Presented by Brigitte Maass (CIAT), Fred Wassena (CIAT), Julius Bwire (TALIRI), Germana Laswai (SUA), Walter Mangesho (TALIRI) and Abiliza Kimambo (SUA) at the MilkIT Final Project Workshop, Lushoto, Tanzania, 9-10 December 2014

1. Brigitte Maass (CIAT), Fred Wassena (CIAT), Julius Bwire (TALIRI), Germana
Laswai (SUA), Walter Mangesho (TALIRI) and Abiliza Kimambo (SUA)
MilkIT Final Project Workshop, Lushoto, Tanzania, 9-10 December 2014

2. Outline
MilkIT implementation process in Tanzania
Achievements along MilkIT project objectives
o Institutional strengthening
o Productivity enhancement
o Knowledge sharing
Lessons learned
o Outlook beyond 2014

3. MilkIT implementation process
 Trying to link to IFAD grant policy
o Work in Pemba or Manyara?
 Joining the CRP Livestock & Fish process (in 2012) driven by
MoreMilkiT, under the common goal ‘Maziwa Zaidi’
o Site selection
o Dairy value chain (DVC) assessment (during 2012)
o Baseline survey
o Choosing partners
 Working via innovation platforms (IP) towards improving feeds
and feeding (since 2013)
o Feed assessment with FEAST (in early 2013)
o Setting up village IPs
o Participatory implementation of interventions

4. Component 1. Institutional strengthening
Site selection
Integration into CRP Livestock & Fish Tanzania Dairy Value
Chain development
o Participatory dairy value chain assessment
Implementing Innovation Platforms
o Village IPs
o Regional IP

5.  Selection of regions + sites
o Ruling out of Pemba island + Manyara Region
o Integration into CRP Livestock & Fish Tanzania Dairy Value Chain (DVC)
development—Morogoro + Tanga Regions selected
 Sites selected
o In each Region, 4 villages selected
from 2 Districts, respresenting
Rural-to-Urban and
Rural-to-Rural DVCs
o Agreed village Innovation Platform
structure
 30 participants
 Producers (60%) &
 Other VC stakeholders (40%)
Site selection in Tanzania

6. Tanga
Region:
TALIRI
Morogoro
Region:
SUA
MilkIT action
sites

7. Dairy Value Chain assessment
 Extensive and intensive feeding systems are
practiced in the villages
 Milk production pattern is seasonal with
high production at beginning of long wet
season from March to June
 Most milk is sold locally to neighbours +
restaurants
 Limited processing of milk at local level
to add value
 Lack of reliable market for milk, especially in
long wet season is major constraint to
developing the DVC
End of dry season, Mvomero
Collecting forage in Lushoto

8. Average milk prices
received per litre
Daily average milk
produced /household
Rainfall pattern
Seasonal milk
production
• Milk production + prices
highly seasonal
• Closeness to urban
markets  higher prices
• Proximity to milk
collection centres for dairy
processing factories
(Tanga Fresh &
TANDAIRY) lower prices

9. Milk production & sales in selected districts of
Morogoro & Tanga Region
District
Milk produced
(litre/day/HH)
Milk price
(TSh/litre)
Mean Range Mean Range
Kilosa 23.8 a 0.25-48 450 c 200- 700
Handeni 28.7 a 0.50-53 425 d 200-1000
Mvomero 7.9 b 1.00-12 708 a 400-1000
Lushoto 4.1 b 0.50-27 491 b 300- 600
Districts with extensive/pastoral systems (Handeni, Kilosa + partly Mvomero) had
substantially higher average milk produced per household than with semi-
intensive/ zero grazing systems (Lushoto) due to the large number of cows milked.
1 USD = 1600 TSh

10. Opportunities for DVC development
Include formalization + strengthening of farmer
associations
o For efficient collective action
o Use them for education and access to various inputs
o Other opportunities along the DVC

11. Village IPs in Morogoro + Tanga Regions
Training on functioning of IPs by a consultant
o Identification of specific challenges
o Development of specific village IP workplans
o Development of general guidelines about the functioning of
an innovation platform or 'Jukwaa' (in Swahili)
Photos © WE Mangesho

12. Village IPs in Morogoro + Tanga Regions
Establishing IPs
o Decision on composition + election of leaders
o Establishing sub-committees according to identified
challenges
o Registration at District level, opening bank accounts
 Some IPs request fees from participants
o Purpose of holding regular meetings to address identified
challenges
 Partly getting very big (>80 participants, often strong women
participation!)

13. Innovation challenges identified (rank) leading to
sub-committees of village IPs, Morogoro &Tanga
Innovation challenges Manyinga Wami
Sokoine
Mbwade +
Twatwatwa
Ubiri +
Mbuzii
Kibaya +
Sindeni
Feeds/lack of grazing land 1 1 6 1
Livestock breeds 2 4 1
Knowledge animal husbandry 1 2
Water 2 2 3
Milk price/Market 5 3 4 5
Animal health 4 5 3
Housing 3 5
Animal routes 2
Gender imbalance 3
Pastoral./farmer conflicts 4
Range management 4
Extension service 5
Data summarized from reports 2013 by G Bwana

14. Morogoro
Tanga
R-to-U
R-to-R
R-to-R
R-to-U
Meetings of the village IPs in Morogoro and Tanga
regions, including training events (2013-14)

15. Objectives of village IP meetings

16. Actions agreed on during village IP meetings

17. Participation in village IP meetings (called by SUA) in
Morogoro Region (2013-14) by gender
Kilosa District (R-to-R)Mvomero District (R-to-U)

18. Overview of village IPs: Morogoro Region (2014)
Mvomero District (R-to-U) Kilosa District (R-to-R)
Manyinga Mbwada
IP status Relatively strong Weak
Actors involved Farmer groups, extension officer,
input supplier, micro-credit
Farmers coop only; from outside:
SUA, HiMWA, Heifer, Faida MaLi
Main
achievements
Registered, established cattle/
livestock database, focal point for
livestock issues, self-operating
None
Received forages None, only training 5 farmers
Wami Sokoine Twatwatwa
IP status Intermediate Intermediate
Actors involved Farmer group, extension staff, milk
trader, input supplier; from outside:
Heifer, HiMWA, Faida MaLi, SUA
Farmer group, extension officer, milk
trader; from outside: Heifer,
HiMWA, SUA, Faida MaLi
Main
achievements
Registered; Shamba Kubwa source of
buffel grass splits for other farmers
Removal of Acacia trees in Ololili;
Establishing land registry office
Received forages 5 farmers 7 farmers

19. Participation in village IP meetings (called by TALIRI) in
Tanga Region (2013-14) by gender
Handeni District (R-to-R)Lushoto District (R-to-U)

20. Overview of village IPs: Tanga Region (2014)
Lushoto District (R-to-U) Handeni District (R-to-R)
Ubiri Kibaya
IP status Active Relatively weak
Actors involved Farmer groups, extension officer;
Heifer, Faida MaLi, TALIRI
Farmer groups, extension officer;
Heifer, Faida MaLi, TALIRI
Main
achievements
Self-operating, registered, use of
box baling to conserve feeds
Managed to establish by-laws on
livestock routes, control of water source
(natural spring) destroyed by grazing
animals (in Feb’14) nothing there after
Received forages 80 farmers 3 farmers
Mbuzii Sindeni
IP status Active Relatively weak
Actors involved Farmer groups, extension officer;
Heifer, Faida MaLi, TALIRI
Farmer groups, extension officer, milk
traders; Heifer, Faida MaLi, TALIRI
Main
achievements
Self-operating, registered, use of
box baling to conserve feeds
Registration only
Received forages 21 farmers 3 farmers

21. Agreed composition of village innovation platforms
Skin processor
group
Input suppliers
Producers
Producer
group
Village
governance
Village
Innovation
Platform
Land
committee
Livestock
extension
Milk processor
group
Credit
(Village
Saccos)

22. Membership of the innovation platform in Wami Sokoine
village, Mvomero District, Morogoro Region
IP Member
Male
20
15
IP Secretary
Female
10
5 Village Chairman
Village Executive officer
Input Supplier Land Committee
IP treasurer Milk Producer Group Livestock Extension Officer
IP Chairwoman Skin Processor Group Village Sacos
0 Stakeholders
Livestock keepers Value Chain actors Network Partner
Membership of the innovation platform in Wami Sokoine village, Mvomero district, Morogoro region
Drawing by Diep Pham

23. Issues at village level in Morogoro & Tanga Regions
– Lessons learned
 Small participation of other actors than producers
o Multi-stakeholder IPs may be better at District level
 Some village IPs managed to show a way towards resolving common
challenges within their villages
o In most villages, still lack of understanding of the power of collective action
 Waiting until they are told to do something
 IP participation
o Level of fees + regulation that non-paying people are not admitted to meetings
could hamper the functioning of a pro-poor oriented village IP
 Confusion between village IPs + MoreMilkiT producer groups
o Substantial overlapping of participants
o Coaching/mentoring by consultant may help clarify + organize towards future
 Few well-functioning village IPs may resist change in their constitution + way
of doing things

24. Institutional strengthening by Innovation Platform
approach
At village level
o Overall 8 village Innovation Platforms
At regional level
o Tanga Dairy Platform
o Morogoro Dairy Platform
At national level
o Dairy Development
Forum (DDF)

25. Model of interaction between different platform
levels in Tanzania
MilkIT Tanzania
District District
Village
IP
Regional Dairy Platform
Village
IP
Village
IP
Village
IP
Action
research
Inter-
vention
Tanzania DDF
District Council
Management Team

26. Morogoro Dairy Platform
 Stakeholder meeting in April 2013
 Platform launched in April 2014
o Facilitation by a consultant
o Identification of main challenges + training on
functioning of an innovation platform (IP)
 Platform meetings
o June 2014
 Facilitation from within the platform
 Sub-committees formed along
identified challenges
o October 2014
 Less diversity in stakeholder groups
 Confusion in setting date
 Need for further mentoring

27. Morogoro Dairy Platform: Identified challenges
Gap/Challenge Solution(s) proposed
Low knowledge in best
practices in animal
husbandry (need for
capacity building)
• Train on how to select best milk production breeds
• Train on breed production
• Investing production of right breed for milk prod.
Lack of pasture (not
reliable and seasonality)
• Have reserve areas for pasturing
• Proper land use plan; setting aside grazing area
• Train on production, protection, and developing
grazing areas
• Set aside land for pastoralists which they can own
Diseases • Have vaccination programs
• Increase extension services to producers
• Provide working tools to extension officers
Low milk production-
productivity
• Seek support on accessing right breed for milk prod.
• Apply Artificial Inseminations (AI)
Lack of inputs • Increase access to inputs, drug stockists
Reliable markets for milk • Establish production groups and strengthen them
• Campaign for building more milk processing plants
• Train marketing skills + milk quality improvement

28. Morogoro Regional Dairy Platform meetings
in 2014 by DVC stakeholder category
= 31 participants
(21 m +10 w)
= 23 participants
(17 m + 6 w)
= 24 participants
(19 m + 5 w)

29. Participation in meetings of the Morogoro Dairy
Platform during 2014 (total of 3 meetings)
About 75% men +
25% women each

30. Morogoro Dairy Platform
Achievements
o Sub-committees established along identified challenges
o Approached Ministry for veterinary drugs + services
Issues + challenges
o Only 2 out of 8 districts are represented (due to MilkIT project
facilitation) – how will future engagement be?
o Feeling too powerful – lack of diplomacy
o Keeping variety of actors interested in the process (input
suppliers, processors)

31. Key result from research on village IP
performance in Tanga
Performance indicator ‘Access to
larger variety and better feeds’
o Significantly related to frequency and
quality of communication and
o Increased exposure to different
information sources of interviewees,
including training particularly
o May serve as a baseline study for
future follow up – if IPs continue to
exist
Key informant interviews

32. Component 2. Productivity enhancement
Feed assessment
Review of past interventions – successes + failures
Interventions
o Planting forages in demo plots + providing farmers with
planting materials
o Training on forage husbandry, utilization + conservation
o Dry season reserve study ‘Ololili’
o Forage plots in semi-intensive systems
 Participatory variety assessment

33. Feed assessment
Feed assessment
o Training on FEAST tool in Morogoro
& Tanga regions
 26 participants were trained
o FEAST surveys in all 8 villages
 104 Farmers for individual interviews
 306 Farmers in FGDs
o FEAST reports compiled from 4
districts
 Challenges identified and solutions
proposed are possible entry points and
mark the pillars for IP functioning
Individual interview
Focus Group Discussion

34. FEAST key results
 Seasonality of feed results in seasonal
milk production
 Grazing is main feed source in
extensive system; higher diversity of
feed stuffs in semi-intensive/ intensive
system
 FEAST participants did not perceive
feeds or feeding as key constraints
 Principle constraints identified were
land, water and markets for livestock
and milk; genetic potential of cattle
and livestock diseases; lack of
knowledge on animal husbandry Seasonal feed availability in Twatwatwa
village, Kilosa District, and Manyinga village,
Mvomero District, Morogoro Region

35. Constraints of past feed
interventions
Limited number of adopted feed
technologies
High resource costs of
technologies in terms of labour
and accessibility
Proper packaging and
dissemination of technologies is
needed
Mostly limited to intensive
smallholder dairy production
Fodder garden technology introduced in
the 1960s and 1980s to small-scale
farms in Kilimanjaro Region
Molasses urea storage tanks built in
villages as supply depots in Kilimanjaro
Region in mid-1980s (now unutilized)
Compounding home-made dairy
concentrates

36. Identification of intervention strategies
Possible reasons for low
adoption of past feed
interventions
o Short duration of promotional
projects
o Relatively high capital investments
o Technical versus socio-economic
dimensions of the technologies,
neglecting gender issues
o Minimal foundation for trans-
generational transfer of
technologies
Identified technical
interventions at MilkIT sites
o Pasture establishment +
management
o Demonstration plots
o Pasture seed supply
o Forage conservation
o Training on feeds and feeding
o Study feeding routine (Manyinga)
o General cattle husbandry (incl.
housing)

37. Interventions to enhance productivity in Morogoro
and Tanga Regions
 Planting forages in demo plots and providing farmers with
planting materials
o Napier grass splits (Pennisetum purpureum) for semi-intensive/ intensive
system
o Buffel grass splits (Cenchrus ciliaris) for agro-pastoral system
o Stylo (Stylosanthes hamata + S. scabra) and Butterfly pea (Clitoria
ternatea) for dry season reserve grazing (‘Ololili’)
o Water melon (Citrullus vulgaris) for agro-pastoral system
 Training on forage husbandry, utilization + conservation, animal
feeding, nutrition + husbandry (incl. housing)

38. Planting forages in MorogoroPlanting forages in Tanga

39. Introduction of improved forages: issues
Forage seeds and planting materials
o Availability very limited, regarding quantity + quality
 Buffel grass (fungus) / Napier grass (stunting)
Weather conditions are challenging
o Pasture areas depend on rainfall only
o Forage establishment in pastoral
areas partly poor due to effects of
planting material, soil condition
(e.g. water logging) and irregular
rainfall
 Need for optimizing planting
techniques , especially with
pastoralists + in pastoralist area

40. Experiences with agro-pastoralists
Morogoro no data on forages
Failures in establishment
due to
o Weather (drought, water logging)
o Lack of control of animals
 In Sindeni animals also found inside
dry season reserve
o Planting on communal land
o Lack of reinforcement of regulations
Lack of reliable establishment
method under variable weather
conditions
Stylosanthes seedlings
outgrazed by goats

41. Outside of ‘Ololili’Fenced ‘Ololili’
Dry season grazing reserves in pastoral system –
end of rainy season (June’14)
Opportunity for interventions to empower women and improve household
food + nutrition security?

42. Preliminary results from ‘Ololili’ scoping study
Some numbers
o Estimated 40% have Ololili
o Majority has 1 (-2) Ololili
o Majority about 10 acres as Ololili
o Big herd goes 6+ months away
Observations
o Women less in charge than
assumed
o Further data analysis
needed
38 interviews

43. Ubiri farmers appreciating hay made
by their fellow Mbuzii farmers
Farmers discussing issues
at Ubiri forage demo plot
Photos © WE Mangesho & BL Maass
Farmers discussing issues
at Mbuzii demo plot
Visiting Mbuzii forage
demo plot

44. Napier grass yield on farm in Lushoto (May’14)
Napier grass
variety
Mean tillers
(no./plant)
Mean leaf DM
yield (t/ha)
Mean stem DM
yield (t/ha)
Mean total DM
yield (t/ha)
Hybrid
Mean (N=4) 11.00 3.15 3.11 6.26
Stdev 1.41 1.17 0.82 1.89
Kakamega II
Mean (N=4) 11.00 3.18 3.70 6.88
Stdev 0.82 0.46 0.40 0.84
Data from WE Mangesho
Samples for nutritive quality taken, lab analysis under way

45. Participatory variety selection in Lushoto
Characteristics Ubiri (N=16) Mbuzii (N=14)
Interviewed farmers 12 men + 4 women 8 men + 6 women
Mean distance of fodder crop
from homestead (km)
1.14 (± 1.44) 0.91 (± 0.63)
Estimated size of fodder crop
(acre)
0.33 (± 0.12) [1335 m2] 0.36 (± 0.21) [1457 m2]
Farmers with previous
knowledge of forages (no.)
6 (38%) 4 (29%)
Data still being analyzed

46. Other interventions
Training on
o Forage husbandry and utilization
o Forage conservation
 Hay making, use of box baler
 Silage making
o Animal feeding, nutrition and
husbandry, housing

47. Preliminary highlights after technical training
Mbuzii village/Lushoto
o Some farmers have applied manure to grasses
o Two farmers have prepared silage on their own – in plastic
bags as instructed during previous technical training
Farmers from Lushoto appreciated new Napier grass
cultivars (a hybrid and Kakamega II) as compared to their
traditional local variety
o They liked the new ones better because of faster growth,
higher tiller number, more leafiness as well as broader and
softer leaves when ready to harvest

48. Component 3. Knowledge sharing
Assessment
Integration into major initiatives
o Maziwa Zaidi
o Tanga Dairy Platform
o Dairy Development Forum
Farmer exchange visits
o Farmer-to-farmer
o Farmer to TALIRI + Tanga Fresh factory
Information sharing within project + beyond

49. Knowledge sharing through integration into
major initiatives
Integration with other actors under
Maziwa Zaidi goal
o Participation in various meetings of CRP
Livestock & Fish Tanzanian Dairy Value Chain
development
o Joint review + planning meetings with
MoreMilkiT project
o Joint steering committee with MoreMilkiT
project
Tanga & Morogoro dairy platforms
DDF – Tanzania Dairy Development
Forum
Tanga
Platform
Maziwa week

50. Dairy Development Forum (DDF)
National dairy platform
o ‘Born’ in stakeholder mtg. March’12
o Participation in 4 meetings since
inception
o Participation in advisory committee –
to prepare DDF meetings
o Support of DDF Wiki
Feeds/forages & feeding
o Special event in Aug’14
o Task forces formed:
 Information & capacity building
 Technical issues
 Policy & regulations
 Forage seed systems
Participants of the 4th DDF meeting
(Photo © BL Maass)
o Issue:
 Over-dominance of researchers
 Almost absence of private sector

51. Tanga Dairy Platform
Founded in December 2008 by a group of dairy enthusiasts
and facilitated by the British NGO Research Into Use (RIU)
o Development of the platform documented by Cadilhon et al.
(2014)
o Some video clips – Tanzanian Dairy Film – developed by IRLI
around the functioning and actions of the Platform
o MilkIT project is a platform participant
Purpose: To better use the income opportunities in the
dairy sector through enhancing production, processing and
marketing of milk in the smallholder sector in Tanga
(farmers and pastoralists)

52. Farmer exchange visits within & to Tanga
Show dairy husbandry practices
Importance of forage production,
utilization + conservation for increased
milk production
Explore opportunities along DVC to
encourage improving dairy farming
practices
Create linkages with other actors along
DVC, e.g.
o Forage seeds/planting materials
o Training skills
o Dairy processors + other (successful) farmers Farmers from Manyinga visiting the
MILK HUB – collection center and agro-
shop in Amani village
(Photo © FJ Wassena)
Village Men (no.) Women
(no.)
Ubiri 9 7
Mbuzii 9 7
Manyinga 6 3

53. Farmers from Ubiri and Mbuzii visiting the milk
processing at Tanga Fresh Ltd.
Farmers from Manyinga visiting Amani village:
Milk collection center
Photos © WE Mangesho & FJ Wassena
Farmers from Manyinga visiting Tanga Fresh
milk factory in Tanga
Farmers from Manyinga
observing forage varieties
at TALIRI-Tanga

54. Sharing information within project & beyond
 Sharing common tools with MilkIT in India
 Shared MilkIT Wiki: http://milkit.wikispaces.com/
o Space to share process with partners + interested ‘outsiders’
o Online database for our reports
o Partners are encouraged to use
 Annual regional review + planning meetings
o Across MilkIT project – India + Tanzania
o Across Tanzania Dairy VC development projects
 Invitation of radio + print media to events
o Radio in Kilosa
o Mwananchi Communications limited (mwananchi & the citizen)

55. Participation in scientific conferences, fairs &
exhibitions: Oral presentations & posters
 Scientific presentations at conferences
o Tanzanian Society of Animal Production (TSAP) in Arusha, Tanzania (2012
& 2013—1 oral + 1 poster)
o 6th all African Conference on Animal Agriculture in Nairobi, Kenya (2014—
1 oral + 2 poster)
o Tropentag in Hohenheim, Germany (2013—1 poster)
 Tanzanian fairs & exhibitions
o Tanzanian Milk Week in Moshi, Songea + Musoma (2012-14)
 Including National Dairy Conference (oral + poster)
o ‘Nane Nane’ agricultural exhibition in Morogoro, Dodoma + Arusha
(2012-14)
 Planned articles for international journals
o Some incipient drafts, no article ready for submission

56. Lessons learned
Diversity of science and development partners is
important for such a D4R project
o Too many animal scientists, lack of social science
o Too few interaction with development partners
 Limited NGO landscape/participation
Division of labour among Maziwa Zaidi projects
sometimes challenging
o Assuming that some partner would do things, in time
o MilkIT was not in charge of the whole value chain
o Attribution vs. contribution

57. Lessons learned
Farmers not used to collective action
o More development partners would have been needed
o Slow process to achieve change, especially with pastoralists –
requiring intensive interaction
Technical solutions not sufficiently developed
o Lack of reliable seed/planting materials – quantity + quality
o Establishment in pastoral area challenging

58. Outlook beyond 2014
Village IP sustainability?
 Action research implemented in villages
 Further interventions identified and initiated
 Attached students conducting research
Regional platforms
 Morogoro
Research opportunity?
 Scaling up IP model vs. dairy business hubs?