CAN THO UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF AQUACULTURE AND FISHERIES AN ASSESSMENT ON AQUACULTURE STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL (ASC) CERITFICATION STANDARD APPLICATION FOR CATFISH (Pangasianodon hyphopthalmus) FARMS IN THE MEKONG DELTA, VIETNAM NGUYEN THANH TOAN A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor in Aquaculture Supervisor Dr TRUONG HOANG MINH Can Tho, January 2013 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my deep appreciation and sincere gratitude to: College of fisheries and aquaculture of Can Tho University created the useful conditions for studying Lecturers of Can Tho University and Auburn University, AIT University have taught me the experience during school Dr Truong Hoang Minh for his constant guidance and enthusiastically help during the thesis conducting time The companies of VINH HOAN, NGOC HA, ANVIFISH, GODACO, SOHA, as well as cooperatives Thot Not and O Mon supplied the useful data for my thesis Brothers and sisters from the postgraduate grade 18 have helped hospitably for analyzing data Friends from Advanced Aquaculture batch 34 and Aquaculture Economic batch 35 My Family and relatives encouraged and created favorable conditions for me to complete this program Everyone always facilitated and enthusiastically helped me complete the thesis Can Tho Jan, 25th 2013 Author Nguyen Thanh Toan i ABSTRACT An assessment on Aquaculture Stewardship Council - ASC certification standard application for Tra catfish (Pangasianodon hyphopthalmus) farms in the Mekong Delta was conducted from June to December 2012 in Can Tho city, Tien Giang, An Giang, Ben Tre, and Dong Thap provinces Thirty members in cooperatives of Thot Not and O Mon districts, Can Tho city and companies (Vinh Hoan, Ngoc Ha, Godaco, Anvifish and Sohafood) were interviewed The results showed that, ASC was a new standard, an independent not for profit organization, established in 2009 by WWF and IDH, its version was published in October 2010 The ASC compliance related to most concerned issues: legality, land and water use, waste management, genetic and biodiversity, feed management, drugs and chemicals and social responsibility that promoted the sustainable development for Tra cafish culture in the future Average farm size of farmers, cooperatives and companies were 1.41±1.52 ha; 0.95±0.56 and 14.10±5.06 ha, respectively Fish farmers and cooperatives were limited size, technique and finance Moreover, ASC had specific criteria that were hard to be complied and high certification cost for farmers and cooperatives while they had small scales, ASC was not known well to individual farmers and member of cooperatives because of not much information available Return rate of the ASC model of companies was 8.82±5.76%, having significantly financial efficiency meanwhile it was -7.88±6.68% and 5.20±9.23% in farmers and cooperatives, respectively As a result, ASC application gave higher price and economic efficiency Among companies interviewed and registered towards ASC certification, Vinh Hoan, Ngoc Ha and Anvifish companies were certified ASC in 2012 The application of ASC standard was important for building up the brand name of Vietnamese Tra catfish industry and meeting the demand of international customers as well as supporting sustainable Tra catfish production of the Mekong Delta in the future Key words: ASC, certification, Mekong Delta, Tra catfish, standard ii CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i ABSTRACT ii CONTENTS iii LIST OF TABLE iv LIST OF FIGURE v LIST OF ABBRIVIATION vi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.2 Objectives CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEWS 2.1 Review on Status of Tra catfish farming in Vietnam 2.2 Current standards and practices for Tra catfish farming in Mekong Delta 2.2.1 BMP 2.2.2 GAP 2.2.3 BAP 2.2.4 Organic Tra catfish farming 2.2.5 Viet GAP CHAPTER 3: METHODS AND MATERIALS 3.1 Study area 3.2 Data collection 3.2.1 Secondary data 3.2.2 Primary data 3.2.3 Sample size 10 3.2.4 The list of main variables in questionnaire 10 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 12 4.1 The overview of the standard certification of ASC in Mekong Delta 12 4.2 The general information 12 4.3 The procedures of the standard certification of ASC 13 4.4 The technical status of Pangasius farms 14 4.4.1 Farming area 14 4.4.2 The information of Pangasius Seed 15 4.4.3 The water management in pond 16 4.4.4 The culturing time, harvest, yield, survival rate 17 4.5 The financial efficiency of farmer, cooperative and company 18 4.6 The perception of Pangasius farmer, cooperative and company 22 4.7 The assessment of the ASC criteria application of farms 23 4.8 Advantages and disadvantages of ASC standard application 24 4.8.1 Advantages 24 4.8.2 Disadvantages 25 Chapter 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 27 5.1 Conclusions 27 5.2 Recommendations 27 REFERENCES 28 APPENDIX iii LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: Number of surveyed farms 10 Table 3.2: The complex variables and single variables in the questionnaire ………………………………………………………… ……… .11 Table 4.1: General information of Pangasius farms (mean±std) 13 Table 4.2: Logo fee 14 Table 4.3: The aquaculture area of different groups 15 Table 4.4: The information of Pangasius Seed 16 Table 4.5: The water exchange 17 Table 4.6: The culturing time, harvest, yield, survival rate 18 Table 4.7: The major economic indicators 19 Table 4.8: Perceptions of Pangasius farmer, cooperative and company 23 Table 4.9: The analysis of advantages and disadvantages of ASC standard Application……………………………………………………….26 iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1: Map of the study areas 10 Figure 4.1: Procedures of the standard certification of ASC 13 Figure 4.2: Logo 14 Figure 4.3: Rate of return (%) and Benefit – cost rate (time) 20 Figure 4.4: Structures of production cost of Farmer, Cooperative and Company 21 v LIST OF ABBRIVIATION ACC ASC ASEAN BMP Aquaculture Certification Council Aquaculture Stewardship Council Association of Southeast Asian Nations Best Aquaculture Practices Better management practices CAB Conformity Assessment Body CoC CUVN DARD EU FAO FIS GAA GAP GMOs Ha HACCP IDH Ind IQF ISO MPEDA NACA NAFIQAVED Code of Conduct for responsible Aquaculture Control Union Vietnam Department of Agriculture and Rural Development European Union Food and Agriculture Organization Fish Information and Services Global Aquaculture Alliance Good Aquaculture Practices Genetically modified Objectives Hectare Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points Dutch Sustainable Trade Initiative individual Individual Quick Frozen International Organization for Standardization The Marine Products Export Development Authority The Network of Aquaculture Centers in Asia-Pacific National Fisheries Quality Assurance and Veterinary Directorate Non-Government Organization Pangasius Aquaculture Dialogue Social and Accountability Safe quality food Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat Total ammonia nitrogen The Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers Vietnam Dong World Trade Organization World Wild Fund Yes/N BAP NGO PAD SA SQF SWOT TAN VASEP VND WTO WWF Y/N vi CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The stripped catfish is among the most popularly cultured species in the Mekong Delta together with high production and foreign currency Vietnamese Pangasius export in 2010 reached US$1.427 billion; the farming area was 5,400 with over 1.1 million tones in production In 2011, Vietnam reached US$1.8 billion of Pangasius export higher than 2010, rising 26.5 percent over last year The farming area was 5,140 that is lower than 2010, but the production was 1.1 million tones Pangasius has been being exported to 80 countries in the world (EU, US, Spain Mexico, Australia, China and Germany…) (http://www.vasep.com.vn) In 2012, Vietnamese farming area went down 5,300 and produced 865,000 tones of Pangasius The production was lower than the previous years because of low price and high cost with the value of 1.37 billion dollars (http://www.fistenet.gov.vn) Stocking density in pond culture is around 40-60 ind/m2 Yields reach 250-300 tones/ha/crop, exceptionally reaching 500 tones/ha/crop in ponds (FAO, 2012) The higher stocking density of tra catfish is applied, the more disease and negative environmental effects happen As a result, farmers have to face the problems relating to heavily environmental pollution, disease outbreak, low seed quality… because they have usually used chemicals and drugs to treat these Such actions will reduce the importers‟ and customers‟ reliability Together with exporting the Tra catfish products into hard imported countries in the world, some certification standards of Tra catfish farming and processing are created to ensure food hygiene safety and traceability for imported foodstuff of animal origin such as: Global GAP and ASC and CoC (applying for processor),… in the Mekong Delta The rapid growth of Tra catfish farming has raised concerns on the environmental and social aspects of this industry In Vietnam, the Mekong Delta is the key aquaculture area; the farming model is towards sustainability by certification standards, such as: ASC and Global GAP That is the general trend of Pangasius farming in the Mekong Delta Especially, when WWF and VASEP agreed to conduct the ASC certification in Vietnam in 2010, WWF as a partner of ASC initiated the meeting coordinate Pangasius Aquaculture Dialogue (PAD) to build the standards which are measurable and based on the capacity to limit the negative impacts from the movement of catfish farming The requirement of ASC standard is quite high and people wonder if farmers can meet the need of all criteria of this standard.Thus, “An assessment on ASC certification standard application for tra catfish (Pangasianodon hyphopthalmus) farms in the Mekong Delta” was conducted to figure out somewhat has been being cared 1.2 Objectives General objectives: The research is conducted to review on the criteria of ASC Certification and import markets of ASC certified catfish and to evaluate catfish farmers‟ perception and application for ASC Certification to identify the advantages and disadvantages of catfish farmers in application to ASC Certification Specific objectives: i To describe the criteria of ASC Certification Standards for farming; ii To identify technical and financial efficiency of fish farming; iii To evaluate the applicability of ASC standards of Pangasius farming in the Mekong Delta; iv To address advantages and disadvantages of ASC standard application v To propose some possible solutions for the applicability ASC standards for Pangasius farming in Can Tho CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEWS 2.1 Review on Status of Tra catfish farming in Vietnam From 2000, Pangasius became an important object cultured in Vietnam According to VASEP in 2008, exports of fish products from Vietnam reached USD 1.45 billion Production and export of Pangasius in 2011 reached impressive results if compared with the efficient production of agricultural commodities such as shrimp, rice, subsidiary crops,… The output of tra catfish was harvested nearly 1.2 million tones; export reached more than USD 1.8 billion, up 26.5% compared to 2010 Vietnamese catfish were present in 135 markets worldwide, of which the exports to the EU, the key market for exporting of tra catfish, accounted for 29.1%; The United States accounted for 18.4% of the proportion of fish exports in 2011 reached 29.5% of total aquaculture products exported, maintaining second position after shrimp (http://www.vasep.com.vn) Vietnam had 401 seafood processing plants of which 301 factories export to the European standards, 30 are certified for exporting to Russia and 16 are accepted as ISO certified factories in 2012 The Pangasius export developed very much form 2002 – 2003 and that got highest in 2008 (De Silva SS and Phuong, N T., 2011) In 10 years from 1998 – 2007, the total area was 6,000 ha, gained six times, annual production of Pangasius was from 7,000 to over million tones that went up 45 times over the period The export value increased 50 times from 19.7 million to 979.036 million dollars A total of about 0.2 million people in the Mekong Delta was concerned with the Pangasius farming (Sinh and Hien, 2008) The total production and the fillet production were 1.2 metric tones and US$ 1.45 billion, respectively (Dung, 2008) According to Sinh (2011), in recent years, the tra catfish farming has developed strongly together with the market expansion In 2009, the Pangasius was exported to 80 countries The rapid growth of Tra catfish was linked to the changes in pond culture system from extensive to intensive model during 2002 – 2010, the small farms dominated in periods of pond area, most were farmers controlled, owned and rented, 81.9% had the area less than (De Silva SS and Phuong, N T., 2011) However, the Pangasius farming and selling had difficulties of unstable price, high production cost and fluctuated market,… From these difficulties, farmers established the linkages from themselves to other farmers in cooperatives called horizontal linkage and to the enterprises called vertical linkage According to Oanh and Minh (2011), the non-linked models gave the 3 Total Water frequency (day/time) Total Water exchange rate (%) Total Culture time (month) Total Yield (ton/ha/crop) Total Harvested size (kg/ind) Total Reservoir area (ha) Total Settling area (ha) Total 30 65 30 30 65 30 30 65 30 30 65 30 30 65 30 30 65 30 30 65 30 37 63.5673 84.1080 68.4328 1.1667 1.5333 2.6000 1.4462 32.6667 32.3333 30.0000 32.3077 7.5500 8.0167 7.5000 7.7615 326.1413 372.7790 336.9560 348.4983 9833 9733 8800 9708 0023 0200 9920 0866 0000 0000 4100 0554 10.19433 3.89594 12.08325 37905 77608 89443 72953 4.68551 4.68551 00000 4.51360 49741 1.07064 1.41421 90185 114.25051 112.25356 105.66949 113.32883 13412 10807 04472 11953 00728 10954 34405 28690 00000 00000 23558 16235 1.86122 1.74232 1.49874 06920 14169 40000 09049 85545 85545 00000 55984 09081 19547 63246 11186 20.85919 20.49460 47.25683 14.05671 02449 01973 02000 01483 00133 02000 15386 03559 00000 00000 10536 02669 59.7607 79.2706 65.4387 1.0251 1.2435 1.4894 1.2654 30.9171 30.5837 30.0000 31.1893 7.3643 7.6169 5.7440 7.5381 283.4795 330.8628 205.7500 320.4168 9333 9330 8245 9412 -.0004 -.0209 5648 0155 0000 0000 1175 0013 67.3740 88.9454 71.4269 1.3082 1.8231 3.7106 1.6269 34.4163 34.0829 30.0000 33.4261 7.7357 8.4164 9.2560 7.9850 368.8032 414.6952 468.1620 376.5798 1.0334 1.0137 9355 1.0004 0051 0609 1.4192 1577 0000 0000 7025 1095 45.14 80.00 45.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 30.00 7.00 6.00 6.50 6.00 188.24 138.89 200.00 138.89 80 80 80 80 00 00 50 00 00 00 00 00 86.36 90.54 95.24 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 45.00 50.00 30.00 50.00 8.00 11.00 10.00 11.00 615.38 509.09 488.92 615.38 1.30 1.30 90 1.30 03 60 1.38 1.38 00 00 60 60 Revenue (m/ha/crop) Fish price VND/kg) pond cost (m/ha/crop) Drugs and chemical cost (m/ha/crop) Labor cost (m/ha/crop) Seed cost (m/ha/crop) Feed cost (m/ha/crop) Other cost Total Total Total Total 30 30 65 30 30 65 30 30 65 30 30 7484.5733 8826.8130 9045.3440 8224.1278 22.9833 23.7833 26.8000 23.6462 14.1333 29.8223 25.4000 22.2411 311.9587 383.7187 262.6300 2597.96134 2650.54433 2944.21116 2694.95903 83546 1.66445 57009 1.60741 15.16535 8.98136 4.56070 14.16330 107.44342 111.36460 84.10022 474.32068 483.92097 1316.69126 334.26853 15253 30389 25495 19937 2.76880 1.63976 2.03961 1.75674 19.61639 20.33230 37.61076 6514.4786 7837.0835 5389.6230 7556.3497 22.6714 23.1618 26.0921 23.2479 8.4705 26.4686 19.7371 18.7316 271.8386 342.1344 158.2058 8454.6680 9816.5425 12701.0650 8891.9060 23.2953 24.4049 27.5079 24.0445 19.7962 33.1760 31.0629 25.7506 352.0787 425.3029 367.0542 4423.53 3472.22 5400.00 3472.22 21.00 20.00 26.00 20.00 2.00 11.11 20.00 2.00 173.33 161.11 160.00 14153.85 12750.00 13445.19 14153.85 25.00 27.00 27.50 27.50 55.00 40.73 30.00 55.00 605.00 581.82 391.13 65 341.2842 114.11909 14.15473 313.0068 369.5615 160.00 605.00 Total 30 30 24.3747 46.7370 61.9020 24.51157 41.25620 33.80910 4.47518 7.53232 15.11989 15.2219 31.3317 19.9225 33.5274 62.1423 103.8815 00 00 36.40 68.06 120.00 120.00 65 37.5825 35.80782 4.44141 28.7097 46.4552 00 120.00 Total Total 30 30 65 30 30 65 30 313.2250 394.6813 346.8000 353.4029 5950.7317 6701.1817 5782.0060 6284.1143 118.5063 140.64265 283.42594 107.55092 218.27591 2362.61514 1989.64091 1873.74543 2166.99296 109.87353 25.67772 51.74626 48.09823 27.07379 431.35254 363.25707 837.96443 268.78240 20.06007 260.7082 288.8483 213.2579 299.3168 5068.5167 5958.2375 3455.4438 5747.1597 77.4789 365.7418 500.5143 480.3421 407.4890 6832.9467 7444.1258 8108.5682 6821.0689 159.5338 75.00 105.00 220.00 75.00 3255.00 2520.83 3322.00 2520.83 28.56 655.71 1650.00 516.00 1650.00 12553.85 9240.00 8419.13 12553.85 500.00 (m/ha/crop) Interest cost (m/ha/crop) TVC (m/ha/crop) TFC (m/ha/crop) TC (m/ha/crop) Total net income (m/ha/ crop) Return rate (m/ha/ crop) Production cost VND/ kg Total Total Total 30 65 30 30 65 30 30 65 30 30 177.5783 286.2000 158.6698 615.0007 688.8150 681.9620 654.2197 7347.9303 8422.5343 7446.9000 7851.5145 803.4146 933.0885 184.19531 10.87198 151.80758 235.86913 254.36029 235.31565 243.57557 2589.71168 2476.58147 2261.67506 2534.23709 278.22946 331.57846 33.62931 4.86210 18.82941 43.06361 46.43962 105.23636 30.21183 472.81450 452.15985 1011.45183 314.33343 50.79752 60.53767 108.7987 272.7007 121.0538 526.9257 593.8353 389.7790 593.8646 6380.9161 7497.7636 4638.6595 7223.5613 699.5220 809.2751 246.3580 299.6993 196.2859 703.0756 783.7947 974.1450 714.5748 8314.9446 9347.3051 10255.1405 8479.4677 907.3072 1056.9019 -342.15 270.00 -342.15 338.52 211.75 361.07 211.75 4398.52 3077.36 4399.47 3077.36 395.87 393.99 541.57 300.00 541.57 1151.92 1201.20 919.94 1201.20 14133.31 11997.17 10596.08 14133.31 1554.66 1679.60 846.1582 282.90796 126.52029 494.8816 1197.4348 439.95 1128.83 Total Total Total Total 65 30 30 65 30 30 65 30 30 65 30 30 866.5521 8151.3449 9355.6228 8293.0582 8718.0665 -666.7716 -528.8098 752.2858 -493.9387 -7.8760 -5.2002 8.8222 -5.3565 25.0516 25.1741 24.6622 306.38904 2836.55846 2769.80767 2488.06944 2804.33179 670.63949 1011.39919 652.03068 910.92718 6.57749 9.22731 5.76121 8.88547 1.73286 1.19598 83534 38.00288 517.88235 505.69538 1112.69848 347.83455 122.44146 184.65538 291.59698 112.98661 1.20088 1.68467 2.57649 1.10211 31638 21836 37358 790.6326 7092.1566 8321.3596 5203.7120 8023.1871 -917.1925 -906.4725 -57.3172 -719.6554 -10.3320 -8.6458 1.6687 -7.5583 24.4046 24.7275 23.6250 942.4715 9210.5333 10389.8860 11382.4044 9412.9459 -416.3507 -151.1472 1561.8888 -268.2220 -5.4199 -1.7547 15.9757 -3.1548 25.6987 25.6207 25.6994 393.99 4794.39 3508.19 4839.42 3508.19 -2413.21 -3105.28 -12.33 -3105.28 -21.52 -23.69 -.15 -23.69 22.75 23.05 23.84 1679.60 15687.97 13676.77 11655.69 15687.97 280.86 851.22 1789.50 1789.50 2.95 7.15 15.35 15.35 29.18 27.39 26.04 Profit and loss of kg fish Benefit – cost rate (time) Investment efficiency (m/ha/ crop) Total Total Total Total 65 30 30 65 30 30 65 30 30 25.0782 -2.0683 -1.3907 2.1378 -1.4320 0.92124 0.947998 1.088222 0.946435 -.0788 -.0520 0882 1.43894 1.82045 2.41662 1.37995 2.33520 0.065775 0.092273 0.057612 0.088855 06577 09227 05761 17848 33237 44121 61713 28965 0.012009 0.016847 0.025765 0.011021 01201 01685 02576 24.7216 -2.7481 -2.2931 4244 -2.0107 0.89668 0.913542 1.016687 0.924417 -.1033 -.0865 0167 25.4347 -1.3885 -.4884 3.8512 -.8534 0.945801 0.982453 1.159757 0.968452 -.0542 -.0175 1598 22.75 -6.18 -6.21 -.04 -6.21 0.784789 0.763051 0.99852 0.763051 -.22 -.24 00 29.18 67 1.70 3.66 3.66 1.029531 1.071539 1.15353 1.15353 03 07 15 65 -.0536 08885 01102 -.0756 -.0315 -.24 15 ANOVA Rented labor (ind) Experiene (year) Total area (ha) Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Sum of Squares 21.069 194.032 215.101 7.351 906.433 913.785 774.173 178.532 952.705 427.638 df 62 64 62 64 62 64 Mean Square 10.535 3.130 F 3.366 Sig .041 3.676 14.620 251 778 387.087 2.880 134.426 000 213.819 117.627 000 Total water surface area (ha) Water level (m) density (ind/m2) Seed size (ind/kg) FCR Survival rate (%) Water frequency (day/time) Water exchange rate (%) Culture time (month) Yield (ton/ha/crop) Harvested size (kg/ind) Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups 112.702 540.340 9.592 16.952 26.545 2083.342 16167.457 18250.799 17697.051 72610.333 90307.385 051 3.822 3.873 2091.005 7253.315 9344.319 9.228 24.833 34.062 30.513 1273.333 1303.846 3.637 48.417 52.054 33347.714 788631.344 821979.058 046 868 62 64 62 64 62 64 62 64 62 64 62 64 62 64 62 64 62 64 62 64 62 1.818 4.796 273 17.541 000 1041.671 260.765 3.995 023 8848.526 1171.134 7.556 001 026 062 415 662 1045.502 116.989 8.937 000 4.614 401 11.520 000 15.256 20.538 743 480 1.819 781 2.329 106 16673.857 12719.860 1.311 277 023 014 1.647 201 Reservoir area (ha) Settling area (ha) Revenue (m/ha/crop) Fish price (VND/kg) pond cost (m/ha/crop) Drugs and chemical cost (m/ha/crop) Labor cost (m/ha/crop) Seed cost (m/ha/crop) Feed cost (m/ha/crop) Other cost (m/ha/crop) Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total 914 4.445 823 5.268 727 222 949 30677088.020 434142380.148 464819468.168 63.478 101.883 64 62 64 34 36 62 64 62 165.362 64 Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups 3746.223 9092.127 12838.349 110752.542 722730.080 833482.622 10704.742 71356.069 82060.812 99763.173 2949476.762 3049239.935 9813238.781 290721704.059 300534942.840 140438.860 1334475.868 62 64 62 64 62 64 62 64 62 64 62 2.222 013 167.421 000 363 007 55.665 000 15338544.010 7002296.454 2.191 120 31.739 1.643 19.314 000 1873.111 146.647 12.773 000 55376.271 11656.937 4.750 012 5352.371 1150.904 4.651 013 49881.586 47572.206 1.049 357 4906619.391 4689059.743 1.046 357 70219.430 21523.804 3.262 045 Interest cost (m/ha/crop) TVC (m/ha/crop) TFC (m/ha/crop) TC (m/ha/crop) Total net income (m/ha/ crop) Return rate (m/ha/ crop) Production cost VND/ kg Profit and loss of kg fish Benefit – cost rate (time) Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total 1474914.728 85897.197 3711162.433 3797059.630 18208384.357 392822504.377 411030888.734 254482.558 5753468.976 64 62 64 62 64 62 6007951.533 64 Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups Within Groups Total 22732701.794 480581012.374 503313714.168 8697993.816 44408459.596 53106453.412 1196.338 3856.560 5052.897 1.162 131.353 132.515 75.916 273.086 349.002 62 64 62 64 62 64 62 64 62 64 Between Groups Within Groups Total Between Groups 0.119634 0.385656 0.50529 120 62 64 42948.598 59857.459 718 492 9104192.179 6335846.845 1.437 245 127241.279 92797.887 1.371 261 11366350.897 7751306.651 1.466 239 4348996.908 716265.477 6.072 004 598.169 62.203 9.616 000 581 2.119 274 761 37.958 4.405 8.618 000 0.059817 0.00622 9.616465 0.0002 060 9.616 000 Investment efficiency (m/ha/ crop) Within Groups Total 386 62 505 64 006 Multiple Comparisons LSD (I) (J) organiz organizat Dependent Variable ation ion Rented labor (ind) Total area (ha) Total water surface area (ha) 2 3 2 3 2 3 Mean Difference (I-J) -1.10667(*) -1.31800 1.10667(*) -.21133 1.31800 21133 46667 -12.69067(*) -.46667 -13.15733(*) 12.69067(*) 13.15733(*) 54933 -9.30000(*) -.54933 -9.84933(*) Std Error 45677 85453 45677 85453 85453 85453 43814 81969 43814 81969 81969 81969 34812 65127 34812 65127 Sig .018 128 018 805 128 805 291 000 291 000 000 000 120 000 120 000 95% Confidence Interval Lower bound Upper boound -2.0197 -.1936 -3.0262 3902 1936 2.0197 -1.9195 1.4969 -.3902 3.0262 -1.4969 1.9195 -.4092 1.3425 -14.3292 -11.0521 -1.3425 4092 -14.7959 -11.5188 11.0521 14.3292 11.5188 14.7959 -.1465 1.2452 -10.6019 -7.9981 -1.2452 1465 -11.1512 -8.5475 Seed size (ind/kg Survival rate (%) Water frequency (day/time) Water exchange rate (%) Reservoir area (ha) 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 9.30000(*) 9.84933(*) -31.00000(*) 11.16667 31.00000(*) 42.16667(*) -11.16667 -42.16667(*) 7.11833(*) -13.42233(*) -7.11833(*) -20.54067(*) 13.42233(*) 20.54067(*) -.36667(*) -1.43333(*) 36667(*) -1.06667(*) 1.43333(*) 1.06667(*) 33333 2.66667 -.33333 2.33333 -2.66667 -2.33333 -.01767 -.98967(*) 01767 -.97200(*) 98967(*) 65127 65127 8.83604 16.53072 8.83604 16.53072 16.53072 16.53072 2.79272 5.22469 2.79272 5.22469 5.22469 5.22469 16341 30571 16341 30571 30571 30571 1.17012 2.18909 1.17012 2.18909 2.18909 2.18909 02975 05565 02975 05565 05565 000 000 001 502 001 013 502 013 013 013 013 000 013 000 028 000 028 001 000 001 777 228 777 291 228 291 555 000 555 000 000 7.9981 8.5475 -48.6630 -21.8778 13.3370 9.1222 -44.2111 -75.2111 1.5358 -23.8663 -12.7009 -30.9847 2.9783 10.0967 -.6933 -2.0444 0400 -1.6778 8222 4556 -2.0057 -1.7093 -2.6724 -2.0426 -7.0426 -6.7093 -.0771 -1.1009 -.0418 -1.0833 8784 10.6019 11.1512 -13.3370 44.2111 48.6630 75.2111 21.8778 -9.1222 12.7009 -2.9783 -1.5358 -10.0967 23.8663 30.9847 -.0400 -.8222 6933 -.4556 2.0444 1.6778 2.6724 7.0426 2.0057 6.7093 1.7093 2.0426 0418 -.8784 0771 -.8607 1.1009 Settling area (ha) Fish price (VND/kg) pond cost (m/ha/crop) Labor cost (m/ha/crop) Total net income (m/ha/ crop) 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 97200(*) 00000 -.41000(*) 00000 -.41000(*) 41000(*) 41000(*) -.80000(*) -3.81667(*) 80000(*) -3.01667(*) 3.81667(*) 3.01667(*) -15.68900(*) -11.26667 15.68900(*) 4.42233 11.26667 -4.42233 -22.36233(*) -37.52733(*) 22.36233(*) -15.16500 37.52733(*) 15.16500 -137.96179 -1419.05741(*) 137.96179 -1281.09562(*) 1419.05741(*) 1281.09562(*) 05565 05901 06761 05901 03903 06761 03903 33099 61922 33099 61922 61922 61922 3.12674 5.84959 3.12674 5.84959 5.84959 5.84959 8.75939 16.38732 8.75939 16.38732 16.38732 16.38732 218.52009 408.81366 218.52009 408.81366 408.81366 408.81366 000 1.000 000 1.000 000 000 000 019 000 019 000 000 000 000 059 000 453 059 453 013 025 013 358 025 358 530 001 530 003 001 003 8607 -.1199 -.5474 -.1199 -.4893 2726 3307 -1.4616 -5.0545 1384 -4.2545 2.5789 1.7789 -21.9393 -22.9598 9.4387 -7.2708 -.4265 -16.1155 -39.8721 -70.2851 4.8526 -47.9228 4.7695 -17.5928 -574.7772 -2236.2643 -298.8537 -2098.3025 601.8505 463.8888 1.0833 1199 -.2726 1199 -.3307 5474 4893 -.1384 -2.5789 1.4616 -1.7789 5.0545 4.2545 -9.4387 4265 21.9393 16.1155 22.9598 7.2708 -4.8526 -4.7695 39.8721 17.5928 70.2851 47.9228 298.8537 -601.8505 574.7772 -463.8888 2236.2643 2098.3025 Rate return (m/ha/ crop) Production cost VND/ kg Profit and loss of kg fish Benefit – cost rate (time) Investment efficiency (m/ha/ crop) 3 -2.67572 -16.69814(*) 2.67572 -14.02242(*) 16.69814(*) 2.03638 3.80972 2.03638 3.80972 3.80972 194 000 194 000 000 -6.7464 -24.3137 -1.3949 -21.6379 9.0826 1.3949 -9.0826 6.7464 -6.4069 24.3137 14.02242(*) 3.80972 000 6.4069 21.6379 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 -.12243 38946 12243 51188 -.38946 -.51188 -.67757 -4.20612(*) 67757 -3.52855(*) 4.20612(*) 3.52855(*) -0.02676 -0.16698(*) 0.026757 -0.14022(*) 0.166981(*) 0.140224(*) -.02676 -.16698(*) 02676 -.14022(*) 16698(*) 14022(*) 37582 70309 37582 70309 70309 70309 54189 1.01378 54189 1.01378 1.01378 1.01378 0.020364 0.038097 0.020364 0.038097 0.038097 0.038097 02036 03810 02036 03810 03810 03810 746 582 746 469 582 469 216 000 216 001 000 001 0.1937 4.61E-05 0.1937 0.000489 4.61E-05 0.000489 194 000 194 000 000 000 -.8737 -1.0160 -.6288 -.8936 -1.7949 -1.9173 -1.7608 -6.2326 -.4056 -5.5551 2.1796 1.5020 -0.06746 -0.24314 -0.01395 -0.21638 0.090826 0.064069 -.0675 -.2431 -.0139 -.2164 0908 0641 6288 1.7949 8737 1.9173 1.0160 8936 4056 -2.1796 1.7608 -1.5020 6.2326 5.5551 0.013949 -0.09083 0.067464 -0.06407 0.243137 0.216379 0139 -.0908 0675 -.0641 2431 2164 * The mean difference is significant at the 05 level Multiple Comparisons Tamhane Dependent Variable (J) (I) organ organizati izatio on n Experiene (year) Water level (m) 3 2 3 2 Mean Difference (I-J) -.50000 63333 50000 1.13333 -.63333 -1.13333 -.79667(*) -.52333(*) 79667(*) 27333 52333(*) -.27333 -10.97533(*) 2.25200 Std Error 97864 2.01761 97864 2.05109 2.01761 2.05109 13876 14564 13876 13433 14564 13433 4.21648 6.44222 Sig .941 987 941 938 987 938 000 008 000 182 008 182 035 982 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound -2.9076 1.9076 -6.5033 7.7700 -1.9076 2.9076 -5.9234 8.1900 -7.7700 6.5033 -8.1900 5.9234 -1.1381 -.4552 -.9134 -.1333 4552 1.1381 -.0990 6457 1333 9134 -.6457 0990 -21.3644 -.5863 -19.3842 23.8882 density (ind/m2) FCR Culture time (month) Yield (ton/ha/crop Harvested size (kg/ind) Revenue (m/ha/crop) 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 10.97533(*) 13.22733 -2.25200 -13.22733 -.03267 07100 03267 10367 -.07100 -.10367 -.46667 05000 46667 51667 -.05000 -.51667 -46.63767 -10.81467 46.63767 35.82300 10.81467 -35.82300 01000 10333(*) -.01000 09333(*) -.10333(*) -.09333(*) -1342.23967 -1560.77067 1342.23967 4.21648 6.80268 6.44222 6.80268 06619 03027 06619 06692 03027 06692 21554 63894 21554 66197 63894 66197 29.24269 51.65573 29.24269 51.50958 51.65573 51.50958 03145 03162 03145 02809 03162 02809 677.61317 1399.51991 677.61317 035 255 982 255 947 107 947 343 107 343 105 1.000 105 853 1.000 853 310 996 310 886 996 886 985 012 985 015 012 015 149 678 149 5863 -8.0616 -23.8882 -34.5163 -.1987 -.0128 -.1333 -.0646 -.1548 -.2720 -1.0032 -2.4101 -.0699 -1.8569 -2.5101 -2.8902 -118.5358 -183.3312 -25.2604 -136.9232 -161.7019 -208.5692 -.0674 0206 -.0874 0171 -.1861 -.1696 -3008.2706 -6444.8456 -323.7913 21.3644 34.5163 19.3842 8.0616 1333 1548 1987 2720 0128 0646 0699 2.5101 1.0032 2.8902 2.4101 1.8569 25.2604 161.7019 118.5358 208.5692 183.3312 136.9232 0874 1861 0674 1696 -.0206 -.0171 323.7913 3323.3043 3008.2706 Drugs and chemical cost (m/ha/crop) Seed cost (m/ha/crop) Feed cost (m/ha/crop) Other cost (m/ha/crop) Interest cost (m/ha/crop) 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 -218.53100 1560.77067 218.53100 -71.76000(*) 49.32867 71.76000(*) 121.08867 -49.32867 -121.08867 -81.45633 -33.57500 81.45633 47.88133 33.57500 -47.88133 -750.45000 168.72567 750.45000 919.17567 -168.72567 -919.17567 -59.07200 -167.69367(*) 59.07200 -108.62167(*) 167.69367(*) 108.62167(*) -73.81433 -66.96133 73.81433 6.85300 1402.80269 1399.51991 1402.80269 28.25253 42.41901 28.25253 42.75479 42.41901 42.75479 57.76695 54.52325 57.76695 70.64783 54.52325 70.64783 563.93325 942.46984 563.93325 913.31270 942.46984 913.31270 39.15785 20.64089 39.15785 33.97897 20.64089 33.97897 63.33335 113.70649 63.33335 115.02752 998 678 998 041 637 041 079 637 079 419 914 419 881 914 881 466 997 466 732 997 732 360 000 360 010 000 010 576 926 576 1.000 -5094.8619 -3323.3043 -4657.7999 -141.2256 -86.4908 2.2944 -14.4989 -185.1481 -256.6762 -225.0409 -207.0680 -62.1282 -140.7683 -139.9180 -236.5310 -2138.1533 -2859.4247 -637.2533 -2144.0821 -3196.8760 -3982.4334 -155.9957 -219.7185 -37.8517 -194.5149 115.6688 22.7285 -229.5548 -453.3873 -81.9262 -377.3318 4657.7999 6444.8456 5094.8619 -2.2944 185.1481 141.2256 256.6762 86.4908 14.4989 62.1282 139.9180 225.0409 236.5310 207.0680 140.7683 637.2533 3196.8760 2138.1533 3982.4334 2859.4247 2144.0821 37.8517 -115.6688 155.9957 -22.7285 219.7185 194.5149 81.9262 319.4647 229.5548 391.0378 TVC (m/ha/crop) TFC (m/ha/crop) TC (m/ha/crop) Water exchange rate (%) 66.96133 113.70649 926 -319.4647 453.3873 -6.85300 115.02752 1.000 -391.0378 377.3318 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 -1074.60400 -98.96967 1074.60400 975.63433 98.96967 -975.63433 -129.67388 -42.74359 129.67388 86.93029 42.74359 -86.93029 -1204.27788 -141.71326 1204.27788 1062.56462 141.71326 -1062.56462 0.333333 2.666667(*) -0.33333 2.333333(*) -2.66667(*) -2.33333(*) 654.21868 1116.50722 654.21868 1107.91847 1116.50722 1107.91847 79.02656 136.33697 79.02656 140.25759 136.33697 140.25759 723.83005 1227.31415 723.83005 1222.22163 1227.31415 1222.22163 1.209794 0.855454 1.209794 0.855454 0.855454 0.855454 285 1.000 285 799 1.000 799 286 987 286 914 987 914 275 999 275 804 999 804 0.989907 0.012236 0.989907 0.031809 0.012236 0.031809 -2683.1914 -3776.1221 -533.9834 -2713.3071 -3578.1827 -4664.5758 -324.1461 -508.0228 -64.7983 -372.3096 -422.5356 -546.1702 -2983.9499 -4188.1757 -575.3941 -2990.7534 -3904.7492 -5115.8826 -2.64112 0.49929 -3.30779 0.165956 -4.83404 -4.50071 533.9834 3578.1827 2683.1914 4664.5758 3776.1221 2713.3071 64.7983 422.5356 324.1461 546.1702 508.0228 372.3096 575.3941 3904.7492 2983.9499 5115.8826 4188.1757 2990.7534 3.307789 4.834044 2.641122 4.50071 -0.49929 -0.16596 * The mean difference is significant at the 05 level [...]... status in intensive Catfish (Pangasinodon hypophthalmus) farming in An Giang and Can Tho Postgraduate thesis, Aquaculture and Fisheries College, Can Tho University 8 DARD Can Tho, 2010 Consumption and production status report in 2010 and production plan in 2011, Can Tho City 9 De Silva SS and Phuong, N T., (2011) Striped catfish (Pangasinodon hypophthalmus) farming in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam: a tumultuous... certification for fish meal, etc And only one company could met most of the criteria of ASC which was Vinh Hoan accounted 91/93 criteria for pond 4.8 Advantages and disadvantages of ASC standard application 4.8.1 Advantages According to the opinion of the people asked, the Pangasius culture toward standard certification is the development trend in the world because there are many trade and technical... members of cooperative Company: farms of company) 3.2.4 The list of main variables in questionnaire The main variables are technical and financial information relating to ASC standards shown in Table 3.2 10 Table 3.2: The complex variables and single variables in the questionnaire Complex variable General information Technical information Finance Single variable Name, age, labor in family, rented labor,... encouraged producing the safety products, social and environmental responsibility and long-term sustainability in the 5 aquaculture industry The BAP program outlines standards for each type of facility, from hatchery and feed mill to farm and processing plant BAP currently certifies the farms and hatcheries of salmon, tilapia, channel catfish and Pangasius included in seafood processing plants and feed mills... no farms certified BMP, which only exists in the documents of CARD and SUMA projects The CARD is supported by Australia government and it contributes on building the BMP/GAP model in agriculture of Vietnam Many leaflets and booklets for applying BMP to shrimp and Tra catfish farming in the Mekong Delta are published BMP is a set of guidelines on the management, not the standard BMP is easy to apply and... erected on drug residue As a result, farms in the Mekong Delta have been complying the principles of international certification standards: BMP, GAP, BAP, organic certification and Viet Gap,… especially ASC, to improve the hygiene food, clear traceability and environmental-friendly product,… 2.2 Current standards and practices for Tra catfish farming in Mekong Delta 2.2.1 BMP Up to now, the Mekong Delta... Environment: farmers, cooperatives andenterprises, supposed that the certification standard for Pangasisus contributed the environmental protection The farmers and companies said that the mud and chemicals discharged destroyed the environment; the ASC standard will help people acknowledge that the action of mud and water discharge was illegal and caused environmental pollution The application of this standard. .. accessing to services; raising awareness of the production of goods, product certification, responding the needs of the market; improving the quality of aquaculture products without increasing the cost of production, and becoming the cornerstone of the system of voluntary aquaculture certification, and taking advantage of the resources However, up to now, the Viet GAP standard was not recognized by the international... advantages than others The international standard helped Pangasius grow-out farm had higher product price both in the local and international markets because it met demands of hard markets such as: product traceability, environment and wild animal protection,… these increased the consumer‟s belief on product made in Vietnam 20 Interest 9% Other 4% Drugs and chemicals 4% Seed 5% Feed 78% Company Other 2% Interest... 14 standards: 3 community standards, 8 environment standards and 3 food safety standards as right property and regulatory compliance, community relations, worker safety and employee relations, wetland conservation and biodiversity protection, effluent management, sludge management, soil land and water conservation, fishmeal and fish oil management, control escapes,… BAP was known to be strict standards ... thesis Can Tho Jan, 25th 2013 Author Nguyen Thanh Toan i ABSTRACT An assessment on Aquaculture Stewardship Council - ASC certification standard application for Tra catfish (Pangasianodon hyphopthalmus). .. important for building up the brand name of Vietnamese Tra catfish industry and meeting the demand of international customers as well as supporting sustainable Tra catfish production of the Mekong. .. taught me the experience during school Dr Truong Hoang Minh for his constant guidance and enthusiastically help during the thesis conducting time The companies of VINH HOAN, NGOC HA, ANVIFISH,