Differences in socio-economic demography, herd parameters and hygienic management practices amongst livestock keepers in two contrasting production systems of Tanga region, Tanzania

L Schooman, E S Swai* and C J Daborn **

Tanga Dairy Trust, PO Box 1720, Tanga, Tanzania
* Veterinary Investigation Centre, PO Box 1068 Arusha, Tanzania
ESswai@gmail.com
** Tropical Veterinary Services, PO Box 266 Karatu, Tanzania

Abstract

A survey involving 105 smallholder dairy farmers and 25 traditional livestock keepers practicing zero, semi-zero and unrestricted grazing systems was conducted during the wet season (April–May, 2005) in Tanga municipality, Tanzania. The households were randomly selected and the objectives of the study were to characterise socio-economic profiles of households, farm demography, herd productivity, animal and animal products hygiene, consumption and handling. This information is considered necessary to guide future public health, livestock development planning and interventions. Data collection was based on individual interviews using a questionnaire, examination of household premises and animal houses, as well as, direct observations. Herd productivity data were collected retrospectively based on available written records and owner recall bias. Survey results revealed that smallholder dairy farms accounted for 77% of the households interviewed and traditional farms for 23%. Over 60% of the traditional livestock keepers were classified as rural whereas over 80% of the smallholder dairy farmers were urban and peri-urban residents, respectively.

The majority of interviewed households (>75%) were male headed and farming experience significantly varied between traditional and smallholder dairy farmers (19 vs. 9 yrs; P< 0.05). The households surveyed had an average age size of 43.5 years, 58% and 42% were Christian and Muslim, respectively. The mean land holding was 6.2 acres, with 28% of households owning less than 0.5 acres of the land. The educational level of the respondents showed that only 12% of the traditional farmers, compared to 40% of the smallholders had post primary school education(P=0.02). Two-thirds (66.6%) of the smallholder dairy farmers had at least received training in cattle management through workshops or seminars. The findings revealed that cattle kept under smallholder farms had a lower mean abortion rate (5.4%; 95% CI = 2.7-6.7) and a lower calf mortality (15.2%) than those kept under traditional system, mean abortion rate-11.4% (95% CI = 10.4-12.4) and calf mortality-25%, respectively. Overall, adult mortality rate was higher in traditional than smallholder herds (5% vs. 3%; P<0.05). Most farms seemed to be not aware of the need to take precautions against diseases during farm operation activities such as slaughter, attending to birth problems and consumption of animal products mainly milk. Most cow sheds (>50%) were subjectively assessed as dirty. In the present study, >50% of farm operators  did not wear proper protective clothing and >40% reported consuming raw or untreated milk. The results of the study therefore showed that there are clear differences in the socio-economic demography, management practices and farm characteristics between the traditional and smallholder systems. Place of farming, availability of services (AI, piped water, schools) cattle densities, space for forage production strongly influenced the livestock keeping and grazing system, especially in urban and peri-urban settings. The study recommends that both socio-economic demography and technical parameters should be taken into account during planning and implementation of any livestock improvements or programmes. 

Key words: Production system, public health risk, socio-demography, Tanga, Tanzania

Introduction

The demand for livestock products in sub-Saharan Africa is increasing steadily. This demand is driven by human population growth, rural-urban demographic shifts and income growth (Thornton 2010). As income grows, so does expenditure on livestock products (Steinfeld et al 2006; UNFPA 2008). The traditional and smallholder (zero / semi-zero-) grazing systems have a good prospect to become increasingly important sources of livestock products. In some urban areas of Tanzania, these systems have grown at an average rate of 6% per year over the last 13 years (Bahari et al 2000).The expanding urban and peri-urban livestock production sector has been described for cities like Dar es Salaam (Smith and Olaloku 1998; Sumberg 1997, 1999) but also for smaller cities such as Mwanza and Shinyanga (Nyamrunda and Sumberg 1998) and Tanga (Mulangila et al 1995). In most cities, urban farming is the second largest employer after petty trade and labour, and 74% of urban farmers keep livestock (Kristjanson et al 2004). Livestock that are kept are usually the conventional animals like cattle for milk, small ruminants and pigs for meat, and poultry for eggs and meat (Otte and Upton 2005). However, it is projected that rapid population growth will continue to be an important challenge to the goal of achieving sustainable improvements in food security.

Like other developing countries, livestock production systems in Tanzania vary widely and fall into four broad categories, pastoralist, agro-pastoralist, smallholder traditional subsistence and market oriented smallholder dairy producers (Moyo et al 2007; Freeman et al 2007; World Bank 2007). Variation is also influenced by breeds of animals used, intensity of land and labor use and feeding systems (Wakhungu 2001; Muriuki et al 2003). The suitability of different production systems to the existing environment, socio-economic profiles, the preferences by farmers and other inherent factors such as farm size, distance to the market need to be understood to attain the overall development in livestock sector (Swai and Karimuribo 2011). Similarly, lack of understanding of cattle production systems makes it difficult to design and implement livestock-based development programmes that benefit livestock keepers (Delgado 2005; World Bank 2009). Constraints to cattle production are complex and vary among households due to the different biological, social and economic factors that influence production methods and, consequently, productivity levels (Steinfeld et al 2006; Thornton 2010).

The present study, conducted in Tanga municipality, Tanzania seek to describe the socio-demographics characteristics and determine the herd productivity and public health risk of livestock keepers from two contrasting livestock production systems, practicing zero grazing and unrestricted grazing. The specific objective of the study was to generate baseline information that will assist in designing public health prevention intervention strategies and formulation of technical messages aimed at poverty alleviation and improvements in herd productivity, public health and animal welfare. 

Materials and Methods

Description of the study area 

The research was carried out between April and May 2005 in Tanga municipality (4^o 21’ - 6^o 14’ S, and 36^o 11’-38^o 26’ E), situated in the northern coastal area of Tanzania. Characteristics of the study area are described in detail by Swai et al (2005; 2007). The study area has an estimated total human population of 243,580 people, growing at 2.9% on a 536 km² land area, distributed unevenly in 4, 21 and 23 administrative divisions, wards and villages, respectively (United Republic of Tanzania, URT 2002). 

Farming system 

The main economic activities are crop production, livestock keeping, trading, as well as, fishing particularly along the Indian coastal areas of the district. Farms are generally small and the farming system is mixed rain-fed with the livestock mainly cattle being considered as a source of cash and food. The main crops grown are maize, coconut, beans, and some indigenous vegetables (black nightshade and amaranthus). Characteristics (type of animal kept, management system employed) and definition of cattle production system are described in detail by Schooman et al (2011). Place of households residence was classified as urban (within the official boundary of Tanga city), peri-urban (beyond the official boundary of Tanga city but within 10-15 km of the city centre) or rural. Such location by place of households could influence (for example) the type of occupation by affecting access to land for agriculture or livestock production and animal health delivery systems including extension services. Household locations were considered as explanatory variables during data analysis. 

Study design 

The data bases of farmers under the district livestock department and Tanga Dairy Development Programme (TDDP 1999) were used as the sampling frame. A sampling frame of 1,730 smallholder dairy and traditional livestock keepers’ households, comprising 12,500 cattle, was used to select 130 households to participate in the study based on formulae given by Noordhuizen et al (1997). Simple random sampling as provided by Excel software (Microsoft Inc., 1999) was used to select the 130 sample households which resulted in the recruitment of 105 smallholder dairy and 25 traditional livestock keepers. 

Data collection 

A pre-tested structured questionnaire (PSQ) administered on each farm during each visit was used to collect information on individual owner and farm level management practices. Data collected by the questionnaire included details of the type of animal housing (cowshed with and without roof, kraal) and hygiene practices, breeding regime, mortality, animal contact and place of contact. Other information collected related to animal events occurring in or relevant to the past one year prior to the commencement of the study. This involved detailed tracing of all animals on the farm, and examination of any written records, so that the history of breeding dates, abortions, calving dates and date of deaths of both calves and adults could be recorded. Farm related data collected included land size, herd size, grazing system (zero or open grazing), employment of labor and types. Important participating household data collected were on whether the cattle owner had attended any dairy husbandry training, years of livestock keeping, education level, religion denomination (Muslim or Christian) and the main source of income. In addition, other hygienic and consumption behavior data were collected. These included management of the after-birth (whether thrown away or buried), slaughter practice precaution measures employed (use of protective clothing or not), milk consumption practices (raw or treated) and the general level of animal housing cleanness subjectively assessed as clean or dirty.  

Data analysis 

Data were entered and managed in an Epi- Info database (CDC, version 6.04). Descriptive statistics were computed for different variables. Continuous and the proportions of categorical variables were computed and compared for statistical significance by Chi-square test at a critical probability of P <0.05. 

Results and Discussion

Farm demographics  

Smallholder dairy farms accounted for 77% of the households interviewed and traditional farms for 23%. Over 60% of the traditional livestock keepers were classified as rural whereas over 80% of the smallholder dairy farmers were urban and peri-urban residents. Farm demographic data are summarized in Table 1. Overall, land holdings averaged 6.2 acres, with an average of 7.2 acres in the smallholder and 9.2 acres respectively in the traditional systems. One third of all smallholders and almost half of the urban smallholders reared their cattle on half an acre or less, which implies that cattle were reared under zero-grazing circumstances where most of the fodder has to be brought to the cattle and waste has to be removed from the farm (Plates a, b). Traditional herds in urban and peri-urban areas were smaller than in the rural areas. Also, the farm size and number of animals kept differed significantly between traditional and smallholder herds (P<0.001). 

Smallholder dairy farms had an average herd size of 6 animals, with bigger herds being kept under grazing conditions than under zero-grazing conditions (P<0.001). Traditional herds had an average herd size of 46 animals (median=30). All traditional herds utilise open grazing, whereas cattle on the smallholder farms (73%; n=77) are predominantly zero-grazed. Mulangila et al (1995) reported a proportion of 60% and 40% of the smallholder farms in Tanga district being kept under zero-grazing and open grazing conditions respectively. To manage bigger herds under zero-grazing regimes is difficult, and as soon as the herd grows above a certain size, smallholder farmers tend to start grazing and to move to peri-urban areas where there is relatively more space for grazing. With the on-going urban expansion however, grazing pasture is also becoming more limited in these areas. All herds, which were grazing, practiced communal grazing. All grazing herds depended either on surface water as their main water source or their cattle had at least access to surface water while grazing. Traditional herds and herds located in the rural areas used rivers, dams and rain water as the main source for themselves and their animals.  

Most farmers used natural service for breeding. Artificial insemination (AI) was mainly used in urban and peri-urban areas (P<0.001), but very few farmers used AI only. Twelve-percent (n=13) of the smallholder farms and half (52%; n=13) of the traditional herds had a breeding bull on the farm. The housing of cattle was clearly different in both systems, where most traditional cattle were kept in cattle pens/kraal with dirt flooring, the majority of the smallholder cattle were kept in cattle sheds, with some sort of roofing and a concrete floor. 

Contacts between farms and contacts with other livestock are shown in Table 1 for the different systems. Smallholder zero-grazing farms were more closed, but contacts still occurred with other livestock on farm and with other dairy animals during mating. Cattle/goats/sheep contacts (88%) under traditional sector were common at pasture and watering points. On the contrary, dairy to dairy cattle contact under smallholder sector, were common during mating and at pasture. Grazing herds shared communal grazing areas, watering points and dips. 

If livestock movements are considered, 21% of the smallholder farms and 28% of the traditional herds reported introduction of cattle from outside the herd over the previous year. 

Plate a: Urban zero-grazing farm, many farms have less than 0.05 acres of land to farm	Plate b: Cattle grazing in peri-urban, grazing communal land in between new settlement

Socio-economic characteristics of the study households

Most households’ heads (>75%) that were interviewed were males and there was no difference between the two production systems (P>0.05). The average age of household heads is above 40 years old and did not vary significantly across production systems. However, average age of household heads of smallholder dairy farms was lower compared to traditional system, which indicates that younger farmers had strong preference for milk production activity. The findings of this study indicate that field extension agents visited a larger percentage of smallholder dairy farmers (82%) than traditional livestock keepers (72%) (P<0.05). This high frequency may broadly reflect the value attached to dairy cattle at household level. In addition, 74.2% of smallholder dairy households had access to extension agents contact between one to four times in a year. Furthermore, the findings of this study revealed that twenty-eight percent (n=7) of traditional livestock keepers and 12% (n=16) of the smallholder dairy farmers had no access to extension agent at all. 

Traditional livestock farmers kept cattle for longer than small-holder dairy farmers, with an average of 19.1 (median 14) compared with 9.4 (median 9) years, respectively (Table 2). In common to all production systems, rural based producers are closely interwoven with crop farming activity as a secondary occupation. Peri-urban and urban farms, on the other hand, are motivated by market factors such as increasing demand for dairy products and better market opportunities. In the area studied, 58% of the respondents were Christians and 42% were Muslims. Most of the traditional livestock keepers tended to be Muslims, who have been living for several generations in Tanga. The educational level of the respondents showed that only 12% of the traditional farmers, compared to 40% of the smallholder farmers had more than primary school education (P=0.02). Two-thirds (66.6%) of the smallholder dairy farmers had at least received training in cattle management through workshops or seminars, whereas traditional farmers learned cattle management alone or from parents (P<0.001) and many practice livestock keeping in combination with crop farming. The low percentage of those with formal education may be due to limitations of educational facilities in the villages, which to a great extent could adversely influence adoption of innovations in livestock production. Similarly, low levels of education observed in this study may explain the reliance on indigenous knowledge for management by livestock keepers. Education empowers people, strengthens their ability to meet their needs and increases their capacity to adopt new and improved technologies in livestock husbandry. On the other hand, smallholder livestock keepers tended to have a better education and a majority received some basic training in livestock keeping. Most respondents came from a background where their parents and grand-parents kept livestock as well. They tended to be Christians, many practiced smallholder farming as well as, other off-farm employment and moved into Tanga more recently. The number of years spent on livestock keeping was shorter for smallholder farmers than for traditional farmers, which exemplifies the recent introduction of smallholder dairy farming in the region. 

The study also showed that 18% of the respondents were involved in livestock/dairy, 45% crop farming and 73% in off-farm activities such as employments and trading as primary occupation but took to farming as secondary occupation. This finding is in agreement with the findings of Kitalyi et al (2005), who reported that the majority of households in Africa keep small groups of ruminants alongside cropping. 

Over all, the study findings indicate that apart from keeping cattle, 31% of the household interviewed reared goats and 8% pigs. Sixty-eight percent of the respondents reared chickens, both indigenous, and to a less extent, graded or commercial breeds. Goats and sheep were significantly kept more commonly in traditional herds than smallholder farms (P<0.001). These data imply that most of the households reared chickens and goats and also that the chickens were the commonest poultry species reared by farmers. This could be attributed to the fact that it is possible to rear chickens on free-range, which is less costly and with less managerial involvement. Scavenging chickens have been reported to form an integral part of the cultural life and farming systems of Tanzania's peasantry (Swai et al 2007). The low percentage of farmers rearing pigs (8%) could be attributed to the religious taboos. Fifty-five (42%) of the interviewees were Muslims. 

Labour engagements 

Figures 1a and b show the labour division in different livestock production systems. Farm production activities are typically dependent on family labour. Women are more involved in livestock keeping in the smallholder farms compared to the traditional sector, especially in activities in and around the cowshed. Both systems employ non-related labourers, but smallholder farms employ more temporary labour with limited responsibilities, whereas traditional herds employ more permanent labour as herd attendants, dealing with a variety of tasks.

Figure 1a: Labour division in surveyed and interviewed traditional livestock keepers households (n=25)

Figure 1b: Labour division in surveyed and interviewed smallholder dairy households (n=105)

Analysis of selected herd production parameters

Selected herd production parameters are shown in Table 3. The herd production parameters were calculated on the basis of owner recall data or any written records. Data showed that 7.4% of all pregnancies ended in an abortion over the last year. This was 5.4% for smallholder farms and 11.4% for traditional herds. Abortions in the dairy smallholder system seemed to be more common in the peri-urban and rural areas, and more common in those herds which practice grazing ([Relative risk] RR_grazing = 4.01, 95% [Confidence interval], CI=1.47-10.97, P<0.001). The 5.4% abortion value for dairy smallholder dairy cows is in line with the 4% which was reported in the past for Tanga smallholder farms by the Tanga Dairy Development Programme (TDDP 1999). Kanuya et al (2000) reported a cumulative incidence of abortion of 16% for dairy cattle kept in smallholder herds in Arusha region, northern Tanzania. 

The overall estimated calf mortality rate was 19%. Though three traditional herds with a very high calf mortality (outliers) were left out of the analysis, calf mortality was still significantly higher in traditional herds compared to smallholder herds (RR_traditional = 1.89; 95% CI=1.25-2.85, P<0.001). The calf mortality rate in the smallholder and traditional systems was 15% and 25%, respectively. The calf mortality rate for smallholder dairy farms in this study is in line with the calf mortality rate of 12-14% reported for Tanga on smallholder dairy farms by Swai et al (2005; 2009). The workers also reported a slightly lower mortality in Tanga urban compared to peri-urban and rural areas. Grazing practice seemed to be particularly associated with calf mortality, rather than the type of system, since smallholder farmers who practiced grazing reported a similar high level of calf mortality than traditional grazers. Overall, calf mortality in grazing systems was three times greater than in zero-grazing systems(RR_grazing = 3.64; 95% CI=1.88-7.06, P<0.001). Grazing leads to a more open farming system and might lead to an easier exposure and introduction of calf diseases. Grazing is also highly correlated with bigger herd size, and in these bigger herds possibly less attention is being paid to calf rearing, and this might be especially true for male calves in the smallholder dairy sector.  

Distribution of management practices in relation to hygiene and consumption of animal products 

Distribution of management practices in relation to hygiene and consumption of animal products which could play a role in the introduction and transmission of zoonoses are given in Table 4. Most traditional herdsmen said they threw the foetal membranes away or left them at the pastures, whereas the majority of smallholder dairy farmers reported that they usually buried the placenta (P<0.001). Most livestock keepers in both systems did not follow quarantine practices when calves had diarrhoea and did not take precautions when handling these calves. The overall cleanliness, based on a partly subjective assessment, seemed to be better for smallholder farms than traditional farms. Protective footwear was hardly used in the traditional sector where 67% of the traditional herdsmen reported that they worked bare footed in the pen. On the other hand, most of the smallholder livestock keepers used flip-flops, which gave at least some protection to the sole of the foot, or boots when working in the cattle shed.  

Rats were often seen in both systems, but slightly more in the traditional system and seemed to be an increasing problem from urban towards rural areas. Home slaughter was more common on traditional farms than smallholder farms. In case of home slaughter, the slaughtering was done either by the herd owner or hired labour. 

Thirty-three percent of traditional farmers and 14% of the smallholder farmers reported drinking raw milk. Forty-percent and 32% respectively, reported drinking soured milk prepared from raw milk. If practices in relation to production and consumption of animal products are compared, it shows that home slaughter is frequently practised on traditional farms. Eight percent of the interviewed farmers reported eating raw meat, organs or blood sometimes. This practice was more common for smallholder farmers. However, all respondents were used to doing so because it is a tradition. Most traditional farmers in this study were Muslims, which might have restricted this practice. 

Conclusion

• From the study it is concluded that the farm size, education level, field extension agent contacts and number of animals kept differed significantly between traditional and smallholder herds and livestock keeping was identified as an integral part of livelihood in both systems. Traditional livestock farmer kept cattle for longer than smallholder and both systems do employ some form of labour of varied duration and responsibilities, with smallholder farms employing more temporary labour whereas traditional livestock keepers employ more permanent labour dealing with variety of tasks. Herd parameters (abortion, fertility, mortality) were calculated and rated to be high in traditional than in smallholder dairy herds and consequently considered as the major technical production constraint. Grazing was identified as the key risk factor and was highly correlated with abortion and mortality. Despite some differences between the two cattle production systems, the  practice of taking precautions such as using protective clothing and footwear against diseases during farm operation activities were found to be poor - suggesting that such practices may play a role in diseases transmission from animal to humans.

Recommendation

Factors that contribute to lower livestock productivity are multi-factorial in dimension. Therefore, there is a need to take into account both socio-economic demography and technical parameters when designing future livestock improvement programmes.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the grant to the first author from Royal Netherlands Embassy (RNE) towards this study during a working assignment to Tanga Dairy Development programme, January 1993 to December 2002. The authors are also grateful to the livestock keepers who gave their time to this research. This paper is published with the permission from the Director of Veterinary Services in Tanzania. 

References

Bahari M M, Nsengwa G R M and Matandala M M 2000 The sustainability of the pastoral and zero-grazing systems in Tanzania: Challenges and prospects in the 21^st century. In: Proceedings of the Tanzania Veterinary Association Scientific Conference, 3^rd -5^th Dec 2000, Arusha, Tanzania pp 25-41. 

Delgado C 2005 Rising demand for meat and milk in developing countries: implications for grasslands-based livestock production. In Grassland: a global resource (ed.D. A. McGilloway), The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers.pp 29-39. 

Epi-info 1996 Centre for disease control, version 6.04d, Atlanta, USA and Geneva, Switzerland 

Freeman A H, Thornton P K, van de Steeg J A and McLeod A 2007 Future scenarios of livestock systems in developing countries. Animal production and animal science worldwide. WAAP Book of the Year 2006. World Association for Animal Production  pp. 219–232. 

Kanuya N L, Kessy B M, Bittegeko S B P, Mdoe N S Y and Aboud A A O 2000 Suboptimal reproductive performance of dairy cattle kept in smallholder herds in a rural highland area of northern Tanzania, Preventive Veterinary Medicine 45: 183-192. 

Kitalyi A, Mtenga L, Morton J U, McLeod A, Thornton P, Dorward A and Saadullah M 2005 Why keep livestock if you are poor? In: Livestock and wealth creation: improving the husbandry of animals kept by resource-poor people in developing countries (eds Owen E., Kitalyi A., Jayasuriay N., Smith T.), Nottingham, UK: Nottingham University Press, pp 13-27. 

Kristjanson P, Krishna A, Radeny M and Nindo W 2004 Pathways out of poverty in western Kenya and the role of livestock. PPLPI Working Paper No. 14. Rome, Italy: FAO. 

Moyo S, McDermott J, Herrero M, van de Steeg J A, Staal S and Baltenweck I 2007 Development of livestock production systems in Africa. Challenges and opportunities with a focus on recent achievements. In: Animal Production and Animal Science Worldwide. WAAP book of the year 2007. World Association for Animal Production, pp. 15–26. 

Mulangila R C T, Mtenga L A, Kifaro G C and Byamungu M B 1995  Peri-urban livestock production in Tanga- Tanzania. In: Proceedings of the 8^th Conference of Institutions for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, pp. 164-168. 

Muriuki H, Omore A, Hooton N, Waithaka M, Ouma R, Staal S and Odhiambo P 2003 The policy environment in the Kenya dairy sub-sector: A review. SDP Research and Development Report No. 2. Smallholder Dairy (R and D) Project: Nairobi, Kenya, pp. 21.  

Noordhuizen J P T M, Frankena K, van der Hoofd C M and Graat E A M 1997 Application of Quantitative Methods in Veterinary Epidemiology, (Wageningen Pers, Wageningen, The Netherlands), 25-53. 

Nyamrunda C and Sumberg J 1998 Milk systems of smaller African cities: Two examples from Tanzania, Outlook on agriculture 27: 243-251. 

Otte J and Upton M 2005 Poverty and livestock agriculture. WAAP Book of the Year 2005, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers. pp. 281-296. 

Schooman L and Swai E S 2011 Marketing, handling and physical quality of raw marketed milk in Tanga region of Tanzania.  Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 23, Article #191. Retrieved, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd23/9/scho23191.htm  

Smith O B and Olaloku E A 1998 Peri-urban livestock production systems. Cities feeding people series No 24, Ottawa, International Development Research Centre (IDRC). 

Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M and de Haan C 2006 Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Rome, Italy: FAO. 

Sumberg J 1997 Policy, milk and the Dar es Salaam peri-urban zone: a new future for an old development theme? Land Use Policy 14: 277-293. 

Sumberg J 1999 The Dar es Salaam milk system: dynamics of change and sustainability, Habitat International 23(2): 189-200. 

Swai E S, Karimuribo E D, Schoonman L, French N P, Fitzpatrick J, Kambarage D and Bryant M J 2005: Description, socio-economic characteristics, disease managements and mortality dynamics in smallholder's dairy production system in coastal humid region of Tanga, Tanzania. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 17, Article #41. Retrieved August 14, 2011 from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/4/swa17041.htm 

Swai E S, Karimuribo E D, Kyakaisho P F and Mtui P F 2007: Free-range village chickens on the humid coastal belt of Tanga, Tanzania: their roles, husbandry and health status. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 19, Article #104. Retrieved August 14, 2011 from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/8/swai19104.htm 

Swai E S, Karimuribo E D, Kambarage D M and Moshy W E 2009 A longitudinal study on morbidity and mortality in youngstock smallholder dairy cattle with special reference to tick borne infections in Tanga region, Tanzania, Veterinary Parasitology 160: 34-42. 

Swai E S and Karimuribo E D 2011 Smallholder dairy farming in Tanzania: current profiles and prospects for developments. Outlook on Agriculture 40(1): 21–27. 

TDDP, Tanga Dairy development Programme 1999 Annual Progress Report, (TDDP, Tanga Tanzania), 29-43 

Thornton P K 2010 Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences 365: 2853-2867, doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0134 

UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) 2008 The State of World Population 2007: unleashing the potential of urban growth. United Nations Population Fund. Accessed August 2011 from, http://www.unfpa.org/swp/swpmain.htm. 

URT (United Republic of Tanzania) 2002 Population and household census. Available at: http://www.tanzania.go.tz/cencus/table5.htm.2002; Accessed August, 2011. 

Wakhungu J W 2001 Dairy cattle breeding policy for Kenya smallholders: An evaluation based on a demographic stationary state productivity model. PhD thesis, University of Nairobi: Nairobi, Kenya, Pp 189. 

World Bank 2007 Agriculture for development. World Development Report, 2008. World Bank, Washington, DC 

World Bank 2009 Minding the stock: bringing public policy to bear on livestock sector development. Report no. 44010-GLB.Washington, DC. 

Received 22 October 2011; Accepted 26 October 2011; Published 4 November 2011

Go to top