More Milk in Tanzania (MoreMilkiT)
Participation in DMH
Presentation at Project Review and Planning and
Steering Committee Meeting
23-25 September 2015
J. GITHINJI

Objective
•Group monitoring group
templates
•Households use of “Potential”
Hub services households survey
Key focus on:

Demography of our Farmers
53% of farmers
trained by the
project are male
69% of the farmers
trained in Mvomero
district are female
63% of the farmer
trained in Lushoto
are Male
31
51
53
63
53
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
Mvomero Handeni Kilosa Lushoto Total
%
o
f
F
a
r
m
e
r
s
Proportion of Farmers Trained
Male
Female

Demography of our Farmers
The average age of our farmer is 46
The “younger” farmers are in Mvomero 42.6 years While the “older” ones are in Lushoto
48.2
These farmers are in the prime years for agricultural production, “As a farmer ages and
gains experience, he or she may become productive with improved managerial ability “
42.6
44.6 44.7
48.2
45.9
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
Mvomero Handeni Kilosa Lushoto Overall
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
g
e
Average Age of Farmers trained
Average Age (Years)

Training
Training on leadership skills, Gender and Conflict resolution has the highest coverage with over
1400** producers trained in it
Improved dairy cattle keeping (Animal Husbandry) training has been disseminated to over 400**
producers, while Market linkage training has had the lowest coverage.
** The numbers are as captured by the group officials, its important to note that the first
training has been going on from group formation stages hence the high number of producers
trained and Market linkage training started after the other trainings hence the low numbers
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Group Agm and meetings
Market Linkage
Breeds and Breeding
Farm records, Gross margin Analysis
Livestock disease and disease control
Feeding of Dairy Animals and pasture…
Improved dairy cattle keeping (Animal…
leadership skills, Gende and Conflict resolution
Number of farmers Trained in Different Topics
Number of farmers Trained in Diffrent topics

Training
Topics on Farm records, Gross margin Analysis and Improved dairy cattle keeping
(Animal Husbandry) have had the attention of the project with over ten training hours
spent per group on the topic
Market linkage with 3 hours of training ranks as the lowest in terms of allocation of time
It is important to note that despite leadership, conflict resolution having the highest
coverage in terms of the farmers trained, the partners have allocated more time to the
“core topics” of Farm record, gross margin and animal husbandry
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Market Linkage
Group Agm and meetings
Breeds and Breeding
Feeding of Dairy Animals and pasture…
Livestock disease and disease control
leadership skills, Gende and Conflict resolution
Improved dairy cattle keeping (Animal…
Farm records, Gross margin Analysis
Average Hours per topic
Hours

Households use of “Potential” Hub services
Service: (Feeding, Animal Health, breeding, Extension, Milk
purchase, Milk Transport, Input Supply, Savings)
In the district of Handeni, Lushoto households have increased
the use of services between the two survey periods.
Use of services in Kilosa remained the same while in Mvomero
it declined for the same phase
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
100
Handeni Lushoto Mvomero Kilosa
%
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
Proportion of households using at
least one service
Using service atleast one service January-June 2014
Using service atleast one service July-December 2014

The most demanded service by the households is animal health while only
less than 5% of the farmer save and do transport milk
Households recorded an increase in the use of Inputs, breeding, Feeding,
Extension and milk transport
The use of Animal health, Milk Purchase and Saving services declined over
the same period.
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
Milk transport
Savings
Extension Advice
Feeding
Breeding
Input supply
Milk Purchase
Animal Health
Proportion of HHDs receiving each service
July-December 2014 January-June 2014
Households use of “Potential” Hub services

Households use of Hub services
In the year 2014 all farmers accessed feeds, inputs and animal Health
individually. One percent the farmers sourced for breeds through the groups.
There was a 2% increment in producers selling milk through the group (from
12-14%)
Extension is the most demanded service through the group, with over a third
of the producers accessing extension through the groups.
100 100
0
100
0
99
1
86
14
65
35
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
Individual
Individual
Group
Individual
Group
Individual
Group
Individual
Group
Individual
Group
Feed Input Animal health
service
Breeding Milk purchase Extension
%
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
Mode of Engagement
January June July December

Conclusion
•As a thought
moving
forward can
extension be
“bundled”
with other
services
One in three
producer
access
extension
through the
group 
•Moving
forward we
need to focus
on creating
and
“actualizing”
more Linkages
Currently
Market
linkages has
lowest number
of farmers
trained and
also the lowest
number of
training hours
allocated

Farmer preference for bundled
milk marketing arrangements
Implications for adapting dairy market hubs in the
Tanzania dairy value chain
Project Review and Planning Meeting
23rd September 2015

 The hub is a mechanism for enhancing
farmers access to:
 Inputs & services
 Output markets
 However success of hubs depend on
 The match between hub solutions and
farmer needs
 Existing arrangements such as
cooperatives have certain attributes
 Mode of payment for milk
 Range of prices
 Credit facilities
 Adapted hubs could have new
attributes bundled with milk marketing
 Provision of inputs & services
 Payment of services via check-off, etc.
Introduction

 We therefore need to know what attributes farmer prefer in order to
develop hub models that would interest them
 We also need to understand why certain “presumably” important
attributes may not be preferred
 We therefore conducted a choice experiment to answer some of these
questions
 Eventually, it is the attributes of the hub that will determine whether the
hubs are adopted by farmers
Attributes Attribute levels
1 2 3 4
Milk price (Tshs) 600 800 1000
Payment for milk Cash on
delivery
Fortnightly Monthly
Input/service
provision
Inputs
(feeds,
drugs etc.)
Services (AI,
Animal
health)
Credit Extension/traini
ng
Payment for
services & inputs
Cash Credit
without
check-off
Check-off
Table 1: Illustration of attributes and their levels
Understanding farmer preferences

• Each respondent presented with a card as below
• Respondent asked to choose the most and least preferred option
• Choice influenced by attributes in each choice alternative
• Cards with different attribute arrangements presented to
respondents 12 times
• With repetition we can understand which attribute is always
making a choice to be preferred
The Experiment

 Data collected from 461
respondents
 Project sites with varying
conditions
 Lushoto predominantly intensive
systems
 More high-grade cattle
 Mostly stall fed
 Handeni & Kilosa predominantly
extensive
 More indigenous breeds
 Largely grazing based
 Mvomero is more transitional
 Farmers beginning sedentary
agriculture
 Beginning to adopt improved
breeds
 Differences could imply different
needs & varying preferences for
milk marketing arrangements
Project Site

 Higher prices contribute to
higher preference for options
 Payment on a fortnight basis
also increases preference for
options
 Cash and monthly payment
lowers preference for options
 As for bundling of
inputs/services
 Bundled inputs and credit
increase preference for options
 Bundled extension lowers
preference
 Preference is indifferent to
bundled services
 Payment for bundled
inputs/services
 Check-off and credit payment
increase preference; check-off
has higher scores
Table 2: Estimates from Conditional Logit Model
Results

 Attribute preference remains
consistent with the score
analysis
 Derived standard deviations also
reveal significant spread of most
coefficients
 Except for services and
extension, the spread for all
other coefficients are highly
significant
 Preference heterogeneity in the
population
 We are therefore exploring
analysis that will allow
preference to vary across
segments of the sample
 We could then characterize the
emerging segments in terms of
 Locations
 Wealth status
 Production systems etc.
Table 3: Determinants of farmer preference for hub
attributes
Mean SD
Variables Coefficie
nt
SE Coefficie
nt
SE
Price of milk per litre
(Tshs)
0.003*** 0.000 0.003*** 0.000
Fortnightly a 0.531*** 0.053 -
0.812***
0.060
Monthly a 0.051 0.062 1.049*** 0.068
Services b -
0.142***
0.049 0.064 0.094
Credit b -0.042 0.051 -
0.240***
0.086
Extension b -
0.178***
0.049 0.075 0.092
Credit without check-
off c
0.322*** 0.044 0.264*** 0.076
Check-off c 0.403*** 0.057 0.984*** 0.061
*, **, *** Significant at the 10%, 5%, and 1% level,
respectively.
a The reference frequency of payment for milk is cash
on delivery.
b The reference service is input provision.
c The mode of payment for services is cash on purchase.
Results

 Farmers prefer bulk payment for milk rather than daily payment;
however, intervals should be fortnightly rather than monthly.
 Milk marketing bundled with input/service provision would be
attractive if accompanied by input and/or credit provision rather
than extension or other services such as animal health or
breeding.
 Farmers prefer credit or check-off as a mode of payment for
bundled inputs/services; check-off more preferred.
 Preference heterogeneity exists in the population, hence the
need for context-specific analysis.
Preliminary Conclusions

CGIAR is a global partnership that unites organizations engaged in research for a food secure future. The CGIAR
Research Program on Livestock and Fish aims to increase the productivity of small-scale livestock and fish systems
in sustainable ways, making meat, milk and fish more available and affordable across the developing world.
CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish
livestockfish.cgiar.org
In support of: