gssc - 2015 - orissa

44THTH International Conference International Conference OnOn

MANAGEMENT OF SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD SYTEMSLIVELIHOOD SYTEMS

G Global Social Science Conference - lobal Social Science Conference - 20152015

February 14-17, 2015 Venue: OUAT, Bhubaneswar, India

DETERMINANTS OF GROUP CHARACTERISTICS ON DETERMINANTS OF GROUP CHARACTERISTICS ON SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD IMPROVEMENT OF SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD IMPROVEMENT OF

SMALLHOLDER DAIRY GOAT FARMERS IN KENYASMALLHOLDER DAIRY GOAT FARMERS IN KENYA

Presented By

Daniel Ochieng’ OsewePh.D. Scholar,

M.P.K.V., Rahuri,Maharashtra State, India

Email: danosewe@gmail.com

Daniel.O.Osewe, W.Ochola and P.B.Kharde

Background Information: Republic of KenyaBackground Information: Republic of Kenya

Location: East Africa

Independence: 1963 (Britain)

Capital city : Nairobi

Off language : English &

Kiswahili

Currency : Kenya shilling

Source: KNBS. 2013: Economic SurveyKenya

Figure 1.1 Map of Kenya showing admin units & study area

Source: http://www.info.org. Accessed on 6/5/2014

Total Area 581,309 km2

Arable Land 271,000km2

(46.70%)

Water Body 2.3%

Population 44 M

Density 67.2per km2

Admin Unit 47 CountiesNyando district, Kisumu County

INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION• 85 % of the world’s 460 million farms are small-

scale (SCC, 2009) • Groups are an integral part of modern

organizations. • They are present everywhere, from the shop

floor to the highest levels of management. - Sir John Kiln

Groups has played an important role in the devpt. of the rural Kenya e.g. KCC (World Bank, 2013; IFAD, 2013)

They contributes significantly to Kenya’s rural They contributes significantly to Kenya’s rural development – 24% (FAO, 2004)development – 24% (FAO, 2004)

…………..ct’d..ct’d

Shared interest and goals achievementsShared interest and goals achievements Satisfaction of individual & groups needsSatisfaction of individual & groups needs Economies of scale in purchase of farm Economies of scale in purchase of farm

inputsinputs

Negotiation of markets and prices on behalf Negotiation of markets and prices on behalf

of group membersof group members

Linkages to financial institutionsLinkages to financial institutions

Social securitySocial security

Organizational & enterprise skills Organizational & enterprise skills

developmentdevelopment

Fig. 1.2: Group development Fig. 1.2: Group development stagesstages

Source: LIFE, 2005

Dairy Goats Contribution to Livelihood Dairy Goats Contribution to Livelihood Improvement of Smallholder Farmers in KenyaImprovement of Smallholder Farmers in Kenya

• Fits well into smallholder Fits well into smallholder

farming systemsfarming systems

• Easier to work with than Easier to work with than

large ruminantslarge ruminants

• Are quite prolificAre quite prolific

• Products are easy to Products are easy to

marketmarket

• Demands largely Demands largely

unfulfilledunfulfilled

• Increased global Increased global

influencesinfluences

Integrated goat mgt for food security & income: livelihood improvement

Sweat potato plot

Napier grass plot Raised slated barn for ease of disposal& utilization of animal waste

…………continued

Some dairy group officials at their milk bar

A youth has been contracted by a group to transport milk to market

A milk bar attendants at one of the groups marketing point

Biogas production: Biogas production: Mr. Chege preparing Mr. Chege preparing breakfast and light meals for family relieving breakfast and light meals for family relieving

their mother to attend to other productive duties their mother to attend to other productive duties

Health attributes of goats milk to Health attributes of goats milk to livelihood improvementlivelihood improvement

• Reaction to Inflammation – e.g. bowel

inflammation (Edward, F. 2011)

• Environmentally Friendly – requires less space

& feed

• Metabolic agent – esp for iron & zinc

(Barlowska, 2011)

• Bio-availability - easier to digest and

assimilates

• Lower in Fat – best diet for people with obesity

•

………….Ct’d.Ct’d

• Calcium-rich

• Anti-Mucousal – less allergy & excess mucous

production

• Ultra-nourishing – Associated with vigour,

flexibility and vitality.

• High in Fatty Acids – Nutritionally wholesome

than cow milk

• Less toxic than Cow’s Milk – Has no

bovine growth hormones as well as

bovine somatotropin hormones common

in cow milk

• May Boost Immune System - Has trace

mineral, selenium, which keeps immune

system strong and functioning normally

………….Ct’d.Ct’d

Conc. of minerals in milk from various animal speciesConc. of minerals in milk from various animal species

Source: Barlowska, J. et al. 2011

Concentration

(mg/100 g)

Cattle Sheep Buffalo Human Camel Goat

Calcium 122 195 - 200 112 33 114 to 116

134

Phosphorous 119 124 - 158 99 43 87.4 121Potassium 152 136 –

14092 55 144 – 156 181

Magnesium 12 18 – 21 8 4 10.5 – 12.3

16

Sodium 58 44 – 58 35 15 59 41Zinc 530 520 –

747410 380 530 – 590 370

Concentration

(μg/100 g)

Cattle Sheep Buffalo Human Camel Goat

Zinc 530 520 – 747 410 380 530 – 590 370Iron 80 72 – 122 161 200 230 – 290 60Iodine 2.1 10.4 7 2.2Selenium 0.96 3.1 1.52 1.33

17

Study circle extension Study circle extension strategystrategy

Swedish cooperative centre (SCC) introduced a group strategy known us Study Circle (SC) in Nyando district in 2002The programme was implemented by Livelihood improvement and Family empowerment (LIFE) projectThe program used high value genotypes such as Saanan, British Alpine & Toggenburg goats on a pass-on model

By 2005 - 19 SC groups had been established

with 595 members

The strategy was effective in improving group

members livelihood.

Goat productivity increased from 0.5-4 litres/

day

However, determinants of group

characteristics on livelihood of group members

had not been studied

………Ct’d

OBJECTIVEOBJECTIVE

The study investigated the

determinants of group

characteristics on livelihood

improvement of smallholder

farmers in Nyando district, Kenya

METHODOLOGY

The study was conducted in Nyando district, Kenya

Data was collected from 110 respondents using a pre-tested interview schedule (92% responses).

Analysis was done using multiple linear regression

Four group characteristics namely, longevity, gender composition, networking patterns and cohesiveness were analyzed

FINDINGS

Distribution of respondents by Distribution of respondents by gendergender

Group longevityGroup longevityGroup size (n)

Minimum 15.0

Maximum 45.0

Mean 23.0

Period of existence (yrs)

Minimum 5.0

Maximum 19.0

Mean 11.0

Period a member remained in group (yrs)

Minimum 4.0

Maximum 18.0

Mean 8.5

Study circle network Study circle network patternspatterns

Net

wor

k le

vels

(%)

Cohesiveness of the study circleParameter SC (n = 50)

Number Percent

Type of Group

Formal 47 94

Informal 3 6

Total 50 100

Time remains a member

Below 5 yrs 7 14

5– 10 yrs 31 62

11 – 15 yrs 10 20

Above 15 yrs 2 4

Total 50 100

Frequency of group meetings

Never 1 2

Rarely 1 2

Frequently 42 84

Very frequently 6 12

Linkages with institution e.g.MFI

Never 1 3

Rarely 18 37

Frequently 24 47

Very frequently 7 13

Total 50 100

Test of HypothesisTest of HypothesisHo1. There is no significant relationship between group

characteristics and l livelihood improvement of smallholder farmers in Nyando District.

S/No Independent variable Correlation coefficient

(‘r’ values)

1 Longevity of group-0.360

2 Cohesiveness -0.176

3 Gender composition-0.114

4 Networking patterns0.208

R square (R2) = 0.078

CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS

These factors contributed 7.8% (R = 0.078) of livelihood improvement These factors contributed 7.8% (R = 0.078) of livelihood improvement of group membersof group members

Network patterns had positive correlation with livelihood Network patterns had positive correlation with livelihood improvement of membersimprovement of members

Group characteristics such as longevity, gender composition, Group characteristics such as longevity, gender composition, cohesiveness had negative correlation with livelihood improvement cohesiveness had negative correlation with livelihood improvement of group membersof group members

Group characteristics, in themselves therefore, cannot be used to predict livelihood of groups members. Others factors need to be considered along them

Barłowska, J., M. Szwajkowska, Z. Litwi´nczuk, and J. Kr´ol. 2011. Nutritional value and technological suitability of milk from various animal species used for dairy production. Comprehensive Reviews in

Food Science and Food Safety. Vol.10.

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), 2013. Enabling poor rural people to overcome poverty in Kenya. Rome, ItalyKenya National Bureau of Statistics. (KNBS) 2009. Republic of Kenya, NairobiLivelihood Improvement and Family Empowerment (LIFE) Project. 2005. Annual Report, Nyando District, Kenya.Swedish Cooperative Centre. (SCC) 2009. Agricultural cooperatives and farmers organizations - role in rural development and poverty reduction . Stockholm, Sweden.World Bank. 2001. Poverty Trends and Voice of the Poor (4th ed., Pp. 2-57). Poverty Reduction and Economic Management. The World Bank

Group, Washington DC.

31

Thank you,,,,,,,,, “Asanteni sana”