IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

Research article
erdProfitable Management Styles of Small-Scale Pig Farmingin Rural Areas of Cambodia
MITSURU HAMANO
Faculty of Agriculture, Shinshu University, Nagano, Japan.

NAOKI NAKANO
Faculty of Agriculture, Shinshu University, Nagano, Japan.

SOCHEAT NAK
Faculty of Animal Science, Royal University of Agriculture, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

KASUMI ITO*
International Center for Research and Education in Agriculture, Nagoya University,
Aichi, Japan.
Email: kasumito@nagoya-u.ac.jp
Received 15 January 2020

Accepted 29 November 2020(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract For years, farmers in rural Cambodia have practiced small-scale pig farming mainlywith family-based production. However, in recent years, there has been an increasing inflow
of imported pigs grown with a lower production cost in neighboring countries. In addition,
the share of products from domestic large-scale pig farming using commercial production
systems has been increasing. This situation has led to price fluctuations in Cambodia’s highly
competitive pig and pork meat market, which affect family-based small-scale pig farming inrural areas. This study aimed to identify various management styles of small-scale pig
farming and analyze their business status to discuss the profitable management styles under
low sale price conditions. To grasp the pig farming styles, key informant interviews wereconducted with government officers, middlemen, and pig farmers in the Treang and Tramkak
districts of Takeo Province and in urban markets of Phnom Penh. The economic statuses of
pig farming were clarified by interviewing the pig farmers and observing their rearing
practices in the same areas to compare the profitability of different management styles. As aresult, three pig farming styles were identified: fattening, breeding, and both. On the other
hand, some farmers fed their pigs mainly with rice liquor residues with compound feeds,
while some did not use rice liquor residues at all but mainly compound feeds. The
comparative analysis of their economic statuses clarified that combining the fattening andbreeding operations and feeding the pigs with both compound feeds and rice liquor residues
effectively decreased the production costs and yielded comparatively high profits.
Keywords small-scale pig farming, import, by-product, agro-processing, animal feed

INTRODUCTION
In Cambodia, which is positioned as one of the least developed countries in the world, about 80% of
the population of about 15.57 million people (WB, 2015) lives in rural areas (MOP, 2013). Amongthe working population, 64.3% are engaged in the agriculture sector (ADB, 2015) and account for
28.2% of the gross domestic product of the country (WB, 2015). The Cambodian government hasprioritized the sector for poverty alleviation through increased income from agriculture, including
crop and livestock production (MOP, 2014). Due to recent economic and population growth, thedemand for meat has increased and this can enhance livestock production (MAFF 2015). Since then,pork has been the most consumed meat in Cambodia, and small-scale farmers have supplied about
70% of the pigs consumed (Huynh, et al., 2006). However, the importation of pigs and pork meatfrom Vietnam and Thailand has been increasing (Tornimbene and Drew, 2012). Cambodian domesticⒸ ISERD

78

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

pig production peaked in 2006, before starting to decrease (FAO, 2020). Since mid-2015, the priceof pigs has been decreasing due to increasing pig imports, and local farmers cannot meet their daily
expenses (Phnom Penh Post, 2016). Tornimben and Drew (2012) argued that the increase of lower
priced imported products has discouraged Cambodian farmers from raising pigs and in extreme cases,
abandon their business. Vathana and Takeya (2006) clarified the advantageous conditions of thathave resulted in lower production costs in those neighboring countries compared to small-scale
Cambodian pig production. In addition, in 2012 the Association of South East Asian Nations signed
a free trade agreement to lift the tariff barriers of all items within the region (FAO, 2012). This lossof protection could greatly impact small-scale pig farmers under more severe business environmentsin the near future. Moreover, as large-scale pig companies with commercialized production systems
have increased their supply share in Cambodia, the family-based small-scale pig farming faces morechallenges competing with cheaper and higher quality pigs from both imported and commercialized
products (Thai, 2018). Strom et al (2017) clarified that small-scale pig farmers recognized the main
constraints to pig-keeping were high feed costs and pig diseases as well as low pig sales prices.
Recently, the high cost of compound feed and high labor requirement make it less attractive forfarmers to continue this business (Ashley et al., 2018).
Previous studies on pig farming in Cambodia discussed the advantages of utilizing agricultural
by-products as pig fattening feeds (Vathana and Takeya, 2004). Yagura et al (2010) suggests that theby-products of rice milling and rice liquor production can be used as pig fattening feeds whenavailable in appreciable quantities. However, no research has been found that gives a detailed
situation on how small-scale pig farmers in Cambodia are coping with the declining price of pigs dueto the increasing pig importation.
This study aimed to identify various management styles for small-scale pig farming and analyze
their business statuses to discuss the profitable management styles under low sales price conditions.
METHODOLOGYThis study consisted of three field studies, including key informant interviews, semi-structured
interviews, and structured interviews with small-scale pig farmers on their management styles andbusiness statuses to determine the more profitable management styles for pig farming in the rural
areas of Cambodia. The key informant interviews aimed to determine the necessary information forfurther field studies, including the location and recent situation and issues of pig farmers in the survey
area. In order to identify existing management styles of pig farming, semi-structured interviews wereconducted with all the available pig farmers in the survey area according to the result of key
informant interviews. Finally, semi-structured interviews were conducted with pig farmers who had
different management styles to analyze their business status, including all the necessary costs andsales to calculate their profit. Then, a profitable management style and its characteristics werediscussed through a comparative analysis among the business status of different management styles.
Target Area and Data Collection
The surveys for this study were conducted in Tramkak and Treang districts of Takeo Province (Fig.
1) which are in rural regions where the numbers of small-scale pig farming were confirmed with therice liquor production (Hamano, et al., 2013). Takeo Province is located between Phnom Penh
(capital city) and the Vietnam border, which are connected by the National Roads.
The key informant interviews were conducted to understand pig farming management styles
and its distribution system in the survey areas in August 2016. The key informants selected for the
study were government officers at animal husbandry offices, the district office under the provincial
Department of Agriculture, the merchants at the local markets, slaughterers, middlemen, and several
pig farmers.
Semi-structured interviews and observations to collect data on the economic status of pig
farming were conducted in August and September 2016. First, the simple survey to understand thefarmers’ management styles, which could be breeding or/and fattening, as well as their feedingⒸ ISERD

79

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

operation and main material, was conducted with 21 farmers in the two districts. Five of these farmers
with different management styles took part in the detailed survey through semi-structured interviewson their economic status and observation of their operations. The data on the production costs onrevenue were collected, including the cost of piglet, feeding in several growth stages, facility andhealth care, growth periods and weight increases of pigs, the weight of sold a pig and its sales price,and profit from the various management styles.

Fig. 1 Target areas for the survey
An analysis of the profitability was conducted by comparing the profit per pig (head) and thefarmers’ monthly income from pig farming. The monthly incomes were also simulated under the
lower sales prices than those at surveyed time, -1,000 Riel (4,000 R = 1.00 USD), -2,000 Riel, and 3,000 Riel to examine which management styles can survive under a fluctuating pig market.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONManagement Styles of Pig Farming
Pig farmers were targeted and interviewed to grasp their operation styles in the areas. As a result, 21
farmers were interviewed and three styles of operation were confirmed: only breeding (2 farmers),
breeding and fattening (8 farmers), and only fattening (11 farmers). Their feeding operations werealso confirmed. Fifteen farmers fed the pigs mainly with rice liquor residues and compound feeds,
while 6 farmers mainly used compound feeds without rice liquor residues (Table 1).
Table 1 Identified management styles of pig
farming

Management
style
Breeding
Breeding +fattening
Fattening
Total

No. of interviewed pig farmers
Main feed material
Rice liquor
residue andCompoundcompound
feeds
feeds
1
1

Breeding
farmers

Breeding
and fattening
farmers

Fattening
farmers

Growing sow
Stud and farrow
Growing piglets

Total
2

3

2

5

11
15

3
6

14
21

Selling piglets tomiddlemenorfattening farmers
Buy piglets
Fattening pigs
Sellingtomiddlemenorlocal markets

Fig. 2 Chain of pig production systemⒸ ISERD

80

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

Fig. 2 shows the distribution flows of the piglets and fattened hogs according to the results of
key informant interviews and semi-structured interviews with the 21 pig farmers. Three types of pig
farmers, only breeding, breeding and fattening, and only fattening, were identified. The farmers who
breed and fatten the pigs obtained all piglets from their own breeding. One breeding cycle is generally
about 5 months. The farmers who only fattened the pigs purchased the piglets directly from breeders
or from middlemen. The fattened pigs were sold through middlemen or transported by pig farmers
themselves to the local markets in the surveyed areas, where they were marketed either by aslaughterer in the same district, by a middleman, or sometimes by the farmer himself.
Business Status in Different Management Styles
To conduct semi-structured interviews on production cost and sales revenue and observe the pig
farming practices, five of the 21 interviewed farmers were selected for the survey. The farmers
included: two farmers (A and B) who focused only on fattening using rice liquor residues andcompound feed; one farmer (C) who focused only on fattening using compound feeds without rice
liquor residues; and two farmers who managed both fattening and breeding, one (D) of which usedliquor residues and compound feeds while the other (E) only used compound feeds. There was nochance to interview the farmers of animal breeding in detail.
The farmers were asked about their production costs and sales revenue for one fattening cycle
for farmer A, B, and C, and one cycle of breeding and fattening for farmer D and E. Table 2 shows
compares the profitability of different management styles based on the production costs including
feeding and piglet costs, sales revenue, fattening periods, and increase in weight.
Farmer A focused on pig fattening by feeding them mainly with rice liquor residues andcompound feeds. The rice bran from a neighboring miller and water convolvulus from her garden
and pond were used as feeds. Farmer A bought 17 piglets, each of which weighed about 7 kg. Three
piglets died from a disease in the very beginning, and the remaining 14 pigs were sold at a weight of
79 kg each after 5 months of fattening. Feeding costs were the highest proportion at 63.3% of thetotal costs at 5,268,000 R. The piglet cost was the second highest proportion at 32.3% of total
expenses. Health and facility cost shared 4.4%. The sales of 14 pigs at a price of 8,000 R/kg earned
a profit of 3,532,000 R.
Farmer B focused on pig fattening by feeding them mainly with rice liquor residues, compound
feeds, and rice bran. Three pigs weighed about 35 kg each; they were fattened for 3 months after
purchase, and all of them were sold at a weight of 105 kg each. Farmer B only purchased pigs that
had been grown for 2–3 months since the risk of managing them is low compared to piglets with ahigher risk of disease and death. The pigs can also be fed with rice liquor residues from the starting
point, while piglets, after weaning, require a different compound feed for about a month. The pig
cost was almost as high as the feeding cost, making up 48.0% and 49.5% of the total production cost
(2,012,000 R), respectively. Farmer B sold the three pigs at a price of 8,500 R/kg and made a profitof 666,000 R.
Farmer C managed pig fattening operation by feeding the pigs with only compound feed andrice bran without rice liquor residues. The feeding cost shared the highest ratio at 68.6% of total costs
at 1,921,000 R. Subsequently, piglet cost for 5 piglets which weigh around 5 kg each shared 26.0%of the total cost. All 5 piglets were fattened to 65 kg/head on average and sold at a price of 8,000
R/kg gaining the profit of 679,000 R.
Farmer D managed both the breeding and fattening operations. The farmer fed pigs with rice
liquor residues, rice bran, and compound feed. Table 3 shows the production costs and sales in thebreeding stage. Farmer D grew a total of 28 piglets from 3 mother pigs (sows). Nine of them weresold as piglets; 11 were fattened as hog for sales; 2 females were grown to be sows, while 6 died
before weaning. For the breeding stage, the feeding cost for sows and piglets shared 77% of the total
breeding cost at 744,000 R. The sales of 9 piglets gained a profit of 801,000 R in breeding stage. In
the fattening stage (Table 2), the total cost of farmer D was 2,783,000 R for 11 fattened pigs. In
addition, for the feeding cost and piglet cost were 85.9% and 13.4% respectively of the total cost. No
medicines and vaccines were used during the fattening stage. All 11 fattened pigs were sold at 7,800
R/kg with 63 kg of each body weight and generated a profit of 2,638,000 R.
Ⓒ ISERD

81

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

Farmer E also managed both the breeding and fattening operations. The pigs were not fed withrice liquor residues. As shown in Table 2, 20 piglets were grown by farmer E from two sows. Thirteenof them were sold as piglets, while the remaining seven were fattened. The feeding cost at thebreeding stage was 83.1% of the total breeding cost of 1,423,000 R. The profit from the 13 piglets
sold was 1,677,000 R. The breeding cost per head could be considered as the piglet cost per head at
the fattening stage in Table 2. The total cost of Farmer E was 3,104,000 R for 7 fattened pigs for 4
months fattening period. The feeding cost and the piglet cost were 83.6% and 16.0% respectively of
the total cost. The 7 pigs were sold at 8,500 R/head with 5 kg body weight and gained a profit of393,000 R.
Profitability among Different Management Styles
Farmer A and farmer C were compared based on their differing feed management systems, as far as
using rice liquor residues, on the similar conditions of the piglets, at 5 to 7 kg/head and around 1
month old, for fattening initiation. The feeding cost per pig for farmer A was 9.8% lower than thatfor farmer C. The feeding cost to increase 1 kg weight in famer A’s pigs was 24.2% lower than thatof farmer C. The fattened pigs were sold at the same price, therefore farmer A’s sales revenue per
pig was 21.0% higher than farmer C, based on the weight of pig sold. Therefore, the profit per pig of
Farmer A was 85.3% higher than that of farmer C. The monthly income per pig of farmer A was
47.1% higher than that of farmer C. Using rice liquor residues in the feed resulted in improving thecost effectiveness per 1 kg of weight gain, contributing to lowering the feeding cost per pig andachieving a lower total cost and higher profit per head. As a result, the monthly income per pig was
also higher even though farmer A’s system took 1 month longer than farmer C’s. Although farmer B
fed the pigs with rice liquor residues and compound feeds, the initial cost for purchasing bigger pigs,
feeding cost per pig, and feeding cost to gain 1 kg weight were 39.5% and 42.5% higher, respectively,
than those of farmer A. As a result, production cost per pig for farmer B was 78.5% higher than forfarmer A. Profit per pig for farmer B was 11.9% lower than for farmer A. However, farmer B took
only 3 months to build 70 kg weight in the pigs while famer A took 5 months to build 72 kg, andcontributed to farmer B’s attainment of a higher monthly income per pig that was 48.0% higher thanthat of farmer A.
The main difference between farmer D and E was the feeding operation of either using rice
liquor residues or not using them for both breeding and fattening management. The feeding cost per
sow and per piglet of farmer D were 51.7% and 49.1% lower, respectively, than the feeding cost forfarmer E. As a result, the production cost per piglet of farmer D was 52.1% lower than that of farmer
E. Additionally, the feeding cost per pig and feeding cost to gain 1 kg of body weight for farmer D’s
pigs were 41.5% and 45.5% lower, respectively, than those of farmer E. As a result, the production
cost per pig was 43.0% lower than that of farmer E. Profit per pig for farmer D amounted to about
4.3 times that of farmer E’s pigs. Monthly income per pig for farmer D was 3.4 times of that forfarmer E.
The profitability between only fattening management and both breeding and fattening
management can be compared between farmer A and farmer D under the same feeding operation ofusing rice liquor residues, compound feeds, and rice bran (Table 2). The feeding cost per pig and thefeeding cost to increase 1 kg weight on the pigs of farmer A at 238,000 R and 3,328 R, respectively,
are similar to those of farmer D at 217,000 R and 3,439 R, respectively. However, the piglet cost perhead for farmer D is 34,000 R, which is 66.0% lower than that for farmer A.
As a result, the production cost per pig for farmer D is 32.7% lower than that for farmer A.
Since the body weight of farmer A’s sold pig was 79 kg, which is 16 kg heavier than that of Farmer
D’s sold pig, the sales revenue per pig for farmer A is 27.6% higher than that for farmer D. Profit per
pig and monthly income per pig for farmer A were 252,000 R and 50,000 R, respectively. This was
similar to price per pig and monthly income per pig for farmer D at 240,000 R and 48,000 R,
respectively, and were higher than those for farmer C and farmer E.

Ⓒ ISERD

82

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

Table 2 Comparisons of profitability in different management styles
Farmers
Management styles
Compound feeds
Rice liquor residue
Pigs for starting
Pigs marketed
Death loss
Growing period (month)
Feed cost (‘000 R)
Piglet cost (‘000 R)
Facility cost (‘000 R)
Health cost (‘000 R)
Total cost (‘000 R)
Total weight of sold pigs (kg)
Average starting weight (kg)
Average sold weight (kg)
Unit price of sold pig (R/kg)
Revenue (‘000 R)
Profit (‘000 R)
Profitability (fattening) (%)
Feed cost/pig (‘000 R)
Feed cost to gain 1 kg weight (R)Piglet cost/pig (‘000 R)
Production cost/pig (‘000 R)
Sales revenue/pig (‘000 R)
Profit/pig (‘000 R)
Monthly income/pig (‘000 R)
Monthly fattening income (‘000 R)
Monthly income from piglet sales (‘000R)A
Fatten
Use
Use
17
14
3
5
3,335
1,700
83
150
5,268
1,100
7
79
8,000
8,800
3,532
40.1
238
3,328
100
376
629
252
50
706
-

B
Fatten
Use
Use
3
3
0
3
996
966
50
0
2,012
315
35
105
8,500
2,678
666
24.9
332
4,743
322
671
893
222
74
222
-

C
FattenUse
Not use
5
5
0
4
1,318
500
3
100
1,921
325
5
65
8,000
2,600
679
26.1
264
4,393
100
384
520
136
34
170
-

D
Fatten
Breed
Use
Use
11
11
0
5
2,390
372
21
0
2,783
695
63
7,800
5,421
2,638
48.7
217
3,439
34
253
493
240
48
528
160

E
FattenBreed
Use
Not use
7
7
0
4
2,595
498
11
0
3,104
412
59
8,500
3,498
393
11.2
371
6,306
71
444
500
56
14
98
335

Note:
・The feeding cost included feed material and purchased feed price and amount during the several stages of fattening
period. Feeding cost using the rice liquor residues were accounted at zero cost since rice liquor earned incomes.
・Piglets cost consisted of the unit price per head and the numbers purchased for fattening operators. Piglet cost for boththe fattening and breeding operators consisted of numbers of sows and piglets with breeding costs included the feeding
cost of sow and piglets, as well as the facility and health management costs.
・The facility cost accounted with 10 years of pig house depreciation and health management cost.
・The labor cost was not included in the calculation since all the respondents operated with only family members.

Profitable Management Style under the Low Sales Price
Fig. 3 simulates the change in the monthly income per fattened pig under declining sales prices.
Farmers reported that lower pig sales price per kg of weight in the past were in the range of 5,000 R7,000 R which were 1,000 R-3,000 R lower than the current sales prices at around 8,000 R-8,500 R.
Farmers C and E who fed the pigs with compound feed without rice liquor residues faced a deficit
when sale prices decreased 2,000 R and 1,000 R respectively.
On the other hand, farmer A and D, who feed the pigs with both rice liquor residues andcompound feed, can remain profitable with sales price decreasing 3,000 R. The amount farmer B
generated on a monthly basis as income per pig was around 1.5 times that of farmer A and D at thesales price during the survey. However, if the sales price went down by 2,000 R, farmer B would run
into a deficit due to the higher production cost per pig compared to Farmer A and D. The comparison
between farmer A and D also shows that farmer D can keep advantageous income during the sales
price declines due to a lower production cost than farmer A.
Ⓒ ISERD

83

Table 3 Comparisons of economic statusesof breeding managements
Farmers
D
E
Mother pigs
3
2
Born piglets
28
20
Sold piglets
9
13
Fattened piglets
11
7
Grown as sow
20
Dead piglets
60
Production cost (‘000 R)
Feed: sows
518
1,073
Feed: grown piglets
56
110
Facility
42
15
Health128
226
Total cost
744
1,423
Cost/ piglet
34
71
Sales, cost, profit: Sold piglets (‘000 R)
Unit price for sales
123
200
Sales revenue
1,107
2,600
Production cost306
923
Profit801
1,677
Monthly income
160
335

Monthly income per head (Riel)

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

80000

Farm A
Farm B

60000

Farm C

40000

Farm D
Farm E20000
0-20000-40000Price
Dcreasedduring the 1,000R
surveyDcreased
2,000R

Dcreased
3,000R

Fig. 3 Monthly incomes per fattened pig

The comparison of the feeding operations between rice liquor residues and/or compound feeds
shows that rice liquor residues contributed in lowering the feeding cost. The feed management offarmers A and D with rice liquor residues, compound feeds, and rice bran showed a higher feed cost
efficiency to increased body weight relationship than those of farmers C and E who used only
compound feeds and rice bran. Comparing farmers who deal with breeding and/or fattening
operations revealed that an integrated management of both can contribute to a decrease in piglet costs
for fattening. The total cost of breeding sows by feeding them with rice liquor residues can produce
piglets at a lower cost than the purchasing price in the market, which includes the margin of breeders
and middlemen. As a result, the initial fattening cost can decrease, and it can contribute to thedecrease in the total cost. Additionally, breeding can generate income from piglet sales.
CONCLUSION
This study aimed to identify the management styles of small-scale pig farmers in Cambodia and to
discuss the profitability of each style by comparing their economic statuses. The results of theinterviews and observations to farmers indicated the effectiveness of integrated pig farming
operations with breeding and fattening stages and feeding management with rice liquor residues andcompound feeds to decrease the production costs. The results showed possible challenges for smallscale farmers to sustain a profitable status despite the lower sales prices of pig markets in Cambodia.
The integrated management requires more skills and knowledge on both fattening and breeding
management, including mating and taking care of small piglets that could easily die from diseases.
Wider spaces to take care of sows and piglets are also necessary. To feed pigs with rice liquor residues,
a farmer needs to manage rice liquor production and sales activities, which require equipment andstable operations and sales. Thus, further studies are necessary to understand how the farmers obtainand accumulate the information and experiences of the production techniques and business
managements, how they cope and optimize their businesses within the limited resources in labor,
finance, land, equipment, and materials in family-based small-scale productions, and what kind of
external interventions are necessary and effective.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSⒸ ISERD

84

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2020) 11-2

We thank Faculty of Animal Science, Royal University of Agriculture, Cambodia, for supporting
this survey. This study was supported by Grants-in Aid for Scientiﬁc Research ( o. 16714767) from
the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan.
REFERENCES
Ashley, K., Harrison, H., Hok Chan, P., Sothoeun, S., Robert young, J., Andrew Windsor, P. and David Bush,
R. 2018. Livestock and livelihoods of smallholder cattle-owning households in Cambodia: The
contribution of on-farm and off-farm activities to income and food security. Tropical Animal Health andProduction, 50, 1747-1761.
Asian Development Bank. 2015. Key indicators for Asia and the Pacific 2015 (46th Ed.). Asian Development
Bank, Retrived from https://www.https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/175162/ki2015.pdf
Food and Agricultural Organization/AGAL. 2005. Cambodia: Livestock sector brief. Food and Agriculture
Organization, Retrived from http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/sector_briefs/lsb_
KHM.pdf
Food and Agricultural Organization. 2012. Regional trade agreements and food security in Asia. Food andAgriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.
Food and Agricultural Organization. 2020. FAOSTAT data. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.
Hamano, M., Matsumoto, T. and Ito, K. 2013. Technical modifications for the quality improvement of rice
liquor (Sraa Sar) in Cambodia. Tropical Agriculture Development, 57 (4), 126-137.
Huynh, T., Aarnink, A., Drucker, A. and Verstegen, M. 2007. Pig production in Cambodia, Laos, Philippines,
and Vietnam. A Review. 69-90.
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. 2015. Strategic planning framework for livestock development
2016-2025. Department of Animal Health and Production, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries,
Cambodia.
Ministry of Planning. 2014. National strategic development plan 2014-2018. Ministry of Planning, Cambodia.
Phnom Penh Post. 2016. Pig sellers say prices in a trough. Publication Date 26 February 2016, Retrived fromhttps://www.phnompenhpost.com/business/pig-sellers-say-prices-trough
Ström, G., Andersson Djurfeldt, A., Boqvist, S., Albihn, A., Sokerya, S., San, S., et al. 2017. Urban and periurban family-based pig-keeping in Cambodia, Characteristics, management and perceived benefits andconstraints. PLoS ONE, 12 (8), e0182247.
Thai, R. 2018. Agri-food system transformation, A case study of the effects on Cambodian pig value chain
actors. Master Thesis, Agri-Commerce, Massey University, University of New Zealand. 142.
Tornimbene, B. and Drew, T. 2012. Characterisation of swine production systems in the Cambodia Mekong
lowland region. Retrived from https://agrocambodia.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/characterisation-ofswine-production-systems-in-the-cambodian-mekong-lowland-region1.pdf.
Vathana, T. and Takeya, H. 2004. Economic evaluation of local feed resources in fattening pigs in Cambodia.
Journal of Agricultural Development Studies, 15, 69-79.
Vathana, T. and Takeya, H. 2006. The international cost competitiveness of the Cambodia’s small and medium
scale swine industry. Japanese Journal of Farm Management, 44 (1), 24-33.
Word Bank. 2015. Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (% of GDP) – Cambodia. World Bank Open
Data, Retrived from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS?locations=KH.
Yagura, K., Nishimura, Y., Keo, S. and Matsumoto, T. 2010. Roles and obstacles of agro-processing industries
in rural Cambodia. Journal of Agricultural Development Studies, 20, 1-8. (in Japanese with English
summary).

Ⓒ ISERD85