Disease Management and Pangasius Farmers in the
Mekong River Delta
Vietnamese smallholders’ knowledge of disease management and
their willingness to control and assure quality
MSc thesis BA - Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Date:
October 2010
Author:
Mark Strookappe
Student number:
1539957
Supervisors:
Dr. C.H.M. Lutz
Prof. Dr. J. Wijngaard
Abstract
Preface
At 25 October 2009 I came back from my field research in Vietnam. Exactly one year later, I am happy to present the completed research document for the master thesis in Small Business and Entrepreneurship. From time to time it was a real struggle to advance but it was certainly worthwhile! For me, Vietnam was a mind-blowing experience that I will never forget. The country is full of surprises and the people I met were more than hospitable.
A huge thanks to Khoi for being a great guide in Vietnam and for the insights you gave me during the process. Without your help I never would have reached my objectives.
Thank you to the supervisors, of course for all feedback and interest in my work, but also to Clemens for patience and the opportunity to perform my thesis in Vietnam.
Thanks to my colleagues at the Office for International Relations for connecting me to Vietnam.
Greetings and many thanks to all the people met in Vietnam; Thanh for showing me Can Tho, Ben for the conversations and drinks, Khoi’s family for being very hospitable, to all the Easy riders for letting me understand the real Vietnam, and to all the people I forget to mention.
Finally thanks to my family and friends, roomies, and study mates for support; and Ferdi for progressing at the same pace.
The path to choose is undetermined, but I am sure that recent years gave me the knowledge to give direction in life. With my thesis finally finished, I am eager to find new challenges that clear the path lying ahead.
Mark Strookappe
Index
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...8
1. INTRODUCTION ...9
1.1 Pangasius Industry ...9
1.2 Problem definition and research question ... 10
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 14
2.1 Smallholders background... 15
2.2 Farmer knowledge ... 16
2.3 Food Quality Control and Quality Assurance ... 16
2.4 Knowledge and Knowledge Management ... 18
2.5 Knowledge management model ... 19
2.6 Link between Quality Management and Knowledge management ... 21
4.5 Conclusion treatment availability ... 38
5. INSTITUTIONS’ AND EXPERTS’ STANDARDS AND KNOWLEDGE ... 39
5.1 Pangasius diseases ... 39
5.2 Pangasius disease prevention and treatment standards ... 41
5.3 Disease prevention through other variables ... 45
5.4 Conclusion institutions’ and experts’ standards and knowledge ... 48
6. FARMER ORGANISATION AND EXTENSION SYSTEMS ... 49
6.1 Smallholders’ organisation ... 49
6.2 Smallholders’ extension system ... 53
6.3 Conclusion smallholders’ organisation and extension system. ... 56
7. CURRENT FARMERS’ KNOWLEDGE ON PREVENTION AND TREATMENT... 58
7.1 Farmer perception of drug and chemicals use ... 58
7.2 Farmer perception of stocking density ... 59
7.3 Farmer perception of water quality ... 60
7.4 Farmer perception of feed quality ... 61
7.5 Farmer perception of fingerling quality... 62
7.5 Conclusion farmers’ current disease knowledge ... 63
8. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO CLOSE THE QUALITY GAP ... 66
8.1 Better Management practices as a tool to implement PAD standards ... 66
8.2 Cluster approach to implement Better Management Practices ... 71
8.3 Other solutions to close the quality gap ... 72
9. WILLINGNESS TO COOPERATE AND CHANGE THE FARMING SYSTEM ... 74
9.2 Farmers’ willingness to cooperate and change their farming system ... 75
9.3 Conclusion farmers’ willingness to cooperate and change the farming system ... 78
10. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 80
10.1 Conclusion ... 80
10.2 Recommendations ... 84
10.3 Discussion ... 85
REFERENCES ... 86
APPENDIX 1 SMALLHOLDER INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE... 89
List of abbreviations
AFA An Giang Fisheries Association
AUSAID Australian Government Overseas Aid program
BMP Better Management Practices
BNP Baccilary Necrosis of Pangasius
DARD Department of Agricultural and Rural Development
ENACA Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia-Pacific
FA Fishery Association
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
KM Knowledge Management
LFA Local Fishery Association
MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
MOFI Ministry of Fisheries in Vietnam
MRD Mekong River Delta
NAFEC National Aquaculture Extension Center
NAFIQAD National Agro-Fisheries Quality Assurance Department
PAD Pangasius Aquaculture Dialogue
TQM Total Quality Management
VASEP Vietnamese Seafood Promotion Agency
WTO World Trade Organization
1. Introduction
1.1 Pangasius Industry
The Pangasius Hypophthalmus is a catfish which is exported on a large scale by Vietnam. The fish are able to survive in polluted environments and are real omnivores. Pangasius are not caught by fishermen but are produced through aquaculture. Aquaculture, which has been rediscovered in the nineteen sixties (1960s) as a weapon in the fight against hunger and has existed for more than 4.000 years, is the raising of fish, mollusks, crustaceans and plants in either salt or fresh water (Bequette, 1995).
In 2008, Vietnam exported 640.000 tons of Pangasius at a value of USD 1,45 billion. The increase in Pangasius export, compared with 2007, was 48% in value and 66% in quantity. In reaction to the worldwide economic crisis growth slowed down a bit in the last quarter. The total of 2008 export stayed below the earlier forecasts.
Vietnamese Pangasius farmers are suffering from reduced prices. The price of Pangasius is around
USD 0,92 / kilo in the Mekong Delta region. This makes the production uneconomic. As a reaction to this, farmers are refraining from selling fish and restocking their ponds. Most of the breeders of Pangasius suffered from losses in the year 2008, and between 40 to 50 percent of breeding ponds are lying empty in the Mekong Delta region. From here the forecasts of production in 2009 will be half of what it was in the year before. This is in contrast with the official forecast of increase in production to almost 1,5 million tonnes in 2009.
Source: www.globefish.org
Figure 1.1 Exports Pangasius: Vietnam
23 224,3 118,2 74,4 34 18,5 24,2 23,2 26,6 97,6 48,7 6,3 14,3 21,2 18,2 48,7 33,8 172,8 0 50 100 150 200 250
EU Russia Ukraine Asia China & HK USA Mexico Egypt Others
*1000 tonnes
The EU is the main export market for Pangasius from Vietnam, with one third of imports in quantity and 40% in value terms. Within the EU, Spain is the biggest market. Demand usually increases every year. However, 2008 was a difficult year due to the economic downfall. (www.globefish.org).
1.2 Problem definition and research question
Pangasius farm smallholders in Vietnam have to deal with a lot of problems in their production process. Disease of the Pangasius is one of those problems and is a result from bad water management, feeding and other environmental problems, like upstream water pollution.
Many farmers use cocktails of antibiotics to heal the fish or as a preventive measure (Khoi et al., 2008). After the discovery of antibiotics’ disease fighting and growth promoting capabilities fish farmers began using such drugs in animal feeds. The use of antibiotics as a preventive measure is forbidden in the European Union and may have health risks for consumers of Pangasius fillet, but on the other hand it reduces stock loss by smallholder grow-out ponds in the Pangasius sector.
Antibiotic resistance is a serious problem for human global health and therefore antibiotics should be used in a responsible way. Both consumers and producers of aquacultural products may suffer from increased drug resistance of pathogens (Hernández Serrano, 2005). Research in the catfish industry showed that antibiotic resistance among fish indigenous bacteria is of high concern in catfish aquaculture in the Mekong River Delta (Sarter et. al, 2006; van Leeuwen et al. 2009). In translation, bacteria that are causing Pangasius diseases are becoming more resistant against antibiotics. Irresponsible use of antibiotics to treat or prevent diseases is becoming more and more unsustainable and smallholders need better disease management.
Furthermore, the quality of the imported fish is measured by the European Union, the biggest importer of Pangasius (www.globefish.org). The measuring has resulted in many batches of fish which were rejected. This has lead to big losses suffered by exporters of Pangasius and the implementation of expensive quality management systems in order to assure the quality of new batches. Pangasius processors and exporters do not want to risk rejected batches and prefer to do business with farms that can assure quality by means of certification. Unfortunately, only the larger farmers have the financial capital to invest in quality systems.
inefficient disease treatment and prevention, are important problems which have to be solved (Umesh et al., 2009; Sriwichailamphan, 2007).
Vietnam has a fishery sector which is prioritized for development. Not only is it important for national income through export but also as an activity which reduces poverty among Vietnam’s large rural population. Several million people depend on aquaculture, if not firsthand, indirectly. Estimates are there is an approximate labour force of three million people employed in the fishery sector. In the Mekong River Delta, Pangasius farming is one of those livelihoods providing activities for rural population (Tung et al., 2004). If the small farmers disappear and only the large will survive, this would lead to a loss in employment and less profits for rural population. However, in my opinion, the survival of small farms alone is not enough to achieve local welfare. Along with the survival of small farms the farmers have to be aware that they have to be sustainable on the long term and be conscious of their environment. Only then local welfare has the most chances to improve.
This research will focus on the current disease prevention and treatment knowledge of small Pangasius farming and the farmers’ willingness to implement new farming systems to manage diseases and take a needed step in assuring their treatment and prevention quality. The focus area is Chau Phu region in the An Giang province, which has the best developed Pangasius industry in the Mekong River Delta in Vietnam at this moment.
There has already been research on quality management to prevent diseases, drug use, water management and the quality improvement of Pangasius farming (Khoi, 2010; Sietsma, 2007). There are rules and obligations for farmers in disease prevention and treatment of Pangasius. Many of the policies set by institutions and government focus on the control of quality. The traceability of the antibiotics and origin of fingerlings and feeds are weak. This makes quality guarantee very difficult. Also, most small scale Pangasius farmers do not have a high education and mainly learn by trial and error (Khoi et al., 2008). Although there are no significant disease differences between large and small firms, poorer farms still tend to have more risks due to lack of skill and knowledge, a poor network, and ability to purchase high quality inputs (Nguyen, Catfish 2007). Diseases have a major cost implication due to the price of antibiotics, and smallholders do not have the scale advantages for input which reduces the costs, nor do they have credit agreements with suppliers (Tung et al., 2004).
In Vietnam the research target groups are two types of farmers. These are (1) the independent farmers and (2) members of the Fishery Association (FA). The independent farmers and members of the Fishery Association are both small and medium scale (Khoi et al., 2008). Collective action may be a possibility to strengthen the position of small scale farmers. Although the FA members are members of an official organisation that fights for better farming conditions, it is not said that they act more as a collective than the independent farmers. Membership of an organisation could have more variables than the opportunity to cooperate more intensively. Therefore it is interesting to examine what the differences between the two groups are in knowledge of disease treatment (and other variables like treatment availability, extension systems and organisation). These differences could strengthen the assumption that the sharing of knowledge and resources actually improves willingness of farmers to change their farming systems.
The focus of this paper is integrated in the following research question.
Do the Pangasius smallholders have enough knowledge, and are they willing, to improve the quality of disease treatment and prevention to reach the current quality standards?
The research question will be answered with the help of a conceptual model. In the conceptual model different sub questions are included which will help answer the research question.
There is proof that external factors have a large influence in the quality of disease treatment and prevention. These factors have been distinguished in articles of Khoi (2010) and are used for this research. The costs and availability of drugs, the availability of the right diagnosis instruments, and the quality of fingerlings, feed and water are all examples of factors which affect the Pangasius health. The last three factors have already been discussed by Khoi (2010) but the availability of drugs and diagnosing instruments needed for treating diseased have not been discussed yet. This clarifies the first sub question.
Sub question 1:
Is there a sufficient availability of drugs and diagnosis instruments for smallholders to perform the right disease treatment in the An Giang province?
Secondly, one needs to find out what knowledge farmers need to possess for effective disease prevention and treatment. If there is a gap between needed and current knowledge, this sub question is necessary to make it visible.
Sub question 2:
Which knowledge is needed for effective disease treatment and prevention?
is disseminated amongst the farmers. This is vital in order to identify whether there are problems with the dissemination of knowledge and the information that is available for smallholders.
Sub question 3:
Where is the knowledge of disease treatment and prevention stored and how is this knowledge disseminated between Independent and FA farmers?
After the first three sub questions have been answered the gap between needed knowledge and current knowledge can be distinguished by measuring the current knowledge of smallholders.
Sub question 4:
Is there a gap between the independent and FA farmers’ current knowledge and the needed knowledge to effectively treat and prevent diseases?
When there is found to be a gap between farmers’ current knowledge and needed knowledge, possible solutions will have to be suggested to close this gap. To do so one needs to know which method is the best possible solution. Therefore the following sub question will have to be answered.
Sub question 5:
Which potential solutions can be used to solve the gap between farmers’ current knowledge and needed knowledge?
When knowledge of disease treatment is present among farmers, this does not necessarily have to result in awareness that smallholder farming practices have to change to survive in the increasingly stringent export market. Other factors can play a role for smallholders when not choosing for the best possible disease treatment and prevention. Mapping the farmers’ and stakeholders’ knowledge could give an insight in how to create awareness and motivate smallholders in order to close the quality gap. Without willingness it is near impossible to change the farming systems. The final sub question that will be answered is the following.
Sub question 6:
2. Theoretical background
Khoi (2010, chapter 4) developed a conceptual model that offers an integrative approach to the study of food quality management (see figure 2). Quality management is studied from a chain perspective. This research focuses on the smallholders, but to understand their position it is necessary to describe the way quality management is executed throughout the chain. The framework consists of three key dimensions namely quality control, quality assurance and business relationships between the chain actors. The arrow reflects the type of relationship between these actors. The chain actors are input suppliers like hatcheries, veterinary drug and medicine suppliers, feed wholesalers, small farmers, traders and processing or export firms. Khoi stresses the importance of small farmers’ awareness and willingness to close the quality gaps between quality control at farm level and quality assurance at chain level.
This research focuses only on a part of smallholders’ quality control, namely on the disease and drug control and the farmers’ willingness to close this quality gap between the current and needed quality assurance on the supply chain level. However, it is difficult to discuss this without mentioning who the other chain actors are and how the smallholders are influenced by these actors. Therefore the conceptual model of Khoi is shown in this research.
The focus of the research lies on quality management of disease prevention and treatment of the Pangasius smallholders as well as their willingness to close the quality management gap. In the introduction it has been assumed that product quality is positively influenced by the degree of the farmers’ disease and farming knowledge. Therefore, it is important to stress the value of knowledge of quality management more in depth in the next section.
Figure 2.1 Model of Khoi (2010)
2.1 Smallholders background
2.2 Farmer knowledge
The knowledge of small farmers with limited resources should not be underestimated. For example, current agricultural disciplines seem unable to handle the heterogenic characteristics of rain fed farming under demographic pressure. Heterogeneity does often impede universal solutions for farming issues. Scientists tend to prefer universal knowledge over location-specific knowledge (Brouwers, 1993). According to Brouwers (1993) rural people’s knowledge can be characterised as integrated across disciplines. A technical aspect as well as a social and cultural aspect seems essential in rural people’s knowledge. Scientists tend to overstress general universal knowledge compared to location-specific knowledge. However, rural knowledge alone does not suffice in solving the present problems farmers face. This has been determined by rural people themselves. Rural farmers often experiment, which strengthens the observation mentioned before (Van der Ploeg, 1991; in Brouwers, 1993). Examples of more problematic aspects of rural people’s knowledge are (Swift, 1979; in Brouwers, 1993):
The distribution of knowledge within and across communities is uneven.
The ability of individuals to generate, implement and disseminate knowledge varies greatly.
The transfer and use of information is sometimes constraint because rural people’s knowledge
is often stored in heads of the practitioners and knowledge is passed on orally.
Because it is not organised on purpose, rural people’s knowledge might not change fast
enough.
Interesting to know is whether the two different groups of Pangasius farmers (independent and FA) also face these kind of problems and if they have a lot of rural expertise about fish disease treatment. Furthermore it is interesting see if the local rural knowledge is easy to adapt to or match current treatment and prevention standards for export products. Brouwers (1993) mentioned rural knowledge systems that support knowledge processes. Knowledge systems might be individuals as well as organisations who share one or more qualities. You can think of a network in which people or organisations believe that they are members of a group or system, developing emergent qualities.
2.3 Food Quality Control and Quality Assurance
In the last half of the twentieth century the complexity of (agro-) food supply chains has increased considerably. Raw materials are imported from everywhere in the world, the competition between markets is increasing, and there are more production techniques which are being used in the food supply chain (Khoi et al., 2010). In addition to this, consumers are more concerned of the environment and demand food safety. Therefore standards for food safety and sustainability have become more stringent in the last decade (Umesh et al., 2009). Hence, food quality management has become increasingly important in the agro-food sector (Spiegel et al., 2003).
decisions performed in an organisation to produce and maintain a product with a desired quality level at minimal cost. The food quality management includes quality strategy and policy, quality design, quality control, quality assurance and quality improvement (Luning et al., 2006; in Khoi, 2010). In this research the focus lies on quality control and quality assurance. Smallholders and the Vietnamese government have little or no influence in export quality policies and quality design. The definition of Khoi (2010) is used to describe quality management.
The implementation of quality management has evolved from inspection to quality control at first, and then to quality assurance. Finally, the concept of Total Quality Management was introduced (TQM) (Deming, 1982; Juran, 1989; Dale and Plunkett, 1990; Dalen 1996; Zhang, 1997; cited in Khoi, 2010). Currently food quality management is applied by different quality systems and combinations thereof. Quality systems in the Vietnamese Pangasius industry are, for example, the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP), Safe Quality Food (SQF), Better Management Practices (BMP), the ISO standards and TQM (Luning et al., 2006; in Khoi, 2010).
TQM is used to manage all aspects of business (Zhang, 1997). It is a way of thinking that long term success depends on a uniform and firm wide commitment to quality, which includes all activities that a firm carries out. TQM has the potential to enrich quality management through more motivational and participation-oriented approaches, but is still not widely applied in the food industry (Pfeifer, 2002; Kramer and Briel, 2002; Hendriks and Sonnemans, 2002 in Khoi, 2010). Although TQM practices are assumed to provide the best possible conditions to meet or exceed the need and expectations of customers, no success stories are yet known in the food industry (Luning et al. 2006).
Quality control is a basic activity of food quality management, which has as an objective keeping human and technological processes and the product itself between certain acceptable tolerances (Luning and Marcellis, 2007). Implementing quality control means units of measurements have to be established for gathering data about the processes, establishing quality standards, measuring the quality or performance, identifying the gaps between standards and actual performance, and taking action in order to close the quality gap and improve the quality in the next batch of products. Improvement is a form of control in the control process, where attention is paid to structural causes and solutions (Khoi, 2010)
the input becomes traceable. Quality control is embedded in quality assurance, because control activities form the basis of assurance systems. For instance, in the HACCP quality system control points are used to guarantee food safety. The implementation of quality assurance systems in the agri-food farms is challenging due to the earlier mentioned characteristics of the agri-food sector. Raw food is often subject to rapid decay, and the heterogeneity of products with respect to quality attributes, such as the presence of antibiotics and other contaminants, the size and the colour of the product are difficult to control. This is because all these issues depend on seasonal variables (Khoi, 2010). Moreover, due to the small size of most farmers in the Pangasius industry, knowledge, willingness and technology to control quality are often absent (Khoi, 2008).
2.4 Knowledge and Knowledge Management
The concept of knowledge is a complex one. The differences between data, information and knowledge are often confusing. Data is content that is directly observable, for example, a fact or listings of the times and locations of markets to buy raw materials. Information is content that represents analyzed data. For instance, the location of a market is held far away, which makes it difficult to go for a farmer, so they have to go to another market closer to the farm. Knowledge is different from either of these. It is a more subjective way of knowing, and it is typically based on experiential or individual values, experiences, and perceptions. People use knowledge when they do not base their decisions on the available information only, but also on experiences from the past, intuition, ethic, and so on. For example: somebody knows that there are many taxis in town, but because it is a holiday many people want to travel by taxi. Based on an earlier experience the person will travel by train instead of taxi (Dalkir, 2005).
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) described the difference between tacit and explicit knowledge. The tacit aspects of knowledge are the most difficult to disseminate and these aspects are often referred to as know-how. This form of knowledge can only be passed on by training or obtained from personal experience. The understanding of language is a form of knowledge which cannot be learned from grammar rules alone and it takes more know-how to catch a fish than reading a manual only. Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, is the kind of knowledge which is or can be codified. It can be readily passed on to others and can be stored. The most common examples are procedures, manuals and documents. To conclude, knowledge is highly contextual and the result of learning, experience, adaptation, sharing information, and so on (Brouwers, 1993). Brouwers (1993) states that the knowledge in a rural peoples’ group or community is the product of a long succession of experimenting to resolve agricultural, environmental, and social problems in a particular socio-cultural and agro-ecological context.
knowledge management. The mission for second generation knowledge management is the creation of new knowledge by people in organisations (McElroy, 2003).
In this research we only focus on the first generation of knowledge management. This is still the most applied form of knowledge management by organisations and businesses.
KM consists of three variables. These are (1) knowledge acquisition and application, (2) knowledge capture and/or creation and (3) knowledge sharing and dissemination (McElroy, 2003; Dalkir, 2005). For individual farmers the knowledge acquisition and application is very important, while organisations like the Fishery Association (FA) and governmental institutions like the DARD might have to focus more on the capturing of knowledge and the sharing of it with its members. Other possibilities of sharing are between farmers themselves. If there is a local knowledge sharing culture between farmers more farmers are able to obtain the right disease treatment and/or prevention possibilities. The creation of knowledge is done by individuals in universities and research centers but knowledge is also discovered through the experimenting by local farmers (e.g. Brouwers, 1993). These institutions have to disseminate the knowledge to the FA and farmers in order to keep fish disease prevention and treatment up to date.
In literature KM is split into two different approaches: the Humanistic approach and the Information Technology (IT) approach. The Humanistic approach believes that knowledge is the result of sharing largely tacit information and data between individuals, groups and organisations. This is done through training, workshops and the gaining of experience. The IT approach on the other hand believes that KM is more about the collection, storage, codification and the spread and application of information and data in an efficient manner (Gloet and Berrel, 2003). Both approaches are important for farmers to use because logically farmers need both practical and theoretical knowledge to effectively prevent and treat diseases.
2.5 Knowledge management model
and it is used unaware in work and daily life. These are, for example, the memory, habits, skills and procedural knowledge of individuals (in this case: farmers) which are not often codified.
To conclude, Wiig (1993) has set up a hierarchy of knowledge that consists of public, shared and personal knowledge. This hierarchy is shown in Figure 2.2. Although we agree with Wiig that habits and skills are hard to access, we believe that procedural knowledge can be codified to make it accessible for others. However, if the farmer has made a manual it is still unknown whether he wants to share this manual with others. Therefore the personal knowledge remains inaccessible for most stakeholders.
Figure 2.2 Wiig’s Hierarchy of Knowledge Forms
In addition to the three forms of knowledge Wiig (1993) describes four types of knowledge: factual, conceptual, expectational and methodological knowledge. Factual knowledge deals with data and causal chains, measurements, and readings. These are typically directly observable and verifiable content. Conceptual knowledge involves systems, concepts and perspectives (e.g. concept of a quality control system, expectations of the market). Expectational knowledge concerns judgments, hypotheses and expectations held by people who have this knowledge. Examples of this are preferences, intuition, and heuristics that we make use of in our decision making (rules of thumb). Finally, methodological knowledge deals with reasoning, strategies, decision-making methods and other techniques. Examples of this are trial and error issues and forecasting based on earlier experiences.
The three forms of knowledge and the four types of knowledge can be combined to construct a KM matrix. This matrix forms the basis of the Wiig KM model (Wiig, 1993). In figure 2.3 the Wiig KM model is outlined with some examples.
Habits, Skills , Procedural knowledge Isolated facts, Recent memory Library books, Literature, Manuals Products, Technologies Knowledge Personal Shared Public
Passive Passive Passive Active
Coded Accessible Coded Inaccessible Uncoded Inaccessible
Figure 2.3 the Wiig KM matrix
Form of Knowledge
Type of Knowledge
Factual Conceptual Expectational Methodological Public Measurement, reading Stability, balance When supply
exceeds demand, price drops
Look for temperatures outside the norm
Shared Forecast analysis Market is hot A little water in the mix is okay
Check for past failures
Personal The “right” size, colour Company has a good track record
Intuition that the analyst has it wrong
What is the recent trend?
Source: Dalkir, 2005
The strength of the Wiig KM model is that the organised approach to categorizing the different types of knowledge remains a powerful theoretical model of KM. The Wiig model is very pragmatic and can be easily integrated into any of the other KM approaches. The model enables practitioners to adopt a more detailed or refined approach to managing knowledge based on the type of knowledge but goes beyond the simple tacit/explicit dichotomy of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). Its major shortcoming is the scarcity of research and/or practical experience involving the implementation of the model (Dalkir, 2005). In this research the model is applied to map as a tool to map knowledge and see how knowledge between actors can overlap and can also be independent. Knowledge from different actors can be combined to create a powerful solution to improve quality.
2.6 Link between Quality Management and Knowledge management
In this section I will explain the link between (total) quality management and KM. Stewart and Waddel (2008) proposed that there is a gap in the field of KM. This is due to the different KM approaches and the differences between the tacit and explicit knowledge. Stewart and Waddel (2008) suggested that quality management systems may help to close the gap by providing structure around which knowledge will be able to captured, codified, stored and spread throughout the organisation. However, they suggested that TQM is a tool for successful KM but does not mention the use of KM to improve the quality management. Nevertheless Thang and Tong (2007) stress that a knowledge management system is important for an organisation to implement quality systems (ISO 9001 in the case of their research). They suggest that firstly, a knowledge management system has to be implemented, and secondly, that after certification, the sharing, storing and acquiring or creating of knowledge is of importance to the organisation. Such KM systems get the knowledge out of the organisation, groups and individuals, and they can be used to improve the quality system.
disseminates knowledge throughout the farmer organisations, and efficient feedback systems that are able to visualize the knowledge of farmers.
Through the dissemination of knowledge among Pangasius farmers the farmers are likely more able to improve the actual performance of disease prevention and treatment, because they become more aware of the quality standards (e.g. in Jalan et al., 2003). By gaining knowledge, farmers improve their ability to identify gaps between standards and actual performance. Then farmers can take action in order to close the quality gap, if they see the benefits of an improvement in quality.
2.7 Conceptual framework
The conceptual framework (figure 2.4) is used as a tool for answering the research question and sub questions. The models` concepts will be elaborated and discussed in the results. By doing this answers to the research questions can be presented in the conclusion. The framework tries to stress the importance of farmers’ knowledge and the knowledge dissemination in relation to the awareness and willingness of smallholders to close the quality gap.
Out of the theory discussed above it is hypothesized that the smallholder knowledge of disease prevention and treatment has a positive relation to the awareness and willingness of smallholders to close the quality gap.
However, farmers’ knowledge is only one factor that could contribute to a better quality among disease treatment and prevention. Firstly, drugs’ availability and the right diagnosing instruments are needed to effectively prevent and reduce disease impact. Next to that, the costs of drugs and diagnosis are of importance. When the right drugs are unavailable or too costly this would significantly reduce the quality of the treatment. Moreover, if a diagnosis is inaccurate this can lead to a wrong drug prescription which could affect quality. Furthermore, the availability and use of illegal drugs affect quality of the product. A laboratory can provide farmers with the right diagnosis. The question is, however, whether there are sufficient laboratories available for small farmers and whether laboratory costs do not raise the production price for small farmers. Also, time is of importance. If the amount of days needed for diagnosis is high it would affect the utility for farmers to use the laboratory as a diagnosing tool. Treatment availability will be discussed in chapter 4.
treatment and prevention have the ability to access the knowledge of the experts and institutions. A lot of this knowledge is stored in books, articles, papers and is relatively accessible.
The smallholders’ organization is an important third factor which affects smallholders’ knowledge in general. A solid smallholders’ organisation is more likely to be able to disseminate knowledge among farmers and could create scale advantages or other forms of cooperation between farmers. The smallholders’ organization and extension structure is seen as a place where shared knowledge is located. Extension systems contain knowledge that is only accessible by the farmers who get extension, and farmer organisations have expertise about technologies that could be shared with other farmers. A structured farmers’ organisation makes it easier to reach smallholders by governments’ extension systems. In order to disseminate the needed standards among farmers the extension structure has to be organised in such a way that every smallholder has the possibility to gain the needed knowledge. Chapter 6 will discuss the smallholders’ organisation (Fishery Association and independent farmer groups) and extension structure.
The first three concepts all affect the smallholders’ knowledge of disease treatment and prevention and, hence, affect quality of the smallholders’ product. Discussing these concepts will likely give a prospect of the smallholders’ knowledge. Nevertheless, we will also discuss the knowledge of smallholders. There is a real possibility that farmers create their own knowledge as mentioned by Brouwers (1993). We see this as the personal knowledge Wiig (1993) mentioned in his hierarchy of knowledge forms. The knowledge is often stored in the farmers’ minds and, therefore, it is uncoded and hard to access.
Together with treatment and prevention knowledge, the keeping of track records will also be discussed. To assure quality it is needed to keep track records of drug use. Keeping track records of drug use is needed to improve farmers’ treatment management and the data obtained can be used to increase smallholders’ treatment and prevention knowledge. Track records are needed because only then stakeholders can trace what kind of drugs Pangasius have had in the past and to assure to the customer that drugs treatment is properly managed. Quality differences according to the type of farmer are to be expected. Therefore we distinguish between members of the Fishery Association and independent farmers who are not members of an organisation.
We will discuss the farmers’ knowledge and the quality gap in chapter 7. Current control and quality assurance will be compared to the needed control and quality assurance by means of the developed standards. Moving on from here we will discuss if there is a gap between needed and current quality of Pangasius prevention and treatment by smallholders.
Ch.7 Smallholders’ knowledge (Personal knowledge) - Prevention - Treatment - Track records Ch.4 Treatment availability - drug/diagnosis costs - drug/ diagnosing instruments availability
- Time for diagnosis
Ch.6 Organisation and extension systems (Shared knowledge) - AFA - Extension structure Ch. 9 Smallholders awareness and willingness to close the quality gap
Ch.7 Smallholder quality control and assurance of disease prevention and treatment
Ch.5 Experts and institutions’ standards and knowledge (Public knowledge)
- Pangasius diseases - Prevention
- Treatment
Ch.8 Possible solution to close the quality gap
We can presume that smallholders’ knowledge has a positive relation to smallholders’ awareness and willingness to close the quality gap based on the research mentioned earlier by Jalan et al. (2003). More knowledge leads to more awareness which creates willingness to change. In Chapter 9 we will discuss if farmers are aware and have the willingness to change their farming practices in order to close the quality gap.
The conclusion consists of two parts. Firstly it will present the answer of the research question, which consists of the key aspects discussed in the results. Secondly, the conclusion will present the Wiig knowledge management matrix to show how public, shared and personal knowledge intertwine or divide stakeholders and smallholders’ relations. It will also give a nice overview of the key aspects to be managed in order to implement change.
In essence, the concept shows a dynamic model, because quality standards will change when time passes. So when farmers treat their fish with their current knowledge and resources, there is a good chance this might not be sufficient in the future. Therefore, the model is not perceived as a static whole but more as a dynamic process.
3. Methodology
This chapter will present the methodology. We will explain how the research will be performed and what methodological difficulties the research will face.
3.1 Area of research
The south of Vietnam is part of the Mekong delta. This river delta also crosses the countries Laos and Cambodia. The research will be performed in two villages in the province of An Giang. An Giang province lies next to the border with Cambodia and the capital city is Long Xuyen. It is the province with the best developed catfish industry of Vietnam. The villages are located in the local region of Chau Phu, which is located about forty kilometers northwest of Long Xuyen City. Chau Phu is primarily a rural district with twelve municipalities and one district town Cai Dau. The Chau Phu region is suitable for research because many early adopters of Pangasius pond farming live in this region and there are many smallholders present who have been practicing their profession in this area for over a decade (Schut, 2009). The two villages visited for research are Vinh Thanh Trung and Thanh My Tai Fa. The neighbour province is Can Tho, another important province for fish farming activities.
The university of Can Tho city was used as a starting point for the research. Can Tho is located about one hundred kilometres south of Ho Chi Minh City (former Saigon). Can Tho University provides expertise on aquaculture and English speaking Vietnamese who can assist with data collection and interviews as a translator.
3.2 Procedure
The research has been divided in two parts. First we have performed desk research in the Netherlands. Both the internet and the reports of Khoi (2010) were used to acquire enough information to set up an interview questionnaire. Further information has been gathered about the culture and research constraints of Vietnam. This has been done by phone and e-mail contact with students who went to Vietnam to do research before.
samples tests is often encountered in business research (Cooper and Schindler, 2003 p.539) and is a way to ensure data validity or to find differences between groups. The sample group exists of fifty Fishery Association members and fifty independent farmers as well.
The interviews were conducted semi-structured with pre-defined open questions to make sure all topics were covered. Firstly, we conducted interviews with several experts from the Pangasius value chain to identify the most relevant issues and questions. The expert interviews were held in the cities of Can Tho, Long Xuyen and in the Chau Phu region. They were mostly semi-structured with open questions. There were also on the spot interviews during a seminar about better management practices for small catfish farmers (AUSAID seminar, 2009). Most of the interviews with the experts were conducted in a coffee bar, because this was the most convenient place for the interviewees. Also, some interviews were held at the business of the interviewee and at the government buildings. In some interviews a translator was used and in other interviews a translator was not needed because the interviewee spoke English.
More in-depth interviews for the qualitative research were conducted by six farmers in two different villages in the An Giang province. Three independent farmers in were interviewed in Vinh Thanh Trung and three FA farmers in the village of Thanh My Tai Fa (see figure 3.1). A staff member of the local government of Chau Phu had to go with us in order to conduct the interviews with the farmers of the Fishery Association, and a translator (Khoi) was used to communicate with the farmers. For the three independent farms in Vinh Thanh Trung village no local government staff was needed because the farmers had a good relationship with the translator. The interviews with the farmers were held at the farm.
The structure of the farmer interviews contains the aspects of the conceptual model and research questions. These aspects are disease knowledge and dissemination, treatment availability, and the willingness to share knowledge and work together on other disease prevention and treatment practices are included in the interview questions (Appendix 1).
3.3. Respondents
The respondents of the study vary from experts about disease treatment, knowledge dissemination and farming practices to different stakeholders in the value chain of Pangasius. In Table 3.1 there is an overview with the list of stakeholder respondents and their expertise who are interviewed. Furthermore there was held a Pangasius seminar about better management practices (BMP) for small farmers in the Mekong Delta in October 2009 (AUSAID, 2009). During the seminar there were held a lot of conversations and (unstructured) interviews with aquacultural farming experts from different countries. The reports acquired from this seminar are used in this article.
Table 3.1: List with experts
Name Expertise
Dr. Dung Fish disease expert Can Tho University
Dr. T.T.L. Loc Knowledge and supply chain expert Can Tho University
Dr. Tu Van Bing Farmer-farmer relationship expert Can Tho University
DARD Can Tho Extension officer DARD Can Tho (Mr. Trung)
DARD Long Xuyen Facts and figures of Pangasius farmers in An Giang province
Ms. Minh Sieu A disease technician and owner of a local vet shop
graduated bachelor of aquaculture at Na Thrang University and, alongside her business, she is an extension officer for Chau Phu local government
Mr. Le Chi Binh Vice Chairman An Giang Fishery Association
Mr. Dung
Former manager of Pangasius processing firm (now vice director trading company)
Mr. Bang Head of SGS certification company in Can Tho
CEO State Hatchery Manager of the SQF 1000 certified State Hatchery in Long Xuyen
Ms. N. Ti Bich WWF coordinator of PAD standards
The other respondents are the small farmers. These are one hundred small and medium sized Pangasius pond farmers in two villages in the Chau Phu district. The village of the three independent farmers is called Vinh Thanh Trung and the village with the three FA farmers is called Thanh My Tai Fa. The farmers who filled in the questionnaire also have their farms located in these villages.
Farmer 1 has three ponds. He uses one for fingerling production and two for grow-out production. Farmer 2 is very small and has two ponds. He used both ponds for grow-out production of Pangasius. Farmer 3 has the largest farm with three ponds. All of the farmers have a long experience in producing catfish. All the interviewed independent farmers have never been a member of the Fishery Association.
Figure 3.2 Vinh Thanh Trung village
Figure 3.3 Thanh My Tai Fa village
Table 3.2 presents an overview of the interviewed farmers with some general information about the farms and farmers.
Table 3.2 Interviewed farmer details
Name Number of ponds Estimated size ( in hectare) Years of experience Independent farmer 1 3 1,3 13 Independent farmer 2 2 1,0 10 Independent farmer 3 3 2,0 30 FA farmer 1 5 3,0 13 FA farmer 2 4 2,5 6 FA farmer 3 1 1,0 7
3.4 Interview questionnaire
The farmer interview questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1. The structure is build on the basis of the constructs in the conceptual model. The first section of the interview is used for measuring the knowledge and knowledge dissemination of disease treatment and prevention by the farmers. The questions have to be basic because most smallholders have a low educational level.
impression about how farmers’ about themselves and to get an idea about the farmers’ willingness to get more training.
Secondly, the farmers were asked about the way farmers acquire their knowledge. This is measured by the degree of training they got in the past two years and the information channels they are using. We asked about the amount of training in the last two years because from the interviews with experts it appeared the extension structure has been changed in the last two years. Examples of channels from which farmers get information and knowledge are advanced farmers, the government, Fishery Association, media, family and neighbour farmers. To get a better view which sources are of more importance major and minor sources are distinguished.
Treatment availability is the third section of the interview. Here we asked about the knowledge of drug dosage, which channel to buy, and which reason to choose a particular brand of drugs. In this way we get a picture of the availability of drugs and the knowledge of the farmers on how to use drugs. To determine which measuring instruments for diagnosis were used by small farmers there is asked about the accessibility of a veterinary service and laboratories, the degree of a disease when asking for a consult by a veterinary service, and the willingness to go to a laboratory.
The willingness to cooperate with other farmers and or willingness to change the farming systems is the last section of the interview. Here, the willingness to cooperate and change with other smallholders is measured with six variables. There is asked for the current situation of cooperation and subsequently the willingness to (continue to) cooperate with other farmers. The first variable is the willingness to share knowledge with each other. This seems a logical first step in the process of cooperation. The second aspect is the willingness of collective diagnosing when diseases occur. This could be a next step in evolving into cooperation among smallholders. Then there is asked about the collective buying of input (e.g. medicine, feed, fingerlings) and the collective treatment and use of medicine. When farmers want to become or even are becoming more dependent on a financial level this indicates the cooperation has reached a more advanced level. Then there is asked about collective contracts with small farmers to assure a stable contract by processing firms. This form of cooperation begins to look more like clustering. In addition to the former question there is also asked about the group responsibility when quality problems occur. For example, farmers were asked how to react if residues are discovered, and the dividing of income when one farmer suffers from a disease in his pond.
3.5 Farmer questionnaire
The farmer questionnaire used to enquire one hundred farmers is mainly developed by Khoi (2010). The questionnaire can be found in Appendix 2. We developed the questions regarding farmers’ perception of veterinary drug treatment and diagnosis together (section 9 of the questionnaire).
The questionnaire consists of multiple aspects which are considered as important for product quality. These are fingerlings, feed, waste-water treatment systems, veterinary tools for disease treatment and the stocking density. Within these aspects questions about willingness, availability, track records and current farmer’s knowledge are included. These topics are discussed and compared with the results of the interviews with the six farmers.
3.6 Limitations of Research
Because the only possibility to go to Vietnam was at the beginning of October, there was little time to prepare the questionnaires, and to study the available literature. The desk research started in late August. Furthermore, most of the literature was received by knowledge experts and researchers who I met in Vietnam. Next to that, the questionnaire used for the one hundred farmers was not completely parallel to the constructs I need to measure in the conceptual model. This is caused by the fact that the questionnaire is mainly made by Khoi (2010). On the other hand Khoi already had a lot of knowledge about the farming systems and the questionnaire results should be able to support the interview results of the experts and farmers. Due to the limited time for composition and the additional knowledge gained in Vietnam, the interview questionnaire has some imperfections as well. Therefore new questions arose when we carried out the farmer interviews and we asked about it.
During field research, a restraint was that I could only perform interviews with six farmers. I was not present at the time the one hundred farmers filled in the questionnaire, neither did I see the farmers’ ponds. Khoi performed all of the farmer questionnaires, so I assume the outcomes are accurate. Biggest limitation of the field research was the language barrier. For the farmer interviews a translator was necessary, which could have resulted in misinterpretations of both the interview questions and the answers. The interviews with the Pangasius industry experts were mainly held in English, but even in some of these interviews a translator was needed. Besides, the cultural differences between Vietnam and an Anglo-Saxon country like the Netherlands could have lead to biases. For example, in Vietnam people are more reluctant to give no for an answer. The Vietnamese culture is more indirect and this could lead to misunderstandings when asking delicate questions. Furthermore during three interviews with the FA farmers the attendance of a local government officer could have led to more ‘political’ answers from the farmers. Also the selected farmers are likely to be chosen not completely random.
4. Treatment availability
4.1 Drug availability
Expert Findings on drug availability
There are several local vet shops in the region of Chau Phu. Farmers can reach the shops by motorcycle or car. Sometimes there is even a delivery service included. Each local vet shop owner buys from one or more drug producers. Anova is an example of a chemical producer which provides the vet shop we visited during the fieldwork. Besides medicines the producer provides the vet shop with preventive products like vitamin C. The vet shop owner does not experience any shortages of drugs and chemicals. Farmers are able to get every legal aquaculture drug they need. There are differences in vet shops between size and specialism. Some only focus on aquaculture and other vet shops are larger and also sell drugs for other cattle.
The vet shop owner declared she does not sell illegal chemicals and drugs. The control on selling those goods has become stricter in the last year. The vet shop owner does not believe other vet shops still sell illegal chemicals. However an illegal antibiotic like Chloramphenicol is still offered by human drugstores, so it should still be easy for farmers to get those antibiotics (Ms. Minh Sieu, Local vet shop owner).
According to Mr. Trung of the DARD in Can Tho province the control on drug sellers in Can Tho province is insufficient. Vet shops get an official control two times and one random control a year. If a drug store is caught with illegal drugs they have to pay a fine. However the DARD officer mentioned the fine is probably too small to create effect. Furthermore there is a chance that drug controllers have relationships with people who warn the local vet shop owners when a control is going to take place. This presumption is strengthened by the fact that the interviewed vet shop owner in Chau Phu also has a job by the local government as an extension officer.
Contradicting with Can Tho province, the DARD in An Giang province there is frequent control on illegal drugs and chemicals. The control in this region is stricter because it is the highest developed province in the area of aquaculture. Control results indicate overdoses do not often occur. Still, four weeks after the antibiotics are given to the fish the traceability is very difficult. Processing firms which have quality certification systems control the Pangasius in ponds on antibiotic residues and diseases both two weeks and two days before the harvest (DARD Long Xuyen, Mr. Dung).
One comment to make is that there are chemical companies who ask researchers or institutions like the FA to promote their drugs. Researchers are offered compensation by the drug companies, which could bias some of the performed research. For example, research regarding probiotics suggests the use of it is a helpful way to prevent diseases. Nevertheless, farmers who experimented with probiotics did not found any benefits, while probiotics will cost the farmer a lot of money. This kind of rumors can damage the credibility of the researchers (AUSAID seminar, 2009).
Farmer findings on drug availability
All interviewed farmers mentioned it was no problem to get the drugs and chemicals they need. The drugs are all accessible through the local vet shops. One farmer said he sometimes buys his drugs by a laboratory after a consult. This occurred only when the farmer suffered from a major disease. When a farmer asks for a consult, the farmer has to buy the drugs for treatment from the local vet shop technician or from the veterinary service at the laboratory. For one FA farmer this was a reason not to ask for a consult every time a disease occurred.
Three out of the six interviewed farmers still used or had used illegal chemicals to treat a disease. One independent farmer said it is possible to buy illegal drugs. The farmer mentioned that local vet shops have to offer, otherwise farmers will switch to another shop that does sell illegal chemicals and drugs. One FA farmer said that sometimes illegal drugs are used just because they are more effective against some diseases. The FA farmer applies these illegal antibiotics no more than two or three days. The farmer mentioned that it was hard to buy the illegal drugs at the local vet shop but it was easy for him to get it at a pharmacy.
All farmers mentioned that effectiveness is the most important factor for choosing the drugs. Farmers do not want to risk to experiment with cheaper medicines while they do not know anything about the effectiveness. On the drug package is told how to use the drugs and next to that the local vet shop technician can consult about the recommended dosage. When using an overdose the fish can turn into shock so most farmers follow the advice of the package information and vet shop technician.
4.2 Availability of instruments for diagnosis
Expert findings availability of instruments for diagnosis
A laboratory is only available at the universities in the cities Can Tho and Long Xuyen. Next to that, there are three veterinarians stationed by hatcheries in different villages. There is a lack of staff and capital to get more experts who can consult (DARD An Giang).
During laboratory diagnosis three tests have to be performed. These are an antibiotic test, a suspectibility test and a test on other pathogens. The correct dose has to be calculated in a laboratory for the best way of treatment. The BNP disease is often very difficult to recognize. Can Tho University has a new AP12 OE kit in the laboratory that is better able to detect the BNP infection. Furthermore, Can Tho University is working together with more local vet shops at this moment to improve the diagnosis of the vet shops (Dr. Dung). Local vet shops also have diagnosing kits for the detection of parasites and bacteria (DARD Long Xuyen). The vet shop technicians use the microscope and surgery to diagnose the disease and have more disease knowledge than most farmers. The diagnosing time for Can Tho and Long Xuyen laboratories is three days on average (Ms. Minh Sieu).
At Can Tho University farmers do not have to pay when providing a sample for diagnosis for the first time. The farmers are willing to cooperate with the laboratory but the problem is farmers do not always rely on the laboratory. They tend to believe the different drug sellers who are active in promoting their drugs. Farmers are sometimes more willing to believe the advertisers because they are convincing and they give the drugs without the need for diagnosis first. Farmers’ perception is that the fast treatment of the symptoms will reduce the mortality rates. However these treatments may not tackle the underlying diseases. Besides, in long term bacteria resistance for certain antibiotics is a danger which farmers do not think about (Mr. Trung).
Besides the laboratories there are many local vet shops. The vet shop technician diagnoses diseases with the help of basic instruments and eye-sight. According to the local vet shop owner it is costless for the farmer to get a consult. The only obligation is that farmers have to buy the prescribed drugs at the technician’s vet shop (Ms. Minh Sieu).
Only when more diseases arise in a pond, or when BNP disease occurs, the vet shop technician will be asked to assist. When a disease occurs the farmer calls the vet shop and describes the symptoms. In most cases the farmer self sets a diagnosis and he will ask for the drugs. When the farmer has not enough experience to make the right diagnosis he describes the symptoms to the local vet shop technician. At the shop the technician is able to diagnose the fish based on experience and some tools like a microscope to identify bacteria. Only if the first treatment is ineffective the technician will send a sample to the laboratory. She does not send a sample at once because in most cases the technician recognizes the symptoms and has the knowhow to treat the disease (Ms. Minh Sieu).
Farmer findings availability of diagnosing instruments
farmer’s experience and other farmers’ experience combined with the vet shop technicians are also sufficient to treat the disease. Though there was one independent farmer who mentioned it was easy to go to a laboratory. He said it was not difficult to send a sample to a laboratory, though it takes too long to wait for the diagnosis results. All farmers mentioned they only asked for a consult by a laboratory or a local vet shop technician when a major disease like Baccilary Necrosis of Pangasius (BNP) occurs.
During the research one farmer’s grow-out pond suffered from the BNP disease at the moment of the interview. The farmer mentioned that even with this disease he tried to cure the Pangasius with his own knowledge and the neighbour farmer’s knowledge. Only after a large amount of Pangasius in the pond is diseased he will think about getting a vet shop technician’s consult. One other farmer (the largest in size of all the interviewed) was using a vet shop technician more often and he was thinking about employing a technician for his own farm. This implicates there are differences between farmers regarding the request for an expert consult. Another farmer mentioned that age plays an important role in relation to the degree of consults by disease technicians. Younger farmers often have less knowledge about diseases than the older and more experienced farmers. Therefore, younger farmers call upon vet shop technicians more often.
On the question if farmers go to a laboratory before treatment, results show that the majority does not. Table 4.1 shows that 86 percent never went to a laboratory for diagnosis and 16 percent of the farmers mentioned they go to a laboratory for diagnosis. All farmers who go to a laboratory are member of the FA. In the questionnaire the FA farmers were asked if the FA does assist with a diagnosis from a lab. All FA farmers replied negative on the question.
Table 4.1 Did the farmers ever went to a laboratory for diagnosis
*The questionnaire results provided by Khoi do not clarify this answer
To make use of a laboratory for diagnosis, firstly the farmer has to go to the local vet shop technician. Subsequently the technician will send a sample to the laboratory in Can Tho or Long Xuyen. When a sample is send to a laboratory it will take at least three days to get the results back. In this period, there will be many diseased fish when the disease is severe. Therefore, farmers first diagnose the symptoms based on the eye, surgery and their experience. When it is still unclear what kind of disease the Pangasius are suffering from, the local vet shop technician will be asked for a consult. Once the technician is unable to diagnose or if the treatment was unsuccessful, the help of a laboratory is requested.
N(Sample) Yes No No opinion*
Farmers 100 13,0 86,0 1,0
Traditional 50 10,0 88,0 2,0
Figure 4.2 Local vet shop
4.5 Conclusion treatment availability
Both experts and farmers mentioned that it is relatively easy to get drugs and chemicals for treatment and prevention. Although some antibiotics are illegal it is possible to buy them. According to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development control on illegal drugs has become more stringent in the last year. The vet shop owner in Chau Phu also confirmed this. However, most farmers mentioned there are a lot of advertisers and salesmen who offer drugs and chemicals. As long as there is a demand salesmen are willing to supply.
5. Institutions’ and Experts’ standards and knowledge
This chapter discusses the knowledge and standards needed for effective disease prevention and treatment. Firstly an overview of the common Pangasius disease is presented. Secondly, the disease treatment and prevention knowledge of chemicals and drugs are discussed. Third, other variables that are known to prevent diseases will be discussed. Finally we conclude this chapter and discuss which aspects of the public knowledge should be applied into the KM matrix.
5.1 Pangasius diseases
There are multiple diseases that are common by farmed Pangasius. The fish incur a disease from bacterial conditions, parasites and non-infectious diseases. In Table 5.1 a summary of the diseases and associated pathogens, clinical signs, time and conditions of an outbreak, and mortality rate are presented (Dung et al., 2008).
Presently the most problematic of all diseases is the Bacillary Necrosis of Pangasius (BNP). BNP is a serious and economically important disease, caused by the Edwardsiella ictaluri bacteria. Economically because of the severe losses in decreased production, treatment expenses, and high fish mortality. It is the biggest problem, because of high mortality rates and because the other diseases are easier to prevent and easier to treat. Even without the use of antibiotics. The diseases occur in all ages of fish, though the highest mortality rates are reported by fingerlings and juvenile fish. When clinical signs are noticed the fish will immediately die. Infected fish swim slowly and close to the water surface and have a pale colour on their skin and gills. Internal white spots on the liver, kidney and spleen can be noticed. According to the disease technician another symptom is the decline in food consumption (Ms. Minh Sieu). The disease is most common during the rainy season, when temperatures drop below 28 degrees Celsius. In general, high stocking densities, mixing of Pangasius and adverse climate conditions are all considered as risk factors for the development and spread of BNP (Dung et al., 2009). All of the interviewed farmers once suffered from BNP. At one farm the pond has been affected by BNP at the moment of the interview. We observed that many dead fish were floating in the pond and it seemed many others were gasping for air on the surface.
