Date post: | 18-May-2015 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | ilri |
View: | 337 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Analysis of African Swine Fever epidemiology and pig value chains to underpin design of an ASF risk management strategy on the Kenya‐Uganda borderClosing workshop of the BecA‐ILRI‐CSIRO‐AusAID project (2011‐13): Understanding ASF epidemiology as a basis for control2nd‐3rd October, 2013. Sarova PanAfric Hotel, Nairobi, Kenya
Invited Presentation: Michel Dione, Emily Ouma, Kristina Roesel & Danilo PezoCGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish
h l h d k dStrengthening pig value chains and managing ASF risk in Uganda: identifying best bet solutions
Strengthening pig value chains and managing ASF risk in Uganda: identifying best bet solutionsrisk in Uganda: identifying best bet solutions
Michel Dione, Emily Ouma, Kristina Roesel and Danilo Pezo
BecA‐ILRI‐CSIRO‐AusAid African Swine Fever Epidemiology Project Closing Workshop, Nairobi, Kenya
Presentation outline
• Background of the pig value chains development project in Ugandaproject in Uganda
• Rapid value chain assessment: methods and process A i l h l h d h b d i i h i• Animal health and husbandry practices in the pig sector
• Practices, behavior associated with ASF spread in Uganda
• Process and criteria for identifying best‐bet interventionsinterventions
• Potential best‐bet interventions for animal health and managementmanagement
Importance of Pig Production in Uganda p g g
Pig production‐ a dynamic and rapidly growing sector in Uganda. In the h d d i d f 0 19 3 2 illi i (UBOS 2009past three decades increased from 0.19 to 3.2 million pigs (UBOS, 2009;
FAO, 2011).
UgandaUganda has the highest per capita consumption (3.4 kg/person/year) in has the highest per capita consumption (3.4 kg/person/year) in the regionthe region ‐‐10 times increase in the last 30 years, whereas beef is10 times increase in the last 30 years, whereas beef isthe region the region 10 times increase in the last 30 years, whereas beef is 10 times increase in the last 30 years, whereas beef is declining (FAO, 2011) declining (FAO, 2011)
Structure of the Pig Sector in Ugandag g
A large informal subsector
• More than1.1 million households.• Backyard pig production, mainly managed by women and children, as means to diversify risk d i li lih d itand increase livelihood security.
• Tethering & scavenging are common.• In few districts peri urban small scale semi• In few districts, peri‐urban small‐scale semi‐intensive systems
• Uncoordinated trade & transportp• Mostly unsupervised slaughter, no meat inspection in local markets, road‐side butchers
• Pork joints
Smallholder Pig Value Chains Development project in Ugandaoject Goalproject in Ugandaoject Goal
Goal: To improve theGoal: To improve the livelihoods, incomes and assets of smallholder pigassets of smallholder pig producers, particularly women in a sustainablewomen, in a sustainable manner, through increased productivity reduced risk andproductivity, reduced risk, and improved access in pig value chainschains
Pig value chain assessment methodology:Selection of Target Sites (1)Selection of Target Sites (1)
Step 1: Geographical targeting using GIS characterization (pig density, poverty (p g y p ylevel & market access).
Step 2: Stakeholder consultation of step 1 1 and definition of “soft” criteria1 and definition of soft criteria.
Step 3: Participatory selection of districts by stakeholders (Outcome Mapping & Site Selection Workshop, Oct. 2012).
Step 4: 4‐6 sub‐counties with high pig population in each selected district.population in each selected district.
Step 5: Minimum checklist to gather data for more specific site selection (parishes d ill )and villages).
Step 6: Analysis of steps 1‐4 and final site selection.
7
Selection of Target Sites (2)
District County Sub county Dominant value No of villages
List of counties and subList of counties and sub‐‐counties selected in each district, based on counties selected in each district, based on presence of dominant value chain domains, and number of villages sampledpresence of dominant value chain domains, and number of villages sampled
District County Sub‐county Dominant value chain domain
No. of villages sampled
Masaka Bukoto Kkingo Rural –rural 3Masaka Bukoto Kkingo Rural rural 3Bukoto Kyanamukaka Rural‐rural 3Bukoto Kabonera Rural‐urban 3Masaka Municipality Kimanya‐Kyabakuza* Urban‐urban 2Masaka Municipality Katwe‐Butego* Urban‐urban 2Masaka Municipality Nyendo‐Ssenyange* Urban‐urban 2
Kamuli Bugabula Kitayunjwa Rural‐rural 2Bugabula Namwendwa Rural‐rural 2Buzaaya Bugulumbya** Rural‐rural 4
Mukono Mukono Mukono town council Urban‐urban 2Mukono Goma Urban–urban 2Mukono Kyampisi Rural‐urban 4Mukono Kyampisi Rural urban 4Mukono Ntenjeru Rural‐rural 4
35 villages selected: 18 Rural 35 villages selected: 18 Rural –– Rural, 7 Rural Rural, 7 Rural –– Urban and 10 Urban Urban and 10 Urban ‐‐ Urban Urban
VCA toolkit development and administration –(i) Producer level (n=1400)(i) Producer level (n=1400)General components
• Seasonal mapping including identification of cropping enterprises and pp g g pp g pregimes.
• Assessment of institutions operating in the village, community’s perception of their importance and interactionsperception of their importance and interactions.
• Objectives of pig production and identification of the pig production types and systems.
• Gender roles in pig production and marketing separate groups of men• Gender roles in pig production and marketing – separate groups of men and women to work on the following tools:
• Activity clocki i ki• Decision making
• Livelihood analysis
Specific domains• Animal health and husbandry practices• Feeding and breedingFeeding and breeding• VC mapping and marketing• Food safety, nutrition and zoonoses
VCA – (ii) other actorsINPUTS/SERVICESINPUTS/SERVICES
Feed input stockists and millers (n=36)
Vet drugs stockists (n=36)
Service providers:
o Veterinarians/AHA/paravets (n=53)o Owners of village breeding boars (n=90)o Extension staff (public and private)
OUTPUTOUTPUT
Traders of live pigs (including collectors and transporters) (n=86)transporters) (n=86)
Slaughterhouses/abattoirs
Processors (formal‐Fresh Cuts/Quality Cuts) Processors (formal Fresh Cuts/Quality Cuts)
Retailers (meat/processed products) – butcheries, supermarkets, pork‐joints
Consumers – preferences for different pig/pork product attributes
Value chain assessment results:Management and animal healthManagement and animal health
Pig management typologies (n=350)
Confinement type RR (%) (n=180) RU (%) (n=70) UU (%) (n=100)Tethering 66 40 13
Housed Housed raised floor 5 6 25
Housed not raised floor 16 37 61Free‐range/Scavenging 17 18 1Free range/Scavenging 17 18 1
House with raised floor
House not raised floor Tethered pig Scavenging piglet
Most common cause of death (n=350)
80
100
60
80
40
heat stress
accident
predation
20
malice
malnutrition
disease
0
Kkingo
anam
ukaka
Kitayunjwa
mwen
dwa
ugulum
bya
Ntenjeru
Kabo
nera
Kyam
pisi
Kyabakuza
we‐Bu
tego
Ssen
yange
Mukon
o TC
Gom
a
Kya K
Na Bu
Kimanya‐
Katw
Nyend
o‐ M
Rural‐rural Rural‐urban Urban‐urban
Pig disease diseases prioritized by farmers
Disease
Rural‐Rural (n=170) Rural‐Urban (n=90) Urban‐Urban (n=80)
Morbidity Mortality Case fatality Morbidity Mortality Case fatality Morbidit Mortality Case Fatality (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) y (%) (%) (%)
ASF 29.8 23.1 77.5 43.1 31.8 73.6 15.8 7.5 47.5worms 55.1 12.0 21.9 35.0 5.0 14.4 22.3 1.8 8.3mange 16.1 1.9 11.5 14.8 1.1 7.5 14.0 0.4 2.8lice 9.8 0.3 3.6 7.5 0.0 0.6 1.1 0.0 0.3
midge 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.3diarrhea 5.8 1.3 4.7 4.6 0.7 5.4 5.6 0.5 4.2
malnutrition 2.4 0.1 2.6 3.6 0.0 0.9 4.3 0.1 3.2FMD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.1
Others* 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.2 4.9 0.3 0.0 0.8
*Swine erysipelas, anemia, ticks, jiggers, heat stress, fever, undiagnosed diseases usually related to sudden death
Seasonal variation of diseases and vectors occurrence (n 350)
25%)
Rainfall
occurrence (n=350)
10
15
20ion of cases (% Rainfall
ASF
Worms
0
5
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Prop
ort
Diarrhea
Malnutritionp y g p
35
40
%)
15
20
25
30
tion of cases (% Rainfall
Mite
Lice
Jigger
0
5
10
15
Prop
ort
Midge
Ticks
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
The use of the “village boar” and risk associated with disease spread (1)
Different sources of the village boar (n=90)
p ( )
3%
1% 1%
h f ( h
24%
3% Other pig farmers (other village/town)
Born on farm
Oth i f (46% Other pig farmers (same village)
Development project
Farmer Organization/self help
25%
Farmer Organization/self‐help group
In kind payment for boar service
The use of the “village boar” and risk associated with disease spread (2)
Locations from where the sows come from for servicing ( 90)
disease spread (2)
50
60
rs (%
)
(n=90)
20
30
40
tion of fa
rmer
0
10
20
Neighbour within the same village Farmers from other village Other Home
Prop
ort
Other risk factors associated to ASF spread • Poor knowledge of farmers on management and• Poor knowledge of farmers on management and husbandry practices
• Poor confinement systems• Poor confinement systems• Poor feeding systems (feeding on kitchen leftovers)• Uncontrolled live pig traders movement• Uncontrolled live pig traders movement• Poor biosecurity measures for health workers (paravets)• Poor diagnostic capacities (local and national)• Poor diagnostic capacities (local and national)• Poor surveillance systems (poor feedback to farmers)
Some measures taken by farmers to minimize di ddisease spread
• Request for information on the sow (health status,Request for information on the sow (health status, housing type, health of offspring and treatment records) before servicingbefore servicing
• Isolate and deworm and spray sows when they come to the farmthe farm
• Avoid servicing sick sows• Stop farms visits and servicing during ASF outbreaksStop farms visits and servicing during ASF outbreaks• Service only trusted sow owners• Apply good sanitation on the farmApply good sanitation on the farm
Identification of potential best‐bet pintervention in animal health and
management in the pig value chain inmanagement in the pig value chain in Uganda
Process for identifying best‐bet
• Rapid value chain assessment
interventions• Rapid value chain assessment• Impact pathway workshop (assess constraints along the VC identify options for intervention)the VC, identify options for intervention)
• Ex‐ante assessment (impact of interventions on identified indicators in the VC node and the system)identified indicators in the VC node and the system)
• Validation of the potential best‐bet intervention (feed‐back to farmers and local government)back to farmers and local government)
• Testing of best‐bet intervention• Scaling out• Scaling out
Some key considerations/criteria for the selection and monitoring of best‐bet interventions
• Socio cultural (fit into local context)
and monitoring of best‐bet interventions
• Cost‐effective (affordable by farmers)• Sustainability and environmentally friendly e.g. (do it themselves and pass it over)
• Technology attributes: simple/appropriate • Institutional support • Realistic and measurable within the time frame of the project
• Other criteria (contribution to project Vision and Mission)
Potential best‐bet interventions in health and management the Uganda pig Value chains (1)
Issues What is it related to? Actors Interventions outcome Activities
Limitedknowledge on biosecurity
• Sharing of village boar• Selling diseased pigs
during ASF outbreak
• Farmers• Traders• Consumers
• Education package to actors including :
• Reduced spread of disease
• Increased pig
• Longitudinal RCT (Knowledge,attitudes and y
measures g
• Consuming sick pigs at home
• Scavenging practice• Feeding with swill• Uncontrolled inter‐farm
visits
• Processors/Abattoir/Slaughterareas
gbiosecurity knowledge and pig disease information
• Increase awareness of consumers on impact of pig meat born disease
p gproductivity
• Increased income• Reduced public
health risks
practice intervention, KAP)
• Training package (biosecurity manual/leaflets/poster)visits
• Poor hygiene at the farm and slaughter place
• Spread disease from farm to farm
pig meat born disease ter)
Lack of knowledge • No deworming regime • Farmers • Training on good • Improved health • Training packageLack of knowledge on good husbandry practices
• No deworming regime• No prophylaxis program
• Farmers• Local
Government
• Training on good husbandry practices
• Promote confiment in house
• Improved health • Training package(manual on good husbandry practices)
• KAP survey• Testing of deworming
regime
• Use of communal boar• Biosecurity • ASF dissemination
• Farmers• Local
Government• Animal health
workers
• Identification of strategies to improve village boar selection and reduce disease risks associated with their use
• Improved breeding services
• Training of farmers on improved model for breeding
• Traders • Designing and testing of different models of disseminating information
Potential best‐bet interventions in health and management the Uganda pig Value chains (2)
Issues What is it related to? Actors Interventions Outcome Activities
Poor confinement types
• Poor housing (lack of space poor hygiene)
• Farmers• Local government
• Promote housing model with 3‐stages
• Increased productivity
• Test a housing modeltypes space, poor hygiene)
• Harsh weather• Poor tethering methods
• Local government model with 3‐stages enclosure (Kraal)
productivity model
Poor disease surveillance
• Poor action from MAAIF after outbreak
• MAAIF/NADDEC• Research labs • Rapid diagnostic tests
• Pig health improved
• Test central slaughter at
• District Veterinary office poorly equipped for rapid disease diagnose
• Poor diagnostic• Poor inspection at
l h h
• District Veterinary Office
(ASF/Cyst.)• Central slaughter place
at village level
village model• Field lab for
quick differential diagnostic
slaughterhouse
Poor implementation of policy regulations
• Poor biosecurityimplementation
• Misuse of drugs
• MAAIF• Veterinary
Officers
• Increase the capacity of MAAIF and local Government to
• Healthier pigs
• Better use
• Designing and testing of different p y g g
• Poor quality drug• Fake health workers• Fake drugs
• Local Government• Drug stockists• Animal health
workers
implement regulations• Sensitize actors on
consequence of low quality drugs
of drugs• Increased
productivity
models of delivery of information
CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and FishCGIAR Research Program on Livestock and FishEU/IFAD; ILRI; The team of facilitators; The local government authorities of Masaka, Mukono and
Kamuli districts; VEDCO in Kamulilivestockfish.cgiar.org
CGIAR is a global partnership that unites organizations engaged in research for a food secure future. The CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish aims to increase the productivity of small‐scale livestock and fish systems in sustainable ways, making meat, milk and fish more available and affordable across the developing world.