Analysis of African Swine Fever epidemiology and pig value chains to underpin design of an ASF risk management strategy on the Kenya‐Uganda borderClosing workshop of the BecA‐ILRI‐CSIRO‐AusAID project (2011‐13): Understanding ASF epidemiology as a basis for control2nd‐3rd October, 2013. Sarova PanAfric Hotel, Nairobi, Kenya

Invited Presentation:  Michel Dione, Emily Ouma, Kristina Roesel & Danilo PezoCGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish

h l h d k dStrengthening pig value chains and managing ASF risk in Uganda: identifying best bet solutions

Strengthening pig value chains and managing ASF risk in Uganda: identifying best bet solutionsrisk in Uganda: identifying best bet solutions

Michel Dione, Emily Ouma, Kristina Roesel and Danilo Pezo

BecA‐ILRI‐CSIRO‐AusAid African Swine Fever Epidemiology Project Closing Workshop, Nairobi, Kenya

Presentation outline

• Background of the  pig value chains development project in Ugandaproject in Uganda

• Rapid value chain assessment: methods and process  A i l h l h d h b d i i h i• Animal health and husbandry practices in the pig sector

• Practices, behavior associated with ASF spread in Uganda

• Process and criteria for identifying best‐bet interventionsinterventions

• Potential best‐bet interventions for animal health and managementmanagement

Importance of Pig Production in Uganda   p g g

Pig production‐ a dynamic and rapidly growing sector  in Uganda. In the h d d i d f 0 19 3 2 illi i (UBOS 2009past three decades increased from 0.19 to 3.2 million pigs (UBOS, 2009; 

FAO, 2011). 

UgandaUganda has the highest per capita consumption (3.4 kg/person/year) in has the highest per capita consumption (3.4 kg/person/year) in the regionthe region ‐‐10 times increase in the last 30 years, whereas beef is10 times increase in the last 30 years, whereas beef isthe region the region  10 times increase in the last 30 years, whereas beef is 10 times increase in the last 30 years, whereas beef is declining (FAO, 2011) declining (FAO, 2011) 

Structure of the Pig Sector in Ugandag g

A large informal subsector

• More than1.1 million households.• Backyard pig production, mainly managed by women and children, as means to diversify risk d i li lih d itand increase livelihood security.

• Tethering & scavenging are common.• In few districts peri urban small scale semi• In few districts, peri‐urban small‐scale semi‐intensive systems 

• Uncoordinated trade & transportp• Mostly unsupervised slaughter, no meat inspection in local markets, road‐side butchers

• Pork joints

Smallholder Pig Value Chains Development  project in Ugandaoject Goalproject in Ugandaoject Goal

Goal: To improve theGoal: To improve the livelihoods, incomes and assets of smallholder pigassets of smallholder pig producers, particularly women in a sustainablewomen, in a sustainable manner, through increased productivity reduced risk andproductivity, reduced risk, and improved access in pig value chainschains

Pig value chain assessment methodology:Selection of Target Sites (1)Selection of Target Sites (1) 

Step 1: Geographical targeting using GIS characterization (pig density, poverty (p g y p ylevel & market access).

Step 2: Stakeholder consultation of step 1 1 and definition of “soft” criteria1 and definition of  soft  criteria.

Step 3: Participatory selection of districts by stakeholders (Outcome Mapping & Site Selection Workshop, Oct. 2012).

Step 4: 4‐6 sub‐counties with high pig population in each selected district.population in each selected district.

Step 5: Minimum checklist to gather data for more specific site selection (parishes d ill )and villages).

Step 6: Analysis of steps 1‐4 and final site selection.

7

Selection of Target Sites (2)

District County Sub county Dominant value No of villages

List of counties and subList of counties and sub‐‐counties selected in each district, based on counties selected in each district, based on presence of dominant value chain domains, and number of villages sampledpresence of dominant value chain domains, and number of villages sampled

District County Sub‐county Dominant value chain domain

No. of villages sampled

Masaka Bukoto Kkingo Rural –rural 3Masaka Bukoto Kkingo Rural  rural 3Bukoto Kyanamukaka Rural‐rural 3Bukoto Kabonera Rural‐urban 3Masaka Municipality Kimanya‐Kyabakuza* Urban‐urban 2Masaka Municipality Katwe‐Butego* Urban‐urban 2Masaka Municipality Nyendo‐Ssenyange* Urban‐urban 2

Kamuli Bugabula Kitayunjwa Rural‐rural 2Bugabula Namwendwa Rural‐rural 2Buzaaya Bugulumbya** Rural‐rural 4

Mukono Mukono Mukono town council Urban‐urban 2Mukono Goma Urban–urban 2Mukono Kyampisi Rural‐urban 4Mukono Kyampisi Rural urban 4Mukono Ntenjeru Rural‐rural 4

35 villages selected: 18 Rural 35 villages selected: 18 Rural –– Rural, 7 Rural Rural, 7 Rural –– Urban and 10 Urban Urban and 10 Urban ‐‐ Urban   Urban   

VCA toolkit development and administration –(i) Producer level (n=1400)(i) Producer level (n=1400)General components

• Seasonal mapping including identification of cropping enterprises and pp g g pp g pregimes.

• Assessment of institutions operating in the village, community’s perception of their importance and interactionsperception of their importance and interactions.

• Objectives of pig production and identification of the pig production types and systems.

• Gender roles in pig production and marketing separate groups of men• Gender roles in pig production and marketing – separate groups of men and women to work on the following tools:

• Activity clocki i ki• Decision making

• Livelihood analysis

Specific domains• Animal health and husbandry practices• Feeding and breedingFeeding and breeding• VC mapping and marketing• Food safety, nutrition and zoonoses

VCA – (ii) other actorsINPUTS/SERVICESINPUTS/SERVICES

Feed input stockists and millers (n=36)

Vet drugs stockists (n=36)

Service providers: 

o Veterinarians/AHA/paravets (n=53)o Owners of village breeding boars (n=90)o Extension staff (public and private) 

OUTPUTOUTPUT

Traders of live pigs (including collectors and transporters) (n=86)transporters) (n=86)

Slaughterhouses/abattoirs

Processors (formal‐Fresh Cuts/Quality Cuts) Processors (formal Fresh Cuts/Quality Cuts)

Retailers (meat/processed products) – butcheries, supermarkets, pork‐joints

Consumers – preferences for different pig/pork product attributes

Value chain assessment results:Management and animal healthManagement and animal health

Pig management typologies (n=350)

Confinement type RR (%) (n=180) RU (%) (n=70) UU (%) (n=100)Tethering 66 40 13

Housed Housed raised floor 5 6 25

Housed not raised floor 16 37 61Free‐range/Scavenging 17 18 1Free range/Scavenging 17 18 1

House with raised floor

House not raised floor Tethered pig Scavenging piglet

Most common cause of death (n=350)

80

100

60

80

40

heat stress

accident

predation

20

malice

malnutrition

disease

0

Kkingo

anam

ukaka

Kitayunjwa

mwen

dwa

ugulum

bya

Ntenjeru

Kabo

nera

Kyam

pisi

Kyabakuza

we‐Bu

tego

Ssen

yange

Mukon

o TC

Gom

a

Kya K

Na Bu

Kimanya‐

Katw

Nyend

o‐ M

Rural‐rural Rural‐urban Urban‐urban

Pig disease diseases prioritized by farmers

Disease

Rural‐Rural (n=170) Rural‐Urban (n=90) Urban‐Urban (n=80)

Morbidity  Mortality  Case fatality  Morbidity  Mortality  Case fatality  Morbidit Mortality  Case Fatality (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) y (%) (%) (%)

ASF 29.8 23.1 77.5 43.1 31.8 73.6 15.8 7.5 47.5worms 55.1 12.0 21.9 35.0 5.0 14.4 22.3 1.8 8.3mange 16.1 1.9 11.5 14.8 1.1 7.5 14.0 0.4 2.8lice 9.8 0.3 3.6 7.5 0.0 0.6 1.1 0.0 0.3

midge 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.3diarrhea 5.8 1.3 4.7 4.6 0.7 5.4 5.6 0.5 4.2

malnutrition 2.4 0.1 2.6 3.6 0.0 0.9 4.3 0.1 3.2FMD 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.1

Others* 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.2 4.9 0.3 0.0 0.8

*Swine erysipelas, anemia, ticks, jiggers, heat stress, fever, undiagnosed diseases usually related to sudden death

Seasonal variation of diseases and vectors occurrence (n 350)

25%)

Rainfall

occurrence (n=350)

10

15

20ion of cases (% Rainfall

ASF

Worms

0

5

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Prop

ort

Diarrhea

Malnutritionp y g p

35

40

%)

15

20

25

30

tion of cases (% Rainfall

Mite

Lice

Jigger

0

5

10

15

Prop

ort

Midge

Ticks

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

The use of the “village boar” and risk associated with disease spread  (1)

Different sources of the village boar (n=90)

p ( )

3%

1% 1%

h f ( h

24%

3% Other pig farmers (other village/town)

Born on farm

Oth i f (46% Other pig farmers (same village)

Development project

Farmer Organization/self help

25%

Farmer Organization/self‐help group

In kind payment for boar service

The use of the “village boar” and risk associated with disease spread (2)

Locations from where the sows come from for servicing ( 90)

disease spread  (2)

50

60

rs (%

)

(n=90)

20

30

40

tion of fa

rmer

0

10

20

Neighbour within the same village Farmers from other village Other Home

Prop

ort

Other risk factors associated to ASF spread • Poor knowledge of farmers on management and• Poor knowledge of farmers on management and husbandry practices

• Poor confinement systems• Poor confinement systems• Poor feeding systems (feeding on kitchen leftovers)• Uncontrolled live pig traders movement• Uncontrolled live pig traders movement• Poor biosecurity measures for health workers (paravets)• Poor diagnostic capacities (local and national)• Poor diagnostic capacities (local and national)• Poor surveillance systems (poor feedback to farmers)

Some measures taken by farmers to minimize di ddisease spread

• Request for information on the sow (health status,Request for information on the sow (health status, housing type, health of offspring and treatment records) before servicingbefore servicing

• Isolate and deworm and spray sows when they come to the farmthe farm

• Avoid servicing sick sows• Stop farms visits and servicing during ASF outbreaksStop farms visits and servicing during ASF outbreaks• Service only trusted sow owners• Apply good sanitation on the farmApply good sanitation on the farm

Identification of potential best‐bet pintervention in animal health and 

management in the pig value chain inmanagement in the pig value chain in Uganda

Process for identifying best‐bet 

• Rapid value chain assessment

interventions• Rapid value chain assessment• Impact pathway workshop (assess constraints along the VC identify options for intervention)the VC, identify options for intervention)

• Ex‐ante assessment (impact of interventions on identified indicators in the VC node and the system)identified indicators in the VC node and the system)

• Validation of the potential best‐bet intervention (feed‐back to farmers and local government)back to farmers and local government)

• Testing of best‐bet intervention• Scaling out• Scaling out

Some key considerations/criteria for the selection and monitoring of best‐bet interventions

• Socio cultural (fit into local context)

and monitoring of best‐bet interventions

• Cost‐effective (affordable by farmers)• Sustainability and environmentally friendly e.g. (do it themselves and pass it over) 

• Technology attributes: simple/appropriate • Institutional support • Realistic and measurable within the time frame of the project

• Other criteria (contribution to project Vision and Mission) 

Potential best‐bet interventions in health and management the Uganda pig Value chains (1)

Issues What is it related to? Actors Interventions outcome Activities

Limitedknowledge on biosecurity 

• Sharing of village boar• Selling diseased pigs 

during ASF outbreak

• Farmers• Traders• Consumers

• Education package to actors including : 

• Reduced spread of disease

• Increased pig 

• Longitudinal RCT (Knowledge,attitudes and y

measures g

• Consuming sick pigs at home 

• Scavenging practice• Feeding with swill• Uncontrolled inter‐farm 

visits

• Processors/Abattoir/Slaughterareas

gbiosecurity knowledge and pig disease information

• Increase awareness of consumers on impact of pig meat born disease

p gproductivity

• Increased income• Reduced public 

health risks

practice intervention, KAP)

• Training package (biosecurity manual/leaflets/poster)visits

• Poor hygiene at the farm and slaughter place

• Spread disease from farm to farm

pig meat born disease ter)

Lack of knowledge • No deworming regime • Farmers • Training on good • Improved health • Training packageLack of knowledge on good husbandry practices

• No deworming regime• No prophylaxis program

• Farmers• Local 

Government

• Training on good husbandry practices

• Promote confiment in house

• Improved health • Training package(manual on good husbandry practices)

• KAP survey• Testing of deworming 

regime

• Use of communal boar• Biosecurity  • ASF dissemination

• Farmers• Local 

Government• Animal health 

workers

• Identification of strategies to improve village boar selection and reduce disease risks associated with their use

• Improved breeding services

• Training of farmers on improved model for breeding

• Traders • Designing and testing of different models of disseminating information 

Potential best‐bet interventions in health and management the Uganda pig Value chains (2)

Issues What is it related to? Actors Interventions Outcome Activities

Poor confinement types

• Poor housing (lack of space poor hygiene)

• Farmers• Local government

• Promote housing  model with 3‐stages

• Increased productivity

• Test a housing modeltypes space, poor hygiene)

• Harsh weather• Poor tethering methods

• Local government model with 3‐stages enclosure (Kraal)

productivity model

Poor disease surveillance

• Poor action  from MAAIF after outbreak 

• MAAIF/NADDEC• Research labs • Rapid diagnostic tests 

• Pig health improved

• Test central slaughter  at

• District Veterinary office poorly equipped  for rapid disease diagnose

• Poor diagnostic• Poor inspection at 

l h h

• District Veterinary Office

(ASF/Cyst.)• Central slaughter place 

at village level

village model• Field lab for 

quick differential diagnostic

slaughterhouse

Poor implementation of policy regulations 

• Poor biosecurityimplementation

• Misuse of drugs

• MAAIF• Veterinary 

Officers

• Increase the capacity of MAAIF and local Government to 

• Healthier pigs

• Better use 

• Designing and testing of different p y g g

• Poor quality drug• Fake health workers• Fake drugs

• Local Government• Drug stockists• Animal health 

workers

implement regulations• Sensitize  actors on 

consequence of low quality drugs

of drugs• Increased

productivity

models of delivery of information

CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and FishCGIAR Research Program on Livestock and FishEU/IFAD; ILRI; The team of facilitators; The local government authorities of Masaka, Mukono and 

Kamuli districts; VEDCO in Kamulilivestockfish.cgiar.org

CGIAR is a global partnership that unites organizations engaged in research for a food secure future. The CGIAR Research Program on Livestock and Fish aims to increase the productivity of small‐scale livestock and fish systems in sustainable ways, making meat, milk and fish more available and affordable across the developing world.