The Interaction Between Cultivation and Livestock Production in Semi-Arid Africa

Author(s):  
R. L. McCown ◽  
G. Haaland ◽  
C. de Haan
1998 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 77-86
Author(s):  
C. R. Field

AbstractThe main uses to which marginal and arid rangelands are put involve livestock production, tourism based on wildlife and ethno-tourism, and agriculture, i.e. crop production. There is minimal dry land forestry, sometimes as agro-forestry. The emphasis placed on these three main uses varies according to the ecological potential (i.e. climate, topography and soils) and accessibility to the areas.Taking the Kenyan example, approximately 20% of the land is arid and used almost exclusively for livestock production while ethno-tourism runs a poor second in dry seasons because of inaccessibility. Current technology in Africa precludes extensive irrigation. Peak production of livestock is in the late wet season and early dry with marketing mostly in dry seasons. Over 50% of the land is semi-arid where all three uses are practised. Livestock production is still the most important and agriculture the least important, because rainfall is unreliable and erratic, wildlife populations are larger and so tourism is more important (e.g. Amboseli, Isiolo, Samburu). Agriculture occurs particularly in wet years and wet seasons.Although land is only very locally suited to agriculture, permanent water sources, rivers and springs may enable year round settlement. Farmers of non-pastoral backgrounds (and even some pastoralists) wish to follow their traditions and attempt cultivation. This is occasionally successful in above average years of rainfall (two years in five) on good soils but fails in dry years when it also deprives livestock of essential traditional dry season grazing reserves.Marginal areas occupy perhaps 12% of the land but are in high demand for all three use categories. Pastures are ideal for fattening livestock bred in more arid areas and they have a rapid turn-over. Wildlife populations are often at their highest in these areas, e.g. Laikipia, Mara and Nairobi park. Areas are relatively accessible on tarmac roads for year round viewing of wildlife. Agricultural resettlement has spilled over from higher potential lands where human populations are exceeding the carrying capacity.Increasing food requirements have led to a greater demand for efficient land use and to diversification into new areas, e.g. eco-tourism, ostrich farming or the intensification of traditional uses such as camel rearing.Lailipia District, situated mostly in marginal and semi-arid land is used as a case study. Here, successful conservation measures on mostly private land, which was formerly used by Maasai for subsistence pastoralism, has led to the largest population of wildlife in Kenya outside parks and reserves. At the same time land is used in part for crop production especially in the higher potential areas, but also wherever land is available for co-operative arable farmers to purchase. Livestock production remains however, the most widespread form of land use. The main seasonal variation in use is with crop production in the rains and game viewing in the dry seasons but extremes are less than in the lower rainfall areas.Recent preliminary analysis of the economics of various forms of land use in Laikipia indicate that in those limited areas where agriculture is reliable (e.g. irrigated areas near rivers) returns may be as high as US$ 132 to 166 per ha per annum. Wildlife tourism which prevails in less well watered areas may yield US$ 4 to 5 per ha, while conventional livestock rearing yields from US$ 0.2 to 1.4 per ha per annum. Game cropping is the least well developed and the least productive but is accepted as a necessity by the Kenya Wildlife Service, particularly with regard to zebra which compete with livestock for resources. It yields only US$ 0.2 to 0.4 per ha per annum.Wildlife and livestock occur together, except where there has been considerable outlay on electric fencing. Predators, especially lions and hyenas, are incompatible with livestock and together with certain wildlife which may act as disease vectors (e.g. buffalo) reduce income by US$ 0.5 per ha per annum. By contrast, the addition of camels, which are eco-friendly milk and meat producers, with no reduction of conventional stock, may increase livestock yields by US$ 0-4 per ha per annum.Combined wildlife tourism, cropping and livestock, including camels, may yield US$ 4.7 to 6.4 per ha per annum, which although still less than 5% of agricultural yield, is the best that may be achieved at present on a sustainable basis. Crop production is highly dependent on rainfall which becomes less predictable the more arid the land. It may not be sustainable in the long term in its present form.Current returns on investment are low for all forms of land use. Constraints to increasing returns are outlined. Research agendas need to be tailored to provide answers which could help minimize them. In particular, we need to refine our knowledge concerning the economics of the different options, both conventional and non-conventional.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Owiti Omolo ◽  
Muturi Mathew ◽  
Maurice Owiny ◽  
Jeremiah N Ngugi ◽  
Joseph Ogola Ganda ◽  
...  

AbstractLivestock keeping forms main occupation in arid and semi-arid lands. Increase in drought frequency and intensity globally negatively affect livestock production and livelihood. Cattle are the most drought sensitive livestock due to size, grazing behavior and nutritional requirements. Factors for vulnerability of cattle to droughts are individual cattle parameters, health and husbandry practices. This cross sectional study aimed to those factors in semi-arid Kaloleni sub-county. Data on household (HH) head demographics, cattle and production collected from 194 enrolled HH using structured questionnaires. Cattle ages were grouped into young (<1 year old), growers (1-2 years old) and adults (>2years old). Data was analyzed using STATA 12 software. Univariate, bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis conducted and reported in Crude Odds Ratio (cOR), Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) and Confidence Interval (CI). We used Pearson product-moment correlation to determine relationship between HH head, cattle herd, individual cattle characteristics and drought characteristics, p = <0.05 being significant. Mean age HH heads was 40.7 ± 12.6 years, 44.3% (86) had basic education, males were 65.3% (n=126). Mixed livestock production was practiced by 69.1% (134), while 86.1% (167) practiced free range communal grazing. Adult cattle were 54.1% (1295). Female cattle were 72.7% (1741). Average body condition score was 3.0 ± 0.6, and calves had 2.6 ± 1.3. About 20.6% had various forms of illness, calves mostly affected at 29.1%. Up to 63.4% HH, spray cattle at home, 93.3% HH reported no vaccination history. Home straying was protective (cOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.14 – 0.53). Herd size (aOR 2.9, 95% CI 1.5 – 5.5) and having no disease control method (aOR 2.8, 95% CI 1.85 – 9.19) were contributing to reporting disease. We report positive correlation between drought outcomes and HH head (r=0.076, p>0.01), cattle herd (r=0.216, p=0.003 and individual cattle characteristics(r=0.139, p>0.01). The findings on cattle conditions exacerbate their vulnerability in presence of stressful conditions like droughts especially in calves and cows. This study demonstrates weak disease control efforts and unorganized husbandry practices. We propose strategic and focused disease control plans to improve cattle resilience and further research on livestock based factors as drought response metrics for the livestock livelihood.


2001 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 267-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.P. Hella ◽  
N.S. Mdoe ◽  
G. Van Huylenbroeck ◽  
L. D'Haese ◽  
P. Chilonda

2004 ◽  
Vol 26 ◽  
pp. 33-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
PK Thornton ◽  
RH Fawcett ◽  
KA Galvin ◽  
RB Boone ◽  
JW Hudson ◽  
...  

Plants ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 2127
Author(s):  
Humbelani Silas Mudau ◽  
Hilda Kwena Mokoboki ◽  
Khuliso Emmanuel Ravhuhali ◽  
Zimbili Mkhize

The use of these browse plant species as feed supplements to livestock is restricted due to a lack of knowledge about their nutritional status. This study was conducted to evaluate the nutritive value of woody browse species found in a semi-arid, as influenced by harvesting, site (Limpopo and North West Province). Limpopo had a Glenrosa, Mispah and Lithosols (GM-L) soil type and North West sites had an Aeolian Kalahari sand, Clovelly and Hutton (AKS-CH) soil type. Fresh leaves from fifty-two trees (five trees per species) were randomly selected and harvested from the site by hand-picking. Limpopo had forty-five browse species and North West had twenty-one browse species, respectively. The samples were air dried at room temperature and ground for laboratory analysis (nutritive value). The data were subjected to one-way analysis of variance (for those species that were not common in both sites) and two-way factorial (for those species that were common in both sites) in a completely randomized design. In the GM-L soil type, M. azedarach (223.2 g/kg DM) had the highest (p < 0.05) crude protein content (CP), whereas in the AKS-CH soil type, V. hebeclada (189.2 g/kg DM) had the highest (p < 0.05) CP content. Within each species, V. nilotica. Subsp. Krasssiana had the highest (p < 0.05) dry matter digestibility (725.4 g/kg DM), non-fibrous carbohydrates (607.3 g/kg DM), digestible energy (3.375 Mcal/kg) and metabolizable energy (2.771) content when compared to all the other browse species in both GM-L and AKS-CH soils. Melia azedarach in GM-L had the highest (p < 0.05) values in most amino acids’ parameters measured when compared to the same species in AKS-CH. Though the harvesting site had an effect on the nutritive value, all species, irrespective of the harvesting site, had sufficient CP to be used as a supplement to livestock exposed to the low-quality roughages. The results from this study will be useful for farmers and researchers through the provision of relevant information on how to improve livestock production. There is a need to run in vivo trials to determine the best species suitable for livestock sustainability.


1991 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 339-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.W. Mukhebi ◽  
H.C. Knipscheer ◽  
G. Sullivan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document