Eb 0205

An impact
in
Research
Action 8
assessment of
AVRDC’s tomato
grafting in
Vietnam
Christian Genova
Pepijn Schreinemachers
Victor Afari-Sefa
atinka Weinberger
Christian A. Genova II
Antonio L. Acedo Jr.
An impact assessment
of AVRDC’s tomato grafting
in Vietnam
Christian Genova, Pepijn Schreinemachers and Victor Afari-Sefa
AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center

Shanhua, Taiwan
AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center is an international nonprofit research institute committed to
alleviating poverty and malnutrition in the developing world through the increased production and
consumption of nutritious, health-promoting vegetables.
About Research in Action
The Research in Action series disseminates the practical applications of the Center’s work in vegetable
breeding, production, marketing, and nutrition. The series aims to encourage vegetable-based enterprise
through the extension of information, ideas, technologies, and skills.
AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center

P.O. Box 42
Shanhua, Tainan 74199
TAIWAN
Tel: +886 6 583 7801

Fax: +886 6 583 0009
Email: info@worldveg.org
Web: www.avrdc.org
AVRDC Publication: 13-773

ISBN 92-9058-203-0
Editor: Maureen Mecozzi

Publishing Coordinator: Kathy Chen
© 2013 AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center
Printed in Taiwan
Suggested citation
Genova C, Schreinemachers P, Afari-Sefa V. 2013. An impact assessment of AVRDC’s tomato grafting in Vietnam.
AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center, Shanhua, Taiwan. AVRDC Publication No. 13-773. 52 p. (Research
in Action; no. 8).
Table of Contents
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ iv
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... vi
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................vii
Acronyms .................................................................................................................................. ix
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Bacterial wilt and tomato grafting in Vietnam ............................................................ 2
1.2. Objectives of the study ................................................................................................ 3
2. THE ROLE OF AVRDC – THE WORLD VEGETABLE CENTER IN PROMOTING
TOMATO GRAFTING ............................................................................................................. 4
2.1. AVRDC’s effort to address bacterial wilt ................................................................... 5
2.2. AVRDC's tomato grafting technology dissemination in Vietnam .............................. 8
3. STUDY METHODS AND DATA COLLECTION ........................................................ 11
3.1. Selection of location and data sources ...................................................................... 11
3.2. Data collection........................................................................................................... 11
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 15
4.1. Nurseries producing grafted seedlings in Lam Dong province ................................. 15
4.2. Farm households ....................................................................................................... 18
4.2.1. Socio-demographic characteristics .................................................................... 18
4.2.2. Adoption of tomato grafting .............................................................................. 20
4.2.3. Yield and yield stability of grafted tomato ........................................................ 28
4.2.4. Production function analysis .............................................................................. 32
4.2.5. Effect of tomato grafting on profit and household income ................................ 37
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... 38
6. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 39
List of Tables
Table 1. Framework for integrated crop management (ICM) practices for quality tomato .................................... 4
Table 2. Survey sites and number of respondents................................................................................................. 11
Table 3. Proportionate stratified sampling by location in Vietnam ...................................................................... 13
Table 4. Average socioeconomic characteristics of nursery operators in three study sites .................................. 15
Table 5. Nursery operators’ perception about why farmers buy grafted tomato seedlings................................... 16
Table 6. Marketing information for grafted tomato seedlings .............................................................................. 17
Table 7. Profitability of grafted tomato at nursery (VND per seedling) ............................................................... 17
Table 8. Socioeconomic profile of sampled respondents ..................................................................................... 19
Table 9. Average characteristics of the most recently harvested tomato field ...................................................... 20
Table 10. Ranking of the three most important reasons for planting grafted tomato............................................ 22
Table 11. List of rootstock and scion varieties released in Lam Dong province from 2004-2011 ....................... 24
Table 12. List of rootstock and scion varieties released in the Red River Delta from 2004-2011 ........................ 25
Table 13. Main rootstock and scion varieties used by farmers, and reasons for selection.................................... 26
Table 14. Seed source of main rootstock and scion varieties ............................................................................... 26
Table 15. Yield of grafted versus non-grafted tomatoes by month, 2010-2011 (t/ha) .......................................... 29
Table 16. Coefficient of variation of grafted vs non-grafted tomatoes by month, 2010-2012.............................. 29
Table 17. Farmer’s perceptions of changes in selected production practices with the adoption of tomato grafting
.............................................................................................................................................................................. 31
Table 18. Variables used in the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression............................................................. 33
Table 19. Econometric estimation results of production inputs on yield .............................................................. 36
Table 20. Sample means of inputs and labor between grafted and non-grafted tomato production by location,
2011/2012 (in million VND/ha) ........................................................................................................................... 36
Table 21. Profitability of grafted versus non-grafted tomato production in the Red River Delta, 2011-2012 (in
million VND/ha) ................................................................................................................................................... 37
Table 22. Estimated effect of tomato grafting on net profits in Lam Dong province ........................................... 37
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1. Timeline of AVRDC's research on bacterial wilt and tomato grafting, 1970-2012 ................................ 6
Figure 2. Location of Red River Delta and Lam Dong province in Vietnam ..................................................... 14
Figure 3. Adoption of tomato grafting in Lam Dong province and the Red River Delta ..................................... 21
Figure 4. Tomato production in Lam Dong province, Vietnam ........................................................................... 27
Figure 5. Seasonal calendar of production activities by location.......................................................................... 28
v
Acknowledgements
Special appreciation goes to Ngo Quang Vinh, Deputy Director of the Institute for Agricultural
Science in Southern Vietnam (IAS), and To Thi Thu Ha, Head of the Department of Vegetables
and Spicy Crops of Fruit and Vegetable Research Institute (FAVRI), for their excellent
logistical support during the survey implementation. We are also grateful to Trinh Khac Quang,
Director General, and Bui Quang Dang, Head of the Department of Science and International
Cooperation of FAVRI for their interest and hospitality during the courtesy visit. Our sincerest
gratitude also goes to the survey enumerators and data encoders for their patience and diligence
in collecting information from farmers and nursery operators in the field: Le Thi Ha, Nguyen
Xuan Diep, Le Thi Thuy, Nguyen Tuan Dung, Duong Kim Thoa and Nguyen Trung Dung
from FAVRI; Nguyen The Nhuan, Ngo Minh Dung, Dao Trong Duc, Dinh Thi Hong, Vo Thi
Ngoc, Pham Thi Luyen, Ton Chat Sang, Tran Anh Thong, and Tuong Thi Ly from the Potato,
Vegetable and Flower Research Center (PVFRC).
We also wish to acknowledge the support of the commune leaders and district agricultural
extension officers who assisted us in compiling the list of tomato farmers in our target locations,
and to thank the farmers and nursery operators for their warm reception and willingness to
share their time and knowledge in this research study. Finally, we are grateful to our colleagues
at AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center: Kartini Luther, Sheila de Lima and Olivia Liang
for their administrative assistance; Jin-tien Hu for providing journal articles and other
publications; Chih-hung Lin for answering queries related to AVRDC’s research on bacterial
wilt; and the Global Technology Dissemination team (Greg Luther, Lydia Wu, Mandy Lin and
Willie Chen) for providing information on the off-season vegetable production training
workshop and answering questions about grafting.
vi
Executive Summary
AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center started working on tomato grafting in 1992 and
introduced the technique to Vietnamese scientists in September 1998, during a one-month
training course at AVRDC headquarters in Taiwan. From 2002-2006, the technique was
introduced to Lam Dong province in southern Vietnam in collaboration with the Potato,
Vegetable and Flower Research Center, and to the Red River Delta in northern Vietnam in
collaboration with the Fruit and Vegetable Research Institute in Hanoi.
This evaluation study assessed the impact of the tomato grafting technique ten years after its
introduction in Vietnam. It measures change in four impact indicators: the adoption of tomato
grafting, yield and yield stability of grafted tomatoes, input factors affecting yield, and profit
from tomato grafting.
Data were collected in August 2012 from 300 tomato farmers using a semi-structured
questionnaire survey. The results show 100% (n=225) adoption in Lam Dong province and
48% (n=36) adoption in the Red River Delta. For rootstock, tomato variety Vimina (HW7996)
was selected in Lam Dong province as it is resistant to bacterial wilt, and eggplant variety
EG203 was used in the Red River Delta as it is resistant to bacterial wilt and tolerates
waterlogging, which are major problems affecting farmers in the Delta.
Results show yield of grafted tomato (73.3 t/ha in Lam Dong Province and 81.4 t/ha in the
intensive production area in the Red River Delta) was significantly greater than non-grafted
tomato (56.5 t/ha in the Red River Delta), which confirms the findings of an earlier survey. The
coefficient of variation (CV) suggests that yield of grafted tomatoes was more stable in Lam
Dong province (0.20-0.30) than in the Red River Delta (0.33-0.80), but for the Red River Delta
there was no clear difference in yield stability between grafted and non-grafted tomato. Further
studies are required to confirm this observation, given the small sample size (n=25) for non-
grafted tomatoes in the Delta.
A comparison of profits between grafted and non-grafted tomato was made only for the Red
River Delta because all tomato farmers in Lam Dong province had adopted the technology at
the time of the survey. The average yield (81.4 t/ha) and farm gate price (8,447.8 VND/kg) of
grafted tomato were significantly greater by 31% and 39%, respectively, compared with non-
grafted tomato. As a result, there was a significant (p<0.100) difference in average revenues of
vii
409 million VND/ha. Although the total costs, particularly labor costs, were significantly
greater for grafted tomato (189.6 million VND/ha) than for non-grafted tomato (106.6 million
VND/ha), the difference in revenue was large enough to make grafted tomato significantly
more profitable. The benefit-cost ratio for grafted tomato was 4.6 in comparison to 3.5 for non-
grafted tomato. Nonetheless, further studies would be useful considering the relatively small
sample size in the Red River Delta and the high variation observed for some of the variables.
Based on the average difference in profits between grafted and non-grafted tomato, the 100%
adoption rate and the total area under tomato in Lam Dong province, the estimated total profit
for tomato farmers was US$ 41.7 million higher than if the same area had been planted with
non-grafted tomato. The study clearly shows that in places where bacterial wilt and other soil-
borne diseases affecting tomato are a problem, tomato grafting offers very significant monetary
benefits to farmers.
viii
Acronyms
ACIAR Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research
ADB Asian Development Bank
AVNET Southeast Asian Vegetable Research Network
AVRDC AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center
AVRDC-ARC HRDP AVRDC-Asian Regional Center Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation-funded Human Resource Development Project for the Mekong
Region Project
AVRDC-ARC HRDP-IV AVRDC-ARC HRDP project Phase IV
CIP International Potato Center
CLVNET I and II Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Vietnam Network I and II
CV coefficient of variation
DFID Department for International Development (formerly the Overseas
Development Administration or ODA)
EG195,203,210 AVRDC eggplant varieties EG 195, EG 203 and EG 210
FAVRI Fruit and Vegetable Research Institute (formerly the Research Institute for
Fruits and Vegetables or RIFAV)
FGD focus group discussion
HSC Hanoi Seed Company
HW 7996,7997,7998 AVRDC tomato varieties Hawaii 7996, Hawaii 7997 and Hawaii 7998
IAS Institute of Agricultural Science For Southern Vietnam
ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
IDM integrated disease management
IPM integrated pest management
PVFRC Potato, Vegetable and Flower Research Center
SAVERNET I and II South Asia Vegetable Research Network I and II
SUSPER Sustainable Development of Peri-urban Agriculture
VND Vietnamese Dong
ix
1. INTRODUCTION
Grafting is the union of two plant parts, a rootstock and a scion.1 The rootstock is the base
portion of the union that provides the root system while the scion is the upper portion that
carries the harvestable yield. Vegetable grafting is an ancient practice with the earliest evidence
dating back as early as 1800 BC (Mudge et al., 2009). However, wide adoption of the practice
began only in the 20th century. It began in Japan and Korea in the 1920s using resistant
rootstocks to control soil-borne diseases caused by Fusarium oxysporum (Davis et al., 2008;
Mudge et al., 2009) and has since expanded to include vegetables such as eggplant (Solanum
melongena L.), cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.), tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), pepper
(Capsicum annum L.) and several other solanaceous crops.
Vegetable grafting can provide a high level of tolerance to soil-borne diseases, such as those
caused by Ralstonia solanacearum, Fusarium, Verticillium, Phytophthora, Pseudomonas,
Didymella bryoniae, Monosporascus cannonballus and nematodes, but the degree of tolerance
varies considerably with the type of rootstock used (Lee, 1994; Venema et al., 2008; Louws et
al., 2010; Mohamed et al., 2012). Grafting can also improve quality attributes of scion-
produced fruits due to the increase in fruit index (Davis et al., 2008), number of fruits/truss and
fruit weight (Turhan et al., 2011), fruit yield (Burleigh et al., 2005; Khah et al., 2006; Palada
and Ali, 2006; Qaryouti et al., 2007; Davis et al., 2008), and the longer harvest duration (Lee,
1994). Several studies have reported that vegetable grafting can increase resistance to abiotic
stresses such as drought, salinity, heat and low soil temperatures, and improve water use
efficiency (Lee, 1994; Martorana et al., 2006; Venema et al., 2008; Schwarz et al., 2010;
Mohamed et al., 2012).
The purpose of grafting in tomato production is to combine a flood- and bacterial wilt-resistant
rootstock with a high-yielding tomato scion (Aganon et al., 2002). It is an alternative crop
management strategy to control bacterial wilt when high-yielding resistant tomato varieties are
unavailable (Wang and Lin, 2005). The use of grafting is widespread across Asia, parts of
Europe and the Middle East (Mohamed et al., 2012). Grafted seedlings are commonly used in
1
This is to differentiate from what is termed as ‘double working’ in some plants, which consists of a three-part
grafted plant, i.e., rootstock, interstock, and scion.
An impact assessment of AVRDC's tomato grafting in Vietnam 1

hydroponic farming, as diseases infecting the plants through their roots can spread quickly in
such systems (Lee et al., 2010).
1.1. Bacterial wilt and tomato grafting in Vietnam

Tomato is a major crop in Vietnam, but during the hot-wet season yields are low due to poor
fruit setting caused by high temperatures and high incidence and severity of disease problems,
particularly bacterial wilt caused by R. solanacearum (Doan and Nguyen, 2005; Nguyen and
Ranamukhaarachchi, 2010). Bacterial wilt has been reported for all eight administrative regions
of Vietnam in varying degrees of severity. It is usually more severe during the wet season
(April-October) than during the drier months (November-March) (Tung, 1985; Vinh and Ngo,
2006). Prior to the 1990s, the Red River and Mekong River deltas did not have problems with
bacterial wilt in crop production during the drier months of the year (Tung, 1985). Yet, in the
mid-1990s, Dung (1997) found that bacterial wilt had become prevalent all year-round in Hanoi
and adjacent areas, reaching peak levels from March to June, and from September to
November. Bacterial wilt affects tomato plants severely and can lead to 100% yield loss (Afari-
Sefa, 2012). In Ho Chi Minh City, bacterial wilt has become prevalent with the rapid expansion
of vegetable cultivation including tomato, eggplant and pepper, which are all highly susceptible
to the disease.
Farmers have few options for managing bacterial wilt once the soil is infested with the
bacterium (Wang and Lin, 2005). Disease-resistant varieties can be overwhelmed by the
pathogen due to its genetic diversity and complex genotype-environment interactions. The
usefulness of crop rotation is limited due to the pathogen’s wide range of host plants (Nguyen
and Ranamukhaarachchi, 2010). Chemical control of soil-borne diseases is costly and usually
unsuccessful (Lin et al., 2008).
AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center (AVRDC) introduced tomato grafting to Vietnam
through a one-month training course for Vietnamese scientists at AVRDC Headquarters in
Taiwan in 1998. Dr. Ngo Quang Vinh, one of the trainees and current Deputy Director of the
Institute of Agricultural Science of Southern Vietnam (IAS), introduced the technique to
vegetable farmers in southern Vietnam in 2002-2003. The technique was introduced to the Red
River Delta in 2002-2006 through the AVRDC project, “Sustainable Development of Peri-
urban Agriculture (SUSPER)” (Palada and Wu, 2005). An initial rapid assessment conducted
recently suggested that the tomato grafting approach has been widely adopted across Vietnam
2 AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center

and was very profitable (Afari-Sefa, 2012). In Lam Dong province, it has been successful for
managing bacterial wilt of tomato year-round, even in severely infected soils resulting from
the very humid conditions associated with the agroclimatic zones of the Central Highlands.
Based on interviews with nursery operators, Afari-Sefa (2012) found that grafted seedlings had
a survival rate of 95% while non-grafted seedlings had a survival rate of only 20%, and that
yield of grafted tomato plants was double.
In the Red River Delta, soil-borne diseases are presently a problem only during the wet season
from May to October. In the major dry season (November-April), farmers typically plant non-
grafted tomato seedlings, as these are much cheaper. Grafting also offers benefits beyond
disease control by helping growers manage abiotic stresses such as excess moisture and soil
temperature extremes, and allowing for the extension of the growing season. Field trials by
scientists at the Fruits and Vegetable Research Institute (FAVRI) showed that grafting can
increase stress tolerance and productivity while maintaining high fruit quality. In addition,
grafted plants have higher yields and show increased water and nutrient uptake (Gomi and
Masuda, 1981; Heo, 1991; Jang et al., 1992 as cited by Lee, 1994).
1.2. Objectives of the study

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of AVRDC’s tomato grafting on productivity
and profitability of farmers and nursery operators 10 years after the technique was introduced
in Vietnam (2002 - 2012). To the best of our knowledge, there are no previous studies on the
adoption of tomato grafting in Vietnam, and there are few data available on the impact of
grafting on the productivity and well-being of farmers and other market actors in Vietnam or
elsewhere. This report provides a detailed characterization and descriptive analysis of tomato
farmers and nursery operators with emphasis on the use of grafting as an alternative production
method, and examines constraints to the adoption of this method. The following impact
indicators are employed: the diffusion of tomato grafting technology, yield and yield stability
of grafted tomatoes, input factors affecting yield, and the contribution of grafting to farm
profitability.

2. THE ROLE OF AVRDC – THE WORLD VEGETABLE CENTER IN
PROMOTING TOMATO GRAFTING
AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center is an international nonprofit research and development
institution that promotes environmentally sound, sustainable, and profitable vegetable
production and marketing systems to increase the supply of nutritious vegetables to consumers.
AVRDC’s integrated research disciplines develop vegetable lines and technologies that
increase production and encourage consumption, thereby increasing income opportunities and
healthier diets for the poor in developing economies. These are offered as international public
goods to partners, such as national agricultural research systems, non-governmental
organizations, universities, and private seed companies, and through training programs at
AVRDC headquarters in Taiwan, its regional centers in Thailand, India, Tanzania and Mali,
and offices in Cameroon, Uzbekistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Fiji. AVRDC is renowned
for breeding heat-tolerant tropical tomato lines, and has developed and adapted integrated crop
management systems for safer vegetable production (Table 1) as a model project that includes
grafting, among others (Chadha, 2010).
Table 1. Framework for integrated crop management (ICM) practices for quality tomato
AVRDC-developed/ Subcomponent
adapted ICM component
healthy seedlings Media
Watering
avoid shading
IPM and IDM*
fertilizer management starter solution
balanced fertilizer use
water management drip irrigation
furrow irrigation
integrated pest/disease management resistant varieties
grafting onto bacterial wilt or Fusarium wilt-resistant
rootstocks
nethouses or net tunnels
sex pheromones
biofumigation for bacterial wilt
colored sticky traps
biopesticides (neem, Bt)
minimum and efficient use of pesticides
crop management Staking
Mulching
raised beds
pruning and binding branches
* IPM – integrated pest management, IDM – integrated disease management
Source: Adapted from Chadha (2010)

2.1. AVRDC’s effort to address bacterial wilt
The problem of bacterial wilt has been at the forefront of AVRDC’s research since its
establishment in 1973 (Opeña and Tschanz, 1987), and finding solutions has been an objective
in nearly all tomato breeding programs in Southeast Asia (Hanson et al., 1996). AVRDC led
several research networks starting with the Collaborative Vegetable Research Program in
Southeast Asia (also known as Southeast Asian Vegetable Research Network [AVNET]) in
1989, which created a platform for bacterial wilt research and facilitated the exchange of
research results and germplasm. In addition, AVRDC collaborated with the International Potato
Center (CIP), and the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics
(ICRISAT) to determine options for controlling the disease in other crops affected by bacterial
wilt such as potatoes, peanuts, eggplants and peppers. The partnership started in 1976 with the
“Planning Conference and Workshop on the Ecology and Control of Bacterial Wilt caused by
Pseudomonas solanacearum” supported by grants from the US Agency for International
Development (USAID), the University of California/AID Pest Management and Related
Environmental Project, and CIP (Hayward et al., 2005) (Fig. 1). In 1992, AVRDC together
with the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), ICRISAT, CIP
and the UK Department for International Development (DFID) initiated the International
Bacterial Wilt Symposia in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, which became a regular event every four years
(Hayward et al., 2005). The fifth and most recent symposium was held at the Oil Crops
Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in China in 2011. There
was also the South Asia Vegetable Research Network (SAVERNET I and II) and the
Cambodia, Lao PDR and Vietnam Network (CLVNET I and II), which promoted grafting as
one of its component technologies in these regions (AVRDC, 2000b; ADB, 2005).
To date, AVRDC has worked on host plant resistance to manage the disease, but the usefulness
of resistant varieties is limited in geographical scope due to large variations in virulence of
bacterial wilt and the location-specific nature of resistance related to soil physical and chemical
properties, cropping systems, host genotypes, local weeds and microbes (Lin et al., 2008).

Figure 1. Timeline of AVRDC's research on bacterial wilt and tomato grafting, 1970-2012
In 1992, AVRDC began conducting simple experiments in Taiwan to develop quick and
inexpensive grafting procedures to ascertain graft compatibility between tomato, pepper and
eggplant scions onto eggplant rootstocks (AVRDC, 1994). The following year, grafting F1
fresh market tomato onto tomato or eggplant rootstocks tolerant to waterlogging was shown to
extend options for growing tomato under tropical hot-wet summer conditions in Taiwan
(AVRDC, 1995; Midmore et al., 1997). A follow-up study on the effects of different grafting
techniques (use of tube and sticker) on the success of tomato/eggplant rootstock combinations
identified tube grafting as the most successful method for grafting tomato onto eggplant
(Attanayaka et al., 1997), which became part of AVRDC’s grafting procedures from 1998
onwards (Ya-Juia et al., 2001). AVRDC recommended tomato line Hawaii 7996 to be used as
rootstock because it has a high level of resistance to bacterial and Fusarium wilt (Wang et al.,
1998). In 1998, AVRDC further experimented on different eggplant rootstock varieties for
grafted tomato by evaluating yield, growth and fruit quality parameters. Eggplant varieties

EG190, EG203 and EG219 were found to be resistant to bacterial wilt, Fusarium wilt and root
knot nematode (AVRDC, 2000a). It was found that cherry tomato (ASVEG#6) grafted onto
these rootstocks produced similar or better quality fruits compared with non-grafted plants used
as control. In 1999, AVRDC studied the effect of rain shelters and grafting on tomato yields,
but results were not significant due to low rainfall during the experiment (AVRDC, 2000a).
Several sweet pepper and chili pepper varieties also were identified as resistant to bacterial wilt
(AVRDC, 2002).
A farmer field day and a four-day training course on grafting techniques for summer tomato
production were held in Taipao City, Chiayi County, Taiwan in August and September 1999
to transfer the grafting technique to the national agricultural research system and local farmers
(AVRDC, 2000a). Follow-up observations indicated rapid adoption of the technology as local
nursery operators started using grafting the following year with three nurseries in Chiayi
County alone producing about 330,000 grafted tomato seedlings (AVRDC, 2001). AVRDC
also began promoting the grafting of tomato onto eggplant rootstock and transplanting
seedlings onto raised beds protected by rain shelters to enable production during the hot-wet
months when flooding and bacterial wilt are major production constraints. Training materials
on grafting tomatoes for summer production in the hot, wet season were published in the same
year (AVRDC, 2001). A 2001 study on planting media found that coconut coir gave the highest
percentage of seedlings with a uniform stem diameter (AVRDC, 2002).
Field experiments conducted over several years (1998-2007) at AVRDC’s headquarters in

Taiwan and other locations in Asia (Philippines, Cambodia, Bangladesh and Lao PDR)
demonstrated the benefits of grafting tomato onto eggplant or tomato rootstocks during
unfavorable environmental conditions in the hot-wet season. Tomato grafting was shown to
improve resistance against flooding and bacterial wilt, gave a high plant survival rate and
increased the marketable fruit yield (Midmore et al., 1997; Rashid et al., 1999; 2000; Black et
al., 2002; AVRDC, 2004; De la Peña and Hughes, 2007). Results of the field trials led to the
recommendation of tomato rootstock varieties with good bacterial wilt resistance but otherwise
poor horticultural traits such as Hawaii 7996, Hawaii 7997 and Hawaii 7998, while eggplant
varieties EG195, EG203 and EG210 were recommended for areas affected by flooding or
excess soil moisture (Wang et al., 1998; Black, et al., 2003).

2.2. AVRDC's tomato grafting technology dissemination in Vietnam
In Vietnam, grafting previously had been used for fruit tree propagation, especially for orange
and longan (IFPRI, 2002). In 1998, Vietnamese scientists attended a one-month training on
off-season vegetable production organized by AVRDC in Taiwan. The training was attended
by Dr. Ngo Quang Vinh, the former Regional Coordinator of the AVRDC-Asian Regional
Center Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation-funded project, “Human Resource
Development Project for the Mekong Region” (AVRDC-ARC HRDP) (Ooi, Canillas and
Yambao, 2007), and Pham My Linh, a researcher from FAVRI. Training topics included
"Grafting and its benefits for off-season production" and "Studies on new grafting as a method
to overcome flooding damage to tomatoes" which were taught by AVRDC staff including Dr.
Toshio Hanada, Deng-lin Wu, Roan Yu-chi and Dr. David Midmore (Vinh and Ngo, 2006). In
2001, Vu Thanh Hai, a faculty member of Hanoi Agricultural University, received training on
vegetable production technologies for the hot-wet season including tomato and pepper grafting
(AVRDC, 2002). His research has contributed to the development of new training materials
and the AVRDC International Cooperator’s Guide on grafting. In 2002, another FAVRI staff
member, Le Thi Thuy, attended a training course in off-season production of grafted tomato at
AVRDC headquarters as part of the SUSPER Project.
From the late 1980s until 2007, AVRDC implemented the AVRDC-ARC HRDP (AVRDC,
2008) in Lao PDR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar and China. In Vietnam, AVRDC worked
with the Institute of Agricultural Science for Southern Vietnam (IAS), Research Institute of
Fruits and Vegetables (RIFAV) in Hanoi, Hanoi Agricultural University, Can Tho University,
and the Faculty of Agronomy of Hue University of Agriculture and Forestry. During the
implementation of this project, IAS through Dr. Vinh conducted three experiments in Hoc Mon
District, Ho Chi Minh City and Duc Trong District, Lam Dong province from 2002-2003 to
identify tomato rootstock varieties resistant to bacterial wilt when grafted onto normal
susceptible tomato varieties. The experiment found HW96 or Hawaii7996 (Vimina) resistant
to bacterial wilt (Vinh and Ngo, 2006).
Lam Dong province, the largest producer of tomatoes in Vietnam, was the first province to
apply tomato grafting. Dissemination of the technology in the province began in 2003 when
IAS trained 56 lead farmers and 59 extension staff from provincial and district extension offices
and relevant agricultural institutions under the AVRDC-ARC HRDP-IV (AVRDC, 2008). The

method to produce grafted seedlings and procedures for managing a crop of grafted tomato
were developed and published during this period (Black et al., 2003). Two TV broadcasts were
produced highlighting tomato grafting for off-season planting and home vegetable gardens.
IAS also produced and distributed one-page handouts and leaflets in Vietnamese (AVRDC,
2008) on the following topics:
 Technical process for grafting tomatoes, 200 copies

 Technical process for growing grafted tomatoes, 200 copies
 Guide for establishing a mini-base (tent) for home-sized tomato grafting (4,000-5,000
seedlings/grafting time), 50 copies
 Establishing a model of a large base (house) for farm-sized grafting and post-grafting
tomatoes (700,000-800,000 seedlings per month), 10 copies
 Guide for compost-making, 50 copies
 Guide for establishing home-sized (tent) watermelon grafting (20,000
seedlings/grafting time), 50 copies
 Guide for growing grafted watermelon, 100 copies
 Design of nethouses (500 m2 and 1000 m2), 50 copies
As noted by Baumuller (2012), farmers will easily adopt a technology if they have: (a)
knowledge of the existence of the technology, the ability to assess its suitability for the farming
system as well as potential risk, and the ability to obtain and finance the technologies; (b)
requisite knowledge on how to use them, the ability to use them (e.g. sufficient labor or other
resources), and the ability to manage any associated risk; and (c) ability to accrue reasonable
profits from sales and to save and reinvest from the resulting returns. Indeed, the various
training, extension and information campaigns spearheaded by Dr. Vinh as the Regional
Coordinator of the HRDP project led to the widespread adoption of tomato transplants grafted
onto resistant rootstocks for the control of bacterial wilt in Vietnam (Vinh and Ngo, 2006). The
use of diverse media to deliver information and messages fostered better understanding among
local plant protection extension staff and farmers about the role of resistant rootstocks in the
control of diseases caused by soil-borne pathogens (Dau et al., 2009). An online newspaper,
Nong Nghiep Vietnam, and the online journal New Agriculturist credited the role of AVRDC
and that of local scientific research institutes in the research, testing and dissemination of the

method to tomato farmers in Vietnam.2 By 2007, grafted tomatoes were planted on 4,000 ha of
arable land in Lam Dong province and Vinh and Ngo (2006) estimated that this gave farmers
an additional profit of US$ 6 million each year.
In north Vietnam around Hanoi, the Hanoi-CLV Peri-urban agriculture project conducted field
experiments by setting up rain shelters, simple grafting chambers and grafting nurseries in 2002
(AVRDC, 2003). The project tested three scions (local cultivars VL2000 and HS902, and
AVRDC line CHT501) grafted onto two AVRDC recommended rootstocks (EG203 and
Hawaii 7996), and found no significant advantage of grafting due to the lack of environmental
stresses during the experiment. However, grafting became popular among farmers and attracted
the attention of the Hanoi Seed Company (HSC), which requested technical training from
FAVRI for rapid and mass production of grafted seedlings (Palada and Wu, 2010).
In 2008 -2009, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) commissioned a
project to improve the tomato grafting protocol to develop off-season tomato in the Red River
Delta and help farmers successfully produce grafted seedlings by themselves (Thuy, 2010).
Since 2010, FAVRI has set up three seedling stations that supply an aggregated volume of two
million grafted tomato seedlings annually; the stations are located at FAVRI, Hanoi; Moc Chau
district, Son La province; and Tam Dao district, Vinh Phuc province. Currently, the area
devoted to grafted tomatoes is around 50-60 hectares (ha), up from 1-2 ha in 2007.
2
http://nongnghiep.vn/nongnghiepvn/vi-vn/72/45/67/18428/Ky-thuat-ghep-ca-chua-.aspx (accessed December
17, 2012); and http://www.new-ag.info/en/focus/focusItem.php?a=38 (accessed August 19, 2013).

3. STUDY METHODS AND DATA COLLECTION
3.1. Selection of location and data sources
This study was conducted in six provinces comprising eight districts and 20 communes in the
Red River Delta and Lam Dong province that are considered to be the main tomato-producing
areas in Vietnam (Table 2; Fig. 2). The national collaborators from FAVRI and the Potato,
Vegetable and Flower Research Center (PVFRC) selected the study areas where tomato is a
major crop.
The study used both primary and secondary data. A structured questionnaire was pre-tested in
both locations and translated into Vietnamese prior to data collection in August 2012.
Secondary data came from official statistics and documents provided by FAVRI and PVFRC
on tomato production.
Table 2. Survey sites and number of respondents

Item Lam Dong province Red River Delta Total
Provinces/districts Doc Truong District Bac Ninh Province: Tu 6 provinces and 8
Don Duong District Son District districts
Ha Noi Province: Hoai
Duc District
Hai Duong Province: Hai
Duong City and Nam
Sach District
Nam Dinh Province:
Nghia Hung
Vinh Phuc Province: Vinh
Tuong District
Farmers
No. of respondents 225 75 300
No. of grafting adopters 225 36 261
No. of focus group 0 1 (5 males, all adopters) 1
discussion sessions
conducted (and
participants)
Nursery operators
No. of respondents 20 - 20
3.2. Data collection

Twenty nursery operators and 300 tomato growers were interviewed. Seventy-five respondents
(representing 25% of the total sample) were selected from the Red River Delta, while 225
respondents (representing 75%) were selected from Lam Dong province. All nursery operators

were from Lam Dong province. The sample size and regional distribution were pre-determined
based on the estimated population of tomato farmers and the relative importance of grafted
tomato in each region, as well as the time and resources available. After identifying the main
tomato-producing provinces, districts and communes, a list of tomato farmers in each selected
production area was compiled by agricultural extension officers in Lam Dong province and
FAVRI staff, assisted by the commune leaders. Compiling the list of tomato farmers in both
locations proved a daunting task given the time constraints and the challenges faced in
identifying tomato farmers; it is therefore likely that the total number of tomato farmers in both
regions (1,440) is an underrepresentation. A two-stage stratified random sampling was used to
identify the sample units, i.e. farm households. Areas were stratified by district and by
commune in Lam Dong province; and by province, district and commune in the Red River
Delta. Tomato growers were allocated across the provinces/districts/communes so that the
proportion of farmers sampled for each district/commune was identical to the proportion of
farmers in each district/commune in the total population (Table 3).
Two semi-structured questionnaires were developed and administered by trained enumerators.

Both the farmer and nursery operator questionnaires were pre-tested in each location (Lam
Dong province and Red River Delta) and adapted for local conditions. For the farmer
questionnaire, household heads were surveyed to elicit both quantitative and qualitative data.
Data included socio-demographic information, farm assets, farmer’s perceptions on the use of
grafting in growing tomato, rootstock and scion varieties used, cost and returns of non-grafted
and grafted tomato cultivation, changes in crop management practices following the adoption
of grafting, pest and disease management, marketing information, training and extension needs,
and household income and welfare indicators. A focus group discussion was also conducted
with selected farmers in one district in the Red River Delta to generate supplementary
qualitative data for triangulation purposes, given the lack of appropriate baseline data. The
nursery operator questionnaire included socio-demographic information, agricultural land
endowment, nature of grafting nursery operations, most commonly used rootstock/scion
combination, cost and returns of non-grafted and grafted tomato seedlings, changes in nursery
operations following adoption of grafting technique, pest and disease incidence, market
information, training and extension needs, enterprise and personal assets, and questions on the
most important challenges being faced by and reforms most needed in the tomato grafting
industry.

Table 3. Proportionate stratified sampling by location in Vietnam
Province/District/Commune Population Proportionate stratified sample
Frequency % Frequency %
Number of tomato growers 1,440 - 300 -
Lam Dong province

a. Communes in Don Duong district
Da Ron 169 21.9 39 21.9
D'ran 96 12.4 22 12.4
Ka Do 131 17.0 30 17.0
P'ro 101 13.1 23 13.1
Tu tra 63 8.2 15 8.2
Lac Xuân 212 27.5 49 27.5
Sub-total 772 100.0 178 100.0
b. Communes in Duc Trong district
Lien Nghia 36 17.8 8 17.8
Hiep Thạnh 14 6.9 3 6.9
Gia Chanh 10 4.9 3 4.9
Phu Hoi 69 34.2 16 34.2
Tan Hoi 46 22.8 11 22.8
Tan Thanh 27 13.4 6 13.4
Sub-total 202 100.0 47 100.0
Red River Delta

a. Bac Ninh province 18 3.9 3 3.9
b. Hai Duong province 97 20.8 16 20.8
c. Nam Dinh province 241 51.7 38 51.7
d. Vinh Phuc province 100 21.5 16 21.5
e. Ha Noi province 10 2.1 2 2.1
Sub-total 466 100.0 75 100.0

Figure 2. Location of Red River Delta and Lam Dong province in Vietnam

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Nurseries producing grafted seedlings in Lam Dong province
Operating the nursery was the main occupation for all respondents, yet 35% produced
vegetables as well. About 85% operated a single nursery with the mean land area being nearly
half a hectare. The average nursery operator in our sample was in his mid-40s with 12 years of
education (Table 4).
Table 4. Average socioeconomic characteristics of nursery operators in three study sites

Variable Lam Dong Don Duong Duc Trong
Province District District
Number of respondents 20 15 5
General characteristics
Age (years) 43.8 (6.2) 42.4 (6.3) 48.2 (3.9)
Sex (% male) 80.0 73.3 100.0
Respondent is owner of nursery (%) 85.0 80.0 100.0
Education (years) 12.0 12.0 10.0
Nursery operator as main occupation (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0
Secondary occupation (%)
a. none 65.0 60.0 80.0
b. vegetable producer 35.0 40.0 20.0
Household size (person) 4.3 (0.8) 4.3 (0.9) 4.4 (0.5)
Land area
Operate a single nursery (%) 85.0 80.0 100.0
Total area of operation (‘000 m2) 5.6 (5.7) 5.6 (6.4) 5.6 (2.7)
Nursery area (‘000 m2) 5.0 (4.1) 4.9 (4.5) 5.2 (2.8)
Vegetable cultivated area (‘000 m2) 1.2 (2.6) 1.6 (2.9) 0.2 (0.4)
Nursery experience
Member of nursery operator organization (%) 47.4 57.1 20.0
Experienced in non-grafting tomato seedlings at 30.0 20.0 60.0
nursery (% yes)
Experienced in commercial operation of non-grafted 30.0 20.0 60.0
nursery before (% yes)
Training
Attended vegetable grafting training (%) 85.0 93.3 60.0
Avg. number of tomato grafting trainings attended 1.3 (0.7) 1.2 (0.7) 1.7 (0.6)
Received certificates or letters of recognition after 17.6 21.4 0.0
attendance to this tomato grafting training (%)
Note: Values in parenthesis are standard deviations (SD).
Many operators (85%) had already attended vegetable grafting training, most of them on
tomato (n=15/17, 88.2%), from 2007 to 2010, with three nursery operators (17.6%) having
received a certificate or letter of recognition for attending such training. Before engaging in the
production of grafted tomato seedlings, 70% had no prior experience with tomato seedlings.

The use of grafting and the type of planting material used from an operator’s perspective are
mainly to protect crop from soil-borne and other diseases, and to extend the growing season
throughout the year (Table 5). More than half of the operators thought that grafted tomato was
more suitable to meet market demand and gave a higher output (35%) and a higher income and
profit (40%). All operators use Vimina (Hawaii 7996) as rootstock and Anna as scion, which
were priced around VND 3.4-3.5 million and VND 38.9 million per kilogram of seed,
respectively.
Table 5. Nursery operators’ perception about why farmers buy grafted tomato seedlings
Lam Dong Don Duong Duc Trong
Reasons of farmers for growing grafted tomato province District District
Rank % Rank % Rank %
Protects from soil-borne diseases (caused by 1 100.0 1 100.0 1 100.0
fungi, bacteria, or nematodes) and other diseases
Helps control other abiotic stressors, excess 2 53.8 2 50.0 2 100.0
moisture (waterlogging) and possibly soil
temperature extremes as well as allowing the
extension of the growing season
Increases tomato yield and not necessarily for 3 60.0 3 75.0 3 66.7
disease or abiotic stress control
Note: Percent of cases.
All nursery operators conferred and discussed with each other at least twice a year to set the
price of seedlings for farmers (Table 6). Grafted seedlings were sold at an average price of
VND 612.0 per seedling, giving operators a mean profit of VND 126.0 per seedling (Table 7),
which was nearly twice the profit from non-grafted tomato seedling of VND 73.3 per seedling;
however, the profit margin was smaller. This requires further verification given the small
sample size of nursery operator respondents in this study. The additional income from grafted
tomato helped a few operators (n=3) to invest in other business ventures, such as opening a
shop for selling agricultural inputs.

Table 6. Marketing information for grafted tomato seedlings
Variable Lam Dong Don Duong Duc Trong District
Province District
N 20 15 5
Base seedling price on the price charged by 100.0 100.0 100.0
other nurseries
Discuss price information with other nursery 100.0 100.0 100.0
operators (%)
When do you seek price information prior to
selling?
a. 2x a year 45.0 53.3 20.0
b. 2 wks before 25.0 20.0 40.0
c. one month before 20.0 13.3 0.0
d. 1 wk before 10.0 13.3 40.0
Satisfied with your current seedling market 80.0 80.0 80.0
information (% yes)
Profits from nursery invested in other 15.0 20.0 0.0
business ventures (%)
Note: Percent of cases. ‘n/a’ not applicable.
Table 7. Profitability of grafted tomato at nursery (VND per seedling)

Variable Lam Dong Province Don Duong District Duc Trong District
Non-grafted
N 6 3 3
Estimated cost 151.7 (60.5) 140.0 (52.0) 163.3 (77.7)
Selling price 225.0 (98.7) 216.7 (115.5) 233.3 (104.1)
Profit 73.3 (43.7) 76.7 (63.5) 70 (26.4)
Profit margin (%) 32.6 35.4 30.0
Grafted
N 20 15 5
Estimated cost 486.0 (85.5) 486.0 (84.1) 486.0 (99.9)
Selling price 612.0 (106.8) 610.0 (108.9) 618.0 (112.3)
Profit 126.0 (45.1) 124.0 (35.6) 132.0 (71.9)
Profit margin (%) 20.6 20.3 21.3
Note: Values in parenthesis are standard deviations (SD). Profit margin = (selling price - estimated cost) / (selling price * 100).
Nursery operators perceived that the major problems of farmers in terms of grafted tomato
production and marketing were: (1) heavy rainfall leading to high incidence of pests and
diseases; (2) seasonal fluctuations in market prices; (3) a lack of traders operating in the area
leading to low market demand and producer prices; (4) challenges to meet consumer preference
for quality produce; and (5) a lack of technical know-how in the production of grafted tomato.
Challenges to nursery operators themselves mostly relate to input supplies: high and/or
unstable prices of inputs and seeds (90%), poor quality of seeds and agricultural inputs (40%),
and the lack of seed sources (35%). Collecting payments from farmers was also a problem for

45% of the operators. Improvements to the tomato grafting sector, as suggested by nursery
operators, could include controlling the quality of inputs (seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, etc.),
providing credit to and finding new markets for farmers. A few suggested “building a wholesale
market” and processing facilities for tomato.
4.2. Farm households

4.2.1. Socio‐demographic characteristics
In the Red River Delta, tomato production takes place from September to February, while in
Lam Dong province tomato is cultivated all year round. Most tomato farms are small, with an
average farm size of 3,188 m2 (Table 8). Men, in their mid-40s with 7 years of education,
typically head tomato-producing households (80%). Most cultivate tomato as their sole crop
and main source of livelihood. The average farmer has nearly 20 years of experience as an
independent farmer and 11 years of experience growing tomato. Most farmers are members of
a farmer-based organization or association, but only half of the respondents had attended an
average of two vegetable grafting training programs that included tomato grafting methods.
The average tomato growing farm household has 4-5 family members, which is slightly greater
than the average household size in the Red River Delta (3.5) and in Lam Dong province (3.9)
as reported in the 2009 Vietnam Population and Housing Census (Central Population and
Housing Census Steering Committee, 2010). The average farm size in Lam Dong province is
roughly twice that in the Red River Delta. In the Red River Delta, non-adopters of tomato
grafting have a larger area under tomato than adopters. About 75% of the adopters in Red River
Delta attended vegetable grafting training, while 49% of the non-adopters did. In comparison,
only 52% of the adopters in Lam Dong province had received training in grafting techniques.
This is not surprising given the presence of well-developed private commercial tomato grafting
nurseries supplying grafted seedlings to farmers in Lam Dong province compared to the Red
River Delta, where seedlings are provided to farmers by FAVRI and there is minimal
involvement from the private sector.

Table 8. Socioeconomic profile of sampled respondents
Item All Lam Dong Red River Delta
province
Adopters Adopters Non-adopters
Number of farmers (n) 300 225 36 39
General profile
Age (year) 44.2 (9.3) 42.6 (8.6) 45.9 (9.1) 51.7 (9.6)
Gender (% male) 80.0 81.8 83.3 66.7
Respondent is HH head (%) 87.1 89.3 88.0 70.0
Education level (mode) 7 9-10 7 7
Main occupation (%)
Farming 98.7 99.1 94.4 100.0
Other 1.3 0.9 5.6 0.0
Secondary occupation (%)
None 79.8 87.6 46.1 25.0
Non-agricultural labor 9.0 7.1 11.5 31.2
Trading 3.0 0.9 15.4 12.5
Household size (persons) 4.4 (1.4) 4.3 (1.2) 4.6 (1.2) 4.7 (2.1)
Farm experience
Member of a farmer organization 81.7 80.9 88.9 79.5
(%)
Farm decision-making experience 19.7 (10.6) 17.2 (8.9) 22.1 (9.0) 32.1 (11.9)
(years)
Experience in tomato cultivation as 11.4 (6.8) 11.4 (6.8) 12.5 (7.7) 10.1 (5.9)
HH head (years)
Land area (‘000 m2)

Total farmland 6.9 (6.3) 8.0 (6.8) 3.2 (2.2) 4.2 (3.9)
Land under tomato 3.2 (2.8) 3.8 (2.9) 0.9 (0.7) 1.6 (0.8)
Tomato area under screen house 0.1 (1.2) 0.1 (1.4) 0.0 0.0
production
Land under other vegetables 1.9 (2.9) 2.4 (3.2) 0.6 (0.8) 0.2 (0.4)
Training
Attended vegetable grafting training 52.3 49.3 75.0 48.7
(%)
Number of tomato grafting trainings 1.9 (1.9) 1.7 (1.0) 3.0 (3.9) 1.8 (1.1)
attended
Note: Standard deviations in parentheses.
Most farmers in both locations grow tomatoes on single plots of land. Fifteen per cent of
farmers in the Red River Delta owned two tomato plots compared with 20% in Lam Dong
province. Most farmers grow tomatoes in a monocropping system but a few adopters in the
Red River Delta intercrop tomatoes with melons, pumpkins, onions, garlic, lemongrass or
beans. The open field system is the main tomato production system in both locations. All
farmers in Lam Dong province use grafted seedlings while only a third in Red River Delta did
at the time of the survey. These observed patterns of adoption of tomato grafting form the basis

for characterization of input and output data in the following sections of this report. The
majority of farmers in the Red River Delta obtain seeds for non-grafted tomato production from
private dealers/stockists or farmer groups (Table 9).
Table 9. Average characteristics of the most recently harvested tomato field

Characteristic Lam Dong province Red River Delta
Number of farmers (n) 224 75
Average plot size (‘000 m2) 3.3 1.5
Production technology
Sole stand (%) 100.0 98. 7
Open field system (%) 96.0 100.0
Using plastic sheets/shades (%) 2.6
Planting material
Use grafted seedling (%) 100.0 32.9
Use seeds (%) 0.0 43.0
Use non-grafted seedling (%) 0.0 24.1
Source of planting material

Private nursery operator (%) 83.0 7.5
Own nursery (%) 15.6 13.8
Private dealer/stockist (%) 1.3 31.3
FAVRI (%) 0.0 25.0
Farmer group (%) 0.0 17.5
Other source (%) 0.0 5.0
Source: Survey conducted by AVRDC in collaboration with FAVRI and PVFRC (2012), n=299.
4.2.2. Adoption of tomato grafting

The survey results show that adoption of grafted tomato commenced in 2002 in Lam Dong
province and in 2007 in the Red River Delta. By 2012, the adoption rate was 100% in Lam
Dong province and 45% in the Red River Delta (Fig. 3). A significant increase in the number
of grafted tomato adopters was observed from 2002-2005 in Lam Dong province. In the delta,
farmers only started using the grafting technique from 2009 onwards. Seven farmers continued
to use non-grafted tomato until 2010/2011, even though they had started grafting one year or
two years earlier (2009/2010).

100
80
% Adoption Lam Dong province

60
40
20
Red River Delta
0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
Figure 3. Adoption of tomato grafting in Lam Dong province and the Red River Delta
The high adoption rate in Lam Dong province could be due to the influence of Dr. Vinh’s
position as Regional Coordinator of the HRDP-IV project, which allowed him to prioritize
tomato grafting in the research activities, and design training and information dissemination
strategies for Lam Dong province. About 2,000 farmers from 20 provinces were trained in
seedling production, in addition to lead farmers and staff from provincial and district extension
centers and relevant agricultural institutions (AVRDC, 2008). Training courses included safe
vegetable production, off-season vegetable production, vegetable greenhouse production,
vegetable home gardens, organic fertilizer processing, grafted tomato production to control
bacterial wilt, proper irrigation techniques, vegetable breeding, and setting up vegetable seed
production enterprises. About 50 households in Tra Vinh province also received training and
technical support for setting up greenhouse vegetable production while more than 80 vegetable
nurseries were established in Lam Dong, Tra Vinh and Vinh Long provinces.
According to Afari-Sefa (2012), farmers in the Red River Delta only use grafted seedlings
during the off-season (May-October) when the incidence of soil-borne diseases is high. Most
farmers typically plant non-grafted tomato seedlings in the dry season (November-April).
Consequently, grafting in the Red River Delta is mostly beneficial in the off-season and offer
benefits beyond disease control by increasing yield and helping to control other abiotic stresses,

excess moisture and soil temperature extremes as well as allowing the extension of the growing
season. In Lam Dong province, the problem of bacterial wilt is experienced all year round due
to high humidity; this explains why 89% of the farmers used grafting to address soil-borne
diseases (Table 10). It may also be one reason why adoption in the south (Lam Dong province)
started earlier than in the north (Red River Delta). Moreover, it was only in 2004-2005 that the
grafting technology was transferred to 16 farmers in Dong Anh district near Hanoi (AVRDC,
2008) after field trials conducted at FAVRI under the SUSPER project implemented from
2002-2004 (Palada and Wu, 2005) showed very promising results.
Table 10. Ranking of the three most important reasons for planting grafted tomato
All Lam Dong Red River
Reason for adopting grafted tomato province Delta
Rank % Rank % Rank %
To protect from soil-borne diseases (caused by 1 88.6 1 92.4 1 54.8
fungi, bacteria, or nematodes) and other diseasesa
To increase tomato yield and not necessarily for 2 52.9 2 57.2 3 58.3
disease or abiotic stress control
Helping to control other abiotic stressors, excess
moisture (waterlogging) and possibly soil 3 60.1 3 65.8 2 39.3
temperature extremes as well as allowing the
extension of the growing season.
Notes: n=261. a Throughout the year for Lam Dong province and during the off-season period for the Red River Delta.
The majority of respondents in the Red River Delta sourced their grafted seedlings from
FAVRI, which has an experimental station and production hub for seedling production in Moc
Chau province in the highlands, about 130 km northwest of Hanoi. For farmers this can be a
source of inconvenience compared with buying from a private nursery located within the Hanoi
area, such as the Hanoi Seed Company. Several options are available to farmers in the Red
River Delta to access and purchase grafted seedlings from FAVRI: (a) the farmer can agree to
a seedling supply contract at the Hanoi office, (b) the farmer can place a purchase order with
FAVRI via a local agricultural extension office or broker; or (c) the farmer can buy the
seedlings from the FAVRI nursery in Moc Chau province. To better understand how adoption
took place in the Red River Delta, five farmers were invited to participate in a focus group
discussion in Tho Tang commune, Vinh Tuong district, Vinh Phuc province. One participant
adopted grafted tomato in 2011, the rest in 2012.
Several farmers benefited from training programs organized by the Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development (MARD) on safe vegetable production, but none of the programs were

specifically about tomato grafting. Their knowledge of grafting came from a television
broadcast on a channel that aired agricultural programs. It was only in 2010 when the
agricultural provincial authority established a 722-m2 demonstration plot in their commune to
highlight the benefits of grafting that these farmers learned about it at close proximity.
Although initial results were unsuccessful due to the farmers' lack of experience in grafting and
unfavorable hot weather conditions, Mr. Hoa, a lead farmer, adopted the technology in 2011.
He had received grafted seedlings free of charge from Mr. Do Tat Chanh, head of the
Agricultural Division of Vinh Tuong district. In 2012, all five farmers received 800 grafted
seedlings and 80-90 non-grafted seedlings for a 360-m2 parcel of land, with sufficient supply
for additional requests from the commune farmers.
Mr. Hoa found that grafted tomatoes allowed tomato fruits to ripen on the plant, used less
pesticides than non-grafted tomato, extended the harvesting period, and produced better fruit
color and fruit appearance. Other farmers, basing their opinions and perceptions on the field
demonstrations in 2010, also confirmed resistance of grafted tomato to bacterial wilt, late
blight, and other pests and diseases in the off-season, which allowed them to plant early in the
season, harvest for a longer period, obtain high yields and get a better market price. Additional
benefits of planting grafted tomato included savings from applying less pesticide, and reducing
the number of laborers needed for field operations. However, grafted tomato required more
fertilizer and labor for staking and harvesting. Further research is needed to validate this
perception. Adoption proved beneficial to Mr. Hoa; his income increased 5-7 times per unit
area with yield reaching 138.9 t/ha. Factors that impeded the widespread adoption of grafting,
according to him, were the limited supply of grafted seedlings and the higher investment cost
affecting poorer farmers in Vinh Phuc province.
In Lam Dong province, farmers only use one rootstock tomato variety, Vimina (or HW7996),
which IAS tested for bacterial wilt resistance in 2002/2003 and released after evaluation from
2004-2011 (Ngo Quang Vinh, personal communication, November 7, 2012) (Table 11).
Eggplant EG203, the main rootstock variety used in the Red River Delta from 2007-2011, is
also resistant to bacterial wilt and other soil-borne diseases (Table 12). Both are AVRDC-
developed varieties released by local partners in Vietnam.

Popular scion varieties are Anna (in Lam Dong province) and Savior (in the Red River Delta)
due to their high yield performance, good appearance, popularity among consumers, and
higher number of fruits harvested (Table 13).
Table 11. List of rootstock and scion varieties released in Lam Dong province from 2004-
2011
Year Grafted tomato scions Grafted tomato rootstocks Districts Area (ha)*
2004 TG105 (386) Vimina (Hawaii 7996) Duc Trong, Don Duong 100
2005 TG105 (386) Vimina (Hawaii 7996) Duc Trong, Don Duong 500
2006 TG105 (386) Vimina (Hawaii 7996) Don Duong, Duc Trong 2000
2007 Anna Vimina (Hawaii 7996) Don Duong, Duc Trong 4000
2008 Anna Vimina (Hawaii 7996) Don Duong, Duc Trong 5000
2009 Anna Vimina (Hawaii 7996) Don Duong, Duc Trong 6500-7000
Source: Personal communication with Dr. Vinh (December 11, 2012).
Note: Anna is a hybrid variety of Monsanto. (*) Estimated based on volume of seeds and rubber tubes sold.

Table 12. List of rootstock and scion varieties released in the Red River Delta from 2004-
2011
Years Grafted tomato scions Grafted tomato rootstocks Provinces Areas (ha)
2004 HS902, P375 EG203, EG219, HW7996 Ha Noi 0.1
TN005, MonganT11 EG203, EG219, HW7996 Hai Phong 0.1
2005 HS902, P375 EG203, EG219, HW7996 Ha Noi 0.1
TN005, VL2910, EG203, EG219, HW7996 Hai Phong 0.1
2006 HS902, P375 EG203, HW7996 Ha Noi 0.1
TN005, VL2910, EG203, HW7996 Hai Phong 0.1
2007 Savior EG203 Bac Ninh 0.1
VL2910, FM29 EG203 Hai Phong 0.1
P375 EG203 Ha Noi 0.1
2008 P375, VL642, VL3500 EG203 Ha Noi 4.0
Savior EG203 Bac Ninh 2.0
Savior EG203 Vnh Phuc 0.5
PP 89 EG203 Nam Dinh 2.0
Emural, DV2962 EG203 Thai Binh 1.0
Savior EG203 Hoa Binh 1.0
Savior EG203 Hai Phong 2.0
2009 Savior, P375, VL3500 EG203 Ha Noi 6.0
Savior, GS901 EG203 Bac Ninh 3.0
Emural EG203 Vinh Phuc 0.5
PP 89, Magic EG203 Nam Dinh 1.0
Savior, DV2962 EG203 Thai Binh 1.0
VL642 EG203 Ninh Binh -
GS901 EG203 Phu Tho 1.0
DV2962, Gadeeva EG203 Hung Yen 2.0
Savior, Mongan T11 EG203 Hai Duong 2.0
VL2200 EG203 Hoa Binh 1.0
Savior EG203 Hai Phong 3.0
2010 Savior, VL3500 EG203 Ha Noi 1.0
Savior EG203 Vinh Phuc 3.0
Savior, Mongan T11 EG203 Hai Duong 8.0
Savior EG203 Other provinces 3.0
2011 VL3500 EG203 Ha Noi 1.0
Savior EG203 Vinh Phuc 3.0
Savior, Anna EG203, Hawaii Hai Duong 8.0
Savior EG203 Other provinces 3.0
Source: Personal communication with Dr. To Thi Ha from FAVRI (October 10, 2012). “-” no information.

Table 13. Main rootstock and scion varieties used by farmers, and reasons for selection.
Reason for adoption Lam Dong province Red River Delta*
N % N %
Rootstock Vimina (n=147) EG203 (n=32)
Resistant to bacterial wilt 104 70.7 10 31.3
Resistant to other soil-borne diseases 39 26.5 17 53.1
Other (high yield, high producer price, good appearance, longer 4 2.8 22 68.7
shelf-life, and others)
.
Scion Anna (n=219) Savior (n=26)
High yield 107 48.9 18 69.2
Market preference 81 37.0 8 30.8
Resistant to bacterial wilt 15 6.8 3 11.5
Higher number of fruits 5 2.3 8 30.8
High producer price 4 1.8 7 26.9
Longer harvesting period 3 1.4 3 11.5
Good appearance 1 0.5 19 73.1
Preferred color 1 0.5 9 34.6
Thick flesh 1 0.5 2 7.7
Good taste 1 3.8
Long shelf-life (freshness) 5 19.2
Other 1 0.5 3 11.5
Note: (*) For Red River Delta, multiple-response question.
In Lam Dong province, farmers purchased almost all seedlings for rootstocks and scions from
specialized nursery operators, and only about 14-16% from farmer-managed nurseries (Table
14). In the Red River Delta, about 61-67% of EG203 and Savior came from FAVRI and 15-
19% from farmer nurseries, with the rest sourced from farmer groups and specialized nurseries.
Specialized nurseries are still not as common in the Red River Delta as in Lam Dong province.
Table 14. Seed source of main rootstock and scion varieties

Source Lam Dong province Red River Delta*
% %
Rootstock Vimina (n=161) EG203 (n=33)
FAVRI - 60.6
Specialized nurseries 86.3 12.1
Farmer nurseries 13.7 15.2
Farmer group - 12.1
Scion Anna (n=216) Savior (n=27)

FAVRI - 66.7
Specialized nurseries 83.8 -
Farmer nurseries 16.2 18.5
Farmer group nursery - 14.8

(A) Mr. Linh, a nursery operator in Don Duong (B) A farmer showing her small nursery of non-
district, Lam Dong province using Hawaii 02 grafted tomato in Nghia Hung district, Nam
(or HW7996 from AVRDC) Dinh province, Red River Delta
(C) Grafted tomatoes in one nursery in Don (D) Dr. Ngo Quang Vinh looking at a field of
Duong district, Lam Dong province grafted tomatoes in D’Ran commune, Don
Duong district, Lam Dong province
Figure 4. Tomato production in Lam Dong province, Vietnam
In Lam Dong province, the main planting months are from January to April but some farmers
also plant tomatoes in May or June and in August or September (Figure 5). The harvest starts
in March and peaks in May. In the Red River Delta, farmers using grafted tomato seedlings are
able to plant tomatoes as early as June-July and harvest as early as September.

Lam Dong province, adopter
150
No. of farmers
100
50
0
Jan
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Mar
Apr
May
Nov
Dec
Feb
Oct
Planting Management (bet. planting and harvesting)
Harvesting
Source: Survey conducted by AVRDC in collaboration with PVFRC (2012), n=225
Red River Delta, adopter Red River Delta, non-adopter

30
25
No. of farmers
20
15
10
0
Feb
Aug
Sep
Feb
Aug
Sep
Mar
Apr
May
Mar
Jan
Nov
Dec
Apr
May
Nov
Dec
Jun
Jan
Jun
Jul
Oct
Jul
Oct
Planting Management (bet. planting and harvesting)

Harvesting
Source: Survey conducted by AVRDC in collaboration with FAVRI (2012), n=75
Figure 5. Seasonal calendar of production activities by location
4.2.3. Yield and yield stability of grafted tomato

During the main harvesting months, yield of grafted tomato ranged between 70.5-73.8 t/ha in
Lam Dong province and 62.9-87.3 t/ha in the Red River Delta (Table 15). Yield for grafted
tomato was at its lowest in October at 62.9 t/ha in the Red River Delta. Non-grafted tomato
yield was highest in April at 62.3 t/ha. The coefficient of variation (CV) showed a more stable

yield from April to August for grafted tomato compared to non-grafted tomato, with CV
ranging from 0.30-0.62 in the Red River Delta (Table 16).
Table 15. Yield of grafted versus non-grafted tomatoes by month, 2010-2011 (t/ha)
Month Yield (production) Yield (quantity sold)
harvested Lam Dong Red River Delta Lam Dong Red River Delta
province province
Grafted Grafted Non-grafted Grafted Grafted Non-grafted
(n=223) (n=25) (n=65) (n=223) (n=25) (n=65)
Jan 46.8 (32.4) 35.5 (22.9)
Feb
Mar
Apr 72.6 (14.4) 62.3 (19.1) 70.4 (14.9) 50.7 (17.5)
May 73.8 (14.7) 71.7 (14.9)
Jun 72.9 (19.8) 70.6 (19.1)
Jul 72.3 (20.3) 70.2 (20.0)
Aug 70.5 (21.4) 68.6 (20.7)
Sep 78.8 (39.5) 71.4 (38.5)
Oct 62.9 (49.5) 56.8 (46.7)
Nov 87.3 (28.6) 44.2 (27.3) 83.2 (28.4) 36.4 (26.6)
Dec 50.5 (24.3) 44.8 (24.2)
Note: n=300. Standard deviations in parentheses.
Table 16. Coefficient of variation of grafted vs non-grafted tomatoes by month, 2010-2012

Month Yield (production) Yield (quantity sold)
harvested Lam Dong Red River Delta Lam Dong Red River Delta
province province
Grafted Grafted Non-grafted Grafted Grafted Non-grafted
(n=223) (n=25) (n=65) (n=223) (n=25) (n=65)
Jan 0.69 0.64
Feb
Mar
Apr 0.20 0.30 0.21 0.34
May 0.20 0.21
Jun 0.27 0.27
Jul 0.28 0.28
Aug 0.30 0.30
Sep 0.50 0.54
Oct 0.79 0.82
Nov 0.33 0.62 0.34 0.73
Dec 0.48 0.54
Source: Field survey conducted by AVRDC in collaboration with FAVRI and PVFRC (2012), n=300.
Farmers were asked about the changes in their cultural practices following the adoption of
grafting for the same piece of land (per 1,000 m2). The purpose was to assess if farmers
perceived a significant change in their production cycle by way of input costs, productivity in
terms of yield per hectare, demand and sales volume, and contribution of grafted tomato

production and sales to total household income. While some farmers provided estimates of
changes in their production practices involving grafting and non-grafting techniques for the
selected variables, others had difficulty recalling their experiences encountered as far back as
up to 10 years ago. We therefore divided the responses into four categories: higher, lower, no
change, or cannot tell for missing cases (Table 17).
In Lam Dong province, most farmers (>90%) perceived that grafting increased their yield—
possibly due to the crop’s tolerance to flooding, which also lessened their dependence on
herbicides for weed control (Table 20). Nearly 80% thought that the number of tomato
production cycles per year remained unaffected by the adoption of grafting, while over 90%
thought that grafting increased the total cost of production per unit area. While the majority of
farmers from this cohort reported an increase in both the quantity and frequency of pesticide
application due to the adoption of grafting, about 30% of them experienced a decrease in the
time spent on spraying pesticides.

Table 17. Farmer’s perceptions of changes in selected production practices with the adoption
of tomato grafting
Lam Dong province Red River Delta
N Decreased No Increased N Decreased No Increased
Variable
change change
% % % % % %
Land area 117 35.9 6.8 57.3 15 86.7 - 13.3
Number of production 130 - 76.9 23.1 16 18.7 - 81.3

cycles per year
Cost per seed/seedling 131 0.8 - 99.2 20 - - 100.0

produced/bought
Quantity of pesticide 128 17.2 4.7 78.1 26 42.3 19.2 38.5

applied
Frequency of pesticide 129 33.3 5.4 61.2 16 37.5 18.7 43.8

application (spraying)
Amount spent for 131 4.6 1.5 93.9 26 11.5 15.4 73.1
inorganic fertilizers
Amount spent for 118 17.8 16.9 65.2 26 7.7 30.8 61.5
organic manure
Amount spent on 73 2.7 4.1 93.1 23 - 52.2 47.8

mulching
Amount spent on weed 124 94.3 0.8 4.8 22 4.5 36.4 59.1
control
Amount spent on 119 39.5 8.4 52.1 24 - 41.7 58.3

irrigation/watering
Tolerance to flooding 129 0.8 3.9 95.3 26 3.8 11.5 84.6
Miscellaneous costs 58 12.1 15.5 72.4 21 9.5 33.3 57.1

(grafting clips, rootstock,
seed, etc.)
Total labor cost for other 52 13.5 44.2 42.3 24 8.3 12.5 79.2
activities
Total cost of production 120 1.7 0.8 97.5 24 8.3 - 91.7
Yield per hectare 127 1.6 - 98.4 25 8.0 4.0 88.0

(estimate)
Demand and sales 125 - - 100.0 25 - 20.0 80.0

volume
Contribution to total 122 4.1 1.6 94.3 29 6.9 - 93.1
household income

A slightly different picture emerged for the Red River Delta. While the majority (>90%)
reported an increase in their costs for seedlings and total production costs, about 30-50% of the
farmers experienced no significant change in the costs for mulching, irrigation, herbicides,
other miscellaneous items, and organic manure per unit area. More farmers reported that they
decreased their pesticide use after adopting grafting in the Red River Delta than in Lam Dong
province. The majority of respondents also reported higher yields, and higher demand and sales
for their tomato crop, which contributed to an increase in the household income.
4.2.4. Production function analysis

We used a Cobb-Douglas production function to assess the effect of grafting on tomato yield.
Ideally, a profit function should be used to estimate the effect of grafting not just on crop yield
but also on net profit. However, a profit function requires detailed data on input and output
prices and because our study area was relatively small and relied on a single cross-sectional
data set, there was not enough inter-household variation in input prices to estimate such a
function.
The general expression of the Cobb-Douglass functional form is:
(1)
where Y is total production (endogenous or dependent variable); L is labor input; K is capital

input (L and K are the exogenous or independent variables); A is the total factor productivity;
and α and β are the output elasticities of capital and labor, respectively. The model can be
linearized as:
(2)
ln
where Yi denotes the yield of the ith farmer, Xij the vector of jth input used in the ith farm in
the production process, αi represents coefficients of inputs which are estimated from the model
(α is a constant term), and ei is the error term of the ith farm. The αj is the set of parameters to
be estimated that reflect the impact of change on yield given a change in the levels of each
input, ceteris paribus. This implies an ideal division of yield due to each factor input of
production (e.g. seed, fertilizer, labor).

Estimating the Cobb-Douglas function also allows testing for endogeneity between fungicide
use and the use of grafting (Mutuc, Rejesus and Yorobe, 2011). Because fungicide typically is
applied in response to fungus attacks such as Fusarium wilt (i.e. disease severity that is
unobserved by the analyst), it is possible that the residuals of the production function are
correlated with fungicide cost. Hence, the fungicide cost variable can be endogenous in this
case and this would cause inconsistent parameter estimates in the production function. One
approach in dealing with this is simply to use a disease severity variable that would eliminate
the unobservability of disease/fungi shocks that can potentially cause bias. To check for
endogeneity, exogenous variables that are correlated (e.g., gender and membership to farm
organization) with fungicide cost but not with disease severity were determined. A reduced
form model in which all exogenous variables are included was then estimated. The residual
from the ordinary least squares (OLS) estimation was then added to the production function in
Equation 2 as an additional regressor (Table 18). If the residual is statistically insignificant,
then endogeneity is not severe and the actual fungicide cost variable could still be used in an
OLS estimation of Equation 2.
Table 18. Variables used in the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression
Variables Description
LNYIELD Yield level of the ith farmer
LNSEED Natural log of seed/seedling expenditures
LNMA_IFE Natural log of manure and inorganic fertilizer expenditures
LNFUNG Natural log of fungicide expenditure
LNINSE Natural log of insecticide expenditure
LNMULC Natural log of mulching expenditure
LNIRRI Natural log of irrigation expenditure
LNSTAK Natural log of staking expenditure
LNAG_OTH Natural log of other expenditures
LNTOMDHA Natural log of labor
GT_NGT Dummy variable: =1 if grafted, =0 non-grafted
LOC_N Dummy variable: =1 if Lam Dong province (north), =0 Red River Delta (north)
MODE Binary pest severity variable: =1 if less severe, =0 otherwise
S1_A4_SEX Dummy variable: =1 if male, =0 female
S1_A6_ORG Dummy variable: =1 if yes, =0 no
Tomato yield (dependent variable) was assumed to be a function of seed, manure and inorganic
fertilizer, fungicide, insecticide, mulching, irrigation, staking, other input costs, labor and three
dummy variables (the use of grafting, regional difference, and pest/disease severity) as
independent variables. A dummy variable for the use of grafting is included to evaluate the
impact of tomato grafting. A location dummy variable was furthermore included to capture the

yield variation between the agro-climatic conditions in the two different locations. A
pest/disease severity dummy variable was included because previous studies have shown that
insecticide/fungicide productivity is underestimated if pest/disease severity is not specified in
the production function (Norwood and Marra, 2003). The binary pest/disease severity variable
was measured in terms of farmers’ estimation of the severity of most critical pests/diseases for
the most recently harvested produce in percentage terms (i.e., 1= <25%, 2=25-50%, 3=50-75%,
4=76-90% and 5=>90%). As this is a multiple-response (multiple entries of pest/disease
identified) variable, the binary pest/disease severity was created by getting the mode per farmer
per non-grafted and grafted tomato, wherein it is equal to one when the farmer’s response is
less severe (<25%) and zero otherwise. In cases of multiple or zero modes, we used the
maximum level of pest/disease severity.
We used various regression diagnostics to verify that the data did not violate any of the
assumptions underlying the OLS regression. Outliers and extreme values were excluded in the
model using Cook’s D conventional cutoff point of 4/306 (4/n). The model passed tests for
linearity, normality of residuals (Shapiro-Wilk W test), homogeneity of variance of the residual
(Breusch-Pagan / Cook-Weisberg test for heteroskedasticity, and using robust standard error),
multicollinearity (variance inflation factor), and model specification (Ramsey RESET test for
omitted variables). The Hausman test suggested that fungicide endogeneity might not be severe
enough in the context of our data set to cause significant bias in the results [F(1, 292) = 0.38;
Prob > F =0.5378]. We therefore continued using the actual fungicide cost rather than its
instrumented values.
Three alternative models were estimated for both locations combined (Model 1), and separately
for Lam Dong province (Model 2) and the Red River Delta (Model 3). Table 19 shows the
results. The coefficients for seedlings, fungicide, insecticide, mulching, labor (person day per
hectare [MD/ha]) and grafting are highly significant (p<0.01) for Model 1. A 100% increase in
input use would increase yield by 4% for fungicides, 2% for insecticides, 1% for mulching, 9%
for labor and 30% for the use of grafting. The substantial effect of grafting is also confirmed
by a simple comparison of the sample means of grafted (73.3 t/ha) and non-grafted (56.5 t/ha)
tomato in Table 20. Increasing seedling expenditures by 100% would result to a yield reduction
of 1%. The model shows a decreasing returns to scale of 0.403 (p<0.01) as suggested by the
sum of regression coefficients.

Although location was not significant in Model 1, differences between the two locations were
observed by comparing Models 2 and 3. In Lam Dong province (Model 2), all observations
involved grafted tomato and hence the grafting dummy could not be included. Seed and
insecticide costs were found to be highly significant (p<1%). A 100% increase in seed
expenditures corresponded to a 28% increase in yield of grafted tomato. The effect of
insecticide use on yield was small at only 1.5% change for a 100% change in insecticide use.
In the Red River Delta (Model 3), the impact of grafting on yield was highly significant, as
was the expenditure on seedlings, fungicides, insecticide, mulching, and the use of labor.
Controlling for all other factors, the use of grafted seedlings led to a 31% increase in yield
(p<0.01). However, since grafting was relatively new in Red River Delta, a 100% change in
seedling expenditures would lead to a 1.3% reduction in yield (p<0.01). This could be due to a
number of reasons, including low grafted seedling survival rate due to laborers’ lack of grafting
experience; poor handling of grafted seedlings after purchase and prior to transplanting; and
improper field management practices such as graft joints planted below the soil or farmers’
failure to remove suckers, which defeat the purpose of grafting. A 100% increase in the use of
other inputs in the specified model resulted in a significant (p<0.05) increase in yield of 4% for
fungicides, 2% for insecticides, 1% for mulching and 6% for labor.
The results from Models 1 and 3 suggest that the use of grafting provides statistically
significant yield improvement over the use of non-grafted seedlings. The estimates also suggest
that the marginal effect of fungicides, insecticides, and mulching on tomato yields is lower for
grafted than for non-grafted tomato. This is consistent with the idea that applying fungicide,
insecticide and mulching is redundant when a technology that inherently controls for bacterial
wilt, nematodes and other soil-borne diseases is already being used; grafting therefore
substitutes for fungicide use as it controls Fusarium wilt.
Table 20 shows the sample means of all exogenous variables used in the estimations. One of
the assumptions prior to model specification was that the sample means for fungicide and
insecticide would be lower for grafting compared with non-grafting. However, this was not the
case. The large standard deviations of each variable for both grafted and non-grafted seedlings,
especially for Red River Delta, may explain these unexpected results compounded by an
imbalanced and relatively smaller sample size. Seedling and mulching costs were higher for
grafted tomato as expected. Seed costs amounted to 38.6 million VND/ha with grafted tomato

accounting for 20% of the total cost of production compared to only 4.5 million VND/ha for
non-grafted. The share is lower at 15% when we aggregate all adopters as a whole.
Table 19. Econometric estimation results of production inputs on yield

Dependent variable: LNYIELD
Variable Pooled (Model 1) Lam Dong province Red River Delta (Model
(Model 2) 3)
Coef. SE Sig. Coef. SE Sig. Coef. SE Sig.
LNSEED -0.011 0.004 ** 0.277 0.051 *** -0.013 0.005 **
LNMA_IFE 0.004 0.007 ns 0.066 0.037 ns -0.005 0.011 ns
LNFUNG 0.036 0.009 *** 0.013 0.011 ns 0.037 0.014 *
LNINSE 0.016 0.005 ** 0.015 0.005 ** 0.018 0.008 *
LNMULC 0.009 0.003 ** 0.002 0.004 ns 0.012 0.005 *
LNIRRI 0.002 0.002 ns -4.360 0.002 ns -0.009 0.009 ns
LNSTAK 0.000 0.003 ns 0.001 0.002 ns -0.001 0.011 ns
LNAG_OTH 0.004 0.002 ns 0.004 0.003 ns 0.001 0.006 ns
LNTOMDHA 0.086 0.014 *** 0.048 0.042 ns 0.060 0.025 *
GT_NGT 0.301 0.077 *** 0.307 0.084 **
LOC_N -0.114 0.074 ns
MODE 0.070 0.040 ns 0.104 0.053 ns 0.025 0.070 ns
_CONS 2.612 0.218 *** -2.414 0.880 ** 2.972 0.318 ***
Number of cases 279 215 64

F-ratio 23.09 12.14 10.61
Prob > F 0.000 0.000 0.000
R-squared 0.433 0.270 0.692
Note: ***,**,* means significant at p<0.000, p<0.01, and p<0.05, respectively.
Table 20. Sample means of inputs and labor between grafted and non-grafted tomato
production by location, 2011/2012 (in million VND/ha)
Variable Lam Dong province Red River Delta (grafted) Red River Delta (non-
(n=215 obs) (n= 16 obs) grafted) (n=48 obs)
Mean SD % to Mean SD % to Mean SD % to
Total Total Total
Yield (t/ha) 73.3 17.1 - 81.4 28.4 - 56.5 18.2 -
Seed/seedling cost 19.8 4.1 14.4 38.6 24.5 20.4 4.5 5.3 4.2
Manure and inorganic 32.8 15.9 23.9 42.7 49.3 22.5 28.5 70.7 26.8
fertilizer
Fungicide 14.7 8.1 10.7 15.5 19.2 8.2 10.4 10.8 9.7
Insecticide 5.1 8.7 3.7 7.4 12.8 3.9 2.2 2.6 2.1
Mulching 7.8 5.4 5.7 8.1 7.7 4.3 2.5 4.5 2.3
Irrigation 3.3 10.6 2.4 5.2 20.8 2.7 1.1 5.4 1.0
Staking 18.9 11.4 13.8 48.2 20.4 25.4 42.7 113.3 40.1
Other inputs 19.3 220.9 14.1 10.4 36.2 5.5 1.2 2.0 1.2
Labor (person-days/ha) 331.1 138.4 - 1,314. 633.1 - 896.0 519.6 -
2
Labor costs 15.3 7.6 11.2 13.6 7.7 7.2 13.4 10.6 12.6
Total input costs 137.0 222.8 100.0 189.6 92.1 100.0 106.6 139.7 100.0
Note: n=279. “-” not applicable.

4.2.5. Effect of tomato grafting on profit and household income
Profitability analysis was done for both grafted and non-grafted data in the Red River Delta
only (Table 21 & 22), given the 100% adoption rate in Lam Dong province. Total sales
amounted to 648 million VND/ha for farmers using grafted tomato but only 238.8 million
VND/ha for farmers who used non-grafted tomato (p<0.01). Yet the total cost, including labor
cost, was significantly higher for grafted tomato than for non-grafted tomato. Nevertheless,
because of the significantly higher revenues, farmers using grafted tomato obtained profits that
were 326.1 million VND/ha higher. Based on these results, the benefit-cost ratio was 4.6 for
grafted tomato compared with 3.5 for non-grafted tomato. Further research would be useful to
generalize these results for the whole of the Red River Delta, given the small sample size for
the non-adopter group.
Table 21. Profitability of grafted versus non-grafted tomato production in the Red River
Delta, 2011-2012 (in million VND/ha)
Variable Grafted (n=16) Non-grafted (n=48) Sig. p-value
Mean SD Mean SD
Yield (t/ha) 81.4 28.4 56.5 18.2 ** 0.0039
Tomato price (VND kg) 8,447.8 2,392.7 5,162.8 1,960.7 *** 0.0001
Sales 648.0 324.7 238.8 118.1 *** 0.0001
Input cost 176.0 89.3 93.1 138.3 ** 0.0086
Labor cost 13.6 7.7 13.4 10.6 ns 0.9257
Total cost 189.6 92.1 106.6 139.7 ** 0.0098
Profit 458.4 284.5 132.3 188.4 *** 0.0004
Benefit-cost ratio 4.6 4.8 3.5 2.5 ns 0.3967
Notes: n=64. T-test with unequal variance used.
Table 22. Estimated effect of tomato grafting on net profits in Lam Dong province
Item Lam Dong province
Adoption rate 100%
Yield (t/ha) 73.3
Tomato price (VND/kg) 3,867.0
Sales (in million VND/ha) 272.0
Total cost (in million VND/ha) 137.0
Total profit (in million VND/ha) 135.0
Total area under tomato production (ha, 2011)a 6,388.0
Total profit from grafting (million US$)b 41.7
Notes: n=225 a Agro–Forestry Department, General Statistics Office, Vietnam. b Foreign exchange rate in August 2012 average (VND/US$) =
20,703.4
Based on average revenues of 272 million VND/ha, average production costs of 137 million
VND/ha, and an estimated tomato area of 6,388 ha, total profit was higher by US$ 41.7 million

compared to the situation if the same land area had been cultivated with non-grafted tomatoes.
However, this is not the net economic effect of grafting, because it is likely that the large
increase in tomato output would affect the average tomato price (which reduces the economic
impact) while the profitability of tomato production would have led to an expansion of the
tomato area (which would have increased the economic impact). Moreover, it excludes the
employment effect of tomato grafting on nursery operations, which might be considerable as
seedling production is labor-intensive.
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

AVRDC introduced tomato grafting to Vietnam in 2002 through the training of Vietnamese
scientists who then took a prominent role in disseminating the technology locally. In Lam Dong
province in southern Vietnam, Dr. Ngo Quang Vinh, who was Regional Director of the
AVRDC-ARC HRDP project, organized numerous training and extension activities that
facilitated the adoption process. Dr. Vinh trained about 2,000 staff and extension workers and
farmers in Lam Dong province and contributed to the construction and development of more
than 80 vegetable nursery farms in Lam Dong, Tra Vinh and Vinh Long. Because of these
efforts as well as the profitability of the technique to farmers, the adoption of tomato grafting
by farmers in Lam Dong province rapidly increased since its introduction in 2002 to 100% in
2012. It is likely that the grafting technique led to a substantial expansion of the tomato area in
the province.
The case was different in the Red River Delta, where bacterial wilt affects tomato production
only in the wet season and flooding is a major production constraint. Nurseries in Lam Dong
province used tomato rootstock variety Vimina, while in Red River Delta eggplant variety
EG203 was used as a rootstock due to its tolerance to flooding. Dissemination efforts in the
Red River Delta were led by FAVRI; being primarily a research organization, its dissemination
efforts were not as extensive as those in Lam Dong province. Farmer participation in field trials
in the Red River Delta, for example, only started in 2007. Specialized private nurseries and
individual farmer-managed nurseries have emerged in Lam Dong province, generating local
employment opportunities, but have not emerged to a similar extent in the Red River Delta.
In both locations, the average yield from grafted tomato plants was substantially higher than
that of non-grafted plants. Results of the production function analyses suggest that while

controlling for all other production factors, the use of grafted seedlings increases the average
tomato yield by about 30%. This result appeared when pooling the data for the two locations
(while adding a locational dummy, but also when estimating the effect separately for the Red
River Delta. Comparing the coefficient of variation, it appeared that the yield of grafted tomato
was more stable in Lam Dong province than in the Red River Delta.
As a result of the significantly higher average yields, the average revenues were significantly
higher for farmers using grafted tomato seedlings. The increase in revenues was large enough
to offset the significantly higher production costs. Grafted tomatoes had a benefit-cost ratio of
4.6, which compares to a ratio of 3.5 for non-grafted tomato.
The farm benefits of tomato grafting can be achieved only if soil-borne disease or flooding
constrains tomato production, as grafted seedlings are more costly and have no other yield
benefit over non-grafted seedlings, as shown by several studies conducted by AVRDC in
Taiwan and Vietnam. Tomato grafting is therefore not suitable for all farmers. The extent of
soil-borne disease and abiotic stresses should be investigated first before promoting tomato
grafting in a particular location. We also note that the disease resistance of current rootstock
varieties may break down, and that alternative rootstocks will need to be selected.
This study showed the critical role played by certain change agents, such as extension services
and entrepreneurial private investors, in the adoption and spread of tomato grafting, and also
highlighted the importance of private nurseries that developed in response to new market
opportunities. In the case of Lam Dong province, the dissemination of tomato grafting can
largely be credited to a single person. Both examples provide important lessons for the future
dissemination of AVRDC technologies.
6. REFERENCES
ADB. (2005). ADB RETA No.6011. Collaborative Vegetable Research Network for Cambodia, Lao PDR, and
Vietnam (CLVNET) Phase II April 2002–October 2005. Progress Completion Report.
Afari-Sefa, V. (2012). Vietnam Grafting Success Story: Unpublished Report on Preliminary Field Visit to Vietnam
to Develop Protocols for Ex-post Impact Assessment Study of AVRDC’s Tomato Grafting Technology
Reporting Period: [April 25, 2012] to [May 5, 2012]. Arusha, Tanzania: AVRDC - The World Vegetable
Center: Regional Center for Africa.
Aganon, C. P., Mateo, L. G., Cacho, D., Bala, A., Jr., and Aganon, T. M. (2002). Enhancing off-season production
through grafted tomato technology. Philippine Journal of Crop Science, 27(2), 3-8.

Attanayaka, A., Perera, M., Chen, J., and Hanson, P. (1997). Effects of different grafting techniques on the
success of tomato/eggplant rootstocks combination. Shanhua, Taiwan: Asian Vegetable Research and
Development Center.
AVRDC. (1994). AVRDC 1993 Progress Report. Shanhua, Tainan, Taiwan: Asian Vegetable Research and
Development Center, pp.298-301, 318-327.
AVRDC. (1995). AVRDC 1994 Progress Report. Shanhua, Tainan, Taiwan: Asian Vegetable Research and
Development Center, pp.257-265.
AVRDC. (2000a). AVRDC Report 1999. Shanhua, Tainan, Taiwan: Asian Vegetable Research and Development
Center, pp.44-46, 61-63, 109-110.
AVRDC. (2000b). Vegetable Research in South Asia: Proceedings of the South Asia Vegetable Research Network
(SAVERNET-II) Mid-term Review Meeting, 5-9 February 1999, AVRDC, Taiwan. Shanhua, Tainan,
Taiwan: Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center, p.52.
AVRDC. (2001). AVRDC Report 2000. Shanhua, Tainan, Taiwan: Asian Vegetable Research and Development
Center, pp.98, 106.
AVRDC. (2002). AVRDC Report 2001. Shanhua, Tainan, Taiwan: Asian Vegetable Research and Development
Center, pp.59-62, 99, 138.
AVRDC. (2003). AVRDC Report 2002. Shanhua, Taiwan: AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center, pp.142-143.
AVRDC. (2004). AVRDC Report 2003. Shanhua, Taiwan: AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center, p.109.
AVRDC. (2008). HRDP IV: Final Report of the SDC-funded Human Resource Development Project for the
Mekong Region Phase IV (AVRDC Publication No 08-706 ed.). Bangkok: AVRDC-The World Vegetable
Center Asian Regional Center, pp. 33-34, 41-42, 55, 64.
Baumuller, H. (2012). Facilitating agricultural technology adoption among the poor: The role of service delivery
through mobile phones. Bonn: Center for Development Research, University of Bonn.
Black, L., Palada, M., & Roan, Y. (2002). Yield of grafted and non-grafted tomato under plastic rain shelters
during the hot-wet season in Taiwan. Paper presented at the 30th National Agricultural Plastics
Congress, San Diego, California, USA.
Black, L., Wu, D., Wang, J., Kalb, T., Abbass, D., and Chen, J. (2003). International Cooperators’ Guide: Grafting
tomatoes for production in the hot-wet season. Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center.
AVRDC Publication No. 03-551. p. 6.Burleigh, J. R., Black, L. L., Mateo, L. G., Cacho, D., Aganon, C. P.,
Boncato, T., Arida, I.A., Ulrichs, C., and Ledesma, D. R. (2005). Performance of grafted tomato in
Central Luzon, Philippines: A case study on the introduction of a new technology among resource-
limited farmers. Online. Crop Management. DOI:10.1094/CM-2005-0701-01-MG.
Central Population and Housing Census Steering Committee. (2010). The 2009 Vietnam population and
housing census: Completed results. Hanoi: Department of Population and Labor Statistics, the General
Statistics Office.
Chadha, M. L. (2010). Vegetable research and development programs to alleviate poverty and malnutrition in
South Asia. AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center. pp. 21.
Dau, V. T., Dang, N. V., Nguyen, D. H., Pham, L. T., Le, T. T. M., Phan, H. T., and Burgess, L. W. (2009). A
simplified technique for grafting watermelon onto resistant cucurbit rootstocks for control of
Fusarium wilt of watermelon in Nghe An Province, Vietnam. Australasian Plant Disease Notes, 4(1),
114-116.
Davis, A. R., Perkins-Veazie, P., Hassell, R., Levi, A., King, S. R., and Zhang, X. (2008). Grafting Effects on
Vegetable Quality. HortScience, 43(6), 1670-1672.
De la Peña, R., & Hughes, J. (2007). Improving vegetable productivity in a variable and changing climate.
Journal of SAT Agricultural Research, 4(1), 1-22.
Doan, T., and Nguyen, T. (2005). Status of research on biological control of tomato and groundnut bacterial
wilt in Vietnam. Paper presented at the Mitteilungen Aus Der Biologischen Bundesanstalt Fur Land-
Und Forstwirtschaft Berlin-Dahlem, 23-26 October 2005, Seeheim/Darmstandt, Germany.
Dung, D. T. (1997). Bacterial wilt of some upland crops in Hanoi and its surrounding areas, 2nd International
Bacterial Wilt Symposium. Guadeloupe, French West Indies.

Hanson, P. M., Wang, J.-F., Licardo, O., Hanudin, Mah, S. Y., Hartman, G. L., Lin, Y.-C., and Chen, J.-t. (1996).
Variable Reaction of Tomato Lines to Bacterial Wilt Evaluated at Several Locations in Southeast Asia.
HortScience, 31(1), 143-146.
Hayward, A., Allen, C., and Prior, P. (2005). Research on bacterial wilt: a perspective on international linkages
and access to the literature. Bacterial wilt disease and the Ralstonia solanacearum species complex,
pp. 1-8.
IFPRI. (2002). Fruits and vegetables in Vietnam: Adding value from farmer to consumer. Washington, DC: IFPRI.
Khah, E., Kakava, E., Mavromatis, A., Chachalis, D., and Goulas, C. (2006). Effect of grafting on growth and yield
of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) in greenhouse and open-field. J. Appl. Hortic, 8(1), 3-7.
Lee, J.-M. (1994). Cultivation of Grafted Vegetables I. Current Status, Grafting Methods, and Benefits.
HortScience, 29(4), 235-239.
Lee, J.-M., Kubota, C., Tsao, S. J., Bie, Z., Echevarria, P. H., Morra, L., and Oda, M. (2010). Current status of
vegetable grafting: Diffusion, grafting techniques, automation. Scientia Horticulturae, 127(2), 93-105.
Lin, C. H., Hsu, S. T., Tzeng, K. C., and Wang, J. F. (2008). Application of a preliminary screen to select locally
adapted resistant rootstock and soil amendment for integrated management of tomato bacterial wilt
in Taiwan. Plant Disease, 92(6), 909-916.
Louws, F. J., Rivard, C. L., & Kubota, C. (2010). Grafting fruiting vegetables to manage soil-borne pathogens,
foliar pathogens, arthropods and weeds. Scientia Horticulturae, 127(2), 127-146.
Martorana, M., Giuffrida, F., Leonardi, C., & Kaya, S. (2006). Influence of rootstock on tomato response to
salinity. Paper presented at the VIII International Symposium on Protected Cultivation in Mild Winter
Climates: Advances in Soil and Soilless Cultivation. No. 747.
Midmore, D., Roan, Y., and Wu, M. (1997). Management practices to improve lowland subtropical summer
tomato production: yields, economic returns and risk. Experimental Agriculture, 33(02), 125-137.
Mohamed, F., El-Hamed, K., Elwan, M., and Hussien, M.-A. (2012). Impact of Grafting on Watermelon Growth,
Fruit Yield and Quality, Volume 76, p. 99.
Mudge, K., Janick, J., Scofield, S., and Goldschmidt, E. E. (2009). A history of grafting. Horticultural Reviews,
Volume 35, pp. 437-493.
Mutuc, M.E., Rejesus, R.M., & Yorobe, Jr., J.M. (2011). Yields, insecticide productivity, and Bt corn: Evidence
from damage abatement models in the Philippines. AgBioForum, 14(2), 35-46. Available on
http://www.agbioforum.org/v14n2/v14n2a01-mutuc.pdf.
Nguyen, M., and Ranamukhaarachchi, S. (2010). Soil-borne antagonists for biological control of bacterial wilt
disease caused by Ralstonia solanacearum in tomato and pepper. Journal of Plant Pathology, 92(2),
395-406.Norwood, F., & Marra, M. (2003). Pesticide productivity: Of bugs and biases. Journal of
Agricultural and Resource Economics, 28(3), 596-610.
Ooi, P.A.C, Canillas, M.D.B., and Yambao, R.T. 2007. SDC-AVRDC Partnership – Promoting Sustainability:
Beyond Capacity Building. AVRDC-ARC, Bangkok, Thailand 71 pp.
Opeña, R., and Tschanz, A. (1987). Bacterial wilt resistance program on tomato at AVRDC. ACIAR Bacterial Wilt
Nwsl (2), 1-2.
Palada, M. C., and Ali, M. (2006). Evaluation of Technologies for Improving Year-Round Production of Safe
Vegetables in Peri-Urban Agriculture of Southeast Asia. Paper presented at the XXVII International
Horticultural Congress-IHC2006: International Symposium on Horticultural Plants in Urban and Peri-
Urban. No. 762.
Palada, M. C., and Wu, D. L. (2005). Increasing off-season tomato production using grafting technology for
peri-urban agriculture in Southeast Asia. Paper presented at the International Conference and
Exhibition on Soilless Culture: ICESC 2005. No. 742.
Palada, M. C., and Wu, D. L. (2010). Grafting techniques for tomato and pepper under rice-based cropping
system. In IPM in vegetables: enhancing its implementation in rice-based cropping systems (pp. 91-
123). Metro Manila: Department of Agriculture - Bureau of Agricultural Research.
PVFRC. "Project implementation of PVFRC in recent years under management organization and
implementation of the applicant to bidding package (translated from CÁC ĐỀ TÀI DỰ ÁN CỦA VIỆN

KHKTNNMN ĐÃ THỰC HIỆN TRONG NHỮNG NĂM GẦN ĐÂY DƯỚI SỰ TỔ CHỨC QUẢN LÝ VÀ THỰC
HIỆN CỦA CÁC ỨNG VIÊN THAM GIA ĐẤU THẦU GÓI THẦU). pvfcdalat.org. Potato, Vegetable and
Flower Research Center, n.d., Web, 28 Dec. 2012. <http://pvfcdalat.org/t.aspx?t=5>.
Qaryouti, M., Qawasmi, W., Hamdan, H., and Edwan, M. (2007). Tomato fruit yield and quality as affected by
grafting and growing system. Acta Horticulturae, 741, p. 199.
Rashid, M. A., Hossain, M. M., Rahman, A., Alam, S., & Luther, G. (1999/2000). Evaluation of grafting
compatibility of cultivated eggplant/tomato varieties on different Solanum rootstocks, IPM CRSP
Annual Report. pp. 374-375.
Schwarz, D., Rouphael, Y., Colla, G., & Venema, J. H. (2010). Grafting as a tool to improve tolerance of
vegetables to abiotic stresses: Thermal stress, water stress and organic pollutants. Scientia
Horticulturae, 127(2), 162-171.
Thuy, L.T. 2010. Results of investigation and transferring technique of grafted tomato seedling on eggplant
rootstock in the north of Vietnam. Agriculture and Rural Development Magazine. Special issue of 20th
anniversary of FAVRI, 3/2010. pp 80-87.
Tung, P. X. (1985). Bacterial wilt in Vietnam. Paper presented at the Workshop on Bacterial Wilt Disease in Asia
and the South Pacific, Los Banos, Laguna (Philippines), 8-10 Oct 1985.
Turhan, A., Ozmen, N., Serbeci, M., and Seniz, V. (2011). Effects of grafting on different rootstocks on tomato
fruit yield and quality. Hortic. Sci, 38, 142-149.
Venema, J. H., Dijk, B. E., Bax, J. M., van Hasselt, P. R., & Elzenga, J. T. M. (2008). Grafting tomato (Solanum
lycopersicum) onto the rootstock of a high-altitude accession of Solanum habrochaites improves
suboptimal-temperature tolerance. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 63(1–3), 359-367.
Vinh, N. Q., and Ngo, X. C. (2006). Grafting and growing tomatoes by grafted seedlings to protect from
bacterial wilt (Ralstonia solanacearum) on 3500-4,000 ha each year in Lam Dong Province, Viet Nam.
Viet Nam: Institute of Agricultural Sciences for Southern Viet Nam.
Wang, J. F., Hanson, P., and Barnes, J. A. (1998). Worldwide evaluation of an international set of resistance
sources to bacterial wilt in tomato. In P. Prior, C. Allen and J. Elphinstone (eds.), Bacterial Wilt Disease:
Molecular and Ecological Aspects. (pp. 269-275). Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag.
Wang, J. F., and Lin, C. H. (2005). Integrated management of tomato bacterial wilt. Shanhua, Taiwan: AVRDC -
The World Vegetable Center. Publication No. 05-615.
Ya-Juia, S., Deng-Lin, W., and Black, L. (2001). Controlled environment studies to improve survival and quality
of grafted tomato, sweet pepper, and watermelon transplants - Summer 2001. Shanhua, Taiwan:
Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center.

www.avrdc.org
AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center
Headquarters
PO Box 42
Shanhua, Tainan 74199
Taiwan
T +886 (0) 6 583-7801

F +886 (0) 6 583-0009
E info@worldveg.org

Eb 0205

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eb 0205

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An impact

Christian Genova, Pepijn Schreinemachers and Victor Afari-Sefa

AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center

About Research in Action

AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center

Tel: +886 6 583 7801

AVRDC Publication: 13-773

Editor: Maureen Mecozzi

© 2013 AVRDC – The World Vegetable Center

An impact assessment of AVRDC's tomato grafting in Vietnam 1

1.1. Bacterial wilt and tomato grafting in Vietnam

2 AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center

1.2. Objectives of the study

An impact assessment of AVRDC's tomato grafting in Vietnam 3

4 AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center

An impact assessment of AVRDC's tomato grafting in Vietnam 5

6 AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center

Field experiments conducted over several years (1998-2007) at AVRDC’s headquarters in

An impact assessment of AVRDC's tomato grafting in Vietnam 7

8 AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center

 Technical process for grafting tomatoes, 200 copies

An impact assessment of AVRDC's tomato grafting in Vietnam 9

10 AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center

Table 2. Survey sites and number of respondents

3.2. Data collection

An impact assessment of AVRDC's tomato grafting in Vietnam 11

Two semi-structured questionnaires were developed and administered by trained enumerators.

12 AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center

Lam Dong province

Red River Delta

An impact assessment of AVRDC's tomato grafting in Vietnam 13

14 AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center

Table 4. Average socioeconomic characteristics of nursery operators in three study sites

An impact assessment of AVRDC's tomato grafting in Vietnam 15

16 AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center

Table 7. Profitability of grafted tomato at nursery (VND per seedling)

An impact assessment of AVRDC's tomato grafting in Vietnam 17

4.2. Farm households

18 AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center

Land area (‘000 m2)

An impact assessment of AVRDC's tomato grafting in Vietnam 19

Table 9. Average characteristics of the most recently harvested tomato field

Source of planting material

4.2.2. Adoption of tomato grafting

20 AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center

% Adoption Lam Dong province

An impact assessment of AVRDC's tomato grafting in Vietnam 21

22 AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center

An impact assessment of AVRDC's tomato grafting in Vietnam 23

24 AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center

An impact assessment of AVRDC's tomato grafting in Vietnam 25

Table 14. Seed source of main rootstock and scion varieties

Scion Anna (n=216) Savior (n=27)

26 AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center

Figure 4. Tomato production in Lam Dong province, Vietnam

An impact assessment of AVRDC's tomato grafting in Vietnam 27

Red River Delta, adopter Red River Delta, non-adopter

Planting Management (bet. planting and harvesting)

Figure 5. Seasonal calendar of production activities by location

4.2.3. Yield and yield stability of grafted tomato

28 AVRDC - The World Vegetable Center

Table 16. Coefficient of variation of grafted vs non-grafted tomatoes by month, 2010-2012

An impact assessment of AVRDC's tomato grafting in Vietnam 29