| Livestock Research for Rural Development 28 (7) 2016 | Guide for preparation of papers | LRRD Newsletter | Citation of this paper |
The main aim of the study was to determine the constraints and opportunities among cattle producers in the rural areas of Omulonga constituency in Ohangwena region in North Central Namibia. The primary livelihood activities in the area are mainly rain-fed arable agriculture, livestock ranching and the harvesting of natural resources. A survey was conducted in the constituency on purposively selected livestock farmers. Only farmers who own livestock were selected for the survey of which 50 farmers were interviewed using a structured questionnaire.
The main marketing constraining factors found in the area of study were location of marketing facilities and infrastructure which were located very far from the farmers, lack of marketing information, as well as the presence of the veterinary cordon fence that is viewed as limiting access to marketing livestock country wide. The study concluded that production and marketing of livestock in Omulonga, in Ohangwena region is constrained by several factors such as small herd size, diseases, poor extension services, poor grazing, high mortality rates, inadequate market information as well as inadequate provision of marketing infrastructure such as marketing pens, inadequate dipping services and the cultural practices which determines reasons for keeping livestock.
Keywords: formal market, informal market, livestock farmers, offtake
Namibia is a semi-arid country, well-endowed with natural pastures and is suited for extensive livestock ranching, comprising 37% of the land area (IECN 2011). The country is ideal for cattle rearing and its nature based beef products have long been preferred favourable world-wide especially in European Union countries, Norway and South Africa. Historically, livestock from the commercial farming sector has dominated agricultural production in Namibia and this largely still holds true (Kruger and Lammerts-Imbuwa 2008). Whilst more than 70% of the country’s population depend on agriculture for their livelihood, the sector only contributed approximately 3.7% to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP); and of these 2.2% is from livestock sector (NSA 2014).
Together cattle, goats, sheep and pigs contribute 76% of the national agricultural output value, whereas 6% comes from communal areas (NDP4 2012). The value of cattle production is annually estimated at N$900 million, of this approximately N$400 million is being contributed by live weaner exports to South Africa (Meat Board of Namibia 2007). Namibia has a total of 2.9 million cattle, of these 1.6 million are found in the northern communal areas (NCAs) and 1.3 million in the areas south of the Veterinary Cordon Fence (VCF) or redline which constitutes the World Organization for Animal Health recognized Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Free zone status. The Ohangwena region has about 240000 cattle (Meat Board of Namibia 2012).
Moreover, cattle farming continued to be a tradition within Namibia’s rural system. Recently the Ministry of Agriculture Water and Forestry (MAWF 2011) identifies cattle farming as an agricultural enterprise with potential to improve household food security, generate income and address poverty among especially poor rural communities. Cattle farming are very important for resource-poor people living in rural areas as it provides milk, meat, hides, horns and income to meet family financial needs such as school fees and other household expenses as well as source of employment, collateral and insurance against natural calamities, dung for manure and draught power for cultivation of crops and transport of goods (Musemwa et al 2008). In rural communities livestock farming is perceived as a symbol of wealth, social status, prestige and a safeguard against crop failure especially during drought or flood seasons. Socio-cultural functions of cattle include the use of cattle as bride price and to settle disputes (as fine) in communal areas (Chimonyo et al 1999). Cattle are also reserved for special ceremonial gatherings such as weddings, funerals and circumcision (Musemwa et al 2008).
In sub-Saharan Africa livestock production especially cattle in communal areas is constrained by a variety of factors that lead to low productivity. These include shortages of good quality livestock feed during the dry season, high incidences of diseases and mortality rates, unavailability of or access to healthy water (Mutibvu et al 2012). Water points are sometimes limited and large numbers of animals use the same points leading to high chances of spreading diseases and land degradation. Other factors include the failure of government services to provide veterinary health services, poor housing, low soil fertility for forage production and weak market chains for livestock and livestock products (Mutibvu et al 2012). Kapimbi and Teweldemedhin (2012) also added extreme climate conditions such as floods and droughts and manmade factors such as livestock theft and careless starting of fires.
According to Nkosi and Kirsten (1993) the apparent reason for selling cattle amongst farmers in developing countries is emergency sales. This is so because cattle sales emerge from economic circumstances that compel owners to sell in order to obtain sufficient money to purchase pressing needs (Nkosi and Kirsten 1993). Cattle producers in the NCAs have an option to sell their cattle to the formal (mainly to the government-owned parastatal MeatCo) or informal market (indigenous market) (De Bruyn et al 2001; Kruger and Lammerts-Imbuwa 2008). Formal marketing channel includes selling at abattoirs and auctions while informal marketing includes selling to small butcheries, fellow farmers, individual speculators and individual private sales. The decision to sell in the informal market, formal market or combinations depends on the transaction costs incurred during the sale of animal (De Bruyn et al 2001). Notably, the participation in the marketing system has more to do with the number of cattle owned (Hangara et al 2012; Enkono et al 2013). For cattle producers in the NCAs to qualify to market their cattle to formal market e.g. MeatCo, it is a prerequisite that their cattle have to be kept in quarantine camps for diseases, mainly Foot and mouth disease (FMB) and Contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP) or lung sickness inspection for a period of 21 days before slaughtering and their meat products enters the south of VCF in Namibia or the South African market.
Moreover, cattle in NCAs have to travel long distances to central market or quarantine without fodder and water and lose condition, causing the farmers to receive low prices (Kirsten 2002; Kapimbi and Teweldemedhin 2012). Makhura (2001) argues that poor condition of livestock also results in farmers getting low farm gate prices especially during dry conditions (drought years). In addition, inadequate market information flows and high transaction costs among market operators are hampering cattle marketing. The age of animals is also important as farmers tend to sell older animals and equally contributes to poor prices (Nkosi and Kirsten 1993). Cattle farmers prefer selling older cattle because the younger ones (females) are used for breeding purposes. Due to lower livestock prices in rural areas, farmers more often, refuse to sell their cattle to formal markets.
Kapimbi and Teweldemedhin (2012) contend that the biggest challenge to livestock farmers in the communal areas is lack of capacity building in binding to the buyers’ quality criteria and understanding of the marketing system in general. Animal health issues are barriers to trade in livestock and their products, whilst specific diseases decrease production and increase morbidity and mortality (Düvel and Stephanus 2000). Furthermore, farmers often have inadequate or no insurance coverage on livestock (Smith 2002). The estimated average off-take rate in the NCAs is only 7%, compared to 25% in the regions south of the VCF (MCA Namibia 2013). It is not clear what the total off-take of cattle is through other means like auctions and informal “bush” markets. Notably, most farmers in the NCA especially in Ohangwena region are still marketing their cattle through informal instead of formal markets. There is a need, however, to promote informal market participation in order to increasingly recognize the efforts of bringing about agricultural change in Namibia as traditionally farmers sell cattle when they need money (Shiimi et al 2010). The main aim of this study is to determine key marketing constraints and opportunities among cattle producers in the rural area of Ohangwena region of north central Namibia. The study will also identify and analyse the key factors restricting rural cattle owners to use formal marketing channels.
This study was conducted in Ohangwena region, Omulonga constituency in Onamugolo and Ombwalamumbwenge villages of north central Namibia. According to the 2011 Population and Housing Census report the population of Namibia is 2.1 million of these 245446 people are found in Ohangwena region (NSA 2011). The annual mean temperature is 22.7ºC with mean maximum of 33.7ºC in summer and mean minimum 8.7ºC in winter (DEA 2002). The mean annual rainfall in the region varies from 480 mm in the west to 600 mm in the east (IECN 2011). The soils are generally poor, low in nutrients and often saline, these combined with a semi–arid climate, make crop growing difficult. The primary livelihood activities are mixture of (1) rain-fed arable agriculture (main crop grown pearl millet and smaller quantity of maize, cowpea, sorghum and melons), (2) livestock ranching (mainly cattle, goats, sheep and donkeys) and the harvesting of natural resources (i.e. fuel wood, thatch grass, construction materials and wild fruits).
Both primary and secondary sources of data were used for the study. The primary data were collected through a face to face interview of the head of the household using a semi-structured questionnaire. The questionnaire captured information on household demographics, livestock numbers, number of livestock sold, income generated, marketing channels used, challenges faced in production and marketing of livestock, as well as suggested solutions to the challenges faced among others.
A total of 50 cattle owners were interviewed during the study using a purposeful sampling method. This identifies cases of interest from people who know people that are information-rich, that is, good examples for study and good interview subjects (Patton 1990 cited by Milagrosa 2007:39). Although the purposive sampling method has some disadvantages such as being highly prone to researcher bias and the sample may not represent the entire population this method was deemed appropriate given the remoteness of the study area and the lack of a farmer database system for the study units.
Moreover, key informants in-depth interviews were conducted in order to obtain expert opinion including traditional leaders, extension officials, marketing agencies, cattle buyers and researchers. Secondary sources both published and unpublished information were also reviewed such as scientific journal articles, books, newspapers articles and reports. Data were analysed using the Statistical Package for social sciences (SPSS) version 21. Descriptive statistics were generated including frequencies, cross tabulations, means and standard deviations.
The gender of the household heads were 74% male and 26% female of which 70% were married, 20% widowed while 10% were single. Furthermore, 62% of the household heads had primary education, 26% had secondary education, 8% had tertiary education while 4% had no formal educational background. The major employment activities of the heads of households were farming (88%), the remainder were either a teacher/education officer (10%) or police officer (2%) (Table 1).
|
Table 1. Socio-demographic information under various markets used |
|||||
|
Variable |
Cattle Market used |
Total |
|||
|
Butcheries |
Private sales |
Speculators |
|||
|
Demographic information |
|||||
|
Gender |
Male |
0 (0) |
22 (44) |
0 (0) |
22 (44) |
|
Female |
1 (2) |
24 (48) |
3 (6) |
28 (56) |
|
|
Marital Status |
Married |
1 (2) |
33 (66) |
1 (2) |
35 (70) |
|
single |
0 (0) |
4 (8) |
1 (2) |
5 (10) |
|
|
widower |
0 (0) |
9 (18) |
1 (2) |
10 (20) |
|
|
Education level |
None |
0 (0) |
2 (4) |
0 (0) |
2 (4) |
|
Primary |
1 (2) |
29 (58) |
1 (2) |
31 (62) |
|
|
Secondary |
0 (0) |
12 (24) |
1 (2) |
13 (26) |
|
|
tertiary |
0 (0) |
3 (6) |
1 (2) |
4 (8) |
|
|
Farming experience |
Up to 10 years |
0 (0) |
6 (12) |
1 (2) |
7 (14) |
|
11-20 years |
0 (0) |
10 (20) |
0 (0) |
10 (20) |
|
|
21-30 years |
1 (2) |
12 (24) |
0 (0) |
13 (26) |
|
|
31-40 years |
0 (0) |
8 (16) |
1 (2) |
9 (18) |
|
|
41-50 years |
0 (0) |
7 (14) |
1 (2) |
8 (16) |
|
|
51+ |
0 (0) |
3 (6) |
0 (0) |
3 (6) |
|
|
Years in cattle production |
1 |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
|
2 |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
|
|
3 |
0 (0) |
3 (6) |
1 (2) |
4 (8) |
|
|
4 |
1 (2) |
41 (82) |
2 (4) |
44 (88) |
|
|
Occupation |
Farmer |
1 (2) |
41 (82) |
2 (4) |
44 (88) |
|
Teacher/education officer |
0 (0) |
4 (8) |
1 (2) |
5 (10) |
|
|
Police officer |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
|
|
Note: Number in brackets show percentage (%) |
|||||
Majority of the farmers owned between 11-20 cattle (56%), followed by 1-10 (18%), 21-30 (16%) while farmers with more than 31 cattle accounted for 10%. The mean number of cattle owned was 17 (15.6 standard deviation (s.d)). The farmers were involved in cattle production for about 4 years (0.56 s.d). The mean number of cattle sold were 5.3 (5.5 s.d) of which 72% sold 1-5 cattle 18% sold 6-10 cattle 4% sold 11-15 while 6% of the farmers sold more than 15 cattle. .
Moreover, the sources of the cattle owned were bought (50%), 26% were given, 22% inherited while 2% had other sources. The farmers kept cattle for traditional reasons (78%), consumption (18%) and income (4%). The main breeds kept were Nguni (60%), Sanga (12%) and mixed Nguni and Sanga (28%) (Table 2). The average number of cattle owned per farmer is 17 while average sales are 3.5 cattle per farmer per year.
|
Table 2. Cattle ownership information |
|||||
|
Variable |
Cattle Market used |
Total |
|||
|
Butcheries |
Private sales |
Speculators |
|||
|
Cattle information |
|||||
|
Cattle numbers |
1-10 |
0 (0) |
8 (16) |
1 (2) |
9 (18) |
|
11-20 |
1 (2) |
26 (52) |
1 (2) |
28 (56) |
|
|
21-30 |
0 (0) |
7 (14) |
1 (2) |
8 (16) |
|
|
31-40 |
0 (0) |
2 (4) |
0 (0) |
2 (4) |
|
|
41+ |
0 (0) |
3 (6) |
0 (0) |
3 (6) |
|
|
Cattle numbers |
1-5 |
0 (0) |
34 (68) |
2 (4) |
36 (72) |
|
6-10 |
1 (2) |
7 (14) |
1 (2) |
9 (18) |
|
|
11-15 |
0 (0) |
2 (4) |
0 (0) |
2 (4) |
|
|
16-20 |
0 (0) |
2 (4) |
0 (0) |
2 (4) |
|
|
21+ |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
|
|
Source of cattle |
Bought |
1 (2) |
23 (46) |
1 (2) |
25 (50) |
|
Given |
0 (0) |
13 (26) |
0 (0) |
13 (26) |
|
|
Inherited |
0 (0) |
9 (18) |
2 (4) |
11 (22) |
|
|
Other |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
|
|
Reason for |
Consumption |
0 (0) |
9 (18) |
0 (0) |
9 (18) |
|
Income |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
1 (2) |
2 (4) |
|
|
Traditional |
1 (2) |
36 (72) |
2 (4) |
39 (78) |
|
|
Breeds used |
Nguni |
0 (0) |
28 (56) |
2 (4) |
30 (60) |
|
Sanga |
1 (2) |
5 (10) |
0 (0) |
6 (12) |
|
|
Both |
0 (0) |
13 (26) |
1 (2) |
14 (28) |
|
|
Note: Number in brackets show percentage (%) |
|||||
The majority of farmers sold their cattle through private sales (92%), followed by through speculators (6%) and butcheries (2%). However, 84% of these farmers preferred to sale their cattle through private sales, 10% to butcheries, 4% through auctions and only 1% through abattoirs. The reasons for the choice of the marketing channel were given as easy channel to use (70%), minimum costs involved (18%), better prices obtained (10%) and friendship (2%). The preferred class of cattle sold were bulls (90%), heifers (8%), and oxen (2%) because they felt that it was costly and time consuming to manage the class of cattle (66.6%), customer preference (14.6%), avoid fights (12.5%) as well as to prevent losses due to disappearance especially for the bulls (4.2%).
Cattle were sold mainly due to household needs (62%) and school fees (38%) while buyers were buying because of weddings (68%), parties (12%), for meat for okapana (cooked or barbequed meat sold at open markets) (10%) funeral and other reasons (10%). The price was mainly determined by the owner of the cattle (94%), by the buyer (2%) or by both owner and buyer (4%). Most farmers preferred selling the cattle in the informal market rather than the formal markets to upgrade their relationships (friendship) (52%), easy with which transactions take place (40%) and due to lack of information on the formal market channels (8%). The majority of the farmers still preferred to sale their livestock through private sales (84%) compared to other channels (Table 3).
|
Table 3. Cattle marketing |
||||||
|
Variable |
Cattle Market used |
Total |
||||
|
Butcheries |
Private sales |
Speculators |
||||
|
Marketing of cattle |
||||||
|
Who determines |
Buyer |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
|
|
Owner |
1 (2) |
44 (88) |
2 (4) |
47 (94) |
||
|
Both |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
1 (2) |
2 (4) |
||
|
Class of animals preferred |
Bull |
1 (2) |
41 (82) |
3 (6) |
45 (90) |
|
|
Heifer |
0 (0) |
4 (8) |
0 (0) |
4 (8) |
||
|
Oxen |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
||
|
Reasons for class preference |
Avoid disappearance |
0 (0) |
2 (4.2) |
0 (0) |
2 (4.2) |
|
|
Avoid fights |
0 (0) |
5 (10.4) |
1 (2.1) |
6 (12.5) |
||
|
Customer preference |
1 (2.1) |
6 (12.5) |
0 (0) |
7 (14.6) |
||
|
Reduce management costs and time |
0 (0) |
30 (62.5) |
2 (4.2) |
32 (66.7) |
||
|
More meat |
0 (0) |
1 (2.1) |
0 (0) |
1 (2.1) |
||
|
Reasons for selling |
Household needs |
0 (0) |
29 (58) |
2 (4) |
31 (62) |
|
|
School fees |
1 (2) |
17 (34) |
1 (2) |
19 (38) |
||
|
Reasons for buying |
Funeral |
0 (0) |
4 (8) |
0 (0) |
4 (8) |
|
|
Parties |
0 (0) |
5 (10) |
1 (2) |
6 (12) |
||
|
Okapana |
1 (2) |
3 (6) |
1 (2) |
5 (10) |
||
|
Weddings |
0 (0) |
33 (66) |
1 (2) |
34 (68) |
||
|
Other |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
||
|
Preferred market |
Abattoir |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
|
|
Auction |
0 (0) |
2 (4) |
0 (0) |
2 (4) |
||
|
Butcheries |
1 (2) |
4 (8) |
0 (0) |
5 (10) |
||
|
Private sales |
0 (0) |
39 (78) |
3 (6) |
42 (84) |
||
|
Reasons for |
Minimum cost |
1 (2) |
8 (16) |
1 (2) |
10 (20) |
|
|
Better prices |
0 (0) |
4 (8) |
0 (0) |
4 (8) |
||
|
Easy channel |
0 (0) |
33 (66) |
2 (4) |
35 (70) |
||
|
Friendship |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
||
|
Note: Number in brackets show percentage (%) |
||||||
The major challenges in cattle production in terms of feed and grazing for cattle were lack of grazing land (62%), lack of pasture/grass (18%), lack of rainfall (drought) (14%) and problems with fencing off grazing land in communal areas (6%). Furthermore, farmers faced problems with dipping facilities as they were not adequate (86%) while 94% reported lack of control of parasites and diseases as a major problem in animal production which led to death of animals and 88% cited poor extension and veterinary services as challenges in cattle production. Most of the farmers indicated that they experience reduced grazing during dry season (78%) and they resort to using crop residues (98%) to supplement the feeding of livestock (Table 4).
|
Table 4. Production challenges |
||||||
|
Variable |
Cattle Market used |
Total |
||||
|
Butcheries |
Private |
Speculators |
||||
|
Production challenges |
||||||
|
Grazing management challenges |
Difficulty in fencing grazing land |
0 (0) |
3 (6) |
0 (0) |
3 (6) |
|
|
Inadequate grazing land |
1 (2) |
28 (56) |
2 (4) |
31 (62) |
||
|
Lack of rainfall |
0 (0) |
7 (14) |
0 (0) |
7 (14) |
||
|
Little grass for grazing available |
0 (0) |
8 (16) |
1 (2) |
9 (18) |
||
|
Lack of control of parasites and diseases |
Yes |
1 (2) |
43 (86) |
3 (6) |
47 (94) |
|
|
No |
0 (0) |
3 (6) |
0 (0) |
3 (6) |
||
|
Poor extension and veterinary services |
Yes |
1 (2) |
40 (80) |
3 (6) |
44 (88) |
|
|
No |
0 (0) |
6 (12) |
0 (0) |
6 (12) |
||
|
Inadequate dipping facilities |
Yes |
1 (2) |
39 (78) |
3 (6) |
43 (86) |
|
|
No |
0 (0) |
7 (14) |
0 (0) |
7 (14) |
||
|
Give supplementary feeding |
Yes |
1 (2) |
45 (90) |
0 (0) |
46 (92) |
|
|
No |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
||
|
Period that supplementation takes place |
All year round |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
|
|
Dry season |
1 (2) |
35 (70) |
3 (6) |
39 (78) |
||
|
Other |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
||
|
Time of emergency |
0 (0) |
9 (18) |
0 (0) |
9 (18) |
||
|
Sources of supplementary feeds |
Conserved feed |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
0 (0) |
1 (2) |
|
|
Crop residue |
1 (2) |
45 (90) |
3 (6) |
49 (98) |
||
|
Note: Number in brackets show percentage (%) |
||||||
Lack of proper markets in the vicinity of the farmers was given as a major challenge for marketing livestock by 74% of the farmers. Farmers also indicated that there is lack of information on formal markets which results in high transaction costs which prevents them from making use of formal markets. Furthermore, the marketing of cattle was seen to be hampered by the presence of the VCF as 80% of the respondents felt it was bad for their livestock as it was seen as preventing them from having equal chance of marketing their livestock countrywide with only 10% seeing no problem caused by the VCF (Table 5).
|
Table 5. Marketing challenges |
||||||
|
Variable |
Cattle Market used |
Total |
||||
|
Butcheries |
Private |
Speculators |
||||
|
Marketing challenges |
||||||
|
Lack of proper market |
Yes |
1 (2) |
34 (68) |
2 (4) |
37 (74) |
|
|
No |
0 (0) |
12 (24) |
1 (2) |
13 (26) |
||
|
Opinion on veterinary cordon fence |
Good |
0 (0) |
5 (16.7) |
1 (3.3) |
6 (20) |
|
|
Bad |
1 (3.3) |
21 (70) |
2 (6.7) |
24 (80) |
||
|
Problem of veterinary cordon fence |
Prevents equal chance of marketing country wide |
1 (3.3) |
21 (70) |
2 (10) |
24 (80) |
|
|
Limits production in NCAs |
0 (0) |
2 (6.7) |
0 (0) |
2 (6.7) |
||
|
No problem |
0 (0) |
3 (10) |
0 (0) |
3 (10) |
||
|
Marketing challenges faced |
Cattle dying |
0 (0) |
6 (12.5) |
0 (0) |
6 (12.5) |
|
|
Need for GRN to provide feed |
0 (0) |
4 (8.3) |
1 (2.1) |
5 (10.4) |
||
|
Inadequate/Need marketing information |
0 (0) |
3 (6.8) |
0 (0) |
3 (6.3) |
||
|
Inadequate grazing for good body conditioning |
0 (0) |
10 (20.8) |
1 (2.1) |
11 (22.9) |
||
|
Inadequate feed and water |
1 (2.1) |
17 (35.4) |
0 (0) |
18 (37.5) |
||
|
Poor body condition |
0 (0) |
0 (0) |
1 (2.1) |
1 (2.1) |
||
|
Need selling pens |
0 (0) |
4 (8.3) |
0 (0) |
4 (8.3) |
||
|
Note: Number in brackets show percentage (%) |
||||||
Farmers suggested use of traditional marketing system (informal) to market their livestock to mitigate against lack of proper marketing channels (100%). In terms of lack of control of parasites and diseases, farmers suggested buying their own medicines (98%) and use of traditional herbs (2%). They also suggested supplementary feeding with crop residue (81.3%), sending cattle to cattle posts (10.4%), buying feeds (6.3%) and feeding palm leaves to ameliorate feed shortages. Most farmers indicated that they supplement the feeding of their cattle (98%) and the majority of these do so during the dry season (78%), in times of emergencies (18%) and throughout the year (4%). When they do not receive extension information they look for the information from those who know in the community (81%) or they go to the veterinary offices to get the information (19%) (Table 6).
|
Table 6. Suggested solutions to production challenges |
||||||
|
Variable |
Cattle Market used |
Total |
||||
|
Butcheries |
Private |
Speculators |
||||
|
Suggested solutions to production challenges |
||||||
|
Solutions to lack of grazing |
Buy feed |
0 (0) |
3 (6.3) |
0 (0) |
3 (6.3) |
|
|
Give crop residue |
1 (2.1) |
36 (75) |
2 (4.2) |
39 (81.3) |
||
|
Move to cattle post |
0 (0) |
4 (8.3) |
1 (2.1) |
5 (10.4) |
||
|
Give palm leaves |
0 (0) |
1 (2.1) |
0 (0) |
1 (2.1) |
||
|
Solutions to lack of parasites and disease control |
Buy medicine |
1 (2.1) |
42 (89.4) |
3 (6.4) |
46 (97.9) |
|
|
Traditional herbs |
0 (0) |
1 (2.1) |
0 (0) |
1 (2.1) |
||
|
Solution to poor extension and veterinary services |
Seek information from veterinary services |
0 (0) |
7 (16.7) |
1 (2.4) |
8 (19) |
|
|
Seek information from people who know |
1 (2.4) |
31 (73.8) |
2 (4.8) |
34 (81) |
||
|
Solution to lack of proper markets |
Use traditional method (private sales) |
1 (2.7) |
34 (91.9) |
2 (5.4) |
37 (100) |
|
|
Note: Number in brackets show percentage (%) |
||||||
The majority of the farmers (62%) had primary education which is characteristic of many rural livestock farmers which may be seen as an impediment to actively seeking formal marketing channels. This was contrary to findings in Zambezi region in Namibia, where livestock farmers with a secondary education were the majority (38%) (Thomas et al 2014). However, Mohammed et al (2013) indicated that the majority of participants in cattle marketing had no formal education (42.5%). Thus, this could imply that education level of farmers varies from region to region and might have no bearing on market choice.
The farmers mainly kept cattle for traditional purposes (78%) which include paying for lobola, contributing to slaughter animals during weddings and funerals, while only 4% kept for income purposes and 16% for consumption. The reasons for buying cattle were found to be for weddings (68%), parties (12%), okapana (10%) and funerals (8%). This is in agreement with findings of Musemwa et al (2007) in Eastern Cape Province in South Africa who found that the majority of the cattle sold privately were mainly for weddings, funerals and traditional ceremonies. However, the study results are in contrast with reasons for keeping cattle in other areas as indicated by Mutibvu et al (2012) that in Zimbabwe, the majority (96%) keep livestock for draught power, milk (90%) and cultural/traditional purposes (29%) and consumption (60%). It seems in the study area they do not use cattle as draught power as they use mainly donkeys or have access to tractor services.
Traditionally, cattle are seen as a wealth bank and status, thus might also contribute to smaller numbers of cattle being sold. Thus, the above, coupled with the fact that the majority (56%) of the respondents had between 11 and 20 herd of cattle and that 72% of those who sold, only between 1 and 5 herd of cattle were sold might mean that the herd size precludes them from participating in formal markets. In addition, they are already inclined to not selling their cattle which means that they may only be selling in emergency situations when need for cash arises as indicated by the results that they sale for household needs (62%) and school fees (38%) which is in agreement with findings of Ndoro et al (2014) in rural South Africa.
The average number of cattle owned is 17 while average number of cattle sold is 3.5. This gives an offtake rate of 20% which is higher than the average for the northern communal areas (7%) north of the VCF as found by MCA Namibia (2013). However, the offtake rate of the study area compares with those of the farmers who are south of the VCF (25%) as reported by MCA Namibia (2013). This could be as a result of farmers having many channels to sell their livestock to both formally and informally compared to the previous result for NCA (MCA Namibia 2013) that might have considered only formal market sales.
Moreover, of the cattle that were sold, 94% of the respondents indicated that they sale their cattle through private sales, 6% through speculators while only 2% sold to the butcheries. This is in contrast with findings from Zambezi region where only 28% sold privately, 22% sold to butcheries and majority, 38% sold to the abattoir (Thomas et al 2014). On the other hand the results seem to be in agreement with those of Musemwa et al (2007) who found that sales through speculators was low (14%), while private sales were second highest (25%) after auctions (46%).
The major production challenges that were alluded to by the respondents were inadequate grazing (80%), lack of parasite and disease control (94%), poor extension services (88%), and inadequate dipping facilities (86%). These production challenges are similar to findings by Mutibvu et al (2012) in Zimbabwe, who found that diseases ranked highest (63%), feed shortages (52%), access to water (39%) and extension services (26%) while other constraints were 15%. These production challenges thus have a negative impact on herd health, livestock numbers and price fetched at the market as this may result in high mortalities or poor body conditions. Poor grazing resulted in supplementary feeding with crop residues in dry season as indicated by 98% of the respondents. Poor grazing and livestock health management concur with results indicated by Mutibvu et al (2012) who found out that grazing was poor and hence farmers had to supplement during the winter dry months with crop residues which are mostly nutritionally poor.
The marketing challenges are a result of inadequate feed (71%) that leads to poor body condition (2%) and high mortality (13%). This reduces the marketable herd size hence resulting in fewer animals being marketed. Moreover, lack of information (6%) and inadequate infrastructure (8%) also hinders marketing of livestock as farmers indicated that they do not receive adequate information on marketing, they also do not have adequate marketing infrastructure such as marketing pens. The effect of herd size on market sales concur with Hangara et al (2012) and Enkono et al (2013) who indicated that participation in the marketing system was linked to herd size. Thus when herd size is small, it is likely that farmers will not sell or only sell a few animals also.
The suggested solutions to the main challenges faced by farmers were that lack of grazing, could be addressed by of use crop residues (81%) to feed their livestock as it is easily available although crop residue does not have much nutrition. However, this could be augmented by fortification that could add minerals and other nutrients to improve the crop residues. Moreover, the respondents indicated that due to lack of parasites and disease control, they resort to buying medicine (98%) to take care of their animals. This could suggest that veterinary services are not adequate in the area. On the poor extension and veterinary services, the farmers indicated that they will seek information from other people (81%) who have knowledge of what they need seeming to suggest that they are giving up on seeking help from extension and veterinary services. All the farmers suggested that they would use the traditional method of marketing livestock (private sales) due to lack of proper markets suggesting that they might not participate in the formal market as the traditional market is still serving the purpose of marketing their livestock as need arises.
Chimonyo M, Kusina N T, Hamudikuwanda H and Nyoni O 1999 A survey on land use and usage of cattle for draught in a small holder farming area of Zimbabwe. Journal of Applied Sciences for Southern Africa, 5, 111-121.
De Bruyn P, de Bruyn J N, Vink N and Kirsten J F 2001 How transaction costs influence cattle marketing decisions in the northern communal areas of Namibia, Agrekon, 40 (3), 405-425.
DEA 2002 Atlas of Namibia Project, Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Environment and Tourism. http://209.88.21.36/Atlas/Atlas_web.htm.
Dovie D B K, Shackleton C M and Witkowski E T F 2006 Valuation of communal area livestock benefits, rural livelihoods and related policy issues. Land use policy, 23 (3), 260-271.
Düvel G H and Stephanus A L 2000 A comparison of economic and cultural incentives in the marketing of livestock in some districts of the Northern Communal Areas of Namibia. Agrekon, 39(4), 656-664.
Enkono S G, Kalundu S K and Thomas B 2013 Analysis of factors influencing cattle off-take rate and marketing in Ndiyona constituency of Kavango region, Namibia. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 5(9), 201-206.
Hangara G N, Teweldemedhin M Y and Groenewald I B 2011 Measuring factors that can influence cattle supply response to the market in Namibia: Case study from Omaheke communal farmers. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 3(8), 141-146.
IECN (Integrated Environmental Consultants Namibia) 2011 Let’s act to Adapt: dealing with Climate Change: A community information toolkit on adaptation. A resource package developed for farmers and natural resource users in the Ohangwena, Oshana, and Oshikoto regions, Namibia.
Kapimbi Y and Teweldemedhin M Y 2012 Analysis of factors determining cattle marketing of communal farmers in Namibia. A case study from Kunene. Journal of Development and Agricultural Economics, 4(6), 169-177.
Kirsten J F 2002 Livestock marketing in northern communal areas of Namibia (livestock producer marketing strategies and informal trade in live animals, meat, hides and skin). Northern Regions Livestock Development Project (NOLIDEP). Windhoek, Namibia.
Kruger B and Lammerts-Imbuwa L 2008 Livestock Marketing in Namibia: Training Manual. Namibia National Farmers Union (NNFU).
Makhura M T 2001 Overcoming transaction costs barriers to market participation of smallholder farmers in the northern province of South Africa, University of Pretoria, Unpublished PhD thesis.
MAWF (Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry) 2011 Namibia Agricultural Marketing and Trade Policy and Strategy (2nd draft).
MCA (Millennium Challenge Account Namibia) 2013 Livestock market efficiency fund. Retrieved from http://www.mcanamibia.org/proj_activities.php?type=SubActivity&id=53&subactivityname .
Meat Board of Namibia 2007 Annual Report, Windhoek, Namibia.
Meat Board of Namibia 2012 Namibia Stock Census 2012. Retrieved from http://www.nammic.com.na/index.php?option=com_jdownloads&Itemid=146&view=viewdownload&catid=2&cid=158.
Milagrosa A 2007 Institutional Economics Analysis of Vegetable Production and Marketing in Northern Philippines: Social capital, Institutions and Governance. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University.
Mohammed S, Mohammed I and Adamu I 2013 Socioeconomic factors influencing profitability of cattle marketing in Gombe metropolis, Nigeria. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 2 (12), 288-292.
Musemwa L, Chagwiza C, Sikuka W, Fraser G, Chimonyo M and Mzileni N 2007 Analysis of cattle marketing used by small scale farmers in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa http://www.lrrd.cipav.org.co/lrrd19/9/muse19131.htm.
Musemwa L, Mushunje A, Chimonyo M, Mapiye C, Muchenje V 2008 Nguni cattle marketing constraints and opportunities in the communal areas of South Africa: Review. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 3 (4) 239-245.
Mutibvu T, Maburutse B E, Mbiriri D T and Kashangura M T 2012 Constraints and opportunities for increased livestock production in communal areas: A case study of Simbe, Zimbabwe. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 24 (9), http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/9/muti24165.htm.
NSA (Namibia Statistics Agency) 2011 Population and Housing Census. Windhoek.
NSA (Namibia Statistics Agency) 2014 Annual National Accounts 2014. Windhoek.
Ndoro J T, Mudhara M and Chimonyo M 2014 Cattle Commercialisation in rural south Africa: Livelihood drivers and implications for livestock Marketing extension. Journal of Human Ecology, 45 (3), 207-221.
NDP4 (Fourth National Development Plan) 2012 Namibia’s fourth National development Plan 2012/2013 to 2016/2017. National Planning Commission. Windhoek.
Nkosi S A and Kirsten J F 1993 The marketing of livestock in South Africa’s developing areas: A case study of the role of speculators, auctioneers, butcheries and private buyers in Lebowa. Agrekon, 32 (4), 230-237.
Shiimi T, Taljaard P R and Jordaan H 2010 Transaction costs and cattle farmers’ choice of marketing channels in north-central Namibia. Contributed paper submitted to the annual conference of the Agricultural Economic Association of South Africa (AEASA): 19 – 23 September 2010, Cape Town, South Africa.
Smith D 2002 Crime in rural areas on increase. http://deltafarmpress.com/mag/farming_crime_rural_areas\.
Thomas B, Togarepi C and Simasiku A 2014 Analysis of the determinants of the sustainability of cattle marketing systems in Zambezi Region of north-eastern communal area of Namibia. International Journal of Livestock Production, 5 (7), 130-136. DOI: 10.5897/IJLP2013.0190. http://www.academicjournals.org/IJLP.
Received 25 March 2016; Accepted 8 June 2016; Published 1 July 2016