Smallholder pig value chain approach for the
control of African swine fever and other pig
diseases: the case of Uganda
Michel Dione and Emily Ouma
Eastern Africa Regional Animal Health Networks Meeting
September 7 – 11, 2015, Kampala, Uganda

Why pig value chains in Uganda?
• Dynamic and rapidly growing sector in
Uganda.
• In the past three decades pig
population increased from 0.19 to 3.2
million pigs
• Highest per capita consumption (3.4
kg/person/year) of pork in the region
-10 times increase in the last 30 years,
whereas beef is declining.
• More than 1.1 million households
raise pigs in rural and peri-urban
settings.
• Pigs contribute to livelihoods and
income to meet emergency needs and
school fees (“live bank”)

Informal sector
• A large informal sub-sector
– Mostly backyard systems, managed by
women and children
– Low productivity (breeds, feeds & health
constraints)
– Uncoordinated trade & transport
– Unsupervised slaughter slabs, with no meat
inspection in local markets, road-side
butchers, pork joints
– Only 1 approved slaughterhouse in
Kampala (Wambizzi)
– Few investors in formal processor: Fresh
Cuts, Sausage King

Goal
To improve livelihoods, incomes and assets of smallholder
pig producers, particularly women, in a sustainable
manner, through increased productivity, reduced risk,
and improved market access
Project sites: Central (Masaka and Mukono); North (Lira);
West (Hoima); East (Kamuli)

• Stakeholder Consultation
• GIS Study on Targeting Smallholder Pig Value Chains in
Uganda
• Situational Analysis of the Pig Sector in Uganda
• Participatory Outcome Mapping and Site Selection
• Value chain toolkit development
• Value Chain Assessment
• Benchmarking surveys
• Best-bets intervention selection
• Testing and validation of best-bets
• Scaling up and out of the interventions
Methodology

Qualitative data collection tools
• Seasonal calendar (Focus Group Discussion and Key
Informant Interview)
• Institutional interactions tool (FGD)
• Production systems tool (FGD)
• Social capital – involvement in collective action and
benefits (FGD, KII)
• Activity clock – gender roles in production and marketing
(FGD)
• Decision-making tool –decision making and control of
resources (FGD)
• Livelihood analysis – income sources (FGD, KII)
• Value chain mapping (FGD, KII)
• Animal health and management (FGD, KII)
• Breeding (FGD)
• Feeding (FGD)
• Food safety and nutrition (FGD)

PRODUCERS (n=1400)
INPUTS/SERVICES
 Feed input stockists and millers (n=36 stockists and n=200 feed
samples)
 Vet drugs stockists (n=36)
 Service providers:
o Veterinarians/AHA/paravets (n=53)
o Owners of village breeding boars (n=90)
o Extension staff (public and private)
OUTPUT
 Traders of live pigs (including collectors and transporters) (n=86)
 Slaughterhouses/abattoirs (n=1)
 Processors (formal-Fresh Cuts/Quality Cuts)
 Retailers (meat/processed products) – butcheries, supermarkets,
pork-joints
 Consumers – preferences for different pig/pork product
attributes
Benchmark surveys

Uganda Smallholder Pig Value chain Map

Input
suppliers
Interconnectedness of the VC nodes and
implication for disease spread
Processors
Consumers
Pig &
pork
traders
Pig
producers
Transporters
Complexity of
the value chain

 High disease burden – especially ASF, ecto and endo parasites
 Low bargaining power (farmers operate individually)/pig weight estimation
 Lack of capacity on low cost locally prepared feed rations
Constraints along the pig value chain
Production
Collection/bulking
Slaughter
Processing
Retail
Consumption
Inputs and services
 Expensive, and of poor quality feeds (adulterated)
 Weak implementation of quality assurance systems
Key constraints
 Lack of designated areas for centralised slaughtering/ no meat inspection
 Poor waste management
 Lack of prerequisites for pork storage (lack of cold chain)
 Poor pork handling and hygiene practices
 High transaction costs (especially transport),
 Poor biosecurity measures resulting in disease spread
 Poor handling of pigs during transportation – affects pork quality
 Few formal processors despite high demand for pork/pork products
 Low supply of quality pigs
 Lack of awareness on pork zoonoses
 Evidence for presence of pathogens causing zoonotic diseases

Results from cross sectional surveys and laboratory
investigations for diseases and zoonoses
Pathogen
Summary of results (Mean sero-prevalence Masaka,
Mukono and Kamuli) (n=1300 samples)
African swine fever
No seropositive detetecd, but genotype IX virus was
isolated in Kamuli
Brucella suis
very low sero prevalence and sero-positives were not
confirmed
Taenia solium up to 55% seroprevalence (higher in rural areas)
Intestinal worms
50-71% strongyles ; > 6-20% Ascaris; > 5-18% lung worms;
> 0-12% ; Trichuris; > 0-7% Strongyloides ransomi
Coccidiosis 24-50% (Microscopy)
Trypanosoma spp 2/696 (Microscopy)
Trichinella 7% seroprevalence
Toxoplasma 28% seroprevalence
Swine erysipelas 70% seroprevalence, in pigs from farm sampling

African swine fever
• Major pig disease constraint
• Endemic in Uganda
• High mortality (up to 100%)
• High occurrence of outbreaks during dry season
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Kkingo
Kyanamukaka
Kitayunwa
Namwendwa
Bugulumbya
Ntenjeru
Kabonera
Kyampisi
Kimana-Kyabakuza
Katwe-Butego
Nyendo-Ssenyange
MukonoTC
Goma
rural-rural rural-urban urban-urban
Proportionoffarmers(%)
slaughter
die
recover
sale
Fate of pigs affected by ASF according farmers (n=350)

Perception of pig value chain actors on level
of risk for ASF along the value chain
Value chain
nodes
Average overall
score of FGDs
Rank Value chain actors (ranking)
Input supply and
services
4.9 5
Boar service (1); Para-vetenarians and Village
vetenarians (2); Feed suppliers (3); Drug
stockists (4); Private and Government
veterinarians (5)
Pig Production 5.2 4 Piglet producers (1); Growers (2)
Pig trading 6.8 1
Live pig collectors (1); Brokers (2); Transporters
(3)
Slaughtering 5.5 2
Backyard slaughters (1.); Slaughter slabs (2);
Wambizzi abattoir (3)
Retailing 5.4 3 Butchers (1); Supermarkets (2)
Consumption 3.7 6
Individual households (1); Pork joints (1);
Restaurants (2)
Ranking of the role of value chain actors on the dissemination of ASF

Value chain actor’s practices associated with
the dissemination of ASF
Don’t use Movement Permit
Trade of sick pigs Purchase of pigs
from outbreaks areas
Mixing of sick and healthy pigs
Poor cleaning and disinfection of
trucks/vehicles/clothing/shoes/boots
Lack of capacity to identify sick pigs
Poor knowledge of farmers about
biosecurity
Slaughter of sick pigs
Sale meat from sick pigs
Absence of inspection
Lack of reporting of outbreaks
Poor disposal of offal
Poor self-hygiene during meat
processing
Presence of stray dogs
Poor reporting of outbreaks
Poor disinfection material
Use of expired drugs
Poor quality vet services
Poor quality of feedsFree range
No restricted access at farm
Trade of sick pigs
Mixing of sick with healthy pigs
Farm tools sharing
Poor hygiene at farm
Lack of capacity to identify sick
pigs
Use of communal village boar
Poor food waste
disposal
Poor knowledge of
ASF
Dogs and cats

Selection of best bet interventions
• Impact pathway workshop
• Best bet identification workshop
• Feed-back workshops to farmers
• Ex-ante assessment of interventions

Issues Interventions
Limited knowledge
on biosecurity
measures
Education package for
different actors including :
biosecurity knowledge and
pig disease information
Lack of knowledge
on husbandry
Training on good husbandry
practices
Poor drug
management
Sensitize actors on
consequence of low quality
drugs
Identified best bet interventions related to
animal health (1)

Issues Interventions
Free ranging • Promote housing model with 3-
stages enclosure (Kraal)
• Improved tethering model
Weak disease
surveillance
systems
• Rapid diagnostic tests (ASF/Cyst.)
• Centrilised slaughter place
• Community diseases syndromic
surveillance (mobile phone)
Poor hygiene and
processing
practices
• Capacity building of pork butchers
on best slaughtering and handling
practices
Identified best bet interventions related to
animal health (2)

Testing the effect of biosecurity protocols on pig
farmer’s KAP using a Randomised Controlled Trial
Intervention
– Capacity building of 2500 value chain
actors on application of biosecurity
practices for control of ASF (Lira and
Masaka districts)
Indicators for monitoring
– Evidence of changes in farmer
Knowledge, Attitude and Practices
– Evidence of change in pathogen
burden (PRRS, PCV, etc… )

Assessing the potential of training pork butchers
on reduction exposure to zoonotic disease risks
Intervention
– Training of butchers on
appropriate slaughtering and pork
handling (Mukono Municipality)
Indicators for monitoring
– Evidence of changes in farmer
Knowledge, Attitude and Practices
– Evidence of change in pathogen
burden (total bacterial count)

Capacity building material for control and management of
ASF and other pig diseases
(1) Training manuals
• African swine fever
• Parasite control
• Pig managing
• Management of the
village boar
• Feeding
• Business planning and
financial management
• Strengthening capacity
of smallholder pig
farmers to access
markets
(2) Fact sheets on
biosecurity
Fact sheets on
biosecurity
Producers Traders/Brokers/
Transporters
Butchers Input suppliers
ILRI
Local Government
MAIIF
Farm Gain
AFID
ILRI
US VWB
• Training manual of
pig slaughtering and
pork handling
• Fact sheets on
biosecurity
ILRI
US VWB
NALIRRI
MAAIF
Fact sheets on
biosecurity
ILRI
US VWB

On going related research
• Knowledge Attitudes Practices, Capacities and
Incentives (KAPCI) of smallholder Pig Value Chain
actors for the adoption of biosecurity measures
• Gender dimension in pig husbandry and
biosecurity for the control of African swine fever
and other pig diseases (Intra HH surveys and
Gender Transformative Approach-gender roles
and relations)
• Socio-cultural factors that influence disease
control in the smallholder pig value chain
• Enhancing diseases diagnostic test using mobile

• Public sector: MAAIF, NAADS, local governments of
Kamuli, Masaka, Mukono, Hoima & Lira, KCCA
• Research/education institutions: NARO / NaLIRRI,
Makerere University (COVAB, CAES, CNS), SLU, Iowa
State Univ.
• NGOs: VEDCO, SNV, Veterinarians Without Borders
• Private sector: BRAC, PPM, Agro-Empowerment
Center, ADINA Farm; UPO, Union of Pig Coops of
Greater Masaka, Wambizzi Coop., Greenfields Uganda
Ltd., OrgaFarms (on IMOs),
Partnerships

The presentation has a Creative Commons licence. You are free to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is given to ILRI.
better lives through livestock
ilri.org
Thank you!