 |
| Figure 1. Most important reasons considered prior to keeping dairy cattle in UPA |
| Livestock Research for Rural Development 27 (2) 2015 | Guide for preparation of papers | LRRD Newsletter | Citation of this paper |
This study used the mindset theory comprising two broad phases: pre-decisional or deliberative and post-decisional or implemental goals to investigate the urban and peri-urban (UPA) dairy cattle keepers’ mindset in three districts of Morogoro, Tanga and Temeke in Tanzania. Later the mindset and force field analysis theories were used to compare their resemblance with the empirical data. Specifically, this study assessed the reasons, benefits and drawbacks that UPA dairy cattle keepers in the three districts considered necessary for keeping dairy cattle.
The study found that producing own milk to feed families was the first most important reason that respondents considered prior to keeping dairy cattle in UPA followed by selling milk to other urban dwellers. Similarly, the most important reasons were to improve family nutrition, and to improve animal welfare. Important reported drawbacks to keeping dairy cattle were the fewness of farmer training centres and lack of forage. In UPA, most respondents denied taking loans from the banks to finance their activities because of the high interest rates charged. Majority of the respondents reported that they would use money earned from dairy cattle activities to start farms in the rural areas. It is recommendations that urban authorities, NGOs, CBOs and other interested parties should provide education to UPA dairy cattle keepers using the mindset theory and force field analysis on decision making and ways for improving the activities. Also, authorities should carry out dairy cattle technical efficiency studies to determine the number of dairy cattle units to keep in the four density areas (low-, medium-, high-, peri-urban).
Keywords: benefits, dairy cattle, goals, mindset theory, paradigm
In decision theory and general system theory, a mindset is a set of assumptions, methods or notations. These are held by one or more people or groups of people which is so established that it creates a powerful incentive within these people or groups to continue to adopt or accept prior behaviours, choices, or tools. This phenomenon of cognitive bias is also sometimes described as mental inertia, or a “groupthink”, or a “paradigm”, and it is often difficult to counteract its effects upon analysis and decision making process (Gollwitzer 1990). Dweck (2006) proposes that everyone has either a fixed mindset or a growth mindset. A fixed mindset is one in which you view your talent and abilities as fixed, and here you try to go through life avoiding challenge and failure. A growth mindset, on the other hand, is one in which you see yourself as fluid, a work in progress for which your fate is one of growth and opportunity.
For example, individuals are more likely to fulfill some goals if they imagine when and where they will implement these behaviours, called implementation intention (Gollwitzer 1990; Gollwitzer et al 2004; Fujita 2008). The mindset theory comprises two broad phases: pre-decisional or deliberative and post-decisional or implemental. In the first phase individuals need to decide which goal or set of goals to pursue. Their main objective is to choose the optimal goal and, therefore, they consider the benefits and drawbacks of each option openly. In the second phase, individuals must initiate an action to realize the goal they selected. The main objective is to remain committed to the goal. Hence, they often consider the benefits of the chosen goal, neglecting contradictory information. Further, Dweck (2013) writes that “people with a growth mindset believe that resilience; hard work, effort and determination contribute to towards success and achievement”. It is this context that this study adopted the mindset theory.
Tanzania is endowed with abundant natural resources, which include land, forage and a large livestock resource base. Out of the total 88.6 million hectares of land resource, 60 million hectares are rangelands suitable for livestock grazing, able to carry up to 20 million Livestock Units. However, due to tsetse infestation and other constraints, only 40% of the rangelands are utilized for grazing 18.5 million cattle; 13.1 million goats and 3.6 million sheep. Other major livestock species kept in the country include 1.2 million pigs and 53 million poultry (http://www.tanzania.go.tz/livestock.html, visited on 15.11.2013). More than 90% of the livestock population in the country is of indigenous types, kept in the traditional sector, having a characteristically low productivity yet well adapted to the existing harsh environment including resistance to diseases. Livestock is among the major agricultural sub-sectors in Tanzania. Out of the 4.9 million agricultural households, about 36% are keeping livestock (35% are engaged in both crop and livestock production, while 1% are purely livestock keepers), which accounted for 5.9 percent to total GDP in 2006 (http://www.tanzania.go.tz/livestock.html, visited on 15.11.2013). Almost 90% of all the pure bred or crossed dairy cattle found in the country are kept in UPA.
Milk production also increased from 555 million to 1.38 billion litres, between 1995–2005 (http://www.tanzania.go.tz/livestock.html). Of this amount the traditional sector contributed about 70 percent. In Tanzania, milk production is mainly from cattle, and of the 18.8 million cattle found in the country about 560,000 are dairy cattle which consist of Friesian, Jersey, Ayrshire breeds and their crosses to the East African Zebu. The rest are indigenous cattle raised as dual purpose animals that are for milk and meat production. About 70% of the annually produced milk comes from traditional sector (indigenous cows), whereas the commercial sector (dairy cows) produce about 30%. The latter group of cattle was the concern of this study.
The main objective of this study was to investigate mindset of UPA dairy cattle keepers in Morogoro, Tanga and Temeke Districts, Tanzania.
Morogoro region is located between latitude 50 58” and 100 0”S and 350 30” E. Morogoro municipality is located between latitude 50 58” and 100 0”S and 350 30” E. ambient temperature ranges between 180 C and 300 C. The annual rainfall ranges between 600 mm to 1200 mm (URT 1997). Morogoro urban has one division but 29 wards. In 2002, the human population of Morogoro urban was 227,921 (13%) out of the 1,753,362 regional population, and of that 206,868 (90.8%) lived in typical urban areas (URT, 2007, p.14). For example, urban areas of Morogoro in 1996 had a cattle population of 2,618 in 1996 (URT 1997), which increased to 4,170 in 2006 (URT 2007). In 2002, of the 762,952 labour force, Morogoro urban had 24,821(3.3%) classified as farmers and 889 (0.1%) as livestock keepers (ibid, p. 27). In Morogoro, 101 respondents were sampled randomly from 12 wards (six urban, six peri-urban), and each milked an average of two cows producing an average of five litres per day. The low numbers of cows per person in Morogoro UPA is attributed partly to rampant theft, and low milk yield is to poor and inadequate feeding.
Further, in Morogoro, of the 1,510 smallholder dairy cattle keepers in the randomly selected wards, 101 (7%) respondents were sampled randomly and each kept an average of three cows and got an average of 15 litres of milk per day. Most of the milk that smallholders produced was sold to individuals, institutions, and hotels at Tshs 1,000 (US$ 0.62) per litre. Most, 96 (95%) respondents indicated to earning a monthly income ranging from Tshs 500,001 (US$ 311) to 700,000 (US$ 436), while their about half earned from Tshs. 300,000 (US$ 187) to 500,000 (US$ 311) from formal employment, hence a need to supplement incomes.
Tanga region is located in the northeastern side of Tanzania mainland lying between 40 and 60 south of the Equator, and between longitudes 370 and 390 east of Greenwich (www.tanzania.go.tz/regions/TANGA.pdf). Tanga District has four divisions in which there are 24 wards with 60 mitaa (streets) with 92 hamlets. Of the 242,640 total human population of Tanga district in 2002, 168,648 (69.5%) of them lived in typical urban areas (ibid, p 17). In 2002, of the total 86,368 people in Tanga city, few 854 (1%) and 20,233 (23.4%) were classified as livestock keepers and crop farmers, respectively (ibid, p 27). In 2006, Tanga region had 32,558 improved dairy cattle of which Tanga city had 5,600 (1.7%) owned by 1,450 (10.6%) individual smallholders out of the 13,677 in the region (ibid, p. 46). Yet, in 2010, Tanga region had 43,800 cattle of which 19,900 were beef, 15,500 indigenous and 8,400 improved dairy cattle, which were kept by 1,450 individual smallholders (Tanga DALDO 2010).
In Tanga, of the 544 smallholder dairy cattle keepers, 108 (19.9%) of the respondents were sampled randomly and each kept an average of two cows and got an average of ten litres of milk per day. Most milk from smallholders was sold to Tanga Dairy Cooperative Union which sold to Tanga Fresh at Tshs 498 (US$ 0.31) per litre. In Tanga, Tanga Fresh milk processing plant sold a litre of milk for Tshs 1,400 (US$ 0.88), which was a source of complaint among many smallholder keepers. A litre of unprocessed milk in streets was sold for Tshs 1,000 (US$ 0.62), making uncalled for complaint of Tshs 400 (US$ 0.15). Unlike the other two study areas, keeping of dairy cattle in Tanga is a business because of the presence of the Tanga Fresh milk processing plant. Most of the respondents sampled for the study were those who sold their milk to milk societies located in peri-urban areas of Tanga municipality. The milk hence sold was collected, cooled and eventually sent to the Tanga Fresh Dairy Processing Company. The milk societies included Uviwapi, Uwata, Uwambo, Uwapoma, Kange, Uwabu, Neema, Uviwapi, and Uwamabo. These societies were found in peri-urban areas along the roads of Tanga to Mheza, Tanga to Horohoro, and Tanga to Pangani.
Temeke is a district in Dar es Salaam region located 6.90 south and 390 east and is the southernmost of the three districts in Dar es Salaam of which to the east is the Indian Ocean and to the South and West is the Coastal region of Tanzania (Temeke District-wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temeke_District). As per 2002 census, Temeke human population was 768,451 people. Temeke has 24 wards. The Dar es Salaam city cattle census carried out in 1989 found that of the 7,896 dairy cattle in the urban wards, 2,165 (%) were raised in Temeke alone (Mlozi 2004). In UPA, “urban rapid population growth and demand for animal protein has provided a boost to urban and peri-urban farming” (Foeken et al 2004, Simons et al 2004). The agriculture and livestock sector contribute significantly to municipal economy as about 13% of the population is engaged in agriculture and livestock production (http://www.tmc.go.tz/agriculture.pdf). In 2012, Temeke urban and peri-urban areas had 4,144 improved dairy cattle and 5,706 indigenous cattle which supplied 30 to 50 percent of the municipal milk (p.4). At the time of the study, the municipality had about 2,006 smallholder dairy cattle keepers who kept 2,800 dairy cattle that produced 3,670,980 litres of milk per ten months of lactating period (DALDO, Temeke Municipal Council, 2013). This study randomnly sampled 12 wards (six urban, six peri-urban).
Further, in Temeke, of the 450 smallholder dairy cattle keepers in the randomly selected wards, 108 (24%) respondents were randomly selected and kept a mean of three dairy cattle. Of the 108 respondents, 90 (83%) indicated to earning a monthly income in the range of Tshs 300,000 (US$ 187) to 500,000 (US$ 311) from formal employment. The other ten respondents indicated earning in the range of Tshs. 500,001 (US$ 311) to 700,000 (US$ 436). Similarly, 60 and 39 of the respondents reported that they earned same monthly ranges of incomes from selling milk and eggs, respectively. A litre of unprocessed milk was sold to individuals, institutions, and hotels ranging from Tshs. 1,500 (US$ 0.9) to 2,000 (US$ 1.2) per litre. Doing business is also a common source of income to some individuals who kept dairy cattle in urban areas. Of the 108 respondents, few, six, 12 and 15 mentioned that they earned monthly incomes ranging from Tshs. 300,000 (US$ 187) to 500,000 (US$ 311), 1.1 (US$ 622) to 1.3 million (US$ 809), and 1.5 (US$ 933) to 1.7 million (US$ 1,058), respectively.
This study involved 317 respondents, which was conducted from May to November in 2010 involving 12 urban and 24 peri-urban wards in the three study districts of Morogoro, Temeke, and Tanga, using a cross-sectional survey design. This design was assumed to lead to a better understanding of UPA dairy cattle keepers’ mindset in the study areas. The study population consisted of UPA farmers keeping livestock in the three districts. Purposive selection was employed to get districts and wards with the most dairy cattle in UPA. In each ward a list of mtaa with the most dairy cattle in UPA was drawn from a roster kept in the ward executive offices. Aided by the field livestock extension staff, in each ward a list of livestock keepers (population) that drawn. Further, in each mtaa individuals with the most dairy cattle in UPA were listed and using a Table of Random Numbers was randomly selected. This procedure produced 54 respondents in urban and the other 54 from the peri-urban areas distributed equally by gender. This was to produce 108 household heads per district. To account for drop outs of household heads during the survey, a 10% of the calculated sample size was added to get an approximate sample of 317 respondents that was used in the study. This was to ensure equal representation of the respondents in the study.
The tools used for data collection was a semi-structured questionnaire, while other tools included focus group discussions, desk reviews, transects walks, and observation. The questionnaire was prepared to elicit information from the respondents and triangulation of information was achieved through personal observation, transact walks. In addition, secondary information was collected from various sources to elucidate a big part of this article. The heads of the households were interviewed using a structured questionnaire alternated between males and females respondents to maintain a gender balance. Information sought included (1) respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics; (2) reasons considered prior to keeping dairy cattle; (3) goals considered when keeping dairy cattle; (4) compelling reasons for keeping dairy cattle; (5) drawbacks of keeping dairy cattle; (6) loans taken for dairy cattle keeping and their sources; (7) reasons preventing keepers to take loans; and (8) future plans as a result of keeping dairy cattle. The collected data was coded, entered into the computer and analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 16 that produced descriptive statistics, which are used in explaining the studied phenomena.
Of the 317 respondents, 154 (48.6%) were males, while 163 (51.4%) were females. Of all the respondents, two thirds, 111 (35%) indicated to had completed secondary education at Form IV, while a third, 102 (32%) reported to had completed primary education. Few respondents, four (1.3%) mentioned to had completed primary education, and few having completed two year college education (14%), and others university education (4%). A small number (11%) of the respondents had no formal education. Of the 317 respondents, 225 (71%) reported to being married. In terms of occupation, the study found that over half, 168 (53%) of the respondents indicated to being self-employed, while 64 (20%) were formally employed. However, there was a significant proportion of the respondents, 71 (22%) indicating that they were uncertain of their occupations, while 13 (4%) reported to being retired.
Respondents’ household sizes varied greatly. Of the 317 respondents, 141 (45%) reported that their household sizes for females ranged from 3 to 6 persons per household; while for males, 183 (58%) indicated so. The study found that 84 (27%) of the respondents reported having a household range of 7 to 10 male persons, while it was mentioned by 25 (7.9%) for female persons. Of all the respondents, over half, 184 (58%) reported having a range of 3 to 6 children attending schools in their households. Small proportions, 49 (15%) and 62 (20%) mentioned to having a range of 1 to 2 and 7 to 8 of children attending schools in their households, respectively.
Of the 64 respondents who were formally employed, 26 (40%) of them indicated that they earned monthly incomes ranging from Tshs. 300,000 (US$ 187) to 500,000 (US$ 311), while a small proportion of seven (12%) earned in a range of Tshs. 500,001 (US$ 311) to 700,000 (US$ 436). The rest in small proportions indicated to earning from Tshs. 700,001 (US$ 436) up to over Tshs. 2.5 million (US$ 1,556). Dairy cattle in UPA are kept mainly to earn money from milk sales (see Mlozi, 1997; 2004). Unfortunately, most of the respondents, 258 (82%) could not provide their monthly earnings from milk sales, and only few, 40 (13%) indicated to earning from Tshs. 200,000 (US$ 125) to 500,000 (US$ 311). However, few 16 (5%) indicated to earning from Tshs. 500,001 (US$ 311) to 700,000 (US$ 436).
Reasons that respondents mentioned prior to keeping dairy cattle were mostly drawn from the environment in which they lived. On one hand, the reasons acted as observable reinforcements, while on the other they were perceived of as advantages to be derived from keeping dairy cattle in UPA. Of the 31 reasons that the 317 respondents were asked, they only agreed to eight (25%) of them as reasons that compelled them to start keeping dairy cattle in UPA (Figure 1). Most, 201 (97.5%) of the respondents agreed that producing milk to feed their families was the first most important reason they considered prior to keeping dairy cattle in UPA. The second most important reason agreed by about two thirds of the respondents, 191 (60.9%) was to get milk to sell to urban dwellers.
|
| Figure 1. Most important reasons considered prior to keeping dairy cattle in UPA |
Further, of the 317 respondents, 165 (52.2%) agreed that selling milk to neighbours was another reason they considered prior to keeping dairy cattle. Similarly, 152 (48.6%) of the respondents agreed that another important mindset reason considered prior to keeping cattle was the opportunity it provided for selling heifers to other cattle keepers. Still other respondents, 141 (45%) indicated that they considered the unlikelihood of cattle getting sick from ecto-parasites. Yet 140 (44.7%) of the respondents mentioned that they considered the presence and availability of cheap youth labour, who serve as “cowboys” – people who look after cattle in UPA. Further, of the 317 respondents, 130 (41.5%) reported that they prior considered the selling of animal manure to urban dwellers cultivating amaranths in UPA (Figure 1). The least important reason among the eight was that of selling bullocks to urban butchers, which was prior considered by 100 (32%) of the respondents.
These goals are also referred to as the post-decisional or implementation intentions of an individual for undertaking the dairy cattle keeping enterprise. Of the 31 goals that the respondents were asked, only nine (29%) of them were agreed as post-decisional goals to keeping dairy cattle in UPA (Figure 2). Of the 317 respondents, over half, 167 (53.4%) agreed that to improve family nutrition was the most important goal that compelled them to keep dairy cattle. Similarly, 167 (52.2%) of the respondents agreed that they kept dairy cattle in UPA to improve animal welfare. The goal of improving animal welfare was being able to do things such as buying animal medications (acaricides, antibiotics, supplements), building animal sheds, establishing pastures, and buying heifers. Yet 161 (51.5%) of the respondents agreed that they kept dairy cattle in UPA to improve their family welfare (Figure 2). Improving family welfare was meant to be able to buy things such as family clothes, pay for medical bills, save money, buy maize flour, vegetables (onions, tomatoes, okra, amaranths), beef, and fruits (mangoes, banana, oranges, pineapples).
 |
|
Figure 2. Important goals considered when keeping dairy cattle in UPA. IFN= Improve family nutrition; IAW=Improve animal welfare; IFW=Improve family welfare; HEL=Hire extra labour; PCF=Pay for children’s school fees; BTR= Buy transport (bicycle, cart); BFRA= Buy a farm in rural area; EPAS= Establish pasture/buy hay; BHOS= Buy house building items. |
Less than half of the 317 respondents, 154 (49.3%) agreed that they kept dairy cattle in UPA to be being to hire extra labour (Figure 2). This labour was for herding cattle ‘cow boys’, milking, gathering forage, cleaning shed, and selling milk. Yet 143 (47.8%) of the respondents agreed that they kept dairy cattle in UPA to be able to pay for children’s school fees in the various educational institutions (nursery, primary, secondary, college/universities). Over one third of the respondents, 124 (39.8%) agreed that they kept dairy cattle in UPA to be able to buy transport (cart, motorcycle, bicycle), and to afford to buy a farm in the rural areas, respectively (Figure 2). The other less considered reason agreed by about one third of the respondents, 117 (37.4%) was that of establishing pasture or buying hay. And 113 (36.2%) of the respondents agreed that another less important aim of keeping dairy cattle was to buy house building items such as cement, bricks, timber, corrugated iron sheets, and house paint.
Respondents were asked to ponder reasons that compelled them to continue keeping dairy cattle in UPA. Of the 317 respondents, most, 246 (77.6%) indicated that they were compelled to keep dairy cattle in UPA because they had more free time (Table 1). Also, 244 (77.0%) of the respondents reported that they were compelled to keep dairy cattle because their neighbours liked them as they lent money to them. Yet others, 224 (70.7%) said that they kept dairy cattle because they earned more than from salaries received from formal employment. Yet two thirds, 209 (65.9%) of them reported that they kept cattle because they got food and money for their families. Moreover, half of the respondents, 174(54.9%) reported that they were compelled to keep dairy cattle in UPA because they enjoyed being involved in the activities than being vagabonds.
Less than half of the 317 respondents, 154 (49.3%) agreed that they kept dairy cattle in UPA to be being to hire extra labour (Figure 2). This labour was for herding cattle ‘cow boys’, milking, gathering forage, cleaning shed, and selling milk. Yet 143 (47.8%) of the respondents agreed that they kept dairy cattle in UPA to be able to pay for children’s school fees in the various educational institutions (nursery, primary, secondary, college/universities). Over one third of the respondents, 124 (39.8%) agreed that they kept dairy cattle in UPA to be able to buy transport (cart, motorcycle, bicycle), and to afford to buy a farm in the rural areas, respectively (Figure 2). The other less considered reason agreed by about one third of the respondents, 117 (37.4%) was that of establishing pasture or buying hay. And 113 (36.2%) of the respondents agreed that another less important aim of keeping dairy cattle was to buy house building items such as cement, bricks, timber, corrugated iron sheets, and house paint.
Respondents were asked to ponder reasons that compelled them to continue keeping dairy cattle in UPA. Of the 317 respondents, most, 246 (77.6%) indicated that they were compelled to keep dairy cattle in UPA because they had more free time (Table 1). Also, 244 (77.0%) of the respondents reported that they were compelled to keep dairy cattle because their neighbours liked them as they lent money to them. Yet others, 224 (70.7%) said that they kept dairy cattle because they earned more than from salaries received from formal employment. Yet two thirds, 209 (65.9%) of them reported that they kept cattle because they got food and money for their families. Moreover, half of the respondents, 174(54.9%) reported that they were compelled to keep dairy cattle in UPA because they enjoyed being involved in the activities than being vagabonds.
| Table 1. Reasons compelling dwellers to keep dairy cattle in UPA (N=317). | ||
| Variable | Frequency | Percent |
| Have more free time | 246 | 77.6 |
| Neighbours like me because I lent money to them | 244 | 77.0 |
| Earned more than when formally-employed | 224 | 70.7 |
| Get food and money for the family | 209 | 65.9 |
| Enjoy keeping cattle than being unemployed | 174 | 54.9 |
In the process of implementing any planned enterprise or project, there are unforeseen drawbacks which individuals have to endure to continue achieving their set objectives. The severity of a given drawback can render an individual to drop further implementation of a given enterprise or project. In this study, most of the respondents agreed that they did not face serious drawbacks in implementing their urban dairy keeping enterprises. Of the 53 drawbacks that the respondents were asked, only 11 (20.8%) of them were agreed by an average of 122 (38.4%) of the 317 respondents as drawbacks to keeping dairy cattle in UPA. Further, individual drawbacks for each aspect are discussed in Figure 3 below.
Slightly above half, 171 (54.1%) of the respondents agreed that availability of few farmer training centres acted as the most important drawback to keeping dairy cattle in UPA. Yet less than half, 157 (49.6%) of the respondents agreed that lack of forage posed as another important drawback to keeping dairy cattle (Figure 3). This is a serious problem in UPA leading to under feeding cattle and their poor genetic performances. Observation in Morogoro, Tanga and Temeke Districts showed that over 80 percent of the dairy cattle were zero-grazed. Most dairy cattle keepers employed ‘cow boys’ who were given bicycles and after every two days (if kept four cattle) went out to gather and ferry loads of forage from far away distances about ten kilometers. In Tanga, the distances were found to be twenty kilometers away. Other vehicles used to ferry forage were carts, pick-ups, saloon cars, and lorries of various tonnages.
 |
| Figure 3. Important drawbacks for keeping dairy cattle in UPA. Key: FFTC=Few farmer training centres; LF=Less forage; NCGH=No centres to buy heifers; TOA= Theft of animals; CCO=Cattle cause oduor; FEA=Few extension agents; FSSI=Few shops selling inputs; CBD= Cause biophysical damage; FV= Few veterinarians; DDE=Dung damage the environment; CCSD=Cattle cause social disturbance. |
Further, of the 317 respondents, 148 (46.7%) agreed that another equally important drawback was the lack of centres from which they could buy quality heifers. Further, 144 (45.4%) of the respondents agreed that theft of live animals was another drawback of keeping dairy cattle in the UPA (Figure 3). Observation revealed that to deter thieves from stealing animals most keepers keep fierce dogs in addition to employing night guards, erecting live and dead fences such as building walls to keep away thieves. However, such efforts have generally proved futile in deterring voracious and determined thieves.
Houses in urban centres are built mostly in three density areas: low-, medium-, and high-, hence environmental amenity is an issue that dwellers have to consider seriously. Of the 317 respondents, 131 (41.3%) agreed that another drawback to keeping dairy cattle was the complaints from neighbours that their animals produced slurry and oduor which disturbed nighbours. Yet, less than half, 129 (40.6%) agreed that another drawback to keeping dairy cattle was the fewness of livestock extension agents from whom they could get information and knowledge about improved ways of keeping dairy cattle. Similar to this drawback concerned the fewness of animal input shops, which was agreed by 125 (39.4%) of the respondents (Figure 3). Respondents indicated that from these shops they could easily buy animal formulations, vaccines, mineral bricks, and medications (acaricides, antibiotics).
Of the 317 respondents, few, 116 (36.5%) agreed that another drawback to keeping dairy cattle in UPA was the complaints from neighbours that their cattle caused biophysical damage of the environment. Observation in Morogoro, Tanga and Temeke Districts showed that in households that kept dairy cattle there were serious damage of fauna and the environment, especially if the animals were left to graze outside. Also, there was cow dung disposed off to rot along fences, compounds. This produced odour which was offensive to other urban dwellers. Connected to this was the fewness of veterinarians to treat the dairy cattle, which agreed by 145 (36.2%) of the respondents. Respondents indicated that if these individuals were in their reach they could have provided knowledge and skills about improved ways of keeping dairy cattle.
In Tanzanian urban areas, there has been unresolved discourse about a total ban of keeping dairy cattle. However, this has not succeeded because of the socio-economic-, cultural-and political landscape of the country. In 1992, the keeping of dairy cattle in urban areas was legalized by enacting the colonial moribund urban bylaws, which are also barely enforced. One of the reasons for instituting a total ban of this activity is its undeterred environmental damage that dairy cattle activities can cause in the urban areas. For example, of the 317 respondents, 107 (33.9%) agreed that the least drawbacks to keeping dairy cattle in urban areas was the complaints from neighbours of stench that these animals produced. Similarly, 107 (33.9%) of the respondents agreed that another least important drawback was the complaints that that their cattle caused social disturbances (Figure 3). These included making noises, producing dust, stench from the slurry, destroying gardens, and scaring the sick, children and old people.
Of the 317 respondents most of them, 261 (82.3%) denied that they took loans from financial institutions for keeping livestock in UPA. For the few, 56 (17.7%) who indicated to taking loans their sources varied. Of those who took loans, few, 13 (4.1%) mentioned to taking from the Bangladesh Rural Advancement Community—a money lending NGO operating in urban centres. Yet few, seven (2.2%) and five (1.8%) reported that they goat loans from the Commercial Rural Development Bank PLC and from Exim Bank, respectively. Still other four (1.3%) respondents indicated to taking loans from The National Bank of Commerce. The implication of this data is that commercial banks do not favour to give loans to UPA cattle keepers as most do not have collaterals. Observation indicated that most of the cattle keepers in UPA preferred to take loans from the Village Community Banks, and informal sources such as friends, neighbours and individuals. For example, the cattle keepers did not like to take loans from the Danish-operated Private Agricultural Support Services financial lending NGO headquartered in Morogoro municipality because of its stringent lending requirements. Of the nine reasons that the respondents indicated as preventing them to taking loans, only two were mentioned significantly. Of the 317 respondents, over half, 175 (55.2%) reported that they were prevented from taking loans from the bank because of too high interest rates. Similarly, about half, 171 (53.9%) of the respondents reported that most banks did not like to lend money to dwellers keeping dairy cattle in UPA.
The respondents were asked if they could think of future plans to embark on resulting from the income they earned from keeping dairy cattle in UPA. Out of the ten asked future plans only three were indicated by over fifty percent of the respondents. For example, of the 317 respondents, most, 239 (75.4%) reported that they would use money earned from dairy cattle activities to start farms in the rural areas. Yet, 193 (60.9%) of them mentioned that they would use money earned from these activities to start business, while others said that they would borrow additional money and start farms in the rural areas.
It is an arguable truth that many people in Tanzania will in the future continue to migrate to the cities in the hope of finding some kind of regular employment with a monthly salary or wage. However, as time goes on majority find their dreams not fulfilled and being forced to start informal activities one of which is keeping livestock in UPA. Also, some urban dwellers from all ranks of households engage themselves in income-generating activities as sources of livelihood of which livestock keeping features prominently. This is the case in most African towns and cities of which urban authorities tolerate with bitterness. For example, Mlozi (2004) study of 191 urban and agriculturalists in Dar es Salaam says all. He found that reasons that forced urban dwellers to continue keeping livestock in urban areas resided at four levels: government; ministry of agriculture; town council; and individual. At the government level the study found that the most important reasons forcing dwellers to keep livestock were poor national economy (84.2%), and policy on poverty alleviation (70%), policy to produce own food (66.9%). At the ministerial level there were none answered by fifty percent and above of the respondents. At the town council level the most important reasons were presence of markets (88.8%), and presence of infrastructure (53.7%). Yet at the individual level the study found that the most important reasons were to produce own food (79.7%) and to earn money (78.5%).
In smaller cities the reasons are almost similar. An important question that Foeken et al (2004) study in Mbeya and Morogoro towns grappled with was “why do urban dwellers raise livestock”? The provision of food (80.6%) and the generation of income (76.3%) were mentioned by almost nine out of every ten respondents out of the 350 respondents. In Harare, Zimbabwe, Mbiba’s (1995) study too found that waste water from keeping cattle was a benefit as it could be used in irrigating pastures for their livestock. In Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Egziabher (1994) reported that the main low-income households’ incentive to cultivate and keep livestock in urban areas was the need to feed their families and the expectation of improved returns in the absence of better paying jobs. Similar findings were found in Kampala, Uganda by Maxwell and Zziwa (1992), in Nairobi, Kenya by Lee-Smith and Memon (1994) and Freeman (1991), in Dar es Salaam by Sawio (1993), Mlozi (1997) in Lusaka, Zambia by Sanyal (1984), in Dakar, Senegal by Mougeot (1994). Certainly, these activities are done because of certain forces or reasons, of which this study set forth to unravel. Further conceptualization is provided by comparing the study results with the two theories: mindset and Kurt Lewin force field analysis.
The central question here is how we can theoretically conceptualize mindsets of urban dwellers’ motives for keeping dairy cattle in UPA. As noted earlier the mindset theory explains it well, which has two broad phases: pre-decisional or deliberative and post-decisional or implemental. In the first phase individuals need to decide which goal or set of goals to pursue. Similarly, Kurt Lewin’s (1943) theory of force field analysis says that before change the force field is in equilibrium between forces favourable to change and those resisting it. Lewin spoke about the existence of a quasi-stationary social equilibrium, the driving forces for change and the restraining forces to change—all which have been observed in this study (Figure 4).
 |
| Figure 4. Kurt Lewin’s force field analysis. |
An issue is held in balance by the interaction of two opposing sets of forces - those seeking to promote change (driving forces) and those attempting to maintain the status quo (restraining forces)" (Lewin 1943). The force field analysis consists of two forces: driving and restraining. In a way Lewin’s theory is similar to the mindset theory which was used to explain the UPA dwellers’ mindset for keeping dairy cattle in UPA in the three towns in Tanzania.
So before change the force field is in equilibrium between forces favourable to change and those resisting it. Lewin spoke about the existence of a quasi-stationary social equilibrium. For the mind set theory these would be the reasons that dairy cattle keepers considered prior to keeping dairy cattle. For change to happen the status quo, or equilibrium must be upset – either by adding conditions favourable to the change or by reducing resisting forces. For this study, dairy cattle keepers considered certain goals, which are referred to as post-decisional or implementation intentions. According to the mindset theory, the reasons acted as observable reinforcements, while on the other they were perceived of as advantages to be derived from keeping dairy cattle in UPA.
What Lewin proposes is that whenever driving forces are stronger than restraining forces, the status quo or equilibrium will change (Figure 4). Now that is useful especially if we apply this to understanding how dairy cattle keepers in UPA move through change and why they cannot stop keeping cattle. There will always be driving forces that make change attractive to UPA dwellers and restraining forces that work to keep things as they are. Successful change is achieved by either strengthening the driving forces what is called the benefits in this study or weakening the restraining forces or the drawback for keeping dairy cattle in UPA.
| Table 2. Empirical comparisons of mindset theory attributes with Kurt Lewin’s force field analysis. | ||
| Mindset theory | What the respondents said | Kurt Lewin |
| Pre-decisional or deliberative phase |
Reasons considered prior to keeping cattle Get milk to feed family; Sell milk to earn money Sell milk to neighbours; Sell heifers to others There are few ecto-parasites; Use cheap youth labour; Sell manure to vegetable growers; Sell bullocks to butchers. |
Driving forces |
| Post-decisional or implemental phase |
Reasons considered when keeping cattle Improve family nutrition; Improve animal welfare Improve family welfare; Hire extra labour Pay for children’s school fees; Buy transport (bicycle, cart); Buy a farm in rural area; Establish pasture/buy hay; Buy house building items. |
Present state or desired state |
|
Drawbacks to keeping cattle Few farmer training centres; There is less forage; No centres for buying heifers; Theft of animals; Cattle slurry produce orduor; Few livestock extension agents; Few shops for selling animal inputs; Cattle cause biophysical damage; There are few veterinarians; Cattle dung damage the environment; Cattle cause social disturbance. |
Restraining forces. | |
| Perceived as ‘Post-decisional or implemental phase’ |
Compelling reasons to continue keeping cattle Has more free time; Neighbours like me because I lend money to them; Earn more money than when formally-employed; Get food and money for the family; Enjoy keeping cattle than being unemployed. |
Perceived as ‘Present state or desired state’ |
|
Future plans as result of keeping cattle Buy a farm in rural areasStart a business Borrow money and buy a farm in rural areas. |
||
The force field analysis integrates with Lewin’s three stage theory of change as you work towards unfreezing the existing equilibrium, moving towards the desired change, and then freezing the change at the new level so that a new equilibrium exists that resists further change (Table 2). Table 2 attempts to compare the five sets of reasons that the respondents gave and where do they fit in the two theories. The mindset theory and Lewin (1943) appear to fit well with two sets of the respondents’ results: the pre-decisional or deliberate phase and the driving forces. These are the reasons that the respondents considered prior to keeping dairy cattle fit well.
Further, for the post-decisional or implemental phase known as the reasons that cattle keepers considered when keeping dairy cattle fit well. For Lewin, these are called the ‘present state or desired state’. Unfortunately, the mindset theory does not talk anything about the drawbacks to keeping dairy cattle in UPA: issues that Lewin calls the ‘restraining forces’ (Table 2). The two theories agree that the compelling reasons to continue keeping dairy cattle in UPA fit well in post-decisional or implemental phase for the mindset theory, and in the present state or desired state for the Lewin theory. Both theories do not give any concepts for the “future plans” as a result of keeping cattle in UPA.
One obvious thing is that the keeping of dairy cattle in UPA will continue in towns and cities continue because of the keepers’ predecisional or deliberative forces or driving forces that they endure. The keeping of dairy cattle in UPA is not for a luxury but for a succinct necessity. And, UPA farmers are not nincompoops for what they are doing but similar to “the rocket scientists” in the USA. Hence, three recommendations are plausible. First, urban authorities, NGOs, CBOs and other interested parties should provide education to UPA dwellers using the mindset theory and force field analysis on decision making and improved ways of keeping dairy cattle. Second, urban authorities should carry out dairy cattle technical efficiency studies in their areas to determine the number of dairy cattle units to keep in the four density areas (low-, medium-, high-, peri-urban). Third, through the Tanzanian “Kilimo Kwanza” vision local government authorities should see that financial institutions lend money to urban dwellers keeping dairy cattle that adhere to modern ways of dairy cattle husbandry that cause minimum environmental damage, hence “the carrot and stick approach”.
This study was carried under the project “Opportunities and Challenges in peri-urban livestock farming in Tanzania” under the collaboration of Sokoine University of Agriculture (Tanzania) and University of Copenhagen (Denmark). The authors cordially thank the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark through the Danish International Development Agency (DANIDA) for financial support. Foremost, we acknowledge the cooperation from the dairy cattle keepers, livestock extension officers, district livestock development officers in the study areas. Also, we thank the support from the three regional, district commissioners, and district executive directors of Morogoro, Temeke and Tanga.
Dweck C S 2006 Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House. New York. 288pp
Foeken D, Sofer M and Mlozi M 2004 Urban agriculture in Tanzania: Issues of sustainability. African Studies Centre. Ipskamp, Enshede, 195pp
Freeman D B 1991 A city of farmers: informal urban agriculture in the open spaces of Nairobi, Kenya. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal, QC, Canada
Fujita K 2008 Seeing the forest beyond the trees: Construal level approach to self-control. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, volume 2, pages 1475-1496
Gollwitzer P M, Fujita K and Oettingen G 2004 Planning and the implementation of goals. In Baumeister R and Vohs K (Eds) Handbook of self-regulation research, theory, and applications, Guilford: New York 211-228pp
Lee-Smith D and Memon P A 1994 Urban agriculture in Kenya. In Egziabher A G, Lee-Smith D, Maxwell D G, Memon P A, Mougeot L J A and Sawio C J Cities Feeding People: An Examination of Urna Agriculture in East Africa. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada 67-84pp
Lewin K 1943 Defining the “Field at a Given Time” Psychological Review, volume 50, pages 292-310. Republished in Resolving Social Conflicts & Field Theory in Social Science, Washington, D.C. American Psychological Association, 1197
Maxwell D G and Zziwa S 1992 Urban agriculture in Africa: The case of Kampala, Uganda. African Centre for Technology Studies, Nairobi, Kenya
Mbiba B 1995 Urban agriculture in Zimbabwe: Implications for Urban Management and Poverty. Aldershot: Avery, 220pp
(MALD) Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development 1988 Statistical Abstract of the Livestock Census 1984, Dar es Salaam: In: Mlozi M R S 1997 Urban agriculture:Ethnicity, cattle raising and some environmental implications in the city of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. African Studies Review, volume 40, number 3, pages 1-28
Mlozi M R S 1997 Urban agriculture: Ethnicity, cattle raising and some environmental implications in the city of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. African Studies Review, volume 40, number 3, pages 1-28
Mlozi M R S 2004 Urban agriculture in Tanzania. Its role toward income poverty alleviation and reasons for its persistence. Uniswa Research Journal, volume 7, number 1, pages 58-69
Mougeot L J A 1994 African city farming from a world perspective. In Egziabher A G, Lee-Smith D, Maxwell D G, Memon P A, Mougeot L J A and Sawio C J Cities Feeding People: An Examination of Urban Agriculture in East Africa. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada pages 1-24
P A Mougeot L J A and Sawio C J 1994 Cities Feeding People: An Examination of Urban Agriculture in East Africa. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada, pages 25-46
Puca R M 2001 Preferred difficulty and subjective probability in different action phase. Motivation and emotion, volume 25, pages 307-326
Sanyal B 1984 Urban agriculture: A strategy of survival in Zambia. University of California at Los Angeles, CA, USA, PhD dissertation
Sawio C J 1994 Cities Feeding People: An Examination of Urban Agriculture in East Africa. Who are the Farmers in Dar es Salaam? In Egziabher A G, Lee-Smith D, Maxwell D G, Memon
Simon D, McGregor D, and Nsiah-Gyabaah K 2004 The changing urban-rural interface of African cities: definitional issues and application to Kumasi, Ghana. Environment and Urbanization, volume 16, pages 235-247. Retrived November 15, 2013 from http/:eau.sagepub.com/content/16/2/235.full.pdf+html
Taylor S and Gollwitzer P M 1995 Effects of mindset on positive illusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, volume 69, pages 213-226
Temeke District 2013 Retrieved November 26, from wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temeke_District)
Temeke Municipal Council 2013 Retrieved November 26, from http://www.tmc.go.tz/agriculture.pdf. page 1
(URT) United Republic of Tanzania 2013 Livestock and dairy industry development in tanzania. Retrieved November 10, 2013 from http\\:www.mifugo.go.tz.documents.storage,.
(URT) United Republic of Tanzania 2008 Tanga Region Socio-economic Profile, Page 4. Retrieved November 26, from www.tanzania.go.tz/regions/TANGA.pdf.
(URT) United Republic of Tanzania 2007 Morogoro Region Socio-economic Profile, page 46 Retrieved October 14, 2013 from www.tanzania.go.tz/regions/MOROGORO.pdf.
(URT) United Republic of Tanzania 1997 Morogoro Region Socio-economic Profile, page 67 Retrieved November 20, 2013 from www.tzonline.org/pdf/Morogoro.pdf.
Received 11 February 2014; Accepted 23 January 2015; Published 4 February 2015