EVALUATION OF THE MEDIUM AND SMALLENTERPRISES (MSE) PROGRAMME IN COAST AND          RIFT VALLEY REGIONS                   ...
FOREWORDThis Medium and Small Enterprises Programme report is anevaluation of the successes of these programmes in target ...
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The preparation of this report was a joint effort by variousparties whom I’d like to thank on behalf of He...
4
LIST OF ACRONYMSABS     American Breeders ServicesADC     Agricultural Development CorporationAHA     Animal Health Assist...
TABLE OF CONTENTITEM                                                       PAGETitle                                      ...
ITEM                                                   PAGEAppendix 1    Suggested Training Topics for Private            ...
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe MSE programme was introduced by HPI-K in 1998 in support of the SmallholderDairy Development Project,...
CHAPTER ONE                  BACKGROUND INFORMATION1.1    Programme backgroundThis programme was started in 1998 under the...
meant to enable them diversify and enhance delivery of services, improve financialreturns from the business and strengthen...
The report of 5th January 2007 on workshops organized for Coast region’s MSEshighlighted some of the expected outputs, whi...
conditions and terms of the programme. A total of 11 farms were visited (Appendix5).                   Feeding cows with n...
Meeting with the MSE Service providers in Kwale               Meeting with farmers and service providers in KilifiE.     O...
F.      Physical checking of AI equipmentPhysical checking of the semen storage and inseminators’ containers was done inKi...
The integration of farmers and service providers through milk marketing was bestpracticed in Siongiroi (Bomet), Kipkelion ...
Two vapor shippers (1.5-litre)         One inseminator’s container (3-litre container)The presence of the Wumweri Dairy Co...
not allowed to collect liquid nitrogen with the 1.5-litre containers from either Badarshop or BOC plant in Mombasa.2.1.8  ...
2.2. Existing Monitoring SystemThe heifer loaning programme had an established mechanism for monitoring theactivities in t...
However, there were few cases where some of the service providers presented somegood records (Alphonse Mkare in Malindi, B...
In the Rift Valley region it was observed that the private service providers were doingbetter in providing reports to the ...
Some of the farmers complained of having not had their heifers calving and had optedto sell them because of lack of AI ser...
Table 1: Status of Original Heifer Placement in Coastregion (July 2007)               (Source: Malindi HPI-K Office)Distri...
ii.        Enhancing quality of life and status.iii.       Direct employment and increased income-generating activities.iv...
As reported elsewhere, a heifer in Kipkelion had been inseminated for about 10 times(at a cost of Ksh6,000). By the time o...
Incorrect presentation of cows for AI                       Infected reproductive organs                       Early abort...
cost of the service, the service providers pointed out that the cost was justified as itcovered costs on semen, liquid nit...
from well-known breeders to improve the herds. A farmer group in Taita reported thatthey had been using bulls for a long t...
CBAHWs (preferred by NGOs)        Traditional animal doctors        Farmers and farm workersYet, the MSE programme was exp...
In general, most of the private service providers under the MSE programme in Coastregion were not accountable to any offic...
AI or AH- related cases, he contacts the nearest service provider and directs them tothe farmer. However four districts ar...
i.      Rejection by farmers due to misconduct /poor performance (Kwale,               Taita).       ii.     Lack of inter...
From the discussions and explanations given, the loan repayment rate by the serviceproviders has been slow because of a nu...
2.6.6. Challenges related to management of the MSE programmeA.     Inadequate field supervision for the MSE service provid...
Similarly in Rift Valley, the service providers had to travel for long distances (Eldoretor Kericho) using public transpor...
The MSE programme has achieved much of what was anticipated when it waslaunched in 1999. There is increased livestock prod...
milk production and delivery to the dairy plants. However, competition from maizefarming (in Nandi) and too many bulls in ...
These farmer training and extension services could be achieved through workshops,seminars and field days. The District Ani...
A feasibility study should be undertaken to identify current position and determinerequirements for additional service pro...
In some of the areas visited, farmers requested to be assisted with establishment ofbull camps. This was considered as an ...
During the interviews and meeting with the District Veterinary officers (DVOs) andLivestock Officers (LOs), there were a n...
iv.      Revising by-laws guiding farmer groups and dairy Plants           Within farmers’ groups, umbrella associations a...
TAITA           Ernest Kitawi              Prestone Kenyatta                            Claudy Njaka                Abraha...
Control of external parasites                                  Control of internal parasites                              ...
i.      Business plan   ii.     Cash book keeping   iii.    Profit-loss account   iv.     Income   v.      Expenditure   v...
7. Dr Nderingo Ronald             DVO                    Kwale   8. Mr Mukono                      DLPO                   ...
11. Kassim Gao         Spraying              Kwale12. Mwamashango G.     Spraying              Kwale13. Margaret Maina    ...
40. Dr Makori             Private Agrovet     Nandi North                          Shop41. Jonathan K. Boit      AI (Taboc...
12. Pauline Sanga              Kaloleni               Vevesi Women Group     13. Celina Juma                Kaloleni      ...
Chebunyo8.    Richard K. Langat                         Kipkelion9.    Mr Paul Too’s                             Kipkelion...
APPENDIX 6: INDIVIDUAL COW RECORDING CARD                    IDENTIFICATION    Owner’s /Herd Name……………………………………………………..   ...
Evaluation of the Heifer International Medium and Small Enterprises Programme (Kenya)
Evaluation of the Heifer International Medium and Small Enterprises Programme (Kenya)
Evaluation of the Heifer International Medium and Small Enterprises Programme (Kenya)
Evaluation of the Heifer International Medium and Small Enterprises Programme (Kenya)
Evaluation of the Heifer International Medium and Small Enterprises Programme (Kenya)
Evaluation of the Heifer International Medium and Small Enterprises Programme (Kenya)
Evaluation of the Heifer International Medium and Small Enterprises Programme (Kenya)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Evaluation of the Heifer International Medium and Small Enterprises Programme (Kenya)

748 views
679 views

Published on

This Medium and Small Enterprises Programme report is an evaluation of the successes of these programmes in target areas in Coast and Rift Valley. It outlines the target procedures and encompasses interviews with project participants. The evaluation report also highlights the faults and challenges encountered in the implementation of the programmes and suggests possible remedies.


[ Originally posted on http://www.cop-ppld.net/cop_knowledge_base ]

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
748
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Evaluation of the Heifer International Medium and Small Enterprises Programme (Kenya)

  1. 1. EVALUATION OF THE MEDIUM AND SMALLENTERPRISES (MSE) PROGRAMME IN COAST AND RIFT VALLEY REGIONS FOR HEIFER PROJECT INTERNATIONAL – KENYA BY DR MWANGI J. N. P.O. BOX 25418, 00603 NAIROBI, KENYA TELEPHONE: 0710-757-139 DECEMBER 2007 1
  2. 2. FOREWORDThis Medium and Small Enterprises Programme report is anevaluation of the successes of these programmes in target areasin Coast and Rift Valley. It outlines the target procedures andencompasses interviews with project participants. Theevaluation report also highlights the faults and challengesencountered in the implementation of the programmes andsuggests possible remedies. As yet, this may be the mostrepresentative report on the MSE programme and the lessonscontained herein can be used by other donor organizations withprojects in different parts of the country.The MSE programme is 10 years old this year. Over this period,it has transformed the lives of hundreds of people and theirfamilies in the target areas of Malindi, Kilifi, Kwale, Taita (inCoast) and Bomet, Kipkelion, Nandi North, Ol Kalou (in RiftValley) by equipping them with dairy management skills andinputs in terms of cows under the Pass On initiative. It has alsobrought farmers and extension service providers together toincrease dairy cattle productivity.Inevitably, the management and logistical demands of the MSEprogramme have been enormous and this has at times,threatened the strong cooperation between these parties (farmersand extension service providers). This document not only detailsthese challenges but also suggests solutions on how to overcomethem. It might not be exhaustive in itself but provides a solidstarting point for any necessary change of policy. 2
  3. 3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The preparation of this report was a joint effort by variousparties whom I’d like to thank on behalf of Heifer ProjectInternational-Kenya. First and foremost, gratitude goes to theconsultant Dr J.N Mwangi for his tireless effort in puttingtogether this comprehensive study. The responses he gatheredfrom service providers, farmers and government veterinary andlivestock production personnel will assist in the improvement ofHPI-K activities now and in future.It is quite apparent from this report that better coordinationbetween the various organizations, individuals and farmers is thebest and only way to achieving our desired goals in MSEs. Wewill work towards harmonizing this better cooperation.I would also like to express my appreciation to colleaguesGeorge Tsuma, head of Coast Region and Dr Reuben Koech, theMonitoring and Evaluation Coordinator who facilitated thesuccessful collection of data in the four districts covered in thisreport. We will continually work together in future to ensureHPI-K achieves its goals.Mr Alex KiruiCountry DirectorHeifer Project International-KenyaJuly 2008 3
  4. 4. 4
  5. 5. LIST OF ACRONYMSABS American Breeders ServicesADC Agricultural Development CorporationAHA Animal Health AssistantAHITI Animal Health and Industry Training InstituteAH Animal HealthAI Artificial InseminationAS Animal SprayingBOC British Oxygen CompanyCAHWs Community Animal Health WorkersCAIS Central Artificial Insemination StationDVO District Veterinary OfficerES Extension ServicesFGD Focused Group DiscussionHPI-K Heifer Project International – KenyaJAHAs Junior Animal Health AssistantsLO Livestock OfficerMSE Medium and Small EnterprisesNGOs Non-governmental OrganizationsSDDP Smallholder Dairy Development ProjectTOR Terms of ReferenceWWS World Wide Sires 5
  6. 6. TABLE OF CONTENTITEM PAGETitle 1Acknowledgement 2List of Acronyms 3Table of Content 4Executive Summary 6Chapter One: Evaluation Background Information 12 1.1 MSE Programme background 12 1.2 Objective of Evaluation 13 1.3. Evaluation Methodology 14 1.4. Time frame for the Evaluation 17 1.5. Report Format 17Chapter Two: Evaluation Findings 18 2.1 Good Practices in the Delivery of Services 18 2.2. Existing Monitoring Systems 22 2.3. Achievements and Benefits 25 2.4. Farmers’ Benefits from the Programme 26 2.5. Service providers’ Benefits from the Programme 28 2.6. Challenges affecting the MSE Programme 28Chapter Three: Conclusion and Recommendations 42 3.1. Conclusion 42 3.2 Recommendations 44Chapter Four: Table and Appendices 51Table 1. Status of Service Providers in Coast region 51 6
  7. 7. ITEM PAGEAppendix 1 Suggested Training Topics for Private Service Providers and for Farmer Extension 52Appendix 2 List of Persons Contacted /Interviewed 54Appendix 3 List of Service Providers Interviewed 55Appendix 4 List of Farmer Participants 57Appendix 5 List of Farms Visited 58Appendix 6 Individual Cow Recording Card 59Appendix 7 Daily Herd Milk Production Summary 60Appendix 8 Monthly Milk Recording Summary 61Appendix 9 Herd Health Report 62Appendix 10 Inseminator’s Daily Semen Accounting Report 63Appendix 11 Insemination Record /Receipt 64Appendix 12 Time –Frame for the Evaluation of MSE Programme 65 7
  8. 8. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe MSE programme was introduced by HPI-K in 1998 in support of the SmallholderDairy Development Project, which was then funded by USAID-Kenya. Theprogramme was started initially in the Coast region (Malindi, Kilifi, Kwale and Taitadistricts) and later extended to Rift Valley (Bomet, Kipkelion, Nandi North and OlKalou districts).It aimed at providing several support services to the dairy farmers notably ArtificialInsemination, Extension, Animal Health and Agrovet. Sixty four private serviceproviders in the Coast and 12 in the Rift Valley regions were trained and equippedwith the necessary tools for the delivery of the above services. This was aimed atimproving dairy production and profitability at household level.Overall, the programme has had significant achievements. While some of the findingsare specific for each of the two regions, others are for both.Many farmers (especially in Coast region) appreciated the fact that they had access toAH and AI services at a time when the public- supported services were unavailable.Farmers under the SDDP in the Coast region reported success in Passing On cows,some of which had calved to third and fourth lactations. One farmer in Bomet had aherd of over 20 milking cows, heifers and calves all of which had been bred throughAI service.AI and AH services had facilitated multiplication of the first heifer placements,thereby enhancing the implementation of the Pass-on and Pass –back programme.During the FGDs, farmers highlighted many benefits which they associated with theMSE programme including household food security, ownership of quality dairy cowsthrough use of AI services and education of children using funds available from milksales.Formation of farmer groups and umbrella associations had empowered farmers to takecharge of providing the services to their members and non-members.However, the MSE programme has encountered a number of challenges, some ofwhich relate to the service providers while others relate to the farmers. Some of thechallenges related to farmers include inadequate, low level feeding and imbalancedfeeding for dairy animals. Those related to the service providers include failure tokeep records and non-commitment to duty.Various suggestions are suggested on how the two parties can work harmoniously toimprove herd and milk production. 8
  9. 9. CHAPTER ONE BACKGROUND INFORMATION1.1 Programme backgroundThis programme was started in 1998 under the SDDP and funded by USAID. It wasinitially covering Malindi, Kilifi, Kwale and Taita districts of the Coast beforeexpanding to the Rift Valley region.In Rift Valley, the emphasis of the programme was to provide linkages between thefour dairy plants (Siongiroi, Kipkelion, Kipkaren and Olkalou) and the private serviceproviders. This linkage has been a major boost for the service providers in helpingthem offer better support services.The MSE programme was also aimed at providing the dairy cow-assisted families anddairy farmers in the HPI-K – assisted dairy plants with the following: Animal Health (AH) services Artificial Insemination (AI) services Agrovet services Extension services Animal spraying servicesThe programme was one of the two strategies considered necessary to enhance foodsecurity at family level within the target communities by improving local livestockproductivity and diversifying household incomes.Under the MSE programme, 64 private service providers in the Coast and 12 in theRift Valley regions were trained and equipped with the necessary tools for thedelivery of services. This was aimed at improving milk production.From time to time, the MSE service providers were given additional training tostrengthen the diversification of their services and network with their contemporaries.For example in September 2006 (11th – 22nd), a total of 28 MSEs from Coast and RiftValley were trained by personnel from AHITI, Kabete. The additional training was 9
  10. 10. meant to enable them diversify and enhance delivery of services, improve financialreturns from the business and strengthen linkages with other service providers.The training covered a number of topics, including: i. Basic animal handling techniques ii. AH iii. Entrepreneurship and farm business management iv. Gender and HIV/Aids v. Basics of extension services vi. Animal husbandry vii. Fodder establishment, management, conservation and utilizationMost of the MSE entrepreneurs were given startup assistance in form of bicycles,acaricides and AI kits.1.2 Objective of the EvaluationThe purpose of the evaluation was to assess the current AI and AH services anddelivery systems in the Coast and Rift Valley regions with a view to: i. Document what is working well in the delivery of AI and AH services, and what needs to be done to strengthen the identified good practices. ii. Identify existing gaps, challenges and opportunities in the delivery of the services to the farmers. iii. Assess the capacity of the MSEs in AI and AH delivery with an aim of developing a training curriculum for use by HPI-K and partners iv. Identify, suggest or recommend new strategies that HPI-K and other partiers or collaborators should consider to enhance the delivery of both services in the project areas. v. Review existing MSE monitoring systems in place. vi. Make recommendations on strengthening the existing monitoring systems to enhance close partnerships with the MSEs and HPI-K as well as their performance.1.3 Evaluation MethodologyThe project evaluation exercise was accomplished by using a number of tools andtechniques including:A. Reading documents and reports relevant to the MSEProgramme.i. Report on MSEs’ Follow-up and Counseling Workshops of 5thJanuary2007 10
  11. 11. The report of 5th January 2007 on workshops organized for Coast region’s MSEshighlighted some of the expected outputs, which are contained in the evaluationreport.ii. Project proposal of February 2006, for capacity building for community – based AH workers and private livestock service providersThe project proposal in reference focused on training 32 MSEs and CommunityAnimal Health Workers (CAHWs) who were providing AI, AH and Extensionservices within the project areas in Rift Valley and Coast.iii. Draft Report of October 2003 on Technoserve’s Small holder Dairy Development ProjectThe Draft Report of October 2003 on Technoserve’s Small holder Dairy DevelopmentProject document contained important information relevant to the MSE Programme. Itrevealed that the programme was conceived as a strategy to improve food security oftarget communities. This was to be achieved by enhancing agricultural productivityand diversifying household incomes.iv. Report on Entrepreneurial skills Development Training Workshop (11th – 22nd 2006)The report on this workshop contained the different training skills, which the MSEswere exposed to.v. Reports from the office of the HPI-K Coordinator, Coast regionSome of the filed reports contained information on cows Passed On between 2000 and2006 and HPI-K cow census summaries as of 31st July 2007.B. Interviews with important stakeholdersSome of the interviewees were: HPI-K Project Director and Project Coordinator, head office HPI-K Coast region Programme Coordinator District /Divisional Veterinary and livestock production officers Dairy plant managers and support staff Agrovet shop managersThe interviews also involved 24 non-service providers (DVOs), DLPOs, 35 farmers,and 45 service providers among others (Appendix 2 – 4).C. Farm VisitsThis allowed direct contact with farmers who were under the MSEs’ programme. Italso allowed on-farm observations on how farmers were complying with stipulated 11
  12. 12. conditions and terms of the programme. A total of 11 farms were visited (Appendix5). Feeding cows with nappier grass in MalindiD. Focused Group DiscussionsAbout 16 Focused Group Discussion (FGD) meetings were undertaken in both Coastand Rift Valley region (two per district). The meetings were the most effectiveapproach since they allowed contact with many stakeholders at one time. Amongthese stakeholders were: AH service providers AI service providers MSEs providing AH services Farmers using AI service 12
  13. 13. Meeting with the MSE Service providers in Kwale Meeting with farmers and service providers in KilifiE. Observations and listeningThe evaluation was also accomplished by observing best practices and listening tointeresting stories and case reports, especially from the Coast region HPI-Kcoordinator, dairy plant managers and a few farmers. 13
  14. 14. F. Physical checking of AI equipmentPhysical checking of the semen storage and inseminators’ containers was done inKilifi, Badar Agrovet Center, and Kwale and Taita districts. It is commendable thatboth the HPI-K coordinator in the region and some of the inseminators were takinggreat care to maintain the expected levels of liquid nitrogen for semen storage.1.4 Time frame for the evaluationAfter the necessary consultancy protocols were finalized, the evaluation was designedto take place between 2nd September and 2nd October 2007. The timeframe was usedfor the following activities: Field visits covering eight districts in Coast and Rift Valley Compilation of report Presentation of draft report1.5 Report formatThe report is presented under a chapter format system and in the following sequence:a. Chapter One covers the background of the MSE programme, evaluation objectives and methods used.b. Chapter Two covers the evaluation findings including good practices, achievements and benefits, challenges and issues affecting the MSE programme.c. Chapter Three covers conclusions and recommendations for overcomingchallenges and improving delivery of services.d. Chapter Four covers Table and Appendices on: Status of Service providers in Coast Training needs for farmers and service providers Stakeholders contacted Suggested reporting formats Evaluation time frame CHAPTER TWO EVALUATION FINDINGS2.1. Good practices in the delivery of servicesA number of good practices in the delivery of AI and AH services were observed.These include:2.1.1 Integration of milk marketing and services needed for production 14
  15. 15. The integration of farmers and service providers through milk marketing was bestpracticed in Siongiroi (Bomet), Kipkelion (Kericho) and Tonykina (Nandi North)dairy plants. Here, farmers receive AI, AH and Agrovet services on credit, which theypay for through a milk check-off system. However the system works well only when: Farmers are delivering milk to the dairy plant. The service charges do not exceed the expected income from sale of milk.This approach can be replicated in other areas to encourage more farmers to enlistwith dairy plants. A case in point is the Manyeso Dairy in Malindi which wasproviding similar vital services before it collapsed. The current efforts to revive itshould be supported.2.1.2 Partnerships of farmer groups /umbrella associations and MSEsFormation of the farmer groups and the umbrella associations under the SDDP hasbeen useful to the MSE programme. Some of these include: • Kaloleni Umbrella Association in Kilifi district • Kikoneni Zero Grazing Group in Kwale district • Wumweri Umbrella Association in Taita districtThe associations had assumed the responsibility of purchasing liquid nitrogen andother AI-related supplies, from Badar Agrovet shop, Mtwapa, and paying the MSEsfor services rendered.2.1.3 Engagement of veterinariansThe Veterinary Department in Taita had supported the MSE programme by secondingone of the veterinarians (Dr. Mwasamba G.M.) to the Wumweri Dairy farmers group.The veterinarian assists farmers whose cows have difficultly in breeding; some arediagnosed with uterine infections and infertility because of using infected bulls. Healso monitors farmers’ complaints on AI and offers good linkages between thefarmers and HPI-K office.The involvement of a veterinarian to coordinate, monitor and supervise the MSEprogramme activities is a good back-up service for the private service provider. DrMwasamba was able to calculate a conception rate of 1.5 to 1.7 services perconception from the available farmers’ AI records. This is commendable for allstakeholders in AI service i.e. the farmer, inseminator, semen and cow.2.1.4 Wumweri Dairy Farmers GroupBased in Taita district, this group is an outstanding example of how farmers can takecharge of the AI and AH services. It is made up of 13 farmer groups. It handles about500 litres of milk daily. The group pays for services delivered by MSE inseminatorsand the veterinarian. It also purchases semen and AI accessories from CAIS, Kabete.It had the best set of AI equipments including: One large container (34-litre) for semen /LN2 delivery from CAIS One medium container (8-litre) 15
  16. 16. Two vapor shippers (1.5-litre) One inseminator’s container (3-litre container)The presence of the Wumweri Dairy Coordinator in the FGD meeting was veryimportant to the discussions. The inseminators are paid Ksh400 per insemination atthe end of the month. Semen and liquid nitrogen supplies are obtained from CAIS,and transported by Akamba bus to Voi town, at a cost of Ksh400 per delivery. Aprivate vehicle transports the supplies from Voi to the dairy at a cost of Ksh400 perdelivery.The farmers’ association records an average of 20 inseminations per month (15-31).Farmers pay Ksh1,000 per insemination (Ksh600 to dairy and Ksh400 to theinseminator). Farmers also remit a litre of milk per day for three months to the groupfor the development of the common farmers’ fund. Additional funds for the servicesare obtained from sale of bull calves. This way, farmers have developed funds whichare used to pay for common services (AI, AH).2.1.5. Formation of private service providers’ associationsThis initiative was meant to address social needs and for accountability purposes. Thebest was reported in Kwale where the service providers had plans to establish income-generating projects collectively and for each member.From the records on weekly spraying and treatment, the MSE service providerscompile reports, which are presented for discussion among themselves during theirmonthly meetings. The reports cover: Challenges encountered by the farmers Total animals sprayed (they have common format for spraying records) Amount of money paid Balance of money owed by farmers2.1.6. Marketing of private servicesOne of the service providers in Taita (Ann Irina) has an innovative approach towinning over farmers. While most of the service providers have remained with theoriginally set charges for spraying of animals, Irina renegotiates her fee, starting withas little as Ksh10 per animal. She has also diversified her services by providing anAgrovet shop, which boosts her turnover.2.1.7. EquipmentThe best inseminator’s container was found in Nandi North (near Tonykina Dairy). Ithas a capacity of five litres of liquid nitrogen and was being refilled after every threeweeks. It was owned by a veterinarian who had hired an inseminator. The latter wasmanaging an Agrovet shop in addition to providing AI services. It is highlyrecommended. This is better than the three or one-litre containers used by mostservice providers under the MSE programme. In Coast region, the inseminators were 16
  17. 17. not allowed to collect liquid nitrogen with the 1.5-litre containers from either Badarshop or BOC plant in Mombasa.2.1.8 Zero-grazing unitsSome of best zero-grazing units, which were using AI were found in Kaloleni (MamaSalina), Bomet (Chief David K. Milgo) and in Nandi North (Ezekiel Sitienei). Theseshould be used as model farms for extension services. Zero grazing unit in Kipkaren, Nandi2.1.9. Service providersSome of the MSE service providers popular with farmers, showing dedication to theirwork and keeping some records include the following: Alphonse Kalume Kiponda in Malindi Leonard Langat in Kipkelion Mwambogha K. Stephen in Taita Benjamin Ng’eno in Bomet Nassir Kenya in Kilifi2.1.10 Partnerships with local Agrovet shopsEstablishment of Agrovet shops within reach of the MSE service providers iscommendable. Some of these include Badar Agrovet shop, Mtwapa and PwaniAgrovet shop in Kaloleni. These are very popular with the service providers fromMalindi, Kilifi, Taita and Kwale districts. Others in partnership with the dairy plantsin the Rift Valley include Siongiroi, Kipkelion and Kipkaren. These enhanced theMSE programme by supplying drugs, semen, AI accessories, fertilizers andagricultural seeds. 17
  18. 18. 2.2. Existing Monitoring SystemThe heifer loaning programme had an established mechanism for monitoring theactivities in the field. Apparently farmers who received the first batch of heiferplacements were thoroughly prepared in record keeping and accountability.While the service providers had been adequately trained, majority of them wereperforming below average. This was reported in Kwale and in Bomet where some ofthe MSE service providers did not have the necessary AI equipments.While the MSE programme has expanded over the last 10 years, it requires a reviewto improve on the existing monitoring systems. Some of the monitoring systems beingpracticed include the following:A. Keeping of RecordsIn the Coast region, farmers were well trained under the SDDP and were expected tokeep records in four types of books including: AI records (heat and service dates). A Breeding calendar has now been provided to most of the heifer loaning project farmers by HPI-K Spraying and treatment Milk production Visitors’ bookFarmers were trained on how to keep daily milk production records (farmers weresupplied with measuring cylinders). Though some of the farmers visited wereconfirmed to be keeping records, it was not possible to confirm how majority offarmers were doing.Two farmers Mama Selina in Kaloleni and Chesodon Dairy farm, Bomet werekeeping very good records worth emulating.During the FGDs, the service providers indicated that they were maintaining theserecords: Number of animals sprayed and date Animals which had calved within the month, especially out of AI service Number of animals which had died Types and number of diseases treated Payment receipts for services rendered Regular income /expenditure returnsIt was difficult to confirm if any records were maintained since majority ofparticipants came for the meetings without even a piece of paper or pen to use. It wasnot clear why the MSE service providers were shying away from showing how theywere performing. A similar observation had been made during the TrainingWorkshops (Report on 5th January 2007). The MSEs should be compelled to producecopies of their records and reports during future training workshops. 18
  19. 19. However, there were few cases where some of the service providers presented somegood records (Alphonse Mkare in Malindi, Benjamin Ngeno in Bomet and LeonardK. Langat in Kipkelion). In most cases, there were no standard formats for recordinginseminations or treatments.B. MeetingsUnder the SDDP in the Coast region, there were arrangements for the MSE serviceproviders (spraying, treatment and AI) to meet with the farmer’s during their monthlymeetings. The service providers also met regularly among themselves on a monthlybasis to discuss issues affecting their work. They were also expected to compilemonthly reports, which normally would be sent to the HPI-K coordinator.Some of the MSEs were not attending the meetings or producing monthly reports.Apparently the MSE service providers in Rift Valley were not meeting regularly.Thus, there is need to harmonize some of the practices and procedures being followedby all MSE programme service providers.The HPI-K coordinator in the Coast region was also meeting with farmer groups fromtime to time and held workshops with them.In July 2007, the HPI-K coordinator provided extension and advisory work to 62farmers (50 women and 12 men). Some of the topics discussed included spraying ofanimals, access to AI and planting of fodder.This area needs to be strengthened so that conflicts and problems between farmersand service providers are diagnosed early enough.Apparently there is no HPI-K coordinating office in the Rift Valley region; all theservice providers were coordinated and supervised from head office. The respectivedairy plant managers had minimal supervision and coordination of the MSEsoperating under their areas and rarely met with them as a group. However, there wereattempts to improve the interactions between the MSEs and the plant managers(Siongiroi, Kipkelion and Tanykina dairy plants).The MSE service providers provided the weakest link since they were neitheraccountable to HPI-K, farmers nor to the government. The dairy plants provide anexcellent opportunity for training and extension services to the farmers, especiallythrough showing videos relevant to dairy farming.C. ReportsUnder the HLP in Coast region, the MSE service providers are supposed to producemonthly reports from the AI, spraying and or treatment weekly records. These reportsare presented for discussion during the monthly meetings and a copy sent to the HPI-K coordinator.Apparently the service providers do not always forward these reports to thecoordinator. There seems to be a major omission in the design of the HLP for regularreporting by the service providers. Conflicts between farmers and service providerswere not being attended to promptly. Often, farmers would refuse services fromservice providers with whom they had conflict with leading to some of the serviceproviders quitting. This was observed especially in Kwale (Kikoneni group). 19
  20. 20. In the Rift Valley region it was observed that the private service providers were doingbetter in providing reports to the plant managers and a few to the district veterinaryoffices (Kipkelion). The Tanykina Dairy Plant manager was perhaps the best inkeeping in touch and monitoring the service providers in the field.2.3. Achievements and BenefitsThe MSE programme evaluation has revealed a number of achievements within thedifferent sectors of the programme. The objectives of the HPI-K-supportedprogramme were to improve dairy productivity so as to uplift the standards of livingof the dairy farmers. This was to be achieved by providing the following essentialservices: i. AH ii. Disease control iii. Agrovet shop iv. Artificial insemination v. ExtensionTo determine progress made from the MSE programme one would need to evaluaterecorded data on specific indicators such as: i. Success of the SDDP as a beneficiary of the MSE supported AH and AI service (Table 1 – 3). ii. Amount of milk produced and delivered to the dairy plants as a result of using better genetics through AI service. iii. Number of service providers trained, both active and inactive. iv. Amount of acaricides used and number of animals sprayed. v. Number of total insemination achieved under the programme through the MSE programme inseminators. vi. Number of recorded calvings out of the AI service. vii. Number of grade cows introduced into the areas born out of using the MSE-supported AI service.Unfortunately, throughout the field visits, meetings and discussions held with thestakeholders, it was difficult to obtain this vital data. Apparently the MSE programmehad not established the necessary mechanism to record and report on regular basisfor all services and activities achieved and in a standardized method.In Coast region the number of calvings from the first heifers donated by through theSDDP from one to five between 1998 and 2007. The high number of calvings per cowor in a herd could be a reflection of good herd management and accessibility to AIand AH services by the farmers. 20
  21. 21. Some of the farmers complained of having not had their heifers calving and had optedto sell them because of lack of AI service. Sometimes this was due to the fact therewere too few of the MSE inseminators in the areas.In some areas, milk production from the first heifers donated under the SDDP rangedbetween 5 kilograms (kgs) and 13 kgs per day. The HPI-K Coordinator indicated thehighest level of production reported was 29 kgs per day from the first calving heifers.Some of the farmers in the Coast region expressed their satisfaction in accessingsemen from a variety of good breeds including Ayrshire, Brown Swiss and Friesian.In Rift Valley, the success of the MSE programme could only be measured byincreased milk delivered to the dairy plants (Yet most the dairy plant managerscomplained that the plants were performing below capacity). In most cases there wereno receipts issued to farmers after payment for services rendered. Lack of properrecords negatively affects the accuracy in assessing performance of the MSEprogramme.Based on the Coast MSE programme Follow-up and Counseling Report of 5thJanuary 2000 (HPI-K head office report), it was obvious that the MSE serviceproviders were being paid for services rendered. During their presentations theseservice providers had reported numerous activities and projects on which they hadspent their income. It is likely that the MSE programme may have achieved muchmore than has been reported.2.4. Farmers’ benefits from the programmeOverall, the MSE programme in both Coast and Rift Valley regions has been muchappreciated by all stakeholders especially the farmers and the private serviceproviders. From the discussions and visits to the farms, it was obvious that there weretangible results and benefits. Some of these include: i. Improved health from enhanced food security at family level. ii. Availability of cash money from sale of surplus milk and live animals which was used to improve housing structures. The money was also used to educate children. iii. Farmers were happy and proud because of owning grade cows out of the AI service. iv. Farmers were able to use manure as a result of increased herd size to improve productivity of their lands, especially for growing fodder. v. The arrangement under the SDDP in the Coast region for farmers to meet regularly for reporting had enhanced social-cultural networks for the support of the MSE programme. vi. Meeting with the MSE service providers and the HPI-K coordinator enabled farmers to become knowledgeable and skilled in management of dairy cows.vii. Increased herd size at household and regional level because of the availability of the AI and AH services had in effect enhanced further job opportunities for the MSE service providers. 21
  22. 22. Table 1: Status of Original Heifer Placement in Coastregion (July 2007) (Source: Malindi HPI-K Office)District Groups Membership HeifersTaita 19 481 223Kwale 16 477 237Kilifi 25 733 353Malindi 17 652 324Total 77 2343 1137Table 2: Status of Pass on (July 2007) (Source: Malindi HPI-K Office)District Groups Membership Heifers % Pass OnTaita 20 481 132 59.1Kwale 16 477 126 53.2Kilifi 27 733 263 74.5Malindi 17 652 215 66.3Total 80 2343 736 64.7Table 3: Status of Pass Backs (July 2007) (Source: Malindi HPI-K Office)District Groups Membership HeifersTaita Mwangaza B 28 14Kwale Bwagamoyo B 26 13Kilifi Roho Safi 26 13Malindi Allen Mjomba - 1Total 80 41The success of the SDDP as reflected from the data in the Tables above can beattributed to the availability of AH and AI services, facilitated through the MSEprogramme.2.5. Service providers’ benefits from the programmeThe MSE programme has been beneficial to the private service providers (AI, AH,sprayers, veterinarians, livestock officers, Agrovet shops and dairy plants) in anumber of ways including:i. Building of new and/or improving old houses 22
  23. 23. ii. Enhancing quality of life and status.iii. Direct employment and increased income-generating activities.iv. Possession of additional knowledge and skills from training and practicing.v. Establishment of good interpersonal relationships with farmers and HPI-K personnel.vi. Ownership and possession of good quality cows,vii. Food security (milk, food from cash).viii. Manure used on farms to improve crop, pasture productivity.ix. Education for children.2.6. Challenges affecting MSE programme2.6.1. Challenges related to the farmerAt farmer level some of the challenges observed or reported relate to: Inadequate knowledge, skills and practices in herd management. Socio-cultural beliefs in preference of natural mating instead of using AI, Some of the farmers were reluctant to incur expenses in spraying for animals that were not producing enough milk for consumption and surplus for sale. High level of poverty, thus discouraging farmers from using the available services. Inaccessible service providers because they were few and covered large areas. High cost of service because of too few farmers using the services. High death rate of AI calves.Some of the specific challenges, which farmers expressed during the FGDs and farmvisits include:i. Inadequate animal husbandry skillsDuring the farm visits, poor husbandry and management practices (low level offeeding, imbalanced feeding) were observed. This in effect would lead to: • Silent heats • Reduced number of AI services • Reduced income for the MSE service providers • Less number of calvings • Reduced income for the farmerDuring one of the farm visits in Malindi, a farmer complained of having waited fornine months since the cow had been served, with no signs of imminent calving duringthe time of the visit. The farmer could not access any help from the local MSE serviceprovider.In Coast region, farmers were hiring laborers to fetch grass from outside their farms.This was likely to introduce ticks to their zero grazing projects. 23
  24. 24. As reported elsewhere, a heifer in Kipkelion had been inseminated for about 10 times(at a cost of Ksh6,000). By the time of the visit there were no signs of it beingpregnant.Apparently, herds in areas visited in Bomet were large, a number of which were beinggrazed along the roadsides. Pastures on farms were overgrazed and often unfenced,while few farmers had planted fodder. The same was observed in Nandi North whereanimals were being grazed along roadside because most of the land was under maizecultivation.In most cases, there were no crutches for restraining of animals for treatment orinsemination. However, there were few farmers with very good herds, cowsproducing 25 to 30 kg of milk per day.A few farmers practiced fodder planting, as witnessed during the farm visits in Kwale,Malindi and Bomet districts and illustrated in the pictures below: A farmer with good fodder in Kwale Districtii. High level of repeat insemination servicesSome of the farmers in Kilifi complained that some of the cows were failing to showsigns of heat. They were informed that cows were likely to undergo an AI repeat dueto a number of reasons: Incorrect heat detection Improper insemination technique Quality of semen (if not properly stored and handled during insemination) 24
  25. 25. Incorrect presentation of cows for AI Infected reproductive organs Early abortionIn the absence of the insemination records, it was difficult to assess possible causes ofrepeat services. Every case witnessed had different circumstances and explanations: In Taita, cows associated with increased number of inseminations were diagnosed by the local veterinarian to be infected with metritis (due to use of bulls). In Bomet, a farmer was not sure if one of the cows was pregnant after being served for three times. There was no service provider to check whether the cow was pregnant or not. In Kipkelion, a heifer had been served for 10 times with no success. The farmer insisted on administering the AI without seeking help from local veterinary. From the information presented, it was suspected that the heifer was permanently infertile. In Kilifi a farmer explained how her cow conceived after four trials. This showed understanding importance of AI.iii. Low level of AI adoptionFor the private service providers to sustain themselves economically, a reasonablenumber of animals must be presented for AI, which would reduce the overall cost ofthe service.There was need to train farmers to enhance their knowledge and skills in good animalhusbandry (feeding and heat detection). There was also need to keep dairy cows fromhaving access to bulls, especially if they are of indigenous type.The service providers expressed concern on the low volume of work and returns(especially from AI business). Some of the reasons contributing to this situation weresuggested as: Farmers failing to present their animals for spraying, AI or treatment. Farmers spraying and/or treating the animals. Bulls being used for breeding. Unpaid debts by farmers and high cost of AI and spraying services. Low livestock populations. Perceived ineffectiveness of AI. In-correct perceptions that there more deaths among AI calves as compared to those conceived after mating heifers with bulls. Service providers’ lack of adequate marketing skills for their services. Low level of farmer education on heat detection. Misconduct by the service providers especially in Taita and Kwale districts.While it was mandatory that cows under the SDDP (Coast region) be served throughAI, some of the farmers had chosen to ignore this. There was a need for aggressiveextension service so that important issues concerning use of AI are discussed anddealt with at the earliest opportunity. Though the farmers complained about the high 25
  26. 26. cost of the service, the service providers pointed out that the cost was justified as itcovered costs on semen, liquid nitrogen, AI accessories, transport and labor.iv. Use of bullsSome of the farmers preferred using bulls instead of AI and therefore preferredkeeping bulls together with cows as witnessed in Bomet (see picture). Again some ofthe farmers with large unfenced grazing pastures preferred keeping bulls uncastrated,claiming that they had faster growth rate. It is likely that the low volume of milkdelivered to the dairy plants despite the large herds found in Bomet, Kipkelion andNandi North was partly due to: Use of bulls of low genetic potential. Overgrazed pastures and lack of supplementary feeding.A bull grazing with a dairy herd in open pastures in BometThe effect of using bulls was evident in Taita where a veterinarian attached to theWumweri Dairy Group reported having treated many cases of Metritis, as cows werereported not to be calving and / or were aborting.Other farmers claimed that the mortality rate of AI service calves was higher than thatof calves born from natural service. More often than not, farmers turned to use of AIafter the cows were already infected. Though some of the technicians had the skills totreat the condition causing failure of AI, the ailing cows would eventually becomeuneconomical to keep, especially if the infection persisted.In Kwale and Bomet, it was observed that some of the farmers were aware ofimportance of using good genetics. Some of them preferred using high grade bulls 26
  27. 27. from well-known breeders to improve the herds. A farmer group in Taita reported thatthey had been using bulls for a long time (Bull Camp), but had recently started usingAI service.v. High poverty level and/or lack of fundsAmong the SDDP supported farmers, lack of funds was the most common excuse forinability to present their animals for AI. Farmers need to be provided with enoughinformation on herd management. Such information includes: Cows are expected to repeat heat signs 21 days. Cows should be served within 60-90 days of post calving. Heifers should be served at 18 to 24 months of age depending on the body size achieved when the first signs are observed.Cost of AI varied a lot (Ksh600 to Ksh2,500) depending on choice of semen (CAIS orimported), distances from semen supply centers and whether it a first or repeatinsemination. The low poverty level among some of the farmers was a hindrance incoping with this high cost. Other farmers resulted to use of bulls because the AIservice providers were inaccessible and few.vi. Debts from rendered servicesIn Coast region, some of the farmers were keen to have their animals sprayed butunwilling to pay for the services and at the agreed cost. Some suggestions were givento manage this problem including the following: The farmers’ umbrella association group could pay for the defaulting members. This assumes that the groups would be financially strong. It also assumes that the group would find a mechanism for recovering the money from the defaulting members. The farmer’s group members could take away the project animal and donate it to another member in need of assistance for the first time. This assumes there are rules guiding members on how to deal with such issues when they occur. One also assumes that it would be possible to apply the rules without destroying social relationships between members.vii. DiseasesDuring the FGD meetings in Bomet, it was noted that AH service has many moreplayers than AI service including: Veterinarians Livestock officers AHAs Inseminators Junior Animal Health Assistants (JAHAs) 27
  28. 28. CBAHWs (preferred by NGOs) Traditional animal doctors Farmers and farm workersYet, the MSE programme was experiencing AH-related problems. Some of theservice providers were inadequately trained for effective disease diagnosis. Thechallenge was made worse because the private service providers were few in numbersand there were no proper networking systems with the government veterinary anddisease diagnostic facilities.With proper farmer education, some of the livestock diseases could be preventedthrough good management practices, including tick-borne diseases, internal parasites,mastitis and venereal diseases.In Coast region, farmers complained that the first group to receive heifers wasthoroughly prepared on good management practices. However, they felt that over timeHPI-K had reduced farm visits and extension services.viii. Death of animalsFarmers indicated that most heifers were dying at the age of between three and 12months. This was considered to be an issue of management, especially after calveswere weaned. Although the farmers had the necessary information, some were notpracticing what they already knew.In the Coast region, it was even reported that some of the farmers were reluctant tofeed first and third heifer calves because these were to be donated to other familieswithout animals.2.6.2. Challenges related to lack of organized milk marketsIn Coast region, organized milk marketing facilities (milk cooling plants etc) are veryfew. Excess on-farm milk is sold to the neighboring farmers and local hotels.Manyeso Dairy in Malindi, which was a good market for excess milk, closed down.It was serving as a base for farmers to report AI needs or cases of animals needingtreatment. In Malindi, prices of milk vary from Ksh17 (when sold to Manyeso dairy)and Ksh30 per kg if sold to neighboring homes and hotels.Without regular milk marketing opportunities and networks in place, farmers areunable to raise income to pay for services. In the Rift Valley, the milk marketingsituation was better and organized through the dairy plants. This enabled farmers toreceive services promptly and often on credit, as long as they were delivering milk tothe plant. The main challenge in the region is more of under-utilization of the dairyplants.Ol Kalou Dairy plant does not have service providers attached to it. However, therewere plans to establish an Agrovet shop. Hopefully, this will enhance extensionservices delivery to the farmers through the dairy plant or through organized fielddays.2.6.3. Challenges associated with Private Service providers (PSPs)A. Inadequate Monitoring Systems 28
  29. 29. In general, most of the private service providers under the MSE programme in Coastregion were not accountable to any office (Veterinary, Livestock production, HPI-KCoordinator or to the farmers).The following cases illustrate the point better: During the FGD meeting in Taita, farmers reported that one of the private service providers was heard boasting in public how he had used dead semen to inseminate the cows without the knowledge of the farmer. Fortunately the farmers had already sacked him because of other misconduct issues. In Kwale during the FGD meetings, one of the inseminators presented to me his field container when it was completely dry. This was just a day after he had used it for insemination. Farmers complained that this particular inseminator had destroyed seven doses of semen previously and without any regret.Some of the MSE service providers trained and recruited in 1998/99 had done verylittle practice due to lack of equipment. Apparently there was inadequate follow-up oreffective monitoring of these service providers after recruitment.It was not mandatory for them to maintain proper records and produce reports on aregular basis. However, a few of them were doing so and posting the reports to: District /Divisional veterinary or livestock production offices HPI-K Coordinator or Head office Dairy plant manager’s officeIn the absence of regular monthly reporting from the private service providers, thealternative is for the HPI-K regional coordinator to attend their monthly meetings. Butthe coordinator does not have time to do this because of the heavy work load.In Rift Valley, the situation was slightly better as some of the private serviceproviders related very well and regularly with the dairy plant managers and theDVOs. In Kipkelion, the AI service providers had hired an office adjacent to theAgrovet shop.This was partly due to that fact that the dairy plant was facilitating for payment of theservices from farmers after milk delivery. Some of the service providers were keepinggood insemination records and sending monthly summaries to the district veterinaryoffice.Unfortunately the recording and reporting for the different services are notstandardized. Without this, it is difficult to assess expected performance of the serviceproviders.Because of inadequate monitoring of the service providers, it was difficult to knowhow many were active in the field. This explains partly why the number of trainedprivate service providers remains high in record but their effectiveness in the field ispoor (Table 1).It was observed that the HPI-K coordinator in Coast region was using the mobilephone heavily for monitoring and coordination purposes. After farmers call him for 29
  30. 30. AI or AH- related cases, he contacts the nearest service provider and directs them tothe farmer. However four districts are too many for the programme coordinator tomanage effectively.There should be a coordinator (AHA) for all the MSE programme service providerswithin each district to be contacted by farmers in case of an emergency situation.B. Lack of transportIn some cases, AI services were not available because of long distances betweenfarms and inseminators. Most of the farmers were accessing the service providersthrough mobile phones or by sending milk transporters, visiting them at home orreporting at the dairy plant offices.The best example of an ideal mode of transport was observed in Taita. One of theservice providers (Mr Stephen Mwambogha shown in front page) was using amotorcycle to reach farmers and collect AI supplies. Farmers were reaching him veryeffectively through the mobile telephone. This is a good example for other serviceproviders to emulate.Some of the service providers had neither mobile phones nor bicycles to reach theirclients. In some areas, they had to walk long distances or use Matatus to reach thefarmers. In some areas (Kipkelion, Taita) the terrain was not friendly for bicycle use.Often, AI opportunities were missed and this left farmers with no option but to uselocal bulls.Some of the service providers requested to be facilitated with loans to purchasemotorcycles, bicycles or mobile phones. Some of the requests were from: Dr. Mwasamba G.M (Veterinarian attached to the Wumweri Dairy Group in Taita) Nassir Kenya (AHA) attached to Kaloleni Umbrella Association Ngwindi Suleimani (Inseminator) attached to Kikoneni Farmers Group in KwaleC. Inadequate extension service skillsThe service providers were trained and equipped with skills for specific services.When they visit farms, they focus on either spraying, AI or treatment cases.Generally, the service providers were not mandated to undertake focused extensionservices as part of their routine duties. It is important to engage well-trained serviceproviders such as AHAs who have the knowledge and skills to handle more than oneissue while at the farms.D. Inadequate number of private service providersWhile there are many trained service providers (Table 1), apparently over 50 per centof them are inactive. Some of the reasons highlighted for the inactivity include: 30
  31. 31. i. Rejection by farmers due to misconduct /poor performance (Kwale, Taita). ii. Lack of interest after training (Malindi). iii. Uneconomical due to farmers’ failure to pay for rendered service. iv. Lack of equipment after training (Bomet). v. Inadequate follow-up and monitoring from HPI-K office after training. vi. Domestic differences (A husband in Kipkelion had frustrated the wife from practicing after being trained as a service provider). vii. Low level of service demand by farmers. viii. Legality of some of the MSE service providers to inseminate. An MSE service provider at a farm in Malindi2.6.4. Challenges related to programme designi. Accountability of service providersGenerally, the service providers were neither accountable to the HPI-K nor to theveterinary or livestock production departments. Renewing of their licenses should bepegged on good conduct and effectiveness in service delivery.ii. Lack of standardized recording and reporting formatsIt is difficult to make an effective assessment on the activities and achievements of theMSE programme in the absence of a standardized recording and reporting format.iii. Unclear terms for loan repayment 31
  32. 32. From the discussions and explanations given, the loan repayment rate by the serviceproviders has been slow because of a number of reasons, notably: Unclear binding or mandatory conditions for repayment. Unclear guidelines on rate, duration or mode of payment. Poor business management practices in using income for further investments instead of giving loans a first priority. Failure to achieve expected performance on revenue collection. Inadequate or ineffective monitoring mechanism in the field.iv. Management of farmers’ debtsDebt recovery from farmers has been a challenge to some of the service providersespecially in the Coast region where they were expected to do animal spraying. Thiswas probably because of: Farmers’ inability to raise cash in situations of low milk production and financial returns. Unavailability of a mechanism to cushion farmers who would occasionally be financially handicapped after receiving the services. Inadequate farmer’s group empowerment to discipline defaulting members. Inadequate recording and reporting mechanism so that they could be assisted to demand for payment. Poor conduct by the service providers prompted some farmers to withhold payments.While some of the service providers had opted to quit because of low income, otherswere discouraged by the mounting dues.2.6.5. Challenges related to regulatory requirements and networkingIn 2007, there was a circular from the Director of Veterinary Department stipulatingthat only inseminators trained by AHITI institutions could administer AI services.This created confusion among inseminators trained by ADC and ABS. Some of themhad opted to stop offering the service to avoid conflict with the regulatory authorities.It is important that HPI-K Director seeks clarification from the Director of Veterinaryservices at the earliest opportunity.In some districts (Kwale, Kipkelion) HPI-K was highly commended as one of the fewNGOs that interacts with the Veterinary Department’s staff and is open forpartnership. However, in Ol Kalou, the DLPO complained that the Dairy Plant hadnot been keen to network and partner with the government departments, especially onfarmer training and extension services.In some of the districts (Malindi, Kilifi), there were complaints that the VeterinaryDepartments were left out when the MSE programme was being designed andimplemented. Very few veterinary or animal production offices were receiving reportsfrom the service providers (with the exception of Kericho district). 32
  33. 33. 2.6.6. Challenges related to management of the MSE programmeA. Inadequate field supervision for the MSE service providersThe service providers under the MSE programme had been exposed adequately togood business practices as observed in the follow-up and counseling report of January2007. However, the same was not confirmed during the field visits. Very few of thempresented records and reports of their work (spraying, treatment and AI numbers andincome figures).B. Recording and reporting of services rendered not mandatoryWithout reports on how many treatments or inseminations were done, and the cost ofproviding the services, it was difficult to determine if they were operating at a loss orprofit. In future training workshops, they should be required to present their fieldrecords and reports for analysis.C. Inadequate farmer training in support of the MSE programmeIn the Coast region, some farmers were reluctant to feed first and third heifer calvesbecause these were to be donated to other families. When the programme was started,there was great interest and willingness to observe the rules and regulations, whichwere to guide the farmers. For instance it was mandatory that the loan animals were tobe served using AI only.The second and/or third level of recipients were inadequately trained and followed-upto comply with the requirements for receiving animals. Some of the farmers havecows which have not calved at all or after along time since the previous calving.Others had lost animals due to diseases or inadequate feeding.D. Expanded MSE ProgrammeWhen the MSE programme was expanded to the Rift Valley, the farmers were notinvolved. The few trained service providers face tremendous challenges as the areascovered are large and the public service is often unavailable. With an expanded MSEprogramme and reduced number of staff, it has become more difficult to offer thenecessary supervision and monitoring.2.6.7. Challenges related to delivery of servicesA. Accessibility AI and veterinary suppliesIn the Coast region, Badar Agrovet Shop in Mtwapa is the main agent for supply ofsemen, AI accessories and liquid nitrogen from the central AI station (Kabete) andWorld Wide Sires office in Nairobi. It is very far and expensive for the private serviceproviders in Kwale (Msambweni and Kikoneni areas) or Malindi to readily accessthese facilities. 33
  34. 34. Similarly in Rift Valley, the service providers had to travel for long distances (Eldoretor Kericho) using public transport facilities to acquire the necessary AI and drugsupplies.Farmers and the MSE service providers had to cover long distances to request orprovide for the services, respectively. Poor roads, especially during the rainy seasonwere another challenge for the service providers, notably in Kipkelion.B. High temperaturesThe high temperatures in Coast region contribute to increased high liquid nitrogenevaporation and wastage. This cost is passed to the farmer, making the cost of AIexpensive. It was also expensive because of: Long distances to collect liquid nitrogen, semen and other AI accessories. Low level of AI intake, which meant that fewer farmers had to share the cost.C. Lack of appropriate AI equipmentThe MSE service providers in Bomet complained over lack of AI equipment. Some ofthe farmer groups in Coast region (Kwale, Kaloleni) were using the 34-litre containerfor semen storage and semen/liquid nitrogen delivery from supply centers. This typeof container is heavy and inappropriate when transported by public means.In Coast, the inseminators could not be supplied with liquid nitrogen from the supplycenter (Badar Agrovet shop), unless they used three-litre containers. At the BOCplant, they could not use containers with a capacity of above 10 litres. Some of theservice providers were using the 1.5 litre container for field insemination work and forstorage and delivery of semen/liquid nitrogen. The field containers used by some of the service providers required frequent refilling. The situation worsened when the service providers had to travel for long distances to refill the containers.In most cases the service providers were not using funnels for filling of containerswith liquid nitrogen, which led to high wastage. Most of them did not have or werenot using a dipstick to monitor liquid nitrogen levels; others were not using forceps.All these deficiencies and omissions were likely to compromise the quality of semenand overall AI service. CHAPTER THREE CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS3.1. Conclusion 34
  35. 35. The MSE programme has achieved much of what was anticipated when it waslaunched in 1999. There is increased livestock productivity and diversified source ofhousehold income in both Coast and Rift valley regions. This has been as a result ofrearing dairy cows in areas where farmers were discouraged by diseases.The programme has also created direct employment opportunities for a wide varietyof service providers including farm workers, inseminators, AH providers, milktransporters and Agrovet shop managers.Overall, the MSE service providers, especially those assisting farmers with sprayingshould be commended. They had handled the acaricides with diligence, as there hadnot been any serious cases of animal or human acaricide poisoning reported.While the numbers of government-assisted service providers has continued to decline,farmers in areas under MSE programme have not been affected much. After thepublic AI services were reduced to supervisory and monitoring roles, the MSEprogramme assisted farmers to continue improving their herds and productivity byfacilitating accessibility to both CAIS and imported quality genetics.However, the MSE programme has been associated with a number of challengesincluding: Lack accountability by the service providers. Inadequate number of service providers. Inadequate staffing for monitoring of field activities. Lack of mandatory and standardized recording and reporting formats. High cost of services. High cost of accessing supplies, especially liquid nitrogen.While the SDDP introduced record-keeping in the Coast region as a pre-condition forfarmer participation, the same was not enforced during the training of serviceproviders. In areas with established dairy plants, data on milk supplied and subsequentpayments are adequately addressed.All inseminations (first and repeats), calvings, treatments, sprayings etc should beproperly recorded and reported electronically.Because the MSE programme has expanded in terms of the number of districtscovered, farmer participation and types of services provided, it has become difficult tomonitor all activities from one office. A Training and Monitoring unit at the HPI-Khead or regional office should be established to handle this. The office should alsoprovide extension services at district level where the MSE programme is available.There is a greater need for farmer training in the basics of animal husbandry, AH andAI. Farmers should be made aware of dangers of using bulls where AI service isreadily available. The second important issue to be addressed is milk marketing. TheMSE programme has expanded to the extent that some of the families have enoughmilk for household consumption and to sell elsewhere. Developing strong farmerlinkages through farmer groups and associations would enhance better milk marketingopportunities.The MSE service providers should be adequately supplied with appropriateequipment. The active service providers should be equipped with additional skills sothat they become marketable to meet farmers’ needs and diversify sources of income.There were suggestions that those providing spraying services be trained further onAI. There is great potential in all the Rift Valley MSE programme areas for increased 35
  36. 36. milk production and delivery to the dairy plants. However, competition from maizefarming (in Nandi) and too many bulls in some areas (Bomet) was a major obstacle.Although the MSE programme had made some progress, there are challenges thathave been building up over the 10-year period of its existence. These requireimmediate attention in order to enable the MSE programme to move into the nextphase of greater milk production and marketing through better MSE support servicedelivery.Under the present organizational structure, it is difficult to establish progress of theMSE programme due to lack of performance data, which would have beenaccumulated over time. In the absence of a previously recorded baseline survey data,it is difficult to compare current performance indicators with the past performance.3.2. Recommendations to overcome identified challenges3.2.1. Improvement in record keeping and reportingService providers should be mandated to use standardized formats to record theirdaily activities which should be generated into monthly reports.The reports should be forwarded to the HPI-K coordinators or dairy plant managerson a monthly basis and copied to the district veterinary and livestock productiondepartments. Hopefully, this will enhance better linkages with the departments.Appendices 6 - 11 are suggestions on recording and reporting formats to be used byservice providers and farmers.The HPI-K Monitoring and Evaluation department should be strengthened withadditional staff and opening of representative desks at the regional offices. It shouldbe mandated to standardize records and reporting formats to be used by the MSEservice providers. The office should be able to determine performance and impactindicators from data collected from the MSE service providers. Some of theseinclude: Number of services achieved Conception rates as estimated by calculating Non-Return rates Services per conception Calf mortality rates etc Cost of providing the services3.2.2. Training of farmersDuring the FGDs and farm visits, many farmers in both Coast and Rift valley regionsrequested for additional knowledge and information, especially in animal husbandry-related issues. A list of topics to be considered in farmer training and extension isincluded in Appendix 1. 36
  37. 37. These farmer training and extension services could be achieved through workshops,seminars and field days. The District Animal Production officers in Ol Kalousuggested the training be done in collaboration with the dairy plant by establishingdemonstration plots nearby. Dairy promotion videos could be shown at the dairyplants or farmer group levels.3.2.3. Training/refresher courses for the private service providersThere should be follow-up of service providers in the field after their training andrecruitment. Those performing below average should be retrained and those withreported misconduct de-licensed. The extent of training should enable them provide awide range of extension services.3.2.4. Improvement in monitoring and supervision of serviceprovidersAs indicated elsewhere, there is need for service providers to be supervised andmonitored. Unfortunately it is not easy to monitor them when they are not employeesof any organization or farmer group.The HPI-K regional coordinator should plan to attend the MSE service providers’monthly meetings. The service providers should be followed up in the field afterevery workshop and/or training.3.2.5. TransportIn the Coast region (except Taita), the terrain is relatively manageable, making it easyto use a bicycle for service delivery. But in hilly areas (Taita, Kipkelion) a bettermode of transport (such as motorcycle) is needed. In both Coast and Rift Valleyregions, some of the service providers requested to be assisted with loans to purchasemotorcycles. They considered this as essential in helping them provide services moreefficiently to larger areas thus reaching out to more clients, collect supplies from theappointed agents and ultimately, improve on their financial returns.However, the terms and conditions for loan repayment, if provided, should beadequately spelt out.3.2.6. Increase the number of private service providersIn both the Rift valley and Coast regions, there were requests for additional serviceproviders (especially AI technicians). This would enhance service accessibility by thefarmers. However, this will be dependent on: i. Serviceable cow population in a given area. ii. The rate of adoption of AI as an alternative and preferred breeding method. iii. Affordability of the AI service. iv. Reduction of services from un-improved bulls. 37
  38. 38. A feasibility study should be undertaken to identify current position and determinerequirements for additional service providers in each district. AI provision is the mostaffected service by lack of service providers in both regions. However, there is noguarantee that after acquiring the skills, the service providers would continue servingfarmers.Other non HPI-K - trained service providers (especially the AHAs) should beencouraged to network with and enlist with dairy plants and umbrella associations.This would enhance acquisition of their service on credit while payment for theirservices will be enhanced through the milk check off system.3.2.7. Establishment of additional dairy plants for marketing of milkMarketing of milk through a cooperative society, cooling or processing dairy plantsshould be encouraged and facilitated. It was observed that: It would be easier to pay the private service providers by deducting dues from individual farmer’s milk sales. The private service providers would be paid for their services promptly. It would be easier to harmonize service charges. The cooperative dairy plant may consider value addition. The dairy plant may consider diversification of services to the members. The dairy plants may be better placed to coordinate purchase or supply of inputs such as semen, liquid nitrogen, AI accessories, drugs and chemicals. The dairy plant would become a better contact point between service providers and farmers. The dairy plant would become a preferred place for farmer training and extension purposes.Linking service providers to dairy plants or milk cooling centers was observed to beworking very effectively at all the dairy plants visited in Rift Valley (Siongiroi inBomet, Kipkelion, and Tanykina in Nandi North). The same arrangement should beconsidered for the Ol Kalou Dairy Plant.Farmers selling their milk through the dairies would receive services (AI, treatmentdrugs, etc) immediately and on credit. In Coast, some of the areas planning toestablish milk-cooling plants include Manyeso Dairy in Malindi, Msambweni inKwale and Wumweri Group in Taita.The re-opening of Manyeso Dairy should be hastened as a calling point for AI andAH service providers and reporting. Hopefully, this would increase usage of theprivate service providers, which would encourage them to continue instead ofresigning.With continued use of AI and more farmers accessing the grade cows through theheifer loan programme, there will be much more milk available than families and thelocal restaurants can handle. It is worthwhile therefore to invest in more dairy plants,particularly in the Coast region.3.2.8 Establishment of bull camps 38
  39. 39. In some of the areas visited, farmers requested to be assisted with establishment ofbull camps. This was considered as an alternative breeding system where AI servicewas not economically viable. In Kwale there is a farm already supplying high-gradebulls of different breeds to interested farmers.However, before such a programme is implemented, it is important to establish itsviability. Where they have been introduced before, it has been found that bullschemes have their own problems including: Requirement for regular supply of pedigree bulls of a suitable breed to sustain level of genetic improvement over time. Need to establish clear guidelines for bull ownership and management requirements (housing, feeding, spraying etc). Requires access to disease diagnostic laboratories to screen for breeding and tick-borne diseases. Requires strong facilities to restrain the bull from hurting people.In Taita, one of the women groups (Mkamenyi Dairy Group) had been using the BullCamp system to improve their herd and enhance productivity. However, they recentlystopped and started using AI after experiencing problems with the bulls.3.2.9. Appreciating and encouraging farmers and service providersThere are a number of ways or methods which could be applied to encourage bothfarmers and service providers to do better in future. These include: Awarding of trophies and cash to members who win in national shows. Issuance of certificates of good performance to members with quality animals, regular calving from AI, high productivity etc. Organizing farm /farmer competitions. Using best farmers for field day demonstrations to motivate others. Recognizing successful number of inseminations and calvings. Recognizing highest milk production per cow per day or per lactation period.3.2.10. Formation of umbrella associationsThe formation of the umbrella associations, especially in Coast region should beenhanced further and mandated to: • Manage disputes between farmers, service providers and other stakeholders. • Interrogate and recommend for disciplining of service providers. • To monitor and facilitate payment for services rendered.This would require establishing a common fund from contributions by all members.3.2.11. Improved networking with other stakeholders 39
  40. 40. During the interviews and meeting with the District Veterinary officers (DVOs) andLivestock Officers (LOs), there were a number of suggestions and recommendationworth including under this report: a) Networking and collaboration between HPI-K and the departments on livestock issues should be strengthened. b) The training of private service providers should be done in consultation with the department in order to harmonize the quality of the technical training. This will enhance effective monitoring by the department. c) In one of the districts visited (Kaloleni/Kilifi), the DVO indicated that the department had developed a training curriculum for the CBAHWs. This could be adopted for the training needs of the HPI-K’s service providers. d) The veterinary department would play a significant role in the HPI-K programme by guaranteeing continuity, though this may not have been adequately considered in the programme design. e) The private service providers should be compelled to provide the departments with their monthly and annual reports, reflecting their performances in the field. f) The livestock and veterinary departments should be represented during the monthly service providers’ meetings. g) HPI-K should continue to invite and involve the veterinary and animal production departments during the farmers’ field days and training workshops.3.2.12. Loan repayment by service providers and farmers’ debtsi. Diversification of servicesThe MSEs doing animal spraying need to diversify their income generating activitiesto withstand the effects of unpaid debts. They should be offered training on how tocarry out the AI service.ii. Priority and disciplineDuring the FGDs with the service providers, it was clear that majority of them wereraising enough income from the services to be in a position to clear their loans. Theissue was indiscipline and failure to consider loan repayment as a priority.With enhanced accountability and monitoring systems, most of the loans would berecovered within a short time.iii. All-inclusive meetingsIt was suggested that the way forward in enhancing collection of debts from farmers isby holding inclusive meetings with service providers and HPI-K representative withineach district or area. In some areas, farmers were reluctant to pay for the services,claiming that HPI-K was not meeting with them regularly. This calls for strengtheningof the HPI-K coordinator and dairy plant managers’ offices with transport andadditional staffing. 40
  41. 41. iv. Revising by-laws guiding farmer groups and dairy Plants Within farmers’ groups, umbrella associations and dairy plants, there should be by- laws guiding farmers on their responsibilities in paying for services rendered. If umbrella associations become financially strong, they could loan defaulting farmers to offset their debts and thereafter determine how to recover the loan from the farmer in cash or kind. CHAPTER FOUR: TABLES AND APPENDICES Table 4: STATUS OF SERVICE PROVIDERS IN COAST REGION (JULY 2007) (Source: Malindi HPI-K Office)DISTRICT ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION (AI) SPRAYING/AHA ACTIVE INACTIVE ACTIVE INACTIVE 41
  42. 42. TAITA Ernest Kitawi Prestone Kenyatta Claudy Njaka Abraham Mwabili Anthony Wamati Newtone Mwashilla Fredrick Mjomba Timothy Mwanjala Claudy Njaka Nicholas Mwagha Hannah IrinaTotal 9 1 - 1KWALE Chiroto Yawa Mwanasiti Shauri Chiroto Yawa Rajab Mramba Rajab Mwagakure Hassan Jinga Suleiman Ngwidi Ali Mwamashango Mwanamsambweni Margaret Mwangi Elijah Ndegwa Kauzwa Abdalla Kassim Khalfan Jackline Munyao Kassim Gao Nyerere Mwanyerere Suleiman Juma Mohammed Feisal David Baya Halima Mwasalimu Charles Wambua Mohammed Feisal Rajab MwagakureTotal 10 9 3 1KILIFI Jonathan Rigo Samuel Dzinyau Jonathan Rigo Arastus Lugho Zilper Kai Mwatsuma Kambu Benedict Chumbe George Kitti Fondo Birya Kassim Mramba Augustus Kitti Augustus Kitti Saha Maskati Alfred Kitti Dzombo Joseph JubaTotal 6 6 - 4MALINDI Kalume Kitsao Alphonce Kiponda Alphonce Kiponda Safari Thoya Safari Thoya Elijah Sulubu Alphonce Mukare Ruah Makonde Michael Kibogo Eunince Angore Andrew Kenga Grace ChangawaTotal 4 6 1 1Grand Total 29 22 4 7 51 11 Appendix 1: Suggested Training Topics (Private Service providers and Farmer Extension) The following are some of the topics which should be included in the training and extension materials for service providers and farmers. A) Animal Health i. Concepts of a healthy animal ii. Disease diagnosis procedures and treatment methods iii. Common livestock diseases iv. Preventive AH care: 42
  43. 43. Control of external parasites Control of internal parasites Vaccination Hygiene Feeding v. Management of reproductive diseases /problems vi. Mastitis prevention and control vii. Management of Agrovet shops viii. Drug residues in milk and meatB) Animal Husbandry and Management i. Animal identification ii. Herd /farm recording iii. Livestock registration iv. Milk recording scheme v. Calf rearing vi. Management of zero grazing units vii. Nutritional requirements of dairy cows, viii. Fodder conservation (hay, silage, fodder trees) ix. Farming as a business x. Standards for show animalsC) Animal Breedingi. Importance of AIii. Requirements for on-farm AI serviceiii. Semen selection for AIiv. Heat detectionv. Requirements for participation in contract-mating programmevi. Importance of progeny testing programmeD) Milk Marketing i. Factors affecting yield and composition of milk ii. Nutritional importance of milk iii. Hygienic milking, preservation, transportation and processing iv. Record keeping for milk production, processing and transportation v. Factors contributing to milk spoilage vi. Milk marketing opportunities vii. Milk health hazards viii. Milk products ix. Milk quality tests x. Milk marketing legal framework and guidelinesE) Business Management 43
  44. 44. i. Business plan ii. Cash book keeping iii. Profit-loss account iv. Income v. Expenditure vi. Business growth projection vii. Management of creditors viii. Management of debtors APPENDIX 2: LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED /CONTACTEDS/N. NAME OFFICE DISTRICT CONTACT 1. Ngala HPI Driver Nairobi 2. Tsuma G. Project Coordinator Malindi 3. Mbaru F. Assistant to DVO Malindi 4. Dr Kenga DVO Malindi 5. Sheila Admi. Assist. Malindi 6. Dr Mwalonya H. M. DVO Kilifi 44
  45. 45. 7. Dr Nderingo Ronald DVO Kwale 8. Mr Mukono DLPO Kwale 9. Mr. Ali S. Mwaziro (Headmaster) Ngathini Pri. School Kwale 10. Mr. Harji DLPO Kwale 11. Mr D. Mjama Deputy DVO) Wundanyi 12. Mr P. Mandenda District livestock Marketing officer Wundanyi 13. Mr. F. Okinyi Siongiroi Dairy Manager Bomet 14. John Masie Siongiroi Dairy Bomet Director /Farmer 15. Dr Gathungu J. DVO Kipkelion 16. Johnstone Ronoh SLHO District 17. Edna Chumo Kipkelion Dairy Kipkelion Plant Manager 18. Francis Rop Divisional Animal Nandi North Production Officer 19. Joshua Rotich Div. Agricultural Nandi North Officer 20. Moses Sawe Div. Agribusiness Nandi North Farm management 21. Joseph Ong’ang’a Olkalou Dairy Plant Ol Kalou Manager 22. Paul Kimani Divisional Animal Ol Kalou Production Officer 23. Samuel Kinyua Location Extension Ol Kalou Officer 24. Josphat Ndaiga M. Dip Attendant Ol Kalou APPENDIX 3: LIST OF SERVICE PROVIDERS INTERVIEWDS/N. NAME SERVICE DISTRICT CONTACT 1. Katsao K. Animal Health Malindi 2. Kibogo P. Animal Health Malindi 3. Mkare A. Animal Health Malindi 4. Kassim W. M. Animal Health Kaloleni 5. Saha L. M. Animal Health Kaloleni 6. Arrestus M. L Animal Health Kaloleni 7. Nassir Kenya AHA + AI Kilifi 8. Moses Mwamburi Pwani Agrovet Shop - Mtwapa 9. Mwagakure R. Spraying Kwale 10. Charles W. Mutuku Spraying Kwale 45
  46. 46. 11. Kassim Gao Spraying Kwale12. Mwamashango G. Spraying Kwale13. Margaret Maina AI Kwale14. Chiroto Yawa AI + Spraying Kwale15. Ngwindi Suleimani AI Kwale16. Ernest Kitawi Spraying Wundanyi17. N. M. Mwashila Spraying Wundanyi18. Anna Wali Ireri Spraying, Treatment Wundanyi19. Dr. Mwasamba G.M Veterinarian i/c Wundanyi Wumweri Dairy20. Claude K. Njaka AHA, AI, Spraying Wundanyi21. Joseph K. Mwanyalo Inseminator DLPO Ass. Wundanyi22. Mwambogha S. K Animal Production Wundanyi DLPO’s Office23. Ephraim Nyange Wumweri Dairy Wundanyi Coordinator24. Joseph Bett AI services Bomet25. Benjamin Ngeno AI services Bomet26. Joel Bett AI services Bomet27. David Koech AI services Bomet28. Mr. Mutai DLPO Bomet29. Gilbert Siele Siongiroi Dairy Bomet Agrovet shop Manager30. Edna Langat Kipkelion Dairy Kipkelion Agrovet Shop Manager31. Jonathan K. Langat AI Kipkelion32. Sammy K. Mibei AI /Extension Kipkelion Treatment33. Leonard Langat AI /Extension Kipkelion Treatment34. Peter K. Sang Clinical services Kipkelion Extension Civil servant35. Dr Korir J. Clinical /surgical Kipkelion Extension, Advisory36. Cheruiyot J.A. Agrovet shop Kipkelion Treatment37. Jeremiah Ruttoh Tanykina Dairy Nandi North Plant Manager38. Divinah Bung’ei Tanykina Dairy Nandi North Plant Agrovet Shop Supervisor39. Kogo C. K. Tanykina Dairy Nandi North Dairy Plant Agrovet Manager 46
  47. 47. 40. Dr Makori Private Agrovet Nandi North Shop41. Jonathan K. Boit AI (Taboche Dairy Plant) Nandi North42. Obadiah K. Bor AI (Taboche Dairy Nandi North Plant)43. Wilson Sugut AI (Taboche Dairy Plant) Nandi North44. William K. Keter AI Nandi North45. Chepteting Ogla Agrovet shop (Taboche Dairy Plant) Nandi North APPENDIX 4: LIST OF FARMER PARTICIPANTS NAME DISTRICT GROUP1. Jardine M. Ruwa Malindi Maeleano Women Group2. Mary Nyanje Malindi Kanariko Women Group3. Elinah Garama Malindi Ushidi Women Group4. Elvina Nyanje Malindi Kanariko Group5. Omar Thoya Malindi Goshi Self-Help Group6. Safari Thoya Malindi MSE (Animal Health /AI)7. Alphonse K. Kiponda Malindi Kanariko Group (MSE)8. Beatrice H. Dima Malindi Warebi Women Group9. Dama Angore Malindi Muungano Kakuyuni Group10. Mary Kambi Malindi Tumaini III Group11. Mwaka Jambo Kaloleni Umoja Women Group 47
  48. 48. 12. Pauline Sanga Kaloleni Vevesi Women Group 13. Celina Juma Kaloleni Amani Women Group 14. Margaret Lugo Kaloleni Amkeni Women Group 15. Juliana Katana Kaloleni Neema Women Group 16. Emily Makonde Kaloleni Najeza Women Group 17. Purity S. Nza Kaloleni Upendo II Women Group 18. Isaac Kimeu Kwale Kikonen Dairy (Chairman) 19. Gideon Wambua Kwale Kikonen Chairman (AI) 20. Monica Matawa Kwale Kikonen Vice Chairman 21. Monica Nzioka Kwale Kikonen Secretary 22. Jackson Mulwa Kwale Kikonen Member 23. Samoni Wakamba Kwale Kikonen Chairman AI 24. David M. Musyywii Kwale Kikonen Member 25. Ruth Mzee Wundanyi Mwambirwa Group 26. Julieta Matumbo Wundanyi Magharo Group 27. Elizabeth Mwanginda Wundanyi Sagalla /You Kizumanzi 28. Constance Lalu Wundanyi Sagalla /Saidia 29. Mkamenyi Women Group Wundanyi 30. Willy Ronoh Bomet Farmer from Kameswon- Mtarakwa 31. Julius Rono Bomet Kameswon- Mtarakwa 32. Julius Keter Bomet Kameswon- Mtarakwa 33. Paul Chumo Bomet Learnt Animal health provider European settlers) 34. David Kirui Bomet Animal Health provider (No formal training) 35. Richard Bii Bomet Animal Health provider (Self trained from father’s school) APPENDIX 5: LIST OF FARMS VISITED NAME CONTACT DISTRICT1. Jardine M. Ruwa Malindi2. Omar Thoya Malindi3. Mama Salina (Chairlady of the Umbrella Association) Kaloleni4. Chairlady of the Women Group Kaloleni5. Mwatate Mpizinyi – Elias Mberi Tel. 0735311866 Wundanyi P.O. Box 16, Mwatate6. Mr David K. Milgo Chief Bomet7. Jonathan Koske Chesodon Dairy Bomet Farm P.O. Box 71 48
  49. 49. Chebunyo8. Richard K. Langat Kipkelion9. Mr Paul Too’s Kipkelion10. Ezekiel Sitienei Tanykina Dairy Nandi North11. Mr Chemengen’s Taboche Dairy Nandi North 49
  50. 50. APPENDIX 6: INDIVIDUAL COW RECORDING CARD IDENTIFICATION Owner’s /Herd Name…………………………………………………….. Address………………………………………………………………… Cow’s Name……………………. Cows No……………… Breed………………Date Born /Bought…………………… ANCESTRY (EXTENDED PEDIGREE) Grand Sire………………… Sire……………… 

×