Artificial or natural insemination: the demand for breeding services by smallholders.

Different types of breeding services are available to the Kenyan smallholder farmers. An important question is whether farmers choose the service, or they are constrained in their choice. Assessing the demand for breeding services is crucial for planning purposes since it will help in identifying the constraints faced by smallholders in the aftermath of agricultural liberalisation policies of the 1990’s. Household and community surveys were conducted in March and April 2004 in three different farming systems of the Kenyan Highlands. The study of 300 smallholder cattlekeepers found that while 54% prefer artificial insemination (AI) to natural (bull) service, 81% actually use natural service, suggesting a sharp contrast between actual use and expressed preferences. Even in intensive dairy systems (represented by Ndia division in Kirinyaga district), the majority of smallholders use natural service. Farmers prefer AI service in view of its ability to maintain and/or upgrade their dairy herd but main constraints to use of AI services are low availability and perceived high costs. This study shows that the observed high use of natural service over AI recorded in previous studies may not reflect farmers’ choice but the unavailability of the Demand for breeding services by smallholders Baltenweck, Ouma, Anunda, Mwai, Romney 2 2 alternative service types, cost considerations, information gaps and misinformation amongst farmers, historical reasons among other constraining factors. Some recommendations for breeding policy reform are made. Introduction Dairying is an important economic activity and source of livelihood for over 600,000 small-scale farmers in Kenya (SDP, 2004). The smallholders’ dairy herd produces 56% of total milk production and 80% of the total marketed milk nationally (Staal et. al., 2002). Besides milk for home consumption and sale, cattle are kept for traction, manure for crops and fodder, and as a store of wealth. After years of government support to the dairy sector through the provision of subsidized services, including AI, the government started to withdraw its support at the beginning of the 1990s (Omiti and Muma, 2000). One of the services most affected by this policy change was the provision of AI. Whereas an initial increase in AI provision by private practitioners was observed, available data suggests a current negative trend although incomplete reporting may explain part of the sharp decline (Figure 1). Other studies have also suggested that a low proportion of farmers use AI (Karanja, 2003). A previous analysis has shown that farmers’ use of AI services is partly explained by access to complementary services like extension and veterinary services and also market access, suggesting that use of AI services is influenced by farmers’ ability to market their production (Njoroge et al., 2004). To better understand the observed low use of AI services despite years of extension services promoting this service among smallholders, a combination of household and community surveys was conducted to explicitly identify the constraints to AI uptake and identify the demand for this