smallholder pig value chain approach for the control of african swine fever and other pig diseases:...
TRANSCRIPT
Smallholder pig value chain approach for the control of African swine fever and other pig
diseases: the case of UgandaMichel Dione and Emily Ouma
Eastern Africa Regional Animal Health Networks MeetingSeptember 7 – 11, 2015, Kampala, Uganda
Why pig value chains in Uganda?
Dynamic and rapidly growing sector in Uganda.In the past three decades pig population increased from 0.19 to 3.2 million pigs Highest per capita consumption (3.4 kg/person/year) of pork in the region -10 times increase in the last 30 years, whereas beef is declining.More than 1.1 million households raise pigs in rural and peri-urban settings.Pigs contribute to livelihoods and income to meet emergency needs and school fees (“live bank”)
Informal sector• A large informal sub-sector– Mostly backyard systems, managed by
women and children– Low productivity (breeds, feeds & health
constraints)– Uncoordinated trade & transport– Unsupervised slaughter slabs, with no meat
inspection in local markets, road-side butchers, pork joints
– Only 1 approved slaughterhouse in Kampala (Wambizzi)
– Few investors in formal processor: Fresh Cuts, Sausage King
Goal
To improve livelihoods, incomes and assets of smallholder pig producers, particularly women, in a sustainable manner, through increased productivity, reduced risk, and improved market access
Project sites: Central (Masaka and Mukono); North (Lira); West (Hoima); East (Kamuli)
• Stakeholder Consultation
• GIS Study on Targeting Smallholder Pig Value Chains in Uganda
• Situational Analysis of the Pig Sector in Uganda
• Participatory Outcome Mapping and Site Selection
• Value chain toolkit development
• Value Chain Assessment
• Benchmarking surveys
• Best-bets intervention selection
• Testing and validation of best-bets
• Scaling up and out of the interventions
Methodology
Qualitative data collection tools • Seasonal calendar (Focus Group Discussion and Key Informant
Interview)• Institutional interactions tool (FGD)• Production systems tool (FGD)• Social capital – involvement in collective action and benefits
(FGD, KII)• Activity clock – gender roles in production and marketing (FGD)• Decision-making tool –decision making and control of resources
(FGD)• Livelihood analysis – income sources (FGD, KII)• Value chain mapping (FGD, KII)• Animal health and management (FGD, KII)• Breeding (FGD)• Feeding (FGD)• Food safety and nutrition (FGD)
PRODUCERS (n=1400)INPUTS/SERVICES
Feed input stockists and millers (n=36 stockists and n=200 feed samples)
Vet drugs stockists (n=36) Service providers:
o Veterinarians/AHA/paravets (n=53)o Owners of village breeding boars (n=90)o Extension staff (public and private)
OUTPUT Traders of live pigs (including collectors and transporters) (n=86) Slaughterhouses/abattoirs (n=1) Processors (formal-Fresh Cuts/Quality Cuts) Retailers (meat/processed products) – butcheries, supermarkets,
pork-joints Consumers – preferences for different pig/pork product
attributes
Benchmark surveys
Uganda Smallholder Pig Value chain Map
Input suppliers
Interconnectedness of the VC nodes and implication for disease spread
Processors
Consumers
Pig & pork traders
Pig producers
Transporters
Complexity of the value chain
High disease burden – especially ASF, ecto and endo parasites Low bargaining power (farmers operate individually)/pig weight estimation Lack of capacity on low cost locally prepared feed rations
Constraints along the pig value chain
Production
Collection/bulking
Slaughter
Processing
Retail
Consumption
Inputs and services Expensive, and of poor quality feeds (adulterated) Weak implementation of quality assurance systems
Key constraints
Lack of designated areas for centralised slaughtering/ no meat inspection Poor waste management
Lack of prerequisites for pork storage (lack of cold chain) Poor pork handling and hygiene practices
High transaction costs (especially transport), Poor biosecurity measures resulting in disease spread Poor handling of pigs during transportation – affects pork quality
Few formal processors despite high demand for pork/pork products Low supply of quality pigs
Lack of awareness on pork zoonoses Evidence for presence of pathogens causing zoonotic diseases
Results from cross sectional surveys and laboratory investigations for diseases and zoonoses
Pathogen Summary of results (Mean sero-prevalence Masaka, Mukono and Kamuli) (n=1300 samples)
African swine fever No seropositive detetecd, but genotype IX virus was isolated in Kamuli
Brucella suis very low sero prevalence and sero-positives were not confirmed
Taenia solium up to 55% seroprevalence (higher in rural areas)
Intestinal worms 50-71% strongyles ; > 6-20% Ascaris; > 5-18% lung worms; > 0-12% ; Trichuris; > 0-7% Strongyloides ransomi
Coccidiosis 24-50% (Microscopy)Trypanosoma spp 2/696 (Microscopy)Trichinella 7% seroprevalenceToxoplasma 28% seroprevalenceSwine erysipelas 70% seroprevalence, in pigs from farm sampling
African swine fever
• Major pig disease constraint • Endemic in Uganda• High mortality (up to 100%)• High occurrence of outbreaks during dry season
Kkin
go
Kyan
amuk
aka
Kita
yunw
a
Nam
wen
dwa
Bugu
lum
bya
Nte
njer
u
Kabo
nera
Kyam
pisi
Kim
ana-
Kyab
akuz
a
Katw
e-Bu
tego
Nye
ndo-
Ssen
yang
e
Muk
ono
TC
Gom
a
rural-rural rural-urban urban-urban
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
slaughterdierecoversale
Prop
ortio
n of
farm
ers (
%)
Fate of pigs affected by ASF according farmers (n=350)
Perception of pig value chain actors on level of risk for ASF along the value chainValue chain nodes
Average overall score of FGDs
Rank Value chain actors (ranking)
Input supply and services 4.9 5
Boar service (1); Para-vetenarians and Village vetenarians (2); Feed suppliers (3); Drug stockists (4); Private and Government veterinarians (5)
Pig Production 5.2 4 Piglet producers (1); Growers (2)
Pig trading 6.8 1 Live pig collectors (1); Brokers (2); Transporters (3)
Slaughtering 5.5 2 Backyard slaughters (1.); Slaughter slabs (2); Wambizzi abattoir (3)
Retailing 5.4 3 Butchers (1); Supermarkets (2)
Consumption 3.7 6 Individual households (1); Pork joints (1); Restaurants (2)
Ranking of the role of value chain actors on the dissemination of ASF
Value chain actor’s practices associated with the dissemination of ASF
Don’t use Movement Permit Trade of sick pigs Purchase of pigs
from outbreaks areas Mixing of sick and healthy pigs
Poor cleaning and disinfection of trucks/vehicles/clothing/shoes/boots
Lack of capacity to identify sick pigsPoor knowledge of farmers about
biosecurity
Slaughter of sick pigsSale meat from sick pigsAbsence of inspection
Lack of reporting of outbreaksPoor disposal of offal
Poor self-hygiene during meat processing
Presence of stray dogs
Poor reporting of outbreaksPoor disinfection material
Use of expired drugsPoor quality vet services
Poor quality of feeds
Free range No restricted access at farm
Trade of sick pigs Mixing of sick with healthy pigs
Farm tools sharingPoor hygiene at farm
Lack of capacity to identify sick pigsUse of communal village boar
Poor food waste disposal
Poor knowledge of ASF
Dogs and cats
Input suppliers
Traders
ConsumersButcher/retailer
Producer
Selection of best bet interventions
• Impact pathway workshop
• Best bet identification workshop
• Feed-back workshops to farmers
• Ex-ante assessment of interventions
Issues InterventionsLimited knowledge on biosecurity measures
Education package for different actors including : biosecurity knowledge and pig disease information
Lack of knowledge on husbandry
Training on good husbandry practices
Poor drug management
Sensitize actors on consequence of low quality drugs
Identified best bet interventions related to animal health (1)
Issues InterventionsFree ranging • Promote housing model with 3-
stages enclosure (Kraal)• Improved tethering model
Weak disease surveillance systems
• Rapid diagnostic tests (ASF/Cyst.)• Centrilised slaughter place • Community diseases syndromic
surveillance (mobile phone)Poor hygiene and processing practices
• Capacity building of pork butchers on best slaughtering and handling practices
Identified best bet interventions related to animal health (2)
Testing the effect of biosecurity protocols on pig farmer’s KAP using a Randomised Controlled Trial
Intervention– Capacity building of 2500 value chain
actors on application of biosecurity practices for control of ASF (Lira and Masaka districts)
Indicators for monitoring – Evidence of changes in farmer
Knowledge, Attitude and Practices – Evidence of change in pathogen
burden (PRRS, PCV, etc… )
Assessing the potential of training pork butchers on reduction exposure to zoonotic disease risks
Intervention– Training of butchers on appropriate
slaughtering and pork handling (Mukono Municipality)
Indicators for monitoring – Evidence of changes in farmer
Knowledge, Attitude and Practices – Evidence of change in pathogen
burden (total bacterial count)
Capacity building material for control and management of ASF and other pig diseases
(1) Training manuals• African swine fever• Parasite control • Pig managing • Management of the
village boar• Feeding• Business planning and
financial management • Strengthening capacity
of smallholder pig farmers to access markets
(2) Fact sheets on biosecurity
Fact sheets on biosecurity
Producers Traders/Brokers/Transporters
Butchers Input suppliers
ILRILocal GovernmentMAIIFFarm GainAFID
ILRIUS VWB
• Training manual of pig slaughtering and pork handling
• Fact sheets on biosecurity
ILRIUS VWBNALIRRIMAAIF
Fact sheets on biosecurity
ILRIUS VWB
On going related research
• Knowledge Attitudes Practices, Capacities and Incentives (KAPCI) of smallholder Pig Value Chain actors for the adoption of biosecurity measures
• Gender dimension in pig husbandry and biosecurity for the control of African swine fever and other pig diseases (Intra HH surveys and Gender Transformative Approach-gender roles and relations)
• Socio-cultural factors that influence disease control in the smallholder pig value chain
• Enhancing diseases diagnostic test using mobile phone technology
• Public sector: MAAIF, NAADS, local governments of Kamuli, Masaka, Mukono, Hoima & Lira, KCCA
• Research/education institutions: NARO / NaLIRRI, Makerere University (COVAB, CAES, CNS), SLU, Iowa State Univ.
• NGOs: VEDCO, SNV, Veterinarians Without Borders• Private sector: BRAC, PPM, Agro-Empowerment
Center, ADINA Farm; UPO, Union of Pig Coops of Greater Masaka, Wambizzi Coop., Greenfields Uganda Ltd., OrgaFarms (on IMOs),
Partnerships
The presentation has a Creative Commons licence. You are free to re-use or distribute this work, provided credit is given to ILRI.
better lives through livestock
ilri.org
Thank you!