Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary outcomes at the milk collection center level include:
1. local sales - previous research found that milk collection centers are also important for local milk supply, often doubling as milk shops. Does the intervention crowd out the local market?
2. reason for selling to buyer (in particular if the buyer pays premium for quality, but also payment modalities)
3. Impact pathway: did MCC measure quality of aggregated milk before selling? In particular butter fat and SNF using a lactoscan? What equipment was used?
4. Who decided on the price? buyer made offer and MCC accepted, MCC made offer and buyer accepted, negotiation — use likert scale slider to get an idea of power balance.
5. Did the buyer pay a quality premium? What was it based on? What is the quality premium?
6. Does the MCC pay a quality premium to suppliers? What was it based on? What is the quality premium?
7. Does market for quality lead to additional investment in quality preservation - milk cans, etc
8. Does the development of a market for quality lead to more formalization (eg written contracts) between farmer and MCC? Between MCC and processor?
9. Changes in mid-stream service provision: Does the MCC provide services related to artificial insemination? Transport? Access to acaracides? Training on milk sanitation? Training on feeding practices?
10. Information on lactoscan use (for ITT-TOT analysis).
Secondary outcomes at the farmer level include:
1. Home consumption of dairy products (liters, in what form, and who consumes diary products) - test if the development of a market for quality milk crowds out animal sourced food intake within the family.
2. Reason for selling to buyer (in particular pays premium for quality, payment modalities,...)
3. Test if intervention leads to quality based market segmentation (with less rejection and more instances of lowering of price when farmer supplies substandard milk)
4. Does the buyer pay for higher quality milk.
5. Buyer checks for quality during last transaction (lactoscan, lactometer, alcohol test).
6. Number of dairy animals (improved/local) - does a market for quality lead to technology adoption for intensification? Is this stronger for the subgroup of farmers that receives the training video, where we explicitly mention that genetics also affect quality parameters?
7. Feed and pasture management - a more detailed analysis than the composite primary outcome 2 at the farmer level. This includes changes in grazing system (paddocking, free range, mixed or zero grazing) and use of different dairy feed types (hay, silage, improved forages, commercial feeds like (brewers) bran, salt and mineral blocks, multivitamin). We will differentiate between practices in the rainy season and the dry season.
8. Price of dairy animals (improved/local) - test if the development of a market for quality has an impact on the price of animals.
9. Gendered decision making outcomes - test if the development of a market for milk impacts who within the household makes the decisions to sell to a particular buyer.
10. Does the development of a market for quality lead to more formalization and less relational contracting?
11. Does the intervention also increases milk sanitation (use of milk cans)?
12. Does the intervention leads to changes in bargaining power? farmer made offer and MCC accepted, MCC made offer and farmer accepted, negotiation — use likert scale slider to get an idea of power balance.
13. Gendered labour outcomes (milking, marketing, feeding and herding or cleaning )
14. Does the intervention affect home processing? Does this have gendered effects?