26 AGRICOLA 2011 AGRICOLA 2011 27

BREED PREFERENCES, PRODuCTION PERFORMANCE AND

MANAGEMENT OF DAIRY CATTLE AMONG SELECTED

SMALLhOLDER DAIRY FARMERS OF ZIMBABWE

luCIA N. MARIuS1, E.V. IMBAYARWo-CHIKoSI2, B.T. HANYANI-MlAMBo2 and C. MuTISI2

1Directorate of Research and Training, Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry, Private Bag 13184, Windhoek, Namibia2Department of Animal Science, University of Zimbabwe, P.O. Box 167, Mt. Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe

ABSTRACT

Smallholder dairy farming plays a pivotal role in improving

local diets, income and in sustaining rural livelihoods. The

objective of the study was to identify breed preferences,

production performance and management of dairy breeds.

A structured questionnaire was administered to 109

smallholder dairy farmers in the Guruve, Marirangwe and

Nharira-Lancashire schemes. Purposive sampling was

used to select the farmers. Data were analysed using SAS

version 9.1.3. There was a significant difference (P < 0,05)

in the breed distribution among the three study areas. In

total, there were 53,6 %, 29,7 % and 16,8 % of farmers who

kept crossbreds, beef and dairy breeds, respectively. There

was significant difference in the proportion of farmers who

selected breeds on the basis of milk yield and growth rate

between at least two of the three schemes. Average milk

production per cow per day was 3,08 1,52 litres in Guruve,

2,76 1,90 litres in Marirangwe and 2,64 2,13 litres in

Nharira-Lancashire schemes. The low milk production

could be attributed to low-input feed resources, the use

of inappropriate breeds and breed combinations. Farmers

did not change their management approach on the basis

of the breeds (indigenous, crossbred or exotic breeds),

all breeds were treated the same. There is potential for

increasing milk production from the smallholder dairy

schemes, if fodder production and dairy breed constraints

are improved.

INTRODuCTION

Dairying has been envisaged as a means to improve on the

nutritional status and income generation for poor African

families. This has led to the implementation of many

developmental projects in favour of dairying (Ndambi et

al., 2007). In Zimbabwe, dairying is mainly undertaken

along the main watershed covering Natural Regions I, II,

III and IV, where annual average rainfall ranges between

500 mm to over 1000 mm (Mupeta, 2000; Mapiye et al.,

2007). The dairy industry consists of two sectors: the large-

scale commercial and the smallholder dairy sectors that

vary with scale of production. The large-scale commercial

dairy sector originated in 1912 and has large farms with

high producing exotic breeds and their crosses. In the

past, this sector produced 60 % to 70 % of marketed milk

for the country (Hanyani-Mlambo, 1998). The predominant

dairy cattle breeds are the Holstein-Friesian, followed by

Jersey and Red Dane breeds. In smallholder dairy farming,

each farmer on average has 2 to 10 indigenous, exotic or

cross-bred dairy animals (Mandibaya et al., 1999). Milk

yields are usually low, ranging from 2 to 5 litres per cow

a day. This sector used to contribute 1 % to 2 % of national

milk production (Ngongoni et al., 2006). The production

problems in this sector are mainly a lack of finances to meet

overhead costs, the use of inappropriate breeds, a poor

feed resource base and inadequate managerial skills. The

development of the smallholder dairy sector was initiated

in 1983 under the Dairy Development Programme (DDP)

by the Agricultural and Rural Development Authority

(ARDA), a parastatal mandated to spearhead commercial

agricultural and rural development projects. On initiation,

the programme was funded by the Norwegian Agency for

Development (NORAD). Support was also granted from

Africa Now (UK), the Danish International Development

Agency (DANIDA), Heifer Project International (HP)

and the Government of Zimbabwe through the Public

Sector Investment Programme (PSIP) (ARDA, 1997). The

development of market-oriented smallholder dairy was

meant to complement the large scale commercial dairying

by extending the milk production base to the rural areas

where the then Dairy Marketing Board (now the Dairy-

board Zimbabwe Limited) found distribution of milk and

milk by-products difficult (Mupeta, 1996; Mandibaya

et al., 1999). The DDP initiated and implemented 20 to

30 smallholder dairy projects throughout the country,

operating in various stages of development in five provinces

(Mupunga and Dube, 1992; Mutukumira et al., 1996). Each

scheme has a milk collection centre equipped with storage

facilities. Milk was delivered to processors located in major

towns. Milk was also produced for home consumption with

surplus sold locally through milk collection centres. In

addition, DDP provided services which included assisting

the smallholder dairy farmers with acquisition of cattle,

access to agricultural inputs for dairy and advice on

animal management. However, despite these various

efforts, established smallholder dairy enterprises were

still characterised by low productivity (Hanyani-Mlambo,

1998; Munangi, 2007). This research intended to identify

preferred cattle breeds and milk production performance

in the smallholder dairy sector in three schemes and the

criteria used by farmers in selecting dairy breeds.

Milk production of smallholder dairying has remained

relatively low (Hanyani-Mlambo, 1998; Munangi, 2007).

Current literature indicates that the causes are: use of

inappropriate cattle breeds; shortage of fodder; limited

fodder production and poor disease control measures

(Ngongoni et al., 2006; Munangi, 2007; Chinogaramombe

et al., 2008). There was lack of information as to which

breeds are most ideal for a smallholder dairy farming setup.

Insufficient knowledge on the farming objectives, and poor

extension advice had led farmers to shift from one breed to

another. Breeding is not well defined and herds of individual

households mix freely with other herds, particularly in the

communal areas where there are no fences. Inferior bulls

are rarely castrated; sometimes leading to production of

progeny of inferior quality. Currently, the breeds used for

milk production in smallholder dairy farms in Zimbabwe

include the indigenous Mashona, Tuli, Nkone, and exotic

breeds of predominantly the Red Dane, Holstein-Friesian,

Jersey and crossbreds of indigenous cows and exotic bulls

(Mutukumira et al., 1996; Smith et al., 2002; Munangi,

2007). However, farmers breed preferences and criteria

used for selection and specific management of different

breeds under low-input systems are yet to be explored

more extensively in smallholder dairying communities

of Zimbabwe. It is therefore important to investigate,

and understand smallholder farmers views towards the

performance of the various breeds they own in terms of

milk production. The information generated by this study

will be useful in exploring the possibilities for improvement

and developing guidelines for recommendations and

future research. This research was intended to identify

preferred cattle breeds and milk production performance

in the smallholder dairy sector in three schemes and the

criteria used by farmers in selecting cattle breeds for dairy

production.

MATERIALS AND METhODS

Study area

The study was conducted in Guruve, Marirangwe and

Nharira-Lancashire smallholder dairy schemes. The

centres were selected based on smallholder dairy schemes

still operational when the study commenced, and on agro-

ecological regions. Marirangwe smallholder scheme is in

the Seke district, Mashonaland East Province, in agro-

ecological region IIa and IIb. The average rainfall ranges

from 600 mm to 1 000 mm per annum, with an average

temperature of 29 C. The major agricultural enterprise is

maize and livestock production. The average land holding

per farmer is about 100 hectares. The dairy herds were

composed mainly of Red Dane, Holstein-Friesian, Jerseys

and indigenous Mashona cattle (Mupeta, 1996; Smith et

al., 2002). The Nharira-Lancashire smallholders scheme

is located 170 km south east of Harare. These farms are

located in agro-ecological Region III which is characterised

by infrequent rainfall, ranging from 650 mm to 800 mm per

annum. The temperature ranges between 10 C to 30 C

(Mandibaya et al., 1999). The soil in this area is of granite

origin with a weak to strong acidity. The vegetation mainly

comprises bare ground with some scattered trees and tufts

of grass (Mutukumira et al., 1996; Hanyani-Mlambo et al.,

1998). Guruve is located about 151 km northeast of Harare

in the Mashonaland Central Province, ecological Region II.

It has three main sub-centres: Karoe farm, Guruve and

Gota. All three the dairy schemes had a milk collection

centre where farmers delivered their milk. The centres

were responsible for buying, processing and marketing the

milk. The milk and its products were sold in areas around

the centres (Mupeta, 2000).

Data collection

Structured questionnaires (pre-tested through interviews),

were used for data collection. The data were collected

between October 2009 and December 2009. After design

of the questionnaire, 30 questionnaires were pre-tested at

Dowa and Wedza schemes. The pre-tested questionnaires

were reviewed and amended accordingly for the actual data

collection. Those questions which were not clear to the

farmers were restructured and rephrased. This process

took approximately two months as from August to October

2009. The target population for the study was defined as

consisting primarily of all smallholder dairy farmers in

Guruve, Marirangwe and Nharira-Lancashire. A purposive

sampling survey of 52 households in Guruve, 32 households

in Marirangwe and 25 in Nharira-Lancashire smallholder

dairy schemes was carried out. A total of 109 households

which were willing to participate and owned cattle in all

three sites, were interviewed. The number of respondents

obtained in each dairy scheme was based on those farmers

who were still active at the time when the study was carried-

out. Personal interviews with the farmers were conducted

in which responses from the farmers were entered onto

the questionnaire by the investigator. Farmers were not

given the questionnaires to fill-in. An assistant was hired

in each study area to assist with the administration of the

questionnaires.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistical analyses were carried out using

SAS software version 9.13 (SAS, 2004). A Chi-square test

was carried out to test for association between the breed

preference and district. The Kruskal-Wallis test of the

non-parametric one way analysis of variance was used to

compare probability distribution of the criteria used by

farmers to choose the breeds across the three districts

within the schemes. This test uses the chi-square values

to compare the probability distributions among the three

districts, but these values approximate the Kruskal-Wallis

statistic (H-statistic) when sample size is greater than five

(McClave et al., 1997).

RESuLTS AND DISCuSSION

Breed preference

There was a significant difference (P < 0,05) in the breed

distribution among the three study areas, as set out in

Table 1. About 8,61 % and 6,70 % of farmers kept dairy

breeds in Marirangwe and Guruve respectively. There

were only 1,44 % of farmers who kept dairy breeds in

Nharira-Lancashire. About 20,1 % of farmers in Guruve

kept beef breeds, as compared to 6,71 % and 2,88 % in

Marirangwe and Nharira-Lancashire, respectively. There

were 22,49 % of farmers who kept crossbreds in Guruve,

16,75 % in Marirangwe and 14,36 % in Nharira-Lancashire.

28 AGRICOLA 2011 AGRICOLA 2011 29

the three dairy schemes had a higher proportion of farmers

who selected their breeds on the basis of milk yield and

growth rate of the breeds (Table 2). Farmers in Guruve

tended to choose breeds on the basis of milk yield as is

reflected by the relatively higher proportion of farmers with

the Holstein-Friesian breed among their stock (Table 1),

whilst a relatively higher proportion of farmers in Nharira-

Lancashire chose breeds on the basis of their growth rate.

This could probably explain the high proportion of farmers

with exotic beef breed crosses in Nharira-Lancashire

(Table 1). The use of milk yield as selection criterion and

widespread use of the Holstein-Friesian breed among

smallholder dairy farmers in Guruve, support earlier

reports by Bebe et al. (2003). They stated that the Holstein-

Friesian was the most preferred breed by smallholder

farmers for their high milk yield. According to Ndebele

et al. (2007), most smallholder dairy farmers were of the

perception that the high producing, but disease prone and

feed demanding exotic animals were the best. Besides milk

yield and growth rate, there were no significant (P > 0,05)

differences in the proportion of farmers who chose their

breeds on the basis of other selection criteria between

at least two of the three schemes. Table 3 below shows

the mean milk (litres) yield per cow per day in the three

smallholder dairy schemes.

Descriptive statistics of milk production

Table 3. Mean milk (litres) yield per cow per day in the three smallholder dairy schemes

Dairy scheme

NMean

milk yield (litres)

Std. dev.

Min. Max.

Guruve 53 3,08 1,52 0,67 8,00

Marirangwe 28 2,76 1,90 0,40 9,00

Nharira-Lancashire 23 2,64 2,13 0,63 10,00

The average daily milk production for Guruve, Marirangwe

and Nharira-Lancashire schemes were 8,98 6,11, 9,54

5,12 and 9,54 5,12 litres per herd respectively. The

respective average numbers of milking cows in these

areas were 3,3 4,1 and 3,8. Based on the numbers of

milking cows per herd, daily milk production per cow per

day was 3,08 1,52, 2,76 1,90 and 2,64 2,13 litres in

Guruve, Marirangwe and Nharira-Lancashire respectively

(Table 3). Milk productions per herd and per cow in all

three the schemes were somewhat similar. This was

probably because during the wet season, animals gained

weight and milk production was high, and in the dry season

the yield and body condition of the cows declined. These

results were consistent with literature which concluded

that on average, milk production for crossbreds and

indigenous cows in smallholder dairy was between 8 and 4

litres per cow per day, respectively, whilst, it was more than

10 litres per cow per day (300-day lactation) for purebred

exotic cows (Hanyani-Mlambo et al., 1998). Ongadi et al.

(2007) reported 5,40 0,78 litres of milk per cow per day

in smallholder dairy in free-grazing conditions in Kenya

(Vihinga district). This low milk production in smallholder

dairy farming has been attributed to poor quality and

inadequate quantities of feed (Bebe et al., 2008). Table 4

below shows mean milk yield per cow by sex of household

head (HH) per scheme.

Gender roles in smallholder dairying

Table 4. Mean milk yield per cow by sex of household head (HH) per scheme

Dairy scheme

Sex HH

N

Mean milk yield

(litres)

Std. dev.

Min. Max.

Guruve Male 40 3,08 1,51 0,67 8,00

Female 13 3,10 1,62 1,00 6,00

Marirangwe Male 26 2,53 1,51 0,40 6,00

Female 2 5,75 4,60 2,50 9,00

Nharira-Lancashire

Male 19 2,38 1,99 0,63 10,00

Female 4 3,85 2,62 1,40 7,00

Most of the households (83,5 %) in the three smallholder

dairy projects were male-headed while 16,5 % were

women-headed. Milk production obtained from women-

headed households tended to be higher than that obtained

from male-headed households in all three the schemes

(Table 4). The results indicate that women were probably

more patient and their involvement in dairying had an

impact on milk production. This was consistent with results

from studies by Felleke (1995) who found that in Ethiopia,

most duties related to small-scale dairying, were carried

out by women. Similarly, Turkish women and Indian women

of the middle income high caste families in the Ahmedabad

and Udaipur districts of India were responsible for milking,

feeding cows as well as selling the milk (Tangka et al.,

2000). Table 5 below shows breed combination obtained

in Guruve, Marirangwe and Nharira-Lancashire dairy

schemes.

Breed combination

Table 5. Breed combination among farmers in Guruve, Marirangwe and Nharira-Lancashire

Breed combinations and their crosses

LS Mean milk yield

(litres)

Standard error

Mashona, Holstein-Friesian and Brahman

6,00 1,79

Mashona, Holstein-Friesian and Red Dane

5,50 2,53

Mashona, Holstein-Friesian, Red Dane and Brahman

4,50 2,53

Mashona and Hereford -6,00 2,53

Holstein-Friesian, Afrikaner and Hereford

-8,00 2,53

Mashona and Sussex -9,13 2,53

In total, 53,6 % of farmers kept crossbreds, 29,7 % kept

beef breeds and 16,8% kept exotic dairy breeds (Table 1).

The abundance of crossbreds amongst the three districts

proves that they are preferred by farmers, probably

because they were tolerant to heat and disease in arid

agro-ecological regions. At least, Marirangwe had a higher

proportion of farmers with dairy breeds; Red Dane crosses

being one of the dominant breeds found in the area. This

could be because the breed was easily accessed from the

neighbouring commercial Red Dane farm. The results

are in agreement with those reported in an earlier study

by Chinogaramombe et al. (2008) which indicated that the

dominance of a breed in an area could be attributed to the

fact that it was available within the vicinity of smallholder

dairy farmers. The finding that there were more dairy

breeds in Guruve and Marirangwe as compared to Nharira-

Lancashire, could be attributed to agro-ecological regions

and preference of high genotypes with high milk production

potential. Nharira-Lancashire had a higher proportion of

farmers who kept beef breeds and their crosses. Table 1

below shows the percentage of farmers using the different

breeds and crossbreds

Table 1. Proportion of farmers keeping the different breeds and crossbreds

Guruve Marirangwe Nharira

Dairy breeds

Red Dane 1,44 3,35 0,48

Jersey 1,91 1,91 0

Holstein-Friesian 3,35 2,87 0,96

Ayrshire 0 0,48 0

Total 6,70 8,61 1,44

Beef breeds

Mashona 13,88 3,83 0,48

Brahman 3,35 0,96 0,48

Afrikaner 1,91 0 0

Hereford 0,48 0 0,48

Sussex 0 0,48 0,48

Tuli 0 0,48 0,48

Simmental 0 0 0

Nguni 0,48 0,48 0,48

Nkone 0 0,48 0

Total 20,1 6,71 2,88

Crosses

Mashona x Beef breeds 6,70 6,22 1,44

Mashona x Dairy breeds 10,53 3,35 0

Exotic dairy breeds x Exotic dairy breeds

1,91 2,87 0,48

Exotic dairy breeds x Exotic beef breeds

2,87 3,83 1,91

Exotic beef breeds x Exotic beef breeds

0,48 0,48 10,53

Total 22,49 16,75 14,36

X2 = 138,36 P < 0,05 (P = 0,001)

These results contrast earlier findings by Mutukumira et

al. (1996), which indicated a predominance of dairy breeds,

particularly the Holstein-Friesian, Jerseys and the Red Dane

in Nharira-Lancashire. Exotic dairy breeds were initially

given to smallholders in Nharira-Lancashire by the Heifer

International Project as support to develop smallholder

dairying in the project area (Chinogaramombe et al.,

2008). The disappearance of the exotic dairy breeds could

be attributed to the specific type of area, namely an agro-

ecological region III, which is characterised by infrequent

rainfall and poor vegetation available for grazing. Farming

World (1998); Imbayarwo-Chikosi (2009); Masunda (2009)

outlined that regardless of high milk yield of the exotic

dairy breeds; they require high feeding maintenance and

do not thrive well in poor pastures. Breed adaptation led

smallholder farmers to a variety of farming objectives such

as beef production, and they lost focus on dairying (Tabbaa

and Al-Atiyat, 2009). The results are consistent with those

reported in the literature by Millogo et al. (2008) in Burkina

Faso; in which case there was an interest in increasing milk

yield through crossbreeding with imported breeds but

problems with feeding, watering and climate adaptation

are more common with imported breeds than with local

cow breeds. Table 2 below shows the proportion of farmers

per district who selected their breeds based on a specific

criterion.

Table 2. Proportion of farmers selecting breeds on speciic criterion by district

Criteria

Proportion of farmers (%) X2

(or H) valueGuruve Marirangwe

Nharira-Lancashire

Milk yields 58,97 27,10 23,36 12,92*

Fat yields 50,00 50,00 0,00 0,96

Body weight 47,37 10,53 42,11 2,11

Growth rate 35,71 14,29 50,00 9,01*

Fertility 0,00 100,00 0,00 9,10

Disease tolerant

39,02 36,59 24,39 1,83

Feeding behaviour

11,11 55,56 33,33 0,48

Draft power 64,67 12,50 20,83 5,82

Breeding 33,33 66,67 0,00 0,00

Beef production

70,00 0,00 30,00 0,00

Drought resistant

25,00 45,00 30,00 5,35

* Signiicantly different at P < 0,05 NB: the chi-square value approximates the Kruskal-Wallis statistic (H-statistic) when N > 5

Selection criteria

There were significant differences (P < 0,05) in the

proportion of farmers who selected breeds on the basis

of milk yield and growth rate between at least two of the

three districts (Table 2). This implies that at least one of

30 AGRICOLA 2011 AGRICOLA 2011 31

whilst 4 % of farmers in Nharira-Lancashire did not control

parasites, since they did not consider them to be a big

threat to productivity. However, all the farmers had access

to dipping and spraying facilities, although the frequency

of dipping varied across the three schemes (Figure 1). The

majority of farmers in Marirangwe (87,10 %) dipped cattle

only when they had high tick loads, whilst the majority

of farmers in Guruve and Nharira-Lancashire dipped

their cattle once a week and twice a week, respectively.

Medicines were available to the households through local

veterinary extension assistants, but most of the households

did not vaccinate cattle, due to a lack of money (Ngongoni

et al., 2006). Of the farmers who vaccinated, vaccinations

were carried out as shown in Figure 1 and the diseases that

were vaccinated against, are presented in Table 9.

Table 8. Frequency of occurrence of disease and parasite events experienced among the farmers in the three schemes

Disease

Proportion of farmers (%)

Guruve MarirangweNharira-

Lancashire

Tuberculosis and Contagious abortion

7,50 9,70 16,00*

Blackquarter (Black-leg, Quarter evil)

11,30 6,50 36,00*

Lumpy skin disease 47,20 32,30 30,00*

Tick-borne disease 73,60 61,30 88,00*

Mastitis 26,40 19,40 28,00

Eye infections 5,70 3,20 8,00

Abscess 3,80 0,00 8,00*

Foot and Mouth Disease

1,90 3,20 0,00

Anthrax 1,90 0,00 4,00

Rabies 0,00 0,00 0,00

Scours (diarrhoea) 1,90 0,00 0,00

Pneumonia 0,00 3,30 0,00

*Signiicant at P < 0,05

Vaccination

Vaccinations for specific diseases were not carried out

(X2: P > 0,05) on the basis of breed combinations of the farmer; this implies that the farmers did not vaccinate

according to whether they had certain breeds or not. All

breeds, exotic, indigenous and their crosses, received

the same vaccinations. A higher proportion of farmers

in Guruve (35,8 %) and Marirangwe (32,3 %) vaccinated

their cattle only when there was an outbreak of disease of

any kind in the area, whilst in Marirangwe and Nharira-

Lancashire dairy schemes 35.5 % and 36,0 % of farmers

respectively, vaccinated annually (Figure 1). The majority

of famers vaccinated against Lumpy skin disease in Guruve

(47,2 %) and Marirangwe (74,2 %). About 72 % of farmers

vaccinated against Quarter evil in Nharira-Lancashire

(Table 9). The frequency of vaccination varied depending

on the type of disease and whether it is a notifiable disease

such as Anthrax, Foot and Mouth Disease and Brucellosis;

diseases which are normally vaccinated by law or the

government through veterinary services. The sector has

faced many disease challenges, including Brucellosis,

due to reduced veterinary services delivery following the

economic depression that has affected the country since

the year 2000 (Matope et al., 2010).

Table 9. Diseases that were vaccinated against in the three

schemes

Disease

Proportion of farmers vaccinating (%)

Guruve MarirangweNharira-

Lancashire

Tuberculosis and Contagious abortion

3,80 12,90 16,00

Blackquarter (Black-leg, Quarter evil)

28,30 29,00 72,00

Lumpy skin disease 47,20 74,20 12,00

Foot and Mouth Disease

5,70 9,70 16,00

Anthrax 7,50 12,90 20,00

NB: Multiple responses

Figure 1. Cattle vaccination in Guruve, Marirangwe and Nharira-Lancashire.

Mating

Most farmers in Marirangwe (67,7 %) and Nharira-

Lancashire (80 %) monitored the mating of the cattle whilst

the majority of farmers in Guruve (50,9 %) did not. However,

most of the farmers in the three schemes had their own

bulls (Guruve 39,6 %; Marirangwe 58,1 %; Nharira-

Lancashire 84 %). Of the farmers monitored and who could

identify the bulls mated to their cows, 22,6 %, 19,4 % and

60 % of the farmers in Guruve, Marirangwe and Nharira-

Lancashire respectively, were mating bulls to their related

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Pro

port

ion o

f fa

rmers

(%

)

When there is an outbreak

Twice per year

Annually Three times a

year

No vaccination

GuruveMarirangweNharira-Lancashire

35,8

32,3

28

13,2

29

20

35,536

16,9

3,2

8

11,3

8

0

Frequency of vaccination

A combination of Mashona, Holstein-Friesian and Brahman

breeds and their crosses produced a higher average milk

yield per cow. The Mashona and Sussex breeds and their

crosses had the lowest average milk yield (Table 5). In

herds where indigenous Mashona cattle were crossed with

beef breeds, milk yields were observed to be much lower

as compared to when they were crossed with exotic dairy

breeds (Table 5). This was probably because exotic dairy

breeds have a greater genetic potential for milk production

whilst beef breeds have a dominant heritable trait for

growth which favours beef production. Holstein-Friesians

have a unique genetic ability to adapt to a diversity of agro-

ecological regions, although when compared to indigenous

breeds, they are not as tolerant to heat and disease in

arid agro-ecological regions (Imbayarwo-Chikosi, 2009).

Although crossbred cattle were well adapted to marginal

production conditions, indications are that they have poor

dairy characteristics (Smith et al., 1994). In Bangladesh,

average daily milk yield of Holstein x indigenous breeds and Jersey x indigenous crossbreds were 5,5 0,1 and 3,8 0,1 kg, respectively (Nahar et al., 1992). Table 6 below

shows the quantity of supplementary feed given to lactating

cows during milking time in the three schemes.

Effect of supplementation on milk yield

Table 6. Supplementation of lactating cows during milking

Quantity of supplementary feed

LS Mean (kg) Standard error

1 kg to 5 kg 3,75 2,53

Ad libitum 3,25 1,79

Do not feed 2,25 2,53

Households that supplemented feeding during milking,

produced more milk that those that did not supplement as

shown in Table 6. This was probably because some of the

feeds available to the animals were mainly of poor quality

forage such as maize stover and grass hay. Secondly, some

farmers were not supplementing, probably because towards

the end of the dry season (October to December) which co-

incided with data collection of the study, their crop reserves

were already depleted. Concentrates such as dairy meal

are expensive and they are probably not readily available

in the area. In smallholder dairying, during the wet season,

animals gained weight and milk production was high, and

in the dry season the yield and body condition of the cows

declined (Ranjhan, 1999). In Addis Ababa, Khalili et al.

(1992) demonstrated significant increases in milk yield of

crossbred cows fed hay or oatvetch hay and supplemented

with increasing levels of concentrate. Milk production

in the three dairy schemes was significantly (P < 0,05)

influenced by breed combination and the interaction of feed

quantities and breed combination. District and quantities

fed had no effect (P > 0,05) on the milk production. Breed

combination contributed 46,72 % of the observed variation

in milk production per cow in the three districts, whilst the

interaction of breed combination and feed quantities fed

to cows was low at 4 %. In Ethiopia, Abraha et al. (2009)

reported higher milk yields in crossbreds than indigenous

cows; however crossbred cows under environmental stress

and challenge of high risk of diseases coupled with poor

feeding strategy, produce milk yields below their genetic

potential. Table 7 below shows the utilisation of the different

conserved feeds by farmers in the three schemes.

Feeding management

Table 7. Proportion of farmers who conserved cattle feeds in the three schemes

Feed

Proportion of farmers feeding (%)

Guruve MarirangweNharira-

Lancashire

Natural pasture 17,30 16,10 100

Crop residues 75,00 32,30 52,00

Silage 13,50 41,90 20,00

Grass hay 36,50 35,50 56,00

Mineral blocks 7,70 6,50 16,00

NB: Multiple responses

The majority of farmers (75 %) in Guruve used crop residues

as a supplementary feed for their dairy cows as outlined

in Table 7. This was probably because maize is one of the

common crops grown in the area. In Marirangwe, 41,9 % of

farmers used silage as compared to the other two schemes

whilst 56 % of famers in Nharira-Lancashire used grass hay

for their lactating cows (Table 7). Farmers in Marirangwe

used more silage, probably because they have learnt this

from their neighbouring commercial farms. Farmers in

Nharira-Lancashire tended to use more grass, hay and

natural pasture for their dairy stock. This could be due to

the agro-ecological Region III which is characterised by

poor rainfall and high temperatures that typify the region.

The vegetation comprises mainly bare ground with some

scattered trees and tufts of grass (Mutukumira et al., 1996;

Hanyani-Mlambo et al., 1998). In Nharira-Lancashire,

more farmers tended to supplement with mineral blocks

because their pasture is low in minerals that lack in their

livestock diet. These findings are similar to those reported

in the literature by Mupeta (2000); Mapiye et al. ( 2006);

Muchenje et al. (2007) concluded that natural pasture and

crop residues are the primary feeds available to dairy cattle

in the smallholder sector of Zimbabwe (Mupeta, 2000).

Table 8 below shows the frequency of occurrence of disease

events in the three schemes.

health management

The probability distribution of farmers who had problems

with tuberculosis, contagious abortion and tick-borne

diseases in Nharira-Lancashire was significantly higher

(H: P < 0,05) than in the other districts. The proportion

of farmers who had problems with lumpy skin disease was

significantly higher (H: P < 0,05) in Guruve than in the other

districts. There were no significant differences (H: P > 0,05)

in the proportion of farmers among the three schemes with

respect to all the other diseases. All farmers in Guruve and

Marirangwe controlled parasites in one way or another

32 AGRICOLA 2011 AGRICOLA 2011 33

management practices in the Gwayi smallholder farming area of South-Western Zimbabwe. liv. Res. Rrl. Dev. 19, 12.

NGONGONI, N.T., MAPIYE, C., MWALE, M. & MUPETA, B., 2006. Factors affecting milk production in the smallholder dairy sector of Zimbabwe, liv. Res. for Rrl. Dev. 18, 5.

ONGADI, P.M., WAKHUNGU, J.W.R., WAHOME, G. & OKITOI, L.O., 2007. Characterization of grade dairy cattle owning households in mixed small scale farming systems of Vihiga, Kenya. liv. Res. Rrl. Dev. 19, 3.

RANJHAN, S.K., 1999. Dairy feeding systems, In: Smallholder dairying in the tropics by International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 117132.

SAS., 2004. SAS Institute Inc, SAS/STAT Users Guide. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA.

SMITH, T., MOYO, S., RICHARDS, J.I. & MORTON, J.F., 2002. The role of indigenous and cross-bred cattle for smallholder dairy production in Zimbabwe. Harare, Zimbabwe.

SMITH, T., MOYO, S., BEFFA, M.L. & NDLOVU, K., 1994. Crossbreeding of indigenous cattle for milk production. In: Proceedings of the workshop on Integrated Livestock/crop Production Systems in the small-scale and communal farming systems in Zimbabwe. Ed. Mutisi, C., Gomez, M., Madsen, J. and Hvelplund, T. Depart. Anim. Sci. The Danish Royal Veterinary and Agricultural university (RVAu) and Danish

National Instit. of Anim. Sci. (NIAS).TABBAA, M. & AL-ATIYAT, R., 2009. Breeding objectives, selection

criteria and factors inluencing them for goat breeds in Jordan. Small Rum. Res. 84, 815.

TANGKA, F.K., JABBAR, M.A. & SHAPIRO, B.I., 2000. Gender roles and child nutrition in livestock production systems in developing countries: A critical review. Socio-economic and Policy Research Working Paper 27. (Int. Liv. Res. Instit. ), ILRI. Nairobi, Kenya. p. 64.p

cows. Ngongoni et al. (2006) stated that exotic bulls were

not readily available and when available, the price was as

high at US$ 750 to US$ 1000 per bull. Chinogaramombe et

al. (2008) reported that about 70 % of the farmers practiced

uncontrolled breeding. Therefore, with all these breeding

challenges, farmers were forced to use breeding bulls

available within their vicinity.

CONCLuSION

The abundance of crossbreds among the three schemes

shows the preference of the farmers for them. In Guruve,

farmers favoured crossbreds between indigenous and

dairy breeds (i.e. Holstein-Friesian, Jerseys and Red Dane)

whilst Nharira-Lancashire favoured crossbreds between

indigenous and beef breeds (such as Brahman, Afrikaner,

Simmental, Sussex, etc). The Red Dane breed was favoured

in Marirangwe, which is explained by the high proportion

of farmers who kept the breed as compared to other two

schemes. Farmers in Guruve chose breeds on the basis

of milk yield, as was reflected by the relatively higher

proportion of famers with the Holstein-Friesian breed

among their stock, whilst a relatively higher proportion of

farmers in Nharira-Lancashire chose beef breeds on the

basis of their growth rate. Milk production in the three

areas was low. Farmers did not change their management

on the basis of different breeds kept; all crossbreds,

exotic and indigenous breeds were treated the same and

management has remained suboptimal. Smallholder dairy

farmers did not make use of a systematic mating system

and natural service was the most common mating method

used.

ACkNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to thank supervisors of the Department of

Animal Science, Department of Economics and Extension,

University of Zimbabwe for guidance and unweaving

support throughout the study, ICART/EU and Zimbabwe

National Association of Dairy Farmers for funding the

study; and to the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and

Forestry, Directorate of Research and Training of Namibia

for the opportunity to acquire scientific knowledge through

post graduate training.

REFERENCES

ABRAHA, S., BELIHU, K., BEKANA, M. & LOBAGO, M.F., 2009. Milk yield and reproductive performance of dairy cattle under smallholder management system in North-eastern Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Trop. Anim. Hlth. Prod. 41, 15971604.

ARDA, 1997. Agricultural and Rural Development Authority. Annual Report 1995/96.

BEBE, B.O., UDO, H.M., ROWLAND, J.G.J. & THORPE, W., 2003. Smallholder dairy systems in the Kenya highlands: Breed preferences and breeding practices. liv. Prod. Sci. 82, 117127.

BEBE, B.O., UDO, H.M. & THORPE, W., 2008. Characteristics of feeding and breeding practices for intensiication of smallholder dairy systems in the Kenya highlands. liv. Res. Rrl. Dev. 20, 2.

CHINOGARAMOMBE, G.N., MUCHENJE, C., MAPIYE, V.C., NDHOVU, T., CHIMONYO, M. & MUSEMWA, L., 2008. Challenges for improving small-holders dairy production in the semi-arid areas of Zimbabwe. liv. Res. Rrl. Dev. 20, 3.

FARMING WORLD., 1998. Stud Breeders Directory in Association with the Zimbabwe Herd Book. 24, 6. Mt Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe.

FELLEKE, G., 1995. Women and dairy development in Ethiopia: A case study of introduction of cross-bred Dairy cattle into the Mixed Farming System. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on the Regional Exchange Network for Market oriented Dairy

Development (Dec. 1995). Compiled by M. Matanda. University of Zimbabwe.

HANYANI-MLAMBO, B.T., 1998. Socio-economic Aspects of Smallholder Dairying in Zimbabwe. liv. Res. Rrl. Dev. 10, 2.

IMBAYARWO-CHIKOSI, V.E., 2009. Dairy Cattle Genetic and Breeding Module. Department of Animal Science, University of Zimbabwe, Mt Pleasant, Harare.

KHALILI, H., VARVIKKO, T. & CROSSE, S., 1992. The effects of forage type and level of concentrate supplementation on food intake, diet digestibility and milk production of crossbred cows (Bos taurus X Bos indicus). Anim. Prod. 54, 183189.

MANDIBAYA, W., MUTISI, C. & HAMUDIKUWANDA, H., 1999. Calf rearing systems in smallholder dairy farming areas of Zimbabwe: A diagnostic study of the Nharira-Lancashire area. AJAS. 12, 6876.

MAPIYE, C., FOTI, R., MWALE, M., CHIKUMBA, N., POSHIWA X., CHIVURAISE, C. & MUPANGWA, J.F., 2006. Constraints to Adoption of Forage and Browse Legumes by Smallholder Dairy Farmers in Zimbabwe. liv. Res. Rrl. Dev. 18, 12.

MASUNDA, B., 2009. Dairy Production Module. Department of Animal Science, University of Zimbabwe, Mt Pleasant, Harare.

MATOPE, G., BHEBHE, E., MUMA, J.B., LUND, A. & SKJERVE, E., 2010. Herd-level factors for Brucella seropositivity in cattle reared in smallholder dairy farms of Zimbabwe. Prev. Vet. Med. 94, 213221.

MCCLAVE, J.T., DIETRICH, F. H. & SINCICH, T., 1997. Statistics. 7th ed. Prentice Hall Inc. Publ, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

MILLOGO, V., OUDRAOGO, G.A., AGENS, S. & SVENNERSTEN-SJAUNJA, K., 2008. Survey on dairy cattle milk production and milk quality problems in per-urban areas in Burkina Faso. African J. Agric. Res. 3, 215224.

MUCHENJE, V., CHIMEDZA-GRAHAM, R., SIKHOSANA, J.L.N., ASSAN, N., DZAMA, K. & CHIMONYO, M., 2007. Milk yield of Jersey x Nguni and Tuli F1 and F2 cows reared under small holder farming conditions. South African J. Anim. Sci. 8, 710.

MUNANGI, W., 2007. Strategies for improving the contribution of Smallholder Dairy Sector to milk supply in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe National Dairy Symposium. Harare, Zimbabwe.

MUPETA, B., 1996. Development and Opportunities for market oriented smallholder dairy production in Zimbabwe: Nharira/Lancashire case study. Paper prepared for proceedings of the Workshop on the Regional Exchange Network for Market

oriented Dairy Development. MUPETA, B., 2000. Studies on the potential of ram press sunlower

cake (Helianthus anus) as a source of protein for moderate milk production in crossbred (Bos Taurus x Bos indicus) cows in the smallholder dairy sector of Zimbabwe. Ph.D. (Agric) thesis. University of Zimbabwe, Harare.

MUPUNGA, E.G. & DUBE, D.M.J., 1992. Smallholder dairy development programme in resettled and communal areas in Zimbabwe. Agricultural Development Authority, Dairy Development Programme, Harare, Zimbabwe.

MUTUKUMIRA, A.N., DUBE, D.M.J., MUPUNGA, E.G. & FERESU, S., 1996. Smallholder milk production, milk handling and utilization: A case study from the Nharira/Lancashire farming area, Zimbabwe. liv. Res. Rrl. Dev. 8, 1.

NAHAR, T.N., ISLAM, M. & HASHATH, M.A., 1992. A comparative study on the performance of F1 crossbred cows under rural conditions. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 5, 435338.

NDAMBI, O.A., HEMME, T. & LATACZ-LOHMANN, U., 2007. Dairying in Africa-Status and recent developments. liv. Res. Rrl. Dev. 19, 8.

NDEBELE, J.J., MUCHENJE, V., MAPIYE, C., CHIMONYO, M., MUSEMWA, L. & NDLOVU, T., 2007. Cattle breeding