Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Smallholder pig value chain development in Uganda


Published on

Presentation by Danilo Pezo and Kristina Rösel at a stakeholder meeting held at Wakiso, Uganda, 13 June 2012

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

Smallholder pig value chain development in Uganda

  1. 1. Smallholder Pig Value Chain Development in UgandaMore milk, meat and fish by and for the poor (CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish) Safe Food, Fair Food project Danilo Pezo ( Kristina Rösel ( Presented at a stakeholder meeting, Wakiso, Uganda, 13 June 2012
  2. 2. Pig production- a dynamic and rapidly growing sectorin Uganda. In the past three decades increase from0.19 to 2.3 million pigs (FAO, 2012). Uganda: highest per capita consumption (3.4 kg/person/year) in the region -10 times increase in the last 30 years, whereas beef is declining.
  3. 3. Inputs and Post-farm Services Live-pig traders Transporters Pig breeder Vet / Animal Prod Farm Slaughterers extension services Systems: Pork ButchersAgrovet / feed shop Breeding Pork processors- owners Growing/Fattening large and mediumFeed manufacturers Supermarkets/ and suppliers restaurants Transporters- feed Consumers
  4. 4. A large informal subsector• Backyard pig production, mainly managed by women • Few animals • Free-range, tethered• Small number of peri-urban small-scale semi-intensive• Uncoordinated trade & transport• Unsupervised slaughter, no meat inspection in local markets, road-side butchers• Pork joints
  5. 5. A small formal subsector• Medium-scale piggeries• Urban slaughterhouses• Processors• Fresh Cuts (Uganda)• Farmers Choice (Kenya)• Outgrower scheme: Farmers Choice
  6. 6. At farm level- Nutrition and feed (poor quality feeds,seasonality)- Swine health (ASF, tryps, lice, mange, helminths,others)- Genetics & breeding strategies (inbreeding)- Husbandry & management (deficient corrals, ifavailable)- Poor access to information and services- Limited organizational strategies to achieveeconomies of scale
  7. 7. At market level- Organizational strategies- Poor road infrastructure- Limited market information, standards(e.g., animals not weighed)- Poor slaughter technologies andinfrastructure (by-product losses, and risk fordisseminating diseases)- Minimal attention to disease control andpublic health concerns (ASF, cysticercosis, bluepork, others)- Underdeveloped processing sector
  8. 8. • Improve efficiency to lower production costs and increase profitability • Promote mechanisms for reducing conflicts (pig producers – neighbors) • Institutional innovationsProduction (service hubs for farmer and groups, contract farmingMarketing schemes, etc.) • Increase supply, reduce wastage and promote value addition • Improve pork quality • Efforts for vertical and horizontal integration
  9. 9. • Early diagnosis, management and reduced disease risks • National disease Animal monitoring andHealth and surveillanceFood Safety • Improved public health controls to increase consumers confidence - avoid consumer scares
  10. 10.  „Majority of pork in Kampala contaminated“  with what? „Increasingly risky for human consumption“  consequences? „Loyal pork consumers face running mad“  per se?
  11. 11.  „ALL pork supplied in Kampala for human consumption is contaminated“  defamation, severerly damaging a sector‘s reputation „Threatening to close all pork joints around the city“  risk of unemployment
  12. 12. “absence of structured safety inspection” 13
  13. 13.  At least 2 billion cases of diarrhea worldwide per year (up to 90% attributed to food) 1.5 million children under 5 die because of diarrheal disease (80% in South Asia and Africa) Animal source foods are single most important source of foodborne disease (FBD) Diseases other than diarrhea: brucellosis, tuberculosis, cancer, epilepsy... 14
  14. 14. Cysts in the human brain causing epilepsy. If people ingest eggs of the pig tapeworm(e.g. when not washing their hands before eating), these may develop in the brain, theeye or other parts of the body: 15
  15. 15.  Current food safety management seems to be neither effective nor efficient Food safety communication trivializing tendency to adopt international food quality standards and hazard-based regulations without considering local contexts 16
  16. 16.  Ban or promote? Zero-risk/ hazard-based policy? „if in doubt, keep it out“ Is there an acceptable level of risk? How can participation help improving food safety? 17
  17. 17. Safe Food, Fair Food (2008-2015)risk-based approaches to improving food safetyand market access in informal markets in sub Saharan Africa 18
  18. 18.  Based on evidence not perceptions Clear distinction between risk and hazard!  Hazard = anything that causes harm  Risk = probability + consequences Risk analysis = structured approach for evaluating and dealing with risks 19
  19. 19. Can it be present in food? Hazard identification Can it cause harm?What harm does it cause? How does it get from source toHow does harm depend on victim? dose? What happens along the way? Hazard characterization Exposure assessment What is the harm? What is its likelihood? Risk characterization Participatory methods fit well Risk management/ Risk communication 20
  20. 20.  Rapid assessment of food safety in selected value chains: priority setting Action research on priority food safety issues in these chains: pilot best-bet interventions Enabling environments: engagement with Regional Economic Communities (REC), academia, private sector, vc stakeholders 21
  21. 21. Production Consumption Peri- Urban urban Rural Urban Rural Rural
  22. 22. 2. To develop 1. To identify and pilot test a market 3. To document, set ofopportunities for communicate integrated best- pork in Uganda, and promote bet innovationsand the multiple appropriate for smallholder factors evidence-based pig production preventing models for and market smallholder pig sustainable pro- access for producers to poor pig value specific exploit those chains conditions in opportunities Uganda
  23. 23. 1. Joint diagnosis and site selection with stakeholders2. Value chain assessment for three smallholder pigproduction , based on the variation in resources, marketaccess, and degree of intensification, and of participatinghouseholds3. Evaluation of existing and potential feed resources interms of quality, quantity, seasonallity and resourcerequirements4. Prevalence surveys, risk and burden of diseaseassessments for ASF, cysticercosis, and other endemicdiseases, and identification of risk mitigation, such asdiagnosis and vaccines5. Assess demand for and validation of diagnostics andvaccines for ASF and cysticercosis
  24. 24. Thank you! 25