The status of livestock technologies and services in the Southern Maasai rangelands of Kenya

This study was carried out in Mashuru district, Kajiado County in the Southern Maasai rangelands of Kenya to assess the status of livestock technologies and services. Data was collected using a survey of 380 households, participatory stakeholder workshops, five focus groups with pastoralists, and key informant interviews. Analysis was done using frequency counts, percentages and chi square test. The findings of this study revealed that access to livestock technologies and services was hampered by institutional (77%), technological (12%), environmental (9%) and economic (2%) factors. Inadequate government staff, long distances to service providers and weak institutional linkages were the most common problems encountered by 27, 20 and 17% of pastoralists respectively. Technologies perceived to be important included: Availability of water and water harvesting technologies (52%); pastures (28%); vaccines and drugs (8%); dual purpose breeding stock for milk and meat production adapted to dry climatic conditions (4%); market infrastructure and information (4%); management skills (3%), and small equipment (1%). In view of problems encountered in accessing livestock services, Maasai pastoralists preferred the establishment of one-stop-shop centres stocked with priority inputs and technologies (P<0.05). The willingness of pastoralists (65%) to pay for this service should attract public-private partnerships to support livestock productivity in rangelands.


INTRODUCTION
There is great potential for improvement of livestock productivity in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALS) in Sub Saharan Africa and Kenya in particular, yet this potential has not been fully realized (Adugna and Aster, 2007), mainly due to divergent research, extension and other development approaches, which are largely uncoordinated (Omore et al., 2009) as well as constraints associated with inadequate feed resources, disease control strategies and poor infrastructure (Mgheni et al., 1992).
Following liberalization policies of 1990s in which most African governments reduced involvement in provision of free livestock services (Den Haan and Bekure, 1991), the delivery of livestock services in Sub Saharan Africa, including Kenya, has seriously declined over the last two decades (Tambi and Maina, 1994).Consequently, the majority of pastoralists now rely more on drug manufacturers and other service providers for information which is often compartmentalized because it is given by different service providers dealing with different commodities.Given that most of Kenya's red meat is produced in ASALS, access to productivity enhancing technologies is of utmost importance.This study sought to make an assessment of the status of livestock technologies and services on the premise that supporting livestock keepers in pastoral areas to access necessary inputs and services has the potential to improve productivity and commercialization of livestock in the rangelands.

Study area
Mashuru district lies at longitude 36.70°E and 37.50° E and latitude 1.50° S and 2.20° S. It occupies an area of 2192.6 km 2 with a population of 41 655 persons consisting of 20974 males and 20681 females, grouped into 8810 households with a population density of 17 inhabitants/ km 2 (District statistics report, 2010).The occupants of the district are predominantly Maasai pastoralists keeping cattle, goats, and sheep, under extensive and ranching production systems.It is a semi arid region in Agro ecological IV to VI characterized by low rainfall of less than 500 mm per annum and temperatures ranging from 24 to 37°C (Jaetzold et al., 2006).The low and often unreliable rainfall makes pastoralism the only suitable economic activity.The most dominant vegetation consist mainly of perennial grasses, shrubs and thorn trees.

Sample size, study variables and data collection methods
All pastoralists in the district (N = 8810) formed the population from which a sample size was determined using the formula by Kothari (2008): n = N/ 1+N (e 2 ), where n is the required sample size, N = estimated study population and e = marginal error set at 5%.Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through a survey of 380 households, stakeholder workshops, five focus group discussions, ten key informant interviews and transect observations.The data collected included: livestock species kept by pastoralists and preferences, common diseases, important inputs and services, service provision by public and private sector, constraints related to access to inputs, preferred interventions and willingness to pay for services.Quantitative data was collected using a structured questionnaire administered to 380 households randomly selected from ten locations in the district (Kothari, 2008).Qualitative data was gathered through workshops, focus group discussions and interviews with community leaders and ministry of livestock staff purposively selected to provide a deeper understanding of the status of livestock technologies and services (Kumar, 1993;Mariner,and Paskin 2000;Kruger, 2002).

Data analysis
Data was entered in Statistical Package for Social scientists version 19 to produce frequency counts and percentages of various livestock technologies and services, while chi square test was used to analyse intervention options and willingness to pay (Kothari, 2008;Mugenda and Mugenda, 2003).

Livestock production
Table 1 shows the results of common livestock species kept.Cattle were the most important source of income, milk, meat as well as for payment of dowry.Goats and sheep were the next important species for income and meat, while donkeys were kept mainly for transport of water and firewood, mainly by women.Chicken were ranked last because they are regarded by most pastoralists as an enterprise for women and children.

Priority diseases
Priority diseases to livestock production as identified from focus group discussions and interviews and ranked through household survey are listed in the Table 2. Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia (CCPP) were ranked as most important in cattle and goats respectively.Pastoralists associated their occurrence with introduction of new animals into the herd due to purchases, movements or interaction at watering points.Black quarter and Newcastle were priority diseases in sheep and local chicken respectively.Endemic diseases were mentioned as East Coast Fever in cattle and Foot rot in goats and sheep.

Inputs and services
Input and services perceived to be important are listed and ranked in Table 3.Among the pastoralists surveyed in the district, 52% (N = 198), 28% (N = 105), 8%, (N = 31) and 4% (N =17) mentioned water, pasture, vaccines and drugs, and availability of breeding stock / forage germplasm respectively as the most important livestock inputs.

Public versus private service providers
A comparison of the benefits from public vs. private service providers as perceived by pastoralists is shown in Table 4.The nearest service provider was the livestock owner himself who were perceived to be cheap and accessible, though not efficient.All the pastoralists buy drugs from agrovets and treat their own animals.Public service providers such as the extension department were neither accessible nor available when required though perceived to be efficient and gives advice.

Problems in accessing inputs and services
Problems encountered by pastoralists while accessing

Interventions
Interventions suggested by pastoralists to address constraints to accessing livestock technologies and services are shown in Table 6.Out of the 380 households surveyed, 247 prefer the establishment of a one-stop-shop-resource centre for inputs within the community, while 79 and 38 households respectively suggested capacity building of pastoralists and improvement of livestock marketing and facilities.On willingness to pay for inputs and services, 65% of respondents showed willingness to pay for a resource centre, while 21 and 10% would pay for capacity building and market facilities respectively.Only 2% of the households were willing to pay for employment of extension staff and construction key infrastructure such as roads.

Livestock production
The findings of this study showed that cattle are the most important livestock species kept mainly for income, milk, meat and dowry, while goats and sheep are kept for income, meat and skins.These results agree with those found by Adugna and Aster (2007) in the pastoral production system of Southern Ethiopia.The sahiwal breed is dominant and is preferred due to its dual purpose traits of milk and beef production and adaptability to the dry climatic conditions.Contrary to popular opinion held by outsiders that the Maasai kept livestock for prestige and numbers, we did not find this mentioned as one of the objectives in all focus group discussions and survey throughout the district.These results agree with those obtained by Cossins (1985) in the Sahel region, who argued that pastoralists are not attached to unproductive animals as outsiders believe.Rather, it is the result of the environment and the multiple objectives for keeping livestock which determines the number of animals a family can keep.

Livestock diseases
Priority diseases as perceived by pastoralists in terms of morbidity, mortality and loss of incomes were: Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and Anthrax in cattle; Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia (CCPP) in goats; Black Quarter in sheep and New castle disease in chicken.
Most of these diseases are transboundary animal diseases (TADs) caused by interaction of infected and healthy animals during extensive movements, communal watering or newly purchased animals in the herd.TADs have been known to be priority diseases in pastoral areas (Perry et al., 2005).However, there is little success in control strategies as the public veterinary service appears in these areas only when there is an epidemic.These diseases have far reaching economic and social consequences at household, community and national levels and hence control cannot be left to the private sector or pastoralists as a result of reduced state funding (Perry et al., 2005).Integration of pastoralists in management of these diseases is of utmost importance.

Inputs and services
Water, pasture, drugs and vaccines, breeding stock were ranked as most important inputs and limiting constraints to livestock production as perceived by 52, 28, 8 and 4% of the pastoralists respectively.Access to drugs and vaccines is particularly a challenge since service providers are found only in large towns.This result is consistent with the ministry of livestock reports which observe that there is low input use owing to poor distribution of input suppliers and challenges associated with infrastructure (GOK, 2008)

Public vs. private service providers
The findings of this study show that the Maasai pastoralists are mainly served by the private sector.This is because they are readily available and accessible.Though the public sector is not visible on the ground, they are perceived to be more competent and have better facilities compared to private sector.However, Mugunieri et al. (2004) compared productivity of livestock herds among farmers who utilized the services of communitybased animal health workers and veterinarians and found that they were not significantly different.Hence there is need for linkages with private sector for efficient and effective delivery of services.

Factors influencing access to inputs and intervention strategy
The main factors influencing access to inputs and services identified by pastoralists and other stakeholders in the area are predominantly institutional (77%) rather than technological (12%).These included inadequate government extension staff long distances to service providers, weak institutional linkages and inadequate infrastructure.Priority interventions suggested addressing the problem of inputs and technology availability and accessibility were establishment of a one-stop-shop for inputs, capacity building of pastoralists improvement of market facilities, and road and water infrastructures.The majority of pastoralists (65%) expressed willingness to pay for the inputs centre and capacity building (p<0.05).However they were not willing to pay for improvement of roads and water since they perceived them as public services, even though these were important infrastructure in rangelands.This finding on pastoralists preferred intervention concurs with Omiti and Irungu (2002) who observed that most interventions in the Kenyan pastoral areas have been intermittent and sporadic in nature, often in response to crises such as drought and famine.

Conclusion
The findings of this study indicate that access to livestock technologies and services in Mashuru district in the Southern rangelands of Kenya are hampered by institutional rather than technological factors, and need to be strengthened through effective extension, stakeholder linkages and improved infrastructure.In view of problems encountered in accessing livestock inputs and technologies, pastoralists prefer the establishment of one-stop-shop centres stocked with priority inputs and key information pertaining to livestock production, health and markets.The willingness of the majority of pastoralists to pay for this service should attract publicprivate partnerships to support livestock productivity in rangelands.Towards this endeavor is the implementation of appropriate models for the provision of livestock services that take into account local contexts in many areas especially where service markets have not worked.

Table 1 .
Livestock species kept in order of importance and preferences as perceived by pastoralists.

Table 2 .
Important diseases to pastoralists.

Table 3 .
Inputs and services perceived to be important by pastoralists.

Table 4 .
Merits of public versus private sector service providers as perceived by pastoralists.

Table 5 .
Problems encountered by pastoralists in accessing inputs / services.

Table 6 .
Suggested interventions to address constraints to livestock technologies and services.