Org vegsoyprodn 2008

AVRDC
The World Vegetable Center

Integration of Production Technologies
for Organic Vegetable Soybean

AVRDC

AVRDC 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

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 University

Research and development work: Field and vegetable crops production, sustainable
agricultural systems, farming systems research/extension/training, organic/ecological
agriculture, agroforestry systems, multiple cropping/cropping systems, small farm
development, 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; 55
technical bulletins; edited 5 conference proceedings and gave >100 technical presentations
in national, regional and international scientific meetings and conferences.

AVRDC

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 role of
AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center

____
Research that promotes
development

AVRDC

 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

Focus of AVRDC

HEALTH INCOME DIVERSITY
Vegetables are the most Vegetables create more jobs Preserving and working with
affordable and available than other agricultural diversity is an investment for
source of essential activity the future
micronutrients --- ---
---
Vegetable production helps Diverse varieties are the
Vegetables 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 and
consumers through safer opportunities income
production
Training and capacity building for sustainable impacts!

AVRDC

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-urban
From production to consumption From rural … and urban areas

AVRDC

Priority outcomes of research for development

Increase productivity Enhance nutrition Ensure food Reduce pesticide
and income safety misuse

Increase Protect the Gender: Focus on
Empower the poor
sustainability environment women

AVRDC

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

Challenge
Increasing concern on
environmental quality, human
health and safer agricultural
products has led to the
development of organic
agriculture, hence, organic
vegetable soybean.

AVRDC

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

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

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

AVRDC Organic
Experimental Field

Organic
research
fields

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.

Plots 81-84
Organic plots (3.97 ha)

Plots 75-77
(1.92 ha)

Organic plots

AVRDC

Land Preparation for Organic
Vegetable Soybean

AVRDC

Laying out plots

AVRDC

Laying out plots and treatments

AVRDC

Integration 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
difference
Select Innocula-
Effects on  Integrateddeveloped
the best tion Isoflavone disease/pest technologies
from Balanced Compare  Develop new technologies
local fertilization between
varieties 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

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

AVRDC

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.
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
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.

Chamame
Japan’s variety
With Taro-flavor,
high sweetness
With brown seed
skin color, white
flower color
Very early
maturity, yield is
lower than other
variety

AVRDC

Yield of Vegetable Soybean Varieties
under Organic Management System
AVRDC, Taiwan
Variety Total pod yield (t/ha)
SP-2006 AU-2006 SP-2007 Mean
Cha-Mame 12.5 ab 9.7 a 10.8 a 11.0
Tainan – 14.0 a 10.4 a 11.2 a 11.9
ASVEG 2
Kaohsiung 6 11.8 b 7.1 b 8.5 b 9.1
Kaohsiung 9 13.6 a 9.2 a 10.3 a 11.0

Mean separation in columns by Tukey’s Test, P<0.05.
SP = Spring
AU = Autumn

AVRDC

Yield of Vegetable Soybean Varieties
under Organic Management System
AVRDC, Taiwan
Variety Graded pod yield (t/ha)
SP 2006 AU 2006 SP 2007 Mean
Cha-Mame 8.3 a 5.9 a 6.3 a 6.8
Tainan – 8.3 a 5.2 ab 4.5 b 6.0
ASVEG 2
Kaohsiung 6 7.6 a 4.5 b 4.6 b 5.6
Kaohsiung 9 7.6 a 5.2 ab 5.2 b 6.0

Mean separation in columns by Tukey’s Test, P<0.05

SP = Spring
AU = Autumn

AVRDC

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

Fertilizer Treatment
Trt 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 V9
F1 60 - 7.5 7.5 - - 104 101 106 99

F2 60 - - 7.5 7.5 - 105 105 99 98

F3 60 15 - - - - 100 100 100 100

F4 60 15 - - 7.5 7.5 99 106 100 100

V1 = Cha-Mame
V2 = Tainan ASVEG-2
V3 = Kaohsiung 6
V4 = Kaohsiung 9

AVRDC

Fertilizer management
Ef 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 o
yed 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
n
o 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
06
Te 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

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

Major 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 as
Bacillus 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) at
weekly intervals from the date of sowing. Sex pheromone traps were used for Spodoptera exigua, S. litura and
Helicoverpa armigera.
Pest management:
During the first leaf stage of the crop growth, Bt and neem were sprayed for preventing stem, root and leaf-miner
damages. Application of neem after two weeks of sowing (WOS), combined application of Bt and neem after five WOS
and 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

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

Common 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

Stink bug, Nezara viridula
Major sucking insect on the pods

Aphid Leafhopper
Major sucking insect on the leaves

AVRDC

Limabean podborer, Etiella zinckenella (Major pod borer in Spring season)
Bean podborer, Maruca vitrata (Major pod borer in Autumn season)

AVRDC

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

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

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

Observations 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

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

Observations 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

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±0.56
Management (IPM)
Check 6.02±0.48 3.15±0.38

t (d.f.=7) 13.22** 16.45**

P <0.0005 <0.0004

AVRDC

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 b
Conventional 1.78 c 13.77 a
Control 10.67 a 9.00 c
(untreated
LSD (p<0.05) 2.23 0.51
LSD (p<0.01) 3.03 0.69

AVRDC

Differences in total and graded pod yield
between 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

Disease Management of
Organic Vegetable Soybean

C. H. Chen & T. C. Wang
AVRDC-The World Vegetable Center

AVRDC

Disease 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

Major fungal diseases of
organic vegetable soybean

1. Root rot (Rhizoctonia solani)
2. Anthracnose (Colletotrichum
truncatum)

AVRDC

Root rot
Causal agent:
Rhizoctonia solani

Symptom and
occurrence:
Characteristics of root rot
include inadequate stands
and death of young seedlings.
The presence of dark brown
or reddish lesions on the
stem or lower main root is
evidence of seedling disease.
Seedling roots are often
blackened and decayed.

AVRDC

Management of root rot
1) Practice rotation

2) Solar sterilization by transparent plastic film
mulching

3) Planting high quality seed

4) Seed treatment utilizing effective antagonists such
as Trichoderma spp.

5) Soil amendment or drenching with Trichoderma spp.
at the seedling stage

AVRDC

Anthracnose
Causal agent:
Colletotrichum truncatum

Symptoms and occurrence:
Late infections occur during bloom
or early pod development when
conditions are wet and humid for a
prolonged period. The fungus
produces an abundance of spores
which infect and kill lower branches,
leaves, and young pods. Symptoms
appear on stems, pods, and petioles
as red or dark brown areas. Later
these areas are covered with black
fruiting bodies (acervuli). Infection
of young pods results in empty pods
at maturity. Pods infected later
contain shriveled or moldy seed,
and may have dark lesions on the
seed coat.

AVRDC

Management of anthracnose
1) Planting high quality seed
2) 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 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 ab
1Percentage 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 efficacy of antagonists on disease control of vegetable
soybean production in fall, 2007

Root rot Anthracnose Graded pod
Treatment (%)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 b
1Percentage 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

Other Diseases Observed in
Vegetable Soybean
• Downy mildew (Peronospora manshurica)
• Rust (Phakopsora pachyrhizi)
• Purple blotch (Cercospora kikuchii)
• Bacterial pustule (Xanthomonas axonopodis
pv. Glycines)

AVRDC

Integrated disease management
for 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

COA 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

Weed Control

Plastic 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

Materials 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

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

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

Field 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

Weed management approach in organic farming
Vinegar application might be effective??

 In the USA, vinegar application (10, 15, and 20 % acetic acid
content) successfully controlled broadleaf weeds including
Chenopodium album, Amaranthus species, Abutilon theophrasti
(e.g. Radhakrishnan et al., 2003)

• Vinegar at the 5 % acetic acid concentration gave variable
results.

 The presented study aimed at generating basic knowledge
concerning the use of foliar applied vinegar for weed control in
organic farming without taking into account the economic
aspects.

AVRDC

Weed abundance just before vinegar application at 15 DAS,
dry season 2006

AVRDC

First vinegar (6 % acetic acid) application at 15 DAS using a hand sprayer; applied
between 8-9 a.m. at a sunny day without rainfall, dry season 2006. The vinegar
spray was directed to the weed canopy to avoid crop canopy injury!

AVRDC

Effects of vinegar 2 hours after its application on Amaranthus and small grasses, 2 March 2007

AVRDC

Effect of vinegar application at 18 DAS (3 days after first vinegar application)

AVRDC

Effect of vinegar at 28 DAS (13 days after first vinegar application, 6 days
after the second vinegar application), broadleaf weeds not apparent any more

AVRDC

Treatments of trial replication 2 at 32 DAS; crop ground cover values > 95 %

AVRDC

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 a

Results 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

Summary of results gained in the dry season 2006/2007
 Plastic mulch and frequent manual removal of weeds gave highest
efficacy with more than 90 % reduction of weed ground cover
independent of weed species and season (not a low-cost solution)

 Vinegar (6 % acetic acid) applied twice at 15 DAS and 22 DAS did not
significantly reduce ground cover of grasses and had virtually no effect
on Cyperus rotundus

 Vinegar applied twice at 15 DAS and 22 DAS significantly reduced
total ground cover of broadleaf weeds (up to >70 %) including
Amaranthus spinosus, A. viridis, Trianthema portulacastrum

 However, results could not be confirmed in the rainy season 2007
because after vinegar application subsequent weed emergence occured

 Vinegar application (6 % acetic acid) may be in the dry season a
possible approach when susceptible bradleaf weeds are dominating the
field, under conditions of less subsequent weed emergence (e.g. avoid
all irrigation practices such as over-head irrigation that would favour
subsequent weed emergence). Do not apply vinegar at the crop canopy
of soybean because it will kill your soybeans like the broadleaf weeds!

AVRDC

Nutrition

Quality Evaluation

AVRDC

Taste Test for Vegetable Soybean

AVRDC

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 a

Autumn 67.8 b 32.1 a 38.2 b 19.8 a 12.9 a 3.80 a

n = 18 in both seasons for isoflavone analysis, otherwise n = 48 in spring
and 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 b
Values

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

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 Color
System (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 a

Organic 50.9 b 30.8 b 39.8 a 19.4 b 10.1 b 3.51 b

n = 18 in both farming systems for isoflavone analysis, otherwise n = 39 in
conventional 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)


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 KS9


AVRDC

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

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

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

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

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

Oil
• Higher oil contents were obtained
in 3 out of 4 varieties grown in
spring under conventional
farming system.

AVRDC

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

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

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

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

Organic Vegetable Soybean Field Day

AVRDC

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

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.

Org vegsoyprodn 2008

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Org vegsoyprodn 2008

Similar to Org vegsoyprodn 2008 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Org vegsoyprodn 2008