IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/apjors/v5y2021i3d10.1007_s41685-021-00201-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmer constraints on implementing Good Animal Husbandry Practices in Vietnam: case study on household pig production

Author

Listed:
  • Ly Thi Nguyen

    (Kyushu University
    Vietnam National University of Agriculture)

  • Teruaki Nanseki

    (Kyushu University)

  • Yosuke Chomei

    (Kyushu University
    Hiroshima University)

Abstract

Many studies have identified factors that influence the adoption of new technologies and management practices in livestock production to improve productivity, animal health and protect the environment. However, few studies have attempted to clarify the constraints faced by farmers in implementing these new management practices. This study identified 10 constraints on implementing good management practices designed to improve the health and productivity of pig production, ensure the health of workers, reduce environmental pollution and allow customers to trace the origins of their products, collectively known as Good Animal Husbandry Practices. Low output price and lack of capital were identified as the key constraints faced by 42.8% and 28.3% of farmers, respectively. Furthermore, specialized production was found to mitigate these two constraints in terms of income contribution, whereas access to credit was found to exacerbate them. Lack of knowledge was the only constraint perceived to be more severe by non-VietGAHP farmers than by their VietGAHP counterparts. Based on the above results for both VietGAHP and non-VietGAHP farmers, these constraints need to be addressed by improving financial situations through formal credit and focusing on specialized pig-producing households. For the non-VietGAHP group, delivery of information on new management practices through the government extension services should be implemented.

Suggested Citation

  • Ly Thi Nguyen & Teruaki Nanseki & Yosuke Chomei, 2021. "Farmer constraints on implementing Good Animal Husbandry Practices in Vietnam: case study on household pig production," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 933-950, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:apjors:v:5:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s41685-021-00201-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s41685-021-00201-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41685-021-00201-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41685-021-00201-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bekele Shiferaw & Tewodros Kebede & Menale Kassie & Monica Fisher, 2015. "Market imperfections, access to information and technology adoption in Uganda: challenges of overcoming multiple constraints," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 46(4), pages 475-488, July.
    2. Lapar, Ma. Lucila & Duong Nga, Nguyen Thi & Thinh, Mguyen THi & Huyen, Nguyen Thi Thu & Unger, Fred & Grace, Delia, 2017. "Adoption and Impact of Gaps in Pig Value Chains: Implications for Institutional Policy and Practice Change," 2017 ASAE 9th International Conference, January 11-13, Bangkok, Thailand 284859, Asian Society of Agricultural Economists (ASAE).
    3. Ly Thi Nguyen & Teruaki Nanseki & Yosuke Chomei, 2020. "The impact of VietGAHP implementation on Vietnamese households’ pig production," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(8), pages 7701-7725, December.
    4. Jeffrey Gillespie & Seon‐Ae Kim & Krishna Paudel, 2007. "Why don't producers adopt best management practices? An analysis of the beef cattle industry," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 36(1), pages 89-102, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mai D. Quy & Dang T. Ha, 2023. "Pig Farmers’ Preferences for the Adoption of Good Animal Husbandry Practices in Vietnam: A Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-14, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mai D. Quy & Dang T. Ha, 2023. "Pig Farmers’ Preferences for the Adoption of Good Animal Husbandry Practices in Vietnam: A Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-14, July.
    2. Fredrick Bagamba & Proscovia R. Ntakyo & Geoffrey Otim & David J. Spielman & Bjorn Van Campenhout, 2023. "Policy and performance in Uganda's seed sector: Opportunities and challenges," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(3), May.
    3. Ayat Ullah & Nasir Mahmood & Alam Zeb & Harald Kächele, 2020. "Factors Determining Farmers’ Access to and Sources of Credit: Evidence from the Rain-Fed Zone of Pakistan," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-13, November.
    4. Xu, Ying & Findlay, Christopher, 2019. "Farmers’ constraints, governmental support and climate change adaptation: Evidence from Guangdong Province, China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), October.
    5. Khushbu Mishra & Abdoul G. Sam & Gracious M. Diiro & Mario J. Miranda, 2020. "Gender and the dynamics of technology adoption: Empirical evidence from a household‐level panel data," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 857-870, November.
    6. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    7. Díaz, Juan-José & Saldarriaga, Victor, 2023. "A drop of love? Rainfall shocks and spousal abuse: Evidence from rural Peru," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    8. Zhang, Wei, 2015. "Costs of a Practice-Based Air Quality Regulation: Dairy Farms in the San Joaquin Valley," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205304, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Valera, Harold Glenn & Yamano, Takashi & Pede, Valerien & Puskur, Ranjitha & Habib, Muhammad Ashraful & Bashar, Khairul, 2021. "Impact of Nutrition Training on Long-Term Adoption of High Zinc Rice: A Randomized Control Trial Study Among Female Farmers in Bangladesh," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315165, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Ying Xu & Christopher Findlay, 2019. "Farmers’ constraints, governmental support and climate change adaptation: evidence from Guangdong Province, China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(4), pages 866-880, October.
    11. Williams, Brian R. & Raper, Kellie Curry & DeVuyst, Eric A. & Peel, Derrell S. & Lalman, David L. & Richards, Chris & Doye, Damona G., 2012. "Demographic Factors Affecting the Adoption of Multiple Value-Added Practices by Oklahoma Cow-Calf Producers," 2012 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2012, Birmingham, Alabama 119743, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    12. Obubuafo, Joyce & Gillespie, Jeffrey & Paudel, Krishna & Kim, Seon-Ae, 2008. "Awareness of and Application to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program By Cow—Calf Producers," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 357-368, April.
    13. Chowdhury, Iftekhar Uddin Ahmed & Wang, Tong & Jin, Hailong & Smart, Alexander J., 2020. "Exploring the Determinants of Perceived Benefits of Rotational Grazing in the U. S. Great Plains," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304487, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Devkota, Nirmala & Paudel, Krishna P., 2009. "Production Termination As An Alternative To Mitigate Nutrient Pollution," 2009 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2009, Atlanta, Georgia 46826, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    15. Astrid Mastenbroek & Irma Sirutyte & Robert Sparrow, 2021. "Information Barriers to Adoption of Agricultural Technologies: Willingness to Pay for Certified Seed of an Open Pollinated Maize Variety in Northern Uganda," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 180-201, February.
    16. Cai, Yi & Sun, Yucheng & Qi, Wene & Yi, Famin, 2022. "Impact of smartphone use on production outsourcing: evidence from litchi farming in southern China," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 25(4), September.
    17. Kate Vaiknoras & Catherine Larochelle, 2023. "Training and seed production spillovers and technology adoption: The case of seed producer groups in Nepal," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(6), pages 921-942, November.
    18. Van Wyngaarden, Sarah & Anders, Sven M., 2021. "Canadian Farmer Policy and Agency Preferences in Agri-Environmental Best Management Practice Adoption," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313851, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Beatrice W. Muriithi & Gracious M. Diiro & Menale Kassie & Geoffrey Muricho, 2018. "Does gender matter in the adoption of sustainable agricultural technologies? A case of push-pull technology in Kenya," Working Papers PMMA 2018-05, PEP-PMMA.
    20. Felister Y. Tibamanya & Mursali A. Milanzi & Arne Henningsen, 2021. "Drivers of and Barriers to Adoption of Improved Sun- flower Varieties amongst Smallholder Farmers in Singida, Tanzania: the Double-Hurdle Approach," IFRO Working Paper 2021/03, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:apjors:v:5:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s41685-021-00201-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.