3. Results

3.1 General household characteristics and assets

A total of 300 smallholder farmers participated in the survey, with the study villages, communes, districts and provinces displayed in (Table 1). Of these, the same proportion of male (50%) and female (50%) respondents participated in KC, although female participants were higher (60%) in PS.
>Insert Table 1<
The mean age of the smallholder farmers was 46 years in both provinces. Fifteen per cent of smallholder farmers had off-farm paid employment. Two-thirds of respondents in both provinces were identified as a primary decision-maker in the household, while the remainder discussed issues with their family members before making any decision. The education level was similar in both study provinces. Approximately a quarter of the smallholder farmers (24%) had no formal education, only 58% had completed primary school, with no farmer participants in either province having tertiary education. The general education of smallholder farmers was low compared to other household members. Compared to respondents, a much lower proportion of household members had no formal education (11%), and a higher proportion (56%) had post-primary education. The majority of smallholder farmers owned paddy fields (Table 2). The average area of paddy fields was 1.4ha in KC compared to 2.2ha in PS. Approximately one-quarter of smallholder farmers in both study provinces owned land for other crops (1.03 ha in KC and 1.57 ha in PS). Smallholder farmers in KC owned slightly more cattle (4.6) and pigs (3.7) on average than smallholder farmers in PS. However, smallholder farmers in PS owned more ducks (10.5) and chickens (14.1) on average than smallholder farmers in KC. Other household assets are displayed (Table 2).
>Insert Table 2<
Nearly half of the interviewed smallholder farmers in both study provinces had borrowed money in 2013. The majority of smallholder farmers not borrowing money (80%) stated that they had no need, with a small proportion mentioning they were either afraid they could not repay the debt (27%), high interest rates (4%), and there was an unwillingness of moneylenders to provide a loan (4%). Of the farmers borrowing money, 37% used the money for general purposes in the family, 30% used the money to buy agricultural equipment, with the remainder using money to either buy cattle, repay debt, pay for labor-hire, expand the household business, or buy land.
3.2 Annual household income in 2013
In general, the incomes of smallholder farmer households varied between the study areas. The total income of smallholder farmer households was sourced from 3 main categories: agricultural cropping (rice and other crops), off-farm employment (salary employment, paid labor, remittances, small shop) and sale of livestock. The income from off-farm activities was mainly obtained from migrant household members working abroad. Overall, the average annual total household income was USD1,711 per household (range USD 250-8,400) in KC and USD2,075 (USD 250-10,425) in PS. In KC, off-farm activities contributed 38% of the total household income, followed by income from sales of livestock (34%) and on-farm activities (28%). On-farm activities contributed more to total household income (43%) in PS, followed by sales of livestock (29%) and off-farm activities (28%). Overall, animal raising contributed nearly one-third of the annual total household income of smallholder farmers in the study areas.
3.3 Cattle management and trading
Nearly two-thirds of the smallholder farmers were full-time farmers directly involved in rice farming and livestock keeping, while 32% and 41% were only engaged part-time in KC and PS, respectively. A small proportion was not actively engaged in family farm activities, although their family members did work with livestock and other farm activities. Half of the smallholder farmers (52%) in both study provinces acknowledged that women is directly involved in the livestock keeping activities. Smallholder farmers used different methods to house their cattle. During the night, most farmers in both study areas (62%) tethered cattle under their houses, and others kept them together in pen near the house (35%), or a fenced paddy field (14%). A few farmers admitted that they kept cattle along the road (5%). During the day, a fenced paddy field near the house was a common area to keep cattle reported by the majority of smallholder farmers (81%). Many farmers housed their cattle in pen (34%) and some kept the along the roadsides (25%). Grazing on available pastures in the fields was a common way of feeding cattle but varied with the seasonal. In the rainy season, cattle were generally grazed on shrubs or in paddocks further from the villages. As the availability of grasslands diminished with rice planting, cattle were grazed on paddy lines or along roads.
The majority of smallholder farmers reported that cattle grazed in paddy fields for several months after the rice harvest. In some areas devoid of alternative grazing fields, paddy fields were used for an extended time until the restart of rice field cultivation. Most smallholder farmers (84%) used both communal grazing (two-thirds of the time) and stall feeding (one-third of the time) to raise their cattle, others used only communal grazing (13%) or stall-feeding (3%). Just over a half (54%) of smallholder farmers in KC and under a half (45%) in PS had sold cattle in the last 12 months. Most of them reported that a higher price was the main reason, followed by a need for cash for household items and agriculture equipment. The majority of smallholder farmers (89%) had not purchased cattle in the study period. Most smallholder farmers in both provinces rated FMD (78%), other diseases including ticks (57%), availability of feed (45%), and sale prices (43%) as significant factors affecting livestock production and livelihoods in the communities. Shortage of labor (24%), input cost (16%), theft (15%) and slow growth (15%) were also listed as important factors but were reported by fewer smallholder farmers.
3.4 Knowledge of FMD and vaccination
The majority of farmers (95%) believed that they knew FMD symptoms very well (mouth and nose sores (blisters) foot sores and lameness), Further, they claimed they would recognize FMD if they saw FMD infected animals. Over three-quarters of farmers (79%) understood vaccination, and of those, 85% correctly identified the main purpose of vaccination is to protect animals against preventable disease. However, a small proportion of smallholder farmers thought vaccination could help in treating sick animals (11%) and believed that vaccination helped the animal gain weight (4%). The majority of smallholder farmers (87%) believed that healthy cattle should receive a vaccination. The study identified the village leader was the main source for vaccination and animal disease information reported by the majority of smallholder farmers (95%), followed by village animal health workers (VAHWs) (91%) and their neighbors (74%). Only 20% admitted that they received the same information from the district and provincial veterinarians and agriculture extension workers. Obtaining information from radio and television and the commune council was considered less or not important at all by the majority of smallholder farmers.
3.5 Experience of FMD vaccination
The majority of participating smallholder farmers (79%) admitted that they had not vaccinated their cattle against FMD in the past three years. Lack of willingness to pay for vaccination when cattle were still healthy was the most common reason reported for not vaccinating (by 35% of farmers), followed by never having received information about vaccination (34%), being too busy during the vaccination event (31%) or another reason as described (Table 3). Many smallholder farmers (22%) refused to answer the question. The results show that only 35% of smallholder farmers had vaccinated their cattle against FMD once every year during the previous three years, followed by two vaccinations in three years (13%), with a majority of farmers having vaccinated once only in three years (52%). Of those who had vaccinated cattle, none of them had vaccinated cattle every six months. When asked for the proportion of cattle of each household herd vaccinated each time, 62% had their entire herd vaccinated. The majority of farmers (85%) who had only some cattle vaccinated, reported that only adult cattle were vaccinated, while pregnant cows and calves did not receive any vaccination. When asked for reasons for not re-vaccinating their cattle every six months, nearly one-third (23%) of smallholder farmers in the study areas refused to answer the question.
The overall ranking of not re-vaccinating cattle every six months by reason (from 1 to 3 with one as the most important and three least important reason) found that many only vaccinated cattle when FMD vaccination was free (44%), followed by the claim that no one had told them to re-vaccinate cattle every 6 months (17%), or that they thought FMD vaccination once every 12 months would be sufficient to protect cattle from FMD (17%). For vaccination services, the results showed that cattle were mostly vaccinated against FMD by the VAHWs in the village (77%), followed by the district veterinarians (48%) and VAHWs from other villages (24%). Most of the smallholder farmers admitted that FMD vaccination program was carried out through the government-subsidized vaccination (USD0.25), and none of them had paid full price for the FMD vaccination. The full minimum cost of FMD vaccination estimate by the interviewed farmers is USD3.00 for bi-annual FMD vaccination. Among the farmers who vaccinated their cattle against FMD, nearly one-third in both study areas revealed that their vaccinated cattle still became sick with FMD during the outbreak a few months after vaccination.
The majority of farmers (94%) could not distinguish the clinical disease conditions between sick vaccinated and unvaccinated cattle. Only a small proportion of farmers acknowledged that the clinical conditions of sick vaccinated cattle were less severe than those of sick unvaccinated cattle.
>Insert Table 3<
3.7 Experience of FMD and biosecurity practices
Regarding the collection and maintaining disease and vaccination records, the majority of smallholder farmers (95%) admitted that they have never maintained them and were not aware of the importance of maintaining them. In KC, 49% of interviewed farmers had experienced FMD during the previous 3 years, with a higher proportion of farmers 70% having experienced FMD in PS. The results indicate that the most recent FMD outbreak affected 46% and 85% of smallholder farmers in KC and PS, respectively. In PS, only 4% of smallholder farmers reported an FMD outbreak in 2011 and 11% in 2012, whereas in KC, while only 12% experienced an FMD outbreak in 2011, 42% experienced an outbreak in 2012. Overall, the morbidity rate in both age groups of cattle <3 years old and >3 years old was very similar in both provinces, with 32% in KC and 38% in PS. The mortality rate in cattle due to FMD was very low (0.45%) in both study areas. All farmers affected by FMD in 2013 were asked to report the proportion of sick cattle in each household herd. All cattle in the household herd were sick during the outbreak were reported by 61% of farmers in KC and 55% PS. The remaining farmers reported only some of their household herd were sick during the outbreak.
A majority (61%) of FMD affected farmers reported the occurrence of the disease to the VAHWs, followed by neighbors (53%), relatives (42%), and village leader (16%). Only 5% of farmers had communicated the occurrence of disease to the district and provincial veterinarians. Some farmers (11%) admitted that they have never reported the disease to anyone for the last three years. Overall, during the past outbreak, about three-quarters of smallholder farmers (74%) did not separate their infected cattle from the household herd. Farmers tethered infected cattle in the cowshed near the house (72%), under the house (60%), and under the trees surrounding the house (53%). Keeping infected cattle at relatives’ houses was also reported by some farmers (19%). Of those who separated their infected cattle, only half separated them for the entire day, while others regroup them during the night. The majority of affected farmers (73%) believed that disease spread from the first sick cattle to others within the household herd. The study identified that the mean number of days that disease remained in each individual infected cattle was 14.2 days in KC and 17.3 days in PS. However, the mean number of days that disease remained in the herd (from the initial clinical signs until no more symptoms) was 28.5 days and 34.2 days in KC and PS, respectively.
3.8 Treatment and nursing of sick cattle
The study found that when animals became ill, particularly with FMD, treating lesions (fluid-filled or ruptured vesicles or blisters between the toes, on the heels, mouth, and tongue) and nursing sick cattle was the first preferred method of management reported by the majority of livestock smallholders. Nearly three-quarters of farmers (72%) requested their VAHWs to treat their sick cattle, while 53% and 16% preferred to treat sick cattle by themselves using traditional medicines and non-traditional medicines, respectively. The average cost of private treatment and nursing of each FMD infected cattle to full recovery was USD40.80, reported by affected farmers.
Other methods were also used reported by a small proportion of farmers (Table 3). Of those who used traditional methods to treat infected cattle, nearly two-thirds (70%) used several types of herbs, with some using engine oil (23%) aimed at cleaning lesions and deterring flies, and others (17%) walking infected cattle through the mud. For feeding, 65% of farmers reported that cut and carry was a common feeding method to feed infected cattle as foot lesions leave cattle lame and unable to walk.
All farmers experienced with FMD reported that the majority of their neighboring farmers’ cattle (93%) were also sick with the same disease during the outbreaks. About half of those farmers (45%) claimed that their neighbor’s cattle were infected with FMD before their cattle, with over a quarter (28%) believing their cattle became sick before their neighbor’s cattle. However, nearly a quarter of farmers (22%) admitted that all cattle were sick at the same time during the FMD outbreak. The study revealed that all affected farmers had sought assistance from neighboring farmers and relatives during the FMD outbreak. About half (52%) of those treating infected cattle by themselves, reported they also sought assistance from local VAHWs, followed by one-third (33%) obtaining help from relatives, and some (18%) seeking assistance from friends or neighbors to restrain sick cattle so they could be treated.
Although one-third of farmers claimed they did not seek any help from other people, nearly half of the participating farmers (42%) acknowledged that they had assisted friends or neighbors during treatment. Of those who helped their friends to treat sick cattle, more than a half (57%) had assisted friends and neighbors before their cattle had become sick with FMD, with the remainder (43%) believing that they offered assistance after their cattle were infected with FMD.
For the treatment fee, approximately one-third of those who asked for animal health services reported that they had used their savings to pay the cost of treatment. When money was unavailable, they sold some rice and/or livestock (28%), followed by working for other people (22%), borrowing money from relatives (11%) and friends (6%) to pay for treatments. The study found that the great majority of farmers (89%) understood that the treatment cost was much higher than the actual cost of biannual FMD vaccination, while the remainder refused to answer the question. All of those who responded to the question acknowledged that they would change their disease management practices by participating in future vaccination programs. When asked about livestock trading during the outbreak, the majority of farmers (90%) reported that they did not buy or sell cattle and animal products during the FMD outbreak, with the remaining farmers refused to answer the question.
3.9 Perceptions of farmers on vaccination uptake and disease prevention
All respondents were asked to read through the multiple-choice questions with enumerators and choose the answers they thought most appropriately defined the activities that could help to mitigate the risk of spreading disease in their communities. Additional activities raised by farmers during the interview were also added if considered appropriate. The various activities that farmers thought would be able to improve the uptake of FMD vaccination in the future are displayed (Table 4). The perception of farmers was that the improvement of vaccination campaigns needed to continue in order to encourage vaccination uptake, followed by the increasing availability of vaccination programs, and provision of training on animal disease and vaccination. Stricter controls on the movement of sick animals and trading of sick or dead animals during the outbreaks were identified as important activities by many farmers, with other activities considered as important by less than one-third of farmers, as displayed (Table 4).
>Insert Table 4<
The main activities that farmers recognized as very important in helping reduce the risk of spreading diseases in their communities are provided in Table 5. Over half of the participating farmers recognized that animal vaccination, reporting of sick animals (new cases) and avoiding the trading of animals during the outbreak were very important in reducing the risk of disease spread within their communities. Just under half of the farmers believed that early separation of sick animals from the herd, having knowledge of the disease situation in surrounding villages, and avoiding contaminated feed and water, were very important activities.
>Insert Table 5<
3.10 Identification of potential risk factors associated with the uptake of FMD vaccination
In this study, a range of factors was investigated to assist in identifying the potential risk factors associated with the uptake of FMD vaccination in the study areas. Potential variables were grouped into three categories: (1) Farmer; age, education, and the number of household members; (2) Management; livestock management and husbandry skills; and (3) FMD; knowledge, experience and communication of FMD and the need for vaccination. The results of the univariable analysis of these potential factors are summarized in Tables 6, 7 and 8). Fifty variables were used to identify their association with the FMD vaccination program reported by the respondents.
The results for the Farmer category identified that only 4 variables were potential risk factors associated with the FMD vaccination uptake (P ≤0.25): farmers aged above 49 years old; farmers with formal education; being the primary decision-maker; and the household containing less than 3 members working with cattle (Table 6).
>Insert Table 6<
For the management category, 6 variables were identified as potential risk factors involved in the uptake of FMD vaccination (P ≤0.25), including farmers raised only cattle; farmers raised more than 3 cattle; cattle tethered under the house at day time; cattle tethered under the house at night time; cattle grazing at communal grazing ground; and bought cattle purchased recently (Table 7).
>Insert Table 7<
For the FMD category, 5 variables were identified as potential risk factors involved in the uptake of FMD vaccination (P ≤0.25). These included management and husbandry practices; the presence of the commune council as the main source of vaccination information; cattle had received FMD vaccination through vaccination campaign; VAHWs provide vaccination services, and FMD vaccinated cattle still became sick with FMD (Table 8).
>Insert Table 8<
3.11 Logistic regression model
A total of 5 variables (with P ≤0.25) were offered to the multivariable logistic regression model and retained in the final model (where variables had to have P <0.05) as summarised (Table 9). The multivariable logistic regression analysis employing a backward elimination approach identified the commune council as the main source of vaccination information. Farmers reporting that VAHWs provide vaccination services for their cattle were 3 times more likely to have their cattle vaccinated against FMD than those who did not use VAHWs to vaccinate their cattle. Further, farmers reporting that the commune council was the main source of information on vaccination were less likely to have their cattle vaccinated against FMD. Similarly, farmers reporting that FMD vaccinated cattle still got sick with FMD were less likely to have their cattle vaccinated against FMD (absence of a protective factor). The Chi-square for the Hosmer and Lemeshow test11x2 = 3.24, df = 8, P = 0.918, suggested that the multivariable logistic regression model was suitable.
>Insert Table 9<