FACTORS AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF RAW MILK BY JESA
DAIRY FARM OUT PRODUCERS IN BUSUNJU, WAKISO DISTRICT
BY
KABUGGO EMMANUEL
BSc. AGRICULTURE
REG NO: 10/U/408
ASPECIAL PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN
AGRICULTURE OF MAKERERE UNIVERSITY
2014
1
DECLARATION
I declare that the work presented in this special project report is original and has not been
submitted before for a degree or any other award at this or any other university
……………………………...
……………………………
KABUGGO EMMANUEL
DATE
This report has been submitted for examination with my approval as the special project
supervisor
…………………………………
………………………………
DR. J. NAMBI-KASOZI
DATE
Department of agricultural production
i
DEDICATION
This report is dedicated to my beloved parents Mr & Mrs Fokureeba. My success is attributed to
their moral and financial support.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank God Almighty for the gift of knowledge, courage and strength that He has given me in
pursuing my studies especially in writing this special project report. I sincerely extend my
appreciation to my motherly supervisor; Dr. J. Nambi-Kasozi for her guidance in writing this
report, may God bless you and your family.
I gratefully extend my sincere appreciation to the farm manager Jesa Dairy Farm Dr. Yiga
Emmanuel and the co-ordinator of Jesa Dairy Farm out producers Mr. Kibirige for helping me in
mobilizing the dairy farmers during the interviews.
To everyone who contributed directly or indirectly to the success of my research project
especially my brothers; Benson and Kenneth, sisters; Alice, Annet, Abias and Shallon, thank you
very much for the prayers and support.
Lastly but not least, I am grateful to the Government of Uganda for sponsoring my
undergraduate studies at the most prestigious institution; Makerere University.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ................................................................................................................................ (i)
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................... (ii)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................. (iii)
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. (iv)
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................... (vii)
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ (viii)
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... (ix)
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................... (x)
CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Problem statement .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Justification of the study ................................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Major objective ............................................................................................................................... 4
1.4.1 Specific objectives....................................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER TWO .................................................................................................................................. 5
LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Overview of Uganda’s livestock sector ........................................................................................ 5
2.2 Uganda’s dairy sub-sector.............................................................................................................. 6
2.3 Challenges of the dairy sub-sector ................................................................................................ 7
2.3.1 Breeds and breeding methods ..................................................................................................... 7
iv
2.3.2 Feed resource utilization ........................................................................................................... 8
2.3.3 Livestock health management .................................................................................................... 8
2.3.3.1 East coast fever ......................................................................................................................... 9
2.3.3.2 Mastitis.................................................................................................................................... 10
2.3.4 Milk transportation .................................................................................................................... 11
2.3.5 Milk actors and marketing channels ........................................................................................ 11
2.3.6 Dairy co-operatives ................................................................................................................... 12
2.3.7 Storage and handling of milk.................................................................................................... 13
2.3.8 Milk supply and payment methods .......................................................................................... 13
CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................................................................ 15
MATERIALS AND METHODS ...................................................................................................... 15
3.1 Description of the study area ....................................................................................................... 15
3.2 Research design ............................................................................................................................ 16
3.2.1 Sampling and sample size ......................................................................................................... 16
3.3 Data collection .............................................................................................................................. 17
CHAPTER FOUR .............................................................................................................................. 18
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 18
4.1 Socio-economic characteristics ................................................................................................... 18
4.2 Farm characteristics...................................................................................................................... 20
4.3 Animal performance ..................................................................................................................... 22
4.3.1 Relationship between milk production and marketing with education level, land size and
herd size............................................................................................................................................... 24
4.4 Feeding management.................................................................................................................... 25
v
4.5 Livestock health management ..................................................................................................... 27
4.6 Milk handling and transportation ................................................................................................ 31
4.7 Milk marketing systems used by farmers and milk suppliers.................................................... 33
CHAPTER FIVE ................................................................................................................................ 35
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................... 35
5.1 SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 35
5.2 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................... 36
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................. 37
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 39
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................... 48
Appendix 1: Questionnaire ................................................................................................................ 48
Appendix 2: Map showing the location of the study area. ............................................................... 53
vi
LIST OF TABLES
1: Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents ................................................................. 18
2: Farm characteristics ................................................................................................................. 20
3: Animal performance characteristics ........................................................................................ 23
4: Test for the relationship between milk production with socio-economics and
farmcharacteristics ........................................................................................................................ 25
5: Feed management .................................................................................................................... 26
6: Animal health management ..................................................................................................... 29
7: Milk handling and transportation .............................................................................................. 32
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
1: Age of the respondents ............................................................................................................ 19
2: Grazing land size of the farmers ............................................................................................. 22
3: Milk production among the dairy farmers ............................................................................... 24
4: Common parasites affecting livestock production................................................................... 30
5: Milk marketing channels ......................................................................................................... 34
viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
%
Percentage
AI
Artificial Insemination
BOU
Bank of Uganda
DDA
Dairy Development Authority
ECF
East Coast Fever
FAO
Food and Agricultural Organisation of United Nations
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
IDF
International Dairy Federation
ILCA
International Livestock Centre for Africa
ILRI
International Livestock Research Institute
Km
Kilometre
MAAIF
Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries
MFPED
Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development
mm
millimetres
n
Sample size
o
Degrees Centigrade
P
Probability value
SPSS
Stastical Package for Social Scientists
UBOS
Uganda Bureau of Statistics
UHT
Ultra Heated Temperature
WHO
World Health Organisation
C
ix
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted at Jesa Dairy Farm Limited in Busunju, Wakiso district to establish the
factors that affect production and marketing of raw milk by Jesa Dairy Farm out producers. A
sample of sixty farmers was randomly selected and data collected through interviews using open
ended structured questionnaires. Data collected included socio-economic information, farm
characteristics, feeds and feeding practices, quantity of milk produced, mode of sale of the milk
and challenges encountered at the milk collection centre (Jesa Dairy Farm Limited). The data
was analyzed using the Stastical Package for Social Scientists.
The findings of the study indicated that 98.3 % of the respondents were males and only 1.7 %
females with majority being 20-30 years. Largest percentage of respondents had attained formal
education with majority (48.3%) having completed Ordinary Level. Natural mating was found to
be dominant method of breeding (90%) compared to AI (8.3%). Herd size among dairy farmers
was generally low with majority (50%) owning less than 20 cows while milk production
estimated at 20-40 litres per day. Animals mainly depended on natural pasture (71.7%) with less
concentrate supplementation. Ticks were the main parasites hindering dairy production while
East coast fever as a popular livestock disease. Farmers generally travel long distances (0-10 km)
to milk collection centres (66.7%) with mechanical breakdown of bicycles and motorcycles
reported as the major challenge encountered on the way.
The socio-economic characteristics of the respondents were not related with the quantity of milk
produced. Milk marketed per day was related to the socio-economic characteristics of the
respondents. The farm characteristics were significantly related with milk production
x
Basing on the findings of the study, farmers need to access dairy information and adopt modern
dairy production methods like the use of AI technology and conserving forages in times of plenty
to avoid wastage. The government and other dairy development agencies need to help farmers by
establishing milk collection centres near their farms such that more milk is delivered to the
market before it’s spoiled. Availability of affordable motor cycles on loan basis and dairy
cooperative societies will help farmers to deliver milk in time and at share costs. Farmers with
large pieces of land are encouraged to expand their farms and those with less land can adopt
intensive systems of dairy production like zero grazing. Farmers need to follow routine disease
management measures like vaccination, deworming and spray or dip animals regularly to control
parasites but most importantly, farmers should always seek advice from qualified veterinary
persons.
xi
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Uganda’s agricultural sector contributes 22.5 % to the national GDP (MAAIF, 2011). The
livestock sub-Sector contributes 13.1 % to the agricultural GDP and 4.2 % to the national GDP
(MFPED, 2007) with the dairy sub-sector contributing more than 50%. This indicates great
contribution of the dairy industry to poverty alleviation to the people of Uganda in relation to
employment, food and household income generation (Ssewanyana and Okidi, 2007).
The national cattle herd is estimated at 11.4 million with more than 90% being local and
intermediate breeds compared to only 6.4% improved breeds (DDA, 2009). Although the largest
percentage of the national herd consists of indigenous breeds, they are able to produce a
reasonable amount of milk estimated at 1.5 billion litres annually (DDA, 2010). This indicates
that Uganda has great potential to produce a lot of milk in case the animal breeds are improved.
Milk consumption in Uganda is still very low estimated at only 58 litres per capita compared to
the 200 litres recommended by the World Health Organization (Mbowa et al., 2012). This is one
of the reasons why milk production is still low since little money goes back to the dairy farmers
to enable them adopt and implement improved milk production technologies.
Milk production in Uganda is categorized into milk sheds that include South-western, Midwestern, Central, Northern, Eastern and Karamonja region (DDA, 2010). The traditional milk
producing sheds are the South-western and central regions that contribute 33.7 and 31.7 %
respectively to the total milk produced in Uganda (DDA, 2010). This may be due to adoption of
1
improved milk production methods in addition to favourable climatic conditions in these regions
compared to the other regions. The
smallholder dairy farmers own over 90% of the national
herd (MAAIF, 2004) but they encounter several constraints to milk production ranging from
poor breeds, poor feeding, low milk prices, poor insemination methods and prolonged drought
periods (Muwanga, 1994). The marketing of milk has been recognized as one of the main
constraints that limit dairy production in developing countries including Uganda but little
research has been carried out to find out what exactly takes place during milk marketing (ILCA,
1990).
1.2 Problem statement
Although milk production is increasingly becoming an important activity with estimated growth
rate of 3% per annum, several economic and social challenges still exist (Nakiganda et al.,
2006). Dairy farmers encounter several challenges in production and marketing of milk ranging
from low farm gate milk prices, poor management practices, poor disease control and high costs
of drugs, insufficient government assistance, poor breeding methods and lack of; supplementary
feeds, training from extension workers and transport (Mbabazi, 2005). The low ratio of
extension workers compared to the number of dairy farmers impacts negatively on the quality
and quantity of milk produced since farmers don’t get enough advice on feeding and other
management practices. The poor transport network and impassable roads especially in the rainy
season makes logistical supply to the farms and delivery of milk to the markets difficult. This
increases incidences of milk wastage and cuts off the continuity of the supply chain (Mbabazi,
2005).
2
There is need to clearly understand how the above factors influence milk production and
marketing so as to make appropriate recommendations to the government and other stakeholders
so that they can improve dairy production which would lead to employment generation and
increased household incomes.
1.3 Justification of the study
Uganda’s population is one of the fastest growing in the world with an annual growth rate of
3.5% (UBOS, 2012). One way to address food insecurity resulting from rapid population
increase is to increase milk production efficiency (MAAIF, 2000). The social and economic
importance of smallholder dairy production in improving the welfare of the households and its
effect on the economy are well known. These include among others the generation of regular
income for farm households and provision of highly nutritious food to infants and breast feeding
mothers and provide manure for soil nutrient recycling and bio-gas production. To realise such
social and economic advantages, informed and detailed understanding of the current and
dynamic conditions of production, marketing and consumption of milk and dairy products is
necessary (ILRI, 2009). This is in agreement with the main objective of Uganda’s government
which is aimed at increasing milk production and encouraging the transformation of subsistence
smallholder dairy farmers to commercial dairy farmers (Naggayi, 1997).
Understanding the factors underlying the production and marketing of raw milk among dairy
farmers is vital for the government and other development agencies to improve the conditions of
dairy farmers in Uganda. With improved conditions, Ugandans can fight malnutrition especially
among children, generate higher household incomes, save money for educating their children and
3
improve the overall national economy through increased milk exports and employment creation
at the different milk value chain.
1.4 Major objective
The major objective of this study was to establish the factors affecting production and marketing
of raw milk among Jesa Dairy Farm out producers in Busunju, Wakiso district.
1.4.1 Specific objectives
1. To determine the socio-economic characteristics of Jesa Dairy Farm out producers.
2. To investigate the factors affecting production and marketing of raw milk by Jesa Dairy Farm
out producers.
4
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Overview of Uganda’s livestock sector
Livestock directly supports about 600 million smallholder farmers in developing countries
(Thornton, 2010) and in Uganda, 4.5 million households
keep at least one type of livestock
(MAAIF, 2011). Human population depends on livestock for meat, milk and other products like
butter, ghee and cream (Hausner, 2011). Cattle contribute the largest proportion of the milk
produced compared to other livestock animals like goats, camels and buffaloes (Twinamasiko,
2001). The cattle stock in Uganda comprises of both indigenous and exotic breeds. The local
breeds mainly Ankole Long Horned (Sanga), Small East African short horned Zebu and Nganda
constitute about 96% of the national cattle herd while the exotic breeds; Ayrshire, Holstein
Friesians and Jersey contribute only 4% (MAAIF, 2002).
Despite the fact that the local breeds which are genetically poor producers dominate the dairy
industry, there has been a steady increase in milk production since 1970. Milk production
increased from 3.53 and 4.36 million litres in 1970 and 1980 respectively to 7.86 million litres
and 1.5 billion litres in 2000 and 2010 respectively (Twinamasiko, 2001; FAO, 2005;
DDA,
2010).
The dairy production systems in Uganda are mainly categorized on the basis of input-output
level (Otto et al., 2005). The systems range from extensive, semi-intensive to intensive systems
depending on the level of management, capital investment, number and breeds of cattle reared
(Mbuza, 1993; Okwenye, 1994; MAAIF, 1996). Under extensive dairy production systems,
5
farmers have large sizes of land usually located in areas which experience low and unreliable
rainfall. The system is also characterized by low level of inputs and outputs. Examples of such
systems include pastoral, agro-pastoral and dairy ranching (Kasirye, 2003). Semi-intensive dairy
production systems include crop-livestock mixed production, tethering and fenced dairy
production systems. Animals spend some time confined in stalls or grazing paddocks (ILRI,
2008). Part of the land is used to grow fodder crops to feed the animals (Baltenweck et al.,
2007). Intensive systems include zero grazing system, peri-urban dairy production where farmers
use all or part of their land for fodder crop production (Twinamasiko, 2001). This system
accounts for 7 % of the total number of cattle in the country and contribute about 60% of the
total volume of milk produced in Uganda (FAO, 2004).
2.2 Uganda’s dairy sub-sector
The dairy sub-sector has gone through economic transformation from independence when
programs to stock dairy farms with improved breeds were initiated (Otto et al., 2004). Dairy
farming is a source of food nutrients obtained from different milk products like yoghurt, ghee
and butter, beef from bull calves and the culled animals. It also generates income to a number of
household through the sale of dairy products and encourages sustainable use of soil through
nutrient recycling from the cattle manure (Nakiganda et al., 2006). With the growth rate of 3%
per annum, the dairy sector is set to be leading agricultural sub-sector in the eradication of
poverty among farmers (Okidi, 2007).
Despite the importance of dairy industry to the economy of Uganda, various challenges which
include poor feeding, poor breeds of cattle, poor insemination methods and dependence on
natural pasture exists.
6
The liberalisation of the economy has led to mushrooming of various milk cooling and
processing factories countrywide. However, over 80% of milk produced in Uganda is marketed
through informal channels unprocessed (DDA, 2010).
The estimated number of cows milked per day is about 1.52 millions producing 1.85 million
litres of milk daily (MAAIF, 2009), however, average milk production differs from breed to
breed with the indigenous ones producing 2-3 litres compared to 15-20 litres per day by the
exotic breeds like the pure Holstein-Friesian, Ayrshire and Jersey (World Bank, 2011). Poor
reproduction and management practices have been implicated for low milk production (Musisi et
al., 1999; Nakiganda, 2006).
2.3 Challenges of the dairy sub-sector
The dairy industry in developing countries is constrained by economic, social and technical
challenges (Fekadu, 1994). These include poor breeding methods characterized by small number
of dairy farmers using AI to improve local breeds, poor control of parasites and diseases,
communal ownership of land that doesn’t encourage establishment of improved pastures,
dependence on natural pasture with less concentrate feed utilisation and relaxed policies on milk
market chain that exposes dairy farmers to exploitation by milk market actors (Mpairwe et al.,
1998; Nakiganda et al., 2006).
2.3.1 Breeds and breeding methods
Good dairy farming requires proper selection of animal breeds and good replacement regimes
(Bibangambah, 1977). The largest percentage of national herds in tropical Africa is dominated
by local breeds partly because they are resistant to diseases and require fewer maintenance costs
7
compared to the Friesians and their crosses (Dobson, 2005). However, they are low milk
producers.
The use of artificial insemination among dairy farmers in Uganda is still low
(MAAIF, 1996). This is attributed to limited access, high costs and wide spread misconception
that A.I produces disproportionately more bulls. This interferes with the interventions by
government and other support organizations to increase milk production through introduction of
improved dairy breeds. Dairy farmers own poorly managed big herds rather than reducing their
numbers to acquire improved herds (Mbabazi, 2005). This is due to cultural values that are
attached to cattle numbers other than quality performance.
2.3.2 Feed resource utilization
Feed costs in dairy enterprises represent a substantial portion of expenses than most of the other
costs incurred (Muwanga, 1994). In Uganda, animals mainly depend on natural pasture with less
supplementation (Preston and Leng, 1987; Clariget et al., 1998). The pastures are abundantly
available in the rainy season compared to the dry season (Okello-Ouma, 1982) and the
nutritional composition considerably decline with maturity and season where crude fibre is high
in dry season compared to crude protein (Butterworth, 1984). The few forage legumes that
contain high crude protein are not readily accessible by the animals (Sabiiti et al., 1993) since
they out compete by bushes.
2.3.3 Livestock health management
Diseases and parasites impact negatively on dairy enterprises through increased costs of
production incurred in treatment of animals and restricted movement of dairy products from
infested areas to the market (Pearson, 2006; FAO, 2009). Poor management of the farms which
8
encourages bush establishment hinders the control of disease vectors such as ticks which are
causative agents of east coast fever. The drugs required for treatment of sick animals are very
expensive to smallholder dairy farmers and this is coupled with unreliable, poor but yet
expensive veterinary services (Mutugi et al., 1988). Therefore, animals take long periods without
being vaccinated or dewormed and the large percentage of farmers treat animals on their own yet
they have no qualifications and skills (Mbabazi, 2005). East coast fever and mastitis are the
major livestock diseases hindering dairy production in Uganda (Norval et al., 1992) and
(Byarugaba et al., 2008) respectively.
2.3.3.1 East coast fever
East coast fever (ECF) is a form of theileriosis caused by protozoan Theileria Parva transmitted
by parasite ticks Rhipicephalus appendiculantus (Norval et al., 1992). It is the major disease of
11 countries of Eastern, Central and Southern Africa with estimated one million cattle dying
every year (Mukhebi et al., 1992). East coast fever results into high economic losses to both the
government and individual farmers through the costs incurred in the treatment of the disease,
mortality of animals and costs incurred by the government in providing research, training and
extension services to contain the disease. The exotic breeds and their crosses have been
identified as more prone to ECF compared to the indigenous breeds (Morzaria et al., 1988).
Mortality rates in calves range from 0-50% in the endemically stable conditions and 80-100% in
recent outbreak areas (Lawrence, 1992). The animals that recover from ECF infection suffer
weight loss, low milk production and delayed maturity as well as remaining carriers of the
disease (Brown, 1985).
9
East coast fever is conventionally checked by the control of vector ticks through application of
acaricides to the surface of the animals by dipping, spraying or hand-washing to kill the ticks. In
areas that are heavily infested with ticks, cattle are treated with acaricides twice per week
(Young et al., 1990). The treatment of ECF requires identification of the disease through
surveillance and diagnosis followed by administering appropriate drugs which is usually
expensive to smallholder dairy farmers (Mutugi et al., 1988).
2.3.3.2 Mastitis
Mastitis is known to destroy the milk factory (mammary glands) in lactating cows. (IDF, 1987).
The pathogenic microorganisms enter through the teat canal, multiply in the udder and produce
toxins that are harmful to the mammary glands. The damage caused to the mammary glands
increases vascular permeability where the blood constituents, serum, proteins, enzymes and salts
leak into the milk which changes its composition (Harmon, 1994).
Mastitis can occur as clinical or sub-clinical. In clinical cases, there are visible symptoms like
flakes or clots in the milk, swelling and discolouration of the udder, high temperatures of the
udder and fever (Akers, 2002). In sub-clinical cases, there are no visible signs of infection and
it’s the most prevalent form of mastitis since it’s hard to detect and treat (Akers, 2002). Mastitis
can also be classified on the duration of infection as acute or chronic where by sudden onset of
the disease defines acute while chronic mastitis is characterized by inflammatory processes that
last for months (IDF, 1987).
Mastitis is of great economic importance to dairy farmers because it has negative effect on the
cows’ and herds’ performance (Kossaibati, 1997). The results into increased costs like veterinary
costs, discarded milk and reduced milk yield and quality and increased risks of culling
10
(Esslemont, 1997). The constant exposure of cattle antibiotics during mastitis treatment has been
identified as the major factor contributing to development of resistant bacteria (Mevius et al.,
2005).
2.3.4 Milk transportation
Smallholder dairy farmers use bicycles and motor cycles to transport milk to collection centres.
Bicycles and motor cycles are affected by poor roads especially in the rainy season and are also
reliable to mechanical breakdown along the routes (Dobson, 2005). The complexity of the
marketing chain from the producers to the processors exposes the milk to multiple opportunities
for adulteration, contamination with dust, dirty hands and unhygienic cans and bulk tanks
(Dobson, 2005). Producers whose milk has been rejected for poor quality or adulteration can
easily sell the rejected milk to other processors especially in the dry season when milk is scarce.
This is attributed to lack of clear milk quality control measures and paying milk on basis of
volume rather than composition (Dobson, 2005).
2.3.5 Milk actors and marketing channels
According to DDA (2010), 80-90% of the milk produced in Uganda is marketed through
informal markets compared to 10-20% marketed through formal markets. The formal milk
marketing channels are characterized by organized distribution structures and hygienic milk
handling practices while informal milk marketing channels involve adulteration and sell of raw
milk in dirty plastic containers (Elepu, 2006).
Milk producers either sell milk directly to consumers, vendors, licensed milk traders or
processors who determine the price of milk due to relaxed dairy polices which exposes dairy
11
farmers to exploitation by huge uncontrolled number of milk actors in the market (Huff, 2003).
Therefore, dairy improvement strategies should target on reducing milk handling stages to avoid
contamination, reduce wastage and avoid exploitation of dairy farmers by milk market actors
(MFPED, 2007; Artukoglu et al., 2008; Tsougiannis et al., 2008).
The choice of milk marketing channel by farmers and other suppliers heavily depends on the
price of milk offered and its reliability (Artukoglu et al., 2008); Tsougiannis et al., 2008). Choice
is usually on channels that offer higher price for milk supplied than those that offer low prices
(Qi Wen’e and Tang Wenshan, 2009).
2.3.6 Dairy co-operatives
Dairy cooperative societies enable smallholder dairy farmers to participate favourably in the
formal milk market by reducing the transaction costs faced by individual farmers through sharing
risks, lowering unit collection costs, making inputs available and enhance their bargaining power
(FAO, 1993).
There are few milk producer and marketing cooperative societies in Uganda since most of them
were disrupted in the late 1970s’ and early 1980s’ (Tsougiannis et al., 2008). Compared to
Kenya, most dairy farmers are organized into co-operative societies where they have easy access
production and market information, credit services and dairy inputs with better bargaining power
(Otieno et al., 2009). Since the liberalisation of economy in Uganda, dairy co-operatives have on
the increase.
12
2.3.7 Storage and handling of milk
The absence of cooling equipment due to limited capital by smallholder dairy farmers and the
inappropriate transport infrastructure makes milk production and marketing difficult (Naggayi,
1997). Milk producers are always on tension to sell off the milk before it’s spoiled even when the
prices are low (Dobson, 2005).
The surplus milk produced in the wet season coincides with periods of weak seasonal demand of
milk by processors which push farm gate milk prices downwards (Dobson, 2005). Farmers
would help to stabilize the milk prices by owning the processing facilities near their farms but
the high costs of borrowing capital to establish these facilities and lack of management
experience limits them (Dobson, 2005). Therefore, there is need for the government and other
development agencies to intervene so as to build the capacity of dairy farmers to own and
manage milk processing facilities.
2.3.8 Milk supply and payment methods
Milk payment in Uganda is based on volume rather than nutritional composition which weakens
quality control measures and exposes milk to adulteration (Dobson, 2005). The milk processors
and transporters normally reject milk on grounds that it is either diluted with water, supplied in
dirty containers especially plastic jerry cans, is from sick cows (mastitis) or it is delivered late to
the collection centre (Mbabazi, 2005). This is even worse in the wet season when milk supply is
very high. The milk buyers have a habit of cheating farmers by not paying them regularly and
when they accumulate a lot of debts they might change the location of the milk collecting centres
which discourages farmers hence low milk is put on formal market (Mbabazi, 2005).
13
All these challenges along the milk supply chain have made it difficult for farmers to increase
productivity and efficiency on the farm level hence resulting into a struggling milk industry in
Uganda. Therefore, there is a need for better co-ordination between producers, processors and
market chain actors, government and other development agencies to avoid confusion and
stagnation of the dairy sub-sector.
14
CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Description of the study area
The study was conducted at Jesa Dairy Farm Limited located about 42 km North West of
Kampala city along Kampala-Hoima road in Namayumba sub-county Wakiso District. Wakiso
district lies at 0o 24 North and 32o 39 East and receives an average annual rainfall of 1100 mm.
The mean maximum and minimum temperature of 25 ºC and 17 ºC respectively are favourable to
dairy farming. Agriculture is the main economic activity in the district with a number of
commercial dairy farms along Kampala-Hoima road.
Jesa Dairy Farmer Limited is one of such farms on which pure Holstein Friesian cattle are kept
under semi-intensive grazing system. The farm has a dairy processing plant which uses milk
produced on the farm and milk from out dairy producers as raw material to produce several
quality products such as yoghurt, full cream milk, UHT, ghee and butter.
The farm is surrounded by a wet land where water for farm use is pumped from. The vegetation
is characterized by different pasture species, scattered woody trees and shrubs. The main natural
grassland pasture species on the farm include Congo signal grass (Bracharia spp), thatching
grass (Hyperrhenia rufa), star grass, small Setaria and Guinea grass (Panicum maximum). The
farm mainly grows Rhodes grass (Chloris gayana) and Guinea grass (Panicum maximum) for
hay while elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) is grown in the valley for cut and carry. The
farm has well drained brown soils uphill and poorly drained sand-clayey soils in the lowland
15
which is normally flooded during heavy rains but the soils fertilised with manure from the cow
barns supports the growing of maize for silage mainly fed to animals under intensive production.
Due to establishment of the processing factory on the farm, the milk requirement was high. In
2000, a nucleus of about 60 out dairy farmers was established to supply additional milk to the
processing factory. Therefore, this study was carried out to find out the factors affecting
production and marketing of raw milk by these farmers who supply additional milk.
3.2 Research design
The research was a survey that involved collection of quantitative and qualitative data using open
ended structured questionnaires. Primary and secondary data was collected which included
socio-economic characteristics, farm characteristics, animal performance, feeding and livestock
health management, milk handling, transportation and marketing channels used.
Secondary data involved review of literature on Uganda’s livestock sector, status of Uganda’s
dairy sub-sector, breeds and breeding methods, feed resource utilization, livestock health
management, farm labour, milk transportation, market actors and marketing channels, storage
and handling of milk, milk supply and payment methods.
3.2.1 Sampling and sample size
A sample size of sixty respondents was randomly selected for interviews at Jesa Farm milk
collection centre. The respondents comprised of Jesa Dairy Farm out producers and milk
suppliers. The out producers were interviewed about the factors of milk production and the
16
challenges they face on their farms while the milk suppliers provided information related to
marketing and challenges faced along the marketing chain.
3.3 Data collection
The information was collected by translating the questions into Luganda during the interviews
and the responses were recorded in questionnaires.
3.4 Data analysis
The data collect using open ended structured questionnaires was coded using numerical values
and entered into Stastical Package for Social Scientists. Descriptive statistics including
frequencies, percentages, means, charts and chi-square tests to check for relationship of variables
were used to describe the data obtained.
17
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Socio-economic characteristics
Sex, marital status, age and education level were the main socio-economic characteristics
studied (Table 1). Majority of the respondents were males (98.3%) compared to 1.7% females.
Most of the farmers were youths (20-30 years) (35%), married (75%) and highly educated with
48.3% of the respondents having completed O’level compared to only 8.3% who had no formal
education.
Table 1: Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents
Variable
Sex
Male
Female
Marital status
Married
Single
Divorced
Age
20-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
Education level
Primary
O’level
A ‘level
Diploma
University
No formal education
Frequency (n=60)
Percentage (100%)
59
1
98.3
1.7
45
12
3
75
20
5
21
18
12
6
2
1
35
30
20
10
3.3
1.7
17
29
3
2
4
5
28.3
48.3
5
3.4
6.7
8.3
18
The largest percentage of respondents in this study were males mainly because the research was
carried out at milk collection centre whereby majority of milk producers and suppliers that are
able to travel long distances on bicycles and motorcycles are males. Dairy projects to large extent
are directed towards men who own large pieces of land and women who dominate the zero
grazing are neglected hence benefiting the already well off farmers (Kabirizi, 2006).
On the side of education level, highly literacy level is vital to any development program. The
adoption of introduced dairy technology has been related to high education levels among farmers
(Omiti et al., 1999). This is attributed to the ability to interpret dairy literature, make informed
decisions and easy application of technical advice from research centres.
Majority of respondents were in youth category. This was attributed dairy activities like mixing
feeds, herding, milking and milk delivery that require a lot of energy that can be provided by
young farmers.
Figure 1: Age of the respondents
19
4.2 Farm characteristics
The farm characteristics studied included size of land holdings, breeding methods and grazing
systems (Table 2). The largest percentage of farmers (33.3%) kept the animals on 0-10 acres of
land with few (8.3%) owning more than 70 acres of grazing land. Natural mating was the main
(90%) breeding method used on the farms which are predominantly (50%) under continuous
grazing system.
Table 2: Farm characteristics
Parameter
Frequency (n=60)
Percentage (100%)
Grazing land size (acres)
0-10
20
33.3
11-20
16
26.7
21-30
6
10
31-40
3
5
41-50
6
10
51-60
3
5
61-70
1
1.7
Above 70
5
8.3
Breeding methods
Natural mating
54
90
Artificial insemination
5
8.3
Natural mating and Artificial insemination
1
1.7
Grazing systems
Continuous grazing
30
50
Paddock grazing
19
31.7
Zero grazing
4
6.7
Continuous & Zero grazing
1
1.7
Continuous & Paddock grazing
3
5
Paddock & Zero grazing
3
5
20
The small acreage owned by the farmers was mainly attributed to the increase in human
population and expansion of arable cropping (Abate et al., 1991). Shrinking acreage implies that
little milk will produced due to lack of enough forage pastures for the animals since most farmers
depended on natural pastures. Farmers should be encouraged to adopt intensive system of
grazing where planted fodder crops, crop residues and supplementary feeds are used.
Breeding methods used to a large extent determine the quantity of milk produced on the farm.
Natural mating and artificial insemination are the main breeding methods used in Uganda.
Mbowa et al. (2011) found out that only 7% of Uganda’s dairy farmers utilised artificial
insemination in a survey carried out in 2008. Their findings are in agreement with the results of
this study which revealed that only 8.3% of the farmers used AI. The limited use of AI is
attributed to its limited access, high costs and wide spread misconception that AI produces
disproportionately more bulls (MAAIF, 1996). Rodriquez-Martinez (2012) reported that AI is
the most important breeding method to genetic improvement of dairy breeds in Sub-Saharan
Africa. Therefore, farmers should be encouraged to adopt AI technology to improve their breeds
for more milk production.
On the hand, continuous grazing was the dominant system of grazing due to low input
requirements in terms of supplementary feeding and establishment of improved pastures.
21
Figure 2: Grazing land size of the farmers
4.3 Animal performance
Animal performance was studied in terms of herd size and milk production (Table 3). Half of the
respondents (50%) had less than 20 cows compared to only 5% who had more than 120 cows.
Milk production was generally low with 40% of the respondents producing only 20-40 litres of
milk per day.
22
Table 3: Animal performance characteristics
Parameter
Frequency (n=60)
Percentage (100%)
Below 20
30
50
20-40
14
23.3
41-60
8
13.3
61-80
3
5
81-100
1
1.7
101-120
1
1.7
Above 120
3
5
Milk production (litres)
Below 20
15
25
20-40
24
40
41-60
4
6.7
61-80
4
6.7
81-100
5
8.3
101-120
3
5
121-140
1
1.7
Above 140
4
6.7
Herd size (cows)
Muia et al. (2011) reported that the average number of animals per household in Uganda is 5.3
heads of cattle. The small herd size was attributed population pressure and expansion of
commercial crop production. This is in agreement with the findings of this study which revealed
that farmers with bigger acreage of land had more animals hence more milk production.
23
On the other side, low milk production was attributed to several factors including poor breeding
methods since majority of the farmers used natural mating compared to AI and high dependence
on natural pasture with less supplementation of protein containing feeds.
Figure 3: Milk production among the dairy farmers
4.3.1 Relationship between milk production and marketing with education level, land size
and herd size
The quantity of milk produced per day was not related to education level of the farmers (P>0.05).
The findings of this research do not agree with Arinaitwe et al. (2007) who stated that farmers
with high education level produce larger amounts of milk than the uneducated ones.
The grazing land size and the number of cattle owned were correlated with quantity of milk
produced (P<0.01). Farmers with large pieces of land produced more milk since they kept more
24
animals. This is in agreement with Tsougian et al. (2008) who stated that the grazing land and
herd size owned by farmers have a significant effect on the volume of milk produced and traded.
Dairy farmers with large sizes of grazing land have large quantity of herbage available for
animals.
The quantity of milk marketed per day was significantly (P<0.05) related to education level of
the respondents. Majority of the respondents had attained formal education. Education helps milk
suppliers to follow up on the quality control measures at the milk collection centres and bargain
for better pay of their milk.
Table 4: Test for the relationship between milk production with socio-economic and farm
characteristics.
Produced
Parameter
P-value
Education level
0.091
Grazing land size
0.0
Herd size
0.0
Marketed
Education level
0.014
4.4 Feeding management
Natural pasture was the most popular feed resource (71.7%) utilised by farmers while silage was
the least used (Table 5). Among the concentrate feeds, maize bran was the most commonly used
25
(46.7%) while cotton seed cake (3.3%) was the least utilised. Inadequate availability and high
cost of concentrates were the major challenges (41.7% and 31.6% respectively) to utilisation of
concentrates.
Table 5: Feed management
Parameter
Major feed resources
Natural pasture
Percentage (100%)
71.7
Elephant grass
6.7
Maize bran & brewers waste
1.7
Maize bran & elephant grass
3.3
Crop residues & elephant grass
1.7
Maize bran, crop residues and elephant grass
3.2
Silage
1.7
Silage & maize bran
1.7
Natural pasture & maize bran
8.3
Concentrate utilisation
Maize bran
Cotton seed cake
Dairy meal
Others
Challenges faced in utilizing concentrates
Expensive
Not readily available
poor quality
Price fluctuation
Competition from poultry industry
Other challenges
46.7
3.3
5
45
31.6
41.7
1.7
5
5
15
The findings of this study were in agreement with Clariget et al. (1998) who found that animals
in Uganda mainly depend on natural pasture with less concentrate supplementation. Cattle on
26
natural pasture produce low milk since tropical forages usually contain high fibre and low
protein. High dependence on natural pasture might be attributed to high capital investment to
establish improved pastures and low level of knowledge on how to efficiently utilise crop
residues.
Inadequate concentrate feed supply was reported by Potter (1987) as the major constraint in dairy
production in Sub-Saharan Africa. This is in agreement with the findings of this study which
revealed that majority of the farmers (Table 5) had limited access to concentrate feeds. Studies
elsewhere in Central Uganda revealed that 89% of the dairy farmers supplement animals with
salt lick only without protein rich feeds. Low protein supplementation leads to low milk
production due to limited volatile fatty acids required in milk synthesis.
4.5 Livestock health management
Ticks were the most (68.61%) disturbing parasites on the farms followed by worms and liver
flukes at 18.34 and 8.72% respectively (Table 6).
East coast fever was reported to be the most (56.7%) devastating livestock disease among the
farmers. Most of the farmers (76.7%) treated mastitis on their own using intramammary tubes
commonly known as multiject tubes while only 3.3% called veterinary doctors to treat the
animals.
The most important parasite control measures were deworming and spraying with majority of the
farmers (53.3%) deworm the animals every three months to control internal parasites and spray
the animals control external parasites once every week.
27
28
Table 6: Animal health management
Parameter
Percentage (100%)
Common livestock diseases
East coast fever
56.7
Mastitis
26.7
Foot and mouth disease
8.3
Lumpy skin disease
1.7
Calf scouring
1.7
Pink eye
1.6
Other diseases
3.3
Mastitis control measures
Use of intramammary tubes
76.7
Call veterinary doctors to treat animals
3.3
Other control measures
20
Common livestock parasites
Ticks
68.61
Worms
18.34
Liver flukes
8.72
Tsetse flies
4.33
Deworming frequency
Three times per year
46.7
Four times per year
53.3
Spraying & dipping frequency
Once per week
72.9
Twice per week
27.1
East coast fever presents the biggest problem to dairy farmers in Uganda (Staal et al., 2003).
This is in agreement with the findings of the research which revealed East coast as the most
dangerous disease to dairy farming communities. High prevalence of East coast fever is
attributed to resistance of ticks against acaricides and their wrong usage. Spraying or dipping
29
animals once a week (MAAIF, 1996) and twice per week in heavily infested areas (Young et al.,
1990) control most of the external parasites. This is in agreement with the findings of this study
which revealed that most of the farmers spray or dip animals once per week while others spray or
dip twice per week.
Mastitis was reported by the farmers as one of the most dangerous disease on the farms. This is
in agreement with Byarugaba et al. (2008) who reported that mastitis is highly prevalent among
dairy farmers in Uganda and highly responsible for low milk production. High prevalence of
mastitis was attributed to failure of early detection which delays the treatment measures and poor
hygiene in milk sheds.
Ticks
18.34%
worms
Liver flukes
68.61%
Ticks
8.72%
Tsetse flies
4.33%
Figure 4: Common parasites affecting livestock production
30
4.6 Milk handling and transportation
The information on distance to the milk market centre was analysed as an indicator of access to
market. The results revealed that 66.7% of the dairy households travelled 0-10 km mostly on
motor cycles and bicycles to deliver milk to the collecting centre (Table 7). The milk suppliers
and farmers encounter several challenges on their way to the milk collection centres. Mechanical
breakdown of bicycles and vehicles was reported to be the biggest challenge (45%).
As it is for any milk processing factory that values human safety, milk tests have to be carried
out before milk is accepted to be processed into various products. Majority of respondents
(58.3%) of respondents revealed that milk was rejected when found to contain unacceptable
volume of water in addition to other reasons like late delivery (23.3%) and delivery in dirty cans
(6.8%).
Although farmers and milk suppliers encounter several challenges on their way to milk
collection centres, they still find more problems at centres. A substantial percentage of
respondents (33.3%) revealed that the collection centre (Jesa) is always congested and so they
have to be in line for queue long time before milk is tested. Majority of respondents (38.3%) did
not report any problems after reaching the collection centre.
31
Table 7: Milk handling and transportation
Parameter
Percentage (100%)
Distance travelled (km)
0-10
66.7
11-20
23.3
21-30
6.7
31-40
1.6
41-50
1.7
Challenges along the route
Mechanical breakdown of bicycles & vehicles
415
Poor roads
36.7
Insecurity on roads
6.7
Poor roads & insecurity
1.7
Find no challenges
3.3
Accidents and milk spillage
5
Other challenges
1.6
Reasons for rejecting milk
High volume of water
58.3
Late milk delivery
23.3
Low milk density
3.3
Low milk density & late delivery
3.3
Poor quality
5
Dirty cans
6.8
Other challenges at the milk collecting centre
Congestion
33.3
Lazy workers
8.3
Inadequate time given to collect the milk
6.7
Rude & misbehaved workers
13.4
No challenges
38.3
32
Distance from the collection centre adversely affects milk marketing. Long distances coupled
with poor roads negatively influence quantity of milk delivered to the market since the profit
margin is reduced significantly (Foodnet, 2002). Long distance to the collection centre is
characterized by high mechanical breakdown of bicycles, motor cycles and milk trucks
(Mbabazi, 2005) which is in agreement with the findings of this study.
Addition of water into the milk is the highest form of adulteration and it is attributed to payment
systems which are based on quantity of milk supplied rather than quality and composition
(Dobson, 2005). This is in agreement with the findings of this research that reported detection of
added water into the milk as the major reason for milk rejection.
A substantial percentage of respondents attributed congestion on the collection centre to the low
number of laboratory technicians to perform different tests.
4.7 Milk marketing systems used by farmers and milk suppliers
Farmers mainly delivered the milk to the collecting centres as individuals (95%) while only 3%
delivered the milk through associations (Figure 5).
33
Farmers who sell
milk as an individual
95%
3%
2%
farmers who sell
milk in An
association
farmers who sell
milk in both
channels(As
individual and in
Association
Figure 5: Milk marketing channels
Dairy farmers belonging to dairy associations are able to share marketing risks, lower unit
collection costs, make inputs available and enhance their bargaining power (FAO, 1993).
According to DDA (2010), majority of dairy cooperative societies are found in Western Uganda
(69%) while central region has 30%. This
This is attributed to more organised milk marketing systems
in South-western
western region compared to other parts of the country.
34
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 SUMMARY
This study was conducted to establish the factors that affect production and marketing of raw
milk among Jesa Dairy Farm out producers in Busunju, Wakiso district. Sixty randomly selected
respondents were interviewed and the data obtained was analyzed using SPSS. Majority of the
respondents were males, married, aged 20-30 years and highly educated.
Continuous grazing was the dominant grazing system and zero grazing was least utilised.
Farmers with bigger herd size and large pieces of land produced more milk but the majority of
the farmers had less than 20 cows kept on less than 10 acres of land. Natural pasture emerged to
be the most utilised feed resource and maize bran as the main concentrate feed. Inadequate
availability was reported as the major hindrance to concentrate utilisation.
East coast fever and mastitis were identified as the major diseases hindering milk production in
the area. Ticks and worms emerged to be the highly ranked parasite with spraying and
deworming as the main control measures.
Majority of respondents travelled 0-10 km to the milk collection centres and mechanical
breakdown of the bicycles and the motor cycles was identified as the main challenge faced to the
collection centre.
Adulteration of milk with water and late delivery were reported to be the major reasons for
rejecting the milk.
35
5.2 CONCLUSIONS
The research findings indicated that farmers are not utilising the advantage of high education
levels to produce more milk. The animals mostly depend on natural pasture with less concentrate
supplementation hence low milk production.
Natural mating dominated the breeding methods compared to artificial insemination which is a
negative indicator on the genetic improvement of dairy breeds to increase milk production.
Farmers own few animals due to land shortage yet milk production was found to be positively
correlated to land size and herd size hence there is a need to adopt intensive production systems.
Livestock diseases especially east coast fever and mastitis pose a serious challenge to milk
production.
Poor road network and long distances characterised by mechanical break of motor cycles,
bicycles and milk trucks negatively affect milk production and marketing.
Milk adulteration especially water addition is a threat to the milk industry. Few farmers make
deliver their milk to the collection centres yet dairy co-operatives would help them to have better
bargaining power on the price of milk, inputs, share costs and risks involved in transporting milk
to the collection centres.
Therefore, any development intervention should address the various challenges found out in this
study.
36
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
Farmers should utilise their education levels to obtain more information on dairy production and
adopt the modern and intensive productions systems.
Artificial insemination should be encouraged by availing AI facilities nearby the farmers and at
affordable costs to improve dairy breeds.
Pasture legumes and multipurpose trees should be planted by farmers to reduce dependence on
natural pasture.
Farmers with large pieces of land are encouraged to expand their farms to keep more animals for
increased milk production. Areas with land shortage can adopt intensive production systems like
zero grazing which uses cut and carry systems and utilisation of crop residues to increase milk
production.
For disease control measures especially east coast fever and mastitis, farmers are encouraged to
follow route management measures like vaccination, spraying, deworming and good hygiene in
cow barns. Farmers should also endeavour to contact veterinary doctors for help and
should
avoid treating animals on their own unless recommended by qualified veterinary person.
For the issues of poor roads, the government should play her role to enable farmers access the
markets at reduced transport costs resulting from mechanical breakdown of vehicles and
motorcycles.
Farmers should be provided with affordable motorcycle loans to enable them deliver milk to the
market in time.
Milk adulteration can easily be reduced if payment of milk at the collection centres is based on
quality rather than quantity.
37
Farmers are recommended to organise themselves under farmers’ groups for easy access to
agricultural inputs like drugs, supplementary feeds and trainings from the government, nongovernmental organisations and extension workers.
38
REFERENCES
Abate, A. and Abate, A. N. (1991). Wet season nutrient supply to lactating grade animals
managed under different production systems. East African Agriculture and Forestry
Journal 57:33.
Akers, R. M. (2002). Lactation and the Mammary Gland. Ames. Iowa State University Press.
Arinaitwe, G. and Bua, B. (2007). Determinants of milk production in Nyabubare sub county,
Bushenyi district, Western Uganda. Department of Agriculture Kyambogo University.
Artukoglu, M. and Olun, A. (2008). Cooperative tendencies and alternative milk marketing
channels of dairy producers in Turkey. A case of Meneme.
Baltenweck, I., Mubiru, S., Nanyeenya, W., Njoroge, L., Halberg, N., Romney, D. and
Staal, S. (2007).
Dairy
farming
in
Uganda;
production
efficiency and
soil
management strategies under different production systems. International Livestock
Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya. Report no.1.
Bibangambah, J. R. (1997). Prospects and problems of milk production in developing
countries. East Africa Journal of Rural Development, 10: 1-2
Brown, C. G. D. (1985). Immunization against East Coast fever: Progress towards a vaccine. In;
Irvin, A. D. (ed.). Immunization against theileriosis in Africa. ILRAD (International
Laboratory for Research on Animal Diseases), Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 90-96.
Butterworth, M. H. (1984). Beef cattle nutrition and tropical pastures. Longman, London
(England).
39
Byarugaba, D. K., Nakavuma, J. L., Vaarst, M. and Laker, C. (2008). Mastitis occurrence
and constraints to mastitis control in smallholder dairy farming systems in Uganda.
Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 20, Article #5. Retrieved July 18,
2014, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/1/byar20005.htm
Clariget, R. P., Forsberg, M. and Rodriguez-Martinez, H. (1998). Seasonal variation in live
weight, testes size, Testosterone, LH secretion, Melatonin and Thyroxine in Merino and
Corriedale rams in Sub-Tropical climate. Act. Vet. Scand. 39:35–47.
DDA (Dairy Development Authority) (2009). Overview of the Status and Performance of
Uganda’s Dairy Industry. Dairy development Authority. Available online at
http://www.dda.or.ug
DDA (Dairy Development Authority) (2010). Annual Dairy Report. Available online at
http://www.dda.or.ug
Dobson, W. D. (2005). The dairy industry of Uganda. Dairy. Updates, World Dairy Industries
no. 106. Babcock institute, University of Wisconsin. 12pp, Wageningen.
Elepu, G. (2006). Value Chain Analysis for the Dairy Sub-sector in Uganda. A Final Report.
Uganda Agribusiness Development Component, ASPS/DANIDA.
Esslemont, R. J. (1997). The Costs of Production Diseases in Dairy Herds in England.
Veterinary Journal 154 (1), 41-51.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organisation) (1993). Kenya dairy development project,
preparation report. Report No: 34/ 93 CP-KEN 33. Investment Center, FAO/World
Bank Cooperative Program, Rome.
40
FAO (Food and Agricultural organisation) (2004). FAOSTAT Data. Prospects for
Smallholder Milk Production; Global Perspective. [Cited 2004]. Available from
http://faostat.external.fao.org/default.jsp 2
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organisation) (2005). Livestock sector brief; Uganda. Livestock
information, sector analysis and policy branch. AGAL
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organisation) (2009). The state of food and agriculture;
Livestock in the balance. Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations, Rome,
Italy. 2009. http://www.fao.org/catalog/inter-e.htm
Fekadu, B. (1994). Present situation and future aspects of milk production, milk handling and
processing of dairy products in Southern Ethiopia, (unpublished PhD thesis, Agricultural
University of Norway)
Foodnet, (2002). Transaction Cost Analysis. Report prepared for the Plan for the Modernization
of Agriculture by The Natural Resources Institute (NRI) and the International Institute of
Tropical Agriculture (IITA). 187 pp.
Harmon, R. J. (1994). Symposium-Mastitis and Genetic Evaluation for Somatic Cell Count Physiology of Mastitis and Factors Affecting Somatic Cell Counts. Journal of Dairy
Science 77 (7), 2103-2112.
Hausner, V. H., Ulvevadet, B. (2011) Incentives and regulations to reconcile conservation and
development; thirty years of governance of the Semi-pastoral ecosystem in Finnmark
Norway. J Environ Manage 92 (10), 2794–2802
IDF (International Dairy Federation) (1987). Bovine Mastitis: Definition and Guidelines for
Diagnosis. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation211, 24 pp.
41
ILCA (International Livestock Center for Africa) (1990). Handbook of African Livestock
Statistics. International Livestock Center for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute) (2009). Annual Project Reports. ILRI,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute) (2008). Evolution of dairy production
systems in Uganda. ILRI Comms under Agriculture, Crop-Livestock, Dairying, East
Africa, ILRI, Intensification, MarketOpps, PA, Uganda. ILRI research. Nairobi-Kenya.
Kabirizi, J. M. (2006). The effect of integrating forage legumes in smallholder dairy farming
systems on feed availability. PhD Thesis. Makerere University. pp. 33-38
Kasirye, F. N. M. (2003). Prevention of Food Losses Programme, Milk and Dairy Products,
Postharvest Losses and Food Safety in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Near East. A Review
of the Small Scale Dairy Sector; Uganda, FAO.
Kossaibati, M. A. And Esslemont, R. J. (1997). The Costs of Production Diseases in Dairy
Herds in England. Veterinary Journal154 (1), 41-51.
Lawrence, J. A. (1992). The history of bovine theileriosis in Southern Africa. In; Norval, R. A.
I., Perry, B. D. and Young, A. S. (ed.). The epidemiology of Theileriosis in Africa.
Academic Press, London, UK.
MAAIF (Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries) (1996). Study Report on
The Comparative Analysis of Cattle Management systems in Different Areas of Uganda.
MAAIF (Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries) (2000). Plan for
Modernisation of Agriculture: Eradicating Poverty in Uganda.
42
MAAIF (Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries) (2002). Dairy Sector in
Uganda annual report.
MAAIF (Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries) (2004). Livestock technical
Handbook.
MAAIF (Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries) (2009). The National
Livestock Census Report 2008.
MAAIF (Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries) (2011). National Dairy
Strategy 2011-2015.
Mbabazi, P. (2005). Supply Chain and Liberalization of the Milk industry in Uganda. Fountain
Publishers, Kampala-Uganda
Mbowa, S., Shinyekwa, I. and Lwanga, M. M. (2011). Dairy Sector Reforms and
Transformation in Uganda since the 1990s. Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC) in
Collaboration with Africa Growth Initiative (AGI), Brookings.
Mbowa, S., Shinyekwa, I., Mayanja, M. and Lwanga. (2012). Improved Smallholder Dairy
Farming in Uganda through Technological Change. Economic Policy Research Centre.
Kampala Uganda.
Mbuza, F. M. B. (1993). A Systems Analysis of Milk Production Systems in Uganda and
Prospects for Technological Change. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, Australia.
Mevius, D., Sampimon, O. and Sol, J. (2005). Antimicrobial Resistance in Mastitis Organisms
as a Public Health Threat. In; Hogeveen, H. (Ed.). Proceedings of 4th IDF (International
Dairy Conference). Mastitis in Dairy Production, Current Knowledge and Future
Solutions. Wageningen. Wageningen Academic Publishers. pp. 102-108
43
MFPED (Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development) (2007). Background to
the Budget, 2007/08 Fiscal Year
Morzaria, S. P., Irvin, A. D., Wathanga, J., D'Souza, D., Katende, J., Young, A. S. and
Scott. J. G. (1988). The effect of East Coast Fever immunization and different acaricidal
treatments on the productivity of beef cattle. Veterinary Record 123:313-320.
Mpairwe, D. R., Sabiiti, E. N. and Mugerwa, J. S. (1998). Effect of dried Gliricidia sepium
leaf supplement on feed intake, digestibility and nitrogen retention in sheep fed dried KW
4 elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum). Agro forestry Systems 41:139 - 150.
Muia, J. M. K., Kariuki, J. N., Mbugua, P. N., Gachuiri, C. K., Lukibisi, L. B., Ayako, W.
O. and Ngunjiri, W. V. (2011). Smallholder dairy production in high altitude Nyandarua
milk-shed in Kenya: Status, challenges and opportunities. Livestock Research for Rural
Development Volume 23, Article #108 http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd23/5/muia23108.htm
Mukhebi, A. W., Perry, B. D. and Kruska, R. (1992). Estimated economics of theileriosis
control in Africa. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 12:73-85.
Mutugi, J., Young, A. S., Maritim, A. C., Ndungu, S. G., Stagg, D. A., Grootenhuis, J. G.
and Letich, B. L. (1988). Immunization of cattle against theileriosis using varying doses
of Theileria parva lawrencei and T. parva sporzoites and oxytetracycline treatments.
International Journal for Parasitology. 18 (4): 453-461.
Muwanga, J. W. (1994). An economic evaluation of zero grazing dairy production systems in
Uganda: A case study of Mpigi and Mukono Districts. M.Sc. Thesis, Makerere
University, Kampala. 97 pp.
44
Nakiganda, A., Mcleod, A., Bua, A., Phipps, R., Upton, M. and Taylor, N. (2006). Farmers’
constraints, objectives and achievements in smallholder dairy systems in Uganda.
Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 18, Article 69. Retrieved June 17,
2007, from http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd18/5/naki18069.htm
Naggayi, R. (1997). Marketing of fresh milk in Uganda: A case of Kampala-Jinja milk shed. A
thesis submitted for the award of the degree of Master of Science in Agriculture.
Makerere University, Uganda.
Norval, R. A. I., Perry, B. D. and Young, A. S. (1992). The epidemiology of theileriosis in
Africa. Academic Press, London, UK
Okello-Ouma. (1982). Milk Production and Processing. Department of Animal Science,
Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Okwenye, A. A. (1994). Rehabilitation of the dairy industry in Uganda. World Animal Review
79 (2) available on http://www.fao.org/docrep/T3080T/t3080T04.htm
Omiti, J. M., Freeman, H. A., Kaguongo, W. and Bett, C. (1999). Soil fertility maintenance
in Eastern Kenya. Current Practices, constraints and opportunities, CARMASAK
Working Paper Number 1. KARI, ICRISAT 32 p.
Otieno, D. C. I., Odhiambo, D. M. and Mairura, M. O. (2009). Economics Evaluation of
Relative Profitability in Smallholder Dairy Farms in Western Kenya. Journal of
Development and Agricultural Economics. 1 (2), 49-54
Otto, G., Balikowa, D., Kiconco, D., Ndambi, A. and Hemme, T. (2004). Milk Production in
Uganda: Dairy Farming Economics and Development Policy Impacts: IGAD Livestock
Policy Initiative Working Paper No. 09 – 08.
Pearson, J. E. (2006). Worldwide risks of animal diseases: introduction. Vet Italiana 42:293.
45
Potter, H. L. (1987). Inventory of feed resources for the smallholder farmer in Kenya. In;
Kategile, J. A., Said, A. N., and Dzowela, B. H. (eds). Animal feed resources for smallscale livestock producers. Proceedings of the Second PANESA Workshop held in
Nairobi, 11-15 November 1986. IDRC (International Development Research Centre),
Ottawa, Canada. pp 2-22.
Preston, T. R., Leng, R. A. (1987). Matching ruminant production systems with available
resources in the tropics and sub-tropics, 1st edn. Penambul Books, Armindale (New
South Wales, Australia).
Qi Wen’e. and Tang Wenshan. (2009).The analysis of Agricultural product marketing
channel’s selection and evaluation: Taking the lychee planters of Guangdong as example.
China rural survey.
Rodriguez-Martinez, H. (2012). Assisted reproductive techniques for cattle breeding in
developing countries: a critical appraisal of their value and limitations. Reproduction in
Domestic Animals 47, 21-26.
Sabiiti, E. N. (1993). Integration of forage legumes in crop/livestock production systems. In:
Pasture and feeding systems for sustainable livestock production and environment.
Proceedings of the second Uganda Pasture Network Workshop held at Makerere
University 14-16 December 1992. Sabiiti, E. N., Bareeba, F. B. and Mwebaze, S. (Eds.),
pp.19-26. Kampala, Uganda.
Ssewanyana, S. N. and Okidi, J. A. (2007). Poverty Estimates from the Uganda National
Household Survey III, 2005/2006. Occasional Paper No. 34, Economic Policy Research
Centre, Kampala, Uganda.
46
Staal, S. J. and Kaguongo, W. N. (2003). The Ugandan Dairy Sub-Sector. Targeting
Development Opportunities. Report prepared for IFPRI and USAID-Uganda.
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Future Harvest, Nairobi, Kenya. pp.54.
http://www.ilri.org/Link/Publications/UgandaDairy.pdf
The World Bank. (2011). Uganda Dairy Supply Chain Risk Assessment February 2011 Report.
Agricultural Risk Management Team of the Agricultural and Rural Development
department of the World Bank.
Thornton, P. K. (2010). Livestock production; recent trends, future prospects. Philos. Trans. R.
Soc. Biol. Sci. 365:2853–2867
Tsourgiannis, L., Edison, J.
and Warren, M. (2008). “Factors Affecting the Marketing
Channel Choice of Sheep and Goat Farmers in the Region of East Macedonia in Greece
page 87-97. Canada and Centre for Agribusiness Policy studies, Arizona State University.
Twinamasiko, N. I. (2001). Dairy production systems. In; Mukiibi J. K. (Eds). Agriculture in
Uganda, Livestock and fisheries, Vol. 4, pp. 18–42. Fountain Publishers/CTA/NARO,
Kampala, Uganda.
UBOS (Uganda Bureau of Statistics) (2012). Statistical Abstract. [Online] Available from:
http://www.ubos.org/onlinefiles/uploads/ubos/pdf%20documents/2012StatisticalAbstract.
pdf [2012-12-11]
Young, A. S., Kariuki, D. P., Mutugi, J., Heath, D. L. and Long, R. C. (1990). Economic
losses in cattle due to tick control and effects of tick-borne diseases on selected farms in
Nakuru District, Kenya. Preventive Veterinary Medicine (in press).
47
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Questionnaire
Questionnaire used to collect the information from Jesa Dairy Farm Limited out producers
FACTORS AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND MARKETING OF RAW MILK BY JESA
DAIRY FARM LIMITED OUT PRODUCERS IN BUSUNJU, WAKISO DISTRICT
PART I BACK GROUND INFORMATION
1. General farm information
Questionnaire number……..Date of interview……………Name of the farm…………………..
District………………………..Sub
county………………………….Parish……………………….Village……………………...........
2. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Age (years)………………………………………………………………………………………..
Gender
Male
Female
Marital status
Single
Married
Divorced
Widowed
Education level (years)……………………………………………………………………………..
PART II FARM CHARACTERISTICS AND MANAGEMENT
3. What is the estimated size of your land in acres?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………...
4. Which system of grazing do you use on your farm?
48
Continuous
Paddock
Intensive (zero grazing) system
Other (specify)……………………………………………………………………………………
5. Which breeding/mating method do you use on your farm?
Artificial insemination
Natural mating
6. What are the common diseases and parasites affecting your livestock?
Disease
Frequency of occurrence
Damage caused
Control measures
7. Common livestock parasites affecting dairy production
PARASITES (Liverflukes, Ticks, Worms) control measures (Drenching,Dipping,Spraying)
Parasites
Damage caused
Control measures
Frequency of control
8. What do you do to animals with mastitis?
………………………………………………………………………………………………............
9. Who treats your animals?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
10. How fast do veterinary doctors (personal) respond when call them to come and help you on
the farm?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
PART III FEEDS AND FEEDING
49
11. What are the major feed sources do you have on your farm?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
12. Do you use concentrate feeds on your farm?
YES
NO
Type of concentrate Cost per kg of concentrate Challenges in using the concentrate
13. Do you grow pasture on your farm?
YES
NO
If yes, mention some of the pastures grown on your farm
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
14. Do you do preserve pasture on your farm?
YES
NO
15. In which form do you preserve the pasture?
Silage
Hay
Others (specify)………………………………………………………….
16. What other challenges do you find in feeding your animals?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
PART IV MILK PRODUCTION
17. How much milk do you produce from your farm per day in litres?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
18. How much do you sell out of what you producer from the farm
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
50
19. When do you get payments for the supplied milk?
............................................................................................................................................................
20. Which challenges do you face with such method of payment?
.....................................................................................................................................................
21. How far is your farm from where you sell the milk (km)?
...........................................................................................................................................................
PART V MODE OF SALE OF THE MILK
22. Are you member of farmers association?
YES
NO
23. How much milk do you sell through/as
Channel
Quantity of milk
Association
Individual
Both channels
PART VI MAITAINING MILK QUALITY
24. Which containers do you use in/to
Milking Transporting milk for sale Challenges in using the containers
51
25. What challenges do you face along the routes as take milk for sale?
PART VII RECEPTION ON THE FARM
26. Does the milk collection centre sometimes reject your milk?
YES
NO
27. Why do you think your milk is sometimes rejected?
………………………………………………………………………………………………….......
28. What other challenges do you face after reaching the milk collection centre?
……………………………………………………………………………………………..............
52
Appendix 2: Map showing the location of the study area.
53