You are on page 1of 273

ESTABLISHMENT OF THAILANDS NATIONAL ORGANIC AGRICULTURE STRATEGIES: A CASE STUDY IN ORGANIC ASPARAGUS PRODUCTION

Mr. Supachai Lorlowhakarn

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Program in Agricultural Technology Faculty of Science Chulalongkorn University Academic Year 2007 Copyright of Chulalongkorn University

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express its sincere thanks to all those who contributed to this study. In particular, the Ministry of Science and Technology and Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives provided their full cooperation, and the National Bureau for Commodities and Food Standards was highly supportive of the work. The author also acknowledges Green Nets kind assistance in providing much of the statistical data quoted. Part of this work is also most grateful to the International Trade Center of European Union (ITC-EU) Asia Trust Fund, whose financial contribution made this study possible, and to all the expert resource persons and facilitators for their excellent presentations and dedicated hard work at the various workshop and training forum. The International Institute for Trade and Development provided valuable assistance in co-organizing the Final Round Table. The author also thanks to the many stakeholders in the public and private sectors, individual farmers and exporters, academia, non-government organizations and the international community, whose expert opinions we have sought to capture in this study. Finally, the author also wishes to extends its thanks to Mr. Paichayon Uathaveekul, chairman of Swift Co., Ltd., for assistantship and facilitating in the field trials from the companys contract farmers. The author is also grateful to Professor Athapol Noomhorm and Ms. Weena Srisawas, School of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Institute of Technology and the staff of Thailands National Innovation Agency who provided outstanding support to this study.

CONTENTS
page ABSTRACT (THAI) .................................................................................................. ABSTRACT (ENGLISH)........................................................................................... ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................ CONTENTS................................................................................................................ LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................... LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION................................................................................ 1.1 Current Status of Organic Production in Thailand .......................................... 1.2 Current Status of Organic Movements in Thailand ......................................... 1.3 Study Objectives .............................................................................................. CHAPTER II LITERATURES REVIEW ................................................................. 2.1 Definition of Organic Agriculture .................................................................... 2.2 Principles and Key Characteristics of Organic Agriculture.............................. 2.3 History of Organic Movement ......................................................................... 2.4 Development of Organic Agriculture in Thailand............................................ 2.5 Swift Company Limited ................................................................................... 2.6 Comparison of Organic and Conventional Farming......................................... 2.7 Asparagus Classification and Cultivation......................................................... 2.8 Comparison of Organic and Conventional Produces........................................ CHAPTER III ESTABLISHMENT OF THAILANDS NATIONAL ORGANIC AGRICULTURE STRATEGIES ................................... 3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 3.2 Methodology .................................................................................................... 3.3 Challenges and constraints identified during the stakeholder consultation process .......................................................................................... 3.4 National Action Plan and Recommendations .................................................. 3.5 Discussion ........................................................................................................ 3.6 Recent progress in the development of Thailands National Organic Agriculture Strategies ............................................................................. 51 33 34 48 29 29 31 iv v vi vii xi xiii 1 3 7 9 11 11 13 15 18 22 23 24 26

viii

page CHAPTER IV A CASE STUDY IN ORGANIC ASPARAGUS PRODUCTION ......................................................... 4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4.2 Materials and Methods .................................................................................... 4.2.1 Comparison of Farmers Income and Farm Index from Conventional and Organic agriculture .......................................... 4.2.2 Field Trials ............................................................................................ 4.2.2.1 Definition of biofertilizer ......................................................... 4.2.2.2 Biofertilizer production ............................................................ 4.2.2.3 Organic fertilizer ...................................................................... 4.2.2.4 Fertilizer properties .................................................................. 4.2.2.5 Experimental Design ................................................................ 4.2.2.6 Soil analysis .............................................................................. 4.2.2.7 Plant analysis ............................................................................ 4.2.3 Storage Stability of Organic Asparagus ................................................ 4.2.3.1 Sample preparation ................................................................... 4.2.3.2 Physicochemical analysis ......................................................... 4.2.4 Nutrient Analysis of Fresh Asparagus ................................................... 4.2.5 Satisfactory Survey of Farmers on Organic Agriculture ....................... 4.3 Results and Discussion .................................................................................... 4.3.1 Analysis of Asparagus Farmers Income .............................................. 4.3.1.1 The overview of conventional and organic farmers income ... 4.3.1.2 Effect of different features on income by conventional and organic agriculture ........................................ 4.3.1.3 Effect on soil condition by conventional and organic agriculture .................................................................... 4.3.2 Field Trials ............................................................................................ 4.3.2.1 Experiment I: Testing the effects of plain and raised bed plot preparation, level of organic fertilizer and biofertilizer on the yield of asparagus ..................................................................... 4.3.2.2 Experiment II: Testing the effects of irrigation systems and level of organic fertilizer application on the yield of asparagus .......... 4.3.2.3 Experiment III: Testing the effects of organic fertilizer and combined chemical fertilizer application on asparagus yield ... 4.3.3 Storage Stability of Organic Asparagus ................................................ 120 123 115 102 98 100 88 55 55 56 57 58 60 62 76 77 77 78 78 79 81 81 81 81 53 53 54

ix

page 4.3.3.1 Changes of weight loss ............................................................. 4.3.3.2 Remaining of chlorophyll ......................................................... 4.3.3.3 Changes of asparagus color ...................................................... 4.3.3.4 Ascorbic acid loss ..................................................................... 4.3.3.5 Alteration of asparagus texture ................................................. 4.3.4 Nutrition Value of Conventional and Organic asparagus....................... 4.3.4.1 Comparison the nutritional aspects of organic and conventional asparagus ...................................................... 4.3.5 Satisfactory Survey for the Farmers Practicing Organic Farming ........ 4.3.5.1 Individual perspectives that influence to satisfaction of organic agriculture..................................................................... 4.3.5.2 Factors improving the satisfactory level of organic asparagus farmers ........................................................ 4.3.5.3 Means of improving satisfactory level of organic asparagus farmers ........................................................ 4.4 Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 4.4.1 Conclusion on Time Series Analysis of Income ................................... 4.4.2 Conclusion on Field Trials .................................................................... 4.4.3 Conclusion on the Storage of Asparagus ............................................. 4.4.4 Conclusion on the Nutrition of Organic and Conventional Asparagus ........................................................................ 4.4.5 Conclusion on the Satisfaction of the Organic Farmers ........................ CHAPTER V CONCLUSION................................................................................... 5.1 Organic asparagus can be produced commercially and such commercial production is sustainable. .................................................... 5.2 There is a prospect for broadening the production base for organic agriculture in selected crops........................................................... 5.3 The Thai organic products have high potentials to compete in the worlds markets. .................................................................................... 5.4 Factors influencing the success in Thai organic agriculture ............................ REFERENCES ........................................................................................................... APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ Appendix A List of persons / organizations consulted in the development process of National Organic Agriculture Strategies. ......................... 157 146 146 148 156 145 144 142 143 144 139 139 139 141 142 136 135 133 134 123 124 124 128 128 131

page Appendix B Locations of the experimental trial sites at Sa Kaeo province and Nakhon Pathom province. ................................................................. Appendix C Analytical procedures of soil samples ............................................... Appendix D Analytical procedures of plant samples............................................. Appendix E1 Summary of incomes of organic farmers from Tubtim Siam, Sa Kaeo province............................................................................... Appendix E2 Summary of incomes of farmers from Tung Kwang, Nakhon Pathom province. ................................................................. Appendix F1 Database of the arable land of organized farmer group in the Sa Kaeo province..................................................................... Appendix F2 Database of the arable land of organized farmer group in the Nakhon Pathom province ........................................................ Appendix G Summary of inputs and outputs of growers grouped according to year of practicing organic agriculture. .......................................... Appendix H Questionnaire for organic asparagus farmers in Tumtim Siam 20 and 05, Sa Kaeo province. ................................................................. Appendix I Statistical results of satisfactory survey of organic asparagus farmers. ................................................................ BIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 217 258 214 210 207 199 196 191 162 163 184

xi

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 Land under organic farming in Thailand (rai) .................................................. Organic land area: Thailands ranking. ............................................................ Organic Production and market value 2003 - 2005. ......................................... Key events and key actors for worldwide development of organic agriculture. .......................................................................................... Key events and key actors for development of Thailand organic agriculture. ........................................................................... Key actors and their role in organic agriculture in Thailand. .......................... The expansion in the contract farming membership. ....................................... Description of farming system sample group. ................................................. Annual test results on the properties of biofertilizer and organic fertilizer produced in Tubtim Siam, Sa Kaeo province. .................................. Nutrient composition of fertilizers used in the study. ...................................... Grading system used by the Swift Co., Ltd. .................................................... Official methods for determination of asparagus nutritional value. ................ Income of farmers from conventional and organic agriculture. ...................... Data of input cost, income and profit of farmers from conventional and organic cultivation of asparagus. .............................................................. Difference of pricing system for organic asparagus (Sa Kaeo) and conventional asparagus (Nakhon Pathom)................................................. Cluster membership from K-means cluster analysis of 27 farmers. ................ by year of organic agriculture practices. .......................................................... 4.11 Data on soil condition from conventional and organic farming after cultivation of asparagus. .......................................................................... 4.12 Asparagus total yield (g) and grading results harvested from plain bed plot (Jan - July). ....................................................................... 4.13 Asparagus total yield (g) and grading results harvested from raised bed plot (Jan - July). ..................................................................... 4.14 Asparagus total yield (g) and grading results harvested from plain bed plot (Aug - Dec). ..................................................................... 4.15 Asparagus total yield (g) and grading results harvested from raised bed plot (Aug - Dec). .................................................................... 108 107 105 104 99 4.10 Multiple comparison on the time series analysis parameters classified 96 90 94 89 60 61 63 80 82 19 21 22 56 16 page 4 5 6

xii

Table 4.16 Asparagus total yield (g) of the whole year harvesting from different plot preparation and level of organic fertilizer application. ............................. 4.17 Soil index of the experiment plot in plain bed plot preparation. ..................... 4.18 Soil index of the experiment plot in raised bed plot preparation. .................... 4.19 Asparagus total yield (g) from 1 and 2 harvested crop on the different type of irrigation system. ............................................................ 4.20 Asparagus total yield (g) from 3rd and 4th harvested crop on the combination effects of irrigation system and level of organic fertilizer. .............................. 4.21 Asparagus total yield (g) from 4 and 5 harvested crop on the testing the effects of organic fertilizer application and combined chemical fertilizer. ..... 4.22 Soil index of the experiment plot in conventional farm. ................................. 4.23 Comparison of asparagus yield (g) from conventional and organic agriculture harvested during June to August, 2007. ........................... 4.24 Nutritional composition of organic asparagus from farm in Sa Kaeo province with difference in cultivation year .................................................... 4.25 Nutritional composition of conventional asparagus from different location ..................................................................................... 4.26 Nutrition values of raw asparagus spears from Thailand and United State ..... 4.27 Factors affecting the satisfactory level of the organic farmers. .......................
th th st nd

page

111 114 114 115 118 120 121 122 132 132 134 135

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 Area under organic agriculture in Thailand 1998 - 2006.................................. Project methodology and stakeholder consultation. ......................................... Possible structure for implementation. ............................................................ Framework of the study on organic asparagus production. ............................. Standard procedure of biofertilizer production processes. .............................. Dried manure from dairy farm (left) and bagging the compost after mixing (right). ..................................................................... Bottle of 140 cc. of Ekorganik biofertilizer and the backpack sprayer. ....... Asparagus of varying grade. ............................................................................ Schematic experimental designed for experiment II. ...................................... Experiment I (a), 20 plots allocation for testing the effectiveness of organic fertilizer, assigned in kg of bovine manure of 2 sources and effect of plain bed plot. .................................................................................... 4.8 Experiment I (b), 20 plots allocation for testing the effectiveness if organic fertilizer, assigned in kg of bovine manure of 2 sources and effect of raised bed plot. ............................................................................ 4.9 Field trial of the plain bed plot, farmer code No. NK7 at Munkong village, Sa Kaeo province ............................................................ 4.10 Field trial of the raised bed plot, farmer code No. NK24 at Munkong village, Sa Kaeo province ............................................................ 4.11 Schematic experimental designed for experiment II. ...................................... 4.12 Experiment II, 36 plots allocation for testing the effectiveness on organic fertilizer, assigned in kg of bovine manure, and affects different of irrigation system. .......................................................................... 4.13 Asparagus plot of farmer code SK47 at Tabtim Siam 02. ............................... 4.14 Dripping irrigation using 20 mm dia. dripping tape which dispensed water in every 10 cm length. ........................................................... 4.15 Mini sprinkler (blue, on the left picture), cooperated with 20 mm PE tube. ....................................................................................... 4.16 Sprinkler setup on the alternative rows of asparagus. ..................................... 4.17 Schematic experimental designed for experiment III. ..................................... 4.18 Experiment III, 16 plots allocation for testing the effectiveness of organic fertilizer, assigned in kg of bovine manure, and combination with chemical fertilizer. ................................................................................... 75 73 73 74 72 71 72 69 70 68 67 66 59 61 62 65 page 5 32 51 54 58

xiv

Figure 4.19 Conventional asparagus farming served as a control for experiment III. ........ 4.20 Experimental design of storage study of asparagus. ........................................ 4.21 Principal component analysis of annual income of 282 data conventional farmers. The color scale indicates the ranges of annual income per cultivation area (677 to 342,900 Baht/rai/year) within 1 production year. ...... 4.22 Histogram of income from 282 data of conventional farmer data in 2003-2006. ........................................................................................... 4.23 Mean income of farmers depending on year of conventional cultivation. ...... 4.24 Principal component analysis of annual income of 489 organic farmers. The color scale indicates the ranges of annual income per cultivation area (43 to 157,200 Baht/rai/year) within 1 production year. ................................. 4.25 Histogram of income of 489 organic farmer data in 2003 - 2006. .................. 4.26 Mean income of farmers depending on year of organic cultivation. ............... 4.27 Conventional (CA) and organic (OA) agriculture for different year of cultivation indicted the income, cost and profit of farmers. Shading indicates range of profit in (a) original price, (b) price compensation. ........... 4.28 Income of farmers for the organic asparagus production. ............................... 4.29 Income of organic farmers grouped by the intensity of farm maintenance for the different year. H: highly, M: moderately and L: lightly farm maintenance. .................................................. 4.30 Cost of organic farmers grouped by the intensity of farm maintenance for the different year. H: highly, M: moderately and L: lightly farm maintenance. .................................................. 4.31 Phosphorus and Potassium content in conventional and organic agriculture in different year. ........................................................ 4.32 Data collection on a daily basis during the harvesting of the asparagus. ........ 4.33 The marketable size asparagus with varying in spears diameter. .................... 4.34 Diagram of harvesting period of each experimental plot from Jan - July. ...... 4.35 Emerging asparagus spear after applying 200 kg organic fertilizer, twice a month, and biofertilizer, once a month. .............................................. 4.36 Cumulative plot of (a) yield and (b) income of experimental plot in plain bed plot preparation ............................................................................ 4.37 Cumulative plot of (a) yield and (b) income of experimental plot in raised bed plot preparation ..........................................................................

page 76 78

84 85 85

86 87 87

91 93

97

98 100 101 102 103 106 109 110

xv

Figure 4.38 Comparison on the cumulative yield of asparagus harvested throughout the year of experiment with plain bed plot (p) and raised bed plot (r) for the varying organic fertilizers and biofertilizer applications. .................... 4.39 Location map of filed trials in the experiment I. ............................................. 4.40 Total yield of the different irrigation system applied with 3 levels of organic fertilizer; (a) the 3rd crop, June - July and (b) the 4th crop, August-September. ................................................................. 4.41 Weed on the ridge of asparagus. ...................................................................... 4.42 Changes of weight loss (%) of organic and conventional asparagus with no packaging and packed in plastic film wrapped trays during 3 weeks of storage at 52C. ........................................................................... 4.43 Changes of chlorophyll content (mg/g) of organic and conventional asparagus during 3 weeks of storage at 52C. ............................................... 4.44 Changes of L* of organic (or) and conventional (con) asparagus with no packaging (np) and packed (p) in plastic film wrapped trays during 3 weeks of storage at 52C. ........................................................................... 4.45 Changes of a* of organic (or) and conventional (con) asparagus with no packaging (np) and packed (p) in plastic film wrapped trays during 3 weeks of storage at 52C. ........................................................................... 4.46 Changes of b* of organic (or) and conventional (con) asparagus with no packaging (np) and packed (p) in plastic film wrapped trays during 3 weeks of storage at 52C. ........................................................................... 4.47 Changes of chroma value of organic (or) and conventional (con) asparagus with no packaging (np) and packed (p) in plastic film wrapped trays during 3 weeks of storage at 52C. ........................................ 4.48 Loss of ascorbic acid content (mg/100g) of organic and conventional asparagus during 3 weeks of storage at 52C. ............................................... 4.49 Peak force (N) of organic and conventional asparagus during 3 weeks of storage at 52C. ........................................................................... 4.50 Change of peak force (%) of organic and conventional asparagus during 3 weeks of storage at 52C. ................................................................ 4.51 Hardness (N/mm) of organic and conventional asparagus during 3 weeks of storage at 52C. ........................................................................... 4.52 Changes of hardness (%) of organic and conventional asparagus during 3 weeks of storage at 52C. ................................................................

page

112 113

117 119

123 124

126

126

127

127 128 129 130 130 131

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

Organic agriculture is defined as an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony (USDA, 1995). Organic agriculture practices are normally based on 4 principles which are considered to be used as a whole. The mentioned four principles are the principle of health, the principle of ecology, the principle of fairness, and the principle of care (IFOAM, 2005a). It has been long seen that conventional farming has played an important role in improving food productivity to meet human demands. Conventional farming, in this sense, may be defined as cultivated systems that largely depend on intensive inputs of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. Certainly these conventional farming practices and associated chemical inputs have raised many environmental and public health concerns. Prominent among these are the reduction in biodiversity, environmental contamination and soil degradation. Organic farming, through these concerns, emerged as an alternative to enhance soil biodiversity, alleviate environment concerns and improve food safety through eliminating the application of synthetic chemicals. Over the last two decades, global awareness of health, ecology and environment has grown substantially. Every country is becoming more and more conscious of these issues, and their government policies increasingly encourage the notion of sustainable development. One area which this development is notably seen is in agricultural sector. A holistic approach with a major concern for protecting the environment, maintaining the balance between nature and biodiversity and improving the overall health of the individual farms soil-microbe-plantanimal system is strongly supported worldwide to reach the worlds agricultural sustainability. Organic agriculture is the most dynamic and rapidly-growing sector in the global food industry. Detailed estimates of trade in specific organic product categories would currently need to be based on a global survey of certification agencies records and information given by exporters and importers. Such thorough survey in that manner has never been made available. However The Geneva based International Trade Centre (ITC the joint technical cooperation agency of UNCTAD and WTO) has estimated the world retail market

for organic food and beverages at approximately US$ 30 billion in 2006, with Europe and North American (USA and Canada) together accounting for about 95% of the total. Smaller but important markets stated in this study include Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. With increasing consumer consciousness of safety and environmental issues, the global market value is expected to reach US$ 100 billion within the next five years, growing at between 20 to 30 percent a year (ITC, 2006). Thailand, being one of the worlds leading exporters of food commodities, has the capacity and potential to develop its competitiveness to be a major source of organic foods to serve both domestic and international markets. The rapid development of global organic markets presents major opportunities for Thailands organic sector. However, during the past five years, the value of exports has decreased due mainly to the impact of bilateral Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and the introduction of stringent food safety and traceability legislation by US, EU and other importing countries. Compliance with these regulations is essential for Thai exporters to enter the US and EU markets, and smallholder farmers will be particularly at disadvantage. The Thai Government has repeatedly underscored its policy of support for organic farming. The parliament announced, in a Cabinet resolution on 4 January 2005, its goal to transform Thailands agriculture and to increase the importance of organic production systems. On 22 January 2008, the Cabinet approved the National Strategic Plan for Organic Agriculture Development 2008-2011 proposed by the National Economic and Social Development Board with the initiation from Thailands National Innovation Agency. However, institutional capacity and co-ordination to support implementation, as well as implementing on a case study basis for organic production have not yet matched the ambitious policy goals. If Thailand is to achieve its policy goals for organic trade and export, the various government agencies must establish a coordinated policy and regulatory environment that stimulates the development of the private organic sector and builds international confidence. Recent case studies in India, China and Latin America indicated that the introduction of organic agriculture is often beneficial to small, resource-limited farmers and the conversion to market oriented and certified organic agriculture can contribute to poverty alleviation (IFAD, 2005; Setboonsarng, 2006). Certified organic products potentially receive a price premium depending on market conditions but knowledge of how large a part of this actually benefits small holders is limited. Besides the price premium and the improved markets links other advantages such as improvement in soil fertility, enhancement or preservation of biodiversity

and improved health from absence of chemical pesticides are indeed needed to quantified. In Thailand, several pioneer private sectors of have successfully developed organic agriculture system under certification of either international or local certified agencies. Based on these secondary resources on organic productions provided by the company, if well constructed qualitative analysis could be carried out, the results would provide valuable insight information for supporting organic agriculture policy planning as well as implementation. Lack of scientific data to compare and demonstrate effectiveness of organic agriculture is a major concern for organic agriculture development. There are many claims (from observations of producers, consumers and scientists) that organic foods have more nutritional value, better appearance, aroma, texture and taste and longer shelf life compared to that from conventional agricultural systems. Organic agriculture system may make stability of nutrients and key components in agricultural produce and keep them near to that from ideal nature. However, organic market in Thailand is still not well developed because consumers are not aware of wide range of advantages they can benefit from organic foods. Therefore, the scientific proofs on the comparison between organic products and conventional products could generate solid evidence to promote organic agriculture while supporting its strengths and resolving its weaknesses simultaneously. Yield reduction in the early stage of transition from conventional to organic systems is a major concern for organic farmers. This decrease is attributed to nutrients limitation and pest incidence; thus, it becomes a barrier to implementing the practice of organic farming. Fertility management in organic farming relies on a long-term integrated approach rather than the more short-term approach on targeted solutions commonly dealt in conventional agriculture. Moreover, effectiveness of biofertilizer is still questionable among farmers. Therefore, identifying strategies that minimize yield loss is critical for facilitating the implementation of organic practices. In this case study, the production of organic asparagus was thoroughly investigated and the results might suggest suitable methodology for commercial and sustainable organic agriculture production in Thailand. 1.1 Current Status of Organic Production in Thailand

Types of organic producers Production of organic crops is undertaken mainly by smallholders, farmer groups or large agro-enterprises using organized groups of contract farmers. Grass-roots NGOs have played a vital role in promoting the organic movement, facilitating conversion from

conventional to organic methods, organizing farmer groups, providing training and marketing support for small farmers, and also in certification. There are two main categories of organic producers in Thailand. (Ratanawaraha, 2002) Market-oriented organic agriculture. Produce is clearly identified through certification and labeling. This type of organic farm requires significant financial and technical resources to achieve compliance with the requirements of international and private organic standards as well as the additional cost of organic certification. Subsistence-oriented organic agriculture. Many small farmers, convinced that conventional agriculture is uneconomic and unsustainable, have developed alternative modes of production to improve family health, household food security or simply to reduce input costs. Produce is not necessarily sold on the market, or may be sold without a price premium as it is not formally certified. Direct channels to deliver such self-certified organic produce to consumers, successful in Japan and some other countries, begins to appear in Thailand.

Land area, number of organic farms Estimates indicate that certified organic production increased from 13,419.25 rai in 2001 to 140,939.98 rai in 2006, equivalent to 0.11% of the country total agricultural land area (131 million rai), representing an increase of over 950% over the 2001. (Table 1.1 and Figure 1.1) Table 1.1 Land under organic farming in Thailand (rai). Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Rice 52,182.75 108,302.02 113,213.04 Field crops 6,281.41 5,510.13 7,005.26 9,900.50 32,841.27 46,719.33 7,859.79 6,731.20 6,546.65 Vegetables 13,283.60 14,844.76 15,121.21 Fruit 3,518.75 3,518.75 22,382.30 22,260.64 12,777.00 4,995.35 4,981.83 Other 768.75 768.75 768.75 761.00 1,077.25 TOTAL 6,281.41 5,510.13 10,524.01 13,419.25 55,992.32 69,748.72 86,871.89 135,634.33 140,939.98

Source: Green Net / Earth Net Foundation (2006).

Figure 1.1 Area under organic agriculture in Thailand 1998 - 2006. The number of farms also increased, with 7,564 organic farms in 2006, representing 0.15% of the total number of farms in the country (5.1 million farms). Nevertheless, Thailands organically farmed land as a percentage of total agricultural area is among the lowest in the world, and is mid-ranked among Asian countries. (Table 1.2) Table 1.2 Organic land area: Thailands ranking. Production area in Thailand Production area Organic area as % of total agricultural area No of organic farms Source: Willer & Yussefi (2004). Table 1.3 demonstrates the predominance of rice in Thailands organic production, and the substantial and consistent increase in the market value in recent years. Of particular interest is the significant expansion in fresh vegetable production, in response to growth in the domestic as well as export markets. Nevertheless, in relation to the total agricultural area, organic agriculture represents a small fraction of traded output. For example, of the 30 million tons of paddy produced in 2005, only 18,960 tons (6.3%) was organically produced. This means that Thailand has considerable potential to increase its organic production to serve several markets - its own domestic market, the rapidly growing markets in the Southeast Ranking (World, 85 countries) 71 82 42 Ranking (Asia, 21 countries) 12 13 5

Asian region and China, as well as Thailands established markets (mainly EU member countries, USA and Japan). Table 1.3 Organic Production and market value 2003 - 2005. 2003 Crop Rice Field crops Vegetables and herbs Fruits Others Total 76.88 9,756.05 4.61 375.13 2,671.28 160.28
Production (tons) Value (m Baht) (tons)

2004
Production Value (m Baht) (tons)

2005
Production Value (m Baht)

7,007.90

210.24

7,827.41 1,571.96 2,656.73 3,833.10 76.88 15,966.08

313.10 55.02 159.40 76.66 4.61 608.79

18,960.38 2,040.92 4,618.18 3,746.51 49.11 29,415.10

534.75 45.16 255.83 74.93 9.69 920.36

Source: Green Net / Earth Net Foundation (2006). Production costs Production costs of organic agriculture, in general, are lower than for conventional agriculture. A recent survey (Green Net, 2006) showed that 90.7% of 161 interviewed farmers agreed with this statement, with only 4% insisting that costs were higher for organic production, as compared with conventional systems. However, despite the reduced costs, in the early years gross incomes from organic farms are often lower than for conventional farms due to lower yields during the transitional period. Organic fertilizers Thailands climate allows year-round growth of living organisms. This is an advantage for organic agriculture due to the high productivity of biomass, which is needed for producing organic fertilizers. Estimates show that in the 2001-2002 season, organic matter from economic crop residues amounted to more than 150 million tons per year, with 32 million tons from rice straw and stubble, 20 million tons from residues of corn, sorghum, beans, fruits and vegetables, and 53.35 million tons from the cane sugar industry (GTZ, 2007). This amount is sufficient to enrich 131 million rai of the countrys total agricultural land with at least 1 ton per rai. Unfortunately, most farmers burn their crop residues in the field after harvest, mainly as a means of field sanitation.

Livestock is also an important source of high-nutrient biomass for organic fertilizer production. In 2004, there were 172 million commercial meat chickens, 41.5 million egglaying chickens, 66.8 million local-bred chickens, 15.6 million ducks, 7.2 million pigs, and 6.7 and 1.77 million of cattle and buffaloes respectively (DLD, 2005). This number of livestock can assure a continuing sufficiency of manure biomass for organic fertilizers to serve the organic sector. At present, most organic farmers attempt to produce their own organic fertilizer. Liquid biofertilizers are widely used and a wide range is available commercially for various purposes such as soil improvement, bio-pesticide, foliar fertilizer, and for cleaning produce after harvest. Many farmers buy ready-to-use organic fertilizers at high prices, averaging around 4,000 - 8,000 baht per ton, depending on distance from factory to farm, and the value of the crop. For example, tangerine and longan farmers in Chiang Mai buy biofertilizers at around 7,000 - 8,000 baht per ton, produced 900 kilometres away in Ratchaburi. 1.2 Current Status of Organic Movements in Thailand In accordance to the Government policy to promote the notion of Thailands organic agriculture as Think OrganicThink Thailand, The National Innovation Agency (NIA) has been actively initiating and implementing the innovative projects in organic agriculture in order to strengthen the export capacity of Thailands organic agricultural products. These also act as demonstrative programs for other countries in the Southeast Asian region. On 7 August 2007, the report proposed by NIA entitled Strengthening the Export Capacity of Thailands Organic Agriculture had been endorsed by the Cabinet members. The Cabinet approved the resolution to set up The National Committee on Organic Agriculture on 16 October 2007 in accordance with the draft of National Action Plan on Organic Agriculture. Under NIAs initiation, the National Strategies Plan for Organic Agriculture Development 2008-2011 was approved by the Cabinet on 22 January 2008. Currently over 10 innovative organic projects has been carried out under NIAs implementation. The project umbrella has covered from organic fresh produce production to processing, organically farm inputs, and organic certification systems. The examples of ongoing projects are as follows: 1. Organic Pomelo Cultivation. The project aims at producing certified organic pomelo by using organic practices. In addition to the certification system, the research has

been carried out to identify techniques used in organic fertilizer production together with extracting necessary mineral to enrich the soil, investigate the pruning technique to increase pomelo yield, improve pest protection by covering developing fruits with paper bags, and quantify proper management procedure of soil and water. 2. Organic Cotton Diapers. Cotton is the first non-food crop which is grown organically in Thailand and the project has encouraged the utilization of organic cotton to produce high-quality diapers. Hand weaving of cotton guarantees the products to be free from any harmful chemicals throughout the production process. 3. Organic Jasmine Rice Productions. Among the famous aromatic rice varieties, KDML105, has been launched most successfully in the international market. This project assist in the evaluation some of the techniques involved in land preparation for the paddy field and seedling nursery, management of rice variety and plant breeding, organic cultivation practice and management system, effectiveness of the application of photosynthetic bacteria to increase the rice yield, harvesting techniques and post-harvest handling, and marketing strategies. 4. Pilot Plant for Biofertilizer from Photosynthetic Bacteria. The pilot plant was constructed to produce biological fertilizer from cow manure and photosynthetic bacteria with some other organic materials, such as corncob and rice husk. The production is done through aerobic solid-state fermentation. 5. Organic Soap. The certified organic herbal soap project is first Thailands cosmetic product certified by the organic agriculture standards. 6. Organic Coconut Flour. The project has been carried out to produce the coconut flour from certified organic coconut using indirect heating system to retain the fragrance and taste. Through the use of knife blades for grinding, the uniform flour particles was obtained resulting in high-quality coconut flour. 7. Organic Resort. This is the new business model to construct the resorts with organic attractions. The resorts are designed according to the integration of organic agriculture, landscape architecture and energy conservation. 8. Organic Germinated Rice Drink. This project goal is to produce brand-new drinks from partially germinated rice. The newly developed techniques will leave no

carbohydrate sedimentation and preserve the natural sweetness from the starch-to-sugar conversion process occurring naturally during germination. Moreover, this drink contains high gamma amino butyric acid (GABA) which can act as natural neurotransmitter. 9. Natural Beef. The project aims at producing natural beef by letting the cattle roam and feed freely in the rotated grass meadows and using RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) as a trace-back system. The project carried out according to the practices outlined by the natural beef production standard and the natural beef are ready to the certification process. 10. Organic Passion Fruit Cultivation. The project uses trellises from the natural sources such as branches available in the farm. This environmental friendly initiative can reduce the cost of purchasing conventional trellises by almost 30 percent. Moreover, the passion fruit shredding machine is also specifically designed to help producing concentrated organic passion fruit juice. 1.3 Study Objectives This study comprises two parts, which are: 1. Establishment of Thailands National Organic Agriculture Strategies 2. A Case Study in Organic Asparagus Production Chapter 3 of this report covers the first part of the study which aims at developing national strategies for strengthening Thailands organic agriculture sector. Whereas, the second part in Chapter 4 demonstrates a case study in organic asparagus production which carries implications for the National Organic Agriculture Strategies of Thailand. The first part of the study is carried out to achieve the following objectives: To facilitate the development of a national action plan for organic agriculture, whereby a consensus is reached regarding the optimal allocation of public and private sector resources to support growth of the sector. To facilitate the coordination of relevant government agencies in the implementation of organic projects in a synergistic manner.

10

To strengthen Thailands government control systems and requisites to prepare for application to the EUs Third countries list (Article 11 of EC Regulation 2092/91).

The main objective of the second component of this study is to identify the key indicators of organic agricultural practices and environmental parameters of asparagus farming which is to serve as a case study for the National Organic Agriculture Strategies of Thailand. Key indicators including soil fertility, production yield of fresh produces, and profit of organic farmers are compared within different organic agricultural practices such as biofertilizer, soil amendments, pest management or planting method by using conventional agriculture as a control for comparison on asparagus production. The specific objectives are: To determine the essential requisites for obtaining the implementation model of organic agriculture strategies for Thailand by comparing the data collected from different organic farming techniques trial plots during one year period of experiment. To investigate effects of cultivation practices on asparagus production by analyzing data of the past four years relating to soil quality, yield of the fresh produce of the selected study area after adopting organic practice and its comparison to the conventional agriculture practice, collecting data and identifying the best practice from secondary sources based on indicators such as physical, chemical and biological variables. To compare the quantity and quality of fresh asparagus produced from organically managed system at Sa Kaeo province and the existing conventional asparagus agriculture practices at Nakhon Pathom province. The comparison encompasses physical characteristics, texture and nutritional values. The shelf-life of asparagus under low-temperature storage is also investigated. To investigate the influence and contribution of organic farming to the farmers as an income source or extrinsic benefits at the household and community level.

CHAPTER II LITERATURES REVIEW

2.1

Definition of Organic Agriculture Organic agriculture does not imply the simple replacement of chemical inputs with

organic inputs. It does not mention the essence of this form of agriculture, which is emphasized on maintaining and improving the overall health of the individual farms soilmicrobe-plant-animal system, which affects present and future yields (FAO, 1998). The major concept of organic agriculture also covers economic and social aspects of agriculture production (Jacobsen, 2002a). Indeed, organic agriculture is strongly related to sustainable agriculture and emerges as a holistic approach. As recommended by the National Economic and Social Development Board of Thailand (NESDB, 2006), organic agriculture has integrated not only agricultural but also a social, economic, environmental, healthy, food and poverty management. A report on organic agriculture of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) noted that organic is a process claim rather than a product claim (FAO Committee on Agriculture, 1999). Organic agriculture is differentiated from other agriculture by focusing on the management. Therefore, the definition is normally set out for practical application. Not stipulate only the permission of use of natural inputs, but also dictate a range of practices to be followed. Up to present, several persons and organizations specializing in organic agriculture have developed the definition of Organic Agriculture as follows: Organic agriculture includes all agricultural systems that promote environmentally, socially and economically sound production of food and fibers. Recycling nutrients and strengthening natural processes helps to maintain soil fertility and ensure successful production. By respecting the natural capacity of plants, animals and the landscape, it aims to optimize quality in all aspects of agriculture and the environment. Organic agriculture dramatically reduces external inputs by refraining from the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, Genetically Modified Organisms and pharmaceuticals. Pests and diseases are controlled with naturally occurring means and substances according to both traditional as modern scientific

12

knowledge, increasing to both agricultural yields and disease resistance. Organic agriculture adheres to globally accepted principles, which are implemented within local socio-economic, climatic and cultural settings. (IFOAM Directory, 2005) Organic agriculture is a production system which avoids or largely excludes the use of synthetically compounded fertilizers, pesticides, growth regulators, and livestock feed additives. To the maximum extent feasible, organic agriculture systems rely upon crop rotations, crop residues, animal manure, legumes, green manure, offfarm organic wastes, mechanical cultivation, mineral bearing rocks, and aspects of biological pest control to maintain soil productivity and tilth, to supply plant nutrients, and to control insects, weeds, and other pests. The concept of the soil as a living system which must be fed in a way that does not restrict the activities of beneficial organisms necessary for recycling nutrients and producing humus is central to this definition. (USDA Study Team on Organic Farming, 1980) 1. Organic agriculture is one among the broad spectrum of methodologies which are supportive of the environment. Organic production systems are based on specific and precise standards of production which aim at achieving optimal agroecosystems which are socially, ecologically and economically sustainable. 2. Organic agriculture is a holistic production management system which promotes and enhances agro-ecosystem health, including biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It emphasizes the use of management practices in preference to the use of off-farm inputs, taking into account that regional conditions require locally adapted systems. This is accomplished by using, where possible, cultural, biological and mechanical methods, as opposed to using synthetic materials, to fulfill and specific function within the system. (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 2001) Organic agriculture is a holistic way of looking at the world and the role of human activities in it. It is the integration of our responsibilities to others present and future generations in the way we produce the food and fibre we all require and

13

our duties to enhance and maintain the natural environment which is both our resource base and our own personal setting. It extends beyond the farm gate to the community, local and global. As a movement, it is a goal not fully realized and still evolving as the criteria continue to change along with our understanding of human and ecological needs. (Bill Liebhardt, 2003) Although, in the past, the definitions of organic agriculture were significantly different depending upon communities, for market purpose, a uniform and strict definition of organic agriculture is demanded for being a set of strict rules and complicated practices required to protect both producer and consumer interesting in market of certified food products as organic products. To define organic agriculture for the world, the essence should always the same. Therefore, the General Assembly 2005 of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) agreed that the definition of organic agriculture should contain a specific principle element: health, ecology, fairness and care, which are the roots of organic agriculture growth and development. The principles express the contribution that organic agriculture can make to the world and improve all agriculture in a global context (IFOAM the General Assembly, 2005). 2.2 Principles and Key Characteristics of Organic Agriculture From the most recent revision, the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) has set out the four principles of organic agriculture which are regarded as the roots of organic growth and development (IFOAM, 2005a). Organic agriculture is based on the following principles: Principle of HEALTH Organic agriculture should sustain and enhance the health of soil, plant, animal, human and planet as one and indivisible. Health cannot be separated as individuals while all living systems interact together. The health of ecosystems also affect to the health of individuals and communities. Organic agriculture are focused to sustain and enhance the health of ecosystems and organisms, and intended to produce high quality and nutritious food. So, one of the contributions of organic agriculture is to preventive health care and physical, mental, social and ecological well-being.

14

Principle of ECOLOGY Organic agriculture should be based on living ecological systems and cycles, work with them, emulate them and help sustain them. Organic agriculture is embedded within living ecological systems. It is stated as an ecological management system. This system is based on practices that fit ecological balance through the design of farming system, establishment of habitats and maintenance of genetic and agricultural diversity, and on minimal use of inputs by reuse, recycling and efficient management of materials and energy. In order that the common environment including landscapes, climate, habitats, biodiversity, air and water should be maintained, improved and benefited. Principle of FAIRNESS Organic agriculture should build on relationships that ensure fairness with regard to the common environment and life opportunities. The fairness characteristics that people and other living beings should gain due to organic agriculture are listed as follows: Human relationships Everyone involved in organic agriculture should be provided with a good quality of life, and should be contributed to food sovereignty and reduction of poverty by producing a sufficient supply of good quality food and other products. Animals Organic agriculture should provide with the conditions and opportunities of life according with their physiology, natural behavior and well-being. Natural and environmental resources The resources that are used for production and consumption should be managed in a way that is ecologically and socially just, and should be held in trust for future generations.

15

Organic agriculture should be managed with the systems of production, distribution and trade that are open and equitable and account for real-environmental and social costs. Principle of CARE Organic agriculture should be managed in a precautionary and responsible manner to protect the health and well-being of current and future generations and the environment. The key concerns in management, development and technology choices in organic agriculture are precaution and responsibility. Organic agricultural practices should not be at risk of jeopardizing health and well-being. It should prevent significant risks by adopting appropriate technologies and rejecting unpredictable ones. The key characteristics of organic agriculture which is important to make the principles realistic include (Palaniappan and Annadurai, 1999): Maximal but sustainable use of local resources. Minimal use of purchased inputs, only as complementary to local resources. Ensuring the basic biological functions of soil-water-nutrients-humus continuum. Maintaining a diversity of plant and animal species as a basis for ecological balance and economic stability. Creating an attractive overall landscape which gives satisfaction to the local people. Increasing crop and animal diversity in the form of polycultures, agro-forestry systems, integrated crop/livestock systems, etc. to minimize risk. 2.3 History of Organic Movement Actually, organic agriculture is the oldest form of agriculture. It was strongly recognized and more popular when the contrasts between organic and the new conventional agriculture grew. The development of organic agriculture can be traced back with the three eras. The key events and key actors leading into worldwide development of organic agriculture are showed in Table 2.1. The general situation for each the era is described as follows (Wikipedia, 2007a):

16

The Era of Pre-World War II It is in the early 20th century. Biochemistry and engineering were simultaneous advances and affected many changes to farming. Tractors and mechanized farm implements were also introduced in this era. A new manufacturing process made nitrogen fertilizer, first synthesized in the mid 1800s, affordably abundant. In the same time, some insiders (agricultural scientists and farmers), who concerned about these changes, began to speak out against the industrialization of agriculture.

The Era of Post-World War II Big advances in mechanization, fertilization and pesticides were occurred due to the acceleration of post-war innovation in all aspects of agriculture. Pesticides and fertilizers were used worldwide because they were abundant and cheap.

The Era of 21st Century The agricultural researches had still been emphasized on using of chemicals, and utilizing of biotechnologies (genetic engineering). However, thanks to the changed attitude of producers and consumers, the rise of organic farming was driven, and rapid growth of organic products in market has encouraged the participation of agribusiness interests.

Table 2.1 Key events and key actors for worldwide development of organic agriculture. Year Pre-world war II 19051924 The British botanist Sir Albert Howard, who is referred later as the father of modern organic agriculture, worked as an agricultural adviser in Pusa, Bengal to promote traditional Indian farming practices. 1911 An important organic reference, Farmers of Forty Centuries, was published by American agronomist F.H. King, who toured China, Korea, and Japan for studying traditional fertilization, tillage and general farming practices. 1924 The first book of comprehensive organic farming system, Rudolf Steiners Spiritual Foundations for the Renewal of Agriculture, was published to emphasize the farmers role in guiding and balancing the interaction of the animals, plants and soil. Key events and key actors

17

Year 1939

Key events and key actors The term organic farming was coined by Lord Northbourne, in his book, Look to the land (published in 1940). Lady Eve Balfour, influenced by Sir Howards work, launched the first scientific, side-by-side comparison of organic and conventional farming in England called the Haughley Experiment.

Post-world war II 1940 An Agricultural Testament, which influenced many scientists and farmers of the day, was released. The writer is the British botanist Sir Albert Howard, who is the father of modern organic agriculture. 1943 1944 1946 1962 1970s The Haughley Experiment conducted by Lady Eve Balfour was documented in her book, The Living Soil. An international campaign called the Green Revolution was launched in Mexico. The Soil Association was established as a key international organic advocacy group. Rachel Carson, a prominent scientist and naturalist, published Silent Spring, chronicling the effects of DDT and other pesticides on the environment. Global movements concerned with pollution and the environment increased their focus on organic farming. Slogans like Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food were promoted to encourage consumption of locally grown food. 1972 The US government banned DDT. The International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) was found in Versailles, France, and dedicated to the diffusion and exchange of information on the principles and practices of organic agriculture across national and linguistic boundaries. 1975 Masanobu Fukuoka, a microbiologist working in soil science and plant pathology and developing a radical no-till organic method for growing grain known as Fukuoka farming, released his first book, One Straw Revolution. 1980s 1990s Various farming and consumer groups began seriously pressuring for government regulation of organic production. The retail market for organic farming in developed economies has been growing by about 20% annually due to increasing consumer demand. Legislation and certification standards began to enact.

18

Year 21st Century 2000s

Key events and key actors

The rise of organic farming has been driven by small, independent producers and by consumers. Agribusiness has interested in organic market. Important organic legislation and certification standards have been enacted and updated. The volume and variety of organic products have grown, and production has been increasingly large-scale.

Source: Compiled from Wikipedia (2007a) 2.4 Development of Organic Agriculture in Thailand Thailand is an agricultural country where traditional farming has been practiced based on locally agro-ecological knowledge for centuries. However, when chemical fertilizers were introduced to Thailand in 1932, a number of farms decided to change from traditional to modern farming system which is recognized as the conventional way of farming (Ratanawaraha, 2002). With excessive use of agrochemical in the conventional farm practice, farmers have been exposed to market instability and health hazards. Many farmers have faced economic and health problems, and high dependency on external inputs and knowledge. The impacts of such the practice have also resulted to consumer health and plant and animal diseases. Thereafter, the unsustainable pattern of production and consumption have caused the terrific deterioration of the environment. Natural resources and environment are continually being degraded as same as the degradation of local cultural, wisdom and social customs in most farm communities in Thailand (Yaimuang, 2006). To break away from the vicious circle according to the modern agriculture, many farmers and local NGOs have tried to alternate the conventional agriculture. Therefore, organic agriculture has re-emerged in Thailand in the early 1980s (Reunglertpanyakul, 2002). In recent years, the development of organic agriculture is recognized as components of sustainable development both in local and national levels. There are major three trends resulting in the emerging popularity of organic agriculture in Thailand. The first trend is an increasing public awareness of healthy living. The contribution of natural and safe foods is good health. Organic foods are regarded as the safest option as they are free from

19

agrochemicals. The second trend is the development of sustainable agriculture in response to the crisis faced in the farm sector. The third trend is the rise of environmental awareness, starting from a concern for environmental protection and conservation, but later transforming into a broader agenda covering the impact of conventional agriculture on environment, ecology and biodiversity, including land use, landscape, biodiversity, and pollution caused by use and misuse of agrochemicals (Lorlowhakarn et al., 2008). The combination of these trends has leaded to the attention in development of organic agriculture in Thailand since the early 1990s as presented in Table 2.2. Table 2.2 Key events and key actors for development of Thailand organic agriculture. Year 1991 1992 Key events and key actors Chai Wiwat Agro-industry and Capital Rice Co started organic rice project in Chiang Rai and Phayao. Production was certified by Bioagricert, Italy. Alternative Agriculture Network organized its first national conference, requesting the government to promote sustainable agriculture and organic farming. First Fair Trade rice from Surin was exported to Fair Trade groups in EU. 1993 1994 Green Net established First public fair on Chemical-Free Food for Health and Environment, Bangkok. Capital Rice began selling organic jasmine rice in Thailand and overseas. 1995 Green Net became the first full member of IFOAM from Thailand. ACT certification agency established in Thailand, and first Thai organic crop standards were drafted for public consultation. 1996 Organic rice project established in Yasothon, certified by the Swiss Institute for Market Ecology (IMO). IFOAM-Asia Regional Workshop on Certification for Organic Agriculture and Alternative Market. 1997 2000 ACT commenced organic farm inspection and certification. ACT obtained IFOAM accreditation with the help of the International Organic Accreditation Service (IOAS), and first certified products appeared in Thai markets. Cabinet approved US$ 15.8 million (633 million baht) budget to support a 3-year pilot project on Sustainable Agriculture by Small-Scale Producers. The project was coordinated by the Sustainable Agriculture Foundation and covered 3,500 farming families. 2001 DOA gazetted organic crop production standards. First IFOAM Organic Shrimp Consultation held in Thailand.

20

Year 2002

Key events and key actors Department of Agriculture established the Organic Crops Institute and approved the logo of organic produce Organic Thailand. MOAC established National Office of Agricultural and Food Commodity Standards (ACFS), responsible for implementing/enforcing national agricultural and food standards as well as accreditation. Its role covers standard-setting, certification of agricultural products and foods from farm level to the consumer. The office was subsequently upgraded to Department-level status and renamed as the National Bureau of Agricultural and Food Commodity Standards. ACFS completed drafting of Organic Agriculture: the Production, Processing, Labeling and Marketing of Organic Agriculture. The document includes minimum standards for production, processing, labeling, and marketing, to comply with international standards. Swiss Government recognized the competency of ACT, allowing ACT to conduct organic inspection and certification according to the Swiss governments organic standards. First produce bearing Organic Thailand label appeared in the Thai market.

2004

ACFS launched a new certification process for organic agriculture. The first agency to be granted certification was the Office of Organic Agriculture Standards. Sustainable Agriculture Fair held in Bangkok, aimed at spreading knowledge about sustainable agriculture, including the organic movement. Organized by AAN/Sustainable Agriculture Foundation. Organic Agriculture Fair was organized by the MOAC and the Cabinet resolved that organic agriculture would henceforth be part of the national agenda.

2006

Implementing of project Strengthening the Export Capability of Thailands Organic Agriculture, co-funded by the European Commission and Thailands National Innovation Agency.

2007

The Cabinet endorsed the report Strengthening the Export Capacity of Thailands Organic Agriculture proposed by Thailands National Innovation Agency. The Cabinet approved the resolution to set up The National Committee on Organic Agriculture

2008

The Cabinet approved the National Strategic Plan for Organic Agriculture Development 2008-2011 proposed by the National Economic and Social Development Board and Thailands National Innovation Agency.

Source: Modified from Green Net /Earth Net Foundation (2005) and Lorlowhakarn et al., 2008.

21

As organic agriculture has played an important role in developing Thailands agriculture sector, many organizations specializing in organic agriculture have been established. The first trace of the organization working on organic agriculture in Thailand is the Alternative Agriculture Network (AAN). It was established in 1989 as a national network of non-government organizations (NGOs) and farmer organizations in rural communities of Thailand. This network has developed a strong relationship between farmers for supporting one another for the development of sustainable agriculture, including organic farming (Yaimuang, 2006). The key actors and their role in organic agriculture development in Thailand are summarized as shown in Table 2.3. Table 2.3 Key actors and their role in organic agriculture in Thailand. Organization Producers and producer organizations NGOs Key actors Either individual farm or organized as producer groups NGOs under the Alternative Agriculture Network (AAN), key player include: Sustainable Agriculture Foundation Thailand, Sustainable Agriculture, Earth Net Foundation, Surin Farmer Support Certification body Organic Agriculture Certification Thailand (ACT) Foreign certification bodies: Bioagricoop (Italian) Soil Association (UK) Government National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards (ACFS) Department of Agriculture (DOA) Implementing/enforcing national agricultural and food standards, as well as accreditation Establishing The Organic Crop Institute and approving of Organic Thailand logo for organic produce Department of Agricultural Extension (DOAE) Supporting organic farming activities Providing organic certification services Certifying organic farms in Thailand Providing support services for organic conversion and internal control Roles Crop producers

Source: Modified from Reunglertpanyakul (2002); Wattanasiri (2005).

22

2.5

Swift Company Limited Swift Co., Ltd. was established in 1988 and headquartered in Nakhon Pathom

province. The company has been one of Southeast Asias leading fresh produce exporters to the United Kingdom, the Middle East, Japan and Australia. Their products include asparagus, baby corn, mangoes, mangosteen, ginger, galangal and lemon grass. Swift works in partnership with local producer groups on a contract farming basis and offers technical assistance to their grower members. There are 3 types of farming systems that supply produces to the company; conventional farming under EurepGAP (Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group Good Agricultural Practices) compliance; agro-chemical free farming and organic farming. Swift encourages their contracted growers to convert from conventional farming to EurepGAP and organic farming practices by providing technical advices and interest-free financial assistance. The company also responsible for certifications of the registered growers, and organic certifications were obtained from several certified bodies such as BCS (Germany), JAS (Japan) and Department of Agriculture (Thailand). Contract farming of organic asparagus in Sa Kaeo province was organized in 2000 and in the early of 2001, there was a first group with a total of 47 members started the asparagus production with the company and by the end of 2001 there were total 90 members. The rapid expansion in asparagus cultivation has been obtained until 2006 as shown in Table 2.1. Swift company engages contracted growers who get a guaranteed price for their produce on long term contracts. These contracted growers are also provided with a greater incentive to produce and adhere to the strict guidelines on the maintenance of quality and reaching the company standards. Table 2.4 The expansion in the contract farming membership. Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Source: Swift Co., Ltd. (2006) Number of members 90 171 314 493 590 414 Planting area (rai) 180 316 660 1,100 1,228 833

23

The company currently own and operate 3 processing-packing houses in Nakhon Pathom, Chiang Mai and Phetchabun province. On the asparagus production, the packing processed in Nakhon Pathom packing house. 2.6 Comparison of Organic and Conventional Farming In the past decade, there has been increased scientific interest in the organic farming especially in comparison with conventional agriculture. Many recent studies compare these 2 fundamentally different systems for soil properties in different regions of the world. Results from a 21-year study of agronomic and ecological performance of biodynamic, bioorganic, and conventional farming systems in Central Europe, found crop yields to be 20% lower in the organic systems, although input of fertilizer and energy was reduced by 34 to 53% and pesticide input by 97%. Enhanced soil fertility and higher biodiversity found in organic plots may render these systems less dependent on external inputs (Mder et al., 2002). Meanwhile results studied from central Italy suggested that over the period of 7 years of organic management method strongly affects soil quality. Large differences between the conventionally and organically managed soils were found in terms of microbiological properties, which are sensitive soil indicators of changes occurred under the different farming systems (Marinari et al., 2006). Soil micro-organisms play a dominant role in nutrients cycling and pest control in organic farming systems and their responds to changes in soil management practices may critically impact crop growth and yield. Microbial biomass and respiration rate were more sensitive to changes in soil management practices than total C and N. Tu et al. (2006) indicated during the first 2 years on the organic agriculture practices was most effective in enhancing soil microbial biomass C and N among the transition period of converting from conventional to organic agriculture, but was accompanied with high yield loss. Monokrousos et al. (2006) reported the study on asparagus cultivation fields which differed in the time undergo organic treatments for 2 to 6 years. Among the chemical and biological variables, those contributing for most to the discrimination of the organic and conventional fields were mainly microbial biomass C and N, which higher in organic than conventional areas reflecting differences in the structure of their microbial communities, and secondly variables related to N-cycle (NO3, N organic and rate of N mineralization).

24

2.7

Asparagus Classification and Cultivation Asparagus (commonly referred to Asparagus officinalis L.) is a perennial dioecious

monocot. It is native to most of Europe, northern Africa and western Asia. Asparagus is now widely cultivated as a vegetable crop. The Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh (www. rbge.org.uk) had defined taxonomic classification of asparagus as follows:Kingdom: Plantae Division: Magnoliophyta Class: Order: Family: Genus: Species: Liliopsida Asparagales Asparagaceae (Liliaceae) Asparagus A. officinalis

A. officinalis is grown for its herbaceous, newly emerged shoot (commonly referred to as a spear). The perennial component of the asparagus plant is a woody crown root with fleshy roots which give rise to fibrous roots below ground and shoots above ground. The shoots emerge from the ground as spears (actually they are aerial stems) and then develop into fronds (also called ferns) which are modified leaves. Being dioecious (having male and female flowers that appear on separate plants), each plant bears either conspicuous male flowers or less conspicuous female flowers which produce 3-celled berries. Prior to flowering, however, there are no observable differences between male and female plants. The origin of the modern asparagus is uncertain because many wild types can be found throughout Europe and Asia. However, the most likely location is around the Mediterranean Sea where cultivation has been practiced for over 2000 years, first by the Greeks and then by the Romans (around 200 B.C.). Asparagus' natural habitat is along the banks of rivers and near salt marshes which are common in this part of the world. Romans used asparagus extensively for food and medicinal purposes. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1975). Cultivation: A poor crop of thin, small spears may be due to several factors. Asparagus prefers a well-drained soil and plants will eventually die out in poorly drained soils. Asparagus should also be fertilized regularly for maximum fern growth that results in large food reserves in the crown for next crop.

25

Climate: Traditionally asparagus is a cool season crop with maximum spear production occurring when the average daily temperature is between 18 and 26C. A rest period is necessary for maximum spear production the following season. This rest period may be induced by low temperatures in cool climates or by withholding irrigation in warm dry climates. Spear production is slow when the average daily temperature is 7C or below; however, spears tend to branch quickly upon emergence when the temperature is 37C or higher. When temperatures are between 24 - 27C, a spear approximately 6 inches in length is produced in a days. Fertilizing: Fertilizer application varies widely among regions and depends upon many factors such as soil and climate conditions. Soils high in organic matter are not fertilized extensively, while mineral soils receive up to 2 ton/rai of a complete fertilizer, with an N-P-K ratio of 1-2-1 or 1-2-2 recommended (in case of chemical fertilizer). For maximum yield, asparagus should be fertilized early. If manure is available, apply 125 kg per 10 m2 in late fall or early spring. Preplant fertilizer application should be made based on soil analysis. Subsequent fertilizer applications should be based on tissue analysis. Weed management: Weeds compete for light, water and nutrients with asparagus and will reduce vigor of the bed if not controlled. Herbicides are prohibited in growing organic asparagus. Thus, it is important to plan ahead and use a field with low weed populations, particularly perennial weeds. Hand hoeing and mechanical cultivation can be done in the first year. Current strategies favour no tillage of the asparagus bed once plants have become established. Tillage hurts crowns and roots, brings up new weed seed and can actually make the volunteer asparagus weed problem worse. Before new spears emerge in the next season chop off old ferns to facilitate harvest and eliminate the remaining weeds. Salt should not be applied to asparagus beds for weed control. Although asparagus will tolerate higher soil salinity than most crops, continued salt use will destroy the soil structure and lead to poor asparagus growth. Insect pests: There are little insects damage most growing seasons. The asparagus beetle (Crioceris asparagi L.) and the spotted asparagus beetle (Crioceris duodecimpunctata L.) are the primary damaging insects found in the bed. Control of both asparagus beetles is obtained by removal of top growth each cutting after the harvesting. Harvest spears regularly for control. Other insect pests are cutworms, asparagus aphid and leaf miner.

26

Disease problems: Several diseases cause severe losses for asparagus growers. The most important are asparagus rust (Puccinia asparagi) and diseases caused by Fusarium species (Fusarium oxysporum and Fusarium moniliforme). Producers can reduce much of this loss by selecting resistant cultivars, selecting a site not previously used for asparagus production, using proper cultural practices to keep plants vigorous and healthy, and employing preventative measures (including sanitation) to guard against introduction and spread of disease organisms. Cultural practices which encourage air movement and thus drying of the fronds help slow infection. Harvesting: No asparagus should be harvested during the first growing season. Harvest 6 to 8 inch spears by cutting or snapping. Use a sharp knife to cut the spears at the soil surface or snap the spears slightly above the ground. Spear diameter should be greater than 3/8 inches then wash with cool water, and cool or store at 0 to 1 C and 95% relative humidity. The stalks develop tough fibers if stored under warmer temperatures. It takes about 3 hours per day to harvest 2.5 rai. Asparagus foliage should be allowed to develop after the final harvest. The top growth produces food reserves which are stored in the roots for next crop. 2.8 Comparison of Organic and Conventional Produces Nutrient: There are many studies comparing the nutrient content of organic crops with conventionally produced crops, grown with chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Study of Worthington (1998) found organic crops had a higher nutrient content about 40% of the time, and conventional crops had a higher nutrient content only about 15% of the time. Overall, organic crops had an equal or higher nutrient content about 85% of the time. These results suggest that, on average, organic crops have a higher nutrient. For 2 nutrients, vitamin C and protein, there is enough evidence to suggest that organic crops are higher to conventional crops. Woese et al. (1997) considered over 150 comparisons of conventionally- and organically-produced foods published between 1924 and 1994. Many studies compared produce available in markets where the validity of the organic produce could not be confirmed. In some cases a sufficient number of studies were available for comparison, e.g. for cereals there were thirty studies, for vegetables 70 studies and for potatoes 22 studies. With respect to the studies on crops, there was clear evidence for higher nitrate concentrations in vegetables grown under conventional conditions, although this information mainly related to green leafy vegetables and did not apply to cereals or potatoes. No differences were found

27

in the mineral, trace element or B vitamin levels of organically or conventionally grown cereals, potatoes or vegetables. Also, in 27 comparative studies conducted on vegetables no differences were found in levels of vitamin A or -carotene. However, there was moderately strong and consistent evidence for lower levels of vitamin C in conventionally-grown potatoes, and 50% of the studies conducted on vegetables also showed organic produce to have higher vitamin C levels, with the remainder showing no difference. There were no studies that showed lower levels of vitamin C in organic potatoes or vegetables. Evidence for higher levels of vitamin C in organic produce was particularly strong for leafy vegetables. These vegetables also tended to have higher dry mater content (DM), so that the higher vitamin C levels might reflect the lower water content of organic produce. Lampkin (1990) also noted evidence for higher vitamin C levels in organic vegetables (28%) associated with higher DM values (23%), although yield was 24% lower for organic produce compared with conventionally grown produce. The clearest data were for nitrate levels which were higher, and vitamin C levels which were lower, in conventional produce compared with organic produce. Twenty-five of 41 studies showed higher levels of nitrate and 21 of 36 studies showed lower levels of vitamin C (Woese et al., 1997). Data were insufficient or inconclusive for most of the other vitamins analyzed. In the case of minerals and trace elements levels found in organic produce tended to be either higher or the same as in conventional produce, with few studies showing lower levels in vegetables of organic origin. Woese et al. (1997) and Worthington (1998) show a trend for organic produce to have a higher nutrient content than conventional produce. However, although the weight of evidence at the present time is suggestive of higher nutrient quality of organic produce, this finding does not seem to apply to all nutrients or all crops. The most consistent data are those available for vitamin C and nitrate, which support beneficial effects of organic production on levels of these nutrients. Noomhorm (2004) conducted the study aiming to evaluate effects of cultivation practices applied in organic farming on quality of Thai organic aromatic rice (KDML 105) in Surin province. Properties of soils and qualities in terms of safety, milling yield, eating qualities, aroma qualities, and nutrition values were determined and compared with conventional produce. The pH of soil samples taken from organic rice production areas was weak acidity. Organic matter of soil from NGO group, which was certified by Organic Agriculture Certification Thailand (ACT), was higher than soils from farms, which were certified by National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards (ACFS) or

28

produced following Surin standard. There were no differences of nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P) and potassium (K) contents of soils between the farmer groups. All organic rice samples had no nitrate, nitrite and pesticide residue. There were no differences in amylose content and gel consistency. Dachanuraknukul (2006) also studied the quality of organic asparagus and conventional asparagus grown in Thailand and found that organophosphates, pyrethroids and endosulfan pesticides were not detected in both conventional and organic asparagus. An important factor leading to reduction of any residues left on crops at harvest are processing treatments such as washing. Variations in the mineral content (N, P, K, Mn, Mg, Zn and Fe) were found between conventional and organic asparagus were noted due to the differences in soil condition, environment and cultivation practices in different areas of the country. Shelf life: Dachanuraknukul (2006) packed organic and conventional asparagus in plastic film PE and very high oxygen transmission rate (IQ-11) at 5oC and quality of asparagus were evaluated during 3 weeks of storage. Slightly lower percentage of ascorbic acid loss was found in organic samples (27-60%) compared to those of conventional asparagus (27-65%). However changes of pH, total soluble solid, total chlorophyll content and texture of asparagus were mainly depended on packaging conditions rather than organic or conventional farm treatments.

CHAPTER III ESTABLISHMENT OF THAILANDS NATIONAL ORGANIC AGRICULTURE STRATEGIES

3.1

Introduction Organic markets in developed countries are growing at between 20-30% a year, and

in 2005 the global market was valued at US$40 bn. (Willer & Yusefi, 2006). Analysts expect these markets to show sustained and buoyant growth over the coming 5-10 years. With the evident comparative advantages of Southeast Asian countries for organic production, there is considerable potential for Asian producers and exporters to supply these key markets (ThodeJacobsen, 2006). But apart from the attraction of traditional markets such as EU, Japan and USA, significant domestic and regional markets are also emerging within the region itself. In countries such as China, India, Indonesia, and Thailand, the emergence of an affluent, healthconscious middle class, with changing tastes, rising health consciousness, and increasing disposable income is already driving a healthy demand within the sub-region, and creating viable domestic markets for organic and other high-value specialty products (Willer and Yussefi, 2006). Southeast Asian countries are also ideally placed to serve the high-value markets in Japan and Korea. On the supply side, there is ample underutilized agricultural land within the region, especially in upland areas, where pesticide use is minimal, and which may be ideal for establishing certified organic production zones without the need to pass through a long transition period before certification is granted. As an environmentally-friendly production system, organic systems are well suited to fragile upland agro-ecosystems, where pesticide use poses occupational health hazards for untrained workers, as well as environmental risks. Yet, despite triple-digit growth in the rate of farm conversion in Asia, supplies are failing to keep pace with the rapidly increasing global and regional demand (Organic Monitor, 2006). Constraints to conversion include lack of land tenure, inadequate access to technical training, information and support mechanisms, farmers perception of risk, and high compliance costs. In economic terms, this gap means that opportunities for increasing organic

30

exports are not being captured, and in environmental terms, there are continuing risks to natural resources arising from current agricultural practices. With continuing consolidation of agri-food supply chains and increasing control by local and multinational corporates (Francis et al., 2006; Vorley & Fox, 2004, Brown, 2005), smallholders in Asia are facing formidable barriers to participation (Weinberger & Lumpkin, 2005; FAO, 2004). Stringent importing country requirements as well as private standards are transforming relationships within the supply chain. With modern trade retailers accounting for around 70% of global organic produce sold in 2005 (Asian Institute of Technology, 2005), closed supply chains based on contract farming and managed by large corporate operators are increasingly the preferred option to ensure year-round consistency of supply and compliance with these stringent standards. One effect of such consolidation is to reinforce existing inequities in power relations within the supply chain, creating barriers to participation for organic smallholders in both export and domestic markets. This can be seen in the consolidation of production operations, and the smaller numbers of independent smallholders converting to certified organic methods. On the regulatory front, Asian countries are at differing stages in developing standards and regulations for organic agriculture. International harmonization initiatives face some resistance, due at least in part to the competitive relationships between countries in the region (UNCTAD, 2006). The lack of mutual recognition of standards may thus act as a continuing constraint to growth in intra-regional trade. Acknowledging these challenges as well as the potential of organic agriculture as a development tool (IFAD, 2005; Setboonsarng, 2006) the international donor community has become increasingly engaged in market development for organic agriculture. From 20052006, the Geneva-based UN International Trade Centre (ITC) provided financial assistance for Thailands National Innovation Agency (NIA) to implement a project in Thailand Strengthening Thailands Organic Agriculture Export Capacity. The project was co-funded by NIA and the EU under the Asia Trust Fund programme. The project identified a range of challenges to development of both the domestic and export markets, and generated a series of national-level recommendations. The project and its recommendations are discussed later in this chapter.

31

3.2

Methodology The Project was implemented from July 2005 to August 2006, study methodology

was done in three stages: Stage 1: Benchmark Survey: A literature review and stakeholder interviews were conducted to produce a benchmark survey that provided a background to the current state of play of organic agriculture in Thailand. The report included an overview of the organic industry supply chain, from farm production processes through accreditation, certification, traceability, and other regulatory issues. The study drew from interviews with key stakeholders to offer a preliminary assessment of key issues for the supply chain, including the institutional framework and support systems, and import requirements of the EU. The report served as a starting point for the stakeholder consultation process which built on the benchmark findings to identify key constraints and challenges to strengthening of the organic sector in Thailand. Building on the benchmark survey report, and consultation with all key government agencies and other stakeholders, convened a technical workshop of key stakeholders (National Stakeholder Workshop). The workshop aimed to develop recommendations for inclusion in a national action plan as well as to build consensus and improve coordination between different stakeholders. Stage 2: National Action Plan: Following the National Stakeholder Workshop, a National Action Plan for organic agriculture in Thailand was drafted, with a particular focus on facilitating exports of high quality organic produce from Thailand to the EU. The plan took into account the outputs of the National Stakeholder Workshop, as well as feedback from participants in the six training workshops. Stage 3: Training Workshops: concurrently with stage 2, government officers received comprehensive training in information and skills required to strengthen government control systems for organic agriculture. In addition, private sector representatives received training in requirements for compliance with EU legislation. The study methodology and stakeholder consultation process is shown schematically in Figure 3.1.

32

Figure 3.1 Project methodology and stakeholder consultation. Stakeholder consultation at all stages is essential to the consensus-building process, and the technical assistance therefore sought to obtain this feedback through the following avenues: Individual interviews with national experts from key stakeholder groups Preparation of Benchmark Report National Stakeholder Workshop, involving 120 senior representation from all major actors, including individual farmers, private sector exporters (large and small), farmer cooperatives, grass-roots NGOs, academia, regulatory agencies, certification bodies, the Ministry of Science and Technology, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. Training Workshops: a series of 8 training workshops were held from November 2005 to August 2006, for public and private sector stakeholders. All workshops included group work to elicit participant feedback on their perspective of challenges, constraints and solutions. Further consultation with stakeholders on the draft national action plan, including individual interviews and expert group brainstorming. A list of organizations and individuals consulted is presented in Appendix A.

33

The outputs of the entire consultation process have been consolidated into the finalized National Action Plan. The final recommendations / action plan were presented to the stakeholder community and senior officials from concerned Ministries at a National Round Table, held on 30 August 2006 in Bangkok. The recommendations are intended as an input into the subsequent political process. 3.3 Challenges and constraints identified during the stakeholder consultation process The analysis revealed many problems in organic projects initiated by government, private sector and the NGO community in Thailand. Key issues are listed as follows: lack of assistance for farmers during the conversion period, which can take 1-3 years. Small farmers in particular have insufficient capital, knowledge and resources to risk converting to organic farming if they must carry the high compliance costs; following conversion, little technical support is provided; There have been relatively few advances in soil improvement technologies and crop protection technologies while the basic concept of organic farming as a positive farm management system, with its broader philosophy of attempting to conserve and rehabilitate the agro-ecosystem- is often overlooked; There is insufficient education and competency development to enhance capacity at producer, processor and exporter levels to better manage the production process. The consultation process also revealed that existing organic farming systems often can not adequately address the fundamental problem of ensuring consistent production and regular supply of fresh produce of guaranteed quality. Production and product quality are vulnerable to fluctuations in biotic factors and unpredictable changes in growing conditions and the processing methods remain unsophisticated. Often, processing is managed and operated at community level, and relatively little progress has been made in improving postharvest technologies to minimize post-harvest losses. As a result of the failure to improve the capacity of producers, many organic initiatives would not qualify as meeting internationally-recognized organic standards. Moreover, the organic guarantee system is not fully understood even by organizations

34

promoting organic agriculture. In particular accreditation and certification are frequently not properly differentiated, and regulations covering organic imports are not well understood even amongst practitioners. The findings also showed that overall, the level of government and private sector investment in advertising and promotion is inadequate. There are few media channels directly providing information on organic agriculture, and few entrepreneurs invest in paid advertisements. 3.4 National Action Plan and Recommendations In response to the above findings identified during the stakeholder consultation process, a series of recommendation were developed. The Action Plan aimed to dovetail with ongoing initiatives under Thailands National Organic Agenda, and was the result of extensive talks with farmers, regulators, companies and researchers. The Plan contains seven policy recommendations to strengthen the sector, covering production, regulations, certification, research, training and marketing. In support of each recommendation, specific actions were proposed with particular reference to both the export and domestic markets. The seven strategies described below, will make a contribution towards a vibrant and thriving organic sector in Thailand. If successfully implemented, such measures will assist in the acknowledgement of Thailand in EU member countries as a prime source of high quality organic produce which meets key national and international standards. STRATEGY 1: BROADEN THE PRODUCTION BASE FOR ORGANIC AGRICULTURE The major challenges and constraints to growth in organic production can be addressed through the formation of farmer groups, which can provide an important support network for individual farmers, and enhanced access to information, technologies and markets. Two mechanisms are recommended: production clusters and contract farming, which, when well implemented, have the potential to bring sustainable benefits to communities. Both systems are of course already practiced in Thailand in various forms, and merit further government support, especially during their initial establishment phases.

35

Action 1.1

Implement additional support measures to facilitate conversion to organic systems

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing farmers wishing to convert from conventional to organic systems is the long conversion period required in order to reach compliance with internationally accepted organic standards. The requirement places a financial burden on farmers which constrains growth of the organic area, and particularly limits participation of smallholders. Relevant agencies (private and public sectors, cooperatives, NGOs and academia) will need to join hands to develop agreed and effective training curricula and programmes relevant to the practical aspects of organic farming. The training is necessary to create genuine awareness and understanding of organic agriculture among farmers as well as concerned support agencies. Government financial support for such training would be needed, whether carried out by government agencies themselves, the private sector, farmer groups or NGOs. Aside from technical training, other financial support mechanisms such as extended credit, soft loans or other incentives offered by the government will help small farmers to weather the initial conversion period from conventional to fully organic production. Action 1.2 Support the establishment of organic production clusters in the private sector An economic cluster is a concentration of largely homogenous enterprises within a relatively limited geographical area. Interventions aimed at improving the performance of this type of enterprise benefit from a cluster approach because of the similarity of needs and support requirements. It speeds up the dissemination of best practice because of the pervasiveness of the demonstration effect, and allows for a distribution of the fixed costs of interventions (e.g. certification and inspection costs, processing equipment etc) among a large number of beneficiaries. Organic Farmer Clusters i.e. groups of farms within defined geographic areas, and run by farmer groups, offer a rational business approach for the following reasons: organic farming can be better achieved if farmers devote a minimum contiguous area of land, and that all farmers within that area all comply with

36

agreed standards. This brings collective and individual responsibility through peer pressure reduction in overall compliance costs e.g. through group certification effective and accountable way of channelling government support, easy to monitor and evaluate success effective way to address supply and quality issues economies of scale at many levels (production, input supplies, credit, training support, processing and transportation, and branding / marketing) technology transfer is more efficiently accomplished at the cluster scale.

It is emphasized that such clusters should be organized and self-governed by farmer groups themselves, with government agencies, research institutions and NGOs playing a supporting and facilitating role, offering essential specialized services such as finance, marketing support, training and extension, and demonstration farms. The EurepGAP farmer cluster in Kanchanaburi and the organic rice cluster in Yasothon Province serve as successful examples of the benefits of this approach. Action 1.3 Support contract farming in organic agriculture as an effective vehicle for poverty alleviation Contract farming may also be considered and applied as an effective model for poverty alleviation. However, since contract farming has often been associated with exploitation of farmers and workers, such schemes would require strict monitoring to ensure fair returns, farmer empowerment and secure livelihoods for farmers. Development and adoption of appropriate guidelines for contract farming will provide monitoring groups from within the organic community itself with objective criteria to ensure that the principles of organic farming and the rights of individual farmers are fully respected within the contract farming environment. Action 1.4 Invest in technologies and processing facilities to enhance valueadded and exploit new market opportunities As the global organic market becomes more sophisticated, moving away from simple commodities to enhanced-value innovative organic products e.g. nature-based cosmetics, plant derivatives, clothing etc., new opportunities are emerging to generate

37

additional income at farm level for Thai organic farmers. Today these opportunities are generally underexploited, but such diversification would find ready markets both domestically and globally. In exploring the above possibilities for adding value, the following interventions are considered as priorities: new products targeted at export markets (both food and non-food) innovative marketing and branding initiatives strategic investment in technologies and processing facilities to take advantage of identified opportunities. For example, the Government-supported One Tambon (District), One Product, or OTOP scheme offers a well-established vehicle for marketing such products, both in domestic and overseas markets. Such measures offer a means of shifting the focus from primary, unprocessed commodities to secondary, processed goods with greater value added. This is of special value from a sustainable livelihoods perspective where the value addition occurs early on in the supply chain. Action 1.5 Support the organization of farmers in regard to joint distribution, storage and transport infrastructure Producer organisations are often under-resourced and the lack of proper distribution infrastructure can constrain potential for both domestic and export markets. Since organic farming presents new and unfamiliar challenges, it is of particular importance that farmers join hands and establish / strengthen farmer cooperatives Issues such as proper segregation of organic and non-organic produce, establishment of proper packing facilities, grading and sorting machinery and transport, are best addressed by farmer groups. Government support for such joint efforts by producer groups would be especially valuable. Action 1.6 Strengthen the ongoing biofertilizer initiative spearheaded by the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives Under the National Organic Agriculture Agenda, the government aims to stimulate the organic sector through various measures, including the establishment of organic fertilizer factories throughout the country. The programme involves 26 agencies from 6 Ministries, and

38

is led by the Land Development Department, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. The programme will assist in addressing the shortage of organic inputs at a local level, and is strongly supported by stakeholders nationwide. However, as a multi-agency initiative, the Agenda will require ongoing political support to ensure its success in the longer term. It is recommended that priority be given to managing this initiative effectively, with appropriate participation in operational management and decision-making by the broader stakeholder community. STRATEGY 2: ENHANCE CAPACITY AND STREAMLINE THE EXISTING REGULATORY STRUCTURE Government policy so far has prioritized the development of voluntary national standards, and the setting up of public certification bodies. Whereas both are important components, in their present forms they do not address the fundamental issues which are delaying international recognition. The policy framework should therefore focus more closely on addressing and facilitating the specific needs of Thailands exporters with respect to compliance with importing country requirements. The regulatory system may be viewed as a tool for assisting organic producers to access export markets through equivalence agreements, but the establishment and validation of such equivalence is a longer term solution and is very resource-intensive. If the aim is to support the export sector, it is considered sufficient to establish a government-supervised system for export of organic produce, without the need for mandatory national legislation. The key to export market access lies in competent and qualified certification agencies, and thus efforts to strengthen them should take precedence. The governments free organic certification service is aimed to encourage uptake especially by small farmers. However the service faces shortcomings in that it does not assist exporters who require internationally-accredited certification. The service also distorts the market for Thai private sector certification services. Action 2.1 Review the public sector certification system and improve access by smallholders

39

It is recommended that the current certification system be reviewed. In order to build credibility and trust the two principles of (a) separation of roles between the governments accreditation and certification services, and (b) non-discrimination, should be observed. These requirements will necessitate clear separation between the public sector certification and accreditation services, and that both public and private sector certification bodies should be subject to the same accreditation norms. In order to avoid competing with private sector certification bodies, it is recommended that the government certification scheme should target only the domestic market, leaving the private sector to look after the export market. Consideration might also be given by the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives to ending its free certification service, and instead establishing an appropriate tiered cost structure to allow free or low-cost access by smallholders, combined with a cost recovery policy for larger operators. The government should also set aside funds to offer smallholders better access to certification services provided by Thai private certification bodies. These measures will help enhance the competitiveness of Thai-operated private sector certification bodies rather than allow over-dependence on foreign certification bodies in the Thai market. This is important in order to develop the pool of qualified certification expertise within Thailand, and also because locally based certification bodies often play an important role in the local development of the sector and for the formulation of nationally adapted standards (which is not the case for foreign-based certification bodies). Action 2.2 Review and strengthen the voluntary National Organic Standards to improve understanding and enhance their value to farmers The voluntary National Organic Standards are an important step forward in establishing a benchmark for the domestic organic market; however they are not well understood and adoption has been patchy. A review of the standards would help address these questions, and should be undertaken with the active participation of civil society, grass-roots NGOs and private sector farmer groups, in addition to the respective concerned government agencies.

40

STRATEGY 3: PRIORITIZE RESEARCH INTO ORGANIC AGRICULTURE Organic farming systems represent a vital scientific frontier in the development of environmentally sound agriculture. However, whilst a considerable amount of research has been undertaken in Thailand into many aspects of organic agriculture, there is no system to relate such work to inform a coherent strategy or analysis of organic farmers' needs. Growth of the organic production sector is important not only from a business or economic perspective, but also as an integral component of sustainable rural development. Unfortunately the national agricultural research system has not adequately explored this potential, and has not significantly helped improve the performance of organic farming systems in Thailand. This failure is contradictory in view of policy goals seeking reduced environmental risks in agriculture and greater diversity in cropping patterns (e.g. the Royal Initiatives, and the concept of the Self-sufficiency Economy), and the adoption of sustainability as a fundamental guiding policy principle. With this challenge in mind, the national organic research agenda must recognize and utilize the good work that already has been done. An important early task will therefore be to collate existing data on the behaviour of organic farming systems and use such work to inform the process of formulating a coherent national research agenda for organic systems. A commitment to easing the transition to organic systems suggests two obvious areas of development. The most basic aspects of successful organic farming are 1) the buildup and maintenance of organic matter in the soil, and 2) ecological diversity on the farm and crop rotation. Simply focusing on cost-effective technological innovations in these two fundamental areas could bring enormous benefits to all segments of Thai agriculture. Further definitive research also needs to be done on areas such as the economics of organic agriculture, consumer attitudes and innovative products, and holistic studies of the benefits of organic agriculture, using econometric techniques and quality of life indicators to account for health, social and environmental benefits, as well as broader benefits accruing from biodiversity protection. In order to stimulate and direct research appropriately to meet real practical needs, the following actions are proposed:

41

Action 3.1

Identify and address the role and potential contribution of organic agriculture to national goals for sustainable development

To date there has been fairly universal acknowledgement that organic agriculture has an important role to play beyond simply satisfying a market need. However, the actual and potential contribution has not been adequately quantified at a macro level e.g. through econometric modelling. This contribution should be addressed in all its dimensions. In so doing, the study would automatically address and quantify the impacts of any policy conflicts between organic and mainstream agriculture (e.g. impact of de facto subsidies for pesticides in distorting markets) to bring coherence to national agricultural and social development policies. Action 3.2 Establish a national organic research and development centre and national organic information database A dedicated agency for organic research would serve to collate and disseminate the latest research findings, and coordinate a national network of dedicated organic experiment stations and demonstration farms, working closely with organic practitioners in the field. A web-based national research database specializing in organic agriculture would play a key role in assisting researchers and other stakeholders to make effective use of research in their activities, and establish partnerships in implementation (both local and global, especially South-South partnerships). The agency would also link with global centres of excellence to keep Thai-based researchers updated. Action 3.3 Earmark additional funding for multidisciplinary research in order to address key challenges Organic agriculture has cross-cutting dimensions and so a focus on multidisciplinary research emphasizing on-farm organic systems analysis, combining research, extension, agro-ecology, health and socio-economics is likely to advance fundamental knowledge and assist in understanding farmer motivation and related socio-economic issues. Funds should therefore be allocated to elucidating these areas. Action 3.4 Encourage researchers to examine and evaluate traditional knowledge about pest control treatments, working in close collaboration with farmers and local communities

42

Academic research should focus on key challenges in organic agriculture such as organic fertilizers, bio-pesticides, variety selection, pest and disease management, weed control on organic farms, strategies to reduce the soil weed seed bank, and the effective utilization of cover crops and allelopathy in organic systems. Recognizing the richness of indigenous local knowledge, researchers should involve local communities and draw on this pool of knowledge to advance our understanding and develop organic-friendly solutions in these key areas. STRATEGY 4: ENHANCE AND UPGRADE TRAINING AND EXTENSION SERVICES FOR ORGANIC FARMERS Extension services are well-geared towards the needs of conventional agriculture using chemical inputs. However, organic agriculture presents new challenges for which extension services are typically ill-equipped, both in terms of understanding of the technological challenges, market and compliance requirements, and also in terms of advances in extension methodologies. For organic agriculture to contribute to sustainable rural development, it needs to be promoted as a community-based option rather than an individual choice. This could allow organic agriculture to capture local stakeholders interests and capacities and benefit from local or region-specific trends. Conventional training and extension methodologies generally employed in rural development have met with mixed success. Today, development agencies and grass-roots NGOs favour participatory, community-based training methods to analyze the real issues. These Farmer Field School (FFS) approaches are widely considered more effective and responsive to the communitys real needs. The emergence of such methodologies as an effective vehicle for sustainable change provides an ideal opportunity for fostering adoption of organic agriculture at a local level. Action 4.1 Promote organic agriculture through a participatory communitylevel approach Community-based approaches draw on both traditional knowledge and scientific innovations, and since the focus is upon understanding and addressing the communitys real needs, the impact is likely to be more sustainable in the long term. In this approach, local

43

stakeholders are guided to work together to find common grounds for discussion and action from which new synergies and partnerships may arise. It is necessary to conduct such community-level training and extension activities on a regular ongoing basis. This requires comprehensive training for extension workers to reorient them to participatory training methods. Trainer-training for Master Trainers in technical topics (agronomy, certification, certification, processing, exporting etc) and also in FFS methods should be undertaken to familiarize extension workers with the new concepts of organic agriculture. As part of this initiative, modular curricula, posters, leaflets, handbook and other relevant materials should be developed to support further training efforts at all levels. Action 4.2 Initiate and support training for farmer groups to help them set up internal control systems as further options to reduce compliance costs for smallholders The costs of compliance with stringent protocols set by importing countries and private sector importers represent a serious constraint to adoption by smallholders. Farmer groups can spread such costs over a wider production base by adopting group certification systems. Specialized training for extension workers and farmer groups should address the specific procedures and options for farmer groups to adopt and manage such schemes successfully. STRATEGY 5: DEVELOP THE DOMESTIC MARKET FOR ORGANIC GOODS Most organic produce in Thailand is grown for export, with a smaller proportion reaching domestic markets. With an unstable supply and demand situation, there is insufficient promotion of organic consumption in Thailand, and confusion sometimes exists between the various private and government food labelling schemes. The domestic and export markets cannot be considered in isolation. Development of the domestic market for organic food and products will contribute to the overall stability of the sector by easing supply fluctuations and broadening the diversity of available produce, thereby supporting the export market. A mature domestic market also provides a ready market to absorb export surpluses and produce which falls below required export

44

specifications. A healthy domestic market for organics is therefore important to support a viable export market. Any intervention in the domestic market will have to be carefully balanced, and a combination of market supply and demand measures will be required. Supply measures are dealt with under the action plan for production (Strategy 1). On the other hand, market demand can be stimulated through stepping up public awareness campaigns and increasing consumer exposure to organic produce, e.g. through promotion via high-end submarkets e.g. top department stores, tourist hotels and restaurants. Such programmes would aim to enhance consumer awareness and differentiation of organic labelling schemes, and promote consumption or organic produce. In support of these aims, the following measures are proposed. Action 5.1 Conduct market research in order to understand consumer preferences and behaviour In a rapidly changing market, it will be important to understand shifts and trends in consumer attitudes, perceptions, preferences and purchasing behaviour. Such studies will help both in focusing interventions in other areas, e.g. promotion of organic labels, in monitoring the effectiveness of such interventions, and in planning to accommodate future trends. Action 5.2 Private sector stakeholders should strengthen their representation through participation and support for the Thai Organic Traders Association Recently established in October 2005, the Thai Organic Trade Association (TOTA) was founded by several leading organic trader and producer organizations. TOTAs main objectives are to promote organic agriculture and markets in Thailand as well as to support its member companies. Current activities include market information sharing, joint participation in overseas organic trade fairs, and discussion fora. TOTA hopes to expand its activities into market research and to launch its own domestic labelling scheme. The formation of TOTA is a milestone and should be fully supported by the private sector. Action 5.3 Introduce a pro-organic public procurement policy by public agencies

45

A pro-organic public procurement policy would serve to create optimal and stable levels of demand for organic produce by appropriate sourcing by public agencies. Such a policy could incorporate the following: Long term contracts with farmer groups Minimum price guarantees Requirement for environmentally friendly packaging for organic foods, to promote the use of bio-based and bio-degradable packaging (e.g. bioplastics). However, such a policy would need to be implemented phase-wise in order to ensure supplies can match growth in demand. Action 5.4 Establish an effective market information system for organic produce An effective supply and demand forecasting system will give confidence to farmers who need assistance in matching demand to supply and deal with changing market conditions appropriately and cost-effectively. Such a market information system would help ensure supplies, maintain quality and reduce volatility in the market. Action 5.5 Initiate public awareness campaigns to stimulate demand and promote consumption Overall, the level of investment in advertising and promotion is inadequate. Public awareness of organic agriculture could be raised through campaigns e.g. to promote the Thailand Organic brand, through TV and radio advertising, and also through the print media and public events related to food. Such official recognition and support will help boost consumer demand, strengthen the sector and enhance trust and credibility among consumers and the public. Awareness should be addressed too on the educational front. Primary and high school curricula should incorporate teaching of organic agriculture concepts and practice as part of the national sustainable development agenda.

46

STRATEGY 6: EXPAND THE EXPORT MARKET FOR ORGANIC GOODS The major constraints to increased exports of organic products include fluctuating supply levels, inadequate infrastructure, insufficient export facilitation, complex procedures, and the stringency of regulatory requirements in import markets. Overall, there is relatively poor level of understanding of the complexities of importer requirements, combined with inconsistent supply, inadequate efforts at international marketing, and inadequate cooperation between organic exporters in their export marketing activities. Action 6.1 Extend additional support for exporters through global marketing outreach initiatives, liaison and export facilitation processes Organic exporters should join forces to promote their exports, e.g. through trade groups such as TOTA. Their access to export markets should be facilitated by increased promotion of Thailand in major importing markets (especially the EU member countries) as a source of quality organic produce. Such support should include encouraging greater participation by Thai farmers and exporters at international organic trade fairs, trade missions (in cooperation with the Department of Export Promotion (DEP), Ministry of Commerce), support for farmers in upgrading facilities to extend supply stability (e.g. through increasing production areas, new technologies, post-harvest processing, cold chain, lengthening the growing season etc.) and by identifying innovative products with potential to add value and diversify the range of organic products from Thailand. Through the DEP, the government currently provides assistance in matching producers with overseas buyers, and this support should be further strengthened. Issues such as supply fluctuations and shortages should be addressed by introduction of appropriate measures e.g. effective market information systems and longer-range demand forecasting (see 6.3. below). Action 6.2 Review and maximize potential of innovative marketing channels for organic produce In recent years innovative niche marketing channels such as the Fairtrade initiative have made remarkable strides in securing markets, exploiting the brand equity of organic produce whilst ensuring equitable farm gate prices. In Thailand the government-

47

backed One-Tambon (District), One Product or OTOP scheme has achieved major success in the domestic market, and is now poised to penetrate the international market. These and other such schemes operating regionally and worldwide should be reviewed to establish their potential to support organic exports in key markets. Action 6.3 Provide an effective global market information service for organic exporters An emphasis on understanding current trends in the global marketplace would contribute considerably towards stimulating the sector, if combined with a coordinated national-level approach to identify and promote key innovative products for either domestic and / or export markets. As for the domestic market, an effective market information system would assist farmers to match demand to supply and deal with changing market conditions appropriately and cost-effectively to reduce volatility in the market. Government should provide financial support to academic and/or non-profit organizations to compile authoritative market information, monitor the market situation, and make such information available to the organic farmer community. Such organizations may also offer export-assistance and matching services to producer organizations and exporters. STRATEGY 7: ESTABLISH THAILAND AS A LEADER AND CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE AT REGIONAL LEVEL Bearing in mind that other countries in the Southeast Asian region face challenges which are broadly similar to Thailands own, there is a strong case for regional cooperation between governments, e.g. for harmonization of national regulatory regimes and certification systems, and also for training, where training exchange could be facilitated at the regional level. Thailand stands to benefit considerably from taking a leadership role in the region. Action 7.1 Lead initiatives to foster cooperation between governments in Asia on harmonization of national regulatory regimes and sharing of experiences on key issues As the leading exporter of organic produce in the ASEAN region, Thailand can make an important regional contribution. Thus the government should participate fully and

48

additionally support the participation by private sector representatives in relevant regional and international fora such as the Codex Alimentarius, IFOAM, IOAS and the ITF in order to contribute to international harmonization and multilateral recognition of various organic conformity assessment and guarantee systems. Regional cooperation in marketing, standards, conformity assessment and R&D would also be included as part of this regional responsibility. Such participation would be expected to enhance Thailands credibility as a responsible leader and thus further serve to facilitate access to its markets not only within the Asian region, but with its other global trading partners. Action 7.2 Foster regional collaboration among private sector certification bodies Such collaboration would focus on standard setting, inspection, certification and international regulatory recognition. Thailand can offer to organize and host regional training and meetings so to establish herself in a regional leadership role in this area. Action 7.3 Develop training courses for organic conversion schemes at regional level Regional training events can draw on both regional and global expertise in order to share best practice and build competencies within the region. Action 7.4 Establish a regional organic trade association

Such a body could be beneficial for all countries in the region as interregional trade could be promoted and ethical or fair trading could be further developed in Asia. 3.5 Discussion The analysis of Thailand agricultural products indicated a strong potential for export of organic products, both food and non-food. Apart from presenting attractive market prospects for fresh organic produce, there are additional avenues to stimulate local economies through:

49

(a) retail packing; (b) (c)

local value-added through vertical integration with processing and on-site development of organic production zones linked to eco-tourism to present product innovation (e.g. herbal products, and non-food products such as

off-farm income-generating opportunities; clothing, toiletries, spa supplies). Despite these opportunities, technical, economic, structural and political constraints continue to hinder market development. The project concluded that there is a need to establish appropriate mechanisms to improve information flows (a) among stakeholder groups; (b) between importing and exporting countries; and (c) among countries within the region itself. Alliances (whether formal or informal) between organizations across the region could thus lead to synergies and enhanced competitiveness of the overall sector. This is especially true for certification, which has not yet evolved to establish stable nationally-based services, or as mentioned above- mutual recognition of inspection services. Such integration and mutual recognition may be a next logical step towards a harmonized certification regime. Indeed, the International Task Force (ITF) on Harmonization and Equivalence in Organic Agriculture, convened by FAO, IFOAM and UNCTAD, has been working since 2003 as an open-ended platform for dialogue between public and private institutions (intergovernmental, governmental and civil society) involved in trade and regulatory activities in the organic agriculture sector. (Rundgren, 2006). The ITFs objective is to facilitate international trade and access for developing countries to international markets. In terms of the government, its role should be seen as a facilitating one, with its first and foremost priority to support private initiatives to broaden and diversify the certified production base and minimize certification and other compliance barriers (technical and costwise) for smallholders. Secondly, action is needed to ensure clear separation between governments roles in accreditation and certification, and to encourage the development of a Thai-based private sector certification industry. The seven strategies described above are inter-dependent, and complement each other. The Action Plan itself will therefore bring greatest value and create benefits to the extent that there is effective coordination and cooperation between the stakeholder groups in implementing each strategy, bearing in mind the broader context of the Action Plan within the National Organic Agenda.

50

Though the seven strategies should prove sufficient to push the national agenda to practice, there are a couple of issues needed to be addressed to make the plan fully effective. Underlying the national recommendations are two principles which are more broadly applicable. First, the success of organic agriculture depends upon the capacity and competency of private sector actors who must play a key role in its development. Governments should thus be encouraged to play an enabling and facilitating role, establishing effective and transparent mechanisms which are internationally recognized. The governments responsibility should be to support and oversee the private sector, help to open up new markets (domestic and exports) and uphold national standards as well as international obligations. In this respect, public-private partnerships can often result in more workable and sustainable solutions. Secondly, the recommended interventions will be most effective in generating long term sustainability if they can be implemented at the community level (i.e. bottom-up). Prioritization of training, research, accreditation and support for farmers during the conversion period will also serve to stimulate conversion (particularly for smallholders), broadening and diversifying the production base. Again, close consultation with, and participation of the private sector and non-governmental organizations will help achieve effective long term solutions. This could be achieved either by building on the existing structure, or by establishing a new Office for Organic Agriculture under an agency such as the National Social and Economic Development Board (NESDB). Given its cross-Ministerial mandate and the importance attached to sustainable agriculture for the newly-launched 10th National Social and Economic Development Plan period, NESDB is considered an appropriate organization to host such an Office for Organic Agriculture for a clearly defined period. Either option would need to meet a number of criteria in order to fulfill its intended roles: A Cabinet mandate; Full representation for all stakeholder groups in decision-making; Effective technical support from an organic knowledge hub (strategies 3.2, 5.4). A possible structure for implementation is shown below in Figure 3.2 below.

51

Figure 3.2 Possible structure for implementation. 3.6 Recent progress in the development of Thailands National Organic Agriculture Strategies Following the Cabinet resolution to build-up Organic Agriculture Development Strategies as a National Agenda in early 2005, all concerned governmental bodies have been appointed to evaluate the feasibility and research on the development plan of organic agriculture in line of the global trends to transform the conventional agricultural practices which utilize chemical fertilizers and pesticides extensively to a more eco-friendly approach of organic agriculture. There are several strategic plans proposed by different governmental bodies as a result of the Cabinet resolution. These include: 1. Strategic Plan to Develop Organic Agricultural Product (Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives); 2. Strategic Plan to Develop Organic Agriculture entitled Strengthening the Export Capacity of Thailands Organic Agriculture (National Innovation Agency, Ministry of Science and Technology);

52

3. Strategic Plan to Promote Thailands Organic Agricultural Goods (Ministry of Commerce); 4. Study on Current Progress and Promotion of Strategies to Develop Organic Agricultural Goods (National Economic and Social Development Board). On 7 August 2007, based on the report on Strengthening the Export Capacity of Thailands Organic Agriculture proposed by the National Innovation Agency, Ministry of Science and Technology, the Cabinet approved the resolution to set up The National Committee on Organic Agriculture which encompasses representatives from the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Science and Technology, various universities and private sectors. NESDB and the National Innovation Agency have been appointed as the secretary and deputy secretary of this Board Committee respectively. The Board Committee would be entrusted to oversee, coordinate and promote related organizations to carry out the National Action Plan on Organic Agriculture and also evaluate the ongoing progress in order to make the plan successful and sustainable. Following the Cabinet approval on 16 October 2007, the National Committee on Organic Agriculture has been formally established. After the thorough study, the Board Committee passed the Draft National Strategic Plan for Organic Agriculture Development 2008-2011 to the Cabinet which was approved on 22 January 2008. The plan consists of 4 strategies i.e. promotion and management of knowledge and innovation; development of organic agriculture in traditional ways; building the potential of organic agriculture for international market; and management of organic agriculture strategies. It is hoped that if successfully implemented, these measures will help the sector become more efficiently organized, ensuring a wide range of produce for both domestic and export markets, with supplies matched more closely to demand. However, this can only be realized through closer linkages between producers, exporters and the overseas markets, to ensure understanding and compliance with importer protocols and national standards.

CHAPTER IV A CASE STUDY IN ORGANIC ASPARAGUS PRODUCTION

4.1

Introduction In the past decade, there has been an increase in the scientific interest in organic

farming, especially in comparison with conventional agriculture (Monokrousos et al., 2008; Fliebach et al., 2007; Bulluck et al., 2002). Many recent studies compared these two fundamentally different systems with regard to soil properties in different regions of the world such as in USA (Glover et al., 2000), New Zealand (Parfitt et al., 2003) and Denmark (Schjnning et al., 2002). The results of study conducted in central Italy (Marinari et al., 2006) suggested that over a period of 7 years, organic management method strongly affects soil quality in terms of microbiological properties, which are sensitive soil indicators of changes occurred under the different farming systems. Several studies compared nutrient content of organically with conventionally produced crops. The studies by Woese et al. (1997) and Worthington (2001) concluded that there appeared to be genuine differences in the nutrient content of organic and conventional crops. Worthington (2001) had been reported that vitamin C, iron, magnesium and phosphorus content were statistically higher in organic than conventional produces, analyzed from 41 studies of comparison. A major concern for organic farmers is yield reduction, which is due to limitation of nutrients and pest incidence in the early stage of transition from conventional to organic systems. This is a major barrier to the implementation of organic agriculture. Fertility management in organic farming relies on a long term integrated approach rather than a short term targeted solutions in conventional agriculture. Moreover, the effectiveness of biofertilizer and suitable irrigation systems is questionable among the farmers. Although considered to be drought tolerant, asparagus showed some response to supplemental irrigation as in the study of Drost and Wilcox-Lee (1997a), the fern, storage root, and number of spears decreased linearly with the decreasing in soil water potential, but when supplied with adequate irrigation in the later crop, asparagus growth improved and did not appear to have long term negative effect on plant performance (Drost and Wilcox-Lee, 1997b). Therefore, identifying strategies that will minimize yield loss; as well as investigating overall topics from socio-economic of asparagus cultivation, scientific proofs of

54

the difference between organic and conventional asparagus, and satisfactory level survey of the farmers toward the organic agriculture are critical for facilitating the implementation of Thailands National Organic Agriculture Strategies. In this study, overall aspects related to the organic asparagus production were examined in five separate studies. The first study relates to socio-economic impact to asparagus farmers by means of contract farming from the difference in agricultural system, organic and conventional agricultures. The second study was carried out to optimize organic agricultural techniques to improve asparagus yield. The third experiment compared the shelf-life and the storage of fresh organic asparagus and conventional asparagus. The forth part aims to discover the scientific proofs of the different in nutrition and chemical compositions between conventional and organic produces. And the last part was to investigate the farmers satisfaction toward organic agriculture. 4.2 Materials and Methods Asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.) production under contract farming of Swift Co., Ltd., Thailand was selected to be a case study in order to reduce sources of variance among treatments in the study such as seedling availability, agricultural practices, farm management, irrigation system, fresh produce standards and pricing system. Organic asparagus was produced at Sa Kaeo province, Eastern Thailand whereas conventional asparagus was cultivated under EurapGAP regulation at Nakhon Pathom province, Central Thailand (Appendix B). The overall framework of this study was presented in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1 Framework of the study on organic asparagus production.

55

4.2.1 Comparison of Farmers Income and Farm Index from Conventional and Organic agriculture Data of the past 4 years of organic asparagus production at Sa Kaeo province (Swift Co., Ltd.) was compiled and the influence of adopting organic agriculture practices was analyzed. The asparagus grown from conventional agriculture was collected from the contract farming under the same company in Nakhon Pathom province for the comparison. Income information of farmers was complied from the weekly payment records during the 2003 to 2006. Two types of data were collected as income and farm index. The income of farmers was summarized from the company payment records calculated from the weight of fresh produces in 10 grading system and recorded as the direct weekly payment to each producer. Farm indices were the information of farm management such as the amount and frequency of fertilizer application, farm history and soil nutrients. Data analysis: Statistical tools Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were applied in the analysis. PCA are statistical techniques applied to a single set of variables to discover which sets of variables in the set from coherent subsets that are relatively independent of one another. Variables that are correlated with one another which are also largely independent of other subsets of variables are combined into principal component (PC). Generated principal components are thought to be representative of the underlying processes that have created the correlations among variables. PCA can be exploratory in nature, is used as a tool in attempts to reduce a large set of variables to a more meaningful, smaller set of variables. PCA of income analysis was performed using Unscrambler statistical software (Unscrambler, v.7.01, CAMO ASA., Norway). The mean value of samples of organic and conventional agriculture was compared. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine significant difference in producers income from the different agricultural practices and the multiple range test also applied to classified membership in the mean value. The analysis of variance and multiple range tests were performed using commercial statistic software package (SPSS, v.15.0, SPSS Inc., USA). 4.2.2 Field Trials The key indicators of organic agricultural practices and environmental parameters of asparagus farming were identified by setting the 4 experiment plots, which have 2-rai each and located in the marginal area of Sa Kaeo province (Appendix B). Each treatment consist of an organically managed plots referenced by a conventionally managed plot.

56

The soil fertility, asparagus production yield, and profit from organic farming were compared among the productions using different organic agricultural practices such as biofertlizer, soil amendments, pest management or planting method. The comparison was made with conventional agriculture production as a control. Sample-groups quantitative comparison between a set of pre-defined outcome variables from organic agriculture (OA), conventional agriculture (CA) on asparagus production were carried out. (Table 4.1) Table 4.1 Description of farming system sample group.

Land history 3-year cultivated land

Farming system Organic

Description Organic cultivation practice, composed animal manure and organic supplements were used, no pesticide application. Sub-plot was divided to test on the effectiveness of organic fertilizer and irrigation techniques.

Conventional

Synthetic fertilizer and pesticides used, based on conventionally recommended rate. Sub-plot was divided to test on conventional practice system with and without using composes manure.

Virgin land

Organic

Composted manure was broadcast and incorporate before planting, organic supplements were used, no pesticide application, 1-year of conversion period. Sub-plot was divided to test on the effectiveness of organic fertilizer, biofertilizer and cultivation techniques.

4.2.2.1 Definition of biofertilizer In this study, biofertilizer is the end product of various phases of biodigestion, which is a liquid with dark in color due to the presence of humus. At this stage is called Pure Biofertilizer, and it can be used on soil as a high quality organic fertilizer, or even as a corrector of pH, and source of bacterial life. The biofertilizer has a relative high nutrient concentration. Once diluted, it constitutes a high quality foliar fertilizer, and in this form, it is known as Diluted Biofertilizer. Biofertilizer composition presents many variations depending on sources of organic matters. Therefore the attention should be on keeping consistence of the kind, quality and composition of the organic matter in the production in order to obtain a consistent composition of the biofertilizer.

57

4.2.2.2 Biofertilizer production Knowledge of biofertilizer was transferred from the leader and the moderator of Taptim Siam 02 - Occupation Training Center, Sa Kaeo province, to the organic asparagus producers. The production process of both biofertilizer and organic fertilizer were consistently developed for organic asparagus since the introduction in the year 2000. After hardworking between many farmers and specialists, the final procedure (Figure 4.2) was finalized in the year 2004 and has been use as a standard procedure. Biofertilizer were applied in the selected fields of this study for the 2 main purposes of promoting the plant growth and accelerating the composting process of organic manure. It was diluted using ratio of 1:300 part of water and sprayed on the leaf of plants or directly poured on to the soil. It was also mixed with higher concentration at ratio 1:10 when using in composting process of manure. 1. Raw materials were collected from fruit parts and vegetables to produce biofertilizer for general use. If the purpose to use biofertilizer as biopesticide, ginger, plai, and/or lemon grass were recommend to add to the composition. 2. All materials were cut in to small pieces, weighed at 3 kg and placed in fermentor tank. The container should be a plastic bucket or stainless steel since the biofertilizer is acidic. Metal or cement container are not recommended. 3. The 1 kg of brown sugar was added as a carbon source for the bacterial growth. The fermentation process required no innoculant and the biodigestion was due to indigenous microorganisms.

58

4. All the components were mixed thoroughly and pressed together. The mixtures should not occupy three-fourth of the volume of the container.

5. The lid was close loosely in order to facilitate the gas production from biodigestion. Do not tight the lid, the fermentor could be exploded. The tank should be kept under a shade at room temperature and direct sunlight should be avoided. 6. The biodigestion would complete within 10 days with regular stirring the mixture once a day. The final products are in dark, liquid form, sour smell similarly to pickle. The biofertilizer were strained, bottled and kept at room temperature until use. Figure 4.2 Standard procedure of biofertilizer production processes. 4.2.2.3 Organic fertilizer Organic fertilizer commonly used in the selected fields of this study (Tabtim Siam 02, Sa Kaeo area) was bovine manure compost. The composition of this organic fertilizer was: Dried manure from an GAP certified dairy farm Rice bran Black ash of rice husk Pumice stone Biofertilizer Water 30 kg 5 kg 5 kg 1 kg 1 Liter 10 Liter

59

Dried manure was passed though the grinder to obtain smaller pieces and then mixed well with others components. Figure 4.3 shows the dried bovine manure and the mixing of compost. The 20 kg of final mixture were put in nylon-plastic bag. The bags were then placed in a ventilated room to avoid moisture uptake and direct sunlight. The composting process occurred in the bag and temperature was raised up to 50C at the 1st day after preparing the manure. Then the temperature reached the peak at 80C at the 2nd to the 4th day of composting and then subsided. The fertilizers were cooled down to room temperature within 7 days. At this stage the white spore and hyphae of fungi were found as an indicator of the completion of the compost manure. The finished compost was recommended to use within 3 months after preparing to obtain the benefits of viable microorganisms.

Figure 4.3 Dried manure from dairy farm (left) and bagging the compost after mixing (right). In attempt to maintain the quality of biofertilizer, samples of biofertilizer and organic manure has been tested regularly at Inspection and Development Unit of Plant and Production Resources, Agricultural Research and Development Center, Chantaburi province. Table 4.2 shows the record of annual test results of biofertilizer and organic fertilizer.

60

Table 4.2 Annual test results on the properties of biofertilizer and organic fertilizer produced in Tubtim Siam, Sa Kaeo province.

Properties pH C/N ratio Organic matter (%) Electrical conductivity (mS/cm) Major nutrients (%) N P 2O 5 K 2O Minor nutrients (%) Ca Mg Trace elements (%) Cu Fe Zn Mn

Biofertilizer (2006) 3.6 n/a 17.68

Biofertilizer (2007) 3.17 5.63 19.42

Bovine manure (2006) 7.3 n/a n/a 3.25

Bovine manure (2007) 7.12 8:1 38.43 7.98

Bovine manure (2007) 7.20 8:1 41.33 8.39

0.25 0.05 1.52

0.22 0.051 0.685

1.96 1.14 2.14

1.71 1.097 1.885

1.77 1.079 2.138

0.15 0.17

0.097 0.063

2.22 0.63

3.869 0.532

2.835 0.508

n/a 0.017 n/a 0.002

n/a n/a n/a n/a

0.002 1.642 0.012 0.033

n/a n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a n/a n/a

Source: Inspection and Development Unit of Plant and Production Resources, Agricultural Research and Development Center, Chantaburi province. 4.2.2.4 Fertilizer properties Quality of biofertilizer is one of the most important factors resulting in their success or acceptance and failure or rejection by the farmers. In this study there were two organic fertilizers and one biofertilizer Ekorganik, and chemical fertilizer (N:P:K 15:15:15) applied into the field trials. Fertilizers: 1. Organic bovine manure compost (BM), Taptim Siam 02 Occupation Training Center, Sa Kaeo province; 2. Organic fertilizer (OF), Sakura brand, Chiang Mai province;

61

3. Ekorganik natural organic fertilizer, Berlin Export International, S.L., Spain. This biofertilizer was authorized in EU for organic agriculture (UE 2092/91). This biofertilizer were formulate from seaweed (Ascophyllum nodosum) extracts, the composition were organic nitrogen (N, 2%), phosphoric Anhidride (P2O5, 0.2%), potassium oxide (K2O, 1.0%), Magnesium (MgO, 0.04%), Calcium (CaO, 120 ppm) and Boron (B, 9 ppm); 4. Organic mixed with chemical fertilizer (OF+CF). Table 4.3 Nutrient composition of fertilizers used in the study. Bovine manure (BM) pH EC (dS/m) Total N (%) Total P2O5 (%) Total KO2 (%) Total Ca (%) Total Mg (%) Total Zn (mg/kg) Total Mn (mg/kg) Total Fe (mg/kg) Total Cu (mg/kg) Total Na (mg/kg) 7.2 5.68 1.50 0.92 1.64 0.89 0.20 73.40 899.00 10264.00 23.20 1404.30 Sakura (OF) 6.4 2.51 0.84 0.53 1.20 0.16 0.12 67.40 958.00 7820.00 20.40 451.80 OF+CF 6.8 55.60 3.92 0.89 5.98 5.23 1.74 61.20 1525.00 8312.00 33.00 1300.00

Figure 4.4 Bottle of 140 cc. of Ekorganik biofertilizer and the backpack sprayer.

62

4.2.2.5 Experimental Design Individual spears should be straight and buds compact. Feathered spears (ones with expanding buds) were over mature and were of little market value, but they must be harvested (particularly in the early part of the harvest season) to ensure continued spear production. Crooked spears were an indication of insect or mechanical damage such as being cut with a harvesting knife or direct impact from raindrop. While marketable, their value was reduced. According to the standard of Swift, Co., Ltd., asparagus should be clean and sorted into 10 grades to supply to the company. The detail of class and qualification of each grade was described in the Table 4.4. Figure 4.5 shows the different in spear size or diameter at the company collecting point. Several experimental plots were set up to evaluate effects of irrigation system, fertilization application level and plot preparation on the asparagus production. All of the asparagus spears in the experiment plot (3x10 m2) were collected on the daily basis, washed and cut at length of 25 cm. The weight of the marketable yield was recorded in grams after classified to10 grades.

Figure 4.5 Asparagus of varying grade.

63

Table 4.4 Grading system used by the Swift Co., Ltd.

Grade AC25

Definition

Diameter

Price
(Baht/kg)

Straight spear with compact tip, green in color for 25 cm > 1 cm length without defect from pest and disease

44

AF25

Straight with little feathered spear has green in color for 25 cm length without defect from pest and disease

> 1 cm

33

AC20

Straight spear with compact tip, green in color for at least 20 cm length without defect from pest and disease, has whitish end

> 1 cm

40

AF20

Straight with little feathered spear has green in color for at least 20 cm length without defect from pest and disease, has whitish end

> 1 cm

30

BC

Straight spear with compact tip, green in color for at least 20 cm length without defect from pest and disease, has whitish end

0.8-0.9 cm

26

BF

Straight with little feathered spear has green in color for at least 20 cm length without defect from pest and disease, has whitish end

0.8-0.9 cm

21

CC

Straight spear with compact tip, green in color for at least 20 cm length without defect from pest and disease, has whitish end

0.6-0.7 cm

15

AO

Feathered spear with total length less than 20 cm, pale green color, spear is not round or distorted spear, little defect from pest and disease

> 1 cm

13

BCO

Feathered spear with total length less than 20 cm, pale green color, spear is not round or distorted spear, little defect from pest and disease

0.6-0.9 cm

ZO

Small spear with both compact and feathered tip

0.3-0.4 cm

64

Experiment I: Study the effect of plain bed and raised bed plot with level of organic fertilizer and biofertilizer
This experiment was designed to evaluate the effects of plot preparation and the level of applied organic fertilizer and biofertilizer on organic asparagus production. The 2 farms had different asparagus bed preparation. The plots located in the adjunct land and were divided by a small road. The experiment plots were taken care by these 2 farmers so the harvesting periods were different between the plain and raised bed plot. Mainly the design of the experiment were split plot design with plot preparation as a main effect, but due to the limitation on the farm management the resulted would also be separately analyzed. Two farmers who owned the farm NK7 and NK24 were selected for this study. Selection criteria of participated farmers were referred to the previous harvesting crop, both of these farmers had almost similar yield based on the income per day during harvesting. The location of the plots was close to each other, so the soil type was expected to be similar. They were asked to plan the 1st crop harvesting at the same time in January, 2006. Site: Description: Munkong village, Sa Kaeo province To study the effects of plot preparation and organic fertilizer on the production organic asparagus production (1st year of cultivation). Experimental design: Split plot design (Figure 4.6) Main plot: Sub-plot: Plot preparation Organic fertilizer F1 Bovine manure compost 200 kg/rai F2 Bovine manure compost 500 kg/rai F3 Bovine manure compost 800 kg/rai F4 Commercial organic fertilizer 500 kg/rai F5 Bovine manure compost 200 kg/rai + biofertillizer Replication: Total plots: Single plot size: 4 replications 2 x 5 x 4 = 24 plots 3 x 10 m = 30 m2 D0 Plain bed (Figure 4.7, 4.9) D1 Raised bed (Figure 4.8, 4.10)

65

D0 F1 D0 F2 Rep. I D0 F3 D0 F4 D0 F5

D1 F1 D1 F2 D1 F3 D1 F4 D1 F5

D0 F2 D0 F1 Rep. II D0 F4 D0 F5 D0 F3

D1 F2 D1 F1 D1 F4 D1 F5 D1 F3

D0 F4 D0 F5 Rep. III D0 F2 D0 F3 D0 F1

D1 F4 D1 F5 D1 F2 D1 F3 D1 F1

D0 F3 D0 F4 Rep. IV D0 F5 D0 F1 D0 F2

D1 F3 D1 F4 D1 F5 D1 F1 D1 F2

Figure 4.6 Schematic experimental designed for experiment II.

66

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 12 Sakura 11 9kg 10 4kg+BF 9 4kg 8 9kg 7 Sakura 6 Sakura 5 15kg 4 15kg 3 4kg+BF 2 4kg 1 9kg

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 20 4kg 19 Sakura 18 4kg+BF 17 15kg 16 4kg 15 9kg 14 15kg 13 4kg+BF

Figure 4.7 Experiment I (a), 20 plots allocation for testing the effectiveness of organic fertilizer, assigned in kg of bovine manure of 2 sources and effect of plain bed plot.

67

20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 Sakura 2 4kg 3 4kg+BF 4 4kg+BF 5 15kg 6 9kg 9 9kg 8 4kg 7 Sakura 20 15kg 10 Sakura 11 4kg+BF 12 15kg 18 4kg 19 9kg 13 15kg 14 9kg 15 4kg 16 Sakura 17 4kg+BF

Figure 4.8 Experiment I (b), 20 plots allocation for testing the effectiveness if organic fertilizer, assigned in kg of bovine manure of 2 sources and effect of raised bed plot.

68

Figure 4.9 Field trial of the plain bed plot, farmer code No. NK7 at Munkong village, Sa Kaeo province

69

Figure 4.10 Field trial of the raised bed plot, farmer code No. NK24 at Munkong village, Sa Kaeo province

Experiment II: Study the effect of irrigation system in combination with organic fertilizer levels
The farm coded SK47 was prepared, total farm area was 2 rai which had 27 rows of asparagus planting. The first and last 5 rows were assigned to dripping irrigation (drip), row number 6-8 and 20-22 were set up with mini sprinkler system (mini). The last irrigation system was 1.2 m height sprinkler (sprinkler) which established on the alternate row of asparagus, resulting sprinkler set on row 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18. The plots allocation explained in Figure 4.12.

70

Site: Description:

Tubtim Siam 02, Sa Kaeo province To study the effects of water management and organic fertilizer input on the production organic asparagus production (3rd year of cultivation).

Experimental design: Split plot design (Figures 4.11- 4.13) Irrigation system W1 Dripping water system (Figure 4.14) W2 Mini sprinkle system (Figure 4.15) W3 Sprinkle system (Figure 4.16) Organic fertilizer F1 Level 1 (200 kg/rai) F2 Level 2 (500 kg/rai) F3 Level 3 (800 kg/rai) Replication: Total plots: Single plot size: 4 replications 3 x 4 x 3 = 36 plots 3 x 10 m = 30 m2

W1 F1 Rep. I W2 F3 W3 F1

W1 F2 W2 F2 W3 F3

W1 F3 W2 F1 W3 F2

W3 F2 Rep. II W2 F1 W1 F2

W3 F1 W2 F2 W1 F3

W3 F3 W2 F3 W1 F1

W1 F3 Rep. III W2 F1 W3 F1

W1 F1 W2 F3 W3 F2

W1 F2 W2 F2 W3 F3

W3 F3 Rep. IV W2 F2 W1 F1

W3 F2 W2 F1 W1 F3

W3 F1 W2 F3 W1 F2

Figure 4.11 Schematic experimental designed for experiment II.

71

27-drip 26-drip 25-drip 24-drip 23-drip 22-mini 21-mini 20-mini 19 18-sprinkler 17 16-sprinkler 15 14-sprinkler 13 12-sprinkler 11 10-sprinkler 9 8-mini 7-mini 6-mini 5-drip 4-drip 3-drip 2-drip 1-drip 1 15kg 2 9kg 3 4kg 34 15kg 35 9kg 36 4kg 4 4kg 5 15kg 6 9kg 31 9kg 32 4kg 33 15kg 7 9kg 8 4kg 30 15kg 9 15kg 28 9kg 29 4kg 10 4kg 11 15kg 27 15kg 12 9kg 25 15kg 26 4kg 13 9kg 14 15kg 15 4kg 22 4kg 23 15kg 24 9kg 16 4kg 17 9kg 18 15kg 19 9kg 20 4kg 21 15kg

Figure 4.12 Experiment II, 36 plots allocation for testing the effectiveness on organic fertilizer, assigned in kg of bovine manure, and affects different of irrigation system.

72

Figure 4.13 Asparagus plot of farmer code SK47 at Tabtim Siam 02.

Figure 4.14 Dripping irrigation using 20 mm dia. dripping tape which dispensed water in every 10 cm length.

73

Figure 4.15 Mini sprinkler (blue, on the left picture), cooperated with 20 mm PE tube.

Figure 4.16 Sprinkler setup on the alternative rows of asparagus.

Experiment III: Study the effect of organic fertilizer and combination of chemical fertilizer
This experiment served as the control. The conventional asparagus cultivation plot was selected from farm in another district of Sa Kaeo province which was approximately 70 km. away from the experiment I and II. The farmer who taken care of the plot was trained to cooperate with the sorting standard of the Swift Co., Ltd.

74

Site: Description:

Wattana Nakon, Sa Kaeo province To study the effects of agriculture system on asparagus production (3rd year of cultivation).

Experimental design: Randomized complete block design (RCB) (Figures 4.17 - 4.18) Main plot: Fertilizer F1 Level 1 (200 kg/rai organic fertilizer) F2 Level 2 (500 kg/rai organic fertilizer) F3 Level 3 (800 kg/rai organic fertilizer) F4 Level 4 (200 kg/rai organic fertilizer plus 30 kg/rai synthetic fertilizer) Replication: Total plots: Single plot size: 4 replications 4 x 4 = 16 plots 3 x 10 m = 30 m2 F1 Rep. I F2 F3 F4 F2 Rep. II F1 F4 F3 F4 Rep. III F2 F3 F1 F3 Rep. IV F4 F1 F2 Figure 4.17 Schematic experimental designed for experiment III.

75

27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 9kg 2 4kg 3 15kg 4 4kg+CF 5 4kg 6 9kg 7 4kg+CF 8 15kg 9 4kg+CF 10 15kg 11 9kg 12 4kg 13 15kg 14 4kg+CF 15 4kg 16 9kg

Figure 4.18 Experiment III, 16 plots allocation for testing the effectiveness of organic fertilizer, assigned in kg of bovine manure, and combination with chemical fertilizer.

76

Figure 4.19 Conventional asparagus farming served as a control for experiment III. 4.2.2.6 Soil analysis Soil samples were collected from a 0-15 cm layer on each experiment plot. One composite sample consisting of 4 portions was collected from the center of asparagus rows of each subplot approximately 1 meter away from the ends of the rows. These samples were air-dried by exposing the soil in a dry, ventilated room at approximately 25C for 3 - 4 days. All dried samples were stored in sealed plastic bags and transported to laboratory. Samples were ground in a stainless steel soil grinder, except samples for soil texture determination were ground with a pestle and mortar, and passed through a 2-mm sieve. The procedure used for particle size analysis was the hydrometer method (Bouyoucos, 1962; Day, 1965). The sieved soils were collected and the sub samples (approximately 500 g) were stored in plastic bags for the analyses. Soil pH is one of the most common measurements in soil laboratories, to reflect whether a soil was acid, neutral or alkaline. Samples soil pH was determined from 1:1 (soil:water, w/v) suspension (McKeague, 1978; McLean, 1982). Soil salinity refers to the concentration of soluble inorganic salts in soil. Rapid salinity in soil was measured by electrical conductivity (EC) from soil sample extracts (1:5 soil:water, w/v) (Richards, 1954). Certain organic compound also contributed to cation exchange capacity (CEC). For most soils, the neutral normal ammonium acetate extraction procedure gave a reasonably good estimate of the soils CEC (Hesse, 1972; Jackson, 1958). Soil organic matter (OM) has a major influence on soil aggregation, nutrient reserve and its availability moisture retention and biological activity (Ryan et al., 2001). The

77

determination procedure involved with reduction of potassium dichromate by organic carbon compounds and subsequent titration with ferrous ammonium sulfate (Walkley and Black, 1934). Total soil nitrogen (N), mainly organic N, was measured after wet digestion using semi-micro Kjeldahl method. The sodium bicarbonate method for available phosphorus (P) determination was used with some modification in color development procedure in the soil extracts (Bray and Kurtz, 1945). Most soils contain relatively large amounts of potassium (K) as components of insoluble minerals, only a small fraction is present in a form available to plant. Nevertheless, extractable-K, i.e. exchangeable plus water soluble K, is often considered the plant available fraction (Ryan et al., 2001). Extractable-K along with the soluble calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) content were obtained by extracting with neutral salt solution followed by the measurement of their concentrations in the extract by atomic absorption spectrophotometer (Chapman, 1965). Analytical procedures of soil samples are described in Appendix C. 4.2.2.7 Plant analysis Asparagus spears were harvested and cut for 25 cm long. The asparagus samples were transported to the laboratory immediately in the perforated plastic bag that allow for transpiration. Cleaning plant tissue to remove dust and soil residues, normally by washing the plants with DI water. The asparagus were trimmed to 17 cm for the analysis part, according to the commercial size of the company. Immediately drying in an oven to stop enzymatic activity at 65C for 24 hr. Mechanical grinding to produce a material suitable for analysis, usually to pass a 60-mesh sieve with stainless steel mills are preferable, especially when micronutrient analysis is involved to avoid the contamination. Final drying at 65C of ground tissue to obtain a constant weight upon which to base the analysis. Analytical procedures of total nitrogen, phosphorus, macro- and micro-nutrient and boron are described in Appendix D. 4.2.3 Storage Stability of Organic Asparagus Asparagus deteriorates very quickly after harvesting, particularly during the first 2448 hours if not properly handled. The 2 main factors contributing to this deterioration are high temperature and water loss by spears. At high temperature asparagus becomes fibrous (tough) very quickly. Fiber development begins at the base of the spear and progresses upward to the tip. When a spear is bent, it will snap (break) at the point where the tender and fibrous parts meet. Besides becoming tough, asparagus loses flavor, vitamin and sugar content very quickly at warm temperatures. Spears should be cooled as quickly as possible and then stored in high relative humidity (95%) at approximately 2-3C. This study aimed to investigate the stability of quality of organic asparagus during storage at low temperature and compared to conventionally grown asparagus.

78

4.2.3.1 Sample preparation Organic asparagus was harvested from Sa Kaeo province (Tub Tim Siam Project under the advice of Swift Co., Ltd.). Conventionally grown asparagus was harvested from contract farms of the same company in Nakorn Pathom province. Some organic and conventional asparagus samples were separately packed in 16 x 21 cm plastic tray (20010 g per pack), wrapped with polyvinylchloride plastic films (10 m thickness) and kept at low temperature (52C). Remaining of asparagus samples were bunched (20010 g per bunch) and stored at same temperature without any packaging. Physicochemical properties of asparagus samples were analyzed during storage for 3 weeks at low temperature. Experimental information is simplified in Figure 4.20.

Figure 4.20 Experimental design of storage study of asparagus.

4.2.3.2 Physicochemical analysis Weight loss determination: Loss of asparagus weight during storage was determined using analytical balances. Each sample was weighed before and after storage. Weight loss percentage was calculated by using the following equation:

79

Weight loss (%) = (Initial weight Final weight) * 100 Initial weight Chlorophyll: Total chlorophyll was determined following procedure mentioned by Lancaster et al. (1997). One gram of blended asparagus sample was mixed and homogenized in 15 mL of cold acetone. The extracted fluid was collected in a graduated cylinder. The residue was then re-extracted with 5-mL of 80% acetone. The extracted fluids were combined and the volume was then brought to 30-mL using 80% acetone. Spectrophotometric analysis on filtrate samples was done at 645 nm (D465) and 663 nm (D663). Total chlorophyll content was calculated according to the following equation (Holden, 1976): Total chlorophyll (mg/l) = 20.2 D465 + 8.02 D663 Color measurement: Whole asparagus was homogeneously blended before the measurement. Color was analyzed using a Hunter D25 L Optical Sensor Colorimeter. Hunter L*, a*, and b* values were recorded in 3 replicates. Ascorbic acid content: The 2, 6-dichloroindophenol method was used to determine ascorbic acid in asparagus samples. Extracted samples were added with 2, 6-dichloroindophenol before the color was measured by spectrophotometer at wavelength of 518 nm. Texture Evaluation: Texturometer (Model LAX, Lloyd Instrument Co., Ltd.) with Kramer Shear Cell was used to measure texture quality of asparagus. Peak force value (N) and hardness (N/mm) were obtained from force-deformation curves. Ten replicates were used for determination. 4.2.4 Nutrient Analysis of Fresh Asparagus Three asparagus samples were collected from certified organic farm, Sa Kaeo province, whereas another 3 samples were conventional asparagus, cultivated under EurepGAP regulation at Nakhon Pathom province. Spears were hand harvested by twisting the spears under the ground, washed and cut for 25 cm long. Approximate 1 kg of spears diameter greater than 1 cm with compact tip (grade AC25, Table 4.4) were sampled and placed into perforated plastic bags, keep refrigerated before analysis in the next morning after harvesting. The nutrition values of interest for this study were based on the labeling regulation of vegetable based processed products of Thailand and USA. The whole length of the harvested asparagus was 25 cm according to the company grading system. When it arrived at the factory process line the spear was cut to the length of 17 cm for packing. Therefore, all of

80

the nutritional analysis in this study was based on the 17 cm length spear and calculated for 100 g of fresh asparagus. Nutritional values of asparagus were determined using official methods as presents in Table 4.5. All analyses were done in duplicate. Table 4.5 Official methods for determination of asparagus nutritional value. References Food testing Protein Vitamin C Total sugars AOAC (2000) BDMS (1998) JAOC (1992) AOAC 981.10, Block Digestion Method Determination on vitamin C on some kind of food by HPLC Determination of Mono- and Disaccharides in foods by interlaboratory study: Quantitation of bias components for liquid chromatography Vitamin A (Betacarotene) Dietary fiber (Total) Calories Carbohydrate Ash Moisture Vitamin B1 AOAC (2000) NLH (1995) NLH (1995) AOAC (2000) AOAC (2000) JAFC (1984) JAOAC (1997) Determination of -carotene in commercial foods: Interlaboratory study AOAC 985.29, Enzymatic-Gravimetric Method By calculation By calculation AOAC 900.02, Method I AOAC 925.09, Vacuum Oven Method Simultaneous determination of Pyridoxine, Riboflavin and Thiamin in fortified cereal products by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography Vitamin B2 JAFC (1984) Simultaneous determination of Pyridoxine, Riboflavin and Thiamin in fortified cereal products by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography Calories from fat Fat Metals testing Iron Calcium Sodium AOAC (2000) AOAC (2000) AOAC (2000) AOAC 985.35, Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometric Method AOAC 999.10, Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry after Microwave Digestion AOAC 999.10, Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry after Microwave Digestion NLH (1995) AOAC (2005) By calculation AOAC 996.06, Hydrolytic Extraction Gas Chromatographic Method Method

81

4.2.5 Satisfactory Survey of Farmers on Organic Agriculture Survey of the organic farmers was conducted to estimate the satisfactory level of the farmers toward the organic agriculture. The details of the questionnaire were presented in the appendix H (in Thai). The target asparagus farmers were located in the area of Tubtim Siam 02 and 05 locations, which in beginning of 2006, they were little above 100 members. And by the end of the year 2006, after completed the survey they were 74 farmers, so the analysis of the satisfactory were based on the 74 farmers. Questionnaire composed of 3 parts, the personal information, knowledge about organic farming, and the satisfactory level on different aspects i.e. income, health, relationship in the family, social relationship, leisure, and payback ability. Crosstab analysis was used for testing the statistic of the questionnaire (SPSS, v.15.0, SPSS Inc., USA). 4.3 Results and Discussion 4.3.1 Analysis of Asparagus Farmers Income Income information of farmers, who were under conventional and organic contract farming to supply fresh asparagus to the Swift Co., Ltd. was complied from the weekly payment records during the 2003 to 2006. 4.3.1.1 The overview of conventional and organic farmers income Time series analysis was conducted based on the information recorded by the farmers and the company financial reports, which included information of the individual farmers who have been planting asparagus under the contract farming from the 2003 to 2006 at Tubtim Siam 02 and 05 planting location, Sa Kaeo province and Tung Kwang, Nakhon Pathom province. Since farmers in Nakhon Pathom were the owner of their land, so the area decided to grown asparagus were not equally between farmers. The recorded showed that producer in Nakhon Pathom had the cultivated area ranged form 1 to 10 rai per producer. In contrast with farmers at Sa Kaeo province, most of them came from another province in Northeastern and joined the producer organizing group under the moderator from Tubtim Siam 02, Occupation Training Center. Each family was assigned for 2 rai cultivation land, but not the owner of the land. The collected data was interpolated in the same unit and then analyzed. This information were collected from 92 farmers (282 data case) of conventional farming and 162 farmers (489 data cases) of organic farming from the past 4 years. One data

82

case means a completed record of individual farmer for a particular year. The mean values of farmers income and analysis of variance as shown in Table 4.6. In the conventional agriculture (CA), they were significantly different in mean of income among cultivation years. Mean of income per year (p<0.001), income per cultivation area (p<0.01) and mean of income per harvesting period (p<0.05) were significantly different among cultivation years but there was no difference of number of harvesting week per year within 7 years of cultivations (average of harvesting period was 29 weeks per year). For the organic agriculture (OA), the results found that there were significant differences of the mean of income among cultivation years of organic farming. All of the income factors such as income per year, income per cultivation area, income per harvesting period and number of harvesting week were significantly affected by the cultivation years (p<0.001). Table 4.6 Income of farmers from conventional and organic agriculture.
Income during harvesting (Baht/week) 1,773 1,078a 2,282 1,346ab 2,597 1,492ab 2,560 1,220b 2,591 1,152b 2,585 985ab 2,889 1,159ab 643 443a 1,401 713c 1,335 740bc 1,133 746bc 1,206 926abc 891 433ab

Harvesting Cultivation Number Income (Baht/year) period year of farmer (week) Conventional agriculture (CA) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 40 53 54 60 43 23 9 80,644 61,805a 149,225 123,441b 179,333 147,432b 196,184 147,188b 213,093 159,869b 236,351 216,778ab 217,348 243,923ab 17,478 23,366a 83,616 51,101b 77,114 58,357b 73,692 61,456b 74,994 67,641b 54,412 41,662ab 25 10 30 10 30 7 30 8 29 10 29 10 25 14 12 8a 30 8b 27 11b 29 12b 27 12b 26 12b

Income per unit area (Baht/rai/year)

43,900 33,632a 71,251 51,207ab 80,545 55,616b 79,948 46,754b 79,748 42,083b 76,454 43,093ab 67,206 40,905ab 9,439 12,219a 44,478 26,955b 40,642 30,676b 36,483 30,441b 37,829 34,206b 27,478 21,039ab

Organic agriculture (OA) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 128 131 131 64 23 12

Superscript letters in the column-wise indicated significantly difference at 95 percent of confident.

83

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated significant difference of farmers income for both conventional and organic farmers among various cultivation years (Table 4.6). Compared with in conventional agriculture (CA), the income of the 1st, 6th and 7th years of CA were significantly lower than the 2nd - 5th years of CA. This was similar to organic agriculture (OA) that the 2nd - 5th years of OA gave significantly higher income than the 1st and 6th year of OA (p<0.05). The organic farming efficiently produced asparagus up to 6 consecutive years but for the conventional agriculture, it could be extended the production for another year. Most of income data of conventional farmers was 2 times higher than those of organic farmers. The reasons of the difference in the income may be due to the different in soil condition, the at-farm price of asparagus, cultivation practices, weather condition and farm management of individual farmers. Overview of income for conventional agriculture farmers Principal component analysis (PCA) were utilized as graphical tools to describe the farmers income characteristic i.e. annual income (Baht/year), duration of harvesting (week), annual income per cultivation area (Baht/rai) and annual income per harvesting period (Baht/week). The data of income information of conventional and organic farmers was presented in appendix E. PCA helped in describing more than 1 dimensional that characterized the data, in this case the income of farmers per year not only resulted from fresh weight of asparagus but also influenced from harvesting period, the longer the harvesting the more total weight of asparagus spears obtained resulted in higher income. Figure 4.21 shows the distribution of 282 conventional farmers in 2 principal components (PC), the first component (PC1, x-axis) accommodated most of the variance in the data was mainly described the annual income (Baht/rai/year) and the second principal component (PC2, y-axis) described the remaining variance for the factor of harvesting period. There was one conventional farmer who had the highest annual income. His income was much higher than the lowest income person, about 5 times, when considered on 1 rai of conventional asparagus production. This farmer was circled in the Figure 4.2 (farmer No. 95, on the low right corner) this data recorded from the 3rd year (2004) of asparagus cultivation within 2.5 rai area. The color scale on the top of the figure indicated the rage of annual income (Baht/rai/year).

84

Figure 4.21 Principal component analysis of annual income of 282 data conventional farmers. The color scale indicates the ranges of annual income per cultivation area (677 to 342,900 Baht/rai/year) within 1 production year. Figure 4.22 shows the histogram of the annual income (Baht/rai/year) of conventional farmers. The distribution followed the normal distribution curve with skewness to the right side, due to the extremely higher income farmers. Out of 282 farmer data majority of 36 farmers had annual income about 50,000 to 60,000 Baht/rai/year and 34 farmers had annual income about 60,000 to 70,000 Baht/rai/year (median was 65,275 and mean was 72,592 Baht/rai/year). Mean of income of farmers according to year after conventionally managed, asparagus reached the maximum yield in the 3rd to the 5th years after establishment. Figure 4.23 shows the mean of income for 7 continuous years after cultivated conventional asparagus farming. The data after 7th year were rarely available since most of the farmers decided to terminate the filed and transplant new crown of asparagus because of the declined in yield, heavily pest and disease problems accumulated in the asparagus field.

85

Figure 4.22 Histogram of income from 282 data of conventional farmer data in 2003-2006.

Figure 4.23 Mean income of farmers depending on year of conventional cultivation. Overview of income for organic agriculture farmers Figure 4.24 shows the similar characteristics of PCA plot of the income of organic farmers. The 489 organic farmers practiced organic farming from 1st to 6th years, and the mean annual income per rai of organic farmers was only half of that conventional farmers. Annual income per rai was 72,592 and 32,502 Baht/rai/year for CA and OA, respectively.

86

The income data of organic farmers were not normal distributed, most of the member were having low income (Figure 4.25). The median of the income was 25,497 with the mean of 32,502 Baht/rai/year. Most of the data who were having low income belonged to the first year of organic farming. The 1st year was the year of transplanting the asparagus and some of farmers did not have the completed farm record of 12 months since the starting was not always in January, so the mean of income of 1st year was dramatically lower than the later years after the establishment. This aspect could be clearly confirmed by the significantly different in number of the harvesting week (p<0.05), the average harvesting week of 1st year of organic farming was 12 weeks when compared to 28 weeks of the 2nd to 6th year of organic farming.

Figure 4.24 Principal component analysis of annual income of 489 organic farmers. The color scale indicates the ranges of annual income per cultivation area (43 to 157,200 Baht/rai/year) within 1 production year.

87

Figure 4.25 Histogram of income of 489 organic farmer data in 2003 - 2006.

Figure 4.26 Mean income of farmers depending on year of organic cultivation. In organic agriculture the asparagus yield were highest in the 2nd year and gradually declined in the 3rd to the 5th year after cultivation (Figure 4.26). Most of the organic farmer decided to terminate the filed after 6th year resulted in 1 year shorter than the conventional cultivation period. Further research and developments were required to maintained fertility of organic asparagus crowns.

88

Further study was required to investigated the sources of the different resulted in 2 time higher income of conventional than organic agriculture. This may be due to the direct impact of the difference in agricultural system (CA vs. OA), soil nutrient and weather effects (Sa Kaeo and Nakhon Pathom), purchase price at farm level, or the difference in individual farmers. 4.3.1.2 Effect of different features on income by conventional and organic agriculture Case study of the selected conventional and organic farmers could provide the understanding of the farming condition, cost and profit of the asparagus production. From the total of 282 (92 farmers) and 489 (162 farmers) data for the conventional and organic farmers, the data of farm indices information were available for 64 (22 farmers) and 197 (53 farmers) data for conventional and organic farmers, respectively. The detail of data used in this analysis was presented in appendix F. Income of farmers Table 4.7 shows the analysis of variance (ANOVA) of farm properties; the superscript letters indicated significant difference at 95% confidence level in the row-wise, compared each properties affected by number of year after asparagus cultivation. The cost of production and income of conventional farmers also did not differ among various cultivation years, which were different from organic agriculture. The organic farmers were more sensitive to the duration after adopting the organic practices; the cost and income were significantly different (p< 0.001) for the various year of cultivation. Figure 4.27 (a) presented income, cost and profit from conventional and organic agriculture. The production cost of conventional and organic farm were similar in the 1st to 3rd years then the cost of organic farming started significantly lower than the conventional farming (p<0.05) from the 4th year onward, because the cost for conventional agriculture tends to increase every year. In this case, organic farm and conventional farm located in difference area. Organic farms were approximately 500 km away from the factory while the conventional farms were closer to the factory. Therefore purchasing price offered by the company differed due to logistic cost. Figure 4.27 (a) shows that the differences of the purchasing price for conventional and organic asparagus, and was the main reason that induced approximately 2 5 times higher in income of conventional farmers compared to organic farmers. The maximum difference occurred in the 1st year (480%) and the 6th year (216%) of cultivation. The minimum differences were found in the 2nd and 3rd year, where the conventional farming produced only 30 and 20 % higher in income than the organic agriculture, respectively.

Table 4.7 Data of input cost, income and profit of farmers from conventional and organic cultivation of asparagus.
Index* Total Number 45 64 64 64 64 Year 4 11 349 194 15 871 405 15 17,124 17,005 15 99,747 66,780 15 82,623 67,406 48 4,510 3,536bc 48 10,707 8,146bc 48 40,600 32,233ab 48 29,883 27,936ab

1 3 242 313 3 652 453 3 11,305 6,769 3 97,164 45,036 3 85,858 46,177 32 2,736 1,129ab 32 7,415 2,806ab 32 16,654 15,493a 32 9,239 14,202a

2 3 132 120 3 622 248 3 10,366 3,210 3 69,437 43,236 3 59,071 41,673 41 5,343 1,170c 41 12,814 2,857c 41 52,133 25,079b 41 39,319 24,831b

3 4 376 136 9 773 234 9 11,363 3,100 9 67,022 32,983 9 55,659 31,618 50 5,622 2,469c 50 13,707 5,518c 50 53,543 30,784b 50 39,836 30,697b

5 12 561 419 19 903 579 19 14,862 7,417 19 85,657 70,347 19 70,795 69,070 18 4,298 1,312abc 18 10,204 3,017abc 18 44,428 34,650b 18 34,188 33,307b

6 8 657 300 10 773 447 10 15,595 5,436 10 94,540 53,039 10 78,945 49,258 8 2,400 1,296a 8 5,693 3,077a 8 29,910 21,959ab 8 24,217 22,231ab

7 4 514 554 5 842 226 5 14,796 6,049 5 59,910 11,778 5 45,114 11,756

Conventional Agriculture n OF (kg/rai) n CF (kg/rai) n Cost (B/rai) n Income (B/rai) n Profit (B/rai) n OF (kg/rai) n Cost (B/rai) n Income (B/rai) n Profit (B/rai)

Organic Agriculture 197 197 197 197

Superscript letters in the row-wise indicated significantly difference at 95 percent of confident. * n: number of data, OF: Organic fertilizer, CF: Chemical fertilizer.

117

90

The marketable size of asparagus that producers sold to the company was sorted according to the contract of each producer organizing group. In Nakhon Pathom area, the farmers had long-term relationship with the company. Most of them were the pioneers who join the company from the beginning of introducing asparagus to Thailand. Besides they were having long experience with the asparagus planting and good relationships with the company, they also had an advantage of being close to the factory so less of the transportation cost required for the company. The average percent of the differences between the price at Sa Kaeo province and Nakhon Pathom province for asparagus in all grade were 51.5% higher than the price at Sa Kaeo province (Table 4.8). Table 4.8 Difference of pricing system for organic asparagus (Sa Kaeo) and conventional asparagus (Nakhon Pathom). Grade Grade AC25 Grade AF25 Grade AC20 Grade AF20 Grade BC Grade BF Grade CC Grade AO Grade BCO Grade ZO Average Sa Kaeo (Baht/kg) 44 33 40 30 26 21 15 13 7 4 Nakhon Pathom (Baht/kg) 58 40 n/a n/a 39 28 25 22 15 5 Percentage of different (%) 32 22 n/a n/a 50 33 67 69 114 25 51.5

From the original price Figure 4.27 (a), the differences between incomes of conventional farmers were approximately 480% in the 1st year, 30% in the 2nd year, 25% in the 3rd year, 145% in the 4th year and 90% in the 5th year and 216% in the 6th year higher than income of organic farmers. This data were calculated from percentage differences of income in Table 4.8. The purchasing price of the contract company for asparagus from Nakhon Pathom location was approximately 2 times higher than the asparagus price from Sa Kaeo province. So, the comparison of income of farmers from 2 different sources was accounting for the logistic factor by adjusting the income form the price difference. In the other words, the compensation of the price differences means how much the income of the farmers if they were cultivated the conventional and organic asparagus in the same area. To compare farmers income on the same pricing basis, purchasing price for organic asparagus at Sragaew province was adjusted to compensate the transportation cost (using factor 1.5 multiplied to the organic income of individual farmers) and all income and profit data were re-calculated and presented in Figure 4.27 (b).

91

Figure 4.27 Conventional (CA) and organic (OA) agriculture for different year of cultivation indicted the income, cost and profit of farmers. Shading indicates range of profit in (a) original price, (b) price compensation.

92

It was indicated that after the adjustment, the income of organic farmers was not much different from conventional farmers; especially in during the 2nd and 3rd year of OA, farmers enjoyed more profit than conventional farming. The profit of organic farming, however, decreased and became lower than that of conventional farming around 1 to 2 times during the 4th to the 6th years. Many factors were affecting in the lower yield of the organic asparagus as it would be quantified later in this study. The fluctuation in the trend of income of farmers from both locations were difference, conventional farming had lower income in the 2nd and 3rd year while in the organic farming the maximum income were obtained in 2nd and 3rd year. An explanation on this fluctuating required the extra history of both locations. It has been suggested that it due to the environment effects such as climate or the outbreak of pest and diseases or severe flood or drought. The environment factor was beyond the boundary of the analysis in this part and was excluded from the analysis.

Factors affecting income of organic farmers This section of the analysis attempted to quantify the essential factors that affecting the successfulness of organic asparagus cultivation. From the observation of the production supporting staff of the company, they found the vast varieties of farmers income level of individual contract farmers in Tubtim Siam 02 and 05 location, Sa Kaeo province. This was confirmed from the analysis in 4.3.1.1 and 4.3.1.2, total number of 489 cases of organic farmers was associated in the previous analysis which collected in the past 4 years. Mean income of 489 organic farmer data was 32,502 Baht/rai with average 24 harvesting weeks per year. Large variation of the income was found in this study showing with high standard of deviation (SD) of 29,416 Baht/rai. Very high in standard deviation of the farmers income might be due to experience of the individual farmers to organic agriculture, amount of input used in the organic farming, harvesting duration (weeks) and environmental factor (year of recorded data). Therefore, later analysis was conducted by selecting 100 farmers (325 cases) who have been continuously grown organic asparagus for at least 2 years in order to obtain better understanding and comparison. The details of data were presented in appendix G. Time series analysis was conducted from the information of 4 data series (Figure 4.28).The first group was 4 farmers who have the complete data for the 4 consecutive year of organic agriculture (OA). They have grown organic asparagus from 2nd to 5th year since 2001, it was found that

93

the maximum income of farmers were in the 3rd year, approximately 60,000 Baht/rai. The second group was 27 farmers who have joined the organic asparagus farming from 2003 until 2006. In year 2003, these 27 farmers had transplanted the asparagus seedling after 3-6 months of the nurseries and in the 2nd year the farmers got highest income for approximately 60,000 Baht/rai and in the 3rd year the income had declined to 50,000 Baht/rai. The third group was the biggest group composed of 63 farmers who had started organic farming since 2004 and in 2006 was the 3rd year of OA, the maximum income observed from the 2nd year after OA at 50,000 Baht/rai. The last group was 6 farmers who have just started OA in the year 2005, so they were in the 2nd year of OA when conducting this analysis, the maximum income in year 2006 were 30,000 Bah/rai. The average of the income of the series of 4 farmers (OA2-AO5) and the series of 27 farmers (OA1-OA4) was highest, around 60,000 Baht/rai, and then declined by 38 and 16%, respectively, calculated from the graph of Figure 4.28. Farmers found the deterioration of the parent crown of the asparagus resulted to fewer spears during many years of production period.

Figure 4.28 Income of farmers for the organic asparagus production.

94

From the interview of farmers and corresponding authorities, in year 2006 study area has been countered the severe drought during the summer season and then the heavy rain in the rainy season, which prolonged until the end of the year and caused flooding in some certain area. So income of farmers in 2006 reduced to 50% regardless to the year of organic practice (OA). Average income of 30,000 Baht/rai from 3 series (96 farmers) implied that the environmental factors had more effects than the others in organic asparagus production. Most farmers in this study decided to terminate the production. Only 8 out of 27 farmers carried on the organic asparagus production on the 5th year (data not shown). The highest cost of production was found in the 2nd and 3rd year whereas the 1st and 4th year generated significantly lower cost (p<0.05). The last part of the analysis was conducted on the series of 27 farmers who had complete data on organic agriculture from the 1st year to the 4th year, which commonly was the last year of the harvesting before the asparagus need to be re-transplant to maintain the high yield. These 27 farmers factor were presented in the Table 4.11 in the first section (overall farmers). From the table, the OA2 and OA3 had significant higher input of organic fertilizer (5.2 5.7 ton/rai) compared to 2.4 2.6 ton/rai of OA1 and OA4, respectively. Higher input, however, resulted in higher income and longer period of harvesting. The OA2 and OA3 have been harvested for 33 - 35 weeks/year whereas harvesting period of OA4 reduced to 27 weeks/year. These was also significantly different (p<0.05) from that of OA1 (16 weeks/year). Cluster analysis was used to indentify the membership in this group of farmers. K-means cluster analysis is a tool designed to assign cases to a fixed number of groups (clusters) whose characteristics are not yet known but are based on a set of specified variables. The K-means cluster analysis procedure begins with the construction of initial cluster centers. After obtaining initial cluster centers, the procedure was to assign cases to clusters based on Euclidean distance from the cluster centers and updated the locations of cluster centers based on the mean values of cases in each cluster. These steps were repeated until any reassignment of cases would maximize the differences between the grouping class and minimizing the differences within the cluster. K-means clustering was applied to 27 farmers using criteria of income per unit area, number of harvesting weeks per year, amount of organic fertilizer used, cost of biofertilizer application and total production cost to classify farmers into 3 groups. The farmers code that classified into each category was presented in the Table 4.9.

95

Table 4.9 Cluster membership from K-means cluster analysis of 27 farmers. Moderately maintenance SK89, SK90, SK94, SK104, SK107, SK109, SK112, SK117

Highly maintenance Farmer code SK82, SK83, SK86, SK93, SK102, SK111, SK115

Lightly maintenance SK84, SK85, SK91, SK92, SK95, SK100, SK101, SK105, SK106, SK110, SK116, SK118

From Table 4.10, there were significant differences (p<0.01) of income level caused by inherit factor, since it was not directly related to the input level. Factor that affects farmers income could be explained as farm maintenance level, for example weed control, disease and pest management, irrigation system etc. Intensive care and highly farm maintenance could prolong the duration of asparagus harvesting resulted in higher income. In the group of highly farm maintenance, 7 farmers have income around 80,000 Baht/rai/year which is approximately 45% higher than farmers in the group of moderately farm maintenance (8 farmers) and 210% higher than farmers in the group of lightly farm maintenance (12 farmers).

96

Table 4.10 Multiple comparison on the time series analysis parameters classified by year of organic agriculture practices. Indicator OA1 OA2
57,655 23,865b 35 3c 5,223 1,095b 812 286c 11,560 2,402b

OA3
48,360 22,451b 33 7c 5,710 2,999b 1,091 188c 12,620 6,592b

OA4
24,738 13,550a 27 10b 2,611 913a 465 183b 5,769 2,018a

Overall farmers (n=27) Income 13,475 7,556a (Baht / rai) Harvesting week 16 3a (week / year) Organic fertilizer 2,468 919a (kg / rai.year) Biofertilizer cost 1,184 348a (Baht / rai.year) Input cost 5,713 2,079a (Baht / rai) Highly maintenance (n = 7) Income 22,665 6,036a (Baht / rai) Harvesting week 19 2a (week / year) Organic fertilizer 2,508 577a (kg / rai.year) Biofertilizer cost 1,222247c (Baht / rai.year) Input cost 5,754 1,468a (Baht / rai) Moderately maintenance ( n = 8) Income 11,367 5,874a (Baht / rai) Harvesting week 15 3a (week / year) Organic fertilizer 2,686 1,423a (kg / rai.year) Biofertilizer cost 1,229 379c (Baht / rai.year) Input cost 6,173 3,102a (Baht / rai) Lightly maintenance (n = 12) Income 9,520 4,366a (Baht / rai) Harvesting week 16 3a (week/year) Organic fertilizer 2,300 677a (kg / rai.year) Biofertilizer cost 1,133 396c (Baht / rai.year) Input cost 5,382 1,627a (Baht / rai)

83,603 24,028b 36 2b 5,293 1,214b 790272b 11,751 2,638b

76,367 15,101b 39 6b 5,451 719b 1,107159bc 12,053 1,587b

35,340 6,295a 34 8b 2,571 948a 451 191a 5,681 2,095a

59,046 10,408c 36 2b 5,293 1,136b 811 271ab 11,700 2,490b

50,799 9,762c 34 7b 5,450 1,077b 1,138 241bc 12,051 2,367b

30,284 12,509b 29 12b 2,725 701a 490 164a 6,021 1,550a

41,592 15,842b 34 4c 5,135 1,093bc 825 326b 11,354 2,410bc

33,396 12,279b 29 6c 6,033 4,475c 1,050 170c 13,330 9,838c

14,856 10,598a 23 7b 2,558 1,075ab 456 204a 5,653 2,374ab

Superscript letters in the row-wise indicated significantly difference at 95 percent of confident.

97

Figure 4.29 shows the 3 group of income of organic farmers, the highly maintenance group obtained highest income 83,603 Baht/rai while the moderately and lightly maintenance group received 59,046 and 41,592 Baht/rai. The bottom line indicated the average cost of the farmers, since the farmers in the different group of maintenance were having similar cost, i.e. they applied similar amount of organic fertilizer and biofertilizer. Then the Figure 4.30 were plotted with the cost for each maintenance group, as previously described, the difference in input cost among difference maintenance farmers were minimal, except in the 4th year of OA the lightly farm maintenance farmer required more input (approximately 1,000 bath/rai) higher than highly and moderately farm maintenance. From the analysis, it could be concluded that farmers income was depended on 3 main factors, which were ranged by the intensity of the influence power, as the year of organic agriculture, environmental and climate conditions and farm maintenance in organic practices of the individual farmers.

Figure 4.29 Income of organic farmers grouped by the intensity of farm maintenance for the different year. H: highly, M: moderately and L: lightly farm maintenance.

98

Figure 4.30 Cost of organic farmers grouped by the intensity of farm maintenance for the different year. H: highly, M: moderately and L: lightly farm maintenance. 4.3.1.3 Effect on soil condition by conventional and organic agriculture Table 4.12 summarized the soil condition after cultivated with asparagus for 7th and 6th consecutive years for conventionally and organically practices. Data were collected from the record of Swift company. From the field record data some of the properties were missing resulted non equal in the summation of the total case. In contrast with conventional farming, years of organic cultivation made significant difference of soil condition (p<0.05). Soil organic matter content of the organic agriculture (OA) soil was significantly higher (p<0.001) than in the conventional agriculture (CA) from the 3rd to 6th year after organic practices. From Table 4.11, organic matter from conventional farms was ranged from 1.85 - 2.31%, which was lower than that from organic farms (1.59 4.32%). Phosphorus content (P) was very high (164 - 354 ppm) in conventional soil compare to the organic soil (16 - 95 ppm), the significantly different in P (p<0.001) were obtained from the 1st to the 5th year of planting. And these was similar to the Potassium content (K), conventional soil had very high in K and significantly higher (p<0.001) than in the organically managed soil of the 1st to 4th year. Bar graph (Figure 4.31) shows the increasing in P and K content with year after starting organic farming. After the deposit of K in the organic soil for 5th and 6th year, there were no significant different in K from the conventionally managed soil.

Table 4.11 Data on soil condition from conventional and organic farming after cultivation of asparagus.
Soil index* Total data 1 3 2.31 1.50 3 294 116 3 164 125 3 7.0 1.2b 3 242 313 3 652 453 29 3.05 2.04ab 31 26 38a 30 40 29a 2 4,600 2,263ab 31 7.3 0.3a 32 2,736 1,129ab 2 3 2.02 0.27 3 308 218 3 251 141 3 6.3 1.2ab 3 132 120 3 622 248 7 1.59 1.22a 41 16 23a 41 65 52ab 34 3,891 1,158a 41 7.2 0.3a 41 5,343 1,170c 3 9 1.85 0.59 9 164 142 9 146 125 9 6.7 0.7ab 4 376 136 9 773 234 14 3.32 1.83ab 50 27 38a 50 78 70abc 37 4,301 1,268ab 50 7.4 0.3a 50 5,622 2,469c Year 4 14 2.17 0.78 15 233 133 15 174 100 15 6.8 0.7ab 11 349 194 15 871 405 15 4.32 1.05b 32 43 66a 32 113 78bc 32 7,451 5,366b 32 7.1 0.4a 48 4,510 3,536bc 5 18 1.99 0.67 19 177 125 19 151 77 19 6.6 0.7ab 12 561 419 19 903 579 5 3.58 0.66ab 18 60 89ab 18 136 111c 18 5,723 2,849ab 18 7.4 0.6a 18 4,298 1,312abc 6 10 2.25 0.59 10 219 137 10 295 129 10 6.6 0.97ab 8 657 300 10 773 447 5 3.81 0.74b 6 95 140b 6 219 139d 6 17,033 2,241c 6 7.7 0.5b 8 2,400 1,296a 127 7 5 2.15 0.65 5 354 263 5 292 150 5 5.5 0.6a 4 514 554 5 842 226

Conventional Agriculture n 62 OM (%) n 64 Available P (ppm) n 64 K (ppm) n 64 pH n 45 OF (kg/rai) n 64 CF (kg/rai) Organic Agriculture n 79 OM (%) n 178 Available P (ppm) n 175 K (ppm) n 129 Ca (ppm) n 178 pH n 197 OF (kg/rai)

Superscript letters in the row-wise indicated significantly difference at 95 percent of confident. * n: number of data, OM: Organic matter, P: Phosphorus, K: Potassium, OF: Organic fertilizer, CF: Chemical fertilizer, Ca: Calcium.

100

Figure 4.31 Phosphorus (P) and Potassium (K) content in conventional agriculture (CA) and organic agriculture (OA) in different year. Soil pH also affected from the differences in agricultural practices, the soil after conventionally managed for 7 years gradually decreased pH of soil and become more acidic. Conventional farming practices lowered soil pH from 7.0 to 5.5 during 7 years of applying chemical fertilizer. This may be due to the effects of chemical fertilizer to the soil. At the 7th year the mean soil pH was 5.5 considered to be strongly acidic that could cause poor crop growth. Soil pH from organic farming became slightly higher at the 6th year of production compared to that of the beginning. This is also due to the effect of organic fertilizer applied into the soil, the previous formula of organic fertilizer used in the area of Sa Kaeo province composed of raw rice husk that required longer time to complete the compost process. Raw rice husk was added as soil amendment, provide porous and improve soil texture. Then after experiencing the high acid soil, farmers and the company authorities were adjusted the fertilizer formula to use the black rice husk instead. Compost that used rice husk after burning was more neutral in final product. 4.3.2 Field Trials Study area located in Sa Kaeo province, Eastern of Thailand (lat 13.7833, long 102.0333, altitude 43 meters). The field trials were planted with Asparagus offcinalis L.. Experiment was conducted using the same farming practice and advisory farmer groups were established for each system. All treatments were equally designed with 4 replicates. Field

101

trails were conducted to study factors that affect the yield of asparagus including irrigation system, input levels, and land preparation. The marketable yield of asparagus produced from the experimental plot (3x10 m2) was recorded after sorted into 10 grades according to the regulation of the contract company on a daily basis (Figure 4.32).

Figure 4.32 Data collection on a daily basis during the harvesting of the asparagus.

Harvesting traditionally begins after 1 full years of establishment. Harvesting is normally limited to 2 to 4 weeks during the first cutting season. The length of harvest is dependent on the vigor of the plants which in turn is controlled by the growing conditions, particularly climate and fertility. Plants grown in colder climates (winter) with shorter

102

growing seasons are typically harvested for 2 to 4 weeks while in warmer climates (summer) the initial harvest period may last up to 6 weeks. The duration of harvest may be gradually increased up to 30 weeks in subsequent years. Harvesting is normally done every day. The duration of harvest were carefully monitored. Most spears are harvested within the first 4 weeks. Thereafter the number and size of the spears produced are reduced. Size and condition of the spears were used to indicate when to cease harvesting than a predetermined number of weeks. Once spears become smaller than the diameter of a pencil, harvesting is usually terminated. Over harvesting is frequently a reason for poor yields the following year because it drains the plant of food reserves and it was unable to produce adequate fern growth to accumulate photosynthetic. It also generally weakens the plant and makes it more susceptible to be attack by diseases. The variation in size was shown in Figure 4.33.

Figure 4.33 The marketable size asparagus with varying in spears diameter. 4.3.2.1 Experiment I: Testing the effects of plain and raised bed plot preparation, level of organic fertilizer and biofertilizer on the yield of asparagus The first experiment investigated the effectiveness of organic fertilizer input into 2 types of plot preparation, i.e. raised bed and plain bed. This field trial was carried out on the asparagus field that has been established for the 1st year. The data were began to collect from the January until July, there was no significant difference in asparagus yield among various levels of organic fertilizer input (200, 500 and 800 kg/rai of bovine manure compost) broadcasted into the soil every 15 days in both plain and raised bed conditions, but the different in harvesting pattern among the plot preparations were found (Figure 4.34). The plain bed plot could harvested 3 times with longer harvesting

103

period, total of 124 days while the raised bed plot could harvested 4 times with shorter period, resulting in total days of 93 days.

Raised bed Plain bed 1 16 31 15 2 17 1 16 1 16 31 15 30 15 30

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

July

Aug

Figure 4.34 Diagram of harvesting period of each experimental plot from Jan July. Two replicates of applying 200 kg/rai bovine manure compost (200BM) were used as a confirmation of result and to check the repeatability of the experiment. In plain bed plot (Table 4.13), among these 3 cutting seasons, the first cutting (55 days in total) lasted approximately 19 and 22 days longer than the 2nd and the 3rd crop, respectively, and had significantly higher yield (p<0.05) in terms of total weight and BC, BF, CC, BCO and ZO grades. This was resulted in highest income among these 3 seasons, even though, weight of grade AC25 were not significantly different than the cutting in summer (April-May) season. This indicated the influence of season on harvesting period. Usually in winter asparagus fern remained green and the harvesting can be prolonged, while harvesting in summer (April-May) had shorter harvesting period but higher in yield in every day of cutting. In this plain bed plot, there were giving similar weight of asparagus spears in grade AC25 and AF25, the bigger spears commanded higher price, between winter time with more harvesting days and summer time with less harvesting days. In the raised bed plot (Table 4.14), harvesting season in the 2nd crop (FebruaryApril) had highest yield (p<0.05) for every size of asparagus and longest cutting period resulted in highest income among those of 4 cutting seasons. The dormant period of raised bed plot was more frequent than the plain bed plot. Farmers usually made the decision on the dormancy period observed from asparagus plant condition and the weather. In raining season, asparagus gave lower yield than in summer. The spears in raining season were affected from direct impact of the rain drop; the spears were crooked resulted in more off-grade produces. Moreover in this study, the owner of the raised bed plot had other crops to take care in another location; he did not depend solely on the asparagus cultivation. So the maintenance of the plot was lower than the plain bed plot.

104

From Table 4.12 and 4.13, to investigate the effectiveness of the organic fertilizers, the results show that there were no significant different in asparagus yield among the application of bovine manure fertilizer or another brand of organic fertilizer (Sakura brand). The levels of fertilizer applied to the plot were unable to significantly increase the yield of the asparagus when compared with in the same piece of land. Table 4.12 Asparagus total yield (g) and grading results harvested from plain bed plot (Jan - July).
Organic fertilizer level (kg/rai) 500BM 200BM 200BM
12,306 2,127 7,134 1,429 1,105 203 1,955 326 679 56 594 32 200 39 372 61 255 51 431 80 9,052 1,471 5,692 1,369 1,251 133 989 72 424 23 295 4 160 39 191 54 47 17 335 65 8,616 2,300 4,866 1,631 1,276 282 1,115 250 464 103 334 44 205 9 265 9 91 28 30590 11,592 1,321 6,615 878 1,062 184 1,908 75 645 74 574 81 182 35 361 28 247 53 404 49 9,127 903 5,729 909 1,255 66 1,010 37 404 25 284 6 192 34 159 20 55 17 337 41 8,578 1,895 4,773 1,293 1,291 190 1,095 172 463 90 345 39 205 32 276 38 133 55 301 71 12,004 951 6,847 685 1,109 129 1,936 102 657 43 613 38 187 22 376 45 215 30 417 37 10,077 766 6,520 872 1,340 61 1,116 57 396 14 281 20 164 45 166 43 55 15 376 38 8,770 1,414 4,983 927 1,271 211 1,127 115 465 62 344 29 225 31 271 36 94 40 311 53

Yield (g)

800BM
11,614 1,060 6,752 927 1,002 75 1,850 112 655 58 589 56 179 36 320 44 210 41 406 44 9,850 116 6,380 117 1,296 77 1,040 93 391 33 282 20 190 44 179 25 62 17 367 3 8,895 790 5,028 583 1,358 141 1,125 97 440 31 353 18 214 35 280 16 99 14 315 31

500OF
11,830 1,132 6,902 812 1,052 95 1,983 139 607 51 595 32 181 13 337 24 200 49 417 43 10,329 886 6,747 703 1,329 106 1,064 47 400 48 284 11 195 27 172 27 52 9 385 37 9,310 976 5,355 763 1,358 132 1,163 80 441 31 352 7 228 36 278 16 124 29 331 39

January 12 March 7 (55 days) Total weight Grade AC25 Grade AF25 Grade AC20 Grade AF20 Grade BC Grade BF Grade CC Grade AO Grade BCO Grade ZO Income (Baht) Total weight Grade AC25 Grade AF25 Grade AC20 Grade AF20 Grade BC Grade BF Grade CC Grade AO Grade BCO Grade ZO Income (Baht) Total weight Grade AC25 Grade AF25 Grade AC20 Grade AF20 Grade BC Grade BF Grade CC Grade AO Grade BCO Grade ZO Income (Baht)

April 5 May 8 (34 days)

June 10 July 15 (36 days)

105

Table 4.13 Asparagus total yield (g) and grading results harvested from raised bed plot (Jan - July). Organic fertilizer level (kg/rai)
200BM 1,932 347 259 150 62 13 375 128 39 18 391 45 86 5 337 27 46 40 236 56 99 50 49 13 9,564 414 1,854 461b 387 40 2,666 379 370 39 1,572 123 445 148 1,000 141 435 103 677 60a 184 28 288 24 2,301 406 540 161 76 59 534 219 68 47 381 50 67 20 203 65 169 32 118 91 20 39 67 8 4,716 703 596 216 128 77 583 254 88 23 871 70 246 82 831 146 218 112 759 82 214 62 106 22 200BM 1,999 404 210 73 70 55 356 79 66 52 436 85 119 26 361 160 50 32 247 38 81 40 50 11 8,556 1,386 1,060 226a 361 32 2,015 464 364 173 1,589 513 492 140 1,124 192 561 340 795 166ab 187 23 232 39 2,071 191 434 133 109 103 411 170 55 40 395 202 77 91 238 135 121 52 183 34 0 59 5 4,548 1,168 411 207 228 96 394 159 94 19 859 268 213 104 819 249 215 128 851 77 288 16 93 31 500OF 1,882 127 180 33 64 252 356 79 74 26 365 57 64 28 345 38 44 11 241 38 113 63 47 6 9,667 1,457 1,579 352ab 505 166 2,297 491 359 219 1,644 166 455 127 1,126 189 621 181 839 83ab 255 27 273 48 1,983 695 327 148 158 100 547 345 59 44 371 209 75 58 197 169 28 55 169 133 25 29 59 23 4,670 867 464 166 159 77 455 120 43 40 820 117 233 78 810 220 321 199 936 192 278 64 9522

800BM 500BM January 12 January 21 (10 days) Total weight 1,656 91 1,915 343 Grade AC25 140 31 234 99 Grade AF25 56 19 60 29 Grade AC20 246 48 347 76 Grade AF20 34 40 42 23 Grade BC 392 95 436 58 Grade BF 75 61 91 37 Grade CC 275 13 297 118 Grade AO 40 21 60 32 Grade BCO 239 30 263 36 Grade ZO 146 52 97 23 Income (Baht) 38 4 48 10 February 21 April 2 (41 days) Total weight 9,162 1,075 9,227 1,313 1,380 465ab Grade AC25 1,260 222ab Grade AF25 470 114 437 104 Grade AC20 2,504 517 2,677 499 Grade AF20 399 157 307 52 Grade BC 1,566 275 1,646 384 Grade BF 432 109 486 57 Grade CC 1,113 240 1,002 126 Grade AO 362 175 461 135 684 58ab Grade BCO 847 40b Grade ZO 209 46 190 43 Income (Baht) 261 36 271 51 May 7 May 20 (14 days) Total weight 2,010 388 2,060 246 Grade AC25 400 317 483 263 Grade AF25 165 81 116 135 Grade AC20 365 66 427 156 Grade AF20 85 33 51 103 Grade BC 317 98 418 150 Grade BF 84 71 75 75 Grade CC 166 60 223 157 Grade AO 131 72 171 124 96 24 Grade BCO 134 56 Grade ZO 9 12 33 9 Income (Baht) 57 16 63 14 June 18 July 14 (27 days) Total weight 5,079 777 4,550 1,072 Grade AC25 720 356 564 254 Grade AF25 235 118 175 61 Grade AC20 513 194 525 151 Grade AF20 93 25 84 88 Grade BC 830 64 709 165 Grade BF 295 79 221 143 Grade CC 780 169 800 210 Grade AO 213 55 264 81 786 195 Grade BCO 951 67 Grade ZO 226 31 236 58 Income (Baht) 113 28 99 28

Yield (g)

Superscript letters in the row-wise indicated significantly difference at 95 percent of confident.

106

After July, the experiment included the test for biofertilizer efficiency (Ekorganik, Berlin Export International, S.L.), in combination with the application of organic fertilizer. The pre-assigned plot of the 200BM (200 kg/rai of bovine manure compost applied every 15 days) were selected, 2-capful (20 ml) of biofertilizer were added into a 20-liter backpack, and sprayed at the base of asparagus plant, once a month frequency staring from August. The picture of the spear from this treatment presents in Figure 4.35.

Figure 4.35 Emerging asparagus spear after applying 200 kg organic fertilizer, twice a month, and biofertilizer, once a month. In the plain bed plot (Table 4.14), the treatment of applying the biofertilizer found approximately 3 kg higher in yield of asparagus in the last crop (p<0.05) compared to other fertilizer treatments application. The increasing in yield can not obtain from the first harvesting after immediate application of the biofertilizer. Figure 4.36 shows the cumulative plot of yield (Figure 4.36 (a)) and calculated income from the yield in trial plots (Figure 4.36 (b)). It was found that the 200 kg/rai of organic fertilizer (200BM) treatment gave lowest yield and the highest yield achieved from the treatment of the 200 kg/rai organic fertilizer in combination with biofertilizer application (200BM+BF). Even though the dramatically increased in the yield of asparagus after applied biofertilizer were confirmed with the farmers from both plots, but the significantly difference could not be obtained from the raised bed plot (Table 4.15). The harvesting time were also a

107

month earlier than the plain bed plot, so the asparagus plants may not responded to the biofertilizer yet. Figure 4.37 shows the cumulative plot of yield and income of experimental plots, it was also found that the 200 kg/rai of organic fertilizer (200BM) treatment gave lowest yield, similar to the result from the plain bed plots. Table 4.14 Asparagus total yield (g) and grading results harvested from plain bed plot (Aug - Dec). Organic fertilizer level (kg/rai)
800BM 500BM 200BM 200BM + BF 500OF

Yield (g)

August 13 September 28 (47 days) Total weight Grade AC25 Grade AF25 Grade AC20 Grade AF20 Grade BC Grade BF Grade CC Grade AO Grade BCO Grade ZO Income (Baht) 16,933 1,689 12,023 1,534 1,683 61 90 21 23 3 1,236 83 540 21 448 36 303 31 368 25 264 40 647 70 16,365 2,853 11,684 2,586 1,693 137 85 34 25 6 1,158 142 510 20 399 23 255 18 320 21 223 6 627 121 15,128 2,875 10,649 2,398 1,670 151 53 31 15 13 1,101 141 483 46 384 79 228 66 306 55 185 60 577 118 15,608 2,384 11,071 1,941 1,638 38 60 38 33 33 1,120 27 498 51 436 54 235 67 328 62 219 93 597 93 16,630 1,290 11,859 1,180 1,685 57 81 27 21 15 1,169 46 520 24 444 26 254 29 343 29 228 30 636 54

November 5 December 15 (41 days) Total weight Grade AC25 Grade AF25 Grade AC20 Grade AF20 Grade BC Grade BF Grade CC Grade AO Grade BCO Grade ZO Income (Baht) 13,265 650a 10,438 699ab 90 29 1,208 13a 485 21 395 6 220 37 265 10 190 14a 515 30a 13,113 848a 10,098 1,046a 115 60 1,215 31a 505 37 410 29 243 33 303 40 220 47ab 503 43a 12,505 1,063a 15,870 1,243b 9,658 1,095a 118 15 1,205 34a 480 18 393 17 205 21 253 29 168 10a 481 48a 12,685 1,253b 145 30 1,325 61b 190 23 418 30 245 39 305 19 255 34b 620 55b 13,340 877a 10,507 1,043ab 97 29 1,215 31a 473 30 375 33 215 47 263 22 182 17a 518 43a

Superscript letters in the row-wise indicated significantly of means difference at 95 percent of confident.

108

Table 4.15 Asparagus total yield (g) and grading results harvested from raised bed plot (Aug - Dec). Organic fertilizer level (kg/rai)
800BM 500BM 200BM 200BM + BF 500OF

Yield (g)

August 13 September 17 (36 days) Total weight Grade AC25 Grade AF25 Grade AC20 Grade AF20 Grade BC Grade BF Grade CC Grade AO Grade BCO Grade ZO Income (Baht) 10,024 896 2,425 602 528 122 2,081 307 178 40 1,398 105 379 73 1,033 119 746 294 1,063 141 191 24 290 40 9,173 1,808 1,845 622 634 309 1,858 503 214 118 1,491 319 365 85 1,003 261 638 176 1,004 125 150 48 260 64 9,839 2,136 2,233 589 583 225 2,055 583 269 128 1,569 297 376 153 1,048 157 669 233 854 163 190 76 288 68 8,880 1,839 1,695 604 566 240 1,898 480 154 106 1,625 227 390 49 1,005 200 419 166 964 111 170 37 252 63 9,565 1,663 1,941 585 586 214 1,949 463 169 78 1,679 276 473 60 1,170 170 498 167 935 57 206 28 273 58

October 22 November 16 (26 days) Total weight Grade AC25 Grade AF25 Grade AC20 Grade AF20 Grade BC Grade BF Grade CC Grade AO Grade BCO Grade ZO Income (Baht) 3,844 853 884 358 210 97 453 136 38 23 683 203 260 80 455 84 175 135 559 99 123 58 102 30 3,213 892 719 357 274 100 469 256 38 29 499 128 183 75 504 141 55 54 466 110 91 43 89 32 3,188 752 803 334 171 118 300 118 14 9 618 115 148 75 526 172 121 71 415 108 91 42 85 23 3,025 946 518 404 209 147 309 138 38 13 673 178 145 44 460 70 96 71 493 97 95 23 76 33 3,265 968 670 376 139 107 323 153 25 19 625 159 181 79 516 118 156 131 514 87 115 25 82 31

109

Figure 4.36 Cumulative plot of (a) yield and (b) income of experimental plot in plain bed plot preparation

110

Figure 4.37 Cumulative plot of (a) yield and (b) income of experimental plot in raised bed plot preparation

111

From the Table 4.16, the paired samples t-test indicated that plain bed plot gave significantly (p<0.001) higher in yield for the total weight, and all grading size except for ZO grade. Very high in cumulative total weight, approximately 100 kg (Figure 4.38), it may due to the difference in duration of harvesting since the cutting time of each plot preparation were overlapped and the total cutting times of the raised bed plot was 6 season while the plain bed plot were 5 times. The farm management was also carried out with 2 different farmer families, and the decision on harvesting was depending on the weather and the vigor of the asparagus plant. Soil texture were contributed to this difference too, since the soil in raised bed plot were sandy clay loam after the field experiment while the plain bed plot were remained clay loam (Table 4.18 and 4.19 for plain bed and raised bed, respectively). Table 4.16 Asparagus total yield (g) of the whole year harvesting from different plot preparation and level of organic fertilizer application. Organic fertilizer level (kg/rai)
800BM 500BM 200BM 200BM + BF 500OF

Yield (g)

Plain bed plot ( 212 days)


Total weight

60,557 3,599 Grade AC25 40,620 3,367 Grade AF25 5,429 288 Grade AC20 90 21 Grade AF20 23 3 Grade BC 6,459 158 Grade BF 2,511 41 Grade CC 2,066 99 Grade AO 1,105 88 Grade BCO 1,411 63 Grade ZO 825 44 Income 2,250 157 (Baht) Raised bed plot (155 days)

59,453 9,513 39,474 7,973 5,440 664 90 37 35 17 6,431 768 2,582 158 2,031 66 1,063 58 1,451 41 836 48 2,200 395

56,931 5,549 37,423 4,946 5,396 221 60 18 23 10 6,319 241 2,474 65 1,979 36 1,013 120 1,355 93 787 68 2,099 235

62,329 5,004 42,107 4,417 5,503 239 66 28 33 33 6,624 50 2,506 55 2,092 93 1,056 54 1,446 89 838 125 2,321 206

61,438 3,178 41,372 2,602 5,521 331 81 27 21 15 6,594 197 2,441 131 2,050 61 1,073 57 1,393 62 786 101 2,287 129

Total weight

Grade AC25 Grade AF25 Grade AC20 Grade AF20 Grade BC Grade BF Grade CC Grade AO Grade BCO Grade ZO Income (Baht)

31,755 3,626 5,829 1,334 1,164 403 6,161 972 825 207 5,240 579 1,525 281 3,822 535 1,668 512 3,739 318 904 86 860 130

30,138 5,099 5,225 1,642 1,696 659 6,304 1,244 736 293 5,199 905 1,421 275 3,829 682 1,649 456 3,299 238 798 200 830 172

31,540 3,286 6,248 1,173 1,407 316 6,515 1,326 847 181 5,402 417 1,369 240 3,945 402 1,657 270 3,060 211 797 138 883 114

29,079 5,673 4,328 1,261 1,543 515 5,382 966 771 281 5,576 1,316 1,436 298 4,006 874 1,463 645 3,533 321 821 85 762 167

31,033 5,014 5,161 1,344 1,610 641 5,982 1,241 727 357 5,504 739 1,479 295 4,165 781 1,668 542 3,634 448 993 135 829 159

Superscript letters in the row-wise indicated significantly difference at 95 percent of confident.

112

Figure 4.38 Comparison on the cumulative yield of asparagus harvested throughout the year of experiment with plain bed plot (p) and raised bed plot (r) for the varying organic fertilizers and biofertilizer applications. Asparagus requires a loose friable soil, moderate temperature and a dormant period, moderate fertility, weed control, irrigation, and pest and disease management for maximum spear production. Special consideration must be given to each of these factors during establishment as well as during the production years since asparagus may occupy the site for several years depending on the management. The health of asparagus plants during each crop determines yield for the next crop. The most frequent cause of reduced yields was neglecting of fields after harvesting. Due to the deep penetrating nature of the asparagus root, sandy loams are preferred with muck soils acceptable. Light textured sandy soils tend to produce spears earlier than heavy clay soils. Heavy soils can be used if crusting of the soils is prevented. Sandy soils that are extremely porous should not be utilized because of poor water holding capacity. Asparagus does not grow as well in acid soils (low pH). Slightly acid to neutral soils are preferred (pH 6.3-6.8). Much of the different in soil texture found in the plot of raised bed than in plain bed plot, before the field trial the soil texture were mainly loam and clay loam for both of the plot.

113

The geographic map of these 2 plots was drawn in Figure 4.39. These 2 plots were divided by a road. The land in the West side of the road was lower than the East side.

Plain Bed Trial plot Road

Raised Bed

Trial plot

Landscape gradient

Figure 4.39 Location map of filed trials in the experiment I.

The raised bed plot claimed to have higher soil erosion due to geographic of the land. The farmer also observed that fertilizer were washed off quickly after application in the raining season, and very low yield obtained during that period. On paired sample analysis of the different in soil condition before and after applied the tested fertilizer (Table 4.17 and 4.18) found that there were significantly different in some of the soil index such as pH, nitrogen and magnesium content, electro conductivity, and C/N ratio (p<0.05). The soil pH was lower after the complete the 1-year duration of the experiment with little higher in the nitrogen content in the soil. The Mg content, EC and CEC were significantly lower than at the beginning of the experiment.

114

Table 4.17 Soil index of the experiment plot in plain bed plot preparation.
Soil index Before field trial Soil texture pH OM (%) Total N (%) Available P (ppm) K (ppm) Ca (ppm) Mg (ppm) EC (dS/m) C/N ratio CEC (cmol/kg) After field trial Soil texture pH OM (%) N (%) P (ppm) K (ppm) Ca (ppm) Mg (ppm) EC (dS/m) C/N ratio CEC (cmol/kg) Fertilizer treatment applied every 15 days
800BM 500BM 200BM 500OF 200BM + BF

Clay loam 7.4 2.6 0.11 189 330 2400 480 0.75 13.57 22.6 Clay loam 5.8 2.2 0.11 42 130 2000 400 0.47 11.64 22.2

Clay loam 7.3 2.1 0.09 119 250 2080 490 0.79 13.79 21.2 Clay loam 5.7 2.0 0.11 38 100 2080 400 0.51 10.55 24.0

Clay loam 7.2 2.0 0.10 44 200 2000 450 0.70 11.51 21.2 Clay loam 6.0 2.3 0.12 66 110 2200 420 0.66 11.17 24.6

Clay loam 7.3 2.2 0.10 87 280 2720 480 0.76 12.59 23.6 Clay loam 5.9 2.1 0.11 41 130 2000 400 0.41 11.09 22.4 Clay loam 6.0 2.1 0.11 30 70 2160 390 0.42 11.09 25.2

Table 4.18 Soil index of the experiment plot in raised bed plot preparation.
Soil index Fertilizer treatment applied every 15 days
800BM 500BM 200BM 500OF 200BM + BF

Before field trial Soil texture Loam Clay loam Loam Clay loam pH 6.1 6.4 6.3 6.5 OM (%) 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.9 Total N (%) 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.09 Available P (ppm) 4 68 14 14 K (ppm) 30 50 40 50 Ca (ppm) 1520 1920 1680 2000 Mg (ppm) 450 400 380 380 EC (dS/m) 0.58 0.84 0.73 0.63 C/N ratio 13.11 12.82 13.27 12.59 CEC (cmol/kg) 19.0 20.8 19.2 19.0 After field trial Soil texture Sandy clay loam Sandy clay loamSandy clay loam Sandy clay loam pH 6.1 5.8 6.4 6.0 OM (%) 2.1 1.8 2.0 2.3 Total N (%) 0.11 0.08 0.09 0.11 Available P (ppm) 102 55 137 123 K (ppm) 150 110 90 110 Ca (ppm) 1840 1720 2000 2000 Mg (ppm) 400 380 370 380 EC (dS/m) 0.47 0.45 0.54 0.40 C/N ratio 11.09 13.13 12.89 12.18 CEC (cmol/kg) 19.6 19.2 20.2 21.8

Clay loam 5.9 1.9 0.09 59 70 1760 390 0.47 12.22 19.2

115

4.3.2.2 Experiment II: Testing the effects of irrigation systems and level of organic fertilizer application on the yield of asparagus Usually asparagus absorbs water deep in the soil profile. Asparagus is normally considered a deep rooted crop which can penetrate to a depth of 15 feet or more to mine nutrients and water. The crown consists of rhizomes, fleshy roots, and fibrous roots. The rhizomes are sites of nutrient and starch accumulation with buds, the buds give rise to the spears. Fleshy roots arise adventitiously from the rhizome and serve as absorptive organs for nutrients and water. Fibrous roots originate from the fleshy roots and assist in the absorption of nutrients and water. So the field trial was conducted to find the suitable irrigation systems, namely dripping water, mini sprinkler and sprinkler on the yield of asparagus. From Table 4.19, there was no effect of irrigation system on asparagus yield from the 1 crop but in the 2nd crop the sprinkle system induced significantly higher yield (p<0.05) than those of other systems, i.e. dripping and mini sprinkler. Mean of total weight from sprinkle system was 4.7 kg while the dripping and mini sprinkle gave only 1.5 - 2 kg per experimental plot. Table 4.19 Asparagus total yield (g) from 1st and 2nd harvested crop on the different type of irrigation system. Yield (g) Dripping water Mini sprinkler
3,755 407 2,101 220 148 51 910 197 130 38 168 84 48 34 102 44 143 50 128 13 1,931 355a 1,079 316a 202 69a 410 72a 47 14a 81 35a 18 14ab 98 92 17a 68 16a
st

Sprinkler
3,722 492 2,002 383 165 55 929 138 113 48 184 71 56 28 90 58 126 39 124 19 4,745 789b 3,005 619b 348 75b 938 149b 102 26b 162 71b 29 21b 16 11 141 27b 174 31b

February 7 February 21 (15 days) Total weight 3,806 606 Grade AC25 2,103 384 Grade AF25 170 65 Grade AC20 Grade AF20 Grade BC 926 146 Grade BF 138 56 Grade CC 185 70 Grade AO 48 37 Grade BCO 82 52 Grade ZO 140 51 Income (Baht) 130 22 April 1 April 21 (21 days) Total weight 1,544 165a Grade AC25 783 107a Grade AF25 152 33a Grade AC20 Grade AF20 Grade BC 404 65a Grade BF 54 25a Grade CC 48 18a Grade AO 11 12a Grade BCO 10 7 Grade ZO 80 22a Income (Baht) 52 6a

Superscript letters in the row-wise indicated significantly difference at 95 percent of confident.

116

Although considered to be drought tolerant, asparagus has been shown the respond to supplemental irrigation as in the study of Drost (1997a), the fern, storage root, and spear number decreased linearly with the decreasing in soil water potential but when supplied with the adequate irrigation in the later crop, asparagus growth improved and did not appear to have long term negative effect on plant performance. The water content near field capacity was needed for optimum asparagus spear size and yield (Drost, 1997b). Figure 4.40 shows the results on the effects of irrigation system and the applied levels of organic fertilizer. The organic fertilizer was broadcasted in to the experimental plot for the progressive level at 200, 500 and 800 kg/rai for every 15 days, which were calculated to be 4, 9 and 15 kg for the area of 30 m3. It was found that the 3rd crop, during June and July, were not responded to the fertilizer level, the results were more pronounce in the later crop, during August and September. From multivariate analysis of variance for the testing of the effect of irrigation system, level of biofertilizer and interaction between the 2 found that the major factor causing difference in asparagus yield was mainly due to irrigation system while the effects of organic fertilizer and interaction between the main effects were minimal. The amount of fertilizer applied were significant different when compared in the same irrigation system (p<0.05). Table 4.20 shows the results of multiple comparison of the yield of asparagus varying from different irrigation systems and organic fertilizer levels. Organic fertilizer at the level 800 kg/rai gave higher yield than the level 500 kg/rai, and the 200 kg/rai treatment gave the lowest yield. The effects of the organic fertilizer was somewhat slow due to the slow rate in releasing the nutrient to the plant, from the broadcasting the organic fertilizer in June and every 15 days after that the last crop started to receive the benefit of the fertilizer consider to be the 5th to 8th fertilizer application.

Table 4.20 Asparagus total yield (g) from 3rd and 4th harvested crop on the combination effects of irrigation system and level of organic fertilizer.
Dripping 200BM 500BM June 11 July 10 (30 days) Total weight 2,738 142a 2,665 145a a Grade AC25 693 93 680 185a ab Grade AF25 363 52 295 93a Grade AC20 Grade AF20 Grade BC 1,108 109a 1,105 78a Grade BF 263 51ab 253 77ab Grade CC 18 5 13 5 Grade AO 35 Grade BCO Grade ZO 300 58 300 32 Income (Baht) 78 4a 75 5a August 8 September 11 (35 days) Total weight 1,030 259a 1,533 22ab a Grade AC25 171 143 311 150a a Grade AF25 180 106 279 61abc Grade AC20 Grade AF20 Grade BC 348 84a 489 103bc Grade BF 133 43 181 48 Grade CC 5 10 Grade AO Grade BCO Grade ZO 201 53 310 61 Income (Baht) 26 11a 40 8a Yield (g) Mini sprinkler 500BM 2,848 243a 828 154a 313 128a 1,168 79a 234 55ab 8 10 35 290 38 83 9a 2,184 195bc 770 155ab 323 92abcd 544 93abc 250 105 8 10 280 8 65 7ab Sprinkler 500BM 8,175 946b 4,720 536b 473 65ab 2,208 314b 383 82b 25 19 56 293 37 289 33b 4,798 680de 3,200 509cd 390 120bcd 755 86de 248 56 10 12 198 79 179 26cd

800BM 2,832 197a 863 227a 290 124a 1,135 165a 200 29a 56 323 25 83 8a 2,204 170bc 715 159ab 288 79abc 624 63bcd 220 122 10 20 340 76 63 6ab

200BM 2,765 194a 728 145a 413 127ab 1,055 87a 260 35ab 18 15 293 39 80 6a 1,616 242ab 428 168ab 250 18ab 485 54bc 174 44 5 10 280 48 45 9a

800BM 2,688 233a 7,38 260a 333 67ab 1,070 66a 253 84ab 15 17 303 19 78 11a 2,985 216c 1,250 217b 258 33abc 858 76e 245 38 28 5 340 94 93 9b

200BM 8,273 1,009b 5,000 801b 430 86ab 2,073 186b 335 13ab 38 19 278 49 297 41b 4,388 673d 2,810 596c 458 92cd 715 99cde 238 75 5 10 195 47 163 28c

800BM 8,452 639b 4,910 314b 558 118b 2,178 198b 388 127b 28 25 5 10 285 55 301 17b 5,585 899e 3,797 673d 498 111d 820 108de 228 84 10 20 233 44 211 35d 146

Superscript letters in the row-wise indicated significantly difference at 95 percent of confident.

119

Sprinkler system generally gave higher yield in all size when compared to dripping water and mini sprinkler system. While the higher the fertilizer applied the greater yield of asparagus were obtained. There was a clearer trend in the latest crop for the increasing as obtained from Figure 4.40(b). Improper or inadequate control of weeds was one of the primary factors reducing growth and development (and thus yield) of asparagus. Weeds have been a major concern in asparagus production since deep plowing was not possible and because asparagus did not produce a dense canopy to shade out weeds. This plot of the experiment was the 3rd year of organic cultivation so the problem of weed control was critical (Figure 4.41). The weed problem also enhanced by the sprinkler water system, since the water was sprayed all over and between the ridges of the asparagus thus the weeds were also spread out. Generally the asparagus cultivation area of 2-rai would required at least 2 manpower for good care, because of weeds in organic agriculture have to manually eliminated.

Figure 4.41 Weed on the ridge of asparagus.

120

4.3.2.3 Experiment III: Testing the effects of organic fertilizer and combined chemical fertilizer application on asparagus yield The experimental plot located in Wattananakorn, Sa Kaeo province but not belong in the contract farming with the Swift Co., Ltd. company. This experiment tested whether the combined treatment between organic and chemical fertilizer would affect to the yield of asparagus. The result in Table 4.21 shows that there were no significant different among treatments of applying different level of fertilizer to the asparagus yield in both cutting season, July to August and November to December. Table 4.21 Asparagus total yield (g) from 4th and 5th harvested crop on the testing the effects of organic fertilizer application and combined chemical fertilizer.

Yield (g)

Organic fertilizer level (kg/rai)


800BM 500BM 200BM 200BM + CF

July 25 August 19 (26 days) Total weight Grade AC25 Grade AF25 Grade AC20 Grade AF20 Grade BC 7,419 312 2,793 186 2,470 164 755 106 667 40 58 17 8,060 196 3,040 109 2,641 103 874 22 708 68 64 25 7,668 461 2,933 207 2,596 89 725 95 638 104 62 18 8,004 366 3,057 122 2,693 157 817 74 688 47 57 25

July 25 August 19 (26 days) Grade BF Grade CC Grade AO Grade BCO Grade ZO Income (Baht) 56 20 24 11 25 4 561 55 31 6 262 14 59 10 22 10 44 20 571 94 41 9 285 8 65 3 36 18 30 17 566 113 40 11 271 15 57 6 27 14 33 7 564 107 20 14 284 12

November 19 December 5 (17 days) Total weight Grade AC25 Grade AF25 Grade AC20 Grade AF20 Grade BC Grade BF Grade CC Grade AO Grade BCO Grade ZO Income (Baht) 953 66 536 63 240 55 51 31 10 18 16 11 7 93 64 8 32 9 35 2 1,391 629 844 467 296 90 72 23 13 16 17 16 12 17 9 100 28 52 20 51 24 1,056 279 622 198 236 50 81 29 9 67 86 17 8 89 33 34 20 38 11 1,110 295 659 166 254 102 11 8 29 15 17 18 12 7 10 0 85 16 42 13 41 11

121

The yield from each treatment of fertilizer application either from organic or combination with chemical fertilizer were not significantly different in both crop. It could be conclude that the additional of chemical fertilizer did not give that advantage to the asparagus production. The quality indices of soil before and after the experiment, were presented in Table 4.22. Table 4.22 Soil index of the experiment plot in conventional farm.
Soil index Before experiment Soil texture pH OM (%) N (%) P (ppm) K (ppm) Ca (ppm) Mg (ppm) EC (dS/m) C/N ratio CEC (cmol/kg) After experiment Soil texture pH OM (%) N (%) P (ppm) K (ppm) Ca (ppm) Mg (ppm) EC (dS/m) C/N ratio CEC (cmol/kg) Fertilizer treatment applied every 15 days 800BM 500BM 200BM 200BM + CF Loam 6.7 2.6 0.09 165 180 1800 360 0.91 16.98 17.4 Clay loam 5.9 2.2 0.19 225 190 1920 370 0.59 14.22 20.2 Loam 6.3 1.7 0.07 78 190 1520 380 0.67 13.88 15.4 Clay loam 5.7 2.2 0.01 239 230 1600 350 0.71 12.8 18.8 Loam 6.5 2.3 0.08 369 260 1520 350 0.91 16.63 15 Clay loam 5.7 2.6 0.12 254 210 1680 320 0.65 12.58 16.8 Loam 6.4 2.4 0.09 119 220 1600 360 0.9 15.78 13.4 Clay loam 5.7 2.8 0.13 437 280 1640 370 0.62 12.54 18.8

Soil was become more acidic as the pH of soil lower from 6.5 down to 5.7 after completed the experiment in December. There should be noted that the plot of combined organic and chemical fertilizer had very high in phosphorus, 437 ppm, compared to the plots which applied only with the bovine manure compost, 254 ppm, at the same amount of organic fertilizer applied (200BM). This could indicate in phosphorus deposit resulted from the chemical fertilizer application which may harm the balance of soil in long run. The yield resulted from conventional agriculture crop was selected to compare with the yield obtained from organic farming. In this case, it should keep in mind that factors affecting the results were from the different in location, farm management and experience in grading of the asparagus produce. The location of conventional farm were 70 km away from the organic farm, and the farmer were not under to contract farming with the company so they were having less familiar to the companys grading size.

122

The organic agriculture (OA) plot selected for comparison was also from the 3rd year of OA, using same irrigation system (sprinkler) and having similar harvesting time (raining season). Partial results from the experimental II, testing the irrigation system, were divided only for the sprinkler part and used in this comparison. The results (Table 4.23) found there were no significant different in the total weight and the income for the asparagus harvested from the organic agriculture practice on the organic farm management (OA - JuneJuly, 30 days) and the conventional agriculture practice which applied only with the organic fertilizer or the combination of organic fertilizer and synthetic fertilizer (CA - July-August, 26 days). The different were found in the some grade such as AC25, AF25, AC20, AF20, BC, BF, AO and ZO which rather considered as the difference in decision making of the farmers when they graded the asparagus produce. Table 4.23 Comparison of asparagus yield (g) from conventional and organic agriculture harvested during June to August, 2007.
Yield (g)

Organic fertilizer level (kg/rai)


800BM 500BM 200BM 200BM + CF

Conventional Agriculture, July August (26 days) Total weight Grade AC25 Grade AF25 Grade AC20 Grade AF20 Grade BC Grade BF Grade CC Grade AO Grade BCO Grade ZO Income (Baht) 7,419 312 2,793 186 2,470 164 755 106 667 40 58 17 56 20 24 11 25 4 561 55 31 6 262 14 8,060 196 3,040 109 2,641 103 874 22 708 68 64 25 59 10 22 10 44 20 571 94 41 9 285 8 7,668 461 2,933 207 2,596 89 725 95 638 104 62 18 65 3 36 18 30 17 566 113 40 11 271 15 8,004 366 3,057 122 2,693 157 817 74 688 47 57 25 57 6 27 14 33 7 564 107 20 14 284 12

Organic Agriculture, June July (30 days) Total weight Grade AC25 Grade AF25 Grade AC20 Grade AF20 Grade BC Grade BF Grade CC Grade AO Grade BCO Grade ZO Income(Baht) 8,452 639 4,910 314 558 118 2,178 198 388 127 28 25 5 10 285 55 301 17 8,175 946 4,720 536 473 65 2,208 314 383 82 25 19 56 293 37 289 33 8,273 1,009 5,000 801 430 86 2,073 186 335 13 38 19 278 49 297 41

123

4.3.3 Storage Stability of Organic Asparagus Both organic asparagus and conventional asparagus samples were taken to determine physicochemical quality during storage 3 weeks at low temperature (52C). 4.3.3.1 Changes of weight loss Figure 4.42 shows changes of weight loss of organic asparagus and conventional asparagus with no packaging and packed in plastic wrapped tray during storage at low temperature. Asparagus without packaging had higher weight loss, especially in conventional asparagus. After 22 days of storage, 19.1 and 25.8 % weight loss were obtained from nonpacked organic and conventional asparagus, respectively. Without plastic film wrapping, the organic asparagus tended to have higher stability on loss of water content than the conventional one. Whereas, both of wrapped organic and conventional asparagus tended to have lower weight loss and they had no difference in loss of weight (2.59 and 3.81 % for organic and conventional asparagus after 22 days of storage). Relative humidity, the temperature of the product and its surrounding atmosphere, and air velocity all affect the amount of water loss from fresh fruits, vegetables, and flowers. Therefore, enveloping commodities in plastic films maintain high relative humidity and weight loss can reduce as seen in wrapped asparagus.

Figure 4.42 Changes of weight loss (%) of organic and conventional asparagus with no packaging and packed in plastic film wrapped trays during 3 weeks of storage at 52C.

124

4.3.3.2 Remaining of chlorophyll Figure 4.43 shows reduction of chlorophyll of organic asparagus and conventional asparagus during 3 weeks of storage at low temperature. Before storage, chlorophyll content of organic asparagus was higher (0.097 mg/g) while conventional asparagus was 0.033 mg/g. Chlorophyll content in asparagus tended to decrease rapidly to 0.032 mg/g or 66.6% reduction at 22 days of storage. Conventional asparagus seemed to have higher stability in chlorophyll content according to lower reduction of chlorophyll content (about 36.1% reduction). However, the content (0.021 mg/g at 22 days) was still lower than the organic one.

Figure 4.43 Changes of chlorophyll content (mg/g) of organic and conventional asparagus during 3 weeks of storage at 52C. 4.3.3.3 Changes of asparagus color Color changes are attributed to the breakdown of chlorophyll either by enzymes or by photodegradation. Chlorophyll pigments are normally protected from photodegradation by intercellular membranes, known as thylakoid membranes. These membranes deteriorate during senescence, making the pigment molecules prone to destruction. This experiment aimed to measure the color using Hunter Colorimeter L* (lightness), a* (redness-greeness), and b*(yellowness-blueness) values. Whole asparagus was blended and used for color measurement. The color was measured from organic (Swift Co., Ltd.) and conventional asparagus (Huaykwang local market). Two types of packaging were used, the first had no

125

package and the other was wrapped with polyvinylchloride plastic films. After measurement, L*, a* and b* values were used to calculate chroma value from square root of (a*)2 + (b*)2. Chroma values describe color intensity; vivid colors have high chroma values, while dull colors have low chroma values. Figure 4.44, 4.45, 4.46 and 4.47 show the changes of L*, a*, b* and chroma values of organic asparagus and conventional asparagus with no packaging and packed in plastic wrapped trays during storage at low temperature. L* and a* values in all treatments reduced, while b* value (yellowness) of all samples increased during storage. Therefore, color of asparagus during storage tended to be darker (reduction in L* value) and had more yellowness (increase in b* value). From Figure 4.46, chroma values of all samples increased. Organic asparagus tended to have higher change of chromaticity values (about 10.6 - 10.8 % after 22 days of storage). As explained by Lancaster et al. (1997), chroma values for completely green pepper are reported to average 30.4, while those that are yellow/green in color averaged 45.5. The averages in chroma values for their study seem to indicate a green pepper but with some yellow color present. This portion of yellow may contribute to the duller green color indicated by the lower chroma values. Comparing to the asparagus chroma values, before storage, the chroma value of organic asparagus was lower (27.3), while the conventional one was about 28.6. Thus, organic asparagus had more green color and this was consistent with the result of chlorophyll content. However, during storage, conventional asparagus tended to be more stable in color change due to the lower reduction of chroma values (8.1-8.4 % after 22 days of storage). Packaged and non-packaged asparagus seemed to have not much different color changes during storage.

126

Figure 4.44 Changes of L* of organic (or) and conventional (con) asparagus with no packaging (np) and packed (p) in plastic film wrapped trays during 3 weeks of storage at 52C.

Figure 4.45 Changes of a* of organic (or) and conventional (con) asparagus with no packaging (np) and packed (p) in plastic film wrapped trays during 3 weeks of storage at 52C.

127

Figure 4.46 Changes of b* of organic (or) and conventional (con) asparagus with no packaging (np) and packed (p) in plastic film wrapped trays during 3 weeks of storage at 52C.

Figure 4.47 Changes of chroma value of organic (or) and conventional (con) asparagus with no packaging (np) and packed (p) in plastic film wrapped trays during 3 weeks of storage at 52C.

128

4.3.3.4 Ascorbic acid loss Ascorbic acid or vitamin C is one of major vitamins found in fruits and vegetables. From Figure 4.48 ascorbic acid content obtained from organic asparagus (12.04 mg/100g) was higher than conventional asparagus (11.13 mg/100 g). During storage, ascorbic acid from both types of asparagus tended to reduce. Organic asparagus gave lower reduction of ascorbic acid content (76.1%) than conventional asparagus (81.7%) at 17 days of storage. This may be resulted from the amount of nitrogen from any kind of fertilizer affects the amounts of vitamin C content. Because organically managed soils generally present plants with lower amounts of nitrogen than chemically fertilized soils, it would be expected that organic crops would have more vitamin C than comparable conventional crops (Worthington, 2001).

Figure 4.48 Loss of ascorbic acid content (mg/100g) of organic and conventional asparagus during 3 weeks of storage at 52C. 4.3.3.5 Alteration of asparagus texture Changes of texture of organic asparagus and conventional asparagus during low temperature storage were shown in terms of peak force, percentage change of peak force, hardness and percentage change of hardness (Figure 4.49 - 4.52). Peak force and hardness tended to increase in the first period of storage and then decrease after long time storage in

129

both conventional and organic asparagus. Texture of fresh organic asparagus was firmer than conventional asparagus. Texture changes result in post harvest quality loss in asparagus. Weight loss, which is primarily a function of water loss, leads to textural changes as well as appearance changes. From the result, the increase in peak force and hardness may be attributed to the increased rubbery nature of the softening asparagus tissue. The decrease in peak force was indicated after 14 days of storage.

Figure 4.49 Peak force (N) of organic and conventional asparagus during 3 weeks of storage at 52C.

130

Figure 4.50 Change of peak force (%) of organic and conventional asparagus during 3 weeks of storage at 52C

Figure 4.51 Hardness (N/mm) of organic and conventional asparagus during 3 weeks of storage at 52C

131

Figure 4.52 Changes of hardness (%) of organic and conventional asparagus during 3 weeks of storage at 52C

4.3.4 Nutrition Value of Conventional and Organic asparagus Asparagus is one of the most nutritionally well-balanced vegetables in existence. Table 4.24 shows the nutrition content of 100 g fresh asparagus which was produced under organic agriculture system. All samples were harvested from organic farms in Sa Kaeo province, 5 samples were collected from 1-year old the asparagus farm and 3 samples collected from 3-year old asparagus farm. Several nutritional properties of asparagus obtained from the 2 groups were significantly different. Asparagus from 3-year organically managed farm had lower moisture content but higher protein content, energy value, vitamin C and B2, ash and mineral (calcium and iron) content when compared to that spears collected from 1-year organically managed farm (p<0.05).

132

Table 4.24 Nutritional composition of organic asparagus from farm in Sa Kaeo province with difference in cultivation year
Nutrition per 100g Calories (kcal) Calories from fat (kcal) Fat (g) Protein (g) Carbohydrate (g) Dietary fiber (g) Total sugars (g) Vitamin A (g) Vitamin B1 (mg) Vitamin B2 (mg) Vitamin C (mg) Water (g) Ash (g) Calcium (mg) Iron (mg) Sodium (mg) No.1 26.5 2.07 0.23 1.98 4.13 1.66 2.16 20.9 0.08 0.04 17.1 93.0 0.66 13.0 0.47 2.1 OA (first year) No.2 No.3 No.4 26.2 26.7 26.5 2.16 2.43 2.16 0.24 0.27 0.24 1.94 1.94 1.94 4.06 4.12 4.15 1.55 1.68 1.74 2.00 2.16 1.98 18.7 13.7 17.0 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.04 14.5 13.0 16.7 93.1 93.0 93.0 0.66 0.67 0.67 10.0 12.0 10.0 0.47 0.47 0.48 2.3 2.0 2.3 No.5 26.3 1.35 0.15 1.88 4.35 1.57 2.33 15.0 0.07 0.04 16.5 92.9 0.72 10.0 0.44 2.2 OA (third year) No.1 No.2 No.3 28.6 28.7 28.0 2.52 3.15 2.52 0.28 0.35 0.28 2.26 2.21 2.24 4.26 4.17 4.14 1.60 1.70 1.61 2.05 2.12 2.2 28.5 21.1 18.4 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.04 0.05 0.05 19.0 17.2 20.1 92.5 92.5 92.6 0.70 0.77 0.74 16.0 14.0 13.7 0.70 0.65 0.82 2.3 2.2 2.3

Bold number indicated significant difference in pair comparison at 95% confident level.

Table 4.25 shows the nutritional values of asparagus from conventional farm. The asparagus samples were collected from 2 locations, i.e. Sa Kaeo and Nakhon Pathom province. The differences were minimal between the 2 locations. The significant difference was found only in energy values and moisture content of the asparagus (p<0.05). Table 4.25 Nutritional composition of conventional asparagus from different location
CA (Sa Kaeo) No.1 No.2 29.0 28.9 3.24 2.61 0.36 0.29 2.69 2.56 3.74 4.02 1.43 1.60 1.66 1.79 29.8 21.0 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.05 20.3 16.8 92.4 92.5 0.81 0.63 13.0 14.0 0.61 0.57 2.1 2.2 CA (Nakhon Pathom) No.1 No.2 26.0 25.2 1.98 1.71 0.22 0.19 2.48 2.34 3.53 3.52 1.69 1.67 1.50 1.70 21.7 20.6 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.04 17.4 15.9 93.0 93.2 0.77 0.75 14.0 15.0 0.61 0.58 2.0 2.2

Nutrition per 100g Calories (kcal) Calories from fat (kcal) Fat (g) Protein (g) Carbohydrate (g) Dietary fiber (g) Total sugars (g) Vitamin A (g) Vitamin B1 (mg) Vitamin B2 (mg) Vitamin C (mg) Water (g) Ash (g) Calcium (mg) Iron (mg) Sodium (mg)

Bold number indicated significant difference in pair comparison at 95% confident level.

133

4.3.4.1 Comparison the nutritional aspects of organic and conventional asparagus

Carbohydrate and sugar content of the organic asparagus were significantly higher than conventional asparagus (p<0.001). Asparagus carbohydrate composes of 2 main portions of dietary fiber and total sugar. From Table 4.25, organic asparagus had higher total sugar than conventional asparagus but not higher in dietary fiber. Even though there was no difference in the fiber content, consumers may prefer sweeter taste of organic asparagus than the conventional asparagus.

There were the confirmation from the study of Worthington (2001) for the relationship between the production of carbohydrate and protein in plants. Nitrogen from any kind of fertilizer affects the amounts of vitamin C as well as the quantity of protein produced by plants. When plant was presented with a lot of nitrogen, it increases protein production and reduces carbohydrate production. Moreover, the increased protein that is produced in respond to high nitrogen levels contains lower amounts of certain essential amino acids such as lysine and consequently has a lower quality in terms of nutrition. If there is more nitrogen than the plant can handle through increased in protein production, the excess is accumulated as nitrates and stored predominantly in the green leafy part of the plant. Because organically managed soils generally provide plants with lower amounts of nitrogen than chemical fertilizing soils. It would be expected that organic crops would have more vitamin C, less nitrate and less protein but of a higher quality than comparable conventional crops.

Protein content of conventional asparagus were significantly higher than that of organic asparagus (p<0.001), but the difference was not found in vitamin C content. The average protein content in conventional asparagus was 2.5 g while organic asparagus had 2.0 g from 100 g of fresh asparagus sample, respectively.

Table 4.26 was the nutrition information of raw asparagus provided by the USDA National nutrient database for standard reference. It was found that the tested results were complied very well the general nutritional values standard, even though the asparagus planted in Thailand and in the United Stated were differ in varieties. The varieties of asparagus planted in Thailand were generally Brookes or Brookes Improve variety. It could be noted that the average vitamin C content of Thai asparagus (17 mg) was 3 times higher than the USDA standard (5.6 mg).

134

Table 4.26 Nutrition values of raw asparagus spears from Thailand and United State
Nutrition per 100g Calories (kcal) Fat (g) Protein (g) Carbohydrate (g) Dietary fiber (g) Total sugars (g) Vitamin A (g) Vitamin B1 (mg) Vitamin B2 (mg) Vitamin C (mg) Water (g) Ash (g) Calcium (mg) Iron (mg) Sodium (mg)
a b

Thailand a 27 1 0.26 0.06 2.20 0.27 4.01 0.27 1.6 0.1 1.97 0.25 21 5 0.074 0.008 0.043 0.005 17.0 2.1 92.81 0.28 0.71 0.06 13 2 0.57 0.11 2.18 0.11

USb 20 0.12 0.01 2.20 0.02 3.88 2.1 1.88 38 0.143 0.016 0.141 0.007 5.6 0.21 93.22 0.58 0.01 24 1 2.14 1.35 2.00 0.26

Mean value and standard deviation of asparagus from Thailand obtained from 12 samples Mean value and standard deviation of asparagus from US obtained from USDA database of approximately 4-6 samples

4.3.5 Satisfactory Survey for the Farmers Practicing Organic Farming

There were farmers in the area of Tubtim Siam 02 and 05 who has been involving with the organic farming for many years and signed the contract farming with the Swift Co., Ltd. Total 74 families were interviewed to access the factors affecting satisfactory level of farmers related to organic agriculture. The questionnaire was provided in appendix H (in Thai).

The questionnaire divided into 3 sections the first section was personal information, the second section was information about organic agriculture and the last section was the satisfactory of farmers in several aspects such as income from the organic agriculture, farmers health, relationship between family members and relationship within community, leisure and entertaining activities and ability of debts paying back. The satisfactory level were classified into 5 levels; barely satisfied, slightly satisfied, moderately satisfied, highly satisfied and extremely satisfied. Crosstab results were presented in the Table 4.27. Appendix I presents the statistical details of the cross tab analysis.

135

Table 4.27 Factors affecting the satisfactory level of the organic farmers.
Satisfaction of farmers Factors Income Health Family Social Leisure Pay back ability

Personal information Gender Age Education Organic agriculture experience Average income per harvesting Organic initiation idea Debts Organic agriculture issues Knowledge about fertilizer Knowledge about soil fertility Knowledge about biofertilizer Farmers association activity Knowledge about certification Knowledge about pest and disease Organic information booklet Farmer meeting Demonstration Consultancy

*** ** ** ** *** **

**

* * ** * * * * *** * *** *** ** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** *** ** * *** *** ** ** * ** ** * * ** * ***

* indicated significantly difference at 95 percent of confident (p<0.05) ** indicated significantly difference at 99 percent of confident (p<0.01). *** indicated significantly difference at 99.9 percent of confident (p<0.001).

4.3.5.1 Individual perspectives that influence to satisfaction of organic agriculture

The result described in the Table 4.28 was the effects of many factors that significantly influenced the satisfaction of the farmers. The explanation were in the row-wise on the factors that affected to the satisfaction level of farmers with more than 95% confident level.

Family member: It was found that male farmers were satisfied with their income and ability to payback for their debts more than female farmers. The 2-rai acreage of organic asparagus in this area required 2-manpower for the good management, generally would be a couple who took care the field. From the interviewed farmers of 74 families, the data were obtained from 43 males and 31 female. About 91% of male farmers and only 52% of female farmers highly satisfied with their income level and may be the female farmers expected higher income than the male farmers. In the case of payback, 84% of male farmers were

136

highly satisfied with their ability to paying back the debts, compared to female farmers that only 52% were highly satisfied and 48% were moderately satisfied. The satisfaction about the farmers health condition, relationships between family members and community, and leisure time were not influenced by the difference in gender.

Age: As farmers practicing the organic agriculture (OA) were getting older, they were increasing the satisfying level about their own health condition, the relationship among their own family and community. About 65% of farmers of 30-40 years old were moderately satisfied with their health when 73% of farmers of 40-50 years old and 88% of the farmers older than 50 years of age were highly satisfied with their health condition. It could be explained that OA help in maintaining healthy, and they thought they were in good health condition than they expected when they became older. The satisfactory level also increased from 70% of the farmers at 30-40 years old of who moderately satisfied to 73% (40-50 years old farmers) and 88% (more than 50 years old farmers) that highly satisfied to the relationships within their family. Besides they satisfied with the relationship with theirs family they also satisfied with their own community, 65% of the member of 30-40 years of age who moderately satisfied with the community were increased to 73 and 88 % when they were 40-50 and more than 50 years old, respectively.

Education: The education of the farmers found to have effects as the primary and secondary school graduated were satisfied with their community and on leisure activities when they were spending on their spare time more than the farmer whom did not have an education. This may not be a solid conclusion since the farmer who did not have an education were only 1 farmer who slightly satisfied with the social relationship out of 74 surveyed farmers, 61 and 12 farmers were having primary and secondary school education, respectively. The farmers were divided in half for moderately and highly satisfied with the community as there were 49% of primary and 50% of secondary school level farmers that highly satisfied with the community. It was contrasted with the satisfactory with the leisure, farmer with no education were moderately satisfied with the leisure while 93% and 83% of primary and secondary school level farmers were slightly satisfied with their leisure time. This may indicated that the farmer who did not have education isolated himself out of the neighbors, and afraid that he may gain lower acceptances in the society.

Organic agriculture experience: Farmers with the longer experiences on OA had more ability to payback for their debts. This also due to the long term contract farming that can guarantee the price and duration. So farmers were more flexible with their financial plan

137

or other expenses. From the interviewee, there were 2 new farmers that has experience less than 1 year, 22 farmers that had experiences between 1-2 years, 42 farmers with the experiences between 3-4 years and the number of farmers declined to 6 farmers who had experiences for 5-6 years and only 2 farmers that had experiences more than 6 years of organic agriculture. The most percentage of farmers who highly satisfied with the ability to paying back the debts came from the group of 3-4 years (81%) and 5-6 years (83%) experience in OA.

Average income during harvesting: From the interviewee, there were 4 farmers that had income between 3,000 10,000 bath/cutting, 55 farmers had income between 10,000 30,000 baht/cutting and 15 farmers that had income higher than 30,000 baht/cutting. But the different in income per harvesting period did not significantly influence the satisfactory level of farmers.

Initiation idea of joining organic agriculture: The reason of joining the organic asparagus production was mainly came from the initiation from the company (81%), the recommendation from their neighbors (16%), and the information from the government officer (3%). Farmers who joined the organic asparagus farming because of the recommendation from neighbors, 100% highly satisfied, and because of receiving information from the government officer, 67% highly satisfied, were more satisfied with the community than the farmers who had the direct contact with the company, 57% moderately satisfied. The farmers with the company initiation were satisfying with the ability to payback for their debts more than farmers who join the contract from other reasons. All of the farmers in every reason after join the asparagus OA found that they were less satisfied with their leisure time (90% of farmers were slightly satisfied); they claim to be too busy with the farm maintenance. Debts: Most of the farmers were having debts, only 3 farmers out of 74 farmers who had no debt. The causes of the farmers debts were due to loan for OA (54%), debts that they already had before joining OA (30%), and loan for the education of their children (11%). Debts were a strong factors that affecting the satisfactory in many cases. Even though, they were on debts, most of farmers were highly satisfied on their income level and their ability on paying back the debts. Total 74% of all farmers were highly satisfied with the income level came from farmers recently having debts from OA (39%), farmers that has debts from previous agriculture (24%) and farmers that had debts from academic loan for their children (8%). The farmers who had debts from the previous agriculture, mostly conventional agriculture such as cassava and sugar cane, were less satisfied with their health and relationships between their family and the community.

138

4.3.5.2 Factors improving the satisfactory level of organic asparagus farmers

The opportunity to obtained knowledge about organic farming also affects the satisfactory level of farmers.

Organic fertilizer: The knowledge about organic fertilizer help improved relationship in the family, the farmer and family members could help each other in preparing the organic fertilizer that increase the participation in the family. All of farmers that had much very much of knowledge about organic fertilizer were highly satisfied with the relationship within their family (100%).

Soil fertility: Having knowledge about the soil improvement and fertility also influenced in various aspects such as the farmer would have higher income and improved in the relationship within neighbors or community. The relationships between the knowledge about soil fertility and the ability of payback were very interesting, since the farmers who had moderately knowledge about the soil would somewhat satisfy with the ability of paying the debts, but if they gained more knowledge about soil fertility, it reduced in the ability of paying back the debts. The 75% of farmers that had moderate knowledge of soil fertility were highly satisfied with the ability of paying back the debts, while only 60% of farmers that had much of knowledge were highly satisfied. This may be due to farmer were using more money to invest in the farm in an attempt to improve the soil nutrients that resulted in less money left to pay the debts.

Biofertilizer: The knowledge about biofertilizer also elevated the satisfactory in income level, farmers health, improved social relationship and gained more ability to paying back the debts. There were 72% of farmers who had moderate much of the knowledge about biofertilizer highly satisfied with their income level. And 83% of the farmers who had much of the knowledge about biofertilizer highly satisfied with their health condition and with the same ratio that goes for the satisfactory level for the community, that indicate the absent of hazardous farm input made the asparagus farmers satisfied more with their health and they also share this knowledge with their neighbors. Finally, to gain more knowledge about the biofertilizer reduced the time for leisure (91%) but improving the ability to payback the debts (70%).

The organized farmer group: The farmer association activities were contrasted with the leisure time, the farmer were less satisfied with their free time if there were too often meeting, about 91% of farmers that participated with the farmers association had low level of

139

satisfaction with the leisure time. But 70% of farmers claimed that meeting was benefit to the ability of payback and they were highly satisfied.

Organic farming certification: The information and knowledge about the certified organic regulation increased the satisfactory level in the relationship with the community, for example 67% of farmers that highly understand the organic regulation were highly satisfied with their community. The farmers who learn a lot of the organic regulations may help sharing the knowledge with their neighbors so gained more acceptances between friends. To learn more about the certified regulation and asparagus pest and disease used up the available free time of the farmers, they were less satisfied with the leisure.

Pest and disease: The information and knowledge related to asparagus pest and disease increased the satisfactory level in the relationship with the community and the farmer. The more understanding about asparagus pest and disease significantly improved the ability of paying back of the farmers but less satisfied with the leisure time.

4.3.5.3 Means of improving satisfactory level of organic asparagus farmers

On the method of providing the organic agriculture knowledge to the farmers found that more effective methods were the providing of leaflet or booklet about OA information, followed by giving the demonstration and having the consultancy staff for related OA problems.

These 3 methods were more effective than the farmers meeting, though the meeting were improved the satisfactory level on the relationship with the community but little advantage were obtained in terms of the new knowledge about organic agriculture to improve their production. This is indicated that there should be supplied knowledge and agricultural techniques transfer to the farmers from outsider. All of the effective methods in providing information of OA could increase the level of satisfactory of the farmers in their own health and the relationship between the family members and to the community.

4.4

Conclusions

4.4.1 Conclusion on Time Series Analysis of Income

The income of conventional farmer was approximately 2 times higher than organic farmer of asparagus. This significant difference was due to the location of the organic farms,

140

which normally required the isolated environment which are often far away from the processing plant. So the cost of transportation was very high. The higher logistic cost encompass the advantage of the premium price of organic asparagus in the rural area. In this case study, organic asparagus received the price 1.5 times lower than conventional asparagus at the purchasing point.

Calculating the yield of the asparagus from 2 different agricultural practice alone, it was found that the decline in the yield produced by organic agriculture was not severe. Annual profit of farmers from both agricultural practices ranged between 50,000 60,000 Baht/rai. It was also observed that the fluctuation of the income level was more pronounced due to the year of recorded data, implying the stronger influence from climate and environment rather than the difference in agricultural systems.

The studies on organic farmers revealed very large variation in the income which might be attributed to farmers experience in organic agriculture (years after adoption OA), harvesting duration (weeks) and environmental factor (year of recorded data). Income per rai was found to be significantly higher in the 2nd and 3rd year of cultivation, and then dropped down in the 4th year. Farmer suspected that the decline in the yield was caused by the deterioration of asparagus parent crowns after 4 years of cultivation.

K-means clustering was applied to 27 farmers using criteria of income per unit area, number of harvesting weeks per year, amount of organic fertilizer used, cost of biofertilizer application and total production cost in order to classify farmers into 3 different groups according to level of farm maintenance: high, moderate and low. Significantly differences (p<0.01) were found in income level which was caused by inherit factor since it was not directly related to the input level. Factor that affected farmers income could be explained as farm maintenance level, for example weed control, disease and pest management, sufficient water supply, etc. Intensive care and high farm maintenance could prolong the duration of asparagus harvesting resulted in higher income. In the 2nd year of organic farming, group of high farm maintenance, 5 farmers, has annual income around 80,000 Baht/rai which is approximately 133% higher than moderate farm maintenance farmers (7 farmers 60,000 Baht/rai) and 200% higher than low farm maintenance farmers (15 farmers 40,000 Baht/rai). The analysis concluded that the income of farmer depended on 3 major factors in the order of influence as followed: experience in

141

year of organic agriculture, environmental and climate conditions and level of organic farm maintenance of the individual farmers.

4.4.2 Conclusion on Field Trials

The study on the effectiveness of irrigation systems, plot preparations and organic fertilizer applications on the yield of asparagus was investigated by the 3 separate field trials. Within the irrigation system treatments chosen namely dripping water, mini sprinkler and sprinkler system, the sprinkler system was the most suitable irrigation system for the asparagus cultivation. Asparagus yield obtained from the sprinkler system were 2 times higher than the mini sprinkler system and 4 times higher than the dripping irrigation. Not only the sprinkler system can greatly increase the yield, but it also helped reduce in the incidence of some pest that hiding in the leaf of asparagus. However, there was one serious disadvantage of the sprinkler system. The major drawback is that this system of irrigation promotes the spreading weeds which requires a lot of time to remove the weed in the organic agricultural system.

The amount of organic fertilizer is seen as another factor to increase the yield of asparagus. This study showed that the more of the organic fertilizer applied, higher yield of asparagus obtained. The level of organic fertilizer application affected the yield of asparagus in the 3-year old plot but not affected the 1-year old plot. This may be due to the fact that the soil in newly planted plots was still fertile and there were enough nutrients to encourage the growth of asparagus. In contrast, the 3-year cultivation plot where nutrients could be drawn up by the plants resulted in the plants being more sensitive to the fertilizer application. The 1st year of asparagus production did not show any significant difference to the varying amount of organic fertilizer (200, 500 and 800 kg/rai) supplied to the soil. Additional applications of seaweed extract biofertilizer could significantly promoted asparagus yield. In this study, sea weed extract biofertilizer could significantly increase the yield of asparagus in the plain bed plot experiment where the application of biofertilizer was in combination with 200 kg/rai of bovine manure compost. Yield of organic and conventional asparagus produced in Sa Kaeo were not significantly different except that of conventionally managed soil where there was higher Phosphorus deposit.

The result from experiment to test effectiveness of plot preparation was difficult to conclude. Even though much higher yield was obtained from the plain bed plot than the raised bed plot, too much of the variance from factors outside the experimental design were noticed.

142

The external factors that influenced asparagus yield were the differences in farm attendance, soil texture and harvesting period. The field trials were composed of 2 plots which were located next to one another; they were separated only by a road in between. The two plots belonged to 2 families of the farmers that took care the experimental plots. The raised bed plot were more prone to soil erosion. As indicated by the results after 1-year experiment, soil texture were changed from clay loam/loam to sandy clay loam. The first crop of harvesting started at the same time in January. However, the ending harvest month was found to be different. The plain bed plot could harvest 5 crops which lasted until December, while the raised bed plot had 6 cutting seasons that ended in November. This plot preparation part of the study required further field trial to confirm the results.

4.4.3 Conclusion on the Storage of Asparagus

Asparagus packed in plastic wrapped trays tended to have lower weight loss than non-packed asparagus. Lower weight loss of organic asparagus was observed with comparison to conventional asparagus when asparagus was exposed to air without packaging. There was no difference in weight loss between the 2 samples when plastic wrapped trays were used. At the beginning of storage, chlorophyll content of organic asparagus was higher than conventional asparagus. However, higher stability was found during storage of conventional asparagus. Color of asparagus tended to be darker and more yellow during chilled storage. Chroma value of organic asparagus was initially lower but it increased during chilled storage. Packaging treatment had no effect on the changes of asparagus color. Ascorbic acid content of organic asparagus was initially higher than conventional asparagus. Likewise, better retention of ascorbic acid during chilled storage was also found in organic asparagus. Texture of fresh organic asparagus was firmer than conventional asparagus. However, both samples were softer during chilled storage as observed by decrease of peak force and hardness value.

4.4.4 Conclusion on the Nutrition of Organic and Conventional Asparagus

Asparagus from 3-year organic farm had lower moisture content but higher protein content, energy value, vitamin C and B2, ash and mineral (calcium and iron) content when compared to spears collected from 1-year old organic farm.

143

Organic asparagus from Sa Kaeo province had significantly higher sugar content than the conventional asparagus in Nakhon Pathom province. This indicated that the organic asparagus would be sweeter in taste and probably gain more preferences among the consumers. And when compared to the asparagus from USA, it was found that variety of Thailand contained very high in vitamin C, i.e. approximately 3 times higher than the varieties grown in USA.

4.4.5 Conclusion on the Satisfaction of the Organic Farmers

In an attempt to increase the satisfactory level of farmers towards the organic asparagus production, it was found that the satisfactory level about the community was very sensitive and responded to many factors. This was due to the fact that the organic asparagus production required more teamwork. The farmers had to form the well organized group to be successful in organic agriculture. Knowledge and technical transfers would also significantly improve the satisfactory level of the producers. At the time of investigation, the farmers lacked of the information about soil fertility and biofertilizer. Since these 2 aspects were very significant to the satisfaction in income level and the ability of paying back their debts, the company could improve their farmers satisfactory level by providing the knowledge in these two key areas. Through efficiently dissipating book, booklet or leaflet of information, setting up the field demonstration site and organizing the workshop and the consultant staff with the ability to answer the questions related to soil fertility and biofertilizer and provide technical advices such as soil testing and plant requirement, the efficiency/potential and the availability of the biofertilizer, the farmers should be more inclined to shift from conventional farming to organic farming.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION

The National Strategies for Organic Agriculture were proposed with the aim to promote organic agriculture in Thailand. The National Strategies comprise seven interrelated core strategies, which form a platform for dynamic development of the Thai organic agriculture sector. The strategies were specifically designed to facilitate sustainable growth of organic agriculture practices in Thailand and strengthen the overall sector, with particular reference to the export market. On the whole, these strategies cover production systems and supply chain, certification and control systems, research and multidisciplinary collaboration, training and extension services, domestic and international market expansion, and establishment of center of excellence for national and regional level. The action plan developed offers national-level strategies which can be implemented by the Thai Government in order to address the constraints and challenges identified by stakeholders over the past 12 months of the study, and enhance the competitiveness of the organic export sector.

A case study on organic asparagus production was carried out to verify the suitability and effectiveness of the National Strategies for Organic Agriculture to be adopted, and also to facilitate the implementation the National Strategies. This case study on organic asparagus production was carefully structured to test whether the National Strategies proposed could be implemented in practice. In particular, this study was designed to track the benefits obtained and any impediments that may surface during the implementation of the strategies.

In this study, all aspects of organic asparagus production, from socio-economic of asparagus cultivation, scientific proofs of the difference between organic and conventional asparagus, to satisfactory level survey of the farmers toward the organic agriculture indicated opportunities to implement organic agriculture in selected crops in Thailand. The implications of this study can be concluded as follows:5.1 Organic asparagus can be produced commercially and such commercial production is sustainable.

The results of this study showed that organic asparagus farming is commercially viable. Moreover, such commercial production can be sustained (and further improved) provided that a suitable approach is taken by the farmers. It was clear from the study that the

145

farmers would be able to generate sufficient income from a 2-rai farm (per family). Also, it was proven that organic fertilizer at the rate of 200 kg/rai was sufficient for the first year of organic asparagus production.

Although the results from time series analysis of income in organic asparagus farming indicated that yield reduction is common phenomena after conversion to organic agriculture, the results in this study showed that the declined in yield was acceptable. Annual profit of farmers of both organic and conventional asparagus was ranged between 50,000 60,000 Baht/rai/year, and there is a large variation in the income of organic asparagus farmers. Factors that affected farmers income could be explained as farm maintenance level. In general, intensive care and high farm maintenance could prolong the duration of asparagus harvesting resulted in higher income.

5.2

There is a prospect for broadening the production base for organic agriculture in selected crops.

Our study incorporated the concept of contract farming in the organic agriculture model consistent with the National Strategies developed. The results of this case study suggest that this unique model of organic asparagus production may be applied to other crops which possess similar characteristics to asparagus, such as baby corns and spices.

Documentation and database on organic production for a particular plant could be established based on the pattern on this study. The analyses on key factor that indicate the success on the implementing organic agriculture may assist the new farmers to repeat and adjust according to the different components such as geographical area, farming system and so on.

The basic knowledge in this study is also helpful for further in-depth research such as finalization the optimum application of organic fertilizer or formulation of biofertilizer for asparagus and other selected crops. In particular, the results of this study showed that self-made fertilizer from bovine manure compost was as effective as commercial brand organic fertilizers.

The extension of this study to other selected crops will significantly broaden the organic agriculture production base in Thailand. This will provide a basis for Thailand to become a center of excellence in organic agriculture in this region.

CommentsWWEonp145

1. Theclaimthatthedeclinedinyieldwasacceptableisnotsupportedbyanyevidence.Farmers rarelyacceptevena5%yieldpenalty,andinthiscasetheincomepenaltyispresentedat50% comparedwithconventionalproduction. 2. Yieldandincomefluctuationsarejustasunwelcometofarmers.Theirpersistenceandthe steadyannualdeclineinincomespointtotheinstabilityandunsustainabilityofthisproduction system. 3. Thisisspeculation,notconclusion. Thisagainisspeculative.Thequestionofbroadeningtheproductionbasehasnotbeenstudied 4. andcannotlegitimatelybepresentedasaconclusionofthisstudy. 5. Likewise,thetermcontractfarmingencompassesawiderangeofsystemswithvaryinglevels ofintervention,supportandcontrol.Thishasnotbeenmentionedanywhereinthestudyand theconclusionisthereforeunsupported. 6. Bythesamereasoning,itisrecklesstoclaimthatthisuniquemodelmaybeappliedtoother crops.Thisistotallyunsubstantiated. ThestudywassupposedtovalidatetheNationalStrategiesdeveloped,notjustfitintobe 7. consistentwiththem. 8. Thestudentscategorizationofasparagusinthesamegroupasbabycornsandspicesreveals thelowlevelofthestudentsbasicunderstandingofthesubjectmatter. 9. Theextensionofthisstudywillcontributenothingduetoitsconceptualshortcomingsand designflaws.Thisstudycanmakenoinformedintellectualcontributionandisrecklessin makingrecommendationsbasedoninsufficientandevenconflictingevidence.

146

Since many countries in the Southeast Asian region share the similar climatic and geographic conditions as Thailand, this case study in Thailand may help serve as a guideline for other countries in the region. With the probably similar constraints in the sense of research, production, standards and market development, this study has also shown that similar issues such as coordination among stakeholders, need for strong government support and the development of high-quality organic produce to serve the international market must be addressed.

5.3

The Thai organic products have high potentials to compete in the worlds markets.

The results of this study suggest that organic asparagus would be more preferred by consumers than conventional asparagus because organic asparagus is sweeter. More precisely, the results of this study demonstrated that organic asparagus had significantly higher sugar content than the conventional asparagus. Moreover, the study showed that organic asparagus has higher chlorophyll content than conventional asparagus. It was further found that Thai organic asparagus contained very high level of vitamin C. In comparison with asparagus produced in the United States, the vitamin C levels in Thai organic asparagus are approximately 3 times higher than those of US asparagus.

It could be expected that such preferable qualities of organic asparagus will also be found in other selected organic produce. Therefore, it is likely that Thai organic produce will be able to compete successfully in the worlds markets.

5.4

Factors influencing the success in Thai organic agriculture

On the whole, major factors indicating successfulness in organic agriculture can be grouped into three categories: the farm management of individual farmer, the years after conversion to organic agriculture, and the effects of season and climate condition. In relation to farm management, the results of this study indicated that good organic farming practices (GOP) should be introduced for organic production in order to raise an awareness for farmers on how important and the beneficial consequences of the proper practice.

Besides promoting the organic production, the study in marketing should also be emphasized. The present case study was conducted on the contract farming system, so the company was responsible for the marketing and pricing systems. Nowadays, the company

147

was relying on the export market and not much was supplied to local market. However, if local market is better informed of the benefit of organic products, the consumers might adopt more organic products into their daily consumption and lifestyles. Expanding the export market of organic produces to the new region was also possible by means of participation in international organic trade fairs and exhibitions, and increasing support for trading facilities.

In light of the foregoing, it is very clear that the organic agriculture can be implemented successfully in Thailand. The seven recommended strategies can direct the country toward the path of becoming the leader in the production of high-quality organic agricultural produce which meets the world-class standards and certifications. As underlined in Strategy 3, research and development into the proper techniques used for each selected crop would be vital to the success of the production of organic products.

Contract farming, as demonstrated in this case study, would be necessary to broaden the production base of organic products. The farmers should not only be provided with good seedlings, but also the consultancy throughout the cultivation process. Only through this measure, the companies would be able to gather enough products to supply to the market and, at the same time, the farmers would also benefit from the reasonable price for their crops.

According to outcomes on organic asparagus case study, further study required to developing technologies and processing techniques to create value for the organic products in order to exploit new market both in domestic and international level. The understanding of consumers towards organic products was still limited. Scientific proofs of the benefits of organic produce and the differences between conventional and organic produce should assist consumer to make the proper decision. On the basis of the Case Study in Organic Asparagus Production, it could be concluded that the National Strategies for Organic Agriculture could be effectively implemented in practice and would provide a very effective platform for dynamic development of the Thai organic agriculture sector.

REFERENCES

AOAC. 2005. AOAC Official method 996.06 Fat (total, saturated and unsaturated) in foods: Hydrolytic extraction gas chromatographic method. Vol. 2, Ch. 4, pp. 20-24. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Arlington, VA. AOAC. 2000. AOAC Official method 900.02 Ash for sugars and syrups: Method I. Vol. 2 Ch.44, pp. 3. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Arlington, VA. AOAC. 2000. AOAC Official method 925.09 Solids (total) and moisture in flour: Vacuum oven method. Vol. 2, Ch. 32, pp. 1. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Arlington, VA. AOAC. 2000. AOAC Official method 981.10 Crude protein in meat: Block digestion method. Vol. 2, Ch. 39, pp. 7-8. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Arlington, VA. AOAC. 2000. AOAC Official method 985.29 Total dietary fiber in foods: EnzymaticGravimetric method. Vol. 2, Ch. 45, pp. 78-80. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Arlington, VA. AOAC. 2000. AOAC Official method 985.35 Minerals in infant formula, enteral products, and pet foods: Atomic absorption spectrophotometric method. Ch. 50, pp. 15-17. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Arlington, VA. AOAC. 2000. AOAC Official method 999.10 Lead, Cadmoum, Zinc, Copper, and Iron in foods: Atomic absorption spectrophotometry after microwave digestion. Ch. 9, pp. 16-19. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Arlington, VA. Asian Institute of Technology. 2005. Research Report: An Analysis of the Trend and Situation of the Thai Organic Trade. (in Thai), pp. 2-71. Beharrell, B.; and MacFie, J. H. 1991. Consumer attitudes to organic foods. British Food Journal. 93: 25-30. Bingham, F. T. 1982. Boron. In A. L. Page (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis, Part 2: Chemical and microbiological properties. pp. 431-448. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI, USA. Bouyoucos, G. J. 1962. Hydrometer method improved for making particle-size analysis of soils. Agron. J. 53: 464-465. Brady, N. C.; and Weil, R. R. 1999. The nature and properties of soils. 12th ed. New Jersey, USA; Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. Bray, R. H.; and Kurtz, L. T. 1945. Determination of total, organic and available form of phosphorus in soil. Soil Soc. 58: 39-45.

149

Bremner, J. M.; and Mulvaney, C. S. 1982. Nitrogen-total. In: Page, A. L.; Miller, R. H.; Keeney, D. R. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part II. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. pp. 595-641. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, USA. Brown, O. 2005. Supermarket Buying Power, Global Commodity Chains and Smallholder Farmers in the Developing World. UNDP Human Development Report Office Occasional Paper, 2005, pp. 2. Bugner, E.; and Feinberg, M. 1992. Determination of mono- and disaccharides in foods by interlaobratory study: Quantitation of bias components for liquid chromatography. Journal of AOAC International. 75(3): 443-467. Bulluck III, L. R.; Brosius, M.; Evanylo, G. K.; and Ristaino, J.B. 2002. Orgainc and synthetic fertility amendments influence soil microbial, physical and chemical properties on organic and conventional farms. Appl. Soil Ecol. 19: 147-160. Buresh, R. J.; Austin, E. R.; and Craswell, E. T. 1982. Analytical methods in N-15 research. Fertilizer Research. 3: 37-62. Chapman, H.D.; and Pratt, P. F. 1961. Method of analysis for soils, plants and water. Univ. California, Berkeley, CA, USA. Codex Alimentarius Commission. 2001. Codex alimentarius: Organically produced foods [Online]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y2772E/y2772e02. htm [2007, April 15] Dachanuraknukul, Laksamee. 2006. Effect of modified atmosphere packaging on the shelf life of asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.). AIT thesis, Food Engineering and Bioprocess Technology, School of Environment, Resources and Development, Thaland. Day, P. R. 1965. Particle fractionation and particle-size analysis. In C. A. Black (Ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I: Physical and mineralogical properties. pp. 546-566. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI, USA. Department of Livestock Development. 2005. Livestock statistics of Thailand. Section IX, Table 86. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand. Drost, D.; and Wilcox-Lee, D. 1997a. Soil water deficits and asparagus: I. Shoot, root, and bud growth during two seasons. Scientia Horticultural. 70: 131-143. Drost, D.; and Wilcox-Lee, D. 1997b. Soil water deficits and asparagus: II. Bud size and subsequent spear growth. Scientia Horticultural. 70: 145-153. FAO. 1974. The Euphrates pilot irrigation project: Method of soil analysis. Gadeb Soil Laboratory (A laboratory manual). FAO, Rome, Italy. FAO. 1998. Evaluating the potential contribution of organic agriculture to sustainability goals. Buenos Aires: IFOAMs Scientific Conference.

150

FAO - Committee on Agriculture. 1999. Organic agriculture: Item 8 of the Provisional Agenda [Online]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/X0075e.htm [2007, May 21] FAO. 2004. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2004. Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. pp. 22-24. Fliebach, A.; Oberholzer, H. R.; Gunst, L.; and Mder, P. 2007. Soil organic matter and biological soil quality indicators after 21 years of organic and conventional farming. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 118: 273-284. Francis, C.; Koehler-Cole, K.; Hansen, T.; and Skelton, P. 2006. Science-Based Organic Farming 2006: Toward Local and Secure Food Systems. University of Nebraska Lincoln, Extension Division, Center for Applied Rural Innovation [Online]. Available from http://cari.unl.edu/Organic-Farming-2006.doc [2007, October 21] Green Net / Earth Net Foundation. 2005. Organic agriculture situation in Thailand. (in Thai), Bangkok: Earth Net Foundation. Green Net / Earth Net Foundation. 2006. Organic agriculture statistics in Thailand 2006 (in Thai). [Online]. Available from: http://www.greennet.or.th/content-thai/main% 20framesets/c_whats_new.html [2007, March 20] Glover, J. D.; Reganold, J. P.; and Andrews, P. K. 2000. Systematic method for rating soil quality of conventional. organic, and integrated apple orchards in Washington State. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 80: 29-45. Hach Company. 1992. Soil and irrigation water interpretation manual. Hach, USA. Halbert, C. L. 1993. How adaptive is adaptive management? Implementing adaptive management in Washington State and British Columbia. Reviews in Fisheries Science. 1: 261-283. Heaton, S. 2001. Organic farming, food quality and human health: A review of the evidence. Soil Association of the United Kingdom, Bristol, UK. Hesse, P. R. 1972. A Textbook of soil chemical analysis. Chemical Publishing Co., N.Y., pp. 91-105. Holden, M. 1976. Chlorophylls. In: Chemistry and Biochemistry of Plant Pigments. Goodwin, T. W. (Ed.), pp. 1-37, Academic Press, London. IFAD 2005. Organic Agriculture and Poverty Reduction in Asia: China and India Focus Thematic Evaluation. International Fund for Agricultural Development. Report No. 1664, July 2005, pp. 24-26. IFOAM. 2000. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements: Basic standards. In OECD (ed.), Organic agriculture: Sustainability, markets and policies, pp. 127-138. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

151

IFOAM. 2002. IFOAM basic standards for organic production and processing. [Online]. Available from: http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/standards/norms/ibsrevision/ ibsrevision.html [2007, June 15] IFOAM. 2005a. Principles of organic agriculture. [Online]. Available from:

http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/principles/index.html [2007, December 25] IFOAM. 2005b. IFOAM basic standards for organic production and processing (Final revision draft, 20th May 2005). [Online]. Available from: http://www.ifoam.org/ about_ifoam/standards/norms/ibsrevision/FinaldraftIBS02_Version050520.pdf [2007, June 15] IFOAM. 2005c. The IFOAM norms. [Online]. Available from: http://www.ifoam.org/ about_ifoam/standards/norms.html [2007, June 15] IFOAM directory. 2005. Definition of organic agriculture. Cited in IFOAM - the General Assembly 2005. Definition of organic agriculture: Report to the Task Force [Online]. Available from: http://www.ifoam.org/organic_facts/doa/pdf/Definition_ of_Organic_Agriculture_Report.pdf [2007, April 10] IFOAM EU Regional Group. 2002. Position paper for CAP review and reform: A sustainable agricultural policy for Europe [Online]. Available from: [2007,

http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/around_world/eu_group/eu_group.html May 15]

IFOAM EU Group. 2004. Future research priorities of organic agriculture: Policy paper [Online]. Available from: http://www.ifoam.org/about_ifoam/around_world/eu_ group/pdfs/OA_future_research_priorities.pdf [2007, May 15] IFOAM the General Assembly. 2005. Definition of organic agriculture: Report to the Task Force [Online]. Available from: http://www.ifoam.org/organic_facts/doa/ pdf/Definition_of_Organic_Agriculture_Report.pdf [2007, Dec 15] International Trade Center (ITC). 2006. Marketing manual and web directory for organic spices, culinary herbs and essential oils. (2nd ed.). Geneva: ITC (technical paper) Jackson, M. L. 1958. Soil chemical analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood, N.J., pp. 59-67. Jacobsen, B. T. 2002a. Organic farming. In Organic farming and certification. pp. 3-5. Geneva: ITC. Jacobsen, B. T. 2002b. Certification. In Organic farming and certification. pp. 6-26. Geneva: ITC. Kalra, Y. P.; and Maynard, D. G. 1991. Methods manual for forest soil and plant analysis. Information report No. R-x-319, Forestry Canada, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre, Canada. Lakshanasomya, N. 1998. Determination on vitamin C in some kinds of food by HPLC. Bull. Dept. Med. Sci. 40(3): 347-357.

152

Lampkin, N. 1990. The wider issues. In Organic Farming. pp. 557-611. Ipswich, Suffolk: Farming Press. Lancaster, J. E.; C. E. Lister; P. F. Reay; and C. M. Triggs. 1997. Influence of pigment composition on skin color in a wide range of fruit and vegetables. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 122(4): 594-598. Liebhardt, B. 2003. What is organic agriculture? What I learned from my transition. In OECD (ed.), Organic agriculture: Sustainability, markets and policies. pp. 3150. Wallingford: CABI Publishing. Lindsay, W. L.; and Norvell, W. A. 1978. Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese and copper. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 42: 421-428. Lorlowhakarn, S.; Boonyanopakun, K.; Ellis, W.; Panyakul V.; Vildozo., D.; and Kasterine, A. 2008. Strengthening the export capacity of Thailands organic agriculture. pp. 4-5. National Innovation Agency, Bangkok. Mder, P.; Fkiebach, A.; Dubois, D.; Gunst, L.; Fried, P.; and Niggli, U. 2002. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science. 296(5573): 1694-1697 Manlay, R. J.; Feller, C.; and Swift, M.J. 2006. Historical evolution of soil organic matter concepts and their relationships with the fertility and sustainability of cropping systems. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006. 07.011. Marianri, S.; Mancinelli, R.; Campiglia, E.; and Grego, S. 2006. Chemical and biological indicators of soil quality in organic and conventional farming systems in central Italy. Ecological Indicators. 6: 701-711. McKeague, J. A. 1978. Manual on soil sampling and methods of analysis. pp. 66-68. Canadian Society of Soil Science. McLean, E. O. 1982. Soil pH and lime requirement. In A. L. Page (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis, Part 2: Chemical and microbiological properties. pp. 199-224. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI, USA. Monokrousos, N.; Papatheodorou, E. M.; Daimantopoulos, J. D.; and Stamou, G. P. 2006. Soil quality variables in organically and conventionally cultivated field sites. Soil Biology & Biochemistry. 38: 1282-1289. Murphy, J.; and Riley, J. P. 1962. A modification single solution method for determination of phosphate in neutral water. Analytical Chemica Acta. 27: 31-36. NESDB. 2006. Project study on strategy for development of organic products. (in Thai). Bangkok. Noomhorm, Athapol. 2004. Organic Food Production. AIT-RTG joint research project in collaborate with School of Bioresources and Technology, King Mongkuts University of Technology, Thonburi, Thai Packaging Center, Thailand Institute of Scientific and Technological Research, and Department of Food Industrial

153

Technology, Faculty of Science, The University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce. Thailand. Olsen, S. R.; Cole, C. V.; Watanabe, F. S.; and Dean, L. A. 1954. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. U.S. Dep. Agric. Circ. 939, USA. Olsen, S. R.; and Sommers, L. E. 1982. Phosphorus. In A. L. Page (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis, Part 2: Chemical and microbiological properties. pp. 199-224. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI, USA. Organic Monitor. 2006. The Global Market for Organic Food & Drink: Business Opportunities & Future Outlook. November 2006. Palaniappan, S. P.; and Annadurai, K. 1999. Organic farming: Theory and practice. Jodhpur: Scientific publishers (India). Parfitt, R. L.; Yeates, G. W.; Ross, D. J.; Mackay, A. D.; and Budding, P. J. 2005. Relationships between soil biota, nitrogen and phosphorus availability, and pasture growth under organic and conventional management. Appl. Soil Ecol. 28: 1-13. Ratanawaraha, C. 2002. Organic agriculture: An approach to sustainable development. In W. F. Stevens, G. Singh, and M. S. Rao (eds.), Proceedings of AIT Workshop on Organic Farming and Certification. pp. 32-37. Bangkok: Asian Institute of Technology. Reunglertpanyakul, V. 2002. National study: Thailand. In K. Hak-Su (ed.), Organic agriculture and rural poverty alleviation: Potential and best practices in Asia. pp. 173-203. Bangkok: United Nations Rhoades, J. D. 1982. Cation exchange capacity. In A.L. Page (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis, Part 2: Chemical and mineralogical properties. pp. 149-157. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI, USA. Richards, L. A. 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. In USDA Agricultural Handbooks 60. Washington, D.C., USA. Rhoades, J. D. 1982. Cation exchange capacity. In A. L. Page (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis, Part 2: Chemical and mineralogical properties. pp. 149-157. Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, WI, USA. Rundgren, G. 2006. Best practices for organic marketing regulation, standards and certification: Guidance for developing countries. Draft document, UNCTAD International Task Force on Harmonisation and Equivalence in Organic Agriculture. 21 pp. Ryan, J.; Estafan, G.; and Rashid, A. 2001. Soil and plant analysis laboratory manual, 2nd Ed. International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Area, Aleppo, Syria.

154

Setboonsarng, S. 2006. Organic Agriculture, Poverty Reduction and the Millennium Development Goals. ADB Institute Discussion Paper No. 54., 27 pp. Siripatra, D. 2007. Khao Kwan Foundations Experiment Station, Supanburi. Cited in Ratanawaraha, C.; Ellis, W.; Panyakul, V.; and Rauschelbach, B. (2007), Organic agri-business: A status quo report for Thailand 2007. Bangkok: GTZ. Schjnning, P.; Elmholt, S.; Munkholm, L. J.; and Debosz, K. 2002. Soil quality aspects of humid sandy loams as influenced by organic and conventional long-term management. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 88: 195-214. Schep, W.; and Schierle, J. 1997. Determination of -carotene in commercial foods: Interlaboratory study. Journal of AOAC International. 80(5): 1057-1064. Thai-German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) 2007. A status quo report for Thailand 2007. (in Thai), Bangkok: GTZ. Thode-Jacobsen, B. 2006. Market Intelligence Study: Market Opportunities for Organic Products from Thailand. Report to UN International Trade Centre by Bioservice Co. Ltd., 2006. Tu, C.; Louws, F. J.; Creamer, N. G.; Mueller, J. P.; Brownie, C.; Fager, K.; Bell, M.; and Hu, S. 2006. Responses of soil microbial biomass and N availability to transition strategies from conventional to organic farming systems. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 113: 206-215. UNCTAD. 2006. Study of the Potential Impact of Equivalence on Competition Among Operations. International Task Force on Harmonisation and Equivalence in Organic Agriculture. Draft Concept Note, 2006. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1975. Commercial Growing of Asparagus. U.S. Department of Agriculture Farmers' Bulletin No. 2232 [Online]. Available from: http://www.uga.edu/vegetable/asparagus.html [2007, December 15] USDA National Organic Program. 1995. National Organic Standards Board definition of organic [Online]. Available from: http://ams.usda.gov/NOP [2007, January 12] USDA Study Team on Organic Farming. 1980. Report and recommendations on organic farming [Online]. Available from: http://naldr.nal.usda.gov/NALWeb/Agricola_ Link.asp?Accession=CAT80742660 [2007, April 15] Vorley, B.; and Fox, T. 2004. Global Food Chains-Constraints and Opportunities for Smallholders. Prepared for the OECD DAC POVNET Agriculture and Pro-Poor Growth Task Team, Helsinki Workshop, 17-18 June 2004. Walkley, A. 1947. A Critical Examination of a Rapid Method for Determination of Organic Carbon in Soils - Effect of Variations in Digestion Conditions and of Inorganic Soil Constituents. Soil Science. 63: 251-257.

155

Walkley, A.; and Black., I.A. 1934. An examination of Degtjareff method for determining Soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science 37: 29-37. Watanabe, F. S.; and Olsen, S. R. 1965. Test of an ascorbic acid method for determining phosphorus in water and NaHCO3 extracts form soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 29: 677-678. Wattanasiri, C. 2005. Organic standards, certification, and regulations in Thailand (PowerPoint presentation). Bangkok: Organic Agriculture Certification Thailand (ACT). Wehling, R. L.; and Wetzel, D. L. 1984. Simultaneous determination of Pyridoxine, Riboflavin and thiamine in fortified cereal products by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 32: 1326-1331. Wikipedia. 2007a. History of organic farming [Online]. Available from: http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/History_of_organic_farming [2007, June 10] Willer, H.; and Yussefi, M. 2006. The world of organic agriculture Statistics and

emerging trends 2006. Rheinbreitbach: Medienhaus Plump.


Williams, C. M; Bridges, O.; Bridges, J. W.; Pennington, H.; and Tinker, P.B. 2000. Shades of green a review of UK farming systems. Royal Agricultural Society of England. pp. 73-100. Weinberger, K.; and T. A. Lumpkin. 2005. Horticulture for poverty alleviation the unfunded revolution. Shanhua, Taiwan: AVRDC The World Vegetable Center, AVRDC Publication No. 05-613, Working Paper No.15. 20 pp. Woese, K.; Lange, D.; Boess, C.; and Bogl, K. W. 1997. A comparison of organically and conventionally grown foods - Results of a review of the relevant literature. Journal of Science and Food Agriculture. 74: 281-293. Worthington, V. 1998. Effect of agricultural methods on nutritional quality: A comparison of organic with conventional crops. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. 4(1). Yaimuang, S. 2006. Farmers network for sustainable agriculture [Online]. Available from Sustainable Agriculture Foundation (Thailand): http://www.sathai.org/article/ 0021%20Famer%20network(2).htm [2007, June 10]

APPENDICES

157

APPENDIX A List of persons / organizations consulted in the development process of National Organic Agriculture Strategies.

Affiliation Agricultural Co-Operatives Federation of Thailand Ltd Agricultural Co-Operatives Federation of Thailand Ltd Agricultural Co-Operatives Federation of Thailand Ltd Agricultural Research Development Agency AGT Bio Co Ltd APZ Co Ltd Asian Institute of Technology Asian Institute of Technology Bio-Eco Link Co Ltd BioAgriCert Ltd Bioherb Co Ltd BSC Oko-Garantie gmbh Bureau Veritas (Thailand) Ltd Capital Rice Co Cencar Co (Carrefour) Chiangmai University Chulalongkorn University Chulalongkorn University

Title Kh Kh Kh Prof Dr Kh Ms Prof Dr Kh Dr Dr Mr Kh Kh Kh Prof Kh Asst Prof Dr Kh Kh Kh Dr Kh Kh Mrs Mrs Mr Dr

Contact Verasak Chuaypat Kraisit R Kasetchai Panida Vanichanont Montri Chulavatnatol General Manager

Job Title

Deputy General Manager International Trading Division Executive Director

Thirachai Nithipathrarat Kanit Suwanprasit Athapol Noomhorm Porntip Sirisoontaralak Jindarat Twiltermsap Riccardo Cozzo Birgitt Boor Jorg Rosenkranz Chanittha Jiranantapart Wanlop Pichpongsa Patcharin Chitaurjaisuk Pittaya Sruamsiri Itthipol Srisaowaluk Charit Tingsabadh

General Manager Chief Operation Officer Professor Project Researcher, Food Engineering and Biotechnology Program Managing Director President Consultant Regional Representative Food Business Line Manager Managing Director Manager, Carrefour Quality Line Product Department of Horticulture Lecturer Director

Department of Agricultural Extension Department of Agricultural Extension Department of Agricultural Extension Department of Agriculture Department of Agriculture Department of Agriculture Department of Science Service Department of Export Promotion Earth Net Foundation Environmental Education and Human Resources Development Center European Commission European Commission

Supote Chaivimol Apichat Pholkerd Kasem Srishompoo Somkid Disthaporn Paitoon Poolsawat Krish Poomkacha Sumalee Tangpitayakul Chantra Purnariksha Michael Commons Ampai Harakunarak

Director Subject Matter Specialist, Organic Agriculture Sec

Senior Expert- Organic Crops Project Organic Crops Project Organic Crops Project Head of Biological Testing Director General Rice Chain Coordinator Director

Ms Mr

Sylvie Graffe Pekka Penttila

Trade and Economics Counsellor Business Information Coordinator

158
Affiliation European Commission Delegaton Bangkok Exotic Farm Produce (Thailand) Co. F&B Organics Co Ltd F&B Organics Co Ltd Federation of Thai Industries Federation of Thai Industries Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FXA Group FXA Group German Development Cooperation (GTZ) Green Net & Earth Net Foundation GreenNet GreenNet GTZ International Institute for Trade & Development (ITD) International Institute for Trade & Development (ITD) International Institute for Trade & Development (ITD) International Trade Centre (ITC) International Trade Centre (ITC) IQA-Norwest Labs Kasetsart University Khon Kaen University King Mongkut's Institute of Technology North Bangkok King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi Mr Mr Title Mr Mrs Kh Kh Kh Kh Mr Contact Andrew Jacobs Paphavee Suthavivat Pornsri Pitakkwanskul Arthi Pitak Sommart Prapertchob Churairat Arpanantikul Hiroshi Hiraoka Job Title Head of Operational Section Managing Director Owner Production Consultant Chairman, Food Processing Industry Club Deputy Secretary General, Food Processing Industry Club Soil Fertility Officer

Mr

Gamini Keerthisinghe

Senior Plant Production Officer

Ms Mr Mr Kh Kh

Wanida Trirapongpichit Chatta Udomwongsa Burghard Rauschelbach Walailuk Sriwichan Vitoon Panyakul Kanlayanee Puangpanya Daniel Vildozo Krirk-Krai Jirapaet

Product Marketing Mgr Country Manager Director, Programme-Component Eco-Efficiency Administrative Officer Director Export Coordinator ITC Technical Assistance Team Executive Director

Mr

Pakpoom Teranantana

Deputy Director

Dr

Watcharas Lelawath

Researcher

Dr Dr Ms Dr Dr Kh Kh Kh Kh Dr

Xuejun Jiang Alexander Kasterine Prapasri Arunpong Pramote Saridnirun Supanee Pimsamarn Penja Jitjumroonchokchai Taksaon Boonchoo Rattanawan Jansasithorn Intira Lichanporn Hataitip Nimitkeatkai

Programme Coordinator Senior Market Development Adviser Marketing Technician Assistant Prof Associate Professor Instructor Researcher Researcher Researcher Researcher

159
Affiliation King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT) Koson Trading Co Land Development Department Lanna Agriculture Co Ltd Maejo University Mahidol University Marchwell Ltd Part Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives Ministry of Commerce Ministry of Science and Technology Ministry of Science and Technology Ministry of Science and Technology Ministry of Science and Technology Ministry of Science and Technology National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards (ACFS) National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards (ACFS) National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards Title Ms Kh Dr Dr Dr Contact Supatana Sakpiyaphan Jammaree Singkaew Sirichai Kalayanarat Songsin Photchanachai Pongphen Jitareerat Researcher Researcher Head, Division of Postharvest Technology Asst Prof Lecturer, Plant Pathologist Job Title

Kh Kh Kh Dr Dr Kh Kh Dr Kh

Teerapol Jearapunpong Chaiwat Sittibush

General Manager Director General General Manager

Danuwat Pengon Mayuna Srisuphanunt Petcharee Ekboonyern Banphot Hongthong Apichart Pongsrihadulchai Wimolporn Thitisak

Associate Prof of Agronomy Assoc Prof Export Manager Permanent Secretary Deputy Permanent Secretary Director, Foreign Agricultural Relations Division Trade Officer Director Permanent Secretary Office of Technology Promotion & Transfer Chief of Technology Transfer Support Minister

Kh Kh Dr Kh Ms H.E. Dr Dr

Chirath Isarangkun Na Ayuthaya Nitaya Patanarat Saksit Tridech Chotirak Yingsaree Pornthipa Luengwatanakit Pravich Rattanapian Samaporn Chirapanda

Ms

Patasorn Jiravatrungsi

Kh

Yutthana Norapumpipat

Office of Commodity and System Standards Accreditation - Officer Senior Standards Officer

Dr

Sanayh Kroakaw

Dr

Montri Klitsaneephaiboon

Director, Office of Commodity and System Standards Accreditation

APPENDIX B Locations of the experimental trial sites at Sa Kaeo province and Nakhon Pathom province.

162

163

APPENDIX C Analytical procedures of soil samples. Texture Classification: Individual soil particles vary widely in any soil type. Similarly, as these particles are cemented together, a variety of aggregate shapes and sizes occur. For standard particle size measurement, the soil fraction that passes a 2-mm sieve is considered. Laboratory procedures normally estimate percentage of sand (0.05-2.0 mm), silt (0.002-0.05 mm), and clay (<0.002 mm) fractions in soils. Particle size distribution is an important parameter in soil classification and has implications on soil water, aeration, and nutrient availability to plants.

As primary soil particles are usually cemented together by organic matter, this has to be removed by H2O2 treatment. However, if substantial amounts of CaCO3 are present, actual percentages of sand, silt or clay can only be determined by prior dissolution of the CaCO3. The common procedures used for particle size analysis or mechanical analysis are the hydrometer method (Bouyoucos, 1962; Day, 1965; FAO, 1974) or the pipette-gravimetric method. The hydrometer method of silt and clay measurement relies on the effect of particle size on the differential settling velocities within a water column. Theoretically, the particles are assumed to be spherical having a specific gravity of 2.65 g/cm3. If all other factors are constant, then the settling velocity is proportional to the square of the radius of the particle (Stokes Law).

Reagents A. Dispersing Solution. Dissolve 40 g sodium hexametaphosphate [(NaPO3)13], and 10 g sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) in DI water, and bring to 1-L volume with DI water. B. Amyl Alcohol Procedure 1. Weigh 40 g air-dry soil (2-mm) into a 600-mL beaker. 2. Add 60-mL dispersing solution. 3. Cover the beaker with a watch-glass, and leave overnight. 4. Quantitatively transfer contents of the beaker to a soil-stirring cup, and fill the cup to about three-quarters with water. 5. Stir suspension at high speed for 3 minutes using the special stirrer. Shake the suspension overnight if no stirrer is available. 6. Rinse stirring paddle into a cup, and allow to stand for 1 minute. 7. Transfer suspension quantitatively into a 1-L calibrated cylinder (hydrometer jar), and bring to volume with water.

164

A. Determination of Blank 1. Dilute 60-mL dispersing solution to 1-L hydrometer jar with water. 2. Mix well, and insert hydrometer, and take hydrometer reading, Rb. 3. The blank reading must be re-determined for temperature changes of more than 2C from 20C. B. Determination of Silt plus Clay 1. Mix suspension in the hydrometer jar, using a special paddle carefully, withdraw the paddle, and immediately insert the hydrometer. 2. Disperse any froth, if needed, with 1 drop of amyl alcohol, and take hydrometer reading 40 seconds after withdrawing the paddle. This gives reading Rsc, C. Determination of Clay 1. Mix suspension in the hydrometer jar with paddle; withdraw the paddle, with great care, leaving the suspension undisturbed. 2. After 4 hours, insert the hydrometer, and take hydrometer reading, Rc. D. Determination of Sand 1. After taking readings required for clay and silt, pour suspension quantitatively through a 50-m sieve. 2. Wash sieve until water passing the sieve is clear. 3. Transfer the sand quantitatively from sieve to a 50-mL beaker of known weight. 4. Allow the sand in the beaker to settle, and decant excess water. 5. Dry beaker with sand overnight at 105C. 6. Cool in a desiccator, and re-weigh beaker with sand.

Calculations For Percentage Silt plus Clay in soil: % [Silt + Clay] (w/w) = (Rsc Rb) [100 / Oven-dry soil (g)] For Percentage Clay in soil: % Clay (w/w) = (Rc Rb) [100 / Oven-dry soil (g)] For Percentage Silt in soil: % Silt (w/w) = [% (Silt + Clay) (w/w)] [ % Clay (w/w)] For Percentage Sand in soil: % Sand (w/w) = Sand weight [100 / Oven-dry soil (g)]

Note 1. If possible, all hydrometer jars should be placed in a water bath at constant temperature (20C); in that case, temperature corrections are not needed.

165

2. For temperature correction, use a value of 0.4 for each degree temperature difference from 20C. Add or subtract this factor if the temperature is more or less than 20C, respectively. 3. All results of mechanical analysis should be expressed on the basis of ovendry soil (24 hours drying at 105C). 4. In the above procedure, carbonates and organic matter are not removed from the soil. 5. The Hydrometer method, as described in this section, cannot be applied to soils that contain free gypsum (gypsiferous soils). 6. Sum of (% silt and clay) plus (% sand) should be 100 %. The magnitude of deviation from 100 is an indication for the degree in accuracy.

Once the percentage of sand, silt, and clay is measured, the soil may be assigned a textural class using the USDA textural triangle. Within the textural triangle are various soil textures which depend on the relative proportions of the soil fractions.

pH: The pH is defined as the negative log of the hydrogen bond ion activity. Since pH is logarithmic, the H-ion concentration in solution increase 10 times when its pH is lower by 1 unit. The pH range normally found in soils varies form 3 to 9. Various categories of soil pH may be arbitrarily described as follows:

Soil pH Strongly acid < 5.5

Indication Soil is deficient in Ca and/or Mg and should be limed

Associated condition Poor crop growth due to low cation exchange capacity and possible Al3+ toxicity. Expect P deficiency Satisfactory for most crops

Moderately to slightly acid Neutral

5.5-6.5

Soils is lime-free, should be closely monitored

6.5-7.5

Ideal range for crop

Soil cation exchange capacity is production near 100% base saturation

Moderately alkaline

7.5-8.4

Free lime (CaCO3) exists in soil

Usually excellent filtration and percolation of water due to high Ca content of clays. Both P and micronutrients are less available.

Strongly alkaline

> 8.4

Invariably indicates sodic soil

Poor physical condition. Infiltration and percolation of soil water is slow. Possible root deterioration and organic matter dissolution.

Source: Hach Company, USA (1992)

166

Procedure 1. Weigh 50 g air-dry soil (particle size < 2-mm) into a 100-mL glass beaker. 2. Add 50-mL deionized (DI) water using a graduated cylinder or 50-mL volumetric flask. 3. Mix well with a glass rod and allow to stand for 30 min. 4. Stir suspension every 10 min during the period. 5. After 1 hr stir the suspension. 6. Put the combined electrode in suspension (about 3-cm deep). Take the reading after 30 s. 7. Remove the combined electrode form the suspension and rinse thoroughly with DI water in a separate beaker and carefully dry excess water with a tissue.

Note 1. Make sure that the combined electrode contains saturated KCl solution and some solid KCl. 2. Calibrate the pH meter using at least 2 buffer solutions of different pH values, usually 4.0 and 7.0. First, measured the temperature of the solution and adjust the temperature knob. Second, dip the combined electrode in pH 7.0 buffer solution, check for actual pH at room temperature and adjust with the buffer knob. Them dip the combined electrode in the pH 4.0 buffer solution and adjust with sensitivity knob. Repeat until pH meter gives correct reading of both buffer solutions. 3. Air-dry soils may be stored several months in closed containers without affecting the pH measurement. 4. For soil samples very high in organic matter, use a 1:2 or 1:5 (soil:water) ratio.

Electrical Conductivity (EC): Soil salinity refers to the concentration of soluble inorganic salts in the soil. It is normally measured by extracting the soil sample with water (1:1 or 1:5, soil:water ratio, w/v) or in an saturated paste extract. However, soil solution is more convenient where the soil sample is limited. Such extracts is rapid and salinity is measured by electrical conductivity using conductivity bridge. The total salt content of a soil can be estimated form this measurement.

Salinity is an important laboratory measurement since it reflects the extent to which the soil is suitable for growing crops. On the basis of a saturation extract, values of 0 to 2 dS/m (or mmhos/cm) are safe for all crops; yields of very sensitive crops are affected between

167

2 to 4 dS/m; many crops are affected between 4 to 8 dS/m; while only tolerant crops grow well above that level (Richards, 1954).

Procedure 1. Prepared a 1:5 (soil:water) suspension. 2. Filter the suspension using suction. Firstly, put a round Whatman No.42 filter paper in the Buchner funnel. Secondly, moisten the filter paper with DI water and make sure that it is tightly attached to the bottom on the funnel and that all holes are covered. 3. Start the vacuum pump. 4. Open the suction, and add suspension to Buchner funnel. 5. Continue filtration until the soil on the Buchner funnel starts cracking. 6. If the filtrate is not clear, the procedure must be repeated. 7. Transfer the clear filtrate into a 50-mL bottle, immerse the conductivity cell into the solution, and take the reading. 8. Remove the conductivity cell from the filtration, rinse thoroughly with DI water, and carefully dry excess water with a tissue.

Note 1. Readings are recorded in milli-mhos per centimeter (mmhos/cm) or deciSiemens per meter (dS/m). The use of the unit deci-Siemens is preferred over the unit milli-mhos. Both units are equal. That is 1 dS/m = 1 mmho/cm. 2. Reading are usually taken and reported at a standard temperature of 25C. 3. Check accuracy of the EC meter using a 0.01 N KCl solution, which should give a reading of 1.413 dS/m at 25C.

Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC): Many minerals in soils are negatively charged and, as a consequence, can attract and retain cations such as potassium (K+), sodium (Na+), calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+), ammonium(NH4+), etc. Cation exchange is a reversible process. Thus elements or nutrients can be held in the soil and not lost through leaching and can subsequently be released for crop uptake.

Certain organic compounds also contribute to cation exchange capacity. Additionally, CEC is influenced by soil pH. A certain portion of the total negative charge is permanent, while a variable portion is pH-dependent. Several methods are available for CEC determination (Rhoades, 1982). Most involve saturation of the soil with an index cation (NH4+), removal by washing of excess cation and subsequent replacement of the adsorbed

168

index cation by another cation (Na+) and measurement of the index cation in the final extract (Richards, 1954).

CEC is reported a milliequivalents per 100 g soil or more recently cmol/kg soil (S.I. Unit); the actual numbers being the same as 1 meq/100g = 1 cmol/kg. Values of CEC are in the range of 1.0 to 100 cmol/kg, lowest for sandy soils and highest for clay soils. The exchangeable K and Mg are able to estimate following the treatment with ammonium-acetate. (Kalra and Maynard, 1991).

Reagents A. Sodium Acetate Solution (NaOAc) , 1 N. 1. Dissolve 136 g sodium acetate trihydrate (CH3COONa 3 H2O) in about 950-mL DI water, mix well and let the mixture cool. 2. Adjust pH to 8.2 by adding more acetic acid or sodium hydroxide, and bring to 1-L volume with DI water. B. Ethanol (C2H5OH), 95% C. Ammonium Acetate Solution (NH4OAc), 1 N. 1. Add 57-mL concentrated acetic acid (CH3COOH) to 800-mL DI water, then add 68-mL concentrated ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH), mix well and let the mixture cool. 2. Adjust to pH 7.0 by adding more acetic acid or ammonium hydroxide, and bring to 1-L volume with DI water. D. Standard Stock Solution 1. Dry about 5 g sodium chloride (NaCl) on an oven at 105C for 3 hr, cool in a desiccators and store in a tightly stoppered bottle. 2. Dissolve 2.5418 g dried sodium chloride in DI water and bring to 1-L volume with DI water. This solution contains 1000 ppm Na (Stock Solution) 3. Prepared a series of Standard Solution from the stock slution as follows: dilute 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15, and 20-mL stock solution, and 25-mL LiCl (Dilute Stock Solution). These solutions contain 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 150, and 200 ppm Na, with each containing the same concentration of LiCl (25 ppm).

Procedure 1. Weigh 4 g (for medium to fine texture soil) or 6 g (for coarse texture soil) air-dry soil into a 40-mL centrifuge tube and add 33-mL 1N sodium acetate trihydrate solution, stopper tube and shake for 5 min.

169

2. Remove stopper from tube and centrifuge at 3000 rpm until supernatant liquid is clear. Decant the supernatant as completely as possible and discard. 3. Repeat with 33-mL portion 1N sodium acetate trihydrate solution, a total of 4 times, discarding the supernatant liquid each time. Then add 33-mL 95% ethanol, stopper tube and shake for 5 min, unstoppered tube and centrifuge until the supernatant is clear and decant. 4. Wash the sample with 33-mL portion 95% ethanol, a total of 3 times, discarding the supernatant liquid each time. The electrical conductivity of the supernatant liquid form the 3 washing should be less than 400 S/cm. 5. Replace the adsorbed sodium (Na+) from the sample by extraction with 3 times of 33-mL portion 1N ammonium acetate solution. Each time shake for 5 min, and centrifuge until supernatant liquid is clear. 6. Decant the 3 supernatant liquids as completely as possible into a 100-mL volumetric flask, bring to volume with 1N ammonium acetate solution and mix well. 7. Run a series of suitable Na standards an draw a calibration curve. 8. Measure the samples (soil extract) and take the emission readings by a flame photometer at 767 nm wavelength. 9. Calculate sodium (Na) concentration according to the calibration curve.

Calculation For Cation Exchange Capacity in Soil: CEC (meq/100 g) = meq/L Na (from calibration curve) (A /Wt) (100/1000)

Where:

A = Total volume of the extract (mL) Wt = Weight of the air-dry soil (g)

Soil Organic Matter (OM): Soil organic matter is understood today as the nonliving product of the decomposition of plant and animal substances. OM is tightly controls many soil properties and major biogeochemical cycles and often taken strong indicator of fertility and land degradation. (Manlay et al., 2006).

Organic carbon ranges from being dominant constituent of peat or muck soils in colder regions of the world to being virtually absent in some desert soils. Cultivated, temperate region soil normally have more than 3-4% OM, while soils of semi-arid rainfed areas have normally less than 1% OM. Most laboratories perform analysis for soil organic matter. The most common procedure involves reduction of potassium dichromate (K2Cr2O7)

170

by organic carbon compounds and subsequent determination of the unreduced dichromate by oxidation-reduction titration with ferrous ammonium sulfate (Walkley, 1947). While the actual measurement is of oxidizable organic carbon, the data are normally converted to percentage organic matter using a constant factor, assuming that OM contains 58% organic carbon.

Reagents A. Potassium Dichromate solution (K2Cr2O7), 1N 1. Dry K2Cr2O7 in an oven at 105C for 2 hr, cool in a desiccator (silica gel) and store in a tightly stoppered bottle. 2. Dissolve 49.04 g K2Cr2O7 in DI water and bring to 1-L volume with DI water. B. Sulfuric acid (H2SO4), concentrated (98%, sp.gr. 1.84) C. Orthophosphoric Acid (H3PO4), concentrated D. Ferrous Ammonium Sulfate Solution [(NH4)2SO4FeSO46H2O]. 0.5M. Dissolve 196 g ferrous ammonium sulfate in DI water and transfer to a 1-L volume, add 5mL concentrated sulfuric acid, mix well and bring to 1-L volume with DI water. E. Diphenylamine Indicator [(C6H5)2NH]. Dissolve 1 g diphenylamine indicator in 100-mL concentrated sulfuric acid.

Procedure 1. Weigh 1 g air-dry soil (particle size 0.15 mm) into a 500-mL beaker. 2. Add 10-mL 1N potassium dichromate solution using a pipette, add 20-mL concentrated sulfuric acid using a dispenser and swirl the beaker to mix the suspension. 3. Allow to stand for 30 min. 4. Add about 200-mL DI water, then add 10-mL concentrated orthophosphoric acid using dispenser and allow the mixture to cool. 5. Add 10-15 drops diphenylamine indicator, add Teflon-coated magnetic stirring bar, and place beaker on a magnetic stirrer. 6. Titrate with 0.5M ferrous ammonium sulfate solution, until the color changes form violet-blue to green. 7. Prepared 2 blanks, containing all reagents but not soil and titrate them in exactly the same way as the soil suspension.

Calculations For percentage Organic Matter in soil:

M = 10 / Vblank

171

% Oxidizable Organic Carbon (w/w) = [(Vblank Vsample) 0.3 M] / Wt % Total Organic Carbon, %TOC (w/w) = 1.334 % Oxidizable Organic Carbon % Organic Matter, %OM (w/w) = 1.724 % Total Organic Carbon

Where:

Molarity of ferrous ammonium sulfate solution (approx. 0.5M)

Vblank = Volume of ferrous ammonium sulfate solution required to titrate the blank (mL) Vsample = Volume of ferrous ammonium sulfate solution required to titrate the sample (mL) Wt = 0.3 = Weight of air-dry soil (g) (3 x 10-3 100), where 3 is the equivalent weight of Carbon.

Note 1. For soils high in organic matter (> 1% oxidizable organic carbon), more than 10-mL potassium dichromate is needed. 2. The factor 1.334 and 1.724 used to calculate TOC and OM are approximate; they may vary with soil depth and between soils. 3. Soils containing large quantities of chloride (Cl-), manganese (Mn2-) and ferrous (Fe2+) ions will gave higher results. The chloride interference can be eliminated by adding silver sulfate (Ag2SO4) to the oxidizing reagent. No known procedure is available to compensate for the other interferences. 4. The presence of CaCo3 up to 50% causes no interference. Total Nitrogen (N): Total soil N (mainly organic) is generally measured after wet digestion using the well-known Kjeldahl procedure. Total inorganic N (NH4+, NO3+, NO2-) is usually determined by distillation of 2 M KCl soil extract. And after distillation, NO3-N can be determined by a procedure involving chromotropic acid.

Kjeldahl Nitrogen, this procedure involves digestion and distillation, determined by sulphuric acid digestion and regular Kjeldahl distillation method. The soil is digested in concentrated H2SO4 with a catalyst mixture to raise the boiling temperature and to promote the conversion from organic-N to ammonium-N. Ammonium-N from the digest is obtained by steam distillation, using excess NaOH to raise the pH. The distillate is collected in saturated H3BO3; and then titrated with dilute H2SO4 to pH 5.0 (Bremner and Mulvaney, 1982).

172

The method determines ammonium-N, most of the organic-N forms, and a variable fraction of nitrate-N in soil. For most soils, the Kjeldahl procedure is a good estimate of total soil N content.

The difference between Kjeldahl-N and total-N in soil is normally very small, due mainly to the presence of nitrate-N in the total-N determination. In the following procedure, NO3-N fraction (present in the soil) is reduced and subsequently included in the distillation (Bremner and Mulvaney, 1982; Buresh et al., 1982).

Reagents A. Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4), concentrated (98 %, sp. gr. 1.84) B. Potassium Permanganate Solution (KMnO4). Dissolve 50 g potassium permanganate in DI water, and bring to 1-L volume. Store the solution in an amber bottle. C. Sulfuric Acid Solution (H2SO4), 50% v/v ratio. Slowly add 1-L concentrated sulfuric acid with continuous stirring, to 1-L DI water already placed in a 4-L flask. D. Reduced Iron. Grind in a ball mill and sieve to remove any material that does not pass a 0.15-mm sieve (<150 mesh). E. F. N-Octyl Alcohol Solution Catalyst Mixture (K2SO4 - CuSO4.5H2O - Se), 100:10:1 w/ w ratio Grind reagent-grade chemicals separately and mix. If caked, grind the mixture with a porcelain pestle and mortar to pass a 60-mesh screen (0.250 mm), taking care not to breath Se dust or allow Se to come in contact with skin. G. Ethylene Diaminetetraacetic Acid, Disodium Salt (EDTA), M.W. = 372.2 Store in a desiccator. H. Sodium Hydroxide Solution (NaOH), 10 N. Dissolve 400 g sodium hydroxide in DI water, transfer to a 1-L volumetric heavy walled Pyrex flask, let it cool, and bring to volume with DI water. I. Boric Acid Solution (H3BO3), saturated 1. Add 500 g boric acid to a 5-L volumetric flask. 2. Add 3 L DI water, and swirl vigorously. 3. Leave overnight. 4. There should always be solid H3BO3 on the bottom of the flask. J. Tris Solution [hydroxymethyl aminomethane] (C4H11NO3), 0.01 N 1. Dry reagent-grade Tris in an oven at 80C for 3 hours, cool in a desiccator, and store in a tightly stoppered bottle. 2. Dissolve 1.2114 g Tris in DI water, transfer to a 1-L volumetric flask, and bring to volume with DI water.

173

K. Sulfuric Acid Solution (H2SO4), 0.01 N 1. Take about 600 - 800 mL DI water in a 1-L volumetric flask, add 28 mL concentrated sulfuric acid, mix well, let it cool, and bring to 1-L volume with DI water. This is 1 N H2SO4 solution. 2. Then dilute 100 times (10 mL to 1-L volumetric flask) to obtain a 0.01 N H2SO4 solution.

Procedure A. Digestion 1. Mix and spread the finely ground soil sample (0.15-mm) in a thin layer on a sheet of paper, until it looks uniform. 2. Take a representative soil sample, which contains about 3 to 8 mg N, by withdrawing 10 small portions from the soil sample, e.g., 10 g. 3. Weigh the sample to 0.01 g and place into a 250-mL calibrated digestion tube. 4. At the same time, take a soil sample for moisture determination (105C). 5. Add 10 mL DI water to each tube and swirl thoroughly to wet the soil. Allow wet soil to stand for 30 minutes. 6. Prepare a blank digest, weigh 0.1 g EDTA standard digest (accurately weighed to 0.1 mg) with each batch. 7. Add 10 mL potassium permanganate solution, swirl well, allow to stand for 30 seconds, then hold the digestion tube at 45angle and slowly add 20-mL 50% sulfuric acid in a manner which washes down material adhering to the tube neck. 8. Allow to stand for 15 min then swirl. Important: Do not swirl digestion tube immediately after adding acid because this may result in excessive frothing. 9. Add 2 drops N-octyl alcohol solution. 10. Add a few pumice boiling granules to the blank, EDTA, and sample digest tubes. 11. Add 2.5 g reduced iron through a long-stem funnel and immediately place a 5-cm (internal diameter) glass funnel in the tube neck, and swirl. 12. Excessive frothing at this stage may be halted by pouring 5 mL DI water through the 5-cm glass funnel; do not swirl. 13. Allow the tubes to stand overnight. 14. Pre-digest the samples by placing them on the cold block and heating at 100C for 1 hour. The block digester comes to 100C within 15 minutes; therefore, total time on the block digester will be approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes. 15. Samples should be swirled at 45 minutes.

174

16. Remove tubes from the block-digester, and cool. Rapid cooling may be affected in tap water. 17. Leave overnight. 18. Add about 5 g catalyst mixture through a long stem funnel. Then add 25 mL concentrated sulfuric acid to each tube, and swirl (more acid may be required if larger amount of soil is used). 19. Place the tubes back on the block-digester pre-heated to 100C, increase the block temperature setting to 240C, and remove the funnels. 20. Arrange funnels systematically in an order so that they may afterwards be placed into the same digestion tube. It takes 40 minutes to reach 240C. 21. Continue boiling off the water for 1 hour after reaching 240C. 22. After the water has been removed, replace the funnels and raise the temperature to 380C. 23. Set the timer on the block-digester, and digest for 4 hr at this temperature. 24. Remove the tubes from the block-digester, add about 50-mL DI water, and mix using a vortex mixture. If any solid precipitate remains in the tubes, break it up with a glass rod. 25. After cooling, add DI water to the 250-mL mark.

B. Distillation 1. Prior to distillation, shake the digestion tube to mix thoroughly its contents, and then immediately pipette 50 mL into a 250-mL distillation flask. 2. Acid digests are distilled with excess NaOH. The quantity of 10 N NaOH required for soil digestion is 25 mL and 50 mL for distillation of 50 mL and 100-mL aliquot, respectively. 3. Carry out distillations. Dispense 1 mL saturated boric acid solution and 1 mL DI water into a 100-mL Pyrex evaporating dish, placed underneath the condenser tip, with thetiptouching the solution surface. Carefully dispense appropriate volume of 10 N NaOH down the side of the flask, while holding the distillation flask containing the digest at a 50angle. Immediately attach the flask to the distillation unit with a clamp, start distillation, and continue for 3 minutes. Lower the dish to allow distillate to drain freely into the dish. After 4 minutes, when about 35-mL distillate is collected, turn off the steam supply, and wash tip of the condenser into the evaporating dish

175

with a small amount of DI water. Important: The first appearance of distillate will be delayed when large aliquots are used. The distillation time should always be 4 minutes from the first appearance of distillate flow. Titrate the distillate to pH 5.0 with standardized 0.01 N H2SO4 using the Auto-Titrator. After finishing titration, the Teflon-coated magnetic stirring bar, the burette tip and the combined electrode are washed into the dish. Between different samples, steam out the distillations. Disconnect distillation flasks containing the digest sample and NaOH, and attach a 100-mL empty distillation flask to distillation unit, and place a 100-mL empty beaker underneath the condenser tip, turn off cooling water supply (drain the water from the condenser jacket), and steam out for 90 seconds. Each distillation should contain at least two standards and two blanks (reagent blanks).

Calculations For Percentage recovery of EDTA standard: % Recovery = {(V - B) N R 186.1 100} / (Wt1 1000) For Percentage Nitrogen in soil: % N = {(V - B) N R 14.01 100} / (Wt2 1000) Where: V = Volume of 0.01 N H2SO4 titrated for the sample (mL) B = Digested blank titration volume (mL) N = Normality of H2SO4 solution. 14.01 = Atomic weight of N. R = Ratio between total volume of the digest and the digest volume used for distillation. Wt1 = Weight of EDTA (g) Wt2 = Weight of air-dry soil (g) 186.1 = Equivalent weight of the EDTA.

Available Phosphorus (P): Because of its significance as a major nutrient, coupled with the fact that it is widely deficient in alkaline-calcareous soils. Compared to N and most other nutrients, soil tests for P are generally fairly reliable in predicting the need for P

176

fertilizer for growing field crops. Since P compounds in soils are highly variable and are related to soil type or parent material, several extractants are used worldwide for evaluating soil fertility. Few, if any of these procedures, are satisfactory for all soil types. Even a good test must be well correlated with crop P uptake and must be calibrated to crop response to fertilizer application in field situations. A soil tests for routine use should be simple, quick, easy to execute, and inexpensive. The sodium bicarbonate procedure of Olsen et al. (1954) meets these criteria and is generally accepted as a suitable index of P "availability" for alkaline soils, where the solubility of calcium phosphate is increased because of the precipitation of Ca2+ as CaCO3. The original sodium bicarbonate method, developed and described by Olsen et al. (1954), involved the use of carbon black in the extraction reagent to eliminate the color (because of soil organic matter) in the extract. The procedure was, however, modified later, eliminating the use of carbon black (Murphy and Riley, 1962; Watanabe and Olsen, 1965; Olsen and Sommers, 1982). In the modified method, a single solution reagent containing ammonium molybdate, ascorbic acid and a small amount of antimony is used, for color development in the soil extracts (Bray and Kurtz, 1945).

Reagents A. Sodium Hydroxide Solution (NaOH), 5 N. Dissolve 200 g sodium hydroxide in DI water, and transfer the solution to a 1-L volumetric heavy walled Pyrex flask, let it cool, and bring to volume with DI water. B. Sodium Bicarbonate Solution (NaHCO3), 0.5 M. Dissolve 42 g sodium bicarbonate in about 900 mL DI water, adjust to pH 8.5 with 5 N NaOH solution. Bring to 1-L volume with DI water. Keep the bottle closed and do not store over 1 month in a glass container; or use polyethylene container for periods more than 1 month. C. Sulfuric Acid Solution (H2SO4), 5 N. Dilute 148 mL concentrated sulfuric acid (in fume hood) with DI water, mix well, let it cool, and bring to 1-L volume with DI water. D. p-nitrophenol Indicator, 0.25 % w/v E. Standard Stock Solution 1. Dry about 2.5 g potassium dihydrogen phosphate (KH2PO4) in an oven at 105C for 1 hour, cool in desiccator, and store in a tightly stoppered bottle. 2. Dissolve 2.197 g dried potassium dihydrogen phosphate in DI water, and bring to 1-L volume with DI water. This solution contains 500 ppm P (Stock Solution).

177

3. Dilute 50 mL Stock Solution to 250 mL final volume by adding DI water. This solution contains 100 ppm P (Diluted Stock Solution). 4. Prepare a series of Standard Solutions from the Diluted Stock Solution as follows: Dilute 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 mL Diluted Stock Solution to 500 mL volume. These solutions contain 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 ppm P, respectively. F. Reagent A 1. Dissolve 12 g ammonium heptamolybdate (NH4)6Mo7O244H2O in 250-mL DI water. 2. Dissolve 0.2908 g antimony potassium tartrate (KSbOC4H4O6) in 100-mL DI water. 3. Add both dissolved reagents to a 2-L volumetric flask, and add 1-L 5 N H2SO4 (148 mL concentrated H2SO4 per liter) to the mixture. Mix thoroughly, and dilute to 2-L volume with DI water. Store in a Pyrex bottle in a dark, cool place. G. Reagent B. Dissolve 1.056 g L-Ascorbic acid (C6H8O6) in 200 mL Reagent A, and mix. This reagent should be prepared as required because it does not keep for more than 24 hr.

Procedure 1. Weigh 5 g air-dry soil (2-mm) into a 250-mL Erlenmeyer flask; add 100 mL 0.5 M sodium bicarbonate solution. 2. Close the flask with a rubber stopper, and shake for 30 minutes on a shaker at 200-300 rpm. Include 1 flask containing all chemicals but no soil (Blank). 3. Filter the solution through a Whatman No. 40 filter paper, and pipette 10 mL clear filtrate into a 50-mL volumetric flask. 4. Acidify with 5 N sulfuric acid to pH 5.0. This can be done by taking 10 mL 0.5 M NaHCO3 solution and determining the amount of acid required to bring the solution pH to 5.0, using P-nitrophenol indicator (color change is from yellow to colorless). Then add the required acid to all the unknowns. Adding 1 mL 5 N H2SO4 is adequate to acidify each 10 mL NaHCO3 extract. Important: Do not swirl flasks immediately after adding 1 mL 5 N H2SO4 because this may results is excessive frothing. 5. Add DI water to about 40-mL volume, add 8 mL Reagent B, and bring to 50-mL volume. 6. Prepare a standard curve as follows: 6.1 Pipette 2 mL of each standard (1-5 ppm), and proceed as for the samples.

178

6.2 Also make a blank with 10 mL 0.5 M NaHCO3 solution, and proceed as for the samples. 6.3 Read the absorbance of blank, standards, and samples after 10 minutes at 882 nm wavelength. 7. Prepare a calibration curve for standards, plotting absorbance against the respective P concentrations. 8. Read P concentration in the unknown samples from the calibration curve. Calcualtion For Extractable Phosphorus in soil: Extractable P (ppm) = ppm P (from calibration curve) (A / Wt) (50 / V) Where: A = Total volume of the extract (mL) Wt = Weight of air-dry soil (g) V = Volume of extract used for measurement (mL) Note 1. The unit ppm (parts per million) is commonly used in soil and plant analysis. One ppm is exactly equal to 1 mg/L if the specific weight of the solution is exactly 1 kg/L. For dilute standard solutions in distilled water, 1 ppm is approximately equal to 1 mg/L at room temperature. 2. The amount of P extracted from a soil depends on pre-treatment of samples, shaking frequency and time, and on temperature during extraction. Therefore, sample treatment and the conditions during extraction should be standardized. 3. If the sample solutions are too dark-colored for measurement against the highest standard, a smaller soil extract aliquot should be taken, and the calculation modified accordingly. Once the blue color has developed, the solution cannot be diluted. 4. Glassware used in P analysis should not be washed with detergents containing P (and remember that most detergents do contain P). 5. As glass cuvette density may vary, it is best to use the same cuvette for each absorbance reading on a spectrophotometer.

Potassium (K): Along with N and P, K is also of vital importance in crop production. Most soils contain relatively large amounts of total K (1 - 2%) as components of relatively insoluble minerals, however, only a small fraction (about 1%) is present in a form available to plants, i.e., water-soluble and exchangeable K.

179

This fraction of soil K is the sum of water-soluble and exchangeable K. The method uses a neutral salt solution to replace the cations present on the soil exchange complex; therefore, the cation concentration determined by this method is referred to as "exchangeable" for non-calcareous soils. For calcareous soils, the cations are referred to as "exchangeable plus soluble" (Richards, 1954).

Reagents A. Ammonium Acetate Solution (NH4OAc), 1 N 1. Add 57 mL concentrated acetic acid (CH3COOH) to 800 mL DI water, and then add 68 mL concentrated ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH), mix well, and let the mixture cool. 2. Adjust to pH 7.0 by adding more acetic acid or ammonium hydroxide, and bring to 1-L volume with DI water. B. Standard Stock Solution 1. Dry about 3 g potassium chloride (KCl) in an oven at 120C for 1 2 hours and cool in a desiccator, and store in a tightly stoppered bottle. 2. Dissolve 1.907 g dried potassium chloride in DI water, and bring to 1-L volume with DI water. This solution contains 1000 ppm K (Stock Solution). 3. Prepare a series of Standard Solutions from the Stock Solution as follows: Dilute 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 15 and 20 mL Stock Solution to 100-mL final volume of each by adding DI water or 1 N ammonium acetate solution. These solutions contain 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, 150, and 200 ppm K, respectively. Standard solutions for measuring soluble-K should be prepared in DI water, but for measuring extractable-K the standards should be made in ammonium acetate solution.

Procedure 1. Weigh 5 g air-dry soil (<2-mm) into a 50-mL centrifuge tube, add 33 mL ammonium acetate solution, and shake for 5 minutes on a shaker. The tubes should be stoppered with a clean rubber or polyethylene stopper, but not corks, which may introduce errors. 2. Centrifuge until the supernatant liquid is clear and collect the extract in a 100-mL volumetric flask through a filter paper to exclude any soil particles. Repeat this process 2 more times and collect the extract each time. 3. Dilute the combined ammonium acetate extracts to 100 mL with 1 N ammonium acetate solution. 4. Run a series of suitable potassium standards, and draw a calibration curve.

180

5. Measure the samples (soil extracts), and take the emission readings on a Flame Photometer at 767-nm wavelength. 6. Calculate potassium (K) concentrations according to the calibration curve.

Calculation For Extractable Potassium in soil: Extractable K (ppm) = ppm K (from calibration curve) (A / Wt)

Where:

A = Total volume of the extract (mL) Wt = Weight of air-dry soil (g)

Soluble Calcium and Magnesium (Ca and Mg): Soluble Ca and Mg are obtained by extracting the soil by water and measurement of their concentrations in the extract by titration with EDTA (Richards, 1954). However, Ca and Mg in the extracts can also be measured by atomic absorption spectrophotometer.

Reagents 1. Buffer Solution (NH4Cl-NH4OH). Dissolve 67.5 g ammonium chloride in 570 mL concentrated ammonium hydroxide, and transfer the solution to a 1-L volumetric flask, let it cool, and bring to volume with DI water. 2. Eriochrome Black Indicator. Dissolve 0.5 g Eriochrome Black with 4.5 g hydroxylamine hydrochloride in 100 mL ethyl alcohol (95%). Prepare a fresh batch every month. 3. Ethylene Diaminetetraacetic Acid Solution (EDTA), 0.01 N. Dissolve 2 g ethylene diaminetetraacetic acid, and 0.05 g magnesium chloride (MgCl2) in DI water, and bring to 1-L volume with DI water. 4. Sodium Hydroxide Solution (NaOH), 2 N. Dissolve 80 g sodium hydroxide in about 800 mL DI water, transfer the solution to a 1-L volume, cool, and bring to volume with DI water. 5. Ammonium Purpurate Indicator (C8H8N6O6). Mix 0.5 g ammonium purpurate (Murexid) with 100 g potassium sulfate (K2SO4). 6. Standard Stock Calcium Chloride Solution (CaCl2.2H2O), 0.01 N. Dissolve 0.5 g pure calcium carbonate (CaCO3 dried for 3 hours at 100C), in 10 mL 3 N hydrochloric acid and bring to1-L volume with DI water. This can also be prepared by dissolving 0.735 g calcium chloride dehydrate (CaCl2.2H2O) in 1-L volume with DI water.

181

Procedure A. Calcium 1. Pipette 10 - 20 mL soil saturation extract, having not more than 1.0 meq Ca, into a 250-mL Erlenmeyer flask. 2. Dilute to 20 - 30 mL with DI water, add 2 - 3 mL 2 N sodium hydroxide solution, and about 50 mg ammonium purpurate indicator. 3. Titrate with 0.01 N EDTA. The color change is from red to lavender or purple. Near the end point, EDTA should be added 1 drop every 10 seconds since the color change is not instantaneous. 4. Always run a blank containing all reagents but no soil, and treat it in exactly the same way as the samples; and subtract the blank titration reading from the readings for all samples. B. Calcium plus Magnesium 1. Pipette 10 - 20 mL soil saturation extract into a 250-mL flask, dilute to 20 30 mL with DI water. Then add 3 - 5 mL buffer solution. And a few drops eriochrome black indicator. 2. Titrate with 0.01 N EDTA until the color changes from red to blue. Calculations For Soluble Calcium or Magnesium in soil: Ca or Ca + Mg (meq/L) = - {(V - B) N R 1000} / Wt Mg (meq/L) = Ca + Mg (meq/L) - Ca (meq/L) Where: V = Volume of EDTA titrated for the sample (mL) B = Blank titration volume (mL) R = Ratio between total volume of the extract and extract volume used for titration. N = Normality of EDTA solution. Wt= Weight of air-dry soil (g)

For Standardization of EDTA: 1. Pipette 10 mL 0.01 N calcium chloride solution, and treat it as in determining Ca and Ca+Mg procedure, respectively. 2. Take the reading, and calculate EDTA normality:

NEDTA = (10 NCaCl2) / VEDTA

182

Where:

NEDTA = Normality of EDTA solution. VEDTA = Volume of EDTA solution used (mL) NCaCl2 = Normality of CaCl2 solution

Note 1. Normality with Ca determination usually is 3 to 5% higher than with Ca + Mg. 2. If there is not enough saturation extract, a soil-water suspension (1:5 ratio) can be prepared. Shake for 30 minutes, filter, and use the filtrate for analysis. 3. If an Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer is used, a small aliquot of the saturation extract is sufficient to determine Ca and Mg.

Micronutrient Cations (Iron, Zinc, Manganese and Copper): Though required by plants in much smaller amounts than the major plant nutrients (like N, P, K), micronutrients are, nevertheless, equally essential for crop growth. Solubility of micronutrient cations decreases with an increase in soil pH. The DTPA test of Lindsay and Norvell (1978) is commonly used for evaluating fertility status with respect to micronutrient cations, i.e., Fe, Zn, Mn, and Cu.

Reagents A. DTPA Extraction Solution 1. Weigh 1.97 g diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid (DTPA), and 1.1 g calcium chloride (CaCl2) or [(1.47 g calcium chloride dihydrate (CaCl2.2H2O)] into a beaker. Dissolve with DI water and then transfer to a 1-L volumetric flask. 2. Into another beaker, weigh 14.92 g (or add 13.38 mL) Triethanolamine (TEA), transfer with DI water into the 1-L volume, and make up to about 900 mL with DI water.
3.

Adjust the pH to exactly 7.3 with 6N hydrochloric acid (HCl), and make to 1-L volume with DI water. The final extractant solution is 0.005 M DTPA, 0.1 M TEA, 0.1 M CaCl2.

B. Standard Stock Solutions Prepare a series of Standard Solutions for micronutrients in DTPA extraction solution: Fe: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ppm; Cu: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ppm; Zn: 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 ppm; Mn: 0, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 ppm.

183

Procedure 1. Weigh 10 g air-dry soil (2-mm) into a 125-mL Erlenmeyer flask. 2. Add 20 mL extraction solution. Shake for 2 hours on a reciprocal shaker. 3. Filter the suspension through a Whatman No. 42 filter paper. 4. Measure Zn, Fe, Cu, and Mn directly in the filtrate by an Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer. Follow the operating procedure for the Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer using appropriate lamp for each element.

Calculation For Extractable Micronutrient cations in soil: Fe, Cu, or Mn (ppm) = (ppm in extract - blank) (A / Wt)

Where:

A = Total volume of the extract (mL) Wt = Weight of air-dry soil (g)

Note 1. The theoretical basis for the DTPA extraction is the equilibrium of the metals in the soil with the chelating agent. The pH of 7.3 enables DTPA to extract Fe and other metals. 2. The DTPA reagent should be of the acid form (not a disodium salt).

184

APPENDIX D Analytical procedures of plant samples.

Total Nitrogen: This method is based on digestion of plant material in a sulfuricsalicylic acid mixture (Buresh et al., 1982).

Reagents A. Sulfuric-Salicylic Acid Mixture (concentrated H2SO4 containing 2.5 % w/v salicylic acid). Dissolve 62.5g reagent-grade salicylic acid (C7H6O3) in 2.5-L concentrated sulfuric acid. B. Catalyst Mixture (K2SO4-Se), 100:1 w/w ratio. C. Sodium Thiosulfate (Na2S2O35H2O), crystal D. Ethylene Diaminetetraacetic Acid Disodium Salt (EDTA), M.W. = 372.2 E. Sodium Hydroxide Solution (NaOH), 10 N. Dissolve 400 g sodium hydroxide in DI water, transfer to a 1-L volumetric heavy walled Pyrex flask, let it cool, and bring to volume with DI water.

Procedure A. Digestion 1. Mix and spread finely ground plant sample in a thin layer, on a sheet of paper or plastic until the sample looks uniform. 2. Take a representative sub-sample of about 1 g by systematically withdrawing at least 10 small portions from all parts of the sample with a spatula, and put them into a plastic vial. 3. Dry the sub-sample at 60C in an oven (overnight), and then cool in a desiccator. 4. Weigh 0.25 g (grain) or 0.50 g (straw) dry plant material, and then transfer quantitatively into a dry 250-mL digestion tube. 5. Add 20 mL sulfuric-salicylic acid mixture while rotating the tube to wash down any sample adhering to the neck of the tube, and allow to stand 2 hours or longer with occasional swirling. 6. Add 2.5 g sodium thiosulfate through a long-stemmed funnel to the contents of the tube and swirl gently a few times, and allow to stand overnight. 7. Add 4 g catalyst mixture, and 3-4 pumice boiling granules, and place tubes on the block-digester pre-heated to 400C. 8. Place a small glass funnel in the mouth of the tubes to ensure efficient refluxing of the digestion mixture and prevent loss of H2SO4, and proceed with the digestion until the mixture clears.

185

9. Remove the tubes from the block-digester and allow them to cool for about 20 minutes. Then wash down any material adhering to the neck of the tube with a minimum quantity of DI water. 10. Thoroughly agitate the tube contents, place tubes back on the blockdigester, and digest for 2 hours after clearing. No particulate material should remain in the tube after digestion. 11. After the digestion is finished, allow the digest to cool, and add water slowly shaking until the liquid level is about 2 cm below the graduation mark. 12. Allow tube to cool to room temperature, and add DI water to bring the volume to the 250 mL mark. 13. Each batch of samples for digestion should contain at least 1 reagent blank (no plant), and 1 chemical standard (weigh 0.1g EDTA standard digest), and 1 standard plant sample (internal reference) B. Distillation 1. Set distillation and titration apparatus as for soil Kjeldahl-N, and steam out the apparatus for at least 10 minutes. 2. Prior to distillation, shake the digestion tube to thoroughly mix its contents, and pipette an aliquot in a 300-mL distillation flask. 3. Carefully add 7 mL or 15 mL 10 N sodium hydroxide solution for 25-mL or 50-mL aliquot, respectively, and immediately connect flask to distillation unit and begin distillation. 4. Collect about 35 mL distillate in the collecting dish. 5. Remove distillation flask and connect an empty 100-mL distillation flask to the distillation unit. Drain water from the condenser jacket and steam out apparatus for 90 seconds before connecting the next sample. 6. The distillate is then titrated to pH 5.0 with standardized 0.01 N H2SO4 using the Auto-Titrator; record titration volume of acid. 7. Each batch of distillations should contain at least 2 standards and 2 blanks (reagent blanks). Recovery of EDTA, corrected for reagent blank, should be at least 97%.

Calculations For Percentage recovery of EDTA standard % Recovery = [(V - B) N R 186.1 100] / [Wt11000]

For Percentage Nitrogen in plant: % N = [(V - B) N R 14.01 100] / [Wt2 1000]

186

Where:

V = Volume of 0.01 N H2SO4 titrated for the sample (mL). B = Digested blank titration volume (mL) N = Normality of H2SO4 solution. 14.01= Atomic weight of N. R = Ratio between total digest volume and distillation volume. Wt1 = Weight of EDTA (g) Wt2 = Weight of dry plant (g) 186.1= Equivalent weight of the EDTA.

Phosphorus: Total P in plant material can be determined either by wet digestion procedure or by dry-ashing procedure. Both methods are satisfactory. However, dry ashing is a simpler, easier, non-hazardous and economical option. Later, P content in the digests or dissolved ash aliquots are measured colorimetrically.

Reagents A. Ammonium Heptamolybdate-Ammonium Vanadate in Nitric Acid 1. Dissolve 22.5 g ammonium heptamolybdate [(NH4)6Mo7O24. 4H2O] in 400 mL DI water (a). 2. Dissolve 1.25 g ammonium metavanadate (NH4VO3) in 300 mL hot DI water (b). 3. Add (b) to (a) in a 1-L volumetric flask, and let the mixture cool to room temperature. 4. Slowly add 250 mL concentrated nitric acid (HNO3) to the mixture, cool the solution to room temperature, and bring to 1-L volume with DI water. B. Standard Stock Solution 1. Dry about 2.5 g potassium dihydrogen phosphate (KH2PO4) in an oven at 105C for 1 hour cool in desiccator, and store in a tightly stoppered bottle. 2. Dissolve 0.2197 g dried potassium dihydrogen phosphate in DI water, and bring to 1-L volume with DI water. This solution contains 50 ppm P (Stock Solution). 3. Prepare a series of Standard Solutions from the Stock Solution as follows: Dilute 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 mL Stock Solution to100-mL final volume by adding DI water. These solutions contain 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 ppm P, respectively.

Procedure A. Dry-Ashing Procedure. Dry ash the plant material: 1. Weigh 0.5 - 1.0 g portions of ground plant material in a 30 - 50 mL porcelain crucibles or Pyrex glass beakers.

187

2. Place porcelain crucibles into a cool muffle furnace, and increase temperature gradually to 550C. 3. Continue ashing for 5 hours after attaining 550C. 4. Shut off the muffle furnace and open the door cautiously for rapid cooling. 5. When cool, take out the porcelain crucibles carefully. 6. Dissolve the cooled ash in 5-mL portions 2 N hydrochloric acid (HCl) and mix with a plastic rod. 7. After 15 - 20 minutes, make up the volume (usually to 50 mL) using DI water. 8. Mix thoroughly, allow to stand for about 30 minutes, and use the supernatant or filter through Whatman No. 42 filter paper, discarding the first portions of the filtrates. 9. Analyze the aliquots for P by Colorimetry (by Ammonium VanadateAmmonium Molybdate yellow color method), for K and Na by Flame Photometry, and for Ca, Mg, Zn, Cu, Fe, and Mn by Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy.

B. Measurement 1. Pipette 10 mL of the digest filtrate or aliquot of the dissolved ash (depending on the procedure used) into a 100-mL volumetric flask, add 10 mL ammonium- vanadomolybdate reagent, and dilute the solution to volume with DI water. 2. Prepare a standard curve as follows: 2.1 Pipette 1, 2, 3 ,4 , and 5 mL standard stock solution, and proceed as for the samples. 2.2 Also make a blank with 10 mL ammonium-vanadomolybdate reagent, and proceed as for the samples. 2.3 Read the absorbance of the blank, standards, and samples after 30 min at 410-nm wavelength. 3. Prepare a calibration curve for standards, plotting absorbance against the respective P concentrations. 4. Read P concentration in the unknown samples from the calibration curve.

Calculations For Percentage Total Phosphorus in plant: % P = ppm P (from calibration curve) (R/ Wt) (100 /10000)

188

Where:

R = Ratio between total volume of the digest/aliquot and the digest /aliquot volume used for measurement Wt = Weight of dry plant (g)

Note The plant digest by the hydrogen peroxide and sulfuric acid can also be used for phosphorus measurement in plants.

Macro- and Micro-nutrients (P, K, Ca, Mg, Na, Fe, Zn, Cu, and Mn): Plant analysis by dry ashing is simple, non-hazardous and less expensive, compared with HNO3HClO4 wet digestion. Dry ashing is appropriate for analyzing P, K, Ca, Mg, and Na. Micronutrient cations (Fe, Zn, Cu, and Mn) can also be analyzed by dry ashing, but only in plant tissues containing low silica contents (like legumes).

The HNO3-HClO4 wet digestion is required for full recovery of micronutrient cations in high-silica plant tissues (like wheat, barley, rice, and sugarcane, etc). In dry ashing for B, use of glassware should be avoided. Reagent Hydrochloric Acid (HCl), 2N. Dilute165.6 mL concentrated hydrochloric acid (37%, sp.gr.1.19) in DI water, mix well, let it cool, and bring to 1-L volume with DI water. Procedure The procedure is that of Chapman and Pratt (1961) with slight modifications. 1. Weigh 0.5-1.0 g portions of ground plant material in a 30-50 mL porcelain crucibles or Pyrex glass beakers. 2. Place porcelain crucibles into a cool muffle furnace, and increase temperature gradually to 550C. 3. Continue ashing for 5 hours after attaining 550C. 4. Shut off the muffle furnace and open the door cautiously for rapid cooling. 5. When cool, take out the porcelain crucibles carefully. 6. Dissolve the cooled ash in 5-mL portions 2 N hydrochloric acid (HCl) and mix with a plastic rod. 7. After 15 - 20 minutes, make up the volume (usually to 50 mL) using DI water. 8. Mix thoroughly, allow to stand for about 30 minutes, and use the supernatant or filter through Whatman No. 42 filter paper, discarding the first portions of the filtrates.

189

9. Analyze the aliquots for P by Colorimetry (by Ammonium VanadateAmmonium Molybdate yellow color method), for K and Na by Flame Photometry, and for Ca, Mg, Zn, Cu, Fe, and Mn by Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy.

Note For Ca and Mg measurement, the final dilution should contain 1% w/v lanthanum (La) and the determinations should be against standards and blank containing similar La concentration to overcome anionic interference.

Boron: Boron in plant samples is measured by dry ashing (Chapman and Pratt, 1961) and subsequent measurement of Boron by colorimetric using Azomethine-H (Bingham, 1982).

Reagents A. Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4), 0.36 N B. Buffer Solution. Dissolve 250 g ammonium acetate (NH4OAc), and 15 g ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, disodium salt (EDTA disodium) in 400 mL DI water. Slowly add 125 mL glacial acetic acid (CH3COOH), and mix well. C. Azomethine-H (C17H12NNa O8S2). Dissolve 0.45 g azomethine-H in 100 mL 1% L-ascorbic acid solution. Fresh reagent should be prepared weekly and stored in a refrigerator. D. Standard Stock Solution 1. Dissolve 0.114 g boric acid (H3BO3) in DI water, and bring to 1-L volume with DI water. This solution contains 20 ppm B (Stock Solution). 2. Prepare a series of Standard Solutions from the Stock Solution as follows: Dilute 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0, 12.5 and 15.0 mL Stock Solution to 100 mL final volume by adding DI water. These solutions contain 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 ppm, respectively.

Procedure A. Dry Ashing 1. Weigh 1 g dry, ground plant material in porcelain crucible. 2. Ignite in a muffle furnace by slowly raising the temperature to 550C. 3. Continue ashing for 6 hours after attaining 550C. 4. Wet the ash with 5 drops DI water, and then add 10 mL 0.36 N sulfuric acid solution into the porcelain crucibles.

190

5. Let stand at room temperature for 1 hour, stirring occasionally with a plastic rod to break up ash. 6. Filter through Whatman No.1 filter paper into a 50-mL polypropylene volumetric flask and bring to volume. Filtrate is ready for B determination. B. Measurement 1. Pipette 1 mL aliquot of the extract into a 10-mL polypropylene tube. 2. Add 2 mL buffer solution. 3. Add 2 mL azomethine-H solution, and mix well. 4. Prepare a standard curve as follows: 5. Pipette 1 mL of each standard (0.5-3.0 ppm), and proceed as for the samples. 6. Also make a blank with 1 mL DI water, and proceed as for the samples. 7. Read the absorbance of blank, standards, and samples after 30 minutes at 420-nm wavelength. 8. Prepare a calibration curve for standards, plotting absorbance against the respective B concentrations. 9. Read B concentration in the unknown samples from the calibration curve.

Calculations For Boron in plant: B (ppm) = ppm B (from calibration curve) (A / Wt)

Where:

A = Total volume of the extract (mL) Wt = Weight of dry plant (g)

191

APPENDIX E1 Summary of incomes of organic farmers from Tubtim Siam, Sa Kaeo province.
2003 Farmers Harvesting week SK1 SK2 SK4 SK5 SK7 SK9 SK16 SK18 SK20 SK22 SK23 SK24 SK25 SK26 SK27 SK28 SK29 SK30 SK31 SK32 SK33 SK34 SK36 SK37 SK38 SK40 SK41 SK42 SK43 SK44 SK45 SK47 39 30 n/a 43 35 17 10 17 11 n/a 45 18 26 38 41 16 35 42 36 39 35 36 37 22 37 32 13 38 31 37 36 30 Income (Baht/rai) 61,502 13,287 n/a 121,215 57,196 4,135 9,914 8,298 2,566 n/a 51,618 14,220 29,846 157,191 117,713 32,441 80,685 72,236 45,908 99,645 88,961 78,979 30,050 23,835 34,107 34,418 7,601 95,672 18,933 44,328 40,101 54,342 2004 Harvesting week 22 30 3 30 34 30 4 4 8 n/a 42 41 30 44 35 35 34 39 41 35 42 37 28 46 27 27 28 50 33 39 41 n/a Income (Baht/rai) 42,679 20,415 872 84,402 78,801 19,512 1,663 901 13,266 n/a 41,426 28,662 25,020 140,413 131,373 57,976 58,427 106,697 37,637 73,237 103,739 81,374 24,731 54,869 31,540 32,848 28,843 98,854 57,280 58,805 82,269 n/a 2005 Harvesting week n/a 5 35 24 30 32 27 n/a 31 9 5 38 32 45 31 36 34 44 28 36 41 35 n/a 30 10 21 4 42 34 47 38 6 Income (Baht/rai) n/a 1,584 65,122 64,736 59,177 23,237 28,012 n/a 60,389 2,219 982 54,449 30,111 78,273 123,987 34,758 36,546 69,474 12,805 55,203 110,240 104,859 n/a 31,856 2,710 3,393 912 58,229 49,209 73,841 51,303 1,766 2006 Harvesting week 21 30 35 n/a n/a 31 n/a 16 34 30 n/a 36 19 36 n/a 31 11 19 16 5 48 43 n/a 31 n/a 21 17 35 13 26 29 33 Income (Baht/rai) 26,359 32,720 72,943 n/a n/a 22,089 n/a 32,071 77,601 47,661 n/a 41,616 17,806 45,686 n/a 26,507 3,624 11,736 6,164 1,257 72,163 69,612 n/a 54,425 n/a 13,486 8,308 37,238 7,924 19,935 17,272 43,769

192
2003 Farmers Harvesting week SK48 SK51 SK54 SK57 SK82 SK83 SK84 SK85 SK86 SK87 SK88 SK89 SK90 SK91 SK92 SK93 SK94 SK95 SK99 SK100 SK101 SK102 SK103 SK104 SK105 SK106 SK107 SK109 SK110 SK111 SK112 SK114 SK115 SK116 34 n/a 20 18 19 17 15 10 16 7 11 19 11 17 18 20 12 18 n/a 19 14 21 12 17 17 19 13 16 15 18 17 14 20 20 Income (Baht/rai) 32,637 n/a 16,386 18,798 25,544 14,287 12,716 1,614 19,354 4,112 2,239 16,629 7,786 11,168 13,383 18,988 7,356 16,683 n/a 11,691 3,612 31,122 10,820 5,106 9,865 23,429 6,880 9,308 11,169 20,440 9,980 3,418 28,921 10,108 2004 Harvesting week 28 n/a n/a n/a 34 35 34 31 37 27 34 38 34 44 37 33 37 34 28 37 31 40 36 32 35 35 38 36 32 36 32 32 35 33 Income (Baht/rai) 29,746 n/a n/a n/a 91,498 69,334 43,203 19,743 75,502 24,950 20,450 63,900 51,443 56,844 43,696 51,862 57,941 57,961 23,896 46,536 18,504 129,375 51,801 21,970 63,049 76,750 78,656 46,001 50,910 79,962 54,558 28,030 87,690 49,852 2005 Harvesting week 25 15 24 n/a 44 40 35 27 32 26 34 33 31 34 26 48 31 34 12 39 15 36 26 32 30 30 44 35 26 34 48 n/a 41 30 Income (Baht/rai) 16,115 10,410 29,660 n/a 83,062 72,518 33,084 16,883 68,198 24,841 29,586 51,525 46,272 38,328 35,789 77,352 55,755 32,106 12,330 32,814 5,417 104,167 49,475 49,883 32,828 35,474 55,190 42,660 15,124 54,817 67,052 n/a 74,454 30,922 2006 Harvesting week 28 34 34 22 38 39 16 23 31 8 6 41 23 26 31 46 30 14 25 17 30 24 11 34 13 17 48 27 24 27 47 n/a 32 21 Income (Baht/rai) 18,132 65,210 54,928 9,530 35,941 40,306 6,274 7,072 34,126 4,177 3,565 51,443 18,891 12,655 27,364 33,332 33,947 4,099 23,385 3,334 14,704 23,097 17,488 34,115 9,728 17,334 23,106 37,486 27,079 38,240 40,190 n/a 42,336 7,479

193
2003 Farmers Harvesting week SK117 SK118 SK119 SK120 SK121 SK122 SK123 SK124 SK125 SK126 SK127 SK128 SK129 SK130 SK133 SK134 SK135 SK136 SK139 SK140 SK141 SK142 SK143 SK144 SK145 SK146 SK147 SK148 SK149 SK150 SK151 SK152 SK153 SK154 13 14 n/a 17 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 6 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Income (Baht/rai) 5,628 7,121 n/a 14,006 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2,308 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2004 Harvesting week 36 27 13 1 12 11 10 n/a 12 5 n/a 3 12 4 12 11 6 6 5 11 2 12 13 3 3 9 14 13 11 9 12 12 10 10 Income (Baht/rai) 69,978 26,832 3,785 66 15,288 3,235 5,783 n/a 3,404 1,122 n/a 376 8,777 842 6,744 2,455 1,541 7,256 1,805 2,143 102 15,406 9,751 258 1,333 5,191 8,536 3,580 9,715 2,808 9,913 15,055 3,828 5,958 2005 Harvesting week 38 23 35 20 45 25 29 8 35 3 5 39 35 30 28 24 27 31 24 36 16 32 38 19 18 21 31 29 33 21 32 37 33 29 Income (Baht/rai) 58,179 41,571 39,123 9,628 99,254 27,610 30,958 3,698 39,292 3,693 2,316 82,804 48,992 41,279 49,239 9,498 21,801 87,344 17,678 28,283 2,207 114,045 74,215 25,417 18,228 5,044 70,093 37,524 72,748 15,051 62,536 109,304 52,930 69,167 2006 Harvesting week 33 27 28 15 25 16 11 11 30 24 18 18 26 8 20 n/a n/a 34 12 17 n/a 36 13 12 9 n/a 20 31 24 15 27 19 34 27 Income (Baht/rai) 25,497 24,369 16,024 8,507 24,072 7,886 3,320 6,568 29,226 43,734 3,326 9,965 22,029 5,527 16,888 n/a n/a 126,227 7,472 5,281 n/a 59,142 15,695 4,540 2,738 n/a 28,536 33,410 44,610 11,698 33,294 40,510 53,709 28,977

194
2003 Farmers Harvesting week SK155 SK156 SK158 SK159 SK161 SK163 SK164 SK165 SK166 SK167 SK168 SK170 SK171 SK172 SK173 SK174 SK176 SK177 SK178 SK179 SK180 SK181 SK182 SK183 SK185 SK186 SK187 SK188 SK189 SK190 SK191 SK192 SK193 SK194 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 7 n/a n/a n/a n/a Income (Baht/rai) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 339 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 14,407 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2004 Harvesting week 11 13 5 13 12 14 12 6 4 11 13 12 12 9 11 5 12 6 7 14 12 3 1 11 12 4 n/a 13 8 4 2 3 4 n/a Income (Baht/rai) 5,682 33,280 1,218 12,109 9,001 13,039 8,904 2,898 146 2,716 9,395 7,988 6,573 1,600 3,711 1,247 9,382 3,328 1,103 3,924 9,822 3,700 256 8,151 6,066 1,296 n/a 5,461 1,138 3,425 785 1,456 1,950 n/a 2005 Harvesting week 28 36 26 38 25 41 44 6 5 30 28 33 33 32 43 20 30 29 20 32 50 28 26 26 33 18 26 27 12 35 34 32 33 18 Income (Baht/rai) 31,888 110,379 36,111 56,429 37,269 53,665 60,122 11,955 1,062 14,562 55,790 29,901 45,809 20,053 41,967 23,153 54,667 62,475 11,506 19,145 63,937 95,295 69,299 27,092 25,235 3,543 10,215 23,614 5,158 71,913 69,026 49,535 62,470 14,486 2006 Harvesting week 22 28 13 30 3 29 32 n/a n/a n/a 24 11 17 18 29 n/a 33 26 5 20 37 18 9 12 18 14 16 29 n/a 31 36 34 35 16 Income (Baht/rai) 15,240 65,376 10,686 30,693 1,876 46,122 26,704 n/a n/a n/a 18,946 9,466 9,119 6,131 17,287 n/a 58,753 41,461 874 6,470 36,151 42,409 13,524 4,473 14,800 4,228 7,827 11,102 n/a 53,727 73,135 73,308 78,345 11,457

195
2003 Farmers Harvesting week SK196 SK197 SK199 SK200 SK201 SK202 SK203 SK206 SK207 SK208 SK209 SK210 SK211 SK212 SK213 SK214 SK215 SK216 SK208 SK209 SK210 SK211 SK212 SK213 SK214 SK215 SK216 Total No. of data SUM 489 66 140 148 135 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 42 n/a n/a 24 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 42 n/a n/a 24 n/a n/a n/a n/a Income (Baht/rai) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 52,260 n/a n/a 15,562 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 52,260 n/a n/a 15,562 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2004 Harvesting week 3 4 4 5 4 1 4 3 3 6 34 5 4 22 n/a n/a n/a n/a 6 34 5 4 22 n/a n/a n/a n/a Income (Baht/rai) 297 1,130 2,436 3,486 1,899 43 1,809 3,404 476 2,532 29,484 2,287 2,753 9,186 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2,532 29,484 2,287 2,753 9,186 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2005 Harvesting week 28 39 29 27 32 31 35 23 40 33 31 28 27 28 3 8 8 1 33 31 28 27 28 3 8 8 1 Income (Baht/rai) 32,492 43,399 39,777 23,564 79,607 55,095 58,586 47,645 79,321 37,458 37,561 16,133 33,571 21,810 708 3,065 2,927 532 37,458 37,561 16,133 33,571 21,810 708 3,065 2,927 532 2006 Harvesting week n/a 27 29 39 36 24 19 9 46 23 22 24 16 33 17 34 26 33 23 22 24 16 33 17 34 26 33 Income (Baht/rai) n/a 34,352 30,435 43,596 80,509 50,990 35,837 12,883 97,086 48,000 30,906 46,576 14,676 34,783 20,698 37,373 44,477 44,340 48,000 30,906 46,576 14,676 34,783 20,698 37,373 44,477 44,340

196

APPENDIX E2 Summary of incomes of farmers from Tung Kwang, Nakhon Pathom province.
2003 Farmers Harvesting week NP2 NP3 NP4 NP15 NP19 NP20 NP21 NP22 NP24 NP28 NP29 NP30 NP32 NP33 NP39 NP42 NP48 NP49 NP50 NP51 NP54 NP55 NP57 NP58 NP59 NP60 NP64 NP65 NP66 NP67 NP68 NP74 30 29 48 7 40 30 19 36 31 27 35 27 36 30 37 36 29 31 24 30 32 2 13 31 5 29 29 30 24 45 39 n/a Income (Baht/rai) 83,942 59,168 206,760 8,754 60,590 16,342 10,157 150,934 101,514 25,760 73,344 42,336 29,490 96,937 51,319 77,510 50,835 69,429 22,827 94,469 38,807 2,777 48,147 117,902 2,998 50,175 44,795 49,740 63,952 91,185 81,689 n/a 2004 Harvesting week 36 25 35 28 37 27 33 34 31 33 34 34 31 29 33 33 28 29 19 31 30 29 31 34 4 25 23 29 24 30 38 n/a Income (Baht/,rai) 107,920 67,690 127,514 61,962 118,559 17,346 31,190 208,907 106,335 48,399 128,270 81,719 44,910 111,354 59,571 90,513 99,291 104,652 16,042 91,704 62,935 71,417 134,379 166,964 4,134 67,020 86,109 82,876 69,974 10,7,393 103,190 n/a 2005 Harvesting week 30 23 43 26 32 29 30 30 35 25 32 40 31 34 35 36 24 28 32 21 36 28 n/a 26 19 21 18 33 30 27 30 n/a Income (Baht/rai) 109,202 43,777 112,765 60,673 69,254 32,138 26,605 143,374 79,606 40,627 95,294 92,018 55,685 149,155 64,754 131,119 70,628 50,988 55,072 20,156 79,928 97,126 n/a 76,288 26,293 61,247 53,507 75,462 75,874 76,828 49,092 n/a 2006 Harvesting week 47 n/a 29 28 34 n/a 37 35 n/a 17 26 32 34 29 32 41 14 n/a n/a 16 28 29 4 n/a 16 n/a 14 33 28 33 n/a 34 Income (Baht/rai) 148,578 n/a 101,389 63,520 15,732 n/a 51,720 131,882 n/a 14,884 64,885 90,649 93,552 141,949 76,584 197,712 53,122 n/a n/a 31,435 45,360 72,424 10,428 n/a 19,712 n/a 40,378 56,811 74,811 95,645 n/a 155,969

197
2003 Farmers Harvesting week NP75 NP80 NP82 NP83 NP84 NP89 NP92 NP93 NP94 NP95 NP96 NP97 NP98 NP100 NP102 NP107 NP115 NP125 NP128 NP130 NP131 NP134 NP135 NP139 NP140 NP151 NP152 NP158 NP159 NP161 NP162 NP164 NP165 NP187 33 31 33 30 33 28 32 32 27 34 35 31 34 32 35 20 39 25 37 38 32 29 28 31 29 0 33 n/a 28 37 36 27 36 6 Income (Baht/rai) 35,291 65,593 134,022 56,426 41,428 101,290 32,218 93,596 136,337 270,290 111,800 56,602 58,250 27,439 38,275 23,994 93,484 19,574 105,289 137,670 71,492 71,220 30,880 47,339 47,351 800 74,654 n/a 58,308 83,048 93,274 31,120 79,942 27,513 2004 Harvesting week 42 32 31 35 30 30 35 32 31 38 38 31 30 30 50 22 38 32 33 35 50 33 23 31 30 16 31 25 24 32 30 44 37 31 Income (Baht/,rai) 89,347 96,109 138,301 38,417 60,295 118,018 45,245 57,874 162,358 342,948 160,593 99,912 65,962 47,835 85,686 30,663 124,452 48,744 110,628 171,248 119,629 80,883 45,753 71,223 79,593 22,217 130,488 31,928 54,741 107,540 100,302 84,452 110,756 135,747 2005 Harvesting week 33 32 26 33 32 21 36 29 32 35 35 35 32 28 52 10 20 6 35 27 47 26 27 34 32 17 32 35 19 28 34 n/a 46 36 Income (Baht/rai) 94,820 62,636 95,142 62,156 54,054 71,154 62,566 53,619 155,624 231,731 98,248 91,373 60,179 37,769 70,689 13,520 51,585 2707 109,079 110,458 87,705 64,956 50,947 42,833 89,382 24,529 123,942 45,418 33,136 51,250 103,739 n/a 88,940 185,698 2006 Harvesting week 31 13 n/a n/a 49 18 32 15 24 41 40 32 32 26 53 n/a n/a n/a n/a 10 n/a n/a n/a 52 31 n/a 33 21 5 37 n/a 19 n/a n/a Income (Baht/,rai) 76,655 20,089 n/a n/a 66,640 41,669 54,645 35,614 71,881 170,666 136,884 116,095 62,374 30,514 83,744 n/a n/a n/a n/a 26,549 n/a n/a n/a 67,449 87,496 n/a 129,697 17,370 3,206 90,943 n/a 52,786 n/a n/a

198
2003 Farmers Harvesting week NP190 NP191 NP193 NP194 NP195 NP201 NP203 NP206 NP209 NP210 NP211 NP212 NP213 NP214 NP216 NP217 NP218 NP219 NP220 NP221 NP222 NP223 NP225 NP227 NP228 NP232 Total No. of data SUM 282 65 71 84 62 n/a n/a 2 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Income (Baht/rai) n/a n/a 7,164 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2004 Harvesting week 16 6 29 27 24 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Income (Baht/,rai) 9,078 6,379 100,035 75,845 49,852 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 677 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 2005 Harvesting week 29 12 29 17 38 31 27 30 29 26 22 33 25 28 4 38 22 21 28 14 n/a 4 n/a n/a n/a n/a Income (Baht/rai) 17,181 11,119 92,612 37,267 109,234 128,314 51,425 29,997 54,020 33,221 25,390 58,135 77,772 17,345 5,850 53,600 15,904 13,625 22,680 14,513 n/a 5,972 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2006 Harvesting week 26 n/a n/a n/a 32 37 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12 44 31 25 36 36 n/a 35 n/a 20 34 24 18 25 4 7 Income (Baht/rai) 21,095 n/a n/a n/a 105,850 191,919 n/a n/a n/a n/a 15,832 67,110 141,065 23,687 62,997 63,258 n/a 97,753 n/a 21,492 92,407 39,065 22,453 73,314 19,288 9,543

APPENDIX F1 Database of the arable land of organized farmer group in the Sa Kaeo province.

Year 2003 SK 7 SK 23 SK 24 SK 25 SK 26 SK 27 SK 28 SK 29 SK 30 SK 31 SK 32 SK 33 SK 34 SK 36 SK 38 SK 40 SK 42 SK 43 SK 44 SK 45 SK 48 SK 82 SK 83 SK 84 SK 85 SK 86

OA Area Landscape (year) (rai) 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 1

Soil type 3 4 2 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 4 2 4 3 3 4 4 3 1 2 4 1 1 4 4

OM (%) P (ppm) 3.5 2.4 3.6 0.9 4.4 2.9 5.1 1 3.8 0.9 2.8 3.0 0.9 1.1 4.3 0.9 1.5 1.4 1 1.1 7.9 7 4.6 1.3 1.1 4.2 10 6 10 7 111 30 41 30 171 120 29 35 11 7 24 10 6 8 17 13 33 13 12 60 55 4

K (ppm) Ca (ppm) 42 8 15 13 220 15 65 15 190 13 14 13 6 12 78 12 10 14 55 10 45 97 110 38 36 29 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

pH OF (kg/rai) 7.7 8 7.8 7.5 7.9 7.9 7.9 7.5 7.8 7.4 7.2 7.8 7.4 7.4 7.7 7.9 7.3 7.4 6.5 7.3 7.2 7.7 6.8 7.4 7.7 6.9 4,750 6,450 4,500 6,500 5,500 6,000 5,700 6,500 5,500 7,500 10,000 4,350 5,050 3,940 4,400 9,200 6,260 5,750 5,000 4,250 2,400 3,150 2,850 2,600 1,850 1,750

CF (kg/rai) FB (kg/rai) IB (g/rai) IC (cc/rai) 2.7 2.5 1.0 2.5 2.0 4.0 0.6 3.0 2.5 0.8 2.9 5.3 6.3 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.5 1.4 1.8 1.3 2.0 2.0 1.0 -

Input cost (B/rai) 13,032 15,924 11,803 16,841 14,298 16,313 14,876 17,300 14,763 18,656 25,077 12,964 15,329 10,937 11,799 22,640 15,928 14,345 13,419 10,669 6,302 8,730 7,976 7,304 4,623 4,612

Income (B/rai) 57,196 51,618 14,220 29,846 157,191 117,713 32,441 80,685 72,236 45,908 99,645 88,961 78,979 30,050 34,107 34,418 95,672 18,933 44,328 40,101 32,637 25,544 14,287 12,716 1,614 19,354

199

Year 2003 SK 89 SK 90 SK 91 SK 92 SK 93 SK 94 SK 95 SK 100 SK 101 SK 102 SK 104 SK 105 SK 106 SK 107 SK 108 SK 109 SK 110 SK 111 SK 112 SK 114 SK 115 SK 116 SK 117 SK 118 Year 2004 SK 7 SK 23 SK 24

OA Area Landscape (year) (rai) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 2 3 1 2 2 1 3 2 3 1 3 1 1

Soil type 3 1 4 1 1 4 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 3 4 2

OM (%) P (ppm) 3.1 5.2 1.1 3.9 4.4 1.8 2.4 4.5 4.6 0.9 0.6 3.6 7.3 7.3 2.1 1.2 0.6 0.9 4.4 2 m 2.8 3.3 1.4 n/a n/a n/a 30 7 6 12 5 3.8 60 8 10 4 4 7 6 6 19 10 6 7 7 60 m 128 19 175 m 8 1

K (ppm) Ca (ppm) m 60 36 40 32 32 40 12 20 20 4 63 35 34 27 9 6 5 43 20 m 42 48 45 m 275 120 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a m 3,670 3,100

pH OF (kg/rai) 7.7 7.4 7.2 7.4 7.3 7.1 7.4 7.6 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.4 7.1 7.2 7.9 7.8 6.8 7 m 7.2 7.2 7.3 m 7.1 7.2 5,550 2,600 2,300 1,400 3,000 1,125 2,350 1,800 2,500 1,725 2,550 3,100 2,850 1,850 2,350 3,850 3,600 2,400 1,500 3,800 2,680 1,400 2,465 1,850 4,500 6,850 3,800

CF (kg/rai) FB (kg/rai) IB (g/rai) IC (cc/rai) 3.8 2.5 0.5 2.5 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.3 1.5 0.2 -

Input cost (B/rai) 13,469 7,979 6,738 3,924 7,950 2,925 7,124 5,085 6,784 4,770 7,316 8,536 8,079 5,392 6,754 9,726 9,720 6,733 4,697 10,019 7,143 3,502 6,651 5,298 10,958 15,628 9,044

Income (B/rai) 16,629 7,786 11,168 13,383 18,988 7,356 16,683 11,691 3,612 31,122 10,820 5,106 9,865 23,429 6,880 9,308 11,169 20,440 9,980 3,418 28,921 10,108 5,628 7,121 78,801 41,426 28,662

200

Year 2004 SK 25 SK 26 SK 27 SK 28 SK 29 SK 30 SK 31 SK 32 SK 33 SK 34 SK 36 SK 39 SK 38 SK 40 SK 42 SK 43 SK 44 SK 45 SK 48 SK 82 SK 83 SK 84 SK 85 SK 86 SK 87 SK 89 SK 90 SK 91

OA Area Landscape (year) (rai) 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

Soil type 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 4 2 4 2 3 3 4 4 3 1 2 4 1 1 4 4 4 3 1 4

OM (%) P (ppm) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 35 300 236 1 17 37 2 30 52 5 1 40 30 1 1 17 1 1 20 10 24 70 9 10 13 12 10 27

K (ppm) Ca (ppm) 75 250 57 8 120 250 68 52 100 38 67 100 100 97 80 320 40 40 51 30 43 150 90 72 100 100 30 100 2,900 4,200 4,600 3,600 3,400 3,100 4,500 3,500 5,400 3,600 4,400 6,200 5,000 4,300 2,400 5,000 2,900 3,200 4,800 4,000 2,600 2,900 3,600 4,200 3,000 4,600 5,500 3,100

pH OF (kg/rai) 7.2 7.3 7 7.2 7.1 6.4 6.7 7.3 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.3 6.8 7.3 6.8 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.2 6.7 7.2 7.2 7.2 5,400 12,200 15,000 6,300 6,300 4,400 18,800 6,400 9,900 6,300 4,800 4,700 6,900 4,900 4,550 4,800 7,200 10,800 4,700 5,000 4,800 5,000 5,200 5,050 5,000 6,800 5,300 6,800

CF (kg/rai) FB (kg/rai) IB (g/rai) IC (cc/rai) 1.0 0.1 0.5 1.0 3.8 1.3 0.1 0.8 -

Input cost (B/rai) 12,911 29,664 33,567 15,069 15,885 11,011 43,179 15,986 22,892 15,024 11,488 10,846 15,630 11,333 11,493 11,104 16,665 24,841 12,373 11,694 11,188 11,478 11,909 11,944 11,544 15,776 12,731 16,123

Income (B/rai) 25,020 140,413 131,373 57,976 58,427 106,697 37,637 73,237 103,739 81,374 24,731 54,869 31,540 32,848 98,854 57,280 58,805 82,269 29,746 91,498 69,334 43,203 19,743 75,502 24,950 63,900 51,443 56,844

0.1

0.5 0.2 0.5

0.1

201

Year 2004 SK 92 SK 93 SK 94 SK 95 SK 99 SK 100 SK 101 SK 102 SK 104 SK 105 SK 106 SK 107 SK 108 SK 109 SK 110 SK 111 SK 112 SK 114 SK 115 SK 116 SK 117 SK 118 Year 2005 SK 7 SK 23 SK 24 SK 25 SK 26

OA Area Landscape (year) (rai) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 4 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 2 3 1 2 2 1 3 2 3 1 3 1 1 2 1

Soil type 1 1 4 1 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 4

OM (%) P (ppm) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 130 11 5 9 1 2 1 1 38 18 1 1 10 9 49 6 1 2 9 8 1 9 60 18 1 43 307

K (ppm) Ca (ppm) 200 180 47 170 110 19 29 29 90 80 54 13 23 17 7 43 35 47 43 39 97 175 150 300 150 92 270 3,600 4,600 3,900 4,200 2,200 6,500 6,500 3,900 5,600 3,300 3,900 4,300 2,200 2,200 3,800 2,947 3,100 3,300 3,300 3,600 4,300 2,700 4,300 4,000 3,300 3,200 4,400

pH OF (kg/rai) 7.4 6.8 6.7 6.9 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.1 7 7.5 7.3 6.5 7.3 7.2 7.4 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.4 7.3 7.5 3,200 5,000 6,400 4,700 4,800 4,300 4,700 8,000 4,140 4,920 4,400 6,300 4,800 4,800 6,800 4,800 3,600 6,300 4,400 5,000 5,000 6,600 3,600 5,000 3,600 6,000 6,100

CF (kg/rai) FB (kg/rai) IB (g/rai) IC (cc/rai) -

Input cost (B/rai) 7,481 11,478 14,605 10,959 11,160 10,398 10,743 18,838 9,586 11,912 10,543 14,948 11,338 11,498 15,954 11,291 8,436 14,882 10,758 11,865 11,816 15,720 8,693 11,511 8,801 14,400 14,526

Income (B/rai) 43,696 51,862 57,941 57,961 23,896 46,536 18,504 129,375 51,801 21,970 63,049 76,750 78,656 46,001 50,910 79,962 54,558 28,030 87,690 49,852 69,978 26,832 59,177 982 54,449 30,111 78,273

0.5

0.3

0.3 1.0 0.2

202

Year 2005 SK 27 SK 28 SK 29 SK 30 SK 31 SK 32 SK 33 SK 34 SK 37 SK 38 SK 40 SK 42 SK 43 SK 44 SK 45 SK 48 SK 82 SK 83 SK 84 SK 85 SK 86 SK 87 SK 89 SK 90 SK 91 SK 92 SK 93 SK 94

OA Area Landscape (year) (rai) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 2 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1

Soil type 4 4 3 3 3 2 4 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 1 2 4 1 1 4 4 4 3 1 4 1 1 4

OM (%) P (ppm) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 287 51 20 40 3 33 59 6 43 33 m 1 19 2 1 22 11 30 90 11 11 15 14 11 30 153 12 7

K (ppm) Ca (ppm) 68 11 130 340 70 58 110 40 110 110 m 83 330 41 42 53 31 55 180 130 25 110 110 34 100 210 200 64 5,600 4,200 4,800 3,800 4,700 3,900 5,700 4,000 6,500 6,000 m 2,500 5,100 3,000 3,500 5,000 4,300 3,100 3,400 4,600 4,300 3,330 4,800 5,900 3,300 4,100 4,900 4,100

pH OF (kg/rai) 7.2 7.5 7.5 9 6.8 7.5 7.2 7.4 7.5 6.9 m 6.9 7.2 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.3 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.4 6.9 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 6.9 6.8 4,400 3,760 3,800 7,600 4,600 3,600 6,300 8,200 4,800 3,600 5,100 3,760 3,360 6,600 4,800 4,800 5,000 5,360 4,200 4,200 4,800 5,200 7,100 7,100 5,000 3,000 7,000 4,600

CF (kg/rai) FB (kg/rai) IB (g/rai) IC (cc/rai) -

Input cost (B/rai) 10,533 9,397 9,213 17,742 11,156 8,736 14,694 19,531 11,432 8,933 12,235 9,725 8,407 15,685 11,224 11,528 12,059 13,004 10,124 10,152 11,557 12,455 16,651 16,623 12,031 7,669 16,631 11,733

Income (B/rai) 123,987 34,758 36,546 69,474 12,805 55,203 110,240 104,859 31,856 2,710 3,393 58,229 49,209 73,841 51,303 16,115 83,062 72,518 33,084 16,883 68,198 24,841 51,525 46,272 38,328 35,789 77,352 55,755

203

Year 2005 SK 95 SK 99 SK 100 SK 101 SK 102 SK 104 SK 105 SK 106 SK 107 SK 108 SK 109 SK 110 SK 111 SK 112 SK 115 SK 116 SK 117 SK 118 Year 2006 SK 24 SK 25 SK 26 SK 28 SK 30 SK 31 SK 33 SK 34 SK 40

OA Area Landscape (year) (rai) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 4 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 2 3 1 2 2 3 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 3

Soil type 1 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 3 3 4 2 3

OM (%) P (ppm) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.14 4.68 3.83 m 5.1 3.01 3.84 2.87 3.63 13 1 3 3 1 42 22 2 2 11 10 53 8 2 11 10 2 13 5 28 373 m 90 32 16 2 61

K (ppm) Ca (ppm) 200 120 21 19 45 110 120 64 16 27 26 13 71 48 50 48 110 190 82 378 406 m 278 335 82 22 94 4,800 3,900 7,100 7,200 4,000 6,200 3,600 4,400 4,600 2,700 2,700 4,400 3,200 3,500 3,900 3,900 4,900 3,000 20,000 11,700 14,900 m 15,900 18,600 18,300 6,930 9,920

pH OF (kg/rai) 6.8 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.5 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.1 7.4 7.5 6.3 7.4 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.6 6.9 7.1 m 8.4 8.1 7.3 7 7.2 6,600 5,000 4,800 5,000 5,400 4,400 4,600 4,800 5,600 3,600 5,000 20,000 5,200 4,800 5,400 5,200 5,000 5,000 4,000 2,800 1,200 1,200 3,400 3,400 2,800 4,000 2,800

CF (kg/rai) FB (kg/rai) IB (g/rai) IC (cc/rai) -

Input cost (B/rai) 15,701 11,975 11,585 12,059 12,752 10,571 11,086 11,566 13,420 8,595 12,031 44,565 12,293 11,460 12,989 12,502 12,043 12,163 9,456 6,453 2,837 2,837 8,092 8,080 6,619 9,456 6,676

Income (B/rai) 32,106 12,330 32,814 5,417 104,167 49,475 49,883 32,828 35,474 55,190 42,660 15,124 54,817 67,052 74,454 30,922 58,179 41,571 41,616 17,806 45,686 26,507 11,736 6,164 72,163 69,612 13,486

204

Year 2006 SK 42 SK 43 SK 44 SK 45 SK 48 SK 82 SK 83 SK 84 SK 85 SK 86 SK 87 SK 89 SK 90 SK 91 SK 92 SK 93 SK 94 SK 95 SK 99 SK 100 SK 101 SK 102 SK 104 SK 105 SK 106 SK 107 SK 109 SK 110

OA Area Landscape (year) (rai) 5 5 5 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 3 3 1

Soil type 4 4 3 1 2 4 1 1 4 4 4 3 1 4 1 1 4 1 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

OM (%) P (ppm) 2.93 3.35 3.31 3.93 m 5.68 m 4.23 5.8 4.05 4.01 m 4.36 3.88 m m 5.55 m 3.43 m m 5.41 m m 5.3 m 3.49 m 70 1 10 52 m 16 m 27 128 6 24 m 75 35 m m 85 m 48 m m 9 m m 8 m 48 m

K (ppm) Ca (ppm) 106 42 70 131 m 143 m 55 94 38 62 m 79 135 m m 235 m 121 m m 150 m m 116 m 67 m 12,700 3,930 7,560 14,500 m 17,200 m 8,880 16,300 21,300 7,820 m 7,800 16,100 m m 21,500 m 6,220 m m 10,100 m m 9,820 m 6,870 m

pH OF (kg/rai) 8 5.7 7.7 7.4 m 7.2 m 8 7.2 7.5 7.1 m 6.8 7 m m 7.3 m 7.3 m m 6.3 m m 6.1 m 7.3 m 2,800 3,400 3,600 2,800 400 3,400 2,800 1,600 3,200 3,200 3,000 2,800 3,000 3,800 4,200 2,200 3,400 2,200 3,600 2,600 3,200 3,000 3,200 2,100 3,400 2,000 2,000 1,200

CF (kg/rai) FB (kg/rai) IB (g/rai) IC (cc/rai) -

Input cost (B/rai) 6,744 8,120 8,567 6,676 946 8,108 6,744 3,867 7,577 7,537 7,106 6,688 7,191 9,094 9,887 5,131 8,120 5,312 8,495 5,992 7,437 6,978 7,549 4,932 8,092 4,672 4,728 2,821

Income (B/rai) 37,238 7,924 19,935 17,272 18,132 35,941 40,306 6,274 7,072 34,126 4,177 51,443 18,891 12,655 27,364 33,332 33,947 4,099 23,385 3,334 14,704 23,097 17,488 34,115 9728 17,334 37,486 27,079

205

Year 2006

OA Area Landscape (year) (rai)

Soil type

OM (%) P (ppm)

K (ppm) Ca (ppm) m 85 132 m m 103 m 6,170 10,400 m m 5,970

pH OF (kg/rai) m 7.1 7.9 m m 7.5 600 1,800 2,800 600 3,600 2,600

CF (kg/rai) FB (kg/rai) IB (g/rai) IC (cc/rai) -

Input cost (B/rai) 1,433 4,213 6,660 1,433 8,511 6,273

Income (B/rai) 38,240 40,190 42,336 7,479 25,497 24,369

SK 111 4 2 2 4 m m SK 112 4 2 2 4 4.39 2 SK 115 4 2 3 4 3.92 32 SK 116 4 2 2 4 m m SK 117 4 2 3 4 m m SK 118 4 2 1 4 2.4 46 a Landscape: 1 = upland, 2 = low land, 3 = well-drained basin b Soil type: 1 = loam, 2 = sandy loam, 3 = clay loam, 4 = sandy clay loam

206

APPENDIX F2 Database of the arable land of organized farmer group in the Nakhon Pathom province.
Year 2003 NP 2 NP 4 NP 15 NP 19 NP 33 NP 59 NP 60 NP 64 NP 65 NP 66 NP 67 NP 89 NP 92 NP 93 NP 95 NP 96 NP 97 NP 102 NP 153 NP 159 NP 161 Year 2004 NP 2 NP 4 NP 15 NP 19 NP 33 5 1 6 1 4 2 4 1.2 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1.53 4.01 2.54 1.79 2.41 335 384 353 335 126 240 306 158 71 116 2,880 9,690 2,730 9,100 4,190 7.25 7.33 5.71 7.99 6.18 575 600 745 100 675 950 698 130 483 5.3 1.4 3.9 1.8 1.7 3.4 3.3 7.5 3.8 2.0 12,531 17,187 17,410 3,907 7,233 107,920 127,514 61,962 118,559 111,354 CA Area Landscape Soil type (year) (rai) 4 4 5 5 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 5 4 5 4 3 4 5 5 3 3 2 4 1.2 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 2 5 8 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 OM (%) P (ppm) 1.17 m 2.08 m 1.42 1.73 1.98 1.94 1.6 1.2 1.57 1.35 3.7 2.18 1.8 2.81 3.21 1.37 2.62 2.74 1.26 238 276 20 93 82 32 67 115 31 467 62 95 241 124 292 301 645 393 159 222 126 K (ppm) Ca (ppm) 101 173 135 18.2 145 93 46 41 58 101 67 233 188 175 424 416 321 234 279 282 123 1,150 3,932 1,260 m 1,800 1,030 1,840 3,760 2,040 2,220 2,560 2,118 3,430 1,910 2,340 4,600 1,070 4,310 2,050 5,310 4,600 pH 6.03 7.47 5.21 6.94 6.41 4.91 6.54 7.54 7.39 6.99 6.91 8.09 7.03 6.25 6.87 6.98 4.77 7.28 6.29 6.65 7.06 OF (kg/rai) CF (kg/rai) FB (kg/rai) IB (g/rai) IC (cc/rai) 500 650 250 225 550 300 100 170 330 550 400 825 725 445 685 665 495 600 663 775 1,000 1,275 1,125 1,050 820 1,990 775 920 1,030 1,100 700 780 9.0 2.5 0.7 6.8 3.6 0.3 1.5 2.4 2.0 2.2 1.8 5.8 6.0 8.1 16.3 3.2 5.1 9.0 6.0 1.8 6.0 2.1 0.9 3.8 3.3 2.3 2.6 5.0 6.0 1.8 6.5 3.5 5.8 4.5 15.8 0.6 2.7 2.8 5.3 0.5 0.8 Input cost (B/rai) 12,400 15,151 8,365 9,934 8,987 6,640 9,919 11,316 10,469 11,505 17,883 17,176 12,941 11,177 26,982 11,280 7,609 18,270 16,836 13,437 11,302 Income (B/rai) 83,942 206,760 8,754 60,590 96,937 2,998 50,175 44,795 49,740 63,952 91,185 101,290 32,218 93,596 270,290 111,800 56,602 38,275 46,824 58,308 83,048

207

Year 2004 NP 60 NP 64 NP 65 NP 66 NP 67 NP 89 NP 92 NP 93 NP 95 NP 96 NP 97 NP 102 NP 153 NP 158 NP 159 NP 161 Year 2005 NP 2 NP 4 NP 15 NP 19 NP 33 NP 59 NP 60 NP 64 NP 65 NP 66 NP 67 NP 89

CA Area Landscape Soil type (year) (rai) 4 1 1 3 4 1 1 3 5 2 1 3 4 2 1 3 4 2 1 3 6 3 1 3 5 4 1 3 6 2 1 3 5 5 2 3 4 8 1 3 5 2 1 3 6 2 3 4 6 3 1 3 4 2 1 3 4 2 2 3 4 6 2 7 2 5 2 5 5 6 5 5 7 2 2 4 1.2 3 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

OM (%) P (ppm) 2.47 2.07 1.94 2.44 1.45 2.4 3.52 2.47 3.15 2.72 1.36 1.48 2.85 1.15 2.75 1.44 1.43 1.81 2.13 2.32 1.67 1.92 1.92 1.98 1.68 1.28 1.67 2.85 171 240 71 286 191 120 253 233 21 223 308 430 246 154 189 189 375 485 23 375 116 65 65 124 42 426 75 752

K (ppm) Ca (ppm) 132 142 83 67 73 325 210 270 69 180 120 267 283 150 245 234 351 394 163 246 165 113 56 56 56 96 97 243 6,110 8,200 3,470 3,780 6,510 2,310 3,219 4,020 3,160 5,060 1,520 4,298 5,800 1,230 6,510 4,731 2,570 1,475 1,342 9,645 1,857 1,252 1,752 3,752 2,052 2,252 2,348 3,836

pH 6.83 7.34 6.65 7.09 7.82 7.62 7.01 6.54 6.17 7.09 6.12 7.01 6.74 6.55 6.55 7.14 6.46 6.2 5.4 7.5 6.52 5.2 6.2 7.5 7.3 7.03 6 6.2

OF (kg/rai) CF (kg/rai) FB (kg/rai) IB (g/rai) IC (cc/rai) 190 550 475 200 322 75 550 1,250 500 160 415 350 600 50 630 75 270 200 1,095 900 1,600 75 429 663 475 830 895 1,030 875 1,550 975 1,350 800 580 675 1,130 415 580 625 900 725 425 2,710 540 400 320 50 1,800 840 510 2.8 6.7 0.1 0.5 1.3 8.0 5.8 2.8 6.8 3.5 4.7 4.9 3.0 2.5 2.7 5.2 35.1 3.6 12.5 2.3 3.0 1.5 3.5 6.7 1.9 1.5 4.5 11.5 1.3 2.0 6.3 0.9 5.9 4.5 4.9 3.7 8.8 5.9 2.5 2.2 2.6 4.3 3.4 2.3 15.8 4.5 6.3 0.6 4.8 3.9 3.2 4.7 3.1 2.2 13.5 3.4 0.9 5.0 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.2 1.5 0.5

Input cost (B/rai) 75,547 8,520 10,396 10,563 11,431 17,152 11,227 18,846 14,221 21,492 10,906 17,326 12,416 15,787 10,077 10,659 16,771 13,602 15,143 7,183 33,763 10,313 7,761 13,302 7,754 32,750 13,997 8,168

Income (B/rai) 67,020 86,109 82,876 69,974 107,393 118,018 45,245 57,874 342,948 160,593 99,912 85,686 51,525 31,928 54,741 107,540 109,202 112,765 60,673 69,254 149,155 26,293 61,247 53,507 75,462 75,874 76,828 71,154

208

Year 2005

CA Area Landscape Soil type (year) (rai)

OM (%) P (ppm)

K (ppm) Ca (ppm) 544 547 346 195 346 214 294 114 246 154 2,241 4,652 6,452 6,452 3,452 1,992 1,275 1,822 1,452 1,812

pH 6.25 5.82 7.21 7.21 5.21 4.61 5.3 5.61 5.41 6.61

OF (kg/rai) CF (kg/rai) FB (kg/rai) IB (g/rai) IC (cc/rai) 510 550 430 1,250 100 25 410 650 570 1,025 1,427 1,300 520 900 1,050 875 208 575 5.7 2.2 4.8 3.0 2.5 0.8 4.0 2.3 4.2 5.0 2.8 6.9 7.8 4.2 1.5 3.8 1.4 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.4 -

Input cost (B/rai) 10,094 13,312 26,804 19,938 11,379 24,593 12,762 12,822 6,105 13,722

Income (B/rai) 62,566 53,619 231,731 98,248 91,373 70,689 43,414 45,418 33,136 51,250

NP 92 6 4 1 3 2.12 236 NP 93 7 2 1 3 2.52 345 NP 95 6 5 2 3 3.25 76 NP 96 5 8 1 3 2.86 312 NP 97 6 2 1 3 2.25 76 NP 102 7 2 3 4 2.14 264 NP 153 7 3 1 3 1.13 385 NP 158 1 2 1 3 1.14 164 NP 159 5 2 2 3 1.25 216 NP 161 5 2 1 3 2.14 164 a Landscape: 1 = upland, 2 = low land, 3 = well-drained basin b Soil type: 1 = loam, 2 = sandy loam, 3 = clay loam, 4 = sandy clay loam

209

210

APPENDIX G Summary of inputs and outputs of growers grouped according to year of practicing organic agriculture.

Farmer code

OA (year)

Area (rai)

Organic fertilizer (kg/rai) 4,500 5,500 5,700 5,500 7,500 10,000 4,350 4,250 6,500 9,200 6,260 5,750 5,000 5,050 3,150 2,850 2,600 1,850 1,750 5,550 2,600 2,300 1,400 3,000 1,125 2,350 1,800 2,500 1,725 2,550 3,100 2,850 1,850 3,850 3,600 2,400 1,500 2,680 1,400 2,465 1,850 3,800 12,200 6,300

Biofungicide (kg/rai)

Biofertilizer (L/rai)

Input cost (Baht/rai)

Income (Baht/rai)

Year 2003 SK 24 SK 26 SK 28 SK 30 SK 31 SK 32 SK 33 SK 45 SK 25 SK 40 SK 42 SK 43 SK 44 SK 34 SK 82 SK 83 SK 84 SK 85 SK 86 SK 89 SK 90 SK 91 SK 92 SK 93 SK 94 SK 95 SK 100 SK 101 SK 102 SK 104 SK 105 SK 106 SK 107 SK 109 SK 110 SK 111 SK 112 SK 115 SK 116 SK 117 SK 118 Year 2004 SK 24 SK 26 SK 28

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1 2 0.6 2.5 0.8 2.9 5.3 1.3 2.5 0.8 0.5 1.4 1.8 6.3 2 2 1 0 0 0 3.8 2.5 0.5 0 0 2.5 0.5 0.8 0 0 1 0.5 0 0 1.3 0 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.5

1.14 1.15 1.53 1.36 1.37 1.58 1.29 0.67 1.27 1.55 1.43 0.91 1.35 1.67 0.85 0.79 0.91 0.39 0.54 0.90 0.81 0.66 0.49 0.96 0.32 0.87 0.69 0.75 0.69 1.21 1.01 1.18 0.94 0.89 1.01 1.03 0.67 0.89 0.30 0.87 0.87 0.49 1.99 0.75

10,291 12,777 12,843 12,959 16,835 22,981 11,248 9,779 15,152 20,589 14,036 13,143 11,633 13,118 7,598 6,933 6,093 4,101 3,893 12,282 6,910 5,863 3,269 6,677 2,501 5,974 4,165 5,785 3,850 5,707 7,201 6,514 4,145 8,541 8,376 5,363 3,804 5,967 3,104 5,493 4,140 8,399 27,029 14,070

14,220 157,191 32,441 72,236 45,908 99,645 88,961 40,101 29,846 34,418 95,672 5,339 44,328 78,979 25,544 14,287 12,716 1,614 19,354 16,629 7,786 11,168 13,383 18,988 7,356 16,683 11,691 3,612 31,122 5,106 9,865 23,429 6,880 9,308 11,169 20,440 9,980 28,921 10,108 5,628 7,121 28,662 140,413 57,976

211

Farmer code

OA (year) 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Area (rai) 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Organic fertilizer (kg/rai) 4,400 18,800 6,400 9,900 10,800 5,400 4,900 4,550 4,800 7,200 6,300 5,000 4,800 5,000 5,200 5,050 6,800 5,300 6,800 3,200 5,000 6,400 4,700 4,300 4,700 8,000 4,140 4,920 4,400 6300 4,800 6,800 4,800 4,400 5,000 5,000 6,600 4,700 5,000 3,600 3,600 6,100 4,400 3,760 7,600 4,600 3,600 6,300

Biofungicide (kg/rai) 1 0 3.75 1.3 0.5 1 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Biofertilizer (L/rai) 0.73 1.29 0.56 0.51 0.66 0.52 0.39 1.03 0.39 0.59 0.81 0.49 0.34 0.34 0.33 0.59 0.58 0.74 0.83 0.31 0.34 0.37 0.33 0.67 0.29 0.88 0.34 0.77 0.61 0.77 0.67 0.71 0.52 0.55 0.62 0.58 0.85 0.36 0.39 0.55 0.63 0.79 0.61 0.80 0.73 0.74 0.58 0.59

Input cost (Baht/rai) 10,039 41,463 15,249 22,211 23,963 12,222 10,811 10,123 10,591 15,887 13,955 11039 10,737 11,027 11,467 11,157 15,006 11,749 15,026 7,065 11,027 14,110 10,517 9,513 10,363 17,670 9,135 10,886 9,729 13,922 10,613 15,017 10,602 10,024 11,049 11,046 14,588 10,369 11,031 7,964 7,970 13,483 9,729 8,336 16,778 10,179 7,966 13,907

Income (Baht/rai) 106,697 37,637 73,237 103,739 82,269 25,020 32,848 98,854 57,280 58,805 81,374 91,498 69,334 43,203 19,743 75,502 63,900 51,443 56,844 43,696 51,862 57,941 57,961 46,536 18,504 129,375 51,801 21,970 63,049 17,697 46,001 50910 79,962 87,690 49,852 69,978 26,832 54,869 24,950 59,177 54,449 78,273 123,987 34,758 69,474 12,805 55,203 110,240

SK 30 SK 31 SK 32 SK 33 SK 45 SK 25 SK 40 SK 42 SK 43 SK 44 SK 34 SK 82 SK 83 SK 84 SK 85 SK 86 SK 89 SK 90 SK 91 SK 92 SK 93 SK 94 SK 95 SK 100 SK 101 SK 102 SK 104 SK 105 SK 106 SK 107 SK 109 SK 110 SK 111 SK 115 SK 116 SK 117 SK 118 SK 37 SK 87 Year 2005 SK 7 SK 24 SK 26 SK 27 SK 28 SK 30 SK 31 SK 32 SK 33

212

Farmer code

OA (year) 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5

Area (rai) 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2

SK 45 SK 25 SK 40 SK 42 SK 43 SK 44 SK 34 SK 82 SK 83 SK 84 SK 85 SK 86 SK 89 SK 90 SK 91 SK 92 SK 93 SK 94 SK 95 SK 99 SK 100 SK 101 SK 102 SK 104 SK 105 SK 106 SK 107 SK 109 SK 110 SK 111 SK 112 SK 115 SK 116 SK 117 SK 118 SK 37 SK 87 Year 2006 SK 24 SK 26 SK 28 SK 30 SK 31 SK 33 SK 45 SK 48 SK 25 SK 40 SK 42

Organic Biofungicide fertilizer (kg/rai) (kg/rai) 4,800 0 6,000 5,100 3,760 3,360 6,600 8,200 5,000 5,360 4,200 4,200 4,800 7,100 7,100 5,000 3,000 7,000 4,600 6,600 5,000 4,800 5,000 5,400 4,400 4,600 4,800 5,600 5,000 20,000 5,200 4,800 5,400 5,200 5,000 5,000 4,800 5,200 4,000 1,200 1,200 3,400 3,400 2,800 2,800 400 2,800 2,800 2,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Biofertilizer (L/rai) 0.47 0.85 0.72 1.03 0.72 0.83 1.06 0.75 0.86 0.63 0.65 0.71 0.73 0.71 0.73 0.76 0.88 1.15 0.84 0.69 0.73 0.75 0.62 0.63 0.69 0.72 0.78 0.73 0.40 0.61 0.64 0.79 0.76 0.74 0.83 0.62 0.72 0.47 0.14 0.14 0.44 0.43 0.33 0.37 0.05 0.21 0.37 0.42

Input cost (Baht/rai) 10,598 13,268 11,278 8,355 7,450 14,586 18,125 11,060 11,861 9,290 9,292 10,617 15,679 15,677 11,059 6,661 15,470 10,212 14,587 11,055 10,618 11,060 11,930 9,731 10,175 10,617 12,383 11,059 44,032 11,489 10,611 11,943 11,500 11,059 11,066 10,610 11,498 8,837 2,651 2,651 7,515 7,514 6,186 6,189 884 6,177 6,189 6,193

Income (Baht/rai) 51,303 30,111 3,393 58,229 49,209 73,841 104,859 83,062 72,518 33,084 16,883 68,198 51,525 46,272 38,328 35,789 77,352 55,755 32,106 12,330 32,814 5,417 104,167 49,883 32,828 35,474 55,190 42,660 15,124 54,817 67,052 74,454 30,922 58,179 41,571 31,856 24,841 41,616 45,686 26,507 11,736 6,164 72,163 17,272 18,132 17,806 13,486 37,238

213

Farmer code

OA (year) 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3

Area (rai) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

SK 43 SK 44 SK 34 SK 82 SK 83 SK 84 SK 85 SK 86 SK 89 SK 90 SK 91 SK 92 SK 93 SK 94 SK 99 SK 100 SK 101 SK 102 SK 104 SK 105 SK 106 SK 107 SK 110 SK 111 SK 112 SK 115 SK 116 SK 117 SK 118 SK 87

Organic Biofungicide fertilizer (kg/rai) (kg/rai) 3,400 0 3,600 0 4,000 3,400 2,800 1,600 3,200 3,200 2,800 3,000 3,800 4,200 2,200 3,400 3,600 2,600 3,200 3,000 3,200 2,100 3,400 2,000 1,200 600 1,800 2,800 600 3,600 2,600 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Biofertilizer (L/rai) 0.46 0.46 0.47 0.45 0.42 0.25 0.38 0.35 0.38 0.42 0.52 0.46 0.21 0.46 0.41 0.19 0.28 0.27 0.36 0.22 0.44 0.19 0.13 0.08 0.18 0.36 0.08 0.42 0.39 0.36

Input cost (Baht/rai) 7,516 7,957 8,837 7,516 6,193 3,540 7,071 7,068 6,190 6,634 8,402 9,277 4,857 7,516 7,953 5,735 7,063 6,621 7,069 4,638 7,515 4,415 2,650 1,326 3,974 6,188 1,326 7,954 5,751 6,629

Income (Baht/rai) 7,924 19,935 69,612 35,941 40,306 6,274 7,072 34,126 51,443 18,891 12,655 27,364 33,332 33,947 23,385 3,334 14,704 23,097 17,488 34,115 9,728 17,334 37,486 27,079 38,240 42,336 7,479 25,497 24,369 4,177

217

APPENDIX I Statistical results of satisfactory survey of organic asparagus growers. 1. Gender and satisfactory on income level
Chi-Square Tests Value 17.243a 18.461 16.457 74 df 3 3 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .001 .000 .000

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .42.

Crosstab Income 2 Gender 1 Count % within Gender % within Income % of Total Count % within Gender % within Income % of Total Count % within Gender % within Income % of Total 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 3.2% 100.0% 1.4% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4% 3 3 7.0% 17.6% 4.1% 14 45.2% 82.4% 18.9% 17 23.0% 100.0% 23.0% 4 39 90.7% 70.9% 52.7% 16 51.6% 29.1% 21.6% 55 74.3% 100.0% 74.3% 5 1 2.3% 100.0% 1.4% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4% Total 43 100.0% 58.1% 58.1% 31 100.0% 41.9% 41.9% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Gender 1 Gender 2 Income satisfactory level 1 Income satisfactory level 2 Income satisfactory level 3 Income satisfactory level 4 Income satisfactory level 5

Male Female Very low Low Moderate High Very High

218

2. Gender and satisfactory on ability of paying back the debts


Chi-Square Tests Value 10.890a 11.311 10.707 74 df 2 2 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .004 .003 .001

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .42.

Crosstab Payback 4 36 83.7% 69.2% 48.6% 16 51.6% 30.8% 21.6% 52 70.3% 100.0% 70.3%

3 Gender 1 Count % within Gender % within Payback % of Total Count % within Gender % within Payback % of Total Count % within Gender % within Payback % of Total 6 14.0% 28.6% 8.1% 15 48.4% 71.4% 20.3% 21 28.4% 100.0% 28.4%

5 1 2.3% 100.0% 1.4% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4%

Total 43 100.0% 58.1% 58.1% 31 100.0% 41.9% 41.9% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Gender 1 Gender 2 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 1 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 2 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 3 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 4 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 5

Male Female Very low Low Moderate High Very High

219

3. Age and satisfactory on their health condition


Chi-Square Tests Value 14.184a 15.682 13.389 74 df 3 3 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .003 .001 .000

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .95.

Crosstab Health 3 Age 2 Count % within Age % within Health % of Total Count % within Age % within Health % of Total Count % within Age % within Health % of Total Count % within Age % within Health % of Total Count % within Age % within Health % of Total 2 100.0% 5.1% 2.7% 32 65.3% 82.1% 43.2% 4 26.7% 10.3% 5.4% 1 12.5% 2.6% 1.4% 39 52.7% 100.0% 52.7% 4 0 .0% .0% .0% 17 34.7% 48.6% 23.0% 11 73.3% 31.4% 14.9% 7 87.5% 20.0% 9.5% 35 47.3% 100.0% 47.3% Total 2 100.0% 2.7% 2.7% 49 100.0% 66.2% 66.2% 15 100.0% 20.3% 20.3% 8 100.0% 10.8% 10.8% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Age 1 Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 5 Health condition satisfactory level 1 Health condition satisfactory level 2 Health condition satisfactory level 3 Health condition satisfactory level 4 Health condition satisfactory level 5

Less than 20 years old 20 30 years old 30 40 years old 40 50 years old More than 50 years old Very low Low Moderate High Very High

220

4. Age and satisfactory on relationship within family


Chi-Square Tests Value 14.744a 15.536 12.029 74 df 3 3 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .002 .001 .001

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .92.

Crosstab Family 3 Age 2 Count % within Age % within Family % of Total Count % within Age % within Family % of Total Count % within Age % within Family % of Total Count % within Age % within Family % of Total Count % within Age % within Family % of Total 1 50.0% 2.5% 1.4% 34 69.4% 85.0% 45.9% 4 26.7% 10.0% 5.4% 1 12.5% 2.5% 1.4% 40 54.1% 100.0% 54.1% 4 1 50.0% 2.9% 1.4% 15 30.6% 44.1% 20.3% 11 73.3% 32.4% 14.9% 7 87.5% 20.6% 9.5% 34 45.9% 100.0% 45.9% Total 2 100.0% 2.7% 2.7% 49 100.0% 66.2% 66.2% 15 100.0% 20.3% 20.3% 8 100.0% 10.8% 10.8% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Age 1 Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 5 Relationship within family satisfactory level 1 Relationship within family satisfactory level 2 Relationship within family satisfactory level 3 Relationship within family satisfactory level 4 Relationship within family satisfactory level 5

Less than 20 years old 20 30 years old 30 40 years old 40 50 years old More than 50 years old Very low Low Moderate High Very High

221

5. Age and satisfactory on relationship among community


Chi-Square Tests Value 17.502a 17.821 8.177 74 df 6 6 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .008 .007 .004

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 8 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .03.

Crosstab Social 3 1 50.0% 2.7% 1.4% 32 65.3% 86.5% 43.2% 3 20.0% 8.1% 4.1% 1 12.5% 2.7% 1.4% 37 50.0% 100.0% 50.0%

2 Age 2 Count % within Age % within Social % of Total Count % within Age % within Social % of Total Count % within Age % within Social % of Total Count % within Age % within Social % of Total Count % within Age % within Social % of Total 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 6.7% 100.0% 1.4% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4%

4 1 50.0% 2.8% 1.4% 17 34.7% 47.2% 23.0% 11 73.3% 30.6% 14.9% 7 87.5% 19.4% 9.5% 36 48.6% 100.0% 48.6%

Total 2 100.0% 2.7% 2.7% 49 100.0% 66.2% 66.2% 15 100.0% 20.3% 20.3% 8 100.0% 10.8% 10.8% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Age 1 Age 2 Age 3 Age 4 Age 5

Less than 20 years old 20 30 years old 30 40 years old 40 50 years old More than 50 years old Very low Low Moderate High Very High

Relationship within community satisfactory level 1 Relationship within community satisfactory level 2 Relationship within community satisfactory level 3 Relationship within community satisfactory level 4 Relationship within community satisfactory level 5

222

6. Education and satisfactory on relationship among community


Chi-Square Tests Value 74.003a 10.597 1.015 74 df 4 4 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .031 .314

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 5 cells (55.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .01.

Crosstab Social 3 0 .0% .0% .0% 31 50.8% 83.8% 41.9% 6 50.0% 16.2% 8.1% 37 50.0% 100.0% 50.0%

2 Education 1 Count % within Education % within Social % of Total Count % within Education % within Social % of Total Count % within Education % within Social % of Total Count % within Education % within Social % of Total 1 100.0% 100.0% 1.4% 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4%

4 0 .0% .0% .0% 30 49.2% 83.3% 40.5% 6 50.0% 16.7% 8.1% 36 48.6% 100.0% 48.6%

Total 1 100.0% 1.4% 1.4% 61 100.0% 82.4% 82.4% 12 100.0% 16.2% 16.2% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Education 1 Education 2 Education 3

No education Primary school level Secondary school level Very low Low Moderate High Very High

Relationship within community satisfactory level 1 Relationship within community satisfactory level 2 Relationship within community satisfactory level 3 Relationship within community satisfactory level 4 Relationship within community satisfactory level 5

223

7. Education and satisfactory on leisure


Chi-Square Tests Value 10.899a 5.988 .002 74 df 2 2 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .004 .050 .967

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .09.

Crosstab Leisure 2 Education 1 Count % within Education % within Leisure % of Total Count % within Education % within Leisure % of Total Count % within Education % within Leisure % of Total Count % within Education % within Leisure % of Total 0 .0% .0% .0% 57 93.4% 85.1% 77.0% 10 83.3% 14.9% 13.5% 67 90.5% 100.0% 90.5% 3 1 100.0% 14.3% 1.4% 4 6.6% 57.1% 5.4% 2 16.7% 28.6% 2.7% 7 9.5% 100.0% 9.5% Total 1 100.0% 1.4% 1.4% 61 100.0% 82.4% 82.4% 12 100.0% 16.2% 16.2% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Education 1 Education 2 Education 3 Leisure satisfactory level 1 Leisure satisfactory level 2 Leisure satisfactory level 3 Leisure satisfactory level 4 Leisure satisfactory level 5

No education Primary school level Secondary school level Very low Low Moderate High Very High

224

8. Organic experience and satisfactory on the ability to paying back the debts
Chi-Square Tests Value 15.559a 16.099 1.466 74 df 8 8 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .049 .041 .226

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 11 cells (73.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .03.
Crosstab Payback 4 0 .0% .0% .0% 13 59.1% 25.0% 17.6% 34 81.0% 65.4% 45.9% 5 83.3% 9.6% 6.8% 0 .0% .0% .0% 52 70.3% 100.0% 70.3%

3 Duration 1 Count % within Duration % within Payback % of Total Count % within Duration % within Payback % of Total Count % within Duration % within Payback % of Total Count % within Duration % within Payback % of Total Count % within Duration % within Payback % of Total Count % within Duration % within Payback % of Total 2 100.0% 9.5% 2.7% 9 40.9% 42.9% 12.2% 7 16.7% 33.3% 9.5% 1 16.7% 4.8% 1.4% 2 100.0% 9.5% 2.7% 21 28.4% 100.0% 28.4%

5 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 2.4% 100.0% 1.4% 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4%

Total 2 100.0% 2.7% 2.7% 22 100.0% 29.7% 29.7% 42 100.0% 56.8% 56.8% 6 100.0% 8.1% 8.1% 2 100.0% 2.7% 2.7% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Organic experience 1 Organic experience 2 Organic experience 3 Organic experience 4 Organic experience 5 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 1 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 2 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 3 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 4 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 5

Less than 1 year 1 2 years 3 4 years 5 6 years More than 6 years Very low Low Moderate High Very High

225

9. Organic initiation idea and satisfactory on relationship among community


Chi-Square Tests Value 10.433a 9.898 1.198 74 df 4 4 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .034 .042 .274

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 5 cells (55.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .03.

Crosstab Social 3 34 56.7% 91.9% 45.9% 0 .0% .0% .0% 3 25.0% 8.1% 4.1% 37 50.0% 100.0% 50.0%

2 Reason 1 Count % within Reason % within Social % of Total Count % within Reason % within Social % of Total Count % within Reason % within Social % of Total Count % within Reason % within Social % of Total 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 8.3% 100.0% 1.4% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4%

4 26 43.3% 72.2% 35.1% 2 100.0% 5.6% 2.7% 8 66.7% 22.2% 10.8% 36 48.6% 100.0% 48.6%

Total 60 100.0% 81.1% 81.1% 2 100.0% 2.7% 2.7% 12 100.0% 16.2% 16.2% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Reason of joining organic agriculture 1 Direct contact with the company Reason of joining organic agriculture 2 Government officers Reason of joining organic agriculture 3 Friends recommendation Relationship within community satisfactory level 1 Relationship within community satisfactory level 2 Relationship within community satisfactory level 3 Relationship within community satisfactory level 4 Relationship within community satisfactory level 5 Very low Low Moderate High Very High

226

10. Organic initiation idea and satisfactory on leisure


Chi-Square Tests Value 9.588a 7.232 8.652 74 df 2 2 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .008 .027 .003

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .19.

Crosstab Leisure 2 Reason 1 Count % within Reason % within Leisure % of Total Count % within Reason % within Leisure % of Total Count % within Reason % within Leisure % of Total Count % within Reason % within Leisure % of Total 57 95.0% 85.1% 77.0% 2 100.0% 3.0% 2.7% 8 66.7% 11.9% 10.8% 67 90.5% 100.0% 90.5% 3 3 5.0% 42.9% 4.1% 0 .0% .0% .0% 4 33.3% 57.1% 5.4% 7 9.5% 100.0% 9.5% Total 60 100.0% 81.1% 81.1% 2 100.0% 2.7% 2.7% 12 100.0% 16.2% 16.2% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Reason of joining organic agriculture 1 Direct contact with the company Reason of joining organic agriculture 2 Government officers Reason of joining organic agriculture 3 Friends recommendation Leisure satisfactory level 1 Leisure satisfactory level 2 Leisure satisfactory level 3 Leisure satisfactory level 4 Leisure satisfactory level 5 Very low Low Moderate High Very High

227

11. Organic initiation idea and satisfactory on ability of paying back the debts
Chi-Square Tests Value 9.875a 8.195 1.699 74 df 4 4 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .043 .085 .192

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 6 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .03.

Crosstab Payback 4 46 76.7% 88.5% 62.2% 1 50.0% 1.9% 1.4% 5 41.7% 9.6% 6.8% 52 70.3% 100.0% 70.3%

3 Reason 1 Count % within Reason % within Payback % of Total Count % within Reason % within Payback % of Total Count % within Reason % within Payback % of Total Count % within Reason % within Payback % of Total 14 23.3% 66.7% 18.9% 1 50.0% 4.8% 1.4% 6 50.0% 28.6% 8.1% 21 28.4% 100.0% 28.4%

5 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 8.3% 100.0% 1.4% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4%

Total 60 100.0% 81.1% 81.1% 2 100.0% 2.7% 2.7% 12 100.0% 16.2% 16.2% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Reason of joining organic agriculture 1 Direct contact with the company Reason of joining organic agriculture 2 Government officers Reason of joining organic agriculture 3 Friends recommendation Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 1 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 2 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 3 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 4 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 5 Very low Low Moderate High Very High

228

12. Debts and the satisfactory on income level


Chi-Square Tests Value 25.922a 9.731 .137 74 df 9 9 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .002 .373 .711

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 11 cells (68.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .04.

Crosstab Income 2 Debts 1 Count % within Debts % within Income % of Total Count % within Debts % within Income % of Total Count % within Debts % within Income % of Total Count % within Debts % within Income % of Total Count % within Debts % within Income % of Total 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 2.4% 100.0% 1.4% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4% 3 4 18.2% 23.5% 5.4% 2 25.0% 11.8% 2.7% 11 26.8% 64.7% 14.9% 0 .0% .0% .0% 17 23.0% 100.0% 23.0% 4 18 81.8% 32.7% 24.3% 6 75.0% 10.9% 8.1% 29 70.7% 52.7% 39.2% 2 66.7% 3.6% 2.7% 55 74.3% 100.0% 74.3% 5 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 33.3% 100.0% 1.4% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4% Total 22 100.0% 29.7% 29.7% 8 100.0% 10.8% 10.8% 41 100.0% 55.4% 55.4% 3 100.0% 4.1% 4.1% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Debts 1 Debts 2 Debts 3 Debts 4 Debts 5

Debts before previous agricultural production, conventional farming Loan for the education of their children Debts from buying household utilities Loan for conducting organic agriculture No debts Very low Low Moderate High Very High

Income satisfactory level 1 Income satisfactory level 2 Income satisfactory level 3 Income satisfactory level 4 Income satisfactory level 5

229

13. Debts and the satisfactory level on their health condition


Chi-Square Tests Value 9.381a 10.777 2.860 74 df 3 3 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .025 .013 .091

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.42.

Crosstab Health 3 Debts 1 Count % within Debts % within Health % of Total Count % within Debts % within Health % of Total Count % within Debts % within Health % of Total Count % within Debts % within Health % of Total Count % within Debts % within Health % of Total 16 72.7% 41.0% 21.6% 2 25.0% 5.1% 2.7% 21 51.2% 53.8% 28.4% 0 .0% .0% .0% 39 52.7% 100.0% 52.7% 4 6 27.3% 17.1% 8.1% 6 75.0% 17.1% 8.1% 20 48.8% 57.1% 27.0% 3 100.0% 8.6% 4.1% 35 47.3% 100.0% 47.3% Total 22 100.0% 29.7% 29.7% 8 100.0% 10.8% 10.8% 41 100.0% 55.4% 55.4% 3 100.0% 4.1% 4.1% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note: Debts 1 Debts 2 Debts 3 Debts 4 Debts 5

Debts before previous agricultural production, conventional farming Loan for the education of their children Debts from buying household utilities Loan for conducting organic agriculture No debts Very low Low Moderate High Very High

Health condition satisfactory level 1 Health condition satisfactory level 2 Health condition satisfactory level 3 Health condition satisfactory level 4 Health condition satisfactory level 5

230

14. Debts and satisfactory on relationship in the family


Chi-Square Tests Value 8.472a 8.886 3.410 74 df 3 3 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .037 .031 .065

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.38.

Crosstab Family 3 Debts 1 Count % within Debts % within Family % of Total Count % within Debts % within Family % of Total Count % within Debts % within Family % of Total Count % within Debts % within Family % of Total Count % within Debts % within Family % of Total 17 77.3% 42.5% 23.0% 2 25.0% 5.0% 2.7% 20 48.8% 50.0% 27.0% 1 33.3% 2.5% 1.4% 40 54.1% 100.0% 54.1% 4 5 22.7% 14.7% 6.8% 6 75.0% 17.6% 8.1% 21 51.2% 61.8% 28.4% 2 66.7% 5.9% 2.7% 34 45.9% 100.0% 45.9% Total 22 100.0% 29.7% 29.7% 8 100.0% 10.8% 10.8% 41 100.0% 55.4% 55.4% 3 100.0% 4.1% 4.1% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Debts 1 Debts 2 Debts 3 Debts 4 Debts 5

Debts before previous agricultural production, conventional farming Loan for the education of their children Debts from buying household utilities Loan for conducting organic agriculture No debts Very low Low Moderate High Very High

Relationship within family satisfactory level 1 Relationship within family satisfactory level 2 Relationship within family satisfactory level 3 Relationship within family satisfactory level 4 Relationship within family satisfactory level 5

231

15. Debts and satisfactory on relationship among community


Chi-Square Tests Value 12.901a 14.747 4.290 74 df 6 6 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .045 .022 .038

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 8 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .04.

Crosstab Social 3 17 77.3% 45.9% 23.0% 2 25.0% 5.4% 2.7% 18 43.9% 48.6% 24.3% 0 .0% .0% .0% 37 50.0% 100.0% 50.0%

2 Debts 1 Count % within Debts % within Social % of Total Count % within Debts % within Social % of Total Count % within Debts % within Social % of Total Count % within Debts % within Social % of Total Count % within Debts % within Social % of Total 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 2.4% 100.0% 1.4% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4%

4 5 22.7% 13.9% 6.8% 6 75.0% 16.7% 8.1% 22 53.7% 61.1% 29.7% 3 100.0% 8.3% 4.1% 36 48.6% 100.0% 48.6%

Total 22 100.0% 29.7% 29.7% 8 100.0% 10.8% 10.8% 41 100.0% 55.4% 55.4% 3 100.0% 4.1% 4.1% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note: Debts 1 Debts 2 Debts 3 Debts 4 Debts 5

Debts before previous agricultural production, conventional farming Loan for the education of their children Debts from buying household utilities Loan for conducting organic agriculture No debts Very low Low Moderate High Very High

Relationship within community satisfactory level 1 Relationship within community satisfactory level 2 Relationship within community satisfactory level 3 Relationship within community satisfactory level 4 Relationship within community satisfactory level 5

232

16. Debts and satisfactory on the ability to paying back the debts
Chi-Square Tests Value 25.411a 8.995 .012 74 df 6 6 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .174 .911

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 7 cells (58.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .04.

Crosstab Payback 4 17 77.3% 32.7% 23.0% 5 62.5% 9.6% 6.8% 28 68.3% 53.8% 37.8% 2 66.7% 3.8% 2.7% 52 70.3% 100.0% 70.3%

3 Debts 1 Count % within Debts % within Payback % of Total Count % within Debts % within Payback % of Total Count % within Debts % within Payback % of Total Count % within Debts % within Payback % of Total Count % within Debts % within Payback % of Total 5 22.7% 23.8% 6.8% 3 37.5% 14.3% 4.1% 13 31.7% 61.9% 17.6% 0 .0% .0% .0% 21 28.4% 100.0% 28.4%

5 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 33.3% 100.0% 1.4% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4%

Total 22 100.0% 29.7% 29.7% 8 100.0% 10.8% 10.8% 41 100.0% 55.4% 55.4% 3 100.0% 4.1% 4.1% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Debts 1 Debts 2 Debts 3 Debts 4 Debts 5

Debts before previous agricultural production, conventional farming Loan for the education of their children Debts from buying household utilities Loan for conducting organic agriculture No debts Very low Low Moderate High Very High

Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 1 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 2 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 3 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 4 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 5

233

17. Knowledge about organic fertilizer and satisfactory on relationship within the family
Chi-Square Tests Value 10.727a 14.905 9.978 74 df 3 3 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .013 .002 .002

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 6 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .46.

Crosstab Family 3 Q1.1 2 Count % within Q1.1 % within Family % of Total Count % within Q1.1 % within Family % of Total Count % within Q1.1 % within Family % of Total Count % within Q1.1 % within Family % of Total Count % within Q1.1 % within Family % of Total 7 100.0% 17.5% 9.5% 33 52.4% 82.5% 44.6% 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 40 54.1% 100.0% 54.1% 4 0 .0% .0% .0% 30 47.6% 88.2% 40.5% 3 100.0% 8.8% 4.1% 1 100.0% 2.9% 1.4% 34 45.9% 100.0% 45.9% Total 7 100.0% 9.5% 9.5% 63 100.0% 85.1% 85.1% 3 100.0% 4.1% 4.1% 1 100.0% 1.4% 1.4% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q1.1 Knowledge about organic fertilizer 1 Q1.1 Knowledge about organic fertilizer 2 Q1.1 Knowledge about organic fertilizer 3 Q1.1 Knowledge about organic fertilizer 4 Q1.1 Knowledge about organic fertilizer 5 Relationship within family satisfactory level 1 Relationship within family satisfactory level 2 Relationship within family satisfactory level 3 Relationship within family satisfactory level 4 Relationship within family satisfactory level 5

Very little Little Moderate More knowledge Very much Very low Low Moderate High Very High

234

18. Knowledge about soil fertility and satisfactory on income level


Chi-Square Tests Value 20.131a 11.391 1.837 74 df 9 9 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .017 .250 .175

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 14 cells (87.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .01.

Crosstab Income 2 Q1.2 2 Count % within Q1.2 % within Income % of Total Count % within Q1.2 % within Income % of Total Count % within Q1.2 % within Income % of Total Count % within Q1.2 % within Income % of Total Count % within Q1.2 % within Income % of Total 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 1.6% 100.0% 1.4% 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4% 3 3 60.0% 17.6% 4.1% 12 19.0% 70.6% 16.2% 2 40.0% 11.8% 2.7% 0 .0% .0% .0% 17 23.0% 100.0% 23.0% 4 2 40.0% 3.6% 2.7% 50 79.4% 90.9% 67.6% 2 40.0% 3.6% 2.7% 1 100.0% 1.8% 1.4% 55 74.3% 100.0% 74.3% 5 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 20.0% 100.0% 1.4% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4% Total 5 100.0% 6.8% 6.8% 63 100.0% 85.1% 85.1% 5 100.0% 6.8% 6.8% 1 100.0% 1.4% 1.4% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q1.2 Knowledge about soil fertility 1 Q1.2 Knowledge about soil fertility 2 Q1.2 Knowledge about soil fertility 3 Q1.2 Knowledge about soil fertility 4 Q1.2 Knowledge about soil fertility 5 Income satisfactory level 1 Income satisfactory level 2 Income satisfactory level 3 Income satisfactory level 4 Income satisfactory level 5

Very little Little Moderate More knowledge Very much Very low Low Moderate High Very High

235

19. Knowledge about soil fertility and satisfactory on relationship among community
Chi-Square Tests Value 23.297a 19.456 4.208 74 df 6 6 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .001 .003 .040

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 10 cells (83.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .01.

Crosstab Social 3 5 100.0% 13.5% 6.8% 32 50.8% 86.5% 43.2% 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 37 50.0% 100.0% 50.0%

2 Q1.2 2 Count % within Q1.2 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q1.2 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q1.2 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q1.2 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q1.2 % within Social % of Total 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 20.0% 100.0% 1.4% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4%

4 0 .0% .0% .0% 31 49.2% 86.1% 41.9% 4 80.0% 11.1% 5.4% 1 100.0% 2.8% 1.4% 36 48.6% 100.0% 48.6%

Total 5 100.0% 6.8% 6.8% 63 100.0% 85.1% 85.1% 5 100.0% 6.8% 6.8% 1 100.0% 1.4% 1.4% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q1.2 Knowledge about soil fertility 1 Q1.2 Knowledge about soil fertility 2 Q1.2 Knowledge about soil fertility 3 Q1.2 Knowledge about soil fertility 4 Q1.2 Knowledge about soil fertility 5 Relationship within community satisfactory level 1 Relationship within community satisfactory level 2 Relationship within community satisfactory level 3 Relationship within community satisfactory level 4 Relationship within community satisfactory level 5

Very little Little Moderate More knowledge Very much Very low Low Moderate High Very High

236

20. Knowledge about soil fertility and satisfactory on ability to paying back the debts
Chi-Square Tests Value 19.288a 10.571 .749 74 df 6 6 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .004 .103 .387

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 10 cells (83.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .01.

Crosstab Payback 4 2 40.0% 3.8% 2.7% 47 74.6% 90.4% 63.5% 3 60.0% 5.8% 4.1% 0 .0% .0% .0% 52 70.3% 100.0% 70.3%

3 Q1.2 2 Count % within Q1.2 % within Payback % of Total Count % within Q1.2 % within Payback % of Total Count % within Q1.2 % within Payback % of Total Count % within Q1.2 % within Payback % of Total Count % within Q1.2 % within Payback % of Total 3 60.0% 14.3% 4.1% 16 25.4% 76.2% 21.6% 1 20.0% 4.8% 1.4% 1 100.0% 4.8% 1.4% 21 28.4% 100.0% 28.4%

5 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 20.0% 100.0% 1.4% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4%

Total 5 100.0% 6.8% 6.8% 63 100.0% 85.1% 85.1% 5 100.0% 6.8% 6.8% 1 100.0% 1.4% 1.4% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q1.2 Knowledge about soil fertility 1 Q1.2 Knowledge about soil fertility 2 Q1.2 Knowledge about soil fertility 3 Q1.2 Knowledge about soil fertility 4 Q1.2 Knowledge about soil fertility 5 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 1 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 2 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 3 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 4 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 5

Very little Little Moderate More knowledge Very much Very low Low Moderate High Very High

237

21. Knowledge about biofertilizer and satisfactory on income level


Chi-Square Tests Value 27.680a 13.036 3.966 74 df 6 6 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .042 .046

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 10 cells (83.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .07.

Crosstab Income 2 Q1.3 2 Count % within Q1.3 % within Income % of Total Count % within Q1.3 % within Income % of Total Count % within Q1.3 % within Income % of Total Count % within Q1.3 % within Income % of Total 1 20.0% 100.0% 1.4% 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4% 3 2 40.0% 11.8% 2.7% 13 20.6% 76.5% 17.6% 2 33.3% 11.8% 2.7% 17 23.0% 100.0% 23.0% 4 2 40.0% 3.6% 2.7% 50 79.4% 90.9% 67.6% 3 50.0% 5.5% 4.1% 55 74.3% 100.0% 74.3% 5 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 16.7% 100.0% 1.4% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4% Total 5 100.0% 6.8% 6.8% 63 100.0% 85.1% 85.1% 6 100.0% 8.1% 8.1% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q1.3 Knowledge about biofertilizer 1 Q1.3 Knowledge about biofertilizer 2 Q1.3 Knowledge about biofertilizer 3 Q1.3 Knowledge about biofertilizer 4 Q1.3 Knowledge about biofertilizer 5 Income satisfactory level 1 Income satisfactory level 2 Income satisfactory level 3 Income satisfactory level 4 Income satisfactory level 5

Very little Little Moderate More knowledge Very much Very low Low Moderate High Very High

238

22. Knowledge about biofertilizer and satisfactory on their health condition


Chi-Square Tests Value 7.616a 9.769 7.382 74 df 2 2 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .022 .008 .007

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 4 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.36.

Crosstab Health 3 Q1.3 2 Count % within Q1.3 % within Health % of Total Count % within Q1.3 % within Health % of Total Count % within Q1.3 % within Health % of Total Count % within Q1.3 % within Health % of Total 5 100.0% 12.8% 6.8% 33 52.4% 84.6% 44.6% 1 16.7% 2.6% 1.4% 39 52.7% 100.0% 52.7% 4 0 .0% .0% .0% 30 47.6% 85.7% 40.5% 5 83.3% 14.3% 6.8% 35 47.3% 100.0% 47.3% Total 5 100.0% 6.8% 6.8% 63 100.0% 85.1% 85.1% 6 100.0% 8.1% 8.1% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q1.3 Knowledge about biofertilizer 1 Q1.3 Knowledge about biofertilizer 2 Q1.3 Knowledge about biofertilizer 3 Q1.3 Knowledge about biofertilizer 4 Q1.3 Knowledge about biofertilizer 5 Health condition satisfactory level 1 Health condition satisfactory level 2 Health condition satisfactory level 3 Health condition satisfactory level 4 Health condition satisfactory level 5

Very little Little Moderate More knowledge Very much Very low Low Moderate High Very High

239

23. Knowledge about biofertilizer and satisfactory on relationship among community


Chi-Square Tests Value 20.761a 19.053 4.043 74 df 4 4 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .001 .044

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 7 cells (77.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .07.

Crosstab Social 3 5 100.0% 13.5% 6.8% 32 50.8% 86.5% 43.2% 0 .0% .0% .0% 37 50.0% 100.0% 50.0%

2 Q1.3 2 Count % within Q1.3 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q1.3 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q1.3 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q1.3 % within Social % of Total 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 16.7% 100.0% 1.4% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4%

4 0 .0% .0% .0% 31 49.2% 86.1% 41.9% 5 83.3% 13.9% 6.8% 36 48.6% 100.0% 48.6%

Total 5 100.0% 6.8% 6.8% 63 100.0% 85.1% 85.1% 6 100.0% 8.1% 8.1% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q1.3 Knowledge about biofertilizer 1 Q1.3 Knowledge about biofertilizer 2 Q1.3 Knowledge about biofertilizer 3 Q1.3 Knowledge about biofertilizer 4 Q1.3 Knowledge about biofertilizer 5 Relationship within community satisfactory level 1 Relationship within community satisfactory level 2 Relationship within community satisfactory level 3 Relationship within community satisfactory level 4 Relationship within community satisfactory level 5

Very little Little Moderate More knowledge Very much Very low Low Moderate High Very High

240

24. Knowledge about biofertilizer and satisfactory on ability of paying back the debts
Chi-Square Tests Value 14.515a 7.937 2.064 74 df 4 4 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .006 .094 .151

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 7 cells (77.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .07.

Crosstab Payback 4 2 40.0% 3.8% 2.7% 47 74.6% 90.4% 63.5% 3 50.0% 5.8% 4.1% 52 70.3% 100.0% 70.3%

3 Q1.3 2 Count % within Q1.3 % within Payback % of Total Count % within Q1.3 % within Payback % of Total Count % within Q1.3 % within Payback % of Total Count % within Q1.3 % within Payback % of Total 3 60.0% 14.3% 4.1% 16 25.4% 76.2% 21.6% 2 33.3% 9.5% 2.7% 21 28.4% 100.0% 28.4%

5 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 16.7% 100.0% 1.4% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4%

Total 5 100.0% 6.8% 6.8% 63 100.0% 85.1% 85.1% 6 100.0% 8.1% 8.1% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q1.3 Knowledge about biofertilizer 1 Q1.3 Knowledge about biofertilizer 2 Q1.3 Knowledge about biofertilizer 3 Q1.3 Knowledge about biofertilizer 4 Q1.3 Knowledge about biofertilizer 5 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 1 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 2 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 3 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 4 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 5

Very little Little Moderate More knowledge Very much Very low Low Moderate High Very High

241

25. Growers association activities and satisfactory on leisure


Chi-Square Tests Value 11.477a 8.077 1.093 74 df 3 3 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .009 .044 .296

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 5 cells (62.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .09.

Crosstab Leisure 2 Q1.4 2 Count % within Q1.4 % within Leisure % of Total Count % within Q1.4 % within Leisure % of Total Count % within Q1.4 % within Leisure % of Total Count % within Q1.4 % within Leisure % of Total Count % within Q1.4 % within Leisure % of Total 1 50.0% 1.5% 1.4% 59 95.2% 88.1% 79.7% 6 66.7% 9.0% 8.1% 1 100.0% 1.5% 1.4% 67 90.5% 100.0% 90.5% 3 1 50.0% 14.3% 1.4% 3 4.8% 42.9% 4.1% 3 33.3% 42.9% 4.1% 0 .0% .0% .0% 7 9.5% 100.0% 9.5% Total 2 100.0% 2.7% 2.7% 62 100.0% 83.8% 83.8% 9 100.0% 12.2% 12.2% 1 100.0% 1.4% 1.4% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q1.4 Grower association activities 1 Q1.4 Grower association activities 2 Q1.4 Grower association activities 3 Q1.4 Grower association activities 4 Q1.4 Grower association activities 5 Leisure satisfactory level 1 Leisure satisfactory level 2 Leisure satisfactory level 3 Leisure satisfactory level 4 Leisure satisfactory level 5

Very rare Sometimes Regularly Many times Very often Very low Low Moderate High Very High

242

26. Growers association activities and satisfactory on ability of paying back the debts
Chi-Square Tests Value 15.170a 12.119 .649 74 df 6 6 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .019 .059 .420

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 9 cells (75.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .01.

Crosstab Payback 4 0 .0% .0% .0% 46 74.2% 88.5% 62.2% 6 66.7% 11.5% 8.1% 0 .0% .0% .0% 52 70.3% 100.0% 70.3%

3 Q1.4 2 Count % within Q1.4 % within Payback % of Total Count % within Q1.4 % within Payback % of Total Count % within Q1.4 % within Payback % of Total Count % within Q1.4 % within Payback % of Total Count % within Q1.4 % within Payback % of Total 2 100.0% 9.5% 2.7% 16 25.8% 76.2% 21.6% 2 22.2% 9.5% 2.7% 1 100.0% 4.8% 1.4% 21 28.4% 100.0% 28.4%

5 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 11.1% 100.0% 1.4% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4%

Total 2 100.0% 2.7% 2.7% 62 100.0% 83.8% 83.8% 9 100.0% 12.2% 12.2% 1 100.0% 1.4% 1.4% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q1.4 Grower association activities 1 Q1.4 Grower association activities 2 Q1.4 Grower association activities 3 Q1.4 Grower association activities 4 Q1.4 Grower association activities 5 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 1 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 2 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 3 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 4 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 5

Very rare Sometimes Regularly Many times Very often Very low Low Moderate High Very High

243

27. Knowledge about organic certification and satisfactory on relationship among community
Chi-Square Tests Value 26.339a 10.596 .114 74 df 4 4 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .032 .735

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 7 cells (77.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .04.

Crosstab Social 3 3 75.0% 8.1% 4.1% 34 50.7% 91.9% 45.9% 0 .0% .0% .0% 37 50.0% 100.0% 50.0%

2 Q1.5 2 Count % within Q1.5 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q1.5 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q1.5 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q1.5 % within Social % of Total 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 33.3% 100.0% 1.4% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4%

4 1 25.0% 2.8% 1.4% 33 49.3% 91.7% 44.6% 2 66.7% 5.6% 2.7% 36 48.6% 100.0% 48.6%

Total 4 100.0% 5.4% 5.4% 67 100.0% 90.5% 90.5% 3 100.0% 4.1% 4.1% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q1.5 Knowledge about organic certification 1 Q1.5 Knowledge about organic certification 2 Q1.5 Knowledge about organic certification 3 Q1.5 Knowledge about organic certification 4 Q1.5 Knowledge about organic certification 5 Relationship within community satisfactory level 1 Relationship within community satisfactory level 2 Relationship within community satisfactory level 3 Relationship within community satisfactory level 4 Relationship within community satisfactory level 5

Very little Little Moderate More knowledge Very much Very low Low Moderate High Very High

244

28. Knowledge about organic certification and satisfactory on leisure


Chi-Square Tests Value 10.625a 6.662 1.351 74 df 2 2 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .005 .036 .245

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 4 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .28.

Crosstab Leisure 2 Q1.5 2 Count % within Q1.5 % within Leisure % of Total Count % within Q1.5 % within Leisure % of Total Count % within Q1.5 % within Leisure % of Total Count % within Q1.5 % within Leisure % of Total 2 50.0% 3.0% 2.7% 63 94.0% 94.0% 85.1% 2 66.7% 3.0% 2.7% 67 90.5% 100.0% 90.5% 3 2 50.0% 28.6% 2.7% 4 6.0% 57.1% 5.4% 1 33.3% 14.3% 1.4% 7 9.5% 100.0% 9.5% Total 4 100.0% 5.4% 5.4% 67 100.0% 90.5% 90.5% 3 100.0% 4.1% 4.1% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q1.5 Knowledge about organic certification 1 Q1.5 Knowledge about organic certification 2 Q1.5 Knowledge about organic certification 3 Q1.5 Knowledge about organic certification 4 Q1.5 Knowledge about organic certification 5 Leisure satisfactory level 1 Leisure satisfactory level 2 Leisure satisfactory level 3 Leisure satisfactory level 4 Leisure satisfactory level 5

Very little Little Moderate More knowledge Very much Very low Low Moderate High Very High

245

29. Knowledge about pest and disease and satisfactory on relationship among community
Chi-Square Tests Value 17.781a 11.704 .499 74 df 4 4 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .001 .020 .480

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 7 cells (77.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .04.

Crosstab Social 3 2 66.7% 5.4% 2.7% 35 53.0% 94.6% 47.3% 0 .0% .0% .0% 37 50.0% 100.0% 50.0%

2 Q1.6 2 Count % within Q1.6 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q1.6 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q1.6 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q1.6 % within Social % of Total 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 20.0% 100.0% 1.4% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4%

4 1 33.3% 2.8% 1.4% 31 47.0% 86.1% 41.9% 4 80.0% 11.1% 5.4% 36 48.6% 100.0% 48.6%

Total 3 100.0% 4.1% 4.1% 66 100.0% 89.2% 89.2% 5 100.0% 6.8% 6.8% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q1.6 Knowledge about pest and disease 1 Q1.6 Knowledge about pest and disease 2 Q1.6 Knowledge about pest and disease 3 Q1.6 Knowledge about pest and disease 4 Q1.6 Knowledge about pest and disease 5 Relationship within community satisfactory level 1 Relationship within community satisfactory level 2 Relationship within community satisfactory level 3 Relationship within community satisfactory level 4 Relationship within community satisfactory level 5

Very little Little Moderate More knowledge Very much Very low Low Moderate High Very High

246

30. Knowledge about pest and disease and satisfactory on leisure


Chi-Square Tests Value 13.002a 7.328 2.050 74 df 2 2 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .002 .026 .152

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 4 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .28.

Crosstab Leisure 2 Q1.6 2 Count % within Q1.6 % within Leisure % of Total Count % within Q1.6 % within Leisure % of Total Count % within Q1.6 % within Leisure % of Total Count % within Q1.6 % within Leisure % of Total 1 33.3% 1.5% 1.4% 62 93.9% 92.5% 83.8% 4 80.0% 6.0% 5.4% 67 90.5% 100.0% 90.5% 3 2 66.7% 28.6% 2.7% 4 6.1% 57.1% 5.4% 1 20.0% 14.3% 1.4% 7 9.5% 100.0% 9.5% Total 3 100.0% 4.1% 4.1% 66 100.0% 89.2% 89.2% 5 100.0% 6.8% 6.8% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q1.6 Knowledge about pest and disease 1 Q1.6 Knowledge about pest and disease 2 Q1.6 Knowledge about pest and disease 3 Q1.6 Knowledge about pest and disease 4 Q1.6 Knowledge about pest and disease 5 Leisure satisfactory level 1 Leisure satisfactory level 2 Leisure satisfactory level 3 Leisure satisfactory level 4 Leisure satisfactory level 5

Very little Little Moderate More knowledge Very much Very low Low Moderate High Very High

247

31. Knowledge about pest and disease and satisfactory on ability of paying back the debts
Chi-Square Tests Value 11.091a 10.882 .162 74 df 4 4 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .026 .028 .688

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 7 cells (77.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .04.

Crosstab Payback 4 0 .0% .0% .0% 50 75.8% 96.2% 67.6% 2 40.0% 3.8% 2.7% 52 70.3% 100.0% 70.3%

3 Q1.6 2 Count % within Q1.6 % within Payback % of Total Count % within Q1.6 % within Payback % of Total Count % within Q1.6 % within Payback % of Total Count % within Q1.6 % within Payback % of Total 3 100.0% 14.3% 4.1% 15 22.7% 71.4% 20.3% 3 60.0% 14.3% 4.1% 21 28.4% 100.0% 28.4%

5 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 1.5% 100.0% 1.4% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4%

Total 3 100.0% 4.1% 4.1% 66 100.0% 89.2% 89.2% 5 100.0% 6.8% 6.8% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q1.6 Knowledge about pest and disease 1 Q1.6 Knowledge about pest and disease 2 Q1.6 Knowledge about pest and disease 3 Q1.6 Knowledge about pest and disease 4 Q1.6 Knowledge about pest and disease 5 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 1 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 2 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 3 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 4 Ability to paying back the debts satisfactory level 5

Very little Little Moderate More knowledge Very much Very low Low Moderate High Very High

248

32. Providing leaflet or book about organic agriculture and satisfactory on their health condition
Chi-Square Tests Value 12.018a 12.853 10.693 74 df 2 2 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .002 .002 .001

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.42.

Crosstab Health 3 Q2.1 2 Count % within Q2.1 % within Health % of Total Count % within Q2.1 % within Health % of Total Count % within Q2.1 % within Health % of Total Count % within Q2.1 % within Health % of Total 19 82.6% 48.7% 25.7% 19 39.6% 48.7% 25.7% 1 33.3% 2.6% 1.4% 39 52.7% 100.0% 52.7% 4 4 17.4% 11.4% 5.4% 29 60.4% 82.9% 39.2% 2 66.7% 5.7% 2.7% 35 47.3% 100.0% 47.3% Total 23 100.0% 31.1% 31.1% 48 100.0% 64.9% 64.9% 3 100.0% 4.1% 4.1% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q2.1 Provide information by printed materials 1 Q2.1 Provide information by printed materials 2 Q2.1 Provide information by printed materials 3 Q2.1 Provide information by printed materials 4 Q2.1 Provide information by printed materials 5 Health condition satisfactory level 1 Health condition satisfactory level 2 Health condition satisfactory level 3 Health condition satisfactory level 4 Health condition satisfactory level 5

Very little Little Moderate Many Very much Very low Low Moderate High Very High

249

33. Providing leaflet or book about organic agriculture and satisfactory on relationship within the family
Chi-Square Tests Value 16.521a 19.084 16.286 74 df 2 2 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .000 .000

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.38.

Crosstab Family 3 Q2.1 2 Count % within Q2.1 % within Family % of Total Count % within Q2.1 % within Family % of Total Count % within Q2.1 % within Family % of Total Count % within Q2.1 % within Family % of Total 20 87.0% 50.0% 27.0% 20 41.7% 50.0% 27.0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 40 54.1% 100.0% 54.1% 4 3 13.0% 8.8% 4.1% 28 58.3% 82.4% 37.8% 3 100.0% 8.8% 4.1% 34 45.9% 100.0% 45.9% Total 23 100.0% 31.1% 31.1% 48 100.0% 64.9% 64.9% 3 100.0% 4.1% 4.1% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q2.1 Provide information by printed materials 1 Q2.1 Provide information by printed materials 2 Q2.1 Provide information by printed materials 3 Q2.1 Provide information by printed materials 4 Q2.1 Provide information by printed materials 5 Relationship within family satisfactory level 1 Relationship within family satisfactory level 2 Relationship within family satisfactory level 3 Relationship within family satisfactory level 4 Relationship within family satisfactory level 5

Very little Little Moderate Many Very much Very low Low Moderate High Very High

250

34. Providing leaflet or book about organic agriculture and satisfactory on relationship among community
Chi-Square Tests Value 16.045a 18.248 12.406 74 df 4 4 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .003 .001 .000

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 5 cells (55.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .04.

Crosstab Social 3 19 82.6% 51.4% 25.7% 18 37.5% 48.6% 24.3% 0 .0% .0% .0% 37 50.0% 100.0% 50.0%

2 Q2.1 2 Count % within Q2.1 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q2.1 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q2.1 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q2.1 % within Social % of Total 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 2.1% 100.0% 1.4% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4%

4 4 17.4% 11.1% 5.4% 29 60.4% 80.6% 39.2% 3 100.0% 8.3% 4.1% 36 48.6% 100.0% 48.6%

Total 23 100.0% 31.1% 31.1% 48 100.0% 64.9% 64.9% 3 100.0% 4.1% 4.1% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q2.1 Provide information by printed materials 1 Q2.1 Provide information by printed materials 2 Q2.1 Provide information by printed materials 3 Q2.1 Provide information by printed materials 4 Q2.1 Provide information by printed materials 5 Relationship within community satisfactory level 1 Relationship within community satisfactory level 2 Relationship within community satisfactory level 3 Relationship within community satisfactory level 4 Relationship within community satisfactory level 5

Very little Little Moderate Many Very much Very low Low Moderate High Very High

251

35. Growers meeting and satisfactory on relationship among community


Chi-Square Tests Value 7.817a 7.908 2.296 74 df 2 2 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .020 .019 .130

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .26.

Crosstab Social 3 32 58.2% 86.5% 43.2% 5 26.3% 13.5% 6.8% 37 50.0% 100.0% 50.0%

2 Q2.2 3 Count % within Q2.2 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q2.2 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q2.2 % within Social % of Total 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 5.3% 100.0% 1.4% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4%

4 23 41.8% 63.9% 31.1% 13 68.4% 36.1% 17.6% 36 48.6% 100.0% 48.6%

Total 55 100.0% 74.3% 74.3% 19 100.0% 25.7% 25.7% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q2.2 Growers meeting 1 Q2.2 Growers meeting 2 Q2.2 Growers meeting 3 Q2.2 Growers meeting 4 Q2.2 Growers meeting 5 Relationship within community satisfactory level 1 Relationship within community satisfactory level 2 Relationship within community satisfactory level 3 Relationship within community satisfactory level 4 Relationship within community satisfactory level 5

Very rare Sometimes Regularly Many times Very often Very low Low Moderate High Very High

252

36. Organic agriculture demonstration and satisfactory on their health condition


Chi-Square Tests Value 15.187a 17.881 11.627 74 df 2 2 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .001 .000 .001

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.36.

Crosstab Health 3 Q2.3 2 Count % within Q2.3 % within Health % of Total Count % within Q2.3 % within Health % of Total Count % within Q2.3 % within Health % of Total Count % within Q2.3 % within Health % of Total 16 94.1% 41.0% 21.6% 21 40.4% 53.8% 28.4% 2 40.0% 5.1% 2.7% 39 52.7% 100.0% 52.7% 4 1 5.9% 2.9% 1.4% 31 59.6% 88.6% 41.9% 3 60.0% 8.6% 4.1% 35 47.3% 100.0% 47.3% Total 17 100.0% 23.0% 23.0% 52 100.0% 70.3% 70.3% 5 100.0% 6.8% 6.8% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q2.3 Demonstration 1 Q2.3 Demonstration 2 Q2.3 Demonstration 3 Q2.3 Demonstration 4 Q2.3 Demonstration 5 Health condition satisfactory level 1 Health condition satisfactory level 2 Health condition satisfactory level 3 Health condition satisfactory level 4 Health condition satisfactory level 5

Very rare Sometimes Regularly Many times Very often Very low Low Moderate High Very High

253

37. Organic agriculture demonstration and satisfactory on relationship within the family
Chi-Square Tests Value 19.674a 26.243 17.926 74 df 2 2 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .000 .000

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.30.

Crosstab Family 3 Q2.3 2 Count % within Q2.3 % within Family % of Total Count % within Q2.3 % within Family % of Total Count % within Q2.3 % within Family % of Total Count % within Q2.3 % within Family % of Total 17 100.0% 42.5% 23.0% 22 42.3% 55.0% 29.7% 1 20.0% 2.5% 1.4% 40 54.1% 100.0% 54.1% 4 0 .0% .0% .0% 30 57.7% 88.2% 40.5% 4 80.0% 11.8% 5.4% 34 45.9% 100.0% 45.9% Total 17 100.0% 23.0% 23.0% 52 100.0% 70.3% 70.3% 5 100.0% 6.8% 6.8% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q2.3 Demonstration 1 Q2.3 Demonstration 2 Q2.3 Demonstration 3 Q2.3 Demonstration 4 Q2.3 Demonstration 5 Relationship within family satisfactory level 1 Relationship within family satisfactory level 2 Relationship within family satisfactory level 3 Relationship within family satisfactory level 4 Relationship within family satisfactory level 5

Very rare Sometimes Regularly Many times Very often Very low Low Moderate High Very High

254

38. Organic agriculture demonstration and satisfactory on relationship among community


Chi-Square Tests Value 28.524a 23.610 7.934 74 df 4 4 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .000 .005

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 5 cells (55.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .07.

Crosstab Social 3 15 88.2% 40.5% 20.3% 22 42.3% 59.5% 29.7% 0 .0% .0% .0% 37 50.0% 100.0% 50.0%

2 Q2.3 2 Count % within Q2.3 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q2.3 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q2.3 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q2.3 % within Social % of Total 0 .0% .0% .0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 20.0% 100.0% 1.4% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4%

4 2 11.8% 5.6% 2.7% 30 57.7% 83.3% 40.5% 4 80.0% 11.1% 5.4% 36 48.6% 100.0% 48.6%

Total 17 100.0% 23.0% 23.0% 52 100.0% 70.3% 70.3% 5 100.0% 6.8% 6.8% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q2.3 Demonstration 1 Q2.3 Demonstration 2 Q2.3 Demonstration 3 Q2.3 Demonstration 4 Q2.3 Demonstration 5 Relationship within community satisfactory level 1 Relationship within community satisfactory level 2 Relationship within community satisfactory level 3 Relationship within community satisfactory level 4 Relationship within community satisfactory level 5

Very rare Sometimes Regularly Many times Very often Very low Low Moderate High Very High

255

39. Organic agriculture consultancy and satisfactory on their health condition


Chi-Square Tests Value 15.249a 17.947 13.249 74 df 2 2 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .000 .000

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.42.

Crosstab Health 3 Q2.4 2 Count % within Q2.4 % within Health % of Total Count % within Q2.4 % within Health % of Total Count % within Q2.4 % within Health % of Total Count % within Q2.4 % within Health % of Total 16 94.1% 41.0% 21.6% 22 40.7% 56.4% 29.7% 1 33.3% 2.6% 1.4% 39 52.7% 100.0% 52.7% 4 1 5.9% 2.9% 1.4% 32 59.3% 91.4% 43.2% 2 66.7% 5.7% 2.7% 35 47.3% 100.0% 47.3% Total 17 100.0% 23.0% 23.0% 54 100.0% 73.0% 73.0% 3 100.0% 4.1% 4.1% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q2.4 Consultant staffs 1 Q2.4 Consultant staffs 2 Q2.4 Consultant staffs 3 Q2.4 Consultant staffs 4 Q2.4 Consultant staffs 5 Health condition satisfactory level 1 Health condition satisfactory level 2 Health condition satisfactory level 3 Health condition satisfactory level 4 Health condition satisfactory level 5

Not available Some Adequately Many Very much Very low Low Moderate High Very High

256

40. Organic agriculture consultancy and satisfactory on relationship within the family
Chi-Square Tests Value 20.836a 28.428 20.367 74 df 2 2 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .000 .000

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 2 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.38.

Crosstab Family 3 Q2.4 2 Count % within Q2.4 % within Family % of Total Count % within Q2.4 % within Family % of Total Count % within Q2.4 % within Family % of Total Count % within Q2.4 % within Family % of Total 17 100.0% 42.5% 23.0% 23 42.6% 57.5% 31.1% 0 .0% .0% .0% 40 54.1% 100.0% 54.1% 4 0 .0% .0% .0% 31 57.4% 91.2% 41.9% 3 100.0% 8.8% 4.1% 34 45.9% 100.0% 45.9% Total 17 100.0% 23.0% 23.0% 54 100.0% 73.0% 73.0% 3 100.0% 4.1% 4.1% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q2.4 Consultant staffs 1 Q2.4 Consultant staffs 2 Q2.4 Consultant staffs 3 Q2.4 Consultant staffs 4 Q2.4 Consultant staffs 5 Relationship within family satisfactory level 1 Relationship within family satisfactory level 2 Relationship within family satisfactory level 3 Relationship within family satisfactory level 4 Relationship within family satisfactory level 5

Not available Some Adequately Many Very much Very low Low Moderate High Very High

257

41. Organic agriculture consultancy and satisfactory on relationship among community


Chi-Square Tests Value 23.806a 31.569 19.049 74 df 4 4 1 Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .000 .000

Pearson Chi-Square Likelihood Ratio Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

a. 5 cells (55.6%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .04.

Crosstab Social 3 17 100.0% 45.9% 23.0% 20 37.0% 54.1% 27.0% 0 .0% .0% .0% 37 50.0% 100.0% 50.0%

2 Q2.4 2 Count % within Q2.4 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q2.4 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q2.4 % within Social % of Total Count % within Q2.4 % within Social % of Total 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 1.9% 100.0% 1.4% 0 .0% .0% .0% 1 1.4% 100.0% 1.4%

4 0 .0% .0% .0% 33 61.1% 91.7% 44.6% 3 100.0% 8.3% 4.1% 36 48.6% 100.0% 48.6%

Total 17 100.0% 23.0% 23.0% 54 100.0% 73.0% 73.0% 3 100.0% 4.1% 4.1% 74 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Total

Note:

Q2.4 Consultant staffs 1 Q2.4 Consultant staffs 2 Q2.4 Consultant staffs 3 Q2.4 Consultant staffs 4 Q2.4 Consultant staffs 5 Relationship within community satisfactory level 1 Relationship within community satisfactory level 2 Relationship within community satisfactory level 3 Relationship within community satisfactory level 4 Relationship within community satisfactory level 5

Not available Some Adequately Many Very much Very low Low Moderate High Very High

258

BIOGRAPHY

Mr. Supachai Lorlowhakarn was born on October 5, 1958 in Phuket, Thailand. He was graduated with a Bachelor Degree and Master Degree (Zoology) from the Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University in 1981 and 1984 respectively. He has been studying for a Degree of Doctoral Philosophy of Science in Agricultural Technology, the Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University since 2004. At present he is the director of Thailands National Innovation Agency.