Analysis of African Swine Fever epidemiology and pig value chains to underpin design of 
an ASF risk management strategy o...
Strengthening pig value chains and managing ASF 
risk in Uganda: identifying best bet solutions
risk in Uganda: identifyin...
Presentation outline
• Background of the  pig value chains development 
project in Uganda
project in Uganda
• Rapid value ...
Importance of Pig Production in Uganda   
p
g
g
Pig production‐ a dynamic and rapidly growing sector  in Uganda. In the 
p...
Structure of the Pig Sector in Uganda
g
g
A large informal subsector
• More than1.1 million households.
• Backyard pig pro...
Smallholder Pig Value Chains Development  
project in Ugandaoject
project in Ugandaoject Goal
Goal: To improve the 
Goal: ...
Pig value chain assessment methodology:
Selection of Target Sites (1) 
Selection of Target Sites (1)












Ste...
Selection of Target Sites (2)
List of counties and sub‐counties selected in each district, based on 
List of counties and ...
VCA toolkit development and administration –
(i) Producer level (n=1400)
(i) Producer level (n=1400)
General components
• ...
VCA – (ii) other actors
INPUTS/SERVICES
 Feed input stockists and millers (n=36)
 Vet drugs stockists (n=36)
 Service p...
Value chain assessment results:
Management and animal health
Management and animal health
Pig management typologies (n=350)
Confinement type
Tethering

RR (%) (n=180)
66

RU (%) (n=70)
40

UU (%) (n=100)
13

Hous...
Rural‐rural
Rural‐urban
Urban‐urban

Goma

M
Mukono TC

Nyendo‐Ssenyange

we‐Butego
Katw

Kimanya‐Kyabakuza

Kyampisi

Kab...
Pig disease diseases prioritized by farmers
Rural‐Rural (n=170)
Disease
ASF
worms
mange
lice
midge
diarrhea
malnutrition
F...
Seasonal variation of diseases and vectors 
occurrence (n=350)
occurrence (n 350)
Proportion of cases (%
%)

25
Rainfall

...
The use of the “village boar” and risk associated 
with disease spread  (1)
p
( )
Different sources of the village boar (n...
The use of the “village boar” and risk associated with 
disease spread  (2)
disease spread (2)
Locations from where the so...
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Other risk factors associated to ASF spread 
Poor knowledge of farmers on management and 
Poor knowledge of...
Some measures taken by farmers to minimize 
disease spread
di
d
• Request for information on the sow (health status,
Reque...
Identification of potential best‐bet 
p
intervention in animal health and 
management in the pig value chain in 
managemen...
Process for identifying best‐bet 
interventions
• Rapid value chain assessment
Rapid value chain assessment
• Impact pathw...
Some key considerations/criteria for the selection 
and monitoring of best‐bet interventions
and monitoring of best‐bet in...
Potential best‐bet interventions in health and management the 
Uganda pig Value chains (1)
Issues

What is it related to?
...
Potential best‐bet interventions in health and management the 
Uganda pig Value chains (2)
Issues

What is it related to?
...
CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish
CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish
EU/IFAD; ILRI; The team of facil...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Strengthening pig value chains and managing ASF risk in Uganda: Identifying best bet solutions

699 views

Published on

Presented by Michel Dione, Emily Ouma, Kristina Roesel and Danilo Pezo at the Closing workshop of the BecA‐ILRI‐CSIRO‐AusAID project on Understanding ASF epidemiology as a basis for control, Nairobi, Kenya, 2‐3 October 2013

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
699
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
33
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Strengthening pig value chains and managing ASF risk in Uganda: Identifying best bet solutions

  1. 1. Analysis of African Swine Fever epidemiology and pig value chains to underpin design of  an ASF risk management strategy on the Kenya‐Uganda border Closing workshop of the BecA‐ILRI‐CSIRO‐AusAID project (2011‐13):  Understanding ASF epidemiology as a basis for control 2nd‐3rd October, 2013. Sarova PanAfric Hotel, Nairobi, Kenya Invited Presentation:  Michel Dione, Emily Ouma, Kristina Roesel & Danilo Pezo CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish Strengthening pig value chains and managing ASF risk in Uganda:  h l h d k d identifying best bet solutions
  2. 2. Strengthening pig value chains and managing ASF  risk in Uganda: identifying best bet solutions risk in Uganda: identifying best bet solutions Michel Dione, Emily Ouma, Kristina Roesel and Danilo Pezo BecA‐ILRI‐CSIRO‐AusAid African Swine Fever Epidemiology Project Closing  Workshop, Nairobi, Kenya
  3. 3. Presentation outline • Background of the  pig value chains development  project in Uganda project in Uganda • Rapid value chain assessment: methods and process   • A i lh l h dh b d Animal health and husbandry practices in the pig  i i h i sector • Practices, behavior associated with ASF spread in  Uganda • Process and criteria for identifying best‐bet  interventions • Potential best‐bet interventions for animal health and  management
  4. 4. Importance of Pig Production in Uganda    p g g Pig production‐ a dynamic and rapidly growing sector  in Uganda. In the  past three decades increased from 0.19 to 3.2 million pigs (UBOS, 2009;  h d d i df 0 19 3 2 illi i (UBOS 2009 FAO, 2011).  Uganda has the highest per capita consumption (3.4 kg/person/year) in  the region  10 times increase in the last 30 years, whereas beef is  the region ‐10 times increase in the last 30 years, whereas beef is declining (FAO, 2011) 
  5. 5. Structure of the Pig Sector in Uganda g g A large informal subsector • More than1.1 million households. • Backyard pig production, mainly managed by  women and children, as means to diversify risk  and increase livelihood security. di li lih d it • Tethering & scavenging are common. • In few districts peri urban small scale semi In few districts, peri‐urban small‐scale semi‐ intensive systems  • Uncoordinated trade & transport p • Mostly unsupervised slaughter, no meat  inspection in local markets, road‐side butchers • Pork joints
  6. 6. Smallholder Pig Value Chains Development   project in Ugandaoject project in Ugandaoject Goal Goal: To improve the  Goal: To improve the livelihoods, incomes and  assets of smallholder pig  assets of smallholder pig producers, particularly  women, in a sustainable  women in a sustainable manner, through increased  productivity, reduced risk, and  productivity reduced risk and improved access in pig value  chains
  7. 7. Pig value chain assessment methodology: Selection of Target Sites (1)  Selection of Target Sites (1)       Step 1: Geographical targeting using GIS  characterization (pig density, poverty  (p g yp y level & market access). Step 2: Stakeholder consultation of step 1  1 and definition of  soft criteria 1 and definition of “soft” criteria. Step 3: Participatory selection of districts  by stakeholders (Outcome Mapping &  Site Selection Workshop, Oct. 2012). Step 4: 4‐6 sub‐counties with high pig  population in each selected district. population in each selected district. Step 5: Minimum checklist to gather data  for more specific site selection (parishes  and villages). d ill ) Step 6: Analysis of steps 1‐4 and final site  selection. 7
  8. 8. Selection of Target Sites (2) List of counties and sub‐counties selected in each district, based on  List of counties and sub‐ presence of dominant value chain domains, and number of villages sampled District County Sub‐county Sub county Dominant value  No. of villages  Dominant value No of villages chain domain sampled Masaka Bukoto Bukoto Bukoto Masaka Municipality Masaka Municipality Masaka Municipality Kkingo Kyanamukaka Kabonera Kimanya‐Kyabakuza* Katwe‐Butego* Nyendo‐Ssenyange* Rural  rural Rural –rural Rural‐rural Rural‐urban Urban‐urban Urban‐urban Urban‐urban 3 3 3 2 2 2 Kamuli Bugabula Bugabula Buzaaya Kitayunjwa Namwendwa Bugulumbya** Rural‐rural Rural‐rural Rural‐rural 2 2 4 Mukono Mukono Mukono Mukono Mukono Mukono town council Goma Kyampisi Ntenjeru Urban‐urban Urban–urban Rural urban Rural‐urban Rural‐rural 2 2 4 4 35 villages selected: 18 Rural – Rural, 7 Rural – Urban and 10 Urban ‐ Urban    35 villages selected: 18 Rural – Rural, 7 Rural – Urban and 10 Urban ‐
  9. 9. VCA toolkit development and administration – (i) Producer level (n=1400) (i) Producer level (n=1400) General components • Seasonal mapping including identification of cropping enterprises and  pp g g pp g p regimes. • Assessment of institutions operating in the village, community’s  perception of their importance and interactions. perception of their importance and interactions • Objectives of pig production and identification of the pig production  types and systems. • Gender roles in pig production and marketing separate groups of men Gender roles in pig production and marketing – separate groups of men  and women to work on the following tools: • Activity clock • Decision making ii ki • Livelihood analysis Specific domains • • • • Animal health and husbandry practices Feeding and breeding Feeding and breeding VC mapping and marketing Food safety, nutrition and zoonoses
  10. 10. VCA – (ii) other actors INPUTS/SERVICES  Feed input stockists and millers (n=36)  Vet drugs stockists (n=36)  Service providers:  o Veterinarians/AHA/paravets (n=53) o Owners of village breeding boars (n=90) o Extension staff (public and private)  OUTPUT  Traders of live pigs (including collectors and  transporters) (n=86) transporters) (n=86)  Slaughterhouses/abattoirs  Processors (formal‐Fresh Cuts/Quality Cuts) Processors (formal Fresh Cuts/Quality Cuts)  Retailers (meat/processed products) – butcheries,  supermarkets, pork‐joints  Consumers – preferences for different pig/pork product  attributes
  11. 11. Value chain assessment results: Management and animal health Management and animal health
  12. 12. Pig management typologies (n=350) Confinement type Tethering RR (%) (n=180) 66 RU (%) (n=70) 40 UU (%) (n=100) 13 Housed Housed raised floor 5 6 25 37 18 61 1 Housed not raised floor 16 Free‐range/Scavenging Free range/Scavenging 17 House with raised floor House not raised floor Tethered pig Scavenging piglet
  13. 13. Rural‐rural Rural‐urban Urban‐urban Goma M Mukono TC Nyendo‐Ssenyange we‐Butego Katw Kimanya‐Kyabakuza Kyampisi Kabonera Ntenjeru Bu ugulumbya Namwendwa K Kitayunjwa Kya anamukaka Kkingo Most common cause of death (n=350) 100 80 60 heat stress 40 accident predation malice 20 malnutrition disease 0
  14. 14. Pig disease diseases prioritized by farmers Rural‐Rural (n=170) Disease ASF worms mange lice midge diarrhea malnutrition FMD Others* Morbidity  (%) 29.8 55.1 16.1 9.8 1.3 5.8 2.4 0.0 0.0 Mortality  (%) 23.1 12.0 1.9 0.3 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 Case fatality  (%) 77.5 21.9 11.5 3.6 0.0 4.7 2.6 0.0 0.0 Rural‐Urban (n=90) Morbidity  (%) 43.1 35.0 14.8 7.5 0.1 4.6 3.6 0.0 3.8 Mortality  (%) 31.8 5.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 Case fatality  (%) 73.6 14.4 7.5 0.6 0.0 5.4 0.9 0.0 4.9 Urban‐Urban (n=80) Morbidit y (%) 15.8 22.3 14.0 1.1 1.1 5.6 4.3 1.5 0.3 Mortality  (%) 7.5 1.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.0 *Swine erysipelas, anemia, ticks, jiggers, heat stress, fever, undiagnosed diseases usually related to sudden death Case Fatality  (%) 47.5 8.3 2.8 0.3 0.3 4.2 3.2 0.1 0.8
  15. 15. Seasonal variation of diseases and vectors  occurrence (n=350) occurrence (n 350) Proportion of cases (% %) 25 Rainfall 20 15 ASF 10 Worms 5 Diarrhea 0 Malnutrition Jan Feb Mar Apr p May y Jun Jul Aug g Sept p Oct Nov Dec 40 Proport tion of cases (% %) 35 30 Rainfall 25 Mite 20 Lice 15 Jigger Midge 10 Ticks 5 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
  16. 16. The use of the “village boar” and risk associated  with disease spread  (1) p ( ) Different sources of the village boar (n=90) 1% 1% 3% Other pig farmers (other  h f ( h village/town) Born on farm 24% 46% Other pig farmers (same  Oth i f ( village) Development project Farmer Organization/self‐help  Farmer Organization/self help group 25% In kind payment for boar  service
  17. 17. The use of the “village boar” and risk associated with  disease spread  (2) disease spread (2) Locations from where the sows come from for servicing  (n=90) ( 90) Proport tion of farmer rs (%) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Neighbour within the same village Farmers from other village Other Home
  18. 18. • • • • • • • Other risk factors associated to ASF spread  Poor knowledge of farmers on management and  Poor knowledge of farmers on management and husbandry practices Poor confinement systems Poor confinement systems Poor feeding systems (feeding on kitchen leftovers) Uncontrolled live pig traders movement Uncontrolled live pig traders movement Poor biosecurity measures for health workers (paravets) Poor diagnostic capacities (local and national) Poor diagnostic capacities (local and national) Poor surveillance systems (poor feedback to farmers)
  19. 19. Some measures taken by farmers to minimize  disease spread di d • Request for information on the sow (health status, Request for information on the sow (health status,  housing type, health of offspring and treatment records)  before servicing before servicing • Isolate and deworm and spray sows when they come to  the farm the farm • Avoid servicing sick sows • Stop farms visits and servicing during ASF outbreaks Stop farms visits and servicing during ASF outbreaks • Service only trusted sow owners • Apply good sanitation on the farm Apply good sanitation on the farm
  20. 20. Identification of potential best‐bet  p intervention in animal health and  management in the pig value chain in  management in the pig value chain in Uganda
  21. 21. Process for identifying best‐bet  interventions • Rapid value chain assessment Rapid value chain assessment • Impact pathway workshop (assess constraints along  the VC, identify options for intervention) the VC identify options for intervention) • Ex‐ante assessment (impact of interventions on  identified indicators in the VC node and the system) identified indicators in the VC node and the system) • Validation of the potential best‐bet intervention (feed‐ back to farmers and local government) back to farmers and local government) • Testing of best‐bet intervention • Scaling out Scaling out
  22. 22. Some key considerations/criteria for the selection  and monitoring of best‐bet interventions and monitoring of best‐bet interventions • Socio cultural (fit into local context) • Cost‐effective (affordable by farmers) • Sustainability and environmentally friendly e.g. (do it  themselves and pass it over)  • Technology attributes: simple/appropriate  • Institutional support  • Realistic and measurable within the time frame of the  project • Other criteria (contribution to project Vision and  Mission) 
  23. 23. Potential best‐bet interventions in health and management the  Uganda pig Value chains (1) Issues What is it related to? Limited knowledge on  y biosecurity  measures  • • outcome • • No deworming No deworming regime No prophylaxis program • • Farmers Local  Government • Training on good on good  husbandry practices • Promote confiment in  house • Improved health • Training package Training package (manual on good  husbandry practices) • KAP survey • Testing of deworming  regime • • • Use of communal boar Biosecurity   ASF dissemination • • Farmers Local  Government Animal health  workers Traders • Identification of strategies  to improve village boar  selection and reduce  disease risks associated  with their use • Designing and testing of  different models of  disseminating information  • Improved breeding  services • Training of farmers on  improved model for  breeding • • • • • • • Education package to  actors including :  g biosecurity knowledge  and pig disease  information Increase awareness of  consumers on impact of  pig meat born disease pig meat born disease • • • Reduced spread  of disease Increased pig  pg productivity Increased income Reduced public  health risks Activities • • • • • Farmers Traders Consumers Processors/Aba ttoir/Slaughter areas Interventions Sharing of village boar Selling diseased pigs  during ASF outbreak g Consuming sick pigs at  home  Scavenging practice Feeding with swill Uncontrolled inter‐farm  visits Poor hygiene at the farm  and slaughter place Spread disease from farm  to farm • • • Lack of knowledge of knowledge  on good  husbandry  practices Actors • • Longitudinal RCT  (Knowledge, attitudes and  practice  intervention, KAP) Training package  (biosecurity  manual/leaflets/pos ter)
  24. 24. Potential best‐bet interventions in health and management the  Uganda pig Value chains (2) Issues What is it related to? Poor confinement  types • • • Poor housing (lack of  space, poor hygiene) space poor hygiene) Harsh weather Poor tethering methods Actors • • Farmers Local government Local government Poor disease  surveillance • Poor action  from MAAIF  after outbreak  • District Veterinary office  poorly equipped  for rapid  disease diagnose • Poor diagnostic • Poor inspection at  slaughterhouse l h h • • • MAAIF/NADDEC Research labs District Veterinary  Office Poor  implementation of  p y g policy regulations  • Poor biosecurity implementation Misuse of drugs g Poor quality drug Fake health workers Fake drugs • • MAAIF Veterinary  Officers Local Government Drug stockists Animal health  workers • • • • • • • Interventions • Promote housing   model with 3‐stages  model with 3‐stages enclosure (Kraal) Outcome Activities • Increased  productivity • Test a housing  model • • Rapid diagnostic tests  (ASF/Cyst.) • Central slaughter place  at village level • Increase the capacity  of MAAIF and local  Government to  implement regulations • Sensitize  actors on  consequence of low  quality drugs Pig health  improved • Healthier  pigs • Better use  of drugs • Increased productivity • Test central  slaughter  at village model • Field lab for  quick  differential  diagnostic • Designing and  testing of  different  models of  delivery of  information
  25. 25. CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish EU/IFAD; ILRI; The team of facilitators; The local government authorities of Masaka, Mukono and  Kamuli districts; VEDCO in Kamuli livestockfish.cgiar.org CGIAR is a global partnership that unites organizations engaged in research for a food secure future. The CGIAR  Research Program on Livestock and Fish aims to increase the productivity of small‐scale livestock and fish systems  in sustainable ways, making meat, milk and fish more available and affordable across the developing world.

×