Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for
a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and
private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without
the permission of the Author.
PARASITE CONTROL PROGRAM FOR SWAMP BUFFALO AND CATTLE IN NORTHEAST THAILAND
A THESIS PRESENTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY
AT MASSEY UNIVERSITY
N O PADON M EEMARK
N OVE M B E R , 1 988
i
ABSTRACT
I nternal p a rasitism is a major p r o b l e m i n large ruminants i n T h a i l a n d , especially nem ato des i n n ewborn calves and liver fluke i n a d u lts. Veterinary services are sparse, and can offe r o n ly ve ry l i mited ass i stance at the v i l l a g e l evel . T h e re are about 2 0,000 v i l l a g es in t h e n o rth-e ast of T h a i l a n d , w h e re t h i s s t u d y w a s cond u cted. T o com bat t h es e m a j o r l o g istic problems a B a s i c A n i m a l H ealth Service (BAHS) Is be i n g d eve loped p ro g ressively with i n the re g i o n . The fi rst compone nt of the s ervi ce to be developed was a "farm e r se lf-help worm control p ro g ram " , commen ced at a pilot level in 1 983. V i l l a g e farmers are s e lected o n aptitude for the task, trained as BAHS "keym a n " for o n e day, and then provi d e exten s i o n advice to farm e rs i n up t o 1 0 villages about d isease control, with the i nitial e m p h as i s bei n g o n internal parasite s . This l ocal effort Is s u pported by wider p ro m otional campai g n s . Keym a n are taught to d ispense d ru gs for each type of parasite, and receive part of the price paid by farm e rs for the d r u gs. P u rc h a s e and d istri bution of drugs i s supported o u t of a special revolvi n g fu n d .
Exp e ri e n ce I n the p ro g ram s i n c e 1 983 has shown that overal l ad option o f the prog ram has be e n h i g h , but that dru g sales have vari ed g reatly between key m a n areas. A comparison was t h e refore m ad e of " hi g h adoption" and " l ow adopt i o n " keyman areas, to determ i n e l evels of k nowl e d g e about parasites and the BAH S , and to assess which of a ra n g e of fact o rs m i g ht be m ost c l osely associated with p ro g ram s u ccess at the l o cal l evel. Adopt i o n rate was j u d g ed by sales of anthe l m intics by e ach keym an. R e s u lts i n fou r p rovinces which h ad p a rticipated i n the pro g ra m for e it h e r o n e o r t h ree years were com pared with two provi n ces which had not yet b e g u n the p ro g ra m . I n total 420 farmers and 1 6 keyme n we re i ntervi ewed u s i n g a stan dardised q u est i o n n a i re form.
Far m e rs we re classified i nto those s h owing high acceptance ( u n d e rstood the BAHS and h a d used t h e d ru gs with in the last year), m e d i u m accepta n ce ( u n d e rstoo d the BAH S , but had n o t used t h e d ru g s for at l e ast a year) , a n d low acceptance ( u n fam i l i a r with the BAH S and its rel evance to t h e m , and had not used the d ru gs), Overa l l , 64% of farmers in the " h i g h adopti o n "
areas s h owed h i g h acceptance o f the p ro g ra m , compared with o n l y 1 6% i n the l o w adoption areas - p rod u c i n g a mean of 40% across the wh o l e s a m p l e .
Users of t h e c o n t r o l system we re very satisfied that treat m e n t p rovided economic b e n efits, a n d t h is view was supported by e m p i rical evi d e nce from the study, which s h owed that owners who c a rried o u t t reatment had l ower calf m o rtal ity, h ig h e r m a rket val u e of t reated an imals, and im proved calvi n g rates.
The s i n g l e m ost i m p o rtant d eter m i n ant i n the s u ccess of the p ro g ram is the e n e rgy of the keyman in p ro m ot i n g t h e program and the sale of d ru g s, and acceptance of the p ro g ram is al most entirely a fu n ct i o n of this factor, rather than issues beyond t h e keyman's contro l . A n u m b e r of q u i t e s i m p l e a n d ch eap mod ifications to d etails of the BAH S s h o u l d f u rt h e r in crease t h e alr eady exceptionally h i g h adopti o n rate. These include rep l aci n g i n effe ctive keymen, i n crea s i n g t h e d e nsity of keymen so that t ravel is not a l i m itation, and stre n g t h e n i n g further the r e g i o n a l promotion effort t o g ive maxi m u m c re d i b i l ity t o the keyman's l ocal work.
An e c o n o m i c analysis based o n t h e d ata s howed a return of U S $ 1 43 t o t h e typical farmer i n the reg i o n for an i nvestment of US$0.69, making very conservative assumptions about the n ature and s c a l e of the benefits. I n contrast, the keymen make only a v e ry s m a l l i ncome from t h e i r effort s , e stimated at U S$0. 7 0 per day worked on the p rog ra m . The net ben efit of t h e p rogram across the s i x p rovin ces stu d i e d was est i m ated a t US$33.64 m i l l i o n . T h i s c a n b e i n creased by vari o u s im p rovements t o the p ro g ra m , and costs a n d retu rns fo r s u c h i m p rove m e nts were calcu l ated. I f 8 0 % of farmers i n the six provinces t re ated a l l of t h e i r a n i mals, t h e n et b e n efit to the reg i o n would be U S $ 1 1 8 million for an invest m e n t of about $ 1 m i l l i o n , the c osts be i n g s h ared e q u a l ly by Gove r n m e n t and the farmers. Small s c a l e farmers s h are m ore favou rably in t h e benefits than Is t h e case for many i mprovem e nts in v i l l a g e agricu ltu ral p racti ces.
Th e p ro g ram has been very s u ccessfu l , primarily because it d e a l s with a problem which farmers recog n ize as serious, and because everyt h i n g the farm e rs need t o carry out t h e p ro g ram is avai l a b l e with i n the v i l l a g e . Various s i m p l e i mp rove m e nts identifi e d in t h e study w i l l fu rt h e r im prove i t s acceptance a n d Its benefit t o t h e cou ntry.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A l ar g e n u m ber of i n d ividuals a n d i nstitutions h ave contr i buted gener ou s l y t owar d c o m p l et i o n of t h e r esearch r e p orted. I wish t o t h a n k a l l of t h e m for their h e l p , inter est a n d e n c o ur ag e m e n t d ur i n g my study.
Fir stly I wish to p ar t i c u lar ly t h a n k m y supervisor , Pr ofessor R . S . M orr is, for his g u i da n c e , advice, e n t h u s i as m and o p t i m i s m that t h e pr oject could be comp leted satisfactor i ly, a n d ackn owl e d g e h i s pat i ent assistance I n c o m p leting t h e t h e s i s . I am gr ateful to h i m for g ivi n g m e t h e o p p ortunity t o u n d ertake this stu dy.
Dr .W.A.G. Char le st o n , my second s upervisor , I thank for h is i n s p irati o n , h el pfu l s u g gestions and com m e nts I n my academic wor k , especi a l ly i n the field of p ar as itol o g y.
I gr atefu lly acknow l e d g e the assistance of Dr . C hr is Boland for h i s helpfu l advice o n pr epar ation of the q u esti o n n a ir e for ms , a n d Dr .Cr al g Tan n er , Dr . P eter J o l ly , Dr. D ir k Pfe iffer , Dr . C ho ckchai C h a i m on g k o l , Dr . E u g e n e Lai'l ad a , Dr . Br yan M cKay and Mr . Barry Butler for t h e ir kind h e l p in t h e s is d iscussion and teach i n g me how to u s e var ious computer pr o gr am s . I wish also t o thank Mr s . Fr ances Al i e n , Mr s . F i o n a D i cklnson and M s . Debbie Love l o ck for t h e ir gr eat assistan c e I n t h e i n i t i al pr oof r e ad i n g o f this m an uscr ipt a n d t h e pr eparat i o n of s o m e o f t h e i l l ustr at i o n s .
I am i n debted to t h e Department of Veter i n ary C l i n ical S c i e n c e s , Massey U n iver s ity, for pr ovi d i n g t h e oppor t u n ity a n d facilities for t h i s study, a n d for pr o d u cing t h e fir s t T h a i veter i n ar y postgr ad u ate s t u d e nt i n N ew Zealand.
I a m particu lar ly gr atefu l t o my boss, Dr . S omchai Sr i h akim, for his enthusiasm and encour ag e m ent and for pr ovi d i n g var i o u s faci l ities d ur i n g the study per io d . I am specially gr atefu l t o the G erm an staff i n the Thai-Ger m an Animal He alth Pr oj ect i n Khon Kaen - Dr .K.F L6 hr , Dr . R . Bar o n von Kr u e d e n er , and Dr . K . L e i d l for t h e ir e ncour a g e m e n t a n d h el pfu l advice.
M y t h a nks g o t o all staff i n the pr oj ect, especially Dr . M anvika Polpar k , Dr . Lertr u k Sr i kitj akar n , M s. R u n gsuda S uk a m o l , Mr . Arr t a n d Mr s.Sir i p h a n Wapakpeth, and Mr . Apir o m C h ar oe n c hai for th e ir gr eat cooper at i o n i n the fi e l d survey a n d d ata e ntr y .
T h i s s t u d y wou l d n ot have b e e n possi bl e w i t h o u t the h e l p a n d cooper at i o n of 1 42 village h e adm e n , 288 far m ers and 22 keyman i n th e ar ea interviewed . I n addition t h e active p artici pation of t h e six Pr ovi n c i al Livestock Officer s and t h e twenty four Distr ict Livestock Officers of M a ha s ar akam, S ur i n , Kh a n Kae n , Loe i , U d or nthanee and Kal a s i n h as been appr e ciated.
I wou l d also like to ack n owled g e t he fi nancial c o ntr i bution of the G er m an Acad e m i c Exc h a n g e S ervic e [ Deuts c h er Akademischer Austausch d i e nst (DAAD)] of the Feder al R ep u b l i c o f G e rm any, which k i n d ly pr ovided fu n d i n g for my study in N ew Zealan d .
F or t h e ir h e l p , e n co ur a g e me n t a n d e n d ur i n g faith, a ver y s p ecial thank y o u for m y p ar e nts.
Lastly for M a l ll g a, and my l ovely daug hter s , S upattr a (N an) and S u p avad e e (N o iy) for their p atience and t o l er ance while I spent a l o n g p er iod of study i n New Z e a l a n d .
TABLE OF C ONTE NTS
P a g e No.
Abstract
Ack n owled g e m e nts i i
List of Fi g u res v i i i
List o f Tables x
C HAPTE R O N E - BAC KG R OU ND TO TH E P R OJ E CT 1
I ntroducti on 1
T h e P roject Area 2
H istory of Deve lopment of Scheme 2
Bac k g ro u n d Information on the A n i m a l Health S e rvice and
Livestock Development i n Northeast Thai l an d 2
C o m m o n P arasites i n N o rth east Thai land 3
A. N e matodes
Control a n d Treat m e nt of Gastro i ntesti nal P arasites B. Tre matodes
c. P rotozoa D. E ctoparasites
4 7 7
10 11 M ajor P aras itic D iseases i n N o rth-East T h a i l a n d 13
Ascariasis and Stron gyloidosis 13
Fasci o l i a s is 1 4
R e asons for P ro motion o f P a rasite Control i n Villages 15
Basic A n i mal H ealth Service Obj e ctives 15
R e q u i re ment for I m p lementation of t h e Basic Animal
Health S e rvice 16
CHAPTER TWO - STRUCTU R E AND M ETH OD OF O P E RATI O N
O F T H E PARAS ITE C O NTR O L P R OG RAM 17
Introduction 17
Farmer S e lf-H e l p Worm Control P ro g ram - The P i lot Program 17 Operatio n of t h e Expanded Scheme Coveri n g Additional P rovi n ces 18 Management of P aras ite C ontrol Farme r S e lf-Help P ro g ram 19
C rite r i a for Area S e lection 19
i i i
Criteria for Keyman S el ectio n 1 9 R evolv i n g F u n d Organization a n d Functions 20
Dru g S u p p l i e s and Incentives 20
Ext e n s i o n Activiti e s 2 1
Trai n i n g P ro g ram for DLOs and Keyman 21
Keyman R efresher Tra i n i n g Courses 21
Extension P a ckages for Keyman 21
Anth e l m i ntics Used i n t h e Scheme 22
Responsibil ities o f Keyman 23
Des i rable C h a racteristics of Keyman 24
Farme r P articipat i o n i n the Scheme 2 4
T h e R o l e o f Vari o u s I n d ividuals i n P ro motion of the Scheme 24
R o l es of the NE-V R D C i n the Scheme 26
R o l e of the Depart m e nt of Livestock Deve l o p m e n t, Bangkok 26
C H APTE R TH R E E - D E S I G N OF SURVEY P R O C EDUR E TO
EVALUATE FAR M E R A C C E PTAN C E 27
Ove ral l Objectives of the Study 27
I m p l e mentatio n of t h e S u rvey 27
Q u estionnaire D e s i g n 3 1
The Questio n naire Forms for Farmers a n d Village Headmen 31
The Questio n naire Form for Keym en 32
S e lection of Stu d y A reas 33
Selecti o n of P rovi nces 33
Selectio n of Keyman Areas With i n P rovi n ces 33 Se l ecti o n of I nterviewees Wit h i n Key m a n Areas 33
Composition of the Final Sample of Interviewees 34
Operatio n o f S u rvey i n P hase 1 35
Operatio n i n P hase 2 36
Data Organizat i o n a n d Analysis 39
CHAPTE R FOUR - S U RVEY R ESULTS 40
I nt ro d uctio n 40
Farm e r S u rvey Resu lts
Farmer Characte ristics and Farm i n g Activities C l assification of Farmers by D e g ree of Acceptance of the Parasite Control P ro g ra m
A n i mal Health P ro blems
C auses of death i n adult a n i m a l s
C a uses o f n on-fatal d isease i n adult a n i m als Farmer Know l e d g e Concern i n g Parasitis m Treatment a n d P revention P ractices for P aras itic and Other D i s e as es
Farmer Knowle d g e and Attitu d es Concern i n g Keym en
S o u rces of Farmer Advice Who Convi nced F a rmers to C h a n g e D iseas e Control M ethods
Factors I nfl u e n c i n g Farmer Acceptance of the Paras ite Control S c h e m e
Keyman S u rvey R e s u lts
Keyman C h a ra cteristics and t h e i r Farm i n g a ctivities
D isease Problems i n B uffal o and Cattle Keym a n Activities i n t h e Scheme
Effects of Keyman o n Farmer Acceptance of the S c h e m e P roblems i n I m p l e mentation o f the P ro g ram - Advers e Drug Reactions
Effects of P u bl i city Support for the P rog ram S upply and P ri c i n g of Drugs i n the P rogram Compa rison between H i g h and Low Adoption Areas
Farmer Characte ristics and Farming Activiti e s Actions o f Farmers i n R elation t o Disease C o ntrol Farmer Atti t u d e s to the P arasite Control P ro g ram and t h e Keyman
B e n efits of Treatment of A n i m als for Parasiti s m Effectiveness o f Various P u bl i city Mechanisms in H i g h and Low Adoption Areas
Conclusion
CHAPTE R FIVE - P O S S I B LE WAYS FOR FU RTH E R D E V E LO P M E NT O F THE P R OGRAM
V
40 40
47
48 51 52 53
60 69
72
8 1 88
88 9 1 92 98
100
10 1 102 105
105 107
109 113
115 116
117
Introd u ct i o n
I ncrease D e n s ity and Tra i n i n g o f Key m e n Increase t h e M otivation o f Keym en P ro m ote t h e P ro g ram Th ro u gh Keymen P ro mote t h e P rogram by R e g ional P u b l i city Pers u a d e Users to Treat m o re A n i m als Expand the P rog ram to A d d itional P rovinces Expand t h e P rogram to C over Additional P roducts
Mod ify A d m i n istrative a n d F u n d i n g Aspects of t h e P ro g ram Involve Other Advisers
Reg u larly Review Tec h n i ca l Aspects of t h e P ro g ram
CHAPTE R S I X - ECO N O M I C E VALUATI O N O F THE B E N E FIT O F T H E S C H E M E FO R I ND I VIDUAL FAR M E R S
I ntrod u ct i o n
Economic Benefits fro m a D isease Control P ro g ram Tech n i q u e s for Eco n o m i c A nalysis
Benefits o f P aras ite Control to the V i l l a g e Farm e r M easure m ent of Cost
Analysis of t h e Benefit to t h e Ind ivi d u a l Farmer Adjusted Base A n alysis
A nalysis Adj u sted t o Represent t h e Ave rage Farmer I n c re ased Use of t h e P ro g ram
Concl u s i o n
CHAPTE R S EV E N - COST B E NE FIT ANALYS IS O F T H E P ARAS ITE C O NTR O L P R O G RAM
M ethod of C ost-Ben efit C alcu lation
Eco n o m i c B enefit of the P ro g ram for the Com m u n ity P ossible e co n o m i c benefits of the prog ram for the c o m m u nity by i ncreas i n g the acceptance of t h e p r o g ram
B e nefit of t h e P ro g ram if P articipatin g Farm e rs Treat More of T h e i r Animals
117 117 118 1 18 1 19 120
120 120
120 12 1 122
123 123 123 124 125 126
126 130 133 135 140
141 141 142
1 42
1 43
CHAPT E R E IGHT - G E N E RAL DIS CUS S I O N
Study D es i g n Farm i n g Activities
H ealth Probl e m s i n Buffalo and Cattle
Farmer Acceptance of the P arasite Control P ro g ram Farmer Knowl e d g e Concern i n g Parasitism
S o u rces of Advice on Disease Treatment Effectiveness of Keymen
V iews of t h e Keyman o n t h e Program P ro g ram P u b l i city
B e n efits of t h e P ro g ram to the I n d ividual Farmer B e nefit of t h e P ro g ram to t h e Study R e g i o n R e asons f o r t h e S u ccess of t h e Pro g ram Scope for I m p rovement of t h e P ro g ram
A n i m a l H ealth P rog rams in the Co ntext of R e g ional Development
Evaluation of t h e Research M ethod
R E FE R E N C E S AP P E ND I C E S
vii
147 1 47
149 150 150
15 1 152 153 154
155 155 157
159 160
16 1 162
164 169
LI ST O F F I G U R E S
P a g e N o.
F i g u re 3 . 1 Th e P rovi nces i n t h e Study Areas 28 Fi g u re 3 .2 P h otograph - Intervi ewi n g Farm e rs fo r 29
the Study
Fi g u re 3.3 B u ffalo Are Ess e n t i a l Sources of Work E n ergy 29 F i g u re 3.4 B u ffalo M ust S u rvive Thro u g h t h e Hot D ry Season
When Feed S ho rt a g e and Other Stresses Are S evere 30 F i g u re 3 .5 There Are M any H a bitat S ites for the I nterm e d i at e
Host of Fasci ola gigantica 30
Fi g u re 4 . 1 Causes o f Non-Fatal Diseases i n Calves 49
Fi g u re 4 .2 C a uses of Death i n Calves 5 1
Fi g u re 4 .3 Causes of Deat h i n A d u lt Animals 52
Fi g u re 4 . 4 C a u s e s o f Non-Fatal Disease i n A d u lts 53 Fi g u re 4.5 Farmer Knowled g e of Nemato d e Parasitism i n
P ro g ram a n d No n-P rog ram P rovi nce 54 F i g u re 4 .6 Farm e r Knowle d g e of Nemato d e Parasitism B y
Program Accept a n ce Level 55
F i g u re 4 .7 Farmer Knowl e d g e Concern i n g The I nte rmed i ate H ost of F.gigantica i n P ro g ram and Non-Pro g ram
P rovi nces 56
Fi g u re 4 .8 Farmer Knowle d g e Co ncern i n g The Interm e d i ate
H ost of F.gigantica by P rog ram Acceptance Leve l 57 Fi g u re 4 .9 Farmer Awareness of Fasci ola gigantica in P r o g ram
and Non-Prog ram P rovi nces 58
Fi g u re 4. 10 Farmer Awareness of Fasciola gigantica by P ro g ram
Acceptance Level 59
F i g u re 4 . 1 1 S o u rces of Treatme nts Used for S ick Calves P rior to the Progra m , for P rovi nces Wh i ch
S u bsequently J o i ne d the Program 64
Fi g u re 4. 12 S o u rces of Treatm e nt Used for Sick Calves
P ri o r to the Progra m , for all Six P rovi nces 64 Fi g u re 4 . 13 S o u rces of Treatment Used for S ick Adu lts
P r i o r to the Progra m , for all Six P rovinces 65 Fi g u re 4. 1 4 S o u rces of Treatment Used for Sick Animals
P rior to P ro g ra m C o m menceme nt, Classified
by S u bsequent Acceptance Level for P rogram 65 Fi g u re 4. 15 R easons Why Farm ers Did Not Use Keyman 7 1 Fi g u re 4. 16 Extent of Chan g e in Calf Diseas e Control
M ethods, by Acceptance Level 73
ix
Fi g u re 4 . 1 7 S o u rces of Advice W h o Convinced Farmers t o C h a n g e Disease C ontro l M ethods - One Year
P rovinces 74
Fi g u re 4 . 1 8 S o u rces of Advice W h o Convinced Farmers to C h a n g e Calf Disease Contro l M ethods - Three
Year Program P rovinces 74
F i g u re 4 . 1 9 S o u rces from Wh i c h Drugs for Calves Were
O btai n e d , by Acceptance Level 7 5
Fi g u re 4 . 2 0 S o u rce o f Advice W h o Convi nced Farmers to C h a n g e Disease Treatments in A d u lt Ani mals -
O n e Year P ro g ram P rovi nces 78
Fi g u re 4 . 2 1 S o u rce o f ADvice W h o Convi nced Farmers to C h a n g e d is e ase Treatm e nts i n Ad ult A n i m al s - Th ree
Year P rogram P rovi n ces 7 8
Fi g u re 4 . 2 2 S u rvival Rates of B u ffalo and Cattle Calves,
by Acceptance Level 80
Fi g u re 4 . 2 3 Calv i n g Percentag e o f B uffal o a n d Cattle Cows ,
by Acceptance Level 8 0
F i g u re 4 . 2 4 Ext e nt to Which Farmers a t D iffe rent Acceptance
Levels We re Aware o f P ro g ram P u bl icity 82 Fi g u re 4 . 2 5 De g re e o f Farmer Awaren ess o f Various Forms
of P u bl icity, Class ifi e d by Acceptance Level 83 Fi g u re 4 . 2 6 D e g ree of Farm e r Awaren ess o f P rog ram P u b l i c ity,
Classified by D u rati o n of P ro g ram in Province 83 Fig u re 4 . 2 7 D istribution o f Farm e r Acceptan ce Levels fo r t h e
P ro g ram i n H i g h Ad option Areas ( H 1 .A.AR) a n d Low
Adoption Areas (LO.A.AR) 1 0 9
LIST O F TABLES
Table 3 . 1 Distribution of areas a n d farmers i nterv iewed
in Phase 1 3 5
T a b l e 3 . 2 Distri butio n o f a reas a n d farmers interviewed
in P hase 2 38
Table 4 . 1 A g e d istri bution o f 420 farmers 4 1
Table 4 . 2 Fam i l y sizes in the s i x study provinces 4 1 Table 4.3 Own ers h i p of land and l arge ru m i nants by fam i l i e s 42 Table 4.4 N u m b e r of buffalo and c attle per vil l a g e in 1985
and 1986 42
Table 4.5 P erce ntage of farm e rs u n d ertak i n g farm ing and
other activities 43
Table 4.6 Types of cropping activities other than rice
g rowi n g 45
Table 4.7 Farm e r i n come per fam i ly (U S$) derived from
a n i m a l s , crops and off-farm sources 46
Table 4.8 Off-farm e mployment of respondents 47
Table 4.9 Farm e r acceptance cate g ories 48
Table 4 . 1 0 Extent to which farmers carry out disease
preve ntion i n calves 50
Table 4. 1 1 Calf parasite prevention practised by farmers
at d ifferent acceptance levels 60
Table 4 . 1 2 M ethods of farmer preve ntion for worm i nfection 61 Tab l e 4. 1 3 Extent to which farm e rs use preventive treat m e nt
for parasites in buffal o calves, classified by
length of time i n program and acceptance l evels 62 Table 4. 1 4 S o u rces of advice c u rrently used by farmers for
treat m e n t of calves, cl assified by p rovince group 67 Tabl e 4 . 1 5 S o u rces of advice u s e d by farme rs to treat sick
calve s , classified by l evel of acceptance of the
p ro g ram 68
Tab l e 4 . 1 6 S o u rces of drugs for a n imal t reat ment used by
farme rs i n p ro g ram a n d non-pro g ram provi nces 69 Tab l e 4 . 1 7 S o u rces of drugs for farmers , class ifie d by
level of p ro gram acceptance 69
Tab l e 4. 1 8 Farm e r opinion o n Keyman's activity 70 Tab l e 4. 1 9 Acceptance l evel s for v i l l a g e h e a d m e n and
other farmers 7 1
xi
Table 4.20 Farmer opin ion o n their keymen (KM) by
acceptance l evels 72
Table 4.2 1 Difficu lty i n gett i n g d r u g s from keyman 72 Table 4 . 2 2 Extent of c h a n g e i n c a l f d isease control methods,
by acceptance l evel 76
Table 4.24 I m p rove ment i n calf co n d ition after treatment 76 Table 4 . 2 5 Nat u re of i mp rovements after c a l f treatm ent 7 7 Table 4 . 2 6 Effects o f fluke t reatme nt o n a d u l t a n i m als 79 Table 4 . 2 7 S u rvival rate (%) , B i rt h rate (%) , and M o rtality
rate (%) in calves of farmers in acceptance 79 Table 4.28 Reasons farm er treated h ealthy a n i m a l s by
acceptance l evel 8 1
Table 4.29 R easo n s farmer treated their animals in
pro g ra m p rovinces 8 1
Tabl e 4.30 P ercentage of farm ers who have heard about the
p ro g ra m 84
Table 4.3 1 P e rcentage of farm e rs who know t h e i r keym an's n a m e B5 Table 4.32 P ercentage of farmers who have bou g h t drugs fro m
key m e n B 5
Table 4.33 Farme r opinion o n t h e i r keyme n i n respect to
acceptance levels and d istance between vi l l ages B6
Table 4.34 Distri bution of accept a n ce levels by h e rd size B7 Table 4.35 Income (baht/U S$) of farmers i n acceptance
levels in 1 9B6 BB
Table 4.36 Fam i ly size and animal own ers h i p B9
Tabl e 4 . 3 7 Incomes of keymen ( U S $) derived from buffal o , cattle, crops, other livestock and b e i n g
keym e n i n 1 9B6 89
Tab l e 4.3B Keym a n ' s annual i n c o m e (US$) by adoption area
and d u ration of p ro g ra m 90
Tabl e 4.39 Keyma n ' s i ncome (US$) from buffalo and catt l e
i n 1 9B6 90
Table 4.40 Income of keyman (US$) in 1 9B6 by a d opti o n area
and p ro g ram d u ration 91
Tab l e 4.41 N u m b e r o f buffal o a n d cattle i n Tu m bons and
v i l l a g e s in 1 9B6 9 1
Tab l e 4.42 The p e rcentage of keyman with prior experience
of i nject i n g a n i m als 9 2
Tab l e 4.43 N u m be r of villages i n a k eyman's area and n u m b e r o f keym e n w h o were i nvo lved i n o t h e r com m u n ity
activitie s 93
Table 4.44 P e rcent a g e of keym e n who visited other villages 93 Tab l e 4.45 N u m b e r of villages vis ited s i nce t h e program
co m m e nced 94
Tabl e 4.46 N u m b e r of villages vis ited in 1 986 94
Table 4.47 N u m b e r of days keym e n spent on p ro moting
the sch e m e i n 1 986 95
Tabl e 4.48 P e rcentag e of keym e n keeping drug receivi n g and
s e l l i n g records 95
Tabl e 4.49 N u m b e r of conta i n e rs of d eworm i n g drugs obta i n e d
a n d s o l d i n 1 986 96
Table 4.50 Mean p ri ces charged ( i n baht) for d ru gs by
key m e n 96
Tabl e 4 . 5 1 M ethods of transport u s e d b y keym e n i n the
pro g ra m 9 7
Tabl e 4.52 Knowle d g e retention of k eymen concern i n g
paras itism 97
Ta ble 4.53 P e rcentag e of keymen who used ass istance to
carry out responsibilities 98
Tabl e 4.54 Percentage of keym e n p romoted the program in own
and oth e r villages 99
Tabl e 4.55 Keym a n ' s perception of attitudes of farmers in
his own vil lage 1 00
Tabl e 4.56 Keyma n ' s perceptio n of attitu d es of farm ers i n
oth e r v i l lages 1 00
Table 4 . 5 7 P e rcentage o f keym e n report i n g t h at an imals had
become sick after paras ite treatment 1 0 1
Table 4.58 Percenta g e of keym a n reporti n g that an imals had
died afte r treatment 1 0 1
Table 4.59 The effect of publicity m ethods, by ad option
areas (%) 1 02
Tabl e 4.60 Keyme n comments o n d ru g supply in the pro g ram 1 03
Tabl e 4 . 6 1 Key m a n comments o n d ru g prices 1 03
Table 4.63 Key m a n comme nts o n i n ce ntive payments and
n u m b e r of keymen i n Tu m bon 1 04
Table 4.64 R atio of a n imals to keymen i n 4 p ro g ram provi nces 1 05 Tab l e 4.65 D istri bution of family l ivestock activity by
adopti o n area 1 06
xiii
Tabl e 4.66 Percenta g e of farme rs u n d e rtak i n g vario u s
cropping activities othe r than r i c e g rowi n g 1 06 Tabl e 4.67 Income of vi l l age farmers (U S$) d e rived from
a n i m als, crops and off-farm work 1 06
Table 4.68 Sources of information for farmers about treatment of s ick calves in rel ation to d istance from the
keyman's v i l l a g e 1 0 7
Tabl e 4.69 Farmer k n owledge of n e m atode parasitism by
adoptio n a re a 1 08
Tabl e 4.70 Farmer k n owl edge o n Fasciola e p i d e m io logy,
classified by adoption a reas 1 08
Tab l e 4 . 7 1 Exte nt t o w h i ch farm e rs practised p reve ntion,
by adoption a reas 1 09
Tab l e 4.72 Farmer k n owl edge concern i n g the scheme 1 1 0 Tabl e 4. 73 Farmer's o p i n ion of activities of keymen by
adoption a reas 1 1 1
Tabl e 4.74 Reasons farmers i n adopt i o n areas i g nored
keyman's recomme ndation 1 1 1
Tab l e 4 . 7 5 Difficu lty i n g etting d r u g s from keym e n 1 1 2 Tab l e 4.76 Nature of problems in g etti n g drugs from keymen 1 1 2 Tab l e 4 . 7 7 P e rcent a g e of farm e rs who bou g ht d r u g f o r calf
treatment in rel ati on to d istance from keyman's
vi l lage 1 1 3
Tab l e 4.78 Effects of d istance on h ow accu rate ly farmers
used the d ru gs 1 1 3
Table 4 . 79 Farm er o p i n i on o n trad itio n al versus m od ern treatment, and the i m p rove ment ach i eved after
p ro g ram t reatment 1 1 4
Table 4.80 Farmer o p i n i on on ben efits of fluke treatment i n
adoption areas, b y adoption areas 1 1 4
Tab l e 4 . 8 1 Effects of treatment o n t h e val u e o f a d u l t an i m a l s
b y adopti o n areas 1 1 5
Tab l e 4.82 Effects of various media i n each type of adopt i o n
area, classified b y d istan c e o f vi l lages 1 1 6 Tab l e 6 . 1 Form u l a e u s e d i n the economic analys i s at farm e r
l evel 1 27
Tab l e 6.2 Estimati o n of i ncreased b u ffal o val u e p e r farm at end of year by acceptan c e level , for those farme rs
who own buffalo, u s i n g actual s u rvey d ata 1 28 Tab l e 6.3 Estimat i o n o f cattl e val u e per farm at end of
year by acceptance leve l for those farmers who
own catt l e , using actual s u rvey d ata 1 29
Table 6.4 C osts and net benefits of parasite control
p ro g ram - act u a l data 1 29
Table 6 . 5 Estimation of buffalo val u e p e r farm a t e n d o f y e a r b y acceptance level , for t h os e farmers w h o own buffalo, adjusted to e q u ate a n i mals
owned and b i rth rates 1 3 1
Table 6 . 6 Estimation of cattle val u e p e r farm a t e n d of year by acceptance l evel for those farm e rs who own cattle, adj usted to e q u at e animals owned and
b i rt h rates 1 32
Table 6 . 7 C osts a n d n et be nefit o f p ro g ram fo r buffalo a n d c attle own ers, adjusted fo r h e rd s ize a n d
b i rth rate 1 32
Table 6.8 Estimatio n of buffa lo val u e per farm at e n d of year by acceptance l eve l , adjusted to represent
t h e ave rage farm er 1 33
Table 6.9 Estimation of cattle value per farm at e n d of year by acceptance l evel , adjusted to represent
average farmer 1 34
Table 6 . 1 0 C osts and n et benefit of t h e p ro g ram, adj usted to
represent t h e average far m e r 1 34
Table 6 . 1 1 Esti mation of buffalo val u e p e r farm at end of year by acceptance l eve l , if a l l e l i g i ble
a n i mals are t reated 1 36
Table 6 . 1 2 Esti mation of cattle val u e p e r farm at e n d of year by acceptance l eve l , if a l l e l i g i bl e
a n imals a r e t reated 1 37
Table 6 . 1 3 C osts and b e n efits of control program for avera g e
farm e r, if a l l e l i g ible anim als a re treated 1 3 7 Table 6 . 1 4 Estimati o n of b uffal o val u e p e r farm at e nd of
year by acceptance l eve l , if 5 0% of ani m als at
p resent l eft untreated receive treatment 1 38 Table 6 . 1 5 Estimation of cattle val u e p e r farm at e n d of
year by acceptance leve l , if 50% of ani m als
c u rrently l eft u ntreated receive treatment 1 39 Table 6 . 1 6 Costs and n et benefit of co ntrol progra m , if
50% of a n i m als at present l eft u ntreated receive
t reatment 1 39
Table 7 . 1 B enefit o f t h e base p ro g ra m a n d raised
farm e r acceptance 1 43
Table 7.2 B en efit of t h e p ro g ram if a l l e l i g i bl e ani mals
are treated 1 44
Table 7.3 Benefit of t h e p ro g ram if 50% more e l i g i ble
a n i m als tre ated 1 45
Table 7 .4 Ben efit of program for p rovi n ce 1 46
CONVE R S I O N FACT O R S
1 rai = 1 60 0 s q u a re m eters
= 0. 1 6 h e ctares
= 0.395 acres
1 square k i lometre = 247 . 1 acres
= 1 00 h e ctares
= 0 .386 s q uare m i l e s
1 k i l o m etre = 0 . 6 2 1 m i l e s
US$ 1 = 2 5 baht(approx i m ately)
NZ$ 1 = 1 5 baht(approx i m ately)
