Premier Quality Kenya Dairy Business Plan — Appendix D: Risk Register
Detailed risk register scoring likelihood and impact across herd health, market, financial and operational risks with mitigations.
Appendix D: Risk Register
Jump to section
- Overview & contents
- i. Important Notice and Basis of Preparation
- 1. Executive Summary
- 2. Market and Opportunity
- 3. Why the Fodder Block Is the Business
- 4. The Production Model
- 5. SWOT and Competitive Position
- 6. Housing, Water and Equipment
- 7. Regulatory and Compliance Framework
- 8. Management and Organisation
- 9. Financial Plan
- 10. Break-Even and Debt Service
- 11. Investment Analysis
- 12. Sensitivity and Scenario Analysis
- 13. Risk Analysis
- 14. Implementation Roadmap
- 15. Key Performance Indicators
- 16. Key Assumptions
- 17. Conclusion and Recommendation
- A. Appendix A: Consolidated Financial Summary
- B. Appendix B: Capital and Herd Schedules
- C. Appendix C: Funding and Debt Schedules
- D. Appendix D: Risk Register
- E. Appendix E: Glossary
|
Risk |
Assessment |
Mitigation and residual position |
|---|---|---|
|
Feed cost inflation |
High likelihood, high impact |
The fodder block is the primary mitigation. Silage bunkers provide a dry season buffer. Cooperative feed mills, such as the Meru facility supplying members below market price, offer a further route where membership allows |
|
Milk price decline |
Moderate likelihood, high impact |
Supply agreement with a cooperative or processor; quality investment to capture quality-based premiums; breeding stock revenue diversifies away from pure milk exposure |
|
Disease outbreak |
Moderate likelihood, severe impact |
Routine vaccination against foot and mouth and lumpy skin disease, strict biosecurity, quarantine of incoming animals, veterinary retainer, and livestock insurance where available |
|
Drought and forage failure |
High likelihood over a five-year period |
Conserved silage for at least four months, drought-tolerant Napier varieties, borehole irrigation of the fodder block, and a standing arrangement with a hay supplier |
|
Yield underperformance |
Moderate likelihood, high impact |
Individual milk recording, monthly herd review, body condition scoring, and a culling discipline applied on evidence rather than sentiment |
|
Debt service tightness in Years 3 and 4 |
High likelihood |
Three-year principal grace, promoter support undertaking, and a documented trigger to defer Year 4 heifer purchases if coverage falls below 1.2 times |
|
Breeding stock market softening |
Moderate likelihood, moderate impact |
Heifer sales are approximately 20% of Year 5 revenue. If the market softens, surplus heifers are retained to grow the milking herd instead — a slower but not fatal outcome |
|
Key person dependence |
Moderate likelihood |
A trained herd manager in addition to the promoter, written standard operating procedures for milking and feeding, and cross-trained staff |
D.1 Pre-committed trigger points
|
Point |
Trigger |
Committed response |
|---|---|---|
|
First lactation |
Average yield below 15 litres a cow a day |
Independent nutritional and veterinary review before the Year 2 heifer purchase. Do not expand the herd until the cause is identified |
|
End of Year 1 |
Feed above 70% of milk revenue |
Re-cut the ration and audit the fodder block yield. The ratio must be below 60% for the enterprise to work |
|
End of Year 2 |
Silage bunker below four months of cover entering the dry season |
Buy hay forward immediately. A forage gap in a zero-grazing unit is a yield collapse, not an inconvenience |
|
Any year |
Debt service cover below 1.20 times |
Defer the following year’s heifer purchase and approach the lender before the covenant is tested, not after |
|
End of Year 3 |
EBITDA below break-even |
Approach the lender for a restructuring before the grace period expires |
|
Any year |
Self-grown forage below 50% of requirement |
Halt herd expansion. Below 35% the enterprise makes no money at any scale in this plan |