Journal ofInternational Cooperation for
Agricultural Development

J Intl Cooper Agric Dev 2017; 15: 42–47

Working Paper

Characterization of Smallholder Livestock
Farming in Kampong Cham Province,
Cambodia— A Pilot Study in Prey Chhor District —Nahoko Ieda1), Youki Watanabe1), Chan Bun2), Vutha Pheng 2), and Yoshihisa Uenoyama1)
1) Graduate School of Bioagricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, 464-8601, Nagoya, Japan
2) Asian Satellite Campus-Cambodia, Nagoya University, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Received: January 31, 2017

Accepted: February 24, 2017

Abstract. Livestock production plays an important role in rural development. In Cambodia, inclusion of rural small-

holder farmers in the development of the livestock industry is key. This case study aims to describe integrated livestock
farming practices in small-scale farms and to raise awareness on the potential and constraints of the livestock industry inrural areas of Cambodia. The study was implemented on the 5th and 6th March 2014 in Prey Chhor District in Kampong
Cham Province, using questionnaires with close-ended questions. At the study site, cattle were kept for sale and/or laborand poultry were kept for sale and/or home consumption, whereas the purpose of keeping pigs was exclusively for sale. It
was also indicated that swine production requires more investment compared to cattle, in terms of livestock shelters, feeds
and vaccination. The majority of the informants recognized avian influenza from TV or radio, while they processed sickor dead animal bodies and livestock manures following traditional practices without special care for infectious disease
control. The present results characterize the current common practice of livestock production in rural areas of Cambodia.
This case study will also serve as a pilot study to refine the methods for larger-scale survey in the future.
Keywords: Livestock, Smallholder, Zoonosis, Rural Development, Cambodia

Introduction
Livestock production plays an important role in ruraldevelopment. Livestock reduce vulnerability and enhance
productivity in smallholder farmers1), and contribute to national economic growth2). It is also encouraged to enhance
livestock production in response to increasing demands,
because the consumption of nutritional food obtained fromanimal sources increases is as per capita GDP grows3).
The Cambodian government has advocated that the development of livestock production is one of the prioritizedgoals for the overall development of the country4). Indeed,
Corresponding author: Yoshihisa Uenoyama, E-mail: uenoyama@
nagoya-u.jp

42 J Intl Cooper Agric Dev 2017

estimated production for livestock products, such as pork
and beef, has been increasing in Cambodia (Figure 1, datafrom FAOSTAT, http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/, accessed
30th. Jan 2017), attracting expectation for growth of theindustry in near future. The majority of the livestock farming practice in rural areas of Cambodia is smallholding,approximately three or four cattle per household, as shownin the recent studies conducted in Kampong Cham, Takeo
and Kandal Province5, 6). Therefore, the inclusion of rural
smallholder farmers in the development of the livestockindustry is expected. However, previous studies on smallholder livestock farming mainly focused on cattle production, and descriptions of other livestock production suchas swine and poultries are rather sparse. It is important todescribe integrated livestock farming practices, because inMaterials and Methods

Figure 1. Livestock production in Cambodia from FAOSTAT. Production of pork (solid black line), beef(solid grey line), cows milk (dashed dotted line),chicken (dotted line) and hen eggs (dashed line)from 1960 to 2013 are shown. Pork and beef show
a rapid increase since 1980.

general, the smallholder farmers keep multiple livestock
species and, therefore, income may be generated not only
from one species of livestock in smallholder farms.
It is also important to consider that outbreaks of zoonosis can threaten human health and the development of the
livestock industry. Transmittable diseases between humanand livestock have been globally emerging during the lasttwo decades7). Significant numbers of infectious diseases
such as haemorrhagic septicaemia and foot-and-mouthdisease have been reported in Cambodia between 2008
and 20118). More involvement in veterinary and livestock
discipline into zoonosis control as well as capacity development in these fields, are necessary in the country9),
especially at the producer-level.
This case study aims to report the current situation of
livestock farming in small-scale farms in rural areas ofCambodia and discuss on the potential capacity for thedevelopment of the livestock industry. To address theseissues, we surveyed livestock farmers in a representative
rural province in Cambodia to examine the style of livestock farming and the purpose of keeping each livestock
species. In addition, to induce awareness on potential
and constraints of livestock industry in this area, we also
examined the difference of the investments between the
cattle and pigs, and the knowledge of farmers about thezoonosis and disease control among livestock.

Study Site
This study was conducted in Prey Chhor District(12°3’27” N, 105°15’19” E), Kampong Cham Province,
Cambodia (Figure 2). A national report from the Cambodian government indicates that Kampong Cham Provinceholds the fourth largest number of farmers in the country
that own livestock10). Prey Chhor District was the site ofinterest because it holds large number of cattle and pigs
according to the information provided by local authorities. Indeed, the latest record obtained from the General
Directorate of Animal Health and Production indicatesthat the largest number of cattle among all ten districts in
Kampong Cham Province (51,019 cattle) are kept in Prey
Chhor District, which covers approximately 25% of all
cattle kept in Kampong Cham Province (206,632 cattle) in2016. The climate in the study site belongs to the tropicalzone, which typically shows two seasons; a dry seasonfrom November to April and a rainy season from May to
October. The average monthly temperature of Cambodia
from 1990 to 2012 was between 25.6℃ minimum and
29.2℃ maximum and rainfall between 15.4 mm minimum
and 307.8 mm maximum, according to the World Bank
Climate Change Portal (http://sdwebx.worldbank.org/
climateportal/index.cfm, accessed 30th. Jan. 2017).
Survey Methods
The study was implemented on the 5th and 6th March
2014. Interviews and observations were performed at the
informants’ houses located in the following four villages:
Samraong, Prey Romdeng, Banteay Thmey and Prasart.
All informants were adult-members of each household
who were knowledgeable about the agricultural activity
and communicated in local language with interviewers.
The survey was implemented using questionnaires withclose-ended questions. Additional information was given
from informants as open-ended responses. Species of livestock that are raised in the household, number of animals
in each species in the household and purpose of raisingeach species were asked to twenty-three households who
keep any livestock. After collecting basic information, amore detailed household-level survey was conducted aiming to obtain information on livestock raising practices,such as type of feeds, type of livestock shelters, disease
control and main resource of income in the households.
The household-level survey was implemented in ten
households that were targeted in the animal-level survey.
Although buffalo and fish farming were observed during
the survey (one household for each out of 20 households),
these are excluded from the data in the present study beJ Intl Cooper Agric Dev 2017 43

Table 1. Style of livestock farming
Species of livestock

No. of households

Cattle, pigs and poultry
Cattle and pigs
Cattle and poultry
Only cattle
Only poultry

4
1
11
4
3

Total

23

Figure 2. Map of the study site. Pale grey-shaded area and greyshaded area show the location of Kampong Cham Provinceand Prey Chhor District, respectively. The map was downloaded from http://www.freemap.jp (accessed 30th. Jan.
2017) and modified.

Table 2. Purpose of keeping each livestock species

Cattle (74)For sale

For home
consumption

For labor

For sale andhomeconsumption

For saleand labor

Other

Total

11

0

4

0

4

1

20

Poultry (175)

5

6

0

7

0

0

18

Pig (55)

5

0

0

0

0

0

5

Data shows numbers of households.
The numbers in brackets indicate the total numbers of the animals observed in the survey.

cause of the small sample size. When chicken and ducks
are observed, they are referred to as “poultry” in the present study. No other poultry were observed in the studied
households.

Results
Mainstream Practice of Livestock Farming
The majority of the households kept cattle in combination with pigs and/or poultry as shown in Table 1. The mostpopular practice was keeping cattle and poultries (elevenhouseholds), followed by keeping cattle, pigs and poultry,
and keeping only cattle (four households, respectively).
Three households kept only poultry and one household
kept cattle and pigs. Medians of the numbers of cattle, pigs
and poultry that are kept in one household were 4 (ranging 1 to 8), 12 (ranging 1 to 26) and 4 (ranging 1 to 50),
respectively.
Table 2 shows the number of households who indicatedpurposes of keeping each livestock species. Cattle were
44 J Intl Cooper Agric Dev 2017

kept for sale (n=11), for labor (n=4) or both for sale andlabor (n=4). The purpose of keeping pigs was exclusively
for sale (n=5). Most households kept poultry both for saleand consumption at home (n=7), while the rest kept them
only for sale (n=5) or only for consumption at home (n=6).
One household kept cattle for other reasons, which was to“follow the custom”, according to an informant. Note thatthe eight other households also raised “custom” or “family
tradition” as a reason in addition to the purposes (data notshown in the table).
Swine-production as Source of Income and Necessary
Investment
Figure 3 shows the major source of income in households. Three households out of four who kept pigs answered they earn more than 50% of income from livestock,whereas five out of six households without pigs (therefore
with only cattle and poultry) indicated crops or other (e.g.
working as constructer) as their source of major income.
Table 3 shows differences in investments on livestockthe first floor of stilt houses for their families. One household used a stanchion with no shelter to keep its cattle. On
the other hand, all pig-raising households kept their pigs
in livestock shelters. All interviewed households fed theircattle with locally available foods, such as straw, whereas
three out of four pig-farmers fed their pigs with industrial
feeds. In addition, several informants mentioned that thevaccination is free for cattle, supported by the General
Directorate of Animal Health and Production (previously
known as Department of Animal Health and Production
when the interview was implemented), Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery of Cambodia, but it is charged
for pigs. Note that the question and answer on vaccination
were not included in the original structured questionnaire
and, therefore, not included in the quantitative analysis.

Figure 3. Difference of major income sources between pig
producers and non-pig producers. Closed bar, shaded
bar and open bar indicate the percentage of households whose major source of income was livestock,crop, and non-agricultural activity. The number ineach bar shows the number of households.

Zoonosis and Disease Control among Livestock
Nine out of ten informants recognized the word zoonosis and all of them raised either H1N1 (also called “H1N1”
in local language) or bird flu (“phdassay baksay” in local
language, literally translated “flu-avian”) as the name ofany disease they knew (Table 4). Note that “H1N1” and“phdassay baksay” are separately indicated in the table toshow the farmers’ recognition of the two different terms.
Eight out of the nine informants raised TV or radio as the

shelter and feeds between cattle and pigs. Four households
kept their cattle in livestock shelter separated from houses
for humans, while another four kept their cattle underneath

Table 3. Difference of investments on raising cattle or pigs
Livestock shelter
Separate
shelter

Under house

Feed
Stanchioned,
no shelter

Locally
available foodIndustrial
food

Cattle

4

4

1

9

0

Pig

4

0

0

1

3

Data shows numbers of households.

Table 4. Recognition of zoonosis and commonly known disease nameRecognition on zoonosis

No. ofhouseholds

No

1

Yes

9

Recognized disease name(Open-ended response, “ ” in local language)-

No. ofhouseholds-

H1N1 “H1N1”

6

Bird flu “phdassay baksay”

3

Local terms for disease names are indicated in double quotations.

Table 5. Practice of processing sick/dead animal bodies and livestock manure
Bury

Burn

Sell

Use as fertilizer

Eat

Other

Sick/dead animal body

5

2

1

1

3

1

Livestock manure *0

4 (as fuel)

1

10

-

-

Data shows numbers of households.
* Note: Practices for livestock manure are of daily/regular treatment and not related to animal diseases.

J Intl Cooper Agric Dev 2017 45

source of their knowledge on zoonosis. The number of
informants who raised training courses as the source of
their knowledge was two.
Table 5 shows the practice of treating the animal bodies
when disease is apparent and/or livestock dies. The mostcommon practice was to bury the bodies (n=5), followedby eating (n=3) or burning (n=2). Practice of the utilizationof livestock manure on regular basis is also shown in Table
5, indicating that most households utilize it as fertilizer(n=10) or fuel (n=4).
Eight out of ten informants indicated that they haveobserved disease in livestock, although specific diseasenames were not identifiable in the present study. All informants recognized that there was public animal healthcare service available in the village and nine of them had
had their cattle and/or chicken vaccinated by the service
provider.

Discussion
Among the three major livestock species in the study
site, cattle, pig and poultry, pig was suggested as thedevelopment base of livestock industry in rural areas inCambodia, because the majority of swine farmers indicatedlivestock as the main income-source while the farmers who
did not apply swine production relied on non-livestock
farming activity in terms of income in the present study.
Constraints, or necessary investment, of swine-production
in smallholder farms were also suggested in the present
study, as the most common practice of swine-production
applied separate livestock shelters, industrial feeds andcharged vaccinations, unlike cattle.
It is likely that each livestock species was preferred for
different purposes from others in smallholder livestock
production in Cambodia. In addition to the most prominent role as livestock, as a safekeeping financial resource,
cattle also serve as labor in overall agricultural activity andchicken serves as protein source for family members in
the present study site. Pigs, on the other hand, are kept
exclusively for selling, which suggests that keeping pigs
in smallholder farms is the closest practice towards
an industrialized form of livestock production in rural
Cambodia. Given that GDP earned from agriculture in
Cambodia was 28.2% in 2015 (World Bank, 2017) andthat production of pork is most rapidly increasing among
other livestock products such as beef, chicken, eggs orcows milk (FAOSTAT) in the country, development ofswine-production may contribute as one of the bases of
economic growth in Cambodia.
Zoonosis control is a critical issue, especially inresource-limited developing countries11). It was an encouraging finding that the smallholder farmers identified the46 J Intl Cooper Agric Dev 2017

specific terms, H1N1 or bird-flu, as one of their concernsof animal disease. Since the present results suggested
that TV and radio are two of the most effective methods
to disseminate agricultural information in rural villages
in Cambodia, as shown in the present study, such media
can be utilized for the further capacity development of the
farmers. Specifically, promoting the knowledge of treating infected animal bodies or manure among smallholder
farmers is urged to prevent outbreaks of zoonosis, because
it is still a common practice in the study site to utilize themas fertilizer or fuels on a daily basis. In addition, disease
control among pigs may be the next challenge to pursue
development of livestock industry, because vaccination for
pigs are still costly for the farmers unlike cattle as shownin the present study.
This case study was conducted as a pilot study for thelarger scale survey on livestock production in Cambodia.
To this end, the contents of the survey will be refinedin the future study. More detailed animal-level survey,
describing age, sex, breeds, and reproductive parametersof individual animals, will be required to estimate the productivity of each livestock species under the environmentof smallholder farms. Estimation of overall householdincome by calculating inputs and outcomes regarding the
agricultural activities and/or off-farm activity will also berecommended.
In summary, the present study characterizes livestock
production in Prey Chhor District, Kampong Cham
Province in Cambodia and raises awareness on potential
and constraints of livestock industry. In particular, swine
production could provide economic value for the farmers
although it requires more investment than other livestock
species such as cattle and poultry. Further capacity development for the farmers via the effective extension source,
TVs or radio, are recommended for zoonosis control during the further development of the livestock industry innear future.
Acknowledgement
We are grateful to Lei Shi from Graduate School of
Medicine, Nagoya University, and Shiori Minabe, Takashi
Kondo, Kana Ikegami from Graduate School of Bioagricultural Sciences, Nagoya University, for their technicalsupport. We also thank Taing Keanghuot from Royal University of Agriculture for local linguistic assistance during
the survey. This study was conducted in part as overseas
fieldwork training supported by Program for Leading
Graduate School “Women Leaders Program to Promote
Well-being in Asia”, Nagoya University.

References
1) Otte J, Costales A, Dijkman J, Pica-Ciamarra U,
Robinson T, Ahuja V, Ly C, Roland-Holst D. (2012)
Livestock sector development for poverty reduction:an economic and policy perspective —Livestock’s
many virtues. FAO Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative: 161.
2) Upton M. (2004) The Role of Livestock in Economic
Development and Poverty Reduction. FAO Pro-Poor
Livestock Policy Initiative: Working Paper No. 10.
3) Gerbens-Leenes PW, Nonhebel S, Krol MS. (2010)
Food consumption patterns and economic growth.
Increasing affluence and the use of natural resources.
Appetite 55: 597-608.
4) Royal Government of Cambodia (2014) National Strategic Development Plan 2014-2018 —For Growth,
Employment, Equity and Efficiency to Reach The
Status of An Upper-Middle Income Country—.
5) Nampanya S, Suon S, Rast L, Windsor PA. (2012) Improvement in smallholder farmer knowledge of cattle
production, health and biosecurity in Southern Cambodia between 2008 and 2010. Transbound Emerg Dis
59: 117-127.
6) Young JR, O’Reilly RA, Ashley K, Suon S, Leoung
IV, Windsor PA, Bush RD. (2014) Impacts on Rural

Livelihoods in Cambodia Following Adoption ofBest Practice Health and Husbandry Interventions by
Smallholder Cattle Farmers. Transbound Emerg Dis
61: 11-24.
7) Gibbs EP. (2005) Emerging zoonotic epidemics in theinterconnected global community. Vet Rec 157: 673679.
8) Sothoeun S, Young J, Windsor P. (2011) Livestock
infectious disease status in Cambodia. Cattle health,production and trade in Cambodia 138: 44-49.
9) Grace D, Gilbert J, Lapar ML, Unger F, Fevre
S, Nguyen-Viet H, Schelling E. (2011) Zoonotic
emerging infectious disease in selected countries inSoutheast Asia: insights from ecohealth. Ecohealth 8:
55-62.
10) National Institute of Statistics, Ministry of Planningin cllaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (2015) Census of Agriculture of
the Kingdom of Cambodia 2013 National Report on
Final Census Results.
11) Zinsstag J, Schelling E, Roth F, Bonfoh B, de Savigny
D, Tanner M. (2007) Human benefits of animal interventions for zoonosis control. Emerging Infectious
Diseases 13: 527-531.

J Intl Cooper Agric Dev 2017 47