article · Frontiers in Climate
Smallholder dairy farming is a key sector for reducing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, yet adoption of recommended practices varies widely. A survey of 291 rural and peri-urban smallholder dairy farms around Nakuru, Kenya, evaluated how farmers integrate greenhouse gas mitigating interventions across feeding, breeding, animal health, and manure handling. Statistical clustering grouped the farms into three categories: low mitigating, average mitigating, and high mitigating. High mitigating farms, representing about a quarter of the sample, adopted the widest variety of beneficial practices across all categories. In contrast, average and low mitigating farms implemented significantly fewer feeding and breeding interventions. Across all groups, manure spreading on land was common, while dry-lot storage was frequent only among average mitigating farms. Because few farms utilised feed additives or advanced manure management, these interventions represent key opportunities for targeted agricultural extension programmes.
Livestock systems are major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, and smallholders play a vital role in climate targets. Understanding that smallholder farmers adopt sustainable practices at very different rates helps policymakers and development agencies design tailored interventions. Rather than applying uniform policies, programmes can address specific gaps such as improving manure handling and feed additive use.
The findings point to direct opportunities for livestock extension services and agricultural input providers supplying feed additives and manure management solutions. These interventions are applied and tested in the field, but current uptake among smallholder farmers remains low. Technology transfer efforts and commercial providers can use farm clustering insights to target adoption barriers and deploy climate-smart agricultural products more effectively.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
Dairy production is a priority livestock system for reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and is a target of a number of GHG mitigating interventions (GHG-MI) recommendations. However, uncertainty exist regarding how smallholders are integrating these GHG-MI, which include improving feeding, breeding, health and welfare, and manure management. This study tested hypothesis that integration of GHG-MI is heterogeneous in smallholder dairy farms. A sample of 291 farms were obtained in a cross-sectional survey in rural and peri-urban wards around Nakuru city, Kenya. Frequency data on practicing a GHG-MI were subjected to Principal Component Analysis followed by Cluster Analysis to derive distinct clusters, resulting in three clusters: cluster one and two each comprising 36.8 % and cluster three 26.4 % of the farms. These were respectively labelled low (LM), average (AM) and high (HM) mitigating farms based on the number of GHG-MI frequently practiced by atleast half of the farms. The majority of the HM farms frequently practiced most of the GHG-MI and LM farms practiced the least. Out of 11 feeding practices examined, atleast 6 in 10 HM farms frequently practiced four whereas atleast 5 in 10 of AM or LM farms frequently practiced two. In examining selection for six traits, five were frequently selected by at least 8 in 10 of HM farms whereas atleast 5 in 10 of AM or LM farms only frequently selected two traits. Of seven good animal health and welfare practices examined, all were frequently practiced by atleast 6 in 10 of HM farms. Among AM and LM farms, atleast 5 in 10 practiced six good animal health and welfare. While dry-lot manure storage was only a frequent practice on AM farms, manure spreading on land was a more frequent practice across all clusters. These findings reveal that smallholder dairy farms are responsive to mitigating GHG emissions, however heterogeneity in their integration of GHG-MI warrants research to compare HM with the AM and LM farms. Feed additives and effective manure management should be entry points for extension service promoting climate-smart livestock interventions, because only a few farms used them, though are effective GHG-MI in dairy systems.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.3389/fclim.2026.1900256
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
