Next Article in Journal
Classification of Degradable Mulch Films and Their Promotional Effects and Limitations on Agricultural Production
Previous Article in Journal
Green Growth, Green Development and Climate Change Perceptions: Evidence from a Greek Region
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 14
Issue 8
10.3390/agriculture14081234
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Enhanced Food-Production Efficiencies through Integrated Farming Systems in the Hau Giang Province in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam

by
Håkan Berg
1,*,
Nguyen Thanh Tam
2,
Thai Huynh Phuong Lan
3 and
Chau Thi Da
4
1
Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
2
Faculty of Fishery, Nong Lam University, Ho Chi Minh City 70000, Vietnam
3
Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, An Giang University, Vietnam National University, HCMC, Long Xuyen City 90000, Vietnam
4
Faculty of Applied Sciences, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City 70000, Vietnam
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2024, 14(8), 1234; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081234
Submission received: 10 June 2024 / Revised: 11 July 2024 / Accepted: 24 July 2024 / Published: 26 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Systems and Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study compares the food-production efficiencies of integrated rice-fish farming and rice monoculture and evaluates how these farming systems contribute to sustainable food production in the Mekong Delta. The study explores how food-production efficiencies are influenced by the systems’ ecological connectivity by comparing more integrated systems that apply integrated rice-fish farming and integrated pest management (IPM) with less integrated systems farming only rice. Rice-fish farmers with plenty of fish had significantly higher rice yields than farmers with less or no fish, especially during the second crop when the rice was grown together with the fish. A positive correlation between the fish and rice yields, indicated synergistic effects between the fish and rice, due to strengthened ecological connectivity and trophic interactions within the rice-field ecosystem. Overall, rice-fish farmers had higher rice yields than rice farmers, despite using lower amounts of fertilizers and pesticides. They also had lower rice production costs compared to rice farmers, partly because the fish helped fertilize the rice and control rice pests. They had a significantly higher profit and benefit cost ratio than rice farmers because of lower production costs, and high rice and fish yields. The results indicate that food-production efficiencies in the Mekong Delta can be enhanced through diversification and increased ecological connectivity, leading to a more efficient use of rice field ecosystem services that support a long-term and healthy production of food.

1. Introduction

Vietnam’s agricultural production has made great progress over the years. Rice production increased from 19.2 million tons in 1990 to 43.5 million tons in 2020 [1]. This has been achieved through an expansion in rice farming areas and more intensive farming methods, supported by increased use of pesticides and fertilizers [2]. The construction of high dikes has also helped to increase rice yields by creating suitable conditions for three rice crops per year [3]. Rice cultivation has not only ensured national food security but has also become an important economic sector of the country. Nearly 80% of Vietnam’s total population of 99 million people live in rural areas and rice production workers account for 72% of the country’s labor force [1]
Although the increased rice production has provided a means for increased income and food security it has also been followed by negative impacts on farmers’ health and the environment [4,5,6,7]. According to an investigation by the Ministry of Health’s Department of Preventive Medicine, Vietnam has over 5000 cases of pesticide poisoning every year requiring emergency stays at hospitals and over 300 deaths [8]. In the Mekong Delta, high dikes have decreased the aquatic connectivity, followed by a decreased inflow of nutrient-rich alluvium, which has impacted the natural productivity of rice-field ecosystems [5,9,10,11]. This has also blocked the migration of aquatic organisms, which has decreased the overall production of wild fish in the Mekong Delta [12]. High use of pesticides has added pressure on aquatic organisms and has been pointed out as a possible cause of the decline of wild fish catches in the Delta [12]. Ref. [13] reported that farmers spraying organophosphate pesticides on rice fields resulted in both reduced growth and survival rates of fish. Ref. [14] showed that increased use of pesticides among rice-fish farmers was not only followed by a decreased yield of fish but also a decreased yield of rice, which could have been caused by pesticides that disturbed the ecological connectivity within the rice-field ecosystem, disrupting the synergetic effects between rice and fish. Considering that about half of Vietnam’s inland fisheries yield comes from the Mekong Delta, which is about one-third of the total fisheries yield of the Lower Mekong Basin, a more restrictive use of pesticides and other agrochemicals would be an important step to ensure acceptable water quality for sustainable and healthy fish production [2,7,12].
Overall, the negative effects of rice intensification have become an increasing concern for developing more sustainable food-production systems that can provide food security for an increasing population [15,16,17]. Rice farming produces the staple food for more than half of the world’s population, including almost all people in East and Southeast Asia [17]. Rice fields are one of the largest human-managed wetland ecosystems of the world and more sustainable rice farming practices could provide opportunities to sustain biodiversity and increase food-production efficiencies through an improved use of ecosystem services for the benefit of people’s health and well-being [16,17,18,19].
Several studies have shown that integrated systems improve food-production efficiencies through increased recycling of nutrients and organic matter [15,17,18,19,20,21]. Such systems include integrated rice-fish farming, where the fish help to improve the soil quality, fertilize the rice, and control rice pests [20,21]. A recent review by [17] showed that integrated rice farming systems both improve the soil’s chemical (nutrients and organic matter) and physical (porosity and microbial composition) properties and substantially decrease (60–80%) the amounts of pests and weeds compared to rice monocultures. This contributes to an increased yield of rice, despite a decreased use of pesticides and fertilizers, which contributes to an increased profit for farmers who apply integrated systems [17,22]. The rice, in turn, provides shelter and protection for the fish and habitats for feeding, decreases the water temperature, and improves the water quality through the removal of excessive nutrients [16,18,21]. These trophic interactions between complementary ecological components within rice-field ecosystems, provide the basis for an efficient production of both rice and fish [18]. If designed well, these integrated systems take advantage of the systems’ ecological functions for the delivery of desired ecosystem services that support the long-term production of healthy food [23,24]. Ref. [25] recently proposed several hypotheses on how trophic interactions can help to increase crop yields, and especially the predation and aggregation hypotheses are of relevance for integrated rice-fish farming. The combined production of both rice and fish also contributes to food security and increases the nutritional value, as the fish provides important animal proteins and micronutrients, which complement the nutritional content of rice [17,26]. A diversified production also minimizes the risks for pest outbreaks (ecological risks) and market fluctuations (financial risks) for farmers and has been shown to increase income stability and profit through decreased production costs and increased yields [15,22,27]. The high diversity and connectivity of these social-ecological systems also tend to make them more resilient to disturbances, which increasingly are needed for agricultural landscapes to adapt to climate change and, as in the case of the Mekong Delta, changes in the flow of water because of upstream dams [16,26,28].
The aim of this study was to assess to what extent integrated farming strategies, such as rice-fish farming and IPM, can provide sustainable alternatives to rice monocropping strategies for increased and diversified food production in the Hau Giang province in the Mekong Delta. The hypothesis was that more diverse and integrated systems would increase food-production efficiencies by strengthening the ecological connectivity and trophic interactions within the rice-field ecosystem [25]. This was assessed by comparing how different levels of fish stocking densities and IPM strategies in rice farming influenced on the production costs, yield of crops, and the overall profitability and benefit cost ratio. The results provide guidance on how diversified rice farming systems can contribute to increased production of healthy food, with reduced inputs of agrochemicals, through enhanced use of ecosystem services delivered by rice-field ecosystems.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Area

The Mekong Delta is located in Southern Vietnam (8°60′ N to 10° N and 104°50′ E to 106°80′ E) and covers an area of 39,000 km2 (Figure 1). It is one of the largest and most densely populated wetlands in the world and it plays a vital role in the lives of local people and the socio-economic development of the region [3,5,11,12]. The Mekong Delta covers only 12% of Vietnam’s area but supplies more than 50% of the country’s rice production and is the most important region for rice production in Vietnam [7]. Triple and double rice cropping are the dominant farming systems, occupying up to 70% of the agricultural land [7,29]. The total rice farming area in the Mekong Delta has increased from approximately 3.2 million ha in 1995 to approximately 3.8 million ha in 2022, and the rice yield has increased from 4.2 to 6.2 tons/ha/crop during the same period of time, resulting in an increase in the rice production from 12.8 million tons to 24 million tons [1].
The Hau Giang province is one of the main rice-production areas with some of the highest rice yields in the Mekong Delta [30]. The province’s total rice cultivation area in 2022 was 188,357 hectares, with harvest output reaching over 1.25 million tons [30]. This study was conducted in Long My and Phung Hiep, which are major rice-producing districts of the Hau Giang province (Figure 1). These districts are located in low-lying land areas, which often are highly affected by flood water, leading to low rice yields and income if growing rice in the third crop. Therefore, many farmers have chosen to integrate fish in the second crop not only to increase income but also to increase soil fertility and remove weeds and algae by the fish, which helps to reduce the production costs.

2.2. Survey of Rice and Rice-Fish Farming Practices

Information about rice and rice-fish farming practices in the study area was collected during the spring of 2021, using Participatory Community Analysis (PCA), group discussions, and structured interviews based on pre-tested questionnaires with farmers from the Long My and Phung Hiep districts in the Hau Giang province. The questionnaires were in Vietnamese and structured to capture both quantitative information about the farmers’ agriculture practices and qualitative information about the farmers’ perception of the environment and farming strategies. The questionnaire was tested with two rice farmers from each district before the interview survey was initiated to make sure that the questions made sense to both the farmers and the extension officers who helped with the interviews. The interviews took approximately 40–45 min each and were performed in Vietnamese. The study was conducted in close consultation with local farmers, as understanding their knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to agriculture and the use of agriculture chemicals is crucial to assess health and environmental issues under different farming strategies [31]. A mixed methodological approach was applied in this study, where both quantitative and qualitative data collection were carried out concurrently [32]. By using mixed methods, the power of quantitative data and results combined with qualitative insights about the experiences of farmers provided a robust understanding of 60 farmers’ perceptions and cropping patterns representing four different farming systems [33]:
  • R: farmers cultivating only rice with less than 50% applying IPM (Integrated Pest Management) (15 farmers in the Phung Hiep district).;
  • RIPM: farmers cultivating only rice and with more than 90% applying IPM (15 farmers in the Long My district);
  • RFL: farmers cultivating rice and farming fish (primarily wild fish) at low density without adding any commercial fish feed to the rice fields (15 farmers in the Long My district);
  • RFH: farmers cultivating rice and farming fish at high stocking density and feeding the fish with commercial fish feed (15 farmers in the Phung Hiep district).
When finished, the questionnaires were checked and the answers were translated into English and transferred to Excel for further analyses by senior researchers from Vietnamese universities. As the data were based on the farmers’ recollection of their farming practices during the last year they should be treated with some caution. Still, the reliability and validity of the answers were checked by comparing the results with earlier studies. Answers that deviated substantially from the other answers were re-confirmed with the respondents. As the number of rice farmers in the Hau Giang Province was much higher than the number of rice-fish farmers, the number of interviewed farmers in each farming system was not proportional to the actual distribution of farmers in the province. Still, this compromise was seen as acceptable to provide a sufficient sample size of each farming system to make reliable statistical analyses of the data. Attributes of the interviewed farmers are found in Table 1.

2.3. Data Analysis

The data were analyzed by dividing the answers into the four different farming categories (R, RIPM, RLF, RFH). Inputs of rice seeds, fish fingerlings, agrochemicals, rice and fish yields per year, and hectare were calculated from the farmers’ answers (Table 2 and Table 3). Production costs, income, profit, and benefit/cost ratio were calculated from the cost of required inputs and the selling price of rice and fish. The data were checked for normal distribution with the Shapiro-Wilk test, and when normally distributed differences between farming categories were investigated using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference) used as the post-ANOVA test. When not normally distributed, the nonparametric Kruskal Wallis test was used to analyze the data in SPSS for Windows (Ver 28.0.1; SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). Differences between groups were considered to be statistically significant when p < 0.05. Spearman’s rank-order correlation was used to explore the correlation between the farmed fish yield and the rice yield from the first and second rice crops among rice-fish farmers.

3. Results and Discussion

The average age of farmers ranged from 42 to 51 years (Table 1). The education level and the average household size were about 9 years and 5 persons, respectively, which is similar to that recorded for farmers in Can Tho and Tien Giang in 2007 and in Dong Thap in 2022 [2,22].
RIPM and RFH farmers had significantly longer experiences of rice farming than R and RFL farmers, which could explain why these farmers had somewhat more advanced farming strategies than the other farmers. RFH farmers had significantly longer experiences of rice-fish farming than RFL farmers, which probably was the reason why they stocked their rice fields with fish to a higher degree and received a higher fish yield than the RFL farmers (Table 2). The dominant species farmed were common carp (Cyprinus carpio), silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix), bighead carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis), Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), and walking catfish (Clarias batrachus), which are reported as a suitable species for rice-fish farming [24]. Still, the optimal choice and mixture of species are context-specific and the influence of factors such as fish habitat and feeding preferences on trophic interaction in rice-field ecosystems should be considered when designing a system for optimized food production [15,20].
The average rice yield was 6.8 tons per hectare and crop (13.8 tons/ha yr) (Table 3), which is higher than that of 5.7 tons per crop recorded in Can Tho and Tien Giang in 2007, but similar to the yield in those provinces in 2012 [2,14], reflecting the long term increased production of rice over the years, but also the stagnated increase of rice yields in recent years in the Mekong Delta [1]. This indicates the need to find new ways to increase rice production efficiencies in the future, which has been part of the Vietnamese governmental strategies for the Delta for the last decade [34].
Several recent reviews [15,16,17,18,20] show that less intensive and more integrated rice farming systems can provide sustainable ways to increase food-production efficiencies without an increased input of agrochemicals, which is confirmed by our results. RFH farmers had significantly higher rice yields than rice farmers, although there were no significant differences in the amounts of rice seed used between the four farming systems (Table 3). Rice-fish farmers also used lower amounts of fertilizers than rice farmers. Furthermore, despite R farmers used the highest number and amounts of pesticides of all farmer groups and applying these most frequently, they still had the lowest rice yield (Table 3 and Table S1). These results concurred with the majority of the farmers’ perception (90–100%) that pesticides could have a negative effect on rice yields, where most stated that excessive spraying reduces the growth of the rice (Table S1). Many also experienced that this led to resistant pests and killed natural enemies of rice pests (Table S1). This is consistent with Ref [35]’s findings that increased insecticide applications in several cases led to decreased rice yields with doubtful productivity gains among rice farmers in the Mekong Delta.
Still, pesticides were the most common way to control pests among the farmers (Table S1). Insects were perceived as the most problematic pests followed by fungi, which explained why insecticides and fungicides were the most diverse group of pesticides used by the farmers (Tables S1 and S2). This is similar to findings from earlier studies in the region [2,4,14]. Insecticides were also the pesticide most commonly associated with health effects. The majority of the farmers experienced health problems after using pesticides (>95%). The most common problems were irritation in the eyes and skin (Table S1). Similar to previous studies, also nausea, dizziness, and respiratory problems were commonly reported [2,4,14]. Almost 80% of the farmers used some form of protective clothes (long sleeves, hat, gloves) when using pesticides, and many also used a face mask (54%); however, as reported by [31] these protections are often not enough to protect the farmers from health effects.
Thus, the long-term trend of trying to increase rice yields with increased use of agrochemicals, including pesticides, may have, to some extent, played out its role and not be the most efficient way to increase the production of healthy food in the Mekong Delta [36]. As reported by [35], farm surveys of more than 5000 rice farmers in the Mekong Delta and farmer field experiments showed that farm yields were not correlated with the number of insecticide sprays and that farmers would be better off if they were to completely avoid insecticides. In this way, they could conserve ecosystem services that would reduce farms’ vulnerability to secondary pest outbreaks like planthoppers, which often cause crop failures [35]. Along these lines, the majority of the farmers thought less intensive systems with two rice crops were better than more intensive systems with three crops because two crops were better adapted to the weather and allowed the soil to recover and improve its quality (Table S3). They saw environmental pollution, and especially decreasing water, and soil quality as the most negative effect of rice farming (Table S3). Most farmers felt that these negative impacts of rice farming could be reduced by applying less intensive farming methods, decreasing the use of pesticides, and using more organic fertilizer (Table S3). R farmers also mentioned integrated rice-fish farming as an option to decrease the impact on the environment.
This view is supported by our results which show that rice-fish farming could potentially provide an alternative way to increase food-production efficiency in the Mekong Delta without increasing negative impacts on the environment. The majority of the farmers, and especially RFL farmers, felt that the fish had a positive effect on the rice yield, and estimated a 15% increase in the rice yield because of the fish (Table S4). This perceived positive influence of fish on the rice yield was confirmed by the correlation between rice and fish yields, which was especially clear for the second rice crop of RFH farmers (Figure 2).
In this crop, fish were grown together with the rice and probably had a number of positive effects on the rice [21] by increasing the nutrients and organic matter content of the soil through their feces and increasing the porosity and microbial composition by their physical activities [17]. Several studies have also shown that fish help to remove rice pests and contribute to enhanced trophic interactions within rice-field ecosystems, which are critical for well-functioning ecosystem services that can help to increase rice yields [18,25]. These benefits were confirmed by the farmers who said that the increased rice yield was because the fish contributed to pest control and nutrients (Table S4). This has been highlighted as a major ecosystem service provided by rice-fish systems in recent reviews on the benefits of integrated systems compared to rice monocropping [15,16,17,18]. In this study, this resulted in a significantly higher rice yield of the second crop of RFH farmers compared to the other farmers (Table 4).
This also helped to stabilize the RFH’s rice yields over the year, as the second rice crop tended to be much lower than the first crop (Table 4). Also the first crop showed a trend of increasing rice yields with increasing fish yields, indicating that the positive effects from the fish remained even after the fish had been harvested, which probably was related to increased nutrient content in the soil because of the feces from the fish ([21], Figure 2, Table 4). Thus, integrating fish in the rice field provides an example of how ecological engineering, building on increased ecological connectivity and trophic interactions within rice-field ecosystems, can help farmers to reduce the input of both fertilizers and pesticides [25]. However, this requires a careful design where it must be fully recognized that a reduced use of pesticides not only is possible (as the fish helps to control rice pests) but also a requisite for successful rice-fish farming, as many pesticides are highly harmful to aquatic organisms and contaminate the fish with health implications for the consumers [37]. The majority of the farmers felt that pesticides, often insecticides, affected the fish negatively (Table S4). This perception was stronger among the RFH farmers than the RFL farmers, who used lower amounts of pesticides, especially insecticides, compared to the RFH farmers (Table 3 and Table S4).
Despite this, many farmers still relied on a high number of pesticide applications (Table S1), probably because pesticides often are associated with modernism, with beliefs that modern means of production make nature ‘‘controllable”. This has made many farmers become victims of pesticide misuse, leading to losses in valuable ecosystem services and traditional farming strategies [35,38]. An increase in rice monocultures has replaced species-rich agroecosystems where traditional knowledge has become obsolete and where it has become difficult to integrate fish with rice [38]. Therefore, there is an obvious need to unlock the farmers’ excessive belief in the importance of pesticides for pest control to give room for alternative farming methods [35].
In this context, integrating fish in rice fields could be an important factor to motivate farmers to decrease the use of pesticides to protect the fish. Basically, the economic threshold to use pesticides increases as pesticides may decrease the fish yield [2]. Most rice-fish farmers said that they used less harmful pesticides in their rice-fish fields than in their rice fields. This more selective use of pesticides by rice-fish farmers was also reflected in the lower amount and less frequent application of pesticides by rice-fish farmers compared to rice farmers in Phụng Hiep (R, RFH) and Long My (RIPM, RFL) (Table 3, Tables S1 and S3). The main reason for this was to protect the fish from the pesticides, but also because the fish provided pest control and made it possible to decrease the amounts of pesticides. These farmers also decreased the amount of water in the rice fields as this increased the impact of insecticides on the target pests. Such management strategies build on an increased understanding of processes within rice-field ecosystems and how these can be used to optimize the pesticide’s effect. This provides farmers with insights about ecological-based management strategies, such as IPM, and how these can help to increase rice-field productivity and ultimately the income. The majority of the farmers who had started with IPM said that it had increased their income by some 15%, primarily because of decreased production costs, which is similar to the findings from previous years (2, 14, Table S1).
Also all rice-fish farmers confirmed that rice-fish farming had increased their income. RFL farmers estimated a 16% increase, while RFH farmers estimated a 10% increase (Table S4). This probably underestimates the positive impact on the profit from farming fish in the rice field. According to Table 5, fish contributed with 18% of the income for RFL farmers, who primarily relied on wild fish and 39% of income for RFH farmers, who relied on both wild and farmed fish. Overall, the net income and benefit cost ratio were highest for RFH farmers compared to the other farmer groups, because of low production costs and high yields of both fish and rice, which is similar to findings from earlier studies on rice-fish farmers with low use of pesticides (Table 2 and Table 5 and [14]. Compared to RFL farmers the net income was significantly higher, primarily because of the higher yield and income of the farmed fish. Still, RFL farmers had significantly higher net income and benefit cost ratio than the rice farmers because of significantly lower production costs and a higher total income due to the yield of wild fish caught in the rice fields. Although these results are based on interviews with a limited number of farmers in only one province of the Mekong Delta, they are similar to the findings for “low input” rice-fish farmers that primarily kept wild fish in their rice fields in the Dong Thap province in 2021 ([22], Table 5). This shows that even integrated systems with comparatively low input of resources can increase food-production efficiency compared to non-integrated systems by relying on the natural productivity of the rice-field ecosystem.
The majority of the RFH farmers planned to expand their activities because they were encouraged by their high profit and wanted to increase their income even more (Table S4). This would be achieved through an increased adoption of rotational rice-fish farming (Table S4); which, however, could decrease the yield of the second rice crop as the positive effects from the fish would be weaker if not grown together with the rice (cf. Table 4). RFL farmers did not plan to make any larger changes primarily because they did not have access to any suitable land but would like to increase the fish stocking in their rice fields with high-value fish, if the opportunities would be given (Table S4). Overall, they were more in favor of concurrent rice-fish farming than the RFH farmers, as they seemed to see this as a way to boost the natural yield of fish rather than a way to move into aquaculture. Many rice farmers wanted to start with organic farming and rice-fish farming, and almost all farmers favored a production that would increase the quality rather than the quantity of the crops, which is similar to earlier findings [28] (Table S3). The most critical risks for implementing these systems were perceived to be low prices for rice and fish, the impact of pesticides, and low survival rates of fish (Table S4), indicating the difficulties of changing to more ecological-based farming strategies in areas dominated by intensive monocultures [38]. Many farmers also said that this would require a stronger market demand for quality products. According to [39], however, this already exists, where consumers are willing to pay a higher price for crops produced with less pesticides. RF farmers also got a higher price for their wild fish compared to their farmed fish because the consumers felt that wild fish was of better quality than farmed fish, which is similar to the results by [36]. The rice-fish farmers also highlighted the importance of money and technical know-how, indicating the importance of external support to transform future farming strategies in the Mekong Delta [34]. As indicated by several earlier studies, agriculture systems that build on increased diversity and connectivity, where increased food production is generated by a more efficient recycling of nutrients and organic matter, tend to increase the complexity of the agriculture system. This requires additional technical skills by farmers, and a transformational change of agriculture practices among farmers requires the convergence of varied socio-technical systems, including knowledge extension, group formation, group learning, and reshaping interest and incentives, that jointly can lead to an alignment of more sustainable farming practices [34].
The majority of the rice-fish farmers wanted agriculture in the Mekong Delta in the future to become more “high-tech” (Table S4), which raises the question of what is meant by “high-tech”. According to our results, integrated systems such as rice-fish farming provide more complex and ecologically high-tech systems than monocultures. However, these intricate systems can easily be disrupted by excessive beliefs in technocratic solutions, which often substitute ecosystem services with fossil fuel-supported inputs, such as synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. These tend to increase production costs, environmental pollution, and health risks for farmers. Intensive monocultures also tend to be followed by a decreased resilience to external disturbances, which was confirmed by the farmers who perceived that integrated rice-fish farming would provide a more resilient agriculture system to upstream dams and climate change than intensive rice monocropping (Table S4).

4. Conclusions

The results of this study clearly show that a diversification of farming systems, through for example, integrated rice-fish farming, can provide sustainable alternatives to rice monocultures with improved ecological and financial food-production efficiencies. Less use of pesticides also improves producers’ and consumers’ health and if this was accounted for, the benefit of these strategies would be even clearer. Rice-fish farmers received a higher net income and had a higher benefit-cost ratio than rice farmers. For rice-fish farmers with high fish stocking densities (RFH), this was due to high yields of both rice and fish, partly due to the synergistic effects between fish and rice, which resulted in the highest gross and net incomes of all farmer groups. Rice-fish farmers with low stocking densities of fish (RFL) had lower yields of rice and fish than RFH farmers, but also the lowest production costs of all farmer groups, which resulted in higher net incomes than for the rice farmers. The low production costs were due to the lower use of fertilizers and pesticides, partly because the fish helped to fertilize the rice and to control rice pests. Rice-fish farmers also had a more restricted use of pesticides as they wanted to protect the fish.
Overall, the study shows that farming systems building on increased ecological connectivity and trophic interactions within rice-field ecosystem can increase food-production efficiencies through enhanced use of ecosystem services, such as nutrient recirculation and pest control. This helps the farmers to decrease the use and costs of agrochemicals, with positive implications for the environment and the farmers’ income and health. Such farming strategies are in line with governmental policies for more sustainable farming systems in the Mekong Delta. Our results show that a diversification of farming systems could contribute to a transformational change towards more efficient and sustainable food-production systems. However, this would require a mind shift from a more conventional belief that increased yields can only be achieved through increased use of fossil fuel-based inputs, such as fertilizer and pesticides, which often dominate environments that are being increasingly controlled by humans. New farming strategies must fully endorse the complexity of nature. Our results provide insight on how to increase natural productivity without disrupting, but rather enhancing, ecosystem services for long-term and healthy food production. It shows that agroecological approaches that support biodiversity and utilize natural processes are important steps towards more sustainable food systems. In the case of rice-fish farming, this provides more stable and diversified crops compared to rice monocropping. This increases the nutritional value of the produced food, as fish provide animal protein and several essential and complementary nutrients to the rice. Complementary strategies like Integrated Pest Management (IPM) are critical to enhancing natural control mechanisms of pests, which provide the basis for a decreased use of synthetic agrochemicals and especially pesticides. Decreased use of pesticides is important for successful production of fish and also makes the food healthier, which may attract a higher market price. Such benefits help to increase farmers’ and consumers’ awareness of how ecological-based farming strategies can increase the production efficiencies for more and healthier food for the future benefit of people in the Mekong Delta.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agriculture14081234/s1, Four tables are included in the Supplementary Materials containing compilations of answers related to farming and pest management strategies among rice and rice-fish farmers in the Hau Giang province in 2021.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.B. and N.T.T.; Methodology, H.B., N.T.T., and T.H.P.L.; Validation, H.B. and N.T.T.; Formal Analysis, H.B. and N.T.T.; Investigation, N.T.T.; Resources, H.B. and N.T.T.; Data Curation, H.B. and N.T.T.; Writing—H.B. and N.T.T.; Writing—Review & Editing, H.B., N.T.T., T.H.P.L., and C.T.D.; Visualization, H.B. and N.T.T.; Supervision, H.B. and N.T.T.; Project administration H.B., N.T.T., T.H.P.L., and C.T.D.; Funding Acquisition, H.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Financial support was provided by Formas-a Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development. Grant decision number FR-2020/0008.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

This work was conducted in close cooperation with stakeholders from the Hau Giang province in the Mekong Delta, who generously contributed their time and knowledge. Pham Duy Tien, An Giang University, created the map. Valuable comments were provided by two anonymous reviewers.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. GSO. General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery Data. 2022. Available online: https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/agriculture-forestry-and-fishery/ (accessed on 18 December 2022).
  2. Berg, H.; Tam, N.T. Use of pesticides and attitude to pest management strategies among rice and rice-fish farmers in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2012, 58, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hui, T.R.; Park, E.; Loc, H.H.; Tien, P.D. Long-term hydrological alterations and the agricultural landscapes in the Mekong Delta: Insights from remote sensing and national statistics. Environ. Chall. 2022, 7, 100454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Berg, H. Pesticide use in rice and rice-fish farms in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Crop Prot. 2001, 20, 897–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nguyen, V.K.; Pittock, J.; Connell, D. Dikes, rice, and fish: How rapid changes in land use and hydrology have transformed agriculture and subsistence living in the Mekong Delta. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2019, 19, 2069–2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sebesvari, Z.; Le, T.T.H.; Van Toan, P.; Arnold URenaud, F.G. Agriculture and water quality in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. In The Mekong Delta System. Interdisciplinary Analyses of a River Delta; Renaud, F.G., Kunezer, C., Eds.; Springer Environmental Science and Engineering: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; ISBN 978-94-007-3961-1. [Google Scholar]
  7. Tong, Y.D. Rice intensive cropping and balanced cropping in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam—Economic and ecological considerations. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 132, 205–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Trung, Q. Alarm on the Management and Use of Pesticides in the Mekong Delta. 2018. Available online: https://baolaocai.vn/bai-viet/270996-bao-dong-tinh-trang-quan-ly-su-dung-thuoc-bao-ve-thuc-vat-tai-dbscl (accessed on 18 December 2022).
  9. Tran, D.D.; van Halsema, G.; Hellegers, P.J.; Ludwig, F.; Wyatt, A. Questioning triple rice intensification on the Vietnamese mekong delta floodplains: An environmental and economic analysis of current land-use trends and alternatives. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 217, 429–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Tran, D.D.; Halsema, G.; Hellegers, P.J.G.J.; Hoang, L.P.; Ludwig, F. Long-term sustainability of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta in question: An economic assessment of water management alternatives. Agri. Water. Manag. 2019, 223, 105703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dang, N.A.; Benavidez, R.; Tomscha, S.A.; Nguyen, H.; Tran, D.D.; Nguyen, D.T.H.; Loc, H.H.; Jackson, B.M. Ecosystem Service Modelling to Support Nature-Based Flood Water Management in the Vietnamese Mekong River Delta. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Vu, A.V.; Hortle, K.G.; Nguyen, D.N. Factors Driving Long Term Declines in Inland Fishery Yields in the Mekong Delta. Water 2021, 13, 1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tam, N.T.; Berg, H.; Hang, N.T.T.; Cong, N.V. Effects of Chlorpyrifos ethyl on acetylcholinesterase activity in Climbing perch cultured in rice fields in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2015, 117, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Berg, H.; Tam, N.T. Decreased use of pesticides for increased yields of rice and fish-options for sustainable food production in the mekong delta. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 619–620, 319–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Liu, X.; Shi, S.-J.; Zhang, J.E.; Sun, D.-L.; Wei, H. Effects of integrated rice-animals co-culture on paddy soil and water properties and rice yield: A meta-analysis. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2023, 69, 2187–2201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ibrahim, L.A.; Shaghaleh, H.; Abu-Hashim, M.; Elsadek, E.A.; Hamoud, Y.A. Exploring the Integration of Rice and Aquatic Species: Insights from Global and National Experiences. Water 2023, 15, 2750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Yu, H.; Zhang, X.; Shen, W.; Yao, H.; Meng, X.; Zeng, J.; Zhang, G.; Zamanien, K. A meta-analysis of ecological functions and economic benefits of co-culture models in paddy fields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2023, 341, 108195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ji, Z.-J.; Zhao, L.-F.; Zhang, T.-J.; Dai, R.-X.; Tang, J.-J.; Hu, L.-L.; Chen, X. Coculturing rice with aquatic animals promotes ecological intensification of paddy ecosystem: A review. J. Plant Ecol. 2023, 16, rtad014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rasmussen, L.V.; Grass, I.; Mehrabi, Z.; Smith, O.M.; Bezner-Kerr, R.; Blesh, J.; Garibaldi, L.A.; Isaac, M.E.; Kennedy, C.M.; Wittman, H.; et al. Joint environmental and social benefits from diversified agriculture. Science 2024, 384, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ji, Z.; Ren, M.; Ye, J.; Zhao, L.; Dai, R.; Zhang, T.; Luo, Q.; Tang, J.; Hu, L.; Chen, X. The role of partner species in the crop cocultures: A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2024, 367, 108992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xie, J.; Hu, L.; Tang, J.; Wu, X.; Li, N.; Yuan, Y.; Yang, H.; Zhang, J.; Luo, S.; Chen, X. Ecological mechanisms underlying the sustainability of the agricultural heritage rice–fish coculture system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, E1381–E1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Berg, H.; Lan, T.H.P.; Tam, N.T.; Trang, D.H.; Van, P.H.T.; Duc, H.N.; Da, C.T. An ecological economic comparison between integrated rice-fish-farming and rice monocultures with low and high dikes in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Ambio 2023, 52, 1462–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Berg, H.; Söderholm, A.E.; Söderström, A.-S.; Tam, N.T. Recognizing Wetland Ecosystem Services for Sustainable Rice Farming in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Sustain. Sci. 2016, 12, 137–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhu, Z.; Zhu, Y.-G.; Chan, F.K.S.; Xu, M.; Li, G.; Feng, M. A systematic review of factors affecting the performance of the rice–aquaculture system and regional perspectives. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2024, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wan, N.F.; Dainese, M.; Wang, Y.Q.; Loreau, M. Cascading social-ecological benefits of biodiversity for agriculture. Curr. Biol. 2024, 34, 587–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Freed, S.; Barman, B.; Dubois, M.; Flor, R.J.; Funge-Smith, S.; Gregory, R.; Hadi, B.A.R.; Halwart, M.; Haque, M.; Jagadish, S.V.K.; et al. Maintaining diversity of integrated rice and fish production confers adaptability of food systems to global change. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 576179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chapman, A.; Darby, S.E. Evaluating sustainable adaptation strategies for vulnerable mega-deltas using system dynamics modelling: Rice agriculture in the Mekong Delta’s An Giang Province, Vietnam. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 559, 326–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Berg, H.; Dang, S.; Tam, N.T. Assessing Stakeholders’ Preferences for Future Rice Farming Practices in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Tam, N.T. Pesticide Use in Rice Farming and Its Impacts on Climbing Perch (Anabas testudineus) in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. PhD. Thesis, Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, 2016; 50p. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nhien, A. Hau Giang: Agricultural Production Growth in 2022—Ranked First in the Mekong Delta Region. 2023. Available online: https://haugiang.gov.vn/chi-tiet1/-/tin-tuc/Hau-Giang--tang-truong-san-xuat-nong-nghiep-nam-2022---ung-au-khu-vuc-BSCL78698 (accessed on 23 April 2023).
  31. Galli, A.; Winkler, M.S.; Doanthu, T.; Fuhrimann, S.; Huynh, T.; Rahn, E.; Stamm, C.; Staudacher, P.; Van Huynh, T.; Loss, G. Assessment of pesticide safety knowledge and practices in vietnam: A cross-sectional study of smallholder farmers in the mekong delta. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2022, 19, 509–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed.; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  33. Teddlie, C.; Tashakkori, A. Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  34. Flor, R.J.; Tuan, L.A.; Hung, N.V.; My Phung, N.T.; Connor, M.; Stuart, A.M.; Sander, B.O.; Wehmeyer, H.; Cao, B.T.; Tchale, H.; et al. Unpacking the Processes that Catalyzed the Adoption of Best Management Practices for Lowland Irrigated Rice in the Mekong Delta. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Heong, K.L.; Escalada, M.M.; Chien, H.V.; Delos Reyes, J.H. Are There Productivity Gains from Insecticide Applications in Rice Production? In Rice Planthoppers; Heong, K., Cheng, J., Escalada, M., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Berg, H.; Lan, T.H.P.; Da, C.H.; Tam, N.T. Stakeholder assessment of status and trends of ecosystem services in the Mekong Delta for improved management of multifunctional wetlands. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 338, 117807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Berg, H. Rice monoculture and integrated rice-fish farming in the mekong delta, vietnam—Economic and ecological considerations. Ecol. Econ. 2002, 41, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tekken, V.; Spangenberg, J.H.; Burkhard, B.; Escalada, M.; Stoll-Kleemann, S.; Truong, D.T.; Settele, J. “Things are different now”: Farmer perceptions of cultural ecosystem services of traditional rice landscapes in Vietnam and the Philippines. Ecosys. Serv. 2017, 25, 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Khai, H.V.; Yabe, M. Consumer preferences for agricultural products considering the value of biodiversity conservation in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. J. Nat. Conserv. 2015, 25, 62–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 14 01234 g001
Figure 1. The study was conducted in the Long My and Phung Hiep districts in Hau Giang, which is a major rice-producing province in the Mekong Delta.
Figure 1. The study was conducted in the Long My and Phung Hiep districts in Hau Giang, which is a major rice-producing province in the Mekong Delta.
Agriculture 14 01234 g001
Agriculture 14 01234 g002
Figure 2. A Spearman’s rank-order correlation was run to determine the relationship between the farmed fish yield and the rice yield from the first and second rice crop among rice-fish farmers. There was a strong, positive correlation between the fish yield and the second rice crop (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.6705), which was grown together with the fish. Also, for the first rice crop grown after the harvesting of fish, there was a clear trend of increasing rice yields with increasing fish yields although this was not statistically significant (p = 0.069, R2 = 0.2357).
Figure 2. A Spearman’s rank-order correlation was run to determine the relationship between the farmed fish yield and the rice yield from the first and second rice crop among rice-fish farmers. There was a strong, positive correlation between the fish yield and the second rice crop (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.6705), which was grown together with the fish. Also, for the first rice crop grown after the harvesting of fish, there was a clear trend of increasing rice yields with increasing fish yields although this was not statistically significant (p = 0.069, R2 = 0.2357).
Agriculture 14 01234 g002
Table 1. Household composition, farm size, and experience of rice and rice-fish farming among farmers in the Hau Giang provinces in 2021.
Table 1. Household composition, farm size, and experience of rice and rice-fish farming among farmers in the Hau Giang provinces in 2021.
RIPM (15)R (15)RFL (15)RFH (15)
Age of Farm-Owners (years)Mean50.5 a50.2 a42.7 b51.3 a
SD±22.4±22.4±9.5±11.1
Household SizeMean4.74.24.84.1
SD±1.0±1.1±0.9±0.8
No. of Individuals Involved in Rice FarmingMean2.6 a1.4 b2.3 a2.9 a
SD±1.0±0.8±0.8±0.8
Education Level (years)Mean9.18.48.58.5
SD±3.0±2.6±3.5±2.2
Total Farm Area (ha)Mean1.51.71.71.9
SD±0.7±1.0±1.0±1.0
Experience in Rice Farming (years)Mean30.5 a20.8 b17.6 b32.0 a
SD±17.6±11.0±11.0±10.5
Experience in Rice-Fish Farming (years)Mean 4.2 a20.9 b
SD ±1.3±4.1
Means that do not share the same superscript letter are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 2. Fish stocking density, survival rates, and yields among rice-fish farmers in the Hau Giang provinces in 2021.
Table 2. Fish stocking density, survival rates, and yields among rice-fish farmers in the Hau Giang provinces in 2021.
RFL (15)RFH (15)
Stocking Density (fish/m2)Mean0.090.29
SD0.040.01
Survival Rate (%)Mean6875
SD±2.4±14.0
Yield of Farmed Fish (kg/ha)Mean72 a2176 b
SD±33±63
Yield of Wild Fish (kg/ha)Mean323399
SD±21±63
Means that do not share the same superscript letter are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Inputs of rice seeds, agrochemicals and rice yields (kg/ha/year) in rice and rice-fish farming in the Hau Giang provinces in 2021.
Table 3. Inputs of rice seeds, agrochemicals and rice yields (kg/ha/year) in rice and rice-fish farming in the Hau Giang provinces in 2021.
RIPM (15)R (15)RFL (15)RFH (15)
Rice Seed Mean237.5220.0229.3238.0
SD±12.9±2.6±16.3±9.7
Rice Yield Mean13,440 b12,770 a13,210 b14,870 c
SD±211±197±295±131
UREA Mean254.1 b199.3 a176 a178.7 a
SD±27.4±22.5±7.3±8.6
NPKMean229.3138.7149.0148.0
SD±54.2±23.2±19.6±17.0
DAP Mean183.7 b166.6 ab137.3 ab115.3 a
SD±19.5±17.7±10.5±16.6
K Mean-52.050.761.3
SD-±11.7±9.9±10.4
Total Fertilizer Mean773.9 a568.7 b519.7 b503.3 b
SD±19.7±49.0±30.74±24.4
Molluscicide (a.i. 1)Mean1.74 a2.31 b1.64 a1.31 a
SD±0.83±0.64±0.57±0.95
Herbicides (a.i.)Mean0.68 a1.97 b0.75 a1.72 b
SD±0.26±0.92±0.37±0.84
Fungicides (a.i.)Mean0.53 a0.36 a0.43 a1.19 b
SD±0.57±0.55±0.14±0.64
Insecticides (a.i.)Mean0.10 a0.24 a0.004 b0.12 a
SD±0.13±0.42±0.02±0.12
Total pesticides (a.i.)Mean3.05 a4.88 b2.83 a4.34 b
SD±1.32±1.53±0.76±1.50
Means that do not share the same superscript letter are significantly different (p < 0.05). 1 a.i. = active ingredient.
Table 4. Rice yield among rice and rice-fish farmers during the first and second crop in the Hau Giang provinces in 2021. RFH farmers farmed fish together with the second rice crop, which may explain the higher rice yield in this crop compared to the other farmers.
Table 4. Rice yield among rice and rice-fish farmers during the first and second crop in the Hau Giang provinces in 2021. RFH farmers farmed fish together with the second rice crop, which may explain the higher rice yield in this crop compared to the other farmers.
RIPM (15)R (15)RFL (15)RFH (15)
Rice Yield (kg/ha crop)
    Crop 17493 a6900 b7407 a7833 a
    SD±386±471±551±244
    Crop 25947 a5857 a5800 a7033 b
    SD±625±234±732±129
Means in rows that do not share the same superscript letter are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 5. Costs and income (thousand vnd/ha/yr) in rice and rice-fish farming in the Hau Giang provinces in 2021.
Table 5. Costs and income (thousand vnd/ha/yr) in rice and rice-fish farming in the Hau Giang provinces in 2021.
RIPM (15)R (15)RFL (15)RFH (15)
Costs
SeedMean3890349336504126
SD±639±179±939±1121
FertilizerMean9135 a11,167 a5442 b5416 b
SD±1785±1278±1128±2150
PesticideMean9213 a8737 b8013 b6925 b
SD±860±7342±1635±2335
LaborMean5947 a13,133 b4773 a12,773 b
SD±2181±3014±976±1927
Soil preparation Mean2290 a4035 b2527 a2533 a
SD±408±112±240±915
Water pumpingMean1307 a2200 b722 a2067 b
SD±474±561±420±258
Harvest & transportMean4207 a7000 b4446 a6667 b
SD±1071±1648±288±976
Fish costMean 883 a1586 b
SD ±1519±213
Total CostMean35,988 a49,765 b30,457 a42,094 c
SD±4495±7675±2984±4853
Income
RiceMean84,524 a84,333 a78,840 a89,823 b
SD±8115±5541±8514±1701
Farmed fishMean 221846,034
SD ±6188±7608
Wild fishMean 15,53311,452
SD ±4699±7645
Total incomeMean84,524 a84,333 a96,595 b147,310 c
SD±8115±5541±11,414±7892
Net incomeMean48,536 a34,568 b66,137 c105,216 d
SD±11,402±11,899±11,968±8942
B/CMean2.40 a1.73 b3.20 c3.54 c
SD±0.52±0.26±0.48±0.42
Means that do not share the same superscript letter are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Berg, H.; Tam, N.T.; Lan, T.H.P.; Da, C.T. Enhanced Food-Production Efficiencies through Integrated Farming Systems in the Hau Giang Province in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1234. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081234

AMA Style

Berg H, Tam NT, Lan THP, Da CT. Enhanced Food-Production Efficiencies through Integrated Farming Systems in the Hau Giang Province in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Agriculture. 2024; 14(8):1234. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081234

Chicago/Turabian Style

Berg, Håkan, Nguyen Thanh Tam, Thai Huynh Phuong Lan, and Chau Thi Da. 2024. "Enhanced Food-Production Efficiencies through Integrated Farming Systems in the Hau Giang Province in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam" Agriculture 14, no. 8: 1234. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081234

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop