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

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.     

Quantification of reservoir bags as airway pressure-limiting devices in a nonrebreathing system

ObjectiveTo evaluate the influence of reservoir bag types, volumes and previous use on the peak pressures (Pmax) and the times to develop 30 cmH₂O pressure (P30) within a nonrebreathing system with a closed adjustable pressure-limiting (APL) valve.Study designIn vitro study using three-way factorial design with repeated measure on one factor.SubjectsA total of 75 new anesthesia reservoir bags (five types, three volumes, five bags from each type × volume). The bag types were reusable latex (RL), disposable latex (DL) and three disposable neoprene (DN-1, DN-2 and DN-3).MethodsEach bag was tested three times (treatments): new, after prestretching and 1 week later. The bags were attached to a Bain system and anesthesia machine with closed APL valve and patient port with O₂ flow 2 L minute^–1 until Pmax was reached. The Pmax and time to reach P30 values were determined from recorded pressure traces. General linear mixed model analysis was used to examine the effects of bag type, volume and treatment. One-sided 95% upper prediction limits of Pmax were calculated to test the null hypothesis that predicted Pmax of new bags would be ≥ 50 cmH₂O for each factor combination.ResultsRL bags were the least and DN-3 bags were the most compliant. Prestretching increased compliance in all bag types. Smaller bags of RL, DL and DN-1 were less compliant than larger ones. The predicted Pmax values were < 50 cmH₂O only for DN-3 bags after prestretching. The time to reach P30 was critically low when using 0.5 L bags (median 17 seconds).Conclusions and clinical relevanceTo minimize the risk of barotrauma, highly compliant reservoir bags (e.g. DN-3) are recommended and reusable bags should be avoided. Bags should be prestretched before first use, 0.5 L bags should be avoided and fresh gas flow minimized.