Fit Sema Land O Lakes Dairy Radio Programs Impact Assessment Report - Ian Nkata - Uganda

Impact Assessment Report on Dairy Radio Programs
Submitted to
ILO FIT SEMA and Land O’ Lakes Inc.
August 2007
Prepared by:
Ian K. Nkata
Media and Market Research Consultant
P.O. Box 16003
Kampala
Uganda
Telephone: +256 772 400 717
Email: ian.nkata@gmail.com
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………. 4
1.0 Introduction …………………………………………………………… 6
2.0 Objectives of the impact assessment ……………………………… 6
3.0 Methodology …………………………………………………………. 7
4.0 Challenges faced ……………………………………………………. 8
5.0 Findings……………………………………………………………….. 9
6.0 Concluding statements and Recommendations………………….. 31
Appendices
I. Selected photos from the field…………………………………… 32
II. List of interviewers………………………………………………… 35
III. Sample of Police introductory letter…………………………….. 36
IV. Sample of introductory for research assistants………………… 36
V. List of fieldwork locations………………………………………… 37
VI. Selected additional Statistical Data Tables ……………………. 38
VII. Comments from the radio stations………………………………. 56
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1- Average farm milk output per day ……………………………….. 11
Table 2- Average amount of milk collected per day – high season……... 11
Table 3- Average amount of milk collected per day – low season ……… 12
Table 4- Average amount of milk sold per day by traders………………... 12
Table 5- Organizations associated with dairy radio programs …………... 15
Table 6- Relevance of topics covered in dairy radio programs…………… 15
Table 7- How adequately topics were covered…………………………. … 16
Table 8- Topical issues that need to be reviewed ………………………… 17
Table 9- Dairy business growth …………………………………………….. 22
Table 10- Comments on improved household livelihood…………………. 28
Table 11- Reasons for using radio………………………………………...... 31
LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 1- Gender of respondents ……………………………………………. 9
Chart 2- Age of respondents ………………………………………………… 10
Chart 3- Category in the milk chain…………………………………………. 10
Chart 4- Familiarity with dairy radio program………………………………. 13
Chart 5- Station on which dairy program was heard ……………………… 13
Chart 6 - Frequency of listening to dairy radio programs………………….. 14
Chart 7- Satisfaction with presentation style ………………………………. 18
Chart 8- Accuracy of information presented ……………………………. … 20
Chart 9- Preferred mode of presentation…………………………………… 20
Chart 10- Satisfaction with resource people……………………………….. 21
Chart 11- Agreement with statements about dairy radio programs …….. 24
Chart 12- Likelihood of business improvement……………………………. 26
Chart 13- Effectiveness of dairy radio programs ………………………….. 26
Chart 14- Recommending use of radio for dairy development…………… 30
Box 1 – Case study - Dairy Cooperative Societies ……………………….. 30
2
Cover Photo: Raphael Obukan interviewing a rural dairy farmer in Asuret County, Soroti District. Photo by Ian Nkata
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ILO FIT-SEMA and Land O’ Lakes Inc. have supported radio programs on
dairy farming industry in the last six months on selected radio stations i.e.
Radio West and Voice of Teso under the theme “The Improvement of the
Quality of Milk and its Value-added Products along the Milk Value Chain”.
Two Dairy Radio Programs were run on 2 radio stations i.e. “Ekacokon” on
Voice of Teso in Soroti and “Eintungo no bugeiga” on Radio West in
Mbarara.
An impact assessment of the dairy radio programs targeting farmers, people

managing milk collecting centre and milk traders, was carried out and the
main objectives of the assessment were:
• To assess awareness and relevance of Dairy Radio program content
• To find out which issues were addressed and others that need to be
reviewed
• To assess organizations or programmes associated with the Dairy
Radio programs
• To ascertain milk productivity as a result of exposure to the radio
programs
• To assess program resource persons’ contribution
• To solicit suggestions for improvement for program improvement
The assessment was undertaken in the districts of Soroti, Kumi, Mbarara,

Ntungamo, Bushenyi, Kiruhura and Ibanda.
Key findings indicate that 95% of the respondents are aware of a dairy radio
program and had equally heard it on radio. The listeners associated the radio
programs more with National Agriculture Advisory Services (NAADS), Dairy
Development Authority (DDA) and Uganda National Dairy Farmers’
Association (UNDFA) than any other organization. Over 50% of the
respondents found the topics in dairy radio programs very relevant while over
30% of the respondents were of the view that Production (Breeding, Feeding,
Feeds), Production (Breeding, Feeding, Feeds) and Farming as a business
were the most adequately covered topical areas in the dairy radio programs.
Some of the topical areas that need to be reviewed or revisited in future
programs are Production (Breeding, Feeding, Feeds); Animal/Herd Health
(Disease control etc); Farming as a business; Farm Management (Record
keeping etc); Market (Outlets, milk prices etc) and Marketing of dairy
products. Some of the areas they want covered that have not been previously
covered are: Accessing loan/credit facilities; making value-added products like
yogurt; dairy farmer group formation and dairy entrepreneurial skills. Over
70% of the respondents are satisfied with style of presentation of dairy
programs as well as the resourcefulness of the people invited to the
programs. Just over 45% of the respondents had experienced growth in their
dairy businesses from1% to 15%. Effectiveness of the radio programs was
confirmed by among other things improved milk yields, more hygienic and
cleaner milk, increased knowledge on milk productivity as well as improved
animal health. A couple suggestions were given to help in improving dairy
4
radio programs. These are: Strengthening the use of radio to improve the
dairy radio programs but need a lot of support required from various
stakeholders; Driving interest/awareness in dairy radio program through
intensive promotions; More interactive programming required to get better
results plus quality programming; Putting farmers at the centre of the
programs; Encouraging formation of dairy radio listener groups to realize
implementation of ideas; providing more airtime for dairy radio programs
(either air more than once a week or added time) as well as inviting
experienced and successful people to the programs to share experiences and
be a source of inspiration.
5
1.0 Introduction
ILO FIT-SEMA and Land O’ Lakes Inc. have supported radio programs on
dairy farming industry in the last three or so months on selected radio stations
i.e. Radio West and Voice of Teso under the theme “The Improvement of the
Quality of Milk and its Value-added Products along the Milk Value Chain”.
ILO FIT-SEMA project works with radio stations to enable the flow of
information targeting rural micro and small enterprises. The project works with
radio stations in establishing business programs that act as a platform for
providing information, debates and dialogue aimed at enabling Medium and
Small Enterprises (MSEs) influence policies that affect their business
environment while Land O’ Lakes Inc. is an international development
organization that is working towards the improvement of the dairy industry in
Uganda. Land O’ Lakes Inc. targets the following: Market Development; Milk
bulking and handling; milk production; industry organization; processing;
marketing and distribution of value-added milk products; and increasing
dialogue among industry stakeholders to encourage policy reforms.
The main objectives of the radio programs/communications were:
a) To stimulate behavioral change with respect to quality improvement

across the chain
b) To empower consumers on understanding of overall quality of milk and
value added products
c) To improve understanding of quality issues in the industry
d) To improve savings and investment culture among farmers in the
sector
e) To demonstrate promotion benefits to sponsors and advertisers on the
program.
ILO FIT-SEMA and Land O’ Lakes Inc decided to hire a consultant to assess
the impact of the dairy radio programs Ekacokon on Voice of Teso and
Eintungo no bugeiga on Radio West in the respective broadcast areas.
Lessons from the assessment, it was envisaged, would be used to improve
future interventions/programs. This report therefore presents the findings of
the assessment and also outlines recommendations for improving dairy radio
programs.
2.0 Objectives of the impact assessment
The overall goal was to assess the impact of dairy radio programs on the
various stakeholders on the premise of “Dairy Farming as a business”. Below
were the specific objectives for the assessment:
To assess awareness of the radio programs

To assess the relevance of program content
To find out which issues were addressed in the programs but would
need deeper tackling and/or that would need reviewing or revisiting
6
To establish which issues are not currently addressed but are
important
To assess the method of delivery/presentation in the respective
programs
To establish/measure the number of times programs have been
listened to or exposed to
To evaluate the accuracy of program content
To assess which organization(s) or programme(s) is/are associated
with the programs for example DDA, Land O’ Lakes, NAADS, Uganda
Crane Creameries Cooperative Union (UCCCU), UNADA, PMA, ILO
FIT-SEMA
To ascertain how far milk quality issues have been addressed as a
result of exposure to the radio programs
To rate program resource persons with a view find out which types of
persons would be preferred to be engaged in the programs regularly.
To solicit suggestions for improvement for program improvement
3.0 Methodology
This chapter covers pre-survey activities, the assessment methodology

covering sampling, survey tools, and data collection and analysis techniques.
3.1 Pre-assessment activities
Before the survey, a number of activities were carried out. These included:
a) Meeting with ILO FIT-SEMA and Land O’ Lakes officials to ensure

that issues raised in the proposal were in line with their needs.
b) Designing the questionnaire in consultation with ILO FIT-SEMA and
Land O’ Lakes officials.
c) Training research assistants and also preparing them for the
assignment. During this training, the questionnaire was reviewed so
that research assistants would familiarize with it before going to the
field to collect data. In the same meeting, the main objective of the
assessment was communicated to them as part of the preparation
process. Other issues addressed in the training were:
• Sample size, allocation per person

• Gender proportions
• Location of research, detail of work plan – field movement
• Duration of research
• General expectations
3.2 Sample size and Sampling Technique
The assessment set out to interview 300 respondents who included farmers;
people manning milk collecting centres and consumers in selected locations
in the broadcast areas of Radio West and Voice of Teso.1 The survey was
1
The survey took place in the districts of Soroti, Kumi, Mbarara, Ntungamo, Bushenyi, Kiruhura and Ibanda.
7
intended to have farmers and people manning milk collecting centres
constitute over 70% of the sample. The sample2 was randomly drawn from
different counties of the survey districts. (See Appendix 5 for List of field
work locations)
3.3 Data collection and Assessment tools
A structured questionnaire was used to collect data through face to face

interviews. The questionnaire3 was divided into five major sections. These
included:
• Background information
• Dairy radio programs awareness
• Program content and delivery
• Application
• General issues
In order to take cater for language matters, research assistants engaged in

the assignment were speakers of local languages i.e. Ateso and Runyankore.
This was done to minimize any shortcomings during the interviews in case the
interviewers were unable to express themselves in the respective local
languages. The research assistants were encouraged to translate questions,
where necessary, without distorting their meanings.
3.4 Data processing and analysis
Data in the questionnaires were edited and checked to ensure completeness,

clarity and consistency of the responses. Most of the data collected was
quantitative in nature. The quantitative data was captured into SPSS for
windows (Version 12.0) for initial processing. For further analysis and
manipulation, the processed data was exported into MS Excel. The findings
are summarized into frequency tables, graphs and cross tabulations which are
presented in Chapter 5.
The questionnaires were also characterized by some open-ended questions

which required the respondents to freely respond. These were analyzed by
organizing the responses into coherent categories which were counted for
purposes of ranking. These are also discussed in Chapter 5.
4.0 Challenges faced
The fieldwork did not come without challenges. Below are some of the
challenges that were faced:
• The process of locating farmers was not easy as they were scattered.
We therefore relied on the services of guides who gave lots of clues on
where to find them.
2
Judgmental sampling technique was applied because the assessment was aimed at specific type of respondents
not the general population hence that selection criteria
3
The final questionnaire draft was accepted by officials from FIT-SEMA and Land O’ Lakes. All salient issues were
covered accordingly before the assessment.
8
• Much as the assessment was principally directed towards farmers, milk
collecting centres and milk traders; a good number of milk traders have
not listened to dairy radio programs, some are not even aware that
such programs exist. This made it difficult to get information from that
category. They sighted reasons such as “not having time” to listen to
radio claiming to be “too busy". Inevitably we got more information from
farmers than we did from traders and people manning the milk
collecting centres.
5.0 Findings
This chapter presents the findings of the assessment. The survey targeted
300 respondents but results reflect responses from 295 respondents.
5.1 Background information
5.1.1 Gender of respondents

Of the 295 respondents, 80% were males while 20% were
females.
Chart 1: Gender of respondents
Gender of respondents n=294
Female
20%
Male
80%
9
5.1.2 Age of respondents
Chart 2: Age of respondents
Age of respondents n=282
Over 55 years 15-25 years

13% 19%
46-55 years
16%
26-35 years
28%
36-45 years
24%
5.1.3 Categories of respondents
The assessment was principally directed towards farmers, milk

collecting centres and milk traders. The respondents were asked
to name the category they exclusively fall in the milk chain. The
figure below shows the results:
Chart 3: Category in the milk chain4
Key Categories n=289
80.0 70.6
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0 13.5
10.0
5.9
10.0
0.0
Farmer Milking collecting Consumer Milk Trader
Centre
4
A limited number of consumers were interviewed because most of the issues under assessment were pertaining to
production/productivity and were not applicable to them. However, we got some information from them that would be
useful in the radio programs.
10
5.1.4 Milk Output
In order to find out the milk output levels, the categories i.e.
farmers, milk collecting centres and traders were asked to
indicate how much milk they output or sell on average per day. It
should be noted that not all could respond to this question
sighting reasons such as being unable to remember or not
willing to disclose as such. The tables below show the average
amounts output or sold per day:
Table 1: Average Farm milk output per day

Farm milk output per day_Farmer (Litres)
Frequency Percent
1-20 144 71.0
21-40 35 18.0
41-60 14 7.0
61-80 4 2.0
81-100 3 1.0
101-120 3 1.0
241-260 1 0.0
281-300 1 0.0
421-460 1 0.0
Total 206 100.0
Table 2: Average Amount of milk collected at Milk Centre

per day in high season
Amount of milk collected per day in high season_Milk Centre
Litres Frequency Percent

10 2 7.4
15 1 3.7
29 1 3.7
200 3 11.1
250 1 3.7
270 2 7.4
700 3 11.1
800 1 3.7
900 1 3.7
1,400 1 3.7
2,000 3 11.1
3,000 2 7.4
3,700 1 3.7
4,500 2 7.4
6,000 2 7.4
30,000 1 3.7
Total 27 100
11
Table 3: Average Amount of milk collected at Milk Centre
per day in low season
Amount of milk collected per day in low season_Milk Centre
Litres Frequency
8 1
80 1
120 2
150 3
190 1
250 1
300 1
350 1
500 2
700 1
800 1
1000 1
1200 1
1500 2
2000 2
3000 1
3500 2
4000 1
15000 1
Total 26
Table 4: Average amount of milk sold by traders per day

Amount of milk sold daily by Traders
Litres Frequency
1-50 18
51-100 9
101-150 3
151-200 3
251-300 3
301-350 1
351-400 1
401-450 1
501-600 1
3700 1
4000 1
Total 42
12
5.2 Dairy Radio Programs awareness
5.2.1 Program Awareness
Chart 4: Familiarity of Dairy Radio Program
Are you fam iliar w ith a radio program on m ilk

production/productivity? n=292
No
5%
Yes
95%
About 95% of the respondents are aware of the radio programs

addressing milk production and productivity i.e. Ekacokon and
Eintungo no bugeiga.5 Much as 95% were aware of the programs,
94% did listen to one. The chart below shows the radio stations on
which the respondents the listened the programs to:6
Chart 5: Radio Station on which Dairy Radio Program was heard

Radio Station on which Dairy Radio Program was listened to n=268
60.0
53.0
50.0
40.0
31.3
30.0
20.0
10.0 6.3 4.9

1.9 1.1 1.5
0.0
84 142 17 5 3 4 13
Voice of Radio West Veritas Vision Endigyito Other Not sure

Teso
The above Chart shows that more people listened to the dairy
programs on Voice of Teso in Soroti and Radio West in Mbarara with
5
The high awareness levels are explained by the fact that the target respondents were judgmentally selected
meaning that they were deliberately selected for the assessment.
6
Target number of respondents for Mbarara was 180 while that of Soroti was 120
13
scores of 31.3% (84 respondents) and 53% (142 respondents)
respectively in total. Others claim to have heard the programs on other
stations like Kioga Veritas Radio (Soroti), Vision FM (Mbarara), and
Endigyito (Mbarara). A number of respondents, about 5%,were not
sure on which radio station they had listened to the programs. These
ended up indicating two stations e.g. saying “Voice of Teso and
Veritas”. It should be noted that the target number of respondents in
the Soroti area was 120 while in the Mbarara area, it was 180. Taking
this into consideration, one can easily say in Soroti and the surrounding
areas, 70% (i.e. 84 out of 120) have listened to “Ekacokon” on Voice of
Teso, while in Mbarara and the surrounding areas, about 79% (142 out
of 180) have listened to “Eintungo no bugeiga” on Radio West.
5.2.2 Frequency of listening to dairy radio programs
In order to assess the frequency of listening to dairy radio programs,

the respondents were asked to indicate how often they listened to the
programs, the chart below shows how often programs were listened to:
Chart 6: How often have you listened to dairy radio programs?

How often have you listene d to the dairy radio program s? n=257
70.0
57.6
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0 20.2
17.1
20.0
10.0 5.1
0.0
148 44 13 52
Every w eek Once every 2 Once every 3 Not sure

w eeks w eeks
Of the 257 who responded to this question, about 58% said that they
listened to the program every week while 17% listened to the dairy
radio programs once every two weeks. Much as a good number
listened to the programs frequently, 20% were not sure how often they
did listen.
14
5.2.3 Association of Dairy Radio Program with Organizations
Given that there are a number of stakeholders in the dairy sector, there
was need to gauge amongst the respondents which organizations,
companies or programmes they associate the radio programs to, the
table below shows the outcome.
Table 5: Organizations associated with dairy radio program

Which Organization/Programme do you associate Dairy Radio Program?
Organization/Programme Frequency Percent
National Agriculture Advisory Services (NAADS) 172 23
Dairy Development Authority (DDA) 137 19
Uganda National Dairy Farmers’ Association (UNDFA) 79 11
Uganda Dairy Processors Association (UDPA) 66 9
Land O'Lakes Inc. 63 9
Plan for Modernization of Agriculture (PMA) 62 9
Uganda National Dairy Traders’ Association (UNDATA) 51 7
Uganda Crane Creameries Cooperative Union (UCCCU) 41 6
Other 33 5
ILO FIT-SEMA 15 2
The respondents associated the dairy radio programs to National

Agriculture Advisory Services (NAADS); Dairy Development Authority
(DDA) and Uganda National Dairy Farmers’ Association than any other
organization or programme. In “Other” category organizations or
programmes were listed as those associated with the dairy radio
programmes. These include:
Norbrook
Uganda Stock Farm
Kwewayo Group
National Agriculture Research Organization (NARO)
Dairy Corporation
U.S.A.I.D.
GBK Dairy Products Ltd
Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF)
5.3 Dairy Radio Programs Content and Delivery
5.3.1 Relevance of topics and issues covered in dairy programs
Table 6: How relevant topics covered

How relevant were the topics on milk production and increased
Productivity in the dairy radio programs?
Frequency Percent
Very relevant 142 51.1
Quite relevant 131 47.1
Irrelevant 5 1.8
Total 278 100.0
15
51% of the respondents were of the view that topics covered in the
dairy radio programs were very relevant while 47% thought they were
quite relevant. About 2% did not think issues covered were relevant.
No reasons were given for irrelevance.7
5.3.2 How adequately topics were covered
A number of issues were covered from time to time in the radio

programs on milk production and productivity. The respondents were
asked to indicate how adequately issues were covered. Below is a
table summarizing results from total of “adequately” and “somewhat
adequately” covered. Detailed analysis of each topical area is in the
appendix.
Table 7: How adequately topical issues were covered

Topical Areas/Issues Frequency Percent
264 11
264 11
241 10
199 9
200 9
! " 205 9
# " ! 202 9
$ % # " & ' " 191 8
# " ( & 154 7
& " ! " " 173 7
" $ ) * +* # " # # ! , % 118 5
$ ! 108 5
“Production (Breeding, Feeding, Feeds)”, “Animal/Herd Health

(Disease control etc)”, and “Farming as a business” were areas
reportedly to have been either adequately or somewhat adequately
covered more than any other areas while “Policy Issues (Taxation,
Extension services, Regulatory environment/services, infrastructure,
NAADS)” and “Intrapersonal issues (Attitudes, cultural beliefs)” less
adequately covered compared to other areas.
In the same vein, respondents were asked to highlight on the topical

areas they would like to be reviewed or revisited in future programs.
These are listed in Table 8 ranked in order of importance.
7
Relevance in this case means that issues covered were of much significance and of great importance to farmers,
milk centres and milk traders.
16
Table 8: Topical issues that need to be reviewed or revisited
Topical Areas/Issues
1 Animal/Herd Health (Disease control etc)
2 Production (Breeding, Feeding, Feeds)
3 Farming as a business
4 Market (Outlets, milk prices etc)
5 Marketing of dairy products
6 Milk handling (Storage, Hygiene, Increased Production)
7 Pasture Development (Dry season feeding)
8 Resource availability & Management (Access to Capital, Management skills)
9 Policy Issues (Taxation, Extension services, Regulatory environment/services, infrastructure,

NAADS)
10 Farm Input Supplies (Availability, Costs, Quality)
11 Farm Management (Record keeping etc)
12 Challenges generally faced by dairy sector stakeholders
13 Intrapersonal issues (Attitudes, cultural beliefs)
Given that there could be other areas that may not have been covered
in the radio programs; the respondents were given the opportunity to
list some areas that they thought should be handled in the radio
programs. These are listed below:
i. How to access loan/credit facilities to boost their businesses

ii. Milk handling (Hygiene, quality management, problems of
adulteration, preservation, transportation, utensils)
iii. Improving milk production/yield (better milking techniques)
iv. Proper grazing methods for animals
v. Making value added products like yogurt
vi. Goat dairy prospects
vii. Breeding (insemination, cross breeding, breed selection)
viii. Group formation for dairy farmers
ix. Diary entrepreneurial development skills
17
5.3.3 Satisfaction levels of presentation style/delivery
Chart 7: Satisfaction levels of presentation style

How satisfied are you with style of presentation/delivery of
dairy radio programs?n=275
60.0
49.8
50.0
40.0
30.0 24.4
17.5
20.0
8.0
10.0
0.4
0.0
Extremely Very satisfied Neutral Not satisf ied Not at all
satisf ied satisf ied
About 50% of the respondents were very satisfied with the style of
presentation/delivery of the dairy radio programs while 24% were
extremely satisfied. 8% were not satisfied. A further 17.5% were
neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
Some of the reasons given for dissatisfaction with presentation/delivery

style were:
i. Using a lot of English without blending in local languages by

experts can be a disadvantage to some listeners. They miss out
on the message.
ii. Using technical words seems complicated therefore affecting the
message being disseminated.
iii. There is a tendency for issues to be presented in very general
and not specific terms
iv. There is a feeling that some issues have not been covered.(See
list on previous page)
v. Adverts during the program are seen as interruptions and take up
so much time that would have catered for call –ins on one hand
and covering issues more exhaustively on the other.
vi. Some listeners were of the view that times at which program runs
are not convenient for them. By the time they get home, the
program is already over.
Much as over 70% of the respondents were satisfied with presentation

and delivery style, opinions were sought on how to improve on the
current style. Below are suggestions ranked in order of importance.
a. The programs should be promoted through intensive advertising

to create more awareness and generate interest to radio
listeners especially those in the milk production chain.
Sensitization would enhance program listenership.
18
b. Listeners were of the view that a lot of time is taken up by
discussions during the program with adverts taking up a big part
leaving very little time for callers. Listeners should be given good
opportunities and ample time to call into the program and have
their questions or queries adequately answered. Interactivity
should be enhanced. Besides calling in, letters are strongly
considered as a one other way participation in the program
would be increased.
c. Issues arose over the length of the program, it was suggested

that either the program period is extended by allocating it more
time 30 minutes or 1 hour, or have it aired at least twice a week.
d. In order to cater for a wider range of listeners, it is important to

balance the various languages in the region – Ateso, Kumam
and Lukenye. This was especially the case in Soroti and
surrounding areas.
e. Listeners would like to hear success stories from farmers,

achievers and testimonies that will be a source of
encouragement to them. This could be done in form of
recordings from the field.
f. It is important to put farmers at the centre of the programs. It will

give the program a more participatory approach to it and give
the farmers a sense of belonging to the program. More farmers
should be visited in the field to solicit their views.
g. Guest speakers should endeavor to simplify language during the

programs. Technical jargons should either defined or use
simpler words in their place for better understanding.
h. Hosting of guests with wide experience, knowledgeable and

confident should be encouraged. There were comments like
“The right people should sourced for the programs,
sometimes there is a tendency for a guest to have an “I
think attitude” which creates doubt and indicates a lack of
confidence”.
i. Program moderators should give listeners a chance to air their

views and they should endeavor not to lead into discussing
irrelevancies on their part.
5.3.4 Accuracy of information presented in the dairy radio

programs
Chart 8 below indicated that over 60% of the respondents were of the
view that information presented in the programs was quite accurate
while just under 5% of them though that it was not accurate. No
specific reasons were given for inaccurate information.
19
Chart 8: Accuracy of information presented in dairy radio
programs
How accurate was the information presented in the dairy
radio programs? n=266
Not accurate
5%
Very accurate
35%
Quite accurate
60%
5.3.5 Mode of presentation
Respondents were asked to point the most preferred mode of

presenting the radio dairy programs. Chart 9 below shows the
outcome. “In-studio discussion with invited guest” takes the lead in this
area with 55%. However presentation with mixed modes would work
out well provided it is done in the right and appropriate proportions.
Chart 9: Preferred mode of presentation

Preferred mode of presentation n=276
Combination of pre-
recorded, phone-in Pre-recorded field
and guests programs
4% 20%
In-studio
discussion w ith Phone - in
invited guest 21%
55%
20
5.3.6 Assessment of Resource people’s work on the programs
Over 75% of the respondents are satisfied with resource people’s work.
Chart 10: How satisfied with resource people

How satisfied are you with resource people's contribution to
the programs? n=268
Not satisfied
4%
Neutral Extremely satisf ied
18% 23%
Very satisf ied

55%
5.3.7 Preferred resource people
Ranked in order of importance below are the kinds of resource people

or organizations listeners would like to listen to more frequently or
again in future dairy radio programs.
a) Veterinary Officers (DVOs, Vet Doctors etc)

b) Experienced dairy entrepreuers/business people/successful
farmers (achievers)
c) NAADS
d) Agricultural Experts
e) Dairy Production Experts/Food Science Technologists
f) Marketing specialists
g) Councilors/Political leaders
h) Field Extension workers
i) NGOs (specializing in farming activities)
j) District Production/Marketing officers
k) Dairy Development Authority
l) Farmers’ Associations and Dairy Cooperative Management
m) Animal breeding experts
5.4 Application of ideas from Dairy Programs
5.4.1 Steps taken to improve milk production/productivity (dairy

business) as a result of listening to dairy radio program
The main objective of the program was to disseminate information to

people in the milk chain aimed at improving their businesses. It was
expected that knowledge acquired would be applied to help in
21
improving milk production and productivity. Below are the various
things that have been done by listeners.
i. Improved hygiene as a result less milk is spoilt (More is sold). Steps

taken include: Washing milk containers with soap/use of
disinfectants; Observing general hygiene; Use of proper milk cans to
store and transport milk; Proper milk handling is now a priority’ better
milk quality etc
ii. Ensuring/maintaining animal health that has resulted in higher milk

yields : Constant disease control through regular spraying; Animal
treatment; Pest control; Able to assess (keen to observe animal
health) animal health/early disease detection in time to get a vet ;
ability to determine disease symptoms; purchase of a spraying
machine
iii. Taken steps to adopt improved breeds for increased milk yields like
artificial insemination and cross-breeding.
iv. Improved farm management – better shelters; improved feeding

systems; providing sufficient clean water (esp. lactating cows);
rotational grazing; improved pasture management esp. for dry season
feeding; improved animal hygiene/care; minimizing traveling long
distances in search of pastures has resulted in improved milk yields.
v. Adopted better, safe milking procedures – better milk handling

techniques.
vi. Able to establish where to market milk.
vii. Re-investing income from milk sales.
viii. Obtained a standard milk cooling system. – Milk Collecting Centre
ix. Buying milk from established hygienic dairy outlets. – Consumer

5.4.2 Dairy business growth as a result of radio programs
Table 9: Dairy business growth

To what extent would you say that the radio programs contributed to the growth and
Improvement of your dairy business?
Frequency Percent
Between 1-5% 40 16.5
Between 6-10% 38 15.6
Between 11-15% 38 15.6
Between 16-20% 25 10.3
Between 21-25% 12 4.9
Between 26-30% 17 7.0
Between 31-35% 14 5.8
Between 36-40% 40 16.5
Other 19 7.8
Total 243 100
22
The respondents were asked to roughly indicate how much their
businesses had grown as a result of listening to dairy radio programs.
Just over 31% of them had their businesses grew by 1 to 10%. Those
said that their businesses have grown by 6-10% were about 16%.
Some 16.5% have had their businesses grow by 36-40%. 8
5.4.3 Most beneficial aspects of the dairy programs
There are some aspects of dairy radio programs that were considered
to beneficial because they have contributed to improvement of
business. The most important were:
a) Animal health (Disease control)

b) Production (Breeding, feeding, feeds)
c) Milk handling, hygiene and safety and quality control
d) Marketing of dairy products
e) Markets (Outlets, milk prices etc)
5.4.4 Least beneficial aspects of the dairy programs
a) Intrapersonal issues (Attitudes, cultural beliefs)

b) Policy issues
8
Figures used for indicative purposes. How we arrived at these figures: We asked the respondents to indicate how
much milk they had produced at some period and compare with current amount after applying ideas from radio
programs. E.g. if one previously produced 40 litres and now produces 45 litres, we appropriately calculated and
indicated the percentage growth figure.
23
5.4.5 Agreement on Dairy Radio Programs
A number of issues were raised on dairy radio programs listeners had heard. Statements relating to the programs were lined up for
agreement or disagreement. The figure below gives a summary.
Chart 11: Agreement with statements about dairy radio programs
Agreement on Dairy Radio Programs
B enefits fro m advice in the dairy radio

47.5 31.7 16.7 3.80.4
pro grams are believable
A fter listening to the dairy radio pro grams yo u

will co nsider applying mo st o f the kno wledge 53.4 26.3 17.8 0.8
1.6
o btained
A dvice given in the dairy radio pro grams is

easily applicable
40.3 29.3 16.0 12.6 1.7
Dairy radio pro gram co ntent was educative

and info rmative
73.4 20.6 0.0
0.4
1.6
Questio ns and issuesin the radio pro grams

have pro vided so me so lutio ns to yo ur dairy 46.9 34.7 13.1 4.50.8
busines challenges
Questio ns and issues raised by callers o r

mo derato rs were well handled and relevant to 56.5 29.3 9.3 4.10.8
yo ur business
The pro gram co ntents were sensitive and

useful to yo ur dairy business
74.3 23.3 0.0
0.4
2.0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neutral Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree

As the chart shows, there is very high agreement that respondents are of the view that “Dairy radio program content was educative
and informative”, and that “The program contents were sensitive and useful to your dairy business” 73.4% and 74.3% of the
respondents strongly agreeing to the statements respectively. Other statements that had high agreement were “After listening to
the dairy radio programs you will consider applying most of the knowledge obtained” and “Questions and issues raised by callers or
moderators were well handled and relevant to your business “ with scores of 56.5% and 54.3% respectively. It is important to note
that “Advice given in the dairy radio programs is easily applicable” had the highest level of disagreement (14.3%) while the
statement “After listening to the dairy radio programs you will consider applying most of the knowledge obtained” registered the
highest level of uncertainty as18% of the respondents were not sure that they would apply ideas heard on radio. Overall,
respondents agree to all statements.
25
5.4.6 Likelihood of business improvement in the next 12 months
as a result of dairy radio programs
Chart 12: Likelihood of business improvement

Likelihood of business improvement in next 12 months
n=265
60.0 56.6
50.0
40.0
30.0 25.7
20.0 15.1
10.0
0.4 2.3
0.0
Very certain High chance Low chance No chance Not sure
Findings from the survey clearly indicate that there is more than 80%
chance, as shown in Chart 11, that dairy businesses would see some
improvement or some growth in the next 12-month period as a result of
applying some of the ideas from dairy radio programs.
5.4.7 Effectiveness of dairy radio programs to dairy business

growth
Chart 13: Effectiveness of dairy radio programs
How effective have dairy radio programs been to growth of

business? n=259
Ineffective
About average 3%
18% Very effective
30%
Reasonably
effective
49%
As a result of listening to the dairy radio programs, there have been attempts
to implement or apply what has been heard on radio and below are some of
the results to confirm effectiveness:
i. Better milk quality than before – cleaner and more hygienic.

ii. Improved milk yields (production)
iii. Ability to administer/apply medication to animals in cases where
one does not need a vet but has the drug.
iv. Increase knowledge and awareness about general dairy
productivity issues such as better feeding, animal treatment,
symptom detection etc
v. Contributed to improved household income.
vi. Armed with marketing/market information it’s become possible to
break into the market where previously it was not possible.
vii. Improved animal health
viii. Attitude change from traditional way of raising cattle for dairy
purposes to more modern approaches.
5.4.8 Suggestions on how the dairy radio can be improved
What has been done is commendable but in order to make it better, the
following issues can be considered:
i. More sensitization and promotion to increase awareness and

drive interest in the program.
ii. Hosting more experts who are experienced, knowledgeable,

technically appropriate, confident, and articulate. Such
professionals should include milk production experts, vets,
agricultural extension workers as well as people with great
success stories in this regard.
iii. A balance should be sought for the various languages in the

Eastern region for the radio programs i.e. Lukenye, Ateso and
Kumam. Alternating them can also work.
iv. Design the program in such a way that it is more interactive. This
calls for allowing more call-ins, more time for call-ins, as well as
using letters from listeners with requests. This is against a
background of limiting number of calls coming in and not giving
ample time to listeners to express their views.
v. Ensuring that questions posed by listeners are adequately

answered.
vi. It is important to put farmers at the centre of the program by

increasing their participation either by inviting them to the
program or visiting them in the field to get their views recorded in
order inform program content. This will make them feel part of the
process.
vii. Encourage formation of radio listening dairy groups where ideas

can be generated to provide content to programs.
27
viii. Some listeners were of the view that the program time should be
extended and some others think it should be aired twice a week.
More time should be allocated to the program, at least 30 minutes
more.
Other issues raised include: Program hosts should do more research to build
their knowledge base as well as not over dwelling on the same issues as
some listeners are not consistent listeners. Emphasis should also be put on
milk handling.
5.4.9 Contribution of dairy radio programs to improvement of

household livelihood
Table 10: Comments on improved household livelihood

Comments on how dairy radio programs have contributed to improved
livelihood in the household
Frequency Percent
Increased income 77 26.1
Better standards of living 63 21.4
Business growth 55 18.6
More employment opportunities 15 5.1
Better nutrition 11 3.7
Better trade terms 9 3.1
More knowledge & skills 5 1.7
Nothing yet 2 0.7
Better market links 1 0.3
Can'
t tell 1 0.3
Radios are affordable 1 0.3
No comment 55 18.6
Total 295 100.0
As Table 10 shows, increased income, better standards of living, business

growth among other things how the programs have positively affected
household livelihood. Things like better animal feeding and stricter animal
treatment have resulted in higher milk yields and therefore higher revenues.
Higher revenues have had some bearing on standards of living and led to
growth of business. For example a 55 year old farmer in Nyagaruka in
Western Uganda commented that “Using appropriate and affordable drugs
has helped me to prevent diseases and now my cows are producing
more milk!”
5.5 Other General issues
5.5.1 Cooperative Societies
Comments on relevance or use of cooperative societies for dairy

production
Views were sought from dairy producers (farmers, traders) about cooperative
societies on how they could be of use to the dairy sector. Reasons for their
relevance and usefulness were given. They are thought to be good and
28
necessary for business growth but are largely considered to be part of the
past. With proper sensitization, they can be revived to offer quality services to
members. But for new ones or revived ones, it was said, should be with high
standards and good strategic and visionary leadership in place to realize
better results. The new cooperative societies should be structured to meet
present day needs. Below are some of the reasons given for their importance:
i. Training opportunities for members
ii. Ease of access to market because of bulk sales. They can

minimize traveling distances for farmers/traders to deliver milk or
eases milk collection procedures. They can create milk collection
centres.
iii. Through them saving culture can be promoted
iv. Opportunities for accessing financial services (credit/loans) can
arise. This can play a positive role in growing dairy businesses.
v. Possibilities for stable and good milk prices and/or negotiating for
a good price.
vi. Guarantee for more prompt payments either on a weekly or
monthly basis.
vii. Access to advisory services that may benefit farmers or traders
viii. Cooperative societies are a unifying factor that would create good
ground for advocating for their rights and negotiating for favorable
trade terms.
ix. More sensitization will be required before reviving or setting them
up.
On the other hand, cooperative societies were considered by some

respondents as useless and irrelevant (out-of-date). Reasons given were:
i. Those that existed were poorly managed. They are a potential

ground for cheating members. It may become hard to mobilize
people who are paranoid to join coops. Past coops tended to
bureaucratic in nature resulting in slow delivery of services e.g.
delayed payments.
ii. Cooperative societies are associated with the past and are
considered not to have a place in current Uganda. Young people
are more familiar with SACCOS as opposed to old style
cooperative societies.
iii. Cooperative Societies tend to be located only in towns; they
ought to be nearer people at the grassroots level.
iv. There is uncertainty on their survival if revived.
29
Box 1: Ngora Progressive Dairy Cooperative Society Limited
Case Study - Dairy Cooperative Societies
Ngora Progressive Dairy Cooperative Society Limited located in Ngora Town in Kumi District received a
lot of financial and technical support from various Spanish Organizations. The milk centre has a number
of facilities in place to cater for its members who take their milk to be received. Such facilities include
testing, sterilization, cooling, boiling and storage. However, a scandal hit the company recently when
previous top management swindled company funds which has affected its operations a lot. At the
moment, it is in the process of re-organizing business but under very difficult conditions. Some of the
challenges Re-gaining members’ confidence is one of the biggest challenges currently. There is need to
safeguard the organization from such problems in the future.
Summary from an interview with Mr. Otelu David, the Chairman of Ngora Progressive Dairy Cooperative Society
Limited on 1st August 2007
The case for cooperative societies far outweighs case against them.
5.5.2 Use of radio as a medium for development of dairy

business
Chart 14: Recommending use of radio

How would you recommend the use of radio as medium for
dairy business development? n=259
80.0 73.4
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
18.1
20.0
2.7 5.8
10.0
0.0
Strongly recommend Somew hat Might or might not Will not recommend
recommend
Chart 13 shows that more 90% of the respondents recommend the use of
radio as a medium for dairy business development. About 6% of the
respondents did not recommend the use of radio because they believe that
training seminars and extension services are some of the better ways in which
development of dairy businesses can be achieved. Furthermore, it is in such
ways that one can ask many questions and have more practical experiences
(hands-on).
30
5.5.3 Reasons for using radio
Table 11: Reasons for using radio

Reasons as to why you would recommend the use of radio as a medium
for dairy business development
Frequency Percent
Wide coverage 106 35.9
Information is passed on with ease 62 21.0
Radios are affordable 33 11.2
Language used is easily understood 15 5.1
It is convenient to use radio 12 4.1
Radio is very accessible 12 4.1
Allows interaction 2 0.7
No comment 53 18.0
Total 295 100.0
6.0 Concluding statements and Recommendations
1) There is need to strengthen the use of radio to improve the dairy radio
programs. A lot of support will be required from various stakeholders
especially those in the dairy sub-sector. Efforts should be directed to
the stakeholders to interest them offering technical and financial
assistance to realize and maximize the use of radio as a tool for
enhancing dairy business especially in the rural areas.
2) There is also need to drive interest and raise awareness in dairy radio
programs through intensive promotions. Various approaches can be
used to achieve this.
3) More interactive programming required to get better results plus quality
programming. There are listeners who are unable to call into the
programs for example. Use of letters should be encouraged.
4) Farmers should also be put at the centre of the programs. This will give
them a feeling or sense of belonging or “ownership” of the programs.
5) The formation of dairy radio listener groups should be encouraged help
in discussing issues pertaining to dairy business and also help realize
implementation of ideas they have heard on the dairy radio programs.
6) There is need to provide more airtime for dairy radio programs. This
should be done by adding more program-time or have the programs
run at least twice a week.
7) Inviting experienced and successful people to the programs. This
would act as a source of inspiration and also share from their
experiences.
31
Appendices
I. Selected photos from the field
- ! & " % . " $ ,
# - - " ! % . " $ ,
32
A radio set belonging to a woman dairy farmer. She was listening to the radio as she grazed her cattle.
(Photo by Ian Nkata)
! # , # " & # % " / 0 1 .$

! # " ! . " $ ,
) , # " & # % " / 1 . " $ ,
33
" ! - & " % . " $ ,
" # ," " " & $ . " $ ,
" ! 1 & " . " $ ,
$ # - - - , $ 1 " .
/2 ) - .3 . " % 1 & " 1 & ) " " $ ,
34
- . + ! 4+ 5 6 !)
" 6
) !, # " & # / , 1 .
" $ ,
II. List of interviewers
Soroti Group Mbarara Group

1 Raphael Obukan 1 Twinomugisha Boona Gilbert
2 Moses Okipi 2 Penelope Akakunda
3 Victor Odeke 3 Cissy Karungi
4 Ben Massiga 4 Turyatunga Collins
5 Catherine Adyango 5 Sheila Kiconco
35
III. Sample of Police introductory letter (Signed) IV. Sample of introductory letter for research assistants
V. List of fieldwork locations
The different locations visited during the assessment
Survey Locations in Soroti & Kumi Survey Locations in Mbarara, Ntungamo,

Districts Ibanda, Bushenyi and Kiruhura Districts
Soroti Municipality Mbarara Municipality
Mori – Apesur Ibanda TC
Kamuda Bushenyi TC
Alere – Gweri Ntungamo
Acuma – Gweri Bwizibwera
Kokong - Kapir Kabwohe
Ariet - Obuolo Kashaka
Obuolo –Kapir Rwampara
Ngora Town Biharwe
Dokolo – Gweri Sanga
Amodoima – Gweri Ndeija
Gweri Trading Centre Kinoni
Achima Village Itojo
Omirio Rugando
Dokolo Nyagaruka
Opugo Village Rwanyamabare
Owalei Kyangara
Opiro TV Kagugu
Olelebun – Asuret Nyaburuza – Ntungamo
Awoja Ruhoko-Nyakashozi
Onyerai Ngoma-Rubare
Core PTC Nsongezi
Atekwa – Kapir Kamatari - Kasharara
Atira – Kapir Nyaihanga – Mbarara
Katete – Mbrarara
Karugangama – Mbarara
Itendero
Rutoma – Ibanda
Rweibare – Kashari
Rwayamahembe – Mbarara
Rubindi
Rukaka
Kagonyi
Rwentuha
Nyarwanya – Bushenyi
Ruhandagazi – Bushenyi
Kibara-Bumbaire
Nyandozo-Bumbaire
Rwemirokora, Ishaka
Rwamabengwa, Kakanju
Kizinda
Rwemiko
Kyabugimbi – Bushenyi
Nyakashambya – Bushenyi
Rubiinzi
Rwenkaja – Biharwe
Rwenjuru – Biharwe
Rushoozi
Ruti - Mbarara
VI. Detailed/Additional Statistical Data Tables
For how long have you listened to the program? Or when did you start listening?
Frequency Percent
6 months ago 51 20.3
4 months ago 18 7.2
1 month ago 68 27.1
How many times have listened to the programs?

No. of times Frequency Percent
1 11 5.5
2 22 11.1
3 25 12.6
4 31 15.6
5 20 10.1
6 15 7.5
7 6 3.0
8 9 4.5
9 1 0.5
10 19 9.5
12 6 3.0
13 1 0.5
15 5 2.5
16 1 0.5
20 14 7.0
24 1 0.5
25 2 1.0
30 6 3.0
40 2 1.0
48 1 0.5
50 1 0.5
Total 199 100
How often have you listened to the dairy radio programs?

Frequency Percent
Every week 148 57.6
Once every 2 weeks 44 17.1
Once every 3 weeks 13 5.1
Not sure 52 20.2
Total 257 100.0
How adequately was topic on Production (Breeding, Feeding, Feeds) covered?

Frequency Percent
Adequately covered 188 67.9
Somewhat adequately covered 76 27.4
Not adequately covered 10 3.6
Not applicable 3 1.1
Total 277 100.0
38
How adequately was topic on Animal/Herd health (Disease control) covered?
Frequency Percent
Total 279 100.0
How adequately was topic on Farm Input Supplies (Availability, Costs, Quality) covered?
Frequency Percent
Total 265 100.0
How adequately was topic on Farm management (Record keeping etc) covered?
Frequency Percent
Total 261 100.0
How adequately was topic on Resource availability & Management

(Access to Capital, Management skills) covered?
Frequency Percent
Total 258 100
How adequately was topic on Market (Outlets, Access, milk prices etc) covered?
Frequency Percent
Total 269 100
How adequately was topic on Policy Issues (Taxation, Extension Services, Regulation,
NAADS etc) covered?
Frequency Percent
Total 259 100.0
39
How adequately was topic on Intrapersonal issues (Attitudes, cultural issues) covered?
Frequency Percent
Total 247 100.0
How adequately was topic on "Farming as a business" covered?

Frequency Percent
Total 265 100.0
How adequately was topic on Marketing of dairy products covered?

Frequency Percent
Total 267 100.0
How adequately was topic on Challenges faced in the dairy industry in general covered?
Frequency Percent
Total 264 100.0
How adequately was topic on Pasture development (Dry season feeding etc) covered?
Frequency Percent
Total 264 100.0
Statement - The program contents were sensitive and useful to your dairy business
Frequency Percent
Strongly agree 182 74.3
Somewhat agree 57 23.3
Neutral 5 2.0
Somewhat disagree 1 0.4
Total 245 100.0
40
Statement - Questions and issues raised by callers or moderators were well handled
and relevant to your dairy business
Frequency Percent
Neutral 23 9.3
Strongly disagree 2 0.8
Total 246 100.0
Statement - Questions and issues in the radio programs have provided some solutions
to your dairy business challenges and problems
Frequency Percent
Neutral 32 13.1
Total 245 100.0
Statement - Dairy radio program content was educative and informative

Frequency Percent
Neutral 4 1.6
Total 243 100
Statement - Advice given in the dairy programs is easily applicable

Frequency Percent
Neutral 38 16.0
Total 238 100.0
Statement - After listening to the dairy radio programs you will consider applying
most of the knowledge obtained
Frequency Percent
Neutral 44 17.8
Total 247 100.0
41
Statement - Benefits from advice in the dairy radio programs are believable
Frequency Percent
Neutral 40 16.7
Total 240 100.0
Category * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

If yes, on which radio station?
Total
Voice of
Teso Radio West Veritas Other Unsure Vision Endigyito
Category Farmer Count 64 97 8 3 13 3 3 191
% within Category 33.5 50.8 4.2 1.6 6.8 1.6 1.6 100
% within If yes, on which radio station? 79.0 69.3 50.0 75.0 100.0 60.0 100.0 72.9
Milking
collecting
Centre Count 3 15 3 1 0 1 0 23
% within Category 13.0 65.2 13.0 4.3 0 4.3 0 100
% within If yes, on which radio station? 3.7 10.7 18.8 25.0 0 20.0 0 8.8
Consumer Count 8 2 5 0 0 0 0 15
% within Category 53.3 13.3 33.3 0 0 0 0 100
% within If yes, on which radio station? 9.9 1.4 31.3 0 0 0 0 5.7
Traders
etc Count 6 26 0 0 0 1 0 33
% within Category 18.2 78.8 0 0 0 3.0 0 100
% within If yes, on which radio station? 7.4 18.6 0 0 0 20.0 0 12.6
Total Count 81 140 16 4 13 5 3 262
% within Category 30.9 53.4 6.1 1.5 5.0 1.9 1.1 100
% within If yes, on which radio station? 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100
How adequately was topic on Production (Breeding, Feeding, Feeds) covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

Voice of Teso Radio West Veritas Other Not sure Vision Endigyito Total
How adequately was Adequately covered Count 67 81 13 3 9 2 2 177
topic on Production % within How adequately
(Breeding, Feeding, was topic on Production
Feeds) covered? 37.9% 45.8% 7.3% 1.7% 5.1% 1.1% 1.1% 100.0%
(Breeding, Feeding,
Feeds) covered?
% within If yes, on which
81.7% 57.9% 81.3% 75.0% 75.0% 50.0% 66.7% 67.8%
radio station?
Somewhat adequately Count 14 51 2 1 2 2 1 73
covered % within How adequately
was topic on Production
19.2% 69.9% 2.7% 1.4% 2.7% 2.7% 1.4% 100.0%
(Breeding, Feeding,
Feeds) covered?
17.1% 36.4% 12.5% 25.0% 16.7% 50.0% 33.3% 28.0%
radio station?
Not adequately covered Count 0 6 1 0 1 0 0 8
% within How adequately
.0% 75.0% 12.5% .0% 12.5% .0% .0% 100.0%
(Breeding, Feeding,
Feeds) covered?
.0% 4.3% 6.3% .0% 8.3% .0% .0% 3.1%
radio station?
Not applicable Count 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3
33.3% 66.7% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
(Breeding, Feeding,
Feeds) covered?
1.2% 1.4% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.1%
radio station?
Total Count 82 140 16 4 12 4 3 261
31.4% 53.6% 6.1% 1.5% 4.6% 1.5% 1.1% 100.0%
(Breeding, Feeding,
Feeds) covered?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
radio station?
42
How adequately was topic on Animal/Herd health (Disease control) covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

topic on Animal/Herd % within How adequately
health (Disease was topic on Animal/Herd
control) covered? 39.2% 45.5% 6.3% 1.1% 4.5% 2.3% 1.1% 100.0%
health (Disease control)
covered?
85.2% 56.3% 68.8% 50.0% 66.7% 80.0% 66.7% 66.9%
radio station?
was topic on Animal/Herd
12.3% 71.2% 5.5% 2.7% 5.5% 1.4% 1.4% 100.0%
covered?
11.1% 36.6% 25.0% 50.0% 33.3% 20.0% 33.3% 27.8%
radio station?
11.1% 88.9% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
covered?
1.2% 5.6% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 3.4%
radio station?
40.0% 40.0% 20.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
covered?
2.5% 1.4% 6.3% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.9%
radio station?
Total Count 81 142 16 4 12 5 3 263
30.8% 54.0% 6.1% 1.5% 4.6% 1.9% 1.1% 100.0%
covered?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
radio station?
How adequately was topic on Farm Input Supplies (Availability, Costs, Quality) covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

topic on Farm Input % within How adequately
Supplies (Availability, was topic on Farm Input
Costs, Quality) covered? 43.5% 34.1% 9.4% .0% 9.4% 2.4% 1.2% 100.0%
Supplies (Availability,
Costs, Quality) covered?
46.8% 21.8% 50.0% .0% 66.7% 40.0% 50.0% 34.0%
radio station?
was topic on Farm Input
27.4% 66.3% 1.1% 1.1% 3.2% 1.1% .0% 100.0%
32.9% 47.4% 6.3% 33.3% 25.0% 20.0% .0% 38.0%
radio station?
15.7% 66.7% 9.8% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 100.0%
10.1% 25.6% 31.3% 33.3% 8.3% 20.0% 50.0% 20.4%
radio station?
42.1% 36.8% 10.5% 5.3% .0% 5.3% .0% 100.0%
10.1% 5.3% 12.5% 33.3% .0% 20.0% .0% 7.6%
radio station?
Total Count 79 133 16 3 12 5 2 250
31.6% 53.2% 6.4% 1.2% 4.8% 2.0% .8% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
radio station?
43
How adequately was topic on Farm management (Record keeping etc) covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

topic on Farm % within How adequately
management (Record was topic on Farm
keeping etc) covered? 42.0% 39.3% 8.9% .9% 6.3% .9% 1.8% 100.0%
management (Record
keeping etc) covered?
63.5% 32.6% 62.5% 50.0% 58.3% 20.0% 66.7% 45.3%
radio station?
was topic on Farm
11.5% 70.5% 3.8% 1.3% 6.4% 5.1% 1.3% 100.0%
management (Record
12.2% 40.7% 18.8% 50.0% 41.7% 80.0% 33.3% 31.6%
radio station?
was topic on Farm
22.9% 72.9% 4.2% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
management (Record
14.9% 25.9% 12.5% .0% .0% .0% .0% 19.4%
radio station?
was topic on Farm
77.8% 11.1% 11.1% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
management (Record
9.5% .7% 6.3% .0% .0% .0% .0% 3.6%
radio station?
Total Count 74 135 16 2 12 5 3 247
was topic on Farm
30.0% 54.7% 6.5% .8% 4.9% 2.0% 1.2% 100.0%
management (Record
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
radio station?
How adequately was topic on Resource availability & Management (Access to Capital, Management skills) covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

topic on Resource % within How
availability & adequately was topic on
Management (Access to Resource availability &
Capital, Management 42.5% 41.1% 11.0% .0% 5.5% .0% .0% 100.0%
Management (Access to
skills) covered? Capital, Management
skills) covered?
41.3% 23.1% 53.3% .0% 33.3% .0% .0% 30.0%
radio station?
covered % within How
adequately was topic on
Resource availability &
17.8% 69.9% 5.5% 1.4% 2.7% 2.7% .0% 100.0%
Capital, Management
skills) covered?
17.3% 39.2% 26.7% 25.0% 16.7% 40.0% .0% 30.0%
radio station?
% within How
22.6% 62.9% 1.6% 4.8% 4.8% .0% 3.2% 100.0%
Capital, Management
skills) covered?
18.7% 30.0% 6.7% 75.0% 25.0% .0% 100.0% 25.5%
radio station?
% within How
48.6% 28.6% 5.7% .0% 8.6% 8.6% .0% 100.0%
Capital, Management
skills) covered?
22.7% 7.7% 13.3% .0% 25.0% 60.0% .0% 14.4%
radio station?
Total Count 75 130 15 4 12 5 2 243
% within How
30.9% 53.5% 6.2% 1.6% 4.9% 2.1% .8% 100.0%
Capital, Management
skills) covered?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
radio station?
44
How adequately was topic on Market (Outlets,Access, milk prices etc) covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

topic on Market % within How adequately
(Outlets,Access, milk was topic on Market
prices etc) covered? 49.6% 32.3% 10.2% .0% 6.3% 1.6% .0% 100.0%
(Outlets,Access, milk
prices etc) covered?
78.8% 30.6% 81.3% .0% 66.7% 40.0% .0% 50.2%
radio station?
was topic on Market
19.4% 66.1% 4.8% 3.2% 4.8% .0% 1.6% 100.0%
15.0% 30.6% 18.8% 66.7% 25.0% .0% 33.3% 24.5%
radio station?
was topic on Market
8.9% 83.9% .0% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 100.0%
6.3% 35.1% .0% 33.3% 8.3% 20.0% 33.3% 22.1%
radio station?
was topic on Market
.0% 62.5% .0% .0% .0% 25.0% 12.5% 100.0%
.0% 3.7% .0% .0% .0% 40.0% 33.3% 3.2%
radio station?
Total Count 80 134 16 3 12 5 3 253
was topic on Market
31.6% 53.0% 6.3% 1.2% 4.7% 2.0% 1.2% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
radio station?
45
How adequately was topic on Policy Issues (Taxation, Extension Services, Regulation, NAADS etc) covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

topic on Policy Issues % within How
(Taxation, Extension adequately was topic
Services, Regulation, on Policy Issues
NAADS etc) covered? 43.5% 33.9% 16.1% .0% 6.5% .0% .0% 100.0%
(Taxation, Extension
Services, Regulation,
NAADS etc) covered?
% within If yes, on
36.0% 16.3% 62.5% .0% 33.3% .0% .0% 25.5%
which radio station?
adequately was topic
on Policy Issues
31.3% 54.2% 6.3% 4.2% 2.1% 2.1% .0% 100.0%
NAADS etc) covered?
% within If yes, on
20.0% 20.2% 18.8% 50.0% 8.3% 20.0% .0% 19.8%
% within How
on Policy Issues
24.4% 67.4% 2.3% 2.3% 3.5% .0% .0% 100.0%
NAADS etc) covered?
% within If yes, on
28.0% 45.0% 12.5% 50.0% 25.0% .0% .0% 35.4%
% within How
on Policy Issues
25.5% 51.1% 2.1% .0% 8.5% 8.5% 4.3% 100.0%
NAADS etc) covered?
% within If yes, on
16.0% 18.6% 6.3% .0% 33.3% 80.0% 100.0% 19.3%
Total Count 75 129 16 4 12 5 2 243
% within How
on Policy Issues
30.9% 53.1% 6.6% 1.6% 4.9% 2.1% .8% 100.0%
NAADS etc) covered?
% within If yes, on
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
46
How adequately was topic on Intrapersonal issues (Attitudes, cultural issues) covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

topic on Intrapersonal % within How
issues (Attitudes, cultural adequately was topic on
issues) covered? Intrapersonal issues 58.7% 25.4% 11.1% .0% 4.8% .0% .0% 100.0%
(Attitudes, cultural
issues) covered?
47.4% 13.7% 43.8% .0% 25.0% .0% .0% 27.0%
radio station?
Intrapersonal issues 15.4% 66.7% 7.7% 5.1% 5.1% .0% .0% 100.0%
issues) covered?
7.7% 22.2% 18.8% 50.0% 16.7% .0% .0% 16.7%
radio station?
% within How
Intrapersonal issues 13.6% 74.6% 3.4% 1.7% 5.1% 1.7% .0% 100.0%
issues) covered?
10.3% 37.6% 12.5% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% .0% 25.3%
radio station?
% within How
Intrapersonal issues 37.5% 43.1% 5.6% 1.4% 5.6% 4.2% 2.8% 100.0%
issues) covered?
34.6% 26.5% 25.0% 25.0% 33.3% 75.0% 100.0% 30.9%
radio station?
Total Count 78 117 16 4 12 4 2 233
% within How
Intrapersonal issues 33.5% 50.2% 6.9% 1.7% 5.2% 1.7% .9% 100.0%
issues) covered?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
radio station?
How adequately was topic on "Farming as a business" covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

How adequately Adequately covered Count 54 74 11 3 9 4 3 158
was topic on % within How adequately
"Farming as a was topic on "Farming as 34.2% 46.8% 7.0% 1.9% 5.7% 2.5% 1.9% 100.0%
business" covered? a business" covered?
69.2% 56.1% 68.8% 75.0% 81.8% 80.0% 100.0% 63.5%
radio station?
was topic on "Farming as 24.6% 66.7% 4.3% 1.4% 2.9% .0% .0% 100.0%
a business" covered?
21.8% 34.8% 18.8% 25.0% 18.2% .0% .0% 27.7%
radio station?
was topic on "Farming as 21.4% 71.4% .0% .0% .0% 7.1% .0% 100.0%
3.8% 7.6% .0% .0% .0% 20.0% .0% 5.6%
radio station?
was topic on "Farming as 50.0% 25.0% 25.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
5.1% 1.5% 12.5% .0% .0% .0% .0% 3.2%
radio station?
Total Count 78 132 16 4 11 5 3 249
was topic on "Farming as 31.3% 53.0% 6.4% 1.6% 4.4% 2.0% 1.2% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
radio station?
47
How adequately was topic on Marketing of dairy products covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

topic on Marketing of % within How adequately
dairy products was topic on Marketing of 47.8% 34.8% 8.7% .9% 5.2% 1.7% .9% 100.0%
covered? dairy products covered?
70.5% 29.6% 62.5% 25.0% 50.0% 40.0% 50.0% 45.6%
radio station?
was topic on Marketing of 17.7% 64.6% 7.6% 2.5% 5.1% 2.5% .0% 100.0%
dairy products covered?
17.9% 37.8% 37.5% 50.0% 33.3% 40.0% .0% 31.3%
radio station?
was topic on Marketing of 15.1% 77.4% .0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 100.0%
10.3% 30.4% .0% 25.0% 8.3% 20.0% 50.0% 21.0%
radio station?
was topic on Marketing of 20.0% 60.0% .0% .0% 20.0% .0% .0% 100.0%
1.3% 2.2% .0% .0% 8.3% .0% .0% 2.0%
radio station?
Total Count 78 135 16 4 12 5 2 252
was topic on Marketing of 31.0% 53.6% 6.3% 1.6% 4.8% 2.0% .8% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
radio station?
How adequately was topic on Challenges faced in the dairy industry in general covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

topic on Challenges % within How adequately
faced in the dairy industry was topic on Challenges
in general covered? 48.8% 32.1% 11.9% .0% 6.0% 1.2% .0% 100.0%
faced in the dairy industry
in general covered?
54.7% 19.9% 62.5% .0% 45.5% 20.0% .0% 33.7%
radio station?
was topic on Challenges
27.7% 59.0% 4.8% 3.6% 2.4% 1.2% 1.2% 100.0%
in general covered?
30.7% 36.0% 25.0% 75.0% 18.2% 20.0% 50.0% 33.3%
radio station?
13.6% 78.0% 1.7% 1.7% 5.1% .0% .0% 100.0%
in general covered?
10.7% 33.8% 6.3% 25.0% 27.3% .0% .0% 23.7%
radio station?
13.0% 60.9% 4.3% .0% 4.3% 13.0% 4.3% 100.0%
in general covered?
4.0% 10.3% 6.3% .0% 9.1% 60.0% 50.0% 9.2%
radio station?
Total Count 75 136 16 4 11 5 2 249
30.1% 54.6% 6.4% 1.6% 4.4% 2.0% .8% 100.0%
in general covered?
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
radio station?
48
How adequately was topic on Pasture development (Dry season feeding etc) covered? * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

How adequately was topic Adequately covered Count 54 49 8 3 8 3 1 126
on Pasture development % within How adequately
(Dry season feeding etc) was topic on Pasture
covered? 42.9% 38.9% 6.3% 2.4% 6.3% 2.4% .8% 100.0%
development (Dry season
feeding etc) covered?
72.0% 36.0% 50.0% 75.0% 72.7% 60.0% 33.3% 50.4%
radio station?
was topic on Pasture
11.3% 76.1% 8.5% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% .0% 100.0%
10.7% 39.7% 37.5% 25.0% 9.1% 20.0% .0% 28.4%
radio station?
20.5% 66.7% 2.6% .0% 2.6% 2.6% 5.1% 100.0%
10.7% 19.1% 6.3% .0% 9.1% 20.0% 66.7% 15.6%
radio station?
35.7% 50.0% 7.1% .0% 7.1% .0% .0% 100.0%
6.7% 5.1% 6.3% .0% 9.1% .0% .0% 5.6%
radio station?
Total Count 75 136 16 4 11 5 3 250
30.0% 54.4% 6.4% 1.6% 4.4% 2.0% 1.2% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
radio station?
Statement - The program contents were sensitive and useful to your dairy business * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

Voice of Teso Radio West Veritas Other Not sure Vision Total
Statement - The program Strongly agree Count 66 80 14 3 10 2 175
contents were sensitive % within Statement - The
and useful to your dairy program contents were
business 37.7% 45.7% 8.0% 1.7% 5.7% 1.1% 100.0%
sensitive and useful to
your dairy business
83.5% 65.0% 87.5% 75.0% 83.3% 100.0% 74.2%
radio station?
Somewhat agree Count 11 39 2 1 2 0 55
% within Statement - The
program contents were
20.0% 70.9% 3.6% 1.8% 3.6% .0% 100.0%
your dairy business
13.9% 31.7% 12.5% 25.0% 16.7% .0% 23.3%
radio station?
Neutral Count 2 3 0 0 0 0 5
40.0% 60.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
your dairy business
2.5% 2.4% .0% .0% .0% .0% 2.1%
radio station?
Somewhat disagree Count 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
your dairy business
.0% .8% .0% .0% .0% .0% .4%
radio station?
Total Count 79 123 16 4 12 2 236
33.5% 52.1% 6.8% 1.7% 5.1% .8% 100.0%
your dairy business
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
radio station?
49
Statement - Questions and issues raised by callers or moderators were well handled and relevant to your dairy business * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

Statement - Questions Strongly agree Count 57 52 12 1 10 0 3 135
and issues raised by % within Statement -
callers or moderators Questions and issues
were well handled and raised by callers or
relevant to your dairy 42.2% 38.5% 8.9% .7% 7.4% .0% 2.2% 100.0%
moderators were well
business handled and relevant
to your dairy business
% within If yes, on
72.2% 42.6% 75.0% 25.0% 83.3% .0% 100.0% 57.0%
Somewhat agree Count 18 43 1 3 2 1 0 68
% within Statement -
Questions and issues
raised by callers or
26.5% 63.2% 1.5% 4.4% 2.9% 1.5% .0% 100.0%
handled and relevant
% within If yes, on
22.8% 35.2% 6.3% 75.0% 16.7% 100.0% .0% 28.7%
Neutral Count 3 17 2 0 0 0 0 22
13.6% 77.3% 9.1% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within If yes, on
3.8% 13.9% 12.5% .0% .0% .0% .0% 9.3%
Somewhat disagree Count 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 10
.0% 90.0% 10.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within If yes, on
.0% 7.4% 6.3% .0% .0% .0% .0% 4.2%
Strongly disagree Count 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
50.0% 50.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
% within If yes, on
1.3% .8% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .8%
Total Count 79 122 16 4 12 1 3 237
33.3% 51.5% 6.8% 1.7% 5.1% .4% 1.3% 100.0%
% within If yes, on
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
50
Statement - Questions and issues in the radio programs have provided some solutions to your dairy business challenges and problems * If yes, on which radio station?
Crosstabulation

Statement - Questions Strongly agree Count 47 48 8 0 6 2 111
and issues in the radio % within Statement -
programs have provided Questions and issues in
some solutions to your the radio programs have
dairy business 42.3% 43.2% 7.2% .0% 5.4% 1.8% 100.0%
provided some solutions
challenges and problems to your dairy business
challenges and problems
60.3% 38.4% 50.0% .0% 50.0% 100.0% 46.8%
radio station?
Questions and issues in
the radio programs have
21.7% 61.4% 7.2% 3.6% 6.0% .0% 100.0%
23.1% 40.8% 37.5% 75.0% 41.7% .0% 35.0%
radio station?
36.7% 53.3% 6.7% .0% 3.3% .0% 100.0%
14.1% 12.8% 12.5% .0% 8.3% .0% 12.7%
radio station?
18.2% 72.7% .0% 9.1% .0% .0% 100.0%
2.6% 6.4% .0% 25.0% .0% .0% 4.6%
radio station?
Strongly disagree Count 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
.0% 1.6% .0% .0% .0% .0% .8%
radio station?
Total Count 78 125 16 4 12 2 237
32.9% 52.7% 6.8% 1.7% 5.1% .8% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
radio station?
51
Statement - Dairy radio program content was educative and informative * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

Statement - Dairy radio Strongly agree Count 72 82 14 0 12 2 1 183
program content was % within Statement -
educative and informative Dairy radio program
39.3% 44.8% 7.7% .0% 6.6% 1.1% .5% 100.0%
content was educative
and informative
% within If yes, on
91.1% 67.8% 87.5% .0% 100.0% 66.7% 100.0% 77.9%
Dairy radio program
14.9% 72.3% 4.3% 6.4% .0% 2.1% .0% 100.0%
and informative
% within If yes, on
8.9% 28.1% 12.5% 100.0% .0% 33.3% .0% 20.0%
Neutral Count 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4
Dairy radio program
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
and informative
% within If yes, on
.0% 3.3% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.7%
Dairy radio program
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
and informative
% within If yes, on
.0% .8% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .4%
Total Count 79 121 16 3 12 3 1 235
Dairy radio program
33.6% 51.5% 6.8% 1.3% 5.1% 1.3% .4% 100.0%
and informative
% within If yes, on
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
52
Statement - Advice given in the dairy programs is easily applicable * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

Statement - Advice Strongly agree Count 44 35 9 2 4 0 94
given in the dairy % within Statement -
programs is easily Advice given in the
applicable 46.8% 37.2% 9.6% 2.1% 4.3% .0% 100.0%
dairy programs is
easily applicable
% within If yes, on
56.4% 29.7% 56.3% 50.0% 33.3% .0% 40.9%
Advice given in the
19.4% 64.2% 3.0% 3.0% 9.0% 1.5% 100.0%
dairy programs is
easily applicable
% within If yes, on
16.7% 36.4% 12.5% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 29.1%
Advice given in the
31.4% 54.3% 11.4% .0% 2.9% .0% 100.0%
dairy programs is
easily applicable
% within If yes, on
14.1% 16.1% 25.0% .0% 8.3% .0% 15.2%
Advice given in the
23.3% 66.7% 3.3% .0% 3.3% 3.3% 100.0%
dairy programs is
easily applicable
% within If yes, on
9.0% 16.9% 6.3% .0% 8.3% 50.0% 13.0%
Advice given in the
75.0% 25.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
dairy programs is
easily applicable
% within If yes, on
3.8% .8% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.7%
Total Count 78 118 16 4 12 2 230
Advice given in the
33.9% 51.3% 7.0% 1.7% 5.2% .9% 100.0%
dairy programs is
easily applicable
% within If yes, on
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
53
Statement - Dairy radio program content was understable * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

Statement - Dairy Strongly agree Count 53 55 9 2 9 1 1 130
radio program % within Statement -
content was Dairy radio program 40.8% 42.3% 6.9% 1.5% 6.9% .8% .8% 100.0%
understable content was understable
67.9% 48.2% 56.3% 50.0% 75.0% 50.0% 50.0% 57.0%
radio station?
Dairy radio program 14.1% 75.0% 7.8% 3.1% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
content was understable
11.5% 42.1% 31.3% 50.0% .0% .0% .0% 28.1%
radio station?
Neutral Count 14 11 2 0 3 0 1 31
Dairy radio program 45.2% 35.5% 6.5% .0% 9.7% .0% 3.2% 100.0%
17.9% 9.6% 12.5% .0% 25.0% .0% 50.0% 13.6%
radio station?
Dairy radio program 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
1.3% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .4%
radio station?
Dairy radio program 50.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 50.0% .0% 100.0%
1.3% .0% .0% .0% .0% 50.0% .0% .9%
radio station?
Total Count 78 114 16 4 12 2 2 228
Dairy radio program 34.2% 50.0% 7.0% 1.8% 5.3% .9% .9% 100.0%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
radio station?
54
Statement - After listening to the dairy radio programs you will consider applying most most of the knowledge obtained * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

Statement - After Strongly agree Count 45 59 12 2 7 1 0 126
listening to the dairy % within Statement -
radio programs you After listening to the
will consider applying dairy radio programs
most most of the 35.7% 46.8% 9.5% 1.6% 5.6% .8% .0% 100.0%
you will consider
knowledge obtained applying most most of
the knowledge obtained
57.7% 47.6% 75.0% 50.0% 58.3% 50.0% .0% 53.2%
radio station?
After listening to the
dairy radio programs
24.6% 63.9% 1.6% 3.3% 3.3% 1.6% 1.6% 100.0%
you will consider
applying most most of
19.2% 31.5% 6.3% 50.0% 16.7% 50.0% 100.0% 25.7%
radio station?
Neutral Count 17 21 3 0 3 0 0 44
38.6% 47.7% 6.8% .0% 6.8% .0% .0% 100.0%
you will consider
21.8% 16.9% 18.8% .0% 25.0% .0% .0% 18.6%
radio station?
25.0% 75.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
you will consider
1.3% 2.4% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 1.7%
radio station?
.0% 100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
you will consider
.0% 1.6% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .8%
radio station?
Total Count 78 124 16 4 12 2 1 237
32.9% 52.3% 6.8% 1.7% 5.1% .8% .4% 100.0%
you will consider
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
radio station?
55
Statement - Benefits from advice in the dairy radio programs are believable * If yes, on which radio station? Crosstabulation

Statement - Benefits Strongly agree Count 44 48 9 0 7 2 110
from advice in the % within Statement -
dairy radio programs Benefits from advice in
are believable 40.0% 43.6% 8.2% .0% 6.4% 1.8% 100.0%
the dairy radio programs
are believable
56.4% 40.3% 56.3% .0% 58.3% 100.0% 47.6%
radio station?
Benefits from advice in
29.2% 55.6% 4.2% 5.6% 5.6% .0% 100.0%
are believable
26.9% 33.6% 18.8% 100.0% 33.3% .0% 31.2%
radio station?
28.2% 61.5% 7.7% .0% 2.6% .0% 100.0%
are believable
14.1% 20.2% 18.8% .0% 8.3% .0% 16.9%
radio station?
11.1% 77.8% 11.1% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
are believable
1.3% 5.9% 6.3% .0% .0% .0% 3.9%
radio station?
100.0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% 100.0%
are believable
1.3% .0% .0% .0% .0% .0% .4%
radio station?
Total Count 78 119 16 4 12 2 231
33.8% 51.5% 6.9% 1.7% 5.2% .9% 100.0%
are believable
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
radio station?
VII. Comments from Radio Stations – Voice of Teso & Radio West
There was an opportunity to talk to the radio stations i.e. Mr. Tuguragara
Matojo (Programmes Manager, Radio West) and Mr. Richard Ekotu (Producer
of Ekacokon program on Voice of Teso). Below is a summary of issues
raised:
Regular meetings with Land O’ Lakes are required to ensure that the
process moves smoothly and to also iron out any obstacles that may
impede program success.
There is need to consistently facilitate technical people to carry out
research for program input deep in the villages. The costs of collecting
materials are high. Funds that have been set aside are not sufficient.
For example if 200,000/= is put aside for the purpose and seen as
sufficient but on the ground it costs much more.
There is need to encourage timely payments to facilitate program
preparations. Bureaucratic delays have been a major challenge.
Internal mechanisms need to be streamlined so that producers do no
feel a sense of frustration. Delayed disbursement of funds can be an
obstacle to work processes.
56
Translation services need facilitation as it requires extra time to do it –
it feels burdensome when it is not financially catered for. This is the
case with translating scripts into local language from English and vice
versa when there is need to do so.(For auditing purposes and data
storage)
Resource people have been working as volunteers but for how long
will they do this? In order to encourage them to come when invited,
there is need to pay for their professional services reasonably and
facilitate their transport. Clear packaging is needed.
There is need to bring specialists to discuss the various issues that
affect the dairy business. It is good to have a vet doctor coming to the
programs, but there is need to bring a dairy marketing specialist or
processing expert to supplement vet medicine aspects. Finances are
required to motivate and attract such professionals to come to the
radio programs.
There is need to promote and raise awareness for use of dairy
cooperatives. In this milk bulking issues should be emphasized.
Land O’ Lakes should encourage localized seminars as a follow-up to
dairy radio programs say individual district farmers’ workshops.
Regular and effective meetings between presenters, producers, station
managers, companies (sponsors), ILO FIT-SEMA and Land O’ Lakes
should be regular to harmonize conflicting differences. This will also
help in proper coordination when executing the programs – to know
who is who in the processes. This would be important to create
synergies between the different parties.
Authorities in different fields should feature in the programs. E.g. if
there is an issue to do with foot and mouth disease, an authority in this
should be invited to talk about. They should also be motivated to do
so.
57

Fit Sema Land O Lakes Dairy Radio Programs Impact Assessment Report - Ian Nkata - Uganda

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Fit Sema Land O Lakes Dairy Radio Programs Impact Assessment Report - Ian Nkata - Uganda

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Impact Assessment Report on Dairy Radio Programs

ILO FIT SEMA and Land O’ Lakes Inc.

Box 1 – Case study - Dairy Cooperative Societies ……………………….. 30

An impact assessment of the dairy radio programs targeting farmers, people

The assessment was undertaken in the districts of Soroti, Kumi, Mbarara,

The main objectives of the radio programs/communications were:

a) To stimulate behavioral change with respect to quality improvement

2.0 Objectives of the impact assessment

To assess awareness of the radio programs

This chapter covers pre-survey activities, the assessment methodology

3.1 Pre-assessment activities

a) Meeting with ILO FIT-SEMA and Land O’ Lakes officials to ensure

• Sample size, allocation per person

3.2 Sample size and Sampling Technique

3.3 Data collection and Assessment tools

A structured questionnaire was used to collect data through face to face

In order to take cater for language matters, research assistants engaged in

3.4 Data processing and analysis

Data in the questionnaires were edited and checked to ensure completeness,

The questionnaires were also characterized by some open-ended questions

4.0 Challenges faced

5.1 Background information

5.1.1 Gender of respondents

Chart 1: Gender of respondents

Gender of respondents n=294

Chart 2: Age of respondents

Age of respondents n=282

Over 55 years 15-25 years

5.1.3 Categories of respondents

The assessment was principally directed towards farmers, milk

Chart 3: Category in the milk chain4

Key Categories n=289

Table 1: Average Farm milk output per day

Table 2: Average Amount of milk collected at Milk Centre

Litres Frequency Percent

Table 4: Average amount of milk sold by traders per day

5.2.1 Program Awareness

Chart 4: Familiarity of Dairy Radio Program

Are you fam iliar w ith a radio program on m ilk

About 95% of the respondents are aware of the radio programs

Chart 5: Radio Station on which Dairy Radio Program was heard

10.0 6.3 4.9

Voice of Radio West Veritas Vision Endigyito Other Not sure

5.2.2 Frequency of listening to dairy radio programs

In order to assess the frequency of listening to dairy radio programs,

Chart 6: How often have you listened to dairy radio programs?

Every w eek Once every 2 Once every 3 Not sure

Table 5: Organizations associated with dairy radio program

The respondents associated the dairy radio programs to National

5.3 Dairy Radio Programs Content and Delivery

5.3.1 Relevance of topics and issues covered in dairy programs

Table 6: How relevant topics covered

5.3.2 How adequately topics were covered

A number of issues were covered from time to time in the radio

Table 7: How adequately topical issues were covered

“Production (Breeding, Feeding, Feeds)”, “Animal/Herd Health

In the same vein, respondents were asked to highlight on the topical

1 Animal/Herd Health (Disease control etc)

2 Production (Breeding, Feeding, Feeds)

4 Market (Outlets, milk prices etc)

5 Marketing of dairy products

6 Milk handling (Storage, Hygiene, Increased Production)

7 Pasture Development (Dry season feeding)