DAIRY PRODUCTION IN COASTAL KENYA: THE CURRENT ...

DAIRY PRODUCTION IN COASTAL KENYA: THE 

CURRENT STATUS 

Ramadhan, A., J.N. Kiura and M.N. Njunie 

KENYA AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE 

KARI – MTWAPA 

P.O. Box 16 (80109) 

MTWAPA 

Tel/Fax: 0202024751 

E-mail: karimtw@kari.org 

Session: Livestock Health and Production 

1 Presenter and corresponding author 

A paper prepared for the 11 th KARI Biennial Scientific Conference, 10-14 November 2008 at KARI Headquarters

Status of Dairy Production in Coastal Kenya 

Ramadhan et. al 

DAIRY PRODUCTION IN COASTAL KENYA: THE CURRENT STATUS 

Ramadhan, A., J.N. Kiura and M.N. Njunie 

ABSTRACT 

A study to collect livestock baseline information was conducted in Kilifi and Kwale districts of Coast 

province in 2006. The aim was to get updated information to enable livestock stakeholders develop 

focused interventions on the relevant constraints. Questionnaires were administered to farmers in 

coastal lowland (CL) agro-ecological zones 3, 4 and 5 in Kilifi and Kwale districts. Results indicated 

that natural pastures was the main source of forage for ruminants. The main cultivated fodder in CLs 3 

and 4 was Napier grass. Gliricidia and Clitoria were the main cultivated tree and herbaceous legumes, 

respectively. There were no cultivated fodders in CL5, where grazing was free range. For the farmers 

keeping livestock, the average number of specific livestock types per farmer was 12 ( ± 2) local cattle, 

4 ( ± 0) exotic cattle, and 12 ( ± 1) local goats. Exotic goat numbers ranged from 1 to 10 per 

household, with a mean of 4 ( ± 1) goats. Milk production was generally low (1.0-6.4 and 1.0-2.0 kg 

day -1 for cattle and exotic/cross goats, respectively). Commercial feed supplements were used by a few 

(9.9%) farmers in CLs 3 and 4. 

The major constraints to fodder production by farmers were drought, high labour and input costs, lack 

of planting material, and lack of technical advice. Water for livestock was a major problem especially 

during the dry season. The major diseases for cattle were tick born diseases, worm infestation and 

trypanosomiasis. In goats, the major diseases were helminthiasis, tick born diseases and pneumonia. 

Key words: Dairy production, forages, constraints 

1


INTRODUCTION 


Market oriented dairy production could be an alternative agricultural activity with higher returns to 

land and labour than the traditional export crops, for which policy and markets compel smallholder 

farmers in many parts of Africa to diversify, and whose potential growth remains uncertain (Nicholson 

et al., 1999). In the Coast province of Kenya, which is a food deficit area, dairy is ranked second to 

vegetables as an enterprise with potential for commercialisation (Mwamachi et al., 2005). Cattle are the 

main source of milk (‘Start’ document, 2008) though milk goats are also kept by some farmers for milk 

production. Farm level milk prices in the area are much higher than those paid in Kenya’s highlands 

(Thorpe et al., 1993), and milk and milk products enjoy a strong demand (Nicholson et al., 1999). 

Dairy cattle in the coastal region rely on natural pastures (Reynolds et al., 1993), mainly under the free 

grazing system (Muinga et al., 1999). Feed quantity and quality are inadequate and rarely meet the 

nutrient demands of a lactating dairy cow, especially in the dry season (Reynolds et al., 1993; 

Nicholson et al., 1999). The use of commercial concentrates is not popular among the smallholder 

dairy farmers (Muinga, 1992). Improving the feed resource will improve milk production and reduce 

the gap between the annual milk demand of 181 million litres (Statistical Abstracts, 2007) and 

production of 95.3 million litres (Anon, 2007) at the Coast. However, as milk production increases, 

regional marketing constraints such as poor infrastructure, have been experienced by farmers when 

feeds are plenty (wet season), leading to other constraints that had not been prioritized before. The 

existing baseline information for dairy cattle production systems was collected nearly two decades ago 

(1989-93) by the KARI-ILCA Project. The information on farming system, fodder and milk 

production, feeding system, and market price is bound to have changed over the years. There is need, 

therefore, for more recent information in the dairy sector for focussed interventions on the relevant 

constraints by stakeholders. The objective of this study was to collect current baseline information for 

dairy production systems in Coastal Kenya. 

2


METHODOLOGY 


Nine sites were selected in Kilifi and Kwale districts based on agro-ecological zones (AEZ) as 

described by Jaetzold and Schmidt (1983). In Kilifi, the sites were Bahari and Kikambala, in coastal 

lowland zone 3 (CL3), Tezo (CL4), and Ganze and Mwanamwinga (CL5). In Kwale, the sites were 

Msambweni and Matuga (CL3), Lungalunga (CL4), and Kinango (CL5). The cropping systems in CL3 

and CL4 are based on coconut and cashewnut tree crops, with maize and cassava staples intercropped 

with cowpeas (Thorpe et al., 1993), while CL5 is a livestock-millet zone. The annual rainfall ranges 

from 970 to 1350 mm in CL3 and from 550 to 900 mm in CL5 (Jaetzold and Schmidt, 1983). 

A cross-sectional survey on the livestock production enterprise was conducted in 2006 using formal 

questionnaires. Livestock extension officers identified the farmers who kept livestock (Lelo et al., 

1995). Stratified systematic sampling (Moser and Kalton, 1974) was used for selecting sites and 

respondents. Respondents included 161 livestock farmers; 79 in Kwale and 82 in Kilifi districts. 

Interviews were conducted by research and extension staff. Information collected from farmers 

included farm size, breeds and numbers of cattle and goats, major crops, cattle feeding method, milk 

production by cattle and goats, milk disposal, forages planted, and livestock diseases. Data were 

analysed using the General linear model (GLM) procedures of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS, 

1997) computer package to obtain descriptive statistics including means, percentages and frequencies. 

RESULTS 

Respondents 

The average age of the farmers was 56 years and was not significantly (P > 0.05) different between the 

two districts and among the three AEZs. Only 36% of the farmers had formal education, among whom 

24% had primary school education only. More farmers in Kilifi had attained formal education than in 

Kwale district (Table 1). 

Farming system 

The average farm size in the two districts was 9 acres per household. Farmers in Kwale had 

significantly (P < 0.05) larger farm sizes (mean 10 acres) than in Kilifi (mean 8 acres) district. On 

3


4 


average, farmers in CL5 had significantly (P < 0.05) larger acreages (mean 10 acres) than in CL3 and 

CL4 (mean 4 acres). Eighty percent of land ownership in CL5 was communal compared to 19 and 17% 

in CL3 and CL4, respectively. On the other hand, the percentage of freehold (14.3%) and leasehold 

(4.8%) ownerships for CL5 was comparatively lower than those of CL3 (59.5 and 20.3%) and CL4 

(67.2 and 7.3%), respectively. Only in CL3 was there a settlement scheme, constituting about 1% 

ownership. Majority (69%) of the farmers in the three AEZs were full time farmers while the others 

had off-farm occupations. Farmers kept more local than exotic/cross cattle and goat breeds. Farmers in 

CL5 kept significantly (P < 0.05) more local cattle and goats than in CLs 3 and 4 (Table 2). The 

common cattle breeds kept by farmers were Friesian (23% of the farmers), Guernsey (17%), Boran 

(17%), and their crosses with small East African Zebu. 

Feeds and feeding 

Types of fodder 

The major fodder crop grown was Napier grass. Forty six percent (46%) of the total farmers sampled 

grew Napier grass as a basal feed, all in AEZs CL3 and CL4 (59 and 41% of the farmers, respectively). 

Fifty four percent of the farmers (mostly in CL5) used natural pastures only as the basal feed. At the 

time of sampling, the Napier grass acreage per household in CL3 was significantly (P < 0.05) higher 

than in CL4 (Table 3). The acreage per household in year 2004 was 60% higher than in year 2006. The 

main Napier grass cropping system was monocropping (71.6% of farmers). Other cropping systems 

included intercropping (23%), alley cropping (2.7%) and boundary planting (2.7%). About 40% of all 

the farmers grew fodder legumes, and they were in CLs 3 and 4. There were no farmers growing 

legumes in CL5. Leucaena was the most common fodder legume planted, followed by Clitoria (Table 

4). Other fodder legumes were Mucuna (4 farmers, mean 0.4 acres), Dolichos (2 farmers, mean 0.6 

acres), and Gliricidia. There were 27 ( ± 7) Leucaena and 15 ( ± 3) Gliridicia trees per household farm. 

Feeding and source of drinking water 

The pattern of grazing for exotic/cross and local breeds of cattle and goats appeared similar in the wet 

and dry seasons. About 50% of the farmers in CL3 and CL4 mainly zero-grazed their exotic/cross



cattle but grazing was also used by 16.5% of the farmers (Table 5). Local cattle were mainly grazed 

while goats (exotic/cross, local) were grazed or tethered. The major roughages basal feeds for 

exotic/cross cattle and exotic/cross goats were natural pastures and cultivated fodders (Table 6). 

Conserved feeds (silage, hay) were hardly used. No farmer fed cultivated fodders in CL5. About 5-47% 

of the farmers fed concentrates to exotic/cross cattle and goats during both the wet and dry seasons, 

with concentrate use being more in CL3 than in CLs 4 and 5. The concentrates included maize bran 

(26% of the farmers), maize germ (5%), dairy meal (4%) and poultry waste (1%). Livestock accessed 

water from wells, rivers, dams and piped water. Distances to rivers were significantly (P < 0.05) longer 

in CL5 than in CLs 3 and 4 (Table 7). 

Milk production 

Fifty four percent and 33% of the exotic/cross and local cattle, respectively, were being milked (Table 

8). Only the exotic/cross goats (40% of goats) were being milked. There were more cattle being milked 

in CL5 than in CLs 3 and 4 (Table 8). The mean milk production ranged from 1 to 6 kg cow -1 day -1 and 

1 to 2 kg day -1 per exotic/cross goat. The local and exotic/cross cattle, and exotic/cross goats produced 

less milk per head in CL5 than in CLs 3 and 4 but the difference was not significant (P > 0.05). The 

total milk produced per household was similar (P > 0.05) across the AEZs (Table 9). Farmers in CL5 

consumed more (P < 0.05) milk in their homesteads than farmers in CLs 3 and 4. The average quantity 

of milk sold per household across the AEZs was 5.9 kg day -1 , at an average farm gate price of Ksh 26 

per kg -1 . 

Constraints 

About 3% of the farmers cited unavailability of planting material, inadequate training on fodder 

legumes, and death of their dairy cows as the reasons for not following fodder legume recommendation 

practices. Drought, labour costs, lack of planting material and lack of technical know-how were 

identified as major constraints by 41, 14, 11 and 10% of the respondents, respectively. The major 

diseases in decreasing order of importance for cattle were tick born diseases (26%), worm infestation 

5



(25%), and trypanosomiasis (20%). Important diseases for goats were worm infestation (42%), tick 

born diseases (26%), and trypanosomiasis (15%). 

DISCUSSION 

There were more local cattle and goats in CL5 (mean 22 and 29 per household, respectively) where 

land acreages were higher (mean 10 acres) than in CLs 3 and 4 where farmers owned 9 cattle and 9 

goats per household (Table 2) with mean land sizes of 4 acres. The local cattle were herded free range. 

Zero grazing was more common in CLs 3 and 4 for exotic/cross cattle where more intensive milk 

production is practiced. Between 23 and 47% of the farmers with exotic/cross cattle in CLs 3 and 4 fed 

concentrates (Table 6), mainly maize bran. Maize bran is more locally available in the coastal region 

(Muinga, 1992). However, fodder conservation technology (use of hay, silage) has not yet been 

embraced, an indication that feed scarcity is experienced in the dry season. 

Napier grass was the popularly cultivated fodder in both AEZs CL3 and 4, by 46% of the farmers. 

However, the average acreage had decreased between years 2004 (1.5 acres) and 2006 (0.9 acres) 

(Table 3). A decrease in Napier acreage in the Coastal region was also reported by Nicholson et al. 

(1999) from 1993 to 1999 and he recommended further research into the causes. Drought, high labour 

costs, technical know how and availability of planting material that were identified as major constraints 

by farmers could have probably contributed to low acreage of Napier and forage legumes. Mureithi et 

al. (1998) observed that farmers in coastal Kenya gave preference to maize when allocating farm 

resources. Fifty four percent of the farmers used natural pastures exclusively as the basal diet. The 

available forage given to livestock in zero grazing units was primarily natural pastures. As observed by 

Muinga et al. (1999), natural pastures was still the major basal diet for cattle considering that the 

National Dairy Development Programme (NDDP) recommended one acre of Napier grass per cow in a 

cut and carry system (Valk cited by Muinga et al., 1999). Cultivated legumes like Leucaena, Clitoria 

and Gliricidia were found to have reached the smallholder farm level, probably as a result of intensified 

dairy technologies promotion and improved research-extension linkages. Zero grazing of the 

6



exotic/cross cattle in CLs 3 and 4 by a high proportion of farmers (32-63%) could have resulted due to 

the introduction of the zero grazing system by the NDDP (Valk cited by Muinga et al., 1999). 

Over a half (54%) of the exotic/coss cattle were being milked and were producing about three times (6 

kg cow -1 day -1 ) more than the local cattle (Table 8). Though a higher number of local than exotic/cross 

cattle were kept (mean 12 and 4 per household, respectively), the proportion being milked (33%) and 

their low mean milk production (1.5 kg cow -1 day -1 ) suggested that more upgrading of local cattle is 

needed for better milk production. Farmers from CLs 3 and 4 did not go far to fetch water for their 

livestock compared to those in CL5, probably because of more development of water infrastructure in 

those areas. Besides low quality and quantity of forage available, prevalent livestock diseases like tick 

born, helminthiasis and trypanosomiasis could have contributed to low milk production per cow. 

CONCLUSION 

Natural pastures was the main source of forage for ruminants in the Coastal region. The milk 

production level per cow was still low; 1-6 kg cow day -1 and 1-2 kg goat -1 day -1 from the exotic/cross 

goats. Inadequate forage conservation and concentrate use, livestock diseases in all the AEZs and long 

distances to drinking water for livestock in CL5 could contribute to poor milk production. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Baseline information generated could be the basis for future research/development activities in the 

region to review the use of cultivated fodder crops in CL5 vis-a-viz the grazing systems prevailing in 

those areas. Feed conservation, and upgrading local cattle for more milk need to be emphasized. Water 

should be made more available in CL5 by digging of water pans. 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The authors thank the Director KARI for financial assistance to conduct this work and for permission 

to publish these results. They are indebted to the Centre Director, KARI Mtwapa for logistic and 

technical support. They are very grateful to Kilifi and Kwale District Livestock Extension Staff for 

7



facilitating meetings between the farmers with the research staff. The work by Mr. G. Furaha on data 

input is highly appreciated. 

REFERENCES 

Anon. (Anonymous). (2007). Annual Report, Coast Province. Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries 

Development. 

Jaetzold, R. and Schmidt, H. (1983). Farm Management Handbook of Kenya, Volume IIC. East Kenya 

(Eastern and Coast Provinces). Farm Management Branch, Ministry of Agriculture, Nairobi, Kenya. 

Juma, H. (2005). The effect of supplementing maize stover and Napier grass with Clitoria, Gliricidia or 

Mucuna on intake, diet digestibility and milk yield of lactating jersey cows in Coastal lowland Kenya. 

MSc. Thesis, Egerton University, Kenya. 

Lelo, F., Ayieko, J., Makenzi, P., Muhia, N., Njeremani, D., Muiruri, H., Omollo, J. and Ochola, W. 

(1995). A PRA Field Handbook for Participatory Rural Appraisal Practitioners. 

Moser, C. and Kalton, G. (1974). Survey methods in social investigations. Second edition. Heinemann 

Educational Books Ltd, London. 

Muinga R. W. (1992). Nutrition and performance of dairy cows in coastal lowland Kenya in relation to 

utilisation of local feed resources. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Agriculture, University of Aberdeen, 

U.K. 

Muinga, R. W., Bimbuzi, S and Mambo, L. C. (1999). Nutrient composition of locally available 

feedstuffs in coastal lowland Kenya. In: Kenya Agricultural Research Institute. Proceedings of the 6 th 

Biennial KARI Conference, Nairobi, Kenya, 8-13 November 1998. pp. 287-293. 

Mureithi, J. G., Njunie, M. N., Muinga, R. W., Ali, R., Thorpe, W. and Mwatate, C. D. (1998). Factors 

affecting adoption of planted forages in coastal Kenya. Tropical Grasslands. 32:221-229. 

Mwamachi, D. M., Muli, B. M., Ndung’u, J. M., Muinga, R. W. and Kiura, J. (2005). Report on 

Research Priorities for KARI Mtwapa mandate area (coastal lowland Kenya). November 2005. 

Nicholson, C. F., Thornton, P.K., Mohammed, L., Muinga, R. W., Mwamachi, D. M., Elbasha, E. H., 

Staal, S.J. and Thorpe, w. (1999). Smallholder dairy technology in Coastal Kenya. An adoption and 

impact study by ILRI, December 1999. 

Reynolds, L., Mureithi, G., Mullins, G., and Thorpe, W. (1993). Food resource availability and milk 

production on smallholder dairy farms in the sub-humid coastal region of Kenya. In: Animal 

Production in Developing Countries. Proceedings of the meeting held at Ashford, UK, 2-4 September 

1991. British Society of Animal Production, Occasional Publication No. 16, pp158-159. 

Start (state of the art) document (2008). State of the art document for KARI-Mtwapa, January 2000 to 

December 2007. Internal report No. 29. Eds Njunie, M. N., Saha, H. M., Muli, B. M. and Muinga, R. 

W. 

8



SAS (Statistical Analysis Systems Institute). 1997. Guide for personal computers, version 6 Edition. 

Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc., Cary, NC. 

Statistical Abstracts. (2007). Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. 

Thorpe, W., Chabari, F., Maloo, S., Muinga, R., Mukhebi, G., Muriithi, J., Mussukuya, E., Nyambaka, 

R., Ole Maki, M., Otieno, L., Perry, B., Rugema, E. and Wekesa. (1993). Small holder dairy production 

in coastal Kenya: resource base assessment and constraint identification. In: Animal Production in 

Developing Countries. Proceedings of the meeting held at Ashford, UK, 2-4 September 1991. British 

Society of Animal Production, Occasional Publication No. 16, pp167-168. 

9



Table 1. Percentages of farmers and their education level in Kilifi and Kwale districts 

Education level Kilifi Kwale All Districts 

No formal education 52 76 64 

Primary 33 15 24 

Secondary 10 4 7 

College 4 4 4 

University 1 0 1 

Total 100 100 100 

Table 2. Average number of cattle and goats kept per household keeping them in the three 

AEZs 

AEZ Local cattle Exotic/cross cattle Local goats Exotic/cross goats 

CL3 8 a 3 8 a 5 

CL4 10 a 4 10 a 3 

CL5 22 b 3 29 b 7 

Mean 12 4 12 4 

LSD 8.3 3.4 6.5 4.7 

CV 119 98 107 87 

LSD = least significant difference between means 

CV = coefficient of variation 

Means bearing the same superscript within a column are not significantly different (P > 0.05) 

Table 3. Napier grass acreage (acres) per household for farmers with fodder in 2004 and 2006 

AEZ Year 2004 Year 2006 

CL3 2.0 1.1 a 

CL4 0.8 0.7 b 

CL5 1.2 - 

Mean 1.5 0.9 

LSD 6.8 0.48 

CV 370 115 




Table 4. Percentages of farmers cultivating various fodder legumes in the two AEZs 

Fodder legume 

Percentage of farmers in the two AEZs 

CL3 CL4 Total 

Leucaena 13.0 6.2 19.8 

Clitoria 6.2 5.0 11.2 

Gliricidia 6.2 3.7 9.9 

Mucuna 3.7 2.5 6.2 

Dolichos 2.5 0 1.2 

10



Table 5. Percentage of farmers practising four types of feeding systems for exotic and local cattle 

and goats 

Livestock type AEZ 

Feeding system 

Free range Tethered Zero grazed Semi-zero grazed 

CL3 14 (11) 1 (1) 63 (50) 1 (1) 

Exotic/cross cattle CL4 20 (12) 5 (3) 32 (19) 7 (4) 

CL5 18 (4) - 5 (1) - 

CL3 28 (21 ) 5 (4) - - 

Local cattle CL4 50 (30) 2 (1) - 

CL5 91 (20) - - - 

CL3 3 (1) 3 (2) - - 

Exotic/cross goat CL4 3 (1) 2 (1) 2 (3) - 

CL5 5 (1) - - - 

CL3 25 (20) 28 (22) - - 

Local goats CL4 42 (25) 35 (21) - - 

CL5 59 (13) 

Note: Figures in parenthesis are number of respondents 

9 (2) 5 (1) - 

Figures within a row do not add up to 100% because not all the farmers had all the livestock types 

- Non recorded (Nil) 

Table 6. Percentage of farmers using various feed types for exotic/cross cattle and exotic/cross goats 

in wet and dry seasons in the three AEZs 

Feed 

Season AEZ Natural pastures Fodder Silage Hay Concentrates 

Cattle Goats Cattle Goats Cattle Goats Cattle Goats Cattle Goats 

CL3 52 (41) 14(11) 54 (43) 4 (3) - - - - 47 (37) 4 (3) 

Wet CL4 37 (22) 2 (1) 27 (16) 2 (1) - - - - 35 (21) 2 (1) 

CL5 9 (2) 9 (2) - - - - - - 9 (2) 5 (1) 

Mean 40 (65) 7 (12) 37 (59) 7 (12) - - - - 

CL3 33 (26) - 16 (43) - 1 (1) - 3.8 (2) - 33 (26) 4 (3) 

Dry CL4 38 (23) 5 (3) 10 (6) 2 (1) - - - - 23 (14) 5 (3) 

CL5 9 (2) 5 (1) - - - - - - 5 (1) 0 

Mean 32 (51) 2 (4) 12 (9) 1 (1) 1 (1) - 1.2 (1) - 

Note: Figures in parenthesis are number of respondents 

- Non recorded (Nil) 

11



Table 7. Average distances (km) to livestock water sources in the three AEZs 

AEZ Piped water Well River Dam 

CL3 3.6 1.0 2.9 a 0.3 a 

CL4 0.6 1.0 2.7 a 15.0 b 

CL5 0.5 - 6.9 b 7.7 ab 

Mean 1.8 1.0 3.6 7.7 

LSD 5.6 0.6 3.5 13.0 

CV 281 105 103 66 




- No wells 

Table 8. Number of cattle and goats being milked and their milk production (kg day -1 ) per household in 

the three AEZs 

AEZ Local cattle Exotic/cross cattle Exotic/cross goats 

No. being 

milked 

Production 

per cow 

No. being 

milked 

Production 

per cow 

No. being 

milked 

3 2 a 2.0 a 2 6.4 1 2 

4 3 ab 1.6 ab 2 6.4 1 2 

5 7 b 0.9 b 3 5.2 1 1 

Mean 4 1.5 2 6.2 1 1.5 

LSD 3.7 0.7 2 3.4 2 1.3 

CV 129 62 97 54 40 25 




Production 

per goat 

Table 9. Total average milk produced daily (kg) and how it is disposed per household in the three 

AEZs 

AEZ 

Total milk Milk consumed at Milk given to Milk sold 

produced 

home 

calves 

3 9.0 1.2 1.1 6.5 

4 9.2 1.5 1.4 6.3 

5 5.6 2.1 0.2 3.2 

Mean 8.6 1.5 1.1 5.9 

LSD 5.8 0.6 1.1 5.3 

CV 131 73 188 176 




12

DAIRY PRODUCTION IN COASTAL KENYA: THE CURRENT ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?