FACTORS AFFECTING SUSTAINABILITY OF GOAT PRODUCTIVITY INTERVENTIONS IN UGANDA: A CASE

STUDY OF IGANGA DISTRICT

BY

WAATA TOLOFAINA (BVM, MAK)2006/HD17/6757

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT (MLD) OF MAKERERE

UNIVERSITY

SEPTEMBER, 2010

DECLARATION

I, Waata Tolofaina, declare that the findings of this thesis are a result of my own

study and have never been represented for any degree award elsewhere. The

material in this thesis should never be reproduced without the author’s

permission.

Signed…………………………………….

Date……………………………………….

This work was done under the supervision of:

Dr. Mugisha Anthony (PhD).

Signature…………………………………………………. Date………………………

Dr. Owiny David (PhD).

Signature…………………………………………………. Date………………………

i

DEDICATION

This book is dedicated to my dear husband Dr. Kakungulu James for his love,

companionship, support and optimism needed for self-development and reflective

thinking.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I thank the almighty God for enabling me finish this study.

I also wish to thank my lecturers for their continued guidance during the two years

course of Masters in Livestock Development Planning and Management. Special

thanks to Dr. Mugisha Anthony and Dr. Owiny David, for guiding this thesis.

My gratitude also go to the Ministry of Agriculture through the Goats research led

by Dr. Mugisha Anthony for the financial support during data collection and

analysis. I also wish to thank my employer, Africa 2000 Network led by Mr.

Frederick Musisi Kabuye for the financial support and time to undertake this

course.

I wish to thank my dear husband Dr. Kakungulu James and our four children

Angella, Gloria, Julian and Daisy, for allowing me time out to pursue this course

and the financial support. I will always appreciate their love, patience and

cooperation.

Lastly to my parents who have made me what I am today. God bless you all.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION........................................................................................................i

DEDICATION.......................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT......................................................................................... iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS......................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................vi

LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................vii

LIST OF APPENDICES........................................................................................viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS.........................................................ix

ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................x

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION........................................................................1

Background.............................................................................................................1

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................5

2.1 Livestock intervention in Uganda......................................................................5

2.2 Livestock production in Iganga District.............................................................6

2.3 Gender dimensions in goat productivity interventions.......................................6

2.4 Sustainability factors in goat productivity..........................................................7

CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS.............................................10

3.1 Study area.......................................................................................................10

3.2 Study design...................................................................................................11

3.3 Sample size....................................................................................................11

3.4 Methods of data collection..............................................................................12

3.5 Data handling and statistical analysis.............................................................14

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS..............................................................................15

4.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................15

4.2: Household demographic data........................................................................15

4.2.1: Gender and age of respondents.................................................................15

4.2.2: Levels of education of respondents............................................................16

4.3: Socio-economic profile...................................................................................17

iv

4.3.1: Income source............................................................................................17

4.3.2: Household expenditure...............................................................................18

4.4: Livestock keeping profile................................................................................19

4.4.1: Livestock species and breeds kept.............................................................19

4.4.2 Flock sizes...................................................................................................20

4.4.3: Duration of keeping goats...........................................................................20

4.4.4: How goats were acquired...........................................................................20

4.4.5: Reason for keeping goats...........................................................................21

4.4.6: Type of follow up support received.............................................................21

4.4.7 Goats meeting farmer expectations.............................................................21

4.4.8: Goat ownership...........................................................................................21

4.5 Goat management..........................................................................................22

4.5.1 Inputs for goat enterprise.............................................................................22

4.5.2 Family care for the goat...............................................................................22

4.5.3: Record keeping...........................................................................................23

4.5.4: Land size utilisation for goat rearing...........................................................23

4.5.5: Grazing method and housing......................................................................23

4.5.6: Constraints in goat keeping........................................................................24

4.6 Sustainability issues........................................................................................25

4.6.1Market for goats............................................................................................25

4.6.2 Goat production interventions......................................................................27

4.6.3 Technologies sustained...............................................................................29

4.6.4 Failure for sustaining record keeping...........................................................29

4.6.5 Demand for the technologies.......................................................................30

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION...........................................................................33CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................416.1 CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................41

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................41

REFERENCES.....................................................................................................43

APPENDICES.......................................................................................................47

v

LIST OF TABLESTable 1: Gender of farmer respondents and those involved in FGDs in Bulongo

and Nakalama

Table 2: Estimated household expenditure range

Table 3: Livestock species kept

Table 4: Flock size of goats kept

Table 5: Constraints encountered in keeping the goats

Table 6: Problems encountered in marketing goats

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure1: Map of the study area

Figure 2 : Well managed goat housing in Iganga

Figure 3: Poorly managed zero-grazing goat shed in Iganga……………………...

Figure 4: Marital status of households

Figure 5: Education level of the household head

Figure 6: Main source of income

Figure 7: Main household expenditure

Figure 8: The main breeds of goats kept

Figure 9: Inputs in the goat enterprise

Figure 10: Type of records kept

Figure 11: Grazing methods used by the farmers

Figure 12: Main buyers of goats

Figure 13: Goats easily sold

Figure 14: Key goat improvement interventions in study area

Figure 15: Key goat actors in study area

Figure 16: Technologies sustained in Nakalama and Bulongo sub-counties

Figure 17: Reason for not sustaining record keeping

Figure 18: Reasons given for failure to sustain the interventions

Figure 19: Reasons for failure to sustain breedsCHAPTER FIVE

vii

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: GLOSSARY

APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ASSESSING FACTORS AFFECTING

SUSTAINABILITY OF GOAT PRODUCTIVITY INTERVENTIONS IN UGANDA

APPENDIX 3: CHECKLIST FOR THE FGD

viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

A2N-U: Africa 2000 Network – Uganda

CBO: Community Based Organisation

DR.: Doctor

EPINFO: Epidemiological Information

FAO: Food and Agriculture Organization

FGD: Focus Group Discussion

GDP: Gross Domestic Product

GoU Government of Uganda

HPI: Heifer Project International

ILRI: International Livestock Research Institute

LGDP: Local Government Development Programme

MAAIF: Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industries and Fisheries

MAK: Makerere University Kampala

NAADS: National Agricultural Advisory Services

NLPIP: National Livestock Productivity Improvement Programme

NGOs: Non-Governmental Organizations

PEAP: Poverty Eradication Action Plan

PMA: Plan for Modernization of Agriculture

SACU: Send a Cow Uganda

SPSS: Statistical package for social scientists

UBOS: Uganda Bureau of Statistics

UPE: Universal Primary Education

URA: Uganda Revenue Authority

USE: Universal Secondary Education

ix

ABSTRACT

Goats contribute greatly to the livelihoods of the rural communities by providing

food and income security. As a result several organisations have come up to

improve the production and productivity of goats by introduction of goat

interventions to enable farmers exploit their full potential. This study assessed the

factors affecting sustainability of goat productivity interventions in Bulongo and

Nakalama sub-counties, Iganga District, Uganda. One hundred farmers (50 in

Nakalama sub-county and 50 in Bulongo sub-county) were interviewed and

information obtained. In addition, two Focus Group Discussions were conducted.

The households’ demographic data, socio-economic profile, livestock keeping

profile, goat management, gender dimensions and sustainability issues were

specifically examined. Goat productivity interventions were found to achieve their

intended goal of improving the nutrition and income of the rural communities and

sustainability of these interventions were paramount. However, it was observed

that farmers have not fully sustained the goat productivity intervention as

intended. Sustainability failure were due to due to labor intensive technologies,

lack of follow up training and support, price disincentives and lack of equitable

participation of men and women in goat interventions. In order to achieve

sustainability of goat productivity interventions, there is need to transform from

subsistence to commercial production, improve on market access, demand for

products, gender equity, provide options for labor intensive practices.

x

CHAPTER ONEINTRODUCTION

BackgroundDevelopment is a process that allows the people to improve their livelihoods.

Many countries have been able to improve the livelihoods of their people, but the

poor have remained absolutely poor and insecure as well as relatively worse off.

In Uganda today, over 80% of the population are earning a living from agriculture

and agricultural related activities. Livestock production constitutes an important

sub-sector in agricultural productions in Uganda and contributes about 7.5% of

total GDP or 17% to agricultural GDP domestic product (PMA, 2000). At least

40% of the Ugandan population is living in absolute poverty and the livestock

sector could be very important in addressing rural poverty. Households with

livestock earn more income and have improved food security, and obtain higher

crop productivity than other households.

Although cattle are the most important of all livestock in Uganda, goats and to a

less extent sheep make significant contribution to the local economy and the diet.

(MAAIF,1999). The small ruminants in Uganda are kept mainly for meat

production and contribute 16,043 metric tonns of meat annually (URA, 2000). This

accounts for 21% of the total national meat production. The skins annual output

was 1.36 million skins and with about 95% of these skins exported (URA, 2000).

The small ruminants kept in Uganda are goats and sheep with the former being

more important than the latter.

Goats have been kept for generations in Uganda and have helped people to

survive and to come out of poverty. The goat population was estimated at 6.3

million in Uganda (MAAIF, 1999). Smallholder farmers own more than 95% of

small ruminants and produce the bulk of the slaughter animals. Goats in Uganda

contribute significantly to the livestock and agricultural sector of the national

economy. They play diverse roles in the socio-economic welfare of a larger

proportion of the rural small-holder farmers who keep them as a major source of

cash, meat, and milk and for various social and cultural obligations such as paying

1

taxes, school fees, cultural ceremonies (Peacock, 1996; Okello and Obwollo,

1984).

In order to address the poverty situation in Uganda and because of the

significance of goats in households, several organizations have come up to

improve the production and productivity of the local goats which are smaller in

size and have low meat yield. Boer and dairy (Sanen, Togenberg) goats were

introduced in Uganda by NGOs, CBOs, religious organizations and Government

programmes.

The Government of Uganda has made deliberate efforts through various

interventions to boost goat production and target the export market within the

region and in the Middle East. Goat production is seen as one of the key livestock

enterprises that can quickly help Ugandans to come out of poverty and also earn

the country foreign exchange.

The farmer group support approach is being used by all the organizations

involved in the goat projects as a means of farmers accessing the goats and

having a collective management responsibility in one way or another. The groups

are trained and leaders are selected for each group. Male goats are usually given

to upgrade local stock through crossbreeding. The pass-on revolving scheme is

also emphasized especially among NGOs to increase on the multiplier effect

Goat productivity interventions were introduced over 10 years ago, in the farming

system in the study area. For Instance in 1995, the then Her Excellency the Vice

President, Dr. Specioza Kazibwe introduced dairy goats to some women groups

in Iganga District. Later in the late 90s and early 2000 some NGOs such as Africa

2000 Network – Uganda (A2N-U), Heifer Project International (HPI) and other

church organizations and private individuals also brought goats into the District.

The Government of Uganda also imported 845 Boer goats from South Africa in

2002 and 2003 and distributed them to farmers for multiplication in order to boost

goat production and raise the numbers for export. Mugisha A, et al (2007)

2

Alongside this intervention of introduction of exotic goats, were practices such as

record keeping, fodder and pasture establishment and management, disease and

parasite control, housing, breeding and integration of the goat in the rest of the

farming systems through utilization of manure. Other related development issues

such as gender were also tackled by these organizations. Although the farmers

are very enthusiastic to adopt these practices, however some years later they do

not carry on with such practices, hence affecting the productivity of the goats. For

example dairy goats that were producing 7litres/day now give 2-3 litres per day

while meat goats that would reach marketable age at 4-5 months now take 7-12

months. (Africa 2000 Network, 2007). Some major constraints to increased

productivity of goats have been identified as feed requirements, animal health and

genotype of livestock, farming systems and government policy (Kasellati and

Tacher, 1991).

Furthermore, there are several constraints that have been limiting the

sustainability of goat productivity interventions. Successful goat productivity can

only be achieved through good goat management practices in a sustainable

manner. It entails keeping goats under good management that will improve herd

production and goat productivity (Azuba R, et al 2005). This means increased

output per goat in terms of meat, milk and the average number of kids that are

born and raised to a time when they are disposed off for cash or retained for

breeding. In order to maximize the desired output from the goat farming

enterprise, a farmer needs to address the key productivity interventions that

include among other the following: Production systems, housing, feeding,

breeding, animal disease control and prevention, record keeping, marketing and

goat improvement technologies/practices. The others are new breed introduction

(pure Boer, pure dairy, cross Boer dairy), reproduction technologies, marketing

and marketability, crop and animal integration. These practices should be

maintained and passed on from generation to generation (sustainability).

However, the farmers are not able to sustain these interventions for along time or

beyond the life span on the project.

3

This study was undertaken to understand why farmers cannot sustain these

interventions to ensure continued high productivity of the goats. It also explored if

the interventions and best practices in the study area are still being carried out

and assessed the factors which have led to success or failure of the interventions.

The broad objective of this study was therefore to explore factors affecting

sustainability of goat productivity interventions by Government, NGOs and other

service providers. Specifically the study profiled the goat productivity interventions

in the area; identified farmers who have maintained or have not maintained the

interventions and success or failure factors, respectively; and suggested ways on

how to improve future goat productivity interventions.

4

CHAPTER TWOLITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Livestock intervention in Uganda.The main objective driving national development in Uganda is poverty eradication.

The Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) for Uganda, finalized in 2000 is the

comprehensive national policy framework which guides development. PEAP is to

reduce poverty to 10% of the national population by the year 2017. A holistic

policy and strategic framework, the plan for modernization of Agriculture (PMA),

derived from PEAP seeks to address poverty reduction through agricultural

transformation, from subsistence to commercial farming (PEAP 2000).

Goat production is seen as one of the key livestock enterprises that can quickly

help Ugandans to come out of poverty and also earn the country foreign

exchange (MAAIF 2001). In an attempt to fulfill this goal, the government imported

845 Boer goats from South Africa in 2002 and 2003 and distributed them to

farmers for multiplication in order to boost goat production and raise the numbers

for export. The National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) was created by

an act of parliament in 2001 to spearhead the privatization of the public extension

system (MAAIF, 2001). The fundamental objective of the NAADS programme is to

develop a demand driven client oriented and farmer agricultural service delivery

system targeting the active poor farmers. Since its inception, NAADS has

promoted goat production and supported farmers groups and individuals with

Boer goats for crossbreeding with the indigenous goats (Amanya M, 2008).

Recently, the National Livestock Productivity Improvement Programme (NLPIP)

has also boosted livestock productivity intervention in the Uganda.

The NGOs and other private sector also imported Boer goats (MAAIF, 2003).

Several NGOs, namely: Heifer Project International (HPI), Send a Cow Uganda

(SACU), and Africa 2000 Network have previously worked in Iganga District for

over 10 years and promoted livestock (including goat) husbandry as a means of

addressing poverty eradication. It is reported by Iganga District veterinary

department that goat productivity interventions in the district have been successful

and that goat farming is slowly replacing cattle farming. In 1995, the then Her

5

Excellency the Vice President Dr. Specioza Kazibwe introduced dairy goats, 10

Sannen goats (1 male and 9 females), to some women groups in Iganga District.

In addition, church organisations and individuals have also brought into the district

improved goats.

2.2 Livestock production in Iganga District

Iganga is basically a rural district (91% of the district population) with over 80 % of

the people engaging in peasant agriculture, animal husbandry, fishing and

produce buying. The main crop grown for cash is maize though in some parts the

striga weed has affected its production. Other crops include coffee, potatoes, rice,

beans and cassava. Coffee and sugar canes are the main traditional cash crops.

Majority of the people live below the poverty line i.e. on less that $1 a day and can

only produce for home consumption. (Iganga District LG, Five year OVC strategic

plan, 2008/9 – 2012/2014, Feb 2008)

The total goat production in Uganda is about 12,449,670 and eastern region has

2,599,980 (20.9%). Iganga District is estimated to have 169,915 goats of several

breeds (MAAIF, 2009).

2.3 Gender dimensions in goat productivity interventions

Gender is a socio-economic variable used to analyze roles, responsibilities,

constraints, opportunities, and incentives of people involved in agriculture (Poats,

1991). Women undertake major responsibilities in agricultural production most of

which go unrecognized in employment records. Further more women perform

household chores and reproductive activities and deserve the necessary

attention. However focusing on women only may not be the appropriate approach

towards improving the welfare of the poor families, in developing countries.

Some of the goat production activities include feeding, herding, milking (for dairy

goats), care of goats and kids, pregnant and injured animals. Others are collection

and transportation of animal feeds, cleaning of animal sheds and collection of

manure. Raising the goats requires a contribution from all family members.

6

Specific participation of women, men and children in animal husbandry varies

across regions depending on the farming systems and socio-economic factors

such as religion, culture, development gradient etc. Gender roles are further

influenced by the environmental and demographic characteristics and the type of

animals kept. These variations make it impossible to generalize about gender

roles in ruminant livestock production systems in developing countries (FAO,

2002)

2.4 Sustainability factors in goat productivity.

Despite the significant role of goats in improving the livelihoods of the rural poor,

this role is underscored by several factors that affect the sustainability of goat

productivity interventions. Sustainability is perhaps the one of the toughest

concerns in the 21st century. Sustainability is a paradigm which aims to complying

simultaneously with productive, economic, social, cultural and ecological

objectives (Sarandon, 2002).

Sustainable development is a pattern of resource use that aims to meeting human

needs, while preserving the natural environment. These needs can be met not

only in the present, but also in the indefinite future. Sustainable development is

development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainable development is

the management and conservation of the natural resource base, and the

orientation of technological and institutional change to attain a continued

satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Such sustainable

development in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors conserves land,

water, plant and animal genetic resources; and is environmentally non-degrading,

technically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable (FAO, 1988).

Sustainability is multi-dimensional and it is hard to be precise about exactly what it

is. The present study focused on sustainability to imply persistence and the

capacity of goat productivity to continue for a long time, and considered three

aspects of sustainability, namely: economic, social, and environmental aspects.

Economic aspect considers demands for goats and goat products, resources or

7

income spent and gained from goat keeping, access to markets, credit and

financing. The social aspect considers cultural and traditional roles of goat and

goat products, social institutions (groups and associations) and civil society

involved. Meanwhile, the environmental aspect considers grazing and energy use,

biodiversity and genetic conservation, soil and water management, air quality, and

human and animal health. Interplay of these factors influence the sustainability of

goat productivity interventions. Sustainability of goat productivity interventions

therefore means ability to produce goats and goat products to meet the needs of

mankind now and in the future using of modern farming practices and new

interventions. 

The economic factor is one of the most important considerations in sustainability

of goat productivity interventions. The nature of the market for goats and goat

products for human consumption and for breeding will determine the profitability

and viability of goat systems. High demand of the goats and goat products can be

a highly motivating factor to sustainability of productivity intervention threats. The

market for goats and goat products will thus greatly affect profitability and

economic sustainability.

Although social considerations may appear insignificant, goats continue to be kept

in places where they are an integral part of the cultural life of those communities.

Social considerations encompass networks (membership in groups/ associations)

and connectedness that increase peoples trust and ability to work together, solve

collective problems more easily and expand their access to other services from

various services providers and institutions. Interventions that are not embraced by

the whole community lead to social exclusion- “process through which individuals

or groups are wholly or partially excluded from full participation in the society in

which they live”. Some attributes can exclude others, especially the marginalized

groups such as women, the poor and disabled. Past cross breeding programmes

in Meru dairy project failed because programmes were evolved and implemented

without beneficiaries input and therefore ownership and acceptance was lacking.

Further more Project approaches were expensive with no in built sustainability

mechanisms. Mtenga,L et al 1998).

8

Considering environmental issues, traditionally goats are kept under free range or

tethering system. These systems affect the environment including vegetative

cover, since goats are browsers, leading to degradation. Livestock, including

goats, interact with the environment in a number of positive and negative ways. In

recent times the negative impact of livestock on the environment has been

emphasized. The report “Livestock’s Long Shadow (FAO, 2006)” brought together

a large weight of evidence showing the damaging environmental effect of

livestock and livestock-related anthropogenic activities. Development partners,

especially NGOs introduced the zero-grazing system of goat rearing as one of the

intervention to poverty, while minimizing costs, maximizing benefits and reducing

negative environmental impacts. The environmental challenge is thus, to identify

interventions and technologies which will enhance the positive and mitigate the

negative effects of grazing in order to achieve the products – economic, social

and environmental - required by man.

9

CHAPTER THREEMATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Study area

Iganga District lies in the Eastern region of Uganda. It is a land locked district that

lies between longitude 330 10’ east and 340 0’ east and latitudes 0o 06’ North 1o

12’. It is located in the South Eastern part of Uganda and the distance is

approximately 102 Km from Kampala, the capital city of Uganda. It borders

Mayuge district to the south, Bugiri to the southeast, Kaliro and Namutumba to the

North and Jinja District to the West. It covers a total area of 1680 square

kilometers, much of which is land and swamps. The districts headquarters are

located in Iganga Town Council on Saza Road along Nakigo Road.

The study was conducted in the parishes of Bugonoka, Namalemba, Bulongo,

Nakabugu and Kiyunga in Bulongo sub-county; and parishes of Nakalama,

Bukona, Bukyayi and Buseyi in Nakalama sub-county, Iganga District. Iganga

District was chosen purposely because it is among the Districts that benefited

from Government and NGO goat productivity interventions over 10 years ago.

Map of the study area is given in figure 1 below.

Study areaFigure1: Map of the study area

10

3.2 Study design

The study was composed of two components, a qualitative survey based on focus

group discussions (FGDs) in two selected sites (one site per sub-county) and a

quantitative study based on an administered questionnaire at household level.

The quantitative approach complimented the qualitative method to obtain an

insider’s knowledge beyond what a single method would give out. The design also

involved living testimonies of farmers who had kept goat over years, participants

observation of such farmers among others and collection of secondary data from

previous work done, and interview with key farmers.

3.3 Sample size

The sample size was determined using the formula below.

n = 4(PQ)

e2

Where:

n = Sample size

P= is the positive outcome, and in this case we took the number of households

where goats productivity interventions were sustained, and the assumption is that

it is 50%.

Q = is the negative outcome and this considered households where goat

productivity interventions were not sustained, and the assumption it that it is 50%.

4 = is the 95% confidence interval.

e = the permitted level of sampling error in the study and in this case its 10% (the

range of allowable error for a survey in unknown population is 0.1 points (Drea).

Therefore, n = 4(0.5 X 0.5)

(0.1)2 = 100

The sample size or farmers in the study was 100 goat farmers for the quantitative

questionnaire survey. Participants of the focus group discussion were selected

purposely to include all categories of farmers who keep goats and those who don’t

11

keep goats. Among participants who keep goats were those who had maintained

the practices over three years and those who had not.

3.4 Methods of data collection

Questionnaire survey and the questionnaire instrument is given in Appendix 2.

The questionnaire was pre-tested in one randomly sampled sub county. The aim

was to assess the clarity, validity and reliability of the questions. One hundred

farmers who have been rearing pure/crossbred Boer, dairy or local goats for the

past five or more years were randomly selected. The 100 farmers comprised of 50

farmers from Nakalama sub-county and 50 farmers from Bulongo sub-county. Six

research assistants (3 per sub-county) were selected and trained to help in data

collection. Both qualitative and quantitative data was collected and employed the

following methods:

(1) Focus group discussions using a pre-prepared checklist (Appendix 3). Focus

group discussion involved getting 20 to 30 people affected by the subject of

investigation and asking them question and the responses recorded. The

investigator and research assistants had knowledge of the local language, hence

the discussions were conducted in the local language and recorded in English.

(2) Collection of secondary data from farmers production records, records from

the District veterinary office and reports of similar work done or information related

to the subject of investigation.

(3) Participants observations: this involved direct observation of events, process,

relationships and behaviors by the investigator. Areas of observation were on

household status, type of housing structure (main house, kitchen, toilet facilities),

household assets (bicycles), compound, hygiene and sanitation. All these were

considered as being indicators of improved living standards. These were recorded

and photographs of goat sheds taken (figure 2 and 3).

12

(4) Farmers living testimonies that involved narrations or stories carried out with

individuals or groups of individuals who have been involved or participated in the

process.

(5) Semi structured interviews with key or model farmers that involved asking

specific questions aimed at getting information that was used to enrich the study.

The questions were both open-ended and closed ended. The interviews provided

a good source of both qualitative and quantitative data.

Figure 2 : Well managed goat housing in Iganga

Figure 3: Poorly managed zero-grazing goat shed in Iganga

13

3.5 Data handling and statistical analysis

The analysis involved turning the detailed information into an understanding of

patterns, trended and interpretations. All questionnaire information were edited,

coded and details summarized in tabular and graphical form. The data was

captured in Microsoft Excel and analyzed using Epidemiological Information

(EPINFO) software and Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) to

compute frequencies and percentages that generated the graphs and charts in

this report to support the qualitative data.

The results are findings of the analyzed questionnaire data which was drawn from

responses of the 100 goat keepers drawn from two sub-counties of Nakalama

(parishes of Nakalama, Buseyi, Bukyayi and Bukoona) and Bulongo (parishes of

Bugonoka, Kiyunga, Nakabugu, Namalemba and Bulongo) in Iganga District. The

information from the questionnaire survey was corroborated by findings of the

focus group discussions of 43 farmers conducted in two sites in the same

location.

14

CHAPTER FOURRESULTS

4.1 Introduction

The results are categorized into five sections: House hold demographic data,

socio-economic profile, livestock keeping profile, goat management, gender

dimensions and sustainability issues. Focus Group Discussions and farmer

respondents in Bulongo and Nakalama by Gender is given in table 1 below.

Table 1: Gender of farmer respondents and those involved in FGDs in Bulongo and Nakalama

Focus Group Discussions Farmer respondents Total

Male Female Male Female

Nakalama 12 12 33 17 74

Bulongo 15 09 22 28 74

Total 27 21 55 45 148

4.2: Household demographic data

4.2.1: Gender and age of respondents

The study looked at the type of household of the respondents with a view of

examining participation of men and women in goat farming. The majority 59% of

the goat farmers were from male headed monogamous households. In addition,

22% were from male headed polygamous households, while 19% from female

headed households (single mothers or widows).This is shown in figure 4

15

Figure 4: Marital status of households

All the respondents were adults with age range of 24-67 years and mean age of

45 years.

4.2.2: Levels of education of respondentsThe majority 54% of the respondents were men while 46% were women. Most

respondents (93%) attained at least primary education, of which 48% had primary

education, 36% attained secondary level and 9% tertiary level. Only 7% of the

respondents had never had formal education. This is shown in figure 5.

Figure 5: Education level of the household head

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

No education Prrimary level Secondary level Tertiary level

Education level of household head

Perc

enta

geFemale headed (single/widow)

19%

Male headed polygamous

22%

Male headed monogamous

59%

16

Responses from the focus group discussions indicated that women farmers were

more keen and committed to feeding the goats, cleaning the sheds, identifying

sick animals, there by having a more key role in sustaining the interventions. On

the other hand the age of the respondents did not significantly contribute to

sustainability since the majority of the respondents were adults.

4.3: Socio-economic profile

4.3.1: Income source

Figure 6 shows that the main source (55%) of income was derived from crops and

14% from other sources such as petty businesses and remittances from relatives.

Only 12% of the income was from live goats, 8% from cow milk, 6% from poultry,

4% from sale of pigs and 1% from selling cattle.

Figure 6: Main source of income

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Live goats Crops Othersources

Cow milk Poultry Pigs Sellingcattle

Income type

Perc

enta

ge

17

4.3.2: Household expenditure

The main household expenditure was on education (75%), followed by medical

care (12%), food (8%), animal feeding (1%), animal health care (1%), and others

(2%). (Figure 7).

Figure 7: Main household expenditure

Among other expenditures, the respondents specified domestic consumables

such as salt, fuel (paraffin and wood), sugar, soap. The estimated cost of medical

care varied from UShs 10,000 to 800,000, buying food UShs 15,000 to 900,000,

and children’s education 10,000 to 960,000, animal feeding 10,000 to 160,000

and animal health care 10,000 to 305,000 on a bi annual and annual basis (table

2).

Table 2: Estimated household expenditure range

Bi-annually Annually Total

Medical care 10,000-800,000 20,000-1,600,000

Buying food 15,000-900,000 30,000-1,800,000

Children’s education 10,000-960,000 20,000-1,920,000

Animal feeding 10,000-160,000 20,000-320,000

Animal health care 10,000-305,000 20,000-610,000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Education MedicalCare

Food Animalfeeding

Animalhealth care

Others

Extenditure item

Perc

enta

ge

18

4.4: Livestock keeping profile

4.4.1: Livestock species and breeds keptThe main livestock species kept by most respondents (42%) is goats. The other

livestock species kept were poultry 30%, cattle 22% and pigs 6%. (Table 3).

Table 3: Livestock species kept

Species Percentage (%)

Goats 42

Poultry 30

Cattle 22

Pigs 6

The majority (97%) of respondents keep goats, while 1% do not keep goats and

2% did not mention whether they keep goats or not. Of those who did not keep

goats, 95% said the main reason for not keeping goats is that they are hard to

keep. The main breed of goats kept is local goats (46 %). The other goat breeds

kept were dairy crosses (21%), Boer crosses (14%), pure dairy goats (10%), and

pure Boer goats (3%). (Figure 8).

Figure 8: The main breeds of goats kept

05

101520253035404550

Local goats Dairy Boer Pure dairy Pure Boer

Goat type

Perc

enta

ge

19

4.4.2 Flock sizes

46% of the respondents kept 6-10 goats, 37% of respondents kept less than 5 goats and the rest (16%) kept 11-20 goats, and 1% kept more than 20 goats. (Table 4).

Table 4: Flock size of goats kept

Flock size Percentage (%)

1-5 goats 37

6-10 goats 46

1-20 goats 16

>20 1

4.4.3: Duration of keeping goats

The study revealed that 43% of the respondents have kept goats for 4-10 years,

41% had kept for 1-3 years,. 11% had kept for over 10 years and 3% had not

kept goats at all. Up to 43% of the respondents have kept exotic/crossbred goats

for 1-3 years, 24% had kept for 4-10 years while 14% had kept goats for less than

one year.

4.4.4: How goats were acquired

The majority (69%) of the respondents acquired the local goat through purchase

from the markets. Meanwhile 14% of the farmers purchased the goats from other

farmers/breeders, 10% were given by projects/NGOs, 3% of the farmers acquired

their goat through bride price and 3% inherited the goats. The majority (49%) of

the respondents revealed that the main source of the exotic goats were others

such as fellow farmers, breeders, NGOs like Africa 2000 Network. In addition to

this source was Heifer Project International 13%, NAADS 6% and MAAIF 2%.

20

4.4.5: Reason for keeping goats

Most of the farmers kept goats as a source of income (62%). Other reasons for

keeping the goat were for milk (6%), meat (6%), manure (4%) and socio-cultural

reasons (2%). The survey revealed that the majority (37%) of the farmers were

mainly motivated to acquire the exotic goats because they are quick maturing.

Others were motivated because the goats were bigger and better than the local

goats. (12%), were good for producing milk (10%), were promised outside market

(7%), and 6% were motivated by prestige and because the neighbor had acquired

them.

4.4.6: Type of follow up support received

28% of the farmers said they received training as a follow-up support from where

the goats were got. The other support received is routine advice (20%), market for

the goats (5%), veterinary care (4%) and market for milk 3%. The remaining

(40%) of the respondents however said they do not receive any follow up support

from where the goats were got.

4.4.7 Goats meeting farmer expectations

52% of the farmers reported that the goats had met their expectations. However

15% said the goats had not met their expectations. The study further revealed that

of those who said the goats had met their expectations, the major reason given by

30% of farmers is that the goat have greatly multiplied. Further more 21% said

they get income from them and 6% mentioned other reasons such as social

factors. Other farmers said the goats have not met their expectations and sited

the following reasons lack of market (47%), high death rate (23%), too demanding

(18%) and lack of veterinary services (2%).

4.4.8: Goat ownership

The findings from the questionnaire survey revealed that the majority (37%) of the

respondents reported the goats are owned by the family, 29% owned by men,

21

20% owned by the wives, and 5% owned by group members. However, the

findings of the focus group discussions indicated that the goats are mainly (75%)

owned by the men.

4.5 Goat management

4.5.1 Inputs for goat enterprise

Figure 6 shows that most respondents (38%) spend a lot on veterinary drugs as

input to their goat enterprise. The other inputs into the goat enterprise include

veterinary services (24 %), labour (17%), feeds (14%), and other inputs such as

ropes (6%), (Figure 9). The kind of supplementary feeds given to the goats is

mainly household feed residues like banana peelings, potato vines and shrubs

(amasumi in Lusoga language).

Figure 9: Inputs in the goat enterprise

4.5.2 Family care for the goat

49% of the respondents reported goats are cared for by the women and 18% by

children. Care of goats by husbands, whole family and laborers were reported by

15%, 9% and 8% of the respondents, respectively

0

5

1015

20

25

3035

40

Veterinarydrugs

Veterinaryservices

Labour Feeds Others

Goat enterprise inputs

Perc

enta

ge

22

4.5.3: Record keeping

Most of the respondents (65%) do not keep records, while others (34%) do keep

records. Of the farmers who keep records, 38% keep health records followed by

sales records (22%), breeding records (19%), production records (17%), and

others (1%) keep other records, (Figure 10). The main reason reported for not

keeping records is inability to write (32%), records are not necessary (28%),

recording is tedious (25%) and other reasons such as lack of knowledge, laziness

and poor motivation (15%). On comparison of education level and sustainability of

the interventions, the majority of the respondents reported they were unable to

keep on with record keeping since they were not able to read and write.

Figure 10: Type of records kept

4.5.4: Land size utilisation for goat rearing

The amount of land available for goats varied from 1-60 acres. Most (64%) of the

respondents reported the amount of land available for the goats is 1-2 acres,

followed by 3-5 acres (27%), 6-20 acres (4%), 21-50 acres (2%), and 60 acres

and above (2%). The majority (57%) of the respondents had purchased the land,

while 38% inherited the land and 3% use communal land.

4.5.5: Grazing method and housing

The majority (55%) of the respondents tether their goats, 36% practice zero-

grazing, 5% use paddocking and 4% practice free ranging (Figure 11). The type of

housing structure available for the goats is mainly roofed shelter, ground floor

05

1015

2025

3035

40

Healthrecords

Sales records Breedingrecords

Productionrecords

Other records

Type of records

Perc

enta

ge

23

(39%), while open shelter were 25%, roofed shelter with raised floor were 18%,

and those which are not housed i.e. no shelter were also 18%.

Figure 11: Grazing methods used by the farmers

4.5.6: Constraints in goat keeping

Farmers in the two study sites identified different constraints encountered in

keeping goats (Table 5).The main constraint encountered in keeping these goats

is goat diseases (47%), followed by lack of grazing land/inadequate pastures

(29%), labour intensive practices like zero-grazing resulting into “cut & carry” of

fodder/pasture (20.5%). Other constraints reported were low market prices of the

goats (13%), limited follow up & extension by NGOs & Government staff (12%),

high cost of veterinary services & drugs (9%), poor markets (1.5%), and lack of re-

investment (1.5%).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Paddock grazing Zero grazing Tethering Free range Others

Grazing methods

Perc

enta

ge

24

Table 5: Constraints encountered in keeping the goats

Constraints to goat production % value in Nakalama

% value in Bulongo

Average % value

Labour intensive practices like zero-

grazing “cut & carry” of fodder/pasture

21 20 20.5

Lack of grazing land/inadequate pasture 24 34 29

Goat diseases 50 44 47

Poor markets 1 2 1.5

Limited follow up & extension by NGOs &

Gov’t staff

14 10 12

High cost of veterinary services & drugs 8 10 9

Lack of re-investment 2 1 1.5

Low prises of goats 6 20 13

4.6 Sustainability issues

4.6.1 Market for goats(a) Goat buyers

Up to 64% of respondents had sold goats in the last six months while 36 % did not

sell any goats. Of those who sold goats, the majority (90%) of the respondents

sold 1-5 goats, 8% sold 5-10 goats and only 2% sold over 10 goats. The

marketing outlets for both breeding and meat goats were butchers (49%), fellow

farmers (19%), goat traders (14%) NGOs (10%), and NAADS (8%), figure 12.

25

Figure 12: Main buyers of goats

(b) Place of goat sales and goats easily sold

Most (73%) of the goat keeper sold their goats at farm gate (from home), a few

(17%) took to markets and 10% used other modes of sale. The study also

revealed that the goats which are easily sold are the locals as reported by 65% of

the respondents, and crosses 27%, while exotic was the least sold as reported by

only 8% of the respondents. This is shown in figure 13.

Figure 13: Goats easily sold

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Butchers Fellowfarmers

Goat traders NGOs NAADS

Categories of goat buyers

Perc

enta

ge

26

(c) Problems encountered in marketing

The categories of buyers offered various opportunities and constraints to the

respondents. The butchers were the major outlet however, they buy goats

according to body weight. Farmers reported that even for a pure exotic breed

worth UGX 200,000, a butcher buy at UGX 60,000/=. Although they offer low

price, the respondents acknowledged that butchers offer a stable market outlet.

The other market outlets are fellow farmers, Non-governmental organisations and

government organisations such as NAADS. 41% of the respondents reported they

are offered very low prices for the goats. In addition 23% of the respondents

reported they had no problem with marketing of the goats (table 6). Seven percent

of the respondents reported the major problem in marketing was long distance to

the market, 5% reported no market at all, and 2% gave other reasons such as

poor infrastructure. The distance to the nearest goat market is 1-5 kilometres.

Table 6: Problems encountered in marketing goats

Problem encountered Percentage (%)

Low prices 41

No problem 23

Long distance to markets 7

Lack of market 5

Others 2

4.6.2 Goat production interventionsKey goat and related interventions introduced were in the areas of training

farmers (33%), followed by extension visits (30%) as given in figure 14 below.

27

Figure 14: Key goat improvement interventions in study area

Key actors in goat production were Government (41%), NGOs (20%), private vets

(8%), farmers (18%), and CBOs (13%). This is shown in figure 15 below.

Figure 15: Key goat actors in study area

05

1015202530

Type of intervention

Perc

enta

ge

Nakalama Bulongo

28

4.6.3 Technologies sustained

Figure 16 shows the technologies that are still is use, and 37% of the respondents

said the major practice still being sustained is disease control, improved breeds

(17%), improved housing (16%), crop/animal integration (13%), record keeping

(12%) and improved feeds (5%).

Figure 16: Technologies sustained in Nakalama and Bulongo sub-counties

4.6.4 Failure for sustaining record keeping

The farmers had several reasons for not carrying on with each of the

technologies. During both the questionnaire survey and the FDGs, the understood

why farmers were not able to sustain or sustained to a less extent, the

technologies introduced. Figure 17 shows the reasons for not keeping on with

record keeping.

05

10152025303540

Improv

ed fe

eds

Improv

ed ho

using

Improv

ed br

eeds

Record

keepin

g

Diseas

e con

trol

Crop/a

nimal

integ

ratio

n

Categories of interventions

Perc

enta

ge

29

Figure 17: Reason for not sustaining record keeping

Inability to read and write as a reason for not keeping records was further

confirmed by the education level of the respondents, as the majority (48%) of the

respondents had only attained primary level education.

Record keeping is tedious and when you keep on recording

expenditure, the figures reveal that expenses are so high which is

discouraging and disturbing. This reflection of high expenditure

makes us give up on record keeping.

Comment by Malende Mary, of Bulongo sub-county during the FGD

4.6.5 Demand for the technologies

The majority (72%) of the respondents reported that the technologies introduced

to them were demanded for, while 19% reported they were not demanded, 9% of

the respondents were not sure. Successful goat practices that were replicated

include: rearing of improved breeds of goats, routine treatment of the goats,

improved feeding, adoption of new fodder legumes, crop and animal integration

practices, and disease control. Practices introduced but not sustained include;

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Not able to reador write

Not necessary Tedoius Others

Reasons for not keeping records

Perc

enta

ge

30

record keeping, improved housing (shed construction), zero-grazing. During the

FGDs, the reasons given for not sustaining the interventions were labour

intensiveness of the practices without incentives, limited extension services, and

high cost of inputs, laziness and unfair criteria for selection of beneficiaries.

Similarly, in the questionnaire survey the majority (36%) of the respondents

reported that the reasons for failure to sustain the technologies as being labour

demanding. Meanwhile the high cost was reported by 34% of respondents, lack of

follow up training (25%), no economic benefit (3%), and 2% gave other reasons

(Figure 18).

Figure 18: Reasons given for failure to sustain the interventions

Some respondents failed to sustain the breeds of goats given in the intervention.

The major reason given by 47% of respondents was lack of market. Meanwhile

23% revealed that survival of the goats is very poor, 18% reported the goats are

expensive to keep and 12% gave other reasons such as lack of veterinary

services. This is shown in figure 19 below.

0

5

10

15

2025

30

35

40

Labourintensive

Expensive Lack of followup training

No economicbenefit

Other

Sustainability constraints

Perc

enta

ge

31

Figure 19: Reasons for failure to sustain breeds

32

CHAPTER FIVEDISCUSSION

The study involved a total of 143 farmers comprising of 82 male farmers and 61

female farmers. One hundred of these farmers (50 from Nakalama and 50 from

Bulongo sub-county) participated in the questionnaire survey, while 43 farmers

(24 from Nakalama and 19 from Bulongo sub-county) participated in the focus

group discussions. The study involved more male farmers than female farmers

because women were engaged in other activities in the visited households. In

addition, the majority (59%) of the respondents were from male headed

monogamous households (22% male headed polygamous and 19% from female

headed households). The study findings are comparable to those of Brant et al.

(2001) who reported that male headed households are predominant among the

poor livestock keepers in Lake Victoria Basin. The majority (93%) of the

respondents had attained at least primary level education and only small

proportion (7%) had not attained education at all. This high figure of educated

farmers could be attributed to the introduction of Universal Primary Education

(UPE) in 1997 (Ministry of Education 2007).

Uganda’s economy is largely dependent on agricultural sector for both food self-

sufficiency and foreign exchange earnings (PMA, 2000). The study revealed that

the majority (55%) of the respondents’ main source of income is derived from

crops. The findings are comparable to that of MFPED Uganda Budget FY 2009/10

which indicated that the agriculture sector performance grew in FY 2008/9

compared to FY 2007/8 largely due to improved performance of food crops which

grew by 2.9 percent.

Despite the introduction of Universal Primary Education in 1997 and Universal

Secondary Education (USE) in February 2007 by the Government of Uganda, and

education being second in national budget allocation, the main household

expenditure for the majority (72%) of farmers is on education.

33

The findings of the current study indicate that the 42% of the farmers keep goats

compared to other livestock. These findings are supported by those of HPI which

indicated that goat productivity interventions have been successful in Iganga

District, and goat farming is slowly replacing cattle farming (HPI annual report,

2007). The finding however, contradicts that of the statistics of the livestock

census (MAAIF 2009,) which indicated that the main livestock species kept by

farmers is cattle, and goats come second. This difference could be attributed to

the fact that the livestock census was a National survey unlike this study which

only focused on Iganga District. The livestock census report further indicated that

the national goat population in Uganda grew from 8.5 million in the last three

years to 12.5 million. Western region had the highest number of goats estimated

to be 3.5 million, followed by northern region with 2.7 million, while central region

had the lowest number of goats estimated to be 1.7 million. It is noted that the re-

stocking programme in a number of districts under the National Livestock

Productivity Improvement Project (NLPIP) funded by the African Development

Bank and the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) project contributed

to the increase.

Despite the introduction of exotic breeds of goats, the current study found that the

most (46%) of the farmers keep local goats. In the Iganga District, exotic goats

were introduced over 10 years ago and since then several NGOs including HPI

and Africa 2000 Network brought in new breeds of goats. 43% of the respondents

however have kept the exotic breeds of goats for only 1-3 years, 24% of the

respondents who have kept them for 4-10 years. This is attributed to the pass on

the gift philosophy where initial beneficiaries give the first kids to other

beneficiaries within the community or group. The flock size of goats kept by the

majority 46% of the farmers ranges from 6-10 goats.

Tethering was the most predominant (63%) goat management system, despite

introduction of new interventions of zero-grazing and paddock grazing. Tethering

is a traditional practice where goats are tied on a rope and graze around a limited

range area. Where goats are tethered, there is a high chance of getting burden of

diseases and, therefore, the farmers has to adjust his management practices for

better performance. (Devendra,1987). Although tethering is associated with

34

several challenges, farmers prefer this practice because it is, cheap, not labor

intensive. In the study area since the major income is derived from crops, farmers

tether the goats to keep them away from their crops. This practice of tethering

limits the feed intake of the goats, predisposes them to diseases and generally

reduces the performance and hence the productivity of the goats. Successful

breeding of goats and rearing the offsprings up to the breeding age or slaughter

weight at the right time is one of the most important practices a livestock farmer

would like to achieve in his enterprise. Goat also need some form of housing

which is well ventilated, well drained and easily cleaned (Devendra 1988).

Women farmers were more keen and committed to the care and management of

goats. This is because they are at home most of the time cleaning the goat shed,

caring for sick, injured and pregnant animals. Women also take out the goats for

tethering or collect and carry fodder to the animals and easily identify sick animals

and report to their husband. Hence they play a big role in sustaining the

interventions compared to their counterparts. Men on the other hand are keen in

management of bigger livestock (cows), are in charge of herd management and

they are largely the decision makers for livestock production.

Women represent the majority of the rural poor (up to 70%) and play a major role

in the survival strategies and the economy (Africa 2000 Network, gender trainers

manual ) However in Uganda women lag behind men in terms of education level

and income earnings. The study revealed that care of the goats is mainly (49%)

done by women. The findings are similar to those of ILRI, 2007 that reported that

the division of work in Uganda is influenced by socio-cultural and economic

factors, what the animal is used for and how valuable the animal is.

The present study showed that ownership of the goats is mainly by men. Although

members of the family own goat, they cannot sale or slaughter without consent of

the man. Therefore the whole family has access to the goats, but the sole

decision maker and owner is the man. Women do the bulk of livestock activities;

they have no control of resources accruing from the sale of the goats. The impact

of this is that they resort to other activities for which they have control like growing

35

of crops, especially annual crops such as maize, for both food and income.

However, Whitehead and Kebeer (2001) argued that, although the household in

rural Africa remain a critical area of gender inequality, it is more accurately

described as an area of joint and competing interest. Rather than viewing it

household gender relations as only based on conflict, it is important to recognize

that men and women act jointly as husbands and wives, and as mothers and

fathers trough normatively defined gender division of responsibilities.

Most of the livestock interventions were targeting women to improve their status.

For example, in Heifer Project International the project provided selected women

with cattle/goats, trained them in its upkeep, and supervised the interventions. To

be considered to receive a cow, the applicants must submit a written statement

describing their motivation to participate in the project. The recipient woman of

that family must then convince the often reluctant husband to let him take the

cow/goat and strive to maintain cordial relations with the husband. In some

instances the animal may become a source of disagreement in the household and

can even lead to marriage instability. It is argued (Moser 1999) that Ugandan

women work over 14 hours per day compared to less than 10 hours for men.

Therefore introduction of goat projects, targeting women, is an additional workload

and burden to the women. The situation is aggravated if the interventions are

labour intensive such as the zero grazing practice involving “cut and carry” of

fodder to the livestock. Further more despite this scenario, the goat is still under

the overall ownership of the man since he is the household head “mwene wo” in

Lusoga language. Therefore, if rural development projects are to succeed and be

sustained, they must include both men and women equitably.

Goats like other livestock are important in maintaining the livelihoods of their

keepers by providing food, cash, manure, social and cultural identity, medium of

exchange and means of savings and investments. Goat productivity interventions

where introduced by Government programmes (under LGDP, NAADS, NLIPIP),

NGOs and other service providers with the overall goal of improving the living

standards of the rural poor. The study delved into the major interventions only.

The interventions involved the introduction of new breeds of goats, for both dairy

(Toggenberg, Sannen) and meat (Boer) breeds. In Iganga District the Dairy goats

36

were mainly introduced by NGOs like Heifer project International and Africa 2000

network to address child nutrition, raise income as well as integration of crop and

animal systems through utilization of manure. The Boer goats were mainly

introduced by Government programmes, LGDP and NAADS to improve

household income. There was a disease control component through routine

preventive treatment and utilizing veterinary services availed by the NGOs or

government.

Record keeping was a requirement for the beneficiary households of this study.

The major records emphasized were health records, breeding records, sales

records and income and expenditure records. Improved feeding practices were

introduced through training on balanced diets and new fodder grasses and tree

such as napier (elephant grass), calliandra calothysus, sesbania sesban, mucuna,

lablab were introduced in the farming system. Improved housing, for example in

Nakalama zero-grazing system involving shed construction and “cut and carry” of

grass and fodder was emphasized and promoted mainly by NGOs. Government

programmes facilitated by government extension staff spearheaded paddocking

and night housing of roofed ground floor structure. Crop and animal integration,

was mainly emphasized by the NGOs. The rationale was that manure from the

goats as an important source of nutrients and organic matter needed to maintain

soil fertility to boost crops production, especially banana and vegetable.

Government continues to play a central role in the development of the Nation.

This study found that Government is the key actor in the promotion of goat

productivity interventions, especially in areas of training, Agricultural extension,

disease control and introduction of new breeds. While government programmes

did not have stringent measures on the beneficiaries, NGO project beneficiaries

were expected to keep the goats under zero-grazing for environmental reasons,

improve their children's diets, practice family planning, have a more equal

relationship with their husbands, act as agents of change in their communities,

and local role models who maintain clean and healthy homes (HPI, 2002).

Sustainability is one of the major challenges in several development interventions.

Sustainability should take on a holistic approach considering economic, social,

37

and cultural consideration. Although several NGOs, government programmes and

other service providers hardly look at sustainability issues in project

implementation, some have well laid out strategy. Farm Africa project was

focused on enhancement of Elgon Dairy Goat Breeders’ Association (EDGBA) to

be able to continue activities once the project comes to an end. Sustainability has

always been a crucial aspect of that project) and the exit strategy to ensure long

term sustainability of the activities (Shamila 2007, Annual project report).

In the current study, the several interventions that were introduced in Iganga

District were taken up. However, a few years later some of the practices were

carried on by a minority while most households completely abandoned some

practices. Furthermore some non-beneficiary households copied some of the

practices and did not copy others for various reasons. Some of the non

beneficiary households attended the FGD while the other was by participants’

observation. 37% of respondents reported that the main intervention they have

sustained is disease control. In most places goat keepers faces various threats to

the continuity of their goat enterprises and their ability to respond and adapt to

change (Peacock and Sherman, 2005).

The findings showed that the main constraint faced by 27% of the goat keepers is

goat diseases. Disease is a threat to the goat keepers and they risk losing their

goats if measures of disease control are not adhered to. Diseases affect the

existence of the goat enterprise and goat productivity through drop in milk/meat

production, stunted growth and inferior product quality (Peacock and Sherman,

2005). The study found that some farmers failed to maintain a higher level of

disease control due to lack of veterinary services and high cost of veterinary drugs

and services.

Only 17% of the farmers were able to sustain improved breeds, despite the

introduction of the improved goats and main breeds of goats kept by respondents

were local breeds. This could be because the cumulative figure of the new breeds

is still low compared to the traditional local breed which has been reared in the

area for generations. The study revealed that the farmers acquired the exotic

goats because they are quick maturing. Non project beneficiary households who

38

attended the focus group discussions and neighbors to the goat beneficiaries

were also motivated to acquire the goats for this very reason. However, the major

challenges in rearing exotic goats were poor market for the goats and diseases.

These factors hindered the exploitation of the full potential and thus sustainability

of the exotic goat breeds. The findings are similar to that by Tao (2006) indicating

that lack of housing for goats, poor breeding practice, nutrition and lack of

application of preventive disease measures were also identified by farmers as the

main cause of poor goat management practices.

The current study also found that the main reason for keeping the goats was

household income. This showed that whatever intervention is to be promoted in a

community, it must have a monetary incentive or else the intervention could be

abandoned. This is comparable to the report by Makuru et al 2002, on impact of

dairy goats which included income, nutrition, knowledge and skills, improvement

among others. However, the low prices of the goats coupled with the few numbers

of the goats kept by respondents can hardly make farmers gain substantial

income to meet their basic needs. For this reason goat farming in the study area

is supplemented with other basic enterprises such as growing crops which was

the main source of income of the respondents. For poor farmers, owning goats

and properly managing them is an important link with reducing poverty. Proper

management and sustainability off take of goats and goat products can produce

meat (goat kids), milk, skin, manure which taken together can impact on

household income and nutritional status (Azuba et al 2005).

Only 21% of the respondents were not able to keep records because of inability to

read and this fares well with the results that 93% of the respondents had attained

at least primary level education. The failure for record keeping could be because

record keeping is tedious and not necessary as farmers do not easily see

economic benefit of record keeping as indicated in the study. Since most of the

farmers can read, there is need o avail reading material in the local language so

that farmers can consult literature in absence of service providers as a means of

sustainability.

39

The study also gave view of the fact that farmers tend to shy away from labor

intensive technologies like avoiding zero-grazing and resort to tethering the goats.

The adaptation of management strategies that save on labor such as paddock

grazing, use of fodder intercropping and minimum tillage helps households to

cope with increased workload from having fewer hands on the farm (Lagu, 2008).

40

CHAPTER SIXCONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 CONCLUSIONSFrom the study the following conclusions were made:

1. Government has a wide coverage in reaching out to farmers unlike NGOs that

are localized to specific areas; however the intervention of the latter are more

focused.

2. Goat productivity interventions are not fully sustainable as was intended by

Government programmes, NGOs, CBOs and other Development actors.

3. There was increased enthusiasm, awareness and uptake of goat interventions

among the farming communities and goat farming provided a pathway for

farmers who maintained the practices to come out of poverty.

4. The key factors affecting goat productivity interventions include; price

incentive in marketing the goats, labor intensive technologies as a burden to

the goat keepers, gender consideration for equitable sharing of roles and

benefits from the goats, continued technical guidance and follow up of farmers.

5. There is limited support to farmers to enable them transform from subsistence

to commercial farming, this in turn affects their capacity to exploit the potential

of goat production to improve their livelihoods.

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONSThe following are recommended:-

1. There is need to improve on the marketing for the goats and goat products for

instance through collective marketing to enable farmers gain tangible profits to

come out of poverty. Farmers are at the mercy of goat traders and butchers

who pay very low prices for their goats leaving farmers with very small or no

profits.

2. Government, NGOs and other service providers should enhance training and

follow up to farmers involved in goat production.

41

3. There is need to avail reading material in local languages to farmers’ groups or

beneficiary households so that farmers can consult literature in absence of

service providers as a means of sustainability.

4. There is need for Government, NGOs and other service providers to facilitate

farmer exposure and exchange visits to sites of excellence to enhance

learning and adoption of best practices. “Seeing is believing”

5. Provide options for labor saving technologies to be used especially by the

elderly and other vulnerable people such as the HIV/AIDS affected persons.

6. Farmers’ groups and households should be empowered as successor

institutions to spearhead goat interventions beyond the program/project/

period. The support mechanism should include promoting farmer trainers and

establishing linkages with other service providers.

42

REFERENCES

Ademosun A.A (1994). Constraints and prospects for small Ruminant Research

and development in Africa. In small Ruminant Research and development in

Africa. Proceedings of the 3rd Biannual conference of the Africa small ruminant

research network (edition Labbie, S.H.B) UICC, Kampala Uganda 5 th to 9th

December 1994.

Africa 2000 Network (1999) Gender in Agricultural Development training,

facilitator’s manual.

Africa 2000 Network, (2007). Livestock survey report, Iganga District Uganda.

Amanya Moses, (2008). The effectiveness of the National Agricultural Advisory

Services (NAADS) programme on Agricultural production in Kibaale District,

Uganda. 2008.

Azuba R, Hoona J.J, and Mwebaze S (2005). Goat production manual. Ministry of

Agriculture Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (MAAIF), National Agricultural

Advisory Services (NAADS), Republic of Uganda.

Birungi Patrick and Mutenyo John, (1999). Government strategy and operational

Framework. Principles of Economics.

Brant Swallow, Fred Kabuye, Kiguli Disan, Waata Fiona, (2001). Voices of the

poor livestock keepers in the lake Victoria basin, Uganda.

Drea, J.T. sampling, wikpedia, 2010.

Devendra, C. (1987), Goat. An introduction to Animal husbandry in the tropics 3 rd

ed. (eds Williamson, G. and Payne, W.J). p 462-481. English Language Book

Society /Longman group (FE).

Devendra, C. and McLeroy, G.B 1988. Goat and Sheep Production in the tropics.

LS BS

Farm Africa, (2007): The Uganda Dairy Goat and Animal Health care project,

Mbale, Uganda.

43

Food and Agricultural Organization, (1996). 6th Food survey report, Rome.

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), 2004. Agricultural and Development

Economics Division. Investigating in Agriculture for growth and food security in

ACP countries.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO 2001), A report on the impact of

HIV/AIDS on food security, Rome Italy.

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO, 2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow report ,

Rome Italy.

Heifer project International (2007), Annual report, Uganda

Iganga District Local Government, Five year Orphans and other Vulnerable Children Strategic Plan, 2008/2009 – 2012/201, Feb 2008, Iganga Uganda.

Kasellati A. And Tacher, G. (1991). Animal Health and Economics. Institut d’

Elevage et de Medecine Vetetinaire des pays Tropicaux, Paris Department du

CIRAD Medecine Vetetinaire des pays Tropicaux, Paris Department du CIRAD.

International Livestock Research Institute, ILIRI report 2007.

Lagu C. (2008): Impact of HIV/AIDS on the livestock producing communities of

Uganda: Case study of Moyo and Kashumba subcounties.

Makuru Margaret, Jotham Turihihi, Bahati, A: Impact of Dairy goat farming on

small scale farmers-Heifer Project International Uganda experience, 2002.

Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries -MAAIF (1999). Strategic

study to develop Small Ruminants and Rabbits.

Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries-MAAIF (2001). National

Advisory Services programme (NAADS)-Master Document.

44

MAAIF, 2003, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries. Department

of Animal Production and Marketing report 2003, Uganda.

MAAIF, 2009, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal industries and Fisheries. A summary

report of the National Livestock Census 2008. Kampala, Uganda.

Ministry of Education report 2007, Uganda

Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MFPED) (2009),

Uganda Budget FY 2009/10

Moser, C.O.N (1999) Gender roles, the family and the household. In Gender

planning and Development; theory, practice and training.

Mugisha, A (2004). Socio-economic and gender Aspects of control of vector

borne diseases: A study of intra-household dynamics and decision making in the

pastoralist system of southwestern Uganda.

Mugisha A, et al (2007) Socio-economic impact assessment of goat productivity

interventions, and the use of innovative and participatory breeding approaches in

Uganda. 2007.

Mtenga, L.A, V.R.M. Muhikambele, G.C. Kifaro and E.Kinsey (1998). Networking

in goat development programes

National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) (2003). Baseline report on the

agricultural sector and rural livelihoods in Uganda.

Okello, K.L, and Obwollo, M.J. 1984. Uganda review of the potentialities of goat

production. World Animal Review. A quarterly journal on animal health, production

and products.

Peacock, Christie and Sherman M. David (2005). Sustainable goat production –

some global perspectives.

PEAP, 2000. The Poverty Eradication Action Plan for Uganda (1987, revised

2000).

45

PMA, 2000. Plan for Modernization of Agriculture: Eradicating Poverty in Uganda

Toa Gordon Victor (2006), Goat distribution and Burden of selected diseases in

Arua District, Uganda.

Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2002), Households survey data 2002/3, Entebbe

Uganda.

Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2001), Uganda demographic and health survey

2000-2001, Entebbe Uganda.

URA, (2000). Uganda Revenue Authority records. Ministry of Finance, Planning

and Economic Development, Uganda.

46

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1:GLOSSARY

Sustainability: Implies persistence and the capacity of something to continue

for a long time.

Sustainable Agriculture: is a model of social and economic organization

based on an equitable and participatory vision of development which

recognizes the environment and natural resources as the foundation of

economic activity. Agriculture is sustainable when it is ecologically sound,

economically viable, socially just, culturally appropriate and based on a

scientific approach.

Farmers group: Constitutes of individual farmers or an association with a

common farming interest.

Household: is composed of a person or a group of persons who live together

under a single roof or within a single compound and share a common life in

that they are answerable to the same head and share common source of food.

Livestock: Animals kept on farm (for food and income).

Rural communities: All people that live in particular areas when talked about

as a group in context, people living in village settings.

Poverty: Inability to satisfy a range of basic human needs and stems from

powerlessness, social exclusion, ignorance, lack of knowledge and shortage of

material resources

Productivity: is the efficiency of conversion of inputs into outputs (in other

words, the efficiency of a production system

47

APPENDIX 2:QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ASSESSING FACTORS AFFECTING

SUSTAINABILITY OF GOAT PRODUCTIVITY INTERVENTIONS IN UGANDA 

This questionnaire is part of instruments to carry out a survey on assessing

factors affecting sustainability of goat productivity interventions in Uganda.  The

information obtained will be kept with utmost confidence, unless otherwise

authorized. We thank you for your time and views

 

Instructions Write or tick/circle, where appropriate 

No. Questions and Filters    

100                                               Farmer identification  

101 District    

102 Sub-county    

103 Parish    

104 Village    

105 Date of interview    

106 Name of

enumerator                            

   

107 Name of Supervisor    

 

 

No. Questions and Filters Code        

200

                        House hold ID 

20

1

Name of respondent (optional)    

20

2

Type of household Female headed

Male headed

monogamous

Male headed –

………………………..1

………………………..2

………………………..3

………………………..4

48

polygamous

Child-headed

Others (specify)

 

………………………..5

20

3

Age of respondent     

20

4

Gender of respondent    

20

5

Education level of the

household head

None

Primary level

Secondary level

Tertiary level

………………….1

…………………..2

…………………..3

…………………..4

No. Questions and filters Coding category             Code

300                                       Socio-economic profile

301 Main source of income (circle

only one)

Selling cattle …………………..1

Cow milk………………………..2

Goat milk……………………….3

Goats …………………………..4

Pigs …………………………….5

Poultry…………………………..6

Crops ………………….……….7

Others (specify)……….………8

302 Other sources of income (circle

all that applies to you)

Selling cattle …………………1

Cow milk ……………………..2

Goat milk……………………..3

Goats …………………………4

Pigs……………………………5

Poultry………………………..6

Others (specify)……………..7

303 Number / amount sold in 301

and 302 above in a year

Item Amount /

Number 

 

Price

Cattle    

49

Cow

milk

   

Goats    

Goat

milk

   

Pigs    

Poultry    

Crops    

Other-

specify

   

304 Main household expenditure

(Tick only one)

Medical care ………………………….1

Buying food ……………………..……2

Children education ……………..……3

Animal health care…….. ……….…...4

Animal feeding………..….……..….....5

Others (please specify) ………..…….6

305 Other household expenditures

(Tick more than one)

Medical care……………………….….1

Buying food………………………..…..2

Children education……………..……..3

Animal health care..…………………..4

Animal feeding……………….………..5

Others (specify)………………..…..….6

306 Estimated amount on each item

mentioned in 304 and 305 per

year

Item Amount

spent

 

Medical care

Buying food

Children education

Animal health care

Animal feeding

Others (specify)

 

307 Organization/institution with

goat productivity intervention in

the community (Tick only one

Farm-Africa………….. ……………….1

MAAIF.. …………………..…………...2

NAADS…………………………..…….3

50

commonest) Africa 2000 Network…………………4

Heifer Project International….………5

LGDP……………………………..……6

Others…………………………………7

NARO…………………………………8

None…………………………………..9

308 The main form of intervention

(Tick one)

Pure exotic dairy goat ....................1

A cross dairy goat …………….……2

A pure Boer goat……………………3

Animal health care….. …………….4

Training……………………………..5

Feeds development……………….6

Breeding techniques………………7

Others (please specify)……………8

No. Questions and Filters Category Coding                         Code

400 Livestock Keeping profile  

401 Tick the main livestock species

kept (tick only one)

Cattle ………………………………..1

Goats…………………………………2

Pigs……………………………….…..3

Poultry.…………………………..……4

Others (specify)…………………..….5

402 Other livestock species kept

(select more than one)

Cattle ………………….……………..1

Goats…………………….……………2

Pigs…………………….……………..3

Poultry.………………….……………4

Others (specify)………….………….5

403 Do you keep goats Yes ……………………………..……..1

No …………………………..…………2

404 If not, why? They are hard to keep……………..1

They are not profitable……………..2

No capital…………………………….3

51

No land……………………………….4

Others (Specify)...…………………..5

405 If yes, what is the main breed of

goats kept? (Tick one)

Pure Dairy goats …………………..1

Pure Boers………………………….2

Dairy crosses……………………….3

Boer Crosses……………………….4

Locals…………………………….….5

Others (specify)…………………….6

406 The flock size of the goats kept Less than 5………………………….1    

6-10…………………………………..2

11-20…………………………………3

21-50…………………………………4

51-100………………………………..5

Over 100…………………………….6

 407 Type of management Tethering ………………………………1

Zero-grazing …………………………..2

Paddock-grazing ……………………...3

Free range grazing…………………….4

Others (please specify) ………………5

408

 

For how long have you been

keeping local goats?

None……………………………………1

1-3 years……………………………….2

4-10 years……………………………..3

Over 10 years…………………………4

409 How did you acquire the local

goat

Inherited ……………………………….1

Bride price……………………………..2

Purchase from market…………………3

Purchase from farmer/breeder………..4

Given by programme/NGO…………….5

410 For how long have you been

keeping exotic (crosses) goats?

None……………………………………1

1-3 years……………………………..…2

4-10 years………………………..…….3

Over 10 years…………………………..4

411 The main reason for keeping Income …………………………………1

52

these goats (Tick only one) Food (milk) …………………….……….2

Food (meat) …………..……..…………3

Manure ……….…………………………4

Socio-cultural ……………….………….5

Others (please specify) …….…………6

412 If you have exotic goats, what

was the main motivation for

acquiring them? (Tick only one)

Quick maturing….………………………1

They are bigger and better..…………...2

Good for producing milk.…………..…..3

Promised outside market…………..….4

Others (specify)…………………………5

413 What was the main source of

these goats?

Farm-Africa…………………………….1

NAADS………………………………….2

HPI......................................................3

MAAIF…….………………………….….4

Africa 2000 Network

Others (Specify)………………………..5

414 What kind of follow up support

from where you got these

goats?

Market for milk………………….……….1

Market for goats…………………………2

Training…………………………………..3

Veterinary care………………………….4

Routine advice…………………………..5

None……………… ………………..…...6

Others (Specify)…………………………7

415 Have the exotic goats met your

expectations?

Yes……………………………………..1

No……………………………………….2

416 If no, why? They die a lot…………………………..1

They are so demanding……………….2

They fall sick frequently……………….3

No market……………………………….4

Others (specify)…………………………5

417 If yes, how have they met your

expectations?

They have greatly

multiplied………………………………...1

Got a lot of income from them……..….2

53

Others (specify)……………….……..…3

418 Who owns the goats/ Man……………………………………….1

Wife……………………………………….2

Children…………………………………..3

Whole family…………………………….4

Group members………………………..5

500`` Goat Management

501 What is the main input (where

you spent a lot) in the goat

enterprise? Select one

Feeds  ………………………………....1

Vet drugs ………………………………2

Veterinary services bills ……………..3

Labor  ……………….………………….4

Others (please specifically) ………….5

502 What are other inputs into the

livestock enterprise? Mention all

Feeds  ………………………………....1

Vet drugs ………………………………2

Veterinary services bills ……………...3

Labor  ………………….......................4

Others (please specifically) …………..5

503 Who cares for the goats? Children…………………………………..1

Wife……………………………………….2

Husband………………………………….3

Laborer……………………..…………….4

Others (specify)……….….……………..5

504 What is the main constraint

encountered in keeping these

goats? Select one

Lack of feeds ……………………………1

Lack of market ………………….….… 2

Expensive veterinary drugs……….….3

There are no veterinary workers.…....4

Lack of grazing land …………………..5

Lack of capital ………….……………..6

Shortage of labour…...….………….…7

Others (please specify) ……………..8

506 What are other constraints?

Mention all

 

 

507 Do you keep records for the Yes…………………………………….1

54

goats? No………………………………………2

508 If yes, what kind of records do

you keep?

Production records.…………………..1

Goat sales……………………………..2

Breeding records……………………..3

Health records………………………...4

Others…………………………………5

509 If no, why not? Not able to write………………………1

They are not necessary……………..2

They are tedious…………………….3

Others (Specify)…………………….4

510 What kind of supplements given

to your goats?

Mineral lick……………………………1

Maize/wheat bran……………………….2

None…………………………………….3

Others (specify)……………………….4

511

a

How much land is available for

the goats

1-2 acres……………………………….1

3-5 acres……………………………….2

6-20 acres………………………………3

21-50 acres……………………………..4

60acres and above…………………….5

511b What methods do you use for

breeding/

Own buck……………………………….1

Hired buck……………………………….2

Communal buck………………………..3

no buck available……………………….4

511c What grazing method do you

use

Tethering ……………………………1

Zero grazing……………………………..2

Paddocking………………………………3

Free range……………………………….4

511d Type of housing structure

available

None…………………………………1

Open shelter……………………….  2

Roofed shelter, ground floor…………..3

Roofed shelter, raised floor……………4

511e Type of land ownership                                          Inherited

……………………………1

55

                                                          

Purchased………………………….2

                                                                              

Communal………………………….3

600 Market for goats

601 In the last six months, did you

sell any goats?

Yes…………………………………….1

No………………………………………2

602 If yes, how many were sold? 1-5……………………………………..1

5-10…………………………………….2

Over 10………………………………..3

603 How many exotics/crosses were

sold?

None…………………………………..1

1-5……………………………………..2

5-10……………………………………3

Over 10……………………………….4

604 Where were the goats mainly

sold from?

From home…………………………..1

Taken to market……………………..2

Others, specify………………………3

605 Who was the main buyer? NAADS…………………..……………1

Fellow farmers…………..………..…..2

Butchers…………………….…………3

Goat traders……………….………….4

Others (Specify)…………..………….5

606 Among the goat buyers, who

offers the best price?

NAADS…………………..……………1

Fallow farmers……………….………2

Traders……………………….………3

None……………………….…………4

Others (specify)…………….……….5

607 What other goat products sold? Milk………………………….………..1

Skins……………………….…………2

Manure………………………….……3

Others (specify)……………….…….4

608 Main problem encountered in

marketing your goats

No problem………………………….1

No market at all……………….…….2

56

Offered very price for goats…….….3

Distance to market long……………4

Others (specify)……………………..5

609 What is the distance to the

nearest goat market?

Less than a kilometer………....……1

1-5 Kilometers………………....……2

Over 5 kilometers……………....…..3

610 If there was no goat sold, what

was the main reason?

No goats to sell……………………..1

Distance to market too long……….2

Offered very low price………….…..3

No one to buy………………….……5

611 Which type of goats are easily

sold?

Pure breeds…………………..…….1

Crosses…………………………..….2

Locals……………………………..…3

                                                                                                                         

No. Questions and Filters Coding Category

700 Disease Prevalence & Mortalities, and veterinary care

701 When did your goats last

fall sick?

One week ago ………………………..……1

A month ago …………………….…………2

Over 4 months ago………………..……….3

57

702 What was the disease

condition affecting the goat

(s)? 

Worms……………………………….………1

Diarrhea…………………………………….2

Fever………………………………….…….3

Others (specify)……………..……………..4

703 How was the animal

treated? Tick or circle all

the methods applied in that

case

Treated by self- traditional medicine ………1

Treated by self-modern medicine ………….2

Called a contact farmer/neighbor.…………..3

Called a vet doctor ………………………..…..4

Others (specify) …………………….…………5

704 If used traditional medicine

why?

No money ………………………………..……1

No drugs ………………………………..……..2

It works better …………………………..…….3

It is as good as modern vet drugs…….…….4

Vet personnel not available …………………5

705 Was there any death in

your flock in the last one

month?

Yes          ……………………….……………..1

No            ……………………….……………...2

706 How many died? 1 Goat ………………………………………….1

2-5 goats ……………………………………...2

6-10 goats ………………………………..…..3

Over 10 goats ……………………………..…4

58

707 What preventative

treatment carried on your

goats?

Tick control………………….…………………1

Deworming………………………….…………2

Vaccination……………………..……………..3

Others (specify)………………………..……..4

708 When did you last call a

veterinary personnel to

attend to your goats

One week ago…………………………..…....1

Two to a month ago……………..………..….2

One month to two months ago…………...…3

Two to six months ago……………….….…..4

Over six months ago……………………..….5

709 What was the qualification

of the called veterinary

personnel?

Veterinary scout…………………….……….1

Veterinary Assistant…………………………2

Animal Husbandry officer…………………..3

Veterinary doctor…………………………….4

Others (specify)……………………….……..5

710 How much money was

paid to the veterinary

personnel?

 

800 Technology uptake

801 In the last five years what

goat production

technologies have been

introduced on your farm

hold?

Improved feeds………………………………1

Improved housing……………………….…...2

Improved breed………………………..……..3

Record keeping………………………..…….4

59

Disease control………………….………….5

Crop-animal integration………..………….6

Others (Specify)…………………..………..7

802 Was the technology

introduced in 801 above

demanded for?

Yes……………………………………..……1

No…………………………………………….2

803 Which of the production

technologies in 801 are

you still using?

Improved feeds………………………………1

Improved housing…………………………...2

Improved breed……………………….……..3

Record keeping……………………………….4

Disease control……………………………….5

Crop-animal integration………………..…….6

Others (Specify)……………………….……..7

804 Why have you abandoned

those technologies that you

are no longer

using/practicing anymore?

They were demanding a lot of labour………1

They were too expensive……….……………2

Lack of follow up training…………………….3

No economic benefit seen at all …….…..….4

Others (specify)……………………………….5

805 Have you belonged to a

group in the last five years

Yes……………………………………………….1

No……………………………………….……….2

806 What type of group? Credit and savings…………………………….1

Goat/livestock marketing group…………..….2

60

Goat/livestock keeping group…………………3

Others (Specify)………………………………..4

807 Do you still belong to this

group?

Yes……………………………………………..1

No………………………………..……………..2

808 If no, what made you

leave the group?

61

APPENDIX 3:CHECKLIST FOR THE FGD

1) Profiling the goat breeds (Local/Exotics/Crosses).

2) Profiling the main livestock Enterprises.

3) Profiling the constraints to goat production.

4) Profiling the major goat diseases in the area.

5) The farmers’ copying mechanisms when faced with goat diseases

6) Profiling the existing interventions to improve goat production & by who.

7) Profiling the available indigenous technical knowledge for managing goat

diseases.

8) Profiling the risk factors exposing goats to diseases.

9) Profiling the coping mechanisms by farmers when faced with diseases.

10)Profiling any other constraints hindering goat production.

11)The major sources of breeding goats.

12)The major marketing outlets for Breeding and meat goats in the area.

13)The major products derived from goat production.

14)The goat marketing constraints.

15)The Breeding system in the area.

16) Application and replication of successful goat practices

17)Integration of gender in goat productivity management

18)Reason for adoption/ none adoption of best practices

19)Assess criteria used to select farmers to benefit from government importation

programmes or NGOs.

20)Evidence of improved living conditions

21) Any suggestions to improve goat productivity in the area.

22) Proof that neighboring families have copied from trained families?

23) Whether they have access to credit or have savings services?

24) What are the reasons for not keeping on with the goat interventions

participation?

25) Assess whether they keep records and what type of records

26) Which of the interventions are most appreciated and most practiced

62