↓ Skip to main content

Urban Livestock Keeping in the City of Nairobi: Diversity of Production Systems, Supply Chains, and Their Disease Management and Risks

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
26 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Urban Livestock Keeping in the City of Nairobi: Diversity of Production Systems, Supply Chains, and Their Disease Management and Risks
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2017.00171
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pablo Alarcon, Eric M. Fèvre, Patrick Muinde, Maurice K. Murungi, Stella Kiambi, James Akoko, Jonathan Rushton

Abstract

Urban livestock keeping in developing cities have an important role in food security and livelihoods but can also pose a significant threat to the environment and health of urban dwellers. The aim of this study was to identify the different livestock systems in Nairobi, their supply chains, and their management and food safety risks. Seven focus group discussions with livestock production officers in charge of each major Nairobi sub-county were conducted. Data were collected on the type of systems existing for each livestock species and their supply chains, disease management, food safety risks, and general husbandry and gender factors. Supply chain flow diagrams and thematic analysis of the data was done. Results of the study show a large variability of livestock keeping in Nairobi. The majority were small scale with: <5 dairy cows, 1-6 dairy goats, <10 small ruminants, <20 pigs, 200-500 broilers, 300-500 layers, <10 indigenous chickens, or <20 rabbits. Beef keeping was mainly described as a "by the way" system or done by traders to fatten animals for 3 month. Supply chain analysis indicated that most dairy farmers sold milk directly to consumers due to "lack of trust" of these in traders. Broiler and pig farmers sold mainly to traders but are dependent on few large dominating companies for their replacement or distribution of products. Selling directly to retailers or consumers (including own consumption), with backyard slaughtering, were important chains for small-scale pig, sheep and goat, and indigenous chicken keepers. Important disease risk practices identified were associated with consumption of dead and sick animals, with underground network of brokers operating for ruminant products. Qualified trained health managers were used mainly by dairy farmers, and large commercial poultry and pig farmers, while use of unqualified health managers or no treatment were common in small-scale farming. Control of urban livestock keepers was reported difficult due to their "feeling of being outlaws," "lack of trust" in government, "inaccessibility" in informal settlements, "lack of government funding," or "understaffing." Findings are useful for designing policies to help to control urban livestock production and minimize its associated health and environment risks.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 156 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 19%
Researcher 25 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 6%
Lecturer 8 5%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 47 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 21%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 17 11%
Social Sciences 12 8%
Environmental Science 8 5%
Engineering 6 4%
Other 27 17%
Unknown 54 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,147,766
of 24,330,936 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#227
of 7,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,319
of 332,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#6
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,330,936 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,292 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.