Improved goat breeding and mixed crop farming in East Africa:  
A literature review 
 
Cynthia Amati & John R. Parkins 
Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology 
University of Alberta 
 
August 2011 
 
 
 
This report contributes to ongoing research on a project called Integrating Dairy Goat 
and Root Crop Production for Increasing Food, Nutrition and Income Security of 
Smallholder Farmers in Tanzania (2011-2014). The project is funded by the International 
Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the Canadian International Development 
Agency through the Canadian International Food Security Research Fund (CIFSRF), 
International Development Research Centre (IDRC).  
 
 
  
2 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
 
This literature review offers insights into current research topics and project 
developments in the area of goat breeding and mixed-crop farming in East Africa. The 
review is contemporary in that more recent publications are summarized and emphasized. 
The review is also strategic in that key areas of research and development are identified 
within these fields of study, but discussions in this document are somewhat preliminary 
and worded for a more general audience. For readers with deeper interests in this field of 
study, this document offers direction and references for additional reading. In bulleted 
format, key insights from this literature review are summarized below:  
 Goats are becoming a more important feature of farming and food production 
systems in East Africa. There are at least four reasons for this trend. First, this 
trend is a component of the global “livestock revolution” that involves higher 
levels of meat consumption around the world. Second, goat production is 
associated with niche lifestyle markets, extensive agriculture systems, ethical, and 
fair trade production. Third, with increasing pressure for productive farmland, 
goats offer strategic opportunities for more intensive mixed crop farming systems. 
Fourth, there are noted successes in community-based goat farming methods by 
the NGO community in particular, and these projects have proliferated. 
 There are major differences between old approaches to goat production and new 
approaches to goat production. The old approach, commonly called the 
institutional approach, involved large centralized breeding systems, but this 
approach eventually collapsed due to poor performance and lack of funds. The 
new system, commonly called the community based approach, involves 
participatory methods of goat breeding and a more holistic approach to goat 
husbandry; including health, housing and feeding through improved cropping 
systems.  
 There are many ongoing challenges to contemporary goat breeding systems in 
East Africa. First, breed management problems lead to low output from cross-
bred goats. Low output is associated with diluted breeds, inadequate feed, poor 
housing, watering and healthcare. Second, there is limited supply of feed stock to 
maintain cross-bred goat populations. Third, agricultural extension officers are 
often poorly trained on smaller livestock, with limited knowledge of cross-bred 
goats and mixed goat-crop systems. Fourth, goat owners are often women and 
children who have a full suite of labor-intensive chores and have little time to 
support new goat-crop systems. Fifth, the economic viability of these farming 
systems at the household level is an ongoing issue and is poorly understood, with 
current efforts focused on linking farmers to markets. 
3 
 
 Mixed-crop farming makes a significant contribution to poverty reduction in East 
Africa. Seventy percent of African food production is derived from three major 
annual crops-livestock systems: maize-livestock, cereal-legume-livestock, and 
root-crop-legume-livestock. Although these systems are a crucial component of 
food security, research is lacking on social aspects of space, time management 
and ownership and how these might be improved to enhance food security. 
 In facilitating development with small-holder farmers throughout East Africa, 
researchers are noting a shift in the manner in which village-level participants are 
associated with development projects. Top-down approaches are giving way to 
participatory development approaches, where interventions target specific groups 
such as low-income farmers. Current project focus on modified cross-bred goats 
to meet the unique needs of biophysical and human conditions, and they work 
with existing cooperative networks, thus enhancing existing forms of social 
capital.  
  
4 
 
CONTENTS 
 
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2 
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5 
The re-emergence of goat systems for poverty alleviation .............................................................. 5 
Differences between old and current goat development systems .................................................... 7 
Earlier goat breeding initiatives (1980s-2005) – Institutional Approach .................................... 8 
Newer initiatives (2007-present) – Community-based Approach ............................................... 9 
Ongoing barriers to successful goat breeding programs ............................................................... 11 
Mixed crop-livestock systems in East Africa: Root crops ............................................................ 14 
Human agency, participation and equity ....................................................................................... 15 
References ..................................................................................................................................... 19 
 
  
5 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
This review of goat breeding and mixed crop farming in East Africa is intended to 
summarize a variety of key developments and ongoing issues for research and 
development within the published literature. With a renewed focus on food security 
worldwide and growing attention to what some authors define as the “livestock 
revolution,” there is growing interest in sustainable systems of livestock production in 
East Africa. Moreover, researchers and development agencies are giving more attention 
to small animal production, such as goats, as an important component of sustainable food 
systems for small holder farmers. Given this focus, our objectives in this review are to: 
 highlight the recent accomplishments in goat production systems within East 
Africa 
 identify lessons learned and ongoing barriers to successful goat production 
 offer a summary of root crop systems and their contributions to local livelihoods 
 provide insight into the social dimensions of goat breeding and mixed crop 
farming as an important component of local food security improvements.  
With insights from the published literature in these areas, researchers and development 
practitioners can build on the experiences of the past; to avoid common errors and to 
borrow best practices within this field of work. As a general overview, this document can 
also provide a starting point for more in-depth reading and review of topics related to 
goat production, root crop farming and participatory development. 
THE RE-EMERGENCE OF GOAT SYSTEMS FOR POVERTY ALLEVIATION 
 
Systems of goat production in sub-Saharan Africa are emerging as an important 
contributor to research and development initiatives that are aimed at enhancing food 
security and alleviating poverty. Although goats have played a key role in the livelihood 
strategies of small-holder farmers throughout the centuries, renewed attention to 
integrated small animal production within a community-based system of animal 
production and dissemination is a key attribute of these modern goat systems.  
Goat systems are a component of what some scholars identify as the “Livestock 
Revolution” (Delgado et al., 1999). To a degree, the growing popularity of goat 
production in East Africa is associated with a global trend toward meat-based diets in 
India and the Middle East. With a growing demand for meat that is replacing traditional 
grains and cereal crops, Peacock and Sherman (2010:73) note that “a major part of the 
dietary transition is the consumption of more wheat-based diets even in traditional rice 
6 
 
eating societies and greater consumption of dairy and meat production.” This global trend 
toward western-oriented high-meat-protein diets is a component of the re-emergence of 
goats within the livelihood strategies of East African households. As a part of this 
thinking within the 1970s, researchers have linked goat production to a variety of 
negative environmental outcomes. For instance, Morand-Fehr (2005) states that in the 
1970s, economic interest in goat production diminished and goats were being linked 
closely with issues of deforestation and desertification. 
In somewhat contradictory ways, however, goat systems have also been associated with 
anti-productivist sentiments in agriculture and the drive toward more organic and ethical 
choices in food production. This more recent trend is associated with research and 
insights into the relative ecological benefits of goat production in many parts of the 
world, and a call to rethink the “blanket condemnation” of all livestock systems as being 
detrimental to the environment (Peacock and Sherman 2010). Unlike the above-noted 
link between goat systems and other systems for intensive livestock management, goat 
systems are described as a less intensive and environmentally friendly approach to food 
production. As noted by Peacock and Sherman (2010:79), contemporary goat production 
is associated with the following positive attributions: 
 growth in so-called ‘lifestyle’ markets 
 ethical, fair trade production 
 eco/agro-tourism,  
 alleviation of special health conditions such as allergies and AIDS  
 growth in demand for cashmere products 
 new environmental and biodiversity markets 
Extensive systems of goat production are linked to these new ethics of production and 
consumption. 
A third factor that is closely linked to the re-emergence of goat systems in East Africa 
relates to the growing demand for land throughout the region and the contribution of 
goats to increasingly complex mixed farming systems. “A decline in farm size with each 
generation inheriting land further decreases available household options” (Peacock 2008: 
225) and intensive farming may be an attractive alternative for many farmers. Also, 
socioeconomic and health benefits are better understood than was the case in previous 
decades. For instance, according to Peacock (2008:226):  
goat milk is a valuable source of protein, fat, calcium, iron, phosphorus, 
magnesium and vitamins, particularly vitamin A. Recent studies have 
shown that several of these minerals are more easily absorbed from goats’ 
milk than cow’s milk (Castro, 2007). The small fat globules of goats’ milk 
also make it more easily digestible than cow’s milk and therefore 
particularly suitable for children and the sick (Peacock, 1996).  
7 
 
 
These benefits of goat production are also noted by other researchers, who point to the 
multi-purpose role of goats within the household, providing food, generating cash or 
barter exchanges of commodities (Ahuya et al. 2005). These benefits of dual-purpose 
goats were becoming recognized by the research and development community in the 
early 1980s and the potential remains high for goat production to contribute in positive 
ways to food security and poverty alleviation.  
Lastly, the re-emergence of goat systems in East Africa could be a function of recent 
successes by non-government organizations such as FARM-Africa and Heifer 
International in their efforts to develop and disseminate successful community-based goat 
breeding programs. Authors such as Peacock and Ahuya have published numerous 
studies over the past few years that are based on successful development initiatives; some 
of these publications provide models and frameworks for goat project development and 
they also point to real improvements in quality of life. As an example, Peacock (2008) 
notes that the impact of improved goat stock on farmer’s income is quite dramatic. 
Researchers show household income increases that range from $93 to $995 per annum 
and the value of owned goat stock has also increased from $156 to $918 (2008:234). 
These demonstrated increases in income and assets offer compelling reasons for ongoing 
research and development in the area of integrated goat breeding at the community level.  
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OLD AND CURRENT GOAT DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS 
 
There is a growing interest in livestock development systems in Eastern Africa 
due to the problems confronting smallholder farmers in the region (Bett, Kosgey, Kahi 
and Peters, 2009; Ogola, Nguyo and Kosgey, 2010a; Ogola, Nguyo and Kosgey, 2010b; 
Peacock, Ahuya, Ojango and Okeyo, 2011). The ongoing famine in the horn of Africa 
further necessitates consideration of the potentials of livestock development systems to 
mitigate against food insecurity and poverty.  Smallholder farmers generally farm on 
small plots, and rely on mixed farming of livestock and food crops for subsistence as well 
aiming for cash crops and possible farm animal produce surplus for sale (Peacock, 2008).  
At present, problems confronting smallholder farmers in East Africa are manifold 
and stem from social, economic and natural causes both local and extraneous 
(Mwanyumba et al, 2010; Ogola et al, 2010a; Peacock, 2008; Sumberg, 2003).  The 
current global economic downturn and market uncertainty has led to declines in real 
prices of most traditional cash crops like coffee and tea, deepening the poverty among 
farmers; child malnutrition has continued at the household level across Africa; decreasing 
plot sizes with each generation inheriting and subdividing family land has meant even 
8 
 
smaller areas available for household sustenance (Peacock, 2008).  Additionally, the 
combined effects of a growing population, climate warming, soil erosion, and loss of soil 
nutrients arising from continuous farming over the years only exacerbate the poverty 
levels (Peacock, 2008) and increase demand for food (Peacock and Sherman, 2010; 
Peacock et al 2011).  It is against such socio economic and environmental conditions that 
many researchers view small-scale sustainable intensification through mixed crop and 
livestock farming as a sustainable way to ensure subsistence in developing countries 
(Ogola et al, 2010a,b).   
Renewed interest in small-scale agriculture, labeled “Livestock Revolution” 
(Delgado et al, 1999, as cited in Peacock and Sherman, 2010, p. 73) by some, is distinct 
from the wave of smallholder farming initiatives of the 1980s-1990s in East Africa 
(Ahuya, Okeyo, Mwangi-Njuru and Peacock, 2005; Peacock, 2008).  The distinctions, to 
be illustrated in the following sections, contain significant improvements from the earlier 
initiatives, and form the strengths of the smallholder mixed farming initiatives of the 
present, which are the focus of this review. 
EARLIER GOAT BREEDING INITIATIVES (1980S-2005) – INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH 
 
In 1980-1992, the government of Kenya implemented the development of a new 
goat breed, the Kenya Dual-purpose (meat and milk) goat (KDPG), with support from the 
USAID-Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Program (SR-CRSP) (Peacock, 
2008).  The KDPG was a synthetic breed that was designed to be suitable for smallholder 
farming systems in East Africa (Peacock, 2008).  The crossbreeding mechanism was 
however, complex, and implementation faced logistic obstacles leading to the end of the 
initiative (Peacock, 2008).  The synthetic KDPG breed was developed by crossing two 
local (Small East African and Gala) and two European breeds (Toggenburg and Anglo-
Nubian) (Peacock, 2008).  The breeding station was run by the government and based in 
Naivasha.  The goats were then tested in another region of the country, Western Kenya, 
and performance was poor (Peacock, 2008).  The distribution of crossbred goats in this 
project was market driven: the government planned to contract commercial farmers to 
reproduce the breed (Peacock, 2008) for sale, with the market regulating price based on 
demand and supply.  Eventually, donor funding for the project ended, with very few 
KDPGs currently in the country (Peacock, 2008).   
From 1983-1989 the Kenya Ministry of Livestock Development, supported by the 
British Government’s Overseas Development Agency (ODA), attempted to develop a 
different type of dual-purpose goat for arid and semi-arid areas.  This initiative took off 
from a well-funded station but did not materialize as the manager left the station as soon 
as project funding ended.  The goats also developed beznoites disease (Peacock, 2008). 
9 
 
 In the 1980s and 1990s the German Government, through GTZ, funded two major 
goat-breeding initiatives in Burundi and Kenya (Peacock, 2008).  The project in Burundi 
project pioneered the buck station as an economical way of breeding (Peacock, 2008).  
The source of the breeding bucks however was a breeding station managed by the 
project, which imported German Alpine goats and unfortunately introduced the disease 
Caprine Arthritis Encephalitis (CAE) into Burundi (Peacock, 2008).  Once the project 
ended, farmers were not able to replace their bucks, leading to breed dilution (Peacock, 
2008).  The goat breeding project in Kenya was established using Alpine bucks imported 
from Germany without females until towards the end of the project when 10 females 
were imported.  Farmers in the Meru region where the buck station is based have 
upgraded their goats but the lack of a secure supply of locally bred replacement bucks 
could threaten sustainability of the project (Peacock, 2008).  Over the past 30 years 
NGOs have introduced European dairy breeds on relatively smaller scales compared to 
the government projects described above.  Many NGOs have also distributed local goats 
as part of development or rehabilitation programs especially following displacement due 
to droughts, or war (Peacock, 2008).   
These small-scale breeding programs have however not brought about beneficial 
impacts to their full potential because they have not been delivered with accompanying 
improvements in health care, feeding, and overall management needs required (Peacock, 
2008).  These early breeding interventions also have the inability to ensure a secure 
supply of the improver breed as a major weakness, compromising the sustainability of the 
initiatives.  Similarly, the large-scale donor-supported programs, implemented by 
governments have not been able to proceed after withdrawal of donor funding.  They 
have also not been able to overcome logistic difficulties of successfully handing over 
breeding management to communities in a way that enables them to carry on with the 
initiative independently and productively.  
NEWER INITIATIVES (2007-PRESENT) – COMMUNITY-BASED APPROACH 
 
Proceeding from the earlier decades of failure and learning, many NGOs, 
including, but not limited to FARM-Africa and Heifer International, are now engaged in 
community-based goat breeding programs designed with significant improvements over 
the earlier initiatives, and are proving to be relatively more successful (Ogola et al, 
2010a). The first focus in these newer initiatives is making the goat breeding programs as 
participatory as possible by involving farmers early on in the planning through to the 
implementation stages.  Farmers are encouraged to organize and self manage through 
cooperatives or general groups (such as women’s trade groups, female breadwinners’ 
groups, etc.) through which breeding interventions are introduced and carried out, and act 
as implementation partners rather than recipients of intervention (Peacock, 2008).  These 
farmer groups strive to serve as all-round support systems to fully realize the benefits 
10 
 
from goat breeding systems.  Organizing into farmer managed groups provides a venue 
for the pooling together of human, financial and other in-kind resources such as credit for 
purchasing goats and insurance systems, information translation and record keeping 
assistance for illiterate members, use of local skilled members such as PhD and MS 
students within the communities, communal strategizing for goat feeding and watering, 
and dissemination of general information on health care and accessing extension services 
(Peacock, 2008).  Social learning is an aspiration of new goat breeding initiatives, 
whereby social learning involves learning within a community context with attention to 
peer communities, history, and local knowledge (Wenger 2009).  Peacock (2008) noted, “ 
. . . attitudinal changes may need to take place among staff of implementing partners” (p. 
229), in order to fully realize the potential of the breeding project.  The small, localized 
scale at which community breeding projects operate allow for clarification of 
responsibilities and roles among community members, and between community members 
and partnering agencies. 
To address the challenges of accessing the improver breed and sustaining buck 
stations, the community-based approach to breeding selects a buck station within reach 
by those targeted in the breeding intervention, preferably on a selected set of members’ 
farms.  A differential fee is charged for each mating—lower fees for those targeted and 
higher fees for those interested but not in the target group(s) (Peacock, 2008).   
Current community-based approaches to goat breeding also differ from earlier 
goat breeding systems in their emphasis on feeding and health care of goats as part and 
parcel of the breeding system, and not as separate or non-related aspects.  Rather than 
stopping at establishing mechanisms for distribution of goats to communities, this 
approach gives significant consideration to the complete suite of animal management 
needs.  Housing of goats is encouraged, and the cooperative nature in which the projects 
are implemented enables communities to strategize on communal feeding arrangements 
and on gathering material for construction of housing units, feeding pens, etc (Peacock, 
2008).  Additionally, the breeding systems are increasingly coupled with improved crop-
farming systems to provide food for goats and feed for households (Lenné and Thomas, 
2006).    
Unlike earlier donor-government large scale predetermined projects, small-scale 
community breeding projects are flexible enough to allow for targeting specific segments 
within a community, e.g. women-headed households, households affected by HIV/AIDS 
or lowest income households (Peacock, 2008).  At this scale, the community-based 
approach allows for collection of household-specific baseline data before commencing on 
an intervention. This in turn enhances chances of monitoring any real impacts the projects 
are having, especially on poverty.  The targeting and selection process is small and 
localized enough and is carried out with local leaders from the community and governing 
agency to ensure that the process is not coopted by local elites. The scale is also small 
11 
 
enough to take into consideration individual circumstances such as livestock ownership, 
landholding size, quality of house, number of dependents, engagement in other 
employment, among others (Peacock, 2008), and to use this data in further modifying 
implementation steps accordingly.  
Lessons from the breeding failures of early interventions are now used to inform 
cross breeding.  Some technical improvements adopted by NGOs in new initiatives 
endeavor to take into account breed performance.  In more than 20 years of operation in 
rural Africa, FARM-Africa for instance observed the Toggenburg breed to be hardier, 
and more successful than Anglo-Nubian breed and uses this knowledge in its ongoing 
breeding programs across Kenya (Peacock, 2008).    The above improvements constitute 
some of the best practices in goat breeding initiatives currently being applied to 
maximize benefits from goat farming in East Africa. 
ONGOING BARRIERS TO SUCCESSFUL GOAT BREEDING PROGRAMS 
 
 Smallholder farmers in East Africa continue to face severe limitations to their 
livelihoods and often live in cycles of poverty despite advancement in farming 
technology.  As illustrated in the section preceding, some of the barriers to adoption of 
advanced farming techniques are extraneous, stemming from donor and government 
institutional structures, global climate change patterns, while others stem from farmers’ 
capacities and limited nature of their resource base, whether human or financial.  This 
section further elaborates the challenges experienced in the dissemination and adoption of 
goat breeding systems in East Africa. 
 Ahuya et al (2005) identified breed management as a main barrier to the success 
of breeding interventions, and consequently to adoption of the breeds.  Thus far, many 
farmers have experienced low output from their crossbred goats, to their disappointment.  
Such negative past experiences slows down adoption of the crossbred goats across 
communities.  Genetically improved goats require additional know-how on farmers’ part, 
and do not perform well under husbandry practices used for non-genetically improved 
goats (Ahuya et al, 2005).   Crossbred goats require additional management approaches 
to feeding, housing, watering, and healthcare.  Resource-poor communities therefore face 
challenges on such aspects as amassing material for goat housing, accessing health care, 
drugs, and availing the fodder needed especially during low rainfall seasons (Massawe et 
al, 1997; Nakiganda et al, 2006).  Feeding has particularly been identified as a major 
deciding factor, and sometimes the only factor, used by farmers to decide against 
adopting genetically improved breeds (Small Ruminant Research, 2008).  Natural factors 
such as the limits to energy-dense feed in tropical and arid environments, and 
socioeconomic factors like the unaffordability of proper feed such as concentrate and 
12 
 
preserved forage due to high cereal prices compromise the quality and quantity of output 
farmers receive from their animals (Alexandre and Mandonnet, 2005). 
 The income category and lifestyle of goat owners also affects the extent to which 
crossbred goats receive husbandry: many households leave the care of small livestock to 
women and children (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development et al, 2006; Owen 
et al, 1996).  In the face of competing laborious and time-intensive chores like fetching 
water, firewood, attending school, and other household chores, husbandry to crossbred 
goats is of least priority (Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development et al, 2006; 
Owen et al 1996).  Collective organization of farmers to assist each other around 
husbandry needs is recommended as the best way to allow for farming alongside other 
household engagements (Ahuya et al, 2005).  Lack of financial resources to acquire 
breeds and other input as well as for marketing output has been identified as a challenge 
to adoption (Ahuya et al, 2005).  Given these challenges, farmers’ cooperatives for 
pooling together credit for such needs is recommended (Ahuya et al, 2005; Peacock, 
2008).   
 A major challenge to adoption of crossbred goats is unsustainability on a number 
of scales.  First, there is unreliability of sources of breeding stock.  As discussed in the 
previous section, batches of dairy goat breeding stocks have been imported from Europe 
to East Africa by development agencies and private farmers over the last 30 years, but 
this has not translated into a reliable supply of breeding stock within the region (Peacock, 
2008). Sometimes the breeding stocks were not used in a way to multiply them quickly 
and efficiently, and in other cases well-meaning farmers in Europe have donated goats of 
unknown pedigree and poor quality.  Poor management and oversight by the government 
contributes to adoption of poor breeds leading to disappointing results for farmers.  The 
earlier breeding interventions discussed in the previous section did not give consideration 
to continual genetic improvement and sustenance of crossbred animals after they had 
been introduced, leading to breed dilution. These early breeding efforts were 
characterized by government run “station-based” breeding initiatives that where resource 
intensive and difficult to sustain over the long run (Ahuya et al, 2005). Since supply of 
breeding stock is dependent on financial resources available to NGOs and other well-
meaning farmers from abroad, it is difficult for countries to plan on systematic diffusion 
and adoption of the breeds. 
 Other factors influencing adoption of the breeds relate to information, training and 
skill set availability and accessibility.  In Kenya, it has been mistakenly believed that 
livestock extension officers are well versed in both large livestock (cattle) and small 
livestock (goats, sheep) matters, and that information for managing cattle is the same as 
that for goats and sheep (Ahuya et al, 2005).  Research from selected projects indicates 
that this is not always the case (Ahuya et al, 2005).  Lack of specialized knowledge 
means that farmers do not have the best information with which to manage their 
13 
 
crossbred goats, leading to poor performance and more hesitation towards adoption of 
genetically improved goat breeds.  Ahuya et al (2005) and Peacock (2008) have identified 
the need for specialized training of frontline extension agents to provide appropriate 
counsel to farmers engaged in community-based goat breeding initiatives. 
 At the national level, governments in East Africa generally look down upon small 
livestock, and give preference to dairy cattle systems (Ahuya et al, 2005; Small Ruminant 
Research, 2008).  This has direct trickle down consequences, including the sidelining of 
small livestock courses and teaching in local universities, reduced or absolute lack of 
funding for small livestock research, and lack of policy development to incentivize small 
livestock farming and/or development of a robust small livestock industry (Ogola et al, 
2010a; Peacock, 2008).  These have the effect of reproducing the cycles of poor goat 
performance, and low output, making farmers believe that goat initiatives are unreliable.  
Compounding the problem of adoption and diffusion is the gap between innovative 
research in academia and farmers in the field (Small Ruminant Research, 2008).  Apart 
from the difficulties in accessing innovative ideas especially by extension workers in 
developing countries, extension officers interested in innovative scientific solutions find 
the results in journal publications difficult to apply on the ground, and its often difficult 
to customize innovations to match the resources available (Small Ruminant Research, 
2008).  In relation to goat and sheep sector, information on optimal utilization of pasture, 
for instance, is scarcely diffused and difficult to apply (Small Ruminant Research, 2008).   
  Economic viability is a key factor in farmers’ consideration when adopting 
improved breed goat farming (Nakiganda et al, 2006; Ogola et al, 2010a).  Just as with 
any other group, interventions aimed at farmers must be economically viable to be 
successful, especially if the interventions have poverty reduction as a goal.  Economic 
viability of improved dairy goat farming in East Africa is an issue that is not fully 
understood because of lack of research and information on performance and profitability 
at the household level.  This is partly so because of the low status of goats compared to 
cows in agricultural research and development priorities (Ogola et al, 2010a).  A growing 
number of researchers on East Africa smallholder farming are looking into ways of 
developing the goat industry by giving considering options and means of linking farmers 
to markets.  Most of these efforts run on the premise that access to higher value markets 
will mean higher prices for farmers’ products and thus higher returns on their initiatives 
(Njuki, Kaaria, Chamunorwa and Chiuri, 2011; Mwanyumba et al, 2010).  Within the 
current framework of an undeveloped goat product industry in East Africa, farmers 
experience high transaction costs associated with fragmented production, high costs of 
collection and transportation to urban areas, and less customer demand for goat milk 
compared to cow’s milk and beef (Bett et al, 2009). These factors partly contribute to the 
slow crossbreed goat farming adoption rates in the region.   
14 
 
 
MIXED CROP-LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS IN EAST AFRICA: ROOT CROPS  
 
 In the face of challenges such as reduction in land sizes, droughts, and 
unaffordability of farming inputs as highlighted in the first section, research and 
interventions into improving mixed crop-livestock systems has been identified as one of 
the ways to increase farming output in Sub-Saharan Africa (Lenné and Thomas, 2006). 
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2011), 
“mixed cropping is a system of sowing two or three crops together on the same land, one 
being the main crop and the others the subsidiaries.” This section reviews current 
literature on crop-livestock systems to outline why and how they are being promoted, 
current strengths and weaknesses of mixed crop-livestock systems, and the modifications 
being applied or promoted to enhance success of the systems. Given the growing focus 
on community-based livestock systems as discussed above, and the need for integrated 
feeding systems for cross-breed goats, this section provides insight into recent 
opportunities and challenges in root crop research and development for food and feed. 
In an analysis of the contributions of crop-livestock systems of over 100 projects 
implemented by the UK Department for International Development, Lenné and Thomas 
(2006) noted that even though challenges remain to make such systems perform at their 
full potential, they have still made significant contributions to poverty-reduction among 
smallholder farmers in Africa. A combination of local and external factors makes mixed 
farming approaches most suitable in Africa.  First, as far as financing crop-livestock 
systems, most donors supporting agricultural research and development have derived, and 
oriented their funding policies in line with the 2015 Millennium Development Goals 
(MDGs).  Successful crop-livestock systems can contribute to these millennium goals: 
eradication of extreme poverty and hunger (MDG1), promotion of gender equality 
(MDG3), and reduction of child mortality and improvement of maternal health (MDG4) 
(Lenné and Thomas, 2006).  
Second, mixed crop-livestock farming systems are not an entirely foreign concept 
to farmers in Africa.  Over 70% of African food production derives from three major 
annual crop-livestock systems: maize-livestock, cereal-legume-livestock, and root-crop-
legume-livestock systems (Lenné and Thomas, 2006).  These same systems are 
considered to have the most potential for increasing food security and contribute to 
poverty alleviation in the continent.  The rich nutrient content of residue from dual-
purpose crops like root crops (cassava, sweet potato, yam), legumes, cereal (maize, 
sorghum, millet), vegetables, for both food and feed and have been adequately 
documented (Dung et al, 2010; Lenné and Thomas, 2006).  Dual-purpose crops are the 
only way to making for provision of food and feed possible in a small land area without 
necessitating an increase in farm inputs, including water.  The key challenge is to 
15 
 
integrate agricultural and development research relevant to enable optimal system 
performance (Lenné and Thomas, 2006).  Preexistence of these mixed farming systems in 
Africa means that farmers already have a knowledge base, which, if harnessed, allows 
scientific research to build upon, rather than begin experimenting anew.   
In East Africa, root crops, especially cassava, are encouraged and have already 
been widely adopted due to several advantageous aspects: high carbohydrate yield per 
unit of land and labor from the root, high production of leaves per hectare from the stem, 
high adaptability to poor soils and water stress (able to withstand dry periods up to 5 
months), among others (Dung et al, 2010; Food and Agricultural Organization, n.d.).  
Roots and tubers also save on storage space as they can be left in the ground until needed 
in the absence of insects and diseases (Lenné and Thomas, 2006).  By 2007, cassava 
farming had grown from 1-11 to 16-55% in East Africa (Fermont, van Asten and Giller, 
2008).   Current research in the region is focused on improving resistance to disease and 
searching for precise genetic suitability according to climatic and topographic regions.   
Research on mixed crop-livestock farming in East Africa is still lacking on social 
aspects of space, time, management and ownership and how these might be improved or 
modified to further enhance their contribution to poverty reduction and food security 
(Fermont et al, 2008; Sumberg, 2003).  The lack of integrated disciplinary input into 
research and development of crop-livestock systems has also been identified as a 
significant contributor of low outputs from the systems despite growing research 
indicating their tremendous potential in poverty alleviation and elimination of food 
insecurity (Lenné and Thomas, 2006). 
HUMAN AGENCY, PARTICIPATION AND EQUITY 
 
 This section outlines the ways in which current goat breeding interventions 
interact with the themes of social capital under the framework of development.  This is 
done through an evaluation of the evolution of participation as has been harnessed and 
applied in livestock interventions in Africa over the years.  The section elaborates on the 
growing recognition of the role of individual agency in the delivery of goat breeding as 
well other development interventions, and the implications on collective capacity and 
breeding interventions in the future. 
 Generally, current research on delivery of development (e.g., Cohen, Higgis, 
Sanyal, & Harris, 2008; Dale and Newman, 2010; Duguma et al, 2010; Ravensbergen 
and Vanderplaat; 2009; Schuftan, 1996; and Weyers, 2011) places significance on 
individual agency in sustainable development. Starting with now classic texts called 
Putting People First by Michael Cernea (1991), development scholarship endeavors to 
16 
 
appreciate the place of individuals in society on par with the technical expertise and 
financial resource aspects of development.  In the past, as illustrated through the 
government-donor livestock interventions discussed earlier, expertise and non-human 
resources were treated as being more significant components to be addressed within a 
development project (Ahuya et al, 2005). The focus of attention was uncritically placed 
on management improvements and little else (Peacock 2009). But in recent years, there is 
increasing emphasis on human components of development, even with livestock oriented 
journals and publications. A popular way of bringing human agency into the development 
context is through concepts of human capital and social capital, and the broader 
livelihood framework for development studies. This framework is increasingly popular in 
development studies as a holistic and balanced approach to understanding the diversity of 
resources (both physical and social) that are required for sustainable development. And 
given this popularity, the concept is also under sharp scrutiny on several fronts (van Dijk 
2011; Prowse 2010), but this analysis extends beyond the scope of this literature review. 
Social capital refers to “connections among individuals – social networks and the norms 
of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (Putnam 2000:19), and is closely 
linked to concepts such as civic virtue or social cohesion. Even though social capital by 
itself is not always sufficient to develop and sustain communities without economic and 
human capital, it is increasingly being recognized as important in effecting a safety net 
that plays a key role in community members’ ability to engage with development 
interventions (Dale and Newman, 2010).  In this section current literature on delivery of 
development is summarized to outline how current livestock breeding and multiplication 
interventions interact with emerging themes of individual agency under the broad 
framework of sustainable development. Concepts of individual agency extend to concepts 
such as participatory development and pro-poor developed as discussed below. 
 In attempts to effect more sustainable positive changes in resource poor farming 
communities, the ongoing Livestock Revolution (Peacock and Sherman, 2010) is distinct 
from earlier farming interventions in its aspirations to be as inclusive as possible.  In 
essence, the community based approach to introducing and diffusing genetically 
improved goats strives to modify exclusionary procedural practices of old.  The 
realization in the 1970s and 1980s that resource-rich farmers benefitted from farming 
innovations more than resource-poor farmers contributed to Farmer Participatory 
Research and Participatory Technology Development in the 1980s and 1990s (Conroy 
and Sutherland, 2004).   
 Interest in participation as a necessary component of poverty alleviation has not 
been embraced in farming interventions alone.  Sustainable development in general 
experienced its ‘participation turn’ after observations that its approach was ‘top-down’ 
(Heffernan, 2008; Msukwa and Taylor, 2011).  Participatory development has however 
also exhibited its limitations, including, but not limited to cooptation by elites in the name 
17 
 
of community stakeholders (Heffernan, 2008).  Furthermore, as more understanding of 
the problems with ‘community’ are brought to light, the dynamics of heterogeneity 
within groups originally treated uniformly as communities and the extent of their 
influence on the uptake of development interventions is increasingly taken into 
consideration. These considerations call for even more robust forms of participatory 
research and development along with participatory project evaluation. At the same time, 
persistence of poverty together with growing research on poverty has also meant changes 
in research and in the expectations of interventions designed for poverty alleviation 
(Heffernan, 2008).  The factors above have continued to shape, and in turn continue to be 
affected by, participation as it is employed in livestock as well as other development 
interventions. 
  In a detailed analysis of participation in the livestock sector in Africa, Heffernan 
(2008) analyzed the shift in the manner in which participation of stakeholders has been 
conceptualized and applied over the years.  The traditional top-down approaches used in 
livestock breed improvement programs that were developed and implemented by donor-
government partnerships (Ahuya et al, 2005; Peacock, 2008) were followed by 
participatory development programs in the late 1980s and 1990s as discussed in the 
sections preceding (Conroy and Sutherland, 2004; Heffernan, 2008).  Poor outcomes and 
persistence of poverty despite this initial incorporation of participation have led to the 
current wave of modifications on ways in which stakeholder participation is 
conceptualized, harnessed, and applied in the present livestock revolution. Heffernan 
(2008, p. 687) characterized this metamorphosis of participation in development 
interventions as one effecting “demand-led” development.  Principles behind demand-led 
development are widely identified throughout current literature and case studies on 
community-based goat breeding interventions.  The following paragraphs recap a few of 
these recent trends.   
 As mentioned earlier, NGOs involved in current goat breeding interventions, such 
as FARM-Africa, do not merely seek the inclusion of stakeholders to implement models 
driven by external actors and agents. First, their interventions target specific groups most 
in need of them, such as lowest-income farming groups, female-headed households, 
groups with highest rates of malnourishment and nutrition needs such as those affected 
by HIV/AIDS, among others, within a given community (Peacock, 2008).   Due 
consideration is given to match demand with service.  There is deliberate effort to desist 
from broad regional/national implementation goals to small-scale implementation 
frameworks with flexibility for modifications to suit individual groups even within the 
same community (Peacock, 2008).   
 Refined, demand-led technical specificity is also an aspiration in new community-
based farming interventions.  Rather than introducing crossed breeds into the East Africa 
region as a whole, Peacock (2008) has argued for modifying the crosses according to 
18 
 
performance based on locales within the region.  There is also an emphasis to use 
technical skills already within the community first, such as MS or PhD students, and only 
using imported skill sets to supplement deficiencies, rather than completely sidelining the 
local skill set (Ahuya et al, 2005).   
 Second, among the groups targeted, care is taken to deliver development ideas, 
equipment, and/or services in a manner not to further compromise the dignity of a people 
whose dignity is already compromised by dire poverty.  In its delivery of goat breeding 
intervention services to communities, FARM-Africa for instance emphasizes not offering 
any equipment and/or services for free, but rather have communities pay modestly in cash 
or in-kind (Peacock, 2008). People’s sense of responsibility, initiative and self-respect is 
enhanced when they pay for goats or other related equipment and/or services than when 
these are handed out to them (Peacock, 2008).    
 Social capital is another aspect emphasized in these new models of delivery of 
development and livestock interventions (Dale and Newman, 2010).  In Kenya, delivery 
and implementation methods used by both FARM-Africa and Heifer International for 
example not only target community-wide farmers’ cooperatives but are also flexible 
enough to use specific networks within those cooperatives (Ahuya et al, 2005; Peacock, 
2008).  Such networks within a given cooperative could include groups like women’s 
basketry groups, families affected by HIV/AIDS, and others.  Where such networking 
does not exist, the current best practice is to have community members self-organize to 
forge such support networks as part of the process of partnering with a development 
agency before implementation begins (Peacock, 2008).  
 The aspiration for participation in these new methods of delivering farming 
interventions is to not only appreciate its role but also to seek ways to allow it drive these 
interventions in a more significant manner.  Practitioners seek to harness and apply 
participation in ways that respect citizens’ right to self-determination.  When harnessed 
successfully, these processes ultimately build up capacity both at the individual and 
community levels, resulting into more dynamic agency at the individual level.  When 
individual agency is enhanced socially and economically, collective capacity is 
augmented and social capital can then be harnessed and applied more dynamically.  
Ogola et al. (2010b:abstract) aptly observed, “for sustainability of dairy goat 
multiplication and breeding programmes targeting poverty alleviation, the initiative 
should be commensurate with the farmers’ capacity.”  
 At advanced stages of success, demand-led development then transforms, leading 
to “joined-up” approach (Heffernan, 2008; p. 687), where the quality of participation is 
refined through mutual social learning to a more enhanced partnership.  From 
observations of livestock interventions in Africa for over 30 years, Peacock (2008) made 
note of attitudinal changes that often have to take place between implementation partners 
19 
 
before embarking on intervention operations.  In The Habits of Highly Effective 
Practitioners, Weyers (2011) has also documented the appreciation of the importance of 
social learning and its impact on the uptake of development interventions from a content 
analysis of development literature in the past decade. Community coaching-based 
delivery strategies (Cohen et al, 2008) in sustainable development is increasingly being 
encouraged and applied to invoke and also accelerate social learning.  The focus of 
current research is to examine ways of translating the evolving concepts of participation 
summarized here into practice, keeping in check factors at the community levels that 
could potentially undermine citizen participation, and in turn conceptual gaps within 
participation that could potentially undermine citizen participation at the community 
level.  
REFERENCES 
 
Ahuya, C.O., Okeyo, A.M., Mwangi-Njuru, & Peacock, C. (2005). Developmental 
challenges and opportunities in the goat industry: The Kenyan experience.  Small 
Ruminant Research, 60, pp. 197-206 
Alexandre, G. & Mandonnet, N. (2005).  Goat meat production in harsh environments.  
Small Ruminant Research, 60, pp. 53-66 
Bett, R.C., Kosgey, I.S., Kahi, A.K., Peters, K.J. (2009).  Realities in breed improvement 
programmes for dairy goats in East and Central Africa.  Small Ruminant 
Research, 85, pp. 157-160 
Cernea, M. (1991.) Putting people first: sociological variables in rural development. 
Oxford University Press. 
Cohen, K., Higgins, L., Sanyal, N., & Harris, C. (2008).  Community coaching: 
Answering the call for innovative approaches to community-based development 
initiatives.  Journal of the Community Development Society, 39(4), pp. 71-82 
Conroy, C. & Sutherland, A. (2004, January).  Participatory technology development 
with resource-poor farmers: Maximizing impact through the use of 
recommendation domains.  Agricultural Research and Extension Network, 
Network paper No. 133.  Retrieved August 14, 2011 from http://www.odi.org.uk/  
work/projects/agren/papers/agrenpaper_133.pdf 
Dale, A. & Newman, L. (2010).  Social capital: A necessary and sufficient condition for 
sustainable community development?  Community Development Journal, 45(1), 
pp. 5-21 
20 
 
Dale, A. & Sparkes, J. (2010).  The ‘agency’ of sustainable community development.  
Community Development Journal  
Delgado, C., Rosegrant, M., Steinfeld, H., Ehui, S., Courbois, C. (1999). Live- stock to 
2020: The Next Food Revolution (Food, Agriculture, and the Environment 
Discussion Paper No. 28). International Food Policy Research Institute, 
Washington, DC. 
Duguma, G., Mirkena, T., Haile, A., Iniguez, L., Okeyo, A. (2010).  Participatory 
approaches to investigate breeding objectives of livestock keepers 
Dung, N.T., Binh, D.V., Mui, N.T., & Preston, T.R. (2010).  Effect of cassava hay 
supplementation on milk production in lactating goats.  Livestock Research for 
Rural Development, 22(3), 2010, pp.1-5 
Fermont, A.M., van Asten, P.J.A, & Giller, K.E. (2008).  Increasing land pressure in East 
Africa: The changing role of cassava and consequences for sustainability and 
farming systems.  Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 128, pp. 239-250 
Food and Agricultural Organization (n.d.). Appendix 4: Global production and 
consumption of roots and tubers.  Report on the Inter-center Review of root and 
tuber crops research in the CGIAR.  Retrieved August 21, 2011 from 
http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/tac/x5791e/x5791e0q.htm3 
Heffernan, C. (2008). Building Synergies in development research: is it time for the 
mosaic approach?  Development in Practice, (18)6, pp. 686-700 
Lenne, J.M. & Thomas, D. (2006). Integrating crop-livestock research and development 
in Sub-Saharan Africa: Option, imperative, or impossible?  Outlook on 
Agriculture, 35(3), pp. 167-175 
Massawe, N.F., Owen, E., Mtenga, L.A., Ashley, S.D., Holden, S.J. & Romney, D.L. 
(1997, August 5-7).  Paper presented at the 24th Annual Scientific Conference of 
Tanzania Society of Animal Production, Arusha, Tanzania  
Mwanyumba, P.M., Wahome, R. G., Mwang’ombe, A., Lenihan, E., & Badamana, M.S. 
(2010).  An analysis of factors affecting smallholder mixed farming activities: 
Performance and interaction in Wundanyi location, Taita district, Kenya.  
Livestock Research for Rural Development, 22(3); pp. 1-10 
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, UK Department for International 
Development (2006).  Tethered goats less work.  Retrieved August 14, 2011 from 
http://www.smallstock.info/tools/wambui/wambui03/tethered.htm 
21 
 
Morand-Fehr, P. Recent developments in goat nutrition and application: A review.  Small 
Ruminant Research, 60, 25-45 
Msukwa, C.A.P.S. & Taylor, D. (2011).  Why can’t development be managed more like a 
funeral?  Challenging participatory practices.  Development in Practice, 21(1), 
59-72 
Nakiganda, A., Mcleod, A., Bua, A., Phips, R., Upton, M., & Taylor, N. (2006).  
Farmers’ constraints, objectives, and achievements in smallholder dairy systems 
in Uganda.  Livestock Research for Rural Development, 18(5), 2006 
Njuki, J., Kaaria, S., Chamunorwa, A. & Chiuri, W. (2011). Linking smallholder farmers 
to markets, gender and intra-household dynamics: Does the choice of commodity 
matter?  European Journal of Development Research, pp. 1-18 
Ogola, T.D.O, Nguyo, W.K, & Kosgey, I.S. (2010a).  Economic contribution and 
viability of dairy goats: Implications for a breeding programme.  Tropical Animal 
Health Production, 42, 875-885 
Ogola, T.D.O., Nguyo, W.K., & Kosgey, I.S. (2010b). Dairy goat production practices in 
Kenya: Implications for a breeding programme.  Livestock Research for Rural 
Development, 22(1), 1-17 
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2011. Glossary of 
statistical terms. Accessed August 22, 
http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=1666 
Owen, E., Mayes, R.W., Minde, I., Mtenga, L.A., Sendalo, D., Romney, D.L., and 
Hendy, C. (1996).  Tether-grazing goats in Tanzania.  Project Report of the 
Semi-Arid Crop/Livestock Production System (Project R5194).  Livestock 
Production Programme, UK Department for International Development.  
Retrieved August 25, 2011 from 
http://www.smallstock.info/research/reports/R5194/R5194-2PS.pdf 
Peacock, C. (2008).  Dairy goat development in East Africa: A replicable model for 
smallhoders?  Small Ruminant Research, 77, 225-238 
Peacock, C. & Sherman, D. M. (2010).  Sustainable goat production: Some global 
perspectives.  Small Ruminant Research, 89, 70-80 
Peacock, C., Ahuya, C.O, Ojango, J.M.K., Okeyo, A.M. (2011).  Practical crossbreeding 
for improved livelihoods in developing countries: The FARM Africa goat project.  
Livestock Science, 136, 38-44 
22 
 
Prowse, M. 2010. Integrating reflexivity into livelihoods research. Progress in 
Development Studies 10(3), 211–31 
Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community. 
Toronto: Touchstone. 
Ravensbergen, F. & VanderPlaat, M. (2009). Barriers to citizen participation: The 
missing voices of people living with low income.  Community Development 
Journal, 45(4), 389-403 
Schuftan, C. (1997).  The community development dilemma: When are service delivery, 
capacity building, advocacy, and social mobilization really empowering?  
Retrieved August 14, 2011 from http://www.afronets.org/files/Empower.pdf 
Small Ruminant Research (2008). Foreword. Small Ruminant Research, 77, 91-92 
Sumberg, J. (2003).  Towards a dis-aggregated view of crop-livestock integration in 
Western Africa.  Land Use Policy, 20, 253-264 
van Dijk, T. 2011. Livelihoods, capitals and livelihood trajectories: a more sociological 
conceptualization. Progress in Development Studies 11(2), 01–17 
Wenger, E. 2000. Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems. Organization 
7(2), 225-246. 
Weyers, M. L. (2011).  The habits of highly effective community development 
practitioners.  Development Southern Africa, 28(1), pp. 87-98