This Medium and Small Enterprises Programme report is an evaluation of the successes of these programmes in target areas in Coast and Rift Valley. It outlines the target procedures and encompasses interviews with project participants. The evaluation report also highlights the faults and challenges encountered in the implementation of the programmes and suggests possible remedies. [ Originally posted on http://www.cop-ppld.net/cop_knowledge_base ]

1. EVALUATION OF THE MEDIUM AND SMALL
ENTERPRISES (MSE) PROGRAMME IN COAST AND
RIFT VALLEY REGIONS
FOR
HEIFER PROJECT INTERNATIONAL – KENYA
BY
DR MWANGI J. N.
P.O. BOX 25418, 00603
NAIROBI, KENYA
TELEPHONE: 0710-757-139
DECEMBER 2007
1

2. FOREWORD
This Medium and Small Enterprises Programme report is an
evaluation of the successes of these programmes in target areas
in Coast and Rift Valley. It outlines the target procedures and
encompasses interviews with project participants. The
evaluation report also highlights the faults and challenges
encountered in the implementation of the programmes and
suggests possible remedies. As yet, this may be the most
representative report on the MSE programme and the lessons
contained herein can be used by other donor organizations with
projects in different parts of the country.
The MSE programme is 10 years old this year. Over this period,
it has transformed the lives of hundreds of people and their
families in the target areas of Malindi, Kilifi, Kwale, Taita (in
Coast) and Bomet, Kipkelion, Nandi North, Ol Kalou (in Rift
Valley) by equipping them with dairy management skills and
inputs in terms of cows under the Pass On initiative. It has also
brought farmers and extension service providers together to
increase dairy cattle productivity.
Inevitably, the management and logistical demands of the MSE
programme have been enormous and this has at times,
threatened the strong cooperation between these parties (farmers
and extension service providers). This document not only details
these challenges but also suggests solutions on how to overcome
them. It might not be exhaustive in itself but provides a solid
starting point for any necessary change of policy.
2

3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The preparation of this report was a joint effort by various
parties whom I’d like to thank on behalf of Heifer Project
International-Kenya. First and foremost, gratitude goes to the
consultant Dr J.N Mwangi for his tireless effort in putting
together this comprehensive study. The responses he gathered
from service providers, farmers and government veterinary and
livestock production personnel will assist in the improvement of
HPI-K activities now and in future.
It is quite apparent from this report that better coordination
between the various organizations, individuals and farmers is the
best and only way to achieving our desired goals in MSEs. We
will work towards harmonizing this better cooperation.
I would also like to express my appreciation to colleagues
George Tsuma, head of Coast Region and Dr Reuben Koech, the
Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator who facilitated the
successful collection of data in the four districts covered in this
report. We will continually work together in future to ensure
HPI-K achieves its goals.
Mr Alex Kirui
Country Director
Heifer Project International-Kenya
July 2008
3

4. 4

5. LIST OF ACRONYMS
ABS American Breeders Services
ADC Agricultural Development Corporation
AHA Animal Health Assistant
AHITI Animal Health and Industry Training Institute
AH Animal Health
AI Artificial Insemination
AS Animal Spraying
BOC British Oxygen Company
CAHWs Community Animal Health Workers
CAIS Central Artificial Insemination Station
DVO District Veterinary Officer
ES Extension Services
FGD Focused Group Discussion
HPI-K Heifer Project International – Kenya
JAHAs Junior Animal Health Assistants
LO Livestock Officer
MSE Medium and Small Enterprises
NGOs Non-governmental Organizations
SDDP Smallholder Dairy Development Project
TOR Terms of Reference
WWS World Wide Sires
5

6. TABLE OF CONTENT
ITEM PAGE
Title 1
Acknowledgement 2
List of Acronyms 3
Table of Content 4
Executive Summary 6
Chapter One: Evaluation Background Information 12
1.1 MSE Programme background 12
1.2 Objective of Evaluation 13
1.3. Evaluation Methodology 14
1.4. Time frame for the Evaluation 17
1.5. Report Format 17
Chapter Two: Evaluation Findings 18
2.1 Good Practices in the Delivery of
Services 18
2.2. Existing Monitoring Systems 22
2.3. Achievements and Benefits 25
2.4. Farmers’ Benefits from the
Programme 26
2.5. Service providers’ Benefits from the
Programme 28
2.6. Challenges affecting the MSE Programme 28
Chapter Three: Conclusion and Recommendations 42
3.1. Conclusion 42
3.2 Recommendations 44
Chapter Four: Table and Appendices 51
Table 1. Status of Service Providers in Coast region 51
6

7. ITEM PAGE
Appendix 1 Suggested Training Topics for Private
Service Providers and for Farmer
Extension 52
Appendix 2 List of Persons Contacted /Interviewed 54
Appendix 3 List of Service Providers Interviewed 55
Appendix 4 List of Farmer Participants 57
Appendix 5 List of Farms Visited 58
Appendix 6 Individual Cow Recording Card 59
Appendix 7 Daily Herd Milk Production Summary 60
Appendix 8 Monthly Milk Recording Summary 61
Appendix 9 Herd Health Report 62
Appendix 10 Inseminator’s Daily Semen Accounting
Report 63
Appendix 11 Insemination Record /Receipt 64
Appendix 12 Time –Frame for the Evaluation of
MSE Programme 65
7

8. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The MSE programme was introduced by HPI-K in 1998 in support of the Smallholder
Dairy Development Project, which was then funded by USAID-Kenya. The
programme was started initially in the Coast region (Malindi, Kilifi, Kwale and Taita
districts) and later extended to Rift Valley (Bomet, Kipkelion, Nandi North and Ol
Kalou districts).
It aimed at providing several support services to the dairy farmers notably Artificial
Insemination, Extension, Animal Health and Agrovet. Sixty four private service
providers in the Coast and 12 in the Rift Valley regions were trained and equipped
with the necessary tools for the delivery of the above services. This was aimed at
improving dairy production and profitability at household level.
Overall, the programme has had significant achievements. While some of the findings
are specific for each of the two regions, others are for both.
Many farmers (especially in Coast region) appreciated the fact that they had access to
AH and AI services at a time when the public- supported services were unavailable.
Farmers under the SDDP in the Coast region reported success in Passing On cows,
some of which had calved to third and fourth lactations. One farmer in Bomet had a
herd of over 20 milking cows, heifers and calves all of which had been bred through
AI service.
AI and AH services had facilitated multiplication of the first heifer placements,
thereby enhancing the implementation of the Pass-on and Pass –back programme.
During the FGDs, farmers highlighted many benefits which they associated with the
MSE programme including household food security, ownership of quality dairy cows
through use of AI services and education of children using funds available from milk
sales.
Formation of farmer groups and umbrella associations had empowered farmers to take
charge of providing the services to their members and non-members.
However, the MSE programme has encountered a number of challenges, some of
which relate to the service providers while others relate to the farmers. Some of the
challenges related to farmers include inadequate, low level feeding and imbalanced
feeding for dairy animals. Those related to the service providers include failure to
keep records and non-commitment to duty.
Various suggestions are suggested on how the two parties can work harmoniously to
improve herd and milk production.
8

9. CHAPTER ONE
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1.1 Programme background
This programme was started in 1998 under the SDDP and funded by USAID. It was
initially covering Malindi, Kilifi, Kwale and Taita districts of the Coast before
expanding to the Rift Valley region.
In Rift Valley, the emphasis of the programme was to provide linkages between the
four dairy plants (Siongiroi, Kipkelion, Kipkaren and Olkalou) and the private service
providers. This linkage has been a major boost for the service providers in helping
them offer better support services.
The MSE programme was also aimed at providing the dairy cow-assisted families and
dairy farmers in the HPI-K – assisted dairy plants with the following:
Animal Health (AH) services
Artificial Insemination (AI) services
Agrovet services
Extension services
Animal spraying services
The programme was one of the two strategies considered necessary to enhance food
security at family level within the target communities by improving local livestock
productivity and diversifying household incomes.
Under the MSE programme, 64 private service providers in the Coast and 12 in the
Rift Valley regions were trained and equipped with the necessary tools for the
delivery of services. This was aimed at improving milk production.
From time to time, the MSE service providers were given additional training to
strengthen the diversification of their services and network with their contemporaries.
For example in September 2006 (11th – 22nd), a total of 28 MSEs from Coast and Rift
Valley were trained by personnel from AHITI, Kabete. The additional training was
9

10. meant to enable them diversify and enhance delivery of services, improve financial
returns from the business and strengthen linkages with other service providers.
The training covered a number of topics, including:
i. Basic animal handling techniques
ii. AH
iii. Entrepreneurship and farm business management
iv. Gender and HIV/Aids
v. Basics of extension services
vi. Animal husbandry
vii. Fodder establishment, management, conservation and utilization
Most of the MSE entrepreneurs were given startup assistance in form of bicycles,
acaricides and AI kits.
1.2 Objective of the Evaluation
The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the current AI and AH services and
delivery systems in the Coast and Rift Valley regions with a view to:
i. Document what is working well in the delivery of AI and AH services, and
what needs to be done to strengthen the identified good practices.
ii. Identify existing gaps, challenges and opportunities in the delivery of the
services to the farmers.
iii. Assess the capacity of the MSEs in AI and AH delivery with an aim of
developing a training curriculum for use by HPI-K and partners
iv. Identify, suggest or recommend new strategies that HPI-K and other
partiers or collaborators should consider to enhance the delivery of both
services in the project areas.
v. Review existing MSE monitoring systems in place.
vi. Make recommendations on strengthening the existing monitoring systems
to enhance close partnerships with the MSEs and HPI-K as well as their
performance.
1.3 Evaluation Methodology
The project evaluation exercise was accomplished by using a number of tools and
techniques including:
A. Reading documents and reports relevant to the MSE
Programme.
i. Report on MSEs’ Follow-up and Counseling Workshops of 5thJanuary
2007
10

11. The report of 5th January 2007 on workshops organized for Coast region’s MSEs
highlighted some of the expected outputs, which are contained in the evaluation
report.
ii. Project proposal of February 2006, for capacity building for community –
based AH workers and private livestock service providers
The project proposal in reference focused on training 32 MSEs and Community
Animal Health Workers (CAHWs) who were providing AI, AH and Extension
services within the project areas in Rift Valley and Coast.
iii. Draft Report of October 2003 on Technoserve’s Small holder Dairy
Development Project
The Draft Report of October 2003 on Technoserve’s Small holder Dairy Development
Project document contained important information relevant to the MSE Programme. It
revealed that the programme was conceived as a strategy to improve food security of
target communities. This was to be achieved by enhancing agricultural productivity
and diversifying household incomes.
iv. Report on Entrepreneurial skills Development Training Workshop
(11th – 22nd 2006)
The report on this workshop contained the different training skills, which the MSEs
were exposed to.
v. Reports from the office of the HPI-K Coordinator, Coast region
Some of the filed reports contained information on cows Passed On between 2000 and
2006 and HPI-K cow census summaries as of 31st July 2007.
B. Interviews with important stakeholders
Some of the interviewees were:
HPI-K Project Director and Project Coordinator, head office
HPI-K Coast region Programme Coordinator
District /Divisional Veterinary and livestock production
officers
Dairy plant managers and support staff
Agrovet shop managers
The interviews also involved 24 non-service providers (DVOs), DLPOs, 35 farmers,
and 45 service providers among others (Appendix 2 – 4).
C. Farm Visits
This allowed direct contact with farmers who were under the MSEs’ programme. It
also allowed on-farm observations on how farmers were complying with stipulated
11

12. conditions and terms of the programme. A total of 11 farms were visited (Appendix
5).
Feeding cows with nappier grass in Malindi
D. Focused Group Discussions
About 16 Focused Group Discussion (FGD) meetings were undertaken in both Coast
and Rift Valley region (two per district). The meetings were the most effective
approach since they allowed contact with many stakeholders at one time. Among
these stakeholders were:
AH service providers
AI service providers
MSEs providing AH services
Farmers using AI service
12

13. Meeting with the MSE Service providers in Kwale
Meeting with farmers and service providers in Kilifi
E. Observations and listening
The evaluation was also accomplished by observing best practices and listening to
interesting stories and case reports, especially from the Coast region HPI-K
coordinator, dairy plant managers and a few farmers.
13

14. F. Physical checking of AI equipment
Physical checking of the semen storage and inseminators’ containers was done in
Kilifi, Badar Agrovet Center, and Kwale and Taita districts. It is commendable that
both the HPI-K coordinator in the region and some of the inseminators were taking
great care to maintain the expected levels of liquid nitrogen for semen storage.
1.4 Time frame for the evaluation
After the necessary consultancy protocols were finalized, the evaluation was designed
to take place between 2nd September and 2nd October 2007. The timeframe was used
for the following activities:
Field visits covering eight districts in Coast and Rift Valley
Compilation of report
Presentation of draft report
1.5 Report format
The report is presented under a chapter format system and in the following sequence:
a. Chapter One covers the background of the MSE programme, evaluation
objectives and methods used.
b. Chapter Two covers the evaluation findings including good practices,
achievements and benefits, challenges and issues affecting the MSE
programme.
c. Chapter Three covers conclusions and recommendations for overcoming
challenges and improving delivery of services.
d. Chapter Four covers Table and Appendices on:
Status of Service providers in Coast
Training needs for farmers and service providers
Stakeholders contacted
Suggested reporting formats
Evaluation time frame
CHAPTER TWO
EVALUATION FINDINGS
2.1. Good practices in the delivery of services
A number of good practices in the delivery of AI and AH services were observed.
These include:
2.1.1 Integration of milk marketing and services needed for production
14

15. The integration of farmers and service providers through milk marketing was best
practiced in Siongiroi (Bomet), Kipkelion (Kericho) and Tonykina (Nandi North)
dairy plants. Here, farmers receive AI, AH and Agrovet services on credit, which they
pay for through a milk check-off system. However the system works well only when:
Farmers are delivering milk to the dairy plant.
The service charges do not exceed the expected income from sale of milk.
This approach can be replicated in other areas to encourage more farmers to enlist
with dairy plants. A case in point is the Manyeso Dairy in Malindi which was
providing similar vital services before it collapsed. The current efforts to revive it
should be supported.
2.1.2 Partnerships of farmer groups /umbrella associations and MSEs
Formation of the farmer groups and the umbrella associations under the SDDP has
been useful to the MSE programme. Some of these include:
• Kaloleni Umbrella Association in Kilifi district
• Kikoneni Zero Grazing Group in Kwale district
• Wumweri Umbrella Association in Taita district
The associations had assumed the responsibility of purchasing liquid nitrogen and
other AI-related supplies, from Badar Agrovet shop, Mtwapa, and paying the MSEs
for services rendered.
2.1.3 Engagement of veterinarians
The Veterinary Department in Taita had supported the MSE programme by seconding
one of the veterinarians (Dr. Mwasamba G.M.) to the Wumweri Dairy farmers group.
The veterinarian assists farmers whose cows have difficultly in breeding; some are
diagnosed with uterine infections and infertility because of using infected bulls. He
also monitors farmers’ complaints on AI and offers good linkages between the
farmers and HPI-K office.
The involvement of a veterinarian to coordinate, monitor and supervise the MSE
programme activities is a good back-up service for the private service provider. Dr
Mwasamba was able to calculate a conception rate of 1.5 to 1.7 services per
conception from the available farmers’ AI records. This is commendable for all
stakeholders in AI service i.e. the farmer, inseminator, semen and cow.
2.1.4 Wumweri Dairy Farmers Group
Based in Taita district, this group is an outstanding example of how farmers can take
charge of the AI and AH services. It is made up of 13 farmer groups. It handles about
500 litres of milk daily. The group pays for services delivered by MSE inseminators
and the veterinarian. It also purchases semen and AI accessories from CAIS, Kabete.
It had the best set of AI equipments including:
One large container (34-litre) for semen /LN2 delivery from CAIS
One medium container (8-litre)
15

16. Two vapor shippers (1.5-litre)
One inseminator’s container (3-litre container)
The presence of the Wumweri Dairy Coordinator in the FGD meeting was very
important to the discussions. The inseminators are paid Ksh400 per insemination at
the end of the month. Semen and liquid nitrogen supplies are obtained from CAIS,
and transported by Akamba bus to Voi town, at a cost of Ksh400 per delivery. A
private vehicle transports the supplies from Voi to the dairy at a cost of Ksh400 per
delivery.
The farmers’ association records an average of 20 inseminations per month (15-31).
Farmers pay Ksh1,000 per insemination (Ksh600 to dairy and Ksh400 to the
inseminator). Farmers also remit a litre of milk per day for three months to the group
for the development of the common farmers’ fund. Additional funds for the services
are obtained from sale of bull calves. This way, farmers have developed funds which
are used to pay for common services (AI, AH).
2.1.5. Formation of private service providers’ associations
This initiative was meant to address social needs and for accountability purposes. The
best was reported in Kwale where the service providers had plans to establish income-
generating projects collectively and for each member.
From the records on weekly spraying and treatment, the MSE service providers
compile reports, which are presented for discussion among themselves during their
monthly meetings. The reports cover:
Challenges encountered by the farmers
Total animals sprayed (they have common format for spraying records)
Amount of money paid
Balance of money owed by farmers
2.1.6. Marketing of private services
One of the service providers in Taita (Ann Irina) has an innovative approach to
winning over farmers. While most of the service providers have remained with the
originally set charges for spraying of animals, Irina renegotiates her fee, starting with
as little as Ksh10 per animal. She has also diversified her services by providing an
Agrovet shop, which boosts her turnover.
2.1.7. Equipment
The best inseminator’s container was found in Nandi North (near Tonykina Dairy). It
has a capacity of five litres of liquid nitrogen and was being refilled after every three
weeks. It was owned by a veterinarian who had hired an inseminator. The latter was
managing an Agrovet shop in addition to providing AI services. It is highly
recommended. This is better than the three or one-litre containers used by most
service providers under the MSE programme. In Coast region, the inseminators were
16

17. not allowed to collect liquid nitrogen with the 1.5-litre containers from either Badar
shop or BOC plant in Mombasa.
2.1.8 Zero-grazing units
Some of best zero-grazing units, which were using AI were found in Kaloleni (Mama
Salina), Bomet (Chief David K. Milgo) and in Nandi North (Ezekiel Sitienei). These
should be used as model farms for extension services.
Zero grazing unit in Kipkaren, Nandi
2.1.9. Service providers
Some of the MSE service providers popular with farmers, showing dedication to their
work and keeping some records include the following:
Alphonse Kalume Kiponda in Malindi
Leonard Langat in Kipkelion
Mwambogha K. Stephen in Taita
Benjamin Ng’eno in Bomet
Nassir Kenya in Kilifi
2.1.10 Partnerships with local Agrovet shops
Establishment of Agrovet shops within reach of the MSE service providers is
commendable. Some of these include Badar Agrovet shop, Mtwapa and Pwani
Agrovet shop in Kaloleni. These are very popular with the service providers from
Malindi, Kilifi, Taita and Kwale districts. Others in partnership with the dairy plants
in the Rift Valley include Siongiroi, Kipkelion and Kipkaren. These enhanced the
MSE programme by supplying drugs, semen, AI accessories, fertilizers and
agricultural seeds.
17

18. 2.2. Existing Monitoring System
The heifer loaning programme had an established mechanism for monitoring the
activities in the field. Apparently farmers who received the first batch of heifer
placements were thoroughly prepared in record keeping and accountability.
While the service providers had been adequately trained, majority of them were
performing below average. This was reported in Kwale and in Bomet where some of
the MSE service providers did not have the necessary AI equipments.
While the MSE programme has expanded over the last 10 years, it requires a review
to improve on the existing monitoring systems. Some of the monitoring systems being
practiced include the following:
A. Keeping of Records
In the Coast region, farmers were well trained under the SDDP and were expected to
keep records in four types of books including:
AI records (heat and service dates). A Breeding calendar has now been
provided to most of the heifer loaning project farmers by HPI-K
Spraying and treatment
Milk production
Visitors’ book
Farmers were trained on how to keep daily milk production records (farmers were
supplied with measuring cylinders). Though some of the farmers visited were
confirmed to be keeping records, it was not possible to confirm how majority of
farmers were doing.
Two farmers Mama Selina in Kaloleni and Chesodon Dairy farm, Bomet were
keeping very good records worth emulating.
During the FGDs, the service providers indicated that they were maintaining these
records:
Number of animals sprayed and date
Animals which had calved within the month, especially out of
AI service
Number of animals which had died
Types and number of diseases treated
Payment receipts for services rendered
Regular income /expenditure returns
It was difficult to confirm if any records were maintained since majority of
participants came for the meetings without even a piece of paper or pen to use. It was
not clear why the MSE service providers were shying away from showing how they
were performing. A similar observation had been made during the Training
Workshops (Report on 5th January 2007). The MSEs should be compelled to produce
copies of their records and reports during future training workshops.
18

19. However, there were few cases where some of the service providers presented some
good records (Alphonse Mkare in Malindi, Benjamin Ngeno in Bomet and Leonard
K. Langat in Kipkelion). In most cases, there were no standard formats for recording
inseminations or treatments.
B. Meetings
Under the SDDP in the Coast region, there were arrangements for the MSE service
providers (spraying, treatment and AI) to meet with the farmer’s during their monthly
meetings. The service providers also met regularly among themselves on a monthly
basis to discuss issues affecting their work. They were also expected to compile
monthly reports, which normally would be sent to the HPI-K coordinator.
Some of the MSEs were not attending the meetings or producing monthly reports.
Apparently the MSE service providers in Rift Valley were not meeting regularly.
Thus, there is need to harmonize some of the practices and procedures being followed
by all MSE programme service providers.
The HPI-K coordinator in the Coast region was also meeting with farmer groups from
time to time and held workshops with them.
In July 2007, the HPI-K coordinator provided extension and advisory work to 62
farmers (50 women and 12 men). Some of the topics discussed included spraying of
animals, access to AI and planting of fodder.
This area needs to be strengthened so that conflicts and problems between farmers
and service providers are diagnosed early enough.
Apparently there is no HPI-K coordinating office in the Rift Valley region; all the
service providers were coordinated and supervised from head office. The respective
dairy plant managers had minimal supervision and coordination of the MSEs
operating under their areas and rarely met with them as a group. However, there were
attempts to improve the interactions between the MSEs and the plant managers
(Siongiroi, Kipkelion and Tanykina dairy plants).
The MSE service providers provided the weakest link since they were neither
accountable to HPI-K, farmers nor to the government. The dairy plants provide an
excellent opportunity for training and extension services to the farmers, especially
through showing videos relevant to dairy farming.
C. Reports
Under the HLP in Coast region, the MSE service providers are supposed to produce
monthly reports from the AI, spraying and or treatment weekly records. These reports
are presented for discussion during the monthly meetings and a copy sent to the HPI-
K coordinator.
Apparently the service providers do not always forward these reports to the
coordinator. There seems to be a major omission in the design of the HLP for regular
reporting by the service providers. Conflicts between farmers and service providers
were not being attended to promptly. Often, farmers would refuse services from
service providers with whom they had conflict with leading to some of the service
providers quitting. This was observed especially in Kwale (Kikoneni group).
19

20. In the Rift Valley region it was observed that the private service providers were doing
better in providing reports to the plant managers and a few to the district veterinary
offices (Kipkelion). The Tanykina Dairy Plant manager was perhaps the best in
keeping in touch and monitoring the service providers in the field.
2.3. Achievements and Benefits
The MSE programme evaluation has revealed a number of achievements within the
different sectors of the programme. The objectives of the HPI-K-supported
programme were to improve dairy productivity so as to uplift the standards of living
of the dairy farmers. This was to be achieved by providing the following essential
services:
i. AH
ii. Disease control
iii. Agrovet shop
iv. Artificial insemination
v. Extension
To determine progress made from the MSE programme one would need to evaluate
recorded data on specific indicators such as:
i. Success of the SDDP as a beneficiary of the MSE supported AH and AI
service (Table 1 – 3).
ii. Amount of milk produced and delivered to the dairy plants as a result of
using better genetics through AI service.
iii. Number of service providers trained, both active and inactive.
iv. Amount of acaricides used and number of animals sprayed.
v. Number of total insemination achieved under the programme through the
MSE programme inseminators.
vi. Number of recorded calvings out of the AI service.
vii. Number of grade cows introduced into the areas born out of using the
MSE-supported AI service.
Unfortunately, throughout the field visits, meetings and discussions held with the
stakeholders, it was difficult to obtain this vital data. Apparently the MSE programme
had not established the necessary mechanism to record and report on regular basis
for all services and activities achieved and in a standardized method.
In Coast region the number of calvings from the first heifers donated by through the
SDDP from one to five between 1998 and 2007. The high number of calvings per cow
or in a herd could be a reflection of good herd management and accessibility to AI
and AH services by the farmers.
20

21. Some of the farmers complained of having not had their heifers calving and had opted
to sell them because of lack of AI service. Sometimes this was due to the fact there
were too few of the MSE inseminators in the areas.
In some areas, milk production from the first heifers donated under the SDDP ranged
between 5 kilograms (kgs) and 13 kgs per day. The HPI-K Coordinator indicated the
highest level of production reported was 29 kgs per day from the first calving heifers.
Some of the farmers in the Coast region expressed their satisfaction in accessing
semen from a variety of good breeds including Ayrshire, Brown Swiss and Friesian.
In Rift Valley, the success of the MSE programme could only be measured by
increased milk delivered to the dairy plants (Yet most the dairy plant managers
complained that the plants were performing below capacity). In most cases there were
no receipts issued to farmers after payment for services rendered. Lack of proper
records negatively affects the accuracy in assessing performance of the MSE
programme.
Based on the Coast MSE programme Follow-up and Counseling Report of 5th
January 2000 (HPI-K head office report), it was obvious that the MSE service
providers were being paid for services rendered. During their presentations these
service providers had reported numerous activities and projects on which they had
spent their income. It is likely that the MSE programme may have achieved much
more than has been reported.
2.4. Farmers’ benefits from the programme
Overall, the MSE programme in both Coast and Rift Valley regions has been much
appreciated by all stakeholders especially the farmers and the private service
providers. From the discussions and visits to the farms, it was obvious that there were
tangible results and benefits. Some of these include:
i. Improved health from enhanced food security at family level.
ii. Availability of cash money from sale of surplus milk and live animals which
was used to improve housing structures. The money was also used to educate
children.
iii. Farmers were happy and proud because of owning grade cows out of the AI
service.
iv. Farmers were able to use manure as a result of increased herd size to improve
productivity of their lands, especially for growing fodder.
v. The arrangement under the SDDP in the Coast region for farmers to meet
regularly for reporting had enhanced social-cultural networks for the support of
the MSE programme.
vi. Meeting with the MSE service providers and the HPI-K coordinator enabled
farmers to become knowledgeable and skilled in management of dairy cows.
vii. Increased herd size at household and regional level because of the availability of
the AI and AH services had in effect enhanced further job opportunities for the
MSE service providers.
21

22. Table 1: Status of Original Heifer Placement in Coast
region (July 2007)
(Source: Malindi HPI-K Office)
District Groups Membership Heifers
Taita 19 481 223
Kwale 16 477 237
Kilifi 25 733 353
Malindi 17 652 324
Total 77 2343 1137
Table 2: Status of Pass on (July 2007)
(Source: Malindi HPI-K Office)
District Groups Membership Heifers % Pass On
Taita 20 481 132 59.1
Kwale 16 477 126 53.2
Kilifi 27 733 263 74.5
Malindi 17 652 215 66.3
Total 80 2343 736 64.7
Table 3: Status of Pass Backs (July 2007)
(Source: Malindi HPI-K Office)
District Groups Membership Heifers
Taita Mwangaza B 28 14
Kwale Bwagamoyo B 26 13
Kilifi Roho Safi 26 13
Malindi Allen Mjomba - 1
Total 80 41
The success of the SDDP as reflected from the data in the Tables above can be
attributed to the availability of AH and AI services, facilitated through the MSE
programme.
2.5. Service providers’ benefits from the programme
The MSE programme has been beneficial to the private service providers (AI, AH,
sprayers, veterinarians, livestock officers, Agrovet shops and dairy plants) in a
number of ways including:
i. Building of new and/or improving old houses
22

23. ii. Enhancing quality of life and status.
iii. Direct employment and increased income-generating activities.
iv. Possession of additional knowledge and skills from training and practicing.
v. Establishment of good interpersonal relationships with farmers and HPI-K
personnel.
vi. Ownership and possession of good quality cows,
vii. Food security (milk, food from cash).
viii. Manure used on farms to improve crop, pasture productivity.
ix. Education for children.
2.6. Challenges affecting MSE programme
2.6.1. Challenges related to the farmer
At farmer level some of the challenges observed or reported relate to:
Inadequate knowledge, skills and practices in herd management.
Socio-cultural beliefs in preference of natural mating instead of using AI,
Some of the farmers were reluctant to incur expenses in spraying for animals
that were not producing enough milk for consumption and surplus for sale.
High level of poverty, thus discouraging farmers from using the available
services.
Inaccessible service providers because they were few and covered large areas.
High cost of service because of too few farmers using the services.
High death rate of AI calves.
Some of the specific challenges, which farmers expressed during the FGDs and farm
visits include:
i. Inadequate animal husbandry skills
During the farm visits, poor husbandry and management practices (low level of
feeding, imbalanced feeding) were observed. This in effect would lead to:
• Silent heats
• Reduced number of AI services
• Reduced income for the MSE service providers
• Less number of calvings
• Reduced income for the farmer
During one of the farm visits in Malindi, a farmer complained of having waited for
nine months since the cow had been served, with no signs of imminent calving during
the time of the visit. The farmer could not access any help from the local MSE service
provider.
In Coast region, farmers were hiring laborers to fetch grass from outside their farms.
This was likely to introduce ticks to their zero grazing projects.
23

24. As reported elsewhere, a heifer in Kipkelion had been inseminated for about 10 times
(at a cost of Ksh6,000). By the time of the visit there were no signs of it being
pregnant.
Apparently, herds in areas visited in Bomet were large, a number of which were being
grazed along the roadsides. Pastures on farms were overgrazed and often unfenced,
while few farmers had planted fodder. The same was observed in Nandi North where
animals were being grazed along roadside because most of the land was under maize
cultivation.
In most cases, there were no crutches for restraining of animals for treatment or
insemination. However, there were few farmers with very good herds, cows
producing 25 to 30 kg of milk per day.
A few farmers practiced fodder planting, as witnessed during the farm visits in Kwale,
Malindi and Bomet districts and illustrated in the pictures below:
A farmer with good fodder in Kwale District
ii. High level of repeat insemination services
Some of the farmers in Kilifi complained that some of the cows were failing to show
signs of heat. They were informed that cows were likely to undergo an AI repeat due
to a number of reasons:
Incorrect heat detection
Improper insemination technique
Quality of semen (if not properly stored and handled during
insemination)
24

25. Incorrect presentation of cows for AI
Infected reproductive organs
Early abortion
In the absence of the insemination records, it was difficult to assess possible causes of
repeat services. Every case witnessed had different circumstances and explanations:
In Taita, cows associated with increased number of inseminations were
diagnosed by the local veterinarian to be infected with metritis (due to use of
bulls).
In Bomet, a farmer was not sure if one of the cows was pregnant after being
served for three times. There was no service provider to check whether the
cow was pregnant or not.
In Kipkelion, a heifer had been served for 10 times with no success. The
farmer insisted on administering the AI without seeking help from local
veterinary. From the information presented, it was suspected that the heifer
was permanently infertile.
In Kilifi a farmer explained how her cow conceived after four trials. This
showed understanding importance of AI.
iii. Low level of AI adoption
For the private service providers to sustain themselves economically, a reasonable
number of animals must be presented for AI, which would reduce the overall cost of
the service.
There was need to train farmers to enhance their knowledge and skills in good animal
husbandry (feeding and heat detection). There was also need to keep dairy cows from
having access to bulls, especially if they are of indigenous type.
The service providers expressed concern on the low volume of work and returns
(especially from AI business). Some of the reasons contributing to this situation were
suggested as:
Farmers failing to present their animals for spraying, AI or treatment.
Farmers spraying and/or treating the animals.
Bulls being used for breeding.
Unpaid debts by farmers and high cost of AI and spraying services.
Low livestock populations.
Perceived ineffectiveness of AI.
In-correct perceptions that there more deaths among AI calves as compared to
those conceived after mating heifers with bulls.
Service providers’ lack of adequate marketing skills for their services.
Low level of farmer education on heat detection.
Misconduct by the service providers especially in Taita and Kwale districts.
While it was mandatory that cows under the SDDP (Coast region) be served through
AI, some of the farmers had chosen to ignore this. There was a need for aggressive
extension service so that important issues concerning use of AI are discussed and
dealt with at the earliest opportunity. Though the farmers complained about the high
25

26. cost of the service, the service providers pointed out that the cost was justified as it
covered costs on semen, liquid nitrogen, AI accessories, transport and labor.
iv. Use of bulls
Some of the farmers preferred using bulls instead of AI and therefore preferred
keeping bulls together with cows as witnessed in Bomet (see picture). Again some of
the farmers with large unfenced grazing pastures preferred keeping bulls uncastrated,
claiming that they had faster growth rate. It is likely that the low volume of milk
delivered to the dairy plants despite the large herds found in Bomet, Kipkelion and
Nandi North was partly due to:
Use of bulls of low genetic potential.
Overgrazed pastures and lack of supplementary feeding.
A bull grazing with a dairy herd in open pastures in Bomet
The effect of using bulls was evident in Taita where a veterinarian attached to the
Wumweri Dairy Group reported having treated many cases of Metritis, as cows were
reported not to be calving and / or were aborting.
Other farmers claimed that the mortality rate of AI service calves was higher than that
of calves born from natural service. More often than not, farmers turned to use of AI
after the cows were already infected. Though some of the technicians had the skills to
treat the condition causing failure of AI, the ailing cows would eventually become
uneconomical to keep, especially if the infection persisted.
In Kwale and Bomet, it was observed that some of the farmers were aware of
importance of using good genetics. Some of them preferred using high grade bulls
26

27. from well-known breeders to improve the herds. A farmer group in Taita reported that
they had been using bulls for a long time (Bull Camp), but had recently started using
AI service.
v. High poverty level and/or lack of funds
Among the SDDP supported farmers, lack of funds was the most common excuse for
inability to present their animals for AI. Farmers need to be provided with enough
information on herd management. Such information includes:
Cows are expected to repeat heat signs 21 days.
Cows should be served within 60-90 days of post calving.
Heifers should be served at 18 to 24 months of age depending on the body size
achieved when the first signs are observed.
Cost of AI varied a lot (Ksh600 to Ksh2,500) depending on choice of semen (CAIS or
imported), distances from semen supply centers and whether it a first or repeat
insemination. The low poverty level among some of the farmers was a hindrance in
coping with this high cost. Other farmers resulted to use of bulls because the AI
service providers were inaccessible and few.
vi. Debts from rendered services
In Coast region, some of the farmers were keen to have their animals sprayed but
unwilling to pay for the services and at the agreed cost. Some suggestions were given
to manage this problem including the following:
The farmers’ umbrella association group could pay for the defaulting
members. This assumes that the groups would be financially strong. It also
assumes that the group would find a mechanism for recovering the money
from the defaulting members.
The farmer’s group members could take away the project animal and donate it
to another member in need of assistance for the first time. This assumes there
are rules guiding members on how to deal with such issues when they occur.
One also assumes that it would be possible to apply the rules without
destroying social relationships between members.
vii. Diseases
During the FGD meetings in Bomet, it was noted that AH service has many more
players than AI service including:
Veterinarians
Livestock officers
AHAs
Inseminators
Junior Animal Health Assistants (JAHAs)
27

28. CBAHWs (preferred by NGOs)
Traditional animal doctors
Farmers and farm workers
Yet, the MSE programme was experiencing AH-related problems. Some of the
service providers were inadequately trained for effective disease diagnosis. The
challenge was made worse because the private service providers were few in numbers
and there were no proper networking systems with the government veterinary and
disease diagnostic facilities.
With proper farmer education, some of the livestock diseases could be prevented
through good management practices, including tick-borne diseases, internal parasites,
mastitis and venereal diseases.
In Coast region, farmers complained that the first group to receive heifers was
thoroughly prepared on good management practices. However, they felt that over time
HPI-K had reduced farm visits and extension services.
viii. Death of animals
Farmers indicated that most heifers were dying at the age of between three and 12
months. This was considered to be an issue of management, especially after calves
were weaned. Although the farmers had the necessary information, some were not
practicing what they already knew.
In the Coast region, it was even reported that some of the farmers were reluctant to
feed first and third heifer calves because these were to be donated to other families
without animals.
2.6.2. Challenges related to lack of organized milk markets
In Coast region, organized milk marketing facilities (milk cooling plants etc) are very
few. Excess on-farm milk is sold to the neighboring farmers and local hotels.
Manyeso Dairy in Malindi, which was a good market for excess milk, closed down.
It was serving as a base for farmers to report AI needs or cases of animals needing
treatment. In Malindi, prices of milk vary from Ksh17 (when sold to Manyeso dairy)
and Ksh30 per kg if sold to neighboring homes and hotels.
Without regular milk marketing opportunities and networks in place, farmers are
unable to raise income to pay for services. In the Rift Valley, the milk marketing
situation was better and organized through the dairy plants. This enabled farmers to
receive services promptly and often on credit, as long as they were delivering milk to
the plant. The main challenge in the region is more of under-utilization of the dairy
plants.
Ol Kalou Dairy plant does not have service providers attached to it. However, there
were plans to establish an Agrovet shop. Hopefully, this will enhance extension
services delivery to the farmers through the dairy plant or through organized field
days.
2.6.3. Challenges associated with Private Service providers (PSPs)
A. Inadequate Monitoring Systems
28

29. In general, most of the private service providers under the MSE programme in Coast
region were not accountable to any office (Veterinary, Livestock production, HPI-K
Coordinator or to the farmers).
The following cases illustrate the point better:
During the FGD meeting in Taita, farmers reported that one of the private
service providers was heard boasting in public how he had used dead semen
to inseminate the cows without the knowledge of the farmer. Fortunately the
farmers had already sacked him because of other misconduct issues.
In Kwale during the FGD meetings, one of the inseminators presented to me
his field container when it was completely dry. This was just a day after he
had used it for insemination. Farmers complained that this particular
inseminator had destroyed seven doses of semen previously and without any
regret.
Some of the MSE service providers trained and recruited in 1998/99 had done very
little practice due to lack of equipment. Apparently there was inadequate follow-up or
effective monitoring of these service providers after recruitment.
It was not mandatory for them to maintain proper records and produce reports on a
regular basis. However, a few of them were doing so and posting the reports to:
District /Divisional veterinary or livestock production offices
HPI-K Coordinator or Head office
Dairy plant manager’s office
In the absence of regular monthly reporting from the private service providers, the
alternative is for the HPI-K regional coordinator to attend their monthly meetings. But
the coordinator does not have time to do this because of the heavy work load.
In Rift Valley, the situation was slightly better as some of the private service
providers related very well and regularly with the dairy plant managers and the
DVOs. In Kipkelion, the AI service providers had hired an office adjacent to the
Agrovet shop.
This was partly due to that fact that the dairy plant was facilitating for payment of the
services from farmers after milk delivery. Some of the service providers were keeping
good insemination records and sending monthly summaries to the district veterinary
office.
Unfortunately the recording and reporting for the different services are not
standardized. Without this, it is difficult to assess expected performance of the service
providers.
Because of inadequate monitoring of the service providers, it was difficult to know
how many were active in the field. This explains partly why the number of trained
private service providers remains high in record but their effectiveness in the field is
poor (Table 1).
It was observed that the HPI-K coordinator in Coast region was using the mobile
phone heavily for monitoring and coordination purposes. After farmers call him for
29

30. AI or AH- related cases, he contacts the nearest service provider and directs them to
the farmer. However four districts are too many for the programme coordinator to
manage effectively.
There should be a coordinator (AHA) for all the MSE programme service providers
within each district to be contacted by farmers in case of an emergency situation.
B. Lack of transport
In some cases, AI services were not available because of long distances between
farms and inseminators. Most of the farmers were accessing the service providers
through mobile phones or by sending milk transporters, visiting them at home or
reporting at the dairy plant offices.
The best example of an ideal mode of transport was observed in Taita. One of the
service providers (Mr Stephen Mwambogha shown in front page) was using a
motorcycle to reach farmers and collect AI supplies. Farmers were reaching him very
effectively through the mobile telephone. This is a good example for other service
providers to emulate.
Some of the service providers had neither mobile phones nor bicycles to reach their
clients. In some areas, they had to walk long distances or use Matatus to reach the
farmers. In some areas (Kipkelion, Taita) the terrain was not friendly for bicycle use.
Often, AI opportunities were missed and this left farmers with no option but to use
local bulls.
Some of the service providers requested to be facilitated with loans to purchase
motorcycles, bicycles or mobile phones. Some of the requests were from:
Dr. Mwasamba G.M (Veterinarian attached to the Wumweri Dairy Group in
Taita)
Nassir Kenya (AHA) attached to Kaloleni Umbrella Association
Ngwindi Suleimani (Inseminator) attached to Kikoneni Farmers Group in
Kwale
C. Inadequate extension service skills
The service providers were trained and equipped with skills for specific services.
When they visit farms, they focus on either spraying, AI or treatment cases.
Generally, the service providers were not mandated to undertake focused extension
services as part of their routine duties. It is important to engage well-trained service
providers such as AHAs who have the knowledge and skills to handle more than one
issue while at the farms.
D. Inadequate number of private service providers
While there are many trained service providers (Table 1), apparently over 50 per cent
of them are inactive. Some of the reasons highlighted for the inactivity include:
30

31. i. Rejection by farmers due to misconduct /poor performance (Kwale,
Taita).
ii. Lack of interest after training (Malindi).
iii. Uneconomical due to farmers’ failure to pay for rendered service.
iv. Lack of equipment after training (Bomet).
v. Inadequate follow-up and monitoring from HPI-K office after training.
vi. Domestic differences (A husband in Kipkelion had frustrated the wife
from practicing after being trained as a service provider).
vii. Low level of service demand by farmers.
viii. Legality of some of the MSE service providers to inseminate.
An MSE service provider at a farm in Malindi
2.6.4. Challenges related to programme design
i. Accountability of service providers
Generally, the service providers were neither accountable to the HPI-K nor to the
veterinary or livestock production departments. Renewing of their licenses should be
pegged on good conduct and effectiveness in service delivery.
ii. Lack of standardized recording and reporting formats
It is difficult to make an effective assessment on the activities and achievements of the
MSE programme in the absence of a standardized recording and reporting format.
iii. Unclear terms for loan repayment
31

32. From the discussions and explanations given, the loan repayment rate by the service
providers has been slow because of a number of reasons, notably:
Unclear binding or mandatory conditions for repayment.
Unclear guidelines on rate, duration or mode of payment.
Poor business management practices in using income for further investments
instead of giving loans a first priority.
Failure to achieve expected performance on revenue collection.
Inadequate or ineffective monitoring mechanism in the field.
iv. Management of farmers’ debts
Debt recovery from farmers has been a challenge to some of the service providers
especially in the Coast region where they were expected to do animal spraying. This
was probably because of:
Farmers’ inability to raise cash in situations of low milk production and
financial returns.
Unavailability of a mechanism to cushion farmers who would occasionally be
financially handicapped after receiving the services.
Inadequate farmer’s group empowerment to discipline defaulting members.
Inadequate recording and reporting mechanism so that they could be assisted
to demand for payment.
Poor conduct by the service providers prompted some farmers to withhold
payments.
While some of the service providers had opted to quit because of low income, others
were discouraged by the mounting dues.
2.6.5. Challenges related to regulatory requirements and networking
In 2007, there was a circular from the Director of Veterinary Department stipulating
that only inseminators trained by AHITI institutions could administer AI services.
This created confusion among inseminators trained by ADC and ABS. Some of them
had opted to stop offering the service to avoid conflict with the regulatory authorities.
It is important that HPI-K Director seeks clarification from the Director of Veterinary
services at the earliest opportunity.
In some districts (Kwale, Kipkelion) HPI-K was highly commended as one of the few
NGOs that interacts with the Veterinary Department’s staff and is open for
partnership. However, in Ol Kalou, the DLPO complained that the Dairy Plant had
not been keen to network and partner with the government departments, especially on
farmer training and extension services.
In some of the districts (Malindi, Kilifi), there were complaints that the Veterinary
Departments were left out when the MSE programme was being designed and
implemented. Very few veterinary or animal production offices were receiving reports
from the service providers (with the exception of Kericho district).
32

33. 2.6.6. Challenges related to management of the MSE programme
A. Inadequate field supervision for the MSE service providers
The service providers under the MSE programme had been exposed adequately to
good business practices as observed in the follow-up and counseling report of January
2007. However, the same was not confirmed during the field visits. Very few of them
presented records and reports of their work (spraying, treatment and AI numbers and
income figures).
B. Recording and reporting of services rendered not mandatory
Without reports on how many treatments or inseminations were done, and the cost of
providing the services, it was difficult to determine if they were operating at a loss or
profit. In future training workshops, they should be required to present their field
records and reports for analysis.
C. Inadequate farmer training in support of the MSE programme
In the Coast region, some farmers were reluctant to feed first and third heifer calves
because these were to be donated to other families. When the programme was started,
there was great interest and willingness to observe the rules and regulations, which
were to guide the farmers. For instance it was mandatory that the loan animals were to
be served using AI only.
The second and/or third level of recipients were inadequately trained and followed-up
to comply with the requirements for receiving animals. Some of the farmers have
cows which have not calved at all or after along time since the previous calving.
Others had lost animals due to diseases or inadequate feeding.
D. Expanded MSE Programme
When the MSE programme was expanded to the Rift Valley, the farmers were not
involved. The few trained service providers face tremendous challenges as the areas
covered are large and the public service is often unavailable. With an expanded MSE
programme and reduced number of staff, it has become more difficult to offer the
necessary supervision and monitoring.
2.6.7. Challenges related to delivery of services
A. Accessibility AI and veterinary supplies
In the Coast region, Badar Agrovet Shop in Mtwapa is the main agent for supply of
semen, AI accessories and liquid nitrogen from the central AI station (Kabete) and
World Wide Sires office in Nairobi. It is very far and expensive for the private service
providers in Kwale (Msambweni and Kikoneni areas) or Malindi to readily access
these facilities.
33

34. Similarly in Rift Valley, the service providers had to travel for long distances (Eldoret
or Kericho) using public transport facilities to acquire the necessary AI and drug
supplies.
Farmers and the MSE service providers had to cover long distances to request or
provide for the services, respectively. Poor roads, especially during the rainy season
were another challenge for the service providers, notably in Kipkelion.
B. High temperatures
The high temperatures in Coast region contribute to increased high liquid nitrogen
evaporation and wastage. This cost is passed to the farmer, making the cost of AI
expensive. It was also expensive because of:
Long distances to collect liquid nitrogen, semen and other AI accessories.
Low level of AI intake, which meant that fewer farmers had to share the cost.
C. Lack of appropriate AI equipment
The MSE service providers in Bomet complained over lack of AI equipment. Some of
the farmer groups in Coast region (Kwale, Kaloleni) were using the 34-litre container
for semen storage and semen/liquid nitrogen delivery from supply centers. This type
of container is heavy and inappropriate when transported by public means.
In Coast, the inseminators could not be supplied with liquid nitrogen from the supply
center (Badar Agrovet shop), unless they used three-litre containers. At the BOC
plant, they could not use containers with a capacity of above 10 litres. Some of the
service providers were using the 1.5 litre container for field insemination work and for
storage and delivery of semen/liquid nitrogen.
The field containers used by some of the service providers required frequent
refilling. The situation worsened when the service providers had to travel for long
distances to refill the containers.
In most cases the service providers were not using funnels for filling of containers
with liquid nitrogen, which led to high wastage. Most of them did not have or were
not using a dipstick to monitor liquid nitrogen levels; others were not using forceps.
All these deficiencies and omissions were likely to compromise the quality of semen
and overall AI service.
CHAPTER THREE
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1. Conclusion
34

35. The MSE programme has achieved much of what was anticipated when it was
launched in 1999. There is increased livestock productivity and diversified source of
household income in both Coast and Rift valley regions. This has been as a result of
rearing dairy cows in areas where farmers were discouraged by diseases.
The programme has also created direct employment opportunities for a wide variety
of service providers including farm workers, inseminators, AH providers, milk
transporters and Agrovet shop managers.
Overall, the MSE service providers, especially those assisting farmers with spraying
should be commended. They had handled the acaricides with diligence, as there had
not been any serious cases of animal or human acaricide poisoning reported.
While the numbers of government-assisted service providers has continued to decline,
farmers in areas under MSE programme have not been affected much. After the
public AI services were reduced to supervisory and monitoring roles, the MSE
programme assisted farmers to continue improving their herds and productivity by
facilitating accessibility to both CAIS and imported quality genetics.
However, the MSE programme has been associated with a number of challenges
including:
Lack accountability by the service providers.
Inadequate number of service providers.
Inadequate staffing for monitoring of field activities.
Lack of mandatory and standardized recording and reporting formats.
High cost of services.
High cost of accessing supplies, especially liquid nitrogen.
While the SDDP introduced record-keeping in the Coast region as a pre-condition for
farmer participation, the same was not enforced during the training of service
providers. In areas with established dairy plants, data on milk supplied and subsequent
payments are adequately addressed.
All inseminations (first and repeats), calvings, treatments, sprayings etc should be
properly recorded and reported electronically.
Because the MSE programme has expanded in terms of the number of districts
covered, farmer participation and types of services provided, it has become difficult to
monitor all activities from one office. A Training and Monitoring unit at the HPI-K
head or regional office should be established to handle this. The office should also
provide extension services at district level where the MSE programme is available.
There is a greater need for farmer training in the basics of animal husbandry, AH and
AI. Farmers should be made aware of dangers of using bulls where AI service is
readily available. The second important issue to be addressed is milk marketing. The
MSE programme has expanded to the extent that some of the families have enough
milk for household consumption and to sell elsewhere. Developing strong farmer
linkages through farmer groups and associations would enhance better milk marketing
opportunities.
The MSE service providers should be adequately supplied with appropriate
equipment. The active service providers should be equipped with additional skills so
that they become marketable to meet farmers’ needs and diversify sources of income.
There were suggestions that those providing spraying services be trained further on
AI. There is great potential in all the Rift Valley MSE programme areas for increased
35

36. milk production and delivery to the dairy plants. However, competition from maize
farming (in Nandi) and too many bulls in some areas (Bomet) was a major obstacle.
Although the MSE programme had made some progress, there are challenges that
have been building up over the 10-year period of its existence. These require
immediate attention in order to enable the MSE programme to move into the next
phase of greater milk production and marketing through better MSE support service
delivery.
Under the present organizational structure, it is difficult to establish progress of the
MSE programme due to lack of performance data, which would have been
accumulated over time. In the absence of a previously recorded baseline survey data,
it is difficult to compare current performance indicators with the past performance.
3.2. Recommendations to overcome identified challenges
3.2.1. Improvement in record keeping and reporting
Service providers should be mandated to use standardized formats to record their
daily activities which should be generated into monthly reports.
The reports should be forwarded to the HPI-K coordinators or dairy plant managers
on a monthly basis and copied to the district veterinary and livestock production
departments. Hopefully, this will enhance better linkages with the departments.
Appendices 6 - 11 are suggestions on recording and reporting formats to be used by
service providers and farmers.
The HPI-K Monitoring and Evaluation department should be strengthened with
additional staff and opening of representative desks at the regional offices. It should
be mandated to standardize records and reporting formats to be used by the MSE
service providers. The office should be able to determine performance and impact
indicators from data collected from the MSE service providers. Some of these
include:
Number of services achieved
Conception rates as estimated by calculating Non-Return rates
Services per conception
Calf mortality rates etc
Cost of providing the services
3.2.2. Training of farmers
During the FGDs and farm visits, many farmers in both Coast and Rift valley regions
requested for additional knowledge and information, especially in animal husbandry-
related issues. A list of topics to be considered in farmer training and extension is
included in Appendix 1.
36

37. These farmer training and extension services could be achieved through workshops,
seminars and field days. The District Animal Production officers in Ol Kalou
suggested the training be done in collaboration with the dairy plant by establishing
demonstration plots nearby. Dairy promotion videos could be shown at the dairy
plants or farmer group levels.
3.2.3. Training/refresher courses for the private service providers
There should be follow-up of service providers in the field after their training and
recruitment. Those performing below average should be retrained and those with
reported misconduct de-licensed. The extent of training should enable them provide a
wide range of extension services.
3.2.4. Improvement in monitoring and supervision of service
providers
As indicated elsewhere, there is need for service providers to be supervised and
monitored. Unfortunately it is not easy to monitor them when they are not employees
of any organization or farmer group.
The HPI-K regional coordinator should plan to attend the MSE service providers’
monthly meetings. The service providers should be followed up in the field after
every workshop and/or training.
3.2.5. Transport
In the Coast region (except Taita), the terrain is relatively manageable, making it easy
to use a bicycle for service delivery. But in hilly areas (Taita, Kipkelion) a better
mode of transport (such as motorcycle) is needed. In both Coast and Rift Valley
regions, some of the service providers requested to be assisted with loans to purchase
motorcycles. They considered this as essential in helping them provide services more
efficiently to larger areas thus reaching out to more clients, collect supplies from the
appointed agents and ultimately, improve on their financial returns.
However, the terms and conditions for loan repayment, if provided, should be
adequately spelt out.
3.2.6. Increase the number of private service providers
In both the Rift valley and Coast regions, there were requests for additional service
providers (especially AI technicians). This would enhance service accessibility by the
farmers. However, this will be dependent on:
i. Serviceable cow population in a given area.
ii. The rate of adoption of AI as an alternative and preferred breeding
method.
iii. Affordability of the AI service.
iv. Reduction of services from un-improved bulls.
37

38. A feasibility study should be undertaken to identify current position and determine
requirements for additional service providers in each district. AI provision is the most
affected service by lack of service providers in both regions. However, there is no
guarantee that after acquiring the skills, the service providers would continue serving
farmers.
Other non HPI-K - trained service providers (especially the AHAs) should be
encouraged to network with and enlist with dairy plants and umbrella associations.
This would enhance acquisition of their service on credit while payment for their
services will be enhanced through the milk check off system.
3.2.7. Establishment of additional dairy plants for marketing of milk
Marketing of milk through a cooperative society, cooling or processing dairy plants
should be encouraged and facilitated. It was observed that:
It would be easier to pay the private service providers by deducting dues from
individual farmer’s milk sales.
The private service providers would be paid for their services promptly.
It would be easier to harmonize service charges.
The cooperative dairy plant may consider value addition.
The dairy plant may consider diversification of services to the members.
The dairy plants may be better placed to coordinate purchase or supply of
inputs such as semen, liquid nitrogen, AI accessories, drugs and chemicals.
The dairy plant would become a better contact point between service providers
and farmers.
The dairy plant would become a preferred place for farmer training and
extension purposes.
Linking service providers to dairy plants or milk cooling centers was observed to be
working very effectively at all the dairy plants visited in Rift Valley (Siongiroi in
Bomet, Kipkelion, and Tanykina in Nandi North). The same arrangement should be
considered for the Ol Kalou Dairy Plant.
Farmers selling their milk through the dairies would receive services (AI, treatment
drugs, etc) immediately and on credit. In Coast, some of the areas planning to
establish milk-cooling plants include Manyeso Dairy in Malindi, Msambweni in
Kwale and Wumweri Group in Taita.
The re-opening of Manyeso Dairy should be hastened as a calling point for AI and
AH service providers and reporting. Hopefully, this would increase usage of the
private service providers, which would encourage them to continue instead of
resigning.
With continued use of AI and more farmers accessing the grade cows through the
heifer loan programme, there will be much more milk available than families and the
local restaurants can handle. It is worthwhile therefore to invest in more dairy plants,
particularly in the Coast region.
3.2.8 Establishment of bull camps
38

39. In some of the areas visited, farmers requested to be assisted with establishment of
bull camps. This was considered as an alternative breeding system where AI service
was not economically viable. In Kwale there is a farm already supplying high-grade
bulls of different breeds to interested farmers.
However, before such a programme is implemented, it is important to establish its
viability. Where they have been introduced before, it has been found that bull
schemes have their own problems including:
Requirement for regular supply of pedigree bulls of a suitable breed to
sustain level of genetic improvement over time.
Need to establish clear guidelines for bull ownership and management
requirements (housing, feeding, spraying etc).
Requires access to disease diagnostic laboratories to screen for breeding
and tick-borne diseases.
Requires strong facilities to restrain the bull from hurting people.
In Taita, one of the women groups (Mkamenyi Dairy Group) had been using the Bull
Camp system to improve their herd and enhance productivity. However, they recently
stopped and started using AI after experiencing problems with the bulls.
3.2.9. Appreciating and encouraging farmers and service providers
There are a number of ways or methods which could be applied to encourage both
farmers and service providers to do better in future. These include:
Awarding of trophies and cash to members who win in national shows.
Issuance of certificates of good performance to members with quality animals,
regular calving from AI, high productivity etc.
Organizing farm /farmer competitions.
Using best farmers for field day demonstrations to motivate others.
Recognizing successful number of inseminations and calvings.
Recognizing highest milk production per cow per day or per lactation period.
3.2.10. Formation of umbrella associations
The formation of the umbrella associations, especially in Coast region should be
enhanced further and mandated to:
• Manage disputes between farmers, service providers and other stakeholders.
• Interrogate and recommend for disciplining of service providers.
• To monitor and facilitate payment for services rendered.
This would require establishing a common fund from contributions by all members.
3.2.11. Improved networking with other stakeholders
39

40. During the interviews and meeting with the District Veterinary officers (DVOs) and
Livestock Officers (LOs), there were a number of suggestions and recommendation
worth including under this report:
a) Networking and collaboration between HPI-K and the departments on
livestock issues should be strengthened.
b) The training of private service providers should be done in consultation with
the department in order to harmonize the quality of the technical training. This
will enhance effective monitoring by the department.
c) In one of the districts visited (Kaloleni/Kilifi), the DVO indicated that the
department had developed a training curriculum for the CBAHWs. This could
be adopted for the training needs of the HPI-K’s service providers.
d) The veterinary department would play a significant role in the HPI-K
programme by guaranteeing continuity, though this may not have been
adequately considered in the programme design.
e) The private service providers should be compelled to provide the departments
with their monthly and annual reports, reflecting their performances in the
field.
f) The livestock and veterinary departments should be represented during the
monthly service providers’ meetings.
g) HPI-K should continue to invite and involve the veterinary and animal
production departments during the farmers’ field days and training workshops.
3.2.12. Loan repayment by service providers and farmers’
debts
i. Diversification of services
The MSEs doing animal spraying need to diversify their income generating activities
to withstand the effects of unpaid debts. They should be offered training on how to
carry out the AI service.
ii. Priority and discipline
During the FGDs with the service providers, it was clear that majority of them were
raising enough income from the services to be in a position to clear their loans. The
issue was indiscipline and failure to consider loan repayment as a priority.
With enhanced accountability and monitoring systems, most of the loans would be
recovered within a short time.
iii. All-inclusive meetings
It was suggested that the way forward in enhancing collection of debts from farmers is
by holding inclusive meetings with service providers and HPI-K representative within
each district or area. In some areas, farmers were reluctant to pay for the services,
claiming that HPI-K was not meeting with them regularly. This calls for strengthening
of the HPI-K coordinator and dairy plant managers’ offices with transport and
additional staffing.
40

41. iv. Revising by-laws guiding farmer groups and dairy Plants
Within farmers’ groups, umbrella associations and dairy plants, there should be by-
laws guiding farmers on their responsibilities in paying for services rendered.
If umbrella associations become financially strong, they could loan defaulting farmers
to offset their debts and thereafter determine how to recover the loan from the farmer
in cash or kind.
CHAPTER FOUR:
TABLES AND APPENDICES
Table 4: STATUS OF SERVICE PROVIDERS IN COAST REGION
(JULY 2007) (Source: Malindi HPI-K Office)
DISTRICT ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION (AI)
SPRAYING/AHA
ACTIVE INACTIVE ACTIVE INACTIVE
41

42. TAITA Ernest Kitawi Prestone Kenyatta Claudy Njaka
Abraham Mwabili
Anthony Wamati
Newtone Mwashilla
Fredrick Mjomba
Timothy Mwanjala
Claudy Njaka
Nicholas Mwagha
Hannah Irina
Total 9 1 - 1
KWALE Chiroto Yawa Mwanasiti Shauri Chiroto Yawa Rajab Mramba
Rajab Mwagakure Hassan Jinga Suleiman Ngwidi
Ali Mwamashango Mwanamsambweni Margaret Mwangi
Elijah Ndegwa Kauzwa Abdalla
Kassim Khalfan Jackline Munyao
Kassim Gao Nyerere Mwanyerere
Suleiman Juma Mohammed Feisal
David Baya Halima Mwasalimu
Charles Wambua Mohammed Feisal
Rajab Mwagakure
Total 10 9 3 1
KILIFI Jonathan Rigo Samuel Dzinyau Jonathan Rigo
Arastus Lugho Zilper Kai Mwatsuma Kambu
Benedict Chumbe George Kitti Fondo Birya
Kassim Mramba Augustus Kitti Augustus Kitti
Saha Maskati Alfred Kitti
Dzombo Joseph Juba
Total 6 6 - 4
MALINDI Kalume Kitsao Alphonce Kiponda Alphonce Kiponda Safari Thoya
Safari Thoya Elijah Sulubu
Alphonce Mukare Ruah Makonde
Michael Kibogo Eunince Angore
Andrew Kenga
Grace Changawa
Total 4 6 1 1
Grand Total 29 22 4 7
51 11
Appendix 1: Suggested Training Topics (Private Service
providers and Farmer Extension)
The following are some of the topics which should be included in the training and
extension materials for service providers and farmers.
A) Animal Health
i. Concepts of a healthy animal
ii. Disease diagnosis procedures and treatment methods
iii. Common livestock diseases
iv. Preventive AH care:
42

43. Control of external parasites
Control of internal parasites
Vaccination
Hygiene
Feeding
v. Management of reproductive diseases /problems
vi. Mastitis prevention and control
vii. Management of Agrovet shops
viii. Drug residues in milk and meat
B) Animal Husbandry and Management
i. Animal identification
ii. Herd /farm recording
iii. Livestock registration
iv. Milk recording scheme
v. Calf rearing
vi. Management of zero grazing units
vii. Nutritional requirements of dairy cows,
viii. Fodder conservation (hay, silage, fodder trees)
ix. Farming as a business
x. Standards for show animals
C) Animal Breeding
i. Importance of AI
ii. Requirements for on-farm AI service
iii. Semen selection for AI
iv. Heat detection
v. Requirements for participation in contract-mating programme
vi. Importance of progeny testing programme
D) Milk Marketing
i. Factors affecting yield and composition of milk
ii. Nutritional importance of milk
iii. Hygienic milking, preservation, transportation and processing
iv. Record keeping for milk production, processing and transportation
v. Factors contributing to milk spoilage
vi. Milk marketing opportunities
vii. Milk health hazards
viii. Milk products
ix. Milk quality tests
x. Milk marketing legal framework and guidelines
E) Business Management
43

44. i. Business plan
ii. Cash book keeping
iii. Profit-loss account
iv. Income
v. Expenditure
vi. Business growth projection
vii. Management of creditors
viii. Management of debtors
APPENDIX 2: LIST OF PERSONS INTERVIEWED /CONTACTED
S/N. NAME OFFICE DISTRICT
CONTACT
1. Ngala HPI Driver Nairobi
2. Tsuma G. Project Coordinator Malindi
3. Mbaru F. Assistant to DVO Malindi
4. Dr Kenga DVO Malindi
5. Sheila Admi. Assist. Malindi
6. Dr Mwalonya H. M. DVO Kilifi
44

45. 7. Dr Nderingo Ronald DVO Kwale
8. Mr Mukono DLPO Kwale
9. Mr. Ali S. Mwaziro (Headmaster)
Ngathini Pri. School Kwale
10. Mr. Harji DLPO Kwale
11. Mr D. Mjama Deputy DVO) Wundanyi
12. Mr P. Mandenda District livestock
Marketing officer Wundanyi
13. Mr. F. Okinyi Siongiroi Dairy
Manager Bomet
14. John Masie Siongiroi Dairy Bomet
Director /Farmer
15. Dr Gathungu J. DVO Kipkelion
16. Johnstone Ronoh SLHO District
17. Edna Chumo Kipkelion Dairy Kipkelion
Plant Manager
18. Francis Rop Divisional Animal Nandi North
Production Officer
19. Joshua Rotich Div. Agricultural Nandi North
Officer
20. Moses Sawe Div. Agribusiness Nandi North
Farm management
21. Joseph Ong’ang’a Olkalou Dairy Plant Ol Kalou
Manager
22. Paul Kimani Divisional Animal Ol Kalou
Production Officer
23. Samuel Kinyua Location Extension Ol Kalou
Officer
24. Josphat Ndaiga M. Dip Attendant Ol Kalou
APPENDIX 3: LIST OF SERVICE PROVIDERS INTERVIEWD
S/N. NAME SERVICE DISTRICT
CONTACT
1. Katsao K. Animal Health Malindi
2. Kibogo P. Animal Health Malindi
3. Mkare A. Animal Health Malindi
4. Kassim W. M. Animal Health Kaloleni
5. Saha L. M. Animal Health Kaloleni
6. Arrestus M. L Animal Health Kaloleni
7. Nassir Kenya AHA + AI Kilifi
8. Moses Mwamburi Pwani Agrovet Shop - Mtwapa
9. Mwagakure R. Spraying Kwale
10. Charles W. Mutuku Spraying Kwale
45

46. 11. Kassim Gao Spraying Kwale
12. Mwamashango G. Spraying Kwale
13. Margaret Maina AI Kwale
14. Chiroto Yawa AI + Spraying Kwale
15. Ngwindi Suleimani AI Kwale
16. Ernest Kitawi Spraying Wundanyi
17. N. M. Mwashila Spraying Wundanyi
18. Anna Wali Ireri Spraying, Treatment Wundanyi
19. Dr. Mwasamba G.M Veterinarian i/c Wundanyi
Wumweri Dairy
20. Claude K. Njaka AHA, AI, Spraying Wundanyi
21. Joseph K. Mwanyalo Inseminator
DLPO Ass. Wundanyi
22. Mwambogha S. K Animal Production Wundanyi
DLPO’s Office
23. Ephraim Nyange Wumweri Dairy Wundanyi
Coordinator
24. Joseph Bett AI services Bomet
25. Benjamin Ngeno AI services Bomet
26. Joel Bett AI services Bomet
27. David Koech AI services Bomet
28. Mr. Mutai DLPO Bomet
29. Gilbert Siele Siongiroi Dairy Bomet
Agrovet shop
Manager
30. Edna Langat Kipkelion Dairy Kipkelion
Agrovet Shop
Manager
31. Jonathan K. Langat AI Kipkelion
32. Sammy K. Mibei AI /Extension Kipkelion
Treatment
33. Leonard Langat AI /Extension Kipkelion
Treatment
34. Peter K. Sang Clinical services Kipkelion
Extension
Civil servant
35. Dr Korir J. Clinical /surgical Kipkelion
Extension, Advisory
36. Cheruiyot J.A. Agrovet shop Kipkelion
Treatment
37. Jeremiah Ruttoh Tanykina Dairy Nandi North
Plant Manager
38. Divinah Bung’ei Tanykina Dairy Nandi North
Plant Agrovet
Shop Supervisor
39. Kogo C. K. Tanykina Dairy Nandi North
Dairy Plant
Agrovet Manager
46

47. 40. Dr Makori Private Agrovet Nandi North
Shop
41. Jonathan K. Boit AI (Taboche Dairy
Plant) Nandi North
42. Obadiah K. Bor AI (Taboche Dairy Nandi North
Plant)
43. Wilson Sugut AI (Taboche Dairy
Plant) Nandi North
44. William K. Keter AI Nandi North
45. Chepteting Ogla Agrovet shop
(Taboche Dairy
Plant) Nandi North
APPENDIX 4: LIST OF FARMER PARTICIPANTS
NAME DISTRICT GROUP
1. Jardine M. Ruwa Malindi Maeleano Women Group
2. Mary Nyanje Malindi Kanariko Women Group
3. Elinah Garama Malindi Ushidi Women Group
4. Elvina Nyanje Malindi Kanariko Group
5. Omar Thoya Malindi Goshi Self-Help Group
6. Safari Thoya Malindi MSE (Animal Health /AI)
7. Alphonse K. Kiponda Malindi Kanariko Group (MSE)
8. Beatrice H. Dima Malindi Warebi Women Group
9. Dama Angore Malindi Muungano Kakuyuni
Group
10. Mary Kambi Malindi Tumaini III Group
11. Mwaka Jambo Kaloleni Umoja Women Group
47

48. 12. Pauline Sanga Kaloleni Vevesi Women Group
13. Celina Juma Kaloleni Amani Women Group
14. Margaret Lugo Kaloleni Amkeni Women Group
15. Juliana Katana Kaloleni Neema Women Group
16. Emily Makonde Kaloleni Najeza Women Group
17. Purity S. Nza Kaloleni Upendo II Women Group
18. Isaac Kimeu Kwale Kikonen Dairy
(Chairman)
19. Gideon Wambua Kwale Kikonen Chairman (AI)
20. Monica Matawa Kwale Kikonen Vice Chairman
21. Monica Nzioka Kwale Kikonen Secretary
22. Jackson Mulwa Kwale Kikonen Member
23. Samoni Wakamba Kwale Kikonen Chairman AI
24. David M. Musyywii Kwale Kikonen Member
25. Ruth Mzee Wundanyi Mwambirwa Group
26. Julieta Matumbo Wundanyi Magharo Group
27. Elizabeth Mwanginda Wundanyi Sagalla /You Kizumanzi
28. Constance Lalu Wundanyi Sagalla /Saidia
29. Mkamenyi Women Group Wundanyi
30. Willy Ronoh Bomet Farmer from Kameswon-
Mtarakwa
31. Julius Rono Bomet Kameswon- Mtarakwa
32. Julius Keter Bomet Kameswon- Mtarakwa
33. Paul Chumo Bomet Learnt Animal health
provider European
settlers)
34. David Kirui Bomet Animal Health provider
(No formal training)
35. Richard Bii Bomet Animal Health provider
(Self trained from father’s
school)
APPENDIX 5: LIST OF FARMS VISITED
NAME CONTACT DISTRICT
1. Jardine M. Ruwa Malindi
2. Omar Thoya Malindi
3. Mama Salina (Chairlady of the Umbrella Association) Kaloleni
4. Chairlady of the Women Group Kaloleni
5. Mwatate Mpizinyi – Elias Mberi Tel. 0735311866 Wundanyi
P.O. Box 16,
Mwatate
6. Mr David K. Milgo Chief Bomet
7. Jonathan Koske Chesodon Dairy Bomet
Farm
P.O. Box 71
48

49. Chebunyo
8. Richard K. Langat Kipkelion
9. Mr Paul Too’s Kipkelion
10. Ezekiel Sitienei Tanykina Dairy Nandi North
11. Mr Chemengen’s Taboche Dairy Nandi North
49

50. APPENDIX 6: INDIVIDUAL COW RECORDING CARD
IDENTIFICATION
Owner’s /Herd Name……………………………………………………..
Address…………………………………………………………………
Cow’s Name……………………. Cow's No………………
Breed………………Date Born /Bought……………………
ANCESTRY (EXTENDED PEDIGREE)
Grand Sire…………………
Sire………………………
Grand Dam…………………
Grand Sire………………….
Dam…………………….
Grand Dam………………….
HEAT OBSERVATION AND SERVICES CALVING REMARK
DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE SEX NO
SIRE SIRE TREATMENT SIRE
50

51. APPENDIX 7: DAILY HERD MILK PRODUCTION
SUMMARY
HERD/FARM’S NAME:
ADDRESS:
MILKING COW'S NAME A.M. NOON P.M. TOTAL REMARKS
DATE OR NUMBER (kg)
51

52. APPENDIX 8: MONTHLY MILK RECORDING
SUMMARY
OWNER /HERD NAME………………………………………..
COW’S NAME /NO……………..DATE OF
BIRTH…………………BREED…….
CALVING DATE…………………………LACTATION
NUMBER…………….……
RECORDING MONTH…………………YEAR……………………….
DATE DAILY MILK YIELD (KG) CURRENT LACTATION TOTAL
A.M. NOON P.M TOTAL DAYS MILK (KG) REMARK
52

53. APPENDIX 9: HERD HEALTH REPORT
DATE COW’S OBSERVED VACCINATION /SPRAYING
NAME OR SYMPTOMS OR TREATMENT
NUMBER
53

54. APPENDIX 10: INSEMINATOR’S DAILY SEMEN
ACCOUNTING REPORT
DATE SEMEN TOTAL STRAWS TOTAL BALANCE
DOSES INSEMINATIONS DAMAGED DOSES
RECEIVED USED
54