


































1  

 
Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. 

 

 

Full Length Research Paper 

Northern Ugandan Pig Farmers' Utilization of 
Labor 

Jendyose 
Islamic University in Uganda, Mbale, Uganda

 

  Accepted 8 December, 2024  

 

Pig (Susscrofa domesticus) production is becoming a more significant source of food security and 
revenue for smallholder farmers in several sub-Saharan nations. This is explained by the increased 
likelihood of market monitoring for pork, which is fueled by population expansion, urbanization, and the 
shift in diet toward a higher proportion of animal protein per person. Consequently, one of the practical 
methods to lift smallholder farmers out of poverty and food insecurity is to increase pig production. 
Few research have been conducted on the distribution of innovative behavior and the socioeconomic 
factors that affect labor use in the region, despite the fact that there are many studies on the aspects of 
pig production, such as feeding, breeding, and space requirements. Finding the socioeconomic factors 
that affect the distribution of innovative behavior and the use of labor (family or hired) among pig 
farmers in Northern Uganda was the aim of this study. We characterized smallholder pig farmers in 
northern Uganda based on the type of labor they employed to produce pigs using a cross-sectional 
survey and descriptive analysis. We also investigated how the four aspects of innovation behavior—
exploration, experimentation, adaptation, and modification—were distributed among these farmers. The 
findings showed that young, educated farmers who had numerous pigs, were part of a farmer group, 
had a smaller household size, and had non-farm jobs were more likely to use hired labor than those 
who did not. The proportion of farmers who displayed the various aspects of innovation behavior varied 
significantly. Therefore, the socioeconomic disparities among farmers that define the labor restrictions 
they experience should be taken into account when designing interventions to increase pig production 
through the use of hired labor. 

 
Key words: Innovation behaviour, Labour utilisation, Pig production. 

 

 
INTRODUCTION

The Worldwide, pigs (Susscrofa domesticus) play a significant 
role in the production of livestock. Since 2000, the production 
of pork in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has more than tripled; 
Uganda produces 12% of the region's pig meat from over three 
million pigs per year (HarvestChoice, 2015). According to 
Tatwangire (2014) and Ndyomugyenyi and Kyasimire (2015), 
the central area has the highest concentration of pig rearing 
households (56%), followed by the western (30.1%), eastern 
(28.8%), and northern regions (14.2%).  
Pig production is increasing, which makes other agricultural 
sub-sectors more competitive for important production 
resources. Pig farmers must therefore continually decide how 
much money, land, and labor to devote to each business in 
order to meet the household's overall goal of having enough 
money and food security. The most crucial production factor for 
pig farming households, aside from land, is labor, which places 
limitations on management and production when it is scarce 

(Bedemo et al., 2013). In order to develop methods to boost the 
production of pork and other pig products, it is crucial to 
comprehend the labor allocation decisions made by farmers in the 
pig sub-sector. These treatments also call for innovation behavior, 
a crucial facilitator that enables farmers to maximize profits by 
optimizing combinations of agricultural inputs.  
The degree to which farmers, subject to social, economic, 
technological, and environmental restrictions, investigate, test, or 
modify a novel concept or technique, or enhance an established 
practice, is known as innovation behavior (Schiederig et al., 2011; 
Liao, 2017). Its four dimensions are as follows: (i) exploration of 
new practices, which is the search for innovations and technology; 
(ii) experimentation of new practices, which is the tendency to test 
new technology and notice subtle changes; (iii) adaptation of new 
practices, which is the process of acclimating new tools, practices, 
and technologies to local conditions, resource endowments, and 
individual and community preferences; and (iv) modification of 

 
 

 

 

African Journal of Pig Farming ISSN: 2375-0731 Vol. 12 (1), pp. 001-006, December 2024. Available online at 

www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 
 

http://www.internationalscholarsjournals.org/


2  

existing practices, which is the enhancement of existing 
practices (Popadiuk and Vidal, 2009; Tambo and Wünscher, 
2014; Bragdon and Smith, 2015).  
According to Èandek-Potokar et al. (2017), farmer innovation is 
a game changer in the efforts to commercialize smallholder pig 
farming. The development of labor-saving pig production 
technologies, such as indigenous microorganisms (IMO) 
technology, which lowers the amount of labor needed to 
process and dispose of pig manure, is another way that 
innovation can lower labor demand. Farmers must experiment 
with novel pig rearing techniques, adapt them, and/or change 
current ones in order to innovate.  
To what degree pig farmers experiment, research, adopt new 
pig rearing techniques, or alter current ones is unknown, 
though. Although it is well known that a large number of 
smallholder farmers produce pigs primarily using family labor 
(Ciaian et al., 2012), little research has been done on the 
socioeconomic determinants that make them more likely to 
employ hired or family labor. Therefore, the goal of this study 
was to identify the socioeconomic factors that affect the 
distribution of the dimensions of innovation behavior among pig 
farmers in Northern Uganda, as well as the utilization of various 
forms of labor (hired or family). 

 
MATERIALS AND METHODS 
 
Study area 

 
Between October and November 2018, this study was carried 
out in the northern Ugandan districts of Gulu and Omoro. The 
districts are 600–1,200 meters above sea level and are located 
between latitudes 32.4467° and 32.4920° E and longitudes 
2.7152° and 2.8186° N. The majority of homes in the area only 
retain six to twenty pigs, making smallholder pig farming the 
predominant practice. 60% of the labor is done by women, and 
64% of the households raise native pig breeds, which are 
mostly handled through tethering (Ikwap et al., 2014). The 
study was carried out in the Paicho Sub-County in Aswa 
County in Gulu, and in the Koro Sub-County in Torchi County 
in Omoro region. 

 
   Research design and sampling 
 

Data from smallholder pig farmers were gathered for the 
study using a cross-sectional design. Because it is a one-

time study strategy, the design was selected because it is 

economical with regard to both time and money (Levin, 

2006).  
To choose study participants, a multi-stage sampling 

procedure was used. First, a purosive selection process 

was used to choose two districts, followed by one sub-
county per district. Due to reports of a profitable market 

and high turnover for pigs and pork in those administrative 

units, the sub-counties of Paicho (Gulu district) and Koro 
(Omoro district) were chosen (Ikwap et al., 2014).  

 

Through simple random sampling, three parishes were 

selected from each sub-county. In Paicho sub-county, 

Pagik, Kal-umu and Kal- ali parishes were selected; while 

in Koro sub- county, Pageya, Labwoch and Guna parishes 
were selected. A complete list of all pig rearing households 

in the selected parishes was obtained from the respective 
sub-county headquaters and used to select the study sample 

of 239 respndents; the number which was determined using 

Yamane’s formula (Yamane, 1967): 

 

 = 239 

........……………………………..Equation 1 Where: 

N = population, n = Sample size, e = Degree of confidence 

level at 95%. 

The 239 respondents were distributed between Paicho and Koro 
in portions of 143 and 96 pig farmers, respectively, based on pig 
farmers total populations per district. 

 

Data collection 

 
A semi-structured questionnaire that had been pre-tested was 

used to gather primary data. Pre-testing was conducted on ten 
pig farmers in the Unyama sub-county, which was not one of 

the sub-counties to be investigated despite being close to the 

study area and having a comparable number of pig farmers. 
Following pretesting, questions that were consistently 

answered and understood by respondents were kept; 

questions that the researcher thought were crucial but had 
previously been left out were added. Repetitive and/or 

unnecessary questions were eliminated. In several instances, 

questions were rearranged to guarantee logical sequence. The 

local dialect, Acholi, was used to give the questionnaires, but 
English was used to record the answers. Face-to-face 

interviews with pig farmers conducted at their houses were 

used to get the data. By building a relationship with the 
respondents, we were able to clarify any unclear responses 

and ensure that all questionnaire items were answered.  

The survey included both closed-ended and Likert scale 

questions, asking respondents to score different items to make 
sure the questions were clear enough for them to answer. 

There were three sections to the questionnaire. Routine 

sociodemographic data (Table 1) and the type of labor 
employed in the pig enterprise were recorded in Part 1. The 

variables included the number of casual and permanent 

laborers hired annually, the use of family labor in the pig 

enterprise (1 = yes, 0 = no), and the hiring of labor for the pig 
enterprise (1 = yes, 0 = no).  

Data on pig production, marketing, and access to institutions 

and institutional services were collected in the second section 
of the survey. Farming experience (years), current pig stock 

(number of pigs), distance to the closest market, access to 

extension services (1 = yes, 0 = no), and credit availability (1 = 
yes, 0 = no) were the variables in this case.  

Data on farmer innovation behavior was gathered in part three 

and organized into four dimensions. A five-point Likert scale, 

with 0 denoting not at all, 1 seldom, 2 occasionally, 3 
frequently, and 4 always, was used to score each of the 12 

items used to gather data on innovation behavior (Sullivan and 

Artino, 2013). Since the used scale lacked a neutral point, the 
intensity of innovation was measured as it progressed from 

one end of a continuum to the other.  

(i) I am very interested in learning how to properly feed pigs; (ii) 



3  

I enjoy learning new ways to house pigs; and (iii) I like to 
take the chance of taking part in training on new methods of 

pig disease and parasite control were the items assessed 

on the Likert scale for investigation. The following were the 

items for experimentation: (i) I enjoy trying out new pig feed 
management techniques; (ii) I am typically the first of my 

classmates to try out new pig rearing techniques; and (iii) I 

enjoy trying out new methods for building pig housing 
structures. The following things were included in the 

adaptation dimension: (i) I modify new pig feeding 

techniques to accommodate my circumstances; (ii) I modify 
new pig housing practices to accommodate my 

circumstances; and (iii) I modify new parasite and disease 

control procedures to accommodate my farming 

circumstances. The final items for changing current pig 
rearing practices were: (i) I know exactly how to change 

current pig housing practices; (ii) It's simple to change 

current pig parasite and disease control practices; and (iii) I 
apply new information to change current pig feeding 

practices on the farm.  

 
Data analysis. Gender, household head age (years), 

farming experience (years), household size, non-farm 

employment, distance to the closest market (kilometers), 

and education (years) were the independent variables 
examined for their ability to predict the usage of family or 

hired labor by smallholder pig farmers. While means, 

standard deviations, and t-tests were used to analyze 
continuous variables, frequencies, percentages, and chi-

square tests were used to describe the categorical 

variables. 

For studying the distributions of the four dimensions of 

innovation behaviour, indices were computed from Likert scale 
data from their respective items using the Equation 2: 

To understand the level of exploration, experimentation, 

adaptation and modification in the study area, the farmers’ 

innovation behaviour with respect to these dimensions was 

classified into five groups; namely none, low, medium, high and 
very high based on each respondent’s exploration, 

experimentation, adaptation and modification index. No activity 

included farmers with a corresponding index of zero, 0.01-0.32 

for 

very high innovation behaviour with regards to the dimension of 

interest. The described classification was adapted with 
modifications from Tirfe (2014) and Chopeva et al. (2015) 

 
 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

 
Smallholder pig farmers' characteristics according to 
the kind of labor they employ 

 
In Age, household size, education level, group membership, 

number of pigs and off-farm employment significantly (P< 

0.05) influenced pigfarmers use of different types of 
labour (Table 1). 

Farmers who use both hired and family labour were 

significantly (P< 0.05) younger than their counterparts who use 
only family labour. This finding conforms to an earlier study in 

Nigeria by Echebiri and Mbanasor (2003), which reported that in 
Abia State, households who relied on only young people for 

provision of farm labour had less food production. This resulted 

from the fact that younger farmers were more likely than older 

farmers to engage in non-farm activities. Young farmers in the 
current study are more likely to contract labor for pig production 

because they devote a portion of their time to jobs that generate 

revenue other than farming. This finding suggests that younger 
smallholder pig farmers are more likely than their older 

counterparts to generate more job possibilities for their peers.  

The size of the household had a substantial (P<0.05) impact on 
how much family labor was used by pig producers. Large-family 

farmers typically relied entirely on their family members to provide 

the labor required, whereas small-family farmers employed 

outside help to raise pigs. This outcome is in line with research by 
Nmadu and Akinola (2015), who discovered that family size 

significantly influences the availability and use of farm labor 

among Nigerian crop producers. According to this finding, 
smallholder farmers value having wives and/or kids in order to 

secure this labor source. Therefore, households with larger family 

sizes have more labor available for pig production than 

households with smaller family sizes. However, the current study 
did not examine whether households made efficient use of the 

large number of workers provided by large families for the 

production of pigs.  

 

The utilization of family or hired labor was significantly impacted 

by education (P<0.01). Compared to farmers who just employed 
family labor, those who used both hired and family labor had 

substantially higher levels of education. Higher educated farmers 

are more likely to work outside the farm, according to reports 
(Alassaf et al., 2011).As a result, these farmers are less involved 

in agricultural operations and are more likely to use hired labor to 

produce pigs. This finding suggests that education improves a 

farmer's capability to absorb, understand, and apply information 
that is pertinent to judgments on farm labor.  

 

Group membership had a big impact on the kind of work that pig 

farmers did. While some employed both family and hired labor, 

the majority of farmers (41.00%) who were part of groups only 

used family labor. In Acholi, the term "aleya i poto" (meaning 
"labor round") referred to the practice of farmers working together 

in groups. By increasing labor availability, this farmer peer support 

practice within groups lowers the demand for and perhaps lowers 
the cost of hired labor. Therefore, among smallholder pig farmers 

in northern Uganda, being a member of a farmer group may 

improve the supply of labor and lower labor costs.  

 

The usage of the two forms of labor by pig farmers was also 

considerably impacted by off-farm employment. Only a small 
percentage of pig farmers with off-farm jobs (12.97%) employed 

only family labor; the majority (44.77%) used both hired and family 

labor. This is due to the fact that off-farm work provides pig 
farmers with extra cash that they can utilize to grow their pig 

production business, necessitating the hire of additional workers 

to augment family labor.  

 

The number of pigs, or the size of the pig herd, statistically 

affected how farmers used the various forms of labor. More labor 



4  

was needed by farmers who raised a large number of pigs to 
handle the different management tasks. As a result, they were 

more likely than individuals with little holdings to need hired 

labor. The ability of farmers to recruit and oversee additional 

labor to supplement family labor in specific situations should 
therefore be supported by interventions aimed at 

commercializing smallholder pig production.  

The type of labor employed by smallholder pig farmers did not 
change significantly according to gender, market distance, loan 

availability, pig rearing experience, or access to extension 

services.  

 

Distribution of the dimensions of innovation 

behaviour. 

 

Exploration, experimentation, and adaptation were all 

skewed to the left, but only changes to the current methods 

of pig rearing were distributed normally. All farmers 
demonstrated some degree of exploration, according to the 

results in Figure 1, and the majority of them (86.61%) 

scored extremely highly on this innovation behavior 

characteristic.  
 

The proportion of farmers who displayed the various 

aspects of innovative behavior varied significantly (Fig. 1). 

This indicates that neither mutual exclusion nor collective 
exhaustion existed in the distribution of innovation behavior 

aspects. This meant that a farmer could only explore and 

not try the other dimensions. However, a farmer does not 
have to investigate or test a method before changing an 

existing pig rearing practice. For agricultural researchers, 

extension agents, and policymakers, this finding has 

significant ramifications. Smallholder farmers may not 
always adopt and utilize new technologies and innovations 

more effectively just because they are available (Lemessa 

et al., 2018). As a result, implementing new agricultural 
technologies may need addressing other issues that restrict 

farmers' goals, like insufficient market connections and 

restricted financial availability. 

With a very high experimentation score, experimentation 

had a significantly lower number of farmers (47.28%) than 

exploration. Since exploration is merely observing or 
listening to what other people are doing or saying without 

necessarily taking the initiative to try out or change the 

same, the majority of farmers (86.61%) were found to be 

quite exploratory. This finding suggests that smallholder pig 
farmers may find it simpler to attend trainings and/or 

extension meetings than to put what they have learned into 

practice (Moschitz et al., 2015). As a result, in order to 
encourage farmers to try out new pig rearing techniques 

and to promote co-innovation and co-learning, innovators 

must actively involve farmers in technological development 

for the development of smallholder agribusinesses among 
pig farmers.  

 

In terms of adaptation and modification dimensions, the 

proportion of farmers who were inactive for these two 

aspects of innovative behavior increased (Fig. 1). This is 

due to the fact that these two aspects of innovation behavior 
necessitate a significant amount of labor to modify what is 

seen or heard to one's preference or to accommodate one's 
living and working circumstances (Wettasinha et al., 2014). 

This finding suggests that moving from one aspect of 

innovation behavior to the next takes work. The labor demand 

for the pig production business rises as a result of the effort 
required for a farmer to innovate by effectively progressing 

from exploration to testing and adaptation to modification. As a 

result, farmers with small family labor forces must also hire 
more workers. According to Ndambiri et al. (2012), this 

suggests that families with larger family labor forces or those 

with hired labor will probably exhibit more innovative behavior. 
As a result, initiatives to commercialize smallholder pig farming 

through innovative farmer behavior ought to increase farmers' 

ability to recruit and oversee more workers.  

 

CONCLUSION 

 
According to this study, young, educated farmers who have 

numerous pigs, a smaller household size, are part of a 
farmer organization, and work outside the farm are more 

likely to use hired labor than those who don't. The 

socioeconomic disparities among farmers, which have been 
shown to influence the labor limitations they encounter, 

should therefore be taken into account in programs aimed at 

increasing pig output through the use of hired labor. The 
proportion of farmers who displayed the various aspects of 

innovative behavior varied significantly. An expansion of this 

research will look at the variables that affect pig farmers' 

innovative behavior. 
 

 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

 
The authors are grateful to the Mastercard Foundation and 

Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in 

Agriculture (RUFORUM) for funding research and 
publication cost through the Transforming African 

Agricultural Universities to meaningfully contribute to Africa’s 

growth and development (TAGDev) Program. 

 
REFERENCES 

 

Alassaf, A., Majdalwai, M. and Nawash, O. 2011. Factors 
affecting farmer’s decision to continue farm activity in 
marginal areas of Jordan. African Journal of Agricultural 

Research 6(12): 2755–2760. doi: 10.5897/ AJAR11.481. 

Bedemo, A., Getnet, K. and Kassa, B. 2013. Determinants of 
household demand for and supply of farm labour in rural 
Ethiopia. Australian Journal of Labour Economics 16(3):351–

367. 
Bragdon, S. H. and Smith, C. 2015. Small- scale farmer 

innovation. Quaker United Nations Office. Geneva: Available 

at: https://quno.org/resource/2015/12/small-scale- 

farmer-innovation. 

Chopeva, M. A., Nikolov, D. and Yovchevska,P. 2015. 

Farmers ’ adaptation: What factors affecting agricultural 
innovations? Proceedings of the 147th European 
Association of Agricultural Economists (EAAE) Seminar. 

Institute of Agricultural Economics, Sofia, Bulgaria. 1:1–13. 

Ciaian, P., Falkowski, J. and Kancs, D. 2012. Access to credit, 



5  

factor allocation and farm productivity: Evidence from the 
CEE transition economies. Agricultural Finance Review 

72(1):22–47. doi: 10.1108/0002146 1211222114. 

Èandek-Potokar, M., Nieto, R., Pugliese, C., Araujo, J. P., 

Charneca, R., Garcia Casco, J. M., Sanchez, G. E., 
Hernandez-Garcia, F. I., Izquierdo, M., Karolyi. D. and Kušec. 

G. 2017. Local pig breeds: Nutritional requirements, 

innovative practices and local feeding resources as 
challenges in project- TREASURE. Agriculturae Conspectus 
Scientificus 82(2):127–131. 

Echebiri, R. N. and Mbanasor, J. A. 2003. Rural age 

distribution and farm labour supply in crop production 
systems in Abia State, Nigeria. Tropical and Subtropical 

Agroecosystems 2(1):129–136. 

HarvestChoice. 2015. Pig population (head, 2005). 
International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, 

DC and University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, USA. http:// 

harv estchoice.org/data/an05_pig.  (Accessed: 5 

August 2018). 

Ikwap, K., Jacobson, M., Lundeheim, N., Owiny, D.O., 

Nasinyama, G. W., Fellstrom, C. and Erume, J. 2014. 

Characterization of pig production in Gulu and Soroti 
districts in northern and eastern Uganda. Livestock 

Research for Rural Development 26(4):62–79. 

Lemessa, S.D., Watabaji, M.D. and Yismaw, M.A. 2018. 

Climate change adaptation strategies in response to food 
insecurity: The paradox of improved potato varieties 
adoption in eastern Ethiopia. Agriculture & Food Security 

1(1):1–11. 
Levin, K.A. 2006. Study design III: Cross- sectional studies. 
Evidence based dentistry 7(1):24–25. doi: 

10.1038/sj.ebd.6400375. 

Liao, Y. 2017. Innovation capacity and the implementation 

of eco-innovation: Toward a contingency perspective. 

Business Strategy and the Environment 19(63):1–32. 

doi: 10.1002/bse.1963. 
Moschitz, H. Brunori, G., Roep, D. and Tisenkopfs, T. 

2015. Learning and innovation networks for 
sustainable agriculture: Processes of co-evolution, joint 
reflection and facilitation. Journal of Agricultural Education 

and Extension 1(1):1–16. 

Ndambiri, H. K., Ritho, C. N. and Mbogoh, S. G. 2012. An 

evaluation of farmers’ perceptions and adaptation to the 
effect of climate change in Kenya. International Journal 

of Food and Agricultural Economics 1(1):75–96. 

Ndyomugyenyi, E. K. and Kyasimire, J. 2015. Pig 

production in Kichwamba Sub-county, Rubirizi district, 
Uganda. Livestock Research for Rural Development 

27(10): 1–14. 

Nmadu, J.N. and Akinola, A. 2015. Farm labour supply and 

utilization for food crop production in Nigeria. 
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on 

Education and Social Sciences (INTCESS15). 

Instanbul. 1:331–320. 

Popadiuk, S. and Vidal, P. G. 2009. Measuring knowledge 

exploitation and exploration: An empirical application in a 
technological development center in Brazil. Proceedings of 

the XXXIII Encontro da ANPAD. Sao Paulo. 1:1–16. 

Schiederig, T., Tietze, F. and Herstatt, C. 2011. What is 

green innovation? – A quantitative literature review. 

Proceedings of he XXII ISPIM Conference. Available at: 

http:// ssrn.com/abstract=1846882. 

Sullivan, G.M. and Artino, A.R. 2013. Analyzing and 
interpreting data from Likert- Type scales. Journal of Graduate 

Medical Education 5(4):541–542. doi: 10.4300/ jgme-5-

4-18. 
Tambo, J.A. and Wünscher, T. 2014. More than adopters: The 

welfare impacts of farmer innovation in rural Ghana. 
Proceedings of the Agricultural & Applied Economics 
Association’s Annual Meeting 2014. Minneapolis. 

Tatwangire, A. 2014. Uganda smallholder pigs value chain 

development: Situation analysis and trends. Nairobi, Kenya: 
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). 

Tirfe, A.G. 2014. Smallholder farmers’ innovation and its 

determinants: The case  of Hirity Mekan Seed Producers’ 
Cooperative , Tigray, Ethiopia. Developing Country Studies 

4(21):104–115. 

Wettasinha, C. Waters-Bayer, A., van Veldhuizen, L., 

Quiroga, G. and Swaans, K. 2014. Study on impacts of 

farmer-led research supported by civil society 
organizations. CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic 
Agricultural Systems. Penang, Malaysia. Working Paper: 

AAS- 2014-40. 

Yamane, T. 1967. Statistics, an introductory analysis, 2nd ed. 
New York: Harper and Row. 886pp. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



6  

 

 
Figure 1. Levels of the dimensions of innovation 

behaviour among smallholder pig farmers in northern 

Uganda. 

 


	INTRODUCTION
	ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

