HEIFER PROJECT INTERNATIONAL KENYA

RONG’E ZERO GRAZING GROUP

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE APPROACH

OF

‘PASSING ON THE GIFT’

MSj03881750000[1].wav

By Elise Pinners

(member of NEDWORC Association1)

10 June 2008

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

1

List of photos 1 List of abbreviations 2 Word of thanks 2 Summary 2 1. Introduction 1

1.1 The HPI strategy and approach 1 1.2 The Rong’e area, Taita district 2

2. Description of Rong’e Zero Grazing group 3 2.1 History of the group 3 2.2 Approach 3 2.3 Membership 4 2.4 Group finance 4 2.5 Group learning 4 2.6 Leadership 5 2.7 Success factors 6

3. Dairy farming as part of the farming system(s) 7 3.1 Description of the farming system 7 3.2 Cases of continued passing on of animals 11

4. Technical (veterinary) services in the area 14 5. Marketing 15

5.1 Introduction 15 5.2 Organization, transport, prices, quality control 15 5.3 Benefits: household income from dairy products, and benefit sharing/controlling (f/m) 15

Annex 1: Terms of Reference 18 Annex 2: Itinerary and resource persons met 21 Annex 3: Total herd of the group 22 Annex 4: Household interview notes 23

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

2

List of abbreviations AI Artificial Insemination ECF East Coast Fever HPI Heifer Project International

NDDP National Dairy Development Program POG Passing On the Gift

Word of thanks With thanks to George Tsuma for showing me around, and Gilbert Mwasamba for collecting yet more details

and making corrections, and James Murima Gachoka for taking pictures.

Summary The Rong’e area lies in Mwambirwa division, on the Taita hills. In 1996 Taita district counted 311,000 inhabitants. The landscape is hilly if not mountainous, with sometimes steep slopes (of over 40%) upon which farms and houses are placed. The soils are formed out of granite, and are erodible. Therefore many farmers have adopted terracing. Main crops are maize, beans, cassava, sweet potato, sugar cane. The Rong’e zero grazing group started off in 1993 with 45 members and received 15 heifers. At that time milk was sourced from afar, and often of poor quality. Over the years the group size reduced to 29 members (May 2008), and the herd size has increased: there are now 25 productive HPI cows and another 24 cows that were bought by farmers themselves. This total herd of 49 cows also has another 102 calves. The HPI strategy on Sharing, on Genuine needs & justice, and on Full participation is essential for success, is illustrated by lessons learned by this group: i) lessons on how to include the most marginal members that run greater risks with zero grazing (solidarity

being an important element of the group approach, the more marginal members were divided over different cells of the group); this is clearly a result of HPI’s approach of Sharing & Caring (& solidarity).

ii) lessons on disease control (regular spraying being an important measure, and tick spraying is now a service provided by a few members to others);

iii) lessons on breeding: using local bulls affected milk production potential too much, and now the group has a regulation that obliges members to use AI;

These lessons (ii) and iii)) are clearly a result of HPI’s approach of Training & Education. Until now, the group continues to share experience on improved animal management (including housing & hygiene) and improved farming methods (including fodder production and soil conservation). It is still an important reason for farmers to remain member of the group. iv) lessons on devising additional strategies to increase the financial situation of families before engaging in

zero grazing (e.g. by starting with dairy goats and/or beekeeping). This is a lesson that HPI learned itself. Passing on the gift (POG): although the records of the group left much to desire, it was possible to trace several generations of POG in the group. For example a line of 6 generations of POG was found inside the group, and on some farms one could find up to 4 generations of HPI animals. The herd has thus built up in 15 years: in 10 households there are not only 10 HPI cows 7 HPI heifers, but also another 12 animals that the farmers bought themselves. Two households have yet to pass on the gift. Milk yields (taken from a sample of 10 households) were found to be of an average of 4.5 l/day (raging between 1.5 and 10 l/day.), but where a maximum milk yield was mentioned it was found to range between 2 and 22 l/day (average maximum milk yield was 15.5 l/day). If this is lower than the average for the whole Taita area (6 liter/cow), but when this group started AI was not yet available (due to HPI efforts it is now). Marketing of milk has developed along with the group; the group put finance together and built a milk shop, from where milk is sold on to traders, taking it to Voi and beyond. Some quality control takes place. Milk benefits include direct benefits for the household members (nutrition) and those close to the household (milk is given away to the most needy). Almost half of the milk is thus consumed directly. As for milk sales, the greater part, it is sold at the shop for a price of 20 Ksh/l, and locally for 21 Ksh/l, and provides a household a daily income of 76 Ksh, or 2270 Ksh/month . Animal sales have earned the average household in this sample of 10 9,200 Ksh. But this yet excludes the benefits from the animals that are not strictly HPI (the ‘other half’ of the herd: animals bought by the farmers themselves, and managed with the knowledge obtained through the HPI experience). Other benefits include manure and several practices learned on the subject of sustainable agriculture.

1

1. Introduction

1.1 The HPI strategy and approach The HPI approach on zero-grazing is summarized in the letters PASSING-GIFTS. This approach ensures sound practices of group management, including equity considerations (participation, sharing, gender), health considerations, and sustainability considerations (environment, self-reliance). Following the letters PASSING-GIFTS it is explained as: P Passing on the Gift (POG) A Accountability S Sharing & caring S Sustainability & self-reliance I Improved animal management N Nutrition (home consumption) & income G Genuine needs & justice G Gender & family focus I Improved environment (soil conservation,

fodder & pasture management, zero-grazing housing & hygiene)

F Full participation T Training & education S Spirituality.

Photo 1: School children feeding programme: it uses milk from Rong’e farmers

The HPI strategy on Sharing, on Genuine needs & justice, and on Full participation is essential for success, as illustrated by the following lesson drawn from this group. The group found that the most marginalized, poor members of a group have greater difficulties to provide good care for a dairy cow. As they did not so easily have access to medication (or credit to buy these), and some of them were also short of labor in the household, which made it difficult to plant enough fodder. The risk for these category of members that their animal would die was higher than average. This lead to discouragement and as a result some members left the group. Other (better positioned) members were calling for delay of distribution of heifers to these more marginalized members. Now this is not acceptable to HPI and the situation was discussed as part of the group management capacity building. Indeed solutions were found: the group split up in cells of 5 members, each taking along a more marginalized household. These small cells were to ensure solidarity: the poorest in these cells got support to construct a stable, to plant fodder, and sometimes even financial support to buy drugs and AI services. This situation made it possible to include the most marginalized members of the group, also in the early stage, while avoiding risks. Meanwhile, to avoid those situations, additional strategies were devised to allow families to increase their financial situation with other activities (gaining faster returns), before engaging in dairy cattle. To promote these activities: - HPI provides dairy goats (more easy to care for) - HPI promotes beekeeping.

2

1.2 The Rong’e area, Taita district The name of the ‘Rong’e’ are has a remarkable history behind it. In the 20th century there was a pastor who set out to the area to Christianize it, but he found the people in the area not willing to allow him to do this. He labelled the area ‘wrong’ (and moved away to try elsewhere), which then evolved into ‘Rong’e’. The Rong’e area lies in Mwambirwa division, on the Taita hills in Taita district. In 1996 Taita district counted 311,000 inhabitants. Voi is the main town in Taita, along the Nairobi-Mombasa road, and it lies about 350 km from Nairobi. The landscape is hilly if not mountainous, with sometimes steep slopes (of over 40%) upon which farms and houses are placed. The soils are formed out of granite, and are erodible. Therefore many farmers in the area have adopted terracing as one of the main measures against soil erosion. The main crops are maize, beans, cassava, sweet potato, and some sugar cane.

Photo 2: The Rong’e zero grazing group

3

2. Description of Rong’e Zero Grazing group

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

2.2 Approach The approach of the group (or what they remember of the HPI approach for groups) consists of: - sharing with all members: the practice of POG is a continuous practice - passing back: heifers can, at a later stage, be sold to other groups - leadership is on voluntary base (‘by good heart’) - experiences are shared in the monthly meeting. Solidarity While training the groups on how to manage their activities, and training group leaders, HPI always insisted on the importance of solidarity in the group. In this group there signs that the leadership culture is indeed promoting solidarity. Until today members get an opportunity to receive a short-term loan from the group to buy drugs for a sick animal. Also one member is known to have paid school fees for the child of another. And most of all: the group addressed the problem of the poorest members who find it difficult to build the stable and plant enough fodder: then group work comes in to help. POG This solidarity is at the heart of the approach of ‘Passing on the Gift’ that the group has adopted from HPI. Some cases of POG in the group are detailed in section 3.2.

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

4

2.3 Membership Group regulations and penalties The group requires that a household has at least 1 acre of fodder production, but not all households complied with that. Some households have difficulties to comply because they are short of land (1-2 acres are hardly enough to produce food for the family). There is a quality control system: a lactometer is used daily for each producer, and if a level above 20 degrees (indicating amount of liquid per amount of solid parts) is reached, milk is returned to the producer. Membership mobility Since its foundation in 1993 the membership is reduced from 45 to 35 members (of which actually 29 members have dairy cattle). One main reason for members to quit was given as the unfavorable cost-benefits. According to HPI this situation existed for some members, who did not give sufficient care to the animals (insufficient feeding, irregular tick control, etc.) with as result low milk yields and even death of some cows. Also there was the breeding strategy that contributed to low milk yield: in the beginning breeding was done with the available bulls, which brought down maximum milk yields from 20 liters to 8 liters/day. When this was observed the group and HPI decided that only AI should be allowed. Apart from this the HPI approach has also adjusted to this findings, by introducing dairy goats and beekeeping to other groups, to ensure that poorer farmers can more easily participate. As for members who have died, these are replaced by close relatives (succession).

2.4 Group finance It is on group finance that the group is less well performing. The group requires that contributions are made in two ways: 1. 10% of the sales of any animal (bulls, or old cows) is to be paid to the group 2. For every heifer born, during 10 months, the proceedings of ½ liter/day are to be paid to the group (earning the group 3000 Ksh Some members opt to pay 1 liter/day for 5 months. Compliance with these finance-related rules is now posing a problem: quite some members are known to avoid these payments, and the group leadership does not follow up by enforcing compliance. Also, the group record keeping is not sufficient, i.e. it was hard to find out how many HPI animals are now owned in by group members (birth reports are incomplete). As a result, the capital the group today consists of just about 27,000 Ksh This hardly allows for meaning full services to the members in terms of credits. However, several members reported that short-term credit is provided to members who (urgently) need to buy drugs for the cow; the amount to be repaid is then deducted from the payments of milk delivered to the shop. And some members noted that, when it comes to finance, the group is actually ‘sleeping’, and that it needs revitalized leadership to counter this inertia.

2.5 Group learning HPI has in the beginning provided the means to organize exchange visits (NDDP paid 3 or 4 visits). Since this first group started there have been 6 or 7 other groups created in the area. But later on the group also self-sponsored some visits, to Rweraga and Taveta. Asking the members of the 10 interviewed households what is the advantage of (still) being in this dairy group, almost all give as main reason that the group helps them to keep up their skills with (peer-)education. Half of the members also give as reason that the group can supply them with small credit when they need it to buy drugs for the animals. And four members mention solidarity in one way or another, e.g. by building a stable together, or building solidarity through group meetings and parties: occasions to highlight the situation of the most vulnerable members of the group.

5

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

2.6 Leadership The group leadership is elected every other year, and to be in the leadership there is the condition that you be a good zero-grazing farmer. Almost all members have at least once been in the group leadership. HPI has provided training on group leadership, but not all members have attended this, or they can not recall it; it is only one of the seven women (household heads) in a sample of 10 households who can recall being trained on community leadership, whereas all three men have been trained on this. The leadership of the group consists of a ‘committee’ of nine people, in which there is the chairperson and the secretary (both men), a treasurer (a woman), a person for tick control (a man), and three care monitors (two women, one man). The tasks of the leadership are listed as: - supervision on cow care every three months (this includes the preparation for new POG receivers). The record keeping on this matter is not perfect; calves are reported all right, but these reports are not recorded in the book. - record keeping, and presenting the annual financial report every year. This is indeed done, but attendance of these meetings is not very high, therefore not all members are aware of the financial results of the group. - organizing monthly meeting, in which each member reports, and experience is exchanged - construction of the house for milk sales (see picture) - coordinate exchange visits (one visit was to Kilifi, other visits were nearer and paid by the group itself) - organize annual parties - provide financial support to members who have a funeral - quality control: i) daily milk quality inspection (solid parts) and ii) every four months there is a farm inspection (by a team of three inspectors).

Photo 4: The group leadership, some members, the Veterinary officer (below 3 rd from left), and the

photographer (above, 2 nd from right) Rejuvenation of the group Even though the group continues to maintain elected leadership, allowing for most (if not all) members to take turn in leading the group, there are signs of inertia. When it comes to social activities and abovementioned solidarity activities the group is functional. And although all members now have experience with dairy cattle in a zero-grazing system (and some bought their own cows, not from POG/HPI), the group meetings continue to serve as a platform for sharing experience between the members. But economically speaking, considering the small amount of capital that the group has accumulated, the group is indeed ‘sleeping’. There are calls for change, there are members who realize that the group could accumulate more capital to engage in savings and credit, for example. However, there is a large number of older people in the group, and they are the original members. One young group leader mentioned that it is very hard to change things in the group, as elder members will not easily encourage a young member to pursue changes.

6

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

2.7 Success factors There is a most important conclusion to be drawn, when looking at the functioning of this group. In the previous paragraph (in 2.5) the members themselves indicate in this way: i) sharing of experience (peer-learning, monthly meetings, sharing food), ii) sharing of resources (POG, and small credits), and iii) solidarity by sharing of the burden of the most vulnerable in the group (acts of generosity, including the volunteering to be group leaders). The success of this group, also after HPI has stopped regular visits, is much about learning and sharing. It is essentially two elements from the HPI approach that explain the success of this group: 1. Sharing & Caring: including POG, addressing genuine needs (especially those of the most vulnerable members), and full participation. This Sharing can also be extended to the next success factor: 2. Training & Education : this only started with the several trainings provided by HPI, but it was clear from the start that training & education was meant to continue also after withdrawal of HPI; the group continued to share experience on improved animal management (including housing & hygiene) and improved farming methods (including fodder production and soil conservation).

7

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

3.1 Description of the farming system Labor and decision making (on management of dairy) The average size of the households varied between 2 and 8, but half of the households (5) counted just 3 adults, two households were really small (2 adults), and then there were households of 5, 6 and 8. On six of the ten farms it is a laborer who does most of the work for the dairy cattle (laborers being part of households of just 2 adults and households of 3 or 4 adults). In 7 out of 10 households it is women who really decide on the management of dairy cattle at home. Land & crops One condition to be passed on the gift is that one acre of fodder is established. This condition, however, is hard to meet for some farmers, especially those who just have about 2 acres and/or those who are (temporarily) short of labor. Most of the fodder consists of Napier grass, but also fodder trees have been provided.

Photo 6 (above): Jaeli and Ephron Nyange have crossed Friesian with Brown Swiss and

now have 3 generations on their farm; both cows produce very well, and there are

sufficient fodder trees, but not enough Napier grass; they are actually buying additional

feed. Photo 7 (left): Jenta and Shem Mwandanyi have terraced their farm, planted trees, and intercropped maize with fodder grasses. These two female calves have been bred with AI. The interviewed households have between 2 and 6 acres of land, but some of that land can be scattered and quite far away. Most households plant Napier grass in a separate plot; some used to intercrop it with

maize and then changed to mono cropping Napier grass (or a combination of both). Especially the banks of streams are popular places for planting it, and also for steep slope that have no terraces yet the planting Napier is the better alternative (planting maize will result in more erosion). Yet, not enough Napier grass is planted, and three farmers readily admit that they are short of fodder. Some compensate it with fodder from trees and one buys ‘dairymill’ to supplement the feed. In the past HPI provided training on integrated animal and NR management; this includes agro forestry, use of manure, etc. The tree seeds are usually supplied by local government services (seed of Calliandra, Leuceaena, Sesbania). The result of such training is visible in most farms: at least a part of the farm is terraced, maize intercropped with beans (and sometimes Napier grass), and manure as well as urine from the cows is collected and returned to the farms.

2See 5.1 for more explanation about this sample.

8

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

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

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

Photo 11: Lydia Elongo has planted 2 of the 4 acres with Napier grass; she has to feed one milking cow, but also

two heifers and one as yet unproductive cow to feed .

9

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

Photo 12: The grandchild of Jenta and Shem; her mother has to walk half a mile down the slope to

collect water for the family, and the animals. The HPI heifer never produced a female calf, so eventually they bought their own heifer, which has produced

four calves so far.

Manure and urine With one exception (selling manure), all manure is used on the farm itself, or some of it given away to neighbors. Many stables did have some provision for the collection of urine, which is usually applied on the nearest maize or Napier farm. Photo 13: How manure and urine make bananas grow bi g on Agatha’s farm (near the stable)

Photo 14: Agatha Mwamachi has

four animals (two were bought by herself, not from the group). She

sells cattle manure for 100 Ksh/bag.

10

Breeding Since in the early years it was observed that breeding with available bulls brought down the potential for milk production, all members now adhere to the rule that AI should be used. As for the composition of different breeds, which was traced for 20 of the animals in the sample of 10 households, it was found that most of the AI semen is from Friesian breed (about 75%), some is from Brown Swiss (about 20%), and there is one Jersey cow (making 5%). Farmers have a wrong perception about the number of female and male calves, they think that more male than female are born. This seems unlikely, and there are indications to the contrary: in the 10 households interviewed there is a total of 21 female and 16 male calves. And in the statistics for the whole group (see annex 3) it appears that since 2007 15 female and only 10 male calves were born.3 The benefits from breeding are further discussed in 5.3.2. Lessons learned The group members recall two main lessons learned in the early years: • East Coast Fever (ECF) was a disease that had to be controlled – only since 1999 there is an effective drug for this disease, but it is still expensive. As ECF is transmitted through ticks, the tick spraying was understood to be very important. Tick spraying was, in the past, only done after 2-3 weeks, but now everybody does this weekly. • Breeding: up to 1999 the group used (cross-bred) bulls to breed with; then it was found that this drastically reduced the potential milk yield. The group then put in place it’s own by-law that no breeding with bulls be allowed: all breeding to be with AI. It is because this group has observed itself the consequence of using bulls, that nobody has every contravened that by-law. They know about two other (newer) groups where members have tried to use bulls in spite of a similar by-law forbidding it, and as a measure of punishment they had their cows taken away by the group.

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

11

3.2 Cases of continued passing on of animals The households selected for interview are selected on the basis of presenting a cross-cutting, representative sample of the members of the group. This selection has been done in close consultation with the group leadership and members present in the initial meeting. The approach may not always allow to trace down generations of an original HPI heifer, as (only after interviews) it appears that POG heifers went to households that were not chosen for interview. It was not possible to select interview households differently, as there was no good database in the group as to who received POG heifers from who. There was also no ready overview of the total HPI animals in the group. To take a closer look at how original HPI heifers have been multiplying and been passed on in the group, we describe a few cases here. From the 10 households interviewed we could reconstruct a continuous line of six generations passing through the group. Three of the households in this line were interviewed. The line of five is presented in the text box at th e end of this section. First we present the situations of all the 10 households interviewed. Lidia Elongo Generation 1: She got her HPI heifer (Friesian cross-bred, direct gift from HPI, obtained from farm of L. Delamere in Naivasha) in the year 1993. Generation 2: This heifer was cross-bred (using AI) with a Brown Swiss, but its heifer offspring has fertility problems, so it had no calf. Following this, Lidia had her original Friesian cross-bred HPI cow fertilized three more times, out of which were born one bull (she sold it), then a Jersey cross-bred and then a Friesian cross-bred. The Jersey heifer was passed on to Elliston Nganga (not interviewed), but with Elliston it died. The Friesian remained with her. Mary Kifuso Generation 1: She got her HPI heifer (Friesian cross-bred) in a year unknown. Generation 2: This heifer produced three calves, of which the latter two were produced with AI. The first calf was produced in the period that AI was not yet an obligation (that was before the year 1999), and it died. The second calf was a female and that one was passed on (but no record of where it went). The third calf was also female, and is now a productive cow. As Mary has now no obligations anymore to pass on the gift, she can keep all the offspring. But offspring is yet to be had: in the 7 years since the first (home bred) calf was born, there have been only four attempts to fertilize with AI. According to Mary, twice (out of four times) the application of AI has failed. But there must have been many more occasions to apply AI, that were missed, and this may well be because of insufficient skills of the farmer to notice the right time to call for AI.

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

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

She also added one other cow which she bought herself.

12

Ephron & Jaeli Nyange Generation 1: Like Lidia, Ephron also got his HPI heifer in the year 1993 (also Friesian cross-bred, direct gift from HPI, obtained from farm of L. Delamere in Naivasha). This original cow (after producing generation 2) was slaughtered because of suffering from mastitis. Generation 2: The HPI heifer produced 1 bull and 3 heifers. In 1995 he passed on the first heifer to Dina Nyange (not interviewed), in 1997 a second Friesian heifer was born but it died, in 1998 another Friesian heifer was born, it produced generation 3 and is still there (10 years old). Generation 3: The Friesian heifer had 7 calves of which 3 died and 3 bulls were sold. The remaining is a cross-bred Friesian-Brown Swiss, and it had 3 offspring. Generation 4: This offspring consisted of two bulls (were sold) and the fourth one is a heifer which is there. Jenta & Chem Mwandonyi Generation 1: The HPI heifer gift they received in 1999 from Danson Kasololo was almost barren for 10 years; it only produced one bull (offspring of a local bull) which was sold. The original HPI cow was also sold.

After this they bought another heifer themselves (not HPI), which then produced one bull (locally bred) and three female calves (with AI). They still have three of these animals.

Hannah Mafundo Generation 1: The POG heifer they received in 1993 died in 1994 because it broke a leg. She then had the obligation to ‘pass back’ another heifer to HPI.

They then bought themselves 4 cows, and these produced them altogether 6 female calves and 6 bulls; of this they kept 4 female calves. Besides this also three calves died.

To create a Generation 2 for HPI one of its heifers was already earmarked to be passed back, but then it died. Grace Mdali: # 1 in line of POG, was not interviewe d. She received an original, first HPI heifer, and passed on its offspring heifer to Elisabeth Mung’ongo in 1995 (see interview). Elisabeth Mung’ongo: # 2 in line of POG Generation 1: The HPI heifer (Friesian crossbred) was received in the year 1995 from Grace Mdali. After producing generation two, this cow was sold (in April 2008). Generation 2: The HPI heifer had four heifers (and two abortions). One was passed on to Wilson Nyambu. Wilson Nyambu: # 3 in line of POG Generation 1: He got his POG from Elisabeth Mung’ongo. Generation 2: His POG went to Gilbrand Mliwa. He has still one productive cow from the original POG, a Friesian. Generation 3: One bull, it was sold.

He also owns one Brown Swiss cross-bred, which had one bull and one heifer, both were sold. Gilbrand Mliwa: # 4 in line of POG, was not intervi ewed. He received his HPI heifer POG from Wilson Nyambu. And his passed his POG on to Christine Magdeu (see interview). Christine Mwadeu: # 5 in line of POG Generation 1: She received her HPI heifer in 2001 from Gilbrand Mliwa (not interviewed). Generation 2: The off spring of 3 calves included two bulls that died, and a heifer that was – accidentally - locally bred, so not with AI. This happened after she lost her husband and was away, and family members used the bull in her absence. The (not AI) heifer was passed on to Roger Mluhu, as a replacement (Roger Mluhu was not lucky with his first HPI heifer: it died without offspring). Roger Mluhu: # 6 in line of POG, was not interviewe d. He received his HPI heifer from Christine Magdeu (see interview). Jack-An & Julia Ngalia Generation 1: They received his HPI heifer in 1998 from Handarson Kofia (not interviewed). Generation 2: It had one calf (female) that died, and one bull that was ‘as POG’ used for a group party in December 2006. In 2007 the original HPI had another abortion.

13

Six generations of HPI heifers in Rong’e group Grace Mdali’s 1 st generation: the original HPI heifer received in 19 93 Elisabeth Mung’ongo’s 2 nd generation: she got the POG from Grace, it produced four heifers and was sold recently, at 13y old

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

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

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

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

14

4. Technical (veterinary) services in the area How they evolved (with HPI support and after 1999), their accessibility (distance, communication, costs) and quality. The role of HPI: i) how it trained and supported knowledge sharing on dairy animal keeping and breeding, ii) how it helped put in place and/or improve animal healthcare (and other) services. Up to know, the group claims, HPI pays them a visit every three months. During these visits they mostly insist on the importance of good record keeping. Training from HPI and thereafter Initially HPI has provided training on a series of subjects. Now, after 15 years, the members recall having been trained in: • group management / leadership (4 members: 1 woman, 3 men ) • cow care / management (5 members: 3 women, 2 men) • milking, hygiene & milking record keeping (5 members: 4 women, 1 man) • health care / disease control / prevention (7 members: 5 women, 2 men) • fodder production (9 members: 6 women, 3 men) • stable building (1 man) • composting / using manure / terracing (1 man). HPI has the policy to train all the members on above subjects; some get the training directly, others through their group members (which explains why not all can recall the training as such). Participants’ highlight on the training given by HPI is that they learned to care for the animal ‘as if it were a family member’ . And true, all the cows were found to have names, and some cows clearly responded to calling their names. First there is the more intensive period of HPI training and supplying the group with heifers (the purchase is done together with the farmers) and some spraying equipment (1-2 sprays/group). But then the ties become looser; HPI remains involved in the organization of the group, to ensure that the POG contract is followed, and to evaluate results. Now this group is 15 years old and still receives a visit from HPI every three months. Veterinary services and farmer organizational devel opment Generally the farmers are very satisfied with the veterinary service that is available. There is the government Veterinary Officer, who is well known and motivated. Farmers pay him 1000 Ksh for insemination. And there are some farmers who specialize in the weekly service of spraying the animals; they charge 50 Ksh/animal (or less). But HPI has done more: to ensure that also AI services were sustainable it assisted farmers to organize their groups, to register the groups, and to form an association of farmer groups; this umbrella organization was able to advocate for the establishment of Umweri Dairy, that is now the sole provider of AI in a wide area around Voi.

15

5. Marketing

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

5.2 Organization, transport, prices, quality contro l The Rong’e Zero-Grazing group’s milk shop (see picture) has been constructed with money collected from group members; the group is proud of its achievement in this. The shop only receives milk in the morning. The milk is collected but not processed. It is transported to outside Taita hills, in jerry-cans of 20 or 40 liters. Prices : Nowadays members get 21 Ksh/liter for the milk they deliver in the shop; the shop’s milk-seller sells it on for 24 Ksh (and she keeps the 3 Ksh/liter benefit). If people sell locally they normally charge 20 Ksh/liter. Quality control is done (see 2.4), and members increasingly respect and follow to good practices.

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

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

5.3.1 Milk Milk yields Milk yields were taken from the 10 households that were interviewed. The actual milk yield was mentioned for the 15 cows that are actually productive. This is an average of 4.5 l/day, with a range between 1.5 and 10 l/day. For 13 cows a maximum milk yield was mentioned. The maximum milk yield average is 15.5 l/day ranging between 4 and 22 l/day. Further there was mention of another 3 cows that were actually not producing anything (about to deliver their next calf they had come naturally at the end of their lactation period), and one cow that had fertility problems. In the earlier years (nineties) the cross-bred bulls were used to inseminate the cows, but this resulted in milk yield maxima going down from 20 to 8 litres/day. Since this was observed, it was ruled (by the group) that only AI be used. For the whole Taita area the daily milk yield is actually about 6 liter/cow, with a range of between 2 and 18 liters/day. This group, having an average milk yield that is lower than the average for the whole Taita area. is probably still suffering from the effects of having used their own bulls for fertilization.

16

Milk benefits All households with productive cows take part of the production for their own consumption. Also there are several households that give some of their milk to people in need, for example Mary Kifuso gives 2 l/day to two orphan girls next door. Then, what remains is earning money. If sold locally the milk has a price of 20 Ksh/l, if sold through the dairy shop it earns 21 Ksh/l. In the 10 households the daily average milk sales was 3.65 l/day (of which 27% is sold locally, the rest through the shop), which translates in a daily income of 76 Ksh/household, or 2270 Ksh/month . But a large proportion of the milk remains for home consumption (including sharing in the community): 30.25 l/day.

Photo 17: Mary Kifuso and her 18 year old grandson cherish their two cows: they make money, and milk for themselves and two orphan girls next door. Mary’s membership in the gr oup has made her benefit more easily from generous acts of solid arity in the community.

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

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

Brown Swiss). In the 10 interviewed households, since they started 15 years ago, there was also a total of 13 animals that died (11 calves and 2 cows). Due to death or infertility only 8 households have HPI group animals, the other two households started anew by buying their own animals (and they have not been able to fulfill the obligation of POG). All of the 8 ‘HPI households’ (with HPI group animals) have actually passed on the gift (a heifer), and once it was a bull that was ‘as POG’ a present to the group. Together the 10 households (with 19 cows) have sold the following HPI group animals: - 3 aged or ‘barren’ cows for prices between 4000 and 8000 Ksh - 3 heifers: two for 15000 and one for 13000 - 7 bull calves for prices between 1000 and 13000 Ksh (average: 4430 Ksh). This means that the average household in this sample has earned 9,2 00 Ksh by animal sales .

17

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

5.3.3 Other benefits Of 10 households interviewed there was only one household that sold manure (for 100 Ksh/bag) and one household that gave away manure. All others keep the manure for their own farm. There are a number of other benefits, not directly related to dairy farming, but brought about by HPI training on sustainable agriculture, which included agro-forestry, soil conservation, etc.

18

Annex 1: Terms of Reference

1. INTRODUCTION Ronge Zero Grazing group is a group of farmers in Voi division of Taita Taveta district. The group was formed by 36 members (15 men and 21 women) in March 1991. The aim of the group was to work together in addressing poverty and ensuring food security in their homes. They initiated several small scale projects like a merry-go-round (savings & credit system), farming projects, and a roof rainwater harvesting water tank construction. In the course of developing the water project, they received assistance from the Kenya government on water and the village got piped water supply from a forest spring water source. In early 1993 the group applied to Heifer Project International for support in developing their dairy production. The group members had received initial training on dairy production under intensive systems from the Kenya government Ministry of Livestock with funding from the Dutch Dairy Development Project. When Heifer Project staff in Kenya received the application, the staff took the group through the project development process, which included project planning and implementation. The group’s application was approved and the group received their 15 heifers in November 1993. One of the main conditions of the grant is the provision of ‘passing on the gift’ by each heifer recipient, passing on heifer calves at 12 months age. This is the way of repaying the loan received in form of a heifer. Other conditions include farmer training on animal husbandry, environmental protection and construction of zero grazing housing for the heifer. The group received intensive training (including farm visits) from Heifer staff on all above, for four years after the placement of heifers. Since 1999 Heifer staff stopped visiting the group as it was already weaned or graduated. The group members had established sufficient fodder production plots, including Napier grass and legume trees for feeding dairy cattle as well as for controlling soil erosion and construction of housing for their cattle. Members signed agreements with the group on good management of the dairy cows and agreed to pass on one heifer calf at 12 months age. Progress until now To this date the group has continued to exist and still supports its members, both original and new members who joined the group later. All the members have dairy cows after practicing passing on the gift. The members are managing their cows well and are deriving full benefits from them. The passing on of the gift is still continuing long after Heifer weaned the group. The group established milk marketing services which were to ensure that members receive income from their dairy enterprise without much difficulty.

2. OBJECTIVE OF THE ASSIGNMENT The general objective of this assignment is to describe, through a case study, the HPI approach to rural development . This Ronge Zero Grazing Group case study will include an assessment as to why the ‘passing on the gift’ approach was successful here , and what lessons can be learnt from this group . Specific objectives of the assignment 1. Documentation of a best practice, and lessons learned 2. Illustrating the HPI approach to rural development 3. Learning for other groups and local HPI staff in the area (especially during the initial meeting where record keeping, animal care and breeding are to be discussed, alongside with issues of group management andleadership).

19

3. DELIVERABLES The report will have photos of the farmers, cows, heifers, their houses, farms with terraces and any features supporting the dairy production in the location and which may have contributed to success of the dairy farming. The report (well illustrated) will have the followi ng outline 4: List of content, list of abbreviations, list of pictures Summary 1. Introduction - HPI strategy and approach, emphasizing the practice of passing on the gift - The area: landscape, soils, main crops, other important economic activities (very brief) 2. Description of Rong’e Zero Grazing Group: - History (see 1. introduction, verify in the field) - Membership (f/m, poverty) and contributions - Main activities:

i. promotion of dairy production: sharing/breeding dairy animals (how many pass-ons from HPI animals, to whom f/m), preparation of receiving farmers, sharing knowledge, services, quality control, improving marketing

ii. soil conservation practices (describe and illustrate which practices) iii. other activities (if relevant, e.g. savings & credit)

- Group management: strategy/vision, structure, leadership (style/culture, and election/rotation of leaders), systems (incl. record keeping and meetings, financial reporting), knowledge sharing/networking 3. Dairy farming as part of the farming system(s): - Labor: use of family (or off-farm?) labor (f/m, kids) for feeding/watering, milking, care - Land: use of land, fodder production on-farm (or off-farm) - Water: source(s) and transport - Breeds: exchanges within the group and/or outside, what breed(s) - Healthcare services: how farmers themselves were trained, share knowledge, provide each other services (veterinary and/or drug supply, vaccines) - Milk distribution: home consumption, community sharing, selling - Household decision making (f/m) on use of resources (labor, land, animals/breeds, etc.) and marketing (milk & animals ownership), revenues - Side benefits for the farm: manure, urine, mulch from trees and grasses, erosion control by fodder grasses, children learning to care, etc. 4. Technical (veterinary) services in the area: how they evolved (with HPI support and after 1999), their accessibility (distance, communication, costs) and quality. 5. Marketing: organisation, transport location, prices, quality control (if any), benefit sharing/controlling 6. Member household’s incomes from dairy production (in 1993 - in as far as remembered - and now) 7. The role of HPI: i) how it supported/facilitated, built capacity of the group to manage itself and to distribute resources, ii) how it trained and supported knowledge sharing on dairy animal keeping and breeding, iii) how it helped put in place and/or improve animal healthcare (and other) services, and iv) how it facilitated improvements in the marketing of dairy products (milk, animals, etc.). Annexes: ToR, Itinerary (incl. names of people interviewed). The report will be accompanied with a CD-rom with a ll the pictures (large versions).

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

4 This outline can be subject to minor changes.

20

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

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

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

8. CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS The HPI-Kenya supervisor for this assignment will be the HPI Kenya Country Program Director, Mr Alex Kirui. The consultant will charge HPI-Kenya a professional fee of $ … per day for a maximum of 5 days. The following expenses will be reimbursed to the consultant: - 3 days subsistence allowance @20 USD/day - transport from Nairobi to and inside the project area v.v. (the consultant using own transport means, 4WD): the charge per km is 45 Ksh. Based upon a final proposal and budget, a separate service contract will be signed between Heifer Project International Kenya and the consultant.

21

Annex 2: Itinerary and resource persons met Tuesday 13 May Briefing by George Tsuma Group meeting: 10 women and 15 men are present (see complete list below) Observation Dairy Shop Household interviews - part 1: - Lidia Elongo - Mary Kifuso - Agatha Mwamachi. Wednesday 14 May Household interviews - part 2: - Efron & Jaeli Nyange - Jenta & Chem Mwandony - Elisabeth & Johnston Mung’ongo - Jack-An & Julia Ngalia - Wilston & sifura Nyambu - Derkson & Christine Magdeu - Hannah & Isaac Mafundo Briefing by the Veterinary agent (collaborator of HPI), Mr Gilbert Mwasamba. Thursday 15 May Briefing (end) by George Tsuma. In early June the veterinary officer Gilbert Mwasamba made one more visit to check out some details on a line of generations of POG.

22

Annex 3: Total herd of the group The group started off with 15 heifers obtained from HPI. Below table shows the total herd now, but it includes animals that were obtained outside the group /POG (animals that people bought themselves). Table: Actual herd of the group members together, M ay 2008

Cows Calves Name HPI individual f m

Total Born in 2007-2008

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

10 m (2 sold, 2 died) *: These households were interviewed, see Annex 4.

23

Annex 4: Household interview notes Household (heads)

Elongo (Lidia)

Kifuso (Mary)

Mwamachi (Agatha)

Nyange (Ephron & Jaeli)

Mwandanyi (Jenta & Shem)

Mung’ongo (Elisabeth & Johnston)

Ngalia (Jack-an & Julia)

Nyambu (Wilson& Sifura)

Mwadeu (Durickson & Christine)

Mafundo (Hanah & Isaac)

HH composition

Lidia, 1 laborer

Mary, 1 grandchild of 18y

Agatha, 1 relative (f), 1 laborer

Ephron Jaeli 1 laborer

Jenta, Shem, 1 son & 1 daughter (both adults), 1 grandchild

Elisabeth, Johnson, son

Jack-An, Julia, child (13y)

Wilson, Sifura, 1 laborer

Christine Durickson (works elsewhere) 3 kids Laborer

Hannah Isaac Daughter 4 kids (8-14y) Laborer

Decision maker

Lidia Mary Agatha Ephron (but Jaeli takes the milk sales balance)

Jenta Elisabeth Jack-An (he received all the training)

Wilson (who received all the training)

Christine Hannah

Labor 1 laborer by the grandchild

1 laborer 1 laborer or Ephron

Jenta & daughter

Elisabeth, son (Johnston helps with cleaning)

Julia & child Laborer Laborer Kids collect grass only

Laborer

Land & crops 4 acre, of which 2 Napier (‘nyasi’)

2 acre (of which 1 acre far away), and riverside (where Napier is grown)

3½ acre, of which 1 acre far away (where Napier is grown)

5½ acre (of which 4 acre far away) Plenty of Calliandra for fodder Not enough Napier (so they add 2 parts ‘dairymill’ to 1 part Calliandra)

6 acre of which 1½ fodder, and in the rest also Napier grass is intercropped with maize. The farm is terraced. There is also Guatemala grass, a lot of Calliandra, some Leuceaena

3 acre of which 1 acre Napier; in the rest also Napier grass is intercropped with maize.

2¼ acre of which ¾ acre Napier which is enough. Before they grew Napier intercropped with maize, now not anymore. No terraces.

6 acre, terraced of which less than 1 acre Napier, which is not enough (explaining low yield)

2 acre, terraced, intercropping with Napier

3 acre (of which 1 acre is far & fragmented), of which there is now only 1 acre Napier, which is not enough (she was sick)

Water Tap nearby River nearby Tap nearby Tap nearby Quite far down, carry on the head

Quite far down, carry on the head

Tap very far (100m)

Tap on the compound, and in house

Tap nearby Tap nearby

Use of manure

Partly on-farm (dwarf bananas), partly given away

Selling one bag for 100 Ksh

Using all on-farm Using all on-farm

Using all on-farm

Using all on-farm

Using all on-farm Using all on-farm

Using all on-farm

Numbers & breeds

1 young JerseyX 1 young FriesianX

2 cows productive AI used and worked the 1st

2 productive cows, but one is just now out of production

They got this cow (from the original POG from Heifer which they received

POG in 1999 lived 10y without producing

2 calves (f: FriesianX & Brown SwissX) 1 cow

POG 1998 FriesianX

1 FriesianX 1 Brown SwissXFriesian but that one is his

2001 1 Friesian that produced: 1 calf (f, bull-

4 cows, 4 calves (f)

24

Household (heads)

Elongo (Lidia)

Kifuso (Mary)

Mwamachi (Agatha)

Nyange (Ephron & Jaeli)

Mwandanyi (Jenta & Shem)

Mung’ongo (Elisabeth & Johnston)

Ngalia (Jack-an & Julia)

Nyambu (Wilson& Sifura)

Mwadeu (Durickson & Christine)

Mafundo (Hanah & Isaac)

1 Brown SwissX has fertility problems 1 FriesianX productive

and 2nd time, but not the 3rd and 4th time (3rd time: AI technician came too late)

(one of these cows is not HPI but her own) 1 HPI heifer 1 calf (f)

in 1993 – it was slaughtered because of mastitis). It had 4 calves: 1 bull, 1 POG heifer to Dina Nyange, 1 heifer died, then the heifer born 1998, now 10y old FriesianX cow (2nd generation), had 7 calves: 3 died, 3 sold, and 1 Brown Swiss -Friesian X cow (daughter of FriesianX, 3rd generation). 1 calf (f) of the Brown SwissX (3 generations) = 4th generation.

maiden heifer. It produced 1 bull and one heifer only (POG). They sold the cow. They bought themselves 1 heifer (calf) for 8000, which has produced all FriesianX: 1 cow (bull-bred) 1 heifer 2 calves (f).

FriesianX

own (and it had 1 bull & 1 heifer, both sold; his own was obtained from Wusi in Taita hills)

bred): POG to Roger Mluhu 2 calves (m) died

Milk production (liter/day) 5

Now: 5 l/day Max.: …

Now: 6½ l/day (5+1½)

Now: 6 l/day Max: 8 l/day from one cow

Friesian: Now: 6-10 l/day Max: 19 l/day Brown Swiss: Now: 8-12 l/day Max: 15 l/day

The bull-bred cow produces 2¾ l/day. The AI cow (Baraka) now gives 3½ l/day.

3½ l/day Now: 2 l/day Max: 15 l/day

Now: 8 l/day (4+4) because both cows are pregnant and because there’s no good grass. Max: resp. 18 & 17l/day

Now: 8 l/day Max. 18 l/day

Now: 4 l/day from one cow, the other three are pregnant. Max: resp. 19-20, 22, 20, & 10 l/day.

Milk sales & consumption

2 l/day to dairy house; 2 l/day locally @20 Ksh/l 1 l/day home consumption

2 l/day to dairy house; 1 l/day home consumption 2 l/day for orphans next door

2 l/day home consumption 4 l/day for sale

2 to 2½ l/day for home consumption Sales: 4-7 l/day morning milk to shop; 2-3 l/day afternoon milk local sales (20 Ksh/l)

All milk for home consumption (but when the new calf is born, there will be sales of 7-8 l/day).

2 l/day local sale (20 Ksh/l)

All milk for home consumption

4 l/day to dairy house 4 l/day home consumption

3½ l/day sold to dairy house 1 l/day sold locally 3½ l/day home consumption

All milk for home consumption (when new calves born: most will go to dairy house)

Animal turnover

1 bull sold for 6000 Ksh

1 calf died 1 calf (f) POG

2 calves (f&m) died 1 aged cow –

They did their POG in 1995 The Friesian is now

POG to Danson Kasololo (not AI)

The original HPI cow was sold for 8000

1 calf (f) died 1 calf (m) provided for

1 calf (f, 6 months sold for 15000 Ksh

1 calf POG 2 calves died

1 POG heifer died in 1994 due to breaking leg – it

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

25

Household (heads)

Elongo (Lidia)

Kifuso (Mary)

Mwamachi (Agatha)

Nyange (Ephron & Jaeli)

Mwandanyi (Jenta & Shem)

Mung’ongo (Elisabeth & Johnston)

Ngalia (Jack-an & Julia)

Nyambu (Wilson& Sifura)

Mwadeu (Durickson & Christine)

Mafundo (Hanah & Isaac)

(sales, birth, death)

the original one - sold for 4000 Ksh 1 heifer sold (15,000 Ksh) 1 POG heifer given

10y old, had 7 lactations, of which 3 died (2f, 1m) and 3 sold: 1 bull of 1½ month 2000 Ksh 1 bull 13000 Ksh 1 maiden heifer (could not have calf) 13000 Sh The FriesianX Friesian had 3 lactations: 1 bull sold 3000, 1 bull sold 1000, 1 heifer Brown Swiss x Friesian remains

(from their own cow they sold: 2 heifers for 6000 & 4000 Ksh, and 3 bulls for 8000, 4000 & 2500 Ksh – but this doesn’t count as direct impact from HPI animals.

Ksh. 1 calf (f) POGto Wilson Nyambu. And three other heifers (and 2 abortions)

the group party (’POG’) One abortion took place in 2007.

2 bulls age 4-5 months sold each for 3000 1 calf died 1 POG to Gilbrand Mliwa

produced 9 l/day. They bought 4 cows themselves, kept 4 calves (f) & sold: - 4 calves for almost nothing - 1 heifer 15000 - 1 heifer 25000 - 1 calf (m) 5000 - 1 heifer 15000 3 offspring of one cow died (2f, 1m) one calf (m) survived & sold for 4000 Ksh

Training received

Milking Diseases Fodder production

Hygiene Fodder Milking

Cow management Fodder Disease control (incl. prevention) Group leadership There were also self-sponsored exchange visits.

Cow management Fodder There was also self-organized group training.

Cow management Milking Fodder Disease control

Milking Fodder Manure/ compost Milk record keeping Group leadership

Animal care / stable hygiene Feeding Disease control Fodder grass Stable building Group leadership Record keeping

Cow care Disease control / prevention Record keeping Fodder Gr.leadership

Fodder Milking/hygiene Record keeping Health

Advantages of being in the group

- collective labor - learning

- education - credit to buy drugs - solidarity (school fees)

- group meetings

- group credit: should be done more

- group credit to construct a shed, buy drugs, but: onlyif you remain a good debtor

- milk sales shop - education

- education - communication with the Veterinary agent

- education - credit for drugs

- building stable together - loan for drugs - education

Remarks - The laborer earns 2000 Sh/month She emphasizes that POG obligation remains also when calf dies.

Active to bring development to the area (contacting DDC, DAC, to get AI, etc.) and enhance solidarity in the group (e.g. paying school fees for Mary Kifuso’s kids)

In the past this farmer also bought 1 cow and sold its calf, then the cow.

One of the calves (f) was given to the laborer. The farmer realizes that the stable floor & roof need fixing.