Participatory research for development to upgrade smallholder pig value chains in Uganda
Transcript of Participatory research for development to upgrade smallholder pig value chains in Uganda
Par$cipatory research for development to upgrade smallholder pig value chains in Uganda
Emily Ouma, Kris.na Roesel, Michel Dione, Natalie Carter, Danilo Pezo, Francis Ejobi and Delia Grace
Pictures
Kris+na Roesel [email protected] ● P.O. Box 24384 Kampala, Uganda ● Tel +256 781705166 hJp://livestockfish.cgiar.org/focus/uganda/ and hJp://aghealth.wordpress.com and hJp://safefoodfairfood.wordpress.com/ ● www.ilri.org Acknowledgements: The CGIAR Research Programs on Livestock and Fish and on Agriculture for Nutri+on and Health (A4NH) and the Interna+onal Livestock Research Ins+tute (ILRI). Funding: IFAD-‐EC, CGIAR, BMZ/GIZ
This document is licensed for use under a Crea+ve Commons AJribu+on–Non commercial-‐Share Alike 3.0 Unported License September 2014
September 2014
Inputs & services Pig farms Live pig collec+on Slaughter & processing Meat
transport Retail Consump+on Enabling environment
Value chain
actors
• Pigs are not a priority in government’s agricultural sector agenda
• Weak implementa$on of policies related to feeds and veterinary drugs
• Many outdated rules and regula$ons regarding pig farming, transport, slaughtering and marke$ng (i.e Public Health Act last updated in 1962)
• High risk for spread of transboundary diseases due to lack of surveillance and enforcement (i.e fraudulent use of movement permits, movement at night)
• Lack of qualified extension staff specialized in pigs
• Expensive, of poor quality and difficult to access
• Risk of disease transmission from/to village boars due to communal use
• Scarcity and price fluctua$on of raw materials for feeds
• Commercial feeds and ingredients contaminated or adulterated
• Weak implementa$on of quality assurance systems
• Inappropriate storage of bona fide drugs and lack of educa$on of pig owners on why which drug is administered.
• Poor bargaining power, lack of organiza$on and lack of informa$on on pig weights result in poor farm gate prices
• Poor access to extension services and market informa$on, especially for women
• Lack of capacity to formulate low-‐cost, nutri$onally-‐balanced feed ra$ons
• Lack of record keeping • Farmers list African swine fever (ASF),
intes$nal helminths and sarcop$c mange as major disease constraints
• Prevalence survey in 22 villages showed no presence of Brucella suis, Fasciola hepa/ca and Balan/dium coli but high prevalence of gastrointes$nal helminths (strongyles 14-‐90%; Ascaris spp. 0-‐19%; Metastrongylus spp. 0-‐18%; Strongyloides spp. 0-‐17%; Trichuris spp. 0-‐13%), Coccidia spp. (14-‐70%) and high seroprevalence for Taenia solium (0-‐46%), Toxoplasma gondii (3-‐47%), Trichinella spp. (0-‐26%); analysis for other swine pathogens ongoing
• Poor husbandry prac$ces, poor housing and hygiene
• Poor applica$on of biosecurity measures • Farmer-‐determined disease diagnoses and
treatment • Inappropriate drug administra$on (type,
dose, frequency, route)
• High transac$on costs (transporta$on during search for pigs)
• Poor quality pigs (i.e. underweight) due to poor management and disease
• Poor handling during transport resul$ng in poor animal welfare and reduced quality of meat
• Poor biosecurity measures resul$ng in disease spread especially ASF between farms or villages
• Poor handling during slaughter results in reduced shelf-‐life of meat
• No systema$c meat inspec$on due to lack of evidence on pig diseases in Uganda, no support in enforcement and gaps in training curricula
• High amount of slaughter waste • Very few formal processors
despite high demand • No link between producers and
formal processors • Verbal contracts between traders
and processors at traders’ financial risk
• Lack of designated areas for centralized slaughter and inspec$on due to lack of poli$cal will and mul$-‐religious society wherein for some people contact with pigs/pork is prohibited
• No feasible prerequisites for meat transporters
• No intact cold chain • Prolonged $me
between slaughter and processing in urban areas
• Pork delivery delays • Inability to meet consumer
demands (quality and quan$ty) due to unsteady supply
• Lack of prerequisites for pork storage and prac$cing good hygiene (cold chain, water)
• Religious constraints; Muslim control of retail space precludes pork sellers (i.e. butchers; pork joints and sausage hawkers)
• No cri$cal mass demanding pork safety
• Lack of awareness on pork zoonoses
• High consump$on in urban areas, at pork joints oben associated with alcohol consump$on (98% in Kampala)
• Poor quality pigs remain in villages for rural consump$on
• Pork consumed well-‐cooked but with relish composed of raw vegetables
• Evidence for presence of pathogens causing zoono$c diseases, such as salmonellosis, taeniasis/ neurocys$cercosis, toxoplasmosis, trichinellosis
Results: C
onstraints & opp
ortuni$e
s
• Situa$onal analyses • Expert consulta$on • Literature reviews • Outcome mapping
Ques$onnaire survey: • 36 feed stockists • 53 village vets • 36 agrovet stockists • 90 village boar owners
• Par$cipatory rural appraisals and key informant interviews (n=35)
• Ques$onnaire survey with pig farmers on animal health & husbandry (n=1,200)
• Pig sampling (sera, blood, faeces) of >1,200 animals in 22 villages for mul$ple disease prevalence es$mates
• Feed samples for nutri$onal analysis (n=212)
• Gender-‐disaggregated focus group discussions (n=10)
Ques$onnaire survey: • 86 live pig traders
Ques$onnaire survey: • 25 butchers • Descrip$ve survey urban
slaughter house • Pork samples
Ques$onnaire survey: • 7 transporters
Ques$onnaire survey: • 45 retailers • 84 pork samples GPS mapping of urban pork outlets
• Par$cipatory rural appraisals (n=10)
• Focus group discussions with rural mothers of children under 5 (n=34)
• Focus group discussions with urban mothers of children under 5 (n=5)
• Ques$onnaire survey with pig farmers on food safety and nutri$on (n=1,200)
• Stakeholder engagement and consulta$on from the start of the project
• Science communica$on • Pig Mul$stakeholder
Plamorm to enable peer learning and networking among actors
• Develop biosecurity protocol for extension services
• Training of health workers and drug stockists on drug management and use
• Develop and disseminate well-‐balanced feed ra$ons from locally available ingredients
• Feasibility tes$ng of implementa$on of biosecurity protocols, scheduled deworming, improved housing (i.e. Indigenous Microorganisms), manure management
• Valida$on of selected local herbal remedies for control of internal parasites
• Valida$on of organiza$onal models for value chain coordina$on and integra$on to improve access to inputs, services and output markets (i.e. women groups)
• Launch of 8 training modules on iden$fied constraints
• Organiza$onal models for beoer and efficient linkage with buyers and service providers.
• Develop biosecurity protocol for ASF control
• Convert slaughter waste into energy
• Training of meat inspectors and butchers
• Develop biosecurity protocol for control of ASF and other diseases
• Develop biosecurity protocol for control of ASF and other diseases
• Incen$ve-‐based training on good hygienic prac$ces
• Consumer sensi$za$on on pork zoonoses, overconsump$on and good prac$ce butcheries
Research into use:
Plan
ned interven
$ons
Materials & m
etho
ds
Our vision: Improve the livelihoods of smallholder pig value chain actors in Uganda. Our mission: Showcase how exis+ng livestock value chains can be upgraded for the benefit of all actors in the system, especially the many poor. Our challenge: Very liJle has been documented about how smallholder pig value chains operate in Uganda, except that pork produc+on and consump+on have exploded over the past three decades, and 70% of the pigs are in the hands of smallholder farmers, many of them women. Who are the actors in the current system? What are input and output channels? Who benefits and who bears economic health risks? Which problems do the various actors face, how do they deal with them and can these problems provide opportuni+es?
Dominated by men (72%), mostly formal
Dominated by women (60%), mostly informal and predominantly
smallholders (80%)
Dominated by men (94%), ver$cal integra$on (mul$ple roles) and mostly predominantly informal (>90%)
Dominated by men (67%), mostly informal
Dominated by men