Page 1 PROJECT “ AI” - VIETNAM KEY RESULTS PRESENTAION – 22th FEB 2006 Avian Flu Avian Flu B B aseline aseline S S urvey urvey Backyard P Backyard P oultry oultry Farmers Farmers Of Vietnam Of Vietnam Key R Key R esults Presentation esults Presentation Ha Noi, Ha Noi, 22 22 nd nd February 200 February 200 6 6 Replace with VN Map www.indochinaresearch.com Indochina Research Ltd [email protected]
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Both Male & Female – on par with the general population profile.
Mostly more than 35 years old (80%) – this is in contrast to the general population of these two provinces with only 30% in this same age range.
Nearly two-third households earn less or around 100$ per month – this would indicate that poultry proobably constitutes an important part of the family budget and a valuable source of nutrition.
Educational levels are low – two-third have completed either primary / secondary
From a demographic viewpoint, there are no major differences between Bac Ninh and Tien Giang
S4b, D2, D5, Region, D3
Gender (N=600 )Male 51%
Female 49%
Age (N=600)18-25 3%25-34 15%35-44 26%45-54 33%
55 and over 23%
Household Monthly income (N= 600)less than $50 22%
$50 - $100 37%$101 - $150 22%
More than $150 19%
Education (N=495)
No formal schooling 14%Some primary school 24%
Completed primary school 25%Some secondary school 31%
Vast majority raised less than 20 poultry with the average being 5 head per farm.
Bac Ninh has a more “agricultural” profile than Tien Giang in that the typical farm raises many more breeds of animal...this no doubt contributes to a comparatively higher revenue per month.
Raising poultry is primarly for reasons of Subsistence & Nutrition. 65% in Bac Ninh and 93% in Tien Giang don’t sell poultry.
For those who do sell poultry, sales tend not to be on a regular basis – rather the main motivation is that poultry is sold “when they mature”(67%) and are mostly sold to larger poultry collectors/farms.
S2, Q2a,b, Q3a, MD8, MD13
FARMING ACTIVITIES Bac Ninh (N=300) Tien Giang (N=300)
3 key issues demonstrate that Bac Ninh farmers tend to have better poultry raising practices than farmers in Tien Giang.
It needs to be acknowledged when formulating national campaigns that this imbalance among provinces is likely to be replicated in other parts of country.
Keeping chickens & ducks separateKeeping chickens & ducks separateall the timeall the time
In outbreak areas, past experience seems to have taught a lesson on the importance of seperating chickens to ducks.
For those not separating poultry – the main reason is because of lack of space available to do so – thus the financial reasons seen before are not the only barrier to best practice for AI prevention.
Do you keep chickens separate from ducks all the time? (N=153)
Most important source of AI infoMost important source of AI info
Q16c
Mostly TV has played a major source in making farmers aware of AI.
All other sources have contributed little
It should be noted that some FGDs conducted in these locations confirm that AI leaflets / brochures provide access to very detailed information on AI and have proven to be quite useful.
Perception of Perception of SSeriousness of AI eriousness of AI Poultry Poultry Outbreak .v. Human InfectionOutbreak .v. Human Infection
AI is clearly perceived as a serious threat to human beings as it can potentially cause death and spread among communities.
The vast majority (90%+) take AI quite seriously in regards to poultry...because AI spreads from poultry to human (77% chickens & 65% ducks) AI spreads among poultry and causes massive death (38% chickens & 49% ducks) AI causes financial damage (14% chickens and 16% ducks)
Only those farmers who raise very few poultry view AI with the minimum of worry – as they perceive that financial impact of AI outbreak would be limted – perhaps these smaller farms not seeing the full ramifications of AI.
Respondents state they are taking many precautions to protect themselves and their family from AI – but earlier data (re washing hands & changing clothes before & after handling poultry) raise questions about the frequency of these practices. Further investigation & monitoring is required in these areas
Dealing with AI-suspected poultryDealing with AI-suspected poultry
Q26a
Following the instruction of Animal Health Dept., Killing & burying them or keeping them under surveillance are the key ways AI suspected poultry are dealt with currently.
For poultry culled because of AI…For poultry culled because of AI…Compensation FeedbackCompensation Feedback
Except BN (Non Outbreak Areas) farmers, more than 2 in 3 received compensation after culling of their own poultry.
Additionally there was a common dissatisfaction (seen from FGD conducted in these areas) about the amount of compensation provided.
The fact that some farm decision makers were unaware of whether or not compensation had been made indictates possible confusion in the compensation process.
Overall 67% sample would want compensation – not real difference between outbreak/non outbreak areas – and Interestingly 1-in-4 were unsure
Almost everybody wanted monetary compensation, on average they asked for 17,330VND ($1.1) per bird and were prepared to wait only about 2 weeks before getting compensation.
For those not culled….For those not culled….Compensation ExpecCompensation Expectations (1)tations (1)
Backyard farms are typically very small in nature poultry only sold rarely – with their livestock being a main source of nutrion. Implication – this may make many farms hesitant to any cull poultry without swift & appropriate levels of compensation.
Animals mix freely, foraging for food and farms are constrained by physical size & finances in their ability to pen, house & separate poultry. Implication – the impact of BCC alone on long term behaviour will be limited unless these underlying factors are recognised and initiatives launched to resolve.
Few wash their hands with soap after handling poultry and even fewer change clothes regularly saying such practices are “not necessary”. Implication – continued emphasis the basic AI prevention practices must be core to any communication campaigns.
Awareness & Knowledge
A significant proportion of farms believe that it is possible to recognise birds that are sick with AI - as well as being generally unaware that other birds could get AI. Implication – the educational nature of BCC needs focus in this area.
Knowledge of contracting AI via human contact is well understood but lesser causes of contagion are less understood. Implication - Broadening of the education message may be required so that all possible ways of contagion are covered & emphasised.
Local Animal Health Workers appear to be the main reporting & support mechanism and as such are a distinct medium / channel to backyard farmers in Vietnam and should not be ignored in BCC planning. Implication – the institutional questions regarding the number of AHW (are there enough?) and the support (resources, education, information) provided to them by government need some careful consideration in planning AI prevention.
Most farms can mention only 1 additional practical AI prevention measures that they can do. Implication – farmers may feel that they are limited in what they can do. Thus to prevent relapse to old practices over time – consistent re-inforcement of key AI prevention messages is required
Despite the perceived seriousness of AI, backyard farmers see the risk of their own poultry contracting AI as very low. This sentiment has the following implications.... May not motivate farmers to be continually vigilant & proactive in preventing AI. Current widespread vaccination may be leading to a “false sense of security” Creates a challenge for BCC to emphasise that Vaccination alone does not replace the
need to implement other preventative measures.Compensation Compensation has not been universal, some dissatisfaction exists with the amount of
compensation provided – thus there may be some confusion in the compensation process. Implication – with farm wanting monetary compensation from local authorities the onus is to co-ordinate & facilitate the compensation process as this should assit with backyard farmer compliance in AI prevention activities.