Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Rural extensiveand cooperative-poorRural mixedintensive andextensivePeri-urbanintensive andassociational typeN (%) 9 (26%)...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

Characterization of smallholder pig production systems in Uganda


Published on

Poster prepared by Emily Ouma, Michel Dione, Peter Lule, Kristina Rosel, Lawrence Mayega, David Kiryabwire, Gideon Nadiope and Danilo Pezo for the ILRI APM 2013, Addis Ababa, 15-17 May 2013

Published in: Technology
  • Login to see the comments

  • Be the first to like this

Characterization of smallholder pig production systems in Uganda

  1. 1. Rural extensiveand cooperative-poorRural mixedintensive andextensivePeri-urbanintensive andassociational typeN (%) 9 (26%) 21(60%) 5(14%)Variables Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)Cooperative involvement% male farmer group membership 29.1 (19.8) 43.4 (39.7) 56.7 (36.5)% female farmer groupmembership27.1 (33.1) 39.6 (31.6) 66.7 (20.4)% male pig group membership 11 (33.3) 0 (0) 30.0 (44.7)% female pig group membership 18.5 (37.7) 3.8 (8.8) 36.7 (50.6)No. of institutions involved inlivestock VC2.3 (0.9) 1.7 (1.1) 3.2 (1.1)Production systems% improved breeds 52.3 (18.0) 57.8 (23.2) 81.2 (8.0)% local breeds 47.7 (18.0) 42.2 (23.2) 18.8 (8.0)% with pig sties 12.6 (12.1) 26.9 (14.7) 98.0 (4.5)% free range 15.9 (20.8) 13.9 (18.9) 3.4 (7.6)% tethered 68.8 (27.2) 41.0 (27.6) 8.2 (7.9)% castration 87.3 (17.8) 72.5 (25.4) 89.2 (16.4)% deworming 93.2 (8.7) 91.9 (22.3) 100.4 (9.2)% iron injection 2.0 (4.0) 7.1 (17.0) 33.4 (40.5)% servicing the sows 0.0 (0.0) 90.7 (13.2) 0.0 (0.0)Value chain domains (% of villages)Rural-rural 66.7 57.1 0Rural-urban 33.3 19.0 0Urban-urban 0 23.8 100.0Unlocking livestock development potential through science, influence and capacitydevelopment ILRI APM, Addis Ababa, 15-17 May 2013Characterization of smallholder pig production systems in UgandaThis document is licensed for use under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported Licence May 2013Emily Ouma, Michel Dione, Peter Lule, Kristina Rosel, Lawrence Mayega, David Kiryabwire, Gideon Nadiope and Danilo Pezo The production system intensification related indicators reliablydifferentiate the smallholder pig production systems typologiesthrough their cluster means. Three typologies are evident: The rural extensive and cooperative poor, which comprise ofvillages in the rural-rural value chain domains. It is characterized byfarmers low levels of involvement in cooperative action and lowinvestments in the pig enterprise in terms of husbandry practicesand housing. The rural mixed intensive and extensive type is the dominantcluster comprising villages in the rural-rural domain. Majority offarmers, 41% practice tethering. Most of the pig farmers in thiscluster have sows and breeding boars, an indication that they focuson piglet production for sale. The peri-urban intensive associational type mainly comprise ofvillages in the peri-urban settings. The cluster is characterized byrelatively high investments in the pig enterprise in terms of pighousing, improved breeds and husbandry practices. Members ofthis cluster are involved in cooperative action and focus onfattening and sale of grown pigs. They have the advantage ofavailability of a number of livestock value chain supportiveinstitutions.ResultsIntroduction Pig production is an important activityin Uganda as evidenced by the rise inpig population (0.19 to 3.2 Mn) and percapita consumption of pork (0.2 - 3.4 kgperson-1 year-1) in the last 3 decades. Most of the pigs are raised undersmallholder systems and are mostlymanaged by women and children as abackyard activity. Under such systems, the enterpriseserves as an important source ofhousehold income for meetingemergency and planned needs,especially school fees. The pig sector is largely informal withpoorly organized markets, limitedaccess to technology, information andservices. Besides, several productivityrelated constraints associated withfeeds, breed types and diseases alsoexist. The constraints and opportunities varyamong the smallholder producers asthey are not a homogeneous group andare affected by differing factors.Photo 1: A woman pig farmer inKiboga districtPhoto 2: Pigs in raised woodenfloor structures in Mukono districtTable 1: Extracted solution from cluster analysisConclusions and Implications Improvement in productivity and marketing of smallholder pigproduction systems necessitates different intervention packagesgiven the heterogeneity of the smallholder systems andconstraints. Focus group discussions were conducted on stratified randomsamples, based on sex, of about 1400 pig farmers in 35 villages ofMasaka, Kamuli and Mukono districts, using a semi-qualitativeinterview checklist. A standard cluster analysis utilizing Ward’s hierarchical algorithmbased on squared Euclidean distances and a K-means iterativepartitioning analysis was employed focusing on 3 themesconsidered important to the heterogeneity of the smallholderproduction systems from the data collected. These included; farmers’ cooperative involvement, number of institutions involved in livestock value chains, some intensification related indicators comprising breedtype, housing, and husbandry practices.Objectives To characterize the smallholder pig production systems intotypologies for purposes of identification and improved targeting oftechnological and policy interventions.MethodologyAcknowledgementThe support of staff from Kamuli, Masaka and Mukono District LocalGovernment authorities and VEDCO is greatly appreciated. Funding forthe study was provided by the European Commission-InternationalFund for Agricultural Development (EC-IFAD), in the framework ofSmallholder Pig Value Chains Development (SPVCD) Project in Uganda.The authors gratefully acknowledge the time commitment by thefarmers who participated in the value chain assessment work.