Search

Despite the huge potential for milk production, interventions to improve productivity in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) are barely based on specified farm classifications. This study aimed to develop robust and context-specific farm typologies to guide content of extension farm advice/services in Uganda. From a sample of 482 dairy farmers, we collected data on farmer socio-demographics, farm management practices, ownership of farm tools and facilities, willingness to pay for extension services, milk production, and marketing. Farm typologies were obtained based on principal component and cluster analyses. Thereby, of the three dairy production systems that emerged, small-scale, largely subsistence yet extensive and low productive farms were more prominent (82.6%). Farms that were classified as large-scale, less commercialized yet extensive with modest productive systems were more than the medium-scale commercial farms with intensive and highly productive systems. However, the later were considered to potentially transform dairy farming in Uganda. It was also predicted that the validity of our farm classification may persist until half of the farms have moved between clusters. The study gives new insights on dairy production systems in Uganda, which can be used to organize more targeted research on farmers’ extension needs for facilitating delivery of relevant and effective extension services and designing appropriate extension policies.

The potential of beekeeping to mitigate the exposure of rural sub-Sahara African farmers to economic stochasticity has been widely promoted by an array of development agencies. Robust outcome indicators of the success of beekeeping to improve household well-being are unfortunately lacking. This study aimed to identify the key drivers and barriers of beekeeping adoption at the household level, and quantified the associated income contribution in three agro-ecological zones in Uganda. Beekeepers were generally the most economically disadvantaged people in the study areas and tended to adopt beekeeping following contact with non-government organisations and access to training. Whilst incomes were not statistically lower than their non-beekeeping counterparts; their mean household well-being scores were significantly lower than non-beekeeping households. The inability of beekeeping to significantly improve well-being status can in part be attributed to a lack of both training in bee husbandry and protective equipment provision such as suits, gloves and smokers. These are critical tools for beekeepers as they provide the necessary confidence to manage honey bees. Rather than focussing solely on the socio-economic conditions of farmers to effectively adopt beekeeping, future research should also attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of development agencies' provision to the beekeeping sector.