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<