1
&zϭϯ&KK&KZWZK'Z^^KENYA SEMI-ARID LIVESTOCK ENHANCEMENT SUPPORT 
PROJECT (K-SALES) 
BASELINE SURVEY REPORT
SUBMITTED
BY
DEVINSIGHT CONSULTANTS
APRIL 2014
2
DevInsight Consultants
FY13 FOOD FOR PROGRESS KENYA SEMI-ARID LIVESTOCK 
ENHANCEMENT SUPPORT PROJECT (K-SALES) 
BASELINE SURVEY REPORT
Program: Food for Progress 
Agreement Number: FCC-615-2013/030-00
Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2013
Project Duration: 2013-2017 
Implemented by: Land O’Lakes 
Evaluation Authored by: DEVINSIGHT CONSULTANTS
DISCLAIMER: This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of 
Agriculture. It was prepared by an independent third-party evaluation firm. The author’s views 
expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of 
Agriculture or the United States Government. 
Accessibility Note: An accessible version of this document can be made available by contacting 
fas.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov 
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge K-SALES staff including Chief of Party, M&E personnel and all the 
technical staff for their support and direction during this assignment. We would also like to thank the 
farmers, the county officials and other key stakeholders in the livestock meat value chain for their time
and invaluable input towards this report. We also wouldlike to thank all our Field Research Assistants 
and other study team members who braved the challengesexperienced in the field to ensure that quality
data was collected.
4
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AFC Agricultural Finance Cooperation
APDT Annual Performance Data Table
ASAL Arid and Semi-Arid Lands
BDS Business Development Services
CIDP County Integrated Development Plans
DID Difference in Difference
FFS Farmer Field School
FGD Focus Group Discussions
FRAs Field Research Assistants
GIS Geographical Information Systems
HHHead Household Head
KARI Kenya Agricultural Research Institute
KIIS Key Informant Interviews
K-SALES Project Kenya Semi-Arid Livestock Enterprise Enhancement Support Project
PMP Performance Management Plans
SACCOs Savings and Credit Cooperatives
SHOATS Sheep and goats
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Scientists
TLUs Tropical Livestock Units
ToRs Terms of Reference
WARMA Water Resource Management Authority
WRUA Water Resource User Association
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS................................................................................................................................. 3
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................................................... 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 8
1.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................12
1.1 Livestock Production in Kenya ..........................................................................................................12
1.2 Project Background...........................................................................................................................12
1.3 The Objectives of K-SALES Project ....................................................................................................13
1.4 The Baseline Survey Objectives ........................................................................................................13
1.5 Organization of the Report ...............................................................................................................15
2.0 THE STUDY METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................15
2.1 The Survey Approach and Team .......................................................................................................15
2.1.1 Inception Meetings....................................................................................................................15
2.1.2 Situation Analysis.......................................................................................................................16
2.2 The Survey Design.............................................................................................................................16
2.2.1 Selection of Treatment and Control Sites..................................................................................16
2.2.2 Selection of Control Sites...........................................................................................................16
2.2.3 Pilot Approach............................................................................................................................17
2.2.4 Sampling and Sample Size..........................................................................................................17
2.2.5 Determination of Sample Size....................................................................................................17
2.2.6 Methods and Tools Employed in the Study ...............................................................................18
2.3 Data Entry and Analysis.....................................................................................................................20
2.3.1 Analysis of Data..........................................................................................................................20
2.3.2 Spatial Analysis of of Data..........................................................................................................20
2.4 Scope and Limitations of the Baseline Survey ..................................................................................20
3.0 THE RESULTS AND FINDINGS OF THE BASELINE SURVEY......................................................................21
3.1 Selected Characteristics of Sampled livestock producers by Sex and Age of Head..........................21
3.2FFPr SO1: Increased Agricultural Productivity ...................................................................................22
3.2.1 Livestock Production Patterns ...................................................................................................22
3.2.2 Livestock Production Values and Incomes.................................................................................24
3.2.3 Key Program Performance Indicators for Result Area...............................................................25
6
3.3 FFPr 1.2 Increased Use of Improved Agricultural Technologies and Techniques.............................25
3.3.1 Herding Practices employed by farmers in the study areas......................................................25
3.3.2 Knowledge and Use of Improved Agricultural Technologies.....................................................26
3.3.3 Key Performance Indicators and Baseline Values......................................................................29
3.4 FFPr 1.3: Improved Farm Management............................................................................................29
3.4.1 Record Keeping in Livestock Enterprises....................................................................................29
3.4.2 Roles and Responsibilities in the Livestock Enterprise ..............................................................30
3.4.3 Household decision making on livestock sales and control of proceeds...................................30
3.4.4 Key Performance Indicators.......................................................................................................32
3.5 FFPr 1.2.1: Increased Availability of Inputs.......................................................................................32
3.5.1 Access to Extension Services......................................................................................................32
3.5.2 Access to Livestock Input Markets.............................................................................................33
3.5.2 A1: Develop Business Service Providers.....................................................................................34
3.6 FFPr 1.2.2: Improved Infrastructure to Support On-Farm Production .............................................38
3.6.1 Access to water for livestock use...............................................................................................38
3.6.2 Membership and Satisfaction with Water User Associations....................................................40
3.6.3 Access to on-farm modern structures for livestock production................................................41
3.6.4 Key Program Performance Indicators........................................................................................43
3.6.5 Challenges facing Livestock Producers across the sites.............................................................44
3.7 FFPr 1.2.3: Increase Use of Financial Services ..................................................................................45
3.7.1 Access to credit..........................................................................................................................45
3.7.2 Key Program Indicator and their baseline value........................................................................47
3.8 FFPr SO2: Expanded Trade of Agricultural Products.........................................................................47
3.8.1 FFPr 2.1: Increased Value added to Post-Production Agricultural Markets ..............................47
3.8.2 FFPr 2.1.2 Increasred Efficiency of post-production processes.................................................50
3.8.3 Some Opportunities for K-SALES Program and other stakeholders ..........................................51
3.8.4 Key Performance Indicators and their baseline values..............................................................52
3.9 FFPr 2.2 Increased Access to Markets to sell Agricultural Products.................................................53
3.9.1 Key Features of livestock markets in study counties.................................................................53
3.9.2 Household incomes from sale of Livestock................................................................................53
3.9.3 Livestock Farm-gate prices.........................................................................................................54
3.9.4 Key Performance Indicator…………………………………………………………………………………………………….55
7
3.10 Impact Indicators............................................................................................................................56
3.10.1 Household Food Security .........................................................................................................56
3.11 Re-examining K-SALES Evaluation Design.......................................................................................57
3.12 Policy Issues and Implications.........................................................................................................58
3.11.1 The Livestock Sub-Sector.........................................................................................................58
3.11.2 Devolution and Opportunities for expanding Livestock sub-sector growth............................59
4.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................64
4.1 CONCLUSION.....................................................................................................................................64
4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................67
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................................68
ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR BASELINE SURVEY ..........................................................................69
ANNEX 2: DETAILED GENDER ANALYSIS COMPONENT REPORT.................................................................84
ANNEX 3: HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE .................................................................................................100
ANNEX 4: CHECKLIST FOR KEY INFORMANTS ...........................................................................................112
ANNEX 5: (Removed).......................................................................................................................................
ANNEX 6: CHECKLIST FOR FGDS................................................................................................................120
ANNEX 7: AVERAGE BODY SCORE CONDITION.........................................................................................125
ANNEX 8: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE DATA TABLE .....................................................................................126
ANNEX 9: TABLES ......................................................................................................................................140
8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The livestock sub-sector is vital to the Kenya’s economy. The sector employs close to 50 percent of Kenya’s 
agricultural labour force and is a primary source of livelihoods for the 6 million pastoralists and agro￾pastoralists that live in the country’s vast arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs). However, the sub- sector’s 
potential for poverty-reducing opportunities has largely been untapped, due to unfavorable government 
policies that have concentrated productive resources in the high potential areas. In the ASALs (which 
constitute more than 80% of Kenya’s landmass) lies an immense base of natural resources endowment
for the development of the meat, and associated by products such as hides and skins.
Generally, the livestock sub sector has been faced with many challenges and constraints that have
impacted negatively on its growth rate. These include weak policy and legal frameworks, low livestock
productivity, erratic and unpredictable weather conditions, inadequate market and marketing
infrastructure and shortage of water, which have affect the livestock offtake and quality and quantity of
meat supply to meet local and export markets. This has been the situation in Meru, Tharaka-Nithi, Kitui,
Makueni, Taita Taveta, and Machakos meatsub-sectorsthat are targeted by the Kenya Semi-AridLivestock 
Enhancement Support (K-SALES) Project funded by USDA and implemented by Land O’Lakes. The overall 
objective of the K-SALES Project is to improve the productivity and competitiveness of the livestock value
chains by addressing the demand and supply side constraints in these counties. Its specific objectives are 
to increase productivity of live animals and meat (cattle and shoat), hides and skins value chains; and
expand trade of agricultural products (Domestic, Regional, and International).
To understand the current status of meat value chain and to ensure participation of key stakeholders in
the development of sustainable initiatives, Land O’Lakes commissioned a baseline study in March 2014.
This study was undertaken by DevInsight Consultants. The main objective of the baseline study was to
benchmark the program’s performance indicators and obtain more information on the qualitative
measures and weak links in the meat value chain to guide program design. The baseline survey covered
the various players in the meat value chain in the targeted counties. It employed a combination of
household surveys, focused group discussions, key informants interviews, and business service providers
and processors interview to achieve its objectives. This was undertaken within the quasi-experimental
design of the project’s evaluation involving treatment and control sites in each county.
This report details the findings of the baseline survey regarding the status of livestock production, input
service provision, marketing and processing and culminates by giving recommendations for the project. It 
also presents the baseline values of the key program indicators upon which progress will be measured
and provides further suggestions on the future monitoring of the progress and impact of the program.
This is presented in the updated Annual Performance Data Table in Annex 9 of this report. Key findings
of the status and entry points for project are presented below.
9
Livestock Production: The survey reveals growing preference of goats due to first maturity, high fecundity, 
resilience to drought and ease of marketing although the communities still place high value on cattle. 
There is low to moderate adoption of improved livestock husbandry and farm management practices with 
disease control measures such as de-worming, vaccinations and hand spraying being widely practiced 
across the six counties except for Taita Taveta. Use of breeding improvement servicessuch as bullschemes
and artificial insemination is not widely practiced yet these are critical for production of higher value 
breeds that would fetch better markets and higher economic returns for the farmers. With regard to farm 
management practice, record keeping is least practiced across all the sites. Livestock production is still
largely taken as a way of life and there is need for extensive farmer education for commercial orientation.
Water for livestock production is a challenge in most of the program sites especially during the dry
seasons. The current practice is to move with the livestock in search of water. Distances travelled to water 
points increases significantly during dry seasons with water shortage placing a heavier burden on women 
as they are also responsible for meeting other household water needs and chores. There is also need to 
promote water use and conservation efforts by strengthening water resource user associations for 
effective management of the scarce resource. Further support from the county governments and other 
development partners is also needed in developing appropriate community water supply systems for
livestock and domestic use.
This calls for integrated and comprehensive programs to enhance access to productivity-enhancing
affordable farm inputs, water for livestock use, disease control, credit, extension services and measures
to manage other factors such as human wildlife conflict and insecurity due to cattle rustling thatcontinue 
to impact negatively on the productivity of the sector. From the study, it appears the current extension 
system and technology and support is strong on providing veterinary care service but weaker on building
other skills such as breeding, value addition, farm management and nutrition.
Business Service Providers: With regards to service providers, agrovets are the most common livestock
input service providers providing a range of services from animal health services and are also stockiest of 
farm inputs. Adoption of farm management practices such as record keeping is low and at its basic level. 
Lack of credit is also cited as a key constraint in acquiring stock. Other challenges facing service providers
in the livestock meat value chain were lack of appreciation of the services by livestock producers, implying 
need for demand-side pull factors such as general farmer education to enhance demand for the various 
livestock production services offered. High cost of animal health service delivery is also a major hindrance 
with farmers responding by carrying out diagnosis by themselves, buying antibiotics over the counter and 
administering treatment to their animals. Other challenges cited were competition from what was
described as uncertified practitioners and presence of counterfeit drugs in the market is also a key 
concern for the service providers as this also contribute to the distrust among livestock producers.
10
Livestock Processors: From the study, use of modern and specialized facilities such as cold storage, digital 
weighing machines and specialised knives for flaying is lacking. Proper cold chain management was lacking 
yet it is essential for preservation of meat quality to fetch premium prices in the market. Similarly, lack of 
awareness of the quality standard certifications such as HACCAP and observation of recommended
hygiene standards are major concerns. Most of the processing facilities require upgrading and renovation 
and most operate under-capacity as they serve the local market and are only active on market days, which
is usually once a week. Good management practices such as record keeping is at basic levels.
Tanneries for effective value-addition and processing of hides and skin are lacking in all the study sites
with wet salting being used as the main method of preservation. Erratic water and power supply, lack of
access to credit were some of the other challenges facing livestock processors in the study sites.
Marketing of Livestock and Livestock By-Products: Results of this study indicate limited value addition
at farm level. There are few marketing associations with marketing being dominated by middlemen.
Selling of livestock is based on negotiated prices depending on observable characteristics of the animal
such as body condition and age. Most of the study sites have designated places and days for selling
livestock except for Taita Taveta and Tigania East in Meru. Most of the livestock market places lack basic
infrastructure such as watering troughs. At the processors level, the potential for value addition to bones,
horns and hooves is largely unexploited.
In this regard, developing reliable market infrastructures ought to be a major priority. On one hand, the
communities need to intensify their demand for this through the local leadership with the county
governments prioritizing these needs to spur local development. Other infrastructural facilities like good
roads and rural electrification that impact livestock marketing also need to be addressed.
Building Institutional capacities: The role of institutions in promoting sustainable livestock production
especially in the ASALs cannot be overemphasized. Farmer groups are one way of ensuring a collective
bargaining power. As per study findings, farmer groups, marketing associations and water user
associations are either non-existent or faced with serious management challenges. Perhaps capacity
building in leadership and governance to enable them function effectively and channel livestock
producers’ interests. At the higher level, there are numerous institutions and authorities such as Drought 
Management Authority which are critical for livelihoods in the ASALs yet there are roles are not yet known. 
There is need for awareness creation and harmonization of their roles to serve local interestsand priorities
of livestock sub-sector in each of the counties.
11
This survey identifies a number of opportunities for enhancing productivity and competitiveness of the
meat value chain at various levels.
At farm level
• Support for rehabilitation of water infrastructure and strengthening of water management
committees remain urgent
• Increasing access to affordable recommended productivity-enhancing practices and technologies
such as breeding improvement programs is critical. Use of participatory methodologies such as the
farmer field school will enable farmers to test and validate some of the technologies for wide-scale
adoption and to mainstream issues of gender.
• Mechanisms to enhance access to credit through alternative collateral arrangements will be vital
• Facilitating formation and strengthening of producer and marketing associations to provide farmers
with platforms for better negotiation to reduce exploitation by middlemen
• Farmer education on importance of recommended technologies and practices
At service provider level
• Capacity building on recommended technologies and farm management practices
• Enhance linkages to various input suppliers
• Enhance linkages to financial service providers
At processor level
• Capacity building on meat handling and hygiene practices and standards such as HACCAP and Good
Manufacturing Practices
• Enhancing linkages to financial institutions to acquire modern facilities
• Support for rehabilitation or upgrading of processing facilities
Market and Marketing Infrastructure
• Support for market infrastructure
• Development of market information and dissemination systems
• Creation of market linkages
• Facilitate formation and strengthening of farmer groups
County Level
• Review and development of appropriate livestock policies
• Support for building and strengthening public-private partnerships in livestock sub-sector
12
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Livestock Production in Kenya
Livestock especially cattle, goats, sheep and chicken are kept for food production, traction, hides,manure,
risk diversification and as alternatives to formal financing in most African smallholder production systems 
(Marstrand et al., 2004). In Kenya, livestock contribute about 42% of the agriculturaloutput; 35% of this 
comes from beef cattle.
There are three main beef cattle production systems in Kenya: nomadic pastoralism, agro-pastoralism and 
ranching. Nomadic pastoralism and agro-pastoralism contribute about 65% of total beef output in Kenya, 
while the rest is obtained from ranches and a small proportion of dairy-culls (Omiti and Irungu, 2002). 
Further, it is estimated that over 60 % of livestock in Kenya is kept by pastoralists in the arid and semi-arid 
lands (which constitute about 80% of Kenya’s landmass) providing employment to about 90% of the 
population in those areas and contributing nearly 95% of their income (KIPPRA, 2009; Otieno, 2008).
However, more than 50% of pastoralists in Kenya live below the poverty line, i.e., they survive on lessthan
USD$1 per day (Thornton et al., 2007). For instance, public funds allocated to livestock development are 
low, less than 10% of the annual national development expenditure (Mugunieri et al., 2011; Otieno, 2008). 
Consequently, most farmers have limited access to better farm technologies, requisite skills and market
services. Further, weak linkages between research-extension service providers and farmers contribute to 
low and/or inappropriate use of inputs by farmers. As a result, agricultural productivity and growth are 
relatively low; yet the agricultural sector is expected to play an important role as the engine of national 
economic development (Mugunieri and Omiti, 2007; Oluoch- Kosura, 2010).As noted by Larsen et al. 
(2009), improving the efficiency and productivity of livestock enterprises is important for enhancing 
economic growth and reducing poverty in agriculture-dependent developing countries such as Kenya, this 
is particularly so in semi-arid areas of Kenya where livestock rearing is the main source of livelihood. This 
is the objective of the K-SALES project.
1.2 Project Background
Land O’Lakes is implementing the Kenya Semi-Arid Livestock Enhancement Support (K-SALES) Project
with the overall objective of improving the productivity and competitiveness of the livestock value chains
in Meru, Tharaka-Nithi, Kitui, Makueni, Taita Taveta, and Machakos Counties.
For activities that involve value-addition, K-SALES will directly work with and assist Kenyan organizations
such as Business Development Service (BDS) providers, meat processors, wholesalers, financial service
providers and retailers. An estimated 80,000 farmers, 700 providers of livestock inputs and services, and
13
2,500 employees of livestock processing enterprises (slaughterhouses and butcheries) are anticipated
to benefit.
1.3 The Objectives of K-SALES Project
K-SALES aim to achieve the following objectives
• Increase productivity of live animal and meat (cattle and shoat), and hides and skins value chains by
enhancing the availability of productivity and quality enhancing inputs, technologies and services,
while increasing adoption of improved livestock and farm management techniques
• The K-SALES Business Development and Water Development Funds will provide grants to leverage
private financing for increased investment in business expansion, improved technologies and
infrastructure, while the Capacity Building Fund will leverage grants to facilitate peer-to-peer learning
• Following an increase in productivity, the project will increase producer and processor capacity in
providing hygienic quality meats, hides and skins. K-SALES will stimulate and leverage public and
private investment in infrastructure and technologies through matching grants. The project will
strengthen vertical and horizontal linkages through capacity building and mentorships to improve
linkages between buyers and sellers, buy-down risk of investment and reduce transaction costs
1.4 The Baseline Survey Objectives
The purpose of this baseline survey was three-fold. First, wasto obtain more information on theprevailing 
livestock production, marketing and socio-economic situation of the targeted households and firms to aid 
design of program interventions. Secondly, to identify gender gaps and constraints across theprogram 
sites to ensure women and youth specific issues are adequately addressed and that they also benefit from 
the program initiatives along the meat value chain. Thirdly, was to benchmark K-SALES performance 
indicators by obtaining their baseline values to provide basis of assessing program at mid- term and final 
evaluation.
The specific objectives of the baseline survey were to:
• Assess the prevailing conditions relating to livestock (beef and shoat –sheep and goats) value chains
where K-SALES plans interventions
• Establish both qualitative and quantitative baseline information for the indicators for which the
project will regularly measure performance
• Gather findings in light of which the annual targets for the indicators will be established or validated
in the Performance Management Plan (PMP). Consulting firm will be required to provide
recommendations on appropriateness of indicators and targets set as contained in the project PMP,
and suggest improvements as appropriate.
14
• Establish quantitative and qualitative methodologies for specific indicators according to which
subsequent data will be collected and compared to track and evaluate the project’s progress and
impact over the project lifespan,
• Gather necessary information regarding the situation and challenges on ground to make appropriate
implementation decisions to maximize efficiency, effectiveness and impact of the project,
• Explain and/or validate the relevance and potential impact of K-SALES to key stakeholders,
• Incorporate stakeholder views and ensure strong partnerships, and
• Generate accurate information that can be used by Government of Kenya, Governments of targeted
Counties, partners and stakeholders in developing the livestock sector.
To meet the purpose and specific objectives, this baseline survey study was expected to answer critical
questions in each of them following categories targeting key players in the meat value chain such as
livestock producers, marketing associations, business service providers, livestock processors and
prospective partners.
The Gender Analysis component of the study aimed at assessing and identifying gender gaps and
constraints across the meat value chain to ensure women and youth specific issues are adequately
addressed and that they also benefit from the program initiatives along the meat value chain. Its specific
objectives were:
a. To obtain information regarding Gender roles, power dynamic, asset ownership and
management, and decision making related to Livestock production and marketing
b. To identify gender gaps and constraints to address in the project work plan
c. To understand factors that influence power and gender
d. By understanding the above the project will enhance the competitiveness of meat value chains
by reducing inefficiencies that originate from gender-based constraints.
e. Increase the opportunities for all and particularly women who may have been disadvantaged at
all levels of the chain due to gender constraints
The detailed Terms of Reference for the assignment and the detailed report on the Gender Analysis
Component of the Baseline Survey are attached in Annex 1 and 2 of this report.
15
1.5 Organization of the Report
This segment has provided a snapshot of the livestock sub-sector, the project objectives including the
purpose of the baseline survey. The Section Two gives a detailed explanation of the methodology
employed in the assignment while Section Three presents the results and findings of the baseline survey
and is organized by the K-SALES Program Results Framework. In Section Three, the selected characteristics
of sampled units are first presented, followed by presentation of broad results and findings (both 
quantitative and qualitative information), comparing the results from targeted counties and cross-cutting 
issues of gender under each Result Area. Each result section culminates by highlightingthe key program 
performance indicators (as per the PMP and Annual Performance Data Table, APDT), their baseline values,
suggested revisions on the targets and future monitoring of the indicator. Additional performance 
indicators are also presented for consideration based on the results from surveyand other studies. The 
last section of the document presents the conclusions and recommendations of the baseline value, 
providing mostly qualitative information to aid design of interventions under the K- SALES Program with
the updated APDT with validated baseline values presented in Annex 9 of the report.
2.0 THE STUDY METHODOLOGY
Under this section, the procedures and methodologies employed by the consultants to achieve the
objectives of this assignment are presented and discussed.
2.1 The Survey Approach and Team
The team comprised of four lead consultants with expertise in four areas namely: Experimental study
design, Monitoring and Evaluation, Gender Analysis and Spatial Analysis. Other team members were 5 –
Team Leaders who led and supervised data collection in the six targeted counties; three gender anchors
who led gender analysis across the study sites; and twenty-five Field Research Assistants (FRAs) who
interviewed and administered household’s questionnaire across all the sites. Training and pre-testing
were duly conducted for the study team to ensure consistency in application of the tools and collection
of data. The other team members were the K-SALES project staff who were also directly involved in
mapping of the interventions and control sites and mobilizing stakeholders for various processes during
the field visits.
2.1.1 Inception Meetings
Two inception meetings were held with Land O’Lakes K-SALES staff in Nairobi before commencement of
data collection. These meetings were aimed at reviewing and clarifying the terms of reference (TORs) of
the assignment and responsibilities of the consultants, as well as to discuss and agree on the approaches
and proposed tools, sampling procedure and revised work plan. The second stage inception meetings
involved the team of consultants and the various county officials before the start of the exercise. During
these meetings, the consultants’ clarified the objectives of the exercise and processes of data collection
16
and sought support from the county officials in mobilization of various stakeholders in the value chain
for the baseline survey.
2.1.2 Situation Analysis
The study team reviewed a number of documents to gain deeper insights into the project objectives.
These included the program documents, evaluation plan and performance managing plan (PMP). Other
documents reviewed were the national and County Integrated Development Plans (CIDP) which was
critical in highlighting county level livestock sector plans to aid effective engagement with various
categories of respondents during the survey. The list of documents reviewed in this study can be found
in the reference section of this report.
2.2 The Survey Design
2.2.1 Selection of Treatment and Control Sites
K-SALES project has adopted a Quasi-Experimental design in its approach to impact evaluation, central
to which is the identification of treatment and control sites in each target county. The selection of the
treatment and control were guided by several key factors to ensure that the two sites had similar
characteristics except for the program intervention. In selecting the treatment sites, the followingfactors
were considered:
a) Program objectives; that the areas selected meet the criteria set out for support in the various
program components such a livestock marketing, water infrastructure, value addition e.t.c
b) Consultations with county livestock and water officialsregarding on-going initiatives, county priorities 
and plans for developing the livestock sector: This was to ensure synergy with planned county
initiatives in the livestock sector
c) Enterprise of interest: cattle, sheep or goats depending on county context
d) Livestock population density (Tropical Livestock Units, TLUs)
1
.
2.2.2 Selection of Control Sites
Once the program intervention sites were identified, the study team proceeded and identified the control 
sites in each county. A number of considerations were taken into account to arrive at the controlsites:
a) Phased program implementation: The control sites were identified from the envisaged expansion
sites for the program under phased implementation approach. For example, a site serving as a control 
of the program for year 1 and year 2 may become a program implementation site at the end of year 
2 of the program. This mitigates against ethical issues in identification and use of control groups.
1 Tropical Livestock Units (TLU) provides a convenient method for quantifying a wide range of different livestock types and sizes in a standardised
manner. TLU was computed as follows, 1 TLU = Cattle 0.7; Sheep/Goats: 0.11.
17
b) Comparative Analysis of Livestock Population, Agro-ecological zone and market access: This was
aided by spatial analysis. GIS Maps of livestock population (Tropical Livestock Units, TLUs), market
access and agro-ecological zones were overlaid and analyzed to ensure that the treatment and control 
sites have similar characteristics for the evaluation design to hold. The study team used GIS analysis 
to identify control sites with similar characteristics to treatment groups within the same counties.
c) Consultation with the County Officials: With the indicative treatment and control sites mapped and
identified using GIS, the study team held consultations with the county livestock and water officials
regarding other characteristics of the selected sites. The purpose of these meetings was to identify
other on-going initiatives to avoid risk of contamination of control sites. The sites selected and
sampled for the survey are presented in Table 1.
2.2.3 Pilot Approach
With the identification of the treatment and control sites completed, the field exercise was rolled out on
26th March 2014 on a pilot basis, with Kitui serving as the pilot county. The idea of the pilot was to facilitate 
learning among the team members for smoother roll-out in the other counties. Piloting of the exercise 
was a great success as entry points for the projects were clearly identified and jointly agreed upon by the
consultants and K-SALES team.
2.2.4 Sampling and Sample Size
The survey employed a three-stage purposive sampling technique as follows. In the first stage, the study
targeted the 6 targeted counties of Meru, Tharaka-Nithi, Kitui, Makueni, Taita Taveta, and Machakos.
Within the counties, the baseline survey team liaised with county officials and used GIS overlay maps to
identify the treatment and control sites as discussed above. Within the identified sites, the team liaised
with the county officials to identify existing livestock producer organizations – forming the second stage
of the procedure. The agreed upon sampled was distributed according to the membership of the groups
in parts of Kitui, Tharaka and Makueni. However, in most of the study sites, no organized livestock
producer groups were found and thus the team worked with the sub-county and local administration in
identification of suitable locations, sub locations and villages with high potential of livestock production
for sampling and actual survey.
2.2.5 Determination of Sample Size
K-SALES project is targeting 80,000 smallholder livestock farmers distributed across the 6 counties. Given 
that the target population is more than 10,000, the sample size for this baseline survey was determined
using Fischer’s (1998) formula2 as shown below:
18
n = Z2
pq D/ d22
Where:
n = Minimum sample size (for population >10,000) required.
Z = Standard normal deviate at the required confidence level, (set at 1.96 corresponding to 95%,
Confidence Level adopted for this study).
p = Population proportion estimated to be below the poverty line (stated as more than 60% for ASALs
from Government of Kenya estimates).
q = 1-p
d = Degree of accuracy required (usually set at 0.05).
D = Design effect taken to be 2 in this case since there is also the non-participating group
Therefore, on substitution:
= 1.962 𝑥𝑥 0.60 𝑥𝑥 (1 − 0.60)𝑋𝑋 2
0.052
This gives a total sample of 738 households in all sites, distributed across the 6 counties. This wasfurther 
adjusted by 60% to arrive at 1200 livestock smallholder farm households, with 200 households sampled in each 
county with equal distribution across treatment and control sites.
Sampling for Business Service Providers and Livestock Processors
The survey team collected data from 60 livestock service providers distributed across the 6 targeted
counties. Key consideration was given to gender, convenience, among other factors that were agreed on
with the K-SALES program team. 6 livestock processors were targeted for data collection from each of the
program targeted counties.
2.2.6 Methods and Tools Employed in the Study
This study employed a number of quantitative and qualitative techniques to achieve the study objectives.
These are:
Household Survey: The main objective of the household survey was to obtain quantitative information on 
livestock production, use of various technologies, marketing and households’ incomes sources and
earning, among other factors related to livestock meat value chain. A total of 1219 households were
interviewed in this study. The household questionnaires were administered by field research assistants,
recruited and trained by the core study team. A copy of the household questionnaire used in this study
can be obtained from Annex 3.
2 Use of other sampling techniques is limited due to paucity of data on earlier studies covering all the 6 targetedcounties
19
Key Informant Interviews (KIIs): Interviews were conducted with various stakeholders in the meat value
chain such as livestock producers, input service providers, livestock processors, opinion leaders, county
officials, financial service providers, water user associations’ officials to provide more insights into the
project’s objectives, activities, challenges and outcomes. The checklist used for KIIs is provided in Annex
4 while those interviewed in Annex 6.
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): A total of 30 FGDs were held with various stakeholders across the value 
chain in the six counties. At farm level, 3 focus group discussions were held separately for men, youth and 
women in each county to gain additional insights into gender issues affecting participation and adoption
of various recommended farm and herding practices. The two other focus group discussions in each 
county were held with livestock input service providers and processors in each county to obtain
information on some of the opportunities and challenges there-in. The checklists forall the FGDs are
provided in Annex 6 while the list of participants is in Annex 5.
Table 1: summary of the methodology used in the study
County Treatment and Control sites Number
households
interviewed
of FGDs
conducted
Number
conducted
of KIIs
Machakos Treatment site – Sub-County
Mwala- Masii ward 
98 5 6
Control sites–Yatta Sub-County -
Matuu ward
 92
Makueni Treatment Site –Kathonzweni Sub
County Kitise – Kithuki ward
102 5 7
Control Site – Kibwezi Sub-County -
Kibwezi east ward; 98
Kitui Treatment --- Mwingi Central sub
county – Mumuni and Kitui East –
Kauwi ward
101 5 7
Control Site ----- Kitui South-sub
county - Ikutha ward
103
Meru Treatment-------- Tigania East sub￾county
105 5 5
Control------------Igembe North sub￾county
108
Taita Taveta Treatment - Taita taveta Sub￾county: Mahoo and Ngarigashe
99 5 9
Control– Voi Sub-County Maungu 
and Kasigau Locations
103
Tharaka Nithi Treatment: Tharaka North Sub￾County, Kathangacini Location
104 5 7
Control:Chuka-Igambangombe Sub￾County, Mutino Location
106
Total 1219 30 FGDs 41 KIIs
20
2.3 Data Entry and Analysis
Farm Level data: The data collected from the 1219 smallholder livestock farmers was entered into
Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS), cleaned and analyzed accordingly. Data entry was
undertaken hand in hand with data collection so as to meet the strict deadlines for the assignment. 
Livestock Processors and Service Providers Data: These will be entered into MS-Excel and analyzed
accordingly. Data is presented in bar graphs and chart where relevant.
2.3.1 Analysis of Data
The survey results have been disaggregated and presented by county, treatment and control farmers and
by sex and age of the farmer where these are relevant. For the qualitative information, the information 
collected was collated and has been interwoven with the data from household survey in the findings
section of this report. In carrying out the analysis, the study team was largely guided by theToRs and
the Performance Monitoring Plans that clarify the definitions of the indicators and the approaches to 
collecting the information and computing the indicators. The data has been presented using bar charts,
graphs, tables where suitable.
2.3.2 Spatial Analysis of Data
GIS provides a commonly understood and powerful framework for collecting, organizing, and managing
structured data. It can enable visualization of project locations and the related information such as
completed, ongoing, number of beneficiaries, and project type among others. It has potential to go
beyond visualization to more complex applications namely spatial analysis, where intervention impacts
scenarios can be simulated. In this work its use will be limited to the visualization of the project indicators.
The visual display of this information is expected to reveal patterns and relationships that may not be 
apparent in tabular displays and thus aid in impact evaluation by displaying information on amap and 
helping staff visualize changes over time. To achieve this, the various important data for this process will 
be given spatial meaning and intervention impacts visualized through a series of productsthat will include; 
status, comparison and trend maps.
2.4 Scope and Limitations of the Baseline Survey
This baseline survey sought to establish the status of key enterprises across the meat value chain. The
tools used were designed to elicit data that was sometimes based on opinions and recall as accurate
records were lacking especially at the household. The main disadvantage of this approach is failure of
the respondents to provide accurate information on the past events. Heavy downpour that was
experienced in Meru and Taita Taveta during data collection made some areas inaccessible. While
distance between householdsin the largely ASAL areas was a major hindrance to data collection. Similarly, 
distance between treatment and control sites contributed to delay in data collection as the study teams 
traversed the vast counties. The study also relied on secondary data that were provided by the County
officials, this was sometimes incomplete and not forthcoming.
21
3.0 THE RESULTS AND FINDINGS OF THE BASELINE SURVEY
The following section presents the findings of K-SALES project survey conducted in the 
month of March and April 2014, covering the meat value chain in Meru, Tharaka Nithi, Taita 
Taveta, Makueni, Kitui and Machakos counties. This section is organized by the K-SALES 
Project Results Framework.
3.1 Selected Characteristics of Sampled livestock producers by Sex and Age of Head
Table 2 presents some selected household characteristics across the study counties. Mean 
household size ranged from 5.1 persons in Machakos to 7 persons in Meru and Kitui counties 
with sample average of 6.3. This is consistent with national statistics that put average 
household size at 6 persons (KNBS, 2009). On the other hand, average age of head of 
household varied from 52.5 in Machakos to 45.1 in Meru with sample mean of 49.8 years. 
Female-headed households are relatively older (55.6) compared to male-headed 
households (48.9). However, a higher proportion of male heads of households (50.1%)
reported attaining primary and above level of education as compared to the female headed 
ones (27%). This also mirrors earlier studies that observed that males have better access to 
education in the most rural areas of Kenya.
Table 2: Selected Socio-demographic characteristics of sampled HHholds
Average
household
size
Me
an
age 
(In
year
s)
% 
attaining
primary
education
and above
% citing
crop income
astheir main
occupation
% citing
livestock as 
theirmain
occupation
% citing
mixed farming
as
their main
occupation
No of
years in
keeping
livestock
Total Size of
Land owned
by the
Househol
d(Acres)
Whole
sample 6.3 49.8 46.8
8.4
7.5
55.8
19.0
15.5
Male 6.4 48.9 50.1 8.3 7.2 53.8 20.3 16.1
Female 5.8 55.6 26.9 9.6 9.6 68.1 18.1 13.4
Below 35
years old 4.7 29.8 58.4
7.8
6.6
44.6
7.5
9.5
Above 35
years old 6.5 53.1 44.8
8.5
7.7
57.8
20.7
16.7
Meru 7.0 45.1 35.2 10.5 13.3 61.4 17.4 9.3
Tharaka
Nithi 6.4 48.2 31.0
15.2
2.4
71.0
20.5
15.3
Kitui 7.0 52.3 54.3 10.4 9.9 42.1 21.0 22.2
Makueni 5.9 51.5 46.0 1.5 2.5 65.2 16.7 20.2
Taita
Taveta 6.2 50.0 57.8
5.9
13.5
38.4
19.2
9.6
Machakos 5.1 52.5 60.0 6.1 3.4 54.7 19.0 17
22
This is a major bottleneck in women acting freely and fulfilling their potential as full and equal members
of society. Lack of education limits the process by which women access information and therefore capacity 
building activities by extension services need to be participatory and hands on if women are to gain 
knowledge needed to improve productivity. As case studies presented in Annex 2 further reveal, women 
who stand out as business service providers had better chances to participate in the higher levels of the 
value chain because of access to education and training opportunities. Mixed farming (both livestock and 
crop farming i.e agro-pastoralism) is the main source of livelihoods in the study sites (by 58% of the 
respondents). Higher proportion (68.1%) of female-headed households depend on mixed farming as 
compared to the male-headed households. This corroborates the gender analysis componentfindings that 
support for livestock enterprise and related interventions in the meat value-chain will be more beneficial
to women if well-integrated with support for crop production. Thisis also clearlyarticulated in the K-SALES
program interventions. Similarly, those below 35 years of age are less dependent on mixed farming 
(44.6%) as opposed to the older generation (57.8%), perhaps an indication of better access to other 
livelihood options or limited access to agro-pastoral productive resources such as land. Average years 
spent in rearing livestock shows that it is an age old practice although majority of the sampled households
(over 80%) stated acquiring initial herd through purchase.
Generally, livestock producers in Kitui and Makueni own large tracts of land (between 22.2 acres and
20.2 acres, respectively) with the lowest ownership being recorded in Meru (9.3 acres) and Taita Taveta
(9.6 acres). Male headed households and those above 35 years of age have significantly large tracts of
land across the 6 counties (16.1 acres and 16.7 acres). With regards to land use, about half of the land
(49.7%) was put to grazing of livestock (including fodder) as compared to other uses such as cropping.
3.2 FFPr SO1: Increased Agricultural Productivity
3.2.1 Livestock Production Patterns
The main livestock types kept by farmers in the study areas are cattle, sheep and goats (Table 3). Notably, 
most farmers keep indigenous breeds with improved breeds accounting for less than 30% of the total 
herd. The major breeds of cattle are small African zebu, boran and crosses (boran and sahiwal).Goats kept 
are mainly boran (Galla Goat) and small east African goats, while sheep are Black Persian Head (Somali 
sheep) and red Maasai. Choice of livestock breed is influenced by a number of factors including tolerance
to drought, availability of capital, and ease of management, returns, and marketability. Indigenous breeds 
of cattle, goats and sheep are perceived to have high tolerance to drought and are generally preferred 
across the study counties.
While respondents across the study sites place high value on cattle, they preferred mixed livestock species
with growing preference for goats due to their fast maturity, resilience to drought, ease of
23
herding and marketing and efficient feeding habits. This mix of species is good for the sustainable use of
rangeland ecosystem that is best utilized by a mix of browser and grazers. Goats are also preferred by
women as less land is needed for rearing and the enterprise is also less labor intensive. This allows women 
to balance labor needs during household labor peaks (see Gender Analysis Report in Annex 2). Women
farmers consulted across the sites also disclosed that goats and sheep are easily sold off tomeet day 
to day family needs, which is also a key factor for preference by women. Women, because of their
nurturing roles, are always focusing on securing household welfare and livestock for contributionto 
supplementing nutrition through supply of milk thus endears goat rearing. Therefore in choosing breed as
a technology, dual purpose breed could be preferred alongside the pure meat breeds.
Across the study sites, cattle herd size ranged from 6.0 in Tharaka to 11.7 in Taita Taveta with sample
mean of 8.9 while that of shoats ranged from 18.1 in Machakos to 54.7 in Taita Taveta with whole average 
of 44.7 animals. Female-headed households had significantly lower herd size across the study sites. This 
supports the gender analysis study that disclosed that ownership and control of livestock is a preserve of 
the men. While these areas are traditionally known to have high livestock density, these results attest to 
huge livestock losses mostly attributed to drought in 2000 by those consulted during the baseline survey.
In some of the counties such as Taita Taveta, declining herd size is attributed to shrinking grazing lands as 
a result of acquisition and sub-division of grazing lands for human settlements. Shrinking land size for
grazing presents an opportunity to facilitate groups of farmers to produce commercially in areas 
developing the mixed farming systems.
Table 3: Distribution of Livestock by type and breed
Sex County
Livestock
type
Whole
sample Male Female Meru
Tharaka
Nithi Kitui Makueni
Taita
Taveta Machakos
Beef Herd size 8.9 9.2 6.6 9.7 6.0 7.0 10.5 11.5 10.4
% of cattle
improved 29.4 28.9 38.7 23.0 16.6 22.1 33.5 30.2 51.5
Average Body
Condition Score 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.8 3.2 2.6
Goats Herd size 28.5 30.3 15.2 25.7 16.9 35.7 37.5 29.4 13.7
% of improved
goats 46.1 47.2 15.8 59.2 15.8 36.8 54.0 40.6 29.2
Average Body
Condition Score 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.7 3.0 3.2 2.9
Sheep Herd size 16.2 16.6 5.8 16.8 7.3 12.0 13.0 25.4 4.4
% of improved
sheep 42.6 41.5 - 31.7 27.5 30.9 56.0 57.2 0.0
Average Body
Condition Score 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.8 3.1 3.4 2.9
24
Reported Average Body Condition Score3 for the various livestock types varied from 2.7 among the cattle 
to 2.8 among the shoats. This score indicates generally fair availability of pasture and fair care by livestock 
producers in the study sites. Generally, Taita Taveta recorded the highest average body score conditions
across the sites. The male-headed households had disproportionately higherscores as compared with the 
female-headed ones, perhaps an indication of better access to resources including distant pastures and 
ownership of large tracts of land. In addition, disease control and treatment skills gained from carrying 
out certain roles are customarily passed down to boys and not girls. This does not prepare the female￾headed households to efficiently manage their herd without external assistance. Detailed description of 
Average Body Condition Score and how it was estimated in this study is provided in Annex 8 of thisreport.
3.2.2 Livestock Production Values and Incomes
Table 4 shows the distribution of respondents by total current value of their herd. As expected, male￾headed households have significantly higher total herd value (Kshs. 151,970) as compared to female￾headed households (Kshs. 98,604) as ownership and control of livestock in these communities is in the
domain of men. Similarly, those above 35 years of age have significantly higher herd value than youth,
given their livestock wealth acquisition over the years. With reference to the counties, Taita Taveta has
significantly higher herd value (Kshs. 145,025), followed closely by Kitui as compared with the other
counties. The lowest herd values were recorded in Tharaka Nithi with considerable contribution from goat 
breed.
Table 4: Current Total Herd Value (Kshs)
Estimated value of
cattle herd kept
(KES)
Estimated value of Goat
herd kept (KES)
Estimated value of
Sheep herd kept (KES)
Estimated Total Livestock
value kept (KES)
Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median Mean Median
Whole sample 89584.4 60000.0 50535.9 25000.0 4806.6 0.0 144926.9 88850.5
Male 94166 60000 52701.4 26639.1 5103.2 0.0 151970.6 91850.5
Female 59454 33500 36295.0 19000.0 2856.2 0.0 98604.7 70305.0
Below 35
years old 61885 40000 44074.0 24000.0 5646.1 0.0 111605.5 76000.0
Above 35
years old 93929 60000 51570.3 25900.0 4682.9 0.0 150182.5 90000.0
Meru 58199 32500 28897.1 12000.0 5449.8 0.0 92545.5 61365.1
Tharaka Nithi 37208 20000 32261.1 21750.0 6983.6 4000.0 76452.3 51500.0
Kitui 118757 90000 75127.0 44900.0 4499.2 0.0 198383.3 145000.0
Makueni 69995 54000 50822.4 28000.0 4135.8 0.0 124953.2 90000.0
TaitaTaveta 145025 70010 69741.4 30000.0 5259.0 0.0 220025.4 112850.5
Machakos 111409 70000 44800.6 20500.0 2178.8 0.0 158388.8 94000.0
3 Livestock Body condition scoring is a subjective or “hands on” method of determining the amount of fat an animal 
is carrying and is scored from 1 (very thin) to 5 (grossly fat). It is an indication of how well farmers care for their
livestock
25
3.2.3 Key Program Performance Indicators for Result Area
Table 5: Key Performance Indicators and their Baseline Values
FFPr SO1: Increased Agricultural Productivity
Key Program Indicator and
Number
Baseline
Value
Targets Suggestions for revisions of PMP and future
monitoring
Average Livestock Body
Score (7)
Cattle – 2.7
Shoats – 2.8
Cattle – 3.2
Shoats – 3.2
Indicator is sensitive to water and pasture
availability hence will be affected by seasonality.
Follow-up surveys or evaluations need to be
conducted at same time of the year. Indicator will
be disaggregated by sex of Head of Household,
livestock Type and Target County and compared
between Treatment and Control Sites
Percent increase in value of
production per producer (6)
Kshs.
88850.5 (0%)
K-SALES team should consider dropping this
indicator from the PMP due to complexity in getting 
accurate information and reporting when diversity 
of herd in terms of age is considered. The data is
also highly skewed, median is used andhouseholds 
with 1 standard deviation above the mean are 
excluded from analysis. This study noted that 
improvement in animal health and care will be
measured by average body condition score while 
improved market value from earnings from sale of 
healthy animals by mean farm-gate prices of
livestock, a proposed indicator for the program
in section 3.9.3 of this report.
3.3 FFPr 1.2 Increased Use of Improved Agricultural Technologies and Techniques
3.3.1 Herding Practices employed by farmersin the study areas
Across the counties, number of livestock, especially cattle, kept was dependent on the land size owned by 
the household. This is according to key informants consulted during the survey. Farmers depend on
natural grass to feed their animals and when there is scarcity of pastures during the drought, they move
with their animals to neighboring areas in search of fodder and water. Open range grazing is the most
common herding practice employed by livestock producers (81.2%) in the study sites with mineral
supplementation in the evening. This is closely followed by tethering (Table 5). Paddocking and semi￾paddocking are minimally practiced in the study sites due to dwindling farm sizes with women adopting
paddocking system at a much lower extent than their male counterparts. Paddocking is an investment
that requires full access and control over land and this may be linked with legal frameworks around
women access and control over land. In Taita Taveta, for example, the sub-division of the ranches into
26
individual land parcels has forced most of the livestock keepers to graze in the park and other private
owned ranches, often at the expense of threats and confiscation of livestock by park officials. The
attraction to graze in the parks could also be that the animals are able to find shrubs of high nutritive
value and gain better body condition and therefore forage development programs will have to encourage
restoration of biodiversity even when land is subdivided. Additionally, with herd sizes declining, farmers
are opting for tethering and in some cases zero grazing, with cut and carry practice.
According to the data set, 36.1% of those surveyed practice destocking and restocking of their herds in
responding to availability of water and pastures across the year. Those above 35 years of age are more
likely to adopt de-stocking and restocking (37.6%) due to their relative better accessto resources acquired 
over time as compared to those below 35 years (25.5%). Across the counties, Tharaka Nithi reported the
least proportion (8.9%) of livestock producers practicing destocking and restocking. Livestock producers 
surveyed in the county had relatively more shoats than cattle that are less affected by droughts.
Table 6: Herding and Herd management practices by livestock producers
Herding practice % de-stocking
/re-stocking
Paddocking
Semi
paddocking
Open
range
grazing Tethering
Zero
grazed
Whole sample 2.3 6.5 81.2 59.2 17.9 36.1
Sex of
HH Head
Male 2.5 7.2 81.7 60 18.9 36.0
Female 1.9 3.2 78.5 54.7 12.1 36.7
Age
Below 35 years
old 1.9 4.3 82 59.6 12.7
25.5
Above 35 years
old 2.5 7 81.1 59.2 18.8
37.6
County
Meru 2.4 4.2 64.1 29.2 29.3 30.8
Tharaka Nithi 0 1 94.7 54.5 6.2 8.9
Kitui 2.6 14 73 63.2 13.1 40.9
Makueni 3.1 11.8 86.3 88.7 13.7 56.2
TaitaTaveta 4 4 87.5 51 28.9 37.8
Machakos 2 4.9 81.1 76 14.6 43.2
3.3.2 Knowledge and Use of Improved Agricultural Technologies
Table 36 (Annex 10) shows the distribution of respondents by awareness of improved livestock nutrition,
health and herd management practices. Apart from livestock insurance where only 25% indicated being
aware of service, livestock producers were generally aware and knowledgeable of the improved
technologies across all the sites (above 58%). The most popular ones were hand spraying for controlling
ticks (93.7%) and livestock vaccinations (89%). These are mainly promoted because of disease
27
prevention rather than for fast growth and supporting reproduction needs of the animal. Across the sites, 
levels of awareness of the improved technologies, techniques and services were low in Taita Taveta with 
Makueni County reporting the highest levels of awareness. This corroborates focus group discussions 
findings that there is limited of coverage livestock production services and service providers in Taita 
Taveta County. With regard to utilization of the Vet services (Table 7), de-worming (86.2%), vaccinations 
(90.9%) and hand spraying (81.1%) were the most widely used services across the counties. This confirms 
reports from key informants that indicated that farmers carry out spraying as a first line of action in control 
of ticks. However, that this is not uniformly practices and that also shows some of the challenges faced in 
stemming outbreak of tick-borne diseases. This is particularly important as the targetcounties are also 
stock routes for livestock destined to other markets. Table 37 in Annex 10 shows use ofimproved
technologies by sampled households.
Generally, the least used technologies were hoof trimming (13.6%) and castration (13.1%). These
represent good husbandry practices that should be promoted by the department of animal production
to facilitate good use of natural pastures by a carefully selected herd while learning to minimize climatic
risks to livelihood. Across the study counties, the most preferred breeding practice is by own bull. Notably, 
use of breeding improvement services such as artificial insemination and bull schemes is not common
(just 20.6%) with the former mainly associated with dairy production by those farmers consulted during 
the survey. In-depth discussions with some of the farmers using bull schemes also revealed delays in 
replacement of the bull, a scenario that may lead to inbreeding. The proposed Farmer Field Schools will 
provide a platform especially to youth for learning techniques that older people use more than them 
because of mastery. Its hands-on nature of extension would demonstrate advantages of hoof trimming, 
castrations and dehorning in animal production and equip these youth to provide these services at a fee 
in the community.
Across the sites, limited use of breeding improvement services were reported in Makueni (4.1%) and
Machakos (6.7%), perhaps an indication of lack of appreciation of the program as number of farmers
reported being aware of its existence (Table 34, Annex 10). This calls for extensive farmer education on
importance of breeding improvement services in commercial livestock production. This may not
necessarily mean use of Artificial Insemination (AI) but proper selection and maintaining a well selected
breeding herd. According to a county official, there is minimal use of technologies appropriate husbandry 
practices and techniques in the area of animal health, feeds, nutrition and breeding that are less labor 
intensive, less risky and more profitable. Generally, there is widespread use of technologies that support 
disease control than those that support efficient conversion of feed to meat are very low. Farmers
indicated high costs of farm inputs as a challenge.
28
Table 7: Use of improved technologies and herd management practices by livestock producers
Selected Technology Sex Youth County
Whole Male Female
below
35 years
old
above
35 years
old Meru
Tharaka
Nithi Kitui
Makue 
ni
TaitaT
aveta Machakos
% with separate sheds
for different livestock
types and ages 39.7 40.3 35.4 38.3 39.9 40.2 27.2 60.8 33.1 35.1 47.4
% of farmers with
livestock shed with
cement/stones/gravel
floor
9.4 10.4 4.8 10.8 9.4 9.9 2.4 27.5 6.5 5.9 4.2
% of farmers with
livestock shed/ boma
with bricks or pole
structures
42.4 42.8 40.3 37.2 43.3 27.5 46.9 42.5 60.5 39.2 37.3
AI service/Breed
improvement services
such as bull schemes￾Whether household has 20.9 20.9 21.1 17.9 21.4 41.3 17.9 37.7 4.1 22.0 6.8
Castration 13.1 13.2 12.5 9.8 13.6 7.9 6.6 49.5 2.8 23.3 6.4
De-horning 16.8 16.5 19.0 10.2 17.8 14.8 16.8 54.5 2.1 16.7 8.3
Hoof trimming 13.6 13.5 14.7 8.2 14.5 16.5 3.3 51.2 8.3 17.4 1.1
De-stocking/re-stocking 36.2 36.1 36.7 25.5 37.7 30.8 8.9 40.9 56.2 38.4 43.5
% practicing on-farm
feed conservation 55.1 55.6 51.4 40.7 57.4 21.9 4.1 76.5 87.6 63.6 80.7
% of farmers using at
five of recommended
technologies/service
(separate sheds for
livestock, shed type,
AI/Bull scheme, hoof
trimming, castration,
de-horning, de￾stocking)
5.3 5.0 7.6 0.0 6.1 6.7 0.0 20.5 0.6 1.7 0.6
29
3.3.3 Key Performance Indicators and Baseline Values
Table 8: Key Performance indicators for result area
Key Performance Indicator and Number
Baseline
Value
Target Suggestions on changes to PMP and
Evaluation Plan
Result Area: Contribution to the Feed the Future
Number of Individuals receiving short- term
agricultural sector productivity or food
security training as a result of USDA
assistance (1).
0
83,200
No change
Percentage of farmers participating inproject 
interventions who have applied new
techniques or technologies as a result of
USDA assistance (10)
0
64,000
Indicator will be monitored from those farmers
attending program specific training. No change
Number of farmers who have applied new
techniques or technologies as a result of
USDA assistance (3)
0
64,000
Indicator will be tracked from those farmers
attending and participating in program
trainings, No change
Result Area: Facilitate Farmer Field Schools
Number of farmers trained in improved
agricultural technologies and techniques
(33)
0 80,000 Targets re-distributed as year one of
implementation is focusing on setting up
project activities and identification of suitable
implementing partners
FFPr 1.2.4 Increase knowledge by farmers on improved Agricultural Techniques and Technologies
Percent farmers who can demonstrate a
threshold level of proficiency in a least five
new livestock husbandry and herd
management techniques4 as a result of
USDA assistance (32).
0 64,000 Farmers to be tracked are those attending
training and adopting at least 5 of the improved
technologiesthat baseline survey findingsshow 
lower adoption rates.
3.4 FFPr 1.3: Improved Farm Management
3.4.1 Record Keeping in Livestock Enterprises
With regard to farm management practices, the survey examined livestock record keeping and
involvement of various households’ members in decision making regarding livestock enterprise. Record
keeping in the livestock enterprise is not widespread. Just 8.4% of the total sampled households kept
records of some sort regarding livestock enterprise activities (Table 9). This was mainly attributed to high
levels of illiteracy and taking livestock production as a way of life rather than as a businessenterprise. A 
common practice among the livestock keepers is to take daily count of the number of livestock in the 
evening to ascertain if all are back in the shed. The most commonly kept records were the health records 
whereby farmers marked dates on the calendar for important dates such as when vaccinations,
deworming is due. Across gender, male-headed households are more likely to keep records (8.5%) as 
compared to female-headed households (5.7%). Similarly, those above 35 years of age were more likely 
to have records (8.3%) as opposed to the youth (6.9%). Record keeping is least practiced in Tharaka Nithi
county and Makueni counties.
4 Re-stocking/de-stocking, hoof trimming, Use of AI/Bull Scheme, de-horning, castration, separate sheds for different livestock type and age, shed
floor (at least sand, gravel, cement), shed type (boma, pole or permanent).
30
Table 9: Livestock enterprise record keeping
Whether HH keeps records of livestock activities (%)
Overall 8.4
Sex of HH Head
Male 8.5
Female 5.7
Age
Below 35 years old 6.9
Above 35 years old 8.3
Project area
Control 6.4
Treatment 9.4
County
Meru 8.5
Tharaka Nithi 2.4
Kitui 12.3
Makueni 3.5
TaitaTaveta 7.4
Machakos 11.1
3.4.2 Roles and Responsibilitiesin the Livestock Enterprise
Since the roles and power relations between men and women affect how an activity is implemented,
responsibilities associated with livestock rearing were sought and analyzed in terms finding out who did
what and whether their interests of men and women in the activity were considered. Study findings show 
that most decisions regarding the livestock enterprise in these communities are made by men (SeeTable 
38). These include type of livestock, breed, when to sell and even adoption of recommended practices 
such as spraying, feeding on minerals and breeding, among others. Some of the roles such as breeding 
and housing are not done on daily basis but occasionally. Some roles in the community are shared. For 
instance boys would assist in roles such as grazing, herding and watering animals, and collecting dung 
when they are available e.g. weekends and during holidays. By and large, men were largely involved in 
buying livestock, giving directions to other household members on what is to be doneona daily basis as 
well as selling the same. Women on the other hand participate in buying livestock after which her role 
reduced to that of milking and cleaning the livestock shed. Other roles included grazing (done by women
and boys-over the weekends), manure collection (done by women), slaughtering (done by men) and 
processing (done by men). Some of the duties performed by men were seen as roles that needed an 
energetic and masculine figure. According to women and youth focus groups, it appears that the boys 
bear a heavier burden than girls and learn special skills (trekking, construction) that are more rewarding 
later in life than hygiene roles that girls played. Interestingly, women indicated that they did not have 
control over use of hired labour to assist or facilitate them in roles they play in livestock management.
3.4.3 Household decision making on livestock sales and control of proceeds
Decision making to sell any livestock is a prerogative of the men in all the study sites (Table 10). This
corroborates focus group findings that disclosed that decision to sell livestock is made by the men in the
household even if the spouse purchased the livestock. However, there is a growing trend where spouses
31
are consulted. Similarly, the husband also controls how proceeds from the sale of livestock are used (see
table 39).
Table 10: Household decision making on selling of livestock
Husband wife Both Son Other
Overall 42.1 10.5 40.8 1.3 5.3
Sex Male 46.9 3.4 46.6 1 2.1
Female 15.2 47.7 9.3 3.3 24.5
Age below 35 years old 38.1 6.8 46.9 0.7 7.5
above 35 years old 43.2 10 40.5 1.4 4.9
County
Meru 61.4 13.8 16.4 1.6 6.9
Tharaka Nithi 44.6 8.2 40 1.5 5.6
Kitui 38.2 10.7 44.9 2.2 3.9
Makueni 33.5 10.5 50 1 5
TaitaTaveta 30.3 14.9 48.6 1.1 5.1
Machakos 44.3 5.5 45.4 0 4.9
32
3.4.4 Key Performance Indicators
Table 11: Key performance indicators for result area
Key Program Indicator and Number Baseline
Value
Targets Suggestions for revisions of
PMP and future monitoring
Results Area: Farmer Field Schools
Number of farmers trained in improved farm
management practices (34)
0 Targets re￾distributed
Targets re-distributed as year
one of implementation id
Contribution to Feed the Future
Number of farmers and others who have applied
improved farm management practices (i.e.
governance, administration or financial
management as a result of USDA assistance (4)
0 No change
Result Area: FFPr 1.3 Improved farm management (operations financial)
Percentage of farmers who have applied 60 percent
of recommended improved farm management
practices as a result of the USDA
assistance (36)
TBD Farmers to be tracked from
those attending trainings. It is
suggested that program
tracks record keeping in the
livestock enterprise.
Suggested Indicator: Proportion of farmers that
adopt record keeping in the livestock enterprise as
a result of as a result of USDA Assistance
8.4% 30% This indicator identifies
record keeping as a critical
component of improved farm
management. This will be
tracked through population
based surveys
Result Area: FFPr 1.3.1 Improved knowledge regarding farm management
Percentage of farmers in target regions who can identify TBD Indicator to be monitored from
key characteristics of a well-managed farm as a result of those actually attending training.
USDA assistance (37) (Key characteristics of well- Pre-and post-training evaluations
managed farm – record keeping, existence of plans and recommended as key source of
budgets/expenditure) for each enterprise information.
3.5 FFPr 1.2.1: Increased Availability of Inputs
3.5.1 Accessto Extension Services
Access to extension services by livestock producers was also examined across the study sites. Generally,
livestock producers across the sites were aware of the kind of extension services available ranging from
animal health services, breeding, animal nutrition, record keeping with animal health extension services
being the most common (see Table 38). At least 63.8% of the sampled farmers stated receiving extension 
services in the last two years on a number of services with Taita Taveta reporting the lowest proportions 
(Table 39). The organizations providing extension services were mainly veterinary officers and 
government extension agents (See Table 40). As discussed above, Taita Taveta had limited coverage of
both government and private service providers.
While there was general consensus across the sites that the government extension service is generally not 
available, subsidized vaccinations during disease outbreaks was widely acknowledged. Ministry of
Livestock Development also issued quarantines at times of disease outbreak protect large herds from
33
being infected. Generally, there is little support for beef stock breeding and regeneration except for
support offered by NGOs in Makueni and Machakos.
The extension services that improve productivity of the meat value chain needs to be broader than dealing 
with vet inputs. It needs to include capacity building in areas not commonly covered as a way to empower
women and youth. These areas are in livestock sales agency, establishment of farmer organizations that
are inclusive and are sustainable, field workers for seasonal livestock financial services including livestock 
and crop insurances, artisan skills for construction of farm structures and harnesses for animal drawn tools 
(ferry water, live animals, meat), Information and Communication Technology for market information 
services, operating cold storages, processing of hides and skin and making leather craft products, among
others.
3.5.2 Accessto Livestock Input Markets
Most farm inputs are sourced from Agro-vets that are situated in nearby markets across all the targeted
counties. Distance to nearest market centre ranges from 4.9 Kms in Tharaka Nithi to about 20.9 Kms in
Kitui (Table 11). The most commonly used means to nearest market or stockiest is walking although
motorcycles (boda boda) have become popular. 48.9% of sampled farmers can access supplies of
improved inputs within 5 Kms.
Table 11: Access to markets for livestock and livestock inputs
% of farmers within 5 Km distance to the nearest
stockiest of livestock inputs
% of farmer within 5 Km distance to the nearest
livestock market
Whole
sample 48.9 43.4
Male
48.8 42.8
Female
49.3 47.2
Below 35
years old
53.1 44.8
Above 35
years old
48.1 43.1
Meru
61.8 66.3
Tharaka Nithi
65.5 64.4
Kitui
29.0 19.0
Makueni
42.9 39.0
TaitaTaveta
57.4 44.3
Machakos
36.7 27.1
34
Table 12: Key Performance Indicator
Key Program Indicator and
Number
Baseline
Value
Targets Suggestions for revisions of PMP and future
monitoring
Result Area: FFPr 1.2.1: Increased Availability of Farm Inputs
Percentage of farmers within 5
Kms of suppliers that sell improved
inputs.
48.9% It is recommended that complementary
indicators such as perceptions on
affordability and satisfactions with service
provision be added as these were identified
as the most important areas by farmers
Proposed Indicator: Farmer
perceptions on affordability of
livestock input services (Score)
Affordability accessed on a scale of 1-3 (very
expensive, fair, affordable). Indicator
computed by average scores from all services
Proposed Indicator: Farmer
perception on satisfaction with
service provision
Affordability accessed on a scale of 1-4
(dissatisfied, fairly satisfied, satisfied and very
satisfied). Indicator computed by average
scores of all services.
3.5.2 A1: Develop Business Service Providers
This section presents the write-up on service providers’ information and data collected via individual
surveys, focus group discussions, key informants and review of literature from various sources. The
individual survey collected information from forty-five service providers across the meat value chain.
3.5.2.1 Selected characteristics ofsampled service providers
The main service providers interacted with across the study sites ranged from Agrovets, animal health
service providers, paravets and Artificial Inseminators. Agrovets were by far the most common livestock
service providers dealing directly with farmers in the target counties. Generally, the age of the service
providers ranged from 26 to 68 years with a sample mean of 38.5 and 52 percent being youth (Table 13).
Service provision is dominated by men with females comprising just one-third of the total sample.
According to key informant and focus group discussions, female service providers were generally accepted 
among the target communities although in some cases such as in Taita Taveta, they are often subjected 
to ridicule from men from the local community who request free services as a demonstration that they 
could actually carry out the services (See case study in Box 3 from the gender analysis study). About 71.9% 
have their businesses officially registered with nearly all sampled (97.1%) service providers keeping
records. The kind of records kept ranged from expense accounts, sales and payable.
Table 13: Distribution of sampled service providers by selected characteristics
Variable
Age (Years) 38.5
Sex Males 66.7%
Female 33.3%
% keeping records 97.1%
% whose businesses are registered 71.9%
35
3.5.2.2 Range of Services offered
The range of services offered by the input service providers ranged from animal health services, financial
services, training services, agro-vet services. Majority of those sampled were offering at least three
services with majority of them being agro-vet dealers (Table 14). According to those consulted, artificial
insemination was not popular in the meat value chain, with most farmers opting to use bull schemesand
own bulls across the study sites.
Table 14: Kind of services offered by the service providers
Type of services Percent Percent of Cases
AI service provider 10.00% 14.30%
Agro vet input supplier 50.00% 71.40%
Animal health service provider 26.00% 37.10%
Training provider 2.00% 2.90%
Financial services 4.00% 5.70%
Transportation 4.00% 5.70%
Others 4.00% 5.8%
Total 100.00% 142.90%
3.5.2.3 Types of Clients Served
The kinds of client served by the service providers were varied. The most popular were farmers (33.3%),
farmers groups (11.1%), among others (Table 15). Individual clients were described as the agro-vets as
those who walked and made purchases over the counter without leaving their contacts. This category was 
the main customer served by those sampled. As it is none of the service providers had any written supply 
contracts with any of the clients. The service was based on convenience and past performance with those 
served. The main method of business promotion (25%) is via family and friends and good mouthing and
recommendations from current and previous clients. About 9.3% used field days organized by other 
stakeholders to market their services (Table 16).
Table 15: Type of clients served
Percent
Farmer groups 11.1
Farmers 33.3
Individual clients 44.4
Others 11.1
36
Table 16: Methods of business promotion used by service providers
Percent Percent of Cases
Family/friends 25.20% 75.00%
Business partners 15.90% 47.20%
Business associations 6.50% 19.40%
Newspaper/media 2.80% 8.30%
Field days 9.30% 27.80%
Telephone directory 1.90% 5.60%
Baraza 7.50% 22.20%
Clients association 9.30% 27.80%
Community members 13.10% 38.90%
Business bronchures 7.50% 22.20%
Branding 0.90% 2.80%
Total 100.00% 297.20%
3.5.2.4 Ownership of key assets
This study also examined a number of assets owned by the service providers particularly motorcycles and 
AI equipment. About 19.7% of those interviewed indicated owning a motorcycle that allowed them to 
traverse the poor roads and serve farmers and areas located in the interior (Table 17). Only 6.1% had AI 
equipment which also attests to key informants observations that the service is generally not popular
among the livestock producers yet critical in producing improved breeds with higher market value and
returns for the farmers. Lack of access to credit was cited by the service providers as a key constraint in
acquiring stock and assets.
Table 17: Ownership of Assets by variousservice providers
Percent Percent of cases
Motor vehicle 22.70% 60.00%
Furniture & fittings 51.50% 136.00%
AI equipment 6.10% 16.00%
Motor bike 19.70% 52.00%
Total 100.00% 264.00%
3.5.2.5 Access to credit
This surveyed access to credit by various service providers in the value chain. About 35.3% of those
consulted had applied for loan in the past in the past two years with only 12.6 % getting the loans (Table
18). The loans were sourced from various financial service providers mainly banks, K-REP, Savings and
Credit Societies among others.
Table 18: Loan application in the last 2 years
Percent
% applying for loans 35.3
% receiving loans 12.6
37
3.5.2.6 Challengesfacing service providers
Table 19 illustrates the key challenges facing service providers in the study sites. Lack of awareness of
the services by livestock producers was cited as a key hindrance to service provision in the livestock sector. 
This implies need for a number of demand-side pull factors such as general farmer education to enhance 
demand for the various services offered. Lack of capital for stocking various inputs was also mentioned as 
a key factor with majority of those consulted citing lack of collateral as a major hindrance to accessing 
credit. High inputs costs particularly attributed to poor road infrastructure was also stated. The service
providers stated incurring costs to purchase their stock from nearby towns which in turn affected the 
prices they charged for the services offered to the farmers. On the other hand, the farmers have
responded by carrying out diagnosis by themselves, buying antibiotics over the counter and administering
treatment to their animals. According to county livestock officials, this has partly contributed to livestock 
deaths, abuse of antibiotics and some cases of drug resistances as farmers administer under doses to
avoid expenses of consulting a certified practitioners.
Table 19: Challenges facing service providers
No. of times mentioned
Lack of awareness by customers 13
Lack of capital 10
High input costs 6
Competition 4
Poor means of transport 4
counterfeits in the market 3
High interest rate 3
High transport costs 3
Delay in transportation of goods 2
Farmer prescribing the animal treatment 2
High maintenance cost of a vehicle 2
High prices fend off customers 1
Low turnout of customers 1
Non trained practice 1
Other challenges cited were competition from what was described as uncertified practitioners ‘quacks’
who also contributed to the livestock producers’ distrust for service providers. The other source of
competition is government veterinary officers who also reportedly offered private services to farmers at
a fee. Presence of counterfeit drugs in the market is also a key concern for the service providers as this
also contribute to the distrust among livestock producers.
38
3.5.2.7 Key Program Indicators and their Baseline Values
Table 20: Key performance indicators and their baseline values
Key Program Indicator and Number Baseline
Value
Targets Suggestions for revisions of PMP
and future monitoring
Result Area: Develop Business Service Providers
Number of business service providers
trained to deliver inputs and services
that enhance agricultural productivity
0 Target re-distributed
over the program
period
Year one of program focusing on
program setting up
Number of business service providers
trained in business management skills.
0 Target re-distributed
over the program
period
Year one of program focusing on
program setting up
Number of county level livestock trade
shows supported.
0 Target re-distributed
over the program
period
Year one of program focusing on
program setting up
3.6 FFPr 1.2.2: Improved Infrastructure to Support On-Farm Production
3.6.1 Access to water for livestock use
3.6.1.2 Household Sources of Water for Livestock Use
Water is critical for livestock production. However, this commodity is scarce in the ASAL areas such as the 
ones targeted by projects. According to the results of the survey, water for livestock is mainly sourced 
from rivers and streams (cited by 42.1%, Table 21). The other sources of water for livestock are piped 
water (7.6%), dams (14.9), boreholes (8.2%), communal water points and public taps (4%).Watershortage 
during dry seasons is cited as a major challenge for livestock production across all study sites (Table 22). 
Notably, distances travelled to water points increased significantly during dry seasons, 6.5 Kms and 
7.1Kms, respectively, with the major water source being the permanent rivers and streams(Table 21). The 
common practice is for livestock keepers to move with their livestock in search of water and pasture.
39
Table 21: Household Sources of water for livestock use
Piped into
homestead
/compound
Public
Tap Borehole
Communal
water
point
Rain
water
Vendor
/ tanker
truck
River/
stream
Water
Kiosk
Dam /
pan/
sand
dam Other
Whole
sample 7.6 4 8.2 1.7 16 2.7 42.1 1.5
14.9
1.3
Sex of HH Head
Male 7.7 3.1 8.3 1.6 16.6 2.7 43.4 1.2
14.1
1.2
Female 4.9 10.4 8.6 1.8 12.9 3.1 36.2 3.1
17.1
1.8
Age
below 35
years old 5.6 4.3 8.6 1.2 22.2 1.9 43.2 1.9
9.2
1.9
above 35
years old 7.5 4.1 8.3 1.8 15.1 2.9 42.2 1.4
15.4
1.2
County
Meru 1.4 10.5 19.5 4.3 38.6 13.3 9.5 0
1
1.9
Tharaka
Nithi 17.3 0.5 0.5 0 4.8 0.5 72.6 0
3.4
0.5
Kitui 0.5 4.3 1.6 0 3.2 0 63.8 3.7
20.3
2.7
Makueni 6.5 7 5 1.5 27.6 28.6 4.5 4.5
14.6
0
TaitaTaveta
15.7 4 6.1 2 8.6 1.5 35.9 1
23.2
2
Machakos 3.3 1.6 13.7 0.5 11.5 0 43.7 0
25.1
0.5
Similarly the cost of water increased significantly during the dry seasons with most farmers unable to
afford as the private vendors charge exorbitant prices.
Table 22: Access and cost of water during wet and dry season
Whole sample
Distance to the water
supply infrastructure
Used during wet
season (Kms)
Distance to the water
supply infrastructure
Used during dry
season (Kms)
Cost of buying a 20L
Jerrican for watering
livestock during DRY
season
Cost of buying a
20L Jerrican for
watering
livestock during
WET season
Whole sample 6.5 7.1 15.4 9.8
Male 6.1 7.1 15.8 9.9
Female 4.7 5.2 13.6 9.8
Meru 2.0 3.9 28.7 7.6
Tharaka Nithi 2.0 2.8 19.5 16.0
Kitui 9.1 14.7 13.8 11.9
Makueni 4.0 4.1 8.1 5.8
TaitaTaveta 18.0 14.1 15.9 13.2
Machakos 4.5 3.1 5.2 4.9
40
Practices adopted to cope with dry season are very crucial in the beef value chain as there are gender
constraints that are associated with climate related constraints. During drought season pastures are
limited, most of the rivers are also dry. This therefore means that women and men have to travel long
distances in search of water. But during this same period there are a lot of livestock diseases hence caring 
for the sick animals is at its peak. Caring for sick animals is the woman’s role. Water shortage places a 
heavier burden on the women as she is in charge of cleaning and cooking activities in the home.The 
impacts of drought are heavier on the woman and risks of household falling into poverty higher given that 
health of animal is compromised. For instance, in Tigania East Sub-County in Meru, the copingmechanisms 
include migrating to far areas where there is pasture, reducing the amount of water taken by livestock, 
and stock reduction through sale of animals. It includes having to spend money to buy water (at ksh.25 
per 20 Litre jerrican).
3.6.2 Membership and Satisfaction with Water User Associations5
Table 23illustrates sampled households’ membership and satisfaction with the services offered by the
Water User Associations (WRUA). About 18% of those interviewed indicated that they were members of
various Water User Associations in the project targeted areas. Membership of the water user association 
was higher among the male-headed households than female-headed households. Water User 
Associations were more common in Meru (22.5%) and Kitui (32.5%) and least in Taita Taveta (just 4.5%).
In Taita for example, those consulted stated existence of Upper Water Resources Users Association 
and the Lower Water Resources Users Associations. According to key informants in all the counties, water 
user associations are mandated to sensitize members on the rules and regulations governing use of water 
resources, which they have failed to effectively. This explains why just a third of the members (34.1%) 
stated moderate to high levels of satisfactions with the services provided by the WRUAs. A number of 
challenges such as lack of involvement of local communities in management of water resources, drop in 
water levels due to destruction of water catchments, settlements along the river banks and around other 
water sources and illegal abstraction of water through illegal water pumpsfor private farms for irrigations, 
that continue unabated have undermined the effective management of the resources for the benefit of 
the whole community. Construction of watering trough along the river canals/banks has potential to 
reduce erosion as a result of direct watering of animals in rivers and other water points. This also has 
potential for reducing water resource-based conflicts between pastoralists and agro-pastoralists. The 
county government and its partners can take lead in ensuring that such projects are implemented 
successfully. On the other hand, Water Resources Management Authority (WARMA), the National 
Authority that owns and mandated with effective management of all the water resources should also step 
up efforts to enhance enforcement of the law and regulations that govern management of water 
resources so as to eradicate illegal exploitation of the available water resources. Mechanisms such as 
payment for environmental services (PES) should be instituted for sustainable management of the
5 A WRUA is an association of water users, riparian land owners, or other stakeholders who have formally and voluntarilyassociated for the 
purposes of cooperatively sharing, managing and conserving a common water resource (WRM Rules 2007).
41
resource.
Table 23: Membership and Satisfaction with Water Users Association Services
% of farmers
who are
members of
Water User
Association
Satisfaction with the service offered by the Water User Association
Not satisfied
at all
Fairly
satisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied
Whole
sample 18.1 21.6 37.5 6.8 20.5 13.6
Male 18.7 22 35.8 6.3 20.8 15.1
Female 14.6 17.6 52.9 11.8 17.6 0
Below 35
years old 18.6 23.1 38.5 0 15.4 23.1
Above 35
years old 18.1 21.3 37.3 8 21.3 12
Meru 22.5 12.5 62.5 5 2.5 17.5
Tharaka Nithi 10.8 31.2 25 6.2 31.2 6.2
Kitui 32.5 33.9 23.2 8.9 25 8.9
Makueni 23.2 15 27.5 7.5 27.5 22.5
TaitaTaveta 4.5 25 25 0 37.5 12.5
Machakos 13.9 6.2 68.8 6.2 12.5 6.2
3.6.3 Accessto on-farm modern structures for livestock production
This study also examined household’s ownership of various modern on-farm structures critical for meat
production. The on-farm structure includes crushes, crop enclosure, water tank, hay ban and holding pens.
Study results reveal that just 10% of the total sampled households had access to the modern structures 
on-farm, an indication of low adoption rates (Table 24). Apart from water tank, the adoption rates of all 
the other modern on-farm structures were below 10%. This is opportunity for the program towork with
various stakeholders to promote adoption of these structures through on-farm demonstrations using the
farmer field school approach.
42
Table 24: Accessto On-farm Structures by sampled Households
Whole
sample Male Female
Below
35
above
35
years Meru
Tharaka
Nithi Kitui Makueni
TaitaT
aveta Machakos
% of farmers
owning crush 3.0 3.4 0.7 0.0 3.5 3.9 8.2 1.0 0.0 3.4 1.2
% of farmers
with
Pasture/crop
enclosure 7.0 7.2 5.6 2.1 7.7 3.4 4.6 6.0 14.1 4.5 9.6
% of farmers
owning water
tank 28.9 29.9 22.2 26.9 29.1 33.7 40.2 10.5 26.6 33.5 30.1
% of farmers
owning feed
store 9.3 10.3 2.8 6.2 9.8 2.8 1.0 23.0 11.9 1.7 15.1
% of farmers
owning Hay
Ban 4.4 4.5 3.5 3.4 4.6 1.7 2.1 3.5 11.3 3.4 4.8
% of farmers of
owning holding
pen 3.2 3.6 0.7 3.4 3.2 2.8 3.1 7.0 0.6 5.1 0.0
% of farmers
with access to
two or more
modern on￾farm
structures6 10.6 11.5 4.9 5.5 11.4 7.9 9.8 11.0 12.4 7.4 15.7
6 On-farm structures examined here are: hay ban, feed store, water tank, holding pen, crush)
43
3.6.4 Key Program Performance Indicators
Table 25: Key Performance Indicators for Result Area
Key Performance Indicator
Baseline
Value Target
Suggested Amendments to the PMP and
Future Monitoring
Result Area: Increased Access to Clean Water Systems
Number of community-based water points
constructed or rehabilitated 0
Target redistributed
over the program
period
Indicator is output based and will be
monitored during program roll-out; Year
one focus is on setting up of the project
Number of water user association trained
to administer and maintain community
based water points 0
Target re-distributed
over the program
period
Indicator is output based and will be
monitored during program roll-out; Year
one focus is on setting up of the project
Value of In-kind grants dispersed to water
user Associations 0
Target re-distributed
over the program
period
Indicator is output based and will be
monitored during program roll-out; Year
one focus is on setting up of the project
Number of farmers and community
members benefiting from the new or
rehabilitated community based water
points 0
Target re-distributed
over the program
period
Indicator is output based and will be
monitored during program roll-out; Year
one focus is on setting up of the project
Result Area: Infrastructure: On farm
Number of on-farm infrastructure projects
carried out 0
Target re-distributed
over the program
period
Year focus is on setting up project
operations
Number of cooperatives trained to
manage and maintain on- farm
infrastructure projects 0
Target re-distributed
over the program
period
Year focus is on setting up project
operations
Value of in-kind grants to cooperatives
investing in on-farm infrastructure 0
Target re-distributed
over the program
period
Year focus is on setting up project
operations
Number of farmers benefiting from new or
rehabilitated on-farm infrastructure 0
Target re-distributed
over the program
period
Year focus is on setting up project
operations
Result Area FFPr 1.2.2 Improved infrastructure to support on- farm production
Number of farmers with access to
sufficient water inputs through off-farms
structures supported by USDA 0 No change
Number of farmers with access to two or
more modern on-farm structures
0
Baseline
(10.6%) No change
3.6.5 Challenges facing Livestock Producers across the sites
Water shortage during dry seasons: Frequent and prolonged droughts cause huge herd losses as farmers 
move the livestock across the counties in search of pasture and water. This was mainly noted in parts of 
Tharaka and Tigania East. Although water is available from boreholes and private venders, the cost is 
prohibitive for farmers with large number of animals as a 20L Jeri can retails for between Kshs. 5- 20.
Insecurity and cattle rustling: This was cited as a key challenge by livestock producers in Tigania East. The
local communities recommend establishment of a well-equipped police post to stem insecurity.
44
Cattle rustling has resulted in loss of human life and large herd of animals. The locals are clustered and
live in small crowded village around administration police post to beef up their security.
Livestock diseases: Livestock diseases such as East Coast Fever are common across the study sites. This
is mainly due to inadequate tick control and livestock movements along the corridor enroute to major
livestock markets in Nairobi and other part of the country. Transmission also occurs during interaction in
search of pasture and water. Other major diseases are Anaplasmosis, East Coast Fever (ECF), Contagious
Caprine Pneumonia (CPP), Contagious Bovine Pneumonia (CBP), Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), Anthrax,
Black Quarter, Rinderpest, Rabies. The situation is worsened by delayed in response by government
vaccinations outreaches.
Inaccessibility and unaffordable inputs: Livestock farmers consulted cited inaccessible veterinary services 
and expensive farm inputs as contributing to spread of diseases. Most farmers resort to self- diagnosis 
and buying antibiotics for treating their livestock, a factor that has led to abuse of antibiotics and death 
of livestock.
Inadequate markets infrastructure: Lack of markets for livestock was cited as a key factor in the
stagnation of growth of the livestock. For instance, Tigania East and Taita Taveta have not no single
livestock market within the sub-county. According to key informants, farmers mainly sell to middlemen.
Lack of market during the dry seasons or at onset of droughts is also a key concern raised by farmers
consulted in the survey.
Human Wildlife Conflict: Human wildlife conflict wasreported mainly in controlsitesin Kibwezi (Makueni) 
and in Taita Taveta counties, which boarder the Tsavo national parks. According to those consulted, 
wildlife cause injuries to herders and death to livestock – in Taita Taveta, a farmer narrated how his 30 
goats were mauled by a leopard that strayed from the park. Furthermore, no compensation has been 
offered by the Kenya Wildlife Services personnel who accused the farmers of grazing their livestock in the
park.
Due to subdivision of the formerly communal ranches after the land was bought by the government for
resettlement of squatters, the pastures or grazing lands have shrunk leading to inadequate pasture.
Conflict over pasture: It is important to note that 62% of land in Taveta Sub County constitutes a national 
park. This deprives the local livestock farmers of grazing lands especially during droughts. However, the 
participants shared in confidence that although the national parks are located within their county, 
politicians from Maasai and Somali communities pushed for their pastoralists to be allowed a corridor in 
the national parks to graze their animals, yet local livestock farmers get arrested when they are found
grazing in this corridor during droughts.
45
Lack of good breeding stock: The major breeds in the region are indigenous which are small bodied and
have low body weight. This challenge can be addressed by introducing improved breeds to make crosses
with these local ones.
Insufficient pastures: The bare land should be re-seeded with improved pastures. Farmers should be
taught and be encouraged to do fodder conservation and good use of crop residues.
Lack of extension services: There are only very few government livestock officers covering the sub￾counties of study. There are also very few private providers offering extension services. The solution is
to have employment of technical support staff in veterinary and livestock production sectors, also get
involvement of private service providers.
3.7 FFPr 1.2.3: Increase Use of Financial Services
3.7.1 Accessto credit
According to the results of this survey, 26% of livestock producers interviewed that applied for credit,
with25% stated receiving credit from various sources in the past two years (Table 26). The main sources
were Merry-go round and Rotating Savings and Credit Associations (ROSCAS) and SACCOs. Others were
commercial banks, ag finance cooperatives, and micro-finance institutions.
Table 26: Credit access by sampled households
Percent applied for loan/credit from any financial
institution source in the last one year
Percent that received the loan/credit applied
for in the past one year
Whole
sample 25.9 25.0
Male 26.1 25.2
Female 25.1 24.0
Below 35
years old 21.1 18.7
Above 35
years old 26.8 26.1
Meru 25.4 24.4
Tharaka
nithi 22.4 21.4
Kitui 18.1 17.6
Makueni 24.0 22.5
Taitataveta 47.5 46.5
Machakos 17.9 17.4
Credit received was put to varying uses such as purchase of livestock, livestock inputs and other farm
inputs (Table 27). Across the counties, there was general fear of taking loans because property would be
confiscated in case of default. The lending terms of most of the financial institutions were prohibitive. For
instance, one that requires a land title deed as a collateral requirement for loans have kept most people 
away especially where land is communally owned. Other financial institutions charge interest as high as 
16.9% per annum. Livestock producers prefer individuals from amongst them who issues them with credit 
46
at lower interest rates. Others felt that the loan applications were ‘invasive’ requiring one to provide so
many details of oneself and activities. According to county livestock officials, the volatile weather 
situations coupled with frequent and prolonged droughts have made the areas generally unattractive for 
any financial service provider. Livestock insurance is generally not known by farmers across all the study
sites.
Table 27: Uses of credit/loans received
Livestock
improved
livestock
inputs
Building
(livestock
related)
Livestock
equipment
Other
livestock
assets
Other 
Farm
Inputs Fees Other
Overall 13.1 6.1 4.8 2.2 1.0 11.9 31.7 29.2
Sex of HH Head
Male 12.2 6.5 5.7 2.7 0.4 11.8 31.2 29.7
Female 21.4 4.8 0.0 0.0 2.4 14.3 35.7 21.4
Age
below 35 years
old 9.4 12.5 3.1 6.3 0.0 18.8 18.8 31.3
above 35 years
old 13.9 5.5 5.1 1.8 0.7 11.4 33.3 28.2
County
Meru 14.5 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.0 12.7 50.9 18.2
Tharaka Nithi 10.4 8.3 6.3 0.0 0.0 22.9 20.8 31.3
Kitui 16.7 8.3 2.8 2.8 30.6 33.3 2.8 2.8
Makueni 16.7 0.0 4.8 4.8 40.5 28.6 4.8 0.0
TaitaTaveta 7.1 7.1 5.1 10.2 30.6 35.7 3.1 1.0
Machakos 24.2 12.1 9.1 18.2 9.1 21.2 3.0 3.0
The table highlights that the extent to which youth are taking loans and investing in livestock inputs( such 
as livestock equipment and farm inputs) is higher (12.5% and 9.4%, respectively) than the other ageset. 
The age set older than 35 invest more of the loan they access in buying livestock (13.5% and 5.5%) than 
in inputs for livestock. This may indicate that youth are more likely to adopt new techniques than the
older set of farmers.
47
3.7.2 Key Program Indicator and their baseline value
Table 28: Key Performance Indicator and Baseline Value
Key Performance Indicator
Baseline
Value Target Comments
Result Area FFPr 1.2.4: Increased use of financial services
Number of farmers and other accessing
financial services as a result of USDA assistance 0
Targets re￾distributed
Year one focus is on setting up the project
operations
Proposed Indicator: Proportion of farmers
accessing credit services as a result of USDA
assistance 25.6%
Facilitate Agricultural Lending
Number of livestock enterprises linked to
financial institutions 0
Targetsre￾distributed
Year one focus is on setting up the project
operations
Number of loans disbursed to livestock
enterprises as a result of USDA assistance 0
Targetsre￾distributed
Year one focus is on setting up the project
operations
Number of farmers and other receiving
financial training as a result of USDA assistance
Number of livestock cooperative /producer
group members benefiting from financial
services as a result of USDA assistance
Activity: Financial Services
Number of financial institution partners
identified 0
Targetsre￾distributed
Year one focus is on setting up the project
operations
Value of agricultural and rural loans provided
as a result of USDA assistance 0
Targetsre￾distributed
Year one focus is on setting up the project
operations
3.8 FFPr SO2: Expanded Trade of Agricultural Products
3.8.1 FFPr 2.1: Increased Value added to Post-Production Agricultural Markets
3.8.1.1 Key Features of Processors
Thisstudy examined the post-production, processing and handling practices ofslaughterhouses,slaughter
slabs and butcheries operating the project targeted counties. All the slaughterhouses werefall under 
category C classification6
. All the slaughterhouses are owned and managed by the Counties, while some 
are leased to private operators for a fee. The slaughterhouses charge a fee of between Kshs. 150-300 for 
individual butchery owners for the use of the slaughterhouse/slaughter slabs.
3.8.1.2 Post-Production, Processing and Handling Practices
• Live animals are held in the holding pen outside slaughterhouses. Humane slaughtering is done using 
a captive bolt pistol. Blood is then completely drained, before flaying is done using normal knives. 
According to key informants, few of the slaughterhouses had specialized knives for flaying toensure
high quality hides and skin.
• Evisceration is then done (removal of internal organs) and the products washed outside the
slaughtering room. A key feature of most of the slaughterhouses was lack of separate rooms for the
6 This is the lowest category of local slaughterhouse as per Kenya Meat Control and Regulation 2010.
48
bowels – no separation from clean and dirty room. As observed by one meat inspector, this is a main
cause of contamination of meat products.
• The carcass is then split into two and a meat inspection is undertaken by an authorized veterinary
officer. According to key informants, splitting is mainly done manually using an axe or saw, causing
bone shattering. Winches and chain links to hoist carcass were also lacking.
• If inspection finds carcass fit for human consumption, it is transported to local butcheries. A
condemned carcass is thrown into a pit within the slaughter compound.
• The main livestock products processed from the slaughterhouses are beef, chevron and on rare
occasions, mutton.
• None of the slaughterhouses had chilling facilities or cold rooms. This is essential in terms of
preserving and maintaining meat quality so that processed products fetch the best prices in the
market. This is the same scenario observed for nearly all the butcheries sampled in the study sites
which lacked deep freezers, mostly due to affordability and in some cases lack of electricity or power
connection.
3.8.1.3 Hygiene practices at the Slaughter Houses
According to the Meat Control and Regulation 2010, slaughterhouses are supposed to observe anumber
of practices in compliance with hygiene standards. These include:
• Personnel dealing with or handling any meat products must be medically approved and certified by
the Public Health department
• They must also be in protective gear such as white clean gum boots, white clean dust coats, and white
clean caps. They must all observe hygiene within and without the slaughter area
• For the sake of taking into account issues of religious sensitivities in the slaughtering of livestock
products, a Muslim appointed by the local mosques must participate in the slaughtering processes.
This person must also observe the hygiene standards set by the operating rules and regulations
• Transportation of the processed products must also be done in a hygienic manner, using specially
designed metal containers marked ‘MEAT’ to the local butcheries or institutions conducting business
with the meat suppliers
However, hygiene standards are way below recommended practices and laid down rules and
regulations. This is according to information obtained from key informants.
3.8.1.4 Transportation and Marketing of Processed Beef Products
• Meat products and other by-products are delivered to the local butcheries or institutions using meat
boxes either carried by motorcycles, bicycles, auto rickshaws (tuk tuk) or station wagon cars.
• The metal containers are painted white with a red band across with an inscription ‘MEAT’ along the
red band. They also supply to local secondary schools, boarding primary schools as well as hotels. The
meat products processed include beef and chevron (goat meat), and offals.
49
3.8.1.5 Disposal of Wastes
• All slaughterhouses have a pit where the stomach content is drained. This is later scooped as
manure for use in the farms after decomposition.
• Effluents from skins and hides are drained into a pit while meat based wastes are disposed at the
condemnation Pit which is located within the slaughter house compound and later incinerated
• Blood and other liquid based wastes are dispatched to the Soak Pit
• None of the slaughterhouses had NEMA environment certification
3.8.1.6 Business Management Practices
Nearly all the slaughterhouses sampled had some basic records of invoices, sales, and expenses. All the
slaughterhouses also kept records on number of livestock slaughtered and condemned which were also
kept with the meat inspector. None of the facilities filled financial returns except where they were lease
out.
Table 29: Turnover in Slaughter Houses in Mwingi Sub-County
Year Bovines Goats Poultry Pigs Revenue Estimated loss
2011 4161 7663 398 - 612321 490,312/=
2012 4057 10856 1410 35 681195 790,540/=
2013 5863 11627 500 82 809787 699,695/=
3.8.1.7 Handling processes at the butcheries
• Once the meat is in the butchery, it is further split for easy handling and hoisted using metal hooks.
There is no specialized processing of meat apart from cutting into required weights as per customer
requirement.
• Manual weighing scales is commonly used except in town centres where digital ones are used. The
use of digital was common in Makueni and is recommended as manual weigh scales are open to
manipulation by unscrupulous butchery owners.
• Splitting is done using axe and wooden stocks to cut meat into required weights are per customer
instead of a splitting machine
• Butcheries lack class white cover slab necessary for recommended high standards of hygiene
• Record keeping is very basic – recording made of stock bought, expenses and sales.
• Some butcheries also engage in cooking processed dairy products by boiling, frying and roasting meat
• Polythene papers and old newspapers as wrapping materials for meat sold except in town centres
3.8.1.8 Hides and Skin Traders
• Hides and skins are also sold to local traders who resell them to traders in either Mombasa or
Nairobi
• The main method of preservation is wet salting
• Tanneries were lacking in most of the counties surveyed, affecting effective processing and trading
in hides and skins
50
• The Common feature across the sites is a local structure used for treating and drying the hides ready
for sale to traders from either Nairobi or Mombasa where most buyers are based.
• Lack of use of specialized flaying knives contributes to poor quality of hides and skins.
3.8.2 FFPr 2.1.2 Increased Efficiency of post-production processes
Box 1 is an illustration of cost of processing per unit as per estimates from livestock processors consulted 
during the survey. Reliable statistics from the slaughter houses are lacking to enable statistical
computation.
3.8.3 Key Challenges facing processors in the study sites
• Lack of cold chain management
• Lack of access to credit: most financial institutions especially the banks tend to lock out processors
due to the potential risks involved and also the requirement of collateral
• Lack of hygienic packaging materials
• Lack of constant water supply which is a major contributing factor to observing hygiene standards in
the slaughterhouses. The tap water flow to slaughterhouses is inconsistent, forcing the owners to use 
alternative supplies which are very expensive, affecting profits margins.
• Lack of modern equipment and technologies such as digital weighing machines as well as proper
cutting instruments which prevents bone shattering.
• Lack of records (on prices, animals slaughtered etc.) and knowledge on simple gross margin analysis
• The licensing regime is also tedious. There are so many licenses for the marketing players required
by varied governmental agencies e. g. public health department, county government etc. This is
expensive and cumbersome for the players and there is need for harmonization.
• Frequent power blackouts at the slaughterhouse affects operations especially in regards to
refrigeration, occasioning losses to the marketers. This problem also affects water supply.
Box 1: Processing costs of livestock based on focus group discussions.
The cost of slaughtering a goat is Ksh 250 (inclusive of Ksh 50 for the vet doctor) while the cost ofslaughtering
a cow is Ksh 750 (inclusive of Ksh 200 for the vet doctor)
Most butchers transport the meat in boxes using carts, motorbikes or pick-ups whose price range from
Ksh 1,000 (goat) to Ksh 4,000 (cattle) per animal
The price of a goat equivalent to 25kg of meat after slaughtering is Ksh 6,000 while the meat is sold atKsh
400/kg leading to a gross return and an estimated profit of Ksh 10,000 and Ksh 2,000 respectively
The price of a bull to 150kg of meat after slaughtering is Ksh 30,000 while the meat is sold at Ksh 350/kg
leading to a gross return and an estimated profit of Ksh 52,500 and Ksh 15,0000 respectively
51
3.8.3 Some Opportunities for K-SALES Program and other stakeholders
• Some groupings exist such as in Taita Taveta.These are important avenues for program to mobilize
stakeholders
• Bones, horns and hooves are regarded to have little economic value and are used as fuel in the
butcheries. This remains largely unexploited in the study areas.
• The processors interacted with were generally unaware of the quality standard certifications such as
HACCAP. Yet these are critical if they are to access export markets.
• Support in terms of initiating tanneries at various locations
• Training of processors on good hygienic practices
• Training of processors on good financial management practices
• Linking processors to financial services to access credit for investment in digital weighing machines
and specialized flaying machines
• Support for livestock processing infrastructure. A number of slaughterhouses/structures remain
incomplete or are operating under-capacity. For instance, one slaughterhouse which according to key 
informants requires less than Kshs. 1,000,000 to become fully operational yet has been lying 
incomplete since 2010 having being initiated as part of Decentralization Agricultural Sector Support
(DASS) Program.
52
3.8.4 Key Performance Indicators and their baseline values
Table 30: Key performance Indicators
Key Performance Indicator
Baseline
Value Target Comments
Result Area SO FFPr 2.0 Expanded trade of Agricultural Products (Domestic, Regional and international) 
Percent increase in the value of locallytraded
livestock products (meat and
skin) (38)
TBD
Number of jobs attributed to USDA
assistance
0
 Result Area 2.1: Increased value added to post-production agriculture products
Percent increase in the average margin
between farm gate price and price of
processed product (39)
0, Baseline
margins
TBD
Indicator more suited to dairy set-up. It is
suggested that this indicator be dropped
Results Area: 2.1.1 Improved quality post-production agricultural products
Percent increase in volume of processed
products certified as meeting Kenya Bureau of
Standards
(KEBs) quality requirements (40)
O, Baseline
volumes
TBD
30% appears ambitious since this may begin
to be realized after the second year. We
recommend a target of 15% over the three
year period. Further given the standards in
the slaughter houses, use of KMC standard
A is deemed suitable.
Result Area: 2.1.2 Increased use of improved post-production processing and handling practices
Percentage of livestock enterprises using
modern equipment to process livestock
products as a result of USDA
assistance (41) (Listed as flaying knives,
stunning gun, sharpening steel,block and
tackle, skinning rack,
working platforms)
TBD
Percentage of livestock enterprises using 
improved techniques to process livestock 
products as a result of USDA assistance (42)(this 
describes how the processing is done using the
equipment above)
TBD
Post-harvest handling and processing
Number of post-harvest handling and
processing facility employees trained in
improved processing techniques
(43)
0 Indicator is output based
Number of post-harvest handling and
processing facility employees trained
in sanitary standards (44)
0
Increased efficiency of post-production processor
Average percentage decrease in post-harvest
processing cost per animal (45)
Statistics could not be computed
asslaughter houses visited did not keep
comprehensive records on costs
Improved post-harvest infrastructure
Number of new post-harvest handling
infrastructure projects completed as a
result of USDA assistance (46)
0
53
3.9 FFPr 2.2 Increased Access to Markets to sell Agricultural Products
3.9.1 Key Features of livestock markets in study counties
• The farmer choice of market for livestock is mainly determined by distance, prevailing price of
livestock and mode of transport
• The dominant mode of transportation of livestock from neighboring villages to the market is trekking. 
Value addition is limited to castration and feeding of livestock of multi-vitamins and salt lick to
improve quality of meat before selling.
• There are few or no marketing associations in most of the targeted areas
• The livestock markets are controlled by middlemen
• Price of livestock is negotiated based on stature, age of animal and body condition. Sale of livestock
based on weight is yet to take root in all counties
• Lack of market infrastructure – livestock markets were lacking in Tigania East in Meru County and in
Taita Taveta.
• A common feature of the local livestock markets was a fenced perimeter that helped restrain livestock 
during auctioning. None of the holding yards had watering troughs, which is a source of strain for 
animals in auction. Some of the markets have loading ramps while most did not. Some alsohad pegs 
for tethering shoats.
3.9.2 Household incomes from sale of Livestock
Table 31 shows the distribution of households’ income from sale of livestock. Mean income from sales
of livestock is significantly higher among male-headed households (Kshs. 18,321) than for female- headed 
households (Kshs. 7424). Those above 35 years of age also had significantly lower incomes than the youth. 
With regard to the counties, higher incomes were reported in Meru and Makueni counties, respectively.
Notably, shoats have a high share (75%) in the total household income from livestock sales.
Table 31: Household income from livestock sales (Kshs)
Beef
(KES) Goat (KES) Sheep (KES) Shoats (KES) All livestock
(KES)
% contribution of income
from sale of shoats to total
household income from sale
of livestock
Whole sample 16883.3 8702.1 2498.6 11200.7 28084.0 73.4
Male 18321.6 8889.4 2530.0 11419.4 29741.1 71.9
Female 7424.3 7470.0 2292.0 9762.0 17186.3 83.1
below 35 years old 23958.6 8999.3 2723.8 11723.2 35681.8 74.3
above 35 years old 15815.6 8655.1 2464.7 11119.8 26935.4 73.2
Meru 22762.9 7135.5 2554.6 9690.1 32453.0 71.3
Tharaka Nithi 16558.2 9375.7 2836.6 12212.3 28770.5 64.6
Kitui 15606.0 8751.3 2169.2 10920.5 26526.5 70.0
Makueni 19779.7 9113.5 2355.8 11469.4 31249.0 74.7
TaitaTaveta 9733.0 8827.5 2835.4 11662.9 21395.8 82.7
Machakos 16990.4 8963.7 2235.5 11199.2 28189.5 78.7
54
3.9.3 Livestock Farm-gate prices
Table 32 shows the farm-gate prices received by farmers from sales of livestock in 2013. Mean farm￾gate prices ranged from Kshs. 27,000 for cows to Kshs. 2,217 for shoats (Table 32). Kitui enjoyed relatively
high farm-gate prices of cattle as compared to the other counties.
Table 32: Mean and Median Livestock Farm-gate Prices
Cattle Goat Sheep
Project area Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median
County Whole sample 1091 27013 29467.1 1091 3744.3 3556.5 1091 2217.2 1826.2
Meru Control 102 27537.8 29467.1 102 3924.4 3619.4 102 2368.5 1766
Treatment 76 27062.2 24093.4 76 4082.5 3559.7 76 2621.2 2966.7
Tharaka Nithi Control 101 23214.8 25000 101 3266.3 3000 101 2033.9 1826.2
Treatment 93 29407.7 30000 93 3628.6 4000 93 2037.6 1826.2
Kitui Control 102 26744.2 28733.6 102 3630.9 3162.1 102 2051.6 1766
Treatment 98 28115.1 30000 98 3686.2 3500 98 1790.6 1766
Makueni Control 102 26354.5 21645.4 102 4176.7 4500 102 2332.1 2692.3
Treatment 75 26355.2 25000 75 4120.4 4000 75 2342.6 2692.3
TaitaTaveta Control 87 26446.1 29467.1 87 3806.1 3619.4 87 2426.9 2966.7
Treatment 89 28683.4 29508.8 89 3544.8 3619.4 89 2304.8 1833.3
Machakos Control 98 26416.2 23145.4 98 3606.4 3324.1 98 2329.8 2692.3
Treatment 68 28463.6 30558.3 68 3536 3556.5 68 2113.3 1833.3
55
3.9.4 Key Performance Indicators
Key Program Indicator and Number Baseline Value Targets Suggestions for revisions of PMP and
future monitoring
Increases access to markets to sell Agricultural products
Percentage increase in number of distinct
markets to which livestock and livestock
products are sold as a result of USDA
assistance
0
Proposed Indicator: Mean Farm gate price
per unit of livestock (Kshs)
Cattle –27,013
Goat- 3744
Sheep - 2217
Disaggregated by livestock type, prices
will be deflated at the baseline value
Improved linkages between buyers and sellers
Number of agreements, signed contracts,
and/or MoUs between buyers and sellers
as a result of USDA assistance (51)
0 Indicator is output based and will be
tracked during the roll-out of the
project. No marketing associations
exist in the targeted counties
Develop Cooperatives Business Capacity
Number of livestock enterprise staff and
cooperative members trained to market
agricultural products (52).
0
Number of livestock enterprise staff and
cooperative members trained in improved
business management (53).
0 Indicator is output based and will be
tracked during the roll-out of the
project. No marketing associations
exist in the targeted counties
Infrastructure Off: farm
Number of livestock enterprises investing
in new or rehabilitated livestock marketing
and trade infrastructure (47)
0
Value of in-kind grants provided to
livestock enterprises investing in off-farm
0
infrastructure (48)
Number of infrastructure projects carried
out (49)
0
Number of study tours facilitated (54) 0
Value of private and public sector
investment in market and trade
infrastructure as a result of USDA
assistance (55)
0 Target re￾distributed
Increased use of financial services
Number of livestock enterprises in target
region accessing credit through formal
financial products as a result of USDA
assistance
0 No change
Improved transaction efficiency
Per-cent reduction in cost required to trade
goods (57)
TBD No change
Improved management of Buyer/seller groups within Trade Sector
Number of livestock enterprises that
actively use business/marketing plans as a
result of USDA assistance (58)
0
Number of livestock enterprises using
improved financial management tools in
decision making as a result of USDA
assistance (59)
0
Improved market and trade infrastructure
Value of private and public investment in
the market and trade infrastructure as a
result of USDA assistance.
56
3.10 Impact Indicators
3.10.1 Household Food Security
Household food security was examined using Months of Adequate Household Food Provision (MAHFP)
and Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS). MAHFP score basically indicates how many in the year
the household had adequate food while HDDS examines the household consumption of different
categories of foods to meet various nutrition requirements (See Hoddinot and Yohannes, 2002; FAO,
2010). Household diversity score is a qualitative measure of food consumption that reflects household’s
access to a variety of food, and is a proxy for nutrient adequacy of the diet of the individuals. The reference 
period for HDDS in this study was the last 24 hours following Savy et al. (2005). Table 33 displays the 
distribution of the study sites by MAHFP and HDDS. Generally, the farm households have 6 months of 
adequate food provision within the year. According to key informants, these months coincide with the 
crop harvesting seasons in most of the study sites. Households employ a number of strategies such as 
disposal of household’s assets mainly livestock (50%) to meet their food requirements while others rely 
on relief food (10.2%) (See table 41).The mean dietary diversity score is 4.3 with the lowest score being
reported in Meru, perhaps because of the pastoral nature of surveyed households.
Table 33: Household Food Adequacy and Dietary Diversity Score
Months of Adequate
Household Food Provision
(MAHFP)
Household Dietary Diversity Score
Whole sample 5.8 4.3
Sex
Male 5.9 4.3
Female 4.9 4
Youth
Below 35 years old 6.1 4.2
Above 35 years old 5.7 4.3
County
Meru 5.1 3.6
Tharaka nithi 5.8 4
Kitui 5.7 4.6
Makueni 4.1 4.8
Taitataveta 6.5 4.3
Machakos 7.6 4.4
57
3.11 Re-examining K-SALES Evaluation Design
This section details the baseline survey findings by making reference to Treatment and Control sites
selected as part of K-SALES Project impact evaluation design. It compares selected variables across the
treatment and control sites in all the targeted counties. These variables include value of household
livestock ownership (in TLUs), average livestock body condition score, land size (acres), mean volumes and 
values of livestock sales and farm gate prices. Others are the household dietary diversity score (HDDS) and
months of adequate food provisioning (MAFHP).
Generally, the data shows limited variance across the sites earmarked for program interventions and
control (Table 34). Similarly, variations within targeted counties with respect to the treatment and control
sites are mostly statistically insignificant (See Tables 40 – 44 in Annex 10). This implies a generally good 
match of the treatment and control sites and their suitability for impact evaluation implicit in the 
evaluation plan. However, caution is needed to ensure that most farmers sampled in the proposed
treatment sites participate in the program to ensure adequate observations for impact assessment. It is 
also strongly recommended that follow-on surveys consider the effect of seasonality as some variables 
such as average livestock body condition score and HDDS are highly sensitive to weather patterns. One 
way of reducing the effect of seasonality would be to ensure that follow-on surveys are undertaken within 
the same period of the year as this baseline survey. While one would argue that the boost to the resilience 
of the targeted communities from K-SALES program would reduce effects of seasonality on livestock 
production, from an impact evaluation perspective this may likely result in underestimation of the impact 
of the study.
Table 34: Selected variables by treatment and control sites
Key Variable
Results
Treatment Control
Livestock TLU 4.6 4.7
Size of land owned (acres) 7.3 8.1
Average Body Condition Score for Beef 2.7 2.7
Average Body Condition Score for Goats 2.8 2.8
Average Body Condition Score for Sheep 2.7* 2.9
Total current livestock value(USD) per household 1,653 1,749
Value of livestock sales per household (USD) 347* 316
Mean months of household food provision 5.7 4.9
Household Dietary Diversity Score 4.4 4.3
Mean number of beef sold 1.9 1.7
Mean number of goats sold 2.6 2.1
Mean number of sheep sold 1.2 1.1
Notes: * Mean value different from control group at 0.05 significance level (T test)
58
3.12 Policy Issues and Implications
Kenya has a land surface area of 582, 646 square km, of which 2% is under water, 16% is classified as high 
and medium potential (suitable for arable agriculture) while the remaining 84% as arid and semi - arid
lands (ASALS) suitable for extensive livestock production, wildlife and irrigated farming (KNBS, 2014).
Kenya’s economy is characterized by high poverty rates, high dependency rates, high and increasing 
population as well as high dependency on subsistence smallholder agriculture (Republic of Kenya, 2013).
Attendant issues such as increased subdivision, land degradation, reduced crop productivity and 
production within the arable lands, presents both opportunities and challenges for the livestock subsector 
especially in the ASALs. The opportunity presented is that of increased role of the sector in terms of 
livelihoods and supply of food while the challenge can be viewed in terms of the increased demand for 
staple food crops which is going to put part of the ASALs in irrigated farming. This puts pressure on 
resources for livestock production that is viewed to be more viable given the prevailing conditions in the
ASALs.
3.11.1 The Livestock Sub-Sector
The livestock sub sector is vital to the country’s economy. For instance, the sector employs close to 50
percent of Kenya’s agricultural labor force and is a primary source of livelihoods for the 6 million
pastoralists and agro-pastoralists that live in the country’s arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs). However,
the sub-sector’s potential for poverty-reducing opportunities has largely been untapped, yet in the ASALs 
lies an immense base of natural resources endowment for the development of the meat, and associated
by products such as hides and skins.
Generally, the livestock sub sector has been faced with many challenges and constraints that have
impacted negatively on the rate of livestock development. These include weak policy and legal
frameworks in livestock sub-sectors, low livestock productivity, erratic and unpredictable weather
conditions which affect the quality and quantity of livestock feed and water supply. Others factors
constraining the development of the livestock sub sector include the prevalence of trans-boundary animal 
and zoonotic diseases and pests coupled with inadequate technical capacity for disease control; weak 
delivery of extension services; and international market; and unreliable data and information
management in the livestock industry.
The wealth of livestock-based economies of the ASALs is finally been recognized as an economic driver in
the country with the development of national policy and frameworks to spearhead the region’s
development. To address the above challenges, the government of Kenya proposes to implement the
following strategic interventions aimed at driving the transformation of the livestock development as
outlined in the ASDS (2009-2020): i) Reviewing of policy, legal and institutional frameworks, some of which
are outdated, ii) Improvement of livestock productivity, iii) Integrated development and
59
management of rangeland, iv) Improvement of animal health and quality assurance services; v)
Improvement of access to market, vi) Establishment of a centrally coordinated livestock database, and
vii) Implementation of disease free zones as a flagship project of Vision 2030.
A number of policy and legal frameworks of general and specific relevance to the livestock subsector,
are already in place. The general policy documents include 1) the Constitution of Kenya, 2) the Vision 2030, 
and 3) the Kenya Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Plan Compact (based on the CAADP). 
Specific policies include: 1) the Medium Term Investment Plan (MTIP) for Kenya’s Agricultural Sector￾2010-2015, 2) the Agricultural Sector Development Strategy (ASDS), Vision 2030 Investment Projects￾2012, 3) the National Livestock Policy (2008), 4) the land bill (2012) 5) the land policy (2009) and 6) the 
National water policy (2012). Under the devolved system, the relevant supportive policies include 1) the 
County Integrated Development Plans (CIDPs), 2) Urban Areas and Cities Act, 2011, 3) The County 
Governments Act, 2012, 4) The Transition to Devolved Government Act, 2012, 5) The Inter- Governmental 
Relations Act, 2012 and6) The Public Finance Management Act, 2012. The Livestock policy (2008) in 
particular recognizes that over 80% of the land is in ASALS whose main livelihoods in livestock. The policy 
has an objective of revitalizing the livestock sub-sector and guaranteeing the sustainability of livestock
farming as an economic activity in Kenya.
New opportunities for shared objectives in the livestock subsector are presented by the Jubilee Coalition
Manifesto launched in February 2013 that provides for a more focused and lean institutional framework8
by merging ministerial functions. The Manifesto proposes establishment of national livestock insurance 
scheme, putting a million acres of land under modern irrigation, revamping the mandate of the National
Livestock Board to ensure continuous research on livestock, improve the marketing and value addition of 
livestock produce and extend services to pastoralists and supporting thenecessary infrastructure to
support commercial agriculture and livestock production, among others.
3.11.2 Devolution and Opportunities for expanding Livestock sub-sector growth
The transition to devolved county governments presents huge opportunities for spurring the
development of the livestock sector which is a devolved function. With the county government, the
decision making is brought closer to the people to ensure that local livestock sub-sector needs are
prioritized and resources allocated to actualize those needs. The following are some of the issues that
relate to the livestock sub-sector that need urgent attention as the county governments look to support
key economic drivers to expand its revenue base.
• Policies and legislative frameworks: the county governments are required to cascade national policy
and legislative frameworks to the local priorities. This presents opportunity to revise some of the
outdated policies with the K-SALES providing technical support. Additionally, Ministry of Livestock
8 Available at (http://softkenya.com/jubilee-coalition-manifesto)
60
Development has various institutions, occasioned with overlaps in mandates leading to duplication of 
efforts (Republic of Kenya, 2010). Reforming the legal and institutional frameworks, building capacity
for delivery of animal health and quality assurance services and domesticate and implement regional
and international sanitary measures is also a key priority for the counties.
• Support for market and marketing infrastructure such as holding grounds are key priorities for the
county government. For instance, most of the slaughterhouses in the counties are category C level
and substantial investment in upgrading the infrastructure is necessary for them to adopt necessary
quality certifications to supply local and export markets, thereby expanding the revenue base of the
counties and local communities.
• Promoting suitable mechanisms for production and dissemination of real-time market price
information among livestock producer
• Measures to enhance access to productive assets as land reforms, financial services for various players 
in the meat value chain, expanding and putting in measures for sustainable water resources
management, while putting in place mechanisms to stimulate emergence of private sector players
• Strengthening local institutions such as marketing and water user associations while also harmonizing
the role of key authorities such as National Drought Management Authority in sustainable
management of the rangelands.
• Finally, more attention needs to be given to public private co-operation within the livestock sector
such asthe county government involving private veterinary practitionersin the distribution ofvaccines 
and providing capacity building for livestock producers on important of veterinary services and 
symptoms of livestock diseases. Special consideration should also be given to private vets in the semi￾arid areas who wish to apply for loans from the government fund to enhance their businesses.
• K-SALES can support in advocacy and implementation of some of the jubilee manifesto strategies
which are in line with its objectives
• Further research is needed to inform proper enterprise choice and mix for the targeted counties as
the counties looks to support enterprise diversification as risk reduction strategy but also recognizing
the viability and fragility of the ecosystem.
63
Figure 2: Meat value chain flow diagram
Government
Middlemen
Restocking
Processor
Key: the arrow indicate the flow
of livestock or their products
Market Processor/Marketer
(Buyer)
Farmer Slaughter
house/slab
Other Markets
Consumer
Processor
Butchery
64
4.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 CONCLUSION
This baseline survey for the K-SALES project was carried out with the twin objectives of obtaining more
information to aid design of interventions and benchmark the program performance indicators for future
monitoring of its initiatives. The baseline survey was carried out across all the six countiesworking with
the program, spanning the whole of the meat value chain.
Livestock Production Systems
The results of the survey show growing preference for goat enterprise because of resilience to drought,
ease in rearing and marketing, although most farmers still place high value on cattle. Livestock kept are
largely indigenous breeds which fetch little returns for farmers at the point of sale. Use of breeding
improvement services such as bull schemes and artificial insemination is not widely practiced. There is
low to moderate adoption of improved livestock husbandry and farm management practices with disease 
control measures such as de-worming, vaccinations and hand spraying being widely practiced across the 
six counties except for Taita Taveta. With regard to farm management practice, record keeping is least
practiced across all the sites. Livestock production is still largely taken as a way of life and there is need
for extensive farmer education for commercial orientation.
Water for livestock is a challenge in most of the program sites especially during the dry seasons. The
current practice is to move with the livestock in search of water. Distances travelled to water points
increased significantly during dry seasons with water shortage placing a heavier burden on women asthey 
are also responsible for meeting other household water needs and chores. There is also need to promote 
water use and conservation efforts by strengthening water resource user associations for effective 
management of the scarce resource. Further support from the county governments and other
development partners is also needed in developing appropriate community water supply systems for
livestock and domestic use.
This calls for integrated and comprehensive programs to enhance access to productivity-enhancing
affordable farm inputs, water for livestock use, disease control, credit, extension services and measures
to manage other factors such as human wildlife conflict and insecurity due to cattle rustling thatcontinue 
to impact negatively on the productivity of the sector. From the study, it appears the current extension 
system and technology and support is strong on providing veterinary care service but weaker on building
other skills such as breeding, value addition, farm management and nutrition.
65
Business Service Providers
With regards to service providers, agrovets were the most common livestock input service providers
providing a range of services from animal health services, stockiest of farm inputs. Adoption of farm
management practices such as record keeping is low and at its basic level. Lack of credit is also cited as a
key constraint in acquiring stock. Other challenges facing service providers in the meat value chain were
lack of appreciation of the services by livestock producers, implying need for demand-side pull factors
such as general farmer education to enhance demand for the various livestock production services
offered. High cost of inputs is also a major hindrance with farmers responding by carrying out diagnosis
by themselves, buying antibiotics over the counter and administering treatment to their animals. Other
challenges cited were competition from what was described as uncertified practitioners and presence of
counterfeit drugs in the market is also a key concern for the service providers as this also contribute to
the distrust among livestock producers.
Livestock Processing
From the study, used of modern and specialized facilities such as cold storage, digital weighing machines, 
specialised knives for flaying. Proper cold chain management was lacking yet it is essential for preservation 
of meat quality to fetch premium prices in the market. Similarly, lack of awareness of the quality standard 
certifications such as HACCAP and observation of recommended hygiene standards are major concerns. 
Most of the processing facilities require upgrading and renovation and most operate under-capacity as 
they serve the local market and are mostly active on market days. Good management practices such as 
record keeping are not well adopted.
Tanneries for effective processing hides and skin are lacking with wet salting being used as the main
method of preservation. Erratic water and power supply, lack of access to credit were some of the other
challenges facing livestock processors that should be prioritized and addressed by counties and
development partners.
Marketing of Livestock and Livestock By-Products
Results of this study indicate limited value addition at farm level. There are few marketing associations
with marketing being dominated by middlemen. Selling of livestock is based on negotiated prices
depending on observable characteristics of the animal such as body condition and age. Most of the
study sites have designated places and dates for selling livestock except for Taita Taveta and Tigania East
in Meru. Most of the place lack basic infrastructure such as watering troughs. At the processors level,
value addition to bones, horns and hooves are largely unexploited.
In this regard, developing reliable market infrastructures ought to be a major priority. On one hand, the
communities need to intensify their demand for this through the local leadership with the county
66
governments prioritizing these needs to spur local development. In additional, other infrastructural
facilities like good roads and rural electrification that have impact of livestock marketing also need to be
addressed.
Building Institutional capacities
The role of institutions in promoting sustainable livestock production especially in the ASALs cannot be
overemphasized. Farmer groups are one way of ensuring a collective bargaining power. As per study
findings, farmer groups, marketing associations and water user associations are either non-existent or
faced with serious management challenges. Perhaps capacity building in leadership and governance to
enable them function effectively and channel livestock producers’ interests. At the higher level, there
are numerous institutions and authorities such as Drought Management Authority which are critical for
livelihoods in the ASALs yet there are roles are not yet known. There is need for awareness creation and
harmonization of their roles to serve local interests and priorities of livestock sub-sector in each of the
counties.
Priorities for the County Government
On the policy front, the transition to devolved county governments provides huge opportunities for
spurring the development of the livestock sector. With the county government, the decision making is
brought closer to the people to ensure that local livestock sub-sector needs are prioritized and resources
allocated to actualize those needs. This is particularly so as the county governments look for economic
drivers to expand its revenue base. According to this survey, the following areas need the urgent
attention of the county governments: cascade national level policies to local policies and legislative
framework to support livestock development. This requires technical support. Support for rehabilitation
of the dilapidated processing and marketing facilities in the counties is also a key priority as substantial
upgrading the infrastructure is necessary for them to adopt necessary quality certifications to supply local 
and export markets.
Other areas are production and dissemination of real-time market price information among livestock
producer, enhancing access to financial services for various players in the meat value chain, expanding
water sources and domestic water harvesting, expanding veterinary extension services while putting in
place mechanisms to stimulate emergence of private sector players,support for basic infrastructure such 
as roads and power. At farm level, there is need to support formation and strengthening of marketing
associations and breeding enhancement programs to stimulate commercial livestock production.
Finally, more attention needs to be given to public private co-operation within the livestock sector such
as the county government involving private veterinary practitioners in the distribution of vaccines and
providing capacity building for livestock producers on important of veterinary services and symptoms of
67
livestock diseases. Special consideration should also be given to private vets in the semi-arid areas who
wish to apply for loans from the government fund to enhance their businesses.
4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
This survey identifies a number of opportunities for enhancing productivity and competitiveness of the
value chain at various levels.
At farm level
• Support for rehabilitation of water infrastructure and strengthening of water management
committees remain urgent
• Increasing access to affordable recommended productivity-enhancing practices and technologies
such as breeding improvement programs is critical. Use of participatory methodologies such as the
farmer field school will enable farmers to test and validate some of the technologies for wide-scale
adoption and to mainstream issues of gender.
• Mechanisms to enhance access to credit through alternative collateral arrangements will be vital
• Facilitating formation and strengthening of producer and marketing associations to provide farmers
with platforms for better negotiation to reduce exploitation by middlemen
• Farmer education on importance of recommended technologies and practices such as seeking
veterinary attention when livestock is sick.
At service provider level
• Capacity building on recommended technologies and farm management practices
• Enhance linkages to various input suppliers
• Enhance linkages to financial service providers
At processor level
• Capacity building on meat handling and hygiene practices and standards such as HACCAP and Good
Manufacturing Practices
• Enhancing linkages to financial institutions to acquire modern facilities
• Support for rehabilitation or upgrading of processing facilities and market infrastructure
68
REFERENCES
Marstrand D.M., Madsen J., McAinsh C.V., Larsen C.E.S., Kimambo A.E., Laswai G.H., Mgheni D.M. and
Pereka A.E. (2004). Livestock banking in Africa – The tragedy of the commons and /or a blessing for the
poor?Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Denmark.
Omiti, J., Irungu, P., 2002. Institutional and policy issues relevant to pastoral development in Kenya.
Discussion paper No. 031, Institute of Policy Analysis and Research (IPAR), Nairobi.
Thornton, P.K., Randall, B.B., Galvin, K.A., Burnsilver, S.B., Waithaka, M.M., Kuyiah, J., Karanja, S.,
Gonzalez-Estrada, E., Herrero, M., 2007. Coping strategiesin livestock-dependent households in east and
southern Africa: A synthesis of four case studies. Human Ecology 35(4), 461-476.
Otieno, D., 2008. Determinants of Kenya’s Beef Export Supply, Discussion paper No. 85, ISBN:
9966777334, Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA), Nairobi.
http://blds.ids.ac.uk/cf/opaccf/detailed.cfm?RN=281990. Accessed 20 August 2010.
Mugunieri, G.L., Omiti, J.M., 2007. Decentralization, community-based organizations and access to
agricultural extension services in eastern Kenya. In: Barrett, C.B., Mude, A.G., Omiti, J.M. (eds.).
Decentralization and the Social Economics of Development: Lessons from Kenya. CAB International,
Wallingford, pp. 64-83.
Oluoch-Kosura, W., 2010.Institutional innovations for smallholder farmers’ competitiveness in Africa.
African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 5(1), 227-242.
Larsen, K., Kim, R., Theus, F. (eds.) 2009.Agribusiness and innovation systems in Africa. ISBN: 978-0- 8213-
7944-8. The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
FAO (2010) Guidelines for Measuring Household and Individual Dietary Diversity.Prepared by Gina
Kennedy, Terri Ballard and MarieClaude Dop Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Hoddinott, J. & Yohannes, Y. 2002.Dietary diversity as a food security indicator.FANTA 2002, Washington
DC. (available at http://www.aed.org/Health/upload/ dietarydiversity.pdf)
Savy, M., Martin-Prevel, Y., Sawadogo, P., Kameli, Y. & Delpeuch, F. 2005. Use of variety/ diversity scores
for diet quality measurement: relation with nutritional status of women in a rural area in Burkina Faso.
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 59: 703-716.
69
ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR BASELINE SURVEY
70
Kenya Semi-Arid Livestock Enhancement Support (K-SALES)
Project
Baseline Study (2014)
Request for Proposals
71
Request for Proposals (RfP)
Applications are invited from recognized qualified firms to conduct a baseline survey for the Kenya Semi- Arid 
Livestock Enhancement Support (K-SALES) Project to collect baseline data to enable the project team to 
understand the current situation and inform target setting as per the attached solicitation. Under this solicitation, 
K-SALES, based on an open competitive selection process, will award a subcontract with a value of an agreed 
upon amount. If you decide to submit a bid, it must be submitted in accordance with the attached solicitation 
and received no later than the date and time indicated.
Land O’Lakes values consistency in M&E activities over the life of the project; as such, if the selected baseline 
firm conducts high quality activities within the agreed timeline and budget, and submits quality deliverables on 
time, Land O’Lakes will first consider proposals from the selected firm for future K-SALES mid-term and final 
project evaluations. Proposals for future activities will still be subject to the same rigorous assessment criteria, 
including a full cost-price analysis on the proposed budget. Any subsequent contracts for services will be at the 
sole discretion of Land O’Lakes, and Land O’Lakes reserves the right to reject any future proposals from the 
selected firm and reissue a full and open Request for Proposals for future evaluation activities. Award of a 
contract for baseline services does not guarantee future work under K- SALES or other Land O’Lakes projects.
1.0 Background
1.1 Project Overview
Additional information on the project, including the project design document, the Evaluation Plan, the
Performance Monitoring Plan will be made available to the winning bidder. Bidders may find it useful to consult 
a broad range of background documents apart from project documents provided by the K-SALES team. These 
may include documents that relate to livestock production and marketing (Central and County governments’ 
policy documents), various value-chain assessments, public health documents, especially on safety requirements 
around slaughterhouses and butcheries, and water user associations, especially in the project area.
1.2 Target area and partners
K-SALES will operate in Meru, Tharaka-Nithi, Kitui, Makueni, Taita Taveta, and Machakos Counties. The
counties have high poverty levels, high population diversity and high potential for staple food crop and livestock
production. Additionally, the counties have large livestock holdings, local unmet demand forlivestock and
livestock products, and are strategically located within livestock trading corridors serving both
Box 1: Project identifying information
1. Program: USDA Food For Progress
2. Project Title: Kenya Semi-Arid Livestock Enhancement Support (K-SALES)
3. Project Number: OGSM: FCC-615-2013/030-00
4. Project Dates: September 2013 – September 2106
5. Project Funding: $14,400,000
6. Implementing Organization: Land O’Lakes Inc, Kenya
72
Nairobi and Mombasa markets. Within these counties, K-SALES will work with enterprises (farm and firm)
that: have demonstrated farming or business stability with a clear interest and commitment to competitive
growth through expansion and quality improvement; possess and operate livestock related agribusiness, and/or 
offer inputs to livestock producers and agribusinesses; exhibit a willingness to cost share on certain activities 
(as outlined above); and demonstrate knowledge, ability and motivation to participate in project activities.
Livestock value chains are potentially profitable livelihoods for traditionally marginalized populations. K￾SALES will focus on women, youth and economically marginalized populations as potential target beneficiaries.
At least one-third of target beneficiaries will be women.
For activities that involve value-addition, K-SALES will directly work with and assist Kenyan organizations
such as Business Development Service (BDS) providers, meat processors, wholesalers, financial service
providers and retailers. K-SALES will select beneficiaries for value-addition activities who are:
• Active and contributing members of the Kenya Livestock Marketing Council, Kenya Livestock
Producers Association, and/or Kenya Tanneries Association. In cases where small holder farmers who 
are nonmembers of these associations demonstrate interest in value addition, they will also be
considered.
• Demonstrate the ability to adopt innovative practices and technologies aimed at improving
productivity, product quality and food safety standards;
• Are willing and able to adhere to acceptable environmentally sound practices and demonstrate a
commitment to social responsibility; and,
• Demonstrate the ability to raise financial resources needed for investing in improved marketing, quality
and food safety; and,
• Show clear dedication to market-oriented business expansion.
An estimated 80,000 farmers, 700 providers of livestock inputs and services, and 2500 employees of livestock
processing enterprises (slaughter \houses and butcheries) are anticipated to benefit.
FIGURE 1: MAP OF TARGET AREA
73
1.3 K-SALES Objectives
K-SALES aim to achieve the following objectives:
• Increase productivity of live animal and meat (cattle and shoat), and hides and skins value chains. K￾SALES interventions will increase the availability of productivity and quality enhancing inputs,
technologies and services, while increasing adoption of improved livestock and farm management
techniques.
• The K-SALES Business Development and Water Development Funds will provide grants to leverage
private financing for increased investment in business expansion, improved technologies and
infrastructure, while the Capacity Building Fund will leverage grants to facilitate peer-to-peer learning.
• Following an increase in productivity, the project will increase producer and processor capacity in
providing hygienic quality meats, hides and skins. K-SALES will stimulate and leverage public and
private investment in infrastructure and technologies through matching grants. The project will
strengthen vertical and horizontal linkages through capacity building and mentorships to improve
linkages between buyers and sellers, buy-down risk of investment and reduce transaction costs.
The planned results from these activities are as shown in the Results Framework diagrams below. A detailed
description of objectives and anticipated results is Appended (Annex 1).
Figure 2: K-SALES Results Frameworks
Kenya Semi-Arid Livestock Enhancement Support Project
FFPr 1.2.2: Improved
Infrastructure to Support
On-Farm Production
FFPr 1.2.3: Increased FFPr 1.2.1: Increased
Use of Financial Availability of
Services Improved Inputs
FFPr 1.2.4: Increased
Knowledge by Farmers of
Improved Agricultural
Techniques and Technologies
FFPr 1.3.1: Improved
Knowledge Regarding Farm
Managment
A.3 Increase A.4:
Access to Clean Infrastructure
Water Systems On-farm
A.5: Financial
Services Facilitate
Agricultural Lending
A.1: Develop Business
Service Providers
A.2. Facilitate Farmer
Field Schools
FFPr 1.3: Improved Farm
Management
FFPr 1.2: Increased Use of
Improved Agricultural
Techniques and Technologies
FFPr SO1: Increased
Agricultural Productivity
74
1.4 Project approach and implementation
K-SALES will engage with industry stakeholders who will assume project activity implementation, with staff
playing a more facilitative role. Project staff will monitor activities without performing market functions directly. 
By overseeing the implementation of project activities, staff will build upon existing knowledge and experience 
of local organizations operating in the target Counties. An illustrative list of potential recipients include: Kenya 
Livestock Marketing Council; Kenya Livestock Producers Association; Kenya Tanneries Association; Kenya 
Meat Commission; Kenya Slaughter House Owner’s Association; Livestock Producer Associations and
Livestock Marketing Associations; Water User Associations.
This assignment will help identify existing organizations that K-SALES can partner with to achieve its
objectives.
2.0 Baseline study
2.1 Purpose
The baseline study will help the project team to understand the prevailing livestock production, marketing
and socio-economic situation of the targeted households and firms. It will also assess the target population’s
perceptions, levels of awareness, knowledge, attitudes and practices related to livestock production and
marketing to allow proper formulation of capacity building interventions. The study will also capture baseline
A6: Infrastructure Off￾FFPr 2.1.2.2: Improved
75
data for all applicable K-SALES indicators that will be used to assess progress towards results at midterm and
final evaluation. K-SALES will conduct impact evaluations to enable attribution of results to the project
interventions. This study will therefore lay the foundation for attribution, and shall involve use of a control
group.
Specific objectives of the baseline survey are:
• Assess the prevailing conditions relating to livestock (beef and shoat) value chains where K-SALES
plans interventions,
• Establish both qualitative and quantitative baseline information for the indicators for which the
project will regularly measure performance,
• Gather findings in light of which the annual targets for the indicators will be established or validated
in the Performance Management Plan (PMP) which is available as Annex-2. Consulting firm will be
required to provide recommendations on appropriateness of indicators and targets set as contained in
the project PMP, and suggest improvements as appropriate.
• Establish quantitative and qualitative methodologies for specific indicators according to which
subsequent data will be collected and compared to track and evaluate the project’s progress and impact
over the project lifespan,
• Gather necessary information regarding the situation and challenges on ground to make appropriate
implementation decisions to maximize efficiency, effectiveness and impact of the project,
• Explain and/or validate the relevance and potential impact of K-SALES to key stakeholders,
• Incorporate stakeholder views and ensure strong partnerships, and
• Generate accurate information that can be used by Government of Kenya, Governments of targeted
Counties, partners and stakeholders in developing the livestock sector.
To meet the purpose and specific objectives, this study will raise and answer critical questions in categories
targeting each of project objectives and stakeholder category. Example of such categories and data to be
collected will include:
Livestock producers: Current livestock husbandry practices, knowledge and skills on animal husbandry, access 
to water sources for domestic and livestock production, distance to providers of improved livestock inputs and 
service providers, livestock sales and income derived from livestock, livestock body condition, membership to 
livestock production and marketing groups and water user associations, need for credit, uses of credit, existing 
sources of credit, process of securing credit, repayment terms of credit, challenges in securing credit, and size
of loans knowledge gaps, opportunities and challenges
Livestock producer and marketing associations: Membership, total cost of operations, current profit
margins, number of marketing outlets used, current business operations practices, including existence of
contracts with buyers, need for credit, uses of credit, existing sources of credit, process of securing credit,
repayment terms of credit, challenges in securing credit, and size of loans gaps, opportunities and challenges
Business service providers: Knowledge and skills, current demand for services as depicted by input and
services sales volumes and income, need for credit, uses of credit, existing sources of credit, process of securing 
credit, repayment terms of credit, challenges in securing credit, and size of loans, knowledge gaps, opportunities 
and challenges
Livestock processors (slaughter houses and butchers): Current practices (hygiene, meat handling, and
transportation and storage practices), existing infrastructure (storage, hauling, holding pens, etc.) compliance
76
with set industry standards, need for credit, uses of credit, existing sources of credit, process of securing credit, 
repayment terms of credit, challenges in securing credit, and size of loans, gaps, opportunities and challenges.
Prospective partners: Roles in sector, challenges and opportunities project team would tap into/experience
working with them.
2.2 Methodology
The baseline study will employ a quasi-experimental design, using mixed methods in data collection to allow
triangulation, with carefully selected treatment and control groups will be used to lay the foundation for an
impact evaluation, and thus enable attribution of results to the intervention. Bidders are required to demonstrate 
competence in impact evaluations, especially on impact studies that employ a quasi-experimentaldesign.
K-SALES intends to utilize a combination of a) propensity score matching (PSM) and Difference in Difference 
(DiD) in selecting livestock producers to include in study. Using the Propensity score matching (PSM) 
methodology, K-SALES will replicate the project selection process to the control group – i.e. non- project 
stakeholders- making sure the selection process is based on observable characteristics in order to inferwhat 
would have happened to the beneficiaries without the project. K-SALES intends to include households that 
are statistically similar in all observed characteristics to those who received the project services and products.
The selection criteria will include but is not limited to, gender, average livestock holding, household size,
membership to a communal water group, membership to a livestock production cooperative/group.
Given the nature of the K-SALES, matching alone my not provide all the necessary information to make
concrete attribution of project results to the intervention since non observable farmer characteristics may affect 
both outcome variables and project placements. For instance, participating farmers may self-select themselves
based on the interest of forming a livestock producer group because of motivational or skillrelated 
characteristics and the outcome variable may also relate to motivational factors or skills, such as the case of 
livestock body condition measures. Thus, it will be necessary to combine the PSM and Difference in Difference
approaches to compare the changes in the indicator under consideration over time. The comparison in a DiD 
approach will be between the trends in the control group from before and after the project, versus the trends 
in the treatment group. The double difference will refer to the difference over time (the first difference) and 
difference between the control and treatment (the second difference). This will remove the bias due to the 
unobservable characteristics such as motivation and attitudes.
While a PSM/DiD approach is relevant to assess the impact of the interventions focused on livestock
farmers, this methodology is not relevant for assessing activities working directly with Kenyan
organizations/businesses such as Business Service Providers (BSPs), meat processors, wholesalers, financial
service providers and retailers. As such, the proposal should outline other relevant methodologies for assessing 
these additional project stakeholders, with strong attention to qualitative approaches. Applicants must delineate 
evaluation questions that will be answered by each methodology (PSM/DiD vs. non-farmer assessments). The
proposal should particularly address the most effective methodology given the implementation area of the
project and cultural norms in these target regions.
77
Additionally, the bid document will contain the detailed methodology including the sections on sampling,
data collection methods, data validation and data analysis. The methodology section should explain how the
data entry will be made efficient and error free. Mechanism of verification and ensuring correctness of data
e.g. through re-verification of filled questionnaires with beneficiaries should also be elaborated. Baseline
qualitative description of project indicators will be highly important to analyze changes in awareness,
perception, and knowledge of beneficiaries related to improved opportunities available to them. It is
recommended to build in a series of focus groups/interviews to describe beneficiaries’ business orientation,
behavior and relationships, access to and use of agricultural/financial services and inputs and technology, and
perceptions of service and input supply system.
Land O’Lakes recommends participatory approaches to data collection and appraisals. The consultant will
propose the methodology and finalize it in consultation with Land O’Lakes.
3.0 Study team and responsibilities
3.1 Study team
The proposed study team should have relevant formal qualification and practical expertise, and should
demonstrate skills in areas of: livestock production and marketing, notably livestock farm
management/husbandry, veterinary, livestock business & value chain, financial services, rural development and 
agriculture economics. The team will be composed of specialists, enumerators, and data entry assistants. The 
team will be proficient in statistics, and quantitative and qualitative survey methodology. In addition, the team 
will have at least one person with proven experience in participatory evaluation, community based approaches,
developing and evaluating agribusiness development programs. S/he will have broad understanding of Kenya 
livestock sector and have skills in measuring and assessing the effectiveness of rural production and marketing
systems. Experience in survey planning and directing is required while understanding of County government 
structure in Kenya, and related private businesses and government institutes is required. Bidders should 
demonstrate work experience in evaluation of agricultural value chain related projects (preferably in the 
livestock sector); previous experience in evaluation of USDA/USAID implemented programs would be 
an asset, and knowledge of the project target regions.A team leader will be designated who will 
be the point of contact and will have the overall responsibility for the implementation of the baseline and the 
deliverables. This team will work closely with K-SALES M&E Manager, project staff and Land O’Lakes M&E
Global team to include their input into all baseline activities.
3.2 Key responsibilities
Team’s responsibilities will include:
• Achieve understanding of project background documentation
o Project design document
o Performance Management Plan (PMP)
o Evaluation Plan
o Livestock policy documents
o Any other documents and data considered helpful for the purpose this study, and suggested by
Land O’Lakes
• Present and finalize study methodology in collaboration with M&E Manager and Global M&E team
o Prepare the sampling design and framework for the survey, sample size and sample weight
calculations by County, and sampling procedures, including selection of sampling areas/units,and
identification of households to be surveyed.
78
o Design the sampling frame to be used to select respondents, submitting fully explained sampling
procedures
o Participate in the selection of control and participating livestock farmers
o Selecting data collection methods
o Preparing data collection tools (questionnaire, focus group checklist, application of gender
analytical framework, key informant interview guide etc.)
o Pre testing of survey tools/instruments
o Presenting and getting approval of data collection and analysis templates
• Data collection activities
o Translating the final questionnaire into the appropriate language(s) for interview
o Formatting and printing all questionnaires
o Recruiting and training of enumerators in selection of respondents
o Training data collection and data entry teams in use of data collection and entry instruments
o Conducting a pretest to ensure that the questionnaire elicits the information required
o Supervising the field administration of the questionnaire
o Supervising the data entry process using appropriate software package (eg. MS-Excel, SPSS,
Minitab, ArcGIS etc.) and in a data model finalized in consultation with K-SALES staff
o Arranging all the logistics related to the study
o Informing and coordinating with local authorities for the administration of the baseline
• Data entry and analysis
o Editing and coding responses and entering and processing data
o Analyzing collected data and submitting a complete standard report with outlines and fully written
text in a timely manner
o Organize all data collected in a database in MS Excel. This database will ensure anonymity of
survey participants by using identification numbers and separating names from survey participants’
data
• Quality control
o The contractor will implement quality control measures to ensure a high level of interviewer
performance. A full description of these measures and the results of the quality control must be
included in the final technical report
o The contractor shall ensure that every respondent can be matched to a questionnaire and an
interviewer
o The time and duration of the interview must be recorded and included in the final dataset
• Report production and presentation:
o After concluding the field work, findings will be presented to K-SALES team for their comments 
and input via a PowerPoint presentation
o A draft report, that will incorporate comments on presentation, will be prepared and shared with
K-SALES team for further commenting and inputs
o Amendment will be made to the draft report incorporating K-SALES team’s input for production
of final report
o Final report along with all the documents related to the study (filled questionnaires, electronic
versions of the collected data and so on) will be submitted to K-SALES staff from Land O’Lakes.
o Revised Evaluation Plan which incorporates recommendations and includes methodologies to be
used during the life of project.
4.0 Timeframe
Land O’Lakes will accept proposals against this RFP till 3rd February 2014 and plans to finalize the award of
this contract by 17th February 2014. The study must be completed and the final report submitted to Land
O’Lakes on or before March 26, 2014.
79
The contractor will propose a timeline for every identified deliverable and obligate himself to adhere strictly
to the agreed-upon schedule. Failure to observe the schedule may result in a penalty at the discretion of the
Land O’Lakes. Land O’Lakes agrees to consider, at the contractor’s request, reasonable changes to the schedule, 
but is in no way obligated to grant them. All reasonable extension requests will be considered. Delays in the
schedule that are the fault of Land O’Lakes may be considered by the contractor as a justification in any ensuing
delays of an equal length on the part of the Contractor.
5.0 Deliverables
The contractor is expected to produce the following deliverables under this assignment:
• Inception report
o Understanding of the project based on project documents and literature review
o Finalized methodology including detailed sampling plan, sample size, control and treatment
groups
o Quality control measures
o Communication protocol
o Finalized timeline (activities, responsible party, outputs, and timing)
• Survey instruments, both quantitative and qualitative data collection instruments
• Presentation on major findings and identified trends after the conclusion of fieldwork
• 20-30 high resolution pictures with description on CD-ROM or thumb drive to show the field activities
and inform of beneficiaries present practices/situation
• Draft of the baseline report
o Baseline report will include recommendations on indicators, targets, suggest partners who K￾SALES can work with to achieve its objectives and any changes/improvement of project
design/interventions
• Cleaned quantitative and qualitative datasets in Microsoft Excel (.xls) or SPSS format
• Revised Evaluation Plan which incorporates recommendations from the final report document.
• 2 bound copies of the final comprehensive baseline report with an electronic copy on a CD-ROM or thumb
drive that includes, but is not limited to, the following:
o Acknowledgements
o List of Acronyms and abbreviations
o Table of Contents
o Executive Summary
o A brief description of the program and purpose of the study
o Methodology
o Results and Findings
 Baseline values for indicators as set in the Results Table (APDT)
 Supporting information in order that K-SALES may set the annual and overall targets
 Suggest amendments to the Results table (APDT), supported by data
 Suggest improvements to the PMP
80
 Establish baseline description and values for other monitoring and impact variables
supporting program’s strategic objectives as discussed with the program team during the
inception
 Analysis of anticipated problems or constraints for the implementation of activities
o Actionable recommendations to improve the design and implementation of the program
o Annex - Terms of Reference for the evaluation
o Annex - Survey instruments: questionnaire, interview guide (s), etc. as appropriate
o Annex - Monitoring tools (questionnaire) to assess indicator performance in future
• An electronic version of the final Power Point presentation based on the baseline report. A presentation
to the Land O’Lakes/Bangladesh office and stakeholders.
6.0 Submission of Proposal
Qualified consulting firms are required to submit a detailed technical and financial proposal with the
following components to Procurement.KSALES@idd.landolakes.com:
• Technical proposal
o The Contractor’s understanding of the study objectives
o A detailed methodology on how the assignment shall be conducted
o A clear and comprehensive work plan, outlining the major activities and implementation time
schedule
o Organizational/individual capacity statement, past experiences and activities related to theme of
the study
o Curriculum vitae of the team members
o At least two references of other clients for which similar assignments were undertaken
• Financial proposal with itemized budgets and explanation notes
Both the technical proposal and the financial proposal should be submitted together but in separate
documents (very important).
The proposals will be shortlisted based on:
• Relevant experience of the firm/team in agriculture development projects, especially the ones
sponsored by USG donor agencies
• Demonstrable experience and technical competence in the dairy sector
• Understanding of local government structure, private dairy business, rural development, dairy sector
etc.
• Qualification/experience of the team members
• Quality of technical proposal (methodology, sample design, key questions raised etc.)
• Suitability of time lines
• Realistic budgets
81
7.0 Annexes
Annex 1: Project Objectives
Strategic Objective 1 – Agricultural Productivity: K-SALES will directly benefit 80,700 SA2 households
and build the capacity of 700 business service providers (BSPs) to deliver productivity enhancing inputs and
services to farmers. To achieve this, K-SALES will increase access to and use of improved livestock inputs;
support the development and management of off-farm infrastructure, including water points for livestock;
increase the use of financial services for sector investment; increase farmers’ knowledge in the use and benefits 
of improved techniques and technologies; and strengthen farm management practices. As a result, livestock 
owned by participating farmers will have an ideal body condition score, and the value of livestock will
increase by 30 percent in the region by the end of the project.
IR1.2 Increased Use of Improved Agricultural Techniques and Technologies: K-SALES will facilitate
the training of 80,000 livestock producers in the use of improved agricultural techniques and technologies. As
agricultural productivity increases, we will build producer confidence in inputs and service providers, and
ultimately grow demand for private sector provision of goods and services. As a result, more than 64,000
farmers will apply new techniques and technologies.
Sub IR 1.2.1: Increased Availability of Improved Inputs. Under this IR K-SALES will address key barriers, 
such as insufficient water resources and poor animal health, to livestock production in SA2, while building the 
capacity of private input providers to embed service delivery. As a result, 700 additional agri- dealers will 
supply improved inputs and services, thus enabling all targeted farmers to be within 5 kilometers of 
improved inputs.
Sub IR 1.2.2: Improved Infrastructure to Support On-Farm Production: K-SALES will organize
communities around common issues, such as limited access to water and animal health services, to establish
or rehabilitate key infrastructure. Examples of infrastructure include cattle crushes/pens for delivery of animal
health services and veterinary inputs, dip tanks and water systems that are easily accessible bylivestock. Since
increasingly erratic rainfall patterns and long dry seasons contribute to low livestock productivity in SA2, 
provision of water for livestock will be a priority activity. K-SALES will promote a commercially minded 
management approach to ensure continual re-investment. As a result, 189,000 farmers and community
members will have access to sufficient water inputs from our rehabilitation or development of 250 water 
points.
Sub IR 1.2.3: Increased Use of Financial Services: K-SALES will collaborate with producers, agri￾businesses and financial institutions to overcome barriers to the formal financial sector. The project will work
with banks and micro-finance institutions to develop and deliver demand-driven financial products and services 
including livestock insurance. Activities associated with this Sub IR will enable 50,000 households and 2,250
firms in the livestock value chain to benefit from financial services.
Sub IR 1.2.4: Increased Knowledge by Farmers of Improved Agricultural Techniques and
Technologies: K-SALES will facilitate training of 80,000 farmers through Farmer Field Schools (FFS), and
via peer-to-peer learning between commercially oriented livestock farmers and study tours to build relationships 
between producers and BSPs. We anticipate an 80 percent adoption of new technologies and techniques 
because of the trainings.
82
IR 1.3: Improved Farm Management (Operations, Financial): Land O’Lakes will promote a commercially 
oriented farm management style that will more profitably allocate limited resources, capture investment 
opportunities and upgrade technologies and techniques. As a result, at least 80 percent of farmers trained
will apply improved management practices as a means of increasing output and lowering production costs
by the end of the project.
Sub IR 1.3.1: Improved Knowledge Regarding Farm Management: K-SALES will train farmers in farm
financial management and resource allocation decision making. By doing so, farmers will increase the
profitability of their livestock farming systems, boost food security and household incomes, and increase the
flow of products into the market. The project will link trainings to finance opportunities, access to productivity 
enhancing inputs and off-farm infrastructure development. By the end of the project, 80 percentof farmers 
will demonstrate financial literacy and will be able to identify the key characteristics of a well- managed farm.
Strategic Objective 2: Expanded Trade of Agricultural Products (domestic, regional, and
international): K-SALES will support livestock producer, processor and marketing associations to enhance
the quality of livestock and livestock products delivered to the market. We aim to improve post-harvest and
market infrastructure, increase access to and use of financial services, facilitate buyer and seller relationships,
and improve association management with a customer-oriented approach. As a result of these activities, the
value of livestock sales will increase by 30 percent by the end of the project.
IR 2.1: Increased Value-Added to Post-Production Agricultural Products: K-SALES will increase
adoption of value-adding practices by livestock producers and processors, and expand post-harvest processing 
and handling/storage infrastructure through increased access to and use of financial services. The project will 
create at least 1,200 new jobs geared towards providing value-adding services, and result intoa 30%
increase in the average margin between farm gate price and price of processed product.
Sub IR 2.1.1 Improved quality of post-production agricultural products: K-SALES will support livestock 
producer, processor and marketing associations to enhance the quality of livestock and livestock products 
delivered to the market. This is anticipated to result in a 30% increase in the volume of processed products 
certified as meeting Kenya Bureau of Standards quality requirements.
Sub IR 2.1.2: Increased Efficiency of Post-Production Processes: By directly linking production increases 
experienced under SO1 with better product handling, storage, transport, and value-addition, K- SALES will 
enable producers and processors to capture the potential value of increased livestock production. By increasing 
overall efficiency of the post-production process, we will decrease the average cost of producing livestock 
and livestock products by 20 percent.
Sub IR 2.1.2.1: Increased Use of Improved Post-Production Processing and Handling Practices: K￾SALES will facilitate the training of 2,500 processors of livestock and livestock products employed at
slaughter facilities and butcheries. At least 50 percent of firms participating in the project will use modern 
equipment and techniques to process livestock products by the end of the project. Land O’Lakes will 
work in close collaboration with GoK Health Inspection Officers, meat and hides/skins lead firms, the Kenya
Meat Commission, the Meat Training Institute at Athi River, the Kenya Leather Development Council, and the
Tanner Association of Kenya to ensure success and buy-in.
83
Sub IR 2.1.2.2: Improved Post Harvest Infrastructure: To improve the safety of and hygienic practices in
post-harvest handling and storage, K-SALES will utilize in kind grants to stimulate investment by local firms
and industry associations in infrastructure development. K-SALES will help build cold storage facilities and
improve or expand transportation options that are currently limiting meat processing and driving down demand 
for red meat and livestock products. As a result, 50 new post-harvest infrastructure projects will be completed.
Sub IR 2.2: Increased Access to Markets to Sell Agricultural Products: K-SALES will facilitate the training 
of producer and marketing cooperatives to understand market demand, identify new markets and promote 
premium quality products for higher per unit prices. We will also mentor cooperatives in negotiatingcontracts 
with buyers and facilitate study tours and bring producer and marketing cooperatives and potential buyers 
together for discussions and negotiations. Investment in targeted infrastructure will lead to higher quality 
products, lower transaction costs and increased market access. These efforts are expected to realize a 50%
increase in the number of distinct markets to which livestock and livestock markets are sold.
Sub IR 2.2.2: Improved Linkages between Buyers and Sellers: Through the Business Development Fund 
Competitive Service, K-SALES will initiate sub-awards with organizations and enterprises to serve as Market 
Linkages Facilitators. Such facilitators will foster market linkages – forward and backward in the valuechain –
and serve as an honest broker between buyers and sellers. These facilitators will increase buyer’s confidence, 
while educating sellers on potential buyers and negotiating supply contracts. Through these efforts, 300
contracts will be negotiated between buyers and sellers by the end of the project.
Sub IR 2.2.3: Improved Market and Trade Infrastructure: K-SALES will utilize an in kind grants scheme
to Invest in targeted infrastructure that will lead to higher quality products, lower transaction costs and increased 
market access. These efforts will are expected to increase the number of markets through which livestock
enterprises in the target area sell their livestock and livestock products.
Sub IR 2.2.3.1: Increased Use of Financial Services: To fuel investment in improved processing and
marketing technologies and infrastructure, K-SALES will increase the flow of financial resources into livestock 
value chains. Land O’Lakes will collaborate with financial institutions to build their capacity in livestock 
financing and to help them design accessible financial products and services. As a result, K-SALES will facilitate 
access to formal credit and other formal financial products for 150 partner firms. Lead firms andindustry 
associations will be encouraged to co-finance investments, develop supply contracts and provide capacity
building workshops on product quality and market standards.
IR 2.3: Improved Transaction Efficiency: K-SALES will build the capacity of 300 producers, processors 
and marketing associations to enable them to operate as successful, sustainable businesses, andgain the trust 
of buyers. These efforts will reduce transaction costs by 20 percent.
Sub IR 2.3.2: Improved Management Practices of Buyer/Seller Groups: Achieving scale requires the
creation of effective, commercially oriented producer and marketing cooperatives. K-SALES will identify
existing and emerging livestock producer cooperatives and facilitate cooperative business capacity building
using the Land O’Lakes Agricultural Producer Organization (AgPrO) methodology. As cooperatives develop,
their capacity to deliver services to their members improves, and ultimately, increases productivity and their
ability to market livestock products. As a result, 150 livestock producer and marketing groups will actively
use business/marketing plans.
84
ANNEX 2: DETAILED GENDER ANALYSIS COMPONENT REPORT
1.0. INTRODUCTION
K-SALES Program’s overall objective is to improve the productivity and competitiveness of the livestock
value chains in Meru, Tharaka-Nithi, Kitui, Makueni, Taita Taveta, and Machakos Counties, The program
specifically targets beef production and marketing systems. However, more than 50% of pastoralists in
Kenya live below the poverty line, i.e., they survive on less than USD$1 per day (Thornton et al., 2007) in
the ASAL areas in spite of the high potential for livestock production and trade. This paradox points to the 
need to establish the real constraints in order to find a strategy to get the whole community participating
in the KSALES livestock improvement intervention.
The specific objectives of the K-SALES program are:
• Increase productivity of live animals and meat (cattle and shoat), hides and skins value chains.
• Expanded Trade of Agricultural Products (Domestic, Regional, and International)
This report presents the Gender analysis component that was undertaken as part of the K-SALES project’s 
baseline survey. It highlights the different roles and behavior of men and women based on gender
attribute which vary across culture, class, ethnicity, income, education and time. It is a qualitative 
approach examining how community members interpret their world and the constraints theyface.
1.1 The role and contribution to livelihood
The potential benefits of a well implemented livestock project are immense. They include building human,
social, natural, physical, financial capitals. However as has commonly happened gender insensitivity could
exclude especially women and youth from participation and accruing gains. In addition poor communities
are held responsible for - and shared the consequences of - poor management, low productivity and 
continued deterioration of the renewable resources when projects are policies are implemented without 
their full participation.
Conventionally UN’s goal is that rural women and men in developing countries are empowered to achieve 
higher incomes and improved food security at the household level. In this way it will contribute to the
achievement of Millennium Development Goal #1 and 3 which isto eliminate hunger and promote gender
equality and empower women.
One way of understanding the prevailing status in terms of promoting gender equity and empowerment
was to find out how members of these communities through livestock keeping accessed assets that they
needed for building livelihoods.
Livestock per se is a natural capital that has shaped the lifestyle of communities with its products and
services. To many communities, households and individuals, it is essential in enabling effective use of
85
natural resources towards secure and sustainable livelihoods. The livestock best use the ASAL forages and 
produce milk and meat and its manure supports crop production. In this respect, livestock also contributes 
to household financial capital, as it can be a primary source of saving, income, credit, insurance, loans,
gifts and investments. Experience attests that poor households often reinvest remittance resources in 
livestock. It could be used as collateral for financial services.
Livestock is also used as a productive physical capital. For ASAL societies it represents the vital
‘technology’ that allows producing valuable products from limited resources. Livestock can store and
transfer food from one season to another, thus buffering critical seasonal food gaps, and its transport
capacities allow for mobility and trade patterns covering the gaps existing in poor transportation systems
in the ASALS. Animal traction is a relevant factor for poor agro-pastoral and farming smallholders where
animal driven ploughs are used instead of motorized tractors.
Livestock helps generate social capital by traditionally providing employment, wealth, prestige, identity,
respect and connectedness within and outside the community. Exchange of animals among households
or groups creates exclusive ties, which are relevant for risk minimization, conflict resolution and business
relationships. Livestock also plays an important role as human capital by enabling more healthy lifestyles
and empowering people and communities. Income generated through livestock- related activities
improves educational levels among poor groups and participation of women in household decision￾making processes. Moreover, pastoral livestock keeping is an art whose knowledge is not well understood 
by outsiders and skills, often shared through gender, classes, generation and across cultures.
Gender analysis in this study highlights the different roles and learned behavior of men and women based 
on what society attributes to them because of being born male or female. The differences across cultures 
and age classes were also pursued especially to understand the views of youth. Government of Kenya
policy documents define youth as population ages 18-35 years.
This baseline study was guided by the following gender sensitive interests:-
f. To obtain information regarding Gender roles, power dynamic, asset ownership and
management, and decision making related to Livestock production and marketing
g. To identify gender gaps and constraints to address in the project work plan
h. To understand factors that influence power and gender
i. By understanding the above the project will enhance the competitiveness of meat value chains
by reducing inefficiencies that originate from gender-based constraints.
j. Increase the opportunities for all and particularly women who may have been disadvantaged at
all levels of the chain due to gender constraints
86
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The counties covered are Machakos, Makueni, Taita Taveta, Kitui, Meru and Tharaka Nithi. The target
audiences were interacted with through focus group discussion and Key informants interviews. The
participants were women, men and youth who are resident or have with livelihood activities that keep
them in close contact with rural men, women and youth in these areas to obtain their comprehensive
picture of constraints and opportunities. (See Annex 2)
This data collection process engaged with Key Informant and in particular local leaders, government
officials from the Ministry of livestock to locate women and youth groups who own business along the
meat the value chain. The key nodes of the value chain studied were Input supply services, Production
and Marketing which includes value addition and processing.
Key issues we sought to understand were what happen to the roles of men and women in the periods of
when the household faces high labour demands, how to apportion benefits especially income from
livestock sale and salaries when men and women are employed in a formal setting (processing plant and
agro vet).
Well aware that social capital in terms of Networks and connections, kinship, Relations of trust and
mutual support, Formal and informal groups, Collective representation, Mechanisms for participation 
indecision-making, Leadership is a real asset to women or nay member o f a society where they were
marginalized we sought more information about memberships of women and youth to groups. This
enabled us to start understanding what was their need and to what extent they realized achievements.
Specific areas of interests were current extents in decision making, power dynamics and social and
financial capital empowerments.
3.0. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
This section discusses Gender gaps and constraints to address in the project at each stage of the value
chain.
3.1. GENDER AWARENESS
There was minimal open acceptance of the need to analyze community beliefs with the objective of
defining gender roles and power relationships between men and women and the need for women
empowerment in all the counties. Disaggregation of participants by sexes for interviews was not very
welcome as it seems to put especially men in a defensive position about their customs.
Women in these communities were quite apologetic in discussion of gender roles and control over
benefits. The men and especially youth of male sex were defensive and asserting their position as heads
of the family who must be in control of commercial activities.
87
3.2. Gender and Livestock roles and control over benefits
Livestock management roles are mostly influenced by the cultural practices and patterns formed at very
young ages remain as customs. Women and men seem to transmit knowledge and skills of livestock
keeping through the gender roles. According to women FGD it appears that the boys bear a heavier burden 
than girls and learn special skills (trekking, medication, construction) that can be paid for more than girls 
do. From a young age culture plays a big role in widening or limiting livelihood opportunities for either
male of female child.
Table 1: Activity role and responsibilities in livestock production (women FGD in Taita Taveta)
Activity
Average % role of participation
Women Girls Men Boys
Hired labour/
professional hire
a Breeding 55 - 40 - 5
b Rearing – Making decision of what kind of
livestock to keep
50 1 48 1 -
c Housing 40 - 50 - 10
d Hygiene 60 10 20 10 -
e Grazing/ Tethering 45 10 20 25 -
f Fodder Production 25 5 60 10 -
g Collecting Dung 60 10 20 10 -
h Watering 55 15 10 15 5
Medication for sick animals 20 - 65 - 15
j Milking 75 - 25 - -
k Making butter 80 20 - - -
l Slaughtering - - 85 5 10
m Processing/ Value Addition 20 - 80 - -
n Storing (dry vegetation) 40 10 30 10 10
o Livestock trekking 45 10 20 25 -
p Marketing 15 - 85 - -
From the women’s perspective it appears that hired labour covers roles that are traditionally apportioned
to men (housing, medication, slaughtering, fodder production hence dry season preservation).
3.2. Decision making
Women have been customized to see livestock production as a male dominated field. In Meru community, 
women value crop farming highly and expresses lack of control by saying that if a woman purchases a 
livestock and takes care of it she can sell it after getting consent from her spouse. Such strong statements
were also rare in the other counties.
88
The communities involved in this study across all counties could be broadly categorized as practicing
mixed farming and agro pastoralism types of agriculture. These are labor intensive production systems.
Assessing the dry season and intensive crop production periods expose the power dynamics in the use
of cash that are not easily mentioned in discussions.
Our study found out that women’s lack of ownerships and control over certain livestock this may be a
disincentive in management especially in mixed crop farming areas like Taita. Although women are in
charge of care giving for livestock during the periods when crop related activities are at peak the livestock 
suffer from inadequate attention as women would first spend time and resources to ensure they provide
the care the crops needs in time..
The FGD discussions revealed that culture has loaded family chores squarely on women with the
expectation that she takes over the livestock duties of men in case he is away. There is an inequality in
the use of income that was observed in how household allocated cash to cope with need to find water
and pasture in the dry season high labor peak related to crop production. However as indicated from the
table below, relying on reciprocal group arrangement rather than employing casual worker is the practice 
women use to cope with laborious tasks of crop farming. Men on the other hand hire labor to supplement
livestock keeping activities sin this same period.
4.0. EXTENSION SERVICES AND GENDER GAPS
In general the farmers who access any extension service from government officers were very few. An
interview with Female vet for Taita reveals quality issues in delivery of services with the presence of too
many ‘quacks’. Many areas are without any service provider and some areas with basic trained officers to 
answer to quick and small problems acting as qualified veterinaries resulting to loss of farmers’ livestock.
Also there is unwarranted competition to private practitioners deriving from; some government
employees officially stationed in the area who want to supplement their income by providing private 
services.
Some of her suggested solutions to these challenges is the need train community based animal health
workers who are monitored and supervised by government extension officers at the county livestock
development office. This will reduce poor vet services being offered by untrained personnel. Further the
government working together with the private vets need to conduct livestock farmer training
programmes to sensitize them on the importance of vet services and the symptoms of livestock diseases. 
The county government livestock department should also make ensure that livestock and pastoral 
interests are adequately represented and receive appropriate budgetary allocations to reduce the cost of
obtaining livestock inputs from Nairobi.
Finally, more attention needs to be given to public private co-operation within the livestock department.
E.g. the government should involve the private vets in the distribution of vaccines. Special consideration
should also be given to private vetsin thissemi-arid area who wish to apply forloansfrom the government 
fund to enhance their businesses i.e. the woman in Box 3 (below) would wish to get funds to buy a 
motorbike or a car to be able to manoeuvre through the poor roads within the county.
89
There needsto an effort to train more female vets. There are differencesin men’s and women preferences 
in getting vet services. A female vet serves more women than men while a male vet serves more men than 
women. Unfortunately , from an interview with livestock officer in Kitui he portrayed that women access 
less extension services from him about cattle. He say ‘’from my experience in servingthe Kitui community; 
I receive more requests for service from men than women as they are the owners ofthe cattle. ‘’
The case study below shows how a male youth Vet business attracts more male customers than women
and the entrepreneur believes in employing a female employee front office assistant because of her good 
customer relations. In Kathonzweni from a discussion with a women group, they didn’t think highly of a 
scenario where women have women’s only business outlets starting from production to processing of 
specific livestock meat because they consider that women need men’s input in the area of marketing and
sourcing for information.
Box 1. Agrovet dealership
Female youth reaches more women farmer
A young woman works as an Agrovet dealer in Tharaka Nithi. She also sells stationeries. There are only 
two agrovet shops in this specific market that are owned and managed by women that serve the entire 
area. The demand for livestock inputs such as medicine is usually very high during the dry seasons when 
the chances of livestock disease outbreaks are high. A bulk of sales occurs during the harvesting season 
because most farmers usually have income from crop sales. The dealer says the bulk of her customers 
are women since in most cases they are the ones who care and manage livestock in the community.
To get started, she raised the capital from the savings arising fromher stationery shop. She offers credit 
in terms of inputs e.g. drugs, to customers that are well known to her. The drugs are available but are 
not affordable. It is very difficult to access credit from finance institutions or suppliers due to the low 
sale turnover per month. In addition banks, ask for collateral or banking patterns to evaluate the credit 
worthiness of a business which many input service providers do not meet.
Box 2.Male Youth :Operating multiple business believing in female employee
A young man doubles as an Animal Health Assistant and an Agrovet dealer, his area ofoperation is 
Kathonzweni market for the agrovet business and the surrounding area for the animal health
business.
According to him, the situation with supply of livestock inputs by service providers in the area is wanting.
The suppliers visit the market place once in a week and due to limited funds, the service providers are not
able to purchase enough supplies for the whole week. This dealer has employed a young woman in the
agrovet shop while he does the animal health business himself. His choice for a woman employee was
informed by the fact that ladies are more accountable than men and is polite to customers thus
attracting business. He however hires men on casual basis to help the lady with lifting the supplies and 
arranging the shop.
90
The extension services to improve productivity of the meat value chain needs to be more than dealing
with (vet inputs). It needs to include capacity building in areas not commonly covered as a way to
empower women and youth. These areas are livestock sales agency, field workers for livestock seasonal
financial services including livestock and crop insurances, artisan skills for construction of farm structures
and harnesses for animal drawn tools (ferry water, live animals, meat), ICT for market information 
services, operating cold storages, processing of hides and skin and making leather craft products etc.
5.0. INPUT SUPPLY AND GENDER GAPS
There is an inequality over opportunity to assume better rewarding position in the processing level of the 
value chain based physiological differences and technology used. Women are perceived weaker because
of their level of strength. In these communities men mostly do the trekking, livestock medication and 
slaughtering and housing of the animals because they are considered to have more knowledge and skills
while milking is mostly done by the women. Unfortunately investment in technology to ease work and
open spaces for women outside home setting is limited in these counties.
As in the case study below women and youth can be spotted all over the landscape demonstrating that
if and when they are supported by having basic skills education, capital, and collective action they can
take up new position where they can earn additional income which is well spent on family welfare.
In the two businesses, there are more men customers than women. This is because men are generally the 
family decision makers. However, there are no differences in preferences in purchase of inputs made by 
men and those made by women.
Box 3: Case study of a woman private vet (input supplier) where Trust and Proximity to field condition
work for her as a woman vet
A middle-aged woman is a single mother of two children and the only woman veterinarian in the sub￾county. Her professional training has been anchored in: vet, agro-vet and AI service provision, animal 
health, animal nutrition, business management and accounting.
Following her year of graduation from Kabete technical training institute, she and her husband moved to
the nearby town where she started her first private practice. In the year 2005, she separated from her
husband and moved with her two children. With no job or capital to restart her private practice in the 
new area and with a need to shoulder the entire responsibility of taking care of her two children, she 
started a small business of buying and selling farm produce in town. Within a span of one year she 
managed to save Kshs 48,000 with Equity Bank, which she used to register her business Taveta Veterinary
mobile Services, paid rent for the business premises and equip it with small supplies
91
to restart her work.
Three years after opening the shop the owner of the premises request back his premise. She says “when 
I think about it now the office was an extra cost in terms rent and personnel because all the same, I have 
retained a good customer portfolio and most of my operations are done in the villages where these
community members reside.”
From our interactions with the community members, when they need her service they give her a phone
call which they have resulted to calling her ‘hallo hallo’.
Within the sub-county, she has clustered her operations in the following locations relating to her 
frequency ofoperations in those areas per week. This helps her to budget and keep records of operations 
on expense, payables, and invoices.
Gender inequality in Entrepreneurial opportunities can be observed from this case study. The youth are
in desperate need of opportunities to own and build up assets. The approach commonly exhibited by
those who are succeeding is one of self-development in business management skills. The nature of
operating Vet service by female youth is one dependent on working extra hard building trust and
confidence from male farmers, maintaining a closer contact with more female farmers, closes to the
farms, good phone connectivity, categorizing the markets and providing services during various market
days.
Table 3.T he female Vets her contacts with livestock keepers
Market % of operations
1 Mirabani, Lotima & Kitobo 30
2 Lesesia, Mjini & California 15
3 Mboghonia, Kimundia & Msengoni 10
4 Eldoro, Ngutini & Marodo 9
5 Kaza moyo & Mtakuja 8
6 Makiloriti, Darajani & Mahoo 7
7 Timbila & Kingwarini 6
8 Kinalwa, Kimorigo & Abori 5
9 Ludawai, Rekeke & Kimala 4
10 Chala, Chumvini & Maandakini 3
11 Orukungu, Jipe & Lesuyai 2
12 Njukini & Elerai 1
On average she earns net of Kshs 20,000 from her business per week. Her services include: livestock
treatment, livestock disease control & vaccination, provision of artificial insemination (AI) services,
offering trainings on tick control and treatment, livestock feeding and livestock management. Some of
92
her inventory of inputs and equipment’s include: livestock drugs, syringes & needles, disbudding iron,
burdizzo, hoof trimmers, teat cannula, troca & cannular, thermometer, mobile phone etc.
“Every business has its ups and downs” she says and running her business alone has its challenges 
such as luck of reliable transport. She has to hire a motorcycle whenever she has to go to the farmers’
homesteads which sometimes mean travelling at night. Poor physical environment is also a challenge as
the area is vast with poor road network and getting to the farmers’ takes time and it’s costly.
As a woman, sometimes she also feels ridiculed by some community members who wish to test her
expertise by asking for trial services from her. They feel a vet should be a man. She says that most of this
attitude comes from women as a lot of her customers are men who are the owners’ of the cattle. They
treat her well, don’t bargain a lot on her prices and help her with the livestock treatment process i.e. like
holding of the animal.
6.0. FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENDER GAPS
Ownership of livestock gives a cultural opportunity to getting financial services. Livestock contributes to
household financial capital, as it can be a primary source of saving, income, credit, insurance, loans, gifts
and investments. A female vet expressed her frustration with accessing credit from finance institutions or 
suppliers due to the low sale turnover per month. In addition banks, ask for collateral or banking patterns 
to evaluate the credit worthiness of a business which many input service providers do not meet.
On the other hand, a male Vet had the opportunity to build asset because of livestock ownership. He 
bought two bulls and left them with his parents for fattening which he sold after some time and opened
the agro vet shop with the proceeds.
The lack of good access to seasonal credit can be demonstrated by an observation made from FGD in Tulai 
Kitui division. During the rainy season, women tend to ignore livestock farming and concentrate more on 
crop production thus increased number of livestock diseases as they prefer to buy crop farm inputs than
purchase livestock drugs.
7.0. TECHNOLOGY AND GENDER GAPS
Practices adopted to cope with dry season are very crucial in the beef value chain as there are gender
constraints that are associated with climate related constraints. During drought season pastures are
limited, most of the rivers are also dry. This therefore means that women and men need to walk far
distances to look for water. But during this same period there are a lot of livestock diseases hence caring
for the sick animals is at a peak. This is a woman role. Water shortages place a heavier burden on the
women as she is in charge of cleaning and cooking activities in the home. The impacts of drought are
heavier on the woman and risks of household falling into poverty higher given that health of animal is
compromised. An example from Meru indicates that during this period, the coping mechanisms include
93
migrating to far areas where there are pastures, reduce the amount of water taken by livestock, and stock 
reduction through sale of animals. It include having spent money to buy water (at ksh.25 per 20 Litre Jerri 
can) for household needs and fodder for animals, employing someone to trek the animals to areas with 
pastures and waters and stock reduction through sale of animals.
Table 4. Effects and coping mechanism of drought in Mahoo ward Taita Taveta County
Effects Coping Mechanisms
Men Women
A lot of theft of
animals in the
community
Death of livestock
Selling animals at a
loss
Food insecurity
Poor agricultural
productivity
Travel for long distances in search of water
Food insecurity
Increased burden as they try to care for the
children and livestock animals
Vulnerable to violence at the water sources as
herders from all the community members
scrabble for the scarce resource
Men sell off part of livestock
in many cases at a loss
Use of the preserved grass
feeds and crop stocks.
men move the livestock to
hired lands where pasture is
available
We observed an insufficient adoption of technologies for mitigating drought. This perpetuates a situation 
of only men trekking the animals to look for pastures and water, and provide security to both the animals. 
Livestock management should be seen as a family art and it may be useful for household to agree on what 
to do so as not to interrupt the livestock management system but reallocate resources to invest in
technologies that do not overburden the woman but improve efficiency in livestock management. It may 
entail allocating the hired labor to some of the roles held by women instead.
8.0. LIVESTOCK OWNERSHIP AND GENDER GAPS
Livestock ownership is largely defined by culture and the man being the head of the home is the owner of
most livestock.
Box 3. Gender gaps in ownership. Among the livestock keepers in Meru most cattle and camels are owned 
and controlled by men because they require more capital and as such are more demanding in terms of 
maintenance (feeding) and security because they are the prime targets of rustlers. Men are also able to
trek the cattle in search for pasture and water. Cattle and goats are sometimes jointlyowned by both 
men and women in Meru community because both may contribute to the purchase of these animals as 
the capital required is much, and whenever they receive them as dowry payment, they become a property 
of both. The youth mostly own and control sheep and goats because they are easy tomanage, their
reproduction rate is high, do not require big piece of land to keep, require less security, and that they 
are cheap to purchase. Most goats and sheep are owned and managed by women in Meru but women in 
the Boran communities can only manage these animals and not own them. 
94
Livestock that comes into the home as dowry is often owned jointly by spouses. These communities are
demonstrating that other means exist to owning an animal and have more access and control in livestock 
production. Women in Meru community can make decisions on the number of sheep and goats to keep
and also when and how much to sell. This is because women at times are able to acquire these animals
from the proceeds of merry-go-round social groups.
In Tharaka Nithi, the youth mostly own and control rabbits and in some cases pigs because they are easy
to manage, their reproduction rate is high, do not require big piece of land to keep, and they are cheap to 
purchase. In the box below is a different way of owning animals that gives women and youth more control
over livestock and it is the most likely way introduce improved breeds in the communities.
Box 4. Journey by youth to own livestock A youth group in Tharaka Nithi started in 2008 with 16 youth.
15 of them are men while only one is a woman. They started by contributing ksh.200 each and bought 
one goat for each member. Initially they were able to buy goats for four members but currently all the 16 
members have goats. Though the goats are in the custody of members, they are still owned bythe group 
and only the group decides when to sell. The goats have since multiplied and the group is nowselling some 
of the goats to buy cows for members. Three members have so far been bought a cow eachand the project
is ongoing. This group came together with the aim of uplifting each other’s quality oflife. They are also 
looking for an opportunity to access government youth funds to expand livestock farming.
Box 5. Umoja Women Group: Location: Tharaka Nithi County; Chuka/Igamba Ng’ombe sub-county;
Kathwana ward: The group was formed in April 1996 and initially had 40 members. Currently it has 32
active members after some died and others dropped out. Initially it was a merry go round assisting each
other to buy chicken and goats but later registered with ‘Mutino friends’. In the year 2000, the group
wrote a proposal to ‘Njaa Marufuku’ to help them obtain cash to buy goats. The proposal went through
and they obtained Ksh.120, 000. Using this amount, the group bought 34 gala goats and one Toghenberg
He goat for breeding. The current total Membership; 32 (All female) Youth = 10. The Group objectives are
to increase the number of animals in households and to assist members financially when needs arises.
9.0. TECHNOLOGY (SPECIES) PREFERENCES AND GENDER GAPS
Access and control over technology was analyzed by finding out which species is preferred by either
women or men. We also sought to establish what practices they adopted to improve the value of beef
animal before or after slaughter.
Among the participants of the baseline study the production level is not commercial, these are mall
scale producers. The typical number of cattle per farmer averages between 2 to around 8; very rarely
would you get a farmer with sheep. The average number of goats per farmer ranges between 4 to around
20.
In all the counties it became clear that women have need for very short term and daily benefits (cash
/food (milk/ meat) and this makes goat and cattle as the most preferred species. It is only in Makueni that 
sheep was valued for meat production. In other counties women associate the sheep with high labour 
95
requirements and without much attention it would not do well and even survive in tethering system of 
grazing. It may be an opportunity to facilitate commercial pasture production in areas where cattle will be
the preferred species.
Commercialization of beef producing animals may not benefit women and men equally and it will required 
that women spend extra hour in caring as is needed in a more intensive system of production. Activity 
time profiles show that women are always focusing on securing household welfare and livestockfor 
contribution to nutrition. Therefore in choosing goat breeds a dual purpose breed could be preferredto 
plain meat breeds.
Table 5.Technologies used to livestock production
Description By Men By Women
The most commonly used
practice to fetch best
value (cash, quality)when
animal is sold live
Tethering
Zero Grazing
Breeding With The Best
Bull that grow very fast
and big in size
Bull castrating if one
doesn’t want the breed
to spend within his
livestock
Feed preservation and storage for the
dry season to prevent animals from
walking long distances in search of
pasture
Use of group grazing
De-worming
The most commonly used
practice to fetch best value
when animal is sold
slaughtered
Boiling the meat and
nyama choma,
There are a few gender gaps in regard to ownership and marketing of livestock in the Meru community
even though both men and women make decisions jointly. Women do not own cattle due to their inability
to provide adequate security and meet their demand such as provision of pasture and water.
10. LIVESTOCK MARKETING AND GENDER GAPS
Season, distances, security, age and experience of women seem to play a role in how society defines
marketing roles for women. In most communities interviewed female youth even when married are not
allowed to directly engage in sale of livestock even goats. Women older than 35 can be involved more in
marketing of livestock as they are considered more skilled.
Due to the insecurity in the area, women do not participate in marketing of livestock since they require
services of men to escort them to the market, and the charges are very high for them to afford (They are
charged Ksh. 1500 for each guard). They perceive this as a gender gap as it gives men the privilege to
own these precious animals and do the marketing. Due to cultural values and practices of the Boran
community, women are not allowed to own, market and/or make any decisions pertaining to livestock.
Farmers sell their livestock to other farmers, institutions such as schools and hospitals. Other buyers
include brokers and butchers.
96
11. PROCESSING AND GENDER GAPS
It appears as though traditional knowledge in sun drying of meat is not a common practise anymore a
situation that weakness food security plans, a big concern for women more than men given that me can
migrate to far location leaving the women, children and old people with less food. Opportunities to
provide clean environments and facilities where this technique could be repackaged to make special
delicacies a marketable product are needed.
The lack of modern technology and mechanization continues to lock women out of participation in the
meat slaughtering stage of the value chain. According to a slaughter house owner the highest salaries are
paid to those who slaughter (men) rather than cleaners of the environment (women).
Box 6. A woman entrepreneur: Slaughterhouse operator
The business employs a total of 10 employees i.e. seven men and three women. Men play the following
roles; washing the slaughter, loading the meat to the vehicles, racing the animals to the slaughter,skinning 
the carcasses, bringing water to the slaughter in case of water shortage and cleaning the offals. In addition 
one man acts as the slaughter supervisor. Women clean the compound, wash the dust coats, clean the 
office and office furniture and prepare and sell tea in a small outlet inside the compound. “I employ more 
men than women because of the nature of this business, you require a lot of energy to handle a cow that 
is being slaughtered, a lot of energy is also required to load the carcasses into the van,in addition many 
women are scared when livestock are stunned”. The highest paid employee is the supervisor and the 
lowest paid is the compound cleaner. She does not do marketing for now. “I do not directly market since 
I’m doing service provision but I intend to change in future and slaughter my own animals, add value and
source for markets.”
A woman entrepreneur in the livestock sector does not belong to any marketing cooperative though she 
is a member of a butchers group that acts as a merry go round. She has been the secretary of the group 
since 2009. She is a retired officer, and her area of expertise is animal health. She also has training in 
business management. When asked why women fail to take leadership roles, she said “Generally women
fail to take leadership rolesin group activities due to lack of confidence, low self-esteem, lack of leadership 
skills, the notion that leadership belongs to men and cultural limitations requiring women to remain at 
home most of the time”.
97
12. POLICY GENDER GAPS
Lack of mechanizations and technology at certain point of value chain continue to lock women out of
positions with better wages.
Transport system had worked against having carriers on many vehicles. This is a gender insensitive policy 
as it doesn’t facilitate needs of small traders who are mostly women and youth who cannot hire pick-ups 
or Lorries.
Unclear county strategies of raising taxes open up spaces for corruption. For instance when livestock
trespasses in the town, Ksh 500 per animal by the city council is demanded from the farmer.
Women are generally employed at the from desk as receptionist, however continuous training for agro￾vet workers could give women and youth opportunities to gain skills that earn better wages or lead to
self-employment.
13.0. RECOMMENDATION
The baseline study recommends a participatory learning process such as the Farmer Field School where
it is expected that women and men and youth can continuously identify and deal with gender blindness
in selecting technologies to improve production of meat without having inefficiencies and inequality. The 
goal is to improve efficiencies in the roles, enrich outcomes by participation of women and youth as
livestock owners, processors and users of livestock products in decision making. The ultimate goal is to
break the cycle of poverty with sustainable meat production practices and sharing of benefits.
Within this context, recommendations for project design include an emphasis on:
• Organising communities in acceptable viable and legal entities that will enable all to participate
effectively
• Create awareness to all beneficiaries and players the importance of gender mainstreaming and
how all will benefit
• Participatory monitoring processes with actors that also facilitate mainstreaming of gender
awareness in designing and operating at all stages of the value chain.
• Develop and package viable Business opportunities and promote them among all through
Business Opportunity seminars conducted close to beneficiaries
• Understanding the needs of youth for successfully doing business as groups for building assets
from keeping few shoat or rabbits to larger animals with certainty of success.
• Understanding the basic needs of women for daily cash and animal nutrition while they rear
animals for meat.
• Developing viable forage production business that are linked to large consumers on contractual
agreement possibly through the groups/ legal entities that are viable for sustainability
• Turning the goat rearing groups into a FFS Business entities that are viable and can operate a feed 
store where they can access inputs ( as seasonal credit) for fattening animals before selling specific
( graded) goats for a specific market.
98
• Looking in particular at how to ensure that women capture the benefits of spending time in
marketing associations, viable businesses by having clearly rewarding and self development
opportunities for example they could develop as sales agents of certain input and services
providers
• Supporting women’s access to productive resources and main assets (water, land, fuel-wood,
markets, knowledge),
• Strengthening young women role in decision-making processes and especially in negotiation skills 
even at farm gate and in the livestock market place. Provision of market information through 
Mobile phones or market boards accessible to them/ local magazines or FM radio stations
• Understanding that women use group membership to improve access and control over livestock
and benefits from livestock. Although the membership of a few men In such groups is allowed
women should make up the highest number and occupy the key leadership positions, especially
managing finances.
• Empower the communities to conduct livestock and other businesses as a family business
• Incorporating the concerns of women in modifying public transport vehicles to facilitate
transportation of their wares to and from markets. Understand viable volumes for long distance
transportation and encourage transport business as a business opportunity to all gender
• Supporting diversification of farm level businesses income-generating activities (for instance,
processing and selling of livestock, forage) as a way to enhance agro-pastoralist women’s socio￾economic position in the household and empower them to take a greater role in the community.
At the same time, it is important to recognize that inability to lift heavy loads need not limit opportunities 
to participate in other levels of the value chain where returns are higher. Energy and time-saving 
appropriate equipment to be introduced along the processing, packaging and loading stages of livestock 
value chain.
The consumption of beef and shoat meat in the households is low and may not support larger off-take
from producers. Developing clean outlet for eating by travelers at several strategic points could provide
employment for youth and stimulate and stabilize a production level.
Large kitchens in business centers can be built where traditionally preserved meats are prepared and sold.
This will preserve indigenous knowledge and stabilize consumption of meat.
Promote local tourism and create demand for the sweet meat in these areas. Infrastructure to support
this should be encouraged and partners should be encouraged to lobby the county leaders to invest in
infrastructure.
Identify policies that will support gender mainstreaming and identify champions to work with to sensitize 
the community to lobby for implementation in the various counties.
99
The household intake of beef and shoat is linked to purchasing power which is higher after successful crop 
harvest. The FFS could have an integrated curriculum that facilitates efficient use of oxen and bullock land
preparation and transport.
Good practices of rearing cattle just for beef are few. In many instances animals slaughtered are the same 
one that for seasons have been used for ploughing and the quality of meat may not fetch high process in 
the specialized meat markets.
Identify private partners that the program can encourage to invest (leverage their investments) and they
will stimulate further development of the Value chain.
The KSALES project may partner with others to develop capacity of using more and more donkeys in land 
preparation. This would create addition employment for youth in production workshops and trade in
animal harnesses.
100
ANNEX 3: HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE
KENYA SEMI-ARID LIVESTOCK ENHANCEMENT SUPPORT (K-SALES) PROJECT: BASELINE SURVEY MARCH 2014
HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE
A. HOUSEHOLD IDENTIFICATION
A1.1 Date of Interview…………………………………………
A1.2 Start Time ……………………………………………………End Time……………………………………………………………………………
A2 IDENTIFICATION
Response Use codes as applicable
A2.1 Interviewer’s Name
A2.2 Name of the Respondent
A2.3 Gender of the respondent 1. Male 2. Female
A2.4 Name of Household Head
A2.5 County 1= Meru ; 2= Tharaka Nithi ; 3= Kitui ;
4= Makueni ; 5= Taita Taveta ; 6= Machakos
A2.6Sub-County
A2.7 Division
A2.8 Project Area
A2.9 Village
A2.10 GPS Reading N/S
E/W
A2.11 HH Head Mobile Number
B. HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
B1. What is your total household size?
B2.Household headand spouse demographic data (Fill in the table below)
No.
B2.1:
Househ
old
membe
r
B2.2:
Age
(In
years
)
B2.3:
Sex
CODE:
1= Male;
2=
Female
B2.4: Marital
Status
CODE:
1=Single;
2=Married;
3=Widowed/
Separated;
4= Others
(specify)…
B2.5: Education level:
CODE:
1=No formal school;
2= Attended primary;
3 = Completed primary; 4 =
Attended secondary;
5 = Completed secondary;
6= Post secondary;
7= Adult education.
B2.6:
Main
occupation
B2.7:
Period as Main
source of occupation
(in years)
01 Head
02 Spouse
QUESTIONNAIRE ID
101
oyment
MainOccupation (CODES for 2.6):1=Crop farming; 2=Livestock farming; 3= Mixed farming; 4= Formal employment (Salaried or
permanent); 5= Informal employment (wage &casual labor); 6= Small/ micro enterprises;7= Petty trade; 8= Others (specify)….
B3. Please provide information on the following
Age category (years) Total in the household Total
M F
Under 15
15 – 40
41 – 64
Over 64
B4.1 What is the main source of income for your household?(USE CODES Below)
1=Crop farming; 2=Livestock farming; 3= Formal employment (Salaried or permanent); 4= Informal empl
&casual labor); 5= Small/ micro enterprises;6= Petty trade; 7= Others (specify)….
B4.2 What are the other two important sources of income for your household? (In order)
B4.3 When did you start keeping livestock?
B4.4How did you acquire your initial herd?
1= inheritance, 2 = bought 3 = relative 4 = Other (Specify)………………………………………………..
B4.5Who in your household is primarily responsible for making key decisions regarding the following livestock activities? USE
CODES Below
Activity Person responsible If 18-35, Also tick here
Watering
Herding
Spraying/dipping
Feeding on minerals
Breeding
Cleaning shed
Pasture management
Sale/marketing of livestock
1= Household Head, 2= Spouse; 3 Both HH Head & spouse; 4= Son; 5= Daughter; 6= Others (specify……)
B4.6Who in your household spends most the time performing livestock activities?
1= Household Head, 2= Spouse; 3 Both HH Head & spouse; 4= Son; 5= Daughter; 6= Worker; 7= others (specify….)
B5.1 Type of livestock shed owned
1= Bricks 2= Pole; 3= Boma; 4= Open 5 = others (specify)………………………………………………….
B5.2 Type of floor of livestock shed
1= Mud 2= Concrete; 3= Stones/gravel; 4= Others (specify)
B5.3 Do you have separate sheds for different livestock types and ages? 1 = Yes, 2 = No
If YES, Explain……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
B6.1Do you keep records of your livestock activities?
1= Yes 2= No
B6.2If yes, which ones? And for which livestock type?
1= Breeding; 2= Livestock sales; 3= Feeding; 4= Health; 5= Expense; 6= Others (specify)
102
In Yes, for which Livestock Type .................................................. 1 = Cattle, 2 = Sheep, 3 = Goats, 4 = All
B7How did you learn about record keeping? (Record in verbatim) …………………………………………………………………………………….
B8Income status of household (Average total income from livestock related activities) per month
1=<5,000; 2= 5,001-10,000; 3= 10,001-20,001; 4= 20,001-30,000; 5= >30,000
C. PRODUCTIVE RESOURCE ENDOWMENT
C1.1 Provide information on land tenure and use in the table below
Land tenure
structure
Size
(Acres)
Size of land under (Acres)
Annual
crops
(1year)
Perennial
crops(More
than 1year)
Grazing Fodder Fallow
Rented out or
Given out
Owned land
Leased land
Borrowed land
Communal land
Total
C2. Provide information on the following productive assets OWNED by the household
Functioning asset
Do you own
any of the
assets?
1=Yes, 2=No
Number
owned
Working status
1 = most working properly;
2 = most working moderately;
3 = most working improperly
Current Value
(Ksh)
(if liquidated)
Total value
(Ksh)
Crush
Ox/donkey cart
Pasture/crop enclosure
Water tank
Borehole
Feed store
Hay Ban
Dip
Holding Pen
Hoof Trimmer
Drenching gun
Horn Cutter
Sprayer
Irrigation equipment
Tractor
Pickup, lorry
Slaughter Slab
Others (Specify) …………
D3.1Please indicate the types of livestock you OWN in your household (2014)
Type Number owned by breed Number
lost
Current
average
value/un
it (Ksh)
Service
1=AI
2= own bull
3= Bull
Average Body
Condition Score for the
Herd
D3 LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION
103
scheme
Indigenous Improved Pure/exotic (USE CODES)
breed
Beef
Goats
Local goats
Sheep
Others
(specify)...
Average body condition Score: 1= Backbone prominent and sharp
2= Backbone prominent but smooth
3= Backbone can be felt but smooth and rounded
4= Backbone detectable with pressure on the thumb
5= Backbone can be felt with firm pressure on the thumb
NOTE: Rank with the help of the farmer using the SHOW CARD provided separately
D2.2. What was the cause of livestock loses(Circle all that apply)?
1= Drought related, 2= Disease related, 3= Skills related, 4= Wildlife attacks 5= Other (specify)…….
D2.3Which of the following livestock herding practices do you practice?
Herding Practice Whether practiced by the
farmer?
1=Yes 2=No
Paddocking
Semi-paddocking
Open grazing
Tethering
Zero grazed
Other (Specify)
D2.4.Use and satisfaction with Livestock Services in the past 1 year
Livestock Whether Who provided Reliability of Affordability of Satisfaction level
104
Technology/service Is the
household
aware of
service?
1=Yes
2= No
household
has used
service in
the past 1
year
1= Yes
2= No
the service
Private service
provider
Government
extension agent
Marketing
association
Other (specify)
provider
Not reliable
Neutral
Reliable
service
Very expensive
Fair
Affordable
with service
Dissatisfied
Fairly satisfied
Satisfactory
Very Good
Hay Conservation
Vet services
&Vaccinations
Dipping for tick
control
Spray race for tick
control
Hand spray for tick
control
Pour on for tick
control
Branding
De-worming
AI service/Breed
improvement services
such as bull schemes
De-stocking/re￾stocking
Use of crop residue
Livestock
transportation
D2.5Do you practice on-farm feed conservation? 1=Yes 2=No
D2.6a If yes, which method did you use in the past 12 months?
1=Hay 2=Silage 3=Both (i.e. hay & silage); 4 Other (specify)
D2.6b Which feed materials do you use for feed conservation?
Feed material Whether used by the farmer?
1=Yes 2=No
Natural grass( pasture)
105
Napier
Sudan grass
Boma Rhodes
Crop residues
Fodder tress
Acacia pods
D2.7. In which year did you first use this method? ............
D.2.8. Who is your nearest stockist or supplier of livestock inputs?
D.2.9 What is the distance to the nearest stockist of livestock inputs in Kms?
D.2.10 What is the distance to the nearest market where you sell or buy livestock in Kms?
D.2.11What is the mode of transport used to the nearest market for livestock?
Mode of transport 1=Walking, 2=Bicycle, 3=Matatu/Bus, 4=Motorbike, 5= Others (specify.)
D2.12 What is the cost to and from the nearest market for livestock?
D2.13 Who in your household makes decision on sale of livestock?
1=Husband, 2 = wife, 3 = Both, 4 = Son, 5 = Work, 6= Other (specify)………………………………………………..
D2.14 Who in your household controls income from sale of livestock?
1=Husband, 2 = wife, 3 = Both, 4 = Son, 5 = Work, 6= Other (specify)………………………………………………..
106
E1: ACCESS TO WATER FOR LIVESTOCK AND DOMESTIC USE
E.1.1 Water Source for Domestic and Livestock Use
Water Use E.1.1.2: What is
the main source
of water for this
use during wet
season?
1=Piped into
homestead/com
pound
2= Public Tap,
3= Borehole,
4= Communal
water point,
5=Rain water,
6=Vendor/tanker
truck,
7=River/stream,
8= Water Kiosk
9= Pan,
10= Dam,
11=Sand dam
12= Others
(Specify)….
E..1.1.3:
What is the
distance to
the water
supply
infrastructure
mentioned in
E.1.1.2 in wet
season?
E.1.1.4:
What is the
main source of
water for this
use during dry
season?
E.1.1.5:
What is the
distance to the
water supply
infrastructure
mentioned in Q
C3.4 in dry
season?
E.1.1.6 (a):
Cost of buying a
20L Jerrican for
domestic
consumption /
cost of watering
one livestock unit
( 1 fully matured
beef equivalent to
5 shoats) during
DRY season
E.1.1.6 (b):
Cost of buying a
20LJerrican for
domestic
consumption / cost
of watering one
livestock unit ( 1
fully matured beef
equivalent to 5
shoats) during
WET season
Livestock
production
Domestic
use
Processing
and value
addition
E1.2If used for livestock production, is water supply adequate for continuous planning of your activities?
1=Yes; 2=No
E1.3 If No to Q E1.2, what mechanism do you use to cope with water scarcity during dry seasons?(Circle all that apply)
Develop water harvesting structures e.g. water pans,
Move to other locations in search of water
Reduce the scale of operation
Withdraw from water demanding activities
Do nothing
Other (specify)………………………………..
E1.4 Are you a member of a Water User Association in this area?
1= Yes, 2 = No
E1.5 If Yes,Which one? .................................................................................(Actual Name)
E1.6 Are you satisfied with the service offered by the Water User Association?.................................................
1= Not satisfied at all, 2 = fairly satisfied, 3 = neutral, 4 = satisfied, 5 = very satisfied
E1.7What is your reason for the level of satisfaction with the service above?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
107
E1.6.1 Have you attended any capacity building training organied for the group members?
1= Yes, 2 = No
E1.6.2 If yes to E1.6.1, please explain the type of capacity building attended and state who organized?
Capacity building Who organized
1
2
3
4
E2. LIVESTOCK OUTPUT AND MARKETING
E2.1Livestock and livestock products produced in the past 1 year.
E2.1.2:
E2.1.4:
Average
quantity
sold per
month
Total herd
E2.1.0
Livestock and
related
products
size in 2013
E2.1.3:
Number of
months of
sales
E2.1.5:
Average
unit sale
price during
a peak
month of
E2.1.6: Who
is mostly
involved in
selling these
products?
**
E2.1.7:
Buyer
type of
largest
sale***
E2.1.8: Market
place where most
of the produce
was sold****
E2.1.9: Main
marketing
challenge
sale
Cattle
Goat
Sheep
Meat
(slaughtere
d)
Hides and
skin
Other
(specify):
*Unitof Production: 1= Kgs, 2= Numbers
Specify the units (products like milk can be captured on a daily basis and computed before entry in the table)
**HH member involved: 1= HH Head; 2= Spouse; 3= Son/Daughter; 4= Hired labour; 6=Others (specify...)
***Buyer type: 1=Cooperative societies, 2=Farmer group, 3= Private processors/abattoirs’; 4= Middlemen/informal traders;
5=Institutions/Hotels, 6= Consumer/Neighbour/Farmer, 7=Other (specify)
**** Market place: 1=Village, 2=Neighboring village/location/road/junction, 3=Nearby township, 4=Distant township,
5=Regional market, 6=Others (Specify) ……………….…………………
***** Constraint: 1=Low price, 2=Poor road to the market, 3=Poor access to information, 4=Lack of reliable transport,
5=Others (Specify) …………………….……
108
E2.2. What are your main sources of market information?
1= Mass Media – Radio; 2= Brokers; 3= Neighbours/friends; 4= Private sector; 5= Group /members;
6= NGOs/CBOs; 7= Others -………………
E2.3. Do you add value to your livestock products before selling? 1=Yes; 2=No
E2.4. If yes, what value adding activities do you carry out?
E2.5. Do you have any formal marketing arrangement for your livestock? 1=Yes; 2=No
E2.6. If yes, explain?
E2.7. What determines your choice of market to sell your livestock?
1= Price, 2. = distance, 3 = convenience, 4 = Other (specify)
F. MEMBERSHIP TO FARMER GROUPS AND OTHER SOCIAL GROUPS
F1.1 Are you a member of any famer group? ….. 1=Yes; 2= No
F1.2If Yes to F1.1 above, please provide the following information if you or any member of your household belongs to any local
association/group
Household member
1=Head, 2=Spouse,
3=Both (i.e. 1&2);
4= Son/daughter;
5=Others (specify)…..
Association/
group type*
Year
joined Main activities of the association/ group
1. 2. 3.
1. 2. 3.
1. 2. 3.
1. 2. 3.
1. 2. 3.
*Association/group type: 1=Farmers Field School (FFS), 2=Cooperative/marketing, 3=Faith based group, 4=Credit and savings
group, 5=Extension group, 6= Common interest group e.g. water users association, 7=Community self-help group, 8=Others
(specify
F1.3 If Not a member of a marketing association, why?..............................................................................................................
F1.4 Has the group assisted you in solving problems experienced in livestock production or marketing?
1=Yes, 2=No
F1.5 If Yes, how………………………………………………………………………………………………
109
F1.6 How has your membership to the group MAINLY impacted on your household?
Type of impact on the household Ranking of main reason
Has raised household living standard
Increased level of livestock productivity
Increased level of awareness
Increased access to markets and inputs
Has assisted during time of need
No impact at all despite undertaking group activities
A waste of time –opinion that participation in groups yields no change and would better be
spent in alternative activities
Others(specify)
F1.7Are you satisfied with the service offered by the Marketing Association?.................................................
1= Not satisfied at all, 2 = fairly satisfied, 3 = neutral, 4 = satisfied, 5 = very satisfied
F1.8What is your reason for the level of satisfaction with the service above?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
G. ACCESS TO FINANCIAL SERVICES
G1. Financial capital
Have you applied for loan/credit from any financial institution source in the last one
year?1= Yes; 2= No
Have you received any loan/credit in the past one year from any financial service
provider?1= Yes; 2= No [if question G.2 is No, move to G.3]
G.2.2.1
Person who received
the loan
Codes:
1=Household head
2= Spouse
G.2.2.2:
If Yes to G.2; from which
source?
USE CODES BELOW*
G.2.2.3:
What was
the amount
received?
G.2.2.4:
What was the
loan received
used for?
USE CODES
BELOW**
G.3:
If did not
receive the loan
applied for,
why?
CODES:
G.2.2.2* Codes: 1=AFC; 2 =K-rep; 3 =Merry go round/ROSCAS; 4 = SACCO; 5 =Cooperative; 6=Commercial bank; 7=MFIs; 8=Other
(specify)……
G.2.2.4** Codes: 1 = Livestock; 2 = improved livestock inputs; 3 = Building (livestock related); 4 = Livestock equipment;
110
5 = Other livestock assets; 6 = Other Farm Inputs; 7 = Fees; 8 = Other (Specify)
G.3 If No, to G1, why?
G4. What are the main obstacles you face in accessing credit services for your livestock enterprise?
1. 2 3
H4.1: Extension services received
H.4.1.Which type of extension services are you aware of in the area(circle all that apply)
1 Breeding (including AI, bull selection, etc)
2 Feeds and feeding
3 Animal health
4 Animal nutrition
5 Fodder establishment
6 Record keeping
7 Financial services
8 Managing livestock enterprise as a business
9 Acaricides/pesticides storage, handling, use and disposal
10 Integrated Pest management
11 Other (Specify) ………………………………
H.4.2: If aware, please indicate the services have received and the source received from
Type of extension/training received in the last 2 years
Whether
received
service/training
1=Yes; 2=No
Source/provider
1 Breeding (including AI, bull selection, etc)
2 Feeds and feeding
3 Animal health
5 Animal nutrition
6 Fodder establishment
7 Record keeping
8 Financial services
9 Managing livestock enterprise as a business
11 Acaricides/pesticides storage, handling, use and disposal
12 Integrated Pest management
13 Other (Specify) ………………………………
*Providers code: 1= Vet; 2 = Ministry; 3 = Research Organization; 4 = Private company; 5 Farmers Field School (FFS); 6=Farm visits; 7 = Other
(Specify)
H4.3: How long do you take before selling livestock after de-worming(Days)?
H4.4: How long do you take before selling livestock after use of anti-biotics(Days)?
H4.5: How do you dispose ofacaricide/pesticide containers after use?
1=Burying; 2=Throw away; 3= Throw in pit latrine; 4=Other Specify
111
H4.6: What in your opinion are key challenges that you face as a livestock farmer in this area (list in order of priority?)
1……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
2……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
3……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
4………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
I: TRENDSAND IMPACTS ON THE LIVESTOCK SECTOR
I.1. List the 3 Major factors which have caused positive or negative changesin your livestock enterprise production in the last five
years?
KEY:√ for positive change; while X represents negative change; and blanks no change(Mark as appropriate).
Factors
Change observed
1.Rainfall/weather changes [ ]
2. Change in techniques of livestock farming [ ]
3. Change in market prices [ ]
4. Change in labour and cash availability [ ]
5. Change in prices of improved inputs [ ]
6. Incidences of livestock diseases [ ]
7. Increased inputs usage [ ]
8. Othersspecify …………… [ ]
-END-
112
ANNEX 4: CHECKLIST FOR KEY INFORMANTS
Basic Information
Name ofrespondent………………………………………………………………………………………………………
County…………………………………………………….. Sub County………………………………………………..
Occupation………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Tel/cell No……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
Name of interviewee……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Age of Respondent……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Questions Checklist
A] Livestock Producer
What livestock enterprises do you have?
In your opinion, what factors influence the choice of livestock breeds in this community?
Do you have livestock insurance cover? What is your opinion about livestock insurance?
What is the situation with livestock insurance amongst livestock producers in this area?
What inputs are used in livestock production in this community? Where are these inputs obtained? (List)
Do livestock producers face any major challenges in producing livestock in this community?
What suggestions would you give for these challenges is any?
What kind of technologies do you use in livestock production in this area?
What is the situation with keeping of records by livestock producers in this area?
Do livestock producers undertake any value addition before selling off their stock to the market? What
kind of activities?
Do you think livestock producers face any challenges in selling their stock in this community? What kind
of challenges? What are the solutions?
What is your opinion about livestock extension service provision by government? Is it accessible and
reliable?
What public institutions support beef stockbreeding and regeneration in the community? (List all the
institutions and kind of support offered)
What government regulations affect [positively and negatively] livestock producers in this community?
What is the situation with water availability and management for livestock in this community?
What is the situation with financial credit access by livestock producers in this area?
What is the situation with market prices for beef animals during disposal?
Key Informant Interview Schedule
113
Basic Information
Name of respondent………………………………………………………………………………………………………
County…………………………………………………….. Sub County………………………………………………..
Occupation………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Tel/cell No……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
Name of interviewee……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Age of Respondent…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
B] Livestock Input Service Provider
What is the general situation with supply of livestock inputs by service providers in this area?
What categories of inputs are sold to beef livestock producers in the area?
How accessible are these inputs in terms of availability and affordability?
How have input service providers been purchasing and stocking their products for onward sell to the
livestock producers?
Have there been major challenges for beef livestock producers in this area?
What is the general condition of major infrastructure in the community where you operate? [roads,
communication, power, market centres etc]
What is the situation with record keeping by input service providers in this area?
What has been the situation with access to credit by input service providers in this area?
What is the situation with technology in input supply for input service providers in this area?
Key Informant Interview Schedule
114
Basic Information
Name ofrespondent………………………………………………………………………………………………………
County…………………………………………………….. Sub County………………………………………………..
Occupation………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Tel/cell No……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
Name of interviewee……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Age of Respondent…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
C] Livestock Marketer
What marketing channels are available for livestock and livestock products in this community?
In your opinion, what factors influence choice of markets for livestock sellers in this community?
Comment on the off-farm infrastructure in the livestock trading centers?(Fenced Livestock markets,
water troughs for animals brought for sale, Loading ramps etc.)
Which producer and marketing associations are found in this community?
Are community members selling their livestock through these marketing associations?
Please elaborate your answer in question 4 above
Are marketing associations facing any challenges in this community? If so, explain
What potential solutions exist that could resolve the challenges mentioned in question 6 above?
What is the situation with policies and regulations on livestock /livestock product marketing in this area?
What is the situation with record keeping on marketing transactions by members in this area?
What is the situation with availability and access to credit by marketers in this area?
Key Informant Interview Schedule
115
Basic Information
Name of respondent………………………………………………………………………………………………………
County…………………………………………………….. Sub County………………………………………………..
Occupation………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Tel/cell No……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
Name of interviewee……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Age of Respondent…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
D] Livestock Processor
What are the current practices in livestock slaughtering houses in this county?
What are the current practices in handling processed products? What facilities do you have in the
butcheries?
What livestock products do you process from the slaughter houses in this community?
What are the current practices in transporting processed products?
What are the current practices in chilling processed products?
What packaging materials do you use for processed products?
What are the current practices in handling livestock by-products?
What is your opinion on the sanitary standards observed in the slaughter facilities?
What is the situation with beef livestock supply for processing?
Where do you sell the processed livestock products? What is the situation with demand and supply of
beef products in both local and export markets?
What are the challenges facing beef processors in this community? What are the possible solutions?
What is the situation with financial credit access by processors in this area?
What is the situation with beef processing technologies in this area?
What is the situation with record keeping by beef processors in this area?
Key Informant Interview Schedule
116
Basic Information
Name ofrespondent………………………………………………………………………………………………………
County…………………………………………………….. Sub County………………………………………………..
Occupation………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Tel/cell No……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
Name of interviewee……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Age of Respondent…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
E] Livestock Transporter
How long have you operated as a transporter of livestock/beef products in this community?
What is the situation with current transport modes for beef/beef products in this area?
What is the situation with beef transport/packaging technologies in this area?
What is the situation with record keeping by beef/beef products transporters in this area?
What is the situation with financial credit access by transporters in this area?
Key Informant Interview Schedule
117
Basic Information
Name ofrespondent………………………………………………………………………………………………………
County…………………………………………………….. Sub County………………………………………………..
Occupation………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Tel/cell No……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
Name of interviewee……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Age of Respondent…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
F] Livestock Financier
How long have you operated as a livestock financier in this county?
What is the situation with financial products for beef value chain actors? (What kind of financial
products are available)
What is the situation with access and affordability of financial products i.e. interest rates
What is the situation with spread of financial services in the area?
Key Informant Interview Schedule
118
Basic Information
Name ofrespondent………………………………………………………………………………………………………
County…………………………………………………….. Sub County………………………………………………..
Occupation………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Tel/cell No……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
Name of interviewee……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Age of Respondent…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
G] Water Resources Management Committee Member
What water resources exist in this community for livestock usage?
Who owns and manages these water resources?
Does this community have any water users associations?
Are the water users associations functioning effectively in this community?
If water users associations are not function properly, what are the challenges facing water user
associations in this community? What are the possible solutions to these challenges?
What is the community involvement in the management of the water resources within this community?
Key Informant Interview Schedule
119
Basic Information
Name ofrespondent………………………………………………………………………………………………………
County…………………………………………………….. Sub County………………………………………………..
Occupation………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Tel/cell No……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...
Name of interviewee……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Age of Respondent…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
H] County Officials
What factors influence the choice of livestock breeds in this county?
What is the situation with livestock production in this county?
If there are challenges, what are the possible solutions?
What kind of value addition is done to livestock before selling off in this county?
In your opinion, what is the situation with farmer access to markets of livestock and livestock by￾products in this county? (probe for current practices, challenges and opportunities)
What is the status of producer and marketing associations in this county?
Are community members selling their livestock through these marketing associations? If not why?
In your opinion, what factors influence choice of markets for livestock in this community?
Generally, how effective are beef livestock value chains in this county?
What is the status, numbers and distribution of key infrastructure (market, slaughter houses, by
products (tanneries) in the county?
What is the situation with policy and regulations for beef value chain actors in this county? (Probe for
what regulations are there and what are their impacts on the various actors in the value chain)
What are the on-going and planned investments in the beef value chain by county government?
Key Informant Interview Schedule
120
ANNEX 6: CHECKLIST FOR FGDS
NOTE: In operationalization, these questions will be interspersed within the Gender Analysis Tools to
obtain comprehensive information from the communities.
A] FGD for Livestock Input Service Providers
What are the disease outbreak patterns, history and maps in the area?
What has been the disease prevalence amongst beef, goats and sheep producers in the past 5 years?
When are the diseases most prevalent in this region?
What has been the average cost of disease control amongst producers per animal?
Who finances the cost of disease control?
Which beef, goats and sheep livestock species do they affect most?
What are the major methods of control of these diseases in the region?
What is the history of control of these diseases, focusing on the policies, institutions, and organizations
involved?
Have there been any majorshifts in preferred disease control technologies?
Indicate the extent of impacts of these livestock diseases on the beef, goats and sheep sub sector in the
area?
What inputs do beef, goats and sheep producers purchase for livestock production in this community?
Where do you obtain the various inputs stock for re-sale to livestock producers?
What are some of the challenges you face with each of the inputs supply sources?
What is the nearest source of inputs stock for your agro-vet shop?
How does distance from the nearest stock supply point affect the price of your inputs to livestock
farmers?
How is the transport infrastructure affecting the cost of your inputs to livestock producers?
Do you keep accurate records of your inputs and services transactions?
B] FGD for Livestock Producers
What livestock do you produce for the meat market?
What factors influence the choice of livestock breeds in this community?
What technologies (herding practices, feeding, spraying e.t.c) do you use in production of beef, goats
and sheep animals?
What are the main challenges faced with livestock rearing in this community and what are some of the
solutions?
What are the main feed resources that beef, goats and sheep, shoats producers use in this area?
Do you benefit from agricultural extension services?
Who are the providers of livestock extension services in this area?
Do you benefit from the services of District/Divisional Veterinary officers?
121
What is the current breeding stock situation for beef, goats and sheep cattle in the area?
What is the level of beef, goats and sheep stock regeneration in the area?
What are the public institutions involved in beef, goats and sheep stockbreeding and regeneration in
the area?
What are the private/other institutions/organizations involved in beef, goats and sheep stockbreeding
and regeneration in the area?
What has been the disease prevalence in the herd for the past 5 years?
What have been your disease control methods in the area?
How often do you administer diseases control within 1 year period to yourherd?
Who has been financing the cost of disease control and by how much?
Has there been involvement of other players in disease control for your beef, goats and sheep cattle
herd?
Are there challenges with drought and water scarcity in this community? If Yes, how do you cope with
droughts and water scarcity in this community?
What other livestock inputs do you use? Where are these sourced from?
What government regulations do you face in production/marketing of your beef, goats and sheep
cattle?
What value addition do you do to your livestock before selling off in this community?
What marketing channels do you have for livestock in this community?
Are there producer marketing associations in this community? Are they functioning well?
Are you marketing your livestock through the marketing associations? If No Why?
What is the average price that you dispose off your meat herd stock in the market? [Separate for beef,
goats and sheep and shoats] and why?
What is the average weight you dispose off your meat herd in the market?[Separate for beef, goats and
sheep and shoats] and why?
What is the average price you receive per animal (disaggregate by livestock type – cow, goat and sheep)
Do you keep accurate records of your production transactions?
C] FGD for Livestock Marketers
Where do you get/source of your animals?
Which markets do you sell your beef, goats and sheep herd/beef, goats and sheep products?
What is your opinion on the off-farm infrastructure in the livestock trading centres? (Fenced livestock
markets, water troughs for animals brought for sale, loading ramps etc.)
What is the average number of beef, goats and sheep/cattle, goats and sheep sold in these markets
weekly? ( be specific on each species)
What beef, goats and sheep products do you market?
How far is this market from where you source the animals/beef, goats and sheep products?
122
What mode of transport do you use to transport your animal/products to these markets
How much does it cost you per week to bring your beef, goats and sheepanimals/products to these
markets?
What are the Beef, goats and sheep prices (both live and product) for domestic market?
What are the Beef, goats and sheep prices (live/product) for export market? Where are the beef, goats
and sheep exported?
What factors influence choice of markets (live and product)for livestock and livestock products in this
community?
Which producer and marketing associations are found in this community? Are community members
selling their livestock through these marketing associations? If not why?
Are there any problems facing the marketing associations in this community? What are some of the
solutions?
Are there any challenges faced by marketers in marketing of livestock and livestock products in this
community?
Do individual marketers or marketing associations have access to credit facilities for their business? If so,
what interest rates do you face? What institutions extend the credit to you?
Do you keep accurate records of your marketing transactions?
What technologies do you use in marketing your animals and meat/ by products?
What are the regulatory market requirements for domestic beef, goats and sheep supply markets?
What are the regulatory market requirements for the export beef, goats and sheep supply markets?
What are the institutions involved in regulation of the beef, goats and sheep marketing?
D] Livestock Processors
What meat products do you process?
What meat animals do you process?
What is the average number of meat animals you process weekly?
Who supplies you with meat animals for slaughter?
What is the average price you purchase meat animals/per animal [cattle and shoats]?
What is the capacity of your meat processing facility
What equipment do you use in the facility?
What are the average Beef, goats and sheep consumption volumes for the domestic market?
What are the average meat product prices for the domestic market?
What are the average meat prices for the export markets?
What export markets do you sell your meat products?
What are the major urban beef, goats and sheep consumption centres in this county?
123
What Beef, goats and sheep consumption volumes for the export market do you process?
What are the other beef, goats and sheep by products do you process and dispose?
Where do you dispose the other beef, goats and sheep by products
How do you deal with beef, goats and sheep waste and environmental/disposal issues?
Do you have access to financial credit?If so, from what sources and at what interest rates? What is your
opinion of the credit market?
Do you own transport mode for transporting your meat and by products?
Do you hire transport? What mode do you use to transport your meat/by products?
What packaging materials do you use to package your meat and by products?
Do you have access to processing infrastructure like power, water, cold storage etc?
What technologies/innovations do you use in processing your meat and by products?
Do you keep accurate records of your processing transactions?
E] Livestock Transporters
What transport modes do you use?
Are your transport modes hired or owned?
Who are your beef, goats and sheep animal transport customers [producers/processors/marketers]
Where do you frequently transport the beef, goats and sheep animals/products?
What is the capacity of your transport mode?
What are your average prices per animal/animal product?
Do you have access to financial credit?If so, from what sources and at what interest rates? What is your
opinion of the credit market?
Do you keep records for your business transactions?
F] Livestock Financiers
What financial products do you offer to beef, goats and sheep animal producers
Do you finance individual and group producers?
Who else do you finance in the beef, goats and sheep animal vale chain?
What interest rates do you charge?
G] Water Resources Management for Livestock
How many livestock water users associations are in the area?
Who are the other actors in water resources management?
What water resource types do you manage in the area?
What is the capacity of the water resources in your area?
What is the capacity of the water user groups to manage and maintain water resources for livestock use
in the area?
124
How many animals are served by the water resources in your area?
Do you charge any fee for livestock producers? And if so, how much per animal?
Are there any inherent conflicts in water use in the area?
How do you manage to maintain the water resources in your area? Do you receive any support from any
institution/organization/development partner?
Do you have access to financial credit to maintain your water resources? If yes, from whom and at what
interest rate?
What technologies do you use in water resource management?
What environmental management practises do you conform to in your management of the water
resources in the community?
125
ANNEX 7: AVERAGE BODY SCORE CONDITION
Introduction to Body Condition Scoring System for Beef Animals
The SCOTTISH SYSTEM has been adopted globally for measuring livestock body condition scores. The
East of Scotland College of Agriculture wasthe forerunner in establishing a scoring system. Body condition
is scored from 1 (very thin) to 5 (grossly fat).
Condition Scoring Beef Cattle
Body condition scoring is a subjective or “hands on” method of determining the amount of fat an animal
is carrying.
The advantage of a condition score measurement is that it is easy to learn, fast, simple, cheap, does not
require specialized equipment and is sufficiently accurate for many research and management situations.
Body condition is scored from 1 (very thin) to 5 (grossly fat). The fat cover over the loin area between
the hip (hook) bone and the last rib is the major location on the animal’s body used for condition
scoring, especially in thin animals. The area is measured by placing your hand on the loin area, fingers
pointing to the opposite hip bone. With your thumb, feel that fat cover over the ends of the short ribs.
The Condition Scoring System
The system uses the following descriptions to define each score:
Score 1: The individual short ribs are fairly sharp to the touch, and there is no fat around the tail head.
The hip bones, tail head and ribs are visually prominent.
Score 2: The short ribs can be identified individually when touched, but feel rounded rather than sharp.
There is some tissue cover around the tail head, over the hip bones and the flank.
Individual ribs are no longer obvious.
Score 3: The short ribs can only be felt with firm pressure. The areas on either side of the tail head now
have a degree of fat cover that can be felt easily.
Score 4: Fat cover around the tail head is evident as slight “rounds,” soft to the touch. The short ribs
cannot be felt even with firm pressure. Folds of fat are beginning to develop over the ribs and thighs of
the animal.
Score 5: The bone structure is no longer noticeable, and the animal presents a “blocky” appearance. The
tail head and hip bones are almost completely buried in fat, and folds of fat are apparent over the ribs
and thighs. The short ribs are completely covered by fat, and the animal’s mobility is impaired by the large 
amounts of fat carried.
NOTE: In practice, an animal’s condition may fall between the above values, in which case intermediate numbers 
(halves) can be used. For example, a 2.5 score indicates the animal is intermediate between a 2and a 3 for body
condition.
126
ANNEX 8: ANNUAL PERFORMANCE DATA TABLE
Table 35: Updated Annual Performance Data Table
Targets Revisions Justification
Indicator
Baseline
Value
Suggested
Amendmen
t 2014 2015 2016 Total 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number of business service
providers trained to deliver
inputs and services that
enhance agricultural
productivity 0
Target re￾distributed 150 400 150 700 75 500 125 700
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Number of business service
providers trained in business
management skills. 0
Target re￾distributed 150 400 150 700 75 500 125 700
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Number of county level
livestock trade shows
supported. 0
Target re￾distributed 6 6 6 18 4 8 6 18
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Number of farmers trained in
improved agricultural
techniques and technologies 0
Target re￾distributed 5,000 50,000 25,000 80,000 2,000 38,000 20,000 60,000
Baseline findings indicate relatively low population
densities in the target Counties, with land owned
by sampled farmers of more than 20 acres in
some cases. Given the structured training
modules delivered by the Farmer Field School
approach, aggregating farmers will be a difficult
task. It is suggested that the number of farmers
127
Targets Revisions Justification
Indicator
Baseline
Value
Suggested
Amendmen
t 2014 2015 2016 Total 2014 2015 2016 Total
benefitted directly be reduced to 60,000.
Number of farmers trained in
improved farm management
practices 0
Target re￾distributed 5,000 50,000 25,000 80,000 2,000 38,000 20,000 60,000
Baseline findings indicate relatively low population
densities in the target Counties, with land owned
by sampled farmers of more than 20 acres in
some cases. Given the structured training
modules delivered by the Farmer Field School
approach, aggregating farmers will be a difficult
task. It is suggested that the number of farmers
benefitted directly be reduced to 60,000.
Number of producer
group/cooperative members
benefiting from peer-to-peer
learning tours 0
Target re￾distributed 1,000 4,000 1,000 6,000 600 4,000 1,400 6,000
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Number of community-based
water points constructed or
rehabilitated 0
Target re￾distributed 50 150 50 250 10 150 90 250
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Number of water user
association trained to
administer and maintain
community based water
points 0
Target re￾distributed 50 150 50 250 10 150 90 250
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
128
Targets Revisions Justification
Indicator
Baseline
Value
Suggested
Amendmen
t 2014 2015 2016 Total 2014 2015 2016 Total
Value of In-kind grants
dispersed to water user
Association 0
Target re￾distributed 425,000
850,00
0
425,00
0
1,700,0
00
136,00
0
1,020,
000 544,000
1,700,0
00
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Number of farmers and
community members
benefiting from the new or
rehabilitated community
based water points 0
Target re￾distributed 37,500
114,00
0 37,500 189,000 10,000
114,00
0 65,000 189,000
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Number of on-farm
infrastructure projects carried
out 0
Target re￾distributed 30 160 120 310 20 160 130 310
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Number of cooperatives
trained to manage and
maintain on- farm
infrastructure projects 0
Target
revision 30 160 120 310 10 150 90 250
K-SALES will work with 250 cooperatives total.
This figure represents the cooperatives that will
be trained.
Value of in-kind grants
dispersed to cooperatives
investing in on-farm
infrastructure 0
Target re￾distributed 425,000
850,00
0
425,00
0
1,700,0
00
136,00
0
1,020,
000 544,000
1,700,0
00
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
129
Targets Revisions Justification
Indicator
Baseline
Value
Suggested
Amendmen
t 2014 2015 2016 Total 2014 2015 2016 Total
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Number of farmers benefiting
from new or rehabilitated on￾farm infrastructure 0
Target re￾distributed 5,000 50,000 25,000 80,000 2,000 38,000 20,000 60,000
Baseline findings indicate relatively low population
densities in the target Counties, with land owned
by sampled farmers of more than 20 acres in
some cases. It is suggested that the number of
farmers benefitted directly be reduced to 60,000;
the revised figures indicate a percentage
reduction based on the reduced number of direct
beneficiaries.
Number of financial institution
partners identified 0 No change 5 5 - 10 5 5 - 10 NA
Number of livestock
enterprises linked to financial
institutions 0
Target re￾distributed 200 1,500 850 2,550 50 1,500 1,000 2,550
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Number of loans disbursed to
livestock enterprises as a
result of USDA assistance 0
Target re￾distributed 100 500 200 800 - 500 300 800
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Number of farmers and
others receiving financial
training as a result of USDA
0
Target re￾distributed 5,000 30,000 15,000 50,000 2,000 30,000 18,000 50,000
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
130
Targets Revisions Justification
Indicator
Baseline
Value
Suggested
Amendmen
t 2014 2015 2016 Total 2014 2015 2016 Total
assistance September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Number of livestock
cooperative/producer group
members benefiting from
financial services as a result
of USDA assistance 0
Target re￾distributed 2,500 12,000 5,500 20,000 2,000 12,000 6,000 20,000
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Number of livestock
enterprises investing in new
or rehabilitated livestock
marketing and trade
infrastructure 0
Target re￾distributed 50 150 100 300 20 150 130 300
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Value of in-kind grants
provided to livestock
enterprises investing in off￾farm infrastructure 0
Target re￾distributed 425,000
850,00
0
425,00
0
1,700,0
00
136,00
0
1,020,
000 544,000
1,700,0
00
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Number of infrastructure
projects carried out 0
Target re￾distributed 75 250 225 550 50 250 250 550
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
131
Targets Revisions Justification
Indicator
Baseline
Value
Suggested
Amendmen
t 2014 2015 2016 Total 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number of post-harvest
handling and processing
facility employees trained in
improved processing
techniques 0
Target re￾distributed 500 1,500 500 2,500 250 1,500 750 2,500
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Number of post-harvest
handling and processing
facility employees trained in
sanitary standards 0
Target re￾distributed 500 1,500 500 2,500 250 1,500 750 2,500
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Number of livestock
enterprise staff and
cooperative members trained
to market agricultural
products 0
Target re￾distributed 100 300 200 600 50 300 250 600
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Number of livestock
enterprise staff and
cooperative members trained
in improved business
management 0
Target re￾distributed 100 300 200 600 50 300 250 600
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Number of study tours
facilitated 0
Target re￾distributed 25 50 25 100 10 50 40 100
Per USDA guidelines, all USDA activities need to
begin after approval of the baseline. Due to
limited time remaining in FY 2014 (May -
September 30), Land O'Lakes proposes to reduce
target outputs in year one and redistribute the
132
Targets Revisions Justification
Indicator
Baseline
Value
Suggested
Amendmen
t 2014 2015 2016 Total 2014 2015 2016 Total
numbers in FY 2015 and FY 2016.
Number of individuals
receiving short-term
agricultural sector productivity
or food security training as a
result of USDA assistance 0
Target
revision 83,200 63,200
Baseline findings indicate relatively low population
densities in the target Counties, with land owned
by sampled farmers of more than 20 acres in
some cases. It is suggested that the number of
farmers benefitted directly be reduced to 60,000;
the revised figures indicate 60,000 farmers plus
facility employees (2,500) and business service
providers (700).
Number of farmers and other
received training on improved
farm management practices
(i.e. governance,
administration or financial
management) as a result of
USDA assistance. 0
Target
revision 80,000 60,000
Baseline findings indicate relatively low population
densities in the target Counties, with land owned
by sampled farmers of more than 20 acres in
some cases. Given the structured training
modules delivered by the Farmer Field School
approach, aggregating farmers will be a difficult
task. It is suggested that the number of farmers
benefitted directly be reduced to 60,000.
Number of farmers and
others who applied new
techniques or technologies as
a result of USDA assistance. 0
Target
revision 64,000 48,000
The number of farmers benefitting directly has
been reduced from 80,000 to 60,000 based on the
baseline findings. This reduction corresponds to
the proposed reduction in direct beneficiaries.
133
Targets Revisions Justification
Indicator
Baseline
Value
Suggested
Amendmen
t 2014 2015 2016 Total 2014 2015 2016 Total
Number of farmers and
others who have applied
improved farm management
practices (i.e. governance,
administration or financial
management as a result of
USDA assistance. 0 No change 64,000 48,000
The number of farmers benefitting directly has
been reduced to 60,000 from 80,000 based on the
baseline findings. This corresponds to the
proposed reduction in direct beneficiaries.
Number of jobs attributed to
USDA assistance 0 No change 1,200 1,200 NA
Value of incremental sales
attributed to USDA
assistance 347
Indicator 
addition NA 399
Added per USDA's request after revision of the K￾SALES Evaluation Plan.
Percentage increase in value
of production per producer 0
Replace
indicator
with
“Percent
increase in
mean farm
gate price of
livestock
sold” 30 30
Based on the baseline findings, Land O’Lakes
proposes to drop the indicator "Percent increase
in value of production per producer" and replace it
with "Percent increase in mean farm gate price of
livestock sold". Improvement in animal health and
care will be measured by average body condition
score, while improved market value from earnings
from the sale of healthy animals is proposed to be
measured by the farm-gate prices of livestock.
Data collection for the original indicator is complex
when it takes into consideration the realities of
different livestock types and ages within the herd
of a farmer, and hence there are high chances
that data will be inaccurate. Baseline values for
the proposed replacement indicator are as
follows: (USD): Beef - 311 ; Goats - 52 ; Sheep -
33
134
Targets Revisions Justification
Indicator
Baseline
Value
Suggested
Amendmen
t 2014 2015 2016 Total 2014 2015 2016 Total
Average livestock body
condition score
Cattle -
2.7
Shoat -
2.8
Target
increase for
shoats 3
Cattle -
3.0
Shoat -
3.2
Based on the baseline findings, Land O’Lakes
proposes to increase the target to 3.2 for shoats.
This is only an increase of 0.4 from the baseline
value and is reasonable given the project
objectives, and is informed by the fact that local
markets emphasize the body condition of
livestock.
Number of individuals
benefiting directly from USDA
funded interventions 0
Target
revision 192,200 63,200
The original target included household members
of the 80,000 farmers targeted to benefit directly,
who are also counted as part of "Number of
individuals benefitting indirectly from USDA
funded interventions”. This would have been
double counting. In addition, the number of
farmers benefitting directly is proposed to be
reduced from 80,000 to 60,000 based on the
baseline findings. The number of post-harvest
handling and processing facility employees
(2,500) and business service providers (700) is
unchanged, bringing the total to 63,200.
Number of individuals
benefiting indirectly from
USDA funded interventions 0
Target
revision 274,380 214,880
Land O’Lakes proposes to reduce the number of
farmers benefitting directly from 80,000 to 60,000
based on the baseline findings. This reduction in
indirect beneficiaries is a direct calculation based
off of the reduction in direct beneficiaries.
135
Targets Revisions Justification
Indicator
Baseline
Value
Suggested
Amendmen
t 2014 2015 2016 Total 2014 2015 2016 Total
Percentage of farmers
participating in project
interventions who have
applied new techniques or
technologies as a result of
USDA assistance 0 No change 80 80 NA
Percentage of farmers within
5 kilometers of supplies that
sell improved inputs 48.90% No change 100 100 NA
Number of farmers in target
regions who have access to
sufficient water inputs through
off-farm sources as a result of
USDA assistance 0
Target
revision 80,000 60,000
Baseline findings indicate relatively low population
densities in the target Counties, with land owned
by sampled farmers of more than 20 acres in
some cases. Given the structured training
modules delivered by the Farmer Field School
approach, aggregating farmers will be a difficult
task. It is suggested that the number of farmers
benefitted directly be reduced to 60,000.
Number of farmers in target
regions that have access to
two or more modern on farm
structure as a result of USDA
assistance. 0.00% No change 25,000 25,000 NA
Number of farmers and
others receiving financial
services as a result of USDA
assistance 0 No change 50,000 50,000 NA
136
Targets Revisions Justification
Indicator
Baseline
Value
Suggested
Amendmen
t 2014 2015 2016 Total 2014 2015 2016 Total
Value of agricultural and rural
loans provided as a result of
USDA assistance 0 No change 500,000 500,000 NA
Percent farmers who can
demonstrate a threshold level
of proficiency in a least five
new livestock husbandry and
herd management techniques
as a result of USDA
assistance. 68.90% No change 80 80 NA
Percentage of farmers who
have applied 60 percent of
recommended improved farm
management practices as a
result of the USDA
assistance. 0 No change 80 80 NA
Percentage of farmers in
target regions who can
identify key characteristics of
a well-managed farm as a
result of USDA assistance. 0 No change 80 80 NA
Percent increase in the value
of locally traded livestock
products (meat and skin)
0 Target
revision
30 15
Baseline findings indicate high prices of the meat
products sold in the project area, with no
significant difference with prices in the Nairobi
market. Since value is a product of both price per
unit of product sold and volume, K-SALES will
strive to increase the volume sold. Price change
will be minimal if any. A 15% target therefore is
137
Targets Revisions Justification
Indicator
Baseline
Value
Suggested
Amendmen
t 2014 2015 2016 Total 2014 2015 2016 Total
more realistic.
Number of jobs attributed to
USDA assistance 0
Delete –
duplicate
indicator 1,200 1,200
This indicator is listed twice in the agreement; it is
already captured above.
Percent increase in average
margin between farm gate
price and price of processed
product TBD
Target
revision 30 5
Baseline findings and key stakeholder interviews
indicate a very low level of value addition by
current players and low demand for value added
products in the local market (Project area meat
market). A 30% change in three years is not
achievable.
Percent increase in volume of
processed products certified
as meeting the Kenya Bureau
of Standards (KEBS) quality
requirements.
TBD
No change 30 30 NA
Average percentage
decrease in post harvesting
pricing costs per animal.
TBD
No change 20 20 NA
138
Targets Revisions Justification
Indicator
Baseline
Value
Suggested
Amendmen
t 2014 2015 2016 Total 2014 2015 2016 Total
Percentage of livestock
enterprises using modern
equipment to process
livestock products as a result
of USDA assistance 0 No change 50 50 NA
Percentage livestock
enterprise using improved
techniques to process
livestock products as a result
of USDA assistance. 0 No change 60 60 NA
Number of new post-harvest
handling infrastructure
projects completed as a result
of USDA assistance 0 No change 50 50 NA
Percentage increase in
number of distinct markets to
which livestock and livestock
products are sold as a result
of USDA assistance 0 No change 50 50 NA
Number of agreements
signed, contracts, MOUs
between buyers and sellers
as a result of USDA
assistance. 0 No change 300 300 NA
139
Targets Revisions Justification
Indicator
Baseline
Value
Suggested
Amendmen
t 2014 2015 2016 Total 2014 2015 2016 Total
Value of private and public
investment in the market and
trade infrastructure as a result
of USDA assistance. 0 No change
1,500,0
00
1,500,0
00 NA
Number of livestock
enterprises in target region
accessing credit through
formal financial products as a
result of USDA assistance 0 No change 150 150 NA
Percent reduction in cost
required to trade goods No change 20 20 NA
Number of livestock
enterprises that actively use
business/marketing plans as
a result of USDA assistance 0 No change 150 150 NA
Number of livestock
enterprises using improved
financial management tools in
decision making as a result of
USDA assistance. 0 No change 150 150 NA
140
ANNEX 9: TABLES
Table 36: Percent (%) aware recommended technologies
Sex Youth
Coun
ty
Whole sample Male
Femal
e
Below 35
years old
Above 35
years old Meru
Tharaka
Nithi Kitui
Makue
ni
Taitatave
ta
Machak
os
Pasture conservation 68.3 69.5 66.5 66.3 69.7 71.4 76.2 58.8 96.5 35.1 72.1
Vet services &Vaccinations 89.3 90.9 85.0 89.8 90.2 85.0 98.1 86.8 98.0 90.1 77.4
Dipping for tick control 80.3 82.0 73.1 79.5 81.0 76.5 95.7 85.3 98.0 51.5 74.2
Spray race for tick control 67.9 69.4 62.3 68.1 68.5 77.0 83.3 89.7 58.5 34.7 62.6
Hand spray for tick control 93.7 94.2 90.4 95.2 93.4 90.6 99.0 96.6 98.5 88.1 88.9
Pour on for tick control 63.8 65.6 54.5 61.4 64.5 54.9 91.4 64.7 68.0 40.6 62.6
Branding 81.8 82.3 77.2 82.5 81.5 77.0 91.0 85.8 91.0 76.2 68.9
De-worming 87.9 88.1 88.6 88.0 88.2 90.6 94.8 81.4 97.5 77.7 84.7
AI service/Breed improvement
services such as bull schemes 69.7 71.2 62.3 64.5 70.9 67.1 89.5 66.7 83.0 33.7 78.4
Castration 67.1 67.3 62.9 62.7 67.3 71.4 93.8 44.1 82.0 45.5 64.7
De-horning 65.4 65.8 61.1 60.8 65.8 72.3 95.2 42.6 82.0 34.7 64.2
Hoof trimming 59.2 60.5 54.5 59.6 59.6 71.4 93.3 40.2 68.0 25.7 54.7
De-stocking/re-stocking 69.5 70.2 68.3 66.3 70.6 66.7 82.4 64.7 90.5 39.6 73.2
Use of crop residue 81.0 81.3 79.6 80.1 81.3 76.1 86.2 77.9 97.0 58.9 90.5
Livestock transportation 58.3 59.1 53.3 57.2 58.5 57.7 60.5 70.6 62.1 28.4 71.1
Livestock insurance 25.5 26.0 20.4 26.7 25.1 44.1 23.8 32.0 15.5 13.9 22.5
141
Table 37: Use of Recommended Technologies and Techniques
Sex Youth County
Whole
sample Male Female
below 35 years
old
above 35
years old Meru
Tharaka
Nithi Kitui Makueni Taita Taveta Machakos
Pasture conservation 46.7 46.6 50.9 41.1 48.1 32.2 13.8 44.5 79.3 28.8 67.2
Vet services
&Vaccinations 69.8 69.9 68.3 62.4 71.0 74.0 35.4 68.4 90.3 70.9 85.7
Dipping for tick control 20.6 20.8 18.0 15.9 21.2 4.3 25.4 39.7 23.5 18.3 7.1
Spray race for tick control 19.5 19.9 15.4 16.8 19.7 14.6 21.7 37.7 2.5 15.7 14.3
Hand spray for tick
control 81.3 82.1 75.5 82.3 81.0 78.2 71.6 82.7 90.4 78.1 88.2
Pour on for tick control 32.8 33.7 27.5 22.5 34.6 23.9 30.2 53.8 28.7 51.2 14.3
Branding 51.6 51.3 56.6 62.8 50.2 57.3 50.3 80.0 14.8 76.0 30.5
De-worming 86.4 86.3 90.8 83.6 87.3 89.7 84.9 77.7 94.9 79.8 90.1
AI service/Breed
improvementservices
such as bull schemes 20.5 20.6 20.2 18.7 20.9 39.9 18.1 37.7 3.6 20.3 8.1
Castration 13.6 13.6 13.3 10.6 14.0 13.2 6.6 51.1 2.4 20.7 7.3
De-horning 17.2 17.0 18.6 10.9 18.2 16.9 17.4 56.3 2.4 15.3 10.7
Hoof trimming 13.4 13.3 14.1 9.1 14.1 19.0 3.1 50.0 7.4 15.1 2.9
De-stocking/re-stocking 36.4 35.8 37.7 27.3 37.3 33.3 9.8 40.2 55.2 37.0 43.9
Use of crop residue 79.7 80.3 76.7 82.0 79.5 84.0 60.2 83.6 95.9 53.8 92.4
Livestock transportation 16.4 16.4 19.1 12.6 17.2 3.3 6.2 48.6 9.6 6.8 14.1
Livestock insurance 1.7 1.8 1.8 3.3 7.7 1.1 2.0 5.7 12.9 6.5 2.2
Percent (%) of farmers
who have used at least
five (5) different
livestock services 55.6 57.2 49.7 49.4 57.2 46.5 37.1 78.4 84.5 31.2 57.4
142
Table 38: Households Roles and Responsible for various livestock activities
Watering Herding Spraying/dipping Feeding on minerals Breeding Cleaning shed Pasture management Sale/marketing of livestock
Overall
Household Head 31.2 34.7 44.6 41.9 44.1 32.5 42.3 45.6
Spouse 38.2 33.9 28.5 31.3 30.2 40.3 31.6 23.6
Both HH Head & spouse 14.7 14 13.6 14.6 13.8 12.9 14.7 23.6
Son 3.8 4.2 4.2 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.3 2.6
Daughter 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.4 1 0.5 0.4
Others 11.1 12.6 8.6 8.3 8.2 9.8 7.5 4.1
Male headed
Household Head 27.2 31.4 43 39.5 42.9 29.6 40.4 43.1
Spouse 42.1 36.4 30.6 33.7 31.6 43.6 33.6 24.2
Both HH Head & spouse 16.8 16 15.7 16.8 16 14.6 16.6 27
Son 3.3 3.8 3 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.3 2
Daughter 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2
Others 9.9 12 7.5 7.5 7 9.2 6.9 3.5
Female headed
Household Head 56.4 56.4 56.8 58.1 54 53.6 56.9 64.7
Spouse 17 19.6 15.4 17.4 19.8 19.9 16.7 16.3
Both HH Head & spouse 2.4 1.8 1.9 2.6 1.6 2 3.5 3.9
Son 7.3 7.4 11.7 9.7 10.3 9.3 9.7 6.5
Daughter 2.4 2.5 2.5 1.9 1.6 4.6 3.5 2
Others 14.5 12.3 11.7 10.3 12.7 10.6 9.7 6.5
143
Table 39: Who control of proceeds from sale of livestock in the Household
Control of income from sale of cattle
Whole Sample Control Treatment Site
Husband wife Both Son Other Husband wife Both Son Other Husband wife Both Son Other
Overall 33.8 10.5 49.3 1 5.5 38.2 11.4 45.8 0.6 4 29.6 9.6 52.6 1.3 6.9
Sex of HH head
Male 37.7 2.7 56.5 0.7 2.3 41.4 2.6 52.8 0.5 2.8 34 2.8 60.3 0.9 1.9
Female 15.2 50.7 7.2 2.9 23.9 20 63.3 3.3 1.7 11.7 11.5 41 10.3 3.8 33.3
Age
below 35 years old 32.4 7 51.4 0.7 8.5 37.7 6.6 42.6 1.6 11.5 28.4 7.4 58 0 6.2
above 35 years old 35 9.8 49.3 1.1 4.8 39 10.5 47.2 0.5 2.8 31 9 51.4 1.7 6.9
County
Meru 60.8 13.9 17 1.5 6.7 58.6 12.1 22.2 2 5.1 63.2 15.8 11.6 1.1 8.4
Tharaka Nithi 23.6 6.9 62.6 1.5 5.4 41.7 8.7 45.6 0 3.9 5 5 80 3 7
Kitui 30.3 12.1 51.5 3 3 28.6 7.1 64.3 0 0 30.8 13.5 48.1 3.8 3.8
Makueni 27.5 9 57.5 0.5 5.5 23.5 8.8 61.8 1 4.9 31.6 9.2 53.1 0 6.1
TaitaTaveta 25.6 15.3 53.4 0.6 5.1 30.2 19.8 46.5 0 3.5 21.1 11.1 60 1.1 6.7
Machakos 32.6 7.1 54.9 0 5.4 37.8 9.2 50 0 3.1 26.7 4.7 60.5 0 8.1
144
Table 40: Awareness of extension services
Breeding
Feeds
and
feeding
Animal
health
Animal
nutrition
Fodder
establishment
Record
keeping
Financial
services
Managing
livestock
enterprise
Use and
disposal
of
acaricides
Integrated
Pest
Management
Overall 30.2 10.8 66.9 28.1 7.9 12.9 17 8.6 50.1 4.8
Sex of the HH Head
Male 31 10.8 67.1 27.5 8.1 13.2 17.9 9.5 49.6 5.1
Female 22.2 12.6 63.5 24 8.4 9.6 10.8 4.8 51.5 2.4
Age
Below 35 years
old 32.9 9 66.5 22.2 7.2 12.6 17.4 9.6 49.7 2.4
Above 35 years
old 29.2 11.5 66.6 27.9 8.2 12.7 16.9 8.8 50 5.1
County
Meru 53.5 17.8 50.7 21.1 14.6 12.2 16.9 11.3 60.1 0.9
Tharaka Nithi 43.8 16.7 78.6 27.6 9 10 14.8 18.1 53.8 2.4
Kitui 14.2 3.4 59.8 24 4.4 9.8 24.5 8.3 32.8 5.4
Makueni 20.5 23 76.5 28.5 7 7.5 10 3 47 4.5
TaitaTaveta 29.7 0.5 55 35.1 1.5 26.7 18.8 7.9 48 10.4
Machakos 16.8 2.6 82.6 32.6 10.5 11.1 16.8 2.1 58.9 5.3
145
Table 41: Extension service provided in the past years
Bree
ding
Feeds
and
feedin
g
Animal
health
Animal
nutritio
n
Fodder
establish
ment
Record
keeping
Financial
services
Managing
livestock
enterprise
Use and
disposal
of
acaricides
Integrate
d Pest
Managem
ent
Overall 14.4 23.1 43.7 17.1 4.3 6.2 7.7 6.3 27 4.5
Sex of the HH Head
Male 14.5 22.5 43.9 16.7 4.4 6.1 7.7 6.4 26.7 4.5
Female 15 29.9 43.7 17.4 4.8 6.6 7.2 6 31.1 4.8
Age
below 35
years old 15 16.2 37.7 11.4 2.4 5.4 6.6 5.4 24 1.8
above 35
years old 14.5 24.7 44.8 17.7 4.7 6.4 7.9 6.5 27.8 5
County
Meru 35.7 27.7 31 7 5.6 11.7 14.6 8.9 37.6 2.3
Tharaka
Nithi 5.2 21 42.9 19 1.4 3.8 1 4.3 26.7 1
Kitui 15.2 15.7 46.6 18.6 6.4 7.8 8.8 6.4 13.2 5.9
Makueni 13.5 37.5 52.5 25 6.5 4.5 7 6.5 27 5
TaitaTave
ta 5 2 20.8 5 2 3.5 6.9 5 15.3 7.4
Machakos 11.1 35.8 71.1 28.9 4.2 5.8 7.9 6.8 42.6 5.8
146
Table 42: Distribution of selected characteristics of livestock enterprise by treatment and control
groups
County
Intervention
Area
Livestock
TLU
size of
land
owned
(acres)
Average
Body
Condition
Score for
Beef
Average
Body
Condition
Score for
Goats
Average
Body
Condition
Score for
Sheep
Total current
livestock
value(KES)
Meru Control N 102 97 85 74 13 102
Mean 2.7 4.1 2.7 2.8 3.2 84891.6
Median 2.1 2 3 3 3 61365.1
Treatment N 76 67 37 66 39 76
Mean 3.2 3.8 2.2 2.4 2.4 102817.9
Median 1.8 3 2 2 2 63000
Tharaka Nithi Control N 101 86 72 96 53 101
Mean 2.7 4.9 2.7* 2.6 2.7 54793.2
Median 2.33 4 2.5 2 2 44000
Treatment N 93 88 52 86 68 93
Mean 3.9 8.2 2.4 2.5 2.5 99974.6
Median 3.43 6.5 2 3 3 76000
Kitui Control N 102 100 95 83 13 102
Mean 5.7 14.8 2.5 2.7* 2.6 207950.6*
Median 4.88 7 2 3 2 145000
Treatment N 98 94 79 88 15 98
Mean 5.2 8.7 2.6 2.8 3.0 188425.5
Median 4.54 5.5 3 3 3 147000
Makueni Control N 102 99 98 89 37 102
Mean 4.6 8.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 129714.3
Median 3.5 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 90212.6
Treatment N 75 73 73 71 15 75
Mean 4.2 11.2 3.0 2.9 3.3 118478.2
Median 3.32 7 3 3 3 90000
TaitaTaveta Control N 87 87 69 71 12 87
Mean 7.4** 6.8 3.0** 3.2 3.6 242489.8**
Median 4.55 5 3 3 3 110000
Treatment N 89 86 71 81 25 89
Mean 7.0 4.1 3.4 3.3 3.3 198065.9
Median 4.32 3.25 3 3 3 112850.5
Machakos Control N 98 98 93 96 27 98
Mean 5.3 9.0 2.6 2.9** 2.9 186589.1
Median 3.765 5.75 3 3 3 99500
Treatment N 68 50 46 46 2 68
Mean 4.0 7.8 2.5 2.9 3.0 117747.1
Median 2.55 4.5 2 3 3 87000
Total Control N 592 567 512 509 155 592
Mean 4.7 8.1 2.7 2.8 2.9 148677.8
147
Median 3.215 5 3 3 3 84250
Treatment N 499 458 358 438 164 499
Mean 4.6 7.3 2.7 2.8 2.7 140477.0
Median 3.55 5 3 3 3 96000
Total N 1091 1025 870 947 319 1091
Mean 4.7 7.8 2.7 2.8 2.8 144926.9
Median 3.33 5 3 3 3 88850.5
148
Table 43: Household Food Security Indicators by Treatment and Control Sites
County
Intervention
Area Mean Months of Food Provision HDDS Index
Meru Control N 94 98
Mean 6.6* 3.7
Treatment N 63 74
Mean 4.3 3.5
Total N 157 172
Mean 5.6 3.6
Tharaka Nithi Control N 98 99
Mean 5.7 4.1
Treatment N 92 83
Mean 5.9 3.9
Total N 190 182
Mean 5.8 4.0
Kitui Control N 46 87
Mean 1.6 4.2
Treatment N 69 64
Mean 4.1 6.6
Total N 115 151
Mean 3.1 5.2
Makueni Control N 102 58
Mean 3.6 5.5
Treatment N 74 18
Mean 4.4 4.9
Total N 176 76
Mean 3.9 5.4
TaitaTaveta Control N 78 49
Mean 5.1* 4.6
Treatment N 87 64
Mean 6.6 4.3
Total N 165 113
Mean 5.9 4.4
Machakos Control N 93 26
Mean 5.4 4.7
Treatment N 49 62
Mean 9.5 4.0
Total N 142 88
Mean 6.8 4.2
Total Control N 511 417
Mean 4.9 4.3
Treatment N 434 365
Mean 5.7 4.4
Total N 945 782
Mean 5.3 4.4
Median 5 4
149
Table 44: Mean number of livestock sold in 2013
Intervention
Area
Mean number of
beef sold
Mean number
of goats sold
Mean number of
sheep sold
Mean number of
shoats sold
N Mean Mean Mean Mean
Whole sample 1091 1.7 2.4 1.1 3.5
Meru Control 102 1.2 1.3 1 2.3
Treatment 76 2.8 2.3 1.3 3.6
Tharaka
Nithi Control 101 1.4 2.6* 1.3 3.9
Treatment 93 1.3 3 1.5 4.5
Kitui Control 102 1.2 2.6 1.1 3.7
Treatment 98 1.3 2.4 1.1 3.5
Makueni Control 102 2.6 2.5 1.1* 3.6
Treatment 75 2.2 1.9 1 2.9
TaitaTavet
a Control 87 1.7 2.4 1.1 3.5
Treatment 89 2.1 2.7 1.2 3.9
Machakos Control 98 1.8 1.9 1 2.9
Treatment 68 1.9 3.2 1 4.3
Table 45: Mean Farm-gate prices of livestock in 2013
Cattle Goat Sheep
Project area Count Mean Median Count Mean Median Count Mean Median
County whole sample 1091 27013 29467.1 1091 3744.3 3556.5 1091 2217.2 1826.2
Meru Control 102 27537.8 29467.1 102 3924.4 3619.4 102 2368.5 1766
Treatment 76 27062.2 24093.4 76 4082.5 3559.7 76 2621.2 2966.7
Tharaka Nithi Control 101 23214.8 25000 101 3266.3 3000 101 2033.9 1826.2
Treatment 93 29407.7 30000 93 3628.6 4000 93 2037.6 1826.2
Kitui Control 102 26744.2 28733.6 102 3630.9 3162.1 102 2051.6 1766
Treatment 98 28115.1 30000 98 3686.2 3500 98 1790.6 1766
Makueni Control 102 26354.5 21645.4 102 4176.7 4500 102 2332.1 2692.3
Treatment 75 26355.2 25000 75 4120.4 4000 75 2342.6 2692.3
TaitaTaveta Control 87 26446.1 29467.1 87 3806.1 3619.4 87 2426.9 2966.7
Treatment 89 28683.4 29508.8 89 3544.8 3619.4 89 2304.8 1833.3
Machakos Control 98 26416.2 23145.4 98 3606.4 3324.1 98 2329.8 2692.3
Treatment 68 28463.6 30558.3 68 3536 3556.5 68 2113.3 1833.3
150
Table 46: Mean household income from sale of livestock in 2013
Project
Area
Beef
(KES)
Goat
(KES)
Sheep
(KES) Shoats (KES) All livestock
(KES)
% contribution of
income from sale
of shoats to total
household income
from sale of
livestock
Whole
sample
Control
16238 8071 2519 10590 26,827 73
Treatment
17,595 9398 2476 11870 29,469 74
Meru Control 12478.4 5093.6 1741.5 6835.2 19313.6 71.4
Treatment 36565.8 9875.9 3645.8 13521.7 50087.5 71.2
Tharaka
Nithi Control 15408.9 8080.1 2424.6 10504.7 25913.6 60.5
Treatment 17806.5 10782.8 3284.0 14066.8 31873.2 69.1
Kitui Control 18232.4 8948.6 2361.4 11310.0 29542.3 64.5
Treatment 12872.4 8546.0 1969.1 10515.2 23387.6 75.8
Makueni Control 18058.8 10142.4 2633.2 12775.6 30834.4 78.8
Treatment 22120.0 7714.2 1978.7 9692.9 31812.9 69.1
TaitaTaveta Control 11183.9 8712.0 2944.1 11656.1 22840.0 78.2
Treatment 8314.6 8940.4 2729.1 11669.5 19984.1 87.0
Machakos Control 12989.8 7061.5 2341.8 9403.3 22393.1 84.0
Treatment 22755.9 11705.1 2082.3 13787.4 36543.2 71.1