Journal of Social Development in Africa (1996), 11,1,17-31 
Animal Production Level - A Measure of 
Social Development in Southern Africa 
CTKADZERE* 
ABSTRACT 
With the exception of privately owned commercial animal production enterprises 
the greater numbers of ruminant livestock in the ten Southern African states 
considered in this treatise are owned by smallholder farmers based on communal 
land use rights. Except for the tsetse fly (Glossina spp) infested areas, the climatic 
and vegetational conditions of Southern Africa appear inherently ideal for ruminant 
livestock production. However, measured against this tremendous potential 
only a relatively insignificant amount of meat and meat products, originating 
almost exclusively form the privately owned properties, trickle out of Southern 
Africa. This paper explores probable social developmental issues related to poor 
smallholder farmer livestock productivity and discusses possible remedial actions. 
Introduction 
The greater proportion (about 2/3) of ruminant livestock species (cattle, sheep and 
goats) in Southern African countries (Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, 
Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe) is kept 
under smallholder farming conditions based on communal grazing systems. 
Monogastric species (pigs, poultry and rabbits) play a commercially insignificant 
role in smallholder communal agricultural systems of Southern Africa and will 
therefore be deliberately excluded in this discourse. 
Arrival of people of European extraction at the Cape of Good in South Africa 
(1652) and subsequently in the other Southern African states has had a profound 
effect on the agricultural systems of the region. The new arrivals acquired, often 
forcefully, large tracts of fertile land and developed these into privately owned, 
large-scale commercial farming units with different levels of production specialisations 
and intensities of resource utilisation. The objective of these commercial 
farming ventures has been and still is profit maximisation. A concentration of these 
commercial farms are in South Africa, Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe. Indigenous 
people of the sub-continent found themselves in most cases 
* Professor, Department of Livestock & Pasture Science, University of Fort Hare, P Bag 
X1314, Alice 5700, South Africa.
18 CTKadzere 
concentrated in less potential agio-ecological zones. Through enactments of 
various land tenure acts and bills in their respective countries, the majority of all 
the African black fanners have been and still are farming on communal/tribal 
lands; (Lawry, Riddell & Bennet 1984; Garbett, 1963; Lewin & Neocosmos, 
1988). This group of fanners, the largest in Southern Africa and often called 
peasant or traditional farmers (Bundy, 1972; Dahl & Hjort, 1976 and Ellis, 1992), 
will be called smallholder farmers in this paper. Objective of the smallholder 
fanner in h ^ e r situation was and in some cases still is, to exist. Little more than 
natural inputs are put in such farming units. In line with the smallholders' foremost 
objective "existence or survival", this system of agriculture has been of necessity 
mixed, thus maximising the spread of risk. It is the apparently low productivity of 
ruminant livestock in smallholder farming systems in Southern Africa and the 
social developmental issues related to this, that prompted researching for this paper 
with the intent of exploring the relationship between the two. 
Social Development 
Today, it would appear that there is no satisfactory definition of 'development' that 
does not imply 'capitalism', even on the most technological definition. Phillips 
(1977) argues that the orthodox development theory took underdevelopment as an 
original state and addresses itself to the problem of how to wrest a country out of 
this state into one more closely resembling that of advanced capitalist countries. 
The orthodox development theory identifies development with capitalistic social 
relations and subscribes to the notion that 'backwardness' is a product of isolation 
from the world economy that can be eliminated through greater integration, but is 
reluctant to consider the historical relationship between 'developed' and 'developing' 
countries as relevant explanation of underdevelopment. This orthodox approach 
to development has been attacked by development analysts for its uncritical 
acceptance of the term 'development' as synonymous with the 'development of 
capitalist social relations'. 
Normal development has been defined in Phillips (1994) as to involve the 
elimination of pre-capitalist modes of production such as peasant-based agriculture. 
Whilst there appears to be a relationship between capitalism and development 
the question to be asked is: "...can capitalism promote development or does it 
necessarily produce underdevelopment?". Departing from this ideological discourse, 
my own simplistic way of defining social development is "...change that 
improves the socioeconomic circumstances and the quality of life of people". Even 
in this simplistic attempt, there are complex interrelations like nutrition, shelter, 
health, security, education, income, inter alia that have been collapsed into the 
expression "quality of life". These variables will also serve as the best indicators 
to measure the quality of life and therefore development
Animal Production & Social Development in Southern Africa 19 
Land Tenure and the Role of Domestic Animals 
Smallholder fanners in Southern Africa are communal land based Communal 
lands are under the respective communal/tribal authority who allocates the land to 
his/her subjects at no cost According to Wolpe (1972) communal tenure throughout 
the then colonial states of Southern Africa was strongly defended by the chiefs 
who had their own political interest to look after, but also by the commoners. The 
powers of the chieftancy symbolised this form of land holding, and commoners felt 
that they were able to exert some control over the land when it was under the 
jurisdiction of the chiefs and headmen. On the other hand the colonial states had 
their own political and administrative reasons for supporting the retention of the 
communal tenure system. This system was the backbone to the native reserve 
systems which also was used as a tool to prevent influx of blacks into the urban 
areas except to take up employment The user of the land could not sell it, should 
he/she relocate from the community. It is apparent that this sort of land ownership 
is respected by community members and functions well almost on a quasi private 
ownership basis in the case of arable and garden lands. However, the picture is not 
so rosy with communal grazing land where the total community is responsible 
(Abel & Blaikie, 1988). Grazing land is exclusively communal in the true sense of 
the word. The rights and claims of fanner X with 1 cow and 2 goats on the 
communal grazing area are the same as those of farmer Y with 55 herd of cattle, 
92 goats and 80 sheep. Since there is no mechanism to, at least proportionately, tax 
farmers X and Y for the utilisation of communal grazing, fanner X waits enviously 
and patiently for the good winds to blow his direction and to boost his/her herd to 
counter Y's large stock numbers. Whilst this postulation may sound trivial, such 
reasoning is well-rooted in most smallholder communal farmers, who tend to see 
their livestock in terms of their numbers and not their quality. Regardless of this 
apparent helpless state of affairs, the multiple functions and importance of 
ruminant livestock and their role in the dynamics for social stratification of the 
livelihood strategies of the rural people of the subcontinent can not be overemphasised. 
Cousins(1994) writes that the Khoi (oldest inhabitant of Southern Africa) social 
organisation reflected the significant role of domestic animals as inheritable assets, 
that could be accumulated, giving rise to "...ever-increasing social and wealth 
disparities" and a patronage system. Even in those precapitalistic societies of the 
region, Guy (1980) writes that cattle represented the only form in which surplus 
wealth could be accumulated and therefore served as a basis for social divisions. 
A wealthy man in those societies was one who owned enough cattle to make him 
independent of the demands of family and kin. Beinart (1979) sums the importance 
of cattle then in his words:
20 CTKadzere 
"...cattle were preferred since they were a major source of food, they 
were the key to marriage, the acquisition of a family and therefore to social 
reproduction, and they were increasingly important in cultivation as oxdrawn 
implements became more widespread. Cattle were also the best 
investment in rural society at the time; they reproduced themselves rapidly, 
were exchangeable for other goods and could be sold for cash". 
BehnkeA Scoones (1993) attribute this state of affairs in communal livestock 
production to the notable lack of success of livestock development projects in 
Africa as a whole and the lack of good research in this dimension of rural 
production. The lack of good livestock research and livestock development 
projects is even more critical if one views the whole from the ecological advantages 
of ruminant livestock production in the natural Southern African environment, 
which is not very well suited for arable agriculture. For instance around 85% of the 
total area of South Africa is suitable and used for grazing livestock (Cowling, 
1991). 
The simplistic attitude of the communal land peasant/subsistence farmer 
conforms with the objective of spreading the risk in order to survive. After all, the 
grazing is natural, communal, who cares? Veld and grazing land degradation is the 
last thing these farmers can think of . It is a common good and as Hardin (1968) puts 
it, it is "...the tragedy of the commons". In the hope to counter the "who cares" 
attitude and curb overgrazing and subsequent land degradation, governments have 
in some cases introduced animal head taxes, but with no measurable success. Such 
measures are often viewed by the farmers with suspicion and contempt and 
associated with repressive colonial administrations. This unpopular connotation, 
it can be presumed, forces governments to back out from the otherwise wellintended 
interventions. The land tenure issue remains 'a hot potato' to all governments 
in Southern Africa and yet its proper pragmatic review is central if future, 
environmentally sustainable utilisation of natural pastures, the basis of all ruminant 
livestock production in Southern Africa, is to be achieved. The implications 
for the present state of affairs is that for sustainable social development in Southern 
Africa to be possible, it is important that whilst the basic land requirements for all 
the communal pastoralists should be met and therefore extend to all, the opportunity 
to satisfy the rural folks' aspirations for a better life, the promotion of values, 
responsibility and accountability that encourage the sustainable utilisation/exploitation 
of the pasture natural resource within the boundaries of the region's 
ecological possibilities should remain central in that endeavour. The concept of 
sustainability in development put forward here is based on the need for carefully 
managed change to improve environmental and economic conditions as well as the 
quality of life for all people (Moffat, 1994).
Animal Production & Social Development in Southern Africa 21 
Grazing Schemes 
Donor agencies, non-governmental organisations and governments alike have 
tried with varying levels of success to introduce grazing schemes. The objective of 
introducing these schemes has been to encourage communal management of the 
natural pasture, to improve the grazing situation whilst judiciously utilising the 
veld, reduce and or curb veld deterioration, soil erosion and eventual environmental 
degradation and resultantly boost livestock productivity in smallholder 
communal set ups. (Sweet, 1987; Theisen, 1978; Cousin, 1987). From the reports 
of some three grazing schemes that were visited in Zimbabwe (Muchawaya Veld 
Management Scheme, Dombochena Veld Management Scheme and Range Grazing 
Management Scheme) it is eminent to note that all three schemes have a 
common objective, that is: 
"...to re-organise and rationalise the land-use patterns in the (respective 
communities) so that adequate land is available for various agricultural 
activities of the community. The plans have promotional packages designed 
to improve livestock production through improved veld management, 
fodder plots and veld reinforcement and improved livestock management". 
This clearly shows that the grazing scheme philosophy is and has been seen as an 
intervention aimed at improving not only the livestock production aspects of rural 
communities but their total agricultural productivity, with the aim of improving the 
land-use use forms, improve agricultural productivity and therefore the nutritional 
status, income and wealth in rural communities and so contribute to overall 
improvement of quality of life and social development This is supported by an 
analysis of the proposed land-use and management of the three schemes which all 
covered aspects of land consolidation, crop production and management, livestock 
management, veld management and conservation, fodder production, land conservation, 
agroforestry and water development. The interpretation here is that the 
grazing schemes, although they primarily are meant to improve ruminant livestock 
productivity, they were conceived to impact on all aspects of rural life and therefore 
be a vehicle for rural social development 
Details of the shortcomings of this strategy go beyond the scope of this paper, 
but suffice to say that since the inception for the Grazing Scheme strategy in 
Southern Africa a lot of noise has been made but no measurable, socially suitable 
and communally easily accepted and adoptable models of grazing schemes have 
been found. The earliest literature on grazing schemes in Southern Africa is that of 
Robinson (1951) where a grazing scheme in the then Southern Rhodesia in Zimuto
22 CTKadzere 
reserve was described. This early grazing scheme was embarked upon after a 
forced destocking in the Zimuto Reserve. Subsequent to this first scheme, was the 
enactment of the Native Land Husbandry Act of 1951 (Garbett, 1963) whose 
objective it was, through compulsory restructuring of the communal tenure, to 
increase crop and livestock production from the 'native reserves'. Good husbandry 
methods were to be observed by the rural communities. However, this approach did 
not bear fruit, and as Passmore (1972) put it: 
"...it was recognised that compulsion to adopt 'scientific farming methods' 
was not practical under those circumstances leading to the suspension of 
the allocations of land in terms of the 1951 Land Act". 
Thus the Land Husbandry Act had failed to achieve the goal of reorganising the 
rural economy in terms of what were deemed scientific principles of land-use. 
After the failure of the early schemes, according to Froude (1974) earnest efforts 
to improve veld management in communal areas began in 1968 with the introduction 
of the "Short Duration Grazing Schemes". The state's accent this time around 
was on persuasion rather than coercion and greater importance was attached to 
target community involvement in all aspects of the schemes, from planning 
through to implementation and management. Whilst this approach was beginning 
to succeed, Froude (1974) attributes the relapse of grazing schemes and veld 
management practices from 1970 onwards to the war that lasted until 1980 in 
Zimbabwe. Post-war, several Grazing Schemes have been established in Zimbabwe 
especially in the Masvingo District with assistance from the European 
Economic Community (EEC) but notably also with finance from the German 
Agency for Technical Development (GTZ). Most of the schemes are doing 
relatively well (personal communications). However now and again there are 
problems of boundaries of the schemes; opposition to grazing schemes by community 
members who are not participants; some homesteads are in areas earmarked 
for the schemes and therefore require their relocation; community members who 
own no livestock see no benefit of such scheme; where there are no donor agents 
there is lack of funding to purchase farming material and often the grazing areas 
are just too small to be viable. 
From a community building and social development point of view, a grazing 
scheme, by bringing all interested people in a community together to manage this 
common good can be a good vehicle to bring cohesiveness and rural development 
In the schemes in Zimbabwe mentioned above, every scheme has its own 
management committee either appointed by the chief but in most instances elected 
locally and such a committee typically consists of a chairperson, a secretary, a 
treasurer, a ranger and other members. Since the grazing scheme has a strong
Animal Production & Social Development in Southern Africa 23 
ural resource conservation and strategic utilisation aspect, grazing schemes if 
•perly implemented may be good vehicles for environmental management and 
ial development in rural communities. The learning process, therefore, is still 
Jig on. Probably the communal grazing scheme questions, to which the land 
ure issues are inseparably coupled, need to be addressed by some regional 
ltral pragmatic body with long-term agricultural strategic planning vision. The 
•nation of such a body is very possible and could fall under the auspices of the 
iithern Africa Development Community (SADC) agricultural unit Already the 
ectors of livestock departments from the SADC countries have met in Lesotho 
rsonal communication) in February 1995 and are working towards formulating 
vestock development policy for the Southern African Community as a whole, 
thout being judgmental, I perceive this as a timeous development indeed, 
;ause with the increasing compartmentalisation of the world's development 
;ions, for example the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA) the Euroui 
Union (EU), the Australian East Asian (ASEAN) inter alia, it is important that 
: Southern African Community gets together and work out strategies for future 
relopments. This is all the more important on issues of social development, 
iculture, livestock development only to mention a few, where development in 
; country will have ripple effects in the other countries. Whilst the dangers of 
gle country interests can be expected to slow down developments at regional 
el, it will only be to the advantage of the total SADC countries to embark on 
/elopmental pathways that will project the region as a whole. It is obvious that 
big a difference in the quality of life of people in the different SADC countries 
is and will not auger well for peace, stability and regional social, political and 
momic development, because as quoted from Phillips (1977) "dependence" and 
velopment" are antagonistic. Governments, it can be supposed, would not want 
isk kiss of votes by trying to address this 'hot potato', land issue, although such 
attitude is politically short-sighted. 
ultiplicity of Livestock Functions in Smallholder Systems 
e multiplicity of objectives (bank, insurance, lobola, prestige, meat milk, hair, 
jh, cultural, manure, draught power, etc) in keeping livestock by the smallholder 
mers of Southern Africa is well documented (Barnes, 1978; Behnke, 1986; 
iran. Low & Kemp 1979; Steyn, 1988; Ndlovu, 1990). This, however, except in 
scific specialised livestock enterprises, for example milk production from dairy 
tie, is erroneously viewed by many researchers as a negative factor in itself, 
ponsible for low livestock productivity in communal systems. The multiplicity 
purposes in keeping stock can, on the other hand, mean the farmer is getting
24 CTKadzere 
maximum utilisation/production form his stock, which is positive. This viewpoint 
is valid as long as a direct comparison in 'productivity' is not made between the 
smallholder livestock farmer and the commercial enterprise specialising in either 
beef, milk, mutton, wool, mohair, pelt production, inter alia. 
It may be worthwhile to review and qualify the word 'production' when 
conjointly addressing smallholder and commercial fanners' problems. Obvious, 
of course, is the need to encourage the communal farmer to increase offtake from 
his/her herd and let the appreciation of quality instead of animal numbers take root. 
The way not to do it in attempts to increase communal livestock offtake is what 
Agricultural Ministries in the region have been doing, that is coercing farmers 
directly or indirectly to dispose of their livestock. The rejection of such coercion 
policies become fore-programmed at the planning stage, where in most cases the 
"top down" approach of planning was the norm. The rural communities were not 
involved when ministry bureaucrats discussed what they perceived as problems of 
livestock production of the rural communities, and yet the extension personnel 
were expected to market such governmental policy interventions. It has now 
become accepted that the involvement of communities that are to be affected by a 
policy at the planning and at every subsequent stage will lead to the successful 
adoption for such policy. This 'new' approach in extension/dealing with rural 
communities is colloquially termed the "bottom up" approach meaning involvement 
of the affected people/society at grassroots level. So it appears that education 
of the fanners in various aspects included in the philosophy of grazing schemes and 
livestock production in particular will yield results. 
Education and Farming Progressiveness 
Education and its relationship to farming progressiveness has been studied by 
several researchers, most of whom support the evidence of a positive correlation 
between education and the adoption of improved practices and hence farming 
efficiency (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971) which underscores that the level of animal 
production can be a measure of social development Bern bridge & Burger (1977) 
working with Zimbabwean cattle fanners showed that education had significant 
correlation with socioeconomic status (r=0.73), knowledge (r=0.61), aspirations 
(rsO.51), managerial aptitude (r=0.36) and practically all communication variables. 
Further, Van Zyl (1965) argues that the success of a fanning community is 
measured not only in terms of efficiency and financial results but also by the living 
standards of the individuals. The finding by Bembridge (1975) that a high living 
standard of fanners was correlated with fanning efficiency (r=0.31) and understandably 
also with the various economic variables and that the standard of living
Animal Production & Social Development in Southern Africa 25 
is correlated with socioeconomic status (r=0.74) and with education (r=0.46), 
-ming knowledge (r=0.46), aspiration (r=O.Sl), conservation concern (r=0.41), 
rmal organisation participation (r=0.27) and most communication variables cant 
over-emphasise the importance of education in social differentiation and 
velopment of rural communities. 
The livestock development bureaucrats, the rural and social development 
ncies and the communities involved should put their heads together to develop 
ceptable strategies for intervention and sustainable social development Whilst 
regional level the objective will be to improve the quality of life, how this would 
implemented at community level is bound to be different from place to place, 
ice each community is faced with its own peculiar circumstances. 
ivestock Breeding, Extension, Training, Nutrition and 
lanagement 
«ple of European origin brought along with them to Southern Africa various 
'estock breeds from the temperate regions. Their noble intentions to boost 
digenous livestock productivity cannot be doubted. It is, however, apparent that 
ir concept of livestock productivity was geared towards achieving output 
onception rates, birth rates, birth weights, growth rates, weaning weights, milk 
cretion rates, etc) comparable to what was achieved in Europe. This in itself has 
ten been a source of frustration and/or failure, because cognisance of the 
vironmental factors affecting livestock productivity on the Southern African 
cation were not taken heed of. 
The importation of 'improved breeds' or high potential sires and dams of the Bos 
urus genetic base to crossbreed with the locally adapted hardy indigenous Bos 
dicus, Zebu type and Sanga cattle was aimed at improving local livestock 
oductivity. No credible stockman doubts the merits of exploiting the heterosis 
feet or 'hybrid vigour' when combining animals of varied genetic material, proded, 
of course, the crossbred product finds itself in the right nutritional, 
anagement, disease and parasite free environment necessary for the full expresm 
of the heterotic genetic advantage. Crossbred animals do well on commercial, 
tensively managed holdings. However, under smallholder, communal grazing 
•nditions of Southern Africa, where the first limiting factor in ruminant livestock 
oduction is lack of qualitative and quantitative adequate nutrition (Elliot, 1964; 
ilford & Minson, 1966; Smith, 19S9; Steyn, 1988 and Kadzere, 1992), the larger 
uned progeny of the well intended crossbreeding programmes would be more 
one to the nutritional inadequacies already prevalent
26 CTKadzere 
livestock managerial capabilities of the present generation of smallholder 
farmers in Southern Africa are low and appear to be positively correlated to their 
low literacy level (Kadzere, 1992). This finding is liable to questioning, because 
obviously great positive strides have been made in increasing crop production by 
several groups of smallholder fanners in Southern Africa, particularly in Zimbabwe, 
in normal rainfall years. The well-earned success story of smallholders in 
crop production appears to be attributed to the fact that agricultural extension 
personnel make general recommendations on important crops husbandry practices 
(eg, dales of land preparation, planting, amount and dates of basic and top dressing 
fertiliser applications, seeding rates, etc) which relieves the farmer of independent 
decision-making in the crop production cycle. On the other hand, however, 
efficient livestock production requires long-term planning, record-keeping and 
frequent, on-the-spot correct decision-making, without having to wait for the 
extension personnel who, at best appear once monthly. This leaves the smallholder 
livestock fanner to make the difficult day-to-day decisions on his enterprise, which 
often becomes increasingly difficult the less literate the farmer is. The same 
explanation may go a long way towards explaining why in most developing 
countries, as is the case in Southern Africa, the green revolution (ability and 
success in grain crop production) precedes successful livestock production. 
Socioeconomic Status, Livestock Production and Social 
Development 
The finding by Bembridge & Burger (1977) that the socioeconomic status can be 
regarded as being a very use full predictor of successful and progressive cattle 
farming is important in this analysis. Whilst Wilkening, Presser & Tully (1962) 
define social status as the ranking given to individuals based upon consensus of 
members of a community or society as to what they regard as 'high' or 'low' 
characteristics, Bembridge A Burger (1977) write that in the Zimbabwean cattle 
farming context, education, income, size of enterprise, social participation in 
district affairs, standard of living and"cosmopolitaness'> were thought to be important 
in determining the socioeconomic status. This analysis and the fact that 
successful cattle farmers had a high socioeconomic status in their communities 
underpins the relationship of a rural livestock farmer's standard of livestock 
production to his/her or level of social development 
Such an analogy is reasonable and understandable, because the production and 
subsequent lavish consumption of animal products is not in the first instance
Animal Production & Social Development in Southern Africa 27 
necessary for survival but adds quality to life. The normal sequence of events in 
developing nations from an agrarian point of view is the production of enough 
carbohydrate foodstuffs (cereals, potatoes, etc) which, if surplus of the arable crops 
are being produced, such surplus is then 'value added' by being fed to livestock for 
the production of livestock foodstuffs (milk, meat). Therefore only when a country 
and/or region produces grain (staple) in excess of its requirements, should it 
logically embark on a programme to intensify livestock production. It is not 
incidental that the developed countries of the north consume the greatest amounts 
of animal products, and that the heaviest milking cows, with a tremendous ability 
of upgrading grain into more valuable and nutritious milk nutrients, are bred in 
these countries. Bringing such cows and the intensive American feedlotting 
systems to smallholders in Southern Africa may be very well intended, but is bound 
to fail, because animals under such intensive system are formidable competitors 
with human beings for grain, excess of which is often not there. Improvements in 
animal production has often represented one of the best avenues of raising the 
smallholder producer from the level of subsistence to that of a small commercial 
entrepreneur. 
A further element to the low livestock productivity in smallholder livestock 
enterprises in Southern Africa is the traditional bias of agricultural extension 
towards crop production. To this state of affairs, the team spirit between animal 
productionists and veterinarians has historically been wanting consolidation if the 
livestock production industry is to be benefit 
Infrastructure, Disease and Parasite Control 
Basic infrastructure essential for livestock production (roads, dipping and animal 
handling facilities, marketing grounds and avenues) as well as veterinary and 
production extension advisory services are normally provided for, a gratis, by 
central governments. Because of the free nature of the services, fanners often take 
for granted the well-intended and necessary government services, and therefore 
take little heed of them. It goes without say that anything taken for granted is often 
mistakenly viewed as being of little value. On the same chain of thought, it may 
after all be worthwhile to introduce some form of nominal cost recovery methods 
for extension infrastuctural and veterinary services given to the smallholder 
fanner. If 'earning' the service will assist farmer to value and productively utilise 
these services, then why not?
28 CTKadzere 
Conclusions 
• Land tenure in communal grazing areas needs to be adjusted in such a manner 
that this common heritage is effectively, efficiently and accountably utilised. 
Because environmental damage in one country will with time have consequences 
in sister countries, the region as a whole needs to strategically plan and draw out 
long term livestock production policies. 
• The word "production" is relative, especially so when comparing two systems 
which from the onset have different objectives, as is obviously the case between 
smallholder communal and commercial livestock farmers in Southern Africa. 
• Because of low level of management and the almost non-existent livestock 
supplementary feeding in smallholder animal production systems of Southern 
Africa, utilisation of indigenous hardy genetic material appears more sustainable 
in the long run. This can from time to time be reviewed, as the learning curve of 
the farmer is bound to increase. 
• Current bias in agricultural extension and training towards crop production 
should change if smallholder livestock productivity is to be increased. Improvement 
will be achieved if the farmer can quantify what the animal is taking in. This 
goes hand-in-hand with improved managerial skills which is tied to improved 
training on the part of the farmer and therefore would mean improved social 
development 
• Improved animal production is normally preceded by self-sufficient and surplus 
production of grain crops (energy- rich), that is associated with a better social status 
of the farmer and often represents the transition from smallholder subsistence 
agriculture to a smallholder commercial entrepreneur. 
• The introduction of a nominal fee for the conventionally free extension and 
veterinary services may be worthwhile, only if this will lead to the farmer attaching 
greater value to the advice. 
• Veterinarians, animal productionists and extensionists need to complement 
each other's efforts in a cohesive team atmosphere for mutual benefit and, most 
importantly, to develop a competitive animal production industry. 
• Understanding the biology alone is no answer for providing effective advice to 
smallholder livestock producers. To be effective, animal scientists working under 
such circumstances should come out of the cocoon of natural science principles and 
address real world problems. A great deal of resilience on the part of the livestock 
specialist is required on this.
Animal Production & Social Development in Southern Africa 29 
Conclusively, the discourse in this paper centres on trying to extrapolate relationship 
between the level of social development and society's standard of 
livestock production, and therefore can be neatly summed up in Gandhi's remark, 
that". ..the greatness of nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its 
animals are treated" (Gandhi, 19S9). Today we experience the various forms of 
'animal rights groups' originating from the rich countries of the north who can 
afford the luxury of wanting to eat animal and other products only if they have been 
produced under a given set of conditions. For the starving people whose social 
status is in most instances low, their primary need is to get the basic food. Quality 
only becomes an issue after a certain level of satisfaction has been reached. 
References 
Abel, N O J & Blaikie, P M (1988) "Managing common resources in rural 
development: The case of Zimbabwe and Botswana", unpublished report, 
ODA, London. 
Barnes, D L (1978) "Problems and prospects of increased pastoral production in 
Tribal Trust Lands", in Zambezia, 6 (1), pp 49-59 
Behnke, R H (1986) The implications of spontaneous range enclosure for 
African livestock development policy, ALP AN Network Paper, 2, ILCA. 
Behnke, R H & Scoones, I (1993) "Rethinking range ecology: implications for 
range management in Africa", in R H Behnke; I Scoones & C Kervan (eds) 
Range Ecology at Disequilibrium. New Models of Nature Variability and 
Pastoral Adaptation in African Savannas, Overseas Development Institute, 
International Institute for Environment & Development, Commonwealth 
Secretariat, London. 
Beinart, W (1979) "Joyni Inkomo: Cattle Advances and the Origins of 
Migrancy from Pondoland", in Journal of Southern African Studies, 5 (2). 
Bembridge,TJ(1975) "The communication and adoption of beef cattle production 
practices in Matabeleland and Midlands Provinces of Rhodesia", D InsL Agrar 
Thesis, University of Pretoria. 
Bembridge, T J & Burger, P J (1977) 'Tersonal and Socio-Psychological 
Factors Related to Efficiency of Cattle Ranchers", Research Report, No 2, 
Rhodesia AgrtcBltnral Journal, 1-41. 
Bundy, C (1972) "The emergence and decline of a South African peasantry", in 
African Affairs, 71, pp 369-399. 
Cousins, B (1987) "A survey of current grazing schemes in communal lands 
of Zimbabwe", Centre for Applied Social Science. University of Zimbabwe.
30 CTKadzere 
Cousins, B (1944) "Livestock Production and Agrarian Reform in South Africa", 
paper for the Final Workshop of the Community Perspectives on Land and 
Agrarian Reform Project, Johannesburg, 11-13 March. 
Cowling, R (1991) "Options for rural land use in Southern Africa: an ecological 
perspective", in M de Klerk (ed) Harvest of Discontent. The Land Question 
in South Africa, IDASA, Cape Town. 
Dahl, G & Hjort, A (1976 Having Herds, Studies in Social Anthropology, 2. 
Stockholm. 
Doran, M W; Low, A R C & Kemp, R L (1979) "Cattle as a store of wealth in 
Swaziland: Implications for livestock development and overgrazing in Eastern 
and Southern Africa", in American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61, 
pp 41-47. 
Elliot, R C (1964) "Some nutritional factors influencing the productivity of beef 
cattle in Southern Rhodesia with particular reference to the effect of seasonal 
changes in the composition of veld, the provision of nutritional supplement to 
veld grazing and observations on maintenance protein requirements of two 
breeds of African cattle" PhD Thesis. 
Ellis, F (1992) Peasant Economics. Farm households and agrarian 
development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 
Froude, M (1974) "Veld Management in the Victoria Province Tribal Areas", in 
Rhodesia Agricultural Journal, 71 (2), pp 29-37. 
Gandhi, M (1959) The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism, Novajivan Publishing, 
Ahmedabad, India. 
Garbett, G K (1963) "The Land Husbandry Act of Southern Rhodesia", in D 
Biebuyk (ed) African Agrarian Systems, Oxford University Press, London. 
Gavora, J S & Lister, E E (1989) "Practical and Ethical Considerations of 
Agricultural Research Assistance in Third World", in Journal of Agricultural 
Ethics, Vol 2, pp 307-322. 
G F A (1987) "Study on the economic and social determinants of livestock 
production in the communal areas", Gesellschaft fuer Agrarprojekte Ubersee, 
Final Report to MLARR, Government of Zimbabwe. 
Guy, J (1980) "Ecological factors in the rise of Shaka and the Zulu Kingdom", in 
S Marks & A Atmore (eds) Economy and society in pre-industrial South 
Africa, Longman, London. 
Hundleby, J; Rose, C J & Mlumbi, B (1986) "Cattle Production in Ciskei: Past, 
Present and Future", in Ciskei Agricultural Journal, 1 May. 
Kadzere, C T (1992) "Constraints to Smallholder Dairy Cattle Productivity in 
Southern Africa", in Proceedings of the International Seminar on Livestock 
Services for Smallholders, 15-21 November, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Animal Production & Social Development in Southern Africa 31 
Lawry, S W & Riddell J W (1984) "Land Tenure Policy in African Livestock 
Development", in J R Simpson & PEvanglou (eds) Livestock Development in 
Subsaharan Africa, Westview, Boulder. 
Lewin, R & Neocosmos, M (1988) "The Agrarian Question and Class Contradictions 
in South Africa: Some Theoretical Considerations", in Journal of 
Milford, R & Minson, D J (1966) "Intake of tropical pasture species", in 
Peasant Studies, Vol 16, pp 230-259. 
Proceedings of the 9th International Grassland Congress, 1, pp 815-822. 
Moffat, I (1994) "On Measuring Sustainable Development indicators", in 
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology (1) 
pp 97-109. 
Ndlovu, L R (1990) "The Role of Ruminants in promoting Food Security in 
Farming Systems in The SADCC Region", in Food Security Policies in the 
SADCC Region, edited by M Rukuni; G Mudimu & T S Jayne, pp 242-249. 
Passmore, G C (1972) The National Policy of Community Development in 
Rhodesia, University of Rhodesia, Salisbury. 
Phillips, A (1977) "The Concepts of 'Development'", in Review or African 
Political Economy, 8, pp 7-20. 
Robinson, D A (1951) "Pasture Improvement in Zinneto Reserve", Bulletin No 
1578, Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, Salisbury, Rhodesia. 
Rogers, E M & Shoemaker, E F(1971) Communication of innovations: a cross 
cultural approach, Collier MacMillan Ltd, London. 
Smith, C A (1959) "Studies on the Northern Rhodesia Hyparrhenia veld. The 
grazing behaviour of indigenous cattle grazed at light and heavy stocking rates", 
in Journal of Agricultural Science, 52, pp 369-375. 
Steyn, G N (1988) "A Fanning System Study of Two Rural Areas in the Peddie 
District of Ciskei", DSc Agric Thesis, University of Fort Hare. 
Sweet, R J (1987) "The communal grazing cell experience in Botswana", ODI 
Pastoral Development Network paper, 23b. 
Theisen, R J (1959) "Motivation and extension in tribal communities", Part 1, 
Livestock extension, unpublished report 
Van Zyl, D P (1965) "Certain characteristics of successful tenants on the Vaal- 
Hartz Irrigation Scheme", D Agric Thesis, University of Pretoria. 
Wilkering, E A; Tulley, J. & Presser, H (1962) "Communication and acceptance 
of recommended farm practices among dairy farmers of Northern Victoria", in 
Rural Sociology, 27, ppl66-197. 
Wolpe, H (1972) "Capitalism and Cheap Labour power: from segregation to 
apartheid", in Economy & Society, 1 (4).