borer in autumn season
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center IPM for major insect pests on organic vegetable soybean• Sex pheromone traps for S. exigua, S. litura and H. armigera throughout the growing season• Yellow sticky paper traps for whitefly and small green leafhopper throughout the growing season• Spraying of neem for early season sucking insects and defoliators and• Spraying of neem and Bacillus thuringiensis (Xentari) for pod-borers three times during the growing season
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterObservations Autumn 2006• Leaves slightly defoliated by tomato fruitworm (H. armigera), common armyworm (S. litura) and beet armyworm (S. exigua).• Soybean webworm (Omiodes indicata) and Taiwan tussock moth (Porthesia taiwana) were promising defoliators.• Whitefly (Bemisia tabaci), thrips (Megalurothrips usitatus) and small green leafhopper were the major sucking insects.• Limabean pod borer (Eteiella zinckenella) and legume pod borer (LPB), Maruca vitrata were the major pests on the pods.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Observations Spring 2007• Leaves were slightly defoliated by tomato fruitworm and beet armyworm early in season• Common armyworm, soybean webworm and Taiwan tussock moth were promising defoliators, but population was lower than in 2006.• Stink bug (Nezara viridula), aphids and small green leafhoppers were the major sucking insects.• Limabean pod borer was the major pest attacking the pods.
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterObservations Autumn 2007• Soybean worm (O. indicata) and common armyworm were the major insect pests observed four weeks after sowing.• Taiwan tussock moth, thrips and small green leafhopper were the minor insect pests.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Yield of vegetable soybean in different treatments (2006) Treatments Total pod yield Graded pod (t/ha) yield (t/ha) (Mean ± SD) (Mean ± SD)Integrated Pest 9.94±0.50 7.12±0.56Management (IPM)Check 6.02±0.48 3.15±0.38t (d.f.=7) 13.22** 16.45**P <0.0005 <0.0004
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Damage by Lima bean pod borer and total pod yield, Spring 2007 Treatment Pod damage by Total pod yield lima bean pod (t/ha) borer (%)IPM (organic) 4.01 b 9.93 bConventional 1.78 c 13.77 aControl 10.67 a 9.00 c(untreatedLSD (p<0.05) 2.23 0.51LSD (p<0.01) 3.03 0.69
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterDifferences in total and graded pod yieldbetween organic IPM and control plots, Autumn 2006 Treatments Total pod yield Graded pod yield (t/ha) (t/ha) (Mean + SD) (Mean + SD) IPM 9.94 + 0.50 7.12 + 0.56 Control 6.02 + 0.48 3.15 + 0.38 (untreated) t (d.f. = 7) 13.22** 16.45** P <0.0005 <0.0004 Significance of differences was calculated (**p<0.01 and *p<0.05) using paired t-test.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Disease Management ofOrganic Vegetable Soybean C. H. Chen & T. C. Wang AVRDC-The World Vegetable Center
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterDisease Control For effective controlling soil-borne diseases at seedling stage, plants in the plot of Treatment D1 were drenched with Trichoderma harzianum T2 strain (100X) started at 10 days after sowing, and followed by 3 more applications at one week interval. For controlling disease infection on stems, leaves, and pods at mid-growth stage, plants in the plots of Treatments D2 and D3 were sprayed with Bacillus subtilis strains Y1336 (500X) and WG6- 14 (100X) respectively, at 30 days after sowing and continued by 3 more applications at one week interval.
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterMajor fungal diseases oforganic vegetable soybean 1. Root rot (Rhizoctonia solani) 2. Anthracnose (Colletotrichum truncatum)
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterRoot rotCausal agent:Rhizoctonia solaniSymptom andoccurrence:Characteristics of root rotinclude inadequate standsand death of young seedlings.The presence of dark brownor reddish lesions on thestem or lower main root isevidence of seedling disease.Seedling roots are oftenblackened and decayed.
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterManagement of root rot1) Practice rotation2) Solar sterilization by transparent plastic film mulching3) Planting high quality seed4) Seed treatment utilizing effective antagonists such as Trichoderma spp.5) Soil amendment or drenching with Trichoderma spp. at the seedling stage
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterAnthracnoseCausal agent:Colletotrichum truncatumSymptoms and occurrence:Late infections occur during bloomor early pod development whenconditions are wet and humid for aprolonged period. The fungusproduces an abundance of sporeswhich infect and kill lower branches,leaves, and young pods. Symptomsappear on stems, pods, and petiolesas red or dark brown areas. Laterthese areas are covered with blackfruiting bodies (acervuli). Infectionof young pods results in empty podsat maturity. Pods infected latercontain shriveled or moldy seed,and may have dark lesions on theseed coat.
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterManagement of anthracnose1) Planting high quality seed2) Seed treatment utilizing warm water (520C for 30 min)3) Applying effective antagonists such as Thrichoderma spp., Bacillus subtilis, or Streptomyces spp. between bloom and pod fill
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center The efficacy of antagonists on disease control of vegetable soybean production in spring, 2007 Root Downy Soybean Anthracnose Graded rot (%)1 mildew rust (%)2 (%)3 pod yield Treatment (%)2 (t/ha)4 TRICHODERMA 3.26 c5 9.86 a 24.86 a 44.51 a 5.33 a Trichoderma harzianum 7.95 b 8.19 a 28.06 a 45.29 a 4.98 ab Bio-Bac（Bacillus 12.57 a 8.89 a 24.03 a 42.85 a 5.19 ab subtilis） BIO-DEFENDER 15.17 a 9.44 a 27.16 a 45.95 a 4.72 ab （Streptomyces） Control 14.30 a 8.89 a 24.72 a 48.06 a 5.07 ab1Percentage of plants infected.2Percentage of foliage area infected.3Percentage of pod no. infected.4Calculated based on pod weight of the harvest area.5Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to the Duncan’s test at P<0.05.
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterThe efficacy of antagonists on disease control of vegetablesoybean production in fall, 2007 Root rot Anthracnose Graded podTreatment (%)1 (% )2 (%)3 Trichoderma spp. amended 11.33 c4 10.23 a 43.37 ab （特克德） Trichoderma spp. spraied 38.33 ab 8.44 b 49.57 ab （特克德） Bacillus subtilis 41.67 a 5.81 c 50.05 ab （台灣寶） Streptomyces spp. 33.67 b 5.50 c 52.82 a （菌老大）Control 37.67 ab 9.81 ab 41.35 b1Percentage of plant no. infected.2Percentage of pod no. infected.3Weight percentage within a sample size of 1 kg for each replication..4Means within a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to the Duncan’s test at P<0.05.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Other Diseases Observed in Vegetable Soybean• Downy mildew (Peronospora manshurica)• Rust (Phakopsora pachyrhizi)• Purple blotch (Cercospora kikuchii)• Bacterial pustule (Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. Glycines)
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterIntegrated disease managementfor vegetable soybean 1) Planting resistant cultivars 2) Selecting high quality seed 3) Field sanitation 4) Proper field operation 5) Controlling disease timely and effectively
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterCOA Organic Vegetable Soybean Project: Weed management Field experiment sown on 7 September 2006 Preliminary results before soybean harvest Peter Juroszek & Hsing-hua Tsai AVRDC, Organic Vegetable Program Crop & Ecosystem Management Unit
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterWeed ControlPlastic mulch and frequent manual removal of weeds (15, 22, 28, and 35 DAS) generated the highest efficacy with more than 90 % reduction of total weed ground cover (but not a low-cost solution)Vinegar (6 % acetic acid) applied twice (15 and 22 DAS) significantly reduced ground cover of broadleaf weeds (>70 %) such as Amaranthus spinosus, A. viridis and Trianthema portulasastrum, but not including ground cover of grasses and Cyperus rotundus.
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterMaterials and Methods• Growing season: 7 Sept 2006 (dry season) 14 Feb 2007 (dry-wet season)• Treatments: 1 – Untreated control 2 – Vinegar application 3 – Plastic mulch cover 4 – Hand hoeing
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Materials and Methods• Plot size: 4 raised beds, 1 m wide x 3 m long• Furrow space: 50 cm• Seeding rate: 3 seeds per hill 12 cm apart in double rows• Plant population: 33,333 plts/ha• Biopesticides: Xentari-Bt, BioFree- Neem• Irrigation: furrow
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Treatments• Vinegar: 2006 = 6% acetic acid, commercial food grade – post emergence, 2x (15 and 22 DAS) 2007 = one application at 16 DAS, hand- sprayed over weeds.• Plastic mulch: surface prior to sowing• Hoeing: 15 DAS (2006), 20 DAS (2007)
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterField trial treatments (RCBD with 3 replications) Untreated control (‘Untreated‘, negative control plots) Vinegar application at 6 % acetic acid (‘Vinegar‘, food-grade) Plastic mulch cover (‘Mulch‘) Weeds frequently removed (‘Weed free‘, positive control plots) Vinegar was applied by hand sprayer twice at 15 DAS and 22 DAS,avoiding drift to the crop canopy to minimize crop injury Application in the morning between 8 and 9 a.m. Sunny weather and no rainfall after application
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterWeed management approach in organic farmingVinegar application might be effective?? In the USA, vinegar application (10, 15, and 20 % acetic acidcontent) successfully controlled broadleaf weeds includingChenopodium album, Amaranthus species, Abutilon theophrasti(e.g. Radhakrishnan et al., 2003)• Vinegar at the 5 % acetic acid concentration gave variableresults. The presented study aimed at generating basic knowledgeconcerning the use of foliar applied vinegar for weed control inorganic farming without taking into account the economicaspects.
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterWeed abundance just before vinegar application at 15 DAS, dry season 2006
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterWeed abundance just before vinegar application at 15 DAS, dry season 2006
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterFirst vinegar (6 % acetic acid) application at 15 DAS using a hand sprayer; appliedbetween 8-9 a.m. at a sunny day without rainfall, dry season 2006. The vinegarspray was directed to the weed canopy to avoid crop canopy injury!
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterEffects of vinegar 2 hours after its application on Amaranthus and small grasses, 2 March 2007
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterEffect of vinegar application at 18 DAS (3 days after first vinegar application)
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterEffect of vinegar at 28 DAS (13 days after first vinegar application, 6 daysafter the second vinegar application), broadleaf weeds not apparent any more
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterTreatments of trial replication 2 at 32 DAS; crop ground cover values > 95 %
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Weed fresh biomass and total and graded pod yield of organic vegetable soybean under four weed management treatments Treatment Weed biomass Total pod yield Graded pod yield (g/m2) (t/ha) (t/ha) 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 Untreated 963.3 a 7555.6 a 8.5 b 3.0 b 6.1 b 1.3 b Vinegar 48.9 b 5604.9 b 9.4 ab 5.2 b 7.0 ab 2.3 b Mulch 1.4 c 5.3 c 10.7 a 11.1 a 8.2 a 5.7 a Hoeing 0.3 c 0.0 c 9.7 ab 11.3 a 7.0 ab 5.8 aResults within columns with different letters behind are significantly different (Tukey’s Test, P<0.05 Note: in both years Amaranthus species were most dominant and influenced the outcome of results
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterSummary of results gained in the dry season 2006/2007 Plastic mulch and frequent manual removal of weeds gave highestefficacy with more than 90 % reduction of weed ground coverindependent of weed species and season (not a low-cost solution) Vinegar (6 % acetic acid) applied twice at 15 DAS and 22 DAS did notsignificantly reduce ground cover of grasses and had virtually no effecton Cyperus rotundus Vinegar applied twice at 15 DAS and 22 DAS significantly reducedtotal ground cover of broadleaf weeds (up to >70 %) includingAmaranthus spinosus, A. viridis, Trianthema portulacastrum However, results could not be confirmed in the rainy season 2007because after vinegar application subsequent weed emergence occured Vinegar application (6 % acetic acid) may be in the dry season apossible approach when susceptible bradleaf weeds are dominating thefield, under conditions of less subsequent weed emergence (e.g. avoidall irrigation practices such as over-head irrigation that would favoursubsequent weed emergence). Do not apply vinegar at the crop canopyof soybean because it will kill your soybeans like the broadleaf weeds!
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center NutritionQuality Evaluation
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterTaste Test for Vegetable Soybean
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterTaste Test for Vegetable Soybean
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Nutrient content and pod color value of vegetable soybeans as influenced by growing season (averaged over varieties and farming systems)Season Isoflavone Dry Matter Protein Oil Sugar Color (mg/100 g d.w.) (g) (g) (g) (g)Spring 41.4 a 30.4 b 38.7 a 19.9 a 8.5 b 3.58 aAutumn 67.8 b 32.1 a 38.2 b 19.8 a 12.9 a 3.80 an = 18 in both seasons for isoflavone analysis, otherwise n = 48 in springand n = 42 in autumn.
Nutritional quality of vegetable soybean by seasons 45 5 90 40 a b 5 80 a Spring a 35 4 a 70 30 b a Autumn 4 60 3 bValues 25 50 3 20 a a 40 2 15 30 a 2 10 a 1 20 5 1 10 0 0 0 Dry matter Protein (%) Sugar (%) Oil (%) Color Isoflavone (%) value (mg/100g) Source: Ma and Yang, AVRDC, unpublished data
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Nutrient content and pod color value of vegetable soybeans as influenced by farming system (averaged over varieties and growing seasons)Farming Isoflavone Dry Matter Protein Oil Sugar ColorSystem (mg/100 g d.w.) (g) (g) (g) (g)Conv. 58.3 a 31.8 a 36.7 b 20.4 a 11.1 a 3.92 aOrganic 50.9 b 30.8 b 39.8 a 19.4 b 10.1 b 3.51 bn = 18 in both farming systems for isoflavone analysis, otherwise n = 39 inconventional farming system and n = 51 in organic farming system.
Nutritional quality of vegetable soybean by farming types 45 5 80 40 b 4 a 70 a Conventional b a b 35 4 60 a b Organic 30 3 50 Values 25 3 a b 40 20 2 15 30 2 b a 10 1 20 5 1 10 0 0 0 Dry matter Protein (%) Sugar (%) Oil (%) Color Isoflavone (%) value (mg/100g)Source: Ma and Yang, AVRDC, unpublished data
Variation of total isoflavone content among vegetable soybean varieties 90 a Total isoflavones (mg/100g) 80 a 70 b 60 50 40 c c 30 20 10 - Chamame TNAV2 KS5 KS6 KS9Source: Ma and Yang, AVRDC, unpublished data
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Summary of Results on Nutritional Quality• Effects of variety and farming system are significant on all 6 quality traits.• Seasonal effect was significant except for oil content and color values.• No significant effect of organic fertilizer was shown on quality traits.• Season x farming system and season x variety interactions were significant for all 6 quality traits.• Farming system x variety interaction was significant only for dry matter, color and isoflavone, however, when season was added, the effects were significant on protein, oil, sugar and isoflavones.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Isoflavones• Growing season and variety were major factors in influencing isoflavones.• About 1.5-fold higher isoflavones were obtained in autumn compared to spring growing season.• Difference in isoflavones between farming systems was significant only in spring for 3 out of 4 varieties.• Conventional farming system produced higher quantities of isoflavones than organic system.• Highest isoflavones was obtained from Da Da Cha-Man and KS 9 in autumn regardless of farming system.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Sugar• Influenced by growing season.• About 1.5-fold higher free sugar content was obtained from autumn crop compared to spring crop.• Difference in sugar content between farming systems was significant in 2 out of 4 varieties (Da Da Cha-Man and KS 6) grown in spring and significant in 2 out of 4 varieties (Da Da Cha-Man and KS 9) grown in autumn.• Higher sugar contents were obtained in conventional than organic farming system except for Da Da –Cha-Man grown in autumn.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Dry Matter• Conventionally produced vegetable soybeans have significantly higher dry matter content compared to organically grown soybean regardless of growing season and variety.• In this study, farming system was a major factor influencing dry matter content.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Protein• Farming system and variety had significant influence on protein content.• Higher protein content was obtained from organic system compared to conventional system.• Highest protein content was obtained from variety KS 5 grown in spring under organic system.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Oil• Higher oil contents were obtained in 3 out of 4 varieties grown in spring under conventional farming system.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Pod Color• Color values from 1 to 6 indicate a range of color from deep green to yellowish green.• Higher color values are favored.• Slightly but significantly higher color values were observed in 3 out of 4 varieties in spring and 2 out of 4 in autumn.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Conclusions• Conventional farming system produced vegetable soybeans with higher dry matter, isoflavones, oil and color values than organically grown soybeans.• Organically grown soybeans are higher in protein content than conventionally grown soybeans.• Seasonal effect is a major factor influencing some quality traits especially for total isoflavones and sugar contents.• Overall, conventionally and organically produced vegetable soybeans have almost similar nutritional qualities.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Expected Impacts• Increased yield potential of new vegetable soybean varieties under organic system.• Development of technologies for pest, disease and weed management.• Development of balanced fertilization technologies to reduce fertilizer application and decrease negative impacts on environment.• Production of healthy, safe and higher quality organic vegetable soybean enhancing industry and export market.• Improved human health through promotion and consumption of nutritious organic vegetable soybean.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Summary• Integration of technologies including improved high yielding varieties, balanced fertilization, integrated pest, disease and weed management leads to the production of organic vegetable soybean with comparable nutritional quality and yield as conventionally grown soybean.
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterOrganic Vegetable Soybean Field Day
AVRDC The World Vegetable CenterOrganic Vegetable Soybean Field Day
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Acknowledgement• This research project was made possible from the grant provided by the Taiwan Council of Agriculture (CoA).• The Research Team highly appreciate the technical support and cooperation of Tainan DAIS, National Chun Ching University and other research institutes in Taiwan.• The hard work and assistance of AVRDC field and laboratory technicians as well as field labor are highly appreciated.
AVRDC The World Vegetable Center Acknowledgement• The Research Team is grateful to Dr. & Professor Aphiphan Pookpakdi, Dr. Ruangchai Juwattanasomran and Mr. Daruphun Sansiriphun for their visit to AVRDC last December 2007 and for inviting Dr. Manuel Palada to visit Chiang Mai and share knowledge and experience in organic vegetable soybean production with researchers, extension workers and farmers who are involved in vegetable soybean production.