Perceptions of the impact of deworming

activity in the emergency drought response:

Northern Kenya 2011

Okell, C.N., Mariner, J.C., Allport, R., Rushton, J.R., Verheyen, K.L.P.

PENAPHPENAPHPENAPHPENAPH

Introduction Drought: “Failure of two consecutive rainy seasons”

•Primary natural hazard of Kenya

•Arid and semi arid lands

-80% land area

-33% human population

-70% livestock population

•Livestock contribute up to

95% household income

10% of government

agricultural expenditure

Introduction

2008 – 2011

•Failure of all but one rainy season

•Livestock mortality rates: Cattle 65%, sheep 62%, goat 34%, donkey 6%, camel 1% *

Drought response involved multiple actors

•121 livestock interventions

(cf 21 in 00/01)

•Water holes, animal health,

destocking etc.

•Excess of one million anthelmintic

doses administered

•“Maintain food conversion efficiency”

Aims and Objectives

“To assess how emergency anthelmintic provision met the needs

of livestock species and livestock-owning households in drought

affected Isiolo and Marsabit, Northern Kenya.”

1.To identify the perceived relative importance of internal

parasites relative to other causes of morbidity.

1.To identify how livestock owners prevent internal parasites,

stakeholders involved and the role of the emergency response.

1.To measure the perceived effect of emergency deworming on

livestock output.

Methodology

Study design

• 2 stage sampling technique: Manyatta (village)& individual

• Inclusion criteria: security and cultural considerations

• Sample size geographically representative and based on time restraints

Data collection tools

• PRA’s: Seasonality calendars, ranking, before and after scoring& general discussion.

• Semi structured interviews; households

• Key informant interviews; those with different perceptions

Analysis

• Ranks to scores

• Non-parametric statistical analysis: Friedmans & Wilcoxon rank sum, Welch t-test.

Results: Study population

• 23 PRA’s, 112 household interviews and 20 key informant

Interviews

• 100% study population received food aid 12months/ year

• All were reliant on livestock as their sole form of livelihood

security

Preliminary questions

• Identified outputs of livestock

that contributed to household livelihood

• Identified 6 stages of a drought period

• PP trends of 3 indicators of output

Results: Measuring changes in output

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Dry season 08 Prolonged dry Drought Peak of drought

'11

After rains '11 April'12

Me

dia

n p

rop

ort

ion

pil

e

A line graph of the perceived relative change in 3 indicators of output of small

ruminants in 6 stages of drought: 2008 - 2012

Milk

Weight

Number of heads sold

Result 1: Identifying factors that affect output in

droughts and the perceived relative importance of internal

parasites

• Loss of pasture primary cause of decline

• Disease occurrence second

Result 1: Identifying factors that affect output in

droughts and the perceived relative importance of internal

parasites

Result 1: Identifying factors that affect output in

droughts and the perceived relative importance of internal

parasites

Isiolo

“Disease you may not see

specific signs of.... poor coat and

weight loss ....but always there”

“Not considered as a disease as

there all the time in all animals

and they carry on with signs.”

Marsabit (North Horr)

“No signs are seen.... told that

they cause emaciation but not

observed.”

““Some may see in intestines on

slaughter but no signs when

alive.”

PR

A S

tud

y P

op

ula

tio

n

• All participants of PRA’s and SSI’s identified salt water or

grazing areas with high levels of salt as a preventative cause

of helminths

• PRA’s- differing perception of anthelmintic use

• Household interviews showed different practice of

anthelmintic use

Result 2: How livestock owners prevent internal parasites,

stakeholders involved and the role of the emergency response

Result 2: How livestock owners prevent internal parasites,

stakeholders involved and the role of the emergency response

Isiolo

100% PRA 71% HHI

10% Albendazole (rain)

2.5% Albendazole or Levamisole (dry)

Marsabit

“Albendazole”

Unknown

75% PRA 42% HHI

Agro-veterinary stores “Duka” or CBAHW

All PRA’s from both areas claimed to purchase antibiotics,

acaracides and anti-tryps from these sources

Anthelmintic use

• Household interviews used to assess behavioural differences

Result 2: How livestock owners prevent internal parasites,

stakeholders involved: the role of the emergency response

• No evidence of a perceived effect when used in dry or drought

period

• Seasonal differences in the perceived effect of anthelmintic

use in drought prone areas

Result 3: Perceptions of the effects of emergency

anthelmintic use

Discussion/ Conclusion

Evidence of an epidemiological difference between areas:

• Difference in the perception of evidence of presence of

helminths

• Behavioral difference in decision making for anthelmintic

use & unanimous use of salt as preventative

• Environmental observations complemented data

Conclusion

• Evidence livestock owners capacities to meet livestock

health needs – different animal health service delivery

infrastructure

• Inter-household economic differences likely to determine

purchasing power

• Emergency response likely to meet the needs of some

unable to purchase

BUT

• There is no evidence of a perceived benefit to

administering anthelmintic in droughts.

• Further study to quantify attributable effect during rains

Acknowledgements

• Facilitators and translators: Adano Gollo Umuro, John

Gitobu, Boru Tarole, Abdi Guyo

• Participants, chief and assistant chiefs of locations

Nico Buono, Stephen Kimondiu

• Dr. Sief Maloo, Diana Onyango, Isaac Lubutsi

PENAPHPENAPHPENAPHPENAPH

cokell@rvc.ac.uk