Farmers’ Perceptions of Dairy Cattle Breeds, Breeding and Feeding Strategies: A Case of Smallholder Dairy Farmers in Western Kenya

Figures & data

Table 1. Number and percentage (%) of respondents mentioning various cattle breeds, their mean preference rankings and importance in cross-sectional survey of 419 smallholder farms in western Kenya.

Breed	Number of respondents mentioning	Percentage of total Respondents (%)	Mean preference ranking^1	Importance^2
Friesian	362	34.3	1.6	4.3
Ayrshire	360	34.1	1.3	4.6
Jersey	123	11.7	2.1	2.8
Guernsey	146	13.8	2.1	2.9
Sahiwal	26	2.5	1.8	1.6
Boran	16	1.5	2.8	1.2
Zebu	23	2.2	3.2	1.2

NB: Ranking of more than one breed by one respondent was possible

¹Preference ranking: (five-point scale where 1 = most preferred and 5 = least preferred); ²Importance was calculated using a weighted mean of all scores (5 to 1) of a particular breed (including no score given a default weight of 1): 5 = most important, 4 = somewhat important, 3 = neutral, 2 = not so important, 1 = least important.

Table 2. Importance of desirable cattle traits in specific breeds in a cross-sectional survey of 419 smallholder farms in western Kenya.

		Importance^1 of specific breeds
Trait	Overall general importance	Friesian	Ayrshire	Jersey	Guernsey	Indigenous
Milk production	4.7	4.5	2.6	1.5	1.5	1.2
Milk BF content	4.4	1.4	3.8	2.6	2.5	1.1
Market value	1.5	1.1	1.0	1.1	1.1	1.2
Coat colour	1.7	1.2	1.4	1.1	1.1	1.0
Resistance to diseases	3.1	1.3	2.5	1.3	1.3	1.7
Growth rate of calves	1.7	1.5	1.2	1.0	1.0	1.0
Feed intake	3.0	1.2	2.5	1.5	1.5	1.1
Fertility (CI)	1.4	1.2	1.0	1.0	1.0	1.0
Others^2	2.7	1.3	1.7	1.1	1.3	1.8

¹The importance was calculated using a weighted mean of scores for all rankings of a particular trait against each breed (including no ranking given a default score of 1); 5 = most important, 4 = somewhat important, 3 = neutral, 2 = not so important, 1 = not important at all. ²Most important was hardship tolerance. Others were attractive looks, quick recovery from disease, temperament and body size. BF = Butter Fat; CI = Calving Interval

Table 3. Odd ratios (and their 95% confidence intervals) from multinomial logistic regression for the preferred traits of dairy cattle breeds in cross-sectional survey of 419 smallholder farmers in western Kenya.

Preferred trait^1	Friesian		Ayrshire		Jersey		Guernsey
Hardship tolerance	ref.		ref.		ref.		ref.
Milk production	4.86	(3.79, 5.92)	2.42	(1.45, 3.38)	1.98	(0.78, 3.17)	1.50	(0.37, 2.64)
Milk BF content	2.83	(1.12, 4.45)	4.61	(3.11, 6.12)	4.60	(2.99, 6.22)	4.18	(2.61, 5.74)
Market value	0.59	(ns)*	−1.36	(ns)	−0.39	(ns)	0.30	(ns)
Coat colour	17.33	(ns)	16.97	(ns)	16.98	(ns)	16.75	(ns)
Resistance to diseases	−0.05	(ns)	1.22	(0.44, 2.00)	0.35	(ns)	0.35	(ns)
Growth rate of calves	3.18	(1.53, 4.83)	1.17	(ns)	0.52	(ns)	0.12	(ns)
Feed requirements	3.04	(0.82, 5.23) ns	4.16	(2.10, 6.22)	3.70	(1.51, 5.89)	3.45	(1.31, 5.59)
Fertility (CI)	18.06	(ns)	17.39	(ns)	1.76	(ns)	1.46	(ns)

*ns = not significant (odds ratio was significant, if the 95% confidence interval excluded one), means the respondents did not consider the trait as important. ¹Preference for a breed for each trait was compared with preference for hardship tolerance

Table 4. Availability, use and preference ranking of breeding methods in a cross-sectional survey of 419 smallholder farms in western Kenya.

Breeding method^#	Number with access	Number using	Mean rank^1 ± SE	Importance^2	Average cost^3 (KES)
Own bull	103	90	1.7 ± 0.02	2.9	600 (396.4)
Other bull	337	284	2.1 ± 0.12	3.8	394 (203.9)
Community bull	15	8	2.4 ± 0.02	1.2	417 (195.1)
AI local/ government	64	25	1.4 ± 0.02	1.8	1 278 (361.4)
AI local/ private	177	118	1.5 ± 0.02	3.3	1 314 (1 063.9)
AI local/ cooperative	9	3	1.3 ± 0.01	1.1	1 200 (0.0)
AI local/ NGO	20	5	2.5 ± 0.03	1.1	1 220 (560.0)
AI imported/ government	20	5	1.4 ± 0.02	1.2	1 750 (531.5)
AI imported/ private	41	18	1.4 ± 0.02	1.6	2 553 (1 211.9)
AI imported/ cooperative	1	1	1.0 ± 0.00	1.0	6 400 (0.0)
AI imported/ NGO	5	2	1.0 ± 0.00	1.1	4 450 (1 950.0)

^#Use of more than one breeding method by one respondent was possible. AI = artificial insemination.

¹Preference ranking: 1 = Most preferred; 2 = Preferred; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Not so preferred; 5 = Least preferred). Sample size less than 5 was excluded from the Krusal–Wallis one-way analysis of variance; ²Importance was calculated using the average weight of scores of a particular method (including no score given a default weight of 1); ³Values in parenthesis are the standard deviation

Table 5. Number of households keeping various cattle types and the percentage (%) practicing different management systems in a cross-sectional survey of 419 smallholder farms in western Kenya.

		Cross and pure breed
Management system	Indigenous breed	Mature cattle	Weaners	Calves
Free grazing	82 (79.6)	252 (60.5)	119 (84.4)	223 (67.0)
Semi-zero grazing	14 (13.6)	65 (15.5)	15 (10.6)	53 (15.9)
Zero grazing	7 (6.8)	89 (24.0)	7 (5.0)	61 (18.3)
Total HH with cattle type*	103	406	141	333
Average number HH^−1	1.66	2.41	1.20	1.42

* One household (HH) can have more than one cattle type and practice more than one management system; numbers in parentheses represent the percentage of total HH with that cattle type

Table 6. Common feed resources in households involved in a cross-sectional survey of 419 smallholder farms in western Kenya.

Fodder/feed type^1	Number of respondents using feed type	Percentage of total respondents	Average quantity planted/ purchased among those using	Average quantity planted/ purchased among all households	Units
On-farm basal
Natural unimproved pasture	167	39.9	1.8	0.72	ha
Napier grass	214	51.1	0.5	0.23	ha
Planted pasture	9	2.1	0.4	0.008	ha
Desmodium	20	4.8	0.3	0.006	ha
Maize^2	394	94.0	1.0	0.9	ha
Calliandra	58	13.8	48	3.9	trees
Luceana	9	2.1	36	0.4	trees
Sesbania	7	1.7	19	0.2	trees
Off-farm basal
Napier grass	24	5.7	3.6	0.16	ha yr^−1
Cut grass	16	3.8	11.3	0.3	sacks^3 yr^−1
Commercial supplements
Dairy meal	245	58.5	1.9	0.97	kg cow^−1 day^−1
Commercial mineral salt	382	91.2	10	10	g cow^−1 day^−1

¹One household can use more than one fodder/feed type; ²Maize was a source of crop residues; ³One standard sack of cut grass contains approximately 15–20 kg of fodder.

Table 7. Farmers’ perceptions of feed supply situation based on number of respondents agreeing or disagreeing with various options in a cross-sectional survey of 419 smallholder farms in western Kenya.

	Butere			Kabras			Meteitei			p
Feed supply situation	Agree	Disagree	Odds ratio	Agree	Disagree	Odds ratio	Agree	Disagree	Odds ratio
There is sufficient on-farm feeds all year round	76	44	2.71	71	70	1.29	36	98	0.29	<0.001
Different types of feeds are available on-farm	86	40	25.57	15	93	0.31	4	133	0.04	<0.001
Availability of on-farm feeds can result in increased milk production	109	9	6.26	126	11	6.40	52	81	0.05	<0.001
Off-farm feeds are easily accessible	105	9	27.02	59	58	1.06	17	118	0.06	<0.001
Different types of feeds are available off-farm	103	10	53.61	26	82	0.36	13	121	0.08	<0.001
Availability of off-farm feeds can result in increased milk production	85	27	4.78	66	22	3.89	23	113	0.07	<0.001
Off-farm feeds are affordable	91	10	19.20	55	43	1.42	18	111	0.06	<0.001
Farmers have sufficient information on feeding dairy animals	11	5	47.49	38	55	0.50	34	99	0.14	<0.001
Forage seeds are easily accessible	94	31	6.98	39	69	0.57	34	99	0.26	<0.001
n	134			147			138

Note: Agree = strongly agree and somewhat agree; Disagree = somewhat disagree and strongly disagree; Neutral and no answer were excluded

Table 8. Smallholder farmers’ perceptions of factors associated with specific aspects of dairy management discussed in focus groups in western Kenya.

Management issue^1	Associated factor	Number of mentions*
General requirements	Improved health care	18
	Feeding of sufficient basal feeds	13
	Feeding of supplements	6
	Improved general Welfare	2
	Provision of water	3
Determination of feed offered	Milk yield	13
	Availability	12
	Breed	6
	Body size	2
	Information from consultations	4
	Age	1
Constraints to dairying	High cost of inputs and services	8
	Animal diseases	6
	Insufficient feed	6
	Lack of information	4
	Lack of market for milk	2

*The number of mentions was used as an indicator of the relative importance of the factor. ¹Mention of more than one factor per focus group discussion was possible. Questions used to address specific management issues:

i. What are the general requirements of a dairy cow in order to support high milk production?

ii. Which factors should be considered when making decisions on the quantity of feed to be offered to dairy cattle?

iii. What are the major constraints that farmers face in smallholder dairy farming?