Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development COLLABORATION FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (CARD) 002/05 VIE Technical and economic feasibility of applying the Better Management Practices (BMP) to household aquaculture in Vietnam MS 10: Project Validation Report Technical, economic, environmental and social indicators analysis of BMP and non-BMP households in North Center Vietnam Nguyen Xuan Suc1*, Mai Van Ha1, Le Xan1 Elizabeth Petersen2, Virginia Mosk2 and Steven Schilizzi2 Research Institute for Aquaculture No (RIA1), Tu Son, Bac Ninh The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, NEDLANDS WA 6907 * Corresponding Author: nxsuc@yahoo.com, Ph/Fax: +84 38780407 - 2/2009 - The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 The University of Western Australia Acknowledgements To complete this scientific report, the authors received a lot of supports from many persons and/or organizations, the authors would like to thank the following organizations and persons: • Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD), which supported financial for this study • The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 (Vietnam) and The University of Western Australia, which are the main project parties • The Agriculture and Fisheries Extension Centers of Nghe An, Ha Tinh and Thua Thien Hue provinces, which are the project coordinated parties • The units from Hung Hoa (Nghe An), Thach Ha (Ha Tinh) and Vinh Hung (Thua Thien Hue) communes, where project are implementing • The demonstration farms and the households that are respondents of the survey, who were supplied the data for this study List of abbreviations BMP BCR CARD HH or hh MARD NAFIQUAVED Non-BMP PCR TT-Hue VND WSD Better Management Practice Benefit Cost Ratio Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development Household Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development National Fisheries Quality Assurance and Veterinary Directorate Non Better Management Practice Polymerase Chain Reaction Thua Thien Hue Vietnamese Dong White Spot Disease Definitions • • BMP farmer is defined as farmer who was trained on BMP Non-BMP farmer is defined as farmer who was not trained on BMP List of figures Figure Vietnamese provincial map indicating the location of the three project provinces Figure Diagram sketching project area in Hung Hoa - Nghe An province 22 Figure Diagram sketching project area in Thach Ha – Ha Tinh province 25 Figure Diagram sketching project area in Vinh Hung-Thua Thien Hue province 27 Minestrone Report Project Validation The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 The University of Western Australia List of tables Table 1: Pond characteristics Table Pond preparation indicators 10 Table 3: Seed sources 11 Table 4: Seed test and seed quality 12 Table 5: Seed stocking size and stocking density 13 Table 6: Water quality checking and shrimp disease testing 13 Table Harvesting size and productivity 14 Table Hire labor, fertilizers and lime costs 15 Table Shrimp seed and feed cost .16 Table 10 Bio-product and chemical, energy and other costs 17 Table 11 Total cost, total income and benefit from shrimp aquaculture 18 Table 12 Benefit cost ratio (BCR) 19 Table 13 Prices of seed, feed and shrimp product 19 Table 14 Household income sources .21 Table 15: Level of environment parameters in Hung Hoa - Nghe An province .23 Table 16 Result of water and bottom soil parameters in Thach Ha - Ha Tinh province 26 Table 17 Result of water and bottom soil parameters in Vinh Hung – TT Hue province .28 Table 18 The social impact of shrimp culture development (total number of responses is 60 in each group, where is most important) .29 Table 19 Influence of shrimp culture development on other production activities (total number of responses is 60 in each group, where is most important) .30 Table 20 Influence of other activities on shrimp culture production (total number of responses is 60 in each group, where is most important) 30 Table 21 The effect of shrimp culture on the environment (total number of responses is 60 in each group, where is most important) .31 Table 22 The effect from the environment on shrimp culture (total number of responses is 60 in each group, where is most important) 32 Table 23 Constraints to aquaculture/shrimp culture development (total number of responses is 60 in each group, where is most important) 33 Table 24 BMP adoption rate of farmers of parameters of pond preparation 34 Table 25 BMP adoption rate of farmers of parameters of seed selection and stocking 36 Table 26 BMP adoption rate of farmers of parameters of pond water environment and disease management .37 Table 27 BMP adoption rate of farmers of parameters of harvesting and selling product 39 Table 28 BMP adoption rate of farmers of parameters of other issues 40 Table 29: Results of BMP and Non-BMP househould analysis 56 Table 30: Results of BMP and Non-BMP househould analysis (cont.) 57 Table 31: Results of BMP and Non-BMP househould analysis (cont.) 58 Table 32: Percentage of shrimp culture costs of BMP and Non-BMP household (%) 58 Table 33: Percentage of other indicators of BMP and Non-BMP households (%) 58 Minestrone Report Project Validation The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 The University of Western Australia Table of contents Acknowledgements List of abbreviations Definitions List of figures List of tables Table of contents I INTRODUCTION II STUDY METHODOLOGY 2.1 Study location 2.2 Data collection 2.2.1 Socio-economic and technical data 2.2.2 Environmental data 2.3 Data analysis III RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 3.1 COMPARISON OF SHRIMP CULTURE TECHNICAL INDICATORS 3.1.1 Pond characteristics 3.1.2 Pond preparation 3.1.3 Seed selection and seed stocking 11 3.1.3.1 Seed sources 11 3.1.3.2 Seed test and seed quality assessment 11 3.1.3.3 Seed stocking size and stocking density 12 3.1.4 Pond management 13 3.1.5 Shrimp harvesting size and productivity 14 3.2 COMPARISON OF ECONOMIC INDICATORS 15 3.2.1 Pond preparation cost .15 3.2.2 Shrimp seed and feed costs 15 3.2.3 Bio-product, chemical, energy and other costs 16 3.2.4 Total income, total cost and benefit 17 3.2.5 Benefit cost ratio 18 3.2.6 Comparison of price of seed, feed and shrimp product 19 3.2.7 Comparison of household income sources .20 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 22 3.3.1 In Nghe An province .22 3.3.1.1 Diagram of project shrimp culture area in Hung Hoa - Nghe An showing site of water samples collection .22 Minestrone Report Project Validation The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 The University of Western Australia 3.3.1.2 Results of water quality and bottom soil analysis in Hung Hoa - Nghe An .23 3.3.1.3 Issues to be considered for the project sustainability 24 3.3.2 In Ha Tinh province .25 3.3.2.1 Diagram of project shrimp culture area in Thach Ha - Ha Tinh showing site of water samples collection 25 3.3.2.2 Results of water quality and bottom soil analysis in Thach Ha - Ha Tinh 25 3.3.2.3 Issues to be considered for the project sustainability 27 3.3.3 Thua Thien Hue province .27 3.3.3.1 Diagram of project shrimp culture area in Vinh Hung - Thua Thien Hue showing site of water samples collection .27 3.3.3.2 Results of water quality and bottom soil analysis in Vinh Hung – TT Hue .28 3.3.3.3 Issues to be considered for the project sustainability 29 3.4 SOCIAL AND RELATED FACTORS IMPACT ANALYSIS 29 3.4.1 Social impact of shrimp culture development 29 3.4.2 Influence of shrimp culture development on other production activities 30 3.4.3 Influence of other activities on shrimp culture production 30 3.4.4 Effect of shrimp culture on the environment 31 3.4.5 Effect from the environment on shrimp culture 32 3.4.6 Constraints to shrimp culture development 32 3.5 ADOPTION RATE OF TRIAL FARMS AND FARMERS ATTENDED BMP TRAINING COURSES 33 3.5.1 Pond preparation 33 3.5.2 Seed selection and stocking 35 3.5.3 Pond environment and disease management 36 3.5.4 Harvesting and selling products 38 3.5.5 Other issues .39 IV CONCLUSION 41 4.1 Technical indicators 41 4.2 Economic indicators 42 4.3 Environmental indicators 43 4.4 Social and related indicators 44 4.5 BMP adoption rate of households 44 V APPENDISCES 47 5.1 Appendix 1: Questionnaire 47 5.2 Appendix 2: Questionnaire 52 5.3 Appendix 3: Results of data analysis 56 5.4 Appendix 4: BMP protocols 59 Minestrone Report Project Validation The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 The University of Western Australia I INTRODUCTION Household shrimp production is the predominant form of coastal aquaculture in Vietnam In 2006, approximately 459,000 tonnes of shrimp was produced comprising 12% of total fisheries production in Vietnam (USDAFAS 2007) Approximately 34% of shrimp production (158,000 tonnes) was exported at a value of USD 1.46 billion Shrimp production is increasing, with an average of 13% growth experienced each year from 2000 to 2006 (USDAFAS 2007) In recent years, residues and contaminants have been detected in exported shrimp, with devastating results in markets In 2003, five consignments from Thua Thien-Hue province to the European Union were destroyed or returned because of the presence of residues, and a far larger quantity from all north central provinces were similarly treated in 2004 The loss of production, negative environmental and socio-economic impacts, and food safety concerns have provided impetus for the development and extension BMP for household shrimp farms BMPs have been used in many countries to implement the more general principles of responsible shrimp farming (FAO 2005) BMPs are voluntary and are becoming widely used as an important strategy to enhance the marketability of aquaculture product A number of projects have contributed to the development of practical BMPs for shrimp farming in Vietnam (e.g a DANIDA-funded and a NAFIQAVED) These projects have proposed specific BMPs and have conducted some small-scale testing of these BMPs Their findings have not yet been widely disseminated among producers and BMP implementation is still limited The benefits of applying BMP to household farms remain to be fully investigated However, experience in Thailand, India and Bangladesh has shown that small-scale farmers who applied BMPs made gains in efficiency, productivity and quality (SUMA, 2004) This report is one output of a project jointly funded by the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) and the Vietnam Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) through the Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development Programme (CARD) The aim of the report is “to compare the results of BMPs’ farms with non-BMP and Baseline data in projects’ provinces in North Center Vietnam, include Nghe An, Ha Tinh and TT-Hue” This report includes the study methodology (Section 2), Section is the results and discussions which contains the sub-sections that comparison of technique indicators, economic indicators, environmental impacts, social impacts and adoption rates of trials and farmers attended BMP training sources The conclusion presents in Section Report finishes with the appendices which are the semi-structure questionnaires, tables of detail data analysis results and BMP protocols (Section 5) Minestrone Report Project Validation The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 The University of Western Australia II STUDY METHODOLOGY 2.1 Study location This study conducted in North Center Vietnam provinces, where project located, including Nghe An, Ha Tinh and Thua Thien-Hue provinces (Fig.1) Figure Vietnamese provincial map indicating the location of the three project provinces 2.2 Data collection 2.2.1 Socio-economic and technical data Data of socio-economic and cultured techniques were collected though resources: • Directly interview the shrimp households by using semi-structured questionnaires (see appendix and 2), includes groups of households that are BMP and non-BMP farmers In each province, 40 households were interviewed for the results of shrimp production in 2008 (20 respondents for BMP and 20 respondents for non-BMP in each province) • Data was collected from the diary shrimp record book of core demonstration farms of the BMP project • Data from the previous reports of the project such as the BMP protocols, the initial baseline and the farm trial results assessment Minestrone Report Project Validation The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 The University of Western Australia 2.2.2 Environmental data Data and information used in the report was investigated on late Oct and Dec 2008 It includes water (physico-chemical and biological) and sediment parameters In order to compare the impact of the project on shrimp culture environment, sampling points was same as previous time- initial assessment in 2006 (for more detail see Figs 1, 2, and 4) For the running water (river water as a supplying source) sample, a peristaltic pump of two heads was used to grasp water river sample for 30 minutes into a plastic bucket Then a final sample of liter was taken from the well- mixing bucket All samples were kept cool with ice or fixed with chemical(s), and analyzed immediately when reaching Labs On-field measurements of water: • pH: use a portable pH meter (YSI 52) • Salinity: use of refract photo meter (Spec T2000) • Dissolved Oxygen (DO): measured with an oxygen meter (YSI 52) • Temperature (ToC): measured with a digital thermometer (Themo 100) • Transparency (cm): measured with Sechi disk Laboratory analysis: followed Standard Methods (APHA, 1998) • Water sampling and analysis for: COD (mg/l), BOD (mg/l), Alkalinity (mg/l), Fe (mg/l), PO43 P (mg/l), Total Ammonia Nitrogen-TAN (mg/l), Nitrite (mg/l), Sulfide (mg/l), Oil residual (mg/l) • Bottom sediment: pH, C/N ratio and soil structure • Biological indicator: Total Vibrio, Coliform 2.3 Data analysis EXCEL software was used to analysis data The indicators used in this report include percentages, averages, and max The issues to be addressed are: • Comparison of technical indicators, • Comparison of economic indicators, • Assessment of termination environmental impacts, • Assessment of social and related impacts, and • Assessment of adoption rate of trials and farmers attended BMP training sources Minestrone Report Project Validation The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 The University of Western Australia III RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 3.1 COMPARISON OF SHRIMP CULTURE TECHNICAL INDICATORS 3.1.1 Pond characteristics Table presents the analysis results of the major shrimp pond characteristics (pond area and pond depth) of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline of households in Nghe An, Ha Tinh and Thua Thien Hue provinces In general, There was not a significant difference of area and depth of shrimp pond of farm groups of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline data The highest average pond area data was in the non-BMP households (7,652 m2) and the smallest area was in the BMP farms (6,272 m2) Comparison among provinces, the pond area in TT-Hue was largest (8,205 m2) and smallest in Nghe An province (6,099 m2) The pond depth fluctuates between 0.9 and 1.2 m The average of pond depth was 1.1 m Base on BMP protocol, the pond depth at least reaches at m Therefore, the pond depth in study provinces meet this guideline, accept the non-BMP household in Ha Tinh province (0.9 m) Table 1: Pond characteristics Indicator Province Baseline 5,719 6,837 5,740 6,099 Ha Tinh 6,719 7,326 6,100 6,715 TT-Hue 6,653 8,993 8,970 8,205 Average 6,272 7,652 6,930 6,951 Nghe An 1.2 1.1 - 1.2 Ha Tinh 1.1 0.9 - 1.0 TT-Hue 1.1 1.0 - 1.1 Average Pond depth (m) Non-BMP Nghe An Pond area (m2) BMP Average 1.1 1.0 - 1.1 Note: “-“ missing data 3.1.2 Pond preparation Pond preparation include parameters that are the time of pond drying, rental labor, amount of inorganic and lime are presented in Table For the pond drying time, it was fluctuated between 5.9 and 13.3 days The longest drying time was in Nghe An province and at Baseline data and shortest in TT-Hue Comparison among farm groups, the longest of pond drying places at Baseline (9.3 days), follows by BMP household (8.3 days) and non-BMP farmers Thus, the differences of pond drying time were not significant among farm groups and provinces In this study, labour used to prepare and improve pond was hire labours (off-farm labors) Onfarm labors were also used, but it was not include in this The amount of man-day increases Minestrone Report Project Validation The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 The University of Western Australia from 31 (BMP group) to 44 (non-BMP group) and 57 (Baseline group) To compare among provinces, Ha Tinh province used more labors than others (120 man day in Baseline households and 68 man-day in non-BMP farm) This indicates that ponds in Ha Tinh have not completed construction yet, so they spent more labors to prepare In addition, prepared pond labors of Baseline survey data was higher than others group It may be explained that, the baseline data were collected in 2005, after years the pond system has been improved in study locations, so number of man-days was reduced by the time Table Pond preparation indicators Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline Average Nghe An Ha Tinh 9.0 7.6 7.3 8.0 TT-Hue 7.5 5.9 7.2 6.9 8.3 7.4 9.3 8.3 Nghe An 28 34 36 33 Ha Tinh 41 68 102 70 TT-Hue 24 30 34 29 Average 31 44 57 44 32 48 56 45 Ha Tinh 23 39 36 33 TT-Hue 46 82 138 89 Average 32 56 77 55 1,342 1,654 2,182 1,726 Ha Tinh 1,579 1,762 1,913 1,751 TT-Hue 1,386 1,241 1,302 1,310 Average Amount of lime (kg/ha) 10.2 Nghe An Amount of inorganic fertilizer (kg/ha) 13.3 Nghe An Pond prepare time (manday/ha) 8.7 Average Pond drying time (day) 8.5 1,436 1,552 1,728 1,572 The amount of inorganic fertilizer used during pond preparation purposes to develop natural feed (plankton) for shrimp at first stage and water environmental stability In general, the average amount of inorganic fertilizer was 55 kg/ha The fertilizer amount increases from 32 kg/ha of BMP group to 56 kg/ha of non-BMP group and 77 kg/ha of baseline data There was a significant differences of inorganic fertilizer amount among provinces, The highest of inorganic fertilizer was used in TT-Hue province, which was double higher of two other provinces of BMP and non-BMP group and time higher of baseline farms Lime was used to improve the quality of pond bottom and pH stability at preparation stage It is clear that has not noticeable differences of amount of used lime of different farmers groups On average, the amount of lime used for pond preparation reaches at 1.6 tonnes/ha It increased from 1.4 tonnes/ha of BMP to 1.5 tonnes/ha of non-BMP and 1.7 tonnes/ha of baseline households Comparison among provinces shows that TT-Hue seen to used the smallest amount of lime (1.3 tonnes/ha on average), in contrast, farmers in Ha Tinh used the Minestrone Report Project Validation 10 The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 The University of Western Australia Yes [ ] No [ ] How was the pond treated 2.2.5 In the following aspects, have you implemented before releasing stock ? (tick) Quarantine the seed before releasing [ ] Select time for stock released [ ] Domestication of temperature and salinity [ ] 2.2.6 Water supply was treated? Treated [ ] Not treated [ ] If yes, what procedure used 2.2.7 Did you have pond preparation (water color creation) ? Yes [ ] No [ ] -If no, why?: 2.3 Feed and feeding 2.3.1 Please provide the type of food and its price you are using? - Formulated feed: Type of feed Price Total production used 1…………………… ……………… ……………………… 2………………… ……………… ……………………… - Feed produced locally: Type of feed Price Total production used 1…………………… ……………… ……………………… 2………………… ……………… ……………………… 2.3.2 According to you, what should you when feeding as technical requirement (you can tick all the following) Should do: [ ] Feeding closed to pond bands in the first months [ ] Feeding scattering over the pond [ ] Check feed tray after hour feeding [ ] Check the bottom soil where feeding [ ] Check the shrimp digestive system [ ] Considering amount of food in accordance with age Should not do: [ ] Used spoilage feed spoiled [ ] Live feed derived from crustaceans 2.4 Activities and invested cost of shrimp culture 2.4.1 Activities and cost for improvement of pond condition Activities Unit Yes/no Time/crop Amount per In value/crop time (.000) Improve pond Day of labor condition Dry pond Day Lime treatment Kg Organic fertilizer Kg Inorganic fertilizer Kg (Nitrogen) Inorganic fertilizer Kg (Phosphate) Other fertilizer Kg Other activities 2.4.2 Cost of construction in shrimp culture Nr Items Total cost/ha Year used (year) Total cost for construction before depreciation House Pond creation Equipment Other cost Total cost for construction after depreciation 2.4.3 Operation in culture Nr Items Unit Amount Price/unit Total Total operation cost annually 1000đ 1.1 Total cost for capital investment annually 1000đ 1.2 Bank interest %/year 1.3 Cost for repair annually %/year Minestrone Report Project Validation 48 The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 The University of Western Australia 1.4 1.5 1.6 Labor cost Labor Land tax 1000đ Other cost 1000đ Total cost for liability yearly 1000đ Labor cost for crop Labor Energy Litter Formulated feed kg Trash fish as food kg Amount of lime kg Treatment Chemical, medicine kg Seed ind Seed price đ/ind Other cost 1000đ Failure of crop estimated 1000đ 2.4.4 Other operation cost (If any) Besides cost for shrimp culture mentioned above, please provide other associated to the culture Other cost Unit Amount Value 2.4.5 Chemical and bio-product used in shrimp culture? Nr Type Purpose Time used in crop Amount Value 1000) III ENVIRONMENT AND DISEASE MONITORING IN SHRIMP CULTURE 3.1Water supply for shrimp culture 3.1.1 Have you have exchanging water in crop? Yes [ ] No [ ] If yes, How is the period of exchanging? 3.1.2 When exchanging, did you it randomly or selected good water period (tidal) Have selecting [ ] Random - If select, how did you do? - Please provide the way you change water? Bottom drain [ ] Pump 3.1.3 Where was the wastewater discharged? To treatment pond [ ] To water canal which is not the inlet [ ] Directly to inlet without treatment [ ] Other way (please detail) 3.1.4 Total cost for water exchange in crop?…………………… …………… VND/ha 3.2 Environment monitoring 3.2.1 Did you test water quality during crop? 1.Yes [ ] No [ ] If yes, please provide detail Nr Parameter Sampling period Person respond for Salinity pH Oxygen 3.2.3 Did you think the water quality test help to improve in shrimp culture? ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.2.4 Besides testing water quality, were you provided information of water quality from inlet? Did you think, this information help? 2.2.5 What are major constraints in environmental monitoring in shrimp culture? ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.3 Management and disease control 3.3.1 Do you usually have quarantine for your shrimp during crop? 1.Yes [ ] No [ ] Minestrone Report (VND [ ] [ ] Project Validation 49 The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 The University of Western Australia Frequency for disease checking: How many time a crop? Which month is the most infected …… 3.3.2 Did you find any disease? 1.Yes [ ] No [ ] - If yes, what disease? -Please provide any signal of each disease? ……………………………………………………………………………………………… - How did you treat? ………………………………………………… 3.3.3 What was the result after treated? Good result – Shrimp free of disease [ ] Quite good [ ] Cannot solve [ ] - Total loss due to disease last year kg shrimp - Total loss due to disease last year …………………………VND 3.3.4 When did you obtain information on disease outbreak in province, district, commune and areas of which your pond located? Did this information help to prevent disease in your farm? …………………… 3.3.5 What was your action if your shrimp die and diseased shrimp closed to bands Used medicine [ ] Check water quality [ ] Did not leave the death shrimp in to canal [ ] Leave it far away from farm [ ] Sampling normal and diseased shrimp for extension official to check [ ] Exchange water [ ] 3.3.6 When shrimp infected with WSSV, what following action you performed Harvest immediately [ ] Not drain water out [ ] Inform to neighbors and plan for solution for disease out break [ ] Drain water to canal and harvest [ ] Should not inform to anyone [ ] 3.3.7 Did you use chemical or medicine for treatment of your shrimp? Yes [ ] No [ ] - When use chemical or medicine which recipe (protocol) did you follow From extension official [ ] Base on your experience [ ] Follow the description of seller [ ] Other reason…………………………………………………………………………………… 3.3.8 Did you realize the negative impact of the use inhibited (or improperly used) chemicals? Yes [ ] No [ ] When did you learn this………………………………………………………………………………… The negative impact…………………………………………………………………………………… 3.4 Selling Product Who is buying? IV FACTORS INFLUENCING AND BEING INFLUENCING BY SHRIMP CULTURE 4.1 Shrimp culture development may influence other production activities (rank by importance) Positive: [ ] Using product from other activities [ ] Using by-product from other activities [ ] Providing cash as capital for other activities [ ] Other (specify) Negative: [ ] Reducing production area of other activities (agriculture, salt, mangroves) [ ] Reducing water supply [ ] Competing with other production activities in feed/fertilizers use [ ] Reducing time/labour spend for other activities [ ] Other (Specify) 4.2 Other production activities may influence shrimp culture development (rank by importance) Positive: [ ] Using product/by-product from shrimp culture [ ] Using earned cash from shrimp culture for investment [ ] Other (specify) Negative: [ ] Reducing production area of shrimp culture [ ] Reducing water supply for shrimp culture [ ] Competing with shrimp culture in feed/fertilizers use [ ] Reducing time spend for shrimp culture [ ] Reducing labour spend for other activities [ ] Other (Specify) 4.3 Social impact of shrimp culture development (rank by importance) Positive:` [ ] Increasing employment Minestrone Report Project Validation 50 The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 The University of Western Australia [ ] Increasing income for local farmers [ ] Associating with development of local infrastructure (irrigation, transportation,) [ ] Associating with development of other activities (support services, processing) [ ] Others (specify) Negative: [ ] Limiting development of other production [ ] Increasing conflict in land uses and social conflicts [ ] Reducing local traditional jobs [ ] Others (specify) 4.4 Effect of shrimp culture on environment (rank by importance) Positive: [ ] Reducing natural catch/fishing [ ] Others (specify) Negative: [ ] Increasing water pollution [ ] Reducing bio-diversity [ ] Increasing diseases [ ] Other (specify) 4.5 Effect from environment on shrimp culture (rank by importance) Positive: [ ] Suitable weather and climate [ ] Suitable hydrographic feature [ ] High potential aquatic resources suitable for shrimp [ ] Others (specify) Negative: [ ] Storm and flood [ ] Drought [ ] Affected by waste water from agriculture [ ] Affected by waste water from industries [ ] Affected by waste oil from traffic [ ] Affected by waste from construction [ ] Affected by waste social life activities [ ] Affected by domestic wastes [ ] Others (Specify) 4.6 Constraints to aquaculture/shrimp culture development What you regard as the main constraints to aquaculture? (rank by importance] 1- Lacking of capital [ ] 2- Lacking of suitable species [ ] 3- Lacking of culture technique [ ] 4- Lacking of market information [ ] 5- Low shrimp product prices [ ] 6- Poor quality of seed [ ] 7- High shrimp feed prices [ ] 8- Lacking of labour [ ] 9- Lacking of management skill [ ] 10- High fuel prices [ ] 11- Lacking of chemical and medicine information [ ] 12- Other constraints (specify)………………………………………………………………… 4.7 Other sources of household income Apart from income from aquaculture/shrimp as mentioned above, please generally describe other sources household income by year (or by month if it is not fluctuated during the year) Agriculture ……………………………………………………………………… Livestock………………………………………………………………………… Fishing………………………………………………………………………… Aquaculture support services…………………………………………………… Processing……………………………………………………………………… Labour selling…………………………………………………………………… Others (specify)………………………………………………………………… Date of interview:……………………………………… Interviewed by:……………………………………… Minestrone Report Project Validation 51 The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 The University of Western Australia 5.2 Appendix 2: Questionnaire QUESTIONAIRE FOR ADOPTION RATE OF TRIALS AND ATTENDED BMP TRAINING HOUSEHOUS (USED FOR BMP TRIALS AND ATTENDED BMP TRAINING FARMS) Household information Name of household head:………………………………… Address of household……………………………………… PART 1: POND PREPERATION Pond conditions 1.1 Does your pond has separate in and out sluices 1.2 Does your pond bottom lean to out-sluice Yes [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] No [ ] Yes [ Yes [ Yes [ Yes [ Yes [ No [ No [ No [ No [ No [ Pond cleaning 2.1 Did you dry pond bottom 2.2 Did you remove bottom muddy 2.3 Did you plough pond bottom 2.4 Did you check pond bottom sour 2.5 If yes, and bottom is soured, Did you clear bottom ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] Liming 3.1 Did you check pH of pond bottom before liming 3.2 Did you wet pond bottom before liming 3.3 What is rate of Cao/CaCO3 [ ] 2:1 [ ] 1:1 [ ] 1:2 [ Yes [ ] Yes [ ] ] other……… No [ ] No [ ] Yes [ ] Yes [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] No [ ] No [ ] Yes [ ] NPK(3:5:1) ………… No [ ] Others ……… Yes [ ] No [ ] Yes [ ] Yes [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] No [ ] No [ ] Yes [ No [ Water supplying 4.1 Did you process water before supplying 4.2 If yes, Did you use bio-product/chemical to process 4.3 Did you use net bag for water filter before supplying Water color inducting 5.1 Did you conduct pond water color 5.2 What kind of fertilize Did you use 5.3 Quantity of fertilizer (kg) Urea (2:1) …………… Community participating 6.1 Did you participate community in pond preparation 6.2 If yes, what are activities [ ] Deciding crop calendar [ ] Cooperation to did pond preparation [ ] Cooperation to did water supplying [ ] Cooperation to select good water sources [ ] Cooperation to buy materials PART 2: SEED SELECTION AND STOCKING Seed selection 1.1 Did you select certified hatchery to by seed 1.2 Did you come to hatchery to check some days before buying 1.3 Did you measure seed size 1.4 If yes, which size is good seed……….cm Seed testing 2.1 Did you test seed before buying or stocking 2.2 How to test [ ] by perceptible Minestrone Report ] ] Project Validation 52 The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 [ [ [ The University of Western Australia ] by shock formalin ] by shock freshwater ] by PCR using Stocking 3.1 Time to stock [ ] at 5-6 am [ ] at 5-6 pm [ ] at noon [ ] other 3.2 Are seed acclimatized before stocking ( temp and salinity) [ ] pouring pond water onto seed bags [ ] put seed bags into pond water within 10 minutes [ ] slowly adding pond water into seed bags Community participating 4.1 Did you participate which group to select, test and buy seed 4.2 If yes, which activities [ ] Cooperation to select good hatchery [ ] Cooperation to test seed by PCR using [ ] Cooperation to acclimatize seed 4.3 Do you think cooperation is useful Yes [ ] No [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] PART 3: POND, ENVIRONMENT AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT Water quality management 1.1 Did you usually check water transparency Yes [ ] No [ ] 1.2 Do you know what is the suitable water transparency for shrimp culture…………cm 1.3 What did you if transparency is greater than 40 cm [ ] Did nothing [ ] Added water, if yes, how many % of pond water [ ] Fertilized, if yes, how many kg/ha of pond area………… 1.4 What did you if transparency is less than 30 cm [ ] Did nothing [ ] Added water, if yes, how many % of pond water [ ] Fertilized, if yes, how many kg/ha of pond area………… 1.5 Did you use the same instruments for different ponds Yes [ ] No [ ] 1.6 Did you clear the instruments before/after using Yes [ ] No [ ] Paddle-wheel using 2.1 Did you used paddle-wheels or aerations during crop Yes [ ] No [ 2.2 If yes, from month………to month…… (or total used time…….days) 2.3 How many paddle-wheels or aeration you use……… 2.4 Time to use paddle-wheel or aerations [ ] 1-4 weeks of shrimp age: used from…… to……… or total hours……… [ ] 4-6 weeks of shrimp age: used from…… to……… or total hours……… [ ] 7-11 weeks of shrimp age: used from…… to……… or total hours……… [ ] 12-14 weeks of shrimp age: used from…… to……… or total hours……… ] Shrimp feeding 3.1 During first months culture, how did you feed Near pond shores In fixed area Over pond surface 3.2 After months culture, how did you feed Near pond shores In fixed area Over pond surface 3.3 Did you use feeding tray to control feed 3.4 Did you check samples of shrimp to know the fullness feed in gut 3.5 Did you measure feed base on shrimp sizes Minestrone Report Yes [ ] Yes [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] No [ ] No [ ] Project Validation 53 The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 The University of Western Australia Diseases management 4.1 Did you record the unusual of shrimp health 4.2 Did you usually check shrimp shell and gill 4.3 Did you remove bottom algae 4.4 Did you monthly send shrimp sample to check disease by using PCR 4.5 Did you reduce amount of feed when shrimp disease infected 4.6 Did you inform to local officers/technicians when shrimp disease infected 4.7 Did you spread lime/chlorine when shrimp disease infected 4.8 Did you discharge pond water to public when shrimp disease infected 4.9 Did you use medicines to treat shrimp when shrimp disease infected Yes [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] No [ ] Yes [ Yes [ Yes [ Yes [ Yes [ Yes [ No [ No [ No [ No [ No [ No [ ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] Community participating 5.1 Did you participate community in this section 5.2 If yes, which activities [ ] Cooperation to buy materials [ ] Cooperation to check shrimp samples (PCR) [ ] Cooperation to discover shrimp diseases [ ] Cooperation to supervise waste water discharge to public [ ] Cooperation to share experiences on diseases management Yes [ ] No [ ] Yes [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] No [ ] Yes [ No [ PART IV: HARVESTING AND PRESERVATIONS Harvesting and preservations 1.1 How did you harvest [ ] At once harvesting [ ] Partial harvesting 1.2 Did you harvest when or immediately after molting 1.3 Did you clean shrimp after harvesting 1.4 What is shrimp type to sell [ ] Live shrimp [ ] Frozen shrimp 1.5 If frozen, did you use ice ] ] Community participating 2.1 Did you participate group in this phase 2.2 If yes, which activities [ ] Cooperation to harvest shrimp [ ] Cooperation to sell product [ ] Cooperation to negotiate price [ ] Cooperation to select suitable harvesting time Yes [ ] No [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] PART V: OTHER ISSUES Production plan making, data recording and financial analysis 1.1 Before crop, did you make the production planning 1.2 If yes, how to make (compare to project training document) [ ] Very details [ ] Average details [ ] Poor details 1.3 Do you have shrimp record book 1.4 If yes, how to record [ ] Recording detail and regular [ ] Recording basis data only [ ] Recoring not regular 1.5 After each crop, did you financial analysis 1.6 If yes, how to analysis [ ] Very details [ ] Average details [ ] Poor details, basis factors only Minestrone Report Yes [ ] No [ ] Project Validation 54 The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 The University of Western Australia Reason for not apply some BMP criterions 2.1 Did you totally applying BMP 2.2 If not, how many percents did you apply……………% 2.3 Why did not totally apply BMP [ ] Lack of capital [ ] Lack of knowledge [ ] Lack of time [ ] Lack of trust on BMP [ ] Others…………………………… Household petitions 3.1 Do you propose to borrow capital 3.2 Do you propose to support techniques 3.3 If yes, which activities [ ] trainings [ ] documents [ ] field visiting [ ] directly supervising by technicians Date of interview:…………………….…………………… Name of interviewer:………………………………….…… Minestrone Report Project Validation 55 The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 The University of Western Australia 5.3 Appendix 3: Results of data analysis THE DETAIL OF DATA ANALYSIS RESULTS Table 29: Results of BMP and Non-BMP househould analysis Indicators Pond area (m2) Pond depth (m) Time of pond bottom dry (day) Pond preparation (man-day) In-organic fertilizer (kg/ha) Lime quantity (kg/ha) Seed size (day of age) Stocking density (shrimp/m2) Harvesting size (g/shrimp) Productivity (kg/ha) Hiring cost (‘000 VND/ha) Lime and fertilizer cost (‘000 VND/ha) Seed cost (‘000 VND/ha) Provinces Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Minestrone Report Min 2,800 3,400 2,530 2,530 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 12 10 20 15 20 15 688 450 569 450 12 13 15 12 14 15 4 18 15 15 15 868 437 650 437 2,180 490 760 490 1,560 697 485 485 5,104 3,490 4,011 3,490 BMP Average 5,719 6,719 6,653 6,272 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 8.5 9.0 7.5 8.3 28 41 24 31 32 23 46 32 1,342 1,579 1,386 1,436 14.5 15.0 45.3 24.9 18.9 18.5 7.5 15.9 23.7 19.0 20.4 19.7 2,172 1,078 1,483 1,578 6,510 1,749 2,627 3,629 3,143 1,366 2,973 2,494 10,102 8,362 8,089 8,851 Max 9,460 8,040 7,110 9,460 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 16 14 17 17 42 57 43 57 84 90 120 120 1,742 1,856 1,630 1,630 18 18 55 55 25 25 15 25 30 25 30 30 3,253 2,011 2,680 3,253 8,479 5,004 4,780 8,479 5,982 3,264 4,539 5,982 17,320 12,020 13,001 17,320 Min 3,420 2,780 3,100 2,780 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 10 25 20 30 20 568 472 380 380 12 11 15 11 10 12 6 14 10 12 10 455 304 680 304 1,539 866 803 803 1,231 905 730 730 4,102 2,840 3,967 2,840 KoBMP Average 6,837 7,326 8,993 7,652 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.0 8.7 7.6 5.9 7.4 34 68 30 44 48 39 82 56 1,654 1,762 1,241 1,552 14.0 16.0 40.8 23.6 16.7 23.1 7.2 15.7 17.5 16.2 17.7 17.1 1,330 904 1,264 1,166 4,424 1,707 2,734 2,955 3,652 1,280 1,920 2,284 7,865 7,066 8,958 7,963 Max 11,200 9,730 15,000 15,000 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.4 18 20 16 20 48 85 46 85 78 85 128 128 2,750 3,010 2,487 2,750 18 45 60 60 30 30 15 30 25 25 27 27 2,408 2,039 2,116 2,408 6,850 3,098 4,326 6,850 4,876 3,240 2,980 4,876 9,164 8,650 10,280 10,280 Project Validation 56 The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 The University of Western Australia Table 30: Results of BMP and Non-BMP househould analysis (cont.) Indicators Feed cost (‘000 VND/ha) Chemical and bioproduct cost (‘000 VND/ha) Energy cost (‘000 VND/ha) Other cost (‘000 VND/ha) Total cost (‘000 VND/ha) Total income (‘000 VND/ha) Total benefit (‘000 VND/ha) Benefit cost ratio (BCR) Seed price (VND/shrimp) Feed price (‘000 VND/kg) Shrimp product price (‘000 VND/kg) Income from rice culture (‘000 VND/hh) Income from livestock (‘000 VND/hh) Provinces Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Minestrone Report Min BMP Average 59,492 32,082 40,238 43,937 15,603 2,951 1,037 6,530 13,694 4,482 8,780 8,985 3,704 3,662 5,393 4,253 112,249 54,654 69,137 78,680 165,072 70,070 93,429 109,524 52,823 15,416 24,292 30,844 1.47 1.28 1.35 1.37 42.0 45.2 135.4 74.2 19.0 18.5 18.0 18.5 76.1 65.0 63.2 68.1 3,846 2,041 429 2,105 891 1,689 172 917 Max Min KoBMP Average 42,345 28,975 36,821 36,047 6,671 5,406 3,199 5,092 3,230 1,043 1,803 2,026 2,036 1,944 2,734 2,238 70,224 47,423 58,169 58,605 87,780 55,144 74,576 72,500 17,556 7,721 16,407 13,895 1.25 1.16 1.28 1.23 44.3 47.4 148.3 80.0 18.5 18.0 18.0 18.0 65.7 61.1 59.2 62.0 3,872 3,105 360 2,446 2,480 2,109 371 1,653 Max Project Validation 57 The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 The University of Western Australia Table 31: Results of BMP and Non-BMP househould analysis (cont.) Indicators Income from fish capture (‘000 VND/hh) Income from fishery processing (‘000 VND/hh) Income from labor selling (‘000 VND/hh) Income from other sources (‘000 VND/hh) Income from shrimp culture (‘000 VND/hh) Total income of household (‘000 VND/hh) Provinces Min Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average Nghe An Ha Tinh TT-Hue Average BMP Average 0 0 104 412 172 0 1,261 420 5,381 4,820 3,972 4,724 94,405 47,080 62,158 68,693 104,627 56,042 67,992 76,220 Max Min KoBMP Average 704 0 235 368 589 319 0 2,798 933 6,049 6,742 4,327 5,706 60,015 40,398 67,066 55,477 73,488 52,943 74,922 67,118 Max Table 32: Percentage of shrimp culture costs of BMP and Non-BMP household (%) Indicators Hiring labor Fertilizer and lime Seed Feed Chemical and bio-product Energy Other Nghe An 53 14 12 BMP Ha TT Tinh Hue 4 15 15 59 58 13 Aver -age 12 57 11 Nghe An 6 11 60 10 KoBMP Ha TT Tinh Hue 3 15 15 61 63 11 Aver -age 14 61 Table 33: Percentage of other indicators of BMP and Non-BMP households (%) Indicators Checking seed by PCR Seed – good quality Seed – average quality Seed – poor quality Water quality checkinh Shrimp diseases checking Seed – in side province sources Seed – out side province sources Minestrone Report Nghe An 90.0 40.0 46.7 13.3 85 90 77 33 BMP Ha TT Tinh Hue 85.0 100.0 33.6 10.1 42.4 51.9 24.0 38.0 78 93 87 93 56 37 44 63 Aver -age 92.0 27.9 47.0 25.1 87 90 57 47 Nghe An 37.0 30.0 46.7 23.3 43 73 70 30 KoBMP Ha TT Tinh Hue 32.1 46.7 28.8 10.0 50.0 43.3 21.2 46.7 36 37 64 63 52 30 48 79 Aver -age 38.6 22.9 46.7 30.4 42 67 51 52 Project Validation 58 The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 The University of Western Australia 5.4 Appendix 4: BMP protocols Better Management Practices I POND PREPARATION 1.1 Pond condition The area of semi-intensive pond should be from 0.5-0.7 ha, with well-constructed and separated inlet and outlet Pond bottom should slope down to outlet 1.2 Pond cleaning Before PL releasing 25-30 days, draining out pond water and drying pond bottom from 7-10 days Ploughing pond bottom after removing mud top-layer If acidic bottom, repeating water flushing 2-3 times If can not drying pond bottom due to natural condition, wet cleaning method should be applied Using pump to drain pond bottom then using high pressure pump to remove mud top-layer If acidic bottom, repeating water flushing 2-3 times 1.3 Pond liming Use of CaO and CaCO3 in the ratio of 2:1 for disinfection and bottom pH increasing Pond bottom needs wetting and pH checking before lime application in order to experience of lime effectiveness and right application amount Refer to below table as a reference pH bottom soil CaO/ha CaCO3/ha >6 1000 500 5-6 2000 1000 8.5): application of fine sugar 10-12 kg/ha, or drive water through bio-treatment system, or acid acetic produced by fermenting 10-15 kg rice bran in m3 pond water in days (extract supernatant only) 6) Oil film can be eliminated and skimmed using clean cloths or inner part of maize 7) Temperature stratification (mainly caused by heavy rain): draining out top layer water, operating mixing devices, and then Zeolite or Diatomite applied IV HARVESTING AND MARKETING 4.1 Partial harvesting When reaching individual size of 25-30 g If shrimp is not uniform in size use of grading device to catch wanted one 4.2 At once harvesting Drain out water for this method of harvesting Shrimp after smolting should not be experienced with harvesting due to soft shell 4.3 Post-harvesting preservation As soon as harvesting, shrimp have to washed and iced (ice/shrimp ratio is 1/1), transportation to processing unit directly 4.4 Critical role of community responsibility Community based-market can give an advantage in negotiation selling price and choosing right buyer, particularly when free disease shrimp produced Community plays an important role in the production chain, from production preparation to product marketing Minestrone Report Project Validation 62 ... 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 80 45 100 100 75 20 100 100 90 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 80 100 50 100 100 ... Tinh Hue 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 67 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 67 75 75 80 100 50 100 100 75 45 75 65 100 100 100 30 50 100 90 100 25 100 100 20 100 100 100 ... 75 100 70 80 100 100 67 100 100 67 100 100 100 100 40 50 100 35 60 100 50 20 100 100 67 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 33 100 80 75 55 100 40 60 40 80 65 70 65 100 100 100 100 67 100 100 100 100 100