Abstract
Improved biosecurity and livestock disease control measures in low resource settings are often regarded as beneficial for agricultural productivity, rural incomes, global health, and sustainability. In this paper we present data from a study of shrimp and prawn aquaculture in Bangladesh to argue that this relationship is not as straightforward as it would seem. Analysing quantitative and qualitative data from a multi‐method field study involving 300 “missing middle” farmers, we demonstrate the importance of socio‐economic and ecological conditions to any disease management strategy. We describe how a technical programme to introduce “disease‐free” seed faltered partly as a result of the farmers' tendency to offset disease and livelihood risks by frequently re‐stocking their ponds. Changes to seed provision were accompanied by calls to alter farmers' livestock production practices. Paradoxically, these changes exposed farmers to more intense risks, potentially locking them into unsustainable disease management practices. The analysis emphasises that vernacular farming practices should be considered as key assets rather than barriers to disease management strategies, and that closer attention be paid to value chain and other risks as drivers of unsustainable practices.
Highlights
MethodsMETHODS AND MATERIALSIn order to investigate farmer risk practices, we developed a multi‐method approach (Brewer & Hunter, 1989)
We focus on a particular food production sector and location to argue that lessening this burden is more than a matter of reducing disease incidence; it requires understanding
We demonstrate that the attempt to reduce disease incidence through improved biosecurity needs to work with, rather than against, the grain of farmer practices; it benefits from assessing how disease risks are managed within farming households
Summary
METHODS AND MATERIALSIn order to investigate farmer risk practices, we developed a multi‐method approach (Brewer & Hunter, 1989). We generated a survey involving 300 farmers in order to investigate seed use, its effects on production and farm outcomes (including productivity, mortality, disease, and profits). We interviewed hatchery owners (n = 25), farmers and officials (n = 10), and ran three workshops (n = 120) in which all relevant groups produced qualitative models of disease, treatments, and antimicrobial resistance risk maps. Initial interviews and farm visits were carried out prior to the survey in order to develop a working premise on key issues and production types. The final farmer interviews (n = 46) were carried out to develop more understanding of issues arising from the survey, especially in this case the role and structure of finance (and micro credit) in shaping farmer decisions on seed purchase and use. The focus is on reporting the analysis of the survey, utilising the qualitative data to aid interpretation of those results
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
