Journal of Fisheries & Livestock Production
Open Access

Kenya; Dairy; Smallholder; Subsistence; Production; Emerging Issues; Transformation

Kenya’s dairy industry, dominated by the private sector, is one of the most competitive and largest in Africa. The sector is diverse and vital to the country’s economy, providing rural livelihoods as well as food and nutrition welfare. With an estimated value of KSh 184 billion, the sector contributes between 4 to 8 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Dairy sector stakeholders comprise of players involved in the production, handling, shipping, storage, packaging, and marketing of milk and dairy products along the dairy value chain. Input and service providers, farmers, transporters, dealers, dairy farmer cooperative societies, milk processors, marketers, and retailers form the industry supply chain [1]. Land size, wealth, commercialization, and degree of risk vulnerability are four themes that describe the dairy sub-sector. Dairy farming in Kenya is constrained by subsistence orientation, resources, quantity, and quality of soil, expertise and labour, ineffective technology, and a high-risk profile. A smallholder may or may not own any of the measurements of smallness at the same time [2, 3]. The majority of dairy farmers are largely subsistence based and are yet to reap the benefits of income produced by involvement in the informal market system [4, 5]. Dairy sector players participate in horizontal integration (joint sales, marketing, joint input procurement, and promotion) to minimise the market-related repercussions of smallscale production and diverse product quality, and in vertical integration to control a product’s supply or distribution, so enhancing its power in the marketplace, lowering costs, and generating greater revenue [6]. When the economic climate becomes more complex, new prospects and problems emerge, and as a result, the potential of subsistence to support livelihoods declines [7, 8]. The modern world, marked by rising population, urbanisation, income, globalisation, policy reforms, technology, food sector restructuring, and climate change, necessitates the transition of subsistence farming [9, 10].

Methodology of analysis

This study looked at the Kenyan dairy sector through explorative approach. During field trips, the study used extensive interviews with industry stakeholders including farmers, government officials, and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Through a systematic search, the study also reviewed scientific publications supplemented by grey literature. The source of systematic publications search was internet-based online search engines conducted in the year 2010 to 2020. The study followed the procedures for systematic literature search, as detailed by Phiri et al. [11]. Google Scholar, Worldwide Science. org, Science Direct, and African Journal Online (AJOL) were the search engines used. Dairy farming, dairy (cattle or cow), constraints (challenges or failures), opportunities, successes, or sustainability, and Kenya were among the search phrases (keywords) utilised. This study considered only peer-reviewed journal publications, theses, conference papers, project reports, and government reports. All publications screening was by reading the titles, then the abstracts, and then the whole article if found to be relevant. The study also reviewed the sources of the listed papers to uncover similar papers that were noteworthy but overlooked by the search engine. The information extracted from the articles served as the foundation for this study.

Biophysical Emergence

Climate change has a negative effect on dairy production, both directly and indirectly [12, 13]. Specific effects include rising temperatures, photoperiod fluctuations, and precipitation [14]. The harmful ecological effect of the dairy sector in Kenya involves the depletion of vegetation by overgrazing of natural pastures [15]. Extensive grazing from dairy farming across the country is leading to changes in land use, with more land required to feed dairy cows [16, 17]. Indirect consequences of climate change include decreased feed quality and quantity, water quantity and increased disease predisposition. The scarcity of feed is one of the most critical variables influencing milk output under heat stress. Milk cows’ stress response systems occur when environmental temperatures exceed 35°C [18 19]. When compared to low output animals, high milk producing cows generate a lot of metabolic heat. As a result, dairy cattle that produce a lot of milk are more vulnerable to heat stress [19].

Higher temperatures and relative humidity cause thermal stress in dairy animals, resulting in slower growth, less milk and meat output, and hampered reproduction. Temperature stress reduces body weight, daily total body gain, and body weight gain. This is because Thermal stress reduces the intake of dry matter, which can have a negative impact on the animal’s growth efficiency [20]. This also affects the economic and reproductive capability of heat-stressed animals [21, 22]. According to Padodara & Jacob [23] Heat stress had a stronger impact on exotic and crossbred species than on native ones. A temperature increase of 2-6 degrees Celsius caused by climate change might have a negative impact on animal development, puberty, and maturity [23]. The most critical element impacting milk production under heat stress is a lack of feed availability [18].

Environmental Emergence

Many people believe that livestock farming are resource-intensive in terms of land usage, greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE), and water consumption per kilocalorie of food produced, with much larger environmental implications than plant-source diets [24]. There has been growing awareness of the environmental issues posed by agricultural production, continual economic competition resulting in lower farm revenue, and animal welfare issues have resulted in increased interest in sustainable animal food production during the last decade [25]. A sustainable production system incorporates all three characteristics of sustainability: environmental, economic, and social. According to one research, sustainable livestock production is “production that is environmentally sound, taking into consideration the environment and biodiversity, ethically and commercially viable” [26]. Sustainability in animal food production covers numerous ecological challenges, because if the environment is harmed, it cannot support production that relies on natural systems [27].

In terms of water and soil runoff, greenhouse emissions, and waste and manure management, the dairy business faces a number of environmental issues. However, there is little awareness of the sector’s environmental repercussions [15, 28]. There are concerns that have been raised about surface water pollution from the dairy sector because of bulking and processing practises despite the fact that there is a financial incentive to generate biogas from dairy waste. Plastics are widely used in the packaging of dairy products without paying sufficient attention to the reduction of these materials and/or the development of plastic recycling systems.

Modern dairy production has significant sustainability difficulties. One of the most pressing is greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) to the atmosphere. Methane (CH) The formation of gastro enteric fermentation in dairy cows is not only a source of energy loss for the animal, but it is also a contributor to GHG emissions [29]. In dairy cows, around 6% of total energy intake is lost as CH, with around 95% lost from the mouth and 2–3% lost through faces [30]. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (NO) emissions are also significant contribution of GHG emissions [31]. Furthermore, dairy production can have a significant negative influence on watercourses owing to nitrogen and phosphorus emissions from manure spreading and overgrazed fields. The production of feed has an environmental impact and uses resources, the severity of which depends on the crop production system and local conditions [32, 33].

Agro biodiversity emergence Human environmental effects are endangering Earth’s species and ecosystems at an alarming rate. Overhunting, invasive species, and pollution5 are already threatening the extinction of 25% of all mammal species and 13% of all bird species, as well as over 21,000 other plant and animal species [34-36]. Agriculture is widely acknowledged as a major contributor to global biodiversity loss [36]. Agriculture covers more than a third of the land area, with livestock accounting for 83% of the total [37]. Transformation of land area to agricultural land, as well as changes in agricultural land use and intensification, causes habitat loss and fragmentation, which has a direct influence on biodiversity. Agriculture indirectly affects biodiversity by contributing to acidification, eutrophication, climate change, freshwater usage, and eco toxicity [38]. Although agriculture is a major cause to biodiversity loss, it is also a key contributor to biodiversity [39]. The extent of high nature value farmland has reduced due to increased intensification and abandonment of less viable agricultural land [40]. Furthermore, amid conservation efforts, biodiversity loss on agricultural land is pervasive and particularly devastating [41]. Biodiversity is critical for achieving long-term sustainability in agricultural and food systems. As a result, it is critical to exploit biodiversity in a sustainable manner to guarantee that the requirements of current and future generations are satisfied. Indigenous communities are critical to the management of biodiversity in general, and agro biodiversity in particular (as its sole stewards), therefore including native people in participatory planning and budgeting provisions has emerged as critical to the process [42].

Public Health Emergence

High demand for dairy products is driving global increase in dairy production hence rapid intensification of the dairy systems in many areas of the globe. There have been increasing concerns raised regarding the consequences of dairy intensification in public health. While greater production may benefit food security and livelihoods, it may also pose a number of health risks (FAO &IFCN, 2010; IDF 2016; OECD & FAO, 2016). Dairy farming has a range of potential biological, chemical, and physical occupational health risks, as well as potential protective effects from specific farm exposures. Occupational effects reported in the literature included zoonotic illnesses, antibiotic resistance bacteria and genes, respiratory problems, an increased risk of certain forms of cancer, and injuries that mostly result in musculoskeletal complaints.

Aside from the risk to farmers, farm labourers, and farm families, several occupational hazards may pose a larger risk to human health [43].

Zoonotic infections are a major cause of human illness and can have a negative impact on public health in terms of morbidity and mortality, as well as socioeconomically. Zoonotic diseases can significantly impair cattle production and agricultural profitability [44]. Cattle are reservoirs for a majority of zoonotic diseases that can cause human sickness [45]. Bovine zoonoses transmission to humans is through a number of methods, including cutaneous, inhalation, ingestion, and vector borne routes. A significant proportion of bovine zoonotic diseases may also be transmitted from human to human, however most are not very transmissible and hence do not generally cause big epidemics [44]. Dairy farm employees, farm inhabitants, veterinarians, and slaughterhouse workers are particularly vulnerable to zoonotic illnesses like Leptospira spp, Salmonella spp, Escherichia coli, Campylobacter spp, Cryptosporidium spp, Brucella spp, Mycobacterium bovis, Coxiella burnetii, Trichophyton verrucosum, Trichophyton verrucosum, and Trichophyton verrucosum [46, 47].

Dairy farm employees and individuals who come into direct touch with cattle or cow excreta may also be at higher risk of antibiotic resistance bacteria or genes being transmitted (Aitken et al., 2016). The use of antimicrobials in animals, especially dairy cattle, has the potential to improve animal health and production. However, the usage of antimicrobials in both people and animals has resulted in the creation of antimicrobial resistant infections and antimicrobial resistant genes. It is unknown how much antibiotic usage in agriculture has contributed to the development of resistant bacterial strains [48, 49]. Antimicrobials are used to cure illnesses and to prevent them in food animals. Antimicrobials may, however, be administered to food animals in order to stimulate growth and boost feed efficiency [49, 50]. However, the use of antimicrobials for growth promotion in food producing animals has been prohibited in the European Union and other nations [51]. The bulk of antimicrobials used on dairy farms are used to treat mastitis [52]. Antimicrobials are also used to treat lameness, respiratory illness, reproductive difficulties, diarrhea or other digestive problems, and pink eye in cattle [48, 52]. However, compared to swine or poultry production, dairy cow production is less reliant on antimicrobials [43, 53].

Gender Issues Emergence

Gender influences asset ownership and decision-making by men and women, as well as farm-level dairy management practises and gendered milk marketing participation [54]. In most situations, women’s roles are largely dairy cow managers, with males doing the marketing. The overall intensity of labour usage has been highlighted as a major element in choices to develop the dairy production operation. Women are more active in everyday chores which include feeding, watering, and milking [55]. Women are also responsible for making the necessary preparations, such as warming the water used in the milking process, as well as monitoring employees to guarantee compliance with the approved standards for clean milk production. On the other hand, men are primarily involved in seasonal chores including deworming, spraying, planting forage, harvesting, storing, and processing fodder, acquiring inputs from agrovet depots, and arranging the supply of animal health services for cattle [55]. In general, Women have little preparation in terms of planning, knowledge, and abilities when starting or entering the milk trade enterprise, and are deterred further by the ease of merging commercial operations into difficult household tasks. Some of the obstacles raised as common characteristics for female milk entrepreneurs include restricted access to financing facilities, the usage of rudimentary technology throughout the milking and marketing processes, and operating without licences and distant from retail centres [55].

Because they are in charge of the money, this division of roles and responsibilities increases the danger of violence by people [28]. Women hold few positions of leadership in dairy cooperatives, labor unions, and organizations. Dairy producer associations play an important role in the local dairy value chain. Women outnumber males in the number of producer groups in which they participate. Women handle the cows, while males own them. Females’ are less in representation and engagement in dairy producer groups compared to males. Furthermore, female-headed dairying families are less likely to register with dairy producer associations than male-headed dairying households. Men are more likely to possess productive assets [56]. Land access, extension programmes, information and training, and credit issues affect women differently than men, limiting women-headed families from taking advantage of economic potential in the sector [28]. The majority of Kenyan milk processors have no formal gender equality policy. Only one in three processors have a gender policy, and the gender ratio among milk processing workers is around 80% males to 20% females. The high male ratio is because most dairy work involves hard physical labour, while others are field-based and need work at odd hours, which are unfavourable to women (PKF 2013). Although women are heavily active in milk trade, they tend to operate on a smaller scale and are less mobile than their male colleagues are. This is due to restricted access to cash, limited mobility, and significant home duty, as milk trading happens during the height of domestic duties, in the mornings and evenings [55]. Women may lose control over milk use and revenue from milk sales when milk sales grow and commercialization increases especially when milk is sold to formal markets [57, 58]. They would therefore prefer supplying to informal milk marketplaces because they have greater control over their earnings [58]. Participation in collective milk marketing may increase women’s decision-making about production and control of income [59]. Female milk producers are also less likely, than their male colleagues, to attend training targeted at improving their technical and commercial skills necessary for the milk trading industry due to their limited mobility [55].

In Kenya, women’s credit and savings funds are common. While loans from these women’s organizations are used more for non-income generating activities, some groups seek financing for dairy production [60]. Through the creation of a cooperative or microfinance system, women have gained access to loans. The Kenya Women’s Microfinance Bank and the Women’s Enterprise Fund (WEF), which is a parasternal, provide various loan options for women. In terms of credit, female milk dealers depended on informal sources of credit such as friends and family, or milk supplied on credit by producers, as compared to male counterparts [55].

This study’s insightful results are derived from the collected literature on dairy value chains to give a holistic and non-sequential perspective of the industry as a path to inclusive value chain expansion for dairy products. According to the report, the many elements of developing challenges in the dairy business are mutually dependent. Given the complexity and interconnectedness of the industry’s challenges, it is critical that dairy sector solutions focus on an accurate diagnosis of the sector’s many aspects crisis. As a result, resolving the multisystem constraints that underpin value chain growth is an intrinsically complicated political process. Multi-stakeholder procedures are more than just technical inputs. They are social commitments that rely on the effective mobilization of important value chain and non-chain stakeholders, as well as a versatile strategy to successfully adapt to shifting trends for transformational views throughout time.

The Author is very grateful to German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), African Economic Research Consortium (AERC) and Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT) for the support and financial aid.

1. Rademaker C J, Bebe B O, Van Der Lee J, Kilelu C, Tonui C (2016) Sustainable growth of the Kenyan dairy sector: a quick scan of robustness, reliability and resilience. Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen Livestock Research.

Indexed at, Google Scholar         Crossref

2. Oloo BO (2016) Lessons in sustainable dairy farming to Kenyan dairy sector from the Dutch Dairy Sector. J adv dairy res 4: 162-172.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Rademaker IF, Koech RK, Jansen A, Van der Lee J (2016) Smallholder dairy value chain interventions. The Kenya Marketled Dairy Programme (KMDP) Status report. SNV Kenya/Wageningen UR CDI.

Google Scholar     

4. Otieno GO, Muendo K, Mbeche R (2020) Smallholder Dairy Production, Motivations, Perceptions and Challenges in Nyandarua and Nakuru Counties, Kenya. IOSR J Agric Vet Sci 13(1): 42–50.

Indexed at, Google Scholar    

5. Peter H, Poulton C, Wiggins S, Dorward A (2020) The future of small farms for poverty reduction growth.

Google Scholar, Crossref

6. Nyokabi S, Oosting S, Bebe B, Phelan L,  Bett B, et al. (2018) The Kenyan dairy sector : stakeholder roles and relationships , and their impact on milk quality. 13 European IFSA Symposium 1-5.

Indexed at, Google scholar        

7. Pingali P (2015) Agriculture Renaissance : Making " Agriculture for Development " Work in the 21st Century. Handbook Agric Econ 4: 3867-3894.

Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Zhou S, Minde IJ, Mtigwe B (2013) Smallholder agricultural commercialization for income growth and poverty alleviation in southern Africa: A review. Afr J Agric Res 8(22): 2599-2608.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Barrett CB (2008) Smallholder market participation: Concepts and evidence from eastern and southern Africa. Food Pol 33(4): 299-317.

Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Pingali P, Aiyar A (2019) Food, agriculture, and nutrition policy: Looking ahead to 2050. Agriculture & Food Systems to 2050: Global Trends, Challenges and Opportunities  pp: 609-653.

Google Scholar, Crossref

11. Phiri BJ, Benschop J, French NP (2010) Systematic review of causes and factors associated with morbidity and mortality on smallholder dairy farms in Eastern and Southern Africa. Prev Vet Med 94(1-2): 1-8.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

12. Nesamvuni E, Lekalakala R, Norris D, Ngambi JW (2012) Effects of climate change on dairy cattle, South Africa. Afr J Agric Res 7(26): 3867-3872.

Google Scholar, Crossref

13. Lakew H (2017) Economic impact of climate change on milk production: a case study of selected areas in the Free State.

Google Scholar     

14. Nalianya GW, Wakhungu JW, Nyandiko NO (2020) Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Smallholder Dairy Cattle Production in Bungoma, Kenya. Int J Sci Res 10(12): 725–744.

Google Scholar, Crossref

15. Muriuki HG (2011) Dairy development in Kenya. Food and Agriculture organization of the United Nations pp: 1–52.

Google Scholar 

16. Hennessy D, Delaby L, van den Pol-van Dasselaar A, Shalloo L (2020) Increasing grazing in dairy cow milk production systems in Europe. Sustainability 12(6): 2443.

Google Scholar, Crossref

17. van den Pol-van Dasselaar A, Hennessy D, Isselstein J (2020) Grazing of dairy cows in Europe -An in-depth analysis based on the perception of grassland experts. Sustainability 12(3): 1098.

Google Scholar, Crossref

18. Rust JM, Rust T (2013) Climate change and livestock production: A review with emphasis on Africa. S Afr J Anim. Sci 43(3): 255-267.

Indexed at       Google Scholar, Crossref

19. De Rensis F, Lopez-Gatius F, García-Ispierto I, Morini G, Scaramuzzi RJ (2017) Causes of declining fertility in dairy cows during the warm season. Theriogenol 91: 145-153.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

20. Angel SP, Amitha JP, Rashamol VP, Vandana GD, Savitha ST (2018) Climate Change and Cattle Production: Impact and Adaptation. J Vet Med Res 5(4):1134.

Google Scholar    

21. Finocchiaro R, Van Kaam JBCHM, Portolano B, Misztal I (2005) Effect of heat stress on production of mediterranean dairy sheep. J Dairy Sci 88(5): 1855-1864.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

22. Sinha R, Ranjan A, Lone S, Rahim A, Devi I, Tiwari S (2017) The Impact of Climate Change on Livestock Production and Reproduction: Ameliorative Management. Int J Livest Res 7(6): 1-8.

Google Scholar, Crossref

23. Padodara RJ, Jacob N (2013) Climate change: Effect on growth of animals. Basic Res J Agric Sci Rev 2(4): 85-90.

Indexed at, Google Scholar 

24. Clark M, Tilman D (2017) Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environ Res Lett 12(6): 064016.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

25. Calker KJV, Berentsen PBM, Giesen GWJ, Huirne RBM (2005) Identifying and ranking attributes that determine sustainability in Dutch dairy farming. Agric Human Values 22(1): 53-63.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

26. Torp-Donner H, Juga J (1997) Sustainability-a challenge to animal production and breeding. Agric Food Sci 6(3): 229-239.

Google Scholar, Crossref

27. Tilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S (2002) Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418(6898): 671-677.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

28. Makoni N, Mwai R, Redda T, van der Zijpp  a, van der Lee J (2013) White Gold: Opportunities for Dairy Sector Development Collaboration in East Africa. Centre for Development Innovation: 203.

Google Scholar      Crossref

29. Ellis JL, Dijkstra J, Kebreab E, Bannink A, Odongo NE, et al. (2008) Aspects of rumen microbiology central to mechanistic modelling of methane production in cattle. J Agric Sci 146(2): 213-233.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

30. Murray RM, Bryant AM, Leng RA (1976) Rates of production of methane in the rumen and large intestine of sheep. Br J Nutr 36(1): 1-14.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

31. Hrtenhuber S, Lindenthal T, Amon B, Markut T, Kirner L, et al. (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from selected Austrian dairy production systems - Model calculations considering the effects of land use change. Renew Agric Food Syst 25(4): 316-329.

Google Scholar, Crossref

32. Nguyen TTH, Doreau M, Corson MS, Eugène M, Delaby L, et al. (2013) Effect of dairy production system, breed and co-product handling methods on environmental impacts at farm level. J Environ Manage 120: 127-137.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

33. Gourley CJ, Aarons SR, Dougherty WJ, Weaver DM (2011) Nitrogen and phosphorus balances and efficiencies on contrasting dairy farms in Australia. 24th Annual FLRC Workshop, Massey University pp: 17.

Indexed at, Google Scholar     

34. Steffen W, Broadgate W, Deutsch L, Gaffney O, Ludwig C (2015) The trajectory of the Anthropocene: the great acceleration. Anthr Rev 2(1): 81-98.

Indexed at       Google Scholar, Crossref

35. Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SL, Contu S, Lysenko I, et al. (2015) Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520: 45-50.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

36.  Tilman D, Clark M, Williams DR, Kimmel K, Polasky S, et al. (2017) Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature 546: 73-81.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

37. Poore J, Nemecek T (2018) Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360(6392): 987-992.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

38. Curran M, de Baan L, De Schryver AM, Van Zelm R, Hellweg S, et al. (2011) Toward meaningful end points of biodiversity in life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 45(1): 70-79.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

39. Batáry P, Dicks LV, Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ (2015) The role of agri‐environment schemes in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol 29(4): 1006-1016

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

40. Lomba A, Guerra C, Alonso J, Honrado JP, Jongman R, et al. (2014) Mapping and monitoring High Nature Value farmlands: Challenges in European landscapes. J Environ Manage 143: 140-150.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

41. Gregory RD, Van Strien A, Vorisek P, Meyling AWG, Noble DG, et al. (2005) Developing indicators for European birds. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 360(1454): 269-288.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

42. Bisht IS, Rana JC, Yadav R, Ahlawat SP (2020) Mainstreaming agricultural biodiversity in traditional production landscapes for sustainable development: The Indian scenario. Sustainability 12(24): 1-25.
     

Google Scholar, Crossref

43. Grout L, Baker MG, French N, Hales S (2020) A Review of Potential Public Health Impacts Associated With the Global Dairy Sector. GeoHealth 4(2): 1-46.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

44. McDaniel CJ, Cardwell DM, Moeller RB, Gray GC (2014) Humans and cattle: A review of bovine zoonoses. Vector-Borne Zoonotic Dis 14(1): 1-19.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

45. Toth JD, Aceto HW, Rankin SC, Dou Z (2013) Survey of animal-borne pathogens in the farm environment of 13 dairy operations. J Dairy Sci 96(9): 5756-5761.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

46. Cavirani S (2008) Cattle industry and zoonotic risk. Vet Res Commun 32: 19-24.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

47. Whitfield Y, Johnson K, Hobbs L, Middleton D, Dhar B, et al. (2017) Descriptive study of enteric zoonoses in Ontario, Canada, from 2010 - 2012. BMC Public Health 17(1): 1-7.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

48. Oliver SP, Murinda SE, Jayarao BM (2011) Impact of antibiotic use in adult dairy cows on antimicrobial resistance of veterinary and human pathogens: A comprehensive review. Foodborne Pathog Dis 8(3): 337-355.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

49. Kesari KK (2017) Perspectives in environmental toxicology. Environ Eng Sci.

Indexed at       Google Scholar, Crossref

50. Aitken SL, Dilworth TJ, Heil EL, Nailor MD (2016) Agricultural applications for antimicrobials. A danger to human health: An official position statement of the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists. Pharmacotherapy 36(4): 422–432.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

51. Hillerton JE, Irvine CR, Bryan MA, Scott D, Merchant SC (2017) Use of antimicrobials for animals in New Zealand, and in comparison with other countries. N Z Vet J 65(2): 71-77.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

52. Call DR, Davis MA, Sawant AA (2008) Antimicrobial resistance in beef and dairy cattle production. Anim Health Res Rev 9(2): 159–167.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

53. Van Boeckel TP, Brower C, Gilbert M, Grenfell BT, Levin SA, et al. (2015) Global trends in antimicrobial use in food animals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112(18): 5649-5654.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

54. Wilkes A, Wassie SE, Vorlaufer M, Odhong C, Dijk SVD (2020) Further evidence that gender matters for GHG mitigation in the dairy sector: analysis of survey data from central Kenya highlights interactive effects of gender and farm management practices on milk yield and GHG emission intensity. Wageningen, The Netherlands: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).

Indexed at, Google Scholar    

55. Umuzigambeho JF (2017) Gender assessment of dairy value chains: evidence from Rwanda. FAO

Indexed at, Google Scholar     

56. Gallina A (2016) Gender dynamics in dairy production in Kenya: A literature review. CCAFS Working Paper, Copenhagen, Denmark 182: 35.

Google Scholar    

57. Michalek J, Ciaian P, Pokrivcak J (2018) The impact of producer organizations on farm performance : The case study of large farms from Slovakia. Food Pol 75: 80-92.

Google Scholar, Crossref

58. Tavenner K, Crane TA (2018) Gender power in Kenyan dairy: cows, commodities, and commercialization. Agric Human Values 35(3): 701–715.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

59. Njuki J, Baltenweck I, Mutua E, Korir L, Muindi P (2014) Women ’s empowerment in collective dairy value chains  38: 1-4.

Indexed at, Google Scholar  

60. Quisumbing AR, Meinzen-Dick R, Raney TL, Croppenstedt A, Behrman JA, et al. (2014) Gender in agriculture: Closing the knowledge gap. Springer 102072: 1-444.

Google Scholar, Crossref