Farmer education and training: the role of dairy co-operatives in Kenya Dr Rowshan Hannan 9 th December 2014

Presentation outline Introduction to research project Aim of research Research methods Findings Conclusion

Introduction to research project PhD based at University of Leeds with support from Co-operative College ( ) Field work in Kenya in 2012 (5 year focus) Remote rural location, semi-arid area Dairy farming considered incompatible Case study research: a dairy farmer co- operative society, a village, 14 households: 7 member households (5 active and 2 inactive) 7 non-member households

Aim of research The link between co-operatives and poverty reduction Did not go out to specifically look at education However, education and training emerged as crucial to the co-operative contribution to poverty reduction

Research methods Qualitative in-depth study Participatory methods

Findings: co-operatives’ role in education and training Case study co-operatives facilitated training in wide range of topics (dairy farming and other areas): Co-operative facilitation of training with external training providers Training organised by board directors within electoral zones Farmer study circles / farmer-to-farmer training Collective mobilisation of farmers for training

Members on average attended more training sessions a year than non-members: Members = 15.5 training sessions Non-members = 3.5 training sessions All 5 active member households linked training to the co-operative: ‘Many facilitators are coming now to train. Ministry of Agriculture people come through the society to train us now on fruit farming, poultry farming.’ Co-operative facilitated training sessions: only 20-25% of attendees were non-members.

Participant perceptions of training TopicWhat learntPractice changedImpact of change Dairy farming Feed and fodder management and growth, disease control, use of AI Planted crops for use as feed supplements, started de-worming regularly, use AI instead of indigenous bulls Cattle eats more, grass growing on parts of farm that were unproductive, reduced disease, increased milk yields Agricultural farming Use of appropriate seeds, manure and fertiliser usage, vegetable and fruit planting, harvest management, farm terracing Use hybrid seeds, changed planting techniques (plant different crops together, changed spacing between them), use manure and fertiliser on farm Earlier harvests and increased amounts, sold seeds and crop from bumper harvest, eat wider variety of food throughout year Fuel efficient stoves Benefits of fuel efficient stoves, how to construct and use Had jiko/rocket stove constructed within homestead, and use for cooking Reduced usage of firewood, time saved in collecting firewood, lower smoke emissions (benefits for women’s health)

Dairy farming Dairy cow ownership Household type No. of dairy cows owned% increase/ decrease of herd % of purebred/ hybrid dairy herd Active members %100% Non- members %16.5%

Increase in dairy cows was higher for non-member households than member households. Non-members were increasing ownership of indigenous dairy cows, whereas members were more likely to invest in smaller herds of higher breed cows: ‘It [the co-operative] has helped us change from local breeds to hybrids. Many people in the village have been able to do this…. It is conducting more training now to educate farmers and many have benefitted from them Badilisha Kailu will help those with local cows to get better breeds.’ All 5 active members confirmed using either AI or hybrid bulls, compared to only 1 out of 6 non-members with mature dairy cows.

Household milk productivity 4 out of 5 active member household talked of how ‘milk has increased. Production gone up.’ In contrast to this, none of the 4 non-member households who were milking over 2007 to 2012 confirmed that production had increased: ‘yields have gone down.’ Household typeTotal no. of cows milked Milk production p/day (litres) Dry seasonRainy season Active members Non-members

Household exercise on milk yields: over 2007 to 2012, active members increased milk production more per cow than non-members. Active members: 82% increase Non-members: 10% decrease Members made direct links between dairy farming training and higher milk production overall as well as per cow: ‘In 2007 we were not much trained. But in 2010 we had more knowledge......From the training we learnt that you can have two cows now and produce more milk than from the many cows we had earlier.’

Milk income Active members identified 2 main sources of household income: waged employment and income from milk. All 5 active members mentioned dairy farming as important source of income in In contrast, only 2 out of 6 non-members engaged in dairy farming in 2012 even mentioned income as a benefit of dairy farming. 4 out of 5 active members also confirmed increasing income from dairy farming over the 5 year period.

Use of milk income All five active members reported using milk income primarily to purchase basic foodstuffs (such as cooking oil, sugar and vegetables) Three out of the five member households also talked of using milk income to cover healthcare and education cost. Non-members with some income from milk for at least part of the year (three out of the seven non- member households) talked of using it mostly to purchase food. Only one non-member also mentioned using some of this income to cover school fees.

Conclusion Co-operative played important role in bringing training to its membership area. This increased member access to training in wide range of topics, which helped to change practice and reduce poverty in number of different ways. Specifically on dairy farming, training supported changes to breeding, rearing and feeding practices. This improved milk productivity and income in member households. Milk income was used to improve household food consumption, as well as access to healthcare and education.