Presentation by M Walke, N Mtimet, D Baker, E Waithanji, J Lindahl, M Hartmann and D Grace at the 6th All Africa Conference on Animal Agriculture, Nairobi, Kenya, 27-30 October 2014.

1. Kenyan milk consumers’ behaviour and perceptions of aflatoxin
M. Walke, N. Mtimet, D. Baker, E. Waithanji, J. Lindahl, M. Hartmann and D. Grace
6th All Africa Conference on Animal Agriculture
Nairobi, Kenya
27-30 October 2014

2. Outline
•Introduction
•Material and Methods
•Results
•Conclusions
2

3. Introduction
•Aflatoxins are mycotoxins produced by certain species of moulds, mainly Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus
•Aflatoxins could be transmitted to humans through agricultural products consumption
3

4. Introduction
Corn/feed purchased
Treatment
Corn/feed produced at farm AB1
AB1
AB1-> AM1
Milk produced at farm
Consumers
Farmer
AB1 AM1 Figure 1. Aflatoxin contamination pathway
4

5. Introduction
•Aflatoxins could be responsible of:
Hepatocellular carcinoma in human
Stunting in children
Acute aflatoxin poisoning due to consumption of contaminated food causes deaths
Chronic aflatoxin poisoning in dairy cattle causes a reduction in milk yield
Decreases feed efficiency
Reduces reproduction efficiency
5

6. Introduction
•There are no accurate estimates of incidence of chronic and acute disease related to aflatoxin exposure
•Outbreaks in Kenya (1982, 2001, 2004 and 2005) and Somalia (1997/98) indicate the magnitude of the problem
•The 2004 outbreak in Kenya was responsible for 317 cases and 125 deaths
6

7. Introduction
•Kenya is among the highest milk consumption levels of developing countries (100 kg/year per capita vs 25kg for Sub-Saharan Africa)
•Around 80% of the marketed milk is sold raw and mainly through the informal market
•There is also a growing niche market for packaged milk
•Research questions:
Are consumers aware about aflatoxins and possible milk contamination?
Is there any difference between urban and rural milk consumers in terms of milk consumption and aflatoxin perception?
7

8. •City of Nairobi - Kenya
•2 areas:
Urban areas in Nairobi middle income class respondents ; processed milk consumers (305 participants)
Dagoretti: peri-urban are of Nairobi low income class respondents ; raw milk consumers (323 participants)
•Sampling: systematic sampling - assumptions of randomness over time
•Face-to-face interviews conducted in July and August 2013
Materials and methods
8

9. •2 types of questionnaires:
One directed to processed milk consumers
One directed to raw milk consumers
•Both questionnaires have many sections in common on:
Milk purchase and consumption habits
Aflatoxin Awareness
Attitudinal issues
Socio-demographic characteristics
•The unique difference is related to the Choice Experiment (CE) attributes Materials and methods 9

10. Results
Characteristic
Characteristic level
Raw milk (%)
Procd. milk (%)
Age
≤ 20
6
5
21-30
50
49
31-40
28
34
41 and older
16
13
Marital Status
Single
40
42
Married
56
57
Divorced
3
1
Widow
1
0
Members of Households
One
14
16
Two
19
14
Three
22
22
Four
20
25
Five
18
17
More than five
7
6
Table 1. Respondents’ characteristics 10

11. Results
Characteristic
Characteristic level
Raw milk (%)
Procd. Milk (%)
Children living
No children
33
33
in the household
One child
26
35
Two children
24
25
Three children
Four children and more
14
3
6
1
Education
No education
1
0
Primary
23
2
Secondary
49
18
College
21
40
University
6
40
Table 1. Respondents’ characteristics (contd.)
11

12. Results Figure 2. Milk purchase frequency 22% 69% 5% 4%
14%
55% 20% 7% 4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
More than
once a day
Once a day
Once/week<
<once/day
Once a week
Less than once
a week
Raw milk
Procd. Milk
12

13. Results
Figure 3. Quantity of milk bought 13 12% 18%
38%
9% 23%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0.5 litre
0.6 litre
1.0 litre
2.0 litres
other
1%
57% 20% 12% 10%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0.3 litre
0.5 litre
1.0 litre
2.0 litres and more
I don´t remember
Raw milk
Processed milk

14. Results Figure 4. Price of milk 14 Raw milk
Processed milk 12%
21%
20% 14% 14% 19%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
40 KSH/litre
50 KSH/litre
60 KSH/litre
65 KSH/litre
70 KSH/litre
Other20%
43%
11%
10%
16%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
80 KSH/litre
90 KSH/litre
100 KSH/litre
Other
Don´t remember

15. Results
Figure 5. Outlet of purchase*
15
Raw milk
Processed milk 41% 25% 25% 15%
10%
Shop
Producer/farmer
Milk bar
Kiosk
Hawker65%
77%
6%
Shop
Super-/Hypermarket
Milk bar
Kiosk
Hawker

16. Results
Figure 6. Boiling milk prior to consumption 99% 1% 79% 21%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes
No
Raw milk
Procd. Milk
16

17. Results Figure 7. Reasons for boiling the milk* 17
Raw milk
Processed milk 77%
64%
18% 11% 21%
Health concerns
Hygienic concerns
No refrigeration
Uncertainty about milk´s
freshness
Because everybody is doing it53%
34%
3% 8%
10%
14%
Health concerns
Hygienic concerns
No refrigeration
Uncertainty about milk´s
freshness
Because everybody is doing it
To warm the milk

18. Results
Figure 8. Milk is safe after boiling 95% 5%
93%
7%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes
No
Raw milk
Procd. Milk
18

19. Results Figure 9. Have you heard about aflatoxin? 19
55%
45%
80%
20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes
No
Raw milk
Procd. Milk

20. Results
Figure 10. Aflatoxin can be transferred into milk? 20 45% 14% 41% 45% 9%
46%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Yes
No
D'ont know
Raw milk
Procd. milk

21. Results
Figure 11. Health impact of aflatoxin on humans
21 53% 19% 10% 3% 15% 71%
16%
2% 1% 10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Serious threat
Medium threat
Minor threat
No threat at all
I don´t know
Raw milk
Procd. Milk

22. Results Figure 12. Is it possible to make aflatoxin contaminated milk safe? 22
37%
27%
36% 23% 29% 48%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Yes
No
I don´t know
Raw milk
Procd. Milk

23. Results Figure 13. Opinion on food certificate/ food safety labels? 23
24%
13%
27%
23% 13% 19% 24% 22%
19%
16%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Fully trust
Mostly trust
Do not really
trust
Do not trust at
all
Do not even
look at them
Raw milk
Procd. Milk

24. Results Figure 14. Main sources of information
24 81% 57% 17% 11% 6% 2% 90%
41%
33% 43% 7% 4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
TV
Radio
Newspaper
Internet
Friends
Work
colleagues
Raw milk
Procd. Milk

25. Results Table 2. Respondents’ willingness to pay (WTP) estimates (in KSH/Litre) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for “aflatoxin free” certified milk 25
Raw milk
Processed milk
WTP
WTP
Group
95% CI
95% CI
All sample
69.3
136.8
[55.3; 89.2]
[108.7; 176.3]
Heard about Aflatoxin
73.0
161.7
[55.7; 102.4]
[121.4; 226.4]
Have not heard about Aflatoxin
66.4
99.0
[47.6; 99.5]
[68.0; 154.1]
Aflatoxin can be transferred
154.3
165.2
[96.3; 370.7]
[111.0; 259.2]
It can’t or don’t know
45.6
129.7
[36.8; 57.4]
[95.7; 179.3]

26. Conclusions
•Milk consumers/buyers awareness about aflatoxin is high in urban areas high (80%) and relatively high in peri-urban area (55%)
•Insufficient knowledge of respondents on the health risks of aflatoxin and if it can be transferred to milk importance to inform/educate consumers (communication, TV, radio)
•A high proportion of respondents believe that boiling the milk will eliminate aflatoxin from the milk (which is wrong)
26

27. Conclusions
•Respondents are willing to pay a premium for certified “aflatoxin free” milk These results are of value to the dairy industry in the design and implementation of the necessary actions to improve the quality of the product (certification? Trust?)
•Respondents’ WTP depends on their awareness about aflatoxin and it’s presence in milk higher awareness implies higher premium
27

28. 28 This article is part of the FoodAfrica Programme, financed as research collaboration between the MFA of Finland, MTT Agrifood Research Finland, the CGIAR research programs on: Agriculture for Nutrition and Health and on Policies Institutions and Markets led by the International Food Policy Research Institute, and the GIZ. Acknowledgement

29. Contacts:
Nadhem Mtimet: n.mtimet@cgiar.org
International Livestock Research Institute www.ilri.org
Thanks
29