GSSC - 2015 - Orissa

  • Published on
    19-Feb-2017

  • View
    71

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

  • 4TH International Conference OnMANAGEMENT OF SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD SYTEMS Global Social Science Conference - 2015 February 14-17, 2015 Venue: OUAT, Bhubaneswar, India

  • DETERMINANTS OF GROUP CHARACTERISTICS ON SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOOD IMPROVEMENT OF SMALLHOLDER DAIRY GOAT FARMERS IN KENYAPresented By

    Daniel Ochieng OsewePh.D. Scholar,M.P.K.V., Rahuri,Maharashtra State, IndiaEmail: danosewe@gmail.comDaniel.O.Osewe, W.Ochola and P.B.Kharde

  • Background Information: Republic of KenyaLocation: East AfricaIndependence: 1963 (Britain)Capital city : NairobiOff language : English & KiswahiliCurrency : Kenya shilling

    Source: KNBS. 2013: Economic SurveyKenya

  • Figure 1.1 Map of Kenya showing admin units & study areaSource: http://www.info.org. Accessed on 6/5/2014Total Area 581,309 km2Arable Land 271,000km2 (46.70%)Water Body 2.3%Population 44 MDensity 67.2per km2Admin Unit 47 Counties

    Nyando district, Kisumu County

    *

  • INTRODUCTION 85 % of the worlds 460 million farms are small-scale (SCC, 2009) Groups are an integral part of modern organizations. They are present everywhere, from the shop floor to the highest levels of management.

    - Sir John KilnGroups has played an important role in the devpt. of the rural Kenya e.g. KCC (World Bank, 2013; IFAD, 2013)They contributes significantly to Kenyas rural development 24% (FAO, 2004)

  • ..ctd

    Shared interest and goals achievementsSatisfaction of individual & groups needsEconomies of scale in purchase of farm inputs

    Negotiation of markets and prices on behalf of group membersLinkages to financial institutions

    Social securityOrganizational & enterprise skills development

  • Fig. 1.2: Group development stagesSource: LIFE, 2005

  • Dairy Goats Contribution to Livelihood Improvement of Smallholder Farmers in KenyaFits well into smallholder farming systemsEasier to work with than large ruminantsAre quite prolificProducts are easy to marketDemands largely unfulfilledIncreased global influences

  • Integrated goat mgt for food security & income: livelihood improvement Sweat potato plotNapier grass plotRaised slated barn for ease of disposal& utilization of animal waste

  • continuedSome dairy group officials at their milk bar

  • A youth has been contracted by a group to transport milk to market A milk bar attendants at one of the groups marketing point

  • Biogas production: Mr. Chege preparing breakfast and light meals for family relieving their mother to attend to other productive duties

  • Health attributes of goats milk to livelihood improvementReaction to Inflammation e.g. bowel inflammation (Edward, F. 2011)Environmentally Friendly requires less space & feedMetabolic agent esp for iron & zinc (Barlowska, 2011)Bio-availability - easier to digest and assimilatesLower in Fat best diet for people with obesity

  • .Ctd

    Calcium-rich Anti-Mucousal less allergy & excess mucous productionUltra-nourishing Associated with vigour, flexibility and vitality. High in Fatty Acids Nutritionally wholesome than cow milk

  • Less toxic than Cows Milk Has no bovine growth hormones as well as bovine somatotropin hormones common in cow milk May Boost Immune System - Has trace mineral, selenium, which keeps immune system strong and functioning normally

    .Ctd

  • Conc. of minerals in milk from various animal speciesSource: Barlowska, J. et al. 2011

    Concentration(mg/100 g)Cattle SheepBuffaloHumanCamelGoatCalcium122 195 - 200112 33114 to 116 134Phosphorous119124 - 158994387.4121Potassium152136 1409255144 156181Magnesium1218 218410.5 12.316Sodium5844 5835155941Zinc530520 747410380530 590370Concentration(g/100 g)Cattle SheepBuffaloHumanCamelGoatZinc530520 747410380530 590370Iron8072 122161200230 29060Iodine2.110.472.2Selenium0.963.11.521.33

  • *

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

  • By 2005 - 19 SC groups had been established with 595 members The strategy was effective in improving group members livelihood. Goat productivity increased from 0.5-4 litres/ dayHowever, determinants of group characteristics on livelihood of group members had not been studiedCtd

  • OBJECTIVE

    The study investigated the determinants of group characteristics on livelihood improvement of smallholder farmers in Nyando district, Kenya

  • METHODOLOGYThe study was conducted in Nyando district, KenyaData was collected from 110 respondents using a pre-tested interview schedule (92% responses). Analysis was done using multiple linear regressionFour group characteristics namely, longevity, gender composition, networking patterns and cohesiveness were analyzed

  • FINDINGS

  • Distribution of respondents by gender

  • Group longevity

    Group size (n)Minimum15.0Maximum45.0Mean23.0Period of existence (yrs)Minimum5.0Maximum19.0Mean11.0Period a member remained in group (yrs)Minimum4.0Maximum18.0Mean8.5

  • Study circle network patternsNetwork levels (%)

    *

  • Cohesiveness of the study circle

    ParameterSC (n = 50)NumberPercentType of GroupFormal4794Informal36Total50100Time remains a memberBelow 5 yrs7145 10 yrs316211 15 yrs1020Above 15 yrs24Total50100Frequency of group meetingsNever12Rarely12Frequently4284Very frequently612Linkages with institution e.g.MFINever13Rarely1837Frequently2447Very frequently713Total50100

  • Test of HypothesisHo1.There is no significant relationship between group characteristics and llivelihood improvement of smallholder farmers in Nyando District.R square (R2) = 0.078

    S/NoIndependent variableCorrelation coefficient (r values)1Longevity of group-0.3602Cohesiveness-0.1763Gender composition-0.1144Networking patterns0.208

  • CONCLUSIONS

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

    *

  • Barowska, J., M. Szwajkowska, Z. Litwinczuk, and J. Krol. 2011. Nutritional value and technological suitability of milk from various animal species used for dairy production. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. Vol.10.International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), 2013. Enabling poor rural people to overcome poverty in Kenya. Rome, ItalyKenya National Bureau of Statistics. (KNBS) 2009. Republic of Kenya, NairobiLivelihood Improvement and Family Empowerment (LIFE) Project. 2005. Annual Report, Nyando District, Kenya.Swedish Cooperative Centre. (SCC) 2009. Agricultural cooperatives and farmers organizations - role in rural development and poverty reduction . Stockholm, Sweden.World Bank. 2001. Poverty Trends and Voice of the Poor (4th ed., Pp. 2-57). Poverty Reduction and Economic Management. The World Bank Group, Washington DC.

  • *Thank you,,,,,,,,, Asanteni sana

    *

    *

    *