IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jworld/v3y2022i3p35-656d907132.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying Positive Deviant Farms Using Pareto-Optimality Ranking Technique to Assess Productivity and Livelihood Benefits in Smallholder Dairy Farming under Contrasting Stressful Environments in Tanzania

Author

Listed:
  • Dismas Said Shija

    (Department of Animal Sciences, Egerton University, Nakuru P.O. Box 536-20115, Kenya)

  • Okeyo A. Mwai

    (International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi P.O. Box 30709-00100, Kenya)

  • Perminus Karubiu Migwi

    (Department of Animal Sciences, Egerton University, Nakuru P.O. Box 536-20115, Kenya)

  • Daniel M. Komwihangilo

    (Tanzania Livestock Research Institute, Dodoma P.O. Box 834, Tanzania)

  • Bockline Omedo Bebe

    (Department of Animal Sciences, Egerton University, Nakuru P.O. Box 536-20115, Kenya)

Abstract

In smallholder dairy-cattle farming, identifying positive deviants that attain outstanding performance can inform targeted improvements in typical, comparable farms under similar environmental stresses. Mostly, positive deviants are identified subjectively, introducing bias and limiting generalisation. The aim of the study was to objectively identify positive deviant farms using the Pareto-optimality ranking technique in a sample of smallholder dairy farms under contrasting stressful environments in Tanzania to test the hypothesis that positive deviant farms that simultaneously outperform typical farms in multiple performance indicators also outperform in yield gap, productivity and livelihood benefits. The selection criteria set five performance indicators: energy balance ≥ 0.35 Mcal NEL/d, disease-incidence density ≤ 12.75 per 100 animal-years at risk, daily milk yield ≥ 6.32 L/cow/day, age at first calving ≤ 1153.28 days and calving interval ≤ 633.68 days. Findings proved the hypothesis. A few farms (27: 3.4%) emerged as positive deviants, outperforming typical farms in yield gap, productivity and livelihood benefits. The estimated yield gap in typical farms was 76.88% under low-stress environments and 48.04% under high-stress environments. On average, total cash income, gross margins and total benefits in dairy farming were higher in positive deviants than in typical farms in both low- and high-stress environments. These results show that the Pareto-optimality ranking technique applied in a large population objectively identified a few positive deviant farms that attained higher productivity and livelihood benefits in both low- and high-stress environments. However, positive deviants invested more in inputs. With positive deviant farms objectively identified, it is possible to characterise management practices that they deploy differently from typical farms and learn lessons to inform the uptake of best practices and extension messages to be directed to improving dairy management.

Suggested Citation

  • Dismas Said Shija & Okeyo A. Mwai & Perminus Karubiu Migwi & Daniel M. Komwihangilo & Bockline Omedo Bebe, 2022. "Identifying Positive Deviant Farms Using Pareto-Optimality Ranking Technique to Assess Productivity and Livelihood Benefits in Smallholder Dairy Farming under Contrasting Stressful Environments in Tan," World, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-18, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jworld:v:3:y:2022:i:3:p:35-656:d:907132
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4060/3/3/35/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-4060/3/3/35/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Moll, Henk A.J. & Staal, Steven J. & Ibrahim, M.N.M., 2007. "Smallholder dairy production and markets: A comparison of production systems in Zambia, Kenya and Sri Lanka," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 593-603, May.
    2. Bosman, H. G. & Moll, H. A. J. & Udo, H. M. J., 1997. "Measuring and interpreting the benefits of goat keeping in tropical farm systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 349-372, April.
    3. Alary, Véronique & Corniaux, Christian & Gautier, Denis, 2011. "Livestock's Contribution to Poverty Alleviation: How to Measure It?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(9), pages 1638-1648, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dismas Said Shija & Okeyo A. Mwai & Julie M. K. Ojango & Daniel M. Komwihangilo & Bockline Omedo Bebe, 2022. "Assessing Lactation Curve Characteristics of Dairy Cows Managed under Contrasting Husbandry Practices and Stressful Environments in Tanzania," World, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-21, December.
    2. Dismas Said Shija & Okeyo A. Mwai & Perminus K. Migwi & Raphael Mrode & Bockline Omedo Bebe, 2022. "Characterizing Management Practices in High- and Average-Performing Smallholder Dairy Farms under Contrasting Environmental Stresses in Tanzania," World, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-19, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Siegmund-Schultze, M. & Rischkowsky, B. & da Veiga, J.B. & King, J.M., 2010. "Valuing cattle on mixed smallholdings in the Eastern Amazon," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 857-867, February.
    2. Dilip Kumar Jha, 2019. "The Role of Livestock in Rural Households in Nepal," International Journal of Publication and Social Studies, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 4(2), pages 67-91, June.
    3. Feldt, Tobias & Neudert, Regina & Fust, Pascal & Schlecht, Eva, 2016. "Reproductive and economic performance of local livestock in southwestern Madagascar: Potentials and constraints of a highly extensive system," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 54-64.
    4. Pica-Ciamarra, Ugo & Tasciotti, Luca & Otte, Joachim & Zezza, Alberto, 2011. "Livestock assets, livestock income and rural households: Cross-country evidence from household surveys," ESA Working Papers 289004, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    5. Moll, Henk A.J. & Staal, Steven J. & Ibrahim, M.N.M., 2007. "Smallholder dairy production and markets: A comparison of production systems in Zambia, Kenya and Sri Lanka," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 593-603, May.
    6. Alobo Loison, Sarah & Hillbom, Ellen, 2020. "Regional evidence of smallholder-based growth in Zambia’s livestock sector," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 19(C).
    7. Lipper, Leslie & Cavatassi, Romina & Symons, Ricci & Gordes, Alashiya & Page, Oliver, 2022. "IFAD Research Series 85: Financing climate adaptation and resilient agricultural livelihoods," IFAD Research Series 322020, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
    8. Abid Hussain & Gopal Bahadur Thapa, 2016. "Fungibility of Smallholder Agricultural Credit: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 28(5), pages 826-846, November.
    9. Florence Jacquet & A Aboul-Naga & Bernard Hubert, 2020. "The contribution of ARIMNet to address livestock systems resilience in the Mediterranean region," Post-Print hal-03625860, HAL.
    10. Raza Ullah & Ganesh P. Shivakoti & Farhad Zulfiqar & Muhammad Nadeem Iqbal & Ashfaq Ahmad Shah, 2017. "Disaster risk management in agriculture: tragedies of the smallholders," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 87(3), pages 1361-1375, July.
    11. Maria J. Restrepo & Margareta A. Lelea & Brigitte Kaufmann, 2016. "Second-Order Cybernetic Analysis to Re-construct Farmers’ Rationale When Regulating Milk Production," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 449-468, October.
    12. Berry, Kevin & Fenichel, Eli P. & Robinson, Brian E., 2019. "The ecological insurance trap," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    13. Kibrom A. Abay & Nathaniel D. Jensen, 2020. "Access to markets, weather risk, and livestock production decisions: Evidence from Ethiopia," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 577-593, July.
    14. Wang, Ying & Bilsborrow, Richard E. & Zhang, Qi & Li, Jiangfeng & Song, Conghe, 2019. "Effects of payment for ecosystem services and agricultural subsidy programs on rural household land use decisions in China: Synergy or trade-off?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 785-801.
    15. van der Lee, Jan & Oosting, Simon & Klerkx, Laurens & Opinya, Felix & Bebe, Bockline Omedo, 2020. "Effects of proximity to markets on dairy farming intensity and market participation in Kenya and Ethiopia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    16. Dutilly, Céline & Alary, Véronique & Bonnet, Pascal & Lesnoff, Matthieu & Fandamu, Paul & de Haan, Cees, 2020. "Multi-scale assessment of the livestock sector for policy design in Zambia," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 401-418.
    17. Alary, V. & Messad, S. & Aboul-Naga, A. & Osman, M.A. & Daoud, I. & Bonnet, P. & Juanes, X. & Tourrand, J.F., 2014. "Livelihood strategies and the role of livestock in the processes of adaptation to drought in the Coastal Zone of Western Desert (Egypt)," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 44-54.
    18. Hary, I., 2004. "Derivation of steady state herd productivity using stage-structured population models and mathematical programming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 133-152, August.
    19. Bolier Torres & Jhenny Cayambe & Susana Paz & Kelly Ayerve & Marco Heredia-R & Emma Torres & Marcelo Luna & Theofilos Toulkeridis & Antón García, 2022. "Livelihood Capitals, Income Inequality, and the Perception of Climate Change: A Case Study of Small-Scale Cattle Farmers in the Ecuadorian Andes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, April.
    20. Nicolli, F. & Acosta, A. & Karfakis, P., 2018. "Are Livestock s keepers more resilient to climate shocks: Fact or Artifact?," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277482, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jworld:v:3:y:2022:i:3:p:35-656:d:907132. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.