Content uploaded by Emrobowansan Monday Idamokoro
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emrobowansan Monday Idamokoro on Jan 28, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
R E S E A R C H Open Access
Herd dynamics, production and marketing
constraints in the commercialization of
cattle across Nguni Cattle Project
beneficiaries in Eastern Cape, South Africa
N. Malusi
1,2
, A. B. Falowo
1,3
and E. M. Idamokoro
1,4*
Abstract
This paper examines the challenges restricting the commercialization of cattle across Nguni Cattle Project
beneficiaries in South Africa. Data were collected from one hundred and twenty (120) Nguni cattle beneficiaries
using a structured questionnaire across six district municipalities of the Eastern Cape Province. Results revealed that
majority of Nguni cattle beneficiaries were males, were above 60 years old, and have received formal training in
livestock farming. Most of the beneficiaries reared cattle with other livestock species, with 45% owned non-descript
breeds, 33% Nguni and 22% other breeds such as Bonsmara and Brahman. About 79.2% of the beneficiaries
practised continuous grazing while 52.5% give their cattle supplements, with most commonly (48%) using rivers as
the source of water. Most beneficiaries (38.4%) reported diseases as main production constraints, followed by stock
theft (27.5%) and feed shortages (22.5%). Furthermore, results showed that 80.8% of beneficiaries market one to 10
cattle per year, 64.8% adult cattle (2+ years old) and 35.2% weaners (8 months to 1 year). Most beneficiaries (78.7%)
used private marketing channels to sell their animals, while 4.3% used abattoirs. Factors identified as the main
market constraints included low cattle numbers (41.7%), inability to meet formal market standards (25%) and
inadequate government support. There was a strong association between formal livestock training and cattle
marketing attributes as well as production constraints. In conclusion, more emphasis should be given to improve
cattle production and commercialization through provision of more cattle, livestock trainings and market services to
communal farmers.
Keywords: Herd size, Production and marketing constraints, Government support, Indigenous cattle breed
Introduction
South Africa has a total of 13.9 million cattle (Statistics
South Africa (STATS SA) 2016), of which 60% are
owned by commercial farmers while emerging and com-
munal farmers own 40% (Department of Agriculture
Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) 2018). It has been re-
ported that land size is one of the determinants which
differentiate smallholder and commercial farmers.
However, Kirsten and Sihlobo (2019) argued that the
farm’s turnover (level of net income) determines the
herd size of the farm, irrespective of the land size.
Therefore, commercial farmers are those with high turn-
over as they sell a significantly higher number of
animals, therefore have more profit as compared to
smallholder farmers. The communal farmers and poor-
resourced farmers rear indigenous beef cattle on natural
pastures (Bester et al. 2001) to meet their multiple needs
such as milk, manure (Ndlovu et al. 2009; Masikati
2011), meat, hides (Mavedzenge et al. 2006),
© The Author(s). 2021 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if
changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons
licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons
licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain
permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
* Correspondence: mondayidamokoro@gmail.com;eidamokoro@ufh.ac.za
1
Department of Livestock and Pasture Science, University of Fort Hare, Alice,
Eastern Cape 5700, South Africa
4
Agricultural and Rural Development Research Institute, University of Fort
Hare, Private Bag X1314, Alice 5700, South Africa
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
Pastoralism: Research, Polic
y
and Practic
e
Malusi et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2021) 11:1
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-020-00186-x
employment opportunities (Tavirimirwa et al. 2013),
socio-cultural functions (Maburutse et al. 2012), income
and investment (Ndebele et al. 2007). In addition, the In-
tegrated Sustainable Rural Development Strategy (ISRD
S) (2004) and Coetzee et al. (2006) highlighted that
South African livestock production has a great potential
in decreasing the rate of food scarcity and poverty in
communal areas.
In most countries, indigenous cattle breeds have been
regarded to be of lower market value than imported
breeds because of their small mature weight. These as-
sumptions have resulted in reduced use of indigenous
breeds, while increasing the use of exotic breeds. In
contrast to these assumptions, exotic breeds are sus-
ceptible to harsh environmental conditions such as
tick-borne diseases, feed scarcity and poor feed qual-
ity that are prevalent in most communal areas
(Muchenje et al. 2008a). Exotic breeds require a high
level of dietary supplementation, especially during the
dry season, to maintain body condition. Therefore, in-
digenous breeds such as Nguni have been re-
introduced to most communal areas due to their
adaptive qualities, including resistance to parasites,
and production of high-quality beef comparable to
imported breeds (Muchenje et al. 2008b).
Development programmes have been initiated to re-
populate Eastern Cape with indigenous breeds in com-
munal areas. Among other development programmes,
the Nguni Cattle Project has been established where a
number of Nguni heifers and bulls are distributed to se-
lected communities so as to build the nucleus herd
(Fuller 2006). The first programme began in 1998 which
was specifically aimed at reintroducing the Nguni breed
in the Eastern Cape (Musemwa et al. 2008). The Eastern
Cape Nguni Cattle Project is the partnership of the Uni-
versity of Fort Hare (UFH), the Eastern Cape Depart-
ment of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform
(ECDRDAR) and Industrial Development Cooperation
(IDC). The project was established due to the high per-
formance of Nguni cattle with adaptive traits to harsh
environments. According to the report from University
of Fort Hare Nguni Cattle Project (Fuller 2006), farmers
in selected areas are provided with 10 in-calf heifers and
two bulls with the aim of building a nucleus herd. After
5 years, the community gives back 10 heifers and two
bulls to the project, which are then passed to another
community (Raats et al. 2004). The requirements for the
project are: the grazing area should be fenced and prac-
tising rotational grazing (Mapiye et al. 2007) and the
existing bulls in the community should be replaced by
registered Nguni bulls, either by castration or culling
(Musemwa et al. 2008).
The major role of the project is to develop a niche
market for Nguni products (beef and skins) and to
introduce communal farmers to global markets through
production and product processing (Raats et al. 2004).
The project also aims to train farmers on cattle manage-
ment. The project development committee has the re-
sponsibility of training farmers, redistribution of animals
and development of infrastructures such as holding pens
(Musemwa et al. 2008).
Irrespective of the benefits contributed by cattle,
communal farmers face a significant number of chal-
lenges that restrict them from generating income
from their livestock. These challenges include insuffi-
cient access to land and water, lack of access to mar-
ket channels, poor rangeland management, lack of
feed resources, animal diseases, smaller herd size and
stock theft (Bester et al. 2001; Musemwa et al. 2008).
The poor growth rates of cattle in communal areas
are mainly due to the lack of controlled breeding
which leads to inbreeding (Mashoko et al. 2007;
Mueller et al. 2015). Production of non-descript
genotypes has resulted in unidentified genetic
characterization. Other factors such as disease, low
fertility (because of poor nutrition and the prevalence
of tick-borne diseases), insufficient access to veterin-
ary services and changes in feed quality and quantity
due to seasonal deficiency (especially in second half
of the dry season) have been reported to lower the
performance of communal beef cattle in South Africa
(Mavedzenge et al. 2006). In addition, Lapar et al.
(2003) reported that challenges limiting those small-
holder farmers were insufficient capital resources,
which included financial and physical resources, intel-
lectual capital resources, education and extension.
Cattle marketing for smallholder farmers in South
Africa is also affected by low off-take, poor cattle
conditions and inadequate cattle numbers to offset
pre-slaughter transaction costs and fulfil the formal
market demand (Musemwa et al. 2010). Coetzee et al.
(2006) highlighted that the formal markets selling
young and well-conditioned animals disadvantage
smallholder farmers who market old and emaciated
animals. Bahta and Bauer (2007) also found that poor
access to market information, lack of market access,
poor infrastructure and tacit knowledge are marketing
constraints affecting communal farmers. The benefi-
ciaries of the Nguni Cattle Project have been experi-
encing the challenge of claims that Nguni cattle have
small body weights, thereby reducing their selling
price compared to other breeds. By implication, all
these factors directly impact on the commercialization
of cattle for smallholders. The objective of the study
was, therefore, to determine the impact of cattle herd
dynamics on the commercialization of cattle across
Nguni Cattle Project beneficiaries in Eastern Cape,
South Africa, through a structured survey.
Malusi et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2021) 11:1 Page 2 of 12
Materials and methods
Experimental site description
The study was conducted in six district municipalities of
the Eastern Cape Province in South Africa, namely
Amathole, O R Tambo, Alfred Nzo, Joe Gqabi, Chris
Hani and Sarah Baartman where the Nguni Cattle Pro-
ject has been initiated and nurtured. The geographical
coordinates and pedo-climatic conditions of the study
areas are shown in Table 1. The permission to carry out
the study was approved and issued by the University of
Fort Hare Ethical Clearance committee.
Data collection
Before commencement of data collection, piloting was
done in which 10 farm aid workers in the University of
Fort Hare Farm, who are also farmers, were randomly
selected for interviews with questionnaires to be used
for the study target group of Nguni Cattle Project bene-
ficiaries. The pilot aimed to ensure that farmers do
understand the concept and the objectives of the study.
The pre-testing was also conducted for the betterment
of questioning style and ensuring the time duration of
the interviews.
The data was collected from questionnaires of 120 sur-
veyed beneficiaries of the Nguni Cattle Project, out of a
total of about 180 beneficiaries that are still active in cat-
tle farming. The Nguni Cattle Project is divided into two
enterprises, the group-owned (small-scale farms in Land
Redistribution and Agriculture Development farms) and
the village-owned (communities). The Nguni Project is a
partnership of the government Department of Rural De-
velopment and Agrarian Reform and University of Fort
Hare, South Africa. The Nguni Cattle Project beneficiar-
ies in each municipality were identified through the as-
sistance of Eastern Cape Nguni officials in University of
Fort Hare. Data was collected from 72 beneficiaries
within the group-owned enterprise and 48 beneficiaries
within the village-owned enterprise. The data was col-
lected in face-to- face interviews, recorded on the
questionnaires which comprised questions on household
demographic information, livestock ownership, cattle
production and governmental assistance. The enumera-
tors who assisted in data collection understood IsiXhosa
and English, since most respondents were Xhosa-
speaking and few needed explanations in English. The
enumerators were trained on how to approach and rec-
ord the information obtained from respondents.
Statistical analysis
The data collected from the beneficiaries of the Eastern
Cape Nguni Cattle Project was analysed using SPSS
package (version 2016). Frequencies were analysed of
the demographic characteristics, cattle herd size owner-
ship, cattle breeds, cattle supplementation, types of water
source, types of veterinary services, cattle production
and marketing constraints and government support. The
chi-squared test was used to determine the degree of as-
sociation between categorical variables; demographic in-
formation, and cattle production and marketing among
the beneficiaries of the Nguni Cattle Project.
Results and discussion
Demographic characteristics of Nguni Cattle Project
beneficiaries
The results show that, of the 120 interviewed Nguni
farmer beneficiaries, 85.8% were males, while only 14.2%
were female (Table 2). This accords with the results of
Gwala et al. (2016) who found that in the agricultural
sector in South Africa, male farmers dominate. Among
the sample, 60.8% of the beneficiaries were above 60
years followed by 51–60, 41–50 and 31–40 with 28.3%,
8.3% and 2.5% respectively. Chris Hani district munici-
pality had the highest number of beneficiaries (84.6%)
above 60 years, while Joe Gqabi had the lowest number
of beneficiaries (40%) at the same age range. Majority
(94.2%) of the beneficiaries interviewed were married,
while 5% and 0.8% of the beneficiaries were widowed
and single, respectively. About 47.5% of the beneficiaries
Table 1 The geographical coordinates and pedo-climatic conditions of the study areas
District Geographical coordinates
*
Rangeland type Annual rainfall (mm) Mean annual temperature (°C) Altitude (m)
Alfred Nzo 30.54° S, 28.85° E Sour 600–950 14–15 600–1400
Amathole 32.58° S, 27.36° E Sweet 400–700 15–20 400–700
Joe Gqabi 30.98° S, 26.98° E Sweet-sour 400–700 12–16 1100–1600
O R Tambo 31.46° S, 29.23° E Sweet-sour 450–750 17–18 600–850
Chris Hani 31.87° S, 26.79° E Sweet-sour 400–700 12–16 400–1450
Sarah Baartman 33.57° S, 25.36° E Sour 600–945 12–14 800–1350
Source: Mucina and Rutherford (2006). Sweet rangeland occurs in areas with low water supply and where parent material gives rise to soils with a high base
status. This veld type is characterized by production of palatable grazing of predominantly annual grasses (Ellery et al. 1995). Sour rangeland occurs in areas with
high water supply and where parent material gives rise to soils with a low base status. This veld type is largely covered with coarse seasonal perennial grasses
and affords inferior grazing (Ellery et al. 1995)
*
Geographical coordinates: GPS coordinates of the main Town (seat) in each district
Malusi et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2021) 11:1 Page 3 of 12
had primary education (Grades 1–7) followed by those
with secondary education (Grades 8–12) with 37.5%.
These results agree with the findings of Gwala et al.
(2016) that about 59% of Nguni beneficiaries in two vil-
lages of Eastern Cape Province had the primary educa-
tion (Grades 1–7). The results also reveal that the
majority (55%) of the beneficiaries mainly depend on so-
cial grants and old age pensions from the state. This is
in agreement with the finding of Molefi and Mbajiorgu
(2016) who found that about 45% of the respondents in
Mpumalanga mainly depended on pensions as their pri-
mary source of income.
Herd dynamics and production system of Nguni cattle
farmers
The majority of beneficiaries (73.3%) of the Nguni Cattle
Project reared cattle along with other livestock species,
while only 26.7% reared only cattle (Table 3). The other
species owned by the beneficiaries include sheep, goats
and horses. The majority (53.3%) of the beneficiaries
have cattle herd sizes within the range of 11–50 head,
followed by those who own one to 10 cattle (38.3%)
while 4.2% of beneficiaries each owned 51–100 and
100+ cattle (Table 4). These findings are in line with re-
sults by Molefi and Mbajiorgu (2016), that 50% of beef
cattle farmers in Chief Albert Luthuli Local Municipal-
ity, Mpumalanga, owned more than 10 cattle. The Chris
Hani and Sarah Baartman municipalities had the major-
ity of beneficiaries with small cattle herds of one to 10
head at 53.8% and 50% respectively (Table 4). The Joe
Gqabi municipality had the highest number of benefi-
ciaries (20%) who owned more than 100 cattle; this is
due to the fact that all of the interviewed beneficiaries in
this municipality were land owners. There is a positive
relationship between household cattle ownership and
land availability. In addition, Tada et al. (2013) found
that herd sizes were significantly higher in group-owned
enterprises (29.9%) as compared to village-owned enter-
prises (23.6%). Moreover, Pica-Ciamarra et al. (2011)
Table 2 Demographic characteristics of the Nguni Cattle
Project beneficiaries (No. = 120)
Demographic characteristics Frequency (%)
Gender
Male 103 (85.8)
Female 17 (14.2)
Age (years)
31–40 3 (2.5)
41–50 10 (8.3)
51–60 34 (28.3)
> 60 73 (60.8)
Marital status
Married 113 (94.2)
Single 1 (0.8)
Widowed 6 (5)
Level of education
None 6 (5)
Grades 1–7 57 (47.5)
Grades 8–12 45 (37.5)
Tertiary 12 (10)
Primary source of income
Salary 10 (8)
Old pension government grant 66 (55)
Crops 3 (2)
Remittance 13 (11)
Government social grant 8 (7)
Livestock 20 (17)
Table 3 Herd dynamics and production system of Nguni cattle
farmers (no. = 120)
Parameters Number of beneficiaries
No %
Livestock ownership
Cattle only 32 26.7
Cattle and other species 88 73.3
Livestock training
Formal training 60 50
Not trained 60 50
Cattle breed owned
Nguni 39 33
Non-descripts 54 45
Bonsmara 11 9
Brahman 12 10
Others 4 3
Grazing system practised
Continuous 95 79.2
Rotational 25 20.8
Feed supplementation type
Supplement 63 52.5
Non Supplement 57 47.5
Source of drinking water
Dam 50 42
Borehole 12 10
River 58 48
Source of veterinary services
Veterinary drug supplier 96 80.2
Government veterinary supplier 24 19.8
Malusi et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2021) 11:1 Page 4 of 12
reported that farmers who mostly participate in the cat-
tle business are those who own large amounts of land.
The Nguni beneficiaries who received formal live-
stock training such as animal handling, health and
nutrition were tied at 50% with those who never re-
ceived formal training (Table 3). About 45% of the
beneficiaries owned non-descript cattle, followed by
those who owned Nguni with 33%. Only 3% of the
beneficiaries owned other breeds such as Jersey,
Boran and Pinzgauer (Table 3). Tada et al. (2013)re-
ported that communal farmers prefer non-descripts
over exotic and local breeds in Eastern Cape Province
of South Africa. However, the Nguni Cattle Project
beneficiaries are only allowed to cross their Nguni
after they have given back the loaned animals after
the period of five years, and thereafter they have full
control of their remaining herd. The reason for cross-
breeding could be due to owners’preference for milk
and meat, as Nguni cattle are low milk producers.
Furthermore, it was observed from this study that ma-
jority (79.2%) of the respondents practised continuous
grazing system, while only 20.8% practised rotational
grazing. These results depict that of the 120 interviewed
beneficiaries, since 20.8% owned land for cattle farming
(having fenced paddocks), while 79.2% depend on the
community’s land. More so, only 52.5% of beneficiaries
were regularly supplementing their cattle, while 47.5%
were not supplementing because of availability of pas-
ture on grazing lands. According to Bester et al. (2001),
one of the common features of communal farming in
developing countries is rearing indigenous beef breeds
on natural pasture without dietary supplementation. The
main types of supplements that were regularly used by
the interviewed beneficiaries include lucerne, mineral
licks and maize. This is similar to the findings of Eugene
(2017) who reported that in Nyagatare District of East-
ern Province in Rwanda, the majority of cattle farmers
used salt lick and vitamins as supplementary sources for
their animals.
It was also observed that 48% of the beneficiaries
used flowing rivers as the major source of water for
cattle, while others used dams (42%) and boreholes
(10%) (Table 3). This general trend of water sourcing
is similar to reports by Tonamo et al. (2015)thatin
Dawuro Zone of southern Ethiopia, the majority of
cattle farmers used rivers as sources of water for their
animals. The quality of water and the distance trav-
elled to reach water are major concerns. It is known
that poor quality of water may lead to pathogens and
helminth infestation among the animals, thereby
resulting in disease outbreaks and lower productivity
(Tonamo et al. 2015). About 80.2% beneficiaries were
using veterinary drug suppliers to access medication
for the cattle, while 19.8% mainly used government
veterinary services. The use of government veterinary
services means that medication support (both services
and products) were from the government and veteri-
narians from the government assist farmers.
Cattle production constraints faced by the Nguni Cattle
Project beneficiaries
The most common (38.4%) major constraint listed by
the beneficiaries were diseases such as tick-borne dis-
eases (anaplasmosis and heartwater) which commonly
cause death of infected animals, followed by stock
theft and feed shortage at 27.5% and 22.5%, respect-
ively (Fig. 1). The results of the current study agrees
with Mapiye et al. (2009), Hangara et al. (2011)and
Nkonki-Mandleni et al. (2019), who found that dis-
eases and feed shortage (drought) are the highest
constraints affecting cattle production of smallholder
farmers in South Africa and Namibia. The water
shortage was not regarded as a major constraints in
all six municipalities.
Cattle marketing by the beneficiaries of the Nguni Cattle
Project
Out of the 120 interviewed Nguni cattle beneficiaries,
78% claimed to sell cattle as shown in Table 5.
Among the remaining beneficiaries (22%) who were
not selling their cattle, they indicated that having few
numbers of cattle was one of their main constraints.
Some of the beneficiaries reported that they sell crops
and other livestock species such as sheep and goats,
while using cattle for other household needs such as
traditional ceremonies and weddings. This is in line
with the findings by Enkono et al. (2013), who re-
ported that mixed farming in Namibia is one of the
Table 4 Cattle herd size owned by the Nguni Cattle Project beneficiaries across six districts
No. of cattle owned Amathole OR Tambo Joe Gqabi Alfred Nzo Chris Hani Sarah Baartman Total (No. = 120)
No. (%)
1–10 23 (38.3) 5 (31.3) 0 (0) 5 (35.8) 7 (53.8) 6 (50) 46 (38.3)
11–50 34 (56.7) 10 (62.4) 2 (40) 8 (57.1) 5 (38.5) 5 (41.7) 64 (53.3)
51–100 2 (3.3) 0 (0) 2 (40) 1 (7.1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (4.2)
100+ 1 (1.7) 1 (6.3) 1 (20) 0 (0) 1 (7.7) 1 (8.3) 5 (4.2)
Malusi et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2021) 11:1 Page 5 of 12
important reducing factors for the participation of
smallholder farmers in cattle marketing. Of the 78
beneficiaries who were selling cattle, the majority
(80.8%) were selling one to 10 cattle head (s) per
year, followed by those selling 11–20 (13%) and least
with those selling 20+ (5%) cattle heads per year
(Table 5). The Sarah Baartman municipality had the
highest number (25%) of beneficiaries who were sell-
ing large numbers of cattle (20+) per year, followed
by Chris Hani and Amathole with 9.1% and 4.5%,
respectively (Table 6). According to Enkono et al.
(2013), bigger herds had more marketing of cattle. In
contrast, the current study show that the Chris Hani
and Sarah Baartman municipalities have the highest
number of beneficiaries (53.8% and 50%) respectively
owning only one to 10 cattle, indicating few benefi-
ciaries owning large herds (Table 3). However, the
two municipalities have the highest number of benefi-
ciaries who sell large numbers from their herds. The
possible reason for this is that farmers in these muni-
cipalities make use of all the available market
channels.
It was also noted that majority (64.8%) of the
Nguni Cattle Project beneficiaries were selling adult
cattle (2+ years old), while 35.2% were selling
weaners (8 months to 1 year). The findings agree
with the findings of Coetzee et al. (2006)whore-
ported that the smallholder farmers in Eastern Cape
Province of South Africa market old and emaciated
animals, which makes it difficult to cope with the re-
quirements of formal markets to sell young cattle.
AccordingtoEnkonoetal.(2013), the majority of
communal farmers in Ndiyona constituency of
Kavango region in Namibia sell old animals because
they use young (especially female) cattle for breeding
purposes.
Of all the beneficiaries who were selling cattle, 78.7%
were using private sales (i.e. sales to other farmers) as
their market channel, while 8.5% used auctions and and
8.5% used feedlots. The abattoir was found to be the
least used market channel by the beneficiaries of the
Nguni Cattle Project, with 4.3%. These findings are in
38.4
27.5
22.5
56.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Diseases Stock theft Feed shortage Water
shortage
Small land
size
Farmers ( )
Cattle production constraints
Fig. 1 Cattle production constraints faced by Nguni Cattle Project beneficiaries
Table 5 Cattle selling by the beneficiaries of the Nguni Cattle
Project in Eastern Cape (No. = 120)
Parameters Number of beneficiaries
No. %
Number of farmer selling cattle
Yes 94 78
No 26 22
Type of cattle sold (n= 94)
Weaners 33 35.2
Adult 61 64.8
Type of market channels (n= 94)
Abattoir 4 4.3
Auction 8 8.5
Feedlot 8 8.5
Sales from other farmers 74 78.7
Market support from government
Supported 5 4
Not supported 115 96
Malusi et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2021) 11:1 Page 6 of 12
line with Molefi and Mbajiorgu (2016) and Marandure
et al. (2016) who found sales to other farmers to be the
most used market channel by poor-resourced farmers.
The possible reason for most of the beneficiaries to use
sales to other farmers could be due to their inability to
sell cattle at their own determined price. According to
Coetzee et al. (2006), formal marketing systems which
require young and well-conditioned animals work to the
disadvantage of poor-resourced farmers, as they market
older and emaciated animals. The reason for this may be
due to misinformation by poor-resourced farmers as
they believed that cattle must be old and big to yield
more profits.
Marketing constraints experienced by the beneficiaries of
the Nguni Cattle Project and the support received from
the government
Of the 120 interviewed beneficiaries of the Nguni
Cattle Project, the most common (41.7%) reported
low cattle numbers as their main marketing con-
straint, followed by inability to meet formal market
standards (25%) and least with undesirable breed by
the market (14.7%) (Table 7). One of the objectives of
the Nguni Cattle Project is to increase the production
of communal farmers; however, low cattle numbers
being reported as the main challenge means that
there is a lot to be done in order to increase
commercialization. There are on-going initiations by
the policy-makers that the number of cattle loaned to
the farmers must be topped up to 30 heifers and two
bulls instead of 10 heifers and two bulls. This will
speed up the commercialization initiative by dealing
with the low cattle numbers’constraint. Due to the
inability to meet market standards (such as required
weight and age at selling and the detailed records of
their cattle), the beneficiaries reported that they are
willing to sell their cattle to informal markets. Ac-
cording to Stegmann (2012), the average weight of
thematureNgunicattleis300–450 kg.
About 14.7% of beneficiaries reported undesirable
breed by the market as their challenge. The Nguni
cattle breed is reported to have small body weight
(Mapiye et al. 2010). This can be one of the reasons
that Nguni cattle are not in demand by most market
channels. Other constraints noted by beneficiaries
were lack of transportation and lack of market infor-
mation (each 8.3% of beneficiaries), while the fewest
beneficiaries (2.5%) reported market distance as their
main constraint. Furthermore, the results also show
that out of 120 interviewed beneficiaries, only five in-
dividuals received market assistance from the govern-
ment (included transportation to the market, market
information and organizing the market) while the rest
(115) did not receive any market support. These re-
sults revealed a threat to the commercialization
process in communal areas since the farmers are
Table 6 Cattle sold by beneficiaries (farmers) per year across six districts (No. = 94)
Number of beneficiaries (%)
Cattle sold per
year
Amathole
(No. = 44)
OR Tambo
(No. = 13)
Joe Gqabi
(No. = 5)
Alfred Nzo
(No. = 13)
Chris Hani
(No. = 11)
Sarah Baartman
(No. = 8)
Total
(No. = 94)
1–10 40 (90.9) 12 (92.3) 1 (20) 10 (76.9) 9 (81.8) 4 (50) 76 (80.8)
11–20 2 (4.6) 1 (7.7) 4 (80) 3 (23.1) 1 (9.1) 2 (25) 13 (13.8)
20+ 2 (4.5) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (9.1) 2 (25) 5 (5.3)
Table 7 Perceived market challenges faced by the beneficiaries of the Nguni Cattle Project in Eastern Cape
Market challenges Number of beneficiaries (%)
Amathole
(No. = 60)
OR Tambo
(No. = 16)
Joe Gqabi
(No. = 5)
Alfred Nzo
(No. = 14)
Chris Hani
(No. = 13)
Sarah Baartman
(No. = 12)
Total
(No. = 120)
Lack of transportation 3 (4.7) 1 (6.3) 0 (0) 1 (7.2) 2 (12.5) 3 (25) 10 (8.3)
Inability to meet market
standards
20 (33.3) 1 (6.3) 1 (10) 4 (28.6) 4 (33.3) 0 (0) 30 (25)
Undesirable breed by
the market
11 (18.6) 0 (0) 4 (90) 0 (0) 2 (16.7) 0 (0) 17 (14.2)
Few cattle numbers 23 (38.3) 9 (56) 0 (0) 6 (42.8) 4 (33.3) 8 (70) 50 (41.7)
Market distance 1 (1.8) 1 (3.2) 0 (0) 1 (3.6) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3 (2.5)
Lack of market
information
2 (3.3) 4 (28.2) 0 (0) 2 (17.8) 1 (4.2) 1 (5) 10 (8.3)
Malusi et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2021) 11:1 Page 7 of 12
Table 8 The association between demographic information, livestock training, livestock ownership and cattle dynamics for the beneficiaries of the Nguni Cattle Project
Cattle
No. owned
Types of
cattle breeds
Types of
grazing
system
Cattle
supplement
Types of
water source
Type of
vet services
Types of
cattle farming
challenges
Type of
government
support
Age 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.680 0.004 0.004 0.002 0.000
Education level 0.215 0.031 0.154 0.000 0.515 0.000 0.083 0.208
Source of income 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.132 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Livestock training 0.260 0.364 0.000 0.000 0.029 0.010 0.042 0.033
Significant at P< 0.05 = bold font; not significant (P> 0.05) = not bold font
Malusi et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2021) 11:1 Page 8 of 12
Table 9 Association between demographic information, livestock training and cattle marketing
No of cattle sold per year Types of cattle class sold Types of market channel Distance to the market Market transportation Market constraints
Age 0.002 0.148 0.003 0.010 0.008 0.130
Education level 0.019 0.164 0.105 0.327 0.803 0.160
Livestock training 0.001 0.028 0.002 0.042 0.029 0.069
Significant at P< 0.05 = bold font; not significant (P> 0.05) = not bold font
Malusi et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2021) 11:1 Page 9 of 12
generally poor. This is due to the fact that cattle
farming is one of the most important sources of in-
come for farmers in some communal areas (Gwala
et al. 2016; Molefi and Mbajiorgu 2016;Marandure
et al. 2016).
Association between demographic information, livestock
training and cattle dynamics for the beneficiaries of the
Nguni Cattle Project
The results on the association between demographic
information, livestock training, livestock ownership
and cattle dynamics for the Nguni Cattle Project
beneficiaries are shown in Table 8. Beneficiary age in
all six municipalities had an association with the
number of cattle owned, types of cattle breed, types
of grazing systems, source of water, type of veterinary
services, challenges for cattle farming and types of
government support. These results may be due to the
fact that older people are the ones who normally have
more of an interest in farming than younger ones.
The reasons why younger ones are not interested in
cattle farming could be attributed to lack of farming
background and resources, work ethics, time, and
duration of profit turnover, among others (Fuson
2016). With time, this could hamper the continuation
of Nguni cattle production in rural areas if the gov-
ernment do not rise to make cogent policies that
would encourage youth to be involved in cattle pro-
duction. The results show that Alfred Nzo municipal-
ity had a significantly higher number of beneficiaries
(35.7%) with tertiary education (Table 2). The results
further show that the source of income had a strong
association with cattle numbers, types of cattle breeds,
types of grazing systems, types of water sources, types
of veterinary services, types of cattle farming chal-
lenges and types of government support. Table 2
shows that 17% of farmers reported livestock sales as
their primary source of income, 53.3% owned 11–50
number of cattle (Table 4) and 78% are selling cattle
(Table 5). These results explain the significant roles
played by cattle in generating income, and therefore,
many farmers own large numbers of cattle to offset
the market. Livestock training had a strong significant
relationship with the types of grazing systems, cattle
supplementation, types of water sources, types of vet-
erinary services, types of cattle farming challenges and
types of government support. These results revealed
that trained farmers had the advantage of proper cat-
tle management. This is in line with the finding of
Herring et al. (2018) who reported that education and
training of cattle farmers is important for fundamen-
tal animal and business management principles. How-
ever, the livestock training had no association with
cattle numbers and types of breed.
Association between demographic information, livestock
training and cattle marketing
The results on the association between demographic
information, livestock training and cattle marketing
are shown in Table 9. The age of the beneficiaries
had significant association with number of cattle
sold per year, types of market channel, distance to
the market and market transportation. Since the ma-
jority of beneficiaries were more than 60 years old, it
shows that old farmers sell their cattle to meet basic
needs and also to pay children’s school fees, since
most of them relied on government for pensions.
There was no association of education level with the
marketing and constraints. This is in contrast with
thestudybyGwalaetal.(2016) who found that
education had an effect on access to services and
therefore cattle production and marketing in the
Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. The livestock
training (such as animal nutrition, health and record
keeping) obtained by the beneficiaries had a strong
association with marketing and market constraints.
These results show that the livestock training played
a significant role in cattle marketing (Herring et al.
2018).
Conclusions
Findings from this study revealed that the Nguni Pro-
ject has been successfully initiated in Eastern Cape,
South Africa, to empower cattle farmers to own and
retain Nguni breed cattle in their herds. The study
has also shown that the majority of beneficiaries of
the Nguni Project preferred to sell their cattle
through private sales (i.e. to other farmers) as the
main market channel without considering the record
of the animal such as weight, carcass characteristics
and branding mark. It was found that livestock train-
ing has significant influence on cattle production and
marketing among the communal farmers. Similarly,
age in all six municipalities had an association with
cattle production, indicating that older people com-
pared to youth are more involved in farming. Finally,
the study reveals that low cattle numbers, diseases,
feed shortage, stock theft and inability to meet mar-
ket standards are the main constraints hampering the
level of cattle commercialization in this communal
area. It is therefore recommended that government
should design critical policies that would encourage
youth to participate in cattle production in order to
ensure the continuity of the Nguni Project across the
rural areas in Eastern Cape Province and train
farmers on use of agro-industrial residue as feed stuff
for cattle during drought or shortage of quality graz-
ing areas.
Malusi et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2021) 11:1 Page 10 of 12
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by National Research Foundation (NRF), the
Nguni Cattle Project (Project P329) and Govan Mbeki Research Development
Centre (GMRDC), University of Fort Hare.
Authors’contributions
NM and ABF conceptualized and designed the work; NM and ABF collected
and analysed the data; NM, ABF and EMI wrote the paper. The authors read
and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
Govan Mbeki Research Development Centre (GMRDC) for funding and
support the study.
Availability of data and materials
Kindly contact the author for data requests.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Ethical principles were taken into consideration during the study to adhere
to the national and international standards governing research of this nature
with regards to the use of research tools.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
None declared by the authors.
Author details
1
Department of Livestock and Pasture Science, University of Fort Hare, Alice,
Eastern Cape 5700, South Africa.
2
Grootfontein Agricultural Development
Institute, Middelburg, Eastern Cape 5900, South Africa.
3
Department of
Animal Science, Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko, Ondo State,
Nigeria.
4
Agricultural and Rural Development Research Institute, University of
Fort Hare, Private Bag X1314, Alice 5700, South Africa.
Received: 7 July 2020 Accepted: 4 November 2020
References
Bahta, S.T., and S. Bauer. 2007. Analysis of the determinants of market
participation within the South African small scale livestock sector. Tropentag
Paper, utilisation of diversity in land use systems: sustainable and organic
approaches to meet human needs.https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6a13/d15
aa37ca323725325c1b766d7843eb93f49.pdf. [14 August 2019].
Bester, J., L.E. Matjuda, J.M. Rust, and H.J. Fourie. 2001. The Nguni: a case study.
Private Bag X2, Irene, 0062, South Africa: Animal Improvement Institute.
Coetzee, L., B.D. Montshwe, and A. Jooste. 2006. The marketing of livestock on
communal lands in the Eastern Cape Province: Constraints, challenges and
implications for the extension services. South African Journal of Agriculture
and Extension 34: 81–103 https://www.ajol.info/index.php/sajae/article/
view/3680.
Department of Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF). 2018. A profile of the
South African Beef Market Value Chain. South Africa: Arcadia Pretoria. www.
nda.gov.za. [06 July 2019].
Ellery, W.N., R.J. Scholes, and M.C. Scholes. 1995. The distribution of sweetveld
and sourveld in South Africa’s grassland biome in relation to environmental
factors. African Journal of Range & Forage Science 12: 38–45. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10220119.1995.9647860.
Enkono, S.G., S.K. Kalundu, and B. Thomas. 2013. Analysis of factors influencing
cattle off-take rate and marketing in Ndiyona constituency of Kavango
region, Namibia. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development 5:
201–206. https://doi.org/10.5897/JAERD2013.0501.
Eugene, M. 2017. Characterization of cattle production systems in Nyagatare
District of Eastern Province, Rwanda. Rheology: Open Access. 1: 107–128.
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.
Newsletter. South Africa: Industrial Development Corporation (IDC). pp. 3-4.
Fuson, L,E. 2016. Reasons youth choose or do not chose to be involved in 4-H
livestock projects in Tennessee. Knoxville: University of Tennessee, TRACE:
Tennessee Research Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. https://
trace.tennessee.edu.uk.
Gwala, L., N. Monde, and V. Muchenje. 2016. Effect of agricultural extension
services on beneficiaries of the Nguni cattle project in the Eastern Cape
Province, South Africa: A case study of two villages. Applied Animal
Husbandry and Rural Development 9: 31–40 www.sasas.co.za/aahrd/.
Hangara, G.N., M.Y. Teweldemedhin, and I.B. Groenewald. 2011. Major constraints
for cattle productivity and managerial efficiency in communal areas of
Omaheke Region, Namibia. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability
9: 495–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2011.603516.
Herring, A.D., A.T. Kyaw, and T. Khaing. 2018. Beef cattle production system
capacity considerations for improved food security: A case study in
Myanmar. Animal Frontiers 8: 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfy010.
Everatt, D., N. Dube, and M. Ntsime. 2004. Integrated Sustainable Rural
Development Strategy (ISRDS): nodal review. Johannesburg: University of
Witwatersrand. hptts://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21250.07360. [4 June 2019].
Kirsten, J., and W. Sihlobo. 2019. Is South African agriculture really dominated by
big commercial farms? Evidence suggests not. South Africa: News 24, Breaking
News First. 2019-02-27. https://www.news24.com/Analysis/is-south-african-
agriculture-really-dominated-by-big-commercial-farms-evidencesuggests-
not-20190227. [14 July 2019].
Lapar, M.L., G. Holloway, and S. Ehui. 2003. Policy options promoting market
participation of smallholder livestock producers: A case study from the
Philippines. Food Policy 28: 187–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-
9192(03)00017-4.
Maburutse, B.E., T. Mutibvu, D.T. Mbiriri, and M.T. Kashangura. 2012. Communal
livestock production in Simbe, Gokwe South District of Zimbabwe. Online
Journal of Animal and Feed Research 2: 351–360 http://www.science-line.
com/index/; http://www.ojafr.ir.
Mapiye, C., M. Chimonyo, K. Dzama, J.G. Raats, and M. Mapekula. 2009.
Opportunities for improving Nguni cattle production in the smallholder
farming system of South Africa. Livestock Science 124: 196–204. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.livsci.2009.01.013.
Mapiye, C., M. Chimonyo, K. Dzama, P.E. Strydom, and V. Muchenje. 2010. Meat
quality of Nguni steers supplemented with Acacia karroo leaf-meal. Meat
Science 84: 621–627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.10.021.
Mapiye, C., M. Chimonyo, V. Muchenje, K. Dzama, M.C. Marufu, and J.G. Raats. 2007.
Potential for value-addition of Nguni cattle products in the communal areas of
South Africa: A review. African Journal of Agricultural Research 2: 488–495.
Marandure, T., C. Mapiye, G. Makombe, B. Nengovhela, P. Strydom, V. Muchenje,
and K. Dzama. 2016. Determinants and opportunities for commercial
marketing of beef cattle raised on communally owned natural pastures in
South Africa. African Journal of Range Forage Science 33: 199–206. https://doi.
org/10.2989/10220119.2016.1235617.
Mashoko, E., V. Muchenje, T. Ndlovu, C. Mapiye, M. Chimonyo, and L. Musemwa.
2007. Beef cattle production in a peri-urban area of Zimbabwe. Journal of
Sustainable Development 9: 121–132 http://www.jsd-africa.com/Jsda/V9n4_
Winter2007/PDF/BeefCattleP.pdf.
Masikati, P. 2011. Improving the water productivity of integrated crop-livestock
systems in the semi-arid tropics of Zimbabwe: an ex-ante analysis
usingsimulation modeling. A Ph.D. Thesis. Germany: University of Bonn.
http://hss.ulb.uni-bonn.de/2011/2463/2463.pdf. [26 October 2019].
Mavedzenge, B.Z., J. Mahenehene, F. Murimbarimba, I. Scoones, W. Wolmer, and
C. Hotel. 2006. Changes in the livestock sector in Zimbabwe following land
reform: the case of Masvingo Province. Mokoro Ltd, The Old Music Hall, 106-
108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JE, United Kingdom Website. http://mokoro.
co.uk/land-rights-article/changes-in-the-livestock-sector-in-zimbabwe-
following-land-reform-the-case-of-masvingo-province-a-report-of-adiscussion-
workshop/. [17 June 2019].
Molefi, S.H., and C.A. Mbajiorgu. 2016. Assessing the potential of beef cattle
farming as contributor to income of communal households of Chief Albert
Luthuli municipality in Mpumalanga province, South Africa. Indian Journal of
Animal Research 51. https://doi.org/10.18805/ijar.9552.
Muchenje, V., K. Dzama, M. Chimonyo, J.G. Raats, and P.E. Strydom. 2008a. Meat
quality of Nguni, Bonsmara and Angus steers raised on natural pasture in the
Eastern Cape, South Africa. Meat Science 79: 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
meatsci.2007.07.026.
Muchenje, V., K. Dzama, M. Chimonyo, J.G. Raats, and P.E. Strydom. 2008b. 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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731107001036.
Malusi et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2021) 11:1 Page 11 of 12
Mucina, L., and M.C. Rutherford. 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho
and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. Pretoria: South African Biodiversity Institute.
https://www.sanbi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Strelitzia-19.pdf. [20 July
2019].
Mueller, J.P., B. Rischkowsky, A. Haile, J. Philipsson, O. Mwai, B. Besbes, A. Valle
Zárate, M. Tibbo, T. Mirkena, G. Duguma, J. Sölkner, and M. Wurzinger. 2015.
Community-based livestock breeding programmes: Essentials and examples.
Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 132: 155–168. https://doi.org/10.
1111/jbg.12136.
Musemwa, L., A. Mushunje, M. Chimonyo, G. Fraser, C. Mapiye, and V. Muchenje.
2008. Nguni cattle marketing constraints and opportunities in the communal
areas of South Africa: Review. African Journal of Agricultural Research 3: 239–
245 http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR.
Musemwa, L., A. Mushunje, M. Chimonyo, and C. Mapiye. 2010. Low cattle market
off-take rates in communal production systems of South Africa: Causes and
mitigation strategies. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa 12: 209–
226 Low_Cattle_Market_off-take_rates_in_comm20151124-5979-zm1q7v.pdf.
Ndebele, J.J., V. Muchenje, C. Mapiye, M. Chimonyo, L. Musemwa, and T. Ndlovu.
2007. Cattle breeding management practices in the Gwayi smallholder
farming area of South-Western Zimbabwe. Livestock Research for Rural
Development 19 http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/12/ndeb19183.htm.
Ndlovu, T., M. Chimonyo, A.I. Okoh, V. Muchenje, K. Dzama, and S. Dube. 2009. A
comparison of nutritional-related blood metabolites among Nguni, Bonsmara
and Angus steers raised on sweetveld. Veterinary Journal 179: 273–281.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.09.007.
Nkonki-Mandleni, B., F.T. Ogunkoya, and A.O. Omotayo. 2019. Socioeconomic
factors influencing livestock production among smallholder farmers in the
Free State Province of South Africa. International Journal of Entrepreneurship
23: 1–17 5c65c470299bf1d14cc75995.
Pica-Ciamarra, U., L. Tasciotti, J. Otte, and A. Zezza. 2011. Livestock assets, livestock
income and rural households: Evidence from household surveys. Rome: FAO
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/101271468151472539/Livestock-
assets-livestock-income-and-rural-households-cross-country-evidence-from-
household-surveys. [14 June 2019].
Raats, J.G., A.M. Magadlela, G.C.G. Fraser, and A. Hugo. 2004. ‘Re-introducing
Nguni nucleus herds in 100 communal villages of the Eastern Cape
Province’.A proposed co-operative project between the University of Fort Hare,
Agricultural and Development Research Institute (ARDRI) and the Eastern Cape
Department of Agriculture and the Kellogg Foundation. South Africa.
Statistics South Africa (STATS SA). 2016. Community survey. Agricultural households.
Republic of South Africa: Department: Statistics South Africa. http://www.
statssa.gov.za/publications/03-01-05/Presentation CS2016 Agricultural
Households.pdf. [20 August 2019].
Stegmann, M. 2012. Production potential of Nguni crosses. South Africa: Farmer’s
weekly. http://www.ngunicattle.info/Publications/Journals/2012/
Production%20potential%20of%20Nguni%20Crosses%20v2.pdf. [06 July 2019].
Tada, O., V. Muchenje, J. Madzimure, and K. Dzama. 2013. Determination of
economic weights for breeding traits in indigenous Nguni cattle under in-
situ conservation. Livestock Science 155: 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.
2013.04.011.
Tavirimirwa, B., R. Mwembe, B. Ngulube, N.Y.D. Banana, G.B. Nyamushamba, S.
Ncube, and D. Nkomboni. 2013. Communal cattle production in Zimbabwe:
A review. Livestock Research for Rural Development 25: 12. https://doi.org/10.
13140/2.1.3412.8009.
Tonamo, A., B. Tamir, G. Goshu, and E. Belete. 2015. Characterization of cattle
husbandry practices in Essera Woreda, Dawuro Zone, Southern Ethiopia.
African Journal of Agricultural Research. 10: 3421–3435. https://doi.org/10.
5897/AJAR2015.9939.
Publisher’sNote
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Malusi et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2021) 11:1 Page 12 of 12
