Fit Sema Land O Lakes Dairy Radio Programs Impact Assessment Report_Ian Nkata_Uganda

8/14/2019 Fit Sema Land O Lakes Dairy Radio Programs Impact Assessment Report_Ian Nkata_Uganda

1/57

Impact Assessment Report on Dairy Radio Programs

Submitted to

ILO FIT SEMA and Land O Lakes Inc.

August 2007

Prepared by:Ian K. Nkata

Media and Market Research ConsultantP.O. Box 16003

KampalaUganda

Telephone: +256 772 400 717Email: [email protected]


2/57

2

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. 41.0 Introduction 62.0 Objectives of the impact assessment 63.0 Methodology . 7

4.0 Challenges faced . 85.0 Findings.. 96.0 Concluding statements and Recommendations.. 31

AppendicesI. Selected photos from the field 32II. List of interviewers 35III. Sample of Police introductory letter.. 36IV. Sample of introductory for research assistants 36V. List of fieldwork locations 37VI. Selected additional Statistical Data Tables . 38VII. Comments from the radio stations. 56

LIST OF TABLESTable 1- Average farm milk output per day .. 11Table 2- Average amount of milk collected per day high season... 11Table 3- Average amount of milk collected per day low season 12Table 4- Average amount of milk sold per day by traders... 12Table 5- Organizations associated with dairy radio programs ... 15Table 6- Relevance of topics covered in dairy radio programs 15Table 7- How adequately topics were covered. 16Table 8- Topical issues that need to be reviewed 17Table 9- Dairy business growth .. 22Table 10- Comments on improved household livelihood. 28

Table 11- Reasons for using radio...... 31

LIST OF CHARTSChart 1- Gender of respondents . 9Chart 2- Age of respondents 10Chart 3- Category in the milk chain. 10Chart 4- Familiarity with dairy radio program. 13Chart 5- Station on which dairy program was heard 13Chart 6 - Frequency of listening to dairy radio programs.. 14Chart 7- Satisfaction with presentation style . 18Chart 8- Accuracy of information presented . 20Chart 9- Preferred mode of presentation 20

Chart 10- Satisfaction with resource people.. 21Chart 11- Agreement with statements about dairy radio programs .. 24Chart 12- Likelihood of business improvement. 26Chart 13- Effectiveness of dairy radio programs .. 26Chart 14- Recommending use of radio for dairy development 30

Box 1 Case study - Dairy Cooperative Societies .. 30


3/57

3

Cover Photo: Raphael Obukan interviewing a rural dairy farmer in Asuret County, Soroti District. Photo by Ian Nkata


4/57

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ILO FIT-SEMA and Land O Lakes Inc. have supported radio programs ondairy farming industry in the last six months on selected radio stations i.e.Radio West and Voice of Teso under the theme The Improvement of theQuality of Milk and its Value-added Products along the Milk Value Chain.

Two Dairy Radio Programs were run on 2 radio stations i.e. Ekacokon onVoice of Teso in Soroti and Eintungo no bugeiga on Radio West inMbarara.

An impact assessment of the dairy radio programs targeting farmers, peoplemanaging milk collecting centre and milk traders, was carried out and themain objectives of the assessment were:

To assess awareness and relevance of Dairy Radio program content To find out which issues were addressed and others that need to be

reviewed To assess organizations or programmes associated with the Dairy

Radio programs To ascertain milk productivity as a result of exposure to the radio

programs To assess program resource persons contribution To solicit suggestions for improvement for program improvement

The assessment was undertaken in the districts of Soroti, Kumi, Mbarara,Ntungamo, Bushenyi, Kiruhura and Ibanda.

Key findings indicate that 95% of the respondents are aware of a dairy radioprogram and had equally heard it on radio. The listeners associated the radioprograms more with National Agriculture Advisory Services (NAADS), DairyDevelopment Authority (DDA) and Uganda National Dairy FarmersAssociation (UNDFA) than any other organization. Over 50% of therespondents found the topics in dairy radio programs very relevant while over30% of the respondents were of the view that Production (Breeding, Feeding,Feeds), Production (Breeding, Feeding, Feeds) and Farming as a businesswere the most adequately covered topical areas in the dairy radio programs.Some of the topical areas that need to be reviewed or revisited in futureprograms are Production (Breeding, Feeding, Feeds); Animal/Herd Health(Disease control etc); Farming as a business; Farm Management (Recordkeeping etc); Market (Outlets, milk prices etc) and Marketing of dairyproducts. Some of the areas they want covered that have not been previously

covered are: Accessing loan/credit facilities; making value-added products likeyogurt; dairy farmer group formation and dairy entrepreneurial skills. Over70% of the respondents are satisfied with style of presentation of dairyprograms as well as the resourcefulness of the people invited to theprograms. Just over 45% of the respondents had experienced growth in theirdairy businesses from1% to 15%. Effectiveness of the radio programs wasconfirmed by among other things improved milk yields, more hygienic andcleaner milk, increased knowledge on milk productivity as well as improvedanimal health. A couple suggestions were given to help in improving dairy


5/57

5

radio programs. These are: Strengthening the use of radio to improve thedairy radio programs but need a lot of support required from variousstakeholders; Driving interest/awareness in dairy radio program throughintensive promotions; More interactive programming required to get betterresults plus quality programming; Putting farmers at the centre of theprograms; Encouraging formation of dairy radio listener groups to realize

implementation of ideas; providing more airtime for dairy radio programs(either air more than once a week or added time) as well as invitingexperienced and successful people to the programs to share experiences andbe a source of inspiration.


6/57

6

1.0 Introduction

ILO FIT-SEMA and Land O Lakes Inc. have supported radio programs ondairy farming industry in the last three or so months on selected radio stationsi.e. Radio West and Voice of Teso under the theme The Improvement of theQuality of Milk and its Value-added Products along the Milk Value Chain.

ILO FIT-SEMA project works with radio stations to enable the flow ofinformation targeting rural micro and small enterprises. The project works withradio stations in establishing business programs that act as a platform forproviding information, debates and dialogue aimed at enabling Medium andSmall Enterprises (MSEs) influence policies that affect their businessenvironment while Land O Lakes Inc. is an international developmentorganization that is working towards the improvement of the dairy industry inUganda. Land O Lakes Inc. targets the following: Market Development; Milkbulking and handling; milk production; industry organization; processing;marketing and distribution of value-added milk products; and increasingdialogue among industry stakeholders to encourage policy reforms.

The main objectives of the radio programs/communications were:

a) To stimulate behavioral change with respect to quality improvementacross the chain

b) To empower consumers on understanding of overall quality of milk andvalue added products

c) To improve understanding of quality issues in the industryd) To improve savings and investment culture among farmers in the

sectore) To demonstrate promotion benefits to sponsors and advertisers on the

program.

ILO FIT-SEMA and Land O Lakes Inc decided to hire a consultant to assessthe impact of the dairy radio programs Ekacokon on Voice of Teso andEintungo no bugeiga on Radio West in the respective broadcast areas.Lessons from the assessment, it was envisaged, would be used to improvefuture interventions/programs. This report therefore presents the findings ofthe assessment and also outlines recommendations for improving dairy radioprograms.

2.0 Objectives of the impact assessment

The overall goal was to assess the impact of dairy radio programs on thevarious stakeholders on the premise of Dairy Farming as a business. Belowwere the specific objectives for the assessment:

To assess awareness of the radio programs To assess the relevance of program content To find out which issues were addressed in the programs but would

need deeper tackling and/or that would need reviewing or revisiting


7/57

7

To establish which issues are not currently addressed but areimportant

To assess the method of delivery/presentation in the respectiveprograms

To establish/measure the number of times programs have beenlistened to or exposed to

To evaluate the accuracy of program content To assess which organization(s) or programme(s) is/are associated

with the programs for example DDA, Land O Lakes, NAADS, UgandaCrane Creameries Cooperative Union (UCCCU), UNADA, PMA, ILOFIT-SEMA

To ascertain how far milk quality issues have been addressed as aresult of exposure to the radio programs

To rate program resource persons with a view find out which types ofpersons would be preferred to be engaged in the programs regularly.

To solicit suggestions for improvement for program improvement

3.0 Methodology

This chapter covers pre-survey activities, the assessment methodologycovering sampling, survey tools, and data collection and analysis techniques.

3.1 Pre-assessment activities

Before the survey, a number of activities were carried out. These included:

a) Meeting with ILO FIT-SEMA and Land O Lakes officials to ensurethat issues raised in the proposal were in line with their needs.

b) Designing the questionnaire in consultation with ILO FIT-SEMA andLand O Lakes officials.

c) Training research assistants and also preparing them for theassignment. During this training, the questionnaire was reviewed sothat research assistants would familiarize with it before going to thefield to collect data. In the same meeting, the main objective of theassessment was communicated to them as part of the preparationprocess. Other issues addressed in the training were:

Sample size, allocation per person Gender proportions Location of research, detail of work plan field movement

Duration of research

General expectations

3.2 Sample size and Sampling Technique

The assessment set out to interview 300 respondents who included farmers;people manning milk collecting centres and consumers in selected locationsin the broadcast areas of Radio West and Voice of Teso.1 The survey was

1The survey took place in the districts of Soroti, Kumi, Mbarara, Ntungamo, Bushenyi, Kiruhura and Ibanda.


8/57

8

intended to have farmers and people manning milk collecting centresconstitute over 70% of the sample. The sample2 was randomly drawn fromdifferent counties of the survey districts. (See Appendix 5 for List of fieldwork locations)

3.3 Data collection and Assessment tools

A structured questionnaire was used to collect data through face to faceinterviews. The questionnaire3 was divided into five major sections. Theseincluded:

Background information

Dairy radio programs awareness Program content and delivery Application

General issues

In order to take cater for language matters, research assistants engaged inthe assignment were speakers of local languages i.e. Ateso and Runyankore.This was done to minimize any shortcomings during the interviews in case theinterviewers were unable to express themselves in the respective locallanguages. The research assistants were encouraged to translate questions,where necessary, without distorting their meanings.

3.4 Data processing and analysis

Data in the questionnaires were edited and checked to ensure completeness,clarity and consistency of the responses. Most of the data collected wasquantitative in nature. The quantitative data was captured into SPSS forwindows (Version 12.0) for initial processing. For further analysis and

manipulation, the processed data was exported into MS Excel. The findingsare summarized into frequency tables, graphs and cross tabulations which arepresented in Chapter 5.

The questionnaires were also characterized by some open-ended questionswhich required the respondents to freely respond. These were analyzed byorganizing the responses into coherent categories which were counted forpurposes of ranking. These are also discussed in Chapter 5.

4.0 Challenges faced

The fieldwork did not come without challenges. Below are some of the

challenges that were faced: The process of locating farmers was not easy as they were scattered.

We therefore relied on the services of guides who gave lots of clues onwhere to find them.

2Judgmental sampling technique was applied because the assessment was aimed at specific type of respondents

not the general population hence that selection criteria3

The final questionnaire draft was accepted by officials from FIT-SEMA and Land O Lakes. All salient issues werecovered accordingly before the assessment.


9/57

9

Much as the assessment was principally directed towards farmers, milkcollecting centres and milk traders; a good number of milk traders havenot listened to dairy radio programs, some are not even aware thatsuch programs exist. This made it difficult to get information from thatcategory. They sighted reasons such as not having time to listen toradio claiming to be too busy". Inevitably we got more information from

farmers than we did from traders and people manning the milkcollecting centres.

5.0 Findings

This chapter presents the findings of the assessment. The survey targeted300 respondents but results reflect responses from 295 respondents.

5.1 Background information

5.1.1 Gender of respondentsOf the 295 respondents, 80% were males while 20% were

females.

Chart 1: Gender of respondents

Gender of respondents n=294

Male

80%

Female

20%


10/57

10

5.1.2 Age of respondents

Chart 2: Age of respondents

Age of respondents n=282

Over 55 years

13%

46-55 years

16%

36-45 years

24%

26-35 years

28%

15-25 years

19%

5.1.3 Categories of respondents

The assessment was principally directed towards farmers, milkcollecting centres and milk traders. The respondents were askedto name the category they exclusively fall in the milk chain. Thefigure below shows the results:

Chart 3: Category in the milk chain4

Key Categories n=289

70.6

10.05.9

13.5

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Farmer Milking collecting

Centre

Consumer Milk Trader

4A limited number of consumers were interviewed because most of the issues under assessment were pertaining to

production/productivity and were not applicable to them. However, we got some information from them that would beuseful in the radio programs.


11/57

11

5.1.4 Milk Output

In order to find out the milk output levels, the categories i.e.farmers, milk collecting centres and traders were asked toindicate how much milk they output or sell on average per day. Itshould be noted that not all could respond to this question

sighting reasons such as being unable to remember or notwilling to disclose as such. The tables below show the averageamounts output or sold per day:

Table 1: Average Farm milk output per dayFarm milk output per day_Farmer (Litres)

Frequency Percent

1-20 144 71.0

21-40 35 18.0

41-60 14 7.0

61-80 4 2.0

81-100 3 1.0

101-120 3 1.0

241-260 1 0.0

281-300 1 0.0

421-460 1 0.0

Total 206 100.0

Table 2: Average Amount of milk collected at Milk Centreper day in high season

Amount of milk collected per day in high season_Milk Centre

Litres Frequency Percent

10 2 7.4

15 1 3.7

29 1 3.7

200 3 11.1

250 1 3.7

270 2 7.4

700 3 11.1

800 1 3.7

900 1 3.7

1,400 1 3.7

2,000 3 11.1

3,000 2 7.4

3,700 1 3.7

4,500 2 7.4

6,000 2 7.4

30,000 1 3.7

Total 27 100


12/57

12

Table 3: Average Amount of milk collected at Milk Centreper day in low season

Amount of milk collected per day in low season_Milk Centre

Litres Frequency

8 1

80 1

120 2

150 3

190 1

250 1

300 1

350 1

500 2

700 1

800 1

1000 1

1200 1

1500 2

2000 2

3000 1

3500 2

4000 1

15000 1

Total 26

Table 4: Average amount of milk sold by traders per dayAmount of milk sold daily by Traders

Litres Frequency

1-50 18

51-100 9

101-150 3

151-200 3

251-300 3

301-350 1

351-400 1

401-450 1

501-600 1

3700 1

4000 1

Total 42


13/57

13

5.2 Dairy Radio Programs awareness

5.2.1 Program Awareness

Chart 4: Familiarity of Dairy Radio Program

Are you familiar w ith a radio program on milk

production/productivity? n=292

Yes

95%

No

5%

About 95% of the respondents are aware of the radio programsaddressing milk production and productivity i.e. Ekacokon andEintungo no bugeiga.5 Much as 95% were aware of the programs,94% did listen to one. The chart below shows the radio stations onwhich the respondents the listened the programs to:6

Chart 5: Radio Station on which Dairy Radio Program was heard

Radio Station on which Dairy Radio Program was listened to n=268

31.3

53.0

6.31.9 1.1 1.5

4.9

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

84 142 17 5 3 4 13

Voice of

Teso

Radio West Veritas Vision Endigyito Other Not sure

The above Chart shows that more people listened to the dairyprograms on Voice of Teso in Soroti and Radio West in Mbarara with

5The high awareness levels are explained by the fact that the target respondents were judgmentally selected

meaning that they were deliberately selected for the assessment.6

Target number of respondents for Mbarara was 180 while that of Soroti was 120


14/57

14

scores of 31.3% (84 respondents) and 53% (142 respondents)respectively in total. Others claim to have heard the programs on otherstations like Kioga Veritas Radio (Soroti), Vision FM (Mbarara), andEndigyito (Mbarara). A number of respondents, about 5%,were notsure on which radio station they had listened to the programs. Theseended up indicating two stations e.g. saying Voice of Teso and

Veritas. It should be noted that the target number of respondents inthe Soroti area was 120 while in the Mbarara area, it was 180. Takingthis into consideration, one can easily say in Soroti and the surroundingareas, 70% (i.e. 84 out of 120) have listened to Ekacokon on Voice ofTeso, while in Mbarara and the surrounding areas, about 79% (142 outof 180) have listened to Eintungo no bugeiga on Radio West.

5.2.2 Frequency of listening to dairy radio programs

In order to assess the frequency of listening to dairy radio programs,the respondents were asked to indicate how often they listened to theprograms, the chart below shows how often programs were listened to:

Chart 6: How often have you listened to dairy radio programs?

How often have you listened to the dairy radio programs? n=257

57.6

17.1

5.1

20.2

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

148 44 13 52

Every w eek Once every 2

w eeks

Once every 3

w eeks

Not sure

Of the 257 who responded to this question, about 58% said that theylistened to the program every week while 17% listened to the dairyradio programs once every two weeks. Much as a good numberlistened to the programs frequently, 20% were not sure how often theydid listen.


15/57

15

5.2.3 Association of Dairy Radio Program with Organizations

Given that there are a number of stakeholders in the dairy sector, therewas need to gauge amongst the respondents which organizations,companies or programmes they associate the radio programs to, thetable below shows the outcome.

Table 5: Organizations associated with dairy radio program

The respondents associated the dairy radio programs to NationalAgriculture Advisory Services (NAADS); Dairy Development Authority(DDA) and Uganda National Dairy Farmers Association than any otherorganization or programme. In Other category organizations orprogrammes were listed as those associated with the dairy radioprogrammes. These include:

Norbrook

Uganda Stock Farm Kwewayo Group National Agriculture Research Organization (NARO) Dairy Corporation U.S.A.I.D. GBK Dairy Products Ltd Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF)

5.3 Dairy Radio Programs Content and Delivery

5.3.1 Relevance of topics and issues covered in dairy programs

Table 6: How relevant topics coveredHow relevant were the topics on milk production and increased

Productivity in the dairy radio programs?

Frequency Percent

Very relevant 142 51.1

Quite relevant 131 47.1

Irrelevant 5 1.8

Total 278 100.0

Which Organization/Programme do you associate Dairy Radio Program?

Organization/Programme Frequency Percent

National Agriculture Advisory Services (NAADS) 172 23

Dairy Development Authority (DDA) 137 19

Uganda National Dairy Farmers Association (UNDFA) 79 11

Uganda Dairy Processors Association (UDPA) 66 9

Land O' Lakes Inc. 63 9

Plan for Modernization of Agriculture (PMA) 62 9

Uganda National Dairy Traders Association (UNDATA) 51 7

Uganda Crane Creameries Cooperative Union (UCCCU) 41 6

Other 33 5

ILO FIT-SEMA 15 2


16/57

16

51% of the respondents were of the view that topics covered in thedairy radio programs were very relevant while 47% thought they werequite relevant. About 2% did not think issues covered were relevant.No reasons were given for irrelevance.7

5.3.2 How adequately topics were covered

A number of issues were covered from time to time in the radioprograms on milk production and productivity. The respondents wereasked to indicate how adequately issues were covered. Below is atable summarizing results from total of adequately and somewhatadequately covered. Detailed analysis of each topical area is in theappendix.

Table 7: How adequately topical issues were covered

Production (Breeding, Feeding, Feeds), Animal/Herd Health(Disease control etc), and Farming as a business were areasreportedly to have been either adequately or somewhat adequatelycovered more than any other areas while Policy Issues (Taxation,Extension services, Regulatory environment/services, infrastructure,NAADS) and Intrapersonal issues (Attitudes, cultural beliefs) lessadequately covered compared to other areas.

In the same vein, respondents were asked to highlight on the topicalareas they would like to be reviewed or revisited in future programs.These are listed in Table 8 ranked in order of importance.

7Relevance in this case means that issues covered were of much significance and of great importance to farmers,

milk centres and milk traders.

Topical Areas/Issues Frequency Percent 264 11

264 11 241 10 199 9 200 9!" 205 9#"! 202 9$%#"&'" 191 8#"(& 154 7&"!""

173 7"$)*+*#"##!,% 118 5$! 108 5


17/57

17

Table 8: Topical issues that need to be reviewed or revisited

Topical Areas/Issues

1 Animal/Herd Health (Disease control etc)

2 Production (Breeding, Feeding, Feeds)

3 Farming as a business

4 Market (Outlets, milk prices etc)

5 Marketing of dairy products

6 Milk handling (Storage, Hygiene, Increased Production)

7 Pasture Development (Dry season feeding)

8 Resource availability & Management (Access to Capital, Management skills)

9 Policy Issues (Taxation, Extension services, Regulatory environment/services, infrastructure,NAADS)

10 Farm Input Supplies (Availability, Costs, Quality)

11 Farm Management (Record keeping etc)

12 Challenges generally faced by dairy sector stakeholders

13 Intrapersonal issues (Attitudes, cultural beliefs)

Given that there could be other areas that may not have been coveredin the radio programs; the respondents were given the opportunity tolist some areas that they thought should be handled in the radioprograms. These are listed below:

i. How to access loan/credit facilities to boost their businessesii. Milk handling (Hygiene, quality management, problems of

adulteration, preservation, transportation, utensils)iii. Improving milk production/yield (better milking techniques)iv. Proper grazing methods for animalsv. Making value added products like yogurtvi. Goat dairy prospectsvii. Breeding (insemination, cross breeding, breed selection)viii. Group formation for dairy farmersix. Diary entrepreneurial development skills


18/57

18

5.3.3 Satisfaction levels of presentation style/delivery

Chart 7: Satisfaction levels of presentation style

How satisfied are you w ith style of presentation/delivery of

dairy radio programs?n=275

24.4

49.8

17.5

8.0

0.4

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Extremely

satisfied

Very satisf ied Neutral Not satisf ied Not at all

satisfied

About 50% of the respondents were very satisfied with the style ofpresentation/delivery of the dairy radio programs while 24% wereextremely satisfied. 8% were not satisfied. A further 17.5% wereneither satisfied nor dissatisfied.

Some of the reasons given for dissatisfaction with presentation/deliverystyle were:

i. Using a lot of English without blending in local languages byexperts can be a disadvantage to some listeners. They miss outon the message.

ii. Using technical words seems complicated therefore affecting the

message being disseminated.iii. There is a tendency for issues to be presented in very general

and not specific termsiv. There is a feeling that some issues have not been covered.(See

list on previous page)v. Adverts during the program are seen as interruptions and take up

so much time that would have catered for call ins on one handand covering issues more exhaustively on the other.

vi. Some listeners were of the view that times at which program runsare not convenient for them. By the time they get home, theprogram is already over.

Much as over 70% of the respondents were satisfied with presentationand delivery style, opinions were sought on how to improve on thecurrent style. Below are suggestions ranked in order of importance.

a. The programs should be promoted through intensive advertisingto create more awareness and generate interest to radiolisteners especially those in the milk production chain.Sensitization would enhance program listenership.


19/57

19

b. Listeners were of the view that a lot of time is taken up bydiscussions during the program with adverts taking up a big partleaving very little time for callers. Listeners should be given goodopportunities and ample time to call into the program and havetheir questions or queries adequately answered. Interactivityshould be enhanced. Besides calling in, letters are strongly

considered as a one other way participation in the programwould be increased.

c. Issues arose over the length of the program, it was suggestedthat either the program period is extended by allocating it moretime 30 minutes or 1 hour, or have it aired at least twice a week.

d. In order to cater for a wider range of listeners, it is important tobalance the various languages in the region Ateso, Kumamand Lukenye. This was especially the case in Soroti andsurrounding areas.

e. Listeners would like to hear success stories from farmers,achievers and testimonies that will be a source ofencouragement to them. This could be done in form ofrecordings from the field.

f. It is important to put farmers at the centre of the programs. It willgive the program a more participatory approach to it and givethe farmers a sense of belonging to the program. More farmersshould be visited in the field to solicit their views.

g. Guest speakers should endeavor to simplify language during theprograms. Technical jargons should either defined or use

simpler words in their place for better understanding.

h. Hosting of guests with wide experience, knowledgeable andconfident should be encouraged. There were comments likeThe right people should sourced for the programs,sometimes there is a tendency for a guest to have an Ithink attitude which creates doubt and indicates a lack ofconfidence.

i. Program moderators should give listeners a chance to air theirviews and they should endeavor not to lead into discussing

irrelevancies on their part.

5.3.4 Accuracy of information presented in the dairy radioprograms

Chart 8 below indicated that over 60% of the respondents were of theview that information presented in the programs was quite accuratewhile just under 5% of them though that it was not accurate. Nospecific reasons were given for inaccurate information.


20/57

20

Chart 8: Accuracy of information presented in dairy radioprograms

How accurate was the information presented in the dairy

radio programs? n=266

Quite accurate

60%

Not accurate

5%

Very accurate

35%

5.3.5 Mode of presentation

Respondents were asked to point the most preferred mode ofpresenting the radio dairy programs. Chart 9 below shows theoutcome. In-studio discussion with invited guest takes the lead in thisarea with 55%. However presentation with mixed modes would workout well provided it is done in the right and appropriate proportions.

Chart 9: Preferred mode of presentation

Preferred mode of presentation n=276

Pre-recorded field

programs

20%

Combination of pre-

recorded, phone-in

and guests

4%

In-studio

discussion with

invited guest

55%

Phone - in

21%


21/57

21

5.3.6 Assessment of Resource peoples work on the programs

Over 75% of the respondents are satisfied with resource peoples work.

Chart 10: How satisfied with resource people

How satisfied are you with resource people's contribution to

the programs? n=268

Neutral

18%

Very satisfied

55%

Extremely satisfied

23%

Not satisfied

4%

5.3.7 Preferred resource people

Ranked in order of importance below are the kinds of resource peopleor organizations listeners would like to listen to more frequently oragain in future dairy radio programs.

a) Veterinary Officers (DVOs, Vet Doctors etc)b) Experienced dairy entrepreuers/business people/successful

farmers (achievers)

c) NAADSd) Agricultural Expertse) Dairy Production Experts/Food Science Technologistsf) Marketing specialistsg) Councilors/Political leadersh) Field Extension workersi) NGOs (specializing in farming activities) j) District Production/Marketing officersk) Dairy Development Authorityl) Farmers Associations and Dairy Cooperative Managementm) Animal breeding experts

5.4 Application of ideas from Dairy Programs

5.4.1 Steps taken to improve milk production/productivity (dairybusiness) as a result of listening to dairy radio program

The main objective of the program was to disseminate information topeople in the milk chain aimed at improving their businesses. It wasexpected that knowledge acquired would be applied to help in


22/57

22

improving milk production and productivity. Below are the variousthings that have been done by listeners.

i. Improved hygiene as a result less milk is spoilt (More is sold). Stepstaken include: Washing milk containers with soap/use ofdisinfectants; Observing general hygiene; Use of proper milk cans to

store and transport milk; Proper milk handling is now a priority bettermilk quality etc

ii. Ensuring/maintaining animal health that has resulted in higher milkyields : Constant disease control through regular spraying; Animaltreatment; Pest control; Able to assess (keen to observe animalhealth) animal health/early disease detection in time to get a vet ;ability to determine disease symptoms; purchase of a sprayingmachine

iii. Taken steps to adopt improved breeds for increased milk yields likeartificial insemination and cross-breeding.

iv. Improved farm management better shelters; improved feedingsystems; providing sufficient clean water (esp. lactating cows);rotational grazing; improved pasture management esp. for dry seasonfeeding; improved animal hygiene/care; minimizing traveling longdistances in search of pastures has resulted in improved milk yields.

v. Adopted better, safe milking procedures better milk handlingtechniques.

vi. Able to establish where to market milk.

vii. Re-investing income from milk sales.

viii. Obtained a standard milk cooling system. Milk Collecting Centre

ix. Buying milk from established hygienic dairy outlets. Consumer5.4.2 Dairy business growth as a result of radio programs

Table 9: Dairy business growthTo what extent would you say that the radio programs contributed to the growth and

Improvement of your dairy business?

Frequency Percent

Between 1-5% 40 16.5

Between 6-10% 38 15.6

Between 11-15% 38 15.6

Between 16-20% 25 10.3

Between 21-25% 12 4.9

Between 26-30% 17 7.0

Between 31-35% 14 5.8

Between 36-40% 40 16.5

Other 19 7.8

Total 243 100


23/57

23

The respondents were asked to roughly indicate how much theirbusinesses had grown as a result of listening to dairy radio programs.Just over 31% of them had their businesses grew by 1 to 10%. Thosesaid that their businesses have grown by 6-10% were about 16%.Some 16.5% have had their businesses grow by 36-40%. 8

5.4.3 Most beneficial aspects of the dairy programs

There are some aspects of dairy radio programs that were consideredto beneficial because they have contributed to improvement ofbusiness. The most important were:

a) Animal health (Disease control)b) Production (Breeding, feeding, feeds)c) Milk handling, hygiene and safety and quality controld) Marketing of dairy productse) Markets (Outlets, milk prices etc)

5.4.4 Least beneficial aspects of the dairy programs

a) Intrapersonal issues (Attitudes, cultural beliefs)b) Policy issues

8Figures used for indicative purposes. How we arrived at these figures: We asked the respondents to indicate how

much milk they had produced at some period and compare with current amount after applying ideas from radioprograms. E.g. if one previously produced 40 litres and now produces 45 litres, we appropriately calculated andindicated the percentage growth figure.


24/57

5.4.5 Agreement on Dairy Radio ProgramsA number of issues were raised on dairy radio programs listeners had heard. Statements relating to thagreement or disagreement. The figure below gives a summary.

Chart 11: Agreement with statements about dairy radio programs

Agreement on Dairy Radio Programs

74.3

56.5

46.9

73.4

40.3

53.4

47.5

23.3

29.3

34.7

20.6

29.3

26.3

31.7

9.3

13.1

16.0

17.8

16.7

12

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

The program contents were sensitive and

useful to your dairy business

Questio ns and issues raised by callers or

mo derators were well handled and relevant to

your business

Questions and issuesin the radio programs

have provided som e solutions t o your dairy

busines c hallenges

Dairy radio program content was educative

and informative

Advic e given in the dairy radio programs iseasily applicable

After listening to the dairy radio programs you

will co nsider applying mos t o f the kno wledge

obtained

Benefits fro m advice in the dairy radio

programs are believable

Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neutral Somewhat disagree Strongly disa


25/57

As the chart shows, there is very high agreement that respondents are of the view that Dairy radio prand informative, and that The program contents were sensitive and useful to your dairy businerespondents strongly agreeing to the statements respectively. Other statements that had high agree

the dairy radio programs you will consider applying most of the knowledge obtained and Questions amoderators were well handled and relevant to your business with scores of 56.5% and 54.3% respthat Advice given in the dairy radio programs is easily applicable had the highest level of disastatement After listening to the dairy radio programs you will consider applying most of the knowlhighest level of uncertainty as18% of the respondents were not sure that they would apply idrespondents agree to all statements.


26/57

5.4.6 Likelihood of business improvement in the next 12 monthsas a result of dairy radio programs

Chart 12: Likelihood of business improvement

Likelihood of business improvement in next 12 months

n=265

25.7

56.6

15.1

0.42.3

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Very certain High chance Low chance No chance Not sure

Findings from the survey clearly indicate that there is more than 80%chance, as shown in Chart 11, that dairy businesses would see someimprovement or some growth in the next 12-month period as a result ofapplying some of the ideas from dairy radio programs.

5.4.7 Effectiveness of dairy radio programs to dairy businessgrowth

Chart 13: Effectiveness of dairy radio programs

How effective have dairy radio programs been to growth of

business? n=259

Reasonably

effective

49%

About average

18%

Ineffective

3%

Very effective

30%

As a result of listening to the dairy radio programs, there have been attemptsto implement or apply what has been heard on radio and below are some ofthe results to confirm effectiveness:

i. Better milk quality than before cleaner and more hygienic.


27/57

27

ii. Improved milk yields (production)iii. Ability to administer/apply medication to animals in cases where

one does not need a vet but has the drug.iv. Increase knowledge and awareness about general dairy

productivity issues such as better feeding, animal treatment,symptom detection etc

v. Contributed to improved household income.vi. Armed with marketing/market information its become possible to

break into the market where previously it was not possible.vii. Improved animal healthviii. Attitude change from traditional way of raising cattle for dairy

purposes to more modern approaches.

5.4.8 Suggestions on how the dairy radio can be improved

What has been done is commendable but in order to make it better, thefollowing issues can be considered:

i. More sensitization and promotion to increase awareness anddrive interest in the program.

ii. Hosting more experts who are experienced, knowledgeable,technically appropriate, confident, and articulate. Suchprofessionals should include milk production experts, vets,agricultural extension workers as well as people with greatsuccess stories in this regard.

iii. A balance should be sought for the various languages in theEastern region for the radio programs i.e. Lukenye, Ateso andKumam. Alternating them can also work.

iv. Design the program in such a way that it is more interactive. Thiscalls for allowing more call-ins, more time for call-ins, as well asusing letters from listeners with requests. This is against abackground of limiting number of calls coming in and not givingample time to listeners to express their views.

v. Ensuring that questions posed by listeners are adequatelyanswered.

vi. It is important to put farmers at the centre of the program by

increasing their participation either by inviting them to theprogram or visiting them in the field to get their views recorded inorder inform program content. This will make them feel part of theprocess.

vii. Encourage formation of radio listening dairy groups where ideascan be generated to provide content to programs.


28/57

28

viii. Some listeners were of the view that the program time should beextended and some others think it should be aired twice a week.More time should be allocated to the program, at least 30 minutesmore.

Other issues raised include: Program hosts should do more research to build

their knowledge base as well as not over dwelling on the same issues assome listeners are not consistent listeners. Emphasis should also be put onmilk handling.

5.4.9 Contribution of dairy radio programs to improvement ofhousehold livelihood

Table 10: Comments on improved household livelihoodComments on how dairy radio programs have contributed to improved

livelihood in the household

Frequency Percent

Increased income 77 26.1

Better standards of living 63 21.4Business growth 55 18.6

More employment opportunities 15 5.1

Better nutrition 11 3.7

Better trade terms 9 3.1

More knowledge & skills 5 1.7

Nothing yet 2 0.7

Better market links 1 0.3

Can't tell 1 0.3

Radios are affordable 1 0.3

No comment 55 18.6

Total 295 100.0

As Table 10 shows, increased income, better standards of living, businessgrowth among other things how the programs have positively affectedhousehold livelihood. Things like better animal feeding and stricter animaltreatment have resulted in higher milk yields and therefore higher revenues.Higher revenues have had some bearing on standards of living and led togrowth of business. For example a 55 year old farmer in Nyagaruka inWestern Uganda commented that Using appropriate and affordable drugshas helped me to prevent diseases and now my cows are producingmore milk!

5.5 Other General issues

5.5.1 Cooperative Societies

Comments on relevance or use of cooperative societies for dairyproduction

Views were sought from dairy producers (farmers, traders) about cooperativesocieties on how they could be of use to the dairy sector. Reasons for theirrelevance and usefulness were given. They are thought to be good and


29/57

29

necessary for business growth but are largely considered to be part of thepast. With proper sensitization, they can be revived to offer quality services tomembers. But for new ones or revived ones, it was said, should be with highstandards and good strategic and visionary leadership in place to realizebetter results. The new cooperative societies should be structured to meetpresent day needs. Below are some of the reasons given for their importance:

i. Training opportunities for members

ii. Ease of access to market because of bulk sales. They canminimize traveling distances for farmers/traders to deliver milk oreases milk collection procedures. They can create milk collectioncentres.

iii. Through them saving culture can be promotediv. Opportunities for accessing financial services (credit/loans) can

arise. This can play a positive role in growing dairy businesses.v. Possibilities for stable and good milk prices and/or negotiating for

a good price.

vi. Guarantee for more prompt payments either on a weekly ormonthly basis.

vii. Access to advisory services that may benefit farmers or tradersviii. Cooperative societies are a unifying factor that would create good

ground for advocating for their rights and negotiating for favorabletrade terms.

ix. More sensitization will be required before reviving or setting themup.

On the other hand, cooperative societies were considered by somerespondents as useless and irrelevant (out-of-date). Reasons given were:

i. Those that existed were poorly managed. They are a potentialground for cheating members. It may become hard to mobilizepeople who are paranoid to join coops. Past coops tended tobureaucratic in nature resulting in slow delivery of services e.g.delayed payments.

ii. Cooperative societies are associated with the past and areconsidered not to have a place in current Uganda. Young peopleare more familiar with SACCOS as opposed to old stylecooperative societies.

iii. Cooperative Societies tend to be located only in towns; theyought to be nearer people at the grassroots level.

iv. There is uncertainty on their survival if revived.


30/57

30

Box 1: Ngora Progressive Dairy Cooperative Society LimitedCase Study - Dairy Cooperative Societies

Ngora Progressive Dairy Cooperative Society Limited located in Ngora Town in Kumi District received alot of financial and technical support from various Spanish Organizations. The milk centre has a numberof facilities in place to cater for its members who take their milk to be received. Such facilities includetesting, sterilization, cooling, boiling and storage. However, a scandal hit the company recently whenprevious top management swindled company funds which has affected its operations a lot. At themoment, it is in the process of re-organizing business but under very difficult conditions. Some of thechallenges Re-gaining members confidence is one of the biggest challenges currently. There is need tosafeguard the organization from such problems in the future.

Summary from an interview with Mr. Otelu David, the Chairman of Ngora Progressive Dairy Cooperative SocietyLimited on 1

stAugust 2007

The case for cooperative societies far outweighs case against them.

5.5.2 Use of radio as a medium for development of dairybusiness

Chart 14: Recommending use of radio

How would you recommend the use of radio as medium for

dairy business development? n=259

73.4

18.1

2.7 5.8

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Strongly recommend Somew hat

recommend

Might or might not Will not recommend

Chart 13 shows that more 90% of the respondents recommend the use ofradio as a medium for dairy business development. About 6% of therespondents did not recommend the use of radio because they believe thattraining seminars and extension services are some of the better ways in whichdevelopment of dairy businesses can be achieved. Furthermore, it is in suchways that one can ask many questions and have more practical experiences(hands-on).


31/57

31

5.5.3 Reasons for using radio

Table 11: Reasons for using radioReasons as to why you would recommend the use of radio as a medium

for dairy business development

Frequency Percent

Wide coverage 106 35.9Information is passed on with ease 62 21.0

Radios are affordable 33 11.2

Language used is easily understood 15 5.1

It is convenient to use radio 12 4.1

Radio is very accessible 12 4.1

Allows interaction 2 0.7

No comment 53 18.0

Total 295 100.0

6.0 Concluding statements and Recommendations

1) There is need to strengthen the use of radio to improve the dairy radioprograms. A lot of support will be required from various stakeholdersespecially those in the dairy sub-sector. Efforts should be directed tothe stakeholders to interest them offering technical and financialassistance to realize and maximize the use of radio as a tool forenhancing dairy business especially in the rural areas.

2) There is also need to drive interest and raise awareness in dairy radioprograms through intensive promotions. Various approaches can beused to achieve this.

3) More interactive programming required to get better results plus qualityprogramming. There are listeners who are unable to call into the

programs for example. Use of letters should be encouraged.4) Farmers should also be put at the centre of the programs. This will give

them a feeling or sense of belonging or ownership of the programs.5) The formation of dairy radio listener groups should be encouraged help

in discussing issues pertaining to dairy business and also help realizeimplementation of ideas they have heard on the dairy radio programs.

6) There is need to provide more airtime for dairy radio programs. Thisshould be done by adding more program-time or have the programsrun at least twice a week.

7) Inviting experienced and successful people to the programs. Thiswould act as a source of inspiration and also share from theirexperiences.


32/57

32

Appendices

I. Selected photos from the field

-!&"%."$,

#--"!%."$,


33/57

33

A radio set belonging to a woman dairy farmer. She was listening to the radio as she grazed her cattle.(Photo by Ian Nkata)

!#,#"%"/01.$!#"!."$,

),#"%"/1."$,


34/57

34

"!-&"%."$,

"#,"""&$."$,

"!1&"."$,

$#---,$1".

/2)-.3."%1&"1&)""$,


35/57

35

-.+!4+56!)

"6

)!,#"/,1.

"$,

II. List of interviewers

Soroti Group Mbarara Group

1 Raphael Obukan 1 Twinomugisha Boona Gilbert

2 Moses Okipi 2 Penelope Akakunda3 Victor Odeke 3 Cissy Karungi4 Ben Massiga 4 Turyatunga Collins

5 Catherine Adyango 5 Sheila Kiconco


36/57

III. Sample of Police introductory letter (Signed) IV. Sample of introductory lette


37/57

V. List of fieldwork locations

The different locations visited during the assessment

Survey Locations in Soroti & Kumi

Districts

Survey Locations in Mbarara, Ntungamo,

Ibanda, Bushenyi and Kiruhura Districts Soroti Municipality Mori Apesur Kamuda Alere Gweri Acuma Gweri Kokong - Kapir Ariet - Obuolo Obuolo Kapir Ngora Town Dokolo Gweri Amodoima Gweri Gweri Trading Centre Achima Village

Omirio Dokolo Opugo Village Owalei Opiro TV Olelebun Asuret Awoja Onyerai Core PTC Atekwa Kapir Atira Kapir

Mbarara Municipality Ibanda TC Bushenyi TC Ntungamo Bwizibwera Kabwohe Kashaka Rwampara Biharwe Sanga Ndeija Kinoni Itojo

Rugando Nyagaruka Rwanyamabare Kyangara Kagugu Nyaburuza Ntungamo Ruhoko-Nyakashozi Ngoma-Rubare Nsongezi Kamatari - Kasharara Nyaihanga Mbarara Katete Mbrarara Karugangama Mbarara Itendero Rutoma Ibanda Rweibare Kashari Rwayamahembe Mbarara Rubindi Rukaka Kagonyi Rwentuha Nyarwanya Bushenyi Ruhandagazi Bushenyi Kibara-Bumbaire Nyandozo-Bumbaire Rwemirokora, Ishaka Rwamabengwa, Kakanju Kizinda Rwemiko Kyabugimbi Bushenyi Nyakashambya Bushenyi Rubiinzi Rwenkaja Biharwe Rwenjuru Biharwe Rushoozi Ruti - Mbarara


38/57

38

VI. Detailed/Additional Statistical Data Tables

For how long have you listened to the program? Or when did you start listening?

Frequency Percent

6 months ago 51 20.3


4 months ago 18 7.23 months ago 45 17.9


1 month ago 68 27.1

How many times have listened to the programs?

No. of times Frequency Percent

1 11 5.5

2 22 11.1

3 25 12.6

4 31 15.6

5 20 10.1

6 15 7.57 6 3.0

8 9 4.5

9 1 0.5

10 19 9.5

12 6 3.0

13 1 0.5

15 5 2.5

16 1 0.5

20 14 7.0

24 1 0.5

25 2 1.0

30 6 3.0

40 2 1.0

48 1 0.5

50 1 0.5

Total 199 100

How often have you listened to the dairy radio programs?

Frequency Percent

Every week 148 57.6

Once every 2 weeks 44 17.1

Once every 3 weeks 13 5.1

Not sure 52 20.2

Total 257 100.0

How adequately was topic on Production (Breeding, Feeding, Feeds) covered?

Frequency Percent

Adequately covered 188 67.9

Somewhat adequately covered 76 27.4

Not adequately covered 10 3.6

Not applicable 3 1.1

Total 277 100.0


39/57

39

How adequately was topic on Animal/Herd health (Disease control) covered?

Frequency Percent





Total 279 100.0

How adequately was topic on Farm Input Supplies (Availability, Costs, Quality) covered?

Frequency Percent





Total 265 100.0

How adequately was topic on Farm management (Record keeping etc) covered?

Frequency Percent

Adequately covered 118 45.2Somewhat adequately covered 81 31.0



Total 261 100.0

How adequately was topic on Resource availability & Management

(Access to Capital, Management skills) covered?

Frequency Percent





Total 258 100

How adequately was topic on Market (Outlets, Access, milk prices etc) covered?

Frequency Percent





Total 269 100

How adequately was topic on Policy Issues (Taxation, Extension Services, Regulation,

NAADS etc) covered?

Frequency Percent





Total 259 100.0


40/57

40

How adequately was topic on Intrapersonal issues (Attitudes, cultural issues) covered?

Frequency Percent





Total 247 100.0

How adequately was topic on "Farming as a business" covered?

Frequency Percent





Total 265 100.0

How adequately was topic on Marketing of dairy products covered?

Frequency Percent

Adequately covered 122 45.7Somewhat adequately covered 83 31.1



Total 267 100.0

How adequately was topic on Challenges faced in the dairy industry in general covered?

Frequency Percent





Total 264 100.0

How adequately was topic on Pasture development (Dry season feeding etc) covered?

Frequency Percent





Total 264 100.0

Statement - The program contents were sensitive and useful to your dairy business

Frequency Percent

Strongly agree 182 74.3

Somewhat agree 57 23.3

Neutral 5 2.0

Somewhat disagree 1 0.4

Total 245 100.0


41/57

41

Statement - Questions and issues raised by callers or moderators were well handled

and relevant to your dairy business

Frequency Percent



Neutral 23 9.3

Somewhat disagree 10 4.1Strongly disagree 2 0.8

Total 246 100.0

Statement - Questions and issues in the radio programs have provided some solutions

to your dairy business challenges and problems

Frequency Percent



Neutral 32 13.1


Strongly disagree 2 0.8

Total 245 100.0

Statement - Dairy radio program content was educative and informative

Frequency Percent



Neutral 4 1.6


Total 243 100

Statement - Advice given in the dairy programs is easily applicable

Frequency Percent



Neutral 38 16.0



Total 238 100.0

Statement - After listening to the dairy radio programs you will consider applying

most of the knowledge obtained

Frequency Percent



Neutral 44 17.8



Total 247 100.0


42/57

42

Statement - Benefits from advice in the dairy radio programs are believable

Frequency Percent



Neutral 40 16.7


Strongly disagree 1 0.4Total 240 100.0

Category * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

If yes, on which radio station?Total

Voice ofTeso Radio West Veritas Other Unsure Vision Endigyito

Category Farmer Count 64 97 8 3 13 3 3 191

% within Category 33.5 50.8 4.2 1.6 6.8 1.6 1.6 100

% within If yes, on which radio station? 79.0 69.3 50.0 75.0 100.0 60.0 100.0 72.9

MilkingcollectingCentre Count 3 15 3 1 0 1 0 23

% within Category 13.0 65.2 13.0 4.3 0 4.3 0 100

% within If yes, on which radio station? 3.7 10.7 18.8 25.0 0 20.0 0 8.8

Consumer Count 8 2 5 0 0 0 0 15

% within Category 53.3 13.3 33.3 0 0 0 0 100

% within If yes, on which radio station? 9.9 1.4 31.3 0 0 0 0 5.7

Tradersetc Count 6 26 0 0 0 1 0 33

% within Category 18.2 78.8 0 0 0 3.0 0 100

% within If yes, on which radio station? 7.4 18.6 0 0 0 20.0 0 12.6

Total Count 81 140 16 4 13 5 3 262

% within Category 30.9 53.4 6.1 1.5 5.0 1.9 1.1 100

% within If yes, on which radio station? 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

How adequately was topic on Production (Breeding, Feeding, Feeds) covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

67 81 13 3 9 2 2 177

37.9% 45.8% 7.3% 1.7% 5.1% 1.1% 1.1% 100.0%

81.7% 57.9% 81.3% 75.0% 75.0% 50.0% 66.7% 67.8%

14 51 2 1 2 2 1 73

19.2% 69.9% 2.7% 1.4% 2.7% 2.7% 1.4% 100.0%

17.1% 36.4% 12.5% 25.0% 16.7% 50.0% 33.3% 28.0%

0 6 1 0 1 0 0 8

.0% 75.0% 12.5% .0% 12.5% .0% .0% 100.0%

.0% 4.3% 6.3% .0% 8.3% .0% .0% 3.1%

1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3

33.3% 66.7% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%

1.2% 1.4% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.1%

82 140 16 4 12 4 3 261

31.4% 53.6% 6.1% 1.5% 4.6% 1.5% 1.1% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count

% within How adequatelywas topic on Production

(Breeding, Feeding,

Feeds) covered?

% within If yes, on which

radio station?

Count

% within How adequately

was topic on Production(Breeding, Feeding,

Feeds) covered?


radio station?

Count

% within How adequatelywas topic on Production

(Breeding, Feeding,Feeds) covered?


radio station?

Count


was topic on Production(Breeding, Feeding,

Feeds) covered?


radio station?

Count


was topic on Production

(Breeding, Feeding,Feeds) covered?


radio station?

Adequately covered

Somewhat adequatelycovered

Not adequately covered

Not applicable

How adequately was

topic on Production(Breeding, Feeding,

Feeds) covered?

Total

Voice of Teso Radio West Veritas Other Not sure Vision Endigyito

If yes, on which radio station?

Total


43/57

43

How adequately was topic on Animal/Herd health (Disease control) covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

69 80 11 2 8 4 2 176

39.2% 45.5% 6.3% 1.1% 4.5% 2.3% 1.1% 100.0%

85.2% 56.3% 68.8% 50.0% 66.7% 80.0% 66.7% 66.9%9 52 4 2 4 1 1 73

12.3% 71.2% 5.5% 2.7% 5.5% 1.4% 1.4% 100.0%

11.1% 36.6% 25.0% 50.0% 33.3% 20.0% 33.3% 27.8%

1 8 0 0 0 0 0 9

11.1% 88.9% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%

1.2% 5.6% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 3.4%

2 2 1 0 0 0 0 5

40.0% 40.0% 20.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%

2.5% 1.4% 6.3% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.9%

81 142 16 4 12 5 3 263

30.8% 54.0% 6.1% 1.5% 4.6% 1.9% 1.1% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count


was topic on Animal/Herd

health (Disease control)

covered?


radio station?Count




covered?


radio station?

Count




covered?


radio station?

Count




covered?


radio station?

Count




covered?


radio station?

Adequately covered

Somewhat adequately

covered


Not applicable

How adequately was

topic on Animal/Herd

health (Disease

control) covered?

Total



Total

How adequately was topic on Farm Input Supplies (Availability, Costs, Quality) covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

37 29 8 0 8 2 1 85

43.5% 34.1% 9.4% .0% 9.4% 2.4% 1.2% 100.0%

46.8% 21.8% 50.0% .0% 66.7% 40.0% 50.0% 34.0%

26 63 1 1 3 1 0 95

27.4% 66.3% 1.1% 1.1% 3.2% 1.1% .0% 100.0%

32.9% 47.4% 6.3% 33.3% 25.0% 20.0% .0% 38.0%

8 34 5 1 1 1 1 51

15.7% 66.7% 9.8% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 100.0%

10.1% 25.6% 31.3% 33.3% 8.3% 20.0% 50.0% 20.4%

8 7 2 1 0 1 0 19

42.1% 36.8% 10.5% 5.3% .0% 5.3% .0% 100.0%

10.1% 5.3% 12.5% 33.3% .0% 20.0% .0% 7.6%

79 133 16 3 12 5 2 250

31.6% 53.2% 6.4% 1.2% 4.8% 2.0% .8% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count


was topic on Farm Input

Supplies (Availability,

Costs, Quality) covered?


radio station?

Count

% within How adequatelywas topic on Farm Input




radio station?

Count






radio station?

Count






radio station?

Count



Supplies (Availability,Costs, Quality) covered?


radio station?

Adequately covered

Somewhat adequately

covered


Not applicable

How adequately was

topic on Farm Input



Total



Total


44/57

44

How adequately was topic on Farm management (Record keeping etc) covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

47 44 10 1 7 1 2 112

42.0% 39.3% 8.9% .9% 6.3% .9% 1.8% 100.0%

63.5% 32.6% 62.5% 50.0% 58.3% 20.0% 66.7% 45.3%

9 55 3 1 5 4 1 78

11.5% 70.5% 3.8% 1.3% 6.4% 5.1% 1.3% 100.0%

12.2% 40.7% 18.8% 50.0% 41.7% 80.0% 33.3% 31.6%

11 35 2 0 0 0 0 48

22.9% 72.9% 4.2% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%

14.9% 25.9% 12.5% .0% .0% .0% .0% 19.4%

7 1 1 0 0 0 0 9

77.8% 11.1% 11.1% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%

9.5% .7% 6.3% .0% .0% .0% .0% 3.6%

74 135 16 2 12 5 3 247

30.0% 54.7% 6.5% .8% 4.9% 2.0% 1.2% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count


was topic on Farmmanagement (Record

keeping etc) covered?


radio station?

Count


was topic on Farm

management (Record



radio station?

Count


was topic on Farm

management (Record



radio station?

Count


was topic on Farm

management (Record


% within If yes, on whichradio station?

Count


was topic on Farm

management (Record



radio station?

Adequately covered

Somewhat adequately

covered


Not applicable

How adequately was

topic on Farm

management (Recordkeeping etc) covered?

Total



Total

How adequately was topic on Resource availability & Management (Access to Capital, Management skills) covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

31 30 8 0 4 0 0 73

42.5% 41.1% 11.0% .0% 5.5% .0% .0% 100.0%

41.3% 23.1% 53.3% .0% 33.3% .0% .0% 30.0%

13 51 4 1 2 2 0 73

17.8% 69.9% 5.5% 1.4% 2.7% 2.7% .0% 100.0%

17.3% 39.2% 26.7% 25.0% 16.7% 40.0% .0% 30.0%

14 39 1 3 3 0 2 62

22.6% 62.9% 1.6% 4.8% 4.8% .0% 3.2% 100.0%

18.7% 30.0% 6.7% 75.0% 25.0% .0% 100.0% 25.5%

17 10 2 0 3 3 0 35

48.6% 28.6% 5.7% .0% 8.6% 8.6% .0% 100.0%

22.7% 7.7% 13.3% .0% 25.0% 60.0% .0% 14.4%

75 130 15 4 12 5 2 243

30.9% 53.5% 6.2% 1.6% 4.9% 2.1% .8% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count

% within How

adequately was topic on

Resource availability &

Management (Access to

Capital, Management

skills) covered?% within If yes, on which

radio station?

Count

% within How




Capital, Management

skills) covered?


radio station?

Count

% within How




Capital, Management

skills) covered?


radio station?

Count

% within How


Resource availability &Management (Access to

Capital, Management

skills) covered?


radio station?

Count

% within How




Capital, Management

skills) covered?


radio station?

Adequately covered

Somewhat adequately

covered


Not applicable

How adequately was

topic on Resource

availability &


Capital, Management

skills) covered?

Total



Total


45/57

45

How adequately was topic on Market (Outlets,Access, milk prices etc) covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

63 41 13 0 8 2 0 127

49.6% 32.3% 10.2% .0% 6.3% 1.6% .0% 100.0%

78.8% 30.6% 81.3% .0% 66.7% 40.0% .0% 50.2%

12 41 3 2 3 0 1 62

19.4% 66.1% 4.8% 3.2% 4.8% .0% 1.6% 100.0%

15.0% 30.6% 18.8% 66.7% 25.0% .0% 33.3% 24.5%

5 47 0 1 1 1 1 56

8.9% 83.9% .0% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 100.0%

6.3% 35.1% .0% 33.3% 8.3% 20.0% 33.3% 22.1%

0 5 0 0 0 2 1 8

.0% 62.5% .0% .0% .0% 25.0% 12.5% 100.0%

.0% 3.7% .0% .0% .0% 40.0% 33.3% 3.2%

80 134 16 3 12 5 3 253

31.6% 53.0% 6.3% 1.2% 4.7% 2.0% 1.2% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count

% within How adequatelywas topic on Market(Outlets,Access, mil k

prices etc) covered?


Count

% within How adequatelywas topic on Market(Outlets,Access, mil kprices etc) covered?


Count



radio station?

Count



radio station?

Count



radio station?

Adequately covered



Not applicable

How adequately wastopic on Market(Outlets,Access, mil k

prices etc) covered?

Total

Voice of Teso Radio West Veritas Other Not sure Vision EndigyitoIf yes, on which radio station?

Total


46/57

46

How adequately was topic on Policy Issues (Taxation, Extension Services, Regulation, NAADS etc) covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

27 21 10 0 4 0 0 62

43.5% 33.9% 16.1% .0% 6.5% .0% .0% 100.0%

36.0% 16.3% 62.5% .0% 33.3% .0% .0% 25.5%

15 26 3 2 1 1 0 48

31.3% 54.2% 6.3% 4.2% 2.1% 2.1% .0% 100.0%

20.0% 20.2% 18.8% 50.0% 8.3% 20.0% .0% 19.8%

21 58 2 2 3 0 0 86

24.4% 67.4% 2.3% 2.3% 3.5% .0% .0% 100.0%

28.0% 45.0% 12.5% 50.0% 25.0% .0% .0% 35.4%

12 24 1 0 4 4 2 47

25.5% 51.1% 2.1% .0% 8.5% 8.5% 4.3% 100.0%

16.0% 18.6% 6.3% .0% 33.3% 80.0% 100.0% 19.3%

75 129 16 4 12 5 2 243

30.9% 53.1% 6.6% 1.6% 4.9% 2.1% .8% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count

% within How

adequately was topic

on Policy Issues

(Taxation, ExtensionServices, Regulation,

NAADS etc) covered?

% within If yes, on

which radio station?

Count

% within Howadequately was topic

on Policy Issues

(Taxation, Extension

Services, Regulation,NAADS etc) covered?

% within If yes, on


Count

% within How

adequately was topicon Policy Issues

(Taxation, Extension

Services, Regulation,

NAADS etc) covered?

% within If yes, on


Count

% within How


on Policy Issues(Taxation, Extension


NAADS etc) covered?

% within If yes, on


Count

% within How


on Policy Issues

(Taxation, ExtensionServices, Regulation,

NAADS etc) covered?

% within If yes, onwhich radio station?

Adequately covered

Somewhat adequately

covered


Not applicable

How adequately was

topic on Policy Issues(Taxation, Extension


NAADS etc) covered?

Total



Total


47/57

47

How adequately was topic on Intrapersonal issues (Attitudes, cultural issues) covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

37 16 7 0 3 0 0 63

58.7% 25.4% 11.1% .0% 4.8% .0% .0% 100.0%

47.4% 13.7% 43.8% .0% 25.0% .0% .0% 27.0%

6 26 3 2 2 0 0 39

15.4% 66.7% 7.7% 5.1% 5.1% .0% .0% 100.0%

7.7% 22.2% 18.8% 50.0% 16.7% .0% .0% 16.7%

8 44 2 1 3 1 0 59

13.6% 74.6% 3.4% 1.7% 5.1% 1.7% .0% 100.0%

10.3% 37.6% 12.5% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% .0% 25.3%

27 31 4 1 4 3 2 72

37.5% 43.1% 5.6% 1.4% 5.6% 4.2% 2.8% 100.0%

34.6% 26.5% 25.0% 25.0% 33.3% 75.0% 100.0% 30.9%

78 117 16 4 12 4 2 233

33.5% 50.2% 6.9% 1.7% 5.2% 1.7% .9% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count

% within How

adequately was topic onIntrapersonal issues(Attitudes, culturalissues) covered?


Count

% within How

adequately was topic onIntrapersonal issues(Attitudes, culturalissues) covered?


Count

% within Howadequately was topic on

Intrapersonal issues(Attitudes, culturalissues) covered?


radio station?

Count

% within Howadequately was topic on

Intrapersonal issues(Attitudes, culturalissues) covered?


radio station?

Count

% within Howadequately was topic onIntrapersonal issues

(Attitudes, culturalissues) covered?


Adequately covered



Not applicable

How adequately was

topic on Intrapersonalissues (Attitudes, culturalissues) covered?

Total



Total

How adequately was topic on "Farming as a business" covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

54 74 11 3 9 4 3 158

34.2% 46.8% 7.0% 1.9% 5.7% 2.5% 1.9% 100.0%

69.2% 56.1% 68.8% 75.0% 81.8% 80.0% 100.0% 63.5%

17 46 3 1 2 0 0 69

24.6% 66.7% 4.3% 1.4% 2.9% .0% .0% 100.0%

21.8% 34.8% 18.8% 25.0% 18.2% .0% .0% 27.7%

3 10 0 0 0 1 0 14

21.4% 71.4% .0% .0% .0% 7.1% .0% 100.0%

3.8% 7.6% .0% .0% .0% 20.0% .0% 5.6%

4 2 2 0 0 0 0 8

50.0% 25.0% 25.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%

5.1% 1.5% 12.5% .0% .0% .0% .0% 3.2%

78 132 16 4 11 5 3 249

31.3% 53.0% 6.4% 1.6% 4.4% 2.0% 1.2% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count

% within How adequatelywas topic on "Farming as

a business" covered?


Count


was topic on "Farming as



Count

% within How adequatelywas topic on "Farming as



radio station?

Count

% within How adequatelywas topic on "Farming asa business" covered?


radio station?

Count


was topic on "Farming asa business" covered?


Adequately covered



Not applicable

How adequatelywas topic on"Farming as a

business" covered?

Total



Total


48/57

48

How adequately was topic on Marketing of dairy products covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

55 40 10 1 6 2 1 115

47.8% 34.8% 8.7% .9% 5.2% 1.7% .9% 100.0%

70.5% 29.6% 62.5% 25.0% 50.0% 40.0% 50.0% 45.6%

14 51 6 2 4 2 0 79

17.7% 64.6% 7.6% 2.5% 5.1% 2.5% .0% 100.0%

17.9% 37.8% 37.5% 50.0% 33.3% 40.0% .0% 31.3%

8 41 0 1 1 1 1 53

15.1% 77.4% .0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 100.0%

10.3% 30.4% .0% 25.0% 8.3% 20.0% 50.0% 21.0%

1 3 0 0 1 0 0 5

20.0% 60.0% .0% .0% 20.0% .0% .0% 100.0%

1.3% 2.2% .0% .0% 8.3% .0% .0% 2.0%

78 135 16 4 12 5 2 252

31.0% 53.6% 6.3% 1.6% 4.8% 2.0% .8% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count


was topic on Marketing of

dairy products covered?


radio station?

Count


was topic on Marketing of



radio station?

Count


was topic on Marketing ofdairy products covered?


radio station?

Count


was topic on Marketing ofdairy products covered?


radio station?

Count

% within How adequatelywas topic on Marketing of



radio station?

Adequately covered

Somewhat adequately

covered


Not applicable

How adequately was

topic on Marketing ofdairy products

covered?

Total



Total

How adequately was topic on Challenges faced in the dairy industry in general covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

41 27 10 0 5 1 0 84

48.8% 32.1% 11.9% .0% 6.0% 1.2% .0% 100.0%

54.7% 19.9% 62.5% .0% 45.5% 20.0% .0% 33.7%

23 49 4 3 2 1 1 83

27.7% 59.0% 4.8% 3.6% 2.4% 1.2% 1.2% 100.0%

30.7% 36.0% 25.0% 75.0% 18.2% 20.0% 50.0% 33.3%

8 46 1 1 3 0 0 59

13.6% 78.0% 1.7% 1.7% 5.1% .0% .0% 100.0%

10.7% 33.8% 6.3% 25.0% 27.3% .0% .0% 23.7%

3 14 1 0 1 3 1 23

13.0% 60.9% 4.3% .0% 4.3% 13.0% 4.3% 100.0%

4.0% 10.3% 6.3% .0% 9.1% 60.0% 50.0% 9.2%

75 136 16 4 11 5 2 249

30.1% 54.6% 6.4% 1.6% 4.4% 2.0% .8% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count


was topic on Challenges

faced in the dairy industryin general covered?


Count





Count





Count





radio station?

Count

% within How adequatelywas topic on Challenges



radio station?

Adequately covered



Not applicable

How adequately wastopic on Challengesfaced in the dairy industry

in general covered?

Total



Total


49/57

49

How adequately was topic on Pasture development (Dry season feeding etc) covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

54 49 8 3 8 3 1 126

42.9% 38.9% 6.3% 2.4% 6.3% 2.4% .8% 100.0%

72.0% 36.0% 50.0% 75.0% 72.7% 60.0% 33.3% 50.4%

8 54 6 1 1 1 0 71

11.3% 76.1% 8.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% .0% 100.0%

10.7% 39.7% 37.5% 25.0% 9.1% 20.0% .0% 28.4%

8 26 1 0 1 1 2 39

20.5% 66.7% 2.6% .0% 2.6% 2.6% 5.1% 100.0%

10.7% 19.1% 6.3% .0% 9.1% 20.0% 66.7% 15.6%

5 7 1 0 1 0 0 14

35.7% 50.0% 7.1% .0% 7.1% .0% .0% 100.0%

6.7% 5.1% 6.3% .0% 9.1% .0% .0% 5.6%

75 136 16 4 11 5 3 250

30.0% 54.4% 6.4% 1.6% 4.4% 2.0% 1.2% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count% within How adequately

was topic on Pasture

development (Dry seasonfeeding etc) covered?


Count





Count





Count

% within How adequatelywas topic on Pasture



Count

% within How adequatelywas topic on Pasture



radio station?

Adequately covered



Not applicable

How adequately was topicon Pasture development

(Dry season feeding etc)

covered?

Total



Total

Statement - The program contents were sensitive and useful to your dairy business * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

66 80 14 3 10 2 175

37.7% 45.7% 8.0% 1.7% 5.7% 1.1% 100.0%

83.5% 65.0% 87.5% 75.0% 83.3% 100.0% 74.2%

11 39 2 1 2 0 55

20.0% 70.9% 3.6% 1.8% 3.6% .0% 100.0%

13.9% 31.7% 12.5% 25.0% 16.7% .0% 23.3%

2 3 0 0 0 0 5

40.0% 60.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%

2.5% 2.4% .0% .0% .0% .0% 2.1%

0 1 0 0 0 0 1

.0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%

.0% .8% .0% .0% .0% .0% .4%

79 123 16 4 12 2 236

33.5% 52.1% 6.8% 1.7% 5.1% .8% 100.0%

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Count

% within Statement - The

program contents were

sensitive and useful toyour dairy business


Count


program contents were

sensitive and useful to

your dairy business


radio station?

Count

% within Statement - Theprogram contents were

sensitive and useful to

your dairy business


radio station?

Count


program contents weres

Documents

Fit Sema Land O Lakes Dairy Radio Programs Impact Assessment Report_Ian Nkata_Uganda