The smallholder pig value chains development in Uganda (SPVCD) project: Where are we now?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

The smallholder pig value chains development in Uganda (SPVCD) project: Where are we now?

on

  • 3,494 views

Presented by Danilo Pezo, Michel Dione and Emily Ouma at the Planning workshop on 'assessing the impact of African Swine Fever in smallholder pig systems and the feasibility of potential ...

Presented by Danilo Pezo, Michel Dione and Emily Ouma at the Planning workshop on 'assessing the impact of African Swine Fever in smallholder pig systems and the feasibility of potential interventions, Kampala, Uganda, 13 May 2013

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,494
Views on SlideShare
1,076
Embed Views
2,418

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
14
Comments
0

2 Embeds 2,418

http://unjobs.org 2410
http://www.ilri.org 8

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

The smallholder pig value chains development in Uganda (SPVCD) project: Where are we now? Presentation Transcript

  • 1. The Smallholder Pig Value Chains Developmentin Uganda (SPVCD) Project:Where are we now?Danilo Pezo, Michel Dione and Emily A. OumaAssessing the impact of African Swine Fever in smallholder pig systemsand the feasibility of potential interventions – Planning WorkshopKampala, 13th May 2013
  • 2. Importance OF Pig Production in UgandaPig production- a dynamic and rapidly growing sector in Uganda. In thepast three decades increased from 0.19 to 3.2 million pigs (UBOS, 2009;FAO, 2011).Uganda has the highest per capita consumption (3.4 kg/person/year) inthe region -10 times increase in the last 30 years, whereas beef isdeclining (FAO, 2011)
  • 3. Structure of the Pig Sector in UgandaA large informal subsector• More than1.1 million households.• Backyard pig production, mainly managed bywomen and children, as means to diversify riskand increase livelihood security.• Tethering & scavenging are common.• In few districts, peri-urban small-scale semi-intensive systems• Uncoordinated trade & transport• Mostly unsupervised slaughter, no meatinspection in local markets, road-side butchers• Pork joints
  • 4. FarmSystems:BreedingGrowing/FatteningInputs andServicesPig breederVet / Animal Prodextension servicesAgrovet / feed shopownersFeed manufacturers andsuppliersTransporters of inputsPost-farmLive-pig tradersTransportersSlaughterersPork ButchersPork processors- largeand mediumSupermarkets/restaurantsConsumersActors in a typical pork value chain
  • 5. Value chain mapSMALLHOLDER PRODUCERPRIVATE-AHSPGOVERNMENT-AHSPANIMAL BASEDDRUG SHOPSVILLAGE BOARBANKSKNOWLEDGABLEFARMERSFEED MILLERSFEED SHOPSNEIGHBOURHOODBUTCHER (pork,live pigs)TRADER (live pigs)NAADSMFIBUTCHER INOTHER TOWN(pork)WHOLESALERFEEDSPIGLETS FROMNEIGHBOURSABBATOIR (pork)PROCESSOR (pork,sausages and bacon)SUPERMARKETS/HOTELSPORK JOINTS(pork)CONSUMERSSACCOSNGOTreatment, diagnosis,prevention, drugsBreeding,replacementpigsCredit Mixed feeds,maize branExtensionservicesBulkingWholesaling/slaughteringRetailing
  • 6. SPVCD Project GoalTo improve the livelihoods,incomes and assets ofsmallholder pig producers,particularly women, in asustainable manner,through increasedproductivity, reduced risk,and improved access in pigvalue chains
  • 7. Objectives To identify market opportunities for pork in Uganda, and themultiple factors preventing smallholder pig producers fromexploiting those opportunities, with focus on constraintscaused by animal disease threat, feed resources, andperformance of markets and services. To develop and pilot test a set of integrated packages forsmallholder pig production and market access for specificproduction systems, resource profiles and market settings inUganda. To document, communicate and promote appropriateevidence-based models for sustainable, pro-poor pig valuechains.
  • 8. Pig value chain domains coveredPeri-urbanUrbanRural UrbanRural RuralProduction Consumption
  • 9. Background Funded by IFAD/EU (1st Jan 2011/ 31 Dec 2013). Effectively started in October 2012 Part of the Livestock & Fish, By and For the Poor CGIARProgram (CRP 3.7) Works closely with the Safe Food – Fair Food Project,funded by GIZ (part of CRP 4.3) Partners at national level: NaLIRRI, MAAIF, NAADS, localgovernments of Masaka, Mukono and Kamuli, MakerereUniversity, VEDCO, VSF-Belgium, the Uganda PiggeryOrganization, among others.
  • 10. Progress done (1) ILRI opens an office in Kampala (March 2012) ILRI-Uganda team in place (October 2012) Scoping of potential areas for the SPVCD operationand contacts with partners (May – July 2012) A study entitled “The conditions within which thesmallholder pig value chains operate in Uganda: Anoverview of past trends, current status, and likelyfuture directions” completed (December 2012)
  • 11. Targeting Pig Value Chain Systems (2) GIS study at district/sub-county levelconsidering: Pig population Pig density Poverty level
  • 12. Participatory Selection of Sites (3) Participatory selection ofsites (October 2012)using GIS results andsoft-criteria identified bypartners, such as: Potential partnerships Disease burden in pigs Presence/access to inputservice providers Access all year round
  • 13. Participatory Selection of Sites (4)
  • 14. Selection of Target Sites (5) For each district, 4-6 sub-counties with highpig population (MAAIF/UBOS LivestockCensus 2008) were selected. Consultations with partners (DVOs, NAADSstaff and local NGOs) in each of the selecteddistricts to identify the value chain domainswithin the sub-counties. Site scoping with a minimum checklistadministered to few farmers and actors tovalidate the value chain domains in eachsub-county and also identify villages to betargeted for the value chain activities.
  • 15. List of counties and sub-counties selected (6)35 villages selected: 18 Rural – Rural, 7 Rural – Urban and 10 Urban - Urban
  • 16. The VCA tool-kit components (7) Seasonal calendar Institutional interactions tool Production systems tool Social capital – involvement in collective action and benefits. Activity clock – gender roles in production and marketing. Decision-making tool – who makes decisions and who controlsthe resources? Livelihood analysis – income sources. Value chain mapping Animal health Breeding Feeding Food safety and nutrition
  • 17. Application of the VCA tool-kit (8)Key informants Mixed groupsWomen groups Plenary sessionAfter a long VCA week, a socialgathering in a pork joint
  • 18. VCA tool-kit for Other Actors (1)INPUTS/SERVICE PROVIDERS Feed input stockists and millers. Vet drugs stockists. Service providers:• Veterinarians/AHA/paravets• Owners of village breeding boars• Extension staff (public and private)• Credit
  • 19. VCA tool-kit for Other Actors (2)OUTPUT Traders of live pigs (including collectorsand transporters) Slaughterhouses/abattoirs Processors (formal-Fresh Cuts/QualityCuts) Retailers (meat/processed products) –butcheries, supermarkets, pork-joints Consumers – preferences for differentpig/pork product attributes – potentialsfor a choice experiment study.
  • 20. Few examples of VCA results – Animal health
  • 21. Priority diseases identified and health relatedconstraints*Swine erysipelas, anemia,ticks, jiggers, heat stress, fever,undiagnosed diseases usuallyrelated to sudden death05101520253035RRRUUUDisease Morbidity (%) Mortality (%) Case fatality (%)ASF (Omusujja/Omusudha) 29 29 100Worms (Enjoka/Ebiwuka) 37 14 39Sarcoptic mange (Lukuku/Olukuku) 16 7 43Diarrhea (Ekidukano/kwiidukana) 6 5 86Lice (Ensekere/Nsekere) 5 1 24Malnutrition (Endya embi) 4 3 66FMD (Kalusu) 1 0.0 6Midge biting (Kawawa) 1 0.2 18*Others 1 0.5 73Figure: list of constraints related to animal health according to farmersTable: list of prioritydisease identified byfarmers
  • 22. Potential best bet technologies/practices/interventions identified (1)Short term Constraints: poor management, poor housing structure, lack ofknowledge and weak biosecurity measures Interventions/practices/technologies: training on husbandry practicesand farm management; model of improved housing; promote improvedbiosecurity measures Protocol: sentinel herd approach; longitudinal monitoring; 1 sentinel and1 control group of 20 small farms each in Kamuli and Masaka,representative of all value chain types. Duration: 3 generations; regular monitoring and parameter’smeasurements every 4 months Materials: sentinel approach; incentive for farmers; animals Indicators: disease incidence/mortality (antigen detection, pathogenisolation); outbreak reporting; production parameters (weight gain,farrowing, etc…); herd entry/exit
  • 23. Potential best bet technologies/practices/interventions identified (2)Medium/long term Early warning system (Community Animal HealthNetwork) Central laboratory and promote use of pen sidetests Promote central slaughter house One health concept: vaccination/deworming daysfor pigs and raising awareness of public
  • 24. Field sampling for animal health studies (1)Objectives• to assess the burden and risk factors associated with high priority diseases thatimpact on the pig production including ASF, porcine cysticercosis and parasites.• to genetically characterize the ASFV population circulating in the 3 research sites• to further explore disease that have implication in the pig and public health, butwere not cited as high priority (diarrhea, FMD and zoonoses)Sample size• 400 adults animals per district, 1200 in totalFarm/pig selection• 9, 6 and 4 villages in Masaka, Mukono and Kamuli, respectively; representing the3 VC domains of interest (RR, RU and UU)• Farms randomly selected using a sampling frame list generated by the DVOs ineach district• One adult pig randomly chosen in each farm for sample collection
  • 25. Field sampling for animal health studies (2)Survey (farm level)• A structured questionnaire addressing management practices, feeding, hygieneand health of the pigs, in order to assess risk factors associated with targeteddiseases, administered in all farms where pigs were sampled.• Specimen collected• Blood in EDTA and plain tube, feces and ectoparasites physically seen duringthe field workPlanned laboratory analysis• HP10 ELISA (cysticercosis); blocking ELISA (ASF); Real time PCR (ASF);genotyping (ASFV)• Flotation/sedimentation for helminthes
  • 26. The presentation has a Creative Commons licence. You are free to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is given to ILRI.better lives through livestockilri.org