Characterization of pig production in Gulu and Soroti districts in northern and eastern Uganda

K Ikwap, M Jacobson*, N Lundeheim**, D O Owiny, G W Nasinyama, C Fellstrom* and J Erume

College of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources and Biosecurity, Makerere University,
P. O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda.
jerume@vetmed.mak.ac.ug
* Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, P.O. Box 7054
** Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics,
P.O. Box 7023, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SE-750 07, Uppsala, Sweden.

Abstract

Owing to loss of cattle and goats during the recent civil unrest, pig farming has become popular in northern and eastern Uganda as a quick mitigation to poverty. This study was carried out to describe the characteristics of pig production in these regions. Using a cross-sectional design, data were collected from 96 households (51 from Gulu district, northern Uganda and 45 from Soroti district, eastern Uganda) raising pigs with suckling and weaned piglets. The households were selected using the snowballing method.

The households were predominantly headed by adult men, of which 97% had attended at least primary education. The mean numbers of suckling, weaned, growing and adult pigs per household in Gulu and Soroti were 8 and 7.3, 4.8 and 5.3, 2.3 and 2.6 and 3.1 and 3.1, respectively, with no significant difference (p > 0.05) between the districts. Overall, the majority of households (64%, n=96) kept local breeds of pigs. The most common management method was tethering, as practiced by 67% of the study households. Home-made feeds were the most common (88%, n=96) and the wives/women provided much of the labour (60%, n=96). However, in only 23% of the households, women owned and made decisions on the pigs. Male children also owned and made decisions on pigs in 8% of the households. Natural breeding of sows with a shared boar was the most common practice (88%, n=96). The litter size at birth was 6 to 10 piglets in 78% (n= 96) of the households. Based on the clinical signs reported by the households, 38% and 23% of the herds experienced problems with diarrhoea and respiratory diseases, respectively. In total, 39% of the households were receiving professional veterinary care, when pigs fall sick. In conclusion, pig production around regional urban centers in northern and eastern Uganda is largely smallholder, practiced by farmers who have attended at least primary education, tether their pigs, depend on labour provided largely by housewives and there is inadequate veterinary care. The findings of this study point at a need for increased involvement of women in decision making in pig farming, increased pig veterinary care and investigation of the causes of diseases such as diarrhoea in order to support this major livelihood resource for the poor in northern and eastern Uganda, especially women and children.

Key words: decision-making, pig production, smallholder, Uganda

Introduction

Livestock, including pigs, contribute significantly to enhance the livelihoods of over 70% of the poor people in the developing world (Perry and Sones 2007) and in 2005, over 65% of the world’s pig population was located in these regions (Holness et al 2005). Globally, pork consumption has continued to register strong growth, partly due to rising incomes and a growing human population (Trostle 2008). The resource-poor communities can benefit from this by increasing the pork production. In particular, pig farming is popular in the peri-urban farming (Perry et al 2002) since pigs occupy a small land area (Brown et al 2001). Pigs have higher turnover rate due to large litter sizes, shorter gestation period and lower feed conversion ratio, as compared to most livestock species. These factors make pig farming a more profitable livestock farming venture, since more meat is produced and sold during the life span of a pig, as compared to other domestic animals (Holness et al 2005). Pigs are not only a source of animal protein but also a source of income. The income is used to meet basic needs such as food, clothing, healthcare, education and housing. Therefore, pigs are a potentially reliable and sustainable resource for economic empowerment of resource-poor people (Holness et al 2005).

In Uganda, consumption of pork increased by 21.2% annually from 1980 to 1990 and by 3% annually from 1990 to 2000 (FAO 2005). By 2011, Uganda had one of the highest per capita consumption of pork in sub-Saharan Africa, reaching 3.4 kg/person/year (Ballantyne 2012). According to the 2008 livestock census report, the Uganda’s pig population was estimated to be about 3.2 million pigs and out of this, about 33% were located in northern and eastern Uganda (MAAIF and UBOS 2009). Pig production is popular in these regions following the loss of a large cattle and goat population during the time of civil unrest, which left many households poorer (FAO 2004). After restoration of relative peace, the period 2002 to 2008 has witnessed a tremendous rise in the number of pigs from 104,640 to 340,460 in northern Uganda and from 155,890 to 699,680 in eastern Uganda (UBOS 2004; MAAIF and UBOS 2009). Aware of this and the contribution of pig farming towards poverty alleviation, the government of Uganda, through the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) and the development partners, are currently and actively promoting pig production in these regions.

A recent study (Muhanguzi et al 2012) describe pig production in a central district of Uganda, near Kampala, as being predominantly intensive and semi-intensive with the predominant breeds being the exotics (Landrace and Large White) and their crosses. Also, the majority of farmers were educated as they had attended at least secondary education. However, there is no description of the pig production in northern and eastern Uganda, regions that have some of the lowest socioeconomic indicators in the country (UBOS, 2011). The aim of the current study was, therefore, to describe pig production around two regional urban and peri-urban centres in northern and eastern Uganda. Understanding the nature of pig production in these regions will be valuable in designing strategies for improved pig production and hence increased income to the poor pig rearing households.

Materials and methods

Design of the study

The present study was carried out in two districts, Gulu in northern and Soroti in eastern Uganda (Figure 1). The two districts were purposively selected to represent the two regions because of their large pig populations as compared to the neighbouring districts, and they are also regional centres with a possible bigger market for pork. These districts were also at the core of the civil unrest with many refugees from other districts who settled within and nearby the regional centres, but continued with livestock production.

The study households comprised of those that had piglets and/or recently weaned pigs, i.e. at most 2 weeks after weaning. Data were collected from 6 sub-counties and Gulu municipality in Gulu district, and 4 sub-counties and Soroti municipality in Soroti district. The majority of pigs were located in the sub-counties surrounding the municipalities. The households were visited during 2011 and 2012.

The study involved administration of a questionnaire to gather data on the demographics, ownership of the pigs, pig breeds, pig management practices and diseases. Information on diseases was captured using the major clinical signs identifiable by farmers such as diarrhoea, coughing, skin lesions, and trembling/shaking. With permission from the household heads, the questionnaires were administered by personal interviews. The household members that commonly took care of the pigs answered the questionnaires. Prior to data collection, the questionnaire was reviewed by the research team after pretesting to selected Veterinary Officials and pig farmers in the study area.

Area of the study

Gulu district is located between longitude 30° 21' east to longitude 32° east and latitude 2° north to latitude 4° north. The district occupies 3,449 km² and comprises of 12 sub-counties (Palaro, Patiko, Awach, Bungatira, Odek, Koro, Lalogi, Lakwana, Bobi, Ongako, Paicho and Unyama) and one municipality (Gulu). The average rainfall in Gulu is 1,500 mm per annum with a monthly average varying between 14 mm in January and 230 mm in August. The wet season normally extends to October with the highest fall in May, August and October. The dry season is from November through March. The average maximum temperature is 30°C with a minimum

of 18°C.

Soroti district covers an area of 3,379 km². The district is located between longitude 30° 01' east and longitude 34° 18' east and latitude 1°33' north and latitude 2° 23' north. This district is comprised of 7 sub-counties (Tubur, Katine, Arapai, Gweri, Asuret, Kamuda and Soroti) and one municipality (Soroti). The climate of Soroti is tropical wet and dry. It experiences a bimodal rainfall from March to May and July to October. Average annual rainfall is1100-1200 mm. A short dry period is experienced in June with the long dry season starting in mid or late November until late February or early March. The highest temperatures are experienced during the long dry season with maximum temperatures averaging 31°C. The lowest temperatures are realized in the rainy seasons (MWLE 2007).

Sample size

The minimum number of households included in the study in each district was obtained using the formula: n = Z_α² (P*Q)/E² (Pfeiffer 2002), where, n is the sample size and P is the proportion of households keeping pigs in Soroti or Gulu district. In this study, P was taken to be the approximated national average of 10% (UBOS 2004). Q is the proportion of households not keeping pigs (1-P). E is the level of acceptable error and this was taken to be 10%. The Z_α at 95% confidence interval was taken to be 1.96. Therefore, n= 3.8416(0.1*0.9)/0.01 for each district. As a result, a minimum of 35 households from each district had to be selected.

Collection of data

Due to the lack of information on the households keeping pigs at the time of the study, households were identified by the snowballing method (Kagira et al 2010). Briefly, the first household keeping pigs with piglets or weaners was identified with the help of the district animal husbandry officers and the local area council chairpersons. The first household was visited and the questionnaire administered by the research team. The subsequent households were then identified with the help of the previous pig farmers.

Definition of management methods

A pig herd was considered “roaming” when both adults and piglets were let loose and moved from place to place within the villages. Pigs were considered to be under an “intensive system” of management when they were housed in a built structure with a roof and non-porous walls that prohibited the pigs from escaping to the outside. On the other hand, pigs were considered to be “semi-intensively managed” when they were housed, but also allowed to move within an enclosed space without a roof (a Kraal). Pigs were considered “tethered” when only the adults and weaners were restricted from moving from place to place by tying them to pegs using ropes while the piglets were let loose.

Data management and analysis

Data were first coded and entered into SPSS version 17 (SPSS Inc., Chicago USA). The data were checked for any errors that may have occurred during the entry and corrected by rechecking against the original questionnaires. The data were then imported into SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute, USA) and summarized.

Results

Number of households visited

A total of 96 households i.e. 51 and 45 from Gulu and Soroti districts, respectively (Table 1) were visited for data collection.

Demographic information, pig ownership and source of labour in Gulu and Soroti

There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in much of the data between the two districts and therefore, data for both districts were described together. The majority of the household heads (66%, n=96) were between 31 and 60 years old (Table 2). Only 16% of the household heads were below 31 years of age, while 18% were above 60 years old. The majority of the households (82%, n=96) were headed by men whereas 18% were headed by women (Table 2). In the majority of the households (66%, n=96) the male spouses owned the pigs. In 23% of the households, female spouses/women owned the pigs and in 8% of the households, male children owned the pigs. None of the pigs were owned by female children. The majority of the household heads (97%, n=96) attended at least primary education. In 60% (n=96) of the households, mainly women provided labour, followed by men (15%) and male children (14%; Table 2). However, there was a significant difference in the source of labour for the two districts with more men providing labour in Gulu (25%, n=51) than in Soroti (2%, n=45) (p <0.05). “Staying at home most of the time” was the reason given by 69% (n=96) of the households for the source of the labour.

Numbers and breeds of pigs kept by the households

Overall, 64% (n=96) of the households kept local breeds of pigs. Pure exotic breeds were rare and kept by only 2%, and cross-breeds were kept by 34% of the households. The majority (74%, n=96) kept 6 to 20 pigs of all ages, and 9% kept more than 20 pigs. The remaining households (17%) kept less than 6 pigs. However a majority of households (83%) kept 1 to 3 adult pigs. The average numbers of adults, growers, piglets, weaners and herd size in Gulu and Soroti are shown in Table 3. No significant differences (p > 0.05) between the districts were demonstrated.

Management of pigs and litter size

In addition to pigs, almost all the households (96%, n=96) kept other food-producing animals that included cattle, goats and poultry. Overall, the most common method of management was “tethering”, practiced by 67% (n=96) of the households. A few households (6%) left the pigs to roam. “Intensive” and “semi-intensive” methods were practiced by 16% and 11% of the households, respectively (Table 4). A majority of the households (88%, n=96) used home-made feeds mainly in the form of cassava, brew waste and potatoes. None of the households used solely commercial feeds. Boiling of pig feed was not common. Although a few (4%, n= 45) of the households in Soroti treated their feeds by boiling, none did so in Gulu. However, there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in some of the management practices between the two districts, with more households using kitchen left-overs and boiling the feeds in Soroti than in Gulu. Also there were more households with semi-intensively kept or roaming pigs in Gulu than in Soroti (Table 4).

Natural breeding was the method employed by all households studied. However, only 22% (n=96) owned a boar and did not share it for breeding with any other household (Table 4). In the rest of the households (78%), the boar was shared within and between the villages. The parity of the lactating and dry sows was less than 3 in a majority (93% and 96% respectively) of the households. In 78% of the households, the litter size at birth was reported to be 6 to 10 piglets with 4% of the households reporting a litter size above 10 (Table 4).

Health status of the pig herds and access to veterinary care

Thirty seven percent (n=96) of the households identified diarrhoea as a problem in their pig herds (Table 5). The most common age groups affected with diarrhoea were suckling piglets older than one week, followed by weaners, neonates and adult pigs. The other most commonly identified clinical sign was coughing (Table 5). Thirty nine percent (39%) of all the households obtained professional veterinary care when pigs fell sick.

Ownership, selling of pigs and decision making

Overall, 51% (n=96) of the households reported that they had sold both adult pigs and piglets, 10% sold only adult pigs and the remaining households (39%) sold only piglets. In 58% (n=96) of the households, the male spouse was the decision-maker regarding the pigs including selling of the pigs. In 23% of the households, the wife/woman made the decision (Figure 2). The two major reasons given for making a decision on the sale of pigs were being the head of the household (53% of the households) or owning the pigs (41% of the households).

Discussion

This study has generated information describing the current pig production in northern and eastern Uganda. The pig production in these areas consists of smallholder production systems, where a majority of the households keep less than 20 pigs of all ages, of which on average, only 3 are adults. These figures are comparable to the mean adult herd size of 2.9 with a herd size range of 1-9 (Ajala et al 2007) or mean herd size of 3.3 (Chiduwa et al 2008) reported elsewhere in Africa among smallholder pig farmers. According to Lekule and Kyvsgaard (2003) the traditional system of pig production in Africa i.e. “free range”, “tethering” and “small scale” is more popular because it is more sustainable, less costly and, therefore, more profitable. Indeed the findings of this study show that the majority of the households in the study area were practicing tethering of pigs, used home-made feeds, kept local breeds of pigs and relied on household-based labour all of which was considered less costly and affordable to the farmers. However, this differs from the findings by Muhanguzi and others (2012) where the majority of the households in central Uganda, near the capital city practiced intensive system (31% of the farmers) and semi-intensive system (49.6%), kept exotic breeds (28%) and their crosses (67.4%). This difference could be attributable to the different socioeconomic factors. According to Lekule and Kyvsgaard (2003), intensive system of pig production is feasible in areas with shortage of land and in large cities with access to industrial by-products to feed the pigs. This is not the case in northern and eastern Uganda where the regional centres are still small with a low industrial base. Further, socioeconomic indicators for the districts in these regions, as shown by the higher percentage of rural people living below poverty line compared to the national average (UBOS 2011), suggest that farmers in these regions do not have adequate financial resources to venture into more costly systems of pig production.

The women (housewives) provided much of the labour in pig farming. This is in agreement with Karimuribo and others (2011) who reported similar findings among small scale pig farmers in Tanzania. One of the reasons given for this finding was that women stay at home most of the time and, therefore, are available to care for the pigs. This in turn could mean that the women have no employment outside the home. Therefore, in order to improve the pig production e.g. through control of reported diseases like diarrhoea in preweaning piglets, the extension and agricultural advisory service providers should take into consideration the involvement of the women. When conversant, women for instance are better placed to detect the early signs of disease and undertake appropriate actions or implement strategies for increased production, since they are in contact with the pigs most of the time. Despite being the major source of labour, women were less involved in decision-making, like when to sell the pigs. Decision-making was largely the responsibility of the household heads and the owners of the pigs who were mainly the husbands.

The results of this study suggest that there could be an association between ownership of the pigs and decision-making. Therefore, women should be encouraged to own the pigs. For instance, women may get organized into groups as it is the case in the dairy sub-sector in the study area. These groups can then access low cost loans or Government’s funding. Furthermore, they may also more readily get access to professional veterinary care. To have women more involved in decision-making would be in line with the plan of the Government of Uganda through the National Agricultural Advisory Services to empower subsistence farmers, particularly the women, the youth and the disabled.

A majority of the household heads (97%) had attended at least primary education. We consider this a significant observation because such farmers may be able to read and understand the information delivered by extension and agricultural advisory-service providers. However, accessibility of extension and advisory services seems to be a challenge since the majority of the households were not receiving professional veterinary care. This observation is corroborated with earlier findings by Owori (2008) in northern Uganda and Nyabuntu and others (2002) in Soroti. This could be due to a number of factors such as the unaffordable cost or inadequacy of these services.

Pig production in northern and eastern Uganda can also be characterized as being of high turnover. Indeed a majority of households (61%) reported selling adult pigs and on average a household was keeping 3 adult pigs. The low number of adult pigs kept may suggest that either there is a lucrative market for adult pigs in these regions or they are deliberately sold in times of scarcity of resources e.g. feeds, or in times of disease outbreaks such as African swine fever. Although the specific age of the adult pigs was not noted, most of the sows had given birth once or twice, again suggesting a high turnover. However, the low parity of the sows could also be due to the fact that a majority of the households were borrowing boars for mating. Borrowing boars could lead to delays in breeding of the sows. The practice of borrowing boars for breeding has also been reported to be common in other African countries (Wabacha et al 2004; Kagira et al 2010). Rampant borrowing of boars suggests that the biosecurity measures to control spread of diseases and parasites may be compromised. This could be one of the modes for spread of diseases and there is a need to investigate the implications of boar borrowing in these regions.

On average, a household had 8 suckling piglets, but only 5 weaners at the time of the visits. This shows that approximately 37.5% of the piglets do not reach weaning age. This could be due to selling of the piglets or mortality due to diseases largely affecting suckling piglets. This suspected mortality of preweaning piglets needs to be investigated further in a longitudinal study.

Based on the clinical signs identifiable by the farmers, pig production in northern and eastern Uganda can be described as disease-burdened, the most common disease being diarrhoea in preweaning piglets. Diarrhoea in this age-group is caused by a number of factors including pathogenic bacteria and viruses. A study to identify the factors associated with diarrhoea in piglets from these regions is recommended. Such a study should also include pathoanatomical investigations.

In conclusion, pig production around regional urban centers in northern and eastern Uganda is largely smallholder, practiced by farmers who have attended at least primary education, tether their pigs and depend on labour provided by the housewives. Hence, women’s involvement in decision-making in pig farming should strongly be encouraged in any future strategy to improve the pig production. Diseases, majorly diarrhoea and respiratory diseases are common. There is therefore a need to investigate the causes of these diseases and possibly also of piglet mortality in these regions.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded in part by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida) and Makerere University. We also acknowledge the assistance provided by the District Veterinary Officers (Dr. Aliro and Dr. Eyudu) and the field staff. We are grateful to the farmers who participated in this study.

References

Ajala M K, Adesehinwa A O K and Mohammed A K 2007 Characteristics of smallholder pig production in Southern Kaduna area of Kaduna state, Nigeria. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, 2 (2): 182-188. http://www.idosi.org/aejaes/jaes2%282%29/14.pdf    

Ballantyne P 2012 Smallholder pigs value chain project to increase rural incomes in Uganda. CGIAR, Research program on livestock and fish. http://livestockfish.cgiar.org/2012/05/04/smallholder-pigs-value-chain-project-to-increase-rural-incomes-in-uganda/   

Brown L, Hindmarsh R and Mcgregor R 2001 Dynamic Agriculture Book Three (2nd Ed.). McGraw-Hill Book Company, Sydney.  

Chiduwa G, Chimonyo M, Halimani T E, Chisambara S R and Dzama K 2008 Herd dynamics and contribution of indigenous pigs to the livelihoods of rural farmers in a semi-arid area of Zimbabwe. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 40, 125–136. http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/777/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11250-007-9071-8.pdf?auth66=1380720005_cf27170f55118698bb4e22733355831a&ext=.pdf  

FAO 2005 Food and Agricultural Organization. Livestock Sector Brief Uganda. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/sector_briefs/lsb_UGA.pdf  

FAO 2004 Food and Agricultural Organization. State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resource Report. A copy of the Uganda Country Report. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1250e/annexes/CountryReports/Uganda.pdf  

Holness D, Paterson R and Ogle B 2005 Pigs. In: Livestock and Wealth Creation-Improving the husbandry of animals kept by resource-poor people in developing countries. (Ed Owen E, Kitalyi A, Jayasuriya N, Smith T). Nottingham University Press, UK. 

Kagira M J,  Kanyari W N P, Maingi N,  Githigia M S,  Ng’ang’a J C and Karuga W J 2010  Characteristics of the smallholder free-range pig production system in western Kenya. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 42 (5), 865–873.  

Karimuribo E D, Chenyambuga S W, Makene V W and Mathias S 2011 Characteristics and production constraints of rural-based small-scale pig farming in Iringa region, Tanzania. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 23(8). http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd23/8/Kari23172.htm.  

Lekule P F and Kyvsgaard C N 2003 Improving pig husbandry in tropical resource-poor communities and its potential to reduce risk of porcine Cysticercosis.  Review article. Acta Tropica. 87 (1), 111-117. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001706X03000263#  

MAAIF and UBOS 2009 Ministry Of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries and Uganda Bureau of Statistics. The National Livestock Census Report.  A summary report of the National Livestock Census, 2008. Page 14. http://www.agriculture.go.ug/userfiles/National%20Livestock%20Census%20Report%202009.pdf  

MWLE 2007 Ministry of Water Lands and Environment. State of the Environment 2007, Republic of Uganda. Kampala, Uganda.  

Muhanguzi D, Lutwama V and Mwiine N F 2012 Factors that influence pig production in Central Uganda - Case study of Nangabo Sub-County, Wakiso district.  Veterinary World. 5 (6), 346-351. http://www.veterinaryworld.org/Vol.5/June%202012/Factors%20that%20influence%20pig%20production%20in%20Central%20Uganda%20-%20Case%20study%20of%20Nangabo%20Sub-County,%20Wakiso%20district.pdf  

Nyabuntu P, Nyamutale R, Binwe C and Mujunarinda C 2002 The National Agricultural Advisory Services, Soroti district baseline study final report. The National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) Secretariat, Kampala, Uganda. http://www.naads.or.ug/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/55reportsoroti%20final%20report.pdf  

Owori M O 2008 Land use and crop yield assessment report Acholi sub-region (Amuru, Gulu, Kitgum and Pader districts). DED LUCY first season Acholi region, DED-Refugee/IDP Programme. www.docstoc.com/docs/47138578/LAND-USE-AND-CROP-YIELD-ASSESSMENT-REPORT  

Perry B D, Randolph T F, McDermott J J, Sones K R and Thornton P K 2002 Investing in animal health research to alleviate poverty. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 140pp.  ISBN 92-9146-108-3.  

Perry B and Sones K 2007 Poverty reduction through animal health. Science. 315, 333-334. 

Pfeiffer D U 2002 Veterinary Epidemiology - An Introduction. Epidemiology Division, Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hertfordshire AL9 7TA, United Kingdom. http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/23327155/2013154433/name/Veterinary_Epidemiology.An_Introduction-TEASER.dzvet.pdf#page=1&zoom=146,0,847  

Trostle R 2008 Global Agricultural Supply and Demand: Factors contributing to the recent increase in food commodity prices. A report from the Economic Research Service. United States Department of Agriculture, USDA.  WRS-0801. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/global_agricultural_supply_and_demand.pdf  

UBOS 2011 Uganda Bureau of Statistics. District Population Profile, 2011. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3qdXsex2c_QJ:www.ubos.org/onlinefiles/uploads/ubos/pdf%2520documents/Dist_%2520profile_18072011.xls+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ug  

UBOS 2004 Uganda Bureau of Statistics. A report of Agricultural module, piggy-backed onto the Population and Housing Census (PHC) 2002. Page 45. http://harvestchoice.org/sites/default/files/downloads/publications/Uganda_2002_Final.pdf  

Wabacha J K, Maribei J M, Mulei C M, Kyule M N, Zessin K H and Oluoch-Kosura  W 2004 Characterization of smallholder pig production in Kikuyu Division, central Kenya. Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 63, 183–195. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167587704000728

Received 26 September 2013; Accepted 22 March 2014; Published 5 April 2014

Go to top