- uv . UFS
BL.OEMFONTEIN
l!!!9LIOrEEK • LIBRARY
11~Un~ive~rsimtymFrmeemSrtatue ~~~II~~
34300004919118
Universiteit Vrystaat
CHALLENGES FACING COMMUNAL FARMERS TO IMPROVE
CATTLE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING SYSTEMS IN
NAMIBIA: CASE STUDY FROM OMAHEKE REGION
GABRIEL NGUNGAA HANGARA
CHALLENGES FACING COMMUNAL FARMERS TO IMPROVE
CATTLE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING SYSTEMS IN NAMIBIA:
CASE STUDY FROM OMAHEKE REGION
By
GABRIEL NGUNGAA HANGARA
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural
Sciences, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture,
University of the Free State
In accordance with the requirements for the degree
PHILOSOPHIAE DOCTOR
Promoter:
Professor Izak B. Groenewald
Co-Promoters:
Doctor Mogos Y. Teweldemedhin
Professor Andrew B. Conroy
January 2011
Universiteit van die.!
Vrystaat'
BLO!E~~!F(·'~N
~ ~ .J~~ 2013
!fN SA~SQ~l. £-g-~B-U-O-l-'"E~KII~~.~ \..
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Erastus Kazandu
Hangara and Rubaldine Kazendana Hangara, who never had the
privilege to attend school.
The dissertation is also dedicated to the loving memory of Mr. Alfred
'Ali' Tjiposa. Your dream has been fulfilled and I am with you always.
II
I declare that this thesis hereby submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the
University of the Free State, is my own independent work, and that I have not previously
submitted the same work for a qualification atlin another University/faculty". I hereby
forfeit any copyright of this thesis to the University of the Free State.
Ek verklaar dat die proefskrif wat hierby vir die graad Doktorandus van Filosofie aan die
Universiteit van die Vrystaat deur my ingedien word, selfstandige werk is en nie
voorheen deur my vir 'n graad aan 'n ander universiteit ingedien is nie. Ek doen voorts
afstand van die outeursreg van die proefskrif ten gunste van die Universiteit van die
Vrystaat.
03.- DI- '?{), ,
~,),.'~:~'": ;~•:••;!f~•• 'l~.•;. _.'• (':-':.<' ,.' iI ::. :" "';',.
Gabriel Ngungaa Hangara Date
111
This dissertation may reflect my work, but it would not have been entirely possible
without the support and encouragement from others.
Firstly, I would like to thank NDJAMBI NOVAKURU VANDJE (GOD and my Ancestors),
for it was only by their grace that I could complete this study.
I wish to express my gratitude and appreciation to my supervisor, Professor Izak B.
Groenewald, and my eo-supervisors, Doctor Mogos Y. Teweldemedhin and Professor
Andrew B. Conroy, for their academic knowledge, constructive critisims and guidance
throughout the study.
I also owe a special word of thanks to both the Meat Board of Namibia and the United
Nations Development Programme through the Young Professional Research
Associates (YPRA) grant under the Country Pilot Partnership Programme (CPP) for
financial assistance rendered.
My sincere thanks and acknowledgement are also extended to:
• My employer, KOMEHO NAMIBIA DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, for granting me
time off to work on my studies.
• Communal farmers in Omaheke region's communities in which the research was
undertaken, for their time and assistance.
• The enumerators, Mr. Stephen Kusewena Katururno, Ms. Tangee Hangara, Mr.
Siegfried Uapingena Tjeja, Mr. Dingaan Tjijenda, Mr. Casper Meroro, Mr. Elifas
Kavezembire Uremena, Mr. Charles Jazundara Hangara and Ms. Inge
Kangootui, for their valuable assistance in data collection.
• Farmers' unions and farmers' co-operatives in Omaheke communal areas, Karoo
Ochse and Meat Corporation of Namibia, for providing me with information.
• Mr. Paul Tjaimba, Mr. Jorrie Jordaan, Mr. Sam Mbuti and Mr. Sikunanwa Tsh.
Negumbo for motivating me throughout this study.
IV
• Mr. Frans de Foglio of Conling Language & Translation Consultants cc, for
assisting with linguistic revision of the thesis, and Levi Katire for assisting me
with graphic designing.
Finally, I would like to extend my gratitude to my family for their constant support and
their unwavering faith in me. To my wife, Alma and my two sons, Vekondjisa and
Kamuiike, thank you for your selflessness and sacrifices.
v
( 'T .-., - In '""'-"-"'''--W',qn, ,-- - ,--"W'C>''Y'YT .,. ,-, . , . '''W-·, "-',,'"'" on, ,. - "",,", '""s_"'" . '", 'WO .,,''"' ,- ""." .. 0" y'···"n """TW"''' • " -, n' ., ..,. -1
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NUMBER
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES xiv
LIST OF ACRONYMS xvi
LIST OF ANNEXURES xvii
CHAPTER 11NTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Motivation and Problem Statement 2
1.3 Contribution of the Study 3
1.4 Objectives of the Study 5
1.5 Methodology and Data Used 5
1.5.1 Data Collection 5
1.5.2 Method of Analysis 7
1.6 Study Area 8
1.7 Outline of the Study 10
CHAPTER 2 SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE 11
2.1 Introduction 11
2.2 Definition of Sustainability 11
2.3 Definition of Sustainable Agriculture 12
2.4 Sustainable Agricultural Production Systems 13
2.5 Sustainability of Agricultural Production Systems in the context of
Namibia 13
CHAPTER 3 CATTLE FARMING UNDER COMMUNAL SYSTEMS 16
3.1 Introduction 16
3.2 Role of Cattle 16
3.3 Ownership of Cattle 17
3.4 Managerial Practices 18
3.5 Risks and Mitigation Strategies 20
3.6 Agricultural Support Services 21
CHAPTER 4 PRODUCTION SYSTEM, MANAGERIAL PRACTICES & SUPPORT
SERVICES IN OMAHEKE COMMUNAL AREAS 22
4.1 Introduction 22
4.2 Literature Review 23
4.3 Methodology 24
4.3.1 Sampling 24
4.3.2 Data Collection and Analysis 25
4.4 Results and Discussions 25
4.4.1 Production System 25
4.4.1.1 Herd Composition 25
4.4.1.2 Purpose of keeping cattle 26
4.4.1.3 Breed Preferences 28
4.4.1.4 Water Supply 29
4.4.1.5 Grazing Management 30
4.4.1.6 Mortalities and Losses 32
4.4.2 Managerial Practices 33
4.4.2.1 Mating Practices and Selection 33
4.4.2.2 Cattle Identification 35
4.4.2.3 Castration and Dehorning 37
4.4.2.4 Weaning 38
4.4.2.5 Parasites Control, Vaccination and Disease Control 39
4.4.2.6 Supplementation 42
4.4.2.7 Record Keeping 45
4.4.3 Support Services 45
4.4.3.1 Agricultural Advice and Training 45
4.4.3.2 Agricultural Credit 46
4.5 Conclusions 46
4.5.1 Production Systsem 46
4.5.2 Managerial Practices 48
4.5.3 Support Services 49
4.6 References 50
vu
CHAPTER 5 CATTLE SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT AND ACCESS TO MARKET
INFORMATION BY CATTLE FARMERS 53
5.1 Introduction 54
5.2 Literature Review 55
5.2.1 Cattle Marketing 55
5.2.2 Cattle Market Supply Chain 55
5.2.3 Marketing Channels 56
5.2.4 Cattle Grading Characteristics in the Market 57
5.2.5 Access to Market Information within the Supply Chain 57
5.3 Methodology 58
5.3.1 Sampling 58
5.3.2 Data Collection and Analysis 59
5.4 Results and Discussions 59
5.4.1 Cattle marketing, satisfaction and pricing system 59
5.4.1.1 Main reason for selling cattle 59
5.4.1.2 Marketing Channels Options 60
5.4.1.3 Pricing of Various Cattle Classes and Grades 62
5.4.2 Access to Market Information 65
5.4.2.1 Market Information in Communal Areas 65
5.4.2.2 Market Information Channel (Medium) 66
5.4.2.3 Strategies to Improve Market Information Accessibility 67
5.4.3 Distribution and Transport Systems 68
5.4.3.1 Distance to Markets 68
5.4.3.2 Cattle Transportation Modes to Markets Supplied 68
5.4.4 Logistical Arrangements Prior to Marketing 70
5.4.5 Institutional Arrangements 72
5.4.6 Major Constraints in Cattle Marketing 73
5.4.6.1 Constraints Faced by Cattle Farmers 73
5.4.6.2 Constraints Faced by Auctioneers and Buyers 75
5.5 Conclusions 77
5.5.1 Cattle marketing, satisfaction and pricing system 77
VlII
5.5.2 Accessiblity of market information 78
5.5.3 Distribution and transportation system 78
5.5.4 Logistical arrangements prior to marketing 78
5.5.5 Institutional arrangements 79
5.5.6 Major Constraints 79
5.6 References 81
CHAPTER 6 FACTORS INFLUENCINGSUPPLY OF CATTLE TO THE MARKET 84
6.1 Introduction 84
6.2 Literature Review 85
6.2.1 Determinants of Economic Growth 85
6.2.2 Market Institutional Arrangements 86
6.2.3 Marketing Situation in Namibia 87
6.2.4 General Categories of Factors Affecting Supply Response 88
6.2.5 Determinants of Domestic Supply Response 89
6.2.5.1 Changes in Production Costs 89
6.2.5.2 Climatic Conditions 89
6.2.5.3 Access to Market Information 89
6.2.5.4 Number of Cattle Owned 90
6.2.5.5 Off-farm Income 90
6.2.5.6 InfrastructuralObstacles 90
6.2.5.7 Education Levels of Producers 90
6.2.5.8 Producers' Objectives 91
6.2.6 Determinants of Supply to International Markets 91
6.2.6.1 Changing Consumers' Food Demand 91
6.2.6.2 Changing Technology 91
6.2.6.3 International Market Integration 92
6.2.6.4 Changing Incomes 92
6.2.6.5 Livestock diseases 92
6.3 Methodology 93
6.3.1 Sampling 93
6.3.2 Data Collection and Analysis 93
IX
6.4 Results and Discussions 95
6.4.1 Input Cost 96
6.4.2 Ownership 96
6.4.3 Rainfall 97
6.4.4 Access to Market Information 97
6.4.5 Family Size 98
6.4.6 Off-farm Income 98
6.5 Conclusions 99
6.6 References 100
CHAPTER 7 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 105
7.1 Major Conclusions Drawn from this Study 105
7.1.1 Production System, Managerial Practices and Support Services 105
7.1.2 Cattle Supply Chain Management and Access to Market Information
105
7.1.3 Supply of Cattle to Market 106
7.2 Major Recommendations from this Study 106
REFERENCES 108
SUMMARY 126
x
(
CHAPTER 1 PAGE NUMBER
Figure 1.1 Five pillars of sustainability 4
Figure 1.2 Omaheke region on Namibian map 8
Figure 1.3 Communal areas of Omaheke 8
CHAPTER 2
Figure 2.1 Constraints hindering sustainability of agriculture in Namibia 14
CHAPTER 3
Figure 3.1 Ways of livestock contribution to people's livelihoods 16
CHAPTER 4
Figure 4.1 The respondents' rating for the purpose of keeping cattle 27
Figure 4.2 A cow milking in a communal area of Omaheke 27
Figure 4.3 Percentages of farmers indicating their breed preference for keeping 28
Xl
Figure 4.4 A water source under the management of a water point committee in
Epukiro 29
Figure 4.5 Condition of grazing areas in communal areas of Omaheke region 30
Figure 4.6 Main causes of cattle mortalities and losses in Omaheke communal
areas 32
Figure 4.7 Mating systems employed 34
Figure 4.8 Sire mating practices employed 34
Figure 4.9 Bull acquisition in the four study areas 34
Figure 4.10 Ages at first mating of heifers and bulls in study areas 35
Figure 4.11 External parasites control methods used 39
Figure 4.12 Prominent cattle diseases in the study areas 40
Figure 4.13 Cattle annual immunisations in the four study areas 41
Figure 4.14 Season of cattle immunisations in Omaheke communal areas 41
Figure 4.15 Eating of litter as a sign of P-deficiency 42
Figure 4.16 Mitigation strategies employed before drought in the study areas 43
Figure 4.17 Mitigation strategies employed during drought in the study areas 44
Figure 4.18 Mitigation strategies employed after drought in the study areas 44
Figure 4.19 Visit frequencies to agricultural support services 46
CHAPTER 5
Figure 5.1 Cattle market chain 56
Figure 5.2 Main role players in cattle supply chain 58
Figure 5.3 Determinants of cattle prices in the study areas 63
Figure 5.4 Source of market information for communal cattle farmers 66
Figure 5.5 Strategies to improve market information accessibility 67
Figure 5.6 Logistics fulfilled by communal farmers before marketing cattle 71
Xll
Figure 5.7 Logistics fulfilled by farmers' associations before marketing 72
Figure 5.8 Strategies to increase the supply of cattle to the market 73
Figure 5.9 Farmers' constraints when marketing cattle in communal areas 74
Figure 5.10 Addressing constraints of auctioneers and buyers 76
Xlll
(
CHAPTER 1 PAGE NUMBER
Table 1.1 Sample size for managerial practices analysis 5
Table 1.2 Sample size for marketing systems practices analysis 7
CHAPTER 4
Table 4.1 Herd composition, calving percentages and bull:cow ratios in the four study
areas 26
Table 4.2 Farmers' responses to management, distance covered and daily grazing
hours 31
Table 4.3 Cattle mortalities and losses in study areas 33
Table 4.4 Identification, castration and dehorning techniques used in the study
areas 36
Table 4.5 Weaning techniques used in the study areas 39
Table 4.6 Record keeping in the study areas 45
CHAPTER 5
Table 5.1 Farmers' responses to reasons for selling cattle in the study areas 60
Table 5.2 Farmers' responses to cattle type selling preference in study areas 60
Table 5.3 Marketing channel options and number of cattle sold by farmer 61
Table 5.4 Farmers' satisfaction with existing cattle market supplied 62
Table 5.5 Farmers' responses on buyers' quality criteria awareness 64
XlV
Table 5.6 Farmers' opinions on quality criteria the buyers use in determining
prices 64
Table 5.7 Key informants' responses to quality criteria cattle buyers use in determining
prices 65
Table 5.8 Rating of market information channel (medium) 67
Table 5.9 Farmers' responses for distance to markets utilised 68
Table 5.10 Transportation methods used to access local markets 69
Table 5.11 Transportation methods used to access markets outside the study
areas 69
Table 5.12 Farmers' responses on having a marketing plan in the study areas 70
Table 5.13 Farmers' opinions to address constraints when marketing cattle 75
Table 5.14 Farmers' views on constraints faced by auctioneers and buyers 75
CHAPTER 6
Table 6.1 Variable identification for determinants of sales 93
Table 6.2 Weighted Least Square estimates of determinants of market 95
xv
(
BSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (or "mad cow")
DEES Directorate of Extension and Engineering Services
FANMEAT Farmer Assured Namibian Meat
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation
FMD Foot and Mouth Disease
GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GRN Government Republic of Namibia
ILCA International Livestock Centre for Africa
LSU Large Stock Unit
MCA Millennium Challenge Accounts
MAWF Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry
MAWRD Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development
Meat Board Meat Board of Namibia
MEATCO Meat Corporation of Namibia
MET Ministry of Environment and Tourism
NDTF National Drought Task Force
NPFS Namibia Programme for Food Security
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
WLS Weighted Least Square
XV]
PAGE NUMBER
Annexure 1 Cattle Managerial Practices Analysis Questionnaire 128
Annexure 2 Cattle Marketing Systems Analysis Questionnaire 139
(Communal farmers)
Annexure 3 Cattle Marketing System Analysis Questionnaire 142
(Farmers' Associations and Co-operatives
Annexure 4 Cattle Marketing System Analysis Questionnaire 144
(Cattle Auctioneers and Beef Processors)
XVll
~[}={]£~u~[f« 4] INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses the background, motivation and problem statement, contribution of the
study, objective of the study, methodology and data used for the study, study area and outline of
the thesis.
1.1 Background
Namibia is rated to have the driest climate in sub-Saharan Africa and has naturally low
agricultural productivity (Kruger & Lammerts-Imbuwa, 2008; Carbera, Cochran, Dangelmayr,
D'Aguilar, Gawande, Lee, Speir & Weigand, 2007, NPFS, 2007). Namibia with its
independence in 1990 inherited a dualistic agricultural sector of freehold and non-freehold
(communal) farming from the apartheid regime (Mendelsohn, Janvis, Rogerts and Robertson,
2002). The agricultural sector, which sustains approximately 70 % of the Namibian population
either directly or indirectly (Mushendami, Biwa & Gaomab II, 2008), creates jobs and has
multiplier effects on the economy (Carbera, et al. 2007).
Broadly, the sustainability of agricultural production in Namibia is hampered by a number of
factors. These include climatic and weather conditions, soil and terrain conditions, land tenure
systems, lack of infrastructure, inputs and transportation costs, marketing constraints, lack of
finances, competition, and low literacy and accompanying low management levels of farmers
(Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2008; Mushendami, et al. 2008; Solomon, Qin,
Manning, Alley, Bernstein, et al. 2007).
More than 60 % of Namibia's population lives in the rural parts of the country where livestock
production is the predominant economic activity that sustains the livelihoods of rural households
(Kressirer & Kruger, 1995). Similar work by Mendelsohn (2006) shows that livestock farming is
the single most important agricultural activity for both commercial and communal sectors. In
communal production systems, cattle performs a variety of functions by providing milk, draught
power, transport, meat, manure, income, hides and skins (Kruger & Lammerts-Imbuwa, 2008;
MAWF, 2007; Dovie, Shackleton & Witkowski, 2006; Simela, Montshwe, Mahanjana & Tshuwa,
2006; Anon, 2004; Talavera, Katjimune, Mbinga, Vermeulen & Mouton, 2000).
In a study conducted to examine the need for technical agricultural research in the communal
areas, Kressirer and Kruger (1995) found that, unlike communal farmers, commercial farmers
have access to services that enable them to achieve a high standard of livestock production and
rangeland management. Examples of such services include markets for de-stocking, veterinary
services for animal care and disease control, credit and loan facilities, and information to market
prices. Due to neglect, there is a limited data base in the communal areas of Namibia on which
to estimate needs and speficic problems (Directorate of Engineering and Extension Services
(DEES),1994).
1.2 Motivation and Problem Statement
Literature on managerial practices and marketing constraints of cattle farmers from Omaheke
communal areas is limited. There is a need to improve cattle productivity through managerial
practices and to improve market throughput by understanding the current practices and
addressing bottlenecks. Besides the little literature available, there is inconclusive information
on cattle managerial and marketing practices and constraints regarding the adoption of best
practices in the communal areas of the Omaheke region.
The communal areas of the Omaheke region are endowed with cattle that contribute to
livelihoods and the economy of Namibia. Several authors have indicated that the communal
cattle farmers' objectives and practices are a consequence of many years of interaction within a
social and ecological environment which relies on specific knowledge (Coppolillo, 2000;
Mapinduzi, Oba, Weladji & Colman, 2003; Oba & Kotile, 2001; Sheunyange, Oba & Weladji,
2005; Turner & Hiernaux, 2002). The communal cattle farmers in Namibia receive agricultural
support services from state extension and veterinary departments. Besides agricultural support
services provided by the government extension and veterinary officials, in agreement with Zhen
and Routray (2003), farming systems and farmer situations are specific; and the "broad blanket"
approach currently being employed may not address all problems affecting the sustainability of
cattle production in the communal areas. Thus, in order to support communal cattle farmers, as
2
shown by Qamar (2002), information about the current production situation will assist
agricultural support providers to develop support programmes that are situation specific.
The improvement of cattle productivity and marketing can play a significant role in alleviating
food insecurity and poverty in the communal areas (Mhlanga, 2000). Van Rooyen and Gartside
(1999) showed that animal husbandry practices are a major area of improvement for the future.
Investigating the managerial and marketing practices regarding cattle production in the rural
communal areas of the Omaheke region will not only provide appropriate information, but could
lead to better understanding of the objectives, knowledge and practices of cattle farmers, and
spell out possible opportunities and potentials that could further be developed. Further, this
could lead to finding innovative solutions for the development of alternative production practices
that could improve production and contribute to economic and viable cattle production systems.
Therefore, a study was undertaken during 2008 and 2009 to examine the efficiency and
constraints of cattle managerial practices and marketing systems in four communal areas of the
Omaheke region.
1.3 Contribution of the Study
The issues analysed provide a case study for sustainable cattle production systems in Namibia
because they addressed five pillars of a sustainable production system. Firstly, by analysing
farmers' management practices in terms of managerial practices, grazing and water
management, the maintenance of a productive base of agriculture over time (biological
productivity) and the protection of natural resources and prevention of soil and water
degradation (protection) and stewardship towards the land and water (social acceptability)
was considered. Secondly, by analysing marketing strategies employed by farmers, the
economic viability of the production system (viability) was considered. Thirdly, by analysing
land (grazing) management, veld fire control strategies, and drought preparedness and
mitigation strategies, the reduction of the level of production risk (security) was considered
(Figure 1.1).
3
Maintenance Economic
of Productive Protection of Stewardship Reduction ofViability of
Base of Natural towards land & the level ofProduction
Agriculture Resources water (social production riskSystem
(Biological (Protection) acceptability) (Viability) (Security)
Productivity)
Figure 1.1 Five pillars of sustainability (adapted from Groenewald, 2004)
This research will contribute to the area of sustainable cattle production in Namibia in the
following manner:
It involves research that will stimulate analytical and critical thought to cattle production
system in communal areas of Namibia.
It uncovers bottlenecks in the five pillars of a sustainable production system, namely are
biological productivity, protection of natural resources, social acceptability, economic
viability and reduction of production risk.
It covers the communal areas of the Omaheke region as a case study and the lessons
learnt will be disseminated to other similar areas in Namibia through farmers' days, and
thus will create a better understanding of sustainable cattle production systems in
Namibia.
The findings of this study will contribute to or influence a policy amendment or
formulation to ensure that production practices on communal lands meet the needs of
today without compromising the ability of future generations to satisfy their needs.
4
1.4 Objectives of the Study
The study aimed at examining the efficiency and constraints of cattle managerial practices and
marketing systems and was undertaken in four of the Omaheke region's communal areas,
namely Epukiro, Otjinene, Otjombinde and Aminius.
The specific objectives of the study were to:
• Identify the most crucial managerial aspects having a negative effect on sustainable
cattle production
• Examine the sustainability of cattle supply chain management from farmer to processor
• Examine the access of market information to farmers
• Examine the factors affecting the supply of cattle to the market
1.5 Methodology and Data Used
1.5.1 Data Collection
The study consisted of two parts; the first part dealt with cattle managerial practices and the
second part examined the efficiency of and constraints in cattle marketing in the Epukiro,
Otjinene, Otjombinde and Aminius communal areas of the Omaheke region.
The first part of the study focused on interviewing communal farmers that were registered with
the Meat Board of Namibia in order to characterise cattle production system. A total of 57
villages were randomly selected and 570 farmers were interviewed from these villages (ten
farmers per village), as shown in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Sample size for managerial practices analysis
Description Epukiro Otjinene Otjombinde Aminius Total
# of villages selected 12 16 10 19 57
# of farmers interviewed 120 160 100 190 570
A simple random sampling was undertaken to select the specific number of villages and farmers
to be interviewed in each communal area, as shown in Table 1.1. In collaboration with the
5
officials of the farmers' association operating in that particular communal area, all villages in that
communal area were listed, names were placed in a hat; and a certain number of village names
drawn. The selection of 570 farmers to be interviewed in those randomly-selected villages
involved listing the names of all Meat Board of Namibia registered farmers in that particular
village and drawing names of ten farmers to be interviewed, regardless of the number of cattle
they owned. The 570 farmers' sample is fairly representative, and accounts for 10 % of
communal farmers within those four communal areas.
Questionnaires were administered by the researcher and trained enumerators in vernacular
language (OtjiHerero) under the supervision of the researcher. The questionnaire captured data
on production systems, managerial practices and support services. Annexure 1 shows the
questionnaire which consisted of close-ended questions for qualitative and quantitative data
respectively. The questionnaire took a maximum of 45 minutes; depending on how much the
farmer was willing to disclose.
The second part of the study involved the collection of marketing information through interviews
from 100 farmers, three farmers' associations and four co-operatives in the four communal
areas, as well as an auctioneer and a beef processor (or their representatives) in the Omaheke
region (Table 1.2). With this study, emphasis was given to the marketing of live cattle. A
purposive' method of sampling technique was applied to collect data to examine efficiency and
constraints in cattle marketing in four of the Omaheke region's communal areas. The
respondents were chosen for a particular purpose on the basis that they were involved in cattle
marketing and that they were "typical" of a group or represented diverse perspectives on an
issue (Leedy & Armrod, 2000).
Questionnaires were administered by the researcher and trained enumerators in vernacular
language (OtjiHerero) under the supervision of the researcher. The questionnaire captured data
on communal farmers' marketing practices and Annexure 2 shows the questionnaires which
consisted of open-ended questions for qualitative and quantitative data respectively. The
second questionnaire took a maximum of 30 minutes to complete.
1 Purposive sampling is a non-probability sampling method, which is also known as judgement sampling (ILCA, 1990). According to
Kerlinger (1986), this method is characterised by the use of judgement and a deliberate effort to obtain representative samples from a
particular group or individual to participate in a research.
6
Personal interviews with key informants from the farmers' associations, farmers' co-
operatives, and livestock auctioneers and beef processor were made by the researcher on
cattle marketing issues. Annexure 3 and 4 shows the questionnaires which consisted of open-
ended questions for qualitative and quantitative data respectively. The questionnaire took a
maximum of 30 minutes to complete.
Table 1.2 Sample size for marketing systems practices analysis
Description Epukiro Otjinene Otjombinde Aminius Gobabis Total
No. of communal 25 25 25 25 100
farmers
No. of farmers' 1 1 1 3
associations
No. of farmers' eo- 1 1 2 4
operatives
No. of auctioneers 1 1
No. of processors 1 1
Total 27 26 27 27 2 109
1.5.2 Method of Analysis
Data from questionnaires were entered into Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and descriptive
statistical analysis done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The chi-squared
test for independence was used to examine whether knowing the value of one variable helps to
estimate the value of another variable. Also, the chi-squared test for homogeneity was used to
examine whether four populations have the same proportion of observations with a common
characteristic. ANOVA was used for herd composition and mortalities comparisons amongst
the four study areas. The above data was analysed in Chapters 4 and 5.
In terms of examining the factors affecting the supply of cattle to the market (Chapter 6), a
Weighted Least Square (WLS) was used. The model was written as follows:
Sales (each farmer) = f(Average producers' price, average cost of inputs (cost of supplements,
fuel, feeds, vaccination, etc.), average rainfall, access to market information, accessibility to
markets, average family sizes, other sources of income, number of cattle owned).
The expected sign and justification is discussed in Chapter 6 (pages 93 -95).
7
1.6 Study Area
The study was carried out in the four communal areas of the Omaheke region, which are
Epukiro, Otjinene, Otjombinde and Aminius (Figures 1.2 and 1.3). As shown in Figure 1.3, the
Otjombinde communal area is labeled as Tallismanus, although Tallismanus is a main town in
that communal area. The Omaheke region is one of Namibia's 13 political regions, demarcated
by the Second Delimitation Commission of 1988, and is located in the eastern part of the
country (National Planning Commission (NPC), 2006). Further, Namibia is divided into four
Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) control zones: an infected zone, buffer zone, surveillance zone,
and free zone; and the Omaheke region falls within the free zone (Kruger & Lammerts-Imbuwa,
2008).
Namibia has a total land area of 84,612 km2 (National Programme for Food Security (NPFS),
2007), and the Omaheke region occupies 10.3 % of the country's total land surface. The
Omaheke region occupies the eastern central part of Namibia bordering with Botswana, and
cattle ranching is the dominant economic activity (Coetzee, 2009). The region has also been
publicised as the largest livestock farming area in southern Africa and one of the most profitable
farming regions in Namibia (Suzman, 1995). The name, Omaheke, is derived from the Herero
word for "sandveld" and this name reflects the agro-ecological situation of, in particular, the
eastern part of the region (DEES, 1994)
Angola
Botswana
Figure 1.3. Communal areas of Omaheke
Figure 1.2 Omaheke region on Namibian map
8
In terms of FAO and World Bank (2001) classification of farming systems, the study area falls
under the pastoral system which is characterised by extensive cattle rearing, mainly for
subsistence and traditional exchange. The study areas were managed by the Herero
administration under the second tier government, and were not established to enable black
pastoralists to develop commercial agriculture (Adams & Werner, 1990).
The rainfall in The Omaheke region in Namibia is extremely variable and unpredictable from
year to year and from month to month (Carbera, et al. 2007; Mendelsohn, 2006; McPeak, 2003;
Christelis & Struckmeier, 2001). The long-term average annual rainfall of the study area varies
between 300 mm and 400 mm each year. Mean annual precipitation in the southern Omaheke
range from 200 mm and 400 mm, whereas in the northern Omaheke region ranges between
300 mm and 500 mm (Mendelsohn, et al. 2002). The wet season is usually between October
and March.
In terms of temperature, the records for Gobabis show mean monthly maximum temperatures
ranging from 22°C to 32°C and mean monthly minimum temperatures ranging from 2°C to 17°C.
The warmest months are December and January, and the coldest are June and July
(Millennium Challenge Accounts (MCA), 2006). Winds in this area are usually from a north-
easterly direction throughout the year (Mendelsohn, et al. 2002).
The dominant soils for the Omaheke region are Kalahari sands that dominate the eastern and
northern regions. These soils are formed from wind-blown sand and are usually up to one
metre deep (Mendelsohn, et al. 2002). According to Mendelsohn et al. (2002), the sandy
texture allows water to drain rapidly through the soil, leaving very little moisture at depths to
which most plant can reach. These soils have a very low water-holding capacity and a poor
inherent fertility status (Mendelsohn & ElObeid, 2005).
The communal areas of the Omaheke region are located in Tree-and-shrub Savanna
(Mendelsohn, et al. 2002). Specifically, they are located in both the Forest Savanna and
Woodland and the Camelthorn Savanna (Christelis & Struckmeier, 2001). The Camelthorn
Savanna is an open savanna with good grass cover, where the camelthorn, Acacia eriolobe, is
the dominant tree, while the Forest Savanna and Woodland are dominated by broadleaved
woodlands (Mendelsohn, et al. 2002).
9
1.7 Outline of the Study
Chapter 2 reviews the sustainable agriculture and its elements, and its interpretation and
application in the context of Namibia. Chapter 3 focuses on a literature review on cattle
production under pastoral and communal systems. Chapter 4 presents the results of a survey
that focused on cattle production systems, managerial practices and support services. Chapter
5 presents the findings of a survey that examined the sustainability of cattle supply chain
management from farmer to processor and the access of market information to cattle farmers.
Chapter 6 presents the results of the factors that affect the supply of cattle to the markets in the
four Omaheke communal areas. Chapter 7 deals with the general conclusions and
recommendations of this study.
10
~[}{]~[F'u~~ ~ SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE
2.1 Introduction
An exhaustive literature review is not the aim of this chapter. Rather, the aim is to present a
review on sustainable agriculture and to give specific attention to define the terms sustainability
and sustainable agriculture, and to discuss the requirements for sustainable agricultural
production systems, and the principles considered in the evaluation of sustainability. Moreover,
this chapter presents an overview of the sustainability of agricultural production systems in the
context of Namibia.
2.2 Definition of Sustainability
The dictionary defines the word "sustainable" as what can be kept up or prolonged over a long
time period (Wagner, 1999). Pretty (1998) highlights the difficulty in giving precise and absolute
definitions of sustainability, and suggests that it is important to clarify what is being sustained,
for how long, for whose benefit and at what cost, over what area and measured by what criteria.
On the other hand, Wylie (1996) argues that sustainability means different things to different
people. However, the key aspect is that production needs should be maintained and continued
over time.
Groenewald (2004) defines sustainability as management and conservation of resources, and
orientation of technological and institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the
attainment and continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations.
According to Lockeretz (1988), sustainability implies a time dimension and the capacity of a
farming system to endure indefinitely.
Different researchers show the dynamic nature of sustainability that can include notions of limits
to resource availability, environmental impact, economic viability, biodiversity and social justice
11
(Harmsen & Kelly, 1992). The dynamic nature of sustainability's fundamental components,
which are ecological (spatial and temporal relations, diversity, stability and resilience); economic
(resource distribution and allocation); and social (equity, access, stewardship and institutions)
makes it difficult to develop precise and long-term operational definition (De Vries, as cited by
Viederman, 1993).
2.3 Definition of Sustainable Agriculture
There are many definitions of sustainable agriculture, which has different meanings to different
people (Mason, 2003; Jayaratne, Martin & Wit, 2001). Karami and Mansoorabadi (2008) define
sustainable agriculture as the successful management of the resources of agriculture to satisfy
changing human needs, to conserve the environment, and to increase biological resources.
Mason (2003) defines sustainable agriculture as both a philosophy and a system of farming that
empowers the farmer to work with natural processes to conserve resources such as soil and
water, whilst minimising waste and environmental impact.
Sustainable agriculture is a management system for renewable natural resources that provides
food, income and livelihood for present and future generations while maintaining or improving
the economic productivity and ecosystem services of these resources (Rao & Rogers, 2006).
Most definitions of sustainable agriculture include the following institutional values: (i)
discriminating use of land resources; (ii) resource conservation and enhancement of
environmental quality; (iii) economic viability; (iv) increased and stabilised productivity; (v)
enhanced quality of life; (vi) intergenerational equity; and (vii) buffer against risks.
The concept of sustainable agriculture is also a function of the scale of operation - ranging from
a single farmer's field, a farm, or a watershed to an ecosystem, a country, a continent, or the
Earth as a whole (Eswaran, 1991). Consequently, it is important to define the concept of
sustainable agriculture in the context of the society in which it exists. An elementary aspect of
the concept is that it be based on the value systems of social, political, economic, religious and
other institutions.
Pretty (1995) and Rëling (1994) view sustainable agriculture as a process for learning and not
as a single model or package to be imposed. Pretty (1998) further advises that sustainable
12
agriculture does not prescribe a defined set of practices, technologies and policies due to
continuous need for changing and adaptation.
2.4 Sustainable Agricultural Production Systems
Smyth and Oumanski (1993) identify five requirements that can be functional: biological
productivity, protection of natural resources, economic viability, social acceptability, and
reduction of the level of production risk (security). The requirements can be considered "pillars"
on which a sustainable system is built. Relevant indicators are required to measure the
requirements (pillars) (Smyth & Oumanski, 1993). Because the same indicators are often used
in different ways to assess more than one pillar, a three-level model was designed, made up of
requirements, criteria and indicators (Farshad, 1997). Further, it is crucial to establish
thresholds - a threshold provides a baseline for an indicator against which sustainability can be
assessed. A range of threshold values and trends are required for a particular indicator and
should be consistent with the rating of diagnostic factors in the FAO (1983).
Sound resource conservation is an integral part of sustainable agricultural systems (Safley &
Oyer, 1991). According to Altieri (1987) and Ikerd (1990), an agricultural production system
must be ecological sustainable or it cannot persist over the long run, and thus cannot be
productive and profitable. Likewise, a system must be productive and profitable over the long
run or it cannot be sustained economically - no matter how ecologically sound it is (Stenhalm &
Waggoner, 1990).
2.5 Sustainability of Agricultural Production Systems in the context of Namibia
Namibia with its independence in 1990 inherited a dualistic agricultural sector of freehold and
communal farming from the apartheid regime (Mendelsohn, et al. 2002), and the agricultural
sector sustains approximately 70 % of the Namibian population, either directly or indirectly
(Mushendami, et al. 2008). The agricultural sector creates jobs and has multiplier effects on the
economy (Carbera, et al. 2007).
The sustainability of agricultural production in Namibia is hampered by several other factors, as
illustrated in Figure 2.1, adapted from Mushendami et al. (2008). Other researchers have also
13
identified reasons accounting for the low overall productivity in sub-Saharan Africa, which are
discussed below (Kuvare, Maharero & Kamupingene, 2008; FAO, 2008; Mendelsohn, 2006;
Walter, Jackson, Perkins & Decalo, 2001).
Marketing
difficulties Climate change
High input,
Climatic and
output &
weather factors transport costs
Constraints to
Land tenure sustainabilityof Lack of finance
systems Namibian
agriculture
Figure 2.1 Constraints hindering sustainability of agriculture in Namibia (adapted from
Mushendami, et al. 2008)
Land tenure systems: Following independence, Namibia opted to maintain both freehold and
communal tenure lands (Mendelsohn, et al. 2002). Without title deeds, this denies communal
farmers access to credit due to a lack of collateral to ofter against borrowing (Kaakunga &
Ndalikokule, 2006; Mushendami, et al. 2008). The land tenure system in communal areas has a
direct effect on management practices and the availability of grazing resources (Suzman, 1995).
Jones (1993) cites that the lack of clear tenure arrangements is a disincentive to long-term
planning and the sustainable use and management of resources. In support, the Ministry of
Environment and Tourism (MET) (1997) reported that lack of secure communal land tenure is a
major contributing factor to land degradation as people seek to maximise individually for their
own benefit. This is at the cost of long-term sustainability of the resource use and leads to
competition amongst users (Dewdney, 1996).
Climatic and weather factors: Namibia is rated to have the driest climate in sub-Saharan Africa
with a mean annual rainfall of approximately 270 mm (Carbera, et al. 2007). Drought is a
14
common phenomenon in Namibia (Kuvare, et al. 2008). The majority of Namibian soils (97 %)
have less than 5 % clay content, resulting in low water-holding capacity and a deficiency in both
macro- and micro nutrients (National Drought Task Force (NDTF), 1997). The poor soil texture
renders a vast part of Namibia unsuitable for the rain-fed cultivation of maize and wheat crops
(Mushendami, et al. 2008; Mendelsohn & ElObeid, 2005).
Marketing difficulties: Mushendami et al. (2008) state that there seems to be limited markets for
some produce and inadequate numbers of marketable products in Namibia, for example in the
livestock sector. A typical example is that under the Cotonou agreement, Namibia exports
deboned meat to the EU in terms of an annual quota of 13,000 tonnes of beef (Price
Waterhouse Coopers, 2005) and this quota is never met. Other factors constraining marketing
include a small market due to a relatively small population, small market demand, lack of market
development in most communal areas, trade barriers and international competition
(Mendelsohn,2006).
Climate change: Climate change will have an effect on the productivity of crops and livestock in
Namibia (Mushendami, et al. 2008; Kuvare, et al. 2008). In agreement with Kaiser and Drennen
(1993), the economic effects on agriculture due to climate change in the Namibian context will
take the form of a reduction in farming profitability, investment and growth, prices, supply,
demand, trade flows, biodiversity, productive capacity of soils, carrying capacities and regional
competitive advantage.
High input. output and transport costs: According to Mendelsohn (2006), as a result of vast
distances, most Namibian farm produce cover high costs in terms of transport, inputs and
outputs. The importation of most of the production inputs coupled with transport increase the
overall production costs (Mushendami, et al. 2008).
Lack of finance: An absence of or a poor provision of financial resources is a key limiting factor
to the agricultural sector (Mushendami, et al. 2008). According to Kaakunga and Ndalikokule
(2006), the collateral required by financial institutions denies communal farmers access to
credit. Without widespread access to credit, famers cannot acquire production inputs, such as
seeds, machinery; and improvement on smaller farming units is hampered (Norton, Alwang &
Masters, 2006).
15
~[]=[]ffi\[Ptr~[R{ ~ CATTLE FARMING UNDER COMMUNAL ---- .....
SYSTEMS
3.1 Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to present an overview of cattle production under communal systems.
The chapter will focus on the role of cattle, ownership, managerial practices, risks and mitigation
strategies employed in communal production systems, and the availability of support services.
3.2 Role of Cattle
According to Livestock in Development (1999), livestock contributes to people's livelihoods in a
variety of ways (Figure 3.1). Nkosi and Kirsten (1993) categorise livestock functions into social,
economic and cultural roles.
Figure 3.1 Ways of livestock contribution to people's livelihoods (adapted from Livestock in
Development, 1999)
16
In third world countries, cattle are source of income and food security through their provision of
milk, draught power, transport, meat, manure, income, hides and skins (Kruger & Lammerts-
Imbuwa, 2008; MAWF, 2007; Dovie, Shackleton & Witkowski, 2006; Simela, et al. 2006;
Thornton, Kruska, Henninger, Kristjanson, Antieno, et al. 2002; Whande, 1999). Anon (2004)
indicates that livestock products in many African countries contribute in excess of 20 % to 30 %
of GDP and over 35 % when animal power and manure is added (Winrock International, 1992).
In terms of global meat supply, approximately 10% of this is sourced from extensive livestock
systems in the dry-lands (Winrock International, 1992). According to Yaron, Janssen and
Maamberua (1992), cattle are a main source of wealth, serve as a social status indicator, and
are given as 'bride price or lobolla' (Chimonyo, Kusina, Hamudikuwanda & Nyoni, 1999).
Further, cattle can serve as a secure risk-free investment and a source of savings to meet
particular cash needs (Dovie, et al. 2006; Talavera, et al. 2000; Van Rooyen & Gartside, 1999).
Metzger (1994) and Malan (1974) report that cattle are the major entreprise in Namibia,
specifically in communal areas in the Omaheke, Otjozondjupa and Kunene North. The Herero
society of Namibia have a stigma attachment for large herds of cattle, and cattle are principally
associated as a symbolic representation of wealth among the Herero community (Healy, 1996).
In addition to being sold to meet immediate households' financial needs, cattle are used as
payment for village fines and taxes (Dovie, et al. 2006). Talavera et al. (2000) report that nearly
all punishments or fines are made in the form of cattle. Further, oxen in the Kunene region are
reserved for funerary rites (Paskin, 1990).
3.3 Ownership of Cattle
Livestock ownership in the Omaheke communal areas is not clear, and in some instances,
livestock owned by a household belong to the entire family rather than to the individual
household head (Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development (MAWRD), 2003).
Cattle herds of wealthier farmers are divided among less well-to-do relatives for use and
custody (Dovie, et al. 2006; Cornu, 1999).
17
3.4 Managerial Practices
Several managerial factors, such as poor diseases and parasites control, lack of feed resources
and poor rangeland management, affect the productivity of cattle in communal areas (Bester,
Matjuda, Rust & Fourie, 2003; Chimonyo, Kusina, Hamudikuwanda, Nyoni & Ncube, 2000;
Montshwe, 2006; Musemwa, Chagwiza, Sikuka, Fraser, Chimonyo and Mzileni, 2007).
Cattle farming in communal systems is generally hindered by poor infrastructure and common
land ownership, making cattle farming difficult (Mendelsohn, 2006). In the crop producing
communal areas of Namibia, cattle are traditionally herded, especially during the crop-growing
season, and kraaled at night (Tapscott, 1990; Van Rooyen & Gartside, 1999). After harvest,
cattle graze on the stubble and stalks of either maize or millet. Van Rooyen and Gartside
(1999) state that cattle are kraaled at night and only go out during the day for grazing and
drinking water. Tapscott (1990) further reports that, during periods of grazing shortages and
often during the crop-growing season, farmers move their livestock to cattle posts.
Access to water in the Omaheke region is a crucial issue, while access to pasture has been
proven to be the biggest challenge (Suzman, 1995). Suzman (1995) reports that cattle farming
has been a marginal activity in the Omaheke region because of the water scarcity and high
variable rainfall, both geographically and seasonally.
In the Hereroland West and East communal areas, Metzger (1994) states that Otjiherero-cattle,
derivatives of the Sanga cattle which were crossed extensively with Afrikaner cattle, were the
dominant breed. Even though some European bulls were used, there was a definite shift
towards Brahman cattle. In the non-crop producing communal areas of Namibia, most cows are
milked for household consumption (Metzger, 1994). Under this management practice, cows
have to come to the homestead once a day. Around noon, the cows leave the homestead in
search of grazing areas and return to the pens the next morning in search of their calves. Upon
their return, the cows are penned and milked. Once milked, the cows stay with their calves for a
few hours, and thereafter the cycle starts repeats itself (Metzger, 1994).
18
Suzman (1995) reported on the occurrence of pasture deterioration which results in grass seeds
not being replenished, and hardier and less nutritious plants taking their place. In areas further
away from established water points, grazing is more abundant, but the lack of water and
presence of poisonous plants (Dichaphetalum cymosum) make these areas extremely difficult to
utilise, except during the raining season (Suzman, 1995).
McDowell (1972) reports that the control of grazing is difficult on communal grazing lands. Due
to a lack of clear tenure arrangements, this makes planning and the sustainable use and
management of resources, including grazing veld, difficult (Jones, 1993). There are no
regulating laws and traditional authorities no longer have the power or ability to effectively
administer land tenure and administration (Adams & Werner, 1990; Suzman, 1995).
Smit (2000) shows that overgrazing is evident near settlements and limited water points.
Anderson (1984) reports that farmers in communal areas have little incentive to manage the
land which thus makes improvement difficult. In the absence of secure communal land tenure,
wealthier livestock-owners have fenced areas off communal land in some areas and begun
digging private wells (Kaakunga & Ndalikokule, 2006; Suzman, 1997). On the other hand, the
carrying capacities of grazing areas in communal areas have been exceeded by more than
double the recommended figures of 20 hectares/LSU (Healy, 1996). The MAWRD (2003) study
in the Omaheke region shows that 67 % of the respondents indicated that they do not have
enough grazing throughout the year; only 33 % of the respondents indicated that they have
enough grazing for the whole year.
Talavera et al. (2000) report that the largely nomadic lifestyle of the Himba makes for an
excellent rotational grazing system. Further, these effective grazing management strategies are
employed in Kunene region:
• During the dry season when grazing resources are becoming poor around main
settlements, most cattle are taken to cattle posts or emergency grazing areas (Talavera,
et al. 2000; Beunison, Silverside & Bordon, 1998);
• Grazing committees are established to ensure good grazing management, with fines to
offenders (Talavera, et al. 2000; Behnke, 1998); and
• Restricted grazing areas are established in the Epupa area, where herders are banned
from grazing these areas during the raining season and the early dry season (Talavera,
et al. 2000).
19
3.5 Risks and Mitigation Strategies
Cattle farming under communal areas are faced by a variety of threats. The most serious of
these threats are low and variable rainfall, droughts, veld fires, and bush encroachment.
Livestock production is heavily dependent on rainfall; however, the erratic and unpredictable
nature of rainfall becomes a challenge for communal farmers (McPeak, 2003; Christelis &
Struckmeier, 2001). McPeak (2003) indicates that nutritional inadequacy is a severe seasonal
constraint in dry areas, and the most feasible solution to improve livestock productivity in dry
areas involve integrated applications of current knowledge rather than new technologies.
Biophysical and socio-economic models that include policy considerations that influence
rangeland productivity could be used to predict the effects of fluctuations in herd sizes, rainfall,
and land tenure (McPeak, 2003). Of great benefit to communal farmers will be early warning
systems and drought predictions.
Droughts are endemic to southern Africa and have negative economic impacts on rural
household livelihooods for both beef and crop industries (FAO, 2008; Kuvare et al. 2008;
Government of Republic of Namibia (GRN), 2002; Bhalatora, 1985; Brattan, 1987; Downing,
1987, 1988, 1992; De Waal, 1989, 1991; Devereux, 1992; Devereux and Naerra, 1996; Benson
and Clay, 1994; Tiffen, 1994; Adkisson & Devereux, 1995; Sweet, 1998). Livestock production
volumes decreased during the following years of relative droughts: 1970/71, 1981/82, 1996/97,
2000/01 and 2003/04 (Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (MAWF), 2007). Communal
cattle farmers often hang on to their cattle as long as possible until their herds are drastically
reduced by drought (Behnke & Scoones, 1992). Malan (1974) found that farmers in Kaokoland
were dividing their cattle and moving them to outlying cattle posts or even giving part of their
herds to relatives (Cornu, 1999). This risk-minimising practice acted as an insurance in the
event of a disaster (Hvidsten & Kavari, 1997).
Namibia is also affected by veld fires. As reported by Trigg (2000), large parts of vegetation is
burnt annually in the Omusati, Otjozondjupa, Oshikoto and Omaheke regions of Namibia, and
these fires are unplanned and uncontrolled (Prinsloo, 2001). Due to veld fires, cattle are forced
to walk long distances searching for grazing, and their body conditions decline. Van Rooyen
and Gartside (1999) report that poisonous plants (Dichapetalum cymosum) are abundant in
areas where veld fires have occurred. Coupled with the effects of veld fires, the effects of bush
20
encroachment have begun to affect Namibia, and livestock production has declined as a result
(Carbera, et al. 2007; Schutz, 2007).
3.6 Agricultural Support Services
The Omaheke communal areas are home to several government offices, such as those for
Extension Services, Veterinary Services, and Rural Water Supply. Specifically, the Extension
Service office is advising farmers on agricultural-related topics such as animal nutrition,
marketing, breeding, and health. This is done when farmers physically visit the extension
offices, via telephonic conversations, or when extension staff are in the field and attending
public events (MAWRD, 2003). One-on-one extension is also very common outside official
working hours (MAWRD, 2003).
21
CHAPTER 4 PRODUCTION SYSTEM, MANAGERIAL
PRACTICES & SUPPORT SERVICES IN OMAHEKE COMMUNAL
AREAS2
ABSTRACT
A total of 570 farmers in four communal areas of the Omaheke region were interviewed, who
were registered under the Meat Board of Namibia. This chapter focuses on characterising the
cattle production system; studying the managerial practices employed and accessing the
availability and utilisation of support services. The main constraints identified in the production
system are an incorrect bult-to-cow ratio (1 :38), low calving percentage and cattle mortalities
and losses. The main causes of cattle mortalities and losses in communal areas are drought,
diseases, straying and theft; with a farmer tosinq' an average of ten cattle per year. The
managerial practices found to negate sustainable cattle production are weaning practices and
record keeping. Communal cattle farmers are not utilising the available agricultural support
services and constraints identified in the production system and shortcomings found in the
managerial practices could be addresed if farmers can visit the extension and veterinary offices
for advice. A policy is needed to guide the management of grazing resources in communal
areas. A conducive policy environment should also be created by government to establish
tailor-made micro-financing to rural farming communities in order to have economically viable
cattle production systems in communal areas.
Key words: Cattle; communal farmers; managerial aspects.
4.1 Introduction
Cattle play an important role in the socio-economy of the farmers in the communal areas
through the provision of milk, meat, income through sales and use at social functions (Kruger &
Lammerts-Imbuwa, 2008; MAWF, 2007). Cattle standing at 185 535 are the most populous
2 Submitted to the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability.
22
species in the communal areas of the Omaheke region in terms of number as reported by
MAWRD (2003). Goats come second with a population of 73 783.
The implementation of the recommendations of the Odendaal Commission in 1970 negatively
affects farmers on homelands or communal areas created on marginal farmland (Namibia
Vision 2030, 2004). Unlike commercial farmers, communal farmers do not have access to
services that enable a farmer to achieve a high standard of livestock production system and
rangeland management; such as markets for de-stocking, veterinary services for animal care
and disease control, credit and loan facilities, information on research or market prices
(Carbera, Cochran, Dangelmayr, D'Aguilar, Gawande, et al. 2007; Mendelsohn, 2006).
These recommendations, enforced by the colonial administrations, created a skewed income
distribution (United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 2007). Therefore, the means to
increase communal livestock farmers' income and standard of living in the Omaheke region is
through the improvement of livestock production and marketing efficiency. Van Rooyen and
Gartside (1999) indicate that animal husbandry practices are a major area of future
improvement.
This chapter presents the results of field surveys that were undertaken in 2008 in four
communal areas of the Omaheke region. The surveys focused mainly on the cattle production
systems, managerial practices and support services to identify bottlenecks. The survey will
recommend alternative solutions to the bottlenecks.
4.2 Literature Review
Namibia is one of the driest countries in Africa, located in the south of the Sahel. Almost the
entire country can be classified as arid and semi-arid (Kruger & Lammerts-Imbuwa, 2008;
Carbera, et al. 2007). More than 60 % of Namibia's population lives in the rural parts of the
country where livestock production is the predominant economic activity, which sustains the
livelihoods of rural households (Mendelsohn, 2006). Mendelsohn (2006) reported that livestock
23
farming is the single most important agricultural activity for both commercial and communal
sectors.
Understanding farmers' objectives, perceptions and experiences are crucial in bringing about
improvement in communal cattle production (Musemwa, Mushunje, Chimonyo, Fraser, Mapiye
& Muchenje, 2008; Dovie, Shackleton & Witkowski, 2006). Access to credit and land tenure
rights have been some of the constraints of livestock farming in communal areas (Kaakunga &
Ndalikokule, 2006). According to Maree and Casey (1993), the lack of farming knowledge, lack
of finance and inability to exercise control in communal grazing systems are the major reasons
for the low level of adoption of cattle management practices. The lack of reliable agricultural
information has been severe particularly in communal areas (Montshwe, 2006). Cattle in
communal systems are generally managed with an absolute minimum of infrastructure; and
upgrading of livestock through individual mating is virtually impossible with communally owned
grazing (Maree & Casey, 1993).
Several managerial practices, such as planned breeding, weaning, selection, vaccinations and
parasites control are not conducted. In most cases, this is due to a lack of knowledge and
existing conditions (infrastructural shortcomings and land tenure rights) within communal
farming systems (Mendelsohn, 2006; Bester, Matjuda, Rust & Fourie, 2003; Chimonyo, Kusina,
Hamudikuwanda, Nyoni and Ncube, 2000; Montshwe, 2006; Musemwa, Chagwiza, Sikuka,
Fraser, Chimonyo & Mzileni, 2007). Metzger (1995) reported that due to lack of knowledge,
animal diseases were difficult to identify in the communal areas of the Omaheke region.
Metzger (1994) and Whande (1999) reported that the major causes of cattle losses in
communal areas were livestock diseases, drought, wandering off or straying, theft and ticks
infestations.
4.3 Methodology
4.3.1 Sampling
To characterise the cattle production system in the communal areas, 570 farmers from 57
villages were randomly selected and interviewed. The sample is fairly representative and
24
represents 10 % of farmers registered under the Meat Board of Namibia from these communal
areas.
4.3.2 Data Collection and Analysis
A structured interview questionnaire with closed-ended questions was used to gather data from
the 570 farmers in the Omaheke region's communal areas. The data collection process
involved a group of trained enumerators and took place during 2008. Data from questionnaires
was entered into MS Excel spreadsheet by the researcher and descriptive results analysis done
using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).
4.4 Results and Discussions
The majority of respondents were males (69.8 %); 51.9 % were between 18-49 years, and 47.7
% were 50 years of age or more.
4.4.1 Production System
4.4.1.1 Herd Composition
The average herd size per household was 66 animals (Table 4.1) in the Omaheke region's
communal areas, with a minimum of two and a maximum of 386 cattle. However, the 2001
livestock census of the Directorate of Veterinary Services showed average household
ownership to be estimated at 42 head of cattle (MAWRD, 2003).
The herds of the Omaheke communal farmers constisted a very high percentage of females
(74.3 %). This is an indication that these communal farmers tend to have many cows and
heifers to increase productivity and derive benefit from milk and meat. There are no oxen in the
herds, and in agreement with this study, results from Metzger (1994) show that the steers are
sold before they are fully grown oxen.
25
Table 4.1 Herd composition, calving percentages and bull:cow ratios in four study areas
Category Herd composition per communal area Total for study Percent of
Aminius Epukiro Otjinene Otjombinde areas total herd
(average)
Cows 42±136 41±244 30±814 38±138 38±145 57.6%
Bulls 2±1.671 2±0.882 1±1.377 1±0.983 1±1.357 1.5 %
Oxen (>3 years) 1±4.984 1±0.488
Heifers (1-3 years) 13±175 10±133 10±116 10±86.86 11±135 16.7 %
Steers (1-3 years) 5±52.23 6±69.52 2±16.88 3±44.83 4±42.43 6.1 %
Calves «1 year) 13±131.13 11±111 11±127 12±109 12±122 18.1 %
Total 76±396.9 71±558.9 54±1075.3 64±379.7 66±445.8 100.0 %
Calving % 31 % 26.8% 36.7% 31.5% 31.5%
Bull:cow ratio 1:21 1:21 1:30 1:38 1:38
As shown in Table 4.1, the average bull:cow ratio in the study areas is 1:38, and far exceeds the
recommended average ratio of 1:25 (Rothauge, 2006; Mendelsohn, 2006). When comparing
the four communal areas, Aminius and Epukiro are within the recommended ratio, but Otjinene
and Otjombinde are beyond this recommended ratio. A correct bull:cow ratio maximises
conception and fertlity, enabling every cow to calf yearly. The calving percentage of 31.5 % is
very low, as shown in Table 4.1. In commercial cattle farming, a calving of 75 % and above is
ideal (Mendelsohn, 2006). This low calving percentage is comparable to the figures reported by
Nthakheni (2006) of 35.6 %. The low calving percentage under the current production system in
the communal areas of the Omaheke region seem to point to specific causal factors, such as a
high percentage of non-productive breeding females, high bull:cow ratios, nutritional problems,
land tenure system, and poor managerial practices.
4.4.1.2 Purpose of keeping cattle
Cattle are kept by communal farmers for a variety of reasons, but mainly to fuifiII three important
roles, namely social, economic and cultural roles. An indication of the most important reasons
why cattle are kept in the Omaheke region's communal areas was obtained by asking
respondents to name the reasons why they keep cattle. The results are summarised in Figure
4.1.
26
Other
Wealth (security)
Sales (income)
Nutrition source t.'" ... Ni, •
------
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%
Figure 4.1 The respondents' rating for the purpose of keeping cattle (2010)
As shown in Figure 4.1, the cattle are kept as a source of nutrition, and in agreement with this
study, results from Wilson, Diallo and Wagenaar (1985) show that milk constitutes a major part
of the diet in the Omaheke region's communal areas and influences herd structure. An
important production objective of these communal farmers is thus to have as many cows as
possible to produce milk for human consumption (Figure 4.2), as well as to generate cash from
the sale of males not needed for reproduction. This finding is in agreement with the work of
Winrock International (1992).
Figure 4.2 A cow milking in a communal area of Omaheke (source: Gabriel Hangara)
27
4.4.1.3 Breed Preferences
Figure 4.3 shows the preferences of breeds by farmers in the four study areas. As indicated in
Figure 4.3, the cross breed is the prefered breed (61 %) followed by the Exotic Zebu (Brahman)
breed (22 %) in the Omaheke communal areas. Differences between the four communal areas
were analysed using a Chi-square test. Only 3 % and 4 % of farmers in Aminius and
Otjombinde respectively preferred the indigenous breed. The breed preferences in Epukiro are
quite different in comparison with the other three study areas, given that the combined
preference for indigenous and European breeds constitutes 33 %. The farmers' preferences
between the indigenous breed, exotic Zebu breed, cross-breed and European breed vary
significantly (p<0.05) in the four areas. Farmers' reasons for these preferences were that cross-
breeds are dual purpose in terms of milk and meat production. The low preference for the
indigenous breed was because they fetched low prices when marketed, whereas the European
breeds are easily infested by external parasites.
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
• Indigenous breed
40.0%
• ExoticZebu (Brahman) breed
30.0% • Cross breed
• European breed
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Aminius Epukiro Otjinene Otjombinde Study areas
(average)
Figure 4.3 Percentages of farmers indicating their breed preference for keeping (2010)
28
4.4.1.4 Water Supply
The respondents indicated that 92 % of the communal farmers get water from boreholes as a
source of water, and the majority of cattle walk less than one kilometre to the water point (68.8).
The reliability" of existing water sources was rated as 78.1 % reliable, 13.5 % fairly reliable and
8.4 % as unreliable. The water quality of existing main water sources is relatively good, and
only 6.5 % of respondents reported that the quality of existing water sources is poor due to a
high salt content.
In order to secure a steady supply of water, the water sources should be managed effectively.
The study revealed that the government established Village Water Point Committees are
managing the water sources (93.9 %), whereas other means accounted for 3.9 % and non-
existent 2.3 % respectively. The Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry, through its Rural
Water Supply department, trains and mentors village water point committees; and then hand-
over water points to these committees to manage autonomously (Figure 4.4).
Figure 4.4 A village water source under the management of a water point committee in Epukiro
3 Reliability means to have a continuous supply of water.
29
4.4.1.5 Grazing Management
The availibility of feed resources to any farming enterprise cannot be over-emphasised. The
respondents were asked to indicate the source of grazing for their cattle, and in response, the
majority (84.2 %) mentioned the open communal grazing veld as the main source of grazing. A
further question was posed to find the grazing system employed, and 86 % of respondents
indicated to be employing a free roaming grazing system. With the free roaming grazing
system, each household makes its own decisions regarding where to graze its animals.
Figure 4.5 gives a summary of the condition of grazing areas in the Omaheke region's
communal areas. When looking broadly at all study areas, as shown in Figure 4.5, only a
quarter of respondents (24 %) indicated that the condition of grazing areas was poor.
Differences between the four communal areas were analysed using a Chi-square test. The
study reveals that grazing conditions are better in Aminius, followed in descending order by
Otjombinde, Otjinene and Epukiro. As a result, differences between good, fairly good and poor
grazing conditions vary significantly (p<0.05) in the four study areas. Investigations should be
undertaken to identify and document the grazing management practices employed in Aminius,
and if proven to be viable, this strategy could be duplicated in other communal areas. Also,
investigations should be undertaken to find the cause of the relatively poor rating of grazing
conditions in the Epukiro communal area.
Study areas (average)
Otjombinde
• Poor
Otjinene
• Fairly good
.Good
Epukiro
Aminius
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%
Figure 4.5 Condition of grazing areas in communal areas of Omaheke region (2010)
30
Table 4.2 presents the farmers' responses to the management of grazing areas, distance
covered by cattle grazing areas and the daily grazing hours in the four study areas. The
majority of respondents indicated that the village committees are managing the grazing areas.
When a query was made to the respondents with regard to the distance covered by cattle to the
grazing areas, as shown in Table 4.2, cattle are walking between 6 to 10 kilometres to grazing
areas (63.3 %). The distance to the grazing areas is one of the indicators of feed resources
availability.
Table 4.2 Farmers' responses to management, distance covered and daily grazing hours
Characteristic Aminius Epukiro Otjinene Otjombinde Study areas
(average)
n 190 120 160 100 570
Management of grazing
areas (%)
Village committee 92.6 92.5 93.1 98 93.7
Other 3.2 6.7 5.6 4
None 4.2 0.8 1.3 2 2.3
Distance covered to
grazing areas (%)
<1 km 3.2 3.3 3.8 3 3.3
1-5 km 25.3 27.5 25.6 16 23.6
6-10 km 65.8 52.5 58.8 76 63.3
>10 km 4.2 15 10.6 5 8.7
Don't know 1.6 1.7 1.3 1.2
Daily grazing hours (%)
1-7 hours 5.8 13.8 9 7.4
8-11 hours 60.5 15.8 73.6 37 50.6
12-24 hours 33.7 84.2 12.6 54 42
A further question was posed regarding the daily grazing hours. Livestock are accorded various
grazing hours, depending on farming systems and management practices employed. As shown
in Table 4.3, only 7 % of the farmers graze their cattle between 1 and 7 hours, 51 % graze their
cattle between 8 and 11 hours, while 42 % graze their cattle between 12 and 24 hours.
Interestingly, Epukiro has a high percentage in the grazing hour range of 12 to 24 hours,
whereas Otjinene has a low percentage (12.6 %) in the grazing hour range of 12 to 24 hours.
Some farming communities in rural areas keep the cattle in kraals at night and only let them out
31
during the day for grazing and drinking water. This low percentage of grazing hours in Otjinene
might be as a result of such a practice.
In many areas of Namibia, most pastures burn every year and these fires resulted in substantial
loss of grazing areas. A question was asked to establish whether veld fires occur in the study
areas, and if so, how frequently. In response, a large proportion of respondents (66.5 %)
indicated that veld fires are not being encountered in the study areas, while the remaining
respondents (33.5 %) indicated that veld fires happen about once yearly due to lightning, and
that these fires are exstinguished through community intervention.
4.4.1.6 Mortalities and Losses
As indicated in Figure 4.6, drought, diseases, straying and theft are the four major causes of
livestock losses. The mortalities due to disease, straying and theft seem to point to
management systems employed, while those due to drought seem to point to nutritional
problems. As shown in Table 4.3 above, the distance covered to grazing areas that range from
six to ten kilomentres indicates that feed resources are low in terms of quantity and quality, and
when drought hits, the animals are heavily affected. The mortalities caused by diseases could
be greatly reduced through effective utilisation of agricultural support services available. The
herding practice elsewhere in Namibia and beyond has proved an effective way to reduce
livestock losses through predation, theft and straying. The adoption of the herding practice
would likely reduce and even eliminate the straying and theft incidences.
Ceremonial uses -
Eating of litter I
Diarrhoea ~
Poison leaf
Dystocia
Straying
Theft
Predators
Diseases -
Drought
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
Figure 4.6 Main causes of cattle mortalities and losses in Omaheke communal areas (2010)
32
Table 4.3 shows the rneanjstancard deviations and percentages for herd mortalities and losses
in the study areas. As indicated in Table 4.3, the cows had the highest death incidence
amongst cattle and, on average, a farmer lost ten cattle annually. Thus, the overall herd
mortality rate is 15 % in the study areas. Aminius has the highest number of mortalities while
Otjinene has lowest. Interestingly, no mortalities or losses have been reported for bulls across
all four study areas, and it implies that bulls don't die or maybe do stay around long enough to
die.
Table 4.3 Cattle mortalities and losses in study areas
Category Aminius Epukiro Otjinene Otjombinde Study areas Percentage of
(average) total herd
n 190 120 160 100 570
Cows 6±43.4 5±27.5 3±10.9 4±11.7 5±27.6 50%
Heifers (1-3 years) 4±17.0 3±6.3 1±5.1 1±3.2 2±19.0 20%
Steers (1-3 years) 2±6.9 2±2.6 1±1.6 1±3.7 10%
Calves « 1 year) 3±10.1 3±4.1 1±4.9 2±3.3 2±6.0 20%
Total 15±77.4 13±40.5 4±20.9 8±19.8 10±56.3 100%
I! 4.4.2 Managerial Practices
4.4.2.1 Mating Practices and Selection
As shown in Figure 4.7, the veld rnatinq" system is the dominant mating practice employed by
farmers in the study areas. The farmers employ this mating system because of limitations in
infrastructure and land availability. To a lesser extent, kraal mating is practised by farmers who
fenced off small camps for the bulls and only allow bulls to meet the cows at kraals during day-
time when the cows return for milking and drinking water. Further, Figure 4.8 shows that the
majority of farmers prefer to use multiple sires5. The practice of multiple sires ties in well with
the veld mating system employed as it enables any cow on heat to be serviced by bulls in the
vicinity.
4 Veld mating means cows and bulls move together all year round and there are no distinct times where breeding takes place.
5 Multiple sires means to have many bulls run and mate freely with cows.
33
Kraal Other
mating 4%
22%
• Single-sire
• Multiple-sires
• Other
mating
74%
Figure 4.7 Mating systems employed (2010) Figure 4.8 Sire mating practices employed (2010)
Figure 4.9 shows the various ways used to acquire bulls by farmers in the study areas. As
shown in Figure 4.9, 71 % of respondents indicated to have acquired bulls through means such
as buying bulls from commerical farmers, neighbouring communal farmers and taking bulls from
their own herds. Almost 30 % of respondents do not own bulls and as a result greatly benefit
through the veld mating system employed which enables their cows are mated by multiple sires.
As indicated, the sire:dam ratio is high in the study areas (Table 4.2), and the trend of not
owning a bull has put tremendous pressure on available bulls to service cows on heat. Due to
this fact, over utilisation may result in bull fatique and poor libido. The trend of not having
sufficient bulls may result in reproduction and production losses because not all the cows will be
mated when on heat. In the end, both the reproduction and production losses constitute an
economic loss because the farmer has invested in the upkeep of that animal during a certain
period of time and has not received a return in the form of a marketable calf.
Other
I I I I I
Has no bull
I I I I
Bull from commercial farmer
I I
Bull from neighbouring farmer
I I I I
Bull from own cattle herd
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0%
Figure 4.9 Bull acquisition in the four study areas (2010)
34
The mating ages for young bulls and heifers is shown in Figure 4.10. The majority of
respondents indicated that they do not know the age at which bulls should first mate, as shown
in Figure 4.10. 74 % of the respondents mate heifers from the age of 12 to 36 months. As
shown in Figure 4.10, some respondents (36.5 %) indicated that heifers are mating when they
come on heat, ranging from an age of 12 to 24 months; while 38 % indicated that heifers are
mated from 25 to 36 months. Ideally, heifers should be first mated when they have reached the
minimum target weight for that particular breed. Under the current farming system which is
dominated by the employment of free roaming grazing and veld mating practices, it is difficult to
control the mating age and weights of the heifers.
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
• Heifers
20.0%
• Bulls
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
<12 months 12-24 months 25-36 months >36 months Don't know
Figure 4.10 Ages at first mating of heifers and bulls in study areas (2010)
4.4.2.2 Cattle Identification
Cattle identification is a statutory requirement in Namibia. Communal farmers apply different
techniques to identify their cattle, and the commonly used ones are branding with a hot iron,
tattoing, earmarking and eartagging. Identification is important for traceability reasons and for
enabling farmers to distinguish their livestock from those of other farmers. As indicated in Table
4.4, farmers who prefer to use a combination of techniques are represented in other" (42.5 %),
followed by 35 % of branding with a heated iron, and 20 % of earmarking. Differences between
6 Other means that farmers use a combination of variuos identification techniques.
35
the four communal areas were analysed using a Chi-square test. As a result, there were
significant differences (p<O.05) between identification techniques used in the four study areas.
Tattooing and eartagging with plastic tags was ranked the least used method; although the Meat
Board of Namibia, through the FANMEAT scheme, introduced eartagging with special plastic
eartags for traceability. It is mandatory that livestock farmers be registered with the Meat Board
of Namibia as producers, and that they brand their livestock in order to market their livestock.
When registered, each producer is issued with a certificate and membership card bearing a
unique brand number. Thereafter, the producer makes his own branding iron bearing this
unique number. Earmarking is one of the oldest and cheapest identification methods used for
many years in the study areas. A sharp knife is used to cut unique patterns on the ears of
animals. This practice requires precision and skill.
Table 4.4 Identification, castration and dehorning techniques used in the study areas
Characteristic Aminius Epukiro Otjinene Otjombinde Study areas
(average)
n 190 120 160 100 570
Identification method (%)
Branding with hot iron 31.6 30.8 33.1 50.0 35.1
Tattooing 2.0 0.4
Earmarking 2.1 40.6 45.0 20.0
Eartagging with plastic tags 6.9 1.0 2.1
Other 66.3 69.2 19.4 2.0 42.5
Castration method (%)
Knife 16.3 4.2 5.0 4.0 8.4
Elastrator (ring) 48.4 68.3 33.8 61.0 50.7
Burdizzo 17.4 11.7 43.8 21.0 24.2
None 8.4 12.5 15.6 12.0 11.9
Other 9.5 3.3 1.9 2.0 4.7
Dehorning method (%)
Use of hot iron 82.6 90.8 86.9 92 87.2
Use of polled bulls 0.5 1.0 0.4
None 16.3 9.2 12.5 7.0 12.1
Other 0.5 0.6 0.4
When a further query was made as to when identification is done, 56.3% of respondents
indicated that identification is done when calves are between three to six months. The Stock
36
Brands Act of 1995 requires all animals of six months to be branded with the owner-registered
brand.
4.4.2.3 Castration and Dehorning
Communal farmers in the study areas apply different techniques to castrate and dehorn their
cattle. The most commonly used castration methods are with a knife, elastrator and burdizzo;
while with dehorning, a hot iron is placed over the emerging horn and turned around to form a
brown ring around the horn bud. With regard to the right age of castration, 50.4 % of
respondents indicated that they castrate from three to six months, whereas. 29.5 % indicated
between six to 12 months.
The majority of farmers castrate with the elastrator (51 %), followed by burdizzo (24 %), and
only 8 % use the knife (see Table 4.4). The elastrator method involves a rubber ring being
applied which cuts off the blood flow to the testicles and results in the testicles drying up. On
survey about frequency of castration, 52.6 % of respondents indicated that they perform
cast rations once yearly, 27 % indicated twice yearly (27 %) and 12.3 % do not castrate at all.
The trend in the latter is due to the fact that weaner calves are sold without being castrated.
Dehorning is one of the most important managerial practices. It minimises injury to other cattle
and horned cattle should be dehorned as young as possible. As shown in Table 4.4, the
majority of farmers (87.2 %) use the hot iron technique, while 12 % do not dehorn at all. With
regard to the right age of dehorning, 50 % of respondents indicated that they dehorn from three
to six months, whereas 30 % indicated between six to 12 months. Similar to castration, on
survey about frequency of dehorning, 55 % of respondents indicated that they perform
dehorning once yearly, whereas 24 % indicated twice yearly.
Cattle should be dehorned while under the age of six months. In cases where the horn is a bit
big, it should be cut off with a sharp knife or a dehorning plier before using a wood-heated iron.
After dehorning, cattle should be inspected until healing has taken place, and any infected
should be treated. The communal farmers can greatly reduce the labour effort involved in
dehorning and benefit through the use polled bulls. The government extension department
should promote the adoption of polled bulls in its extension work.
37
4.4.2.4 Weaning
The practice of weaning calves is one of the key cattle managerial practices that can be used in
cattle herds in extensive production systems to improve herd productivity. The main objective of
weaning is therefore to enable a cow to calve every year by allowing her to regain condition
after weaning. Communal farmers apply different techniques to wean their calves, and the
commonly-used methods are phyiscal separation', the use of nose ring8 and natural weanlnq",
As indicated in Table 4.5, the natural weaning method predominates in the study areas
(39.1 %), followed by physical separation (34.4 %) and the use of a nose ring (23.3 %). The
respondents using physical seperation and nose ring techniques indicated to wean calves from
six to nine months of age. Ideally, calves should be weaned when they are seven months old
(Rothauge, 2006).
The farmers in the study areas indicated that they keep cattle for the provision of milk and meat
(nutrition source), and thus the natural weaning practice that predominates is linked to the
reason why cattle are kept in the study areas. As shown in Table 4.5, when looking at a specific
area, physical separation practice is employed more in the Epukiro and Otjombinde communal
areas respectively. This practice is adopted in those two study areas because Otjombinde was
initially earmarkerd for the white settlers and demarcated into commercial farms with camps;
while in Epukiro, illegal private fencing took place, as reported by Healy (1996).
The natural weaning practice predominates in Otjinene, while in Aminius the use of nose rings
predominates. Considering the benefits of weaning and its contribution to overall herd
reproduction and productivty, and given the limitations in infrastructure in the study areas, the
use of the nose ring as a weaning method seems to be best option in terms of cost.
7 Physical separation means separating a calf from the cow with an aid of a fence.
8 A nose ring is a plastic device or a wire that is pushed through the nose which has a lot of wires in a circle at the end.
9 Natural weaning means that the calf is left with the cow until they naturally separate.
38
Table 4.5 Weaning techniques used in the study areas
Characteristic Aminius Epukiro Otjinene Otjombinde Study areas
(average)
n 190 120 160 100 570
Weaning method (%)
Physical separation 28.4 48.3 21.9 49.0 34.4
Natural weaning 36.3 30.8 50.6 36.0 39.1
Use of nose ring 32.1 19.2 23.1 12.0 23.3
Other 3.2 1.7 4.4 3.0 3.2
4.4.2.5 Parasites Control, Vaccination and Disease Control
Ticks infestations account for cattle losses in communal areas (Metzger, 1994; Whande, 1999).
As a result, farmers in the study areas apply different techniques to control external parasites on
their cattle. As indicated in Figure 4.11, the most common control mechanism is pour-on
remedies, according to 40 % of the respondents. Tick grease and dipping each accounts for
16 % respectively, while hand picking accounts for only 4 %. The farmers' seriousness in
controlling external parasites effectively will contribute to improved productivity.
In terms of internal parasites control, the majority of interviewed farmers (78.4 %) do not treat
endo-parasites. The few farmers (21.6 %) who do control internal parasites are dosing their
cattle once or twice yearly.
Hand picking
4%
grease
16%
Figure 4.11 External parasites control methods used
39
The four most prominent cattle diseases in the study areas are botulism, blackquarter, anthrax
and brucelossis (see Figure 4.12). A study conducted by Metzger (1994) identified Botulism
and Black-quarter as the major diseases killing cattle. Similar to the above finding, this study
finding shows that 86 % of respondents are concerned about Botulism, and 43 % about Black-
quarter.
Poison leaf _
Mineral deficiencies _
Sweating sickness •
Gallsickness
Tick-borne diseases
Constipation _
art in calves ~
Rabies
Foot & Mouth Disease
Lumpy Skin Disease
Botulism
Black-quarter
Anthrax
Brucellosis -e~~~~~~~e--_J--_j_--~--!---t--~~-~
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
Figure 4.12 Prominent cattle diseases in the study areas (2010)
As indicated in Figure 4.13, the farmers mainly vaccinate annually for immunity against
brucellosis, botulism, anthrax and blackquater. Further, 66.3 % of respondents indicated that
the first immunisations for calves are done between three and six months of age.
40
None
Lumpy Skin Disease
Botulism
Black-quarter
Anthrax
Brucellosis
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%
Figure 4.13 Cattle annual immunisations in the four study areas (2010)
An enquiry was made regarding the responsible body for immunising cattle in the study areas.
In response, 92.1 % of respondents indicated that individual farmers are responsible for cattle
immunisation in the study areas. A second question sought to establish the seasons when both
the initial and annual booster immunisations were administered. As shown in Figure 4.14,
63.6 % of farmers vaccinate during summer, 14.8 % during autumn, 12.1 % during winter and
6.2 % during spring.
Figure 4.14 Season of cattle immunisations in Omaheke communal areas (2010)
41
4.4.2.6 Supplementation
According to Roodt (2007), the grass forage in Namibia has low phosphorus (P) content due to
the P-deficiency and high Calcium (Ca) content of most soils in Namibia. Cattle need at least
25g P/day and if not supplemented, cattle develop the typical deficiency symptom "pica" in
many areas of Namibia, which is as shown in Figure 4.15. Pica is characterised by chewing
stones, bones and other unusual objects (Roodt, 2007). Phosphorus deficiencies decrease
feed intake, conception rates, ovarian activity, and cause anoestrus (Lopez, Kanitz & Moreira,
2004). Cows deficient in calcium have an increased incidence of dystocia, retained placentae
and prolapsed uterus (Lanyasunya, Musa, Yang, Mekkiand & Mukisira, 2005).
The majority of respondents (63.3 %) are supplementing their cattle more than four times yearly
with home-mixed phosphate licks (56.8 %) and readily mixed phosphate licks (30.7 %). These
findings are in agreement with that of MAWRD (2003). In terms of the season of
supplementation, the majority of respondents (59.2 %) are supplementing their cattle with
phosphate licks throughout the year.
Figure 4.15 Eating of litter as a sign of P-deficiency (source: Gabriel Hangara)
42
Drought is a common phenomena in Namibia and cattle farmers employ different strategies to
prepare for the drought and mitigate its impact. According to Rothauge (2001), planning for
drought and drought preparedness should be a fundamental part of livestock production in an
arid country. A first question was asked to find out which mitigation strategies farmers employ
in the study areas before the drought. As shown in Figure 4.16, licks supplementation (56.9 %)
is the main mitigation strategy employed before the drought in the study areas. The building of
fodder banks accounts for 17 %, while relocating to other areas within a district accounts for
11.4 %.
Olher
Don'l know
teasing grJLing outside district
Moving to other JrCJS within district
Building up of fodder banks
Licks supplcrncn tauon
De-stocking
0.0% 10.0% 2.0.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0%
Figure 4.16 Mitigation strategies employed before drought in the study areas (2010)
A second question was asked to find out which mitigation strategies are employed by farmers
during the drought. Licks supplementation was again cited as the main mitigation strategy
employed during the drought (see Figure 4.17). To a lesser extent, farmers are providing their
cattle with protein and energy feeds (24.6 %). During the drought, many farmers will
concentrate on destocking, but this is not the case in these study areas.
43
Other
Don't know
Feeding with protein & energy feeds
Feeding with crop residues
Licks supplementation
0.0% 10.0% 70.0% '\0.0% 40.0% <;0.0% 1l0.0%
Figure 4.17 Mitigation strategies employed during drought in the study areas (2010)
Figure 4.18 shows the mitigiation strategies employed after a drought in the study areas. The
majority of respondents (88.9 %) indicated to provide licks supplementation. After the drought,
many farmers will concentrate on restocking, but this is not the case in these study areas as
indicated by only a few farmers (3.2 %) who restock.
Other
Don'tknow
Storing crop residues
Building up of fodder banks
Lickssupplementation
Re-stocking
0.0% 10.0% 70.0% '\0.0% 40.0% <;0.0% 1l0.0% 70.0% RO.O% £)0.0% 100.0%
Figure 4.18 Mitigation strategies employed after drought in the study areas (2010)
44
4.4.2.7 Record Keeping
Record keeping is very crucial to any farming enterprise, be it for subsistence or commercial
farming. Table 4.6 shows the recording keeping trend in the study areas. As shown in Table
4.6, only 5 % of respondents indicated to keep cattle records, which include births, mortalities,
sales, acquisitions, disease incidences and treatment records, and licks supplemtantions.
Differences between those who kept records and those who did not keep records were
analysed using a Chi-square test. As a result, there were significant differences (p<O.05)
between those who keep records and those who do not keep records in the four study areas.
Table 4.6 Record keeping in the study areas
Characteristic Aminius Epukiro Otjinene Otjombinde Study areas
(average)
n 190 120 160 100 570
Record keeping (%)
Yes 4.2 11.7 4.4 1.0 5.3
No 95.8 95.6 95.6 99.0 94.7
4.4.3 Support Services
4.4.3.1 Agricultural Advice and Training
The Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry plays a dominant role in the public agri-service
area. The Ministry provides different services, such as extension, advice, veterinary and rural
water supply in the four communal areas of the Omaheke region. However, when asked "how
frequently farmers visited" for advice, as indicated in Figure 4.19, 73.5 % of respondents
indicated that they never paid visits to the local extension office, and 63.5 % never paid yearly
visits to the veterinary office for agricultural advice. In terms of training, only 13 % of
respondents had received agricultural training during the last five years.
45
• Extension office
• Veterinary office
4+ times/year 3 times/year 2 times/year 1 time/year Notat all
Figure 4.19 Visit frequencies to agricultural support services (2010)
4.4.3.2 Agricultural Credit
From the 570 respondents, 69 % indicated that there was no source of agricultural credit in
communal areas. Although 31 % indicated that there were credit services, they were located at
a distance of more than 200 kilometers from the farm. In terms of credit, only 5 % of
respondents indicated to have received credit to buy cattle (particularly bulls) during the last five
years. The Agricultural Bank of Namibia provides production loans to farmers to acquire
breeding stock and farmers use these loans to buy bulls in order to increase their production.
4.5 Conclusions
This chapter focused on characterising the production system; studied the managerial practices
employed and accessed the availability and utilisation of support services.
4.5.1 Production Systsem
The study revealed that cattle are kept mainly as a source of nutrition and, justifying this
important production objective, the average herd size per household is 66 animals and consists
46
of a high percentage of females. The cross breeds are the preferred breeds and preference
varies signficantly (p<O.05). The availability of water and grazing was found not to be a
constraint to cattle production, although cattle covers an average of six to ten kilometres to
grazing areas. The study found that the grazing conditions in Aminius were rated far better than
those in the other study areas. Therefore, further research is needed to investigate and
document the grazing management practices employed in Aminius, to duplicate these in other
communal areas if viable. Also, research should be undertaken to find the cause of the
relatively poor rating of grazing conditions in the Epukiro communal area. A policy is needed to
guide the management of grazing resources in communal areas. Finally, the establishment of
village grazing management committees would likely go a long way in conserving grazing
resources and enabling sustainable cattle production.
The main constraints identified are incorrect bull:cow ratio, low calving percentage and high
cattle mortalities and losses. The incorrect bull:cow ratio has severe consequences for
production systems because it affects the conception and fertility of the herd. This, in fact,
results in a production loss to farmers because every cow is expected to calf every year. The
introduction of bull schemes with clear guidelines in terms of utilisation and ownership could
address these shortcomings. Such an intervention requires a joint effort between the
government and private sector. If and when such a programme is introduced, preference
should be given to the Otjinene and Otjombinde communal areas because the bull:cow ratio is
beyond the recommended ratio of 1:25.
The low calving percentage (31.5%) under the current production system in the communal
areas of the Omaheke region seemed to point to specific causal factors like a high percentage
of non-productive breeding females, an incorect bull:cow ratio, nutritional problems and poor
managerial practices. The incorrect bull:cow ratio proved to be the main reason for low calving
percentages.
The main causes of cattle mortalities and losses in the communal areas are drought (49%),
diseases (33%), straying (22%) and theft (18%), and a farmer loses an average of ten cattle per
year. This loss of ten cattle per year is a great loss to a farmer with an average herd size of 66
cattle. The mortalities due to disease, straying and theft seemed to point to shortcomings in
managerial practices employed, while those due to drought may point to nutritional problems.
47
The mortalities caused by diseases could be greatly reduced through effective utilisation of
agricultural support services available. The herding practice elsewhere in Namibia and beyond
proved an effective way to reduce livestock losses through predation, theft and straying. The
adoption of the herding practice should encouraged because it will reduce and even eliminate
straying and theft incidences.
4.5.2 Managerial Practices
The study showed that the veld mating system with multiple sires is the dominant mating
practice employed by farmers in the study areas. The adoption of this mating practice is in
conformity with some limitations in infrastructure and land availability. Almost 30% of farmers
do not own bulls and this might be a contributing factor to low calving percentages identified as
a constraint under the production system.
The farmers are employing sound managerial practices in terms of cattle identification,
castration, dehorning, control of external parasites, immunisations against brucellosis, botulism,
anthrax and blackquater and supplementation. The communal farmers can greatly reduce the
labour effort involved in dehorning and benefit through the use of polled bulls. The government
extension department should promote the adoption of polled bulls in its extension work.
The managerial practices that negate sustainable cattle production are weaning practices and
record keeping. Natural weaning practice predominates in the study areas and this practice
prolongs inter-calving periods of cattle. Considering the benefits of weaning and its contribution
to overall herd reproduction and productivty, and given the limitations in infrastructure in the
study areas, the use of the nose ring as a weaning method seems to be best option in terms of
cost and practicality for communal cattle farmers. In terms of record. keeping, only 5% of
farmers in the study areas keep records of births, mortalities, sales, acquisitions, disease
incidences and treatment records, and licks supplemtantions. Records are an important
management tool that can guide farmers. Thus, both public and private agricultural service
providers should embark upon farmers' training in record keeping and to highlight its
importance. Tailor-made recording files in local langauges, if not available, should be
developed for communal farmers.
48
4.5.3 Support Services
Cattle farmers in the study areas are not utilising the local public agri-service offices for advice
and training. Constraints stated in the production system and shortcomings found in the
managerial practices could be addresed if farmers can visit the extension and veterinary offices
for advice.
Proactively, both the local public and private agri-service providers should embark on
awareness raising regarding the mandatory services they offer to the communal farmers; and
should offer training according to training needs identified if resources allow. In addition, a
further study should be undertaken to ascertain why farmers are not visiting public agri-service
providers offices for advice while they are faced with challenging production and managerial
problems.
Also, the study shows that there are no agricultural credit facilities in the communal areas of the
Omaheke region. Agricultural credit lending institutions should decentralise their services to
enable farmers access to credit. Further, communal farmers' access to credit is mostly
hampered by the collateral (security) demanded by financial institutions. There are under-
developed legal and regulatory systems with regards to title deeds of land in rural areas and
other assets that could be used as collateral. A conducive policy environment should be
created by government to establish tailor-made micro-financing to rural farming communities in
order to have economically-viable cattle production systems in communal areas.
49
4.6 References
Bester, J., Matjuda, I.E., Rust, J.M. & Fourie, H.J. (2003). The Nguni: Case study. In: FAO
Community-based management of animal genetic resources. Rome: UNDP, GTZ, CTA, FAO.
pp. 45-68.
Carbera, A., Cochran, M., Dangelmayr, L., D'Aguilar, G., Gawande, K., Lee, J., Speir, I. &1
Weigand, C. (2007). African Capacity Building for Meat Exports: Lessons from the Namibian
and Botswanan Beef Industries. George H. W. Bush School of Government and Public Service,
Texas A&M University.
Chimonyo, M., Kusina, N.T., Hamudikuwanda, H., Nyoni, O. & Ncube, I. (2000). Effects of
dietary supplementation and work stress on ovarian activity in non-lactating Mashona cows in a
smallholder farming area of Zimbabwe. Animal Science, 70(2): 317-323.
Dovie, D.B.K., Shackleton, C.M. & Witkowski, E.T.F. (2006). Valuation of communal area
livestock benefits, rural livelihoods and related policy issues. Land Use Policy, 23: 260-271.
Healy, T.M. (1996). Eastern Epukiro Community Water Improvement Project: Agro-Ecological
Assessment Report, Oxfam UK & I, Windhoek.
Kaakunga, E. & Ndalikokule, V. (2006). "Property Rights and Access to Credit." Bank of
Namibia Occasional Paper OP-1/2006.
Kruger, B. & Lammerts-Imbuwa, L. (2008). Training Manual: Livestock Marketing in Namibia.
Namibia National Farmers Union (NNFU).
Lanyasunya T.P., Musa, H.H., Yang, Z.P., Mekkiand, O.M. & Mukisira, E.A. (2005). Effects of
Poor Nutrition on Reproduction of Dairy Stock on Smallholder Farms in the Tropics. Pakistan
Journal of Nutrition, 4(2): 117-122.
Lopez, H., Kanitz, F.D., & Moreira V.A. (2004). Reproductive performance of dairy cows fed two
concentrations of phosphorus. Journal of Dairy Science, 87: 146-157.
50
Maree, C. & Casey, N.H. (1993). Livestock Production Systems: Principles and Practice Agri-
Development Foundation, Brooklyn.
MAWF (Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry). (2007). Agricultural Statistics Bulletin.
Directorate of Planning: Windhoek, Namibia.
MAWRD (Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development). (2003). Baseline Survey of the
Impact of Agriculture Extension Services in Omaheke Region. Directorate of Extension and
Engineering Services, Gobabis.
Mendelsohn, J. (2006). Farming Systems in Namibia. NNFU: Windhoek, Namibia.
Metzger, D. (1994). Livestock Sector Study for the Hereroland and Namaland. Ministry of
Agriculture, Water and Rural Development; Deutsche Gesellschaft Fur Technische
Zusammernarbeit (GTZ), Windhoek.
Metzger, D. (1995). Livestock Sector Study for the Eastern Communal Areas and Southern
Communal Areas. Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development; Deutsche Gesellschaft
Fuer Technische Zusammernarbeit (GTZ), Windhoek.
Montshwe, O.B. (2006). Factors affecting participation in mainstream cattle markets by small-
scale cattle farmers in South Africa. MSc Thesis, University of Free State, RSA.
Musemwa, L., Chagwiza, C., Sikuka, W., Fraser, G., Chimonyo, M. & Mzileni, N. (2007).
Analysis of cattle marketing channels used by small scale farmers in the Eastern Cape
Province, South Africa. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 19 (9).
Musemwa, L., Mushunje, A., Chimonyo, M., Fraser, G., 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.
Namibia Vision 2030. (2004). Policy Framework for Long-term National Development. Main
Document. Office of the President. pp. 30-31.
51 UV. UFS
BLOEMFONTEIN
,,_":~;;.!!".:I~FE'''-!{~RIl,RV
Nthakheni, N.O. (2006). A livestock production system study amongst resource-poor livestock
owners in the Vhembe District of Limpopo Province. PhD Thesis. University of the Free State.
Roodt, W. (2007). Namibian supplementation research. Feedmaster, Windhoek, Namibia.
Rothauge, A. (2001). Drought Management Strategies for Namibian Ranchers, AGRICOLA,
Windhoek, p. 91-105.
Rothauge, A. (2006). The effect of frame size and stocking rate on diet selection of cattle and
range condition in the Camelthorn Savanna of East-Central Namibia. PhD Thesis. University of
Namibia.
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (2007). Human Development Report
2007/2008: Fightin"g Climate Change - Human Solidarity in a Divided World. Palgrave
Macmillan: New York.
Van Rooyen, B. & Gartside, A. (1999). Kavango Region Livestock Report: Findings of a survey
about animal husbandry and management practices in 5 riverine villages. KFSR/E Working
Document.
Whande, S.1. (1999). Sustainability of agricultural production in a communal area of
Chionekano, Zimbabwe. Unpublished MSA Thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein.
Wilson, R.T., Diallo, A. & Wagenaar, K.T. (1985). Mixed herding and the demographic
parameters of domestic animals in arid and semi-arid zones of tropical Africa. In: Hill A G (ed),
Population, health and nutrition in the Sahel: Issues in the welfare of selected West African
communities. KPl (Kegan Paul International), London, UK, pp. 116-138.
Winrock International. (1992). Animal agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. Morrilton, AK: Winrock
International Institute for Agricultural Development.
52
~[}={]~[¥>LF~[f« ~ CATTLE SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT AND
ACCESS TO MARKET INFORMATION BY CATTLE FARMERSlo
ABSTRACT
The study examines the efficiency and constraints in the cattle supply chain management from
farmer to processor, and the accessibility of market information to communal farmers for the
betterment of cattle marketing systems in the four communal areas of the Omaheke region.
Questionnaires were developed and administered to communal farmers, farmers' associations,
an auctioneer and a beef processor using purposive sampling. The main reason for selling
cattle is to generate cash for purchasing food and basic necessities; and significant differences
(p<O.05) were found between farmers' responses to the main reason for selling cattle in the four
study areas. The steers constitute the main preferred type of cattle for sale, and this product is
not what the local slaughter market wants. Auctions organised by farmers' associations are the
most preferred marketing channel, although preference differed significantly (p<O.05) across the
four study areas. The farmers are not satisfied with the existing market and satisfaction levels
of farmers differed significantly (p<O.05). The study reveals that the majority of farmers do not
know the quality criteria used by buyers when determining prices for cattle classes and grades
(p<O.05). The accessibility of market information was found not to be a constraint. The
constraints facing the communal cattle farmers include low prices offered for cattle, buyers' late
arrival or no show, slow payment process and buyers running out of cash. Those found to be
facing auctioneers and buyers operating in communal areas include the buying of poor quality
cattle and few numbers of cattle offered for sale. The lack of essential and safe facilities at
market outlets was expressed as a constraint to cattle farmers, auctioneers and buyers in the
study areas. The study recommends strengthening the capacity of farmers' associations in
terms of human and financial resources, training communal cattle farmers in managerial and
marketing practices and provision of essential facilities at livestock market outlets.
10 Submitted to the African Journal of Agricultural Research.
53
Key words: Communal farmers; cattle; supply chain management; cattle marketing; communal
areas.
5.1 Introduction
The Namibian livestock farming activity is dominated by beef production which is produced
predominantly in the Omaheke, Otjozondjupa and Kunene regions (Mushendami, Siwa &
Gaomab II, 2008). The Omaheke communal areas are rich in livestock, and accounted for
185535 cattle or 43 % of the 426 680 cattle found in the region (MAWRO, 2003). Even though
the region is rich in cattle resources, cattle marketing in communal areas faces a lot challenges
(Fitter, Kressirer, KrolI, Kruger, Neumann & Werner, 2001).
Cattle off-take from the Omaheke communal areas is low and, in agreement with IFAO (2003),
the off-take is hindered by physical access to markets, which include distances and
transportation costs; structure of the markets which is characterised by uneven relationships
between farmers, market intermediaries and consumers; and producers' lack of skills,
information and organisation.
Communal cattle farmers lack understanding of how the market operates; and they constantly
complaining about low prices and weak bargaining power. Improved cattle market participation
is among the critical requirements for communal farmers to be successful in order to contribute
to the economic growth of the country and enhance the livelihoods of communal farmers. This
will only be realised if communal farmers can have better access to cattle markets and
information. This will also provide incentive to invest in improved managerial practices.
This chapter examines the efficiency and constraints in the cattle supply chain management
from farmer to processor and access to market information by communal farmers in order to
give information that will assist in the improvement of cattle marketing systems in the four
communal areas of the Omaheke region. The chapter will focus specifically on cattle marketing,
producers' satisfaction, pricing system, accessibility of market information, distribution and
transportation systems, institutional arrangements, logistical arrangements and major
constraints.
54
5.2 Literature Review
5.2.1 Cattle Marketing
According to Ricketts and Rawlins (2001), the role of marketing in agriculture is to facilitate
ownership transfer while ensuring that farmers or producers get adequate profit while
conveniently meeting the consumers' needs. This viewpoint is supported by Bekure and
Tilahun (1983), who state that marketing is a mechanism through which producers exchange
their livestock for cash.
In the Omaheke region, communal farmers market their livestock through auctions, permits and
private sales to other farmers (commercial or neighbouring communal farmers) (MAWRD,
2003). Livestock marketing infrastructure is distributed at strategic places in communal areas of
the Omaheke region (MAWRD, 2003). According to Fitter et al. (2001), the main problems
encountered with livestock marketing in communal areas are a lack of competition from buyers,
insufficient marketing infrastrucutures, and a lack of understanding and knowledge about prices
and market economics among livestock farmers.
Bad roads, distances to markets, transport logistics and the high cost of moving livestock to
markets, poor marketing infrastructure, lack of marketing herd size, and low purchasing power
of buyers have been identified as some of the constraints to livestock marketing by small-scale
farmers (Mushendami, et al. 2008; Mendelsohn, 2006; National Department of Agriculture,
2005; National Emergent Red Meat Producers' Organisation (NERPO), 2004; Stroebel, 2004).
5.2.2 Cattle Market Supply Chain
Various definitions of the supply chain concept are offered in the literature (Awad & Nassar,
2010; Chopra & Meindl, 2004; Lau & Lee, 2000; Lankford, 2004; Yuen, 2009). Yuen (2009)
describes a supply chain as a group of organisations, activities and people who are involved in
the product and/or service movement from the source to the end user. Awad and Nassar
(2010) described a supply chain as a system that facilitates inter-enterprise co-operation and
collaboration with suppliers, customers and business partners. According to Lau and Lee
55
(2000) and Yuen (2009), the process begins with the farmer/producer and finishes with the
consumer (Figure 5.1).
Figure 5.1 Cattle market chain (adapted from Lau & Lee, 2000; Yuen, 2009)
Lau and Lee (2000), among other authors, describe each of the role players in the market chain
as follows:
• A farmer/producer raises the cattle, determines produce readiness for sale and sells
them to the trader.
• A trader is anyone who buys cattle from a farmer or producer and then sells it to a
processor. Traders can be feed lots, speculants, etc.
• A processor is anyone involved in the cleaning, separating, handling and preparation of
a food product before it is ready to be sold to the distributor.
• A distributor stores the food until a request is received to transport the food.
• A wholesaler is a person or store that sells to the retailer, having purchased fresh or
processed food in large quantities.
• The retailer or food service operator is the end of the marketing chain. A retailer or food
service operator is a person or store who or that sells directly to the consumer. The
retailers and food service operators further process or prepare it for consumption by
consumers (Ricketts & Rawlins, 2001).
Cooper (1990) indicates that the economic chain reaction that begins with the consumer or food
purchaser sends a signal to the retailer, wholesaler, distributor, processor, grader, packer,
trucker, harvester, producer and others to replace that food for the next purchase.
5.2.3 Marketing Channels
As reported by MAWRD (2003), farmers in the Omaheke region have many marketing channels
at their disposal to sell their cattle to. Kruger and Lammerts-Imbuwa (2008) described these
different markets as:
56
• Direct marketing to the Abarttoir - Meatco have two abatoirs in Windhoek and
Okahandja, and Witvlei Meat has one abartoir at Witvlei. All these abatoirs slaughter
cattle for export purposes.
• Auctions - commonly held in communal areas and usually organised and scheduled by
auctioneers that are responsible for bringing sellers and potential buyers together. The
farmer pays commission to the auctioneer which is deducted from the selling price. In
communal areas, farmers' organisations usually organise these auctions and get a
commission for this from the auctioneers.
• Permit days - only take place in communal areas south of the Veterinary Gordon Fence.
The permit days involve a single buyer buying livestock at pre-determined prices on a
given day at a given venue.
• Speculators - are informed traders who move around and buy livestock according to
their individual needs. These entail individuals owning butcheries or representing
feedlots in South Africa.
5.2.4 Cattle Grading Characteristics in the Market
The most important characteristics in Namibia according to which live cattle and beef carcasses
are graded are weight, age of the animal, fatness of the carcass, conformation of carcass and
sex (Kruger & Lammerts-Imbuwa, 2008). The classifications A, AB, Band C are indications of
age, while grades 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 indicate the thickness of subcutaneous fat. There are
five conformation types that vary from 1 (very flat) to 5 (very round) and the market prefers
conformation types 3 (medium), 4 (round) and 5 (very round) respectively.
5.2.5 Access to Market Information within the Supply Chain
Limited access to information was identified as one of the constraints causing low-cattle market
off-take rates in communal production systems (Musemwa, Mushunje, Chimonyo & Mapiye,
2010). The importance of having access to information in the supply chain cannot be over
emphasised and the key to the seamless supply chain is making available undistorted and up-
to-date market data at every node of the supply chain (Childhouse & Towill, 2003). Yuen (2009)
reports that information sharing and trust between and among stakeholders is an essential
element for any successful supply chain. Lack of price information, feedback information from
57
marketing centres to the producer were identified as agricultural constraints (Hersman, 2004;
World Bank, 2006)).
If the information is available but cannot be shared by the supply chain members, its value
degrades exponentially (Kwon & Suh, 2005). By making information available about the
prevailing market conditions, type of product in demand, quality, quantity, price and market
opportunities will greatly benefit stakeholders in the supply chain to work as a unit and help
them better understand the needs of the end customers and enable them to timely respond to
market changes (Coetzee, Montshwe & Jooste, 2004). Further, once made available and
shared amongst stakeholders with the supply chain, this information can be used as a source of
competitive advantage (Novaek, Langley Jr & Rinehart, 1995; Jones 1998).
5.3 Methodology
5.3.1 Sampling
The study focused on the cattle supply chain management from farmers to processers as
depicted in Figure 5.2 .
••
Figure 5.2 Main role players in cattle supply chain
Using purposive sampling, 100 farmers were interviewed using a structured questionnaire with
open-ended questions during September 2009 and October 2009. Eight representatives of key
informative institutions involved in cattle marketing in the Omaheke region were also
interviewed, such as: a beef processor (Meat Corporation of Namibia), an auctioneer (Karoo
Ochse), farmers' unions in communal areas (Eastern Epukiro Farmers' Association, Otjinene
Famers' Association, Aminius Farmers' Association, Otjombinde Farmers' Association), and
farmers' co-operatives (Namibia Farmers' Co-operative and Pamwe Farmers' Co-operative).
58
The respondents were chosen for a particular purpose on the basis that they were involved in
cattle marketing and also because they were "typical" of a group or represented diverse
perspectives on an issue (Leedy & Armrod, 2000). Since these farmers or bodies' officials are
located or operate in the Omaheke region, they are the most likely to represent the local
population.
5.3.2 Data Collection and Analysis
A structured interview questionnaire with open-ended questions was used to gather data. Data
from questionnaires were entered into MS Excel spreadsheet and descriptive results analysis
was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).
5.4 Results and Discussions
5.4.1 Cattle marketing, satisfaction and pricing system
5.4.1.1 Main reason for selling cattle
Cattle are sold by communal farmers for a variety of reasons, mainly to fuifiII economic roles.
An indication of the most important reasons why cattle is sold in the study areas was obtained
by asking respondents to name the reasons why they sell cattle and the results are summarised
in Table 5.1. Differences between the four communal areas were analysed using a Chi-square
test. The data used was categorical and not numerical data. Therefore, Chi-square test was
then the suitable method instead of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). As shown in Table 5.1, the
main reason for selling cattle, according to 82 % of the respondents, is to generate cash for
purchasing food and basic necessities. The only respondents who sell cattle to generate cash
to cover festivals, funerals and ritual costs are from Aminius (36 %) and Otjombinde (28 %)
respectively. Only respondents from Otjombinde indicated selling cattle to generate cash for
purchasing production inputs, meaning that in the other three study areas, farmers use off-farm
income to buy production inputs. As a result, there were significant differences (p<0.05)
between farmers' responses to the main reason for selling cattle in the four study areas.
59
Table 5.1 Farmers' responses to reasons for selling cattle in the study areas
Characteristic Aminius Epukiro Otjinene Otjombinde Study areas
(average)
Main reason for selling
cattle (%)
Cash to buy food and basic 64.0 100.0 100.0 64.0 82.0
necessities
Cash to cover festivals, 36.0 28.0 16.0
funeral and ritual costs
Cash to buy production 8.0 2.0%
inputs
The type of cattle offered for sale seems to be largely a function of the type of cattle farmers are
prepared to sell. As shown in Table 5.2, 85 % of respondents prefer to sell steers, while the
other cattle categories represent all together less than 15 %. This marketing trend is in
agreement with findings of Metzger (1994) who reported that farmers in Omaheke communal
areas are weaner producers.
Table 5.2 Farmers responses to cattle type selling preference in study areas
Characteristic Aminius Epukiro Otjinene Otjombinde Study areas
(average)
Cattle type selling
preference (%)
Dry cows 3.3 0.6 0.9
Culled cows 2.1 4.2 3.1 4.0 3.2
Oxen 1.1 0.4
Heifers (1-3 years) 2.5 1.3 0.9
Steers (1-3 years) 83.7 80.0 88.8 88.0 85.1
Calves «1 year) 2.6 4.2 1.3 2.0 2.5
Other 10.5 5.8 5.0 6.0 7.2
5.4.1.2 Marketing Channels Options
Cattle communal farmers have two marketing channel options to sell their cattle through either
the formal or informal markets. The formal market involves selling at auctions, permits and to
60
export abattoirs while the informal route involves selling to fellow farmers, small butcheries and
individual speculators. As shown in Table 5.3, the study survey shows that 58.6 % of responses
indicated the farmers sell at auctions organised normally by farmers' associations, followed by
permits organised by farmers' associations (29.6 %). Only 1.1 % of farmers sell cattle to export
abattoirs (see Table 5.3).
Under the current market channel options, the majority of respondents (53.9 %) sell less than
ten cattle yearly as shown in Table 5.3. Differences between the four communal areas were
analysed using a Chi-square test. There were significant differences (p<O.05) between the
number of cattle sold yearly in the four study areas.
Table 5.3 Marketing channel options and number of cattle sold by individual farmer
Characteristic Aminius Epukiro Otjinene Otjombinde Study areas
(average)
Marketing channel
options (%)
Permits organised by 57.5 0.6 99.0 29.6
farmers' associations
Permits organised by 37.5 1.0 8.1
private buyers
Auctions organised by 95.8 2.5 93.1 58.6
farmers' associations
Meatco 2.1 1.3 1.1
Other 2.1 2.5 5.0 2.6
Number of cattle sold per
year (%)
<10 44.2 52.5 66.9 53.0 53.9
10 - 19 28.9 31.7 18.8 33.0 27.4
20- 30 16.3 7.5 6.3 10.0 10.5
>30 7.4 5.8 2.0 4.0
Don't know 1.7 0.4
Not Applicable* 3.2 0.8 8.1 2.0 3.9
* Refers to those farmers who do not sell cattle at all
The respondents were asked to give an assessment of the existing cattle market supplied on a
three-point scale, varying from one (not satisfied) to three (very satisfied). The survey revealed
61
that the majority of farmers (65.8 %), as shown in Table 5.4, are not satisfied with the existing
market because private buyers (92 %) are setting the market prices for their cattle. Differences
between the four communal areas were analysed using a Chi-square test. There were
significant differences (p<O.05) between satisfaction levels of farmers in the four study areas.
Table 5.4 Farmers' satisfaction with existing cattle market supplied
Scale Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Not satisfied
Percentage 3.3 30.9 65.8
5.4.1.3 Pricing of Various Cattle Classes arid Grades
The off-take is bound to be influenced by the price that cattle farmers are offered or expected to
receive. Communal farmers in Namibia are complaining that the prices offered for their
livestock at market places are low, and further argue that they do not set the price for their
livestock. Figure 5.3 shows the farmers' responses on who determines the prices for cattle
classes and grades in the study areas. As shown in Figure 5.3, the majority of respondents
(78 %) indicated that the cattle buyers are the determinants of prices for cattle classes and
grades.
In support of views expressed by cattle farmers, as shown in Figure 5.3, the auctioneer
interviewed indicated that at auctions, a farmer has the right to accept a price or to withdraw his
livestock, depending on his satisfaction with the price offered by the buyer. In terms of selling to
export abartoirs, both the auctioneer and processor interviewed indicated that a farmer has no
power over the price offered.
62
Farmers'
Farmers' Meat Board, 2% iation &
Buyers,3%
Buyers,8%
Figure 5.3 Determinants of cattle prices in the study areas (2010)
The price offered for live cattle and beef carcasses is linked to a set quality criteria. In Namibia,
live cattle are graded according to weight, age and sex, while beef carcasses are graded
according to weight, age of the animal, fatness of the carcass, and conformation of the carcass
(Kruger and Lammerts-Imbuwa, 2008). Knowing and understanding the quality criteria used to
determine prices for cattle classes and grades by communal farmers will facilitate the marketing
of cattle. In an attempt to assess the respondents' awareness regarding the buyers' quality
criteria, they were asked to give an indication of whether they know the quality criteria or not.
Table 5.5 shows the farmers' responses, and the majority of respondents (63 %) indicated not
to know the buyers' quality criteria used when determining prices for cattle classes and grades.
On the contrary, the auctioneer and processor interviewed indicated that communal farmers
were to a large extent aware of buyers' quality criteria. Differences between the four communal
areas were analysed using a Chi-square test. As shown in Table 5.5, farmers in Aminius (52 %)
and Otjombinde (52 %) are better aware of the quality criteria than those of Epukiro (20 %) and
Otjinene (24 %). Farmers' opinions on the buyers' quality criteria vary significantly (p<0.05) in
the four study areas. International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA) (1990) clearly indicated
that information about the factors which determine buyers' preferences may indicate potential
areas for improvement.
63
Table 5.5 Farmers' responses on buyers' quality criteria awareness in the study areas
Characteristic Aminius Epukiro Otjinene Otjombinde Study areas
(average)
Awareness on buyers'
quality criteria (%)
Yes 52.0 20.0 24.0 52.0 37.0
No 48.0 80.0 76.0 48.0 63.0
Another question, asked to those respondents (37 %) who indicated that they were aware of the
buyers' quality criteria, required listing the specific quality criteria or factors considered by
buyers when prices are determined for cattle classes and grades, and Table 5.6 presents the
findings. As shown in Table 5.6, the respondents indicated a wide range of quality criteria used
to determine prices for cattle classes and grades.
Table 5.6 Farmers' opinions on quality criteria the buyers use in determining prices
Quality Criteria %
Live weight and age 3.0
Age and body condition 3.0
Live weight and prices in the market 4.0
Buyer expenses when coming to auction 7.0
Animal health status and body condition 14.0
Animal health status and dehorning 3.0
Dehorning, castration and branding 1.0
Live weight and body condition 27.0
Animal body condition 15.0
Live weight and dehorning 1.0
Number of cattle offered for sale 1.0
Age and sex 2.0
Live weight 8.0
No idea 11.0
A similar question asked to farmers about the specific quality criteria or factors that are being
considered by buyers when prices are determined for cattle classes and grades was asked to
the key informants of the farmers' associations, farmers' co-operatives, auctioneer and
processor. The views of the farmers' associations, farmers' co-operatives, auctioneer and
64
processor are presented in Table 5.7. The responses of the key informants are in agreement
with those of Kruger and Lammerts-Imbuwa (2008), who reported that the factors that determine
the price paid by cattle buyers are weight, age, body condition, fatness and conformation.
Table 5.7 Key informants' responses to quality criteria cattle buyers use in determining prices
Farmers' Associations Auctioneer Processor
and Co-operatives
Live weight Quality of animal (conformation) Age(A,AB,B,C)
Appearance of the animal Live weight Fatness
and body condition Dehorning and castration Live - and - carcass weight
Age Conformation
Fatness
5.4.2 Access to Market Information
5.4.2.1 Market Information in Communal Areas
Figure 5.4 shows the farmers' responses regarding the source of market information to cattle
farmers in the study areas. As shown in Figure 5.4, 87 % of respondents indicated that the
farmers' associations are the main source of cattle market information for farmers in the study
areas. The key informants of farmers' associations, farmers' co-operatives and the auctioneer
and processor interviewed were in agreement with the responses provided in Figure 5.4. The
market information provided by farmers' associations entail announcements of sales event
dates, venues and prices on offer for cattle categories.
65
• State local extension offices
• Farmers Associations
Farmers co-operatives
• Farmers associations & Farmers co-
operatives
• Farmers associations & Meatco agent
Buyer(s) at auctions / permits
Figure 5.4 Source of market information for communal cattle farmers (2010)
5.4.2.2 Market Information Channel (Medium)
A compatible information channel enhances communication, reduces risk and supports the
efficient transfer of information. The respondents were asked to give an assessment of the
market information channels (mediums) on a five-point scale, varying from one (not important)
to five (most important). The survey revealed that the majority of farmers (92.9 %), as shown in
Table 5.8, rated the radio as the most important medium to transmit market information in
communal areas. The radio was also cited as the most important medium by key informants of
farmers' associations, farmers' co-operatives, and the auctioneer and processor interviewed.
As shown in Table 5.8, the study survey ranked farmers' associations second, followed in
descending order by cellular phone services, placing of information posters at strategic places,
word of mouth, newspapers and internet-related services. The newspapers were ranked
second least because they are only available in Gobabis town, which is approximately 200
kilometres away from the study areas. The internet-related services were ranked least and not
important.
66
Table 5.8 Rating of market information channel (medium)
Source of market Rating (%)
information Most Important Fairly Less Not
important important important important
Radio 92.9 7.1
Local farmer 9.1 84.1 4.5 1.1 1.1
association
Newspaper 5.6 5.6 33.3 5.6 50.0
Internet-related 9.1 90.9
services
Cellular phone 14.0 58.1 7.0 20.9
services
Word of mouth 7.7 38.5 46.2 7.7
Placing of market 9.1 9.1 54.5 27.3
information posters at
strategic places
5.4.2.3 Strategies to Improve Market Information Accessibility
A query was made on how market information access can be improved in the Omaheke
communal areas and the results are shown in Figure 5.5. The respondents cited, amongst
others, the distribution of yearly marketing calendars in villages as crucial (50 %), whereas
increasing radio announcement frequencies accounted for 15 % of the survey. A combined
approach of having marketing calendars and frequent radio announcements were viewed as a
solution by 12 % of respondents.
Place information posters at strategic places
Combine marketing calendar & frequent radio announcements
Distribute yearly marketing calender in villages
Organise farmers' information days
Introduce internet-related services
Introduce SMS giving market-related Information
Increase access to newspapers
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Figure 5.5 Strategies to improve market information accessibility (2010)
67
5.4.3 Distribution and Transport Systems
5.4.3.1 Distance to Markets
The livestock marketing facilities are located at strategic places in the study areas and the
distances to these outlets vary from one village to another. Therefore, communal cattle farmers
make choices about the market outlets to use. The farmers' responses regarding distance to
the market outlets utilised is shown in Table 5.9. The majority of respondents (61.2 %)
indicated that the average distance from their villages to the nearest market outlets supplied
ranges between 10 and 30 kilometers (Table 5.9). As shown in Table 5.9, most farmers utilise
the market outlets that are within the 50 kilometres range. The low responses for distances of
more that 50 kilometres is an indication that only a small fraction of communal farmers access
markets outside communal areas.
Table 5.9 Farmers' responses for distance to markets utilised
Scale <10 km 10-30 km 31-50 km >50 km Don't know
Percentage 12.3 61.2 19.2 5.8 1.1
5.4.3.2 Cattle Transportation Modes to Markets Supplied
Cattle farmers in study areas use a variety of methods to transport their cattle to markets. Table
5.10 shows the results of transport modes utilised in the study areas to access markets within
the communal areas. Differences between the four communal areas were analysed using a
Chi-square test. As shown in Table 5.10, a combination of transport modes (79 %) are utilised
to access internal markets within study areas and these include driving cattle to the market
place on foot, using horses, donkeys and vehicles. As a result, there were significant
differences (p<0.05) between the transportation methods used to access markets within the four
study areas.
68
Table 5.10 Transportation methods used to access markets within the study areas
Characteristic Aminius Epukiro Otjinene Otjombinde Study areas
(average)
Transport for markets
within communal areas
(%)
Driving cattle on foot 8.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Driving cattle using horses / 8.0 4.0 3.0
donkeys
Hiring vehicles 4.0 44.0 12.0
Using own vehicles 8.0 2.0
Other 84.0 88.0 92.0 52.0 79.0
The markets outside the study areas are accessed only through hired vehicles (37 %), which
was confirmed by the auctioneer and processor interviewed. The bulk of respondents (63 %)
indicated that they do not sell cattle to markets outside the study areas and these markets
comprise mainly of export abattoirs (see Table 5.11). Differences between the four communal
areas were analysed using a Chi-square test. A reason for the low marketing percentage to
outside markets is that communal cattle farmers are weaner producers and this product falls
below slaughter market weight requirements. As a result, there were significant differences
(p<0.05) between transportation methods used to access outside markets in the four study
areas. The weaned calves from communal farming areas first go to the commercial farms or
feedlots until they are ready for slaughter. Kruger and Lammerts-Imbuwa (2008) indicate that
all slaughter cattle must have a live weight of at least 450 kilograms and be reasonably fat.
Table 5.11 Transportation methods used to access markets outside the study areas
Characteristic Aminius Epukiro Otjinene Otjombinde Study areas
(average)
Transport for markets
outside communal areas
( %)
Hiring vehicles 16.0 28.0 12.0 92.0 37.0
Not selling 84.0 72.0 88.0 8.0 63.0
69
5.4.4 Logistical Arrangements Prior to Marketing
As a series of logistical arrangements needs to be in place prior the marketing of cattle, which
amongst others, include setting a marketing plan, conforming to statutory requirements in terms
vaccinations, branding and ear-tagging, acquisitions of movement permits and arranging
transport. In an attempt to assess whether the respondents are setting up marketing plans in
advance, they were asked to give an indication of whether they have a market plan in place. A
marketing plan entails studying the market and enables a farmer to decide on where and how
many cattle to sell when the farmer can obtain higher profit. Table 5.12 shows the farmers'
responses on having a marketing plan in place. Differences between the four communal areas
were analysed using a Chi-square test. As shown in Table 5.12, only 45 % of respondents
indicated to have marketing plans in place in the four study areas. This means that over 50 %
of farmers in the study areas do not have marketing plans and sell cattle on an ad hoc basis
when the need for cash arises. The study reveals that the practice of having a market plan in
place is better in Epukiro, followed in descending order by Aminius, Otjombinde and Otjinene.
As a result, there were significant differences (p<0.05) between farmers' responses on having
marketing plans in advance in the four study areas.
Table 5.12 Farmers' responses on having a marketing plan in the study areas
Characteristic Aminius Epukiro Otjinene Otjombinde Study areas
(average)
Do you have a marketing
plan in place? (%)
Yes 52.0 56.0 32.0 40.0 45.0
No 48.0 44.0 68.0 60.0 55.0
In addition to marketing plans, the respondents were requested to state the other logistical
arrangements that should be fulfilled by cattle farmers before they can market their cattle. As
indicated in Figure 5.6, the respondents cited that crucial statutory requirements that should be
fulfilled include: vaccinations, branding and ear-tagging, and the completion of necessary
FANMEAT documentation and obtaining movement permits. As shown in Figure 5.6, from
farmers interviewed, 48 % ranked vaccination, ear-tagging, movement permits and FANMEAT
documents as important, whereas branding, ear-tagging, transporting and the FANMEAT card
was ranked second with 39 %. The remaining requirements represent only 13 %. These
logistical arrangements are in agreement with those reported by Toto (2007).
70
Figure 5.6 Logistics fulfilled by communal farmers before marketing cattle (2010)
Similar to cattle farmers, the farmers' associations in the study areas are expected to put a
series of logistical arrangements in place prior to the marketing of cattle. In this regard, the
respondents were asked to mention the logistical arrangements that should be fulfilled by the
local farmers' associations before marketing can take place in communal areas. Figure 5.7
shows the responses of farmers regarding the logistical arrangements expected from farmers'
associations. As shown in Figure 5.7, from farmers interviewed, 53 % ranked organisation of
the sale event as important, and ranked the verification of FANMEAT documents at the sale
event as second with 23 %. The remaining requirements represent only 24 %. The
organisation of the sale event in this study entails looking for buyers, deciding on the sale event
date (if the date was not fixed already in marketing calendar), and the announcements of the
sale event.
71
Figure 5.7 Logistics fulfilled by farmers' associations before marketing (2010)
5.4.5 Institutional Arrangements
Figure 5.8 shows strategies indicated by farmers in the study areas on how the supply of cattle
to market can be increased. The respondents (56 %) cited the offering of market-related prices
as the most important strategy that will increase the supply of cattle from study areas to the
market (Figure 5.8). Having a limited number of auctions to create demand for cattle was
ranked second with 7 %, while farmers' education in managerial practices, farmers' education in
marketing practices, the erection of marketing facilities and distribution of yearly marketing
calendars in villages were each ranked third with 5 %. The offering of market-related prices has
to do with the capacity of the farmers' associations and co-operatives in the study areas to
bargain with cattle buyers. For the cattle farmers to receive market-related prices, the cattle
market in the study areas should be determined by supply and demand. This will be achieved
through having limited numbers of auctions or permits in the study areas to create demand for
cattle in the market and as well offering many cattle for sale to attract many buyers.
72
Registration of cattle for sale before sales event
Limited auctions to create demand
Farmers' education on managerial practices
Distribution of yearly marketing calendar in villages
Erection of marketing facilities
Farmers to stop selling ad hoc
Farmers' education on marketing
Farmers' associations ensure more buyers
Government involvement in setting prices
Stop selling to local shops & taking to Gobabis
Government subsidy & loans
Don't know
Offering market-related prices
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Figure 5.8 Strategies to increase the supply of cattle to the market (2010)
5.4.6 Major Constraints in Cattle Marketing
5.4.6.1 Constraints Faced by Cattle Farmers
The surveys with cattle market participants (farmers, the auctioneer and processor) revealed
major constraints in cattle marketing in the study areas. Figure 5.9 presents constraints faced
by cattle farmers when marketing their cattle. As shown in Figure 5.9, the price offered is the
bone of contention for the majority of cattle farmers in the study areas. It was found that 28 %
of respondents felt that they should set prices, whereas 16 % indicated the lack of essential
facilities at market outlets as a constraint. Other constraints indicated each accounting for 8 %
were buyers' late arrival or no show-up, slow payment process and buyers running out of cash.
The low prices offered have to do with the bargaining power of the farmers' associations or
farmers' co-operatives when negotiating with buyers. The essential facilities lacking at market
outlets include toilets and shade. The slow payment process is a result of manual verification
and payment method employed. There are no banking facilities in communal areas except in
Aminius, meaning that if a buyer runs out of cash, driving to Gobabis town is the only option,
which is approximately 200 kilometres away to get the cash; and in most cases, farmers collect
73
their money the next day. Through this scenario, farmers incur extra costs in terms of transport
and meals.
(1 1
Buyers run-out of cash
Don'tknow I+-
Distant market places
I
Cattle theft & straying
I
Slow payment process
Lack of marketing knowledge
Lack of essential facilities +-
I
Buyers late arrival &/or no turn up
I
Farmers not deciding prices
1
Low prices offered .;
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Figure 5.9 Farmers' constraints when marketing cattle in communal areas (2010)
The respondents were asked to give their views on how the constraints experienced by
communal farmers when marketing their cattle can be addressed. Table 5.13 presents the
respondents' views on how the constraints can be addressed. As shown in Table 5.13, 48 % of
respondents indicated that regular meetings should be held between stakeholders to discuss
common problems. The need to improve institutional arrangements was expressed by 22 % of
respondents, followed by 17 % of respondents, who indicated that the market should be
determined by supply and demand. The provision of farmers' training on marketing was
proposed by 12 % of the respondents. Differences between the four communal areas were
analysed using a Chi-square test. There were significant differences (p<0.05) between the
farmers' opinions on how constraints can be addressed in the four study areas. The
improvement of institutional arrangements should include the erection of essential facilities and
services at market outlets, provision of banking facilities, establishment of community police to
curb stock theft and crime at market outlets and timely announcement of sale events and prices
on offer per cattle categories. To enable the cattle market to be governed by demand and
supply, the farmers' associations should strive towards holding limited auctions and having
many buyers at auctions.
74
Table 5.13 Farmers' opinions to address constraints when marketing cattle
Characteristic Aminius Epukiro Otjinene Otjombinde Study areas
(average)
Farmers opinions on how
constraints can be addressed (%)
Market to be determined by supply 24 24 4 16 17
and demand
Regular meetings to discuss 28 60 72 32 48
common problems
Provide training on marketing 20 12 16 12
Improve institutional arrangements 28 4 20 36 22
No idea 4
5.4.6.2 Constraints Faced by Auctioneers and Buyers
The constraints faced by auctioneers and buyers operating in study areas as viewed by
respondents are presented in Table 5.14 in no chronological order. As shown in Table 5.14,
35 % of respondents indicated to have no idea regarding the constraints faced by auctioneers
and buyers. Other constraints of which each accounted for 14 % were buying of poor quality
cattle and lack of essential and safe facilities at market outlets. The offering of few cattle for
sale was also highlighted as a constraint to auctioneers and buyers (13 %).
Table 5.14 Farmers' views on constraints faced by auctioneers and buyers
Constraint Frequency Valid percent
Buying of poor quality cattle 14 14%
Buying of cattle with diseases 5 5%
Injuries to cattle during transit 3 3%
Few number of cattle offered for sale by farmers 13 13%
Price disputes at sales events 5 5%
Lack of essential & safe facilities at market outlets 14 14%
Long distances to market outlets 6 6%
Late delivery of cattle to market outlets by farmers 5 5%
No idea 35 35%
Total 100 100%
75
After listing the constraints as shown in Table 5.14, the respondents were asked to indicate how
these constraints facing the auctioneers and buyers in communal areas can be addressed. The
respondents' opinions on how the constraints can be addressed are presented in Figure 5.10.
As shown in Figure 5.10, 40 % of respondents indicated that the provision of training for farmers
would be a solution. A large proportion of respondents (33 %) indicated that they had no idea,
18 % indicated the need to improve institutional arrangements, 5 % indicated that regular
meetings should be held between stakeholders to address the constraints, and 4 % indicated
that the market should be determined by supply and demand. Differences between the four
communal areas were analysed using a Chi-square test. There were significant differences
(p<0.05) between the farmers' opinions on how the auctioneers' and buyers' constraints can be
addressed in the four study areas. The training for farmers should focus on the cattle quality
required and on the operations of buyers. The improvement of institutional arrangements
should include the erection of essential facilities and services at market outlets, cattle inspection
prior marketing, tarring of roads and strict regulations on cattle delivery. Timely announcements
regarding market prices by farmers' associations would enable the cattle market to be governed
by demand and supply.
Frequent meetings to address constraints
Strict regulation on cattle delivery
Tarring of main rural roads
Erection of essential facilities
Providing farmers with market prices .Otjombinde
• Epukiro
Buyers have no constraints
• Otjinene
Farmers' education on cattle buyers' .Aminius
operations
Cattle inspection before buying
Farmers' education on quality required
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Figure 5.10 Addressing constraints of auctioneers and buyers
76
5.5 Conclusions
This chapter examined the efficiency and constraints in the cattle supply chain management
from farmer to processor, and the access to market information by communal farmers. The
chapter focused specifically on cattle marketing, producers' satisfaction, pricing system,
accessibility of market information, distribution and transportation systems, institutional
arrangements, logistical arrangements and major constraints. The analysis of data collected in
this chapter has turned up numerous findings.
5.5.1 Cattle marketing, satisfaction and pricing system
The study found that the main reason for selling cattle is to generate cash for purchasing food
and basic necessities. Farmers' responses to the main reason for selling cattle vary
significantly (p<O.05) in the four study areas. The steers constitute the main preferred type of
cattle for sale, showing that communal cattle farmers are weaner producers, and that this
product is not what the local slaughter market wants for export purposes. The weaned calves
from communal farming areas first go to the commercial farms or feedlots until they are ready
for slaughter.
The preference for marketing channels differed significantly (p<O.05) across the four study
areas. Farmers from both the Aminius and Otjinene study areas prefer to use auctions
organised by farmers' associations; those from Otjombinde prefer to sell through the permit
days organised by the farmers' association; whereas those from Epukiro prefer both permit days
organised by farmers' assocations and private buyers. Cattle farmers in the study areas sell
less than ten cattle yearly, and significant differences (p<O.05) were found between the number
of cattle sold yearly in the four study areas. The survey revealed that the farmers are not
satisfied with the existing market because buyers are setting the market prices, and satisfaction
levels of farmers vary significantly (p<O.05).
The buyers use a set of quality criteria to determine the price for cattle classes and grades.
Surprisingly, the study reveals that the majority of farmers do not know these quality criteria
used by buyers when determining prices for cattle classes and grades, and farmers' opinions on
the buyers' quality criteria in the four study areas vary significantly (p<O.05). Therefore, public
77
and private agricultural service providers in the study areas should embark upon farmers'
education and awareness raising on cattle quality required by the market and how market
operates and prices determined.
5.5.2 Accessiblity of market information
The study revealed that farmers have access to market information. The farmers' associations
are the main source of market information for cattle farmers in the study areas, whereas the
radio is the most important medium that transmits market information in communal areas. The
farmers' associations should strive to have yearly marketing calendars distributed in villages
and have frequent radio announcements to enable farmers to make informed decisions of when
and where to sell.
5.5.3 Distribution and transportation system
The distances to local market places were found not to be a problem in the study areas because
the majority of farmers reside within a range of between 10 and 30 kilometers to the nearest
market outlets. To access local markets within communal areas, the study found that
combinations of transport modes are utilized. These include driving cattle to the market place
on foot, using horses, donkeys and vehicles. Transportation methods used to access markets
within the four study areas vary significantly (p<0.05). The study also revealed that only a small
faction of communal farmers access markets outside communal areas and are accessed only
through hired vehicles. Transportation methods used to access outside markets vary
significantly (p<0.05) in the four study areas.
5.5.4 Logistical arrangements prior to marketing
Over 50 % of farmers in the study areas do not have marketing plans and sell cattle on an ad
hoc basis when the need for cash arises. Significant differences (p<0.05) were found between
farmers' responses on having marketing plans in the four study areas. The essence of
marketing is to sell to obtain higher profit, but selling ad hoc can be disastrous. More work
needs to be done to empower communal farmers in terms of knowledge and advice on when,
where and which cattle type to sell to obtain higher profit. Further, farmers in communal areas
78
should be assisted in order to maintain financial reserves in the form of solvency and liquidity to
carry their farming operations through periods of hardships. This calls for the provision of
banking facilities in communal areas.
Namibian livestock farmers south of the veterinary cordon fence are expected to comply with
statutory requirements before they can market their livestock. The study found that communal
farmers in the study areas are complying with crucial statutory requirements, such as
vaccinations, branding, ear-tagging, completion of necessary FANMEAT documentation and
obtaining movement permits that enable them to market their cattle. Further, the farmers'
associations and co-operatives are found to be playing a crucial role of organising the sale
events in the study areas. Their roles entail looking for buyers, deciding on a sale event date (if
the date was not fixed already in the marketing calendar), and the announcements of the sale
event in radio. Therefore, the farmers' associations and co-operatives should be strengthened
in terms of human and financial resources.
5.5.5 Institutional arrangements
The farmers repeatedly requested to be offered market-related prices for their cattle. The
offering of market -related prices firstly has to do with the quality and quantity of cattle offered
for sale. Secondly, it will depend on the capacities of the farmers' associations and co-
operatives in the study areas to bargain with cattle buyers. For the cattle farmers to receive
market-related prices, the cattle market in the study areas should be determined by supply and
demand. This will be achieved through having limited numbers of auctions or permits in the
study areas to create demand for cattle in the market, as well as offering many cattle for sale to
attract many buyers.
5.5.6 Major Constraints
The study found key constraints facing the communal cattle farmers as follows: low prices
offered for cattle, the lack of essential facilities at market outlets, buyers' late arrival or no show,
slow payment process and buyers running out of cash. The low prices offered have to do with
the bargaining power of the farmers' associations or farmers' co-operatives when negotiating
79
with buyers. The essential facilities lacking at market outlets include toilets and shade. The
slow payment process is a result of manual verification and the payment method employed.
There are no banking facilities in the communal areas except in Aminius, meaning that if a
buyer runs out of cash, driving to Gobabis town is the only option which is approximately 200
kilometres away to get the cash and in most cases, farmers collect their money the next day.
The key constraints found to be facing auctioneers and buyers operating in communal areas
include the buying of poor quality cattle, lack of essential and safe facilities at market outlets,
and the few numbers of cattle offered for sale.
To address these constraints, the stakeholders in the meat industry should upgrade the existing
or construct new infrastructure. Now that price is found to be a discentive to off-takes in
communal areas, interventions which aim to improve the market price or the value of the cattle
should be explored. These interventions may be in the form of direct measures like price-
scheme support and indirect measures, such as upgrading the quality of cattle sold by breed
improvement schemes, improvement of manaperial practices through producer education of
cattle quality required by the market and how market operates, and reducing the costs of
marketing by improving infrastructure and offering transport subsidies.
80
5.6 References
Awad, H.A.H. & Nassar, M.O. (2010). Supply Chain Integration: Definition and Challenges.
Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Vol. I,
IMECS 2010, March 17-19,2010. Hong Kong.
Bekure, S. & Tilahun, N. (1983). Livestock marketing studies. In: Pastoral systems research in
sub-Saharan Africa. Proceedings of the IDRC/ILCA workshop held at ILCA, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, 21-24 March 1983. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp. 327-360.
Childhouse, P. & Towill, D. (2003), 'Simplified material flow holds the key to supply chain
integration', OMEGA, 31 (1): 17-27.
Chopra, S. & Meindl, P. (2004). Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning, and
Operations, 2nd ed. Pearson Education, New Jersey.
Coetzee, L., Montshwe, B.D. & Jooste, A. (2004). The Marketing of Livestock on communal
lands in the Eastern Cape Province: Constraints, Challenges and Implications for the Extension
Services. South African Journal of Agricultural Extension, 34(1): 81-103.
Cooper, E.L. (1990). Agriscience: Fundamentals and Applications. Delmar Publishers. Inc.
Fitter, J.C., Kressirer, R.F., KrolI, T., Kruger, T., Neumann, N.P.K. & Werner, W. (2001). Coping
in a Fragile Environment: The SARDEP Experience. Sustainable Animal and Range
Development Programme. Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development, Windhoek,
Namibia. p. 98.
Hersman, E.M. (2004). Knowledge and Dissemination of Sustainable Agriculture Practices by
County Extension Agents in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Masters Thesis, Davis
College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Consumer Science, West Virginia University.
81
IFAD. (2003). Promoting Market Access for the Rural Poor in Order to Achieve the Millennium
Development Goals. Discussion paper in proceeding of IFAD conference. Rome, Italy
http://www.ifad.org/gbdocs/gc/26/e/markets.pdf (Accessed on the 4th of March 2010).
ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa). (1990). Livestock systems research manual.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Jones, C. (1998). 'Moving beyond ERP: making the missing link', Logistics Focus, 6(7): 2-7.
Kruger, B & Lammerts-Imbuwa, L. (2008). Training Manual: Livestock Marketing in Namibia.
Namibia National Farmers Union (NNFU).
Kwon, I. & Suh, T. (2005). 'Trust, commitment and relationships in supply chain management: a
path analysis', Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 1O( 1): 26-33.
Lankford, W. (2004). 'Supply chain management and the internet', Online Information Review,
28(4): 301-305.
Lau, H. & Lee, W. (2000). 'On a responsive supply chain information system', International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 30(7/8): 598-610.
Leedy, P. & Armrod, J.E. (2000). Research Planning and Design. Merrill Prentiss Hall, USA.
MAWRD (Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development). (2003). Baseline Survey of the
Impact of Agriculture Extension Services in the Omaheke region. Directorate of Extension and
Engineering Services, Gobabis.
Mendelsohn, J. (2006). Farming Systems in Namibia. NNFU: Windhoek, Namibia.
Metzger, D. (1994). Livestock Sector Study for the Hereroland and Namaland. Ministry of
Agriculture, Water and Rural Development; Deutsche Gesellschaft Fur Technische
Zusammernarbeit (GTZ), Windhoek.
82
Musemwa, L., Mushunje, A., Chimonyo, M. & Mapiye, C. (2010). Low cattle market off-take
rates in communal production systems of South Africa: Causes and Mitigation Strategies.
Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 12(5).
Mushendami, P, Biwa, B. & Gaomab II, M. (2008). Unleashing the Potential of the Agricultural
Sector in Namibia. Bank of Namibia Occasional Paper OP 1-2008.
NDA (National Department of Agriculture). (2005). Red Meat Marketing.
http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/MarketExtension/7Livestock.pdf (Accessed on May 15,2007).
NERPO (National Emergent Red Meat Producers' Organisation). (2004). Marketing
infrastructure development. http://www.nerpo.org.za (Accessed on June 4, 2008).
Novaek, R., Langley Jr, C. & Rinehart, L. (1995). 'Creating logistics value: themes for the future',
Council of Logistics Management, Oak Brook, IL.
Ricketts, C. & Rawlins, O. (2001). Introduction to Agribusiness. Delmar Thomson Learning.
Stroebel, A. (2004). Socio-economic complexities of smallholder resource-poor ruminant
livestock production systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. PhD Thesis. University of the Free State,
Bloemfontein.
Toto, A. (2007). "A Guide to Livestock Traceability in Namibia." Farm Assured Namibian Meat.
World Bank. (2006). Agriculture Investment Soureebook. Washington, DC, World Bank.
Yuen, C.L. (2009). Critical factors affecting trust and technology diffusion within the Queensland
Cattle Supply Chain. Masters Dissertation, University of Southern Queensland.
83
~[}=HLQ\[¥>u~1J« ® FACTORS INFLUENCING SUPPLY OF CATTLE
TO THE MARKET11
ABSTRACT
A variety of reasons are offered for low cattle off-take rates in communal farming areas. The
market off-take in northern communal areas of Namibia is 2 % and 20 % from communal
farmers south of the veterinary cordon fence. The objective of the study was to examine the
factors influencing the supply of cattle to the market from communal farming areas of the
Omaheke region in Namibia, that could be transformed to contribute to economic and viable
cattle production systems. The study was conducted in four communal areas of the Omaheke
region, namely Aminius, Epukiro, Otjinene and Otjombinde. Questionnaires were developed
and administered to 100 communal farmers using purposive sampling. The study showed that
the numoer of cattle owned, cost of production inputs, accessibility to market information,
accessibility to local markets and rainfall have significant influence (p<0.01) on cattle sales in
these communal areas. The study recommends the formation of cattle marketing groups that
can lower transaction costs, increase the bargaining power, increase access to information and
increase participation into markets. A conducive policy is needed to address the serious,
embedded institutional deficiencies that limit many communal farmers from taking advantage of
market opportunities, for example the lack of information, farmers' organisations, credit system
and property rights system.
Key words: Communal farmers; supply factors; cattle marketing; sales.
6.1 Introduction
A variety of reasons are offered for low cattle off-take rates in communal farming areas. From
an economic point of view, off-take rates of between 5 and 10 % from communal farming
sectors are considered very low, compared to 25 % in the commercial sector (Nkhori, 2004). In
terms of Namibia, Kruger and Lammerts-Imbuwa (2008) reported that the market off-take in the
11 Submitted to the Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development
84
northern communal areas is 2 %, and 20% from communal farmers south of the veterinary
cordon fence.
The low off-take rates from communal farming areas stem from some hindering factors. Some
of these factors influencing the supply of cattle to the market in communal production systems
include the presence of markets, access to information, herd size, farmers' ages, rainfall, soil
fertility, access to credit, access to good transportation, low market prices, farmers' education
levels, land tenure, access to advisory services and training (Musemwa, Chagwiza, Sikuka,
Fraser, Chimonyo & Mzileni, 2007; Mendelsohn, 2006; Fitter, Kressirer, KrolI, Kruger, Neumann
& Werner, 2001).
Mendelsohn (2006) estimated that 70 % of all live exports of cattle are originally bought from
communal areas, and thus there is huge potential for communal farming areas to contribute to
the Namibian GDP. Understanding the factors influencing the supply of cattle from communal
areas will contribute to the development of appropriate strategies and programs for the
betterment of marketing systems. This knowledge will benefit the farmers, public service
providers, financial institutions and policy makers.
This purpose of this chapter is to determine the factors that influence the supply of cattle to the
market from the communal farming areas of the Omaheke region.
6.2 Literature Review
6.2.1 Determinants of Economic Growth
Teweldemedhin (2009) in his study identified four reforms that can help many developing
countries to increase growth in farm output and employment. These are land distribution,
agricultural research, rural infrastructure and markets. Labour-intensive farm growth tends to
increase productivity and rural non-farm growth and improve food availability (Teweldemedhin,
2009).
The study's findings from Teweldemedhin (2009) on the determinants that can contribute to
financial success show that the ratio of government payments to total production value, tenure,
85
enterprise diversification, cost control, education, yield and debt-to-asset ratio found to be
significant factors can influence at least one financial success measure.
Teweldemedhin (2009) reported that the following factors have potential to influence the level of
success: size and type of farm operation, sources of information, importance of farm labour and
off-farm income, use of information technology, marketing practices and research, extension
and education needs. In addition, the results showed that more successful farmers use
production systems that are diverse, adopt measures to control costs and use marketing
strategies that seek the highest level of profit.
6.2.2 Market Institutional Arrangements
Teweldemedhin (2009) and Kherallah and Kirsten (2002) note that institution can be viewed as
the structural framework for social interaction, focusing on conventions and rules as co-
ordinators of social behaviour and economic interaction. On the other hand, a market is often
defined as a medium where change of ownership for goods and services takes place.
Five alternative marketing chains, which may stimulate agricultural output market supply, are
identified by Timmer, Falcon and Pearson (1983). A number of marketing functions may be
performed at any point in the chain. These are assembly, storage, processing, financing,
distribution and grading. These functions share two prime characteristics: they add value to the
product and they require a variety of inputs to perform (Cramer, Jensen & Southgate, 2001).
Provided that each function is positive, firms and individual entrepreneurs (including farmers)
will find it profitable to compete to supply the service entailed. For instance, for a pre-packed
vegetables, the consumer pays a price slightly higher than the farm-gate price as the retailer
charges for the processing function. The difference between these prices is what is usually
known as the marketing margin. Cramer et al. (2001) define a marketing margin as the
difference between the price that consumers pay for the final good and the price received by
farmers for the agricultural product or raw product. Marketing margins can be observed at any
level where prices are determined, e.g. retail-wholesale margin or wholesale farm-gate margin.
Agricultural economists group market institutions into two broad categories: those facilitating
exchange (auctions, grading, and standards, etc.) and those altering the economic structure and
economic performance of the market (Christy, 2001).
86
6.2.3 Marketing Situation in Namibia
The marketing situation in Namibia exhibits a: number of diverging issues. For most of the
communal farmers, access to a good roads network might not be the only problem. Other
barriers related to institutional factors may be responsible for the apparent lack of access to
markets (Mendelsohn, 2006). Understanding these issues requires a methodology that will
facilitate inclusion of all the different situations or types of situations to ensure a well
representative sample. The categories are formulated according to common trends that are
characteristic of the different situations and should be thought of in relation to those observed in
literature. These can be listed as:
Type 1: Little or no marketing
The main characteristic of this type of marketing is that there is little or no marketing on the
scheme; regardless of the amount of produce they obtain at any given season. Factors such as
a lack of transport and long distance from markets are hypothesised to be the reasons for this
situation (Mendelsohn, 2006).
Type 2: Farm gate sales
This type of marketing is characterised mainly by the attraction of buyers to the farming area.
The buyers include small and medium entrepreneurs aiming to resell the produce and may
come from the village and surrounding areas, as well as individuals buying for household
consumption. Buyers organise their own transport and produce is sometimes sold directly from
the field (Kruger & Lammerts-Imbuwa, 2008).
Type 3: Organised transportation and active sales
The dominant characteristic of this type of marketing is the fact that the farmers are actively
involved in the marketing of their produce, not only in selling but also transporting the produce to
the potential buyers. This marketing is also characterised by a relatively high level of
organisation. This is so partly due to the necessity of such organisation in terms of identifying
the potential markets for instance and bringing down the costs incurred through transportation.
It also requires more capital to organise own trucks (Kruger & Lammerts-Imbuwa, 2008).
87
6.2.4 General Categories of Factors Affecting Supply Response
Labys (1973) classifies five general categories of factors which can influence the supply of cattle
to markets. These determinants are economic, ecological, technological, institutional and
uncertainty.
Economic determinant
Economic determinants involve the process of acquiring inputs and the disposal of the product
in the market (Labys, 1973). The important aspects are the price of cattle in the market; prices
of production inputs; cattle herd size (assets) and debt to calculate the asset/debt ratio.
Ecological determinant
The ecological determinants, such as rainfall and other climatic factors, have a positive impact
on the availability of beef animals to be marketed (Carbera, Cochran, Dangelmayr, et al. 2007).
The cattle herd size and the amount of beef to be produced per unit of land is both dependent
on the quantity and quality of natural pasture (Mendelsohn, 2006). According to Kuvare,
Maharero and Kamupingene (2008), the vulnerability of the Namibian livestock industry to
droughts is a major handicap.
Technological determinant
Technological or technical improvement shift the production function upward and enable
farmers or producers to find it profitable to increase output at the same ratio of product to factor
prices (Tomek & Robinson, 1972). Although the impact of technical innovations varies,
Laubscher (1976) reports substantial progress in this regard.
Institutional determinant
According to Teweldemedhin (2009), the determinant in this category relates to the intervention
of structures (both public and private) and their programs. In the context of Namibia, past
policies favoured "white agriculture" leading to increased income disparities, and inequitable
access to resources, inputs and markets (Mendelsohn, 2006).
Uncertainty determinant
The uncertainty involves aspects such as price uncertainty; political developments (within the
country, within neighbouring countries and globally); availability of export markets; exchange
88
rate; and fluctuations in currencies, environmental and climatic conditions (Mushendami, Biwa &
Gaomab II, 2008; Kuvare, et al. 2008; Mendelsohn, 2006).
6.2.5 Determinants of Domestic Supply Response
6.2.5.1 Changes in Production Costs
The most common categories of production costs for beef cattle industry may include purchased
feed and supplements, raised feed, grazing, cattle, indirect, and interest costs (Ricketts &
Rawlins, 2001). In the beef cattle industry, production costs are constantly fluctuating due to
weather conditions, feed stuff and input prices, animal performance, domestic and export
markets, technology, and agricultural policies. The Meat Board (2007) reported that Namibia's
on-hoof marketing of cattle and export of chilled and frozen de-boned cuts and frozen de-boned
cuts to South Africa has been on a declining trend since 2005. This decline can be associated
with the high feedlot input costs which lead to low weaner prices (Meat Board, 2007). Both
Mushendami et al. (2008) and Mendelsohn (2006) conclude that due to high transaction costs,
the total production costs increase and income realised decreases with an increase in distance
from service and information centres.
6.2.5.2 Climatic Conditions
Communal farmers in Namibia are confronted with a harsh uncompromising natural
environment, incipient drought, and progressive natural degradation (Mushendami, et al. 2008;
Kuvare, et al. 2008; Carbera, et al. 2007; Mendelsohn, 2006).
6.2.5.3 Access to Market Information
A farmer uses market information such as trends, market conditions, type of product in demand,
quality, quantity, price and market opportunities to make crucial management decisions and
direct the farming operations (Coetzee, Montshwe & Jooste, 2004; Stroebel, 2004). Makhura
(2001) identified access to market information as an important determinant of market
participation. The proximity to market information centres influence both production costs and
89
income derived from agricultural produce (Mendelsohn, 2006). Provision of market information
thus will make markets more accessible (Montshwe, 2006).
6.2.5.4 Number of Cattle Owned
Participation in the marketing system has more to do with the number of cattle owned
(Mendelsohn, 2006). In support of this view, Heierli and Gass (2001) argue that ownership of
productive assets such as cattle can pave the way for participation in economic activities.
6.2.5.5 Off-farm Income
According to Mendelsohn (2006), the majority of farmers in Namibian communal areas depend
on off-farm sources for additional income and valuable safety nets. Off-farm remittances greatly
influence livestock disposals, and as a typical example, access to other sources of income such
as from social grants and employment may lead to the farmers not selling cattle to meet daily
needs and production costs (Nthakheni, 2006). Off-farm income is a good injection to livestock
farming (Teweldemedhin & Kafidi, 2009)
6.2.5.6Infrastructural Obstacles
Remote locations with poor state of roads results in high costs of moving livestock to markets
and hinder marketing efficiency (Mendelsohn, 2006). The shortcomings of infrastructure
seriously impede the physical flow of livestock to market (Mendelsohn, 2006). The major
problems identified by Mendelsohn (2006) hindering market participation in communal areas of
Namibia are lack of adequate transport and poor marketing infrastructure.
6.2.5.7 Education Levels of Producers
The levels of producer education and awareness play a great role in market participation.
Stroebel (2004) emphasises the importance of strengthening awareness creation of marketing
issues in the extension service. Related to education, producers who are literate are able to
interpret market information and adopt new technologies to meet the market demands
(Nthakheni, 2006).
90
6.2.5.8 Producers' Objectives
Communal farmer production objective may be geared towards keeping cattle as sources of
milk, blood, dung, meat, security, or status, and therefore sold ad hoc when the need for cash
arise rather to maximise income (Mendelsohn, 2006).
6.2.6 Determinants of Supply to International Markets
6.2.6.1 Changing Consumers' Food Demand
According to General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (1994), the factors that influence
change in consumers' food demands include health concerns, ageing population and stagnant
household incomes. Changes in consumer demand negatively affect farmers, and Frick and
Groenewald (1999) revealed that information about the type of product in demand will greatly
benefit small-scale farmers. Lack of feedback information from marketing centres to the
producer was identified as an agricultural constraint (Barnes, Awumbila & Akro-Meusah, 1996).
6.2.6.2 Changing Technology
Developing countries may not adapt new technologies due to a variety of reasons, as
summarised from different researchers' findings (Mushendami, et al. 2008; Kaakunga &
Ndalikokule, 2006; Mendelsohn, 2006):
• Transaction costs
• Limited access to information
• Lack of and access to credit
• Insufficient human capital
• Social acceptability of introduced, albeir imposed, change
• Aversion to risk
• Inappropriate transport infrastructure
91
Norton, Alwang and Masters (2006) identify the lack of capital to finance the increased inputs
purchase necessary for technological change in agriculture as a constraint.
6.2.6.3 International Market Integration
Van Oriel (1973) cites hygiene standards and trade restrictions as possible factors that might
influence the pattern of trade. Koo, Karemera and Taylor (1994) categorise trade restrictions
into qualitative restrictions and quantitative restrictions. Developing countries like Namibia have
a natural comparative advantage in the production of cattle to export beef; but bringing this
potential to fruition requires reliable disease control and traceability systems in accordance with
international sanitary standards (Carbera, et al. 2007).
6.2.6.4 Changing Incomes
Boland, Boyle and Lusk (2002) cited that as incomes increases in developed countries, there is
a shift towards more natural and organic foods. As a result, regulations are becoming even
more stringent. There is a positive relationship between consumption of beef and income
received (World Bank, 1993).
6.2.6.5 Livestock diseases
According to Steiger (2006), livestock diseases such as Avian Influenza (Asia and Europe), foot
and mouth disease (FMD) in Brazil and Argentina, and bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE) (Europe, North America, and Japan) continue to impact global trade and are a cause for
great concern. The BSE problem resulted in export falls in the United States, and consequently
benefited Brazil whose exports have grown over 1 metric tons (Steiger, 2006).
Steiger (2006) reports that Brazil is the world leader in beef exports by quantity, while Australia
is the world's leader in beef exports by value as it is able to sell into some of the premium
markets from 2001 to 2005. In terms of risk, the Brazilian beef industry had minimal risk of
BSE, but it is still being challenged by periodic outbreaks of foot and mouth disease (Steiger,
2006). Other potential threats for the Brazilian beef industry have been documented (Matthey,
Fabiosa & Fuller, 2004; Zylbersztajn & Pinheiro, 2001). Steiger (2006) stresses that the
92
implication of FMD also faces Argentina. In case of Namibia and Botswana, both countries
have free-roaming African Buffalo which are the primary carriers of Foot-and-Mouth Disease
(Carbera, et al. 2007).
6.3 Methodology
6.3.1 Sampling
Using purposive sampling, 100 farmers were interviewed using open-ended questionnaires in
the four cattle farmers in the Omaheke region's communal areas during September 2009 and
October 2009. The respondents were purposefully chosen on the basis that they are involved in
cattle marketing and that they are "typical" of a group or represent diverse perspectives on an
issue (Leedy & Armrod, 2000).
6.3.2 Data Collection and Analysis
After testing was done for possible heteroscedasitcity, normality and autocorrelation, the model
found that there was a high correlation among the variables. As a result, instead of using
Ordinary Least Square (OlS), the study applied Weighted Least Square (WLS) using the
package SPSS, the purpose was to remedy the heteroscedasitcity problem and the dependent
variable was weighted. The model is written as follows: Sales (each farmer) = f(Average
producers price, average cost of input (cost of supplements, fuel, feeds, vaccination, ete),
average rainfall, access to market information, accessibility to markets, average family sizes,
other sources of income, number of cattle owned). Table 6.1 indicates the expected sign in
relation to a variable.
Table 6 1 Variable identification for determinants of sales
Variables Expected sign Variable definition
PRP + Producer price
CINPUT +/- Cost of input (i.e. feeds, fuel, etc1
RFALL +/- Rainfall
AMI + Access to market information
ACCESSL +/- Accessibility to local market
ACCEXPO +/- Accessibility to export market
FSIZE +/- Family size
OINCOME - Off-farm income
OWNERSHIP + Number of cattle owned
93
Justifications for expected sign to independent variables are discussed as follows:
.y Producer price is expected to have a positive relationship to sales, the higher producer
price attracts more farmers to increase their sales volume. According to Cramer et al.
(2001), price is a signal that guides decision makers to increase or reduce supply to the
market.
.y Input cost (i.e. feeds, fuel, etc) is expected to have a direct or indirect relationship on the
livestock farmers' sales volume. A study by Teweldemedhin and Conroy (2010) showed
that livestock represents a renewable resource, is well suited to small-scale farming and
used as local transport. The animals survive on natural grazing and inputs and
contribute to local food production with milk, meat, manure and offspring. The use of
livestock to pull carts facilitates carrying domestic water and fuel, thereby generating
additional time that labourers can use for other productive tasks. In addition, animal
power requires little or no foreign exchange; as a result, farmers prefer to keep livestock
in terms of cash or any other asset (Teweldemedhin & Conroy, 2010). On the other
hand, during high inflation to meet their basic needs, farmers are forced to send to
market, at whatever price. Consequently, farmers are suffering high input cost and low
producer price, and living under a series of cost squeeze scenarios (Teweldemedhin &
Conroy, 2010) .
.y Rainfall will have both positive and negative relationships to sales. Farmers will be
forced to sell cattle if rainfall is poor for fear of losing cattle as result of fodder shortages.
Meadows and White (1979) found a relationship between rainfall and cattle sales .
.y Access to market information will have a positive relationship with sales. As reported by
several authors, farmers will sell more cattle if they have access to market information
(Montshwe, 2006; Nkhori, 2004). The expected sign for AMI would be positive .
.y Accessibility to the market is expected to have both a positive and negative relationship
to sales, because when markets are near, farmers will sell more cattle and vice-versa
(Mahanjana, Esterhuizen & Van Rooyen, 2001) .
.y Family size is expected to have both positive and negative relationships with sales,
because farmers with big families will be forced to sell many cattle to meet these
households' needs and vice-versa (Stroebel, 2004) .
.y Off-farm income is expected to have a negative relationship with sales, because families
with off-farm income will sell few cattle. The expected sign would be negative
(Mendelsohn,2006).
94
" Number of cattle owned is expected to have a positive relationship with sales. The
participation in the marketing system has to do with the number of cattle owned by an
individual farmer; and farmers with more cattle will generate high marketable surplus
(Mendelsohn, 2006). In addition, livestock keeping provides a great flexibility for getting
money to meet immediate family needs (Stroebel, 2004).
6.4 Results and Discussions
Table 6.2 presents the results of the determinant of market supply among the communal
farmers in the study area. The overall explanatory power is quite high at 95 %. Except
OINCOME, ACCEXPO and FSIZE (not significant as reported in Table 6.2), all other variables
were found to be statistically significant at a 1 % significance level.
Table 6.2 Wel.glhtedL east Ssquare estimates 0fd eterrninants 0f mar ket
Independent Variable Estimated Coefficient "t" - Value
OWNERSHIP 1.000 0.00006*
CINPUT 0.000132 3.50*
OINCOME -0.000027 -0.0395
SINFO -0.000016 -3.596*
ACCESSL -0.000012 -7.018*
ACCEXPO -0.000014 -0.799
FSIZE 0.000012 0.603
RFALL 0.00000237 2.85*
Intercept 0.0000667 6.82*
OW-statistic 1.80
R2 0.97
Adjusted R2 0.95
Prob (F-statistic) 0.0000
Number of observation 100
..
*Denotes significance at the 1 % levels
The positive estimated coefficients indicate that scale effects dominate proximity effects,
resulting in a positive coefficient and significance. The 1 % significance level of the variable
implies that the estimated coefficients had a strong effect on the level of supplying more
livestock to the market. That shows that, for example, an increase of 1 % ownership leads to an
increase of sales volume by 1 % (see Table 6.2).
95
The negative estimated coefficients have the reverse implication, implying that increasing 1 % in
these estimated coefficients will decrease the value of sales by the estimated coefficients
percentage.
Generally, the estimated coefficients do not have much weight to influence the producers'
decision, implying that communal farmers in this area are not following the economics of supply
and demand concept. Rather, their decision might be based on other household needs.
6.4.1 Input Cost
The results indicate that there is a significant and positive relationship between the cost of
inputs and cattle sales. As mentioned earlier, even though farmers' decisions at the communal
area are driven by other family basic needs, with the issue of global warming, incidence of
continuous drought and flooding, farmers are forced to apply supplement to feed their animals;
vaccine and medicine costs are further factors that necessitate farmers having to take their
livestock to the market.
This study suggests strongly advocates the formation of cattle marketing groups that can lower
transaction costs, increase access to information and increase participation into formal markets,
thereby increasing the bargaining power. By aggregating into larger associations such as inter-
group associations, small scale farmers have the potential to achieve even greater economies
of scale in accessing services, information, infrastructure and markets. As far as transport is
concerned, costs can easily be cut if these groups use the same transport to the market. By
transporting in bulk, farmers stand a better chance of getting good discounts from transport
firms as compared to transporting as individuals and in small quantities.
6.4.2 Ownership
As expected, the results show that an increase in the number of cattle owned by an individual
farmer leads to an increase in the sales volume. Similar findings were reported for South Africa
(Montshwe, 2006), Kenya (Bellemare & Barrett, 2004) and Botswana (Nkhori, 2004). The
estimated coefficient is also relatively bigger compared to the other variables, implying that the
ownership has a significant influence on the farmers' capacity to take their animals to the
market. This means if ownership increases by 1 % in the communal area, the response of
96
farmers to take cattle to the market will be increased by the same percentage. The P-value also
shows this is significant at 1 % (Table 6.2).
6.4.3 Rainfall
The results in Table 6.2 indicate that rainfall has significance influence at 1 % levels. However,
the estimated coefficient carries less weight, which indicates that livestock farming does not get
influenced much by the variability of rainfall/weather. Although it positively influences the
decision to destock their herd, this implies that farmers might use other risk management
mechanisms to cope with weather variability. Common sense dictates that livestock farming is
a long term investment which is relatively tolerant to drought comparing to short term investment
(crops); and with a slower response to the variability of weather.
6.4.4 Access to Market Information
The source of information has a direct association to the institutional structure. Institutions have
a critical role in reducing costs and can influence the development and organisation of economic
activity. These results call for a revisit of the policies and institutional framework, and enriching
farmers with information on the factors that affect performance. An innovative policy-making
process is necessary to support communal farms beyond the farm gate.
There is a need for improving access to institutions and to remove current distortions in the
livestock marketing in Namibia, to facilitate the flow of information and functional markets
mechanisms that allow competition and market entrance by emerging farmers, so as to enable
farmers to participate. High transaction costs become particularly problematic to communal
farmers. To reduce this cost requires significant transfers of information about the source or
any credence attributes of commodities being transacted (Teweldemedhin, 2009). The result of
this study shows that there is an inverse relationship between the source information and
volume of sales. This means that as barriers to the source of information increase, so the
volume of sales will reduce, implying that the current policy advice should focus on the effects of
policy distortions and adequate attention should be given to the serious, embedded institutional
deficiencies that limit many communal farmers or smallholder areas from taking advantage of
market opportunities, e.g. a lack of information, adequate contract systems in the buying and
selling process, farmer organisations, credit system and property rights system. These
97
institutional deficiencies require intensive and long term attention if globalisation is to offer
opportunities for smallholder development (Teweldemedhin, 2009). The challenge of economic
development therefore is to identify sources and reduce transaction costs of increasingly
complex forms of trade. This is achieved through the development of institutions that support
trade, by making available information (on markets and technologies), protecting property rights
and providing effective mechanisms for enforcing agreements (Teweldemedhin, 2009). The
challenges of communal farmers in Namibia can be summarised on the following points:
• As most of the farmers do not have their own means of transport, they rely on
contractors or neighbours and some expensive hired transport because of relatively
small production capacity. These means are sometimes inaccessible themselves
because of the poor roads network in most rural areas.
• Long distances over which produce has to be transported to reach the market network.
• Poor roads infrastructure.
• Lack of market information and means to disseminate such information which is critical
for the survival of small farmers in the increasingly competitive marketing environment.
6.4.5 Family Size
The result shows that family size is not significant (Table 6.2). The finding is not in agreement
with the findings of Ouma, Obare and Staal (2003) in Kenya. Even though the family size is not
significant, the positive sign of the FSIZE was shown as hypothesised. It indicates that family
members are dependents on the farm. Responsibility and creativity increases as the farmer
wants either to avoid risk or to obtain better income for the family.
6.4.6 Off-farm Income
Off-farm income (OINCOME) indicates a negative estimated coefficient, implying that the more
farmers engage in off-farm activities, does not increase the sales capacity (Table 6.2). The off-
farm income may be used as a good cash injection to their livestock farming enterprise. This
means that farmers have good income support to survive from both production and business
risks. The off-farm income helps many farming households because it diversifies risk.
98
6.5 Conclusions
The objective of this chapter was to examine the factors influencing the supply of cattle to the
market from the communal farming areas of the Omaheke region of Namibia with the aim to
contribute to the economic and viable cattle production systems. Factors identified as having a
significant influence on cattle sale volumes include: number of cattle owned, cost of production
inputs, accessibility to market information, accessibility to local markets and rainfall.
This study strongly suggests the formation of cattle marketing groups that can lower transaction
costs, increase access to information and increase participation into formal markets, and
increase the bargaining power. By aggregating into larger associations such as inter-group
associations, small-scale farmers have the potential to achieve even greater economies of scale
in accessing services, information, infrastructure and markets. As far as transport is concerned,
costs can be easily cut if these groups use the same transport to the market. By transporting in
bulk, farmers stand a better chance of getting good discounts from transport firms as compared
to transporting as individuals in small quantities.
There is a need for improving access to institutions and to remove current distortions in the
livestock marketing in Namibia, facilitate the flow of information and functional markets
mechanisms that allow competition and market entrance by communal and emerging farmers,
so as to enable farmers to participate. The result of this study shows that there is an inverse
relationship between source information and volume of sales, which mean that as barrier to
source of information increase defiantly will reduce the volume of sales, implying that the current
policy advice should focus on the effects of policy distortions and adequate attention should be
given to the serious, embedded institutional deficiencies that limit many communal farmers from
taking advantage of market opportunities, e.g. a lack of information, adequate contract systems
in the buying and selling process, farmer organisations, credit system and property rights
system. These institutional deficiencies require intensive and long-term attention.
99
6.6 References
Barnes, A.R., Awumbila, B. & Arko-Meusah, J. (1996). Livestock marketing and meat production
in Ghana. Proceedings: ;!'d All Africa Conference on Animal Agriculture, 1-4 April, Pretoria, S.A.
Bellemare, M.F. and Barrett, C.B. (2004). An ordered tobit model of market participation
evidence from Kenya and Ethiopia. Unpublished report, Cornell University, Ithaca.
Boland, M., Boyle, L. and Lusk, C. (2002). "Economic Issues with Natural and Organic Beef."
Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State
University.
Carbera, R., Cochran, M., Dangelmayr, L., D'Aguilar, G., Gawande, K., Lee, J., Speir, I. &
Weigand, C. (2007). African Capacity Building for Meat Exports: Lessons from the Namibian
and Botswanan Beef Industries. George H. W. Bush School of Government and Public Service,
Texas A&M University.
Christy, R.D. (2001). Evaluating the Economic Performance of Alternative Market Institutions:
Implications for the Smallholder Sector in Southern Africa. Agrekon, 40 (4). Pretoria, South
Africa.
Coetzee, L., Montshwe, B.D. & Jooste, A. (2004). The Marketing of Livestock on communal
lands in the Eastern Cape Province: Constraints, Challenges and Implications for the Extension
Services. South African Journal of Agricultural Extension, 34( 1): 81-103.
Cramer, G.L., Jensen, C.W. & Southgate, D.D. (2001). Agricultural economics and
agribusiness. 8th Edition. John Wiley & Sons Inc. New York.
DEES (Directorate of Extension and Engineering Services). (1994). Socio Economic Survey -
Eastern Communal Areas. Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development.
Fitter, J.C., Kressirer, R.F., KrolI, T., Kruger, T., Neumann, N.P.K. & Werner, W. (2001). Coping
in a Fragile Environment: The SARDEP Experience. Sustainable Animal and Range
100
Development Programme. Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development, Windhoek,
Namibia. p. 98.
Frick, A. & Groenewald, J.A. (1999). The need for agricultural information in the new South
Africa. SAJEMS, Vol 38(4).
GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). (1994). The international markets for meat
(1993/1994). Arrangements regarding bovine meat. Fourteenth annual report, General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Geneva.
Heierli, U. & Gass, T. (2001). Enhancing Employment and Income Generation in Rural Areas.
Paper submitted to the Operations Committee on 11th October. Also available on
www.deza.admin/themen.
Kaakunga, E. & Ndalikokule, V. (2006). "Property Rights and Access to Credit." Bank of
Namibia Occasional Paper OP-1/2006.
Kherallah, M. & Kirsten, J.F. (2002). The New Institutional Economics: Applications for
Agricultural Policy Research in Developing Countries, Agrekon, 41 (2): 111- 134.
Koo, W.W., Karemera, D. & Taylor, R. (1994). A gravity model analysis of meat trade policies.
Agricultural Economics, 10: 81- 88.
Kruger, Band Lammerts-Imbuwa, L. (2008). Training Manual: Livestock Marketing in Namibia.
Namibia National Farmers Union (NNFU).
Kuvare, U., Maharero, T. & Kamupingene, G. (2008). Research on Farming Systems Change to
Enable Adaptation to Climate Change. University of Namibia.
Labys, W.C. (1973). Dynamic Commodity Models: Specifications, Estimation and Simuitation.
Lexington Books, Toronto. p.36.
Laubscher, J.M. (1976). An economic analysis of the supply of live cattle in South West Africa.
Unpublished M.S. Thesis. University of Illinois.
101
Leedy, P. & Armrod, J.E. (2000). Research Planning and Design. Merrill Prentiss Hall, USA.
Mahanjana, A.M., Esterhuizen, D. & Van Rooyen, J. (2001). Farming for profit. National
Emerging Red Meat Producers Organisation, Pretoria. South Africa.
Makhura, M. (2001). Overcoming transaction costs barriers to market participation of
smallholder farmers in the Northern Province of South Africa. Unpublished PhD Thesis,
University of Pretoria, Pretoria.
Matthey, H., Fabiosa, J. & Fuller, F. (2004). Brazil: The future of modern agriculture? MATRIC
(Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center) Briefing paper, Ames, Iowa. 25
pages.
Meadows, S.J. & White, J.M. (1979). Structure of the herd and determinants of offtake rates in
Kajiado District in Kenya, 1962-1977. OOI Pastoral Network Paper 7d. Overseas Development
Institute, Agricultural Administration Unit, London, UK. pp 28.
Meat Board of Namibia. (2007). Annual Report. Windhoek, Namibia.
Mendelsohn, J. (2006). Farming Systems in Namibia. NNFU: Windhoek, Namibia.
Montshwe, B.O. (2006). Factors affecting participation in mainstream cattle markets by smali-
scale cattle farmers in South Africa. Unpublished MSc (Agric) Thesis. University of the Free
State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Mushendami, P., Biwa, B. & Gaomab II, M. (2008). Unleashing the Potential of the Agricultural
Sector in Namibia. Bank of Namibia Occassional Paper OP 1-2008.
Musernwa, L., Chagwiza, C., Sikuka, W., Fraser, G., Chimonyo, M. & Mzileni, N. (2007).
Analysis of cattle marketing channels used by small scale farmers in the Eastern Cape
Province, South Africa. Livestock Research for Rural Development, (19)9.
102
Nkhori, P.A. (2004). The impact of transaction costs on the choice of cattle markets in
Mahalapye District, Botswana. Unpublished M.lnst.Agrar Thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.
Norton, G.W., Alwang, J. & Masters, W.A. (2006). Economics of Agricultural Development:
World food systems and resource use. Routledge, New York.
Nthakheni, N.O. (2006). A livestock production systems study amongst resource-poor livestock
owners in the Vhembe District of Limpompo Province. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of
Free State, Bloemfontein.
Ouma, E.A., Obare, G.A. & Staal, S.J. (2003). Cattle as assets: Assessment of non market
benefits from cattle in smallholder Kenyan crop-livestock systems. Paper presented at the
International Conference of Agricultural Economists, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa.
Ricketts, C. & Rawlins, O. (2001). Introduction to Agribusiness. Delmar Thomson Learning.
Steiger, C. (2006). Modern Beef Production in Brazil and Argentina. Choices, 2nd Quarter 2006
21(2). American Agricultural Economics Association.
Stroebel, A. (2004). Socio-economic complexities of smallholder resource-poor ruminant
livestock production systems sub-Saharan Africa. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of the
Free State.
Teweldemedhin, M.Y. (2009). Implications of trade liberalisation and economic growth for South
African agricultural industries. PhD Thesis, University of Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Teweldemedhin, M.Y. & Conroy A.B. (2010). The economic importance of draught oxen on
small farms in Namibia's Eastern Caprivi Region. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5(9):
928 - 934.
Teweldemedhin, M.Y. & Kafidi, L. (2009). Risk management strategies of cattle farmers in
Namibia: Case study from Omaheke and Otjozondjupa Regions. Journal of Agricultural
Extension and Rural Development, 1(2): 63-70.
103
Timmer, C.P., Falcon, W.P. & Pearson, S.R. (1983). Food Policy Analysis. Baltimore, Maryland:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tomek, W.G. & Robinson, K.L. (1972). Agricultural Product Prices, Cornell University Press,
Ithaca.
Van Oriel, J.G. (1973). Die produksie, verbruik en internasionale handel in beesvleis. MSc
(Agric) Thesis, University of Pretoria.
World Bank. (1993). Price prospects for major primary commodities, Vol. 2. The World Bank,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Zylbersztajn, D. & Pinheiro, M.C. (2001). Competitiveness of meat agrifood chain in Brazil.
Invited paper, Conference on Globalization, Production, and Competitiveness of Livestock
Products, Braunsweig, Germany, 19 pages.
104
~[f{]ffi\[}DlF~~ {/ GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Major Conclusions Drawn from this Study
7.1.1 Production System, Managerial Practices and Support Services
The study found some constraints that are hindering cattle production in communal areas. The
main constraints identified in the production system were incorrect bull:cow ratio, low calving
percentage and cattle mortalities and losses. Linked to the production system, the main causes
of cattle mortalities and losses in the communal areas are drought, diseases, straying and theft,
with a farmer losing an average of ten cattle per year. The managerial practices found to
negate sustainable cattle production are weaning practices employed and record keeping.
Further, the study found that communal cattle farmers are not utilising the available agricultural
support services; and constraints identified to be hindering the production system and
shortcomings found in the managerial practices could be addresed if farmers visited the state
extension and veterinary offices for advice and training.
7.1.2 Cattle Supply Chain Management and Access to Market Information
Understanding and knowing what the market wants is important. The study revealed that the
majority of farmers do not know the quality criteria used by buyers when determining prices for
cattle classes and grades. The accessibility to market information was found not to be a
constraint. The major constraints facing the communal cattle farmers include low prices offered
for cattle, buyers' late arrival or no show, slow payment process and buyers running out of cash.
Those constraints found to be facing auctioneers and buyers operating in communal areas
include the buying of poor quality cattle and the few number of cattle offered for sale. The lack
of essential and safe facilities at market outlets was expressed as a constraint to cattle farmers,
auctioneers and buyers in the study areas.
105
7.1.3 Supply of Cattle to Market
The rationale for promoting cattle sales from communal farming areas should start with the
understanding of factors that influence the potential for success. The study showed that the
number of cattle owned, cost of production inputs, accessibility to market information,
accessibility to local markets and rainfall have a significant influence on cattle sales in these
communal areas.
7.2 Major Recommendations from this Study
As indicated in the conclusion section, the majority of farmers do not know the quality criteria
used by buyers when determining prices for cattle classes and grades. The study recommends
the training of communal cattle farmers in managerial and marketing practices to enable farmers
to produce cattle of the quality required by the market, to make farmers understand how the
market operates and how prices are determined. The farmers' associations and co-operatives
are playing a crucial role in cattle marketing in communal areas, and should thus be
strengthened in terms of human and financial resources.
A policy is needed to guide the management of grazing resources in communal areas. This
policy should be emulated from current rural water supply policy which empowers and tasks
rural communities to manage their water resources through established village water point
committees.
The results of the study on factors influencing the supply of cattle to the market from the
communal farming areas of the Omaheke region of Namibia call for a revisit of the policies and
institutional framework. The formation of cattle marketing groups will lower transaction costs,
increase the bargaining power, increase access to information and increase participation in
markets. A conducive policy is needed to address the serious, embedded institutional
deficiencies that limit many communal farmers from taking advantage of market opportunities,
e.g. a lack of information, farmers' organisations, credit system and property rights system.
Access to credit was found to be a constraint to sustainable cattle production in communal
areas. There are under-developed legal and regulatory systems with regards to title deeds of
106
land in rural areas and other assets that could be used as collateral. Thus, a conducive policy
environment should be created by government to establish tailor-made micro-financing to rural
farming communities in order to have economically viable cattle production systems in
communal areas.
Finally, the provision of key infrastructure and services such as better roads, marketing facilities,
banking services and production inputs outlets will improve cattle production and marketing in
communal areas. Better roads will enable access to inputs and markets. Access to banking
facilities will enable farmers to maintain financial reserves to carry their farming operations
through periods of hardships. It has been proven that participation in the marketing system has
more to do with the number of cattle owned, but a balance should be maintained between stock
owned and grazing resources available.
107
Adams, F. & Werner, W. (1990). The land issue in Namibia: An inquiry. Namibian Institute for
Social and Economic Research, University of Namibia, Windhoek. pp. 16-20.
Adkisson, S. & Devereux, S. (1995). Options for drought relief in Namibia. Social Science
Development Report.
Altieri, M.A. (1987). Agroecology: The scientific basis of alternative agriculture. Westview Press,
Boulder, Colorado, p. 227.
Anderson, D.D. (1984). Depression, dust bowl, demography and drought: The colonial state and
soil conservation in East Africa during the 1930s. Africa Affairs, 8: 321-43.
Anon. (2004). Realizing the promise and potentials of African agriculture. Inter Academy
Council, 2004, pp. 267.
Awad, H.A.H. & Nassar, M.O. (2010). Supply Chain Integration: Definition and Challenges.
Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists, Vol. I,
IMECS 2010, March 17-19,2010. Hong Kong.
Barnes, A.R., Awumbila, B. & Arko-Meusah, J. (1996). Livestock marketing and meat production
in Ghana. Proceedings: ;rd All Africa Conference on Animal Agriculture, 1-4 April, Pretoria, S.A.
Behnke, R.H. (1998). "Grazing systems in the Northern Communal Areas of Namibia: a
summary of NOL/DEP socio-economic research on Range Managemenf'. Northern Regions
Livestock Development Programme, Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development,
Windhoek, Namibia.
108
Behnke, R.H. & Scoones, I. (1992). Rethinking Range Ecology: Implications for Rangeland
Management in Africa. Overseas Development Institute paper no. 33. OOI, London, UK.
Bekure, S. & Tilahun, N. (1983). Livestock marketing studies. In: Pastoral systems research in
sub-Saharan Africa. Proceedings of the IDRC/ILCA workshop held at ILCA, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, 21-24 March 1983. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp. 327-360.
Bellemare, M.F. and Barrett, C.B. (2004). An ordered tobit model of market participation
evidence from Kenya and Ethiopia. Unpublished report, Cornell University, Ithaca.
Benson, C. & Clay, E. (1994). The impact of drought on sub-Saharan economies: a preliminary
examination, Working Paper 77. Overseas Development Institute.
Bester, J., Matjuda, I.E., Rust, J.M. & Fourie, H.J. (2003). The Nguni: case study. In: FAO
Community-based management of animal genetic resources. Rome: UNDP, GTZ, CTA, FAO.
pp. 45-68.
Beunison, J.J., Silverside, D. & Bordon, D. (1998). "Study on the establishment of teeoïots in
Northern Communal Areas of Namibia". Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development,
Windhoek, Namibia.
Bhalatora, V.P.R. (1985). The drought of 1981-85 in Botswana. Department of Meteorological
Services, Ministry of Works and Communication, Gaborone, Botswana.
Boland, M., Boyle, L. and Lusk, C. (2002). "Economic Issues with Natural and Organic Beef."
Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State
University.
Brattan, M. (1987). Drought, food and the social organisation of small farmers in Zimbabwe: In
Glantz M.H. (ed). Drought and Hunger, Denying Famine a Future. Cambridge, 214-224.
Carbera, R., Cochran, M., Dangelmayr, L., D'Aguilar, G., Gawande, K., Lee, J., Speir, I. &
Weigand, C. (2007). African Capacity Building for Meat Exports: Lessons from the Namibian
109
and Botswanan Beef Industries. George H. W. Bush School of Government and Public Service,
Texas A&M University.
Childhouse, P. & Towill, D. (2003), 'Simplified material flow holds the key to supply chain
integration', OMEGA, 31 (1): 17-27.
Chimonyo M, Kusina NT, Hamudikuwanda H, & Nyoni, O. (1999). A survey on land use and
usage of cattle for draught in a smallholder farming area of Zimbabwe. Journal of Applied
Sciences for Southern Africa, 5(2): 111-121.
Chimonyo, M., Kusina, N.T., Hamudikuwanda, H., Nyoni, O. & Ncube, I. (2000). Effects of
dietary supplementation and work stress on ovarian activity in non-lactating Mashona cows in a
smallholder farming area of Zimbabwe. Animal Science, 70(2): 317-323.
Chopra, S. & Meindl, P. (2004). Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning, and
Operations, 2nd ed. Pearson Education, New Jersey.
Christelis, G. & Struckmeier, W. (2001). Groundwater in Namibia: an explanation to the
Hydrological Map. Hydrological Map of Namibia Project, MAWRD: Namibia. Dagris. 2006.
Domestic Animal Genetic Resources Information System. (Eds. J.E.O. Rege, E. Getahun, O.
Hanotte and T. Dessie). International Livestcok Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Christy, RD. (2001). Evaluating the Economic Performance of Alternative Market Institutions:
Implications for the Smallholder Sector in Southern Africa. Agrekon, 40 (4). Pretoria, South
Africa.
Coetzee, M.E. (2009). Chemical characterization of the soils of east-central Namibia.
Unpublished MSc (Agric) Thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Coetzee, L., Montshwe, B.D. & Jooste, A. (2004). The Marketing of Livestock on communal
lands in the Eastern Cape Province: Constraints, Challenges and Implications for the Extension
Services. South African Journal of Agricultural Extension, 34(1): 81-103.
Cooper, E.L. (1990). Agriscience: Fundamentals and Applications. Delmar Publishers. Inc.
110
Coppolillo, P.H. (2000). The landscape ecology of pastoral herding:spatial analysis of land use
andlivestock production in East Africa. Human Ecology, 28: 527-560.
Cornu, F. (1999). "A propos de l'espace, des lieux, du territoire chez les pasteurs nomades
Himba de Namibie, a I'exemple d'Otjhende". Master report, Institut de Geographie de Bordeaux,
Bordeaux, France.
Cramer, G.L., Jensen, C.W. & Southgate, D.D. (2001). Agricultural economics and
agribusiness. 8th Edition. John Wiley & Sons Inc. New York.
Devereux, S. (1992). Household responses to food insecurity in North-eastern Ghana,
Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Oxford, Oxford.
Devereux, S. & Naerra, T. (1996). Drought and Survival in rural Namibia. Journal of Southern
Africa, 22: 421-440:
De Waal, A. (1989). Famine that Kills. Sudan. 1984-1985. Claredon Press. Oxford.
De Waal, A. (1991). A re-assessment of entitlement theory in the light of recent faminesin
Africa. Development and Change, 21: 469-490.
Dewdney, R. (1996). Policy Factors and Desertification - Analysis and Proposals. NAPCOD
Steering Committee, Windhoek.
DEES (Directorate of Extension and Engineering Services). (1994). Socio Economic Survey -
Eastern Communal Areas. Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development.
Dovie, D.B.K., Shackleton, C.M. & Witkowski, E.T.F. (2006). Valuation of communal area
livestock benefits, rural livelihoods and related policy issues. Land Use Policy, 23: 260-271.
Downing, T.E. (1987). Climate impact assessment in central Kenya: In Wilhite, O.A., Easterling,
W.E., Woods, D.A. (eds). Planning for Drought: Toward a Reduction of Societal Vulnerability,
West Press. Boulder, Colorado, 215-245.
111
Downing, T.E. (1988). Climate variability, food insecurity and smallholder agriculturalists in six
districts of Central and eastern Kenya. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Clarke Univeristy, Worcester,
Massachussets.
Downing, T.E. (1992). Climate Change and Vulnerable Places: Global Food Security and
Country Studies in Zimbabwe, Kenya, Senegal and Chile, Research report No. 1. Environmental
Change Unit, Oxford.
Eswaran, H. (1991). Sustainable Agriculture in Developing Countries: Challenges and U.S.
Role, In: Agriculture and the Environment, The 1991 Yearbook of Agriculture: US Government
Printing, p. 199-200.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation). (1983). Guidelines: Land evaluation for rainfed
agriculture. Soils Bulletin 52, FAO Rome, Italy.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) and World Bank. (2001). Farming systems and
poverty. improving farmers' livelihoods in a changing world, by J. Dixon, A. Gulliver & D.
Gibbon.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation). (2008). 18 February 2008. http://faostat.fao.org/site
/570/default.aspx.
Farshad, A. (1997). Analysis of integrated soil and water management practices within different
agricultural systems under semi-arid conditions of Iran and evaluation of their sustainability, ITC,
Publication 57, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Fitter, J.C., Kressirer, R.F., KrolI, T., Kruger, T., Neumann, N.P.K. & Werner, W. (2001). Coping
in a Fragile Environment: The SARDEP Experience. Sustainable Animal and Range
Development Programme. Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development, Windhoek,
Namibia. p. 98.
Frick, A. & Groenewald, J.A. (1999). The need for agricultural information in the new South
Africa. SAJEMS, Vol 38(4).
]12
GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade). (1994). The international markets for meat
(1993/1994). Arrangements regarding bovine meat. Fourteenth annual report, General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Geneva.
GRN (Government of Namibia). (2002). Initial National Communication to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change. Ministry of Environment and Tourism: Windhoek,
Namibia.
Groenewald, LB. (2004). Study notes for MVL 702. Centre for Sustainable Agriculture,
University of the Free State, Bloemfontein.
Harmsen, K. & Kelly, T. (1992). Natural resource management research for sustainable
production. Draft report for the Joint TAC/CDC Working Group on Ecoregional Approaches to
International Research (unpublished). pp. 25.
Healy, T.M. (1996). Eastern Epukiro Community Water Improvement Project: Agro-Ecological
Assessment Report, Oxfam UK & I, Windhoek.
Heierli, U. & Gass, T. (2001). Enhancing Employment and Income Generation in Rural Areas.
Paper submitted to the Operations Committee on 11th October. Also available on
www.deza.admin/themen.
Hersman, E.M. (2004). Knowledge and Dissemination of Sustainable Agriculture Practices by
County Extension Agents in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Masters Thesis, Davis
College of Agriculture, Forestry, and Consumer Science, West Virginia University.
Hvidsten, H. & Kavari, T. (1997). "Education for marginalised nomadic and semi-nomadic
children in Kunene Region" Report on a preliminary field study from the Ministry of Basic
Education and Culture, Khorixas, Namibia.
113
IFAD. (2003). Promoting Market Access for the Rural Poor in Order to Achieve the Millennium
Development Goals. Discussion paper in proceeding of IFAD conference. Rome, Italy
http://www.ifad.org/gbdocs/gc/26/e/markets.pdf (Accessed on the 4th of March 2010).
Ikerd, J.E. (1990). Agriculture's search for sustainability and profitability. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation, 45: 18-23.
ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa). (1990). Livestock systems research manual.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Jayaratne, K., Martin, R. & Witt, J. (2001). Perceptions regarding sustainable agriculture
emerging trends for educating Extension educators. In: Proceedings of 17th Annual Conference
of AIAEE. Baton Rouge, USA, 191-197. [Online]. http://www.aged.tamu.edu/aiaee/2001/pa25.-
pdf.
Jones, B.T.B. (1993). Report on the Socio-ecological survey of the Huab Catchment Area,
Cunene Provice, October 1992. Unpublished Report. Directorate of Environmental Affairs.
Ministry of Wildlife Conservation and Tourism, Windhoek.
Jones, C. (1998). 'Moving beyond ERP: making the missing link', Logistics Focus, 6(7): 2-7.
Kaakunga, E. & Ndalikokule, V. (2006). "Property Rights and Access to Credit." Bank of
Namibia Occasional Paper OP-1/2006.
Kaiser, H.M. & Drennen, T.E., (editors). (1993). Agricultural dimensions global climate change.
St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida.
Karami, E. & Mansoorabadi, A. (2008). Sustainable agriculture, attitudes and behaviors: a
gender analysis of Iranian farmers. Environ. Dev. Sustain., OOI 10.1007/s1 0668-007-9090-7.
Kerlinger, F.N. (1986). Foundation of behavioral research (3rd Ed). New York, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
114
Kherallah, M. & Kirsten, J.F. (2002). The New Institutional Economics: Applications for
Agricultural Policy Research in Developing Countries, Agrekon, 41 (2): 111- 134.
Koo, W.W., Karemera, D. & Taylor, R. (1994). A gravity model analysis of meat trade policies.
Agricultural Economics, 10: 81- 88.
Kressirer, R & Kruger, A. (1995). "On-farm Research in Animal Production and Range
Management in the Communal Areas of Namibia - One-Way How to Look at It''. Paper
presented at the Agrisson Congress.
Kruger, B & Lammerts-Imbuwa, L. (2008). Training Manual: Livestock Marketing in Namibia.
Namibia National Farmers Union (NNFU).
Kuvare, U., Maharero, T. & Kamupingene, G. (2008). Research on Farming Systems Change to
Enable Adaptation to Climate Change. University of Namibia.
Kwon, I. & Suh, T. (2005). 'Trust, commitment and relationships in supply chain management: a
path analysis', Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 10(1): 26-33.
Labys, W.C. (1973). Dynamic Commodity Models: Specifications, Estimation and Simuitation.
Lexington Books, Toronto. p.36.
Lankford, W. (2004). 'Supply chain management and the internet', Online Information Review,
28(4): 301-305.
Lanyasunya T.P., Musa, H.H., Yang, Z.P., Mekkiand, O.M. & Mukisira, E.A. (2005). Effects of
Poor Nutrition on Reproduction of Dairy Stock on Smallholder Farms in the Tropics. Pakistan
Journal of Nutrition, 4(2): 117-122.
Laubscher, J.M. (1976). An economic analysis of the supply of live cattle in South West Africa.
Unpublished M.S. Thesis. University of Illinois.
Lau, H. & Lee, W. (2000). 'On a responsive supply chain information system', International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 30 (7/8): 598-610.
115
Leedy, P. & Armrod, J.E. (2000). Research Planning and Design. Merrill Prentiss Hall, USA.
Livestock in Development. (1999). Livestock in Poverty-focused Development, Livestock in
Development, Crewkerne, UK.
Lockeretz, W. (1988). Open questions in sustainable agriculture. American Journal of
Alternative Agriculture, 3(4): 174-181.
Lopez, H., Kanitz, F.D. & Moreira VR. (2004). Reproductive performance of dairy cows fed two
concentrations of phosphorus. Journal of Dairy Science, 87: 146-157.
Mahanjana, A.M., Esterhuizen, D. & Van Rooyen, J. (2001). Farming for profit. National
Emerging Red Meat Producers Organisation, Pretoria. South Africa.
Makhura, M. (2001). Overcoming transaction costs barriers to market participation of
smallholder farmers in the Northern Province of South Africa. Unpublished PhD Thesis,
University of Pretoria, Pretoria.
Malan, J.S. (1974). "The Herero speaking people of Kaokoland'. Cimbabesia, volume 2, p. 114-
129, Republic of South Africa.
Mapinduzi, A.L., Oba, G., Weladji, A.B. & Colman, J.E. (2003). Use of indigenous knowledge of
the Masaai pastoralists for assessing rangeland biodiversity in Tanzania. African Journal of
Ecology, 41: 329-336.
Maree, C. & Casey, N.H. (1993). Livestock Production Systems: Principles and Practice Agri-
Development Foundation, Brooklyn.
Mason, J. (2003). Sustainable Agriculture. 2nd Edition. Landlinks Press. Australia
Matthey, H., Fabiosa, J. & Fuller, F. (2004). Brazil: The future of modern agriculture? MATRIC
(Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information Center) Briefing paper, Ames, Iowa. 25
pages.
116
MAWF (Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry). (2007). Agricultural Statistics Bulletin.
Directorate of Planning: Windhoek, Namibia
MAWRD (Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development). (2003). Baseline Survey of the
Impact of Agriculture Extension Services in Omaheke Region. Directorate of Extension and
Engineering Services, Gobabis.
MCA (Millennium Challenge Accounts). (2006). Millennium Challenge Accounts - Namibia,
Government of Namibia, Windhoek.
McDowell, R.E. (1972). Improvement of Livestock Production in warm Climates, W.H. Freeman
and Company, p. 401-481.
McPeak, J. G. (2003). Analyzing and addressing localized degradation in the commons. Land
Economy, 79: 515-536.
Meadows, S.J. & White, J.M. (1979). Structure of the herd and determinants of offtake rates in
Kajiado District in Kenya, 1962-1977. OOI Pastoral Network Paper 7d. Overseas Development
Institute, Agricultural Administration Unit, London, UK. pp 28.
Meat Board of Namibia. (2007). Annual Report. Windhoek, Namibia.
Mendelsohn, J. (2006). Farming Systems in Namibia. NNFU: Windhoek, Namibia.
Mendelsohn, J. & ElObeid, S. (2005). Forests and Woodlands of Namibia. MAWF, Namibia.
Mendelsohn, J., Janvis, A., Roberts, C. & Robertson, T. (2002). Atlas of Namibia: A Portrait of
the Land and its People. David Phillip, Cape Town.
MET (Ministry of Environment and Tourism). (1997). A Retrospective Study of the
Environmental Impacts of Emergency Borehole Supply in the Gam and Khorixas Areas of
Namibia. p. 5.
117
Metzger, D. (1995). Livestock Sector Study for the Eastern Communal Areas and Southern
Communal Areas. Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development; Deutsche Gesellschaft
Fuer Technische Zusammernarbeit (GTZ), Windhoek.
Metzger, D. (1994). Livestock Sector Study for the Hereroland and Namaland. Ministry of
Agriculture, Water and Rural Development; Deutsche Gesellschaft Fur Technische
Zusammernarbeit (GTZ), Windhoek.
Mhlanga, F.N. (2000). Animal Breeding 2. Module 2 CASD 303. Zimbabwe Open University,
Harare, Zimbabwe. pp. 127-142
Montshwe, B.O. (2006). Factors affecting participation in mainstream cattle markets by smali-
scale cattle farmers in South Africa. Unpublished MSc (Agric) Thesis. University of the Free
State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Mushendami, P., Biwa, B. & Gaomab II, M. (2008). Unleashing the Potential. of the Agricultural
Sector in Namibia. Bank of Namibia Occassional Paper OP 1-2008.
Musemwa L, Chagwiza C, Sikuka W, Fraser G, Chimonyo M. & Mzileni N. (2007). Analysis of
Cattle Marketing Channels Used by Small Scale Farmers in the Eastern Cape Province, South
Africa. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 19(9).
Musemwa, L., Mushunje, A., Chimonyo, M., Fraser, G., 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.
Musemwa, L., Mushunje, A., Chimonyo, M. & Mapiye, C. (2010). Low cattle market off-take
rates in communal production systems of South Africa: Causes and Mitigation Strategies.
Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 12(5): 209-226.
Namibia Vision 2030. (2004). Policy Framework for Long-term National Development. Main
Document. Office of the President. 30-31.
118
NDA (National Department of Agriculture). (2005). Red Meat Marketing.
http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/MarketExtension/7Livestock.pdf (accessed on May 15, 2007).
NDTF (National Drought Task Force). (1997). Towards a drought policy for Namibia. A
discussion document prepared by the National Drought Task Force for a workshop at Neudamm
Agricultural College 11-13 March 1997. National Drought Task Force, Windhoek.
NERPO (National Emergent Red Meat Producers' Organisation). (2004). Marketing
infrastructure development. http://www.nerpo.org.za (accessed on June 4, 2008).
Nkhori, P.A. (2004). The impact of transaction costs on the choice of cattle markets in
Mahalapye District, Botswana. MSc Dissertation, University of Pretoria, RSA.
Nkosi, S.A. and Kirsten, J.F. (1993). Agrekon, 3294: 230-237.
Norton, G.W., Alwang, J. and Masters, W.A. (2006). Economics of Agricultural Development:
World food systems and resource use. Routledge, New York.
Novack, R., Langley Jr, C. & Rinehart, L. (1995). 'Creating logistics value: themes for the future',
Council of Logistics Management, Oak Brook, IL.
NPC (National Planning Commission). (2006). Omaheke Regional Poverty Profile: based
village-level participatory poverty assessments. Windhoek, Government of Namibia.
NPFS (National Programme for Food Security). (2007). National Programme for Food Security
- Draft Report. MAWF / FAO, Namibia.
Nthakheni, N.D. (2006). A livestock production system study amongst resource-poor livestock
owners in the Vhembe District of Limpopo Province. PhD Thesis. University of the Free State.
Oba, G. & Kotile, D.G. (2001). Assessment of landscape level degradation in southern Ethiopia:
pastoralists versus ecologists. Land Degradation Development, 12: 461-475.
119
Ouma, E.A., Obare, G.A. & Staal, S.J. (2003). Cattle as assets: Assessment of non market
benefits from cattle in smallholder Kenyan crop-livestock systems. Paper presented at the
International Conference of Agricultural Economists, August 16-22, 2003, Durban, South Africa.
Paskin, R.D. (1990). uA review of Agriculture in Kaokoland with special reference to animal
husbandry and veterinary extension". Directorate of Veterinary Services, Ministry of Agriculture,
Water and Rural Development, Windhoek, Namibia.
Pretty, J.N. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 23(8):
1247-63.
Pretty, J.N. (1998). Supportive policies and practice for scaling up sustainable agriculture. In:
Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture - Participatory leaning and adaptive management in times of
environmental uncertainty, ed. N.G. Rolling and M.A.E. Wagemakers, Cambridge University
Press. p. 23-45.
Price Waterhouse Coopers. (2005). Cost/Benefit Analysis of Namibia's Access to International
Meat Markets. Draft Report. Windhoek, Meat Board of Namibia.
Prinsloo, R. (2001). Veld burning in communal areas, Agri-Info, Directorate of Agricultural
Research and Training. Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development, Windhoek, p. 11-
12.
Qamar, M.K. (2002). Global trends in Agric. Ext. challenges facing Asia and the Pacific region.
Rome: FAO, Sustainable Development Department (SO).
Rao, N.H. & Rogers, P.P. (2006). Assessment of agricultural sustainability. Curr. Sci., 91: 439-
448.
Ricketts, C. & Rawlins, 0. (2001). Introduction to Agribusiness. Delmar Thomson Learning.
Hólinq, N.G. (1994). Facilitating sustainable agriculture turning policy models upside down. In
Beyond farmer first, rural people's knowledge, agricultural Research and extension practices,
(eds Scoones I and Thompson J.), London, Intermediate Technology Publications.
120
Roodt, W. (2007). Namibian supplementation research. Feedmaster, Windhoek, Namibia
Rothauge, A. (2001). Drought Management Strategies for Namibian Ranchers, AGRICOLA,
Windhoek, p. 91-105.
Rothauge, A. (2006). The effect of frame size and stocking rate on diet selection of cattle and
range condition in the Camelthorn Savanna of East-Central Namibia. PhD Thesis. University of
Namibia.
Safley, M. & Oyer, L. (1991). Integrated Sustainable Agriculture into Sustainable Conservation
Service Programs, In: Agriculture and the Environment, The 1991 Yearbook of Agriculture: US
Government Printing. p. 194.
Schutz, W. (2007). "2007 Cattle Review: Production and Marketing Trends". The Meat Board of
Namibia. 3 February 2008 http://www.nammic.com.na/stats.php.
Sheunyange, A., Oba, G. & Weladji, A.B. (2005). Effects of anthropogenic fire history on
savanna vegetation in northeastern Namibia. Journal of Environmental Management, 75: 189-
198.
Simela, L., Montshwe, B.O., Mahanjana, A.M. & Tshuwa, M.P. (2006). The livestock production
environment in the South African smallholder sector. New challenges for the animal science
industries. SASAS 4151 Congress Abstracts. p. 66.
Smit, P. (2000). "Network visit to Botswana and Namibia (Community-based natural resource
management)". Field Report, Republic of South Africa.
Smyth, A.J. & Oumanski, J. (1993). FESLM: an international framework for evaluating
sustainable land management, World Soil Resources Report, 73, FAO, Rome.
Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Alley, R.B., Berntsen, T., Bindoff, N.L., Chidthaisong, Z.C.A.,
Gregory, J.M., Hegerl, G.C., Heimann, M., Hewitson, B., Hoskins, B.J., Joos, F., Jouzei, J.,
Kattsov, V., Lohmann, U., Matsuno, T., Molina, M., NicholIs, N., Overpeck, J., Raga, G.,
121
Ramaswamy, V., Ren, J., Rusticucci, M., Somerville, R., Stocker, T.F., Whetton, P., Wood,
R.A., & Wratt, D. (2007). Technical Summary. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK. New York, US, Cambridge
University Press.
Steiger, C. (2006). Modern Beef Production in Brazil and Argentina. Choices, 2nd Quarter 2006
21 (2). American Agricultural Economics Association
Stenholm, C.W. & Waggoner, O.B. (1990). Low-input, sustainable agriculture: Myth or method?
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 45: 13-17.
Stroebel, A. (2004). Socio-economic complexities of smallholder resource-poor ruminant
livestock production systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. PhD Thesis. University of the Free State,
Bloemfontein.
Suzman, J. (1995). "Poverty, Land and Power in the Omaheke Region". Oxfam UK & I.
Windhoek.
Suzman, J. (1997). Baseline Socio-Economic Survey of Oxfam's Omaheke Target Areas.
Unpublished Report. Oxfams in Omaheke Region, Windhoek.
Sweet, J. (1998). Livestock - Coping with Drought: Namibia - a Case Study. FAO/AGAP.
Eastbourne. 1-22.
Talavera, P., Katjimune, J., Mbinga, A., Vermeulen, C. & Mouton, G. (2000). Farming Systems
in Kunene North - A Resource Book. Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development.
Tapscott, C. (1990). The social economy of livestock production in Okavango, NISER
discussion paper (unpublished).
122
Teweldemedhin, M.Y. (2009). Implications of trade liberalisation and economic growth for South
African agricultural industries. PhD thesis, University of Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Teweldemedhin, M.Y. & Conroy A.B. (2010). The economic importance of draught oxen on
small farms in Namibia's Eastern Caprivi Region. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5(9):
928 - 934.
Teweldemedhin, M.Y. & Kafidi, L. (2009). Risk management strategies of cattle farmers in
Namibia: Case study from Omaheke and Otjozondjupa Regions. Journal of Agricultural
Extension and Rural Development, 1(2): 63-70.
Thornton, P.K., Kruska, R.L., Henninger, N., Kristjanson, P.M., Antieno, F., Odero, A.N. &
Ndegwa, T. (2002). Mapping Poverty and Livestock in the Developing World, ILRI, Nairobi,
Kenya.
Tiffen, M. (1994). The impact of the 1991-92 drought on the environment and people in Zambia:
In People and Environment in Africa. Binns, A. (ed), Wiley.
Timmer, C.P., Falcon, W.P. & Pearson, S.R. (1983). Food Policy Analysis. Baltimore, Maryland:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tomek, W.G. & Robinson, K.L. (1972). Agricultural Product Prices, Cornell University Press,
Ithaca.
Toto, A. (2007). "A Guide to Livestock Traceability in Namibia." Farm Assured Namibian Meat.
Trigg, S. (2000). Namibia: Fire Monitoring and Management in Namibia. International Forest
Fire News, 22: 49-52.
Turner, M.D. & Hiernaux, P. (2002). The use of herders' accounts to map livestock activities
across agropastorallandscapes in Semi-Arid Africa. Landscape Ecology, 17: 367-385.
123
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (2007). Human Development Report
2007/2008: Fighting Climate Change - Human Solidarity in a Divided World. Palgrave
Macmillan: New York.
Van Oriel, J.G. (1973). Die produksie, verbruik en internasionale handel in beesvleis. MSc
(Agric) Thesis, University of Pretoria.
Van Rooyen, B. & Gartside, A. (1999). Kavango Region Livestock Report: Findings of a survey
about animal husbandry and management practices in 5 riverine villages. KFSR/E Working
Document.
Viederman, S. (1993). A dream of sustainability. Renewable Resources Journal, 11(2): 14-15.
Wagner, W.C. (1999). Sustainable Agriculture: how to sustain a production system in a
changing environment. International Journal of Parasitol, 29, 1-5.
Walter, H.S., Jackson Jr, K.A., Perkins , K.J. & Decalo, S. (2001). "Africa," Discovery Channel
School, original content provided by World Book On line, http://www.discoveryschool.com/
homeworkhelp/worldbookatozgeography/a/00674.html 28/05/2001.
Whande, S.I. (1999). Sustainability of agricultural production in a communal area of
Chionekano, Zimbabwe. Unpublished MSA Thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein.
Wilson, R.T., Diallo, A. & Wagenaar, K.T. (1985). Mixed herding and the demographic
parameters of domestic animals in arid and semi-arid zones of tropical Africa. In: Hill A G (ed),
Population, health and nutrition in the Sahel: Issues in the welfare of selected West African
communities. KPl (Kegan Paul International), London, UK, pp. 116-138.
Winrock International. (1992). Animal agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. Morrilton, AK: Winrock
International Institute for Agricultural Development.
World Bank. (2006). Agriculture Investment Sourcebook. Washington, DC, World Bank.
124
World Bank (1993). Price prospects for major primary commodities, Vol. 2. The World Bank,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Wylie, P. (1996). Profitable land care - sustainable farming in summer rainfall areas.
Department of Public Industries.
Yaron, G., Janssen, G. & Maamberua, U. (1992). Rural Development in the Okavango Region
of Namibia: an Assessment of Needs, Opportunities and Constraints. Gamsberg MacMillan,
Windhoek. p. 83-84.
Yuen, C.L. (2009). Critical factors affecting trust and technology diffusion within the Queensland
Cattle Supply Chain. Masters Dissertation, University of Southern Queensland.
Zhen, L. & Routray, J.K. (2003). Operational Indicators for Measuring Agricultural Sustainability
in Developing Countries. Environmental Management, 32(1): 34-46.
Zylbersztajn, D. & Pinheiro, M.C. (2001). Competitiveness of meat agrifood chain in Brazil.
Invited paper, Conference on Globalization, Production, and Competitiveness of Livestock
Products, Braunsweig, Germany, 19 pages.
125
The objective of the study was to examine the efficiency and constraints of cattle managerial
practices and marketing systems in the four communal areas of the Omaheke region. The
specific objectives of the study were to identify the most crucial managerial aspects having a
negative effect on sustainable cattle production; to examine the sustainability of cattle supply
chain management from farmer to processor; to examine the accessibility of market information
to farmers and to identify the factors influencing the supply of cattle to market. The study was
conducted in four communal areas, namely Aminius, Epukiro, Otjinene and Otjombinde of the
Omaheke region in Namibia during 2008 and 2009. Questionnaires were developed and
administered to 670 communal farmers and key informants of 3 farmers' associations, 4
farmers' co-operatives, a cattle auctioneer and beef processor. Data from questionnaires were
entered into MS Excel spreadsheet and descriptive results analysis was done using Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). In terms of examining the factors influencing the supply
of cattle to market, Weighted Least Square (WLS) was used.
The main constraints identified in the production system were incorrect bull:cow ratio (1 :38), low
calving percentage and cattle mortalities and losses. The main causes of cattle mortalities and
losses in the communal areas are drought, diseases, straying and theft, with a farmer losing an
average of ten cattle per year. The managerial practices found to negate sustainable cattle
production are weaning practices and record keeping. Communal cattle farmers are not utilising
the available agricultural support services and constraints identified in the production system
and shortcomings found in the managerial practices could be addresed if farmers visited the
extension and veterinary offices for advice.
In terms of marketing, the farmers were found to not be satisfied with the existing market and
satisfaction levels of farmers differed significantly (p<0.05). The majority of farmers do not know
the quality criteria used by buyers when determining prices for cattle classes and grades
(p<0.05). The accessibility to market information was found not to be a constraint. The
126
constraints facing the communal cattle farmers include low prices offered for cattle, buyers' late
arrival or no show, slow payment process and buyers running out of cash, whereas those found
to be facing auctioneers and buyers operating in communal areas include buying of poor quality
cattle, and few number of cattle offer for sale. The lack of essential and safe facilities at market
outlets was expressed as a constraint to cattle farmers, auctioneers and buyers in the study
areas.
The factors found to have an influence (p<O.01) on cattle sales in these communal areas are
the number of cattle owned, cost of production inputs, accessibility to market information,
accessibility to local markets and rainfall.
Besides identifying challenges and constraints, the study pulled out policy-relevant findings and
contextualises them for the Namibian situation. Firstly, a policy is needed to guide the
management of grazing resources in communal areas. Secondly, the results of the study on
factors influencing the supply of cattle to the market from the communal farming areas of the
Omaheke region of Namibia call for a revisit of the policies and institutional framework to
address the serious, embedded institutional deficiencies that limit many communal farmers from
taking advantage of market opportunities. Thirdly, there are under-developed legal and
regulatory systems with regards to title deeds of land in rural areas and other assets that could
be used as collateral. Thus, a conducive policy environment should be created by government
to establish tailor-made micro-financing to rural farming communities in order to have
economically viable cattle production systems in communal areas.
Key words: Cattle; cattle farmers; managerial practices; cattle marketing; supply chain
management; communal areas; supply factors, sales.
127
ANNEXURE 1
All information provided will be treated as STRICTL Y CONFIDENTIAL
Questionnaire: Cattle Management Practices Analysis
The objective of this questionnaire is to assess the management practices of communal cattle
farmers. This study will present alternative solutions to cattle managerial challenges faced by
farmers. Thus your information is extremely important to complete this survey, and it will be used
only for the above-mentioned purposes. No information will be used for any other purpose.
1.0 RESPONDENT INFORMATION
1.1 Gender of Farmer
Male 01
Female 02
1.2 Age of Farmer
< 17 years 01
18-49 years 02
50+ years 03
1.3 Marital Status of Farmer
Single 01
Divorced 02
Widowed 03
Married 04
2.0 HERD SIZE & COMPOSITION
2.1 Cattle Herd Size & Composition
Total #
(at present) # Cows
# Bulls
# Oxen (> 3 years)
# Heifers
# Steers (1-3 years)
# Calves « 1 year)
2.2 How many calves are born from your herd yearly?
Less than 10 01
Between 11 & 20 02
(RING 1 CODE) Between 21 & 30 03
More than 30 04
Don't know 05
128
3.0 ROLE OF CATTLE IN EPUKIRO SOCIETY
3.1 Role of cattle in your society
Nutrition Source 01
Sales (Income generation) 02
(RING 1CODE AT EACH) Bride's Price (Lobola) 03
Draught power (ploughing) 04
Transport (carts, sledges) 05
Family Wealth / Security 06
Other 07
4.0 CATTLE BREEDS
4.1 Cattle breed(s) farming with
Indigenous (Bos indicus) 01
(RING 1 CODE) Exotic Zebu (Brahman) 02
Composite 03
European (Bos taurus) 04
5.0 WATER SUPPLY
5.1 Source of Water for your cattle
Borehole (communal) 01
Borehole (own) 02
(RING 1 CODE) Well 03
Pan / Earth dam 04
Other 05
5.2 Distance covered by cattle to main water source
Less than 1 km 01
Between 1 & 5 km 02
(RING 1 CODE) Between 6 & 10 km 03
More than 10 km 04
Don't know 05
5.3 Supply of existing main water source
Reliable 01
(RING 1 CODE) Fairly reliable 02
Not reliable 03
5.4 Quality of water of existing main source
Good 01
(RING 1 CODE) Fairly good 02
Poor 03
6.0 GRAZING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
6.1 Source of grazing for your cattle
Open Veld (communal) 01
Open Veld (private) 02
129
(RING 1 CODE) Camps (communal) 03
Camps (private) 04
Other _ 05
6.2 Distance covered to grazing areas
Less than 1 km 01
Between 2 & 5 km 02
(RING 1 CODE) Between 6 & 10 km 03
More than 10 km 04
Don't know 05
6.3 Condition of existing grazing areas
Good 01
(RING 1 CODE) Fairly good 02
Poor 03
6.4 Grazing management system employed
Free roaming in open veld 01
Herding 02
(RING 1 CODE) Continuous grazing in a camp 03
Rotational grazing in camps 04
Other 05
6.5 Management of grazing land in your area
Traditional authority 01
(RING 1 CODE) Village committee 02
None 03
Other 04
6.6 Daily grazing time of your cattle
1 - 7 hours 01
(RING 1 CODE) 8 - 11 hours 02
12 - 24 hours 03
7.0 MORTALITlES & LIVESTOCK LOSSES
7.1 How many of your cattle died from January to December last year?
Total #
# Cows
# Bulls
# Oxen (> 3years)
# Heifers
# Steers (1-3 years)
# Calves
7.2 Main Causes of Livestock Losses from January to December last year?
Drought 01
Disease 02
(RING CRUCIAL 2) Predators 03
Theft 04
Straying/Lost 05
Other 06
130
8.0 MATING PRACTICES & SELECTION
8.1 Mating practices employed
Veld mating 01
(RING 1 CODE) Kraal mating 02
Artificial Insemination 03
Other 04
8.2 Sire (bull) Mating Practices
Single-sire mating 01
(RING 1 CODE) Multiple-sire mating 02
Other 03
8.3 Bull acquisition and selection
Bull from own cattle herd 01
(RING 1 CODE) Bull from neighbouring farmer 02
Bull from commercial farmer 03
Other 04
8.4 Age at first mating Heifers Bulls
Less than 12 months 01 01
Between 12 & 24 months 02 02
(RING 1 CODE) Between 25 & 36 months 03 03
More than 36 months 04 04
Don't know 05 05
9.0 BRANDING & EARMARKING
9.1 Strategy used when branding and earmarking your cattle
Branding using hot iron 01
Tattooing 02
(RING 1 CODE) Earmarks 03
Eartags (Metal) 04
Eartags (Plastic) 05
Other 06
9.2 How many times did you brand and earmark your cattle from January to December last year?
4+ times yearly 01
3 times yearly 02
(RING 1 CODE) 2 times yearly 03
1 time yearly 04
Not at all 05
9.3 Age at branding and earmarking
Less than 3 months 01
Between 3 & 6 months 02
(RING 1 CODE) Between 6 & 12 months 03
More than 12 months 04
Don't know 05
Not applicable 06
131
10.0 CONTROLLING OF EXTERNAL PARASITES
10.1 Strategy used to control ticks on cattle
Hand Picking 01
Dipping 02
(RING 1 CODE) Tick grease 03
Pour-on remedies 04
Other 05
10.2 How many times did you control ticks on cattle from January to December last year?
4+ times yearly 01
3 times yearly 02
(RING 1 CODE) 2 times yearly 03
1 time yearly 04
Not at all 05
11.0 CONTROLLING OF INTERNAL PARASITES
11 .1 Strategy used to control worms on cattle
Dosing 01
(RING 1 CODE) None 02
11.2 How many times did you control worms on cattle from January to December last year?
4+ times yearly 01
3 times yearly 02
(RING 1 CODE) 2 times yearly 03
1 time yearly 04
Not at all 05
12.0 CASTRATION
12.1 Castration method used on your cattle
Knife 01
Elastrator (ring) 02
(RING 1 CODE) Burdizzo 03
None 04
Other 05
12.2 Age of cattle du ring castration
Less than 3 months 01
Between 3 & 6 months 02
(RING 1 CODE) Between 6 & 12 months 03
More than 12 months 04
Don't know 05
Not Applicable 06
12.3 How many times did you castrate your cattle from January to December last year?
4+ times yearly 01
3 times yearly 02
(RING 1 CODE) 2 times yearly 03
1 time yearly 04
Not at all 05
132
13.0 DEHORNING
13.1 Dehorning method used on your cattle
By hot iron 01
(RING 1 CODE) By breeding - use a polled bull 02
None 03
Other 04
13.2 Age of cattle during dehorning
Less than 3 months 01
Between 3 & 6 months 02
(RING 1 CODE) Between 6 & 12 months 03
More than 12 months 04
Don't know 05
Not Applicable 06
13.3 How many times did you dehorn your cattle from January to December last year?
4+ times yearly 01
3 times yearly 02
(RING 1 CODE) 2 times yearly 03
1 time yearly 04
Not at all 05
14.0 VACCINATIONS & CONTROLLING OF DISEASES
14.1 Most important cattle diseases in your area
Brucellosis (contagious abortion) 01
Anthrax 02
Black-quarter 03
Botulism 04
(RING CRUCIAL 3) Lumpy skin disease 05
Foot and mouth disease 06
Rabies 07
None 08
Other 09
14.2 Annual immunisation for cattle in your area
Brucellosis (contagious abortion) 01
Anthrax 02
Black-quarter 03
Botulism 04
(RING CRUCIAL 3) Lumpy skin disease 05
Foot and mouth disease 06
Rabies 07
None 08
Other 09
133
14.3 Age of calves during first immunisation (vaccination)
Less than 3 months 01
Between 3 & 6 months 02
(RING 1 CODE) Between 6 & 12 months 03
More than 12 months 04
Don't know 05
Not Applicable 06
14.4 How many times do you apply immunisations (vaccinations)?
4+ times yearly 01
3 times yearly 02
(RING 1 CODE) 2 times yearly 03
1 time yearly 04
Not at all 05
14.5 Season of immunisation
Summer 01
Autumn 02
(RING 1 CODE) Winter 03
Spring 04
Don't know 05
14.6Who is responsible for immunising your cattle?
Individual farmer 01
(RING 1 CODE) Local farmers' association 02
State veterinary officials 03
Other 04
15.0 WEANING PRACTICES
15.1 Weaning method used on your cattle
Physical Separation 01
Natural Weaning 02
(RING 1 CODE) Nose Ring 03
None 04
Other 05
15.2 Age of calves during weaning
Less than 6 months 01
Between 6 & 9 months 02
(RING 1 CODE) Between 10 & 12 months 03
More than 12 months 04
Don't know 05
Not Applicable 06
15.3 How many times did you wean your calves from January to December last year?
4+ times yearly 01
3 times yearly 02
(RING 1 CODE) 2 times yearly 03
1 time yearly 04
Not at all 05
Not Applicable 06
134
16.0 LIVESTOCK SUPPLEMENTATION
16.1 Supplements you give to your cattle
Phosphate licks (readily mixed) 01
Phosphate licks (home mixed) 02
(RING 1 CODE) Home made licks 03
Salt 04
None 05
Other _ 06
16.2 How many times did you supplement your cattle from January to December last year?
4+ times yearly 01
3 times yearly 02
(RING 1 CODE) 2 times yearly 03
1 time yearly 04
Not at all 05
16.3 Season of lick supplementation
Summer 01
Autumn 02
(RING 1 CODE) Winter 03
Spring 04
Don't know 05
Other 06
.17.0 MARKETING & MARKETING STRATEGIES
17.1 Reasons for livestock sales
Needed money 01
(RING 1 CODE) To de-stock! reduce number 02
Feast / ritual/festival 03
Other 04
17.2 Which type of cattle do you sell Main Other
Dry Cows 01 01
Lactating Cows 02 02
Old / Culled Cows 03 03
Bulls 04 04
(RING 1 CODE AT EACH) Oxen (> 3 years) 05 05
Heifers (1-3 years) 06 06
Steers (1-3 years) 07 07
Calves « 1 year) 08 08
Other _ 09 09
17.3 Strategy used to market your cattle
Permits (of farmers ass.) 01
Permits (private buyer) 02
(RING 1 CODE) Auctions (of farmers ass.) 03
MEATCO 04
Other 05
135
17.4 How many times did you sell your cattle from January to December last year?
4+ times yearly 01
3 times yearly 02
(RING 1 CODE) 2 times yearly 03
1 time yearly 04
Not at all 05
17.5 How many cattle do you sell yearly?
less than 10 01
Between 10 & 19 02
(RING 1 CODE) Between 20 & 30 03
More than 30 04
Don't know 05
Not Applicable 06
17.6 Distance to nearest market place
less than 10 km 01
Between 10 & 30 km 02
(RING 1 CODE) Between 31 & 50 km 03
More than 50 km 04
Don't know 05
17.7 Who set the market price for cattle in your area?
Government marketing agency 01
Farmers' Association 02
(RING 1 CODE) Producers (farmers) 03
Private Buyers 04
Other _ 05
17.8 Overall, are you satisfied with the existing market?
Very satisfied 01
(RING 1 CODE) Fairly satisfied 02
Not satisfied 03
18.0 DROUGHT PREPAREDNESS & MITIGATION
18.1 Drought mitigation strategies employed before drought to ensure cattle survival
De-stocking 01
licks supplementation 02
Building up of fodder banks 03
(RING 1 CODE) Moving to other areas within district 04
leasing grazing outside district 05
Don't know 06
Other 07
18.2 Drought mitigation strategies employed during drought to ensure cattle survival
Licks supplementation 01
Feeding with crop residues 02
(RING 1 CODE) Feeding with protein & energy feeds 03
Don't know 04
Other 05
136
18.3 Drought mitigation strategies employed after drought to ensure cattle survival
Re-stocking 01
Licks supplementation 02
(RING 1 CODE) Building up of fodder banks 02
Storing crop residues 03
Don't know 04
Other 05
19.0 VELD FIRES
19.1 What are the main causes of veld fires in your village?
Lightning 01
(RING 1 CODE) Hunters 02
Other 03
19.2 How often do you encounter veld fires in your village?
2+ times yearly 01
(RING 1 CODE) 1 time yearly 02
Not at all 03
Don't know 04
19.3 What strategies do you employ to control veld fires in your village?
Community intervention 01
(RING 1 CODE) Government intervention 02
Other 03
20.0 AGRICULTURAL ADVICE & TRAINING
20.1 How often do you visit these local offices for advice Extension Veterinary
4+ times yearly 01 01
3 times yearly 02 02
(RING 1 CODE AT EACH) 2 times yearly 03 03
1 time yearly 04 04
Not at all 05 05
20.2 Have you received any agricultural training during last 5 years?
Yes 01
(RING 1 CODE) No 02
21.0 AGRICULTURAL CREDIT
21.1 Sources of agricultural credit
Agricultural Bank of Namibia 01
Other commercial banks 02
(RING 1 CODE) Don't know 03
None 04
Other 05
137
21.2 Distance covered to sources of agricultural credit facilities from you village
Less than 50 km 01
Between 50 & 100 km 02
(RING 1 CODE) Between 100 & 200 km 03
More than 200 km 04
Don't know 05
21.3 Have you received any agricultural credit during last 5 years?
Yes 01
(RING 1 CODE) No 02
22.0 LIVESTOCK RECORDS
22.1 Do you keep yearly livestock (cattle) records?
Yes 01 (specify records kept)
(RING 1 CODE) No 02
138
ANNEXURE 2
All information provided will be treated as STRICTL Y CONFIDENTIAL
Questionnaire: Cattle Marketing System Analysis (Communal Farmers)
A. Sustainability of Cattle Supply Chain Management
In terms of Cattle Supply Chain Management, the focus of this study will cover from farmer to
processor
A.1. What transport mode are farmers using to bring their cattle to auction kraals or to
processors?
T ransport Mode Market within District Export Abattoirs
Driving cattle to market on foot
Driving cattle to market using
horses / donkeys
Hiring vehicles to take cattle to
market
Other (Specify)
A2. Who is the driving force in determining the prices for various cattle classes and grades?
A.3. How are prices determined for various cattle categories and grades?
A4. What are the buyers' quality criteria when determining prices for cattle?
A.5. As a farmer, are you in know of Buyers Quality Criteria when determining prices?
Yes No
A.6. Which logistical arrangements should be fulfilled by farmers before marketing their
cattle?
A7. Which logistical arrangements should be fulfilled by local farmers association during the
process of cattle marketing to processors from communal areas?
A.8. Which payment modalities are employed by processors or buyers, and how effective are
these payment modalities?
139
A.g. Which constraints or problems do payment modalities mentioned in A.6 present to
communal cattle farmers in communal areas?
A.10. In your own opinion, what are the main constraints faced by communal cattle farmers
when marketing their cattle?
A.11. How can these main constraints of communal cattle farmers be addressed?
A.12. Are you satisfied with the marketing strengths/capabilities of communal farmers or
farmers associations? Yes No
A.13. In your own opinion, what are the main constraints faced by beef processors and cattle
auctioneers?
A.14. How can these main constraints of beef processors or auctioneers be addressed?
A.15. Generally, in your own view which cattle managerial practices (i.e. dehorning, castration,
calving season, weaning, type of animal sold, etc) employed by cattle farmers have
negative effect or direct influence on marketing (price, sale season, age and type of
animal sold) in communal area?
A.16. How can the cattle managerial practices be improved in order for communal farmers to
get better prices for their cattle?
A.17. How can the current cattle marketing systems be improved to increase the supply of
cattle from communal areas?
A.18. What are the main reasons for selling your cattle?
A.19. Do you set marketing plan in advance, for example where or when to sale?
Yes No
140
B. Access of Market Information
B.1. By whom is cattle market information communicated to farmers in your communal area?
B.2. Which of these do farmers use mostly in accessing cattle market information?
Source of Market Information Source Ranging (1-5)*
Radio
Local Farmers' Association
Print media (newspapers)
Computer / Internet-related services
Cell-phone service
Other (Specify)
*5 = most Important source 1 = least Important source
B.3. What do you think should be done to make farmers more aware of cattle market
information in communal areas?
c. Factors Affecting the Supply of Cattle to Market
C.1. What is the size of your family?
C.2. What was the number of your cattle (asset) during 2008?
C.3. How many of your cattle have you sold during 2008 from January to December?
CA. How much money did you spent on buying inputs (supplements, vaccines, fuel for
pumping water, etc) for your cattle during 2008?
C.5. Do you have a loan from a bank or any other party that you are currently paying off?
No Yes (state the loan amount)
C.6. Do you have any other source of income besides cattle farming?
No Yes (specify)
141
ANNEXURE 3
All information provided will be treated as STRICTL Y CONFIDENTIAL
Questionnaire: Cattle Marketing System Analysis (Farmers' Associations and Co-
operatives)
A. Sustainability of Cattle Supply Chain Management
In terms of Cattle Supply Chain Management, the focus of this study will cover from farmer to
processor.
A.1. How many auction pens or kraals are in your communal area?
A.2. Where exactly are these auction pens / kraals located in your communal area?
A.3. Who owns the auction pens / kraals in your communal area?
A.4. What is number of sales days per month (frequency of operation) for each of auction
pens / kraals mentioned in A.1?
A.5. What transport mode are farmers using to bring their cattle to auction kraals or to
processors?
Transport Mode Market within District Export Abattoirs
Driving cattle to market on foot
Driving cattle to market using
horses / donkeys
Hiring vehicles to take cattle to
market
Other (Specify)
A.6. How can the current modes of transport used by farmers be improved to increase the
supply of cattle to markets from communal areas?
A.7. Who is the driving force in determining the prices for various cattle classes and grades?
142
A.8. How are prices determined for various cattle categories and grades?
A.g. What are the buyers' quality criteria when determining prices for cattle?
A.10. Are farmers in know of Buyers' Quality Criteria when determining prices?
Yes No
A.11. What do you think should be done to make farmers in know of Buyers Quality Criteria
when determining prices?
A.12. Which logistical arrangements should be fulfilled by farmers before marketing their
cattle?
A.13. Which logistical arrangements should be fulfilled by local farmers association or co-
operative during the process of cattle marketing to processors from communal areas?
A.14. Which payment modalities are employed by processors or buyers, and how effective are
these payment modalities?
A.15. Which constraints or problems do payment modalities mentioned in A.14 present to
communal cattle farmers in communal areas?
A.16. In your own opinion, what are the main constraints faced by communal cattle farmers
when marketing their cattle?
A.17. How can these main constraints of communal cattle farmers be addressed?
A.18. Are you satisfied with the marketing strengths/capabilities of communal farmers or
farmers' associations? Yes No
A.19. In your own opinion, what are the main constraints faced by beef processors and cattle
auctioneers?
A.20. How can these main constraints of beef processors or auctioneers be addressed?
143
A.21. Generally, in your own view which cattle managerial practices (i.e. dehorning, castration,
calving season, weaning, type of animal sold, etc) employed by cattle farmers have
negative effect or direct influence on marketing (price, sale season, age and type of
animal sold) in communal area?
A.22. How can the cattle managerial practices be improved in order for communal farmers to
get better prices for their cattle?
A.23. How can the current cattle marketing systems be improved to increase the supply of
cattle from communal areas?
A.24. What are the main reasons for farmers to sell their cattle in your communal area?
A.25. Do farmers set marketing plan in advance, for example where or when to sale?
Yes No
B. Access of Market Information
B.1. By whom is cattle market information communicated to farmers in your communal area?
B.2. Which of these do farmers use mostly in accessing cattle market information and why?
Source of Market Information Source Ranging (1-5)*
Radio
Local Farmers' Association
Print media (newspapers)
Computer / Internet-related services
Cell-phone service
Other (Specify)
*5 = most Important source 1 = least Important source
B.3. What do you think should be done to make farmers more aware of cattle market
information in communal areas?
144
ANNEXURE 4
All information provided will be treated as STRICTL Y CONFIDENTIAL
QUESTIONNAIRE: Cattle Marketing System Analysis (Cattle Auctioneers and Beef
Processors)
A. Sustainability of Cattle Supply Chain Management
In terms of Cattle Supply Chain Management, the focus of this study will cover from farmer to
processor
A.1. What transport mode are communal farmers using to bring their cattle to auction kraals
or to processors?
Transport Mode Market within District Export Abattoirs
Drivinq cattle to market on foot
Driving cattle to market using
horses / donkeys
Hiring vehicles to take cattle to
market
Other (Specify)
A.2. Who is the driving force in determining the prices for various cattle classes and grades?
A.3. How are prices determined for various cattle categories and grades?
AA. What are the buyers' quality criteria when determining prices for cattle?
A.S. According to your opinion are communal farmers in know of Buyers Quality Criteria
when Determining Prices?
Yes No
A.6. What do you think should be done to make farmers in know of Buyers Quality Criteria
when Determining Prices?
145
A.7. Which logistics arrangements should be fulfilled by farmers before marketing their
cattle?
A.8. Which logistical arrangements should be fulfilled by local farmers association during
cattle marketing process?
A.g. Which payment modalities are employed by processors or auctioneers, and how
effective are these payment modalities?
A.10. Which constraints or problems do payment modalities mentioned in A.6 present to
communal cattle farmers in communal areas.
A.11. In your own opinion, what are the main constraints faced by communal cattle farmers
when marketing their cattle?
A.12. How can these main constraints of communal cattle farmers be addressed?
A.13. In your own opinion, what are the main constraints faced by beef processors and cattle
auctioneers?
A.14. How can these main constraints of beef processors or auctioneers be addressed?
A.15. Generally, what is your view about the cattle marketing system in communal areas?
A.16. What do you think could be done to further improve the cattle marketing system in
communal areas and region?
B. Access of Market Information
B.1. By whom is cattle market information communicated to farmers in Omaheke communal
areas where you procure cattle?
146
B.2. Which of these do farmers use mostly in accessing cattle market information and why?
Source of Market Information Source Ranging (1-5)*
Radio
Local Farmers Association
Print media (newspapers)
Computer / Internet-related services
Cell-phone service
Other (Specify) .5 = most Important source 1 = least Important source
B.3. What do you think should be done to make farmers more aware of cattle market
information in communal areas?
Thanking you for your time and your contribution to sustainable livestock marketing in
Namibian communal areas
UV. UFS
BLOEMFONTEIN
. lSiBUOTEEK. LIBRARY
147