Socio-demographic determinants of passing on the gift among livestock farmers: An examination of Send-A-Cow project in Kayonza and Rwamagana districts of Rwanda

Edward Mutandwa and Aphrodis Ngendabanga¹

Department of Rural Development and Agribusiness, Higher Institute of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry
(now University of Rwanda, College of Agriculture, Animal Sciences and Veterinary Medicine), BP 210, Musanze, Rwanda
edwardmutandwa@yahoo.com
¹ Department of Rural Development and Agribusiness, Higher Institute of Agriculture and Animal Husbandry
(now University of Rwanda, College of Agriculture, Animal Sciences and Veterinary Medicine)

Abstract

Livestock resources form an integral part of Rwanda’s socio-cultural and economic setting. Public livestock initiatives were developed in recent years but the programs have been limited by financial resources. It is against this background that Send-A-Cow Rwanda (SACR) project was developed. The main objective of this research was to examine the impact of various socio-demographic factors on the passing of livestock resources among farmers in Kayonza and Rwamagana districts. A multi-stage sampling procedure was used to guide the data-collection process. A binary logistic regression model was used to analyze the data.

Results showed that the probability of passing on the gift was influenced by frequency and quality of SACR veterinary extension services as well as calving frequency of ther "gifted"animals. Farmers, however, had a low perception of SACR veterinary extension services offered by the project. These results suggest the need to explore complimentary veterinary extension services for greater project sustainability.

Keywords: multi-stage sampling, regression, smallholder farmers, veterinary extension

Introduction

Historically, livestock resources have been recognized as part of the socio-economic and cultural context of the developing world (Holden et al 1996). The livestock sub-sector is important in sustaining rural livelihoods through the provision of a wide variety of commodities including milk, meat, manure, hides and income (De Vries et al 2007). In 2011, the world had close to 20 billion poultry, more than 1 billion cattle, about 1 billion pigs and well over 1 billion sheep (FAO 2011). There, however, seems to be a skewed pattern of livestock ownership in rural areas with men owning large livestock such as cattle while most women own small livestock such as goats and chicken (FAO 2011). Despite the pre-eminent role that livestock plays in sustaining rural communities, access to adequate human nutrition remains a challenge. For example, protein consumption per capita in developed countries was 102g/day in 2005, whereas the developing world had an average of 70g/day during the same period (FAO 2005). Furthermore, 29% of the Sub-Saharan population did not have access to sufficient calories compared to a global average of 13%.

Over the years, livestock productivity has been negatively affected by the incidence of diseases and unpredictable climate thereby reducing opportunities for achieving food security (Van Veen and de Haan 1995). In cattle dependent communities, for instance, different types of diseases, including heartwater, anthrax, foot and mouth, trypanosomiasis and black quarter have had devastating effects in countries such Kenya, Uganda, Sudan, Botswana and South Africa (Steyn et al 2010; Ahmed and Khalid 2013; Gabalebatse et al 2013; Karodia 2013). Traditionally, most governments responded by developing and providing public veterinary services focusing on treatment, prevention through vaccinations, provision of drugs and control of zoonosis (Holden et al 1996; Adesiji et al 2013). Extension services in animal health and production is available within the public sphere (Morton and Wilson 2000). In general, livestock extension educational activities focus on a broad spectrum of activities that include animal nutrition, breeding and marketing of animal-based products (Chizari and Noorabadi 1999). Although varying by context, livestock extension education is delivered through field days, exchange visits and sometimes seminars with rural livestock farmers (Toro and Place 2004). Nonetheless, the sustainability and effectiveness of public veterinary and livestock extension services has been put to question by development agents as well as policy makers. Given the poor economies of developing countries, a number of governments have failed to provide adequate financial resources to cater for the changing needs of the rural livestock sector (Sen and Chander 2003). Subsequently, the impact of veterinary and livestock extension education has been generally low (Swanson and Samy 2002; Davis 2008; Rivera 2008).

Various alternative mechanisms for complimenting the poorly performing public livestock extension system have been explored. For instance, some rural communities have increasingly adopted the use of ethno-veterinary medicine (McCorkle and Mathias-Mundy 1992; Matekaire and Bwakura, 2004; Mwale et al 2005; Adamu et al 2013; Gabalebatse et al 2013). Although, ethno- veterinary medicine is touted as an effective way of combating and treating diseases, most methods have not been subjected to scientific scrutiny and therefore not widely accepted (Matekaire and Bwakura 2004). There also have been calls to improve access to veterinary extension by relying on community-based para-veterinarians (Mugunieri et al 2002; Catley et al 2004). Furthermore, contemporary literature has suggested that privatizing veterinary extension services is likely to enhance the availability of services to underserved farmers in developing countries (Turkson and Brownie 1999; Chapman and Tripp 2003; Anandajayasekeram et al 2007; Foti et al 2007; Ali et al 2011). Several studies noted that several factors are likely to impede delivery of effective private extension services i.e. interference by government, nonexistence of community-based associations, prohibitive costs of health care, and an inadequate legislative framework (Achioja et al 2010; Adesiji et al 2013; Ilukor et al 2013).

Over time, various non-governmental organizations have crafted community driven veterinary and livestock extension education services, but their impact on various aspects of livestock production and productivity in the developing countries is yet to be quantified. Heifer International, for example, has established numerous livestock-based projects in 115 countries as a way of reducing chronic poverty among rural people (De Vries 2011). Send-A-Cow UK is one of the many organizations funding various Heifer International livestock initiatives in Africa (De Vries 2011). In terms of impact, Rawlins et al (2014) found that children from livestock recipient households had better anthropometric measurements and food consumption had increased compared to the control group in Rwanda, thus a contribution to food security.

Livestock and veterinary extension system in Rwanda

Like most developing countries, livestock assets are considered as an important indicator of wealth and essential in the attainment of household food security in Rwanda (RAB 2006; Nshimiyimana and Mutandwa 2010). The predominant forms of livestock include cattle, goats, sheep, pigs, poultry and rabbits. In 2013, the country had 798000 sheep, 1 million pigs, 1.1 million cattle, 2.7 million goats and about 4.8 million chickens (FAOSTAT 2013). The main livestock products include milk, meat, fish and eggs, which are mostly for household consumption (RAB 2013). In addition, livestock numbers have been increasing through the impact of different policy initiatives such as one-cow-per poor family program (Girinka), whose main objective is to provide poor households with cows for each family.

In Rwanda, agricultural extension is conducted by local administration entities after policy changes implemented by the Government of Rwanda in 2004-2005 (Hakizimana 2007). In 2007, the extension worker-to-farmer ratio was estimated at 1:10,000 implying that there was a limited capacity to effectively provide animal health care services to rural farmers. District veterinary extension officers work in collaboration with sector veterinary technicians to provide a wide array of services related to animal health care. Public veterinary extension services are also complimented by programs run by different non-governmental organizations such as Send-a Cow-Rwanda (SACR).

SACR is an international NGO working with groups of poor and vulnerable farmers in various developing countries, including Uganda, Ethiopia, Cameroon, Lesotho, Rwanda, Zambia and Kenya. The project commenced in 2001 in Rwanda with the broad thrust to empower resource poor people by providing cattle and goats. SACR is premised on the principle that secondary beneficiaries would get calves from those who initially received cows (Holden 1999). A total of 11 districts located in Kigali City, Northern, Eastern and Southern Provinces were involved in the project (SACR Report 2009). According to the report, about 160 families lost their animals in 11 participating districts out of 2610 cows distributed in 2009 and many cases were not attended to by veterinary technicians. Between 2005 and 2009, about 540 farmers in Kayonza and Rwamagana districts had received cows. These farmers were trained in animal husbandry, sustainable agricultural practices, exposure visits and input distribution. However, 12 cases of mortality were registered due to anaplasmosis while five cows were replaced because of low milk productivity. The high level of mortality that characterized the project in all participating districts brought questions about the efficacy of SARC veterinary extension services in promoting “passing on the gift” in the two districts.

Conceptual framework of factors influencing passing on the gift

Rural livestock farmers generally operate under resource-constrained conditions characterized by limited financial and physical capital (Brooks et al 2011). Various models have been used to understand the complexity of the rural farming environment, including the neoclassical economic and joint household decision making models (Taylor and Adelman 2003; Lee 2005; Doss 2006). While literature on rural household decisions on adoption of new technology abound, specific studies on the factors influencing choices of passing on livestock gifts are relatively few (De Vries 2011). Nonetheless, rural household behavioral models can still be used to understand farmers’ decisions in this regard. The limited physical and financial resources coupled with socio-demographic, cultural, economic, institutional and bio-physical conditions may help to shape farmers’ decisions to pass on the gift (Chilonda and Van Huylenbroeck 2001).

Socio-demographic factors, including age, education and gender are expected to influence farmers’ decision to pass on livestock gifts to others in the community. For instance, better educated farmers are more likely to use formal extension sources on animal husbandry (in this case SACR veterinary service) and therefore improving the probability of passing on the gift (Gebremedhin et al 2006). Since older male farmers generally attend extension meetings, they are likely to have a higher probability of passing on the gift when compared to women. A priori, farmers holding a positive attitude towards veterinary extension services are more likely to use such services for various aspects related to animal husbandry (Catley et al 2004). Feed availability enhances livestock growth, resilience against diseases and increasing the chances for survival (Bidoli et al 2012). Furthermore, it enhances the probability of calving among livestock. Higher income households are likely to have better access to animal health care services as well as veterinary drugs, increasing the likelihood of passing on the gift. This paper examined the socio-demographic factors affecting rural farmers’ decision to pass on the gift to other members of the community in Kayonza and Rwamagana districts of Rwanda. The analysis also considered the type and frequency of SACR veterinary extension services provided in the two districts.

Materials and methods

Description of study sites

SACR project was implemented in 11 districts including Gasabo, Kicukiro, Rwamagana, Kayonza, Kirehe, Bugesera, Nyanza, Huye, Gisagara, Nyaruguru and Rulindo. Due to limited financial resources faced by researchers, Kayonza and Rwamagana districts were randomly selected using random numbers from the sampling frame. Each of the 11 districts was assigned a random number and then a selection of two districts was conducted. Rwamagana district is located in Rwanda’s Eastern Province on an estimated surface area of 690 km² (Rwamagana District Development Plan [DDP] 2013-2018). As of 2012, there were 310,238 people in 14 sectors of the district. Agriculture is the main economic activity done on predominantly loamy soils. The major crops grown include maize, pineapple, rice, banana and coffee (Rwamagana DDP 2013-2018). Tropical climatic conditions are conducive for crop and livestock production.

Kayonza district is also located in Eastern Province on a total land area of about 2,000km² (Kayonza 2013). It is an agrarian district with main crops including beans, avocado, pepper and papaya while livestock include cattle, sheep and goats. The climate is tropical with a minimum and maximum temperature of 18 and 26 degrees Celsius respectively. Precipitation varies between 1000 and 2000mm per annum (Kayonza 2013). In 2012, Kayonza district had 346,751 people domiciled in 12 sectors (Kayonza District Gender Statistics Report 2013). The map of Kayonza and Rwamagana districts is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Map of Rwamagana and Kayonza districts (Rwanda Provinces maps 2012)

Population and sampling

Beneficiaries who received cattle were selected on the basis of a community-designed poverty assessment criteria and mostly included widows, orphan-headed households, those living with HIV/AIDS and disabled people (SACR Report 2009). There were 335 households that received cattle in Rwamagana district whereas 205 households had received both cattle and goats in Kayonza district. Furthermore, participants were members of local cooperative associations. Cooperatives in Kayonza district were Twiyubake, Ngwinurebe, Rukara and Giramata Kabarondo. In Rwamagana district, there were nine cooperatives, namely Abakundamurimo, Abakoranabushake, Ababerarugo, Dukorerigihugu, Imbarutso, Dushyigikirane, Twizerane, Tuzamurane-Muyumbu 1 and Duteraninkunga-Muyumbu II. Participants received training in areas of animal husbandry; organic farming and environmental protection before and after the animals were provided. In addition, they were assisted to construct sheds for livestock as a revolving loan. Other offered support was in the form of field visits, artificial insemination, pregnancy diagnosis, vaccination, dehorning and disease identification and control.

A multi-stage sampling framework consisting of three stages was used. In the first stage, two districts were randomly selected from 11 participating districts. The second stage involved proportionate allocation sampling to determine the number of people to interview in each cooperative. In the third stage, a random selection of members using lists in each cooperative was done. Using 540 participants as the sampling frame from the two districts, a sample of 82 respondents were selected guided by Kothari (1985).

Data-collection methods

A structured survey questionnaire was the main tool for collecting primary data. However, it was complimented by key informant interviews with the SACR extension staff as well as examination of farmer records. The questionnaire consisted of both open and closed ended questions focusing on socio-demographic data, SARC support activities, evaluation of received veterinary extension services, animal husbandry practices and access to livestock feeding regimes. A five-point Likert scale ranging from very good to very poor was used to rate the veterinary services offered by SACR, private and public extension workers. Key informant interviews with SACR extension staff included aspects related to extension services received by farmers through SACR staff in terms of production, animal husbandry, breeding, repayment of shed loans, passing on the gifts and animal health. Both the survey questionnaires and key informant interviews were in English but were later translated into Kinyarwanda, the vernacular language.

Data-analysis

A combination of descriptive and inferential statistics was used to analyze the data. Categorical data variables such as education, marital status and age were summarized using frequencies and percentages while continuous variables, including age were summarized using means. To identify the factors that influence a given respondent’s transfer of the livestock gift, a binary logistic regression model was used. The dependent variable had a value of one if the beneficiary had passed on the gift to a secondary beneficiary (i.e. provided a calf) and zero - if he/she did not. Using the conceptual framework, it was hypothesized that this decision was influenced by a number of independent variables that include gender, education, age, frequency of SACR extension visits and farmers’ satisfaction with extension services. Other factors such as climatic conditions are also important in influencing feed availability and the occurrence of diseases (Degu 2012). Farmers in this study were faced with roughly similar climatic and disease conditions and this variable was not included in the econometric model. Following Wooldridge (2000) and Ramanathan (2002), the model was specified as follows:

Where:

Z_i = probability of passing on the gift for the i^th observation.

i = 1, 2,.. n observations.

β₀ = a constant.

β_i = regression parameters to be estimated.

X_i = set of independent variables.

U_i = error term.

Limitation of the study

According to central limit theorem, a larger sample size has a lower error (Gujarati and Porter 2009). Due to limited financial resources, a relatively small sample size was used which may have affected our parameter estimates.

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics

A total of 50 respondents were interviewed in Rwamagana district while 32 farmers from Kayonza district where included in the survey. In terms of gender, 66% of the beneficiaries in Rwamagana were females and 34% were male. Similarly, 63% of the participants in Kayonza district were female whereas 37% were male. Women therefore accounted for two thirds of the number of interviewed households in both districts. The majority of beneficiaries domiciled in Rwamagana district were older than 50 years (48%) followed by those aged between 41 and 50 years (32%). Most respondents in Kayonza district were aged between 41 and 50 years (56%) while individuals aged above 50 years accounted for 25% of sampled households in the district. Most respondents were married (61%) and 34 % were widows and 5% were single. However, Rwamagana district had a greater percentage of widows participating in the SACR program (27%). In Rwamagana district, 72% had completed primary school and 20% never attended school. The remaining percentage had attempted three years after primary school but did not complete their studies. A comparable pattern in educational attainment was observed in Kayonza district where 72% had primary level education, 13% never attended school, 9% had three years of post primary education and the remaining proportion had secondary or vocational qualifications.

Characterization of veterinary extension activities

Several issues related to SACR veterinary extension services were considered including the types of support received, nature of training, alternative forms of veterinary extension that were accessible to farmers and farmers’ overall evaluation of the services received. On average, beneficiaries had stayed with their livestock for a period of five years and only 9% had experienced mortality. While all farmers had been trained by SACR, there was a large variation in terms the frequency of visits by SACR veterinary extension personnel. Each SACR veterinary extension worker had about 180 farmers in his/her jurisdiction and planned an average of nine farmer visits per day in their respective zones. About 56% of the farmers in Rwamagana district rarely received SACR based-veterinary extension support and the remaining 44% indicated receiving veterinary officers once every month. A higher percentage of livestock farmers (72%) rarely had access to the same services in Kayonza district and 19% had never seen a veterinary extension officer from SACR. About 68% of the livestock beneficiaries rated SACR based-veterinary extension services as either poor or very poor.

Two thirds of the respondents were trained in various facets of animal husbandry including fodder conservation (Table 1). The training programs were categorized into two sessions, namely pre- and post-handover topics on animal husbandry. The pre-handover training was conducted before the animal placement. After receiving the animals, farmers also received training in different areas of animal husbandry. The majoriry of beneficiaries in Rwamagana were trained only once per year (36%). However, a greater proportion were trained three times per year in Kayonza district (68%).

As a result of the percieved inadequacy of veterinary extension services rendered, most farmers in Rwamagana (32%) and Kayonza (50%) sought the assistance of private veterinary agents (Table 2).

Most farmers obtained information on veterinary drugs from local shop dealers (72%). Only 11% got advice from private extension workers. Typically, private and public extension workers conducted artificial insemination, disease control and general animal inspections.

Socio-demographic determinants of passing on the gift

About 27% of the farmers had passed on the gift while the remaining beneficiaries were still to do so. Table 3 indicates the results of a binary logistic regression model on the factors influencing farmers’ probability of passing on the gift to secondary beneficiaries.

The frequency of SACR veterinary extension services, farmers’ satisfaction with SACR veterinary extension services and the number of calves born had a positive and significant effect on the probability of passing on the gift to secondary beneficiaries (p<0 .05). However, gender, age, education and the feeding regime were statistically insignificant (p>0.05). Supplementary feeds involved the provision of maize crop residues and fodder from agro-forestry species such as napier grass in addition to allowing livestock to graze on natural pasture. Farmers who indicated that they received SACR veterinary extension services, though rarely, were 95% likely to pass on the gift compared individuals who had not received any kind of support, ceteris paribus. In addition, respondents’ positive perception of the overall quality of SACR veterinary services increased the probability of passing on the gift by 99%, holding other factors constant. Having an additional calf born increased the likely of passing on the gift by 8%, holding other factors constant. The Wald chi2 value for the model was 380 (p< < 0.05) implying that the model was valid.

Discussion

Study outputs showed that most farmers had primary level of education, mostly women and above 50 years of age. These findings are consistent with EICV3 District level analysis which observed that close to 80% of the people in Kayonza and Rwamagana districts had attended some type of school. An understanding of the farmers’ socio-demographic environment is important since it has a bearing on household decision making related to livestock activities (Mehta and Heinen 2001; Tomićević et al 2010).

According to the SACR project framework, livestock recipients were required to pass on young stock to secondary beneficiaries as a way of sustaining the long term benefits for the community. While the process of passing on the gift had started among beneficiaries in Kayonza and Rwamagana districts, a large majority of them had not done so. This was despite the fact that all beneficiaries’ cows had at least 2 calves since the start of the project. Study findings suggested that the probability of passing on the gift would be increased by almost 100% if the frequency of veterinary extension was increased. This finding is in line with related studies that showed the centrality of veterinary extension in animal husbandry (Topps and Oliver 1993; Ngongoni et al 2006). Emphasis should, however, be placed on the quality SACR veterinary services (Turkson and Brownie 1999; Chapman and Tripp 2003; Ali et al 2011) because farmers were underserved considering that they were trained once to three times per year.

A large proportion of the beneficiaries (68%) were not satisfied with the level of veterinary extension services from SACR. This was mostly a result of the perceived inadequate veterinary support services. Farmer satisfaction with SACR is important since it is likely to influence their understanding of project. In this regard, it may be prudent to encourage frequent refresher training courses among SACR veterinary extension officers, who will in turn, train participants about the objectives of the project. Such an approach may help to build community trust and instill a positive image of SACR among rural farmers (Toledano and Lapinid 2010).

In view of long-term project sustainability, the depth and girth of SACR veterinary extension services may be also improved exploring complimentary services of community animal health workers (Mugunieri et al 2002; Catley et al 2004). The use of a broad range of veterinary extension services is consistent with the government of Rwanda’s animal production policy which reiterates the need for decentralizing animal health care and capacity building of animal health care providers (Butera and Rutagwenda 2004).

FindiFindings also indicated that calving enhanced the chances of passing on stock to other beneficiaries in the community. The concept of passing on the gift is dependent on calving rates among the livestock. However, calving is complex since it is affected by many factors including feed availability, artificial insemination and disease management (Chatikobo et al 2009). These aspects may be emphasized in SACR training programs for long-term sustainability.

Conclusions, recommendations and implications

• The research indicated that the primary beneficiaries’ probability of passing on the gift was positively and significantly influenced by calving, frequency and quality of SACR veterinary extension services.
  
  
• Given that the current SACR veterinary extension system was viewed as inadequate and of low quality by farmers, there is need to improve the services by focusing on the number of veterinary extension agents available to conduct day to day activities with farmers. This could be achieved by greater follow-up on roles and responsibilities of existing veterinary officers in the project. However, regular training on vaccination, artificial insemination, disease and feed management are required to ensure that the quality of service meets farmers’ expectations.
  
  
• There is also a need to consider developing a formal arrangement with complementary veterinary services such as sector veterinarians as well as community based animal health care workers. Since some farmers had not passed on the gift despite having obtained their first female calves, this may suggest that farmers have not understood the broader thrust of the project which is anchored on community sharing of livestock resources. In this regard, there is need to emphasize farmer involvement at all stages of the project framework from planning to the eventual passing of livestock to other members of the local community.
  
  
• WhilsWhilst the econometric models developed in this research mostly captured socio-demographic parameters, some important variables such as genetic and climatic factors were not explicitly considered even though they are part of the error term. In this regard, future research may emphasize on these factors and how they impact passing on the gift among farmers.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the help from local district offices in Rwamagana and Kayonza as well as the farmers who participated in the research.

References

Achioja F O, Ike P C and Akporhuarcho P O 2010 Economics of Veterinary services Delivery in a Market Driven Economy: Evidence from Delta State, Nigeria. International Journal of Poultry Science 9(12): 140-145. Retrived June, 1, 2015 from http://www.pjbs.org/ijps/fin1383.pdf.

Adamu M, Naidoo V and Eloff J N 2013 Efficacy and toxicity of thirteen plant leaf acetone extracts used in ethnoveterinary medicine in South Africa on egg hatching and larval development of Haemonchus contortus. BMC veterinary research 9(1): 38: 1-8. doi: 10.1186/1746-6148-9-38.

Adesiji G B, Olujide M G, Adesiji Y O, Orogun O P and Komolafe S E 2013 Comparative analysis of public and private veterinary services delivery among commercial poultry farmers in delta state, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 15(7): 12-28. Retrieved April, 5, 2013 fromhttp://www.jsd-africa.com/Jsda/Vol15No7-Winter2013A/PDF.

Ahmed M H and Khalid A G A 2013 Training needs assessment of extensionists in Gezira scheme, Sudan. Journal of Science and Technology 14(1): 52-60. Retrieved March 6, 2014 from http://www.gmsudan.com/20140320/training-needs-assessment-extensionists-gezira-scheme-sudan/.

Ali S, Ahmad M and Ali T 2011 Strengths and weaknesses of various information delivery methods used by Private Agricultural Extension System in the Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of Agricultural Research 49(2): 15-21. Retrieved February, 9, 2013 from http://www.researchgate.net/publication/236156360.

Anandajayasekeram P, Davis K E and Workneh S 2007 Farmer field schools: an alternative to existing extension systems? Experience from Eastern and Southern Africa. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 14(1): 81-93. Retrieved January 13, 2015 from https://www.aiaee.org/attachments/article/125/Anandajayasekeram%2014.1-7.pdf.

Bidoli T D, Isa A G, Shehu B, Kezi D M and Abdullahi M Y 2013 Assessment of the Effects of Climate Change on Livestock Husbandry and Practices in Jigawa State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension 16(1): 20-30. Retrieved July, 17, 2015 from http://www.ajol.info/index.php/jae/article/view/84505.

Brooks J, Filipski M, Jonasson E and Taylor J E 2011 Modelling the distributional implications of agricultural policies in developing countries: the development policy evaluation model (DEVPEM) (No. 50). OECD Publishing. Retrieved July, 17, 2015 from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/workingpaper/5kg26l5kjp22-en.

Butera J and Rutagwenda T 2004 Animal production sub-sector. Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources, Republic of Rwanda. Retrieved fromhttp://betuco.be/rwanda/Animal%20production%20rwanda.pdf.

Catley A, Leyland T, Mariner J C, Akabwai D M O, Admassu B, Asfaw W, Bekele G and Hassan HS 2004 Para-veterinary professionals and the development of quality, self-sustaining community-based services. Revue scientifique et technique-Office international des épizooties 23(1): 225-252. Retrieved June, 8, 2015 fromhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15200100.

Chapman R and Tripp R 2003 Changing incentives for agricultural extension: A review of privatised extension in practice. AgREN Publication No. 132. Overseas Development Institute. London: ODI. Retrieved April, 7, 2015 from http://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/5192.pdf.

Chatikobo P, Manzi M, Kagarama J, Rwemarika J D and Umunezero O 2009 Benchmark study on husbandry factors affecting reproductive performance of smallholder dairy cows in the Eastern Province of Rwanda. Livestock research for rural development, Volume 21, Article # 83 Retrieved August, 4, 2015 from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd21/6/cont2106.htm.

Chilonda P and Van Huylenbroeck G 2001 A conceptual framework for the economic analysis of factors influencing decision-making of small-scale farmers in animal health management. Revue Scientifique et Technique-Office International des Epizooties 20(3): 687-695. Retrieved January, 17, 2015 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11732411.

Chizari M and Noorabadi R 1999 Perceived learning needs and program delivery preferences of ranchers in Noorabad Township of Luristan Province, Iran. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 6(3): 41-47. Retrieved January, 17, 2015 from https://www.aiaee.org/attachments/article/348/Chizari-2-Vol-6.3-5.pdf.

Davis K 2008 Extension in sub-Saharan Africa: Overview and assessment of past and current models and future prospects. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 15(3): 15-28. Retrieved January, 17, 2015 from http://www.lbl.ch/fileadmin/10_International.

Degu G 2012 Assessment of the livestock extension service in Ethiopia: the case of southern region. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research 1(10): 24-30. Retrieved January, 17, 2015 from http://www.ijstr.org/final-print/nov2012/.

De Vries J 2008 Goats for the poor: Some keys to successful promotion of goat production among the poor. Small Ruminant Research 77(2): 221-224.

Doss C R 2006 Analyzing technology adoption using microstudies: limitations, challenges and opportunities for improvement. Agricultural Economics 34(3): 207-219.

FAO 2011 World Livestock 2011 – Livestock in food security. Rome, FAO. Retrieved January, 17, 2015 from http://www.fao.org.

FAO 2013 World Livestock 2013 – Changing disease landscapes. Rome, FAO. Retrieved January, 17, 2015 from http://www.fao.org.

FAOSTAT 2013 Production Statistics. Rome, FAO. Retrieved August, 4, 2015 from http://faostat3.fao.org/download/Q/QA/E.

Foti R, Nyakudya I, Moyo M, Chikuvire J and Mlambo N 2007 Determinants of farmer demand for" fee-for-service" extension in Zimbabwe: the case of Mashonaland Central province. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 14(1): 95-104. Retrieved May, 6, 2015 fromhttps://www.aiaee.org/index.php/vol-141.

Gabalebatse M, Ngwenya B N, Teketay D and Kolawole O D 2013 Ethno-veterinary practices amongst livestock farmers in Ngamiland District, Botswana. African Journal of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicines, 10(3): 490-502.

Gebremedhin B, Hoekstra D and Tegegne A 2006 Commercialization of Ethiopian agriculture: Extension service from input supplier to knowledge broker and facilitator. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi. Retrieved February, 12, 2015 from https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/564/CommerciaIPMSWorkingPaper_1.pdf?sequence=1.

Gujarati D N and Porter D C 2009 Basic econometrics. New York, The McGraw-Hill.

Hakizimana P 2007 Rwanda agricultural extension system: Operation and funding modalities. UN-ECA EA-SRO, 11th Session of the Inter-governmental committee of experts (ICE) meeting, Bujumbura, Burundi, from 16-19 April 2007.

Holden S, Ashley S and Bazeley P 1996 Improving the Delivery of Animal Health Services in Developing Countries. A Literature Review. Livestock in Development, A report to Overseas Development Administration (UK). Retrieved January, 5, 2015 from http://www.theidlgroup.com/documents/ImprovingthedeliveryofAnimalHelathServicesinDevelopingCountries.pdf.

IFAD 2011 Enabling the rural poor to overcome poverty in Rwanda. Retrieved January, 12, 2015 fromhttp://betuco.be/rwanda/Rural%20poverty%20in%20Rwanda.pdf.

Ilukor J, Birner R, Rwamigisa P B and Nantima N 2014 Analysis of Veterinary Service Delivery in Uganda: An Application of the Process Net-Map Tool. University of Hohenheim, Germany. Retrieved April, 10, 2015 from https://fsc.uni-hohenheim.de/107274.

Karodia A M 2013 A case study of the management of veterinary animal health services in the Erstwhile Bophuthatswana: Relevance to rural development in South Africa. International Journal of Development and Sustainability 2(2): 1247-1262. Retrieved June, 6, 2015 fromhttp://isdsnet.com/ijds-v2n2-60.pdf.

Kayonza district gender statistics report 2013 National institute of statistics of Rwanda, Gender monitoring office. Republic of Rwanda. Retrieved June, 6, 2015 from http://www.statistics.gov.rw.

Kayonza 2013 District potentialities assessment for the integrated and self-centered local economic development. Republic of Rwanda. Retrieved June, 6, 2015 from http://www.kayonza.gov.rw.

Kothari C R 1985 Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. New Delhi, Wishva Parakashan.

Lee D R 2005 Agricultural sustainability and technology adoption: Issues and policies for developing countries. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(5): 1325-1334.

Matekaire T and Bwakura T M 2004 Ethnoveterinary medicine: A potential alternative to orthodox animal health delivery in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Applied Research in Veterinary Medicine 2(4): 269-273. Retrieved February, 5, 2015 fromhttp://www.jarvm.com/articles/Vol2Iss4/MatekaireIJARVMVol2No4.pdf.

McCorkle, C M and Mathias-Mundy E 1992 Ethnoveterinary medicine in Africa. Africa 62(1): 59-93.

Mehta J N and Heinen J T 2001 Does community-based conservation shape favorable attitudes among locals? An empirical study from Nepal. Environmental management 28(2): 165-177.

Michailidis A 2007 Agricultural extension services in the mountain areas of Greece. Journal of International Agricultural Extension and Education 14(1): 71-80.

MINAGRI 2007 Strategic Plan for Agricultural Transformation in Rwanda. Document prepared by GECAD, Kigali, Rwanda.

Morton J and Wilson R T 2000 The institutional marginality of livestock production extension: the case of Burkina-Faso. Livestock Research for Rural Development, Volume 12, Article # 6 Retrieved March, 8, 2015 from http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd12/1/mor121.htm.

Mugunieri, L G, Omiti, J M and Irungu, P 2002 Animal Health Service Delivery Systems in Kenya s Marginal Areas under Market Liberalization: A Case for Community-Based Animal Health Workers. IFPRI Report 3, October 2002.

Mwale M, Bhebhe E, Chimonyo M and Halimani T E 2005 Use of herbal plants in poultry health management in the Mushagashe small-scale commercial farming area in Zimbabwe. International Journal of Applied Research in Veterinary Medicine 3(2): 163-170. Retrieved July, 17, 2015 fromhttp://www.jarvm.com/articles/Vol3Iss2/MWALE.pdf.

Ngongoni N T, Mapiye C, Mwale M and Mupeta B 2006 Factors affecting milk production in the smallholder dairy sector of Zimbabwe. Livestock research for rural development, Volume 18, Article # 72 Retrieved July, 17, 2015 from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd27/7/notestoauthors.htm.

Nshimiyimana J and Mutandwa E 2010 Seasonal dynamics and distribution of ticks in Rwanda: implications for tick control strategy in Rwanda. International Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 2(1): 21-25. Retrieved July, 17, 2015 from http://www.maxwellsci.com/jp/abstract.php?jid=IJAVA&no=33&abs=05.

RAB 2013 National Dairy Strategy. MINAGRI Report. Retrieved July, 17, 2015 fromhttp://www.rab.gov.rw/IMG/pdf/2013_National_Dairy_Stratey.pdf.

RAB 2006 Proposal to distribute a cow to every poor family in Rwanda. Rwanda Agriculture Board. Retrieved July, 17, 2015 from http://www.rab.gov.rw/IMG/pdf/Girinka_Program_Concept_Proposal_May_2006.pdf.

Ramanathan R 2002 Introductory Econometrics with Applications. (5th ed.). Fort Worth, Harcourt College Publishers.

Rawlins R, Pimkina S, Barrett C B, Pedersen S and Wydick B 2014 Got milk? The impact of Heifer International’s livestock donation programs in Rwanda on nutritional outcomes. Food Policy 44: 202-213.

Rwamagana DDP 2013 District Development Plan 2013-2018. Retrieved July, 17, 2015 from http://www.rwamagana.gov.rw.

Rwanda Provinces maps 2012 National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda. Retrieved August, 4, 2015 from http://statistics.gov.rw/geodata.

Rivera W M 2008 The 'business' of the public sector: Extension in Transition and the balance of powers. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education, 15(2): 19-31.

SACR Report 2009 Annual Report. Send-a-Cow Rwanda Publication 2009.

Sen A and Chander M 2003 Privatization of veterinary services in developing countries: a review. Tropical animal health and production 35(3): 223-236.

Steyn H C, McCrindle C M E and Du Toit D 2010 Veterinary extension on sampling techniques related to heartwater research. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association, 81(3): 160-165.

Swanson B E and Samy M M 2002 Developing an extension partnership among public, private and nongovernmental organizations. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education 9(1): 5-10. Retrieved July, 17, 2015 from https://www.aiaee.org/attachments/249_Swanson,-Vol-9.1.pdf.

Taylor J E and Adelman I 2003 Agricultural household models: genesis, evolution and extensions. Review of Economics of the Household 1(1-2): 33-58.

Toledano L S and Lapinid M R C 2010 A neglected dimension in service-learning pedagogy: developing projects from the perspective of rural community stakeholders. Educational Research for Policy and Practice 9(1): 41-57.

Tomićević J, Shannon M A and Milovanović M 2010 Socio-economic impacts on the attitudes towards conservation of natural resources: Case study from Serbia. Forest Policy and Economics 12(3): 157-162.

Topps J H and Oliver J 1993 Animal foods of Central Africa. Zimbabwe Agricultural Journal, Technical Handbook number 2. Modern Farming Publications, Harare, Zimbabwe: 76-105.

Toro E M and Place N T 2004 Perceptions of Livestock Extension Education Delivery among Dairy Producers in the North Coast of Honduras. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference on AIAEE (pp. 450-459). Retrieved July, 17, 2015 from https://www.aiaee.org/attachments/article/1131/108.pdf.

Turkson P K and Brownie C F 1999 Perceived constraints to privatization of delivery of veterinary services in Ghana. Tropical animal health and production 31(2): 103-114.

van Veen, T W S and de Haan C 1995 Trends in the organization and financing of livestock and animal health services. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 25(2): 225-240.

VSO Rwanda 2012 Education Program briefing pack. Retrieved from http://www.vsointernational.org/images/vso-rwanda-education-programme_briefing-pack_tcm76-37212.pdf.

Woolridge J M 2000 Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Southwestern, OH, Thomson.

Received 20 July 2015; Accepted 8 August 2015; Published 1 September 2015

Go to top