24DAIRY DEVELOPMENT

Piet Leegwater & Jan Hoorweg

ABSTRACTThegrowth of the dairy sector as it hos occurred in Kilifi andMaündi Districts is one of the few exam-ples ofsuccessful agricultural development in the coastal région in the past decades. Between 1985and 1997 dairy cattle have more than doubled in number. Three livestock Systems are described: con-ventional grazing zero-grazing and fencedpostures. Particular attention isgiven to intensive dairyfarming by smallbolders. Household and berd characteristics are discussed together with the neces-sary feeding regime and labour requirements. Milk production is reviewed in terms of milk destina-tion, local demand and local consumption. U is argued that the success of dairy development in thedistricts is the result ofthree converging factors: the start of a large dairy farm with a dairy factorynear Kilifi town; the start of a programme oftechnical support for intensive dairy farming by small-holders; and the deregulation of the milk trade.

Wg*

INTRODUCTION*Livestock was the main source of subsistance forthe communities in thé drier zones of Coast Pro-vince in earlier days. The importance of livestockis reflected in the fact that dowiy is still expressedin cattle, although nowadays, marriages are ar-ranged more and more by cash payments. Milk ,was (and still is) an important product for localconsumption. At times of surplus, ghee was pro-cessed and traded with coastal towns and cattlewere (and still are) important as reserve capitalduring periods of food shortage. However, since

* The authors wish to thank Prof. Allan Degen, BenGurion University, for his commente.

the opening up of the hinterland and the in-creased access to employaient elsewhere, alterna-tive ways have emerged to secure survival.

Immigrants from India settled in Mombasa(and the rest of Kenya) from the early start of thecolonial period. They brought a different foodculture with distinct préférences for milk anddairy products. The demand for fresh milk inMombasa stimulated milk collection from farmersin the hinterland as well as keeping of dairy cowsin stable on Mombasa Island (the first instance ofwhat was later to be called zero-grazing). Oncetransport to and from the interior improved,goods were exchanged for milk with herdsmen in

359

360 Leegfvater & Hoorweg

the hinterland. Mombasa and other stops alongthe railway line became market centres for themilk from the hinterland. With the emergingnational drink, tea with milk, the demand forfresh milk further increased. At first, the milktrade was in the hands of middlemen, but it wastaken over later by the Kwale-Kilifi Dairy Co-opérative Union (KKDCU) which, in time, starteda milk processing plant in Mariakani. Feederroads were constructed to Bamba in Kilifi Districtand Kinango in Kwale District with collection andcooling centres along these roads. Milk supplyvaried seasonally. Figures from the late 1970sshowed that the amount of milk handled by theMariakani plant varied from 30-35,000 litres/day inthe lush season to less than 5,000 litres/day in thedry season (Booker 1982).

Despite the intégration of the hinterland inthe coastal milk market, the quantities of milkwere not sufficient to meet the increasing urbandemand and milk products had to be importedfrom up-country. In 1978, KKDCU was taken overby the Kenya Creameries Co-operative (KCC) butthe latter Company soon discontinued the milkcollection in the hinterland. Instead, a new dairyplant was built in Miritini in the early 1980s with acapacity to process 120,000 litres of reconstitutedmilk per day to supply the national schoolmilkprogramme, amongst other needs. Milk was pro-cessed from imported milk powder and butteroil, at first donated by European countries, whilefresh milk from up-country was transported by

rail. In addition to schoolmilk distribution, KCCestablished a distribution network for processedmilk and effectively managed to gain a monopoly.It expanded its production at the Miritini plant.The dairy plant in Mariakani continued to receivemilk from local producers but KCC failed to makethe necessary investments. Consequently, the ex-isting infrastructure deteriorated and local pro-ducers again relied on private transport or, alter-natively resorted to processing of ghee. In Kilifiand Malindi Districts, however, developments oc-curred that greatly stimulated intensive dairyfarming. This chapter will focus on dairy farmingin these districts as an example of what can beachieved under the right conditions.

Kilifi and Malindi DistrictsThe two districts account for about a third of thecoastal population and the agro-ecological condi-tions are fairly typical for the région, ranging fromcoastal plain to inland ranching zone. The totalnumber of local/beef cattle has remained almostconstant over the past 10 years with official esti-mâtes of 200,000 in 1985 (Kenya 1986) and208,000 in 1996 (Kenya 1997). The largest num-bers are found in the hinterland of Ganze andMalindi. The herds are mainly composed of EastAfrican Zebu, a multipurpose indigenous breed(Table 24.1). In the period 1985-96, dairy cattlewas estimated to have tripled in number from13,000 to 42,000; although these being govern-ment estimâtes they are probably on the high

Table 241 Cattle population in KM District by division, 1996

Local/BeefbreedsDaiiybreeds* Now Malindi DistrictSource- Kenya 1997- 6

Bahan

18,75022,000

Ganze

65,280930

Kaloleni

40,5002,240

Magarini*

26,1003,120

Malindi*

57,39013,939

Total

208,020

42,229

Dairy development 361

side. Half of the number probably consists ofgrade cattle1, the other half is local Zebu kept fordairy purposes. Dairy cattle is mainly found in thécoastal areas, such as Bahari Division and parts ofMalindi.

The first important development was the start,in 1963, of intensive dairy farming at a formersisal plantation near Kilifl town. This private Com-pany, Kilifi Plantations, gradually increased itsherd size and, in time, with several thousanddairy cows became thé main milk supplier. It alsobecame thé main supplier of dairy stock to devel-opment projects along the coast.

One such was the Dairy Development Project(DDP) of the Ministry of Livestock Development.The programme was started in 1980 with techni-cal assistance from the Netherlands Governmentand ended in 1995. The principal objective was toimprove dairy management practices on mixedfarms of smallholders, with the introduction ofso-called zero-grazing Systems. The programmestarted in six districts in different parts of thecountry, including Kilifi. This was the second ma-jor development that occurred. Initially, DDP se-lected areas in Kilifi where climatic conditions al-lowed the cultivation of Napier grass (i.e. CL3zones in Bahari and Kaloleni Divisions). Earlier at-tempts to keep dairy cattle in grazing Systems hadbeen unsuccessful because of high losses due tocattle diseases (East Coast Fever and Trypanoso-miasis). Once DDP proved successful, more farm-ers gained confidence in the system, particularlyattracting farmers located in the coastal plains. Inthe drier parts of the district a semi-zéro systemof grazing was introduced (i.e. CL4 zones inBahari and Ganze Divisions). With the experi-

1 According to the New Shorter Oxford English Dic-tionaty grade cattle are crossbred cattle. In Kenya, how-ever, the term is used to refer to purebred animais offoreign stock as well as crossbreeds of local and foreignstock

ences in Kilifi District, the programme was ex-panded to Kwale and Lamu Districts in 1990.2

During the first phase, DDP provided grants topioneer farmers. Later on it assisted with loans orwith obtaining loans from the Agricultural Finan-ce Corporation. Subsequently, in 1992, HeiferProject International (HPI) started activities inCoast Province. HPI works through women'sgroups (and mixed groups). After constructingdairy units and planting fodder, about half thegroup members receive a heifer in calf. Membershave to pass on the first born female calf, asheifer, to other group members. Between 1992and 1995, HPI distributed 164 animais (of whom42 died) to eight groups with 366 members -three groups in Kilifi District (Masha 1998). Thisparticular support and more emphasis on wom-en's participation in genera! meant that by theend of 1995 about a third of the 300 DDP-farmerswere women. The number of DDP-farmers is stillgrowing and it is expected that by the end of 1997there will be 450 registered DDP-farmers in KilifiDistrict alone (Mwova 1997). Diffusion of know-ledge and improvements in support services haveresulted in the improvement of dairy practicesand dairy stock at other farms as well.

Apart from technical support and training,DDP has also stimulated farmers to organisethemselves in interest groups, for example, theBahari Dairy Club. This club opened a marketingand cooling centre in Kilifi town in 1987. Theannual turnover in 1992 was nearly 200,000 litres(Kenya 1993). In 1996, however, the Club washalted due to organisational and managementproblems. In 1997, a cooling centre with a capac-

Earher, in 1982, Taita Taveta had already been mdudedin the programme. However, conditions for intensivedairy production in the Taita Hills were very differentThe challenge of livestock diseases was less, whde manysmallholders were already engaged in dairy farming wellbefore thé introduction of DDP.

362 Leegvater & Hoorweg

ity of 2,000 litres was opened in Gede with thesupport of HPI. It has about 190 dairy suppliersand handles 650 1/day or 200-250,000 1/year,mainly destined for the Malindi market.

The third stimulus for daiiy development wasthe privatisation and libéralisation of the milkmarketing in 1992, by which Kilifi Plantationsgained access to the urban market, notably Mom-basa. In 1995 the Company started to process milkfrom DDP-farmers and other smallholder dairyfarmers in addition to the milk from its own farm.By the end of 1997 almost 1,000 small-holderswere delivering milk to the Company.

DAIRY PRODUCTION SYSTEMSConventional grazingThe majority of cattle in Kilifi and Malindi Districtsare local breeds kept in conventional grazing sys-tems, mainly in the hinterland. The characteristicsof this production System are communal grazing,herding cattle on behalf of others, pooling of cat-tle, and distribution over several herds. Herdsizes range from 20 to 100 animais. A survey in1983 showed that more than three-quarters of theherds had multiple owners (2-9 owners per herd)and that nearly one-third of the households hadlent out cattle to others in order to spread risksand probably also to hide wealth (Bartman 1984).The fact that different people own livestock in thesame herd hampers efforts to improve herd pro-duction through investments. Not only ecologicalconditions but also ownership arrangements areconstraints to increase milk production from localherds. In respect to grazing rights, thé démarca-tion of rangeland and group ranching has, on théone hand, given some protection against intrud-ers but, on thé other hand, imposed obstacles ofits own because animais can no longer movefreely to less affected areas during drought peri-ods.

Milk production is seasonal and fluctuâteswith thé quantity and quality of grass in naturalpastures. During day-time, thé cows and calvesgraze together. At night, calves are separatedfrom cows and, in the morning, the cows aremilked. Cows are in milk for about six months ata time. The amount of milk for human consump-tion per lactating cow ranges from 0.5-1.5 litresper day. Customarily, thé milk is destined for théhousehold looking after the animais, as paymentfor services. When there is fresh or sour milk atthe farm it is customarily offered as a drink toneighbours and other people visiting thé house-hold.

Before, nearly every household in the hinter-land was involved in livestock farming but this isno longer thé case. Suiveys in 1985-86 showedthat only a minority of the households in the hin-terland can dérive a substantial income from cat-tle. Only 32% of thé households had more thanfive livestock équivalents (LE)3 and 19% had morethan twenty LE (Foeken et al. 1989). In thèsehouseholds, milk is still important for local con-sumption as well as for ghee processing. Sourmilk is used as a drink or as a relish with food. Atthe time of KKDCU, fresh milk was sold to thédetriment of ghee processing, and according tooral information, even at the cost of householdconsumption (Gerlach 1963). The collapse of thecollection network in the late 1970s may hâve re-sulted in more milk for local consumption; how-ever, it is unlikely that this could compensate forthé decrease in incomes.

In thé coastal Mis and in thé coastal plain lo-cal breeds are kept in similar ways as in the hin-terland. However, thé environmental conditionsare more favourable for ticks and tsetse flies, thetransmitters of East Coast Fever and Trypanoso-

3 1 LE (livestock equivalent) = 1 head of cattle = 7goats/sheep.

Datry devefapment 363

miasis, respectively. Death rates among cattle aregenerally higher and herd sizes smaller than inthe hinterland.

Zero-grazingIn 1980, DDP started with the promotion of zero-grazing for smallholders: animais are kept perma-nently on stable; feed and water are brought tothem. Requirements are that there is sufficientland at the farm for fodder cultivation and accessto water of good quality. Artificial insémination(AT) reserves the capacity of the unit primarily forthe female stock. This production system islabour-intensive but offers a regulär incomethroughout the year. At first, the system was de-signed for the densely populated areas in the cen-tral highlands where land is a major constraint.Results from the first DDP-farms already showedthat the output per unit of land comparedfavourably with that of cash crops (van der Valk1985; Mwangi et al. 1986). However, compared tothe up-country highlands, the conditions at theCoast are quite different.

In the rural areas of Coast Province there ismore land available per farm, but soil fertility islower and rainfall less predictable, which makesfodder cultivation more complicated and fodderconservation necessary. A more intensive systemof disease control is required. Due to the hostileenvironment, few farmers possessed the dairycattle needed to start and most farmers whojoined DDP had to purchase suitable animais. Forthe same reason, female stock was hardly offeredfor sale and the main supplier for prospectiveDDP-farmers was Kilifi Plantations. Later, DDP-farmers started to supply each other and new-comers with animais. As a conséquence, invest-ment costs at the start were high and participantshad to rely more heavily on loans than farmerselsewhere in the country. However, there was the

advantage that the coast offered a higher milkpriée for producers, comparable to thé consumerpriées for processed milk from KCC.

PencedposturesThe system of fenced pastures is used at the fewlarge-scale farms such as Kilifi Plantations and wasused at thé former ADC farm at Kisiwani. DDP hasalso experimented with fenced pastures for dairyfarmers in thé interior.

Kilifi Plantations grazes its herd of 2,400 cattleon open fields which are fenced into 100 'pad-docks'. At night thé animais stay out in the openand are fed fodder and concentrâtes to supplé-ment thé natural grazing. The Company has atotal of 4,000 acres of pasture and thé milk herd isbroken up in smaller herds of about 125 animais.Milking takes place in thé fields. Young stock andpre-calving cows are kept in separate units. At anyone time, about 1,000 cows are in milk (Wilson1998). Because of its scale and mechanisation, théCompany is able to conserve fodder of goodquality. Artificial insémination and disease controlare donc at the farm by own personnel (i.e.spraying, 10-day dipping and routine vaccination).In all, the dairy farm employs a labour force of400, of which 300 are directly concerned with théherds, 100 with thé milk plant.

DDP has attempted to introducé an alternativetype of zero-grazing in thé drier parts of the dis-trict. Characteristically, cattle are grazed onfenced pastures in daytime and offered fodder orsilage at night. As a resuit, animais are more ex-posed to ticks and tsetse flies. In addition, manyof the farms share water sources and cattle dipswith local herds. Consequently, thèse semi-zérograzing Systems hâve a higher mortality and alower productivity than true zero-grazing or onthé large-scale farms. At présent, semi-zéro unitscompose no more than 10% of the DDP total and 'te

364 Leegwater & Hoorweg

P J

the suitability of this production system isdoubtful for smallholders.

The milk production of Kilifi Plantations is inthe order of 3.7 million litres/year or 320,0001/month. Peak production is 380,000 l/m but inthe dry months (February-March) production canbe as low as 250,000 l/m. All milk is pasteurised atthe Company plant and, apart from milk, smallquantifies of yoghurt, cream and butter are pro-duced. The Company distributes directly to retail-ers in the area from Malindi to Mombasa, as wellas the South Coast up to Ukunda.

In addition to production from the own herdthe plant also reconstitutes about one millionlitres of milk a year; the powder is purchasedfrom KCC or directly imported. In 1995, KilifiPlantations took the initiative to start collection,processing and marketing of milk from small-holders, a regional aspect of dairy developmentthat had been neglected by DDP. Kilifi Plantationscurrently buys about l million \/y; 100,000 l/m inpeak months and 60,000 l/m in low periods. Thisdevelopment was possible because of deregula-tion measures in 1992 which gave the Companyaccess to markets, notably Mombasa, that wereearlier controlled by KCC. The collection area isroughly that around Kilifi Creek and north toMalindi town (in the southern part of Kilifi thereis still gréât local demand for raw milk and farm-ers there can easily seil their milk). In early 1998there were 985 farmers recorded with the com-pany; however, there were only 500 which wereactually delivering milk - on average 51/day. TheCompany provides certain services to regulär sup-pliers, namely provision of concentrâtes and me-dicines, sale of animais on hire/purchase terms,sponsoring of a veterinarian, and breeding bulls atoutfarms. In a way, Kilifi Plantations has takenover part of the services of the former DDP-pro-gramme, which ended in 1995, excepting exten-

sion, training and advice services which are notprovided.

SMALLHOLDER CHARACTERISTICSThe characteristics of the smallholder dairy farmsare of particular interest to understand the devel-opment of the sector. Farm and household char-acteristics are discussed at the hand of informa-tion from a case study among different groups ofdairy farmers and livestock keepers in the hinter-land (Leegwater, Ngolo & Hoorweg 1991). Thisstudy evaluated the milk production and milkconsumption characteristics of different groups.4

Results concern three dairy Systems: DDP-farms;independent dairy farms (neighbours of DDP-farms also keeping dairy cattle) and livestockfarms (traditional farmers in the drier hinterlandof the district). The genera! population in thearea of DDP-activities was represented by a sam-ple of rural households taken from a parallelstudy done a year earlier (Hoorweg, Foeken &Klaver 1995).

Household size and farm size were muchlarger among the three livestock groups thanamong the général population (Table 24.2). Theincomes of the three livestock groups, particu-larly the DDP-farmers and independent farmers,were higher than that of the général population(Table 24.3). The livestock farmers in the hinter-land had a lower income mainly because of theabsence of cash crops although their income wasstill higher than that of the général population.

The livestock income was highest in the groupof DDP-farmers (Ksh.13,100)5, followed by the in-dependent dairy farmers (Ksh.8,500) and hinter-land farmers (Ksh.7,500) but in all three groups

4 The flndmgs on food consumption and the effects ofmcreased milk consumption are reported elsewhere(Hoorweg, Leegwater & Veerman 1998)

5 At the time of the study the exchange rate was about 16Kenya shilling for 1 US dollar

Dairy development 365

Table 24.2 Household characteristics by type of livestock fermer, 1986/87

Household size*

Fann size (acres, av.)

DDP-ÊUTHS(N=30)

14.9(8.9)

28.5

Independentdairyferms

(N=25)

17.6(10.7)

25.3

Livestockferms(N=ll)

15.2 (9.9)22.6

Generalpopulation

(N=90)

10.0(5.9)9.0

* Average number of persons (adult équivalents in brackets)Source: Leegwater étal 1991

Table 24.3 Household income composition by type of livestock ferm, 1986/87(averages in sh/household/year)

Food cropsCash cropsLivestockOff-ferm income

Total

DDPferms

(N=30)

6,2007,700

13,10019,400

46,400

Independentdairy ferms

' (N=25)

5,30014,1008,500

18,100

46,000

Livestockferms

(N=10)

3,000100

7,50014,800

25,400

Generalpopulation

(N=90)

2,8003,500

2002,800

9,300Source: Leegwater aal. 1991

livestock contributed 20-30% of total Householdincome. Nearly all dairy farmers belonged to thegroup of wealthy and middle-class households,not only because of income from dairy farming,but also because of high incomes from cash cropsand off-farm employment.6

Herd characteristics and developmentAll DDP-farms owned grade cattle, whereas sixfarms also kept local cattle. The herds at the inde-pendent farms showed a more variable composi-tion consisting of grade and local cattle. At thelivestock farms all cattle were of local breed. The "latter farms had the largest herd with an average

6 The higher incomes of the livestock groups are partlydue to the larger household sizes (Table 24.1). But evenwhen household income was corrected for household

' size only 3% of the DDP-fermers (N=l) and 4% of theindependent dairy farmers (N=l) could be classified aspoor (with incomes below Ksh.l.OOO/adult equivalent)versus 52% of the genera! population.

of 39.8 animais. The independent farms had 19.1animais and the DDP-farms only 6.3 animais.Despite the différences in breeding and farmingSystems, there was little différence in herd com-position; the number of cows ranging from 40-46%; heifers from 21-26%; bulls from 11-16%; andcalves from 18-21%.

DDP-farmers succeeded in stabilising theirherd size, mainly through sales (Table 24.4). Tosome extent, this was a necessity given limitingfactors such as available labour, number of acresunder fodder erop and the physical size of thestable. The death rate at the DDP-farms was rela-tively high, but important différences occurredbetween the two sub-systems mentioned earlier;at zero-grazing farms the death rate was only 5%while at the semi-zéro farms it was 17%. BastCoast Fever and Trypanosomiasis were the mainkillers and animais at the semi-zéro units weremore easily infested. In addition, most of these

366 Leegfvater & Hoorweg

Table 24 4 Annual herd development by type of livestockfarm, 1986/87 (number of animais)

At start periodC86)+ Animais born+ Animais bought= Increase+ Animais died+ Animais sold= DecreaseTotal increase

DDP-farms

187605

65+263763-+2

Indep.farms422

1459

154+574198-+56

Livest.farms

4498114

95+7036

106--11

Source: Leegwater et al. 1991

farms were located in areas (Ganze and KaloleniDivisions) where cattle densily was higher, whichin itself increases the risk of contamination withdisease. Independent dairy farmers did seil rela-tively fewer animais and their herds increasedconsiderably in size.

Feeds and feedingIntensive dairy farming requires more water thantraditional farming as well as good quality water.Daily access to a reliable water source is a precon-dition for DDP-farms. This water is needed notonly for the cattle to drink but also to clean thestables and the Utensils. Indeed all DDP-farmsused piped water although only few were directlyconnected to water pipes - the majority still hadto arrange water transport and storage facilities.DDP promoted the use of donkeys for watertransport and the construction of water tanks tostore rainwater.

Productive dairy cows have high nutritional re-quirements which cannot be met by fodder aloneand cows have to be supplemented with concen-trâtes. Still, it remains essential that enough fod-der of good quality is offered. DDP opted forNapier grass as the principal fodder. Several vari-

eties were tested on ferm under different condi-tions and different cutting regimes (Wouters1986a; 1986b). Compared with the highlands,production and quality of Napier grass in KilifiDistrict were generally low because of moderatesoil fertility and climatic conditions. Silage makingwas introduced to conserve grass. Also, Leucena,a légume, was introduced as a fodder erop. Des-pite the efforts by DDP to stimulate fodder pro-duction, the results stayed behind. The majorityof DDP-farmers still made use of ordinary grassand half the farmers did graze their cattle on com-mon pastures for one month or more per year,accepting poor feeding conditions and higher riskof disease contamination.

In addition, the DDP-farms and some of theindependent farms supplemented the cows inlactation with concentrâtes - an average of threekg per animal. This compares with an averageproduction per lactating cow of 4.8 litres per daywhich means that milk production was primarilythe result of feeding concentrâtes and not fromfeeding Napier grass or other fodder. The favour-able price of concentrâtes7 did indeed make it at-tractive to feed concentrâtes and to give less at-tention to the quality of fodder.

/

Farm labourLabour requirements in zero-grazing Systems arehigh and a large number of people are necessarilyinvolved in the daily production process. Com-pared with traditional production Systems someactivities are new, while others have to be carriedout more intensively. Fodder has to be harvestedand transported every day to the stable to bechopped and fed to the animais. In many caseswater has to be collected and transported; the

7 The market priées for concentrâtes at the time were low(Ksh.0.6 to Ksh.1.0 per kg for maize bran and Ksh.1.2 toKsh.1.4 for copra cake), while milk priées were high(Ksh.4.0-5.5 per litre).

Dairy development 367

stable has to be cleaned and the manure broughtback to the Napier fields as fertiliser. Calves arereared separately from thé cows, which aremilked twice a day; thé milk has to be sold ordelivered in time. Disease control and breedingdemand more attention, and so on (Wouters1986e).

At thé 30 DDP-farms in thé study, there were62 persons responsible for one or more activities;38 family members and 24 labourers. Familymembers were mainly men: the head and/or hisson(s). At a quarter of the DDP-farms womenwere actively involved; some even as de factomanagers, notably at farms that employed labour-ers. Labourers were employed at 16 farms; at 13farms they did all the work. At the 25 indepen-dent farms, 46 persons were involved mainly indairy farming; 36 family members and 10 labour-ers. At eight farms the labourers performed alldaily work. At the livestock farms in the hinter-land only family members were involved in thecare for the animais.

Comparing DDP-farms with independentfarms, the number of people involved in dairyfarming was about the same; about two personsper farm, on average. However, the groupslooked after a different number of animais: threeanimais per person at the DDP-farms and tenanimais per person at the independent farms. In

Table 24 5 Average daily milk production and cows inlactation by type of livestock ferm, 1986/87

Milk production (litres)per fermperlactatingcowper cow presentCows in lactation (%)

DDP-ferms

(N=30)

9.44.83.4

68%

Indep.farms

(N=25)

5.11.90.6

Livest.ferms

3.80.70.2

Source Leegwater étal. 1991

other words, the main différence is not that DDP-farms employ more people but that production isrealised with fewer animais than at the indepen-dent dairy farms.

SMALLHOLDER MILK PRODUCTIONMilk production per cow and milk production perfarm were much higher at the DDP-farms (Table24.5). The percentage of cows in lactation wastwice as high as at the independent farms and atthe farms in the hinterland. At the DDP-farms,evening milk represented 38% of the production.At the independent farms only three farms hadevening production and in the hinterland groupnone.8

Mak destinationMost of the milk was sold (Table 24.6). At theDDP-farms, 80% of production was destined forsale. About a quarter went to destinations outsidethe location, the rest to local consumers. The in-dependent dairy farmers and livestock farmerssold about two-thirds of the production. Nearlyall these sales were in the nearby location. DDP-farmers reserved about one-fifth of the milk forhome consumption; among the independentdairy farmers and livestock farmers this rate washigher (about a third). In absolute terms, the dif-férences were smaller and had a different order:independent farmers reserved 1.8 litres for homeconsumption, DDP-farmers reserved 1.6 litres andlivestock farmers 1.2 litres.

Further analysis revealed that the group of independentferms consisted of two subgroups: (i) ferms with cross-bred cattle focusing on milk production; and (ii) fermswith local breeds where milk is a (welcome) by-product.In the first group the average production per cow in lac-tation was 3.1 litres/day, much higher than in the sec-ond group (0.8 1/day). The latter figure correspondswith production figures from the hinterland herds withan average of 0.71/day.

ï;

368 Leegvater & Hoorweg

Pl-«"!'

Table 24.6 Destination of milk production by type of live-stock ferm, 1986/87 (% of total production)

DDP- Indep. Livest.farms farms farms

(N=30) (N=25) (N=ll)

Local salesSales outside locationHome consomptionLeftoveratendofdayTotal

5623174

100

55-3510100

5010328

100Source: Leegwater & al. 1991

Local customersExamination of local customers - 24 regulärclients of DDP-farmers - showed them to consistprimarily of wage earners. The heads of house-holds had permanent jobs near home and theirlevel of éducation was relatively high. More thanhalf were employed by the government (N=14),e.g. as teacher or extension worker, others wereself-employed (5) or working in the private sector(2). The group was further characterised bysmaller households; 25% of the households hadfewer than flve members. Income and incomecomposition were atypical for rural households.The average household income was three timeshigher than that of the genera! population andabout three-quarters of the household incomewas from employaient.

Local consumptionMilk consumption at the time was generally lowin the rural areas (Kenya 1981; Hoorweg et al.1991; Niemeijer, Foeken & Klaver 1991). Nearlyall DDP-farmers and dairy customers, however,reported regulär milk consumption while this wasonly the case with 10% of the rural population.Milk was nearly always used with tea but 50% ofthe DDP-farmers and their customers also used itäs a drink, most likely for the children. The DDP-

farmers consumed about 1.5 litres/day; the cus-tomers about 1.0 1/day (but their consumptionper person was higher because of smaller house-holds). Milk consumption among thé généralpopulation was quite low: 56 ml/household/day.Clearly, milk was too expensive for these house-holds and this was indeed mentioned by respon-dents. The study from which the above results aretaken also found that the higher milk consump-tion is of benefit to the children. Children ofDDP-farmers and customers, irrespective of in-come différences, scored higher on the measuresof anthropometry generally taken as indicators ofnutritional status (Hoorweg et al. 1998).

DISCUSSIONRural developmentDairy farming as an economie activity can broad-en the resource base of the région and thus con-tribute to rural development, i.e. improve the liv-ing conditions of rural households. Among thevarious kinds of agricultural commercialisation,dairy farming is unique in that it entails the pro-duction of a high-quality food that can be usedfor sales as well as for home consumption. Usedfor home consumption, milk is important foryoung children and pregnant and lactating moth-ers. If sold, milk sales provide a steady, daily flowof income; quite different from the usual bulkpayments for most cash crops. Milk sales for localconsumption may benefit other households inthé Community thus contributing to thé improve-ment of nutritional conditions of farmers and cus-tomers alike. However, thé price for milk remainsa constraint for those who need milk most.

Dairy productionLocal herds of East African Zébu under grazingSystems still produce thé major share of milk inCoast Province. In Kilifi District, where intensive

Dairy development 369

dairy farming is the most advanced, milk pro-duced by local herds (210,000 heads producing20-25,000 litres/day) is about the same as thatproduced by grade dairy cattle (20,000 heads pro-ducing an estimated 30,000 litres/day).9 The ma-jor différences between thèse herds are that thélocal herd is producing milk from grazing naturalpastures while milk production by thé dairy herdis mainly based on the feeding of concentrâtes;and that most of the milk produced by the Zebuherd is locally consumed while most of that pro-duced by the dairy herd enters the market.

DDP has succeeded in creating a viable small-holder dairy System in a hostile environment forgrade cattle. Where other Systems failed, the con-cept of zero-grazing provided the conditions re-quired to keep diseases under control as well asfor a high and regulär milk production. The posi-tive balance of female stock is radier unique forsmallholder dairy projects (De Jong 1996). Pro-spects for sustaining thé System are good as pro-gress has been made in the control of East CoastFever through pre-immunisation by artificial infec-tion and treatment (Thorpe 1993). Other purpor-ted benefits, such as a more intensive exploitationof land (important in densely populated areaswith a high ecological potential), were less clearin this case, the average size of the DDP-farmswas 28.5 acres with 12 acres near the homestead.This confirms that dairy farmers belonged torelatively wealthy households with access tosufficient capital; even more than strictly neededfor investment in a dairy unit.10 For that reason it

9 It is assumed that in the local Zebu herd of 210,000animais about 10-12% of the animais are cows in lacta-tion with an average milk production of 11/day per cowIn the dairy herd of 20,000 animais 30% of the animaisare assumed to be cows in lactation with an averageproduction of 51 /day per cow

10 The study described the situation ten years ago amongthe flrst group of participants. There is no reason to ex-pect that since that time differential changes have af-

is likely that dairy farming will remain out of reachof most rural households that already have prob-lems to sustain a minimum level of existence(Hoorweg et al. 1995).

For the latter households the positive aspectof the programme was the increase in employ-ment opportunities at farms of the more wealthyhouseholds. About half the dairy farms did runthe dairy unit with family members. The otherhalf employed labourers. The latter farms hadmore cattle, farmers were wealthier and weremore involved in off-farm activities than the firstgroup. In the case of households employinglabourers it seems that the investment in a dairyunit was a choice out of many opportunities. Des-pite the fact that the production System is labourintensive, it did not compete with other eco-nomie activities because the labour requirementswere met by hired labour; in contrast with theÊarms not employing labourers. The latter groupwas more engaged in agriculture. If they desiredto enlarge the dairy unit they had to reduce otheractivities or hire labourers, the costs of whichcome on top of necessary investments. Since theyhad lower incomes it was more difficult for themto take this step.

Dairy consumptionMilk production at the Coast is still far behinddemand. Milk and milk products are importedfrom up-country. Consumer priées for milk are

fected the groups that were compared The householdsthat jomed later had to meet the same requirementsThe economie nsk of dairy farming is relatively high, mparücular when thé unit counts only few animais. Ingénéral it is unhkely that farmers will invest all theircapital in intensive dairy farming, they will need to re-serve some capital for secunty. An évaluation of theoriginal DDP démonstration farms all over Kenya con-firmed this: of the farmers who had failed (30%), themajonty mentioned lack of capital as the main reasonand the loss of animais next (Voskuil 1986).

370 Leegivater & Hoorweg

relatively high in this part of the country. Conse-quently, producers who deliver directly to consu-mers can easily compete with processed milk andstill fetch a good price. Processors of local milkalso have the advantage that transport costs canbe low while processing can be limited to pas-teurisation. However, with a higher milk produc-tion, DDP-farmers face the problem of marketing,a problem they share with independent dairyfarmers and livestock farmers in the hinterland.The opportunity to deliver milk to Kilifi Planta-tions has greatly improved the marketing condi-tions for a large number of small farmers. KilifiPlantations has access to milk markets in Mom-basa and Malindi and prospects to market moremilk are promising. The feelings in thé industryare less optimistic, however, because of fear ofstagnant production levels and increasing costs(Wilson 1998).

Fears generally exist that when dairy farming iscommercialised, farmers will reduce the amountof milk kept for family consumption. Such trendswere observed earlier in the hinterland of Kilifiand Kwale Districts in connection with the Maria-kani Milk Scheme mentioned earlier (Gerlach1963). The danger was also mentioned in connec-tion with Opération Flood, thé large dairy schemein India (Doornbos et al. 1990). However, théobjective of DDP was to create new productionunits and not to market milk from existing unitsand, in this case, thé dairy farmers indeed kept1.5-2.0 litres a day for home consumption.

The local clients for DDP-milk consist ofhouseholds with better paid jobs, either em-ployed in thé non-agricultural sector or employedby thé govemment. They and thé dairy farmersoften use milk as a drink, most likely for thé chil-dren. There are few customers among the ruralhouseholds which confions thé existing insight

that milk is not an important means to improvenutritional conditions among low income ruralpopulations (DGIS 1992). Milk is an expensivesource of energy and protein and even whenused as an ingrédient, for example to add tomaize to increase energy density, it is still moreexpensive than preparing a porridge of maize,vegetable ou and beans.

CONCLUSIONThe général performance of the agricultural sec-tor in the Coast is poor and farmers have shownlittle interest to invest in thé modernisation ofagriculture (Kenya 1985; 1986; 1989; Waaijenberg1987). In fact, rural areas hâve to cope with a de-creasing interest in agriculture in favour of off-farm employment. Many adults are involved inoff-farm employment and two-thirds of the ruralhouseholds dérive an income from this source(Hoorweg et al. 1995). DDP has, at least, stimu-lated an inverse flow of capital and created em-ployment opportunities in thé agricultural sector.

Intensive dairy farming in Kilifi and MalindiDistricts is the resuit of three différent develop-ments. The start of a large dairy farm and dairyfactory by Kilifi Plantations; the project supportfor intensive dairy farming by smallholders; andthe deregulation of the milk trade. Since KilifiPlantations has only recently gained access to awider market there is no reason that an increaseof local production will resuit in lower priées. Inthé mid-term, at least, there will be sufficient de-mand for local milk. Compétition, however, maycorne from up-country producers although thèsewill face high transport costs. Long-life milk, im-ported from South Africa, has already appearedon thé shelves and thé more efficient dairy indus-try in South Africa may pose thé real threat.

Dairy development 371

REFERENCESBARTMANC. (1984). Livestock and small-scale farmers, a

description oftbe situation aroundKilifi. Wageningen:Agricultural University, Training Project ta Pedology.

BOOKER (1982). Kwale andKilifi integrated developmentproject. Nairobi /London: Booker AgricultureInternational Ltd.

DE JONG, R. 1996. Dairy stock development and milkproduction withsmallholders. Wageningen:Agricultural University, PhD thesis.

DOIS (1992). Livestock Production in developingcountries. The Hague: Ministry of DevelopmentCoopération.

DOORNBOS M., DORSTEN F.V., MITRA M. & TERHAL P.(1990). Dairy aid and development. India's OpérationFlood (Indo-Dutch Studies on DevelopmentAlternatives; III). New Delhi/London: Sage.

FOEKEN D., LEEGWATER P., NIEMEIJER R., VEERMAN W. &HOORWEG J. (1989). Seasonality in the CoastalLowlands of Kenya Pan 3: Socio-économie profile.Nairobi / Leiden: Ministry of Planning & NationalDevelopment / African Studies Centre, Food andNutrition Studies Programme, Report no. 32.

GERLACH LP. (1963). Traders on bicycle: A study ofentrepreneurship and culture change among the Digoand Duruma of Kenya. Soäologus (Berlin), 13(1), 32-49.

HOORWEG J., NIEMEIJER R., FOEKEN D., OKELLO W. &VEERMAN W. (1991). Economie arid nutritionalconditions at seulement schemes in Coast Province.Nairobi /Leiden: Ministry of Planning & NationalDevelopment / African Studies Centre, Food andNutrition Studies Programme, Report no. 36.

HOORWEG J., FOEKEN D. & KLAVER W. (1995). Seasons andnutrition at the Kenya Coast. Aldershot: Avebury.

HOORWEG J., LEEGWATER P. & VEERMAN W. (1998).Nutrition in agricultural development: Intensive dairyfarming by rural smallholders. Paper submitted forpublication.

KENYA, REPUBLIC OF (1981). ne integrated rural surveys,1976-1979: Basic report Nairobi: Central Bureau ofStatistics.

KENYA, REPUBLIC OF (1985). Amual report 1984, KilifiDistrict. Kilifi: Ministry of Agriculture and LivestockDevelopment.

KENYA, REPUBLIC OF (1986). Annual report 1985, KilifiDistrict. Kilifi: Ministry of Agriculture and LivestockDevelopment.

KENYA, REPUBLIC OF (1989). Kilifi Distria developmentplan 1989-1993. Kilifi: Ministry of Planning and NationalDevelopment.

KENYA, REPUBLIC OF (1993). Annual report 1992. Kilifi:Ministry of Livestock Development, District LivestockProduction Office.

KENYA, REPUBUC OF (1997). Annual report 1996. Kilifi:Ministry of Livestock Development, District LivestockProduction Office.

LEEGWATER P., NGOLOJ. & HOORWEG J. (1991). Nutritionanddairy development in Kilifi District. Nairobi /Leiden: Ministry of Planning and National Development/African Studies Centre, Food and Nutrition StudiesProgramme, Report no. 35.

MASHAR. (1998). Personal communication. Heifer ProjectInternational, régional co-ordinator.

MWANGI Z.J., VAN WOERSEM B.L.M., MOSI R.O. & BOOTSMAA. (1986). Report of thé tbirdjoint Kenya/Netberlandsévaluation mission on thé Dairy DevelopmentProgramme. Nairobi /The Hague: Government ofKenya / Government of thé Netherlands.

MWOVA (1997). Personal communication. DistrictLivestock Officer.

NIEMEPRR., FOEKEN D. & KLAVERW. (1991). Seasonalityin thé Coastal Lowlands of Kenya. Pan 4/5: Foodconsumption and anthropometry. Nairobi / Leiden:Ministry of Planning & National Development /AfricanStudies Centre, Food and Nutrition StudiesProgramme, Report no. 38.

THORPE W. (1993). Disease prevalence and characterisationin small holder cattle in Kaloleni Division. In Integratedapproach to livestock improvement with spécialréférence to East Coast Fever immunization in KilifiDistrict, Coast Province of Kenya. ProceedingsofaSeminar held at Bamburi Beach Hotel, Mombasa,Kenya, 5-6 November 1992. Nairobi: Kenya AgriculturalResearch Institute.

VAN DER VALKY.S. (1985). Economies of zero^razing. Paperprepared for Symposium on 'Zero-Grazing for MilkProduction' of the Animal Production Society of Kenya,Kabele, November 1985. Nairobi: Ministry ofAgriculture and Livestock Development, DairyDevelopment Project

VOSKUIL G.C.J. (1986). Report on thé originaldémonstration farms Nairobi: Ministry of Agricultureand Livestock Development, Dairy DevelopmentProject

WAAIJENBERG H. (1987). Agriculture ta thé Kilifi area(mapsheet 198), Kenya In H W Boxern, T de Meester &E M A Smaling eds. Soils ofthe Kilifi area, Kenya.Wageningen: PUDOC.

WILSONC. (1998). Personal communication. Director,Kilifi Plantations.

372 Leegwater & Hoorweg

WOUTERS AJ. (1986a). Dry matteryield and quality ofNapiergrass on farm level. Progress report 1985.Naivasha: Ministiy of Agriculture and LivestockDevelopment, Daiiy Development Project.

WOUTERS A.P. (1986b). The productivity and quality ofNapier grass (var. bana grass) during the dry seasonat three levels ofN-application. Naivasha: Ministry ofAgriculture and Livestock Development, DairyDevelopment Project DDP/RlO/101.

WOUTERS AP. (1986e). Zero grazing, a handout ontecbnical aspects. Naivasha: Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development, Dairy Development Project.