Next Article in Journal
The Use of Sodium Hypochlorite and Plant Preservative Mixture Significantly Reduces Seed-Borne Pathogen Contamination When Establishing In Vitro Cultures of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Seeds
Previous Article in Journal
Comparative Evaluation of Analytical Techniques for Quantifying and Characterizing Polyethylene Microplastics in Farmland Soil Samples
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the Relationship between Digital Technology Use and Agricultural Productivity in EU Countries
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Smart Pig Farming—A Journey Ahead of Vietnam

by
Md Sharifuzzaman
1,2,†,
Hong-Seok Mun
1,3,†,
Keiven Mark B. Ampode
1,4,
Eddiemar B. Lagua
1,5,
Hae-Rang Park
1,5,
Young-Hwa Kim
6,
Md Kamrul Hasan
1,7 and
Chul-Ju Yang
1,5,*
1
Animal Nutrition and Feed Science Laboratory, Department of Animal Science and Technology, Sunchon National University, Suncheon 57922, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Science and Technology University, Gopalganj 8100, Bangladesh
3
Department of Multimedia Engineering, Sunchon National University, Suncheon 57922, Republic of Korea
4
Department of Animal Science, College of Agriculture, Sultan Kudarat State University, Tacurong 9800, Philippines
5
Interdisciplinary Program in IT-Bio Convergence System (BK21 Plus), Sunchon National University, Suncheon 57922, Republic of Korea
6
Interdisciplinary Program in IT-Bio Convergence System (BK21 Plus), Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Republic of Korea
7
Department of Poultry Science, Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet 3100, Bangladesh
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Both authors have equal contributions to this work as co-first authors.
Agriculture 2024, 14(4), 555; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14040555
Submission received: 12 March 2024 / Revised: 28 March 2024 / Accepted: 29 March 2024 / Published: 31 March 2024

Abstract

:
Vietnam heavily relies on pork as its primary source of animal protein. Traditional farming methods, characterized by small-scale operations, dominate the industry. However, challenges such as rising feed costs, disease outbreaks, and market volatility are prompting many farmers to abandon their businesses. Recognizing the pivotal role of the swine sector in both economic development and nutrition, authorities must intervene to prevent its collapse. In developed nations, smart pig farming, utilizing technologies like sensors and cameras for data collection and real-time decision-making, has significantly improved health and productivity. These technologies can detect subtle indicators of animal well-being, enabling prompt intervention. This review aims to analyze the drivers of Vietnam’s swine farming, identify existing production system flaws, and explore innovative precision farming methods worldwide. Embracing precision farming promises to enhance Vietnam’s competitiveness in export markets and bolster consumer confidence. However, reliance solely on expensive foreign technologies may benefit large-scale farms, leaving smaller ones behind. Therefore, fostering local innovation and validating cost-effective solutions will be crucial for the sustainable growth of small- and medium-scale pig farming in Vietnam.

1. Introduction

The gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate in Vietnam was as high as 8.02% in 2022 [1]. Compared to 2021, the agricultural (crop, livestock, forestry, and fishery) growth rate increased by 3.36%, which hastened the overall progress [2]. A total of 12.56% of the national GDP (1065.08 trillion Vietnamese dongs) in 2021 [3] and 11.88% (1129.91 trillion Vietnamese dongs) in 2022 [2] has been the contribution of this sector. Livestock makes up a significant portion of the agriculture sector’s output [4,5] in which swine contributes the most from both economic and nutritional standpoints [6,7,8]. In Asia, Vietnam ranks as the third highest meat-consuming country, worth USD 18 billion [4], and more than 70% of consumption is pork [9,10,11]. Such is the contribution that no other meat can be thought of as a substitute for it [9]. Per capita pork consumption in 2021 was 25.93 kg/year which is expected to rise to 32.72 kg/year in 2029 [12]. Vietnam produces a lot of pork as well. According to the GSO (General Statistics Office of Vietnam), the country raised 23.2 million pigs in 2021 [13]. In the year 2022, Vietnam ranked second (within Asia) [14] and sixth (worldwide) [10,14] in pork production. This advancement has been contributed by both household and commercial pig farms that increase earnings and produce goods that appeal to the country’s users [15,16,17,18]. The household level of production is the source of income for above four million pig farmers [9] accounting for about 80% of the total farms [6,19,20]. This conventional farming contributes largely to the economic development of rural and suburban areas. Still, at the same time, scattered production at this large scale causes challenges for sustainable development. The government of Vietnam, with limited capacity, cannot regularly monitor and control the unregistered farms, wet markets (a marketplace where products are sold raw and fresh), and veterinary services. Moreover, reliance on traditional farming and wet markets presents health risks from inadequate hygiene, limits market access caused by lower product quality and compliance issues, and results in income instability [21,22]. Conversely, modern farming enhances efficiency, reduces costs, and improves animal welfare and health monitoring, thereby optimizing resource utilization and overall farm management practices [23,24,25,26,27]. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) of Vietnam has expressed interest and provided policies to upgrade swine farming from traditional smallholder to smart medium and commercial scale farms. To do so, Vietnam will need a lot of infrastructural development, technical support, technological exposure, financial investment, and implementation of precision farming devices. All these changes look quite difficult right now, but with the ongoing trend worldwide, the signs of obvious changes are there.
This document seeks to examine the factors influencing and obstacles faced in the advancement of pig farming in Vietnam by conducting a comprehensive review of the literature. It aims to provide insights for ensuring the sustainable growth of swine production in the coming days. The first part of the manuscript presents the current scenario of Vietnamese swine farming in terms of the production status, technological advancements, disease condition, product marketing, policies, and challenges. The next section provides a review of invented technologies and methods worldwide for smart and sustainable swine farming. The later sections discuss prospects, future trading, and environmental sustainability related to Vietnam’s swine farming. Finally, recommendations are set up proposing possible strategies for strengthening the industry, keeping sustainable development in mind.

2. Review Methodology

2.1. Search Strategy and Article Selection Process

A thorough search was performed to find the pertinent literature about the state of pig farming in Vietnam today and in the future. Keywords and search terms related to Vietnam, swine production, pig farming, environmental impact, sustainability, smart pig farming, technical efficiency, and sensors were used in the Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and Web of Science databases, given their comprehensive coverage of academic articles in the areas of animal husbandry and future farming. Additionally, to gather a wide range of perspectives and the most recent events, online sources were also incorporated, such as official government papers, policy documents, reports of international projects, and reliable news sources. For a more efficient search and to guarantee inclusivity, Boolean operators like “AND” and “OR” were employed. The period of 2016 to 2023 was analyzed. From the search results, studies that satisfied the following requirements were included in the review: (a) abstracts that concentrated on pig farming challenges and prospects in Vietnam; (b) offered quantitative data on pig and/or pork production, marketing, and consumption; (c) offered automation for precision livestock farming; and (d) published in peer-reviewed journals, credible websites, government reports or other official publications, and conference proceedings. All inclusions were limited to English, except for some online news sources in the Vietnamese language. A bibliographic manager program (Zotero) was used for processing citations in compliance with citation style requirements.

2.2. Data Extraction

In order to ease the identification of trends, problems, opportunities, and emerging patterns in the Vietnamese pig farming sector, pertinent information was retrieved from the chosen literature sources (both from tables and text) and organized in a spreadsheet for tabular and graphical presentation in the manuscript.

3. Current Status of Swine Farming in Vietnam

3.1. Livestock Production Scenario and Pig Distribution

Vietnam had a pig population of 29.08 million in 2016, but the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) reduced the population to 27.41 million in 2017 [5,11,28]. Recovery was initiated in the following year with an increase of 1.4 million heads in 2018 [29], but due to the spread of African swine fever (ASF), pig numbers dramatically decreased to 20.21 million in 2019 [13]. Since then, as the situation improved, the pig population has gradually increased. In June 2021, the swine herd expanded by 11.6% compared with June 2020 [30]. Some studies and reports claimed the pig population has increased by 2.8% to 6.9% at different time points in 2023 against the same period in 2022 [31,32,33]. According to several sources, 70–78% of Vietnam’s total meat production is pork [34,35,36]. Improved slaughter weight (110 kg to 126.9 kg/pig from 2007 to 2020) has contributed to this figure, even at the time of fall in swine herds [37,38]. In the year 2017, 2.1 million metric tons (MMT) of pork were produced [39], which increased to 3.1 MMT in 2022 and was 2.75 MMT up to August 2023 [14]. Conversely, Vietnam produced only 1.07 MMT of chicken meat and 0.26 MMT of beef in 2022 [40]. Vietnam’s livestock production scenario from 2018 to 2022 is presented in Table 1.
GSO categorized Vietnam’s swine population into six regions: Northern midlands and mountain areas, Red river delta, Northern central area and central coastal area, Central highlands, South east, and Mekong river delta. The government’s initiatives to shift swine concentration from the densely populated Red river delta and Mekong river delta regions to the lightly populated Northern central area and central coastal area, and Central highlands can be understood from Figure 1.
Conventional/traditional small-scale household farms, medium-size farms, and industrial/large-size commercial farms are Vietnam’s available swine farm types [5,42,43]. According to the results of the 2011 census, the smallest category of pig farms having only 1 to 5 heads occupied 77.50% of the farms nationwide [44]. Although the proportion of small farms is decreasing and medium and large farms are increasing gradually [44,45], Vietnam’s pork sector will still be influenced by smallholder production for a few more decades [46]. Less than 20% of pork is contributed by industrial farms, according to a 2015 study [47]. In both conventional and industrial farming, one of two types of production systems, namely, “farrow-to-finish” and “fattening”, is practiced [19]. Farrow-to-finish is a complete production cycle where breeding stocks are reproduced and offspring are sold at market age. This process usually takes 7.5–10.5 months to complete one cycle. Fattening takes around 4 months in well-managed farms [18]. However, Vietnamese farmers spent around 5.8 months in fattening hogs [43], leading to more production costs. Another cost-boosting item is the increased floor space offered by Vietnamese farmers. The ideal floor area for fattening hogs is 1.27 to 1.47 m2/head, whereas traditional Vietnamese farmers allow roughly 3.25 m2 [48]. Therefore, increasing the number of pigs raised in the same facility could increase the profit [19,49]. One more crucial factor associated with performance and profitability is the source and quality of feed. Feeds for pigs vary greatly following the scale of operation. About 22.50%, 70.70%, and 6.80% of farmers in Vietnam feed their pigs solely homemade, a mixture of homemade and purchased, and solely purchased feeds, respectively [10]. As weight development and well-being are significantly affected by nutrition [50] and it is quite impossible to measure the quality of homemade diets [7], performance is often compromised. According to Galanopoulos et al. [50], commercial meals more closely meet the animal’s dietary requirements. Another study strongly supports the statement that the nationwide feed conversion ratio (FCR) for pork is 4.4, whereas for the intensive commercial farms, it is only 2.8, and for the household pigs, the FCR is more than 5 [10]. Vietnam has a long history of importing exotic breeders like Landrace, Hampshire, Duroc, Yorkshire, and Pietrain [51,52,53]. More than 43,300 breeding pigs were brought from the USA, Canada, Thailand, and Denmark in 2020 alone [54]. In small-scale operations, farmers mostly rear local breeds like Mong Cai, Ban, Muong Khuong, Soc, Co, Meo, Tap Na, Ha Lang, Muong Te, Lung Pu, Lung, O Lam, Chu Prong, etc. [20,51,52,53,55,56,57]. Indigenous breeds mature early and are more adaptable but lack the productive and reproductive traits of exotic pigs [55]. In this regard, contract farming introduced recently by some large companies can be beneficial for all parties involved. There is less market risk for the farmer, and the company can earn a large profit share without directly managing the animals [58,59]. However, contract farming is now limited to large-scale industrial farms only [60].

3.2. Technological Advancements in Vietnam’s Swine Farms

Innovation and technology are essential to the global food system’s sustainable growth [61,62,63]. The success of Vietnam’s agricultural production in recent years is thought to have been largely due to science and technology, especially advancements in plant types, inputs, and sophisticated farming instruments [64]. As for developed countries, the implementation of advanced tools and technologies are in place for the livestock sector as well. This has led to professional livestock production, mostly known as precision livestock farming (PLF) nowadays [4]. However, the same has not been the case for Vietnam and many other developing countries’ livestock sectors. The official livestock farms classification in Vietnam emphasizes the number of livestock, while the degree of automation and efficiency is often overlooked [18]. In conventional pig farming, there is no technical advancement, as the farmers have refrained from investing in advanced tools due to limited financial availability and lack of interest [6]. Moreover, just 18.2% of agricultural businesses have an internet connection [65], which is one of the major prerequisites of smart farming. A few major commercial producers are introducing foreign-invented sensors and models in their farms and other associated pork processing and marketing branches. Overall, very few farms are operated with automatic drinking, feeding, and cooling systems in the country [44]. Precise and advanced technologies shall be encouraged and incorporated for production to marketing automation [28]. For the production part, sensors capable of reading body and environmental temperatures, activity, respiration rate, heart rate, and postures can be implemented. Additionally, for marketing, stress-free automated weighing, robotic slaughter, and processing are options explored. Barcode, blockchain technologies, etc., can support the traceability of marketed products.

3.3. Disease Management and Biosecurity Measures

Ideal health is essential for the well-being of swine and the profitability of farms [45]. To minimize risk, Vietnamese farmers vaccinate pigs against common diseases. Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), ASF, hog cholera, FMD, etc., are some of the most fatal and impactful diseases in Vietnam [19]. The average vaccination cost for fattening pigs ranges from USD 4.7–9, depending upon the number of vaccines applied [19]. Despite the vaccination program and other limited disease monitoring systems, the occurrence of new diseases and the recurrence of former diseases has always been the case. For example, between the years 2003 and 2015, the number of birds destroyed due to avian influenza infection exceeded 60 million [66]. In 2022 alone, up to November, Vietnam had to destroy around 55 thousand livestock (buffalo, cows, and pigs) and 96 thousand poultry [67]. Because of the nature of scattered small-scale farms, government authorities face a hard time minimizing swine diseases. In 2006 and 2016, FMD caused farmers to experience financial dropout [10,11]. Another fatal disease, PRRS, was first detected in 2007 [68] and spread to more than 13 thousand farms, killing about 30 thousand swine. By 2010, PRRS spread to 49 provinces [69] infecting more than 800 thousand and killing around 450 thousand [70]. Hog cholera forced many farmers to close their operations as well [7]. According to one report published in 2019, above 2300 cholera-infected pigs had to be culled, resulting in heavy losses [71].
The first case of ASF in Vietnam was reported on 19 February 2019 [5,72]. By October of the same year, the disease spread all over the country [72,73]. Nguyen-Thi et al. [74] reported that in 2019, nearly 6 million ASF affected pigs (above 20% of the overall swine population) had to be put to death. Authorities responsible for veterinary services made efforts to halt the outbreak. Therefore, a decreasing number of infections was observed over time. In the first year of the outbreak, more than 6 thousand outbreaks were recorded; in 2020, the number was reduced to 1737, followed by an increase to 3154 outbreaks in 2021 and again reduced to 1256 outbreaks in 2022 [75]. On 24 July 2023, Vietnam approved the world’s first commercial vaccines (NAVET-ASFVAC and AVAC ASF LIVE) against ASF [76,77,78]. China has also been devoted to developing ASF vaccines since 2018 and has made marked progress [79]. Although the outbreak situation seems better than the previous year, because of the very highly infectious nature of the disease, the sector is still at risk, and if not handled properly, the situation may become worse in the coming days. According to one report published on 21 July 2023 by the Lak district media, culture, and sports center, the district’s Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Station destroyed 261 infected pigs weighing 8.7 thousand kg [80]. Another 6402 infected pigs were eliminated in Ninh Binh province between mid-March and late July [81]. Lang Son province had to cull more than 2000 animals from an ASF outbreak in 10 districts in 2023 again [82]. Between 24 July and September of 2023, 12 provinces experienced new outbreaks [31]. Bac Kan province authority has also confirmed further infections in new districts [83]. The new infection is also prevalent in central Vietnam districts [84,85]. As of 20 October 2023, the Dien Chau district of Central Vietnam had destroyed 291 infected animals [84]. Yen Thanh district also culled over 500 pigs to control the further spread of the infection [86]. All these reports indicate ASF has a high probability of recurrence, and so farmers must take proactive steps to control and prevent epidemics to lower the likelihood of widespread outbreaks again [87]. One way that ASF and other illnesses spread is through the marketing of live piglets and finished pigs through middlemen [5,10]. Piglets obtained from markets or dealers cannot be tested or verified for quality by farmers [6]. Low-quality veterinary medications and ineffective treatments put pig production at more risk and human health in danger [88]. Recent cases of Streptococcus suis bacterial infection in humans have caused the authorities to strengthen the supervision of biosecurity awareness programs [89]. Since most pig homes are open style with low levels of biosecurity, illnesses can spread quickly to other locations when they arise.

3.4. Market Dynamics

Lower marketing strength is a major problem faced by traditional farmers. The most normal practice is to sell live pigs to intermediaries who gather and resell them to slaughterhouses. Slaughterhouses market their products in the following three ways: (i) sell the meat to both retail and wholesale businessmen (70%), (ii) sell to wholesalers only (24%), and (iii) sell to consumers directly (6%) [10]. Usually, retailers collect pork from wholesalers and sell it to final consumers. Approximately 75% of pork in Vietnam follows the conventional value chain, including farmers, butchers, retailers, and end users [22]. This is how swine products in Vietnam must go through undesired middlemen before they reach the end user. Repeated handovers increase the transaction costs, and the market becomes unstable, where both the actual producer and consumer must pay for the middlemen.
People of Vietnam prefer fresh pork, and 93.3% of consumers buy from a traditional or wet market in the countryside, where the origin and quality of meat are not traceable. Only 13.2% of pork comes with a quality-check stamp [10]. About 97% of customers do not believe the meat supply chain, indicating serious problems with trust [9]. There are growing numbers of supermarkets in Vietnam, but they are still limited to large cities and most consumers are not accustomed to buying frozen pork yet [9,90]. The frozen pork in supermarkets is sometimes from imported sources. Around 4 percent of pork in Vietnam is imported [64]. The occurrence of ASF inside the country has increased the amount of pork imported [54]. In the first six months of 2021, 70 thousand tons of pork were imported [64], which rose to 89 thousand tons in the next four months, costing nearly 190 million USD, according to Vietnam’s department of customs [91]. Frozen pork and pork products are mostly imported from the USA, Canada, Brazil, Germany, Russia, and the Netherlands [91,92]. Overflow of pork may force the market to reduce prices. This has been the case in Vietnam several times, where smallholders become the major victims and many of them cannot run their businesses anymore. According to a GSO-conducted investigation engaging 26,500 swine-producing households all over the country in 2022, household-level pig production cost is close to market value, where only 38.64% of producers made a profit and 8.51% of producers had a loss [67]. Another earlier study observed that 24% of smallholder farmers yielded a negative benefit from their business [93]. However, many other studies have found it profitable even for smallholder operations [56,94,95,96]. Loss in business is not always related to supply overflow though. Some research has shown farms are not operated at their maximum capacity. One study in Hanoi showed that optimal technical efficiency (efficiency of resource utilization) can reduce the input costs of Vietnam’s traditional and industrial pig production by 26.2% and 34.3%, respectively, with no effect on output [19]. A separate investigation carried out in North Vietnam revealed that home pig farming had a technical efficiency of 80.40% [18], meaning it had a scope of reducing input cost by 19.60%. Vietnam’s pig production system is not competitive enough for the international market yet [92]. According to the development strategy towards 2045, the expected share of exports will be 15–20% of total pork in 2030 [97]. To go somewhere near the target, Vietnam must prove its capability to produce quality pork at reasonable costs. This is where large-scale precision farming can help.

3.5. Government Policies and Initiatives

The production of pigs and other animals is regulated by national policy [98]. Through policy implementations, MARD aims to resolve the limiting issues of pig farming they currently have, like decreased land, limited choices for breeding, and pollution of the environment [5]. A World Bank-funded livestock competitiveness and food safety project (LIFSAP) was implemented in 2006, engaging small-scale producers to improve food safety and reduce environmental risks in the production process and supply chains [99]. To support farmers and the environment, MARD, along with international organizations, support household biogas development [100]. Another supportive program, livestock insurance was also introduced experimentally for cattle and buffalo in 2011–2013 [6,101,102,103] but never evolved [104]. Focusing on the sustainable development of swine farming, MARD approved a livestock sector reshaping plan on 9 May 2014 intended to increase non-native high-producing stock from 19.8% (2013) to 33% and to boost large-scale farms with intensified biosecurity by 2020 [6]. In 2019, MARD established the livestock task force to accelerate public–private partnerships (PPPs) to efficiently sort out the constraints involved in the livestock business and resolve them accordingly. The missions of the task force were to develop training materials, examine inventive proposals, create collaborative business models, establish livestock information systems, and form programs for sectoral experience sharing [4]. The Vietnam National Assembly approved the animal husbandry law in 2019 [105]. The government has decided to create epidemic biosafety zones for livestock out of the cities and highly populated areas (minimum of 1 km away) [19,42]. They are looking forward to establishing modernized processing plants and secure marketing facilities to serve sustainable development. MARD has proposed to aid in the establishment of well-equipped modernized livestock production systems at both individual and organizational levels to control illness and enhance food safety [6]. They expect that more than 70% of pigs will be raised in intensive large-scale farms by 2030 [97]. To facilitate this expectation, the minimum required annual turnover to establish a livestock business was set to 2.0 billion Vietnamese Dong (VND) or more in 2020, which was previously limited to 1 billion VND [2].
Vietnam joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2007 [106], and since then, it has reduced import tariffs on feed ingredients [107]. The import tax was reduced to 2% and 0% from 5% in maize and wheat, respectively [6]. However, only a few large companies and importers received most of the benefits, leaving others at a disadvantage. This is a lesson to learn that a long-term master plan to reduce the dependency on imported feed ingredients and the establishment of an accomplishable policy is inevitable. The agreement of free trade with the EU in 2019 has opened a corridor for Vietnam to export pork [108]. One guideline, namely, “development strategy of livestock production sector for the period of 2021–2030, prospect towards 2045” was issued in 2020 to stimulate livestock development at the rate of four to five percent per year during 2021–2025, and three to four percent per year during 2026–2030, focusing both local consumption and the export market [97].
The government also takes strategies like genetic development, price control, product safety inspection, and welcoming large high-tech companies to satisfy domestic demand and promote exports. A 50% reduction in interest over the loan sanction for improving animal genetics [6] and supportive programs to encourage artificial insemination for genetic enrichment [109] are on the priority list of MARD. A national livestock breeding policy is also in place; however, the application is not ensured due to a lack of monitoring capacity and a highly scattered production system countrywide [110]. The government of Vietnam has been fighting with ASF for the last four and a half years. Numerous infected pigs have been destroyed over the period [74,111,112,113]. At the same time, the government is taking care of other diseases as well through vaccination and awareness-building programs. A subsidy for PRRS and classical swine fever vaccinations was announced for both small- and large-scale farmers. In addition, very little to zero rent on government-owned land is available for farmers and other agricultural investors. Furthermore, the government also assists with up to 50% of the land cost for the first 5 years of business when renting land from other sources, up to 100% in training labor, up to 50% of consultancy fees, and up to 50% for the research towards the invention of new technologies [6]. Despite the supportive programs and policies taken by MARD to strengthen pig production and the value chain, many loopholes have yet to be fixed. Issues that policymakers should focus on can be identified when the current problems are detected. The following section aims to discuss the challenges in place.

3.6. Major Challenges and Constraints

3.6.1. Environmental Impacts

Animal farming all over the world has to face obstacles like soil and water pollution, contagious disease risks, antibiotic resistance, smell issues, product quality deterioration, animal waste processing, global warming, and many more [4,11,114,115,116]. Vietnam is not an exception, and sustainable livestock development is questioned there too [11]. The expansion of livestock contributes to substantial waste, posing a significant threat of greenhouse gas emissions that can adversely affect climate change, jeopardizing soil quality, surface water, groundwater, and human health if not appropriately addressed [7]. According to one study in Ha Hoa district, Phu Tho province in 2018, no waste treatment systems were implemented by 3% of farms having more than 30 pigs and by 38% of farms having less than 30 pigs [117]. Farmers possess a limited understanding of manure composition [118]. While farmyard manure was historically a crucial nutrient source in crop production, its significance has diminished due to the widespread adoption of chemical fertilizers [119], attributed to their lower cost and greater convenience [120]. The hauling of manure is regarded as the most unpleasant and physically demanding task [118,121]. Tropical livestock farming discharges significant volumes of wastewater, leading to the pollution of both surface and groundwater [43,122,123,124]. Water utilization efficiency stands at a mere 52% in large-scale industrial farms, and it is even less favorable for the other two categories [43]. In Vietnam, each pig requires an average of 40 L of water per day for washing and cleaning purposes [120], which is 12 L in Malaysia and 50 L in Singapore [125]. Industrial farms frequently treat their pig excrement in liquid form [60], which lowers the grow-to-finish farms’ technical efficiency [126]. A survey in the northern region of Vietnam highlighting a lack of expertise among farmers in managing liquid manure revealed that approximately 19% of the total manure generated is released into public waterbodies [120]. Another study conducted in Ha Nam province in 2020 showed that 11% of farmers discharge their animal waste directly to drains and ponds [127]. Emissions to receivers transfer harmful bacteria into waterways and pollute water [128]. Greater animal numbers without advanced waste treatment reduce technical efficiency as handling animal waste occupies a large area of land [19], which is opposite to crop cultivation [129]. To offset the adverse environmental effects, South Korea, Italy, the UK, and Japan have decided to import pork, while some other countries have tightly regulated swine farming and waste treatment rather than ceasing production [130]. Vietnam has also pledged to handle all non-household waste by the year 2025 [131].

3.6.2. Feed Price

COVID-19, followed by the combat of Ukraine and Russia, has greatly disturbed the animal feed market’s stability [132]. Rice bran, soybean meal, corn meal, fish meal, etc., are commonly used ingredients [133,134], and the majority (70–80%) of the feed ingredients are imported [10,11,29,135,136,137]. Due to heavy reliance on premixes, soybean, and maize imports, feed markets are volatile, and small farmers are exposed to risks. Another feed issue is that the feed industry is dominated by a select group of big producers like CP and Cargill, who hold substantial market shares. Very few farmers purchase feeds directly from industries; the majority purchase them from agents at 8–12% higher prices [10]. As feed accounts for more than 70% of total costs [138,139,140], pig farming costs are increasing every year following the feed costs.

3.6.3. Pork Price

The price of pork fluctuates highly throughout the year. For example, live hogs’ price in March 2022 was 2000–3000 VND/kg, down from January 2022; July’s price was 8000–15,000 VND/kg, up from June of the same year [87,132]. In recent years, the price issue has forced 30% of small farmers to wrap up farming [141]. Vietnam has substantially more small farms than other nations; nearly all of the country’s swine herds consist of under 100 animals [142]. Sometimes the supply exceeds the demand, as information sharing is not practical on this scale. Diseases like ASF and PRRS have also impacted the market significantly [143,144]. Moreover, China’s policy to stop importing live pigs from Vietnam led to a swine price crisis in 2017 [5,145]. China, the EU, and the USA greatly impact pork prices worldwide since they contribute 78% of global production [146]. Cut-off tariffs among WTO and AFTA (ASEAN free trade area) nations undoubtedly subjected Vietnamese pig farmers to fierce market competition, which has significant ramifications for the country’s pork markets. In the immediate and distant future, prices are probably going to be impacted by inexpensive meat and edible offal imports. This imposes a great threat that small farmers may not be able to cover their production costs in the future. Vietnamese customers largely prefer raw, non-frozen pork [147]. However, if there is a significant difference in the price of meat imported and domestically produced, and if consumers’ preference converts due to increased spending capacity, ease, and diversity offered, Vietnam may have to import more pork. Timely action for sustainable swine farming integrated with modern processing plants is the possible way out for the country in the coming days.

3.6.4. Genetic Resources

One of the major issues that pig growers deal with is a lack of understanding of optimal techniques for operations and breeding [5]. Vietnam’s pig breeding expenses surpass the global average, thus making the nation’s pork less competitive [91,92]. Only nucleus herds and breeding farms in Vietnam engage in planned reproduction [20], unlike numerous small-scale farms where reproduction aims to prioritize a short-term improvement in quantity over features related to resistance to illness and lifelong output. Indiscriminate crossbreeding with exotic breeds has led to a loss of genetic diversity of local breeds [148]. Consequently, Vietnam’s sow efficiency is significantly less than many other countries. The mean annual production of completed pigs is 12.3 per sow, but modern pig farms produce 20.5 pigs per sow [10,149]. The government has been advocating for the use and spread of alien breeds [54]. If it is conducted haphazardly like before, there is greater fear over the decline of native genetic resources [54,148].

3.6.5. Pathogens, Harmful Agents, and Veterinary Services

Numerous bacteria, viruses, and protozoa found in livestock manure may be harmful to both human and animal health [120]. Animal discharges in rivers and streams can spread highly transmissible and deadly viral diseases like Aujeszky’s disease, hog cholera, and FMD to other farms [150]. According to reports from 2010, as much as 61% of animal and poultry products were infested with Salmonella, E. Coli, and Coliform, making them unsanitary [151]. Thai et al. [152] observed that about 39.6% of pork samples collected from North Vietnam were Salmonella-positive. Dang-Xuan et al. [153] and Ngo et al. [154] found 44.7% and 58.1% Salmonella-positive meat in pork shops. Another study in 2022 claimed high levels of Salmonella-contaminated pork, even in supermarkets and modern outlets [35]. According to Nguyen-Viet et al. [155], 90% of marketed pork was found not to meet standards for bacterial contamination, and 98% did not meet standards for coliforms. Pork samples tested positive for harmful residue of beta-agonists [156] and tetracycline [157] in Hanoi and sulfamethazine in Ho Chi Minh city [158]. Nhung et al. [159] noted a 9.6% occurrence of antimicrobial residues in the Vietnamese pork sample. Uncovering multiple pig farms utilizing illegal substances like salbutamol and clenbuterol in animal feed, the number of pigs fell by 1.1 million between 2010 and 2013 [11]. Veterinary items and services are not sufficiently governed to ensure that they adhere to the necessary standards. A sizable portion of veterinarians do not have registration either [160].

3.6.6. Insufficient Technological Involvement

Vietnam’s farming system is conventional with very few exceptions. With the growing number of young populations and extended income, a rise in meat demand is expected. On the other hand, because of the nature of in-farm operations and the business model of other successful pork-producing countries, the farm number seems to decrease in the future. Therefore, the establishment of a well-equipped ICT-based large-scale farming system is a must. So far, some farms have implemented a few sensors and monitoring tools. Extension of the use of these automated real-time data collection tools is required to facilitate precision pig farming for the sake of achieving sustainable development with reduced environmental effects [26,161]. It is quite challenging to invest a substantial amount of money into this developing industry [162].
The root cause of most of these issues is the policies’ weaknesses, which lack a solid foundation in the nation’s relevance and context. Policies have always been challenging to implement because there is a significant mismatch between goals and available resources.

4. Research Progress and Innovation Worldwide in Precision Swine Farming

4.1. In Animal Identification, Behavior Recognition, and Other Productive Trait Detection

With the positive intent of sustainable development of the pork industry, Vietnam should move the farming system towards precision farming. In addition to offering a means of individualized care and surveillance, digital transformation proves to be a practical means of supplying the growing need for food for the world’s population in the future [163]. A variety of innovations have been developed that are intended to enhance production [164,165]. Monitoring the indoor farm environment using the Internet of Things (IoT) and sensors is highly convenient because there are relatively few expenses associated with maintaining and installing this equipment [166,167]. Studies and commercial applications of sensors in the field of animal identification [27], temperature measurement [168], etc., are in place. Radiofrequency identification (RFID) has proven effective in identifying and tracking individual animals [169,170,171,172,173]. Camera systems equipped with sensors can also be used for identification and body temperature measurements [174,175,176,177]. Cameras are found effective in determining the body weight, lameness, and injury of animals too [164,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190]. Alongside fixed round-the-clock monitoring cameras, portable infrared cameras are now well-known in advanced farming systems. They are effectively used in estrus detection [191,192] and fertility checks [193,194,195]. Some of the other innovative ICT tools, like the use of accelerometers [196,197] and GPS [198] for tracking, RFID for computing the feeding time [169], flow meters for measuring water intake [199], sound analyzers for detecting respiratory health [200,201,202,203], and stress [204], etc., are being explored by researchers and industries. These tools enable instantaneous information acquisition, which is then analyzed with statistical software or automatically by artificial intelligence [205]. Several studies used deep learning methods for animal recognition [206], posture and locomotion recognition [185,207,208], disease symptom or unusual behavior detection [209], feeding behavior determination [207], body weight determination [179,210,211], water consumption measurement [212], etc. The integral use of sensor-driven data, artificial intelligence, and other cutting-edge technologies can facilitate more reliable prediction and real-time decision-making [45,213]. Predictive analytics help farmers anticipate potential issues, manage risks, and make informed decisions to enhance productivity and profitability. Producers can be more positioned by knowing the time their livestock will be prepared for shipment to the butcher store [213]. Therefore, contemporary hog growers may need to employ automated models to keep an eye on the condition, well-being, and behavior of their pigs, and the farm’s overall environment [185,214]. The profitability of large farms increases when the automation of management practices is applied, according to Otsuka et al. [215]. The employment of robotic systems for washing and cleaning farms and processing carcasses has proven to be profitable by saving time, labor, and money [45]. Though many technologies exist, only a few have received complete validation [165]. Vietnam can go for well-validated products as a beginner on the path of precision farming, but developing its own products is crucial to facilitate the improvement and maintenance of developed tools in the long run.

4.2. In Veterinary Monitoring and Disease Control

Welfare risks are present in the traditional agricultural system [216], and often diseases cannot be identified at their early stages [45], resulting in more expensive medical care [217]. Precision pig farming integrates advanced veterinary monitoring and disease control measures to ensure the early detection of health issues and the implementation of timely interventions [27,162,218,219,220,221,222]. According to Racewicz et al. [220], the best and most practical method for managing the good health of a big herd of pigs would be to monitor the health parameters of animals automatically. Some researchers have successfully employed sensors to detect foodborne infections in animals [223,224,225,226]. Microfluidics has become more popular recently for its quick disease detection capabilities [227,228,229], and it has been shown to be a dependable and successful method of diagnosing ketosis [230]. Ahmed et al. [231] concluded that early detection of Escherichia coli and Salmonella enteritidis infections in piglets is possible using a ZigBee-based network.
Variations in an animal’s feeding or drinking habits can be used as markers of health, since illnesses, physiological abnormalities, and adverse environmental conditions interfere with regular feeding schedules [172,232]. Monitoring of feeding and drinking habits, including the amount of time spent consuming feed or water, and the number of visits to feeding area—either for nutritional or non-nutritive purposes—can be detected using an RFID system [169,233,234] and deep learning techniques [169,235,236,237,238]. Animal sounds can also be used to identify respiratory conditions, stress, and other illnesses [200,201,202,203,204,239,240,241]. Coughing sounds may serve as a useful marker for respiratory illnesses like pneumonia [202]. An approach based on the AlexNet model was developed by Yin et al. [242], who reported a 96.8% accuracy rate in cough recognition. Using sound analysis, Exadaktylos et al. [241] found 85% accuracy in real-time pig disease diagnosis. Furthermore, sound can be employed as a biomarker for farm indoor air pollution [243]. However, the primary limitation of audio-based health evaluations of farm animals is the cacophonous atmosphere within the farm [45]. As the occurrence and recurrence of diseases are quite common in pig herds in Vietnam, some early detection methods need to be implemented. Early detection and interventions do not necessarily serve economic benefits only but also help improve animal welfare, an important pillar of sustainability [244] and one of the major criteria for entering the international market [245]. A summary of Vietnam’s pig farming influencing factors, obstacles, and possible way-out proposals is shown in Figure 2.

5. Opportunities and Prospects

Vietnam was formerly among the nations with the lowest incomes worldwide, and today it is among the fastest-developing nations [246,247,248]. The country has an enormous population of approximately 99 million [249], which is expected to reach 105.9 million by 2040 [250]. The median age of the current population is 32.8 years [251]. This is a major factor for the sharp increase in the overall intake of food and drink items [11]. Between 2010 and 2018, the average monthly intake of meat per person rose from 1.8 kg to 2.2 kg [252]. Demand for animal products increases linearly with income [253,254]. The income of Vietnamese people has consistently increased [255]. The mean monthly earnings per person climbed from 2.64 million dongs in 2014 to 4.67 million dongs in 2022 [256]. Vietnamese consumers spent around 43.96 billion USD on food in 2018, which rose to 53 billion USD in 2021 [257]. An increase in the choice of ready-to-cook products and the changes in food habits are attributed to urbanization too [11,258]. According to one study in 2023, 62% of Vietnamese people live in rural areas, making it a largely rural country [259]. However, by 2040, the percentage of people living in cities is predicted to rise quickly to 48.4% [250]. An increase in the number of city dwellers will lead more consumers to shift their preferences towards animal proteins [260]. The desired increase in demand in the coming days is an opportunity that can be achieved through large-scale commercial farming equipped with precise data-providing tools. In addition to domestic demand, pork is globally recognized as one of the primary protein sources [19,261,262,263]. It is the second most eaten meat globally, constituting around 33–34% of consumption [19,264,265]. Some studies between 2019 and 2022 claimed pork to be the most consumed meat as well [266,267]. Being a member of ASEAN and WTO, Vietnam has easier export chances if quality products at reasonable prices following standard animal welfare are ensured. Moreover, several sustainable development objectives, such as women empowerment and poverty eradication can be achieved through the development of agricultural practices [213].

6. Future Trading

In the year 2021, annual pork consumption worldwide was 102.15 MMT, which is predicted to be 116.93 MMT in 2031 [268]. Pork imports throughout the world are increasing linearly. In 2017, the total importation of pork was 7.88 MMT, which lifted to 10.16 MMT in 2021 [269]. Although Vietnamese people do not traditionally favor chilled meat, Vietnam imported 0.16 MMT of pork up to April 2023 [270]. The frozen meat market was projected to generate USD 1.14 billion in 2023, with a 6.88% annual growth forecast [271]. These days, urban dwellers are more concerned with food hygiene and pork grades for their well-being. They are far more likely to buy meat from contemporary retail establishments, leaving old-fashioned markets [272,273], as more consciousness is growing about the food origins and processing lines [274]. The food sector is heading on the same path to satisfy the demands of its increasingly informed customers [275]. Consumers are even prepared to spend more for higher-quality and safer meat [6,9,276,277,278,279]. Moreover, an increase in Vietnamese people’s meat expenditures is evident, climbing from USD 14.14 billion in 2016 to USD 18.36 billion in 2021 [280]. The pork industry can take the opportunity by producing safer meat with sufficient traceability. Traceability is a criterion for export as well. Traditionally, Vietnam exported meat to several Asian and Western European nations [91,281]. The export value totaled 48.6 million USD in 2011 and 60 million USD in 2012 [10], with the majority of chilled pork and suckling pig shipments going to China, Hong Kong, and Singapore [282,283]. The country’s meat export business has recently shrunk and mostly produces for the native market, with little thought given to exports. Disease outbreaks and increased production expenses caused significant fluctuations in the production of exportable meat [19,282]. The Ministry of Industry and Trade claims that owing to issues with processing, market projections, and infection avoidance and management, the quantity of exported pork made up just a tiny fraction of the nation’s supply [91]. Despite the financial crisis due to COVID-19 worldwide, in Asian nations, there is yet a significant desire for pork [284]. Many more countries, like China, Japan, South Korea, France, Russia, United States, Australia, Poland, Sweden, England, etc., import pork [285,286,287,288,289], and Vietnam can take the chance by improving pork standards.
Overflow of products and improper timing of marketing may cause heavy losses in the pork business. Contract farming, being more informed of national and international markets, may ensure demand-based production [290]. It connects small-scale livestock farmers to mainstream markets. The contract provides producers with high-quality genetic resources, balanced feed, vaccination, biosecurity tools, and technical support. This policy may protect farmers from market shocks, like the sudden fall in prices that occurred in 2017 and 2018, for instance. In addition to contract farming, vertical integration, and the establishment of large-scale farms aiming at bulk marketing are expected to rise [209] to lower market risks [36] and better tackle disease outbreaks [45]. By all means, the marketing channel is supposed to develop in such a way that it will skip middlemen as much as possible. Another approach would be the implementation of an integrated livestock–crop production system that will optimize resource utilization, improve soil fertility, enhance overall farm sustainability, and reduce dependency on a single output.

7. Environmental Sustainability

Amidst escalating environmental apprehensions, the prospective trajectory of smart swine farming in Vietnam necessitates a steadfast focus on sustainable methodologies to mitigate the environmental ramifications. Traditional livestock farming methods generally impose significant environmental burdens on both rural and urban environments [291,292]. Given the current unsustainable nature of livestock production systems, a comprehensive reform aimed at enhancing sustainability is urged, thereby mitigating adverse effects on animals, health and well-being, and the environment [293].
Waste management and the extent of pollution are significantly affected by the location of a farm [60,124]. Although MARD has advocated for the relocation of animals away from residential zones [42], the effective implementation of this policy has been hindered by constraints related to land availability and farmer reluctance to transfer pig production operations to locations distant from their residences. However, water pollution caused by traditional pig farms can be minimized by reducing the fattening period and increasing the stocking density [43]. The reasons are that the grower–finisher period requires around 64% of the total water requirement [294], and conventional pig farmers give animals more space than is advised [94]. Some experiments suggested that an increased farm size positively minimized emissions into water, air, and soil [19,49,50,295,296,297,298], while others concluded adverse effects [299,300]. However, it is necessary to address and control environmental challenges stemming from pig farming. The Deputy Minister of MARD emphasizes Vietnam’s dedication to transforming its food and agriculture system into a “green,” low-emission, and sustainable model [64]. Promoting feasible technologies, fostering agricultural innovation, and adopting collaborative models will all help to ease this transition. Advanced manure treatment technology offers more value-added products, including nutrient-rich bio-solids, fiber, and recycled water [301] and improves treatment efficiency by cutting down emissions into the atmosphere [302]. Kunz et al. [303] used a method called swine manure treatment systems (SMTS) and found positive impacts on the environment. Dróżdż et al. [304] stated composting, anaerobic digestion, and pyrolysis of manure into biochar are effective ways for energy recovery. Overapplication of animal dung on soil results in environmental emissions of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. According to Burton [305], a decanter centrifuge can remove phosphorous, but to remove potassium, membrane separation is needed, which is rarely suitable in farm conditions. The most promising methods for treating manure are slurry separation and anaerobic digestion, according to Hou et al. [306]. Riaño et al. [307] also suggested that on-farm manure separation and denitrification of the liquid part are alternatives for treating manure sustainably. Many other studies supported slurry separation as a means of reducing greenhouse gases [308,309] and producing environmentally friendly fertilizer [305,310,311,312]. Integrated livestock–crop production is an essential resilience approach that aims to maximize household resource usage and reduce risks resulting from the ever-changing physical and economic environment [313]. Rather than being released into the environment, animal waste and agricultural leftovers are frequently recycled and reused extensively on the farm, which makes efficient use of available resources and lowers production costs. As pig dung has a higher nitrogen concentration than ruminant manure [314], it is a better fertilizer source for crop fields and ponds [120]. Hence, integrated crop–livestock systems can improve farms’ and communities’ environmental sustainability and profitability [315,316].

8. Recommendations

  • Promote seminars and training sessions to encourage the use of proven PLF tools for information sharing. Prioritize automated systems that do not require dedicated data analysts or complex software handling.
  • Use advanced disease monitoring and early detection systems. Support robust biosecurity measures through incentives and knowledge sharing programs.
  • Extensive validation of sensors, IoTs, and methods before commercial use of the service.
  • Create a scientific governing structure that supports innovation in agriculture. Provide support and incentives for companies involved in automation of farm business.
  • To promote export, invite technologically advanced producers, support vertical integration, and establish connections to international markets.
  • Set up automated systems for collecting production, health, environment, processing, marketing, value addition, and consumption data.
  • Given how crucial shared data are in machine learning for decision-making, pre-competitive collaborations between businesses should be promoted for data sharing. In doing so, the government ought to handle the data security issues.
  • Conventional small-scale pig farms should also have access to technical assistance and other supportive policies to support growth.
  • Capacity building is needed to accumulate and analyze market information for more accurate pork supply and demand forecasting, improving cost competitiveness in pig value chains.
  • Application of good agricultural practices and collaborative marketing of small farms is required to make the products traceable and safe for health and the environment. The expansion of contract farming and the creation of a quality inspection system may help in this regard.
  • For better efficiency and profitability, we suggest increasing herd size, reducing floor space per fattening hog to 1.27–1.47 m2 in conventional production systems, taking care of pregnant sows’ nutrition, and practicing early weaning.
  • Cooperative breeding programs and preservation of native genotypes should be emphasized in the national livestock breeding policy.
  • Implement existing policies regarding the farm location away from waterways, densely populated areas, public facilities, and other high-risk areas.
  • Implement an integrated agricultural system that improves cropland and ponds by utilizing animal dung as a nutrient source. Manure treatment before soil application is important.
  • Explore and encourage local feed ingredients to reduce the reliance on imported raw resources.
  • Develop manure treatment processes that allow for maximum use of manure nutrients without large land occupation. On-farm manure separation can be encouraged.
  • For the industry to thrive sustainably, integrated research on nutrition, swine growth, disease, marketing, waste management, pollution, and food safety is crucial.

9. Conclusions

In recent years, Vietnam’s livestock farming has undergone significant changes, marked by a gradual increase in livestock numbers despite a decline in the number of households raising animals. The growing demand for animal-derived food, both domestically and internationally, presents opportunities for the continued expansion of livestock production. With younger generations embracing new technologies, there is an expectation that sensors, IoT, robotics, etc., will modernize and automate swine production, enhancing productivity and quality for export markets. However, challenges such as disease transmission, market volatility, and environmental pollution from farm waste must be addressed through sustainable practices and evidence-based decision-making. The application of sensor driven data for predictive analysis and decision-making is expected to increase the technical efficiency of Vietnamese swine farms in the future. To achieve that, Vietnam must embrace technological innovations for livestock farms. Additionally, a comprehensive swine development policy is crucial, focusing on integrated production systems, good agricultural practices, biosecurity measures, environmental sustainability, contract farming, and cooperative breeding facilities. The Vietnamese government is anticipated to provide support through incentives and policies promoting the adoption of smart farming tools and sustainable practices.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S., H.-S.M., Y.-H.K. and C.-J.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S., K.M.B.A., Y.-H.K., E.B.L. and M.K.H.; writing—review and editing, M.S., H.-S.M., K.M.B.A., Y.-H.K., E.B.L., H.-R.P., M.K.H. and C.-J.Y.; visualization, M.S. and H.-S.M.; supervision, C.-J.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Korea Institute of Planning and Evaluation for Technology in Food, Agriculture, Forestry (IPET) through Agri-Food Export Enhancement Technology Development Program funded by Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) (RS-2023-00231738).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. World Economic Outlook Database. Available online: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2023/October (accessed on 27 February 2024).
  2. General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Statistical Yearbook of 2022. Available online: https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/data-and-statistics/2023/06/statistical-yearbook-of-2022/ (accessed on 6 November 2023).
  3. General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Statistical Yearbook of 2021. Available online: https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/data-and-statistics/2022/08/statistical-yearbook-of-2021/ (accessed on 21 December 2023).
  4. Partnership for Sustainable Agriculture in Viet Nam. Available online: https://psav-mard.org.vn/upload/Brochure/PSAV%20Brochure%202021.pdf (accessed on 11 December 2023).
  5. Qui, N.H.; Guntoro, B. Challenges, Opportunities and Prospects of Swine Industry in Vietnam. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Green Agro-Industry, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 22–23 October 2019; pp. 189–196. Available online: http://eprints.upnyk.ac.id/22767/ (accessed on 22 February 2024).
  6. Lapar, M.L.A. Review of the Pig Sector in Vietnam. Report presented at the Scientific Committee of the REVALTER Project held in Tam Dao (Vietnam) on 13 and 14 October 2014. Available online: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/1c177e57-2d82-4ff2-9fc3-4068384b2e08/content (accessed on 1 December 2023).
  7. Dang, M.T.; To, B.T. Assessment of the Environmental Status of Household’s Pig Farming System, at An Nhon, Binh Dinh Province, Vietnam. Inżynieria Miner. 2022, 1, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lemke, U.; Mergenthaler, M.; Rössler, R.; Huyen, L.T.T.; Herold, P.; Kaufmann, B.; Zárate, A.V. Pig Production in Vietnam—A Review. CABI Rev. 2008, 2008, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Duong, N.N.T.; Huyen, N.T.T.; Hung, P.V.; Ha, D.N.; Long, T.V.; Be, D.T.; Unger, F.; Lapar, M.L. Household Pork Consumption Behaviour in Vietnam: Implications for pro-Smallholder Pig Value Chain Upgrading. Presented at the Tropentag 2015, Berlin, Germany, 16–18 September 2015; Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/71017 (accessed on 17 January 2024).
  10. Dzung, N.M. Pig Production and Marketing in Vietnam. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Recent Progress in Swine Breeding and Raising Technologies, Tainan, Taiwan, 3–4 June 2014; pp. 145–152. Available online: https://www.angrin.tlri.gov.tw/english/2014swine/p145-152.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2023).
  11. Hanh, H.Q. Sustainable Development of Livestock Production in Vietnam: Driving Forces, Challenges, and Strategies. GRAESE: Groupe de Recherches Asie de l’Est et du Sud Est. 2022. Available online: https://www.gembloux.ulg.ac.be/economie-et-developpement-rural/wp-content/uploads/sites/34/2022/05/24_GRAESE_HAN-QUANG-HAnh.pdf (accessed on 12 November 2023).
  12. OECD. Meat Consumption (Indicator). 2024. Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/meat-consumption/indicator/english_fa290fd0-en (accessed on 1 January 2024).
  13. General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery. Available online: https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/agriculture-forestry-and-fishery/ (accessed on 6 November 2023).
  14. Vietnam|USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. Available online: https://fas.usda.gov/data/production/country/vm (accessed on 1 November 2023).
  15. Costales, A.; Son, N.T.; Lapar, M.L.; Tioncgo, M. Determinants of Participation in Contract Farming in Pig Production in Northern Viet Nam; Research Report 08-04; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2008; Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/1716 (accessed on 12 November 2023).
  16. Huynh, T.T.; Aarnink, A.J.; Drucker, A.; Verstegen, M.W. Pig Production in Cambodia, Laos, Philippines, and Vietnam: A Review. Asian J. Agric. Dev. 2006, 3, 69–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Epprecht, M. Geographic Dimensions of Livestock Holdings in Vietnam—Spatial Relationships among Poverty, Infrastructure and the Environment; PPLPI Working Paper 23778; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ly, N.T.; Nanseki, T.; Chomei, Y. Technical Efficiency and Its Determinants in Household Pig Production in Vietnam: A DEA Approach. Jpn. J. Rural Econ. 2016, 18, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Huong, L.T.T.; Takahashi, Y.; Duy, L.V.; Chung, D.K.; Yabe, M. Development of Livestock Farming System and Technical Efficiency: A Case Study on Pig Production in Vietnam. J. Fac. Agric. Kyushu Univ. 2023, 68, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Herold, P.; Roessler, R.; Willam, A.; Momm, H.; Valle Zárate, A. Breeding and Supply Chain Systems Incorporating Local Pig Breeds for Small-Scale Pig Producers in Northwest Vietnam. Livest. Sci. 2010, 129, 63–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Goldberg, A.M. Farm Animal Welfare and Human Health. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2016, 3, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Nguyen Thi Thuy, M.; Dorny, P.; Lebailly, P.; Le Thi Minh, C.; Nguyen Thi Thu, H.; Dermauw, V. Mapping the Pork Value Chain in Vietnam: A Systematic Review. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2020, 52, 2799–2808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Norton, T.; Chen, C.; Larsen, M.L.V.; Berckmans, D. Review: Precision Livestock Farming: Building ‘Digital Representations’ to Bring the Animals Closer to the Farmer. Animal 2019, 13, 3009–3017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Andrew, R.C.; Malekian, R.; Bogatinoska, D.C. IoT Solutions for Precision Agriculture. In Proceedings of the 41st International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO), Opatija, Croatia, 21–25 May 2018; pp. 345–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Auernhammer, H. Precision Farming—The Environmental Challenge. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2001, 30, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gebbers, R.; Adamchuk, V.I. Precision Agriculture and Food Security. Science 2010, 327, 828–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Vranken, E.; Berckmans, D. Precision Livestock Farming for Pigs. Anim. Front. 2017, 7, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Vietnam: Pig Production. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/661016/vietnam-pig-production/ (accessed on 1 November 2023).
  29. General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Statistical Yearbook of Vietnam 2018. Available online: https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/data-and-statistics/2019/10/statistical-yearbook-of-vietnam-2018/ (accessed on 2 December 2023).
  30. Vietnam’s Meat Imports Are Nearly 2 Billion USD. Available online: https://www.mard.gov.vn/en/Pages/vietnam’s-meat-imports-are-nearly-2-billion-usd.aspx (accessed on 15 November 2023).
  31. General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Socio-Economic Situation Report in July and 7 Months of 2023. Available online: https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/data-and-statistics/2023/08/socio-economic-situation-report-in-july-and-7-months-of-2023/ (accessed on 31 October 2023).
  32. General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Press Release Social-Economic Situation in the 3rd Quarter and the 9 Months of 2023. Available online: https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/data-and-statistics/2023/10/press-release-social-economic-situation-in-the-3rd-quarter-and-the-9-months-of-2023/ (accessed on 6 November 2023).
  33. General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Infographic Social-Economic Situation in October and 10 Months of 2023. Available online: https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/default/2023/10/infographic-social-economic-situation-in-october-and-10-months-of-2023/ (accessed on 6 November 2023).
  34. General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Statistical Yearbook of Vietnam 2017. Available online: https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/data-and-statistics/2019/10/7559/ (accessed on 2 December 2023).
  35. Holohan, N.; Wallat, M.; Hai Yen Luu, T.; Clark, E.; Truong, D.T.Q.; Xuan, S.D.; Vu, H.T.K.; Van Truong, D.; Tran Huy, H.; Nguyen-Viet, H.; et al. Analysis of Antimicrobial Resistance in Non-Typhoidal Salmonella Collected from Pork Retail Outlets and Slaughterhouses in Vietnam Using Whole Genome Sequencing. Front. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 816279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Minh, C.L.T.; Lebailly, P.; Quang, T.T. Enhancing Farmers’ Market Power and Income in the Pig Value Chain; a Case Study in Bac Giang Province, Vietnam. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 2017, 29, 13. [Google Scholar]
  37. Park, M.J.; Ha, D.M.; Shin, H.W.; Lee, S.H.; Kim, W.K.; Ha, S.H.; Yang, H.S.; Jeong, J.Y.; Joo, S.T.; Lee, C.Y. Growth Efficiency, Carcass Quality Characteristics and Profitability of ’High’-Market Weight Pigs. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2007, 49, 459–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ritter, M.J.; Yoder, C.L.; Jones, C.L.; Carr, S.N.; Calvo-Lorenzo, M.S. Transport Losses in Market Weight Pigs: II. U.S. Incidence and Economic Impact. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2020, 4, 1103–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Statistical Yearbook of Vietnam 2016. Available online: https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/data-and-statistics/2019/10/statistical-yearbook-of-vietnam-2016/ (accessed on 31 October 2023).
  40. FAOSTAT. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL (accessed on 17 November 2023).
  41. Vietnam: Goat Production. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/660802/vietnam-goat-production/ (accessed on 28 February 2024).
  42. Law on Animal Husbandry. Available online: https://www.economica.vn/Content/files/LAW%20%26%20REG/Law%20on%20Animal%20Husbandry%202018.pdf (accessed on 8 February 2024).
  43. Huong, L.T.T.; Takahashi, Y.; Nomura, H.; Van Duy, L.; Son, C.T.; Yabe, M. Water-Use Efficiency of Alternative Pig Farming Systems in Vietnam. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 161, 104926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Result of the 2011 Rural, Agricultural and Fishery Cencus. Available online: https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/data-and-statistics/2019/03/result-of-the-2011-rural-agricultural-and-fishery-cencus/ (accessed on 14 November 2023).
  45. Mahfuz, S.; Mun, H.-S.; Dilawar, M.A.; Yang, C.-J. Applications of Smart Technology as a Sustainable Strategy in Modern Swine Farming. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tisdell, C.A. An Economic Study of Small Pigholders in Vietnam: Some Insights Gained and the Scope for Further Research; Economic Theory, Applications and Issues Working Paper 61; University of Queensland: Brisbane, Australia, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Unger, F.; Lapar, L.; Van Hung, P.; Dang-Xuan, S.; Hong Ngan, P.; Rich, K.; Nguyen, H.; Grace, D. Food Safety Challenges in Small Holder Pig Value Chains in Vietnam—From an Assessment to Feasible Interventions Using an Integrated Approach; Iowa State University: Ames, IA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lee, J.H.; Choi, H.L.; Heo, Y.J.; Chung, Y.P. Effect of Floor Space Allowance on Pig Productivity across Stages of Growth: A Field-Scale Analysis. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 29, 739–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jabbar, M.A.; Akter, S. Market and Other Factors Affecting Farm Specific Production Efficiency in Pig Production in Vietnam. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2008, 20, 29–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Galanopoulos, K.; Aggelopoulos, S.; Kamenidou, I.; Mattas, K. Assessing the Effects of Managerial and Production Practices on the Efficiency of Commercial Pig Farming. Agric. Syst. 2006, 88, 125–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Thuy, N.T.D.; Melchinger-Wild, E.; Kuss, A.W.; Cuong, N.V.; Bartenschlager, H.; Geldermann, H. Comparison of Vietnamese and European Pig Breeds Using Microsatellites. J. Anim. Sci. 2006, 84, 2601–2608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pham, L.; Do, D.; Nam, L.; Van Ba, N.; Minh, L.; Hoan, T.; Cuong, V.; Kadarmideen, H. Molecular Genetic Diversity and Genetic Structure of Vietnamese Indigenous Pig Populations. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 2014, 131, 379–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Thuy, N.T.D.; Melchinger, E.; Kuss, A.W.; Peischl, T.; Bartenschlager, H.; Cuong, N.V.; Geldermann, H. Genetic Diversity and Relationships of Vietnamese and European Pig Breeds. In Proceedings of the Applications of Gene-Based Technologies for Improving Animal Production and Health in Developing Countries; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 121–130. Available online: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/b105256#page=136 (accessed on 21 November 2023).
  54. Vietnam Pork Imports Skyrocketed in 2020 Due to ASF. Available online: https://www.pig333.com/latest_swine_news/vietnam-pork-imports-skyrocketed-in-2020-due-to-asf_17128/ (accessed on 26 November 2023).
  55. Dang-Nguyen, T.Q.; Tich, N.K.; Nguyen, B.X.; Ozawa, M.; Kikuchi, K.; Manabe, N.; Ratky, J.; Kanai, Y.; Nagai, T. Introduction of Various Vietnamese Indigenous Pig Breeds and Their Conservation by Using Assisted Reproductive Techniques. J. Reprod. Dev. 2010, 56, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Lemke, U.; Kaufmann, B.; Thuy, L.T.; Emrich, K.; Valle Zárate, A. Evaluation of Smallholder Pig Production Systems in North Vietnam: Pig Production Management and Pig Performances. Livest. Sci. 2006, 105, 229–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ishihara, S.; Yamasaki, F.; Ninh, P.H.; Dinh, N.C.; Arakawa, A.; Taniguchi, M.; Cuc, N.T.K.; Mikawa, S.; Takeya, M.; Kikuchi, K. The Phenotypic Characteristics and Relational Database for Vietnamese Native Pig Populations. Anim. Sci. J. 2020, 91, e13411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ogishi, A.; Zilberman, D.; Metcalfe, M. Integrated Agribusinesses and Liability for Animal Waste. Environ. Sci. Policy 2003, 6, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Saenger, C.; Qaim, M.; Torero, M.; Viceisza, A. Contract Farming and Smallholder Incentives to Produce High Quality: Experimental Evidence from the Vietnamese Dairy Sector. Agric. Econ. 2013, 44, 297–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Huong, L.T.T.; Takahashi, Y.; Nomura, H.; Son, C.T.; Kusudo, T.; Yabe, M. Manure Management and Pollution Levels of Contract and Non-Contract Livestock Farming in Vietnam. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 710, 136200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Davies, F.T.; Garrett, B. Technology for Sustainable Urban Food Ecosystems in the Developing World: Strengthening the Nexus of Food–Water–Energy–Nutrition. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2018, 2, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. McClements, D.J.; Barrangou, R.; Hill, C.; Kokini, J.L.; Lila, M.A.; Meyer, A.S.; Yu, L. Building a Resilient, Sustainable, and Healthier Food Supply through Innovation and Technology. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 12, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Herrero, M.; Thornton, P.K.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Palmer, J.; Benton, T.G.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Bogard, J.R.; Hall, A.; Lee, B.; Nyborg, K.; et al. Innovation Can Accelerate the Transition towards a Sustainable Food System. Nat. Food 2020, 1, 266–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Jiang, H. Review of Vietnamese Agricultural Policy. Transnatl. Corp. Rev. 2009, 1, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Giang, M.H.; Xuan, T.D.; Trung, B.H.; Que, M.T. Total Factor Productivity of Agricultural Firms in Vietnam and Its Relevant Determinants. Economies 2019, 7, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Duc, T.T.; Bach, T.H.; Van, T.P.; Chanachai, K.; Prarakamawongsai, T.; Padungtod, P.; Wongsathapornchai, K.; Loth, L.; Thanh, L.P.; Thi, N.N.; et al. Avian Influenza Outbreaks and Surveillance in Live Bird Markets, Quang Ninh Province, Vietnam, 2015–2017. Outbreak Surveill. Investig. Response OSIR J. 2018, 11, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development-MARD. Report on Production and Business Results of the Ministry in November 2022. Ha Noi, Vietnam. Available online: https://www.mard.gov.vn/Pages/bao-cao-thong-ke.aspx (accessed on 24 December 2023).
  68. Feng, Y.; Zhao, T.; Nguyen, T.; Inui, K.; Ma, Y.; Nguyen, T.H.; Nguyen, V.C.; Liu, D.; Bui, Q.A.; To, L.T.; et al. Porcine Respiratory and Reproductive Syndrome Virus Variants, Vietnam and China, 2007. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2008, 14, 1774–1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Hoa, N.T.; Chieu, T.T.B.; Do Dung, S.; Long, N.T.; Hieu, T.Q.; Luc, N.T.; Nhuong, P.T.; Huong, V.T.L.; Trinh, D.T.; Wertheim, H.F.L.; et al. Streptococcus Suis and Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome, Vietnam. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2013, 19, 331–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Tien, N.N. Situation of Green-Eared Pig Fire (prrs) in Vietnam and Work to Prevent the Epidemic. 2011. Available online: https://vjol.info.vn/index.php/kk-ty/article/view/8301 (accessed on 14 December 2023).
  71. African Hog Cholera Appears in Vietnam’s Six Provinces. Available online: https://vietnamnet.vn/en/african-hog-cholera-appears-in-vietnams-six-provinces-E218797.html (accessed on 24 December 2023).
  72. Nga, B.T.T.; Tran Anh Dao, B.; Nguyen Thi, L.; Osaki, M.; Kawashima, K.; Song, D.; Salguero, F.J.; Le, V.P. Clinical and Pathological Study of the First Outbreak Cases of African Swine Fever in Vietnam, 2019. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. African Swine Fever (ASF) Situation Update in Asia & Pacific. Available online: https://www.fao.org/animal-health/situation-updates/asf-in-asia-pacific/en (accessed on 6 March 2024).
  74. Nguyen-Thi, T.; Pham-Thi-Ngoc, L.; Nguyen-Ngoc, Q.; Dang-Xuan, S.; Lee, H.S.; Nguyen-Viet, H.; Padungtod, P.; Nguyen-Thu, T.; Nguyen-Thi, T.; Tran-Cong, T.; et al. An Assessment of the Economic Impacts of the 2019 African Swine Fever Outbreaks in Vietnam. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 686038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Livestock of Pig Has Recovered. Available online: https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/data-and-statistics/2021/04/livestock-of-pig-has-recovered/ (accessed on 31 October 2023).
  76. Reuters. Vietnam Approves Commercial Use of First African Swine Fever Vaccines. Available online: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/vietnam-approves-commercial-use-first-african-swine-fever-vaccines-2023-07-24/ (accessed on 24 December 2023).
  77. SHIC Reports on African Swine Fever Vaccines Approved in Vietnam—Swine Health Information Center. Available online: https://www.swinehealth.org/shic-reports-on-african-swine-fever/ (accessed on 24 December 2023).
  78. ASF Vietnam: Approval of Commercial Use of 1st Vaccines. Available online: https://www.pigprogress.net/health-nutrition/health/asf-vietnam-approval-of-commercial-use-of-1st-vaccines/ (accessed on 24 December 2023).
  79. Han, N.; Qu, H.; Xu, T.; Hu, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Ge, S. Summary of the Current Status of African Swine Fever Vaccine Development in China. Vaccines 2023, 11, 762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Conducted Destruction of 25 Pigs Infected with African Swine Fever in Dak Lieng Commune. Available online: https://ttthlak.gov.vn/chuyen-muc/nong-thon-moi/tien-hanh-tieu-huy-25-con-lon-bi-dich-ta-lon-chau-phi-tai-xa-dak-lieng (accessed on 31 October 2023).
  81. Ninh Binh Portal. The Livestock Situation in the Province in July Had Many Positive Signs. Available online: http://ninhbinh.gov.vn/kinh-te/tinh-hinh-chan-nuoi-tren-dia-ban-tinh-thang-7-co-nhieu-tin-hieu-tich-cuc-323228 (accessed on 31 October 2023).
  82. Vietnam: Lang Son Has Not Yet Controlled African Swine Fever. Available online: https://www.pig333.com/latest_swine_news/vietnam-lang-son-has-not-yet-controlled-african-swine-fever_19932/ (accessed on 7 March 2024).
  83. Bac Kan Online. Do Not Let African Swine Fever Spread Widely. Available online: https://baobackan.com.vn/post-56925.html (accessed on 8 November 2023).
  84. African Swine Fever Has Recurred Strongly in Dien Chau. Available online: https://baonghean.vn/post-278604.html (accessed on 8 November 2023).
  85. African Swine Fever Recurs in Small Farming Households. Available online: https://baonghean.vn/post-277744.html (accessed on 8 November 2023).
  86. Nghe An: African Swine Fever Spreads, Causing Great Losses to Many Livestock Households—Vietnam Livestock Magazine. Available online: https://nhachannuoi.vn/nghe-an-dich-ta-lon-chau-phi-lan-rong-khien-nhieu-ho-chan-nuoi-thiet-hai-lon/ (accessed on 8 November 2023).
  87. General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Socio-Economic Situation Report in the First Quarter of 2023. Available online: https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/highlight/2023/07/socio-economic-situation-report-in-the-first-quarter-of-2023/ (accessed on 6 November 2023).
  88. ASF Vietnam: Vaccination Trials Suspended due to Pig Deaths. Pig Progress. Available online: https://www.pigprogress.net/health-nutrition/health/asf-vietnam-vaccination-trials-suspensed-due-to-pig-deaths/ (accessed on 24 December 2023).
  89. Straits Times. Vietnam on Alert after Human Cases of Pig-Related Disease Discovered. 2023. Available online: https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/vietnam-on-alert-after-human-cases-of-pig-related-disease-discovered (accessed on 11 December 2023).
  90. Lapar, M.L.A.; Toan, N.N.; Que, N.N.; Jabbar, M.A.; Tisdell, C.A.; Staal, S.J. Market Outlet Choices in the Context of Changing Demand for Fresh Meat: Implications for Smallholder Inclusion in Pork Supply Chain in Vietnam. In Proceedings of the International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE), Beijing, China, 16–22 August 2009. Contributed Paper 583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Vietnam Plus. Vietnam Spends Nearly 190 Million USD on Importing Pork in Ten Months. Available online: https://en.vietnamplus.vn/vietnam-spends-nearly-190-million-usd-on-importing-pork-in-ten-months/245120.vnp (accessed on 26 November 2023).
  92. Tisdell, C.A. Trends in Vietnam’s Pork Supply and Structural Features of Its Pig Sector; University of Queensland: Brisbane, Australia, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Lemke, U.; Kaufmann, B.; Thuy, L.T.; Emrich, K.; Valle Zárate, A. Evaluation of Biological and Economic Efficiency of Smallholder Pig Production Systems in North Vietnam. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2007, 39, 237–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Lemke, U.; Valle Zárate, A. Dynamics and Developmental Trends of Smallholder Pig Production Systems in North Vietnam. Agric. Syst. 2008, 96, 207–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ho, N.-N.; Do, T.L.; Tran, D.-T.; Nguyen, T.T. Indigenous Pig Production and Welfare of Ultra-Poor Ethnic Minority Households in the Northern Mountains of Vietnam. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 156–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Tuan, T.B.; Yin, T.; Cuong, T.H.; Tiep, N.C.; König, S. Production Efficiency Analysis of Indigenous Pig Production in Northwest Vietnam. Vietnam J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 3, 882–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Prime Minister Office. Approving the Livestock Development Strategy for the Period 2021–2030, Vision 2045. 2020. Available online: http://vanban.chinhphu.vn/default.aspx?pageid=27160&docid=201183 (accessed on 5 December 2023).
  98. Bai, Z.; Ma, W.; Ma, L.; Velthof, G.L.; Wei, Z.; Havlík, P.; Oenema, O.; Lee, M.R.; Zhang, F. China’s Livestock Transition: Driving Forces, Impacts, and Consequences. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaar8534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. World Bank. Vietnam Livestock Competitiveness and Food Safety Project Report. Available online: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/ar/636021577978497007/pdf/Vietnam-Livestock-Competitiveness-and-Food-Safety-Project.pdf (accessed on 9 December 2023).
  100. Dinh, D.-T.; Do, T.-N.; Le, T.-T.; Pham, N.-B.; Trinh, A.-D.; Nguyen, D.-H.; Khanitchaidecha, W. Utilization of Biogas as an Untapped Renewable Energy Source in Vietnam. Econ. Policy Energy Environ. 2021, 1, 105–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kono, H.; Kubota, S.; Senbokuya, Y.; Makita, K.; Nishida, T.; Tran, M.H. Animal Insurance and Farmer’s Behavior in Vietnam. Asian J. Agric. Ext. Econ. Sociol. 2017, 16, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Duc, D.M. Agricultural Insurance in Vietnam: Pilot Programme and Pre-Conditions for a Public-Private Partnership Approach. Asia Pac. J. Public Adm. 2017, 39, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Koide, K.; Murata, R.; Khoa, A.X.; Ly, N.K.; Tam, P.T.; Tra, V.T.T.; Nhiem, D.V.; Kubota, S.; Kono, H.; Makita, K. Influence of Mastitis and Repeat Breeding Incidence on Participation in the Animal Insurance Program for Dairy Farmers in Ba Vi, Hanoi, Vietnam. Vietnam J. Agric. Sci. 2019, 2, 461–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Pham-Thanh, L.; Magnusson, U.; Can-Xuan, M.; Nguyen-Viet, H.; Lundkvist, Å.; Lindahl, J. Livestock Development in Hanoi City, Vietnam—Challenges and Policies. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service VM9004. Vietnam National Assembly Passes the Animal Husbandry Law. 2019. Available online: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/report/downloadreportbyfilename?filename=Vietnam%20National%20Assembly%20passes%20the%20Animal%20Husbandry%20Law%20_Hanoi_Vietnam_2-21-2019.pdf (accessed on 3 November 2023).
  106. WTO|Accessions: Viet Nam. Available online: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/acc_e/a1_vietnam_e.htm (accessed on 23 November 2023).
  107. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. Vietnam Lowers Tariffs on Corn, Wheat, Pork. Available online: https://fas.usda.gov/newsroom/vietnam-lowers-mfn-tariffs-corn-wheat-pork (accessed on 23 November 2023).
  108. Nga, L.T.V.; Huy, D.T.N.; Minh, D.N.; Dat, P.M. European-Vietnam Free Trade Agreement (EVFTA) Impacts on Imports: A Case Study. J. Secur. Sustain. Issues 2020, 9, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Knox, R.V. Artificial Insemination in Pigs Today. Theriogenology 2016, 85, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Kaasschieter, G.A.; de Jong, R.; Schiere, J.B.; Zwart, D. Towards a Sustainable Livestock Production in Developing Countries and the Importance of Animal Health Strategy Therein. Vet. Q. 1992, 14, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Mai, T.N.; Sekiguchi, S.; Huynh, T.M.L.; Cao, T.B.P.; Le, V.P.; Dong, V.H.; Vu, V.A.; Wiratsudakul, A. Dynamic Models of Within-Herd Transmission and Recommendation for Vaccination Coverage Requirement in the Case of African Swine Fever in Vietnam. Vet. Sci. 2022, 9, 292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Hien, N.D.; Stevenson, M.A.; Isoda, N.; Sakoda, Y.; Hoang, L.T.; Nguyen, L.T. Descriptive Epidemiology and Spatial Analysis of African Swine Fever Epidemics in Can Tho, Vietnam, 2019. Prev. Vet. Med. 2023, 211, 105819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Lee, H.S.; Bui, V.N.; Dao, D.T.; Bui, N.A.; Le, T.D.; Kieu, M.A.; Nguyen, Q.H.; Tran, L.H.; Roh, J.-H.; So, K.-M.; et al. Pathogenicity of an African Swine Fever Virus Strain Isolated in Vietnam and Alternative Diagnostic Specimens for Early Detection of Viral Infection. Porc. Health Manag. 2021, 7, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Fraser, D. The “New Perception” of Animal Agriculture: Legless Cows, Featherless Chickens, and a Need for Genuine Analysis. J. Anim. Sci. 2001, 79, 634–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Koneswaran, G.; Nierenberg, D. Global Farm Animal Production and Global Warming: Impacting and Mitigating Climate Change. Environ. Health Perspect. 2008, 116, 578–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Lavaine, E.; Majerus, P.; Treich, N. Health, Air Pollution, and Animal Agriculture. Rev. Agric. Food Environ. Stud. 2020, 101, 517–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Thao, P.T.M.; Thao, H.H. Status of Manure Generation and Management Practice in Household Pig Farming in Ha Hoa District, Phu Tho Province, Viet Nam. Vietnam J. Sci. Technol. 2018, 56, 625–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Pillot, D.; Coq, J.-F.L.; Ly, N.T.H.; Porphyre, V. Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Pig Effluent Management in Thai Binh Province; CIRAD-PRISE Publications: Paris, France, 2006; pp. 55–82. Available online: https://hal.science/cirad-00168362/ (accessed on 23 December 2023).
  119. Phuong, N.D.; Tuan, V.D.; Toan, T.D. Farmers Practices in Organic and Inorganic Fertilization on Crops, Trees and Vegetables; CIRAD-PRISE Publications: Paris, France, 2006; pp. 145–162. Available online: https://hal.science/cirad-00168382/ (accessed on 1 November 2023).
  120. Vu, T.K.V.; Tran, M.T.; Dang, T.T.S. A Survey of Manure Management on Pig Farms in Northern Vietnam. Livest. Sci. 2007, 112, 288–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Colson, C.; Boutonnet, J.P. Economic Appraisal of Animal Manure Considered as a Commodity; CIRAD-PRISE Publications: Paris, France, 2006; pp. 163–180. Available online: https://hal.science/cirad-00168386/ (accessed on 9 October 2023).
  122. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products. Ecosystems 2012, 15, 401–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Thi, H.; Tra, L.; Cao Truong, S.; Nguyen, H.; Nguyen Hai, N.; Phung, B.; Hoa, K. Comparison of Two Pig-Farming Systems in Impact on The Quality of Surface and Groundwater in Hanoi, Vietnam. Int. J. Agric. Innov. Res. 2020, 5, 11–19. [Google Scholar]
  124. Thien Thu, C.T.; Cuong, P.H.; Hang, L.T.; Chao, N.V.; Anh, L.X.; Trach, N.X.; Sommer, S.G. Manure Management Practices on Biogas and Non-Biogas Pig Farms in Developing Countries—Using Livestock Farms in Vietnam as an Example. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 27, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Liang, J.B.; Kayawake, E.; Sekine, T.; Suzuki, S.; Lim, K.K. Developing Zero-Discharge Pig-Farming System: A Feasibility Study in Malaysia. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2016, 57, 1598–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Labajova, K.; Hansson, H.; Asmild, M.; Göransson, L.; Lagerkvist, C.-J.; Neil, M. Multidirectional Analysis of Technical Efficiency for Pig Production Systems: The Case of Sweden. Livest. Sci. 2016, 187, 168–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Pham-Duc, P.; Nguyen-Viet, H.; Luu-Quoc, T.; Cook, M.A.; Trinh-Thi-Minh, P.; Payne, D.; Dao-Thu, T.; Grace, D.; Dang-Xuan, S. Understanding Antibiotic Residues and Pathogens Flow in Wastewater from Smallholder Pig Farms to Agriculture Field in Ha Nam Province, Vietnam. Environ. Health Insights 2020, 14, 1178630220943206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Petersen, A.; Dalsgaard, A. Antimicrobial Resistance of Intestinal Aeromonas Spp. and Enterococcus Spp. in Fish Cultured in Integrated Broiler-Fish Farms in Thailand. Aquaculture 2003, 219, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Huy, H.T.; Nguyen, T.T. Cropland Rental Market and Farm Technical Efficiency in Rural Vietnam. Land Use Policy 2019, 81, 408–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Bai, Z.; Zhao, J.; Wei, Z.; Jin, X.; Ma, L. Socio-Economic Drivers of Pig Production and Their Effects on Achieving Sustainable Development Goals in China. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 2019, 16, 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Hoang, N.H.; Fogarassy, C. Sustainability Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management System for Hanoi (Vietnam)—Why to Choose the ‘Waste-to-Energy’ Concept. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Socio-Economic Situation Report in July and 7 Months of 2022. Available online: https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/data-and-statistics/2022/08/socio-economic-situation-report-in-july-and-7-months-of-2022/ (accessed on 6 November 2023).
  133. Vu, T.K.V.; Sommer, G.S.; Vu, C.C.; Jorgensen, H. Assessing Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Excreta from Grower-Finisher Pigs Fed Prevalent Rations in Vietnam. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 23, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Ngoc, T.T.B.; Len, N.T.; Lindberg, J.E. Chemical Characterization and Water Holding Capacity of Fibre-Rich Feedstuffs Used for Pigs in Vietnam. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 25, 861–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Dang, P.K.; Giang, N.T.P.; Nguyen, T.T.; Chu-Ky, S.; Oanh, N.C.; Vinh, N.T.; Ngoc, T.T.B. Effects of Dietary Level of Rice Distiller’s Dried Grains on Performance and Meat Quality of Chickens. Indian J. Anim. Res. 2021, 55, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Vanzetti, D.; Pham, D. Cautious or Misguided? Vietnam’s Rice Policies. Presented at the 59th AARES Annual Conference, Rotorua, New Zealand, 10–13 February 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Tisdell, C.A. The Competitiveness of Small Household Pig Producers in Vietnam: Significant Research and Policy Findings from an ACIAR-Sponsored Study and Their Limitations; Economic Theory, Applications and Issues 63; University of Queensland: Brisbane, Australia, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Martinsen, K.H.; Ødegård, J.; Olsen, D.; Meuwissen, T.H.E. Genetic Variation in Efficiency to Deposit Fat and Lean Meat in Norwegian Landrace and Duroc Pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 93, 3794–3800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Woyengo, T.A.; Beltranena, E.; Zijlstra, R.T. Nonruminant Nutrition Symposium: Controlling Feed Cost by Including Alternative Ingredients into Pig Diets: A Review. J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 92, 1293–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Braude, R. Efficiency of Food Utilization in Pigs. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 1955, 14, 14–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Coyne, L.; Arief, R.; Benigno, C.; Giang, V.N.; Huong, L.Q.; Jeamsripong, S.; Kalpravidh, W.; McGrane, J.; Padungtod, P.; Patrick, I.; et al. Characterizing Antimicrobial Use in the Livestock Sector in Three South East Asian Countries (Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam). Antibiotics 2019, 8, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Kim, D.P.; Saegerman, C.; Douny, C.; Ton, V.; Bo, H.; Dang Vu, B. First Survey on the Use of Antibiotics in Pig and Poultry Production in the Red River Delta Region of Vietnam. Food Public Health 2013, 3, 247–256. [Google Scholar]
  143. Zhang, H.; Kono, H. Economic Impacts of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) Outbreak in Vietnam Pig Production. Trop. Agric. Res. 2012, 23, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Li, H.; Hu, C.; Lü, Z.; Li, M.; Guo, X. African Swine Fever and Meat Prices Fluctuation: An Empirical Study in China Based on TVP-VAR Model. J. Integr. Agric. 2021, 20, 2289–2301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Radio Free Asia. China’s End to Imports Hits Vietnam Pig Farmers. Available online: https://www.rfa.org/english/news/vietnam/pigs-05022017161852.html (accessed on 26 November 2023).
  146. Pork|USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. Available online: https://fas.usda.gov/data/production/commodity/0113000 (accessed on 22 February 2024).
  147. Dang-Xuan, S.; Nguyen-Viet, H.; Meeyam, T.; Fries, R.; Nguyen-Thanh, H.; Pham-Duc, P.; Lam, S.; Grace, D.; Unger, F. Food Safety Perceptions and Practices among Smallholder Pork Value Chain Actors in Hung Yen Province, Vietnam. J. Food Prot. 2016, 79, 1490–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Berthouly-Salazar, C.; Thevenon, S.; Van, T.N.; Nguyen, B.T.; Pham, L.D.; Chi, C.V.; Maillard, J.C. Uncontrolled Admixture and Loss of Genetic Diversity in a Local Vietnamese Pig Breed. Ecol. Evol. 2012, 2, 962–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. The Seductive Promise of Vietnam’s Pork Sector. Available online: https://www.pigprogress.net/industry-and-markets/the-seductive-promise-of-vietnams-pork-sector/ (accessed on 27 November 2023).
  150. Johansson, M.; Emmoth, E.; Salomonsson, A.C.; Albihn, A. Potential Risks When Spreading Anaerobic Digestion Residues on Grass Silage Crops-Survival of Bacteria, Moulds and Viruses. Grass Forage Sci. 2005, 60, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Concerns about Food Safety and Hygiene from Livestock and Poultry Slaughterhouses. Available online: https://dangcongsan.vn/xa-hoi/noi-lo-mat-an-toan-ve-sinh-thuc-pham-tu-co-so-giet-mo-gia-suc-gia-cam-71507.html (accessed on 15 November 2023).
  152. Thai, T.H.; Hirai, T.; Lan, N.T.; Yamaguchi, R. Antibiotic Resistance Profiles of Salmonella Serovars Isolated from Retail Pork and Chicken Meat in North Vietnam. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012, 156, 147–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Dang-Xuan, S.; Nguyen-Viet, H.; Pham-Duc, P.; Unger, F.; Tran-Thi, N.; Grace, D.; Makita, K. Risk Factors Associated with Salmonella Spp. Prevalence along Smallholder Pig Value Chains in Vietnam. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2019, 290, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Ngo, H.H.T.; Nguyen-Thanh, L.; Pham-Duc, P.; Dang-Xuan, S.; Le-Thi, H.; Denis-Robichaud, J.; Nguyen-Viet, H.; Le, T.T.H.; Grace, D.; Unger, F. Microbial Contamination and Associated Risk Factors in Retailed Pork from Key Value Chains in Northern Vietnam. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2021, 346, 109163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Nguyen-Viet, H.; Dang-Xuan, S.; Pham-Duc, P.; Roesel, K.; Huong, N.M.; Luu-Quoc, T.; Van Hung, P.; Thi Duong Nga, N.; Lapar, L.; Unger, F.; et al. Rapid Integrated Assessment of Food Safety and Nutrition Related to Pork Consumption of Regular Consumers and Mothers with Young Children in Vietnam. Glob. Food Secur. 2019, 20, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Pork Contaminated with Banned Substances Was Discovered in Hanoi. Available online: https://giaoduc.net.vn/post-55519.gd (accessed on 9 November 2023).
  157. Van Nhiem, D.; Paulsen, P.; Suriyasathaporn, W.; Smulders, F.J.M.; Kyule, M.N.; Baumann, M.P.O.; Zessin, K.H.; Hong Ngan, P. Preliminary Analysis of Tetracycline Residues in Marketed Pork in Hanoi, Vietnam. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2006, 1081, 534–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Ngoc Do, M.H.; Yamaguchi, T.; Okihashi, M.; Harada, K.; Konishi, Y.; Uchida, K.; Bui, L.T.; Nguyen, T.D.; Phan, H.B.; Bui, H.D.T.; et al. Screening of Antibiotic Residues in Pork Meat in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, Using a Microbiological Test Kit and Liquid Chromatography/Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Food Control 2016, 69, 262–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Nhung, N.T.; Van, N.T.B.; Cuong, N.V.; Duong, T.T.Q.; Nhat, T.T.; Hang, T.T.T.; Nhi, N.T.H.; Kiet, B.T.; Hien, V.B.; Ngoc, P.T.; et al. Antimicrobial Residues and Resistance against Critically Important Antimicrobials in Non-Typhoidal Salmonella from Meat Sold at Wet Markets and Supermarkets in Vietnam. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018, 266, 301–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. World Organisation for Animal Health. Performance, Vision, Strategy—A Tool for Governance of Veterinary Services. 2007. Available online: https://rr-asia.woah.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/pvs_vietnam.pdf (accessed on 9 November 2023).
  161. Monteiro, A.; Santos, S.; Gonçalves, P. Precision Agriculture for Crop and Livestock Farming—Brief Review. Animals 2021, 11, 2345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Schillings, J.; Bennett, R.; Rose, D.C. Exploring the Potential of Precision Livestock Farming Technologies to Help Address Farm Animal Welfare. Front. Anim. Sci. 2021, 2, 639678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Neethirajan, S.; Kemp, B. Digital Livestock Farming. Sens. Bio-Sens. Res. 2021, 32, 100408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Benjamin, M.; Yik, S. Precision Livestock Farming in Swine Welfare: A Review for Swine Practitioners. Animals 2019, 9, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Gómez, Y.; Stygar, A.H.; Boumans, I.J.M.M.; Bokkers, E.A.M.; Pedersen, L.J.; Niemi, J.K.; Pastell, M.; Manteca, X.; Llonch, P. A Systematic Review on Validated Precision Livestock Farming Technologies for Pig Production and Its Potential to Assess Animal Welfare. Front. Vet. Sci. 2021, 8, 660565. [Google Scholar]
  166. Şahin, C.; Bolat, E.D. Development of Remote Control and Monitoring of Web-Based Distributed OPC System. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 2009, 31, 984–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Li, L.; Huang, R.; Huo, L.; Li, J.; Chen, H. Design and Experiment on Monitoring Device for Layers Individual Production Performance Parameters. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2012, 28, 160–164. [Google Scholar]
  168. Schmidt, M.; Ammon, C.; Schön, P.C.; Manteuffel, C.; Hoffmann, G. The Suitability of Infrared Temperature Measurements for Continuous Temperature Monitoring in Gilts. Arch. Anim. Breed. 2014, 57, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Maselyne, J.; Saeys, W.; Van Nuffel, A. Review: Quantifying Animal Feeding Behaviour with a Focus on Pigs. Physiol. Behav. 2015, 138, 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Porto, M.C.; Arcidiacono, C.; Cascone, G.; Anguzza, U.; Barbari, M.; Simonini, S. Validation of an Active RFID-Based System to Detect Pigs Housed in Pens. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2012, 10, 468–472. [Google Scholar]
  171. Buller, H.; Blokhuis, H.; Lokhorst, K.; Silberberg, M.; Veissier, I. Animal Welfare Management in a Digital World. Animals 2020, 10, 1779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Maselyne, J.; Saeys, W.; De Ketelaere, B.; Mertens, K.; Vangeyte, J.; Hessel, E.F.; Millet, S.; Van Nuffel, A. Validation of a High Frequency Radio Frequency Identification (HF RFID) System for Registering Feeding Patterns of Growing-Finishing Pigs. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2014, 102, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Ariff, M.H.; Ismarani, I.; Shamsuddin, N. RFID Based Systematic Livestock Health Management System. In Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Conference on Systems, Process and Control, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 12–14 December 2014; pp. 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. da Fonseca, F.N.; Abe, J.M.; de Alencar Nääs, I.; da Silva Cordeiro, A.F.; do Amaral, F.V.; Ungaro, H.C. Automatic Prediction of Stress in Piglets (Sus Scrofa) Using Infrared Skin Temperature. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 168, 105148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Rocha, L.M.; Devillers, N.; Maldague, X.; Kabemba, F.Z.; Fleuret, J.; Guay, F.; Faucitano, L. Validation of Anatomical Sites for the Measurement of Infrared Body Surface Temperature Variation in Response to Handling and Transport. Animals 2019, 9, 425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Racewicz, P.; Sobek, J.; Majewski, M.; Różańska-Zawieja, J. The Use of Thermal Imaging Measurements in Dairy Cow Herds. Anim. Sci. Genet. 2018, 14, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Hristov, H.; Dimitrov, K.; Penev, T. Use of Infrared Thermography to Monitor the Physiological Condition of Dairy Cows. In Proceedings of the 2021 12th National Conference with International Participation (ELECTRONICA), Sofia, Bulgaria, 27–28 May 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Besteiro, R.; Arango, T.; Rodríguez, M.R.; Fernández, M.D.; Velo, R. Estimation of Patterns in Weaned Piglets’ Activity Using Spectral Analysis. Biosyst. Eng. 2018, 173, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. White, R.P.; Schofield, C.P.; Green, D.M.; Parsons, D.J.; Whittemore, C.T. The Effectiveness of a Visual Image Analysis (VIA) System for Monitoring the Performance of Growing/Finishing Pigs. Anim. Sci. 2004, 78, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Nasirahmadi, A.; Richter, U.; Hensel, O.; Edwards, S.; Sturm, B. Using Machine Vision for Investigation of Changes in Pig Group Lying Patterns. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2015, 119, 184–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Stavrakakis, S.; Guy, J.H.; Syranidis, I.; Johnson, G.R.; Edwards, S.A. Pre-Clinical and Clinical Walking Kinematics in Female Breeding Pigs with Lameness: A Nested Case-Control Cohort Study. Vet. J. 2015, 205, 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Pezzuolo, A.; Milani, V.; Zhu, D.; Guo, H.; Guercini, S.; Marinello, F. On-Barn Pig Weight Estimation Based on Body Measurements by Structure-from-Motion (SfM). Sensors 2018, 18, 3603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. D’Eath, R.B.; Jack, M.; Futro, A.; Talbot, D.; Zhu, Q.; Barclay, D.; Baxter, E.M. Automatic Early Warning of Tail Biting in Pigs: 3D Cameras Can Detect Lowered Tail Posture before an Outbreak. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0194524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Riekert, M.; Klein, A.; Adrion, F.; Hoffmann, C.; Gallmann, E. Automatically Detecting Pig Position and Posture by 2D Camera Imaging and Deep Learning. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 174, 105391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Kashiha, M.A.; Bahr, C.; Ott, S.; Moons, C.P.H.; Niewold, T.A.; Tuyttens, F.; Berckmans, D. Automatic Monitoring of Pig Locomotion Using Image Analysis. Livest. Sci. 2014, 159, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Shao, B.; Xin, H. A Real-Time Computer Vision Assessment and Control of Thermal Comfort for Group-Housed Pigs. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2008, 62, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Nasirahmadi, A.; Hensel, O.; Edwards, S.A.; Sturm, B. Automatic Detection of Mounting Behaviours among Pigs Using Image Analysis. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2016, 124, 295–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Lee, J.; Jin, L.; Park, D.; Chung, Y. Automatic Recognition of Aggressive Behavior in Pigs Using a Kinect Depth Sensor. Sensors 2016, 16, 631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Nasirahmadi, A.; Edwards, S.A.; Sturm, B. Implementation of Machine Vision for Detecting Behaviour of Cattle and Pigs. Livest. Sci. 2017, 202, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Chen, C.; Zhu, W.; Steibel, J.; Siegford, J.; Han, J.; Norton, T. Recognition of Feeding Behaviour of Pigs and Determination of Feeding Time of Each Pig by a Video-Based Deep Learning Method. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 176, 105642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Simões, V.G.; Lyazrhi, F.; Picard-Hagen, N.; Gayrard, V.; Martineau, G.-P.; Waret-Szkuta, A. Variations in the Vulvar Temperature of Sows during Proestrus and Estrus as Determined by Infrared Thermography and Its Relation to Ovulation. Theriogenology 2014, 82, 1080–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Sykes, D.J.; Couvillion, J.S.; Cromiak, A.; Bowers, S.; Schenck, E.; Crenshaw, M.; Ryan, P.L. The Use of Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging to Detect Estrus in Gilts. Theriogenology 2012, 78, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Cilulko, J.; Janiszewski, P.; Bogdaszewski, M.; Szczygielska, E. Infrared Thermal Imaging in Studies of Wild Animals. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2013, 59, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Kastelic, J.P.; Coulter, G.H.; Cook, R.B. Scrotal Surface, Subcutaneous, Intratesticular, and Intraepididymal Temperatures in Bulls. Theriogenology 1995, 44, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Lunstra, D.D.; Coulter, G.H. Relationship between Scrotal Infrared Temperature Patterns and Natural-Mating Fertility in Beef Bulls. J. Anim. Sci. 1997, 75, 767–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Cornou, C.; Lundbye-Christensen, S.; Kristensen, A.R. Modelling and Monitoring Sows’ Activity Types in Farrowing House Using Acceleration Data. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2011, 76, 316–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Chapa, J.M.; Maschat, K.; Iwersen, M.; Baumgartner, J.; Drillich, M. Accelerometer Systems as Tools for Health and Welfare Assessment in Cattle and Pigs—A Review. Behav. Process. 2020, 181, 104262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  198. van der Burg, S.; Bogaardt, M.-J.; Wolfert, S. Ethics of Smart Farming: Current Questions and Directions for Responsible Innovation towards the Future. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2019, 90–91, 100289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Madsen, T.N.; Kristensen, A.R. A Model for Monitoring the Condition of Young Pigs by Their Drinking Behaviour. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2005, 48, 138–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. da Silva, J.P.; de Alencar Nääs, I.; Abe, J.M.; da Silva Cordeiro, A.F. Classification of Piglet (Sus Scrofa) Stress Conditions Using Vocalization Pattern and Applying Paraconsistent Logic Eτ. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 166, 105020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Chung, Y.; Oh, S.; Lee, J.; Park, D.; Chang, H.-H.; Kim, S. Automatic Detection and Recognition of Pig Wasting Diseases Using Sound Data in Audio Surveillance Systems. Sensors 2013, 13, 12929–12942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Ferrari, S.; Silva, M.; Guarino, M.; Aerts, J.M.; Berckmans, D. Cough Sound Analysis to Identify Respiratory Infection in Pigs. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2008, 64, 318–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Berckmans, D. Precision livestock farming technologies for welfare management in intensive livestock systems. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2014, 33, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Lee, J.; Noh, B.; Jang, S.; Park, D.; Chung, Y.; Chang, H.-H. Stress Detection and Classification of Laying Hens by Sound Analysis. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 28, 592–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  205. Banhazi, T.M.; Lehr, H.; Black, J.L.; Crabtree, H.; Schofield, P.; Tscharke, M.; Berckmans, D. Precision Livestock Farming: An International Review of Scientific and Commercial Aspects. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2012, 5, 1. [Google Scholar]
  206. Khoramshahi, E.; Hietaoja, J.; Valros, A.; Yun, J.; Pastell, M. Real-Time Recognition of Sows in Video: A Supervised Approach. Inf. Process. Agric. 2014, 1, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Alameer, A.; Kyriazakis, I.; Dalton, H.A.; Miller, A.L.; Bacardit, J. Automatic Recognition of Feeding and Foraging Behaviour in Pigs Using Deep Learning. Biosyst. Eng. 2020, 197, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Nasirahmadi, A.; Sturm, B.; Edwards, S.; Jeppsson, K.-H.; Olsson, A.-C.; Müller, S.; Hensel, O. Deep Learning and Machine Vision Approaches for Posture Detection of Individual Pigs. Sensors 2019, 19, 3738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  209. Lee, W.; Kim, S.H.; Ryu, J.; Ban, T.-W. Fast Detection of Disease in Livestock based on Deep Learning. J. Korea Inst. Inf. Commun. Eng. 2017, 21, 1009–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Kashiha, M.; Bahr, C.; Ott, S.; Moons, C.P.H.; Niewold, T.A.; Ödberg, F.O.; Berckmans, D. Automatic Weight Estimation of Individual Pigs Using Image Analysis. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2014, 107, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Lee, W.; Ham, Y.; Ban, T.-W.; Jo, O. Analysis of Growth Performance in Swine Based on Machine Learning. IEEE Access 2019, 7, 161716–161724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Lee, W.; Ryu, J.; Ban, T.-W.; Kim, S.H.; Choi, H. Prediction of Water Usage in Pig Farm based on Machine Learning. J. Korea Inst. Inf. Commun. Eng. 2017, 21, 1560–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Collins, L.M.; Smith, L.M. Review: Smart Agri-Systems for the Pig Industry. Animal 2022, 16, 100518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  214. Botreau, R.; Veissier, I.; Butterworth, A.; Bracke, M.B.M.; Keeling, L.J. Definition of Criteria for Overall Assessment of Animal Welfare. Anim. Welf. 2007, 16, 225–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Otsuka, K.; Liu, Y.; Yamauchi, F. Growing Advantage of Large Farms in Asia and Its Implications for Global Food Security. Glob. Food Secur. 2016, 11, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. The Welfare of Animals in the Pig Industry. Available online: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1024&context=hsus_reps_impacts_on_animals (accessed on 9 November 2023).
  217. Lekagul, A.; Tangcharoensathien, V.; Liverani, M.; Mills, A.; Rushton, J.; Yeung, S. Understanding Antibiotic Use for Pig Farming in Thailand: A Qualitative Study. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2021, 10, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  218. Berckmans, D. Automatic On-Line Monitoring of Animals by Precision Livestock Farming. In Livestock Production and Society; Geers, R., Madec, F., Eds.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2006; Volume 287, pp. 27–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Neethirajan, S. Recent Advances in Wearable Sensors for Animal Health Management. Sens. Bio-Sens. Res. 2017, 12, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Racewicz, P.; Ludwiczak, A.; Skrzypczak, E.; Składanowska-Baryza, J.; Biesiada, H.; Nowak, T.; Nowaczewski, S.; Zaborowicz, M.; Stanisz, M.; Ślósarz, P. Welfare Health and Productivity in Commercial Pig Herds. Animals 2021, 11, 1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Pandey, S.; Kalwa, U.; Kong, T.; Guo, B.; Gauger, P.C.; Peters, D.J.; Yoon, K.-J. Behavioral Monitoring Tool for Pig Farmers: Ear Tag Sensors, Machine Intelligence, and Technology Adoption Roadmap. Animals 2021, 11, 2665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Bailey, D.W.; Trotter, M.G.; Tobin, C.; Thomas, M.G. Opportunities to Apply Precision Livestock Management on Rangelands. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 611915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Mungroo, N.A.; Oliveira, G.; Neethirajan, S. SERS Based Point-of-Care Detection of Food-Borne Pathogens. Microchim. Acta 2016, 183, 697–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Kumar, H.; Kuča, K.; Bhatia, S.K.; Saini, K.; Kaushal, A.; Verma, R.; Bhalla, T.C.; Kumar, D. Applications of Nanotechnology in Sensor-Based Detection of Foodborne Pathogens. Sensors 2020, 20, 1966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  225. Arora, P.; Sindhu, A.; Dilbaghi, N.; Chaudhury, A. Biosensors as Innovative Tools for the Detection of Food Borne Pathogens. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2011, 28, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  226. Sharma, H.; Agarwal, M.; Goswami, M.; Sharma, A.; Roy, S.K.; Rai, R.; Murugan, M.S. Biosensors: Tool for Food Borne Pathogen Detection. Vet. World 2013, 6, 968–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Busin, V.; Wells, B.; Kersaudy-Kerhoas, M.; Shu, W.; Burgess, S.T.G. Opportunities and Challenges for the Application of Microfluidic Technologies in Point-of-Care Veterinary Diagnostics. Mol. Cell. Probes 2016, 30, 331–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  228. Mao, K.; Min, X.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, K.; Cao, H.; Guo, Y.; Yang, Z. Paper-Based Microfluidics for Rapid Diagnostics and Drug Delivery. J. Control. Release 2020, 322, 187–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  229. Yang, Z.; Xu, G.; Reboud, J.; Ali, S.A.; Kaur, G.; McGiven, J.; Boby, N.; Gupta, P.K.; Chaudhuri, P.; Cooper, J.M. Rapid Veterinary Diagnosis of Bovine Reproductive Infectious Diseases from Semen Using Paper-Origami DNA Microfluidics. ACS Sens. 2018, 3, 403–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  230. Weng, X.; Chen, L.; Neethirajan, S.; Duffield, T. Development of Quantum Dots-Based Biosensor towards on-Farm Detection of Subclinical Ketosis. Biosens. Bioelectron. 2015, 72, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Ahmed, S.T.; Mun, H.-S.; Islam, M.M.; Yoe, H.; Yang, C.-J. Monitoring Activity for Recognition of Illness in Experimentally Infected Weaned Piglets Using Received Signal Strength Indication ZigBee-Based Wireless Acceleration Sensor. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 29, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Brown-Brandl, T.M.; Jones, D.D.; Eigenberg, R.A. Modeling Feeding Behavior of Swine to Detect Illness. In Proceedings of the CIGR-AgEng Conference, Aarhus, Denmark, 26–29 June 2016; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  233. Andersen, H.M.-L.; Dybkjær, L.; Herskin, M.S. Growing Pigs’ Drinking Behaviour: Number of Visits, Duration, Water Intake and Diurnal Variation. Animal 2014, 8, 1881–1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Fernández, J.; Fàbrega, E.; Soler, J.; Tibau, J.; Ruiz, J.L.; Puigvert, X.; Manteca, X. Feeding Strategy in Group-Housed Growing Pigs of Four Different Breeds. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2011, 134, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Yang, A.; Huang, H.; Zheng, B.; Li, S.; Gan, H.; Chen, C.; Yang, X.; Xue, Y. An Automatic Recognition Framework for Sow Daily Behaviours Based on Motion and Image Analyses. Biosyst. Eng. 2020, 192, 56–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Lou, Z.; Hurnik, J.F. Peripartum Sows in Three Farrowing Crates: Posture Patterns and Behavioural Activities. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1998, 58, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Leonard, S.M.; Xin, H.; Brown-Brandl, T.M.; Ramirez, B.C. Development and Application of an Image Acquisition System for Characterizing Sow Behaviors in Farrowing Stalls. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019, 163, 104866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Lao, F.; Brown-Brandl, T.; Stinn, J.P.; Liu, K.; Teng, G.; Xin, H. Automatic Recognition of Lactating Sow Behaviors through Depth Image Processing. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2016, 125, 56–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Berckmans, D. General Introduction to Precision Livestock Farming. Anim. Front. 2017, 7, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Neethirajan, S. The Role of Sensors, Big Data and Machine Learning in Modern Animal Farming. Sens. Bio-Sens. Res. 2020, 29, 100367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Exadaktylos, V.; Silva, M.; Aerts, J.-M.; Taylor, C.J.; Berckmans, D. Real-Time Recognition of Sick Pig Cough Sounds. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2008, 63, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Yin, Y.; Tu, D.; Shen, W.; Bao, J. Recognition of Sick Pig Cough Sounds Based on Convolutional Neural Network in Field Situations. Inf. Process. Agric. 2021, 8, 369–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Van Hirtum, A.; Berckmans, D. Objective Cough-Sound Recognition as A Biomarker For Aerial Factors. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2004, 47, 351–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  244. Velarde, A.; Fàbrega, E.; Blanco-Penedo, I.; Dalmau, A. Animal Welfare towards Sustainability in Pork Meat Production. Meat Sci. 2015, 109, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Gallo, C.B.; Huertas, S.M. Main Animal Welfare Problems in Ruminant Livestock during Preslaughter Operations: A South American View. animal 2016, 10, 357–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  246. The World Bank in Viet Nam. Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/vietnam (accessed on 8 November 2023).
  247. Fritzen, S. Growth, Inequality and the Future of Poverty Reduction in Vietnam. J. Asian Econ. 2002, 13, 635–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Balisacan, A.M.; Pernia, E.M.; Estrada, G.E.B. Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction in Viet Nam. In Poverty, Growth, and Institutions in Developing Asia; Pernia, E.M., Deolalikar, A.B., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2003; pp. 273–296. ISBN 978-1-4039-3779-7. [Google Scholar]
  249. Vietnam Population (2023)—Worldometer. Available online: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/vietnam-population/ (accessed on 8 November 2023).
  250. Consumer Profile—Vietnam. Available online: https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/international-trade/market-intelligence/reports/consumer-profile-vietnam (accessed on 15 November 2023).
  251. World Population Prospects—Population Division—United Nations. Available online: https://population.un.org/wpp/ (accessed on 7 March 2024).
  252. General Statistics Office of Vietnam. Statistical Yearbook of 2020. Available online: https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/data-and-statistics/2021/07/statistical-yearbook-of-2020/ (accessed on 5 December 2023).
  253. Tiongco, M.; Catelo, M.A.; Lapar, M.L. Contract Farming of Swine in Southeast Asia as a Response to Changing Market Demand for Quality and Safety in Pork; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2008; pp. 1–33. [Google Scholar]
  254. Alexandratos, N.; Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision; ESA Working Papers 12-03; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Bentzen, J.; Tung, L.T. Regional Income Convergence in an Emerging Asian Economy: Empirical Evidence from Vietnam. Post-Communist Econ. 2021, 33, 64–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  256. Results of the 2022 Residential Living Standards Survey. Available online: https://www.gso.gov.vn/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Thong-cao-bao-chi-KSMS2022_0405023_final-TK-1.pdf (accessed on 9 November 2023).
  257. Vietnam: Spending on Food. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1363237/vietnam-spending-on-food/ (accessed on 15 November 2023).
  258. Hou, Y.; Ma, L.; Gao, Z.L.; Wang, F.H.; Sims, J.t.; Ma, W.q.; Zhang, F.s. The Driving Forces for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Flows in the Food Chain of China, 1980 to 2010. J. Environ. Qual. 2013, 42, 962–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  259. Nguyen, M.H.; Duchère, Y. Metropolisation, Migrations and Urban Civilisation: The Example of Hanoi. Russ. J. Vietnam. Stud. 2023, 7, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  260. Bairagi, S.; Mohanty, S.; Baruah, S.; Thi, H.T. Changing Food Consumption Patterns in Rural and Urban Vietnam: Implications for a Future Food Supply System. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2020, 64, 750–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  261. Chen, P.-C. Measurement of Technical Efficiency in Farrow-to-Finish Swine Production Using Multi-Activity Network Data Envelopment Analysis: Evidence from Taiwan. J. Product. Anal. 2012, 38, 319–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  262. de Albuquerque, T.M.N.C.; Ramos, E.M.; da Matta Machado, I.F.; Borges, P.C.; Bolleta, A.G.; Marçal, J.O.; de Carvalho, F.P.; Faria, P.B. Lipid Profile and Quality of Meat from Finishing Pig Supplemented with Minerals. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 39, 721–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  263. Shurson, G.C.; Kerr, B.J. Challenges and Opportunities for Improving Nitrogen Utilization Efficiency for More Sustainable Pork Production. Front. Anim. Sci. 2023, 4, 1204863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  264. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2023–2032. Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/oecd-fao-agricultural-outlook_19991142 (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  265. Meat Consumption—OECD Data. Available online: https://data.oecd.org/agroutput/meat-consumption.htm (accessed on 28 December 2023).
  266. Govoni, C.; Chiarelli, D.D.; Luciano, A.; Pinotti, L.; Rulli, M.C. Global Assessment of Land and Water Resource Demand for Pork Supply. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022, 17, 074003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  267. Pavan; Sathu, T.; Sunil, B.; Vasudevan, V.N.; Irshad, A.; Sasi, S. Effect of Different Level of Natural Antioxidant Aloe Vera in Instant Functional Chicken Noodles. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2019, 8, 1850–1857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  268. Projected Pork Consumption Worldwide 2021–2032. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/739879/pork-consumption-worldwide/ (accessed on 1 November 2023).
  269. Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. Available online: https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/73666448x/cn69nh059/zs25zp436/livestock_poultry.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2023).
  270. Pork Imports of Selected Countries Worldwide 2023. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/237595/pork-import-in-leading-countries-worldwide/ (accessed on 1 November 2023).
  271. Processed Meat—Vietnam|Statista Market Forecast. Available online: https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/food/meat/processed-meat/vietnam (accessed on 10 November 2023).
  272. Tisdell, C.A.; Lapar, M.L.A.; Staal, S.J.; Que, N.N. Natural Protection from International Competition in the Livestock Industry: Analysis, Examples and Vietnam’s Pork Market as a Case; Economic Theory, Applications and Issues Working Paper 59; University of Queensland: Brisbane, Australia, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  273. Stark-Ewing, S. Food Safety Governance in Vietnam: Obstacles and Opportunities. Gov. Int. Relat. Honors Pap. 2018. Available online: https://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/govhp/53 (accessed on 11 March 2024).
  274. Alonso, M.E.; González-Montaña, J.R.; Lomillos, J.M. Consumers’ Concerns and Perceptions of Farm Animal Welfare. Animals 2020, 10, 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  275. Park, H.-S.; Min, B.; Oh, S.-H. Research Trends in Outdoor Pig Production—A Review. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 30, 1207–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  276. Khai, H.V.; Duyen, T.T.T.; Xuan, H.T.D. The Demand of Urban Consumers for Safe Pork in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. J. Soc. Dev. Sci. 2018, 9, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  277. Ngo, H.H.T.; Dang-Xuan, S.; Målqvist, M.; Pham-Duc, P.; Nguyen-Hong, P.; Le-Thi, H.; Nguyen-Viet, H.; Le, T.T.H.; Grace, D.; Lindahl, J.F.; et al. Impact of Perception and Assessment of Consumers on Willingness to Pay for Upgraded Fresh Pork: An Experimental Study in Vietnam. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7, 1055877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  278. Lapar, M.L.; Toan, N.N.; Staal, S.J.; Que, N.N.; Tuan, N.D.A. The Pork Value Chain in Vietnam: Emerging Trends and Implications for Smallholder Competitiveness. Presented at the 55th annual conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society (AARES), Melbourne, Australia, 9–11 February 2011; Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/12596 (accessed on 13 November 2023).
  279. Jabbar, M.A.; Baker, D.; Fadiga, M.L. Demand for Livestock Products in Developing Countries with a Focus on Quality and Safety Attributes: Evidence from Asia and Africa; ILRI (aka ILCA and ILRAD): Nairobi, Kenya, 2010; ISBN 978-92-9146-256-8. [Google Scholar]
  280. Vietnam: Expenditure on Meat. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1364000/vietnam-expenditure-on-meat/ (accessed on 9 November 2023).
  281. Vietnam General Department of Customs. Available online: https://www.customs.gov.vn (accessed on 9 November 2023).
  282. Porphyre, V.; Coi, N.Q. The General Context of a dynamic agricultural sector in the Red River Delta. In Pig Production Development, Animal-Waste Management and Environment Protection: A Case Study in Thai Binh Province, Northern Vietnam; CIRAD-PRISE Publications: Paris, France, 2006; pp. 15–36. [Google Scholar]
  283. Vietnam’s Meat Export to China Spurs in October. Available online: https://en.vietnamplus.vn/vietnams-meat-export-to-china-spurs-in-october/216639.vnp (accessed on 26 November 2023).
  284. OECD-FAO. Agricultural Outlook 2014–2023. Available online: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=HIGH_AGLINK_2014 (accessed on 9 November 2023).
  285. Ngapo, T.M.; Dransfield, E.; Martin, J.-F.; Magnusson, M.; Bredahl, L.; Nute, G.R. Consumer Perceptions: Pork and Pig Production. Insights from France, England, Sweden and Denmark. Meat Sci. 2004, 66, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  286. Szymańska, E. The pork market in poland against the background of the european union. Ann. Pol. Assoc. Agric. Agribus. Econ. 2019, XXI, 504–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. Dransfield, E.; Ngapo, T.M.; Nielsen, N.A.; Bredahl, L.; Sjödén, P.O.; Magnusson, M.; Campo, M.M.; Nute, G.R. Consumer Choice and Suggested Price for Pork as Influenced by Its Appearance, Taste and Information Concerning Country of Origin and Organic Pig Production. Meat Sci. 2005, 69, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  288. Oh, S.-H.; Whitley, N.C. Pork Production in China, Japan and South Korea. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 24, 1629–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  289. Szűcs, I.; Vida, V. Global Tendencies in Pork Meat—Production, Trade and Consumption. Appl. Stud. Agribus. Commer. 2017, 11, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  290. Catelo, M.A.O.; Costales, A.C. Contract Farming and Other Market Institutions as Mechanisms for Integrating Smallholder Livestock Producers in the Growth and Development of the Livestock Sector in Developing Countries; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2008; Available online: https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/20093089948 (accessed on 14 December 2023).
  291. McLeod, A. World Livestock 2011—Livestock in Food Security; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011; Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/i2373e/i2373e00.htm (accessed on 14 December 2023).
  292. Foley, J.A.; Ramankutty, N.; Brauman, K.A.; Cassidy, E.S.; Gerber, J.S.; Johnston, M.; Mueller, N.D.; O’Connell, C.; Ray, D.K.; West, P.C.; et al. Solutions for a Cultivated Planet. Nature 2011, 478, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  293. Ochs, D.S.; Wolf, C.A.; Widmar, N.J.O.; Bir, C. Consumer Perceptions of Egg-Laying Hen Housing Systems. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 3390–3396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  294. Misra, S.; Bokkers, E.A.M.; Upton, J.; Quinn, A.J.; O’Driscoll, K. Effect of Environmental Enrichment and Group Size on the Water Use and Waste in Grower-Finisher Pigs. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 16380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  295. Yang, C.-C. Productive Efficiency, Environmental Efficiency and Their Determinants in Farrow-to-Finish Pig Farming in Taiwan. Livest. Sci. 2009, 126, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  296. Todde, G.; Murgia, L.; Caria, M.; Pazzona, A. A Comprehensive Energy Analysis and Related Carbon Footprint of Dairy Farms, Part 2: Investigation and Modeling of Indirect Energy Requirements. Energies 2018, 11, 463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  297. Ren, C.; Liu, S.; van Grinsven, H.; Reis, S.; Jin, S.; Liu, H.; Gu, B. The Impact of Farm Size on Agricultural Sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  298. Garnett, T.; Godfray, H.C.J. Sustainable Intensification in Agriculture. Navigating a Course through Competing Food System Priorities, Food Climate Research Network and the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food, University of Oxford, UK. Available online: https://www.marineagronomy.org/sites/default/files/Garnett%20%26%20Godfrey%202012%20-%20Sustainable%20Intensification%20in%20Agriculture.pdf (accessed on 11 December 2023).
  299. Delgado, C.L.; Narrod, C.A.; Tiongco, M.M.; de Camargo Barros, G.S. Determinants and Implications of the Growing Scale of Livestock Farms in Four Fast-Growing Developing Countries; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2008; Volume 157, ISBN 978-0-89629-166-9. [Google Scholar]
  300. Huyen, L.T.T.; Herold, P.; Valle Zárate, A. Farm Types for Beef Production and Their Economic Success in a Mountainous Province of Northern Vietnam. Agric. Syst. 2010, 103, 137–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  301. Varma, V.S.; Parajuli, R.; Scott, E.; Canter, T.; Lim, T.T.; Popp, J.; Thoma, G. Dairy and Swine Manure Management—Challenges and Perspectives for Sustainable Treatment Technology. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 778, 146319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  302. Melse, R.W.; Timmerman, M. Sustainable Intensive Livestock Production Demands Manure and Exhaust Air Treatment Technologies. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 5506–5511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  303. Kunz, A.; Miele, M.; Steinmetz, R.L.R. Advanced Swine Manure Treatment and Utilization in Brazil. Bioresour. Technol. 2009, 100, 5485–5489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  304. Dróżdż, D.; Wystalska, K.; Malińska, K.; Grosser, A.; Grobelak, A.; Kacprzak, M. Management of Poultry Manure in Poland—Current State and Future Perspectives. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 264, 110327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  305. Burton, C.H. The Potential Contribution of Separation Technologies to the Management of Livestock Manure. Livest. Sci. 2007, 112, 208–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  306. Hou, Y.; Velthof, G.L.; Case, S.D.C.; Oelofse, M.; Grignani, C.; Balsari, P.; Zavattaro, L.; Gioelli, F.; Bernal, M.P.; Fangueiro, D.; et al. Stakeholder Perceptions of Manure Treatment Technologies in Denmark, Italy, The Netherlands and Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 1620–1630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  307. Riaño, B.; García-González, M.C. On-Farm Treatment of Swine Manure Based on Solid–Liquid Separation and Biological Nitrification–Denitrification of the Liquid Fraction. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 132, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  308. Sáez, J.A.; Clemente, R.; Bustamante, M.Á.; Yañez, D.; Bernal, M.P. Evaluation of the Slurry Management Strategy and the Integration of the Composting Technology in a Pig Farm—Agronomical and Environmental Implications. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 192, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  309. Chadwick, D.; Sommer, S.; Thorman, R.; Fangueiro, D.; Cardenas, L.; Amon, B.; Misselbrook, T. Manure Management: Implications for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 166–167, 514–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  310. Cattaneo, M.; Finzi, A.; Guido, V.; Riva, E.; Provolo, G. Effect of Ammonia Stripping and Use of Additives on Separation of Solids, Phosphorus, Copper and Zinc from Liquid Fractions of Animal Slurries. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 672, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  311. Sommer, S.G.; Hjorth, M.; Leahy, J.J.; Zhu, K.; Christel, W.; Sørensen, C.G.; Sutaryo. Pig Slurry Characteristics, Nutrient Balance and Biogas Production as Affected by Separation and Acidification. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 153, 177–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  312. Fangueiro, D.; Pereira, J.; Chadwick, D.; Coutinho, J.; Moreira, N.; Trindade, H. Laboratory Assessment of the Effect of Cattle Slurry Pre-Treatment on Organic N Degradation after Soil Application and N2O and N2 Emissions. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2008, 80, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  313. Hanh, H.Q.; Azadi, H.; Dogot, T.; Ton, V.D.; Lebailly, P. Dynamics of Agrarian Systems and Land Use Change in North Vietnam. Land Degrad. Dev. 2017, 28, 799–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  314. Mikolasek, O.; Guérin, G.; Lopez, A.; Khuyen, T.D.; Huy, P.T.; Dien, N.T. Local fish farming practices and a typology of farms based on organic matter intake management. In Pig Production Development, Animal-Waste Management and Environment Protection: A Case Study in Thai Binh Province, Northern Vietnam; Porphyre, V., Nguyen, Q.C., Eds.; CIRAD-PRISE Publications: Paris, France, 2006; pp. 107–125. Available online: https://hal.science/CIRAD/cirad-00168375/ (accessed on 1 January 2024).
  315. Russelle, M.P.; Entz, M.H.; Franzluebbers, A.J. Reconsidering Integrated Crop–Livestock Systems in North America. Agron. J. 2007, 99, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  316. Bell, L.W.; Moore, A.D.; Kirkegaard, J.A. Evolution in Crop–Livestock Integration Systems That Improve Farm Productivity and Environmental Performance in Australia. Eur. J. Agron. 2014, 57, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Gradual changes in the concentration of pigs in different regions. Generated from [13].
Figure 1. Gradual changes in the concentration of pigs in different regions. Generated from [13].
Agriculture 14 00555 g001
Figure 2. Influencing factors, obstacles, and proposed methods and technologies to overcome obstacles in Vietnam pig farming system.
Figure 2. Influencing factors, obstacles, and proposed methods and technologies to overcome obstacles in Vietnam pig farming system.
Agriculture 14 00555 g002
Table 1. Vietnam’s livestock production scenario from 2018 to 2022.
Table 1. Vietnam’s livestock production scenario from 2018 to 2022.
Year.Registered Livestock FarmPopulation (Millions)Meat Production (Million Metric Tons)
PigCattleBuffaloGoatPorkChickenBeefBuffaloGoat
201819,63929.836.332.492.682.810.840.1840.0510.019
201920,31020.216.282.392.612.431.000.1950.0520.021
202013,75222.036.332.332.652.471.150.2050.0960.021
202113,74823.206.392.262.722.931.280.2560.0660.021
202214,08424.686.342.23-3.101.070.2650.0660.022
Ref.[13][13][13][13][41][40][40][40][40][40]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sharifuzzaman, M.; Mun, H.-S.; Ampode, K.M.B.; Lagua, E.B.; Park, H.-R.; Kim, Y.-H.; Hasan, M.K.; Yang, C.-J. Smart Pig Farming—A Journey Ahead of Vietnam. Agriculture 2024, 14, 555. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14040555

AMA Style

Sharifuzzaman M, Mun H-S, Ampode KMB, Lagua EB, Park H-R, Kim Y-H, Hasan MK, Yang C-J. Smart Pig Farming—A Journey Ahead of Vietnam. Agriculture. 2024; 14(4):555. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14040555

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sharifuzzaman, Md, Hong-Seok Mun, Keiven Mark B. Ampode, Eddiemar B. Lagua, Hae-Rang Park, Young-Hwa Kim, Md Kamrul Hasan, and Chul-Ju Yang. 2024. "Smart Pig Farming—A Journey Ahead of Vietnam" Agriculture 14, no. 4: 555. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14040555

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop