J. F. M. OnimLagrotech Consultants, P.O. Box 1244, Kisumu, Kenya
Origin of SR-CRSP research
Previous research on goats in Kenya
Objectives of SR-CRSP in Kenya
Development of the research programme
Implementation of the SR-CRSP programme
Evaluation of the SR-CRSP programme
Impact of the DPG programme
Institutionalisation of SR-CRSP research in Kenya
Future research for the DPG programme
References
|
Summary A dual-purpose goat (DPG) research programme was developed as part of the global SR-CRSP research network. The DPG research was initiated with the overall objective of increasing meat and milk supplies in western Kenya and also to raise the income of smallholder farmers in the area. Additionally it was felt that a successful DPG programme would augment disposable income and help improve overall farm productivity through the increased availability and access to manure. Since inception of the research programme in 1982/83, the programme has developed a four-way DPG with good potential for the production of milk and meat. However, progress has been slow due to low rates of multiplication. The programme developed a field-stable vaccine for Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia (CCPP), as well I as other goat-health packages and goat-management technologies. Concurrently, agronomists developed dual-purpose crops for food and animal feeds, in particular high yielding sweet potato varieties and the Double Cobber maize strain. On-farm research activities included a diagnostic study, on-farm introduction and evaluation of DPG, feed production and management. An economic analysis of the introduced technologies showed that small farm sizes were the major constraint to smallholder economic viability in western Kenya. During the course of the programme about 30 scientists (Kenyan and USA citizens) attained studies to BSc, MSc, and PhD levels. |
Three-quarters of Kenya falls into the arid and semi-arid zones, with only 25% lying within medium and high potential agricultural areas. Estimates indicate that approximately 80% of the livestock in the country are found in arid and semi-arid areas and only 20% are found in the medium and high potential areas. In the high potential areas, cash and other food crops occupy most of the land, leaving only small areas for grazing.
There are approximately 12 million cattle, eight million goats and seven million sheep in Kenya (CBS, 1991). Statistics show that 828,000 head of cattle were slaughtered in 1991 while the off-take from sheep and goats was 1,206,000 head in the same year. The value of the meat generated Kenya pounds 150 million from cattle and 23 million from sheep and goats annually (CBS, 1990; 1991).These figures show that small ruminants contributed approximately 13% of the total meat consumed annually in Kenya (pigs contributed Kenya pounds five million and poultry two million).
However, small ruminants contribute much more significantly to the economy of small-scale farmers (Semenye et al, 1985). As goats are hardier than sheep they thrive better in harsher environments. Their small water requirement is ranked only next to that of camels (Janke, 1982). Goats have been milked traditionally as other ruminants such as cattle, camels and sheep in various parts of Kenya and because of their hardiness, they present a significant potential for small-scale farmers as they flourish in a wide range of ecological and management systems.
There were sporadic research studies on goats in various institutions in Kenya before 1970. However, the major national research thrust was initiated in 1970 when the Kenya-FAO sheep and goat project was launched. The main objective of this project was to upgrade the local stock through importation of, e.g. Boer goats from South Africa into Kenya during the 1973-74 period. The results of this project made a vital starting point for the Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Programme (SR-CRSP).
The major role of the global SR-CRSP was to alleviate poverty through the improvement of small ruminants in developing countries, through the increased production of milk, meat, fibre and from the sale of various products. In Kenya, the major objectives of SR-CRSP were to:
· develop a dual purpose goat (DPG) that would produce milk, meat and manure to improve the nutritional and economic welfare of the small-scale and resource-poor farmers in Kenya· develop improved technologies for the DPGs which would be complementary to the other smallholder farming enterprises
· train a number of Kenyans for higher degrees
· conduct the DPG research both on-station and on-farm by following the principles of farming systems
· develop a strong multidisciplinary team comprising both biological and socioeconomic scientists to undertake the DPG research.
The DPG research programme was developed as part of the global SR-CRSP research network encompassing five countries, namely Brazil (alpaca), Peru (sheep), Morocco (sheep), Indonesia (goats) and Kenya (goats). In Kenya, approximately 80% of the goats are found in the arid and semi-arid areas. Although goats in the arid and semi-arid areas are used both for meat and milk, they do not produce significant quantities of milk, mainly as a consequence of the severe fluctuations of available feed and water. In line with the Kenya Government's policy to develop all sectors of livestock production, the DPG programme was therefore appropriate. The on-farm research was done in western Kenya. The veterinary and animal breeding activities were to be located in Kabete, Nairobi, and at Ol Magogo in Naivasha.
The justification for the DPG research was to partially replace cow milk consumption at household levels in western Kenya where the human population density was very high. In such areas land holding is diminished to approximately 1.0 ha per household, thereby drastically reducing available pasture to a level where cattle numbers had rapidly decreased. Therefore, the family nutritional levels, especially that of children deteriorated because of the shortage of milk. The research hypothesis was that for such families, a DPG could produce not only milk, but also contribute extra off-take as weaners for home consumption, the generation of household income and for manure production. Since a goat's bulk feed requirement is approximately 20% that of a cow, the goat had a much better chance of being productive in smallholder farms than cattle.
The SR-CRSP programme evolved through several phases. It was specifically designed so that at research level, each discipline would have a principal investigator (PI) based in one of the collaborating USA institutions, usually a university. Research based in the host country would be led by a resident scientist (RS) hired and paid for by the collaborating USA institution. The RS should then be assisted by a scientist from the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) as a collaborating scientist (CS). However, at the onset in 1980/81 the USA institutions sent in graduate students as RSs on field data collection for higher degrees and in 1982/83, hired a fresh contingent of American PhD graduates to take up RS positions. Because of lack of experience and field knowledge, the first two phases developed a good research base, but made low impact on-farm. However, there was a positive switch from 1983/84 when the programme hired local scientists with PhDs and relevant experience. This category of personnel achieved both good research results and excellent impact on-farm. Their work eventually led to a series of recommendations as technical packages for extension work. These recommendations will be published and copies will be widely distributed within Kenya and to interested countries in the region for wider testing and application.
The original objectives and scope of work has not been implemented according to schedule. The main reason is that there were delays in the rate of multiplication of the goats to be placed on-farm for testing and the data collection on their performance. The original objective was to place on-farm four-way crosses as DPGs while a synthetic DIM population was being developed. However, because of the slow rate of goat multiplication, only F1 goats were available and these were the ones introduced on-farm.
The four-way crosses are however, slowly becoming available and these may be tested on-farm in the next one to three years and their performance evaluated.
Despite this bottleneck the programme attained many of its objectives. The major achievements were:
· the development of a Kenyan DPG with a good potential for producing milk, meat and manure after stabilising four-way population and selection within the population for desirable traits· development of field-stable Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia (CCPP) vaccine for goats and in addition other goat health packages
· success in demonstrating to KARI the modalities of how a multidisciplinary research team could successfully operate to solve complex farming problems at the village level
· development of excellent goat management technologies for resource poor farmers
· development of dual-purpose crops for food and feeds, especially high yielding sweet potato varieties and a high yielding maize variety - the Maseno Double Cobber
· completed detailed socio-economic surveys and analyses of farming systems in western Kenya
· training up to 30 Kenyans and Americans to BSc, MSc and PhD levels over the last twelve years. Apart from the delays in goat multiplication, there were no significant failures.
Ecological suitability of livestock and forage species under study
The DPGs appeared to be well adapted to conditions in western Kenya especially those that were born there. Mature goats brought into western Kenya from the breeding project in Ol Magogo suffered initial adaptation shocks, that sometimes resulted in abortions. The shocks were partly also due to change in management systems, e.g. goats are tethered in western Kenya, a departure from the free-range system at Ol Magogo. In terms of disease hazards, helminths were generally more of a threat for DPGs than for the local goats. This was because it was wetter in western Kenya than in Ol Magogo where the DPGs were raised before being translocated.
Forage species developed in western Kenya
Several forage species were screened and their production technologies developed for DPGs in western Kenya. These included Bana grass (Pennisetum purpureum derivative), Leucaena, Sesbania and dual-purpose crops that produced both foods and feeds. Also included was a maize cultivar (the Maseno Double Cobber), several high yielding sweet potato cultivars and suitable technologies for feed conservation such as hay and silage and the improved utilisation of a wide range of crop residues. A feed package was also developed by combining a wide range of milled crop residues, leaves of high protein multipurpose tree legumes (especially Sesbania and Leucaena), molasses, phosphorus and nonprotein nitrogen (NPN) sources. As western Kenya falls into three ecozones, humid, subhumid and semi-arid around the shores of Lake Victoria, forages grown in the first two ecozones have very high moisture contents (80%). Therefore, the dry-matter (DM) intake is limited although the animals feed to capacity. Studies have shown that the wilting of forages for a few hours before feeding increased liveweight gains (Semenye et al, 1987), therefore livestock should be given some partially dehydrated forages to improve DM intake.
Target farmers for technologies generated
The smallholder farmers who were to benefit from these technologies had several constraints. These included:
· lack of money and credit facilities to enable them to explore the potential of the new technologies as often, technologies developed for smallholder farmers required cash input· shortage of land was so severe that many households devoted all land available to the growing of food crops and livestock was tethered only on roadsides
· the farmers were very careful not to experiment with certain new forage technologies for fear that the yields of their food crops could be adversely affected. This was particularly pertinent in experiments where forage crops were intercropped with food crops (Onim et al, 1985).
However, most DPG farmers intelligently selected technologies that would suit their needs. These included:
· almost 100% acceptance of the DPGs· the DPG farmers generally followed the recommended management of the goats, e.g. clean milking procedures, proper feeding and breeding does only to the proven DPG bucks
· almost 100% adoption rate for the high yielding Maseno Double Cobber maize
· the bulk of respondent farmers brought their goats as well as their cattle for dipping every week. In contrast, when a nominal fee was charged to cover the cost of the antihelminthics and other veterinary care facilities, most farmers ceased to report cases of sick goats.
Observations have shown that target farmers are extremely enterprising, e.g. they have diverted a lot of the imbued forage technologies to benefit not only their goats, but also their cattle. Hence, recent surveys on livestock numbers in the study areas indicate increases in the cattle population.
Productivity gap between on-station and on-farm
Some parameters of productivity gaps between on-station and on-farm are presented in Figures 1 and 2 for milk production and growth rates, respectively. Figure 1 indicates that GPGs on-farm reached their milk peak after one week of kidding, producing 600 ml daily for household use. On-station the DPG does reached their peak milk production, three weeks after kidding, producing 1500 ml per day after the kid had sucked. This shows a productivity gap of 900 ml between the two test groups which translates to 150%. The local does at the station peaked after six weeks of kidding, representing a daily milk production of 400 ml. Milk production of local goats was not measured on-farm since not all DPG respondent farmers had local goats and those that had did not milk them because of their low milk yields.
Figure 1. Comparative milk off-take yield of dual-purpose and local goats on-station and on-farm in western Kenya.
Figure 2. Comparative growth curves of dual-purpose and local goats on-station and on-farm in western Kenya.
The data presented in Table 1 give the major differences in production inputs for the DPGs between on-station and on-farm. The large performance gaps of DPGs observed between on-station and on-farm are mainly due to differences in resource availability.
Table 1. On-station versus on-farm production characteristics of dual-purpose goats in western Kenya.
|
Variable |
On-station |
On-farm |
|
Farm size |
150 ha |
0.5-9.0 ha |
|
Flock size |
300 |
1-10 |
|
Herding |
Free grazing |
Tethering |
|
Stall-feeding (cut -and carry) |
Insignificant |
Significant |
|
Crop residues |
None |
Significant |
|
Browsing |
Insignificant |
Significant |
|
Water |
Free choice |
As offered |
|
Mineral licks |
Free choice |
As offered |
|
Breeding |
Seasonal |
Open |
|
Duration outdoors |
7-9 hours |
6-10 hours |
Source: Semenye et al (1986)
Growth rates of kids up to three months both on-station and on-farm are presented in Figure 2. Growth performance shown in Figure 2 indicates that there were hardly any differences in growth rates of DPG kids on-station and on-farm. At three months, the on-farm DPG kids weighed 8.3 kg, while those raised on-station weighed 7.7 kg, a difference of 7.8%. At the same age, the kids of local goats on-station weighed 6.3 kg. This shows that the DPG kids on-station were 1.4 kg heavier than the local kids also on-station, a difference of 22.2%.
Table 2 presents the distribution of the DPGs in six clusters (villages) in western Kenya. The data also indicates the number of farmers and the number and ages of the DPGs in each cluster. This translated into 122 respondent farmers keeping 381 DPGs. There were 191 mature does on-farm (Table 1) while the number of mature bucks was 39. The bucks in each village were shared among the farmers who although had does, did not have bucks. As a result of the practice of buck-sharing the DPGs were screened regularly for brucellosis.
Table 2. On farm flock composition of the dual-purpose goats in western Kenya (April 1992).
|
Village |
No. of DPG owning farmers |
Age |
||||||||
|
Doelings |
Mature does |
Bucklings |
Mature bucks |
Total |
||||||
|
1-6 Mon |
7-12 Mon |
1-2 Yrs |
1-6 Yrs |
1-6 Mon |
7-12 Mon |
1-2 Yrs |
1-6 Yrs |
|||
|
Hamisi |
21 |
7 |
4 |
13 |
32 |
7 |
1 |
2 |
5 |
71 |
|
Masumbi |
14 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
12 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
7 |
34 |
|
Kaimosi |
18 |
10 |
5 |
1 |
31 |
9 |
1 |
0 |
9 |
67 |
|
Muhanda |
32 |
15 |
0 |
0 |
54 |
23 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
98 |
|
Rabuor |
27 |
11 |
0 |
0 |
47 |
18 |
3 |
0 |
9 |
88 |
|
Lela |
10 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
15 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
23 |
|
Total |
122 |
48 |
11 |
18 |
191 |
60 |
8 |
6 |
39 |
381 |
In Table 3 the data indicates that productivity performance of the DPGs was higher on-station than on-farm by an average of 51.9% over the nine traits measured. However, some parameters such as kidding percentages, milk off-take, annual productivity per doe and annual productivity per metabolic body weight were 50.8%, 50.0%,145.5% and 125.9%, respectively, higher on-station than on-farm. This indicates that the DPGs had an excellent productivity potential in western Kenya once correct management and technologies were adopted.
Table 3. Comparison of on-station and on-farm performance of dual-purpose goats in western Kenya
|
Variable |
On-station |
On-farm |
Percent (%)difference |
|
Number of does |
200 |
150 |
|
|
Doe survival (%) |
95 |
80 |
18.8 |
|
Kidding (%) |
98 |
65 |
50.8 |
|
Kid survival (%) |
90 |
85 |
5.9 |
|
Kid weight at one year (kg) |
20 |
18 |
11.1 |
|
Milk offtake (kg) |
120 |
60 |
50.0 |
|
Average doe weight (kg) |
27 |
11 |
145.5 |
|
Productvity/doe/year (kg) |
27 |
11 |
145.5 |
|
Productivity/metabolic body weight-year (kg) |
1.8 |
0.8 |
125.0 |
|
|
|
Mean (n=8) |
51.9% |
Availability of capital investment for adoption of technologies
Capital availability for investment was very low for small-scale farmers in western Kenya. Access to credit institutions is dependent on collateral before the release of loans. Generally, the only collateral the smallholder farmers had was the land on which they lived. Since this could be auctioned in the case of a default on loans, the farmers tended not to mortgage their land to obtain credit for general farm development. However, where the credit facilities were available, the DPG farmers with varied land sizes benefited differently (Nyaribo, 1992). Table 4 summarises the various scenarios where credit was available to DPG respondent farmers in Hamisi village in western Kenya. These results indicate that:
· for smallholder farmers with 1.09 ha, credit is not the limiting factor but land is· for medium-sized holders, land is not the major constraint, but credit is
· for the large-scale farmers, by Hamisi standards, availability of credit significantly improves the farm output.
Table 4. Selected results by farm size and credit availability to DPG respondent farmers In Hamisi village, western Kenya.
|
Farm size |
Credit available (KSh) |
Income over subsistence (KSh) |
Output value (KSh) |
|
a. Credit availability | |||
|
Small1 |
0 |
9015 |
1445 |
|
|
812² |
9090 |
17132 |
|
|
unlimited |
9090 |
17132 |
|
Medium |
0 |
11,906 |
19041 |
|
|
1637 |
20,131 |
28,973 |
|
|
unlimited |
24,668 |
34,524 |
|
Large |
0 |
14,821 |
22,571 |
|
|
2766 |
29,135 |
39,661 |
|
|
unlimited |
48,037 |
60,773 |
|
b. Improved goat management | |||
|
Small |
0 |
12,992 |
19,959 |
|
Medium |
0 |
13,745 |
20,543 |
|
Large |
0 |
17,982 |
25,020 |
1. Cultivable and grazing land areas, respectively, by farm size are:
small, 0.49 and 0.60 ha.
medium, 1.19 and 0.60 ha; and
large, 2.01 and 1.39 ha.2. Credit facility sealing is Ksh. 1376 ha, Agricultural Finance Corporation (AFC)
Source: Nyaribo (1992).
The lesson learned here is that it is not always lack of credit that hampers increased agricultural productivity in smallholder farms, but rather a combination of factors including lack of land and credit facilities which, jointly militate against smallholders. The conclusion therefore reached from this investigation is that to fully exploit improved DPG technology potential, farmers needed farm sizes of approximately 3.5 ha to grow both subsistence food crops and to plant improved forages for the DPGs.
Availability of inputs for successful adoption
Although inputs for adoption of improved DPG technologies, e.g. veterinary drugs, salt licks and concentrate feeds were generally available, prices proved prohibitive for most DPG farmers. Small land holdings limited the farmers' choice to cultivate improved forages as most available land was used for subsistence food crops. The prerequisite for the successful adoption of improved DPG technologies was access to approximately 3.5 ha of land (Nyaribo, 1992). However, more intensive technologies can be developed to make DPG farming viable under smaller farm sizes.
Yielding to the pressure from international monetary agencies for economic structural readjustment, prices of many farm inputs such as fertilisers, feed concentrates and veterinary drugs have been decontrolled by the Kenyan Government. Costs have subsequently skyrocketed approximately 500% in the last year, making them unaffordable to smallholders in western Kenya. Hopefully those devastating effects are only temporary.
Profitability of DPG enterprises
The DPG enterprise has three main objectives, namely the production of milk, meat (cash) and manure. On average, DPG harvestable milk yield ranges from 50-80 litres per doe in a 100 days lactation. At the present gate price of milk of approximately KSh 10.00 per litre (US$ 0.313), this level of milk production would generate between KSh 500-800 (US$ 15.6525.04) per lactation of 100 days. A yearling kid weighing about 20 kg (Table 3) can fetch KSh 300.00 (US$ 9.38). One doe produces approximately 100 kg DM of manure a year; the fertiliser potential of goat manure is excellent (Onim et al, 1990) but costing it is not easy. However, farmers can sell a wheelbarrow full of wet goat manure for about KSh 20.00 (US$ 0.625). Since one wheelbarrow of wet goat manure weighs approximately 30 kg, 100 kg DM of goat manure (80% moisture content) when wet would weigh 500 kg which is equivalent to approximately 17 wheelbarrowfuls. This has a value of KSh 340.00 (US$ 10.625). From these estimates one mature doe on-farm can generate approximately KSh 1140.00 (US$ 35.625) a year. Actual profitability of DPG would require costing all inputs including housing, feed production, labour, veterinary drugs etc. Nyaribo (1991) reported that DPG production is profitable and competes favourably for land use with other smallholder enterprises like coffee, tea and food crop production.
Social benefits
Dual-purpose goats play both economic and social roles on the smallholder farms in western Kenya. The contribution of milk to the improvement of protein poor diets of small-scale farmers is significant, particularly for children. Many families have found the DPG milk convenient in alleviating malnutrition among children whose parents were too poor to purchase milk. The subsequent sales of yearlings, does and excess bucks have generated money for paying school fees and medical bills for family members who had no other source of money. In addition, the use of goat manure has increased yields of food crops on-farm fivefold (Onim et al, 1990). In western Kenya where soils are cropped twice a year with very little use of fertilisers, soil fertility has dropped to a level where crop yield responses to additional manure or chemical fertilisers is phenomenal. The qualified conclusion is that DPG has several social benefits to smallholders in western Kenya.
Market demand for DPGs and DPG products
There is a very big demand for DPGs in western Kenya. However, there remains a large shortfall in supply and the rate of multiplication of DPGs is not fast enough to satisfy demand. DPG farmers readily sell surplus kids to their neighbours or at open livestock markets.
For religious and cultural reasons, some people in the target area do not consume goat meat or milk, however, other people shied away from utilising goat milk because of unsubstantiated prejudices. A taste trial was therefore conducted for many groups in the study area to assess if they could distinguish goat milk from various preparations of cow milk (Boor, 1983). The statistical analysis exposed that people could not tell the difference between goat and cow milk. In fact a significant proportion of the test groups scored goat milk as being superior to cow milk (Boor, 1983).
Observations showed that the DPG farmers consumed all DPG milk produced on-farm while the little surplus was readily sold to neighbours. Similarly, the demand for goat manure on-farm is so high that it is all used to boost food crop production on the same farms. So far, hardly any farmer has surplus manure.
Adoption rates for the DPGs
The experience of farmers who kept DPGs in the six villages in western Kenya indicated that it was a successful enterprise. This resulted in increased demand for DPGs creating a situation where there were not enough goats to sell to farmers. Apart from the six villages two new villages, Vigina in Kakamega and Saradidi in Siaya districts, respectively, formed DPG cooperatives and successfully acquired the goats from Maseno Research Station, the new villages comprised approximately 30 farmers each.
The adoption rate for other DPG improved technologies that could be adapted for different forms of livestock and arable farming, has been high, e.g. improved forages, feed conservation, dual-purpose food and feed crops. For instance the high-yielding Maseno Double Cobber maize was grown by 100 farmers in 1990 and 1230 farmers in 1991. In 1992, 9.5 tonnes of seed was sold in the open seed market to over 2000 farmers at the same price as the hybrid maize seed. Similarly, many dairy cattle farmers adopted simplified feed conservation methods of silage and hay making in the highlands where land holdings were very small (Onim et al, 1985b).
The effective vaccine for controlling CCPP that was developed for the DPGs and packaged to be stable under ambient field conditions can be used to control CCPP in goats in other countries in the tropics. What is of note is the incredible versatility of DPGs improved technologies which can be adopted in total or in part by DPG farmers. Non-DPG farmers can also benefit from these technologies whatever their specialisation either livestock or arable farming.
Farmer participation
Since the DPG research in western Kenya was designed to be an on-farm programme based on the principles of farming systems, the full participation of farmers was a vital component. Some of the research goats were kept at the research station for research purposes and for the development of technologies, while the rest were kept on-farm in farmers' holdings. As SR-CRSP scientists developed improved technologies on-station, the farmers were invited annually during field days to critique and make suggestions on how the technologies could be improved.
Another set of technologies developed were done on-farm with the farmers as partners in research. At the various stages of technology development, the farmers did the final testing. Hence, farmer participation was always assured. Non-livestock owners benefited from the research by selecting technologies that suited them, for example improved crop technologies. To a large extent the success of the dissemination of information on DPG-improved technologies was through exhibitions at district, provincial and national agricultural shows.
SR-CRSP training programme
The DPG programme had a very wide scope which included training for higher degrees and short-term studies. Approximately 30 people were trained to BSc, MSc and PhD levels in various disciplines in the last twelve years. Most of the collaborating scientists attained higher training. Respondent farmers, research and extension workers were also trained in specific DPG technologies.
Farmers' training sessions were participatory in nature with many questions and suggestions being put on how technologies could be modified to suit specific circumstances.
The DPG programme made several impacts on communities in western Kenya. The research highlighted the role and importance of small ruminants in general, and goats in particular, and how they could significantly contribute to the economies of small-scale and resource poor farmers. This programme also demonstrated to both ministries of livestock and agriculture the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary research approach to solve complex farmers' problems. This programme also significantly influenced several government policies, including:
· initiation of the National Small Ruminant Research Programme· strengthening of on-farm research in all national research stations
· appreciating the role of socio-economists as vital team members in a multidisciplinary research effort. Socio-economists (either economists or sociologists) are now being posted as members of research teams at all national research stations.
Over the last 12 years, SR-CRSP has developed improved technologies and presented its results at the annual SR-CRSP Kenya Scientific workshops. These workshops have attracted scientists not only from the ministries of livestock and agriculture in Kenya but also from the neighbouring countries Uganda, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Sudan. Participants of these annual workshops are affiliated to universities, research institutions and ministries of livestock and agriculture.
The activities of SR-CRSP therefore became institutionalised in universities, research institutions and government ministries. When the USAID donor funding ceases then the programme will be taken over by collaborating scientists who are KARI employees.
It is envisaged that KARI will continue the SR-CRSP research both on-station and on-farm in the same mode as present. However, the DPG research will be only a small component of the larger National Small Ruminant Research effort. Modifications may therefore be necessary to tailor the DPG programme to slot into the financial and logistical configurations of KARI.
Boor K 1983. Goat milk products for rural western Kenya. MSc thesis. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics). 1990. Statistical abstract, 1990. Republic of Kenya, Government Printing Press, Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 94-95.
CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics). 1991. Economic survey, 1991. Republic of Kenya. Government Printing Press, Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 106.
Janke H E. 1982. Livestock production systems in tropical Africa. Kiel, Germany: Kieler Wissenschafts verlag Vauk.
Nyaribo F B. Mathuva M, Onim J F M, Otieno K and Knipscher H C. 1991. Economic significance of crop residues and Sesbania in support of dual purpose goat production. Proceedings of Kenya SR-CRSP Scientific Workshop KETRI - Muguga, Kenya, 2728 February, 1991. pp. 26-34.
Nyaribo F B. 1992. Impacts of capital and land constraints on the economics of new livestock technology in western Kenya. Agricultural Economics 6:353-364.
Onim J F M, Muthuva M Otieno K and Fitzhugh H A. 1985a. Potential of food-feed crops in western Kenya. Proceedings of the Kenya SR-CRSP Scientific workshop, Golf Hotel, Kakamega, 11-12 March 1985. pp. 18-24.
Onim J F M. Mathuva M. Otieno K and Fitzhugh H A. 1985b. Simplified hay making for small scale farmers in western Kenya. Proceedings of Kenya SR-CRSP Scientific Workshop, Golf Hotel, Kakamega, 11-12 March, 1985. pp. 25-28.
Onim J F M. Ochola P Fitzhugh H A, Oduor J and Otieno K. 1990. Potential of goat manure as a valuable fertilizer for small scale farmers. Proceedings of Kenya SR-CRSP Scientific Workshop, ILRAD, Nairobi, Kenya, 7-8 March, 1990. pp. 157-170.
Semenye P P. Karimi S K Sidahmed A E. Fitzhugh H A and Onim J F M. 1985. Feed consumption and selection by dual purpose goats and local goats from Masumbi cluster in Siaya district, western Kenya. Proceedings of the Kenya SR-CRSP Scientific Workshop, Golf Hotel, Kakamega, 11-12 March, 1985. pp. 45-48.
Semenye P P. Musalia L M and Fitzhugh H A. 1986. Dual purpose goat nutrition and management on-station and on-farm in western Kenya. Proceedings of Kenya SR-CRSP Scientific Workshop, Kabete, Nairobi, 4-6 November, 1986. pp. 67-75.
Semenye P P Musalia L M, Onim J F M and Fitzhugh H A. 1987. Interaction of Dual Purpose Goats with subsistence crops and weeds. Proceedings of Kenya SR-CRSP Scientific workshop, Kabete, Nairobi, 4-6 November 1986. pp. 65-71.
