Papers presented by KALRO Kiboko Scientists at the ASARECA Scientific Conference
Katiku P N, Ndathi A JN, Ogillo BP., Muthiani EN, Ndungu JN , Manyeki JK., Kimitei R.K., Wambulwa LM, Bii JC, Kubasu DO and Mnene WN. 2013. Livestock management during drought: experiences of pastoralists and agro pastoralists of Kenya, paper presented during the ASARECA Livestock and fisheries Program end of program and scientific conference held on 26th to 29th November, 2013 at Peacock hotel, Dares- Salam, Tanzania.
Livestock management during drought: experiences of pastoralists and agro pastoralists of Kenya
Katiku P N, Ndathi A JN, Ogillo BP., Muthiani EN, Ndung’u JN , Manyeki JK., Kimitei R.K., Wambulwa LM, Bii JC, Kubasu DO and Mnene WN.
Drought considered from the meteorological, agricultural, hydrological or socio-economical view, refers to periods of limited resources as a result of either environmental variability or due to adverse weather changes. It is an inevitable component of normal climatic fluctuations in the Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs) and should be considered as a recurring, albeit an unpredictable phenomenon that must be integrated in planning. Traditionally, pastoralists, employed movement to areas where forage quantity and quality were high. However, due to changes in environmental and human factors, this strategy is becoming impractical necessitating the employment of other practices. This study was designed to identify strategies employed by pastoralists and agropastoralists in Turkana, Garissa, Baringo, and Tana-River and Taita-Taveta Counties of Kenya to manage their herds during droughts. Among the pastoralists, in Tana-River, Garissa and Turkana, migration, practiced at 35%, 51% and at 67% respectively was the predominant drought mitigation strategy albeit accompanied by herd splitting unlike relocating the whole herd. But agropastoralists in Taita-Taveta, fed purchased feeds although migration was practiced by a paltry 3% of the respondents. Herds split and left behind consisted of animals in lactation, young and weak animals. The strategy ensured that family members continued to obtain milk, when the larger herds were away and guaranteed a fall back safety- net if the migration herd got depleted. These findings indicate that pastoralists and agropastoralists are adopting new techniques for better prospects of livestock production under the current continuum of emerging challenges and opportunities of climate change and markets.
Key words: Drought, herd splitting, milk, pastoralism, rangeland
Manyeki J K, Kimitei R.K, Ogillo BP, Ndathi A JN, Muthiani EN, Bii JC, Katiku P N and Mnene WN. 2013. Production practices in selected Arid and Semi-Arid lands of Kenya, paper presented during the ASARECA Livestock and fisheries end of program and scientific conference held on 26th to 29th November, 2013 at Peacock hotel, Dares- Salam, Tanzania.
Production Practices in Selected Arid and Semi-Arid Lands of Kenya
Manyeki J K, Kimitei R.K, Ogillo BP, Ndathi A JN, Muthiani EN, Bii JC, Katiku P N and Mnene WN.
This paper assesses the extent to which non-traditional land-use systems have encroached the traditional land utilization among the communities in the rangelands of Kenya. Study respondents were extension workers, local elders, pastoralist and agropastoralist using structured single subject survey tool. The study was conducted in eight sites selected in Bura, Taveta, Garissa, Baringo and Turkana Sub-counties. A total of 600 households were interviewed. Most of the household heads interviewed have only attained either the informal or primary education and were within the productive age. The average household size ranged from 7 to 20 members. Although traditionally, livestock keeping was the main activity among pastoralists, some households practiced irrigated food crop and fodder farming. Overall, sheep and goats are the most preferred livestock species with the goats being preferred over sheep. However, in Bura, sheep are preferred over all other livestock species. Indigenous chicken are also preferred but only a few households keep them. Similarly, donkeys and camels are kept but by a few households even among the pastoral communities, indicating that the pastoralists are poor. Among the pastoralists, livestock is still the main source of livelihood. In the agro-pastoral set up, mixed farming which included crop farming and livestock keeping as well as salaried employment respectively were the main source of income. Land is individually owned in Taveta and Baringo and to a smaller extent communal. In Garissa, Bura and Turkana Sub-counties, land is communally owned. Land sizes are small, ranging from 0.5 to 27 acres which is put under natural and cultivated pasture, rainfed and irrigated crops. Overall, the communities have been incorporated into non-traditional land-use practices as they assume sedentary lifestyles which are hinged to a cash economy; a lifestyle hard to live above poverty line. It is necessary for the policy planners, research workers, extension service providers and other partners to appreciate this change in lifestyle so as to develop strategies for resilience during drought.
Key words:Pastoral and agropastoral areas, changing land use, livelihood, resilience
Kimitei R K, Bii JC, Mulindo J., Muthiani EN, Katiku P N, Ndathi A JN, Ogillo BP, Kubasu D, Korir BK and Mnene WN. 2013. Resource monitoring and communication channels in pastoral and agropastoral communities in Kenya, paper presented during the ASARECA Livestock and fisheries end of program and scientific conference held on 26th to 29th November, 2013 at Peacock hotel, Dares- Salam, Tanzania.
Resource monitoring and communication channels in pastoral and agropastoral communities in Kenya
Kimitei R K, Bii JC, Mulindo J., Muthiani EN, Katiku P N, Ndathi A JN, Ogillo BP, Kubasu D, Korir BK and Mnene WN
Resource monitoring is an important element that provides information on the basis of adaptive management, for resource use and building local management systems of communities. This study was conducted in Taita Taveta, Turkana, Tana River Baringo and Garissa Counties with an objective of understanding how communities monitor their resources and their communication channels. Semi-structured questionnaires were administered at household level to a total of 600 randomly selected households. Over 60% of the respondents reported that there was monitoring of various resources overtime within the respective communities. Specifically, resources monitored were; forage (58%), water (52%) livestock (47%). The channels and language of communication used by respondents in order of preference were; baraza (community meetings), radio, mobile telephone, posters, Television, newspapers and horn (trumpet) blowing. The preferred language for communication was Swahili and vernacular (local language) depending on the community dynamics. Feedback by the monitoring organizations is infrequent and focuses on recommendations for intervention and rarely shares the status of the resources with communities. There is need to develop effective monitoring model geared towards detecting trends in biological diversity to assist the communities living in the ASALs, cost effectiveness of different indicators and forms of interventions and finally the need to enhance local level information sharing and effective local level interventions.
Key words:Resource monitoring, adaptive management, communication, interventions