J. Bio. Env. Sci. 2018 Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences (JBES) ISSN: 2220-6663 (Print) 2222-3045 (Online) Vol. 12, No. 1, p. 12-21, 2018 http://www.innspub.net RESEARCH PAPER
OPEN ACCESS
Determinants of dairy cattle breed biodiversity in rural traditional smallholder farms: Case of Kibugu in Kenya Mutembei Henry M’Ikiugu*, Emily Kilonzi Wangari Maathai Institute for Peace and Environmental Studies, University of Nairobi, Kenya Article published on January 20, 2018 Key words: Traditional small holder dairy farms, Negative and positive externalities, Dairy cattle breed biodiversity Abstract The livestock biodiversity suffers a threat from human civilization through abandonment and/or intensification of agricultural activities. This paper documents dynamism of dairy breed biodiversity and its determinants. Data was collected by surveying 93 households and five key informants using semi-structured questionnaires, interviews and observations. The nonparametric Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) was used to determine the dairy practice frontier on breed conservation. The average farm size was 0.5-1 acres of land and 53.3% of the respondents perceived this to be small for dairying but majority (67.8%) still practiced the enterprise despite also majority (72%) feeling it wasn’t worthy. The 10-year dynamism indicated that 19% of the respondents intensified on dairying while 13% abandoned the enterprise in favour of other livestock. In a scale of 1-6, dairying was ranked 6 as a source of income, 6 as a symbol of society status and 1 on ease of care for the enterprise. Big breeds (Friesian, Ayrshire and Guernsey) were perceived highly (6-4) as symbols of beauty and society status while small breeds (Jersey and crossbreeds) were ranked highly (6-5) on ease of care and disease tolerance. Intensification and/or abandonment of the dairy practice as influenced by societal expectations and/or challenges of farming were noted to be the main determinants of the dynamisms of the breed biodiversity in Kibugu; intensification caused a positive externality on breed biodiversity while abandonment caused the negative externality on breed biodiversity. This serves to providing evidence to inform policy decisions that support sustainable dairying in rural areas. *Corresponding
Author: Mutembei Henry M’Ikiugu hmutembei@uonbi.ac.ke
12 | M’Ikiugu and Kilonzi
J. Bio. Env. Sci. 2018 Introduction
In addition, as the keeping of cows became more have
commercialized (cows becoming source of cash), the
experienced rapid growth of about 33% and its share
local breed biodiversity became more threatened;
of the agricultural GDP continues to rise (Thornton,
replaced with exotic breeds because they were
2010). The expansion is attributed to increasing
deemed valueless despite being disease tolerant
demand for livestock products and services, which, in
(Jahnke and Jahnke, 1982; Murithi, 1998; Thorpe et
turn, are driven by a burgeoning human population,
al., 2003; Muriuki, 2011).
Livestock
sector
in
developing
countries
rapid urbanization, and increasing affluence (FAO, 2017).
Thus, in Kenyan smallholder farming communities like Kibugu, there are dynamic shifts on the dairy
This expansion (“livestock revolution�) could either represent challenges in terms of production capacities and efficiency, or emerging economic opportunities for farmers (Fonderflick et al., 1982).
cattle breed biodiversity that are likely to be determined by relatively homogenous set of decisions made within households (Lambin and Meyfroidt, 2010). The focus of this research was to understand which of
This situation is likely to be experienced more so in
these decisions affected the dairy breed biodiversity
smallholder animal production, in which systems
and the dynamics of the breed biodiversity existing
animals serve various purposes: wealth creation and
within these traditional farms.
risk reduction, food security, traction power and The theoretical context of the study assumed that
nutrient inputs (Thornton, 2010).
such system land use faces two possible alternatives In the humid Central Highlands of Kenya, where
of either intensification or abandonment (Kuemmerle
Kibugu is located, land is sustainably used for mixed
et al., 2004; Kleijn et al., 2009).
crop-livestock smallholder system (Bebe et al., 2003).
Intensification of dairy farming would likely cause
The regions are well-suited for dairy farming, where a
breed
biodiversity
conservation
(positive
close integration of cows with mixed crop farming
environmental externalities), whereas abandonment
exists with each household owning between one and
would act in the opposite direction (negative environmental externalities) (Van Huelenbroeck and
five cows (McDermott et al., 2010).
Whitby, 1999; Kleijn et al., 2009).
In Kenyan highlands the tea/coffee-cow system of farming evolved from a prior system of communal land ownership that practiced extensive grazing of indigenous livestock species (Muriuki, 2011). After independence in 1964, a transition toward individual landholding for smallholder farming and
The purpose of this research was to analyze the household determinants that influence the dynamics of dairy cattle breed biodiversity in traditional smallholder dairy farms. The study was carried out in several villages of Kibugu location in Embu County, Kenya (Fig. 1).
introduction of exotic livestock breeds occurred The area lies in the foothills of Mount Kenya
(Lesschen, et al., 2004).
ascending north-west towards the mountain and A major shift in cattle breed biodiversity took place
sloping down south-eastwards. Annual precipitation
when artificial insemination (A.I.) services were
is 1,700 mm in a bimodal rainfall pattern: a long rain
introduced to upgrade local cattle breeds (Lesschen et
season between March and June and a shorter
al., 2004; Muriuki, 2011).
around November and December.
13 | M’Ikiugu and Kilonzi
J. Bio. Env. Sci. 2018 Temperatures range from a minimum 15°C in July to
There is however localised climate in some parts of
a maximum of 30°C in September, averaging at 21°C.
the Southern region due to their proximity to the mega dams.
Fig. 1. Transects line sections of Kibugu location along which the study was conducted (sourced and adopted from Google maps, 2016). Data Envelopment Analysis
The framework of the research tried to present the
(DEA) method was used to evaluate environmental
possible
impacts of human activities on the breed biodiversity
farms/households types of the chosen region (Fare
(Reinhard et al., 2000; De Koeijer et al., 2002; Sipiläinen et al., 2008). In brief DEA method compares various organizational units (farms) with multi-inputs and -output production options as it is the case in the study area.
theories
of
statistical
variety
of
the
and Grosskopf, 2004). Ninety three (93) households were surveyed and five (5) key informant interviews were conducted. The main prerequisite for choosing households for the
Determinants homogenous
are set
considered of
as
decisions
relatively
within
units
(Boussonfiane et al., 1991). DEA constructs the determinant
frontier
(the
most
preferred
combinations of decisions of the unit and takes into account the impacts of the decisions on farming
survey was ownership of a dairy farm. Factors considered included the type of farming practice, different dairy breeds kept and challenges of keeping the preferred breeds, breed biodiversity shifts in 10year
period,
and
factors
that
influenced
the
practice (De Koeijer et al., 2002).
biodiversity dynamics.
Household surveys were conducted in Kibugu
The questionnaire included various topics: size of
location so as to analyse the prevailing dairying
land owned at present and 10 years ago, the preferred
management decisions that affected the production itself, and the influence on the breed biodiversity (Solovyeva et al., 2011).
cattle breed and the process of breeding, and breed biodiversity dynamics within the farming system.
14 | M’Ikiugu and Kilonzi
J. Bio. Env. Sci. 2018 In the survey open and closed questions as well as
weighed: percentage of the breeds kept, breeds
qualitative and quantitative questions were used
preserved and presence of rare indigenous breeds
(Jahnke and Jahnke, 1982; Fare and Grosskopf, 2004).
(Kuosmanen and Kortelainen, 2004 and 2005). The indicators were weighed on a scale of 1-6 according to
The sustainable land use component, which is
their importance on dairy breed biodiversity. Chi-
incorporated into the research model as an output,
square statistical analysis was used to test for
represents the Cattle breed biodiversity. The influence
significance (n=93, P≤0.05).
of agricultural activity and in particular of farming (intensification/abandonment) (Kuemmerle et al.,
Results and discussion
2008), on this biodiversity became the focus of the
The summarized results are presented in Tables (1-4)
research. In the considered theoretical context,
and Figures (3-4).
depending on what biodiversity parameters are chosen, the results are quite different (MacDonald et
From the data presented in tables and figures, the
al., 2000; Tasser and Tappeiner 2002; Dullinger et
average farm size (Fig. 3) was 0.5-1 acres of land and
al., 2003,). Therefore, for this study the authors
53.3% of the respondents perceived their farm sizes to
suggest an aggregated breed biodiversity index that
be small for dairying but majority (67.8%) still
combines the quantitative and qualitative evaluation
practiced dairying despite also majority (72%) feeling
that includes the following parameters differently
the practice is not worthy (Table 1).
Table 1. Respondents perceptions, attitudes and practices on agricultural activities that promote dairy breed biodiversity conservation (n=93). Parameter
Yes (Positive) (%)
No (Negative) (%)
Have enough land to practice dairying
53.3.4±2.11a
46.7±2.17 b
Keep dairy cattle for status in society
67.8±1.89 a
32.2.8±1.90 b
Dairy practice is worthy for family
28.0±2.05 a
72.0±2.11 b
a, b
Different letters in the same row differ statistically by Chi-square, P<0.01; differences in practices were noted
for different purposes of biodiversity conservation. Fifty three percent (53.3%) of the respondents perceived their farm sizes to be small for dairying but majority (67.8%) still practiced dairying despite also majority (72%) feeling the practice is not worthy for the family. In addition, as shown in Table 2 and Figure 3, the 10-
13% abandoned the enterprise in favour of other
year dynamism of dairy farming indicated that 19% of
livestock. Table 3 shows the various breed kept in
the respondents intensified on dairying activity while
Kibugu and the reason why farmers kept them.
Table 2. Respondents practices that affected dairy breed biodiversity conservation in a 10-year period (n=93). Parameter
Yes (Positive) (%)
No (Negative) (%)
Continued to practice dairying to meet society expectation
92.5±0.78a
7.5±0.97 b
Intensified dairying
19.3±2.42 a
80.7±1.83 b
Abandoned dairying because it was a burden
12.9±1.07 a
87.1±1,65 b
a, bDifferent
letters in the same row differ statistically by Chi-square, P<0.01; differences in practices were noted
for different purposes of biodiversity conservation. The dynamism of dairy farming indicate that within 10-year period, 19% of the respondents would intensify on dairying activity while 13% would abandon the enterprise altogether.
15 | M’Ikiugu and Kilonzi
J. Bio. Env. Sci. 2018 In a scale of 1-6 (Table 4), dairying was rated 6 in
big breeds were perceived highly (6-4) in terms of
terms being a source of income, 6 in terms of being a
beauty and symbols of society status while small
symbol of society status and 1 in terms of ease of care
breeds (Jersey and crossbreeds) were ranked highly
for the enterprise. On the cattle breed biodiversity,
(6-5) in terms of ease of care and disease tolerance.
Table 3. Respondents keeping various breeds of dairy biodiversity conservation reason for the practice (n=93). Breed
Respondents rearing them (%)
Reason for rearing them
Friesian
49.4±0.89a
Jersey
17.2±2.71 b
Eats the least and cheap to maintain
Ayrshire
15.0±1.07 b
Eats less than Friesian and also seen as beautiful
Guernsey
5.4±1.23 c
Crossbreeds a, b, c
Being beautiful and for recognition in society
Eats a lot and not beautiful like Friesian
12.9±0.86 b
Eats less than Friesian and disease tolerant
Different letters in the same column differ statistically by Chi-square, P<0.01; different breeds were kept for
different purposes. Most respondents kept Friesian breeds (49%), followed by Jerseys (17%), Ayrshire (15%), cross breeds (13%) while the least kept breed was the Guernsey (1%). These results show that there were differences in
Similar results have been reported in other rural
distribution of the breed within households of Kibugu
villages in Kenya where dairying practice was
based on the respondent’s perceptions, attitudes and
characterized by different drivers and conditions
practices.
(Jahnke and Jahnke, 1982; Cooper et al., 2002).
Table 4. Respondents rating on the dairy practice and for various breeds of dairy biodiversity conservation and reason for the rating (n=93); Scale of 1-6: where 6 denote highly ranked. Parameter (Practice itself/Breed reared) Dairy practice Dairy practice Friesian Friesian Jersey Jersey Ayrshire Ayrshire Guernsey Guernsey Crossbreeds crossbreeds
Rank (1-6) 6 1 6 1 3 6 4 2 4 2 2 5
Attribute ranked (Respondents perception on practice itself/breed) Source of household income and society status Ease of care for the enterprise Beautiful cows and symbol of society status Ease of care for the cow Beautiful cows and symbol of society status Ease of care for the cow Beautiful cows and symbol of society status Ease of care for the cow Beautiful cows and symbol of society status Ease of care for the cow Beautiful cows and symbol of society status Ease of care for the cow
In a scale of 1-6, the dairying was rated 6 as a source of income for the household, 6 as symbol of society status and 1 on ease of care for the enterprise. Big breeds (Friesian, Ayrshire and Guernsey) were ranked highly (6-4) as symbols of beauty and society status and low (1-2) on ease of care while small breeds (Jersey and crossbreeds) were ranked highly (6-5) on terms of ease of care and disease tolerance but low (3-2) on beauty. The results also indicate that in Kibugu smallholder
However, labour burdens and inefficiencies of such
farms, like in other rural villages in Kenya, society
unsustainable practices caused in time environmental
status of the household head appears to be the most
externalities like abandonment of the enterprise as it
critical production factor that drives land use practice
was observed in Kibugu, It was apparent that the
like dairying (Jahnke and Jahnke, 1982).
dependency burden rearing the big breeds had a
16 | M’Ikiugu and Kilonzi
J. Bio. Env. Sci. 2018 negative impact on breed biodiversity conservation,
that determined the observed type of dairying
especially as observed in Kibugu that labour factor
practice in Kibugu and not necessarily based on
was quite equivocal as also observed previously
efficiency. The breeds kept in the farm were not
(Mutembei et al., 2015).
necessarily the most efficient in terms of their ease of care. Such scenarios have been reported before as
Based on the theoretical context of the DEA method
determinants
(Cooper et al., 2002), there was household decisions
(Kuosmanen and Kortelainen, 2004).
of
biodiversity
in
rural
areas
Fig. 2. Conceptual frameworks of the research in Kibugu location on dairy cattle breed biodiversity (developed by Mutembei, 2017).
Fig. 3. Pie chart of the percentage land sizes used for dairy farming in Kibugu location. As rightly noted in Kibugu, abandonment of farming
land use impacted not only the producer but also the
enterprises resulting from challenges of farming have
produced breed causing the observed dynamisms of
been
environmental
breed biodiversity; a mix of negative and positive
externalities that impact negatively on biodiversity
effects. Similar observations have been reported by
conservation (Reinhard et al., 2000). In Kibugu
other authors (Van Huylenbroeck and Whitby, 1999;
human activities driven by household decisions on
Schader, 2009).
demonstrated
as
negative
17 | M’Ikiugu and Kilonzi
J. Bio. Env. Sci. 2018
Fig. 4. Histogram showing the dynamism of a 10-year shift in livestock practice for land use in Kibugu. The data indicate that dairying in Kibugu is very
This explains why the dynamisms of the dairy
dynamic. This may be explained in that sustainable
practice itself and the breed biodiversity changed a lot
dairying is managed using tradition practices whose
in a period of 10 years. Abandonment probably
interest is likely also to be influenced by both society
caused loss of unique local breed biodiversity, loss of
and household needs. The two needs would basically
service providers for the remaining breed biodiversity
push household willingness to incur extra costs of
resulting disappearance of certain dairy breeds and
maintaining the practice while at the same time the
total loss of the affected biodiversity. Similar trends
unsustainable
for
have been noted previously (Solovyeva et al., 2011).
abandonment of the practice. As reported previously,
burden
of
costs
pushing
On the other hand increased intensification of
dairying in Kibugu would therefore face two possible
dairying might have caused the opposite effects
alternatives of either intensification or abandonment.
leading to conserved biodiversity within farms. Conservation, as also documented by Solovyeva et al.
As explained previously by other authors (Kleijn et
(2011) would guarantee stability of the biodiversity by
al., 2009; Van Huelenbroeck and Whitby, 1999),
attracting a strategy for proper breeding services.
intensification as noted for some respondents led to breed
biodiversity
conservation
(positive
Conclusion
environmental externality) while abandonment, as
The data shows that the main household decisions for
also noted for others would act in the opposite
dairy farming in Kibugu were inherently connected to
direction
externality).
society-specific status expectation. Therefore, dairy
Similar observation has been documented (Kleijn et
(negative
environmental
breed biodiversity conservation dynamisms were
al., 2009; Van Huelenbroeck and Whitby, 1999).
influenced by local characteristics.
However, in this case study, the thresholds of the
This shows that dairy farm management efficiency
research conceptual framework (Fig. 2), must be put
was conditioned to household decisions and not the
into consideration when
entire
natural adaptive characteristics of the breed itself.
scenario in Kibugu. Abandonment of the livestock
This finding threatened sustainability of dairying
keeping due to inability of the farmers to adapt the
Kibugu because the practice failed to consider farm
land management to social and economic pressures
management in relation to efficiency of breeds kept;
could, as also documented by MacDonald et al.
farmers succumbed to societal expectations at the
(2000), cause changes in breed landscape mosaic.
expense of keeping the most efficient breeds.
explaining the
18 | M’Ikiugu and Kilonzi
J. Bio. Env. Sci. 2018 Recommendation
Fonderflick J, Lepart J, Caplat P, Debussche
The results of this research can contribute to
M, Marty P. 2010. Managing agricultural change for
sustainable dairy practice by providing evidence to
biodiversity. Biological Conservation 143, 737–746.
inform policy decisions for design of suitable dairy support measures in respect to dairy farm economics
Jahnke
and performance, and also for education of farmers
production systems and livestock development in
that need such support.
tropical Africa 35.
References
Kleijn D, Kohler F, Báldi A, Batáry P,
Bebe BO, Udo HM, Rowlands GJ, Thorpe W. 2003. Smallholder dairy systems in the Kenya highlands: breed preferences and breeding practices. Livestock Production Science 82(2), 117-127.
HE,
Jahnke
HE.
1982.
Livestock
Concepción ED, Clough Y, Díaz M, Gabriel D, Holzschuh A, Knop E, Kovács A, Marshall EJ. P, Tscharntke T, Verhulst J. 2009. On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and land-
Boussofiane A, Dyson RG, Thanassoulis E.
use intensity in Europe. Proceedings of the Royal
1991. Applied Data Envelopment Analysis. European
Society 276, 903 – 909.
Journal of Operational Research 52, 1 – 15. Kuemmerle T, Hostert P, Radeloff VC, van der Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Tone K. 2002. Data
Linden S, Perzanowski K, Kruhlov I. 2008.
Envelopment Analysis: A comprehensive text with
Cross-border comparison of post-socialist farmland
models, applications, references and DEA-solver software.
abandonment in the Carpathians. Ecosystems 11,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. 1-213.
614–628.
www.springer.com/gp/book/9780387452814 De Koeijer TJ, Wossink GAA, Struik PC, Renkema
JA.
2002.
Measuring
agricultural
sustainability in terms of efficiency: the case of Dutch sugar
beet
growers. Journal of
environmental
Kuosmanen T, Kortelainen M. 2004. Data Envelopment Analysis in environmental valuation: environmental performance, eco-efficiency and costbenefit analysis. Working paper, ISBN 952-458- 528-6. http://epublications.uef.fi/pub/urn_isbn_952-458-
management 66, 9 – 17.
528-6/urn_isbn_952-458-528-6.pdf Dullinger S, Dirnböck T, Greimler J, Grabherr G. 2003. A resampling approach of evaluating effects of
Kuosmanen T, Kortelainen M. 2005. Measuring
pasture abandonment on subalpine plant species
Eco- efficiency of Production with Data Envelopment
diversity. Journal of Vegetation Science 14, 243 – 252.
Analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology 9(4), 59 – 72.
FAO.
Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P. 2010. Land use
2017.
Livestock
and
the
Environment.
Retrieved from Food and Agricultural Organization of
transitions:
the United Nations Website:
socioeconomic change. Land Use Policy 27, 108–118.
Socio-ecological
feedback
versus
www.fao.org/livestock-environment/en Färe R, Grosskopf S, Lovell CAK. 1994. Production frontiers. Cambridge University Press.
Lauwers LH, Van Huylenbroeck G. 2003. Materials balance based modelling of environmental efficiency. Paper at the 25th International Conference
Färe R, Grosskopf S. 2004. New Directions:
of Agricultural Economists, August 16-22, 2003,
Efficiency
Durban, South Africa.
and
Productivity,
Kluwer
Academic
Publishers.
19 | M’Ikiugu and Kilonzi
J. Bio. Env. Sci. 2018 Lesschen JP, Stoorvogel JJ,
Smaling EMA.
Mutembei HM, Tsuma VT, Muasa BT, Mraya
2004. Scaling soil nutrient balances. Enabling
J, Mutiga ER. 2015. Bovine in vitro Embryo
mesolevel applications for African realities. Food and
Production and its Contribution Towards Improved
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Food Security in Kenya. African Journal of Food,
(Fertilizer and Plant Nutrition Bulletin 15) - ISBN
Agriculture, Nutrition and Development 15(1), 9722-
9251052379 – 132 p.
9743.
http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/338476 Reinhard S, Lovell CAK, Thijssen G. 1999. Mac Donald D, Crabtree JR, Wiesinger G, Dax,
Econometric
T, Stamou N, Fleury P, Gutierrez Lazpita J,
environmental efficiency: An application to Dutch
Gibon A. 2000. Agricultural abandonment in
dairy farms. American Journal of Agricultural
mountain
areas
of
Europe:
Environmental
estimation
of
technical
and
Economics 81, 44 – 60.
Consequences and policy response. Journal of Environmental Management 59, 47 – 69.
Reinhard S, Lovell, CAK, Thijssen G. 2000.
Mc Dermott JJ, Staal SJ, Freeman HA, Herrero M, Van de Steeg A. 2010. Sustaining intensification of smallholder livestock systems in the tropics. Livestock science 130(1), 95-109. Mulwa RM. 2006. Economic and Environmental performance of Sugarcane Production in Kenya: NonParametric Frontier Approaches. Margraf Publishers.
Environmental
efficiency
with
multiple
environmentally detrimental variables; estimated with SFA and DEA. European Journal of Operational Research 121, 287 – 303. Schader C. 2009. Cost-effectiveness of organic farming for achieving environmental policy targets in Switzerland. PhD Thesis. Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences, Aberystwyth
Nuppenau EA, Waldhardt R, Solovyeva I. 2011.
University, Wales. Research Institute of Organic
Biodiversity and Traditional Pathways to Sustainable
Agriculture, (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland.
Agriculture:
Implications
for
Interdisciplinary
Research in the Carpathian Mountains. In: Knowles, Barbara (Ed.), Conference proceedings “Mountain
Sipiläinen T, Marklund PO, Huhtala A. 2008. Efficiency in agricultural production of biodiversity:
and
Organic vs. conventional practices. Paper prepared
traditional culture”, Gyimesközéplok, Romania 7-9
for presentation at the 107th EAAE Seminar
Juni 2010, Society of Biology, London, 2011
"Modeling of Agricultural and Rural Development
ISBN: 978-0-900490-40-8.
Policies". Sevilla, Spain, January 29th - February 1st,
Muriuki HG. 2011. Dairy development in Kenya.
Solovyeva I, Nuppenau EA, Biro R, Larkham
Food
K. 2011. Traditional Farming Systems and Transition
hay
meadows
and
-
hotspots
Agricultural
of
biodiversity
Organization,
Rome.
Pathways to Sustainable Agriculture: A Comparative
www.fao.org/3/a-al745e.pdf
Analysis of Institutions and Cooperation in Romanian Murithi FM. 1998. Economic evaluation of the role
and Ukrainian Rural Areas of the Carpathian
of livestock in mixed smallholder farms of the central
Mountains. IASC Conference proceedings 'Shared
highlands of Kenya. Economic evaluation of the role
Resources in a Rapidly Changing World, European
of livestock in mixed smallholder farms of the central
Regional Conference of the International Association
highlands of Kenya. PhD thesis, Department of Agriculture, University of Reading, UK.
for the Study of the Commons', Plovdiv, Bulgaria 1417 September 2011, Digital Library of the Commons.
20 | M’Ikiugu and Kilonzi
J. Bio. Env. Sci. 2018 Solovyeva I, Nuppenau EA. 2012. Improving
Thornton PK. 2010. Livestock production: recent
Measures
trends, future prospects. Philosophical Transactions
for
Targeting
Agri-Environmental
Payments: The Case of High Nature Value Farming. European Association of Agricultural Economists, 126th Seminar, Capri, Italy, 27-29 June 2012. Ag Econ Search.
of
the
Royal
Society
B:
Biological
Sciences
365(1554), 2853–2867. http://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0134
Tasser E, Tappeiner U. 2002. Impact of land use
Van
changes on mountain vegetation. Applied Vegetation
Countryside Stewardship: Farmers, Policies and
Science 5, 173–184.
Markets. Pergamon, Amsterdam, 232p.
Thorpe W, Muriuki HG, Omore AO, Owango
Huylenbroeck
the past, the present and the future. Paper presented at the Annual Symposium of the Animal Production Society of Kenya (APSK). Theme: Challenges to Production
in
this
Millennium,
Whitby
M.
https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/119806
MO, Staal SJ. 2000. Dairy development in Kenya:
Animal
G,
KARI
Headquarters, Nairobi, March 22-23, 2000. Nairobi (Kenya). https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/1723
21 | M’Ikiugu and Kilonzi
1999.