FACTORS AFFECTING SUSTAINABILITY OF GOAT
PRODUCTIVITY INTERVENTIONS IN UGANDA: A CASE
STUDY OF IGANGA DISTRICT
BY
WAATA TOLOFAINA (BVM, MAK)
2006/HD17/6757
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT,
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT (MLD) OF MAKERERE
UNIVERSITY
SEPTEMBER, 2010
DECLARATION
I, Waata Tolofaina, declare that the findings of this thesis are a result of my own
study and have never been represented for any degree award elsewhere. The
material in this thesis should never be reproduced without the author’s permission.
Signed…………………………………….
Date……………………………………….
This work was done under the supervision of:
Dr. Mugisha Anthony (PhD).
Signature…………………………………………………. Date………………………
Dr. Owiny David (PhD).
Signature…………………………………………………. Date………………………
i
DEDICATION
This book is dedicated to my dear husband Dr. Kakungulu James for his love,
companionship, support and optimism needed for self-development and reflective
thinking.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I thank the almighty God for enabling me finish this study.
I also wish to thank my lecturers for their continued guidance during the two years
course of Masters in Livestock Development Planning and Management. Special
thanks to Dr. Mugisha Anthony and Dr. Owiny David, for guiding this thesis.
My gratitude also go to the Ministry of Agriculture through the Goats research led
by Dr. Mugisha Anthony for the financial support during data collection and
analysis. I also wish to thank my employer, Africa 2000 Network led by Mr.
Frederick Musisi Kabuye for the financial support and time to undertake this
course.
I wish to thank my dear husband Dr. Kakungulu James and our four children
Angella, Gloria, Julian and Daisy, for allowing me time out to pursue this course
and the financial support. I will always appreciate their love, patience and
cooperation.
Lastly to my parents who have made me what I am today. God bless you all.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ...................................................................................................... i
DEDICATION ..........................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT......................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .........................................................................................iv
LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... vii
LIST OF APPENDICES ....................................................................................... viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS .........................................................ix
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................ x
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... 1
Background ............................................................................................................ 1
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................ 5
2.1 Livestock intervention in Uganda. .................................................................... 5
2.2 Livestock production in Iganga District ............................................................. 6
2.3 Gender dimensions in goat productivity interventions ...................................... 6
2.4 Sustainability factors in goat productivity. ........................................................ 7
CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................ 10
3.1 Study area...................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Study design .................................................................................................. 11
3.3 Sample size ................................................................................................... 11
3.4 Methods of data collection ............................................................................. 12
3.5 Data handling and statistical analysis ............................................................ 14
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS.............................................................................. 15
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 15
4.2: Household demographic data ....................................................................... 15
4.2.1: Gender and age of respondents ................................................................ 15
4.2.2: Levels of education of respondents ........................................................... 16
4.3: Socio-economic profile .................................................................................. 17
iv
4.3.1: Income source ........................................................................................... 17
4.3.2: Household expenditure .............................................................................. 18
4.4: Livestock keeping profile ............................................................................... 19
4.4.1: Livestock species and breeds kept ............................................................ 19
4.4.2 Flock sizes .................................................................................................. 20
4.4.3: Duration of keeping goats .......................................................................... 20
4.4.4: How goats were acquired........................................................................... 20
4.4.5: Reason for keeping goats .......................................................................... 21
4.4.6: Type of follow up support received ............................................................ 21
4.4.7 Goats meeting farmer expectations ............................................................ 21
4.4.8: Goat ownership .......................................................................................... 21
4.5 Goat management ......................................................................................... 22
4.5.1 Inputs for goat enterprise ............................................................................ 22
4.5.2 Family care for the goat .............................................................................. 22
4.5.3: Record keeping .......................................................................................... 23
4.5.4: Land size utilisation for goat rearing........................................................... 23
4.5.5: Grazing method and housing ..................................................................... 23
4.5.6: Constraints in goat keeping........................................................................ 24
4.6 Sustainability issues ....................................................................................... 25
4.6.1Market for goats ........................................................................................... 25
4.6.2 Goat production interventions ..................................................................... 27
4.6.3 Technologies sustained .............................................................................. 29
4.6.4 Failure for sustaining record keeping .......................................................... 29
4.6.5 Demand for the technologies ...................................................................... 30
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION .......................................................................... 33
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 41
6.1 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 41
6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 41
REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 43
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................... 47
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Gender of farmer respondents and those involved in FGDs in Bulongo
and Nakalama ...................................................................................................... 15
Table 2: Estimated household expenditure range ................................................ 18
Table 3: Livestock species kept ........................................................................... 19
Table 4: Flock size of goats kept.......................................................................... 20
Table 5: Constraints encountered in keeping the goats ....................................... 25
Table 6: Problems encountered in marketing goats ............................................. 27
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1: Map of the study area ............................................................................ 10
Figure 2 : Well managed goat housing in Iganga ................................................. 13
Figure 3: Poorly managed zero-grazing goat shed in Iganga……………………...13
Figure 4: Marital status of households ................................................................. 16
Figure 5: Education level of the household head ................................................. 16
Figure 6: Main source of income .......................................................................... 17
Figure 7: Main household expenditure ................................................................. 18
Figure 8: The main breeds of goats kept ............................................................. 19
Figure 9: Inputs in the goat enterprise ................................................................. 22
Figure 10: Type of records kept ........................................................................... 23
Figure 11: Grazing methods used by the farmers ................................................ 24
Figure 12: Main buyers of goats........................................................................... 26
Figure 13: Goats easily sold................................................................................. 26
Figure 14: Key goat improvement interventions in study area ............................. 28
Figure 15: Key goat actors in study area ............................................................. 28
Figure 16: Technologies sustained in Nakalama and Bulongo sub-counties ....... 29
Figure 17: Reason for not sustaining record keeping ........................................... 30
Figure 18: Reasons given for failure to sustain the interventions ......................... 31
Figure 19: Reasons for failure to sustain breedsCHAPTER FIVE........................ 32
vii
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: GLOSSARY .................................................................................. 47
APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ASSESSING FACTORS AFFECTING
SUSTAINABILITY OF GOAT PRODUCTIVITY INTERVENTIONS IN UGANDA . 48
APPENDIX 3: CHECKLIST FOR THE FGD......................................................... 62
viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
A2N-U:
Africa 2000 Network – Uganda
CBO:
Community Based Organisation
DR.:
Doctor
EPINFO:
Epidemiological Information
FAO:
Food and Agriculture Organization
FGD:
Focus Group Discussion
GDP:
Gross Domestic Product
GoU
Government of Uganda
HPI:
Heifer Project International
ILRI:
International Livestock Research Institute
LGDP:
Local Government Development Programme
MAAIF:
Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industries and Fisheries
MAK:
Makerere University Kampala
NAADS:
National Agricultural Advisory Services
NLPIP:
National Livestock Productivity Improvement Programme
NGOs:
Non-Governmental Organizations
PEAP:
Poverty Eradication Action Plan
PMA:
Plan for Modernization of Agriculture
SACU:
Send a Cow Uganda
SPSS:
Statistical package for social scientists
UBOS:
Uganda Bureau of Statistics
UPE:
Universal Primary Education
URA:
Uganda Revenue Authority
USE:
Universal Secondary Education
ix
ABSTRACT
Goats contribute greatly to the livelihoods of the rural communities by providing
food and income security. As a result several organisations have come up to
improve the production and productivity of goats by introduction of goat
interventions to enable farmers exploit their full potential. This study assessed the
factors affecting sustainability of goat productivity interventions in Bulongo and
Nakalama sub-counties, Iganga District, Uganda. One hundred farmers (50 in
Nakalama sub-county and 50 in Bulongo sub-county) were interviewed and
information obtained. In addition, two Focus Group Discussions were conducted.
The households’ demographic data, socio-economic profile, livestock keeping
profile, goat management, gender dimensions and sustainability issues were
specifically examined. Goat productivity interventions were found to achieve their
intended goal of improving the nutrition and income of the rural communities and
sustainability of these interventions were paramount. However, it was observed
that farmers have not fully sustained the goat productivity intervention as
intended. Sustainability failure were due to due to labor intensive technologies,
lack of follow up training and support, price disincentives and lack of equitable
participation of men and women in goat interventions. In order to achieve
sustainability of goat productivity interventions, there is need to transform from
subsistence to commercial production, improve on market access, demand for
products, gender equity, provide options for labor intensive practices.
x
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background
Development is a process that allows the people to improve their livelihoods.
Many countries have been able to improve the livelihoods of their people, but the
poor have remained absolutely poor and insecure as well as relatively worse off.
In Uganda today, over 80% of the population are earning a living from agriculture
and agricultural related activities. Livestock production constitutes an important
sub-sector in agricultural productions in Uganda and contributes about 7.5% of
total GDP or 17% to agricultural GDP domestic product (PMA, 2000). At least
40% of the Ugandan population is living in absolute poverty and the livestock
sector could be very important in addressing rural poverty. Households with
livestock earn more income and have improved food security, and obtain higher
crop productivity than other households.
Although cattle are the most important of all livestock in Uganda, goats and to a
less extent sheep make significant contribution to the local economy and the diet.
(MAAIF,1999). The small ruminants in Uganda are kept mainly for meat
production and contribute 16,043 metric tonns of meat annually (URA, 2000). This
accounts for 21% of the total national meat production. The skins annual output
was 1.36 million skins and with about 95% of these skins exported (URA, 2000).
The small ruminants kept in Uganda are goats and sheep with the former being
more important than the latter.
Goats have been kept for generations in Uganda and have helped people to
survive and to come out of poverty. The goat population was estimated at 6.3
million in Uganda (MAAIF, 1999). Smallholder farmers own more than 95% of
small ruminants and produce the bulk of the slaughter animals. Goats in Uganda
contribute significantly to the livestock and agricultural sector of the national
economy. They play diverse roles in the socio-economic welfare of a larger
proportion of the rural small-holder farmers who keep them as a major source of
cash, meat, and milk and for various social and cultural obligations such as paying
1
taxes, school fees, cultural ceremonies (Peacock, 1996; Okello and Obwollo,
1984).
In order to address the poverty situation in Uganda and because of the
significance of goats in households, several organizations have come up to
improve the production and productivity of the local goats which are smaller in
size and have low meat yield. Boer and dairy (Sanen, Togenberg) goats were
introduced in Uganda by NGOs, CBOs, religious organizations and Government
programmes.
The Government of Uganda has made deliberate efforts through various
interventions to boost goat production and target the export market within the
region and in the Middle East. Goat production is seen as one of the key livestock
enterprises that can quickly help Ugandans to come out of poverty and also earn
the country foreign exchange.
The farmer group support approach is being used by all the organizations involved
in the goat projects as a means of farmers accessing the goats and having a
collective management responsibility in one way or another. The groups are
trained and leaders are selected for each group. Male goats are usually given to
upgrade local stock through crossbreeding. The pass-on revolving scheme is also
emphasized especially among NGOs to increase on the multiplier effect
Goat productivity interventions were introduced over 10 years ago, in the farming
system in the study area. For Instance in 1995, the then Her Excellency the Vice
President, Dr. Specioza Kazibwe introduced dairy goats to some women groups in
Iganga District. Later in the late 90s and early 2000 some NGOs such as Africa
2000 Network – Uganda (A2N-U), Heifer Project International (HPI) and other
church organizations and private individuals also brought goats into the District.
The Government of Uganda also imported 845 Boer goats from South Africa in
2002 and 2003 and distributed them to farmers for multiplication in order to boost
goat production and raise the numbers for export. Mugisha A, et al (2007)
2
Alongside this intervention of introduction of exotic goats, were practices such as
record keeping, fodder and pasture establishment and management, disease and
parasite control, housing, breeding and integration of the goat in the rest of the
farming systems through utilization of manure. Other related development issues
such as gender were also tackled by these organizations. Although the farmers
are very enthusiastic to adopt these practices, however some years later they do
not carry on with such practices, hence affecting the productivity of the goats. For
example dairy goats that were producing 7litres/day now give 2-3 litres per day
while meat goats that would reach marketable age at 4-5 months now take 7-12
months. (Africa 2000 Network, 2007). Some major constraints to increased
productivity of goats have been identified as feed requirements, animal health and
genotype of livestock, farming systems and government policy (Kasellati and
Tacher, 1991).
Furthermore, there are several constraints that have been limiting the
sustainability of goat productivity interventions. Successful goat productivity can
only be achieved through good goat management practices in a sustainable
manner. It entails keeping goats under good management that will improve herd
production and goat productivity (Azuba R, et al 2005). This means increased
output per goat in terms of meat, milk and the average number of kids that are
born and raised to a time when they are disposed off for cash or retained for
breeding. In order to maximize the desired output from the goat farming
enterprise, a farmer needs to address the key productivity interventions that
include among other the following: Production systems, housing, feeding,
breeding, animal disease control and prevention, record keeping, marketing and
goat improvement technologies/practices. The others are new breed introduction
(pure Boer, pure dairy, cross Boer dairy), reproduction technologies, marketing
and marketability, crop and animal integration. These practices should be
maintained and passed on from generation to generation (sustainability).
However, the farmers are not able to sustain these interventions for along time or
beyond the life span on the project.
3
This study was undertaken to understand why farmers cannot sustain these
interventions to ensure continued high productivity of the goats. It also explored if
the interventions and best practices in the study area are still being carried out
and assessed the factors which have led to success or failure of the interventions.
The broad objective of this study was therefore to explore factors affecting
sustainability of goat productivity interventions by Government, NGOs and other
service providers. Specifically the study profiled the goat productivity interventions
in the area; identified farmers who have maintained or have not maintained the
interventions and success or failure factors, respectively; and suggested ways on
how to improve future goat productivity interventions.
4
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Livestock intervention in Uganda.
The main objective driving national development in Uganda is poverty eradication.
The Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) for Uganda, finalized in 2000 is the
comprehensive national policy framework which guides development. PEAP is to
reduce poverty to 10% of the national population by the year 2017. A holistic
policy and strategic framework, the plan for modernization of Agriculture (PMA),
derived from PEAP seeks to address poverty reduction through agricultural
transformation, from subsistence to commercial farming (PEAP 2000).
Goat production is seen as one of the key livestock enterprises that can quickly
help Ugandans to come out of poverty and also earn the country foreign
exchange (MAAIF 2001). In an attempt to fulfill this goal, the government imported
845 Boer goats from South Africa in 2002 and 2003 and distributed them to
farmers for multiplication in order to boost goat production and raise the numbers
for export. The National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) was created by
an act of parliament in 2001 to spearhead the privatization of the public extension
system (MAAIF, 2001). The fundamental objective of the NAADS programme is to
develop a demand driven client oriented and farmer agricultural service delivery
system targeting the active poor farmers. Since its inception, NAADS has
promoted goat production and supported farmers groups and individuals with Boer
goats for crossbreeding with the indigenous goats (Amanya M, 2008). Recently,
the National Livestock Productivity Improvement Programme (NLPIP) has also
boosted livestock productivity intervention in the Uganda.
The NGOs and other private sector also imported Boer goats (MAAIF, 2003).
Several NGOs, namely: Heifer Project International (HPI), Send a Cow Uganda
(SACU), and Africa 2000 Network have previously worked in Iganga District for
over 10 years and promoted livestock (including goat) husbandry as a means of
addressing poverty eradication. It is reported by Iganga District veterinary
department that goat productivity interventions in the district have been successful
and that goat farming is slowly replacing cattle farming. In 1995, the then Her
5
Excellency the Vice President Dr. Specioza Kazibwe introduced dairy goats, 10
Sannen goats (1 male and 9 females), to some women groups in Iganga District.
In addition, church organisations and individuals have also brought into the district
improved goats.
2.2
Livestock production in Iganga District
Iganga is basically a rural district (91% of the district population) with over 80 % of
the people engaging in peasant agriculture, animal husbandry, fishing and
produce buying. The main crop grown for cash is maize though in some parts the
striga weed has affected its production. Other crops include coffee, potatoes, rice,
beans and cassava. Coffee and sugar canes are the main traditional cash crops.
Majority of the people live below the poverty line i.e. on less that $1 a day and can
only produce for home consumption. (Iganga District LG, Five year OVC strategic
plan, 2008/9 – 2012/2014, Feb 2008)
The total goat production in Uganda is about 12,449,670 and eastern region has
2,599,980 (20.9%). Iganga District is estimated to have 169,915 goats of several
breeds (MAAIF, 2009).
2.3
Gender dimensions in goat productivity interventions
Gender is a socio-economic variable used to analyze roles, responsibilities,
constraints, opportunities, and incentives of people involved in agriculture (Poats,
1991). Women undertake major responsibilities in agricultural production most of
which go unrecognized in employment records. Further more women perform
household chores and reproductive activities and deserve the necessary attention.
However focusing on women only may not be the appropriate approach towards
improving the welfare of the poor families, in developing countries.
Some of the goat production activities include feeding, herding, milking (for dairy
goats), care of goats and kids, pregnant and injured animals. Others are collection
and transportation of animal feeds, cleaning of animal sheds and collection of
manure. Raising the goats requires a contribution from all family members.
6
Specific participation of women, men and children in animal husbandry varies
across regions depending on the farming systems and socio-economic factors
such as religion, culture, development gradient etc. Gender roles are further
influenced by the environmental and demographic characteristics and the type of
animals kept. These variations make it impossible to generalize about gender
roles in ruminant livestock production systems in developing countries (FAO,
2002)
2.4
Sustainability factors in goat productivity.
Despite the significant role of goats in improving the livelihoods of the rural poor,
this role is underscored by several factors that affect the sustainability of goat
productivity interventions. Sustainability is perhaps the one of the toughest
concerns in the 21st century. Sustainability is a paradigm which aims to complying
simultaneously with productive, economic, social, cultural and ecological
objectives (Sarandon, 2002).
Sustainable development is a pattern of resource use that aims to meeting human
needs, while preserving the natural environment. These needs can be met not
only in the present, but also in the indefinite future. Sustainable development is
development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainable development is
the management and conservation of the natural resource base, and the
orientation of technological and institutional change to attain a continued
satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Such sustainable
development in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors conserves land,
water, plant and animal genetic resources; and is environmentally non-degrading,
technically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable (FAO, 1988).
Sustainability is multi-dimensional and it is hard to be precise about exactly what it
is. The present study focused on sustainability to imply persistence and the
capacity of goat productivity to continue for a long time, and considered three
aspects of sustainability, namely: economic, social, and environmental aspects.
Economic aspect considers demands for goats and goat products, resources or
7
income spent and gained from goat keeping, access to markets, credit and
financing. The social aspect considers cultural and traditional roles of goat and
goat products, social institutions (groups and associations) and civil society
involved. Meanwhile, the environmental aspect considers grazing and energy use,
biodiversity and genetic conservation, soil and water management, air quality, and
human and animal health. Interplay of these factors influence the sustainability of
goat productivity interventions. Sustainability of goat productivity interventions
therefore means ability to produce goats and goat products to meet the needs of
mankind now and in the future using of modern farming practices and new
interventions.
The economic factor is one of the most important considerations in sustainability
of goat productivity interventions. The nature of the market for goats and goat
products for human consumption and for breeding will determine the profitability
and viability of goat systems. High demand of the goats and goat products can be
a highly motivating factor to sustainability of productivity intervention threats. The
market for goats and goat products will thus greatly affect profitability and
economic sustainability.
Although social considerations may appear insignificant, goats continue to be kept
in places where they are an integral part of the cultural life of those communities.
Social considerations encompass networks (membership in groups/ associations)
and connectedness that increase peoples trust and ability to work together, solve
collective problems more easily and expand their access to other services from
various services providers and institutions. Interventions that are not embraced by
the whole community lead to social exclusion- “process through which individuals
or groups are wholly or partially excluded from full participation in the society in
which they live”. Some attributes can exclude others, especially the marginalized
groups such as women, the poor and disabled. Past cross breeding programmes
in Meru dairy project failed because programmes were evolved and implemented
without beneficiaries input and therefore ownership and acceptance was lacking.
Further more Project approaches were expensive with no in built sustainability
mechanisms. Mtenga,L et al 1998).
8
Considering environmental issues, traditionally goats are kept under free range or
tethering system. These systems affect the environment including vegetative
cover, since goats are browsers, leading to degradation. Livestock, including
goats, interact with the environment in a number of positive and negative ways. In
recent times the negative impact of livestock on the environment has been
emphasized. The report “Livestock’s Long Shadow (FAO, 2006)” brought together
a large weight of evidence showing the damaging environmental effect of livestock
and livestock-related anthropogenic activities. Development partners, especially
NGOs introduced the zero-grazing system of goat rearing as one of the
intervention to poverty, while minimizing costs, maximizing benefits and reducing
negative environmental impacts. The environmental challenge is thus, to identify
interventions and technologies which will enhance the positive and mitigate the
negative effects of grazing in order to achieve the products – economic, social and
environmental - required by man.
9
CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1
Study area
Iganga District lies in the Eastern region of Uganda. It is a land locked district that
lies between longitude 330 10’ east and 340 0’ east and latitudes 0o 06’ North 1o
12’.
It is located in the South Eastern part of Uganda and the distance is
approximately 102 Km from Kampala, the capital city of Uganda. It borders
Mayuge district to the south, Bugiri to the southeast, Kaliro and Namutumba to the
North and Jinja District to the West.
It covers a total area of 1680 square
kilometers, much of which is land and swamps. The districts headquarters are
located in Iganga Town Council on Saza Road along Nakigo Road.
The study was conducted in the parishes of Bugonoka, Namalemba, Bulongo,
Nakabugu and Kiyunga in Bulongo sub-county; and parishes of Nakalama,
Bukona, Bukyayi and Buseyi in Nakalama sub-county, Iganga District. Iganga
District was chosen purposely because it is among the Districts that benefited
from Government and NGO goat productivity interventions over 10 years ago.
Map of the study area is given in figure 1 below.
Study area
Figure1: Map of the study area
10
3.2
Study design
The study was composed of two components, a qualitative survey based on focus
group discussions (FGDs) in two selected sites (one site per sub-county) and a
quantitative study based on an administered questionnaire at household level.
The quantitative approach complimented the qualitative method to obtain an
insider’s knowledge beyond what a single method would give out. The design also
involved living testimonies of farmers who had kept goat over years, participants
observation of such farmers among others and collection of secondary data from
previous work done, and interview with key farmers.
3.3
Sample size
The sample size was determined using the formula below.
n = 4(PQ)
e2
Where:
n = Sample size
P= is the positive outcome, and in this case we took the number of households
where goats productivity interventions were sustained, and the assumption is that
it is 50%.
Q = is the negative outcome and this considered households where goat
productivity interventions were not sustained, and the assumption it that it is 50%.
4 = is the 95% confidence interval.
e = the permitted level of sampling error in the study and in this case its 10% (the
range of allowable error for a survey in unknown population is 0.1 points (Drea).
Therefore, n = 4(0.5 X 0.5)
(0.1)2
= 100
The sample size or farmers in the study was 100 goat farmers for the quantitative
questionnaire survey. Participants of the focus group discussion were selected
purposely to include all categories of farmers who keep goats and those who don’t
11
keep goats. Among participants who keep goats were those who had maintained
the practices over three years and those who had not.
3.4
Methods of data collection
Questionnaire survey and the questionnaire instrument is given in Appendix 2.
The questionnaire was pre-tested in one randomly sampled sub county. The aim
was to assess the clarity, validity and reliability of the questions. One hundred
farmers who have been rearing pure/crossbred Boer, dairy or local goats for the
past five or more years were randomly selected. The 100 farmers comprised of 50
farmers from Nakalama sub-county and 50 farmers from Bulongo sub-county. Six
research assistants (3 per sub-county) were selected and trained to help in data
collection. Both qualitative and quantitative data was collected and employed the
following methods:
(1) Focus group discussions using a pre-prepared checklist (Appendix 3). Focus
group discussion involved getting 20 to 30 people affected by the subject of
investigation and asking them question and the responses recorded. The
investigator and research assistants had knowledge of the local language, hence
the discussions were conducted in the local language and recorded in English.
(2) Collection of secondary data from farmers production records, records from
the District veterinary office and reports of similar work done or information related
to the subject of investigation.
(3) Participants observations: this involved direct observation of events, process,
relationships and behaviors by the investigator. Areas of observation were on
household status, type of housing structure (main house, kitchen, toilet facilities),
household assets (bicycles), compound, hygiene and sanitation. All these were
considered as being indicators of improved living standards. These were recorded
and photographs of goat sheds taken (figure 2 and 3).
12
(4) Farmers living testimonies that involved narrations or stories carried out with
individuals or groups of individuals who have been involved or participated in the
process.
(5) Semi structured interviews with key or model farmers that involved asking
specific questions aimed at getting information that was used to enrich the study.
The questions were both open-ended and closed ended. The interviews provided
a good source of both qualitative and quantitative data.
Figure 2 : Well managed goat housing in Iganga
Figure 3: Poorly managed zero-grazing goat shed in Iganga
13
3.5
Data handling and statistical analysis
The analysis involved turning the detailed information into an understanding of
patterns, trended and interpretations. All questionnaire information were edited,
coded and details summarized in tabular and graphical form. The data was
captured in Microsoft Excel and analyzed using Epidemiological Information
(EPINFO) software and Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) to
compute frequencies and percentages that generated the graphs and charts in
this report to support the qualitative data.
The results are findings of the analyzed questionnaire data which was drawn from
responses of the 100 goat keepers drawn from two sub-counties of Nakalama
(parishes of Nakalama, Buseyi, Bukyayi and Bukoona) and Bulongo (parishes of
Bugonoka, Kiyunga, Nakabugu, Namalemba and Bulongo) in Iganga District. The
information from the questionnaire survey was corroborated by findings of the
focus group discussions of 43 farmers conducted in two sites in the same location.
14
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
4.1
Introduction
The results are categorized into five sections: House hold demographic data,
socio-economic profile, livestock keeping profile, goat management, gender
dimensions and sustainability issues. Focus Group Discussions and farmer
respondents in Bulongo and Nakalama by Gender is given in table 1 below.
Table 1: Gender of farmer respondents and those involved in FGDs in Bulongo and
Nakalama
Focus Group Discussions Farmer respondents
Total
Male
Female
Male
Female
Nakalama
12
12
33
17
74
Bulongo
15
09
22
28
74
Total
27
21
55
45
148
4.2:
Household demographic data
4.2.1: Gender and age of respondents
The study looked at the type of household of the respondents with a view of
examining participation of men and women in goat farming. The majority 59%
of the goat farmers were from male headed monogamous households. In
addition, 22% were from male headed polygamous households, while 19% from
female headed households (single mothers or widows).This is shown in figure 4
15
Female headed
(single/widow)
19%
Male headed
monogamous
59%
Male headed
polygamous
22%
Figure 4: Marital status of households
All the respondents were adults with age range of 24-67 years and mean age of
45 years.
4.2.2: Levels of education of respondents
The majority 54% of the respondents were men while 46% were women. Most
respondents (93%) attained at least primary education, of which 48% had primary
education, 36% attained secondary level and 9% tertiary level. Only 7% of the
respondents had never had formal education. This is shown in figure 5.
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20
10
0
No education
Prrimary level
Secondary level
Education level of household head
Figure 5: Education level of the household head
16
Tertiary level
Responses from the focus group discussions indicated that women farmers were
more keen and committed to feeding the goats, cleaning the sheds, identifying
sick animals, there by having a more key role in sustaining the interventions. On
the other hand the age of the respondents did not significantly contribute to
sustainability since the majority of the respondents were adults.
4.3:
Socio-economic profile
4.3.1: Income source
Figure 6 shows that the main source (55%) of income was derived from crops and
14% from other sources such as petty businesses and remittances from relatives.
Only 12% of the income was from live goats, 8% from cow milk, 6% from poultry,
4% from sale of pigs and 1% from selling cattle.
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20
10
0
Live goats
Crops
Other Cow milk
sources
Income type
Figure 6: Main source of income
17
Poultry
Pigs
Selling
cattle
4.3.2: Household expenditure
The main household expenditure was on education (75%), followed by medical
care (12%), food (8%), animal feeding (1%), animal health care (1%), and others
(2%). (Figure 7).
80
70
Percentage
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Education
Medical
Care
Food
Animal
feeding
Animal
health care
Others
Extenditure item
Figure 7: Main household expenditure
Among other expenditures, the respondents specified domestic consumables
such as salt, fuel (paraffin and wood), sugar, soap. The estimated cost of medical
care varied from UShs 10,000 to 800,000, buying food UShs 15,000 to 900,000,
and children’s education 10,000 to 960,000, animal feeding 10,000 to 160,000
and animal health care 10,000 to 305,000 on a bi annual and annual basis (table
2).
Table 2: Estimated household expenditure range
Bi-annually
Annually
Total
Medical care
10,000-800,000
20,000-1,600,000
Buying food
15,000-900,000
30,000-1,800,000
Children’s education
10,000-960,000
20,000-1,920,000
Animal feeding
10,000-160,000
20,000-320,000
Animal health care
10,000-305,000
20,000-610,000
18
4.4:
Livestock keeping profile
4.4.1: Livestock species and breeds kept
The main livestock species kept by most respondents (42%) is goats. The other
livestock species kept were poultry 30%, cattle 22% and pigs 6%. (Table 3).
Table 3: Livestock species kept
Species
Percentage (%)
Goats
42
Poultry
30
Cattle
22
Pigs
6
The majority (97%) of respondents keep goats, while 1% do not keep goats and
2% did not mention whether they keep goats or not. Of those who did not keep
goats, 95% said the main reason for not keeping goats is that they are hard to
keep. The main breed of goats kept is local goats (46 %). The other goat breeds
kept were dairy crosses (21%), Boer crosses (14%), pure dairy goats (10%), and
Percentage
pure Boer goats (3%). (Figure 8).
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Local goats
Dairy
Boer
Goat type
Figure 8: The main breeds of goats kept
19
Pure dairy
Pure Boer
4.4.2 Flock sizes
46% of the respondents kept 6-10 goats, 37% of respondents kept less than 5
goats and the rest (16%) kept 11-20 goats, and 1% kept more than 20 goats.
(Table 4).
Table 4: Flock size of goats kept
Flock size
Percentage (%)
1-5 goats
37
6-10 goats
46
1-20 goats
16
>20
1
4.4.3: Duration of keeping goats
The study revealed that 43% of the respondents have kept goats for 4-10 years,
41% had kept for 1-3 years,. 11% had kept for over 10 years and 3% had not
kept goats at all. Up to 43% of the respondents have kept exotic/crossbred goats
for 1-3 years, 24% had kept for 4-10 years while 14% had kept goats for less than
one year.
4.4.4: How goats were acquired
The majority (69%) of the respondents acquired the local goat through purchase
from the markets. Meanwhile 14% of the farmers purchased the goats from other
farmers/breeders, 10% were given by projects/NGOs, 3% of the farmers acquired
their goat through bride price and 3% inherited the goats. The majority (49%) of
the respondents revealed that the main source of the exotic goats were others
such as fellow farmers, breeders, NGOs like Africa 2000 Network. In addition to
this source was Heifer Project International 13%, NAADS 6% and MAAIF 2%.
20
4.4.5: Reason for keeping goats
Most of the farmers kept goats as a source of income (62%). Other reasons for
keeping the goat were for milk (6%), meat (6%), manure (4%) and socio-cultural
reasons (2%). The survey revealed that the majority (37%) of the farmers were
mainly motivated to acquire the exotic goats because they are quick maturing.
Others were motivated because the goats were bigger and better than the local
goats. (12%), were good for producing milk (10%), were promised outside market
(7%), and 6% were motivated by prestige and because the neighbor had acquired
them.
4.4.6: Type of follow up support received
28% of the farmers said they received training as a follow-up support from where
the goats were got. The other support received is routine advice (20%), market for
the goats (5%), veterinary care (4%) and market for milk 3%. The remaining
(40%) of the respondents however said they do not receive any follow up support
from where the goats were got.
4.4.7 Goats meeting farmer expectations
52% of the farmers reported that the goats had met their expectations. However
15% said the goats had not met their expectations. The study further revealed that
of those who said the goats had met their expectations, the major reason given by
30% of farmers is that the goat have greatly multiplied. Further more 21% said
they get income from them and 6% mentioned other reasons such as social
factors. Other farmers said the goats have not met their expectations and sited the
following reasons lack of market (47%), high death rate (23%), too demanding
(18%) and lack of veterinary services (2%).
4.4.8: Goat ownership
The findings from the questionnaire survey revealed that the majority (37%) of the
respondents reported the goats are owned by the family, 29% owned by men,
21
20% owned by the wives, and 5% owned by group members. However, the
findings of the focus group discussions indicated that the goats are mainly (75%)
owned by the men.
4.5
Goat management
4.5.1 Inputs for goat enterprise
Figure 6 shows that most respondents (38%) spend a lot on veterinary drugs as
input to their goat enterprise. The other inputs into the goat enterprise include
veterinary services (24 %), labour (17%), feeds (14%), and other inputs such as
ropes (6%), (Figure 9). The kind of supplementary feeds given to the goats is
mainly household feed residues like banana peelings, potato vines and shrubs
(amasumi in Lusoga language).
40
35
Percentage
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Veterinary
drugs
Veterinary
services
Labour
Feeds
Others
Goat enterprise inputs
Figure 9: Inputs in the goat enterprise
4.5.2 Family care for the goat
49% of the respondents reported goats are cared for by the women and 18% by
children. Care of goats by husbands, whole family and laborers were reported by
15%, 9% and 8% of the respondents, respectively
22
4.5.3: Record keeping
Most of the respondents (65%) do not keep records, while others (34%) do keep
records. Of the farmers who keep records, 38% keep health records followed by
sales records (22%), breeding records (19%), production records (17%), and
others (1%) keep other records, (Figure 10). The main reason reported for not
keeping records is inability to write (32%), records are not necessary (28%),
recording is tedious (25%) and other reasons such as lack of knowledge, laziness
and poor motivation (15%). On comparison of education level and sustainability of
the interventions, the majority of the respondents reported they were unable to
keep on with record keeping since they were not able to read and write.
40
35
Percentage
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Health
records
Sales records
Breeding
records
Production
records
Other records
Type of records
Figure 10: Type of records kept
4.5.4: Land size utilisation for goat rearing
The amount of land available for goats varied from 1-60 acres. Most (64%) of the
respondents reported the amount of land available for the goats is 1-2 acres,
followed by 3-5 acres (27%), 6-20 acres (4%), 21-50 acres (2%), and 60 acres
and above (2%). The majority (57%) of the respondents had purchased the land,
while 38% inherited the land and 3% use communal land.
4.5.5: Grazing method and housing
The majority (55%) of the respondents tether their goats, 36% practice zerograzing, 5% use paddocking and 4% practice free ranging (Figure 11). The type of
housing structure available for the goats is mainly roofed shelter, ground floor
23
(39%), while open shelter were 25%, roofed shelter with raised floor were 18%,
and those which are not housed i.e. no shelter were also 18%.
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20
10
0
Paddock grazing
Zero grazing
Tethering
Free range
Others
Grazing methods
Figure 11: Grazing methods used by the farmers
4.5.6: Constraints in goat keeping
Farmers in the two study sites identified different constraints encountered in
keeping goats (Table 5).The main constraint encountered in keeping these goats
is goat diseases (47%), followed by lack of grazing land/inadequate pastures
(29%), labour intensive practices like zero-grazing resulting into “cut & carry” of
fodder/pasture (20.5%). Other constraints reported were low market prices of the
goats (13%), limited follow up & extension by NGOs & Government staff (12%),
high cost of veterinary services & drugs (9%), poor markets (1.5%), and lack of reinvestment (1.5%).
24
Table 5: Constraints encountered in keeping the goats
Constraints to goat production
% value in %
Nakalama
value Average %
in
value
Bulongo
Labour intensive practices like zero-
21
20
20.5
Lack of grazing land/inadequate pasture
24
34
29
Goat diseases
50
44
47
Poor markets
1
2
1.5
Limited follow up & extension by NGOs &
14
10
12
High cost of veterinary services & drugs
8
10
9
Lack of re-investment
2
1
1.5
Low prises of goats
6
20
13
grazing “cut & carry” of fodder/pasture
Gov’t staff
4.6
4.6.1
Sustainability issues
Market for goats
(a) Goat buyers
Up to 64% of respondents had sold goats in the last six months while 36 % did not
sell any goats. Of those who sold goats, the majority (90%) of the respondents
sold 1-5 goats, 8% sold 5-10 goats and only 2% sold over 10 goats. The
marketing outlets for both breeding and meat goats were butchers (49%), fellow
farmers (19%), goat traders (14%) NGOs (10%), and NAADS (8%), figure 12.
25
60
Percentage
50
40
30
20
10
0
Butchers
Fellow
farmers
Goat traders
NGOs
NAADS
Categories of goat buyers
Figure 12: Main buyers of goats
(b) Place of goat sales and goats easily sold
Most (73%) of the goat keeper sold their goats at farm gate (from home), a few
(17%) took to markets and 10% used other modes of sale. The study also
revealed that the goats which are easily sold are the locals as reported by 65% of
the respondents, and crosses 27%, while exotic was the least sold as reported by
only 8% of the respondents. This is shown in figure 13.
Figure 13: Goats easily sold
26
(c) Problems encountered in marketing
The categories of buyers offered various opportunities and constraints to the
respondents. The butchers were the major outlet however, they buy goats
according to body weight. Farmers reported that even for a pure exotic breed
worth UGX 200,000, a butcher buy at UGX 60,000/=. Although they offer low
price, the respondents acknowledged that butchers offer a stable market outlet.
The other market outlets are fellow farmers, Non-governmental organisations and
government organisations such as NAADS. 41% of the respondents reported they
are offered very low prices for the goats. In addition 23% of the respondents
reported they had no problem with marketing of the goats (table 6). Seven percent
of the respondents reported the major problem in marketing was long distance to
the market, 5% reported no market at all, and 2% gave other reasons such as
poor infrastructure. The distance to the nearest goat market is 1-5 kilometres.
Table 6: Problems encountered in marketing goats
Problem encountered
Percentage (%)
Low prices
41
No problem
23
Long distance to markets
7
Lack of market
5
Others
2
4.6.2 Goat production interventions
Key goat and related interventions introduced were in the areas of training farmers
(33%), followed by extension visits (30%) as given in figure 14 below.
27
Ze
ro
-g
ra
zi
P
ng
ad
do
ck
gr
az
in
g
D
is
ea
se
co
nt
ro
Im
l
pr
ov
ed
ho
us
in
Im
g
pr
ov
ed
fe
ed
in
g
N
ew
pa
st
ur
es
br
ee
ds
N
ew
on
xt
en
si
E
Tr
ai
ni
ng
Percentage
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Type of intervention
Nakalama
Bulongo
Figure 14: Key goat improvement interventions in study area
Key actors in goat production were Government (41%), NGOs (20%), private vets
(8%), farmers (18%), and CBOs (13%). This is shown in figure 15 below.
Figure 15: Key goat actors in study area
28
4.6.3 Technologies sustained
Figure 16 shows the technologies that are still is use, and 37% of the respondents
said the major practice still being sustained is disease control, improved breeds
(17%), improved housing (16%), crop/animal integration (13%), record keeping
nt
eg
ra
tio
n
al
i
co
nt
ro
l
Cr
op
/a
ni
m
Di
s
ea
se
ke
ep
in
g
Re
co
rd
br
ee
ds
Im
pr
ov
ed
Im
pr
ov
ed
Im
pr
ov
ed
ho
us
in
g
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
fe
ed
s
Percentage
(12%) and improved feeds (5%).
Categories of interventions
Figure 16: Technologies sustained in Nakalama and Bulongo sub-counties
4.6.4 Failure for sustaining record keeping
The farmers had several reasons for not carrying on with each of the
technologies. During both the questionnaire survey and the FDGs, the understood
why farmers were not able to sustain or sustained to a less extent, the
technologies introduced. Figure 17 shows the reasons for not keeping on with
record keeping.
29
35
Percentage
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Not able to read
or write
Not necessary
Tedoius
Others
Reasons for not keeping records
Figure 17: Reason for not sustaining record keeping
Inability to read and write as a reason for not keeping records was further
confirmed by the education level of the respondents, as the majority (48%) of the
respondents had only attained primary level education.
Record keeping is tedious and when you keep on recording
expenditure, the figures reveal that expenses are so high which is
discouraging and disturbing. This reflection of high expenditure
makes us give up on record keeping.
Comment by Malende Mary, of Bulongo sub-county during the
FGD
4.6.5 Demand for the technologies
The majority (72%) of the respondents reported that the technologies introduced
to them were demanded for, while 19% reported they were not demanded, 9% of
the respondents were not sure. Successful goat practices that were replicated
include: rearing of improved breeds of goats, routine treatment of the goats,
improved feeding, adoption of new fodder legumes, crop and animal integration
practices, and disease control. Practices introduced but not sustained include;
30
record keeping, improved housing (shed construction), zero-grazing. During the
FGDs, the reasons given for not sustaining the interventions were labour
intensiveness of the practices without incentives, limited extension services, and
high cost of inputs, laziness and unfair criteria for selection of beneficiaries.
Similarly, in the questionnaire survey the majority (36%) of the respondents
reported that the reasons for failure to sustain the technologies as being labour
demanding. Meanwhile the high cost was reported by 34% of respondents, lack of
follow up training (25%), no economic benefit (3%), and 2% gave other reasons
(Figure 18).
40
35
Percentage
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Labour
intensive
Expensive
Lack of follow No economic
up training
benefit
Other
Sustainability constraints
Figure 18: Reasons given for failure to sustain the interventions
Some respondents failed to sustain the breeds of goats given in the intervention.
The major reason given by 47% of respondents was lack of market. Meanwhile
23% revealed that survival of the goats is very poor, 18% reported the goats are
expensive to keep and 12% gave other reasons such as lack of veterinary
services. This is shown in figure 19 below.
31
Figure 19: Reasons for failure to sustain breeds
32
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
The study involved a total of 143 farmers comprising of 82 male farmers and 61
female farmers. One hundred of these farmers (50 from Nakalama and 50 from
Bulongo sub-county) participated in the questionnaire survey, while 43 farmers
(24 from Nakalama and 19 from Bulongo sub-county) participated in the focus
group discussions. The study involved more male farmers than female farmers
because women were engaged in other activities in the visited households. In
addition, the majority (59%) of the respondents were from male headed
monogamous households (22% male headed polygamous and 19% from female
headed households). The study findings are comparable to those of Brant et al.
(2001) who reported that male headed households are predominant among the
poor livestock keepers in Lake Victoria Basin. The majority (93%) of the
respondents had attained at least primary level education and only small
proportion (7%) had not attained education at all. This high figure of educated
farmers could be attributed to the introduction of Universal Primary Education
(UPE) in 1997 (Ministry of Education 2007).
Uganda’s economy is largely dependent on agricultural sector for both food selfsufficiency and foreign exchange earnings (PMA, 2000). The study revealed that
the majority (55%) of the respondents’ main source of income is derived from
crops. The findings are comparable to that of MFPED Uganda Budget FY 2009/10
which indicated that the agriculture sector performance grew in FY 2008/9
compared to FY 2007/8 largely due to improved performance of food crops which
grew by 2.9 percent.
Despite the introduction of Universal Primary Education in 1997 and Universal
Secondary Education (USE) in February 2007 by the Government of Uganda, and
education being second in national budget allocation, the main household
expenditure for the majority (72%) of farmers is on education.
33
The findings of the current study indicate that the 42% of the farmers keep goats
compared to other livestock. These findings are supported by those of HPI which
indicated that goat productivity interventions have been successful in Iganga
District, and goat farming is slowly replacing cattle farming (HPI annual report,
2007). The finding however, contradicts that of the statistics of the livestock
census (MAAIF 2009,) which indicated that the main livestock species kept by
farmers is cattle, and goats come second. This difference could be attributed to
the fact that the livestock census was a National survey unlike this study which
only focused on Iganga District. The livestock census report further indicated that
the national goat population in Uganda grew from 8.5 million in the last three
years to 12.5 million. Western region had the highest number of goats estimated
to be 3.5 million, followed by northern region with 2.7 million, while central region
had the lowest number of goats estimated to be 1.7 million. It is noted that the restocking programme in a number of districts under the National Livestock
Productivity Improvement Project (NLPIP) funded by the African Development
Bank and the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) project contributed
to the increase.
Despite the introduction of exotic breeds of goats, the current study found that the
most (46%) of the farmers keep local goats. In the Iganga District, exotic goats
were introduced over 10 years ago and since then several NGOs including HPI
and Africa 2000 Network brought in new breeds of goats. 43% of the respondents
however have kept the exotic breeds of goats for only 1-3 years, 24% of the
respondents who have kept them for 4-10 years. This is attributed to the pass on
the gift philosophy where initial beneficiaries give the first kids to other
beneficiaries within the community or group. The flock size of goats kept by the
majority 46% of the farmers ranges from 6-10 goats.
Tethering was the most predominant (63%) goat management system, despite
introduction of new interventions of zero-grazing and paddock grazing. Tethering
is a traditional practice where goats are tied on a rope and graze around a limited
range area. Where goats are tethered, there is a high chance of getting burden of
diseases and, therefore, the farmers has to adjust his management practices for
better performance. (Devendra,1987). Although tethering is associated with
34
several challenges, farmers prefer this practice because it is, cheap, not labor
intensive. In the study area since the major income is derived from crops, farmers
tether the goats to keep them away from their crops. This practice of tethering
limits the feed intake of the goats, predisposes them to diseases and generally
reduces the performance and hence the productivity of the goats. Successful
breeding of goats and rearing the offsprings up to the breeding age or slaughter
weight at the right time is one of the most important practices a livestock farmer
would like to achieve in his enterprise. Goat also need some form of housing
which is well ventilated, well drained and easily cleaned (Devendra 1988).
Women farmers were more keen and committed to the care and management of
goats. This is because they are at home most of the time cleaning the goat shed,
caring for sick, injured and pregnant animals. Women also take out the goats for
tethering or collect and carry fodder to the animals and easily identify sick animals
and report to their husband. Hence they play a big role in sustaining the
interventions compared to their counterparts. Men on the other hand are keen in
management of bigger livestock (cows), are in charge of herd management and
they are largely the decision makers for livestock production.
Women represent the majority of the rural poor (up to 70%) and play a major role
in the survival strategies and the economy (Africa 2000 Network, gender trainers
manual ) However in Uganda women lag behind men in terms of education level
and income earnings. The study revealed that care of the goats is mainly (49%)
done by women. The findings are similar to those of ILRI, 2007 that reported that
the division of work in Uganda is influenced by socio-cultural and economic
factors, what the animal is used for and how valuable the animal is.
The present study showed that ownership of the goats is mainly by men. Although
members of the family own goat, they cannot sale or slaughter without consent of
the man. Therefore the whole family has access to the goats, but the sole decision
maker and owner is the man. Women do the bulk of livestock activities; they have
no control of resources accruing from the sale of the goats. The impact of this is
that they resort to other activities for which they have control like growing of crops,
35
especially annual crops such as maize, for both food and income. However,
Whitehead and Kebeer (2001) argued that, although the household in rural Africa
remain a critical area of gender inequality, it is more accurately described as an
area of joint and competing interest. Rather than viewing it household gender
relations as only based on conflict, it is important to recognize that men and
women act jointly as husbands and wives, and as mothers and fathers trough
normatively defined gender division of responsibilities.
Most of the livestock interventions were targeting women to improve their status.
For example, in Heifer Project International the project provided selected women
with cattle/goats, trained them in its upkeep, and supervised the interventions. To
be considered to receive a cow, the applicants must submit a written statement
describing their motivation to participate in the project. The recipient woman of
that family must then convince the often reluctant husband to let him take the
cow/goat and strive to maintain cordial relations with the husband. In some
instances the animal may become a source of disagreement in the household and
can even lead to marriage instability. It is argued (Moser 1999) that Ugandan
women work over 14 hours per day compared to less than 10 hours for men.
Therefore introduction of goat projects, targeting women, is an additional workload
and burden to the women. The situation is aggravated if the interventions are
labour intensive such as the zero grazing practice involving “cut and carry” of
fodder to the livestock. Further more despite this scenario, the goat is still under
the overall ownership of the man since he is the household head “mwene wo” in
Lusoga language. Therefore, if rural development projects are to succeed and be
sustained, they must include both men and women equitably.
Goats like other livestock are important in maintaining the livelihoods of their
keepers by providing food, cash, manure, social and cultural identity, medium of
exchange and means of savings and investments. Goat productivity interventions
where introduced by Government programmes (under LGDP, NAADS, NLIPIP),
NGOs and other service providers with the overall goal of improving the living
standards of the rural poor. The study delved into the major interventions only.
The interventions involved the introduction of new breeds of goats, for both dairy
(Toggenberg, Sannen) and meat (Boer) breeds. In Iganga District the Dairy goats
36
were mainly introduced by NGOs like Heifer project International and Africa 2000
network to address child nutrition, raise income as well as integration of crop and
animal systems through utilization of manure. The Boer goats were mainly
introduced by Government programmes, LGDP and NAADS to improve
household income. There was a disease control component through routine
preventive treatment and utilizing veterinary services availed by the NGOs or
government.
Record keeping was a requirement for the beneficiary households of this study.
The major records emphasized were health records, breeding records, sales
records and income and expenditure records. Improved feeding practices were
introduced through training on balanced diets and new fodder grasses and tree
such as napier (elephant grass), calliandra calothysus, sesbania sesban, mucuna,
lablab were introduced in the farming system. Improved housing, for example in
Nakalama zero-grazing system involving shed construction and “cut and carry” of
grass and fodder was emphasized and promoted mainly by NGOs. Government
programmes facilitated by government extension staff spearheaded paddocking
and night housing of roofed ground floor structure. Crop and animal integration,
was mainly emphasized by the NGOs. The rationale was that manure from the
goats as an important source of nutrients and organic matter needed to maintain
soil fertility to boost crops production, especially banana and vegetable.
Government continues to play a central role in the development of the Nation.
This study found that Government is the key actor in the promotion of goat
productivity interventions, especially in areas of training, Agricultural extension,
disease control and introduction of new breeds. While government programmes
did not have stringent measures on the beneficiaries, NGO project beneficiaries
were expected to keep the goats under zero-grazing for environmental reasons,
improve their children's diets, practice family planning, have a more equal
relationship with their husbands, act as agents of change in their communities,
and local role models who maintain clean and healthy homes (HPI, 2002).
Sustainability is one of the major challenges in several development interventions.
Sustainability should take on a holistic approach considering economic, social,
37
and cultural consideration. Although several NGOs, government programmes and
other
service
providers
hardly look
at
sustainability issues
in
project
implementation, some have well laid out strategy. Farm Africa project was focused
on enhancement of Elgon Dairy Goat Breeders’ Association (EDGBA) to be able
to continue activities once the project comes to an end. Sustainability has always
been a crucial aspect of that project) and the exit strategy to ensure long term
sustainability of the activities (Shamila 2007, Annual project report).
In the current study, the several interventions that were introduced in Iganga
District were taken up. However, a few years later some of the practices were
carried on by a minority while most households completely abandoned some
practices. Furthermore some non-beneficiary households copied some of the
practices and did not copy others for various reasons. Some of the non
beneficiary households attended the FGD while the other was by participants’
observation. 37% of respondents reported that the main intervention they have
sustained is disease control. In most places goat keepers faces various threats to
the continuity of their goat enterprises and their ability to respond and adapt to
change (Peacock and Sherman, 2005).
The findings showed that the main constraint faced by 27% of the goat keepers is
goat diseases. Disease is a threat to the goat keepers and they risk losing their
goats if measures of disease control are not adhered to. Diseases affect the
existence of the goat enterprise and goat productivity through drop in milk/meat
production, stunted growth and inferior product quality (Peacock and Sherman,
2005). The study found that some farmers failed to maintain a higher level of
disease control due to lack of veterinary services and high cost of veterinary drugs
and services.
Only 17% of the farmers were able to sustain improved breeds, despite the
introduction of the improved goats and main breeds of goats kept by respondents
were local breeds. This could be because the cumulative figure of the new breeds
is still low compared to the traditional local breed which has been reared in the
area for generations. The study revealed that the farmers acquired the exotic
goats because they are quick maturing. Non project beneficiary households who
38
attended the focus group discussions and neighbors to the goat beneficiaries
were also motivated to acquire the goats for this very reason. However, the major
challenges in rearing exotic goats were poor market for the goats and diseases.
These factors hindered the exploitation of the full potential and thus sustainability
of the exotic goat breeds. The findings are similar to that by Tao (2006) indicating
that lack of housing for goats, poor breeding practice, nutrition and lack of
application of preventive disease measures were also identified by farmers as the
main cause of poor goat management practices.
The current study also found that the main reason for keeping the goats was
household income. This showed that whatever intervention is to be promoted in a
community, it must have a monetary incentive or else the intervention could be
abandoned. This is comparable to the report by Makuru et al 2002, on impact of
dairy goats which included income, nutrition, knowledge and skills, improvement
among others. However, the low prices of the goats coupled with the few numbers
of the goats kept by respondents can hardly make farmers gain substantial
income to meet their basic needs. For this reason goat farming in the study area is
supplemented with other basic enterprises such as growing crops which was the
main source of income of the respondents. For poor farmers, owning goats and
properly managing them is an important link with reducing poverty. Proper
management and sustainability off take of goats and goat products can produce
meat (goat kids), milk, skin, manure which taken together can impact on
household income and nutritional status (Azuba et al 2005).
Only 21% of the respondents were not able to keep records because of inability to
read and this fares well with the results that 93% of the respondents had attained
at least primary level education. The failure for record keeping could be because
record keeping is tedious and not necessary as farmers do not easily see
economic benefit of record keeping as indicated in the study. Since most of the
farmers can read, there is need o avail reading material in the local language so
that farmers can consult literature in absence of service providers as a means of
sustainability.
39
The study also gave view of the fact that farmers tend to shy away from labor
intensive technologies like avoiding zero-grazing and resort to tethering the goats.
The adaptation of management strategies that save on labor such as paddock
grazing, use of fodder intercropping and minimum tillage helps households to
cope with increased workload from having fewer hands on the farm (Lagu, 2008).
40
CHAPTER SIX
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1
CONCLUSIONS
From the study the following conclusions were made:
1. Government has a wide coverage in reaching out to farmers unlike NGOs that
are localized to specific areas; however the intervention of the latter are more
focused.
2. Goat productivity interventions are not fully sustainable as was intended by
Government programmes, NGOs, CBOs and other Development actors.
3. There was increased enthusiasm, awareness and uptake of goat interventions
among the farming communities and goat farming provided a pathway for
farmers who maintained the practices to come out of poverty.
4. The key factors affecting goat productivity interventions
include; price
incentive in marketing the goats, labor intensive technologies as a burden to
the goat keepers, gender consideration for equitable sharing of roles and
benefits from the goats, continued technical guidance and follow up of farmers.
5. There is limited support to farmers to enable them transform from subsistence
to commercial farming, this in turn affects their capacity to exploit the potential
of goat production to improve their livelihoods.
6.2
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are recommended:-
1. There is need to improve on the marketing for the goats and goat products for
instance through collective marketing to enable farmers gain tangible profits to
come out of poverty. Farmers are at the mercy of goat traders and butchers
who pay very low prices for their goats leaving farmers with very small or no
profits.
2. Government, NGOs and other service providers should enhance training and
follow up to farmers involved in goat production.
41
3. There is need to avail reading material in local languages to farmers’ groups or
beneficiary households so that farmers can consult literature in absence of
service providers as a means of sustainability.
4. There is need for Government, NGOs and other service providers to facilitate
farmer exposure and exchange visits to sites of excellence to enhance
learning and adoption of best practices. “Seeing is believing”
5. Provide options for labor saving technologies to be used especially by the
elderly and other vulnerable people such as the HIV/AIDS affected persons.
6. Farmers’ groups and households should be empowered as successor
institutions to spearhead goat interventions beyond the program/project/
period. The support mechanism should include promoting farmer trainers and
establishing linkages with other service providers.
42
REFERENCES
Ademosun A.A (1994). Constraints and prospects for small Ruminant Research
and development in Africa. In small Ruminant Research and development in
Africa. Proceedings of the 3rd Biannual conference of the Africa small ruminant
research network (edition Labbie, S.H.B) UICC, Kampala Uganda 5 th to 9th
December 1994.
Africa 2000 Network (1999) Gender in Agricultural Development training,
facilitator’s manual.
Africa 2000 Network, (2007). Livestock survey report, Iganga District Uganda.
Amanya Moses, (2008). The effectiveness of the National Agricultural Advisory
Services (NAADS) programme on Agricultural production in Kibaale District,
Uganda. 2008.
Azuba R, Hoona J.J, and Mwebaze S (2005). Goat production manual. Ministry of
Agriculture Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (MAAIF), National Agricultural
Advisory Services (NAADS), Republic of Uganda.
Birungi Patrick and Mutenyo John, (1999). Government strategy and operational
Framework. Principles of Economics.
Brant Swallow, Fred Kabuye, Kiguli Disan, Waata Fiona, (2001). Voices of the
poor livestock keepers in the lake Victoria basin, Uganda.
Drea, J.T. sampling, wikpedia, 2010.
Devendra, C. (1987), Goat. An introduction to Animal husbandry in the tropics 3 rd
ed. (eds Williamson, G. and Payne, W.J). p 462-481. English Language Book
Society /Longman group (FE).
Devendra, C. and McLeroy, G.B 1988. Goat and Sheep Production in the tropics.
LS BS
Farm Africa, (2007): The Uganda Dairy Goat and Animal Health care project,
Mbale, Uganda.
43
Food and Agricultural Organization, (1996). 6th Food survey report, Rome.
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), 2004. Agricultural and Development
Economics Division. Investigating in Agriculture for growth and food security in
ACP countries.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO 2001), A report on the impact of
HIV/AIDS on food security, Rome Italy.
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO, 2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow report ,
Rome Italy.
Heifer project International (2007), Annual report, Uganda
Iganga District Local Government, Five year Orphans and other Vulnerable
Children Strategic Plan, 2008/2009 – 2012/201, Feb 2008, Iganga Uganda.
Kasellati A. And Tacher, G. (1991). Animal Health and Economics. Institut d’
Elevage et de Medecine Vetetinaire des pays Tropicaux, Paris Department du
CIRAD Medecine Vetetinaire des pays Tropicaux, Paris Department du CIRAD.
International Livestock Research Institute, ILIRI report 2007.
Lagu C. (2008): Impact of HIV/AIDS on the livestock producing communities of
Uganda: Case study of Moyo and Kashumba subcounties.
Makuru Margaret, Jotham Turihihi, Bahati, A: Impact of Dairy goat farming on
small scale farmers-Heifer Project International Uganda experience, 2002.
Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries -MAAIF (1999). Strategic
study to develop Small Ruminants and Rabbits.
Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries-MAAIF (2001). National
Advisory Services programme (NAADS)-Master Document.
44
MAAIF, 2003, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries. Department
of Animal Production and Marketing report 2003, Uganda.
MAAIF, 2009, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal industries and Fisheries. A summary
report of the National Livestock Census 2008. Kampala, Uganda.
Ministry of Education report 2007, Uganda
Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MFPED) (2009),
Uganda Budget FY 2009/10
Moser, C.O.N (1999) Gender roles, the family and the household. In Gender
planning and Development; theory, practice and training.
Mugisha, A (2004).
Socio-economic and gender Aspects of control of vector
borne diseases: A study of intra-household dynamics and decision making in the
pastoralist system of southwestern Uganda.
Mugisha A, et al (2007) Socio-economic impact assessment of goat productivity
interventions, and the use of innovative and participatory breeding approaches in
Uganda. 2007.
Mtenga, L.A, V.R.M. Muhikambele, G.C. Kifaro and E.Kinsey (1998). Networking
in goat development programes
National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) (2003). Baseline report on the
agricultural sector and rural livelihoods in Uganda.
Okello, K.L, and Obwollo, M.J. 1984. Uganda review of the potentialities of goat
production. World Animal Review. A quarterly journal on animal health, production
and products.
Peacock, Christie and Sherman M. David (2005). Sustainable goat production –
some global perspectives.
PEAP, 2000. The Poverty Eradication Action Plan for Uganda (1987, revised
2000).
45
PMA, 2000. Plan for Modernization of Agriculture: Eradicating Poverty in Uganda
Toa Gordon Victor (2006), Goat distribution and Burden of selected diseases in
Arua District, Uganda.
Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2002), Households survey data 2002/3, Entebbe
Uganda.
Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2001), Uganda demographic and health survey
2000-2001, Entebbe Uganda.
URA, (2000). Uganda Revenue Authority records. Ministry of Finance, Planning
and Economic Development, Uganda.
46
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1:
GLOSSARY

Sustainability: Implies persistence and the capacity of something to continue
for a long time.

Sustainable Agriculture: is a model of social and economic organization
based on an equitable and participatory vision of development which
recognizes the environment and natural resources as the foundation of
economic activity. Agriculture is sustainable when it is ecologically sound,
economically viable, socially just, culturally appropriate and based on a
scientific approach.

Farmers group: Constitutes of individual farmers or an association with a
common farming interest.

Household: is composed of a person or a group of persons who live together
under a single roof or within a single compound and share a common life in
that they are answerable to the same head and share common source of food.

Livestock: Animals kept on farm (for food and income).

Rural communities: All people that live in particular areas when talked about
as a group in context, people living in village settings.

Poverty: Inability to satisfy a range of basic human needs and stems from
powerlessness, social exclusion, ignorance, lack of knowledge and shortage of
material resources

Productivity: is the efficiency of conversion of inputs into outputs (in other
words, the efficiency of a production system
47
APPENDIX 2:
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ASSESSING FACTORS AFFECTING
SUSTAINABILITY OF GOAT PRODUCTIVITY INTERVENTIONS IN UGANDA
This questionnaire is part of instruments to carry out a survey on assessing
factors affecting sustainability of goat productivity interventions in Uganda. The
information obtained will be kept with utmost confidence, unless otherwise
authorized. We thank you for your time and views
Instructions
Write or tick/circle, where appropriate
No.
Questions and Filters
100
Farmer identification
101
District
102
Sub-county
103
Parish
104
Village
105
Date of interview
106
Name of
enumerator
107
Name of Supervisor
No.
Questions and Filters
200
Code
House hold ID
201 Name of respondent (optional)
202 Type of household
Female headed
………………………..1
Male headed
………………………..2
monogamous
………………………..3
Male headed –
………………………..4
polygamous
………………………..5
48
Child-headed
Others (specify)
203 Age of respondent
204 Gender of respondent
205 Education level of the
household head
No.
None
………………….1
Primary level
…………………..2
Secondary level
…………………..3
Tertiary level
…………………..4
Questions and filters
300
Coding category
Code
Socio-economic profile
301 Main source of income (circle
only one)
Selling cattle …………………..1
Cow milk………………………..2
Goat milk……………………….3
Goats …………………………..4
Pigs …………………………….5
Poultry…………………………..6
Crops ………………….……….7
Others (specify)……….………8
302 Other sources of income (circle
all that applies to you)
Selling cattle …………………1
Cow milk ……………………..2
Goat milk……………………..3
Goats …………………………4
Pigs……………………………5
Poultry………………………..6
Others (specify)……………..7
303 Number / amount sold in 301
Item
and 302 above in a year
Amount
/Number
Cattle
Cow
milk
49
Price
Goats
Goat
milk
Pigs
Poultry
Crops
Otherspecify
304 Main household expenditure
(Tick only one)
Medical care ………………………….1
Buying food ……………………..……2
Children education ……………..……3
Animal health care…….. ……….…...4
Animal feeding………..….……..….....5
Others (please specify) ………..…….6
305 Other household expenditures
(Tick more than one)
Medical care……………………….….1
Buying food………………………..…..2
Children education……………..……..3
Animal health care..…………………..4
Animal feeding……………….………..5
Others (specify)………………..…..….6
306 Estimated amount on each item Item
mentioned in 304 and 305 per
year
Amount
spent
Medical care
Buying food
Children education
Animal health care
Animal feeding
Others (specify)
307 Organization/institution with
Farm-Africa………….. ……………….1
goat productivity intervention in
MAAIF.. …………………..…………...2
the community (Tick only one
NAADS…………………………..…….3
commonest)
Africa 2000 Network…………………4
Heifer Project International….………5
50
LGDP……………………………..……6
Others…………………………………7
NARO…………………………………8
None…………………………………..9
308 The main form of intervention
(Tick one)
Pure exotic dairy goat ....................1
A cross dairy goat …………….……2
A pure Boer goat……………………3
Animal health care….. …………….4
Training……………………………..5
Feeds development……………….6
Breeding techniques………………7
Others (please specify)……………8
No.
Questions and Filters
Category Coding
Code
400
Livestock Keeping profile
401
Tick the main livestock
Cattle ………………………………..1
species kept (tick only one)
Goats…………………………………2
Pigs……………………………….…..3
Poultry.…………………………..……4
Others (specify)…………………..….5
402
Other livestock species kept
Cattle ………………….……………..1
(select more than one)
Goats…………………….……………2
Pigs…………………….……………..3
Poultry.………………….……………4
Others (specify)………….………….5
403
Do you keep goats
Yes ……………………………..……..1
No …………………………..…………2
404
If not, why?
They are hard to keep……………..1
They are not profitable……………..2
No capital…………………………….3
No land……………………………….4
Others (Specify)...…………………..5
51
405
If yes, what is the main
Pure Dairy goats …………………..1
breed of goats kept? (Tick
Pure Boers………………………….2
one)
Dairy crosses……………………….3
Boer Crosses……………………….4
Locals…………………………….….5
Others (specify)…………………….6
406
The flock size of the goats
Less than 5………………………….1
kept
6-10…………………………………..2
11-20…………………………………3
21-50…………………………………4
51-100………………………………..5
Over 100…………………………….6
407
Type of management
Tethering ………………………………1
Zero-grazing …………………………..2
Paddock-grazing ……………………...3
Free range grazing…………………….4
Others (please specify) ………………5
408
For how long have you been
None……………………………………1
keeping local goats?
1-3 years……………………………….2
4-10 years……………………………..3
Over 10 years…………………………4
409
How did you acquire the
Inherited ……………………………….1
local goat
Bride price……………………………..2
Purchase from market…………………3
Purchase from farmer/breeder………..4
Given by programme/NGO…………….5
410
For how long have you been
None……………………………………1
keeping exotic (crosses)
1-3 years……………………………..…2
goats?
4-10 years………………………..…….3
Over 10 years…………………………..4
411
The main reason for
Income …………………………………1
keeping these goats (Tick
Food (milk) …………………….……….2
only one)
Food (meat) …………..……..…………3
52
Manure ……….…………………………4
Socio-cultural ……………….………….5
Others (please specify) …….…………6
412
If you have exotic goats,
Quick maturing….………………………1
what was the main
They are bigger and better..…………...2
motivation for acquiring
Good for producing milk.…………..…..3
them? (Tick only one)
Promised outside market…………..….4
Others (specify)…………………………5
413
What was the main source
Farm-Africa…………………………….1
of these goats?
NAADS………………………………….2
HPI......................................................3
MAAIF…….………………………….….4
Africa 2000 Network
Others (Specify)………………………..5
414
What kind of follow up
Market for milk………………….……….1
support from where you got
Market for goats…………………………2
these goats?
Training…………………………………..3
Veterinary care………………………….4
Routine advice…………………………..5
None……………… ………………..…...6
Others (Specify)…………………………7
415
416
Have the exotic goats met
Yes……………………………………..1
your expectations?
No……………………………………….2
If no, why?
They die a lot…………………………..1
They are so demanding……………….2
They fall sick frequently……………….3
No market……………………………….4
Others (specify)…………………………5
417
If yes, how have they met
They have greatly
your expectations?
multiplied………………………………...1
Got a lot of income from them……..….2
Others (specify)……………….……..…3
418
Who owns the goats/
Man……………………………………….1
53
Wife……………………………………….2
Children…………………………………..3
Whole family…………………………….4
Group members………………………..5
500``
501
Goat Management
What is the main input
Feeds ………………………………....1
(where you spent a lot) in
Vet drugs ………………………………2
the goat enterprise? Select
Veterinary services bills ……………..3
one
Labor ……………….………………….4
Others (please specifically) ………….5
502
What are other inputs into
Feeds ………………………………....1
the livestock enterprise?
Vet drugs ………………………………2
Mention all
Veterinary services bills ……………...3
Labor ………………….......................4
Others (please specifically) …………..5
503
Who cares for the goats?
Children…………………………………..1
Wife……………………………………….2
Husband………………………………….3
Laborer……………………..…………….4
Others (specify)……….….……………..5
504
What is the main constraint
Lack of feeds ……………………………1
encountered in keeping
Lack of market ………………….….… 2
these goats? Select one
Expensive veterinary drugs……….….3
There are no veterinary workers.…....4
Lack of grazing land …………………..5
Lack of capital ………….……………..6
Shortage of labour…...….………….…7
Others (please specify) ……………..8
506
What are other constraints?
Mention all
507
508
Do you keep records for the
Yes…………………………………….1
goats?
No………………………………………2
If yes, what kind of records
Production records.…………………..1
54
do you keep?
Goat sales……………………………..2
Breeding records……………………..3
Health records………………………...4
Others…………………………………5
509
If no, why not?
Not able to write………………………1
They are not necessary……………..2
They are tedious…………………….3
Others (Specify)…………………….4
510
What kind of supplements
Mineral lick……………………………1
given to your goats?
Maize/wheat bran……………………….2
None…………………………………….3
Others (specify)……………………….4
511
How much land is available
1-2 acres……………………………….1
a
for the goats
3-5 acres……………………………….2
6-20 acres………………………………3
21-50 acres……………………………..4
60acres and above…………………….5
511b
What methods do you use
Own buck……………………………….1
for breeding/
Hired buck……………………………….2
Communal buck………………………..3 no buck
available……………………….4
511c
What grazing method do
Tethering ……………………………1
you use
Zero grazing……………………………..2
Paddocking………………………………3
Free range……………………………….4
511d
Type of housing structure
None…………………………………1
available
Open shelter………………………. 2
Roofed shelter, ground floor…………..3
Roofed shelter, raised floor……………4
511e
Type of land ownership
Inherited
……………………………1
Purchased………………………….2
55
Communal………………………….3
600
601
602
Market for goats
In the last six months, did
Yes…………………………………….1
you sell any goats?
No………………………………………2
If yes, how many were sold?
1-5……………………………………..1
5-10…………………………………….2
Over 10………………………………..3
603
How many exotics/crosses
None…………………………………..1
were sold?
1-5……………………………………..2
5-10……………………………………3
Over 10……………………………….4
604
Where were the goats
From home…………………………..1
mainly sold from?
Taken to market……………………..2
Others, specify………………………3
605
Who was the main buyer?
NAADS…………………..……………1
Fellow farmers…………..………..…..2
Butchers…………………….…………3
Goat traders……………….………….4
Others (Specify)…………..………….5
606
Among the goat buyers,
NAADS…………………..……………1
who offers the best price?
Fallow farmers……………….………2
Traders……………………….………3
None……………………….…………4
Others (specify)…………….……….5
607
What other goat products
Milk………………………….………..1
sold?
Skins……………………….…………2
Manure………………………….……3
Others (specify)……………….…….4
608
Main problem encountered
No problem………………………….1
in marketing your goats
No market at all……………….…….2
Offered very price for goats…….….3
Distance to market long……………4
Others (specify)……………………..5
56
609
What is the distance to the
Less than a kilometer………....……1
nearest goat market?
1-5 Kilometers………………....……2
Over 5 kilometers……………....…..3
610
If there was no goat sold,
No goats to sell……………………..1
what was the main reason?
Distance to market too long……….2
Offered very low price………….…..3
No one to buy………………….……5
611
Which type of goats are
Pure breeds…………………..…….1
easily sold?
Crosses…………………………..….2
Locals……………………………..…3
No.
Questions and Filters
Coding Category
700 Disease Prevalence & Mortalities, and veterinary care
701 When did your goats last
One week ago ………………………..……1
fall sick?
A month ago …………………….…………2
Over 4 months ago………………..……….3
57
702 What was the disease
Worms……………………………….………1
condition affecting the goat
(s)?
Diarrhea…………………………………….2
Fever………………………………….…….3
Others (specify)……………..……………..4
703 How was the animal
Treated by self- traditional medicine ………1
treated? Tick or circle all
the methods applied in that
case
Treated by self-modern medicine ………….2
Called a contact farmer/neighbor.…………..3
Called a vet doctor ………………………..…..4
Others (specify) …………………….…………5
704 If used traditional medicine
No money ………………………………..……1
why?
No drugs ………………………………..……..2
It works better …………………………..…….3
It is as good as modern vet drugs…….…….4
Vet personnel not available …………………5
705 Was there any death in
Yes
……………………….……………..1
No
……………………….……………...2
your flock in the last one
month?
706 How many died?
1 Goat ………………………………………….1
2-5 goats ……………………………………...2
6-10 goats ………………………………..…..3
Over 10 goats ……………………………..…4
58
707 What preventative
Tick control………………….…………………1
treatment carried on your
Deworming………………………….…………2
goats?
Vaccination……………………..……………..3
Others (specify)………………………..……..4
708 When did you last call a
One week ago…………………………..…....1
veterinary personnel to
attend to your goats
Two to a month ago……………..………..….2
One month to two months ago…………...…3
Two to six months ago……………….….…..4
Over six months ago……………………..….5
709 What was the qualification
Veterinary scout…………………….……….1
of the called veterinary
personnel?
Veterinary Assistant…………………………2
Animal Husbandry officer…………………..3
Veterinary doctor…………………………….4
Others (specify)……………………….……..5
710 How much money was
paid to the veterinary
personnel?
800
Technology uptake
801 In the last five years what
Improved feeds………………………………1
goat production
technologies have been
introduced on your farm
Improved housing……………………….…...2
Improved breed………………………..……..3
hold?
Record keeping………………………..…….4
59
Disease control………………….………….5
Crop-animal integration………..………….6
Others (Specify)…………………..………..7
802 Was the technology
Yes……………………………………..……1
introduced in 801 above
demanded for?
803 Which of the production
No…………………………………………….2
Improved feeds………………………………1
technologies in 801 are
you still using?
Improved housing…………………………...2
Improved breed……………………….……..3
Record keeping……………………………….4
Disease control……………………………….5
Crop-animal integration………………..…….6
Others (Specify)……………………….……..7
804 Why have you abandoned
They were demanding a lot of labour………1
those technologies that you
are no longer
using/practicing anymore?
They were too expensive……….……………2
Lack of follow up training…………………….3
No economic benefit seen at all …….…..….4
Others (specify)……………………………….5
805 Have you belonged to a
Yes……………………………………………….1
group in the last five years
No……………………………………….……….2
806 What type of group?
Credit and savings…………………………….1
Goat/livestock marketing group…………..….2
60
Goat/livestock keeping group…………………3
Others (Specify)………………………………..4
807 Do you still belong to this
Yes……………………………………………..1
group?
No………………………………..……………..2
808 If no, what made you
leave the group?
61
APPENDIX 3:
CHECKLIST FOR THE FGD
1) Profiling the goat breeds (Local/Exotics/Crosses).
2) Profiling the main livestock Enterprises.
3) Profiling the constraints to goat production.
4) Profiling the major goat diseases in the area.
5) The farmers’ copying mechanisms when faced with goat diseases
6) Profiling the existing interventions to improve goat production & by who.
7) Profiling the available indigenous technical knowledge for managing goat
diseases.
8) Profiling the risk factors exposing goats to diseases.
9) Profiling the coping mechanisms by farmers when faced with diseases.
10) Profiling any other constraints hindering goat production.
11) The major sources of breeding goats.
12) The major marketing outlets for Breeding and meat goats in the area.
13) The major products derived from goat production.
14) The goat marketing constraints.
15) The Breeding system in the area.
16) Application and replication of successful goat practices
17) Integration of gender in goat productivity management
18) Reason for adoption/ none adoption of best practices
19) Assess criteria used to select farmers to benefit from government importation
programmes or NGOs.
20) Evidence of improved living conditions
21) Any suggestions to improve goat productivity in the area.
22) Proof that neighboring families have copied from trained families?
23) Whether they have access to credit or have savings services?
24) What are the reasons for not keeping on with the goat interventions
participation?
25) Assess whether they keep records and what type of records
26) Which of the interventions are most appreciated and most practiced
62