Advertisement

Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 63–73 | Cite as

Drivers, challenges and opportunities of forage technology adoption by smallholder cattle households in Cambodia

  • K AshleyEmail author
  • S Wilson
  • JR Young
  • HP Chan
  • S Vitou
  • S Suon
  • PA Windsor
  • RD Bush
Regular Articles

Abstract

Forage technology has been successfully introduced into smallholder cattle systems in Cambodia as an alternative feed source to the traditional rice straw and native pastures, improving animal nutrition and reducing labour requirements of feeding cattle. Previous research has highlighted the positive impacts of forage technology including improved growth rates of cattle and household time savings. However, further research is required to understand the drivers, challenges and opportunities of forage technology for smallholder cattle households in Cambodia to facilitate widespread adoption and identify areas for further improvement. A survey of forage-growing households (n = 40) in July–September 2016 examined forage technology adoption experiences, including reasons for forage establishment, use of inputs and labour requirements of forage plot maintenance and use of forages (feeding, fattening, sale of grass or seedlings and silage). Time savings was reported as the main driver of forage adoption with household members spending approximately 1 h per day maintaining forages and feeding it to cattle. Water availability was reported as the main challenge to this activity. A small number of households also reported lack of labour, lack of fencing, competition from natural grasses, cost of irrigation and lack of experience as challenges to forage growing. Cattle fattening and sale of cut forage grass and seedlings was not found to be a widespread activity by interviewed households, with 25 and 10% of households reporting use of forages for these activities, respectively. Currently, opportunities exist for these households to better utilise forages through expansion of forage plots and cattle activities, although assistance is required to support these households in addressing current constraints, particularly availability of water, if the sustainability of this feed technology for smallholder cattle household is to be established in Cambodia.

Keywords

Cambodia Cattle Forages Nutrition Adoption Water Fattening 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was conducted within the VBLDRM project (AH/2011/014), funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR). This support is gratefully acknowledged as are efforts of the staff of the General Directorate of Animal Health and Production, Phnom Penh and the household representatives in Ampil Chrum and Sen Ouk villages who participated in this research and provided their time generously.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Statement of human rights

Human ethics approval for this study was obtained from the University of Sydney Ethics Committee (project no. 2014/783) in compliance with State Acts and National Codes of Practice. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. ACIAR, 2017. Village-based biosecurity for livestock disease risk management in Cambodia. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, Australia. http://aciar.gov.au/project/ah/2011/014. Accessed 3 June 2017.
  2. Adams, K & Lawrence, E, 2014. Research Methods, Statistics, and Applications. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  3. Ashley, K, Young, J, Kea, P, Suon, S, Windsor, P & Bush, R, 2016. Socioeconomic impact of forage-technology adoption by smallholder cattle farmers in Cambodia. Animal Prod Sci,  https://doi.org/10.1071/AN16164.
  4. Blair, G & Blair, N, 2014. Nutrient Status of Cambodian Soils, Rationalisation of Fertiliser Recommendations and the Challenges Ahead for Cambodian Soil Science. Current Agriculture Res J, 2(1), 5–13Google Scholar
  5. Bosma, R, Roothaert, R, Asis, P, Saguinhon, J, Binh, L & Yen, V, 2003. Economic and social benefits of new forage technologies in Mindanao, Philippines and Tuyen Quang, Vietnam. CIAT Working Document No. 191. In Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical, Los Baños, Philippines.Google Scholar
  6. Bush, RD, Young, JR, Suon, S, Ngim, MS & Windsor, PA, 2014. Forage growing as an incentive to improve smallholder beef production in Cambodia. Animal Prod Sci, 54, 1620–1624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CDRI, 2010. Empirical Evidence of Irrigation Management in the Tonle Sap Basin: Issues and Challenges. In CDRI Working Paper Series No. 48. Cambodia Development Research Institute, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.Google Scholar
  8. Dimang, S, Pen, M, Sophal, L, Mom, S, Stur, W & Savage, D, 2009. Improved cattle nutrition increases the time available for children of small-holder farmers in Cambodia to attend school. Recent Advances Animal Nutrition, 17, 192–192.Google Scholar
  9. Groves, R, Fowler, J, FJ Couper, M, Lepkowski, J, Singer, E & Tourangeau, R, 2011. Survey Methodology. Volume 561 of Wiley Series in Survey Methodology. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey, United States.Google Scholar
  10. Horne, P, Stur, W, Phengavanh, P, Gabunada JRFRoothaert, R, 2005. New forages for smallholder livestock systems in SouthEast Asia: Recent developments, impacts and opportunities. In Grasslands: Developments, Opportunities and Perspectives. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
  11. Marsetyo, Tufail, MS, Mutimura, M, Guo, X & Piltz, J, 2013. Utilisation of conserved forage to improve livestock production on smallholder farms in Asia and Africa. Proceedings of the 22nd International Grassland Congress 'Improving livelihoods from grasslands by balancing human needs and the environment' 15–19 September 2013 Sydney, Australia. pp 1731–1735.Google Scholar
  12. Maxwell, TW, You, S, Ung, B, Peou, L & Reid, J, 2012. The social and other impacts of a cattle/crop innovation in Cambodia. Agricultural Sys, 107, 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Millar, J & Connell, J, 2010. Strategies for scaling out impacts from agricultural systems change: the case of forages and livestock production in Laos. Agriculture Human Values, 27(2), 213–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. NIS, 2013. Census of Agriculture in Cambodia 2013. National Institute of Statistics, Ministry of Planning in collaboration with Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Phnom Penh.Google Scholar
  15. Reiber, C, Schultze-Kraft, R, Peters, M, Lentes, P & Hoffmann, V, 2010. Promotion and adoption of silage technologies in drought-constrained areas of Honduras. Tropical Grasslands, 44, 231–245.Google Scholar
  16. Ros, B, Nang, P & Chhim, C, 2011. Agricultural Development and Climate Change: The Case of Cambodia. CDRI Working Paper Series No.65, Cambodia Development Research Institute, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.Google Scholar
  17. Saeki, H, Okamoto, M, Azuma, J, Inoue, H, Takiuchi, M & Tarumi, H, 1959. Investigations on Cambodian soils. Soil Sci Plant Nutrition, 5:1, 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Samkol, P, Sath, K, Patel, M, Windsor, P & Holtenius, K, 2015. Survey of smallholder beef cattle production systems in different agro-ecological zones of Cambodia. Tropical Animal Health Prod, 47, 1299–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stur, W & Horne, PM, 2001. Developing forage technologies with smallholder farmers—how to grow, manage and use forages. ACIAR Monograph No.88. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
  20. Stür, W, Phengsavanh, P, Gabunada, F, Horne, P, Khanh, TT, Phimphachanhvongsod, V, Connell, J & Holmann, F, 2006. A survey of adoption of improved forages in Southeast Asia. In Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical. Tropical Grasses and Legumes: Optimizing Genetic Diversity for Multipurpose Use: Project IP-5: Annual Report 2006. CIAT, Cali, Columbia.Google Scholar
  21. Stur, W, Truong Tan, K & Duncan, A, 2013. Transformation of smallholder beef cattle production in Vietnam. Int J Agricultural Sustainability, 11, 363–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stür, WW, Horne, PM, Gabunada Jr, FA, Phengsavanh, P & Kerridge, PC, 2002. Forage options for smallholder crop–animal systems in Southeast Asia: working with farmers to find solutions. Agricultural Sys, 71, 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Young, JR, O'Reilly, RA, Ashley, K, Suon, S, Leoung, IV, Windsor, PA & Bush, RD, 2014a. Impacts on Rural Livelihoods in Cambodia Following Adoption of Best Practice Health and Husbandry Interventions by Smallholder Cattle Farmers. Transboundary Emerging Diseases, 61, 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Young, JR, Rast, L, Suon, S, Bush, RD, Henry, LA & Windsor, PA, 2014b. The impact of best practice health and husbandry interventions on smallholder cattle productivity in southern Cambodia. Animal Prod Sci, 54, 629–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • K Ashley
    • 1
    Email author
  • S Wilson
    • 1
  • JR Young
    • 1
  • HP Chan
    • 2
  • S Vitou
    • 2
  • S Suon
    • 2
  • PA Windsor
    • 1
  • RD Bush
    • 1
  1. 1.Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Faculty of ScienceUniversity of SydneyCamdenAustralia
  2. 2.General Directorate of Animal Health and ProductionPhnom PenhCambodia

Personalised recommendations