Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:18:38.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A participatory approach to the evaluation of the efficiency of animal recording practices based on institutional analysis and development framework

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2010

C. B. WASIKE ,
A. K. KAHI  and
K. J. PETERS
C. B. WASIKE*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding in the Tropics and Subtropics, Humboldt University of Berlin, Philippstrasse 13, Haus 9, 10115 Berlin, Germany Department of Animal Sciences, Pwani University College, PO Box 95, 80108 Kilifi, Kenya
A. K. KAHI
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genetics Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Egerton University, PO Box 536, 20115 Egerton, Kenya
K. J. PETERS
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding in the Tropics and Subtropics, Humboldt University of Berlin, Philippstrasse 13, Haus 9, 10115 Berlin, Germany
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: wasikebwire@yahoo.co.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Animal recording is an interactive process that involves several practices. The efficiency of the process is essential to ensure the utility of outcomes necessary for sustainable participation. Most evaluation approaches define efficiency in economic terms. Animal recording systems lack outputs of direct economic benefits; hence, efficiency evaluation based on utility derived from the records would be more laudable. In that case, a system is considered efficient when outcome-utility-dependent participation is sustained. Approaches for evaluating efficiency based on the utility of outputs are, however, unavailable. The current study presents an approach for evaluating the efficiency of animal recording based on output utility using the institutional analysis and development framework. The approach evaluates efficiency by incorporating institutional issues influencing the operations of the system and its outcomes. It considers animal recording as an action arena with various actors in three action situations, namely: animal identification and registration, pedigree and performance recording and animal evaluation and information utilization. The variables include the positions occupied by actors, their actions, the outcomes associated with the actions, the level of control over choice, available information and the cost and benefits of engagement. As an interactive process, animal recording has rules that order relationships between actors. It also exists within a biophysical system and community whose attributes, combined with the rules, influence the actions and outcomes of recording. These are evaluated by looking at rule formation structures, enforcement and compliance and the level of interaction between the recording system and other biophysical characteristics and the community for their effects on outcomes, their utility and sustainability of recording. Participatory tools, Stakeholder matrix and Venn diagrams are used to identify the variables, quantify their interactions and link them to outputs. The applicability of the approach is tested using a case where information systems are imperfect. The approach successfully identifies missing actors within the action arena, poor rule conformance due to weak enforcement agencies and the absence of rules that govern outcomes and ensure the utility of outcomes as hindrances to the utility of recording and hence the efficiency of the system. It may therefore be used to evaluate the efficiency of systems whose outputs do not have a direct market value and in situations where quantitative market information is scarce.

Type
Animals
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 149 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 103 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Andersson, K. P. (2006). Understanding decentralized forest governance: an application of the institutional analysis and development framework. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 2, 25–35.Google Scholar
Barrett, C. B., Lee, D. R. & Mcpeak, J. G. (2005). Institutional arrangements for rural poverty reduction and resources conservation. World Development 33, 193–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bebe, B. O. (2003). Herd dynamics of smallholder dairy in the Kenya highlands. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Bebe, B. O., Udo, H. M. J. & Thorpe, W. (2002). Development of smallholder dairy systems in Kenya highlands. Outlook on Agriculture 31, 113–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bebe, B. O., Udo, H. M. J., Rowlands, G. J. & Thorpe, W. (2003). Smallholder dairy systems in the Kenya highlands: breed preferences and breeding practices. Livestock Production Science 82, 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrow, H. M. (2001). Variances and covariances between productive and adaptive traits and temperament in a composite breed of tropical beef cattle. Livestock Production Science 70, 213–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caja, G., Ghirardi, J. J., Hernández-Jover, M. & Garín, D. (2004). Diversity of animal identification techniques: from ‘fire age’ to ‘electronic age’. ICAR Technical Series 9, 21–39.Google Scholar
Campher, J. P. (2004). Animal identification and recording systems in the Southern African Development Community (SADC): 1. Overview of the current situation. ICAR Technical Series 9, 65–76.Google Scholar
Clement, F. & Amezaga, J. M. (2008). Linking reforestation policies with land use change in northern Vietnam: why local factors matter. GEOFORUM 39, 265–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clement, F. & Amezaga, J. M. (2009). Afforestation and forestry land allocation in northern Vietnam: analysing the gap between policy intentions and outcomes. Land Use Policy 26, 458–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Del Hoyo, J. J. G., Espino, D. C. & Toribio, R. J. (2004). Determination of technical efficiency of fisheries by stochastic frontier models: a case on the Gulf of Cadiz (Spain). Journal of Marine Science 61, 416–421.Google Scholar
Diaz, M. A. & Sanchez, R. (2008). Firm size and productivity in Spain: a stochastic frontier analysis. Small Business Economics 30, 315–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dong, S., Lassoie, J., Shrestha, K. K., Yan, Z., Sharma, E. & Pariya, D. (2009). Institutional development for sustainable rangeland resource and ecosystem management in mountainous areas of northern Nepal. Journal of Environmental Management 90, 994–1003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dudley, R. G. (2007). Payments, penalties, payouts, and environmental ethics: a system dynamics examination. Sustainability: Science, Practice & Policy 3, 24–35.Google Scholar
FAO (1998). Secondary Guidelines for Development of National Farm Animal Genetic Resources Management Plans: Animal Recording for Medium Input Production Environment. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO).Google Scholar
Flamant, J. C. (1998). The impact of socio-economic aspects on the development and outcome of animal recording systems. ICAR Technical Series 1, 267–318.Google Scholar
Gibson, C. C., Williams, J. T. & Ostrom, E. (2005). Local enforcement and better forests. World Development 33, 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimble, R. (1998). Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management. In Socioeconomic Methodologies. Best Practice Guidelines, p. 10. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Grimble, R. & Wellard, K. (1997). Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems 55, 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmke, G. & Levitsky, S. (2006). Informal Institutions and Democracy: Lessons from Latin America. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holst, P. J. (1999). Recording and on-farm evaluations and monitoring: breeding and selection. Small Ruminants Research 34, 197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooven, N. W. Jr (1978). Cow identification and recording systems. Journal of Dairy Science 61, 1167–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICAR (2009). International Agreement of Recording Practices: Guidelines Approved by the General Assembly held in Niagara Falls, USA 18 June 2008. Rome: ICAR.Google Scholar
Kahi, A. K., Wasike, C. B. & Rewe, T. O. (2006). Beef production in the arid and semi-arid lands of Kenya. Constraints and prospects for research and development. Outlook on Agriculture 35, 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koontz, T. M. (2003). An introduction to the institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework for forest management research. In Workshop of First Nations and Sustainable Forests: Institutional Conditions for Success, p. 10. University of British Columbia Faculty of Forestry, Vancouver, BC.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J. D., Strohbehn, D., Loy, D. & Clause, R. (2003). Lessons learned from the Canadian cattle industry: National animal identification and the mad cow. In MATRIC Research Paper. Iowa, IA: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Mabry, J. W. & See, M. T. (1990). Selection with the animal model versus selection within contemporary groups for swine. Journal of Dairy Science 73, 2657–2665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mapholi, N., Harris, E. J. & Kotze, A. (2006). Application of DNA and protein technology in animal forensics. In The Role of Biotechnology in Animal Agriculture to Address Poverty in Africa: Opportunities and Challenges, Proceedings of the 4th All Africa Conference on Animal Agriculture and the 31st Annual Meeting of Tanzania Society for Animal Production (Eds Rege, J. E. O., Nyamu, A. M. & Sendalo, D.), pp. 0–0. Arusha, Tanzania.Google Scholar
Matsaert, H. (2002). Institutional analysis in natural resources research. In Socio-Economic Methodologies for Natural Resources Research Best Practice Guidelines, p. 16. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Mwacharo, J. M. & Drucker, A. G. (2005). Production objectives and management strategies of livestock keepers in south-east Kenya: Implications for a breeding programme. Tropical Animal Health and Production 37, 635–652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norman, H. D., Powell, R. L. & Wiggans, G. R. (1991). Comparison of genetic evaluations from animal model and modified contemporary comparison. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 2309–2316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1999). Institutional rational choice. An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In Theories of the Policy Process (Ed. Sabatier, P. A.), pp. 35–71. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E., Gibson, C., Shivakumar, S. & Andersson, K. (2002). Aid, Incentives, and Sustainability: An Institutional Analysis of Development Cooperation – Main Report, p. 351. Gothenburg, Sweden: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.Google Scholar
Peeler, E. J. & Omore, A. O. (1997). Manual of Livestock Production Systems in Kenya – Cattle Sheep and Goat Systems. KARI/DFID National Agricultural Research Project II. Kikuyu, Kenya: National Veterinary Research Centre.Google Scholar
Ramírez, R. & Lee, R. A. (2007). Service delivery systems for natural resource stakeholders: targeting, information and communication functions and policy considerations. Agronomía Colombiana 25, 357–366.Google Scholar
Rewe, T. O., Indetie, D., Ojango, J. M. K. & Kahi, A. K. (2006). Economic values for production and functional traits and assessment of their influence on genetic improvement in the Boran cattle in Kenya. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 123, 23–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saravanan, V. S. (2008). A systems approach to unravel complex water management institutions. Ecological Complexity 5, 202–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SASAIA (South Africa Studbook and Animal Improvement Association) (2007). Stud Breeders' Manual. Cape town, South Africa: Picasso Headline.Google Scholar
Tamsyn, S., Arendse, L., Rogers, K., Sihlophe, N., Van Wilgen, B., Van Wyk, E. & Zeka, S. (2007). Stakeholder connectedness and participatory water resource management in South Africa. Water South Africa 33, 505–512.Google Scholar
Tenenberg, J. (2008). An institutional analysis of software teams. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 66, 484–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Westhuizen, J., Scholtz, M. M. & Mamabolo, M. J. (2006). Importance of infrastructure and system for livestock recording and improvement in developing countries. In The role of Biotechnology in Animal Agriculture to Address Poverty in Africa: Opportunities and Challenges, Proceedings of the 4th All Africa Conference on Animal Agriculture and the 31st Annual Meeting of Tanzania Society for Animal Production (Eds Rege, J. E. O., Nyamu, A. M. & Sendalo, D.), Arusha, Tanzania.Google Scholar
Vares, T., Habe, F., Klopcic, M. & Kompan, D. (Eds) (2001). Workshop on Role of Breeders' Organisations and State in Animal Identification and Recording in CEE Countries. Rome: ICAR.Google Scholar
Wasike, C. B., Peters, K. J. & Kahi, A. K. (2008). Evaluation of factors that influence animal pedigree and performance recording in Kenya. In Competition for Resources in a Changing World: New Drive for Rural Development, Book of Abstracts for the Deutsche TROPENTAG (Ed. Tielkes, E.), p. 303. Stuttgart–Hohenheim: Cuvillier Verlag Gottingen. Available online at http://www.tropentag.de/2008/proceedings/proceedings.pdf (verified 30 June 2010).Google Scholar
Winters, B. L. & Clay, J. S. (2009). In the right hands, PocketMeter is indispensable. In ICAR Technical Series (Ed. Sattler, J. D.), pp. 385–388.Google Scholar
Wismans, W. M. G. (1999). Identification and registration of animals in the European Union. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 24, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar