THE STATUS OF GOOD DAIRY FARMING PRACTICES ON SMALL-SCALE

FARMS IN CENTRAL HIGHLANDS OF KENYA

1
Omondi S.P.W. and J.Meinderts2
1
Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, NVRC P.O. Box 32, Kikuyu, Kenya
2
Van Hall Larenstein, University of Applied Sciences, Wageningen UR, The Netherlands

Abstract
Good Dairy Farming Practices (GDFP) is a practical tool box used world-wide to enhance smallholder
competitiveness in producing and marketing of safe, quality milk and milk products. A cross-sectional study
was carried out to determine the status of GDFP on zero-grazing small scale farms in Limuru District in Central
Highlands of Kenya between July and September 2009. Forty farms in two clusters of twenty farms marketing
milk through the formal and informal market respectively were randomly selected and an observational
checklist used to compare five parameters: animal health and use of veterinary medicines; animal housing
conditions; animal feeding and watering; milking hygiene; and manure management. The results of formal vs.
informal market were: 60%:70% of farms reported mastitis as a common disease; 5%:0% kept records of
medicines used; 45%:30% cattle housing had concrete floor; 85%:45% use tap water; 20%:15% use good
quality feeds; 30%:20% have undergone training on hygienic milk production; 60%:50% had good manure
management; while 25%:20% kept records on farm enterprise. There were no statistically significant differences
(p>0.05) in management practices between farmers in the two clusters except for the source of water (p<0.05)
and quality of feeds (p<0.05). However, there was a positive correlation (p<0.05) between the farmer’s level of
education and quality of feeds fed to dairy cattle. Overall, the status of Good Dairy Farming Practices was found
to be unsatisfactory. The prevailing situation could have far-reaching implications on the dairy value chain with
regard to trade in regional and international markets. It is recommended that a special focus on building the
capacity of small-scale farmers on use of GDFP is required to enhance the quality of milk and dairy products
along the chain.

Key words: Good Dairy Farming Practices, Formal market, Informal market, Small-scale farms

Introduction
The dairy industry in Kenya is dominated by small-scale farmers. It is the most well developed of the livestock
sub-sector contributing about 6% GDP, and is practiced in the medium and high rainfall areas mainly in the
Central highlands, Rift Valley, Eastern and Coastal lowlands (MOLD, 2006). Out of the estimated national dairy
herd of 3.5 million, smallholders own 3.5 million cattle and control over 80% production and over 80% of the
marketed milk (Muriuki, 2003). Majority of these small scale farmers are concentrated in the Central Highlands
and own 1-5 cows (USAID, 2008). These farmers market milk either through the formal or informal market.
The informal market comprises direct deliveries to consumers, or through intermediaries such as traders or
sometimes through cooperatives. This channel accounts for about 85% of marketed milk. Only 15% of marketed
milk flows through the formal market via cooperatives and processors (Thorpe, 2000; USAID, 2008). The
growth of the dairy sub sector has been largely driven by high domestic demand for milk and dairy products due
to a growing population. However, the industry is less competitive in regional and international markets due to
quality issues. The large number of smallholders estimated at more than 650,000 pose a challenge in controlling
quality (KDB, 2008).

Good Dairy Farming Practices (GDFP) is an important practical tool used world-wide in supporting farmers to
produce and market safe, quality milk and milk products to satisfy the expectations of the food industry and
consumers (FAO, 2004). The aim is to ensure that milk is produced at the farm level by healthy animals under
acceptable conditions for animals and in balance with the environment. The Good Practices tool box consists of
five areas that need to be managed namely: animal health and use of medicines; animal housing conditions;
animal feeding and water; milking hygiene; and manure management.

As a step towards benchmarking Kenya with the FAO and World Trade organization (WTO) GDFP
requirements for trade in dairy products, Kenya Bureau of Standards (KEBS) developed a Code of Practice for
milk production to assist farmers in producing hygienic milk (Kebs, 2000). However, most of the milk
marketed by small-scale farmers in Kenya has been reported to be of poor quality and does not meet national
and international standards due to high bacterial load (Mwangi et al., 2000) and drug residues (Shitandi, 2004;
Omore, 2005). Laboratory records by the department of veterinary services show rising incidences of bacterial
load and mastitis, while cases of milk rejections by cooperatives and processors are a common occurrence in

1310
the country, particularly in the Central highlands, pointing to the need to assess farm level management
practices.

Limited information is available on the situation of GDFP at farm level in the Central highlands. The objective
of this study was to (1) determine the status of Good Dairy Farming Practices on zero grazing small-scale farms
in Limuru district marketing milk in the formal and informal markets and (2) to identify opportunities for
intervention to enhance the quality of milk in the small-scale dairy chain.

Materials and Methods

Study design - Calculation of sample size
All small-scale farms in Limuru district formed the population from which the study farms were randomly
selected. The criterion for inclusion was farm marketing milk through either the formal market: cooperative-
processor channel; or informal chain: directly to consumers or through intermediaries. The sample size needed
was determined as Z2α (2) X PQ/L2 (Martin et al., 1987), where Zα(2) =1.96, P= Level of insufficient practices,
Q = sufficient practices to guarantee quality, L= desired absolute precision level set at 5%. Thus n = 1.962 x
0.15x0.85/0.052 =195.6 cows. Since average smallholder herd size in the study area is five cows (Omore et al.,
1999; USAID, 2008), the number of herds (farms) to be sampled was given as 195.6/5 = 39.12. Thus forty farms
were randomly selected and purposively grouped into two clusters of twenty farms marketing milk through the
formal and informal market respectively.
Field survey
The procedure followed in this survey was inspection of individual farms according to the field observational
protocol (KEBS, 2000; PTC, 2009). A summary of variables are shown in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. The
GDFP variables studied and evaluated according to a scoring system described by Brand et al. (2001) included:

Animal health and use of veterinary medicines: Prevention of entry of diseases, common disease on the
farm, availability of records on use of medicines.

Animal welfare: type of housing floor (concrete or earth), beddings

Animal feeding and water: source of water used (tap or borehole), quantity and quality of fodder, and
quality of commercial feeds.

Milking hygiene: Milker has undergone training on hygienic milk production, screening for mastitis carried
is out before milking.

Environment: System for manure management and disposal available on the farm.

Administration and registration: Record-keeping on farm enterprise available.

Statistical analysis
A comparison of the status of GDFP in the two clusters was analyzed using Pearson’s Chi Square and Mann
Whitney tests for nominal and ordinal variables respectively, while Spearman’s Rho test was used to determine
correlations between household characteristics and variables investigated. The level of significance was pre set
at p<0.05. All analyses were carried out according to Petri and Watson (1999) using SPSS version 17 computer
programme (SPSS inc, 2009).

Results
Table 1 - Summary of household characteristics

Household characteristics: (head of household)

Age: Seventy nine percent of the farmers were more than 55 years old; eighteen percent were between 40 to 55
years, while three percent were under 40 years. Indications are that majority of farmers are above the retirement
age in Kenya of 55. The mean age of the farmers was 57 years. This is higher than the 54 years reported by
Mburu et al., (2007), only three years ago.
Gender: Most respondents (60%) were female while male farmers accounted for 40%.
Level of education: Forty seven percent of the respondents had primary level of education, Forty percent
Secondary, while only thirteen percent had attained post secondary education.

1311
 Table 2: Results of GDFP variables among forty small-scale farms in Limuru District, Kenya
Variable Formal chain Informal chain Overall p-value
Yes (%) Yes (%) Yes (%)
1. Animal health
1.1 Disease prevention measures 65 55 60 0.519
present on the farm
1.2 Occurrence of common diseases
on farm
ECF 10 25 17.5
Mastitis 60 70 65 -
Other diseases 20 15 17.7
1.3 Farmer keeps records on use of 5 0 2.5 -
veterinary medicine
2.0 Animal welfare
Housing:
type of floor
Concrete 45 30 37.5 0.327
Earth 55 70 62.5
Beddings 5 0 2.5 -
3.0 Animal feeding/water
3.1 Source of water
Tap 85 45 65 0.007
Borehole 15 45 30
Other 0 10 5
Formal chain Informal chain Overall p-value
Variable
Yes (%) Yes (%) Yes (%)
3.2 Quantity of feed
Good 30 15 22.5 0.112
Inadequate 55 50 52.5
Poor 15 35 25
3.3 Quality of feed* 0.029*
Good 20 15 17.5 0.025
Inadequate 75 40 57.5
Poor 5 45 25
3.4 Quality assurance of
commercial feeds
Good 15 15 15 0.225
Inadequate 85 65 75
Poor 0 20 10
4.0 Milking hygiene
4.1 Milker has undergone
training 30 20 25 0.465
4.2 Screening for mastitis
before milking 45 20 32.5 0.091
5.0 Waste /manure
management available 60 50 55 0.525
6.0 Farmer keeps farm 25 20 22.5 -
records
Legend:* rho = Spearman’s rho

The survey results in Table 2 from Chi square and Man Whitney tests indicate that except for quality of feeds
and source of water which were significantly different (P<0.05), there was no statistical difference in other
variables between farms in both chains as the p values were more than 0.05. Spearman’s rho test shows there is
a significant correlation (0.029, P< 0.05) between level of education and quality of feeds used on the farm.

1312
Discussion
In Kenya, on-farm standards for production of milk are guided by the Code of Practice for Hygienic Production,
Handling and Distribution of Milk and Milk Products (KEBS, 2000). This document is similar to the FAO
guidelines for Good Dairy Farming Practices (FAO, 2004) and the Dutch Friesland-Campina Foods Qarant
judgment list (PTC, 2009). However, operationalization of this document at farm level has been limited owing
to large numbers of small-scale farmers, limited capacity by the dairy regulator (Kenya Dairy Board) and
reduced government role in providing extension services (KDB, 2008).

The GDFP aspect on animal health and use of medicines states that animals that produce milk need to be healthy
and an effective health care programme should be in place. Specific measures necessary include preventing
entry of disease onto the farm; having an effective herd management programme; use of chemicals and
veterinary medicines as prescribed. Our farm observations revealed that 65% of the farms in the formal market
had measures in place to prevent entry of disease on the farms, compared to 55% in the informal market,
although there was no significant difference (p>0.05) between the farms. Overall, 60% of the farms had
measures in place to prevent entry of disease from outside. This may be due to the prevailing farming system in
the study area , which is zero grazing on less than 1 ha of land with the homestead fenced (Bebe, 2002).

Mastitis was reported as the most common disease by 60% and 70% of the farms in formal and informal market
respectively. This may be due to several reasons. First, the poor housing conditions observed on most farms
where 62.5% of the farms had earth floor and only 2.5% had bedding. Secondly, only about 25% of the farmers
had undergone training on hygienic milk production; and thirdly, only 32.5% of the farmers screened for
mastitis during milking. The type of mastitis reported by farmers is the clinical type; however farmers in the
study area were not aware of sub clinical mastitis, whose prevalence may even be much higher since it is
insidious. Our findings were based on farm inspection hence clinical sampling needs to be undertaken to verify
accurate infection status. Nevertheless, the findings agree with studies by Dego and Tareke (2003) in Ethiopia,
Barkemma et al., (1999) in the Netherlands and Srairi et al., (2009) in Morocco, who also reported a correlation
between increasing incidence of mastitis and lack of Good Dairy Farming Practices.

On the use of veterinary medicine, none of the farmers in the informal market kept records on use of medicines
on their farms, while only 5% in the formal market did. Non availability of records on use of medicines means
that milk containing residues cannot be traced to the farm of origin. Indeed, recent studies have shown that
antibiotic residues are on the rise in marketed milk in Kenya posing serious safety concerns (Omore, 2005;
Shitandi, 2004). Safety, quality and traceability issues have become important in global markets and food supply
chains (Reuben et al., 2007). The findings of this study suggest that there is need to train small-scale farmers on
animal health management and proper records on use of medicines.

Regarding access to and quality of water, our evaluation found that the majority of farms (85%) in the formal
market use tap water compared to 45% in the informal market. There was a significant difference (p< 0.050)
between the two types of farms. These differences may be due to the fact that in the formal chain, milk is tested
for quality at the Milk Collection Centres (MCC) which compels farmers to use tap water whereas in the
informal chain, quality checks are rarely done.

From the study, the quantity of forage fed to dairy cows by 55% of farms in the formal market and 50% of those
in the informal market was inadequate, though there was no significant difference between the farms (p>0.05).
This finding agrees with previous work carried out in Kiambu district by Mbugua (2006) and Omore (1994),
and on smallholder farms in Nakuru district of Kenya by Lanyasunya (2006). The average land holding in the
study area is 0.5 ha and this is hardly adequate to sustain crop and forage production to satisfy both human and
livestock needs respectively. Frequent drought further diminishes the quantity of feed available for dairy cattle
(Bebe, 2002). Our estimation of feeds revealed that the quality of forage used on both farms (57.5%) was
inadequate. However, there was a positive correlation (p< 0.05) between the level of education and quality of
feeds meaning that farmers with better education are more likely to use better quality feeds (p= 0.05). However,
the level of education had no influence on other variables.

Seventy five percent of the farmers from both markets perceived the quality of commercial feeds to be
inadequate. Farmers described most feeds purchased from Agro Veterinary stores as sub standard. A recent
study carried out by the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), University of Nairobi and the Ministry
of Livestock Development found that 50% of commonly used feeds for dairy cattle - maize germ, cotton seed
meal, wheat bran were contaminated with aflatoxins (Omore, 2005). These contaminants have been traced in
milk samples collected from actors in both the formal and informal market including supermarkets and pose

1313
serious health implications on livestock and human health (Mwangi, 2007). Since the era of liberalization in
1990s, many private millers have emerged in Kenya and there is need for quality assurance, surveillance and
monitoring of feeds available in the market. Availability of laboratories where farmers can take feeds for
analysis could help enhance the quality of feeds fed to dairy cattle. That way, only feeds from Good
Manufacturing Practice (GMP) certified millers would guarantee the standards of safety, quality and traceability
required in GDFP (FAO, 2004).

On manure management, the study found 55% of the farms had a system available for manure collection,
storage and disposal. It was observed that on most farms manure was used to fertilize plots for crop and fodder
production since all the farms practiced mixed crop-livestock system, as also reported by Lekasi (2001).

As regards record keeping, results obtained in this study showed that only 22.5% of the farms kept records of
their dairy enterprises. This is in spite of the fact that 53% of the farmers had secondary and post secondary
level of education. From our observations, small scale farmers did not seem to take dairy farming as a business
activity, but rather as one of the farm enterprises for subsistence and provision of immediate household cash
needs. Good record keeping is not only essential for traceability in supply chains (KIT et al., 2006), but a useful
decision-support tool for monitoring and evaluation of farm performance (Brand et al., 2001).

Conclusion and Recommendations

Despite the limitation due to the small sample size used, the findings of this study suggest that the status of
Good Dairy Farming Practices which include: animal health and use of medicines; animal welfare; animal
feeding and water; milking hygiene; and environment, on smallholder dairy farms is unsatisfactory. The
prevailing situation could have far-reaching implications on the dairy value chain with regard to trade in milk
and dairy products. Special focus on building the capacity of small-scale farmers on utilization of Good Dairy
Farming Practices is required to enhance milk quality along the chain. That way, the small scale dairy sector in
Kenya will address Good Practices more efficiently and effectively thereby improving the quality of milk and
dairy products for both domestic and export markets.
In addition to clinical verification of common diseases, further studies are needed to elucidate socio-economic,
technological, institutional factors and policy environment influencing access to and utilization of Good Dairy
Farming Practices.

Acknowledgement
This work was supported by VHL Wageningen UR, through NUFFIC sponsorship.The authors thank the
Director KARI for funding the field study, the Limuru Dairy Cooperative Society and Farmer organizations in
the district for their support.

References
Barkemma, H.W., Schukken, Y.H., Lam, T.J., Beiboer, M.L., Benedicutus, G. and Brand, A. (1999).
Management practices associated with the incidence rate of clinical mastitis. Journal of Dairy Science 82,
643-1654.
Bebe, B.O., Udo, H.M.J. and Thorpe W. (2002). Development of smallholder dairy systems in The Kenya
highlands. Outlook on agriculture 31, (2), 113 - 120.
Brand, A., Noordhuizen, J.P.T.M. and Schukken, Y.H. eds (2001). Herd Health and Production Management in
Dairy Practice. 3rd Reprint, Purdue University Press, 15-34.
Dego, K.O. and Tareke, F. (2003). Bovine Mastitis in Selected Areas of Southern Ethiopia. Tropical Animal
Health and Production 35, 197-205.
FAO, (2004). Guide to Good Dairy Farming Practice. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Kenya Bureau of Standards. (2000). Code of Practice for production, handling and distribution of milk and milk
products.
Kenya Dairy Board, 2008. Annual Report.
KIT, Faida Mali. and IIRR. eds (2006). Chain Empowerment: Supporting African Farmers to Develop Markets.
Royal Tropical Institute Amsterdam, Faida Market Link Arusha, International Institute of Rural
Reconstruction, Nairobi, pp 26.

1314
Lanyasunya, T.P., Wang, H., Mukisira, E.A. and Abdulrazak, S.A. (2006). Performance of Dairy Cows in
Different Livestock Production Systems on Smallholder Farms in Bahati Division, Nakuru District,
Kenya. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 5, (2), 130-134.
Lekasi, J.K., Tanner, J.C., Kimani, S.K and Harris. P.J.C. (2001). Manure Management in the Kenya
Highlands: Practices and Potential. Natural Resources Systems Programme, Department for International
Development: KARI/ILRI/HDRA.
Martin, S.W., Meek, A.H. and Willenberg, P., eds (1987). Veterinary epidemiology: Principles and Methods.
Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, pp 32.
Mbugua, P.N., Gachuiri, C.K., Wahome, R.G., Wanyoike, M.M., Abate, A., Munyua, S.J.M. and Kamau, J.M.Z.
(2006). Performance of dairy cattle under different feeding systems, as practiced in Kiambu and
Nyandarua districts of central Kenya. In: Development of Feed Supplementation Strategies for Improving
the Productivity of Dairy Cattle on Smallholder Farms in Africa. Proceedings of a co-ordination meeting
of International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria, September 1998.
Mburu, L. M., Wakhungu, J.W. and Gitu, K.W. (2007). Determinants of smallholder dairy farmers' adoption of
various milk marketing channels in Kenya highlands. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 19, (9).
Ministry of livestock development. (2006). Annual Report.
Muriuki, H, G. (2003). Milk and Dairy Products, Post-harvest Losses and Food Safety in Sub-Saharan Africa
and the Near East, a Review of the Small Scale Dairy Sector – Kenya. Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural
Organization.
Mwangi, A., Arimi, S.M., Mbugua, S., Kang'ethe, E.K., Omore, A.O., and McDermott, J.J. (2000). Assurance
of marketed milk quality in Kenya. In: Proceedings of Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Biennial Scientific
Conference, 30-31 August 2000, University of Nairobi, Kenya.
Mwangi, B. (2007). Alarm raised over toxins in local milk. Daily Nation, 8 February, pp.16.
Omore, A.O., McDermott, J.J. and Carrles, A.B.(1994). Comparison of productivity of cattle grazing systems in
smallholder dairy farms in Kiambu district, Kenya. In: G.J. Rowlands, M.N. Kyule and B.D. Perry (eds),
Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, Nairobi,
The Kenya Veterinarian, 18, 121–123.
Omore, A., Muriuki, H., Kenyanjui, M., Owango, M. and Staal, S. J. (1999). The Kenya Dairy sub-sector: A
rapid appraisal. Smallholder (Research and Development) Project Report. Ministry of Agriculture, Kenya
Agricultural Research Institute and International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya. 51 pp.
Omore, A., Lore, T., Staal, S., Kutwa, J., Ouma, R., Arimi, S. and Kang’ethe, E. (2005). Addressing the public
health and quality concerns towards marketed milk in Kenya. (SDP Research and Development
Report No. 3. Smallholder Dairy (R&D) Project).
Reuben, R., Boekel, M.V., Tilburg, A.V.and Trienekens, J. Eds (2007). Tropical Food Chains- Governance
regimes for quality management. Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Petrie, A. and Watson, P. eds (1999). Statistics for Veterinary and Animal Science, Blackwell Science, London,
90-137.
Practical Training Centre, (2009). Milk Quality Assurance Dairy Chain Primary production level dairy farm
Qarant judgement list. Dairy farmers Friesland Foods.
SPSS, (2009). SPSS for Windows, release 17.0. Surf Spot, Netherlands.
Thorpe W., Muriuki H.G., Omor A., Owango M.O. and S. Steel. (2000). Dairy development in Kenya: The past,
the present and the future. Annual symposium of the Animal Production Society of Kenya, 22-23 March
2000. Nairobi.
Shitandi, A. and Sternesjö, Å. (2004). Factors contributing to the occurrence of antimicrobial drug residues in
Kenyan milk. Journal of Food Protection, 67, 2, 399-402.
Sraïri, M. T., Benhouda, H., Kuper M. and Le Gal, P. Y. (2009). Effect of cattle management practices on
raw milk quality on farms operating in a two-stage dairy chain. Tropical Animal Health and Production
(2009), 41:259–272.
USAID. (2008). Kenya Dairy Sector competitiveness program: Milk shed Assessment and small business
organization needs analysis. Land O Lakes/ Fibec limited Report.

1315