Impact Assessment of the Approach of ‘Passing On The Gift’

HEIFER PROJECT INTERNATIONAL KENYA

RONG’E ZERO GRAZING GROUP

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE APPROACH
OF
‘PASSING ON THE GIFT’

MSj03881750000[1].wav

By Elise Pinners
(member of NEDWORC Association1)

10 June 2008

List of content
1
NEDWORC Association is an organization for experts, working in Development Cooperation, International Cooperation and Relief &
Rehabilitation. NEDWORC Association is offering its members a forum for exchange of information, knowledge and practices.
NEDWORC Association provides job mediation services on international development cooperation, relief and rehabilitation.

List of photos 1
List of abbreviations 2
Word of thanks 2
Summary 2
1. Introduction 1
1.1 The HPI strategy and approach 1
1.2 The Rong’e area, Taita district 2
2. Description of Rong’e Zero Grazing group 3
2.1 History of the group 3
2.2 Approach 3
2.3 Membership 4
2.4 Group finance 4
2.5 Group learning 4
2.6 Leadership 5
2.7 Success factors 6
3. Dairy farming as part of the farming system(s) 7
3.1 Description of the farming system 7
3.2 Cases of continued passing on of animals 11
4. Technical (veterinary) services in the area 14
5. Marketing 15
5.1 Introduction 15
5.2 Organization, transport, prices, quality control 15
5.3 Benefits: household income from dairy products, and benefit sharing/controlling (f/m) 15
Annex 1: Terms of Reference 18
Annex 2: Itinerary and resource persons met 21
Annex 3: Total herd of the group 22
Annex 4: Household interview notes 23

List of photos
Photo 1: School children feeding programme: it uses milk from Rong’e farmers ................................................................ 1
Photo 2: The Rong’e zero grazing group ............................................................................................................................ 2
Photo 3: Christine Magdeu and the POG cow that she received in 2001 (and passed on its calf). She, her husband
(Durickson), their three kids and the laborer altogether consume 3½ liter milk per day and still earn 95 Sh/day from
selling the rest. .................................................................................................................................................................... 3
rd
Photo 4: The group leadership, some members, the Veterinary officer (below 3 from left), and the photographer (above,
nd
2 from right) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Photo 5: Jackan Ngalia has moved from Napier intercropped with maize to a Napier-only plot. He has more than enough
for his one cow (who has a maximum of 15 l/day). He gave a small bull to the Rong’e group, for a party.......................... 6
Photo 6 (above): Jaeli and Ephron Nyange have crossed Friesian with Brown Swiss and now have 3 generations on their
farm; both cows produce very well, and there are sufficient fodder trees, but not enough Napier grass; they are actually
buying additional feed. ........................................................................................................................................................ 7
Photo 7 (left): Jenta and Shem Mwandanyi have terraced their farm, planted trees, and intercropped maize with fodder
grasses. These two female calves have been bred with AI................................................................................................. 7
Photo 8: Hannah Mafundo’s household comprises of four adults and four children. Their POG Heifer died from breaking
a leg (and since then they repair the stable floor, but other stables still have to be fixed)................................................... 8
Photo 9: Feeding is a challenge in several farmers (Jenta’s farm)...................................................................................... 8
Photo 10: Wilson and Sifura Nyambu have two cows that can produce 17-18 liters/day. But now they are at the end of
the lactation period, soon calving, and the couple is facing a fodder shortage: there is less than 1 acre of Napier grass. . 8
Photo 11: Lydia Elongo has planted 2 of the 4 acres with Napier grass; she has to feed one milking cow, but also two
heifers and one as yet unproductive cow to feed. ............................................................................................................... 8
Photo 12: The grandchild of Jenta and Shem; her mother has to walk half a mile down the slope to collect water for the
family, and the animals. The HPI heifer never produced a female calf, so eventually they bought their own heifer, which
has produced four calves so far. ......................................................................................................................................... 9
Photo 13: How manure and urine make bananas grow big on Agatha’s farm (near the stable).......................................... 9
Photo 14: Agatha Mwamachi has four animals (two were bought by herself, not from the group). She sells cattle manure
for 100 Ksh/bag................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Photo 15: Female calf not from HPI (Agatha’s farm) – but raised with knowledge obtained from HPI .............................. 11
Photo 16: Dairy shop built by the Rong'e group ................................................................................................................ 15
Photo 17: Mary Kifuso and her 18 year old grandson cherish their two cows: they make money, and milk for themselves
and two orphan girls next door. Mary’s membership in the group has made her benefit more easily from generous acts of
solidarity in the community. ............................................................................................................................................... 16
Photo 18: Elisabeth Mung’ongo has passed on the gift, and still has a cow (offspring of HPI heifer) and two female calves
(Friesian and Brown Swiss)............................................................................................................................................... 16

1

List of abbreviations
AI Artificial Insemination NDDP National Dairy Development Program
ECF East Coast Fever POG Passing On the Gift
HPI Heifer Project International

Word of thanks
With thanks to George Tsuma for showing me around, and Gilbert Mwasamba for collecting yet more details
and making corrections, and James Murima Gachoka for taking pictures.

Summary
The Rong’e area lies in Mwambirwa division, on the Taita hills. In 1996 Taita district counted 311,000
inhabitants. The landscape is hilly if not mountainous, with sometimes steep slopes (of over 40%) upon
which farms and houses are placed. The soils are formed out of granite, and are erodible. Therefore many
farmers have adopted terracing. Main crops are maize, beans, cassava, sweet potato, sugar cane.

The Rong’e zero grazing group started off in 1993 with 45 members and received 15 heifers. At that time
milk was sourced from afar, and often of poor quality. Over the years the group size reduced to 29 members
(May 2008), and the herd size has increased: there are now 25 productive HPI cows and another 24 cows
that were bought by farmers themselves. This total herd of 49 cows also has another 102 calves.

The HPI strategy on Sharing, on Genuine needs & justice, and on Full participation is essential for success,
is illustrated by lessons learned by this group:
i) lessons on how to include the most marginal members that run greater risks with zero grazing (solidarity
being an important element of the group approach, the more marginal members were divided over
different cells of the group); this is clearly a result of HPI’s approach of Sharing & Caring (& solidarity).
ii) lessons on disease control (regular spraying being an important measure, and tick spraying is now a
service provided by a few members to others);
iii) lessons on breeding: using local bulls affected milk production potential too much, and now the group
has a regulation that obliges members to use AI;
These lessons (ii) and iii)) are clearly a result of HPI’s approach of Training & Education. Until now, the
group continues to share experience on improved animal management (including housing & hygiene) and
improved farming methods (including fodder production and soil conservation). It is still an important reason
for farmers to remain member of the group.
iv) lessons on devising additional strategies to increase the financial situation of families before engaging in
zero grazing (e.g. by starting with dairy goats and/or beekeeping). This is a lesson that HPI learned itself.

Passing on the gift (POG): although the records of the group left much to desire, it was possible to trace
several generations of POG in the group. For example a line of 6 generations of POG was found inside the
group, and on some farms one could find up to 4 generations of HPI animals.

The herd has thus built up in 15 years: in 10 households there are not only 10 HPI cows 7 HPI heifers, but
also another 12 animals that the farmers bought themselves. Two households have yet to pass on the gift.

Milk yields (taken from a sample of 10 households) were found to be of an average of 4.5 l/day (raging
between 1.5 and 10 l/day.), but where a maximum milk yield was mentioned it was found to range between
2 and 22 l/day (average maximum milk yield was 15.5 l/day). If this is lower than the average for the whole
Taita area (6 liter/cow), but when this group started AI was not yet available (due to HPI efforts it is now).
Marketing of milk has developed along with the group; the group put finance together and built a milk shop,
from where milk is sold on to traders, taking it to Voi and beyond. Some quality control takes place.
Milk benefits include direct benefits for the household members (nutrition) and those close to the household
(milk is given away to the most needy). Almost half of the milk is thus consumed directly.
As for milk sales, the greater part, it is sold at the shop for a price of 20 Ksh/l, and locally for 21 Ksh/l, and
provides a household a daily income of 76 Ksh, or 2270 Ksh/month.

Animal sales have earned the average household in this sample of 10 9,200 Ksh. But this yet excludes the
benefits from the animals that are not strictly HPI (the ‘other half’ of the herd: animals bought by the farmers
themselves, and managed with the knowledge obtained through the HPI experience).

Other benefits include manure and several practices learned on the subject of sustainable agriculture.

2

1. Introduction

1.1 The HPI strategy and approach
The HPI approach on zero-grazing is summarized in the letters PASSING-GIFTS. This approach ensures
sound practices of group management, including equity considerations (participation, sharing, gender),
health considerations, and sustainability considerations (environment, self-reliance). Following the letters
PASSING-GIFTS it is explained as:

P Passing on the Gift (POG)
A Accountability
S Sharing & caring
S Sustainability & self-reliance
I Improved animal management
N Nutrition (home consumption) & income
G Genuine needs & justice

G Gender & family focus
I Improved environment (soil conservation,
fodder & pasture management, zero-grazing
housing & hygiene)
F Full participation
T Training & education
S Spirituality.
Photo 1: School children feeding programme: it
uses milk from Rong’e farmers

The HPI strategy on Sharing, on Genuine needs & justice, and on Full participation is essential for success,
as illustrated by the following lesson drawn from this group. The group found that the most marginalized,
poor members of a group have greater difficulties to provide good care for a dairy cow. As they did not so
easily have access to medication (or credit to buy these), and some of them were also short of labor in the
household, which made it difficult to plant enough fodder. The risk for these category of members that their
animal would die was higher than average. This lead to discouragement and as a result some members left
the group. Other (better positioned) members were calling for delay of distribution of heifers to these more
marginalized members. Now this is not acceptable to HPI and the situation was discussed as part of the
group management capacity building.
Indeed solutions were found: the group split up in cells of 5 members, each taking along a more marginalized
household. These small cells were to ensure solidarity: the poorest in these cells got support to construct a
stable, to plant fodder, and sometimes even financial support to buy drugs and AI services.

This situation made it possible to include the most marginalized members of the group, also in the early
stage, while avoiding risks.

Meanwhile, to avoid those situations, additional strategies were devised to allow families to increase their
financial situation with other activities (gaining faster returns), before engaging in dairy cattle. To promote
these activities: - HPI provides dairy goats (more easy to care for)
- HPI promotes beekeeping.

1

1.2 The Rong’e area, Taita district
th
The name of the ‘Rong’e’ are has a remarkable history behind it. In the 20 century there was a pastor who
set out to the area to Christianize it, but he found the people in the area not willing to allow him to do this. He
labelled the area ‘wrong’ (and moved away to try elsewhere), which then evolved into ‘Rong’e’.

The Rong’e area lies in Mwambirwa division, on the Taita hills in Taita district. In 1996 Taita district counted
311,000 inhabitants. Voi is the main town in Taita, along the Nairobi-Mombasa road, and it lies about 350 km
from Nairobi.

The landscape is hilly if not mountainous, with sometimes steep slopes (of over 40%) upon which farms and
houses are placed.
The soils are formed out of granite, and are erodible. Therefore many farmers in the area have adopted
terracing as one of the main measures against soil erosion. The main crops are maize, beans, cassava,
sweet potato, and some sugar cane.

Photo 2:
The Rong’e
zero
grazing
group

2

2. Description of Rong’e Zero Grazing group

2.1 History of the group

The group started off in 1993 with 45 members. At that time the group was initiated with help from the
Veterinary officer then, Mr Juma, who proposed to improve the local breed. The local breed just gave 1-2
cups of milk/day. Many people had to buy milk from afar, milk of poor quality, often spoiled.

2.2 Approach
The approach of the group (or what they remember of the HPI approach for groups) consists of:
- sharing with all members: the practice of POG is a continuous practice
- passing back: heifers can, at a later stage, be sold to other groups
- leadership is on voluntary base (‘by good heart’)
- experiences are shared in the monthly meeting.

Solidarity
While training the groups on how to manage their activities, and training group leaders, HPI always insisted
on the importance of solidarity in the group.
In this group there signs that the leadership culture is indeed promoting solidarity. Until today members get
an opportunity to receive a short-term loan from the group to buy drugs for a sick animal. Also one member
is known to have paid school fees for the child of
another. And most of all: the group addressed the
problem of the poorest members who find it
difficult to build the stable and plant enough
fodder: then group work comes in to help.

POG
This solidarity is at the heart of the approach of
‘Passing on the Gift’ that the group has adopted
from HPI.
Some cases of POG in the group are detailed in
section 3.2.

Photo 3: Christine Magdeu and the POG cow that
she received in 2001 (and passed on its calf). She,
her husband (Durickson), their three kids and the
laborer altogether consume 3½ liter milk per day
and still earn 95 Sh/day from selling the rest.

3

2.3 Membership
Group regulations and penalties
The group requires that a household has at least 1 acre of fodder production, but not all households
complied with that. Some households have difficulties to comply because they are short of land (1-2 acres
are hardly enough to produce food for the family).
There is a quality control system: a lactometer is used daily for each producer, and if a level above 20
degrees (indicating amount of liquid per amount of solid parts) is reached, milk is returned to the producer.

Membership mobility
Since its foundation in 1993 the membership is reduced from 45 to 35 members (of which actually 29
members have dairy cattle).
One main reason for members to quit was given as the unfavorable cost-benefits. According to HPI this
situation existed for some members, who did not give sufficient care to the animals (insufficient feeding,
irregular tick control, etc.) with as result low milk yields and even death of some cows. Also there was the
breeding strategy that contributed to low milk yield: in the beginning breeding was done with the available
bulls, which brought down maximum milk yields from 20 liters to 8 liters/day. When this was observed the
group and HPI decided that only AI should be allowed.
Apart from this the HPI approach has also adjusted to this findings, by introducing dairy goats and
beekeeping to other groups, to ensure that poorer farmers can more easily participate.

As for members who have died, these are replaced by close relatives (succession).

2.4 Group finance
It is on group finance that the group is less well performing.
The group requires that contributions are made in two ways:
1. 10% of the sales of any animal (bulls, or old cows) is to be paid to the group
2. For every heifer born, during 10 months, the proceedings of ½ liter/day are to be paid to the group
(earning the group 3000 Ksh Some members opt to pay 1 liter/day for 5 months.
Compliance with these finance-related rules is now posing a problem: quite some members are known to
avoid these payments, and the group leadership does not follow up by enforcing compliance.
Also, the group record keeping is not sufficient, i.e. it was hard to find out how many HPI animals are now
owned in by group members (birth reports are incomplete).
As a result, the capital the group today consists of just about 27,000 Ksh

This hardly allows for meaning full services to the members in terms of credits. However, several members
reported that short-term credit is provided to members who (urgently) need to buy drugs for the cow; the
amount to be repaid is then deducted from the payments of milk delivered to the shop.
And some members noted that, when it comes to finance, the group is actually ‘sleeping’, and that it needs
revitalized leadership to counter this inertia.

2.5 Group learning
HPI has in the beginning provided the means to organize exchange visits (NDDP paid 3 or 4 visits). Since
this first group started there have been 6 or 7 other groups created in the area. But later on the group also
self-sponsored some visits, to Rweraga and Taveta.

Asking the members of the 10 interviewed households what is the advantage of (still) being in this dairy
group, almost all give as main reason that the group helps them to keep up their skills with (peer-)education.
Half of the members also give as reason that the group can supply them with small credit when they need it
to buy drugs for the animals.
And four members mention solidarity in one way or another, e.g. by building a stable together, or building
solidarity through group meetings and parties: occasions to highlight the situation of the most vulnerable
members of the group.

4

Mary Kifuso is a widow living with one grandchild of 18 years old. They successfully manage 2
productive dairy cows. Mary has not been trained in group leadership, and she does not recall
any other training that she received except one on hygiene for dairy (her husband who passed
away some years ago had probably received HPI training). She must have learned her skills on-
farm and also from the group.
Of the 5 l/day of milk they get, 3 liters are shared between her household and the orphans next
door, and 2 liters are sold. This provides her a monthly income of 1200 Ksh/month. She has not
yet had a benefit from calves: one died and the next one was passed on.

2.6 Leadership
The group leadership is elected every other year, and to be in the leadership there is the condition that you
be a good zero-grazing farmer. Almost all members have at least once been in the group leadership.
HPI has provided training on group leadership, but not all members have attended this, or they can not recall
it; it is only one of the seven women (household heads) in a sample of 10 households who can recall being
trained on community leadership, whereas all three men have been trained on this.

The leadership of the group consists of a ‘committee’ of nine people, in which there is the chairperson and
the secretary (both men), a treasurer (a woman), a person for tick control (a man), and three care monitors
(two women, one man).
The tasks of the leadership are listed as:
- supervision on cow care every three months (this includes the preparation for new POG receivers). The
record keeping on this matter is not perfect; calves are reported all right, but these reports are not recorded
in the book.
- record keeping, and presenting the annual financial report every year. This is indeed done, but
attendance of these meetings is not very high, therefore not all members are aware of the financial results of
the group.
- organizing monthly meeting, in
which each member reports, and
experience is exchanged
- construction of the house for
milk sales (see picture)
- coordinate exchange visits
(one visit was to Kilifi, other visits
were nearer and paid by the group
itself)
- organize annual parties
- provide financial support to
members who have a funeral
- quality control: i) daily milk
quality inspection (solid parts) and
ii) every four months there is a
farm inspection (by a team of three
inspectors).
Photo 4: The group leadership, some members, the
rd
Veterinary officer (below 3 from left), and the
nd
photographer (above, 2 from right)
Rejuvenation of the group
Even though the group continues to maintain elected leadership, allowing for most (if not all) members to
take turn in leading the group, there are signs of inertia. When it comes to social activities and
abovementioned solidarity activities the group is functional. And although all members now have experience
with dairy cattle in a zero-grazing system (and some bought their own cows, not from POG/HPI), the group
meetings continue to serve as a platform for sharing experience between the members.
But economically speaking, considering the small amount of capital that the group has accumulated, the
group is indeed ‘sleeping’.
There are calls for change, there are members who realize that the group could accumulate more capital to
engage in savings and credit, for example. However, there is a large number of older people in the group,
and they are the original members. One young group leader mentioned that it is very hard to change things
in the group, as elder members will not easily encourage a young member to pursue changes.

5

Photo 5: Jackan Ngalia has moved from Napier
intercropped with maize to a Napier-only plot. He has
more than enough for his one cow (who has a maximum
of 15 l/day). He gave a small bull to the Rong’e group, for
a party.
Jackan received all the HPI training, but his wife Julia and
their 13 year old child do most of the work.

2.7 Success factors
There is a most important conclusion to be drawn, when looking at the functioning of this group. In the
previous paragraph (in 2.5) the members themselves indicate in this way: i) sharing of experience (peer-
learning, monthly meetings, sharing food), ii) sharing of resources (POG, and small credits), and iii) solidarity
by sharing of the burden of the most vulnerable in the group (acts of generosity, including the volunteering to
be group leaders).

The success of this group, also after HPI has stopped regular visits, is much about learning and sharing. It is
essentially two elements from the HPI approach that explain the success of this group:

1. Sharing & Caring: including POG, addressing genuine needs (especially those of the most vulnerable
members), and full participation. This Sharing can also be extended to the next success factor:
2. Training & Education: this only started with the several trainings provided by HPI, but it was clear
from the start that training & education was meant to continue also after withdrawal of HPI; the group
continued to share experience on improved animal management (including housing & hygiene) and
improved farming methods (including fodder production and soil conservation).

6

3. Dairy farming as part of the farming system(s)
2
For this chapter we make use of the interviews carried out in a ‘random’ sample of 10 households.
In 3.1 we describe the farming system and how dairy farming fits into it.
In 3.2 we give details on how the dairy animals initially provided by HPI in 1993 have fared in the group.

3.1 Description of the farming system
Labor and decision making (on management of dairy)
The average size of the households varied between 2 and 8, but half of the households (5) counted just 3
adults, two households were really small (2 adults),
and then there were households of 5, 6 and 8.
On six of the ten farms it is a laborer who does most
of the work for the dairy cattle (laborers being part
of households of just 2 adults and households of 3
or 4 adults).
In 7 out of 10 households it is women who really
decide on the management of dairy cattle at home.

Land & crops
One condition to be passed on the gift is that one
acre of fodder is established. This condition,
however, is hard to meet for some farmers,
especially those who just have about 2 acres and/or
those who are (temporarily) short of labor. Most of
the fodder consists of Napier grass, but also fodder
trees have been provided.
Photo 6 (above): Jaeli and Ephron Nyange
have crossed Friesian with Brown Swiss and
now have 3 generations on their farm; both
cows produce very well, and there are
sufficient fodder trees, but not enough Napier
grass; they are actually buying additional
feed.

Photo 7 (left): Jenta and Shem Mwandanyi
have terraced their farm, planted trees, and
intercropped maize with fodder grasses.
These two female calves have been bred with
AI.

The interviewed households have between 2
and 6 acres of land, but some of that land can
be scattered and quite far away.
Most households plant Napier grass in a
separate plot; some used to intercrop it with
maize and then changed to mono cropping Napier grass (or a combination of both). Especially the banks of
streams are popular places for planting it, and also for steep slope that have no terraces yet the planting
Napier is the better alternative (planting maize will result in more erosion).
Yet, not enough Napier grass is planted, and three farmers readily admit that they are short of fodder. Some
compensate it with fodder from trees and one buys ‘dairymill’ to supplement the feed.

In the past HPI provided training on integrated animal and NR management; this includes agro forestry, use
of manure, etc. The tree seeds are usually supplied by local government services (seed of Calliandra,
Leuceaena, Sesbania). The result of such training is visible in most farms: at least a part of the farm is
terraced, maize intercropped with beans (and sometimes Napier grass), and manure as well as urine from
the cows is collected and returned to the farms.

2
See 5.1 for more explanation about this sample.

7

Photo 8: Hannah Mafundo’s household
comprises of four adults and four children.
Their POG Heifer died from breaking a leg
(and since then they repair the stable floor,
but other stables still have to be fixed).
They now have four cows and four calves
(and three more expected). Three of their
cows have maximum milk yields of around 20
l/day, but actually only one cow is milked,
producing 4 l/day.
They know that the cows get insufficiently
fed. On their 3 acres of land they have only 1
acre of Napier, not more was planted
because she was sick.

Photo 9: Feeding is a challenge in several farmers
(Jenta’s farm)

Photo 10: Wilson and Sifura Nyambu
have two cows that can produce 17-18
liters/day. But now they are at the end of
the lactation period, soon calving, and
the couple is facing a fodder shortage:
there is less than 1 acre of Napier grass.

Photo 11: Lydia Elongo has planted 2 of the 4 acres with
Napier grass; she has to feed one milking cow, but also
two heifers and one as yet unproductive cow to feed.

8

Water
Seven out of 10 farms had access to tapped water, six of
them had the tap on or very near the farm, the other one
had a tap at 100m distance. One household had a stream
nearby. The remaining two households had to collect
water from a stream at quite a far distance, and carry this
to the stables, but even then, these households had
respectively 3 and 5 animals, and 3 and 4 adults that
could manage the work.

Photo 12: The grandchild of Jenta and Shem; her
mother has to walk half a mile down the slope to
collect water for the family, and the animals. The HPI
heifer never produced a female calf, so eventually
they bought their own heifer, which has produced
four calves so far.

Manure and urine
With one exception (selling manure), all manure is used on the
farm itself, or some of it given away to neighbors. Many stables
did have some provision for the collection of urine, which is
usually applied on the nearest maize or Napier farm.

Photo 13: How manure and urine make bananas grow big
on Agatha’s farm (near the stable)

Photo 14: Agatha Mwamachi has
four animals (two were bought by
herself, not from the group). She
sells cattle manure for 100 Ksh/bag.

9

Breeding
Since in the early years it was observed that breeding with available bulls brought down the potential for milk
production, all members now adhere to the rule that AI should be used.
As for the composition of different breeds, which was traced for 20 of the animals in the sample of 10
households, it was found that most of the AI semen is from Friesian breed (about 75%), some is from Brown
Swiss (about 20%), and there is one Jersey cow (making 5%).
Farmers have a wrong perception about the number of female and male calves, they think that more male
than female are born. This seems unlikely, and there are indications to the contrary: in the 10 households
interviewed there is a total of 21 female and 16 male calves. And in the statistics for the whole group (see
3
annex 3) it appears that since 2007 15 female and only 10 male calves were born.
The benefits from breeding are further discussed in 5.3.2.

Lessons learned
The group members recall two main lessons learned in the early years:
• East Coast Fever (ECF) was a disease that had to be controlled – only since 1999 there is an effective
drug for this disease, but it is still expensive. As ECF is transmitted through ticks, the tick spraying was
understood to be very important. Tick spraying was, in the past, only done after 2-3 weeks, but now
everybody does this weekly.
• Breeding: up to 1999 the group used (cross-bred) bulls to breed with; then it was found that this
drastically reduced the potential milk yield. The group then put in place it’s own by-law that no breeding with
bulls be allowed: all breeding to be with AI. It is because this group has observed itself the consequence of
using bulls, that nobody has every contravened that by-law. They know about two other (newer) groups
where members have tried to use bulls in spite of a similar by-law forbidding it, and as a measure of
punishment they had their cows taken away by the group.

3
However, there is a risk of under-reporting of male calves; female calves are usually kept (or passed on where it was not yet done) and
if they produce milk it will be found out sooner or later. However, for bulls it is likely that these are sold when still young, and if not
reported one could avoid to pay the 10% sales fee to the group. Yet, it may still be unlikely that birth of male calves is not reported,
because the group cohesion is quite good and it may be found out easily.

10

3.2 Cases of continued passing on of animals
The households selected for interview are selected on the basis of presenting a cross-cutting, representative
sample of the members of the group. This selection has been done in close consultation with the group
leadership and members present in the initial meeting. The approach may not always allow to trace down
generations of an original HPI heifer, as (only after interviews) it appears that POG heifers went to
households that were not chosen for interview.
It was not possible to select interview households differently, as there was no good database in the group as
to who received POG heifers from who. There was also no ready overview of the total HPI animals in the
group.

To take a closer look at how original HPI heifers have been multiplying and been passed on in the group, we
describe a few cases here. From the 10 households interviewed we could reconstruct a continuous line of six
generations passing through the group. Three of the households in this line were interviewed.
The line of five is presented in the text box at the end of this section. First we present the situations of
all the 10 households interviewed.

Lidia Elongo
Generation 1: She got her HPI heifer (Friesian cross-bred, direct gift from HPI, obtained from farm of L.
Delamere in Naivasha) in the year 1993.
Generation 2: This heifer was cross-bred (using AI) with a Brown Swiss, but its heifer offspring has fertility
problems, so it had no calf.
Following this, Lidia had her original Friesian cross-bred HPI cow fertilized three more times, out of which
were born one bull (she sold it), then a Jersey cross-bred and then a Friesian cross-bred. The Jersey heifer
was passed on to Elliston Nganga (not interviewed), but with Elliston it died. The Friesian remained with her.

Mary Kifuso
Generation 1: She got her HPI heifer (Friesian cross-bred) in a year unknown.
Generation 2: This heifer produced three calves, of which the latter two were produced with AI. The first calf
was produced in the period that AI was not yet an obligation (that was before the year 1999), and it died. The
second calf was a female and that one was passed on (but no record of where it went). The third calf was
also female, and is now a productive cow. As Mary has now no obligations anymore to pass on the gift, she
can keep all the offspring.
But offspring is yet to be had: in the 7 years since the first (home bred) calf was born, there have been only
four attempts to fertilize with AI. According to Mary, twice (out of four times) the application of AI has failed.
But there must have been many more occasions to apply AI, that were missed, and this may well be
because of insufficient skills of the farmer to notice the right time to call for AI.

Photo 15: Female calf not from HPI
(Agatha’s farm) – but raised with
knowledge obtained from HPI

Agatha Mwamachi
Generation 1: She received in the year
1994 her HPI heifer from Mathilda Mliwa
(not interviewed). This original cow (after
producing generation 2) was eventually
sold for Sh 4,000.
Generation 2: This heifer had 7 calves of
which 2 died (a heifer and a bull). She
passed on one heifer to Grace
Manyambo (not interviewed), and one
heifer was sold for Sh 15,000. She
remains with two HPI cows of which one
is actually being milked.
One animal is missing in this counting.
She also added one other cow which she bought herself.

11

Ephron & Jaeli Nyange
Generation 1: Like Lidia, Ephron also got his HPI heifer in the year 1993 (also Friesian cross-bred, direct
gift from HPI, obtained from farm of L. Delamere in Naivasha). This original cow (after producing generation
2) was slaughtered because of suffering from mastitis.
Generation 2: The HPI heifer produced 1 bull and 3 heifers. In 1995 he passed on the first heifer to Dina
Nyange (not interviewed), in 1997 a second Friesian heifer was born but it died, in 1998 another Friesian
heifer was born, it produced generation 3 and is still there (10 years old).
Generation 3: The Friesian heifer had 7 calves of which 3 died and 3 bulls were sold. The remaining is a
cross-bred Friesian-Brown Swiss, and it had 3 offspring.
Generation 4: This offspring consisted of two bulls (were sold) and the fourth one is a heifer which is there.

Jenta & Chem Mwandonyi
Generation 1: The HPI heifer gift they received in 1999 from Danson Kasololo was almost barren for 10
years; it only produced one bull (offspring of a local bull) which was sold. The original HPI cow was also sold.
After this they bought another heifer themselves (not HPI), which then produced one bull (locally
bred) and three female calves (with AI). They still have three of these animals.

Hannah Mafundo
Generation 1: The POG heifer they received in 1993 died in 1994 because it broke a leg. She then had the
obligation to ‘pass back’ another heifer to HPI.
They then bought themselves 4 cows, and these produced them altogether 6 female calves and 6
bulls; of this they kept 4 female calves. Besides this also three calves died.
To create a Generation 2 for HPI one of its heifers was already earmarked to be passed back, but then it
died.

Grace Mdali: # 1 in line of POG, was not interviewed.
She received an original, first HPI heifer, and passed on its offspring heifer to Elisabeth Mung’ongo in 1995
(see interview).

Elisabeth Mung’ongo: # 2 in line of POG
Generation 1: The HPI heifer (Friesian crossbred) was received in the year 1995 from Grace Mdali. After
producing generation two, this cow was sold (in April 2008).
Generation 2: The HPI heifer had four heifers (and two abortions). One was passed on to Wilson Nyambu.

Wilson Nyambu: # 3 in line of POG
Generation 1: He got his POG from Elisabeth Mung’ongo.
Generation 2: His POG went to Gilbrand Mliwa. He has still one productive cow from the original POG, a
Friesian.
Generation 3: One bull, it was sold.
He also owns one Brown Swiss cross-bred, which had one bull and one heifer, both were sold.

Gilbrand Mliwa: # 4 in line of POG, was not interviewed.
He received his HPI heifer POG from Wilson Nyambu. And his passed his POG on to Christine Magdeu (see
interview).

Christine Mwadeu: # 5 in line of POG
Generation 1: She received her HPI heifer in 2001 from Gilbrand Mliwa (not interviewed).
Generation 2: The off spring of 3 calves included two bulls that died, and a heifer that was – accidentally -
locally bred, so not with AI. This happened after she lost her husband and was away, and family members
used the bull in her absence. The (not AI) heifer was passed on to Roger Mluhu, as a replacement (Roger
Mluhu was not lucky with his first HPI heifer: it died without offspring).

Roger Mluhu: # 6 in line of POG, was not interviewed.
He received his HPI heifer from Christine Magdeu (see interview).

Jack-An & Julia Ngalia
Generation 1: They received his HPI heifer in 1998 from Handarson Kofia (not interviewed).
Generation 2: It had one calf (female) that died, and one bull that was ‘as POG’ used for a group party in
December 2006. In 2007 the original HPI had another abortion.

12

Six generations of HPI heifers in Rong’e group

st
Grace Mdali’s 1 generation: the original HPI heifer received in 1993

nd
Elisabeth Mung’ongo’s 2 generation: she got the POG from Grace,
it produced four heifers and was sold recently, at 13y old

rd
Wilson Nyambu’s 3 generation: he got the POG from Elisabeth, it produced at least two heifers,
one is still productive, the other was passed on.

th
Gilbrand Mliwa’s 4 generation: he got the POG from Wilson,
he passed on its first heifer to Christine.

th
Christine Magdeu’s 5 generation: she got the POG from Gilbrand in
2001, and after producing two bulls it produced one heifer that was
passed on to Roger.

th
Roger Mluhu’s heifer is 6 generation of POG heifers.

13

4. Technical (veterinary) services in the area
How they evolved (with HPI support and after 1999), their accessibility (distance, communication, costs) and
quality.
The role of HPI:
i) how it trained and supported knowledge sharing on dairy animal keeping and breeding,
ii) how it helped put in place and/or improve animal healthcare (and other) services.

Up to know, the group claims, HPI pays them a visit every three months. During these visits they mostly
insist on the importance of good record keeping.

Training from HPI and thereafter
Initially HPI has provided training on a series of subjects. Now, after 15 years, the members recall having
been trained in:
• group management / leadership (4 members: 1 woman, 3 men )
• cow care / management (5 members: 3 women, 2 men)
• milking, hygiene & milking record keeping (5 members: 4 women, 1 man)
• health care / disease control / prevention (7 members: 5 women, 2 men)
• fodder production (9 members: 6 women, 3 men)
• stable building (1 man)
• composting / using manure / terracing (1 man).

HPI has the policy to train all the members on above subjects; some get the training directly, others through
their group members (which explains why not all can recall the training as such).
Participants’ highlight on the training given by HPI is that they learned to care for the animal ‘as if it were
a family member’. And true, all the cows were found to have names, and some cows clearly responded to
calling their names.

First there is the more intensive period of HPI training and supplying the group with heifers (the purchase is
done together with the farmers) and some spraying equipment (1-2 sprays/group). But then the ties become
looser; HPI remains involved in the organization of the group, to ensure that the POG contract is followed,
and to evaluate results. Now this group is 15 years old and still receives a visit from HPI every three months.

Veterinary services and farmer organizational development
Generally the farmers are very satisfied with the veterinary service that is available.
There is the government Veterinary Officer, who is well known and motivated. Farmers pay him 1000 Ksh for
insemination.
And there are some farmers who specialize in the weekly service of spraying the animals; they charge 50
Ksh/animal (or less).
But HPI has done more: to ensure that also AI services were sustainable it assisted farmers to organize their
groups, to register the groups, and to form an association of farmer groups; this umbrella organization was
able to advocate for the establishment of Umweri Dairy, that is now the sole provider of AI in a wide area
around Voi.

14

5. Marketing

5.1 Introduction
For this chapter, and particularly in 5.3, we make use of the interviews carried out in a ‘random’ sample of 10
households. This sample is not really at random, but done by selecting a ‘cross-cutting’ sample of
households from the 29 households in the group that had dairy cattle. Following the table in annex 3, the
entire group of 29 households had 1.7 cow/household, whereas in the selection of 10 households the
average numbers of cows is 1.9.
Let us assume here that this sample is indeed sufficiently representative.

5.2 Organization, transport, prices, quality control
The Rong’e Zero-Grazing group’s milk shop
(see picture) has been constructed with
money collected from group members; the
group is proud of its achievement in this.
The shop only receives milk in the morning.
The milk is collected but not processed. It is
transported to outside Taita hills, in jerry-
cans of 20 or 40 liters.
Prices: Nowadays members get 21 Ksh/liter
for the milk they deliver in the shop; the
shop’s milk-seller sells it on for 24 Ksh (and
she keeps the 3 Ksh/liter benefit). If people
sell locally they normally charge 20 Ksh/liter.

Quality control is done (see 2.4), and
members increasingly respect and follow to
good practices.

Photo 16: Dairy shop built by the Rong'e group

5.3 Benefits: household income from dairy products, and benefit
sharing/controlling (f/m)
5.3.1 Milk

Milk yields
Milk yields were taken from the 10 households that were interviewed.

The actual milk yield was mentioned for the 15 cows that are actually productive. This is an average of 4.5
l/day, with a range between 1.5 and 10 l/day.
For 13 cows a maximum milk yield was mentioned. The maximum milk yield average is 15.5 l/day ranging
between 4 and 22 l/day.
Further there was mention of another 3 cows that were actually not producing anything (about to deliver their
next calf they had come naturally at the end of their lactation period), and one cow that had fertility problems.

In the earlier years (nineties) the cross-bred bulls were used to inseminate the cows, but this resulted in milk
yield maxima going down from 20 to 8 litres/day. Since this was observed, it was ruled (by the group) that
only AI be used.
For the whole Taita area the daily milk yield is actually about 6 liter/cow, with a range of between 2 and 18
liters/day. This group, having an average milk yield that is lower than the average for the whole Taita area. is
probably still suffering from the effects of having used their own bulls for fertilization.

15

Milk benefits
All households with productive
cows take part of the production
for their own consumption. Also
there are several households that
give some of their milk to people
in need, for example Mary Kifuso
gives 2 l/day to two orphan girls
next door.

Then, what remains is earning
money. If sold locally the milk has
a price of 20 Ksh/l, if sold through
the dairy shop it earns 21 Ksh/l.
In the 10 households the daily
average milk sales was 3.65 l/day
(of which 27% is sold locally, the
rest through the shop), which
translates in a daily income of
76 Ksh/household, or 2270
Ksh/month.

But a large proportion of the milk
remains for home consumption
(including sharing in the
community): 30.25 l/day.
Photo 17: Mary Kifuso and her 18 year old grandson cherish their
two cows: they make money, and milk for themselves and two
orphan girls next door. Mary’s membership in the group has made
her benefit more easily from generous acts of solidarity in the
community.

5.3.2 Animals: POG and sales

In the 10 households interviewed there is now, at
this moment, a total number of 10 HPI cows (but
also another 8 cows that were bought by the farmers
themselves: not HPI).
In these 10 households there are also 7 HPI heifers,
and 8 of the 10 households have (more or less)
fulfilled their obligation of POG.

Photo 18: Elisabeth Mung’ongo has passed on
the gift, and still has a cow (offspring of HPI
heifer) and two female calves (Friesian and
Brown Swiss).

In the 10 interviewed households, since they started 15 years ago, there was also a total of 13 animals that
died (11 calves and 2 cows).
Due to death or infertility only 8 households have HPI group animals, the other two households started anew
by buying their own animals (and they have not been able to fulfill the obligation of POG).
All of the 8 ‘HPI households’ (with HPI group animals) have actually passed on the gift (a heifer), and once it
was a bull that was ‘as POG’ a present to the group.

Together the 10 households (with 19 cows) have sold the following HPI group animals:
- 3 aged or ‘barren’ cows for prices between 4000 and 8000 Ksh
- 3 heifers: two for 15000 and one for 13000
- 7 bull calves for prices between 1000 and 13000 Ksh (average: 4430 Ksh).

This means that the average household in this sample has earned 9,200 Ksh by animal sales.

16

However, this does not include the fact that five households (half of the sample!), sometimes because of
having been unlucky with HPI animals, have also bought animals for themselves, and these are raised in
much the same way as the HPI animals, making good use of the training given by HPI and the experience
gained. These animals are also productive, and if these numbers would be included than the total herd of the
10 households (and the benefits) would be at least 50% more (12 animals in total, against 17 HPI animals).

5.3.3 Other benefits

Of 10 households interviewed there was only one household that sold manure (for 100 Ksh/bag) and one
household that gave away manure. All others keep the manure for their own farm.

There are a number of other benefits, not directly related to dairy farming, but brought about by HPI training
on sustainable agriculture, which included agro-forestry, soil conservation, etc.

17

Annex 1: Terms of Reference

1. INTRODUCTION
Ronge Zero Grazing group is a group of farmers in Voi division of Taita Taveta district. The group was
formed by 36 members (15 men and 21 women) in March 1991. The aim of the group was to work together
in addressing poverty and ensuring food security in their homes. They initiated several small scale projects
like a merry-go-round (savings & credit system), farming projects, and a roof rainwater harvesting water tank
construction. In the course of developing the water project, they received assistance from the Kenya
government on water and the village got piped water supply from a forest spring water source.

In early 1993 the group applied to Heifer Project International for support in developing their dairy production.
The group members had received initial training on dairy production under intensive systems from the Kenya
government Ministry of Livestock with funding from the Dutch Dairy Development Project.

When Heifer Project staff in Kenya received the application, the staff took the group through the project
development process, which included project planning and implementation. The group’s application was
approved and the group received their 15 heifers in November 1993.

One of the main conditions of the grant is the provision of ‘passing on the gift’ by each heifer recipient,
passing on heifer calves at 12 months age. This is the way of repaying the loan received in form of a heifer.
Other conditions include farmer training on animal husbandry, environmental protection and construction of
zero grazing housing for the heifer.

The group received intensive training (including farm visits) from Heifer staff on all above, for four years after
the placement of heifers. Since 1999 Heifer staff stopped visiting the group as it was already weaned or
graduated. The group members had established sufficient fodder production plots, including Napier grass
and legume trees for feeding dairy cattle as well as for controlling soil erosion and construction of housing for
their cattle. Members signed agreements with the group on good management of the dairy cows and agreed
to pass on one heifer calf at 12 months age.

Progress until now
To this date the group has continued to exist and still supports its members, both original and new members
who joined the group later. All the members have dairy cows after practicing passing on the gift. The
members are managing their cows well and are deriving full benefits from them.

The passing on of the gift is still continuing long after Heifer weaned the group. The group established milk
marketing services which were to ensure that members receive income from their dairy enterprise without
much difficulty.

2. OBJECTIVE OF THE ASSIGNMENT
The general objective of this assignment is to describe, through a case study, the HPI approach to
rural development. This Ronge Zero Grazing Group case study will include an assessment as to why the
‘passing on the gift’ approach was successful here, and what lessons can be learnt from this group.

Specific objectives of the assignment
1. Documentation of a best practice, and lessons learned
2. Illustrating the HPI approach to rural development
3. Learning for other groups and local HPI staff in the area (especially during the initial meeting where
record keeping, animal care and breeding are to be discussed, alongside with issues of group management
andleadership).

18

3. DELIVERABLES
The report will have photos of the farmers, cows, heifers, their houses, farms with terraces and any features
supporting the dairy production in the location and which may have contributed to success of the dairy
farming.
4
The report (well illustrated) will have the following outline :
List of content, list of abbreviations, list of pictures
Summary
1. Introduction
- HPI strategy and approach, emphasizing the practice of passing on the gift
- The area: landscape, soils, main crops, other important economic activities (very brief)
2. Description of Rong’e Zero Grazing Group:
- History (see 1. introduction, verify in the field)
- Membership (f/m, poverty) and contributions
- Main activities:
i. promotion of dairy production: sharing/breeding dairy animals (how many pass-ons
from HPI animals, to whom f/m), preparation of receiving farmers, sharing
knowledge, services, quality control, improving marketing
ii. soil conservation practices (describe and illustrate which practices)
iii. other activities (if relevant, e.g. savings & credit)
- Group management: strategy/vision, structure, leadership (style/culture, and election/rotation of
leaders), systems (incl. record keeping and meetings, financial reporting), knowledge sharing/networking
3. Dairy farming as part of the farming system(s):
- Labor: use of family (or off-farm?) labor (f/m, kids) for feeding/watering, milking, care
- Land: use of land, fodder production on-farm (or off-farm)
- Water: source(s) and transport
- Breeds: exchanges within the group and/or outside, what breed(s)
- Healthcare services: how farmers themselves were trained, share knowledge, provide each other
services (veterinary and/or drug supply, vaccines)
- Milk distribution: home consumption, community sharing, selling
- Household decision making (f/m) on use of resources (labor, land, animals/breeds, etc.) and marketing
(milk & animals ownership), revenues
- Side benefits for the farm: manure, urine, mulch from trees and grasses, erosion control by fodder
grasses, children learning to care, etc.
4. Technical (veterinary) services in the area: how they evolved (with HPI support and after 1999), their
accessibility (distance, communication, costs) and quality.
5. Marketing: organisation, transport location, prices, quality control (if any), benefit sharing/controlling
6. Member household’s incomes from dairy production (in 1993 - in as far as remembered - and now)
7. The role of HPI: i) how it supported/facilitated, built capacity of the group to manage itself and to
distribute resources, ii) how it trained and supported knowledge sharing on dairy animal keeping and
breeding, iii) how it helped put in place and/or improve animal healthcare (and other) services, and iv) how it
facilitated improvements in the marketing of dairy products (milk, animals, etc.).
Annexes: ToR, Itinerary (incl. names of people interviewed).

The report will be accompanied with a CD-rom with all the pictures (large versions).

4. POG ASSESSMENT / CASE STUDY ACTIVITIES
1. On-farm observations (and making pictures)
2. Semi-structured interviews with group members (individually on-farm, and in group), and with group
leadership (committee members)
3. Semi-structured interviews with other farmers nearby who are not members of the Ronge group
4. Semi-structured interviews with other key actors in the dairy sector, including government officials (e.g.
as providers of extension, animal healthcare services), milk marketing agents, input suppliers, service
providers.

4
This outline can be subject to minor changes.

19

5. APPROACH
Describing the participation, both in the group and participation in the household will be done using gender
disaggregated data, and where relevant poverty disaggregated data. Indicators for poverty will be obtained
after consultation with the group.
Key questions will include the following questions to capture practices the group has used in managing their
dairy production:
1. How the cows provided by HPI to the group have been distributed (to different households, f/m) and
multiplied.
2. What the group has used in breeding their cows and any problems associated with breeding.
3. How the group ensured good care for the animals in the different members’ households (monitoring,
knowledge sharing).
4. What technical services were available after Heifer weaned the group, and their accessibility in terms
of distance, cost, communication, and quality). And how have they evolved further (since 1999).
5. How the farmers have managed their animal health services (including drug/vaccine supply, etc).
6. How the farmers have managed to feed their dairy cattle (and in how far sourced on-farm or off-
farm).
7. How the farmers (and/or the group) are managing milk marketing services, milk prices, quality
management, and regularity of payment for milk sold.
8. Does the group or do members belong to any (professional) networks;
9. How has the group been governed, have they had regular elections and change of leaders, have
they retained old committee members, how is the record keeping maintained;
10. The group location is hilly and very fragile. How has the group managed soil erosion and other
environmental practices;
11. How many pass ons have been made and who are the recipients of these heifers;
12. How has the group prepared farmers who are to receive heifer calves which are being passed on;
More questions will be drawn up, with reference to the outline of the report, already detailed above.

6. PARTICIPANTS
In principle the consultant is alone responsible for this assignment. However, it may be beneficial for HPI
staff to accompany the consultant during (part of) the assignment, as it can help to share lessons learned,
later on.

7. TIMING
The actual field work will take at least 2 days excluding travel. Travel will be 2 days, and report writing
another 2 days. This makes a total of 6 consulting days.
The fieldwork (and travel) will start Monday 12 May and end Friday 16 May.
A draft report will be sent no later than 22 May.
Comment on the draft will be provided by HPI within two weeks after reception of the draft.
A final version will be sent no later than 5 working days after receiving comments on the draft.
This means that the entire assignment can be completed before 13 June (but if there is some unforeseen
delay this can be extended to end of June).

8. CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS
The HPI-Kenya supervisor for this assignment will be the HPI Kenya Country Program Director, Mr Alex
Kirui.

The consultant will charge HPI-Kenya a professional fee of $ … per day for a maximum of 5 days.
The following expenses will be reimbursed to the consultant:
- 3 days subsistence allowance @20 USD/day
- transport from Nairobi to and inside the project area v.v. (the consultant using own transport means,
4WD): the charge per km is 45 Ksh.

Based upon a final proposal and budget, a separate service contract will be signed between Heifer Project
International Kenya and the consultant.

20

Annex 2: Itinerary and resource persons met
Tuesday 13 May
Briefing by George Tsuma
Group meeting: 10 women and 15 men are present (see complete list below)
Observation Dairy Shop
Household interviews - part 1:
- Lidia Elongo
- Mary Kifuso
- Agatha Mwamachi.

Wednesday 14 May
Household interviews - part 2:
- Efron & Jaeli Nyange
- Jenta & Chem Mwandony
- Elisabeth & Johnston Mung’ongo
- Jack-An & Julia Ngalia
- Wilston & sifura Nyambu
- Derkson & Christine Magdeu
- Hannah & Isaac Mafundo
Briefing by the Veterinary agent (collaborator of HPI), Mr Gilbert Mwasamba.

Thursday 15 May
Briefing (end) by George Tsuma.

In early June the veterinary officer Gilbert Mwasamba made one more visit to check out some details on a
line of generations of POG.

21

Annex 3: Total herd of the group
The group started off with 15 heifers obtained from HPI.
Below table shows the total herd now, but it includes animals that were obtained outside the group /POG
(animals that people bought themselves).

Table: Actual herd of the group members together, May 2008
Name Cows Calves Total Born in
HPI individual f m 2007-2008
1. Haris Malombo 0 1 1 2 4 1f
2. Ephron Nyange* 2 0 1 3 6 2 m sold
3. Shem Mwandanyi* 0 3 2 5 10 2f
4. Nathaniel Manyondo 1 0 2 3 6 2f
5. Elistone Nganga 0 2 1 3 6 0
6. Japhet Mwasaru 1 0 0 1 2 0
7. Grace Mafundo 1 1 0 4 6 2m
8. Florence Mwasingo 0 1 1 2 4 1f
9. Agatha Mwamachi* 1 1 2 4 8 2f
10. Dinah Nyange 2 0 1 2 5 0
11. Lafokal Longo ?* 2 2 3 4 11 1f
12. Mary Kifuso* 2 0 0 2 4 0
13. Margareth Mraka 1 1 1 3 6 1f
14. Jackan Ngalia* 1 0 0 1 2 Abortion May ‘07
15. Hanah Mafundo* 0 4 3 8 15 1f
16. Jane Kindungu 0 0 1 1 2 0
17. Durickson Mwadeu* 1 0 0 1 2 1 m (died)
18. Elisabeth Mung’ongo* 1 1 2 4 8 1 m sold, 1 f
19. Givrau Mliwa 1 1 1 4 7 1m
20. Morris Marami 0 1 1 2 4 0
21. Hildan Kisombe 1 0 1 2 4 1 f (died)
22. Dorothy Fundi 2 0 1 4 7 1 m, 1 f
23. Habel Mwanjika 0 1 0 1 2 1 m (died)
24. Herman Mjomba 1 0 0 1 2 0
25. Wilson Nyambu* 2 0 0 2 4 1 m, 1 f (sold)
26. Roger Mlunghu 1 1 1 3 6 0
27. Claris Mwamburi 0 2 0 2 4 0
28. Mercy Mchawia 1 0 0 1 2 0
29. Constance Mwakina 0 1 0 1 2 0
TOTAL 25 24 26 76 151 15 f (1 sold, 1 died)
10 m (2 sold, 2 died)
*: These households were interviewed, see Annex 4.

22

Annex 4: Household interview notes
Household Elongo Kifuso Mwamachi Nyange Mwandanyi Mung’ongo Ngalia (Jack- Nyambu Mwadeu Mafundo
(heads) (Lidia) (Mary) (Agatha) (Ephron & Jaeli) (Jenta & (Elisabeth & an & Julia) (Wilson& (Durickson (Hanah &
Shem) Johnston) Sifura) & Christine) Isaac)
HH Lidia, Mary, Agatha, Ephron Jenta, Shem, 1 Elisabeth, Jack-An, Wilson, Christine Hannah
composition 1 laborer 1 grandchild 1 relative (f), Jaeli son & 1 Johnson, Julia, Sifura, Durickson Isaac
of 18y 1 laborer 1 laborer daughter (both son child (13y) 1 laborer (works Daughter
adults), elsewhere) 4 kids (8-14y)
1 grandchild 3 kids Laborer
Laborer
Decision Lidia Mary Agatha Ephron (but Jaeli Jenta Elisabeth Jack-An (he Wilson (who Christine Hannah
maker takes the milk sales received all the received all the
balance) training) training)
Labor 1 laborer by the 1 laborer 1 laborer Jenta & Elisabeth, son Julia & child Laborer Laborer Laborer
grandchild or Ephron daughter (Johnston Kids collect
helps with grass only
cleaning)
Land & crops 4 acre, of 2 acre (of 3½ acre, of 5½ acre (of which 4 6 acre of which 3 acre of which 2¼ acre of 6 acre, terraced 2 acre, 3 acre (of which 1
which 2 which 1 acre which 1 acre acre far away) 1½ fodder, and 1 acre Napier; which ¾ acre of which less than terraced, acre is far &
Napier far away), and far away Plenty of Calliandra in the rest also in the rest also Napier which is 1 acre Napier, intercropping fragmented), of
(‘nyasi’) riverside (where Napier for fodder Napier grass is Napier grass is enough. Before which is not with Napier which there is
(where Napier is grown) Not enough Napier intercropped intercropped they grew enough now only 1 acre
is grown) (so they add 2 parts with maize. The with maize. Napier (explaining low Napier, which is
‘dairymill’ to 1 part farm is intercropped yield) not enough (she
Calliandra) terraced. with maize, was sick)
There is also now not
Guatemala anymore.
grass, a lot of No terraces.
Calliandra,
some
Leuceaena
Water Tap nearby River nearby Tap nearby Tap nearby Quite far down, Quite far down, Tap very far Tap on the Tap nearby Tap nearby
carry on the carry on the (100m) compound, and in
head head house
Use of Partly on-farm Selling one Using all on-farm Using all on- Using all on- Using all on- Using all on-farm Using all on- Using all on-farm
manure (dwarf bag for 100 farm farm farm farm
bananas), Ksh
partly given
away
Numbers & 1 young 2 cows 2 productive They got this cow POG in 1999 2 calves (f: POG 1998 1 FriesianX 2001 1 4 cows, 4 calves
breeds JerseyX productive cows, but one (from the original lived 10y FriesianX & FriesianX 1 Brown Friesian that (f)
1 young AI used and is just now out POG from Heifer without Brown SwissX) SwissXFriesian produced:
st
FriesianX worked the 1 of production which they received producing 1 cow but that one is his 1 calf (f, bull-

23

nd
1 Brown and 2 time, (one of thesein 1993 – it was maiden heifer. FriesianX own (and it had 1 bred): POG to
rd
SwissX has but not the 3 cows is notslaughtered It produced 1 bull & 1 heifer, Roger Mluhu
th
fertility and 4 time HPI but her because of mastitis). bull and one both sold; his own 2 calves (m)
rd
problems (3 time: AI own) It had 4 calves: 1 heifer only was obtained from died
1 FriesianX technician bull, 1 POG heifer to (POG). They
1 HPI heifer Wusi in Taita hills)
productive came too late) 1 calf (f)Dina Nyange, 1 sold the cow.
heifer died, then the They bought
heifer born 1998, themselves 1
now 10y old heifer (calf) for
nd
FriesianX cow (2 8000, which
generation), had 7 has produced
calves: 3 died, 3 all FriesianX:
sold, and 1 cow (bull-
1 Brown Swiss - bred)
Friesian X cow 1 heifer
(daughter of 2 calves (f).
rd
FriesianX, 3
generation).
1 calf (f) of the
Brown SwissX (3
th
generations) = 4
generation.
Milk Now: 5 l/day Now: 6½ l/day Now: 6 l/day Friesian: The bull-bred 3½ l/day Now: 2 l/day Now: 8 l/day (4+4) Now: 8 l/day Now: 4 l/day from
production Max.: … (5+1½) Max: 8 l/day Now: 6-10 l/day cow produces Max: 15 l/day because both Max. 18 l/day one cow, the
5 from one cow Max: 19 l/day 2¾ l/day. The cows are pregnant other three are
(liter/day)
Brown Swiss: AI cow (Baraka) and because pregnant.
Now: 8-12 l/day now gives 3½ there’s no good Max: resp. 19-20,
Max: 15 l/day l/day. grass. 22, 20, & 10 l/day.
Max: resp. 18 &
17l/day
Milk sales & 2 l/day to 2 l/day to 2 l/day home 2 to 2½ l/day for All milk for 2 l/day local All milk for 4 l/day to dairy 3½ l/day sold All milk for home
consumption dairy house; dairy house; consumption home consumption home sale (20 Ksh/l) home house to dairy house consumption
2 l/day locally 1 l/day home 4 l/day for sale Sales: consumption consumption 4 l/day home 1 l/day sold (when new calves
@20 Ksh/l consumption 4-7 l/day morning (but when the consumption locally born: most will go
1 l/day home 2 l/day for milk to shop; new calf is 3½ l/day to dairy house)
consumption orphans next 2-3 l/day afternoon born, there will home
door milk local sales (20 be sales of 7-8 consumption
Ksh/l) l/day).
Animal 1 bull sold for 1 calf died 2 calves (f&m) They did their POG POG to Danson The original 1 calf (f) died 1 calf (f, 6 months 1 calf POG 1 POG heifer died
turnover 6000 Ksh 1 calf (f) POG died in 1995 Kasololo (not HPI cow was 1 calf (m) sold for 15000 2 calves died in 1994 due to
1 aged cow – The Friesian is now AI) sold for 8000 provided for Ksh breaking leg – it

5
Not including the milk that is given to the calf.
24

(sales, birth, the original 10y old, had 7 (from their own Ksh. the group party 2 bulls age 4-5 produced 9 l/day.
death) one - sold for lactations, of which cow they sold: 1 calf (f) (’POG’) months sold each They bought 4
4000 Ksh 3 died (2f, 1m) and 3 2 heifers for POGto Wilson One abortion for 3000 cows themselves,
1 heifer sold sold: 6000 & 4000 Nyambu. took place in 1 calf died kept 4 calves (f) &
(15,000 Ksh) 1 bull of 1½ month Ksh, and And three 2007. 1 POG to Gilbrand sold:
1 POG heifer 2000 Ksh 3 bulls for 8000, other heifers Mliwa - 4 calves for
given 1 bull 13000 Ksh 4000 & 2500 (and 2 almost nothing
1 maiden heifer Ksh – but this abortions) - 1 heifer 15000
(could not have calf) doesn’t count - 1 heifer 25000
13000 Sh as direct impact - 1 calf (m) 5000
The FriesianX from HPI - 1 heifer 15000
Friesian had 3 animals. 3 offspring of one
lactations: cow died (2f, 1m)
1 bull sold 3000, 1 one calf (m)
bull sold 1000, 1 survived & sold
heifer Brown Swiss for 4000 Ksh
x Friesian remains
Training Milking Hygiene Fodder Cow management Cow Cow Milking Animal care / Cow care Fodder
received Diseases Milking Fodder management management Fodder stable hygiene Disease Milking/hygiene
Fodder Disease control Fodder Milking Manure/ Feeding control / Record keeping
production (incl. prevention) Fodder compost Disease control prevention Health
Group leadership There was also Disease Milk record Fodder grass Record
There were also self-organized control keeping Stable building keeping
self-sponsored group training. Group Group leadership Fodder
exchange visits. leadership Record keeping Gr.leadership
Advantages - collective - education - group - group credit: - group credit - milk sales - education - education - building stable
of being in labor - credit to buy meetings should be done to construct a shop - communication - credit for together
the group - learning drugs more shed, buy - education with the drugs - loan for drugs
- solidarity drugs, but: only Veterinary agent - education
(school fees) if you remain a
good debtor
Remarks - The laborer Active to bring In the past this One of the calves
earns 2000 development to the farmer also (f) was given to
Sh/month area (contacting bought 1 cow and the laborer.
She DDC, DAC, to get sold its calf, then The farmer
emphasizes AI, etc.) and the cow. realizes that the
that POG enhance solidarity in stable floor & roof
obligation the group (e.g. need fixing.
remains also paying school fees
when calf dies. for Mary Kifuso’s
kids)

25

Impact Assessment of the Approach of ‘Passing On The Gift’

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Impact Assessment of the Approach of ‘Passing On The Gift’

Similar to Impact Assessment of the Approach of ‘Passing On The Gift’ (16)

More from copppldsecretariat

More from copppldsecretariat (20)

Impact Assessment of the Approach of ‘Passing On The Gift’