The Smallholder Dairy Project (SDP) was jointly implemented by the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development, the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI) and ILRI

Smallholder Dairy Project

CGSpace (CGIAR)

IntroductionA key characteristic of milk production in Kenya is the existence of distinct milk surplus andmilk deficit areas. Unfortunately, such factors as poor road infrastructure and lack of means ofpreservation hinder the smooth flow of milk from the surplus to the deficit areas, and spoilageis a major source of lost income. It is estimated that Kenya loses about 67 million litres of milkannually due to waste and spoilage, which is equivalent to some US$ 18 million.While cooling is the preferred method of bulk milk preservation, it is sometimes not feasibledue to cost or irregular or absent power supply. In such areas an alternative method ofpreservation using the internationally approved lactoperoxidase system (LPS) is possible forgroups of farmers linked to dairy processors.1 This policy brief presents a spatial analysis ofmilk surplus and deficit areas in central and western Kenya and considers the feasibility ofuse of LPS compared to the present method of cooling.Milk surplus/deficit and market access in KenyaTo determine where interventions might help improve market accessibility and reduce milkspoilage it is necessary to take into account two main factors: the current milk surplus ordeficit, and market access. Available data were used, as described in box 1, to construct a mapshowing the spatial interaction of these factors in highland Kenya (figure 1). The areas ofprimary concern are those where a high milk surplus occurs in areas of low or medium marketaccess. In these areas improvement of road infrastructure or dissemination of appropriatemilk preservation technologies would increase marketing possibilities and reduce loss throughspoilage.SDP Policy Brief 8SMALLHOLDERDAIRY PROJECTSDPwww.smallholderdairy.orgLPS: a practical alternative forreducing post-harvest milk lossesKey points■ In Kenya, the movement of milk along themarketing chain is often hindered by suchfactors as lack of or dysfunctional milkcooling facilities, poor road infrastructureand irregular electricity supply.■ As a result, milk spoilage is a major causeof loss of income for milk marketing agentsand farmers.■ The use of the lactoperoxidase system(LPS) offers a means by which milkcollectors can preserve milk quality for alonger period, and salvage spoilage lossesincurred.■ Use of LPS could be considered as anoption for milk quality preservation where acold chain is not feasible or economical.This would allow farmers in suchcircumstances to sell more milk andincrease their incomes.L P S :  A  P R A C T I C A L  A L T E R N AT I V E  F O R  R E D U C I N G  P O S T- H A RV E S T  M I L K  L O S S E S  –  S D P  B R I E F  8To determine milk surplus and deficit areas, estimates ofpotential milk production were projected using available dataon cattle numbers from the MoLFD and on milk yields fromsurveys by SDP. Milk demand was computed using humanpopulation data and milk consumption indexes from a studyby SDP of selected urban and rural areas.For the comparison of costs of cooling and use of LPS, datawere obtained from four milk cooling centres (three large-scale and one small-scale). The relationship betweenpotential and utilized capacity and cost of cooling in the plantsis shown in table 1.Data on benefits and costs of LPS were collected during trialswith two milk collection groups (Olbutyo and Gelegele) inBomet District and two private milk collection agents (denotedNY-02 and NY-03) in Nyandarua District. Both districts have ahigh milk surplus but poor infrastructure hinders distribution.Before the trials the groups in Bomet did not sell their eveningmilk as they lacked means of preventing spoilage. The trialagents in Nyandarua sold both morning and evening milk butreported routinely adding hydrogen peroxide to the milk toprevent spoilage.In addition, data on location and capacity of available milkcoolers, both functional and dysfunctional, were collected andmapped.Box 1.Study of milk surplus and deficit areas and mappingof milk coolers: Data sources and methodsFigure 1. Spatial distribution of milk surplus/deficit and market access in central and western KenyaComparative study of milkpreservation using coolingor LPSA comparative study was made of milk coolingand LPS technologies.2 The study used dataobtained from four milk cooling centres, andfrom LPS trials using milk collection agents.Data for the cooling centres (table 1) show costsper litre of milk cooling ranging from about KSh(Kenya shillings) 1.10-1.30 per litre in the largercentres (A, B and C) to KSh 1.77 in the small-scale plant (D). In comparison, the cost ofpreservation using LPS was in the range KSh1.02-1.10 per litre. For the cooling centres, costsdecreased with higher levels of utilized capacity(table 1); the plants studied were all operatingat levels below their potential capacity (25-71%),with fluctuations according to seasonalavailability of milk.The operators of milk cooling centresidentified several key constraints, including thehigh costs of equipment and electricity; lack ofa chilled milk price premium from dairyprocessors to offset these costs; and difficultyof transporting milk to the processors underchilled conditions. Milk losses due to spoilageaccounted for 26% of the variable cost of coolingin the small-scale centre (D) compared to zeroin the larger centres. Spoilage in centre D wasdue to power interruptions, and lack of milktesting equipment.Combining Market access/Milk Surplus/Deficit areasL P S :  A  P R A C T I C A L  A L T E R N AT I V E  F O R  R E D U C I N G  P O S T- H A RV E S T  M I L K  L O S S E S  –  S D P  B R I E F  8    Table 1. Capacity and costs of milk cooling centres in sample studyCooling centre Potential capacity (litres) Utilized capacity (%) Cost (KSh per litre)A 100,000 48 1.26B 52,000 71 1.11C 20,000 68 1.32D 1,200 25 1.77Results of study of use of LPSby collectorsTable 2 shows the results of a benefit-cost analysis ofuse of LPS by the four milk collection bodies. Anincrease in sales was expected among the trial groups,particularly due to the preservation of evening milkfor collection the next morning. However, certainconstraints hampered this new sales opportunity:■ Reduced milk supply during the dry season dueto poor productivity of animals.■ A preference by some farmers to keep theevening milk for home consumption.■ Reluctance by women to pass control of theevening milk to their husbands for sale throughmilk marketing groups.■ Lack of milk market during the wet season dueto milk intake quotas instituted by dairyprocessors.It was found, however, that LPS could boostprofitability when used strategically on morningmilk; that is, only when there was risk of spoilage.On the other hand, the milk collection agents inNyandarua (NY-02 and NY-03) found thatTable 2. Total costs and incremental incomes in milk preservation using LPSMorning/eveningRoutine1,14010,8150.11Groups Independent milk collection agentsGelegele Olbutyo NY-02 NY-03Time of useStrategy of using LPSBenefits:Increased revenue (KSh)Cost:Increased expenses (KSh)Benefit-cost ratioMorning onlyStrategic2,5962,1801.2Morning onlyRoutine and strategic1,8003,4680.5Morning/eveningRoutine1,53510,2000.2substitution of LPS for hydrogen peroxide entailedhigher private costs than benefits, though the trialstudy did not capture the large social benefitsconnected with non-use of hydrogen peroxide. Thegroups and agents did, however, perceive certainadvantages:■ Simple to learn and use.■ Milk preserved with LPS rather than hydrogenperoxide retained its natural physical properties(density, appearance and smell).■ LPS has scientific backing.■ Reduced milk rejections by processors.However, some concerns were expressed by the milkcollection agents:■ LPS was more costly and less readily availablethan hydrogen peroxide, and market limitationsmade it difficult to defray the expense.■ Addition of LPS involved an increasedworkload, and was ineffective in poor qualitymilk.■ Cultural norms were opposed to additives inmilk.L P S :  A  P R A C T I C A L  A L T E R N AT I V E  F O R  R E D U C I N G  P O S T- H A RV E S T  M I L K  L O S S E S  –  S D P  B R I E F  8This publication is an output from a project funded by the Department for International Development (DFID) of the UnitedKingdom for the benefit of developing countries. However, the views expressed here are not necessarily those of DFID.The mapping of milk coolers (figure 2) showed that there are about 200 milk coolersin the country with a total capacity of about 1.4 million litres per day.3 About half ofthese coolers, mainly those owned by farmer groups, were found to be dysfunctionaldue to various reasons, including lack of economies of scale and costly electricity. Thisdemonstrates that LPS could be considered for use even in areas where coolers are present.Policy implications■ The cost of using LPS compares favourably with that of cooling, particularly small-scale coolers. It may be cost-effective to use LPS rather than cooling in areas wheremilk quantities are small, cooling is non-economic, or power supply is not regular.■ LPS would be a preferred alternative to hydrogen peroxide, which is reported inuse in some areas.■ Social and intra-household issues should be considered in any application of LPStechnology, since they may constrain its adoption.■ Use of LPS is one of a related raft of policies and interventions that could improvethe flow of milk through the marketing chain; for example, improved rural roadsand reliable, lower cost power are other key areas for policy intervention.■ Current government standards in Kenya restrict additives and preservatives in wholemilk, which apparently precludes use of LPS. However, proponents of LPS arguethat it is a natural ingredient in milk. Given the international approval of LPS by theCodex Alimentarius, policymakers should review regulations and considerendorsing its use.1 LPS works by activating the natural lactoperoxidase in milk, which has antibacterial effects. Two activators - firstthiocyanate and then percarbonate - are added to and mixed in good-quality milk 2 to 3 hours after milking. Use ofLPS is approved by both the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization(FAO/WHO) Expert Committee on Food Additives and the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The process is naturaland is not to be confused with the use of the banned and harmful chemical hydrogen peroxide.2 Smallholder Dairy (R&D) Project. 2004. An Assessment of the Costs and Feasibility of Alternative Milk PreservationSystems in Kenya. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI)and Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development (MoLFD).3 This compares favourably to the quantity of milk processed in Kenya daily, which currently can reach 1 million litres.MLFDoCONTACTS:SDP Project ManagerMoLFDP.O. Box 30028 NairobiTel: +254 (20) 2722601sdp-ma@africaonline.co.keSDP Assistant Project ManagerKARI HeadquartersP.O. Box 57811-00200 NairobiTel: +254 (20) 4183301/20DMMwangi@kari.orgSDP Field ManagerILRIP.O. Box 30709Nairobi 00100Tel:  +254 (20) 4223000s.staal@cgiar.orgThe Smallholder DairyProject (SDP) carries outresearch anddevelopment activitiesto support sustainableimprovements to thelivelihoods of poorKenyans through theirparticipation in the dairysub-sector. SDP is jointlyimplemented by theMinistry of Livestock andFisheries Development,the Kenya AgriculturalResearch Institute, andthe InternationalLivestock ResearchInstitute, and is fundedby DFID.www.smallholderdairy.orgFigure 2. Distribution of functional and dysfunctional milk coolers in central and western KenyaMapping milk coolers

LPS: a practical alternative for reducing post-harvest milk losses

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/10568/1850/1/SDP%20Brief%208.pdf

LPS: a practical alternative for reducing post-harvest milk losses

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CGSpace (CGIAR)