Milk quality assurance in smallholder-dominated

dairy chains: Lessons from Uganda and Kenya

Asaah Ndambi, Sabdiyo Dido Bashuna

and Şeyda Özkan Gülzari

Background to this study

2

▪ Collaborative effort between CTA and WUR

▪ In context of DAIRYPROFIT project- aims to increase productivity and profitability of Dairy enterprises

▪ Focus is on milk quality-initiatives that have potential to influence industry practises

▪ Review of case studies that have potential both technical possibilities and business prospects- Kenya and Uganda

▪ Share the success stories and the lessons with industry actors- influence debate, actions and regulations

▪ Milk production in Africa increasing – growing population, income,

urbanization

▪ Kenya – introduction of milk program and government support

▪ Increasing demand by three-fold by 2050

▪ Smallholders remain the major actors – highest consumption growth

▪ Need for policy support

Background -Dairy Sector

▪ Quality assurance is challenging:

● Poor practices on farm and along supply chain

● Large number of intermediaries

● Weak enforcement of milk quality regulations

▪ Good practices exist: QBMPS

▪ Provide a comparison between Uganda and Kenya

▪ What works and what does not, what lessons there are for other countries?

▪ Prerequisites for success in upscaling

Dairy sector-Key issues

4

What is milk quality?

▪ Chemical, physical,

technological, bacteriological

and aesthetic characteristics

▪ Attributes that the milk is

routinely checked against

predetermined standards

including total bacteria count

(TBC), somatic cell count

(SCC), fat, and solids non-fat

(SNF) such as lactose, protein

and minerals

5

Measures needed to improve milk quality

How big is the quality problem in Kenya?

Aflatoxin (Codex standards) Total bacterial counts (KEBS standards) Antibiotic residues

Proportion of milk samples with unacceptable levels of:

Source: Bebe et al. 2018

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Nairobi

Nakuru

Eldoret

Kisumu

ATM

Plastic

Aluminium

Mezican

Packaged

Raw

Pasteurized

Tow

ns

Reta

il p

ract

ice

Pro

duct

Samples unacceptable (%)

0 5 10 15

NairobiNakuruEldoretKisumu

ATMPlastic

AluminiumMezican

Packaged

RawPasteurized

Tow

ns

Reta

il p

ract

ice

Pro

duct

Samples postive for antibiotics (%)

0 20 40 60 80

NairobiNakuruEldoretKisumu

ATMPlastic

AluminiumMezican

Packaged

RawPasteurized

Tow

ns

Ret

ail

pra

ctic

eP

rodu

ct

Samples unacceptable (%)

Public health benefits from good quality milk

7

Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYS) of milk related infectious diseases in Kenya

Total DALYs = 53,093 years which is an equivalent 850 full lives

lost in Kenya per year in Kenya due to milk related illnesses

16,045

19,259

3,521

563

2,089

10,694

922

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

DALY (years)

An equivalent 60 Matatu crashes a year

60 X

Total annual (direct and indirect) costs of milk related health hazards in Kenya (1,000,000 KES)

The health sector would save 284 billion KES per year for

the whole dairy sector by reducing 50% incidence

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

Total costs (million KES)

355,000

110 KES/Kenyan/week

https://nairobinews.nation.co.ke/news/man-rescues-ugali-county-govt-demolishes-illegal-structures/

▪ Puts focus on payment based not only on quantity

but also on quality

▪ Quality parameters that may be considered:

● physical (density, freezing point),

● chemical (total solids, antibiotic residues and

adulteration)

● and microbial (total plate counts) traits

● Some socio-economic parameters such as

biodiversity protection and animal welfare

▪ A QBMPS does not necessarily introduce a new

pricing setting, but modifies the existing price

structure to improve the quality and safety of milk

What is a QBMPS?

8

➢Poor milking hygiene➢Poor transportation➢Bacterial or contaminants in milk

➢Lower milk price or rejection

➢Good milking hygiene➢Clean transportation➢Good quality milk➢Higher milk price or

bonus

Reject or Price Price

QBMPS can be adjusted depending on the needs and products of the processors, coops, government etc.

The Ugandan case

9

Actors Role

Bles Dairies

Consultancy

Technical support

DDA Milk ring testing, calibration of testing equipment, training of

cooperative workers and farmers

Farmers Producing good quality milk, delivering to cooperatives or

directly to processor (in the case of the small scale processor)

Processors Sourcing milk, setting up quality criteria, provide bonus

payments, buying testing equipment, training staff and farmers

on good hygienic practices, develop standard operating

procedures

SNV Design and facilitate implementation

UCCCU and

Coops

Bulking & sampling of milk of individual farmers for quality

parameters; setting up quality criteria (negotiated with

processors) buying testing equipment; training farmers and

staff on milk quality, manage bonus payments provided by

processors

▪ Initiated in 2016 with three

processors in Mbarara, The

Inclusive Dairy Enterprise

(TIDE) project, SNV, Dairy

Development Authority (DDA)

▪ Funded by the Embassy of the

Kingdom of the Netherlands in

Uganda

▪ Implemented by Happy Cow Ltd

▪ Processing on average 9000 L milk/day

▪ Supported by SNV Kenya Market-led Dairy Program

(KMDP)

▪ Funded by the Embassy of the Kingdom of the

Netherlands in Kenya

The Kenyan case

10

Project owner and manager

(Happy Cow Ltd)

Milk collection Quality control Bonus payment Extension Transportation

CBE1 Boards

Comparison of the QBMPS in Uganda and Kenya

11

Criterion Uganda Kenya

Number of

processors involved

Three Single

Milk collection

method

Direct delivery of milk by farmers to

collection centres or processor

Use of transporters is common. Prefects

assigned to assure quality at collection points

Considered quality

parameters

Butterfat Total plate count

Solids non-fat Total solids

Freezing point

Antibiotic residues

Quality control/

bonus payment

Use of similar milk analyser at cooperative

and at processor.

Some tests done at cooperative. Final tests

for payment done at processor.

Milk from each farmer is tested daily Test done per can (5-10 farmers) twice

monthly

Results available immediately Time lag between milk collection and milk

quality results

Selection of

participants

The most committed MCCs were selected

for the project pilot (except for Sanatos).

Each MCC selected milk collection routes

having the most committed farmers.

Involvement of the

regulator

Strong involvement of Dairy Development

Authority e.g. in ring testing

Minimal involvement of Kenya Dairy Board

What is required for a QBMPS to work?

12

➢Poor milking hygiene➢Poor transportation➢Bacterial or contaminants in milk

➢Lower milk priceor rejection

➢Good milking hygiene➢Clean transportation➢Good quality milk➢Higher milk price or

bonus

Rejector Price Price

Demand for quality milk

▪ Processors (also willing to drive the system)

▪ Consumers

Labs & equipment,

water, electricity

Skilled managers, lab techs, coop workers,

farmers

Trainings/ capacity building

Arbitrator

M&E system to track progress and

improve quality

A recommended procedure

13

Set up quality

objectives for the QBMPS

Increase processed

product yield

Improve animal health and reduce diseases

Increase market access

through improved quality

Improve food safety for consumers

Select quality criteria

and skilled personnel

Start with few parameters e.g. milk solids or antibiotic residue.

Ensure that equipment is available for

tests.

Conduct a zero setting.

Gradually increase the stringency or the spectrum of additional

criteraSelect a skilled

manager with good

understanding of the

collection chain

Invest in capacity

building for technical and soft skills of chain actors

Define score and

size of bonus

Be realistic but attractive in defining the bonus score

Consider spreading the

bonus to different

actors in the chain but give farmers the largest share

Include a neutral party as arbitrator & to conduct ring tests to guarantee

test reliability

Consider consumers' willingness

and interest in paying extra

Define sampling unit and

frequency

The more individualised the sampling and payment,

the more ownership

farmers feel

Find balance between the

sampling frequency and

the cost of analysis and maintance of equipment

Find opportunities to make the

sampling results

immediately available

Ensure consistent payment & follow-up

Set clear and realistic goals

for the frequency of payments

Develop and maintain a transparent system of payment

Indiscriminate payment for all milk that

meets criteria

Communicate the

achievements to chain

actors that merit quality

Establish communicatio

n between processor,

cooperatives and farmers

Engage and

monitor

Include youth and women

Determine progress and

make contingency

plans

Adjust quality criteria where appropriate

Give ownership to chain actors

Continuously identify areas

of improvement by engaging

and rewarding chain actors

Objectives of QBMPS

Criteria/ personnel

Bonus score &

size

Sampling unit &

frequency

Consistent Payment

Engage & monitor

▪ QBMPS can work in smallholder dominated dairy systems - strict

management needed

▪ QBMPSs have a strong potential to progressively improve quality

▪ Need to be processor-driven, ensure transparency

▪ Start with few and/or less stringent quality parameters and progressively

increases stringency

▪ Make provision for capacity building to chain actors

▪ Have available and affordable testing equipment

▪ Support from the public sector

Take home messages

14

Look out for a practice brief soon

Thank you

To explorethe potentialof nature toimprove the quality of life