Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ECOMMUNAUTÉ FRANÇAISE DE BELGIQUE
ACADÉMIE UNIVERSITAIRE WALLONIE-EUROPE
UNIVERSITÉ DE LIÈGE - GEMBLOUX AGRO-BIO TECH
BEEF CATTLE SYSTEMS IN THE CONTEXT OF SUSTAINABLE
AGRICULTURE IN BAC KAN PROVINCE,
THE NORTHERN MOUNTAINOUS REGION OF VIETNAM
Thi Huong Trà HOÀNG
Dissertation originale
Présentée en vue de l’obtention du grade de
Docteur en Sciences agronomiques et Ingénierie biologique
Membres du Jury
Monsieur le Professeur BAUDOIN J. P., Président
Messieurs les Professeurs LEBAILLY Ph., Promoteur
VU CHI Cuong, Co-Promoteur (National Institute of Animal Sciences, Vietnam)
BURNY Ph., Membre
DOGOT, T., Membre
THEWIS A., Membre
VU DINH Ton, Membre (Hanoi University of Agriculture, Vietnam)
- 2011 -
Copyright. Aux termes de la loi belge du 30 juin 1994 sur le droit d'auteur et les droits
voisins, seul l'auteur a le droit de reproduire partiellement ou complètement cet ouvrage de
quelque façon et de quelque forme que ce soit ou d'en autoriser la reproduction partielle ou
complète de quelque manière et sous quelque forme que ce soit. Toute photocopie ou
reproduction sous autre forme est donc faite en violation de ladite loi et de ses modifications
ultérieures.
Thi Huong Tra HOANG. (2011). Beef cattle systems in the context of sustainable
agriculture in Bac Kan province, the northern mountainous region of Vietnam. (PhD Thesis).
University of Liege – Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Gembloux, Belgium. 183 P., 47 Tabl., 42
Fig.
Summary:
Among livestock types, beef cattle production is ranked as a very important sub-sector in the
extremely harsh natural conditions characterising the northern uplands of Vietnam, where
ethnic minorities are often concentrated on land resources which are not hospitable to crops.
To help local people to escape from poverty, many organisations have initiated development
projects featuring beef cattle production, but it still remains under-developed, hence the
generally high level of poverty faced by farmers.
Thus, the study aims to assess the characteristics and appropriateness of beef cattle feeding
systems, which are compared from the point of view of sustainability.
Stratified sampling was used to select 97 households within free-range, part-time grazing, and
cut-and-carry feeding systems, which were surveyed in Bac Kan province between 2007 and
2009. The collection of field data was implemented using various survey instruments such as
structured questionnaires and interview guides. Data processing consisted in descriptive
statistics, correlations between the variables, and the calculation of socio-economic indicators.
Based on the sample surveyed, the differences between the three systems of cattle
management were highlighted.
Access to grazing land and its topography, the ethnicity of the communities, the relative
importance of agricultural and forest production, and opportunities for off-farm employment
were all factors influencing the cattle systems. Those using the “cut-and-carry” fodder system
are practicing the most efficient husbandry style among the systems from both the social and
economic points of view, except for lack of proper management and use of cattle manure.
Manure use for cultivation in this system was limited because of the predominantly steep
slope lands and the habits of the indigenous peoples. Animal manure utility was evaluated as
less important in the cut-and-carry system compared to other systems practiced in the
lowlands.
However, good prospects are seen to improve conditions in the rural uplands in the future.
Thus, different strategies should be implemented to fill the gap and improve the position of
farmers. The study derives helpful recommendations for farmers keeping beef cattle to
strongly develop their production, alleviate poverty, and improve their livelihoods.
Thi Huong Tra HOANG. (2011). Le système de l’élevage bovin non laitier dans
l’agriculture durable dans la province de Bac Kan dans la région montagneuse nord du
Vietnam (thèse de doctorat in anglais). Université de Liège – Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech,
Gembloux, Belgique, 183 P., 47 Table., 42 Fig.
Résumé :
Parmi les productions animales, l’élevage bovin représente une filière-produit très importante
pour les zones montagneuses nord du Vietnam où les minorités ethniques sont souvent très
présentes et où les ressources foncières ne sont pas compatibles avec l’agriculture. Pour aider
les populations locales dans la lutte contre la pauvreté, de nombreuses organisations ont initié
des projets de développement axés sur les productions bovines. Toutefois, ces zones restent
sous-développées et les éleveurs sont souvent dépourvus.
Dans ce contexte, notre recherche s’est fixée pour objectif de caractériser, de comparer et
d’évaluer les systèmes d’alimentation des bovins du point de vue de la durabilité.
Un échantillon stratifié composé de 97 exploitations a été constitué avec des éleveurs en libre
parcours, en pâturage partiel et en affouragement. Ces exploitations localisées dans la
province de Bac Kan ont été enquêtées de 2007 à 2009. Les données ont été récoltées sur le
terrain au départ de différentes enquêtes réalisées avec des questionnaires semi-structurés et
des guides d’entretien. L’analyse des données a eu recours à la statistique descriptive, à
l’analyse des corrélations entre variables et au calcul d’indicateurs socio-économiques. Sur la
base des enquêtes, des différences entre les trois systèmes d’élevage bovin ont pu être mises
en évidence.
L’accès aux pâturages et la topographie, l’ethnicité, l’importance relative des productions
agricoles et forestières et les possibilités d’emplois extra-agricoles sont tous des facteurs qui
influencent les systèmes. Le système d’affouragement représente le mode d’élevage le plus
performant lorsque l’on envisage les retombées sociales et économiques, mais il est
relativement limité pour la gestion et l’utilisation des effluents d’élevage en raison de sols à
forte pente et des habitudes des populations. Le recyclage des matières organiques est moins
performant dans ce système lorsqu’on le compare aux systèmes adoptés dans les terres basses.
En conclusion, il semble se dégager des perspectives intéressantes pour l’élevage bovin dans
les zones rurales montagneuses. Toutefois, différentes stratégies doivent être adoptées afin de
réduire les écarts de pauvreté et d’améliorer la compétitivité des éleveurs. L’étude propose
des recommandations pour les exploitants qui pratiquent l’élevage bovin afin qu’ils renforcent
les performances de cette filière, luttent contre la pauvreté et améliorent leurs conditions de
vie.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am deeply indebted to many persons who have helped, supported and accompanied me
during the process of working on this dissertation. My greatest debt and special gratitude go
to my promoter, Prof. Dr. Philippe Lebailly, for his invaluable intellectual guidance, support
and continuous encouragement at all stages of my study. He constantly provided scientific
advice and support, and nevertheless gave me the maximal freedom and flexibility to follow
my own ideas and working timetable. I am especially grateful to him for his commitment to
my work, which has enabled me to learn a great deal.
I would like to extend my deep thanks to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Vu Chi Cuong, who immediately
agreed to be the second supervisor and who gave me his support and advice throughout the
study process.
My sincere thanks go to other members of my thesis committee, Prof. Dr. André Théwis,
Prof. Dr. Philippe Burny, Prof. Thomas Dogot, Prof. Vu Dinh Ton for their valuable
comments and advice on the content of the thesis in the different processes to improve its
quality both in language and quality for the final version approved for the public defence.
I am indebted to Dr. Nguyen Tuan Son, Hanoi University of Agriculture for his support in
applying for a PhD scholarship from BTC/CTB and the first phase of the pre-doc study as
local promoter; however, we were unable to continue our partnership due to his very busy
schedule.
I am grateful to Prof. Dr. Frank Heidhues, University of Hohenheim, Germany, who
immediately agreed to advise me on the direction my thesis should take and its content, thus
opening up my view for the study. A special thank-you goes to my friends, Dr. Dominic
Smith, Technical Advisor in International Market Development and Investment JSC (MDI)
Company cum Senior Technical Advisor in Helvetas Vietnam, and Dr. Do Anh Tai, Thai
Nguyen University, Vietnam. Their moral support always encouraged me, as did our fruitful
discussions and the comments they made during the writing process of this dissertation. I
would also like to express sincere thanks to Dr. Le Quang Bao, ETH University, Switzerland,
for his reference documents and valuable advice on the methodology of sustainable
assessment by using the multi-criteria analysis approach. I would like to show a deep
gratitude to help from Mr. David Rorke, Rorke Translation and Interpreting Co. LTD,
Vietnam for his edition to improve my thesis not only in languages but also in the quality.
My thesis would not have been complete without the warm help and support of the farmers
and local authorities in Nghien Loan commune, Cong Bang commune, Pac Nam district and
Bac Kan province, who were so kind and generous in giving their time and patient in helping
me during my field visits. I cannot help thinking of my interpreters, Ms. Thuan in the Nghien
Loan commune and Ms. Nhung in Cong Bang commune who helped me during the fieldwork
and for giving me insight into Tay and H’Mong cultures.
I also wish to give many thanks to all of the members of the Department of Economics and
Rural Development – Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech – University of Liege for their friendship and
help, especially Mrs. Nadine Stoffelen, chief secretary, and Ms. Anne Pompier, assistant
secretary, with administrative support, and Ms. Christine Fadeur, assistant secretary who
assisted me in searching reference materials. There are numerous other people who
accompanied me during the process of writing my dissertation. In particular, I would like to
convey my special thanks to Dr. Brigitte Duquesne for her great help at the first phase of
studying, which contributed to enhancing the quality of the final work. I want to express my
gratitude for the mental support to edit its first draft from Mr. Olivier Machiels and for the
thorough statistics check done by Ms. Eléonore Horge.
I would like to convey my sincere thanks to Belgian Technical Cooperation (BTC/CTB) for
its financial support for my study in Belgium as well as field visits in Vietnam.
I would like to express my thanks to the board of directors of the National Institute of Animal
Sciences (NIAS), Hanoi, Vietnam, for their support that helped me to continue studying. I
would also like to thanks to Prof. Dr. Le Viet Ly, formal Vice Director of the NIAS for his
valuable encouragement and advice in the progress of the study. I am in debt of his help.
I cannot help thinking of my close friends for their encouragement and help during my study.
Without their sincere friendship, my study in Gembloux would have been very difficult.
I am greatly indebted to my parents, my brothers and sister for their warm love, support, and
encouragement during my study. This thesis is the loving dream of my father, to whom I
would like to dedicate it as a present as he enters his eighties. I am so indebted to my mother-
in-law who cared for my children during my study, without whose help I would never have
finished my study. I cannot adequately express the depth of my appreciation and love for my
dear husband, Pham Huu Hung, my closest friend and confident, and my darling daughters, Y
Nhi and Da Quynh, who have stuck with me, encouraging me throughout the long time I was
away studying in Belgium. You are all my love!
ABBREVIATIONS
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
asl. above sea level
DST Bac Kan’s Department of Sciences and Technology
CPRGS Comprehensive poverty reduction and growth strategies
EBA Employment Based Analysis
FMD Foot-and-mouth disease
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GDVC General Department of Vietnam Customs
GM Gross Margin
GSO Vietnam General Statistic Office
Ha Hectare(s)
HH Household(s)
ILRI International Livestock Research Centre
km Kilometre
LUC Land Use Certificate
M Mean (Average value of a variable)
MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
mil. Million
N Number of samples (sample size)
NIAS National Institute of Animal Sciences
NMR Northern Mountainous Region
Num. Number
PCR Bac Kan Party Committee Report
PSO Bac Kan Provincial Statistic Office
RPR Residue-to-Product Ratios
Sig. Significance (P value)
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
TFP Total Factor Productivity
TLU Tropical Livestock Unit
U.S. United States of America
VND Vietnamese Dong
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 1
1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS ...................................................................... 3
1.2.1 Competition with the dairy cattle sector ......................................................... 3
1.2.2 Imported cattle products .................................................................................. 3
1.2.3 Development trend of beef cattle markets’ products in Vietnam ................... 4
1.2.4 Cattle production on smallholder farms and sustainable agriculture .......... 6
1.2.5 Cattle production in Bac Kan province, in Vietnam’s NMR ......................... 7
1.2.6 The problems in a nutshell .............................................................................. 8
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ................. 8
1.4 HYPOTHESES AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................ 9
1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS ..................................................................... 9
2 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................. 11
2.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND CATTLE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS ............................................................ 11
2.1.1 Sustainability of agricultural systems ........................................................... 11 2.1.1.1 Definition of sustainable development ...................................................................... 11 2.1.1.2 Sustainability of an agricultural system ..................................................................... 12 2.1.1.3 What is a sustainable farming system? ...................................................................... 12
2.1.2 Livestock production system ......................................................................... 14 2.1.2.1 Definition of a livestock production system ............................................................... 14 2.1.2.2 What is a sustainable livestock production system?.................................................. 16
2.1.3 Beef cattle production in the context of sustainable agriculture ................. 18 2.1.3.1 Development of beef cattle production and economic efficiency ............................. 18 2.1.3.2 Development of beef cattle production and social solidarity .................................... 20 2.1.3.3 Development of beef cattle production and environmental sustainability ............... 20
2.1.4 Beef cattle production and poverty alleviation ............................................. 22
2.1.5 Beef cattle production systems in the Northern Mountainous Region of
Vietnam .......................................................................................................... 23
2.1.6 Concept of the study ...................................................................................... 24
2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH SITES AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................... 27
2.2.1 An overview of the Northern Mountainous Region of Vietnam ................. 27
2.2.2 General introduction to Bac Kan province .................................................. 30
ii
2.2.2.1 Geography, population and climate conditions in Bac Kan ....................................... 30 2.2.2.2 An introduction to the agricultural sector in Bac Kan province ................................. 33
2.2.3 Description of Pac Nam district and its characteristics ............................... 43 2.2.3.1 General information ................................................................................................... 43 2.2.3.2 Cattle markets and cattle resources in Pac Nam district ........................................... 46
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................ 51
3.1 SELECTION OF STUDY SITES .................................................................. 51
3.1.1 Geographical situation of the selected communes ....................................... 51
3.1.2 Population and land resources ..................................................................... 53
3.1.3 Agricultural sector in the selected communes.............................................. 55
3.1.4 Forest development in the selected communes and its orientation ............. 55
3.1.5 Off-farm activities, infrastructure, and water source ................................. 56
3.2 TARGET GROUP SELECTION................................................................... 57
3.2.1 Selection of cattle farming households......................................................... 57
3.2.2 Selection of stakeholders in cattle markets and cattle marketing chains .... 57
3.2.3 Selection of other target groups .................................................................... 57
3.3 STUDY FRAMEWORK ................................................................................ 58
3.4 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF COLLECTING AND ANALYSING DATA ...... 58
3.4.1 Data collection and data sets ......................................................................... 59 3.4.1.1 Selection of PRA tools ................................................................................................ 59 3.4.1.2 Structured questionnaire ........................................................................................... 59 3.4.1.3 Difficulties and challenges in accessibility to selected households and collection of data ................................................................................................ 62
3.4.2 Identification of criteria in cattle production ............................................... 64 3.4.2.1 Livestock in general and cattle production ................................................................ 64 3.4.2.2 Feeding resources ...................................................................................................... 64 3.4.2.3 Disease and losses ...................................................................................................... 65
3.4.3 Identification of costs and returns from cattle production .......................... 65 3.4.3.1 Production costs ......................................................................................................... 65 3.4.3.2 Product identification ................................................................................................ 67
3.4.4 Selection of indicators in the influence assessment
of cattle feeding system .................................................................................. 68 3.4.4.1 Economic viability and efficiency ............................................................................... 68 3.4.4.2 Social solidarity .......................................................................................................... 70 3.4.4.3 Environmental stability .............................................................................................. 71
3.4.5 A sustainable reference system ..................................................................... 72
3.4.6 Proposed data analyses ................................................................................. 73 3.4.6.1 Descriptive statistics and frequency analysis ............................................................. 74 3.4.6.2 Comparison among systems ...................................................................................... 74 3.4.6.3 Correlation analysis .................................................................................................... 74 3.4.6.4 Farm size and herd size classification......................................................................... 74
iii
3.4.6.5 Influence assessment approach of sustainable agriculture ....................................... 75 3.4.6.6 Assessment of the cattle trading and marketing chain .............................................. 75
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS .......................................................................... 77
4.1 CHARACTERISATION OF SELECTED HOUSEHOLDS IN DIFFERENT BEEF CATTLE FEEDING SYSTEMS ......................................................... 77
4.1.1 An introduction to the cattle feeding systems in the study area .................. 77 4.1.1.1 Cut-and-carry system ................................................................................................. 78 4.1.1.2 Free-range system ...................................................................................................... 79 4.1.1.3 Part-time grazing system ........................................................................................... 79 4.1.1.4 Historical development of the selected beef cattle systems ..................................... 80
4.1.2 General socio-economic characteristics of selected households in the
systems ........................................................................................................... 83 4.1.2.1 Family size, labour source and education .................................................................. 83 4.1.2.2 Off-farm activities ...................................................................................................... 86 4.1.2.3 Land resources and farm size ..................................................................................... 87 4.1.2.4 Cropping and forest activities .................................................................................... 89 4.1.2.5 Livestock production systems .................................................................................... 95 4.1.2.6 Analysis of the economic efficiency of livestock production ..................................... 99 4.1.2.7 Analysis of the economic efficiency of farm and non-farm activities ...................... 102
4.1.3 Resource flow in smallholder households and cattle production .............. 104
4.1.4 Section summary ......................................................................................... 105
4.2 CHARACTERISATION OF SELECTED CATTLE FEEDING SYSTEMS .. 107
4.2.1 Characteristics of cattle production in selected systems ............................ 107 4.2.1.1 Reasons for keeping cattle ....................................................................................... 107 4.2.1.2 Cattle breed and herd size classification .................................................................. 108
4.2.2 Management of cattle production in cattle feeding systems ...................... 110 4.2.2.1 Feed resources and grass production ...................................................................... 110 4.2.2.2 Reproductive performance and breeding management of cattle ........................... 117 4.2.2.3 Veterinary services and cattle losses ....................................................................... 121 4.2.2.4 Cattle shelters and hygiene conditions .................................................................... 123
4.2.3 Other issues for the developing smallholder farm cattle production ........ 124 4.2.3.1 Credit issues in livestock production and cattle development ................................ 124 4.2.3.2 Role of extension services and other organisations in cattle production ................ 125
4.2.4 Brief description of trading cattle in the study sites ................................... 125
4.2.5 Section summary ......................................................................................... 128
4.3 COMPARISON AMONG BEEF CATTLE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS ON THE DIMENSION OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY .................... 130
4.3.1 Analysis of the economic efficiency of cattle production in cattle feeding
systems ......................................................................................................... 130 4.3.1.1 Analysis of production costs .................................................................................... 130 4.3.1.2 Analysis of cattle gross return .................................................................................. 134 4.3.1.3 Net cattle income among the three systems ........................................................... 135 4.3.1.4 Fattening cattle in the cut-and-carry system ........................................................... 136 4.3.1.5 Analysis of selected economic indicators in cattle feeding systems ........................ 137
iv
4.3.2 Analysis of the social solidarity of cattle production in cattle feeding
systems ......................................................................................................... 139 4.3.2.1 Analysis of labour used in cattle production activities among the systems ............ 139 4.3.2.2 Analysis of employment opportunities in beef cattle production systems ............. 140 4.3.2.3 Analysis of gender issues in cattle feeding systems ................................................. 143
4.3.3 Analysis of the environmental stability of cattle production
in cattle feeding systems .............................................................................. 144
4.3.4 Measuring cattle production in the systems in all dimensions
of sustainable agriculture ........................................................................... 148
4.3.5 Section summary ......................................................................................... 149
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 151
5.1 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 151
5.1.1 Empirical findings ....................................................................................... 151
5.1.2 Limitations of the study ............................................................................... 153
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 154
6 REFFERENCES ................................................................................................. 157
7 ANNEXES .......................................................................................................... 173
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Population of cattle by breed in Bac Kan province ..............................................40
Table 2: Example of differences in lean meat capacity of cattle .......................................49
Table 3: Brief description of all communes in Pac Nam district ........................................52
Table 4: Some key statistical data for the selected communes ........................................53
Table 5: Population, family size, and number of households in the study area in 2007 ....54
Table 6: Major crop production in the selected communes ...............................................55
Table 7: Number of selected households per cattle systems ............................................57
Table 8: Tools and brief information collected in the study ...............................................60
Table 9: Selected indicators and their description ............................................................72
Table 10: General characteristics of beef cattle feeding systems .......................................77
Table 11: Family size and labour force in cattle production systems in 2007 .....................84
Table 12: Off-farm activities and income for the selected cattle feeding systems in 2007 .....................................................................................87
Table 13: Land resources of beef cattle feeding systems in the study area in 2007 ...........88
Table 14: Classification of farm sizes among the cattle husbandry systems in 2007 ..........88
Table 15: Net income analysis of crop production in cattle feeding systems in 2007 ..........93
Table 16: Forest allocation and production in the selected systems ...................................95
Table 17: Number of main livestock types kept per farm household in the different systems ......................................................................................96
Table 18: Description of pig production in the cattle feeding systems (% households) .......98
Table 19: Reproductive performance of sows in the cattle feeding systems .......................99
Table 20: Losses in livestock production (exception for cattle) in selected systems in 2007 ............................................................................. 102
Table 21: Reasons for keeping cattle in selected cattle systems ...................................... 107
Table 22: Cattle herd size and structure in the cattle feeding systems ............................. 109
Table 23: Classification of cattle herd sizes among selected cattle feeding systems ........ 110
Table 24: Feed resources used in selected systems ........................................................ 112
Table 25: Feed shortage seasons and strategies to get through the feed shortage season ................................................................................. 113
Table 26: Grass production in beef cattle feeding systems .............................................. 114
Table 27: Labour spent on different cattle production activities in selected households with or without grass production .................................................... 115
Table 28: Net income analysis of cattle production with and without grass production ..... 116
Table 29: Reproductive performance of cows in the different beef cattle feeding systems ............................................................................................... 120
Table 30: Classifications of cow body condition in selected household ............................ 120
Table 31: Vaccination and disease treatment in selected systems ................................... 122
vi
Table 32: Losses of cattle (economic efficiency) in beef cattle systems in 2007 ............... 123
Table 33: Cattle shelters in selected systems .................................................................. 123
Table 34: Loan issues in different beef cattle systems ..................................................... 125
Table 35: Feeding costs of cattle production in cattle feeding systems (mil. VND/household) ....................................................................................... 131
Table 36: Analysis of total costs of cattle feeding systems (mil. VND/household) ............ 133
Table 37: Correlations between total cattle production costs and selected variables (N = 97) ........................................................................ 134
Table 38: Gross return analysis of cattle feeding systems................................................ 135
Table 39: Correlations between net cattle income and related variables (N=97) .............. 136
Table 40: Analysis of economic efficiency in different cattle feeding systems................... 139
Table 41: Family labour spent on different activities in beef cattle feeding systems ......... 140
Table 42: Analysis of social solidarity in cattle feeding systems ....................................... 142
Table 43: Analysis of return from cattle production per labour day among the systems................................................................... 143
Table 44: Proportion of female working time in comparison to men in selected systems .............................................................................. 143
Table 45: Proportion of women working in different cattle production activities ................ 144
Table 46: Influence of beef cattle feeding systems on environmental stability .................. 147
Table 47: Cattle production losses in the beef cattle systems during the cold outbreak in the early 2008................................................................... 147
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conceptual framework for sustainable analysis ..................................................13
Figure 2: A general conceptual model for a livestock production system ...........................14
Figure 3: A general conceptual model for livestock production ..........................................15
Figure 4: Classification of world livestock production systems ...........................................16
Figure 5: Determinants of sustainability .............................................................................17
Figure 6: Schematic representation of the overlapping scope of indicators of ecological, economic, and social aspects of livestock system sustainability .........................18
Figure 7: Relative contribution of biological resources to the global production of CH4 in the atmosphere ...................................................................................22
Figure 8: The development of beef cattle production systems on sustainable agriculture ..................................................................................26
Figure 9: Poverty rate by different ethnic groups in Vietnam .............................................29
Figure 10: Cattle population and cattle meat production in the NMR from 2000 to 2009 ....30
Figure 11: Bac Kan province, Pac Nam district and geographical location of selected communes .........................................................................................................31
Figure 12: Bac Kan population distribution by ethnic groups in 2002 ...................................32
Figure 13: Gross output at constant price 1994 for the agriculture sector ............................34
Figure 14: Land use in Bac Kan province in 2007 ...............................................................35
Figure 15: Areas planted in the main cultivated crops .........................................................36
Figure 16: Gross output of main cultivated crops ................................................................37
Figure 17: Development of livestock population in Bac Kan ................................................38
Figure 18: Total gross output from animal production in Bac Kan ........................................39
Figure 19: Development trend (2005–2008), plan (2006–2015) of the provincial cattle population ..........................................................................................................42
Figure 20: Cattle population by districts during 2003–2008 .................................................43
Figure 21: Land area and its distribution (hectares) for different sectors in 2007 .................44
Figure 22: Cultivation crop and livestock gross outputs in Pac Nam district ........................45
Figure 23: Development of livestock production by species in Pac Nam district ..................46
Figure 24: Structure of land resource in the selected communes in 2007 ............................54
Figure 25: Livestock population in the selected communes in the study area in 2007 .........55
Figure 26: Forest development in the selected communes in the study area in 2007 ..........56
Figure 27: Study framework ................................................................................................58
Figure 28: Procedure for data collection and analysis .........................................................59
Figure 29: Activity worksheet in SWOT analysis of sustainable beef cattle production ........61
Figure 30: Barometer of sustainability - a static representation of the reference system. ....73
Figure 31: Transect description of selected systems and their cropping calendar ...............80
Figure 32: Historical evolution of the cattle feeding systems. ..............................................83
viii
Figure 33: Education level of household heads in the production systems (% of households) .............................................................................................85
Figure 34: Farm land size classifications in selected households in the three systems in 2007 ..................................................................................................................88
Figure 35: Average agricultural land area in the selected systems in 2007 .........................90
Figure 36: Allocation of land areas for major crops in the selected systems in 2007 ...........92
Figure 37: Net income obtained in the major livestock types in selected systems in 2007 ............................................................................. 101
Figure 38: Net household income in the cattle feeding systems in 2007 ............................ 103
Figure 39: Resource flow in selected households for cattle production ............................. 105
Figure 40: Classification of cattle herd size (small, medium, large) in selected households ..................................................................................... 110
Figure 41: Average cattle net income in selected beef cattle feeding systems in 2007 ...... 136
Figure 42: Measuring the sustainability of the different cattle feeding systems .................. 149
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Vietnam’s ethnic minorities are often concentrated in remote, isolated, and mountainous
zones, and have a low living standard in comparison with the Kinh and Chinese ethnic groups
(van de Walle and Gunewardena, 2001). The poverty rate is extremely high among these
groups (Neefjes and Thanh, 2003). The Northern Mountainous Region (NMR) of Vietnam is
ranked second in poverty just behind the Central Highlands Region. It is estimated that the
poverty rate will remain as high as 37% in the mountainous regions in 2010 (CPRGS, 2003).
The NMR accounted for around 29% of the country’s total rural areas and about 13% of the
national population in 2007 (GSO, 2008). Most ethnic minority people in the NMR are
essentially engaged in the agricultural sector, often facing adverse natural conditions, poor
infrastructure, and a lack of basic resources (Castellas et al., 2002a; Minot et al., 2003).
According to Steinfeld and Mack (1997), livestock production contributes a great deal to rural
development. Livestock husbandry has positive effects on the diet, health, income, financial
security, sustainable crop yields, employment opportunities, and social status of households
(ILRI, 2003). Subsequently, raising livestock is a way to enhance the economic viability and
sustainability of a farming system (Steinfeld and Mack, 1997). The development of livestock
contributes not only to rural growth but also to poverty reduction and livelihood improvement
among the resource-deprived farmers because livestock development often benefits the poor
(de Haan, 1995; Devendra and Thomas, 2002). If livestock husbandry is properly managed, it
will play an important role in alleviating poverty and counteracting environmental
degradation. In addition, well-managed animal production can make agricultural systems in
developing countries more productive and sustainable (ILRI, 2003). The development of the
livestock sub-sector is also considered by the Vietnamese government as one of the main
strategies to achieve poverty reduction (CPRGS, 2003), because it contributed to around 20%
of the total agricultural GDP in 2007 (GSO, 2008), with the aim to contribute to around 32%
in 2010 and 40% in 2020 (Vietnam Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development - MARD,
2008). Compared to other regions, livestock income accounts for the biggest proportion of
total household income in the NMR (Maltsoglou and Rapsomanikis, 2005). Huyen (2004)
also found that animal husbandry shows a great potential to generate income for households
in the northern mountainous areas in Vietnam. Therefore, the development of animal
husbandry is considered as a promising solution to improve livelihoods for farmers.
Despite the low growth rate of Vietnam’s population compared to other developing countries,
overall population growth in the country means that cultivated land per capita is highly
limited. Thus, the high dependence of farmers on agricultural land is obvious, especially in
the highlands where available land is largely unsuitable for crop growing (Huyen, 2004). This
is seen as a critical factor in environmental deterioration (Ellis, 2000), because the pressure on
land will be very intense in rural areas. The lack of land resources as a vital asset for farmers
also implies that the rural poor tend to be highly dependent on natural resources extracted
from the environment (Ellis, 2000).
Among livestock types, beef cattle production is ranked as a very important sub-sector in
areas subject to extremely harsh natural conditions in mountainous areas where livestock
husbandry is indicated more than crop growing (Beganger and Vissac, 1993). However, in
Vietnam, most cattle are owned by small-scale farmers with limited land (Ly, 1995). It is
recorded that nearly two thirds of households in the rural northern mountains raise cattle
(Maltsoglou and Rapsomanikis, 2005). An indigenous cattle breed—Yellow cattle are
2 Introduction
predominant in Vietnam—are often kept in extensive cattle systems in the MNR. It is
reported that local breeds of livestock are often more adaptable to specific environmental
contexts and weather changes, foodstuff availability and quality, and have desirable
characteristics (Gender in Agriculture, 2009). Although local cattle are well adapted to harsh
environments, their body size is small and their growth rate is low, which are constraints to
their development potential. Cattle production in these zones is distinguished according to
feeding systems, namely free-range, part-time grazing, and cut-and-carry (Nho et al., 2003;
Mui, 2003; Tra, 2007).
In Vietnam, beef production per capita increased considerably, 6.0% annually, from 1.2 kg in
1995 to 2.2 kg in 2009, and subsequently increasing to 2.4 kg in 2007 (GSO, 2010). This was
due to an increase in domestic demand resulting from a gradual increase in capital income and
from the government’s efforts to implement poverty alleviation policies and strategies and
livestock development programmes. Minot et al. (2003) also certify that the main forces
pushing up the demand for livestock products in Vietnam are total population growth and
improved living standards. Nevertheless, this increase was lower than the substantial increase
ratio of total meat production per capita annually in the country (nearly 7.5%) that soared
from around 19.2 kg in 1995 to approximately 40.4 kg per annum in 2009 (calculated from
FAO data, 2010). The demand for meat products is expected to rise by 6-7% in the next five
years (MARD, 2008). However, beef production contributed only a small amount to meat
production (around 6.0% of total meat production in Vietnam in 2009).
During the period 1995-2000, there was a slight increase of the cattle herd countrywide of 0.5
mil. head (from 3.6 mil. head in 1995 to around 4.1 mil. head in 2000). Then a sharp
reduction of the cattle population was recorded the next year, a decrease to 3.9 mil. head in
2001. A sudden increase of cattle population countrywide was recorded between 2002 and
2007 (Annex 1). This was in response to government support policies such as a subsidy for
crossbreeding cattle and for grass production, providing loans and credit, and support for a
breeding selection programme. On the other hand, a considerable decrease of cattle
population countrywide was recorded between 2008 and 2009. This might also be a result of
policies of the Vietnam government that prompted a sharp boost of the cattle herd for several
years but which were not highly sustainable or suitable to the conditions of many regions
where many cattle died, were sold or were otherwise eliminated. Failure of the crossbreeding
programme in Bac Kan is an example illustrating the unfruitful effects of those development
programmes (Tra, 2007). In addition, the economic crisis and outbreaks of diseases such as
foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) are other reasons for this reduction. Nevertheless, the total
cattle herd in Vietnam still increased at a rate of 4.5% annually on average during the last 15
years. A rather similar trend was also recorded in the live weight of cattle countrywide, which
reached a rate of around 8.5% annually (more than doubling from 83,000 tonnes in 1995 to
189,000 tonnes in 2009). Differences between the ratio of the cattle herd increase and live
weight of cattle might be related to imports of beef and dairy cattle for breeding under
national and provincial cattle development programmes as well as growing imports of exotic
breeds, crossbred cattle, and their offspring in many areas. Thus, it can be said that cattle
production tended to develop rather strongly in the country due to government support
policies.
Introduction 3
1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS
1.2.1 Competition with the dairy cattle sector
Despite its late development, the strong growth of dairy herds in all agro-ecological regions in
Vietnam is considered to be due to the high milk demand, especially in big cities, and strong
support from the government through various policies, especially the priority strategy to close
the gap between production and consumption (Hemme et al., 2006; Luthi et al., 2006).
During the period 1995-2009, there was a sharp rise in dairy cattle herds, from about 22,600
head in 1995 to 115,500 head in 2009. Simultaneously, there was a dramatic increase in milk
production of over 200,000 tonnes (from 65,800 tonnes to 278,000 in the same period) (GSO,
2010). The government provided substantial financial support for the importing of dairy
cattle, for example, from 2001-2005, 10,356 dairy cows were imported into the country. In
addition, many provinces of Vietnam had their own import programme (live dairy cattle and
semen). However, there are no statistical data for the country as a whole on the budget and
number of cattle and doses of semen imported since the government issued its policies
regarding the dairy cattle sector.
It is important to note that there is strong competition between beef cattle production and the
number of dairy animals culled for slaughter as a beef resource for domestic consumers.
According to estimates from MARD (2006), the rate of culling and replacing dairy cows is
around 17% annually. Thus, approximately 20,000 head of dairy cows may be eliminated and
slaughtered for meat in 2009. In addition, only around 80% of dairy heifers are finally
selected to become dairy cows. Thus, it is estimated that over 10,0001 head of dairy heifers
are culled for meat or are raised as beef cattle. Furthermore, the ratio of male to female calves
is around 50/50 out of approximately 50,000 calves. So about 25,000 male calves are born
and are often channelled to the beef market around a week after birth at a weight of
approximately 35-40 kg per head.
1.2.2 Imported cattle products
Over the past decades, beef cattle production in Vietnam has achieved a positive development
trend. There has been a dramatic increase in cattle meat production chiefly due to numerous
support strategies under cattle development programme for the whole country, and this
includes cattle production in Vietnam’s NMR. However, increasing consumer demand,
mainly in urban areas, has required large quantity of imports of beef from outside to fill the
demand shortfall. According to GAIN (2006), Vietnam’s economic development is causing
income per capita to steadily increase, encouraging consumer spending. As a result,
Vietnam’s per capita meat consumption is increasing as well, including a higher demand for
beef. Despite increasing demand, beef consumption per capita is still low. Dac (2002)
indicates that the country is importing a significant volume of high quality meat, especially
high quality beef to meet the high demand for quality. Beef is Vietnam’s highest meat import
and it is expected that beef importing will continue to grow to meet local demand, especially
in big cities due to low domestic cattle and buffalo meat production in the country and limited
resources particularly for grazing (GAIN, 2006).
According to statistical data collected from the General Department of Vietnam Customs
(GDVC, 2010), cattle and buffalo meat imported into Vietnam accounted for around 12% of
1 According to MARD data (2006), around 75% of total dairy cows were serviced, of which around 70% were
successful. There were 70,000 milking cows in 2009 (GSO, 2010).
4 Introduction
total meat imports. Despite the growth of cattle production in the country, the quantity of
imported beef increased sharply by 2,000 tonnes or around USD 10.0 mil during the period
2000-2008 (from 56 tonnes [USD 0.3 mil.] in 2000 to 2,056 tonnes [USD 10.27 mil.] in 2008,
indicating a soaring demand on the part of local consumers, with low and preferential
government tax rates. However, these rapid changes had a serious effect on the cattle and
buffalo population throughout the country because imported frozen beef products were lower
in price and higher in quality than domestic beef products in Vietnam. Therefore, the
government of Vietnam decided to implement quota policies and steeply increase taxes in late
2008, from 12% to 17% (decree 83/2008/QD-BTC), with a further increase in early 2009
from 17% to 33% (decree 52/2009/TT-BTC) in order to support domestic cattle production.
The result was nearly halving the quantity of beef imported in 2009 (only 1,151 tonnes or
USD 6.65 mil.) (GDVC, 2010) (Annex 2).
Further, large numbers of live cattle and buffalo were also imported legally and illegally into
Vietnam from China, Thailand, Laos, and Myanmar. Some 5,700 head of breeding cattle and
buffalo and 47,000 head of fattening animals from Thailand and Lao were registered for
veterinary check by the Department of Animal Health – MARD at the end of 2009
(Department of Animal Health, 2010). According to a survey of Vietnam Economic News
(04/01/2010), around 1,000 head of beef cattle were legally imported from Laos to Vietnam.
Around 90% of cattle in slaughterhouses in the south were sourced from Thailand. On the
other hand, large numbers of live cattle and buffalo were imported illegally through the
borders between Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand that might not be recorded and
controlled2. Furthermore, live cattle and buffalo also illegally imported through borders
between China and Vietnam, but there was no record about this. Cattle and buffalo are
routinely imported to Vietnam, which may be due to price differentiation, shortage of cattle
resources, and high Vietnamese consumer demand. Thus, domestic cattle products have to
compete not only with the price of imported cattle products, but also their quality and
quantity. Thus, heavy beef and live animal imports as well as unsustainable cattle
development programme policies impacted negatively on the development trend of beef
cattle, with decreased cattle herd population and meat production on a countrywide scale and
in Vietnam’s NMR. Thus, there are bright prospects for the development of cattle production
on smallholder farms especially in the NMR.
1.2.3 Development trend of beef cattle markets’ products in Vietnam
So far, however, there has been little discussion about development trends of agricultural
products in Vietnam’s modern retail trade, especially on cattle products. In the trend of
developing economies such as Vietnam, transformation of the retail trading structure has
become a central issue for smallholder farms. These rapid changes are having a serious effect
on the trade of agricultural products, including cattle products; especially it will also bring
opportunities for development of beef cattle production.
Schipmann (2010) conducted a study of these changes in modern retail structures in Thailand.
It can be said that the development of modern supply chains will soon find its way into
Vietnam as well as other developing countries. The speed, spatial distribution, and expansion
of modern retail structures are determined by the interplay of various factors including
economic growth, increasing consumer diversification, and ‘the westernization of diet’
(Schipmann, 2010). Maruyama and Trung (2007) argue that the major reasons identified by
Vietnamese respondents for shopping at supermarkets are self-service, guarantee of quality,
2 http://vneconomy.vn/20100104094912563P0C19/thit-trau-bo-ngoai-dang-lan-at-thi-truong.htm
Introduction 5
fixed prices, safe and clean goods, the ability to search for something unique, and a one-stop
service.
In recent years, there has been an increased consumer interest in foods in supermarkets caused
the greater number of supermarkets in Vietnam (Maruyama and Trung, 2007), especially in
Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. However, only small quantities of animal meats are sold to
supermarkets, including beef, but a rather large amount of frozen meat is available in
supermarkets in Hanoi (personal observation). Smith and Tra (2008) find that despite the
number of supermarkets in Hanoi, only a small amount of domestic chicken meat is sold in
them. Most chicken products are sold in wet market or fresh-product markets. Thus, domestic
beef is undoubtedly no different with chicken products. However, the role of supermarkets is
growing in Vietnam. The number of supermarkets and shopping malls has increased rapidly,
from only 12 (10 supermarkets and 2 trade centres) in 6 out of 64 cities and provinces in 1995
to 210 supermarkets and 32 shopping malls in 30 cities by late 2004 (Maruyama and Trung,
2007). Reardon et al. (2008) find that supermarkets spring up as a result of consumer demand
(highlighting demand incentives and demand capacity) and supply of supermarket service
(highlighting supply incentive and supply capacity). Similarly, according to Maruyama and
Trung (2007), the increase in supermarkets in the past decade may be due to the following
factors: (i) increases in income; (ii) urbanisation; (iii) consumers are younger and more
knowledgeable; (iv) weakness of traditional markets; (v) support from the Vietnamese
government; and (vi) relaxing of regulations on foreign direct investment and food retailing
since the 1990s. However, their analysis shows that at present, traditional markets remain the
major distribution channels for food products. In the case of fresh food, they verified the
continued dominance of traditional markets in terms of proximity, freshness, and price, which
factors are the main barrier to the development of supermarkets.
Actually, supermarkets are initially established in high-income areas of urban centres. In their
early stages of development, supermarkets emphasise staples and processed products, offering
these products at low prices to attract a broad customer base and thus compete fiercely with
traditional shops (Reardon et al., 2007). By 2002, the supermarket shared around 63% in East
Asia and 33% in Southeast Asia of processed/packaged food in the retail market (Pingali,
2006). Maruyama and Trung (2007) report that in 1999, just 5 years after the first
supermarkets were opened in Vietnam, supermarkets accounted for nearly 20% of purchases
of household products in major cities. Schipmann (2010) discusses that the trends of
supermarket expansion observed nowadays in developing countries reflect the same
development that took place in the retail sector in the U.S. and Europe a few decades ago.
Schipmann (2010) indicates that improved agricultural production systems have to be focused
in order to support smallholders in developing countries and improve their livelihoods;
nowadays, however, it is recognized that efficient production of agricultural products is not an
end in and of itself. Therefore, lucrative markets for produce are needed, and farmers must be
given access to these markets. For farmers, supermarkets are not only a new type of market
outlet, but they are also quite different from traditional markets, as reflected by the products
they offer (product variety and product quality) as well as their procurement systems. Peardon
et al. (2008) discuss that the rapid rise of supermarkets has transformed agri-food markets;
however, those transformations bring in not only potentially great opportunities but also great
challenges. Thus, according to their point of view, development models, policies, and
programmes all must adapt to these changes. Supermarkets aim to attract consumers by
offering a wide variety of products, many of which might not always be found in traditional
markets (Schipmann, 2010). Supermarkets also implement tremendous changes in
procurement systems such as establishing distribution centres, making bulk purchases from
wholesale markets, and implementing contractual arrangements with suppliers (Schipmann,
6 Introduction
2010). In addition, Tisdell (2010) indicates that supermarkets tend to favour a characterised
product and want easy traceability of the products.
Thus, there are different positive impacts of supermarket expansion for farmers: (i) an
additional market outlet for farmers; (ii) farmers benefit from a diversification of their product
portfolio; and (iii) the higher financial benefits can have positive effect on the income of
smallholder farmers (Schipmann, 2010). On the other hand, the additional requirements of
supermarkets are considered a barrier for smallholder farmers: (i) requiring improved
technologies to meet the supermarket’s quality requirements; (ii) smallholder farmers have
difficulties meeting the requirements of improved technologies due to a lack of both capital
and economics of scale; (iii) supermarkets prefer to deal with large-scale farmers, thus
excluding small-scale producers. Although supermarkets do not deal directly with individual
producers, in a new stage of development of supermarkets and hypermarkets, middlemen will
reflect the demand of supermarkets if they want to obtain sales to them (Tisdell, 2010).
Nevertheless, supermarkets that provide various types of products, that continue to add new,
high-quality products at reasonable prices, and that are built near the homes of consumers,
have the opportunity to build store loyalty and to increase market share (Maruyama and
Trung, 2007). On the other hand, Reardon et al. (2008) conclude that over the last five to 10
years, many farms have been driven out of business due to changes in product standards
imposed by modern supply chains and the implied investment in production.
Thus, it could be expected in the next few years or decades, cattle farmers will actively
participate in the modern retail markets, and trade their cattle directly to slaughterhouses, no
longer selling directly to retailers and middlemen acting as intermediaries. Beef products from
slaughterhouses will be largely sold by supermarkets and hypermarkets, although some will
be consumed by markets and shops. Accordingly, a question arises based on the forecast
development of modern supply chains: “How can smallholder cattle farmers successfully are
linked to such modern supply chains in the near future?” According to Haantuba and de Graff
(2008), in order to improve and expand trade linkages between smallholder farmers and
supermarkets, different elements must be emphasised: (i) improving penetration by
smallholder producers; (ii) generating marketable surplus through improvement of production
practices such applying good agricultural practices; and (iii) building credibility. Thus, the
development of beef cattle households in the coming years will have to addresses both
advantages and disadvantages of the development of modern markets in Vietnam.
1.2.4 Cattle production on smallholder farms and sustainable agriculture
Obviously, livestock production in general and cattle production in particular in small-scale
production contributes to society not only in terms of employment opportunities but also in
terms of poverty alleviation, with an overall contribution to economic growth. Thus, livestock
production provides not only diversified products and income, but also year-round
employment. According to a report from Livestock in Development (1999), the development
of livestock will create the potential for the poverty reduction by increasing employment
opportunities for the poor, and will enhance the specific contributions of livestock to
livelihoods of the poor. Similarly, Eguienta et al. (2002) point out that animals can be raised
to provide both meat and employment. The production of beef cattle also provides
employment opportunities in rural, mountainous, and remote areas, where a high rate of
unemployment is recorded, because of the intensive labour requirement for grazing. In
addition, the role of women in livestock production is highly valued, including tethering,
tending, and other tasks.
Introduction 7
Besides social contributions, animal production also forms a major capital reserve for farming
households (Seré and Steinfield, 1996). In poor areas especially, livestock production plays a
very important role as a source of income for smallholders (Epprecht, 2005). Beef cattle on
smallholder farms also play many roles in the economic spectrum. Keeping cattle helps
farmers to increase their income; when combined with other activities, its economic efficiency
also increases (Quan, 2001).
There tends to be a strong mutual antagonism between sustainable development and
environmental protection, in such a way that the poor are often forced to degrade the
environment that they strongly depend on (Ellis, 2000; Taylor, 2001). Their livestock may be
allowed to overgraze grasslands (Ellis, 2000). To profit from animal husbandry, human and
economic pressures can steer livestock production in ways that are detrimental to the
environment (Seré and Steinfeld, 1996). Thus, small subsistence and semi-subsistence
farmers are possibly both victims of and contributors to the un-sustainability. Cattle
production is highlighted as an environmental risk due to releasing methane and other
greenhouse gases. In addition, environmental degradation such as degradation of soil and
erosion can also result from cattle overgrazing.
It is clear that negative effects of cattle production in particular and other agricultural
activities in general hinder the availability of resources over time. Therefore, through proper
management of their resources in a sustainable way, farmers can help to prevent this.
Sustainability is an important criterion in assessing the performance of existing farm activities
and systems (McConnel and Dillon, 1997). In addition, a good understanding of existing
systems is required to recommend improved farming systems (Beets, 1990).
Thus, in order to focus on effective natural resource management in mountainous regions, the
study needs to take a holistic approach, taking into consideration not only livestock systems
and cropping systems but also the environmental and socio-economic context in selected
households (Eguienta et al., 2002). In addition, the production of cattle is affected not only by
internal factors and external factors, but also by animal factors (Skunmun et al., 2001). Thus,
the study is going to treat the issue of sustainability of cattle production systems by focusing
on comparison among cattle feeding systems on the three dimensions of sustainability:
ecological, economic, and social-cultural. It will address the question, if and to what extend
beef cattle production in the mountainous regions, highlighting different cattle feeding
systems, can contribute to these three pillars.
1.2.5 Cattle production in Bac Kan province, in Vietnam’s NMR
Bac Kan is one of the poorest provinces in the NMR. In 2004, around 51% of its population
were ranked as poor, which figure is extremely high compared to the national poverty rate of
the time (19.5%) (Bac Kan Province Annual Report - PAR, 2005; GSO, 2005). Its poverty
level was considerably reduced but still very high in 2007 compared to the national figure
(37% versus 15%) (Bac Kan PAR, 2008; GSO, 2008). Cattle production accounted for an
important proportion in the total gross output of the provincial livestock sub-sector, about
29%, while it accounted for only around 4% on average countrywide in 2005 (Bac Kan
People’s Committee Report - PC, 2006; MARD, 2006). To help local people in the NMR to
escape from poverty, many governmental and non-governmental organisations and
institutions have initiated projects to promote the development of livestock in general and
beef cattle in particular. Modalities for development of cattle production in the NMR have
been promoted as a potential solution to enhance economic growth and livelihoods for
farmers, especially the poor. However, the cattle production sector still remains under-
developed, hence the generally high poverty level of farmers. On the other hand, for the NMR
8 Introduction
including Bac Kan province, certain doubts prevail about the environmental dimension
because the province is among ones prone to climate change impacts. In addition, there is a
serious lack of understanding of how the beef cattle market really works in the province.
Lapar et al. (2003) find that livestock producers in Vietnam do not have an enabling
environment to improve production activities because there is a lack of an organised animal
market system. Furthermore, the need for socio-economic research into institutional
frameworks for the processing and marketing of livestock products is important (PPLPI-
Policy brief, 2004). Thus, there should also be an effort to study and analyse cattle production
in the province and domestic markets for beef cattle products. However, in this study context,
some brief insight into the local cattle markets and marketing chain of beef cattle will be
provided in order to round out sustainable development trends in beef cattle production
systems.
1.2.6 The problems in a nutshell
Both qualitative and quantitative data related to the sustainable impacts of different cattle
production feeding systems are still lacking. Nevertheless, the limited information on the
livestock sector in developing countries in general and in Vietnam in particular can partly be
explained by the complexity of the subject (Seré and Steinfeld, 1996). Although the issues are
complex, livestock production on smallholder farms in Vietnam has been widely studied.
Nevertheless, the comparison of various systems used in the context of sustainable agriculture
development has not yet been investigated so far. Hence, the purpose of the study is to focus
on the comparison influence of the various cattle feeding systems used by different ethnic
minorities in the context of sustainable agriculture and their potential improvement in the near
future. Addressing these issues will bring significant practical recommendations to farmers,
researchers, and policy-makers as they seek to improve rural development in general and beef
cattle sub-sector in particular in the NMR.
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The general purpose of this study is to understand how beef cattle production systems in the
NMR can be improved in the short term and sustained in the long term. Thus, a
characterisation is made of the cattle feeding systems, the socio-economic and institutional
issues linked to them, and the point of view of the farmers themselves. A comparative
analysis of the systems and their constraints and opportunities is likewise made. In addition,
the study assesses the sustainable dimensions of cattle farming systems in order to highlight
the influence of beef cattle production sub-sector on the general sustainability of agriculture.
The overall question of the study is: what are positive influences of the cattle production
systems on agricultural sustainability?
In the study, the two main research questions are derived: (i) what are appropriateness of the
beef cattle feeding systems and their influences on agricultural sustainability? And (ii) what
would be the possible development trend of these systems in the NMR of Vietnam?
The study was conducted to achieve the following objectives:
Introduction 9
- To characterise the current situation of selected households among cattle feeding systems;
- To characterise the present state of production in cattle feeding systems, including free-
range, part-time grazing and cut-and-carry;
- To compare among beef cattle production systems on the economic, social and
environmental dimensions in the context of sustainable agriculture, with a strong focus on
social-economic indicators; and
- To formulate recommendations for the development of sustainable cattle production
systems in the Northern Mountainous Region of Vietnam.
1.4 HYPOTHESES AND METHODOLOGY
With the major purpose of contributing to the sustainable development of beef cattle
husbandry in the northern highlands, this study strongly emphasizes the influence of beef
cattle production systems at the small household level and the development trend of cattle
feeding systems in Vietnam’s NMR. Based on the study context as well as the actual situation
of households on the study site, four hypotheses were tested in this study, including:
- Cattle production in selected households is the most important source of income in
livestock production sector, all of cattle feeding systems combined;
- Among beef cattle feeding systems, the cut-and-carry system is the most profitable and
provides the most employment opportunities in the study area;
- All beef cattle feeding systems have positive social and economic influences but a negative
environmental influence as far as the sustainable development of agriculture is concerned
in the study area; and
- Cut-and-carry system is the best suited system, which will exploit future market
development trend of cattle products and highly compatible with natural resources.
This study mentions a range of dimensions for the sustainable development of beef cattle
production. It therefore focuses on qualitative analysis using discourse and text analysis,
descriptive analysis, correlation and comparison of beef cattle feeding systems as core
analytical instruments. As for influencing assessment, the influence of beef cattle production
on social solidarity, environmental stability, and economic efficiency are analysed to
determine which beef cattle feeding systems in the NMR would be sustainable. The study was
conducted in areas where the various cattle feeding systems are in place. In addition, there are
beef cattle markets available on the study sites. Cong Bang and Nghien Loan communes in
Pac Nam district, Bac Kan province, were selected for this study.
1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS
The dissertation is structured in five chapters. Chapter 1 gives some general introductory
information regarding Vietnam, poor communities in the NMR, along with livestock
production and cattle production. Then it states problems of beef cattle production in Vietnam
in general and Bac Kan province in particular. The chapter continues with objectives and
hypotheses, and also provides a brief introduction of the methodological approaches used in
the study in order to attract initial attention. Chapter 2 of the dissertation opens with a
definition and a conceptual framework of the study. It endeavours to define sustainable
agriculture and explain cattle production in the context of pathways to sustainability and
poverty reduction. It should be noted that the discussion of the agricultural sector, livestock
10 Introduction
production and cattle production sub-sector and their characteristics in Vietnam were
reviewed in the DEA thesis written by the author submitted and approved in 2007; therefore,
this information is not repeated in the study itself, but would be a useful reference during
discussion of the findings. The study site is then introduced and its characteristics are given to
provide insight as to why that area was selected. Chapter 3 of the dissertation is designed to
provide a discussion of research methodology for the study. After reviewing the reasons for
selecting the study sites and describing the communities, the paper goes on to discuss
selection of sample sizes and tools, selection of indicators as well as selection of analytical
instruments for the study. Results and discussions of the study are given in Chapter 4, which
divides into three sections. Section 1 introduces the characteristics of the selected households
and selected cattle feeding systems. Then it analyses crop, forest and livestock production
systems, their economic efficiencies, and linkage among cattle production and resources of
these sub-sectors in the selected households. Section 2 describes in detail the cattle production
systems, including their purpose, production scale, feed resources, breeding and management
and related issues. Section 3 analyses and discusses of the influences of beef cattle feeding
systems on three pathways to sustainable agriculture, including economics, society, and
environment, with strong focuses on socio-economic indicators. Chapter 5 concludes by
summarising the results and drawing conclusions, mentions limitations of the study, and
formulates recommendations for intervention activities to improve cattle production in the
systems.
2 BIBLIOGRAPHY
2.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND CATTLE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
This section explores the conceptual framework of the sustainable development of agriculture
and cattle production systems. It starts with a theoretical approach to sustainable agricultural
systems, including definitions of sustainable development, sustainability of agricultural
systems, and sustainable farming systems. The next section defines livestock production
systems and their pathways on the road to sustainability. Then, it moves to the core issue—
cattle production and its sustainable aspects including social, economic and environmental
issues. In addition, cattle production in the context of poverty alleviation and a description of
cattle systems in Vietnam are also included in this section.
2.1.1 Sustainability of agricultural systems
2.1.1.1 Definition of sustainable development
The term sustainable development means “development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World
Commission on Environment and Development – WCED, 1987). Correspondingly, FAO
(1989) also develops one of the most detailed definitions of sustainable development as “the
management and conservation of the natural resource base, and the orientation of
technological and institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and
continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Such sustainable
development in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors conserves land, water, plant and
animal genetic resources, is environmentally non-degrading, technically appropriate,
economically viable and socially acceptable”. This definition highlights the objectives of
optimizing benefit from a limited resource, minimizing the environmental degradation
generated by its uses, and regulating the rate of use of given resources over time.
The definition of sustainable development given by the FAO Council (quoted in Garcia,
1996) refers to the need to control: (i) the resource base; (ii) technological change; and (iii)
institutional change.
In addition, such controls are needed to ensure following:
- Satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations;
- Conservation of land, water, plants and animal genetic resources;
- Non-degradation of the environment;
- Use of appropriate technology;
- Economically viable exploitation; and
- Socially acceptable situations.
Sustainable development is the kind of human activities that maintains and continues the
historical fulfilments of the whole community of life (Engel, 1990, cited by Bossel, 1999).
According to Sen (2005), the term sustainable development is indicated into two aspects:
(i) ability to deal with short-term human needs; and (ii) ability to meet long-term social,
economic and ecological sustainability.
12 Bibliography
According to the United Nations’ definition in 1997, development is a multidimensional
undertaking to achieve a higher quality of life for all people, in which economic development,
social development and environmental protection are interdependent and mutually reinforcing
components of sustainable development (UN, 1997). Ness et al. (2007) state that sustainable
development means having to integrate three important dimensions including social
solidarity, economic efficiency and environmental stability. Thus, the development is
sustainable if it encompasses those three pathways.
2.1.1.2 Sustainability of an agricultural system
The characteristics of an agricultural system tend to reflect the characteristics of human
society at large to which the faming system belongs such as human work, social organisation,
technology and culture (Gomiero, 2004). Agriculture is a dynamic, adaptive and evolving
system.
Lewandowski et al. (1999) define sustainable agriculture as the management and utilization of
the agricultural ecosystem in a way that maintains its biological diversity, productivity,
generation capacity, vitality, and ability to function, so that it can fulfil—today and in the
future—significant ecological, economic and social functions at the local, national and global
levels and does not harm other ecosystems. Similarly, a sustainable agricultural system is a
production system that can indefinitely meet the demands for food, fibre and fuel at socially
acceptable economic and environmental costs (Crosson, 1993 cited by Lynam, 1994). The
sustainable development of a system is considered to be possible only if each component
system as well as the total system is viable (Bossel, 1999). According to McConnel and
Dillon (1997), the sustainability of a system means the capacity of that system to maintain its
productivity and/or profitability at a satisfactory level over a long period of time regardless of
year-to-year fluctuations. The concept involves the evaluation of farm activities and systems
in terms of interrelation among their ecological, economic and socio-cultural sustainability
over infinite time. Lewandowski et al. (1999) indicate that sustainable agriculture is the
management and utilisation of the agricultural ecosystem in a manner that maintains its
biological diversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and ability to function, so
that it can fulfil not only today, but also reach the future significant ecological, economic and
social functions at the different levels, from local to regional and does not damage other
ecosystems.
Similarly, Douglass (1984) cited by Thompson and Nardore (1999) describes three ways to
conceptualise sustainable agriculture: (i) resource sufficiency: the agricultural practice is
sustainable if the resources needed are in hand or foreseen; (ii) ecological sustainability: the
requirement to identify the biological limits to agricultural practice; and (iii) social
sustainability: identifying the political and ethical limits of agricultural systems and practices.
According to Thompson and Nardore (1999), research and policy for sustainable agriculture
should be divided into two paradigms. First, sustainability defined as resource efficiency
means accounting for the rates at which resources are produced and depleted, framing
strategies for conservation, regeneration and substitution for increasingly scarce resources.
Secondly, sustainability defined in terms of production integrity emphasising dynamic system
models of complex ecological and social processes, and system vulnerability to anthropogenic
stress.
2.1.1.3 What is a sustainable farming system?
A sustainable farming system is a system that has no negative trend in total factor
productivity (Lynam and Herdt, 1989). According to Lynam (1994), assessing the
Bibliography 13
sustainability of a farming system is to have a measure of its internal organisation,
management and performance over time. In addition, its external factors also need to be
considered, which could be measured by yield trends, disease build-up or profitability. The
sustainable development of farming systems is also defined as development that meets the
requirement of the farm family for basic needs such as food, fuel-wood and the like without
damaging the resource base, thereby compromising the ability of the future generations to
produce their needs on the same land and using the same resources (Beets, 1990).
Conway (1985) uses the term sustainability as a measure of a system’s function in
profitability, stability, and equitability. The sustainable development of a production system
will exist whenever the relevance of three dimensions including environment, economy, and
society is considered at the same time together (Tisdell, 1996; Becker, 1997) (Figure 1). In
addition, these dimensions will be set in the framework of policy and cultural environments.
Thus, a sustainable farming system should be balanced in the three aspects of environmental
stability, social equitability and economical productivity.
Figure 1: Conceptual framework for sustainable analysis Source: Becker, 1997
Farming systems in general and livestock production systems in particular are components of
an agricultural system hierarchy. An adequate representation of a farming system is required
in a multidimensional approach or multi-criteria approach, where many aspects and levels of
analysis have to be taken into account such as economic, environmental, social, cultural, and
many other perspectives associated with stakeholders, including farmers and consumers
(Gomiero, 2004). Thus, livestock production should not be considered uniquely as a
component belonging to a farming system.
Ethnic/cultural environment
Policy environment
Environmental stability
Su
sta
inab
le
develo
pm
en
t
Susta
ina
ble
D
evelo
pm
ent
Economic
efficiency
Social solidity
14 Bibliography
2.1.2 Livestock production system
2.1.2.1 Definition of a livestock production system
In fact, a livestock production system is a subset of a farming system (Lynam, 1994; Steinfeld
and Mäki-Hokkonen, 1995; Seré and Steinfeld, 1996; Steinfeld and Mack, 1997; Ibrahim and
Olaloku, 2000). Thus, a livestock production system is defined as the combination of
resources, livestock species, techniques, and activities mobilized by a community for a farmer
to convert natural resources into livestock products (Lhoste et al., 1993 quoted by Eguienta et
al., 2002). Traditionally, in Vietnam or in other developing countries, livestock studies have
often been organised on the basis of disciplines such as breeding, nutrition, or experiments in
research stations (Petheram, 1996). Consequently, a livestock farming system is a set of
interacting activities that can be synergetic or competitive including: (i) managed to satisfy
the farmer’s objectives in both the short and long terms; (ii) decided by one level of
management (farmer or family level); and (iii) compatible with the natural environment
(Ibrahim and Olaloku, 2000). The livestock system analysis must, therefore, comprise the
complete farm household system because the livestock production system includes not only
produce marketed outputs and products for home consumption, draught power, and manure
for crop production, but also plays an asset function with important social-cultural roles
(Steinfeld and Mack, 1997).
Figure 2: A general conceptual model for a livestock production system Source: Eguienta et al., 2002
In the context of a farming system approach, Eguienta et al. (2002) present a tight relationship
of indicators among household characteristics, cropping and livestock production systems
(Figure 2). It is important not only to analyse the livestock production itself more precisely,
but also to investigate statistical relationships among variables pertaining to household
characteristics, cropping systems, animal husbandry systems (herd management practices,
Bibliography 15
surveillance techniques and use of hillsides), and performance indicators (herd growth,
mortality, traction needs, household rice self-sufficiency levels). From this analysis, the
authors developed a typology of farmers and examined their common characteristics and
potential trajectories toward new organisational structures or innovative feed production
techniques.
The relationships among factors or agents of livestock production are presented in Figure 3.
Livestock breeds and genetic resources, herd composition, and feeding are the predominant
determinants of an animal husbandry system (Lhoste, 1986 quoted in Ibrahim and Olaloku,
2000).
Figure 3: A general conceptual model for livestock production Source: Modified from Lhoste (1986) quoted in Ibrahim and Olaloku (2000)
According to Seré and Steinfeld (1996), there is the need for an objective assessment of the
key factors affecting sustainability, and to provide a better understanding of the measures to
enhance the positive influences and mitigate possible negative effects of some agricultural
and development practices. Thus, a classification and characterisation of the world's livestock
systems has enabled many studies of livestock-environment interactions by both livestock
systems and impact domains. Therefore, from a regional and global perspective, livestock
production systems should be defined, described and put in a geographic context in order to
identify interactions between livestock and the environment in a system. Hence, a
classification of the world livestock production systems based on a qualitative and
quantitative description in order to contribute to structuring global assessments of the
interactions between livestock and the environment is presented in Figure 4. According to
Steinfeld and Mäki-Hokkonen (1995), the classification criteria of livestock production
system were limited to integration with crops, relation to land and agro- ecological zone. Seré
and Steinfeld (1996) divide livestock production systems into solely livestock production
16 Bibliography
systems and mixed farming systems. In solely livestock production systems, there are landless
livestock production systems and grassland-based systems. In mixed farming systems, there
are rain-fed livestock production systems and irrigated systems. A further classification of
those systems basing on types of livestock and geographical conditions was made. In
addition, livestock production systems may further be classified according to their main
products such as meat, milk or to services such as breeding or draught (Steinfeld and Mack,
1997).
In brief, the objectives of the approach referring to livestock farming system research are to
gain knowledge about farming and livestock systems, and to conduct research that will
provide the information necessary to design interventions for improving the performance of
the livestock production systems and contributing to the sustainable livelihood of the local
people.
Figure 4: Classification of world livestock production systems
Source: Steinfeld and Mäki-Hokkonen (1995); Seré and Steinfeld (1996)
2.1.2.2 What is a sustainable livestock production system?
Thompson and Nardone (1999) state that resources for livestock production are not available
infinitely, while humans and their nutritional needs can be considered infinitely. Furthermore,
the consumption of livestock products will increase steadily, especially in developing
countries, this implying that animal products supplied for human consumption must be
available infinitely. If animal production efficiency is not improved, therefore, the resource
will be harmed or even destroyed. According to Timon (1993), the sustainable development
of animal production poses many challenges: (i) to the primary users of livestock; (ii) to their
extension, research, and support services; (iii) to local and regional development authorities;
(iv) to investment agencies, government policy makers and their institutional organisations;
and (vi) to the consumer or user of animal products.
Bibliography 17
Thus, different elements must be determined (Figure 5) in order to effectively plan a
sustainable livestock development programme or a sustainable animal production system in
broader terms: (i) a comprehensive understanding of the human need to advance development
from individual and communal to national levels; (ii) a thorough analysis of the technical,
economic, and social implications of proposed interventions; and (iii) an assessment of
potential environmental impact (long- and short-term) that may influence local and/or global
conditions (Timon, 1993).
Figure 5: Determinants of sustainability Source: Timon, 1993
Similarly, according to Francis and Callaway (1993), the sustainability of an animal
production system depends on some of the following elements:
- Resource efficiency—most efficient possible use of non-renewable resources and,
whenever possible, substituting local renewable resources from those imported from
outside the farm;
- Profitability—economically profitable in both the short and long term;
- Productivity—maintaining and enhancing the productivity of all basic resources rather than
destroying or degrading them;
- Environmental soundness—minimal negative impacts on both the farm and farm borders;
- Social viability—equitable systems favouring farm owners, contributing to a viable rural
economy, infrastructure and community, and supporting and integrating with society
overall.
According to Barbier (1987) quoted in Payraudeau and van der Werf (2005), to be
sustainable, an activity must be viable from both an environmental and an economical
viewpoint, fair at its economic and social dimensions, and tolerable in its social and
18 Bibliography
environmental aspects. Moreover, sustainable production systems are adjusted to local,
national, and social conditions (Olesen et al., 2000). In addition, various options for achieving
sustainability, through alternative resources generated by research should be considered in
association with socio-economic and institutional issues (Okigbo, 1991). Garcia (1996)
advises that identifying of partially integrated indicators is useful and necessary to indicate
overlapping components of sustainability among eco-biological, techno-economic, and socio-
cultural pathways (Figure 6). He also observes that there are also fully integrated indicators
among the dimensions; however, one would have fundamental challenges to develop those
indicators, although changes in them would capture the changes of sustainability itself.
Figure 6: Schematic representation of the overlapping scope of indicators of ecological,
economic, and social aspects of livestock system sustainability Source: adapted from Garcia, 1996
Thus, the present study is conducted to understand three cattle feeding systems (free-range,
part-time grazing and cut-and-carry) in the Vietnam’s NMR in terms of household objectives,
household activities and resources, flow and interaction among resources, and socio-economic
and environmental issues.
2.1.3 Beef cattle production in the context of sustainable agriculture
According to Phillips and Sorensen (1993), to be sustainable in the short term, cattle
production systems must fulfil the requirements of the farmers for cost effectiveness and
minimal environmental pollution and minimum divergence from the welfare needs of the
cattle. In the long term, sustainability will only be achieved by the effective use of renewable
resources, minimum use of non-renewable resources, and the avoidance of environmental
pollution. The way of keeping cattle might threaten human existence such as by
desertification and climate change. Hence, assessing sustainable cattle production should be
conducted in all different pathways.
2.1.3.1 Development of beef cattle production and economic efficiency
Economic viability is included as one of the important pillars in the sustainable development
framework. According to Sen (2005), economic sustainability is considered in terms of the
costs of production and the prospects for continued economic viability in the face of changing
Bibliography 19
environmental, social, and economic conditions. Among many causes of farm un-
sustainability, the cost of various inputs is one of the key criteria (McConnell and Dillon,
1997). The optimal combination of inputs is calculated in such a way that the lowest
investment of input per unit of output is achieved at the point of maximum economic yield
(Holt, 1988, cited by Okigbo, 1991). Okigbo (1991) explains that the total variable costs of
inputs will be reduced by investing lower level of inputs, but it does not imply that it reduces
the variable costs per unit of outputs. The productivity achieved may not reach demand when
reducing input level because it results in low output (Okigbo, 1991). However, low input
systems may be developed for poor farmers who cannot afford costly inputs.
On the other hand, the economic viability of a production system depends upon various
attributes such as the level of economic returns, the instability and uncertainty of returns, and
in monetary economies, the associated financial requirements for the farming system, the
availability of finance and its implications for the financial liquidity of the farm (Tisdell,
1996). There are many aspects of economic sustainability including sustained yield, economic
performance and viability of farming and economic return (Sen, 2005). Furthermore, in the
development of sustainable production systems, the analysis of internal farm resources should
be made (Francis et al., 1986 quoted by Okigbo, 1991). Thus, the development of
economically viable agricultural production systems should be based on assessment of one or
more production systems from several alternative systems.
Hence, economic efficiency is essential for the sustainable development of beef cattle
production systems, because animal production also forms a major capital reserve for farming
households (Seré and Steinfeld, 1996). In poor areas, livestock production plays a very
important role as a source of income for smallholders (Epprecht, 2005). Huyen (2004) also
finds that in rural areas, cattle production is a money saving opportunity for households,
particularly interesting for the minority ethnic groups. Keeping cattle helps farmers to
increase their income, and combined with many other purposes, its economic efficiency also
increases (Quan, 2001). With regard to commodity production, calf raising is economically
effective as this activity enables use of local pastureland and labour, and has relatively low
production costs (Dzuc, 2003). Keeping cattle can lead to the use of agricultural by-products
and other feed resources that do not compete with human food, especially in mountainous
regions, where food security still a big issue for many households.
Cattle are the most important ruminant species in Vietnam and most of them are kept by
smallholder farms (Ly, 1995). Maltsoglou and Rapsomanikis (2005) found up to 23.9% of
households in Vietnam kept cattle. The highest proportion of households raising cattle was
found in the Northern Mountainous Region (65.5%). They are becoming one of the most
important sources of income, capital sink, aside from their use in traction (Ly, 1995). Cattle
are also raised for long-term savings and a form of wealth that can be sold to get cash at times
of need (Perkins, 2002). Production of meat and milk from ruminants is a tradition second in
importance compared to the provision of draught power and the production of manure (Ogle
and Phuc, 1997). However, mechanization is gradually reducing the role of draught animals,
especially in the lowlands (Huyen, 2004; Tra, 2007).
In the lowlands, cattle play a secondary role after pig and poultry production, while they play
the most important role in mountainous and hilly regions, where their contribution was over
22% in household livestock income (Epprecht, 2005). As reflected in the results found by
Quan (2001), households keeping cattle in Quang Binh province have rather good earnings
from cattle production, while they obtain poor earnings from poultry production and even lose
if raising pigs. On the other hand, Tung et al. (2007) find that keeping cattle in the NMR is a
source of good annual earnings, better than those from other sources, while it is a loss for
households in the Red River Delta and North Central Coast.
20 Bibliography
Moreover, cattle play an important role in harsh natural conditions in mountainous regions
where the development of livestock is more suitable than crop growing (Beganger and Vissac,
1993). Minot et al. (2003) observe that especially in remote provinces, income is split
between maize and cattle production. In spite of its importance, income from cattle husbandry
still accounts for a small part of the total income of households in the NMR (Epprecht, 2005),
although still higher than that in other regions.
2.1.3.2 Development of beef cattle production and social solidarity
Social solidarity implies the continued satisfaction of basic human needs such as food and
fibre, and social and cultural necessities such as security, equity, freedom, education, and
employment (Brown et al., 1987). Livestock husbandry provides not only diversified products
and income but also year-round employment. Besides economic contributions, Eguienta et al.
(2002) point out that animals can be raised to both produce meat and enhance employment
opportunities.
Livestock production in general and beef animal production in particular turns biological
inputs (feed resources and technology) in combination with social inputs including labour,
capital, and organisational capacity into outputs such as meat, manure, draught power, and
income (Thompson and Nardone, 1999). Among livestock types, the production of beef cattle
also provides opportunities of worker in rural areas, especially where a high rate of
unemployment is recorded. In Vietnam’s mountainous regions, the cattle grazing system
predominates and is highly labour-intensive. However, farmers are often only active about 65-
70% of their working time (Quan, 2001). Tung et al. (2007) also show that raising cattle
provides high employment opportunities in Northern Vietnam. Among smallholders, labour
redundancy is the predominant situation, where the extra labour might be employed to raise
cattle—a labour intensive sub-sector compared to others. Similarly, Tung et al. (2007) find
that the beef cattle production sector creates annually high employment opportunities in
Northern Vietnam. Furthermore, the author points out that income for labour derived from
this sector is higher than the average wage paid for hired labour in mountainous provinces. In
addition, in small-scale production, women play a vital role, especially where they actively
participate in all activities related to livestock management (Zaved et al., 2004).
Understanding the various roles women play in cattle feeding systems also becomes an
indicator in assessing the sustainable development of beef cattle production as a means of
improving their role and livelihoods.
2.1.3.3 Development of beef cattle production and environmental sustainability
The environment is a vital condition of human beings, and negative effects from any activity
will hinder the availability of resources over time (Sen, 2005). Environmental sustainability is
defined as the maintenance, continued productivity, and functioning of the ecosystem or of
natural capital both as source of inputs and as a sink for waste (Goodland, 1995 quoted by
Sen, 2005). It is said that demographic and poverty pressures are fundamental driving forces
affecting the environment in developing countries (Blackburn, 1998). There is a strong mutual
antagonism between sustainable development and environmental protection in such a way that
the poor are often forced to degrade the very environment that they depend on (Ellis, 2000;
Taylor, 2001), such as by allowing their livestock to overgraze grasslands (Ellis, 2000).
Livestock husbandry can contribute to societies, but human and economic pressures can direct
livestock production in ways that are detrimental to the environment (Seré and Steinfeld,
1996). According to Seré and Steinfeld (1996), there is not a clear assessment of the scale and
nature of the interaction between livestock production and the environment because of a lack
of technical analysis for making informed policy decisions and devising technical intervention
Bibliography 21
programmes. Nevertheless, it is increasingly clear that livestock-environment linkages should
be seen in the context of their human, economic, and political aspects, as well as that of
natural resource utilization. Moreover, the linkages between sustainable development, poverty
alleviation, and environmental protection should be also recognized (Wells and Brandon,
1992 quoted by Taylor, 2001).
There has been a huge increase in grain consumption by livestock, especially in intensive and
specialized systems of meat production on the grounds of increasing efficiency to supply food
for poor countries, and this is strongly affecting the sustainable development of agriculture
(Thompson and Nardone, 1999). Consequently, the ability of ruminants to transform feeds not
suitable for humans into high-quality food will be of great importance in the long term for
feeding a growing population (Thompson and Nardone, 1999). Ruminants play an important
environmental role in disease control in mixed crop or grazing systems because the biological
cycle of insects, fungi, and weeds is broken by the regular rotation of crop with pastures
(Thompson and Nardone, 1999). Moreover, with good management, livestock production can
make a positive contribution to natural resource (Boyazoglu, 1998).
On the contrary, if livestock production is not well-managed, it can contribute not only to land
degradation, water pollution, and emission of greenhouse gases but also to the loss of
biodiversity (Boyazoglu, 1998). It is a fact that manure from beef cattle production negatively
impacts environmental quality (Thompson and Nardone, 1999). According to Payraudeau and
van der Werf (2005), a farming activity is sustainable if its polluting emissions and its use of
natural resources can be supported in the long-term use of natural environment.
According to Leng (1993), methane is an important component of gases accumulating in the
atmosphere that cause a warming effect and climate change, and it is the gas most associated
with animal agriculture. Methane production from ruminants appears to be a major issue
although it contributes only around 18% of the overall warming due to the fermentative
digestion of ruminants (Figure 7). In addition, he finds that methane has a thermogenic affect
around 4–6 times higher than that of carbon dioxide. Payraudeau and van der Werf (2005)
state that in the overall assessment of agricultural sustainability, the first step would be the
diagnosis of the environmental impact of agriculture. At the livestock production scale, the
activity is considered sustainable when the production is optimized, inputs minimized, and
pollution emission minimized (CORPEN, 2003 cited in Payraudeau and van der Werf, 2005).
Becker (1997) argues that the discount rate of resource depletion and pollution in terms of
physical units may be used to assess environmental sustainability.
22 Bibliography
Figure 7: Relative contribution of biological resources to the global production of CH4
in the atmosphere. Source: Bolle et al. (1986) quoted in Leng (1993)
2.1.4 Beef cattle production and poverty alleviation
Besides the influence of cattle production on economic, social, and environmental aspects, the
cattle production sub-sector also plays an important role in poverty alleviation. According to
the Livestock in Development report (1999), development of the livestock sub-sector will
create a potential for poverty reduction by increasing labour opportunities for the poor and
will enhance the specific contribution of livestock to poor livelihoods. Beets (1990) indicates
that developing agricultural production is one of main ways of addressing the problem of
poverty because agriculture growth will both promote economic growth and reduce poverty,
especially in rural areas. In addition, improving agricultural productivity may have a strong
effect on smallholder farms with abundant labour resources (Dixon et al., 2001).
According to Steinfeld and Mack (1997), using animal as a growth engine is one of the
development opportunities in the agricultural sector, because livestock production plays a
major role in rural development, such as a source of nutrition, manure and traction power for
crop growing, cash income, employment, reducing risks, and capital savings. Moreover,
keeping livestock may help to enhance the economic viability and sustainability of a farming
system (Steinfeld and Mack, 1997). Many farmers report that animal production is a key
activity to improve their income, especially for the poor (Quan, 2001). Livestock production
is a critical source of household income especially in poor areas (Epprecht, 2005). Developing
the livestock sector in rural Vietnam has contributed to increased rural incomes and, to a
certain extent, to poverty reduction among small-scale farmers (Vietnam Development Report
– VDR, 2003).
According to Schipmann (2010), agriculture is as an avenue out of poverty, being a key factor
in reducing poverty in rural areas. Agriculture growth can help alleviate poverty through three
pathways—economics, society, and environment. Firstly, the real price of off-tradable
products may decline because of agriculture growth, in turn improving the purchasing power
of the poor. Secondly, agriculture can use unskilled labour more intensively than other sectors
of economy. Lastly, agriculture growth can increase the income of smallholders and thereby
reduce poverty among them, as well as generate indirect effects through an increased demand
for off-agriculture outputs (Bresciani et al., 2004).
Bibliography 23
Steinfeld and Mack (1997) state animal production plays an important role in rural
development. De Haan (1995) finds that livestock development often benefits the poor.
Therefore, the development of livestock stimulates not only rural growth, but also poverty
alleviation. Cattle production is a top priority in diversification of household incomes,
particularly in remote areas (Minot et al., 2003). Quan (2001) finds that the gross output from
cattle production accounts for about 10% of the gross household income in the Central Coast
of Vietnam. He shows that income from cattle production in total income from livestock
accounts for the highest proportion in poor households in comparison to other household
groups, reaching nearly 30%, although lack of capital is a major limiting factor in economic
activities in this household group.
Thus, the sustained and widespread development of beef cattle production will be a necessary
strategy for successful and sustainable development of the NMR and improvement of farmer
living standards and poverty alleviation is an issue confronting policy makers, researchers,
and farmers. Beef cattle production in the NMR is an answer, but a good understanding of
existing systems is required to design improved farming systems (Beets, 1990). Principally, in
order to decrease poverty and improve economic growth through agricultural sector
development, two options for policy makers and farmers are identified: either the expansion
of production or production intensification (Zeller et al., 2000). However, those options are
not really suitable for small-scale farmers in Vietnam. This study will investigate beef cattle
production in smallholder farms and different recommendations will be given based on real
conditions.
2.1.5 Beef cattle production systems in the Northern Mountainous Region of Vietnam
Classification of cattle production systems in the world identifies such factors as feeding
systems, purpose of cattle rearing, farm intensification, cattle genotypes and terrains, and
scale of production. Rachmat et al. (1992) (cited in Huyen, 2009) break down cattle
production according to feeding systems based on the main feed source. Tung et al. (2009)
also classify cattle production according to different feeding systems based on modes of cattle
keeping. Tung and Giang (2008) divide cattle production according to purpose of cattle
husbandry, including cow-calf cattle production and fattening cattle. Nicholson et al. (1994)
also classify cattle production based on the purpose of cattle rearing. Classification of cattle
production into different genotypes and terrains is found in the studies of Huyen (2009);
Phung (2001); Phung and Koops (2003). Huyen et al. (2010) also categorise cattle production
based on terrains, lowlands or uplands. Huyen et al. (2010); Tung et al. (2009); Tung and
Giang (2008) also put cattle production in Vietnam into different classifications depending on
herd size (small, medium and large). However, there was no study in Vietnam focussing on
feeding systems and their influences on sustainable agriculture. Therefore, in the context of
the study, classification of cattle production was studied according to feeding systems
identified by husbandry strategies and approaches. In Vietnam, beef cattle production is often
practised in mixed farming systems that combine crop production and cattle production. See
the classification of Seré and Steinfeld (1996).
Nevertheless, in Vietnam, beef cattle herds are classified into three typical production
systems: state-run farms, private large- and medium-size farms, and smallholder farms.
Currently, there is no state-owned specialized beef breeding cattle farm, with the exception of
commercial offspring raised in these farms. In state-run farms, beef cattle are mainly imported
exotic breeds such as Brahman, Drought Master, Red Sindhi, and Sahiwal and their offspring.
In addition, crossbreeds of Limousine, Charolais, and Simmental are also imported into
24 Bibliography
Vietnam. Animals are fed high rations of concentrate and high-yielding grasses to shorten the
keeping time and optimise performance (Tra, 2007).
Private large- and medium-size farms feature mainly crossbred animals from high-
performance breeds or crossbreeds between exotic and local breeds. This type of production
system has been recently and extensively developed in many provinces, including the NMR.
These farms are conducted as intensive or semi-intensive production units. In the case of
intensive cattle production, a high percentage of concentrate and planted grasses are also used.
The semi-intensive system uses natural fallow land for forage and pasture.
In small-scale cattle production, beef cattle are often raised in intensive or semi-intensive
production systems (Hung and Binh, 2004). In general, semi-intensive cattle production is
also characterised by small herd size and is practised by a low percentage of farmers.
Extensive cattle production is still predominant, particularly in the uplands. Smallholder
farmers raise beef cattle in using the free grazing, cut-and-carry feeding methods, mixing
grazing and stable feeding (hereinafter referred to as part-time grazing) (Nho et al., 2003;
Mui, 2003, Tra, 2007). Traditionally, free-grazing cattle have always been popular among
most of ethnic minority groups. Different production systems often resulted in different
economic efficiencies (Quan, 2001).
The cut-and-carry cattle feeding system refers to households that keep cattle in a stable. Cattle
are fattened by and cutting and carrying back feed resources for them. Cattle are also housed
and practiced cutting and carrying back feed resource, especially in crop season in other areas
such as the Red River Delta. However, this is a difference from others; only mature male
cattle are fattened in this way in the study area involving H’Mong households. All bulls over
three years old are often confined for fattening throughout the year or during a short period
before selling (from one to three months or longer time depending on the owner’s capacity).
Supplementary feed such as maize or pig feed (a combination of vegetables, banana stems
with or without maize commonly fed to pigs, also used as part of the feed for cattle) was often
used, while the main feed resources were natural or planted grass and forest tree leaves.
However, other cattle in their households such as cows, calves, heifers, and steers are allowed
out to graze part-time. Farmers explain that fattening bulls is efficient in the short term and is
much better than other cattle feeding methods. This finding is also indicated by Niem et al.
(2001); Nho et al. (2003); Huyen et al. (2006); Tra (2007).
In the study area, the free-range system refers to that used by households that allow cattle to
graze freely without being controlled by the owners. This free-range system is also described
by Tra (2007) and Nho (2003). In selected households, a regular check was made daily,
weekly or monthly according to individual family strategy and labour availability.
Households practising this system have good market access and high land use pressure.
Allowing cattle to graze part-time is the predominant method of cattle husbandry currently
seen throughout the country. In cropping season, farmers keep their stock at home in the
morning, and are taken out to graze by their owners in afternoon. After harvesting, cattle are
allowed to graze all day in the fields until the next planting seasons, and are sheltered at night.
Cattle graze on unplanted land, common land or fallow land. This method of cattle production
is also described in Tra (2007); Tung and Giang (2008); and Tung et al. (2009).
2.1.6 Concept of the study
With the main objective of studying the development of beef cattle production in Vietnam’s
NMR, this study concentrates on analysing the influence of cattle production on the
agricultural sustainability. However, this influencing assessment is very broad and not always
Bibliography 25
easy to quantify. In this study, the influence on sustainable agriculture is examined from the
perspective of production systems and beef cattle production development in all dimensions
of sustainable agriculture: social, economic, and environmental.
A combination of several criteria should be proposed to use in the assessment of
environmental sustainability, because several criteria are better suited than single-criterion
approaches (Payraudeau and van der Werf, 2005). Thus, in the study several indicators will be
used to analyse the sustainable development of beef cattle. In the study framework, indicators
such as total factor productivity, gross margin, household net cash income, role of women,
employment opportunities, return on labour, farmer awareness, current status of threats of
environmental pollution (manure management, collection, and utilisation) and stocking rate
are looked at in assessing the influence of beef cattle production on overall sustainability.
Factoring in the influence of cattle feeding systems on sustainability and the above logical
approach, the concept of the study is illustrated in Figure 8.
Figure 8: The development of beef cattle production systems on sustainable agriculture
Sustainable
agriculture
Economic
sustainability
Environmental
solidarity
Sustainable
development
of beef cattle
production
Social
stability
Manure use
and storage
Stocking rate
Return on
labour
Role of women
Employment
opportunity
Gross cattle
margin
Total Factor
Productivity
Sustainable
development of
cattle feeding
systems
Household
net income
Farmer
awareness
Bibliography 27
2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH SITES AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS
This section will give an overall view and description of the Northern Mountainous Region
and the study sites (Bac Kan province and Pac Nam district).
2.2.1 An overview of the Northern Mountainous Region of Vietnam
Three quarters of the country is mountainous and hilly, with a great diversity in fauna,
climate, people, and flora. According to Donovan et al. (1997), the Northern Mountainous
Region (NMR) includes 17 provinces namely: Tuyen Quang, Ha Giang, Cao Bang, Lang Son,
Lao Cai, Yen Bai, Hoa Binh, Bac Kan, Thai Nguyen, Son La, Quang Ninh, Dien Bien, Lai
Chau, Bac Giang, Phu Tho, Thanh Hoa, and Nghe An (Donovan et al. [1997] cited by Lentes,
2003). However, according to the national ecological identification, the NMR includes only
14 provinces separated into two sub-regions consisting of Northeast and Northwest, where
Quang Ninh, Thanh Hoa and Nghe An provinces are excluded (GSO, 2009). In the context of
this study, the term NMR will be used in harmony with the national ecological geography
definition embracing only 14 provinces.
The NMR accounts for about 29% of the total country area (about 95,434 km2), but has a
population of about 11.2 mil. inhabitants, roughly 13% of the country’s population, with 85%
of them living in rural areas, much higher than the national figure (73%) for 2007. The
population density of the NMR in 2007 was 116 persons per km2, which was significantly
lower than the national average population density (257 persons per km2) in the same year. In
the NMR, there are 30 ethnic minorities. Minot et al. (2003) find that a high proportion of the
population in the NMR were members of ethnic minority groups, extremely higher compared
to national data. For example, in 1998, it was around 50% versus 12%, respectively. Its
topography is hilly to mountainous, with altitudes typically ranging between 500 and 1,000
meters above sea level (asl.) (Minot et al., 2003). Ethnic minorities generally employ farming
approaches very adapted to their specific location. However, due to the varied and fractured
topography, there is a wide range of ecosystems (Vien, 2003). H’Mong people often stay in
the highest mountain zones, 800 meters or more asl., with scarce water and low temperatures
(Huyen, 2004; Lan, 2005). On the other hand, Tay, Nung and Kinh people are often located in
lower mountainous zones, with better water resources, warmer temperatures and closer to
transport facilities, markets and services, towns and other villages (Vien, 2003; Lan 2005).
Dao and Thai people are often settled at a halfway point in mountainous zones (Huyen, 2004;
Lan 2005).
These regions are confronted with many difficulties compared to lowland and delta areas.
According to Castella et al. (2002a), there are up to seven major characteristics that
distinguish mountainous regions from others. Firstly, there are many biophysical constraints
including steep slopes, uneven terrain, access difficulties, low soil quality, and harsh natural
conditions (Castella et al., 2002a; CPRGS, 2003; Minot et al., 2004). Secondly, the NMR has
to cope with the region environmental degradation; specifically deforestation, soil erosion and
degradation, and natural disasters (Castella et al., 2002a; Tai, 2004). The next characteristic
highlighted is poor infrastructure, which means underdeveloped communication and
transportation networks (Castella et al., 2002a; CPRGS, 2003; Minot et al., 2004). Then
economic constraints are major difficulties, namely subsistence agriculture, lack of capital,
and limited market access. The relatively high density of the population linked with the
scarcity of suitable land for production is also stated as one of the main difficulties in these
regions. Furthermore, cultural constraints such as low education level, multiplicity of ethnic
28 Bibliography
languages, and conflicts among different ethnic groups (Vien, 2003) are mentioned. Finally,
intellectual constraints are caused by lack of knowledge and understanding about the
mountain environment and there are insufficient development plans for mountainous areas
(Castells et al., 2002a). Besides, farmers in the mountainous regions have limited resources
and are strongly dependent on agricultural and forest activities (Minot et al., 2003).
As reflected above, most of the poor people in Vietnam belong to minority ethnic groups,
concentrated mainly in mountainous regions, remote, or isolated areas. Many activities and
national programmes have been implemented for minority groups. However, they still face
many difficulties in the areas of basic infrastructure and social services (CPRGS, 2003). The
population of Vietnam’s NMR increased dramatically, for instance by about 300% between
1960 and 1984, and it is assumed that the population will double in the next 20 years
(Jamieson, 1998 cited in Friederichsen and Heidhues, 2000). The trend of population growth
in mountainous areas as well as the process of land allocation will increase basic human needs
and require new and/or alternative farm and off-farm activities (Huyen, 2004; Friederichsen
and Heidhues, 2000). As a result, it is predicted that the poverty rate will increase in the
mountains due to the vicious circle of increasing population, environmental degradation, and
the marginalization of ethnic minority groups (Castella et al., 2002a), not to mention the
recent context of serious climate change and natural disasters. Among regions in Vietnam, the
NMR is ranked as the most sensitive area in terms of climate change impacts. The pressure on
land is and will continue to be strong in the highlands, where a high proportion of available
land does not favour crop cultivation.
Extremely high percentage of people from ethnic groups are among the poor, accounting for
about 69% of those under the poverty level, compared to 23% for the total national
population, 2002 census (Figure 9). Mountain areas are known to be the poorest in the
country (VDR, 2003). For both Vietnam and the NMR, the Kinh and Chinese ethnic groups
are better off than the other ethnic groups. In 1993, the poverty rate for Kinh and Chinese in
the NMR was approximately 74% and for other ethnic minorities was 88.5%, but by 2003 the
poverty rate for Kinh and Chinese in the NMR had fallen to 24%, but for ethnic minority
people the poverty rate was still high at around 67%.
The highest proportion of households whose principal income is from animal production
among regions throughout the country is that in the NMR (Maltsoglou and Rapsomanikis,
2005), which underscores its significance in the region. Data from 1998 is an example—97%
compared to 81%, respectively (Minot et al., 2003). During the period 1993–1998, livestock
activities contributed from 9 to 13% to the overall income of households in the NMR (Minot
et al., 2003). Surprisingly, in 2001, Epprecht (2005) records that the share of livestock-
derived income out of total income was above 22% in the northern uplands, putting this area
at the top of the list in the country. According to Minot et al. (2003), about 60% of selected
households in the NMR said that high performance practices and income from animal
production had improved their standard of living. The authors also found that in the poorest
households, the highest proportion of the total family income was generated from livestock
production, which highlights the potential of animal production for the poor.
The national population growth rate of about 1.2% during 2005–2007 is considered moderate
in developing countries; however, the overall population is still large. The increasing of total
population in Vietnam implies that there will be an increasingly limited cultivated land area
per capita in the future. The pressure of intensification of land use will significantly increase
in rural areas, especially in the highlands, where the land area available is not highly
favourable to crop production. The fact that poverty figures in the northern uplands are still
high despite all the efforts put forth by the government, institutions and organisations
focusing on research, development aid and cooperation, illustrates the complexity of this
Bibliography 29
issue. Further deforestation and degradation of the uplands are foreseen, jeopardising food
security. Therefore, animal husbandry is seen as a preference for agricultural development
(Huyen, 2004). Nevertheless, after crop production, animal production is still ranked the
second most important activity contributing cash income to families (Huyen, 2004). As a
result of its contribution to the agriculture GDP, the development of the rural economy
through livestock is one of the main focuses of the Vietnam government (CPRGS, 2003). It is
also foreseen that this sector will contribute to around 30% of gross agricultural sector outputs
in the 2010 development plan, and 35% in 2015 (MARD, 2006). However, this goal will not
likely be achieved because of the economic crisis, bird flu and other factors.
Figure 9: Poverty rate by different ethnic groups in Vietnam Source: Neefjes and Thanh, 2003.
The NMR shows a little higher growth rate in cattle herds compared to that throughout the
country (about 6% compared to 4.5% annually, on average), from around 0.6 mil. to 1.0 mil.
head from 2000 to 2009, peaking at 1.1 mil. head in 2007 (Figure 10). Thus, the growing
cattle population in the NMR might be a result of the government’s development strategies
for cattle production. Nevertheless, this development is still under expectation because the
NMR is considered as a favourable area for ruminant production. A high percentage of
available unused land is unsuitable for crops. Nonetheless, cattle numbers in the NMR
represented a considerable proportion of the total national cattle population (from around 15
to 17% in the same period).
Cattle meat production in the NMR gradually increased from 11,500 tonnes in 2000 to 15,300
tonnes in 2005, virtually stabilising in 2006 at around 15,400 tonnes). Over the next two years
(2007 and 2008) the cattle meat yield jumped to 18,000 and 19,700 tonnes, respectively.
Nevertheless, a sharp reduction of 2,800 tonnes of cattle meat production was recorded in
2009 in the NMR. Thus, cattle meat production in the NMR also fluctuated strongly, due
variously to changing government strategies, policies and environmental effects such as
diseases and the cold outbreak (in late 2007–early 2008). Nevertheless, the growth of beef
cattle production in Vietnam has increased steadily over time.
58.1
81.5
28.9
43.9
23.1 24.3
86.4 88.5
69.3 66.7
53.5
73.9
0
20
40
60
80
100
Vietnam NMR Vietnam NMR
1993 2002
%
Total Kinh & Chinese Other ethinic groups
30 Bibliography
Figure 10: Cattle population and cattle meat production in the NMR from 2000 to 2009 Source: GSO, 2010
In summary, the NMR is distinguished by poor accessibility, poor infrastructure, poor living
conditions, harsh and degraded natural conditions, a high proportion of ethnic minority
groups, a rather low population density and relatively low urbanization, and very limited
access to productive resources and services. Its inhabitants are experiencing a high level of
poverty and essentially depend on the agricultural sector for their subsistence and limited
income. However, productive land is scarce because so much of the area is unsuitable for
production. In addition to this, the area frequently suffers from natural disasters and climate
change events. The development of this rural area is a high national high priority. Besides,
cattle production is considered as a priority in improving the poverty in the region by support
policies from the Vietnamese government.
2.2.2 General introduction to Bac Kan province
There are several reasons for selecting Bac Kan province and Pac Nam district: (i) it is one of
the poorest provinces in the NMR, where the cattle population is among the most dense; (ii)
Pac Nam is the poorest district in the province, located in remote area with much emphasis on
cattle production; (iii) Pac Nam borders on Tuyen Quang, Ha Giang and Cao Bang provinces,
where cattle husbandry is widespread, which highlights the potential of opening large cattle
markets in the district; (iv) there are many cattle markets in the district, providing outlets for
local people who develop cattle production; and (v) this sub-sector is still not as strong as it
might be. Detailed information about those areas is given in the following parts to help
explain the selection of the study sites.
2.2.2.1 Geography, population and climate conditions in Bac Kan
Bac Kan is a mountainous province located in the northeast region of Vietnam, from 21048 to
22044 north latitudes and 105
026 to 106
015 east longitudes (GSO, 2005). Sharing its borders
are Cao Bang province to the north, Tuyen Quang province to the west, Lang Son province to
the southeast, and Thai Nguyen province to the south (Figure 11). As of 2007, Bac Kan has
eight administrative districts/towns. Bac Kan town is located about 166.0 km from Hanoi, the
capital of Vietnam.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Ca
ttle
mea
t p
rod
uct
ion
(1
,00
0 t
on
nes
)
Ca
ttle
po
pu
lati
on
(1
,00
0 h
ead
s)
Cattle herd size Cattle meat yield
Bibliography 31
Figure 11: Bac Kan province, Pac Nam district and geographical location
of selected communes Source: Bac Kan PSO, 2006; own presentation
Bac Kan province was first established in 1900 by the French. Then it was merged into Thai
Nguyen province. It has been separated again since 1997. The province has therefore just
been re-established for somewhat over a decade. The provincial authorities are greatly
interested in the development plan of the province in general and of the agricultural sector in
particular. Bac Kan is roughly 500–1,000 meters above sea level and its topography is
extremely diverse with mainly midlands, mountains, and very steep slopes with a grade of
around 15 to 20%, with a complex network of rivers and springs (GSO, 2005). Because the
land is steeply sloped, soil erosion and degradation is common. Soil quality is poor with high
PH levels. In addition, the ‘slash-and-burn’ agriculture practiced situation in the uplands is
another cause of soil erosion and degradation, creating treeless hills and mountains. There is a
complex network of five large rivers and springs that provide irrigation water and running
water. Particularly, the province is home to the headwaters of various rivers such as the Gam,
Cau, and Bac Giang. The steep slopes and high level of precipitation during the rainy season
also lead to flash flooding in the region. Bac Kan province must prepare to cope with many
impacts of climate change. According to Tra et al. (2009), Bac Kan province is prone to
drought, flash floods, landslides, and soil erosion that are immediate risks to local people.
Other related climate change events such as temperature changes, changing in the seasons,
high precipitation, waterlogging, and inconsistency of water resources, thunderstorms, and
hailstorms also occur in the province. The frequency and intensity of these events as well as
impacts tend to be increasing gradually. It is said that the weather in Bac Kan is changing,
resulting gradually in two clearly marked seasons—dry and rainy—instead of the usual four
seasons (Tra, 2009).
Cong Bang commune
Nghien Loan
commune
32 Bibliography
Its natural land area is 4,857 km2, occupying 1.5% of Vietnam’s land areas. The total
population of the province was 305,800 persons, accounting for around 0.4% of the national
population (according to 2007 census), of which 259,700 persons were living in rural area,
accounting for roughly 85% of the population, which is more or less equal with that in the
NMR but significantly higher than the figure for the country (72.5%) (GSO, 2008). Although
population growth showed a declining trend, it still grew at an estimated rate of 1.2%, which
was slightly higher than the average growth rate of the national population (1.0%). The
population density of the province in 2007 was quite low compared to the average population
density in the NMR and the country as a whole (62 compared to 162 and 257 persons per
km2, respectively) (calculated from data of Bac Kan PSO, 2008; GSO, 2008). However, the
density varies drastically among the provinces districts and towns.
As much as 86.7% of the population of the province was made up of ethnic minority groups
(Bac Kan PSO, 2006), a significantly higher proportion than that of ethnic minorities living in
the NMR (roughly 50%). Twenty three different ethnic groups were living in the province, the
key ones being Tay, Nung, Dao, Kinh, and H’Mong (Figure 12). The Tay people occupied the
largest part of total population, i.e. 54.3% (GSO, 2005). The second biggest group was the
Dao people, about 16.5%; ranking next are the Kinh people, accounting for 13.3% of the total
population. The Nung and H’mong peoples rank behind those ethnic groups, with 9.5% and
5.4%, respectively. Around 1.0% of the total population of the province belong to 18 other
ethnic groups.
Figure 12: Bac Kan population distribution by ethnic groups in 2002 Source: GSO, 2005
There are two clearly identified seasons in Bac Kan. The hot, rainy season lasts from April to
September (summer), and the cold, dry season (winter) ranges from October to March. The
average temperature is 22.7oC. It ranges from around 20.8 to 28.5
oC from February to
October, and then drops to about 15 to 18oC from November to January (Bac Kan Statistical
Year Book, 2007). Significantly, in late 2007 and early 2008, there was a serious cold
outbreak in many provinces including Bac Kan, causing much damage to the agricultural
sector, with Bac Can suffering some of the severest cattle losses in the whole country
(MARD, 2009). Rainfall fell very low, around 4–82 ml per month from October to April,
while it climbed up to about 150–350 ml per month from May to September, 2007.
Bibliography 33
Economic growth in the province showed a positive trend, reaching almost 10% annually, on
average, during the period 1997–2000. Then, economic growth in Bac Kan province jumped
to around 12% annually on average, from 2001 to 2007, quite something when compared to
the national economic growth rate for the same time (7.5%). Optimistically, the province
planned to reach an economic growth of 20.0–22.0% over the next five years (Bac Kan Party
Committee Report - PCR, 2007). However, 50.8% of provincial households were still living
under the poverty line in 2005 (Bac Kan PRC, 2006), which was considered extremely high
compared to the national data (19.5% in 2004). Nevertheless, the poverty rate of the province
has been reduced to around 38%, but it is still significantly higher than the national data
(14.8%) in 2007 (Bac Kan PRC, 2008; GSO, 2008).
Looking at the province’s GDP more closely, it is clear that Bac Kan is a strongly agriculture-
based province, where farmers are largely dependent on subsistence production for livelihood.
The agriculture sector is given great priority in the provincial rural development plan. Despite
its importance, the share of agricultural, forestry and fishery output in the province’s total
output has dropped dramatically, from 58.2% in 2000 to 42.8% in 2005 and to 34.9% in 2007
(Bac Kan – PSO, 2006; 2008). Nevertheless, the proportion of agriculture, forestry and
fishery output was still nearly twice as high of that sector’s GDP data countrywide (35%
compared to 20%) (GSO, 2008). Meanwhile, the services sector recorded considerable
growth, from around 11% in 2000 to 21.5% in 2005 and up to 35.4% in 2007. Meanwhile, the
industrial sector for the same periods reached 27.2%, 30.5% and then dropped to 29.6%,
respectively. These changes were probably due to improved strategies in the provincial
economic climate in this period.
2.2.2.2 An introduction to the agricultural sector in Bac Kan province
(a) Employment, resources and gross output
The total labour force of Bac Kan in 2007 was 164,025 persons, of which 128,265 were
working in agriculture and forestry, accounting for about 78% of the total jobs in the
province. The proportion of agricultural labour in the province was 1.2 times higher than the
country figure (65%). Thus, the agricultural sector played a very important role in Bac Kan
province in terms of both labour force and gross output contribution. Development of this
sector is a crucial part in the development strategies of Bac Kan province. However, its share
in total provincial GDP declined substantially to about 18%, from 58% in 2000 to around
40% in 2007 (Bac Kan CPR, 2008). Provincial output from the agricultural sector reached
604.4 billion VND, which is one of the lowest values in the NMR and ranking just above Lai
Chau, a new province established in 2004, and accounted for a small percentage compared to
overall country’s agricultural value. Apparently, the role of agriculture in the completely
provincial economic sector was considerable in terms of labour and subsequent product
consumption. However, there will be a rapid decline of the agricultural GDP in proportion to
the province’s total GDP in next five years as the provincial development action plan, which
proposes a drop to 23% of total provincial GDP in 2010. On the other hand, the contribution
of industry is planned to increase substantially to 35% in the given time, while services are
anticipated to rise slightly, to 45% (Bac Kan PCR, 2006).
The gross output of agricultural activities of the province during the period 1997-2007 is
shown in Figure 13. Actually, the crop cultivation sub-sector shared the dominant proportion
in the total gross output of agriculture over this time. The value of crop production ranged
around 68-75% during the period 1997–2007, which was lower than the crop cultivation
outputs in the country (roughly 80%) in the same period (Bac Kan PSO, 2002; 2006; 2008).
The corresponding figures for livestock and the service sector ranged between 25–31% and
34 Bibliography
under 1%, respectively in that period. Significantly, livestock production in Bac Kan province
played a more crucial role in the agricultural sector compared with the national livestock
sector during that time (17-19%).
Meanwhile, crop production increased approximately by 7.5% per annum on average, from
170,997 mil. VND to 329,685 mil. VND. Similarly, the growth rate of livestock in the
province showed a substantial increase (9.0% annually, on average); it is higher than that for
the country (8.2%), where provincial policies and strategies have been promoting a change
from crop to livestock production over the last decade. Its gross output more than doubled,
from 72,158 mil. VND in 1997 to 150,502 mil. VND in 2007. However, it occupied an
extremely small part of the country’s gross livestock outputs. Meanwhile, the service sector
experienced better growth, 8.6% annually, increasing from 1,881 to 3,864 mil. VND in the
period.
Figure 13: Gross output at constant price 1994 for the agriculture sector Source: Bac Kan PSO, 2002; 2006; 2008
Total land area in Bac Kan province was 486,841 ha in 2007. The pie chart below compares
the land area used for different activities, with the highest proportion of land in this province
being forest (68.0%), including natural forest and planted forest, whereas agricultural land
accounted for a small part (8%) (Figure 14). This agricultural land was used for crop
cultivation, aquaculture, and other agricultural activities. Only about 4.0% of the land area
was devoted to non-farming activities. Another noteworthy feature is that roughly 20.0% of
the land area is unusable3 (Bac Kan PSO, 2008). Of this, only a small part is flat land (3.5%)
suitable for cultivation, and large areas of land are hilly (91.7%) and rocky mountains (4.8%),
which are basically unusable for cultivation because poor soil quality, while the development
3 Agricultural land includes agricultural production land (rice land, planted grass land, annual cropping land,
and permanent cropping land), forest land (production forest, protected forest and specific-use forest) and
aquaculture land and other agricultural lands. There is much disagreement among Vietnam’s professional
land use and management experts regarding the term unusable or non-useable land due to its lack of
precision. Up to now, this term has replaced by using the term “land use without certificate” because the land
areas in question have not yet been allocated to local people or organisations yet. Therefore, these land areas
designate land remaining after deduction of all lands owning land use certificate of agricultural land, non-
farming land, aquacultural land and other agricultural lands, which might include all types of land such as
agricultural land, forestland, natural pastureland, fallow land, or even cropping land used by the local people
but not yet been certified by the authorities.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Gro
ss o
utp
uts
of
ag
ricu
ltu
ral
sect
or
(1,0
00
mil
. V
ND
)
Livestock Crop Services
Bibliography 35
of livestock is relatively less dependent on this (Huyen, 2004). Therefore, such lands have
often been used for grazing cattle and buffalo.
Figure 14: Land use in Bac Kan province in 2007 Source: Bac Kan PSO, 2008
(b) Crop production in the province
It is clear that paddy areas occupied the largest part, considered as the main food crop in the
province. Paddy areas grew gradually, by 2.0% annually, on average, climbing from about
16,000 ha in 1997 to over 21,300 ha in 2007, as shown in Figure 15. Ranking next in
importance was the maize area. It increased considerably, around 13.5% per annum, from
about 6,500 ha in 1997 to around 16,100 ha in 2007. Maize production is important in terms
of animal feed resources. Cassava production fluctuated from 2,000 to 3,000 ha from the
1997–2005 period, while its role in animal feed was gradually reduced. In addition, no data
was available for cassava during the year 2006 and 2007.
36 Bibliography
Figure 15: Areas planted in the main cultivated crops Source: Bac Kan PSO, 2002; 2006; 2008
In terms of gross output, maize production showed the most dramatic growth, reaching more
than 25.0% per year, a rise from nearly 15,000 tonnes in 1997 to nearly 60,000 tonnes in
2007. This shows the substantial increase in demand for feed resources used for the
development of livestock production in the province recently as well as its increasing use as a
cash crop. Nevertheless, paddy production yielded the largest gross output, growing nearly
1.5 times in 2007 as compared to 1997 (Figure 16). The people living in the province,
including ethnic minority groups, are rice-consumers. Moreover, all households share the
common objective of achieving food security through paddy rice production (Castella and
Erout, 2002). On the other hand, cassava production showed strong fluctuation, reaching its
highest level in 2002, up to around 34,000 tonnes from roughly 18,000 tonnes in 1997, before
dropping to 21,000 tonnes in 2005. Data on cassava production were also not available for
2006 and 2007, which might not consider as an important indicator in statistical database of
the province since 2006.
0
5
10
15
20
25
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Pla
nt
are
a o
f m
ain
cro
ps
(10
00
ha
)
Paddy rice Maize Cassava
Bibliography 37
Figure 16: Gross output of main cultivated crops Source: Bac Kan PSO, 2002; 2006; 2008
(c) Livestock production and development trends
Livestock production in Bac Kan is an important sub-sector of agriculture. The major types
are buffalo, cattle, swine and poultry. Livestock has shown a strong growth in the agricultural
sector over the past decade in the province since its establishment (Figure 17). The cattle
population recorded its greatest increase of 4.6% annually from 1997 to 2007, higher than the
national rate, climbing from 27,900 head in 1997 to 44,945 head in 2007, due to strong
government support policies.
The swine population increased only slightly at 1.5% annually, on average, in the given time
(between 122,311 and 155,034 head). The slow advance of this sub-sector might be due to
great market fluctuation, with a very large population being recorded between 2000 and 2001
with approximately 160,000 head, then dropping to 147,000 head in 2002. The swine
population remained constant during the three-year period 2003–2005 with around 155,000
head, then decreasing to 145,000 head in 2006 before returning to virtually the same
population in 2007 as in 2005.
Interestingly, buffalo showed a 0.8% annual decrease in population, on average, falling from
89,893 head in 1997 to 87,921 head in 2007. In spite of the buffalo’s role in upland areas and
a growing consumer interest in buffalo meat as a new specialty food in Vietnam, the drop in
the number of buffalo might be due to their decreased use for draught power and
transportation in rural upland areas.
On the other hand, the poultry population also recorded a slight climb of 0.7% per year, on
average, and increased from 945,000 birds in 1997 to 1,113,077 birds in 2007. Poultry
production in Bac Kan seems to have been unaffected by avian influenza since the end of
2002, when the population increased sharply in 2003 and kept stable during next 3 years.
However, this sub-sector showed an declining trend in 2006 and 2007. This might be
explained by disease outbreaks and the lack of a vaccination programme.
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Gro
ss o
utp
ut
in c
rop
s (1
00
0 t
on
s)
Paddy rice Maize Cassava
38 Bibliography
Figure 17: Development of livestock population in Bac Kan Source: Bac Kan Provincial Statistical Office, 2002; 2006; 2008
The gross output from livestock production showed some fluctuations during the period from
1997 to 2005 (Figure 18) (no data for the years 2006 and 2007 recorded in the provincial
statistical year book). In the first two years, the total gross output of the province reached
about 4,700 tonnes.
In the next three years, the gross output increased by more than 2,300 tonnes compared to the
first two years, ranging at around 7,000 tonnes per year. For next the three-year period, there
was a considerable upward trend, peaking at about 11,000 tonnes in 2004 and then dropping
slightly to around 10,000 tonnes in 2005. It is noteworthy that pork production was dominant,
accounting for about 64% of the total meat produced in the province in 2005. The
corresponding figures for cattle and poultry were 26% and 10%, respectively (Bac Kan PSO,
2006). Cattle meat production in 2007 represented 29% of total meat production.
Interestingly, the share of cattle in total meat produced in Bac Kan was over five times higher
than the share of that for the whole country (4.5%) in the same year. No data was recorded for
meat production in the province during 2006 and 2007. It is explained that this data has not
been considered as an important indicator in statistical database of the province since 2006.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Po
ult
ry p
op
ula
tio
n (
1,0
00
bir
ds)
Liv
esto
ck p
op
ula
tio
n (
1,0
00
hea
ds)
Pig Cattle Buffalo Poultry
Bibliography 39
Figure 18: Total gross output from animal production in Bac Kan Source: Bac Kan PSO, 2002; 2006; 2008
(d) Cattle production in Bac Kan
Cattle production was one of the most strongly developed livestock sub-sectors in the
province, underscoring its further potential in the NMR. Cattle density in the province was
roughly 13 head per 100 people, higher than the NMR overall average (nearly 9 head),
coming after Cao Bang province which has the highest cattle density (24 head) (calculated
from GSO, 2008). Cattle production in the province was characterised by low investment,
high risk due to diseases and mortality, low efficiency, and high environmental pollution. The
most dominant breed is a local race, namely Yellow cattle. In order to support beef cattle
production and increase herd size, cattle development programmes are being implemented
throughout the country, including Bac Kan province. Expansion of the cattle herds was
promoted by importing crossbred animals, high quality cows and bulls from other provinces,
as well as selecting high quality local cattle breeds (Bac Kan PC, 2006). However, the
development of cattle production in the study site was not as vigorous as expected.
The crossbreeding programme was introduced into the province during the period 1990–2007
by the Department of Extension Services and other organisations. It was undoubtedly noted
that the exotic and crossbred cattle ratio occupied only a small proportion compared to
Yellow cattle (0.7%) in 2005 (Table 1) and compared to that of the whole country (30%). The
cattle crossbreeding programme has been developed substantially in other provinces. Son La
province is an example, where crossbred cattle accounted for around 11.0% in 1999 (Huyen et
al., 2006), and around 15% by 2005 (Tang, 2007 - personal communication).
Plans call for crossbreeding to increase by roughly 50% the provincial cattle population in the
next five years (about 100,000 head) from around 300 head in 2005 (Project document for
cattle development - Bac Kan Provincial People’s Committee, 2006) (Table 1). It has been a
challenging plan for the province. In early 2006, the province imported only 18 bulls for
crossbreeding, but only one bull survived and developed well while other bulls died or were
eliminated due FMD and other reasons. At the end of 2006, other crossbreeding herds were
imported into the province in order to reach the aims of the program. However, their impact
was limited, which could be explained by lack of farmer awareness, outbreaks of FMD and
the adopting of new technologies such as artificial insemination (Tra, 2007).
0.0
3.0
6.0
9.0
12.0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Gross output of livestock and
poultry (1000 tones)
40 Bibliography
Table 1: Population of cattle by breed in Bac Kan province
Breeds 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Yellow cattle (head) 32,335 33,456 35,082 36,948 38,276
Red Sindhi crosses (head) - - 264 293 273
Source: Bac Kan DARD, 2006
Numerous programmes for crossbreeding (Laisind) cattle4 have been introduced into all
districts. However, the imported breeds have not adapted well to the hilly and mountainous
regions for various reasons. However, the development of crossbreeding cattle in Cho Don
District, Bac Kan province, was an exceptional example, implemented during 2003–2005
(Bac Kan DIST, 2005). There were 38 crossbred calves born over the two years of the project.
According to provincial authorities, the strong development of that programme was the result
of high investments, its small scale, and widespread cooperation and support from different
organisations. First, the high investment costs were subsidized, e.g., each crossbreeding bull
was subsidized at around 15 mil. VND for the two years period, including 100% of breeding
costs, grass variety costs, supplemental concentrate feeds (1.0 tonne), veterinary costs,
fertiliser, silage tank, and stable. Moreover, each selected local cow-calf was given a subsidy
of around 9.5 mil. VND in the given time, including 70% breeding costs and other supports.
Secondly, this programme was conducted in a limited area (one district) and on a limited scale
(4 households keeping bulls for crossbreeding and 22 households keeping local cow-calf
pairs). Moreover, this a scientific research rather than a development program. Lastly, other
supports were provided, including 50% subsidy of the interest rate, training in artificial
insemination, training in silage processing and management skills, and field trips. Technicians
and livestock specialists received high salaries in order to help farmers carry out the
programme.
Cattle production in Bac Kan was a small-scale production, divided into free grazing, part-
time grazing, and cut and carry. Free grazing is the traditional practice in most ethnic minority
groups. In the study area, the free-range system is identified as households who allow cattle to
graze freely without being tended by the owners. The free-range system has also been
described by Tra (2007) and Nho (2003). In selected households, a regular check was
conducted daily, weekly or monthly according to individual family strategies and labour
availability. Households practising this system have good market access but experience high
land pressure. Part-time grazing has gradually replaced free grazing due to increasing limited
land area. Grazing cattle part time is currently the predominant method used in cattle
husbandry throughout the country. In cropping season, farmers keep their stock at home in the
morning, and the owners take them out to graze in the afternoon. After harvesting, cattle are
allowed to graze all day in the fields until the next crop is ready for planting and they are
housed in a stable at night. Cattle graze on unplanted land, common land or fallow land. This
method is also described in Tra (2007). The cut-and-carry method is practiced mainly by the
H’Mong minority. This feeding system is characterised by households keeping cattle in a
corral and cutting and carrying feed resources to fatten the cattle. This system is also practiced
in other areas such as the Red River Delta. However, different from others, only mature male
animals are fattened this way in the study area in H’Mong households. All bulls over three
4 Crossing Red Sindhi with local cattle has been developed since the 1920s. The distinctive reddish coat of this
animal can be seen throughout the country nowadays, resulting mainly from the national crossbreeding
programme namely “Sindhi-sation” (Ly, 1995; MARD, 2006). The offspring of crossbred Red Sindhi and
Yellow cattle in Vietnam are called Laisind.
Bibliography 41
years old are often confined for fattening throughout the year or for a certain time before
selling (from one to three months or longer time depending on the owner’s capacity).
Supplementary feeds such as maize or pig feed (a combination of vegetables, banana stems
with or without maize commonly cooked for pigs is fed in part to cattle) are often used, while
the main feed resources are natural or planted grass and forest tree leaves. However, other
cattle belonging to the household such as cows, calves, heifers, and steers, are allowed to
graze part time. Farmers explain that bulls can be fattened efficiently this way in a short time,
more so than for other cattle types (Niem et al., 2001; Nho et al., 2003; Huyen et al., 2006;
Tra, 2007).
Slopes and communal pastures are often used for cattle grazing in Bac Kan province.
However, there is no report or data related to these production systems of cattle. Generally,
management of cattle production management was poor. Vaccination programmes have been
implemented for only about 40% to 50% of the total animals in the province (Bac Kan
Veterinary Department, 2008). The poor performance of vaccination programmes was
explained by their being poorly perceived by farmers and the topography isolation of the areas
in which they live. Recently, high-yield grass varieties have been planted in many districts
under the provincial cattle development programme since 2006. However, the grasses were
planted limited regions and in small areas.
The province implemented the cattle herd development plan during the period 2006–2010
(Figure 19). Over the five years (2006–2010), the cattle population was expected to increase
by around 60% annually, on average, up to 184,016 head from 38,549 head in 2005. This
great expansion was to be achieved by importing high quality male and female cattle from
other provinces for crossbreeding, as well as selecting high quality local cattle breeds. The
local breeds would be improved using Zebu breeds or their crossbreeds, with over 1,100 bulls
and 28,500 cows being imported. Correspondingly, local cows will be selected with support
from the government. In addition, local bulls, especially H’Mong animals, will be evaluated
and chosen for improvement. Poor sires will be culled or castrated. In fact, getting the cattle
population up to over 180,000 head by 2010 or to 300,000 head by 2015 is a challenging
mission for the provincial authorities and farmers due to both the time and animal population
factors. Looking in more details at the actual cattle population and development plan, the
actual cattle herd was far lower than that on the development plan as proposed by the
provincial policy makers.
42 Bibliography
Figure 19: Development trend (2005–2008), plan (2006–2015)
of the provincial cattle population Source: Bac Kan PSO, 2006; 2008; Bac Kan People Committee Report, 2005
The cattle herd by districts from 2003-2008 is presented in Figure 20. Apparently, the biggest
cattle herd in this province is located in Pac Nam district, where the cattle population was
9,778 head, accounting for over one quarter of the total cattle in Bac Kan province. Cattle
herds in the districts from 2003 to 2007 increased in six out of seven districts, with especially
sharp growth recorded between 2006–2007, except for Ba Be district, where there was a
decreased to 7,800 head after a maximum of over 9,200 head in 2005. The strong increasing
during 2006–2007 was the result of government cattle projects, including support policies
such as breeding subsidies, feeding resources, planting grass, and giving credit as mentioned
above. Despite the great support from the government, a heavy decrease of the cattle herd was
seen in 2008, possibly because of reduced cattle imports from other provinces while cattle
development projects were being implemented in Bac Kan.
Overall, Bac Kan is a poor province, strongly dependent on the agricultural sector for many
purposes such as food, employment, livestock feed resources, and income. The development
of the agricultural sector remains a high priority in the overall provincial economic
development plan, which focuses on poverty alleviation and enhances economic growth.
More than two third of the labour force work in this sector. Agriculture is the leading
contributor to the total GDP of the province. Bac Kan gross outputs from agriculture were
small compared to other provinces in the NMR. Crop production nevertheless still plays a
predominant role, contributing the most important part in terms of gross outputs of agriculture
as well as being a cash resource for the province. Moreover, crop production also accounted
for the central component of livestock production in the form of grain and by-product feed
resources. In the wintertime, by-products are an important feed resource for ruminants in the
province. However, Bac Kan has a great potential for cattle development due to the abundant
source of land area, especially non-used land considered unsuitable for crop production.
Cattle production has been a top priority in this mountainous province, due to the existing
potential. However, cattle production seemed to be lagging, remaining mainly in the hands of
small-scale farmers.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2015
Ca
ttle
her
d (
1,0
00
hea
ds)
Real cattle herd Cattle herd in the development plan
Bibliography 43
Figure 20: Cattle population by districts during 2003–2008 Source: Bac Kan PSO, 2009
2.2.3 Description of Pac Nam district and its characteristics
2.2.3.1 General information
Pac Nam was the poorest district in the province with 72.8% of its inhabitants living under the
poverty line in 2005 (Pac Nam People’s Committee Report, 2006), an extremely high figure
compared to the provincial poverty rate (50.8%). However, in 2007, there was a sharp
decrease of over 20%, leaving 50% of the people in the poverty bracket, but still higher figure
than elsewhere in Bac Kan province. This district was set up in 2003, separated from Ba Be
district. The district authorities are also very interested in policies that might help to improve
agriculture sector development. The cattle sub-sector is seen to be the most developed among
districts and town in the province, based on the cattle population and cattle density. The
potential for cattle development in the district is based on available natural resources (land
areas) and cattle markets. Pac Nam district shares borders with Cao Bang and Tuyen Quang
provinces and Ba Be district. It is located approximately 85.0 km from Bac Kan town and
250.0 km from Hanoi. Pac Nam’s natural land area is 473.6 km2, occupying about 9.8% of
Bac Kan’s total land area. The entire population of this district is 27,950 persons, accounting
for 9.3% of provincial population, of which 100% live in rural areas. The population density
was slightly lower than the provincial population density in 2005 (59.0 persons per km2
compared to 63.0) (Pac Nam District Statistical Office - DSO, 2008).
Almost all of the people in this district work in rural areas, but agriculture land accounted for
a very small part of the total land of the district (9% or 4,408.4 ha) in 2007. Forest land held a
dominant share at 42% and unused land represented for about 49% of the total land in the
district (Figure 21). The high proportion of unusable land5 includes hills and bare, rocky
mountains for the most part. The hills and mountains are not very suitable for crop
production, but could be developed for forestry. A large part of that area has been used for
cattle and buffalo grazing land. However, the development of forest areas based on
5 The term “unused land or non-usable land” was explained in the part 2.2.2.2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Catt
le p
op
ula
tio
n b
y d
istr
ict
(1000 h
ead
s)
Ba Be
Pac Nam
Ngan Son
Cho Don
Na Ri
Bach Thong
Cho Moi
44 Bibliography
Programme 3276, National 661 Programme
7 has absorbed a large share of that resource. Thus,
it can be said that Pac Nam district has a great potential in terms of land use, especially the
large area of unusable land, for improvement of the agricultural sector.
Figure 21: Land area and its distribution (hectares) for different sectors in 2007 Source: Pac Nam DSO, 2008
Livestock production accounted for a small part of the district’s total gross output during the
period 2004–2008. However, there was rapid growth in livestock gross output in 2005
compared to 2004 and several years later, to a peak of 9,343 mil. VND, due to the heavy
development of swine, cattle and poultry production after the district was set up. Poultry
disease and FMD affecting swine and ruminant production caused a decline of the gross
output in livestock production. On the other hand, the gross output of crop production
increased gradually year by year, from 22,601 mil. VND in 2004 to 31,924 mil. VND in 2008,
an annual rate of 28% (Figure 22).
6 Programme 327 was established pursuant to Decision No. 327 of the Prime Minister on the policies and
objectives in re-greening barren land and hills, including protection of existing forest areas, natural
regeneration, and forest plantations from 1993 to 2000. 7 The Vietnam government has implemented the National 661 Programme approved by Parliament in 1997 and
by the Prime Minister with Decision No. 661/QD–TT dated July 29, 1998 with the purpose of achieving 5
mil. hectares of reforestation and of increasing nation-wide forest coverage up to 43% of the total land cover
throughout the provinces from 1998–2010.
Agriculture
4408.4 ha
9%
Forestry
19,590.3 ha
42%
Non-usable
land
22,570.8 ha
49%
Bibliography 45
Figure 22: Cultivation crop and livestock gross outputs in Pac Nam district Source: Pac Nam DSO, 2009
Poultry production decreased from 94,000 birds in 2004 to 92,000 in 2005 and then dropped
to 89,000 birds in 2006. The poultry population increased again during 2007 and grew sharply
in 2008. The swine population showed an explosion in 2005 (about 19,000 head), more than
20% compared to the year 2004 (16,000 head), which can be explained by the heavy
development of this sub-sector in order to compensate the losses in poultry production due to
the birth flu outbreak and other outbreaks (Figure 23). Particularly, the buffalo herd increased
slightly, contrary to the provincial and country production trend. The prevalent use of buffalo
for draught power in lowland field areas, which are difficult to plough and the development of
new market demands may explain this, especially since buffalo meat is sold at the same price
as beef. The cattle population climbed from roughly 6,200 head in 2004 to over 7,600 head in
2008. Notwithstanding, a decline of 10% was recorded in 2005 compared to 2004 due to an
FMD outbreak; and then a increase in 2007, peaking at around 12,200 head due to
government support policies. Finally, a decrease of around 20% compared to 2007 was seen
in 2008. Cattle production is one of the most important livestock sub-sectors in the district.
The availability of land and cattle markets is the driving forces contributing to the
development of cattle production in Pac Nam district (it has a designation of 45% of non-
useable land and well patronised cattle markets are available in the district). Detailed
information on cattle markets in Pac Nam district is given in the following section of this
chapter.
In early 2006, there were only two bulls for crossbreeding imported into the district but one
bull was lost due to FMD. Then 40 crossbreeding bulls were imported at the end of 2006.
Simultaneously, the selection programme of local Yellow bulls and cows was carried out with
a plan of 217 selected bulls and 1,000 selected cows (Pac Nam Annual Report, 2007). High
quality local cows from neighbouring provinces such as Tuyen Quang and Cao Bang were
also imported. Roughly 160 ha were sown with grass. However, diseases such as FMD,
Pasteurellosis affected many cattle. Other animals were kept in unfavourable conditions,
causing weight loss, roughening of their features, and draught inefficiency. Some households
that accepted the experimental cattle asked to give them back to the project (Tra, 2007). Tra
(2007) finds that the cattle development project remains an enormous challenge for the district
as well as the selected communes.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Gro
ss o
up
ut
in a
gri
cult
ure
(10
00
mil
. V
ND
)
Crop Livestock
46 Bibliography
Figure 23: Development of livestock production by species in Pac Nam district Source: Pac Nam DSO, 2005; 2009
2.2.3.2 Cattle markets and cattle resources in Pac Nam district
Tra (2007) finds that one of the key advantages for cattle production in Bac Kan province in
general and Pac Nam district in particular is the prevalence of cattle markets, which is
relatively different from most provinces in the NMR of Vietnam. Available cattle markets
with a high demand from consumers resulted in a constantly high flow of live cattle through
these markets, which were considered convenient for trading cattle by local households.
However, as mentioned earlier, cattle production in the province is still under-developed. In
fact, the markets are vitally important because they offer farmers essential opportunities to
participate in economic activities (IFAD, 2003). Phuong (2008) mentions that farmers can
trade their available resources and thereby benefit from the buying and selling of agricultural
products in markets. However, in Vietnam, especially in the north, beef cattle markets are
seen to be under-developed compared to the market for other livestock products, although
cattle selling is considered to be one of the essential factors conducive to the development of
beef cattle.
There are three main cattle markets in Pac Nam district, namely Cong Bang, Boc Bo, and
Nghien Loan (Annexes 14, 15). Among those, the Nghien Loan market is referred to as a
wholesale cattle market and all of the live cattle were sourced from other local markets and/or
neighbouring markets in other provinces. The Cong Bang and Boc Bo markets are retail cattle
markets that open one or two days earlier than the Nghien Loan market, respectively, which
means that after trading in those ones, cattle were finally brought to the Nghien Loan market.
Normally, if cattle were not purchased in Cong Bang and Boc Bo, “leftover” cattle belonging
to live cattle retailers will be transported to the wholesale market. Owners (retailers) will have
to sell at a favourable price or even a somewhat discounted price to avoid further weight loss
before the next market day (five days until the next market day).
Cattle sold in the local markets of Pac Nam district often came from local farmers, retailers
and middlemen/collectors. Then, cattle in the local markets were sold into three channels—
slaughterhouses, farmers, and middlemen. Only about 5% of cattle are sold directly to
slaughterhouses located in Thai Nguyen, Bac Giang, Hung Yen and Hanoi. In fact, few cattle
are sold directly to slaughterhouses Van et al. (2005). The highest proportion of cattle was
purchased by middlemen (around 93% of cattle), who often deliver the animals to
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
0
5
10
15
20
25
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Po
ult
ry p
op
ula
tio
n (
1,0
00
bir
ds)
An
ima
k p
op
ula
tio
n (
1,0
00
hea
d)
Buffalo Cattle Pig Poultry
Bibliography 47
slaughterhouses as mentioned above or to those in southern Vietnam. Actually, a small
number of cattle were sold to southern Vietnam from the district markets. It depends on
demand and price differences between the two regions. Farmers who need cattle for breeding
purchased around 2% of the animals directly from markets. Another 3% of cattle for breeding
were bought by farmers through middlemen. In fact, selling and buying cattle in markets is an
easy transaction (Tra, 2007).
In the study sites, the main season for cattle trading is from August to around the end of
January or early February. From August onwards, field work was finished. Cattle and buffalo
were brought to the market for sale if households needed cash or wanted to change to other
better breeds. In these months, consumer demand increases as well, peaking at the Lunar New
Year (in January and/or February). Tra (2007) finds that the number of cattle sold in Nghien
Loan market often fluctuated between 300 and 500 head per market day during this season,
with a peak time of over 700-800 head (buffalo were often sold in smaller number). In other
markets, around 100-200 cattle were sold per market day during this season. Conversely, from
January-February through July, the number of cattle sold was considerably reduced,
especially after the Lunar New Year (around 100-200 head and 30-50 head in Nghien Loan
and other local markets, respectively). This might be explained by the low consumer demand
for beef and high demand for using cattle and buffalo as draught power for crop production.
In Nghe An province, Liem et al. (1997) find that the peak cattle trading season is between
March and April, when the new growing period starts and feed is relatively abundant. July to
September is the least attractive season due to farmers concentrating on cropping activities.
The difference between the two provinces may be explained by differences in geography and
cropping seasons and other characteristics. Specifically, during 2005-2007, movements of
cattle and buffalo in Pac Nam district and Bac Kan province as well as other neighbouring
provinces were greatly reduced. Trading in cattle markets dropped dramatically and the
highest number of cattle in each market day in the peak season varied between 100 and 150
head in the Nghien Loan market, whereas the other markets traded around 30-60 cattle. This
significant change is explained by the impact of a major outbreak of foot-and mouth disease
(FMD) in the province.
Cattle sold in the Pac Nam cattle markets were often sourced from local farmers,
neighbouring provinces, and from China. The number of cattle from the different sources
changed according to fluctuation of prices dictated by market and consumer demand.
Currently, local cattle accounted for about 30%, while approximately 60% come from
neighbouring provinces and 10% from China (brought in through its borders with Ha Giang
and Cao Bang provinces). In comparison, in 2005, Van et al. (2005) found that around 43% of
cattle in Bac Kan province markets were produced locally and 57% were from neighbouring
provinces such as Cao Bang, Tuyen Quang and Ha Giang. No information related to Chinese
cattle was included in their report. On the other hand, during 2007 and earlier, it was
estimated that around 15% of cattle purchased in Pac Nam markets came from local farmers,
while about 60-70% were Chinese cattle, and the rest were brought in from neighbouring
provinces, including Ha Giang, Cao Bang, and Tuyen Quang. Price disparity among the
different regions of Vietnam might be the major reason for this movement of cattle from other
provinces and China to the markets in Pac Nam district. Importantly, Vietnamese imports of
Chinese live cattle were small scale and not undertaken on a regular basis due to official
regulation. It is illegal for retailers and middlemen to import from the Chinese border in Ha
Giang and bring the animals through Cao Bang province. Live cattle were imported
exclusively for the purpose of slaughtering. This cross-border trade of cattle was carried out
with no veterinary and customs checks. Most cattle were moved along trails through natural
forests by local hired labour. There is no official information about the number of Chinese
48 Bibliography
cattle imported, their quality and epidemic disease control in these border provinces as well as
in Bac Kan province. Thus, no tax was collected and no disease control was performed on
these beef cattle from China. On the other hand, the illegal importing of live cattle through the
borders at lower prices and without veterinary controls may increase challenges for cattle
farmers having to compete with cheaper imported cattle and the threat of trans-boundary
communicable diseases.
During that time, a high proportion of cattle from Pac Nam markets was transported to
slaughterhouses in Hanoi. However, Chinese cattle were felt to be of lower quality, with dark
red-coloured meat compared to that of local cattle. According to owners of selected
slaughterhouses, they could be feedlot cattle that were fed a high percentage of concentration
and given rapid weight-gain supplements. From 2007 to the present, slaughterhouses in Hanoi
primarily purchase cattle from Thailand and Laos through the borders of the Central Region,
at lower prices than cattle from Pac Nam market. Interviews of several slaughterhouses
owners in Hanoi indicated that most of their fattened cattle purchased for slaughter were from
Laos and Thailand during 2009-2010, at a price of around 3,000-5,000 VND lower per kilo of
lean meat. Thus, Chinese cattle trading through Cao Bang and Ha Giang provinces have
decreased considerably in the markets of Pac Nam district.
Actually, no difference in price per kilo of lean meat was seen among cattle breeds sold in
markets. Cattle were bought according to the buyer’s evaluation of lean meat on the animal,
its sex, and age. This type of cattle evaluation is also described by Tra (2007); Ngoan and
Giang (2008). A study from QNRDP (2002) also describes similar buyer preference based on
lean meat yield. In all markets in the study area, two thirds of the cattle sold were male cattle
for slaughtering. Another third was cows and their calves, which were often sold together.
Normally, selling high quality, young cows as breeding animals to farmers might fetch a
slightly higher price, as they will be kept for reproduction. Nevertheless, cattle were rarely
sold as breeding animals, with the exception of those destined for government cattle projects
at given times. On the other hand, female animals for slaughter were often sold at a somewhat
lower price per kilo of lean meat than male cattle due to their poorer lean meat potential and
higher fat, which translations at around 5,000 VND less per kilo of lean meat. Similarly, there
were differences of 3,000 to 5,000 VND recorded for older, mature cattle.
Besides, the lean meat capacity of cattle also depends on the breed’s shape—bone, rump, leg,
and shoulder structure—and the way the animals are raised. Cattle with big rumps, large
shoulders, small legs, and small bone frame are considered to have a high lean meat yield.
According to interviewees, the lean meat yield is about 30-35% of live cattle weight,
depending on cattle types and keeping styles, sex, age, and constitution. However, a lower
ratio (28%) can be seen in cattle of poor constitution and a higher one (up to 40%) for the best
quality cattle. QNRDP (2002) also found that lean meat yield ranges from 30% of live weight
for a cow in poor condition to up to 40% for the heavily muscled bulls of Yellow and Laisind
crossbreeds, respectively. Table 2 indicates an example of the differences between the two
cattle types with the same weight but differences in terms of lean meat performance. The
higher the proportion of lean meat, the higher the weight of lean meat achieved and the higher
the value obtained. A difference of over 1.35 mil. VND might result from a different
constitution of the animal’s body. This also demonstrates that a wrong estimation of lean meat
capacity will result in a significant economic loss.
Bibliography 49
Table 2: Example of differences in lean meat capacity of cattle
Cattle type Estimated lean meat
capacity (%) Live weight (kg)
Lean meat yield
(kg) Value (VND)
Animal 1 30.0 300 90 8,100,000
Animal 2 35.0 300 105 9,450,000
Difference between the
two beef animals 5.0 0 15 1,350,000
Source: Key person interview, 2009
According to interviews among farmers, retailers, middlemen, and slaughterhouse owners, the
lean meat price for live cattle in Pac Nam cattle markets was rather stable during the period
2001–2006, between 40,000 and 50,000 VND per kilo. However, during this period, the price
of beef in markets tended to fluctuate greatly upward. For example, in Hanoi markets, beef
wavered from around 40,000 to 80,000 VND per kilo (see Annex 3). Although the fluctuation
of the lean meat price in local markets was not so obvious in the last years, it climbed sharply
to around 70,000 VND in 2007 and stayed a constant level in 2008. Then, the price of beef
soared to around 90,000 VND per kilo by the end of 2008 and through 2009. Partially, the
soaring price of lean meat might reflect the impact of the economic crisis and severe inflation.
On the other hand, the price of beef in Hanoi markets fluctuated between 90,000 to around
110,000 VND per kilo. Thus, there was a large gap between the price paid for the estimated
lean meat yield of live cattle and the price of beef in markets. It is important to note that the
estimate of lean meat yield of cattle is very different from the amount of beef meat sold on the
market. Middlemen and slaughterhouse owners estimate only the lean meat yield per animal,
but after slaughtering, they also sell the animal’s bones, head, internal parts, hooves, and hide,
which explains in part the different price between estimated lean meat yield of live cattle in
the market and the final amount of beef sold to consumers. Despite the increasing price of
cattle, the growth of cattle herd size belonging to households in Pac Nam district and Bac Kan
province gradually fell or stabilized.
Interestingly, buffalo meat is valued almost the same as cattle meat in the markets. Most
consumers make no distinction between buffalo and cattle meat. However, buffalo meat is
considered a specialty food in many restaurants in urban areas. This might explain the
increasing number of households now keeping buffalo instead of cattle among the selected
households. It is found that in Bac Kan, the price of cattle and buffalo meat doubled between
1995 and 2000, indicating the potential emergence of profitable livestock systems in the
future (Helvetas, 2000).
In summary, Pac Nam district is the poorest among the districts and towns of the province.
However, cattle production in the district is the most developed in terms of quantity.
Availability of cattle markets and land resources in the district are major factors to promote
strong development of cattle production compared to others. Market accessibility is
considered as an important issue for the development of agricultural products. Nevertheless,
cattle production in the district is still under-developed, and the development of cattle
husbandry could be a key poverty alleviation strategy in the district. This begs the questions:
why has cattle production not developed as strongly as it should have in the context of
availability of cattle markets?
3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Chapter 3 first describes the selection of research study areas at the commune level. In this
section, the main characteristics of selected sites as well as households are developed. The
selected areas are characterised in terms of topography, socio-economics, and infrastructure,
giving the rationale for the choice of the research sites and providing the basis for empirical
investigation. It then introduces the research design, selection of sample sizes and households,
and data selection framework. The next part presents the methods of collecting data and
challenges in data collection. Finally, there are approaches to inputs and outputs calculation,
selection indicators and description of selected indicators, and data analyses.
3.1 SELECTION OF STUDY SITES
The selection of the two communes was firstly conducted by skimming statistical data from
Pac Nam district statistical data office. Then the local authorities were contacted to get advice
and recommendations. Several communes matched the requirement (availability of cattle
markets, existing cattle feeding systems, and easy accessibility) were visited by direct
observation, and talks were held with communal officers and local persons. Additionally, a
collection of secondary data from those communes was also implemented to get direct insight
on their current situation. Finally, two suitable communes were selected, Nghien Loan and
Cong Bang.
3.1.1 Geographical situation of the selected communes
Brief information on all communes in Pac Nam district is presented in Table 3. According to
collected information in those communes, Cong Bang and Nghien Loan were chosen due to:
(i) Cong Bang commune is made up mostly of households of Tay minority practising the free-
range system and access to the commune is easy; (ii) the part-time grazing system is common
in most of the remaining communes in the district, but it is easy to access households in
Nghien Loan commune; (iii) the cut-and-carry system is practised in the uplands in both
communes where H’Mong people live; and (iv) cattle markets are located in both communes.
Cong Bang commune is located about 12 km from Pac Nam district centre, while Nghien
Loan commune is about 20 km from there. Another feature to note is that Nghien Loan
commune is located 10 km from Ba Be town, the formal district centre; whereas Cong Bang
commune is located around 40 km far from that (see Figure 11).
Some key statistical data of both communes are presented in Table 4. The natural area of the
selected communes is 56.1 and 56.6 km2, respectively (Pac Nam District Statistical Office,
2008). A high percentage of poor was recorded in both Cong Bang and Nghien Loan
commune in 2007 (52.9 and 53.2%, respectively), dramatically higher than the poverty rate of
the north-eastern region (21.4%). This figure is also lightly higher compared to the poverty
rate of Pac Nam district (50.9%) and much higher than that of Bac Kan province (38%).
There are major Tay, Nung, H’Mong and Dao settlements in Nghien Loan commune, whereas
no Nung people live in the Cong Bang commune. Tay people accounted for the largest part of
these communes (around 40%), much lower than the average data of the Bac Kan province
(54.3%). The second biggest group, the Dao people, accounted for 43.1% and 25.0% in the
Cong Bang and Nghien Loan communes, respectively, these figures are dramatically higher
than the provincial figure (16.5%). The H’Mong population is around 16.1 and 19.1%,
respectively, which were significantly higher figure compared to the provincial figure (5.4%).
52 Research methodology
Table 3: Brief description of all communes in Pac Nam district
Communes Location and topography Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry
Cong Bang 12 km from district centre
Good communication route
Easy to access to commune
Has a cattle market
***
-
***
Giao Hieu 8 km from district centre
Good communication route
Easy access to commune
No cattle market
*
households
scattered
**
*
Nhan Mon 10 km from district centre
Poor communication route
Easy access to commune
No cattle market
*
households
scattered
**
***
Boc Bo In the central of the district
Good communication route
Easy to access to commune
Has a cattle market
*
***
*
household
scattered
Bang Thanh 22 km from district centre
Poor communication route
Difficult to access to commune
Small cattle market
***
-
**
Xuan La 7 km from district centre
Good communication route
Easy to access to commune
No cattle market
*
households
scattered
**
*
household
scattered
Nghien Loan 20 km from district centre
Good communication route
Easy access to commune
Has the largest cattle market
*
households
scattered
***
***
An Thang 35 km from district centre
Harsh geography
Very poor communication route
Difficult to access to commune
No cattle market
*
households
scattered
* * *
*
household
scattered
Cao Tan 20 km from district centre
Harsh geography
Very poor communication route
Difficult to access to commune
No cattle market
*
households
scattered
**
* * *
but difficult
access households
Co Linh 13 km from district centre
Poor communication route
Difficult to access to commune
No cattle market
*
households
scattered
**
* * *
but difficult
access households
Note: ***large household number; **medium household number; *small household number; - no or few
households
Research methodology 53
Table 4: Some key statistical data for the selected communes
Description Cong Bang commune Nghien Loan commune
Total natural land (km2) 56.1 56.6
Total agricultural land (ha) 317.1 619.3
No. of villages 12 15
Poverty rate (%) 52.9 53.2
Food amount per person (kg) 420 430
Minorities (% households)
- Tay 40.1 40.0
- Nung 0.0 14.4
- H’Mong 16.1 19.1
- Dao 43.1 25.0
- Others 0.7 0.5
Source: Pac Nam District Statistical Office, 2008; commune statistical data 2008
3.1.2 Population and land resources
Cong Bang commune has a total population of 2,510 persons, half compared to that in Nghien
Loan commune (5,170 persons). Therefore, with almost the same natural land area, the Cong
Bang commune had a dramatically difference in population density (42.7 person/km2)
compared to that in Nghien Loan commune (91.3 persons/km2). The location of the
communes might partially explain the different population densities. In former times, Nghien
Loan was located rather near the district centre (formally Ba Be town), while Cong Bang was
far from it (around four times as far). In addition, the agricultural land area in Nghien Loan is
twice as large as the agriculture land in Cong Bang. Thus, population density in these
communes was considerably different from the average population density in the province
and district. Family size in both communes was equal (around 5.5 persons), noticeably
different compared to the average provincial figure (4.3 persons) (Table 5). Around 99.6% of
the households in Cong Bang commune are involved in the agricultural sector, and 97.3% in
Nghien Loan commune. Thus, the proportion of agricultural households in these communes is
also dramatically higher compared to the provincial figure (84%).
54 Research methodology
Table 5: Population, family size, and number of households in the study area in 2007
Criteria Cong Bang commune Nghien Loan commune
Total population (persons) 2,510 5,170
Population density
(persons/km2)
42.7 91.3
Average family size (persons) 5.5 5.3
Number of households 454 971
Agricultural households 452 945
Source: Pac Nam District Statistical Office, 2008; Commune statistical data, 2008
Land use by different activities is presented in Figure 24.
Figure 24: Structure of land resource in the selected communes in 2007 Source: Pac Nam District Statistical Office, 2008; Commune statistical data, 2008
Surprisingly, over 97% of households in the selected communes engaged in the agriculture
sector, but agricultural land accounted for just 317.1 and 619.3 hectares in Cong Bang and
Nghien Loan communes, which represented for only 8.6 and 11.0% of the total land area in
the selected communes, respectively. Forest area accounted for nearly half of the land
resource in Cong Bang (approximately 48.3% or 2,576.3 ha), whereas Nghien Loan commune
had around one quarter of forest land (26.8% or 1,514.8 ha). An extremely high proportion of
the land resource in Nghien Loan commune was unused land, which accounted for 60.0%
(equal to 3,388.2 ha), whereas a smaller area of unused land area was recorded in Cong Bang
commune that amounted to 41.5% (2,213.3 ha). Non-agriculture land accounted for a small
percentage in both communes (1.6% and 2.1%). Although, unusable land and forestland is
larger in Nghien Loan compared to that in Cong Bang communes, the higher available land
resources for cattle grazing is still recorded in Cong Bang commune due to the population in
Nghien Loan commune is almost double in Cong Bang communes. Thus, free-range cattle
production in Cong Bang commune might exist that it probably take advantages of large
forest land and unusable land resource as well as low population density.
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
Cong Bang Nghien Loan
Lan
d a
rea
by
cate
gori
es (
1000
ha)
Non-Agriculture
Unused
Forest
Agriculture
Research methodology 55
3.1.3 Agricultural sector in the selected communes
Cong Bang and Nghien Loan communes were completely agriculture-based communes. All
farmers were strongly dependent on it for subsistence production and income. The major
crops in the study communes were rice, maize, soybean and cassava (Table 6). Cassava
production accounted for a small percentage compared to other crops. The maize area is as
large as that for rice production in Nghien Loan, perhaps because of the pig production
development in a semi-intensive system.
Figure 25 presents the animal population by commune of four major animal types in 2007.
That of Nghien Loan commune is two to three times higher compared to Cong Bang
commune for three out of the four types studied, except for buffalo, which were slightly lower
in number (1,100 head versus 1,179 head). It is important to note that households keeping
cattle accounted for roughly 55-60% in the selected communes.
Table 6: Major crop production in the selected communes
Crops Cong Bang commune Nghien Loan commune
Area (ha) Production yield (tons) Area (ha) Production yield (tons)
Maize* 108.4 335.0 316.0 978.0
Rice* 167.6 719.0 316.0 1357.0
Soybean - - 257.5 514.1
Cassava 25.0 250.0 12.4 136.0
Source: Pac Nam District Statistical Office, 2008; Commune statistical data, 2008
* Maize and rice are double crops grown in the fertile fields of both communes
Figure 25: Livestock population in the selected communes in the study area in 2007 Source: Pac Nam District Statistical Office, 2008; Commune statistical data, 2008
3.1.4 Forest development in the selected communes and its orientation
Figure 26 presents the planted forest area and percentage of households planting forest by
commune in 2007. Planted forest occupied a rather small area, only 6.6% and 3.5% of the
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Cattle Buffalo Poultry Pigs
To
tal
liv
esto
ck h
erd
(1
,00
0 h
ead
s)
Cong Bang
Nghien Loan
56 Research methodology
total forest area in Nghien Loan and Cong Bang communes (around 99.6 ha compared to 89.9
ha), respectively. It is also noteworthy that a very low percentage of households (8.4%) in
Cong Bang commune planted forest. The number of households in Nghien Loan who
involved in planting forest is over four times higher than that of Cong Bang. On the other
hand, households in Cong Bang commune planted a larger forest area per household on the
average than in Nghien Loan, on which they planted 4.5 Bung more (10.9 Bung versus 6.4
Bung, respectively) (1 Bung = 1,000 m2). It is important to note that the development of forest
cultivation related heavily related to cattle population due to the gradual limitation of
pastureland.
Figure 26: Forest development in the selected communes in the study area in 2007 Source: Cong Bang and Nghien Loan commune statistical data, 2008
1 Bung = 1,000 m2
3.1.5 Off-farm activities, infrastructure, and water source
In the Cong Bang commune, a high percentage of households were involved in off-farm
activities due to the strong development of the commune market, to which people living in
surrounding communes come to exchange goods and culture. They were all retailers or
service providers. In contrast, fewer households were involved in off-farm activities in
Nghien Loan commune. Generally, households in Cong Bang and Nghien Loan had rather
good access to infrastructure such as roads, electricity, primary schools and medical stations.
However, only 54.6% of households in the Cong Bang commune had access to electricity,
while a higher percentage of households in Nghien Loan commune did (67.4%). Particularly,
households located in remote areas of the selected communes had difficulties in accessing not
only electricity but also schools and medical stations. In addition, neither commune had a
high school, although there is one in the district. Overall, developing cattle production
remained an enormous challenge in the district as well as communes.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Nghien Loan commune Cong Bang commune
Fo
rest
Area
(h
a)
Natural forest
Planted forest
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Nghien Loan commune Cong Bang commune
Ho
use
ho
lds
pla
nte
d f
orest
(%
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Pla
nte
d f
orest
area
per h
ou
seh
old
(B
un
g)
Proportion of household planted forest (%)
Average planted forest area
Research methodology 57
3.2 TARGET GROUP SELECTION
3.2.1 Selection of cattle farming households
Selection of households and cattle feeding systems was made using both stratified and
random selection. Households in the two communes keeping cow and calf pairs were
stratified with the help of village heads and other local authorities. Then, the simple random
technique was applied to select each household category from the lists.
The simple random technique is easy to handle compared to other techniques (Wolff, 1996
cited by Huyen, 2004). Using simple random sampling requires planning, high survey costs
and is comparatively restrictive; a rather accurate estimate of the total population can be
obtained because sample selection is based on equal probabilities (Doppler et al., 2002).
Nevertheless, samples taken from defined groups of households should be sufficiently large to
allow valid statistical requirements for analyses to be drawn and to avoid random error (Udo
et al., 1998, Dopple et al., 2002; Sen, 2005). The selection of sample size in the study also
depended on the number of households in each class, the available capacities (time and funds)
for the study, and the degree of homogeneousness of the population in the study area. In
addition, easy accessibility to investigated households is also an important criterion to select
them. Only 15 H’Mong households using the cut-and-carry system were selected in each
commune. Just 30 households using the free-range system in Cong Bang commune were
chosen. And 37 households in Nghien Loan were selected for part-time grazing. Hence, 97
households in the three cattle feeding systems were selected for the study (Table 7). It is
important to note that the sample size of each system is not repeated in each table or figure
henceforward; with exceptions for special cases, for which their sample size will be indicated
clearly in tables/figures.
Table 7: Number of selected households per cattle systems
Cattle feeding systems Cong Bang commune Nghien Loan commune Total
Cut-and-carry 15 15 30
Free-range 30 - 30
Part-time grazing - 37 37
Total 45 52 97
3.2.2 Selection of stakeholders in cattle markets and cattle marketing chains
Due to time and funding restrictions as well as the limited number of stakeholders at some
stages, stakeholders in the cattle marketing chain were selected for analysis, as follows: 5
retailers in live cattle markets; 5 groups of live cattle middlemen in cattle markets; 3
slaughterhouses in Hanoi; 2 slaughterhouses cum retailers in Bac Kan; 4 beef wholesalers in
Hanoi markets; 3 beef retailers in Hanoi markets (Annex 7); and 4 local authorities.
3.2.3 Selection of other target groups
The following stakeholders were considered as key ones participating in the data collection:
(i) local authorities (chair or vice chair of the people’s committee); (ii) representatives or
heads of departments of agriculture, veterinary medicine, and extension services; (iii)
58 Research methodology
representatives or heads of mass and community-based organisations such as farmer unions,
women’s union, youth league, etc. These stakeholders were meant to be at all levels
(province, district and commune). Therefore, different interviews were organised separately at
different levels to ensure that the data/information and findings were diverse and inclusive of
different voices, power levels and interests.
3.3 STUDY FRAMEWORK
Figure 27 presents a framework for the study based on the objectives of the study, the context
of study areas, and the conceptual framework of cattle production and sustainable agriculture.
Figure 27: Study framework
3.4 CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF COLLECTING AND ANALYSING DATA
A data collection and analysis procedure is conducted following the steps in Figure 28. Two
questionnaires were designed according to the data analysis framework and required
indicators. The questionnaires were pre-tested, modified, and amended twice in order to
collect the maximum required data. Following this, the data bank was designed and final
sample sizes were determined. Selection of the sample was made afterwards. Formal data
collections were carried out to gather needed data. Finally, the collected data were entered
into the data bank and checked prior to analysis. The databank was built to safeguard,
Research methodology 59
formalise and summarise the collected information using Microsoft Excel Version 2003.
Quantitative and qualitative collected data were coded. Data checking was conducted every
day after carrying out the surveys. Extensive checks and cross-checks were implemented
during the survey time to avoid missing data or errors. Unexplained data were treated as
missing values. Following sections present detail information of those steps and approaches
used.
Figure 28: Procedure for data collection and analysis
3.4.1 Data collection and data sets
3.4.1.1 Selection of PRA tools
A range of PRA tools used to collect data in the study is presented in Table 8.
3.4.1.2 Structured questionnaire
The main tool was formal a survey using structured questionnaire. The formal survey is
conducted using two structured questionnaires designed to gather the required data. Pre-tests
of the questionnaires were carried out twice. The final versions were revised and completed.
The collection of data was conducted by a multi-visit survey, which is thought to be much
more accurate than a single visit survey since it offers the opportunity for various cross-
checks.
The first structured questionnaire was organised into three parts. Part 1 included: (i) general
information such as household characteristics: family composition, education, age, family
labour, land resource, farm size, land costs, off-farm activities; (ii) crop production: area,
yield, seasons, family consumption, selling and prices, inputs and price, by-products; and (iii)
60 Research methodology
livestock production (including beef cattle): breeds, numbers, performance, outputs, inputs,
feed, and prices.
Table 8: Tools and brief information collected in the study
Tools Related persons Information collected
Secondary data Government offices,
libraries, other sources
Information and data related to the study area and cattle
production
Formal survey Households
Household characteristics, crop and livestock production
Characteristics of current beef cattle feeding systems
Inputs and outputs of cattle production
Feed resources and services
Opinions and experiences of farmers
Potentials/opportunities and difficulties in beef cattle keeping
Case study Households
Detailed description of some households
Descriptive data useful to the illustration of the findings
Highlight the factors that influence the development of cattle
Calendar tool Households Investigate information about feed resources, planting seasons
Observation Households,
communes, pastures
Services, infrastructure, and attitude of interviewees
Communal pasture management to evaluate the pasture
situation
Key persons
interview
Official staff, retailers,
middlemen,
wholesalers, slaughter-
house owners
Grazing land and management
Opportunities and constraints in the cattle production system
Veterinary, extension services and their activity and
contribution to livestock production in general and beef cattle
in particular
Activities of other organisations and cattle production
Feed resources used by animals, area of pastures, etc.
All market information
Group discussion Households groups
from both communes
Considering the necessity to gather information on each
feeding system
Part 2 consists of: (i) characteristics of current beef cattle feeding systems: number of cattle,
breeds, changes of cattle during the last year, their management; (ii) production of beef cattle:
herd structure, reproductive performance, mortality, death lost, weaning age, etc.; (iii) inputs
and outputs of cattle production: purchased animals, feed resources and other expenses,
selling value, selling age, number of animals sold, animals slaughtered or given as presents,
and draught power hired out or used in the family, manure; (iv) feed resources used for cattle
and seasonality; strategies to make it over a shortage season, using communal pastures and
grasslands; (v) opinions of farmers about husbandry objectives and role of cattle in the
family’s economy, motivational factors, experience, management, diseases and risks, market
information, prices; (vi) fattening cattle: characteristics and efficiency; (vii)
potentials/opportunities and difficulties in beef cattle production over time; and (viii) time to
start keeping cattle, description of feeding systems and reasons for changing (historical
development of beef cattle production systems).
Part 3 includes: (i) credit issues and household demand; (ii) environmental issues and farmer
awareness; (iii) role of extension services and activities; role of other organisations and
activities related to cattle production; (iv) natural resources, ecological conditions, socio-
Research methodology 61
economic and institutional changes, culture, related to beef cattle production; (v)
infrastructure and services; and (vi) labour costs, capital costs, and capital sources.
The second questionnaire was designed to obtain information such as labour in cattle
production, manure use and storage, loss of cattle during cold outbreaks in 2008 and strategies
to cope, households who stop raising cattle and the reasons, time of feed resources shortage
and strategies, and development trend of their cattle herds over time.
SWOT analysis
SWOT analysis is a strategic planning tool employed to evaluate strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats which encountered in the developing beef cattle production in the
study area.
Figure 29: Activity worksheet in SWOT analysis of sustainable beef cattle production Source: Adapted from Arslan and Deha Er (2008)
The aim of the SWOT analysis is to identify the current situation of beef cattle, to derive
lessons learned, and to generate effective solutions for the future development of beef cattle
production in the study area in particular and the northern mountainous region of Vietnam in
general. The SWOT analysis was conducted through household discussions group in both
communes, data collected from household interviews and brainstorming. Strengths are
attributes of the farmers themselves, their resources as well as other conditions that are helpful
for achieving the sustainable development of beef cattle production in general and specific
feeding systems. The weaknesses identified are harmful to achieving the objective.
Opportunities and threats are external attributes, which are helpful or harmful to the
objectives of sustainably developing different cattle feeding systems in the future. The group
meetings were carried out using an activity worksheet listing all the questions related to
Strengths
What are existing advantages in households?
What are strengths in development of beef cattle?
What factors are supporting development?
What benefits may be derived from cattle
production?
How much are farmers aware about cattle
development in its social, economic and
environmental dimensions?
Opportunities
Where are good opportunities for the beef cattle
development?
What are interesting trends?
What changes are usual practices?
What technology is available for beef cattle
development?
What are good conditions for cattle production?
Threats
What obstacles are present?
What challenges will be encountered?
Are there required support and necessary
facilities available for farmers and their cattle
herds?
Is changing technology a threat?
What are the safety implications for farmers of
their family, society?
Weaknesses
What are existing disadvantages?
What factors are not supporting development?
What could be improved?
What is not being done properly?
What should be avoided?
What are obstacles to progress?
What elements need to be strengthened?
Where are complaints coming from?
Are there any weak links in the production
chains?
Activity worksheet
62 Research methodology
internal and external factors in the development of beef cattle production in the study area in
general or specific beef cattle feeding systems in particular (Figure 29).
3.4.1.3 Difficulties and challenges in accessibility to selected households and collection of data
The study was conducted among ethnic minority groups (Tay and H’Mong). Numerous
difficulties and challenges were encountered during the reconnaissance phase, household
selection and data collection using different tools because of language problems, topography,
time schedule, climate, and cropping seasons. In order to achieve a level playing field, as it
were, and to understand clearly the current situation of households in the selected areas, two
main female local interpreters were selected based on their knowledge of the Tay and
H’Mong languages, culture and geography and who work permanently in the communities. It
was first necessary to get some basic information about the Tay and H’Mong peoples and
their culture. The author lived together with the interpreters in the communes during the
reconnaissance phase and data collection to foster friendship with them and to promote a good
atmosphere. Close communication and discussion among us before and during the visits
helped the steps to go smoothly.
Additionally, the village leaders and local authorities also strongly supported the author while
carrying out the study, providing lists of households in villages and their characteristics, also
detailing the cattle production situation. Each visit and the name of households to be visited
were also announced to the local leaders in advance, who then turned back to the villagers.
They encouraged the villagers to stay at home to wait for us.
However, many communication and data collection difficulties were encountered when
working locally in the Tay and H’Mong languages. Most Tay people could speak Vietnamese
very well. Nevertheless, the length of the questionnaires and the technical agricultural
production terms made them unwieldy. Encouragement from the author and interpreters and
relating humorous stories helped loosen up the atmosphere among the interviewers and
interviewees. Based on their wrong or misleading answers, the questions were often
simplified or reworded to make them more understandable and help us to gather the greatest
insight and information from the farmers.
Besides, during the interview and group discussions with local people on the lists, especially
H’Mong people, many visits were delayed due to local festivals, minority people’s feast-days,
the rice harvesting season, land preparation for planting, etc. This was further complicated by
the local geography. Therefore, during the rainy season or on rainy days (even light rain), we
often had to cancel our planned visits to the selected households.
Accessibility to H’Mong households was most challenging during the data collection phase.
All H’Mong households live in the remotest areas with poor quality, narrow, sinuous roads
dangerous to people unfamiliar with them. Especially under rainy conditions, the roods
become slippery and unsafe. In addition, such roads are often at the edge of deep precipices.
The long distance from the commune centres made it difficult to travel to the H’Mong
households. The H’Mong households in Coc Not village, Cong Bang commune, are around
15 km away with no public transportation and cannot be accessed on motorbike or bicycle,
only on foot. Normally, it took from 3.5 to 4.0 hours to walk to that village. Therefore, the
local interpreters and communal officers hesitated to visit those households frequently,
especially during the rainy season. On rainy days, we visited nearby households or
households living on flat land areas and easy to access. Sometimes trips had to be postponed
for a week or more. Each trip often took longer than expected because many H’Mong
householders were not at home, although their village leaders had informed them about the
Research methodology 63
visit because many H’Mong householders acted as cattle retailers. They have to purchase
cattle in neighbouring provinces and trade in local markets, which requires them to leave their
homes very regularly. And many of the wives could not speak the Vietnamese or Tay
languages well. Normally, an interview using questionnaires requires communication and the
contribution of both husband and wife in each family, where possible.
The selection of H’Mong households keeping cattle was rather difficult due to their specific
home locations. Five H’Mong households in Na Chao village, Cong Bang commune, met the
study requirements, living in the highest rocky mountains of the commune. Some of those
households were selected for the study. However, to visit them, the author and the interpreter
had to travel along a rocky and extremely slippery steep road for around 5 km. It took an hour
and half for us to go around 0.5 km around a large rocky mountain. We eventually decided
not to visit those households because they were scattered, access was so difficult and it was
simply too dangerous for us. For similar reasons we did not select certain H’Mong households
in Na Phai and Khau Tau villages in Nghien Loan commune.
Several visits were conducted in Khuoi Un village, Nghien Loan commune, to see Mr. Nong
Van Van family - one H’Mong household, but we could not meet him, except for his elderly
wife, who could not speak Vietnamese or Tay language. He was not at home even though the
village leader informed his family several times. He explained that he was busy with his own
business (trading cattle from different markets). Finally, the interview was conducted with his
wife and children with support of his neighbours and cross-checked with them. The interview
took a long time (nearly three hours). Questions were translated into the H’Mong language for
her by the village leader and explained by her neighbour. Her answers were cross-checked
with her neighbours and children and then translated into the Vietnamese language. However,
she did not understand many questions. The questions were changed or simplified to gain
correct information. A cross-check with her husband was done later on a Sunday, when he
was attended in a church service. Thus, to interview a H’Mong household, several visits were
needed. Other families could not be visited due to the limited accessibility (harsh geography
and scattered location, few households keeping cow-calf pairs in the long term).
Particularly, many interviews were conducted in the evenings after the workday, which meant
that data were collected from husband and wife as well as other family members (mature
children and their parents). Many visits took place during the planting, harvesting or
ploughing seasons, so that farmers could not stay at home in daytime for the interview. With
Tay households, accessibility to their house at night time is easier because most of them live
in the lowlands and are served by small roads. On the other hand, it took several days and
several trips to reach the H’Mong people. Very few households were interviewed in the
daytime; most were interviewed at night. Going to those households at night is difficult and
dangerous because they live at the top of different mountains and are a long way from each
other. Each night, only one or two households could be visited with help from the village
leaders, the interpreter and/or a host with whom we lived (and with assistance of many
torches!).
Thus, several lessons were drawn from our data collection work with the Tay and H’Mong
people: (i) to work closely and directly with the local interpreter and local authorities about
the purpose of the study and content of the interview and group discussions; (ii) to have a
well-prepared plan for the visit to local people; (iii) to inform the local people in advance
about the day and time of the visit and interview in order to avoid waiting for a long time;
(vi) to talk with both husband and wife and other family members during interviews in order
to cross-check collected data; (v) to interview with short and clear questions and the visit can
be organised at night if farmers are busy during the day with farm activities.
64 Research methodology
3.4.2 Identification of criteria in cattle production
3.4.2.1 Livestock in general and cattle production
Animal production data in general and cattle production data in particular were investigated
through major indicators including herd structure, reproductive performance, mortality rate,
stocking rate, and outputs (ILCA, 1990). Herd structure formed by different age and sex of
animals, e.g. breeding cows (>3 years), calves (0-6 months and 6-12 months), heifers (1-2
years and 2-3 years), mature bulls (>3 years), and steers (1-2 years and 2-3 years).
Reproductive performance was recorded for each cow owned by the household and its
breeding history through indicators such as: (i) first-calving age is the age (months) at which
the cow its first gives birth; (ii) calving interval is the average period of time (days) between
the two successive deliveries; (iii) reproductive life is the number of calves expected to be
produced per cow in her whole life at which the cow will be culled or eliminated; and (iv)
num. calves is number of calves born of each cow during the time of the interview in the
selected households.
Outputs from cattle production were determined as follows: (i) draught power and
transportation is the total time (days) cattle are used for draught power and transportation for
the farm and hired to other farms; (ii) manure amount is the estimated amount of manure used
for crop production; (iii) value of meat production of livestock sector (cattle production) in
households is determined by the number of animals sold to the market for slaughter and
slaughter for home consumption (animals slaughtered in one year for family consumption or
festivals) multiplied by price paid by middlemen; (iv) breeding animals sold as replacement
for heifers or steers determined by the current market price; (v) other animal sales for cash are
computed by the number of animals sold multiplied by the market price; (vi) disposal for
other reasons (e.g. gifts, ceremonies, exchange) is estimated by the number of animals at their
current market price; and (vii) increase in herd size is calculated by the total head of animals
at the end of the year minus total animal at the start of the year, adding in the number of
animals born or bought at their current price.
Inputs include feed resources, veterinary services, breeding or replacement animals, family
labour, hired labour, interest payment for loans, and depreciation of animal shelters. Mortality
is the number of animals that died and their estimated market value in order to estimate the
economic losses.
3.4.2.2 Feeding resources
General and key person interviews were used to investigate feed types and their growing
season covers the different kinds of feed used for cattle such as natural and planted grasses,
fodder tree leaves and shrubs, crop residues and agricultural by-products as well as seasons of
their growth and use. We also asked about the quantity of food supplements used during the
whole year and price. Crop, agricultural residues and by-products were estimated using the
Residue-to-Product-Ratios (RPR) approach (Koopmans and Koppejan, 1997). A value of
1.757 was used for the RPR of rice straw because it can actually be measured (Koopmans and
Koppejan, 1997). Measurement related to maize cobs referred to a value of RPR = 0.273.
Maize stalk yield was calculated using a RPR equal to 2.0 (value obtained from actual field
trials conducted by Bhattacharya et al., (1993) quoted in Koopmans and Koppejan (1997).
Maize husk will be determined by a value of 0.2 (Koopmans and Koppejan, 1997). Residues
from the agricultural sector might be used for many purposes such as fodder, fertiliser, fuel,
animal bedding, and fibre (Koopmans and Koppejan, 1997). Therefore, questionnaires and
Research methodology 65
key person interviews were used to determine the amount used as feed resources for animals
was calculated according to the average proportion that farmers use for their cattle.
3.4.2.3 Disease and losses
Data on diseases and losses in animal as well as cattle production were factored in, such as (i)
mortality of animals, i.e. the total number of animals that died from a disease, and the lost
value (risk of animals dying from diseases or other causes); (ii) diseases as determined by
name and symptom of common diseases to obtain an understanding of disease risk; (iii)
investment in prevention and treatment of diseases, i.e. the cost of veterinary services paid out
in one year; (iv) seasons of epidemic diseases or times in which epidemic diseases often
occur; and (v) farmer awareness about vaccination, parasite and disease prevention.
3.4.3 Identification of costs and returns from cattle production
3.4.3.1 Production costs
Squire and van der Tak (1975) reflect that documentation of benefits is more difficult than
calculation of costs. However, there are many debates on how to calculate the costs of
production. Costs of livestock production in general and cattle production in particular in
different feeding systems are investigated by the costs of hired land, hired labour, feeding,
breeding or replacement costs, veterinary services, interest payment for loans, depreciation of
cash invested in building animal sheds, classified into variable costs and fixed costs.
(a) Fixed costs
According to McConnell and Dillon (1997), fixed costs in a farm are those of input items,
usually services rather than physic things, which remain constant regardless of production size
or level of production outputs.
The first category of fixed costs is land. In the study context, the land resource used for cattle
production is only allocated as planted grass land, and in small area. In the study, cattle
production is the focus object, therefore, the value of planted grass land used for cattle
production is denoted as feeding costs, one of variable costs’ items as non-cash feed expense,
but not used as an item in fixed costs as usual.
The second category of fixed costs is depreciation of breeding cows and bulls raised by the
households. Actually, on the study site, the salvage value of a cow after bearing calves was
almost equal to its breeding value at purchasing time, with the exception of very old cows
purchased with a slightly lower price per kilo of lean meat yield than the others. Particularly,
cows in selected household were prone to be sold at any age. Selected households in the study
area often purchased a mature cow in the market or from their relatives or neighbours at the
estimated market price of its lean meat capacity, as with any other cattle type. Further, bulls
were not kept for breeding purposes alone, but as fattening animals for slaughter. Therefore,
breeding animals were estimated unchanged value during reproductive life until elimination
or slaughtering phase. Thus, depreciation expense of breeding cows and bulls in each year
also was computed at zero in the study.
According to McConnell and Dillon (1997) and Dillon and Hardaker (1993), the interest
payment for loans used for farm activities was computed as an expense in farm activities—an
item of fixed costs. In the study, loans used for livestock production in general and cattle
production in particular did not vary according to production scale or total outputs due to the
borrowed money often used a part to purchase from one to several cattle.
66 Research methodology
Opportunity cost of capital owned by households in farming activities is also considered as an
item in fixed costs (McConnell and Dillon, 1997). The household’s own capital included the
capital invested in the breeding herd for cattle production and the capital that remained (or the
capital remaining) from production of the last year (Hemme et al., 2006). Nevertheless, it
should be noted that the interest on capital owned by households are not included in the
calculation of the farm expenses (Dillon and Hardaker, 1993). The study also used this
determination in calculating production costs.
The last category of fixed costs is the depreciation and annual maintenance or repair of cattle
sheds. In the questionnaire, acquisition values in cash as well as the service life of the cattle
stable were given. In the context of the study, straight-line depreciation was used, which is
indicated as the simplest and most often used technique, in which the salvage value or
residual value of the cattle shelter was estimated by the value of the asset at the time it was
damaged or had to be disposed of, and equal to zero.
(b) Variable costs
According to McConnell and Dillon (1997), variable costs are those of input items the
amounts of which (usually but not necessarily proportionally) change according to size of
production or level of output of production.
The social prices of agricultural factors were based on the opportunity costs of inputs (Hai,
2002). In households, where no market value of inputs exists, their estimated values must be
imputed (McConnell and Dillon, 1997). In order to factor in crop residues used as animal
feeds if the farm had not actually purchased them, their opportunity costs might be based on
an estimate of what their utilisation was worth, for instance, what a farmer could earn at a job
outside the farm could be used as the wage cost of collecting and drying straw (McConnell
and Dillon, 1997). Although rice straw and maize leave are rarely sold among selected
households, their actual purchasing price in few households was still used for these
calculations. On the other hand, other farm-produced feed resources such as maize, rice and
rice bran were calculated at the farm-gate price.
The value of the amount grown grass brought to cattle as a feed resource is calculated as a
variable cost item. Grass yield is calculated by the amount of planted grass cut per day
multiplied by the number of days per harvesting period and then multiplied by the number of
harvestings per year. Grass value was estimated by price of grass sold in the markets or its
exchanged value among farmers.
Draught power used for land tillage was calculated by an expense for crop production as a
variable cost. Its value was estimated by total time (days) multiplied by the actual price paid
for hiring a buffalo or cattle draught animal per day for land preparation.
The cost for manure used for crop production was also computed by its selling price in the
study area despite of its rarely being traded.
Veterinary service and diseases’ treatment payment is calculated by actually expenses that
households pay for those issues. Breeding animal purchased in a year is actually payment of
households.
The determination of family labour cost is considered as a complex issue defined in different
ways in different studies. According to Fox et al. (2005), the full opportunity cost will be used
if the daily labour wage is obtained. Theoretically, the social price of labour is equal to the
value of the marginal product of labour employed in the next best alternative occupation (Hai,
2002). According to the author, there are many types of labour used in agriculture and
opportunities for off-farm employment are not always available. Therefore, in general, one of
Research methodology 67
the solutions is to estimate the opportunity cost as the shadow wage gained by the average
skilled labourer in the study region area. This calculation of labour cost may not be accepted
in regions where farmers, who often live in remote or mountainous areas, do not have chance
to find work in leisure time. Moreover, Squire and van der Tak (1975) explain that, in case of
severe unemployment, the shadow wage of labour would be zero. Similarly, Fox et al. (2005)
also use the zero opportunity cost for labour in case of high unemployment levels and when
alternative activities are idle. Thus, in this study context, opportunity cost of family labour
was not calculated in the variable costs of any production. However, the wages paid to hired
labour in production activities was still used as a wage rate to compare the efficiency of
labour for each production.
3.4.3.2 Product identification
(a) Main products
Major returns derived from beef cattle production include weight gain of the cattle herd, sold
cattle, breeding cattle and their social value. The gross livestock return in the study was
calculated according to the formula applied by Dillon and Hardaker (1993); Tung et al
(2007); Tung and Giang (2008):
(+) Sale of stock
(+) Value of stock used for domestic consumption: slaughter, gift, payment in kind
(+) Value of livestock products produced
(+) Value of stock at the end of accounting period
(-) All purchases of livestock
(-) Value of stock obtained as payment in kind and gifts
(-) Value of stock at the beginning of accounting period
The value of the cattle herd owned or produced at the start or at the end of the farming
accounting periods was estimated at market price through interviews and cross-check with
experts. However, there are two main alternatives to product prices, including net selling price
at the farm gate and gross replacement cost at the kitchen door. Net selling price was chosen
as the basic evaluation for non-cash output in livestock in general and cattle production in
particular, since this study measures the performance of the farm as a system (Dillon and
Hardaker, 1993)
(b) By-products
By-products of cattle production are manure and draught and transportation power. As
mentioned above, cattle manure was valued at the selling price. Cattle and buffalo draught
power as an item of returns from livestock and cattle production was valued at the price paid
for hiring draught animals in the area or at the cost of hiring labour for doing an equivalent
job (ILCA, 1990). When valuing the total farm income, the value of manure and draught
power for crop production was reflected in the value of the produced crop (ILCA, 1990).
68 Research methodology
3.4.4 Selection of indicators in the influence assessment of cattle feeding system
The purpose of this section is to select a set of representative indicators to assess the potential
influence of cattle production on agricultural sustainability at the household scale. For Dantsis
et al. (2010) agricultural sustainability is regarded as a key prerequisite for the long-term
profitability of farming and rural areas, which will be analysed through the potential
influences on environment, society, and economics through indicators. According to Garcia
(1996), determining proposed sustainable indicators should look at environmental, resource,
economic, and social aspects of sustainability in an integrated dimension. Indicators were
selected according to their relevant ability to describe the pressures as well as the contribution
of cattle production on sustainability of agriculture. According to Dantsis et al. (2010),
selected indicators should be significant in terms of sustainability, assessing relevant to the
agricultural activity description, measurable, based on easily obtainable information,
reproducible and comprehensible. Although it was challenging for every indicator to meet all
these requirements, it was important that this be adhered to as much as possible.
Garcia (1996) indicates that “indicators for sustainable development should be relevant,
reflecting key forces and properties of the exploited ecosystem as well as sufficiently accurate
and precise in order to be acceptable and effective”. In addition, he also mentions that
“selected indicators should be accompanied with detailed information concerning type of
indicator, purpose of the indicator, relevance to policy, relevance to sustainable development,
linkages with other indicators, targets, data requirements, and appropriate methodologies”.
These criteria are also applied in the study.
According to Garcia (1996), each indicator may integrate more than one variable, so it would
be needed to track: (i) the resource endowment, including its abundance, diversity, and
resilience; (ii) the environment, for example by reference to its pristine condition; (iii) the
technology in terms of capacity as well as environment-friendliness; (iv) the institutions, e.g.
fishing rights, enforcement system; (v) the human benefits, e.g. food, employment, income;
(vi) the economics of exploitation, e.g. costs, revenues, prices; and (vii) the social context,
e.g. social cohesion, participation, compliance.
Thus, there is indeed a need for a simple representation of sustainability by selected indicators
in an integrated manner, although there remain the complexity of the sustainability issue, the
number of parameters, and the range of potentially useful indicators (Garcia, 1996). He also
indicates that the development of sustainability indicators requires: (i) reference to agreed sets
of principles, rules and concepts; and (ii) standard protocols for their calculation, based on
accepted, peer-reviewed scientific methodologies and “the best scientific information
available”. According to his point of view, selected indicators should be accompanied by
detailed information such as (i) purpose; (ii) relevance to policy; (iii) relevance to sustainable
development; (vi) linkages with other indicators; (v) targets; (vi) relations with international
conventions and agreements; (vii) data requirements; and (viii) appropriate (recommended)
methodology. The determination of indicators of social, environmental, and economic
pathways was indicated in order to assess the level of sustainability of the three selected beef
cattle feeding systems. Correspondingly, the selection of indicators in the different elements
of beef cattle production in the context of sustainable agriculture is presented in the following
sections with a detailed explanation and evidence from other studies.
3.4.4.1 Economic viability and efficiency
According to Sen (2005), economic indicators which could be used to evaluate the
sustainability of an agricultural system include livestock productivity, farm productivity, and
Research methodology 69
production efficiency. Additionally, in smallholders, productivity is a necessary condition to
achieve family sustainability (McConnell and Dillon, 1997). Productivity in unit or financial
terms in relevant time should be used to measure sustainable systems. It is primarily a
measure of the relative suitability of a system or activity in a particular agro-ecological
environment. It is also an indicator of relative efficiency of resource use and management
performance in commercial farms, whereas on non-commercial farms productivity is a
necessary condition for achieving family sustainability, but only to certain limits (McConnel
and Dillon, 1997). According to Becker (1997), there are several economic indicators, which
are often used for assessing economic efficiency of a production system. The Total Factor
Productivity (TFP) might be a favourable indicator, and is calculated by the ratio of the total
value of all outputs to the total value of all inputs for a production system in one cycle period
(Becker, 1997). According to Lynam and Herdt (1989), TFP is the appropriate measurement
of the output. Thus, during a given period, a production system is seen as sustainable when it
shows a trend equal to or greater than the total productivity. However, its simple measurement
is challenged due to the lack of considering external costs such as environmental effects. In
order to overcome this deficiency, the Total Social Factor Productivity (TSFP) was developed
to calculate the production costs of the environment. Both assessing of TFP or TSFP could
help to measure the sustainability of a system. Nevertheless, appropriate assessment of
environmental costs and the boundary of internalization are hard questions for researchers
(Becker, 1997). The system is sustainable if it can maintain its output at a level higher or
equal to its historical average, and the slope of the trend line is upward (Lynam and Herdt,
1989). TFP measures how efficiently a farm is combining all inputs to produce a unit of
outputs (Sen, 2005). Thus, in the context of this study, the first indicator—TFP is selected.
TFP is calculated by the ratio of total output to total input, i.e. the total gross returns divided
by the total costs. The total farm (cattle) returns will be calculated by the total output of farm
(cattle) over 1 year (yield multiplied by the net market price); and the total costs = variable
costs + fixed costs.
TFP beef cattle = tscattlebeefTotal
returnscattlebeefTotal
cos
Besides, FAO (1999) also considers that profitability is an economic criterion. Profitability is
one of the main indicators that ensure agriculture production is profitable or not, but not at the
expense of the environment. Low or negative profitability usually indicates that production is
exploited in an economically wasteful manner and production capacity and effort are
excessive on both economic and biological grounds (FAO, 1999). Profitability is computed by
the ratio of total value of outputs minus total value of inputs divided by total value of inputs
(Tisdell, 1996). However, the profitability of the farm investment in the study is measured by
the gross margin, expressed by the total farm income less the total farm variable costs—the
second indicator. This indicator is used as an economic indicator in assessing economic
stability in Sen (2005), Rasul and Thapa, (2004), Dantsis et al. (2010). Furthermore, gross
cattle margin per TLU is also calculated to evaluate cattle farm profitability per unit of kept
cattle.
Gross cattle margin = Gross cattle outputs – Total variable cattle expenses
Among indicators used to assess economic efficiency, a very low level of household net cash
income can be seen as an indicator measuring poverty. In addition, family earnings, which
measure the total income available to the farm family for all purposes, are also needed to
70 Research methodology
assess poverty (Dillon and Hardaker, 1993). Thus, in the study, the last indicator—household
net cash income was employed, which is defined by total farm receipts plus farm cash and/or
loans received and other household receipts, minus farm payments, interest and principal
payments. A summary of selected indicators of the economic dimension is presented in
Table 9.
3.4.4.2 Social solidarity
From the concept of sustainable development, sustainability does not mean only economic
efficiency of production but it also means the long-term remaining and development of social
aspects (Sen, 2005). Sen (2005) finds that social sustainability could be analysed through
indicators such as the living standard (including income, income distribution, food security,
consumption and education, gender equality, management skill, liquidity, and local culture
and event). In the study conducted by Zeller et al. (2000), poverty alleviation and employment
opportunities were used as core indicators to assess the social solidarity. Sydorovych and
Wossink (2008) state that sustainable agriculture should provide sufficient employment
opportunities in local communities. In addition, Rasul and Thapa (2004) say that the ability to
generate employment within the system was considered as an indicator of equity. FAO (1999)
also considers employment to be a social criterion. Employment opportunity is the capacity of
the cattle feeding system to exploit its labour requirement from the household. Farmers in
mountainous regions have limited resources and strongly depend on agricultural and forestry
activities (Minot et al., 2003). Thus, farmers in this region will have increased basic human
needs as well as the requirement to look for new and/or alternative farm and off-farm
activities if their labour is available (Huyen, 2004), because population growth in these areas
is high. The more labour is employed in agricultural activities; the lower will be the migration
of local people looking for work.
Employment opportunity is identified by the number of persons working on the cattle
production, the number of days people work in the sub-sector, the number of days required
per unit of land use for cattle as well as for a Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU). Furthermore, the
proportion of time used in cattle production in comparison to all livestock production is also
indicated in this study.
The basic concept of Employment-Based Analysis (EBA) is to count the number of jobs that
an economic activity provides, or how many people in the family it supports over a given
period of time and over a given resource (Taylor, 2001). EBA provides quantitative measures
of sustainable employment. On the other hand, employment opportunities generated from beef
cattle production were calculated to measure the capability of household labour engaged in
this sub-sector. Employment opportunities were calculated by employment of full-time job,
defined by 8 working hours per day. Annual employment provided by beef cattle will be
measured over a number of TLU of cattle kept by households over the land area used for beef
cattle production. The employment opportunities are defined by:
- The EBA (people-year for 1 hectare) = AxTL
N
*
Where, N is the number of days of family labour employed in beef cattle production; L
denotes the land area (in hectares) required for beef cattle production; T denotes time period
calculated by the number of years in this study (here it is one year); A is used as a land base
(here it is a hectare).
Research methodology 71
- The EBA (people-year for 1 TLU) = AxTL
N
*
Where, N is the amount of time (days) family labour is employed in beef cattle production; L
denotes TLU kept by the family; T denotes time periods calculated over a period of 1 year in
this study; A means a TLU, as TLU base.
Measuring poverty alleviation over time to assess social solidarity in its dimensions such as
food insecurity, malnutrition, or illiteracy is suitable, but it is a difficult task (Zeller et al.,
2000). Therefore, those indicators were not considered in the study. Specifically, a study on
poverty must also include gender analysis to determine how best to improve conditions for
rural women (Ashby, 1999). Therefore, the present study emphasizes women’s specific roles
in this sub-sector. The role of women was also assessed by the percentage of female labourers
in the total time employed for cattle production. In addition, their role in decision-making in
activities related to cattle production was also indicated in this study. In addition, return per
labour day is also used as an indicator in social aspect to assess the efficiency of labour
working in this sector. Selected indicators of the social pathway are summarised in Table 9.
3.4.4.3 Environmental stability
Environment is a vital condition for human beings, especially in the context of climate change
issues in the whole world. Vietnam is ranked as one of the most at-risk countries. Actually,
climate change poses risks to lives and livelihoods throughout the world, but is exacerbated in
some places by conditions of socio-economic vulnerability and by physical risk factors which
contribute to the frequency and severity of natural events. Climate change is an increasingly
critical and complex issue in Vietnam, especially in the age of economic development and
globalization. In fact, cattle production is highlighted by its risk to the environment due to
releasing methane and other factors. Negative effects from cattle production in particular and
other agricultural activities in general will affect the availability of resources over time.
Grazing animals are often associated with environmental risk due to overgrazing and loss of
biodiversity (Schillhorn van Veen, 1999). Prolonged heavy grazing undoubtedly contributes
to the disappearance of palatable plant species and the subsequent dominance by other, less
palatable, herbaceous plants or bushes. Excessive livestock grazing also causes deforestation,
soil compaction and erosion, decreased soil fertility and water infiltration, and a loss in
organic matter content and hence water storage capacity (De Haan et al., 1996).
Resilience—the ability of an ecosystem to recover from a given stress—is known to be the
first step in assessing environmental sustainability (Becker, 1997; Barbier et al., 1990 cited in
Rodrigues et al., 2003). Normally, land degradation, soil erosion, emission of greenhouse
gases, water pollution, air pollution, biodiversity, species richness, etc. might be used in
measuring environmental sustainability (Sen, 2005). Nevertheless, in this study context,
different indicators were identified including manure utility, and manure leaching out to the
surrounding environment. Manure storage and uses as well as farmer awareness of
environmental protection are also described (Table 9). In addition, the household stocking rate
(or grazing pressure) is the number of cattle calculated in Tropical Livestock Units (TLU) per
hectare of grassland in household (TLU is used to standardize the number of cattle on the
farm: one mature bull is equivalent to 1 TLU; 1 cow is equivalent to 0.7 TLU; 1 heifer or
steer is equivalent to 0.5 TLU and 1 male/female calf is equivalent to 0.2 TLU).
72 Research methodology
Table 9: Selected indicators and their description
Sustainable dimensions Indicators Description of indicators
Economics
Gross cattle margin Gross returns from cattle production minus from total
variable costs.
Total factor productivity Total cattle gross returns divided by the total cattle costs
Household net income Gross return from farm and off-farm activities minus from
total expenses.
Society
Employment
opportunity
Annual employment provided by beef cattle production as
family labour used (days) measured over the number of
TLU of cattle kept by households.
Women’s role Role of women in cattle production indicated by the
percentage of time they spend working on activities.
Return on labour per
day
Cattle net income divided by total labour days invested in
cattle production.
Environment
Stocking rate Number of cattle calculated in Tropical Livestock Units
(TLU) per hectare of grassland cultivated by households.
Manure use and storage Percentage of cattle manure not used but leaching out to
the surrounding environment.
Farmer awareness
Awareness of farmers on the use and storage of cattle
manure as well as its management in households and by
the community.
3.4.5 A sustainable reference system
Garcia (1996) indicates that sustainability could be defined as weak and strong sustainability.
He explains that weak sustainability allows full substitution among all forms of capital
(natural, economic, and social) and would allow depletion of the natural capital provided the
sum of all three forms is kept constant for future generations or increases over time.
Contrarily, strong sustainability assumes when the forms of capital are not interchangeable
and should be conserved separately. Thus, selected indicators should reflect and aim at a form
of strong sustainability (Garcia, 1996). Actually, it would be useful and necessary to identify
partially integrated indicators, reflecting overlapping components of sustainability. Therefore,
it would also be useful to build a framework combining the full range of social,
environmental, and economic dimensions of the sustainability relationship (Garcia, 1996).
In order to convert selected measuring indicators for sustainable aspects with different
calculation units into the same unit by nominalising, formulas are created, with 0≤ X =
minmax
min
XX
XXi
≤1, which means a higher X indicates a better performance of the study
object or 0≤X = minmax
max
XX
XiX
≤1 means a higher X indicates a higher threat of the study
object.
Research methodology 73
Bad Poor Medium Ok Good
0.0-0.19 0.2-0.39 0.4-0.59 0.6-0.79 0.8-1.00
E
CO
SY
ST
EM
CO
ND
IT
ON
S
Go
od
OK
Med
ium
Po
or
Ba
d
Bad Poor Medium OK Good
HUMAN SYSTEM CONDITIONS
Figure 30: Barometer of sustainability - a static representation of the reference system Source: Modified from Guijt et al. (2001).
Thus, a “sustainability barometer” is built based on a graphical representation of the location
of an exploited ecosystem on an orthogonal system representing both indexes of human and
ecosystem well-being, considered as the two fundamental dimensions of sustainability (Guijt
et al., 2001; Gacia, 1996) (Figure 30). According to Guijt et al. (2001), development is
sustainable when both human well-being and ecosystem well-being are good. The “Barometer
of Sustainability” is considered as a tool for combining indicators and displaying the results.
It is designed to measure human and ecosystem well-being together without submerging one
in the other (Guijt et al., 2001). Specifically, to identify in which level the indicator is
sustainable or not appears to be challenging, therefore, the various axes of the radar diagram
are divided into equal sections representing impacts level by Garcia (1996). The scales
include assessment values that correspond to the various intervals on each axis, e.g. the 0.0-
0.2 interval is considered “Bad” while the 0.8-1.0 interval is considered “Good” (Guijt et al.,
2001; Garcia, 1996).
3.4.6 Proposed data analyses
The SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software version 16 is used to analyse
the data. Data analysis in the study is based on guides from two books including “SPSS
Almost
unsustainable
Non sustainable
Ecologically
unsustainable
Intermediate
Almost
sustainable
Sustain-
able
Socially
unsustainable
74 Research methodology
Introductory Statistics” written by Morgan et al. (2004) and “SPSS Intermediate Statistics”
written by Leech et al. (2005).
3.4.6.1 Descriptive statistics and frequency analysis
Quantity and quality data will be analysed by descriptive analysis. Quantitative data are
means, percentages, frequencies, and ranges. Qualitative data will be recorded during the data
collection phase and will be useful for the discussion and explanation of the data collected.
Text and discourse analyses are used to interpret qualitative data.
3.4.6.2 Comparison among systems
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances divided the sample into three
groups/levels, ANOVA is used to compare differences among them. Otherwise, the Kruskal
Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used to compare among the systems if both conditions
are not met. Criteria include the farm resources (capital, labour, and land), feeding practised,
crop production, livestock husbandry, household productivity, farm efficiency, cattle keeping
efficiency of different cattle feeding systems, and cattle breeds with their reproductive
performance on calving interval, age at first calving, and reproductive life, etc.. The effects
and influences of cattle production on sustainable aspects are also compared among the
systems to get an understanding of the most promising system among selected ones. Besides,
an Independent Sample Test is used to compare between two groups such as with and without
grass production, reproductive performance between cattle and buffalo.
3.4.6.3 Correlation analysis
Correlation analysis is used to explore the relations among indicators and indicate the main
determinants of cattle production (including inputs and outputs), e.g. between net cattle
income and other normal/scale variables (cattle herd size, economic value of cattle losses,
cow numbers, etc.). In addition, relations between total gross cattle costs and other variables
such as gross crop return, grass land areas, agricultural land, swine numbers, cattle feed costs,
etc. were also analysed using correlation analysis.
3.4.6.4 Farm size and herd size classification
A simple classification of farm and herd were created relying on collected data as well as the
classification methods used by other authors in other studies. Farm size was ranked into three
levels consisting of small, medium and large to understand the impacts of production size on
the economic efficiency of selected households in selected farming systems. According to Ha
and Shively (2004), farms below 1.5 hectares in size are recorded as small farms and those
above 1.5 hectares in size are indicated as large farms. Note that they consider 1.5 hectares as
corresponding to the average farm size in their study sample. Correspondingly, depending on
the distribution of farm sizes in all selected households and categories from references, farm
size in selected households was categorized into three types including small size (<1.5 ha),
medium size (between 1.5 and 2.5 ha), and large size (>2.5 ha).
Similarly, cattle herd size was also classified as small, medium or large. These classifications
are made to understand the production scale of the selected households on the study site and
their future development trend. In fact, there is no formal classification of herd size in
Vietnam. According to Tung et al. (2009), small, medium, and large herd sizes in cattle
production in Vietnam are from 1 to 3 head, 4 to 10 head and over 10 head, respectively.
Meanwhile, Hung and Binh (2004) indicate that in Dak Lak province, where cattle production
is growing dramatically on large and diversified natural pastureland, around 33% of
Research methodology 75
households keep under 5 head, and another 27% of households raise from 5 to 10 head. On
the other hand, Huy (2008) records that the most popular cattle herd size in households in
upper Ha Giang province (part of the NMR) is between 1 and 3 head, while a few households
keep 4 or 5 head. Likewise, Nho et al. (2003) identify cattle herd size ranked as 1 head, 2
head, 3–5 head, 6–10 head and over 10 head. In a study conducted by Quan (2002), cattle
herd size is ranked by 1–2 head, 3–4 head, 5–6 head, 7–8 head, and over 8 head. Thus, in this
study, based on the current situation of cattle production scale and perception from selected
households, cattle herd size is categorized by three different sizes: small herd size (1–3 head),
medium herd size (4–6 head) and large herd size (over 7 head).
3.4.6.5 Influence assessment approach of sustainable agriculture
According to Sen (2005), there are several methodological approaches to characterise
sustainability in agriculture including adherence to prescribed approaches, multiple qualitative
and quantitative indicators, time trends, resilience and sensitivity, system simulation, and
indicators of sustainability. The latter is the most widely used method of sustainability
evaluation, indicated in many studies such as Becker (1997), Bossel (1999), Zeller et al.
(2000) and Sen (2005). Among those studies, Becker (1997) and Bossel (1999) assess
sustainable development through indicators in three pillars: social, economic, and
environmental ones. Zeller et al. (2000) employs the approach of rural development in
Madagascar through assessing three dimensions of sustainable development: poverty
alleviation, economic growth, and environmental stability. Sen (2005) determines the impact
of soil conservation measures on the sustainable development of agricultural systems through
an impact assessment of environmental, social, and economic dimensions.
There are several methods used to assess the impact of sustainability in agriculture including
the systematic comparison, the econometric regression and a more complex system of
modelling (Sen, 2005). However, in the context of this study, systematic comparison and a
multi-criteria approach were employed. The multi-criteria approach is applied by many
studies including Giampietro et al. (2001), Gomiero and Giampietro (2001), Gomiero (2004),
and Giampietro et al. (2006). The multi-criteria analysis approach focuses on different
dimensions (social, economic, and ecological). Giampietro (2001) finds that the integrated
assessment in the combination (integration) of various descriptive tools into one coherent
analytic process is essential. Siegmund-Schultze et al. (2010) indicate that “the spider’s web
diagram allows comparing the performance of different systems or activities in the same
diagram or to allow parallel visualisation of different indicators”. Garcia (1996) points out
that it is necessary to discuss the linkages among indicators. A set of numerical indicators was
selected, which covers all the relevant information and is representative of the cattle sub-
sector. This approach considers possible effects in relation to different dimensions of
development and is combined in “radar diagrams”—typical of multi-criteria analysis.
3.4.6.6 Assessment of the cattle trading and marketing chain
Due to complex issues involving the cattle marketing chain and the study limitations (time,
funding, and other challenges), a preliminary study of the cattle trading and marketing chain
in smallholder farms was conducted. Therefore, the role and position of stakeholders in cattle
markets and marketing chains were mainly analysed by a qualitative approach. Selected
households and key persons were interviewed directly by semi-structured lists of questions.
The purpose of the study was to collect main data on channels, opportunities and challenges
as well as to determine role and position of farmers positioned in marketing chains.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This chapter is divided into three sections. Section 1 aims to give an overview of the target
households using three beef cattle feeding systems in Bac Kan province, in Vietnam’s
Northern Mountainous Region. It is an integral part of the study as no result of the beef cattle
production can be fully understood without information on the systems in which they occur.
This is especially relevant in the case of beef cattle farming systems in the NMR that has
numerous characteristics distinguishing it from other regions. Therefore, the main
characterisation of selected households and their production systems was carried out giving
the rationale for the selection of feeding systems, selection of households, and providing the
basis for empirical investigation on current beef cattle feeding systems, including free-range,
part-time grazing, and cut and carry. Section 2 attempts first description the characteristics of
cattle production in the selected feeding systems, including reasons for keeping cattle,
common breeds, and cattle herd size. Then, it moves to analyse cattle management (feed
resources, breeding, and the like). An analysis of other issues involved in cattle feeding
systems is made to highlight factors conducive to the development of the sub-sector in the
study sites both now and in the future. Section 3 intends evaluating the influences of beef
cattle feeding systems on different dimensions of sustainable agriculture—economics, society,
and environment—using different indicators selected due to their high suitability to the
context of cattle production in the NMR. Besides, an analysis of costs of and returns from
cattle production is also presented to provide insight on the economic efficiency of the cattle
feeding systems. A multi-criteria approach is used to measure their sustainability.
4.1 CHARACTERISATION OF SELECTED HOUSEHOLDS IN DIFFERENT BEEF CATTLE FEEDING SYSTEMS
4.1.1 An introduction to the cattle feeding systems in the study area
Table 10: General characteristics of beef cattle feeding systems
Item Free-range Part-time grazing Cut and carry
Minorities Tay, Nung Tay, Nung H’ Mong, Dao
Geography Lowlands Lowlands Uplands
Breed of cattle Local Yellow cattle Local Yellow cattle Local Yellow cattle
Types of husbandry
Grazing without being
tended, no or little feed
supplement
Grazing half day with
tending, more feed
supplement
Cutting feed for bull,
grazing all day for other
animals
Breeding Non-controlled or
inbreeding
Non-controlled or
inbreeding
Controlled and selected
bulls used
Pastureland resource Large and better
accessibility
Limited and poor
accessibility
Large and better
accessibility
Source: Households interview, 2008; Groups discussion; Key person interview; Secondary data
Table 10 gives a brief introduction to the beef cattle feeding systems in the selected study
sites. Detailed information is presented in the following parts, as illustrated in Figure 31.
78 Results and discussions
4.1.1.1 Cut-and-carry system
The cut-and-carry cattle feeding system as defined in Section 2.1.5 is not only practised by the
H’Mong people but also by some Dao households living in middle areas, that have started
learning how to fatten cattle using this approach from H’Mong persons. Other Dao people
practise free-range or part-time grazing methods depending on their location, resources, and
strategies. Thus, cattle production in Dao minority settlements is not as representative as that
of the H’Mong or Tay. Besides, Dao people live scattered in many villages, which made it
difficult to select a large enough sample size. Therefore, in the context of this study, the cut-
and-carry cattle feeding system in H’Mong households was investigated, but not for the Dao
minority.
It was difficult to access to selected H’Mong settlements located far from commune centres
within a radius of 6 to 12 km (from one to four hours walking) on trails through rocky
mountains. They often build their houses on the highest mountainsides (Figure 31 and Annex
11). This characteristic is also described by Huyen, 2004; Lan, 2005; Nho et al., 2003; Niem
et al., 2001 who say that the “H’Mong people often live in the highest mountain zones, over
800 m above sea level”. Moreover, in this area, it is very cold and dry in winter and quite cool
in summer. Nho et al. (2003) also record that the H’Mong people prefer to locate in zones of
low to moderate temperature (18-20oC) and humidity (85-86%). Another feature is that this
system was practised in areas with less market access but low land use pressure. No
transportation mean is used in these areas, except for horses. Therefore, none of the selected
H’Mong households had motorbikes. A few households with a better standard of living and in
accessibility to better way had bicycles. They transported all things by hand and on foot. No
electricity line served their villages due to their complex and specific location. H’Mong
people took advantage of streams to generate electricity but with a very low capacity, which
might be used for several small lights and a radio (see Annex 11). Radios and television sets
were seldom seen in the selected H’Mong households. Previously, there were often severe
water shortages during the dry season. However, with support from the government in such
the 1348 or 135
9 programmes, plastic water lines and cement water tanks were built in many
villages including H’Mong villages that provided enough water for families throughout the
year, especially during the dry season. Most households in the H’Mong villages lived in poor
hygiene conditions, with no toilet or bathroom. In addition, almost the totality of animal
manure and waste were washed by rain or floods into streams. Thus, pollution might affect
people living in lower areas such as the Tay and Nung minority groups.
Nevertheless, the H’Mong people have strong communal characteristics and interdependence
on each other. Tai (2005) indicates that the H’mong people have much local knowledge of
and experience in managing and using natural resources. Market day in the commune is
considered as a small and regular festival by the H’Mong people, where they meet and
communicate with others, people coming from different surrounding communes. The
purchasing purpose is of minor of importance, while the community spirit is highly prised in
their culture. H’Mong men commonly speak fluently H’Mong (their own language), Tay and
Vietnamese, while most women only speak H’Mong.
8 134 Programme was implemented under Decision No. 134/2004/QD–TT with the purpose of promoting
productive land, providing buildings and running water for impoverished ethnic minority households. 9 135 Programme was established pursuant to Decision No. 135/1998/QD-TT dated July 31, 1998 on the
policies and objectives for the socio-economic development of poor communes in mountainous and remote
areas.
Results and discussions 79
4.1.1.2 Free-range system
The free-range system is also described in Section 2.1.5. Traditionally, most of ethnic
minority groups in the NMR have ever used the free-grazing method. However, this has
gradually changed. The change can be explained by such reasons as dense population
reducing accessibility to land resources, expansion of cropping activities, and farmer
awareness. However, in this area, the free-range system was still practised, in which cattle
graze freely on fallow land, communal pastures, and in forested areas without being tended by
their owners, especially from about November to February, after the last cropping season, due
to the availability of unused and forest land areas and low population density. This description
of the free-range system is also indicated in Tra (2007) and Nho (2003). Besides, cattle were
often checked regularly during cropping season by some families, while in others cattle were
taken to pasture in the morning and brought back in the afternoon, and during the day, no
control from the owners was seen.
It was easy to access Tay people using the free-range system, as they live within a radius of a
kilometre or so from the Cong Bang commune centre. The commune is positioned around 12
km from the Pac Nam district town. All of the people have access not only to the market but
also to the school, the medical station and other services. They often build their houses in the
lowland, where water resources and very fertile fields are available (Figure 31). People living
in this area have access to transportation and communication. All of the selected households
had electricity. Most of them had television and motorbikes. Market day takes place regularly
every 5 days in the centre of the commune, where Tay people come to exchange their
products or purchase what they need for their family. Despite such characteristics, all of the
Tay villages have very poor hygiene and poorly manage livestock manure. Storage of manure
was virtually non-existent (Annex 13). Livestock manure was commonly encountered
throughout the commune, often left even on the main roads, where it could be washed into
rivers and streams. The headwaters of such streams are in mountains populated by H’Mong
villages. However, a high proportion of households still used the water resource in rivers and
streams for clothes washing, vegetable cleaning, and other activities.
4.1.1.3 Part-time grazing system
This system is also defined in Section 2.1.5. Cattle are allowed out to graze in the day time
and are kept in a stable at night. Allowing cattle to graze part time is the predominant method
of cattle husbandry throughout the country currently. However, in mountainous areas, cattle
pasture areas have not yet been characterised. In the study area, during the cropping season,
cattle are allowed to graze on in fallow land, communal pastures, and in forested areas, and
are tended by their owners in the afternoon. After the cropping season, cattle are often left
graze all day with tending from their owners. These characteristics are also described in Nho
(2003) and Tra (2007).
It is also easy to access Tay households using the part-time grazing system in the Nghien
Loan commune. All of them are located within a radius of 6 km from the commune centre,
and around 20 km from Pac Nam district town and 10 km from Ba Be district town (Ba Be
town is the former district centre). Therefore, transportation and communication are
accessible, with relatively good infrastructures. Their houses and main crop fields are mainly
in lowlands (Figure 31). Their houses are often built on stilts. However, timber scarcity due to
forest clearing and inappropriate forest exploitation is gradually changing their traditional
house style to the more common house. Although not all households are connected to the
electricity grid in Nghien Loan commune, all of the selected households are connected. There
is still a little dry season water deficit. All of the households live in rather good hygienic
80 Results and discussions
conditions with toilets and bathrooms. However, a high percentage of households still raise
animals near their houses (Annex 12).
Figure 31: Transect description of selected systems and their cropping calendar Source: Households interviews, 2008; Groups discussion; Key person interview; Calendar; Secondary data
4.1.1.4 Historical development of the selected beef cattle systems
A draft historical development of cattle feeding systems in the study sites is presented in
Figure 32. In this section, it is important to remember the characteristics of the free-range
Results and discussions 81
cattle system, which is the traditional system of most of ethnic minority groups in the
Northern Mountains. Cattle are allowed to graze freely for long periods on fallow land,
forested areas, and communal pastures with no tending by the owners. The cattle herd was
rarely checked. Due to free ranging, there is no labour requirement; the cattle herd often
grows to a large number. Many farmers did not know exactly how many cattle they owned
due to no regular control of the cattle herd and its movement. They knew nothing about the
growth and reproductive performance of cattle, such as which cows were gravid, how many
calves each cow had, how long the calving interval was, etc. Thus, a high number of cattle
were lost due to disease, accidents, carnivorous animals, and thieves. However, this
husbandry method has gradually changed to part-time free-grazing in both Nghien Loan and
Cong Bang communes or to part-time grazing in Nghien Loan since 2000–2003 due to the
allocation of arable land areas to households including forest land, limited pastureland
allowance, and explosion of the local population. In addition, the expanding forestry
programme has been implemented in the study site (it will be further discussed in Section 2 of
this chapter), which is also limiting land for natural pastures. Hence, many households in the
study site have changed from free grazing (with its long periods without tending their animals
and rarely checking on them during the non-cropping season) to short-term free grazing (often
checking on the herd) in the crop season in order to avoid crop destruction and subsequent
conflicts among the villagers. Several households have gradually developed the habit of
bringing their cattle back home after short grazing outings. They train their cattle to know the
way home by using salt.
Today, many households in Cong Bang commune still allow their cattle out freely during the
day and bring them home in the evening during the crop season to prevent the animals from
damaging crops. Nevertheless, in the non-cropping season, letting the animals out for long
periods of free ranging was done to save labour resource. Farmers in the commune were able
to practice this husbandry style due to the large areas of forestry and unused land available.
Thus, the more labour is required and the more cattle herds size have been reduced compared
to the formal free ranging cattle.
Box 1: Mr. Hoang Van Vuong, a Tay person living in Cong Bang commune
Mr. Vuong said that his family used to keep over 40 cattle in the past. His family did not keep abreast of
changes in the herd over time, when an animal died or strayed or when a calf was born. Vaccinating and
treating for disease were unknown. No information on reproductive capacity was recorded. In some
cases, inbreeding was shown in cows and their offspring. Family members would go out to check and
see where their cattle were grazing as well as to mark new born calves. Cattles herds belonging to
different families commonly mixed. However, the cattle herd was gradually reduced because limitation
of pasture land, reforestation, and high losses. Currently, his family kept only 5 head of cattle. They
might stop raising cattle due to short of labour resource for tending, shortage of feed resource for cattle
also.
During the same period (2000–2003), many other families in Nghien Loan commune
gradually switched to part-time grazing during the crop season and tend their animals more
closely during the non-cropping season to reduce risks to the minimum. A complete transfer
to part-time grazing only took place from 2003 to 2005 in Nghien Loan due to a great limiting
of natural pastureland and grazing areas and strong reforestation activities. Part-time grazing
is the predominant method of cattle husbandry in the NMR. During the cropping season,
82 Results and discussions
farmers often keep their stock in natural pastures for a half day. Sometimes, cut-and-carry for
whole cattle herd is used during crop sowing and early growing in order to avoid damage to
crops. After harvesting, cattle are allowed to graze in the fields during the whole day until the
next crop and are housed at night. Grazing is only allowed on unplanted land, common land,
and fallow land. Occasionally, cattle are penned and forage is brought to them. Thus, care
from owners is often required during grazing time. More feed resources are required to
supplement cattle feeding when penned during the cropping season. Generally, the cattle herd
size is small because of limited pastureland and difficulties to tend the animals when taken out
for grazing. The grass production was introduced during 2006-2007 to provide a replacement
feed resource for cattle, especially in the context of decreasing pastureland for grazing and the
development programme of cattle production from the government. Cattle were taken out to
graze quite a distance from the family houses. Although fattening cattle in H’Mong
households was well-known in the study sites, very few families in Nghien Loan commune or
Cong Bang commune had experimented with this before selling their animals, possibly
because of the difficulty in collecting feed resources, the shortage of feed resources in winter,
and simply it was something they were not familiar with.
Box 2: Mr. Le Van Som, a Tay person living in Nghien Loan commune
Mr. Som said that his family adopted the part-time grazing system very early, during 2000 after facing
with limitation of pastureland, partially due to reforestation and allocation of land resources to
households, and conflicts among farmers because of damaged crops. His family spends a lot of time
tending the cattle. Many people in the family had participated in this job. His family is not only
confronted with labour issues but also with a gradual limitation of grazing areas.
Cut-and-carry or stable feeding has been popular among the H’Mong minority since 2003-
2005. Bulls were confined and fed by feed resources collected from the crop fields and/or
from fodder shrubs and trees in the forest during the feed shortage season. In addition,
fattening cattle were often given a supplement of maize mash or pig cooked feed to increase
their market value. The cut-and-carry system is undoubtedly less compatible with forest
planting on pasture areas in comparison with other systems. Recently, grass cultivation by
households has alleviated some of the hard work to collect natural feed resources.
Nonetheless, development of grass production is still confronted with the limited land
resource as the priority is given to other crops. Fattening cattle provides better economic
efficiency due to breeding uniform animals of good appearance that yield good tasting beef.
Products from properly fattened cattle could be high-class commodities in the markets to
consumers that might meet the high demand of consumers in big cities and could fully join
the modern retail chains (detail information is given in Sections 2 and 3 of this chapter).
Overall, it derives a question: what are the prospects for developing these cattle feeding
systems in the future in the study area? Following sections are going to deal this. However, it
can be said that scarce natural grazing areas, market orientation, and population growth were
reasons that gradually changed from the free-range to part-time grazing, and then to cut-and-
carry or, for the future, a combination of all systems in selected households. Much work is
required to care for the cattle and cut grass for them, so cattle herd size must often be reduced.
Thus, increasing income of cattle production in selected households through practising
fattening techniques might become a major strategy for farmers to increase their sustainable
livelihoods.
Results and discussions 83
Figure 32: Historical evolution of the cattle feeding systems Source: Households interviews, 2009; Groups discussion; Key person interview; Secondary data.
4.1.2 General socio-economic characteristics of selected households in the systems
4.1.2.1 Family size, labour source and education
The labour force springs from the family, and these persons perform crucial roles in the
adopting of new technologies, especially since pasturing and fattening cattle are considered as
labour-intensive activities. According to Sen (2005), households that face labour shortages or
constraints may hesitate to or would not adopt new technologies that may require additional
labourers.
Table 11 presents the family structure of selected households in three cattle feeding systems.
The average family size was the largest in the cut-and-carry system and accounted for 6.9
persons on average, ranging from 3 to 14 persons. The average family size was much lower in
free-range and part-time grazing systems: 5.0 persons (varying between 2 and 9 persons) and
5.2 persons (ranging between 4 and 8 persons), respectively. There is a significant difference
among the three systems on family size with p<0.001. H’Mong family members differed
significantly to that in selected Tay families in free-range and part-time grazing systems with
both p<0.001. Thus, it could be said that among H’Mong communities located in remote areas
characterised by the spoiling and diminishing of land resources, poor infrastructure and low
living standards, their families seemed to have more members compared to other areas with
better conditions.
Average family size among the systems was quite unlike the Bac Kan provincial average for
household members (4.4 persons per family). Huyen et al. (2010) indicate that in cattle-
keeping households, the average family size is 5.1 persons. However, Tung et al. (2009) find
that the average number of family members of selected households in the NMR is 4.3
persons, which is dramatically lower than the findings of the study. There was also a slightly
84 Results and discussions
lower family size in free-range and part-time grazing systems compared to the average
communal family size in Cong Bang and Nghien Loan in 2007 (5.5 and 5.3 persons,
respectively). Hien (2007) finds that the average family size of Tay households in Cho Don
district, Bac Kan province, is 4.6 persons, slightly lower than that in the study. Huyen (2004)
also found that family size increases when one moves from the market-related system (near
towns, in lowlands) to intermediate systems and on to remote systems (in the uplands). Huyen
et al. (2010) also find that average family size in H’Mong households is 5.9 and 7.6 persons in
Rung Thong and Giao villages respectively, that it was also slightly higher than that in Thai
villages in the lowlands. Tai (2005) shows that the average farm size in H’Mong households
is 6.6 persons in Mai Chau district, Son La province. The average number of family members
in H’Mong households in Son La province was 7.1 persons in 2001 (Huyen, 2004).
The average number of children in cut-and-carry families was 3.0, ranging between 0 and 7
persons, while the average number of children was 1.0 person (between 0 and 2 persons) and
1.2 persons (ranging from 0 to 3 members) in the free-range and part-time grazing systems,
respectively. Those data reveal a significant difference among the three systems (p<0.001).
Between the cut-and-carry and two other systems also show significant differences (both
p<0.001). The average number of mature persons was almost equal among the systems. There
were a small number of elderly persons, showing that the three-generation family is gradually
disappearing. Thus, a high number of children possibly caused the difference in family size of
H’Mong households compared to Tay households. Perhaps, the high birth rate of the H’Mong
people resulted from a lack of accessibility to information and birth-control methods due to
their diversified geography and level of awareness. Moreover, their low education level,
traditional culture, and the new religion that has been introduced since 1990s may play role in
their awareness of birth control. Better access to information and a more convenient
geographical location of health care services may explain the low number of children in Tay
households.
Table 11: Family size and labour force in cattle production systems in 2007
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry Sig.
M Range M Range M Range
Total family members 5.0a 4 – 8 5.2
a 2 – 9 6.9
b 3 – 14 0.001
Adults (16-55 years old) 3.3 2 – 5 3.5 1 – 6 3.1 2 – 7 0.263
Children (<16 years old) 1.0a 0 – 2 1.2
a 0 – 3 3.0
b 0 – 7 0.000
Old people (> 55 years
old) 0.6 0 – 2 0.4 0 – 3 0.8 0 – 2 0.185
Source: Households interviews, 2008 a, b
Within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p<0.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. But if both conditions are not met,
the Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
A very high illiteracy rate was found among family heads in H’Mong households practising
the cut-and-carry system (up to 83.3% compared to zero and 24.3% in the free-range and part-
time grazing systems, respectively) (Figure 33). Thus, the low educational standard of people
in this system was probably due to the harsh geography and traditional culture, making it
difficult for them to access education facilities and information. Huyen (2004) indicates that
the illiteracy level increased from the lowlands and near markets to the highlands and remote
areas. The poor education level reflects poorly on the labour capacity in the uplands compared
Results and discussions 85
to the lowlands. The illiteracy rate was around 30% in H’Mong households in Mai Son
district, Son La province (Huyen, 2004; Tai 2005), which was much lower than in this study
area, which possibly because they have better access to schools in Mai Son district.
A very high proportion of household heads having a secondary school education or higher
was recorded in the free-range system, highlighting a considerable difference among the
systems (83.3% versus 24.3% and zero in part-time grazing and cut-and-carry systems,
respectively). The convenient location as well as early building of the school in the Cong
Bang commune probably explains this result. A high rate of household heads attending
primary school was recorded in the part-time grazing system (51.4%), but a rather low rate of
household heads received a secondary school education or higher (24.3%). So the difficulties
to access schools in Tay households in Nghien Loan commune is due to the long distance and
poor infrastructure in comparison with those in Cong Bang commune seem to be behind these
differences. These education data in the systems are different from data collected in both
communes, e.g. in Cong Bang commune, people participated in secondary school and higher
level education, primary school and illiteracy are 55.6, 17.8 and 26.7%, where as they are
17.3, 40.4 and 42.3% in Nghien Loan commune, respectively (Pac Nam statistical data,
2008). However, education tendency in these communes seems to match with data collected
from the selected systems.
Figure 33: Education level of household heads in the production systems (% of
households) Source: Households interviews, 2008
The Vietnam government has implemented its hunger and poverty alleviation policy, with a
priority focus on remote and mountainous areas, which has helped the H’Mong people to
settle and allow their children going to school, which increased significantly the number of
people who can read and write in H’Mong households (Tai, 2005). Tai (2005) believes that
the educational level indicates the quality of labour and that it is an important factor that
determines the willingness to adopt new ideas and innovations on the farm. Nevertheless, it is
important to note that educational background tended to not play a role in decisions regarding
beef cattle feeding systems in the study. The H’Mong people having the lowest education
level seem to operate the most useful technology in fattening cattle, whereas Tay people in the
free-range system are the best educated but often practise free-range cattle production, which
0
24.3
83.3
51.4
16.7
83.3
24.3
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry
Illiterature Primary school Higher education
16.7
%
86 Results and discussions
was considered a backward mode of production. Thus, the culture and indigenous knowledge
play critical role in keeping cattle approaches among the systems.
The Kruskal-Wallis Test indicates that there were significant differences among the systems
depending on whether they have low or higher education levels (Chi-Square = 58.8, df = 2,
p=0.000). In addition, application of the Mann-Whitney Test shows that there were
statistically significant differences in education levels between each pair in the three systems
(all p=0.000).
4.1.2.2 Off-farm activities
Table 12 presents the off-farm activities of selected households in the three cattle feeding
systems. Key off-farm activities in the free-range system were retailing, making alcohol, hired
labour, and working in government offices. Up to 89.7% of selected households have off-farm
work, with an average of 1.6 persons engaging in those activities. The average off-farm
income of these households was 12.2 mil. VND, with a range between zero and 104.4 mil.
VND. Almost half of the chosen households did retailing because of their good access to the
commune market, which attracts people from neighbouring communes. Alcohol making was
also a dominant activity, with the main product sold to the market and its by-product used in
pig production. Key off-farm activities in the part-time grazing system were cattle trading,
hired labour, and working in government offices. Of the selected households, 67.6 % had off-
farm work, with an average of 1.4 persons engaging in it. The average off-farm income in the
system was around 9.8 mil. VND. The highest average off-farm income among the systems
obtained in this system was 144 mil. VND per year. The most common off-farm activity of
households was hiring out one’s labour. Other off-farm activities varied among the
households. Although Nghien Loan market is recorded as the largest cattle trade market in the
district, the percentage of the selected households working as retailers was very small that is
quite different from the situation in Cong Bang commune.
Main off-farm activities in H’Mong households were cattle trading, working in local
communities, hired labour in farm activities, and wood collection. In this system 63.3% of
households engaged in off-farm activities, with an average of 1.1 persons. The average off-
farm income was around 2.7 mil. VND that fluctuated from zero to 15.5 mil. VND. Cattle
trading was the most important activity in this system. People purchase cattle from other areas
and sell directly for cash, conducted by around 40.8% of selected households. It is important
to note that hired labour was common in poor households with less land area (around 10%).
Collection of wood to sell in the market was performed by 13.8% of households in the cut-
and-carry system, who often experienced food shortage. Phung and Koops (2003) find that the
average off-farm income of cattle producing households living in the lowlands and uplands of
Quang Ngai province is about 8.4 mil. VND. Tai (2005) also finds that forest products are
important sources of off-farm income for households in the middle altitude and mountainous
areas, which indicates the importance of forestry in the living standard of farmers in these
zones. According to the author, however, there can be a conflict due to the overuse of forests
for immediate livelihoods, which leads to the degradation of this resource. Eguienta et al.
(2002) also find that households who cannot meet their subsistence needs have had to search
for other kinds of income such as hillside cultivation, forest exploitation, animal husbandry
and non-agricultural activities. Thus, H’Mong households practising the cut-and-carry system
in remote areas seemed to have less access to off-farm activities compared to Tay households
living in more favourable areas. According to Tai (2005), people living in the flat areas and
near towns are more market oriented and more frequently engage in off-farm activities
throughout the year compared with those in mountainous and remote areas. In addition, he
Results and discussions 87
also finds that households living in the lowlands obtain the highest income from off-farm
activities, while families located in the remote and mountainous zones have the lowest one.
Table 12: Off-farm activities and income for the selected cattle feeding systems in 2007
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry Sig.
M Range M Range M Range
Households (%) 86.7 67.6 63.3
Off-farm labour (persons) 1.4a 0 – 4 1.0
ab 0 – 3 0.7
b 0 – 2 0.006
Off-farm income (mil. VND) 10.6a 0 – 104.4 9.8
a 0 – 144.0 2.7
b 0 – 15.5 0.004
Activities (% households)
- Alcohol making 30.8 13.6 4.5
- Retailing 53.8 18.2 0
- Cattle trading 0 4.5 40.8
-Officers & retirement 34.6 22.7 9.1
- Hired labour 26.9 50.0 27.4
- Wood collection 0 9.1 18.2
Source: Household interview, 2008 a, b
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p<0.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. if both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
4.1.2.3 Land resources and farm size
In the uplands and remote areas, land resources constitute the major means of production for
families. In addition, farm size is also an indicator of the availability of land resources for
grass production for cattle husbandry in the study area. It is also one of the important assets of
farmers.
The farm size of selected households including the lowlands, uplands, and forest land is
presented in Table 13. The smallest farm size was recorded in the cut-and-carry system of
H’Mong households, which reached 1.78 hectares on average, ranging from 0.5 to 5.94
hectares. The average farm size in Tay households practising both the free-range and part-
time grazing systems was higher than that in the cut-and-carry system, in fact almost
equivalent, i.e. 2.15 and 2.17 hectares, which ranged from 0.48 to 6.45 hectares and between
0.20 and 6.85 hectares, respectively. No statistically significant difference was recorded
among the systems (p>0.05). Huyen (2004) also states that H’Mong people had around 2.0 ha
of land on average in Son La province in 2001. Meanwhile, Tai (2005) shows that the
H’Mong people have around 2.88 hectares of land area on average. Huyen (2009) also found
that cattle keeping farms had around 1.8 hectares of land. Huyen et al. (2010) find a slightly
higher land area per household in H’Mong villages (between 2.0 and 2.4 hectares on average).
Tung et al. (2009) conclude that the average farm size of selected households is
approximately 1.80 hectares, equal to data found for H’Mong households, but slightly lower
than that of Tay households in the study.
88 Results and discussions
Table 13: Land resources of beef cattle feeding systems in the study area in 2007
Indicator Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry Sig.
M Range M Range M Range
Total farm size (Ha) 2.15 0.48 – 6.45 2.17 0.20 – 6.85 1.78 0.50 – 5.94 0.348
Source: Households interviews, 2008
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met,
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
A classification of farm size among the selected households in the systems is given in Figure
34 and Table 14.
Figure 34: Farm land size classifications in selected households
in the three systems in 2007 Source: Households interviews, 2008
Table 14: Classification of farm sizes among the cattle husbandry systems in 2007
Items Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry
N % N % N %
Small farm size (<1.5 Ha) 11 37.7 17 46.0 14 47.7
Medium farm size (1.5-2.5 Ha) 12 40.0 9 24.3 11 37.7
Large farm size (>2.5 Ha) 7 20.3 11 29.7 5 10.6
Source: Households interviews, 2008
The small farm size (<1.5 ha), medium size (between 1.5 and 2.5 ha) and large size (>2.5 ha)
accounted for 43.4%, 33.0% and 23.7% of total selected households, respectively.
Correspondingly, the average land area for the small size farm was 1.05 hectares, while it was
1.93 hectares for the medium farm size, and 4.02 hectares for the large farm size. Although,
the land areas are essentially fixed among the regions, households living in mountainous
regions still had large land areas. In addition, they could also enlarge their land resources if
1.05
1.93
4.02 43.3
33.0
23.7
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
1
2
3
4
5
Small size (<1.5 Ha) Medium size (1.5-2.5 Ha) Large size (>2.5 Ha)
Percen
tag
e of
hou
seh
old
(%
)
Avera
ge f
arm
siz
e (
Ha
)
Average farm size (Ha) Households (%)
Results and discussions 89
forest land and steep, hilly areas were used. Therefore, in comparison to households living in
the delta areas, their farm sizes are larger. Tai (2005) also records that families in the upland
regions have higher land availability in comparison to that of families in the high potential
paddy rice growing areas such as the Red River Delta.
4.1.2.4 Cropping and forest activities
(a) Cropping system
Figure 35 shows the average agriculture land area allocated in each household in the three
systems. The highest average agriculture land area was recorded in the cut-and-carry system,
which used far more agricultural land than the other systems (1.11 versus 0.91 and 0.86
hectare in the free-range and part-time systems, respectively). Despite the larger land area, the
cut-and-carry system showed no statistically significant difference from the other two systems
(p=0.081). The agricultural land areas of households in the cut-and-carry system varied from
0.35 to 2.50 hectares, whereas it ranged from 0.18 to 2.45 hectares in the free-range system
and between 0.20 and 2.05 hectares for part-time grazing. However, in H’Mong households,
their land resources were mainly uplands, where soil quality is poor and getting poorer, which
might be due to inappropriate management. Availability of land for agriculture among the
H’Mong people in Son La is small because they live at high altitude, and the land is degraded
and eroded (Huyen, 2004). She also found that the average farm size of Hmong households is
1.58 hectares. It is important to note that the H’Mong people have ever been familiar with
swidden or slash-and-burn agriculture. However, the government of Vietnam has attempted to
inhibit this practise through the programme called “Sedentisation” for upland people and
Land Use Certificate (LUC). In a consequence, a reduction of this practise was recorded,
together with a population boom. Nevertheless, land resource exploiting for agricultural
activities seemed to be on the upswing, which might generate threats to the environment.
According to Eguienta et al. (2002), in the last fifty years, changes in land-use policy have
contributed to an unsustainable expansion of upland use.
90 Results and discussions
Figure 35: Average agricultural land area in the selected systems in 2007 Source: Households interviews, 2008
Main crop allocation is presented in Figure 36. The main crops cultivated in the selected
households were rice, maize, grass, soybean, and cassava. The total farmland allocated to the
main annual crops ranged from 96% in the free-range system to 100% in the cut-and-carry
system. Huyen (2004) indicates that more than 80% of agricultural land was used for annual
crop in Thai and H’Mong households in Son La province. In the cut-and-carry system, the
highest proportion of land area was allocated for maize production, which accounted for
around 52%, varying from 29% to 100%. The large land area allocated to maize in this system
was undoubtedly due to the high demand for maize as the main food consumed by the
H’Mong people. Besides, H’Mong households often took advantage of intercropping beans
with maize (a week after sowing maize). Rice production was also implemented in a
considerable proportion of land areas among the selected households (28.3%). Thus, rice
cultivation has steadily occupied an essential role as a food resource besides maize in this
system. On the other hand, rice production played a crucial position in the free-range system,
with an average of 53.4% (varying from around 19% to 90%), while land put under maize
accounted for a small percentage. Maize and rice were the major crops in the part-time
grazing system, occupying an average of 30.1% and 36.3% of the agricultural land resource,
respectively. The strong growth of the maize area in this system in comparison with
households in the free-range system may be explained by the development of feed resources
for more intensive pig production.
Correspondingly, the higher the percentage of land allocated for rather high-yielding rice
production, the lower the proportion of food shortage among selected households in the free-
range and part-time grazing systems (6.7% and 5.4%, respectively). Usually, food insecurity
often struck households having less land assets, although farmers in these systems used high-
yielding varieties of maize and rice. Besides, higher investments in crop production for
varieties, fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides, and manure were recorded in the two systems. It is
noted that despite their larger arable land areas, low crop yields were recorded in selected
H’Mong households, which probably caused food insecurity in 30% of them during several
months before cropping season. Otherwise, these households used local crop varieties with a
longer growing time. Thus, the high land proportion allocation for rice cultivation and high-
yield crops may be partially reflected in the lower percentage of selected households facing
food insecurity in the free-range and part-time grazing systems than for the H’Mong
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Free ranging Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry
0.91 0.86
1.11
Aver
ag
e ag
ricu
ltu
ral
lan
d p
er h
ou
seh
old
(Ha)
Results and discussions 91
households practising the cut-and-carry system. According to Tai (2005), farmers in the high
mountain zones experience food deficiency due to the limited resources of their families,
especially natural resources. It is hard enough to deal with this challenge, let alone increasing
their standard of living in the future as well.
It is important to note that cassava production gradually dropped off as a human food and
animal feed resource in all three systems. Meanwhile, grass progressively increased its
position in all systems. Households in the free-range system started emphasizing strongly the
importance of grass, which showed a rather remarkable allocated land area (around 13%),
which was presumably found by reducing pastureland for free grazing and government
policies supporting grass planting in cattle development projects. However, grass was still
allocated small areas in the total land resources used for the part-time grazing (8.0%) and cut-
and-carry (6.4%) systems.
Poor land fertility characterises land areas populated by H’Mong because of poor
management, deficits of water, and limited use of supplements such as manure and fertiliser,
as well as soil erosion and degradation of slope land characteristics. In addition, the higher the
altitudinal gradient, the less land is available even on slopes (Huyen, 2004; Tai, 2005). Soil
fertility was gradually reduced over time. Land fertility was also estimated by land use density
(computed by the sum of land allocated for different crops a year divided by the area put into
crop). Land use density is a function of land use in selected households and depends on how
fertile the land is. In almost all selected H’Mong households, land use density was low (1.1
times). Huyen (2004) found that H’Mong people living in mountainous areas face satisfy their
food demands by growing crops. Land quality was much better in Tay households practising
the free-range and part-time grazing systems. In addition, the main characteristic of these
systems are better access to water and in most cases a lowland location. Therefore, compared
to H’Mong households, Tay households in these systems achieved not only higher crop yields
but their land use density was higher (1.4 times on average). Hence, higher land pressure was
recorded in Tay households than in H’Mong households, which showed a significant
difference with p<0.05 among them. Husson et al., (2001) (quoted in Eguienta et al. 2002)
indicate that in their current environmental and institutional context, these marginalized
households have resorted to reducing fallow periods on the hillsides, which reduces the
fertility of cultivated soils and exacerbates erosion. Furthermore, Huyen (2004) brings out that
the scarcity of land resources, land fragmentation, and sloping land all lead to challenges in
using land, including setting the cropping pattern, mechanisation, and land conservation.
92 Results and discussions
Figure 36: Allocation of land areas for major crops in the selected systems in 2007 Source: Household interview, 2008
Table 15 analyses the net income of crop production of selected households in 2007. Net
income is an indicator to evaluate the benefit gained from crop production in one year and is
computed by subtracting from the total gross revenue of all crops the total costs (fixed and
variable costs) used in producing these crops. Gross return from crops is calculated as the
total production yields from different crops multiplied by their farm gate price. The variable
costs include seeds, fertilisers, manure, pesticides, herbicides, hired labour, hired tractor or
petrol used for tractors, ploughing using hired draught animals or family draught power costs,
and hired land if any. Fixed costs are maintenance costs and the straight-line depreciation of
all equipment and machines used in crop production, such as tractors, ploughs, harrows, etc.,
owned outright, and interest payment for loans, where applicable. Family labour is excluded
from variable costs.
Families in both the free-range and part-time grazing systems had around 11.0 mil. VND net
crop incomes on average, which ranged from 4.0 to 25.0 mil. VND and between 1.8 and 21.9
mil. VND, respectively. It was much lower for the cut-and-carry system, around 8.2 mil.
VND on average (varying between 3.0 and 16.0 mil. VND). There was a significant
difference among households in all systems on net crop income (p=0.034). Besides,
significant differences in this variable were also computed by using post hoc Turkey HSD
Tests between the part-time grazing and cut-and-carry systems (p=0.005) and between the
free-range and cut-and-carry systems (p=0.006). Although, households in cut-and-carry had
larger farms compared to those in other systems, their income was lower due to lower yields,
probably resulting from poor-performing local varieties and poor cultivation techniques, lack
of services, and poor land use management. In addition, poor soil fertility and degradation of
slope land areas were also among reasons causing poor yields. In contrast, households
practising the free-range and part-time grazing systems often owned flat, more fertile land,
used better cultivation methods, and managed land use well.
Similarly, a rather high net crop income per land unit was recorded both in the free-range and
part-time grazing systems, with around 13 mil. VND per hectare on average, ranging between
about 3.0 and 27 mil. VND, respectively. A low value was recorded in the cut-and-carry
system (7.9 mil. VND per hectare on average), fluctuating between 3 and 17 mil. VND. A
53.4
30.1 28.3
13.4 36.3 52.0
4.4
16.1
9.9
12.9
8.0 6.4
12.3 6.1 3.0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry
Per
cen
tag
e o
f to
tal
lan
d a
rea
(%
)
Rice Maize Soybean Grass Cassava
Results and discussions 93
statistically significant difference also found among the three systems on crop net income per
land unit (p=0.008). A post hoc test also indicates that between the part-time grazing and cut-
and-carry systems and free-range and cut-and-carry systems, there were significant
differences in crop net income per land unit (both p=0.000).
The difference dramatically varied among the systems according to their geographical
location. A quite low value of crop net income per labour-day of about 15,900-54,200 VND
(about 28,300 VND on average) was recorded in the cut-and-carry system. However, most
selected households in this system (over 90%) gained a higher value than payment for hiring
labour in their location (20,000 VND per day). Interestingly, labour cost in this area was also
lower than in other lowland areas, probably due to low demand and harsh location. On the
other hand, a dramatically high value of crop income per labour-day was achieved in the free-
range system (51,000 VND) fluctuating from around 15,700 to 109,200 VND. Thus, almost
all selected households earned higher value from crop production than from salaries from
hiring oneself out as a labourer in their living area (25,000 VND per day in 2007). An average
of 46,000 VND was recorded in the part-time grazing system, which varied from 11,600 to
82,000 VND, for the most part higher than wages for labour in the study area (30,000 VND).
A significant difference of net crop income per labour-day among the systems was also
recorded with p=0.000. There were also significant differences between the part-time grazing
and cut-and-carry systems and free-range and cut-and-carry systems (both p=0.000).
Table 15: Net income analysis of crop production in cattle feeding systems in 2007
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry Sig.
M Range M Range M Range
Total crop revenue (mil.
VND/HH) 15.1
a 7.2-32.1 14.8
a 3.6-30.7 10.1
b 3.5-17.9 0.002
Total crop costs (mil.
VND/HH) 4.1
a 1.5-13.1 3.8
a 0.9-9.5 1.9
b 0.1-6.5 0.000
Crop net income (mil.
VND/HH) 11.0 4.0-25.0 11.0 1.8-21.9 8.2 3.0-16.0 0.034
Crop net income/land
resource (mil. VND/ha) 13.4
a 5.8-27.5 13.2
a 2.9-27.3 7.9
b 3.0-17.3 0.000
Crop net income/capital
(times) 3.2
a 1.1-9.2 3.5
a 1.0-10.6 7.0
b 1.6-27.4 0.000
Crop net income/labour-
day (1,000 VND) 51.0
a 15.7-109.2 46.0
a 11.0-82.0 28.3
b 15.9-54.2 0.000
Source: Household interview, 2008 a, b
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p<0.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
A very high average crop net income per investment cost unit was observed in selected
households in the cut-and-carry system (7.0 times), varying between 1.6 to 27.4 times. The
crop net income per investment cost unit in the free-range and part-time grazing systems
varied between 1.0 and 10.6 times (3.2 and 3.5 times on average, respectively), which is
significantly lower than the average for H’Mong households (p=0.000 among and between
systems). Thus, it seems to record that the higher the investment in fertiliser and herbicides,
the lower crop net income per investment cost unit and the lower efficient their production.
94 Results and discussions
Nevertheless, the achievements from crop production in the free-range and part-time grazing
systems were still considerable.
(b) Forestry production
The livelihoods of ethnic minority groups in mountainous regions has a long history with
close connections to forests, given the extremely important resources of water, food,
medicine, firewood, timber and many other materials derived from the forest (Tai, 2005).
Huyen (2004) discusses that due to shortage of land for agricultural activities, agricultural
land was expanded through deforestation, which has a strong impact on the socio-economic
situation of the hill tribes in the mountainous regions. The Vietnam government has
implemented several reforestation programmes to help protect the environment. For that
reason, there was a sharp increase in forest area in Pac Nam district, from around 2,700
hectares in 2004 to over 9,000 in 2009 subsequent to implementing the Forest Land
Allocation programme. Forest land allocation started in 1992 with the following objectives:
(i) fix settlement of the mountainous populations and put an end to swidden or “slash-and-
burn” agriculture; (ii) protect forestry resources (it is estimated that forest cover has decreased
significantly, from 45% in 1943 to 28% in 1991, as recorded by Quy (1998) and quoted in
Castella et al. (2002b)); and (iii) develop plantations and sylvicultural production to improve
the living standards of mountain populations (Castella et al., 2002b). The programme given to
the farmers was supported through a credit programme, subsidisation of forest plant varieties,
provision of rice for families and technical training. In the following years, the cultivation of
forest land was stable according to statistical data. Actually, it area might even have been
reduced due to poor management of the farmers and lack of control from the government, but
no report about this was seen.
Only 76.7% of selected households in the cut-and-carry system had forest land, compared to
100% and 94.6% of those practising the free-range and part-time grazing systems. On the
other hand, the average forest land area in selected H’Mong households was about half that of
the selected households in the other two systems (0.66 versus around 1.30 hectares, on
average) (Table 16). Huyen (2004) records around 0.40 hectare of forest land allocated per
household in H’Mong villages in Son La province, compared to around 0.09 hectare per
family recorded by Tai (2005) in the same area. Thus, a significant difference of forest area
was analysed among three systems and between the cut-and-carry and the free-range and part-
time grazing systems (all p<0.05). This dramatic difference in proportion of households
owning forest area may be explained by the later immigration of H’Mong people (from 1979,
originating in Cao Bang province, after the border war between Vietnam and China) and the
fact that a large part of their forest land was allocated to be cropping land as mentioned above
in the land allocation section.
Proportions of households cultivating forest land were quite low in all systems. The highest
number of households owning planted forest was in the part-time grazing system (over 65%),
while the lowest percentage of households cultivating forest was around 35% in the cut-and-
carry system. Correspondingly, the highest land area used for forest production was in part-
time grazing with 0.45 hectare on average (the maximum area was 2.0 hectares), whereas the
average forest production was much lower, with 0.20 and 0.22 hectare for the other two
systems. Income from forest was almost equivalent among systems, and reached between 4.5
and 5.0 mil. VND on average, but it was mainly derived from collecting firewood for fuel,
with the exception of several households that started selling woods for paper processing or
scaffolding. Households could earn around 50-100 mil. VND per hectare of acacia or
manglietia conifer after five to seven years, which was considered better than crop production
because of the lower investment costs and labour requirement.
Results and discussions 95
Despite the spreading of forest production projects promoted by the government through
various incentives and financial aid, not many households implemented forest cultivation and
those who did only developed small areas. The situation of forest development might relate
to: (i) poor transportation corridors causing difficulties in harvesting wood and getting the
product out; (ii) the time involved from planting until the harvesting period; and
(iii) unreliable consumption with a lower value than expected. Another feature to note is that
forestry development interfered with cattle production in the study sites. Natural pasture areas
gradually decreased, making it difficult to raise ruminants, especially when the plants were
small. Free-range cattle production suffered extensively. Huyen (2004) feels that developing
forestry will gradually eliminate the use of forest land for livestock husbandry.
Table 16: Forest allocation and production in the selected systems
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry Sig.
M Range M Range M Range
Allocated rate (% HH) 100.0 - 94.6 - 76.7 - -
Forest areas (ha/HH) 1.24a 0.20 – 4.40 1.31
a 0.0 – 6.10 0.66
b 0.0 -4.00 0.002
Cultivated rate (% HH) 50.0 - 65.8 - 34.8 - -
Cultivated forest area
(ha/HH) 0.20
a 0.0 – 1.40 0.45
b 0.0 – 2.00 0.22
a 0.0 – 1.60 0.019
Income from forest (mil.
VND/HH) 4.5 1.4 – 8.6 5.0 1.5 – 21.9 4.6 2.9 – 9.0 0.663
Source: Household interview, 2008 a, b
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p<0.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
4.1.2.5 Livestock production systems
(a) General information on livestock production and production scale
In selected households practising the cut-and-carry and part-time grazing systems, livestock
species were ranked as following: cattle, swine, and poultry according to their importance,
whereas they were ranked as cattle, buffalo, and swine in the free-range system. Table 17
presents the average number of livestock types kept by each selected household. The buffalo
raised in the all selected households were local breeds (swamp type). They played a major
role as sources of cash, income, and cash saving. Their general use in social events such for
slaughter at festivals or wedding presents was limited due to their high value in the market,
with an exception that several high-living level households gave one or two buffalo to their
sons when they married. Buffalo played a minor role in the cut-and-carry and in part-time
grazing systems. In the cut-and-carry system, this may be explained by their poor ploughing
capacity in the uplands compared to cattle, as borne out by the very low percentage of
households keeping buffalo (26.7%), with an average of 0.6 head per family (varying from 0-
4 head). Buffalo production in the part-time grazing system was also not ranked as important
because: (i) only a quarter of households in the part-time grazing system raise buffalo
(29.7%), with an average of 0.4 head; (ii) extensive use of tractors in the part-time grazing
system area, reducing the need to use them in ploughing land areas; and (iii) their poor
reproductive performance compared to cattle. However, buffalo still played an important role
96 Results and discussions
in the free-range system due to: (i) their role in draught power. Although tractors have
become commonplace throughout the lowland communes, not all households can afford a
tractor for crop production. And unlike tractors, buffalo can work on uneven terrain and in
confined areas; (ii) they were highly valued in this system because keeping buffalo and cattle
provides a labour resource. Buffalo are easier to raise than cattle, especially in the situation of
gradually reduced natural pastures. Although their reproduction performance was lower in
comparison to cattle because of longer calving intervals and the later age of females at first
calving (Annex 4), the high value of mature buffalo due to their lean meat capacity compared
to cattle was still a reason for keeping them; and (iii) a high growth capacity of buffalo was
indicated by interviewees. One factor viewed advantageously was the slower movement of
buffalo, making them easier for owners to work with and tending, which has recently
prompted some selected households to change from cattle production to buffalo production,
especially in the context of reforestation and limitation of pastureland. This is substantiated by
the fact that 90% of selected households kept buffalo, with an average of 2.9 head (ranging
from 0 to 7 head). There was a statistically significant difference of average buffalo number
among the systems (p=0.006), and between the free-range and other two systems (both
p=0.000). Eguienta (2000) reports that buffalo play a critical role as draught animals, as a
source of fertiliser, and also as a form of capital for smallholders. He found that around 80%
of Cho Don District households in Bac Kan province have at least one buffalo.
Table 17: Number of main livestock types kept per farm household in the different
systems
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry Sig.
M Range M Range M Range
Num. of households
keeping buffalo (%) 90.0 - 29.7 - 26.7 - -
Average num. of
buffalo (head) 2.9
a 0.0 – 7.0 0.4
b 0.0 – 2.0 0.6
b 0.0 – 4.0 0.006
Num. of households
keeping pigs (%) 100.0 - 100.0 - 96.7 - -
Average num. of pigs
(head) 4.6
a 1.0 – 9.0 2.9
b 0.0 – 9.0 3.1
b 0.0 – 9.0 0.001
Num. of households
keeping chicken (%) 93.3 - 94.6 - 96.7 - -
Average num. of
fowl (birds) 19.9 0.0 – 70.0 18.2 0.0 – 100.0 19.9 0.0 – 50.0 0.708
Source: Households interviews, 2008 a, b
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p<0.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
Poultry production on the study sites involved chickens, ducks, muscovy ducks, and geese.
They were almost all local breeds. Chickens were the predominant type, raised free-range
with a little maize and rice supplement in the idle time (after crop harvesting). Although
chicken production provided little or no cash income for the households, quite a high
proportion of households in the study area kept them anyway (ranging from 93.3% in the part-
time grazing to 96.7% in the cut-and-carry system). Households in the selected systems raise
an average of 20 birds per household, probably because of convenience: (i) no labour
Results and discussions 97
required; (ii) no need to spend cash on feed resources; (iii) provides food for home
consumption, especially where the market place is far from the household and not held
regularly; and (vi) is a source of cash in a time of need. Sen (2005) also records the similar
reasons for keeping poultry in households in Quang Tri province.
A high proportion of selected households in the different systems also kept pigs (from 96.7%
to 100%). On average, pig numbers ranged from 2.9 head in the part-time grazing system to
4.6 head in the free-range system. A statistically significant difference among the systems was
analysed (p=0.006) and between the free-range and the other two systems (both p<0.01). The
high percentage of households keeping pigs may be explained by the fact that the households
took advantage of their own crop products, their residues, and by-products, thus obtaining
high resource efficiency.
(b) Pig production
General information about the pig production of the different farm household systems is
presented in Table 18. Pig production in selected households was significant in that it
provided them with a cash resource, food, and social status. Slaughtering pigs for the Lunar
New Year festival was recorded in 53.3% of the selected households in the cut-and-carry
system. A dramatic 90% of selected households slaughtered fattened pigs for the New Year
festival and other important events of their families in the free-range system. Allowing the
pigs to range freely was recorded in most of households in the cut-and-carry system as well as
in many other selected households practising the free-range system, while no selected
household practising part-time grazing husbandry kept free-range pigs. In selected households
that allowed pigs to range freely, the animals were not controlled and inbreeding was normal.
Generally, the local Meo pig breed was the main sow bred in the all systems, which ratios of
households raising them reached for 94.4, 70.6 and 100.0% in the free-range, part-time
grazing and cut-and-carry systems, respectively. The Meo breed is the major indigenous pig
breed in the Bac Kan province uplands as well as many other provinces in the NMR. The high
percentage of Meo sows kept in selected households may be explained by their high
adaptability. The selected households invest little in their husbandry, including feed, hygiene
care, and veterinary services. Sows of the Mong Cai breed was not often kept (5.6 and 29.4%
of households keeping sows in the free-range and part-time grazing systems, respectively).
The Mong Cai breed is an improved local pig breed in Vietnam, originating from the Red
River Delta. This breed has been predominantly used as a maternal line in northern Vietnam.
Only 5.6% of selected households in the free-range system use exotic sire breeds, while up to
58.8% of sows kept by households in the part-time grazing system are serviced by a boar of
these breeds.
Feed resources used for pig production were farm-produced products such as maize, rice bran,
cassava, vegetables, and banana stems. In the cut-and-carry system, forest vegetables were
predominantly used, inferring a dependence on natural resources. Particularly, during the time
of pig feed shortage, often from November to March, H’Mong households often fed their pigs
banana stems, cassava, and forest vegetables. A very low growth rate was observed in this
system due to breed characteristics and poor nutrition. In the free-range system, fermented
distillery grain was largely utilized (from alcohol making). A rather low proportion of
households in this system supplemented the diet with concentrate feeds (16.7%), whereas a
higher percentage of households practising the part-time grazing system used high quality
feed for pigs (29.7%). Thus, pig production is not as yet completely market oriented, although
higher investment costs in feeding and breeding were recorded households in the part-time
grazing system. No household in the cut-and-carry system used concentrate feed.
98 Results and discussions
Table 18: Description of pig production in the cattle feeding systems (% households)
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry
Pig slaughtered for social events 90.0 67.6 53.3
Keeping Meo sow breed 94.4 70.6 100.0
Keeping Mong Cai sow breed 5.6 29.4 0.0
Servicing by crossbred sires 5.6 58.8 0.0
Using concentrate feed 16.7 29.7 0.0
Source: Households interviews, 2008
Reproductive performance of pigs was rather poor. The highest average number of live piglets
born per sow was about 6.5 piglets per litter in the part-time grazing system (varying from 5.0
to 8.4 head), while sows kept in the cut-and-carry system had the lowest litter size, with an
average of 5.4 live piglets born per litter (3.5-8.0 heads) (Table 19). Thus, the average number
of live piglets born in these systems was very low compared to other local pig breeds such as
the Mong Cai breed (about 10 to 11 head per litter on average) and the Meo breed (about 7 to
8 head per litter on average) found in Tra, 2003; Lemke, 2006. There was a significant
difference among the systems for live piglets born (p=0.041), and a significant difference was
also found between the part-time grazing and cut-and-carry systems (p=0.013). Sows kept in
the cut-and-carry system showed a higher mortality of piglets until weaning compared to the
other two systems. Thus, the smallest number of piglets at weaning per litter was recorded in
this system, with around 4.4 head, ranging between 0 to 7 head, whereas the largest number
was 6.3 head per litter in part-time grazing. A significant difference on this indicator
(p=0.007) was found between the part-time grazing and cut-and-carry systems.
A shorter pig fattening pig time was recorded in the free-range and part-time grazing systems
(6-12 months), while H’Mong households might fatten a pig from one to two years before
slaughtering at the weight of 70-80 kg or smaller. As mentioned before, the predominant sow
breed in study area was the Meo, characterised by low growth rate, poor reproductive
performance, and lengthy raising time, whereas crosses were characterised by a better growth
rate, high fertility, and shorter raising time. However, the poor performance of pig production
is due not only to low breeding quality, but also to poor management and poor feed resources.
Tra (2003) and Lemke (2006) also indicate that this breed is characterised by a poor growth
rate and poor reproductive performance compared to other indigenous breeds.
Results and discussions 99
Table 19: Reproductive performance of sows in the cattle feeding systems
Indicators Free-range
(N = 13)
Part-time grazing
(N = 13)
Cut-and-carry
(N = 15)
Sig.
M Range M Range M Range
Num. of litters 3.5 2.0 – 5.0 3.8 2.0 – 8.0 2.9 2.0 – 5.0 0.220
Piglets/litter (head) 6.4a 2.0 – 9.0 6.5
a 5.0 – 9.0 5.3
b 3.0 – 8.0 0.041
Weaning pigs/litter
(head) 5.4
ab 2.0 – 9.0 6.3
a 4.0 – 9.0 4.3
b 0.0 – 7.0 0.028
Litters/sow/year 1.4 1.0 – 2.0 1.4 1.0 – 2.0 1.3 1.0 – 1.5 0.871
Source: Households interviews, 2008
Data based on sows having two litters and above. a, b
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p<0.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
4.1.2.6 Analysis of the economic efficiency of livestock production
The benefit of keeping a variety of livestock types in the studied households is also denoted
by net income in each species. Gross return from livestock is calculated by subtracting
purchases of livestock, value of stock obtained as payment in-kind and gifts, value of stock at
the beginning of the accounting period from the total income from sale of stock, value of
stock used for domestic consumption, value of stock at the end of the accounting period, and
the value of livestock products produced (Tung et al. 2007; Dillon and Hadarker, 1993). Total
costs of livestock production include fixed (depreciation of livestock stable and maintenance
cost, interest payments, etc.) and variable costs (feed resources, breeding or replacement
costs, veterinary services paid in cash and in-kind and hired labour).
Net income from all types of animal types in year 2007 in the free-range system came to
around 12.9 mil. VND on average (fluctuated from -19.1 to 32.6 mil. VND), which is rather
high compared to that in other systems, which reached 8.7 mil. VND (ranging between -2.5 to
21.9 mil. VND) and 11.0 mil. VND (ranging from 0.8 to 28.7 mil. VND) in the part-time
grazing and cut-and-carry systems, respectively. The dramatic differences among households
in these systems might be explained by high losses and/or expenses of production. The lowest
net income in part-time grazing could be explained by high expenses in feeds and breeding for
pig production in some households. The high losses from livestock production resulted from
poor efficiency for livestock production in some families. Nevertheless, no difference of net
income from livestock production is found among the systems (p=0.077). This economic
efficiency in the selected households among the systems might partially be explained by the
soaring of product prices throughout 2007, for example the price of a pig live weight nearly
doubled by late of 2007 compared to early 2007 (from around 15,000 to 30,000 VND per kg
live weight); the price of beef cattle and buffalo, estimated by lean meat capacity, increased
from around 50,000 to approximately 70,000 VND in the same period, and the price of
poultry products also increased by around 1.5 times in the same period. Thus, the healthy
gross revenue and net income received by some households in all the systems were rooted not
only in their skills in management and no loss from disease, but also from the tangible
increased price of their products.
Figure 37 indicates main livestock net income. Selected farmers in the free-range system
received their main income from cattle, buffalo, and pig production, whereas farmers in other
100 Results and discussions
systems obtained their income only from cattle and pig production. Cattle production brought
the highest benefits among livestock types among the feeding systems. Quan (2001) also finds
that households raising cattle in the mountainous zone in Quang Binh province earn the
highest income compared to poultry production and raising pigs.
The average net income generated from buffalo for households in the part-time grazing and
cut-and-carry systems was around one third and one forth that in the free-range system (1.1,
0.8 and 3.1 mil. VND, respectively). These values ranged from -20.7 to 9.1 mil. VND in the
free-range system, between -3.1 and 6.2 mil. VND in part-time grazing and -0.6 – 6.5 mil.
VND in the cut-and-carry system. Losses due to disease and accident in the systems resulted
in negative benefits for buffalo production, although the buffalo lean meat price increased
sharply from 50,000 to 70,000 VND during the investigated period. Another feature to note is
that buffalo net income showed a significant difference among the systems with p=0.000.
Significant differences were also recorded between free-range and part-time grazing
(p=0.001) and between free-range and cut-and-carry with p=0.000. Buffalo production in the
free-range system was more profitable than that in the other systems, which might be due to
more available pasture areas and use of draught power for land preparation.
Pig production in the free-range system provided the highest net income with 3.3 mil. VND
per household on average, while it was 2.2 and 1.6 mil. VND in the part-time grazing and cut-
and-carry systems, respectively. Correspondingly, disease losses also brought negative net
income for pig production in several households, which indicated a range of between -0.4 and
11.9 mil. VND, from -3.0 to 10.4 mil. VND and between -2.4 and 8.0 mil. VND in the free-
range, part-time grazing and cut-and-carry systems, respectively.
Poultry production was not very profitable in the selected households in all systems, each
earning from 0.53-0.65 mil. VND, on average. Poultry production recorded profit varying
from -1.2 to 3.2 mil. VND, between -1.1 and 4.5 mil. and between -0.7 and 3.5 mil. VND in
the selected systems, respectively. Pig and poultry net income showed no significant
difference among the systems. Better efficiency of pig production in the free-range system
might result from taking advantage of the by-products of alcohol making. Nevertheless,
livestock production in the selected systems was not as good as expected. Poor disease control
and prevention, poor management and skills might explain these results. A more detailed
analysis of cattle net income will be made in the following section. Detailed information on
livestock net income in the systems and for different farm sizes is indicated in Annex 5 and
Annex 6.
Results and discussions 101
Figure 37: Net income obtained in the major livestock types in selected systems in 2007 Source: Household interview, 2008
Households engaged in livestock husbandry sustained many losses due to such things as
disease outbreaks, accidents, and theft. Generally, most losses were related to disease
outbreaks. The percentage of household loss in livestock production and overall loss are
presented in Table 20. All households keeping buffalo in the part-time grazing system
experienced loss, compared to 37.5% and 22.2% of those in the cut-and-carry and free-range
systems, respectively. Around 90% of households producing pigs in the cut-and-carry system
sustained losses, with a nearly similar rate recorded in the other systems (56.7% and 48.7% in
free-range and part-time grazing, respectively). Poultry production also contributed to a high
proportion of households suffering loss, 100%, 85.7%, and 65.5% in part-time grazing, free-
range and cut-and-carry, respectively. The highest economic loss in buffalo production was
recorded in the free-range system (1.6 mil. VND on average) but the fluctuation was great,
with a maximum of 25.0 mil. VND. The family of Mr. Nong Hoang Cap in the free-range
system was an example, with a loss of 25.0 mil. VND from buffalo production in 2007 due to
FMD disease and accidents. The lowest value of livestock lost was 0.5 mil. on average in the
cut-and-carry system, ranging from 0.0 to 6.0 mil. VND.
Nevertheless, the highest economic value of pig production loss was in the cut-and-carry
system, where pigs are usually allowed to roam freely (1.3 mil. VND, on average). For
instance, Mr. Ly Van Lu suffered a very high loss of up to 6.3 mil. VND in 2007. In the
remaining systems average pig production losses were almost equivalent (0.8 and 0.6 mil.
VND per household, with an identical range from 0 to around 4.5 mil.). There was a
significant difference among the systems regarding loss of economic value in pig production
with p=0.015. In addition, there were significant differences between the cut-and-carry and
other two systems (both p<0.001).
In poultry production, the highest loss was around 1.0 mil. VND per household in the part-
time grazing system, while it was around 0.3 and 0.5 mil. VND in the free-range and cut-and-
carry systems, indicated by a statistically significant difference (p=0.000). the part-time
grazing system also showed significant differences compared to the other two systems with
both p<0.001. A high death rate of chickens was recorded in many surveyed households in all
systems, perhaps due to no vaccination and poor management, e.g. a considerable proportion
of households in the cut-and-carry system raise poultry (80%) with an average loss of around
5.3 4.8
7.8
3.1
1.1
0.8
3.3
2.2
1.6
0.53
0.53
0.65
0
3
6
9
12
15
Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry
Gro
ss m
arg
in o
f li
ves
tock
(m
il.
VN
D)
Cattle Buffalo Pig Poultry
102 Results and discussions
0.6 mil. VND. Thus, losses in livestock types were rather remarkable, especially in
comparison to potential profits from those activities in households.
Table 20: Losses in livestock production (exception for cattle) in selected systems in 2007
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry Sig.
M Range M Range M Range
Loss in buffalo
production (% HH
keeping)
22.2 - 100.0 - 37.5 - -
Average value (mil.
VND/HH) 1.6 0.0 – 25.0 1.1 0.0 – 12.0 0.5 0.0 – 6.0 0.193
Loss in pig production
(% HH keeping) 56.7 - 48.7 - 89.7 - -
Average value (mil.
VND/HH) 0.8
a 0.0 – 4.2 0.6
a 0.0 – 4.6 1.3
b 0.0 – 6.3 0.015
Loss in poultry
production (% HH
keeping)
85.7 - 100.0 - 65.5 - -
Average value (mil.
VND/HH) 0.5
a 0.0 – 1.9 1.0
b 0.0 – 3.8 0.3
a 0.0 – 1.2 0.000
Source: Households interviews, 2008 a, b
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p<0.05)
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
4.1.2.7 Analysis of the economic efficiency of farm and non-farm activities
According to Tai (2005), improvement in household living standard and food security could
be implemented by increasing farm and family income. Farm income is considered as the
economic capacity of a farm to provide an economic surplus to be used by the farming family
in one year. The average household net income was the smallest in the cut-and-carry system
(26.5 mil. VND), ranging from 11.0 to 46.8 mil. VND (Figure 38). Among income sources in
the system, livestock net income accounted for the highest amount, around 40%, on average.
In this system, due to generally poor quality and degraded land resources, the development of
livestock might be the ideal option, which partially explains the high proportion of households
that practise it. In addition, the complex geography and topography of the region makes
market access difficult, also hinders the development of off-farm activities, as shown by the
small percentage of off-farm income in total household net income in the cut-and-carry
system. On the other hand, the highest household net income was recorded in the free-range
system, with 39.1 mil. VND, on average. Livestock net income was also the largest income
source in this system, accounting for around 33%, but was smaller than that in the cut-and-
carry system. Net income from crop production accounted for the highest income source in
the part-time grazing system, accounting for around 32%. Thus, with good access to markets,
better land resources in terms of both quality and quantity, households practising the free-
range and part-time grazing systems seemed to enjoy better net income from not only crop
and livestock production but also from off-farm activities. However, no statistically
significant difference among the systems was indicated (p=0.063). Tai (2005) found that
H’Mong families in the uplands earned around 11.2 mil. VND on average, while Thai people
at the middle level and on lowlands earned from around 8.0 to 26.0 mil. VND in 2001 in Son
Results and discussions 103
La province. He also found that farm incomes tend to decrease from farms in lowlands to the
farms in high mountainous zones. Phung and Koops (2003) show that average household
income of cattle raising farms in Quang Ngai province is about 14.7 million VND.
Figure 38: Net household income in the cattle feeding systems in 2007 Source: Households interviews, 2008
The average income from forestry ranged from 4.5 to 5.0 mil. VND among the systems and
accounted for a small amount in the free-range and part-time grazing systems compared to
other household activities, while it reached a somewhat better position in the cut-and-carry
system, but still poor. Tai (2005) also highlights that income from forestry contributes a very
small part to family income in not only H’Mong families but also to that of other hill tribes.
He feels that forest areas have been exhausted by overexploitation in the past. However, this
minor contribution does not reflect the real potential of the forest for ethnic minority groups
living in mountainous areas, as they have greater opportunities for gain from forestry than
from agriculture.
10.6 9.8
2.7
11.0
8.2
13.0
8.7
11.0
4.5
5.0
4.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry
Net
in
com
e (M
il V
ND
)
Off-farm Crop Livestock Forest
11.0
104 Results and discussions
Box 3: Mr. Duong Van Lu in the cut-and-carry system
Mr. Duong Van Lu is an example of the above characteristics of H’Mong households in the cut-and-
carry system. His family has eight members, four adults and four children. His family has an off-farm
activity (collecting wood and selling it for cash in times of food shortage), which employed one person
and earned 0.54 mil. VND per year. He has 1.37 hectares of agricultural land area and no growth forest
land area. His family netted 14.2 mil. VND in net income from crop production. His family kept five
pigs and 50 chickens, no buffalo, but raised six cattle. From livestock production including cattle, his
family earned 9.7 mil. VND in net income.
Box 4: Mr. Duong Van Duong in the free-range system
Mr. Duong Van Duong is a representative household in the free-range system. The family has six
members including four adults. One person worked in off-farm activities and earned 3.6 mil. VND per
year. His family has only 0.80 hectare of agricultural land and 0.70 hectare of forest land. His family
earned 13.6 mil. VND in net crop income. His family raised four pigs, 10 chicken, four buffalo, and six
cattle. From livestock production (including cattle), his family had a net income of 10.8 mil. VND.
Box 5: Mr. Lac Van Sinh in the part-time grazing system
Mr. Lac Van Sinh is a representative of households in the part-time grazing system. He has a family of
five members, including two adults. He has 1.06 hectares of agricultural land area and 0.6 hectare of
forest land. His family earned 15.1 mil. VND in net crop production income. His family had six pigs,
one buffalo, and five cattle. From livestock production (including cattle), his family earned a net
income of 14.7 mil. VND.
4.1.3 Resource flow in smallholder households and cattle production
The schematic flow of farm resources related to cattle production is presented in Figure 39.
Generally, cattle production on the study site was closely interrelated with crop production.
Cattle provided draught power for tillage and manure as inputs to crop production, while they
consumed left-overs and other crop wastes as inputs to their production. In addition, cattle
owners also use maize as supplement feed resource for cattle in winter time and for fattening.
Cattle usually provided cash for the cattle-owning household through animals sold for
fattening or breeding, but such transactions were rarely recorded, and also for slaughtering
(meat production). Expenses for crop production might be derived from cattle production
income leading to capital growth in households and vice versa. However, strong development
of crop production may limit development of cattle due to reduced feed resources with the
decrease in pastureland available for grazing cattle. Moreover, giving high priority to other
crops might limit the growth of planted grass for cattle production and labour resources.
Nevertheless, crops destruction was recorded by selected households, especially in the free-
range system.
Likely, cattle husbandry and forest production are closely related. Forestry activities supply
timber for cattle stable construction, forest pasture for grazing, and forest fodder tree leaves as
a feed resource. In turn, cattle provide manure for forest growth. However, competition
between the two activities was observed. Expansion of the forest area limits natural pasture,
while cattle are considered one of the main causes of soil erosion and degradation, especially
in the uplands. Further, planted forest was also destroyed by cattle, especially in early stages
of growth. Another noteworthy feature is that cattle production has a direct relationship with
markets and off-farm activities. Cattle were often sold directly to markets to get cash.
However, cattle for breeding were sometimes bought at markets. Thus, cattle production can
provide a cash resource as capital for implementing off-farm activities. Off-farm activities
provide cash for cattle production in terms of buying breeding cattle or payment for veterinary
Results and discussions 105
services. Cattle production creates employment opportunities for the family as well as cash,
income, savings source, social status, and wealth. Conversely, households provide labour
resource and cash for cattle production. Cattle production is emphasized as an important
activity for the households. Further analysis of cattle production is made in the next Sections
in order to highlight its role and function in households. Besides, the relationship with other
actors is also presented in order to understand the flow of household resources and use.
Flow within households Flow between households and outside
Figure 39: Resource flow in selected households for cattle production Source: Households interviews, 2008; Groups discussion; Key person interview
4.1.4 Section summary
To summarise, selected households in each cattle feeding system have different characteristics
according to their ethnic minority. H’Mong households in the cut-and-carry system live in the
uplands, experience harsh living condition, and poor hygiene is common. They have poor
infrastructure and difficulties in access to information and services. An analysis of interviews
with households in the system, the family size is large, the education level low, agricultural
land areas are available, but soil fertility is poor; there is low land use pressure but low crop
yields due to poor management. Nevertheless, selected households in the system had
approximate labour source compared to other systems. A rather low percentage of selected
households worked in off-farm activities for little pay. Trading cattle as an important off-farm
activity contributed to the income of many households along with the ready availability of
cattle markets in local areas, and to the development of the cut-and-carry cattle system.
Although crop net income accounted for one of the largest income sources among activities
(around 30% of total household income), food security was still an important issue in the
system in spite of large land areas allocated for maize and rice production as main food
resources. Livestock production was used mostly for home consumption, with the exception
of cattle and buffalo. Thus, increasingly limited arable land and population growth in the
system are challenges to creating sustainable livelihoods. Development of cattle production to
a more commercial trend might be one of the most promising solutions for people in the
system.
Households
Cattle Crops Forest
Off-farm
activities
Markets Cash; Employment
Cash
Fertiliser
Seeds
Manure
Feed resource
Soil erosion
Cash
Wood for fuel
Employment
Cash
Food
Employment
Cash; Employment
Cash
Land
Manure
Feed resource
Pasture limitation
Cash
Employment
Foods
Cultured exchanged
Cash
Cash
Feed
resource
Cash
Feed
resource
Cash
Breeding
106 Results and discussions
Meanwhile, Tay households in the free-range system were located in the lowlands with better
soil fertility but poor hygiene conditions still prevailed. This system was identified by
medium family size, high education level, rather large farm size but quite high land use
pressure, high crop intensification - rather high investment in crops and high crop yield, and
better food security compared to H’Mong people in the cut-and-carry system. Nevertheless, a
higher level of education levels did not tend to affect the cattle husbandry system they
practise, which was considered the oldest and most traditional. Crop production occupied
roughly one fourth of total household income. Rather strong development of buffalo in
comparison to that in other systems was recorded. Livestock production was computed for a
large proportion in total net income of their families. Local people have good access to
communal pastureland areas, which might be a major reason holding their cattle production
system as free-grazing, next to labour saving because of no tending cattle. Their main off-
farm activities are retailing and alcohol making, taking advantage of the local market, thus
resulting in a significant income source for selected households that also consider as a
competition with cattle production. Their livelihoods combined off-farm activities, crop
production, and livestock husbandry.
On the other hand, characteristics of Tay households in the part-time grazing system were
quite similar to those in the free-range system, but enjoyed better hygiene conditions.
However, their education levels were much lower than those in the free-range system. Crop
production played a more important role than that in the free-range system. Buffalo
production was underdeveloped, while pig production was more market oriented. In selected
households, their cattle production is strongly linked to the household’s resources, off-farm
activities, and farm activities.
The income from cattle raising contributed a considerable amount to livestock net income
among the systems, especially in the cut-and-carry system, was accounted for the largest share
among livestock types. Thus, cattle production in selected households was the most important
source of income in livestock production sector, all of cattle feeding systems combined
It seems that the free-range cattle feeding system underwent a change over the years to a part-
time grazing approach due to changes in accessibility of natural pastureland, reforestation
policies, and additional support policies of the government for cattle production. Similarly,
the cut-and-carry approach is a spinoff of the free-range system through such influences as
income potential and increasingly limited natural land areas. Not to be discounted is that this
feeding system might also be a corollary of a combination of social-economic factors.
Overall, it can be concluded that education level does not seem to determine their cattle
keeping approaches, but employing different cattle feeding systems might be related to the
nature of separate minority groups, agricultural and forest production, and accessibility to off-
farm activities and public pasturelands. Large farm size but lack of quality land, agricultural
practices, poor accessibility to off-farm opportunities, their culture and indigenous knowledge
might be factors influencing the H’Mong people’s decision to practise the cut-and-carry
system in the past and that of the few Tay people in more recent times and in the future.
Meanwhile, cattle husbandry was a main farming activity, one of very important income
sources, playing an important role in all systems.
Results and discussions 107
4.2 CHARACTERISATION OF SELECTED CATTLE FEEDING SYSTEMS
4.2.1 Characteristics of cattle production in selected systems
4.2.1.1 Reasons for keeping cattle
Purposes of cattle production in selected households is presented in Table 21.
Table 21: Reasons for keeping cattle in selected cattle systems
Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry
Items % household Items % household Items % household
Breeding 100.0 Breeding 100.0 Breeding 100.0
Savings 100.0 Manure 89.2 Draught 93.3
Manure 90.0 Savings 86.5 Savings 76.7
Wealth 86.7 Income 51.4 Income 60.3
Income 60.3 Draught 48.6 Manure 26.7
Employment 10.3 Employment 10.8 Wealth 20.7
Draught 3.3 Wealth 8.1 Employment 20.7
Source: Households interviews, 2008
In the free-range system, the major reasons for cattle husbandry were breeding and savings.
Ranking next in importance were manure production and wealth. Thus, cattle manure has
started to play an important role in crop production although fertilisers seem to be overused in
the study areas; especially it has a low labour input compared to manure. Similarly, the key
reason for keeping cattle in the part-time grazing system was also breeding. Ranking next
were manure production and savings. In many households, cattle still had an important role
for draught power, because most of their land areas were highly sloped, and using cattle as
draught animals was necessary. In this system, farmers also ranked manure production as
important. On the other hand, manure derived from cattle production was viewed as less
important in H’Mong households practising the cut-and-carry system due to the steep hills as
mentioned in the last section. Draught power from cattle production was ranked quite highly
in the cut-and-carry system because of the special geography in which cattle must be used for
ploughing. Particularly, the social status of owning cattle was high in all selected systems due
to their increasing economic value. The custom of slaughtering cattle for festivals or giving an
animal as a wedding present was completely replaced by using pigs, chicken, or cash. Tra
(2007) also finds that farmers in Bac Kan province considered cattle production as the most
important livestock type because cattle are often kept for breeding, cash resource, savings,
and income. Huyen et al. (2008) also state that cattle production in Son La province supplies
not only power, manure, meat, and income to farmers but also fulfils a social function. On the
other hand, cattle are considered as a symbol of a sustainable life and safety as well in the
rural areas, provide an important means of transportation, and are used for the hardest
activities in land preparation on the farm (Huyen, 2004). She also finds that cattle are
considered as a money-saving opportunity in rural areas, especially for ethnic minority
groups.
108 Results and discussions
4.2.1.2 Cattle breed and herd size classification
In Bac Kan province, there is the Yellow cattle breed kept by the H’Mong people who live in
the remote, upland areas. It is considered to have a higher body weight as compared to the
local Yellow breed, and it is considered as a new breed namely H’Mong cattle (Bac Kan
DARD, 2006; Nho et al., 2003; Niem et al., 2001). Nevertheless, Bac Kan’s Department of
Sciences and Technology (DST) and National Institute of Animal Sciences (NIAS) conducted
a survey on this cattle breed in the Pac Nam district in 2009. The study finds that the live
weight of mature female and male cattle are rather different from information published in the
literature about this breed, 222 kg for a female animal on average based on 44 cows over 36
months of age. The study also finds that the average live weight of a bull is 258 kg from over
two to four years old, based on 133 head. These data are slightly higher than those for Yellow
male and female cattle indicated in many studies (180-200 kg for a cow and 250 kg for a
bull), but these data were different from the findings of Niem et al. (2001) on cattle kept by
H’Mong people in Ha Giang province (with 250-270 kg in female and 380-400 kg in male
cattle). These results can probably be explained by a mixing of cattle breeds due to loss of
control over service during grazing in the same pasture areas among hill tribes. According to
Huyen et al. (2008) and Huyen (2009), classification of cattle systems is also not based on
breeds raised by H’Mong people or Thai people in the uplands and lowlands of Son La
province. In this study, no measurement of body weight of those cattle kept in H’Mong and
Tay households was carried out in order have further classification and identification of
breeds themselves due to limitation of time, funding and geography condition. Therefore, in
the context of the study, no difference is made between Yellow cattle breeds.
Interestingly, with different husbandry methods among the systems, the average number of
cattle kept per household among the systems showed no statistical significant difference with
each other during the interview time (varies from 4.2 to 5.4 head on average) (Table 22).
However, there was a large range in cattle herd size in selected households, from 1 to 16 head.
Contrarily, Maltsoglou and Rapsomanikis (2005) find that the average cattle herd size in each
household in the northern rural mountains was 2.0 head. Tung et al. (2009) found that the
average cattle herd size in selected households in the NMR was 3.6 head. The authors also
state that the average herd size of cattle herds in households that combined grazing and
stabling is 3.4 head in the NMR. Their finding also indicates that the average herd size for
cow-calf keeping is 3.9 head per household. Huyen et al. (2010) found that people in Rung
Thong and Giao H’Mong villages in Son La province in the NMR kept from 1 to 7 head of
cattle, with an average cattle herd size of 1.7 and 4.2 head, respectively. On the other hand,
the study conducted by Bac Kan DTS and NIAS (2009) also found that H’Mong people in
Pac Nam district kept on average 2.6 head of cattle per household, which is smaller than the
finding in this study. Nevertheless, the sample size was selected randomly among households
keeping cattle in the survey conducted by Bac Kan DTS and NIAS, which could explain the
dissimilarity with this study (this study had selected households keeping cow-calf pairs, in
which the herd size is often larger than that of households selected randomly). Households
practising the free-range system, where one would expect a larger herd size due to the
husbandry approach, explained that forest development programmes and sharing available
land for the poor in other communes in the district causing others to migrate to their commune
is one of major causes of herd size reduction in their families. In addition, there was no
difference between highland or lowland households. However, Huyen (2009) finds that
selected households in the uplands with access to pasture had larger herds than farms in the
lowlands in Son La province. Huyen (2004) found that the number of cattle is associated with
the size of land area available and with the level of mechanisation as well.
Results and discussions 109
The average cow number was quite similar among the systems (ranging between 1.4 and 1.8
head). Tung et al. (2009) also found that the average cow number is 1.8 head in the NMR.
Cow, heifer, steer and calf numbers showed no statistically significant difference among and
between systems. Exceptionally, a statistically significant difference was found in bull
numbers among systems with p=0.005 and between the cut-and-carry and part-time grazing
systems (p=0.042). This difference might be explained by the manner of fattening bulls by
households practising the cut-and-carry system and no bull is kept solely for breeding purpose
in the free-range and part-time grazing systems; selected households often sell them as
slaughtering cattle when mature after preparing land resources.
Table 22: Cattle herd size and structure in the cattle feeding systems
Cattle herd structure Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry Sig.
M Range M Range M Range
Average num. cattle
(head/HH)
5.2 2.0 – 16.0 4.2 1.0 – 12.0 5.4 2.0 – 14.0 0.409
Average num. cows
(head/HH)
1.8 1.0 – 4.0 1.4 1.0 – 3.0 1.8 1.0 – 4.0 0.306
Average num. bulls
(head/HH)
0.4ab
0 – 2.0 0.3a 0.0 – 2.0 0.9
b 0.0 – 4.0 0.005
Average num. heifers
and steers (head/HH)
1.7 0.0 – 7.0 1.4 0.0 – 5.0 1.6 0.0 – 6.0 0.936
Average num. calves
(head/HH)
1.2 0.0 – 4.0 1.1 0.0 – 3.0 1.1 0.0 – 4.0 0.867
Total cattle TLU 3.0 1.0 – 9.0 2.4 0.8 – 6.5 3.4 1.0 – 9. 0.263
Source: Households interviews, 2008
a, b
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p<0.05).
TLU – Tropical Livestock Unit
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
Figure 40 presents the cattle herd ranking according to size. There were 37 households raising
between 1 and 3 head of cattle, an average of 2.6 head per household. The highest number of
households had a medium-size cattle herd from 4 to 6 head (43 households with 4.6 head on
average). Despite being considered as the highest growth area for cattle in Bac Kan province,
there were only a small number of large cattle herds (17 households), who kept from 7 to 16
head, with an average of 9.8 head per household.
A detailed classification of cattle herd size in each system is given in Table 23. Generally,
medium herd size accounted for the highest proportion among the systems, reaching about
40.3% in the free-range to 46% in the part-time grazing system. Small herd size accounted for
smaller percentages in the systems, which were lowest in cut-and-carry (30.0%) and highest
in part-time grazing (43.2%). The largest size accounted for the smallest ratios. The lowest
ratio recorded was only 10.3% in part-time grazing, while cut-and-carry obtained the highest
one of 20.3%.
110 Results and discussions
Figure 40: Classification of cattle herd size (small, medium, large) in selected households Source: Households interviews, 2008
Table 23: Classification of cattle herd sizes among selected cattle feeding systems
Items Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry
N % N % N %
Small herd size (1-3 head) 11 36.7 16 43.2 10 30.3
Medium herd size (4-6 head) 13 40.3 17 46.0 13 43.3
Large herd size (>6 head) 6 20.0 4 10.8 7 20.3
Source: Households interviews, 2008
4.2.2 Management of cattle production in cattle feeding systems
4.2.2.1 Feed resources and grass production
(a) Feed resources and strategies
The main feed resource in grazing consists of natural grasses and fodder tree leaves in
communal pasture, forest land, fallow land, rocky mountain and flat land and uplands after
harvesting. These are the most important feed resources of cattle in the selected systems and
cattle were grazed throughout the year. Besides, feed resource from planted grass also played
an important role in selected households. Rice straw and maize leaves are used by most
households but in small quantities, with an exception for households in the cut-and-carry
system (Table 24). The maize harvesting season often lasts about one month, from July to
August. Ibrahim and Olaloku (2000) also state that by-products from agricultural production
are a major feed resource used for cattle production. There are many kinds of crop residues
that can be used for feeding ruminants. Straw is one of the most important crop residues used
as a stored feed resource for cattle, especially in feed shortage season. Rice straw is also
available throughout the year, but it is mainly fed to cattle in winter time. Ly (1995) indicates
2.6
4.9
9.8
37
43
17
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0
2
4
6
8
10
Small herd size (1-3
heads)
Medium herd size (4-6
heads)
Large herd size (>6 heads)
No
. h
ou
seh
old
s p
er c
att
le h
erd
siz
e
cla
ssif
icati
on
Avera
ge N
o. ca
ttle
per h
ou
seh
old
Average No. cattle No. Households
Results and discussions 111
that the development of cattle using these sources of feeds will be more sustainable, although
most crop residues have low nutrition value.
It is important to note that cattle are considered not competing directly with humans for cereal
grains in Vietnam. Especially, food security is not always achieved in mountainous regions
such as Bac Kan province, with its growing population, poor agricultural gross outputs, and
limited land farming area, while high percentage of the poor live under the poverty line.
Nevertheless, availability of feed resources is one of the biggest challenges confronting Asia,
both in quality and quantity (Thomas et al., 2002). Tra (2007) also finds that the potential use
of crop residues and by-products in Bac Kan will be an advantage for cattle production in the
future, especially for the food shortage season if they are properly processed and stored.
However, Trach (2004) finds that use of processed crop residues for cattle feeding is
constrained for many reasons, including inconvenience in reorganising routine activities,
psychological issues, and low economic concerns. Particularly, the very small scale
production of cattle is the main reason for not adopting new techniques. Thus, a suitable
strategy will also be needed to promote new techniques of storage and process by-products in
the NMR. In addition, banana stems, rice bran, and maize are also used as supplemental feed
resources at calving time, when draught strikes, or for fattening cattle. Maize is primarily used
as a supplement in well-off households in the cut-and-carry system, while other H’Mong
families use pig feed for fattening cattle. Meanwhile, maize and pig feed are rarely utilized in
the other two systems, with the exception of occasional periods of bad weather. In the part-
time grazing and cut-and-carry systems, during the cropping season and when grazing cannot
be practiced due to bad weather, supplementing feed resources was needed, which brought
more difficulties to households because either they had to plant grass or process and store
crop by-products. Thus, competition of cultivated land areas between cropping and grass
planting might be an issue for farmers with limited arable land available, especially in
households still faced with food insecurity such as H’Mong families.
112 Results and discussions
Table 24: Feed resources used in selected systems
Feed resources Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry
Rice straw * ** -
Maize leaves/young tree leaves * ** **
Cassava root * * *
Cut-and-carry natural grass, fodder
tree leaves - - ***
Grazing *** *** ***
Planted grass * ** **
Maize * * **
Rice bran * * *
Pig feed * * **
Bean plants * * *
Banana stems * * *
Source: Households interviews, 2008; Calendar; Groups discussion; Key person interview
Note: ***using a large amount; **using a medium amount; *using a small amount; - not used
The feed shortage season is a time when all cattle do have not enough feed and need to graze
longer or receive supplements from owners, lasting from October/November to
February/March. It also corresponds to after harvesting of crops. Thus, cropping lands after
harvesting can be used for cattle grazing without damage caused by the cattle. Feed
availability/abundance means cattle can feed enough, do not need to graze a long time or
require supplemental feeding, often lasting from March/April to September/October. This
time also corresponds to the growing season, when natural grasses and trees flourish in the
study area. Tra (2007) also mentions the same definitions. It means that cattle taken out to
graze have been tended by family members to avoid damage to crops. Detailed strategies of
households to cope with shortage of feed resources in selected cattle feeding systems are
shown in Table 25.
Results and discussions 113
Table 25: Feed shortage seasons and strategies to get through the feed shortage season
Systems Season of feed shortage Season of feed availability/abundance
Ch
ara
cteristics
of sea
son
s
- No planted grass
- Lack of natural grasses and tree resources on
grazing land
- After crop harvesting season
- Growing season of planted grass
- Abundance of natural grasses and fodder tree
leaves resources in all places
- Growing season for crops
Strategies to overcome
Fre
e-ra
ng
e
- November - February
- Long periods of free ranging without tending by
family member, regular check
- Feed some rice straw, forest banana stem, given
salt when at home
- March - October
- Shorter periods of free-range with a regular
check, but without constant tending by a
family member
- Feed some available cultivated grass
Pa
rt-time
gra
zing
- November - February
- Allow cattle to graze all day with tending by a
family member
- Feed rice straw and give salt at night
- Rarely use maize or pig feed
- March – October
- Grazing for a half day with tending by a
family member
- Feed some available cultivated grass
Cu
t-an
d-ca
rry
- October - March
- Allow cattle to graze all day with tending by
family members
- Cut-and-carry natural grasses and fodder tree
leaves if bulls are housed, but harder to collect
feed
- Feed housed bulls maize soup or pig feed
- April – September
- Allow cattle to graze all day but for several
short periods with tending by family
members, no supplemental feeds
- Fattening season of cattle
- Cut-and-carry is practised with natural
grasses, fodder tree leaves and cultivated
grass
- Feed bulls maize soup or pig feeds
Source: Households interviews, 2008; Calendar; Groups discussion; Key person interview
(b) Grass growing
With strong support strategies from the government (a subsidy of 6 mil. VND per hectare,
free elephant grass seed, and training), and despite its demonstrated efficiency in fattening
cattle, only 43.3% of selected households in the cut-and-carry system planted grass on an
average of 0.06 hectares of land (ranging from 0.0 to 0.5 hectare). Grass production is more
widely practised in selected households in the free-range system (80.0%) and with an average
area of 0.11 hectare (ranging from 0 to 0.5 hectare) and 73.3% in selected households in the
part-time grazing system, with an average area of 0.08 hectare (varying from 0 to 0.3 hectare)
(Table 26). Tung et al. (2009) indicate that only 33.8% of selected household in the NMR
grow grass for cattle production. The authors also find that the average grass production area
in the NMR is around 0.05 hectare. In the selected systems, the support from the
governmental cattle development project possibly explains the high proportion of households
cultivating grass. There is a significant difference in land area allocated for grass production
among the systems (p=0.002). Nevertheless, only the significant difference between free-
range and cut-and-carry on grass production land was analysed (with p=0.008).
Grass is often harvested when the weather is bad or at times when households in the free-
range and part-time grazing systems are too busy to tend grazing cattle. However, cattle in the
cut-and-carry system are regularly fed planted or cut natural grasses and forest fodder tree
114 Results and discussions
leaves for fattening. It is important to note, however, that planted grass develops vigorously in
the rainy season in the same way that natural grass and forest plants grow, so farmers are not
motivated to harvest grass frequently. No processing and storage of grass and crop by-
products were recorded in the study area during the season when grass is abundant. However,
Tay households harvest grass over a longer time than H’Mong households (March to October
versus April to September) due to soil fertility and access to water resources where they live.
No cultivated grass is available during the cold, dry season, when a severe shortage of natural
feed resources is seen. Thus, a feed deficit in the dry season is a serious issue with cattle
production. In mountainous regions, feed resources used for cattle are often stored for use
during the winter season (October to March) (Ly, 1995; Van et al., 2005).
Table 26: Grass production in beef cattle feeding systems
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry Sig.
M Range M Range M Range
Grass growing (%
HH) 80.0 - 73.3 - 43.3 - -
Average grass area
(ha/HH) 0.11
a 0.0
1 – 0.50 0.08
ab 0.0
1 –0.30 0.06
b 0.0 – 0.50 0.020
Grass growing
season March-October March-October April-September -
Average grass yield
(tonnes/ha) 36.6
a 0.0
2 – 108.0 25.3
ab 0.0
2 – 90.0 15.6
b 0.0 – 96.0 0.015
Harvesting frequency Occasional Occasional Regular -
Proportion used for
cattle (%) 34.4 - 78.5 - 94.7 - -
Source: Households interviews, 2008; Calendar; Groups discussion; Key person interview a, b
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p<0.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
Therefore, the average grass yield is quite low in the systems in comparison to results from
other studies in the NMR. Mui et al. (2005) find that the average elephant grass yield in Ha
Giang province ranged from around 50 to 130 tonnes per ha per harvest (farmers could
harvest from two to three crops depending on their management and soil fertility). Grass yield
shows statistically significant differences among the systems, which ranged from 15.6 tonnes
in cut-and-carry to 36.6 tonnes per hectare in free-range (p=0.017). There is a significant
difference in grass yield between the free-range and cut-and-carry systems (p=0.006) and no
difference is found between others. These differences are indicated by deficit of water
availability, shorter harvesting time and poor quality of the soil used for grass in the cut-and-
carry system, while low frequency of harvesting might explain the results for part-time
grazing due to its heavy dependency on natural pasture for grazing. Moreover, lack of strict
regulations in the district cattle project for farmers receiving the subsidy for grass production
meant that many households took advantage of the subsidy to plant large land areas but took
little or no responsibility for harvesting. Thus, a combination of different reasons may explain
the low yield of grass production on the study sites. In addition, in the free-range system, a
high proportion of grass is utilized for buffalo and a smaller amount is used for cattle (around
Results and discussions 115
65% versus 35%), while the proportion used for cattle is around 79% in part-time grazing and
95% in cut-and-carry systems.
(c) Socio-economic analysis of grass growing in cattle production among the
systems
Family labour spent on different cattle activities between households with and without grass
production is presented in Table 27. Family time used for grass production accounted for a
small value, around 12 days on average, ranging between zero and 75 days. Several
households put in grass but did not harvest it due to their grass land areas being destroyed by
grazing cattle and buffalo. Actually, these households put in grass because of the subsidy and
the cattle project in the district, not from a real demand for cattle and buffalo feed resources.
Generally, grass production was on a very small scale and was not well supported by
households, though producing it actually reduces labour time in cutting and carrying natural
grasses and fodder tree leaves. An Independent Sample Test indicated that time spent on
cutting and carrying and caring for the animals was significantly different between the two
groups (p=0.005). Similarly, time spent tending grazing animals seemed to create a higher
employment opportunity in the group that did not plant grass compared to the group planting
grass (50 days difference), but no significant difference was recorded between them. It could
be explained that without grass production, farmers need to spend more time to collect feed
resources and take their animals out to graze in order to have enough feed for their cattle.
Thus, differences in cut-and-carry time and grazing days between the two groups might be a
reason to factor in a higher time of total family labour in cattle production among households
planting grass. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups
on different indicators (all p>0.05).
Table 27: Labour spent on different cattle production activities in selected households
with or without grass production
Indicators Grass cultivation
(N = 64)
No grass cultivation
(N =33)
Sig.
M Range M Range
Grass cutting (day) 12.3 0.0 – 75.0 - - -
Cut and carry feed resources (day) 9.0 0.0 – 112.0 25.0 0.0 – 135.0 0.005
Grazing (day) 213.6 11.8 – 450.0 265.1 30.0 – 405.0 0.180
Total time (day) 233.9 11.8 – 483.8 290.1 30.0 – 517.5 0.917
Source: Households interviews, 2008
In order to identify differences between households raising cattle with and without planting
grass, an analysis of net income from cattle husbandry in these households is presented in
Table 28. Total return of cattle production shows a 0.5 mil. VND difference between planting
and not planting grass (8.2 versus 7.7 mil. VND, on average). Nevertheless, an Independent
Sample Test showed no statistically significant difference between them on total cattle return
(p=0.805). There was also no statistically significant difference on cattle net income between
the two classifications households with and without planting grass (p=0.184). Exceptionally,
total cattle costs differ significantly between the two groups (p=0.000), because the average
total costs for cattle production among households growing grass was double compared to
that in households without grass production (2.6 versus 1.3 mil. VND). Thus, whether they
116 Results and discussions
planted grass or not seemed to make little difference in household benefits. This might be
explained because only a small area of land was allocated for grass production, there was no
frequent harvesting and, in some cases, no harvesting of grass, hence poor management and
low yield of grass. Tung and Giang (2008) find that in the northern region of Vietnam, grass
production has a statistically significant difference that impacts on the economic efficiency of
cattle production in households compared to households without grass production, however
the significant different is with p=0.1
Table 28: Net income analysis of cattle production with and without grass production
Indicators Grass cultivation
(N = 64)
No grass cultivation
(N =33)
Sig
M Range M Range
Cattle total revenue (mil. VND/HH) 8.2 -0.6 – 32.0 7.7 2.4 – 17.7 0.805
Cattle total costs (mil. VND/HH) 2.6 0.04 – 21.7 1.3 0.01 – 10.5 0.000
Cattle net income (mil. VND/HH) 5.6 -3.0 – 18.5 6.4 2.3 – 16.3 0.184
Source: Households interviews, 2008
(d) Grazing land and management of natural pasture
On the study sites, farmers often graze their cattle on fallow land, on crop fields after
harvesting, and on natural unused land and forest land. In spring and summer, natural grass
and trees grow well, which could provide enough feed for cattle. In winter, the cold, dry
climate inhibits the growth of natural forage plants, leading to a chronic shortage of feed
resources. During this critical period, the food requirements of cattle increase, which force
households to let the animals out to graze for longer periods compared to other seasons (see
Table 25 above). A supplement of rice straw is of major importance in this season.
Particularly, households began to be taken with forest development on the study sites, where
forest was planted on unused land areas, thus limiting natural pastures and hindering cattle
production. It is important to note that natural pastureland and cultivated forest lands were
located haphazardly with other crop land and unused land, such that it was often referred to by
the local people as “mixing cooked sticky rice and beans”. The policy makers at different
levels (provincial and district) do not emphasise the matter of pastureland development. All of
interviewed authorities agreed that it is an important issue and should be brought up in the
development plan of the province and district as well. Nevertheless, it is complicated matter
and has not yet been carried out in the study area as well as in other areas. Selected
households said that: “Due to poor planning of forest land and other lands, we have had
difficulty in our cattle production because lack of pasturelands for grazing cattle. The
government should have planned out forest land and other lands carefully, organised large
pasturelands to help promote ruminant production”. Limited forage lands also caused
conflicts among households within and outside communes/villages that had to compete for
grazing cattle. In addition, interviewed households indicated that disagreements had occurred
among households due to cattle and buffalo destroying crops and areas planted with forest.
Thus, farmers continue to rely on natural pastures and forests to provide fodder for their
buffalo and cattle. This situation is also mentioned by Eguienta (2000). Eguienta et al. (2002)
indicate that rotating fallow fields and natural pasture improvement are notably absent from
the local system in Cho Don district, Bac Kan province. Minot et al. (2003) also indicate that
the lack of pastureland is one of the major reasons hindering the poor farmers in the
Results and discussions 117
development of animal production. According to Ly (2002), natural pastureland is limited in
Vietnam. The relatively low quality of natural grasslands is said to be due to the lack of
fertilisers, of water source in the winter season and of good management (Ly, 1995; Quan,
2001; Ly, 2002). Natural grasses often grow in arid or low rainfall areas, unsuitable for crop
growing (Quan, 2001). Tra (2007) found that there is serious competition among cattle herds
for grazing land located near the homes of farmers. Hence, in order to prevent loss of cattle
weight due to a lack of feed, cattle must be grazed in remote areas. Family members in these
areas are often unavailable for the hard work of tending the animals. No payment is required
for grazing land in the study areas. Care or management of grazing lands is not a matter of
concern for either users or local authorities. However, conflicts often occur in households who
keep free ranging cattle (untended by family members), especially when free-range grazing is
practiced during the cropping season or in a neighbouring commune. However, there is a
gradual reduction in cattle herds allowed to graze freely due to increasing less unused land
area available and to the high losses sustained.
Besides, there is a strong intensification of crop production in the selected households
practising the free-range system. Two crops per year are becoming common on the study site,
resulting in a narrowing of fallow land. Communal pastures in the uplands and hills are being
employed for crop production. Other reasons such as development of planted forest and the
growing local population are also expected to make it difficult to develop communal
pastureland in the near future. Particularly, there is a migrant programme for poor people
from the whole district to Cong Bang commune, where land resources have been reallocated
to newcomers. Thus, a lack of grazing areas was one of the consequences, not only causing a
reduction of cattle herd size but also stirring competition and conflicts among livestock raisers
that might hurt local social relationships. Competition between established villagers and
outsiders is expected to be stronger in the near future, if planning for natural pasture is not
considered seriously in government development programmes. Currently, the Bac Kan
provincial and Pac Nam district organisations had no concrete plans, either long-term or
short-term, for public natural pastureland for cattle and buffalo production.
4.2.2.2 Reproductive performance and breeding management of cattle
This study will not focus on productive performance because of some limitations in the study,
but will emphasise the reproductive performance in beef cattle feeding systems. The
reproductive performance of cows in the different systems is presented in Table 29. The study
results show that cows in the cut-and-carry system having their first calf at the age of around
40.5 months, on average (with a variation of 36 to 60 months). Huyen et al. (2010) find that
the age of cows at first calving in the highlands among the Thai and H’Mong people is 3.2
years on average (or around 38 months). However, Niem et al. (2001) found that the age at
first calving of cows raised in H’Mong households in Ha Giang province is shorter, only
around 33 months. Results found in the selected households in the part-time system showed
that the average first calving age of cows was also around 40.8 months, a little higher than
that in the free-range system (around 41.6 months). These figures were considerably higher
than those found by Tung et al. (2009) in local Yellow cattle (34.1 months) throughout the
country. Huyen et al. (2010) also record that cattle kept in the lowlands had a lower age at
first calving (2.8 years or around 33.6 months), compared to those in the study. The first
calving ages of Yellow cattle in the free-range and part-time grazing systems were much
higher than findings by Ly et al. (1999), who found the age at first calving of cow ranges
from 30-36 months.
The average calving interval among cows kept by H’Mong households in the uplands was
14.6 months, ranging from 12 to 24 months. Thus, this calving interval was shorter than that
118 Results and discussions
found by Niem et al. (2001), which was around 16 months for cattle production of H’Mong
households in Ha Giang province. Huyen (2009) also indicates that calving interval in cattle
raised in the uplands by H’Mong and Thai people in Son La province was 16.3 months on
average. Tung et al. (2009) report that the calving interval of local cattle in Vietnam is 15.4
months, on average. In free-range and part-time grazing, the calving interval is more or less
equal (16.6 and 16.3 months, respectively), which was considered higher than that in the cut-
and-carry system. These results were dramatically higher than data found by Huyen (2009),
with an average calving interval of 12.8 months for Yellow cows raised in the lowlands.
There was a significant calving interval difference among the systems (p=0.007). There were
also significant differences between the cut-and-carry and the other two systems on this
indicator (p=0.003 and 0.018, respectively). These reproductive results of Yellow cattle in the
free-range and part-time grazing systems were higher than findings by Ly et al. (1999) in
Yellow cattle in Vietnam in general; who found the calving interval of Yellow cattle is about
13-16 months. This difference between the study and the literature could be explained by
limitations in the characteristics and management among the selected systems. Otherwise, the
shortage of feed resources in the dry season and stress of weather extremes in the study sites
also limited reproductive performance. On the study sites, cows commonly calved in the
winter time with little or no care from keepers and almost no feed supplement. Huyen (2004)
also indicates that the low productivity of local breeds might be a result of low inputs in terms
of breeds and fodders.
In H’Mong households, most mature bulls are housed or controlled. Therefore, selection of
bulls for services was often controlled. Additionally, interviewees explained that they also
paid attention to their cows. Cattle in the cut-and-carry system were well managed and
controlled: (i) checking regularly for oestrus; (ii) mating service with selected bulls according
to the preference of owners; and (iii) tending the animals during calving and at fattening time
by most farmers. Actually, these activities are basic skills in the management of cattle
production, but these activities were not frequently practised among free-range and part-time
grazing systems, while cut-and-carry system farmers exhibited better management skills in
comparison with those in the other two systems. Nevertheless, there was also no suitable
breeding management programme introduced in the cut-and-carry system. In fact, the
government implemented a major programme with extensive funding support, but the result is
still poor and not yet adapted to the conditions specific to the areas. In addition, there are
research programmes on cattle kept by H’Mong people by NIAS funded by the government
and Agricultural Research for Development - Cirad Vietnam. Nevertheless, inbreeding was
not often observed in this system. Comparing the other two systems, cattle keepers in
H’Mong households seem to have a more positive reproductive performance than the others.
Thus, the higher performance of cattle in the cut-and-carry system was probably due to
selection of breeding bulls among the best ones in H’Mong villages and better management
by owners at calving time.
Contrarily, controlling of service and limited control of cattle herds was hardly practised in
the free-range and part-time grazing systems, especially when the peak reproductive season
occurred in the winter. Many households interviewed also confirmed that inbreeding was
frequently occurred because owners did not watch their animals closely during grazing time.
Selected farmers in these two systems also did not pay attention at calving times. In the study
area, no real attention was given to improving the breeds among systems. Although the cattle
development project is being implemented in different areas, the results were still limited. In
addition, little or no information on oestrus, mating services, abortion and calving was
recorded in the free-range system. The owners could not evaluate the quality and performance
of the animals in their herds. Overall, the owners exercise little or no management of their
Results and discussions 119
cattle herds, especially reproductive management. Similarly, most households in part-time
grazing have no sustainable strategy for the selection of breeding animals or any
understanding about how to carry out breeding management. In addition, the breeding
programme at the province and district levels was not introduced efficiently. Thus,
perpetuation of the local Yellow cattle population will be confronted with many difficulties.
Correspondingly, uncontrolled breeding animals will still be sold in the local markets by
unwary farmers, especially without certification from local authorities for breeding animals.
Particularly, no standard characteristics of the breed were introduced to the local people. It is
very difficult to apply breeding and management techniques in the free-range system, as the
cattle herds roam frequently from one pasture to another. If no breed improvement
programme is implemented, breeding quality and performance will continue to be poor and it
will probably be difficult to preserve the local Yellow cattle. Thus, inferior breeding animals
are still being sold to other households. Dzuc (2003) points out that there is likewise little
attention paid to renewal of these breeds in the northern uplands.
In H’Mong households, cows with the highest expected reproductive life is accounting for 8.4
calvings per cow on average, with a range between 2 to 10 calvings. The lowest one was in
the part-time grazing system with 6.2 calvings (varying between 2 and 8). Selected
households in the part-time system said that they might replace a cow sooner if it is not
healthy or has a poor reproduction record. This opinion seems to have better awareness on the
reproductive management of cows than that in other systems. There was a statistically
significant interaction of the systems regarding the reproductive life of cows (p=0.000).
Moreover, there were also significant differences between each pairs among the three systems
on this indicator (all p<0.01). In fact, reproductive performance was considered as the sole
criterion to keep a cow a long time or dispose of it after a short time. Nevertheless,
households might have to sell an animal earlier if the family needed cash.
Furthermore, all selected households indicated that calves were suckled until the cow had its
next calf without weaning techniques. Male calves were not castrated, even though of poor
quality for a breeding role. Thus, many low-value bulls were still kept among the systems.
However, the government’s support policies for cattle projects included selection of high
quality bulls and cows and subsidies for the use of high-performance bulls to renew local
cattle breeds. For example, the Bac Kan cattle development programme included a strategy to
have poor quality bulls castrated in order to enhance cattle herd quality. Thus, all low quality
mature bulls were slated for castration, but poor results were recorded. Tra (2007) indicates
that this was challenging in terms of time, financial support, labour, and farmer awareness. A
very low percentage of farmers agreed to the operation because castrated bulls were thought
to weigh less and not develop their typical hump, precluding their use as draught animals.
It is important to note that there is a limitation in the study on mentioning reproductive
capacity in terms of replacement rate of cows and mortality rate in selected households among
the systems in 2007 due to short of time, fund, and a poor data collection for a year and poor
memorizing of farmers, especially cattlemen in free-range. Thus, further study on these
indicators should be implemented in the coming phase to fulfil the research in all aspects.
120 Results and discussions
Table 29: Reproductive performance of cows in the different beef cattle feeding systems
Indicators Free-range
(N = 39)
Part-time grazing
(N = 59)
Cut-and-carry
(N = 49)
Sig.
M Range M Range M Range
Age (year) 8.0 4.0 – 14.0 7.3 5.0 – 16.0 8.1 5.0 – 14.0 0.079
Num. of calvings 3.7a 2.0 – 8.0 3.1
b 2.0 – 9.0 3.9
a 2.0 – 9.0 0.030
Age at first calving
(months) 41.5 36.0 – 60.0 41.2 36.0 – 66.0 40.5 36.0 – 60.0 0.673
Calving interval
(months) 16.6
a 12.0 – 24.0 16.3
a 12.0 – 26.0 14.6
b 12.0 – 24.0 0.007
Expected
reproductive life
(num. of calvings per
cow)
7.4a 4.0 – 10.0 6.2
b 2.0 – 10.0 8.4
c 2.0 – 10.0 0.000
Source: Households interviews, 2008
Calculated for cows giving at least two calves. a, b, c
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p<0.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
Table 30 classifies cow body condition according to the viewpoint of selected households in
the different cattle feeding systems.
Table 30: Classifications of cow body condition in selected household
Classification of body
condition
Free-range
(N = 54)
Part-time grazing
(N = 68)
Cut-and-carry
(N = 60)
Poor and old (%) 25.9 36.8 25.0
Medium (%) 24.1 23.5 26.7
Good (%) 50.0 39.7 48.3
Source: Households interviews, 2008
Calculated for cows from their first calving.
Cows in poor condition and old accounted for rather a high percentage, ranging from 25% in
the cut-and-carry system to around 37% for part-time grazing. Those cows were thin, weak, of
poor reproductive performance (long calving interval, calves died after birth). They explained
why they did not eliminate those poor quality cows: (i) they kept cattle as a tradition in the
families and economic efficiency was not a consideration; (ii) they could not replace the
animals because they could not afford to purchase replacement stock; and (iii) they keep them
until they are very weak and then sell them for slaughter. Thus, a rather high proportion of
cows not in breeding condition were still raised as breeding animals. Cows ranked in medium
condition accounted for around one fourth in all systems (between 23.5 to 26.7%). The largest
percentage of cows was evaluated in good condition, which varied from 39.7 to 59.0%. These
cows were evaluated on the basis of being in good shape, having a strong frame, short calving
Results and discussions 121
intervals, calves rarely died after birth, and their expected reproductive life will be long
(Annexes 9 and 10).
4.2.2.3 Veterinary services and cattle losses
(a) Veterinary services and disease treatment in selected households
Thomas et al. (2002) state that diseases decrease production and increase morbidity and
mortality rates, thus, animal health issues are barriers to trade. Diseases often cause high risk
(death) for cattle in smallholders. In fact, cattle herds in the study areas are vaccinated
biannually against foot-and-mouth disease, bovine pasteurellosis, and anthrax following the
vaccination programme of the Veterinary Department. However, among the selected systems,
the vaccination programme was not completely conducted. The lowest vaccination rate was
found in H’Mong households, which included only 20% of selected households (Table 31).
Firstly, the complicated geography might explain that poor result. Besides, villagers in
H’Mong villages generally agreed to refuse vaccination of their animals due to earlier
experiences with death or emaciation of animals after injection of vaccines. Moreover, no or
inadequate explanation from veterinary staff and lack of information caused hesitancy to
implement the vaccination programme. However, the study results showed that there was no
loss from animal diseases in households that did not have their cattle vaccinated. That might
be a major reason inhibiting their acceptance of vaccination. However, poor cattle disease
prevention and poor awareness among selected households were also recorded in the system
due to assumed ill-effects of vaccine and lack of communication. Huyen (2004) also points
out that the lowest vaccination rate (around 32%) among the systems was in H’Mong
households in the uplands. She also indicates that the veterinarian visits were rarely recorded
in H’Mong villages due to the difficulty to access their areas
A moderate rate of vaccination was indicated in the free-range system (50%), despite the fact
that information about the vaccination programme was provided several days in advance.
Non-vaccination was found in half of the households due to difficulties of finding cattle in the
grazing areas. However, many households hesitated to vaccinate their animals because of
assumed undesired results such as weight loss, sickness, and death. Inappropriate
communication from veterinarians and lack of information could also be reasons for this.
However, the highest vaccination proportion is recorded in the part-time grazing system, with
86.5% participating households. Nevertheless, compared to the free-range and cut-and-carry
systems, farmers in part-time grazing implemented disease control, discovered outbreaks,
treated ill animals in a timely manner, and implemented the vaccination programme regularly,
which helped prevent outbreaks.
A mortality rate from zero to 25% is recorded in cattle in northern Vietnam (Dufhues et al.,
2004). This might be explained due to deficiencies in the veterinary system in Vietnam, but
might be due to deficiencies in the animal health surveillance system (Dufhues et al., 2004).
Anthrax, tuberculosis, FMD, salmonellosis, para-tuberculosis, and rinder pest are some of the
diseases seen on smallholder cattle farms (Dzung, 1996; Nho et al., 2003). In addition, tick
infestation of cattle is very high, hence the prevalence of tick-borne diseases, particularly
where cattle are kept in poor hygienic conditions (Noi et al., 1995b). The high mortality rate
occurs where husbandry conditions are poor and communicable diseases spread easily. Lack
of adequate veterinary services due to limited staff and equipment are key factors hindering
beef cattle production (Dzung, 1996).
It is important to note that although veterinary services are quite available in the communes,
most households in three systems treat their animals by themselves with medicines purchased
122 Results and discussions
in shops both in free-range and part-time grazing, whereas households in cut-and-carry treat
sick animals using traditional medicines. In general, cattle herds are vaccinated biannually
against three diseases. However, less than 50% of total cattle herds are vaccinated (Nho et al.,
2003; Huyen, 2004). Inadequate veterinary equipment, unprofessional and late-delivered
services are core reasons for the low percentage of vaccination. The level of health care
services for animal production drops significantly in remote locations (Huyen, 2004). Dzuc
(2003) finds that the local network of veterinary services is ill-prepared to face epidemics. In
addition, vaccination is a service provided exclusively by government veterinary
organisations (Huyen, 2004).
Table 31: Vaccination and disease treatment in selected systems
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry
Vaccination (% HH) 50.0 86.5 20.0
Disease treatment Self-treatment with
medicines
Self-treatment with
medicines
Self-treatment with
traditional medicines
Source: Households interviews, 2008; Groups discussion; Key person interview
(b) Analysis of economic losses in the cattle feeding systems
Some 20% of selected households in both the cut-and-carry and part-time grazing systems
experienced losses in cattle production, while over twice as many households in the free-
range system had losses (43.3%) (Table 32). The mortality rate in those systems could be less
due to different management strategies of owners in the different production systems (free-
range without care versus grazing with tending by owners and housed). Free-range is a very
traditional husbandry method in mountainous areas, wherein cattle losses are high because of
lack of tending by owners. Undoubtedly, families keeping cattle herds in the free-range
system sustain losses due to accidents, theft, and diseases. Disease outbreaks were rarely
discovered in time or discovered in a very advanced stage. Therefore, no suitable treatment
could be given; further, very few cattle were vaccinated, as mentioned above. Moreover, there
was an inappropriate risk management model in the cut-and-carry system, where the people
reside permanently in the uplands with complicated terrains. However, these loss rates are
rather high compared to other studies. The free-range system sustained greater loss in cattle
production, losing around 0.7 head on average (maximum 5 head) as opposed to 0.3 head loss
in the other systems (maximum loss from 2 to 3 head). Tung et al. (2009) indicate that the
average mortality ratio in the NMR for the selected households during 2007-2008 was only
17.6%, with 1.4 head lost on average. In comparison with the other systems, households in the
free-range system experienced losses of 1.4 mil. VND on average that ranged between 0 and
7.5 mil. VND. Households in part-time grazing and cut-and-carry reported 1.0 mil. VND
(between zero and 14.0 mil. VND) and 0.6 mil. (from 0 to 6.5 mil. VND). Nevertheless, there
is no significant difference among systems in selected indicators (all p>0.05).
Results and discussions 123
Table 32: Losses of cattle (economic efficiency) in beef cattle systems in 2007
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry Sig.
M Range M Range M Range
Loss (% HH) 43.3 - 21.6 - 20.0 - -
Average num. cattle
(head/HH) 0.7 0.0 – 5.0 0.3 0.0 – 2.0 0.3 0.0 – 3.0 0.072
Average cattle lost
value (mil. VND/HH) 1.4 0.0 – 7.5 1.0 0.0 – 14.0 0.6 0.0 – 6.5 0.087
Source: Households interviews, 2008
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
Box 6: Losses in cattle production in selected households
The household of Mr. Duong Van Phong practising the free-range system in Cong Bang commune lost 5
cattle including 3 calves, one steer and one heifer (calculated to be 5.7 mil. VND) due to accidents
caused by falls over cliffs in the mountains and by FMD.
Mr. Nong Van Nho, a poor householder in Cong Bang commune, raises 3 cattle including a bull
presented from a cattle project in the Pac Nam district. During 2007, his family earned 13.2 mil. VND,
including 7.5 mil. VND from the bull, 3.0 mil. VND from the increased value of the cattle herd. He lost
3 cattle, equivalent to 5.5 mil. VND, which he had borrowed from the Social Bank. However, he sold
cattle to get back 0.6 mil. VND. Remaining returns were derived from manure and draught power.
The household of Mr. Ly Van Diep, a better-off householder practising the part-time grazing system in
Nghien Loan commune lost 2 mature bulls to infectious diseases in 2007. One was Laisind crossbred
evaluated at around 12 mil. VND. In total, the 2 cattle that died were evaluated at around 14.0 mil. VND.
Nevertheless, his family gained back 6.5 mil. VND from selling those cattle to a slaughter house.
Nevertheless, his family obtained negative benefit of 2.8 mil. VND from cattle production.
4.2.2.4 Cattle shelters and hygiene conditions
The condition of cattle shelters in selected households in cattle feeding systems is indicated in
Table 34.
Table 33: Cattle shelters in selected systems
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry
No cattle shelter (% HH) 53.3 5.4 3.3
Temporary shelter (% HH) 16.7 16.2 20.0
Good quality shelter (% HH) 30.0 78.4 76.7
Sanitary condition of cattle shelter Very poor Poor Very poor
Source: Households interviews, 2008
In the free-range system, a considerable percentage of households had no shelter for their
cattle (53.3%). Many households still keep their cattle under their houses on stilts (Annex 13),
which remains the predominant shelter in mountainous areas in former time. Nevertheless,
this way of keeping cattle is being discouraged in these areas recently due to the health risks it
124 Results and discussions
poses for households. This is part of a major government awareness-raising programme. The
proportion of households having no cattle shelter was more or less equal in the part-time
grazing and cut-and-carry systems (5.4% and 3.3%, respectively). The ratio of households
keeping cattle in temporary shelters was equal among the systems, ranging from 16.2% to
20.0%. A significant proportion of households in part-time grazing and cut-and-carry have
good quality shelters for their cattle (over 75%), while under a half of that result was indicated
in free-range (30%). Cattle stables are often made of wood or bamboo and located near the
owner’s house. Sanitary conditions were often poor among systems.
4.2.3 Other issues for the developing smallholder farm cattle production
4.2.3.1 Credit issues in livestock production and cattle development
A high proportion of households in cut-and-carry have taken out loans to develop livestock
production in general and beef cattle production in particular through government projects
(73.3%) with an average of 9.0 mil. VND per household (from 3.2 to 15.0 mil. VND) and
with interest rates ranging from 0.45 to 0.90% per month (Table 35). Almost all H’Mong
households use all or a part of the borrowed money to increase family income by trading
cattle or buying breeding cattle, buffalo and/or other animals, with the exception of one
household that used the loan for house repairs. Up to 63.3% of households in the free-range
system have a loan for their livestock production with an average of 14.3 mil. VND, varying
between 3.0 and 30.0 mil. VND. Of which, 47.4% of borrowers use the loan for other
purposes such as their children’s study, house building, buying a motorbike or paying medical
bills. In the part-time grazing system, 40.5% of households took out a loan for their livestock
production, with an average of 8.9 mil. VND (between 3.0 and 20.0 mil. VND). Of which,
26.6% of them used the loan for other purposes such as their children’s study, house building,
cattle trading, furniture buying and paying debt. Thus, a high rate of households used the loan
for purposes other than for their agricultural production. Similarly, Tai (2005) also found that
loans obtained were used for farm investments, family and household needs, and other social
requirements, especially in high mountainous areas, where farm incomes do not satisfy family
needs. Thus, it was hard to achieve the main purpose of lending for improvement of livestock
production. Therefore, broad dissemination of useful information as well as management of
the loan flow should be emphasized in the study area in order to raise awareness and
efficiency in this issue.
Most credit is medium-term (3 years) for livestock production, especially for cattle and
buffalo husbandry. For pig production, the duration is one year max. Users feel the term of
loans is too short, unsuitable and not timely for investment in cattle and buffalo production.
They would like to have long-term credit. Tai (2005) indicates that a credit source available
for use whenever needed might influence the decisions of farmers in both the short- and long-
term because credit is an important source of capital for households lacking cash to carry out
all the farm and off-farm activities and those of the household as well. The author finds that
the average credit amount taken out by H’Mong people is around 3.5 mil. VND.
Results and discussions 125
Table 34: Loan issues in different beef cattle systems
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry
Took out a loan (% HH) 63.3 40.5 73.3
Loan value (mil. VND/HH) 14.3 8.9 9.0
Purpose of loan (% HH)
- Livestock production (% HH) 52.6 73.4 52.2
(Cattle production) (% HH) (31.6) (66.7) (59.1)
- Cattle trading (% HH) 0.0 13.3 43.5
- Other (% HH) 47.4 13.3 4.3
Source: Households interviews, 2008
4.2.3.2 Role of extension services and other organisations in cattle production
Most development programmes of cattle production in general and crossbreeding cattle in
particular are conducted by the provincial agriculture extension services. Incentives for cattle
production include the planting grasses, training in cattle production methods and feed
processing, and importing crossbred bulls. Nevertheless, not all crossbreeding programmes
have been successful, which is explained by (i) the immature administrative structure of the
new province; (ii) unclear function of extension services and staff, making them less
effective; (iii) incomplete measures among organisations; and (vi) lack of extension staff. It is
important to note that the unspecific role of extension services and their staff might be
explained not only by a lack of human resources, but also by the low qualification of staff,
especially at the commune level. In communes, no specific extension staffs are found because
they often hold more than one duty. Other organisations such as the Women’s Union, farmer
organisations, etc. play a minor role in these programmes. However, some activities are
organised by the Women’s Union, such as providing information and training courses for
women about livestock production. The cooperation among organizations and institutional
was not tightly created in implementing the activities of the development cattle programmes.
4.2.4 Brief description of trading cattle in the study sites
An important opportunity for cattle raising systems on the study sites are the high consumer
demand for beef in general and the well-developed local cattle markets in particular, which
means live cattle produced are easily traded. Thus, two questions are addressed: why cannot
cattle production develop strongly given the available cattle market areas?
Currently, it is estimated that 50% of cattle are sold directly to markets by selected farmers.
Data collected from direct household interviews indicates that of those cattle, 40% are often
traded to retailers, and around 58% are sold to middlemen. According to Nho et al. (2003) and
Van et al. (2005), most cattle from producers are purchased by middlemen and then sold to
other regions. The remaining 2% of cattle from selected households was sold to other farmers
in nearby areas or through the market for breeding. Most farmers purchased cows but not
bulls for breeding. A high percentage of households kept their own female calves for breeding
or purchased from their relatives or neighbours who could vouch for their quality. The
selected households in these systems also indicated that around other 30% of their cattle were
sold directly to collectors/retailers at cattle houses. The price of cattle purchased from cattle
houses or markets depends strongly on the middlemen and retailers. The remaining cattle
126 Results and discussions
(about 20%) are used as breeding stock for their own family, sold to neighbours and relatives
or given as presents to their children and relatives.
Box 7: Mr. Hoang Van Ngo – cattleman in Cong Bang commune
At the end of 2008 he sold two cattle (a cow and her calf) for a total of 4.6 mil. VND. He sold his cattle
on the hoof in free-grazing area in the forest. His house is located around 300m from the Cong Bang
cattle market. However, the cattle market opens every fifth day, whereas the time he needed cash was not
a market day. The price was paid by a retailer, and he thought that it was lower than the commune
market price. However, he still decided to sell, otherwise he would have had to wait another two days
and waste time bringing his cattle to the market. He thought that he might also depend on the estimation
from retailers or middlemen; therefore, he could trade his cattle with the same price as he did.
Mr. Le Van Pham – cattleman in Nghien Loan commune
His family sold five cattle including two cows, two calves, and one young bull in the Nghien Loan
market for a total of 8.84 mil. VND. His cattle were thin and weak, showing low meat quality, but his
family did not supplement feeds to fatten their cattle. They did not think about this strategy and could not
explain why. At the beginning of market day, middlemen and retailers came to ask and bargain for a
slightly lower price than that. By the middle of the market-day, he decided to sell after getting references
from other cattle owners, middlemen and retailers.
All selected Tay households practising the free-range and part-time grazing methods sold
their cattle at the commune markets or at their homes. Conversely, selected H’Mong
households practising the cut-and-carry system often brought their cattle to the various cattle
markets in order to get the best-price. Interestingly, in local markets, most retailers were
H’Mong people, although there were a small number of Tay and Dao sellers. Trading cattle
became an important off-farm activity in H’Mong villages, especially to augment their low
income from agricultural activities due to low land use intensification and poor fertility. They
often purchased one or two head of cattle to sell later in another market. For example, they
would purchase cattle at the Cong Bang and Boc Bo retailer markets to sell at the Nghien
Loan wholesale market. In addition, they also bought cattle from markets in other provinces
(Cao Bang, Ha Giang, and Tuyen Quang) and then sold them at the Nghien Loan market. This
involved long, strenuous journeys on foot through forests and mountains. Some of them might
select animals for fattening for around 2 to 4 months, if they see they have potential.
However, not all cattle can be fattened successfully because of their type, their health,
diseases, and inadequate feed. Moreover, H’Mong retailers never buy cattle fattened by
another H’Mong person, perhaps because they have learned that such cattle have gained their
maximum weight capacity.
All selected households in the study areas seemed to have good access to the market, and the
advantages they also enjoy in easiness of trading, availability of cattle markets, and high
consumer demand for cattle products. Actually, small-scale producers were in a weak
position, lacked negotiating power, and were poorly informed on patterns of supply, demand,
and price. These deficiencies are also recorded in the PPLPI-Policy Brief (2004). Generally,
Tay famers had a poor negotiating capacity not only at home but also in markets, while most
H’Mong households had better capacity to assess an animal’s worth, because many of them
had experience as cattle retailers in different markets as mentioned above. Around 40% of
Tay households said that they had to ask other farmers to ascertain the value of an animal for
Results and discussions 127
trading. A high percentage of farmers relied on the buyer’s estimate of their cattle. In
addition, middlemen and retailers gave a base line for cattle prices during market time. Thus,
most Tay cattle producers were low on market power. Liem et al. (1997) also indicate that
farmers in Nghe An cattle markets often seek help from middlemen and other farmers to
estimate their cattle value. Hence, Lapar et al. (2003) affirm that for the best development of
the sector, a way must be made to have small-scale farmers involved in the development
process.
Box 8: Mr. Vu A Giang, a H’Mong cattle farmer working as a retailer in Cong Bang commune
He has started his job as a cattle and buffalo retailer in 2006. He often purchased one or two cattle or
buffalo because he did not have much capital (his total capital was 7,000,000 VND). It was sourced from
a loan from the district cattle development project. He was formerly able to purchase several cattle per
market day easily and earned a good profit per head of cattle (around 300,000 VND). He purchased
cattle in the Cong Bang market and then sold them at the Nghien Loan market. Sometimes he fattened
cattle at home to increase their value, if possible. His wife works at cutting and carrying feed resources
back home and tends the cattle. Recently, a high number of persons trading cattle resulted in greater
competition. Buying cattle in local markets became harder. He had to go to purchase animals from other
markets in Bao Lac commune, Bao Lam district, Cao Bang province, a neighbouring area. In this
market, more cattle were available. However, profits gradually declined. Many times he could not
purchase any cattle. According to his opinion, visually estimating lean meat performance is difficult and
he has suffered many losses.
Cattle from local farmers accounted for a small proportion in the local markets, while a larger
percentage came from neighbouring provinces and China as indicated in Chapter 2.
Particularly, live cattle in local markets as well as in selected households had to compete with
animals traded illegally across the border, not only from neighbouring countries such China,
but also from countries as far away as Thailand, Laos, and Myanmar, because of price
competition and poor control over cross-border trading. In addition, cattle farmers in the study
sites also have competition from legally imported cattle meat with higher quality and lower
price. The number of local cattle traded in local markets depends strongly on seasons. Disease
outbreaks heavily impacted on trading of cattle. Thus, despite the advantages mentioned
above on the study sites, farmers were still faced with difficulties in fully accessing the
market. Phuong (2008) also finds that the poor farmers find it difficult to get involved in the
local beef market.
No association of farmers or others on study sites had been formed with a focus on trading
cattle help each other sell their product for the optimum price. Therefore, cattlemen had no
concerted power in cattle trading. There were supporting policies from the government for
cattle marketing; however, there was no intervention of the government in trading of cattle,
neither in products quality control nor in enforcement of cross-border regulations and
procedures among neighbouring countries. There was no connection programme established
between farmers and consumers. No national certification system in cattle products (live cattle
or beef) was carried out to create a sustainable linkage among stakeholders and consumers.
Agreements between Vietnam and neighbouring countries were not clearly performed to
control the healthy trading of goods, including cattle products over the borders, and to reduce
illegal trading (Alburo and Panyakul, 2009). On the other hand, retailers and middlemen
working in groups, who have informal but tight trade relations with other groups of
middlemen, retailers, and slaughterhouses, played the key role not only in price determination
128 Results and discussions
but also in the chain. Nonetheless, the greatest threats or inconveniences that middlemen felt
were disease outbreaks and the numerous veterinary and market inspections when
transporting animals from Pac Nam district to other provinces (around 7 such control
stations). Tra (2007) indicates a similar situation regarding the cattle marketing chain in Bac
Kan province. Lapar et al. (2003) assert that there are high transaction costs in marketing
systems and channels in Vietnam due to the many tiers from farms to markets.
It is important to note that the price of and demand for cattle kept and fattened by H’Mong
people did not differ in comparison to cattle produced by the Tay or other ethnic minority
groups in markets who did not specifically fatten their cattle. Yet, cattle raised by H’Mong
people are felt to have a high meat quality compared to other types: good taste, smell, and
texture, and well-marbled compared with others. This might be explained by the short-term
fattening process and slaughter at a reasonable age. Nevertheless, male cattle are often kept all
year round in many H’Mong households, while cattle fattened over a long period might have
a higher fat percentage than usual, which was considered as a loss by slaughterhouses.
Therefore, not all slaughterhouses were interested in purchasing such cattle and often offered
a lower price. Fattening young male cattle in H’Mong households over a period of around
only two to four months should be highly recommended to obtain the highest quality meat.
QNRDP (2002) indicates that a high beef quality in Vietnam is evaluated by lean meat with
no visible fat and little differentiation according to the age and size of animal. Generally, a
quite high percentage of cattle sold by farmers are not at the most favourable stage for meat
production, but rather they are old and no longer capable of providing draught power or
breeding. These types of cattle sold were also found in the study of IFAD Cao Bang (2007).
In fact, most cattle in the selected households were kept for dual purposes, not solely for beef.
Almost H’Mong people fattened cattle for commercial purposes, yet using the animals for
draught power was still prevalent in their households.
Additionally, it was recorded that only small quantities of beef in its various forms sold
directly to supermarkets, although many supermarkets have opened in cities. Thus, cattle
production has developed since the last decades, however, this development has not been
accompanied by critical changes to cattle and beef marketing and distribution systems.
Currently, cattle products were traded in traditional markets. Schipmann (2010) also mentions
that traditional retail structures in developing countries are characterised by spot-market
transactions. Currently, the low development of supermarkets in Vietnam has also partly been
favourable to the survival of smallholders in livestock production (Tisdell, 2010). In addition,
consumers in developing countries still prefer to purchase their food in traditional format
outlets despite of ease of access to supermarkets (Goldman et al., 2002; Maruyama and
Trung, 2006). Tisdell (2010) finds that Vietnamese consumers highly prefer to buy their fresh
meat in informal outlets. Smith and Tra (2008) also describe this consumer meat consumption
behaviour in northern Vietnam. Meijer et al. (2008) also find that agricultural products are
then traded via networks of informal traders from areas of farmer production to regional and
national wholesale and retail markets. On the other hand, the strong development of
supermarkets in the big cities as well as provincial cities is observed obviously, which will
bring both opportunities and challenges to farmers.
4.2.5 Section summary
The most important purpose of keeping cattle in the selected households in all three systems
was for breeding. In the free-range and part-time grazing systems, cattle production was also
highly important for savings and producing manure for crop growing. However, loss of the
manure resource from cattle production in all systems will be discussed more detail in the
Results and discussions 129
next section. In the cut-and-carry system, ranking next in the aforementioned important roles,
cattle were used for draught power and savings. It is important to note that using cattle as a
token of social status of cattle has been greatly reduced in all systems due to their increasing
economic value. Not only in H’Mong households but also in Tay families, people no longer
slaughter cattle for festivals or use them as wedding gifts, but have replaced them with
offerings of lower value.
The average cattle herd sizes and scale of production among the systems is essentially similar.
Cattle production was mostly small and medium scale. Actually, the average number of cattle
per household indicated in the survey results in the free-range system is much lower than
expected, which might partially explained by obviously increasing reforestation, reduction of
pasturelands, and population growth.
In the cut-and-carry system, shortage of feed was more serious. Planted grass has a short
harvesting season, and it is gruelling to collect natural grass and tree leaves during the dry
season. In this system, no storage of rice straw for winter was recorded due to the very
extended grazing time. Contrarily, in free-range and part-time grazing, both storage of rice
straw and taking advantage of crop by-products were practised more consistently. Although it
has a longer harvesting season for grass and tree leaves compared to that in the cut-and-carry
system, and includes storage of rice straw, there was still a feed resource deficit during the
winter in these systems. A start to growing grass was seen in all systems, but still in small
areas and poor performance. Nevertheless, pastureland for cattle grazing is becoming more
limited due to forest allocation, forest production, and land allocation. In addition, there is no
policy to develop pastureland for ruminant production at the commune, district, and even
provincial levels. It is important to note that increasingly scarce natural grazing areas are
gradually forcing a change from free-range production to part-time grazing, and to cut-and-
carry or combination of all systems. Thus, cattle herds are smaller due to the hard work of
tending animals and of cutting grass for them. With so much time required to collect feed
resources, farmers can only afford to keep a few head of cattle. The economic efficiency of
households growing grass was not significantly different from those without grass production,
which might be interpreted by small allocated land areas, irregular harvesting, poor
performance, and poor awareness of farmers in evaluation value of the planted grass. Overall,
the development of grass production is difficult due to limited arable land resources as well as
overall food security considerations.
Cattle kept for breeding in the cut-and-carry system had a better reproductive performance
than those in the other two systems, indicated by their shorter calving interval. However, they
might have a longer breeding life compared to cattle in free-range and part-time grazing. Poor
control over grazing cattle and poor management might be reasons for the poor reproductive
performance of cows in both the free-range and part-time grazing systems. A large proportion
of farmers in all systems did not give much attention to breeding quality, as indicated by the
high percentage of cows kept for breeding despite their poor condition.
In all systems, vaccination ratios are low, which might partially contribute to a high loss in the
economic value of cattle. However, farmers practising part-time grazing and cut-and-carry
sustained relatively little damage to their cattle production, whereas the free-range system
experienced rather high economic losses due to lack of care. Few households in the free-range
system paid attention to sheltering their cattle. Contrarily, a large ratio of households in part-
time grazing and cut-and-carry constructed reliable shelters for their cattle.
Good access to credit was recorded in a rather high proportion of selected households among
the systems. Nevertheless, much of the credit was not used for the right purpose. It is
imperative to explain to farmers the proper use and management of loans in order to increase
130 Results and discussions
the efficiency of the capital source. Cattle producer organisations are sadly lacking. Bringing
such into the cattle production development process would certainly play an important role.
Cattle farmers in all the cattle feeding systems seemed to face more disadvantages than
strengths and opportunities when they traded and joined in the cattle marketing chain. They
could not sell their animals directly to slaughterhouses but had to go through several
stakeholders; therefore, their position was crippled due to poor capacity in bargaining and
estimating the lean meat yield of cattle. They face strong competition not only from legally
imported live cattle and meat but also from animals illegally brought in from neighbouring
countries such as China, Thailand, and Laos, etc. In addition, cattle disease outbreaks also
hindered cattle trading, even eliminating it for several years on the study sites. Thus, in the
process of changing to modern retail trading in the near future, farmers keeping cattle in the
study areas might confront with many challenges.
In sum, H’Mong people have a lower education level, but they have a better cattle
management such as cattle feeding methods, fattening techniques and grass production
practice, breed selection and replacement. Thus, their culture and local knowledge play their
role in cattle production next to other factors. Due to limited pasture land areas and high
requirement of consumers on uniform and high quality products, the cut and carry systems
will be the main cattle feeding systems in the future. Thus, the challenge for the future will be
a high competitiveness between cattle production and natural resources. In addition, beef
cattle production still has a room in the domestic market due to the high demand of consumers
and tendency of increasing domestic income as the driven forces.
4.3 COMPARISON AMONG BEEF CATTLE PRODUCTION SYSTEMS ON THE DIMENSION OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY
4.3.1 Analysis of the economic efficiency of cattle production in cattle feeding systems
4.3.1.1 Analysis of production costs
In the context of this study, total costs were calculated including variable costs and fixed
costs. Variable costs included breeding costs, feed resources, veterinary services, and hired
labour if required, while fixed costs included depreciation of cattle shelters, annual
maintenance expenses, and interest on loans for cattle production.
(a) Feeding costs in the systems
Generally, feeding costs of cattle production was a relatively small cost in all systems due to
the fact that the households grazed their animals on natural pastures to a large extent (Table
36). The average total feeding expense was around 0.2 mil. VND higher in the part-time
grazing system compared to the cut-and-carry system (0.52 versus 0.33 mil. VND), but there
was no significant difference among the systems (p=0.707). Similarly, Huyen (2009) also
found that households living in lowlands of the NMR spend a small amount on feed resources
(around 0.3 mil. VND, on average). There was no significant difference among the systems in
terms of expenses for cultivated grass, by-products from crop production (rice straw and
maize leaves, young maize plants), and feeding costs per TLU (all p>0.05). Exceptionally,
selected households in the cut-and-carry system invested more in grains such as maize and
rice in fattening their cattle; however, a low value was recorded (0.18 mil. VND, on average
and ranging between 0 and 1.2 mil. VND), which present a significant difference among the
Results and discussions 131
systems and between the other systems (all p<0.005). Several households in cut-and-carry did
not use any grain fed to cattle, they just cut natural and planted grass or natural fodder tree
leaves to fatten their cattle. Thus, compared to other types of livestock production, cattle
production has significantly lower costs, especially for grains, which could be considered as
an advantage in this sub-sector, especially in uplands where food security is still an important
issue. On the other hand, the investment in feed resources in cut-and-carry such as maize is
really needed to fatten cattle in a short time with higher efficiency and reduction of labour.
Hence, farmers in this system were faced not only with a heavy capital investment but also
food insecurity.
Table 35: Feeding costs of cattle production in cattle feeding systems
(mil. VND/household)
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry Sig
M Range M Range M Range
Planted grass 0.38 0.0 – 1.51 0.36 0.0 – 2.16 0.11 0.0 – 0.96 0.268
Crop by-products 0.04 0.0 – 0.19 0.08 0.0 – 0.39 0.06 0.0 – 1.19 0.099
Farm produced grains 0.03a 0.0 – 0.35 0.08
b 0.0 – 0.24 0.18
c 0.0 – 1.20 0.003
Total feeding costs 0.46 0.0 – 1.69 0.52 0.0 – 2.43 0.33 0.01 – 1.35 0.707
Total feed cost per TLU 0.18 0.0 – 0.85 0.21 0.0 – 1.35 0.13 0.01 – 0.06 0.363
Source: Households interviews, 2008 a, b, c
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p<0.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
(b) Total costs of production
Table 37 compares the different costs borne by households in cattle production in the three
selected systems, namely free-range, part-time grazing, and cut-and-carry.
In total, the average variable costs invested for cattle production among the systems were
quite low, 1.9 mil. VND, 1.7 mil. VND and 2.3 mil. VND, respectively that showed no
statistically significant difference among them (p=0.975). Tung and Giang (2008) found in the
northwest region, small- and medium-scale cattle raising households invested 2.5 and 3.8 mil.
VND for variable costs, respectively, while in the northeast the figure was 2.9 and 5.3 mil.
VND. On the other hand, Huyen (2009) state that in Son La province, the total variable costs
of cattle production in lowlands is higher than that in uplands (1.2 versus 0.11 mil. VND on
average, respectively). The variations of total variable costs among the investigated
households in each system were dramatically high, which might be explained by expenses
entailed by the purchase of breeding cattle in some families. Usually, selected households
kept breeding animals from the last calving of their cattle herd or animals offered to them by
close relatives. Meanwhile, expenses for feed, hired labour, vaccinations, veterinary services,
and medicine accounted for a small amount in all systems, and no significant difference
appeared among the systems (p>0.05), with exception of veterinary services of 0.02, 0.06, and
0.01 mil. VND in free-range, part-time grazing and cut-and-carry, respectively (p<0.005). As
mentioned above, the main vaccination programme was almost totally subsidised by the
government in order to prevent outbreaks in sensitive zones, especially in mountainous areas
characterised by challenging geography. Diseases were often treated by owners based on
recommendations from shops or even the general store. Hired labour is rarely recorded,
132 Results and discussions
except for three cases in free-range and part-time grazing, where households had the
economic wherewithal but lacked labour; payment was made in kind in the form of calves
born alive.
Total fixed costs ranged from 0.11 mil. VND to 0.26 mil. VND on average in the part-time
grazing and cut-and-carry systems, respectively. Tung and Giang (2008) found that small-
scale producers invest around 0.3 mil. VND per year on cattle, whereas the figure reaches 0.7
mil. VND in medium-scale production in the northwest. On the other hand, the authors
indicate 0.5 and 0.8 mil. VND for those production scales in the northeast. It showed no
significant difference among three systems with p=0.305 for total fixed expenses, although
there were statistically significant differences among the systems for interest payments
(p=0.014). In addition, statistically significant differences were recorded between cut-and-
carry and free-range (p=0.025) and between cut-and-carry and part-time grazing (p=0.011) on
interest payments.
The highest total cattle costs were 2.6 mil. VND per household on average recorded in the
cut-and-carry system in the uplands, while the lowest one was in the part-time grazing
systems (1.9 mil. VND on average) in the lowlands. However, the total cattle costs among the
systems did not differ significantly (p=0.553). Contrarily, Huyen (2010) finds that the total
costs invested by each household keeping cattle in the lowlands come to 1.2 mil. VND, while
households living in the uplands invested 0.1 mil. VND on cattle production in Son La
province. Hung and Binh (2004) show that with an average of 3.4 head of cattle per
household, farmers have to invest around 10.0 mil. VND (including breeding costs for all
cattle herds).
The cut-and-carry system was the highest spender in terms of average cash costs, with around
2.3 mil. VND per household (between zero and 10.0 mil. VND). Left far behind was the free-
range system, which spent just under 1.5 mil. VND per household, on average (0.0-20.2 mil.
VND). The smallest spender was part-time grazing, with merely 1.3 mil. VND on average for
the cash costs of cattle production (zero to 9.1 mil. VND). Nevertheless, there was no
significant difference among systems on cash cost, with p>0.05.
Thus, it can be concluded that cattle production among the systems demanded generally low
inputs, which may allow poor farmers to improve their livelihoods through investing in cattle
production. Phung (2001) also indicates that low-input cattle production, with the advantage
of available natural pasture in the mountainous areas, might create favourable conditions for
an increase in the number of cattle, resulting in an increase in farm income.
Results and discussions 133
Table 36: Analysis of total costs of cattle feeding systems (mil. VND/household)
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry Sig.
M Range M Range M Range
Cattle purchases 1.4 0.0 – 20.0 1.1 0.0 – 9.1 2.0 0.0 – 10.0 0.201
Feed resources 0.5 0.0 – 1.7 0.5 0.0 – 2.4 0.3 0.01 – 1.4 0.707
Hired labour 0.11 0.0 – 1.50 0.03 0.0 – 1.0 0 - 0.129
Veterinary services 0.02a 0.0 – 0.22 0.06
b 0.0 – 0.7 0.01
c 0-0.03 0.000
Total variable costs 1.9 0.1 – 21.5 1.7 0.0 – 10.5 2.3 0.1 – 10.5 0.975
Depreciation of
shelters 0.05
a 0.0 – 0.4 0.04
a 0.0 – 0.50 0.02
b 0.0 – 0.05 0.043
Interest payments 0.11a 0.0 – 1.44 0.07
a 0.0 – 0.5 0.25
b 0.0. – 1.1 0.014
Total fixed costs 0.16 0.0 – 1.4 0.11 0.0 – 0.5 0.26 0.0 – 1.1 0.305
Total cattle costs 2.1 0.05 – 21.7 1.9 0.04 – 10.5 2.6 0.14 – 10.6 0.553
Total cash costs 1.5 0.0 – 20.2 1.3 0.0 – 9.1 2.3 0.0 – 10.0 0.532
Source: Households interviews, 2008 a, b, c
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p<0.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
Pearson’s correlations among normal/scale variables of the study were computed to find
associations between total cattle costs and other variables. Table 38 shows 10 pairs of
variables that were significantly correlated. The strongest positive correlation, which could be
considered a large size effect according to Cohen (1988) cited in Morgan et al. (2004), was
between gross cattle costs and total cattle return, R (97) = 0.731, p<0.01. This result would
mean that the more households invested in costs for cattle production, the better gross returns
they tended to have from cattle keeping. The R squared indicates that approximately 50% of
the variance in total cattle returns can be predicted from gross cattle costs.
Other strong correlations recorded as medium to large size effect size were found between
total cattle expenses and two variables (grass land areas and cattle feed costs), R (97) = 0.38
and 0.40, p<0.01. Indeed, households keeping cattle that had a relatively large land area
allocated for grass production were likely to have higher expenses in their cattle production
and vice versa. Thus, the R squared indicates that around 10% of the variance in grass land
area allocated for cattle production can be predicted from gross cattle expenses. Moreover, the
higher the feed costs invested, the higher were total costs of cattle production among selected
households in the study.
134 Results and discussions
Table 37: Correlations between total cattle production costs and selected variables
(N = 97)
Variables P Variables P
Gross crop returns 0.277**
Household age 0.244*
Grass land area 0.380**
Cattle feed costs 0.399**
Agricultural land area 0.293**
Cattle production scale (num. of cattle) 0.278**
Total land area 0.221* Total cattle returns 0.731
**
Total off-farm income 0.232* Pig numbers 0.247
*
Source: Households interviews, 2008
Note: *p<0.05; **p<0.01
4.3.1.2 Analysis of cattle gross return
As in any form of livestock production, the total gross return from beef cattle production was
calculated by subtracting purchases of cattle, value of cattle stock obtained as payment in-
kind and gifts, and value of cattle stock at the beginning of the accounting period from total
income from sale of stock, value of stock used for domestic consumption, value of stock at
the end of the accounting period, and value of cattle products produced (adapted from Tung
and Giang, 2008; Tung et al. 2007 and Dillon and Hadarker, 1993).
Table 39 presents an analysis of gross returns from cattle production in the three systems.
Main returns from cattle production are from selling cattle, animals slaughtered or presented
as gifts to relatives of the household, calves born alive and increasing value of cattle herd after
one year, while by-products include draught power, manure, and off-take from cattle that died
or were eliminated and sold for cash. All the selected households keep breeding cows, which
provide benefits through the calves they bear and the increased value of cattle. Cut-and-carry
showed the highest gross returns from cattle production, which reached 10.4 mil. VND on
average, varying between 3.6 and 25.6 mil. VND. Lagging far behind was the free-range
system, which received had an average of 7.4 mil. VND (fluctuating between 2.4 to 32.0 mil.
VND). The lowest one was recorded in part-time grazing that accounted for around 6.6 mil.
VND on average, ranging from 0.6 mil. VND to 20.2 mil. VND. A statistically significant
difference was found among the systems on cattle gross return with p=0.006. Likewise, there
were also significant mean differences on cattle gross return between cut-and-carry and the
other two systems, free-range (p=0.006) and part-time grazing (p=0.005).
Revenue from selling cattle accounted for a considerable value in all main products as well as
the total gross return from cattle production. The highest one obtained was 5.1 mil. on average
in the cut-and-carry system, with a maximum value of 13.5 mil. VND. The average value
received from selling cattle was smallest in part-time grazing, with 3.7 mil. VND. The
medium amount is 4.0 mil. VND achieved in the free-range system, the highest amount being
21.0 mil. VND. Meanwhile, the value of cattle given as presents or slaughtered for household
and calves born alive was negligible among the systems. On the other hand, the increased
value of the cattle herd after one year is dramatic in cut-and-carry with 3.8 mil. VND on
average, whereas it is only 0.8 mil. VND in part-time grazing. Significant ranges among
households in the systems on increasing value were analysed, which resulted from selling or
losing cattle. Besides, by-products from cattle production played only a minor role in total
returns; however, significant differences among the systems were recorded in indicators
(p<0.05). It is important to note that draught power was employed highly in the cut-and-carry
system, where hills and uplands are more easily ploughed using cattle as draught animals
Results and discussions 135
rather than buffalo. On the other hand, in the free-range system, most households took
advantage of buffalo power due to the animal’s apparent greater strength.
Table 38: Gross return analysis of cattle feeding systems
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry Sig.
M Range M Range M Range
Main products/values
Selling 4.0 0.0 – 21.0 3.7 0.0 – 15.0 5.1 0.0 – 13.5 0.243
Slaughtered, present 0.7 0.0 – 7.5 0.5 0.0 – 7.4 0.1 0.0 – 1.0 0.485
Calves born 0.7 0.0 – 3.0 0.6 0.0 – 1.5 0.6 0.0 – 2.0 0.899
Increased value 1.3a -15.0 – 9.5 0.8
a -9.2 – 10.4 3.8
b -10.5–13.8 0.013
By-products
Draught power 0.2a 0.0 – 4.48 0.5
b 0.0 – 2.4 0.7
c 0.0 – 2.4 0.000
Manure 0.13a 0.0 – 1.0 0.20
a 0.0 – 0.6 0.14
b 0.0 – 0.5 0.002
Other* 0.3a 0.0 – 3.0 0.4
a 0.0 – 6.9 0.0
b - 0.026
Total cattle return 7.4a 2.4 – 32.0 6.6
a -0.6 – 20.2 10.4
b 3.6 – 25.6 0.006
Source: Households interviews, 2008
*Value from sale of dead/eliminated animals a, b, c
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p<0.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
4.3.1.3 Net cattle income among the three systems
The average profit from cattle production activities appears in Figure 41. Among the selected
systems, the highest mean net income of households was recorded in the cut-and-carry
system, with 7.8 mil. VND. In the free-range and part-time grazing systems, gains amounted
to 5.3 and 4.8 mil. VND on average, respectively. Quan (2001) records that cattle keeping
households in the mountainous area of Quang Binh earn 0.5 mil. VND from cattle production
each year. On the other hand, Tung et al. (2007) found that keeping cattle in the NMR
resulted in annual profits of 1.3 to 2.7 mil. VND per household per year.
There was a statistically significant difference among the systems (p=0.003). Post hoc Tukey
HSD Tests indicate that statistically significant differences were found between the free-range
and cut-and-carry systems (p=0.023). Likewise, part-time grazing and cut-and-carry differed
significantly in their cattle net income (p=0.003). Thus, compared to other systems, fattening
cattle over a short period of two to four months resulted in the highest profit, giving a high
income to households practising this system.
136 Results and discussions
Figure 41: Average cattle net income in selected beef cattle feeding systems in 2007 Source: Households interviews, 2008
Table 40 shows that there are four significant correlations among scale/normal variables in the
study (between net cattle income and cattle herd size, cow number, cattle losses, and gross
cattle returns). The strongest positive correlation was between net cattle income and gross
cattle return, R (97) = 0.80, p<0.01. Thus, the correlation direction is positive, which means
that households who earned high gross cattle income tended to have high net cattle income
and vice versa. Using guidelines from Cohen (1988) quoted in Leech et al. (2005), the size
effect is significant. The R squared indicates that approximately 60% of the variance in net
cattle income could be estimated from gross cattle income.
he strong and positive correlation, which could be considered a medium to large size effect,
was between net cattle income and cattle number keeping in households, R (97) = 0.46,
p<0.01. This means that households who had large cattle herd size were likely to have high
profitability from cattle production. Thus, R squared shows that approximately 21% of the net
cattle income variance might be expected from cattle production scale. Similarly, the number
of cattle kept by households as well as the value of cattle lost in selected households during a
year also has a positive effect on net income from cattle but with small to medium size effect.
On the other hand, grass land areas, family labour, and reproductive capacity of cows shown
by intervals between calving presented no correlation.
Table 39: Correlations between net cattle income and related variables (N=97)
Variables P Variables P
Cattle production scale (num. of cattle) 0.456**
Gross cattle returns 0.794**
Number of cattle 0.244* Cattle losses 0.246
*
Source: Households interviews, 2008
Note: *p<0.05; **p<0.01
4.3.1.4 Fattening cattle in the cut-and-carry system
Under the description of the cut-and-carry system in the last chapters and sections, several
characteristics of fattening bulls have been reported, but more detailed information is
5.3 4.8
7.8
0
2
4
6
8
10
Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry
Net
catt
le i
nco
me
(Mil
. V
ND
)
Results and discussions 137
provided below. All bulls were housed in stables and provided feed, including natural grasses,
tree leaves, and/or planted grasses, with a supplement of maize mash or mixed hog feeds, for
various lengths of time depending on each household. Generally, to feed a bull, farmers in
H’Mong households have to spend at least two or three hours per day to collect natural grass
and leaves from forest trees. Thus, planted grass reduces the hard work of cutting natural feed
resources, especially in bad weather. The optimum fattening time was between three and four
months. The longer the fattening period, the more fat in muscle was attained.
According to interviews of households practising the cut-and-carry system, each household
earned around 1.6 mil. VND on average per head of cattle after fattening compared to its
value before fattening (ranging between 0.4 and 3.5 mil. VND). Feed resources invested in
fattening cattle were simple, low-cost family-produced feeds, except for the hard work to cut
and carry natural feed resources, especially in winter time. Therefore, very few households
fattened cattle in this season. Selected households in cut-and-carry often fatten one or two
cattle per time due to the hard work of collecting feed resources. Smith (2001) found that
cattle fattening is undertaken in many specialized and unspecialized households in China, but
with less than five head of cattle.
However, cattle raised in the cut-and-carry system exhibit a good appearance due to the care
they receive and the fattening process, which increases the value of the animals and makes
them easy to trade. Thus, farmers had a chance to convert low-value products (grass, crop by-
products, and residues) to high-value cattle products. Fattened cattle tended to be rather
uniform and of quite good quality, which might advantageously be meet the changing demand
of domestic consumers for high-value agricultural goods. Haantuba and de Graaf (2008) argue
that smallholder farmers must be co-operate in establishing grades and quality standards for
their products as a necessary condition for successful trade linkages between smallholder
farmers and supermarkets. Thus, increasing the income from small-scale cattle production in
selected households though proper fattening techniques might be a major strategy to help
farmers enjoy a sustainable livelihood.
Box 9: Mr. Thao Van Dinh – 62 years old - Khau Nen village, Nghien Loan commune
His family fattened a bull for three months and earned 3.0 mil. VND. Their feed resources were only
natural grasses and fodder tree leaves, which were cut and carried by his wife and daughters. They
needed to spend around 2.5 hours to cut the feed and bring it back home. In their opinion, the cut-and-
carry feeding method requires the hardest work among cattle production activities. They did not grow
grass because of lack of land resources and labour. Nevertheless, they intend to plant around 500m2 of
grass next year in order to reduce the hard work and time spent collecting feed resources. They will try
to take advantage of surrounding land areas. Sometimes, competition arose among family members in
feed collection.
4.3.1.5 Analysis of selected economic indicators in cattle feeding systems
It is important to note that since cattle husbandry is a key factor in their livelihoods, farmers
would be interested in sustainably developing it, especially in areas where cattle husbandry
accounts for a substantial proportion of their income. Phillips and Sorensen (1993) argue that
cattle production systems must fulfil the requirements of the households for cost effectiveness
to be sustainable in short-term. Minot et al. (2003) found that in remote area and uplands,
cattle production is one of the top priorities in diversification of household incomes. Quan
(2001) also found that income from cattle production in total income from livestock accounts
138 Results and discussions
for the highest proportion of income in poor households in comparison to other household
wealth rankings, although a major lack of capital limits economic activities in this household
group. Thus, assessing the profitability of beef cattle production is an important indicator.
Table 41 shows results of the selected indicators in assessing economic efficiency among the
beef cattle feeding systems. There were dramatic differences among systems on Total Factor
Productivity (TFP) of cattle production. From 17.2 on average in part-time grazing, it rose to
42.8 in cut-and-carry and peaked at 57.3 in free-range. Nevertheless, TFP of cattle production
in the selected systems showed no significant difference (p>0.05). Thus, the free-range
system seemed to bring the most economically efficient combination of all inputs to produce a
unit of outputs of cattle production, while cut-and-carry had a rather high efficiency rating for
that combination.
Cattle production created rather good profit as indicated by the gross margin in the cut-and-
carry system compared to the other systems, 8.1 mil. VND compared to 5.4 mil. VND in free-
range and 4.9 mil. VND in part-time grazing on average, respectively. Thus, it can be said that
fattening cattle in this system seemed positive from the standpoint of efficiency for selected
households when the average head of cattle was virtually common to all the systems. There
was a significant difference among systems on gross cattle margin (p=0.002). In addition,
there were statistically significant differences between cut-and-carry and free-range (p=0.019)
and with part-time grazing (p=0.002). On the other hand, Tung et al. (2009) found that in the
grazing system with supplemental feed resources in the NMR, each household obtains only
1.27 million gross cattle margin per household on average, while the average one is 5.47 mil.
VND for the whole country. Tung et al. (2009) found that in the NMR (Ha Giang, Lao Cai
and Lang Son provinces), in the grazing system with supplemental feed resources, the average
gross margin gained per household per year is around 1.27 mil. VND, much lower than the
study finding. Nevertheless, the average data for the whole country is 5.47 mil. VND, slightly
higher than the result found in the part-time grazing system in this study. These authors also
discuss that in grazing without supplemental feed, each household keeping cattle obtains a
gross margin of 5.71 mil. VND, approximately equal to data collected on the free-range
system in the study. In Vietnam’s central coast region, the authors found that free-range beef
cattle earn the lowest profit per household on average (only 0.3 mil. VND per year), while
part-time grazing and stable feeding yield 0.5 and 0.8 mil. VND per year, respectively.
Besides, beef cattle production displayed significant differences on cattle gross margin (GM)
per TLU (Tropical Livestock Unit) among the three systems with p=0.019. There was also a
difference of 0.4 mil. VND per TLU between free-range and part-time grazing on cattle GM
per TLU (2.1 versus 2.4 mil. VND), but of little significance (p=0.066). The cut-and-carry
system presented the highest cattle GM per TLU with 2.6 mil. VND and indicated a
significant difference from that in the free-range system (p=0.005), but not significant from
part-time grazing (p=0.325). A significant difference among three systems on cattle GM per
TLU was indicated (p=0.011).
On the other hand, the free-range system obtained 15.5 mil. VND on average, the highest
household net cash income among the systems. The lowest one was cut-and-carry, bringing
only 5.4 mil. VND. There was a significant difference among the systems on household net
cash income (p=0.026). Interestingly, the highest and lowest household net cash income
groups (free-range and cut-and-carry) did not differ significantly (p=0.058), while part-time
grazing and cut-and-carry showed a significant difference with p=0.006. Household net cash
income partially indicates the farm family’s well-being. It is important to note that a very low
level of household net cash income can be seen as an indicator of poverty (Dillon and
Hardaker, 1993). Actually, in cut-and-carry, the poverty rate is very high, which can be seen
in most households, as well as food insecurity being a serious issue among selected
Results and discussions 139
households. Although cut-and-carry had very good level of economic efficiency in cattle
production, net cash income from it among households was still very low due to poor
participation in off-farm activities, poor soil fertility resulting in low yields, and low
efficiency in other livestock production compared to other systems. In addition, due to the
complicated topography and difficult access to roads, forestry development was undertaken
but it was difficult to sell products to get cash.
Overall, cattle production in the cut-and-carry system tended to show better economic
efficiency in comparison to the other systems, especially in terms of profitability in
households and in TLUs. This could be explained why they strongly engage in cattle
production by: (i) lack of opportunity to participate in off-farm activities among H’Mong
households; (ii) their poor agricultural performance as compared to households in the other
systems; (ii) poor soil fertility and low management skills; (iv) their intrinsic character and
geographical location; and (v) the method they use to fatten cattle (local knowledge).
The cut-and-carry system seems to have the most positive economic influence, with the
exception of poor household net cash income, while the other systems had poorer results in
terms of economic efficiency but better net cash income. However, it could be said that all
systems have positive influence on economic dimension. Quan (2001) also found that
different production systems in Central Vietnam resulted in different levels of economic
efficiency, free-range beef cattle earning the least profit, while part-time grazing was
intermediate and stable feeding yielded the highest profit from cattle production.
Table 40: Analysis of economic efficiency in different cattle feeding systems
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry Sig
M Range M Range M Range
TFP cattle (time) 57.3 1.0 – 910.8 17.2 -0.2 – 95.0 42.8 1.4 – 398.6 0.884
Gross cattle
margin (mil./HH) 5.4
a 0.1 – 17.4 4.9
a -2.8 – 10.4 8.1
b 1.8 – 18.5 0.002
Cattle GM per
TLU (mil. VND) 2.0
a 0.04 – 6.8 2.4
ab -0.7 – 6.7 2.5
b 1.4 – 4.1 0.019
Household net
cash income (mil.
VND/HH)
15.5ab
-8.2 – 121.9 15.2a -1.8 – 148.2 5.4
b -5.2 – 19.9 0.026
Source: Households interviews, 2008 a, b
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p<0.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
4.3.2 Analysis of the social solidarity of cattle production in cattle feeding systems
4.3.2.1 Analysis of labour used in cattle production activities among the systems
Among activities of cattle production, grazing occupied the largest share of working time
spent in this subsector in all selected systems (Table 42). The time spent differed significantly
among and between the systems (all p=0.000). Free grazing does not entail tending by
owners, as mentioned earlier, so working time was least in the free-range system, around 95
days on average (varying from around 12 days to 165 days), while it was around 267 days
(from 186 to 358 days) and about 324 days (between 240 and 450 days) in the part-time and
140 Results and discussions
cut-and-carry systems, respectively. Thus, cut-and-carry entailed high employment due the
longer grazing and herd tending time, not only in the non-crop production season but also in
the crop season, in comparison to the others. The high labour requirement reflects the effort to
cut and carry natural grass and tree leaves back home to feed cattle, especially when many
cattle are kept and during the season of feed resource shortage. Farmers might be unable to
keep more than two head of fattening cattle at the same time because of the large volume of
feed needed and long distance covered in winter to carry it over harsh terrain. Thus,
competition for labour and land areas for crops is a serious matter for farmers to consider
while food insecurity threatened the H’Mong households (discussed in Section 4.1). Their
longer time spent herding in both seasons can be explained by: (i) lack of off-farm activities
that farmers in the system might participate in, so spending time on cattle production is a way
of gaining income; and (ii) due to the tough terrain, there is a shortage of natural feed
resources even in the plant growing season. In addition, cutting and carrying feed resources
for fattening bulls also created considerable employment opportunity, with an average of
around 46.6 days (ranging between 2 to 135 days).
Table 41: Family labour spent on different activities in beef cattle feeding systems
Items Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry Sig.
M Range M Range M Range
Planted grass cutting
(days) 8.0 0.0 – 48.0 8.8 0.0 – 75.0 5.3 0.0 – 60.0 0.453
Grazing, tethering
(days) 94.6
a 11.8 – 165.0 266.7
b 185.6– 358.1 323.9
c 240.0– 450.0 0.000
Cutting and carrying
feed (days) - - - - 46.6 2.0 – 135.0 -
Source: Households interviews, 2008 a, b, c
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p<0.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
4.3.2.2 Analysis of employment opportunities in beef cattle production systems
Employment opportunity is the capacity of the cattle feeding system to make use of labour
supplied by the household. Farmers in mountainous regions have limited resources and
strongly depend on agricultural and forest activities (Minot et al, 2003). Thus, as basic human
needs increase in this region, so does the requirement for new and/or alternative farm and off-
farm activities (Huyen, 2004). The population growth trend in these areas is high. Therefore,
the more labour is employed in agricultural activities, the lower the migration of people in
search of work.
All indicators of labour resources used in cattle production shown in Table 43 illustrates
significant differences among the systems, with all p<0.05. The average number of family
members participating in cattle production was from 2.0 persons in free-range to 2.4 persons
in cut-and-carry. The maximum number of labourers per family engaged in cattle production
was 4 persons in all systems. A significant difference in the number of labourers among
systems was indicated (p=0.023). There was no significant difference in the number of people
participating in cattle production between free-range and part-time grazing (p=0.684);
however, between free-range and cut-and-carry and part-time grazing and cut-and-carry, a
significant difference appeared, p=0.01 and 0.000, respectively.
Results and discussions 141
Total working days spent tending cattle in the free-range system accounted for around one
third to one fourth in comparison to that in part-time grazing and cut-and-carry, which was
calculated at an average of 102.5 days, 275.5 and 375.8 days, respectively. Tung et al. (2007)
found that the beef cattle production sector creates high employment opportunities for
households in northern Vietnam with an average of 250 labour days annually. There were
significant differences among systems and between any two systems with all p=0.000. Thus,
cut-and-carry tended to provide the highest employment opportunities. This might be an
advantage because of large family sizes and little opportunity to access off-farm activities as
mentioned above. Nevertheless, grazing cattle consumes both a huge amount of working time
and a large number of labourers. Family members needed to accompany cattle herds during
the day, under different climate conditions such as sun, rain, cold and long cold snaps. In
addition, family members needed to follow cattle herd in many locations and under many
conditions, from the lowlands to the highlands and even over harsh terrain, with cattle having
the strength and agility for climbing in the mountainous environment. On the other hand, free-
range cattle production offered the lowest employment opportunities for selected households
in this system. Nevertheless, this is an important criterion showing the potential of a large
herd size and a large number of households keeping cattle. Large herd size was definitely a
factor in this system that did not increase investment costs and labour. In fact, most
households have adapted well and feel that free grazing is less labour intensive. Although the
availability of labour resources for the system is mentioned (in Section 4.1), local people still
feel this is the greatest advantage influencing their decision. In addition, without being tended
by their owners, cattle could eat their fill without being tended by their owners and without
supplemental feeding. Interestingly, despite the lower labour requirement, 12 households
among 30 selected households in the system stopped keeping cattle in 2009. Many felt
tethering and tending cattle was hard work, and a rather high percentage of selected
households in this system worked in off-farm activities. Land Use Certificates (LUC) are
issued to each household in the commune as land is designated for forest plantation, so
pastureland for cattle grazing is gradually limited, resulting in more intensive labour to care
for cattle, protect crops, and prevent damage to young trees.
The average percentage of cattle labour in total labour time for livestock activities was highest
in cut-and-carry, which accounted for about 73%, showing its importance as a labour
investment. A slightly lower proportion of working time for cattle was recorded in part-time
grazing (nearly 69%). Meanwhile, around a third of time spent on livestock activities was
used for cattle production in free-range (33%). Thus, the labour contribution of cattle
production in this system is not one of its strong points.
Employment opportunities calculated per unit of land resource (ha) used for cattle production
was highest in the cut-and-carry system that reached 285.5 (varying between 67.0 and 735),
while the smallest one was 59.6 in the free-range system (ranging from 4.0 to 184.0). A
significant difference was recorded among systems (p=0.000), and between each pair of three
systems (all p<0.005). On the other hand, employment opportunity per one TLU was almost
the same in part-time grazing and cut-and-carry (142 versus 148 days). In comparison to the
other two systems, free-range obtained 42.5 days, a significant difference (both p=0.000).
All indicators of labour resources used in cattle production shown in the table below illustrate
significant differences among the systems, with all p<0.05. The number of family members
participating in cattle production was 2.0 persons in free-range and 2.4 persons in cut-and-
carry, on average. The maximum number of labourers engaged in cattle production was 4
persons in all systems. There was a significant difference in the number of labourers working
among the systems (p=0.023). There are no significant differences in the number of people
participating in cattle production between free-range and part-time grazing (p=0.684), while a
142 Results and discussions
significant difference existed between the free-range and cut-and-carry systems and between
part-time and cut-and-carry, with p=0.01 and 0.000, respectively.
Overall, cattle production in the cut-and-carry system provided more labour opportunities in
terms of the number of people engaging in it, the number of working days, the proportion of
working time for cattle in comparison to other livestock types and employment opportunities
per land unit and TLU. Conversely, employment opportunities in cattle production in the free-
range system showed an opposite trend. Eguienta et al. (2002) found that in the long run, free-
range practices are a source of conflicts among and within villages in Bac Kan province.
Table 42: Analysis of social solidarity in cattle feeding systems
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry Sig.
M Range M Range M Range
Num. of labourers
(persons) 2.0
a 1 – 4 2.1
a 1 – 4 2.4
b 1 – 4 0.023
Labour working time
(days) 102.5
a 11.8 – 195.0 275.5
b 185.6 – 358.1 375.8
c 270.0 – 517.5 0.000
Time spent on cattle
compared to other
livestock types (%)
33.1a 5.2 – 64.4 68.7
b 35.4 – 96.8 72.6
b 45.5 – 96.1 0.000
EBA (people days-
year for 1 ha) 59.6
a 4.0 – 184.0 214.3
b 33.0 – 1500.0 288.5
c 67.0 – 735.0 0.000
EBA (people days-
year for 1 TLU) 42.5
a 6.0 – 115.4 142.4
b 42.8 – 375.0 148.7
b 50.1 – 367.5 0.000
Source: Households interviews, 2008 a, b, c
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p<0.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
With low investment in labour resources for cattle production, especially in grazing time,
households in the free-range system had the largest return per labour day of around 93,000
VND (a great range between 2,900 to 1,133,500 VND) (Table 44). The greatest return per
labour day in the system was recorded in the family of Mr. Nong Van Pya. Their family let
their cattle roam completely free, rarely checking on the herd (a few times per month). In total
they spent around 15 days annually, while total cattle net income was around 17.0 mil. VND.
On the other hand, Mr. Nong Hoang Cap family got an extremely low return per labour day,
with 2,900 VND due to the very low net cattle income obtained.
The average return per labour day in the part-time grazing system was the lowest value, at
17,700 VND. The return on labour varied between -10,000 VND and 38,400 VND. The
failure of cattle production in the family of Mr. Ly Van Diep incurred a loss of 10,000 VND
per day for their labour. The average return on labour indicated a higher value of around
4,000 VND per day in the cut-and-carry system compared to that in part-time grazing. Tung
and Giang (2008) found that the average return per labour day in the northeast and northwest
is around 31,000 VND. However, no statistically significant difference was found between
two systems on return on labour (p=0.434). Nevertheless, there were significant differences
between free-range and part-time grazing and between free-range and cut-and-carry (both
p=0.000). The three cattle feeding systems differ significantly with each other with p=0.000.
Results and discussions 143
Table 43: Analysis of return from cattle production per labour day among the systems
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry Sig.
M Range M Range M Range
Return per labour day
(1,000 VND) 93.1
a 2.9 – 1,133.5 17.7
b -10.0 – 38.4 21.6
b 3.4 – 55.6 0.000
Source: Households interviews, 2008 a, b
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p<0.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
4.3.2.3 Analysis of gender issues in cattle feeding systems
A study on poverty alleviation must include a gender analysis in order to determine how best
to improve conditions for rural women and improve the sustainable livelihood of farmers
(Ashby, 1999). Therefore, the role of women participating in decision making in cattle
production activities is presented in detail in this section of the study.
The highest time that female labourers devoted to cattle production in comparison to men was
recorded in the free-range system, which amounted to nearly 54%, whereas around one third
of that time was recorded in part-time grazing and about one fourth in cut-and-carry. There
was a significant difference among the systems (p=0.021). The free-range system differed
from part-time grazing (p=0.028) and cut-and-carry (p=0.009) on female labour time spent in
cattle production. Actually, grazing cattle and harvesting planted grass as well as cutting
natural grass and fodder tree leaves are a lot of work, especially for children and elderly
persons (Table 45). In fact, the assignment to collect natural feed resources also caused a
divergence among family members in the cut-and-carry system, where women still had a
weaker voice. Usually, females were responsible for collecting feed for cattle. Thus, the
percentage of working time spent on cattle by women in the cut-and-carry system is very
small compared to the others.
Table 44: Proportion of female working time in comparison to men in selected systems
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry Sig.
M Range M Range M Range
Female labour time
(%) 53.8
a 0 – 100 33.4
b 0 – 100 28.8
b 0 – 100 0.021
Source: Household interview, 2008 a, b
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p<0.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
Generally, a large proportion of women living in selected households in the free-range and
part-time systems participated in decision making in all activities (Table 46). In the free-range
system, around 86.7% of females participated in making decision in breeding selection, in
technical activities, and in vaccination and treatment of diseases with their partners in the
families, while up to 90-93.3% of them play important role in feed collection and in grass
cultivation and harvesting. These results may be partially attributed to the high education of
household heads in this system. Similarly, quite a high percentage of women had a say in
breeding selection, in technical activities, and in vaccination and treatment of diseases (73%
144 Results and discussions
to 75%) in part-time grazing. In contrast, in the cut-and-carry system, around 16.7% of female
had a say in these activities. A low ratio of women in this system participated in decision
making in management of cattle production (76.7%), dramatically lower than in the other
systems. However, a considerable proportion of females in the selected families had their say
in feed collection, grass cultivation, and harvesting.
It is important to note that mostly men occupy positions of vital importance in the H’Mong
family, where they are responsible for all main activities and decisions, while women play a
minor role in crop production, as well as in other livestock production activities and
household work. Particularly, in cattle production, males are responsible for the tending,
fattening, and feeding strategies, selection of cattle for breeding, and decision to sell, while
women play primarily a role in grass cutting. Grazing cattle duties are shared among family
members.
In cut-and-carry, grazing cattle are often tended by men. Particularly, looking after cattle and
carrying out technical activities for fattening cattle were up to male labourers in the system.
The male labourer in the cut-and-carry seems to be more active than the female. In contrast to
H’Mong families, all important activities are in female hands in Tay families practising the
free-range and part-time grazing systems. Particularly, many other labour-intensive off-farm
activities, as well as crop and livestock production, are cared for mainly by females. At
cropping time, most women conduct all activities while many of their partners do such things
as preparing pig feed, cooking, and grounds work, considered as odd jobs or easy work on
farms. In cattle production, women tend animals and cut planted grass, which are considered
as hard work. Regular checking on grazing animals is often shared among family members.
However, decision to sell and other important decisions are mostly handled by men in all
systems, especially in the cut-and-carry system, while in the free-range and part-time grazing
systems, a small number of women decide on selling cattle.
Table 45: Proportion of women working in different cattle production activities
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry
Breeding selection (% HH) 86.7 73.0 16.7
Technical activities (%HH) 86.7 73.0 16.7
Vaccination and disease treatment (%HH) 86.7 75.7 16.7
Cattle looking after (%HH) 90.0 94.6 76.7
Feeding collection (%HH) 93.3 91.9 83.3
Grass cultivation and harvesting (%HH) 93.3 89.2 80.0
Selling decision (%HH) 20.0 13.5 3.3
Source: Household interview, 2009
4.3.3 Analysis of the environmental stability of cattle production in cattle feeding systems
A proper environment is a vital condition for human beings (Sen, 2005), and this holds true
especially in the context of booming climate change in the world in general and Vietnam in
particular. Actually, climate change poses risks to lives and livelihoods throughout the world,
but is exacerbated greatly in some areas.
Results and discussions 145
Among the issues, cattle production is a risk to the environment due to methane and other
greenhouse gas emissions, and manure production. According to Crane (1982) cited in
Phillips and Sorensen (1993), methane is one of the four most important greenhouse gases. In
addition, methane is one of factors that may have a direct effect to the environment (Timon,
1993). Negative effects from cattle production and other agricultural activities may eventually
hinder the availability of resources over time. Concern over the threats posed by long-term
climate change impacts has led to an interest in controlling emissions of greenhouse gases
such as methane generated as a by-product of the digestive processes of livestock. Hence, in
the study context, manure management, manure used for crop production, and manure
abandoned to the environment among the systems are described in Table 47.
The highest percentage of households storing their cattle manure in a fenced-off enclosure or
pit was recorded in part-time grazing (nearly 90%), whereas the lowest proportion was
recorded in the cut-and-carry system with just 50%. Nevertheless, their storage and
preservation methods were very rudimentary. Therefore, a high percentage of manure among
those households still leached into the environment. The remaining households left cattle
manure in the surrounding environment. Correlatively, the largest proportion of cattle manure
leaching into the environment was recorded in cut-and-carry with nearly 70%. The smallest
percentage was around 37% in part-time grazing. There was significant effect among systems
on the amount of manure running out (p=0.000). However, there was only a significant
interaction between part-time grazing and cut-and-carry (p<0.05). Actually, daily removal of
manure from shelters, storage and preservation of manure, and the good condition of animal
stable and surrounding corral area can decrease greenhouse gas emissions.
The part-time grazing system saw the highest amount of cattle manure used, around 1.9
tonnes per hectare, while the smallest amount was around 1.0 tonne in the cut-and-carry and
free-range systems. Cattle manure was the main source of natural fertiliser used in crop
production in selected households because the average livestock manure (including cattle
manure) applied to cultivated land areas among systems were also very low (around 2.0
tonnes in both free-range and part-time grazing systems, and a lower amount of 1.2 tonnes per
hectare was indicated in cut-and-carry system) (see Annex 8). Thus, use of cattle manure for
crop production was very low in all systems. Huyen (2004) found that a very small number of
farmers use manure for crop production in Son La province. Most cattle manure in the free-
range and cut-and-carry systems was simply abandoned to the environment and was not used
for crop production, resulting in pollution of the living environment. Despite the amount of
wasted manure, cattle manure resource used for crop and forestry production was quite
appreciated by many crop producers in the study area because it was not only cheap but also
environmentally friendly compared to chemical fertilisers. Particularly, chemical fertilisers
are currently widely used in the lowlands, where rather high crop intensification is taking
place. Compared to the free-range and cut-and-carry systems, farmers in the part-time grazing
system used large amounts of manure for crop production, thus returning cattle manure
naturally to the environment. Normally, an application of from 8.0 to 10.0 tonnes of compost
manure per hectare of crop land could be practised in most types of soil, according to
guidelines from the Vietnam Plant Protection Department. An application of up to 15.0 tonnes
per ha might also be applied to poor quality soil such as sandy soil. It is important to note that
each beef animal weighing around 220 to 340 kg can produce from 20 to 30 kg excreta/day
(Phillips and Sorensen, 1993; Godwin and Moore, 1997). Significant differences were found
among systems on the amount of cattle manure utilized (Krusal Walis Test, p=0.000). There
were statistically significant differences on cattle manure used between the part-time grazing
and cut-and-carry systems (p=0.000) and between part-time grazing and free-range (p=0.025)
using the Mann-Whitney Test.
146 Results and discussions
In the cut-and-carry system, all manure from cattle and other livestock types was discharged
under or behind their pens, with water streams running beside or nearby. Most animal manure
and waste was washed directly by rain or flood water into streams. Thus, the pollution might
affect directly people living in downstream areas, such the Tay and Nung minority groups.
Their indirect impact could even cause pollution to people living in other lowland areas.
Particularly, cattle manure contains various pathogens, e.g. FMD, which may be transported
with cattle excreta to water resources and may cause infection to farms downstream (Sommer
et al. 2008). Similarly, poor storage and management of cattle and other animal manure was
seen in almost households in the free-range system. Hence, poor hygiene is a serious issue in
selected households in the system. Some households undertook simple storage and
management of manure, but the pollution risk is high in almost all selected households in the
system. Most households practising the free-range system still live in very poor hygiene
condition and poorly manage livestock manure. Many households still keep their cattle under
their houses on stilts, which were common in former times in mountainous areas.
Nevertheless, this way of keeping cattle has been discontinued in these areas recently due to
pollution risk for households, thanks to extensive government awareness-raising campaigns.
Animal manure was even left wherever it landed throughout the commune, even on the roads,
thus easily discharged into rivers and streams. Moreover, such streams run from the highest
mountains through H’Mong villages. Yet, a high proportion of households still take advantage
of rivers and streams for washing clothes, cleaning vegetables, and other activities. In
contrast, households in the part-time grazing system live in better hygiene condition, but a
high percentage of households still keep their animals near their houses. According to Phillips
and Sorensen (1993), leaching of nitrates from cattle manure causes pollution of water
resources and can gradually contaminate human drinking water resources.
It is important to note again that degradation of soil and erosion are also theoretically caused
by cattle grazing, especially in the uplands, as pointed out in Chapter 2, but its actual impacts
are not deeply analysed in this study due to limited time and funds as well as it is highly
difficult to analyse. However, it is a fact that free-ranging cattle caused damage to crops and
forest, especially in the early growth stage of forest trees. This caused conflicts among
villagers both near and far. Free-grazing cattle tend to cause large influence on soil erosion
and degradation on hills and uplands, especially when herd sizes are large. On the other hand,
because cattle owners in part-time grazing and cut-and-carry tend their animals, crops and
growing forest plantations escaped harm, and this in turn avoided social conflicts among
villagers and people in nearby communes. In this study context, therefore, the cattle stocking
rate is used as an indicator to assess this degradation of land areas by calculating number of
cattle TLU per hectare of grass land. There was little difference among the systems on this
value, but no significant difference was recorded. There is no study on this indicator in
Vietnam so far. Eguienta et al. (2002) find that longstanding free-grazing practices are
harmful to the natural resource base in Bac Kan province. In an environment of increasing of
both human and animal populations, livestock is an important cause of the deterioration of
forests and pasturelands (Husson et al., 2001 cited in Eguienta et al. 2002).
Results and discussions 147
Table 46: Influence of beef cattle feeding systems on environmental stability
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry Sig.
M Range M Range M Range
Manure preservation
(% HH) 73.3 - 89.2 - 50.0 - -
Cattle manure used
(tonnes/ha cultivated
land)
1.0a 0.0 – 3.9 1.9
b 0.0 – 8.0 1.0
a 0.0 – 3.7 0.000
Manure being washed
out (% cattle manure
produced at shelters)
47.0a 5.0 – 100.0 37.3
a 5.0 – 100.0 67.8
b 5.0 – 100.0 0.000
Cattle stocking rate
(TLU/ha cultivated grass
land)
22.5 0.0 – 80.0 27.5 0.0 – 166.7 16.5 0.0 – 120.0 0.096
Source: Household interview 2008; 2009 a, b
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p<0.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
It is essential to mention the strong impact of climate change on the agricultural sector in
general and livestock production in particular. Cattle production in Bac Kan province is not
being spared. In early 2008, there was a damaging cold outbreak on the study sites, which has
never occurred in study sites expecting as influencing by climate change, resulting in many
dead animals and the elimination of entire cattle herds.
Table 47: Cattle production losses in the beef cattle systems during the cold outbreak in
the early 2008
Indicators Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry Sig.
M Range M Range M Range
Households suffering
loss (%) 66.7 - 16.2 - 30.0 - -
Average num. cattle
lost (head/HH) 1.4
a 0.0 – 8.0 0.3
b 0.0 – 4.0 0.6
b 0.0 – 4.0 0.000
Average value of
cattle lost (mil.
VND/HH)
3.1a 0.0 – 20.0 0.6
b 0.0 – 14.0 1.4
b 0.0 – 14.0 0.000
Source: Household interview, 2009 a, b
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p<.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
Among the selected systems, the free-range system sustained the highest losses, 66.7% of
households being affected with the loss of 1.4 head and 3.1 mil. VND per household on
average. Ranking next in cattle production loss was the cut-and-carry system, affecting some
30% of households, with an average loss of 0.6 head or 1.4 mil. VND per farm. Meanwhile,
among households practising part-time grazing, over 16% of them, suffered loss, an average
of 0.3 head or 0.6 mil. VND (Table 33). Thus, the husbandry style presenting the highest
148 Results and discussions
losses such free grazing can be explained because of the lack of care and feed storage.
Otherwise, higher losses were also recorded in the cut-and-carry system due to lack of simple
stored feed resources such as rice straw, and their inhospitable location in the uplands with
very low temperatures compared to those felt by Tay households living in the lowlands. Thus,
stored feed in the cattle feeding systems tended to play an important role, especially in coping
with severe climate conditions. However, the selected households on the study sites are not
giving this matter routine attention.
4.3.4 Measuring cattle production in the systems in all dimensions of sustainable agriculture
To understand a farming system and its sustainable aspects, the concept of multi-criteria or
multi-dimensions must be used (Gomiero and Giampietro, 2001). The selected indicators of
different dimensions of sustainable cattle production systems can be handled by integrated
packages of indicators referring to different dimensions and systems of analysis in a “spider
diagram”, which is typical of multi-criteria analysis of sustainability.
The nominalising of selected indicators, which could be representative ones to sustainable
dimensions of cattle feeding systems, is introduced in Figure 42. It can be seen that no system
showed full sustainability in all dimensions of economics, society, and environment. In fact, it
is very difficult to reach sustainability in all pathways.
Specifically, gross cattle margin in all systems could be ranked from rather poor to medium
levels, e.g. the part-time grazing and cut-and-carry systems had medium-level gross cattle
margin (0.44 and 0.45, respectively), while the free-range system achieved a poor level with
0.37.
Regarding employment opportunities in the different systems, cut-and-carry offers the best
chance to work in cattle production among the systems, and this indicator was sorted in rather
good level, with 0.59, while free-range and part-time grazing ranked approximately equal
with each other at a medium level (0.40 and 0.44).
Although free-range did not have as many employment opportunities as the other two
systems, this system gave greater opportunity for women to participate in cattle production
activities, as indicated by the value of 0.54, much higher than that in the cut-and-carry and
part-time grazing systems (0.33 and 0.29, respectively). In the cut-and-carry system, women
seemed to spend less time and participate less in cattle production activities than men.
As mentioned in Section 4.2, grass land allocated for cattle production was very limited but
cattle production scale was very small. Therefore, cattle stocking rate was very small. The
smallest value was 0.09 recorded in the free-range system. The other two systems also had
small values of 0.14 and 0.17 in part-time grazing and cut-and-carry, respectively.
Values of the indicator “Proportion of cattle manure leaching out into the environment” in all
systems could be ranked at medium levels. However, the lowest value was 0.46 recorded in
the cut-and-carry system. The free-range and part-time grazing systems achieved a little
higher rating, with 0.57 and 0.55. Despite ranking in the medium level, strict attention should
be given to limiting the discharge of cattle manure and other livestock manure into the
environment surrounding other households in order to inhibit environmental pollution and
prevent transmission of animal diseases to people, where such risk occurs.
There are therefore compelling reasons to increase the role of women both in part-time
grazing and cut-and-carry, to reduce manure discharge in all systems, especially cut-and-
carry, and to improve the profitability of free-range and part-time grazing. The stocking rate
Results and discussions 149
for cattle production in all systems should also be increased through investment in grass
production for cattle husbandry in terms of land resources and management. These points
should be included in a strategy conducive to the development of sustainable cattle production
in the different systems.
Figure 42: Measuring the sustainability of the different cattle feeding systems Source: household interview, 2008; 2009
4.3.5 Section summary
The different influences of cattle production systems on the social, economic, and
environmental elements of sustainable agriculture were studied. For cattle production among
households invest was rather low in total costs and in feeding expenses more particularly. The
highest expense was replacement of breeding stock, but this cost was not regular recorded
among the systems. This is considered as an advantage of this sub-sector in the context of
significant food insecurity in the uplands, especially in H’Mong households. Among the
systems, the cut-and-carry cattle system seemed to generate the highest net cattle income,
while the other two systems tended to have approximate values. Households in the cut-and-
carry system enjoyed higher economic efficiency, which can be partially explained by their
fattening method as well as their heavy investment in labour resources, grain feed, and good
management skills. Thus, the high economic value of bulls after fattening was a feature of the
H’Mong people in cattle production, bringing a positive market-oriented trend, but still small
in size because of the rugged terrain, lack of investment in feed resources and breeding, food
insecurity, high labour consumption and strenuousness of the work involved.
Cattle husbandry in the cut-and-carry system seemed to create better employment
opportunities then in the other systems. The high labour demand was a positive benefit for
this system due to poor availability of arable land, low production intensity, and poor access
to off-farm activities. Meanwhile, the lowest employment opportunity was recorded in the
150 Results and discussions
free-range system, suggestive of poor social sustainability, but in the context of good
accessibility to off-farm activities, it was an advantage of the local farmers preferring this
approach. Thus, the cut-and-carry system seemed to have good potential in the development
programme on the study sites.
However, a large environmental risk from manure discharge due to lack of proper
management was indicated from the study. Manure use for cultivation was limited because of
predominantly steeply sloped lands and the local people practise the cut-and-carry system.
Furthermore, manure utility was evaluated as less importance in cut-and-carry compared to
other systems in the lowlands. Otherwise, a very high proportion of manure leaching into the
environment were recorded among the systems, indicating a lack of proper handling methods
in households, low level of cattle manure use for crops, thereby causing high pollution for
households living on the study sites. Farmers displayed poor awareness of environmental
protection. Nevertheless, analysis of the environmental aspect is not a main topic of this
study, but the thesis having a strong focus on the social and economic aspects of selected
households in the cattle feeding systems. Moreover, in the context of the study, analysis of the
environmental dimension was hampered by lack of data, shortage of funds and time, and the
complexity of the subtopic.
On the other hand, all systems showed their positive influences in economic and social
dimensions, but none of systems could achieve fully sustainable development because no
system showed sustainable indicators in all three dimensions—economics, society, and
environment. Actually, to achieve all elements of sustainable agriculture is an immense
challenge to cattle raising farmers. Their first concern is achieving economic efficiency,
which is enough of a dilemma. However, increasing their awareness of environmental
protection might be pursued, especially in the context of climate change in Vietnam, which
strongly impacts on the NMR.
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 CONCLUSIONS
Emerging from the motivation of improving the sustainable livelihood of cattle farmers
through an assessment of appropriate cattle feeding systems with positive influences on the
sustainability of agriculture and in tandem with the development trend of cattle products in
Vietnam’s markets; the study is purposed to derive recommendations to improve cattle
production in a long-term, sustainable manner and to promote a sustainable livelihood for the
poor. The study sites were carried out in Nghien Loan and Cong Bang communes, Pac Nam
district, Bac Kan province, in the northern mountainous region (NMR) of Vietnam, where
cattle production is predominant and considered favourably. Formal surveys using structured
questionnaires and PRA tools involving 97 households were conducted to collect the required
data. This study attempts to provide both qualitative and quantitative insight into the nature
and influence of these cattle feeding systems on sustainable agriculture by using selected
indicators and a multi-criteria approach, and understanding of the development trend of cattle
systems.
5.1.1 Empirical findings
The selected households practising free-range and part-time grazing were Tay people, located
in the lowlands, enjoying better conditions, but experiencing high land use pressure and high
intensification of crop production, whereas the investigated households in cut-and-carry were
H’Mong persons in almost opposite conditions. They live in the uplands, lack basic
infrastructure, have poor soil, but land use pressure and crop intensification are low, and crop
yields are correspondingly low. Other characteristics should be noted about selected
households in the cut-and-carry system: large family size, poor education level, poor
opportunities to engage in off-farm work, and a great proportion of households suffering food
insecurity. Thus, engaging in farm activities that bring them a better chance in food security
and better living standard is essential. Although the H’Mong people have a low education
level, they practise the most modern cattle system compared with the others. They have good
knowledge and better mastery of the cattle fattening process, while this is very limited among
Tay people. In addition, the H’Mong people also have strong relationships not only inside
their commune but also in outside communes. The Tay people practising the free-range
system had the highest education level, but their approach to cattle husbandry was the most
“obsolete”. Thus, the education level of household heads was not related to their cattle
keeping methods. Differentiations of cattle feeding systems seemed to relate more to the
natural land area, farm and off-farm activities, traditions, culture, their indigenous knowledge
as the specific characteristics of the ethnic minorities. Among livestock species, cattle
production obtained the largest share of total net income, which indicated its position in
improving livelihoods of the local people.
In this study, cattle production systems in the selected households were mainly small-scale.
There was no difference in cattle production size among the systems. Despite the features of
the free-range system, the investigated households did not keep large size herds. Cattle
production scale tended reduction due to reforestation, gradual limitation of natural
pastureland and population booming. Feed resources for cattle production among the systems
did not show a special disparity; with an exception of using natural cut-and-carry feed
resources, maize, and pig cooked feed for fattening cattle in H’Mong households practising
the cut-and-carry system. Feed resources shortage was recorded among the systems in the dry
152 Conclusions and recommendations
season, especially in cut-and-carry. Poor storage of by-products from crop production was
seen among the three systems, while processing feed resources stored for winter time was not
recorded in any system. There were little supplemental feed resources for cattle during
adverse climate events and times of deficiency due to food insecurity in many selected
households and a non commercial production purpose of cattle in all households in spite of
starting fattening cattle for better economic efficiency. Grass production was practiced, but
the yield was poor, applied by only a small number of households and in small areas in all
systems. Due to the small proportion of land put to grass production and poor grass
performance as well as infrequency of harvesting, a comparison of economic efficiency
between households with and without grass production showed no differentiation. However,
the H’Mong people seemed to have started focusing attention on this feed resource in their
cattle production, despite the fact that their productive land areas are still limited and of poor
quality. Grass production has not been played its actual role in cattle production as expected
in the cattle development project launched by the government. In addition, most farmers have
had under-evaluation potential effects of grass production to their cattle husbandry, but their
production still based strongly on natural feeding resources. Natural public pastureland is
gradually becoming more limited due to reforestation, Land Use Certificate, and population
increase, but development planning in the study area did not include development planning
pastureland for the future. Use and management of communal grazing land was not yet
considered in any selected commune.
Cattle husbandry in the cut-and-carry system tended to have a more positive reproductive
performance than those in the other two systems, despite the more serious deficiency of feed
resources in the winter season, which could be explained by their experience in management.
However, the rather high percentages of breeding cows among the systems were in overall
rather poor condition, showing a lack of awareness of farmers in development of cattle
production as a high-quality product. Actually, farmers did not give proper attention to
breeding management such as breed selection and replacement, especially selected
households in the free-range and part-time grazing systems. Better breeding management of
cows and bulls was found in H’Mong households. All systems showed poor health care and
disease control, with a poor vaccination rate and inappropriate treatment methods. The
H’Mong people tended agree among each other not to use veterinary services due to adverse
consequences of vaccination programmes conducted by the authorities, but the government
organisations did not communicate well and handled matters poorly. Another reason is that
cattle loss due to diseases was rarely recorded among these households. In the free-range
system, a large proportion of households did not have shelters for cattle production, while the
part-time grazing and cut-and-carry systems made better provision. Most households had
access to credit programmes from the government for livestock development, but most of the
loan money was used for other purposes. Further, there was little involvement of
organisations such as extension services, farmers’ union or Women Union in support of beef
cattle development and production on the study sites, while the government has implemented
a strong cattle development project. It seems that cooperation among stakeholders in
improving cattle production in the study area is still weak. Availability of local cattle market
is assessed as an advantage in keeping cattle in the study sites but farmers in all the cattle
feeding systems seemed to face more disadvantages than advantages and opportunities in
cattle marketing chains, especially in the process of changing to modern retail trading. Thus,
the challenges for the future will be a high competitiveness between cattle production and
natural resources and development trend of cattle markets’ products.
Assessing influences of the different cattle feeding systems on various sustainable dimensions
of the agricultural sector was firstly conducted by selecting suitable indicators for cattle
Conclusions and recommendations 153
production sub-sectors. Then, an analysis of their influences on economics, society, and
environment was made. The results in the cut-and-carry system showed that selected
households had high employment opportunities, rather good economic efficiency, but also
were a larger risk for the environment because of unused manure due to steep and slope lands
and its management. H’Mong women in the system played an important role in non-vital
activities and feed collection—assuming the brunt of hard work. In comparison to selected
H’Mong households in the cut-and-carry system, those in free-range and part-time grazing
seemed to have poorer economic efficiency and lower employment opportunities, and all
important activities were in female hands. Comparing with H’Mong households, Tay
households had a rather low rate of manure being discharged into the environment. The high
proportion of manure abandoned to the environment among the systems, indicated a lack of
proper handling methods in households, a low level of cattle manure use but a high
percentage of chemical fertilisers used, and poor awareness of cattle owners, resulting in
environmental pollution on the study sites. It is indicated that increasing environmental
protection in the context of climate change in Vietnam is strongly emphasised in the coming
years. Although all systems had positive influence on many social-economic indicators, it is
extremely hard to find a sustainable system that takes all pathways into account.
To sum, high consumer demand, development trend of cattle markets’ products and
increasing domestic incomes encourage beef cattle development to fill the requirement, in
harmony with government support policies. Nevertheless, cattle farmers stood in a poor
position and faced high competition from imported cattle products. The development trend of
cattle feeding systems will be expected to embrace the cut-and-carry system because of
limited pastureland and consumer demand for uniform, high-quality products and tendency of
development of supermarkets and hypermarkets. Thus, a balance must be achieved between
cattle production and natural resource use as pastureland for cattle grazing will be
increasingly devoted to forest production and land allocation.
5.1.2 Limitations of the study
The present findings and their quality must be interpreted in the context of a number of
potential limitations. These were limitations faced by the study regarding study time, funding,
location, culture, language, and availability of data. Firstly, the data were obtained from a
rather limited sample size, which might not meet the statistical requirements for strict
analyses and eliminate random errors; however, the sample size of each system was still
considered satisfactory. Secondly, another limitation of this study was that quantitative data
collected from farmers was conducted mainly for one year, in 2007, which might not be
representative for selected households over a long period. Next, complicated study location,
diversified culture and languages were challenges for the author implementing the study and
collect requirement data. Then, there are important strengths in the study because it focuses
on a selection of indicators of dimensions of sustainability in cattle production among
different systems. Thus, assessing and understanding these influences on sustainability
provides an opportunity to improve farmer livelihoods through enhancement of each aspect of
society, economics, and environment at all dimensions wherever possible. Nevertheless, the
study strongly emphasises the socio-economic aspects at the grassroots level, to some extent
at the expense of the environmental pathway. Due to lack of secondary and primary data,
limitation of fund and the complicated study object, analyses of the environmental indicators
as well as calculation of environmental influences were restricted, which were not
representative for evaluation of environmental pollution caused by cattle production. Finally,
there were shortage in data collection for replacement rate of cow and mortality rate of calves,
which were caused by poor data sources from farmers. Furthermore, growth performance of
154 Conclusions and recommendations
cattle production among systems were also not emphasised in the study due to limitation
issues mentioned above.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
According to findings of the study, in order to improve cattle production and make it
sustainable in the long term in the selected systems, different interventional activities are
required: (i) increased capacity building for local farmers; (ii) support farmers for the
sustainable development of cattle; (iii) help farmers improve product quality; (vi) strengthen
cattle resources on the study site; and (v) formulate support policies.
There is an increasing trend of number of supermarkets and consumers’ preferences in
purchasing goods in Vietnam. It is to be expected that development of beef cattle products
will have to adapt to the development trend of supermarkets and hypermarkets in the near
future, as is the case in surrounding countries such as Thailand. Thus, ways of improving each
cattle production system should be emphasised to meet the changing in the near future.
Additionally, the development of marketing cattle products might be another motivation for
raising cattle in the cut-and-carry system that is considered the favourable system among the
three systems and local farmers need to improve their cattle production in response to these
trends.
Thus, cut-and-carry cattle feeding system should be developed and expanded in the study area
in the near future. Support must be given to households in the cut-and-carry system to
improve the fattening process with consistency, especially providing guidance for creating
feed resources in the winter time. Feed resources should be increased by growing different
grass varieties, enlarging grass production areas, and increasing awareness of farmers in the
production of grass and harvesting techniques. In addition, processing and storage techniques
for planted grass and by-products of crop production should be introduced and training
provided. Setting up and implementing experiments/studies of processing and storage of
cultivated grass and by-products and assessing the model’s impacts on the production
efficiency of cattle production should also be carried out. Furthermore, farmer awareness on
prevention and treatment of diseases must be raised, vaccinations based on specific disease
characteristics as well as improved communication among the authorities and local
communities on these matters should also be emphasised.
On the other hand, in the free-range system, although production would be gradually changed
to part-time grazing coupled with cut-and-carry, the building of an awareness-raising
programme would be a critical option in the immediate future to change the habits of local
villagers so that cattle are not allowed to graze freely, are not kept in poor-quality shelters,
good breeding management, and veterinary care is introduced. In addition, households
employing part-time grazing system should also be introduced those techniques. Then,
introducing the techniques and procedures of the cut-and-carry system (fattening cattle) as
well as introducing technologies of grass production, the processing and storage of feed
resources, and experimental models should be implemented among households in both the
free-range and part-time grazing systems to help farmers improve their cattle production and
income, with a view to bringing them a more sustainable livelihood.
Then, a programme to increase awareness of farmers regarding manure management in all the
systems should be conducted. Providing guidelines for manure storage and use of composted
manure should also be applied to reduce environmental pollution for households among the
three systems.
Conclusions and recommendations 155
In addition, a favourable policy on the province and district on planning of public pastureland
in each commune and each district as well as in bordering areas among communes and
districts should be implemented to avoid the current situation of scattered grazing land, to
enable cattle and buffalo producers to graze their animals in sync with the reforestation
programme. Besides, increasing the awareness of local communities on employing and
managing public pasture and the allocation and utilisation of such areas should be conducted
among groups of cattle keepers.
Support for the development of cattle resources such as breed improvement programme
should be carefully carried out, including the provision of technical training sessions and an
awareness-raising programme for farmers on breed quality and management and animal
health care. A programme for the selection of breeding cows and bulls should be carefully
carried out. Elimination of poor breeding animals should be implemented among cattle
keeping farmers, by a communication programme. A little support fund for the poor in
conducting the activity is formulated. Several experimental models should also be introduced
to farmers as well.
Farmer interest groups in cattle production should be established, including formal
regulations, selection criteria, group meeting skills, facilitating skills, and relevant activities of
the groups, etc. Also needed are training sessions to enhance the management skills of
farmers, group working, and skills required to keep cattle production records and records of
other agricultural activities. This will assist farmers to work productively in groups. Building
cooperation among farmer interest groups should also focus on empowerment and mutual
activities.
It is clear that the integration of smallholder farms in modern retail markets is one important
way to improve their livelihood. Changing in the modern retail trade is gradually created in
Vietnam which might bring opportunities for cattle production farmers. Besides, more
challenging is also brought to them. Therefore, training on product quality requirements to
meet consumer demand should be strongly introduced to farmers to help them understand
changes in the modern retail markets and improve their adaptability with these changes.
Additionally, linkage programmes and workshops among farmers, traders and consumers
ought to be created to support farmers to understand the changing preferences of targeted
customers in the cities, along with farmer marketing groups. Moreover, the formation of
farmer interest groups in cattle marketing should also be a critical option for farmers in order
to improve their bargaining power and position in cattle marketing chains.
Communal development groups with their membership including key persons from farmer
interest groups, retailers, and middlemen, as well as local authorities, will be established.
Capacity building for such communal development teams and for key local people in
planning, monitoring, and management skills will be required. Cooperation among target
groups and middlemen, and linking programmes between cattle farmers and consumers
should be built up in order to help farmers meet the consumers demand for products of
quality.
Financial issue among households in development of cattle production is one of difficulties
inhibiting growth of cattle production of farmers. Therefore, a livelihood support fund (micro-
finance) from the government or organisations or from farmers themselves (self-credit
creation) in working groups should be implemented to promote active participation in the
groups and support development of farm activities.
Finally, the government, especially MARD, should provide national certification systems in
cattle products (live animals and beef) in order to provide a standard for quality control of
products in markets and supermarkets, and to build a sustainable linkage between farmers,
156 Conclusions and recommendations
traders, and consumers. Particularly, a control and check of beef products sold by retailers and
whole traders in retail and trade markets should seriously consider (beef origin, source such
where is beef products from, and documents owned by sellers collected meat from slaughter
houses) in order to secure its quality to meet the consumer requirement. In addition, live cattle
breed sold in markets for breeding should also certified to meet at least basic standard of
breeding animals. Agreements among neighbouring countries should also be reached to
control the healthy trading of cattle along borders and the illegal trading of live cattle, thus
reducing competition from imported products and decreasing risks from uncontrolled
diseases.
In order to have the further contribution of the research on the development of cattle
production sub-sector in general, farmers, researchers and policymakers in particular, an
additional study with larger sample sizes during a longer period should be conducted;
especially emphasising on environmental dimension (selection of favourable environmental
indicators and their calculation). Therefore, the next phase of the study should analyse this
pathway, if possible, focusing on the technical aspects of overgrazing, soil erosion caused by
cattle grazing and production, and the influence of manure on environmental pollution
through experiments. Growing performance of Yellow cattle among the cattle feeding
systems should also be investigated, especially those cattle kept by H’Mong people to obtain
a full understanding of the cattle performance.
6 REFFERENCES
Alburo, F., A., Panyakul, V. (2009). GMS Agricultural Trade and Facilitation Strategy
Study. Consultant report (Agriculture Trade Strategy and Facilitation), Asian
Development Bank. Incomplete Draft Report. Final Workshop 3-4 August 2009, at
Aranyaprathet district, Sa Keo province, Thailand.
Arslan, O. and Deha Er I. (2008). A SWOT analysis for successful bridge team organisation
and safer marine operations. Process Safety Progress, 27: 21–28.
Ashby, J. A. (1999). Poverty and gender: a proposal for action research. A paper prepared
for the CGIAR Conference on Poverty, Costa Rica, September 1999. Retrieved
March 30 2011: http://ciat-library.ciat.cgiar.org/paper_pobreza/019.pdf
Bac Kan Annual Report of the Department of Veterinary Health. (2008). Unpublished. Bac
Kan. Vietnamese.
Bac Kan Province Annual Report. (2008). Unpublished. Bac Kan, Vietnam.
Bac Kan - Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD). (2006). Annual
report. Unpublished. Vietnam.
Bac Kan Province Statistical Office – PSO. (2008). Bac Kan, Vietnam.
Bac Kan Province Statistical Office – PSO. (2006). Bac Kan, Vietnam.
Bac Kan People’s Committee (PC). (2006). Development of Agriculture and Forestry
Production in Bac Kan Province in the period 2006-2010. Unpublished. Vietnamese.
Bac Kan Province Annual Report. (2006). Unpublished. Bac Kan, Vietnam.
Bac Kan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) Annual Report.
(2006). Unpublished. Vietnamese. Bac Kan, Vietnam.
Bac Kan Department of Industry, Science, and Technology (DIST). (2005). Building a semi-
intensive beef cattle production model and testing dairy cattle production in Cho Don
district, Bac Kan province. Cooperation report between Bac Kan Department of
Industry, Science, and Technology and Faculty of Livestock Production and
Veterinary Health, Thai Nguyen Agricultural University. Unpublished. Vietnamese.
Bac Kan, Vietnam.
Bac Kan Province Statistical Office – PSO. (2002). Bac Kan, Vietnam.
Batz, Peters K.J., Janssen, W. (1999). The influence of technology characteristics on the rate
and speed of adoption. Agricultural Economics 21: 121-130
158 Refferences
Becker, B. (1997). Sustainability assessment: A review of values, concepts, and
methodological approaches. World Bank – CGIAR. Issues in Agriculture. 10.
Washington, DC. 68p.
Beets, W. C. (1990). Raising and sustaining productivity of smallholder farming systems in
the tropics. Agbes Publishing. Holland. 738p.
Beranger, C., Vissac, B. (1993). A holistic approach to livestock farming systems:
Theoretical and methodological aspects. In Brossier, J., De Bonneval, L., and
Landais, E. Eds. Systems studies in agriculture and rural development. A selection of
papers published by researchers in the Agrarian Systems and Development
Department of INRA (1990-1994). INRA. Paris. 5-17.
Blackburn, H. (1998). Livestock production, the environment and mixed farming systems. In
Nell, A. J. Ed. Livestock and the Environment. International Conference, FAO/World
Bank/USAID, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 114-123.
Bond, R., Curran, J., Kirkpatrick, C., Lee, N. (2001). Integrated impact assessment for
sustainable development: A case study approach. World Development. 29(6): 1011-
1024.
Bossel, H. (1999). Indicators for sustainable development: Theory, method, and applications.
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD). Canada. 124p.
Boyazoglu, J. (1998). Livestock farming as a factor of environmental, social and economic
stability with special reference to research. Livestock Production Science 57: 1–14
Bresciani, F, Dévé, F. C., Stringer, R. (2004). The multiple roles of agriculture in developing
countries. In Brouwer, F. (ed.) Sustaining agriculture and the rural environment:
Governance, policy and multifunctionality. Edward Elgar – Chelteham, UK and
Northampton, USA. 286-306.
Brown, B.J., Hanson, M. E, Liverman, D.M., Merideth, J.R.W. (1987). Global sustainability:
toward definition. Environmental management 11(6): 713-719.
Castella J.C. and Erout A. (2002). Montane paddy rice: The cornerstone of agricultural
production systems in Bac Kan province, Vietnam. In Castella, J. C., and Quang, D.
D. Eds. Doi Moi in the mountains: Land use changes and farmers’ livelihood
strategies in Bac Kan province, Vietnam. The Hanoi Publishing House. Hanoi,
Vietnam. 175-195.
Castella, J. C., Quang, D. D., Long, T. D., and Doanh, L. Q. (2002a). Scaling up local
diagnostic studies to understand development issues in a heterogeneous mountain
environment: An introduction to the SAM Program. In Castella, J. C., and Quang, D.
D. Eds. Doi Moi in the mountains: Land use changes and farmers’ livelihood
strategies in Bac Kan province, Vietnam. The Hanoi Publishing House. Hanoi,
Vietnam. 01-20.
Refferences 159
Castella, J. C., Boissau, S., Thanh, N. H., Novosad, P. (2002b). Impacts of forestland
allocation on agriculture and natural resource management in Bac Kan province,
Vietnam. In Castella, J. C., and Quang, D. D. Eds. Doi Moi in the mountains: Land
use changes and farmers’ livelihood strategies in Bac Kan province, Vietnam. The
Hanoi Publishing House. Hanoi, Vietnam. 197-220.
Conway, G. R. (1985). Agroecosystem analysis. Agricultural Administration 20: 31-55.
Dac, N. T. (2002). Policies for Development of Beef Cattle Production and Marketing in
Vietnam: issues and recommendations. In: ACIAR Project AS2/97/18. Profitable
beef cattle development in Vietnam. Sub-project 1: Beef marketing systems.
Dantsis, T., Douma, C., Giourga, C., Loumou, A., Polychronaki E. A. (2010). A
methodological approach to assess and compare the sustainability level of
agricultural plant production systems. Ecological Indicators 10: 256–263
De Haan, C., Steinfeld H., Blackburn H. (1996). Livestock & the environment: Finding a
balance. Report of Study by the Commission of the European Communities, the World
Bank and the governments of Denmark, France, Germany, The Netherlands,
United Kingdom and The United States of America.115p. Retrieved October 11,
2008: http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5303e/x5303e00.htm.
De Haan, C. (1995). Development support and livestock. In Wilson, R. T., Ehui, S. and
Mack, S. Eds. Livestock Development Strategies for Low Income Countries.
Proceedings of the Joint FAO/ILRI Roundtable on Livestock Development Strategies
for Low Income Countries, ILRI, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 27 February-02 March
1995. Food and Agriculture Organisation/International Livestock Research Institute,
Nairobi, Kenya. Retrieved October 10, 2006:
http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/ilri/x5462e/x5462e05.htm
Devendra, C., Thomas, D. (2002). Crop-animal systems in Asia: importance of livestock and
159characterisation of agro-ecological zones. Agricultural Systems 71: 5–15.
Dillon, J. L. and Hardaker, J. B. (1993). Farm management research for small farmer
development. Farm Systems Management Series 6. Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the United Nations, Rome. 145p.
Dixon, J., Gulliver, A. and Gibbon, D. (2001). Farming systems and poverty – Improving
farmers’ livelihoods in a changing world. Ed. Hall, M. FAO and World Bank. Rome
and Washington D.C. 412p.
Doppler, W., et. Al, (2002). Farming and Rural Systems Approaches. Published Lecturing
Material. University of Hohenheim. Germany.
160 Refferences
Dufhues, T., Lemke, T., Fischer, I. (2004). Constraints and potential of livestock insurance
schemes – A case study from Vietnam. Institute of Agricultural Economics and
Social Sciences in the Tropics and Subtropics (Ed.). Research in Development
Economics and Policy. Discussion Paper 5/2004. University of Hohenheim. F. u. T.
Müllerbader GmbH. Germany. 40p.
Dzung, N. T. (1996). Animal health improvement: a high priority for livestock development.
In Pryor, W. J. Ed. Exploring approaches to research in the animal sciences in
Vietnam. Aciar proceedings 68: 57-59.
Dzuc, T. (2003). The farm economy in Vietnam. The Gioi Publishers. Vietnam. 181p.
Eguienta, Y., Martin, C., Lecomte, P., Husson, O., Castella, J. C. (2002). Crop-livestock
interaction in Northern Vietnam: Issues, diversity of farmers’ responses, and
alternatives for sustainable integration of animals in upland agricultural systems. In
Castella, J. C., and Quang, D. D. Eds. Doi Moi in the mountains: Land use changes
and farmers’ livelihood strategies in Bac Kan province, Vietnam. The Hanoi
Publishing House. Hanoi. Vietnam. 221-247.
Eguienta, Y. (2000). Diagnostic des systèmes d’élevage bovo-bubalin dans une zone de
montagne au nord du Vietnam, District de Cho Don, Province de Bac Kan.
Unpublished. M.Sc. Thesis. Centre National d’Etudes Agronomiques des Régions
Chaudes (CNEARC), Montpellier, France. 107 p.
Ellis, F. (2000). Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford University
Press. New York. 273p.
Epprecht, M. (2005). Geographic dimensions of livestock holdings in Vietnam: Spatial
relationships among poverty, infrastructure and the environment. Pro-poor Livestock
Initiative. PPLPI Working Paper. 24. FAO. Rome
FAO. (2010); Http://faostat.fao.org. Retrieved December 15, 2010.
FAO. (2006). Http://faostat.fao.org. Retrieved November 20, 2006.
FAO. (1999). Indicators for sustainable development of marine capture fisheries. FAO
Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 8. Rome, FAO. 68p. Retrieved
October 15, 2010: hftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/004/x3307e/x3307e00.pdf
FAO (1989). Sustainable development and natural resource management. In: The state of
food and agriculture. FAO Agricultural series 22: 65-99.
Fox, P., Rockstroem, J., and Barron, J. (2005). Risk analysis and economic viability of water
harvesting for supplemental irrigation in semi-arid Burkina Faso and Kenya.
Agricultural Systems 83: 231-250.
Refferences 161
Francis, C. A., and Callaway, M. B. (1993). Crop improvement for future farming systems.
In: B. Callaway and C. A. Francis (Ed.) Crop Improvement for Sustainable
Agriculture. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 1−18.
Friederichsen, J. R., Heidhues, F. (2000). Assessment of erosion control in farming systems
in northwest Vietnam: Results of an interdisciplinary study project. EC workshop on
sustainable rural development in the Southeast Asian mountainous region. Hanoi,
28-30 November 2000. Vietnam.
GAIN Report. (2006). Vietnam livestock and products annual report 2006. Number
VM6054. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. Retrieved November 20, 2009:
http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200609/146228906.pdf
Garcia, S. (1996). Indicators for Sustainable Development of Fisheries. Presented at the 2nd
World Fisheries Congress. Workshop on Fisheries Sustainability Indicators,
Brisbane, Australia, August, 1996. Retrieved November 20, 2010:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/w4745e/w4745e0f.htm#TopOfPage.
Gender in Agriculture (2009). Sourcebook. The World Bank, Food and Agriculture
Organisation, and International Fund for Agricultural Development.
General Statistic Office (GSO). (2010). Retrieved December 22, 2008 http://gso.gov.vn
General Statistic Office (GSO). (2008). Retrieved December 20, 2008 http://gso.gov.vn
General Statistic Office (GSO). (2007). Statistic of dairy population and milk production in
August 01, 2007. Retrieved April 6, 2011
http://www.dairyvietnam.org.vn/en/statistics.php?tkid=19&dmtk=9
General Statistic Office (GSO). (2006). Retrieve December, 20, 2006 http://gso.gov.vn.
General Statistic Office (GSO). (2005). Socio-economic statistical data of 64 provinces and
cities. Statistical Publishing House. Hanoi. Vietnam.
GESAMP (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/WMO/WHO/IAEA/UN/UNEP Joint Group of Experts
on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). (2001). Planning and
management for sustainable coastal aquaculture development. Rep.Stud.GESAMP.
68: 90 p.
Giampietro, M, Mayumi, K, Munda, G. (2006). Integrated assessment and energy analysis:
Quality assurance in multi-criteria analysis of sustainability. Energy 31: 59–86.
Giampietro, M., Mayumi, K., Bukkens, S. G. F. (2001). Multiple-scale integrated
assessment of societal metabolism: an analytical tool to study development and
sustainability. Environment, Development And sustainability 3: 275–307.
162 Refferences
Godwin, D., Moore J.A. (1997). Manure management in small farm livestock operations –
protecting surface and ground water. Oregon State University. Retrieved April 4,
2011 from http://animalag.wsu.edu/water%20quality/Tab4em8649.pdf
Goldmana, A. Ramaswamib, S., Kriderc, R. E. (2002). Barriers to the advancement of
modern food retail formats: theory and measurement. Journal of Retailing 78: 281–
295
Gomiero, T. (2004). Multi-Objective Integrated Representation (MOIR): an innovative tool
for farming system analysis. PhD thesis. The programme in Environmental Sciences
– Universitat Authonoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra (Barcelona – Spain).
Gomiero, T. and Giampietro, M. (2001). Multiple-scale integrated analysis of farming
systems: The Thuong Lo commune (Vietnamese uplands) case study. Population and
Environment 22 (3): 315 -352.
Guijt, I., Moiseev, A., Prescott-Allen, R. (2001). IUCN Resource kit for sustainability
assessment. Part C: Slides for Facilitators. Based on the work of the IUCN/IDRC
Sustainability Assessment Team. IUCN Monitoring and Evaluation Initiative. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 92p. Retrieved April 9, 2010:
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/resource_kit_c_eng.pdf
Ha, D. T. and Shively, G. (2008), Coffee Boom, Coffee Bust and Smallholder Response in
Vietnam’s Central Highlands. Review of Development Economics, 12: 312–326
Haantuba, H. and de Graaf J. (2008). Linkages between smallholder farmers and
supermarkets: Lessons from Zambia. In: The transformation of agri-food systems:
globalization, supply chains and smallholder farmers, Eds. by McCullough, E.B.,
Pingali, P.L., Stamoulis, K.G. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of United
Nations and Earthscan. London. 207-226.
Hai, N. M. (2002). Changing comparative advantage of rice production under transformation
and trade liberalization: A Policy Analysis Matrix Study of Vietnam’s rice sector.
PhD. thesis. University of Hohenheim. Stuttgart. Germany.
HELVETAS (2000) Report of the Rapid Market Appraisal (RMA): Into Animal Products
Originating in Cao Bang Province. Helvetas. Hanoi, Vietnam. 49 p.
Hemme, T., Garcia, O., Nho, L. T., Tra, H. T. H. (2006). The Economics of Milk Production
in Hanoi, Vietnam, with Particular Emphasis on Small-Scale Producers. FAO-
PPLPI, Rome, Italy.
Hung, N. T., Binh, D. V. (2004). A survey on cattle production in households in M’Drak
district, Dak Lak province. Agricultural Science Journal 2(1). Hanoi. Vietnam.
Huy, N. L. (2008). The current situation and some recommendations to develop commercial
beef cattle stock in four upland districts of northern Ha Giang province. Vietnamese.
Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development 1, 49-56.
Refferences 163
Huyen L. T. T., Herold P. and Valle Zárate A. (2010). Farm types for beef production and
their economic success in a mountainous province of northern Vietnam. Agricultural
Systems, 103, 137–145.
Huyen, L. T. T. (2009). Suitability of different farm types for cattle development in northern
Vietnam. PhD thesis. Institute of Animal Production in the Tropics and Subtropics.
University of Hohenheim. Stuttgart. Germany.
Huyen, L. T. T, Herold, P. Valle Zárate A. (2008). Cattle performances and socio-economic
contribution in different farming systems in northern mountainous Vietnam. Institute
of Animal Production in the Tropics and Subtropics. University of Hohenheim.
Stuttgart. Germany. Poster in the Tropentag Conference in 2008.
Huyen. L. T. T., Lemke. U., Valle Zarate. A. (2006). Ruminant breeds and production
systems in northern Vietnam and their contribution on smallholder household in
mountainous areas. Verlag Ulrich E. Bauen. Stuttgart. Germany. 68p.
Huyen, N. T. T. (2004). The impact of animal production in mountainous farming systems
development in the northwest of Vietnam. PhD thesis. Hohenheim University. In
Doppler, W. and Bauer, S. Eds. Farming and rural systems economics 57. Margraf
Publishers GmbH. Germany.
Ibrahim H., Olaloku E. (2000). Improving cattle for milk, meat and traction. International
Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). ILRI Manual 4. Nairobi, Kenya. 135 p.
IFAD Cao Bang. (2007). A survey result about the cattle and buffalo value chain in Cao
Bang province. Consulting report of the Central for Agrarian System Research and
Development. Hanoi, Vietnam.
IFAD (2003). Promoting Market Access for the Rural Poor in Order to Achieve the
Millennium Development Goals. Roundtable Discussion Paper for the Twenty-Fifth
Anniversary Session of IFAD’s Governing Council. Rome, Italy.
ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa). (1990). Livestock systems research
manual. Working Paper 1, Vol. 1. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 287p.
ILRI. (2003). Livestock, a pathway out of poverty: ILRI strategy to 2010. International
Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi. Retrieved June 6, 2007 from
http://www.ilri.org/Strategic/Strategy2010.pdf
Koopmans, A., Koppejan, J. (1997). Agricultural and forest residues – generation,
utilization and availability. Paper presented at the Regional Consultation on Modern
Applications of Biomass Energy, 6-10 January 1997, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Lan, D. N. (2005). Forest land allocation to households in northern Vietnam: Processes,
perception of the local people and the use of forestland. PhD thesis. University of
Hohenheim. Stuttgart. Germany.
164 Refferences
Lapar, M. L., Binh, V. T., Ehui, S. (2003). Identifying barriers to entry to livestock input and
output markets in Southeast Asia. Livestock sector report: Vietnam. 46p. Rome
(Italy) FAO. Retrieved May 12 2009:
http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/sector_reports/lsr_VNM.pdf
Leech, N. L. Barrett, K. C., Morgan, G.A., Clay J. N. Quick, D. (2005). SPSS for
intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers. Mahwah, New Jersey, London. 240p.
Lemke, U. (2006). Characterisation of smallholder pig production systems in mountainous
areas of north Vietnam. PhD thesis. Institute of Animal Production in the Tropics and
Subtropics. University of Hohenheim. Stuttgart. Germany.
Leng R. A. (1993). The impact of livestock development on environmental change. In:
Strategies for sustainable animal agriculture in developing countries, Mack S. (Ed.)
FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 107. Retrieved April 9, 2011:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/T0582E/T0582E09.htm
Lentes, P. (2003). The contribution of GIS and remote sensing to farming systems research
on micro- and regional scale in North West Vietnam. PhD thesis. In: Dopler, W. and
Bauer, S. (Eds). Farming and Rural System Economics, Vol. 52. Margraf Verlag,
Weikersheim. Germany.
Lewandowski, I., Härdtlein, M., Kaltschmitt, M., 1999. Sustainable crop production:
definition and methodological approach for assessing and implementing
sustainability. Crop Sci. 39: 184–193.
Liem, H. V., Toan, N. V., Perkins, J. (1999). Live cattle markets in Nghe An province. In:
ACIAR Project AS2/97/18. Profitable beef cattle development in Vietnam. Sub-
project 1: Beef marketing systems.
Livestock In Development (1999). Livestock in poverty-focused development. LID,
Crewkerne: Livestock In Development. UK. 95p.
Luthi, N.B., Fabozzi, L., Gutier, P., Trung, P.Q., Smith, D. (2006). Review, analysis and
dissemination of experiences in dairy production in Viet Nam. Pro-Poor Livestock
Policy Initiative – FAO. A living from livestock.
Ly. L. V. (1995). Beef cattle production and initial research achievements in Vietnam.
Agricultural Publishing House. Vietnamese. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Ly, L. V., Giao, H. K., Sanh, M. V. Su, V. V. and L. M. Sat. (1999). The local domestic
animal genetic resources and their conservation in Vietnam. Agricultural Publishing
House. Vietnamese. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Ly, L. V. (2002). The role of animal production in the farming systems of Vietnam. The
National Institute of Animal Husbandry. Hanoi, Vietnam. Retrieved 10 October 2006
from http://www.vcn.vnn.vn.
Refferences 165
Lynam, J. (1994). Sustainable growth in agricultural production: the links between
production, resources and research. In Goldswothy, P., de Vries, F. P. Eds.
Opportunities, use, and transfer of systems research methods in agriculture to
developing countries. Proceedings of an international workshop on systems research
methods in agriculture in developing countries, 22-24 November 1993, ISNAR. The
Hague. Systems approach for sustainable agricultural development series. 3-27.
Lynam, J.F. and Herdt, R.W. (1989). Sense and sustainability: Sustainability as an objective
in international agricultural research. Agric. Econ., 3: 38l-398.
Maltsoglou, I., Rapsomanikis, G. (2005). The contribution of livestock to household income
in Vietnam: A household typology-based analysis. Pro-poor Livestock Initiative.
PPLPI Working Paper 21. FAO. Rome
Maruyama, M. and Trung, L. V. (2007), Supermarkets in Vietnam: Opportunities and
Obstacles. Asian Economic Journal, 21: 19–46
Maruyama M. and Trung, L. V. (2006). A probit analysis of consumer shopping behaviour.
In: The Proceedings of Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference
2006. Retrieved 20 October 2010 from
http://smib.vuw.ac.nz:8081/WWW/ANZMAC2006/documents/Maruyama_Masayos
hi.pdf
McConnell. D. J., Dillon. J. L. (1997). Farm Management for Asia: a Systems Approach.
FAO Farm Systems Management Series – 13. FAO. Rome. Italy.
Meijer, M., Rodgriguez, I., Lundy, M. and Hellin, J., (2008). Supermarkets and small
farmers: the case of fresh vegetables in Honduras. In: McCullough, E.B., Pingali,
P.L. and Stamoulis, K.G., eds., The transformation of agri-food systems. FAO and
Earthscan, London. 333-353.
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD). (2009). Vietnamese. Hanoi,
Vietnam.
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD). (2008). Vietnamese. Hanoi,
Vietnam.
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD). (2006). Evaluation of beef cattle
production, development orientation in 2006-2010. Report of Department of
Livestock Production (DLP). Unpublished. Vietnamese. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD). (2006b). Evaluation of dairy
cattle production subsector and its development orientation in 2006-2010 and 2015.
Report of Department of Livestock Production (DLP). Unpublished. Vietnamese.
Hanoi, Vietnam.
166 Refferences
Minot, N., Epprecht, M., Roland-Holst, D., Tram Anh, T., T., Trung, L. Q. (2003). Income
diversification and Poverty in the Northern Uplands of Vietnam: Patterns, Trends and
Implications. Research report 45. International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) and Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC). 137p.
Morgan, G. A., Leech, N. L., Goeckner, G. W., Barrett, K. C., Clay J. N., Jensen, L., Quick
D. (2004). SPSS for introductory statistics – use and interpretation. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Mahwah, New Jersey, London. 211p.
Mui, N. T., Nho, L. T., Han, H. T., Huong, M. T. (2005). Assessing feed resources for
ruminants and starting to build grass production models in Dong Van district, Ha
Giang province. Vietnamese Journal of Agricultural and Rural Development. No. 5,
219-228. Vietnamese. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Mui, N. T. (2003). Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profiles: Vietnam. Department of
Pasture Research and Animal Feed Plant Resources. National Institute of Animal
Husbandry (NIAH), Hanoi, Vietnam. Retrieved September 30, 2006 from
http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof/v
ietnam/vietnam.htm
Neefjes, K., Thanh, H. X. (2003). Poverty reduction in the northern Mountains - a synthesis
of participatory poverty assessments in Lao Cai and Ha Giang provinces and regional
VHLSS data. Report supported by DFID and UNDP. 61p.
Ness, B., Urbel-Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., Olsson, L. (2007). Categorising tools for
sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics 60: 498 – 508.
Ngoan, L. D. and Giang, P. T. (2008). Actual situation of intensive beef cattle production in
small householder farms in Quang Ngai province. Journal of Livestock Production
and Technologies. No. 14. Accepted October, 2008. Vietnamese. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Nho, L. T., Mui, N. T., Nhi, D. L., Giang, D. H., Cuong, P. K. (2003). Assessing
development capacity of buffalo and cattle production in Ky Son district, Nghe An
province. In "Building development capacity of selection of replacement of opium
production in Ky Son - UNDCP Drug Control Program - AD/VIE/01/F21”.
Vietnamese. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Niem, N. V., Hoan, D. H., Khanh, L. C., and Con, D. X. (2001). Characteristics,
performance and development of Ha Giang Yellow cattle production in the northern
mountainous region. Scientific reports on animal husbandry and veterinary medicine
1999-2000. Agricultural Publishing House. Vietnamese. Hanoi, Vietnam, 92-104.
Nicholson, C. F., Blake, R. W., Urbina, C. I., Lee, D. R., Fox, D. G. and Van Soest, P. J.,
1994. Economic comparison of nutritional management strategies for Venezuelan
dual-purpose cattle systems. Journal of Animal Science. 72: 1680-1696.
Refferences 167
Noi, V. V., Cuong, V. C., Cuong, P. K. (1995b). Mortality rate from 0-12 months and
contamination rate of some parasitology of crossbreeding beef calves in Central
Coast and Central Highlands. In Ly L. V. Ed. Beef cattle production and the initial
research achievements in Vietnam. Agricultural Publishing House. Vietnamese.
Hanoi, Vietnam. 78-81.
Ogle B., Phuc, B. H. N. (1997). Sustainable intensive livestock-based systems in Vietnam.
IRD Current 14: 16-22
Okigbo, B. N. (1991). Development of sustainable agricultural production systems in Africa:
Role of international agricultural research centres and national agricultural research
systems. Distinguished African Scientist Lecture Series No. 1. International Institute
of Tropical Agriculture (IITA). Ibadan. Nigeria
Olesen, I., Groen, A. F., Gjerde, B. (2000). Definition of animal breeding goals for
sustainable production systems. J. Anim. Sci. 78: 570–582.
Pac Nam Annual Report. (2007). Unpublished. Bac Kan, Vietnam
Pac Nam District Statistical Office - DSO (2008). Unpublished. Bac Kan, Vietnam
Pac Nam People’s Committee Report (2006). Unpublished. Bac Kan, Vietnam
Payraudeau, S., van der Werf, H. M.G. (2005). Environmental impact assessment for a
farming region: a review of methods. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 10:
1–19
Perkins, J. (2002). Profitable beef cattle development in Vietnam. ACIAR - Project Review
and Final Workshop on 13-15 May 2002. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Petheram, R. J. (1996). Farming system research (FSR): a brief review and example. In
Pryor, W. J. Ed. Exploring Approaches to Research in the Animal Sciences in
Vietnam. ACIAR Proceedings No. 68. Hue University, Vietnam, 31 July - 3 August
1995. 36-44.
Philipes, C.J.C, Tind Sorensen, J. (1993). Sustainability in Cattle Production Systems.
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 6(1): 61-73
Phung, L. D., Koops, W. J. (2003). The impact of crossbred cattle (Red Sindhi x Yellow
local) on smallholder households in the mountainous and lowland zones of Quang
Ngai, Vietnam. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 16(9): 1390 – 1396.
Phung, L. D. (2001). A system analysis of the use of Local Yellow and F1 (Red Sindhi x
Yellow Local) cattle by households in the mountainous and lowland zones in Quang
Ngai, Vietnam. MSc thesis. Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Phuong, H. A. (2009). Factors affecting market participation of smallholder beef cattle
producers in rural areas - Case study in Hanh Phuoc commune, Nghia Hanh district,
Quang Ngai province. Master Thesis. No. 44. Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences.
168 Refferences
Pingali, P. (2006). Westernization of Asian diets and the transformation of food systems:
implications for research and policy. Food Policy 32: 281-298.
Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative (PPLPI)-Policy brief. (2004). Policy issues in livestock
development and poverty alleviation. Retrieved 08/2009 from
http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/pplpi/docarc/pb_wp10.pdf
Quan, H. M. (2001). Applying major economic and technical solutions in development of
cattle production in households in Quang Binh province. PhD thesis. Agricultural
University No. 1. Hanoi, Vietnam. Vietnamese.
Quang Ngai Rural Development Programme (QNRDP) Phase 1. (2002). First report of the
marketing specialist. Prepared for AusAID by URS Sustainable Development in
association with Brown and Root and World Wide project management services,
Australia. Retrieved September 27, 2009 from http://www.rudep.org/Doc/1125-
1st%20Marketing%20Specialist%20Report.pdf
Rachmat, R., Stür, W.W. and Graeme J. Blair. (1992). Cattle feeding systems and limitations
to feed supply in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Agricultural Systems 39: 409-419.
Rasul, G. and Thapa, G. B. (2004). Sustainability of ecological and conventional agricultural
systems in Bangladesh: an assessment based on environmental, economic and social
perspectives. Agricultural Systems 79: 327–351
Reardon, T., Timmer, C.P., Berdegue, J. (2008). The rapid rise of supermarkets in
developing countries: Induced organisational, institutional and technological change
in agro-food systems. In: The transformation of agri-food systems: globalization,
supply chains and smallholder farmers, Eds. by McCullough, E.B., Pingali, P.L.,
Stamoulis, K.G. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of United Nations and
Earthscan. London. 47-66.
Reardon, T., Henson, S. and Berdegué, J., (2007). Proactive fast-tracking, diffusion of
supermarkets in developing countries: implications for market institutions and trade.
Journal of Economic Geography 7: 399–431.
Rodrigues, G. S., Campanhola, C., Kitamura, P.C. (2003). An environmental impact
assessment system for agricultural R&D. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 23(2): 219–
244.
Schillhorn van Veen, T.W. (1999). Agricultural policy and sustainable livestock
development. International Journal for Parasitology 29, 7- 15
Schipmann, C. (2010). The food system transformation in developing countries:
opportunities and challenges for smallholder farmers in Thailand. PhD thesis. Georg-
August-Universität Göttingen, Germany.
Refferences 169
Sen, L. T. H. (2005). Soil conservation and sustainable agriculture: A case study of the
coastal region of Quang Tri province, Vietnam. PhD thesis. In Doppler, W. and
Bauer, S. Eds. Farming and Rural System Economics 76. Margraff Publishers.
Germany.
Seré, C., Steinfeld, H. (1996). World livestock production systems - Current status, issues
and trends. FAO Animal Production And Health Paper. Publication of the LEAD
Livestock & Environment Toolbox No. 127. 46p.
Siegmund-Schultze, M., Rischkowsky B., da Veiga J.B., King, J.M. (2010). Valuing cattle
on mixed smallholdings in the Eastern Amazon. Ecological Economics 69: 857–867
Skunmun, P., Poondusit, T., Koga, A., Chantalakhana, C. (2001). Changes of cattle and
buffalo production in village farming systems and their long-term impacts on buffalo
raising. In Proceedings of National Workshop on Swamp Buffalo Development.
Hanoi, Vietnam, 17-18th
December 2001.
Smith, D., Tra, H. T. H. (2008). Market assessment for free ranging chicken products in
Hanoi. Unpublished. Submitted to The STOP AI Project - USAID. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Smith, D. (2001). Chinese live cattle and beef marketing and distribution systems. PhD
Thesis. School of Natural and Rural Systems Management. The University of
Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia.
Sommer, S. G., A. Dalsgaard, A. Roepstorf, L. S. Jensen, J. Luxhøi, T. S. Tran, M. T.
Tran,T. H. Tran, T. T. S. Dang, C. C. Vu, T. K. V. Vu. (2008). Livestock production,
manure management and plant nutrient recycling on animal farms in Vietnam.
Retrieved April 5, 2011 from
http://susane.info/en/home/detail.asp?iData=966&nChannel=News
Squire, L., van der Tak, H. G. (1975). Economic analysis of projects. A World Bank research
publication. The John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore and London. 153p.
Steinfield, H., Mack, S. (1997). Livestock development strategies. World Animal Review. 88:
18-24.
Steinfeld, H. and Mäki-Hokkonen, J. (1995). A classification of livestock production
systems. FAO. Retrieved April 7, 2006
http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/V8180T/v8180T0y
.htm
Sydorovych, O. and Wossink, A. (2008). The meaning of agricultural sustainability:
Evidence from a conjoint choice survey. Agricultural Systems 98: 10–20
Tai, D. A. (2004). Family resources and their impact on living standard and food security of
farmers in the mountainous farming systems in northwest Vietnam. PhD thesis.
Agricultural University of Hohenheim. Eds. Doppler, W. and Bauer, S. Farming and
rural systems economics 54. Margraf Publishers GmbH. Germany.
170 Refferences
Tang, L. V. (2007). Personal communication. Director of the Department of Veterinary of
the Son La province.
Taylor, D. F. (2001). Employment-based analysis: an alternative methodology for project
evaluation in developing regions, with an application to agriculture in Yucatán.
Ecological Economics. 36: 249-262.
The Comprehensive Poverty Reduction and Growth Strategies – CPRGS. (2003). Vietnam.
Thomas, D., Zerbini, E., Rao, P. P., Vaidyanathan, A. (2002). Increasing animal productivity
on small mixed farms in South Asia: a systems perspective. Agricultural Systems 71:
41–57.
Thompson, P.B., and Nardone, A. (1999). Sustainable livestock production: methodological
and ethical challenges. Livestock Production Science 61: 111–119
Thuong, N. V., Ly, L. V., Noi, V. V., Dat, N. Q., Niem, N. V., Oanh, N. K. Cuong, P. K.,
Ho, V. P. (1995). Study of technologal approaches to improve meat performance of
cattle herds in Vietnam. In Ly L. V. Ed. Beef cattle production and the initial
research achievements in Vietnam. Agricultural Publishing House. Hanoi. 45-53.
Timon, V.M. (1993). Strategies for sustainable development of animal agriculture - an FAO
perspective. In: Strategies for sustainable animal agriculture in developing countries,
Mack S. (Ed.) FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 107. Retrieved April 09
2011: http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/T0582E/T0582E05.htm
Tisdell, C. (2010). An Economic Study of Small-scale Hog Growers in Vietnam: Some
Insights Gained and the Scope for Further Research. Working Paper No. 61. Working
Papers in the Series, Economic Theory, Applications and Issues, are published by the
School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
Tisdell, C. (1996). Economic indicators to assess the sustainable conservation of farming
projects: An evaluation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 57: 117- 131.
Tra, H. T. H. (2009). Needs assessment of climate change – adaptation and mitigation. A
case study in Bac Kan province. Report submitted to Centre for Sustainable Rural
Development (SRD), Vietnam and Bread for the World (BftW), Vietnam.
Tra, H. T. H. (2007). Assessing failure and perspective development of crossbreeding cattle
in the northern mountainous region of Vietnam. A study in Bac Kan province. DEA
thesis. Department of Economics and Rural Development. Gembloux Agricultural
University. Belgium.
Tra, H. T. H. (2003) Assessing inputs in pig production with special focus on feed resources
and feeding management in resource and demand-driven pig production systems in
Son La province, Vietnam. Master thesis. Hohenheim University. Germany.
Refferences 171
Trach, N. X. (2002). Possible consequences of inappropriate intensification of animal
production in Vietnam and approaches to avoid. In 2010 trends of animal production
in Vietnam. Proceedings of the workshop organised by NIAH and CIRAD. Hanoi.
October 24-25. PRISE publications. Hanoi, Vietnam. 35-44.
Tung, D. X., et al. (2009). A survey on structure, performance, efficiency, and mode and
organisation of cattle, buffalo and pig production. Vietnamese. Unpublished.
Submitted to Department of Livestock Production, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development (MARD). Vietnamese. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Tung, D. X., Giang, D. H. (2008). Assessing factors influencing economic-technological
efficiency and comparative advantage of beef cattle production in Vietnam.
Vietnamese. Unpublished Research Report. National Institute of Animal Sciences.
Vietnamese. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Tung, D. X., Thanh, N. D., Duc, D. V., Quoc, N. V., Q. M. T., Thuy, T. P. T., Loan, N. T.
(2007). Assessing economic efficiency in beef cattle production in four agro-ecology
regions in northern Vietnam. Vietnamese. Presented at the annual workshop
organised by the National Institute of Animal Sciences. Vietnamese. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Udo, H. M. J., Koops, W. J, Cornelissen, T., Steenstra, F. (1998). Analysis of livestock
systems. Lecture notes. Animal Production Systems Group. Wageningen Agricultural
University.
United Nations (UN) (1997). Agenda for Development.
http://www.un.org/Docs/SG/ag_index.htm
Van Cauwenbergh N., Biala K., Bielders C., Brouckaert V., Franchois L., Garcia Cidad V.,
Hermy M., Mathijs E., Muys B., Reijnders J., Sauvenier X., Valckx J., Vanclooster
M., Van der Veken B., Wauters E., Peeters A. (2007). SAFE—A hierarchical
framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 120: 229–242
Van de Walle, D., Gunewardena, D. (2001). Sources of ethnic inequality in Vietnam.
Journal of Development Economics 65: 177–207.
Van, P. T., Loan, N. T., Quoc, N. V. (2005). Assessing the situation and efficiency of cattle,
buffalo and pig production in smallholder farms in Mai Son, Pac Nam and Dong Van
districts. Vietnamese. In Annual Proceeding of a Science Workshop held by National
Institute of Animal Husbandry. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Vien, T. D. (2003). Culture, environment, and farming systems in Vietnam's northern
mountain region. Southeast Asia Studies. 41(2): 180-205.
Vietnam Development Report 2004 (VDR). (2003). Poverty. Joint donor report to the
Vietnam consultative group meeting. Hanoi. December 2003.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). Our Common
Future. Brundtland Commission Report. Geneva.
172 Refferences
Zaved A., Sadaf, S., Luqman, M. (2004). Rural Women’s Participation in Crop and
Livestock Production Activities in Faisalabad, Pakistan. Journal of Agriculture &
Social Sciences. 2(3): 150–154.
Zeller, M., Lapenu, C., Minten, B., Ralison, E., Randrianaivo, D., Randrianarisoa, C. (2000).
Pathways of rural development in Madagascar: An empirical investigation of the
critical triangle of environmental sustainability, economic growth and poverty
alleviation. FCND discussion Paper 82. International Food Policy Research Institute.
Washington DC. USA.
7 ANNEXES
Annex 1: Development trend of beef production in Vietnam and the NMR
Source: FAO, 2010; GSO, 2010;
Annex 2: Development trend of imported beef products in Vietnam
Source: General Department of Vietnam Customs, 2010;
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Ca
ttle
mea
t p
rod
uct
ion
(th
ou
san
d t
on
s)
Ca
ttle
po
pu
lati
on
(T
ho
usa
nd
hea
d)
Cattle Cattle herd size in the NMR Cattle meat
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Imp
ort
ed c
att
le m
eat
va
lue
(mil
. U
SD
)
Imp
ort
ed c
att
le m
eat
am
ou
nt
(to
nn
es)
Amount (tonnes)
Value (mil. USD)
174 Annexes
Annex 3: Beef price in Hanoi markets during 2001-2009
Source: The Government Pricing Committee, 2010 and The Vietnam Economic News, 2010
Annex 4: Reproductive performance of cattle and buffalo species
Indicators
Cattle (N = 94) Buffalo (N = 28) Sig.
M Range M Range
Calving interval (months) 16.3 12.0 – 26.0 22.0 12.0 – 36.0 0.000
Age at first calving (year) 3.5 3.0 – 5.0 4.5 4.0 – 6.0 0.000
Source: Household interview 2007-2008
Annex 5: Livestock net income analysis depending on farm land size classification
Indicators
Small farm size Medium farm size Large farm size
Sig. M Range M Range M Range
Total livestock
revenue (mil. VND)
15.8a -4.9 – 34.5 18.6
ab 3.4 – 47.1 24.4
b 6.3 – 54.6 0.005
Total livestock costs
(mil. VND)
5.8 0.7 – 17.6 8.5b 1.5 – 30.0 11.3
b 3.0 – 33.1 0.001
Livestock net income
(NI) (mil. VND)
10.0 -19.1 – 28.7 10.1 -1.2 –
31.2
13.1 -2.5 – 32.6 0.259
Livestock
NI/investment costs
(times)
2.7a -1.4 – 14.4 1.5
b -0.3 – 4.7 1.7
b -0.3 – 6.1 0.012
NI/land unit (mil.
VND)
1.1a -1.7 – 3.7 0.5
b 0.1 – 1.7 0.4
b -0.1 – 0.8 0.000
NI/labour day (1,000
VND)
24.1 -120.4 – 99.4 25.6 -3.2 –
89.7
34.8 -6.4 – 112.7 0.276
Source: Household interview 2007-2008 a, b
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p< 0.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
Annexes 175
Annex 6: Analysis of livestock net income in selected systems in the study area in 2007
Indicators
Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry
Sig. M Range M Range M Range
Total livestock
revenue (mil. VND)
21.3 -4.9 – 54.6 17.5 3.4 – 47.1 17.8 3.6 – 34.7 0.286
Total livestock costs
(mil. VND)
8.3 2.8 – 33.1 8.8 0.8 – 30.0 6.8 0.7 – 15.7 0.625
Livestock net income
(NI) (mil. VND)
13.0 -19.1 – 32.6 8.7 -2.5 –
21.9
11.0 0.8 – 28.7 0.077
NI/investment costs
(times)
2.2 -1.4 – 6.1 1.6 -0.3 – 9.9 2.4 0.1 – 14.4 0.069
NI/land unit (mil.
VND)
0.8 -1.7 – 2.9 0.5 -0.6 – 2.0 0.9 -0.2 – 3.7 0.144
NI/labour day (1,000
VND)
40.8a -120.3 –
112.7
20.6b -6.4 –
61.6
21.5b 0.9 – 31.9 0.002
Source: Household interview 2007-2008 a, b
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (P < 0.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
Annex 7: List of key persons interviewed in cattle value chain in Bac Kan province
Name Minority Working areas Address
1 Dinh Van Chan Kinh Middleman Nghien Loan, Pac Nam
2 La Van Thach Tay Middleman Nghien Loan, Pac Nam
3 Nong Van Vinh Tay Middleman Nghien Loan, Pac Nam
4 Nong Van Thanh Tay Middleman Nghien Loan, Pac Nam
5 Nguyen Van Thong Kinh Middleman Thai Nguyen
6 Nong Van Vang H’Mong Retailer Nghien Loan, Pac Nam
7 Ly Van Han Dao Retailer Nghien Loan, Pac Nam
8 Dang Van Ve Tay Retailer Nghien Loan, Pac Nam
9 Vu A Giang H’Mong Retailer Cong Bang, Pac Nam
10 Hoang Van Lenh H’Mong Retailer Nghien Loan-Pac Nam
11 Nguyen Quoc Tuan Kinh Slaughterhouse Dong Anh, Hanoi
12 Nguyen Huu Bang Kinh Slaughterhouse Dong Anh, Hanoi
13 Nguyen Nang Hien Kinh Slaughterhouse Dong Anh District
14 Nguyen Thi He Kinh Wholesaler Dong Anh District
15 Dong Thi That Kinh Wholesaler Dong Anh District
16 Nguyen Van Hung Kinh Wholesaler Dong Anh District
17 Nguyen Thi Soi Kinh Wholesaler Tu Liem District, Hanoi
18 Ma Van Lanh Tay Slaughterhouse/ Retailer Ba Be district, Bac Kan
19 Nguyen Thi Nga Kinh Slaughterhouse/ Retailer Pac Nam district, Bac Kan
20 Nguyen Thi Nga Kinh Beef retailer Tu Liem District, Hanoi
21 Tran Thi Nga Kinh Beef retailer Cau Giay district, Hanoi
22 Nguyen Van Khai Kinh Beef retailer Thanh Xuan district, Hanoi
176 Annexes
Annex 8: Amount of manure from livestock production used for crop production in
selected households
Indicators
Free-range Part-time grazing Cut-and-carry
Sig. M Range M Range M Range
Livestock manure used
(tonnes/ha of crop land) 1.9
a 0.0 – 11.7 2.1
a 0.0 – 6.7 1.2
b 0.0 – 6.6 0.007
Source: Household interview 2007-2008 a, b
within a row not sharing the same superscript letter (p< 0.05).
If all samples are normally distributed with equal variances, ANOVA is used. If both conditions are not met, the
Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney Tests are used.
Annex 9: Pictures of cattle breeds in selected H’Mong households
Annexes 177
Annex 10: Pictures of cattle breeds in selected Tay households
Annex 11: Pictures of selected households practising the cut-and-carry system
H’Mong people habitats in the uplands and their homemade hydroelectricity
178 Annexes
Confinement of bulls for fattening by H’Mong households practising the cut-and-carry system
Cattle shed styles and hygiene conditions in the cut-and-carry system
Hygiene conditions next to living areas of H’Mong households in the cut-and-carry system
Annexes 179
Grass production during cropping season and winter season in the uplands, cut-and-carry
system
Grazing areas of cattle in the cut-and-carry system
Annex 12: Pictures of cattle shelters used in the part-time grazing system
180 Annexes
Cattle shelter styles and hygiene conditions in the part-time grazing system
Cattle grazing in natural pasture and grass production in the part-time grazing system
Annex 13: Pictures of cattle sheds in the free-range system
Annexes 181
Cattle shelter styles under Tay houses and the poor hygiene conditions in the free-range system
Grazing areas in a winter season and grass production in the free-range system
Poor hygiene conditions next to housing in the free-range system and burning of rice straw after
harvest
182 Annexes
Annex 14: Cattle markets on the study sites
Nghien Loan wholesale cattle market on an off-
season day
Partial view of the Cong Bang cattle market
Annex 15: Transportation of cattle from markets
Hired labour moving cattle from the market
to the area where middlemen gather
Transporting live cattle to the slaughterhouse
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
I declare that the work presented in this dissertation is, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, original and my own work, except as acknowledged in the text, and that the material
has not been submitted either in whole or in part for a degree at this or any other university.
Hoang Thi Huong Tra
Date: 28 November 2011
