Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T09:35:07.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding breeding preferences among small-scale cattle producers: implications for livestock improvement programmes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2020

M. Mutenje,
U. ChipfupaOpen the ORCID record for U. Chipfupa[Opens in a new window],
W. MupangwaOpen the ORCID record for W. Mupangwa[Opens in a new window],
I. NyagumboOpen the ORCID record for I. Nyagumbo[Opens in a new window],
G. Manyawu,
I. ChakomaOpen the ORCID record for I. Chakoma[Opens in a new window] and
L. Gwiriri
M. Mutenje*
Affiliation:
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Regional Office for Southern Africa, Sustainable Intensification Program, P.O. Box MP 163, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
U. Chipfupa
Affiliation:
University of KwaZulu-Natal, Agricultural Economics Department, School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
W. Mupangwa
Affiliation:
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Regional Office for Southern Africa, Sustainable Intensification Program, P.O. Box MP 163, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
I. Nyagumbo
Affiliation:
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Regional Office for Southern Africa, Sustainable Intensification Program, P.O. Box MP 163, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
G. Manyawu
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Forage and Fodder Management, Regional Office for Southern Africa, P.O. Box MP 163, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
I. Chakoma
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Forage and Fodder Management, Regional Office for Southern Africa, P.O. Box MP 163, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
L. Gwiriri
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Forage and Fodder Management, Regional Office for Southern Africa, P.O. Box MP 163, Mount Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe
*
†E-mail: m.mutenje@cgiar.org
Get access

Abstract

Livestock production provides a pathway for improving livelihoods and reducing poverty in semi-arid tropical regions. However, this contribution has been affected by low livestock productivity. Most livestock programmes have also failed due to, among other things, the inability to understand the dynamics in smallholder breeding preferences. Using data from the sub-humid region in Zimbabwe, this paper sought to provide evidence on smallholder cattle breeding preferences and the implication on livestock improvement programmes. It applies the choice experiment approach to model farmer preferences for selected cattle breeding attributes. The results show three attributes that significantly affect breeding preferences. The attributes ‘cow body condition score’ and the ‘useful life of a bull/semen’ have a positive influence while ‘artificial insemination/bull maintenance cost’ negatively affects farmer preferences. This means farmers prefer breeding strategies which improve the nutrition of their cows, have a longer lifespan for the bull/semen and whose cost of breeding services is low. However, access to education and income affected these preferences. Education made farmers to make informed choices while higher incomes increased the propensity of investing in livestock breeding technologies. The findings also show that existing institutional arrangements in animal management and community grazing do not promote investment in livestock improvement. Thus, more attention should be given to improving animal nutritional management which includes promoting sustainable grazing schemes. There is also a need to provide affordable livestock breeding services through recruiting and training more artificial insemination service providers. Strong and effective institutions that provide incentives for collective participation are integral to any community-based livestock breeding programme. There is also a need to promote access to information and enhance farmers’ knowledge and capacity in improved livestock management practices.

Keywords

cattleZimbabweinstitutionsartificial inseminationchoice experiment

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 8 , August 2020, pp. 1757 - 1767
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adisa, RS 2015. Livestock extension practice and competency among agricultural extension agents in North-Central Nigeria. South African Journal of Agricultural Extension 43, 12–21.Google Scholar
Argiris, A, Ondho, YS, Santoso, SI and Kurnianto, E 2018. Effect of age and bulls on fresh semen quality and frozen semen production of Holstein Bulls in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 119, 012033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bebe, BO, Udo, HM, Rowlands, GJ and Thorpe, W 2003. Smallholder dairy systems in the Kenya highlands: breed preferences and breeding practices. Livestock Production Science 82, 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, WR 2000. Nutritional interactions with reproductive performance in dairy cattle. Animal Reproduction Science 60–61, 449–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douthwaite, B, Keatinge, JDH and Park, JR 2001. Why promising technologies fail: the neglected role of user innovation during adoption. Research Policy 30, 819–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duguma, G, Mirkena, T, Haile, A, Okeyo, AM, Tibbo, M, Risch-kowsky, B, Sölkner, J and Wurzinger, M 2011. Identification of smallholder farmers and pastoralists’ preferences for sheep breeding traits: Choice model approach. Animal 5, 1984–1992.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiebig, DG, Keane, MP, Louviere, J and Wasi, N 2010. The generalized multinomial logit model: accounting for scale and coefficient heterogeneity. Marketing Science 29, 393–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, WH 2012. Econometric analysis. Pearson Education Limited, London, UK.Google Scholar
Gwiriri, LC, Manyawu, G, Mashanda, PB, Chakoma, I, Moyo, S, Chakoma, C, Sethaunyane, H, Imbayarwo-Chikosi, VE, Dube, S and Maasdorp, BV 2016. The potential of replacing conventional dairy supplements with forage legume-based diets in Zimbabweʼs smallholder dairy sector. African Journal of Range and Forage Science 119, 1–9.Google Scholar
Heitschmidt, R, Vermeire, L and Grings, E 2004. Is rangeland agriculture sustainable? Journal of Animal Science 82, E138–E146.Google ScholarPubMed
Hess, S and Train, K 2017. Correlation and scale in mixed logit models. Journal of Choice Modelling 23, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayne, TS, Yamano, T, Weber, MT, Tschirley, D, Benfica, R, Chapoto, A and Zulu, B 2003. Smallholder income and land distribution in Africa: implications for poverty reduction strategies. Food Policy 28, 253–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, FR, Lancsar, E, Marshall, D, Kilambi, V, Mühlbacher, A, Regier, DA, Bresnahan, BW, Kanninen, B and Bridges, JF 2013. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value in Health 16, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kassie, GT, Abdulai, A and Wollny, C 2009. Valuing traits of indigenous cows in central Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Economics 60, 386–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaziboni, S, Kusina, N, Sibanda, S, Makuza, S, Nyoni, O and Bhebhe, E 2004. Performance of artificial insemination in smallholder dairies of Nharira-Lancashire in Zimbabwe. Livestock Research for Rural Development 16, 25.Google Scholar
Kuhfeld, WF 2010. Marketing research methods in SAS. SAS Institute, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
Lancaster, KJ 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 74, 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Land O’ Lakes 2013. Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in Zimbabwe Project, Quarterly Report January–March 2013. Submitted to the United States Agency for International Development Zimbabwe.Google Scholar
MacLeod, ND, McDonald, CK and Van Oudtshoorn, FP 2008. Challenges for emerging livestock farmers in Limpopo province, South Africa. African Journal of Range and Forage Science 25, 71–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makoholi Research Institute 2012. Status report. Consultative Stakeholder Workshop held at Makoholi Research Station, 13–17 November 2012, Masvingo.Google Scholar
Mangham, LJ, Hanson, K and McPake, B 2009. How to do (or not to do)… Designing a discrete choice experiment for application in a low-income country. Health Policy and Planning 24, 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mausch, K, Harris, D, Heather, E, Jones, E, Yim, J and Hauser, M 2018. Household aspirations for rural development through agriculture. Outlook on Agriculture 47, 108–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, JJ, Staal, SJ, Freeman, HA, Herrero, M and Van de Steeg, JA 2010. Sustaining intensification of smallholder livestock systems in the tropics. Livestock Science 130, 95–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, D 1973. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in economics (ed. Zarembka, P), pp. 105–135. Academic Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Mpofu, I, Sibanda, S, Shonihwa, A and Pixley, K 2012. The nutritional value of quality protein maize for weaner pigs. Journal of Petroleum and Environmental Biotechnology 3, 1–4.Google Scholar
Mueller, JP, Rischkowsky, B, Haile, A, Philipsson, J, Mwai, O, Besbes, B, Valle Zarate, A, Tibbo, M, Mirkena, T, Duguma, G, Solkner, J and Wurzinger, M 2015. Community-based livestock breeding programs: essentials and examples. Journal of Animal Breed Genetics 132, 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murage, AW and Ilatsia, ED 2011. Factors that determine use of breeding services by smallholder dairy farmers in Central Kenya. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 43, 199–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ngongoni, N, Mwale, M, Mapiye, C, Moyo, M, Hamudikuwanda, H and Titterton, M 2007. Evaluation of cereal-legume intercropped forages for smallholder dairy production in Zimbabwe. Livestock Research for Rural Development 19. Retrieved on 09 April 2018 from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/12/ngon19129.htmGoogle Scholar
North, D 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. The University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nwanze, KF 2014. Foreword. In New directions for smallholder agriculture (ed. Hazell, P and Rahman, A), pp. 2–3. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Omondi, I, Zander, K, Bauer, S and Baltenweck, I 2017. Understanding farmers’ preferences for artificial insemination services provided through dairy hubs. Animal 11, 677–686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orme, B 2010. Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. 2nd edition. Research Publishers LLC, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E 2015. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otte, J, Costales, A, Dijkman, J, Pica-Ciamarra, U, Robinson, T, Ahuja, V, Ly, C and Roland-Holst, D 2012. Livestock sector development for poverty reduction: an economic and policy perspective. Livestockʼs many virtues. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Potdar, V, Bhave, K, Gaundare, Y, Khadse, J and Pande, A 2017. BAIF experience in field data collection. International Journal of Animal Science 1, 1004.Google Scholar
Roessler, R, Drucker, AG, Scarpa, R, Markemann, A, Lemke, U, Thuy, LT and Zarate, AV 2008. Using choice experiments to assess smallholder farmers’ preferences for pig breeding traits in different production systems in North–West Vietnam. Ecological Economics 66, 184–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossi, J and Wilson, TW 2006. Body condition scoring beef cows. College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Bulletin 1308. University of Georgia, Georgia.Google Scholar
Ryan, M, Kolstad, J, Rockers, P and Dolea, C 2012. How to conduct a discrete choice experiment for health workforce recruitment and retention in remote and rural areas: a user guide with case studies. World Health Organization, CapacityPlus and World Bank. World Bank,USA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Wassenaar, T and Jutzi, S 2006. Livestock production systems in developing countries: status, drivers, trends. Revue Scientifique et Technique 25, 505–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swanepoel, F, Stroebel, A and Moyo, S 2010. The role of livestock in developing communities: enhancing multifunctionality. University of the Free State and CTA, Bloemfontein, South Africa.Google Scholar
Tada, O, Muchenje, V and Dzama, K 2013. Reproductive efficiency and herd demography of Nguni cattle in village-owned and group-owned enterprises under low-input communal production systems. Tropical Animal Health and Production 45, 1321–1329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tavirimirwa, B, Mwembe, R, Ngulube, B, Banana, N, Nyamushamba, G, Ncube, S and Nkomboni, D 2013. Communal cattle production in Zimbabwe: a review. Livestock Research for Rural Development 25. Retrieved on 09 April 2018 from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/12/tavi25217.htmGoogle Scholar
Thornton, PK 2010. Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 365, 2853–2867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Train, K 2009. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Uddin, MM, Van Huylenbroeck, G, Hagedorn, K, Sultana, N and Peters, KJ 2010. Institutional and organizational issues in livestock services delivery in Bangladesh. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture 49, 111–125.Google Scholar
ZimStat 2012. Provincial report 2012: Mashonaland East. Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency. Harare. Retrieved on 20 June 2018 from http://www.zimstat.co.zw/sites/default/files/img/publications/Population/Mash_East.pdfGoogle Scholar