Assessing sustainability of milk production farm in Tanzania
May. 29, 2017•0 likes
1 likes
Be the first to like this
Show More
•122 views
views
Total views
0
On Slideshare
0
From embeds
0
Number of embeds
0
Download to read offline
Report
Science
Poster prepared by Celestin Munyaneza, Lusato R. Kurwijla, Ntengua S.Y. Mdoe, Isabelle Baltenweck and Edgar Twine for the Maziwa Zaidi Policy Forum, Dar es Salaam, 23-24 May 2017
Assessing sustainability of milk production farm in Tanzania
Maziwa Zaidi (More Milk) in Tanzania
Assessing sustainability of milk production in Tanzania
12Celestin MUNYANEZA, 2Lusato R. KURWIJILA, 2Ntengua S.Y. MDOE, 1Isabelle BALTENWECK, 1Edgar Edwin TWINE
1International Livestock Research Institute, 2Sokoine University of Agriculture
Key messages
• Sustainability of Tanzania’s milk production requires an
assessment to monitor its progress.
• This study developed a milk production farm
sustainability assessment tool and applied it to assess the
sustainability of smallholder dairy and traditional milk
production systems in four districts of Tanzania.
• The overall sustainability performance index was weak;
some key sustainability performance indicators like
income, cow productivity, participation in trainings and
organizations and land ownership were weak to
moderate.
Opportunities for inclusive investment and
scaling
• Public and private sector: using the developed tool to monitor
sustainability of milk production farms in the study context;
improving farmer knowledge on farm management through
training and education; establishing and strengthening farmers’
organizations for better access to inputs, services and market
through collective action.
• Private sector: Creating a conducive environment by establishing
active milk collection centers and set a better milk price
• Public sector: Sensitization on use of environmentally friendly
practices and improve land ownership.
Pictures
Key results
• The study generate a milk production farm sustainability
assessment tool made of fifteen indicators, which cover
economic, social and environmental dimensions of
sustainability.
• The overall sustainability mean performance index was
weak (0.30±0.15)
• The economic, environmental and social sustainability
performance dimensions were weak (<0.33)
• Some key performance indicators like income, cow
productivity, participation in organizations and trainings,
gender and land ownership were weak to moderate
(from 0 up to 0.66)
This document is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. April 2017
March 2017
Objectives and approach
• This study assessed sustainability of smallholder dairy
and traditional cattle milk production farms in Tanzania.
• A set of relevant economic, social and environmental
sustainability indicators were selected using the Delphi
approach.
• A sustainability assessment tool was developed based on
the identified indicators and applied on 431 farms in
Kilosa, Mvomero, Handeni and Lushoto districts
• The performance indices were ranked from 0 to 1→weak:
(0; 0.33); moderate (0.34; 0.66); high (0.67; 1).
Maziwa Zaidi thanks all donors and organizations which globally support the work of ILRI and its partners through
their contributions to the CGIAR system
- 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
Erosion control
Risk to water quality
Water quantity
Land ownership
Education level
Farmer training
Farmer group
Gender
Labour productivity
Animal health
Breeding system
Feed conservation
Forage self sufficiency
Cow productivity
Income
EnvironmentSocialEconomic
Fig 2: Sustainability performance indicators per milk selling systems in Morogoro and
Tanga Regions, Tanzania
0.24
0.26
0.28
0.3
0.32
Economic
Social
Environment
Overall
Fig 1: Farm sustainability performance indicators in smallholder
dairy and traditional milk production systems in Tanzania
Table 1: Weight of sustainability indicators
Dimension Indicator Weight
Economic
Income from milk production 0.13
Cow productivity 0.31
Labour productivity 0.11
Feed self sufficiency 0.16
Animal health 0.11
Use of artificial insemination 0.03
Feed conservation program 0.15
Social
Education level 0.14
Participation in training 0.35
Participation in farmer group 0.37
Women’s empowerment 0.14
Environment
Erosion control 0.01
Water quality 0.43
Water availability 0.18
Land ownership 0.38