Livestock Husbandry and Smallholder Response to Shocks in Southern Zambia

This study aims to provide information on smallholder farmer access to livestock inputs and services and their husbandry practices in normal and shock years. A combination of qualitative techniques (community mapping with cards; scoring; etc) and a set of carefully designed semi-structured questionnaires were used to elicit information about the underlying livelihoods. The survey areas were purposively selected bearing in mind the geographical variations in levels of vulnerability and the intra-district variations in production potential and market access. Inter-household variations within each sampled community were taken care of by categorizing the households into three poverty groups (non-poor, poor and extremely poor) and implementing a sampling strategy that ensured adequate representation of each. The results suggest a strong need to improve not only public service delivery to the livestock sector but also to devise a multi-faceted system for enhancing productivity and market participation. This is especially critical during shock times.


INTRODUCTION
In many low-income countries, chronic vulnerability and poverty are entrenched and exacerbated by the risk of extreme climatic, economic and policy shocks.Often the resultant food insecurity has been perceived mainly in terms of food crop availability and accessibility.The role of livestock, which affects the livelihoods of approximately 60% of the people in southern Africa, is much less appreciated (see, for example, Zambia National Assembly, 2012;MAL 2003 for Zambia).This narrow view of food security grossly undermines the mitigatory role that these other strategies do or could potentially play.The inadequate appreciation of the role of livestock in rural livelihoods is partly due to a dearth of evidence-based knowledge about the sub-sector.In a more-recent study, the Government of Zambia also through the Committee on Agriculture of the National Assembly has also noted the prominence that is given to crops instead of livestock.As a result, very low productivity has characterized the livestock sector in Zambia.In Zambia, Livestock husbandry is characterized by four main sectors which include: the state, the commercial, small scale sector and the mixed crop-livestock production systems (Aregheore, 2006).Currently, the mixed crop-livestock production system has been identified as a system with diversified risk options and allows for the efficient use of inputs and provides sufficient cash for those who engage in it.However, small-scale livestock systems are the most prevalent in Zambaia.These tend to be characterized by poor access to livestock inputs and services coupled with high risk to weather shocks (MAL 2003).
A key feature of the smallholder livestock subsector is that not only does it help to smoothen consumption during times of shock but it also can get adversely affected by the same risk factors.The extent to which this can be mitigated depends, to a large extent, on the farmer's wealth levels and access to the requisite inputs and services.This identifies the need to understand not only the sub-sector's contribution to livelihoods but also its ability to cope with shocks such as drought and floods.Understanding the response to these shocks by different categories of smallholder farmers, as they strive to sustain their livestock enterprises, is key in efforts to devise interventions that could potentially sustain and improve the sector's role as an insurance against shocks.To the best of our knowledge, no study has comprehensively looked at these issues in Zambia.While other studies are centered at "systems thinking" (Lai, 2007) and "critical triangle1" of development and land management (Kitalyi et al., 2006), we narrow our focus on livestock husbandry practices with regard to livestock inputs/services and their importance to help mitigat shocks in rural households of southern Zambia.
The research reported in this study aims to provide information on smallholder farmers' access to livestock inputs and services and their husbandry practices in normal and shock years.The idea is to understand how husbandry practices respond to shocks among different classes of smallholder livestock farmers.This information is important for devising and implementing livestock interventions in emergency situations.Data and information obtained from this study should help to implement relevant and effective livelihood interventions that aim to strengthen livestock-based livelihood systems.Livestock interventions have been identified within the broader context of livelihood interventions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data: This study uses data from a mixed-methods survey of livestock-rearing communities in three districts of the Southern Province of Zambia, conducted during 2006through 2007. 2Southern Province has been experiencing a number of shocks like floods and droughts during much of the last two decades, often prompting food assistance to vulnerable populations.Of the country's nine provinces, Southern Province also stands out as one with the largest and most diversified smallholder livestock sector.The province is comprised of 11 districts, half of which are located in the lowrainfall (less than 800 mm annual rainfall) region, Agro-Ecological Region (AER) I.This group can be further sub-divided into valley districts and those that are located in the sandy plateau in the south-western region of the province.We call both these subcategories of districts 'hot-spot' districts, owing to their high poverty and vulnerability levels.The other six districts belong to medium-rainfall (800-1, 200 mm) region, AER II, here referred to as non-hotspot districts.
One district was randomly selected from each of these strata-one from each of the hot-spot subcategories (Sinazongwe from the valley stratum; and Kazungula from the Kalahari-sand-covered stratum) and one from the non-hot-spot stratum (Namwala) (Table 1).Within each selected district and prior to primary data collection, all the agricultural camps or communities were stratified into four distinct groups based on relative productive potential (high or low) and market access (high or low).This was accomplished in close consultation with knowledgeable key informants such as government agricultural and veterinary staff.One community was randomly selected from each of the four camp/community strata (Table 1).
In each selected community, a number of complementary quantitative and qualitative research techniques were used to collect the required data and information.The community participatory assessment process begun with a social mapping exercise to characterize the community's institutional, resource and asset context as well as to categorize the individual households based on their degree of vulnerability to food insecurity.Then within each food security stratum, focus groups were convened, each comprising a random selection of 8-10 individuals.In addition to being a powerful tool for collecting data that is enriched by purposeful use of interaction (Kitzinger 1994;McLafferty, 2004;Merton et al., 1990 andMorgan 1996), FGDs also offer considerable advantages in terms of cost per informant, because in a two hour FGD, the researcher is in direct contact with between six and eight informants.The number of participants per FGD was determined in conformity with recommendations of some sections of the literature.3Krueger (1994), for example, suggests an optimal number of FGDs of 4-12 while Millward (1995) contends that data generated after about 10 FGDs are likely to be largely redundant.
The information gathered through these focus group discussions (FGDs) was complemented by community censuses, during which a very short questionnaire/listing form was administered to all the households represented at the community meeting and a few in-depth household interviews using a semistructured questionnaire.The in-depth household interviews were based on a sample drawn from a household sampling frame generated through the listing that took place during participatory community discussions and mapping.At that stage, data on basic characteristics of each household in the community Analytical framework: Data collected through the wide spectrum of methods and instruments discussed above were analyzed using a wide range of techniques.These included post-interview brainstorming and collation of notes (for qualitative information) and quantitative analysis of rank/score data collected through the PRA exercises and factual information collected using pre-designed tables and semi-structured questionnaires.The quantitative analyses were accomplished using Microsoft Excel and the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test for the statistical significance of the differences in household characteristics across the various types of households.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Socio-economic characteristics of sample households: Table 1 presents and compares some basic demographic and access characteristics and asset ownership across the food security and district strata.As expected, households in hotspot districts had much less desirable attributes and indicators of wealth than their counterparts in the non-hotspot district.For example, households in the non-hotspot district, on average, were 19% more likely to be male-headed and had at least six times as many cattle, twice as many oxen, six times as many pigs, three times as many poultry and more than twice as many ox-drawn implements as their counterparts in the two hotspot districts (Table 2).
Within each district stratum (hotspot or nonhotspot), household characteristics and asset ownership were significantly better the more non-poor the household was.One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) shows that these differences were statistically significant for most of the variables, regardless of the district stratum.However, a few differences are worth noting.In the hotspot districts, for example, poor households were significantly more likely to be female headed than their relatively less poor counterparts whereas in non-hotspot districts all households were generally more likely to be maleheaded regardless of their relative poverty status.On the other hand, the disparity in households' membership to social groups among food security groups was significant only in the non-hotspot district.
Table 2 also shows that the magnitudes of the group differences were much more pronounced in the non-hotspot district than in the hotspot districts.This is not because the poor in the non-hotspot district were poorer but because the non-poor were significantly richer than their counterparts in the hot spot districts.In some cases, the extremely poor in the non-hotspot district exhibited better attributes and higher asset ownership than did the extremely poor households in the hotspot districts (Table 2).This calls for caution in interpreting the food security classes and clearly identifies the need to appreciate the relative nature of the rankings.

Access to livestock inputs and services:
All communities indicated having access to road networks and transport facilities in one form or another.However, communities in hotspot districts (Kazungula and Sinazongwe) were more likely to miss on some of the key infrastructure (Fig. 1).For example, 45-60% of the communities in hotspot districts did not have dip tanks, compared to 25% in the non-hotspot district.More than 30% of the communities in Kazungula, a hotspot district, did not have a veterinary office, compared to less than 10% in the other districts.
In Sinazongwe district all the communities visited did not have dip tanks in their locality.However, in both the hotspot districts (Kazungula and Sinazongwe) and the nonhotspot district (Namwala), more than 70% of the communities felt that their dip tanks were in very poor state (Table 3, column 4).In Namwala the publicowned dip tanks were in poor state while the privately owned were better maintained by the owners.Most farmers who had small herds of cattle and did not own their own dip tanks depended more on the privately owned dip tanks where they would pay a nominal fee or pay in form of labour to use those dip tanks.This is because most of the public owned dip tanks would be non-operation due to dilapidation and/or lack of acaricides.The poor state of veterinary infrastructure affect these communities negatively as preventive measures of disease control like dipping can not be effectively carried out leading to sporadic outbreaks of tick borne diseasess.
There does not seem to be any convincing evidence, contrary to what is expected, that non-poor households are any better in this regard.With livestock markets located 68 km away, on average, just about half (51%) of the interviewed households sold at least some of their livestock in those markets.
During the dry seasons of both normal and shock years, some farmers (less than 5.0%) take their livestock to the plains (Kafue flats).The proportion of households taking their animals to the Kafue flats also increases though the increase is negligible.Usage of the flats is constrained largely by long distances and statutory stock movement restrictions.While at the plains, farmers are advised to dip/vaccinate their animals frequently against tick-borne diseases, a need that is obviously enhanced by the fact that animals from various origins meet and interact in the plains.
Figure 3 presents constraints related to dip tanks and livestock production and marketing based on data from the in-depth household interviews.The results are perfectly consistent with those obtained from FGDs.The most important reason for farmers' limited access to dip tanks, for example, was identified to be limited availability (Fig. 3a).Half (50%) of the interviewed households cited non-availability of dip tanks as the main reason for their not dipping their animals.The problem was more acute in Sinazongwe, one of the hot-spot districts.However, Sinazongwe is also one of the most diversified districts in terms of livestock species in which small livestock (goats, poultry) form a significant proportion of the livestock population.Unlike cattle, such small livestock have virtually no use for dip tanks.Therefore, dip tanks are irrelevant in some of the communities, which do not have large enough cattle populations.Even where dip tanks exist, usage is not as high as it should be.Other reasons cited by the communities for low dip tank usage include the poor state of available dip tanks due to poor maintenance (35%), water shortages and private ownership of the tanks although the former is not so important in Kazungula and among the food insecure in general.
Compared to other districts, farmers in the nonhotspot district are more commercial and rear more livestock (cattle mainly).As cattle are prone to tickborne and other diseases, these farmers have greater incentives to acquire and maintain functional dip tanks.However, it appears such individual efforts have not been adequate and many point to the need for government or NGO-supported communal dip tank rehabilitation projects.
Reduction in livestock numbers due to deaths resulting from disease outbreak in the recent past has been a big blow to the farmers.Therefore, most farmers have hoped to join the restocking exercise in order to rebuild their stocks.However, a number of constraints have been identified following this exercise, including disease, lack of liquidity and the slow nature of the restocking process (Fig. 3b).Lack of liquidity and the slow nature of the restocking process are considered the Fig. 3: Dip tank, livestock restocking, and marketing constraints most important restraint to stock rebuilding, cited by 57 and 23% of the respondents, respectively.The commercial route is preferred because the closest (government-supported, NGO implemented) alternative in which one animal is given to the village headman who in turn is expected to pass on its off springs to the other households, is slow and grossly unrealistic.
Due to the desire to maintain the prestigious status of being proud owners of large herds of cattle, most smallholder livestock farmers do not rear livestock for commercial purposes.The reduction in livestock numbers that have taken place in recent years have not helped matters.More than 44% of the households that do not sell their livestock at the market cited the small numbers of livestock as the main reason for their non participation in the market (Fig. 3c).Other reasons cited for not taking advantage of livestock market establishment included the fact that livestock buyers do from time to time follow the animals in the villages and homes (36%) and the long distances to the markets (20%).Distances, though considered the least important reason, discourage some farmers especially the poorer ones.
Farmers also encounter a number of livestock marketing constraints, including low prices, lack of transport, delayed payments, buyer uncertainty and disease outbreak (Fig. 3d).'Low prices' is the most important constraint, indicated by 45.0% of the farmers and most prevalent among the poor households in Namwala.Because the non-poor lack the means to transport their livestock to the market, they tend to wait for buyers from their homesteads.Such long distance buyers tend to offer low prices, considering their transaction costs and apparent desperation among the sellers.Lack of transport was the second most important constraint, mentioned by one-third of the interviewed farmers (Fig. 3d).The extremely poor were the most constrained in terms of transport (scarcity and high hire rates) due to limited income sources.Furthermore, when livestock are sold at the market (e.g., to the Zambia Beef Company-ZAMBEEF) and payments are made through banks, the period it takes for the money to be released is rather long.Small-scale farmers sell livestock mostly desperate situations where waiting for a long time does not help them take care of immediate needs.'Delayed payments' were, therefore, sighted as the third most important constraint.Farmers also complained of inadequate buyers at the market.

CONCLUSION
This study sought to provide information on smallholder farmers' access to livestock inputs and services and their husbandry practices in normal and shock years.A combination of PRA techniques (community mapping with cards; scoring; etc) and a set of carefully designed semi-structured questionnaires were used to elicit information about the underlying livelihoods and the significance of livestock to these livelihood systems.To ensure representativeness and capturing of as diverse the target population's conditions and circumstances as possible, the survey areas were purposively selected bearing in mind the geographical variations in levels of vulnerability and the intra-district variations in production potential and market access.4Inter-household variations within each sampled community were taken care of by categorizing the households into three poverty groups (non-poor, poor and extremely poor) and conducting focus household interviews and group discussions with each.
The study makes four significant and unique findings being; the most important source of risks/shocks in the three districts were; drought, diseases and floods; lack of feed and poor quality of feed in lean period; lack of the necessary and adequate facilities, materials and infrastructure which had crippled farmer's response to shocks and low prices were exhibited by farmers thereby posing a challenge to livestock marketing and response to shocks.
The results indicate that the major sources of risk to the livelihood systems include drought, livestock disease outbreak, floods, pollution, crop pests, HIV/AIDS and wild fires.Drought, livestock diseases and floods are the most important sources of risk.While drought and livestock diseases were prevalent in all the study districts especially Namwala and Sinazongwe, floods were more frequent in Sinazongwe district.Shifting animals to the plains during times of drought is more common in Namwala especially by the non-poor households that are believed to own larger herds of cattle.
In the meantime, it is a well-known fact that, with a more productive livestock enterprise, it is very easy for the households to improve their food security standing.By the same tokenHowever, poor management and failure to anticipate and prepare for livestock-related shocks could be very devastating as has been demonstrated in the last decade by the multiple disease outbreaksto livelihoods.A number of households dropped down the ladder from very comfortable positions to extremely poor.All these point to the need for enhanced knowledge about animal husbandry in the communities.Farmers need to be made to appreciate the fact that they and not the government, are responsible for maintaining a health herd.Although a movement in this direction is becoming progressively apparent, there is still need for more awareness creation and retooling with recommended husbandry practices.
Feed is one of the challenges faced by livestock farmers, especially during the lean periods of the year.Livestock farmers should be taught on the indigenous trees and shrubs which can be used as feed for ruminants in the dry season.Zambia has a great diversity of such trees and shrubs with high content of proteins, minerals and vitamins and also available in the dry season.According to Aregheore (2006), wood fodders have the capacity to complement crop residues and natural pastures.
The veterinary offices need to be equipped with all the necessary facilities and materials for them to be effective.Top on the list are drugs, syringes and other equipment and transport facilities.The latter are especially important given the expanse of the veterinary camps, which are on average more than double the size of the extension camp.The inability to move limits the veterinary assistants' ability to reach and comprehensively enhance the farmers' technical abilities (Tembo, 2006).Livestock infrastructure also need to be rehabilitated.Infrastructure include dip tanks and crush pens.As much as 60, 40 and 20% of the sample communities do not have access to functional dip tanks in Sinazongwe, Namwala and Kazungula, respectively.
The government needs to pay more attention to the challenges associated with livestock marketing.It can be argued that the low prices that the farmers are complaining about are due to monopsonistic behaviour exhibited by a few large buyers of meat.However, given that most of the infrastructure (roads, etc) are rated as poor to very poor, the low prices offered to smallholder farmers by the meat firms could as well be a reflection of the high marketing costs.Moreover, since most livestock are sold during lean periods, the high supply that is not matched with demand drives the prices down.It is important that all the underlying issues are fully understood.Therefore, there is both the need to understand the structure, conduct and performance of the meat industry as well as the need to develop the dilapidated and, in most instances, virtually non-existent infrastructure.
Interventions that could help the farmers to delay their crop sales might benefit crop and livestock marketing.By so doing, the lean periods are likely not to be as severe as they are when almost all the crop is sold at or immediately after harvest.Selling most of the crops at harvest drives crop prices down in addition to deepening the food shortfalls during the lean months of September through March.The more severe food shortages in turn force the affected households to sell more of their livestock during the lean periods, which drives livestock prices down.Thus, the poorer segments of the community get lower prices for both their crops and livestock.The net effect is an ever widening gap between the rich and the poor.
In as much as it is not the mandate of the veterinary department to provide clinical services to the public, livestock farmers still go there for technical services.The veterinary department is only mandated to pay attention to monitoring and regulation and also attend to Diseases of National Economic Importance (DNEI) for rural districts.Farmers don't seem to understand this policy because most of them depend on the department for vaccinations, diagnosis, treatment of diseases, etc. Meanwhile most of them are well informed that the policy implemented by the Government of the Republic of Zambia does not allow this office to provide clinical services.The policy should therefore be reconsidered and/or widely disseminated, because, clearly, the responses from the farmers and their communities reflect incomplete appreciation.
3: Krueger (1994) argues that, on average, 4-12 FGDs are optimal while Millward (1995) contends that data generated after about 10 FGDs are likely to be largely redundant.4: The study was conducted in two districts that were considered to be highly vulnerable, or hotspot districts (Sinazongwe and Kazungula) and one not so vulnerable district, or non-hotspot district (Namwala).The latter was regarded as a comparison district.

Fig. 1 :
Fig. 1: Proportion of the sample communities not having access to electricity, banks, dip tanks, and vetrinary offices Basic household demographic characteristics and asset base across household food security and district strata, August 2006 Hot spot districts - ranks (1 = Most important) - ranks (1 = Most important) -

Table 3 :
Community perception about the state of the infrastructure in Sinazongwe, Namwala, and Kazungula Districts, September 2006 Sinazongwe

Table 4 :
Availability of water, markets, and dip tanks before and during major shocks

Table 5 :
Access to and utilization of livestock markets, veterinary services and extension services by food security status Food security category

Table 6 :
Households' perceptions about current status and trends in access to and quality of livestock inputs and services

Table 8 :
Constraints to livestock production asnd their relative importance as perceived by focus groups in the various food security categories in Sinazongwe, Namwala, and Kazungula