Smallholder pig production and marketing value chain in Uganda: Background proposals for the CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish
ILRIINTERNATIONALLIVESTOCK RESEARCH I N S T I T U T E
RESEARCH PROGRAM ON
Livestock and Fish
March 2011
ILRI works with partners worldwide to help poor people keep their farm animals alive and productive, increase and sustain their livestock and farm productivity, and find profitable markets for their animal products. ILRI’s headquarters are in Nairobi, Kenya; we have a principal campus in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and 14 offices in other regions of Africa and Asia. ILRI is part of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (www.cgiar.org), which works to reduce hunger, poverty and environmental degradation in developing countries by generating and sharing relevant agricultural knowledge, technologies and policies.
© 2011 International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)
This publication is copyrighted by the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). It is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. Unless otherwise noted, you are free to copy, duplicate, or reproduce, and distribute, display, or transmit
any part of this publication or portions thereof without permission, and to make translations, adaptations, or other derivative works under the following conditions:
ATTRIBUTION. The work must be attributed, but not in any way that suggests endorsement by ILRI or the author(s) NON-COMMERCIAL. This work may not be used for commercial purposes. SHARE ALIKE. If this work is altered, transformed, or built upon, the resulting work must be distributed only under the same or similar license
to this one.
NOTICE: For any reuse or distribution, the license terms of this work must be made clear to others. Any of the above conditions can be waived if permission is obtained from the copyright holder. Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author’s moral rights. Fair dealing and other rights are in no way affected by the above. The parts used must not misrepresent the meaning of the publication. ILRI would appreciate being sent a copy of any materials in which text, photos etc. have been used.
Download the full Program proposal: http://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/3248
Important note: Full information on references is included in the Program proposal that can be downloaded from http://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/3248
International Livestock Research Institute
P O Box 30709, Nairobi 00100, Kenya Phone + 254 20 422 3000 Email [email protected]
P O Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Phone + 251 11 617 2000
Email [email protected]
www.ilri.org
1More meat, milk and fish—by and for the poor
Smallholder pig production and marketing value chain in Uganda: Background proposals for the CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish
According to recent FAO statistics, pork is second only to beef in terms of meat production in Uganda (see Table below). Since imports and exports of meat products are negligible, this ranking also reflects the relative importance currently of pork in terms of meat consumption.
Meat production in Uganda
Type Amount 1,000 (tonnes)Beef 96.8Pigmeat 77.4Chicken meat 44.1Goat meat 24.6Sheep meat 5.3
Source: FAOSTAT | © FAO Statistics Division 2010 | 14 September 2010
Pork has only become important in Uganda over the past two decades; pig numbers have grown rapidly following the Idi Amin years as pig keeping has become an increasingly common strategy for rural households and pork has become a popular food in the ‘pork joints’ of Kampala and other towns. Whereas pork accounted for only 1–2% of the 11–12 kg/year per capita meat consumption in the 1960s, it now accounts for at least a third of the current 10 kg/year (FAOSTAT). The recent livestock sample-based census conducted in 2008 recorded 3.2 million pigs, a remarkable doubling of the numbers from recent years and much higher than those reported in FAOSTAT.
Pig numbers in Uganda, 1961–2008
Source: FAOSTAT | © FAO Statistics Division 2010 | 14 September 2010; MAAIF/UBOS (2009)
2More meat, milk and fish—by and for the poor
Little information is available regarding the structure and composition of the pig sector in Uganda. According to key informants, the majority of pigs are kept by smallholder households under extensive systems (an earlier estimate cites 80%); Lekule and Kyvsgaard (2003) with small numbers of peri-urban small-scale, semi-intensive farms and a few larger modern, intensive farms producing for commercial sale. The 2008 Livestock Census reports 1.1 million households, or 17% of all households, keep pigs (on average 2 pigs).
The typical smallholder pig system is free-range or tethered with little or no housing (Waiswa 2005). Animals are apparently the survivors from introductions during the 1960s and of no distinct breed. Village herds are possibly inbred. In addition to what the pigs scavenge, they are provided with household scraps and bran. During the crop growing season, pigs are often tethered to avoid crop damage. They are kept for sale and only rarely slaughtered for household consumption (Ampaire and Rothschild 2010). Households like the fact that they require few, if any, inputs and yet generate a significant amount of income when sold. Poorly organized markets and disease risk, especially of African Swine Fever (ASF) (Costard et al. 2009) are credited with discouraging intensification of production. Pigs serve no other cultural or livelihood roles besides being a productive asset that can be sold when needed. Gifting of piglets is reportedly a popular strategy for politicians, the government and NGOs.
Pigs from village systems are usually sold directly to butchers or through middlemen for slaughter in local informal systems. Pigs are among the most important live-animal commodities that farmers produce for sale (Nyapendi et al. 2004).
Peri-urban small-scale producers keep larger herds under managed production cycles for commercial sale. Basic housing and locally produced feeds are typically used (Muwonge et al. 2010). Management practices vary depending on the degree of specialization of the farmer. Farmers market their pigs to local butchers, ‘pork joints’ or other restaurants.
Concurrent with the increase in smallholder pig keeping and pork consumption, porcine cysticercosis (Phiri et al. 2003; Waiswa 2005; Waiswa et al. 2009), and prevalence of mycobacterial infections (Muwonge et al. 2010) have been increasingly reported from eastern Africa.
A small number of modern piggeries have been established as development or business investments, usually located near Kampala. These farms have often faced difficulty covering their costs and competing successfully with cheaper sources of pork, and face the risk of ASF outbreaks that can decimate their herds. Since these farms are associated with better quality control, they supply the formal sector, which includes commercial butcheries, larger restaurants and hotels, and the small processing sector that has been developing.
Inputs and services supporting pig production are largely informal Few commercial feed products are available specifically for pig production, there is no commercial breeding service, and availability of veterinary care and extension advice to smallholder systems is very limited. There is, however, unorganized development of small enterprises and services providing locally made feed products and other inputs. Credit services for pig production are generally unavailable to smallholders outside of localized project schemes. Market systems are largely informal with little devoted infrastructure. Overall productivity in terms of feed conversion, reproductive rates and offtake remains low.
As indicated in the following Figure, pig keeping is practised across all of Uganda, with concentrations around Kampala in districts along Lake Victoria and in the zone between Lakes Victoria and Albert, with another zone of lower concentration to the east in the Soroti-Mbali area (circled in the second map). The maps, below, show the distribution of the incidence of poverty within Uganda, and suggests that pig-keeping in the Soroti-Mbali area would have particular benefits for poverty reduction.
3More meat, milk and fish—by and for the poor
Percentage of households keeping pigs (on left) and numbers of pigs, by District in 2008 (on right)
Source: Uganda Livestock Census (2008)
Why this value chain?
Pork is generally a minor component of diets in Africa, and pigs do not figure prominently in farming systems across the continent (Tacher et al. 2000). This can be attributed to cultural reasons—both due to a lack of tradition of pig-keeping and the influence of Islam—as well as to production constraints, especially the continued threat of ASF. Despite these constraints, pig keeping has become established in many areas and its popularity as a quick turn-around, lucrative ‘cash crop’ among livestock activities and as a less expensive meat for urban diets continues to grow, offering substantial opportunities for income generation (Nkonya et al. 2002; Nyapendi et al. 2004). Given the evidence of its growth potential and the competitiveness of small-scale production and marketing systems in sub-Saharan Africa, it was considered appropriate to include a pig value chain in sub-Saharan Africa as a target for CRP 3.7 efforts. It is also considered important to provide a means for comparison and cross-learning with the pig value chain selected for South East Asia in Vietnam; smallholder production and marketing systems there are highly sophisticated and may provide valuable models.
Incidence of poverty in Uganda in 2002, by county
Source: Uganda Bureau of Statistics, accessed at: http://www.ugandaclusters.ug/PVRTY-INQLTY/map2.html
4More meat, milk and fish—by and for the poor
The following Table shows the top five sub-Saharan African countries according to size of pig population. Of these, Uganda has high production and consumption per capita, and appears to be experiencing the most rapid growth. For this reason, and given other factors related to the high poverty rates, existing momentum and enabling environment as described in the ensuing Table, we selected Uganda as the priority pig value chain for Africa; it is judged to offer the highest probability of demonstrating the pro-poor potential of smallholder pig production and marketing chains in sub-Saharan Africa. Households may particularly benefit from linkages to markets with regard to increasing household incomes, and accumulating assets (Kaaria et al. 2008).
Pig sector indicators in five sub-Saharan African countries with the highest pig populations, 2007
CountryNumber of pigs (million head)
Pig meat production (1,000 t)
Pig meat consumption (kg/person/year)
Nigeria 6.6 209 1.4Burkina Faso 2.8 40 2.7Uganda 2.1 105 3.4South Africa 1.7 174 3.5Cameroon 1.4 18 1.0FAOSTAT | © FAO Statistics Division 2010 | 14 September 2010
Criteria and rationale for choosing Uganda
Criteria Rationale for choosing Uganda
Growth and market opportunity
Rapidly increasing production and consumption of pork within the country, driven not only by population growth, but also by a combination of rising incomes and changing preferences associated with urbanization and changing production systems Growing demand for processed products as street food and for supermarkets, and emergence of formal-sector enterprises (e.g. Fresh Cuts, Quality Cuts, My Choice) Growing base of smallholder producers with potential for intensification
Pro-poor potential Growing popularity of pig keeping among smallholder households (17% of all households currently keeping pigs), with potential for intensification Smallholder sector appears to remain more competitive than modern piggeries Pig keeping in smallholder systems is largely considered a woman’s activity Many market agents along the value chain (input/livestock traders, meat processors and transporters etc.) provide potential for increased income and employment from adding value Pork increasing in popularity as a low cost street food and as a meat product sold in informal markets, and as a share of the national diet
Researchable supply constraints
Control strategies for ASF, which remains the single largest risk to production Other swine health issues (high piglet mortality, Classical Swine Fever (CSF), worm infestations) Public health concerns regarding cysticercosis Poor feeding practices and lack of adequate supplies of appropriate feeds, either on-farm or purchased Lack of knowledge for better use of by-products (e.g. brewer’s yeast) Limited genetic resource base and inbreeding Poor biosecurity, with breeding practices contributing to disease transmission Lack of awareness and incentive to adopt improved management, esp. housing Lack of sustainable organizational structures for breeder and producer groups in order to facilitate their access to affordable breeding animals, animal health care and efficient market services Poor or non-existent waste management systems Lack of business and management decision support tools, e.g. when it is better to specialize in breeding, weaner or fattening operations; optimal feeding strategies for profits, business plans for infrastructure investment Poor market infrastructure and institutional arrangements (underdeveloped marketing system) resulting in high price difference between rural and urban markets, high number of middlemen and thus small producer margins Weak input supply system and limited support services (extension and credit systems) Ineffective knowledge management systems, in particular knowledge sharing between producers and scientists, to enhance uptake of proven technologies
5More meat, milk and fish—by and for the poor
Criteria Rationale for choosing Uganda
Enabling environment Though not identified as a priority for commercial development investment (e.g. DSIP, NLPIP), generally appreciated by policymakers as a high potential opportunity for broad-based food security and income diversification in rural areas Numerous past and current smaller-scale development efforts targeting smallholder pig development: Danida, Heifer Project International (HPI), Volunteer Efforts for Development Concerns (VEDCO), National Agricultural Advisory and Development Services (NAADS) Favourable business climate and policies for micro, small and medium-enterprise development
Existing momentum CRP 3.7 is also proposing to focus its work on the aquaculture value chain in Uganda ILRI has long-standing collaboration with both the Ministry (MAAIF) and Makerere University, particularly on poverty mapping and trypanosomosis, East Coast fever, and other animal health research CIAT has on-going collaboration with NARO on forage research ILRI and ICRAF are heavily involved in supporting the implementation of the East Africa Dairy Development project activities in Uganda, particularly with respect to improving feeds and their use ILRI and ICRAF are collaborating with the BMGF-funded project on sweet potatoes (SASHA), which is promoting food–feed applications that would suit smallholder pig systems ILRI has other on-going research activities in Uganda: characterization of Ankole cattle with BOKU (Austria) and Makerere University; characterization of ASF with SLU (Sweden) and Makerere University Several other CGIAR centres are active and have staff based in Uganda Very few other global organizations combine development with innovative and adaptive research
Research and supporting actions
As seen in the earlier maps, the emergence of pig keeping in Uganda is a recent phenomenon and, as a result, there has been little systematic research on pig production and marketing systems. Both the national agricultural research system, NARO, and Makerere University currently maintain modest programs of research in these areas (NAADS 2010). Constraints to improving the productivity and performance of smallholder pig production and marketing systems in Uganda are, therefore, not well characterized, and no attempt has been made to assess their relative importance. Perceived constraints were, hence, identified by stakeholders during consultations in Entebbe and Kampala in September 2010, and are summarized in Table below.
6More meat, milk and fish—by and for the poor
Opp
ortu
niti
es a
nd c
onst
rain
ts in
the
por
k va
lue
chai
n in
Uga
nda
and
the
rese
arch
and
dev
elop
men
t ac
tion
s to
ove
rcom
e th
em
Val
ue c
hain
co
mpo
nent
s D
evel
opm
enta
l cha
lleng
eR
esea
rcha
ble
issu
es a
nd s
uppo
rtin
g ac
tions
Indi
cativ
e pa
rtne
rsO
utco
mes
How
to o
rgan
ize
effic
ient
, via
ble,
and
equ
itabl
e in
put s
ervi
ces
for
smal
lhol
ders
?
Man
agem
ent t
rain
ing
Feed
pro
visi
on
Hea
lth c
are
Bre
edin
g
Cre
dit
Mar
ket i
nfor
mat
ion
How
to s
tren
gthe
n in
nova
tion
capa
city
of i
nput
an
d se
rvic
e va
lue
chai
n ac
tor
web
s?
Wha
t str
ateg
ies
can
be d
evis
ed to
ens
ure
equa
l ac
cess
to in
puts
and
ser
vice
s by
wom
en, a
s w
ell a
s in
puts
and
ser
vice
s ta
ilore
d to
wom
en
farm
er’s
need
s?
Are
ther
e co
llect
ive
actio
n st
rate
gies
for
orga
nizi
ng fa
rmer
s an
d ot
her
acto
rs in
the
valu
e ch
ain
to b
enefi
t fro
m e
cono
mie
s of
sca
le in
pu
rcha
sing
inpu
ts a
nd s
ervi
ces?
Res
earc
habl
e is
sues
How
can
inpu
t and
ser
vice
del
iver
y sy
stem
s be
org
aniz
ed to
bet
ter
perf
orm
to in
crea
se
prod
uctiv
ity a
nd e
ffici
ency
in a
gen
der-
equi
tabl
e an
d pr
o-po
or m
anne
r?
Diff
eren
ces
in m
en’s
and
wom
en’s
and
poor
and
ric
h ho
useh
olds
’ acc
ess
to in
puts
, pr
efer
ence
for
inpu
ts, u
se o
f inp
uts,
rol
es in
in
put s
uppl
y.
Wha
t met
hods
can
be
used
to s
timul
ate
inno
vatio
n sy
stem
s w
ithin
inpu
t and
ser
vice
va
lue
chai
ns?
Res
earc
h
NA
RO
NaL
IRR
I
Mak
erer
e U
nive
rsity
Supp
ortin
g ac
tions
, in
part
icul
ar o
rgan
izin
g in
put
deliv
ery:
NG
Os
and
CB
Os:
VED
CO
, O
xfam
Priv
ate
or g
over
nmen
tal
anim
al h
ealth
ser
vice
s
Seed
com
pani
es
Feed
ent
erpr
ises
Mic
ro-c
redi
t sch
emes
Incr
ease
d us
e of
inpu
ts
and
serv
ices
, whi
ch a
re
acce
ssib
le a
nd d
eliv
ered
in
tim
e to
mal
e an
d fe
mal
e sm
allh
olde
rs
Incr
ease
d kn
owle
dge
of m
ale
and
fem
ale
smal
lhol
ders
abo
ut u
sefu
l in
puts
and
ser
vice
s
Func
tiona
l ins
titut
ions
an
d co
nduc
ive
polic
y en
viro
nmen
t
Inpu
tsan
d se
rvic
es
7More meat, milk and fish—by and for the poor
Val
ue c
hain
co
mpo
nent
s D
evel
opm
enta
l cha
lleng
eR
esea
rcha
ble
issu
es a
nd s
uppo
rtin
g ac
tions
Indi
cativ
e pa
rtne
rsO
utco
mes
Supp
ortin
g ac
tions
Ass
ess
the
polic
y an
d bu
sine
ss e
nvir
onm
ent f
or
inpu
t and
ser
vice
val
ue c
hain
s
Ass
ess
the
stru
ctur
e, a
ctor
ince
ntiv
es, a
nd
perf
orm
ance
of e
ach
maj
or in
put a
nd s
ervi
ce
valu
e ch
ain
and
iden
tify
oppo
rtun
ities
for
upgr
adin
g, im
prov
ing
acce
ss b
y an
d fo
r w
omen
, and
impr
ovin
g be
nefit
s to
the
poor
cu
rren
t ins
titut
ions
and
pol
icie
s
Cur
rent
acc
ess
and
freq
uenc
y of
use
Con
stra
ints
to a
cces
s
Des
ign
and
pilo
t im
prov
ed s
yste
ms
as
cand
idat
es fo
r la
rge-
scal
e de
velo
pmen
t in
terv
entio
n
Impr
oved
com
mer
cial
feed
form
ulat
ions
usi
ng
loca
l mat
eria
ls
BD
S ap
proa
ches
for
smal
l-sc
ale
mix
ing
and
feed
mar
ketin
g ap
prop
riat
e to
sm
allh
olde
rs
Impr
oved
sel
ectio
n an
d se
ed s
yste
ms
for
dual
pu
rpos
e fo
od–f
eed
crop
s
Nov
el d
isse
min
atio
n st
rate
gies
for
tech
nica
l ad
vice
and
mar
ket i
nfor
mat
ion
8More meat, milk and fish—by and for the poor
Val
ue c
hain
co
mpo
nent
s D
evel
opm
enta
l cha
lleng
eR
esea
rcha
ble
issu
es a
nd s
uppo
rtin
g ac
tions
Indi
cativ
e pa
rtne
rsO
utco
mes
How
do
we
incr
ease
pig
mea
t pro
duct
ion
and
herd
pro
duct
ivity
to m
eet c
urre
nt a
nd fu
ture
m
arke
t nee
ds?
How
to d
esig
n ap
prop
riat
e br
eedi
ng s
trat
egie
s,
avoi
ding
inbr
eedi
ng a
nd n
egat
ive
sele
ctio
n of
bo
ars?
How
to o
verc
ome
seas
onal
or
cont
inuo
us g
aps
in
feed
qua
ntity
and
qua
lity?
Whi
ch h
ealth
care
str
ateg
ies
are
esse
ntia
l to
incr
ease
pro
duct
ivity
?
How
do
we
enha
nce
farm
er a
nd a
ctor
upt
ake
of p
rodu
ctiv
ity-e
nhan
cing
tech
nolo
gies
and
st
rate
gies
?
Res
earc
habl
e is
sues
Wha
t bas
ic h
usba
ndry
pra
ctic
es a
nd h
ousi
ng
that
sig
nific
antly
impr
oves
pro
duct
ivity
can
be
reas
onab
ly a
fford
ed a
nd ta
ken
up b
y fa
rmer
s?
Wha
t are
the
gene
tic a
ttrib
utes
of b
reed
s cu
rren
tly
in u
se; c
an b
reed
ing
prog
ram
s im
prov
e th
eir
qual
ity
or is
it a
ppro
pria
te to
intr
oduc
e ne
w b
reed
s or
cro
ss-
bree
ding
pro
gram
s be
tter
suite
d to
exi
stin
g an
d em
ergi
ng p
rodu
ctio
n sy
stem
s an
d en
viro
nmen
t?
How
can
ASF
be
bette
r m
anag
ed to
red
uce
the
risk
of
cat
astr
ophi
c lo
sses
?
How
can
farm
bio
secu
rity
be
stre
ngth
ened
?
Wha
t is
the
rela
tive
impo
rtan
ce (d
isea
se b
urde
n)
of th
e ra
nge
of h
ealth
pro
blem
s af
fect
ing
pig
prod
uctio
n an
d ho
w c
an p
rior
ity d
isea
ses
be b
ette
r m
anag
ed?
How
can
rob
ust a
nd p
rofit
able
feed
form
ulat
ions
an
d pr
oces
sing
tech
nolo
gies
be
desi
gned
that
bes
t ta
ke a
dvan
tage
of o
n-fa
rm r
esou
rces
sup
plem
ente
d by
pur
chas
ed fe
eds?
Are
ther
e di
ffere
nces
am
ong
men
’s an
d w
omen
’s m
otiv
atio
n to
eng
age
in th
e en
terp
rise
, in
antic
ipat
ed
bene
fits,
rol
es in
pro
duct
ion,
ski
lls/c
apac
ity n
eeds
, so
urce
s of
kno
wle
dge/
tech
nolo
gy, i
nflue
nce
of
polic
ies
and
inst
itutio
ns?
Are
rec
omm
ende
d pr
actic
es a
nd te
chno
logi
es
suita
ble
for
wom
en o
r so
cial
ly d
isco
urag
ed?
How
will
res
ourc
e re
quir
emen
ts fo
r im
prov
ed p
ig
syst
ems
com
pete
with
oth
er u
ses
for
hous
ehol
d liv
elih
oods
Can
pig
was
te b
e be
tter
utili
zed
or m
anag
ed?
Res
earc
h
NA
RO
; N
aLIR
RI
Mak
erer
e U
nive
rsity
BO
KU
-Vie
nna
Supp
ortin
g A
ctio
ns
MA
AIF
NG
Os:
VED
CO
; H
eife
r Pr
ojec
t In
tern
atio
nal;
Oxf
am
Dan
ida
Acc
ess
to b
reed
ing
boar
s w
ith h
ighe
r br
eedi
ng v
alue
Dec
reas
ed in
bree
ding
inde
x
Her
ds m
ore
hom
ogen
ous
in
desi
rabl
e tr
aits
Impr
oved
mar
ket w
eigh
t an
d bo
dy c
ondi
tion
Red
uced
mor
talit
y
Incr
ease
d of
ftake
rat
e
Prod
ucti
on
9More meat, milk and fish—by and for the poor
Val
ue c
hain
co
mpo
nent
s D
evel
opm
enta
l cha
lleng
eR
esea
rcha
ble
issu
es a
nd s
uppo
rtin
g ac
tions
Indi
cativ
e pa
rtne
rsO
utco
mes
Supp
ortin
g ac
tions
Des
ign
and
impl
emen
t bre
edin
g pr
ogra
ms,
in
cl. s
elec
tion
stra
tegi
es to
ena
ble
sust
aine
d ge
netic
impr
ovem
ent i
n ke
y br
eedi
ng o
bjec
tive
trai
ts w
hile
min
imiz
ing
inbr
eedi
ng a
nd it
s ef
fect
s at
her
d an
d at
pop
ulat
ion
leve
l
Cre
ate
econ
omie
s of
sca
le b
y de
velo
ping
an
d fa
cilit
atin
g or
gani
zatio
nal a
rran
gem
ents
th
roug
h fa
rmer
gro
up a
ppro
ache
s an
d co
llect
ive
actio
n
Opt
imiz
e an
imal
hea
lth a
nd d
isea
se c
ontr
ol,
thro
ugh
Iden
tifyi
ng p
rior
ity d
isea
ses
Impr
oved
ASF
man
agem
ent s
trat
egie
s
Prom
otin
g si
mpl
e ho
usin
g an
d pr
even
tive
mea
sure
s su
ch a
s ac
cess
to a
dequ
ate
feed
and
cl
ean
wat
er
Dev
ise
inex
pens
ive
anth
elm
intic
str
ateg
ies
Opt
imiz
e fe
edin
g sy
stem
s an
d in
crea
se fe
ed
reso
urce
s, in
par
ticul
ar
Test
ing
fora
ges
vari
etie
s in
clud
ing
food
–fee
d va
riet
ies
and
inte
grat
e th
em in
to c
ropp
ing
syst
ems
Opt
imiz
ing
use
of c
urre
ntly
ava
ilabl
e fe
ed
reso
urce
s, (s
trat
egic
sup
plem
enta
tion,
feed
pr
eser
vatio
n, p
urch
ase
of m
ost l
imiti
ng
nutr
ient
s)
Prom
otin
g fe
ed p
roce
ssin
g op
tions
(sim
ple
hand
cho
ppin
g; v
illag
e ba
sed
mot
or-d
riven
ch
oppe
rs; c
omm
erci
al b
ut d
ecen
tral
ized
feed
pr
oces
sing
uni
ts)
10More meat, milk and fish—by and for the poor
Val
ue c
hain
co
mpo
nent
s D
evel
opm
enta
l cha
lleng
eR
esea
rcha
ble
issu
es a
nd s
uppo
rtin
g ac
tions
Indi
cativ
e pa
rtne
rsO
utco
mes
How
to d
eliv
er r
elia
ble
quan
titie
s of
saf
er
prod
ucts
(mea
t or
live
anim
als)
from
sm
allh
olde
r sy
stem
s to
mee
t pre
fere
nces
for
lean
in u
rban
ar
eas
and
fat i
n ru
ral o
nes?
How
to in
crea
se e
ffici
ency
thro
ugh
colle
ctiv
e ac
tion
to a
chie
ve e
cono
mie
s of
sca
le?
How
to r
educ
e w
aste
?
How
to in
crea
se w
omen
’s pa
rtic
ipat
ion
in th
e po
st-h
arve
st s
uppl
y ch
ain?
How
to e
nhan
ce e
quita
ble
dist
ribu
tion
of v
alue
ad
ded
amon
g ac
tors
with
in th
e va
lue
chai
n?
Res
earc
habl
e is
sues
Is a
car
cass
gra
ding
sys
tem
req
uire
d an
d w
hat
wou
ld b
e an
app
ropr
iate
gra
ding
and
pri
cing
sy
stem
?
Doe
s th
e m
arke
t pre
fer/
segr
egat
e ca
rcas
s pa
rts
or c
uts
and
if so
, how
can
this
be
mai
nstr
eam
ed in
the
bree
ding
str
ateg
y an
d pr
icin
g sy
stem
?
How
to r
educ
e bo
ar ta
int?
Is th
ere
any
diffe
renc
e in
qua
lity
of p
rodu
cts
supp
lied
by m
en a
nd w
omen
?
Are
ther
e di
ffere
nces
in a
cces
s to
tran
spor
t and
pr
oces
sing
ser
vice
s?
Can
trad
e se
rvic
es b
e im
prov
ed th
roug
h ba
sic
man
agem
ent s
kills
?
Res
earc
h
NA
RO
Uga
nda
Indu
stri
al R
esea
rch
Inst
itute
Mak
erer
e U
nive
rsity
Supp
ortin
g ac
tions
MA
AIF
NG
Os:
Hei
fer
Proj
ect
Inte
rnat
iona
l
Priv
ate
proc
essi
ng
com
pani
es: F
resh
Cut
s;
Qua
lity
Cut
s; M
y C
hoic
e
But
cher
s
Mea
t qua
lity
crite
ria
defin
ed
with
trad
ers
and
cons
umer
s
Hig
her
qual
ity c
arca
sses
pr
oduc
ed
Hig
her
pric
es a
nd in
com
es
for
pig
prod
ucer
s
Hig
her
empl
oym
ent a
nd
inco
mes
for
trad
ers
and
proc
esse
rs
Tran
spor
tan
dpr
oces
sing
11More meat, milk and fish—by and for the poor
Val
ue c
hain
co
mpo
nent
s D
evel
opm
enta
l cha
lleng
eR
esea
rcha
ble
issu
es a
nd s
uppo
rtin
g ac
tions
Indi
cativ
e pa
rtne
rsO
utco
mes
Supp
ortin
g ac
tions
Dis
sem
inat
e w
eigh
ing
band
cal
ibra
ted
for
loca
l pig
s to
hel
p es
tabl
ish
appr
opri
ate
pric
es
Esta
blis
h gr
adin
g/qu
ality
sys
tem
s fo
r ca
rcas
ses
if ap
prop
riat
e
App
ly p
artic
ipat
ory
risk
ana
lysi
s fo
r de
velo
ping
ap
prop
riat
e lo
cal s
tand
ards
for
pork
saf
ety
App
ly B
DS
appr
oach
es fo
r st
imul
atin
g sm
all-
scal
e bu
sine
sses
for
tran
spor
t and
pro
cess
ing
serv
ices
Rai
se a
war
enes
s an
d de
velo
p di
agno
stic
aid
s fo
r de
tect
ing
cyst
icer
cosi
s-in
fect
ed a
nim
als
and
mea
t
Dev
elop
cer
tifica
tion
sche
mes
for
safe
ha
ndlin
g of
mea
t pro
duct
s
Cap
acity
bui
ldin
g on
tran
spor
t, ha
ndlin
g an
d sl
augh
ter
of p
igs
with
all
invo
lved
sta
keho
lder
s
Des
ign
of tr
acea
bilit
y sy
stem
for
pig
mea
t (lo
nger
term
)
12More meat, milk and fish—by and for the poor
Val
ue c
hain
co
mpo
nent
s D
evel
opm
enta
l cha
lleng
eR
esea
rcha
ble
issu
es a
nd s
uppo
rtin
g ac
tions
Indi
cativ
e pa
rtne
rsO
utco
mes
How
to o
rgan
ize
mar
kets
(bot
h de
man
d an
d su
pply
) for
equ
itabl
e be
nefit
s al
ong
the
chai
n?
How
to e
nsur
e ac
cess
for
low
-inc
ome
Uga
ndan
s to
saf
e m
eat a
t an
affo
rdab
le p
rice
?
Res
earc
habl
e is
sues
Mar
ket/C
onsu
mer
dem
ands
: wha
t do
mar
kets
pa
y fo
r (b
reed
, reg
ion,
spe
cific
live
wei
ght o
r si
ze, q
ualit
y)?
Mar
ket s
truc
ture
s: r
elat
ions
/tran
sact
ions
be
twee
n lo
cal a
nd u
rban
; pot
entia
l for
re
gion
al tr
ade
Mar
ket a
cces
s: is
it p
refe
rabl
e to
org
aniz
e th
e fa
rmer
s fo
r ac
cess
ing
mar
kets
or
to im
prov
e m
arke
ting
syst
ems
and
infr
astr
uctu
re (e
.g.
infr
astr
uctu
re o
f mar
kets
)?
Mar
ket t
rans
pare
ncy:
wha
t mar
ket i
nfor
mat
ion
is a
vaila
ble/
need
ed, a
nd h
ow c
ould
it b
e be
tter
diss
emin
ated
(inf
orm
atio
n sy
stem
s)?
Diff
eren
ces
in m
en’s
and
wom
en’s
acce
ss to
m
arke
ts a
nd m
arke
t inf
orm
atio
n
Intr
a-ho
useh
old
deci
sion
mak
ing
on s
ales
(w
here
, whe
n, h
ow m
any)
and
con
trol
of
bene
fits
Are
ther
e an
y as
pect
s of
trad
ing
that
are
di
fficu
lt or
soc
ially
dis
cour
aged
for
wom
en
and
poor
?
How
can
wom
en o
wni
ng p
igs
bette
r pa
rtic
ipat
e in
, and
ben
efit f
rom
mar
kets
?
Res
earc
h
NA
RO
Mak
erer
e U
nive
rsity
Supp
ortin
g ac
tions
MA
AIF
NG
Os:
Hei
fer
Proj
ect
Inte
rnat
iona
l
Incr
ease
d m
argi
ns fo
r sm
allh
olde
rs in
the
valu
e ch
ain
Sale
s of
pig
s w
ith
appr
opri
ate
wei
ght a
nd
size
acc
ordi
ng to
mar
ket
dem
ands
Org
aniz
ed m
arke
ting
of
pigs
at f
air
pric
es
Pig
owne
rs w
ell i
nfor
med
ab
out m
arke
ting
oppo
rtun
ities
Aba
ttoir
s op
erat
e cl
oser
to
thei
r fu
ll ca
paci
ty
Mar
keti
ng
13More meat, milk and fish—by and for the poor
Val
ue c
hain
co
mpo
nent
s D
evel
opm
enta
l cha
lleng
eR
esea
rcha
ble
issu
es a
nd s
uppo
rtin
g ac
tions
Indi
cativ
e pa
rtne
rsO
utco
mes
Supp
ortin
g ac
tions
Ana
lyse
the
mar
ket s
truc
ture
, con
stra
ints
and
op
port
uniti
es fo
r pi
gs a
nd p
ork,
cov
erin
g al
l ag
ents
and
act
ors
invo
lved
in p
ig m
arke
ting
incl
udin
g tr
ader
s, r
etai
lers
and
con
sum
ers
Eval
uate
and
test
opt
ions
for
coor
dina
ting
and
tran
spor
ting
bulk
gro
up s
ales
of a
nim
als
Ass
ess
the
perf
orm
ance
of d
iffer
ent m
arke
ting
serv
ices
incl
udin
g pr
ovis
ion
of m
arke
t in
form
atio
n, fa
cilit
atio
n of
mar
ket l
inka
ges,
pr
ovis
ion
of m
arke
ting
faci
litie
s, tr
ansp
ort
of p
igs
and
pigm
eat a
nd id
entif
y w
ays
of
impr
ovin
g th
em
Iden
tify
and
resp
ond
to d
eman
d-dr
iven
mar
ket
oppo
rtun
ities
for
valu
e ad
ditio
n, th
roug
h im
prov
ed p
rodu
ct q
ualit
y
Faci
litat
e lin
kage
s to
mar
ket i
nfor
mat
ion
syst
ems
oper
ated
by
othe
r pa
rtne
rs.
Gen
der-
disa
ggre
gate
d an
alys
is o
f mar
ket a
nd
serv
ices
acc
ess
14More meat, milk and fish—by and for the poor
Val
ue c
hain
co
mpo
nent
s D
evel
opm
enta
l cha
lleng
eR
esea
rcha
ble
issu
es a
nd s
uppo
rtin
g ac
tions
Indi
cativ
e pa
rtne
rsO
utco
mes
Cro
sscu
tting
is
sues
How
to o
rgan
ize
a pr
o-po
or v
alue
cha
in to
co
nsid
erab
ly in
crea
se th
e ou
tput
—w
hat a
re
esse
ntia
l com
pone
nts
and
part
ners
hips
?
Res
earc
habl
e is
sues
Impa
ct o
f val
ue c
hain
dev
elop
men
t on
wor
kloa
ds a
nd o
n co
ntro
l ove
r th
e in
com
e w
ithin
the
hous
ehol
d
Who
ben
efits
from
new
tech
nolo
gies
in
hous
ehol
ds a
nd c
omm
uniti
es (e
quity
)?
Wha
t are
ince
ntiv
es fo
r va
riou
s ke
y ac
tors
(fa
rmer
s, in
put p
rovi
ders
, tra
ders
and
ani
mal
he
alth
pro
vide
rs e
tc.)
to in
vest
in p
igs?
And
ho
w c
an th
ese
acto
rs c
oope
rate
?
Is it
feas
ible
to d
esig
n (a
) com
mon
mod
el(s
) fo
r va
lue
chai
n de
velo
pmen
t thr
ough
ana
lysi
s of
the
less
ons
lear
nt fr
om th
e di
vers
e va
lue
chai
ns, i
n pa
rtic
ular
com
pari
ng th
e pi
g va
lue
chai
ns in
Vie
tnam
?
Supp
ortin
g ac
tions
Cha
ract
eriz
atio
n of
com
plet
e va
lue
chai
ns
and
prod
uctio
n sy
stem
s in
the
targ
et lo
catio
ns
(ow
n su
rvey
s an
d ot
her
stud
ies)
at t
he s
tart
Dev
elop
indi
cato
rs o
f suc
cess
Cap
acity
bui
ldin
g at
all
stag
es
Com
pare
the
appr
oach
es a
pplie
d fo
r th
e di
ffere
nt v
alue
cha
ins
Dev
elop
an
easy
mon
itori
ng s
yste
m fo
r ho
me
cons
umpt
ion
of m
eat
Res
earc
h
NA
RO
Mak
erer
e U
nive
rsity
Supp
ortin
g ac
tions
MA
AIF
Con
trib
utio
n of
pig
pr
oduc
tion
to li
velih
oods
in
crea
sed
cons
ider
ing
tang
ible
and
inta
ngib
le
bene
fits
15More meat, milk and fish—by and for the poor
Geographic focus
The project will focus initially in the districts with higher smallholder pig concentration ensuring a gradient of market access. Higher density of pig keeping suggests inherent comparative advantage, and facilitates interventions based on creating economies of scale. Three initial zones of focus are proposed:
Value chains originating in the small-scale semi-intensive production units in Kampala and neighbouring •districts
Those originating in smallholder systems along the corridor between Kampala and Lake Albert•
Those originating in smallholder systems in the Soroti-Mbale area•
Focal zones will be confirmed after more in-depth consultation with stakeholders and the initial situational analysis is completed.
Potential for impact
The Livestock Census 2008 revealed that over 1.1 million households keep pigs, representing 17% of all households in Uganda. The vast majority keep pigs in low input-low output free-range systems. Fixing a development target of improving significantly household production by 50% in at least 5 of these households (i.e. 50,000 households) should be achievable if the necessary development investment is mobilized. Because smallholder pig systems are often managed by women (e.g. Pickering et al. 1996), at least half of the beneficiaries should be women. Associated improvements in productivity in input and service delivery and along the value chain can reduce waste and inefficiency and improve quality of the final product, thereby adding value that translates in increased employment and income; specific targets will be set after the initial assessment of the value chain. Increased production and efficiency should contribute to increased availability and access to pork products by poor consumers; more information will be needed about the structure of consumer demand for pork from smallholder systems and how it is differentiated by income group before appropriate targets for increased consumption by poor consumers can be set.
16More meat, milk and fish—by and for the poor
Components Value chain outcomes
Inputs & Services Key inputs and services for breeding, feed, and animal health accessible to both male and female smallholders
Increased access to information about best management and production practices among male and female smallholders
Conducive policy and institutional environment established
Production Appropriate levels of investment in housing and better management practices
Better selection within existing breeds, lower inbreeding index and introduction of improved genetic resources
Better on-farm feed options and better use of local feedstuffs in appropriately formulated, locally produced feed rations, with seasonal variation minimized
Reduced risk of ASF and reduced incidence of helminths and cysticercosis
Improved piglet survival and offtake rates
Transport & Processing Improved pork safety
Reduced transport and transaction costs
Marketing Lower marketing margins and higher share of price captured by producers, regardless of gender
Product and quality branding increases returns to value chain actors
Market information more widely available
17More meat, milk and fish—by and for the poor
Summary of indicators along the impact pathway that we believe can achieve these impacts.
Stakeholders in Uganda and their possible role
Stakeholder Type Role Remark
Makerere University
Veterinary Sciences
Animal Production
Agricultural Economics
Public university Conduct research activities, training
Consulted
East African Dairy Development Project (EADD)
Heifer Project International-led project, ILRI as partner
Share BDS strategies for market development
Consulted
National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO)
Public sector NARS Implement the field research activities
Consulted
National Livestock Resources Research Institute (NaLIRRI)
Public sector NARS (part of NARO)
Implement lab and field research activities
Consulted
Livestock Development Investment Project
Government project funded by AfDB
Infrastructure development, esp. slaughter slabs
To be consulted
Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF)
Government Support the field activities in all the project sites
Consulted
Danida Donor Fund development intervention and complementary research activities of national partners
To be consulted
Volunteer Efforts for Development Concerns (VEDCO)
NGO Support implementation of development intervention in smallholder households
To be consulted
Heifer Project International NGO Support implementation of development intervention, breeding schemes
To be consulted
SNV (Netherlands NGO) NGO Experience sharing on value chain development
To be consulted
Full information on references is included in the Program proposal that can be downloaded from http://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/3248