Assessment of compliance with Good Agricultural Practices in pig farming in Mpwapwa and Mbulu districts, Tanzania

Figures & data

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the pig farmers (N = 136)

Parameter	Category	Number (%) of respondents
District	Mpwapwa	68(100.0)
	Mbulu	68(100.0)
Gender	Male	85 (62.5)
	Female	51 (37.5)
Age	25–35	33 (24.3)
	36–45	43 (31.6)
	Above 45	60 (44.1)
Education level	Non-formal education	27 (19.9)
	Primary	62 (45.6)
	Secondary	36 (26.5)
	College/University	11 (8.1)
Number of pigs	<50	135 (99.3)
	50–100	1 (0.7)

Table 2. Awareness status of pig farmers on GAPs n (%)

Parameter	Category	Aware	Not aware	P-value
District	Mpwapwa	50 (73.5)	18 (26.5)	0.57
	Mbulu	47 (69.1)	21 (30.9)
Gender	Male	59 (69.4)	26 (30.6)	0.52
	Female	38 (74.5)	13 (25.5)
Age	25–35	22 (66.7)	11 (33.3)	0.47
	36–45	29 (67.4)	14 (32.6)
	Above 45	46 (76.7)	14 (23.3)
Education level	Non-formal education	18 (66.7)	9 (33.3)	0.21
	Primary	41 (66.1)	21 (33.9)
	Secondary	27 (75.0)	9 (25)
	College	11 (100)	0 (0.0)
Number of pigs	<50	96(71.1)	39(28.9)	1.00
	50–100	1(100)	0

Figure 1. Appearance and hygiene status of piggeries observed from small-scale pig farmers.

Table 3. Performance of pig farmers on Good Agricultural Practices

Parameter	Category	Frequency n (%)
Type of management/feeding	Confinement	105(77.2)
	Free range/scavenging	31(22.8)
Housing type	Concrete/raised timber	32(23.5)
	Earthened/trees	104(76.5)
House cleanliness	Clean	25(18.4)
	Dirty	111(81.6)
Diseases control/prevention(vaccine and antibiotics)	Always	59(43)
	Not always	77(56)
Feed type	Compounded	10(7.4)
	Non Compounded	126(92.6)

Table 4. Compliance status of pig farmers’ n (%)

Parameter	Category	Comply	Not comply	P-value
District	Mpwapwa	14(20.6)	54(79.4)	0.83
	Mbulu	13(19.1)	55(80.9)
Gender	Male	19(22.4)	66(77.6)	0.34
	Female	8(15.7)	43(84.3)
Age	25–35	5(15.2)	28(84.8)	0.68
	36–45	10(23.3)	33(76.7)
	Above 45	12(20)	48(80)
Education level	Non-formal education	2(7.4)	25(92.6)	0.00*
	Primary	8(12.9)	54(87.1)
	Secondary	6(16.7)	30(83.3)
	College/University	11(100)	0
Number of pigs	<50	26(19.3)	109(80.7)	0.20
	50–100	1(100)	0

N=136, P-value with * were significant at 95% level.

Figure 2. Constraints to compliance with GAPs by pig farmers.