Аграрная история, 2024, № 18

                                    © Agrarian History, № 18, 2024, e-ISSN 2713-2447  
 
 
Journal Website: https://agrarianhistory.com 
 
DEVELOPMENT OF THE AGRO-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX OF RUSSIA AT 
THE PRESENT STAGE 
 
Ershov, Bogdan Anatolyevich1, Bobrovnikova, Marina Alexandrovna2 
 
1Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Academician of RAE, Voronezh State Technical University, 
84, 20-letiya Oktyabrya Street, Voronezh, Russia, E-mail: bogdan.ershov@yandex.ru 
2Senior Lecturer, Voronezh State Technical University, 84, 20-letiya Oktyabrya Street, Voronezh, 
Russia, E-mail: philosophy.kaf@cchgeu.ru 
 
Abstract 
 
The article shows the development of agriculture in Russia at the present stage. It is agriculture that today 
is steadily one of the fastest growing sectors of the Russian economy. The production of certain products has 
been demonstrating historical records for a number of years, which has allowed Russia to become a prominent 
supplier to world markets. The growth of the agricultural sector has been facilitated by both natural factors 
(geographical location, large areas of agricultural land, vast water resources), investment inflows and improved 
management. The introduction of sanctions and government measures aimed at import substitution also 
contributed to the development of agricultural production in the country. This trend coincided with a significant 
increase in demand for basic foodstuffs due to population growth, primarily urban population growth, climate 
change, etc. It should be noted that the growth in demand contributes to the growth of long-term risks of instability 
in the world markets.  
Keywords: history, agriculture, country, collective farm, land, culture. 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
 
In the current realities, despite the foreign policy sanctions pressure, Russia continues to increase the 
production capacity of the agro-industrial complex. According to the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture of 
Russia, in 2022 the planned values of self-sufficiency level provided for by the project "Development of 
Agroindustrial Complex Sectors" will be reached or exceeded for grain - 177.8%, sugar - 103.2%, vegetable oil - 
211.1%, meat and meat products - 100.9%, fish and fish products - 153.3%. Own sustainable grain production is 
an important factor of the country's food security. According to Rosstat, in 2022 a record gross grain harvest was 
obtained - 157.7 million tons in weight after tillage, which is 29.9% higher than the 2021 harvest (121.4 million 
tons). For the first time in Russia's history, a record 104.2 million tons of wheat was harvested, which is 37.1% 
more than in 2021 (76.1 million tons). Approved in September 2022, the "Strategy for the development of the 
agro-industrial and fishery complexes of the Russian Federation for the period until 2030" is aimed at ensuring 
long-term and prospective development of the country's agro-industrial complex.  
 
3 
  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License 
 

                                    © Agrarian History, № 18, 2024, e-ISSN 2713-2447  
 
The key guidelines for the development of the agro-industrial complex are: import substitution; 
development of the food and processing industry, including the introduction of innovations; digitalization of 
industries and sub-branches; preservation, restoration and improvement of the fertility of agricultural land, its 
rational use, involvement of unused arable land in agricultural turnover; breeding and genetics; development of 
land reclamation complex; introduction of new types of services, services and solutions to optimize production 
and logistical processes in the agricultural sector. The development of the agro-industrial complex is associated 
with foreign policy, economic, technological, veterinary, phytosanitary risks, as well as climatic and agroecological threats. 
 
II. DISCUSSION AND RESULTS 
 
Today, the integral indicator of the state of farming and crop production is gross yields of major crops. 
Consideration of six main positions (from 1990 to 2020), revealed multidirectional dynamics. 
For cereals and legumes, sugar beet and sunflower seeds it is a downward trend to the level of 1998-1999. 
The reason is that these crops were strongly affected by the difficulties of the transition period, reduction of the 
area under crops and drought conditions of recent years in the main agrarian regions of Russia. Nevertheless, 
starting from 2000 an upward trend can be identified with fluctuations by years due to market conditions and 
agrometeorological conditions. During this period, the area under crops has basically stabilized. As a result, over 
the past 30 years, the share of wheat in the total cropping pattern increased from 20% to 37%, and in the crops of 
cereals and grain legumes - from 37% to 60%. This was due, among other things, to the fact that until 2021 the 
grain complex was focused on free export of products, which allowed to maintain the profitability of the industry. 
At the same time, for rye, a steady trend towards a decrease in gross yields was revealed - by 6-10 times 
compared to 1990. 
In 2001-2005, gross grain yields averaged 79 million tons per year with an area of 44.8 million hectares, 
and yields averaged 17.6 c/ha. (These yields were obtained by calculating the ratio of gross harvest of grain and 
leguminous crops in weight after tillage to the area under crops). In 2016-2020, these indicators, respectively, 
were 124.7 million tons; 47.1 million hectares; 26.5 c/ha, an increase of 60%. 
For outdoor and indoor vegetables, we can talk about a steady upward trend with clear failures in the 
extremely dry years of 1999 and 2010. 
Potato production - Russia's "second bread" - grew to 40 million tons by 1995 due to the activity of private 
farms and agribusiness, but then steadily declined until 2020, when only 19.6 million tons were harvested in all 
categories of farms. Significant deviations from the trend were also noted in the above-mentioned unfavorable 
years in terms of hydrothermal conditions. 
Production of fodder, namely root fodder crops, including sugar beet for livestock fodder, fodder from 
annual and perennial grasses (green fodder, haylage, hay) fell in total 4 times from 234 million tons to 62 million 
tons. 
Now there are 35 million conventional cattle in the country (for comparison, in 1990 there were 76 million 
heads). The number of cattle since the same 1990 has fallen from 57 million heads (21 million cows) to 18 million 
heads (8 million cows). While in 1990 55.7 million tons of milk were produced, in 2000 it was 32.3 million tons and 
in 2020 it will be 32.2 million tons. Accordingly, cattle meat was produced 4.3; 1.9 and 1.6 million tons. However, 
it should be noted that over the past 20 years, milk yield per cow has increased by 1.5 times. 
From 2021, tariff and non-tariff regulation on grain and a number of other commodity items has been 
introduced for an indefinite period of time. A set of measures has been taken to curb the growth of domestic 
prices for the most important types of food. But any ban for the market is a harbinger of deficit.  
After all, the increase in duties does not solve the main problem - the objective increase in the cost of 
production of agricultural products in the Russian Federation and does not give the opportunity to stay away from 
global trends caused by the fight against pandemic and quantitative easing measures. 
4 
  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License 
 

                                    © Agrarian History, № 18, 2024, e-ISSN 2713-2447  
 
The Russian government is forced to plan the creation of a system to protect the domestic market from 
rising world prices for entire groups of goods: food products (sugar, sunflower oil, grain, poultry meat, pork, milk, 
fish), ferrous and non-ferrous metals, and fertilizers. The defense system will consist of two parts. The first is a 
model of regular forecasting of the cost of goods on world markets and its impact on the national market for a 
period of eight weeks (in other words, the availability of these goods to their consumers will be analyzed). The 
second part involves using these estimates to prevent domestic price spikes according to a certain regulation. 
The set of techniques includes duties, dampers, export restrictions, production subsidies, expansion (changes) of 
crop areas, etc. 
What do we see? Over the past 20 years, the numerical value of the index of production of multi-structure 
agriculture in our country for all categories of farms in comparable prices as a percentage of the previous year 
reflects a very uneven dynamics of the industry. It fluctuated from plus 22.3% in 2011 after the previous failure to 
minus 12.1% in 2010 during the drought. In the crisis year 2020, the index added 2%. The inertia of agroproduction processes and the long cycle have always shown themselves. If after the highest gross grain harvest 
in the history of the Russian Federation in 2017, the index expectedly showed plus 2.9%, in prosperous 2018 it 
expectedly fell to minus 0.2%. The reason is that the high harvest dropped grain prices on the domestic market 
and deprived farmers of working capital for the next sowing season, and the adequate response of managers was 
late as always. 
The peculiarity of the current stage of development of the domestic agro-industrial complex is the fact that 
harvests and production of products on the main items are growing (or at least not decreasing). So, as one might 
assume, supply is also increasing, and retail prices are decreasing? 
It is not so. Food in Russia is becoming more expensive significantly ahead of the official inflation rate. In 
November this year compared to November 2020, flour was more expensive by 13%, pork and beef (except 
boneless meat), as well as vermicelli - by 15-16%, onions - by 22%, buckwheat groats - by 25%, chicken eggs - 
by 26%, chickens - by 30%, carrots - by 38%, table beets - by 1.5 times, potatoes - by 1.7 times, white cabbage - 
by 2 times. 
And for comparison: during the same period oranges became cheaper by 3%, lemons went up in price by 
5%, bananas became more expensive by 11%. 
According to Rosstat data as of December 6, the growth of food prices in the Russian Federation is holding 
at 10.6% year-on-year. Over the past 12 months, chicken rose in price by 30%, beef and pork - by 15%. 
Buckwheat became more expensive by 23%, chicken eggs - by 24%, vermicelli - by 14%. Bread and flour rose in 
price by 10% and 13%, respectively. Potatoes became more expensive by 67%, cabbage - by 115%, carrots - by 
37%. Cucumbers went up in price by 21%. Russian President Vladimir Putin at a meeting on economic issues on 
Tuesday, December 7 this year, called the price rise as the number one threat: 
"The main problem today both for the economy and for citizens is the growth of inflation. At the end of 
November it amounted to 8.4%. In 2024, it is necessary to ensure the return of inflation to the target level of 4%." 
"I ask you to focus on increasing the supply of goods and services in the domestic market, primarily food 
products," the president said. It is hard to disagree with this. In developed countries, the agro-industrial complex 
accounts for a significant part of employees, fixed and working capital, APK. It is the scale of the agro-industrial 
complex, its structure and efficiency of functioning that largely determine the improvement of living standards of 
the population and food security[14]. At the same time, there is a tendency that the development of the service 
sector leads to a decrease in the percentage of the influence of APK in the economy of developed countries, 
while developing countries have a high figure of 40 to 50%. Also, the increasing participation of agribusiness in 
GDP leads to the fact that small farms, representing 72% of all farms, occupy only 8% of the total agricultural 
land. Large farms owned by food corporations, which account for only 1% of farms globally, occupy 65% of 
farmland. This gives large farms almost complete control in the sphere, lack of incentives for technology 
development, which entails a decrease in the quality of produced and delivered products.  
 
 
5 
  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License 
 

                                    © Agrarian History, № 18, 2024, e-ISSN 2713-2447  
 
The development of agribusiness makes a major contribution to the development of one of the Sustainable 
Development Goals - the eradication of hunger as a phenomenon - and some successes have been achieved in 
this direction: in the first 15 years of the 21st century, globally, the proportion of people suffering from malnutrition 
decreased from 15% in 2000-2002 to 11% in 2014-2016. If this trend continues, the goal of eradicating hunger 
will largely be achieved by 2030. However, at the same time, environmentalists note the negative impact of the 
active development of agribusiness on the environment. By-products of agribusiness are a significant source of 
greenhouse gases, pollution of soil and water bodies, deforestation, reduction of wildlife population. And also 
leads to the transmission of new viruses between wild animals, domesticated animals and humans. Active use of 
pesticides in a number of agro-industrial sectors is recognized by the World Health Organization as a cause of 
real harm to consumer health. 
In the global context, the approach to the functioning of the agro-industrial complex is distinguished by the 
strong connection of this research with the UN program "Sustainable Development Goals" and the study of the 
possibilities of interaction of the agro-industrial complex with nuclear energy, as well as with alternative forms of 
energy. The creation of a successfully functioning agro-industrial complex is a large-scale task and involves the 
application of various branches of science. In this context, industrial processes are defined with two main 
objectives in mind: stimulating agricultural production through intensive use of fertilizers and developing the 
country's economy by meeting domestic demand for products and creating the necessary base for exports. The 
research interest was motivated by the need to form and maintain agribusiness in an environment not suitable for 
cheap and convenient utilization of natural resources or types of energy[12].  
In 1967, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in collaboration with a number of individuals and organizations, 
initiated a study that presented a new fundamental idea of combining industrial complexes with highly sustainable 
agriculture based on reduced freshwater consumption. For the first time, agro-industrial complexes were analyzed 
thoroughly and systematically. Energy sources can be hydroelectricity, gas, coal or oil. Generally, the 
establishment of an agro-industrial complex is not possible far from a source of energy or water, it severely limits 
the ability to access food to arid or mountainous areas, for example. AICs of this kind (erected have contributed 
significantly to the development of the so-called industrialized countries. Hydroelectric or fossil fuel power plants 
must be built near their energy sources, which are not always favorable places to erect complexes. Nuclear 
power, on the other hand, is not limited by these conditions. It has been suggested that countries that lack fossil 
fuels and wish to develop heavy industry and agro-industrial complexes could follow the path of nuclear power. 
The concept of a nuclear energy center involves combining a low-cost energy source with industries that require 
large amounts of energy, whether in the form of electricity or steam. Energy costs, among other things, have a 
significant impact on the economics of chemical production[12]. 
In 1972, the International Atomic Energy Agency published a proposal on the possibilities of integrating the 
AIC with nuclear power sources, based on its own research and experience in implementing similar projects in 
India and Puerto Rico. A dual-purpose nuclear power plant becomes the center of the envisioned industrial 
sector. It was assumed that the excess capacity could be absorbed by the existing utility grid and that the excess 
water could be used for agriculture. In addition, some of the effluent from the brine is used to produce sea salt 
and bromine. Brine electrolysis is mainly used to produce hydrochloric acid and caustic soda to treat raw 
seawater prior to desalination, which significantly reduces freshwater inputs for agricultural use. Nitrogen and 
phosphate complex fertilizers were assumed to be used for the needs of the agro-industrial complex itself and for 
sale to other agricultural centers of the country that operate at the expense of other energy sources. Special 
attention was paid to the impact of costs for desalinated water and electricity on the cost of industrial and 
agricultural products. Moreover, by-products that are often disposed of as waste can also be used (wastewater, 
chemical fertilizers). Surplus electricity can be transferred to the grid[12].  
The objective of the study was to prove that the creation of a complex of industries around a nuclear power 
source would favor the economics of large-scale nuclear power plants. The industries selected to form part of an 
industrial or agro-industrial complex will benefit from the low cost of electricity, but at the same time they will be 
favored by many other factors. An undoubted advantage of industrial complexes is that the products of one plant 
can be used as raw materials for the primary or secondary processes of other plants represented in the complex.  
 
6 
  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License 
 

                                    © Agrarian History, № 18, 2024, e-ISSN 2713-2447  
 
For general purposes of the study, the peculiarities of cultivation of ten crops were considered with an error 
on the peculiarities of the regions. The water consumption rate given in the study showed that the efficiency of 
irrigation reduction under such an approach is 80% and yields would increase by 20% in some regions. It was 
concluded that arid tropical and subtropical regions with climates suitable for growing agricultural products 
throughout the year are theoretically capable of growing food at or close to import prices on the world market, 
given the availability of desalinated water produced through the use of nuclear energy[12].  
At the same time, it was noted in the study that such an approach also causes a number of problems in the 
implementation of agro-industrial complex tied to nuclear energy. This is especially true if the complex is built in a 
remote and undeveloped area. Long-term advance planning is required. A study team consisting of a team of 
highly qualified and experienced engineers as project architects, working closely with local technical and financial 
teams, would have to scrutinize all aspects of the economic basis, planning and implementation of the project. A 
large number of people would have to move to the area, thus requiring special attention to infrastructure and 
landscaping.  
Facilities such as housing, roads, transportation services, water supply, sewerage, electricity, hospitals and 
health services, schools, and educational programs[12] should be provided long before the AIC is erected. 
 
III. CONCLUSION 
 
The problems of sustainable development of the agricultural sector are obvious. Non-market factors have a 
significant impact on it. If intensification is understood as a higher output per unit of utilized area of agricultural 
land and reduction of resource intensity of its production (including the so-called "carbon footprint"), then it is 
necessary to systematically assess the contribution of various factors, primarily natural, economic, management 
improvement in the performance of the agro-industrial complex of Russia. This will make it possible to identify 
priorities, optimize state support and improve the efficiency of industry management. 
 
REFERENCE LIST 
 
Alekseev V.V. (2003) Agro-industrial management: A textbook. M.: DeKA . 427 p. (In Russ).  
Bautin V. (2003) To improve innovation activities in the agro-industrial complex. Agro-industrial complex: 
economics, management. Number 1. Pp. 21-25. (In Russ). 
Denin N. (2003) The effectiveness of agro-industrial integration at the microeconomic level. Agro-industrial 
complex: economics, management. Number 10. Pp. 44-51. (In Russ). 
Ershov B.A., Chekmenyova T.G. (2022) The atomic race during the Second World War. Bulletin SocialEconomic and Humanitarian Research. Number 13 (15). Pp. 78-86. (In Engl). 
Ershov B.A., Nebolsin V.A., Solovieva S.R. (2020) Higher education in technical universities of Russia. 7th 
International conference on education and social sciences. Abstracts Proceedings. Pp. 55-58. (In Engl). 
Ershov B.A., Perepelitsyn A., Glazkov E., Volkov I., Volkov S. (2019) Church and state in Russia: 
management issues. 5th International conference on advences in education and social sciences. Abstracts 
Proceedings, e-publication. Pp. 26-29. (In Engl). 
Ershov B.A., Zhdanova T.A., Kashirsky S.N., Monko T. (2020) Education in the university as an important 
factor in the socialization of students in Russia. 6th International Conference on Advances in Education. Abstracts 
Proceedings. Pp. 517-520. (In Engl). 
Klyukach V. A. (2004) Forms and mechanisms of creation of an agro-industrial corporation. Agro-industrial 
complex: economics, management. Number 2. Pp. 33-44. (In Russ). 
7 
  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License 
 

                                    © Agrarian History, № 18, 2024, e-ISSN 2713-2447  
 
Knyagina G.V. (2006) Institutional risks in the agricultural sector, their classification and reduction 
directions. Scientific works of Donetsk University of Science and Technology. Number 4. Pp. 156-160. (In Russ). 
Kurtsev I. (2003) The development of agriculture and the food market of Siberia. Economist. Number 2. Pp. 
70-75. (In Russ). 
Lyububina I.B. (2003) Domestic agro-food complex: current state and development trends. Finance and 
credit. Number 1. Pp. 66-72. (In Russ). 
Minakov I.A. (2007) Cooperation and agro-industrial integration in the agro-industrial complex. Moscow: 
KolosS. 264 p. (In Russ). 
Ognivtsev S.B. (2004) Problems of the agroindustrial complex of Russia impossible ways to solve them. 
The economics of agricultural and processing enterprises. Number 7. Pp. 10-13. (In Russ). 
Romanikhin A.V. (2003) Lobbying of industry interests: the experience of the agro-industrial complex. ECO: 
Economics and organization of industrial production. Number 7. Pp. 17-20. (In Russ). 
Romanova E.V., Perevozchikova L.S., Ershov B.A. (2017) The Lifestyle of the Human Being in the 
Information Society. 3rd International Conference on Advances in Education and Social Sciences Proceedings of 
ADVED.  Pp. 950-954. (In Engl). 
Savushkin M. (2002) Features of marketing in agricultural enterprises. Marketing. Number 4. Pp. 70-74. (In 
Russ). 
Schumpeter I. (1982) Theory of economic development. M.: Progress. 455 p. (In Russ). 
Semenov V. (2003) The agro-industrial complex cannot be stopped like a factory: everything either grows 
or dies here: Problems of the agro-industrial complex. Man and labor. Number 1. Pp. 22-25. (In Russ). 
Stanislavchik N. B. (2003) Foreign direct investment in the real sector of the Russian economy. The 
Foreign Economic Bulletin. Number 5. Pp. 45-54. (In Russ). 
Ushachev I. (2004) The formation of scientific schools in agroeconomical research. The economics of 
agriculture in Russia. Number 6. Pp.14-15. (In Russ). 
Yakovlev A.V. (1997) Regional agricultural system at the present stage of entering the market. Saratov. 
Publishing house of Saratov State University. 320 p. (In Russ). 
Zhiltsov E., Kazakov V. (1994) Prospects for the survival of the social sphere of enterprises. Russian 
Economic Journal. Number 3. 1. Pp. 50-51. (In Russ). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8 
  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License 
 

                                    © Agrarian History, № 18, 2024, e-ISSN 2713-2447  
 
 
РАЗВИТИЕ АГРОПРОМЫШЛЕННОГО КОМПЛЕКСА РОССИИ НА 
СОВРЕМЕННОМ ЭТАПЕ 
 
Ершов Богдан Анатольевич1, Бобровникова Марина Александровна2 
 
1Доктор исторических наук, профессор, академик РАЕ, Воронежский государственный 
технический университет, ул. 20-летия Октября 84, Воронеж, Россия,  
E-mail: bogdan.ershov@yandex.ru 
2Старший преподаватель, Воронежский государственный технический университет, ул. 20-летия 
Октября 84, Воронеж, Россия, E-mail: philosophy.kaf@cchgeu.ru 
 
Аннотация 
 
В статье показано развитие сельского хозяйства в России на современном этапе. Именно сельское 
хозяйство сегодня стабильно является одним из самых быстрорастущих секторов российской экономики. 
Производство отдельных видов продукции уже не первый год демонстрирует исторические рекорды, что 
позволило России стать заметным поставщиком на мировые рынки. Росту сельскохозяйственного сектора 
способствовали 
как 
природные 
факторы 
(географическое 
положение, 
большие 
площади 
сельскохозяйственных угодий, обширные водные ресурсы), так и приток инвестиций и совершенствование 
управления. Введение санкций и государственные меры, направленные на импортозамещение, также 
способствовали развитию сельскохозяйственного производства в стране. Эта тенденция совпала со 
значительным увеличением спроса на основные продукты питания в связи с ростом населения, в первую 
очередь городского, изменением климата и т. д. Следует отметить, что рост спроса способствует 
увеличению долгосрочных рисков нестабильности на мировых рынках.  
Ключевые слова: история, сельское хозяйство, страна, колхоз, земля, культура. 
 
СПИСОК ЛИТЕРАТУРЫ  
 
Alekseev V.V. (2003) Agro-industrial management: A textbook. M.: DeKA . 427 p. (In Russ).  
Bautin V. (2003) To improve innovation activities in the agro-industrial complex. Agro-industrial complex: 
economics, management. Number 1. Pp. 21-25. (In Russ). 
Denin N. (2003) The effectiveness of agro-industrial integration at the microeconomic level. Agro-industrial 
complex: economics, management. Number 10. Pp. 44-51. (In Russ). 
Ershov B.A., Chekmenyova T.G. (2022) The atomic race during the Second World War. Bulletin SocialEconomic and Humanitarian Research. Number 13 (15). Pp. 78-86. (In Engl). 
Ershov B.A., Nebolsin V.A., Solovieva S.R. (2020) Higher education in technical universities of Russia. 7th 
International conference on education and social sciences. Abstracts Proceedings. Pp. 55-58. (In Engl). 
 
 
9 
  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License 
 

                                    © Agrarian History, № 18, 2024, e-ISSN 2713-2447  
 
Ershov B.A., Perepelitsyn A., Glazkov E., Volkov I., Volkov S. (2019) Church and state in Russia: 
management issues. 5th International conference on advences in education and social sciences. Abstracts 
Proceedings, e-publication. Pp. 26-29. (In Engl). 
Ershov B.A., Zhdanova T.A., Kashirsky S.N., Monko T. (2020) Education in the university as an important 
factor in the socialization of students in Russia. 6th International Conference on Advances in Education. Abstracts 
Proceedings. Pp. 517-520. (In Engl). 
Klyukach V. A. (2004) Forms and mechanisms of creation of an agro-industrial corporation. Agro-industrial 
complex: economics, management. Number 2. Pp. 33-44. (In Russ). 
Knyagina G.V. (2006) Institutional risks in the agricultural sector, their classification and reduction 
directions. Scientific works of Donetsk University of Science and Technology. Number 4. Pp. 156-160. (In Russ). 
Kurtsev I. (2003) The development of agriculture and the food market of Siberia. Economist. Number 2. Pp. 
70-75. (In Russ). 
Lyububina I.B. (2003) Domestic agro-food complex: current state and development trends. Finance and 
credit. Number 1. Pp. 66-72. (In Russ). 
Minakov I.A. (2007) Cooperation and agro-industrial integration in the agro-industrial complex. Moscow: 
KolosS. 264 p. (In Russ). 
Ognivtsev S.B. (2004) Problems of the agroindustrial complex of Russia impossible ways to solve them. 
The economics of agricultural and processing enterprises. Number 7. Pp. 10-13. (In Russ). 
Romanikhin A.V. (2003) Lobbying of industry interests: the experience of the agro-industrial complex. ECO: 
Economics and organization of industrial production. Number 7. Pp. 17-20. (In Russ). 
Romanova E.V., Perevozchikova L.S., Ershov B.A. (2017) The Lifestyle of the Human Being in the 
Information Society. 3rd International Conference on Advances in Education and Social Sciences Proceedings of 
ADVED.  Pp. 950-954. (In Engl). 
Savushkin M. (2002) Features of marketing in agricultural enterprises. Marketing. Number 4. Pp. 70-74. (In 
Russ). 
Schumpeter I. (1982) Theory of economic development. M.: Progress. 455 p. (In Russ). 
Semenov V. (2003) The agro-industrial complex cannot be stopped like a factory: everything either grows 
or dies here: Problems of the agro-industrial complex. Man and labor. Number 1. Pp. 22-25. (In Russ). 
Stanislavchik N. B. (2003) Foreign direct investment in the real sector of the Russian economy. The 
Foreign Economic Bulletin. Number 5. Pp. 45-54. (In Russ). 
Ushachev I. (2004) The formation of scientific schools in agroeconomical research. The economics of 
agriculture in Russia. Number 6. Pp.14-15. (In Russ). 
Yakovlev A.V. (1997) Regional agricultural system at the present stage of entering the market. Saratov. 
Publishing house of Saratov State University. 320 p. (In Russ). 
Zhiltsov E., Kazakov V. (1994) Prospects for the survival of the social sphere of enterprises. Russian 
Economic Journal. Number 3. 1. Pp. 50-51. (In Russ). 
 
 
 
10 
  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License 
 

                                    © Agrarian History, № 18, 2024, e-ISSN 2713-2447  
 
 
Journal Website: https://agrarianhistory.com 
 
THE EFFECT OF APPLYING BIOCHAR IN COMBINATION WITH MINERAL 
FERTILIZERS ON THE GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT, AND YIELD OF 
SOYBEAN VARIETIES DT20 AND DT26 
 
Nguyen,Tuan Khoi1, Pham,Thi Thom2 
 
1Faculty of Agronomy, Bac Giang Agriculture and Forestry University, Viet Yen town, Bac Giang 
province, Vietnam, E-mail: khoint@bafu.edu.vn 
2Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment, Bac Giang Agriculture and Forestry University - Viet 
Yen town, Bac Giang province, Vietnam, E-mail: thompt87@wru.vn 
 
Abstract 
 
Biochar is a stable carbonaceous material produced through the pyrolysis of biomass. It is commonly 
utilized to enhance soil functionality, mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and augment crop yields. This study 
aimed to investigate the impact of varying doses of biochar application combined with mineral fertilizers on the 
growth and development of soybeans. The research was conducted in Bac Giang province, situated in northern 
Vietnam. Within the framework of the field experiment, the influence of two key factors, namely fertilizers and 
soybean genotype, was examined. Specifically, the effects of soybean varieties DT20 and DT26 were evaluated 
across replicated plots measuring 40m2 each. The fertilization aspect, encompassing four distinct experimental 
treatments, was scrutinized within plots of 10 m2, allocated within each larger 40 m2 plot. Throughout the soybean 
growth phase, parameters relating to growth, development, and yield were meticulously recorded. Analysis of the 
experimental outcomes revealed that biochar application significantly impacted soybean growth, development, 
and yield, influencing parameters such as leaf area index, nodule mass and quantity, dry matter accumulation 
capability, total fruit count per plant, and soybean seed yield. Furthermore, it was ascertained that the most 
effective approach for integrating mineral fertilizers with biochar for soybean varieties DT20 and DT26 in the 
infertile soils of Bac Giang province was the application of 40 kg N + 120 kg P2O5 + 80 kg K2O + 1 ton of biochar 
per hectare. 
Keywords: biochar, fertilizers, soybeans, Vietnam, DT26 soybeans, DT20 soybeans. 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
 
Vietnam is a country with a high level of agricultural development, upon which the livelihoods of the 
majority of Vietnamese depend. The intensive agricultural practices in Vietnam result in a significant amount of 
agricultural by-products, which serve as suitable raw materials for biochar production. The production of biochar 
from agricultural by-products represents a novel direction in scientific research. On one hand, biochar production 
addresses environmental pollution concerns.  
 
11 
  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License 
 

                                    © Agrarian History, № 18, 2024, e-ISSN 2713-2447  
 
On the other hand, biochar serves as a beneficial product for enhancing soil properties. 
The objective of this study is to ascertain the optimal dosage of mineral fertilizers in conjunction with 
biochar for various new soybean varieties under winter conditions in Bac Giang province. 
The study was conducted from September 2020 to January 2021 in Bac Giang province, Vietnam. Two 
soybean varieties, DT20 and DT26, were used in the study, with planting initiated on September 25, 2020. 
As part of the field experiment, the influence of two factors was examined: fertilizers and soybean varieties. 
The impact of soybean varieties DT20 and DT26 was assessed on plots measuring 40 m2, replicated three times. 
The fertilizer factor, comprising four experimental variants, was investigated on plots measuring 10 m2 within each 
40 m2 plot. The fertilizers utilized included the mineral complex N40P120K80 and biochar derived from rice husks. 
Biochar was applied ten days prior to sowing the seeds (September 15, 2020), while mineral fertilizers were 
applied to the soil after the emergence of 2-3 true leaves on the soybeans. The experimental treatments 
consisted of: fertilizer level 1 (PB1): 40 kg N + 120 kg P2O5 + 80 kg K2O (control without biochar); fertilizer level 2 
(PB2): 40 kg N + 120 kg P2O5 + 80 kg K2O + 0.5 t/ha of biochar; fertilizer level 3 (PB3): 40 kg N + 120 kg P2O5 + 
80 kg K2O + 1 t/ha of biochar; fertilizer level 4 (PB4): 40 kg N + 120 kg P2O5 + 80 kg K2O + 1.5 t/ha of biochar. 
The soil in the study areas exhibited a granulometric composition ranging from sandy loam to loam, with a 
pH range from 5.01 to 5.29, and was classified as gray forest soil. 
Throughout the soybean growing season, various parameters including growth duration, main stem height, 
node count, primary branch count, leaf area, leaf area index, nodulation capacity, and dry matter accumulation at 
different growth stages were assessed. At the conclusion of the soybean growing season, metrics such as total 
fruit count per plant, percentage of mature fruits per plant, ratio of three-seeded fruits, weight of 1000 seeds, and 
actual yield were determined. 
The results of the experiment revealed notable differences in the main stem heights of the two soybean 
varieties under investigation. The greatest main stem height was observed in the PB4 treatment variant (1.5 t/ha 
of biochar), with DT26 reaching 47.9 cm and DT20 reaching 38.18 cm. Across all fertilizer treatments, DT26 
consistently exhibited a greater main stem height compared to DT20. 
The number of branches per plant tended to increase with escalating biochar application from the PB1 to 
PB3 treatment variants, but a further increase in biochar amount (PB4) resulted in a decrease in branch count. 
The growth duration of both soybean varieties, DT26 and DT20, subjected to different fertilizer treatments, 
did not exhibit significant variation. The growth duration ranged from 88 to 92 days for DT20 and from 83 to 87 
days for DT26. 
The leaf area index exhibited a gradual increase with rising fertilizer amounts. Both soybean varieties 
displayed the lowest leaf area index in the PB1 treatment variant and the highest in the PB3 treatment variant. 
However, with increased fertilizer application up to PB4, the leaf area index declined. Across all experimental 
variants, the leaf area index for DT20 consistently showed lower values than for DT26 (at a 95% confidence 
level). 
The accumulation of dry matter progressively increased from the onset of flowering, peaked during 
flowering, and reached its maximum during fruiting. During flowering and fruiting stages, dry matter accumulation 
was minimal in PB1 and maximal in PB3. Conversely, dry matter accumulation tended to decrease in the PB4 
treatment variant. The ability of DT20 to accumulate dry matter was consistently lower than that of DT26 across 
all experimental variants. 
Significant disparities were observed in the number and mass of nodules between the two soybean 
varieties, DT26 and DT20, under various fertilizer treatments. In the PB3 treatment variant, both DT26 and DT20 
exhibited the highest nodule count and volume across all developmental stages, reaching a peak during the 
fruiting phase. However, an increase in biochar application to PB4 led to a reduction in nodule count and volume. 
The yield of both soybean varieties, DT26 and DT20, increased with escalating biochar application. 
Nevertheless, excessively high biochar application (PB4) resulted in decreased yield. 
12 
  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License