Final SDCP Baseline Report - June 30, 2009

SDCP Baseline Survey Report
MINISTRY OF LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT

SMALLHOLDER DAIRY COMMERCIALIZATION PROGRAMME CONTRACT NO: CONS/SDCP/1/2007- 2008 BASELINE SURVEY REPORT IFAD LOAN NO: 678 KE / GRANT NO. 815-KE IFAD PROJECT NO: KEN/05/F01
JUNE 2009
FIBEC Limited
Bomas of Kenya, Off Forest Edge Road Langata P.O. Box 10316 00100 GPO Nairobi Tel: 254-020-892117 Cell: +254 733 223 558 or +254 722 310239 Fax: 254-020-891892 Email: fibeclimited@gmail.com
Table of Contents
1 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. IX INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 PROGRAMME GOAL .....................................................................................................................................1 PROGRAMME PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................1 PROGRAMME COMPONENTS ..........................................................................................................................1 SCOPE OF THE ASSIGNMENT ...........................................................................................................................2
METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................................................3 3.1 OVERVIEW OF THE METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................3 3.2 AREA OF COVERAGE .....................................................................................................................................3 3.3 DESIGN OF THE STUDY ...................................................................................................................................5 3.1.1 Sampling ............................................................................................................................................5 3.1.2 Methods of Data Analysis and Presentation ........................................................................................6 3.4 TRAINING OF ENUMERATORS ..........................................................................................................................7 3.5 SOURCES OF DATA AND COLLECTION TECHNIQUES ................................................................................................7 3.6 SECONDARY DATA SOURCES ...........................................................................................................................7 3.7 LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................................................................................8 3.8 KEY INFORMANTS.........................................................................................................................................8 3.9 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS AND KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS ..............................................................................9 3.10 FIELD VISITS ............................................................................................................................................. 10 3.11 CASE STUDIES ........................................................................................................................................... 10 3.12 PHOTOGRAPHS .......................................................................................................................................... 10
STUDY FINDINGS ...........................................................................................................................................11 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 NUTRITIONAL STATUS ................................................................................................................................. 11 HOUSEHOLDS............................................................................................................................................ 14 LEVEL OF EDUCATION .................................................................................................................................. 14 HOUSEHOLD SIZE ....................................................................................................................................... 15 MAIN OCCUPATION OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD ...................................................................................................... 16 LAND SIZE ................................................................................................................................................ 18 LAND OWNERSHIP ..................................................................................................................................... 19 LAND USE ................................................................................................................................................ 21 MILKING HERD .......................................................................................................................................... 23 MILK PRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 24 FARM RECORDS ......................................................................................................................................... 26 HOUSEHOLD WELFARE ................................................................................................................................ 28 MAIN FEEDS ............................................................................................................................................. 35 SUPPLEMENTARY FEEDS ............................................................................................................................... 37 COST OF SUPPLEMENTARY FEEDS ................................................................................................................... 37 REASONS WHY FARMERS DONT USE SUPPLEMENTS............................................................................................. 40 CONTINGENCY MEASURES TO ENSURE MILK PRODUCTION THROUGHOUT THE YEAR...................................................... 42
4.18 COST OF MILK PRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 45 4.19 WATER SOURCES ....................................................................................................................................... 47 4.20 ADEQUACY OF WATER ................................................................................................................................ 49 4.21 CHOICE OF ANIMAL BREEDS.......................................................................................................................... 50 4.22 PREFERRED BREEDING METHODS ................................................................................................................... 51 4.23 CHOICE OF THE PREFERRED BREEDING METHODS ............................................................................................... 52 4.24 BREEDING RELATED COSTS ........................................................................................................................... 53 4.25 BREEDING EFFICIENCY ................................................................................................................................. 56 4.26 CALVING INTERVAL ..................................................................................................................................... 57 4.27 MILK PRODUCTION, SALES AND CONSUMPTION................................................................................................. 58 4.27.1 Milk Bars and other milk outlets ................................................................................................... 60 4.28 MILK HANDLING PRACTICES .......................................................................................................................... 61 4.29 MILK MARKETING CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................................................... 63 4.30 MILK PROCESSING ...................................................................................................................................... 65 4.31 SKILLS REQUIRED TO IMPROVE PROFITS IN DAIRY FARMING .................................................................................. 66 4.32 TYPES AND ORGANIZATION OF COMMUNITY GROUPS ......................................................................................... 68 4.33 SIZE OF THE GROUPS................................................................................................................................... 73 4.34 REGISTERED COWS ..................................................................................................................................... 73 4.35 ANIMAL HEALTH MANAGEMENT AND DELIVERY ................................................................................................ 73 4.35.1 Livestock types and classes most at risk ......................................................................................... 75 4.35.2 Cost of providing animal health care per herd per month ............................................................... 75 4.36 EMPLOYMENT CREATION IN DAIRY ENTERPRISES ................................................................................................ 76 4.37 BREED DISTRIBUTION .................................................................................................................................. 77 4.38 HERD STRUCTURE ...................................................................................................................................... 79 4.39 COST OF BUYING DAIRY ANIMALS .................................................................................................................. 82 4.40 PRODUCTION SYSTEM ................................................................................................................................. 83 4.41 COST OF ZERO GRAZING .............................................................................................................................. 85 4.42 FARM INFRASTRUCTURE .............................................................................................................................. 85 4.43 COST OF LABOUR ....................................................................................................................................... 86 4.44 CONDITION OF MILKING SHED ..................................................................................................................... 87 4.45 GENDER IN DAIRY ...................................................................................................................................... 88 4.46 GENDER DIVISION OF LABOUR ....................................................................................................................... 90 4.47 SAVINGS AND CREDIT .................................................................................................................................. 94 4.48 LOAN APPLICATIONS ................................................................................................................................... 98 4.49 TYPE OF LENDER ...................................................................................................................................... 100 4.50 LOAN PRODUCTS ..................................................................................................................................... 101 4.50.1 Loan Size .................................................................................................................................... 101 4.50.2 Success Rate ............................................................................................................................... 102 4.50.3 Reasons for Unsuccessful Loan Applications ............................................................................... 103 4.50.4 Type of Payment ......................................................................................................................... 104 4.50.5 Loan Repayment Period .............................................................................................................. 105 4.50.6 Interest Rate ............................................................................................................................... 105 4.50.7 Type of Collateral Used ............................................................................................................... 108 4.50.8 Amount Paid at Maturity ........................................................................................................... 110 4.51 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS .............................................................................................. 110
ii
4.52 USE OF WASTE FROM DAIRY ENTERPRISE ........................................................................................................ 112 4.53 SEVERITY OF THE NRM PROBLEMS ............................................................................................................... 112 4.54 HOUSEHOLD ASSETS ................................................................................................................................. 113 4.54.1 Roof Materials ............................................................................................................................ 113 4.54.2 Wall Materials ............................................................................................................................ 114 4.54.3 Floor Materials ........................................................................................................................... 116 4.54.4 Window materials in use............................................................................................................. 116 4.55 SUPPORT TO POLICY AND INSTITUTIONS ......................................................................................................... 117 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................. 118 5.1 5.2 SUSTAINABILITY ....................................................................................................................................... 118 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................................ 122
iii
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: MAP SHOWING THE AREA COVERED BY THE SURVEY ................................................................................................5 FIGURE 2: EDUCATION LEVEL OF DAIRY FARMERS ............................................................................................................... 14 FIGURE 3: MAIN OCCUPATION OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD IN DCA 1 ............................................................................................ 17 FIGURE 4: MAIN OCCUPATION OF HOUSEHOLD HEADS IN DCA 3 ........................................................................................... 17 FIGURE 5: LAND USE ................................................................................................................................................... 22 FIGURE 6: AVERAGE HERD SIZE BY DISTRICT IN THE PROJECT AREA........................................................................................... 23 FIGURE 7: DISTRIBUTION OF MILK PRODUCTION ACROSS THE SDCP AREA ................................................................................. 26 FIGURE 8: MEAN MONTHLY HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE ...................................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 9: MAP SHOWING THE MEAN HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE .......................................................................................... 34 FIGURE 10: MAIN ANIMAL FEEDS IN THE PROJECT AREA ...................................................................................................... 36 FIGURE 11: MAIN ANIMAL FEEDS BY DISTRICT ................................................................................................................... 37 FIGURE 12: AVERAGE DAILY COST OF SUPPLEMENTARY FEEDS IN DRY SEASON .......................................................................... 39 FIGURE 13: AVERAGE COSTS OF MILK PRODUCTION (WET SEASON) ....................................................................................... 40 FIGURE 14: FEED CONTINGENCY MEASURES IN DCA 1 ........................................................................................................ 43 FIGURE 15: FEED CONTINGENCY MEASURES IN DCA 3 ........................................................................................................ 43 FIGURE 16: COST OF MILK PRODUCTION DURING THE DRY SEASON ........................................................................................ 46 FIGURE 17: COST OF MILK PRODUCTION DURING THE WET SEASON ........................................................................................ 46 FIGURE 18: MAIN SOURCES OF WATER DURING THE WET SEASON ......................................................................................... 47 FIGURE 19: PREFERENCE FOR BULL SERVICE BY DISTRICT IN DCA1 AND DCA 3 ......................................................................... 52 FIGURE 20: AVERAGE DAIRY REVENUE FROM MILK SALES IN KSHS.......................................................................................... 60 FIGURE 21: MILK HANDLING PRACTICES ........................................................................................................................... 61 FIGURE 22: ON-FARM MILK PROCESSING ......................................................................................................................... 66 FIGURE 23: SKILLS NEEDED TO INCREASE PROFITABILITY OF DAIRY ENTERPRISE .......................................................................... 67 FIGURE 24: DISTRIBUTION OF DAIRY CATTLE BREEDS IN THE PROJECT AREA ............................................................................. 78 FIGURE 25: MAP SHOWING THE BREED DISTRIBUTION IN THE PROJECT AREA ............................................................................ 79 FIGURE 26: GENDER OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEAD .................................................................................................................. 89 FIGURE 27: GENDER OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEADS BY DISTRICT ............................................................................................... 90 FIGURE 28: DISTRIBUTION OF THE HOUSEHOLDS MAKING SAVINGS ........................................................................................ 95 FIGURE 29: PREFERRED MODE OF SAVING ........................................................................................................................ 96 FIGURE 30: PREFERRED METHODS OF SAVINGS ................................................................................................................. 96 FIGURE 31: LOAN APPLICATION BY MONTH ...................................................................................................................... 99 FIGURE 32: REASONS WHY FARMERS BORROWED THE PREVIOUS SEASON ................................................................................ 100 FIGURE 33: TYPE OF LENDER ....................................................................................................................................... 101 FIGURE 34: LOAN SUCCESS RATE ................................................................................................................................. 103 FIGURE 35: REASONS FOR UNSUCCESSFUL LOAN APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................ 104 FIGURE 36: TYPE OF PAYMENT .................................................................................................................................... 105 FIGURE 37: MEAN LOAN SIZE AND INTEREST RATES .......................................................................................................... 106 FIGURE 38: TYPE OF COLLATERAL ................................................................................................................................. 109 FIGURE 39: PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ....................................................................... 111 FIGURE 40: USE OF WASTE FROM DAIRY ENTERPRISE ........................................................................................................ 112 FIGURE 41: SEVERITY OF NRM PROBLEMS ..................................................................................................................... 113
iv
FIGURE 42: WALL MATERIALS USED IN CONSTRUCTING HOUSEHOLDS ................................................................................... 115
List of Tables
TABLE 1: ADMINISTRATIVE AREAS OF DCAS IN THE PROGRAMME AREA .................................................................................4 TABLE 2: NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS INTERVIEWED BY DISTRICT AND DCA .............................................................5 TABLE 3: NUTRITION STATUS OF CHILDREN AMONG THE POOR AND NON-POOR HOUSEHOLDS IN THE PROJECT AREA ......................... 11 TABLE 4: HIGHEST EDUCATION LEVEL OF HOUSEHOLD HEADS BY DISTRICT AND DCA ................................................................... 15 TABLE 5: SIZE OF HOUSEHOLD BY DISTRICT AND DCA ............................................................................................. 16 TABLE 6: MAIN OCCUPATION OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEAD BY DISTRICT IN DCA 1 ........................................................................ 18 TABLE 7: MAIN OCCUPATION OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEAD BY DISTRICT IN DCA 3 ........................................................................ 18 TABLE 8: HOW MUCH LAND IS AVAILABLE TO THIS FAMILY? ....................................................................................... 19 TABLE 9: LAND OWNERSHIP BY DISTRICT IN DCA 1............................................................................................................. 20 TABLE 10: LAND OWNERSHIP BY DISTRICT IN DCA 3 ........................................................................................................... 20 TABLE 11: CIRCUMSTANCES OF DAIRY FARMERS WHO DID NOT OWN LAND ................................................................................ 21 TABLE 12: LAND USE IN DCA1 BY DISTRICT ...................................................................................................................... 22 TABLE 13: LAND USE IN DCA 3 BY DISTRICT ...................................................................................................................... 23 TABLE 14: AVERAGE SIZE OF THE MILKING HERD BY BREED BY DISTRICT IN DCA 1 ....................................................................... 24 TABLE 15: AVERAGE SIZE OF THE MILKING HERD BY BREED BY DISTRICT IN DCA 3 ....................................................................... 24 TABLE 16: AVERAGE MILK PRODUCTION OF THE DAIRY HERD IN LITRES/DAY BY DISTRICT .............................................................. 25 TABLE 17: PROPORTION OF HOUSEHOLDS KEEPING FARM RECORDS IN DCA1 AND DCA 3 ........................................................... 27 TABLE 18: TYPE OF FARM RECORDS KEPT BY FARMERS IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 BY DISTRICT ............................................................ 28 TABLE 19: HOUSEHOLD MONTHLY EXPENDITURE BY TYPE, OCCUPATION AND DISTRICTS IN DCA 1 ................................................ 30 TABLE 20: HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE BY SOURCE OF INCOME IN DCA 3 BY DISTRICT AND BY TYPE ................................................. 32 TABLE 21: COST OF WATER IN KSHS PER DAY BETWEEN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 ......................................................... 35 TABLE 22: COST OF WATER IN KSHS PER DAY .......................................................................................................... 35 TABLE 23: MAIN LIVESTOCK FEED IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 ....................................................................................... 36 TABLE 24: AVERAGE QUANTITY OF SUPPLEMENTARY FEEDS USED DURING THE WET SEASON IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 ............................. 37 TABLE 25: AVERAGE COST OF SUPPLEMENTARY FEEDS IN KSHS DURING THE WET SEASON IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 ... 38 TABLE 26: AVERAGE COST OF FEED SUPPLEMENTS DURING THE WET SEASON ......................................................... 38 TABLE 27: REASONS WHY FARMERS DONT USE SUPPLEMENTS IN DCA 1 BY DISTRICT ................................................................. 41 TABLE 28: REASONS WHY FARMERS DONT USE SUPPLEMENTS IN DCA 3 BY DISTRICT .................................................................. 42 TABLE 29: FEED CONTINGENCY MEASURES IN DCA 1 .............................................................................................. 44 TABLE 30: FEED CONTINGENCY MEASURES IN DCA 3 .............................................................................................. 45 TABLE 31: MAIN WATER SOURCES IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 DURING WET SEASON ....................................................... 48 TABLE 32: MAIN WATER SOURCES IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 DURING DRY SEASON .......................................................................... 48 TABLE 33: MAIN SOURCE OF WATER DURING THE WET SEASON BY DISTRICT .............................................................................. 49 TABLE 34: STATUS OF WATER ADEQUACY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 .......................................... 49 TABLE 35: W ATER ADEQUACY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR ............................................................................................ 50 TABLE 36 : CHOICE OF BREEDS BY DISTRICTS IN DCA 1 ........................................................................................................ 50 TABLE 37: CHOICE OF BREEDS BY DISTRICTS IN DCA 3......................................................................................................... 51 TABLE 38: STATUS OF PREFERRED BREEDING METHOD IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 ...................................................................... 51 TABLE 39: REASONS FOR BULL PREFERENCE BETWEEN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 ............................................................ 52 TABLE 40: COST OF AI SERVICE USING LOCAL SEMEN BY DISTRICTS IN DCA 1.......................................................... 53 TABLE 41: COST OF AI SERVICE USING LOCAL SEMEN BY DISTRICTS IN DCA 3 ............................................................................. 54
TABLE 42: COST OF AI SERVICE USING IMPORTED SEMEN BY DISTRICTS IN DCA 1 ........................................................................ 55 TABLE 43: COST OF AI SERVICE USING IMPORTED SEMEN BY DISTRICTS IN DCA 3 ........................................................................ 55 TABLE 44: COST OF BULL SERVICE IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 ......................................................................................... 56 TABLE 45: COST OF BULL SERVICE BY DISTRICT IN KSHS .......................................................................................... 56 TABLE 46: MAXIMUM NUMBER OF INSEMINATIONS BEFORE CONCEPTION IN DCA 1 ...................................................... 57 TABLE 47: MAXIMUM NUMBER OF INSEMINATIONS BEFORE CONCEPTION IN DCA 3 ................................................... 57 TABLE 48: THE CALVING INTERVAL IN THE DAIRY HERD (IN DAYS) IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 .......................................................... 58 TABLE 49: AVERAGE MILK PRODUCTION, SALES AND HOME CONSUMPTION IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 ......................... 58 TABLE 50: AVERAGE MILK PRICE IN VARIOUS OUTLETS IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 ............................................................................ 59 TABLE 51: AVERAGE MILK PRODUCTION, SALES AND CONSUMPTION BY DISTRICT .................................................. 59 TABLE 52: MILK HANDLING PRACTICES BY DISTRICT ............................................................................................................. 61 TABLE 53: MILK MARKETING CONSTRAINTS IN DCA 1 ........................................................................................................ 63 TABLE 54: MILK MARKETING CONSTRAINTS IN DCA 3 ........................................................................................................ 65 TABLE 55: MEAN PRODUCTION OF ON-FARM DAIRY PRODUCTS .............................................................................................. 66 TABLE 56: FARMERS WHO NEED SKILLS TO INCREASE PROFITABILITY OF DAIRY ENTERPRISE IN DCA 1 .................................... 67 TABLE 57: FARMERS WHO NEED SKILLS TO INCREASE PROFITABILITY OF DAIRY ENTERPRISE IN DCA 3 .................................... 68 TABLE 58: RESULTS OF FGD ANALYSIS OF COMMUNITY GROUPS IN PROJECT AREA .................................................................... 70 TABLE 59: ORGANIZATIONS REGISTERING CATTLE IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 ................................................................. 73 TABLE 60: FARMERS WITH CATTLE REGISTERED WITH AT LEAST ONE ASSOCIATION .................................................. 73 TABLE 61: THREE COMMON LIVESTOCK DISEASES REPORTED IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 ................................................ 74 TABLE 62: MOST COMMON LIVESTOCK DISEASE BY DISTRICT ................................................................................................ 74 TABLE 63: COST OF SECURING ANIMAL HEALTH SERVICES BETWEEN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 BY DISTRICT ............................................... 75 TABLE 64: PERMANENT AND CASUAL EMPLOYEES IN AN AVERAGE DAIRY FARM BY DISTRICT IN PROJECT AREA .................................... 76 TABLE 65: AVERAGE DAIRY HERD AND EMPLOYEES BY DISTRICT ............................................................................................. 77 TABLE 66: DISTRIBUTION OF DAIRY BREEDS BY DISTRICT IN DCA 1....................................................................................... 77 TABLE 67: DISTRIBUTION OF DAIRY BREEDS BY DISTRICT IN DCA 3 ......................................................................................... 78 TABLE 68: DISTRIBUTION OF DAIRY STRUCTURE BY BREED IN DCA 1 ........................................................................................ 80 TABLE 69: DISTRIBUTION OF DAIRY STRUCTURE BY BREED IN DCA 3 ........................................................................................ 81 TABLE 70: MEAN NUMBER OF ANIMALS BY BREED IN DCA 3 ................................................................................................ 82 TABLE 71: AVERAGE COST OF BUYING A DAIRY COW AT SOURCE IN KSHS ................................................................ 83 TABLE 72: DAIRY PRODUCTION SYSTEM IN DCA 1 .............................................................................................................. 84 TABLE 73: DAIRY PRODUCTION SYSTEM IN DCA 3 .............................................................................................................. 84 TABLE 74: COST OF ZERO GRAZING UNITS IN KSHS .................................................................................................. 85 TABLE 75: COST OF OTHER FARM INFRASTRUCTURE IN KSHS ACROSS THE DISTRICTS ............................................. 86 TABLE 76: MONTHLY WAGE BILL FOR PERMANENT EMPLOYEES BETWEEN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 .................................. 86 TABLE 77: MONTHLY WAGE BILL FOR CASUAL EMPLOYEES BETWEEN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 ......................................... 87 TABLE 78: AVERAGE MONTHLY W AGES IN KSHS ...................................................................................................... 87 TABLE 79: CONDITION OF ZERO GRAZING UNIT BETWEEN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 .......................................................... 88 TABLE 80: CONDITION OF MILKING SHED BY DISTRICT .............................................................................................. 88 TABLE 81: GENDER OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 .......................................................................... 89 TABLE 82: COMPARISON BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN ROLES IN DAIRY PRODUCING HOUSEHOLDS .......................... 91 TABLE 83: GENDER DIVISION OF LABOUR IN DAIRY PRODUCING HOUSEHOLDS ........................................................... 92 TABLE 84: HOUSEHOLDS MAKING REGULAR SAVINGS FROM THE DAIRY ENTERPRISE IN DCA 1 .......................................... 94 TABLE 85: HOUSEHOLDS MAKING REGULAR SAVINGS FROM THE DAIRY ENTERPRISE IN DCA 3 .......................................... 95 TABLE 86: COMPARISON BETWEEN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 IN TERMS OF WHERE HH MEMBER MAKE THEIR SAVINGS .................... 97
vi
TABLE 87: ACCESS TO CREDIT IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 ............................................................................................... 99 TABLE 88: LOAN SIZE IN KSHS............................................................................................................................. 102 TABLE 89: SUCCESS RATE IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 ............................................................................................................. 103 TABLE 90: REASONS FOR UNSUCCESSFUL LOAN APPLICATIONS IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 ................................................................ 104 TABLE 91: REPAYMENT PERIOD (MONTHS) IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 ....................................................................... 105 TABLE 92: INTEREST RATE (P.A) IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 .......................................................................................... 105 TABLE 93: INTEREST RATES (%) CHARGED BY TYPE OF LENDER ............................................................................. 107 TABLE 94: SIZE AND TERMS OF LOANS IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 .............................................................................................. 107 TABLE 95: TYPE OF COLLATERAL USED IN DCA 1 AND DCA 3 ............................................................................... 109 TABLE 96: AMOUNT PAID AT MATURITY KSHS ......................................................................................................... 110 TABLE 97: AMOUNT PAID AT MATURITY KSHS ....................................................................................................... 110 TABLE 98: NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS BY DITRICT .............................................................. 111 TABLE 99: SEVERITY OF NRM ACROSS THE PROJECT AREA ................................................................................ 112 TABLE 100: ROOF MATERIAL USED TO CONSTRUCT RESIDENCE OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD ........................................... 113 TABLE 101: WALL MATERIALS BY DISTRICT AND DCA ....................................................................................................... 114 TABLE 102: FLOOR MATERIAL USED TO CONSTRUCT RESIDENCE OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD .......................................... 116 TABLE 103: W INDOW MATERIAL USED TO CONSTRUCT RESIDENCE OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD ...................................... 116
vii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ABS-TCM AI AIDS CAIS CBO DCA DIC DTI FGDs FMD GDP GTZ HIV IFAD IFMIS ILRI KAGRI KARI KDB KDPA KEDAPO KELRI African Breeders Service Total Cattle Management Artificial Insemination Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Central Artificial Insemination Station Community Based Organizations Dairy Commercialization Area Dairy Information Centre Dairy Training Institute Focus Group Discussions Foot and Mouth Disease Gross Domestic Product German Technical Cooperation Human Immuno Deficiency Virus International Fund for Agricultural Development Integrated Financial Management Information System International Livestock Research Institute Kenya National Animal Genetic Resource Institute Kenya Agricultural Research Institute Kenya Dairy Board Kenya Dairy Processors Association Kenya Dairy Producers Association Kenya Livestock Research Institute
KIHBS
KLBO KLMB LCMIS M&E MDGs MIS MOLD NGO PEV SDCP SOW SPSS SWOT TOR UNHCR WWS
Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey

Kenya Livestock Breeding Organization Kenya Livestock Marketing Board Low-Cost Market Information System Monitoring and Evaluation Millennium Development Goals Management Information Systems Ministry of Livestock Development Non-Governmental Organization Post Electoral Violence Smallholder Dairy Commercialization Programme Scope of Work Statistical Programme for Social Scientists Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats Terms of Reference United Nations High Commission for Refugees World Wide Sires
viii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Smallholder Dairy Commercialization Program (SDCP) is funded by Government of the Republic of Kenya (GOK) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). The Programme covers nine districts namely; Nakuru, Bungoma, Bomet, Central Kisii, Lugari, Nandi North, Nyamira, Trans Nzoia and Uasin Gishu. This report highlights the findings of the baseline survey in the programme districts with particular emphasis on DCA 3 and the implications on project implementation.
To conduct this survey, the study team collected both quantitative and qualitative data from both primary and secondary sources. The field interviews were conducted between March 20, 2009 and April 3, 2009 and targeted 870 heads of dairy households in the project area. This is about 10% of the smallholder dairy households in DCA1 and DCA 3 whose estimated population is 8,700 households. However, after outliers were discarded from the data set, analysis used in this analysis was from 784 households with 5,397 individuals from the nine districts. The sample population comprises of 321 respondents in DCA 1 and 463 respondents in DCA 3. In addition, the study team conducted at least one focus group discussion with dairy groups in each district and interviewed key informants from among milk bar operators, extension staff and animal health and AI service providers in the study area. However, these findings should be used with caution in drawing conclusions on the impact of SDCP interventions on DCA 1 based on the findings of DCA 3 because interventions in the two areas were not strictly at same time.
The SDCP field staff guided the enumerators in identifying and delineating the areas covered by DCA 1 and DCA 3 in each district. However, the enumerators used their discretion to ensure that they sampled representative households in the delineated areas by spreading the sampled households across the social spectrum. Other members of the team analyzed both the qualitative and quantitative data the report and mapping out the findings. The study team used different techniques to collect and analyze data and information in this survey. The data collection techniques used included: review of secondary data, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, observations and stakeholder workshops. These techniques were carried though desk and field studies.
Data for DCA 1 is the status report of the SDCP interventions because at the time of the survey, the implementation had been going on for two years. The data from DCA 3 is the one that will be used as the benchmark because there was no intervention at the time of the survey. Subsequently, data for DCA 1 and DCA 3 is not meant for comparative purposes.
ix
Key Findings
This survey showed that the average land holding is 4.47 acres in DCA 3. This shows that SDCP is targeting smallholder farmers. However, SDCP needs to continue refining its targeting strategy to ensure that the project doesnt leave out needy groups because there are small pockets of non poor dairy households in each DCA.
This study found that 77% of the farmers in the project area relied on pastures as the main feed and 21% on napier grass. Anything that they fed dairy cows beyond this staple diet was considered to be supplementary feed. The supplements comprised of maize stover, on-farm feed formulations and commercial feeds. This survey found that farmers in DCA 3 spent only Kshs 179 in supplementary feeds. The daily average milk production in DCA 3 was 9.81 litres per day. The low milk production
suggests other constraints such as disease burden may be limiting milk production in DCAs.
Using expenditure as a proxy for income, this survey suggests that the average expenditure was Kshs 23,642 in DCA 3 per month. SDCP is also targeting relatively poor communities based on the nutritional and household welfare indicators. Given that the average monthly expenditure of dairy producing households in the project area is Kshs 23,642, the project will continue facing the challenge of getting poor households into dairy because the high cost of dairy cows is a significant barrier to entry in dairy farming. For instance, farmers in DCA 3 paid an average of Kshs 26,643 for a dairy cow. The high cost of dairy cows is a barrier to investment in the enterprise by poorer households.
This study suggests that the average dairy household in DCA 3 had an average of 1.15 permanent employees and 1.37 casuals. This suggests that the farmers in DCA 3 are substituting permanent employees with casual workers.
The study also found that dairy cows in DCA 3 required an average of 1.44 inseminations before conception. This suggests that there is need for capacity building on heat detection and improved service delivery. This conclusion is further confirmed by the fact that the calving interval was 16.2 months in DCA 3.
This survey also found that the average cost reduction of delivery of animal health services was Kshs 427.90 per month while that of AI services was Kshs 828.9. The study further found that only 41.6% of the farmers in DCA 3 kept records. This suggests that SDCP should refine the methods used to train farmers and simplify the extension messages to increase rate of adoption. In addition, 57% of the farmers preferred using bull service rather than AI services. The high preference for bull service is driven by a combination of high costs and poor reliability of the AI service providers in many parts of the project area. SDCP needs to intensify efforts to train farmers in heat detection and monitoring service delivery so as to increase the confidence of farmers to AI services.
This study found that the average farmer in DCA 3 produced 9.81 litres of milk per day and sold about 6.04 litres per day. This study therefore suggests that the extra milk produced above this threshold in DCA 3 is currently retained for home consumption. The study found that only 7.3% of the farmers in DCA 3 engaged in milk processing. This suggests that there is need to train more farmers to acquire skills in value addition to increase their incomes.
The average daily revenue from milk sales in the project area is Kshs 154 from the sale of 6.2 litres at average price of Kshs 24.8 per litre. While this provides an income of nearly US$ 2/day, it is still largely financed by unpaid family labour but in turn the enterprise contributes to family welfare and nutrition from 3.1 litres of the milk retained on the farm daily.
This study found that 53% of all the farmers in the project area had semi-grazing production system in the project area but only 11% of the farmers had zero grazing units in good condition. There is therefore need to train farmers on the importance of zero-grazing system in order to increase adoption rate.
There is a huge unmet need for information and knowledge on basic animal husbandry and management especially in feeding both in DCA 3. However, the high costs of producing fodder appear to outweigh other constraints as the reason for not using supplements in DCA 3. SDCP
xi
needs to continuously seek technologies that can reduce the cost of producing fodder for more farmers to adopt the technology.
This study showed that 36% of the households were making regular savings in DCA 3. Accessing credit is still a major challenge in the project area and the survey showed that only 18.5% of the households were able to access credit. However, demand for credit is still highly skewed towards consumption rather than investment. This means that SDCP needs to build partnerships with other institutions that can develop suitable financial products to meet the needs of the poor dairy producing households especially the ones without title deeds or those intending to enter into dairy enterprise.
The survey showed that 30% of the households were female headed and the analysis of daily activity calendar showed that women performed most of the tasks in the dairy enterprise and therefore there is need to target women in the training. The study found that the average household had 6 members and that 94% of all the household heads were literate. This suggests that SDCP can use written messages to communicate to the target groups.
To improve sustainability of the project interventions, a number of recommendations emerged from this survey: 1. SDCP should improve targeting of individuals being trained at two levels. First, SDCP should ensure that individuals who manage dairy animals are trained and not community gate keepers. Secondly, SDCP should improve the organization of the training to attract more women participants by looking at the timing of the training and distance to be covered. 2. SDCP should encourage community in-kind and cash contributions to meet some of the training expenses. This entrenches the values of the market system which is central to commercialization. 3. SDCP should identify and build capacity of self selected service providers in each community to complement the role of the extension workers. 4. SDCP should support farmer to farmer extension services and facilitate farmers to acquire other skills needed to undertake farming as a business.
xii
5. SDCP should promote match making between farmers with others outside the project area who have important lessons to offer. Some of the groups that could qualify for match making include outstanding farmers and cooperatives that have overcome similar challenges to create commercially viable dairy businesses that have improved the livelihoods of their families, communities and other stakeholders in the business. 6. SDCP should support interventions that mitigate the negative impact of livestock on climate change such as agro-forestry, water harvesting and zero-grazing interventions.
The survey identified nine key interventions that SDCP needs to put in place: 1. This baseline survey recommends SDCP should strengthen group organization and development through capacity building activities in DCA 3 to bring about sustainable community and institutional transformation. 2. Provide technical support and technology transfer 3. Besides improving the technical skills in dairy production, SDCP should facilitate farmers to acquire other skills needed to undertake farming as a business. In particular, SDCP training should help farmers to see the connection between profitability of dairy enterprise and skills they need to sustain the business. Hence this study recommends that SDCP should enhance dairy enterprise development and business. 4. Strengthen market linkages across the dairy value chain. 5. This survey recommends that SDCP should carry out an in-depth study of milk marketing to determine how costs and benefits of the dairy enterprise are shared between various stakeholders across the dairy value chain. 6. To maximize impact of the dairy interventions, SDCP should carry out training needs assessment to prioritize the training needs of various stakeholders in the transformation continuum. 7. SDCP should carry out an in-depth study to assess the impact of HIV/AIDS, environment, gender and the youth on the dairy enterprise. 8. Finally, SDCP should mainstream gender into its operations and interventions to ensure that efforts are made to broaden women's equitable participation at all levels of decision-making.
xiii
INTRODUCTION The Smallholder Dairy Commercialization Programme (SDCP) is funded by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) with an overall goal of increasing the income of poor rural households that depend substantially on production and trade of dairy products for their livelihood. To improve on the implementation and assess the current status of the intended Programme beneficiaries, the SDCP commissioned FIBEC Limited to carry out a baseline survey in the Programmes nine districts namely: Nakuru; Nyamira; Bomet; Kisii Central; Uasin-Gishu; Lugari; Nandi North; Trans Nzoia; and Bungoma.
2.1
Programme Goal
The Programme goal is to increase the income of the poor rural households that depend substantially on production and trade of dairy products for their livelihood in the 9 Programme districts.
2.2
a)
Programme Purpose
Improving the financial returns of market-oriented production and trade activities by small operators, through improved information on market opportunities, increased productivity, cost reduction, value adding, and more reliable trade relations;
The Programme has a twofold purpose:
b) Enabling more rural households to create employment through and benefit from expanded opportunities for market-oriented dairy activities, in particular as a result of strengthened and expanded farmer organizations.
2.3
a)
Programme Components
Organization and Enterprise Skills: The objective of the component is to provide Programme beneficiaries with the appropriate organizational, managerial and enterprise skills for them to benefit fully from market-driven commercialization of milk production, processing, and trading. A participatory and inclusive approach is being used to ensure that individuals, existing and new dairy producers, processor and trader groups, including co-operative societies are helped to improve their operations on a sound legal and business footing.
The Programme is supported through the following components namely;
b)
Technical Support to Smallholder Dairy Producers: This supports a range of measures to strengthen smallholder dairy producers access to relevant, up -to-date information and techniques necessary for 1
improving their production and increasing productivity. It includes support to improved fodder production and management, development and dissemination of extension materials, implementation of better AI services in the Programme area and capacity building for dairy groups, as well as technical training which will also include measures to counteract negative environmental impact. A key focus be to reduce the cost of milk production and increase amount of milk produced and marketed.
c)
Development of the Milk Marketing Chain: This aims to improve the milk marketing chain and smallholder dairy operators access to it, through support to the development of a Low-Cost Market Information System (LCMIS), strengthening of the Dairy Information Centre (DIC) at the Kenya Dairy Board (KDB), support for linking smallholder dairy producers to rural finance operators, capacity building for milk marketing groups, a school milk Programme and a study on the marketing opportunities and constraints presented by poor rural infrastructure.
d)
Support to Policy and Institutions: development for the animal
IFAD grant assistance is supporting policy and legislative feeds sub-sector, development of a strategy for
commercialization/privatization of Central Artificial Insemination Station (CAIS), harmonization of breed services including recording and AI services and a stakeholder validation process. Loan financing will support the institutional reform process and policy awareness among farmers on the impact of policy issues on their daily activities. Curricular and technical strengthening of the Dairy Training Institute (DTI) is planned with grant support for three years of technical assistance. The KDB will also be strengthened by the set up and operation of a DIC, linked to the Low-Cost Market Information System (LCMIS)
2.4
Scope of the Assignment
The baseline survey was required to provide comprehensive information for planning and decision-making besides providing benchmarks against which Programme interventions will be assessed. The survey was also expected to provide data on and describe the characteristics of the physical, economic and social environment in which the target beneficiaries operate. Identification of existing gaps including the comprehensive assessment of training needs of the beneficiaries and Programme implementers was a very important component of the assignment.
3 3.1
METHODOLOGY Overview of the Methodology
In this survey the study team used participatory methodologies involving SDCP staff and key stakeholders. This section is divided into four components. The first part provides an overview of the data sources used while the other three parts describe specific methodologies used in getting baseline of each of the three components namely: levels of production, income levels, farmers groups and quantitative and qualitative indicators for the future monitoring and evaluation.
The study was carried out in DCA 1 and DCA 3 for the following purposes; DCA 1 to give us a feel of what has happened after SDCP interventions. DCA 3 was the baseline meant to provide benchmarks for the Monitoring and Evaluation System. For this to be achieved, the data for DCA 1 and DCA 3 was analyzed separately.
3.2
Area of Coverage
The baseline survey in the Programmes nine districts namely: Nakuru; Nyamira; Bomet; Kisii Central; Uasin Gishu; Lugari; Nandi North; Trans Nzoia; and Bungoma. Table 1 below shows the Dairy Commercialization Areas (DCAs) covered by the project which are then mapped out in Figure 1 below. The survey was concentrated in DCA1 where the activities have have been carried out since 2006 and DCA 3 where the program activities had not started at the time of the survey. The key assumption, made with the concurrence with the programme management, given the urgent need to generate monitoring indicators in the Logical Framework, the baseline would provide the basis for monitoring programme outcomes in DCA 3 and to gauge the progress made in the implementation of DCA1.
Table 1: Administrative Areas of DCAs in the Programme Area
DISTRICT Location Sugumerga, BOMET Sigor
DCA1 Division Sigor Location Kembu
DCA2 Division Longisa Location Ndaraweta
DCA3 Division Bomet Central
Sugumerga Keumbu, Keumbu KISII CENTRAL Ibeno Kegati Keumbu Bonyamatuta Nyamira Chache Bogichora Keera Nyamaiya Kiabonyoru Ekerenyo Nyamira Peri-uban Kapsabet Kapsabet Kipture Kalibwoni Kapasabet-Kipture Endebess Endebess Endebess Ndalu Tongaren Ndalu Likuyani Likuyani Likuyani Kapseret Kapseret Rongai Rongai Source: SDCP
Kembu Bogiakumu Suneka Bomorenda Bosongo Kiogoro Kiogoro/Bogiakumu Nyasiongo Borabu Makenene Nyasiongo-Mekenene Sigot Kosirai Kabisaga Kabiyet Sigot-Kabisaga Kiminini Kiminini Kiminini Ndivisi Ndivisi Ndivisi Lwandeti Matete Lwandeti Mois Bridge Soy Mois Bridge Ngata Njoro Ngata
Bogeka Etora Nyakoe
Ndaraweta Mosocho
NYAMIRA
Mosocho Bonyamatuta Masaba Nyamira Ekerenyo Ekerenyo
NANDI NORTH
TRANS NZOIA BUNGOMA LUGARI
Ekerenyo-Bonyamatuta Lolkeringet Kabiyet Kabiemit Lolkeringet-Kabiemit Waitaluk Baraka Waitaluk Bukembe Kanduyi Bukembe Lugari Lugari Chekalini Lugari Turbo Sugoi Subukia Subukia Kabaazi Kabaazi Subukia/Kabaazi Sugoi
Kapseret UASIN GISHU NAKURU Rongai Lenginet
Figure 1: Map showing the Area covered by the Survey
Source: Baseline Team (April 2009) 3.3 Design of the study 3.1.1 Sampling The target sample was 870 heads of dairy households in the project area. This is about 10% of the smallholder dairy households in DCA1 and DCA 3 whose estimated population is 8,700 households. However, after outliers were discarded from the analysis, Table 2 below shows the sample population comprised of 321 respondents in DCA 1 and 463 respondents in DCA 3.
Table 2: Number of Households Interviewed by District and DCA DCAs Total District DCA 1 DCA 3 Bomet 45 40 85 Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total
34 38 32 47 27 19 40 39 321
59 63 44 43 43 67 50 54 463
93 101 76 90 70 86 90 93 784 5
Source: Baseline Survey, April, 2009
While this studys target was to interview at least 97 households in each district, the study team was unable to meet this target in Kisii Central because of non-response and incomplete responses coupled with logistical constraints during the fieldwork. However, the 60 households interviewed is a statistically large sample and forms the basis forms for the results generated from this survey.
To make projections in each district, the study team used the estimated population in the National Sampling Frame that is maintained and used by the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. The Sample Frame was developed from the 1999 Population and Housing Census and contains 1,133 clusters (of which 930 were rural and 203 were urban), with each cluster having approximately 100 households. Each household in the cluster is identified by a number, the name of the household head and the exact village location. There are Cartographic maps to show the location of each household in the cluster.
Pre-testing: To ensure consistency and collection of high quality data, the team used one day to pre-test the survey tools in Rongai Division. The data collection in each district was carried out with support from project staff and SDCP coordinator in each district.
Survey: The field study team comprised of the team leader and one enumerator in each of the nine districts in the programme area. The field work was carried out between March 20, 2009 and April 3, 2009. This was because data collection started at the onset of the long rains with the attendant logistical problems. Focus group discussions and key informant interviews were used to collect qualitative data especially on knowledge and attitudes of smallholder dairy farmers and milk traders. The consultant in each district worked closely with the programme officers to organize focus group discussions and identify key informants. Data collected through key informant interviews and FGDs were analyzed the same day it was collected. Stakeholder Workshops: The initial results of the Baseline Survey were shared with stakeholders in Nakuru on August 15, 2009 and Kisumu on September 16, 2009 for their input and suggestions. The inputs from those workshops were then incorporated in this report. 3.1.2 Methods of Data Analysis and Presentation The following analyses were carried out on the data: Exploratory Analysis to generate relevant descriptive statistics especially, frequencies, means, standard deviations and descriptive statistics. Associations and Cross-tabulations using Statistical Programme for Social Sciences (SPSS) Estimation of the various indicators in the project logical framework 6
During this stage, the following computer software was used: Microsoft Excel for data management and Statistical Programme for Social Sciences (SPSS). In addition, key parameters were mapped using Visual Basic interfaced with ArcGIS. The survey findings were presented using Microsoft PowerPoint incorporating graphs, maps, tables and photographs.
3.4
Training of Enumerators
The training of enumerators were geared towards sharing a common understanding of the questionnaires and to polish up their interviewing skills. The training process covered three basic topics: Principles of Interviewing, Completing the questionnaires and observation techniques on key areas that were used to countercheck the feedback from the respondents.
3.5
Sources of Data and Collection Techniques
To conduct this survey, the study team collected both quantitative and qualitative data from both primary and secondary sources. The consultant team used different techniques to collect data in this survey. The data collection techniques used included: review of secondary data, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, observations and stakeholder workshops. These techniques included both desk and field studies. A brief discussion on the techniques, data and information collected is outlined below.
3.6
Secondary Data Sources
The study team collected secondary data in the nine districts from institutions such as the District Livestock Production Officers in the Ministry of Livestock Development, staff of Kenya Dairy Board (KDB), NGOs implementing dairy projects such as Heifer Project International, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), TechnoServe, etc delivery records by dairy cooperatives, small and large processors such New KCC, Brookside Dairies and Spin Knit etc, dairy input suppliers including genetics such as Central Artificial Insemination (CAIS), ABSTCM, Worldwide Sires and other key stake-holders and interest groups. The lead agency is the Ministry of Livestock Development (MOLD). The lead agency works in collaboration with the MOCDM, MOA and the Ministry of Gender, Sports, Culture and Social Services (Department of Social Services) and other stakeholders.
At the district level, key informants included heads of departments involved in the programme implementation including District Livestock Production Officers (Coordinating), District Cooperative Officers, District Gender and Social Development Officers, District Veterinary Officers, KARI Researchers, Processors Representative, KDB representative and other stakeholders such as KLBO officials where they had offices. 7
3.7
Literature Review
The study team identified existing information sources and assembled relevant literature on the dairy farming, milk trade, processing and marketing within the project area. The team then reviewed recent assessments of the dairy industry in Kenya. These included: district reports by the Ministry of Livestock Development; impact assessments of post election violence on the dairy industry by Land OLakes etc. Based on findings of the literature review, the team identified critical information gaps that were in-built into the study tools for further discussions with key informants.
The study team also reviewed literature on livestock production by the Smallholder Dairy Commercialization Programme of the documents they reviewed included SCDP project documents, progress reports and other relevant studies and research findings. In addition to the relevant literature, the study team identified relevant data-bases to provide further insights on dairy production and performance including Household Surveys in the nine districts by Kenya Bureau of Statistics and Tegemeo Institute of Policy Analysis.
3.8
Key Informants
To augment information and data from secondary sources, the study team interviewed selected key informants. These comprised a cross section of individuals across the dairy value chain with firsthand knowledge and experience on dairy production, bulking and cooling, processing and packaging, transport and distribution of dairy products. Specifically, key informants were drawn from: KDB, community (farmers, small milk traders, service providers, input suppliers, and their associations, and relevant government departments etc.
Finally, the study team interviewed key informants in animal feed manufacturing, dairy processors, firms in the animal health industry, transporters, agro-vet operators, micro-enterprises especially milk bars, shops and kiosks and dairy cooperatives using discussion guides after identifying gaps from the secondary sources. Some of the key informants to be interviewed are highlighted below.
i).
Kenya Dairy Board
Within KDB, key informants were drawn from the senior management in the organization especially regional managers covering the project area, finance and inspectorate departments. Some of the information and data that was sought from KDB included: developments in dairy in the respective districts, number of registered milk traders and small dairy enterprises, the opportunities and constraints encountered in improving milk handling practices.
ii).
Programme Partners
Among the project partners, key informants were drawn from other government departments, local authorities, and dairy cooperatives, NGOs supporting dairy projects, commercial dairy farmers, community opinion leaders and small dairy enterprises. Some of the information and data that the study team gathered included: their roles and involvement in decision making; their relationship with facilitation institutions in the dairy sector and the community; their capacities in terms of staffing, expertise and physical resources; how they have performed within the project; their opinion on potential to build a commercially viable smallholder dairy enterprise and opportunities and constraints for entering and staying in smallholder dairy production and milk marketing and suggestions to overcome those constraints.
iii).
Government Agencies
Key informants within the Government departments were drawn from the Kenya Dairy Board, Public Health, Veterinary, Dairy Training Institute and Ministry of Cooperatives. The study team sought information on the involvement of other agencies in decision making; existing capacities; their opinion on the policies and legal framework governing dairy production and milk marketing; constraints and weaknesses and suggestions to redress them. iv). Other Stakeholders
Interviews were conducted with other selected key players and interest groups such as Dairy Regulatory Forums, namely: Land OLakes, TechnoServe and Heifer Project International. From these groups, information and data were sought on their collaboration and relationship with Kenya Dairy Board; their current and envisaged roles in dairy farming and milk marketing; their opinion on the policies and legal framework guiding trade of milk and other dairy products in Kenya.
v).
Market Outlets
Finally, information and data on dairy products and markets were sought from: milk bars, informal milk traders, hotels and restaurants, animal feed manufacturers, supermarkets, dairy product outlets that emerged in the course of the study. The information that were gathered include: legal requirements to operate the businesses; volumes handled, incomes earned, type of dairy products handled, marketing channels, target markets/consumers, current and expected demand for each product, un-exploited market opportunities, their participation in dairy; constraints and suggestions to redress those constraints.
3.9
Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews
The study team conducted one focus group discussion in each of the nine districts with a limited group of milk 9
traders and consumers in urban areas with high concentrations of low-income groups. In addition, the team conducted focus group discussions with management committees of dairy groups.
3.10
Field Visits
The study team comprised local enumerators one from each district in the project area to administer questionnaires. The enumerators worked closely with the SDCP District and Divisional Coordinators in each of the nine districts to take advantage of farmer organized forums and training programs that were on-going as part of the implementation of SDCP. During fieldwork, the study team observed and interacted with dairy farmer groups, traders, coordination, facilitative and regulatory agencies the dairy value chain.
3.11
Case Studies
To capture breath, depth and context of smallholder dairy farming and milk marketing environment, in their own terms about what been significant in their own lives, case studies of both positive and negative deviants were studied. This information provides better insights into the assessment than pre-conceived questionnaires and rigid statistical methods. At least two paired interviews and one case study were conducted in each district after consultations with other stakeholders. 3.12 Photographs
The research team took photographs of milk production under smallholder conditions in the project area, market outlets and participants as well as infrastructure especially for microenterprises such as milk bars and dairy cooperatives whenever opportunity arises.
10
STUDY FINDINGS
4.1 Nutritional Status To determine the nutritional status in each district within the programme area, the study used the results of the Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey (KIHBS) that was conducted by Kenya National Bureau of Statistics in December 2005. The study used some of indicators defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) and National Centre for Health Statistics (NCHS) to identify poverty indicators and benchmarks, measure and monitor poverty and living standards and to update the urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) and establish the rural one. Three indices notably: Height for-Age, Weight-forAge, Weight-forHeight, are used to assess the nutritional well being of children. This also reflects the economic and social well being of the population. Nutritional status is determined from the extent to which the indices deviate from the median/WHO NCHS reference population growth standards. A child falling below -2 standard deviations (-2 and below -3 standard deviations (-3) is severely malnourished. In the WHO/NCHS reference population, 2.14% and 0.1% fall below -2SD and -3SD respectively. Stunting (HAZ) Heightfor-Age index measures linear growth. A child falling below -2 standard deviations from the median of the reference population in terms of height-for-age is considered too short for his/her age or stunted (chronic malnutrition). A child falling below -3 is severely malnourished. Underweight (WAZ) weight-for-age is a composite index for weight for height and height for age and thus does not distinguish between acute malnutrition (wasting) and chronic malnutrition (stunting). Wasting (WHZ) weight-for-height describes current nutritional status. A child below -2 is considered to have weight too low for her height or wasted (acute malnutrition) Percentage of children who are under five from poor and non poor households who are severely or moderately undernourished
Table 3: Nutrition Status of Children among the Poor and Non-Poor Households in the Project Area
(Poor Households)
Region Underweight -2SD Bomet Nakuru Nyamira Kisii Transzoia Uasin Gishu Nandi Bungoma Lugari 11.4 14.3 18.2 13.1 16.0 15.5 13.0 21.2 2.1 -3SD 7.6 1.8 5.0 6.0 6.9 4.6 6.9 2.7 0.0 Stunting -2SD 39.7 67.5 49.4 47.6 34.1 37.3 28.4 32.3 23.1 -3SD 22.7 31.5 16.8 21.6 18.1 15.9 10.4 16.8 12.9 Wasting -2SD 6.2 2.2 0.0 2.3 7.4 6.4 9.6 4.9 0.0 -3SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 0.0 27,587 38,895 27,223 42,566 29,018 23,353 31,453 60,696 12,992 Number Of Children
Source: KNBS Household Welfare Survey, December 2005

11
(Non-Poor Households) Region Underweight -2SD 9.2 14.1 17.3 7.5 9.1 20.2 20.6 21.9 3.3 -3SD 0.0 2.9 8.1 2.6 3.5 3.7 2.9 3.1 0.0
Stunting -2SD 46.6 42.3 41.1 39.7 39.3 41.9 26.2 24.1 34.7 -3SD 21.9 26.1 21.8 19.5 27.1 23.7 7.4 13.7 9.7
Wasting -2SD 0.0 2.9 1.2 0.0 2.4 2.5 19.1 6.0 0.0 -3SD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.0
Number Of Children 19,952 41,807 43,139 26,253 28,336 28,261 46,446 72,344 17,279
Bomet Nakuru Nyamira Kisii Trans Nzoia Uasin Gishu Nandi Bungoma Lugari
Source: KNBS Household Welfare Survey, December 2005 About one fifth (22.7% and 21.9%) of the children in Bomet district from the poor and non poor households respectively are severely stunted (too short for their age) when (7.6%) of the children from the poor households are severely malnourished. The number of stunted children is higher in the non poor households(46.6%) as compared to the poor households(39.7%). Bomet district has the highest number of severely malnourished children in the region from the poor households which accounts for 7.6% of the children
In Nakuru District the children of the poor are more likely to be stunted when compared to those of the non-poor households. The table shows that about 67.5% of the children for the poor houses are stunted as compared to the non poor who account for 46.6% of all children .The number of severely malnourished children is quite low which is 1.8% of the children from the poor households and this number increases in the non-poor households to 2.9% of the children. The number of severely malnourished children in Nyamira district is higher in non poor households than in the poor households which accounts for 8.1% and 5.0% respectively. Moreover, the number of stunted and severely stunted is (49.4% and 16.8%) in the poor households and 41.1% and 21.8% in the non poor households. while the highest number of malnourished children in the region is from the non-poor households malnourished. in this district which has around 8.1% of its children who are severely
12
Kisii district has the highest number
of underweight(13.1%) severely underweight(6.0%),
stunted(47.6%) ,severely stunted(21.6%) and wasted children (2.3%) in the poor households than in the non poor households which has (7.5%,2.6%,39.7%,19.5%) respectively.
In Trans Nzoia district there are twice as much children who are severely malnourished in the non poor household(6.9)% than in the poor households(3.5%) . In addition, there are more stunted and severely stunted children from the non poor households than in the poor households. However, the number of wasting children is lower in the non poor households (2.4%) as compared to the poor households (7.4%).
The number of severely malnourished children in Uasin Gishu is from the poor households (4.6%) which is higher than the number in the non poor households (3.7%). However, the number of stunted and severely stunted is higher in the non poor households (41.9% &223.7%) than in the poor households (37.3% &15.9% respectively).
From Table 3 above, Bungoma district has the highest level of prevalence of malnourished children among the poor , where about one fifth (21.2%) of all children under five are malnourished as compared to the non poor which has almost the same percentage (21.9)% of malnourished children under the age of five years. The prevalence for stunted, severely stunted wasting children account for 32.3% and 16.8% and 4.9% in the poor households in contrast to 24.1%, 13.7%, 6.0% in the non poor households respectively. Lugari district has a lower prevalence of malnourished (2.1%) and stunted (23.1%( children in poor households in relation to the non poor households which has a higher prevalence of malnourished (3.3%) and stunted (34.7%) children respectively. The number of wasting children in poor households is 12.9% and 9.7% in non poor households
Bomet district has the highest number of severely malnourished children in the region from the poor households which accounts for 7.6% of the children while the highest number of malnourished children from the non-poor households are found in Nyamira district which has around 8.1% of its children who are severely malnourished.
13
4.2
Households
Below are the results of the analysis of households characteristics in the project area in order to place in context the economic activities that impact dairy producing households in the area covered by the Smallholder Dairy Commercialization Programme. This section outlines household characteristics namely: household size and highest level of education of the household head. These are important considerations in small-scale dairy farming because they help to tailor interventions to match the circumstances of dairy farmers.
4.3
Level of Education
The survey found that 94% of all household heads in SDCP project area are literate as shown in Figure 2 below. This was expected because households that own dairy cattle are wealthier and therefore more likely to have a higher level of education than non-dairy households. This is because education opens other income generating opportunities which otherwise are not available. This finding strongly suggests that SDCP can use written messages to communicate to the target groups. Figure 2: Education Level of Dairy Farmers
Source: Analysis of the Baseline Survey, April 2009
There is a large variation between the literacy levels in each district with Lugari, Nakuru and Bomet districts having the highest proportion of college educated household heads while Kisii Central has the lowest number. This is shown in Table 4 below.
14
Table 4: Highest Education level of household heads by District and DCA
District DCA1 Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total DCA3 Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total
Highest educational level attained Primary Secondary College/ None education education University 4.4% 55.6% 26.7% 13.3% 0.0% 23.5% 70.6% 5.9% 2.6% 28.9% 63.2% 5.3% 0.0% 53.1% 37.5% 9.4% 2.1% 70.2% 27.7% 0.0% 3.7% 33.3% 51.9% 11.1% 10.5% 26.3% 36.8% 26.3% 7.5% 52.5% 32.5% 7.5% 2.6% 7.7% 74.4% 15.4% 3.4% 41.1% 46.1% 9.3% 7.5% 35.0% 40.0% 17.5% 30.5% 28.8% 35.6% 5.1% 0.0% 14.3% 77.8% 7.9% 4.5% 52.3% 34.1% 9.1% 2.3% 27.9% 46.5% 23.3% 14.0% 37.2% 41.9% 7.0% 1.5% 19.4% 52.2% 26.9% 6.0% 44.0% 38.0% 12.0% 9.3% 18.5% 50.0% 22.2% 8.4% 29.4% 47.5% 14.7%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Analysis of the Baseline Survey, April 2009
This analysis shows that Kisii Central has the largest proportion of illiterate dairy farmers while Nyamira has the least in DCA 3. This suggests that visual materials and the radio would be the better mediums to communicate the extension messages in this district. However, under the current social structures, the impact of illiterate household heads on technology uptake is often compensated by other literate members of the household.
4.4
Household Size
This survey showed that average household in DCA 1 had 6.76 members compared to 6.75 members in DCA 3 as shown in Table 5 below. The standard deviation however suggests that there is no significant difference between the size of households in DCA 1 and DCA 3.
15
Table 5: Size of household by District and DCA

District Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total DCA Area DCA1 DCA3 DCA1 DCA3 DCA1 DCA3 DCA1 DCA3 DCA1 DCA3 DCA1 DCA3 DCA1 DCA3 DCA1 DCA3 DCA1 DCA3 DCA1 DCA3 Total Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009 Mean 7.12 7.73 5.97 6.42 6.79 6.08 6.17 5.50 7.08 7.51 7.97 7.89 6.86 7.34 7.27 6.64 5.44 5.98 6.76 6.75 6.76 Std. Deviation 2.455 3.252 2.455 1.749 2.029 1.753 2.135 2.585 3.676 3.245 4.231 3.325 2.007 2.478 4.981 2.795 1.832 1.995 3.179 2.671 2.891
The survey showed that the largest households were in Bungoma, Bomet, Trans Nzoia and Lugari Districts. The average household in the program area has 6.79 members which suggest that a large number of households use family labour in the enterprise and they have equally high on-farm milk consumption.
4.5
Main Occupation of Household Head
This survey found that 31.2% of the farmers in DCA 1 considered dairy farming as their primary source of income as shown in Figure 3 below. It is significant that 26% of the farmers considered subsistent farming as their main occupation and therefore dairy was one of the miscellaneous income sources. The survey findings suggest that lucrative returns from dairy farming is attracting individuals that are involved in other occupations such as business people and salaried workers who comprised 12% and 9% of the dairy farmers in the program area respectively.
In DCA 3, the proportion of farmers whose primary source of income was dairy farming was 29.6% as shown in Figure 4 below. Commercial farming refers to large scale crop farming especially wheat and maize. 16
Figure 3: Main Occupation of Household Head in DCA 1
Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
Figure 4: Main Occupation of Household Heads in DCA 3
Table 6 below shows that 20% of the households in DCA 1 relied on commercial crop farming. Farmers in Trans Nzoia (61%) and Nyamira (55%) Districts accounted for the largest proportion of commercial crop farmers. The largest proportion of farmers who relied on dairy farming as the main source of income in DCA 1 were in Bungoma (90%) and Nandi North (74%) district. This strongly
17
suggests that there could be a change in attitude in DCA 1 where SDCP has been working for last two to three years rather than a significant shift in the main sources of income.
Table 6: Main Occupation of the Household Head by District in DCA 1 District Business Salaried Dairy Commercial Subsistence Mixed Casual employment farming farming farming farming labourer DCA1 Bomet 16% 12% 2% 2% 69% 0% Kisii Central 6% 9% 21% 3% 12% 50% Nyamira 3% 8% 21% 55% 13% 0% Nandi North 9% 6% 74% 11% 0% 0% Trans Nzoia 2% 4% 31% 61% 2% 0% Bungoma 3% 0% 90% 3% 3% 0% Lugari 10% 19% 5% 24% 38% 0% Uasin Gishu 18% 7% 39% 9% 27% 0% Nakuru 5% 21% 13% 3% 59% 0% Total 8% 9% 32% 20% 26% 5% Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0%
Table 7 below shows that 87% of the farmers in Bungoma District relied on dairy farming as the primary source of income in DCA 3 compared to only 5% of the farmers in Nakuru District. The other important sources of income for farmers in DCA 3 were subsistence farming and business.
Table 7: Main Occupation of the Household Head by District in DCA 3
District Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total
Business 2% 32% 29% 15% 9% 4% 10% 15% 11% 15%
Salaried Dairy Commercial Subsistence Mixed Casual employment farming farming farming farming labourer 2% 32% 14% 50% 0% 8% 43% 7% 0% 8% 2% 11% 57% 2% 0% 10% 48% 15% 10% 2% 4% 38% 20% 29% 0% 2% 87% 2% 2% 2% 20% 10% 3% 57% 0% 9% 23% 9% 43% 0% 18% 5% 4% 62% 0% 9% 31% 15% 29% 1%
0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
4.6
Land Size
Analysis of the land holding across the Dairy Commercialization Areas (DCAs) showed that on average, DCA 3 had farmers with a larger land holding compared to DCA 1 as shown in Table 8 below. This confirms that DCA 1 and DCA 3 started from slightly different availability of land resource. 18
Table 8: How much land is available to this family?
District Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total
N 45 34 38 34 49 29 19 42 39 329 42 60 63 45 45 43 68 52 54 472
Mean 4.4 2.3 2.4 3.2 4.2 5.1 5.0 4.1 2.1 3.6 4.4 4.5 2.2 4.6 3.7 3.6 4.3 5.4 2.4 3.9
Std. Deviation 2.6 2.0 1.6 3.3 4.3 4.7 4.3 3.9 1.9 3.4 2.4 2.5 1.3 3.7 4.3 2.8 3.9 3.9 2.2 3.3
4.7
Land Ownership
The study showed that only 8% of the smallholder dairy farmers did not own land in DCA 1. It further shows that Kisii Central District had the highest proportion (24%) of dairy farmers who did not own land followed by Lugari (21%) as shown in Table 9 below. These landless dairy farmers were relying on communal land to graze their animals or were renting land.
19
Table 9: Land Ownership by District in DCA 1 Do you own this farm? District Yes No Total Bomet 84% 16% 100% Kisii Central 76% 24% 100% Nyamira 100% 0% 100% Nandi North 97% 3% 100% Trans Nzoia 98% 2% 100% Bungoma 97% 3% 100% Lugari 79% 21% 100% Uasin Gishu 98% 2% 100% Nakuru 90% 10% 100% Total 92% 8% 100%
Source: Survey, April 2009
However, in DCA 3, the proportion of dairy farmers who did not own the land on which they were undertaking the activities was 9% as shown in Table 10 below. Bungoma, Lugari and Uasin Gishu Districts contributed the largest proportion of landless dairy farmers. All the dairy farmers in DCA 3 from Trans Nzoia District responded that they were land owners. Table 10: Land Ownership by District in DCA 3 Do you own this farm? District Yes No Total Bomet 98% 2% 100% Kisii Central 90% 10% 100% Nyamira 97% 3% 100% Nandi North 98% 2% 100% Trans Nzoia 100% 0% 100% Bungoma 79% 21% 100% Lugari 84% 16% 100% Uasin Gishu 85% 15% 100% Nakuru 89% 11% 100% Total 91% 9% 100%
The study team sought to understand the circumstances of farmers who did not own the land on which they were carrying out the dairy activities. Table 11 below shows that 25% of the dairy farmers who did not own land in DCA 1 were tenants who were largely in Bungoma, Nakuru and Trans Nzoia districts. The major constraint in land use for tenants was that they could not carry out permanent or long term land developments such as soil 20
conservation structures or pasture development. These dairy farmers were also renting land from other farmers to supplement their small holdings.
Another 39% (most of them in DCA 3) were using communal land and therefore did not have any incentive to develop the land they were using because they could not restrict the use from other members of the community. In other situations, dairy farmers were exploiting family land which had similar restrictions as communal land and in other cases, dairy farmers did not have title deeds to the land that they were using which reduced their incentive for long term investment.
Table 11: Circumstances of dairy farmers who did not own land
DCA Area Reasons why you do not own land? Communal land use Family 13% 88% 0% 88% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 75% 25% 100% 0% 0% 0% 18% 57% Communal land use Family 0% 100% 50% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 82% 0% 75% 13% 17% 0% 45% 5% Have no title deed 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Have no title deed 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 18% 0% 0% 5% Total
DCA1
District Bomet Kisii Central Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total
Tenant 0% 13% 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 100% 25%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
DCA3
District Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total
Tenant 0% 50% 50% 100% 100% 0% 13% 83% 45%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
In DCA 3, Nandi North and Bungoma Districts had the highest number of tenants dairy farmers.
4.8
Land Use
21
The average land holding in the programme area is 4.25 acres of which 50% is used for crop cultivation, 30% for pastures and only 11% for fodder as shown in Figure 5 below. Figure 5: Land use
Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009 On further analysis of the land use as shown in Table 12 below, Lugari District emerged as the district with the largest average land holding of 5.08 acres followed by Trans Nzoia District 5.05 acres, while Nyamira District has the average land size of 2.0 acres per household. These findings are consistent with the choices made by dairy farmers in terms of the number of dairy animals that they keep given this land available. These results also suggest that there is very little scope for increasing herd density under the current production system without widespread adoption of zero grazing technology in the programme area. Table 12: Land use in DCA1 by District DCA Area District Fodder 0.30 DCA1 Bomet Kisii Central 0.76 0.75 Nyamira Nandi North 0.20 Trans Nzoia 0.30 Bungoma 0.55 0.76 Lugari Uasin Gishu 0.29 0.33 Nakuru 0.44 Total Pasture 2.00 0.18 0.19 0.97 1.23 0.63 0.90 2.16 0.19 1.00 Crops Buildings 1.80 0.06 1.03 0.29 0.97 0.00 1.20 0.15 2.10 0.21 2.83 0.00 2.89 0.37 1.17 0.07 1.04 0.21 1.60 0.14 Others 0.17 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.20 0.00 0.16 0.10 0.13 0.11 Total 4.33 2.29 1.94 2.63 4.04 4.01 5.08 3.79 1.90 3.29
22
Table 13 below compares land use between the districts in DCA 3 in the programme area.
Table 13: Land use in DCA 3 by District
DCA Area District DCA3 Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total
Fodder 0.49 0.87 0.57 0.26 0.46 0.60 0.43 0.40 0.32 0.50
Pasture 1.38 1.28 0.11 1.46 0.94 0.20 0.82 2.20 0.22 0.94
Crops 2.38 2.13 1.36 1.98 1.78 1.82 2.61 2.28 1.44 1.98
Buildings 0.13 2.34 0.00 0.23 0.10 0.00 0.15 0.14 0.16 0.40
Others 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.19 0.38 0.00 0.14 0.10 0.17 0.11
Total 4.45 6.65 2.04 4.12 3.66 2.62 4.15 5.12 2.31 3.93
4.9
Milking Herd
This study showed that DCA 3 had a higher herd size compared to DCA 1. Dairy farmers in DCA 3 in Lugari District on average had five milking cows compared to two in Nyamira and Uasin Gishu District as shown in Figure 6 below. Figure 6: Average herd Size by District in the project area
23
Table 14: Average size of the milking herd by breed by District in DCA 1 District Friesian Jersey Guernsey Crossbreed Local Total cows in cows in cows in cows in cows in milk milk milk milk milk DCA1 Bomet 0.1 0.31 0 0.71 0.37 1.5 Kisii Central 0.71 0 0.03 0.68 0.15 1.6 Nyamira 0.39 0.17 0.06 0.28 0.11 1.0 Nandi North 0 0 0 2.14 0 2.1 Trans Nzoia 0.06 0 0 1.4 0 1.5 Bungoma 0.43 0 0.27 0.38 0.22 1.3 Lugari 1.73 0 0 0.41 0.14 2.3 Uasin Gishu 0.64 0.02 0 0.47 0.06 1.2 Nakuru 1.63 0 0.05 0.05 0 1.7 Total 5.69 0.50 0.41 6.52 1.05 14.2 Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
Table 15: Average size of the milking herd by breed by District in DCA 3 District Friesian Jersey Guernsey Crossbreed Local Total cows in cows in cows in cows in cows in milk milk milk milk milk DCA3 Bomet 0.76 0 0.04 0.74 0 1.54 Kisii Central 0.65 0.1 0.08 0.22 0.25 1.3 Nyamira 0.06 0.1 0.12 1.01 0.11 1.4 Nandi North 0.09 0 0 1.06 0.15 1.3 Trans Nzoia 0.33 0.11 0.04 0.67 0.04 1.19 Bungoma 0.2 0.1 0 0.44 0.44 1.18 Lugari 0.40 0.01 0.1 0.62 0.1 1.23 Uasin Gishu 1.00 0.02 0.02 0.58 0.16 1.78 Nakuru 1.32 0 0.02 0.08 0 1.42 Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
4.10 Milk Production

The survey found that out of the 795 respondents, it was only 92% who were producing milk. The average milk production in DCA 1 was 8.5 litres and 9.1 litres in DCA 3 with standard deviation of 6.81 litres and 6.39 litres respectively. Table 16 below shows the total milking herd, types of dairy cows in the sample and the total milk production. It shows that the total daily milk production among the734 households was 6,890 litres. However, we could not disaggregate the daily milk production by type of animal using the data collection tools because at the farm level, milk was combined regardless of animal breeds and there were severe time constraint available to collect all the information in this survey. 24
However, the distribution of milk production across the programme area was highly skewed with about 70% of the farmers producing less than 10 litres per day. Uasin Gishu District had the highest milk average production per farmer registering 14.0 litres whereas Bomet had the least milk production of 6.8 litres as shown in Table 16 below. Table 16: Average milk production of the dairy herd in litres/day by District DCA1 DCA3 District Mean Std. Deviation Mean Std. Deviation Bomet 3.9 2.98 9.1 3.97 Kisii Central 10.0 6.36 10.5 6.44 Nyamira 7.2 6.77 7.7 4.46 Nandi North 7.0 6.06 10.3 5.60 Trans Nzoia 7.9 5.22 6.3 4.80 Bungoma 9.4 5.47 5.2 3.73 Lugari 14.2 7.90 9.6 5.99 Uasin Gishu 7.3 5.65 14.0 9.45 Nakuru 13.3 9.06 9.1 6.41 Total 8.5 6.81 9.2 6.39 Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009 When distribution of milk production across the project area was mapped out, as shown in Figure 7 below, it confirmed that SDCP was targeting small scale farmers in both DCA 1 and DCA 3 and that there were small pockets of high production amid the large numbers of the small-holder production. This finding is consistent with the project goals.
25
Figure 7: Distribution of milk production across the SDCP Area
4.11 Farm Records

This survey found that 39% of the farmers in DCA 3 kept records compared to only 24% in DCA 1 as shown in Figure 17 below. This is significant difference that cannot be explained by the SDCP interventions. It suggests that the environment in DCA 3 may be promoting record keeping such as formal market markets.
26
Table 17: Proportion of households keeping Farm Records in DCA1 and DCA 3 Proportion of farmers that kept farm records District DCA 1 DCA 3 Total Bomet 12% 46% 28% Kisii Central 0% 77% 49% Nyamira 6% 8% 6% Nandi North 6% 29% 19% Trans Nzoia 20% 37% 28% Bungoma 76% 29% 51% Lugari 52% 33% 37% Uasin Gishu 30% 26% 28% Nakuru 66% 68% 67% Total 24% 39% 32%
Source: Baseline Survey, 2009
This survey found that only 32% of the farmers in the programme area kept farm records with Kisii Central (77%) having the highest proportion followed by Nakuru District (67%). Nyamira District had the lowest adoption rate of 6% as outlined in Table 17 below. The most common records that farmers kept were production records because farmers delivered milk on credit and therefore needed to have records to support their claims. Breeding records were the second most important records that farmers kept in both DCA 1 and DCA 3 as shown in Table 17 below while leasing records are the least common records.
Table 18 further shows that among the farmers that kept records, 81% of the farmers in DCA 1 kept milk production record compared to 73% in DCA 3. It also shows that 10% of the farmers in DCA 1 kept breeding records compared to 13% in DCA 3. The other records namely health and sales were less common. The choice of the records that farmers kept appear to be market driven.
27
Table 18: Type of farm records kept by farmers in DCA 1 and DCA 3 by District Milk Leasing District Production Breeding Health Sales records Bomet 75% 25% 0% 0% 0% DCA1 Kisii Central 88% 13% 0% 0% 0% Nyamira 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% Nandi North 0% 50% 50% 0% 0% Trans Nzoia 78% 11% 11% 0% 0% Bungoma 90% 5% 0% 5% 0% Lugari 64% 9% 18% 0% 9% Uasin Gishu 83% 17% 0% 0% 0% Nakuru 78% 7% 15% 0% 0% Total 81% 10% 7% 1% 1% Bomet 86% 14% 0% 0% 0% DCA3 Kisii Central 87% 9% 2% 2% 0% Nyamira 80% 0% 20% 0% 0% Nandi North 54% 46% 0% 0% 0% Trans Nzoia 79% 14% 7% 0% 0% Bungoma 46% 31% 15% 8% 0% Lugari 55% 5% 20% 20% 0% Uasin Gishu 71% 7% 7% 14% 0% Nakuru 71% 6% 9% 14% 0% Total 73% 13% 7% 7% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
4.12 Household Welfare

The study found that the average monthly household expenditure in the project area was Kshs 21,423 per month with education and food expenses accounting for almost 80% of the expenses as shown in Figure 8 below. These findings suggest that dairy farming households in the project area can only invest less than 5% of their monthly expenses towards improving the dairy herd because of the education, food, health and transport related expenses may not be flexible.
28
Figure 8: Mean Monthly Household Expenditure

Mean Monthly Household Expenditure Kshs 21, 423
Transport Others 6% 5%
Health 10% Education 44% Food 35%
Using the expenditure as the proxy for income, these findings showed that farmers in DCA 3 were spending an average of Kshs 23,642 per month which suggests they were slightly better off than farmers in DCA 1 who were spending an average of Kshs 20,847 per month. However, within the project area, there is wide disparity in the monthly expenditure across the districts as shown in Table 19 below. For instance, dairy farmers in DCA 1 in Nandi North seem to have the least income averaging Kshs 6,900 compared to their counterparts in Bungoma district who were spending about Kshs 35,898 per month. Equally notable was that incomes of farmers varied considerably depending on their occupation and location. Based on this parameter, salaried employees who were dairy farmers in Trans Nzoia District appear to have the highest income of Kshs 62,900 per month whereas dairy farmers in Kisii District had the lowest income of only Kshs 3,500 per month.
29
Table 19: Household Monthly Expenditure by Type, Occupation and Districts in DCA 1 Average Household Expenditure by Type, Occupation, District in DCA 1 District Occupation Food Health Education Transport Others Bomet Business Salaried employment Commercial farming Subsistence farming Total Business Salaried employment Dairy farming Commercial farming Subsistence farming Mixed farming Total Business Salaried employment Dairy farming Commercial farming Subsistence farming Total Business Salaried employment Dairy farming Commercial farming Total Business Salaried employment Dairy farming Commercial farming Subsistence farming Total Business Dairy farming Commercial farming Subsistence farming Total 5,071 5,925 5,000 7,203 6,698 6,500 8,667 4,729 3,000 5,750 7,076 6,424 8,000 5,000 10,013 6,965 5,900 7,349 1,000 4,000 3,239 4,000 3,317 6,000 15,000 5,933 6,771 4,500 6,614 3,000 7,771 2,500 350 7,124 151 825 3,000 1,002 896 250 2,667 1,043 200 1,900 1,882 1,635 5,000 1,000 1,650 2,395 7,200 2,841 52 375 90 1,000 1,600 645 1,047 400 916 1,000 4,840 3,000 3,000 4,562 30 16,180 3,925 3,265 5,305 12,500 20,000 4,357 200 6,725 15,472 11,930 10,000 3,000 19,313 14,955 10,240 14,157 2,000 2,500 2,820 3,875 2,912 40,000 3,263 7,447 1,833 6,526 21,363 25,000 7,222 20,183 714 925 383 476 1,750 667 1,057 100 1,225 2,650 1,851 2,000 4,000 5,100 1,730 3,000 2,822 1,200 1,050 583 300 597 1,000 4,200 931 1,426 1,287 800 3,779 2,000 15,000 4,019 429 575 2,500 245 356 100 2,600 2,625 94 900 2,100 587 507 545 13 11
Total 22,546 12,175 10,500 12,098 13,731 21,000 32,100 13,786 3,500 18,225 27,175 22,740 25,000 13,000 36,075 26,045 26,340 27,168 4,200 7,550 6,693 8,550 6,915 8,000 62,900 11,359 17,198 6,733 15,888 4,800 37,766 32,500 25,572 35,898
Kisii Central
Nyamira
Nandi North
Trans Nzoia
Bungoma
District Lugari
Average Household Expenditure by Type, Occupation, District in DCA 1 Occupation Food Health Education Transport Others Business Salaried employment Commercial farming Subsistence farming Casual labourer Total Business Salaried employment Dairy farming Commercial farming Subsistence farming Total Business Salaried employment Dairy farming Commercial farming Subsistence farming Total 4,500 13,000 7,625 9,286 1,000 8,750 3,457 6,000 10,567 11,625 20,745 12,036 6,000 6,500 4,500 4,000 5,200 5,429 200 1,100 350 371 300 506 371 500 2,463 3,125 8,455 3,745 2,000 2,375 2,250 3,000 1,750 2,000 800 3,925 8,500 20,714 7,000 11,294 1,914 1,250 4,687 4,000 7,209 4,654 4,500 6,500 2,842 2,000 6,000 5,553 2,350 2,000 4,850 3,471 3,133 671 2,000 1,955 2,300 1,036 1,503 5,000 4,375 1,750 3,000 3,100 3,343 1,650 5,000 7,000 9,143 3,000 6,572 2,143 1,500 863 250 2,382 1,491 2,000 2,750 1,750 1,500 1,950 2,100
Total 9,500 25,025 28,325 42,986 11,300 30,256 8,557 11,250 20,535 21,300 39,827 23,429 19,500 22,500 13,092 13,500 18,000 18,425
Uasin Gishu
Nakuru
Using expenditure as the proxy for income, these findings showed that dairy farmers in DCA 3 in Nandi North seem to have the least income averaging Kshs 10,000 compared to their counterparts in Trans Nzoia district who were spending about Kshs 40,810 per month. Equally notable was that incomes of farmers varied considerably depending on their occupation and location. Based on this parameter, subsistence farmers in Nyamira District had the lowest income of only Kshs 4,600 per month while dairy farmers in Lugari District appear to have the highest income of Kshs 52,900 per month. Generally however, the incomes of farmers in DCA 3 appear to be higher than those of farmers in DCA 1.
31
Table 20: Household Expenditure by source of Income in DCA 3 by District and by Type
District Bomet
Average Household Expenditure by Type, Occupation, District in DCA3 Occupation Food Health Education Transport Others Business Salaried employment Dairy farming Commercial farming Subsistence farming Total Business Salaried employment Dairy farming Commercial farming Mixed farming Casual labourer Total Business Salaried employment Dairy farming Commercial farming Subsistence farming Total Business Salaried employment Dairy farming Commercial farming Subsistence farming Mixed farming Total Business 2,500 8,000 7,462 7,250 8,097 7,664 4,281 3,260 3,652 2,875 4,000 2,000 3,746 6,167 7,000 8,857 6,889 4,000 6,856 2,857 9,600 3,853 3,929 5,400 6,000 4,619 10,875 200 5,000 1,100 485 1,066 1,096 6,094 2,140 6,287 400 4,719 378 2,114 931 874 240 500 206 500 130 5,000 401 2,800 1,000 30,000 3,254 9,300 13,009 9,592 16,031 14,200 12,204 5,375 3,410 11,977 3,536 5,000 4,743 3,326 500 3,528 717 11,000 3,615 5,131 1,266 5,000 4,017 19,750 32 200 4,000 1,077 1,625 714 992 1,381 1,400 1,007 975 780 250 1,117 1,122 1,500 1,336 1,397 100 1,291 829 2,600 518 1,157 1,040 1,000 998 15,088 346 1,025 664 564 41 120 74 200 69 12,500
Total 3,900 47,000 13,238 19,685 23,550 19,907 27,828 21,120 23,224 9,425 8,590 2,250 21,628 11,203 13,500 17,050 12,543 4,600 12,550 4,642 23,700 8,191 10,717 7,836 17,000 10,034 61,013
Kisii Central
Nyamira
Nandi North
Trans Nzoia
District
Average Household Expenditure by Type, Occupation, District in DCA3 Occupation Food Health Education Transport Others Salaried employment Dairy farming Commercial farming Subsistence farming Total Business Salaried employment Dairy farming Commercial farming Subsistence farming Mixed farming Total Business Salaried employment Dairy farming Commercial farming Subsistence farming Total Business Salaried employment Dairy farming Commercial farming Subsistence farming Total Business Salaried employment Dairy farming Commercial farming 15,000 9,000 9,889 9,283 9,736 5,500 6,000 7,181 7,000 6,000 12,000 7,156 9,014 17,385 35,000 15,000 8,113 12,516 6,725 5,750 8,055 5,025 7,286 7,052 7,400 6,875 8,000 5,000 1,100 1,507 722 4,983 2,436 1,500 3,000 2,686 4,000 8,000 1,500 2,765 1,257 4,494 3,033 5,000 2,486 2,834 3,063 2,000 1,645 1,950 1,614 1,923 3,200 2,000 3,667 10,000 5,500 29,520 19,611 17,667 21,936 6,500 12,000 5,176 500 13,333 7,667 5,535 4,786 20,546 8,833 18,000 16,103 15,160 3,163 7,700 25,109 3,500 6,362 9,998 5,800 7,250 5,000 2,000 1,000 1,993 1,539 6,958 4,514 650 2,500 1,608 2,000 450 2,500 1,587 2,443 5,500 3,867 2,000 1,573 2,637 4,263 600 1,868 2,950 2,629 2,584 3,400 5,313 4,333 8,000 500 667 522 2,183 2,188 0 0 3,071 4,692 2,167 10,000 2,543 3,093 2,825 450 1,627 750 2,810 2,173 1,000 2,100 2,667 2,000
Total 23,100 42,687 32,283 41,075 40,810 14,150 23,500 16,651 13,500 27,783 23,667 17,043 20,571 52,617 52,900 50,000 30,816 36,240 20,038 16,500 38,305 14,175 20,700 23,730 20,800 23,538 23,667 27,000
Bungoma
Lugari
Uasin Gishu
Nakuru
33
District
Average Household Expenditure by Type, Occupation, District in DCA3 Occupation Food Health Education Transport Others 2,367 2,638 6,567 6,404 2,967 3,606 1,733 1,783
Total 19,100 20,496
Subsistence 5,467 farming Total 6,064 Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
This analysis shows that dairy farmers in Nandi North incur the least monthly expenses in all categories of expenditure averaging Kshs 6,915 while Trans Nzoia at Kshs 40,810 had the highest cost of living in DCA 3. This point is further confirmed by Figure 9 below which maps the mean household expenditure across the programme area. Figure 9: Map showing the Mean Household Expenditure
On average, this survey suggests that farmers in DCA 1 spent almost twice the amount of money buying water as in DCA 3 as shown in Table 20 below. However, the standard deviation of these expenses suggests that the
34
cost of water is actually insignificant meaning that the respondent in Trans Nzoia who reported spending Kshs 6,000 per day was an outlier.
Table 21: Cost of water in Kshs per day between DCA 1 and DCA 3
DCA1 DCA3 0.6 3.5 40.9 134 5.3 2.5 0 0 180 23.1 0.04 0.5 0 24.8 150 42.8 50.4 36.3 56.2 32.4
Table 22 below shows the daily cost of getting water in each district which is a critical nutritional input. Table 22: Cost of water in Kshs per day
District Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total Minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum 100 1,700 150 0 6,000 20 600 3,000 500 Mean 1.77 136 3.56 0.00 164.12 0.29 19.89 94.23 43.88 49.89 Std. Deviation 11.093 262.878 17.753 0.000 860.658 2.274 92.310 370.720 57.412 340.017
0 6,000 Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
Dairy farmers incurred the highest cost to access water in Kisii Central District where it costs Kshs 136 but least in Bungoma where it is Kshs 0.30 per day.
4.13 Main Feeds The survey found that 77% of the dairy farmers in the project area relied on pastures as the main feed and 21% on napier grass and that only 2% considered hay as the main feed as shown in Figure 10 below. This confirms that this is predominantly a rainfed milk production system.
35
Figure 10: Main Animal feeds in the Project Area
Source: Survey, April 2009 This study found that there was little difference between DCA 1 and DCA 3 in terms of the main feed sources as shown in Table 24 below.
Table 23: Main livestock feed in DCA 1 and DCA 3 Main feed for livestock DCA 1 DCA 3 Total Pastures 76.4% 77% Napier grass 18.4% 23% Hay 5.1% 0% 2%
77% 21% Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
Further analysis of the distribution of the main feeds across the nine districts is shown in Figure 9 below. This analysis shows that napier grass forms the bulk of the livestock feed in Bungoma, Nyamira and Nakuru Districts especially in areas where land holdings are very small and farmers have adopted the zero grazing system. It is quite significant that it is only in Nakuru District where some smallholder farmers rely on hay as the main livestock feed. Given that hay is purchased, it suggests that such farmers dont even have land on which to produce napier grass to meet the dairy needs throughout the year.
36
Figure 11: Main animal feeds by District
4.14 Supplementary Feeds

Supplementary feeds refer to anything that farmers fed the dairy cows over and above the main feed. This study found that the most common feed supplements used by farmers were napier grass, maize stover commercial and other feeds. Table 25 below shows that the average farmer in DCA 1 used 7.4 and 8.2 loads of napier grass and maize stover; 1 kg of leucaenia, 1.5 kg of on-farm feed formulation and 9.4 kg of commercial feeds. This was significantly higher supplement compared to what was happening in DCA 3 where maize stover and napier were predominant but where the on-farm feed formulation and commercial feeds were significantly lower. This analysis also revealed that there were only three farmers who had planted Calliadra and no farmer had mulberry in the entire sample. Table 24: Average quantity of supplementary feeds used during the wet season in DCA 1 and DCA 3
Dca Area DCA1 DCA3 Total Napier Grass Maize (load) Stover(load) Calliandra 7.46 8.24 N/A 3.44 13.91 N/A N/A On-Farm Formulation Commercial Other Mulberry Lucaenia (kg) Feeds (kg) Feeds(kg) N/A 1.00 1.54 9.46 1.99 -N/A -N/A 1.00 1.00 2.04 1.86 4.36 6.73 4.82 3.50
4.82 9.80 Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
4.15 Cost of Supplementary Feeds

This survey showed that farmers in DCA 1 incurred about Kshs 556 in providing supplementary feeds to their dairy herd compared to the farmers in DCA 3 who incurred only Kshs 179 shilling in supplementary feeds as shown in Table 25 below. This wide disparity in the cost of supplementary feeds reflects the higher level of 37
awareness and therefore willingness of farmers in DCA 1 on the role that feed planning in plays in increasing and stabilizing milk production as a result of the training that has been going on since the beginning of the programme. Table 25: Average cost of supplementary feeds in Kshs during the wet season in DCA 1 and DCA 3
DCA Area DCA1 DCA3 Mean Napier Grass 141.41 70.65 Maize Stover 148.31 8.57 Calliandra 89.02 0.85 Mulberry 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lucaenia 0.15 0.17 0.16 On-Farm Formulation 5.01 23.64 15.74 Commercial Feeds 166.02 65.87 108.32 Other Feeds 5.64 9.34 7.77 Total Cost 555.56 179.09 338.67
100.64 67.81 38.23 Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
This study found that 81% of the farmers in the project area also give supplementary feeds in addition to the main feed. Table 27 below shows the average daily amounts of feed supplements and the cost in each district across the project area during the rainy season. Table 26: Average cost of feed supplements during the wet season
Quantity of napier grass 10.6923 2.1316 1.0000 0 2.7059 3.7411 6.5690 4.5119 2.5000 Cost of napier grass (Kshs) 27.74 100.83 62.84 .00 14.58 86.41 148.35 423.09 23.21 Quantity of Maize stover 11.4000 0 0 1.0000 3.0000 0 9.2000 10.1818 1.0000 9.8000 Cost of Maize stover( Kshs) 13.79 .00 .00 .12 .10 .00 7.80 533.81 .93 67.81 Cost of onfarm formulatio n (Kshs) 5.16 .33 .48 .19 100.52 .00 11.43 11.13 1.87 15.74 Quantity of on-farm formulation 1.9286 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 0 4.8571 1.2000 1.0000 1.8625 Cost of commercia l feeds (Kshs) 9.42 .00 39.10 290.42 34.88 121.13 81.62 571.55 43.96 136.77 Quantity of commercia l feeds 1.4000 3.0000 1.0000 30.0645 1.1538 7.2258 2.2273 5.2414 1.5024 6.7255 Total Cost in Kshs 476.9 215.3 102.4 8,731.6 180.5 1,198.5 1,283.6 10,353.2 126.9 2,098.8
District Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Mean
This analysis suggests that farmers in Nyamira District incur the least expenses in supplementary feeds averaging Kshs 102 during the wet season while farmers in Uasin Gishu reported the highest cost of supplementary feeds averaging Kshs 10,353. Figure 12 below highlights the wide variation between the average cost of supplementary feeds across the districts.
38
Figure 12: Average Daily Cost of Supplementary Feeds in Dry Season
Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009 These findings suggest that farmers in DCA 3 in Uasin Gishu incur the highest cost to produce milk by spending an average of Kshs 430 per day during the dry season while their counterparts in DCA 3 in Kisii Central District spent only Kshs 11 per day.
The feed situation deteriorates significantly during the dry season largely because the cost of supplementary feeds increases across all the districts. Maize stover forms the bulk of supplementary feeds and is not available during the dry season. Because most households have to choose between buying adequate animal feeds and meeting the family food requirements during the dry season, livestock loose out.
An analysis of costs of supplementary feeds during the wet season is shown in Figure 11 below. Whereas the costs appear lower in Kisii Central, Nandi North and Nakuru District, it is actually the diversion of the household resources to meet the familys upkeep during the dry season rather than costs of the dairy activities that account for this lower cost. However, the cost of supplementary feeds in Lugari District increased by 86% from Kshs 180 to Kshs 335 per day during the dry season.
39
Figure 13: Average Costs of Milk Production (Wet Season)
4.16 Reasons why farmers dont use supplements

The study also found that almost 48% of the farmers in DCA 1 did not give supplements to their dairy cows because they could not afford to hire labour to manage fodder in their own farms. The most affected districts in this respect were Kisii Central, Nakuru and Bomet Districts as shown in Table 27 below. The other most common reasons why farmers did not use supplements in DCA 1 were that they either did not know the need to give supplementary feeds or they did not feel it was necessary to do so. These responses suggest that there is need to continue educating dairy farmers on the role of supplementary feeds as part of the extension message even in DCA 1.
40
Table 27: Reasons why farmers dont use supplements in DCA 1 by District Kisii Nandi Trans Reason Bomet Central North Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Don't know how to grow fodder 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Don't have access to fodder seeds 5% 0% 0% 8% 0% 33% Can't afford the cost of feeds 5% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% Can't afford to hire labour to manage the fodder 81% 100% 50% 31% 0% 33% Use own 0% 0% 0% 46% 50% 0% Give minerals only 0% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0% No need 10% 0% 13% 0% 50% 0% Pasture is adequate 0% 0% 0% 15% 0% 0% Lack of enough land 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total 8% 8% 8% 8% 8% 0% 42% 0% 17% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 2% 7% 7% 48% 13% 2% 15% 3% 5% 100%
Analysis of farmers response in DCA 3 yielded slightly different reasons for not using supplementary feeds as shown in Table 28 below. It showed that 38% of the dairy farmers responded that they could not afford to hire labor to manage the fodder. This was particularly in Bomet, Nandi North and Nakuru Districts where 87%, 67% and 60% of the farmers respectively did not use supplementary feeds because the cost of labour was prohibitive. The second most important reason that farmers cited was lack of knowledge of how to grow fodder particularly in Lugari, Uasin Gishu and Bungoma where 50%, 31% and 27% of the dairy farmers said they did not know. These finding once again suggest that the SDCP should explore any technologies that reduce the cost of fodder production while continuously improving the delivery of the effectiveness of the extension messages.
41
Table 28: Reasons why farmers dont use supplements in DCA 3 by District
Kisii Nandi Trans Uasin Reasons Bomet Central North Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Gishu Nakuru Total Don't know how to grow fodder 0% 0% 0% 8% 27% 50% 31% 0% 16% Don't have access to fodder seeds 0% 50% 0% 15% 0% 20% 23% 0% 15% Can't afford the cost of feeds 7% 0% 20% 8% 0% 0% 8% 0% 5% Can't afford to hire labour to manage the fodder 87% 10% 60% 54% 0% 10% 23% 67% 38% Use own 7% 40% 0% 15% 0% 0% 0% 33% 10% No need 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 1% Pasture is adequate 0% 0% 0% 0% 73% 10% 0% 0% 11% Has less cows 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% New in the business 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 1% Lack of enough land 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 1% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
4.17 Contingency measures to ensure milk production throughout the year

Smallholder dairy farmers employ various strategies to stabilize milk production and alleviate the limited feed supply. These measures include feeding of crop by-products (such as maize stover), using green maize both as food and feed (through thinning), fodder cultivation on roadsides, reliance on fodder markets and buying concentrates. Silage making is not common. The practice of feeding crop by-products also serves to increase efficiency between the livestock and crop enterprises through nutrient cycling, an important factor given the deficiency of important soil nutrients resulting from the intensive cropping.
The most common contingency measure used by dairy farmers in DCA 1 to ensure stability in milk
production throughout the year was feed conservation which was reported by 63% of farmers. The
second most common contingency measure was buying outside the farm in which was undertaken by 22% of the farmers in DCA 1 as shown in Figure 14 below.
42
Figure 14: Feed Contingency Measures in DCA 1
This study found that 66% of the farmers in DCA 3 used feed conservation as contingency to stabilize milk production throughout the year as shown as Figure 15 below. This is not significantly different from DCA 1 and suggests that changing farmers practices to adopt feed conservation technologies is a long term goal.
Figure 15: Feed Contingency Measures in DCA 3
There were wide disparities between the districts in DCA 1 in the preferred contingencies that farmers adopted to ensure stable milk production. For instance, this survey found that feed conservation was most preferred contingency by farmers in Nandi North (91%), Lugari (89%) and Bomet (71%) as
43
shown in Table 29 below. This suggests that SDCP extension messages on feed conservation have been well received or are building on an existing body of knowledge from previous interventions in the same areas. The second most common contingency measure by farmers was to purchase feeds from other farmers. This study found that 22% of the farmers in DCA 1 preferred this option especially in Bungoma (52%) and Nakuru (44%). Purchasing feeds from other farmers increases the viability of smallholder dairy farming even where the land holding is very small. This is because it provides a ready market for feed resources which enables such farmers to sustain their dairy herd and creates income opportunities for crop farmers.
Table 29: Feed contingency measures in DCA 1 Feed contingency measures taken to ensure milk production throughout the year Kisii Nandi Trans Uasin District Bomet Central Nyamira North Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Gishu Nakuru Total Feed conservation 71% 50% 61% 91% 83% 22% 89% 60% 36% 63% Contracting other farmers 24% 3% 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 3% 21% 7% Purchasing from outside farm 4% 29% 39% 0% 6% 52% 5% 20% 44% 22% Moving animals to greener pastures 0% 3% 0% 0% 6% 0% 5% 5% 0% 2% Continous planting 0% 15% 0% 0% 4% 22% 0% 5% 0% 5% None 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 8% 0% 1% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
The survey found that feed conservation was also the most common contingency to sustain milk production throughout the year in DCA 3 which was cited by 66% of the farmers as shown in Table 30 below. However, Nandi North (98%), Lugari (97%) Uasin Gishu (80%) Bomet (72%) and Trans Nzoia(72%) registered the highest adoption rate of feed conservation. The second most important contingency in DCA 3 that farmers reported was purchasing feeds from other farmers. This was most common in Nyamira (54%) and Nakuru (31%) Districts which is makes smallholder dairy farming viable because the market for feed resources enables farmers with small land holding sustain to keep dairy cows. All other contingencies were only reported by about 14% of the dairy farmers in DCA 3.
44
Table 30: Feed contingency measures in DCA 3
Feed contingency measures taken to ensure milk production throughout the year Kisii Nandi Trans Uasin District Bomet Central Nyamira North Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Gishu Nakuru Total Feed conservation 72% 69% 44% 98% 72% 28% 97% 80% 31% 66% Contracting other farmers 13% 0% 2% 0% 5% 2% 0% 8% 37% 7% Purchasing from outside farm 10% 22% 54% 0% 21% 23% 0% 8% 31% 20% Moving animals to greener pastures 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 7% 3% 0% 0% 2% Continous planting 5% 0% 0% 2% 0% 14% 0% 4% 0% 2% None 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 26% 0% 0% 0% 3% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
4.18 Cost of Milk Production

To calculate the cost of milk production in each district, we considered the semi-zero grazing production system because this was the most common system. We however encounted two challenges in computing the cost per litre. The first one was that farmers did not keep consistent records of their costs and therefore the costs used were based on memory recall which introduces errors. The second challenge was that the farmers did not assign a monetary value on their management input and family labour used in the dairy enterprise. This implied that computing the cost of milk production without including the imputed costs significantly underestimated the cost of milk production. To overcome these hurdles, we assumed that the least monthly cost of casual labour in the programme area of Kshs 600 per month reflected the imputed labour input for each member of household in the dairy enterprise. To arrive at the total cost of milk production, we then added the cost of all supplementary feeds from farmers recall, the cost of water per month and the monthly cost of permanent and casual employees. We then divided these costs with the monthly milk production during the dry and wet season to compute the cost per litre. Using this approach, this study found that farmers in Trans Nzoia, Kisii Central and Nyamira Districts had the highest cost of milk production of Kshs 34.50 per litre and Kshs 32.50 per litre during the dry season. This high cost was attributed to the fact that there were large households in these districts, low levels of milk production.
On the other hand, farmers in Nandi North, Bomet and Uasin Gishu Districts had the least cost of milk production during the dry which on average was Kshs 19.60, Kshs 24.10 and Kshs 25.6 per litre respectively. This low cost of production could be attributed to availability of low cost pastures, using of rivers and other low cost water sources and substituting hired labour with the low cost family labour. 45
Figure 16 below shows the analysis of the cost of milk production per litre during the dry season.
Figure 16: Cost of Milk Production during the Dry Season
This survey showed that the cost of milk production in the wet season was much lower than in the dry season as shown in Figure 17 below. In some cases, this cost was reduced by half during the wet season. This finding confirms that smallholder dairy farming system is rainfed.
Figure 17: Cost of Milk Production during the wet season
Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009 46
4.19 Water Sources To estimate the risk of contacting water borne diseases, incentives and the cost of dairy farming, to participate in community projects, respondents were asked to indicate the sources from which they drew water for domestic and livestock use. Figure 18 below shows that 33% of the households in the project area get water from boreholes and only 12% has access to piped water. This finding shows the reason why dairy enterprise creates employment opportunities because keeping a dairy cow fully supplied with water is a labor intensive activity in which many households resort to hired labor or engage family labor on a full time basis.
Figure 18: Main Sources of Water during the Wet Season
Further analysis of this data showed that 33.3% of the households in DCA 1 relied on boreholes which were very close to the 32.3% of households in DCA 3. However, 21% of the farmers DCA 1 relied on river water compared to 29.3% of the households in DCA 3. Table 31 below shows the proportion of households in DCA 1 and DCA 3 based on their main sources of water during the wet season.
47
Table 31: Main water sources in DCA 1 and DCA 3 during wet season The main source of water during the wet season DCA 1 DCA 3 Total River 21% 29% 26% Piped water 13% 11% 12% Protected spring 2% 1% 2% Unprotected spring 2% 1% 2% Open well 7% 5% 6% Protected well 10% 10% 10% Roof catchment 6% 6% 6% Dam/Lake 2% 1% 1% Earth pan 1% 1% 1% Borehole 33% 32% 33% Shallow well 1% 3% 2% Total 100% 100% 100%
This study suggests that many of the water sources are seasonal because the proportion of farmers who rely on other sources during the dry season increases significantly as shown in Table 32 below. However, farmers rely on multiple water sources at any time but this analysis concentrated on the main water source.
Table 32: Main water sources in DCA 1 and DCA 3 during dry season
The main source of water during the dry season DCA1 DCA3 Total River 35% 41% 39% Piped water 15% 9% 11% Protected spring 3% 1% 2% Unprotected spring 1% 1% 1% Open well 6% 4% 4% Protected well 3% 14% 10% Roof catchment 1% 0% 0% Dam/Lake 2% 1% 1% Earth pan 0% 0% 0% Borehole 33% 25% 28% Buying water 0% 2% 1% Shallow well 1% 3% 2% Total 100% 100% 100%

48
Further analysis of the water sources shown in Table 33 below indicates that Bomet District has the widest diversity of the water sources during the wet season. This is because the district within the Mau Forest Complex whereas households in Nakuru District have only four alternative sources even within the wet season.
Table 33: Main source of water during the wet season by District
River Piped water Protected spring Unprotected spring Open well Protected well Roof catchment Dam/Lake Earth pan Borehole Shallow well Bomet 36% 3% 2% 8% 9% 2% 7% 8% 6% 14% 3% Kisii Central 68% 5% 0% 0% 2% 7% 0% 2% 0% 17% 0% Nyamira 35% 5% 0% 0% 1% 43% 14% 0% 0% 3% 0% Nandi North 35% 14% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 49% 0% Trans Nzoia 14% 20% 10% 2% 20% 10% 1% 1% 1% 20% 1% Bungoma 15% 0% 0% 0% 14% 17% 0% 0% 0% 54% 0% Lugari 8% 2% 1% 2% 4% 1% 9% 1% 0% 71% 0% Uasin Gishu 18% 2% 0% 0% 2% 7% 2% 0% 0% 69% 0% Nakuru 19% 52% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% 0% 0% 1% 13%
Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009 4.20 Adequacy of Water On the question of the adequacy of the water throughout the year, Table 34 below shows that that 89% of the households have adequate water throughout the year while 11% do not. Further analysis of this variable showed that 10.6% of the farmers in DCA 1 did not have adequate water throughout the year compared to 11% in DCA 3.
Table 34: Status of water adequacy throughout the year in DCA 1 and DCA 3
Is the water adequate throughout the year? DCAs DCA 1 DCA 3 Total Yes 89.3% 88.9% No 10.7% 11.1% Total 100% 100% 100%
89% 11% Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
However, there is wide disparity in adequacy of water between the district in each DCA. For instance, 44% of the households in Nakuru District without adequate water throughout the year while households in Nyamira and Bungoma have adequate water throughout the year as shown in Table 32 below.
49
Table 35: Water adequacy throughout the year Is the water adequate throughout the year? District Yes No Bomet 85% 15% Kisii Central 83% 17% Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru
Mean Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
100% 99% 93% 100% 97% 90% 56% 89%
0% 1% 7% 0% 3% 10% 44% 11%
4.21 Choice of Animal Breeds This survey found that 83% of the farmers in DCA 1 used milk yield as the most important consideration in choosing the preferred dairy breed. There was wide disparity between districts on this account. For instance, the largest proportion of farmers using milk yield are from Nakuru District (97%) and Nyamira (95%) while Bomet (64%) had the least proportion as shown in Table 36 below. The second consideration was disease resistance which accounted for 10% of the farmers in DCA 1.
Table 36 : Choice of Breeds by Districts in DCA 1
The most important consideration in the choice of the breed in DCA 1 Milk Growth Disease Market Body Feeding District yield rate resistance value weight behavior Total Bomet 64% 2% 33% 0% 0% 0% 100% Kisii Central 68% 6% 3% 12% 6% 6% 100% Nyamira 95% 3% 0% 0% 0% 3% 100% Nandi North 88% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0% 100% Trans Nzoia 83% 6% 11% 0% 0% 0% 100% Bungoma 85% 0% 11% 0% 0% 4% 100% Lugari 84% 0% 11% 5% 0% 0% 100% Uasin Gishu 83% 15% 3% 0% 0% 0% 100% Nakuru 97% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 100% Total 83% 4% 10% 2% 1% 1% 100%
Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009 The same trend of using milk yield and disease resistance as the key considerations in the choice of dairy breeds was also observed in DCA 3. However, Bomet district had a much higher proportion of farmers that were using milk in the choice of the breeds in DCA 3 than in DCA 1. Similarly, 100% of
50
the farmers in Nyamira District used milk yield in the choice of breeds in DCA 3 as shown in Table 37 below. These results suggest that other considerations played a minor role in the choice of dairy breeds other than milk yield and disease resistance.
Table 37: Choice of Breeds by Districts in DCA 3
The most important consideration in the choice of the breed in DCA 3 Milk Growth Disease Market Body Feeding District yield rate resistance value weight behavior Total Bomet 93% 3% 5% 0% 0% 0% 100% Kisii Central 97% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 100% Nyamira 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Nandi North 56% 0% 44% 0% 0% 0% 100% Trans Nzoia 70% 5% 26% 0% 0% 0% 100% Bungoma 86% 0% 7% 0% 0% 7% 100% Lugari 46% 1% 48% 0% 0% 4% 100% Uasin Gishu 74% 2% 16% 4% 0% 4% 100% Nakuru 96% 0% 2% 0% 0% 2% 100% Total 80% 1% 17% 1% 0% 2% 100%
Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009 4.22 Preferred Breeding Methods The study found that 43% of the farmers in the programme area preferred to use AI services for breeding while 57% preferred bull service. When the responses were disaggregated by DCAs, it showed that 41% of farmers in DCA 1 preferred AI service compared to 46% with the same preference in DCA 3. While we would expect that DCA 1 would have a higher preference for AI service given the training that SDCP has carried out in the last two years, the survey suggests that other constraints in service delivery may inform the farmers preference for bull service despite this knowledge. Table 38 below shows the results of this analysis.
Table 38: Status of preferred breeding method in DCA 1 and DCA 3
Which breeding method do you mostly prefer Bull AI service Local bull
DCAs DCA 1 DCA 3 Total
Total
41% 46% 43%
9% 10% 10%
50% 44% 47%
100% 100% 100%
This study found a wide disparity in preference for bull service in DCA 1 and DCA 3. For instance, 98% of farmers in Bomet District preferred bull service in both DCA 1 and DCA 3 on one extreme
51
while only 3% preferred bull service in Nakuru District in DCA 1 and 7% in DCA 3 at the other extreme as shown in Figure 17 below. This disparity shows other factors may be at play.
Figure 19: Preference for Bull Service by District in DCA1 and DCA 3
4.23 Choice of the Preferred Breeding Methods When the reasons for choosing the preferred breeding service were analyzed, nearly 56% of the farmers selected the breeding method on the basis of cost of delivery of the service and only 25% on the characteristics of the breed. When this data was disaggregated by DCAs, as shown in Table 39 it showed that 59% of the farmers in DCA 1 selected the breeding methods on the basis of cost of delivery compared to 53% in DCA 3 who used the same criteria.
Table 39: Reasons for bull preference between DCA 1 and DCA 3 Reasons for bull preference DCA 1 DCA 3 Total High production and better breeds 21% 29% 25% No AI services available 0% 1% 0% Easily available and cheap 59% 53% 56% Effective 2% 5% 4% Disease resistant 16% 12% 14% Group owns the bull 2% 0% 1% Local bull can't service exotic breeds 0% 0% 0% Total 100% 100% 100%
52
These findings suggests the SDCP and other players need to educate farmers on the long term benefits of making the right breeding choices while ensuring that competent AI service providers are consistently available at affordable prices. This conclusion emerges from the fact that almost 6% of the respondents could not access breeding services throughout the year. 4.24 Breeding Related Costs Availability of artificial insemination services is key to the development of the dairy sector because it provides several benefits to farmers. First, heifers born through AI service have a high market value and secondly, farmers are able to get good quality heifers from genetically superior bulls cheaply and conveniently. Thirdly, AI prevents losses from reproductive diseases such as Brucellosis and finally, the use of AI services saves farmers the high costs of maintaining breeding bulls. Semen that is used by AI service providers in Kenya is either sourced locally from Central Artificial Insemination Station (CAIS) or is imported.
Table 40 below shows that farmers in DCA 1 paid an average of Kshs 770 for AI services using local semen. Farmers in Bungoma District incurred the highest cost to access AI services paying an average of Ksh 1,222 while farmers in Nandi North paid the least at Kshs 609. The cost in all other districts was within these two extremes.
Table 40: Cost of AI service using local semen by districts in DCA 1 The cost of using AI local semen in DCA 1 Std. District Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation Bomet 600 1,500 1,050 636 Kisii Central 600 2,500 878 467 Nyamira 600 700 643 53 Nandi North 600 700 609 30 Trans Nzoia 600 700 680 45 Bungoma 600 3,000 1,222 710 Lugari 750 1,000 943 97 Uasin Gishu 600 1,200 910 225 Nakuru 600 1,000 681 74 Total 600 3,000 770 317
53
Within DCA 3, the survey found that farmers in Lugari, Trans Nzoia, Bomet and Bungoma districts incurred the highest cost for AI services using local semen while farmers in Uasin Gishu incurred the least cost for the same service as shown in Table 41 below.
Table 41: Cost of AI service using local semen by districts in DCA 3 The cost of using AI local semen in DCA 3 Std. District Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation 800 1,500 1,013 217 Bomet 600 3,000 946 726 Kisii Central 600 800 700 69 Nyamira 600 800 695 38 Nandi North 700 1,500 1,068 284 Trans Nzoia 600 2,000 907 341 Bungoma 600 3,000 1,187 594 Lugari 600 1,700 694 168 Uasin Gishu 600 3,000 845 398 Nakuru 800 1,500 1,013 217 Total
As expected, the survey found that cost of AI service using imported semen in DCA 1 in all the districts was much higher than the cost of using local semen. For instance, the study showed that farmers in Lugari District on average paid Kshs 2,750 for AI service using imported semen. The survey further showed that on average, farmers in Kisii Central incurred the least expense of Kshs 885 to access AI service using imported semen while the cost in other districts in DCA 1 varied between these two extremes as outlined in Table 42 below.
54
Table 42: Cost of AI service using imported semen by districts in DCA 1 The cost of AI using imported semen in DCA 3 in Kshs Std. District Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation 800 6,000 2,500 2,386 Bomet 500 2,000 885 321 Kisii Central 1,200 1,500 1,300 141 Nyamira 700 1,200 1,033 289 Nandi North 1,500 3,000 2,500 866 Trans Nzoia 1,300 3,000 2,483 806 Bungoma 1,500 4,000 2,750 1,768 Lugari 500 6,000 1,383 854 Uasin Gishu 800 6,000 2,500 2,386 Nakuru 500 2,000 885 321 Total
The cost of AI service using imported semen was higher across all the districts in DCA 3 as shown in Table 43 below. These results were significant because on one hand, they also showed that farmers in Kisii Central in DCA 3 were incurred the highest average cost of AI service using imported semen of Kshs 2,400 per service while on the other, farmers in the neighboring Nyamira District incurred only Kshs 1,064 for the same service. The cost in all the other districts fell within these two extremes.
Table 43: Cost of AI service using imported semen by districts in DCA 3 The cost of AI using imported semen in DCA 3 in Kshs District Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation 1,500 3,000 2,000 632 Bomet 1,200 3,000 2,400 1,039 Kisii Central 600 2,000 1,064 371 Nyamira 1,200 2,500 1,426 326 Nandi North 1,200 1,500 1,243 113 Trans Nzoia 600 1,700 1,238 388 Bungoma 1,000 10,000 2,488 3,052 Lugari 1,500 2,800 2,150 919 Uasin Gishu 600 10,000 1,518 1,039 Nakuru 1,500 3,000 2,000 632 Total
These results suggest that there are market factors in DCA 1 that are working to the advantage of farmers to access the AI services at more competitive prices than their counterparts in DCA 3. One of
55
these factors is the competition among AI service providers in DCA 1 which has forced them to reduce the cost of delivery of AI services.
Bull service is still preferred by some farmers particularly where the AI costs are considered prohibitive or in areas where the road infrastructure is poor and the services unreliable. Farmers in DCA 1 paid on average Kshs 113 to access bull service compared to their counterparts in DCA 3 who paid Kshs 172 as shown in Table 44 below. Table 44: Cost of bull service in DCA 1 and DCA 3
DCAs DCA 1 DCA 3 Total Minimum Free Free Maximum 600 700 Mean 113.30 172.43 145.36 Std. Deviation 170.367 171.418 173.296
Free 700 Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
While the average cost of accessing bull service in the programme area was Kshs 145, there were many farmers who allowed the use of their bulls for free especially to their neighbours or relatives. Table 39 below is an analysis of the costs of accessing bull service disaggregated by districts in the project area. It shows that there were no farmers in the sample from Nandi North District who had paid for using bull service while farmers in Nyamira paid an average of Kshs 340 per service. The cost of bull service disaggregated by districts is shown in Table 45 below.
Table 45: Cost of bull service by District in Kshs
District Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total Minimum Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free 200 Maximum 200 300 600 Free 700 500 400 500 400 700 Mean 12.50 200.00 340.52 .00 152.14 290.42 225.40 85.48 272.73 145.36 Std. Deviation 44.859 64.327 147.034 .000 212.888 157.817 94.984 156.652 64.667 173.296
Free Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
4.25 Breeding Efficiency

One of the reasons why farmers insist on keeping bulls is because of the high number of repeat inseminations from AI services before conception is achieved which increases the breeding costs. This study found that the
56
maximum number of inseminations before conception in DCA 1 was 15 in Kisii Central but a minimum of 2 in most of the other districts as shown in Table 46 below. Table 46: Maximum Number of inseminations before conception in DCA 1
District Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Maximum 3 15 3 2 5 3 2 2 4
However in DCA 3, the maximum number of inseminations per conception was 8 in Uasin Gishu and Nakuru Districts as shown in Table 47 below. This analysis suggests that the SDCP should increase awareness of farmers on how to evaluate the delivery of AI services to increase breeding efficiency. Table 47: Maximum number of inseminations before conception in DCA 3
District Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Maximum 2 4 2 2 4 7 5 8
8 Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
4.26 Calving Interval One of the issues that were tracked in this survey was the calving interval. This is the amount of time (days or months) between the birth of a calf and the birth of a subsequent calf, both from the same cow. Table 48 below shows that the calving interval in DCA 1 was 450 days while the calving interval in DCA 3 was 480 days. However, the calving interval is not statistically different between the DCA 1 and DCA 3. This could probably be because it takes a long time to reduce the calving interval.
57
Table 48: The calving interval in the dairy herd (in days) in DCA 1 and DCA 3 DCA Area District Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Dev
DCA1 Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total DCA3 Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total 270 270 270 360 360 270 360 270 360 270 270 360 270 360 270 270 330 360 360 270 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 720 1000 450 720 1000 360 720 720 720 1000 360 450 360 300 300 360 16.3 360 390 450 360 540 360 400 450 300 400 400 450 480 120 160 100 60 60 150 150 100 60 140 90 150 60 120 150 90 90 90 150 150
4.27 Milk Production, Sales and Consumption This study found that the average farmer in DCA 1 produced 8.84 litres of milk per day compared to farmers in DCA 3 who produced 9.81 litres per day. The study also showed that farmers in DCA 1 and DCA 3 sold about the same amount of milk which was about 6.04 litres per day. This survey therefore suggests that the extra milk produced above this threshold in DCA 3 is currently retained for home consumption as shown in Table 49 below.
Table 49: Average milk production, sales and home consumption in DCA 1 and DCA 3
DCAs DCA 1 DCA 3 Total Milk production in litres/day 8.84 9.81 9.39 Milk sold in litres/day 6.03 6.38 6.23 Home consumption in litres/day 2.93 3.26 3.11
Mean Mean Mean
This study found that the average household produces 9.4 litres of milk per day of which 3.1 litres are retained for home consumption while 6.2 litres are sold. The average price realized was computed by
58
taking the mean price from the main outlets in each district. Table 50 below shows the average milk prices in various market outlets in DCA 1 and DCA 3.
Table 50: Average milk price in various outlets in DCA 1 and DCA 3
Buying price by Informal milk traders in Kshs/litre 25.33 21.81 Buying price by dairy cooperatives in Kshs/litre 24.09 22.28 Buying price by neighbours in Kshs/litre 27.43 26.61 26.98 Buying Buying price price by by milk bar in processors Kshs/litre in Kshs/litre 28.37 21.93 22.30 27.10 21.40 21.76 Buying price in other outlets in Kshs/litre 27.44 25.87 26.48 Mean Price in Kshs/litre 25.77 23.38 24.79
DCAs DCA 1 DCA 3 Total
The average daily revenue from milk sales was computed by multiplying the total production with the average price. Total production which included home consumption was used because it included this invisible income which could not be computed from milk sales. This analysis shows wide variation between the areas in the project as shown by Table 51 below. The analysis shows that smallholder dairy farmers in Lugari Districts received the highest milk income while farmers in Bomet District had the lowest milk income averaging Kshs 86/day. This arises from the fact the price of milk is lower in Bomet than all the other districts in the project area.
Table 51: Average Milk Production, Sales and Consumption by District
Average milk Average Milk Household production in Sales in Milk consumption in litres/day litres/day litres/day 6.8 4.3 2.5 10.5 5.7 4.6 7.5 3.9 3.6 10.2 6.2 3.5 7.8 5.6 2.8 7.4 5.1 2.3 11.8 8.8 2.9 11.8 7.8 4.0 11.1 8.4 2.4 9.4 6.2 3.1 Average Price Kshs/litre Average Revenue Kshs/day
District Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Mean
19.8 24.4 26.3 22.1 22.8 26.5 26.8 26.2 23.1 24.8
86 140 102 137 128 134 236 206 195 154
When the milk revenue was disaggregated by DCAs as shown in Figure 20 below, it showed that farmers in DCA 1 got between Kshs 98 and Kshs 349 in Bomet and Lugari District respectively. On the other hand, farmers in DCA 3 were getting between Kshs 135 and Kshs 337 per day in Trans Nzoia and Uasin Gishu Districts. .
59
Figure 20: Average Dairy Revenue from Milk Sales in Kshs
Source: Computed by analyzing milk sales and average price realized from different outlets 4.27.1 Milk Bars and other milk outlets
Key informant interviews with milk bar operators during the survey showed that they get their milk from farmers who produce about 8 liters per day. However, very few operators conducted quality tests before accepting the deliveries because they had been in business with same farmers for a long time they had built confidence between them. Most milk bar operators paid for the milk delivered the same day. The milk bars/retail shops buy the milk at an average price of ksh.25.00 then sell at either Ksh.35.00 or 40.00 depending on supply and demand.
Bicycles were the principal mode of transport for milk deliveries to milk bars either by the operators or the farmers. Some milk bars were also processing the milk into mala and yoghurt are the main milk products processed and they sell at ksh.35.00 and ksh.45.00 a litre respectively in Ndalu sub-location while those of Bukembe did not have similar training.
The performance of the milk sales was dependent on the season of the year and most milk bar operators confirmed that low milk sales are the major constraints hindering business growth. In dry seasons the milk supply is low; the milk bars therefore refer their customers to other milk bars or reduce the number of customers.
60
4.28 Milk handling practices The perishable nature of milk imposes the need for adequate and clean water for cleaning equipment such as milk cans, while the long distance (often on rough roads) to the collection centres, cooling plants and processing factories creates the need for well-maintained feeder roads. To determine compliance to good milk handling practices, the study team observed the type of milk handling practices that were being used. The survey found that 90% of the farmers in the project area had moderate milk handling practices (they carried out hand and udder washing and used aluminum equipment) but that only 3% of the farmers met all the recommended milking practices as shown in Figure 21 below. Of particular concern is that team observed that 7% of the farmers had poor milk handling practices which can compromise the market for those that have adopted recommended practices.
Figure 21: Milk handling practices
Table 52 below illustrates the results of further analysis to identify the districts where particular type of behavior was prevalent. In general, the problems of milk handling affected the entire program area however certain areas such Mubere Sub-location, Kaibei Location, Endebes Division of Trans Nzoia District were most affected in which 45% of the farmers had poor milk handling practices.
Table 52: Milk handling practices by District District Bomet Poor Moderate Good Total 4% 95% 1% 100% 61
Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total
2% 2% 3% 30% 9% 5% 6% 2% 7%
97% 94% 97% 67% 90% 89% 83% 98% 89%
2% 4% 0% 3% 1% 6% 11% 0% 3%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
This survey showed that Trans Nzoia District faced the greatest challenge in milk handing because about 30% of the farmers were observed to have poor milk handling practices. Informal milk traders only checked for cleanliness without conducting any quality tests on the milk, however the milk bar operators who purchased milk from informal traders conducted quality tests.
Raw milk is a highly perishable and easily contaminated product. Processing technologies aim at producing high quality fresh dairy products and increase the shelf life long enough to go through the distribution system. The quality of the final product depends on milk hygiene and quality of the raw material. The following methods were the quality of milk and dairy products.
Quality Testing Technologies The type of dairy cow and its diet can lead to differences in colour, flavour, and composition of milk. Infections in the animal that also cause disease may also be passed on to the consumer through milk. It is therefore important that quality control tests are carried out to ensure that the bacterial activity in raw milk is of an acceptable level, and that no harmful bacteria remain in the processed product . The following technologies were largely being used in testing the quality of milk by dairy MSEs in the study areas. Organoleptic test - This is the cheapest method and one of the most reliable ones when used by an experienced person. It entails developing a sense of smell and sight for high quality milk. A skilled worker can detect adulteration or spoilage by sight and smell and use other tests simply to confirm. Lactometer which is quite effective in determining possible adulteration of milk especially with water and in some cases with milk powder. The price of the lactometer ranged between Kshs 300
62
Kshs 650 in the market. The study found out that KDB was not aware that dairy MSEs are using this technology but it is routinely used by most milk bars by some hawkers in Nakuru.
Alcohol Clot Tests -This is particularly in use by the trained yoghurt processing dairy microenterprises especially in Nakuru. Unlike cooperatives which used the more expensive and automated alcohol guns, dairy MSEs used a simple but effective system. This test provides an indication of the bacterial load of the milk and the potential for spoilage. This technology was again found to be widely in use by milk bars who have been trained in one hawker in Nakuru.
Clot Boiling Method: In the absence of these other tests, most dairy MSEs simply boiled small samples of milk (with a candle on a spoon) and observed whether they cuddle.
Match Stick Test: This is one of the methods devised by dairy MSEs to test milk for water adulteration. The head of a matchstick is dipped in milk and struck. If the milk is wholesome, it lights, if not, it doesnt.
The Polythene Test: Milk is poured into a nylon paper and allowed to flow. If it flows without leaving stains on the paper then it may suggest presence of water. If it stains the paper then its considered wholesome. These were the most commonly used methods employed in the milk bars visited. 4.29 Milk Marketing Constraints Analysis of the milk marketing constraints facing farmers in DCA 1 showed that almost 43% faced problems of low prices and 41% had problems lack of cooling facilities as shown in Table 53 below. The other constraints were relatively minor accounting for only 16%. For instance, in Nandi North District, 96% of farmers in the survey lacked chilling facilities.
Table 53: Milk Marketing Constraints in DCA 1 Which constraints do you face in marketing your milk in this area in DCA 1 Kisii Nandi Trans Uasin District Bomet Central Nyamira North Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Gishu Nakuru Total Harassment by local 3% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 3% authorities Harassment by KDB 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 2% inspectors Low milk prices
97%
33%
11%
0%
25% 63
68%
53% 47%
51%
43%
Delayed payments Defaulters No problems Lack of refrigeration Lack of market No standard measurements for milk Bad roads
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 3% 15% 0% 30% 0% 0%
8% 0% 0% 76% 0% 3% 0% 3%
4% 0% 0% 96% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 75% 0% 0% 0% 0%
8% 8% 0% 16% 0% 0% 0% 0%
27% 0% 0% 0% 7% 7% 7% 0%
3% 0% 0% 44% 0% 3% 0% 0%
0% 0% 0% 41% 0% 0% 0% 0%
4% 1% 0% 41% 0% 5% 0% 0%
Total Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
In DCA 3, the farmers who reported that they had no marketing constraints accounted for only 27% of the farmers which 63% were in Nyamira District. In general, the most pressing marketing constraint in DCA 3 was low milk prices which affected 43% of all the farmers as shown in Table 54 below.
64
Table 54: Milk Marketing Constraints in DCA 3 Which constraints do you face in marketing your milk in this area ? Kisii Nandi Trans Uasin Bomet Central Nyamira North Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Gishu
District DCA 3 Harassment by local authorities Harassment by KDB inspectors Low milk prices Delayed payments Defaulters Corrupt management committees No problems Returned milk Lack of market Low sales No standard measurements for milk Unable to satisfy market demands Bad roads Total
Nakuru
Total
3% 5% 90% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0%
0%
50% 0% 18% 5% 0% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0%

0%
0% 0% 6% 30% 0% 0% 63% 0% 0% 0%
0%
0% 0% 40% 20% 0% 0% 35% 5% 0% 0%

0%
0% 0% 54% 3% 5% 0% 38% 0% 0% 0%
0%
0% 0% 48% 33% 0% 0% 10% 0% 2% 5%

0%
2% 7% 50% 29% 5% 0% 3% 2% 0% 0%
2%
0% 11% 55% 19% 4% 2% 9% 0% 0% 0%

0%
0% 2% 39% 4% 0% 0% 54% 0% 0% 0%
0%
6% 3% 43% 17% 2% 0% 27% 1% 0% 1%

0%
0% 0% 100%
8% 0% 100%
0% 0% 100%
0% 0% 100%
0% 0% 100%
0% 2% 100%
0% 0% 100%
0% 0% 100%
0% 0% 100%
1% 0% 100%
Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009 These results suggest that SDCP should intensify its efforts to help farmers in the project area to get better organized so that they can have more bargaining power in contracts that they negotiate with all manner of milk buyers. 4.30 Milk Processing This study showed that only 7.3% of the farmers in the project area engage in on-farm milk processing activities. The key products that they produce are 2.9% Musik (a traditional fermented milk flavored with herbs), Mala 2.8% and yoghurt 0.5% as shown in Figure 23 below. This analysis suggests that these products are targeted at tiny niche markets and not for the mass market.
65
Figure 22: On-farm Milk Processing
Further analysis of the on-farm dairy processing activities showed that Mursik and Mala were the products that were produced in most of the districts at a volume of between 3 and 6 litres while ghee was only in one farm in Trans Nzoia District as shown in Table 55 below.
Table 55: Mean production of on-farm dairy products
District Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total 0.46 5.75 6.00 .50 5.81 .250 7.50 10.00 Volume of mursik 1.88 .50 Volume of yoghurt 6.00 .50 Volume of ghee Volume of mala 10.75 3.57 7.50 3.62
4.31 Skills Required to Improve Profits in Dairy Farming This study found that 77% of the farmers in the project area felt that they needed to acquire animal husbandry related skills to improve profitability of the dairy enterprise as shown in Figure 24 below. The other skills in high demand were breeding, management and record keeping which farmers considered to be limiting their capacity to achieve higher profits from the dairy enterprise.
66
Figure 23: Skills Needed to Increase Profitability of Dairy Enterprise
Further analysis of these skills requirements showed that in all the districts, 76% of the farmers required animal husbandry related skills in DCA 1 as shown in Table 56 below. Table 56: Farmers who need skills to increase profitability of dairy enterprise in DCA 1 Kisii Nandi Trans Uasin District Bomet Central Nyamira North Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Gishu Disease control 4% 6% 3% 0% 11% 22% 11% 5% Record keeping 42% 0% 18% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% Milk handling 0% 6% 8% 0% 2% 22% 5% 13% Husbandry 53% 88% 71% 100% 80% 52% 84% 73% None 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 8% Biogas 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Nakuru Total 10% 8% 0% 8% 3% 6% 87% 76% 0% 2% 0% 0% 100% 100%
In DCA 3, 80% of the farmers required animal husbandry related skills to increase profitability of the dairy enterprise as shown in Table 57 below.
67
Table 57: Farmers who need skills to increase profitability of dairy enterprise in DCA 3 Kisii Nandi Trans Uasin District Bomet Central Nyamira North Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Gishu Nakuru Total Disease control 10% 5% 10% 17% 14% 7% 6% 6% 11% 9% Record keeping 3% 0% 6% 5% 12% 14% 3% 0% 0% 4% Milk handling 3% 0% 6% 5% 0% 10% 7% 4% 2% 4% Husbandry 85% 75% 78% 74% 74% 55% 83% 90% 87% 80% None 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 2% Biogas 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total 100% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
4.32 Types and Organization of Community Groups The study found that community groups in the project area had diverse organizational, managerial and enterprise skills. This suggests that SDCP should develop customized solutions to deal with new dairy producer and trader groups, including co-operative societies to improve their operations within a sound legal and business footing. The reason for existence of these groups is to meet economic and social objectives. The following were the common factors among these groups: a) Crop oriented groups b) Dairy oriented groups c) Trader oriented groups d) Social support groups especially those dealing with HIV/AIDS
The study found that these groups financed their activities through member contributions such as merry-go-rounds and monthly subscriptions. In some cases, a few groups also had dairy cows they used to generate income while some received milk as in-kind contributions. The social organization of the groups was diverse. While members of some groups were exclusively women from one community, others had both men and women members from different communities.
While nearly all the groups in the focus group discussions kept financial records, only some groups kept other records such as minutes. The leadership and management of the groups suggested that social services department had had an input in these groups. This is because in nearly all cases, the groups had elected officials and written constitutions. This gave the members voice on the management of
68
their resources. SDCP should therefore continue working with existing groups but encourage formation of community groups with focused objectives on dairy enterprise. This also suggests the need to continue working closely with the social services department to improve governance of the groups which is critical in ensuring sustainability. However, this is only possible when communities organize themselves into groups for ease of management and follow their terms of registration. This information will be critical in designing market-driven commercialization of milk production, processing, and trading. While SDCP had trained many groups in DCA 1 on group dynamics and farming as a business, they still needed skills to mobilize resources, build networks and improve management and value addition.
69
Table 58: Results of FGD Analysis of Community Groups in Project Area

District 1. Kisii Central Group Keumbu Community Milk Vendors Membership 10 men 13 women Objectives a) Increase milk market b) Improve living standards of members. c) Create employment opportunities. a) Improve the living conditions and incomes of the members b) Collecting and marketing milk for members Management Decision making is through consensus among members Business Development The group has not received any business training Record Keeping Members records and minutes of meetings They always make records for the group activities Finances Monthly member subscriptions Training Areas They identified the need to be trained in milk quality control and using testing kits.
2. Nandi North
Aganwet CBO (Nandi Ethnic Group)
3. Trans Nzoia
Mbiria Self Help Group (Mixed group)
14 men 22 women Turkana, Luyhas, Teso, Luos
Koschin Group
4 men 22 women
Assist members to get dairy animals Some members have cross bred cows, others dont have cows and some dont even have farms. They have applied for funding but still awaiting funds Other NGOs they have been networking some years back is V1. V1 has been supplying them with seed of Caliandria and Sesbania etc. it has also been providing them with training on Agro-forestry. Koschin means to agree or to love one another. To reduce poverty among members. It has one ethnic group Kalenjins. The group is registered in the ministry of social service. They network with social service and SDCP SDCP has facilitated training of group dynamics and farming as a business. Future plans of group is to
The group has 7 committee members of which 5 are male and 2 are female Decision making is by consensus of members in the location- Chemnoet Elections are held once per year. Officials Antony Lussala Chairperson Francis Wafubora ViceChairperson Fred Masika Assistant Secretary Florence Nasimiyu Treasurer. Jerida Wasike Dorcas Nasimiyu Priscilla NafulaAlphonse Wanyama Decisions are made by members Budget is done by executive committee They have group constitution and members know group objectives Meetings are done once per month
The group has not received any training in managing dairy enterprise
They have monthly meetings where they collect member subscriptions Merry Go-Round Shs 50 monthly contribution per member. The registration fee is Kshs 100
Improved management and animal husbandry to increase milk production
The group is not trained in business management
The group keeps the minutes of their meetings as the only consistent records
Most farmers are not willing to pay for training because there are many NGOs giving handouts during trainings e.g SDCP, World Vision, NAYAP
SDCP has facilitated training of group dynamics and farming as a business. Future plans of group is to purchase a plot and expand farming as a business.
They keep records, documents and minutes during meetings.
Merry-go-round and dairy cows
Most farmers expressed interest in being trained on farming as a business.
70
District
Group
Membership
Objectives purchase a plot and expand farming as a business. Improve living standard of members. Improve girl child education. Engaged in business project e.g dairy farming as a business, selling milk etc. To assist orphans especially PLWHA
Management
Business Development
Record Keeping
Finances
Training Areas
Gaa-Seiyot Group
40 women
Kalenjin and Luyha
Election is done after 2 years They meet weekly with executive and the rest of members. They have by-laws and they dont network with any organizations apart from SDCP. Mary Bel Chairlady Rosebela Kole Secretary Ann Melly Vice Secretary Egla Sirowey Treasurer Felustud Boem- Committee Emily Tirop Committee The organization has a written constitution that acts to guide group activities; it shows schedules for activities, explains disciplinary measurers and succession of group membership. It guides in borrowing and contribution, leadership and roles of members
SDCP has facilitated training on dairy management, planting fodder and grass. Given 4 dairy goats
They have minutes on all their activities
Registration fee Kshs 200 Monthly contribution Kshs 100 per member
Managing the dairy farming as a business and how to increase milk production were the skills that most members felt they needed.
4. Bungoma
Board of Evangelist Self Help Group
5 Men 27 Women
Income generation. Promote agricultural production. Improve milk production and marketing Buy dairy cows for members in rotation. Assist orphans, widows and people with HIV/AIDS.
Pasture production, livestock production, Crop production,
5. Lugari
Inyange Women Group
9 Men 15 Women
Mobilize funds to buy cattle for members Assist members to pay school fees, social and moral support
The records kept are attendance records, financial records, production records, minutes of the meeting, sales and purchases records and health records, every decision made is followed up. They keep records of AI services, sales and production records.
The use dairy animals as collaterals to secure loans Merrygo ground and members contribution The group makes milk as in kind contributions
Feed formulation and fodder production Education on milk handling, fund raising, trading in farm produce, micro financing, mobilizing ,training and awareness creation SDCP has offered trainings on biogas production, livestock production, pasture production, resource mobilization and leadership, value addition, disease control and record keeping. Dairy farmers have a big problem in marketing. They claim markets are seasonal, during dry seasons markets are available and prices are high but in wet seasons there are no markets leading to a lot of losses as they dont have coolants for preserving milk instead they dispose at a throw
71
District
Group
Membership
Objectives
Management
Business Development The group did not have any management training, value addition and livestock management
Record Keeping
Finances
Training Areas away prices. Transporter of milk unreliable Lack of stable market (unorganized market) Lack of enough leadership skills and management They need training on value addition and management of livestock
6. Uasin Gishu
Transparent Sirende Self Help Waitaluk
25 members
Dairy farming of cows and sheep Improve living conditions of members Plan to buy a vehicle to transport milk.
Elections are done yearly Members know by laws . Officials John Njenga Chairperson Joseph Macharia Secretary Milcah Aumot Treasurer Mary Wamboi Committee Roselyne Kae Committee Daniel Nganga Committee. Started 25/06/2006 registered at social services ministry. The group has also bank account Officials Elizabeth Makhoka Chairlady Jane Ngara Secretary Ruth Weruga Treasurer Niva Luvai Committee Penina Wafula Committee Groups decisions are made by consensus
Maintain the minutes of their group meetings as a record of the decisions that they make.
They collect a monthly subscription from each member to support group activities.
Fusiee Widows Self Help Group
16 members
Improve living conditions of members
Lack of adequate capital to increase animals and do paddocking
They get 5 litres of milk per day and project to have 10 litres by end of season
Registration fee is 100/= Share fee is 100/= Merry-go-round among members Members also have dairy cows. .
Animal disease control They cack of enough feeds and pastures for animals They need management skills of animals and market information They need training on dairy goats
7. Nakuru
Rongai livestock management
20 members
To improve the economic welfare of their members through dairy farming by mobilizing resources from members
SDCP has facilitated training of group dynamics and farming as a business.
Minutes of group meetings as the only regular records
Lack credit facilities with milk as collateral
Feed conservation Water conservation structures Heat detection
Source: Analysis of Focus Group Discussions, April 2009
72
4.33 Size of the Groups

The group membership range from 16 to 53 farmers per group. This is an indication of the sophistication of the farmers in commercial dairy production. 4.34 Registered Cows The survey showed that only 2.3% of all the farmers in the project area have registered dairy animals. Of the 18 animals registered, only 6 were in DCA 1 while 12 were in DCA 3 as shown in Table 59 below. Table 59: Organizations registering cattle in DCA 1 and DCA 3
If cattle are registered, which organization? DCA 1 Breeders Association Dairy Recording System Kenya Stud Book Total Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009 5 0 1 6 DCAs DCA 3 7 4 1 12 12 4 2 18 Total
Surprisingly, the largest number of dairy animals was registered in Kisii Central and Bungoma District while none was registered in Bomet, Lugari and Uasin Gishu as shown in Table 60 below. Table 60: Farmers with cattle registered with at least one association
District Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total Are your cattle registered with any association? Yes No
Total
0% 12% 3% 1% 2% 6% 0% 0% 1% 2%
100% 88% 97% 99% 98% 94% 100% 100% 99% 98%
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
4.35 Animal Health Management and Delivery
Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and East Coast Fever (ECF) are the most common diseases in the project area according to 82% of the respondents in the study. Table 61 below compares the reported incidences of common livestock diseases by DCA. It shows that 58.2% of the dairy farmers in DCA 1 cited FMD compared to 62% of the respondents in DCA 3. As regards ECF,
73
20.3% of the farmers in DCA 1 reported ECF as the most challenging disease compared to 22% of the farmers in DCA 3.
Table 61: Three common livestock diseases reported in DCA 1 and DCA 3
Common livestock diseases Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) East Coast Fever (ECF) Black Quarter Babesiosis Anaplasmosis Mastitis Worms Ticks None Diarrhoea Pneumonia Total
DCA 1 58% 4% 20% 0% 1% 1% 4% 3% 0% 8% 0% 0% 100%
DCA 3 62% 5% 22% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 100%
Total 60% 5% 21% 1% 0% 2% 2% 1% 0% 7% 0% 0% 100%
Table 62 shows that the most common livestock disease reported by farmers in the project area was
FMD which was cited by 60% all the respondents except in Nyamira district where ECF was more important. While these are unproven farmers opinions, they provide the rumors report usually maintained by veterinary office and that forms the basis for further follow-up. Table 62: Most common Livestock Disease by District
Disease Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) East Coast Fever (ECF) Black Quarter Babesiosis Anaplasmosis Mastitis Worms Ticks None Diarrhoea Pneumonia Total Bomet 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Kisii Central 88% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8% 0% 0% 100% Nyamira 1% 6% 18% 0% 0% 5% 3% 10% 1% 54% 0% 1% 100% Nandi North 84% 0% 15% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Trans Nzoia 45% 9% 34% 2% 1% 4% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Bungoma 64% 5% 27% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Lugari 76% 13% 10% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Uasin Gishu 91% 1% 6% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 100% Nakuru 11% 2% 73% 0% 0% 4% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 100% Total 60% 5% 21% 1% 0% 2% 2% 1% 0% 7% 0% 0% 100%
74
These findings suggest that SDCP should place equal emphasis on encouraging vaccination as well as control of livestock disease pests and vectors. 4.35.1 Livestock types and classes most at risk In the opinion of farmers in the project area, pure breeds in general and Frieshians in particular were the breeds that were at the greatest risk of contacting diseases. The survey found that 30% of the farmers reported that Friesians were most at risk. Other breeds such Jerseys, Guenseys and Holsteins were reported to be at risk by 2-3% of the respondents. 4.35.2 Cost of providing animal health care per herd per month
This survey showed that on average, farmers in DCA 1 incurred Kshs 417 to secure animal health services compared to their counterparts in DCA 3 who incurred Kshs 428 to secure the same services as shown in Table 59 below. Once again, this suggests that there was better access to health services in DCA 1 compared to DCA 3 either because of proximity to roads or due to competition among service providers that led lower cost of services.
Table 63: Cost of securing animal health services between DCA 1 and DCA 3 by District DCA1 DCA3 Repeat Other Repeat Other District Transport Time services costs Transport Time services costs Bomet 174.0 17.3 135.7 0.0 328.3 10.6 2.4 2.5 Kisii Central 27.9 11.8 0.4 576.8 83.1 118.8 47.0 0.5 Nyamira 271.6 168.4 0.3 0.0 43.3 646.0 0.2 0.0 Nandi North 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.6 2.9 -40.1 1.9 Trans Nzoia 180.0 45.7 175.8 0.0 110.0 198.8 1.4 0.0 Bungoma 99.3 39.3 629.3 1.9 134.7 23.7 803.1 0.0 Lugari 102.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 135.8 28.4 20.9 11.9 Uasin Gishu 135.0 269.6 175.2 0.0 195.8 318.5 385.2 80.0 Nakuru 98.7 0.6 0.3 0.0 293.5 4.7 0.6 0.4 Total 129.1 67.3 119.7 61.2 145.8 164.6 121.8 10.9
Further analysis of the cost of providing animal health services showed that farmers in Nandi North incurred the least animal health related expenses which may also be an indication that they may be using alternative medicine to treat their animals when sick. Farmers in Bungoma District incurred the highest cost in securing animal health services.
75
4.36 Employment Creation in Dairy Enterprises

This survey found that the average dairy farmer in DCA 1 in Trans Nzoia district employed 2 permanent workers and 1.2 casual workers as shown in Table 64 below. However, the average farmer in DCA 3 employed 1.1 permanent workers and 1.4 casual workers.
Table 64: Permanent and casual employees in an average dairy farm by District in Project Area
DCA1 Permanent Employees 0 1.0 1.0 1.1 2.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1
Casual Employees 1.0 1.8 1.2 0 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.3
DCA3 Permanent Employees 0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1
Casual Employees 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.4 1.9 0 1.4
The study found that only 26.4% of the dairy farming households in the project area employed permanent employees while 17.9% employed casual workers in their dairy enterprise. This means that at least 73.4% of the dairy producing households depend on family labour to carry out dairy activities. There was however wide diversity between the districts depending on the size of the dairy herd. Table 65 below shows that the average household has 4 dairy animals and employs one casual worker and one permanent employee. Whereas Bomet District has the highest herd size of 5.69 dairy animals, it was Uasin Gishu District where households employed the largest number of casual workers which averaged 1.71.
76
Table 65: Average Dairy Herd and Employees by District Dairy Permanent Casual District Animals Employees Employees Bomet 5.69 1.00 1.00 Kisii Central 4.50 1.12 1.00 Nyamira 2.30 1.00 1.14 Nandi North 4.23 1.05 1.00 Trans Nzoia 3.84 1.39 1.25 Bungoma 4.60 1.41 1.38 Lugari 4.58 1.15 1.33 Uasin Gishu 4.77 1.10 1.71 Nakuru 4.02 1.13 1.00 Mean 4.25 1.18 1.33 Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
4.37 Breed Distribution Table 66 below shows that cross breeds are the most widely distributed dairy animals in DCA 1. Nakuru District had the highest proportion of Friesians in DCA 1 followed by Lugari District and Kisii Central respectively. Guernseys were found in Bungoma and Nyamira District respectively.
Table 66: Distribution of Dairy Breeds by District in DCA 1 District Friesians Jerseys Guernseys Crossbreed Bomet 4% 8% Kisii Central 41% 0% Nyamira 31% 16% Nandi North 0% 0% Trans Nzoia 3% 0% Bungoma 20% 0% Lugari 69% 1% Uasin Gishu 50% 4% Nakuru 96% 0% Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009 1% 1% 3% 0% 0% 12% 1% 0% 2% 56% 37% 31% 100% 93% 19% 26% 35% 2%
Local 31% 13% 13% 0% 0% 10% 4% 3% 0%
Aryshire Total herd 0% 100% 8% 100% 6% 100% 0% 100% 5% 100% 40% 100% 0% 100% 8% 100% 0% 100%
This pattern of breed distribution was also found in DCA 3 as shown in Table 67 below.
77
Table 67: Distribution of Dairy Breeds by District in DCA 3 District Friesians Jerseys Guernseys Crossbreed Local Aryshire Total herd Bomet 35% 0% 2% 54% 0% 8% 100% Kisii Central 45% 9% 8% 12% 26% 0% 100% Nyamira 3% 7% 10% 64% 12% 4% 100% Nandi North 11% 0% 0% 78% 10% 0% 100% Trans Nzoia 33% 5% 2% 47% 4% 8% 100% Bungoma 17% 4% 0% 33% 33% 12% 100% Lugari 27% 2% 6% 45% 20% 0% 100% Uasin Gishu 50% 1% 3% 35% 12% 0% 100% Nakuru 92% 0% 1% 7% 0% 0% 100%
This pattern is consistent in all the dairy breeds. The study found that cross breeds are the most common types of cattle in the project area followed by Friesians while Guernseys were the least common breed as shown in Figure 25 and Figure 26 below. This is because cross breeds are handier than pure breeds and therefore more productive low intensity management system which is characteristic of the project area.
Figure 24: Distribution of Dairy Cattle Breeds in the Project Area
Source: Author, Baseline Survey, April 2009 78
To quantify these maps, Table 69 below shows the number of animals by breed and district in the project area.
Figure 25: Map showing the Breed Distribution in the Project Area
Source: Author, Baseline Survey, April 2009
4.38 Herd Structure To determine the average herd structure, we analyzed the proportion of households with classes of livestock by district and by DCA. Table 68 below shows the proportion of households in DCA 1 with breeds and classes of livestock in all the districts in the program. These findings show that cross breeds and Friesians were the most breeds across all classes of livestock namely heifer calves, mature heifers, bulls, dry cows, lactating cows and dry cows.
The results also show that most households had more than one breed of livestock and class of livestock and therefore would appear to have been counted twice.
79
Table 68: Distribution of dairy structure by breed in DCA 1

District Friesian Heifer calves Friesian Heifers Friesian Bulls Friesian dry milking cows Friesians cows in milk Jersey Heifer calves Jersey Heifers Jersey Bulls Jersey dry milking cows Jersey cows in milk Guernsey Heifer calves Guernsey Heifers Guernsey Bulls Guernsey dry milking cows Guernsey cows in milk Crossbred Heifer calves Crossbreed Heifers Crossbreed Bulls Crossbreed dry milking cows Crossbreed cows in milk Local Heifer calves Local Heifers Local Bulls Local dry milking cows Local cows in milk Aryshire Heifer calves Aryshire Heifers Aryshire Bulls Aryshire dry milking cows Aryshire cows in milk Bomet 6% 4% 0% 0% 10% 0% 4% 4% 4% 31% 6% 0% 2% 0% 0% 88% 63% 51% 43% 71% 33% 22% 47% 39% 37% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Kisii Central 24% 24% 3% 26% 71% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 38% 18% 6% 24% 68% 15% 3% 0% 15% 15% 6% 6% 0% 15% 18% Nyamira 11% 6% 0% 0% 39% 6% 6% 0% 0% 17% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6% 17% 11% 0% 0% 28% 6% 6% 0% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% Trans Nzoia 2% 0% 0% 4% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 46% 32% 80% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 4% 6% Bungoma 46% 16% 11% 8% 43% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 35% 3% 5% 5% 27% 30% 11% 22% 19% 38% 19% 14% 5% 5% 22% 86% 46% 32% 24% 62% Lugari 82% 36% 9% 41% 15% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 50% 27% 27% 23% 41% 0% 5% 0% 5% 14% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Uasin Gishu 38% 13% 4% 13% 30% 2% 2% 0% 9% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 26% 2% 4% 55% 47% 0% 0% 0% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 15% 15% Nakuru 82% 91% 2% 20% 27% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% 5% 0% 5% 0% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Nandi Central 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 66% 37% 80% 54% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Table 69 below shows the results of the same analysis in DCA 3.
80
Table 69: Distribution of dairy structure by breed in DCA 3

District Friesian Heifer calves Friesian Heifers Friesian Bulls Friesian dry cows Friesians in milk Jersey Heifer calves Jersey Heifers Jersey Bulls Jersey dry cows Jersey in milk Guernsey Heifer calves Guernsey Heifers Guernsey Bulls Guernsey dry cows Guernsey in milk Crossbred Heifer calves Crossbreed Heifers Crossbreed Bulls Crossbreed dry cows Crossbreed in milk Local Heifer calves Local Heifers Local Bulls Local dry cows Local cows in milk Aryshire Heifer calves Aryshire Heifers Aryshire Bulls Aryshire dry cows Aryshire in milk Bomet 28% 54% 7% 17% 59% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 2% 4% 74% 78% 57% 35% 74% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 13% 9% 2% 20% Kisii Central 97% 10% 40% 12% 65% 17% 3% 10% 0% 10% 17% 3% 7% 0% 8% 17% 5% 7% 10% 22% 48% 12% 35% 2% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Nyamira 0% 1% 0% 0% 6% 1% 5% 0% 1% 10% 8% 1% 2% 1% 12% 29% 22% 6% 4% 80% 14% 6% 0% 0% 11% 0% 1% 0% 2% 6% Trans Nzoia 18% 6% 6% 3% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 65% 29% 32% 56% 80% 12% 0% 12% 0% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Bungoma 9% 22% 2% 13% 9% 9% 0% 0% 0% 11% 2% 0% 0% 0% 4% 35% 15% 9% 43% 67% 0% 4% 2% 2% 4% 4% 11% 0% 2% 13% Lugari 17% 5% 2% 7% 20% 2% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 29% 2% 7% 15% 44% 39% 0% 10% 5% 44% 15% 5% 0% 2% 15% Uasin Gishu 25% 13% 4% 6% 23% 1% 4% 0% 0% 1% 9% 4% 0% 3% 10% 39% 42% 12% 28% 62% 19% 17% 17% 16% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Nakuru 48% 40% 8% 24% 64% 2% 0% 0% 0% 2% 4% 6% 0% 0% 2% 58% 40% 24% 20% 58% 22% 14% 10% 2% 16% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Nandi Central 56% 38% 14% 20% 98% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 6% 6% 4% 4% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
81
Table 70: Mean Number of Animals by Breed in DCA 3

District Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total Friesians 1.65 2.03 0.07 0.41 0.54 0.51 0.65 1.82 2.18 1.06 Holsteins 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.46 0.92 1.18 0.39 Jerseys 0.00 0.40 0.17 0.00 0.20 0.12 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.12 Guernseys 0.11 0.35 0.25 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.26 0.16 0.02 0.16 Crossbreed 3.20 0.55 1.63 2.85 1.70 0.98 1.83 1.92 0.26 1.60 Local 0.00 1.20 0.31 0.38 0.13 0.98 0.80 0.64 0.00 0.51 Aryshire 0.48 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.30 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 Total 5.9 4.5 2.5 3.6 3.6 3.0 4.1 5.5 3.6 4.0
4.39 Cost of Buying Dairy Animals The cost of dairy cow is the greatest constraint for farmers intending to invest in the enterprise. Table 71 below shows that the average farmer in DCA 1 was paying Kshs 26,532 to acquire a dairy cow while farmers in DCA 3 were paying an average of Kshs 26,643. There is however a wide variation in the cost of buying a dairy cow between the districts in the project area. As shown in Table 72 below Bomet District registered the lowest price of dairy cows at about Kshs 14,290 in DCA 1 while Nakuru District has the highest mean price of Kshs 40,385.
However, in DCA 3, farmers in Kisii Central on average paid an average of Kshs 20,870 per cow which was the least in the programme area while farmers in Nakuru District paid highest prices for dairy animals with an average price of Kshs 38,222 means that dairy enterprise excludes low income households.
82
Table 71: Average Cost of buying a dairy cow at source in Kshs Average cost of dairy cow at source District DCA1 DCA 3 Bomet 14,289 23,138 Kisii Central 27,941 20,870 Nyamira 21,434 22,532 Nandi North 23,475 28,833 Trans Nzoia 29,489 26,558 Bungoma 23,278 20,919 Lugari 31,632 25,209 Uasin Gishu 32,692 27,620 Nakuru 40,385 38,222 Total 26,951 25,983
4.40 Production System One of the key interventions in SDCP is to increase the adoption of intensive dairy production system. To determine the adoption rate of intensive production systems enumerators observed the types of structures and feeding systems. In general, three production systems were observed namely: zero grazing, semi zero grazing and extensive grazing system. The semi-zero grazing system was one in which farmers enclose their animals at night and part of the day and graze for them for remaining part of the day. Table 73 below shows the proportion of dairy farmers with dairy production system in DCA 1. These results show that the highest proportion of dairy farmers without farm structures were in Nandi North (75%), Uasin Gishu(65%) and Trans Nzoia (70%) Districts. The results also show that districts in DCA 1 with the highest adoption rates of the zero grazing technologies were Kisii Central (44%), Lugari(37%) and Bungoma (26%).
83
Table 72: Dairy Production System in DCA 1

District Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total No Structures 9% 18% 21% 75% 70% 52% 32% 65% 8% 39% Semi Zero Grazing 91% 38% 61% 22% 30% 26% 37% 35% 90% 50% Zero Grazing 0% 44% 18% 3% 0% 22% 32% 0% 3% 11% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table 73 below shows the proportion of dairy farmers with dairy production system in DCA 3. The results show that the highest proportion of dairy farmers without farm structures were in Nandi North (79%), Uasin Gishu(70%) and Bungoma (58%) Districts. The districts in DCA 3 with the highest adoption rates of zero grazing technology were Kisii Central(29%), Bungoma (26%) and Lugari (15%).
Table 73: Dairy Production System in DCA 3
District Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total No Structures 13% 10% 41% 79% 40% 58% 21% 70% 4% 35% Semi Zero Grazing 85% 61% 49% 21% 49% 16% 64% 26% 94% 53% Zero Grazing 3% 29% 10% 0% 12% 26% 15% 4% 2% 11% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
84
4.41 Cost of Zero Grazing
The study found that 36% of the households in the project area had some structures that could be described as zero grazing units. Whereas the average cost of constructing a zero grazing unit in DCA 1 was Kshs 21,075 while that of DCA 3 was Kshs 16,000, the standard deviation of the costs in the two areas was not significantly different from zero as shown in Table 67 below. This wide spread is explained by the fact that 64% respondents in both DCA 1 and DCA did not have a zero grazing unit and therefore had spent nothing.
The survey found that the average cost of putting up a zero grazing unit in DCA 1 was Kshs 23,273 compared to Kshs 15,369 in DCA 3. However, this varied from Kshs 9,310 in Nyamira to Kshs 48,750 in Lugari as shown in Table 74 below. On the other hand, Table 74: Cost of zero grazing units in Kshs Cost of Zero Grazing Structures DCA1 District Mean Std. Deviation Bomet 15,000 . Kisii Central 36,333 45,473.4 Nyamira 9,172 9,319.0 Nandi North 20,750 27,223.6 Trans Nzoia 20,400 27,718.6 Bungoma 11,375 16,611.7 Lugari 48,750 39,888.2 Uasin Gishu 44,185 28,050.0 Nakuru 20,543 16,161.6 Total 23,273 28,400.8
DCA3 Mean 12,500 5,984 5,600 8,250 23,143 12,332 12,413 23,500 27,667 15,369
Std. Deviation 3,535.5 6,357.0 3,498.5 9,545.9 25,863.1 17,333.3 11,034.3 13,448.3 26,341.3 19,632.8
4.42 Farm Infrastructure
Other than the zero grazing units, the study also found that some of the farmers had also invested in animal feed store at an average cost of Kshs 12,109. The average cost of constructing the feed store was Kshs 13,226 in DCA 1 and Kshs 11,407 in DCA 3 as shown in Table 68 below. However, the large standard deviation in the cost of these stores reflects the fact that 74% of the respondents in the survey did not have feed stores and therefore had not incurred any cost in setting it up.
85
The cost of constructing feed stores was least in Bomet in DCA 1 and highest in Nakuru District with an average cost of Kshs 22,200. The cost was dependant on the size, materials used and cost of labour in the area and the costs varied shown in Table 75 below. Table 75: Cost of other farm infrastructure in Kshs across the districts
DCA Area DCA1 District Cost of feed store Bomet 742 Kisii Central 4,784 Nyamira 7,125 Nandi North 5,000 Trans Nzoia 9,000 Bungoma 5,167 Lugari 16,750 Uasin Gishu 16,635 Nakuru 22,200 Total 11,849 Bomet 3,621 Kisii Central 1,594 Nyamira 3,833 Nandi North 5,640 Trans Nzoia 15,955 Bungoma 3,250 Lugari 10,013 Uasin Gishu 7,458 Nakuru 23,188 Total 10,298 Cost of milking shed 485 8,667 2,200 1,875 6,000 4,182 15,439 1,629 4,406 2,488 2,002 1,748 1,686 4,500 2,627 3,350 7,500 2,207 2,499 Cost of crush 975 6,792 Total 2,202 20,242 9,325 6,875 16,392 11,186 16,750 36,702 24,996 18,984 6,788 4,928 7,081 7,326 22,170 7,877 14,513 17,898 27,394 14,229
1,392 1,838 4,628 1,167 2,728 679 1,331 1,500 1,716 2,000 1,150 2,940 2,000 1,431
DCA3
4.43 Cost of Labour The cost of labour is an important consideration in commercial dairy enterprises. Table 76 below shows that farmers in DCA 1 incurred a monthly wage bill of Kshs 2,625 for permanent employees compared to Kshs 2,058 in DCA 3. Table 76: Monthly wage bill for permanent employees between DCA 1 and DCA 3
DCAs DCA 1 DCA 3 Total Minimum 600.00 700.00 Maximum 12,000.00 7,000.00 Mean 2,625.37 2,058.39 2,239.28 Std. Deviation 1,656.06 1,016.78 1,280.09
600.00 12,000.00 Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
86
Due to seasonal and daily variations in labour requirements in the dairy enterprise, most farmers preferred to hire casual labour. Table 77 below shows that the average monthly wage bill on casual labour incurred by farmers in DCA 1 was Kshs 2,257 compared to Kshs 2,006 incurred by farmers in DCA 3.
Table 77: Monthly wage bill for casual employees between DCA 1 and DCA 3
DCAs DCA 1 DCA 3 Minimum 100 70 Maximum 6,300 15,000 Mean 2,256.86 2,005.71 2,095.92 Std. Deviation 1,682.410 1,902.920 1,824.743
Total 70 15,000 Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
Further analysis of the cost of labour indicated that it varied widely across the project area with Kisii Central having the least monthly wage costs of Kshs 2,453 whereas Nakuru District had the highest monthly wage bill of Kshs 5,525 as shown in Table 78 below. This variation is partly due to prevailing employment opportunities and the prevailing wage rates.
Table 78: Average Monthly Wages in Kshs
Monthly wage bill for permanent employees 600 1,853 1,691 1,645 2,187 2,667 2,414 2,625 2,625 2,239 Monthly wage bill for casual employees 2,012 600 1,800 600 1,494 2,394 2,212 2,594 3,000 2,096 Total Monthly Wage Bill 2,612 2,453 3,491 2,245 3,681 5,061 4,626 5,219 5,625 4,335
Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009 4.44 Condition of Milking shed
The condition of the milking shed is one of the critical infrastructure in ensuring clean milk production. Table 79 shows that it was only 25% of the farmers in DCA 1 who had a zero grazing unit in good condition compared to 30% in DCA 3. However, the zero grazing units in fair condition were 62% in DCA 1 compared to only 49% in DCA 3. Again this demonstrates the progress made by farmers in DCA 1 as a result of the investment in training that they had received in the last two years.
87
Table 79: Condition of zero grazing unit between DCA 1 and DCA 3
Condition of zero grazing unit Average 31 77 25% 62% DCA 3 56 81 33% 49% Total 87 158 30% 55% Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009 DCAs DCA 1 Good Poor 15 13% 29 18% 44 15% 123 166 289 Total
This study showed that 30% of the dairy farmers in the project area had a milking shed of one form or another. Of these milking sheds, 30% were in good condition, 55% were in average condition and the remaining 15% were in poor condition as shown in Table 80 below.
Table 80: Condition of milking shed by District
District Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total Condition of milking shed Good 3 25 0 11 7 11 4 11 5 Average 24 14 45 1 8 14 4 6 27 Poor 1 5 1 0 4 0 1 1 28 41 28 44 46 12 19 25 9 18 60 261 Total
77 143 Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
4.45 Gender in Dairy
The survey found that 30% of the households were female headed as shown in Figure 27 below.
88
Figure 26: Gender of the household head
Table 81 below shows that there 32% of the households in DCA 1 were female headed compared t0 28% of the households in DCA 3.
Table 81: Gender of household head in DCA 1 and DCA 3 Gender of household head Male Female 236 112 67.8% 32.2% DCA 3 321 126 71.8% 28.2% Total 557 238 70% 30% Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009 DCAs DCA 1 Total 348 447 795
However, there was wide diversity with Bungoma having the highest proportion of female headed households than male headed households while Bomet District had the least as shown below. This was unexpected and may suggest that female headed as shown in Figure 28 below.
89
Figure 27: Gender of the Household Heads by District
4.46 Gender Division of Labour The study team identified a typical man and a typical woman from among the focus group discussion participants. These individuals were selected based on their willingness to share information without being egocentric and average status in the community. In identifying a potential respondent, the moderator would ask members of the focus group to suggest individuals that fitted these criteria. However, to reduce potential sources of bias, this information was also triangulated with feedback from other interviews. It is these two that filled the daily activity schedule which outlined the tasks they perform on a typical day from the time they wake up to the time they sleep at night. The daily activity schedule also sought to obtain information on the location of the tasks and whether or not the men and women were paid for the tasks.
Analysis of the daily activity schedules for men and women in the study areas revealed that women and men perform reproductive roles, i.e. roles pertaining to the care and maintenance of the household and its members e.g. sweeping, construction of houses, mending fences, cleaning pens, food preparation, fetching water and firewood, washing dishes, caring for children and the sick and elderly etc. The other role that men and women are involved in is productive activities undertaken to get an income in cash or kind. They also undertake community roles which involves the collective organization of social events and services. They include ceremonies and celebrations, community improvement activities, participation in local groups and organizations, harambee projects, collective agricultural activities, political parties, church groups etc.
90
The data collected showed that a womans day begun at 5.00 a.m. and ended between 10.30 and 11.00 p.m. The men on average woke up at 5.30 and retired at 10.00 p.m. Table 82 below outlines the tasks performed by men and women in the study areas.
Table 82: Comparison between men and women roles in dairy producing households
Tasks performed by Women 1. Preparing the milking equipment 2. Milking 3. Preparing breakfast 4. Preparing children for school 5. Washing utensils 6. Cleaning the house 7. Collecting fodder 8. Feeding the cows 9. Cleaning the cow shed 10. Taking milk to the collection centre 11. Preparing lunch 12. Weeding napier grass 13. Work in the shamba 14. Fetching firewood 15. Fetching water 16. Washing clothes 17. Preparing supper 18. Assisting children with their homework 19. Preparing children to go to sleep Source: Analysis from FGDs, April 2009
Tasks performed by Men Taking milk to the collection centre Cutting grass or fodder Feeding dairy cows Weeding napier grass Watering the dairy animals Taking a nap or siesta Taking a walk Tethering the animals Watching the news Plucking tea leaves Cleaning the cow sheds Checking on the animals Taking tea leaves to the buying centre Going to the shopping centre to have a chat 15. Visiting neighbours to socialize 16. Removing stumps 17. Looking for wage employment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
From the Table 35, it is evident that women are overburdened by reproductive roles and this may have a negative impact on their health status and on their effective participation in dairy production. The analysis also revealed that whereas men had free time for a nap or siesta, to take a walk and visit neighbo rs to socialize, womens typical day was fully occupied with no time to rest or for leisure activities. It is no wonder that women find it difficult to effectively participate in community roles such as farmers cooperatives or to take up leadership roles in such associations. Analysis of the location (from the house) of the tasks performed by men and women revealed that most of the tasks and responsibilities borne by women are performed within the homestead. The exception was fetching firewood, fetching water, taking milk to the collection centre. These tasks took place between 2-3 kms away from the homestead. On the other hand, the tasks performed by men were mostly located away from the homestead and the distances ranged from 200 meters to 3 kilometers.
91
Apart from the daily activity schedule, a more detailed analytical tool was developed to capture the tasks performed by men and women in dairy milk production. The tool also sought to find out how rigid the gender division of labour was in relation to specific tasks. Table 83 below shows the findings.
Table 83: Gender division of labour in dairy producing households Dairy task Performed by Task performed mainly by gender 1) Napier grass management Both men & women Men 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Crop residue harvesting Fodder conservation Spraying and disease control Artificial Insemination Feeding dairy cows Both men & women Both men & women Men Men Both men & women Both men & women Men Men Men Men Both men & women Both men & women Men Men Women Men Women Men Men How rigid is the division of labour Flexible Flexible Flexible Rigid Rigid Flexible Flexible Rigid Rigid Rigid Flexible Flexible Flexible Flexible
7) Watering the animals
8) Grazing animals Men 9) Treatment of sick animals Men 10) Milking Women 11) Milk Marketing Both men & women 12) Cleaning sheds Both men & women 13) Milk processing Both men & women 14) Management of hired labour Both men & women Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
The tasks that are predominantly done by men are: spraying animals and disease control, organizing or facilitating artificial insemination and treatment of sick animals. These tasks are technical and require input from extension service providers. This is not surprising as the women interviewed noted that one of the resources they do not have access to and control over is extension services. Womens participation dominated in milking and cleaning of the cow sheds in all communities except among the Kipsigis community. Other tasks were performed by both men and women as the division of labor was flexible. Milk marketing was categorized into two i.e. local sales and sale to cooperative society but the daily activity schedule revealed that it is the men who took the milk to the collection centers.
Another tool used to capture the gender dynamics in the study area was the access and control profile. This tool aimed at analyzing the resources men and women had access to and control
92
over. Access was defined as the opportunity to make use of something while control was defined as the ability to define its use. The resources included land, dairy cows, education, extension services, credit facilities, labour, equipment, income, assets, health services, child care, trees, cattle, household goods, labour and time, The study revealed that although women had access to most of the resources mentioned, they often had limited or no control over the same resources. The results show whereas men had full access to all the resources listed, women had full access to all the resources apart from credit, income, milk, and extension services which they only had partial access to. Farm machinery was also cited as a resource that women have no access to and the reason given was that the machinery belong to men and that women were not trained to operate them.
An examination of the control profile revealed that although women may have full or limited access to a number of resources they rarely have control over the same resources. The study showed that women have partial control over all resources listed except extension services, income, land, dairy cows and farm machinery.
Land is one key resources that is controlled by men. This is not surprising since Kenyan societies are patriarchal and gender relations are such that it is the woman who joins her husband in marriage. This means that it is men (sometimes with no consultation) who make decisions on land use e.g. how much land will be put to agricultural production. Womens lack of control over land has serious implications also on their access to credit facilities since financial institutions require some form of collateral before approving any loan application.
Other resources that are controlled by men included income, decision making power and dairy cows. Some women controlled the income from the milk sold locally (mainly to neighbours) while the men controlled the income from sale of milk to the cooperative society and other institutions. This has serious implications on the dairy production and womens participation in the sector. With limited incomes womens access to farm inputs and hired labour is also decreased. Another challenge is that when the man is the decision maker and he is away most of the time e.g. due to rural urban migration, decisions are delayed and production is affected.
93
Extension services are very important in improving milk production. Despite the fact that there is a correlation between extension services and overall performance of the dairy farms, the study revealed that this is one resource that women have limited or no control over. While women do most of the activities involved in dairy production extension and training services target men. The following section briefly outlines the challenges of integrating gender issues in each of the main communities. 4.47 Savings and Credit Income is the most important factor in determining savings behavior among poor households. The factors that motivate households to save are common among both the affluent and poor households. Indeed, the precarious socio-economic conditions under which they operate dictate that they should have a higher inclination (propensity) to save. This survey showed that on average 34% of the households have at least one person who saving.
Table 84 below shows the proportion of households making regular savings from the dairy enterprise in DCA 1. It shows that Bomet (11%), Uasin Gishu (15%) and Trans Nzoia (17%) Districts had the lowest proportion of smallholder dairy households that saved regularly. On the other hand, Bungoma(67%), Nakuru(46%) and Kisii Central(38%) had the highest proportion of dairy households that were saving regularly.
Table 84: Households making regular savings from the dairy enterprise in DCA 1 Kisii Nandi Trans District Bomet Central Nyamira North Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Yes 11% 38% 34% 34% 17% 67% 37% No 89% 62% 66% 66% 83% 33% 63% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Uasin Gishu
15% 85% 100%
Nakuru
46% 54% 100%
Total
31% 69% 100%
Table 83 below shows the proportion of smallholder dairy households making regular savings from the dairy enterprise in DCA 3. Trans Nzoia (19%), Bungoma(24%), Nyamira(28%) and Lugari Districts(28%) had the least proportion of households making regular savings from the dairy enterprise. Lugari, Kisii Central and Nandi North on the other hand had the highest proportion of dairy households that were saving regularly.
94
Table 85: Households making regular savings from the dairy enterprise in DCA 3 Kisii Nandi Trans District Bomet Central Nyamira North Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Yes 40% 47% 24% 43% 19% 28% 28% No 60% 53% 76% 57% 81% 72% 72% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Uasin Gishu
56% 44% 100%
Nakuru Total
31% 69% 100% 35% 65% 100%
Figure 28: Distribution of the Households making Savings
Source: Analysis of the Survey, April 2009
95
Figure 29: Preferred Mode of Saving
Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009 Figure 30: Preferred Methods of Savings
96
Table 86 below shows where household members make their savings in DCA 1 and DCA 3.
Table 86: Comparison between DCA 1 and DCA 3 in terms of where HH member make their savings
Where is the HH member making their savings? Local trader Group Cooperative Savings account Home savings Total DCAs Total
DCA 1 6 23 6 78 1
DCA 3 15 39 20 82 3
21 62 26 160 4 273
Poor households save for a different reasons, among them the following: a) Emergencies and investment opportunities that may arise any time The poor, with no access to insurance services and cheap and readily accessible sources of shortterm finance, have a high need for savings to take care of any emergencies or investment opportunities that may arise any time. b) Saving for Consumption Households with uneven income streams e.g. dairy farming with its seasonal variations save for consumption during the periods in which income is low. Indeed, there is abounding empirical evidence to show that many poor people who frequently require food, medical or other life-saving relief services normally find themselves under such conditions because they lack savings opportunities which would have enabled them to put aside part of their past income flows to help them when rains fail or disaster strikes. c) Saving for investment Households have investment needs which, given the scarcity(and, sometimes, even undesirability) of credit facilities, must be financed through their own savings. For instance, households may save for their children's education (investment in human capital), house construction, electrification, purchase of plots, among many other possible investment needs. In enterprise development, studies have indicated that individual savings are the principal source of start-up capital and enterprise expansion.
97
d) Saving for social and religious purposes People of various cultural, social and religious backgrounds may save for certain occasions that require large amounts of expenditure e.g. religious festivals, weddings, funerals, the purchase of consumer durables e.g. car, TV etc. e) Saving for retirement, ill health or disability Some people save for anticipated or unforeseen, but likely events, when their income streams will be low or non-existent. Appropriately designed savings products could substantially generate savings to take care of the health, education and other basic needs of their children in the future once their health deteriorates or after they die. f) Use of savings to leverage other financial services (e.g. credit) There are many households/individuals who save for the purpose of building up a collateral base to enable them to obtain credit. This is particularly important in savings and credit associations (formal & informal) which are quite popular among the poor. Such savings enable the poor to obtain loans to start their own small businesses, finance the education of their children, pay medical bills or meet other financial needs of the household. g) Savings as a way of minimizing irresponsible spending Many people save money for the sake of converting it into a form that is not easily accessible for irresponsible spending e.g. drinking, shopping sprees, assisting undeserving relatives/friends etc. Extent of savings and credit use by individuals and groups, loan amounts, interest charged, application of funds borrowed and repayment period 4.48 Loan Applications Out of the 795 dairy farmers interviewed, it was only 147 who had applied for a loan in the previous year or 18.5% of the population. Figure 33 below shows that most of the applications were made in the month of January, March and August. These periods are one month before the opening of schools when most parents seek credit to pay school fees. January is particularly critical because most schools require new uniforms and books as students move to new classes thus occasioning high cash education related requirement.
98
Figure 31: Loan Application by Month
Table 87 below shows that 3.8% of the applicants in DCA 1 were able to access credit compared to 5.2% of the applicants in DCA 3. The difference is statistically insignificant and therefore no difference between access to credit in the two areas.
Table 87: Access to credit in DCA 1 and DCA 3 Was the application successful? District DCA1 DCA3 Yes Bomet 2% 30% Kisii Central 18% 10% Nyamira 39% 0% Nandi North 3% 11% Trans Nzoia 17% 14% Bungoma 44% 16% Lugari 47% 31% Uasin Gishu 0% 58% Nakuru 10% 7% 17% 19% No Bungoma 7% 0% Lugari 0% 16% Uasin Gishu 0% 3% Nakuru 0% 3%
99
Purpose of Borrowing Figure 33 below shows that financing education was the most common reason why smallholder dairy farmers borrowed accounting for for 28% of all the purposes. Borrowing to finance dairy farming activites such as buying feeds, constructing zero grazing units, fencing etc and house repairs were the least common reasons for borrowing and accounted for less than 1% of the reasons given for applying for loans. On the other hand, 22% of all borrowers used the funds to procure dairy cattle. This is consistent with the finding that cost of dairy cows was high.
Non-business uses accounted for the 26% of the purpose for which farmers borrowed money. The main uses for which households aquired credit were to buy food, pay school fees and to pay for health care.
Figure 32: Reasons why farmers borrowed the previous season
Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009 4.49 Type of Lender Figure 34 below shows the type of lenders from whom farmers applied for loans in the program area. The analysis showed that micro-finance institutions are the most important sources of credit in the program area accounting for 34% of all the loan applications followed by cooperatives and commercial banks which accounted for 24% and 15% of the applications respectively. The least important sources of credit are relatives and the settlement fund each of which accounts for less than one per cent each.
100
Figure 33: Type of Lender
4.50 Loan Products To determine the loan products available in the program, the key features of the loans disbursed were analyzed separately namely: a) Loan size, b) Grace period c) Loan repayment period and d) Loan repayment intervals and e) Interest charges.
4.50.1 Loan Size
Analysis of the loan size in the program area showed that 50% of all the loan applications were less than Kshs 30,000 and 75% were less than Kshs 70,000. This loan size suggests that majority of small holder dairy farmers seek credit to meet short term cash requirements rather than for investment because the average repayment period was 13.4 months.
Analysis of the loanees showed that only 50 loans that were disbursed in DCA 1 compared to 90 loans in DCA 3. The average loan size in DCA 1 was Kshs 61,834 while in DCA it was Kshs 58,272 as shown in Table 88 below.
101
Table 88: Loan Size in Kshs
DCA Area District DCA1 Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Nakuru Total Bomet Kisii Central Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total
Amount received in Kshs Minimum Maximum 15,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 20,000 15,000 3,000 20,000 3,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 20,000 5,000 10,000 50,000 5,000 15,000 150,000 40,000 15,000 160,000 300,000 500,000 150,000 500,000 110,000 150,000 40,000 250,000 140,000 350,000 150,000 161,000 350,000
Mean
DCA3
Std. Deviation 15,000 0.0 67,833 55,661 22,667 7,761 15,000 0.0 75,125 49,412 74,142 83,920 90,111 156,506 105,000 61,373 62,477 81,309 37,792 34,993 42,000 54,845 23,000 13,509 89,500 83,484 50,000 40,723 88,714 99,280 43,552 33,463 102,750 61,076 58,272 64,175
4.50.2 Success Rate
To determine the adequacy of the credit in the SDCP program area, we analyzed the success rate of loan applicants and found that 50 out of loan 52 applicants in DCA 1 successfully for a loan compared to 90 out of 95 applicants in DCA 3 as shown in Table 89 below. This suggests that credit supply is not a serious constraint for majority of smallholder dairy farmers in the SDCP program.
102
Table 89: Success rate in DCA 1 and DCA 3 DCA Area District Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No DCA1 DCA3 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 86% 100% 90% 14% 0% 10% 100% 88% 91% 0% 13% 9% 97% 3% 80% 20% 97% 3% 89% 11%
100% 0%
In general, this study showed that 95% of all the applications were successful as shown in Figure 35 below.
Figure 34: Loan Success Rate
Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009 4.50.3 Reasons for Unsuccessful Loan Applications
To understand the reasons why 5% of all the applicants failed to get loans, we analysed the reasons for the failed applications. The analysis showed that all the unsuccessful applicants in DCA 1 had been late to apply for the loans as shown in Table 90 below.
103
Table 90: Reasons for unsuccessful loan applications in DCA 1 and DCA 3 Why was the application District not successful? DCA1 DCA3 Bungoma Late loan application 100% 0% Did not meet requirements 0% 33% Lugari Could not get guarantors 0% 33% Late loan application 0% 33% Uasin Gishu Late loan application 0% 100% Nakuru Complicated procedures 0% 100%
The most common reason for unsuccessful application was late loan application which accounted for 57% of all unsuccessful applications as shown in Figure 36 below. In addition, 14% could not get guarantors while 15% did not meet requirements. These are some of the conditions that cooperative impose to safeguard the members interest and it confirms that most of unsuccessful applicants were farmers seeking credit from cooperatives.
Figure 35: Reasons for unsuccessful loan applications
Source: Analysis of the Baseline Data, April 2009 4.50.4 Type of Payment
This study showed that 94% of all theloans were paid in cash and that only 5% were paid in kind especially those secured against future milk deliveries as shown in Figure 36 below. This suggests that there is wide scope to avail credit to farmers against milk deliveries in the SDCP project area because this avenue for credit delivery has not been exploited.
104
Figure 36: Type of Payment
Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009 4.50.5 Loan Repayment Period
This survey found that farmers in DCA 1 had a mean repayment period of 12.24 months compared to 14.09 months in DCA 3 as shown in Table 91 below which confirms that short term borrowing is the predominant type of credit sought and disbursed in the project area. It is only 8% of the successful applicants who received loans that were repayable in periods of 2 or more years.
Table 91: Repayment period (months) in DCA 1 and DCA 3
DCA Area DCA1 DCA3 Total N 50 90 Minimum 2 2 Maximum 36 48 48 Mean 12.24 14.09 13.43 Std. Deviation 6.096 7.971 7.388
4.50.6 Interest Rate
There was a wide spread of the interest rates that were charged on loans in the project area depending on the lender, the amount and the time charged for the loan. In general, the average annual interest rate on loans in DCA 1 was 28.5% compared to 18.6% in DCA 3 as shown in Table 92 below.
Table 92: Interest rate (p.a) in DCA 1 and DCA 3
DCA DCA1 DCA3 Total N 50 90 Minimum 3.00 1.50 Maximum 300.00 120.00 300.00 Mean 28.5200 18.6089 22.1486 Std. Deviation 45.04974 15.75193 29.95018
140 1.50 Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
105
Analysis of the interest rate charged against loans showed that farmers who took smaller loans of between Kshs 3,000 Kshs 20,000 paid the highest interest rate of 87% while the ones who took large loans from Kshs 150,000 to 350,000 paid the interest rate of only 16% as shown in Figure 38 below. This suggests that the high interest rates are partly to cover the high transaction and operating costs of small loans. Even at the bottom of the income pyramid, very poor borrowers active in petty trade or selling goods repay rapidly thanks to the very high margins and turnover of their income-generating activity. In short, the borrowers targeted by microfinance activities should not be responsive to price changes below very high levels of interest rates. There is however very little data on the returns on investment of the poor, and the importance of interest rate payments for them.
Figure 37: Mean Loan Size and Interest Rates
This survey showed that that 75% of all the loans were disbursed at an interest rate of 23% or less. Contrary to experiences in other studies this survey showed that money lenders in the project area charged relatively modest interest rates of 17% compared to AFC which charged 27.4% and Chamas which charged 27. 3% higher interest rates as in Table 93 below.
106
Table 93: Interest rates (%) charged by type of lender

Type of lender Relative Money lender Cooperative AFC Settlement fund Chamas (ROSCAS) Others lenders Commercial bank MFI Minimum 12.00 8.00 3.00 6.00 5.00 10.00 4.00 1.50 4.00 Maximum 12.00 29.00 300.00 75.00 5.00 143.00 20.00 120.00 90.00 300.00 Mean 12.0000 17.2727 25.3333 27.4000 5.0000 27.3333 10.0000 21.1571 20.7979 22.1486 Std. Deviation . 6.60441 48.62568 24.52754 . 43.63198 7.11805 23.58471 12.62617 29.95018
Total 1.50 Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
Table 94: Size and terms of loans in DCA 1 and DCA 3

DCA1 Purpose of borrowing Education Total Payment Interest period rate (months) (p.a) 12.0 4.0% 12.0 4.0% Purpose of borrowing Education Non business Buy land Maize planting Total 6.7% Education 1.5% Non business 32% Buy cattle 9.2% Total Non business Buy land Buy cattle Total 27.3% 40.5% 37.9% 24% Education 8% Buy cattle 45.5% Farm inputs 16% Total 107 DCA3 Payment Interest period rate (months) (p.a) 12 24.1% 12 27% 24 10% 12 10% 13 22.5% 12 8% 11.25 12 11.5 2 6 12 8.8 13.25% 10% 11.8% 120% 27% 14.3% 38%
District Bomet
Kisii Central
Education Non business Buy cattle Total
14 12 12 13
Nandi North Nyamira Non business Buy cattle Total Education Non business Maize planting Dairy 10 11.5 11.2 11 12 12 12
22 12 12 18.67
11% 20% 17% 13.5%
Trans Nzoia
DCA1 Purpose of borrowing farming Farm inputs Total Education Buy cattle Maize planting House repairs Farm inputs Total Non business Buy cattle Total Payment Interest period rate (months) (p.a) 12 11.63 8.67 14.25 16.67 8 9 12.5 14 12 13.33 20% 25.9% 17.3% Education 16% Non business 28% Funeral 22% Maize planting 20% Total 20.1% 38.3% Education 23.7% Non business 33.4% Buy land Buy cattle Ceremony Funeral Others specify Total Education Non business Buy land Buy cattle Maize planting Farm inputs Total 30% Education 16% Non business 22% Total 21% Purpose of borrowing
District
DCA3 Payment Interest period rate (months) (p.a)
Bungoma
23 11 12 12 14.71
6% 15.2% 10.8% 25% 13.3%
Lugari
Uasin Gishu
Nakuru
Education Non business Buy cattle Total
15 18 6 14.25
18.8 12 36 22 21 12 11.3 18.6 11.7 12.3 12 10 11.5 12 11.69 10 15 13.8
13.8% 20% 4% 8.7% 8% 10% 13.3% 12.1% 30% 19.2% 20% 22.7% 18. % 20% 22.1% 24% 17.3% 19%

4.50.7 Type of Collateral Used
Collateral is the security used against loans which must be within the ability of the target clientele. Yet it must be sufficient to deter default or in the event of default, to ensure that the institution recovers the advanced loan. The use of savings and group-guarantee are some of the
108
types of security which have proved successful. Table 95 below shows that guarantors were the predominant collateral in both DCA 1 and DCA 3 followed by household goods.
Table 95: Type of collateral used in DCA 1 and DCA 3
Type of collateral used None Milk deliveries Title deed Guarantor(s) Household goods Savings/Shares Others (specify) Log book Cattle Total DCA Area DCA1 7 4 6 15 9 2 1 0 6 DCA3 2 3 4 26 15 24 0 2 14 Total 9 7 10 41 24 26 1 2 20 140
This baseline survey found that 29% of the loans were secured with guarantors from a solidarity group as the collateral and that only 5% were secured with milk deliveries as the collateral as shown in Figure 39 below. This reflects the predominance of MFIs, cooperatives and ROSCAS as the main sources of credit in the project area. These findings are also significant because they suggest only 7% of the loans are secured against title deeds which is collateral of choice for large and long term development loans. This means that very few farmers have access to these vital documents or are willing to use them to access credit because of past experiences where farmers have lost their land in the event of defaulting.
Figure 38: Type of Collateral

109
4.50.8 Amount Paid at Maturity
The amount that was repaid at maturity for the loans that were disbursed ranged from Kshs 5,150 to Kshs 575,000 both of which were disbursed in Lugari District. These two extremes show the diversity of the land holdings in Lugari District which has a mix of large scale farms and small holdings. Table 96 below shows that the average loan repayment at maturity in DCA 1 was Kshs 73,026 and Kshs 68,372 in DCA 3 respectively. However, the spread of the loan repayment shown by the large standard deviation reflects the wide income disparity in the communities where a few farmers are able to secure large loans while the majority can only secure small loans.
Table 96: Amount paid at maturity Kshs
DCA Area DCA1 DCA3 Total N 50 90 Minimum 5,150 5,500 Maximum 575,000 392,000 575,000 Mean 73,026.34 68,372.32 70,034.47 Std. Deviation 96,853.473 74,680.922 82,963.100
140 5,150 Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009
The average loan repayment in the project area was Kshs 70,034. Within the project area, Nakuru district paid the highest amount at maturity averaging Kshs 130,187 while Nandi North District had the lowest amount disbursed which averaged Kshs 26,360 as shown in Table 97 below.
Table 97: Amount paid at maturity Kshs District Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total Minimum 5,500 5,900 12,000 6,000 24,000 17,220 5,150 11,500 22,200 5,150 Maximum Mean 127,800 42,746.15 160,615 46,125.83 47,000 27,096.47 46,000 26,360.00 310,000 98,735.71 330,000 73,419.47 575,000 102,477.00 180,000 52,546.34 213,000 130,087.50 575,000 70,034.47 Std. Deviation 39,983.176 58,747.294 8,342.172 15,506.386 77,375.663 78,345.807 132,873.854 40,239.417 74,282.308 82,963.100
4.51 Natural Resource Management Problems To establish the impact of individual households on the natural resource management, respondents were asked to indicate the problems that they face in managing natural resources. Table 91 below indicates that soil erosion was by far the most common problem facing 14% of all the households in the project area followed by deforestation and water pollution. Given that soil
110
erosion and water pollution are consequences of deforestation, these findings suggest that SDCP should incorporate messages afforestation and soil conservation messages during training.
Table 98: Natural Resource Management Problems by Ditrict Natural resource management Kisii Nandi Trans problem Bomet Central Nyamira North Nzoia Soil erosion 11 7 12 12 10 Deforestation 11 7 11 10 10 Water pollution 12 6 11 13 11 Market places 12 6 11 11 12 Soak pits 11 7 11 8 11 Cattle dips 11 7 11 9 11 Manure disposal 9 6 11 4 11 Sand harvesting 9 7 11 5 10 Human/wildlife 9 7 12 5 10 conflict Air pollution 0 0 0 0 0 Ants 0 0 0 0 0 Total 95 60 101 83 96 Uasin Gishu 27 15 10 6 2 4 4 10 16 1 2 97
Bungoma 14 10 6 6 8 8 8 8 10 0 0 78
Lugari 10 10 9 11 11 11 11 9 9 0 0 91
Nakuru 9 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 9 0 0 94
Total 112 94 89 86 80 84 80 80 87 1 2 795
Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009.
Figure 40 below shows the relative importance of the problems associated with the natural resource management in the project area.
Figure 39: Problems associated with Natural Resource Management
111
4.52 Use of waste from dairy enterprise The survey found that more than 98% of all the farmers in the project area used waste from the dairy enterprise as a fertilizer and that only 0.3% were it using to produce biogas as shown in Figure 41 below.
Figure 40: Use of waste from Dairy Enterprise
4.53 Severity of the NRM problems To assess the severity of the NRM problems in the project area, respondents were asked their opinion on the severity of the problem whose results are shown in Table 99 below.
Table 99: Severity of NRM across the project area
Severity of problem Low Moderate Serious Critical Total Kisii Central 60 0 0 0 60 Nandi North 71 11 1 0 85 District Trans Nzoia Bungoma 86 70 8 5 2 1 0 0 96 78 Total Lugari 82 8 0 1 91 Uasin Gishu 40 42 8 7 97 Nakuru 79 6 8 1 94
Bomet 78 13 3 1 95
Nyamira 78 12 9 2 101
644 105 33 12 795
Figure 42 below summarizes this information and shows that 81% of the households in the project area did not feel they had a problem and only 2% considered the problem to be critical.
112
Figure 41: Severity of NRM Problems
4.54 Household Assets
The household assets were measured by looking at the materials that were used to construct the homes of the respondents in the project area.
4.54.1 Roof Materials This study showed that 94% of the houses in the project area had corrugated iron roofs, 4.5% had
thatched roofs, 1% had tin roofs and 0.6% had tiles. Bomet District had the largest number of households with thatched roofs while Lugari and Nakuru had the largest number with tiled roofs as shown in Table 100 below.
Table 100: Roof material used to construct residence of household head
Roof material used to construct residence of household head Corrugated Thatch Tin iron Tiles 14 0 81 0 1 5 3 1 0 4 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 6 0 8 59 95 80 95 78 84 82 92 746 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 5 Total
95 60 101 83 96 78 91 97 94 795
113
4.54.2 Wall Materials
This study showed that 53% of the households in the project areas used mud as the wall materials in constructing their houses as shown in Table 101 below. Farmers in DCA 1 in Bomet District had the highest proportion of mud houses. This suggests that majority of the households targeted by the project are low income households.
Table 101: Wall Materials by District and DCA District Material DCA1 DCA3 Total Bomet Mud 96% 25% 62% Straw 0% 3% 1% Brick 2% 5% 4% Concrete 0% 8% 4% Concrete/mud 0% 8% 4% Wood 2% 53% 26% Total 100% 100% 100% Kisii Central Mud 47% 49% 48% Brick 29% 36% 33% Concrete 24% 10% 15% Concrete/mud 0% 5% 3% Total 100% 100% 100% Nyamira Mud 39% 46% 44% Brick 32% 22% 26% Concrete 29% 32% 31% Total 100% 100% 100% Nandi North Mud 66% 73% 70% Brick 9% 5% 7% Concrete 13% 11% 12% Concrete/mud 13% 11% 12% Total 100% 100% 100% Trans Nzoia Mud 66% 51% 59% Straw 0% 2% 1% Brick 4% 37% 20% Concrete 2% 2% 2% Concrete/mud 28% 7% 18% Total 100% 100% 100% Bungoma Mud 33% 63% 51% Brick 26% 28% 27% Concrete 15% 9% 11% Concrete/mud 26% 0% 10% 114
Material Total Lugari Mud Straw Brick Concrete Concrete/mud Total Uasin Gishu Mud Straw Brick Concrete Concrete/mud Wood Total Nakuru Mud Brick Concrete Concrete/mud Wood Corrugated iron Total Source: Baseline April 2009
District
DCA1 DCA3 Total 100% 100% 100% 47% 61% 58% 0% 1% 1% 11% 15% 14% 21% 15% 16% 21% 7% 10% 100% 100% 100% 75% 68% 71% 3% 4% 3% 8% 12% 10% 3% 4% 3% 10% 12% 11% 3% 0% 1% 100% 100% 100% 21% 30% 26% 8% 0% 3% 56% 54% 55% 3% 6% 4% 5% 9% 8% 8% 100% 2% 100% 4% 100%
Figure 42: Wall Materials used in Constructing Households
115
4.54.3 Floor Materials
The survey showed that 54% of the households had earth floors while 43.8% had concrete floors. It is only 2.1% of the households that had wood floors. The distribution of these households is shown in Table 102 below.
Table 102: Floor material used to construct residence of household head Source: Baseline Survey, April 2009 District DCA Area Total Material DCA1 DCA3 Earth 98% 58% 79% 4.54.4 Window materials in use Bomet Concrete 2% 40% 20% The study showed that 48% of the window Wood 0% 3% 1% materials used was glass and 48% was Total 100% 100% 100% wood, 2.4% was wire mesh and 0.6% was Earth 44% 49% 47% Kisii Central open most of which were in Uasin Gishu Concrete 53% 49% 51% Wood 3% 2% 2% District as shown in Table 103 below. Total 100% 100% 100% Table 103: Window material used to Earth 39% 46% 44% construct residence of household head Nyamira Concrete 61% 48% 52% Wood 0% 6% 4% Total 100% 100% 100% Earth 63% 77% 71% Nandi North Concrete 34% 23% 28% Wood 3% 0% 1% Total 100% 100% 100% Earth 89% 42% 67% Trans Nzoia Concrete 11% 51% 30% Wood 0% 7% 3% Total 100% 100% 100% Earth 48% 67% 60% Bungoma Concrete 52% 33% 40% Total 100% 100% 100% Earth 47% 54% 52% Lugari Concrete 47% 42% 43% Wood 5% 4% 5% Total 100% 100% 100% Earth 55% 60% 58% Uasin Gishu Concrete 43% 40% 41% Wood 3% 0% 1% Total 100% 100% 100% Earth 23% 33% 29% Nakuru Concrete 74% 67% 70% Wood 3% 0% 1% Total 100% 100% 100% 116
Window material used to construct residence of household head District Bomet Kisii Central Nyamira Nandi North Trans Nzoia Bungoma Lugari Uasin Gishu Nakuru Total Wire mesh 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 1 10 Tin 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 6 Wood 73 35 37 45 62 34 40 38 20 384 Glass 22 25 64 38 30 41 45 52 64 381 Open 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 5
Total
95 60 101 83 96 78 91 97 94 795
4.55 Support to Policy and Institutions The survey also included interviews with CAIS, DTI and KDB. Generally, support to policy and legislative development for the animal feeds sub-sector, development of a strategy for
commercialization/privatization of Central Artificial Insemination Station (CAIS), harmonization of breed services including recording and AI services and a stakeholder validation process was on track. The support to KDB to set up and operation of a DIC, linked to the Low-Cost Market Information System (LCMIS) was also on track.
However, curricular and technical strengthening of the Dairy Training Institute (DTI) was behind schedule because financing arrangement was such that DTI needed to have funds upfront to spend and then claim reimbursements against those expenses. Given that the institute has a very weak cash flow, unlike CAIS and KDB which have independent funds, the situation will not improve until an alternative financing mechanism is developed.
117
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The findings of this survey show positive change in some parameters between DCA 1 and DCA 3. These changes could arise from two sources namely: the investment that SDCP has made in DCA 1 and that some areas in DCA 3 have had previous dairy investments from other projects. For instance, whereas the average land size in DCA 1 is 4.72 acres, the average land holding in DCA 3 is 4.47 acres. This is consistent with the project goal and objectives because it shows that SDCP is improving its targeting strategy towards smallholder farmers as it moves from DCA 1 to DCA 3. However, SDCP needs to continue refining its targeting strategy to ensure that the project doesnt leave out needy groups because this survey shows that there are small pockets of non poor dairy households in each DCA.
The groups that SDCP is currently working with are very diverse and at different levels of development. This means that SDCP has to develop customized training processes to meet these diverse needs.
5.1
Sustainability
To improve sustainability of the project interventions, a number of recommendations emerged from this survey: 1. SDCP should improve targeting of individuals being trained. The targeting will be at two levels. First, SDCP should ensure that individuals who manage dairy animals are trained and not community gate keepers. This requires taking time to understand the role that vocal and influential individuals play in the community. The strategy should then be to turn the gate keepers into allies by treating them with respect, humor and compassion. Secondly, SDCP should improve the organization of the training to attract more women participants by looking at the timing of the training and distance to be covered. 2. Encourage community in-kind and cash contributions. While SDCP was providing a token allowance to community participants to meet the transport and lunch expenses, experiences from other community projects show that to enhance sustainability, SDCP should encourage participants to make in-kind and cash contributions to meet some of the training expenses. This entrenches the market system which is central to commercialization.
118
3. Build the capacity of self selected community service providers. In each community, there are individuals with uncommon skills or competence in dairy enterprise willing to share their knowledge with other farmers. The challenge of SDCP is to identify these self selected service providers in each community and build their capacity to complement the role of the extension workers. The key advantage with these individuals is that they teach by example and therefore credible. 4. Support farmer to farmer extension services. To maximize the impact of the project resources SDCP should put in place a mechanism for screening farmers to ensure that study tours only benefit farmers that are willing to learn and share with their peers. Besides improving the technical skills in dairy production, SDCP should facilitate farmers to acquire other skills needed to undertake farming as a business. This will help farmers to see the connection between profitability of dairy enterprise and skills they need to sustain the business. 5. To complement peer training within the community, SDCP should promote match making between farmers in the same neighborhood with others outside the project area who offer important lessons to learn. The groups that qualify for this role should be identified in consultation with other well informed individuals outside the project area such as processors and managers of dairy projects. Some of the groups that could qualify for match making include outstanding farmers and cooperatives that have overcome similar challenges to create commercially viable dairy businesses that have improved the livelihoods of their families, communities and other stakeholders in the business. 6. Livestock production is one of the major causes of the world's most pressing environmental problems, including global warming, land degradation, air and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. However, livestock have a large potential to solve environmental problems and make major improvements at reasonable cost. SDCP should therefore support interventions that mitigate the negative impact of livestock on climate change such as agro-forestry, water harvesting and zero-grazing interventions. This survey showed that farmers in DCA 1 spent about Kshs 556 in providing supplementary feeds to their dairy herd compared to the farmers in DCA 3 who incurred only Kshs 179 shilling in supplementary feeds. This is an indication of the realization of need to improve milk production. However, the daily average milk production in DCA 1 was 8.83 litres compared to 9.81 litres per day in DCA 3. The lower production suggests other constraints such as disease burden may be limiting milk production.
119
Using expenditure as a proxy for income, this survey suggests that DCA 1 has a lower income than DCA 3. For instance, the average monthly expenditure in DCA 1 was Kshs 20,847 compared to Kshs 23,642 in DCA 3. SDCP is also targeting relatively poor communities based on the nutritional and household welfare indicators. Given that the average monthly expenditure of dairy producing households in the project area is Kshs 21,423, the project will continue facing the challenge of getting poor households into dairy because the high cost of dairy cows is a significant barrier to entry in dairy farming. For instance, farmers in DCA 1 paid an average of Kshs 26,532 to for a dairy cow while farmers in DCA 3 were paying an average of Kshs 26,643.
This study suggests that investment of the Smallholder Dairy Commercialization Project in DCA 1 has also resulted in stability of employment opportunities. For instance, the average dairy household in DCA 1 had an average of 1.24 permanent employees compared to 1.15 permanent employees in DCA 3. However, DCA 1 had only 1.25 casual employees compared to 1.37 casuals in DCA 3. This suggests that the farmers in DCA 3 are substituting permanent employees with casual workers.
The study also found that dairy cows in DCA 1 required an average of 1.2 inseminations before conception compared to 1.44 inseminations in DCA 3. This suggests that dairy cows in DCA 1 had a slightly higher breeding efficiency compared to those in DCA 3 which is an indication of better knowledge in timely heat detection and improved service delivery. This conclusion is further confirmed by the fact that the calving interval in DCA 1 was about 15.9 months compared to 16.2 months in DCA 3.
This survey also found that investment by SDCP had reduced the cost AI services in DCA 1 to an average of Kshs 780.3 compared to the cost of AI service in DCA which was Kshs 828.9 per service. The similar cost reduction also found in the delivery of animal health services where the average cost was Kshs 416.80 in DCA 1 compared to Kshs 427.90 in DCA 3.
Despite these gains, there were performance indicators where the investment in DCA 1 appears to have registered mixed results. For instance, only 30.7% of the farmers in DCA 1 were keeping records regularly compared to 41.6% of the farmers in DCA 3 despite nearly two years of training farmers on record keeping. This suggests that there is need to refine the methods used to train farmers and simplify the extension messages to increase adoption. In addition, only 40.5% of the farmers in DCA 1 preferred using AI services over the bull service compared to 45.8% of the farmers in DCA 3. The high preference for bull service is driven by a combination of high costs and poor reliability of the AI service providers in many
120
parts of the project area. SDCP needs to intensify efforts to train farmers in heat detection and monitoring service delivery so as to increase the confidence of farmers to AI services.
This study found that the average farmer in DCA 1 produced 8.84 litres of milk per day compared to farmers in DCA 3 who produced 9.81 litres per day. The study also showed that farmers in both DCA 1 and DCA 3 sold about the same amount of milk which was about 6.04 litres per day. This study therefore suggests that the extra milk produced above this threshold in DCA 3 is currently retained for home consumption The average daily revenue from milk sales in the project area is Kshs 154 from the sale of 6.2 litres at average price of Kshs 24.8 per litre. While this provides an income of nearly US$ 2/day, it is still largely financed by unpaid family labour but in turn the enterprise contributes to family welfare and nutrition from 3.1 litres of the milk retained on the farm daily.
There is a huge unmet need for information and knowledge on basic animal husbandry and management especially in feeding. However, the costs of producing fodder appear to outweigh other constraints as the reason for not feed supplements for the majority of the farmers. SDCP needs to continuously seek technologies that can reduce the cost of producing fodder if this is to be useful to most farmers.
This study showed that 33% of the households were making regular savings in DCA 1 compared to 36% in DCA 3. This is not statistically significant and we conclude that savings behaviour was the same across the DCAs. Accessing credit is still a major challenge in the project area and the survey showed that only 18.5% of the households were able to access credit. However, demand for credit is still highly skewed towards consumption rather than investment. This means that SDCP needs to build partnerships with other institutions that can develop suitable financial products to meet the needs of the poor dairy producing households especially the ones without title deeds or those intending to enter into dairy enterprise.
Construction of infrastructure in the Dairy Training Institute (DTI) has been delayed. This is arising from two factors. First, the SDCP mode of operation is such that the institute is expected to spend from its reserves and then request for reimbursements against those expenses. Given DTIs tight cash-flow situation, implementation of this component will not be on track unless this requirement is relaxed or DTI receives other funding.
121
5.2
Recommendations
The survey identified nine key interventions that SDCP needs to put in place the following interventions in DCA 3: 1. Development is about transforming communities and their institutions. Based on this understanding, SDCP should build the capacity of the dairy cooperatives and farmer organizations through training in order to enhance: a) efficiency and effectiveness; b) sustainability of cooperatives both short and long run, c) building confidence, trust and respect for sustainable shared goals; d) adaptability to changing environment; e) interaction with external agents; f) diversification of activities to maximize institutional and individual interest and g) expansion and replication of cooperatives. This baseline survey recommends SDCP should strengthen group organization and development through capacity building activities in DCA 3 to bring about sustainable community and institutional transformation. 2. Provide technical support and strengthen linkages between farmers, credit agencies and other organizations both private and public promoting dairy to facilitate technology transfer 3. Besides improving the technical skills in dairy production, SDCP should facilitate farmers to acquire other skills needed to undertake farming as a business. In particular, SDCP efforts should focus on training farmers to managing production costs need to sustain the business. Hence this study recommends that SDCP should enhance dairy enterprise development and business. 4. Strengthen market linkages across the dairy value chain. 5. One of the main challenges in developing the dairy enterprise in the project area is the fact that it is a patriarchal society in which there is resistance for women to play a greater role commensurate with their contribution to the dairy enterprise. SDCP should therefore work closely with other organizations pursuing gender mainstreaming in the programme area to educate the community on the need to encourage women to play a larger role in all aspects of the dairy enterprises. 6. While this baseline survey has collected a lot information on the project area, however, there are some outstanding issues that once resolved would improve and refine targeting of interventions in DCA 3. Subsequently, this survey recommends that SDCP should carry out an in-depth study of milk marketing to determine how the costs and benefits of the dairy enterprise are shared by between various stakeholders across the dairy value chain. 7. To maximize impact of the dairy interventions, SDCP should carry out a training needs assessment to prioritize the training needs of different groups in the transformation continuum. This only gives an indication of where to start. 122
8. SDCP should carry out an in-depth study to assess the impact of HIV/AIDS, environment, gender and the youth on the dairy enterprise. 9. SDCP should mainstream gender analysis and the selection of both men and women farmers 10. SDCP should look for affordable mechanisms and work with appropriate institutions to facilitate livestock registration. 11. To reduce the incidence of tick borne diseases from 23% SDCP should focus extension messages to enhance adoption of all sustainable tick control practices. 12. To increase adoption in the use of AI services, SDCP should strengthen its linkages with other public and private agencies that are promoting similar goals.
123

Final SDCP Baseline Report - June 30, 2009

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Final SDCP Baseline Report - June 30, 2009

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

MINISTRY OF LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

FIGURE 42: WALL MATERIALS USED IN CONSTRUCTING HOUSEHOLDS ................................................................................... 115

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

The Programme has a twofold purpose:

The Programme is supported through the following components namely;

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

Support to Policy and Institutions: development for the animal

Scope of the Assignment

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

METHODOLOGY Overview of the Methodology

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

Table 1: Administrative Areas of DCAs in the Programme Area

DISTRICT Location Sugumerga, BOMET Sigor

DCA1 Division Sigor Location Kembu

DCA2 Division Longisa Location Ndaraweta

DCA3 Division Bomet Central

Bogeka Etora Nyakoe

Mosocho Bonyamatuta Masaba Nyamira Ekerenyo Ekerenyo

TRANS NZOIA BUNGOMA LUGARI

Kapseret UASIN GISHU NAKURU Rongai Lenginet

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

Figure 1: Map showing the Area covered by the Survey

Source: Baseline Survey, April, 2009

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

Sources of Data and Collection Techniques

Secondary Data Sources

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

Kenya Dairy Board

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

Source: KNBS Household Welfare Survey, December 2005

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

Kisii district has the highest number

of underweight(13.1%) severely underweight(6.0%),

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

Source: Analysis of the Baseline Survey, April 2009

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

Table 4: Highest Education level of household heads by District and DCA

Source: Analysis of the Baseline Survey, April 2009

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

Table 5: Size of household by District and DCA

Main Occupation of Household Head

SDCP Baseline Survey Report

Figure 3: Main Occupation of Household Head in DCA 1