Research Article

Improving Competitiveness Among Small-Scale Pig Farmers: Challenges, Innovations and Sustainable Practices in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam

Nguyen Hoang Qui1, Budi Guntoro2*, Ahmad Romadhoni Surya Putra2, Nguyen Thi Anh Thu1, Noemi C. Liangco2, Chau Cong Dang1, Nguyen Thuy Linh1, Nguyen Van Vui1

1Department of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, School of Agriculture and Aquaculture, Tra Vinh University, Tra Vinh city, Vietnam; 2Department of Livestock Socio-economics, Faculty of Animal Science, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta city, Indonesia.

Received | February 23, 2025; Accepted | May 05, 2025; Published | June 06, 2025

*Correspondence | Budi Guntoro, Department of Livestock Socio-economics, Faculty of Animal Science, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta city, Indonesia; Email: [email protected]

Citation | Qui NH, Guntoro B, Putra ARS, Thu NTA, Liangco NC, Dang CC, Linh NT, Vui NV (2025). Improving competitiveness among small-scale pig farmers: Challenges, innovations and sustainable practices in the mekong delta, Vietnam. J. Anim. Health Prod. 13(2): 470-479.

DOI | https://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.jahp/2025/13.2.470.479

ISSN (Online) | 2308-2801

Copyright © 2025 Kumar et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Copyright: 2025 by the authors. Licensee ResearchersLinks Ltd, England, UK.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

INTRODUCTION

The Mekong Delta is one of Vietnam’s key agricultural regions, known for its intensive rice cultivation, aquaculture, and livestock farming. However, smallholder pig farmers in this area are often constrained by fragmented markets, inadequate infrastructure, and environmental challenges, such as waste management and disease outbreaks (Qui et al., 2020; Qui et al., 2021). These factors, combined with rising consumer expectations for pork quality and safety, necessitate a deeper examination of how innovation adoption can enhance farm productivity and competitiveness. With approximately 80% of households engaged in small-scale pig farming, the sector has become an important source of income for many families, especially in rural areas (Huong et al., 2023). However, small-scale pig farmers face stiff competition from the rise of industrialized farming operations and larger agribusinesses with better access to technology and resources (Dhillon and Moncur, 2023) as well as rising production costs due to disease outbreaks that have had serious consequences on farmers’ profits (Jouzi et al., 2017; Nguyen-Thi et al., 2021). This competitive environment forces small-scale farmers to adapt and innovate to maintain their market viability, as consumer preferences shift to quality and safety (Zhu et al., 2023). Along with the entry of international markets through the CPTPP and EVFTA, the price of imported pork will decrease compared to the price of local pork. In addition, farmers mainly sell pigs to collectors due to insufficient demand in the local market (Nga et al., 2021). In addition, due to the lack of written contracts with buyers, farmers have difficulty selling pigs, especially when collectors set low prices. This phenomenon often occurs in the domestic pork supply chain in Vietnam (Qui et al., 2020).

Along with that, the competitiveness of pig farmers is affected by many factors. In terms of sociological factors, factors that influence competitiveness have been noted to include farm size, education level, market access, and social networks. Research of (Vu et al., 2019) indicates that involvement in support groups or collaborative initiatives can offer significant insights, collective experiences, and resources, thereby enhancing the competitiveness of farms. Sociological studies have recorded the critical role of social capital and social networks in increasing competitive advantages for small-scale pig farmers. This is shown in (Khan et al., 2024; Kumari and Garg, 2023), when wanting to adopt innovations or improve farm productivity, capital is required. In addition, according to (Carayannis and Grigoroudis, 2016), the concepts of innovation, productivity, and competitiveness are closely related. The prevailing circumstances surrounding small-scale pig farming exhibit considerable variability in the implementation of technology and overall farming productivity. A substantial number of farmers continue to depend on conventional agricultural practices (Linh et al., 2022), frequently resulting in less than ideal production outcomes. In fact, there are more and more producers looking to incorporate new technologies into their fields, from automated feeding systems (Diaz et al., 2021) to improved farming methods (Krampe et al., 2024), with the view of increasing output and competitiveness. With such advanced technologies, farmers are able to realize remarkable productivity gains in terms of higher yields and better quality. However, small-scale swine producers can increase their productivity but fail to have a higher degree of market competitiveness due to a number of reasons such as market saturation problem, as opined by Savagar et al. (2024), price volatility, as evident by Qui et al. (2020), or inability to access quality markets. In addition, the adoption of innovative practices remains generally low among smallholder farmers, mainly due to financial constraints, lack of information, and inadequate training (Sharifuzzaman et al., 2024). To survive and succeed, farmers must find sustainable ways to improve their performance, as indicated by the increasing competition in the industry (Nybom et al., 2021). The combination of market orientation and multi-generational family involvement in management is a set of important, scarce, and difficult-to-replicate resources for a family farm. These resources can provide competitive advantages by facilitating the emergence of innovative ideas (Fuetsch, 2022).

Although previous studies have explored innovation and productivity in agricultural contexts (Qui et al., 2025), the relationship between innovation, production efficiency, and competitiveness remains under-researched, particularly in small-scale pig farming in Vietnam. This gap is critical in the Mekong Delta, where smallholders dominate the pig farming sector but face increasing competition from larger agribusinesses, fluctuating input costs, and limited access to modern technologies (Ndwandwe and Weng, 2018; Qui et al., 2021). Understanding how specific innovations influence farm competitiveness can provide valuable insights for improving the long-term sustainability of small-scale pig farming in the region. In addition to the above reasons, Vietnam’s pig farming productivity is still low compared to other countries in the region and the world. On farms, Vietnamese farmers spend about 5.8 months to fatten pigs (Takahashi et al., 2020), leading to high production costs and reduced competitiveness. Therefore, we conducted this study to record information on production, innovation, and the impact of production efficiency and innovation on the competitiveness of pig farming.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Research Place

The research was conducted in three districts of Mekong delta, Vietnam, namely Tra Vinh, Ben Tre and Long An province. This region is known for its agricultural practices, particularly in pig farming, which plays a crucial role in the livelihoods of smallholder farmers. The study focuses on small-scale pig farms, which are prevalent in this area, reflecting the typical farming structures found in rural Vietnam. Among the three provinces, the number of pigs in Tra Vinh, Ben Tre and Long An is 249.9, 335.6 and 95.6 thousand heads respectively (GSO, 2023) with this number of pigs, it can be representative for the assessment of the Mekong Delta. The location was selected due to its relevance to the broader research objectives of assessing innovation, production efficiency, and competitiveness in small-scale pig farming. The research period spanned from January 2024 to May 2024, encompassing different operational conditions that could influence farming practices and outcomes.

Data Collection

A multi-stage random sampling method was employed to ensure representativeness across the three provinces. This study covered a total of 360 farmers. All participants provided informed consent before participating in the survey (the study was conducted according to the letter of assignment of 4971/UN1.P1/PT.01.01/2024). Farmers were chosen according to the following criteria: (1) a minimum of 3 years of experience in pig farming, (2) ownership of at least 10 pig units, and (3) operation of the farm for a minimum of 2 years. The respondents were selected according to the method outlined by (Levine and Stephan, 2010), which indicates that a minimum of 30 respondents is sufficient for survey sampling in cases of an unknown population. Consequently, the study recruited 30 respondents from each of the four chosen districts to gather data. The study was conducted specifically on small-scale pig farmers who have adopted at least one technological or management innovation in their farming operations. These innovations include, but are not limited to, automatic feeding and watering systems, waste treatment technologies such as biogas systems, and biosecurity measures aimed at preventing disease outbreaks. Farmers were selected based on their reported application of these technologies or practices during the survey process. The questionnaire utilized for this study was initially designed in English and subsequently translated into the local language, Vietnamese. The survey comprises three sections. Initially, the social profiles and productive attributes of farmers. Secondly, the farmers’ opinion of agricultural advancements. Thirdly, the competitiveness of farms through farmers’ self-assessment.

Data Analysis

Data were collected by officers with expertise in the veterinary field, ensuring the quality and consistency of the information. Data of pig farmers from three provinces were examined using SPSS v.26 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Quantitative data analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics to examine farm characteristics and farmers’ perceptions of innovation and competitiveness. Multiple logistic regression (MLR) was applied to assess the relationship between innovation, production efficiency, and farm competitiveness, with innovation and efficiency scores calculated based on a Likert scale. According to Sullivan and Artino (2013), Likert scale was used to assess the performance after an educational intervention. In this study, Likert scale will be used to estimate the perception of swine farmers on the competitiveness. The perception of farmers on innovation is assessed using four indicators including 14 statements, while the evaluation of agricultural competitiveness employs four pillars with 17 statements. The independent variables are displayed in Tables 1 and 2. The scale’s internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha, which indicates the effectiveness of a scale in assessing a notion. Cronbach’s alpha ≥ 0.7 is considered to reflect good reliability of the scale (Tavakol and Dennick, 2011). Items that could not be measured by a single underlying latent variable were excluded from further analysis.

 

Table 1: Description of item used for innovation perception.

Code	Item	Response
I	Innovations
IMK	Market innovation	1=strongly disagree 2=disagree 3= undecided 4=agree 5=strongly agree
IMK1	Pork from my farm is often more competitive than other farms.
IMK2	My farm produces hog with lower price and higher quality of meat to the market.
IMK3	My farm produces products that address customer needs.
IMK4	My farm explores new market channel
IPC	Process innovation	1=strongly disagree 2=disagree 3= undecided 4=agree 5=strongly agree
IPC1	My swine farm has flexible production management which can be changed efficiently.
IPC2	My farm uses short supply chain and distribution network.
IPC3	My farm invests in new techniques/equipment to improve its activities
IOZ	Organizational innovation	1=strongly disagree 2=disagree 3= undecided 4=agree 5=strongly agree
IOZ1	My farm has joined in group of farmers to stabilize the price.
IOZ2	My farm has a relationship to middleman or market sellers.
IOZ3	In my farm, labor/workers should have ability to innovate the farm
IPD	Production innovation	1=strongly disagree 2=disagree 3= undecided 4=agree 5=strongly agree
IPD1	Swine from my farm are often considered as high quality (less fat) by customers.
IPD2	In comparison to other farms, my swine farm has introduced more innovations in the past few years.
IPD3	Breeds of my swine farm recently is significantly different from previous productions.
IPD4	In comparison to other farms, my swine farm is successful

 

Noted: The validity was from 0.174-0.770 which was more than r table in correlation table (N=360). The reliability was checked by Cronbach’s alpha which was 0.798.

 

Table 2: Description items used for competitiveness pillars.

Code	Item	Level of evaluation
C	Competitiveness
CS	Sustainability	1=very low 2=low 3=normal 4=high 5=very high
CS1	Level of Sustainability of swine production in supply natural resources
CS2	Level of sustainability of swine production in supply of labor
CS3	Level of sustainability of swine production in inputs supply
CS4	Level of sustainability of swine production in supply with innovations
CS5	Level of sustainability in swine production in fundings
CS6	Level of sustainability of swine production in supply with production and health services
CS7	Level of sustainability of swine production in marketing
CA	Adaptability	1=very low 2=low 3=normal 4=high 5=very high
CA1	Level of Adaptability of swine production to natural environment
CA2	Level of Adaptability of swine production to market environment
CA3	Level of Adaptability of swine production to institutional environment
CF	Financial endowment	1=very low 2=low 3=normal 4=high 5=very high
CF1	Profitability of own capital
CF2	Liquidity
CF3	Level of Financial autonomy
CE	Economic efficiency
CE1	Labor productivity in swine farm
CE2	Land and swine productivity
CE3	Income per swine.
CE4	Profitability of swine farm

 

Noted: The validity was from 0.245-0.767 which was more than r table in correlation table (N=360). The reliability was checked by Cronbach’s alpha which was 0.893.

 

The view of pig farmers about innovations and the competitiveness of pig farming is categorized into three levels, based on specific criteria. (1) High: A total value on the Likert scale ranges from 63 to 85 for competitiveness and from 52 to 70 for innovation. (2) Medium: total value on the Likert scale ranges from 40 to 62 for competitiveness and from 33 to 51 for innovation. (3): Low: The overall Likert scale values will range from 17 to 39 for competitiveness and from 14 to 32 for innovation. The productivity of pig farming, sometimes referred to as farm production efficiency, is determined by the output and input factors of the pig farm. Similarly, the research of (Zelenyuk, 2023) suggests that in economics, productivity is typically assessed by examining the ratio of outputs to inputs; however, this approach is not uniformly relevant. The notion of productivity is readily comprehensible when considering a singular output, y, generated from a singular input, x. This can be precisely expressed as the ratio of output to input. The computation can be executed at a specified time t using Equation 1:

The index measuring productivity variations in simple contexts is defined as the ratio of single factor productivity over a designated period, reformulated as the ratio of the output index to the input index, as illustrated in Equation 2:

Moreover, following the assessment of the pig farm’s productivity using Equation 2, the study will convert this into production efficiency, with a ratio exceeding 1 denoting efficiency and a ratio of 1 or below indicating inefficiency. The MLR analysis was applied for this study. The formulation (Equation 3) will be:

YC = bIXI + bPXP + c

Where:

YC is the competitiveness level of the farm which is divided into 3 categories, low, medium and high level of competitiveness.

XI is the perception of farmers towards innovations in farms.

XP is the productivity of pig farming.

b refers to the parameter estimate for the innovation and production variable.

c refers to a constant.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Production Analysis of Small Pig Farms in Mekong Delta, Vietnam

Table 3 and Figure 1 provides an overview of the production characteristics and financial information of pig farming, based on aggregated data from three provinces. The average rearing time for a litter of pigs remains at 5 months/litter. The number of piglets, sows, and pigs in farming households fluctuates greatly, indicating that the scale of farming is diverse but mostly small. On average, each farming household focuses on a certain pig unit, indicating the level of investment and production expansion. Regarding financial information, the price of live pigs, the cost of purchasing piglets, feed, and other costs such as veterinary medicine, electricity and water are relatively uneven

 

Table 3: Production characteristics and efficiency of small-scale pig farms.

Variables	Tra Vinh		Ben Tre		Long An		Total
	N	Mean±SD	N	Mean±SD	N	Mean±SD
Production characteristics
Raising time (months)
Average (Mean±SD)	4.89±0.312		5.275±0.755		4.750±1.120		49.73±7.764
Min	4		3.5		3
Max	5		6		7
Piglet number (unit*)	16.75±4.488		51.32±83.42		20.42±45.35		29.49±56.89
Sow number	4.23±1.059		9.760±9.689		9.06±38.50		7.68±22.99
Hog number	16.93±3.559		88.85±170.1		87.9677.69		64.58±63.39
Swine unit	10.141±1.741		44.57±22.44		40.84±40.03		31.85±31.39
Financial information
Hog price	5,150,083		5,251,725		5,297,433		5,233,080
Piglet expense	851,250		1,236,500		1,071,666		1,053,138
Feed expense	2,903,613		3,110,466		2,822,833		2,945,637
Veterinary expense	632,667		1,006,872		554,333		731,290
Water-Electricity expense	607,750		362,750		545,000		505,166

 

*one unit is equal to: > 25 kg is equal to 0.4 unit, < 25 kg is equal to 0.1 unit.

 

 

among households, indicating the difference in the market prices of input and output of the production process in the Mekong Delta. In particular, feed costs account for the majority of total costs, reflecting the important role of this factor in the economic efficiency of farming households. According to this analysis, it is relatively clear that there was a moderate increase in productivity of farms. According to (GSO, 2024), pig output, pork product output and pig farm productivity had registered a high level during the six months of 2024. Particularly, there was an indication that the prices of pigs increased over the corresponding period. Moreover, the pig prices increased by VND 10,000-11,000 per kilogram. The enhancement of pig herd production can be analyzed through the lenses of rearing duration and breeding stock quality. In comparison to the research conducted by Takahashi et al. (2020), the elevated expenses associated with pig rearing, attributed to prolonged raising periods, are also somewhat linked to livestock productivity. It was observed that the average raising duration of a litter of pigs has diminished from 5.8 months in the study of Takahashi et al. (2020) to over 5 months in this study. According to this study, the awareness of farmers in regard to innovation on farms and competitiveness of the farms is moderately above average. This may partly explain the role farmers give to innovations in their operations and partly show the relationship between innovations, productivity and competitiveness.

Perception of Farmers Towards Innovation and Competitiveness of Small Pig Farmers in Mekong Delta

Table 4 provides an overview of farmers’ perceptions of innovation in smallholder pig farms. The majority of farmers reported notable improvements, particularly in product quality, reflecting increased customer satisfaction, and the application of innovations in pig breeds, supply chain efficiencies, and distribution networks. They also believe that their farms are flexible in their production processes, having implemented specific techniques such as the adoption of automatic feeding systems, improved biosecurity measures, and waste management technologies, despite the financial constraints. Notably, farmers believe that their pork products are competitive in meeting customer needs. The ability to exploit new market channels is also highly valued, indicating a proactive approach to expanding consumption markets. In addition, a large proportion of farmers recognize their workers’ innovative contributions, particularly in optimizing feeding practices, improving livestock health monitoring, and maintaining sustainability-oriented practices, reflecting a willingness to innovate and adapt in the production environment.

 

Table 4: Perception of farmers on innovations in small-scale pig farms.

Indicators	Degrees of agreement
	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutural	Agree	Strongly Agree
IPD1	3.1	1.9	17.2	77.5	0.3
IPD2	2.8	6.4	24.2	66.4	0.3
IPD3	2.8	0.3	11.4	83.9	1.7
IPD4	-	2.8	22.2	73.3	1.7
IPC1	-	3.1	20	73.1	3.9
IPC2	2.8	-	11.7	81.7	3.9
IPC3	2.8	6.4	30.6	59.2	1.1
IMK1	-	13.1	38.9	44.7	3.3
IMK2	1.9	23.3	36.1	35.3	3.3
IMK3	-	9.4	27.8	60.8	1.9
IMK4	-	1.7	8.3	88.1	1.9
IOZ1	0.3	10.3	37.8	48.6	3.1
IOZ2	-	12.5	29.2	56.7	1.7
IOZ3	-	4.4	14.7	80.6	0.3

 

Table 5: Perception of farmers on the competitiveness of their farm.

Indicators	Degrees of agreement
	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutural	Agree	Strongly Agree
CE1	4.7	19.7	14.2	60.3	1.1
CE2	2.2	45	17.5	34.2	1.1
CE3	3.1	47.8	17.8	28.3	3.1
CE4	2.5	49.4	16.7	28.9	2.5
CF1	3.1	50.3	18.1	28.1	0.6
CF2	0.6	8.1	15.8	71.9	3.6
CF3	2.2	48.6	20	26.1	3.1
CA1	0.6	8.3	45	45.3	0.8
CA2	0.3	7.5	47.5	43.6	1.1
CA3	-	6.9	52.2	38.9	1.9
CS1	-	12.2	42.8	43.9	1.1
CS2	-	20.8	24.7	53.1	1.4
CS3	-	5	22.8	70.3	1.9
CS4	-	11.1	36.7	51.9	0.3
CS5	0.6	17.5	36.7	43.3	1.9
CS6	0.3	20.3	33.6	44.4	1.4
CS7	0.6	23.9	33.3	40.3	1.9

 

Table 5 reflects farmers’ perceptions of factors related to efficiency and sustainability in pig farming. The majority of farmers agreed that labor productivity was relatively high due to task-specific innovations such as automated watering and feeding systems, though challenges related to long-term labor sustainability remain, with nearly 60% agreeing or strongly agreeing. Meanwhile, the relationship between land and pig productivity had a lower level of agreement, with nearly 45% disagreeing or disagreeing. Regarding income per pig, consensus was relatively low, indicating concerns about farm profitability. Similarly, farm profitability and capital profitability did not receive strong consensus, with many farmers expressing neutrality or disagreement. Among financial factors, liquidity was highly valued with more than 71% agreeing, indicating that farmers have confidence in their farm’s financial management ability. However, financial autonomy was met with mixed opinions. Regarding the adaptability of pig production to natural environmental, market and institutional factors, farmers showed high levels of agreement. Regarding sustainability in production, despite perceived labor productivity, concerns about long-term resource and labor sustainability persist, reflecting ongoing challenges related to soil depletion, feed costs, and workforce retention, but there was a higher consensus on the use of production services and veterinary services. Factors such as maintaining the supply of raw materials and the ability to adapt to innovation were also positively viewed by farmers, indicating an optimistic outlook for sustainability in the pig industry.

 

The Table 3 and 4 was sumerized in the Figures 2 and 3 which show that the majority of farms operate at a medium level of innovation, indicating that they have adopted some improvements in production processes, but have not yet reached their optimal potential. In addition, production performance has a large proportion of farms identified as efficient, indicating improvements in techniques and output optimization. The competitiveness of the farms is also at an average level, with a significant proportion having difficulty maintaining their market position. This underscores the critical need for targeted policies and investments aimed at promoting technological adoption, capacity-building initiatives, and knowledge-sharing networks to enhance the competitiveness and sustainability of small-scale pig farms, thereby fostering long-term resilience in livestock sector. This study indicates that farmers’ perceptions of innovations on their farms and the competitiveness of their farms are moderately high. This may partially indicate that farmers recognize the significance of innovations in their operations and the correlation between innovations, productivity, and competitiveness. (Nguyen et al., 2023) shown that financial challenges influenced agricultural development. Bai et al. (2019) recorded that animal husbandry was intricately connected to domestic policy, which directly impacted the growth of pig populations and the efficiency of pig farming. Technologies continuously evolve and adapt across many locations and time periods, influenced by local conditions and supported by social learning and advancement (Glover et al., 2019). In this ongoing transition, farm trials and farmer field schools act as a nexus for the convergence of social and technical innovation dynamics. According to Smith et al. (2021b), the current reporting approaches are inadequate to capture the temporal dynamics of a process or novel effects. Technologies continuously evolve and adapt across many locations and time periods, influenced by local conditions and supported by social learning and advancement (Glover et al., 2019). Throughout this ongoing change, farm trials and farmer field schools function as a nexus for the convergence of social and technical innovation dynamics. Smith et al. (2021b) assert that the existing reporting methods are insufficient for accurately capturing dynamic processes and unforeseen consequences. This analysis indicates that farm productivity was moderately elevated.

 

Effects of Productivity and Innovation on Competitiveness at Small Farms in Mekong Delta, Vietnam

Figure 4 shows the results of the regression analysis showing that innovation has a positive impact on farm competitiveness (p < 0.001). For every unit increase in innovation, competitiveness increases by approximately 0.410 times, assuming that all other factors in the model remain constant. Besides, the interaction between innovation and production efficiency did not yield statistically significant results in this study. This may suggest that innovation alone, rather than in combination with efficiency improvements, plays a more pivotal role in determining competitiveness. Future research could further explore whether certain types of innovation, such as biosecurity enhancements or supply chain improvements, are more effective when combined with increased productivity. The equation of current study could be written as follow:

Y = 1.994 + (0.410 × innovation)

The current research establishes that innovation enhances competitiveness while productivity has no impact. Technological advancement is crucial in pro-actively improving on challenges that affect small scale pig farms in effort to improve competitiveness. Gottschall and Woods (2020), illustrate that in small family enterprises, the family plays a crucial role in fostering innovative activities. Innovation can improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the production, processing, sale, and distribution of agricultural goods (Smith et al., 2021a). The results for innovation and competitiveness indicate that knowledge-technology output and creative output have a significant positive effect on competitiveness. The studies of (Doğan, 2016) show that there is 0.0045 unit improvement in competitiveness for 1 unit increase in the knowledge-technology production and 0.0046 unit improvement in competitiveness for 1 unit enhancement in the creative output. Chursin et al. (2017) assert that innovation is fundamental to competitiveness.

 

The findings of this study support the research conducted by (Abd Aziz and Samad, 2016), which demonstrated that innovation has a significant and positive effect on the competitiveness of small and medium-sized enterprises in Malaysia’s food industry. The findings also align with global trends observed in studies from other developing countries, where innovation adoption has been shown to improve farm competitiveness (Abd Aziz and Samad, 2016; Wakgari et al., 2024). However, barriers to innovation adoption remain significant for small-scale farmers in the Mekong Delta, including financial constraints, lack of technical knowledge, and limited market access. Addressing these barriers through targeted support programs, such as cooperative models, and extension services, could enhance the effectiveness of innovation adoption and promote long-term sustainability in the pig farming sector (Qui et al., 2020). Wakgari et al. (2024) pointed out that organizational innovation has a positive impact on competitiveness. Applications on feeding systems, thermal and health control, and waste disposal facilitates creates easy means for farmers to address some complex human labour activities (Diaz et al., 2021; Neethirajan, 2021). This lowers costs of operations while at the same time provides standard and accurate care to the animals hence enhanced growth rates for the livestock. This is crucial in supporting competitive markets price since technology application in the management improve productivity without compromising resource use in farm management (Oladapo et al., 2023). Also, it improves health management and biosecurity common factors as part in farming of pigs (Alarcón et al., 2021). Higher levels of production mean increased production efficiency, and lower production costs, particularly veterinary services as well as losses due to diseases. This in turn improves the competitive edge of a farm since the amount of produce, qualities of pigs, and hence the priced offered to the market are improved.

Nonetheless, the productivity or production efficiency of pigs does not consistently impact the competitiveness of small-scale pig farms. A primary reason is that competitiveness frequently relies more on market positioning and access than on production efficiency alone. A farm may attain high productivity regarding pig production or feed conversion ratios; however, without sufficient market access, distribution channels (Qui et al., 2021), or the capacity to sell at advantageous prices, this efficiency fails to enhance competitiveness, as particularly indicated in the study by Savagar et al. (2024). There is also the risk that farmers struggle getting consistent and reliable buyers or there are forced to lower the price because the market is saturation, or regions are situated far from areas of high demand. Also, production efficiency commonly confines itself to some production parameters like feed conversion, growth rate, and mortality. While these elements are critical for cost reduction (Maes et al., 2020), they might not capture competitive pressures from the outside. Companies may optimally farm pigs but they may not be able to market the products differently. Competitiveness includes branding and value enhancement together with satisfaction with customers on aspects such as quality meats and organic farming, all of which are not directly associated with productivity. Equally important, competitiveness is influenced by other factors such as credit and policy, which again may present limitations in this study.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The study indicated that farmers exhibited a strong perception of innovations and their farms, contributing positively to farm competitiveness; however, production efficiency was not fully optimized. The study also showed that innovation leads to a significant enhancement in pig farm competitiveness; however, an increase in production efficiency does not always result in similar effects. To address this, policies should prioritize supporting smallholders in adopting key innovations, such as automated feeding systems, biogas digesters, and disease prevention technologies. Financial assistance, training programs, and cooperative models can further facilitate the transition towards more competitive and sustainable pig farming in the Mekong Delta.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge the support of time and facilities from Tra Vinh University (TVU) for this study.

AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTIONS

Budi Guntoro and Ahmad Romadhoni: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Supervision; Nguyen Thuy Linh, Nguyen Van Vui, Nguyen Thi Anh Thu: Investigation, Supervision, Reviewing and Editing; Nguyen Hoang Qui, Chau Cong Dang and Noemi C. Liangco: Investigation, Writing and Editing. All authors have read and agreed with the final manuscript.

Disclosure Statement

This manuscript includes the assistance of AI tools for grammar refinement. All data analysis, interpretation, and conceptual insights were conducted by the authors.

Conflict of Interest

The author declare no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

Abd Aziz NN, Samad S (2016). Innovation and competitive advantage: Moderating effects of firm age in foods manufacturing SMEs in Malaysia. Procedia Econ. Financ., 35256-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00032-0

Alarcón LV, Allepuz A, Mateu E (2021). Biosecurity in pig farms: a review. Porc. Health Manage., 7(1): 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-020-00181-z

Bai Z, Zhao J, Wei Z, Jin X, Ma L (2019). Socio-economic drivers of pig production and their effects on achieving sustainable development goals in China. J. Integr. Environ. Sci., 16(1): 141-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/1943815X.2019.1671463

Carayannis E, Grigoroudis E (2016). Quadruple innovation helix and smart specialization: Knowledge production and national competitiveness. Foresight Sti Gov., 10(1): 31-42. https://doi.org/10.17323/1995-459x.2016.1.31.42

Chursin A, Vlasov Y, Makarov Y (2017). Innovation as a Basis for Competitiveness: Theory and Practice. 1st ed. Springer Cham, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40600-8

Dhillon R, Moncur Q (2023). Small-Scale Farming: A Review of Challenges and Potential Opportunities Offered by Technological Advancements. Sustainability, 15(21): 15478. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152115478

Diaz AC, Sasaki N, Tsusaka TW, Szabo S (2021). Factors affecting farmers’ willingness to adopt a mobile app in the marketing of bamboo products. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Adv., 11200056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcradv.2021.200056

Doğan E (2016). The effect of innovation on competitiveness. Ekonometri. İstatistik. Sayı., 2460-81.

Fuetsch E (2022). Innovation in family farms: the roles of the market, the family, and farm performance. J. Small Bus. Strategy., 32(2): 83-103. https://doi.org/10.53703/001c.31714

Glover D, Sumberg J, Ton G, Andersson J, Badstue L (2019). Rethinking technological change in smallholder agriculture. Outlook Agric., 48(3): 169-180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0030727019864978

Gottschall RL, Woods JA (2020). Family human capital and the championing of innovation in small firms. J. Small Bus. Strategy., 30(3): 1-15.

GSO (2023). Statistical Year Book of 2023. Statistical Publishing House, Hanoi.

GSO (2024). Socio-economic situation report in the first quarter of 2024.

Huong LTT, Takahashi Y, Duy LV, Chung DK, Yabe M (2023). Development of Livestock Farming System and Technical Efficiency: A Case Study on Pig Production in Vietnam. J. Fac. Agric. Kyushu Univ., 68(1): 79. https://doi.org/10.5109/6770291

Jouzi Z, Azadi H, Taheri F, Zarafshani K, Gebrehiwot K, Van Passel S, Lebailly P (2017). Organic Farming and Small-Scale Farmers: Main Opportunities and Challenges. Ecol. Econ., 132144-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.10.016

Khan FU, Nouman M, Negrut L, Abban J, Cismas LM, Siddiqi MF (2024). Constraints to agricultural finance in underdeveloped and developing countries: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Sustain. Agric. Res., 22(1): 2329388. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2024.2329388

Krampe C, Ingenbleek PTM, Niemi JK, Serratosa J (2024). Designing precision livestock farming system innovations: A farmer perspective. J. Rural Studies., 111103397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103397

Kumari A, Garg V (2023). Impact of credit on sustainable agricultural development in India. J. Sustain. Finance Invest., 13(1): 560-571. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2021.1964811

Levine DM, Stephan DF (2010). Even you can learn statistics: A guide for everyone who has ever been afraid of statistics. 2nd ed. USA: FT Press, New Jersey.

Linh NT, Dong NTK, Thu NV (2022). A survey of Muscovy duck production in rural areas of Tra Vinh Province, Vietnam. J. Indones. Trop. Anim. Agric., 47(2): 138-145. https://doi.org/10.14710/jitaa.47.2.138-145

Maes DGD, Dewulf J, Piñeiro C, Edwards S, Kyriazakis I (2020). A critical reflection on intensive pork production with an emphasis on animal health and welfare. J. Anim. Sci., 98(Suppl 1): S15-s26. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skz362

Ndwandwe SB, Weng RC (2018). Competitive Analyses of the Pig Industry in Swaziland. Sustainability., 10(12): 4402. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124402

Neethirajan S (2021). Is seeing still believing? Leveraging deepfake technology for livestock farming. Front. Vet. Sci., 8740253. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.740253

Nga NTD, Van Hung P, Vy LTL, Huyen NTT, Ha DN, Huong G (2021). Swine production and challenges in Vietnam a fter African swine fever: a case study in peri-urban hanoi, Vietnam. Vietnam J. Agric. Sci., 4(1): 965-977. https://doi.org/10.31817/vjas.2021.4.1.07

Nguyen TT, Nguyen TT, Grote U (2023). Credit, shocks and production efficiency of rice farmers in Vietnam. Econ. Anal. Policy., 77780-791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2022.12.018

Nguyen-Thi T, Pham-Thi-Ngoc L, Nguyen-Ngoc Q, Dang-Xuan S, Lee HS, Nguyen-Viet H, Padungtod P, Nguyen-Thu T, Nguyen-Thi T, Tran-Cong T (2021). An assessment of the economic impacts of the 2019 African swine fever outbreaks in Vietnam. Front. Vet. Sci., 8686038. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.686038

Nybom J, Hunter E, Micheels E, Melin M (2021). Farmers’ strategic responses to competitive intensity and the impact on perceived performance. SN Bus. Econ., 1(6): 74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43546-021-00078-1

Oladapo MO, Abualqumboz M, Ngoe LM, Oyetunji AK, Amaechi CV, Bello R, Amaechi EC (2023). Sustainable Technology Adoption as a Source of Competitive Advantage for Pineapple Production in Ejigbo, Nigeria. Economies, 11(9): 222. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies11090222

Qui NH, Guntoro B, Putra A, Thu N, Liangco N, Linh N (2025). Analysis of pig farming productivity and the perceptions of farmers towards government support policies in the mekong delta, Vietnam. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci., 13(2): 279-288. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.aavs/2025/13.2.279.288

Qui NH, Guntoro B, Syahlani SP (2020). The Social Profile, Constraints, and Its Impact on Swine Herd Size in Tra Vinh Province, Vietnam. Trop. Anim. Sci. J., 43(4): 385-390. https://doi.org/10.5398/tasj.2020.43.4.385

Qui NH, Guntoro B, Syahlani SP, Linh NT (2021). Factor affecting the information Sources and communication channels toward pig farmer’s perception of African swine fever in Tra Vinh province, Vietnam. Trop. Anim. Sci. J., 44(2): 248-254. https://doi.org/10.5398/tasj.2021.44.2.248

Savagar A, Aguda O, Galanakis Y, Wu JW (2024). Market concentration and productivity: evidence from the UK. Fisc. Stud., 45(4): 459-482. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5890.12381

Sharifuzzaman M, Mun HS, Ampode KMB, Lagua EB, Park HR, Kim YH, Hasan MK, Yang CJ (2024). Smart Pig Farming - A Journey Ahead of Vietnam. Agriculture., 14(4): 555. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14040555

Smith AM, Duncan P, Edgar D, McColl J (2021a). Responsible and sustainable farm business: Contextual duality as the moderating influence on entrepreneurial orientation. Int. J. Entrep. Innov., 22(2): 88-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465750320944702

Smith HE, Sallu SM, Whitfield S, Gaworek-Michalczenia MF, Recha JW, Sayula GJ, Mziray S (2021b). Innovation systems and affordances in climate smart agriculture. J. Rural Studies., 87199-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2021.09.001

Sullivan GM, Artino ARJr (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from likert-type scales. J. Grad. Med. Educ., 5(4): 541-542. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-5-4-18

Takahashi Y, Nomura H, Van Duy L, Son CT, Yabe M (2020). Water-use efficiency of alternative pig farming systems in Vietnam. Resour. Conserv. Recycl., 161104926.

Tavakol M, Dennick R (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ., 253-55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

Vu V, Ho H, Le Q (2019). Impact of farmer education on production efficiency: The case of rice farms in Vietnam. Manag. Sci. Lett., 9(11): 1909-1918. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.6.002

Wakgari G, Amentie C, Bali N (2024). Effect of Innovation capability on Competitiveness: A Study on Manufacturing Firms in Ethiopia. J. Sci. Technol. Arts Res., 13(1): 119-148.

Zelenyuk V (2023). Productivity analysis: roots, foundations, trends and perspectives. J. Prod. Anal., 60(3): 229-247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-023-00692-1

Zhu D, Tang Y, Wu L (2023). Consumer preference for pork safety characteristics: Considering rational and irrational behavior. Food Control., 148109659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2023.109659