Breeding objectives for in-situ conservation of indigenous Nguni cattle ...

Breeding objectives for in-situ conservation of indigenous Nguni cattle under low-input production systems in South Africa

By

Obert TADA

A Dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN ANIMAL SCIENCE Department of Livestock and Pasture Science Faculty of Science and Agriculture University of Fort Hare

Alice, South Africa

Promoter: Prof V Muchenje Co-Promoter: Prof K Dzama

October 2012

Declaration

I, Obert Tada, declare that this dissertation has not been submitted to any University and that it is my original work conducted under the supervision of Prof V. Muchenje and Prof K. Dzama. The research was approved by the University of Fort Hare Research Ethics Committee (Certificate No. MUC013 1STAD01). All assistance towards the production of this work and all the references contained herein have been duly credited.

Obert TADA

Date

Approved as to style and content by:

Prof V Muchenje

Prof K Dzama

(Promoter)

(Co-Promoter)

October 2012 ii

Abstract

Breeding objectives for in-situ conservation of indigenous Nguni cattle under low-input communal production systems in South Africa

By Obert Tada

The aim of the study was to determine the breeding objectives of in-situ conservation for communal Nguni cattle under low-input production systems. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in 22 communal and 19 small-scale cattle enterprises to compare ownership patterns with respect to monetary value, cattle functions, herd dynamics, and reproductive efficiency of Nguni cattle. Nineteen communal Nguni cattle enterprises were used to determine the risk status class, effective population size (Ne), and inbreeding rate per generation (∆F) of communally-conserved Nguni cattle. Fifty-four representative farmers across enterprise ownership patterns were tasked to rank preferential traits of breeding indigenous Nguni cattle. A choice experiment was done to determine the economic weights of preferred trait levels by the farmers. Focus group discussions were used to derive the selection method and mating strategy of indigenous Nguni cattle. Descriptive statistics, χ2tests of association and analyses of (co)variance were computed to ascertain the association between fixed factors, distribution of responses and determine significant factors affecting response variables.

Nguni cattle across different enterprise ownership patterns were used for cash, meat and upgrading the herd. Farmers from communal enterprises perceived higher prices for open

iii

heifers, castrates and young cows than small-scale enterprises. Most farmers (67%) perceived Nguni cattle low-input production and in-situ conservation as profitable. Mortality rate was significantly lower (p 0.05). A significant majority (>50%) of the farmers responsible for herding the Nguni cattle were above 50 years of age in both communal and small-scale enterprises. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed in the education levels attained by farmers in communal and small-scale enterprises although primary and secondary education had significantly high frequencies than college education.

Less than 20% of the farmers across the farming enterprises received formal training in agriculture. The formal training included animal husbandry practices leading to an award of a certificate from reputable academic institutions in the country. Non-formal training (>80%) in animal husbandry were conducted by the Eastern Cape DRDAR and/or collaborating with research and development institutions. Apart from cattle production, agriculture enterprises predominant in the communal areas studied included sheep (96%), goats (80%), pigs (65%), poultry (100%), and maize (12%). Negligible agricultural practices included production of cabbage, beans, butternut and potatoes. The sources of income of the communal low-input farmers were limited to the agricultural activities which included cattle sales (67%), other livestock sales (48%), pensions (50%), and some work (12%).

66

Table 3.3 Distribution of farmers (%) in communal and small-scale cattle enterprises according to age, highest education level attained and type of agriculture training received Farmer Age

Highest Education Level Communal (%) Small-scale (%)

Agriculture Training

Class

Communal (%)

Small-scale (%)

Class

Class

Communal (%) Small-scale (%)

30 – 39

0

24

Primary

42

39

Non-formal

88

76

40 – 49

20

20

Secondary

42

52

Formal

12

24

≥ 50

80

56

Tertiary

16

9

Total

100

100

Total

100

100

Total

100

100

67

3.3.2 Farmer training and development of infrastructure There were no significant associations attributable to the differences in enterprise ownership type on farmer training and development of infrastructure (p > 0.05). Most of the farmers (66%) indicated lack of formal training and highlighted special topics for and/or further training in animal husbandry. The preferred training areas were breeding (selection and mating systems) (90%), herd health (68%), animal feeds and feeding (75%), animal records (70%), and marketing of animal products (70%). The low-input Nguni cattle producers acknowledged the importance of restoring and conserving the breed through the UFH Nguni Cattle Programme. Herd health materials (72%), cattle identification (66%), handling facilities (22%), and fencing (12%) were cited as the key assistance and infrastructure development needs.

3.3.3 Functions of Nguni cattle The Nguni cattle in the rural areas were regarded as important in meeting the programme goals and human needs. All the evaluated cattle functions were not significantly associated with cattle enterprise ownership categories (p > 0.05). All the farmers acknowledged the upgrading and conservation role of the Nguni cattle within their herds. Only 7% of the farmers in the communal enterprises used the Nguni cattle as a source of draught power. In small-scale enterprises the Nguni cattle were not used for this purpose. Traditional functions of dowry (55%) and ceremonial rituals (57%) were observed. All the farmers (100%) used the Nguni cattle as a source of cash while 40% preserved their social status in the community by keeping the animals. Meat (100%), skin (67%) and manure (62%) were the most common Nguni cattle products that the farmers sought. Only 5% of the farmers milked the Nguni cattle and reported that the yields were inferior compared to other breeds and crosses. The milk was consumed as fresh and/or sour. 68

3.3.4 Monetary valuation of Nguni cattle Table 3.4 shows the perceived prices of Nguni cattle as indicated by the farmers. It was observed that prices of calves, bullocks, in-calf heifers, cows above sixth parity, and breeding bulls were not significantly different in the low-input production system across enterprise ownership patterns (p > 0.05). Significant differences between communal and small-scale enterprises were observed on open heifers, castrates, and cows of parity six and less (p < 0.05). Communal enterprises had significantly higher perceived prices than small-scale enterprises (p < 0.05) regarding all the animal classes mentioned above. Apart from cattle ownership, other factors of the price of the animals included age of the farmer, level of education and agricultural training. Younger farmers less than 40 years old who had a college qualification and received formal training in agriculture perceived significantly higher prices of bullocks and in-calf heifers (p < 0.05).

3.3.5 Marketing strategy and concerns of Nguni cattle farmers Different perceptions on Nguni cattle farming by communal low-input producers were observed. Most farmers regarded the enterprises as profitable (67%), some (14%) were not sure and others said it was not profitable (19%). A significant association was observed between farmer perception with respect to enterprise profitability and ownership pattern whereby small-scale farms were viewed to be profitable (p < 0.05). The farmers in smallscale enterprises had significantly low concerns pertaining to stock theft, grazing land and drought mitigation (p 3 years R Cow 1st - 3rd parity R 4th - 6th parity R > 6th parity R Breeding Bull 1 - 3 years R 4 - 6 years R > 6 years R NS not significant (p > 0.05) * significant (p < 0.05)

Communal mean ± se N = 22 2,852.00±240.00 4,402.00±354.00 5,348.00±462.00 7,043.00±493.00 5,833.00±420.00 7,024.00±480.00 7,905.00±615.00 7,300.00±640.00 6,448.00±511.00 5,629.00±492.00 9,652.00±1,150.00 9,762.00±968.00 7,524.00±612.00

R R R R R R R R R R R R R

Small-scale mean ± se N = 19 2,421.70±125.30 3,570.00±360.00 4,187.00±235.00 7,152.00±1,749.00 3,757.00±265.00 4,939.00±230.00 5,922.00±326.00 5,365.00±323.00 5,078.00±293.00 4,707.00±337.00 7,996.00±875.00 8,196.00±952.00 6,978.00±792.00

Significance

NS NS * NS * * * * * NS NS NS NS

US$1.00 = R7.80 (South Africa Reserve Bank, 2011)

70

The concerns that the farmers raised with regard to low-input Nguni cattle were not significantly associated with enterprise ownership pattern except for the grazing land and old age at first calving and long calving intervals. The communal enterprises (48%) highlighted the problem of grazing land as well as heifers taking long to first calve, in addition to long calving intervals (52%). Animal reproductive issues observed included unequal birth sex ratios with more male calves (5%), infertile females (18%), abortions and still-birth (18%). Only 39% of the farmers had problems with cattle diseases while 20% faced challenges in accessing vaccines and cattle dips. The majority of Nguni cattle farmers were concerned about uncontrolled mating (52%) and bull selection (28%) in the herds. When it comes to marketing Nguni cattle products, farmers had problems in pricing products (7%), prices being influenced by the buyer (16%), racial discrimination (5%), and only a few options existing (5%). General animal husbandry practices were cited as hindered by lack of animal handling facilities (14%), dip tanks (14%), animal identification (7%) and husbandry equipment (55%).

3.4 Discussion The demographic information in communal and small-scale enterprises was similar to what was observed in many rural areas of most developing countries (Hanotte et al., 2002; Coetzee et al., 2005; Musemwa et al., 2010). Both enterprise-ownership patterns are located in rural areas of the province were most young people migrate to urban centres in search of tertiary education and high-paying jobs. Low literacy levels are manifested by higher frequencies of primary and secondary level farmers as well as high (80%) informal training in agriculture in both enterpriseownership patterns. Due to the lack of formal training in agriculture, the majority of farmers

71

indicated the need for training, especially focusing on critical topics that deal with animal breeding, records, marketing and disease resistance.

The efforts made, as the mandate, by the research and extension institutions included the supply of dipping chemicals and vaccines, branding of animals, construction of handling facilities especially dip-tanks and cattle races (Raats et al., 2004; Fuller, 2006). This was done and the success rate in both the village and small-scale enterprises was low.

Previous studies observed the same functions and contribution of cattle and livestock sales to household income (Mapiye et al., 2009). The cattle in the rural areas serve various functions (Ainslie, 2005; Dovie et al., 2006). Nguni cattle in the both communal and small-scale enterprises have a reserved special function of upgrading the local cattle, tradition and household income and social status. Current results are similar to a study in Limpopo Province by Shackleton et al. (2005) on the contribution and direct-use value of livestock to rural livelihoods, which showed that cattle contributed the bulk of the value by virtue of their size.

Farmers in small-scale enterprises are better equipped than communal enterprises with large land sizes and use mechanical power in almost all agricultural activities. Interest in Nguni beef results from the realisation that organic meat from Nguni cattle has health benefits and remarkable sensory characteristics many beef consumers seeks (Muchenje et al., 2008b). Previous research (Muchenje et al., 2008a, b) revealed that beef from cattle raised on low-input natural pasture systems had low intra-muscular fat and cholesterol content. Musemwa et al. (2010) also observed the critical role of livestock in the provision of cash, meat and other products in

72

Amathole, Alfred Nzo and Chris Hani districts of the Eastern Cape Province. Milking Nguni cattle resulted in low yield compared to other communal breeds and crosses. The low milk yield of Nguni cattle and non-descript breeds in the rural areas of the Eastern Cape Province was also observed from the work of Mapiye et al. (2009) and Mapekula et al. (2009). Studies by Mapekula et al. (2009) on milk yield in Nguni and crossbred cattle under communal and smallscale commercial production indicated that the breed produced the least amount of milk per day, amounting to 3 – 4.5 litres. This could possibly explain why the farmers did not consider Nguni cattle for milk production.

Musemwa et al. (2010) reported a similar trend in marketing livestock as observed in communal and small-scale enterprises although auctions were the most preferred options in districts predominated by village enterprises. Previous researchers working in the Eastern Cape Province highlighted the problems of poor breeding practices (Mapiye et al., 2009), pricing animal products and limited marketing options (Musemwa et al., 2010). In small-scale enterprises, the influence of the buyer and lack of alternative markets resulted in lower pricing of open heifers, castrates, and cows of parity six and less compared to communal enterprises. The monetary values of the different classes of Nguni cattle fall in the range observed by Musemwa et al. (2010) in the three districts of the Eastern Cape Province. The perceived value of bullocks and in-calf heifers by the young, educated and trained farmers across enterprise ownership patterns indicated the realization that replacement stock in any breeding and production enterprise are expensive. It was also noted (Shackleton et al., 2005) that many of the goods and services obtained from livestock were not enumerated in regional or national economic statistics, which

73

makes it difficult to compare objectively the monetary value of animals across breeds and production systems.

The reproductive problems highlighted by the farmers have been speculated to be due to the animals bought for them by the programme and the genetic diversity of the breed. Infertility and abortions have been reported to be minimal in Nguni cattle (du Plessis et al., 2006), although cow productivity in the communal rangelands were also reported to be low (Abeygunawardena and Dematewewa, 2004). The low cow productivity was manifested through delayed age at puberty (24 - 36 months), long time to first calving (36–48 months) and calving intervals (24–48 months).

Despite the concerns raised by the farmers, cattle ownership continues to hold

considerable appeal for rural people as noted by Ainslie (2005) and Shackleton et al. (2005).

3.5 Conclusions and recommendations Communal and small-scale enterprises had similar demographic profiles and also cited similar functions of Nguni cattle. The monetary value of Nguni calves, bullocks, in-calf heifers, breeding bulls and old cows were the same across cattle enterprises while higher values were observed on open heifers, castrates and cows of less than 6th parity in communal enterprises. Farmer age, formal agriculture training and high education level highly influenced the pricing of bullocks and in-calf heifers. Most farmers (67%) perceived the low-input Nguni cattle production system as profitable. Community gatherings and cattle sale pens/auctions were the common marketing options in village and group enterprises, respectively. Most concerns the farmers raised were related to animal breeding practices, health and general animal husbandry. Promoting the marketing structures of the enterprises is a key component of an enabling policy

74

for sustainable management of indigenous cattle genetic resources. It is recommended to address the concerns raised by farmers be addressed. In addition, there is need to assess the level of animal productivity under these low-input conditions across the ownership patterns. Against this socio-economic background of the farmers in rural areas further insight is required to elucidate on herd dynamics, mortality and reproductive efficiency of these Nguni cattle.

3.6 References Abeygunawardena, H. and Dematawewa, C.M.B., 2004. Pre-pubertal and postpartum anestrus in tropical Zebu cattle. Animal Reproduction Science, 83: 373 – 387. Acocks, J.P.H., 1988. Veld Types of South Africa. 3rd Edition. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South Africa, Government Printer, Pretoria. 57: 1 - 146. Ainslie, A., Kepe, T., Ntsebeza, L., Ntshona, Z. and Turner, S., 2002. Cattle Ownership and Production in the Communal Areas of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. University of the Western Cape. Research report number 10. Ainslie, A., 2005. Farming Cattle, Cultivating Relationships: Cattle Ownership and Cultural Politics in Peddie District, Eastern Cape. Social Dynamics, 31 (1): 129 – 56. Brush, S. and Meng, E., 1996. Farmers´ valuation and conservation of crop genetic resources. Paper prepared for the Symposium on the Economics of Valuation and Conservation of Genetic Resources for Agriculture, Centre for International Studies on Economic Growth, Tor Vergata University, Rome, 13 - 15 May. Bryson, N.R., Tice, G.A., Horak, I.G., Stewart, C.G. and du Plessis, B.J.A., 2002. Ixodid ticks on cattle belonging to small-scale farmers at 4 communal grazing areas in South Africa. South Africa Veterinary Journal, 73 (3): 98 - 103.

75

Coetzee, L., Montshwe, B.D. and Jooste A., 2005. The Marketing of Livestock on communal lands in the Eastern Cape Province: Constraints, Challenges and Implications for the Extension Services. South Africa Journal of Agriculture Extension, 34 (1): 81 - 103. Dovie, D.B.K., Shackleton, C.M. and Witkowski, E.T.F., 2006. Valuation of communal area livestock benefits, rural livelihoods and related policy issues. Land Use Policy, 23: 260 - 271. du Plessis, I., Hoffman, L.C. and Calitz, F.J., 2006. Influence of reproduction traits and preweaning growth rate on herd efficiency of different beef breed types in an arid sub-tropical environment. South Africa Journal of Animal Science, 36 (2): 89 - 98. ECDC., 2010. Eastern Cape Development Cooperation. About the Eastern Cape: District Maps. (accessed on June 4, 2010) http://www.ecdc.co.za/the_eastern_cape/district_map. ECDC., 2011. Eastern Cape Development Cooperation. Livestock. Accessed 12 - 12 - 2011. http://www.ecdc.co.za/livestock Fuller, A., 2006. The sacred hide of Nguni; the rise of an ancient breed of cattle is giving South Africa new opportunity. Miracles that are changing the Nation. Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) Newsletter, pp 3 - 4. GenStat Release 7.2., 2008. Discovery Edition 3, VSN International Ltd, UK. Gilimani, B.M., 2005. The economic contribution of home production for home consumption in South African agriculture. MSc Thesis. University of Stellenbosch, Matieland, South Africa. Hanotte, O., Bradley, D.G., Ochieng, J.W., Verjee, Y., Hill, E.W. and Rege, J.E.O., 2002. African pastoralism: genetic imprints of origins and migrations. Science, 296: 336 – 339. Mapekula, M., Chimonyo, M., Mapiye, C. and Dzama, K., 2009. Milk production and calf rearing practices in the smallholder areas in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 41: 1475 - 1485.

76

Mapiye, C., Chimonyo, M., Dzama, K., Raats, J.G. and Mapekula, M., 2009. Opportunities for improving Nguni cattle production in the smallholder farming systems of South Africa. Livestock Science, 124: 196 - 204. Masika, P.J. and Mafu, J.V., 2004. Aspects of goat farming in the communal farming systems of the central Eastern Cape, South Africa. Small Ruminant Research, 52 (1-2): 161 - 164. Muchenje, V., Dzama, K., Chimonyo, M., Raats, J.G. and Strydom, P.E., 2008a. Tick susceptibility and its effects on growth performance and carcass characteristics of Nguni, Bonsmara and Angus steers raised on natural pasture. Animal, 2: 298 – 304. Muchenje, V., Dzama, K., Chimonyo, M., Raats, J.G. and Strydom, P.E., 2008b. Meat quality of Nguni, Bonsmara and Aberdeen Angus steers raised on natural pasture in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Meat Science, 79: 20 - 28. Musemwa, L., Mushunje, A., Chimonyo, M. and Mapiye C., 2010. Low Cattle Market OffTake Rates in Communal Production Systems of South Africa: Causes and Mitigation Strategies. Journal Sustainable Development in Africa, 12 (5): 209 – 226. Palmer, T. and Ainslie, A., 2006. Country pasture/forage resource profiles: South Africa. Department of Agriculture, RSA. Raats, J.G., Magadlela, A.M., Fraser, G.C.G. and Hugo, A., 2004. Re-introducing Nguni Nucleus Herds in 100 Communal Villages of the Eastern Cape Province. A proposed cooperative project between the University of Fort Hare, Agricultural and Development Research Institute (ARDRI) and the Eastern Cape Department of Agriculture and the Kellogg Foundation. UFH, Alice, RSA

77

Scholtz, M.M., 2005. The role of research and the seed stock industry in the in situ conservation of livestock genetic resources, pp. 311–316. Paper presented at the 4th All Africa Conference on Animal Agriculture, Arusha, Tanzania. Shackleton, C.M., Shackleton, S.E., Netshiluvhi, T.R. and Mathabela, F.R., 2005. The contribution and direct-use value of livestock to rural livelihoods in the Sand River catchment, South Africa. African Journal of Range and Forage Science, 22 (2): 127 - 140. van Averbeke, W. and Mohamed, S.S., 2006. Smallholder irrigation schemes in South Africa: past, present and future. Agrekon, 45 (2). Winter, B., 2007. Partners in research for development: From farm to market: South African cattle partnerships. Partners Magazine, pp 8–13. http://www.aciar.gov.au/publication/term/36 Accessed 20 December 2010.

78

Chapter Four: Reproductive efficiency and herd dynamics of Nguni cattle in low-input production systems Paper published in Tropical Animal Health and Production Abstract The objective of the current study was to determine the herd dynamics and reproductive efficiency of the Nguni cattle in communal and small-scale enterprises. Data on husbandry practices, reason of cattle entry/exit, herd structure, bulling rates, number of breeding females, age at first calving and calving interval were obtained from 22 communal and 19 small-scale enterprises in a cross-sectional survey of a low-input in-situ conservation scheme. A higher (p 50 years), females and those from small-scale enterprises had odds ratio estimates less than one for the sixth ranked milk yield in Nguni cows. It was concluded that trait preference in breeding bulls and cows is significantly influenced by socio-economic and demographic factors. It is recommended to consider farmer preferences in trait selection and designing communal breeding programmes.

125

Keywords: Bull traits, Cow traits, Enterprise ownership, Farmer, Mean rank, Odds ratio.

6.1 Introduction The previous studies have highlighted several issues which include; the concern of breeding aspects (Chapter 3), a high bulling rate (Chapter 4), a high number of young bulls, heifers and young cows (Chapter 5) and high inbreeding rate per generation (Chapter 5) in both communal and small-scale Nguni cattle enterprises. These indigenous cattle in the rural areas have not undergone the intensive selection programmes that are used for the exotic and commerciallyoriented breeds (Ligda and Georgoudis, 2008). This is because of the uneasiness and rigorous nature of standard performance data collection to the majority of the less educated communal dwellers. Cattle records for traits of economic importance are needed for accurate performance evaluation in terms of performance trends, selection criteria and mating system designs (Tada, 2011). It is prudent to base animal selection on the high-value traits that a communal farmer understands, easily measure, and derive direct economic value.

Animal performance recording systems have been known for long to affect genetic improvement programmes with negative results in the communal areas of most developing countries (Kahi et al., 2003). The absence of performance records, particularly of the indigenous breeds, can lead to undefined breeding seasons and random mating as observed in Chapter 3 and 4. A considerable number of livestock breeding programmes have been reported to have failed because of poor performance data recording and trait identification (Roessler et al., 2008). The consequences of uncontrolled mating are well documented and include, among others; production of un-uniform animals, presence of undesirable and genetic defects, and inbreeding depression (Scholtz et al., 126

2008). Furthermore, the potential to alleviate poverty and improve food security through livestock development interventions in the smallholder sectors of most developing countries has been hampered by lack of participation in the planning and designing of breeding programmes by the community (Kahi et al., 2003; Wollny, 2003; Roessler et al., 2008).

To overcome the above consequences, selection and in-situ conservation of indigenous Nguni cattle from rural farming areas is possible because of the existing genetic variation (Reed, 2008; Scholtz and Theunissen, 2010). By using farmer-preferred traits, this variation offers a room for genetic improvement within the low-input cattle enterprises. Currently, a few institutions such as UFH, IDC and DRDAR are committed to promote and conserve the low-input indigenous Nguni cattle in an effort to generate income for farmers and sustainably manage the environment. It is acknowledged that in-low input systems, the indigenous animals show better performances on functional traits i.e. longevity, draught power, fertility, milk and meat quality (Bayer et al., 2004; Muchenje et al., 2008).

The low-input production system is made possible with marginal returns due to the knowledge the farmers have on the use of indigenous Nguni cattle breed as observed in the previous study (Chapter 3). Communities in Africa may have different needs, perceptions and preferences by which they make decisions for mating or sale of animals. These may include the ability to survive natural calamities, the prestige value and capital asset function while restrictions or taboos are often closely linked to the religion or culture of the people (Wollny, 2003). Therefore, informed decisions on selection and mating systems are best achieved through participation of intended beneficiaries.

127

A participatory rural appraisal technique has been regarded as a successful approach in defining community-based breeding objectives (Duguma et al., 2010). Such research on traditional animal breeding systems and practices involving the farmer in a participatory way is required to enable the integration of indigenous knowledge into a scientifically based conservation strategy (Wollny, 2003). Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine farmer-preferred traits of Nguni breeding young bulls and first-parity cows in communal and small-scale enterprises. It was hypothesized that communal and small-scale low-input enterprises had the same preferential traits of indigenous Nguni breeding stock.

6.2 Material and Methods

6.2.1 Description of the study sites and selection of communities Farmers who participated in the study of Chapter 3 and 4 were considered for this current study. Therefore the description of the study site and selection of the enterprises is the same (see section 3.2.1 and section 4.2.1).

6.2.2 Data and information collection Preferential traits data for breeding cows and bulls were collected using a structured questionnaire (see Appendix 1C Page 200). Six traits were selected for each breeding class of animals based on the perception of the farmers during a preliminary study (Chapter 3) as they indicated practical procedures of assessing the trait levels. The traits evaluated for breeding bulls were; body condition score (BCS), body size and conformation (BSC), aggression and mating

128

behaviour (AMB), coat colour (CC), scrotal circumference (SC), and tick and disease resistance (TDR). The traits evaluated for breeding cows were; body condition score (BCS), body size and conformation (BSC), reproductive efficiency (RE), coat colour (CC), milk yield (MY), and tick and disease resistance (TDR). The interviews were conducted in the Xhosa vernacular by trained enumerators. The questionnaire captured data and information on age of farmers, gender, highest education level attained, type of agriculture training farmers received, enterprise type and ranks of the preferred traits for breeding animals.

6.2.3 Statistical analyses All data were analysed using GenStat 7.2 (2008). The six preferential traits of each Nguni breeding cattle class were ranked using Kruskal-Wallis test. An ordinal logistic regression was used to determine the odds of a farmer preferring the ranks of the bull traits and cow traits. The predictors fitted in the logit model were enterprise ownership pattern, gender, farmer age group, highest education level attained, and type of agriculture training received. The logit model used for analysis was: ln[P/1-P]

= β0 + β1X1 + β2X2...+ β5X5+ ε

where: P

= probability of an enterprise preferring a certain trait;

[P/1-P]

= odds ratio, which referred to the odds of an enterprise preferring a certain trait;

β0

= intercept;

β1X1...β5X5

= linear regression coefficients of ownership pattern, gender, farmer age group, education level and agriculture training

ε

= random residual error.

When computed for each estimator (β1... β5), the odds ratio was interpreted as the probability of the farmer to prefer specific breeding animal traits mentioned versus those that did not prefer the

129

traits. This model was performed on both traits of breeding Nguni cows and bulls mentioned above.

6.3 Results

6.3.1 Farmer socio-economic characteristics Information on the socio-economic profiles of the farmers was presented in Chapter 3 (Section 3.3.1). It was also observed that 21% of the respondents were females while 79% were males.

6.3.2 Mean ranks of breeding Nguni bull traits The communal farmers ranked highest the AMB of breeding bulls while the CC was least ranked as shown on Table 6.1. The enterprise ownership and age of farmer was significantly associated with trait ranks (p < 0.05). Communal enterprises ranked TDR highest while small-scale enterprises considered AMB. Coat colour was ranked last (sixth) in small-scale enterprises while communal enterprises ranked it fourth. Scrotal circumference was ranked fifth in communal enterprises and fourth in small-scale enterprises. The communal enterprises ranked last (sixth) the BSC while small-scale enterprises ranked it fifth (see Table 6.1). Young farmers of 30 – 39 and 40 – 49 years ranked fourth the SC while the older farmers of greater than 50 years ranked SC fifth. Other factors such as gender, type for agriculture training received and the highest education level attained by the farmer did not significantly affect ranking of the preferred traits for breeding bulls (p > 0.05).

130

Table 6.1 Mean rank score and rank of traits preferred by low-input farmers for breeding Nguni bulls in small-scale and communal cattle enterprises Trait

Overall N = 41

Communal enterprises N = 19 2.14 (2)

Significance

1.86 (1)

Small-scale enterprises N = 22 1.57 (1)

Aggression and Mating Behaviour (AMB) Tick and disease resistance (TDR)

1.90 (2)

1.90 (2)

1.90 (1)

NS

Body Condition Score (BCS)

2.69 (3)

2.67 (3)

2.71 (3)

NS

Scrotal Circumference (SC)

4.52 (4)

4.24 (4)

4.81 (5)

*

Body Size and Conformation (BSC)

4.71 (5)

4.48 (5)

4.96 (6)

NS

Coat Colour (CC)

5.02 (6)

5.57 (6)

4.48 (4)

*

*

NB: The lower the rank (mean rank score) of a trait, the greater is its preference. Significance level (* = p < 0.05; NS = Not Significant (p > 0.05))

131

6.3.3 Ranks of breeding Nguni cow traits Tick and disease resistance was ranked highest by the communal farmers followed by reproductive efficiency of the cow. The farmers ranked MY last (sixth) and CC (fifth) as shown in Table 6.2. The highest education level attained by the farmer, gender, farmer age group, and type of agriculture training received by the farmer were not significantly associated with trait ranks (p > 0.05). Enterprise ownership pattern was significantly associated with ranking of breeding cow traits (p < 0.05). Coat colour was ranked higher (fourth) than BSC (fifth) in communal enterprises while vice-versa in small-scale enterprises (Table 6.2).

6.3.4 Odds ratio estimates for preferentially ranked breeding bull traits. The odds ratio estimates of most and least preferred ranked bull traits are shown in Table 6.3 and Table 6.4, respectively. The estimates of a farmer ranking first the AMB characteristic were highest in small-scale enterprises followed by farmer age group above 50 years, female farmer, informal agriculture training and secondary education (Table 6.4). Informally trained farmers were five times more likely to rank second TDR characteristic while small-scale enterprises were least likely to rank the trait. Female farmers were most likely to rank BCS third and SC fourth as shown on Table 6.3 and 6.4, respectively. The BSC and CC were likely to be ranked fifth and sixth, respectively, by farmers from small-scale enterprises (Table 6.4). Farmers with a primary education and also those with formal agriculture training did not like CC to be the last preferred trait.

132

Table 6.2 Mean rank score and ranks of traits preferred by low-input farmers for breeding Nguni cows in small-scale and communal cattle enterprises Trait

Overall N = 41

Communal enterprises N = 19 1.57 (1)

Significance

1.55 (1)

Small-scale enterprises N = 22 1.52 (1)

Tick and Disease Resistance (TDR) Reproductive Efficiency (RE)

2.02 (2)

2.29 (2)

1.76 (2)

*

Body Condition Score (BCS)

3.14 (3)

3.14 (3)

3.14 (3)

NS

Body Size and Conformation (BSC)

4.21 (4)

3.62 (4)

4.81 (5)

*

Coat Colour (CC)

4.74 (5)

4.95 (5)

4.52 (4)

NS

Milk Yield (MY)

5.31 (6)

5.43 (6)

5.19 (6)

NS

NS

NB: The lower the rank (mean rank score) of a trait, the greater is its preference. Significance level (* = Significant (p < 0.05); NS = Not Significant (p > 0.05))

133

Table 6.3 Odds ratio estimates, lower and upper confidence intervals of a farmer ranking AMB, TDR and BCS trait most in Nguni breeding bulls

Predictors Enterprise ownership pattern

Aggression and mating behaviour (AMB) – Rank 1 Odds Lower Upper ratio CI CI 2.7503 0.6184 12.2319

Tick and disease resistance (TDR) – Rank 2 Odds Lower Upper ratio CI CI 0.3156 0.0734 1.3565

Body condition score (BCS) – Rank 3 Odds Lower Upper ratio CI CI 2.6571 0.6019 11.7305

0.5064

0.0781

3.2851

0.8433

0.1371

5.1878

3.2217

0.5262

19.7253

1.4942

0.4954

4.5074

1.8682

0.5201

6.7106

0.8333

0.2960

2.3465

0.3067

0.0827

1.1374

1.0910

0.2805

4.2433

1.2261

0.3686

4.0786

0.3627

0.0376

3.5022

5.1043

0.3038

85.7735

2.4812

0.2806

21.9398

(communal vs small-scale) Gender (male vs female) Age (young < 50 vs old ≥50 years) Education level (primary vs secondary) Agriculture training (formal vs informal) CI = 95% Confidence Interval

134

Table 6.4 Odds ratio estimates, lower and upper confidence intervals of a farmer ranking SC, BSC and CC trait least in Nguni breeding bulls Scrotal circumference (SC) – Rank 4 Predictors Enterprise ownership pattern

Odds ratio 1.2208

Lower CI 0.2981

Upper CI 4.9993

Body size and conformation (BSC) – Rank 5 Odds Lower Upper ratio CI CI 1.8139 0.4134 7.9600

Coat colour (CC) – Rank 6

3.4947

0.5909

20.6682

1.4716

0.2349

9.2200

10.9630

0.8462

142.0308

0.9912

0.3637

2.7009

0.9776

0.3506

2.7262

1.7226

0.5413

5.4815

1.0470

0.3307

3.3151

1.1561

0.3450

3.8746

0.9307

0.2307

3.7552

0.5043

0.0675

3.7647

0.4091

0.0526

3.1791

0.8365

0.0772

9.0690

Odds ratio 33.0727

Lower CI 3.2847

Upper CI 332.9990

(communal vs small-scale) Gender (male vs female) Age (young < 50 vs old ≥50 years) Education level (primary vs secondary) Agriculture training (formal vs informal) CI = 95% Confidence Interval

135

6.3.5 Odds ratio estimates for preferentially ranked breeding cow traits. The odds ratio estimates of most and least preferred ranked cow traits are shown in Table 6.5 and 6.6, respectively. The estimates of a farmer ranking first TDR and second the RE trait were highest in the farmer age group of above 50 years (Table 6.5). Female farmers were likely to rank third and fourth the BCS and BSC, respectively (Table 6.5 and 6.6). Farmers who were two or more times likely to rank fifth the CC characteristic were informally trained in agriculture, those that are females and also from small-scale enterprises (Table 6.6). Female farmers and those in small-scale enterprises ranked Nguni cattle MY sixth compared to their communal enterprises counterparts (Table 6.6). Formally trained farmers had the most odds ratio estimate of least preferred MY traits.

6.4 Discussion The most preferred traits of breeding a bull were AMB and TDR in both enterprise types. Of these traits, the rural farmers in small-scale enterprises considered AMB first while communal enterprises considered TDR. This was confirmed with odds ratios which were in favour of the small-scale enterprises. This may be attributed to the knowledge that farmers have on tick control such as frequent dipping and use of conventional acaricides (Chapter 4; Marufu et al., 2009; Moyo and Masika, 2009). Mean-while there are minimal human interventions, if any, under low-input production that may be done to correct for weaknesses in mating ability. In communal enterprises, the bull is a community property so much that issues of diseases may affect many cattle thereby making farmers sceptical about preferring a breeding bull with healthrelated issues (de Castro, 1997; Ouma et al., 2007; Marufu et al., 2009).

136

Table 6.5 Odds ratio estimates, lower and upper confidence intervals of a farmer ranking TDR, RE and BCS trait most in Nguni breeding cows

Predictor Enterprise ownership pattern

Tick and disease resistance (TDR) – Rank 1 Odds Lower Upper ratio CI CI 0.8455 0.1992 3.5896

Reproductive efficiency (RE) – Rank 2 Odds Lower Upper ratio CI CI 0.9481 0.2324 3.8687

Body condition score (BCS) – Rank 3 Odds Lower Upper ratio CI CI 0.1212 0.0126 1.1668

0.2133

0.0331

1.3747

0.6578

0.1126

3.8434

9.1578

1.1739

71.4392

1.5527

0.5388

4.4742

1.3332

0.4685

3.7935

0.3489

0.0833

1.4612

0.4368

0.1213

1.5726

0.7260

0.2275

2.3172

0.7836

0.1890

3.2491

0.2156

0.0240

1.9358

0.5353

0.0677

4.2332

0.4138

0.0376

4.5539

(communal vs small-scale) Gender (male vs female) Age (young < 50 vs old ≥50 years) Education level (primary vs secondary) Agriculture training (formal vs informal) CI = 95% Confidence Interval

137

Table 6.6 Odds ratio estimates, lower and upper confidence intervals of a farmer ranking BSC, CC and MY trait least in Nguni breeding cows

Predictor Enterprise ownership pattern

Body size and conformation (BSC) – Rank 4 Odds Lower Upper ratio CI CI 1.2548 0.1571 10.0223

Coat colour (CC) – Rank 5 Odds Lower Upper ratio CI CI 2.0226 0.2619 15.6211

Milk yield (MY) – Rank 6 Odds Lower Upper ratio CI CI 0.6661 0.1613 2.7500

5.6305

0.5660

56.0164

2.3289

0.2219

24.4465

0.5287

0.0901

3.1017

0.1578

0.0375

0.6637

0.1341

0.0259

0.6954

0.5213

0.1593

1.7056

0.4248

0.0724

2.4930

0.3048

0.0430

2.1593

0.4686

0.1207

1.8197

0.4475

0.0208

9.6406

3.4733

0.1199

100.6032 0.0983

0.0060

1.5985

(communal vs small-scale) Gender (male vs female) Age (young < 50 vs old ≥50 years) Education level (primary vs secondary) Agriculture training (formal vs informal) CI = 95% Confidence Interval

138

In the case of the breeding Nguni cow, TDR and RE were most preferred as the farmers realise the importance of diseases and reproductive efficiency on cattle production and herd building, respectively. The observation that odds ratios of farmers older than 50 years were high with regard to TDR and RE in breeding cows maybe because the farmers have been into the business for long and know for sure that unproductive and diseased animals are a liability to the enterprise (Minjauw and McLeod, 2003). Roessler et al. (2008) observed a similar trend in ranking high adaptive traits in pig production under smallholder resource-driven production systems while demand-driven production systems concentrated most on productive traits maintaining adaptive and functional traits. The low-input production system of the Nguni cattle small-scale enterprises behaved in a manner of a demand-driven system, while communal enterprises followed the resource-driven system. This was also observed by Madzimure et al. (2012) in a study of using indigenous pigs in subsistence-oriented and market-oriented small-scale farming systems in South Africa.

The BCS was ranked third by all farmers across the enterprise ownership patterns, gender, education level, age and agriculture training. The BCSs are used to evaluate the nutritional status of beef cattle across seasons (Ndlovu et al., 2009; Nqeno et al., 2010). This is because adjusting nutritional programmes to obtain desired body condition score in different seasons was for long been found to enhance production efficiency (Encinias and Lardy, 2002). Body condition scoring can be a welcome idea for communal farmers as they cannot take measurements of body weights due to resource and practical limitations under low-input production systems as noted by Roeleveld (1996) in diagnosing livestock systems research in communal areas of the developing countries. The higher odds ratios of female farmers on ranking BCS may be attributed to the natural care of females to the well-being of the living species (Ainslie, 2005). 139

Despite that Nguni cattle are small and hardy animals that thrive on poor pastures and well suited for the communal areas (Reed, 2008; Scholtz et al., 2008) the farmers in small-scale enterprises ranked the BSC trait fourth in breeding cows and fifth in communal enterprises. The issue of high hip-height in breeding animals was raised by the farmers from communal enterprises in the previous study (Chapter 3 and 5) and was discouraged as the breeding bull finds it difficult to reach a high hip-height of the cows when mounting. The preference of CC by farmers from communal enterprises at the expense of BSC in breeding cows and SC in breeding bulls may be attributed to the cultural, ceremonial and ritual significance associated with specific coat colours of this indigenous breed in communal villages (Musemwa et al., 2008; Holden, 2009). Hides are used as mats and other traditional ceremonies (Palmer and Ainslie, 2006), this has an appeal to the female farmers as indicated by higher odds ratio estimates. This can affect the culling of the bulls whereby a particular CC is preferred yet the bull is below average in reproductive performance.

Scrotal circumference trait was ranked higher by farmers in small-scale enterprises than in communal enterprises. Although this has not been the case in low-input production systems, many studies have been conducted to justify inclusion of SC in a breeding programme as it is highly correlated to yearling weight and sperm quality (quantity and normal sperm morphology) (Vermaak, 2006). Scrotal circumference in small-scale enterprises was equated to CC by farmers from communal enterprises. Milk yield was the least preferred traits by farmers across all enterprise ownership patterns, gender, education level, age and agriculture training. Ouma et al. (2007) also observed that milk production characteristics were not considered for indigenous

140

breeds in East Africa. The rural farmers do not milk the Nguni cattle as reported in the previous study (Chapter 3). This can be attributed to the realisation that Nguni is a beef breed and the milk is meant for the calf and not for human consumption.

6.5 Conclusions and recommendations The communal farmers preferred the aggression and mating behaviour, tick and disease resistance and body condition score as the most important traits in breeding Nguni bulls. Age of farmer and enterprise ownership influenced the preferential ranking of bull coat colour, scrotal circumference, and body size and conformation. The most preferred traits in a breeding cow were tick and disease resistance, reproductive efficiency and body condition score. Enterprise ownership pattern influenced the preference of animal coat colour, and body size and conformation traits in breeding Nguni cows.

It is recommended to consider economic weights of the most preferred traits indicated by the farmers so as to formulate adoptable selection models. Moreover, traits that are easily measured by a communal farmer under low-input production system must be considered for the sustainability of the enterprises.

6.6 References Ainslie, A., 2005. ‘Farming Cattle, Cultivating Relationships: Cattle Ownership and Cultural Politics in Peddie District, Eastern Cape’. Social Dynamics, 31 (1): 129–156.

141

Bayer, W., Alcock, R. and Gilles, P., 2004. Going backwards? – moving forward? – Nguni cattle in communal KwaZulu-Natal. “Rural poverty reduction through research for development and transformation”. A scientific paper presented at a conference held at Agricultural and Horticultural

Faculty,

Humboldt-Universität

zu,

Berlin,

pp.

1-7.

http://www.tropentag.de/2004/abstracts/full/326.pdf de Castro, J.J., 1997. Sustainable tick and tick-borne disease control in livestock improvement in developing countries. Veterinary Parasitology, 77: 77–97. Duguma, G., Mirkena, T., Haile, A., Iñiguez, L., Okeyo, A. M., Tibbo, M., Rischkowsky, B., Sölkner, J. and Wurzinger, M., 2010: Participatory approaches to investigate breeding objectives of livestock keepers. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 22, Article #64. Retrieved June 16, 2012, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd22/4/dugu22064.htm Encinias, A. M. and Lardy, G., 2002. Body condition scoring 1: Managing your cow herd through body condition scoring, www.ag.ndsu.edu. Accessed: 25 February 2012. GenStat Release 7.2. 2008. Discovery Edition 3, VSN International Ltd, UK. Holden, E.D., 2009. Gifts of livestock. Heifer International, 1 World Avenue, Little Rock, AR/USA 422-0474:501. Kahi, A. K., Barwick, S. A. and Graser, H.U., 2003. Economic evaluation of Hereford cattle breeding schemes incorporating direct and indirect measures of feed intake. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 54: 1039-1055. Ligda, G. and Georgoudis, L., 2008. Defining the breeding objectives for small populations. Workshop: European Livestock Breeds Ark and Rescue Net (ELBARN). Kutna Hora, Czech Republic, 8th -10th February 2008.

142

Madzimure, J., Chimonyo, M., Zander, K.K. and Dzama, K., 2012. Potential for using indigenous pigs in subsistence-oriented and market-oriented small-scale farming systems of Southern Africa. Tropical Animal Health and Production (In press) DOI 10.1007/s11250-0120184-3 Marufu, C.M., Chimonyo, M., Dzama, K. and Mapiye, C., 2009. Seroprevalence of tickborne diseases in communal cattle reared on sweet and sour rangelands in a semi-arid area of South Africa. The Veterinary Journal, 184, 71–76. Minjauw, B. and McLeod, A., 2003. Tick-borne diseases and poverty. The impact of ticks and tick-borne diseases on the livelihood of small-scale and marginal livestock owners in India and Eastern and Southern Africa. Research report, DFID Animal Health Programme, Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, UK. Moyo, B. and Masika P. J., 2009. Tick control methods used by resource-limited farmers and the effect of ticks on cattle in rural areas of the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 41(4): 517 - 523. Muchenje, V., Dzama, K., Chimonyo, M., Raats, J.G. and Strydom, P.E., 2008. Meat quality of Nguni, Bonsmara and Aberdeen Angus steers raised on natural pasture in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Meat Science, 79: 20 - 28. Musemwa, L., Mushunje, A., Chimonyo, M., Fraser, G., Mapiye, C., and Muchenje, V., 2008. Nguni cattle marketing constraints and opportunities in the communal areas of South Africa: African Journal of Agricultural Research, 3 (4), 239-245. Ndlovu, T., Chimonyo, M. and Muchenje, V., 2009. Monthly changes in body condition scores and internal parasite prevalence in Nguni, Bonsmara and Angus steers raised on sweetveld, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 41: 1169-1177.

143

Nqeno, N., Chimonyo, M., Mapiye, C. and Marufu, M.C., 2010, Ovarian activity, conception and pregnancy rates in the semiarid communal rangelands in Eastern Cape of South Africa, Animal Reproduction Science, 118: 140-147. Ouma, E., Abdulai, A. and Drucker, A., 2007. Measuring heterogeneous preferences for cattle traits amongst cattle keeping households in East Africa. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 89: 1005 – 1019. Palmer, S. and Ainslie, V., 2006. Smallholder farming. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 124 (3): 145 - 152. Reed, D., 2008. Does size count; in Nguni 2008, Pendulum Visual Communication, Bloemfontein, South Africa, 89. Roeleveld, A.C.W., 1996. The diagnostic phase in research on livestock systems. In: Roeleveld, A.C.W., van den Broek, A. (Eds.), Focusing Livestock Systems Research. Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 14– 28. Roessler, R., Drucker, A., Scarpa, R., Markemann, A., Lemke, U. and Thuy, L., 2008. Using choice experiments to assess smallholder farmers' preferences for pig breeding traits in different production systems in North-West Vietnam. Ecological Economics, 66(1): 184 - 192. Scholtz, M.M., Bester, J., Mamabolo, J.M. and Ramsay, K.A., 2008. Results of the national cattle survey undertaken in South Africa, with emphasis on beef. Applied Animal Husbandry and Rural Development, 1: 1 - 9. Scholtz, M.M. and Theunissen, A., 2010. The use of indigenous cattle in terminal crossbreeding to improve beef cattle production in Sub-Saharan Africa. Animal Genetic Resources, 46: 33 – 39.

144

Tada, O., 2011. Indigenous cattle breeds of Zimbabwe: How applicable are the conservation strategies! UNISWA Journal of Agriculture, 15 (1): 110 - 116. Vermaak, L.M., 2006. National Beef Cattle Improvement Scheme. Manual for Participants. Agriculture Research Council Animal Improvement Institute, Irene. Pretoria, South Africa. Wollny, C.B.A., 2003. The need to conserve farm animal genetic resources in Africa: should policy makers be concerned? Ecological Economics, 45 (3): 341 – 351.

145

Chapter Seven: Economic weights of breeding traits in young Nguni cattle under low-input production systems: a choice experiment procedure

Paper under review with Livestock Science

Abstract This study was conducted to determine the economic weights of most preferred traits in young breeding Nguni bulls and first parity cows. Fifty-four farmers from low-input cattle production enterprises participated in the choice experiment. Sixteen individual animal profiles were formulated from four traits of three levels each using a fractional orthogonal design of SPSS 14.0 (2005). Pair-wise choices deduced for each breeding animal class were 120. A total of 6 480 (54×120) observations were obtained for each class of the animals. Data was subjected to multinomial logit (MNL) models using econometric software NLOGIT 4.0.1 Version (2007). All computed economic values for bull traits were significant (p < 0.05). The economic weights of bull traits were; poor body condition score (-0.987±0.095), good body condition score (0.447±0.073), over-conditioned (base level), low tick infestation (0.573±0.103), medium tick infestation (0.581±0.084), high tick infestation (base level), high aggression and mating behavior (4.408±0.095), average aggression and mating behavior (2.534±0.094), and low aggression and mating behavior (base level). The economic weights of first parity cow traits were; poor body condition score (-0.057±0.055), good body condition score (1.080±0.061), over-conditioned (base level), low tick infestation (1.496±0.059), medium tick infestation (0.829±0.067), high tick infestation (base level), age at first calving of ≤ 27 months (2.368±0.068), age at first calving of 27 – 36 months (1.303±0.076), age at first calving of > 36 months (base level). Farmers were

146

willing to pay R37 939.00 (US$4 863.97) for a bull with high aggression and mating behaviour score and R17 185.00 (US$2 203.21) for a first parity cow of less than 27 months old. Enterprise ownership and demographics factors of the farmers were significant in determining economic weights within trait levels. Economic weights were high for reproductive efficiency of the breeding animals followed by the high adaptive characteristics. The choice experiment procedure can be the tool for determining importance of animal characteristics under low-input production systems. It is recommended to make use of the economic weights of preferential traits in designing selection models.

Keywords: Age at first calving, Aggression and mating behaviour, Body condition score, Tick infestation

7.1 Introduction Diversity of an indigenous genetic resource is a key component for a low-input production system to overcome destabilizing factors of uncertainty over future production environments such as climate change, diseases and changing market demands (Ruto et al., 2008; Kassie et al., 2010; Zander, 2011). The indigenous Nguni cattle breed in South Africa is an example of Animal Genetic Resources (AnGR) currently endangered-maintained in the communal and small-scale farming enterprises of the Eastern Cape Province (Chapter 5). The majority of the farmers in these sectors (67%) perceived the low-input in-situ conservation as profitable (Chapter 3) as the indigenous breed possesses traits of economic and socio-cultural importance (Chapter 4; Chapter 6). Informed decisions on sustainable conservation of this genetic resource could be made easier if information on the economic value of traits were available.

147

The development of breeding objectives has long involved quantification of the levels of economic benefit associated with genetic traits expressed by farmed livestock (Amer, 2007). These breeding objectives play a significant role in determining the optimal herd size and direction of genetic changes in production traits. Thus, they considerably influence the need of economic weights of production traits in a selection index, a multiple trait selection methodology which consider the total additive merit of animal characteristics. The economic weights of traits for beef cattle are often disregarded under low-input production systems probably due to the difficulty of measuring and valuing them as reported by Roeleveld (1996). Traits of economic importance such as body condition score, level of tick infestation, age at first calving and mating behaviour of breeding bulls are compound traits that can be evaluated by a resource-poor farmer with minimum difficulties as highlighted in Chapter 6. The development of adequate tools to economically characterise these traits was therefore important.

A review of potential AnGR valuation methods by Roosen et al. (2005) highlighted the potential role of non-market valuation methodologies in valuing AnGR in developing countries. This follows the premise that many of the benefits derived from the existence of well adapted indigenous breeds are not transacted in any market (Ruto et al., 2008). An indirect stated preference approach; the choice experiment (CE) (Louviere et al., 2000) can be used to investigate farmers’ preferences over cattle traits in livestock selection markets.

Some applications of CEs show that such methodologies reveal useful estimates of the values that are placed on the market, non-market, and potential breed attributes (Scarpa et al., 2003;

148

Tano et al., 2003; Ruto et al., 2008). The contribution of preferred traits in the breeding objective for indigenous cattle under in-situ conservation is the basis for determination of their economic values. The need to include economic weights of traits in a selection model for low-input animal production environments is recognized (Hazell et al., 2007; Zander, 2011). This has not yet been implemented for Nguni cattle and many other indigenous breeds in the developing countries where performance recording systems are minimal. The objective of the study was, therefore, to determine the economic weights of most preferred traits of young breeding Nguni animals by farmers in the low-input production enterprises using a CE approach. It was hypothesized that the contribution of animal traits to the market value of the breeding animal from different enterprise types and farmers of different demographic factors were the same.

7.2 Materials and Methods

7.2.1 Study area The study was conducted in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa with representative farmers from Nguni cattle enterprises. Details of the study areas were outlined in Chapter 3.

7.2.2 The Choice Experiment design The breeding goal is generally described as a linear function of traits to be improved as described by Hazel (1943), each of these traits is multiplied by its economic weight (EW) expressing the value of a unit change in the trait while keeping the other traits in the breeding goal constant. Due to the complexity and diversity of the low-input production systems, the lack of good records and good estimates of inputs and outputs, a simplified CE procedure was deemed appropriate to derive EWs of most preferred traits of young breeding Nguni cattle in the current

149

study. Choice experiment permits the analysis of farmer's preferences in terms of the benefits that they expect to attain from different genetically determined traits. Hypothetical profiles were described in terms of trait levels. Relevant traits were identified by farmers during a previous study and are easily recorded at farm level with minimum literacy (Chapter 6). The three most important traits identified for the young breeding Nguni animals i.e. first parity cow and 2-3 year old bull, are presented in Table 7.1. The heritability values of the traits are presented in Table 2.1. With four traits of three levels each in both classes of animals, there were 64 (43) possible Nguni cattle profiles in a full factorial design. These were reduced to a manageable size of 16 profiles using a balanced orthogonal i.e. fractional factorial design (SPSS 14.0, 2005). The design ensures the identification of the main effects with a minimum number of profile combinations. A choice set with uncorrelated attributes was then generated. Descriptive cards in Xhosa (vernacular) with pictorial illustrations were used.

7.2.3 Data collection Data were collected in the form of an in-person survey instrument. A total of 54 respondents in low-input Nguni cattle production enterprises were conveniently sampled. In order to ensure a balanced selection, each cattle enterprise was represented by one farmer. The criteria involved selecting a representative farmer, literate and willing to implement cattle recording system. Farmers were first exposed to interactive discussions on the value of animal records, traits of economic importance and recording. The demographic data of the respondents were also gathered.

150

Table 7.1 Description of variables used in the choice experiment Attribute/Trait

Level description

Body condition score (BCS)

Poor (BCS 1 -3); Good (BCS 4 - 6) and Overconditioned (7 – 9)

Tick infestation (TI)

Low (visible ticks less than 10); Medium (tick count of 10 to 30) and High (tick count of more than 30)

Attributes specific to the first parity cow Age at first calving (AFC)

< 27 months; 27 – 36 months; and > 36 months

Animal purchase price

R4,500.00; R5,500.00 and R7,750.00 (US$576.92; US$705.13 and US$993.59)

Attributes specific to the young breeding bull Aggression and mating behaviour (AMB) Below average; Average and Above average Animal purchase price

R5,250.00; R7,500.00 and R9,750.00 (US$673.08; US$961.54 and US$1 250.00)

NB: The trait levels used as reference bases are shown in italics. Animal purchase price indicate the selling price of the breeding animal, the values were based on the results of Chapter 3, i.e. lower, medium and upper quartiles.

151

After a cheap talk script, each respondent was introduced to the type of choice task required. Respondents were presented with the full set of 120 pair-wise choices from 16 individual animal profiles. The respondent was tasked to hypothetically buy for breeding one of the two available animal profiles. If neither of the animal profiles was found satisfactory, the respondent could choose the ‘I prefer none’ option. Figure 7.1 and 7.2 show the examples of the choice task used in the study. A total of 6 480 (54×120) observations were obtained from the respondents for each of the two breeding categories i.e. first parity Nguni cow and young breeding Nguni bull.

7.2.4 Statistical analyses The choice data were analysed using econometric software NLOGIT 4.0.1 Version (2007). The multinomial logit (MNL) model is one of the most recognized discrete choice models (Train, 2003; Roessler et al., 2008). It assumes that each individual chooses the alternative that has the highest perceived utility. Individuals are assumed to evaluate choice alternatives on the basis of their attribute levels, finally selecting the alternative they subjectively assess to provide them with highest utility (Roessler et al., 2008). The economic weight of a trait level is represented by linear utility function. Utility is assumed to either increase or decrease according to price and animal traits, depending on how the respondent regards animal characteristics. For an individual n choosing alternative j, the indirect utility is assumed to take the following form:

Unj = αnj + γjSn + β’nxnj + εnj

152

I prefer

None

Figure 7.1 Example of the pair-wise comparison choice set used for first parity Nguni cow

153

I prefer

None

Figure 7.2 Example of the pair-wise comparison choice set used for a 2-3 years old Nguni bull

154

The obtained indirect utility may vary between choice j and individuals n (the total number of individuals is n = 1 ,….., N). Indirect utility is assumed to consist of a deterministic part Unj = αnj + γjSn + β’nxnj and a stochastic part εnj. The deterministic component of the utility function consists of αnj which is the option specific intercept that corresponds to individual n’s intrinsic preference for alternative j. The socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the individual, sn, and the coefficient vector γj correspond to the systematic preference heterogeneity among the individuals in the sample. Altogether, 3 animal trait attribute coefficients are estimated and, with the price coefficient β’n1, there are 4 coefficients; (β’n = [(β’n1,….., β’n’). These coefficients are assumed to be generic (i.e. the coefficients of the explanatory variables do not vary across the options). Hence, an assumption of stable preferences was made.

7.2.5 Part worth values of attributes as estimates of economic values Part worth values reflect the relative importance respondents put on attributes, or trade-offs they are willing to make among them. As the cost was included as an attribute in the CE, it was possible to estimate indirectly the willingness to pay (WTP) or willingness to accept compensation (WTAC) for all other attributes included in the study. The WTP for a certain attribute or attribute level indicates the price (“implicit price”) the respondent was willing to pay for a unit increase in this attribute or the compensation he/she was willing to accept for a decrease in this attribute. The “implicit price (W)” or part worth is the economic value of a trait level and is calculated as follows:

155

where βx is the estimate for the attribute x from the MNL model, and βprice is the estimated price coefficient.

To compare if parameter estimates of the pooled model were different across the two enterprise types, random parameter MNL models were run to obtain utility functions (“economic weight estimates”) for each enterprise type. The effect of demographic factors; age (young 0.05) (Table 7.3). Type of enterprise had no significant influence on economic weights of BCSs and average AMB (p > 0.05). The low and medium TI had significant negative economic weights in communal enterprises. A high AMB was observed to be significantly associated with positive economic weight in communal enterprises (p < 0.05). Highest education level attained by the farmer significantly influenced preference of TI levels and a high AMB.

7.3.2 Economic values of trait levels in first parity Nguni cows The MNL model had a coefficient of determination value of 24% and produced significant estimates of economic weights (p < 0.05) except on poor BCS (Table 7.4). The base levels of the three traits used in the model were over-conditioned (BCS 7 – 9), high tick infestation (TI), and age at first calving (AFC) of greater than 36 months. The base levels had negative economic values. The highest economic weight as indicated by a high utility coefficient was observed on breeding cows with less than 27 months AFC. On average the farmers were willing to pay (WTP) up to R17 185.00 (US$2 203.21) for such a breeding cow. On average farmers were willing to accept compensation (WTAC) of R26 638.00 (US$3 415.13) on breeding cows with an AFC of greater than 36 months.

Enterprise type had significant effect on the heterogeneity of economic weights within trait levels as observed on communal enterprises negatively affecting the poor BCS and AFC of 27 – 36 months while positively affecting AFC of less than 27 months (p 36 months Price Constant

0 -0.0001±0.00002

p < 0.05

8.973±0.310

p < 0.05

NB: Economic value of trait level used as a base level is zero (0). CI = 95% Confidence Interval. US$1.00 = R7.80 (South Africa Reserve Bank, 2011).

160

Table 7.5 Heterogeneity in mean variables and derived standard deviation of distributions in first parity Nguni cows Trait Level

Parameter: Variable (base level) Coefficient Standard Error Significance Gender: Male (Female) 0.2443 0.07215 ** Age: < 50 years (≥ 50 years) 0.1577 0.09916 NS Poor BCS Education: Formal (Informal) 0.2556 0.09858 ** Ownership: Village (Group) -0.1482 0.06037 * Gender: Male (Female) -0.0208 0.08077 NS Age: < 50 years (≥ 50 years) -0.1316 0.11444 NS Good BCS Education: Formal (Informal) 0.1082 0.11386 NS Ownership: Village (Group) 0.0536 0.06939 NS Gender: Male (Female) 0.0511 0.07482 NS Age: < 50 years (≥ 50 years) 0.0096 0.10381 NS Low TI Education: Formal (Informal) -0.0119 0.10403 NS Ownership: Village (Group) -0.1133 0.06297 NS Gender: Male (Female) 0.0071 0.08883 NS Age: < 50 years (≥ 50 years) -0.3402 0.12779 ** Medium TI Education: Formal (Informal) -0.5449 0.13144 ** Ownership: Village (Group) -0.0555 0.07682 NS Gender: Male (Female) -0.3475 0.07597 ** Age: < 50 years (≥ 50 years) -0.1087 0.10704 NS < 27 months AFC Education: Formal (Informal) -0.2864 0.10766 ** Ownership: Village (Group) 0.3673 0.06519 ** Gender: Male (Female) -0.0992 0.08833 NS Age: < 50 years (≥ 50 years) 0.3040 0.12122 * 27 – 36 months AFC Education: Formal (Informal) 0.0830 0.12121 NS Ownership: Village (Group) -0.2243 0.07461 ** Derived standard deviations of parameter distributions Poor BCS NS 0.5620 0.10614 ** Good BCS NS 0.0060 0.12209 NS Low TI NS 0.0270 0.15721 NS Medium TI NS 0.0018 0.16060 NS < 27 months AFC NS 0.1341 0.21167 NS 27 – 36 months AFC NS 0.4779 0.13113 ** NB: Heterogeneity co-efficient of variable used as a base level is zero (0). NS Not significant at α = 0.05. * Significant at p < 0.05. ** Significant at p < 0.01.

161

Age of the farmer had no significant effect on economic weights except for the positive effect on AFC of 27 – 36 months. The highest level of education attained by the farmer had significant influence on economic weights of cow traits. Farmers with primary education had negative scores on medium TI and AFC of less than 27 months while having a positive scores on poor BCS (p 6th parity …………….. 5.1.7 Breeding bull: 1-3 years ………….., 4-6 years………………., > 6 years …………..….. 6.0 Cattle dynamics 6.1 How many cattle were involved in the following activities since the project started? 6.1.1 Sales …………... 6.1.2 Programme retain ……………... 6.1.3 Death …………... 6.1.4 Given out ……….... 6.1.5 Entrusted-in ……….... 6.1.6 Other (specify)……………………..... 7.0 Assistance and development of infrastructure: Agent Assistance rendered (DoA/UFH)

8.0 Marketing strategy: 8.1 Do you market your animals? ……………………….. 8.1.1 If yes, indicate your marketing channel ........................................................................................................................................ 9.0 Farmer concerns: 9.1 Is the enterprise profitable? Yes........ Not sure ………… No......... 9.1.1 Depending on your answer on 9.1, what are your concerns with regard to the following? 198

9.1. 1.1 Animal health: .................................................................................................................. 9.1.1.2 Animal grazing lands and feeds: ...................................................................................... 9.1.1.3 Animal breeding practices: .............................................................................................. 9.1.1.4 Animal reproduction: ………………………………………………………………….. 9.1.1.5 Animal general husbandry: ............................................................................................. 9.1.1.6 Marketing of products: .................................................................................................... 9.2 Suggest any improvements to the Nguni cattle restoration scheme ........................................................................................................................................

Appendix 1B: Evaluation of cattle husbandry practices 10.1 Do you manage your grazing lands? Yes …………… No……………. 10.1.1 If yes, explain how; .......................................................................................................... 10.2 Do you do any herd health management practice? Yes …………… No…………… 10.2.1 If yes, explain how and for what the following practices you do; 10.2.1.1 Vaccinations; .................................................................................................................. 10.2.1.2 Dosing; ............................................................................................................................ 10.2.1.3 Treatment; ........................................................................................................................ 10.3 Indicate how many times you dip your cattle in each season; Season of the year Frequency of dipping cattle Hot-wet (Nov, Dec & Jan) Post-rainy (Feb, Mar & Apr) Cold-dry (May, Jun & Jul) Hot-dry (Aug, Sep & Oct) 10.4 Do you have an animal breeding policy? Yes …………… No…………… If yes, indicate the following; 10.4.1 Traits of economic importance selected for; …………………………………….………. 10.4.2 The breeding season; .......................................................................................................... 10.4.3 Selection method; ………………………………………………………………………. 10.4.4 Mating system; ………………………………………………………………………….. 11.0 Nguni cattle milk production. 11.1 Do you milk the Nguni cows? Yes …………… No…………… If yes, indicate the following; 11.1.1 What do you use the milk for? ………………………………………………….. 11.1.2 How can you classify the quantity of milk produced compared to other breeds; little …… below average ……… average ……… above average ……. higher …….. 12.0 Cattle numbers 12.1 How many project animals were present during the year given below? Year Calves bullocks Heifers in-calf heifer Castrate Year project started ……………….………. 2011 199

12.2 How many project bulls of a particular age were present during the year given below? Bull Age (years) Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+ Year project started ……………….………. 2011 12.3 How many project cows of a particular parity were present during the year given below? Cow Parity Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+ Year project started ……………….………. 2011 12.4 How many project animals died since the project started? calves bullocks Heifers in-calf heifer cows Up to date (2011)

bulls

Castrate

Appendix 1C: Ranking of breeding traits

13. 1. Which trait do you consider most important in young breeding Nguni bulls Breeding bulls trait Rank (1 to 6) Aggression and Mating Behaviour (AMB) Body Condition Score (BCS) Body Size and Conformation (BSC) Coat Colour (CC) Scrotal Circumference (SC) Tick and Disease Resistance (TDR) 13.2. Which trait do you consider most important in young breeding Nguni cows Breeding cows trait Rank (1 to 6) Body Condition Score (BCS) Body Size and Conformation (BSC) Coat Colour (CC) Milk Yield (MY) Reproductive Efficiency (RE) Tick and Disease Resistance (TDR)

200

Appendix 2: Nguni Upgrading Scheme Sheet Community name: ………………… Project Name: ……………..…… Animal ID

Sex: (M – male F - female)

Class: (Ca - calf, B bullock, H - heifer, O - oxen, C - cow, BB breeding bull)

Sire Breed

B

NGU

Date: ………….

Dam Breed

Breed

% Nguni Blood

Breed Codes Breed

Code

Nguni

NGU

Afrikaner

AFR

1

Bonsmara

BON

2

Brahman Aberdeen Angus

BRA

Boran

BOR

Simmental

SIM

Hereford

HER

Tuli

TUL

9

Drankensberger

DRN

10

Santa Getrudis

SGT

11

South Devon

SDN

12

Sussex

SUS

13

Charolais

CHA

14

Pinzgauer

PIN

15

Brown Swiss

BSW

16

Sahiwal

SAH

…..

Simbra

SIMBRA

Friesian

FRN

Jersey

JER

Non-descript

NDS

e.g.

TAD005

M

NGU-AAN

NGU-NGU-AAN

3 4 5 6 7 8

….. 4

2

7

NB: Bull age, heifer age and cow parity were written as superscripts e.g. BB , H , and C .

75

AAN

201

Appendix 3: Animal Recording Booklet

Nguni Cattle Restoration Programme

Individual animal identification and performance data and information record sheet Dept of Livestock & Pasture Science Faculty of Science & Agriculture

An animal recording booklet formulated for use by the Nguni Cattle Project beneficiaries in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa © 2011

202

Our Nguni Cattle The Nguni breed has been shaped by natural selection in the African environment for thousands of years. The ancestors of the present day Nguni of South Africa were brought into the country by the southward migration of the Khoi people from the central lakes area of Africa. The Nguni was originally, and indeed still is, a draft animal. Under sound management conditions it is becoming increasingly popular as a beef breed. The areas where Nguni cattle occur are climatically the most harsh and disease-ridden tracts of Africa. These areas are prone to droughts and other natural realities. Nguni cattle have, among others, the following qualities;  They are not large cattle, mature bulls weigh ~ 580kg and mature cows weigh ~380kg. Calves wean at ~160kg and grow at >0.50 kg per day until weaning.  The bulls have well developed rounded cervio-thoracic humps which are muscular. The cows have small almost negligible humps.  The Nguni cattle are heat and light tolerant; their skin is thick and pigmented covered with fine short and glossy hair of different colour (black, white, red, brown, cream and dun).  They have long reproductive lives; cows produce 10 or more calves at ± regular interval.  Nguni cattle are less prone to dystocia, this is due to their sloping rumps, small uterus and low calf birth mass.  They develop excellent resistance to ticks and immunity to tick borne diseases.  They are excellent foragers and will graze and browse on steep slopes and in thick bush alike.  Finished carcasses dress out at roughly 200kg. Marbling is good with a thin covering of fat.  Nguni fatten well on natural grazing as well as in the feedlot.  Nguni cattle developed into a breed with good temperament and mothering ability.

203

Preface This Individual Animal Identification and Performance Data and Information Record booklet is a practical guide to the establishment of meaningful communal record system in developing countries. Having realised the crucial role of individual animal records, and the level of strenuous input by the communal cattle producers, this booklet offers a sound mechanism of recording animal performance. In contrast to the specialized large-scale commercial sector, this has been simplified to cater for the dual-purpose nature of the animals. Herein presented are the common mind-boggling questions a communal animal producer may encounter. With accurate and consistent record keeping, using this booklet, many questions would be answered. “How best can we decide the fate of an animal that has been in the herd for over 3 years?” “Which animal would be my first victim to provide healthy beef for my family?” “Which of the replacement bulls have the ‘vibe’ to take charge of the herd in the following 3 years?” “How best can I convince an animal buyer that my animals are good and the price is worthy?” “Inbreeding is a real problem. How best can I control this in my herd?” “How do I know that I am buying a disease resistant animal?” “How can I tell that my animal has reached the proper age for slaughter?” “How do I know that I am not buying a very old cow with persistent reproductive problems?” “How can I remember the progeny of my favourite cow?” “What information can a Veterinary Doctor use to best help my animals?” ……. …………… ……………

How to use this booklet This booklet is meant for one animal herd/farm/community. It has the ability to track animal movement across farms. Presented herein are the guidelines on recording animal performance.

Sex: Common Name: Municipality: Dam ID: Coat Characteristics: Date of Birth: Farmer:

Breed:

the reproductive category of the animal (male or female) name given to the animal for everyday use name of the district municipality the community is found identification of the cow responsible for the animal the remarkable features on the animal and hair in terms of colour, lay and length the date the animal was born (if not sure, take note of the month and year) name of the animal owner keeping the animals the overall genotype of animal (breed codes & pictures for abbreviations are presented at the last pages of the booklet)

Weight

Weaning/205 day

weight at birth measured within 48 hours weight at weaning measured approximately at 6,5 months of age or 205 days

Yearling

weight at year age

Slaughter

weight of the animal just before slaughter

Carcass

weight of the dressed animal

Birth

Removal from herd Reason

the reason why the animal has been removed from the herd

Value

the monetary value of the animal (in Rands and/or Kgs) on the day removed from herd

Community:

the number and/or letters on the ear tag (if the animal is tagged) name of the community/village/farm which the animal belongs to

Sale

if sold, indicate value and date

Sire ID:

identification of the bull responsible for the animal

Death

if the animal dies, indicate value and date

Tag No.

204

Programme Slaughter

Entrusted Given out

if the animal has been retained to the Programme as a "passed-on gift", indicate value and date if animal is killed for money &/or meat, indicate value and date if the animal is brought in to be reared on the farm from friends/relatives, indicate value and date if the animal has been given-out as a gift of good-will, indicate value and date

Cow calvings

Calving date Still-born Assisted Lactation milk yield Remarks

date when the animal gave birth (NB: enter the details of the new-born calf on its separate record sheet pronto if the calf is born dead, indicate with a tick if the delivery was intervened, indicate with a tick indicate milk yield in comparison with other indigenous cows in the herd as (i) very low, (ii) low, (iii) medium, (iv) high, (v) very high. records comments in connection with that particular lactation e.g. mastitis incidences e.t.c.

Bull Evaluation BSE

Breeding Soundness Evaluation

Date

Indicate the date of what was evaluated on the bull

Husbandry Practices

NB: See further notes at the last pages of the booklet.

Activity

indicate activity done on the animal

Remarks

give further details to the activities

Date Vaccination, dosing, treatment, dipping, castration, dehorning, Body Condition Score, e.t.c.

indicate the date for which a certain activity was done

indicate under activity column and show date. Give further details under the remarks column, e.g. what was being vaccinated against, type of dip used, BCS recorded, treatment done, e.t.c.

205

206

207

Husbandry Practices Identification There is need to have an identification system of your animals so as to able to keep production records. The system must be permanent and easy to read from a distance. Each individual animal has to have a unique identification mark, which can be numbers or letters. The information on the identification may include; year of birth as a prefix, sire number and order of birth. Methods of identifying cattle; 1. Branding. This is when the hair follicles are damaged so as to leave a mark on the skin of the animal. This can be done using the hot iron branding irons. 2. Ear Notching. This involves punching the ears using different shapes and at different positions to represent different numbers. The problem is that the numbers are limited, difficult to read from a distance and ears may get torn. 3. Ear tags. There are not permanent and are difficult to read from afar. 4. Tattooing. In this method one uses spiked applicators and ink to apply the tattoo on the ear or the lips of an animal. They are permanent and less suitable for pigmented animals especially black animals. They are usually used in pedigree animals.

Castration Reasons: 1. This is a way of culling or preventing inferior male animals from breeding (reproducing). 2. It is done to induce docility in male animals. 3. Castrates are easy to feed; there is no fighting in pens hence they spend more time feeding than fighting. 4. They (castrates) tend to produce tender and fatter meat at mature age. 5. It is also done to prevent the strong flavour in meat, which may not be desirable. When to castrate; It is beneficial to delay castration because of higher weaning mass and subsequent gains. 2 - 4 months of age is ideal. But as the animal gets older the more traumatic castration becomes. Castration methods: 1. Burdizzo’s forceps method. This castration is done by pulling down the testes and holding the spermatic cords between the jaws of the forceps. The jaws are then closed and then give a jerk to completely sever the cords. This is the most suitable method for beef animals; it is fast and bloodless and requires some skill. It can be done at 2-3 months of age. 2. Knife method. This is done by incising the bottom of the scrotum and pulling out the testes, and then rubs the knife against the spermatic cords until they break. This method can be used at any stage. But it is illegal to castrate any animal that is more than 12 months old without the use of anaesthesia. This method requires some skill and is slow. It also requires the use of chemicals to treat the opened wounds. 3. Elastrator Ring method. This is slow and should be done within the first week of life. It is more painful. It involves putting a rubber ring (elastrator ring) such that the testes are below the ring. This stops blood flowing to the testes that eventually die and drop in about 2 weeks. The rings must be close to the body.

Vaccination, dosing, treatment, dipping 1. Essential vaccinations/routine a) Quarter Evil (malignant oedema) Black leg. Vaccinate all young stock at weaning or 6 months of age or earlier but not earlier than 3 months. Repeat at 12 months of age and a year later. Burn all animals dying of Q.E. Use blackleg vaccine/Blaxy vac. b) Brucellosis/ Contagious abortion (CA). Vaccinate all weaned heifers once at weaning using S19. This gives lifelong immunity. For mature cows that were not vaccinated as heifers use S45/20, this vaccine should not be given to pregnant cows as it leads to abortion. c) Campylobacteriosis (formerly Vibriosis). Cows; Vaccinate two weeks post calving or six weeks and 2-3weeks before bulling. Bulls: Vaccinate them 8 weeks and again 4 weeks before bulling. This can be given combined with the leptospirosis as Leptoferm 5. 2. Occasional vaccinations a) Anthrax: In districts where it has been reported or suspected, annual vaccination of all animals should be done. Vaccinate every 9 months when the disease has been confirmed. Animals that die of anthrax should be burnt or buried deep in quicklime to prevent spore formation. Do not open the carcass if you suspect the disease. b) Paratyphoid: Vaccinate 7-10 day old calves twice at weekly interval on infected premises. Repeat annually for three years but check with your veterinarian. c) Colibacillosis: If a problem with calves, vaccinate cows for Escherichia coli in the last 6 weeks of pregnancy. d) Rota and corona viruses: Vaccinate cows 6 weeks and 3 weeks before calving and oral treatment of newly born calves. e) Botulism: Of importance in dry areas and where poultry litter is fed to animals. At first the animals must be vaccinated twice; a primary vaccination and a booster seven weeks later. After this, the vaccine is repeated annually. The vaccine is a mixed toxoid. 3. Optional vaccinations a) Rift Valley Fever: Vaccinate all animals over 6 months of age on infected or surrounding areas in October/ November annually. b) Lumpy Skin Disease: Vaccinate all animals over 6 months of age on infected or surrounding areas in January annually. c) Foot and Mouth Disease: A specified disease whose control is under the Veterinary Department Services. Avoid all buffalo-cattle contact. In the event of an suspicion you are required by law to notify the Veterinary Department Services.

Tick control Dip all cattle above 6 months once every two week in summer and once every month in winter. You can do fortnightly dipping throughout the year with pyrethroids with permission from the Provincial Veterinary Office. You can also vaccinate animals at 6-9

208

months against Red water (babesiosis) and Gall sickness (Anaplasmosis). The vaccination can be repeated a year later.

Body Condition Scoring: What do I look for? Where do I look?

Dosing/ drenching Dose all calves at weaning and two weeks later against round worms and flatworms. Dose all animals before the beginning of the rainy season. Two weeks before calving for cows and at the end of the rains against round worms and in January and end of the rain season against liver fluke. Dose against liver fluke again in August-September as this is time there are peak numbers. Dose suckling calves against tapeworm as they are adversely affected once they are weaned they are quite tolerant. Dose all animals against internal parasites before they go into the pens or begin an experiment. Strategic dosing with antihelminthics and proper management of animals to break the parasite life cycle can control the round worms, tapeworms and liver flukes. Keep animals away from wet areas. Provide piped clean water. Avoid overstocking and practise rotational grazing to cut life cycles of parasite.

Body Condition Score (BCS): A practical guide. BCS is a management tool that can be used to evaluate the nutritional status of cattle. Body condition (fat cover) is an indication of the energy reserves of a beef animal. It is important in beef production because it influences subsequent reproductive and growth performance. Cows and heifers in thin body condition at calving time are slower to rebreed, produce less colostrum, may not have sufficient nutrient reserves for maximum milk production, and are less likely to wean a live calf. Overconditioning, on the other hand, is expensive and can result in calving problems and lower dry matter intake early in lactation.

Condition Score 1 - Emaciated

Here is a practical guide in scoring your animals. The most commonly used scale is based on a 1 to 9 scale with a body condition 1 indicating an emaciated animal and 9 indicating a very fat animal. The images and descriptions of cattle differing in body condition give the farmer an opportunity to estimate body condition scores. The following are ideal times to body condition score cattle: 1. When calves are weaned 2. 60 days prior to calving 3. At calving 4. At the beginning of the breeding season 5. At the beginning and end of the climatic season

Visible Bone structure - Shoulder, Ribs, Back, Hooks - Sharp to touch; Pins Sharp to touch. Muscling - Very little. Fat Deposits - Very little

209

Condition Score 2 - Very Thin

Condition Score 4 - Borderline

Visible Bone structure - Spinous process easily seen - Sharp to touch Muscling - Some in hindquarters Fat Deposits - Very little

Visible Bone structure - Foreribs not noticeable; 12th and 13th ribs noticeable; Transverse process - Felt with slight pressure Muscling - Full but straight (not rounded) Fat Deposits - Ribs beginning to be well covered

Condition Score 3 - Thin

Condition Score 5 - Moderate

Visible Bone structure - Foreribs remain noticeable; Backbone visible; Spinous process - Palpate w/little pressure; Less pronounced intervening space Muscling - Muscling apparent Fat Deposits - Beginning cover Loin, back, foreribs

Visible Bone structure - 12th and 13th rib not visible except shrunk cattle; Transverse processes felt w/firm pressure Muscling - Full Fat Deposits - Area around tail head filled out but not mounded

210

Condition Score 6 - Good

Condition Score 8 - Fat

Visible Bone structure - No distinct structure; Transverse processes felt w/firm pressure Muscling - Hindquarters plump and full Fat Deposits - Sponginess over foreribs; Sponginess around tail head

Visible Bone structure - No distinct structure to none Muscling - Hindquarters plump and full Fat Deposits - Thick and spongy; Animal appears smooth and blocky

Condition Score 7 - Very Good

Condition Score 9 - Very Fat

Visible Bone structure - No distinct structure; Ends of spinous process felt w/very firm pressure Muscling - Hindquarters plump and full Fat Deposits - Abundant fat around tail head w/some patchiness

Visible Bone structure - None Muscling - Hindquarters plump and full Fat Deposits - Tail head buried in fat

211