FEED THE FUTURE INNOVATION LAB FOR LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS THE LIVESTOCK SYSTEM IN RWANDA – AN OVERVIEW – Acknowledgements This document was prepared by Felix Ngamije, country coordinator for Rwanda, and Lacey Harris-Coble, Research Assistant, from the Management Entity of the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock Systems. Recommended Citation Management Entity. 2022. The Livestock System in Rwanda – An Overview. Gainesville, FL, USA: Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock Systems Essential Bibliographic Information Leader with Associates Cooperative Agreement Award No. AID-OAA-L-15-00003 Sponsored by the USAID Bureau for Food Security Sustainably intensifying smallholder livestock systems to improve human nutrition, health, and incomes About Us The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) awarded the University of Florida (UF) Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) funds to manage the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock Systems. This ten-year initiative (Phase I 2015-2020, Phase II 2020-2025) supports USAID’s agricultural research and capacity building work under Feed the Future, the U.S. Government’s global hunger and food security initiative. The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) is the UF/IFAS main implementing partner. The five target countries for this project are: Burkina Faso and Niger in West Africa; Ethiopia and Rwanda in East Africa; and Nepal in Asia. Disclaimer This work was funded in whole or part by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Bureau for Resilience and Food Security under Agreement # AID-OAA-L-15-00003 as part of Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock Systems. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed here are those of the authors alone. Acronyms ADB African Development Bank AFB1 Aflatoxin B1 ASF Animal-source foods BATV Batai virus BUNV Bunyamwera virus c-ELISA Competitive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay CMT California Mastitis Test BTB Bovine Tuberculosis DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo ECF East Coast fever EDDP East Africa Dairy Development Program ELISA Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay ETEC Enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli FDA Food and Drug Authority of Rwanda FMD Foot and Mouth Disease FRW Rwandan franc GDP Gross Domestic Product GoR Government of Rwanda ILRI International Livestock Research Institute LSD Lumpy Skin Disease LSIL Livestock Systems Innovation Lab MCC Milk Collection Center MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources MINDEF Ministry of Defense MINICOM Ministry of Trade and Industry NAIS National Agriculture Insurance Scheme NAS Non-aureus staphylococci NDS National Dairy Strategy NGO Non-governmental Organization PCR Polymerase Chain Reaction PRISM Partnership for Resilient and Inclusive Small Livestock Markets RAB Rwanda Agriculture and Animal Resources Development Board RDCP Rwanda Dairy Competitiveness Program RDDP Rwanda Dairy Development Project i RNA Ribonucleic Acid RNDP Rwanda National Dairy Platform RVF Rift Valley Fever SCM Subclinical mastitis UHT Ultra-high-temperature USAID United States Agency for International Development USD United States Dollar ii Contents Acronyms .............................................................................................................................................................................. i Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Animal Source Food Production and Disease Management ....................................................................................... 1 Livestock Numbers ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Management Practices ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Feeding Methods of Cattle ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Feed and Forages ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Dairy Sector .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Livestock Products ......................................................................................................................................................... 9 Gender Roles in Livestock Production ...................................................................................................................... 9 Major Livestock Diseases ........................................................................................................................................... 11 Priority Zoonotic Diseases ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Human Health, Food Safety, Diets and Nutrition ...................................................................................................... 14 Nutrition Indicators ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 Animal-Source Food Consumption .......................................................................................................................... 14 Foodborne Disease ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 Food Safety Regulatory Environment ...................................................................................................................... 17 Marketing and Trade ........................................................................................................................................................ 17 Enabling Environment .................................................................................................................................................... 22 References .......................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix 1: Livestock Systems Related Projects in Rwanda .................................................................................... 30 Appendix 2: Median rates of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) per 100,000 Population due to Foodborne Diseases for Africa Sub-region E, including Rwanda (2010)* .............................................................. 33 Introduction Rwanda is categorized as a low-income country by the World Bank and ranks 160 out of 189 countries on the Human Development Index (World Bank, 2021; UNDP, 2021). Approximately 82% of the population lives in rural areas and 56.5% lives below $1.90 purchasing power parities per day (World Bank, 2021b). Rwanda’s population growth rate is 2.6%, and 39.7% of the population is between 0 and 14 years of age (World Bank, 2021b). The prevalence of stunting among children under five is 33% (NIRS, MOH and ICF, 2020). In 2022 the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) included Rwanda in the list of twenty Feed the Future focus countries Animal Source Food Production and Disease Management Livestock Numbers According to the 2020-2021 Annual Report of the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI 2021), livestock contributed 3% to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Rwanda’s livestock population was composed of 5.44 million chickens, 2.84 million goats, 1.45 million cattle, 1.44 million pigs, 0.80 rabbits, and 0.60 million sheep in 2020. Table 1 displays the trend of the main livestock species since 2010. Over a ten year period, pig production more than doubled and poultry production increased by 54%, while the number of sheep declined by 22%. Table 1: Livestock Population in Rwanda in Thousands by Species, 2010 to 2020 Species 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Poultry 3,538 4,421 4,688 4,803 4,917 4,838 5,239 5,273 5,442 5,306 5,442 Goats 2,688 2973 2,673 2,5709 2,5326 2,707 2,606 2,924 2,734 2,388 2,844 Cattle 1,335 1,143 1,1351 1,139 1,166 1,350 1,214 1,166 1,294 1,372 1,450 Pigs 685 706 989 1,311 1,015 1,492 1,685 1,7165 1,3302 1,386 1,441 Sheep 770 829 807 830 631 716 637 665 602 541 602 Rabbits 793 865 994 1,106 1,204 1,355 1,388 1,348 1,265 689 801 Source: (MINAGRI, 2021) A major reason for the increase in livestock is the “one cow per poor family” or Girinka program and the small stock support initiative implemented under the auspices of the Rwanda Agricultural Board (RAB) and MINAGRI. Since Girinka's initiation in 2006, a total of 406,776 cows have been distributed under the program, with 26,614 cows distributed in 2020/2021. As part of other social protection activities, in 2020 MINGRI distributed 2,366 pigs and 41,691 poultry to 31,764 poor families (MINAGRI 2021). Management Practices As cattle are the most important livestock species in Rwanda for meat and milk consumption (D’Andre et al., 2017). The management practices below focus on dairy cattle. Most smallholder farmers keep one to three cows (Bishop & Pfeiffer, 2008; Kamanzi & Mapiye, 2012). There are five key milksheds in the country: Eastern, Kigali, Northern, Southern, and Western milksheds; each having a different production system. The Eastern milkshed has the largest cattle population (60%) and semi-extensive grazing systems because of relatively large land sizes that can be up to 25 ha and that offer adequate land to grow forages, compared to the national average of 0.7 ha/household (Makoni et al., 2016). Feeding Methods of Cattle Feeding methods for dairy cattle range from open-grazing to semi-grazing and zero-grazing as outlined below (Makoni et al., 2016). 1 Open-grazing Animals freely graze on individual or communal grazing lands. This type of system is dominant in the lowland Eastern Province, where 40% of the national cattle population is found and the relative availability of grazing land is superior to other areas. In the Northern and Western Milksheds, characterized by pervasive slopes and rugged terrain, particularly the Gishwati area, the production system is extensive grazing on Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum) pastures fortified with Trifolium spp. (clover) pastures (Makoni et al., 2016). Semi-grazing The semi-grazing system (semi-extensive grazing) is a hybrid between open-grazing and zero-grazing. It is characterized by a shortage of land that results in farmers keeping their few cows in stalls. Such farmers, however, do not always have sufficient money and/or knowledge to feed their cows properly, and they may allow their herd to graze on nearby land part of the time (TechnoServe, 2008). This is a transitory state from open-grazing to zero-grazing. Zero-grazing The zero-grazing system is characterized by keeping animals in a shed and feeding by cutting and carrying forage and crop residues to the cows. This production system is mainly practiced in peri-urban Kigali and in the Southern Province (Makoni et al., 2016). This production system is increasing in proportion due to the shrinkage of grazing land, which has been widely turned over to crop cultivation in response to increasing population. The Government of Rwanda (GoR) encourages zero-grazing because it avoids over-grazing and subsequently reduces land degradation. The main feed available for dairy cattle under this system is Napier grass (Mutimura et al., 2013; Mutimura, 2010; Mutimura & Everson, 2011). Feed and Forages Feed and Forage Availability The types of feed resources available for dairy cattle vary across the country, although the most readily available feeds are pasture or grasses, crop residues, and to a much lesser extent, improved fodder. Crop residues such as maize stover, banana peels, and sweet potato vines are mainly fed to animals during dry seasons (D’Andre et al., 2017; Mutimura et al., 2013). The Eastern Milkshed, particularly the Nyagatare area, has relatively low rainfall and an associated relatively long dry season of at least three months; therefore, the need for fodder conservation is more relevant (Makoni et al., 2016). During the 2019/2020 fiscal year, at least 7,694 farmers (South, Eastern, Western and Northern Provinces) have established improved forages, especially Chloris gayana, Mucuna, Brachiaria (basilisk, Piata and Xaraes), Napier grass, Desmodium, and Panicum coloratum. Furthermore, as part of the MINAGRI forage improvement activities, in 2019/2020, different forage varieties including Alfalfa, Chloris gayana, Pennisetum-Kakamega Desmodium distortum, Desmodium Intortum, Desmodium Uncinatum, Mucuna, Calliandra, Brachiaria, Panicum maximum, Panicum coloratum, and Leucaena ssp. were distributed to farmers and planted on 2,044 ha (MINAGRI, 2020). The use of conserved feed such as hay and silage is lower among small dairy holders and higher among dairy holders in peri-urban and urban areas (Nyiransengimana & Mbarubukeye, 2005). Dairy farmers purchase forage from neighbors and commercially purchase maize bran and concentrates. While concentrate feeding is encouraged, the profitability of this practice depends on the milk price to feed cost per kilogram ratio, which has been estimated to be at least 1.2:1 milk price per liter to cost of concentrate per kilogram, making it unappealing (Makoni et al., 2016). According to the National Agriculture Export Development Board (NAEB, 2019), Rwanda annually imports about $1 million of animal feed, and when including food residues for feed preparations, over $2.4 million. Investments in the past few years have enabled local processing of feeds. The four major manufactures are: UZIMA feeds Ltd./formerly PAFI (Eastern province), Gorilla Feeds Ltd. (Kigali city), Zamura Feeds Ltd. (Northern Province), and Huye Feeds Ltd. (Southern Province). Their installed daily production capacity is 40 2 tons per factory. Major feeds and dairy production constraints in Rwanda are summarized from three studies in Table 2. Table 2. Summary of Major Feeds and Dairy Production Constraints in Rwanda Districts Available feed (ranked) Constraints (ranked) References Gisagara District 1. Rangeland (grasses) Kamanzi and (Southern Province) 2. Crop residues (maize and Mapiye 1. Scarcity of land sorghum stover; rice, wheat, (2012) and sugar bean straw) 2. Shortage of forage 3. Improved grasses (e.g., Napier planting materials grass) such as seeds, 4. Browsing (largely during dry seedlings season) and herbaceous legumes (year-round) 3. Lack of knowledge Huye District 1. Grasses on forage Klapwijk et al. (Southern Province) 2. Parts of banana plant production and (2014) utilization 3. Crop residues Bugesera District 1. Crop residues (parts of banana 4. Use of Mutimura et al. (Eastern Province) plants, sorghum and maize inappropriate dairy (2015) and stover, wheat straw) breeds Nyamagabe District 2. Planted pastures (Napier, (Southern Province) Guinea, Signal and Timothy 5. Seasonal drought grasses) 3. Assorted weeds Feed and Forage Quality As part of research funded by LSIL, Nishimwe et al. (2019) analyzed 3,328 feed and feed ingredient samples for aflatoxins and fumonisins collected at six time points between March and October 2017 in all 30 districts of Rwanda,. Of the 612 participants providing samples, there were 10 feed processors, 68 feed vendors, 225 dairy farmers, and 309 poultry farmers. The study showed that feed ingredients and complete feeds, collected from the different participants that spanned the feed value chain, showed widespread contamination with aflatoxins and fumonisins. The co-occurrence of aflatoxins and fumonisins occurred in 22.9% of feed samples. More than 90% of participants in this study reported that they had never heard the words “mycotoxins or aflatoxins” nor their consequences. Absence of appropriate regulations contribute to the mycotoxin threat in Rwanda. All participants in this study were unaware of the one existing standard of the Rwandan Standard Board for aflatoxins in dairy feed supplements. The results of the study, discussed at a national stakeholder meeting in 2019 hosted by MINAGRI in collaboration with LSIL and the USAID/Rwanda Hinga Weze Activity, prompted a re-activation of the national aflatoxin taskforce. Dairy Sector D’Andre et al. (2017) conducted a household survey in six districts in Rwanda to evaluate livestock farming and management systems with special emphasis on meat production, processing, and marketing. Results showed that the indigenous cattle breed (Ankole) was the most predominant of all the food animals available. 3 Their crosses with exotic cattle were the second most common. While improved dairy breeds account for only 28% of the total cattle Girinka program - One Cow per population, they produce 82% of the milk in the country (MINAGRI, Poor Family 2013). The main dairy breeds in Rwanda are the Holstein-Friesian, Jersey, Brown Swiss (largely in Northern Milkshed), and lately The One Cow per Poor Family Fleckvieh. Based on the potential productivity of the breeds, milk program called “Girinka,” which production per cow has been low at estimates of 1.2, 4.6 and 6.7 translates as “may you have a cow,” liters/day for Ankole, crossbred, and purebred dairy cows, respectively started in 2006 with the goal of (Makoni et al. (2016). Dairy cattle are found throughout Rwanda and reducing child malnutrition rates and crossbred (Ankole x Holstein-Friesian) and pure Holstein-Friesian cows increasing household incomes of are dominant in the north and northwest parts of the country. vulnerable, poor families. The program Crossbred cows are the most preferred cows in the country, albeit pure Holstein-Friesian is the primary choice for larger farms (Mutimura, aimed to distribute improved heifers to 2016). The GoR has a breeding policy that prescribes 60% and 40% 350,000 families across the country by crossbreeding with Jersey and Holstein-Friesian, respectively, which is 2017. According to MINAGRI (2021), difficult to implement since farmers prefer a high milk producing the program has distributed 406,776 Holstein-Friesian. The policy further prescribes areas for each breed in cows. which the Holstein-Friesian is to be used, where land size does not limit fodder production, whereas the reverse is true for use of the Jersey Households that receive the cows pass breed. Despite the dry season feed shortage in the Eastern Milkshed, on the first female offspring to the next the Holstein-Friesian is recommended for use on the assumption that resource-poor family, and the cycle land is available to produce feeds for conservation and use during the continues. To be considered for dry season (Makoni et al., 2016). Girinka, a family must show that it does not have other sources of income, is Fisher and Pfeiffer (2008) assessed 150 Ankole and crossbreed cattle able to care for the animal and from 87 farms for body condition scored (BCS) on a scale of one (lean) construct a cowshed and has a plot of to five (fat) and examined rectally for pregnancy and ovary size and structures present. The mean age of onset of puberty was 27.7±10.4 land to support feeding the cow (i.e., months, the interval from parturition to first oestrus was 8.7± 7.8 0.25 to 0.75 ha). Thirty percent of the months, calving index was 16.8±5.2 months, and 44% (95% CL 0.36- heifers are allocated for women. 0.52) of cows examined rectally were anoestrus. Crossbred cattle The Rwanda Agriculture and Animal reached puberty younger than Ankole cattle, 23.4±10.4 and 28.4±9.6 months, respectively (p< 2.5), and crossbred cattle were 1.67 times as Resources Development Board (RAB) likely to be in anoestrus as those with higher BCS (≥ 2.5) (χ2 =9.476; has coordinated the program under the df=2; p< 0.01). Increased weaning age resulted in increased calving auspices of the Ministry of Agriculture, index (p < 0.001; t = −3.60; df = 38). Reproductive performance of with these additional partners: Ministry Rwandan cattle is poor. Many of the problems can be attributed to of Local Government (representing husbandry practices and lack of experience and training in raising cattle. districts, sectors, cells, and Imidugudu villages); Ministry of Finance and According to ter Steeg and Bonnier (2019), the dairy value chain is Economic Planning; local NGOs; and characterized by fragmentation and a dominant informal sector. Dairy international organizations, such as farming is unregulated and dispersed; most farmers consume raw milk at home and sell excess milk for low prices locally. A growing number Heifer International Program, Send a of farmers supply their milk to milk collection centers (MCC) using Cow, and World Vision (MINAGRI, bicycles or motorcycles, mostly without refrigeration. The number of 2020). MCCs in Rwanda had increased from 96 to 132 MCCs in 2016 (MINAGRI, 2020). Figure 1 outlines the main actors in the dairy value chain in Rwanda. The Government of Rwanda recognizes the important and strategic role in economic growth and nutritional status the dairy sector can play as clearly outlined in the Rwanda Livestock Master Plan (Shapiro, 2017). The document identifies two types of dairy operations: “Improved Family Dairy” and “Commercial Specialized Dairy”. The Improved Family Dairy is an upgrade from the most common dairy operation in Rwanda. These 4 are mixed crop-livestock farms with few inputs and moderate milk production from a few dairy animals. The cattle are exotics or crossbreeds and may receive improved feeds and have access to animal health services. The Commercial Specialized Dairy is a commercial enterprise with high inputs and high milk productivity. Figure 1: Dairy Value Chain Map Source: ter Steeg & Bonnier, 2019, adapted from Heifer International, 2016 Artificial Insemination The National Artificial Insemination Center leads the efforts, but bovine genetic improvement activities are implemented by different partners, including cattle farmers, local government, livestock professional organizations, and NGOs, and they are supervised by Rwanda Agriculture and Animal Resources Development Board (RAB). To ensure increased access to artificial insemination (AI) inputs for improved service delivery, RAB has ensured maintenance and good operations of the two liquid nitrogen plants installed at Rubilizi and Rubona Stations. In FY 2019/2020, a total of 81,405 semen doses were produced and processed. In addition, 59,688 semen doses and 60 embryos were imported under the Jersey Inka Nziza project. A total of 105,964 cows were inseminated and 40,305 calves were born through AI (MINAGRI, 2020). Entities that contributed on this effort were GoR, Rwanda Dairy Development Project (RDDP), Send a Cow, Heifer International Rwanda, Jersey Island, and Bothar (MINAGRI, 2020). 5 A 2019 RAB study on AI adoption and AI success rate in dairy cattle was conducted in 12 RDDP target districts, interviewing 1,044 dairy farmers. Main findings were: (a) overall, mature cows (dry cows, lactating cows plus heifers) formed 63% of the whole herd, leaving only 26.5% for calves and weaners, (b) very few farmers kept records, and 27% indicated keeping record of calving date, date of service after calving, or date of birth, (c) 33% of respondents only used AI, 38% used natural service, and 29% used both, (d) most of the AI adopters were respectively found in the districts of Gicumbi (45.3%), Nyanza (43.7%), Rwamagana (44.2%) and Burera (40%), while low AI adopters were found in the districts of Nyagatare (7.7%) followed by Rubavu (15.6%) and Musanze (23%) (RAB,2019). Reported challenges with AI use include low rates of conception, i.e. several repeat services (25.9%), poor timeliness of inseminator visit (24.3%), difficulty to contact inseminator (10.6%), no availability of inseminator (9.5%), inadequate semen/liquid nitrogen and other consumables (2.9%), and lack of details on the breeds and bulls available at the time of insemination (1.4%). A small portion of interviewees (16.4%) reported no challenges. Habiyaremye et al. (2021) conclude that while dairy policies, programs and regulations in Rwanda have paved the way for the development of the dairy sector and contributed to the provision and use of inputs and services, challenges remain. Accessibility and use of veterinary and artificial insemination services are limited by the quality of veterinary products while the inadequate quality of feeds led to low productivity of cross and pure breeds. Farmers’ uptake and use of inputs and services can be enhanced through strengthened capacity of MCC along with health and animal feed policies that guide and control the quality of veterinary products and feeds sold in the markets. Pig genetic improvement (PGI): Pig farming in Rwanda is undergoing rapid change but production is still low due to poor quality genetic material, inadequate supply of quality of feeds, high incidence of pig diseases, and inadequate technical support services (MINAGRI, 2021). Rwanda Agriculture and Animal Resources Development Board (RAB), through the support of the Project ENABEL /PRISM fiscal year 2020/21, planned to support the existing pig breeding centers and the advanced pig breeders by providing exotic boars as a means of improving genetic material and to strengthen activities of semen collection at the centers. They also sought to reinforce their capacity to disseminate enough quantity and quality of pig semen at a large scale to help advanced pig breeders to multiply and distribute improved piglets that were able to grow quickly, thus benefiting pig farmers. Through this initiative, eight boars for semen collection and two females exotics were purchased and are being reared at MUHANGA AI Center. Pietrain and Landrace Boars were purchased in this activity and are expected to contribute to pig genetic improvement in Rwanda (MINAGRI, 2021). Four profiles were found that make up the overall Rwanda pig value chain. These profiles include pig farming systems in Rwanda, live pig markets, slaughterhouses, and processing factories (Shyaka, et al., 2021). 6 Figure 2: Overall Structure of the Pig Value Chain Depicting the Flow of Live Pigs and Pork in Rwanda. (Large arrows indicate more important pathways while dotted red boxes highlight some sanitary risks in the value chain) Source: (Shyaka, et al., 2021) These chain profiles are interlinked and often involve the same value chain actors, leading to a complex value chain. Both informal and formal pig value supply chains were identified. Formal supply chains are those 7 flowing through infrastructures regulated by inspection, licensing, and taxation. Informal supply chains are those outside this formal regulatory framework (Shyaka, et al., 2021). Poultry Sector As outlined in the Rwanda Livestock Master Plan, the Government of Rwanda recognized the important and strategic role the poultry sector has played (Shapiro, 2017). The GoR aims to transform predominantly backyard and subsistence farming into a market-oriented production system. The very ambitious goals outlined in the 2017 document will most likely not be met by 2022, but important advances are taking place. As part of the TRAIDE Rwanda program, Cocchini and ter Steeg conducted an informative Poultry Sector Analysis in 2019. Table 3 summarizes the challenges identified in that study. Table 3: Poultry Production Challenges in Rwanda Challenge Perception* Intervention needed 1. Feed Low availability of maize and soy Low Make land available for additional production of due to lower regional yields (most cereals needed in poultry feed. Introduce likely climate change-related) and innovative substitutes for maize as raw material competition with human for animal feed like rice and cassava. consumption (especially maize) High and variable price Very high Resolving the issue of low availability would in turn reduce the price (and its variability) of chicken feed. Low quality Low Improve policy, regulations and controls on the matter. Raise awareness on the importance of high-quality feed for healthy and productive chickens. 2. Day-Old Chicks and Genetics Dependency on importation of day- Support the establishment of new hatcheries in old chicks Rwanda that, at high production volumes, can compete with import from Uganda or Europe. Low yielding potential of local Shift towards high-yielding dual-purpose breeds breeds** (e.g., Sasso breed). 3. Animal Health and Biosecurity Disease incidence High Publicize RAB vaccination program. Make vaccines more easily accessible in every province. Low biosecurity measures Low Raise awareness and offer support for implementation implementation through extension services. 4. Lack Of Knowledge/Training And Skills On Poultry Farming Lack of technical training Medium Improve extension services. Collaborate with young graduates from colleges of agriculture, veterinary medicine, and business and economics. Lack of management training Low 5. Poor Access to Credit 8 Lack of credit. Medium Guarantee easier access through (micro)finance. 6: Market: Frequent Fluctuations in the Prices for Chicken Meat and Eggs Market fluctuations Medium Promote the value of chicken meat and eggs. * Perception is based on the recognition of the issue among farmers interviewed. Scale: Very high: more than 30% respondents mentioned the issue; High: between 25 and 30% of the respondents mentioned the issue; Medium: between 10 and 25% of the respondents mentioned the issue; Low: less than 10% of the respondents mentioned the issue. ** This issue mostly applies to village poultry, as commercial chicken farmers largely rear exotic breeds. Source: Cocchini and ter Steeg, 2019. Livestock Products The production of animal-source foods (ASF) has increased dramatically in the past decade. In 2019, Rwanda produced 864,252 MT of milk compared to 372,619 MT in 2010 (MINAGRI, 2020). Except for eggs, the production has doubled (see Table 4). Table 4: Production of Animal-Source Foods in Thousands of Metric Tons from 2010-2020 Product 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Milk 373 442 503 648 704 731 776 817 848 865 892 Meat 71 74 75 91 119 131 138 152 1627 167 175 Fish 15 16 18 25 25 27 27 29 313 33 42 Eggs 5.2 5.7 6.3 6.8 7.0 7.3 7.3 7.5 8.0 8.0 8.3 Source:( MINAGRI, 2021) Rwanda Beef: Gako Meat Company ltd, formerly Gako beef project is the initiative that was established by the government in partnership with private sector to address the issue of beef in Rwanda. Its initiative that was set under Public Private Partnership (PPP) to collaborate in both financial and management aspects. Currently 5,000 cows are on the farm seated on 5.919 hectares with a progressive plan of shifting from rearing general cows to hybrid beef cows to gradually attain the goal of having 56,000 cows in the feedlots (for fattening) and a target of slaughtering 86,400 cows annually. So far the project is producing between 6 to 8 tons of cow carcass (only supplied locally) and the feedlot, fattening site, and slaughterhouse are planned for construction next year 2023. The project have a total projected investment planned at $62.3 million (Sabiiti, 2022). Gender Roles in Livestock Production Women play a key role in agricultural production in Rwanda. A gender analysis study conducted by USAID in 2015 gives a good overview of the challenges to reach gender equality, especially in agriculture and food security. Major findings include: • The GoR is working to identify and change laws and policies that discriminate against women and to implement programs that reduce barriers to women’s full participation. • Tradition and cultural beliefs continue to limit Rwandan women, resulting in their inability to participate fully in all aspects of household, employment, and community life. • Women continue to face a “double burden” where their time is taken up with domestic responsibilities such as collection of fuel wood and water for household use and consumption, cooking, care of infants and the elderly, and care of small animals, and they carry out many activities related to production, such as paid employment and help on family farms. • Issues of mobility and insecurity combined with poverty limit women’s ability to take risks or to participate in programs and activities or to take advantage of services offered to them. Agricultural 9 extension services are often provided by male government or private agents who gear their programs to male participants. • Women are constrained by a lack of access to finance/loans to establish or expand their economic and agricultural businesses. Poor women especially lack knowledge of and access to new technologies, including cell phones and improved agriculture practices (such as new seed varieties that are drought tolerant or conservation farming techniques). • Men are seen as decision makers in families and cultural norms suggest it is the women’s job to follow what men say; men continue to control decisions about how family income will be spent, including income earned by women, although this is changing. Feed the Future activities can include training and capacity building for men about gender norms. • Despite GoR efforts, malnutrition rates for young children remain high in Rwanda. • Gender-based violence remains a nation-wide problem. • Given that many farmers (including women) are affected by climate change and experience drought or flooding on their plots, there is a need for increased focus on capacity building on this topic. In Rwanda, unlike the neighboring countries, only 17% of herds are owned solely by the household heads, while in most cases the ownership is in conjunction with other household members. However, decisions about herd management, breeding, purchase, and selling of cattle typically are made by the household head, mainly men (Wurzinger et al., 2006). Women are involved more in animal feeding, milk processing, and milk selling than men (Wurzinger et al., 2006; Kamanzi and Mapiye, 2012). Males are responsible for milking due to cultural belief, but a young female (not married or bearing children) can milk a cow in a family that does not have a male person (Mutimura, 2016). Table 5 provides an overview of the households raising different livestock species (in percentages). Table 5. Livestock ownership by head of household Average across By sex of head of household Type of livestock households (%) male (%) female (%) Goats 53 52 54 Cattle 47 51 40 Chickens 46 48 41 Pigs 24 26 21 Rabbits 23 23 22 Sheep 16 17 14 Other livestock 9 9 8 Total livestock 68 70 65 Source: Gender and Agriculture Report (GMO, 2017). According to Kamanzi and Mapiye (2012), farmers acquired their dairy cattle through donations, purchases, inheritance and other sources. There was a significant association between gender and inheritance of dairy cattle. Only 6% of the females in both agro-ecological zones inherited some dairy cattle compared to males (40%). As for agricultural cooperative membership, 2015 data reported in the 2017 Gender and Agriculture report show a 58% male versus 42% female distribution. As for cooperative leadership functions, the same report cities 2013 data showing a 57.7% for men and 42.3% female divide. When it comes to decision-making, men take high leadership positions including chairpersonship, presidency and other related posts. Women take on posts such as the vice presidency, secretariat and treasury, which have limited advantages in terms of decision making and access to opportunities such as information and trainings (GMO, 2017). 10 As part of an ILRI-led project for LSIL, Technoserve surveyed 30 producer organizations (PO). In total, 1,659 active farmers supplied their milk to the POs. Of these farmers, 21% (345) were women. Regarding the composition of the Board of Directors of the POs surveyed, 53 of the 150 members were women (35%). In accordance with the above, most women were secretary or advisor and only two of the 30 POs surveyed had female chairpersons at the time of the survey. The authors also noted that there was a noticeable difference between registered members and shareholders who fully paid their equity fee. For the case of fully paid-up shareholders, 824 of the 3,327 members of the surveyed PO were women (25%). Major Livestock Diseases According to RAB, in 2021: • No clinical cases of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and Contagious Bovine Pleuro Pneumonia (CBPP) were registered. • Some cases of Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) were registered in Gakenke, Rulindo, Kamonyi, Nyanza and Western Province Districts; mass vaccination in combination with restriction of animal movement in affected areas were carried out to tackle the spread of the disease. • The prevalence of Tick-born Disease (TBD), especially East Coast Fever (ECF), was 13%. In fiscal year 2019/2020, mass vaccination of animals against economically important and zoonotic animal diseases took place: root and mouth disease, lumpy skin disease, black quarter/anthrax, brucellosis, rift valley fever and rabies. According to MINAGRI (2020), 540,787 cows were vaccinated against black quarter, 693,945 cows were vaccinated against LSD, 61,980 cows were vaccinated against brucellosis, and 132,755 cows were vaccinated against FMD. In addition, 347,154 cows were vaccinated against rift valley fever (RVF) in the affected zone, i.e., alongside Nyabarongo and Akagera rivers (MINAGRI 2020). Foot and Mouth Disease Foot and mouth disease, FMD, is considered endemic to Rwanda, with sporadic outbreaks, and the most recent one was in June 2020 in Kayonza District (WAHIS, 2020). The FMD virus serotypes identified to date are serotypes O, A, SAT1, SAT2 (FAO 2017). As almost all FMD outbreaks have started in Eastern Rwanda, Udahemuka et al. (2020) conducted surveys to investigate risk factors responsible for the incursion, spread and persistence of FMD in Eastern Rwanda. This province neighbors Uganda and Tanzania, and uncontrolled transboundary animal movements (and possible introduction of infected animals) are likely to occur here. Among the 143 respondents, 36 (25.17%) of them reported having had at least one FMD outbreak within the last 5 years in their farms. Univariate analysis revealed that mixed farming (OR = 1.501, p = 0.163, CI = 95%), and natural breeding method (OR = 1.626; p = 0.21, CI = 95%) were associated with the occurrence of FMD, indicating that the two risk factors could be responsible for FMD outbreaks in the farms. The occurrence of FMD in the farms was found to be significantly associated with lack of vaccination of calves younger than 12 months in herds (OR = 0.707; p = 0.046, CI = 95%). Bovine Tuberculosis Habarugira et al. (2014) assessed the prevalence of bovine tuberculosis (BTB) through gross examination of granulomatous lesions as part of the routine meat inspection at Nyabugogo Abattoir, Rwanda’s main abattoir at the outskirts of Kigali. Findings, based on culture and postmortem results, showed that the prevalence of BTB is 0.5% (0.587*148/16753), with an overall gross tuberculous lesion prevalence of 0.9% (148/16753). A total of 1,683.5 kg of meat was condemned and the loss was estimated to 3,030,300 FRW (USD 4,810) based on the prevailing meat market prices (Habarugira et al., 2014). Rift Valley Fever The Nile basin of Rwanda has suitable ecological conditions for Rift Valley Fever (RVF) circulation including support for vector survival. Umuhoza et al. (2017) conducted a cross sectional study from December 2012 to March 2013 to generate baseline information on RVF in cattle in Rwanda. Overall, RVF seroprevalence was 16.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] [13.8% - 20.0%]). The highest seroprevalence was recorded in Kirehe 11 district (36.9%) followed by Ngoma (22.3%), and the least was recorded in Nyagatare (7.9%). RVF was more likely to occur in adult cattle (19.9% [odds ratio {OR} = 1.88, 95% CI {0.98-3.61}]) compared to young cattle (10.5% [OR = 0.47, 95% CI {0.26-0.83}]). Pure exotic or crossbreeds were significantly exposed to RVF virus (seroprevalence 22.9% [OR = 4.26, 95% CI {1.82-9.99}]) in comparison to 14.1% (OR = 0.55, 95% CI [0.35-0.86]) in local breeds. In 2018, samples (from 157 cows and 28 goats) were collected from a large outbreak of rift valley fever (RVF)-like illness in cattle in Rwanda and surrounding countries. Dutuze et al. (2020) tested the hypothesis that Orthobunyaviruses (e.g., bunyamwera virus (BUNV), batai virus (BATV), and ngari virus) were co- circulating and contributed to RVF-like disease. Using reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT- PCR), RVF virus RNA was detected in approximately 30% of acutely ill animals but in all cases of hemorrhagic disease. Seven cows with experienced abortion had positive amplification and visualization by gel electrophoresis of all three segments of either BUNV or BATV, and three of these were suggested to be coinfected with BUNV and BATV. Brucellosis Bovine brucellosis is endemic in Rwanda; however, little information is available on seroprevalence and risk factors. Ntivuguruzwa et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional study among cattle farmed at the wildlife- livestock-human interface (n = 1691) in five districts and one peri-urban district (n = 216). Cattle were screened using the Rose Bengal test, then the results were confirmed by indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Potential risk factors were determined with a questionnaire and analyzed for their association with seropositivity. In all districts, the animal and herd-level seroprevalence was 7.4% (141/1907) and 28.9% (61/212), respectively, 8.3% (141/1691) and 30.9% (61/198) at the interface, and 0.0% (0/216) in peri-urban areas. Among the potential risk factors, old age (≥5 years), cattle farmed close to wildlife, herds of cattle and small ruminants, history of abortions, and replacement animals were significantly associated with brucellosis (p < 0.05). Low awareness of zoonotic brucellosis, assisting calving without biosafety protection, drinking raw milk, and manual milking were each observed in more than 21.7% of cattle keepers whose herds were seropositive. Kiiza et al. (2021) in a similar study found a higher seroprevalence of brucellosis both at the farm level, 33% (95% CI = 24%, 43%), and at the animal level, 14% (95% CI = 11%, 17%). Most study farms (40/85 or 47%) had one head of cattle only. Using logistic regression, at the farm level, the presence of seropositive cattle was associated with herd size (2-45 cattle, odds ratio = 21.2; 95% CI = 2.4, 184.5) (46-220 cattle, OR = 288.5; 95% CI = 24.3, 3,423.1) compared with farms with one animal, after controlling for main breed (local breeds, crossbreeds) on the farm. In addition, the odds of testing seropositive were 10.7 (95% CI = 2.3, 49.1) and 149.5 (95% CI = 19.3, 1,158.7) times higher in farms in Nyabihu district and Nyagatare district, respectively, than in farms in Muhanga district, after controlling for main breed on the farm. The study also found a high frequency of adult cattle (86%) and a high seroprevalence of brucellosis in adult cattle (25%) in Nyagatare; an indication that, in the absence of culling and other control measures, Brucella spp. infection pressure can be relatively constant and a steady source of disease transmission in pastoral systems in that district. Endoparasites Although literature is scarce, endoparasites are very common in all livestock species across the country. A 1988 study by Kabagambe et al. in Bugesera found the following mean percentages of gastrointestinal parasites: coccidia (19%), Oesophagostomum (15%), Paramphistomum (15%), Haemonchus (19%), and Moniezia (3%). Tumusiime et al. (2020) assessed the prevalence of swine gastrointestinal parasites in Nyagatare district. Based on 10 fecal samples, the prevalence of swine gastrointestinal parasites was 84.6%, and the predominant species were Strongyle-type helminths representing 70.2%, followed by coccidia (55.8%), Strongyloides ransomi (39.4%), and Ascaris suum (10.6%). Almost all (84.1%) of parasitized pigs had coinfections involving two, three, or four different parasite species. Interventions among pig farmers in Nyagatare and possibly elsewhere should aim to increase awareness about endoparasites and the potential risk to human health if animals are not treated. 12 Mastitis Ndahetuye (2019) assessed the prevalence of subclinical mastitis S (SCM) with California Mastitis Test (CMT), sampling 828 cows in 429 herds from five regions in Rwanda. The overall SCM prevalence was 70.4% on herd level, 66.3% on cow level, and 39% on quarter level. Overall, 73.9% of all cultured milk samples were bacteriologically positive. Non-aureus staphylococci (NAS) followed by Staphylococcus (S.) aureus were the predominant pathogens. Staphylococcus chromogenes, epidermidis and sciuri were the most prevalent NAS. Another study by Ndahetuye et al. (2020) as part of LSIL Phase I found that prevalence, causative udder pathogens and their antimicrobial resistance (AMR), as well as cow and herd risk factors associated with subclinical mastitis (SCM) and intramammary infections (IMI) caused by Staphylococcus (S.) aureus or Non-aureus staphylococci (NAS) in dairy cows was linked to Milk Collection Centers (MCCs) in Rwanda. The prevalence of SCM was 37.3% at quarter level and 62.0% at cow level. Bacteria were isolated from 73.7% of the cultured milk samples, whereas 23.3% were culture-negative and 3.0% were contaminated. Staphylococcus aureus and NAS were the most prevalent pathogens, representing more than half of all bacteriological findings. SCM prevalence was high across MCCs. The majority of identified pathogens were contagious in nature and they exhibited resistance to penicillin. Control of the identified risks factors and improved biosecurity through adoption of best practices and farmer training could contribute to lowering SCM prevalence in Rwanda. Poultry Diseases Chickens are subject to both infectious and parasitic diseases . According to Cocchini and ter Steeg (2019), the main diseases are Newcastle, Gumboro (infectious bursal disease) and Coccidiosis (a parasite). The access of poultry farmers to medicine and health services is still limited. Antibiotics and medicines are usually bought from local agro-dealers, which are usually part of the Agrotech network. Agrotech is also the main supplier of vaccines. However, shops tend to run out of stock and vaccines are mostly sold in Kigali (FAO, 2016). The government wants to enhance productivity in three coexisting sub-systems: Improved Traditional Family Chicken (ITFC), Crossbreed Family Chicken (CFC) and Specialized Commercial Chicken (SP) production. This transformation would result in a more advanced poultry sector, better income for chicken growers and improved food and nutrition security for the Rwandan people (TRAIDE, 2019).According to Livestock Masterplan, (Shapiro 2017) The aim of raising poultry is to increase number of hens from 5.2 million in 2016 to 7.1 million in 2022. According to (MINAGRI, 2021) the population of poultry in Rwanda by June 2021 was 5,442,152 chickens. Priority Zoonotic Diseases In 2017, as part of a One Health Zoonotic Disease Prioritization workshop organized by the UD Centers for Disease control, the following zoonotic diseases were prioritized: Viral hemorrhagic fevers (ebola, yellow fever, crimean-congo hemorrhagic fever, and marburg), highly pathogenic avian influenza, RVF, brucellosis, trypanosomiasis, and rabies. Rwanda One Health Approach In 2015, the Government of Rwanda developed and approved the Rwanda One Health National Strategic Plan (2014-2018) to streamline cross-sectoral and institutional interventions, minimize duplication of efforts, and maximize the use of public resources (MOH, 2015). The goals were to: • Promote integrated disease surveillance, prevention and response (animals, humans and agriculture). • Improve education and communication among animal, human and environmental professionals. • Expose and integrate students engaged in professional education at university level to concepts related to One Health. • Promote interprofessional collaboration around innovation, research and discovery. • Develop educational tools for pre-university education that introduces concepts of One Health. • Develop policy focused on upstream drivers of disease emergence including land use, water access and deforestation. 13 • Address issues that relate to land use planning, reducing contact between humans, domestic and wildlife with minimal changes to critical habitat. • Address nutritional access by developing safer practices related to bush meat and animal consumption. This multipronged strategic plan is problem-focused rather than discipline-focused, and it seeks to bring together the newly realigned University of Rwanda, the Ministries of Health, Agriculture and Animal Resources and Education, The Wildlife Unit of the Rwanda Development Board, and other ministries and civil society. The strategic plan reflects Rwanda's belief that complex health problems can be addressed through integrated policy and interventions that simultaneously and holistically address multiple causes of poor health (e.g., poverty, limited education, unsafe and scarce water, lack of sanitation, food insecurity, gender inequality, and close proximity of humans and animals) (Nyatanyi et al., 2017). In 2019, the Rwanda One Health Strategic Plan II (2019-2024) was reviewed and validated by all institutions that form the Rwanda One Health platform, and it replaced the earlier version of the document. According to FAO (2019), apart from management of zoonotic and other epidemic diseases, the current strategy also addresses public health concerns like Aflatoxin, Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as well as food safety and food security through the One Health approach. Human Health, Food Safety, Diets and Nutrition Nutrition Indicators According to the latest Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) 2019-2020 published by the National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda (NISR) in 2020, 33% of children in Rwanda were stunted and 9% were severely stunted. Stunting generally increases with age, peaking at 40% among children aged 24-35 months. A higher proportion of children in rural areas (36%) than urban areas (20%) were stunted. Similarly, children in North province (41%) and West province (40%) were more likely to be stunted than other children. See Table 6 regarding the breakdown by province. Stunting is strongly correlated with mother’s education level. Children of women with no education are more likely to be stunted than those whose mothers have been to school. Stunting is inversely related to wealth quintile; 49% of children in the lowest wealth quintile are stunted as compared with 11% of children in the highest quintile. Only 1% of children in Rwanda were wasted and less than 1% were severely wasted. Overall, 6% of children under age five were overweight (NIRS, MOH and ICF, 2020). Table 6: Stunting Prevalence in Children Under Five Years per Region Region Prevalence of stunting Kigali 21.3% East 28.8% South 32.7% West 40.2% North 40.5% Source: NIRS, MOH and ICF, 2020 Animal-Source Food Consumption According to Kamanzi and Mapiye (2012), over 90% of the 120 farmers surveyed could not estimate the amount of milk consumed or sold per day but confirmed that it varied across seasons. All the farmers reported that each household consumed either fresh and/or fermented milk on a daily basis. Milk consumption was the most important reason for keeping dairy cattle, followed by cash through milk sales, manure, and status. In all the agro-ecological regions, fresh milk was used in tea or coffee and in making porridge, particularly for children. Fermentation of milk was the responsibility of women. Fermented milk 14 was consumed alone, with bread or “kawunga”, a boiled and semi-solid maize meal product. There was no association between gender and education level with milk consumption. Apart from consumption at dairy cattle owning households, ter Steeg and Bonnier (2019) outline three categories of Rwandan dairy consumers based on household income. First, low-income households generally buy locally produced (raw) milk directly from farmers. In rural areas, households usually prepare fermented milk (ikivuguto) themselves according to a traditional recipe rather than buying. Some households may buy pasteurized or fermented milk from MCCs. Second, middle-income households buy in milk shops (alimentation), milk zones and at MCCs. In a few instances they buy dairy products in the large supermarkets. Third, high-income households will generally buy all dairy products in large supermarkets unless they want unprocessed milk, in which case they will also visit the local milk zone or milk shop. Consumption of other dairy products like yoghurt, butter and cheese is not common. Butter and cheese are historically not very popular in Rwanda and consumption rates remain low. Moreover, these products are still considered luxury products. The large price differences make this apparent: one liter of unprocessed bulk milk is sold at 400–500 RWF in a local milk shop or milk zone while the price of one liter of processed milk is 1000–1200 RWF in the supermarket. One 250 ml cup of yoghurt costs 350 RWF in the supermarket (ter Steeg & Bonnier, 2019). According to MINAGRI, in fiscal year 2014/15 the per capita meat consumption for the people of Rwanda was only 7.9 kg/year for meat, 59 liters/year for milk and 0.63 kg per year for eggs (MINAGRI, 2015). See Table 7 for more detailed information about ASF consumption. It is likely that in more recent years, with the expansion of the Girinka project and growth of the poultry sector, the figures have changed. Table 7: Consumption of ASF between 2006 to 2014 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Milk Lt/pers/year 20.7 23 25.7 33.5 37.3 44.2 50.1 58.1 59 Meat Kg/pers/year 5.68 5.71 5.72 5.68 6.44 6.69 6.95 7.59 7.9 Eggs Kg/pers/year 0.2 0.2 0.25 0.36 0.47 0.52 0.57 0.62 0.63 Fish Kg/pers/year 1.02 1.04 1.32 1.36 1.36 1.41 1.59 2.51 2.59 Source: MINAGRI 2015. To address the problem of severe child malnutrition., the GoR has an extensive school feeding program including distribution of milk called One cup of milk per child. The program was started in 2010 in six pilot districts and provides half a liter of milk per child in nursery and primary schools twice a week. In September 2014, 80,000 children in 100 schools benefitted from this program (RAB, no date). As part of LSIL Phase I, an ILRI-led research team assessed the impact of ASF social behavior change communication (SBCC) on nutrition in Girinka households. The team implemented a cluster-randomized trial to test if ASF SBCC increases milk intake from one’s own production. The SBCC was implemented by community health workers from February-October 2019 working with a cohort of mothers with children 12- 29 months of age in Girinka households. The authors found that the Girinka program plus SBCC promoting ASF consumption increased maternal knowledge and awareness but not child 24-hour milk intake, dietary diversity, or growth. There was also a trend toward increased frequency of child milk intake in the Girinka and SBCC group. In addition, the knowledge of types of ASFs, timing of milk introduction, and milk food safety was higher in the SBCC group. Also, the awareness of feeding child ASFs, drinking 1 cup of milk daily, and starting to give milk at 12 months was higher in SBCC group (Flax et al., 2020). The same project team (Ouma et al., 2020) found that the Girinka program had a significant and positive impact on milk consumption among children and household food security. The program was associated with higher child growth (by 0.26 HAZ) and lower malnutrition (by 0.21 WAZ), but there was no impact on child dietary diversity. The positive impact of Girinka program on child milk consumption and household food 15 security was significant for households with relatively larger livestock herd size (> 1 tropical livestock units) and land size more than 0.1 acres. Foodborne Disease Milk Borne Pathogens Kamana et al. (2014) assessed the microbiological status of milk and derived products (n=330) throughout the milk and dairy chain in Rwanda by enumeration of the total mesophilic count, coliforms, and Staphylococcus aureus and detection of Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes. No significant differences were found in the coliform (P ~ 0.725) and S. aureus counts among the different farm types. The quality of raw milk was satisfactory for most samples, but 5.2% contained Salmonella. At the processing level, the total mesophilic count and coliform numbers indicated ineffective heat treatment during pasteurization or post-pasteurization contamination. Increasing bacterial counts were observed along the retail chain and could be attributed to insufficient temperature control during storage. Milk and dairy products sold in milk shops were of poor and variable microbiological quality in comparison with the pasteurized milk sold in supermarkets. In particular, the microbiological load and pathogen prevalence in cheese were unacceptably high. Ndahetuye et al. (2020) researched the most important milk quality attributes, including among others, E. coli, Salmonella, and Brucella antibodies in the farm-to-MCC milk chain. Milk samples were taken from dairy farms linked to two selected MCC in each of the four provinces in Rwanda. In total, 406 bulk milk samples from 406 farms and 32 bulk milk samples from eight MCC were collected and analyzed. The overall farm prevalence of Salmonella in milk samples was 14%, but no milk samples from MCC were positive for Salmonella. Lack of teat washing before milking was the only factor associated with Salmonella contamination of milk at the farm level. Five out of 22 bulk milk samples from different MCC were positive for Brucella spp. antibodies, but no Brucella antibodies were detected in milk samples from farms. As outlined earlier in this document, consumption of unpasteurized milk is common, which can have health consequences. A prevalence study conducted in Huye District, in the Southern Province of Rwanda, included 60 women presenting with abortion and/or stillbirth at two hospitals. Serum samples were collected, and the Rose Bengal plate test was performed on each sample. A questionnaire was also used to investigate potential contacts with animals and/or consumption of raw milk. Of the 60 samples, 15 (i.e., 25%) were Brucella seropositive. The questionnaire showed that those with seropositivity either were in contact with domestic animals (cattle, goat, or sheep) or were consuming raw cow’s milk (Rujeni & Mbanzamihigo, 2014). Meat Borne Pathogens A study was conducted in Kigali and found that Salmonella was detected in 19.6% of all the retailed meat samples evaluated, whereas the mean loads for total mesophilic bacteria and E. coli were 7.3 and 3.5 log cfu/g, respectively (Niyonzima, 2018). Typhoidal Salmonella enterica serotype Typhi and Shigella species were identified from 91 and 10 stool and/or blood samples, respectively, collected from 220 patients (Gatabazi, 2013). Salmonella in poultry is also common here, though there is limited official information published. Information on toxoplasmosis from Rwanda is limited. A 2019 review of Toxoplasmosis in eastern Africa by Mose et al. mentions three studies from Rwanda. A study in Kigali found an overall T. gondii seroprevalence of 12.2%. In this study, drinking untreated water and eating undercooked meat were found to be significantly associated with seropositivity. Toxoplasmosis prevalence levels ranging from 12% to 31% were recorded for two rural populations of Rwanda. Dermauw et al. (2018) conducted a systematic review of published literature to collect data on the occurrence, prevalence, and geographical distribution of bovine cysticercosis and human taeniasis in eastern and southern Africa, published between January 1990 and December 2017. Results show that both human taeniasis and bovine cysticercosis were widespread in the 27 countries/territories studied, except for Somalia, Rwanda and six island states/territories, indicating that T. saginata is present in most countries of the study area. The absence of data for some countries does not exclude the possibility that this parasite is present there as well. For example, given that the three countries bordering Rwanda that are included in this review (Burundi, 16 Tanzania and Uganda) all report the presence of this parasite, it seems unlikely that Rwanda is free from T. saginata. On the other hand, one potential hypothesis for the lack of reported T. saginata in Rwanda is the remarkably higher rate of access to improved sanitation services. Acosta Soto et al. (2021) found the highest cysticercosis prevalence reported in Rwanda in children to date. The team conducted a cross-sectional study in 680 children from a rural primary school in Gakenke district (Northern Province of Rwanda). The results suggest that more than of 13% of this group of children had been exposed to Taenia solium. In addition, among the reactive individuals, 46% had three or more reactive bands by enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot, which is highly suggestive of established cysticercosis infection. Furthermore, of the children with antibodies to cysticercosis, 38% were reactive to the detection of circulating antigen by ELISA, indicating the presence of active cases of neurocysticercosis. Since it is known that the prevalence of cysticercosis in a region increases with the age range studied, the authors deduce that the seroprevalence in the adult population is likely to be higher than observed here. Burden of Foodborne Diseases According to the global report of Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group (FERG, a World Health Organization external advisory group), Rwanda is found in a subregion that experiences the second highest foodborne disease burden in the world (Havelaar et al., 2015). Diarrheal disease agents such as Norovirus, Campylobacter species, E. coli, Salmonella species, and Cryptosporidium species contributed to the largest part of the foodborne disease disability adjusted life years (DALYs) in this region (Table 13 in Appendix 2). A follow up study by Li et al. (2019) assessed the human disease burden associated with 13 pathogens (bacteria and parasites) in ASF. In 2010, the global burden of ASF was 168 (95% uncertainty interval (UI 137–219) Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) per 100,000 population, which is approximately 35% of the estimated total burden of foodborne disease (FBD). Main pathogens contributing to this burden included non-typhoidal Salmonella enterica, Taenia solium, and Campylobacter spp. The median ASF burden in all sub- Saharan countries, African subregions AFR D and E (which includes Rwanda), was 580 (95% UI 314–879) and 459 (95% UI 294–625) DALYs per 100,000 population, respectively, indicating a burden that is remarkably higher than those reported elsewhere. Food Safety Regulatory Environment The Rwanda Food and Drug Authority (FDA) has regulations that provide the legal framework for the effective and efficient regulation of food hygiene during processing, handling, storage and distribution of food in order to protect health of the consumers. These regulations also apply to premises involved in the manufacturing, storage, sale, and distribution of food products (FDA, 2019a). Marketing and Trade Exports and Export Projections An important strategic document to consider is the 2019-2024 Strategic Plan of the National Agriculture Export Development Board (NAEB) published in May 2019. This document provides relatively recent export figures as well as projections. Rwanda’s agricultural exports grew rapidly, doubling from 225 million USD in 2013-2014 to 516 million USD in 2017-2018. This success has been due to moderate growth in traditional exports and fast growth in emerging export crops. Rwanda predominantly exported traditional commodities such as tea, coffee, and Tanacetum cinerariifolium (Pyrethrum) to international markets, but new high potential export crops have emerged including horticulture, livestock, cereals, and other crops (essential oils, stevia, fish, etc.). 17 Figure 2: Rwanda Export Projects (in million USD), 2013-2024 Source: NAEB, 2019. Meat, fish, and milk have high regional demand, with DRC and Kenya being the largest importers of these animal products. DRC’s meat imports reached $117 million and fish imports reached $83 million in 2017, while Kenya imported milk worth $52 million and fish worth $24 million (NAEB 2019). Exports of animal products to Sudan, South Sudan, and Tanzania happen in much smaller volumes. According to Makoni et al. (2016), the Rwanda dairy sub-sector contributes to regional milk supply largely through informal exports to Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The informal milk exports can be as much as one million liters of fresh and fermented milk per month. Because the price of milk from Rwanda is high, Rwandan milk cannot compete in milk markets in Uganda and Kenya. However, opportunities for export of value-added products, particularly cheese, to all East African countries exists because of lower product prices. Informal trade, particularly with DRC, is important for all animal products as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: Rwanda Exports of Animal Products by Formal and Informal Trade in Million USD for 2017-2018 Source: NEAB, 2019. 18 According to NAEB (2019) the limited capacity for local feed production given low levels of cereal production poses challenges with Rwanda’s competitiveness for animal products. Small grazing animals require less feed, but to export to the biggest potential market, the Middle East, will require sea transportation via neighboring countries and puts Rwanda at a disadvantage for live animals, which are in demand. The exports for hides and skins between 2014-2019 had a rapid decrease; in FY 2014-2015, the exports registered was 6,875,952 kg while 2018-2019 registered only 834,408 kg, with revenues dropped from 8,845,104 to 802,988 U.S. dollars. According to the trend of decrease, there is likelihood that it will continue decreasing, unless other measures are taken (see Table 8). Table 8: Exports of Hides and Skins in both Volume (kg) and Value (USD), 2014 to 2019 Exports 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 Hides Volume (in kg) 6,875,952 5,379,524 5,294,420 2,603,454 834,408 Value (in USD) 8,845,104 5,640,796 6,103,622 3,956,789 802,988 Skins Volume (kg) 2,011,654 1,330,757 1,050,725 797,580 243,431 Value (in USD) 3,170,728 1,795,691 1,854,326 1,897,169 223,303 Grand total Volume (kg) 8,887,606 6,710,280 6,345,145 3,401,034 1,077,839 Value (in USD) 12,015,832 7,436,487 7,957,948 5,853,959 1,026,292 Source: NEAB cited in the Statistical Yearbook 2019. The 2019 NEAB Strategic Plan provides projections of expected export volumes and values for the coming fiscal years, as reflected in Table 9. Table 9: Projected Exports of Animal Products by Volume in Metric Tons and Value (in million USD) Animal products* 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 Volume (in metric tons) 59,312 60,542 61,797 63,079 64,387 Value (in million USD) 129 135 141 148 154 *Animal products include milk, meat, live animals, hides and skins, fish, and eggs. Source: NAEB, 2019. Existing initiatives in place to improve production and productivity in animal products such as the Gako integrated beef project and cattle genetic improvement can help increase competitiveness in specific segments. Gako Beef is a public-private partnership project including integrated forage production, intensive cattle production, fattening, and meat processing. It covers a total of gross area of 6,000,ha of which 1,050,ha has been identified for irrigated forage to support beef production (NAEB, 2019). Dairy Markets As illustrated in Figure 4, milk is consumed by the household and excess milk is mostly delivered to an MCC. IFAD (2016), as part of the Rwanda Dairy Development Project design document, estimated that 63% of the milk goes through the informal channel and only 37% through the formal structure. While the number of MCCs has increased since 2016 (from 96 to 132), the fraction of milk marketed formally is still likely to be low. The development of the National Dairy Strategy in 2013 by MINAGRI and the promulgation in 2016 of the ministerial order regulating the collection, transportation and selling of milk were essential in formalizing the dairy subsector. 19 In 2018, a minimum milk price of 200 RWF (paid for one liter of milk) was introduced by the Ministry of Trade and Industry in order to protect farmers from a limited number of buyers. MCCs or farmers who are able to deliver their milk to processors themselves receive 240 RWF per liter of milk. However, when MCCs or farmers rely on the processing company for transport, they will only be able to sell milk for 220 RWF per liter (ter Steeg & Bonnier, 2019). Recent data are not available; however, IFAD (2016) reported that annually, Rwanda informally exported $11.5–15 million USD of raw and fermented milk to its neighboring countries Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is likely to have increased in the past five years with the increased investments in the sector. Figure 4: Mapping of Milk Flow in Rwanda Source: IFAD (2016) MINAGRI (2020) reports that the dairy subsector was severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Milk passing through MCCs reduced by 35% during lockdowns, and 22 out of 132 MCCs have closed their doors, whereas several others were operating two to three days per week only. Further, the dairy industry recorded 100,000 liters per day without market. This was due to limited market for both fresh and processed milk. As a result of the lockdown, three out of five big milk processors were operating at 21% to 46% of the installed capacity from 100% before COVID-19. Similarly, 53% of the dairy small and medium enterprises closed their businesses during the lockdown. The decrease of capacity utilization for milk processing factories was attributed to three main reasons, namely, the closure of hotels and restaurants, closure of milk shops/milk zones, and the lockdown, which restricted the movement of people and goods. The 2019 Statistical yearbook provides an overview of the milk exported in terms of volume and revenue in USD generated (Table 10). Table 10: Export of Milk in Volume and Revenue Exports 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 Volume (liters) 15,038,406 12,732,335 12,081,956 17,514,192 9,304,523 Revenues (USD) 15,038,406 12,732,335 13,061,738 20,644,939 6,073,138 Average price / liter (USD) 1.00 1.00 1.08 1.18 0.65 Source: NEAB cited in the Statistical Yearbook 2019. The export revenue from milk decreased in the past years both in volume and revenues. From the data available it is not clear if this is a continuing trend. 20 According to ter Steeg and Bonnier (2019), Rwanda mainly imports dairy products from Belgium, France, Italy, Kenya, Netherlands and Uganda. Rwanda is an importer of cheese, butter, cream and milk powder. It remains a challenge for local processors to compete with imported products due to (varying) quality of milk, processing machinery and equipment, packaging material and storing procedures. Dairy Processing Milk is traditionally processed to kivuguto, a lacto-fermented (soured) milk. Raw or boiled milk is fermented for two to three days in a wooden jar, icyansi, and then kivuguto is either used in liquid form or further processed (i.e., churned) into butter (kimuri) and buttermilk (amacunda). Kimuri is heated with some natural perfuming additives for cosmetic purposes or preserved for 6 to 12 months and used for cooking (Karenzi et al., 2013). Milk processing and marketing are largely the responsibility of women (Kamanzi and Mapiye, 2012). Modern milk processing is done with only a small proportion of the produced milk. The primary processed dairy products are pasteurized milk, skimmed milk, cream, flavored milk, fermented milk and yogurt, ultra- high-temperature processed (UHT) milk, cheeses such as Gouda, butter, and ice cream (Karenzi et al., 2013). According to IFAD (2016), Rwanda has five main processing plants with a capacity exceeding 10 metric tons (MT) per day. Many processors are small and process less than one MT per day. The largest company in milk processing is Inyange Industries with a processing capacity of about 80 MT/day. Inyange has a market share exceeding 75% of processed milk and dairy products in Rwanda. The second largest dairy processor is Nyanza Milk Industries with a 5% market share. Additionally, Rwanda has about 25 to 30 small and medium- size processors of cheese and other dairy products. The total processing capacity in Rwanda is currently estimated at 290 MT/day. However, the capacity of processing companies is underutilized: only approximately 35% to 40% of the processing capacity is being used. A factory to produce powdered milk is in the initial construction phase and is expected to operate in 2022. The plant is estimated to cost around 37 billion RWF (approx. $38 million USD) in investment. The factory will be owned and operated by a company called East African Dairies, a shareholding between TRIOMF East Africa and dairy farmers in Gicumbi District (IAKIB Cooperative). TRIOMF East Africa will have 80%, while the cooperative will own 20% of the shares of the factory (Ntirenganya, 2020). Marketing System Actors and Profits The main actors in dairy product marketing are: MINAGRI, NAEB, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MINICOM), the Rwanda National Dairy Platform (RNDP), dairy producers, transporters, and MCCs. In 2008, the proportions of profit made along the milk value chain are 15% for input providers; 62% (open- grazing system) or 28% (semi-grazing system) or 44% (zero-grazing system) for dairy farmers; 15-25% for transporters; 6% for cooling system owners; 16% for processors; 10% for raw milk sellers; and 15-20% for boiled milk sellers and processed goods sellers (TechnoServe, 2008). Miklyaev et al. (2017) conducted a cost benefit analysis of the Feed the Future activities implemented under the Rwanda Dairy Competitiveness Program II (RDCP II) from 2012-2017. The RDCP II project produced positive financial and economic returns, with an economic rate of return of 18.7% and an Economic Net Present Value of $36.37 million USD. An additional $18.8 million USD in consumer gains are attributed to the creation of milk zones or franchised outlets (although these gains cannot exclusively be attributed to the RDCP II project). The analysis revealed that the main gains from market creation are passed on to dairy households through an increase in the farm-gate price of milk. Furthermore, the distribution of dairy cooperatives’ profits in the form of dividends paid to members mean that financial gains at the MCC level extend to individual dairy farmers. 21 The authors also recommend that future interventions focus on increasing the market for raw milk. Such interventions may include the promotion of local, small-scale production of pasteurized milk and other dairy products. Key Bottlenecks in Dairy Processing The 2019 report by ter Steeg and Bonnier provides a good overview of the challenges in the processing industry: • The costs of processing and packaging remain high due to capacity underutilization and a lack of economies of scale, cost of imported packaging materials, cost of electricity and inefficient processing technologies. • Low quality of raw milk: Although this has drastically improved, differences in quality remain across different dairy cooperatives. This observation is supported by findings from Ndahetuye et al. (2020) who reported that the prevalence of subclinical mastitis varied markedly across the country with those in the northern region reported the highest proportion’ of SCM positive cows. Furthermore, the quality of raw milk is affected along the value chain and particularly by the transport to the MCCs. • Rwanda lacks quality-based payment systems to incentivize farmers to further improve their farm management. Enabling Environment The National Dairy Strategy (NDS) was launched in 2013 and was implemented jointly by MINAGRI and the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MINICOM). The NDS described the policy environment and institutional framework for the dairy sector, set targets for milk production (by 2017 and 2020, respectively), and established a marketing system (MINAGRI, 2013). A dairy sub-sector working group was set up and the Rwanda National Dairy Platform was created with the vision to increase the production of high quality and competitive dairy products for health and poverty reduction by improving the livelihoods of the producers. A Mastitis Control Strategy was established under policy and enabling environment (Land O’Lakes, 2017). National Agriculture Policy Despite positive developments, Rwanda has yet to meet its production potential. In livestock, productivity remained consistently low over time. With the growing population, increasing urbanization, and rising incomes, the demand for meat, milk, and eggs is expected to increase significantly for the foreseeable future. To continue sustaining the productivity of milk, meat, and eggs, the policy prioritizes the increase in productivity per animal by addressing the feed deficit, animal health, genetics, and markets in order to: (a) improve breed performance through crossing local with improved breeds, (b) improve availability of feed (produced, agro-industrial by-products and processed feeds), (c) strengthen disease control targeting the control and prevention of priority livestock diseases, (d) strengthen extension services to improve the management skills of households raising livestock, and (e) provide incentives to promote more value addition through processing and product transformation, combined with a clearer role of the public and private sector (MINAGRI, 2017). National Agriculture Insurance Scheme The National Agriculture Insurance Scheme (NAIS) is designed to mitigate against risks and losses incurred by farmers due to unpredictable natural disasters, pests, and diseases that affect livestock and crops in a sustainable manner and to incentivize farmers to embrace commercial agriculture. The NAIS was launched by the GoR in April 2019, starting with crop insurance for rice and maize and livestock insurance for dairy cattle in eight districts. Due to the demand from farmers, the NAIS has been 22 expanded to all districts. Farmers in all 30 districts are eligible for government subsidized crop and livestock insurance (MINAGRI, 2019). The NAIS set the annual target to meet, the following table indicates the target the insurance had set for 2019/2020 to achieve. The table indicates the: Indicator as the targeted item to be insured, annual target as the number of insurances that will be released, and Achievement as the reached targeted/ numbers that were managed to be achieved from initial set target. See below table that illustrates the operationalization of NAIS in Rwanda. Table 11: Annual Targets and Actual Coverage Achieved by the National Agriculture Insurance Scheme Indicators Annual targets Achievements Hectares of crops insured 3,500 ha for maize 357 ha for maize 2,224 ha for rice 9,477 ha for rice Total: 9,834 ha Number of cows insured 21,112 heads of cattle 17,373 (82.3%) cows insured (includes Girinka cattle donated to farmers with insurance) Source: (MINAGRI, 2020) NAIS have got government of Rwanda subsidy, where the farmer pays 60% and government pay 40% of insurance premium. This has been a great move for farmers who have been going through many issues related to deaths of animals due to outbreaks, disasters due to climate changes and crop production would be highly negatively affected. Compensation has been given to affected farmers. Livestock Master Plan In 2017, the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) developed the Livestock Master Plan (LMP) for Rwanda with input from the MINAGRI and Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB), as well as other Rwandan livestock experts (Shapiro et al., 2017). The LMP sets out the investment interventions—better genetics, feed and health services, and complementary policy support—that could help meet the national development plan targets of Rwanda by improving productivity and total production in the key livestock value chains for cow dairy, red meat-milk, poultry, and pork. Key points to consider according to the authors: • Investment in poultry has the most potential to close the projected meat consumption gap and could enable export of ruminant animals and red meat. • However, domestic consumer preferences for white meat and particularly chicken meat would need significant investment. • The projected gap in milk demanded could be closed and a surplus produced through AI and synchronization for breed improvement, combined with feed and health interventions addressing young and adult stock mortality. • Feed is the biggest constraint to animal productivity improvement. • The increase of red meat production is constrained by the limited access to land for feed production and grazing, the need to expand animal health services, and the low genetic potential of local cattle breeds and small ruminants. 23 References Acosta Soto, L., Parker, L. A., Irisarri-Gutiérrez, M. J., Bustos, J. A., Castillo, Y., Perez, E., Muñoz-Antoli, C., Esteban, J. G., García, H. H., and Bornay-Llinares, F. J. 2021. Evidence for Transmission of Taenia solium Taeniasis/Cysticercosis in a Rural Area of Northern Rwanda. Frontiers in veterinary science, 8, 645076. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.645076 ADF. 2011. Livestock infrastructure support program (sector budget support): Rwanda. Africa Development Fund, ADF. https://projectsportal.afdb.org/dataportal/VProject/show/P-RW-AAE-004 Bishop, H. and Pfeiffer, D. 2008. Factors effecting reproductive performance in Rwandan cattle. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 40(3):181-184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-007-9078-1 Berger, S. 2015. Infectious Diseases of Rwanda. Gideon E-Book Series. https://internationalmedicalrelief.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/RWANDA-Infectious-Diseases- of-Rwanda-by-GIDEON.pdf Cocchini, S., and ter Steeg, E. 2019. Poultry Sector Analysis Rwanda. TRAIDE Rwanda. www.agroberichtenbuitenland.nl/binaries/agroberichtenbuitenland/documenten/rapporten/2020/05/2 3/business-opportunity-report-poultry-rwanda-2019/BORPoultry_Rwanda2019.pdf D’Andre, H. C., Ebong, C., Mutabazi, J., Mutimura, M., Nyirishema, F. and Wallace, P.A. 2017. Livestock farming and management: the case of meat production and processing in Rwanda. Asian J. Anim. Sci., 11 : 96-107. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajas.2017.96.107 Dermauw, V., Dorny, P., Braae, U. C., Devleesschauwer, B., Robertson, L. J., Saratsis, A., & Thomas, L. F. 2018. Epidemiology of Taenia saginata taeniosis/cysticercosis: a systematic review of the distribution in southern and eastern Africa. Parasites & vectors, 11, 578. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-018-3163-3 Dutuze, M. F., Ingabire, A., Gafarasi, I., Uwituze, S., Nzayirambaho, M., and Christofferson, R. C. 2020. Identification of Bunyamwera and Possible Other Orthobunyavirus Infections and Disease in Cattle during a Rift Valley Fever Outbreak in Rwanda in 2018. The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 103(1), 183–189. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.19-0596 FAO. 2019. Rwanda gets new One Health Strategic Plan. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. www.fao.org/rwanda/news/detail-events/en/c/1192539/ FAO/EuFMD. 2017. Global Monthly Report on FMD December 2017. Rome, Italy: European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease. www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/eufmd/FMD_reports_GMR/Dec2017.pdf FDA. 2019a. Regulations governing food hygiene in food establishment. Kigali, Rwanda: Food and Drug Authority. www.rwandafda.gov.rw/web/fileadmin/the_republic_of_rwanda_food_hygiene_regulation_amended.pd f Flax, V., Ouma, E., Izerimana, L., Schreiner, M. A., Brower, A., Niyonzima, E., Nyilimana, C. and Usiimwe A. 2020. Impact of animal source food (ASF) social behavior change communication (SBCC) on nutrition in Girinka households. Presented at the LSIL 2020 Virtual General Meeting, September 2020. https://livestocklab.ifas.ufl.edu/media/livestocklabifasufledu/vgm- sept2020/RWA_Ouma_ILRI_Reach_Research-posters_2020_09.pdf GMO. 2017. Gender and Agriculture. Kigali, Rwanda: Gender Monitoring Office. http://gmo.gov.rw/rw/fileadmin/user_upload/profiles/Gender_Profile_in_Agriculture__GMO__Marc h_2017.pdf Habarugira, G., Rukelibuga, J., Nanyingi, M. O., and Mushonga, B. 2014. Bovine tuberculosis in Rwanda: Prevalence and economic impact evaluation by meat inspection at Société des Abattoirs de Nyabugogo- 24 Nyabugogo Abattoir, Kigali. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association, 85(1), 1062. https://doi.org/10.4102/jsava.v85i1.1062 Habiyaremye, N., Ouma, E. A., Mtimet, N., and Obare, G. 2021. A review of the evolution of dairy policies and regulations in Rwanda and its implications on inputs and services delivery. Frontiers in Veterinary science. Front. Vet. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.611298 Havelaar, A. H., Kirk, M. D., Torgerson, P. R., Gibb, H. J., Hald, T., Lake, R. J., & World Health Organization Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group. 2015. World Health Organization global estimates and regional comparisons of the burden of foodborne disease in 2010. PLoS medicine, 12(12), e1001923. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001923 IFAD. 2016. Rwanda Dairy Development Project (RDDP): Detailed design report. Rome, Italy: International Fund for Agricultural Development. https://webapps.ifad.org/members/eb/118/docs/EB-2016-118-R- 19-Project-design-report.pdf Kabagambe, J., Nshimiyimana, A., Muberuka, J., and Nyiligira, J. B. 1988. Lés maladies enzootiques des bovins au Bugesera. Bulletin Agricole du Rwanda 21 3 159-168. www.cabi.org/ISC/abstract/19940502398 Kabayiza, J. C., Andersson, M. E., Nilsson, S., Baribwira, C., Muhirwae, G., Bergström, T., Lindh, M. 2014. Diarrhoeagenic microbes by real-time PCR in Rwandan children under 5 years of age with acute gastroenteritis. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-0691.12698 Kamana, O., Ceuppens, S., Jacxsens, L., Kimonyo, A., and Uyttendaele, M. 2014. Microbiological quality and safety assessment of the Rwandan milk and dairy chain. Journal of Food Protection, 77(2), 299–307. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-13-230 Kamanzi, M. and Mapiye, C. 2012. Feed inventory and smallholder farmers' perceived causes of feed shortage for dairy cattle in Gisagara district, Rwanda. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 44(7):1459-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-012-0087-3 Karenzi, E., Mashaku, A., Nshimiyimana, A. M., Munyanganizi, and Thonart, P. 2013. Kivuguto traditional fermented milk and the dairy industry in Rwanda, A review. Biotechnology, Agronomy, Society and Environment (BASE. 17(2):383-391. http://popups.ulg.ac.be/1780-4507/index.php?id=9985 Kiiza, D., Biryomumaisho, S., Robertson, I. D., and Hernandez, J. A. 2021. Seroprevalence of and Risk Factors Associated with Exposure to Brucella Spp. in Dairy Cattle in Three Different Agroecological Zones in Rwanda. The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 104(4), 1241–1246. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.20-1426 Land O’Lakes. 2017. Rwanda Dairy Competitiveness Program II (RDCP II0): Impact Report. Minnesota, United States: Land O’Lakes International Development. www.agrilinks.org/sites/default/files/resource/files/RDCP%20II%20Impact%20Report.pdf Li, M., Havelaar, A. H., Hoffmann, S., Hald, T., Kirk, M. D., Torgerson, P. R., and Devleesschauwer, B. 2019. Global disease burden of pathogens in animal source foods, 2010. PloS one, 14(6), e0216545. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216545 Makoni, N., Mwai, R., Redda, T., van der Zijpp, A. J., and van der Lee, J. 2014. White Gold: Opportunities for Dairy Sector Development Collaboration in East Africa. (CDI report; No. 14-006). Centre for Development Innovation, Wageningen UR. https://edepot.wur.nl/307878 Miklyaev, M., Afra, S., and Schultz, M. 2017. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rwanda’s Dairy Value Chains. Development Discussion Paper: 2017-02. https://cri-world.com/publications/qed_dp_299.pdf MINAGRI. 2012. Strategic and Investment Plan to Strengthen the Animal Genetic Improvement in Rwanda. Kigali, Rwanda: Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/rwa170087.pdf 25 MINAGRI. 2013. Final Report: National Dairy Strategy. Kigali, Rwanda: Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources. http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/rwa149681.pdf MINAGRI. 2015. Annual Report 2014-2015. Kigali, Rwanda: Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources www.minagri.gov.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/Minagri/Publications/Annual_Reports/Annual_Report_F Y_2014_2015.pdf MINAGRI. 2017. National Agriculture Policy 2017. Kigali, Rwanda: Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/rwa174291.pdf MINAGRI. 2019. Annual Report 2018-2019. Kigali, Rwanda: Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources www.minagri.gov.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/Minagri/Publications/Annual_Reports/Minagri_Annual_ Report_2018-19.pdf MINAGRI. 2020. Annual Report 2019-2020. Kigali, Rwanda: Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources. www.minagri.gov.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/Minagri/Publications/Annual_Reports/Annual_report_20 19-20_FY_.pdf MINAGRI. 2021. Annual Report 2020-2021. Kigali, Rwanda: Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources. www.minagri.gov.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/Minagri/Publications/Annual_Reports/MINAGRI_ANN UAL_REPORT__2020-21_FY.pdf MOH. 2015. One health strategic plan (2014-2018). Kigali, Rwanda: Ministry of Health. https://rbc.gov.rw/IMG/pdf/final_one_health_strategic_plan.pdf Mose, J. M., Kagira, J. M., Kamau, D. M., Maina, N. W., Ngotho, M., & Karanja, S. M. 2020. A review on the present advances on studies of toxoplasmosis in eastern Africa. BioMed Research International, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/7135268 Mpatswenumugabo, J. P., Bebora, L. C., Gitao, G. C., Mobegi, V. A., Iraguha, B., Kamana, O., and Shumbusho, B. 2017. Prevalence of Subclinical Mastitis and Distribution of Pathogens in Dairy Farms of Rubavu and Nyabihu Districts, Rwanda. Article ID 8456713. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8456713 Mutimura, M. 2010. Evaluation of improved Brachiaria grasses in low rainfall and aluminum toxicity prone areas of Rwanda (Doctoral dissertation). Mutimura, M., and Everson, T.M. 2011. Assessment of livestock feed resource-use patterns in low rainfall and aluminum toxicity prone areas of Rwanda. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 6(15):3461-3469. https://doi.org/ 10.5897/AJAR10.315 Mutimura, M., Lussa, A. B., Mutabazi, J., Myambi, C. B., Cyamweshi, R. A., and Ebong, C. 2013. Status of animal feed resources in Rwanda. Tropical Grasslands - Forrajes Tropicales. 1:109. https://doi.org/ 10.17138/TGFT(1)109-110 Mutimura, M., Ebong, C., Rao, I.M., and Nsahlai, I. 2015. Nutritional values of available ruminant feed resources in smallholder dairy farms in Rwanda. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 47(6):1131-7. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11250-015-0839-y NAEB. 2019. Strategic Plan 2019-2024. Kigali, Rwanda: National Agriculture Exports Development Board. https://naeb.gov.rw/fileadmin/documents/191126%20NAEB%20Strategy%202019-2024_FINAL.pdf NISR, MOH, ICF. 2021. Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey 2019-20 Final Report. Kigali, Rwanda, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda, Ministry of Health, and ICF International https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR370/FR370.pdf Ndahetuye, J. B. 2019. Mastitis in dairy cows in Rwanda: Prevalence, aetiology, antimicrobial resistance, molecular epidemiology and effects on milk quality. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/242106301.pdf 26 Ndahetuye, J. B., Twambazimana, J., Nyman, A. K., Karege, C., Tukei, M., Ongol, M. P., Persson, Y., and Båge, R. 2020. A cross sectional study of prevalence and risk factors associated with subclinical mastitis and intramammary infections, in dairy herds linked to milk collection centers in Rwanda. Preventive veterinary medicine, 179, 105007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105007 Ndahetuye, J. B., Artursson, K., Båge, R., Ingabire, A., Karege, C., Djangwani, J., Nyman, A. K., Ongol, M. P., Tukei, M., and Persson, Y. November 2020. MILK Symposium review: Microbiological quality and safety of milk from farm to milk collection centers in Rwanda. Journal of Dairy Science, Volume 103, Issue 11. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-18302 NISR, Rwanda Statistical Yearbook 2019, December 2019. Kigali, Rwanda: National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda. www.statistics.gov.rw/publication/statistical-yearbook-2019 Nishimwe, K., Bowers, E., Ayabagabo, J. D., Habimana, R., Mutiga, S. and Maier, D. 2019. Assessment of Aflatoxin and Fumonisin Contamination and Associated Risk Factors in Feed and Feed Ingredients in Rwanda. Toxins 11, no. 5: 270. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins11050270 Niyonzima, E. 2018. Risk assessment and control measures for Salmonella contamination in the Rwandan meat chain. Thesis, University of Rwanda www.researchgate.net/publication/322698143_Risk_assessment_and_control_measures_for_Salmonella _contamination_in_the_Rwandan_meat_chain Ntampaka, P., Nyaga, P. N., Gathumbi, J. K., and Tukei, M. 2019. Rabies serosurvey of domestic dogs in Kigali City, Rwanda. Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health. 11. 64-72. 10.5897/JVMAH2018.0742. https://doi.org/10.5897/JVMAH2018.0742 Ntirenganya. E. 2020. Rwanda set to get first powdered milk factory. The New Times. www.newtimes.co.rw/news/rwanda-set-get-first-powdered-milk-factory Ntivuguruzwa, J. B., Kolo, F. B.; Gashururu, R. S., Umurerwa, L., Byaruhanga, C., van Heerden, H. 2020, Seroprevalence and Associated Risk Factors of Bovine Brucellosis at the Wildlife-Livestock-Human Interface in Rwanda. Microorganisms 8, 1553. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8101553 Nyatanyi, T., Wilkes, M., McDermott, H., Nzietchueng, S., Gafarasi, I., Mudakikwa, A., ... and Binagwaho, A. 2017. Implementing One Health as an integrated approach to health in Rwanda. BMJ global health, 2(1), e000121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000121 Ouma, E., Flax, V., Izerimana, L., Niyonzima, E., Nyilimana, C. 2020. Impact of Girinka program on child nutritional status and household food security. Presented and the LSIL 2020 virtual general meeting, September 2020. https://livestocklab.ifas.ufl.edu/media/livestocklabifasufledu/vgm- sept2020/RWA_Ouma_ILRI_Reach_Research-posters_2020_09.pdf Park, W. J., Park, B. J., Ahn, H. S., Lee, J. B., Park, S. Y., Song, C. S, Lee, S. W., Yoo, H. S., Choi, I. S. 2016. Hepatitis E virus as an emerging zoonotic pathogen. J Vet Sci. 2016 Mar; 17(1): 1–11. https://dx.doi.org/10.4142%2Fjvs.2016.17.1.1 PRCI. 2021. Countries. Michigan, United States: Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy Research, Capacity, & Influence www.canr.msu.edu/prci/countries/ RAB. 2010. One Cup of Milk per Child Program. Kigali, Rwanda: Rwanda Agriculture Board. http://rab.gov.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/Animal_Production/One_Cup_of_Milk_per_Child_Program _.pdf RAB. 2019. Adoption of Artificial Insemination and Success Rate in Dairy Cattle in Rwanda – Final Report. Kigali, Rwanda: Rwanda Agriculture Board https://rab.gov.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Reports/Reports/ADOPTION_OF_ARTIFI CIAL_INSEMINATION_AND_SUCCESS_RATE_IN_DAIRY_CATTLE_IN_RWANDA_- _Copy.pdf 27 RAB. 2020. Distribution of pigs and chickens under small stock project. Kigali, Rwanda: Rwanda Agriculture and Animal Resources Development Board. https://rab.gov.rw/index.php?id=236&tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D=691&tx_news_pi1%5Bday%5D=2 2&tx_news_pi1%5Bmonth%5D=5&tx_news_pi1%5Byear%5D=2020&cHash=47b0449e0362a8448f24 4edb861b9f44 RAB. 2021. Veterinary Services. Kigali, Rwanda: Rwanda Agriculture and Animal Resources Development Board. https://rab.gov.rw/index.php?id=132 RBC. 2013. One Health Strategic Plan 2014-2018. Kigali, Rwanda: Rwanda Biomedical Center. https://rbc.gov.rw/IMG/pdf/final_one_health_strategic_plan.pdf RBC. 2019. Neglected Tropical Diseases Strategic Plan 2019-2024. Kigali, Rwanda: Rwanda Biomedical Center. https://rbc.gov.rw/fileadmin/user_upload/guide2019/guide2019/RWANDA%20NTD%20STRATEG IC%20PLAN%202019-2024.pdf Rujeni, N. and Mbanzamihigo, L. 2014. Prevalence of Brucellosis among Women Presenting with Abortion/Stillbirth in Huye, Rwanda. Journal of Tropical Medicine. 10.1155/2014/740479. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/740479 Sabiiti, D. 2022. Senate President Concerned with Low Production at Gako Meat Company. KT Press. https://www.ktpress.rw/2022/07/senate-president-concerned-with-gako-meat-company-low- production/ Shapiro, B. I., Gebru, G., Desta, S. and Nigussie, K. 2017. Rwanda Livestock Master Plan. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/104049 Shyaka, A., Quinnell, R. J., Rujeni, N., & Fèvre, E. M. 2021. Using a Value Chain Approach to Map the Pig Production System in Rwanda, Its Governance, and Sanitary Risks. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffvets.2021.720553 TechnoServe Rwanda. 2008. The dairy value chain in Rwanda. A report by TechnoServe Rwanda for the East Africa Dairy Development Program https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/2410/Dairy%20Value%20Chain%20Rwanda%20Re port.pdf;sequence=1 TechnoServe. 2018. Enhancing the quality and consumption of milk for improved income and nutrition in Rwanda. Gainesville, FL, USA: Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock Systems. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/92406 ter Steeg, E., and Bonnier, J. 2019. Investment Opportunities in the Rwandan Dairy Sector. TRAIDE Rwanda. www.agroberichtenbuitenland.nl/binaries/agroberichtenbuitenland/documenten/rapporten/2020/05/2 0/business-opportunity-report-dairy-rwanda/BORDairy_Rwanda2019_ver4.pdf TRAIDE, 2019. Poultry Sector Analysis Rwanda. Fact sheet Poultry sector in Rwanda. Tumusiime, M., Ntampaka, P., Niragire, F., Sindikubwabo, T. and Habineza, F. 2020. Prevalence of Swine Gastrointestinal Parasites in Nyagatare District, Rwanda. Journal of Parasitology Research. ID 8814136. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8814136 Udahemuka, J. C., Aboge, G. O., Obiero, G. O., Lebea, P. J., Onono, J. O., and Paone, M. 2020. Risk factors for the incursion, spread and persistence of the foot and mouth disease virus in Eastern Rwanda. BMC veterinary research, 16(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-020-02610-1 Umuhoza, T., Berkvens, D., Gafarasi, I., Rukelikbuga, J. Mushonga, B., and Biryomumaisho, S. 2017. Seroprevalence of Rift Valley fever in cattle along the Akagera–Nyabarongo rivers, Rwanda. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association 88, a1379. https://doi.org/10.4102/jsava.v88.1379 28 UNDP. 2020. Human Development Report 2020. Humana Development and the Anthropocene. Rwanda Brief note. New York City, New York: United Nations Development Program. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr_theme/country-notes/RWA.pdf UNDP. 2021. Human Development Report 2020. New York City, New York: United Nations Development Program. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/hdr2020.pdf UNICEF. 2021. Searchable database on malnutrition. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Children's Fund. https://data.unicef.org/topic/nutrition/malnutrition USAID. 2020. Feed the Future. Washington, D.C., United States: United States Agency for International Development. www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/agriculture-and-food-security/increasing-food-security- through-feed-future USAID. 2018. USAID’s Investments Improve Nutrition for Women and Children. Washington, D.C., United States: United States Agency for International Development.www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1864/USAID_Nutrition_Updated- 080919.pdf USAID. 2015. Gender Analysis USAID/Rwanda 2015. Washington, D.C., United States: United States Agency for International Development www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/GA%20- %20FtF%20-%20FINAL%20December%2014%202015%20-%20Public%20Version.pdf USDA. 2017. Parasites and Foodborne Illness. Food Safety and Inspection Service. Washington, D.C., United States: United States Department of Agriculture. www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/foodborne- illness-and-disease/pathogens/parasites-and-foodborne-illness WAHIS. 2020. Foot and Mouth Disease - Rwanda: (Kayonza) cattle, serotype pending, Paris, France: The World Organization for Animal Health. https://wahis.oie.int/#/events?viewAll=trueWorld Bank, 2021. World Bank Country and Lending Groups. Washington, D.C., United States: World Bank Group. https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending- groups World Bank, 2021b. World Bank Open Data. Washington, D.C., United States: World Bank Group. https://data.worldbank.org 29 Appendix 1: Livestock Systems Related Projects in Rwanda Ongoing Projects Project name Lead organization Funding Duration Domain Region Girinka: One cow per poor family RAB / MINAGRI Government of continuous Milk production and All 30 districts Rwanda and partners consumption Partnership for Resilient and RAB, Heifer IFAD 2020-2025 Small livestock IFAD in 15 districts Inclusive Small Livestock Markets International, markets (North, South and Programme (PRISM) ENABEL West), ENABEL in all 30 districts Rwanda Dairy Development RAB / MINAGRI IFAD 2017-2022 Dairy production and Operates in 12 districts Project (RDDP) quality (North, East, South, West) Orora Wihaze ((Kinyarwanda, Venture 37 / Land O USAID 2019-2024 Animal-sourced Operates in 12 districts translates as Raise Animals for Self- Lakes foods market system (North, East, South, Sufficiency) West) Msaada dairy support Msaada Msaada 2010-2021 Dairy production Operates in 2 districts (Kayonza and Rwamagana) in Eastern Province Bóthar’s Memorial Ark Bóthar Bóthar Various livestock Multiple projects Heifer International Multiple sources Various Various All 30 districts Rwanda Greening Girinka Project RAW, in partnership Various Environmental Bugesera and Ngoma with Send A Cow conservation districts, Eastern Province Gako Beef Project Private investors Private investors 2016-2025 Cattle and goat Bugesera District funds supported by production and RAB and NAEB. slaughter 30 Project name Lead organization Funding Duration Domain Region Hinga Weze Activity CNFA USAID 2017-2022 Crop development, Operates in 10 districts small livestock, (East, South and West) poultry Engaging Men in Supporting International USAID through the 2019-2021 Nutrition and 13 districts from North, Maternal and Child Consumption Livestock Research Feed the Future Gender East, South and West of Milk and other Animal-Source Institute, ILRI Innovation Lab for provinces Foods in Rwanda* Livestock Systems Aflatoxin Mitigation through Iowa State University USAID through the 2020-2021 Food safety 7 districts from East, Education, Intervention, and Feed the Future South and Kigali City Policy in Rwandan Dairy Innovation Lab for Products* Livestock Systems Challenges of Implementing University of Rwanda USAID through the 2019-2021 Food quality 4 districts from Kigali Modern Milk Quality Standards in Feed the Future city and western Developing Countries: Case of Innovation Lab for province Rwanda* Livestock Systems Rwanda Enhancement for University of Florida USAID through the 2019-2021 Dairy 11 districts from North, Enabling Policy Support to the Feed the Future East, South, West Dairy Sector* Innovation Lab for provinces Livestock Systems Meat Value Chain Trade Ministry of Trade Africa Development Sept 2020- Meat value chain 4 districts from East and Competitiveness Project and Industry Bank (ADB) Aug 2022 trade West ( Nyagatare, (MINICOM) Bugesera, Rubavu and Rusizi districts) Tworore Inkoko- Twunguke University of USAID and Africa 2017-2021 Poultry (broiler) Musanze district- North (Kinyarwanda, translates as Let’s Tennessee (UTIA) Sustainable Agric. province Raise Chickens, and Make a Profit) and Zamura Feeds Project (ASAP) Ltd * These are projects that were funded during Phase I of the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock Systems. 31 Recently Completed Projects Project name Lead institution Funding Duration Domain Region East Africa Dairy Development Heifer International Bill and Melinda 2008-2012 Dairy production and Eastern province: 3 Project (EDDP) and ILRI Gates Foundation Markets districts Rwanda Dairy Competitiveness Land O’ Lakes USAID 2007-2017 Dairy 17 districts from North, Program (RDCP I and II) East, South, West and Kigali City Livestock Infrastructure Support RAB / MINAGRI Africa Development 2011-2015 Dairy infrastructure 5 districts from Eastern Programme (LISP) Fund (ADF) and Western Province Livestock Infrastructure Support Heifer International African 2015-2019 Dairy infrastructure 5 districts from Eastern Programme (LISP) and RAB Development Bank and Western Province (ADB) Climate-Resilient Post-Harvest and Heifer International IFAD 2015-2020 Dairy 7 districts from North, Agribusiness Support Project and RAB East, South and West. Enhancing Milk Quality and ILRI USAID through the 2017-2020 Nutrition 13 districts from North, Consumption for Improved Feed the Future East, South, and West Income and Nutrition in Rwanda* Innovation Lab for provinces Livestock Systems Assessment and Mitigation of Iowa State University USAID through the 2018-2019 Food quality 15 districts from Kigali Aflatoxin and Fumonisin Feed the Future City, East, South, West Contamination in Animal Feeds in Innovation Lab for provinces Rwanda* Livestock Systems Milk Production Practices, Udder University of Rwanda USAID through the 2018-2019 Dairy 7 districts from North, Health and their Impact on Milk Feed the Future East, South and West Quality, Safety and Processability Innovation Lab for provinces in Rwanda* Livestock Systems * These are projects that were funded during Phase I of the Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock Systems. 32 Appendix 2: Median rates of Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) per 100,000 Population due to Foodborne Diseases for Africa Sub-region E, including Rwanda (2010)* Causes DALYs Causes DALYs Causes DALYs Diarrheal disease 824 Invasive infectious 147 Helminths 184 agent (447-1,326) disease agents (55-343) (141-240) Viruses 76 Viruses 18 Cestodes 178 (0-225) (3–55) (136-235) Norovirus 76 Hepatitis A virus 18 E. granulosis 0.8 (0-225) (3-55) (0.2-16) Bacteria 712 Bacteria 104 E. multilocularis 0 (393-1,160) (40-277) (0-0) Campylobacter spp. 70 Brucella spp. 0.3 Taenia solium 176 (33-177) (0.007-18) (134-229) Enteropathogenic E. coli 138 L. monocytogenes 1 Nematodes 5 (6-327) (0-21) (1-11) Enterotoxigenic E. coli 105 M. bovis 34 Ascaris spp. 5 (17-240) (21-48) (1-11) Shiga toxin producing 0.08 S. Paratyphi A 12 Trichinella spp. 0.001 E. coli (0.02-0.2) (0-43) (0-0.002) Non-typhoid S. enterica 193 S. Typhi 52 Trematodes 0.02 (44-336) (0-187) (0.008-0.07) Shigella spp. 37 Clonorchis sinensis 0 (0–148) (0-0) Vibrio cholerae 143 Protozoa 20 Fasciola spp. 0.01 (4-383) (9-37) (0.005-0.04) Protozoa 21 Toxoplasma gondii 20 Intestinal fluke 0 (5-66) (9-37) (0-0) Cryptosporidium spp. 12 Chemicals, toxins 7 (3-21) Opisthorchis spp. 0 (0-45) Aflatoxin 3 (0-0) (1-8) Entamoeba histolytica 5 Cassava cyanide 1 Paragonimus spp 0.008 (0-41) (0.3-9) (0.002-0.02) Giardia spp. 0.7 Dioxins 0.2 (0-3) (0.09-9) Source: Havelaar et al. 2015 * with 95% uncertainty intervals 33 Feed the Future Innova tion Lab for Livestock Systems University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences P.O. Box 110910 Gainesville, Florida 32611-0910 Livestock-lab@ufl.edu http://livestocklab.ifas.ufl.edu www.feedthefuture.gov