Impact Assessment of the Approach of ‘Passing On The Gift’
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Impact Assessment of the Approach of ‘Passing On The Gift’

on

  • 588 views

This report presents the Heifer Project International Strategy of ‘Passing on the Gift’. It illustrates lessons learned, successful factors and benefits of of this approach. ...

This report presents the Heifer Project International Strategy of ‘Passing on the Gift’. It illustrates lessons learned, successful factors and benefits of of this approach.

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

Statistics

Views

Total Views
588
Views on SlideShare
588
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

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

Impact Assessment of the Approach of ‘Passing On The Gift’ Impact Assessment of the Approach of ‘Passing On The Gift’ Document Transcript

  • HEIFER PROJECT INTERNATIONAL KENYA RONG’E ZERO GRAZING GROUP IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE APPROACH OF ‘PASSING ON THE GIFT’ MSj03881750000[1].wav By Elise Pinners (member of NEDWORC Association1) 10 June 2008 List of content1 NEDWORC Association is an organization for experts, working in Development Cooperation, International Cooperation and Relief &Rehabilitation. NEDWORC Association is offering its members a forum for exchange of information, knowledge and practices.NEDWORC Association provides job mediation services on international development cooperation, relief and rehabilitation.
  • List of photos 1List of abbreviations 2Word of thanks 2Summary 21. Introduction 1 1.1 The HPI strategy and approach 1 1.2 The Rong’e area, Taita district 22. Description of Rong’e Zero Grazing group 3 2.1 History of the group 3 2.2 Approach 3 2.3 Membership 4 2.4 Group finance 4 2.5 Group learning 4 2.6 Leadership 5 2.7 Success factors 63. Dairy farming as part of the farming system(s) 7 3.1 Description of the farming system 7 3.2 Cases of continued passing on of animals 114. Technical (veterinary) services in the area 145. Marketing 15 5.1 Introduction 15 5.2 Organization, transport, prices, quality control 15 5.3 Benefits: household income from dairy products, and benefit sharing/controlling (f/m) 15Annex 1: Terms of Reference 18Annex 2: Itinerary and resource persons met 21Annex 3: Total herd of the group 22Annex 4: Household interview notes 23 List of photosPhoto 1: School children feeding programme: it uses milk from Rong’e farmers ................................................................ 1Photo 2: The Rong’e zero grazing group ............................................................................................................................ 2Photo 3: Christine Magdeu and the POG cow that she received in 2001 (and passed on its calf). She, her husband(Durickson), their three kids and the laborer altogether consume 3½ liter milk per day and still earn 95 Sh/day fromselling the rest. .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 rdPhoto 4: The group leadership, some members, the Veterinary officer (below 3 from left), and the photographer (above, nd2 from right) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5Photo 5: Jackan Ngalia has moved from Napier intercropped with maize to a Napier-only plot. He has more than enoughfor his one cow (who has a maximum of 15 l/day). He gave a small bull to the Rong’e group, for a party.......................... 6Photo 6 (above): Jaeli and Ephron Nyange have crossed Friesian with Brown Swiss and now have 3 generations on theirfarm; both cows produce very well, and there are sufficient fodder trees, but not enough Napier grass; they are actuallybuying additional feed. ........................................................................................................................................................ 7Photo 7 (left): Jenta and Shem Mwandanyi have terraced their farm, planted trees, and intercropped maize with foddergrasses. These two female calves have been bred with AI................................................................................................. 7Photo 8: Hannah Mafundo’s household comprises of four adults and four children. Their POG Heifer died from breakinga leg (and since then they repair the stable floor, but other stables still have to be fixed)................................................... 8Photo 9: Feeding is a challenge in several farmers (Jenta’s farm)...................................................................................... 8Photo 10: Wilson and Sifura Nyambu have two cows that can produce 17-18 liters/day. But now they are at the end ofthe lactation period, soon calving, and the couple is facing a fodder shortage: there is less than 1 acre of Napier grass. . 8Photo 11: Lydia Elongo has planted 2 of the 4 acres with Napier grass; she has to feed one milking cow, but also twoheifers and one as yet unproductive cow to feed. ............................................................................................................... 8Photo 12: The grandchild of Jenta and Shem; her mother has to walk half a mile down the slope to collect water for thefamily, and the animals. The HPI heifer never produced a female calf, so eventually they bought their own heifer, whichhas produced four calves so far. ......................................................................................................................................... 9Photo 13: How manure and urine make bananas grow big on Agatha’s farm (near the stable).......................................... 9Photo 14: Agatha Mwamachi has four animals (two were bought by herself, not from the group). She sells cattle manurefor 100 Ksh/bag................................................................................................................................................................... 9Photo 15: Female calf not from HPI (Agatha’s farm) – but raised with knowledge obtained from HPI .............................. 11Photo 16: Dairy shop built by the Ronge group ................................................................................................................ 15Photo 17: Mary Kifuso and her 18 year old grandson cherish their two cows: they make money, and milk for themselvesand two orphan girls next door. Mary’s membership in the group has made her benefit more easily from generous acts ofsolidarity in the community. ............................................................................................................................................... 16Photo 18: Elisabeth Mung’ongo has passed on the gift, and still has a cow (offspring of HPI heifer) and two female calves(Friesian and Brown Swiss)............................................................................................................................................... 16 1
  • List of abbreviationsAI Artificial Insemination NDDP National Dairy Development ProgramECF East Coast Fever POG Passing On the GiftHPI Heifer Project International Word of thanks With thanks to George Tsuma for showing me around, and Gilbert Mwasamba for collecting yet more details and making corrections, and James Murima Gachoka for taking pictures. SummaryThe Rong’e area lies in Mwambirwa division, on the Taita hills. In 1996 Taita district counted 311,000inhabitants. The landscape is hilly if not mountainous, with sometimes steep slopes (of over 40%) uponwhich farms and houses are placed. The soils are formed out of granite, and are erodible. Therefore manyfarmers have adopted terracing. Main crops are maize, beans, cassava, sweet potato, sugar cane.The Rong’e zero grazing group started off in 1993 with 45 members and received 15 heifers. At that timemilk was sourced from afar, and often of poor quality. Over the years the group size reduced to 29 members(May 2008), and the herd size has increased: there are now 25 productive HPI cows and another 24 cowsthat were bought by farmers themselves. This total herd of 49 cows also has another 102 calves.The HPI strategy on Sharing, on Genuine needs & justice, and on Full participation is essential for success,is illustrated by lessons learned by this group:i) lessons on how to include the most marginal members that run greater risks with zero grazing (solidarity being an important element of the group approach, the more marginal members were divided over different cells of the group); this is clearly a result of HPI’s approach of Sharing & Caring (& solidarity).ii) lessons on disease control (regular spraying being an important measure, and tick spraying is now a service provided by a few members to others);iii) lessons on breeding: using local bulls affected milk production potential too much, and now the group has a regulation that obliges members to use AI;These lessons (ii) and iii)) are clearly a result of HPI’s approach of Training & Education. Until now, thegroup continues to share experience on improved animal management (including housing & hygiene) andimproved farming methods (including fodder production and soil conservation). It is still an important reasonfor farmers to remain member of the group.iv) lessons on devising additional strategies to increase the financial situation of families before engaging in zero grazing (e.g. by starting with dairy goats and/or beekeeping). This is a lesson that HPI learned itself.Passing on the gift (POG): although the records of the group left much to desire, it was possible to traceseveral generations of POG in the group. For example a line of 6 generations of POG was found inside thegroup, and on some farms one could find up to 4 generations of HPI animals.The herd has thus built up in 15 years: in 10 households there are not only 10 HPI cows 7 HPI heifers, butalso another 12 animals that the farmers bought themselves. Two households have yet to pass on the gift.Milk yields (taken from a sample of 10 households) were found to be of an average of 4.5 l/day (ragingbetween 1.5 and 10 l/day.), but where a maximum milk yield was mentioned it was found to range between2 and 22 l/day (average maximum milk yield was 15.5 l/day). If this is lower than the average for the wholeTaita area (6 liter/cow), but when this group started AI was not yet available (due to HPI efforts it is now).Marketing of milk has developed along with the group; the group put finance together and built a milk shop,from where milk is sold on to traders, taking it to Voi and beyond. Some quality control takes place.Milk benefits include direct benefits for the household members (nutrition) and those close to the household(milk is given away to the most needy). Almost half of the milk is thus consumed directly.As for milk sales, the greater part, it is sold at the shop for a price of 20 Ksh/l, and locally for 21 Ksh/l, andprovides a household a daily income of 76 Ksh, or 2270 Ksh/month.Animal sales have earned the average household in this sample of 10 9,200 Ksh. But this yet excludes thebenefits from the animals that are not strictly HPI (the ‘other half’ of the herd: animals bought by the farmersthemselves, and managed with the knowledge obtained through the HPI experience).Other benefits include manure and several practices learned on the subject of sustainable agriculture. 2
  • 1. Introduction1.1 The HPI strategy and approachThe HPI approach on zero-grazing is summarized in the letters PASSING-GIFTS. This approach ensuressound practices of group management, including equity considerations (participation, sharing, gender),health considerations, and sustainability considerations (environment, self-reliance). Following the lettersPASSING-GIFTS it is explained as:P Passing on the Gift (POG)A AccountabilityS Sharing & caringS Sustainability & self-relianceI Improved animal managementN Nutrition (home consumption) & incomeG Genuine needs & justiceG Gender & family focusI Improved environment (soil conservation, fodder & pasture management, zero-grazing housing & hygiene)F Full participationT Training & educationS Spirituality. Photo 1: School children feeding programme: it uses milk from Rong’e farmersThe HPI strategy on Sharing, on Genuine needs & justice, and on Full participation is essential for success,as illustrated by the following lesson drawn from this group. The group found that the most marginalized,poor members of a group have greater difficulties to provide good care for a dairy cow. As they did not soeasily have access to medication (or credit to buy these), and some of them were also short of labor in thehousehold, which made it difficult to plant enough fodder. The risk for these category of members that theiranimal would die was higher than average. This lead to discouragement and as a result some members leftthe group. Other (better positioned) members were calling for delay of distribution of heifers to these moremarginalized members. Now this is not acceptable to HPI and the situation was discussed as part of thegroup management capacity building.Indeed solutions were found: the group split up in cells of 5 members, each taking along a more marginalizedhousehold. These small cells were to ensure solidarity: the poorest in these cells got support to construct astable, to plant fodder, and sometimes even financial support to buy drugs and AI services.This situation made it possible to include the most marginalized members of the group, also in the earlystage, while avoiding risks.Meanwhile, to avoid those situations, additional strategies were devised to allow families to increase theirfinancial situation with other activities (gaining faster returns), before engaging in dairy cattle. To promotethese activities: - HPI provides dairy goats (more easy to care for) - HPI promotes beekeeping. 1
  • 1.2 The Rong’e area, Taita district thThe name of the ‘Rong’e’ are has a remarkable history behind it. In the 20 century there was a pastor whoset out to the area to Christianize it, but he found the people in the area not willing to allow him to do this. Helabelled the area ‘wrong’ (and moved away to try elsewhere), which then evolved into ‘Rong’e’.The Rong’e area lies in Mwambirwa division, on the Taita hills in Taita district. In 1996 Taita district counted311,000 inhabitants. Voi is the main town in Taita, along the Nairobi-Mombasa road, and it lies about 350 kmfrom Nairobi.The landscape is hilly if not mountainous, with sometimes steep slopes (of over 40%) upon which farms andhouses are placed.The soils are formed out of granite, and are erodible. Therefore many farmers in the area have adoptedterracing as one of the main measures against soil erosion. The main crops are maize, beans, cassava,sweet potato, and some sugar cane. Photo 2: The Rong’e zero grazing group 2
  • 2. Description of Rong’e Zero Grazing group2.1 History of the groupThe group started off in 1993 with 45 members. At that time the group was initiated with help from theVeterinary officer then, Mr Juma, who proposed to improve the local breed. The local breed just gave 1-2cups of milk/day. Many people had to buy milk from afar, milk of poor quality, often spoiled.2.2 ApproachThe approach of the group (or what they remember of the HPI approach for groups) consists of:- sharing with all members: the practice of POG is a continuous practice- passing back: heifers can, at a later stage, be sold to other groups- leadership is on voluntary base (‘by good heart’)- experiences are shared in the monthly meeting.SolidarityWhile training the groups on how to manage their activities, and training group leaders, HPI always insistedon the importance of solidarity in the group.In this group there signs that the leadership culture is indeed promoting solidarity. Until today members getan opportunity to receive a short-term loan from the group to buy drugs for a sick animal. Also one memberis known to have paid school fees for the child ofanother. And most of all: the group addressed theproblem of the poorest members who find itdifficult to build the stable and plant enoughfodder: then group work comes in to help.POGThis solidarity is at the heart of the approach of‘Passing on the Gift’ that the group has adoptedfrom HPI.Some cases of POG in the group are detailed insection 3.2. Photo 3: Christine Magdeu and the POG cow that she received in 2001 (and passed on its calf). She, her husband (Durickson), their three kids and the laborer altogether consume 3½ liter milk per day and still earn 95 Sh/day from selling the rest. 3
  • 2.3 MembershipGroup regulations and penaltiesThe group requires that a household has at least 1 acre of fodder production, but not all householdscomplied with that. Some households have difficulties to comply because they are short of land (1-2 acresare hardly enough to produce food for the family).There is a quality control system: a lactometer is used daily for each producer, and if a level above 20degrees (indicating amount of liquid per amount of solid parts) is reached, milk is returned to the producer.Membership mobilitySince its foundation in 1993 the membership is reduced from 45 to 35 members (of which actually 29members have dairy cattle).One main reason for members to quit was given as the unfavorable cost-benefits. According to HPI thissituation existed for some members, who did not give sufficient care to the animals (insufficient feeding,irregular tick control, etc.) with as result low milk yields and even death of some cows. Also there was thebreeding strategy that contributed to low milk yield: in the beginning breeding was done with the availablebulls, which brought down maximum milk yields from 20 liters to 8 liters/day. When this was observed thegroup and HPI decided that only AI should be allowed.Apart from this the HPI approach has also adjusted to this findings, by introducing dairy goats andbeekeeping to other groups, to ensure that poorer farmers can more easily participate.As for members who have died, these are replaced by close relatives (succession).2.4 Group financeIt is on group finance that the group is less well performing.The group requires that contributions are made in two ways:1. 10% of the sales of any animal (bulls, or old cows) is to be paid to the group2. For every heifer born, during 10 months, the proceedings of ½ liter/day are to be paid to the group(earning the group 3000 Ksh Some members opt to pay 1 liter/day for 5 months.Compliance with these finance-related rules is now posing a problem: quite some members are known toavoid these payments, and the group leadership does not follow up by enforcing compliance.Also, the group record keeping is not sufficient, i.e. it was hard to find out how many HPI animals are nowowned in by group members (birth reports are incomplete).As a result, the capital the group today consists of just about 27,000 KshThis hardly allows for meaning full services to the members in terms of credits. However, several membersreported that short-term credit is provided to members who (urgently) need to buy drugs for the cow; theamount to be repaid is then deducted from the payments of milk delivered to the shop.And some members noted that, when it comes to finance, the group is actually ‘sleeping’, and that it needsrevitalized leadership to counter this inertia.2.5 Group learningHPI has in the beginning provided the means to organize exchange visits (NDDP paid 3 or 4 visits). Sincethis first group started there have been 6 or 7 other groups created in the area. But later on the group alsoself-sponsored some visits, to Rweraga and Taveta.Asking the members of the 10 interviewed households what is the advantage of (still) being in this dairygroup, almost all give as main reason that the group helps them to keep up their skills with (peer-)education.Half of the members also give as reason that the group can supply them with small credit when they need itto buy drugs for the animals.And four members mention solidarity in one way or another, e.g. by building a stable together, or buildingsolidarity through group meetings and parties: occasions to highlight the situation of the most vulnerablemembers of the group. 4
  • Mary Kifuso is a widow living with one grandchild of 18 years old. They successfully manage 2 productive dairy cows. Mary has not been trained in group leadership, and she does not recall any other training that she received except one on hygiene for dairy (her husband who passed away some years ago had probably received HPI training). She must have learned her skills on- farm and also from the group. Of the 5 l/day of milk they get, 3 liters are shared between her household and the orphans next door, and 2 liters are sold. This provides her a monthly income of 1200 Ksh/month. She has not yet had a benefit from calves: one died and the next one was passed on.2.6 LeadershipThe group leadership is elected every other year, and to be in the leadership there is the condition that yoube a good zero-grazing farmer. Almost all members have at least once been in the group leadership.HPI has provided training on group leadership, but not all members have attended this, or they can not recallit; it is only one of the seven women (household heads) in a sample of 10 households who can recall beingtrained on community leadership, whereas all three men have been trained on this.The leadership of the group consists of a ‘committee’ of nine people, in which there is the chairperson andthe secretary (both men), a treasurer (a woman), a person for tick control (a man), and three care monitors(two women, one man).The tasks of the leadership are listed as:- supervision on cow care every three months (this includes the preparation for new POG receivers). Therecord keeping on this matter is not perfect; calves are reported all right, but these reports are not recordedin the book.- record keeping, and presenting the annual financial report every year. This is indeed done, butattendance of these meetings is not very high, therefore not all members are aware of the financial results ofthe group.- organizing monthly meeting, inwhich each member reports, andexperience is exchanged- construction of the house formilk sales (see picture)- coordinate exchange visits(one visit was to Kilifi, other visitswere nearer and paid by the groupitself)- organize annual parties- provide financial support tomembers who have a funeral- quality control: i) daily milkquality inspection (solid parts) andii) every four months there is afarm inspection (by a team of threeinspectors). Photo 4: The group leadership, some members, the rd Veterinary officer (below 3 from left), and the nd photographer (above, 2 from right)Rejuvenation of the groupEven though the group continues to maintain elected leadership, allowing for most (if not all) members totake turn in leading the group, there are signs of inertia. When it comes to social activities andabovementioned solidarity activities the group is functional. And although all members now have experiencewith dairy cattle in a zero-grazing system (and some bought their own cows, not from POG/HPI), the groupmeetings continue to serve as a platform for sharing experience between the members.But economically speaking, considering the small amount of capital that the group has accumulated, thegroup is indeed ‘sleeping’.There are calls for change, there are members who realize that the group could accumulate more capital toengage in savings and credit, for example. However, there is a large number of older people in the group,and they are the original members. One young group leader mentioned that it is very hard to change thingsin the group, as elder members will not easily encourage a young member to pursue changes. 5
  • Photo 5: Jackan Ngalia has moved from Napier intercropped with maize to a Napier-only plot. He has more than enough for his one cow (who has a maximum of 15 l/day). He gave a small bull to the Rong’e group, for a party. Jackan received all the HPI training, but his wife Julia and their 13 year old child do most of the work.2.7 Success factorsThere is a most important conclusion to be drawn, when looking at the functioning of this group. In theprevious paragraph (in 2.5) the members themselves indicate in this way: i) sharing of experience (peer-learning, monthly meetings, sharing food), ii) sharing of resources (POG, and small credits), and iii) solidarityby sharing of the burden of the most vulnerable in the group (acts of generosity, including the volunteering tobe group leaders).The success of this group, also after HPI has stopped regular visits, is much about learning and sharing. It isessentially two elements from the HPI approach that explain the success of this group:1. Sharing & Caring: including POG, addressing genuine needs (especially those of the most vulnerablemembers), and full participation. This Sharing can also be extended to the next success factor:2. Training & Education: this only started with the several trainings provided by HPI, but it was clearfrom the start that training & education was meant to continue also after withdrawal of HPI; the groupcontinued to share experience on improved animal management (including housing & hygiene) andimproved farming methods (including fodder production and soil conservation). 6
  • 3. Dairy farming as part of the farming system(s) 2For this chapter we make use of the interviews carried out in a ‘random’ sample of 10 households.In 3.1 we describe the farming system and how dairy farming fits into it.In 3.2 we give details on how the dairy animals initially provided by HPI in 1993 have fared in the group.3.1 Description of the farming systemLabor and decision making (on management of dairy)The average size of the households varied between 2 and 8, but half of the households (5) counted just 3adults, two households were really small (2 adults),and then there were households of 5, 6 and 8.On six of the ten farms it is a laborer who does mostof the work for the dairy cattle (laborers being partof households of just 2 adults and households of 3or 4 adults).In 7 out of 10 households it is women who reallydecide on the management of dairy cattle at home.Land & cropsOne condition to be passed on the gift is that oneacre of fodder is established. This condition,however, is hard to meet for some farmers,especially those who just have about 2 acres and/orthose who are (temporarily) short of labor. Most ofthe fodder consists of Napier grass, but also foddertrees have been provided. Photo 6 (above): Jaeli and Ephron Nyange have crossed Friesian with Brown Swiss and now have 3 generations on their farm; both cows produce very well, and there are sufficient fodder trees, but not enough Napier grass; they are actually buying additional feed. Photo 7 (left): Jenta and Shem Mwandanyi have terraced their farm, planted trees, and intercropped maize with fodder grasses. These two female calves have been bred with AI. The interviewed households have between 2 and 6 acres of land, but some of that land can be scattered and quite far away. Most households plant Napier grass in a separate plot; some used to intercrop it withmaize and then changed to mono cropping Napier grass (or a combination of both). Especially the banks ofstreams are popular places for planting it, and also for steep slope that have no terraces yet the plantingNapier is the better alternative (planting maize will result in more erosion).Yet, not enough Napier grass is planted, and three farmers readily admit that they are short of fodder. Somecompensate it with fodder from trees and one buys ‘dairymill’ to supplement the feed.In the past HPI provided training on integrated animal and NR management; this includes agro forestry, useof manure, etc. The tree seeds are usually supplied by local government services (seed of Calliandra,Leuceaena, Sesbania). The result of such training is visible in most farms: at least a part of the farm isterraced, maize intercropped with beans (and sometimes Napier grass), and manure as well as urine fromthe cows is collected and returned to the farms.2See 5.1 for more explanation about this sample. 7
  • Photo 8: Hannah Mafundo’s household comprises of four adults and four children. Their POG Heifer died from breaking a leg (and since then they repair the stable floor, but other stables still have to be fixed). They now have four cows and four calves (and three more expected). Three of their cows have maximum milk yields of around 20 l/day, but actually only one cow is milked, producing 4 l/day. They know that the cows get insufficiently fed. On their 3 acres of land they have only 1 acre of Napier, not more was planted because she was sick. Photo 9: Feeding is a challenge in several farmers (Jenta’s farm) Photo 10: Wilson and Sifura Nyambu have two cows that can produce 17-18 liters/day. But now they are at the end of the lactation period, soon calving, and the couple is facing a fodder shortage: there is less than 1 acre of Napier grass.Photo 11: Lydia Elongo has planted 2 of the 4 acres with Napier grass; she has to feed one milking cow, but also two heifers and one as yet unproductive cow to feed. 8
  • WaterSeven out of 10 farms had access to tapped water, six ofthem had the tap on or very near the farm, the other onehad a tap at 100m distance. One household had a streamnearby. The remaining two households had to collectwater from a stream at quite a far distance, and carry thisto the stables, but even then, these households hadrespectively 3 and 5 animals, and 3 and 4 adults thatcould manage the work. Photo 12: The grandchild of Jenta and Shem; her mother has to walk half a mile down the slope to collect water for the family, and the animals. The HPI heifer never produced a female calf, so eventually they bought their own heifer, which has produced four calves so far. Manure and urine With one exception (selling manure), all manure is used on the farm itself, or some of it given away to neighbors. Many stables did have some provision for the collection of urine, which is usually applied on the nearest maize or Napier farm. Photo 13: How manure and urine make bananas grow big on Agatha’s farm (near the stable) Photo 14: Agatha Mwamachi has four animals (two were bought by herself, not from the group). Shesells cattle manure for 100 Ksh/bag. 9
  • BreedingSince in the early years it was observed that breeding with available bulls brought down the potential for milkproduction, all members now adhere to the rule that AI should be used.As for the composition of different breeds, which was traced for 20 of the animals in the sample of 10households, it was found that most of the AI semen is from Friesian breed (about 75%), some is from BrownSwiss (about 20%), and there is one Jersey cow (making 5%).Farmers have a wrong perception about the number of female and male calves, they think that more malethan female are born. This seems unlikely, and there are indications to the contrary: in the 10 householdsinterviewed there is a total of 21 female and 16 male calves. And in the statistics for the whole group (see 3annex 3) it appears that since 2007 15 female and only 10 male calves were born.The benefits from breeding are further discussed in 5.3.2.Lessons learnedThe group members recall two main lessons learned in the early years:• East Coast Fever (ECF) was a disease that had to be controlled – only since 1999 there is an effectivedrug for this disease, but it is still expensive. As ECF is transmitted through ticks, the tick spraying wasunderstood to be very important. Tick spraying was, in the past, only done after 2-3 weeks, but noweverybody does this weekly.• Breeding: up to 1999 the group used (cross-bred) bulls to breed with; then it was found that thisdrastically reduced the potential milk yield. The group then put in place it’s own by-law that no breeding withbulls be allowed: all breeding to be with AI. It is because this group has observed itself the consequence ofusing bulls, that nobody has every contravened that by-law. They know about two other (newer) groupswhere members have tried to use bulls in spite of a similar by-law forbidding it, and as a measure ofpunishment they had their cows taken away by the group.3 However, there is a risk of under-reporting of male calves; female calves are usually kept (or passed on where it was not yet done) andif they produce milk it will be found out sooner or later. However, for bulls it is likely that these are sold when still young, and if notreported one could avoid to pay the 10% sales fee to the group. Yet, it may still be unlikely that birth of male calves is not reported,because the group cohesion is quite good and it may be found out easily. 10
  • 3.2 Cases of continued passing on of animalsThe households selected for interview are selected on the basis of presenting a cross-cutting, representativesample of the members of the group. This selection has been done in close consultation with the groupleadership and members present in the initial meeting. The approach may not always allow to trace downgenerations of an original HPI heifer, as (only after interviews) it appears that POG heifers went tohouseholds that were not chosen for interview.It was not possible to select interview households differently, as there was no good database in the group asto who received POG heifers from who. There was also no ready overview of the total HPI animals in thegroup.To take a closer look at how original HPI heifers have been multiplying and been passed on in the group, wedescribe a few cases here. From the 10 households interviewed we could reconstruct a continuous line of sixgenerations passing through the group. Three of the households in this line were interviewed.The line of five is presented in the text box at the end of this section. First we present the situations ofall the 10 households interviewed.Lidia ElongoGeneration 1: She got her HPI heifer (Friesian cross-bred, direct gift from HPI, obtained from farm of L.Delamere in Naivasha) in the year 1993.Generation 2: This heifer was cross-bred (using AI) with a Brown Swiss, but its heifer offspring has fertilityproblems, so it had no calf.Following this, Lidia had her original Friesian cross-bred HPI cow fertilized three more times, out of whichwere born one bull (she sold it), then a Jersey cross-bred and then a Friesian cross-bred. The Jersey heiferwas passed on to Elliston Nganga (not interviewed), but with Elliston it died. The Friesian remained with her.Mary KifusoGeneration 1: She got her HPI heifer (Friesian cross-bred) in a year unknown.Generation 2: This heifer produced three calves, of which the latter two were produced with AI. The first calfwas produced in the period that AI was not yet an obligation (that was before the year 1999), and it died. Thesecond calf was a female and that one was passed on (but no record of where it went). The third calf wasalso female, and is now a productive cow. As Mary has now no obligations anymore to pass on the gift, shecan keep all the offspring.But offspring is yet to be had: in the 7 years since the first (home bred) calf was born, there have been onlyfour attempts to fertilize with AI. According to Mary, twice (out of four times) the application of AI has failed.But there must have been many more occasions to apply AI, that were missed, and this may well bebecause of insufficient skills of the farmer to notice the right time to call for AI. Photo 15: Female calf not from HPI (Agatha’s farm) – but raised with knowledge obtained from HPIAgatha MwamachiGeneration 1: She received in the year1994 her HPI heifer from Mathilda Mliwa(not interviewed). This original cow (afterproducing generation 2) was eventuallysold for Sh 4,000.Generation 2: This heifer had 7 calves ofwhich 2 died (a heifer and a bull). Shepassed on one heifer to GraceManyambo (not interviewed), and oneheifer was sold for Sh 15,000. Sheremains with two HPI cows of which oneis actually being milked.One animal is missing in this counting. She also added one other cow which she bought herself. 11
  • Ephron & Jaeli NyangeGeneration 1: Like Lidia, Ephron also got his HPI heifer in the year 1993 (also Friesian cross-bred, directgift from HPI, obtained from farm of L. Delamere in Naivasha). This original cow (after producing generation2) was slaughtered because of suffering from mastitis.Generation 2: The HPI heifer produced 1 bull and 3 heifers. In 1995 he passed on the first heifer to DinaNyange (not interviewed), in 1997 a second Friesian heifer was born but it died, in 1998 another Friesianheifer was born, it produced generation 3 and is still there (10 years old).Generation 3: The Friesian heifer had 7 calves of which 3 died and 3 bulls were sold. The remaining is across-bred Friesian-Brown Swiss, and it had 3 offspring.Generation 4: This offspring consisted of two bulls (were sold) and the fourth one is a heifer which is there.Jenta & Chem MwandonyiGeneration 1: The HPI heifer gift they received in 1999 from Danson Kasololo was almost barren for 10years; it only produced one bull (offspring of a local bull) which was sold. The original HPI cow was also sold. After this they bought another heifer themselves (not HPI), which then produced one bull (locally bred) and three female calves (with AI). They still have three of these animals.Hannah MafundoGeneration 1: The POG heifer they received in 1993 died in 1994 because it broke a leg. She then had theobligation to ‘pass back’ another heifer to HPI. They then bought themselves 4 cows, and these produced them altogether 6 female calves and 6 bulls; of this they kept 4 female calves. Besides this also three calves died.To create a Generation 2 for HPI one of its heifers was already earmarked to be passed back, but then itdied.Grace Mdali: # 1 in line of POG, was not interviewed.She received an original, first HPI heifer, and passed on its offspring heifer to Elisabeth Mung’ongo in 1995(see interview).Elisabeth Mung’ongo: # 2 in line of POGGeneration 1: The HPI heifer (Friesian crossbred) was received in the year 1995 from Grace Mdali. Afterproducing generation two, this cow was sold (in April 2008).Generation 2: The HPI heifer had four heifers (and two abortions). One was passed on to Wilson Nyambu.Wilson Nyambu: # 3 in line of POGGeneration 1: He got his POG from Elisabeth Mung’ongo.Generation 2: His POG went to Gilbrand Mliwa. He has still one productive cow from the original POG, aFriesian.Generation 3: One bull, it was sold. He also owns one Brown Swiss cross-bred, which had one bull and one heifer, both were sold.Gilbrand Mliwa: # 4 in line of POG, was not interviewed.He received his HPI heifer POG from Wilson Nyambu. And his passed his POG on to Christine Magdeu (seeinterview).Christine Mwadeu: # 5 in line of POGGeneration 1: She received her HPI heifer in 2001 from Gilbrand Mliwa (not interviewed).Generation 2: The off spring of 3 calves included two bulls that died, and a heifer that was – accidentally -locally bred, so not with AI. This happened after she lost her husband and was away, and family membersused the bull in her absence. The (not AI) heifer was passed on to Roger Mluhu, as a replacement (RogerMluhu was not lucky with his first HPI heifer: it died without offspring).Roger Mluhu: # 6 in line of POG, was not interviewed.He received his HPI heifer from Christine Magdeu (see interview).Jack-An & Julia NgaliaGeneration 1: They received his HPI heifer in 1998 from Handarson Kofia (not interviewed).Generation 2: It had one calf (female) that died, and one bull that was ‘as POG’ used for a group party inDecember 2006. In 2007 the original HPI had another abortion. 12
  • Six generations of HPI heifers in Rong’e group stGrace Mdali’s 1 generation: the original HPI heifer received in 1993 ndElisabeth Mung’ongo’s 2 generation: she got the POG from Grace,it produced four heifers and was sold recently, at 13y old rdWilson Nyambu’s 3 generation: he got the POG from Elisabeth, it produced at least two heifers,one is still productive, the other was passed on. thGilbrand Mliwa’s 4 generation: he got the POG from Wilson,he passed on its first heifer to Christine. th Christine Magdeu’s 5 generation: she got the POG from Gilbrand in 2001, and after producing two bulls it produced one heifer that was passed on to Roger. thRoger Mluhu’s heifer is 6 generation of POG heifers. 13
  • 4. Technical (veterinary) services in the areaHow they evolved (with HPI support and after 1999), their accessibility (distance, communication, costs) andquality.The role of HPI:i) how it trained and supported knowledge sharing on dairy animal keeping and breeding,ii) how it helped put in place and/or improve animal healthcare (and other) services.Up to know, the group claims, HPI pays them a visit every three months. During these visits they mostlyinsist on the importance of good record keeping.Training from HPI and thereafterInitially HPI has provided training on a series of subjects. Now, after 15 years, the members recall havingbeen trained in:• group management / leadership (4 members: 1 woman, 3 men )• cow care / management (5 members: 3 women, 2 men)• milking, hygiene & milking record keeping (5 members: 4 women, 1 man)• health care / disease control / prevention (7 members: 5 women, 2 men)• fodder production (9 members: 6 women, 3 men)• stable building (1 man)• composting / using manure / terracing (1 man).HPI has the policy to train all the members on above subjects; some get the training directly, others throughtheir group members (which explains why not all can recall the training as such).Participants’ highlight on the training given by HPI is that they learned to care for the animal ‘as if it werea family member’. And true, all the cows were found to have names, and some cows clearly responded tocalling their names.First there is the more intensive period of HPI training and supplying the group with heifers (the purchase isdone together with the farmers) and some spraying equipment (1-2 sprays/group). But then the ties becomelooser; HPI remains involved in the organization of the group, to ensure that the POG contract is followed,and to evaluate results. Now this group is 15 years old and still receives a visit from HPI every three months.Veterinary services and farmer organizational developmentGenerally the farmers are very satisfied with the veterinary service that is available.There is the government Veterinary Officer, who is well known and motivated. Farmers pay him 1000 Ksh forinsemination.And there are some farmers who specialize in the weekly service of spraying the animals; they charge 50Ksh/animal (or less).But HPI has done more: to ensure that also AI services were sustainable it assisted farmers to organize theirgroups, to register the groups, and to form an association of farmer groups; this umbrella organization wasable to advocate for the establishment of Umweri Dairy, that is now the sole provider of AI in a wide areaaround Voi. 14
  • 5. Marketing5.1 IntroductionFor this chapter, and particularly in 5.3, we make use of the interviews carried out in a ‘random’ sample of 10households. This sample is not really at random, but done by selecting a ‘cross-cutting’ sample ofhouseholds from the 29 households in the group that had dairy cattle. Following the table in annex 3, theentire group of 29 households had 1.7 cow/household, whereas in the selection of 10 households theaverage numbers of cows is 1.9.Let us assume here that this sample is indeed sufficiently representative.5.2 Organization, transport, prices, quality controlThe Rong’e Zero-Grazing group’s milk shop(see picture) has been constructed withmoney collected from group members; thegroup is proud of its achievement in this.The shop only receives milk in the morning.The milk is collected but not processed. It istransported to outside Taita hills, in jerry-cans of 20 or 40 liters.Prices: Nowadays members get 21 Ksh/literfor the milk they deliver in the shop; theshop’s milk-seller sells it on for 24 Ksh (andshe keeps the 3 Ksh/liter benefit). If peoplesell locally they normally charge 20 Ksh/liter.Quality control is done (see 2.4), andmembers increasingly respect and follow togood practices. Photo 16: Dairy shop built by the Ronge group5.3 Benefits: household income from dairy products, and benefit sharing/controlling (f/m)5.3.1 MilkMilk yieldsMilk yields were taken from the 10 households that were interviewed.The actual milk yield was mentioned for the 15 cows that are actually productive. This is an average of 4.5l/day, with a range between 1.5 and 10 l/day.For 13 cows a maximum milk yield was mentioned. The maximum milk yield average is 15.5 l/day rangingbetween 4 and 22 l/day.Further there was mention of another 3 cows that were actually not producing anything (about to deliver theirnext calf they had come naturally at the end of their lactation period), and one cow that had fertility problems.In the earlier years (nineties) the cross-bred bulls were used to inseminate the cows, but this resulted in milkyield maxima going down from 20 to 8 litres/day. Since this was observed, it was ruled (by the group) thatonly AI be used.For the whole Taita area the daily milk yield is actually about 6 liter/cow, with a range of between 2 and 18liters/day. This group, having an average milk yield that is lower than the average for the whole Taita area. isprobably still suffering from the effects of having used their own bulls for fertilization. 15
  • Milk benefitsAll households with productivecows take part of the productionfor their own consumption. Alsothere are several households thatgive some of their milk to peoplein need, for example Mary Kifusogives 2 l/day to two orphan girlsnext door.Then, what remains is earningmoney. If sold locally the milk hasa price of 20 Ksh/l, if sold throughthe dairy shop it earns 21 Ksh/l.In the 10 households the dailyaverage milk sales was 3.65 l/day(of which 27% is sold locally, therest through the shop), whichtranslates in a daily income of76 Ksh/household, or 2270Ksh/month.But a large proportion of the milkremains for home consumption(including sharing in thecommunity): 30.25 l/day. Photo 17: Mary Kifuso and her 18 year old grandson cherish their two cows: they make money, and milk for themselves and two orphan girls next door. Mary’s membership in the group has made her benefit more easily from generous acts of solidarity in the community.5.3.2 Animals: POG and salesIn the 10 households interviewed there is now, atthis moment, a total number of 10 HPI cows (butalso another 8 cows that were bought by the farmersthemselves: not HPI).In these 10 households there are also 7 HPI heifers,and 8 of the 10 households have (more or less)fulfilled their obligation of POG. Photo 18: Elisabeth Mung’ongo has passed on the gift, and still has a cow (offspring of HPI heifer) and two female calves (Friesian and Brown Swiss).In the 10 interviewed households, since they started 15 years ago, there was also a total of 13 animals thatdied (11 calves and 2 cows).Due to death or infertility only 8 households have HPI group animals, the other two households started anewby buying their own animals (and they have not been able to fulfill the obligation of POG).All of the 8 ‘HPI households’ (with HPI group animals) have actually passed on the gift (a heifer), and once itwas a bull that was ‘as POG’ a present to the group.Together the 10 households (with 19 cows) have sold the following HPI group animals:- 3 aged or ‘barren’ cows for prices between 4000 and 8000 Ksh- 3 heifers: two for 15000 and one for 13000- 7 bull calves for prices between 1000 and 13000 Ksh (average: 4430 Ksh).This means that the average household in this sample has earned 9,200 Ksh by animal sales. 16
  • However, this does not include the fact that five households (half of the sample!), sometimes because ofhaving been unlucky with HPI animals, have also bought animals for themselves, and these are raised inmuch the same way as the HPI animals, making good use of the training given by HPI and the experiencegained. These animals are also productive, and if these numbers would be included than the total herd of the10 households (and the benefits) would be at least 50% more (12 animals in total, against 17 HPI animals).5.3.3 Other benefitsOf 10 households interviewed there was only one household that sold manure (for 100 Ksh/bag) and onehousehold that gave away manure. All others keep the manure for their own farm.There are a number of other benefits, not directly related to dairy farming, but brought about by HPI trainingon sustainable agriculture, which included agro-forestry, soil conservation, etc. 17
  • Annex 1: Terms of Reference1. INTRODUCTIONRonge Zero Grazing group is a group of farmers in Voi division of Taita Taveta district. The group wasformed by 36 members (15 men and 21 women) in March 1991. The aim of the group was to work togetherin addressing poverty and ensuring food security in their homes. They initiated several small scale projectslike a merry-go-round (savings & credit system), farming projects, and a roof rainwater harvesting water tankconstruction. In the course of developing the water project, they received assistance from the Kenyagovernment on water and the village got piped water supply from a forest spring water source.In early 1993 the group applied to Heifer Project International for support in developing their dairy production.The group members had received initial training on dairy production under intensive systems from the Kenyagovernment Ministry of Livestock with funding from the Dutch Dairy Development Project.When Heifer Project staff in Kenya received the application, the staff took the group through the projectdevelopment process, which included project planning and implementation. The group’s application wasapproved and the group received their 15 heifers in November 1993.One of the main conditions of the grant is the provision of ‘passing on the gift’ by each heifer recipient,passing on heifer calves at 12 months age. This is the way of repaying the loan received in form of a heifer.Other conditions include farmer training on animal husbandry, environmental protection and construction ofzero grazing housing for the heifer.The group received intensive training (including farm visits) from Heifer staff on all above, for four years afterthe placement of heifers. Since 1999 Heifer staff stopped visiting the group as it was already weaned orgraduated. The group members had established sufficient fodder production plots, including Napier grassand legume trees for feeding dairy cattle as well as for controlling soil erosion and construction of housing fortheir cattle. Members signed agreements with the group on good management of the dairy cows and agreedto pass on one heifer calf at 12 months age.Progress until nowTo this date the group has continued to exist and still supports its members, both original and new memberswho joined the group later. All the members have dairy cows after practicing passing on the gift. Themembers are managing their cows well and are deriving full benefits from them.The passing on of the gift is still continuing long after Heifer weaned the group. The group established milkmarketing services which were to ensure that members receive income from their dairy enterprise withoutmuch difficulty.2. OBJECTIVE OF THE ASSIGNMENTThe general objective of this assignment is to describe, through a case study, the HPI approach torural development. This Ronge Zero Grazing Group case study will include an assessment as to why the‘passing on the gift’ approach was successful here, and what lessons can be learnt from this group.Specific objectives of the assignment1. Documentation of a best practice, and lessons learned2. Illustrating the HPI approach to rural development3. Learning for other groups and local HPI staff in the area (especially during the initial meeting whererecord keeping, animal care and breeding are to be discussed, alongside with issues of group managementandleadership). 18
  • 3. DELIVERABLESThe report will have photos of the farmers, cows, heifers, their houses, farms with terraces and any featuressupporting the dairy production in the location and which may have contributed to success of the dairyfarming. 4The report (well illustrated) will have the following outline :List of content, list of abbreviations, list of pictures Summary1. Introduction- HPI strategy and approach, emphasizing the practice of passing on the gift- The area: landscape, soils, main crops, other important economic activities (very brief)2. Description of Rong’e Zero Grazing Group:- History (see 1. introduction, verify in the field)- Membership (f/m, poverty) and contributions- Main activities: i. promotion of dairy production: sharing/breeding dairy animals (how many pass-ons from HPI animals, to whom f/m), preparation of receiving farmers, sharing knowledge, services, quality control, improving marketing ii. soil conservation practices (describe and illustrate which practices) iii. other activities (if relevant, e.g. savings & credit)- Group management: strategy/vision, structure, leadership (style/culture, and election/rotation ofleaders), systems (incl. record keeping and meetings, financial reporting), knowledge sharing/networking3. Dairy farming as part of the farming system(s):- Labor: use of family (or off-farm?) labor (f/m, kids) for feeding/watering, milking, care- Land: use of land, fodder production on-farm (or off-farm)- Water: source(s) and transport- Breeds: exchanges within the group and/or outside, what breed(s)- Healthcare services: how farmers themselves were trained, share knowledge, provide each otherservices (veterinary and/or drug supply, vaccines)- Milk distribution: home consumption, community sharing, selling- Household decision making (f/m) on use of resources (labor, land, animals/breeds, etc.) and marketing(milk & animals ownership), revenues- Side benefits for the farm: manure, urine, mulch from trees and grasses, erosion control by foddergrasses, children learning to care, etc.4. Technical (veterinary) services in the area: how they evolved (with HPI support and after 1999), theiraccessibility (distance, communication, costs) and quality.5. Marketing: organisation, transport location, prices, quality control (if any), benefit sharing/controlling6. Member household’s incomes from dairy production (in 1993 - in as far as remembered - and now)7. The role of HPI: i) how it supported/facilitated, built capacity of the group to manage itself and todistribute resources, ii) how it trained and supported knowledge sharing on dairy animal keeping andbreeding, iii) how it helped put in place and/or improve animal healthcare (and other) services, and iv) how itfacilitated improvements in the marketing of dairy products (milk, animals, etc.).Annexes: ToR, Itinerary (incl. names of people interviewed).The report will be accompanied with a CD-rom with all the pictures (large versions).4. POG ASSESSMENT / CASE STUDY ACTIVITIES1. On-farm observations (and making pictures)2. Semi-structured interviews with group members (individually on-farm, and in group), and with groupleadership (committee members)3. Semi-structured interviews with other farmers nearby who are not members of the Ronge group4. Semi-structured interviews with other key actors in the dairy sector, including government officials (e.g.as providers of extension, animal healthcare services), milk marketing agents, input suppliers, serviceproviders.4 This outline can be subject to minor changes. 19
  • 5. APPROACHDescribing the participation, both in the group and participation in the household will be done using genderdisaggregated data, and where relevant poverty disaggregated data. Indicators for poverty will be obtainedafter consultation with the group.Key questions will include the following questions to capture practices the group has used in managing theirdairy production:1. How the cows provided by HPI to the group have been distributed (to different households, f/m) andmultiplied.2. What the group has used in breeding their cows and any problems associated with breeding.3. How the group ensured good care for the animals in the different members’ households (monitoring,knowledge sharing).4. What technical services were available after Heifer weaned the group, and their accessibility in termsof distance, cost, communication, and quality). And how have they evolved further (since 1999).5. How the farmers have managed their animal health services (including drug/vaccine supply, etc).6. How the farmers have managed to feed their dairy cattle (and in how far sourced on-farm or off-farm).7. How the farmers (and/or the group) are managing milk marketing services, milk prices, qualitymanagement, and regularity of payment for milk sold.8. Does the group or do members belong to any (professional) networks;9. How has the group been governed, have they had regular elections and change of leaders, havethey retained old committee members, how is the record keeping maintained;10. The group location is hilly and very fragile. How has the group managed soil erosion and otherenvironmental practices;11. How many pass ons have been made and who are the recipients of these heifers;12. How has the group prepared farmers who are to receive heifer calves which are being passed on;More questions will be drawn up, with reference to the outline of the report, already detailed above.6. PARTICIPANTSIn principle the consultant is alone responsible for this assignment. However, it may be beneficial for HPIstaff to accompany the consultant during (part of) the assignment, as it can help to share lessons learned,later on.7. TIMINGThe actual field work will take at least 2 days excluding travel. Travel will be 2 days, and report writinganother 2 days. This makes a total of 6 consulting days.The fieldwork (and travel) will start Monday 12 May and end Friday 16 May.A draft report will be sent no later than 22 May.Comment on the draft will be provided by HPI within two weeks after reception of the draft.A final version will be sent no later than 5 working days after receiving comments on the draft.This means that the entire assignment can be completed before 13 June (but if there is some unforeseendelay this can be extended to end of June).8. CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTSThe HPI-Kenya supervisor for this assignment will be the HPI Kenya Country Program Director, Mr AlexKirui.The consultant will charge HPI-Kenya a professional fee of $ … per day for a maximum of 5 days.The following expenses will be reimbursed to the consultant:- 3 days subsistence allowance @20 USD/day- transport from Nairobi to and inside the project area v.v. (the consultant using own transport means,4WD): the charge per km is 45 Ksh.Based upon a final proposal and budget, a separate service contract will be signed between Heifer ProjectInternational Kenya and the consultant. 20
  • Annex 2: Itinerary and resource persons metTuesday 13 MayBriefing by George TsumaGroup meeting: 10 women and 15 men are present (see complete list below)Observation Dairy ShopHousehold interviews - part 1:- Lidia Elongo- Mary Kifuso- Agatha Mwamachi.Wednesday 14 MayHousehold interviews - part 2:- Efron & Jaeli Nyange- Jenta & Chem Mwandony- Elisabeth & Johnston Mung’ongo- Jack-An & Julia Ngalia- Wilston & sifura Nyambu- Derkson & Christine Magdeu- Hannah & Isaac MafundoBriefing by the Veterinary agent (collaborator of HPI), Mr Gilbert Mwasamba.Thursday 15 MayBriefing (end) by George Tsuma.In early June the veterinary officer Gilbert Mwasamba made one more visit to check out some details on aline of generations of POG. 21
  • Annex 3: Total herd of the groupThe group started off with 15 heifers obtained from HPI.Below table shows the total herd now, but it includes animals that were obtained outside the group /POG(animals that people bought themselves).Table: Actual herd of the group members together, May 2008Name Cows Calves Total Born in HPI individual f m 2007-20081. Haris Malombo 0 1 1 2 4 1f2. Ephron Nyange* 2 0 1 3 6 2 m sold3. Shem Mwandanyi* 0 3 2 5 10 2f4. Nathaniel Manyondo 1 0 2 3 6 2f5. Elistone Nganga 0 2 1 3 6 06. Japhet Mwasaru 1 0 0 1 2 07. Grace Mafundo 1 1 0 4 6 2m8. Florence Mwasingo 0 1 1 2 4 1f9. Agatha Mwamachi* 1 1 2 4 8 2f10. Dinah Nyange 2 0 1 2 5 011. Lafokal Longo ?* 2 2 3 4 11 1f12. Mary Kifuso* 2 0 0 2 4 013. Margareth Mraka 1 1 1 3 6 1f14. Jackan Ngalia* 1 0 0 1 2 Abortion May ‘0715. Hanah Mafundo* 0 4 3 8 15 1f16. Jane Kindungu 0 0 1 1 2 017. Durickson Mwadeu* 1 0 0 1 2 1 m (died)18. Elisabeth Mung’ongo* 1 1 2 4 8 1 m sold, 1 f19. Givrau Mliwa 1 1 1 4 7 1m20. Morris Marami 0 1 1 2 4 021. Hildan Kisombe 1 0 1 2 4 1 f (died)22. Dorothy Fundi 2 0 1 4 7 1 m, 1 f23. Habel Mwanjika 0 1 0 1 2 1 m (died)24. Herman Mjomba 1 0 0 1 2 025. Wilson Nyambu* 2 0 0 2 4 1 m, 1 f (sold)26. Roger Mlunghu 1 1 1 3 6 027. Claris Mwamburi 0 2 0 2 4 028. Mercy Mchawia 1 0 0 1 2 029. Constance Mwakina 0 1 0 1 2 0TOTAL 25 24 26 76 151 15 f (1 sold, 1 died) 10 m (2 sold, 2 died)*: These households were interviewed, see Annex 4. 22
  • Annex 4: Household interview notesHousehold Elongo Kifuso Mwamachi Nyange Mwandanyi Mung’ongo Ngalia (Jack- Nyambu Mwadeu Mafundo(heads) (Lidia) (Mary) (Agatha) (Ephron & Jaeli) (Jenta & (Elisabeth & an & Julia) (Wilson& (Durickson (Hanah & Shem) Johnston) Sifura) & Christine) Isaac)HH Lidia, Mary, Agatha, Ephron Jenta, Shem, 1 Elisabeth, Jack-An, Wilson, Christine Hannahcomposition 1 laborer 1 grandchild 1 relative (f), Jaeli son & 1 Johnson, Julia, Sifura, Durickson Isaac of 18y 1 laborer 1 laborer daughter (both son child (13y) 1 laborer (works Daughter adults), elsewhere) 4 kids (8-14y) 1 grandchild 3 kids Laborer LaborerDecision Lidia Mary Agatha Ephron (but Jaeli Jenta Elisabeth Jack-An (he Wilson (who Christine Hannahmaker takes the milk sales received all the received all the balance) training) training)Labor 1 laborer by the 1 laborer 1 laborer Jenta & Elisabeth, son Julia & child Laborer Laborer Laborer grandchild or Ephron daughter (Johnston Kids collect helps with grass only cleaning)Land & crops 4 acre, of 2 acre (of 3½ acre, of 5½ acre (of which 4 6 acre of which 3 acre of which 2¼ acre of 6 acre, terraced 2 acre, 3 acre (of which 1 which 2 which 1 acre which 1 acre acre far away) 1½ fodder, and 1 acre Napier; which ¾ acre of which less than terraced, acre is far & Napier far away), and far away Plenty of Calliandra in the rest also in the rest also Napier which is 1 acre Napier, intercropping fragmented), of (‘nyasi’) riverside (where Napier for fodder Napier grass is Napier grass is enough. Before which is not with Napier which there is (where Napier is grown) Not enough Napier intercropped intercropped they grew enough now only 1 acre is grown) (so they add 2 parts with maize. The with maize. Napier (explaining low Napier, which is ‘dairymill’ to 1 part farm is intercropped yield) not enough (she Calliandra) terraced. with maize, was sick) There is also now not Guatemala anymore. grass, a lot of No terraces. Calliandra, some LeuceaenaWater Tap nearby River nearby Tap nearby Tap nearby Quite far down, Quite far down, Tap very far Tap on the Tap nearby Tap nearby carry on the carry on the (100m) compound, and in head head houseUse of Partly on-farm Selling one Using all on-farm Using all on- Using all on- Using all on- Using all on-farm Using all on- Using all on-farmmanure (dwarf bag for 100 farm farm farm farm bananas), Ksh partly given awayNumbers & 1 young 2 cows 2 productive They got this cow POG in 1999 2 calves (f: POG 1998 1 FriesianX 2001 1 4 cows, 4 calvesbreeds JerseyX productive cows, but one (from the original lived 10y FriesianX & FriesianX 1 Brown Friesian that (f) 1 young AI used and is just now out POG from Heifer without Brown SwissX) SwissXFriesian produced: st FriesianX worked the 1 of production which they received producing 1 cow but that one is his 1 calf (f, bull- 23
  • Household Elongo Kifuso Mwamachi Nyange Mwandanyi Mung’ongo Ngalia (Jack- Nyambu Mwadeu Mafundo(heads) (Lidia) (Mary) (Agatha) (Ephron & Jaeli) (Jenta & (Elisabeth & an & Julia) (Wilson& (Durickson (Hanah & Shem) Johnston) Sifura) & Christine) Isaac) nd 1 Brown and 2 time, (one of thesein 1993 – it was maiden heifer. FriesianX own (and it had 1 bred): POG to rd SwissX has but not the 3 cows is notslaughtered It produced 1 bull & 1 heifer, Roger Mluhu th fertility and 4 time HPI but her because of mastitis). bull and one both sold; his own 2 calves (m) rd problems (3 time: AI own) It had 4 calves: 1 heifer only was obtained from died 1 FriesianX technician bull, 1 POG heifer to (POG). They 1 HPI heifer Wusi in Taita hills) productive came too late) 1 calf (f)Dina Nyange, 1 sold the cow. heifer died, then the They bought heifer born 1998, themselves 1 now 10y old heifer (calf) for nd FriesianX cow (2 8000, which generation), had 7 has produced calves: 3 died, 3 all FriesianX: sold, and 1 cow (bull- 1 Brown Swiss - bred) Friesian X cow 1 heifer (daughter of 2 calves (f). rd FriesianX, 3 generation). 1 calf (f) of the Brown SwissX (3 th generations) = 4 generation.Milk Now: 5 l/day Now: 6½ l/day Now: 6 l/day Friesian: The bull-bred 3½ l/day Now: 2 l/day Now: 8 l/day (4+4) Now: 8 l/day Now: 4 l/day fromproduction Max.: … (5+1½) Max: 8 l/day Now: 6-10 l/day cow produces Max: 15 l/day because both Max. 18 l/day one cow, the 5 from one cow Max: 19 l/day 2¾ l/day. The cows are pregnant other three are(liter/day) Brown Swiss: AI cow (Baraka) and because pregnant. Now: 8-12 l/day now gives 3½ there’s no good Max: resp. 19-20, Max: 15 l/day l/day. grass. 22, 20, & 10 l/day. Max: resp. 18 & 17l/dayMilk sales & 2 l/day to 2 l/day to 2 l/day home 2 to 2½ l/day for All milk for 2 l/day local All milk for 4 l/day to dairy 3½ l/day sold All milk for homeconsumption dairy house; dairy house; consumption home consumption home sale (20 Ksh/l) home house to dairy house consumption 2 l/day locally 1 l/day home 4 l/day for sale Sales: consumption consumption 4 l/day home 1 l/day sold (when new calves @20 Ksh/l consumption 4-7 l/day morning (but when the consumption locally born: most will go 1 l/day home 2 l/day for milk to shop; new calf is 3½ l/day to dairy house) consumption orphans next 2-3 l/day afternoon born, there will home door milk local sales (20 be sales of 7-8 consumption Ksh/l) l/day).Animal 1 bull sold for 1 calf died 2 calves (f&m) They did their POG POG to Danson The original 1 calf (f) died 1 calf (f, 6 months 1 calf POG 1 POG heifer diedturnover 6000 Ksh 1 calf (f) POG died in 1995 Kasololo (not HPI cow was 1 calf (m) sold for 15000 2 calves died in 1994 due to 1 aged cow – The Friesian is now AI) sold for 8000 provided for Ksh breaking leg – it5 Not including the milk that is given to the calf. 24
  • Household Elongo Kifuso Mwamachi Nyange Mwandanyi Mung’ongo Ngalia (Jack- Nyambu Mwadeu Mafundo(heads) (Lidia) (Mary) (Agatha) (Ephron & Jaeli) (Jenta & (Elisabeth & an & Julia) (Wilson& (Durickson (Hanah & Shem) Johnston) Sifura) & Christine) Isaac)(sales, birth, the original 10y old, had 7 (from their own Ksh. the group party 2 bulls age 4-5 produced 9 l/day.death) one - sold for lactations, of which cow they sold: 1 calf (f) (’POG’) months sold each They bought 4 4000 Ksh 3 died (2f, 1m) and 3 2 heifers for POGto Wilson One abortion for 3000 cows themselves, 1 heifer sold sold: 6000 & 4000 Nyambu. took place in 1 calf died kept 4 calves (f) & (15,000 Ksh) 1 bull of 1½ month Ksh, and And three 2007. 1 POG to Gilbrand sold: 1 POG heifer 2000 Ksh 3 bulls for 8000, other heifers Mliwa - 4 calves for given 1 bull 13000 Ksh 4000 & 2500 (and 2 almost nothing 1 maiden heifer Ksh – but this abortions) - 1 heifer 15000 (could not have calf) doesn’t count - 1 heifer 25000 13000 Sh as direct impact - 1 calf (m) 5000 The FriesianX from HPI - 1 heifer 15000 Friesian had 3 animals. 3 offspring of one lactations: cow died (2f, 1m) 1 bull sold 3000, 1 one calf (m) bull sold 1000, 1 survived & sold heifer Brown Swiss for 4000 Ksh x Friesian remainsTraining Milking Hygiene Fodder Cow management Cow Cow Milking Animal care / Cow care Fodderreceived Diseases Milking Fodder management management Fodder stable hygiene Disease Milking/hygiene Fodder Disease control Fodder Milking Manure/ Feeding control / Record keeping production (incl. prevention) Fodder compost Disease control prevention Health Group leadership There was also Disease Milk record Fodder grass Record There were also self-organized control keeping Stable building keeping self-sponsored group training. Group Group leadership Fodder exchange visits. leadership Record keeping Gr.leadershipAdvantages - collective - education - group - group credit: - group credit - milk sales - education - education - building stableof being in labor - credit to buy meetings should be done to construct a shop - communication - credit for togetherthe group - learning drugs more shed, buy - education with the drugs - loan for drugs - solidarity drugs, but: only Veterinary agent - education (school fees) if you remain a good debtorRemarks - The laborer Active to bring In the past this One of the calves earns 2000 development to the farmer also (f) was given to Sh/month area (contacting bought 1 cow and the laborer. She DDC, DAC, to get sold its calf, then The farmer emphasizes AI, etc.) and the cow. realizes that the that POG enhance solidarity in stable floor & roof obligation the group (e.g. need fixing. remains also paying school fees when calf dies. for Mary Kifuso’s kids) 25