Presented by Michel Dione, ILRI, at the Second Participatory Epidemiology Network for Animal and Public Health Conference: Participatory Approach to One Health, Khon Kaen, Thailand, 10-12 January 2018

1. Participatory Impact Assessment following training
of smallholder pig farmers on biosecurity for the
control of African swine fever in Uganda
Michel Dione, ILRI
Second Participatory Epidemiology Network for Animal and Public
Health Conference: Participatory Approach to One Health,
Khon Kaen, Thailand, 10-12 January 2018

2. African swine fever disease
Reddening of the skin
Up to 100% herd mortalityPetechial hemorrhages in the cortex
and renal pelvis.
Splenomegaly (not specific for ASF)

3. African swine fever in Uganda
• Major pig health constraint to farmers
• Endemic with recurrent outbreaks
• High mortality rate

4. Fate of pigs affected by ASF according farmers (n=350
farmers)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Kkingo
Kyanamukaka
Kitayunwa
Namwendwa
Bugulumbya
Ntenjeru
Kabonera
Kyampisi
Kimana-Kyabakuza
Katwe-Butego
Nyendo-Ssenyange
MukonoTC
Goma
rural-rural rural-urban urban-urban
Proportionoffarmers(%)
slaughter
die
recover
sale

5. Constraints to African swine fever control
• No effective treatment and vaccine
• Impact can only be minimized through the adoption of
biosecurity measures along the pig value chains
• Lack of pig producers’ knowledge on best practices in
biosecurity and husbandry is an important contributing
factor to the persistence of ASF outbreaks
• Weak disease surveillance systems (disease reporting and
movement control)
• Poor hygiene and processing practices
Capacity building of farmers has been identified as an
intervention in order reduce the incidence of the disease,
hence improve productivity of pig herds

6. Objective of the study
Investigate the efficacy of participatory training in increasing
knowledge of biosecurity protocols and in the readiness of
farmers to implement protocols in order to reduce
productive loses due to ASF

7. What is Participatory Training
• ‘An interactive learning process enabling individuals and
communities to develop skills, knowledge and attitudes, and to share
lessons learnt, so that they actively contribute to food security and
poverty alleviation.’ (FAO)
• Participants are encouraged to explore and discover for themselves
• Centered on the farmers and developed according to their needs
• Farmers understand the importance of the problem in relation to
their activity, and to what extend it can affect their livelihood if not
addressed
• Farmers feel ownership of the whole process, in this way; they are
participating in solving their own problems

8. What is Participatory Impact Assessment (PIA)- Catley, 1999
• PIA is an extension of Participatory Rural Appraisal and involves the
adaptation of participatory tools combined with more conventional
statistical approaches specifically to measure the impact of
development projects on people’s lives
• The approach consists of a flexible methodology that can be adapted
to local conditions
• The approach acknowledges local people as experts by emphasizing
the involvement of project participants and community members in
assessing project impact
• and by recognizing that ‘local people are capable of identifying and
measuring their own indicators of change’

9. Study sites

10. Study design
• Clustered Randomized Controlled Trial
• Assuming 35% of farmers have good KAP about ASF and
biosecurity at start and 65% after training then if ICC =
0.38
• 30 pig-keeping households per village to show increase in
KAP of 30% (with 80% power at 5% level of significance
• 32 villages (16 villages in treatment and 15 villages in
control)
– Number of pig farmers =2563
– Number of pigs = 8558
– Number of pigs farmers in the study = 960 farmers
(480 in control and 480 in treatment)

11. Refinement and production of training package
Study design, site selection and field logistic
Baseline KAP survey on selected farmers (n=960)
Serum sample collection for pathogen detection
(PCV2, PRRS, APP, etc..)
Intervention (participatory training/education)
Refreshment training after 6 months
End-line household KAP surveys (n=960)
Serum sample collection
Sequence of activities
Participatory Impact Assessment

12. Intervention and indicators
Intervention
• Participatory training all pig farmers in selected villages (4
hours per training)
• 20 to 30 farmers per group
• case stories
• brainstorming
• practical demonstration
• leaflets/photos
Indicators for monitoring
• Change in biosecurity KAP and ASF incidence
• Change in pathogen burden (PRRS, PCV, etc… )

13. Quantitative impact assessment
• CSPro (data collection) and STATA 14 (analysis)
• Difference between post- and pre-training scores was
calculated as a measure of knowledge gain, positive attitude
and implementation of the recommended biosecurity
practices
• Two-sample t-test was used to assess biosecurity KAP
increases between the trained and untrained groups

14. Qualitative impact assessment
• Focus Group Discussions (FGD) to assess whether training
on biosecurity measures has been helpful in increasing
knowledge of farmers and reducing ASF incidence
• Two FGDs in each site; each FGD group was constituted
by about 12 participants both men and women
participants interviewed separately
• Key Informant Interviews (KII) with district officials and
community leaders to assess their perception about the
intervention; also which changes can be attributable to the
intervention

15. Qualitative impact assessment
• Collected field notes including transcribed interviews
were reduced, condensed and sorted into key
categories
• Raw data was analyzed using conceptual matrices to
facilitate identification of patterns
• Analysis of data involved process tracking, extraction
and linking information on the key aspects of the
study

16. Changes in Knowledge, Attitude and Practices

17. Increased knowledge of farmers about ASF disease
“The diseased animal loses appetite, bends the head downwards and
cannot put it upright, shivers with high body temperature of 41° C, the ears
and skin turn purple/pinkish for white pigs, drools saliva, huddles in a
corner (especially young pigs) and exhibits general body weakness”
(farmer in urban Masaka)
“ASF can be spread through use of a communal boar to serve the entire
village sows; collecting left overs (swill) from hotels, pork joints; flies
moving from dirty/infected farms to other farms; stray dogs/ domesticated
ones visiting slaughtering places; traders who buy pigs from different pig
farms without disinfecting themselves; poor disposal of remains like hair
after slaughter; use of the same tools and equipment by vets such as
needle, syringes and gum boots while rendering services from farm to
farm; and buying pork from the butchery, consuming it at home and then
feeding the leftovers to pigs”. (farmer in urban Masaka)

18. Change in attitude towards application of
biosecurity
“We are now aware that dead pigs are not just as free meat but a
potential source of African Swine Fever. So farmers are very conscious
about sources of meat they eat or bring home because it can bring ASF
virus” (Lira: Urban Women’s Group)
“Farmers are now showing some level of cooperation amongst
themselves to enhance preventive measures especially in promoting
the practice of restricting movement of pigs by tethering”. (Lira Rural
Women’s Group)
“We now know that we have a role to play in preventing the spread of
the disease within a pig unit and outside”. (Lira: Urban Women’s
Group).

19. Change in practice
‘When I buried the dead pig from ASF, the disease was contained
and it didn’t spread to my neighbours’. (Mr Mawanda, Masaka
Urban)
“Some farmers who refused visitors to go to their farms had
their pigs survive during the outbreaks while other farmers’ pigs
died”. (Urban Masaka Group II)
Some farmers who were using disinfectants in Kyamuyimbwa
subcounty in Masaka district, testified that they didn’t get any
problem of ASF yet the ones who didn’t use disinfectants lost
their pigs.

20. Perception of farmers on implemented biosecurity
practices and the benefits
Implemented practices How it has been helpful
Confining pigs by constructing pig
houses, fences or tethering
In the control of the movement of pigs around the villages; has
enabled the use of footbath and easy cleaning of the pigsty; and
farmers with structures have been able to collect manure which has
greatly improved the quality of their soils
Regular cleaning/washing of pig
housing/confinement areas and
equipment
It has helped to improve hygiene in pig units; reduce flies and avoid
accumulation of waste, diseases and bad smell
Boiling swill feeding and for those
who can’t cook, stopped the
practice
This has made it safe to feed uncontaminated food and reduced
chances of infection.
Reporting suspected ASF to
relevant authorities
It was one of the ways of controlling the disease better in the area
Burying dead pigs Contained the disease and didn’t spread to neighbours
Use of disinfectant Those using disinfectant didn’t get problems of ASF on their farms
while non-users lost their pigs.
The disinfectant reduced flies.
Isolating sick pigs from healthy
ones
Helped to save the rest of the herd and to sell healthy pigs before they
were infected.
Spraying pigs Has controlled the spread of ticks, flies and Mange.

21. Some reasons for failing to apply some biosecurity measures
reported from FGDs
Practices that weren’t fully
implemented by all farmers
Reasons given for not implementing the measures
Construction of fences/pig
structures/housing
 High cost of construction material
 Lack of knowledge on design of appropriate pig house
Limiting visitors from going to the
pig units
 Visitors sometimes come when they are not at home.
 Traders have no other way of estimating weight and, therefore,
need access to see the pigs before they agree to buy them
 Some feared to restrict vets because they think vets know
better
Burying or burning dead pigs  Instead of burying dead pigs, the carcass is being sold because
there are people willing to buy them and farmers do not want
to make a loss.
 Lack land to bury the carcass
 On the other hand, burning hasn’t been tried because it is
considered costly (would require fuel) and needs a special
place
Stopping the use of communal
boars
They lack artificial insemination services and yet raising one’s own
boar is expensive
Use of disinfectant and footbath  Disinfectants are expensive and not always available
 Some people also said a footbath is difficult to use consistently
and feared that it may stop people from visiting them
Boiling swill  Not widely practiced due to fuel/firewood cost
Informing authorities about an ASF
outbreak in an area
Poor access to vets

22. Recommendations for improved control of ASF
Identified gaps Recommendations
To avoid the spread of ASF, all pig
farmers need to be trained
• Identify model pig farmers (whose farms will function as
demonstration sites) and support them in their respective
localities to train others in the villages.
• The model farmers will also be responsible for ensuring that
farmers are aware of where they can get reliable vet services.
Laws to control ASF are not being
followed
• Build capacity of pig farmers in lobbying and advocacy so as to
enable them to engage with their respective local
governments on the implementation of existing laws on the
control ASF spread.
Lack good quality breeds • Support Artificial Insemination provision through collaboration
with an agency specialized in the service.
High cost of disinfectants and
construction of pigsties and fences
• Explore cheaper alternative options for biosecurity measures
so as to be able to promote cost barrier practices. For instance
proven locally/homemade disinfectants.
• Train pig farmers in business management so as to enable
them to operate profitable businesses and thus be able to
afford the good practices.
• Build capacity of the pig farmers in the formation and
management of Village Saving and Loan Associations (VLSAs).
• Create linkages to micro-finance institutions so as to enable
farmers to access credit for the recommended biosecurity
measures.

23. Added value of Participatory Impact Assessment
(PIA)
• PIA has help answer “the why” and “the how’?
• Challenges and gaps in implementing the
intervention have been identified
• Gender issues have been well elucidated
• Recommendations for sustainability were given
by farmers themselves
• New research areas have been identified for
follow up

24. CGIAR Research Program on Livestock
livestock.cgiar.org
The CGIAR Research Program on Livestock aims to increase the productivity and profitability of livestock agri-food
systems in sustainable ways, making meat, milk and eggs more available and affordable across the developing world.
This presentation is licensed for use under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence.
The program thanks all donors and organizations which globally support its work through their contributions to the
CGIAR system