Strengthening pig value chains and managing ASF risk in Uganda: Identifying best bet solutions
•
1 gefällt mir•879 views
Presented by Michel Dione, Emily Ouma, Kristina Roesel and Danilo Pezo at the Closing workshop of the BecA‐ILRI‐CSIRO‐AusAID project on Understanding ASF epidemiology as a basis for control, Nairobi, Kenya, 2‐3 October 2013
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Ähnlich wie Strengthening pig value chains and managing ASF risk in Uganda: Identifying best bet solutions
Ähnlich wie Strengthening pig value chains and managing ASF risk in Uganda: Identifying best bet solutions (20)
Mehr von ILRI
Mehr von ILRI (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Strengthening pig value chains and managing ASF risk in Uganda: Identifying best bet solutions
- 1. Analysis of African Swine Fever epidemiology and pig value chains to underpin design of an ASF risk management strategy on the Kenya‐Uganda border Closing workshop of the BecA‐ILRI‐CSIRO‐AusAID project (2011‐13): Understanding ASF epidemiology as a basis for control 2nd‐3rd October, 2013. Sarova PanAfric Hotel, Nairobi, Kenya Invited Presentation: Michel Dione, Emily Ouma, Kristina Roesel & Danilo Pezo CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish Strengthening pig value chains and managing ASF risk in Uganda: h l h d k d identifying best bet solutions
- 2. Strengthening pig value chains and managing ASF risk in Uganda: identifying best bet solutions risk in Uganda: identifying best bet solutions Michel Dione, Emily Ouma, Kristina Roesel and Danilo Pezo BecA‐ILRI‐CSIRO‐AusAid African Swine Fever Epidemiology Project Closing Workshop, Nairobi, Kenya
- 3. Presentation outline • Background of the pig value chains development project in Uganda project in Uganda • Rapid value chain assessment: methods and process • A i lh l h dh b d Animal health and husbandry practices in the pig i i h i sector • Practices, behavior associated with ASF spread in Uganda • Process and criteria for identifying best‐bet interventions • Potential best‐bet interventions for animal health and management
- 4. Importance of Pig Production in Uganda p g g Pig production‐ a dynamic and rapidly growing sector in Uganda. In the past three decades increased from 0.19 to 3.2 million pigs (UBOS, 2009; h d d i df 0 19 3 2 illi i (UBOS 2009 FAO, 2011). Uganda has the highest per capita consumption (3.4 kg/person/year) in the region 10 times increase in the last 30 years, whereas beef is the region ‐10 times increase in the last 30 years, whereas beef is declining (FAO, 2011)
- 5. Structure of the Pig Sector in Uganda g g A large informal subsector • More than1.1 million households. • Backyard pig production, mainly managed by women and children, as means to diversify risk and increase livelihood security. di li lih d it • Tethering & scavenging are common. • In few districts peri urban small scale semi In few districts, peri‐urban small‐scale semi‐ intensive systems • Uncoordinated trade & transport p • Mostly unsupervised slaughter, no meat inspection in local markets, road‐side butchers • Pork joints
- 6. Smallholder Pig Value Chains Development project in Ugandaoject project in Ugandaoject Goal Goal: To improve the Goal: To improve the livelihoods, incomes and assets of smallholder pig assets of smallholder pig producers, particularly women, in a sustainable women in a sustainable manner, through increased productivity, reduced risk, and productivity reduced risk and improved access in pig value chains
- 7. Pig value chain assessment methodology: Selection of Target Sites (1) Selection of Target Sites (1) Step 1: Geographical targeting using GIS characterization (pig density, poverty (p g yp y level & market access). Step 2: Stakeholder consultation of step 1 1 and definition of soft criteria 1 and definition of “soft” criteria. Step 3: Participatory selection of districts by stakeholders (Outcome Mapping & Site Selection Workshop, Oct. 2012). Step 4: 4‐6 sub‐counties with high pig population in each selected district. population in each selected district. Step 5: Minimum checklist to gather data for more specific site selection (parishes and villages). d ill ) Step 6: Analysis of steps 1‐4 and final site selection. 7
- 8. Selection of Target Sites (2) List of counties and sub‐counties selected in each district, based on List of counties and sub‐ presence of dominant value chain domains, and number of villages sampled District County Sub‐county Sub county Dominant value No. of villages Dominant value No of villages chain domain sampled Masaka Bukoto Bukoto Bukoto Masaka Municipality Masaka Municipality Masaka Municipality Kkingo Kyanamukaka Kabonera Kimanya‐Kyabakuza* Katwe‐Butego* Nyendo‐Ssenyange* Rural rural Rural –rural Rural‐rural Rural‐urban Urban‐urban Urban‐urban Urban‐urban 3 3 3 2 2 2 Kamuli Bugabula Bugabula Buzaaya Kitayunjwa Namwendwa Bugulumbya** Rural‐rural Rural‐rural Rural‐rural 2 2 4 Mukono Mukono Mukono Mukono Mukono Mukono town council Goma Kyampisi Ntenjeru Urban‐urban Urban–urban Rural urban Rural‐urban Rural‐rural 2 2 4 4 35 villages selected: 18 Rural – Rural, 7 Rural – Urban and 10 Urban ‐ Urban 35 villages selected: 18 Rural – Rural, 7 Rural – Urban and 10 Urban ‐
- 9. VCA toolkit development and administration – (i) Producer level (n=1400) (i) Producer level (n=1400) General components • Seasonal mapping including identification of cropping enterprises and pp g g pp g p regimes. • Assessment of institutions operating in the village, community’s perception of their importance and interactions. perception of their importance and interactions • Objectives of pig production and identification of the pig production types and systems. • Gender roles in pig production and marketing separate groups of men Gender roles in pig production and marketing – separate groups of men and women to work on the following tools: • Activity clock • Decision making ii ki • Livelihood analysis Specific domains • • • • Animal health and husbandry practices Feeding and breeding Feeding and breeding VC mapping and marketing Food safety, nutrition and zoonoses
- 10. VCA – (ii) other actors INPUTS/SERVICES Feed input stockists and millers (n=36) Vet drugs stockists (n=36) Service providers: o Veterinarians/AHA/paravets (n=53) o Owners of village breeding boars (n=90) o Extension staff (public and private) OUTPUT Traders of live pigs (including collectors and transporters) (n=86) transporters) (n=86) Slaughterhouses/abattoirs Processors (formal‐Fresh Cuts/Quality Cuts) Processors (formal Fresh Cuts/Quality Cuts) Retailers (meat/processed products) – butcheries, supermarkets, pork‐joints Consumers – preferences for different pig/pork product attributes
- 12. Pig management typologies (n=350) Confinement type Tethering RR (%) (n=180) 66 RU (%) (n=70) 40 UU (%) (n=100) 13 Housed Housed raised floor 5 6 25 37 18 61 1 Housed not raised floor 16 Free‐range/Scavenging Free range/Scavenging 17 House with raised floor House not raised floor Tethered pig Scavenging piglet
- 16. The use of the “village boar” and risk associated with disease spread (1) p ( ) Different sources of the village boar (n=90) 1% 1% 3% Other pig farmers (other h f ( h village/town) Born on farm 24% 46% Other pig farmers (same Oth i f ( village) Development project Farmer Organization/self‐help Farmer Organization/self help group 25% In kind payment for boar service
- 17. The use of the “village boar” and risk associated with disease spread (2) disease spread (2) Locations from where the sows come from for servicing (n=90) ( 90) Proport tion of farmer rs (%) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Neighbour within the same village Farmers from other village Other Home
- 18. • • • • • • • Other risk factors associated to ASF spread Poor knowledge of farmers on management and Poor knowledge of farmers on management and husbandry practices Poor confinement systems Poor confinement systems Poor feeding systems (feeding on kitchen leftovers) Uncontrolled live pig traders movement Uncontrolled live pig traders movement Poor biosecurity measures for health workers (paravets) Poor diagnostic capacities (local and national) Poor diagnostic capacities (local and national) Poor surveillance systems (poor feedback to farmers)
- 19. Some measures taken by farmers to minimize disease spread di d • Request for information on the sow (health status, Request for information on the sow (health status, housing type, health of offspring and treatment records) before servicing before servicing • Isolate and deworm and spray sows when they come to the farm the farm • Avoid servicing sick sows • Stop farms visits and servicing during ASF outbreaks Stop farms visits and servicing during ASF outbreaks • Service only trusted sow owners • Apply good sanitation on the farm Apply good sanitation on the farm
- 20. Identification of potential best‐bet p intervention in animal health and management in the pig value chain in management in the pig value chain in Uganda
- 21. Process for identifying best‐bet interventions • Rapid value chain assessment Rapid value chain assessment • Impact pathway workshop (assess constraints along the VC, identify options for intervention) the VC identify options for intervention) • Ex‐ante assessment (impact of interventions on identified indicators in the VC node and the system) identified indicators in the VC node and the system) • Validation of the potential best‐bet intervention (feed‐ back to farmers and local government) back to farmers and local government) • Testing of best‐bet intervention • Scaling out Scaling out
- 22. Some key considerations/criteria for the selection and monitoring of best‐bet interventions and monitoring of best‐bet interventions • Socio cultural (fit into local context) • Cost‐effective (affordable by farmers) • Sustainability and environmentally friendly e.g. (do it themselves and pass it over) • Technology attributes: simple/appropriate • Institutional support • Realistic and measurable within the time frame of the project • Other criteria (contribution to project Vision and Mission)
- 23. Potential best‐bet interventions in health and management the Uganda pig Value chains (1) Issues What is it related to? Limited knowledge on y biosecurity measures • • outcome • • No deworming No deworming regime No prophylaxis program • • Farmers Local Government • Training on good on good husbandry practices • Promote confiment in house • Improved health • Training package Training package (manual on good husbandry practices) • KAP survey • Testing of deworming regime • • • Use of communal boar Biosecurity ASF dissemination • • Farmers Local Government Animal health workers Traders • Identification of strategies to improve village boar selection and reduce disease risks associated with their use • Designing and testing of different models of disseminating information • Improved breeding services • Training of farmers on improved model for breeding • • • • • • • Education package to actors including : g biosecurity knowledge and pig disease information Increase awareness of consumers on impact of pig meat born disease pig meat born disease • • • Reduced spread of disease Increased pig pg productivity Increased income Reduced public health risks Activities • • • • • Farmers Traders Consumers Processors/Aba ttoir/Slaughter areas Interventions Sharing of village boar Selling diseased pigs during ASF outbreak g Consuming sick pigs at home Scavenging practice Feeding with swill Uncontrolled inter‐farm visits Poor hygiene at the farm and slaughter place Spread disease from farm to farm • • • Lack of knowledge of knowledge on good husbandry practices Actors • • Longitudinal RCT (Knowledge, attitudes and practice intervention, KAP) Training package (biosecurity manual/leaflets/pos ter)
- 24. Potential best‐bet interventions in health and management the Uganda pig Value chains (2) Issues What is it related to? Poor confinement types • • • Poor housing (lack of space, poor hygiene) space poor hygiene) Harsh weather Poor tethering methods Actors • • Farmers Local government Local government Poor disease surveillance • Poor action from MAAIF after outbreak • District Veterinary office poorly equipped for rapid disease diagnose • Poor diagnostic • Poor inspection at slaughterhouse l h h • • • MAAIF/NADDEC Research labs District Veterinary Office Poor implementation of p y g policy regulations • Poor biosecurity implementation Misuse of drugs g Poor quality drug Fake health workers Fake drugs • • MAAIF Veterinary Officers Local Government Drug stockists Animal health workers • • • • • • • Interventions • Promote housing model with 3‐stages model with 3‐stages enclosure (Kraal) Outcome Activities • Increased productivity • Test a housing model • • Rapid diagnostic tests (ASF/Cyst.) • Central slaughter place at village level • Increase the capacity of MAAIF and local Government to implement regulations • Sensitize actors on consequence of low quality drugs Pig health improved • Healthier pigs • Better use of drugs • Increased productivity • Test central slaughter at village model • Field lab for quick differential diagnostic • Designing and testing of different models of delivery of information
- 25. CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish EU/IFAD; ILRI; The team of facilitators; The local government authorities of Masaka, Mukono and Kamuli districts; VEDCO in Kamuli livestockfish.cgiar.org CGIAR is a global partnership that unites organizations engaged in research for a food secure future. The CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish aims to increase the productivity of small‐scale livestock and fish systems in sustainable ways, making meat, milk and fish more available and affordable across the developing world.