RESOURCE USE EFFICIENCY AMONG SMALLHOLDER DAIRY FARMERS IN WESTERN KENYA. J. I. Mose, H. Nyongesa, Nyangweso P. Amusala G.

Similar documents
TECA. Zero-grazing of improved cattle breeds using drought tolerant fodder in Uganda. TECHNOLOGIES and PRACTICES for SMALL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS

Forage utilisation in smallholder systems African and S.E. Asian perspectives

Economics of Dairy Farming in Jordan

Determining the costs and revenues for dairy cattle

Longitudinal studies refer to those that gather information from the same set of respondents through repeated visits over a defined period of time.

Characterization of dairy systems in the western Kenya region

Pelagia Research Library. European Journal of Experimental Biology, 2013, 3(6): Khuzestan province. Mohammad Aghapour Sabbaghi

Land requirement to feed a productive dairy cow and a healthy family

Milk Production and Resource Use Efficiency in Madurai District of Tamil Nadu: An Economic Analysis

NAME... INDEX NO... KENYA CERTIFICATE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION FORM FOUR EVALUATION EXAMINATION

1. Under 60k SO Farm Business Income ( per farm)

b) Variable resources: Some resources like seed, fertilizer, labour, etc vary with the level of output. These are variable resources.

TECHNICAL EFFICIENCY AND ITS DETERMINANTS IN DAIRY CATTLE. Address: Monika Michaličková, Quality, Hlohovecká 2, Nitra Lužianky, Slovak Republic

D. Abate 1, B. Tassew 1, A. Zeleke 1, A. Kedu 1 and J. Wamatu 2. International Center for Research in Dry Areas

CATTLE AND SMALL RUMINANT PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

Lowland cattle and sheep farms, under 100 hectares

Adoption of Drought Tolerant Sorghum in Western Kenya

SDA cattle and sheep farms, 120 hectares and over

Impact of climate change on the livestock component of mixed farming systems

By: Jane Kugonza, Ronald Wabwire, Pius Lutakome, Ben Lukuyu and Josephine Kirui

Livestock and livelihoods spotlight NIGERIA

Structural Growth and Development of Livestock Sector in North-Eastern Karnataka An Economic Analysis

Extensive livestock farming in Morocco: from marginal territories to major social and environmental roles

PERFORMANCE OF DAIRY CATTLE UNDER TWO DIFFERENT FEEDING SYSTEMS, AS PRACTICED IN KIAMBU AND NYANDARUA DISTRICTS OF CENTRAL KENYA

2007 PLANNING BUDGETS FOR DAIRY PRODUCTION IN MISSISSIPPI COSTS AND RETURNS. 112 and 250 COW DAIRY ENTERPRISES LARGE BREED CATTLE MISSISSIPPI, 2007

RELATIVE PROFITABILITY OF MAIZE PRODUCTION UNDER DIFFERENT FARM SIZE GROUPS IN KISHOREGONJ DISTRICT OF BANGLADESH

Producing the milk where the people are? Dr. Israel Flamenbaum

FACTORS AFFECTING THE ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF ZERO GRAZING ON DAIRY FARMERS IN KERICHO COUNTY LANGAT DENIS KIPKOECH REG NO: A87/3535/2010 PRESENTED TO

Efficiency gains for enteric methane mitigation and productivity: contribution to CSA and investment opportunities

Differences Between High-, Medium-, and Low-Profit Cow-Calf Producers: An Analysis of Kansas Farm Management Association Cow-Calf Enterprise

Effects of feeding systems and breed of cattle on reproductive performance and milk production on smallholder farms

2010 JOURNAL OF THE ASFMRA

Cost and benefit analysis of cropping systems for sorghum and maize production under the Africa RISING project in Mali Felix Badolo

Differences Between High-, Medium-, and Low-Profit Cow-Calf Producers: An Analysis of Kansas Farm Management Association Cow-Calf Enterprise

3.3 Denmark (Mette Vaarst, Anne Braad Kudahl)

"Abatement options for GHG emissions in a dynamic bio-economic model for dairy farms" - DAIRYDYN -

Ruminant grassland production systems in Ireland. Dr Michael O Donovan, Animal and Grassland Innovation Centre, Teagasc, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co Cork

MEASURING SCOPE EFFICIENCY FOR CROP AND BEEF FARMS. M. R. Langemeier 1 and R. D. Jones 1

Costs of milk production in Kenya

Dynamic Changes in Dairy Technologies Uptake in the Kenya Highlands

HIGH YIELDING AND DISEASE RESISTANT ELEPHANT GRASS SUITABLE FOR INTENSIVE SMALLHOLDER DAIRY FARMERS IN KENYA. A.B. Orodho

Description and Optimization of Sedentary Production System (Jubraka) in Nuba Mountains, Western Sudan

Scope of Work. Strategies and activities contribute to USAID s IR 3.2.1: Improved Livelihoods, Income Generation, and Employment, including:

Why are extensive grazing systems disappearing? Understanding socio economic drivers Findings from Pays d Auge (France)

Dairy Recording in Kenya

Tropical dairy systems

Session: C28.3 High-tech and low cost farming: What is the future?

Artificial or natural insemination: The demand for breeding services by. smallholders

Resource Use Efficiency of Major Field Crops in Reasi District of Jammu Region of Jammu and Kashmir State

Differentiating Four livestock Production Systems

Agriculture & Business Management Notes...

EU Milk Margin Estimate up to 2013

TIMELY INFORMATION Agriculture & Natural Resources

Details. Note: This lesson plan addresses cow/calf operations. See following lesson plans for stockers and dairy operations.

Technological Problems and Training Needs of Dairy Farmers

Differences Between High-, Medium-, and Low-Profit Cow-Calf Producers: An Analysis of Kansas Farm Management Association Cow-Calf Enterprise

COST OF MILK PRODUCTION IN KENYA- ROUND 2 OF THE SURVEY. J.M.K. Ojango, E. Kinuthia and I. Baltenweck

Economics 330 Fall 2005 Exam 1. Strategic Planning and Budgeting

Holmes Co Mg CFU per ha

Implementing Precision Feed Management in the NYC Watershed Agricultural Program

Farm structure in Malta

Gender Participation and Role of Women in Livestock Management Practices in Bundelkhand Region of Central India

TIMELY INFORMATION. Agriculture & Natural Resources AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS AND RURAL SOCIOLOGY, AUBURN UNIVERSITY, AL

D. Abate 1, B. Tassew 1, A. Zeleke 1, A. Kedu 1 and J. Wamatu 2. International Center for Research in Dry Areas

Picking Apples off the Grazing Tree: How Far Can We Extend the Grazing Season Profitably?

Abstract. Introduction. C. O. AHUYA 1, F. M. MATIRI 2 and A. M. OKEYO 3 AND F. M. MURITHI 2

Economic Viability of Milk Producing Units with intervention of Marketing Strategy in Rural Areas of Uttar Pradesh, India

Bio-economic evaluation and optimization of livestock intensification in the Central Highlands of Vietnam

Determinants of Adoption of Dairy Cattle Technology in the Kenyan Highlands: A Spatial and Dynamic Approach

An Economic Comparison of Organic and Conventional Dairy Production, and Estimations on the Cost of Transitioning to Organic Production

Total Factor Productivity in Milk Production in Haryana

An economic analysis of milk production with different types of milch animals

Accounting for Agriculture

Smallholder marketed surplus and input use under transactions costs: maize supply and fertilizer demand in Kenya

ACQUISITION OF HYDROPONIC GREEN FODDER CULTIVATION EQUIPMENT (AG)

Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development. Economic Analysis of Cattle Marketing in Gombe, Nigeria

Characterization of dairy systems in the western Kenya region

3 Outcome of the sustainability assessment

Proposal for additional financing to the Republic of Kenya for the Smallholder Dairy Commercialization Programme

T. Hagos 1, T. Tesfay 2, S. Wayu 2, T. Atsbha 2, T. Yikaalo 2, T. Zeberh 2, T. Teshale 2, M. Ebrahim 3 and J. Wamatu 4 ICARDA)

GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE

ECONOMICS OF SORGHUM PRODUCTION IN GUYUK LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF ADAMAWA STATE, NIGERIA

Sustainable Pasture Management Practices in Tajikistan

Herd Size. Level of Production. Summary

EU Milk Margin Estimate up to 2015

GENDER ROLES IN LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT AND THEIR IMPLICATION FOR POVERTY REDUCTION IN RURAL TOBA TEK SINGH, PUNJAB PAKISTAN

Market Liberalization and Agricultural Intensification in Kenya ( ) April 30, 2006

Sustainability of Beef Cattle Systems in Uruguay. What type of sustainable system that we need to make focus?

FOOD CONSUMPTION AND NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF VULNERABLE PEOPLE REARING LIVESTOCK IN BANGLADESH

Five Essentials for Profitable Ranch Management

Managing For Today s Cattle Market And Beyond: A Comparative Analysis Of ND - Demo Cow Herd To North Dakota Database

Adjustment for Non-Response Bias in a Rural Mailed Survey

Knowledge level of women dairy entrepreneurs about improved dairy management practices

Conservation Farming Unit

D. Abate 1, B. Tasswe 1, A. Zeleke 1, A. Kedu 1 and J. Wamatu 2. International Center for Research in Dry Areas

Managing For Today s Cattle Market And Beyond A Comparative Analysis Of Demo Herd 1997 Herd To McKenzie County Database

KIRINYAGA COUNTY MOCK JULY /AUGUST 2017

Impact of changes in nitrogen and energy inputs at farm level. Léon Šebek. Efficiency and Environmental impact

CALLIANDRA CALOTHYRSUS

THE IMPACT OF THE RURAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SCHEME ON IRISH DAIRY FARM PERFORMANCE AND THE CONSEQUENCES IN A DECOUPLED WORLD 1

Transcription:

RESOURCE USE EFFICIENCY AMONG SMALLHOLDER DAIRY FARMERS IN WESTERN KENYA J. I. Mose, H. Nyongesa, Nyangweso P. Amusala G.

INTRODUCTION Agriculture is the mainstay of Kenya s economy and provides the basis for development of other sectors. The sector accounts for 53 percent of the gross domestic product directly and indirectly. One of the main strategies of achieving the role of agriculture in the economic development of the country is to increase productivity in the production of both crops and livestock.

Policies to increase agricultural productivity in most countries of Africa have concentrated on crop production. Intensive methods of livestock production have received little attention Intensified production will require availability of dairy production credit to enable farmers to: cull low productivity dairy cattle, adopt Zero grazing, and improve pasture production. With intensification some land can be released for production of crops and other economic activities.

There are three dairy production systems practiced in the high potential areas of Kenya: Grazing systems are systems where on farms more than 50% of forage production consists of pasture land. Semi zero grazing when fodder crops constitute between 50% and 80% of the available forage area zero grazing when more than 80% of the total available forage area in planted with fodder crops.

The study objectives To analyze costs and returns associated with different dairy production systems and to determine the profitability of each system. To find out whether there is scope for increasing yield and profit under each dairy production system.

METHODOLOGY This study was conducted in Nyamira County, Nyanza Province. The County lies between latitude 0030 and 0045 s and longitude 340 45 and 35 00E. The County occupies approximately 861 square kilometers The County has been divided into two main topographical zones. The first zone covers all areas whose altitude lies between 1500m and 1800m above sea level. The second zone covers all the areas lying above 1800m.

It has a highland equatorial climate with high and reliable rainfall which is well distributed throughout the year. It has fertile soils which can be classified into three categories namely: Nitosols (75%), Vertisols (20%) and Peat (5%). The County was selected because although the pressure on land is quite high it has both extensive grazing and intensive systems. It can therefore represent other areas where smallholder dairying is practiced.

SAMPLING Two cooperative societies from Borabu farmers union were selected for study. From the registers kept by the societies 50 farmers were selected using a random procedure for interview. In Rigoma with the dairy farmers who practice the zero and semi zero grazing systems were identified & two lists were prepared; one for zero grazing, and another for semi zero grazing system. Fifty farmers were randomly selected and interviewed under each system. Primary data was collected by use of a questionnaires designed to get information on factors determining milk output while secondary data was obtained from relevant reports journals and other publications.

DATA ANALYSIS Main methods of analysis used were Gross margin analysis and the production function analysis. There was a general assumption in all the systems of grazing that milk yield (Y) is dependent on concentrates, by products, forages and labor. It was assumed that interaction was possible in use of byproducts, concentrates, forages (pasture fodder) and labor. Other factors were held constant e.g. included breed effect and herd size.

OPTIMAL LEVEL OF INPUT USE To determine the optimal level of input use, we assume M= f(x 1,X 2,, X n ) is the milk response function where. M= Milk output Kg/Cow/Year X i.x n = input levels all expressed on per cow per year basis. The levels of inputs that maximize profit may be given by the combination at which the value of the additional produce obtained from a small increment of each input just balances the cost of the added input. In doing this considerations are given to the economic circumstances of the farmers and to the alternative demands on the limited resources other than for the production of milk.

Profit will be maximized when: δπ = 0 δxi Where π is the profit function given by π = P m M P xi X i Where P m = milk price M = milk produced X i = Factor Input P xi = Factor Cost The function being unconstrained, the best operating conditions are obtained by setting marginal productivities equal to their inverse price ratio i.e. δm = P xi δxi P m From which one can solve for the optimal level of inputs X i.

RESULTS GROSS MARGIN RESULTS Gross margin was computed for each farm and the means for the three systems of grazing were compared to find out if they were statistically different. Table 1 below gives the expenses considered and the mean gross margin for the three systems of grazing. One way analysis of variance was done to find out whether gross margin was different for the three systems of grazing. The results showed that the gross margin realized is currently not significantly different for the three systems of grazing.

Table 1: GM analysis for three systems of grazing Item System of Grazing Zero Semi-zero Extensive Milk yield (kg/cow/yr) 2688.407 2418.92 2613.261 Milk value (ksh/cow/yr) 38406.58 34544.86 37333.047 Fodder (ksh/cow/yr) 3411.775 1529.101 440.158 Pasture (ksh/ cow/yr) 0 633.923 2508 Treatment (ksh/cow/yr) 279.803 226.667 456.504 Drugs (ksh/cow/yr) 498.153 249.238 466.73 A.I of bulls(ksh/cow/yr) 84.51 53.617 48.635 Purchased feeds (ksh/cow/yr) 1652.1 262.223 548.452 Housing (ksh/cow/yr) 383.86 0 0 Labour (ksh/cow/yr) 977.277 584.624 298.163 Gross margin (ksh/cow/yr) 28693.3 29323.82 31709.19

REGRESSION RESULTS Two models were estimated for each set of data. These were the Quadratic and Cobb Douglas models. The quadratic specification described 68.0 percent and 64.0 percent of the variation in milk yield for zero and semi zero and extensive systems of grazing respectively. (see Table 2) and Table 3 These measures are given by the R 2 statistic which indicates the goodness of fit of a model specification. The respective adjusted R 2 statistic was 63% and 62.4%. The F statistics are respectively 15.75 and 40.52 both significant at 99% level of confidence.

Table 4 Regression Results for semi-zero and extensive grazing (Cobb- Douglas Model) Pro. level Variable B SE B t Constant 6.81 0.71057 9.5484 0 In Ft 0.0934 0.2264 0.412 0.6834 In B -0.0701 0.1304-0.538 0.5954 In CON 0.0658 0.1219 0.54 0.5938 In L 0.0958 0.139 0.689 0.4967 R 2 = 0.2904; Adj-R 2 = 0.0843 F= 5986 Sign.F =.6670

Table 5: Regression Results for Zero grazing (Cobb-Douglas Model) Variable B SE B t Pro. level Constant 6.6902 1.768 3.784 0.0005 In Ft 0.0299 0.1243 0.241 0.811 In B 0.0547 0.1124 0.487 0.6292 In CON 0.2244 0.0674 3.328 0.0019 In L 0.0053 0.25 0.21 0.9831 R 2 = 0.2339

In the zero grazing function attention needs to be drawn to the variable by products, farm forage and labor. The t statistic shows that the coefficients are not significant at 5%. Similarly the squared terms of concentrates (CON 2 ), and labor (L 2 ), and the interaction of farm forages with by products (FTB), farm forages with concentrates (FTCON), concentrates with labor (CONL), By products and labor (BL) were not statistically significant in influencing milk yield. Their coefficients were not significant at 5% level.

In the semi zero and extensive grazing function, the variables by products, labour, the squared terms of by products (B2) and labour (L2), and all the interaction terms have coefficients whose t statistics are not significant. The major determinants of milk yield were forages and concentrates. The squared terms of forages (Ft2), concentrates (CON2) had negative coefficients and this describes the biological response phenomenon correctly. This is because the law of diminishing returns holds in milk response to feed intake by cows.

Cobb Douglas Model The specifications estimated for this study are given in tables 4 and Table 5. These specification explained 23.39% and 29.04% of the variation in milk yield for zero and semi zero and extensive grazing systems respectively. The Cobb Douglas specifications were not used to find out whether farmers used inputs optimally since the quadratic models were judged to be better on the basis of R square statistics, and the number of coefficients which were significant at 5% level.

ECONOMIC OPTIMIZATION Economic optima give the best operating conditions. The best operating conditions are obtained by setting the marginal productivities equal to their inverse price ratios. Hence the zero grazing model given as: M= 691.44 6.7BCON + 18.3 CON + 3.7FT 622.46FTL + 477B2 3049FT2.(4.1) We set the marginal productivities equal to their inverse price ratios and find the optimal level of each input. The optimal milk yield is obtained by substituting for this value in the model. Similar procedure is used for semi zero and extensive grazing model given as M= 1223.15 + 14.93CON 0.03 CON2 + 1512.04FT 622.46FTL2. (4.2) These results are summarized in Table 4 below

DISCUSSION From the results of the economic optimization presented in the table 4 it can be seen that semi zero and extensive systems it is possible to increase milk yield by 57.5% (from 2517.89 kg/cow/year) to 3968.16 kg/cow/year). This could be achieved through increased use of concentrates which should be increased from 46.73 kg/cow/year to 235.3 kg per cow per year. Zero grazing farmers on the other hand could increase farm forages 42.9% to reach the economic optimum for this input. The zero grazing farmers on the other hand could increase their milk yield by 94.4% to reach the economic optimum by using more concentrates (an increase of 100% to reach economic optimum) and more by products (an increase of 160% to reach economic optimum). Zero grazing farmers used labor and farm forage at levels close to economic optima for these inputs.

CONCLUSION This study aimed at finding whether there is scope for increasing profit under each dairy production system through intensive use of inputs. The major conclusion is that there is unexploited potential in dairy production in the above three systems of grazing. Semi zero and extensive grazers could increase their milk yield by 57.6% to reach the economic optimum by using more concentrates and farm forages. The highest scope for increasing milk yield exists within the zero grazing system where milk yield can be increased by 94.4% by increased use of by products and concentrates.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS The findings from this study show that the problem in milk production seems to lie with the feeding management of the dairy cows. The main efforts to increase milk yield should be directed at encouraging farmers to use more concentrates. Maize stover was the common by product used by farmers. This was used when dry and of poor quality. Farmers should be educated on better ways of using maize stover. Kenya s Dairy Development Policy which aims at intensive dairy production systems is supported by findings in the study.