Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Similar to Heifer International Tanzania—Implementation progress and project highlights(20)

Advertisement

More from ILRI(20)

Recently uploaded(20)

Advertisement

Heifer International Tanzania—Implementation progress and project highlights

  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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 14 Shukrani
Advertisement