Open Access

Stechnolock Veterinary Science

Research Article

Pig Production in Gulu and Omoro Districts of Northern Uganda

Kasima JS1*, Mugonola B2 and Ndyomugyenyi EK1
1
Department of Animal Production and Range Management, Faculty of Agriculture and Environment, Gulu University, P. O. Box 166,
Gulu, Uganda
2
Department of Rural Development and Agribusiness, Faculty of Agriculture and Environment, Gulu University, P. O. Box 166, Gulu,
Uganda
*
Corresponding Author: Kasima JS, Department of Animal Production and Range Management, Faculty of Agriculture and Envi-
ronment, Gulu University, P. O. Box 166, Gulu, Uganda, Tel: +256789702364, E-mail: kasi95js@gmail.com

Citation: Kasima JS, Mugonola B and Ndyomugyenyi EK (2021) Pig Production in Gulu and Omoro Districts of Northern Uganda..
Stechnolock Vet Sci 1:1-9

Copyright: © 2021 Kasima JS. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution Li-
cense, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source
are credited.

ABSTRACT

The potential of pig production to improve the livelihoods of smallholder farmers is constrained by inadequate use of pig
production technologies. Technologies like the use of artificial insemination (AI) to improve breeds have been suggested
to improve pig production. Pig production in Northern Uganda, however, remains low suggesting limited use of such
technologies. Three technologies (Indigenous Micro-organism (IMO) technology, artificial insemination and use of feed
formula from dominant locally available feedstuffs) were introduced to the smallholder farmers in Gulu and Omoro districts
of northern Uganda. Prior to implementation, however, it necessitated that the status of pig production among farmers
be established against which the impact of the initiative to introduce these technologies will be assessed. This paper
therefore aimed at determining the status of pig production in northern Uganda. A cross-sectional survey was carried out
among 109 purposively selected pig farmers recruited to participate in technology implementation. 59.6% were males,
aged between 36-64 years (53.2%), married (78%), with household size of 7-9 members (42.2%), had attained primary
education (58.7%) and had 1-5 acres of land (54.1%). The average herd size was 4.6 pigs with 67.4% farmers keeping local
pigs. Piglets dominated the herds in both districts with 89% farmers keeping pigs as the main livestock species. Income
generation was the primary reason for keeping pigs. Piggery was constrained by expensive feeding (82.6%) and diseases
(47.7%). 93.6% farmers fed pigs on local feedstuffs with no definite formula, 59.6% housed their pigs but none used
either artificial insemination or indigenous micro-organism technologies. In conclusion, there exists limited knowledge on,
and use of the three technologies. There is therefore need to train farmers on these technologies and later assess their
acceptance and adoption, and their impact on status of pig production.

Keywords: Artificial insemination, livelihoods, Indigenous Micro-organisms, Local Feed Formula

List of Abbreviations

AfrII: Africa Innovations Institute; AI: Artificial Insemination; ASF: African Swine Fever; FAO: Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the United Nations; IMO: indigenous Micro-Organisms; RUFORUM: Regional Universities Forum for
Capacity Building in Agriculture; SPSS: Statistical Package for Social Scientist; UBOS: Uganda Bureau of Statistics

Stechnolock | www.stechnolock.com Volume 1 | Issue 1

Page 2 Stechnolock Vet Sci

Introduction

Worldwide, pig production is one of the fastest growing livestock sub-sectors primarily because pigs are characterised by their
ability to effectively convert feed to meat, provide quicker returns on investment [1,2] and are highly prolific [3]. Furthermore, the
demand for animal protein as a result of increasing population, urbanization and rising incomes in the developing countries has
encouraged pig production [4,2,5]. In Uganda, however, low pig population (4,037,000 pigs) was registered as compared to other
livestock species such as poultry (46,291,000 birds) goats (15,725,000), and cattle (14,368,000 heads) [6]. The low pig numbers
in Uganda could be due to inadequate use of improved technologies such as artificial insemination (AI) to improve breeds and
indigenous microorganisms (IMO) to reduce smell from pig stys [7].

Despite the low pig population in Uganda, there is a potential of pigs to improve and sustain livelihoods if farmers used pig
production technologies. Although the use AI and IMO have been suggested to increase pig production, northern Uganda still lags
behind in the sector [8] suggesting limited use of these technologies. This could be a result of limited efforts to introduce these pig
production technologies to pig farmers in northern Uganda.

Consequently, three pig production technologies were introduced to pig farmers in the districts of Gulu and Omoro of Northern
Uganda. These included: (1) use of Indigenous Micro-Organism solution to reduce smell in pig houses (IMO); (2) Use of artificial
insemination to improve pig breeds; and (3) Use of locally formulated feeds prepared from dominant locally available feedstuffs.
It was however important to first establish the status of pig production in the two districts prior to technology implementation.
This study therefore aimed at determining the status of pig production before implementation of the three technologies in the two
districts of Gulu and Omoro. The study will act as a basis against which the impact of the technologies on pig production in the
region can be measured in the future.

Materials and Methods

Study area and design

The study, which adopted a cross-sectional survey design (August to October, 2018), was conducted in the districts of Gulu (Paicho
sub-county) and Omoro (Koro and Ongako Sub-counties) in Northern Uganda (Figure 1). Gulu district is located between longitudes
30-32 degrees East and latitudes 02-4 degrees North. It is bordered by Omoro district in the south, Amuru district in the west,
Lamwo district in the north and Pader district in the east.Omoro district is located between 02o35’N and 32o22’E. It is bordered by
Gulu district in the north, Pader district in the east, Oyam district in the south and Nwoya district in the west.

Up to 109 (48 in Gulu district and 61 in Omoro district) pig farmers, who were recruited to participate in the technology
implementation exercise were purposively selected. Data were collected using semi-structured questionnaire and observations.
The questionnaire consisted of three parts: (1) demographic characteristics of respondents; (2) different aspects of pig production
like herd size and characteristics; and (3) use of different technologies. Secondary data sources were also reviewed especially from
journal publications and district production reports. Data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Scientist (SPSS) version
15.0 and Microsoft Excel where descriptive statistics like frequencies, means and percentages were generated.

Results
Socio-demographic characteristics of pig farmers in Gulu and Omoro district

The study revealed that most (59.6%) pig farmers were males, aged between 36-64 years (53.2%) with the mean age being 38. 94
years (Table 1). 78% of the pig farmers were married with household size of 7-9 members (42.2%), had attained at least primary
level of education (58.7%) and had 1-5 acres of land (54.1%). The average acreage of land possessed was 2.51 acres.

Stechnolock | www.stechnolock.com Volume 1 | Issue 1

Page 3 Stechnolock Vet Sci

Variable No. of respondents (N = 109) % of respondents

Gender
14-35 48 44.0
36-64 58 53.2
Over 64 3 2.80
Marital status
Married 85 78.0
Single 13 11.9
Divorced 1 0.9
Widowed 10 9.2
Household size
1-3 6 5.50
4-6 32 29.4
7-9 46 42.2
10 and above 25 22.9
Level of education
No formal education 4 3.7
Primary 64 58.7
Secondary 28 25.7
Tertiary 13 11.9
Land size
< 1 acre 6 5.5
1-5 acres 59 54.1
6-10 acres 26 23.9
>10 acres 18 16.5
Table 1: Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents

Stechnolock | www.stechnolock.com Volume 1 | Issue 1

Page 4 Stechnolock Vet Sci

Herd characteristics

Most (67.3%) of the farmers had 1-5 pigs with the average number of pigs being 4.6 pigs (Table 2). Local breeds of pigs were kept
by most farmers (67.4%) followed by the 11.8% who kept cross breeds. The herds were dominated by piglets with Omoro district
having the number of piglets more than twice that of Gulu district, and having more pigs.

Variable N = 109
Gulu (n = 48) Omoro (n = 61) Average%
Frequency % Frequency %
Herd size
1-5 Pigs 30 62.5 44 72.1 67.3
6-10 Pigs 16 33.3 12 19.7 26.5
Above 10 Pigs 2 4.2 5 8.2 6.20
Breed kept
Local 34 70.8 39 63.9 67.4
Cross 5 10.4 8 13.1 11.8
Exotic 2 4.2 8 13.1 8.7
> One breed 7 14.6 6 9.8 12.2
Category of pig kept by number (No. of pigs = 496)
Category Gulu Omoro
Sows 39 36
Boars 20 11
Growers 74 55
Piglets 75 176
Castrates 0 10
Table 2: Herd characteristics of pig farmers in Gulu and Omoro districts

Major livestock species kept, reason for keeping pigs and challenges faced by pig farmers

Most (89%) pig farmers kept pigs as the major livestock species, followed by cattle (5.5%) and chicken (4.6%) (Table 3). Most
farmers (64.2%) kept pigs as a means of raising income for meeting household needs while others (58.7%) used pigs as a store of
money for sale when it is time for paying school fees. Only 11% pig farmers used pigs as a source of capital for supporting other
businesses. The commonest challenges faced by the pig farmers were expensive feeding (82.6%) and diseases (47.7%).

Variable Frequency/109 % of respondents

Livestock species
Pigs 97 89.0
Cattle 6 5.5
Chicken 5 4.6
Fish 1 0.9
Reason for keeping pigs
Paying school fees for children 64 58.7
Income for meeting domestic needs 70 64.2
Source of capital for other enterprises 12 11.0
Challenges to pig production
Expensive feeding 90 82.6
Poor housing 40 36.7
Diseases 52 47.7
Table 3: Reasons for keeping pigs and challenges to pig production

Stechnolock | www.stechnolock.com Volume 1 | Issue 1

Page 5 Stechnolock Vet Sci

Use of pig production technologies

Over 93% of the farmers were using local feedstuffs but none reported use of a definite formula from these feedstuffs (Table 4). Most
(84.4%) pig farmers mated their farmers using natural mating because they did not know Artificial insemination as an alternative to
mating in pigs (42.4%) and had access to boars for mating their sows (35.9%). 59.6% of the farmers provided housing to their pigs, of
which none used the IMO system as a means of reducing smell in pig houses.

Variable No. of respondents (N = 109) % of respondents

Type of feed
Local 102 93.6
Commercial 1 0.9
Both 6 5.5
Formulated feeds from local feedstuffs 0 0
Breeding System
Natural mating 92 84.4
Artificial Insemination 0 0.0
Have not yet bred 16 14.7
Only keeping male 1 0.9
Reason for using natural mating (n = 92)
Lack of knowledge about AI 39 42.4
Natural mating is cheap 16 17.4
Easy access to boar 33 35.9
Other reasons 4 4.3
Providing housing to pigs
Housing pigs 65 59.6
Not housing 44 40.4
Use of IMO system (for those housing pigs) (n=65)
Using IMO 0 0
Not using IMO 65 100
Table 4: Type of feed, breeding system, housing and use of IMO technology

Discussion

Socio-demographic characteristics

Most pig farmers were males which could be attributed to the drudgery involved in handling pigs. The findings in the current
study agree with [9-11] who also reported high male participation in pig production. To the contrary, however, some authors have
reported high female participation in pig production claiming that women provide more labour in pig production [12, 13]. The
average age of most farmers in the current study (38.94 years) could imply that pig production is carried out by adult farmers of
the middle age as a means of raising income to meet the household needs. This age is commensurate with the 38 years reported
by [14]. More married farmers were found to be participating in pig production in the current study. As with the current study,
[9] also reported high participation of married farmers in pig production. Since pigs are highly prolific [3] and have ready market
[15], they could easily avail income to married farmers to acquire the household basic needs. Married farmers in the current study
may therefore have opted for piggery to this end. Furthermore, most farmers had large household sizes and had attained only up
to primary level of education which, in Ugandan setting, could not enable them obtain formal employment. They might therefore
have opted for pig production to earn a living. Most pig farmers have been reported to at least have attained up to primary level
of education [16, 17]. The findings in the current study however disagree with [18] who reported over 53% pig farmers to have

Stechnolock | www.stechnolock.com Volume 1 | Issue 1

Page 6 Stechnolock Vet Sci

attained tertiary education as opposed to the 2.4% who had completed primary education. With the average land size of 2.51 acres
possessed by most farmers, they could ably keep their pigs as these have small space requirements [19].

Herd characteristics

The average of 4.6 pigs which was kept by most farmers in the current study is a typical characteristic of smallholder pig farmers. The
current findings agree with those of [20] in Sri Lanka and [21] in Tanzania, who reported a herd size of 4 and 4.9 pigs, respectively.
To the contrary, [22] reported a lower herd size of up to 2 pigs as was also reported by [23].

Local breeds were kept by most farmers probably due to their low capital demand and ability to survive in harsh conditions as those
in the study area. In addition, local pigs can move long distances [5] to look for food and are cheap to maintain by the resource-
constrained farmers [24]. The 64.7% farmers keeping local pig breeds in the current study was higher than the 24% reported by
[20]. More farmers (62% and 67.4%) were however reported to keep cross-bred pigs by [22,25], respectively, compared to the
11.8% in the current study. The difference in breed kept could be because the current study was carried out in a rural setting where
most farmers could hardly sustain the requirements of cross-bred and exotic pigs. The studies by [22,25] were, however, carried
out in a more urban setting where farmers are profit-oriented and can afford the requirements of improved breeds f pigs. Piglets
were the commonest category kept as was also reported by [21].

Major livestock species kept, Reason for keeping pigs and challenges faced by pig farmers

Pigs were kept as the major livestock species which agrees with [1] who also reported high preference for pigs compared to other
livestock species. This, they attributed to the high prolificacy and small land requirement which were also reported by [3,4]. These
characteristics may also be preferred by farmers in the current study.

Irrespective of the purpose for which the income would be used for, all farmers kept pigs as an income source. This was either for
meeting household needs, paying school fees for children or for raising capital to support other businesses. In agreement with the
current findings, the primary reason for keeping pigs is income generation [26,20].

Most farmers faced a challenge of costly feeding followed by diseases. Feeding contributes over 70% to the total production costs
in pig production [8], and it is therefore key to ensure optimum output. This calls for cheaper alternatives to mitigate the expensive
feeding, a challenge which was also reported by [27], if pig production among smallholder farmers is to be sustained or even
improved. Contrary to the current findings, [26] reported diseases as the commonest challenge faced by pig farmers. In another
study, [18] reported that pig farmers were majorly limited by inability to access credit and expensive feeding.

Use of pig production technologies

Most farmers fed pigs on local feedstuffs which included cassava, sweet potato vines, wandering Jew, milk weed among others,
probably because they are cheap and readily available. The use of locally available feedstuffs by pig farmers was also reported by [21]
in Tanzania. Feeding pigs with local feed materials, according to [8], has constrained progress of the piggery sub-sector. However,
commercial feeds are expensive [27]. Earlier authors reported some local feedstuffs in Uganda as having the potential to sustain
pig production as they can provide the required nutrients [28]. However, farmers lack adequate knowledge on efficient utilisation
of these feedstuffs to ensure that pigs obtain the required nutrients [29]. Developing a formula from the local feed materials as
recommended by [19], and training farmers on how to formulate the feeds could enable farmers utilise these feedstuffs. Most
farmers who used natural mating reported that they did not know of any other alternative to mating pigs. The use of natural mating
was however reported as a candidate of disease spread among herds as a result of contact [19]. It is therefore important to train
farmers on the importance of artificial insemination and avail them with artificial insemination services. Although most farmers
reported lack of knowledge of mating alternatives, some (35.9%) said that they had easy access to breeding boars which concurs

Stechnolock | www.stechnolock.com Volume 1 | Issue 1

Page 7 Stechnolock Vet Sci

with the findings of [30]. Provision of housing by most farmers in the current study could be due to fear of disease transmission
particularly African Swine Fever (ASF), injuries from tethering and destruction to neighbours’ crops. The ASF was reported to be
endemic in northern Uganda [31], with high prevalence reported among pigs which are not housed [25] as they roam from place
to place looking for food. The injuries from tethering and destruction to crops as a result of lack of pig housing were reported by
[32] The 59.6% farmers who housed pigs in the current study were lower than the 61% reported by [33] and the 96.9% reported by
[34]. Although the IMO system was not used by any of the pig farmers, its advantages reported by [7] indicate that in case farmers
take it up, pig production may be improved in the region.

Conclusion

Based on the finding from the current study, male farmers participate more in pig production enterprises than do the females. Most
pig farmers fed their pigs on locally available feedstuffs with no defined formula. However, none was using artificial insemination
for breeding their pigs nor was any using the indigenous micro-organism technology as a means of smell reduction in the pig
houses.

Recommendation

Farmers need to be trained on the use of the different pig production technology so as to close the exposure gap. This may enhance
pig production in the region. There is also need to ascertain the acceptance of the technologies by the participating farmers, and
later assess the impact of the intervention to the general community of Northern Uganda.

Acknowledgement

The authors are grateful to The MasterCard Foundation through The Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture
(RUFORUM) for funding the Community Action Research Project titled “Enhancing Pig Production and Marketing for Smallholder
Farmers’ Livelihood Improvement in Northern Uganda” under which the study was conducted. Great thanks also go to the pig
farmers in Gulu and Omoro districts for consenting to participate in the study.

Stechnolock | www.stechnolock.com Volume 1 | Issue 1

Page 8 Stechnolock Vet Sci

References

1. Malede B, Tamene G, and Betelhem G (2015) Challenges and Opportunities of Pig Farming and Feeding Strategy in Gondar Town,
Ethiopia: Acad J Nutr 4: 84-9.

2. Birhan M, Tamene G and Betelhem G (2015) Challenges and opportunities of pig farming and feeding strategy in Gondar town,
Ethiopia. Acad J Nutr 4: 84-9.

3. Adesehinwa AOK (2008) Energy and protein requirements of pigs and the utilization of fibrous feedstuffs in Nigeria: A review.
Afr J Biotech 7: 4798-806.

4. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (2018) Food Outlook - Biannual Report on Global Food Markets – July
2018. Rome. ISBN 978-92-5-130768-7

5. Ikeya K (2015) Pig Farming at Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Afr Stu Mono 51: 107-18.

6. Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2017) The 2017 Statistical Abstract, Kampala, Uganda

7. Africa Innovations Institute [AfrII] (2016) Piggery Production Manual: How to Rear Pigs using The Deep Litter System (DLS) or
Fermented Bed Technology (FBT). Africa Innovations Institute, Kampala, 54pp

8. Tatwangire A (2014) Uganda smallholder pigs value chain development: Situation analysis and trends. Nairobi, Kenya:
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI).

9. Motsa’a JS, Defang HF and Keambou CT (2018) Socio-economic and technical characteristics of pig (Sus scrofa domesticus)
production system in the humid forest with monomodal rainfall agroecological zone of Cameroon. Intl J Bio & Chem Sci 12: 2318-27.

10. Abiola JO, Omotosho OO, Adeniyi O M and Ayoade GO (2015) Sociodemographic characteristics of swine producers and swine
management practices in Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. Alex J Vet Sci 47: 7-17.

11. Iyai DA (2012) Characteristic performances of the main four pig farming systems in Manokwari, West Papua. JITP 2: 82-98.

12. Ninh NTH, Lebailly P and Dung NM (2019) Labour Division in Pig Farming Households: An Analysis of Gender and Economic
Perspectives in the Red River Delta Vietnam. Intl J of Econ & Fin Is, 9: 183-92.

13. Chauhan A, Patel BHM, Maurya R, Kumar S, Shukla S and Kumar S (2016) Pig production system as a source of livelihood in
Indian scenario: An overview. Intl J Sci, Env and Tech 5: 2089-96.

14 Ajala MK, Adesehinwa AOK and Bawa GS (2006) Socio-economic factors influencing swine management practices among
women in Jama’a Local Government area of Kaduna State, Nigeria. Trop & Subtrop Agroeco 6: 43-8.

15. Ouma E, Dione M, Lule P, Pezo D, Marshall K, et al. (2015) Smallholder pig value chain assessment in Uganda: Results from
producer focus group discussions and key informant interviews. ILRI Project Report. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI.

16. Ume SI, Ezeano CI and Gbughemobi BO (2018) Analysis of the environmental effect of pig production in Okigwe local government
area of Imo State, Nigeria. Intl J Env & Agric Res 4: 12-21.

17. Nantima N, Ocaido M, Davies J, Dione M, Okoth E, et al. (2015) Characterization of smallholder pig production systems in four
districts along the Uganda-Kenya border. Liv Res Rur Dev 27:1-13.

Stechnolock | www.stechnolock.com Volume 1 | Issue 1

Page 9 Stechnolock Vet Sci

18. Uddin IO and Osasogie DI (2016) Constraints of pig production in Nigeria: A case study of Edo Central Agricultural Zone of Edo
State. Asian Res J Agric 2: 1-7.

19. Ndyomugyenyi E K and Kyasimire J (2015) Pig production in Kichwamba Sub-county, Rubirizi district, Uganda. Liv Res Rur Dev 27.

20. Silva GLLP, Thuy LT, Abeykoon ND, Hanh NTH, Bett RC, Okeyo M and Ibrahim MNM (2016) Comparative study of Indigenous pig
production in Vietnam and Sri Lanka. Intl J Liv Prod 7: 83-93.

21. Kimbi E, Lekule F, Mlangwa J, Mejer H and Thamsborg S (2015) Smallholder pig production systems in Tanzania. J Agr Sci & Tech
5: 47-60.

22. Patr MK, Begum S and Deka BC (2014) Problems and Prospects of Traditional Pig Farming for Tribal Livelihood in Nagaland.
Indian Res J Ext Edu 14: 6-11.

23. Luka JS, Bogoro SE and Dantata IJ (2011) Traditional management of pigs in Bogoro and Tafawa Balewa Local government areas
in Bauchi State, Nigeria. J Sust Dev 8: 45-50.

24. Lapar ML, Toan NT, Staal S, Minot N, Tisdell C, Que NN, and Tuan NDA (2012) Smallholder competitiveness: insights from
household pig production systems in Vietnam. Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the International Association of
Agricultural Economists (IAAE) Triennial Conference, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil 18-24 August, 2012.

25. Muhanguzi D, Lutwama V, Mwiine FN (2012) Factors that influence pig production in Central Uganda – Case study of Nangabo
Sub-County, Wakiso district. Vet World 5: 346-51.

26. Ström G, Djurfeldt AA, Boqvist S, Albihn A, Sokerya S, et al. (2017) Urban and peri-urban family-based pig-keeping in Cambodia:
Characteristics, management and perceived benefits and constraints. PloS one, 12.

27. Baltenweck I, Thinh NT, Nga NTD, Hung PV, Nhuan NH, Huyen NTT, Lapar ML and Teufel N (2018) Assessing competitiveness of
smallholder pig farming in the changing landscape of Northwest Vietnam. ILRI Research Report 52. Nairobi, Kenya: International
Livestock Research Institute (ILRI).

28. Carter N, Dewey C, Lukuyu B, Grace D and de Lange C (2015) Nutritional value and seasonal availability of feed ingredients for
pigs in Uganda. Agric Trop Et Subtrop 48: 91-104.

29. Ouma E, Dione M, Roesel K, Lule P, Kawuma B, et al. (2017) Smallholder pig value chains transformation in Uganda: Results,
lessons and insights: Uganda Livestock Sector Consultative Meeting, Kampala, 14 March 2017.

30. Matabane MB, Nethenzheni P, Thomas R, Netshirovha TR, Norris D, Nephawe KA and Nedambale TL (2015) Status of the
smallholder pig farming sector in Gauteng Province of South Africa. Appl Anim Husb & Rur Dev 8: 19-25.

31. Chenais E, Boqvist S, Emanuelson U, Brömssen C, Ouma E, et al. (2017) Quantitative assessment of social and economic impact
of African swine fever outbreaks in northern Uganda. Prev Vet Med 144: 134 -48.

32. Ampaire A (2011) “Farmers’ experiences with rearing pigs, goats and chickens to improve household nutrition and income in
Kamuli, Uganda” Graduate Theses and Dissertations: 12118.

33. Ahmed N, Doley S, Ahmed K and Das BB (2017) Socio-economic status of small-scale pig farmers in rural communities of
Tripura. Intl J Chem Stud 5: 102-4.

34. Goraga Z, Mengesha M, Gebregzabher E and Lima G (2016) Production system, feeding and slurry management of swine in
Ethiopia. Glo J Agric and Agric Sci 4: 304-13.

Stechnolock | www.stechnolock.com Volume 1 | Issue 1