Presented by Henry Njakoi during the Maziwa Zaidi Review and Planning meeting 23-25 September, in Bagamoyo

1. Heifer International Tanzania—Implementation progress
and project highlights
Henry Njakoi
Maziwa Zaidi Review and Planning Meeting,
Bagamoyo, 23-25 September 2015
1

2. Progress Report towards Objectives
(August 2013– September 2015)
Presentation Outline
 Introduction.
 What went well and where
 What could be improved in 6-12 months.
 Where are our interventions unlike to work.
2

3. Introduction
Heifer International Tanzania is on the development
partners implementing More Milk by and for the poor
project togetherwith
 TanzaniaDairyBoard
 FaidaMaLi
 SokoineUniversityof Agriculture
 ILRI
 District Councils of Kilosa, Mvomero, Handeni,
Lusshoto+Bumbuli
3

4. Introduction Cont’….
Objective: De ve lo p scalable value chains appro ache s
with im pro ve o rg anizatio ns and institutio ns se rving
sm allho lde r m ale and fe m ale ho use ho lds.
Target: 4800 resource poor cattle keepers from a total of 30
identified villages
4

5. Introduction Cont’….
HeiferTanzania’s focus component is
First
Output 1: Vibrant, wellorganizedandsustainableDMHs
deliveringdemand– ledinputs andservices developed.
and
Second
Output 1b: “Resourcepoordairycattle keepers practicing
improveddairycattlehusbandry resultinginincreased
milkyieldpercow”.
5

7. What went well, and where
Vibrant, well organized and sustainable DMHs delivering demand– led inputs and
services developed.
Number of households reached: 2,258 (47% of targeted 4,800)
What went well, Where
30Self-HelpFarmers Groups were
formedand orstrengthened
2,258=1106M+1152F)
 Kilosa
 Mvomero
 Handeni,
 Lushoto+Bumbuli
All groups officially
registeredwith
appropriate
regulatoryauthority
29groups receivedtrainedongroup
formation, management
(1,787=847M+940F)
 Kilosa
 Mvomero
 Handeni,
 Lushoto+Bumbuli
Onegroupnot
trainedinKilosa
7

8. What went well, and where
Resource poor dairy cattle keepers practicing improved dairy cattle husbandry resulting
in increased milk yield per cow.
The project targets to reach 4800 resource poor cattle
What went well, Where Comments
24 g ro ups re ce ive d training o n cattle husbandry in
spe cifie d to pics.
 Kilo sa
 Mvo m e ro
 Hande ni,
 Lusho to
+ Bum buli
 Bre e ds and bre e ding , (606=219+315F)
 Fe e ds and fe e ding , (466=213M+233F)
 Pasture /fo dde r e stablishm e nt and pre se rvatio n
(351=137M+214F),
 Dise ase and dise ase co ntro l(393=207M+186F)
 Milking te chniq ue s (288=146M+142F)
 Im pro ve d dairy Co wshe d co nstructio n( 155=76M+79)
 Calf re aring (55=24M+31F)
 Kilo sa
 Mvo m e ro
 Hande ni,
 No t ye t in
Lusho to
+ Bum buli
Furthe r training o n
im pro ve d da iry cattle
husbandry was
suspe nde d during and
afte r MTD
Seenext Slide#7
8

9. Next steps
S/N ACTIVITIES TARGET
PARTICIPANTS
1 Breeds andBreeding 887
2 Trainingonfeeds andfeeding 606
3 TrainingonPasture/fodderestablishment
andpreservation
767
4 Trainingondiseaseanddiseasecontrol 847
5 TrainingonHousing/cow shedconstruction 402
6 Milkingtechnique 154
7 Calf rearing 276

10. Evidence to positive impact of trainings on improved
dairy cattle husbandry
Traine d dairy farm e rs e ag e r
to de m o nstrate im pro ve d
dairy cattle husbandry
practice s are re q ue sting fo r:
Im pro ve d dairy he ife rs.
Go o d dairy bulls
ArtificialInse m inatio n se rvice s.
 Fo rag e (g rass) se e ds .
Anim alhe alth se rvice s
10

11. What couldbeimprovedin6-12months
 Dairy cattle farm e rs de m o nstrating
co m m itm e nt to take -up im pro ve d
dairy husbandry practice s facilite d
to acce ss to
 Facilitate acce ss to co nstructio n
m ate rials fo r ze ro -g raz ing unit
 Fe e dstuffs
 Facilitate acce ss fo r fo rag e ( g rass
and le g um e ) se e ds
 Facilitate acce ss to im pro ve d dairy
cattle
 Facilitate Acce ss to pro ductio ns 11

12. Where are our interventions unlike to work
So ftware (kno w-ho w) witho ut m uch
e xpe cte d hardware m o st unlike ly to
wo rk
Sustainable ado ptio n o f im pro ve d dairy
cattle husbandry practice s is m o st
unlike ly witho ut
acce ss to physicalo r tang ible
pro ductio n asse ts and inputs e xpe cte d
by farm e rs
acce ss and co ntro lo ve r land
Acce ss to sustainable and pro fitable
m arke t fo r m ilk and/o r dairy pro ducts 12

13. Challenges
 Hig h de m and fo r pasture se e ds fro m live sto ck Ke e pe rs
 Unm e t e xpe ctatio n fo r im pro ve d dairy cattle
 Expe ctatio n o f m ate rialand financialassistance
 Acce ss and co ntro lo f land criticalchalle ng e
 Flexibility and responsiveness project implementation creating
more new challenges and problems for both implementing
partners andproject participants
 Research and development objectiveness conflicting and
confusingpartners andfarmers
13

14. 14
Shukrani