Project Progress Report: Technical and economic feasibility of applying the Better Management Practices (BMP) to household aquaculture in Vietnam - MS 10 " pot

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

COLLABORATION FOR AGRICULTURE
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (CARD)


002/05 VIE
Technical and economic feasibility of applying the
Better Management Practices (BMP) to household
aquaculture in Vietnam


MS 10: Project Validation Report
Technical, economic, environmental and social indicators analysis of
BMP and non-BMP households in North Center Vietnam

Nguyen Xuan Suc
1*
, Mai Van Ha
1
, Le Xan
1
Elizabeth Petersen
2
, Virginia Mosk
2
and Steven Schilizzi
2

1
Research Institute for Aquaculture No 1 (RIA1), Tu Son, Bac Ninh
2
The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, NEDLANDS WA 6907
*
Corresponding Author: , Ph/Fax: +84 4 38780407



- 2/2009 -
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia
Acknowledgements
To complete this scientific report, the authors received a lot of supports from many persons
and/or organizations, the authors would like to thank the following organizations and persons:
•

Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD), which supported financial
for this study.
•

The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1 (Vietnam) and The University of Western
Australia, which are the main project parties.
•

The Agriculture and Fisheries Extension Centers of Nghe An, Ha Tinh and Thua Thien
Hue provinces, which are the project coordinated parties.
•

The units from Hung Hoa (Nghe An), Thach Ha (Ha Tinh) and Vinh Hung (Thua Thien
Hue) communes, where project are implementing

•

The demonstration farms and the households that are respondents of the survey, who were
supplied the data for this study.

List of abbreviations
BMP Better Management Practice
BCR Benefit Cost Ratio
CARD Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development
HH or hh Household
MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
NAFIQUAVED
National Fisheries Quality Assurance and Veterinary Directorate

Non-BMP Non Better Management Practice
PCR Polymerase Chain Reaction
TT-Hue Thua Thien Hue
VND Vietnamese Dong
WSD White Spot Disease

Definitions
• BMP farmer is defined as farmer who was trained on BMP.
• Non-BMP farmer is defined as farmer who was not trained on BMP.

List of figures
Figure 1. Vietnamese provincial map indicating the location of the three project provinces 7

Figure 2. Diagram sketching project area in Hung Hoa - Nghe An province 22

Figure 3. Diagram sketching project area in Thach Ha – Ha Tinh province 25

Figure 4. Diagram sketching project area in Vinh Hung-Thua Thien Hue province 27

Minestrone Report Project Validation
2
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia
List of tables
Table 1: Pond characteristics 9

Table 2. Pond preparation indicators 10

Table 3: Seed sources 11

Table 4: Seed test and seed quality 12

Table 5: Seed stocking size and stocking density. 13

Table 6: Water quality checking and shrimp disease testing 13

Table 7. Harvesting size and productivity 14

Table 8. Hire labor, fertilizers and lime costs 15

Table 9. Shrimp seed and feed cost 16

Table 10. Bio-product and chemical, energy and other costs 17

Table 11. Total cost, total income and benefit from shrimp aquaculture 18

Table 12. Benefit cost ratio (BCR) 19

Table 13. Prices of seed, feed and shrimp product. 19

Table 14. Household income sources. 21

Table 15: Level of environment parameters in Hung Hoa - Nghe An province 23

Table 16. Result of water and bottom soil parameters in Thach Ha - Ha Tinh province 26

Table 17. Result of water and bottom soil parameters in Vinh Hung – TT Hue province 28

Table 18. The social impact of shrimp culture development (total number of responses is 60 in
each group, where 1 is most important)
29

Table 19. Influence of shrimp culture development on other production activities (total
number of responses is 60 in each group, where 1 is most important)
30

Table 20. Influence of other activities on shrimp culture production (total number of responses
is 60 in each group, where 1 is most important)
30

Table 21. The effect of shrimp culture on the environment (total number of responses is 60 in
each group, where 1 is most important)
31

Table 22. The effect from the environment on shrimp culture (total number of responses is 60
in each group, where 1 is most important)
32

Table 23. Constraints to aquaculture/shrimp culture development (total number of responses is
60 in each group, where 1 is most important)
33

Table 24. BMP adoption rate of farmers of parameters of pond preparation 34

Table 25. BMP adoption rate of farmers of parameters of seed selection and stocking 36

Table 26. BMP adoption rate of farmers of parameters of pond water environment and disease
management
37

Table 27. BMP adoption rate of farmers of parameters of harvesting and selling product 39

Table 28. BMP adoption rate of farmers of parameters of other issues 40

Table 29: Results of BMP and Non-BMP househould analysis 56

Table 30: Results of BMP and Non-BMP househould analysis (cont.) 57

Table 31: Results of BMP and Non-BMP househould analysis (cont.) 58

Table 32: Percentage of shrimp culture costs of BMP and Non-BMP household (%) 58

Table 33: Percentage of other indicators of BMP and Non-BMP households (%) 58

Minestrone Report Project Validation
3
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia

Table of
contents

Acknowledgements 2
List of abbreviations 2
Definitions 2
List of figures 2
List of tables 3
Table of
contents 4
I. INTRODUCTION 6
II. STUDY METHODOLOGY 7
2.1. Study location.
7
2.2. Data collection
7
2.2.1 Socio-economic and technical data
7
2.2.2 Environmental data
8
2.3. Data analysis
8
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 9
3.1. COMPARISON OF SHRIMP CULTURE TECHNICAL INDICATORS
9
3.1.1 Pond characteristics
9
3.1.2. Pond preparation.
9
3.1.3. Seed selection and seed stocking

11
3.1.3.1 Seed sources 11
3.1.3.2 Seed test and seed quality assessment 11
3.1.3.3 Seed stocking size and stocking density. 12
3.1.4. Pond management
13
3.1.5. Shrimp harvesting size and productivity.
14
3.2. COMPARISON OF ECONOMIC INDICATORS
15
3.2.1. Pond preparation cost
15
3.2.2. Shrimp seed and feed costs.
15
3.2.3. Bio-product, chemical, energy and other costs.
16
3.2.4. Total income, total cost and benefit
17
3.2.5. Benefit cost ratio.
18
3.2.6. Comparison of price of seed, feed and shrimp product.
19
3.2.7. Comparison of household income sources.
20
3.3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS.
22
3.3.1 In Nghe An province
22
3.3.1.1 Diagram of project shrimp culture area in Hung Hoa - Nghe An showing site of water
samples collection

22
Minestrone Report Project Validation
4
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia
3.3.1.2 Results of water quality and bottom soil analysis in Hung Hoa - Nghe An 23
3.3.1.3 Issues to be considered for the project sustainability 24
3.3.2 In Ha Tinh province
25
3.3.2.1 Diagram of project shrimp culture area in Thach Ha - Ha Tinh showing site of water
samples collection.
25
3.3.2.2 Results of water quality and bottom soil analysis in Thach Ha - Ha Tinh. 25
3.3.2.3 Issues to be considered for the project sustainability 27
3.3.3 Thua Thien Hue province
27
3.3.3.1 Diagram of project shrimp culture area in Vinh Hung - Thua Thien Hue showing site
of water samples collection.
27
3.3.3.2 Results of water quality and bottom soil analysis in Vinh Hung – TT Hue 28
3.3.3.3. Issues to be considered for the project sustainability 29
3.4. SOCIAL AND RELATED FACTORS IMPACT ANALYSIS.
29
3.4.1 Social impact of shrimp culture development
29
3.4.2 Influence of shrimp culture development on other production activities
30
3.4.3 Influence of other activities on shrimp culture production
30
3.4.4 Effect of shrimp culture on the environment
31

3.4.5 Effect from the environment on shrimp culture
32
3.4.6 Constraints to shrimp culture development
32
3.5. ADOPTION RATE OF TRIAL FARMS AND FARMERS ATTENDED BMP
TRAINING COURSES
33
3.5.1 Pond preparation
33
3.5.2 Seed selection and stocking
35
3.5.3 Pond environment and disease management.
36
3.5.4 Harvesting and selling products.
38
3.5.5 Other issues
39
IV. CONCLUSION 41
4.1. Technical indicators
41
4.2. Economic indicators
42
4.3. Environmental indicators
43
4.4. Social and related indicators
44
4.5. BMP adoption rate of households
44
V. APPENDISCES 47
5.1 Appendix 1: Questionnaire 1

47
5.2 Appendix 2: Questionnaire 2
52
5.3 Appendix 3: Results of data analysis
56
5.4. Appendix 4: BMP protocols
59
Minestrone Report Project Validation
5
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia
I. INTRODUCTION
Household shrimp production is the predominant form of coastal aquaculture in Vietnam. In
2006, approximately 459,000 tonnes of shrimp was produced comprising 12% of total fisheries
production in Vietnam (USDAFAS 2007). Approximately 34% of shrimp production (158,000
tonnes) was exported at a value of USD 1.46 billion. Shrimp production is increasing, with an
average of 13% growth experienced each year from 2000 to 2006 (USDAFAS 2007).

In recent years, residues and contaminants have been detected in exported shrimp, with
devastating results in markets. In 2003, five consignments from Thua Thien-Hue province to
the European Union were destroyed or returned because of the presence of residues, and a far
larger quantity from all north central provinces were similarly treated in 2004. The loss of
production, negative environmental and socio-economic impacts, and food safety concerns
have provided impetus for the development and extension BMP for household shrimp farms.
BMPs have been used in many countries to implement the more general principles of
responsible shrimp farming (FAO 2005). BMPs are voluntary and are becoming widely used as
an important strategy to enhance the marketability of aquaculture product.

A number of projects have contributed to the development of practical BMPs for shrimp
farming in Vietnam (e.g. a DANIDA-funded and a NAFIQAVED). These projects have
proposed specific BMPs and have conducted some small-scale testing of these BMPs. Their

findings have not yet been widely disseminated among producers and BMP implementation is
still limited. The benefits of applying BMP to household farms remain to be fully investigated.
However, experience in Thailand, India and Bangladesh has shown that small-scale farmers
who applied BMPs made gains in efficiency, productivity and quality (SUMA, 2004).

This report is one output of a project jointly funded by the Australian Agency for International
Development (AusAID) and the Vietnam Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
(MARD) through the Collaboration for Agriculture and Rural Development Programme
(CARD). The aim of the report is “to compare the results of BMPs’ farms with non-BMP
and Baseline data in 3 projects’ provinces in North Center Vietnam, include Nghe An, Ha
Tinh and TT-Hue”

This report includes the study methodology (Section 2), Section 3 is the results and discussions
which contains the sub-sections that comparison of technique indicators, economic indicators,
environmental impacts, social impacts and
adoption rates of trials and farmers attended BMP
training sources. The conclusion presents in Section 4. Report finishes with the appendices
which are the semi-structure questionnaires, tables of detail data analysis results and BMP
protocols (Section 5).


Minestrone Report Project Validation
6
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia
II. STUDY METHODOLOGY
2.1. Study location.
This study conducted in 3 North Center Vietnam provinces, where project located, including
Nghe An, Ha Tinh and Thua Thien-Hue provinces (Fig.1)

Figure 1. Vietnamese provincial map indicating the location of the three project

provinces

2.2. Data collection
2.2.1 Socio-economic and technical data
Data of socio-economic and cultured techniques were collected though resources:
•

Directly interview the shrimp households by using semi-structured questionnaires (see
appendix 1 and 2), includes 2 groups of households that are BMP and non-BMP farmers.
In each province, 40 households were interviewed for the results of shrimp production in
2008 (20 respondents for BMP and 20 respondents for non-BMP in each province)
•

Data was collected from the diary shrimp record book of 9 core demonstration farms of
the BMP project.
•

Data from the previous reports of the project such as the BMP protocols, the initial
baseline and the farm trial results assessment.

Minestrone Report Project Validation
7
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia
2.2.2 Environmental data
Data and information used in the report was investigated on late Oct. and Dec. 2008. It
includes water (physico-chemical and biological) and sediment parameters. In order to
compare the impact of the project on shrimp culture environment, sampling points was same as
previous time- initial assessment in 2006 (for more detail see Figs 1, 2, 3 and 4).
For the running water (river water as a supplying source) sample, a peristaltic pump of two
heads was used to grasp water river sample for 30 minutes into a plastic bucket. Then a final

sample of 1 liter was taken from the well- mixing bucket.
All samples were kept cool with ice or fixed with chemical(s), and analyzed immediately when
reaching Labs.

On-field measurements of water:
• pH: use a portable pH meter (YSI 52)
• Salinity: use of refract photo meter (Spec T2000)
• Dissolved Oxygen (DO): measured with an oxygen meter (YSI 52)
• Temperature (T
o
C): measured with a digital thermometer (Themo 100)
• Transparency (cm): measured with Sechi disk

Laboratory analysis: followed Standard Methods (APHA, 1998).
• Water sampling and analysis for: COD (mg/l), BOD (mg/l), Alkalinity (mg/l), Fe (mg/l),
PO
4
3-
-P (mg/l), Total Ammonia Nitrogen-TAN (mg/l), Nitrite (mg/l), Sulfide (mg/l), Oil
residual (mg/l).
• Bottom sediment: pH, C/N ratio and soil structure.
•

Biological indicator: Total Vibrio, Coliform

2.3. Data analysis
EXCEL software was used to analysis data. The indicators used in this report include
percentages, averages, min. and max. The issues to be addressed are:
•

Comparison of technical indicators,
•

Comparison of economic indicators,
•

Assessment of termination environmental impacts,
•

Assessment of social and related impacts, and
•

Assessment of adoption rate of trials and farmers attended BMP training sources.
Minestrone Report Project Validation
8
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS.
3.1. COMPARISON OF SHRIMP CULTURE TECHNICAL
INDICATORS
3.1.1 Pond characteristics
Table 1 presents the analysis results of the major shrimp pond characteristics (pond area and
pond depth) of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline of households in Nghe An, Ha Tinh and Thua
Thien Hue provinces.

In general, There was not a significant difference of area and depth of shrimp pond of 3 farm
groups of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline data. The highest average pond area data was in the
non-BMP households (7,652 m
2
) and the smallest area was in the BMP farms (6,272 m
2

).
Comparison among provinces, the pond area in TT-Hue was largest (8,205 m
2
) and smallest
in Nghe An province (6,099 m
2
). The pond depth fluctuates between 0.9 and 1.2 m. The
average of pond depth was 1.1 m. Base on BMP protocol, the pond depth at least reaches at 1
m. Therefore, the pond depth in 3 study provinces meet this guideline, accept the non-BMP
household in Ha Tinh province (0.9 m)


Table 1
: Pond characteristics
Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline Average
Nghe An 5,719 6,837 5,740
6,099

Ha Tinh 6,719 7,326 6,100
6,715

TT-Hue 6,653 8,993 8,970
8,205

Pond area
(m
2
)
Average 6,272 7,652 6,930
6,951

Nghe An 1.2 1.1 - 1.2
Ha Tinh 1.1 0.9 - 1.0
TT-Hue 1.1 1.0 -
1.1
Pond
depth (m)
Average 1.1 1.0 - 1.1
Note: “-“ missing data
3.1.2. Pond preparation.
Pond preparation include parameters that are the time of pond drying, rental labor, amount of
inorganic and lime are presented in Table 2. For the pond drying time, it was fluctuated
between 5.9 and 13.3 days. The longest drying time was in Nghe An province and at Baseline
data and shortest in TT-Hue. Comparison among farm groups, the longest of pond drying
places at Baseline (9.3 days), follows by BMP household (8.3 days) and non-BMP farmers.
Thus, the differences of pond drying time were not significant among farm groups and
provinces.

In this study, labour used to prepare and improve pond was hire labours (off-farm labors). On-
farm labors were also used, but it was not include in this. The amount of man-day increases
Minestrone Report Project Validation
9
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia
from 31 (BMP group) to 44 (non-BMP group) and 57 (Baseline group). To compare among
provinces, Ha Tinh province used more labors than others (120 man day in Baseline
households and 68 man-day in non-BMP farm). This indicates that ponds in Ha Tinh have
not completed construction yet, so they spent more labors to prepare. In addition, prepared
pond labors of Baseline survey data was higher than others group. It may be explained that,
the baseline data were collected in 2005, after 3 years the pond system has been improved in
study locations, so number of man-days was reduced by the time.

Table 2
. Pond preparation indicators
Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline
Average
Nghe An 8.5 8.7 13.3
10.2

Ha Tinh 9.0 7.6 7.3
8.0

TT-Hue 7.5 5.9 7.2
6.9

Pond drying
time (day)
Average 8.3 7.4 9.3
8.3

Nghe An 28 34 36
33

Ha Tinh 41 68 102
70

TT-Hue 24 30 34
29

Pond

prepare
time (man-
day/ha)
Average 31 44 57
44

Nghe An 32 48 56
45

Ha Tinh 23 39 36
33

TT-Hue 46 82 138
89


Amount of
inorganic
fertilizer
(kg/ha)
Average 32 56 77
55

Nghe An 1,342 1,654 2,182
1,726

Ha Tinh 1,579 1,762 1,913
1,751

TT-Hue 1,386 1,241 1,302

1,310

Amount of
lime (kg/ha)
Average 1,436 1,552 1,728
1,572

The amount of inorganic fertilizer used during pond preparation purposes to develop natural
feed (plankton) for shrimp at first stage and water environmental stability. In general, the
average amount of inorganic fertilizer was 55 kg/ha. The fertilizer amount increases from 32
kg/ha of BMP group to 56 kg/ha of non-BMP group and 77 kg/ha of baseline data. There was
a significant differences of inorganic fertilizer amount among provinces, The highest of
inorganic fertilizer was used in TT-Hue province, which was double higher of two other
provinces of BMP and non-BMP group and 3 time higher of baseline farms.
Lime was used to improve the quality of pond bottom and pH stability at preparation stage. It
is clear that has not noticeable differences of amount of used lime of different farmers groups.
On average, the amount of lime used for pond preparation reaches at 1.6 tonnes/ha. It
increased from 1.4 tonnes/ha of BMP to 1.5 tonnes/ha of non-BMP and 1.7 tonnes/ha of
baseline households. Comparison among provinces shows that TT-Hue seen to used the
smallest amount of lime (1.3 tonnes/ha on average), in contrast, farmers in Ha Tinh used the
Minestrone Report Project Validation
10
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia
biggest of lime amount (1.7 tonnes/ha). The amount of lime used base on the pH of pond
bottom, pond has low pH (alum soil) need to used more lime. According to the BMP protocol,
the amount of lime use for pond preparation was between 1 and 3 tonnes/ha. Therefore, the
quantity of lime which used by farmers in this study meet the guidelines.

3.1.3. Seed selection and seed stocking
3.1.3.1 Seed sources

Seed were provided from two different sources that are inside province and outside province,
the results present in Table 3. BMP and non-BMP groups share almost equally percentages of
seed sources between inside and outside province in all 3 provinces. However, baseline data
show that the percentage of seed from inside province was double higher than from outside
province in all 3 provinces.


Table 3
: Seed sources
BMP Non-BMP Baseline
Province
Inside
province
Outside
province
Inside
province
Outside
province
Inside
province
Outside
province
Nghe An 77 33 70 30 86 14
Ha Tinh 56 44 52 48 100 0
TT-Hue 37 63 30 79 17 83
Average 57 47 51 52 68 32

3.1.3.2 Seed test and seed quality assessment.
The results of seed test using PCR and the percentages of seed assessment before stocking are

presented in Table 4. Shrimp seed was tested by using the PCR method in laboratories. The
analysis results show that there was a remarkable differences of proportion of shrimp seed test
among groups of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline. Almost of farmers of BMP group did shrimp
seed test before stocking (92%). This was a result of project though campaign and partly
financial support to projects’ farmers. There was about approximately 40 percent of
households of non-BMP and Baseline group tested seed quality by using PCR method.
Testing seed before stocking is a very important step in order to select free disease seed,
especially WSD and MBV diseases. However, there was a number of farms did not test seed
because it costs some money (e.g. the cost of a sample was 150 thousand VND). In addition,
this technique is implemented in laboratories, so it takes time and not very available services.

In general, the percentages of good, average and poor quality of seed assessment were 34%,
40% and 26%, respectively. There was a half of BMP and non-BMP farmers think that seed
quality was as average level (occupies about 47%), 26% of good seed quality and 28% of poor
seed quality. In the baseline group, 51% farmers assessed seed quality level of good, average
and poor were 51, 26 and 21 percent, respectively. So, more farmer of baseline assessed seed
Minestrone Report Project Validation
11
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia
quality was better than other groups. It may explained that the quality of shrimp seed becomes
poor with every passing day because the wild shrimp brood-stock scarceness. This also is the
consideration of fisheries experts and at currently there are some conducted project to improve
shrimp brood-stock though domestication or importation.


Table 4
: Seed test and seed quality
Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline Average
Nghe An 90.0 37.0 63.0
66.7

Ha Tinh 85.0 32.1 30.0
54.0

TT-Hue 100.0 46.7 20.0
55.6

Test shrimp
seed by using
PCR (%)
Average 92.0 38.6 37.7 58.8
Nghe An 40.0 30.0 30.0 33.3
Ha Tinh 33.6 28.8 46.7
36.4

TT-Hue 10.1 10.0 76.7
32.3

Seed-good
quality (%)
Average 27.9 22.9 51.1
34.3

Nghe An 46.7 46.7 26.7
40.0

Ha Tinh 42.4 50.0 26.7
39.7

TT-Hue 51.9 43.3 23.3

39.5

Seed-average
quality (%)
Average 47.0 46.7 25.6
39.9

Nghe An 13.3 23.3 40.0
25.5

Ha Tinh 24.0 21.2 23.3
22.8

TT-Hue 38.0 46.7 0.0
28.2

Seed-poor
quality (%)
Average 25.1 30.4 21.1
25.8


3.1.3.3 Seed stocking size and stocking density.
Table 5 presents shrimp seed stocking size and stocking density in different groups and
provinces. There was not significant differences of seed stocking sizes among 3 groups. The
stocking size of seed of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline was 25, 24 and 25 days of age,
respectively. However, comparison among provinces, TT-Hue stocked biggest shrimp seed,
three time bigger than seed size in Nghe An and Ha Tinh. Reason of this remarkable
differences is because of farmers in TT-Hue stocked seed which was one month grow
seedlings (P45), but Nghe An and Ha Tinh stocked directly P15 from hatcheries.

For stocking densities, there was similar in stocking density between BMP and non-BMP
group (15.9 compare to 15.7 shrimp/m
2
). However, data of baseline show the average
stocking density of this group was only 8,9 shrim/m
2
, deeply lower than 2 other groups. There
was a noticeable differences of stocking density among provinces. Especially in TT-Hue,
stocking density was only about 7 individual/m
2
, more than 2 times lower than that of Nghe
An and Ha Tinh. This due to shrimp farms in TT-Hue stocked bigger seed compare to Nghe
An and Ha Tinh (P45 compare to P15)

Minestrone Report Project Validation
12
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia

Table 5
: Seed stocking size and stocking density.
Indicators Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline Average
Nghe An 14.5 14.0 15.0
14.5

Ha Tinh 15.0 16.0 18.0
16.3

TT-Hue 45.3 40.8 42.0
42.7

Seed
stocking
size (day)
Average 24.9 23.6 25.1
24.5

Nghe An 18.9 16.7 12.8
16.1

Ha Tinh 18.5 23.1 8.5
16.7

TT-Hue 7.5 7.2 5.6
6.8

Stocking
density
(shrimp/m
2
)
Average 15.9 15.7 8.9
13.5


3.1.4. Pond management
Percentages of shrimp farmers checked the water environmental quality and tested shrimp
diseases during crops are showed in Table 6. The results present that the majority of BMP
farms checked water quality during shrimp culture crops (87%). In contrast, in non-BMP and
Baseline groups this percentage was low (occupies 42 and 22%, respectively). The water

quality environmental indicators is easy to test by farmers themselves by using quick test
materials. Additional, environment testing results help shrimp farmers adjust water quality as
suitability by technical solutions such as, exchange or add water, or using bio-products.
Although, it was not many farmers of non-BMP and baseline checked water quality because
they had not correctly conscious of this issues.

The proportion of households who tested shrimp diseases of different groups was significant
differences. The highest percentage of shrimp diseases testing farms occupies in BMP group
(90%). However, this proportion of non-BMP and Baseline groups were 67% and 23%,
respectively.


Table 6
: Water quality checking and shrimp disease testing.
Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline
Average
Nghe An 85 43 7
45

Ha Tinh 78 36 30
48

TT-Hue 93 37 30
53

Water
quality
check (%)
Average 87 42 22
50

Nghe An 90 73 13
59

Ha Tinh 87 64 30
60

TT-Hue 93 63 26
61

Shrimp
disease test
(%)
Average 90 67 23
60


Minestrone Report Project Validation
13
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia
3.1.5. Shrimp harvesting size and productivity.
The analysis results of shrimp harvesting sizes and productivities are presented in Table 8.
Comparison among provinces, shrimp harvesting size of Nghe An in BMP group was biggest
(23.7 g/shrimp on average) and smallest at Ha Tinh in non-BMP farmers (16.2 g/shrimp). The
difference of two these mean was significant (about 32%). Comparison among groups, the
average of harvesting size of BMP group was bigger than two other groups non-BMP and
Baseline (20.4 compare to 18.2 and 17.1 g/shrimp). The differences of shrimp size among
groups was not much, however this was a significant effected to total income because of
shrimp prices. Normally, big shrimp size is higher price. For example, shrimp size at 30
g/individual in Nghe An has price of 100 thousand VND/ha. At the same time, shrimp size at

25 g/individual has price of 80 thousand VND/kg.


Table 7
. Harvesting size and productivity.
Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline Average
Nghe An 23.7 17.5 17.3
19.5

Ha Tinh 19.0 16.2 20.5
18.6

TT-Hue 20.4 17.7 17.2
18.4

Harvesting
size
(g/shrimp)
Average 19.7 17.1 18.2
18.3

Nghe An 2,172 1,330 1,470
1,657

Ha Tinh 1,078 904 480
821

TT-Hue 1,483 1,264 1,280
1,342

Productivity
(kg/ha)
Average 1,578 1,166 1,080
1,275


In general, the productivities of shrimp culture in study areas fluctuates between 0.5 to 2.2
tonnes/ha. Nghe And has productivity highest in all 3 groups of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline
which were 2,172; 1,330 and 1,470 kg/ha, respectively. In contrast, productivity in Ha Tinh
province was lowest, fluctuation between 480 and 1,078 kg/ha. The difference of
productivities between highest and lowest show that it was significant difference (about 78%).
Comparison among groups of farmers, the average of productivity of BMP was highest (1,578
kg/ha), follow by non-BMP and Baseline groups (1,266 kg/ha and 1,080 kg/ha, respectively).
There was a significant differences of productivities between BMP with non-BMP and
Baseline households, the percentage of differences were 26% and 32%, respectively.
Productivity of shrimp culture is based on many different factors, but tow major factors that
were investment rate and disease outbreak.

Minestrone Report Project Validation
14
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia
3.2. COMPARISON OF ECONOMIC INDICATORS
3.2.1. Pond preparation cost
Table 9 presents the hire labor cost, fertilizers and lime cost during pond preparation. The hire
labor cost of BMP, non-BMP groups were lower than that of Baseline in both values and
percentages, however, the differences was not a significant. Comparison among provinces, the
value of hire labors cost of Nghe An province was nearly double higher than that of Ha Tinh
and Thua Thien Hue (4.6 mil. VND compare to 2.8 mil. VND/ha). However, if comparison of
percentage, hire cost of Nghe An was lower than that of Ha Tinh (6% compare to 8%). It was
note that the hire cost of Ha Tinh in Baseline data occupies 17%, but in Nghe An and TT-Hue

were only 3% and 6%, respectively.


Table 8.
Hire labor, fertilizers and lime costs.
Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline Average
Nghe An 6,510 (6) 4,424 (6) 2,890 (5)
4,608 (6)

Ha Tinh 1,749 (4) 1,707 (4) 5,160 (17)
2,872 (8)

TT-Hue 2,627 (3) 2,734 (5) 3,160 (5)
2,840 (4)

Hire labor cost
(‘000 VND/ha)
Average 3,629 (4) 2,955 (5) 3,740 (7)
3,441 (5)

Nghe An 3,143 (3) 3,652 (6) 1,540 (2)
2,778 (4)

Ha Tinh 1,366 (2) 1,280 (3) 1,340 (4)
1,329 (3)

TT-Hue 2,973 (4) 1,920 (3) 1,140 (2)
2,011 (3)

Fertilizers and

lime cost (‘000
VND/ha)
Average 2,494 (3) 2,284 (4) 1,350 (2)
2,043 (3)

Notice: Numbers in bracket ( ) show % compare to total cost

For fertilizer and lame costs, in general, the average of this cost was about 2 mil. VND/ha and
occupies 3% compare to total cost. Comparison between BMP, non-BMP households with
Baseline group, there was a noticeable differences of value this cost (2.5 and 2.3 compare to
1.3 mil. VND/ha). However, comparison of percentage of fertilizers and lime costs shows not
much differences among groups of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline (3%, 4% and 2%,
respectively). And it was also not a significant differences among provinces in term of
percentage of fertilizers and lime cost, fluctuation between 2 to 6%.

3.2.2. Shrimp seed and feed costs.
Shrimp seed and feed cost are presented in Table 10. Seed and feed cost, normally, occupy a
biggest cost in shrimp aquaculture. Seed cost, in general, on average, occupies 13% of total
cost and value at 7.8 mil. VND/ha. There was not a significant differences of seed cost among
3 groups of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline (12%, 14% and 13%, respectively). The
percentages of seed cost were also not much differences among provinces of Nghe An, Ha
Tinh and TT-Hue. Nghe An has the lowest of seed cost (9%), this cost occupies about 15% in
two other provinces

Minestrone Report Project Validation
15
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia
Feed cost was the biggest compare to other costs in shrimp operation. On average, feed cost
occupies 61% of total cost and value at 38 mil. VND/ha. Comparison among groups of BMP,
non-BMP and Baseline, the lowest of percentage of feed cost was in BMP group (57%). In

contrast, in value of seed cost, Nghe An was highest (approximate 44 mil. VND/ha) and
lowest in baseline households (33.7 mil VND/ha). There was a remarkable differences of seed
cost among provinces and fluctuation between 47 and 72% of total cost. The percentage of
feed cost depended on 2 major factors that were feed quality (or price) and feeding
management. In term of over feeding, it was not only misspend but also make water pollution.


Table 9.
Shrimp seed and feed cost
Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline Average
Nghe An 10,102 (9) 7,865 (11) 4,510 (7)
7,492 (9)

Ha Tinh 8,362 (15) 7,066 (15) 4,580 (15)
6,669 (15)

TT-Hue 8,089 (12) 8,958 (15) 9,630 (15)
8,892 (14)

Seed cost
(‘000
VND/ha)
Average 8,851 (12) 7,963 (14) 6,740 (13)
7,851 (13)

Nghe An 59,492 (53) 42,345 (60) 44,500 (72)
35,429 (62)
Ha Tinh 32,082 (59) 28,975 (61) 14,140 (47)
25,066 (58)
TT-Hue 40,238 (58) 36,821 (63) 42,440 (66)

39,833 (62)
Feed cost
(‘000
VND/ha)
Average 43,937 (57) 36,047 (61) 33,690 (65)
37,891 (61)
Notice: Numbers in bracket ( ) show % compare to total cost

3.2.3. Bio-product, chemical, energy and other costs.
Values and percentages of bio-products, chemicals, energies and other costs are showed in
Table 10. On average, cost of bio-product and chemical occupies 7% of total cost and value at
approximately 5 mil. VND/ha. Non-BMP group has highest of this cost (9%), follow by BMP
farmers (7%) and baseline data (5%). There was a significant differences of this cost of
different provinces in both values and percentages. The proportion of bio-products and
chemicals costs of Nghe An, Ha Tinh and TT-Hue were 10%, 8% and 4% of total cost,
respectively. In value, this cost in Nghe An was four times and double higher than that of
Nghe An and TT-Hue, respectively.

Energies in shrimp aquaculture in this study was used for two major purposes that were pump
and paddle-wheel operation. Energy that was used to light ponds area was not much. On
average, energies cost was nearly 5 mil. VND/ha and occupies about 7% of total cost. There
was a considerable differences of energies cost in both percentages and values of BMP, non-
BMP and Baseline groups, which were 11%, 3% and 7%; and 9 mil., 2 mil., and 3,7 mil.
VND/ha, respectively. Comparison among provinces, energies cost was also a significant
differences in both value and percentages (fluctuation between 1 mil. to 13.7 mil. VND/ha and
2% to 13%)


Minestrone Report Project Validation
16

The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia
Other costs, on average, occupy 6% of total cost and value at 2.5 mil VND/ha. The fluctuation
of this cost was high in both value and percentages. In value, it was fluctuated between 0.1 to
5 mil. VND per ha, and highest in TT-Hue of BMP household at 5.4 mil. VND/ha, and lowest
in Ha Tinh of Baseline data at 0.1 mil./ha. In percentages, on average, it was shared between
2% to 5%. Comparison of average values of other costs, there was a measurable differences
among groups BMP, non-BMP and Baseline which were 4.2 mil., 2.2 mil., and 0.8 mil.
VND/ha.


Table 10.
Bio-product and chemical, energy and other costs
Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline
Average
Nghe An 15,603 (14) 6,671 (10) 3,380 (5)
8,551 (10)

Ha Tinh 2,951 (5) 5,406 (11) 2,030 (7)
3,462 (8)

TT-Hue 1,037 (2) 3,199 (6) 2,890 (4)
2,375 (4)

Bio-product
and chemical
cost (‘000
VND/ha)
Average 6,530 (7) 5,092 (9) 2,780 (5)
4,801 (7)

Nghe An 13,694 (12) 3,230 (5) 4,540 (7)
7,155 (8)

Ha Tinh 4,482 (8) 1,043 (2) 2,820 (9)
2,782 (6)

TT-Hue 8,780 (13) 1,803 (3) 3,670 (6)
4,751 (7)

Energy cost
(‘000
VND/ha)
Average 8,985 (11) 2,026 (3) 3,680 (7)
4,897 (7)

Nghe An 3,704 (3) 2,036 (3) 650 (1)
2,130 (2)

Ha Tinh 3,662 (7) 1,944 (4) 110 (0)
1,905 (4)

TT-Hue 5,393 (8) 2,734 (5) 148 (2)
2,758 (5)

Other costs
(‘000
VND/ha)
Average 4,253 (6) 2,238 (4) 850 (2)
2,447 (4)

Notice: Numbers in bracket ( ) show % compare to total cost

3.2.4. Total income, total cost and benefit
Table 12 presents the results of total cost, total income and benefit of BMP, non-BMP and
Baseline groups in provinces of Nghe An, Ha Tinh and TT-Hue. In this study, on-farm labors
and opportunities costs were not counted in total cost.

Fore benefit, general average benefit calculating for all groups at all provinces was about 20
mil. VND/ha. The fluctuation of benefit of different provinces in different group was very
high and ranging between 0.6 to 53 mil/ VND/ha. Comparison among groups of BMP, non-
BMP and Baseline, there was a noticeable differences of benefit. Benefit of BMP households
was around double higher than that of non-BMP and baseline groups (30.8 compare to 13.8
and 16.4 mil. VND/ha). On average, benefits from shrimp culture in Nghe An, Ha Tinh and
TT-Hue were 32.6, 7.9 and 19.5 mil. VND/ha, respectively. In each province, fluctuation of
benefit among groups was also big (Nghe An between 17.5 and 52.8, Ha Tinh between 0.6
and 14.4, TT-Hue between 16.4 and 24.3 mil. VND/ha).

For total cost, the general average value of total cost for shrimp culture of study areas was 63
Minestrone Report Project Validation
17
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia
mil. VND/ha. The fluctuation of total cost value was between 30 and 112 mil. VND/ha.
Comparison among groups of BMP, non-BMP and Baseline data shows that there was a
considerable significant differences of total cost and average costs value were 78.7, 58.6 and
52.7 mil. VND/ha, respectively. Between provinces, the total cost was also much differences.
On average, total cost of Nghe An, Ha tinh and TT-Hue were 81.5, 44 and 64 mil. VND/ha,
respectively. The highest value of total cost was occupied in Nghe An of BMP group which
was 112 mil. VND/ha. The smallest total cost value was in Ha Tinh of Baseline data (30 mil.
VND/ha).

For total income from shrimp aquaculture operation, the general average value of total income
was reached at 84 mil. VND/ha. There was a big fluctuation of income of provinces which
was between 31 and 165 mil. VND/ha. Comparison among groups, BMP farmers has highest
income from shrimp (109.5 mil. VND/ha), follow by non-BMP and Baseline groups (72.5 and
69 mil. VND/ha). Comparison among provinces, the total income in Nghe An was double and
1.5 times higher than that of Ha Tinh and TT-Hue provinces, respectively. Total income of
BMP household in all of 3 provinces was highest compare to other groups. However, total
income of Baseline farms in Nghe An and TT-Hue was higher than that of non-BMP, but it
was contrasted in Ha Tinh province.


Table 11
. Total cost, total income and benefit of shrimp aquaculture
Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline Average
Nghe An
112,249

70,224
62,010
81,494

Ha Tinh
54,654

47,423
30,180
44,086

TT-Hue
69,137

58,169
64,410
63,905

Total cost
(‘000
VND/ha)
Average
78,680

58,605
52,730
63,338

Nghe An
165,072

87,780
89,480
114,111

Ha Tinh
70,070

55,144
30,740
51,985

TT-Hue

93,429

74,576
82,120
83,375

Total
income
(‘000
VND/ha)
Average
109,524

72,500
69,160
83,728

Nghe An
52,823

17,556
27,480
32,620

Ha Tinh
15,416

7,721
570
7,902

TT-Hue
24,292

16,407
17,720
19,473

Benefit
(‘000
VND/ha)
Average
30,844

13,895
16,430
20,390


3.2.5. Benefit cost ratio.
Benefit cost ratio (BCR) is a very important indicator to assess the effect of shrimp
aquaculture of households. BCR is measured by ratio between total income and total cost.
Table 13 shows the BCR of different households groups (BMP, non-BMP and Baseline) in
different provinces (Nghe An, Ha Tinh and TT-Hue).
.
Minestrone Report Project Validation
18
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia

In general average of BCR of all provinces was 1.3, it means that shrimp farms invest 1 VND,

income 1.3 VND or benefit 0.3 VND. Comparison among groups, the BMP farms have the
highest BCR, which was 1.37 on average, follow by Baseline and non-BMP groups (1.29 and
1.23, respectively). There was a remarkable significant differences of BCR among provinces
in different groups and fluctuated between 1.02 and 1.47. The highest BCR was appeared in
Nghe An province (1.29 on average) and lowest in Ha Tinh (1.30 on average)


Table 12.
Benefit cost ratio (BCR)
Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline
Average
Nghe An
1.47

1.25
1.44
1.39

Ha Tinh
1.28

1.16
1.02
1.15

TT-Hue
1.35

1.28
1.27

1.30

Average
1.37

1.23
1.29
1.30


3.2.6. Comparison of price of seed, feed and shrimp product.
The price of input materials and output product is the important factors influent to the shrimp
operation and income of shrimp households. In this sub-section, price of some major input
materials, which were occupied high proportion of total cost (seed, feed), and shrimp product
price were compared among provinces and groups of farmers. Table 13 presents the results of
average value of price of seed, feed and shrimp product.


Table 13.
Prices of seed, feed and shrimp product.
Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline
Average
Nghe An 42.0 44.3 35.2
40.5

Ha Tinh 45.2 47.4 53.7
48.8

TT-Hue 135.4 148.3 171.9
151.9

Shrimp price
(VND/shrimp)
Average 74.2 80.0 87.0
80.4

Nghe An 19.0 18.5 14.0
17.2

Ha Tinh 18.5 18.0 12.0
16.2

TT-Hue 18.0 18.0 13.0
16.3

Shrimp feed
price
(‘000
VND/kg)
Average 18.5 18.0 13.0
16.5

Nghe An 76.1 65.7 61.0
67.6

Ha Tinh 65.0 61.1 64.0
63.4

TT-Hue 63.2 59.2 64.0
62.1

Shrimp
product price
(‘000
VND/kg)
Average 68.1 62.0 63.0
64.4


Minestrone Report Project Validation
19
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia
For price of shrimp seed, the general price of shrimp seed of study area was 80 VND/shrimp.
There was a not considerable differences of seed price among groups of BMP and non-BMP
and Baseline. The price of seed of Baseline was slightly higher than that of two other groups
(87 compare to 72 and 80 VND/shrimp). It was reality that the price of shrimp seed in 2007
and 2008 was cheaper than previous years, but the decrease of seed was not much over time.
Comparison among provinces, the shrimp seed price of TT-Hue province was highest,
approximate 3 times higher than that of other provinces. This was due to the shrimp seed size
in TT-Hue was bigger (P45) than that of Nghe An and Ha Tinh provinces (P15).

For shrimp feed price, the average price of shrimp feed for all provinces of all groups was
16.5 thousand VND/kg. Feed price of baseline data was significant higher than that of BMP
and non-BMP groups, the difference of price was about 5 thousand VND/kg, equivalent to
28%. The feed price was not much different among provinces. Feed cost occupies about 61%
of total, so the increase of feed price over last 2 years was a negative effected to shrimp
operation and income of shrimp households.

For shrimp harvesting product price, the general average of shrimp product price was 64
thousand VND/kg, one thousand higher compare to Baseline data. The BMP group had the

highest shrimp product price which was 68 thousand VND/kg, and lowest price was at non-
BMP group (62 thousand VND/kg). Normally, the bigger shrimp was sold with higher price,
this was right in this case because the harvesting size of shrimp of BMP was bigger than that
of other groups. The price of shrimp product in different provinces was not measurable
differences, except shrimp product price of BMP farmers in Nghe An was much higher than
that of other provinces. In general, the increase of shrimp product price was not much
compare to baseline data (about 1.5%) , however, the feed (main cost) was quickly increase
(increase 28%). Therefore, this was a constraint of shrimp operation in Vietnam, in general
and in projects’ areas, in particular.

3.2.7. Comparison of household income sources.
Table 14 shows the results of different income sources of households in the study areas. The
general average of total household income was approximately 68 mil. VND/household. The
highest income of household was in BMP group (about 76 mil. VND/household), follow by
Non-BMP and Baseline groups.

Shrimp aquaculture was the main occupation of households and making the highest of income
which occupies 84.4% of total household income, fluctuation between 80 and 91%. Income
from other sources (such as salary, trade, etc) was the second place (occupies about 8.6%).
Other income sources from rice culture, livestock, fish capture, processing and labor selling
were very low compare to total income (occupies less than 5%)

Some activities was appeared in this province but no in others, for example, fish capture was
found only in Nghe An or income from fisheries processing only in Nghe An and Ha Tinh. In
contrast, income from labor selling was only in TT-Hue. Comparison among groups of BMP,
Non-BMP and Baseline shows that there was not significant differences of all income sources
Minestrone Report Project Validation
20
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia

Table 14.
Household income sources.
Indicator Province BMP Non-BMP Baseline Average
Nghe An 3,846 3,872 3,673
3,797
Ha Tinh 2,041 3,105 2,784
2,643
TT-Hue 429 360 182
324
Agriculture-
rice (‘000
VND/HH)
Average
2,105
(2.8)
2,446
(3.6)
2,213
(3.7)
2,255
(3.3)
Nghe An 891 2,480 1,944
1,772
Ha Tinh 1,689 2,109 1729
1,842
TT-Hue 172 371 0
181
Livestock (‘000
VND/HH)

Average
917
(1.2)

1,653
(2.5)

1,224
(2.0)
1,265
(1.9)
Nghe An 0 704 533
412
Ha Tinh 0 0 33
11
TT-Hue 0 0 0
0
Capture fishery
(‘000 VND/HH)
Average
0
(0.0)

235
(0.4)

198
(0.3)
144
(0.2)

Nghe An 104 368 214
229
Ha Tinh 412 589 200
400
TT-Hue 0 0 0
0
Process fishery
(‘000 VND/HH)
Average
172
(0.2)

319
(0.5)

138
(0.2)
210
(0.3)
Nghe An 0 0 0
0
Ha Tinh 0 0 0
0
TT-Hue 1,261 2,798 4,000
2,686
Labor selling
(‘000 VND/HH)
Average
420
(0.6)

933
(1.4)

1,333
(2.2)
895
(1.3)
Nghe An 5,381 6,049 6,952
6,127
Ha Tinh 4,820 6,742 7,624
6,395
TT-Hue 3,972 4,327 6,636
4,978
Other income
(‘000 VND/HH)
Average
4,724
(6.2)

5,706
(8.5)

7,071
(11.8)
5,834
(8.6)
Nghe An 94,405 60,015 51,362
68,594
Ha Tinh

47,080

40,398

18,751

35,410
TT-Hue
62,158

67,066

73,662

67,629
Shrimp culture
(‘000 VND/HH)
Average
68,693
(90.1)

55,477
(82.7)

47,928
(79.8)

57,211
(84.4)
Nghe An

104,627 73,488 64,678 80,931
Ha Tinh
56,042 52,943 31,121 46,701
TT-Hue
67,992 74,922 84,480 75,798
Total income
(‘000 VND/HH)
Average
76,220 67,118 60,093 67,810
Notice: Numbers in bracket ( ) show % compare to total income of households.
Minestrone Report Project Validation
21
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia
3.3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS.
3.3.1 In Nghe An province
3.3.1.1 Diagram of project shrimp culture area in Hung Hoa - Nghe An showing site of
water samples collection
.

Note: arrow indicates the way water goes
Figure 2. Diagram sketching project area in Hung Hoa - Nghe An province

Minestrone Report Project Validation
22
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia
3.3.1.2 Results of water quality and bottom soil analysis in Hung Hoa - Nghe An
The results of water environmental analysis of ponds and inlet, outlet and rivers samples in
project and related sites in Nghe An is presented in Table 15.

Table 15: Level of environment parameters in Hung Hoa - Nghe An province

Sampling site
Parameter
Norm
Input
water
Effluent River Pond 1 Pond 2 Pond 3 Pond 4
Pond
average
COD (mg/l)
10-15 7.5
8.8
9.4 8.2 10.9 9.8 10.5
9.9
BOD (mg/l)
5-10 6.3
7.0
8.0 6.0 5.0 7.5 8.0
6.6
Transparency (cm)
30-40 40
30
20 30 35 35 30
32.5
Water temp. (oC)
25-33 24
25
22 26 26.4 27 26
26.4
pH (water)
6.5-8.5 7.1

6.8
6.4 6.7 7.3 7.5 6.7
7.1
Salinity (‰)
5-25 15
18
16 15 18 19 21
18.3
Alkalinity (mg/l)
>80 98
100
98 85 90 97 80
88.0
DO (mg/l)
>5 6.2
4.2
6.5 5.2 6.1 5.5 5.8
5.6
Total Fe (mg/l)
<0.025 0.11
0.15
0.16 0.03 0.023 0.02 0.02
0.02
PO
4
(mg/l)
<0.5 0.315
0.378
0.129 0.332 0.253 0.339 0.313
0.309

TAN (mg/l)
<1 0.478
0.463
0.344 0.349 0.422 0.463 0.504
0.435
Nitrite (mg/l)
<0.025 0.028
0.034
0.029 0.013 0.011 0.022 0.029
0.019
Sulfide (mg/l)
<0.025 0.031
0.027
0.012 0.004 0.008 0.018 0.027
0.014
Oil (mg/l)
0.0 0.030
trace
0.105 0 0 0 Trace -
Soil structure
Muddy
sand
-
-
-
Muddy
sand

muddy
sand

muddy
sand

sandy
mud

-
C/N (bottom soil)
>6 -
-
- 5 7 5 6
5.8
pH (bottom soil)
6-8 -
-
- 6.5 7.5 6.8 6.0
6.7
Total Vibrio (CFU)
<10
3
/ml 1.0*10
5
1.0*10
5
1.3*10
5
1.8*10
3
1.1*10

4
1.7*10
2
1.4*10
3
1.5*10
3
Coliform (CFU)
- 1.5*10
4
1.7*10
5
1.5*10
6
1.6*10
3
1.2*10
3
1.5*10
3
1.4*10
3
1.4*10
4
As can be seen from table 1, water quality has been significantly improved, meeting the
requirement for shrimp culture. However, COD concentration was higher than that of 2006
initial data (7.5 mg/l). A reasonable explanation would be due to the time of sampling, it was in
the end of production cycle so more loading of organic accumulation tend to experience.

Similarly, in discharge canal, water after pond culture was in between permitted norm for

aquaculture discharge water. In contrast, it is an a exception that higher DO level and
biological indicator including Vibrio density (defined as a group of common disease- caused
pathogen in brackish and marine water) and Coliform concentration (commonly-used
bacterial
indicator
of sanitary quality of foods and water, being abundant in the feces of warm-blooded
animals).
Minestrone Report Project Validation
23
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia
Discharged water with low DO level, on the one hand, could cause surrounding environment a
bad effect. And, on the other hand, low DO would increase the toxicity of NO
2
and H
2
S. All
above, a simple solution for the shortcoming is to apply oxygenation prior to discharge
Unlike inside pond, bottom sediment quality was better in quality. Most of the pond bottom
experienced muddy sand structure- favoring a good condition for water from leaching and
balanced nutrient budget. The finding is different from the 2006 result mentioning sandy mud.
The average C/N ratio was 5.8 (close to optimal value of 6) enabling organic decomposition
and mineralization.
Acidity of bottom soil was almost neutral (pH = 6.7), while it was more acidic two year ago
(5.3). More acidic environment is serious for aquaculture, as re-dissolution of heavy mental
causing shrimp’s health problem will take place in such a condition.

3.3.1.3 Issues to be considered for the project sustainability .
It cannot be denied that over 2-year implementation positive impact on environment quality
from the project has been significant. However for sustainability of BMP protocol application
following issues needs further continuation of consideration:

• Renovating and isolating water supply and discharge canal system
• Keeping water environment monitoring and warning work done regularly, a close attention
to oil pollution for opposite port
• Strengthening the awareness of responsible application of chemicals and antibiotic. It is
critically important for product traceability and quality
• Dealing with further pollution from Vinh city, and possible noise coming from full
operation of nearby road (connecting Vinh to Cua Lo- tourist city)

Minestrone Report Project Validation
24
The Research Institute for Aquaculture No1. The University of Western Australia
3.3.2 In Ha Tinh province
3.3.2.1 Diagram of project shrimp culture area in Thach Ha - Ha Tinh showing site of
water samples collection.

Figure 3. Diagram sketching project area in Thach Ha – Ha Tinh province.

3.3.2.2 Results of water quality and bottom soil analysis in Thach Ha - Ha Tinh.
In a large scale the shrimp culture area does not a have a separated system for input and out
water canal. The issue does not come up with the requirement of BMP application. Additional
existing systems of canals undergo poor condition for long time without renovation leading to
low water level in ponds. Therefore, it was foreseen that BMB introduction would not be
effective.

However, data in Table 16 demonstrates that, apart from a slightly high bacteria density, all
water parameters in ponds met the standard for shrimp culture. Among shrimp ponds,
environment quality was not a great deal.
Minestrone Report Project Validation
25