aistand south~ern afrkca - (PDF, 101 mb) - USAID

Table 4. Rock development atSUA expeimental farm (female only).
Pure Norwegian Ten Norwegian crosses
Adults Kids Total Adults Kids *Tital
1983 0 161 16 0 0 0
1984 16 411 57 0 0 0
1985 43 22 65 3 29 32
1986 39 4 43 27 9 36
1987 17 1 18 33 39 75
1988 13 0 134 612 282 89
1989 0 0 0 773 263 103
1992 - - - 825 38 120
1. In 1983 and 1984, 16 and 41 female goat kids were imported from Norway.
2. Excludes 10 pregnant does transferred to Mgeta in 1988.
3. Excludes 10 pregnant does transferred to Mgeta in 1990.
4. Three more females died and remaining transferred tu Mgeta.
5. Excludes about 25 females culled.
Table 5. Development of the female flock In
Mgeta from the oiginal20half-breeds
and 10 pure Norwegiangoats.
Breed 1989 1990 June
19921.2.3
Pure Norwegian
Adult 7 5 0
Kids 3 2
Total 10 7
87.5%and9.5 Norwegian
2
2
Adult 0 0
Aidul 0 0
Kids 0 2
Total 0 2 18
75.0% Norwegian
Adult 0 6
KIds 7 16
Total 7 22 25
50% Norwegian
Adult 10 22
Kids 2 5
Overall 12 27 15
Total 129 5 60
1. Plus 21 male bucks to be sold In 1992.
2. Since the project started, 54 males (75%
Norwegian and above) and 13 females have
boon sold for breeding.
3. 25 people have used the project bucks to
upgrade their local goats.
Mgeta (on-farm)
The goat research and develonment at Mgeta has
been more successful and this can be attributed
to the positive affects of climate on the heait , of
the animals, forage quality and feed intake.
Excellent management by the farmers was also
a contributing factor. This management (Table 3)
has been developed gradually through continuous
close contact and dialogue between the
farmers, the SUA staff and the extension
workers. The training itinerary included intro-
78
ductory courses on goat husbandry and health
(five days) after farmer selection.
Farmers training encompassed various topics
including goat management, feeding and
pasture, breeding, economics, milk by-products
and record keeping (three days for each topic).
Other aspects of the training were on advanced
animal health (14 days twice a year At SUA).
Hand-outs on most areas of dairy goat keeping
in the Kiswahili language were also given and
monthly visits were organised to facilitate
exchange of views and advice. The effectiveness
of researcher/farmer linkages was due to the
small number of farmers involved. The interest
shown by the farmers themselves and the fact
that the area had no dairy cattle was of special
significance to the project. Experiences
elsewhere in Tanzania have shown that people
will tend not to milk goats if they have cows.
When the responsibility of the project was
handed over to the farmers, the cnstruction and
maintenance ofthe goat houses, purchases ofthe
animals (US$ 20-30) and their feeding became
tht ir responsibility. The role of SUA researchers
subpequently remained more in the area of
organisation, training and advice, with the
details of implementation being left to the
farmers, individual decision and ideas. In 1990,
the dairy goat farmers at Mgeta organised a
dairy goat keepers society, where acaricides,
disinfectants, antihelminthics, feeds and lime
and salt are procured and sold by the society to
goat keepers inside and outside the project.
Since the project asumed full responsibility
of the breeding programmes the bucks at the
three centres belong to the project. Overall
distribution of dairy goats to farmers outside the
dsrbto fdiygast amr usd h
project in Mgeta has been slow, mainly due to
three fundamental reasons: although breeding
bucks had been stationed in three different
villages for communal use in the up-grading of
local goats, farmers felt that this phase was too
long a process. Secondly, some farmers waited to
receive goats from SUA erroneously believing