Effectiveness of livestock extension services in promoting improved animal husbandry practices among pastoralists

Introduction

For over five decades, governments and development organizations in East Africa have invested in livestock extension services to improve herd health and productivity among pastoralist populations [1] . Kenya's arid and semiarid lands, home to roughly six million pastoralists, depend on cattle, sheep, and goats as the backbone of household livelihoods [2] . Yet periodic disease outbreaks continue to cause heavy losses-an estimated 23% of pastoral livestock mortality in Kenya was attributed to preventable diseases between 2015 and 2020 [3] . Extension services in pastoral areas face particular challenges. Mobility patterns, dispersed settlements, and cultural norms around livestock management make conventional fixed-location extension models difficult to sustain [4] . Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs) have emerged as a complementary channel, providing basic veterinary care and health messaging at the village level [5] . However, few studies have directly compared the effectiveness of government extension alone versus combined government-CAHW delivery in promoting specific husbandry practices among pastoralists. Previous evaluations in Ethiopia and Uganda documented that vaccination uptake among pastoralists ranged from 25% to 48% depending on extension contact regularity [6,7] . Housing improvements and record keeping received the least attention in these evaluations, despite their recognized role in disease prevention and herd management efficiency [8] . In Kenya, livestock extension services were devolved to county governments in 2013, introducing variation in service quality and coverage across regions [9] . This research assessed the effectiveness of livestock extension services in promoting four improved animal husbandry practices among pastoralist households in Kajiado and Narok Counties. The objectives were: a) To measure adoption rates for vaccination, deworming, improved housing, and record keeping, b) To test associations between extension contact patterns and adoption, and c) To compare outcomes between government-only and combined government-CAHW extension delivery models [10] .

Field research design

A quasi-experimental design was adopted, comparing pastoralist households across three extension exposure categories: government extension only (n = 94), combined government-CAHW extension (n = 108), and minimal or no extension contact (n = 72). Households were assigned to categories based on self-reported extension contact patterns over the preceding 18 months. Six sub-locations in Kajiado County and five in Narok County were selected, balancing proximity to veterinary service points and distance from county headquarters. Each sub-location contributed between 20 and 30 sampled households. Sampling used proportionate stratified random selection from community elder-verified household lists [11] . www.extensionjournal.com

Seasonal variations

Data collection spanned both the dry season (January-March 2022) and the long rains (April-August 2022). Pastoralist mobility peaks during dry months as herders move livestock to water points and grazing reserves, reducing access to fixed extension services. Disease incidence typically rises during the transition from dry to wet seasons when vector populations expand. Extension visit scheduling accounted for these patterns, with more contacts planned during the early rainy period when herds are partially settled [12] . [13] .

Material and methods

Material

Methods

Adoption rates were calculated as the percentage of households practicing each target behavior at recommended frequency. Chi-square tests compared adoption across the three extension exposure groups. Pearson correlation assessed the relationship between monthly extension contacts and livestock disease incidence. Logistic regression modeled adoption of each practice as a function of extension group, herd size, household head education, and distance to the nearest veterinary center. Key informant responses were analyzed using thematic coding [14,15] .

Results

Table Extension contacts and disease incidence showed an inverse trend (r = -0.58, p<0.01). Months with higher extension activity coincided with lower reported disease cases.

Comprehensive interpretation

The combined government-CAHW model consistently outperformed single-channel delivery. The inverse relationship between extension activity and disease incidence adds weight to the argument that regular, on-theground contact drives tangible health outcomes in pastoral herds.

Discussion

The finding that combined government-CAHW extension delivery produced the highest adoption rates across all four practices aligns with evidence from Ethiopia and Uganda [6,7] . The advantage of the combined model likely stems from CAHWs' proximity to herding communities-they can reach households during migration periods when government agents cannot [16] . This proximity also builds trust, which several key informants identified as the main factor behind pastoralist willingness to follow extension advice. Vaccination and deworming adoption responded more strongly to extension contact than housing improvements or record keeping. This pattern makes sense when the nature of each practice is considered: vaccination and deworming are periodic, event-based actions that extension agents can directly organize and supervise, whereas housing requires capital investment and record keeping demands sustained literacy-based behavior [17,18] . The negative correlation between extension contacts and disease incidence supports www.extensionjournal.com earlier findings from pastoral systems in the Horn of Africa, where routine preventive care reduced herd losses by 15% to 30% [19,20] .

Conclusion

This research demonstrates that livestock extension services are more effective at promoting improved husbandry practices among pastoralists when government extension agents work alongside community animal health workers. The combined delivery model achieved significantly higher adoption rates for vaccination, deworming, housing improvements, and record keeping compared to government-only or minimal-contact groups. Practices that align with periodic, supervised interventions showed the strongest adoption gains.

County governments in Kenya's pastoral regions should formalize CAHW integration into their extension structures rather than treating it as an ad hoc supplement. Investment in record keeping training and subsidized housing materials could help address the lower adoption rates observed for those practices. The seasonal alignment of extension delivery with pastoralist mobility and disease risk patterns deserves attention in extension planning calendars [21] .

Acknowledgement

Acknowledgements Funding sourcesThis research received support from an internal faculty grant at the University of Nairobi. No external commercial funding was involved. Institutional supportThe authors thank the Faculty of Agriculture at the University of Nairobi and the Kajiado and Narok County Veterinary Departments for facilitating field access.

References

1. Heffernan C, Misturelli F. The delivery of veterinary services to the poor: Preliminary findings from Kenya. Livest Res Rural Dev. 2000; 12(4):1-12.
2. Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. Kenya population and housing census 2019: Livestock report. Nairobi: KNBS; 2020. P.1-56.
3. Mugunieri LG, Irungu P, Omiti JM. Performance of community-based animal health workers in the delivery of livestock health services. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2004; 36(6):523-535.
4. Catley A, Lind J, Scoones I. Pastoralism and development in Africa: Dynamic change at the margins. London: Routledge; 2013.
5. Leyland T, Catley A. Community-based animal health delivery systems: Improving the quality of veterinary service delivery. Rev Sci Tech. 2002; 1-10.
6. Hailemichael A, Gebremedhin B, Gizaw S. Livestock vaccination in Ethiopia: Adoption and impact. ILRI Discussion Paper 35. Nairobi: ILRI; 2017. P.1-32.
7. Ilukor J, Birner R, Rwamigisa PB, Nantima N. The provision of veterinary services: Who are the influential actors and what are the governance challenges? Food Policy. 2015; 52:13-24.
8. Thumbi SM, Njenga MK, Marsh TL, Noh S, Otiang E, Munyua P. Linking human health and livestock health: A one-health platform approach. PLoS One. 2015; 10(2):e0115545.
9. Mogoa E, Wabacha JK, Mbithi PM. An overview of the livestock sector in Kenya following devolution. Kenya Vet. 2016; 40(1):17-28.
10. Ruto E, Garrod G, Scarpa R. Valuing animal genetic resources: A choice modeling application to indigenous cattle in Kenya. Agric Econ. 2008; 38(1):89-98.
11. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. 4th ed. Hoboken: Wiley; 2014.
12. Opiyo F, Wasonga O, Nyangito M, Schilling J, Munang R. Drought adaptation and coping strategies among the Turkana pastoralists. Int J Disaster Risk Sci. 2015; 6(3):295-309.
13. Mugenda OM, Mugenda AG. Research methods: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Nairobi: Acts Press; 2003.
14. Field A. Discovering statistics using R. London: Sage Publications; 2012.
15. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006; 3(2):77-101.
16. Allport R, Mosha R, Bahari M, Swai E, Catley A. The use of community-based animal health workers to strengthen disease surveillance in Tanzania. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2005; 37(S1):19-28.
17. Mwacharo JM, Drucker AG. Production objectives and management strategies of livestock keepers in southeast Kenya. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2005; 37(8):635652.
18. Otte MJ, Chilonda P. Cattle and small ruminant production systems in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review. Rome: FAO; 2002. P.1-98.
19. Megersa B, Biffa D, Abunna F, Regassa A, Godfroid J, Skjerve E. Seroprevalence of brucellosis and its contribution to abortion in cattle and camel in Borana, Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2011; 43(3):651-656.
20. Homewood K, Trench P, Brockington D. Pastoralist livelihoods and wildlife revenues in East Africa. Pastoralism. 2012; 2(1):19.
21. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th Ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.