Journal of Arid Environments 73 (2009) 529–536

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Arid Environments

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaridenv

Seasonal dynamics, production potential and efficiency of cattle in the sweet

and sour communal rangelands in South Africa
C. Mapiye a, M. Chimonyo a, *, K. Dzama b
a
Department of Livestock and Pasture Science, University of Fort Hare, P. Bag X1314, Alice 5700, South Africa
b
Department of Animal Sciences, Stellenbosch University, P. Bag X1, Matieland 7602, South Africa

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Monitoring cattle inflows and outflows over time is a good indicator of herd productivity. In this study,
Received 11 September 2008 ninety households were monitored for a year to determine the effect of season, rangeland type and herd
Received in revised form size on births, purchases, sales, deaths, off-take, cattle production potential (CPP) and cattle production
6 January 2009
efficiency (CPE) in the sweet and sour rangelands of South Africa. Most births were recorded in large
Accepted 11 January 2009
Available online 12 February 2009
herds in the sour rangelands during the hot-wet season (P < 0.05). Farmers with large herd sizes
purchased significantly more cattle compared to those with small herd sizes. Cattle sales were signifi-
cantly high in the large herds in the cool-dry season. Mortality was significantly high in the hot-wet
Keywords:
Cattle sales season in the sour rangeland and was mainly caused by gall-sickness (24%) and redwater (20%). The
Herd dynamics highest mortalities were observed in cows (45%). Households owning small herds in the sweet rangeland
Household consumption had the lowest CPP in the cool-dry season (P < 0.05). The CPE was significantly high in the households
Mortality owning large herds in the sweet rangeland. It was concluded that, although the CPP was low in the sweet
rangeland, households in these areas had higher CPE compared to those in the sour rangelands.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction mature animals sold and/or consumed as a fraction of the

Cattle herd productivity levels in the communal areas are
poorly understood. Cattle off-take, cattle production potential and
production efficiency are used as herd production evaluation
tools. Cattle off-take, defined as the number of animals marketed
and/or slaughtered per given time as a percentage of total herd
size (Baptist, 1990) is the most common measure of herd
productivity. It does not however, consider whether the class of
cattle sold and/or slaughtered is saleable or consumable. Under
the communal production systems, juveniles are hardly sold or
consumed, since they are highly prone to vagaries of severe
weather and droughts (Bebe et al., 2003; Chiduwa et al., 2008). To
counter this weakness, Muchadeyi et al. (2005) and Chiduwa et al.
(2008), developed more appropriate production potential and
production efficiency indices to evaluate animal productivity in
communal areas. These authors defined production potential in
communal areas as the proportion of mature and growing
animals in the herd/flock. Production potential therefore, reflects
the number of potentially saleable or consumable animals in
a given system. Production efficiency refers to the proportion of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ27 40 602 2102; fax: þ27 40 602 2488.
E-mail address: mchimonyo@ufh.ac.za (M. Chimonyo).
production potential (Chiduwa et al., 2008; Muchadeyi et al.,
2005). Cattle off-take, production potential and efficiency can
reflect the extent of adaptation of cattle to the local environment
and the degree of integration of farmers into the market (Amanor,
1995; Ezanno, 2005). Knowledge of production efficiency
improves understanding of functional attributes and is useful in
determining constraints and potential of communal cattle
production systems.
Cattle herd productivity on communal rangelands is generally,
low (Ainslie et al., 2002; Baptist, 1990), for example, out of the 14.1
million cattle in South Africa, over two-thirds are found in
communal areas (National Department of Agriculture, 2008), but
off-take rates in these areas are as low as 2% per annum (Ainslie
et al., 2002). It would seem that improving cattle production in
communal areas would go a long way towards meeting beef deficit
in South Africa. Currently, ways of improving communal cattle
production efficiency are restricted by insufficient knowledge on
herd dynamics and associated environmental processes (Ainslie
et al., 2002). Cattle herd dynamics is a product of changes in
reproductive, mortality and off-take rates, and the pedo-climatic
and socio-economic factors influencing such changes (Amanor,
1995; Upton, 1989). Understanding of herd dynamics is therefore,
useful in determining production potential and production
efficiency.

0140-1963/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.01.003
530 C. Mapiye et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 73 (2009) 529–536
Cattle herd dynamics on communal rangelands in the semi-arid
areas is often determined by feed resource availability, which, in
turn, is influenced by intra-annual spatial and seasonal distribution
of rainfall (Angassa and Oba, 2007; Fynn and O’Connor, 2000;
Scoones, 1995). In South Africa, rangelands are broadly divided into
sweet and sour according to rainfall and vegetation type. Sour
rangelands receive between 600 and 800 mm of rainfall per annum
and are mainly composed of annual grass species, which lose
nutritive value and palatability during the dry season (Ellery et al.,
1995). In contrast, precipitation in the sweet rangeland is less than
500 mm per annum and vegetation is comprised of perennial
grasses that remain nutritious and palatable all year round (Ellery
et al., 1995). The impact of these differences in rangeland type on
communal cattle population dynamics in South Africa is, however,
largely unknown.
Seasonal variations are a key factor in communal areas where
extensive management of cattle is directly linked to the environ-
mental conditions (Angassa and Oba, 2007; Kgosikoma, 2006). For
example, variation in precipitation will cause fluctuations in forage
quality and quantity, forage conservation and utilisation, and
consequently, changes in cattle condition indices and populations
(Boone and Wang, 2007; Scoones, 1995). The variations result in
fluctuations in marketable cattle numbers, beef yield, quality and
market values (Coetzee et al., 2005; Musemwa et al., 2008). Infor-
mation on the effect of seasonal changes on herd dynamics and
management in communal areas is scarce, making it difficult to
assess the efficiency of utilisation of communal rangelands. It also
makes it difficult to predict cattle sales and consumption patterns
in the arid and semi-arid areas, where crop production has low
potential. The objective of the current study was to determine the
effect of season, rangeland type and herd size on births, purchases,
exchanges, sales, deaths, off-take, cattle production potential (CPP)
and cattle production efficiency (CPE) in the sweet and sour
communal rangelands of South Africa.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Description of study sites
For the purpose of this study, we selected two major rangeland
types that are common in South Africa, namely, the sweet and sour
rangelands. Two communities from each of the rangelands, in the
Eastern Cape Province of South Africa, were selected based on
willingness of communities to participate in the study. The sweet
rangeland was represented by Melani community, located near
Alice in the Amatole District Municipality, and Magwiji situated
near Sterkspruit in Ukhahlamba District Municipality. Tiwane and
Upper Mnxe communities, located near Cala town in Chris Hani
District Municipality, represented the sour rangeland.
Melani lies on longitude 32 78’E and latitude 26 85’S at an
altitude of 450–500 m above sea level. It is found in False Thornveld
which receives mean annual rainfall of 480 mm and annual
temperature of 18.7  C. Most rain in this area are received between
November and April. These communal rangelands are mainly
composed of Cynodon dactylon, Digitaria erientha, Eragrostis species,
Sporobolus species and Themeda triandra grasses. Acacia karroo,
Scutia myrtina and Maytenus polyacantha are the dominant tree
species.
Magwiji is situated 30 370 S and 27 220 E at an altitude of 1507 m
above sea level. It has a semi-arid climate with most rainfall
received between November and April (500 mm) and about
200 mm falls between May and October. Ambient temperatures
fluctuate between 10 and 20  C, with minimum and maximum
temperatures being recorded in July (9  C) and January (22  C),
respectively. The most common grass species in this area are
Elionurus muticus, Heteropogon contortus, Microchloa caffra, Setaria
sphacelata and T. triandra. The rangelands are dominated by Eur-
yops pyroides and A. karroo invader woody species (Lesoli, 2008). In
the sweet rangelands, cattle grazed communally throughout the
year at a stocking rate of 10 ha per livestock unit. The cattle were
usually not enclosed at night and were only brought to the
homesteads for routine practices, such as vaccination and dipping.
Tiwane and Upper Mnxe communities are positioned 31330 S
and 27 360 E at an altitude of 1440 m above sea level. They receive
rainfall of 600–800 mm between November and April, and 200–
400 mm from May to October. Mean monthly minimum and
maximum day temperatures are recorded in July (11  C) and January
(20  C), respectively. The most common grass species were T. tri-
andra, H. contortus, Sporobolus africanus and Microchloa ciliate. A.
karroo, Acacia mearnsii, Euryops pyroides, Chrysocoma ciliate and
Dyspyrose scrabrida are the common bush species (Lesoli, 2008). In
the sour rangelands, cattle grazed on communal rangelands at
a stocking rate of 6 ha per livestock unit during the hot-wet season of
November to February and the post-rainy season between March
and April. During the cool-dry (May–August) and hot-dry
(September and October) seasons, cattle were kept on fenced
croplands and fed on crop residues. Only lactating cows and suckling
calves were kraaled at night. Marketing of cattle in both sweet and
sour communal rangelands was informal and was either within or
between the local communities. Some farmers depend on hawkers
or middlemen who buy cattle for urban markets (Musemwa et al.,
2008). In both sites, there were no records available on births,
purchases, consumption, sales, theft or mortality.
2.2. Sampling of households
Only those households, which owned at least one mature cattle
and were willing to participate in this study, were selected. Using
these criteria, a total of 90 households was chosen, comprising of 20
and 25 from Magwiji and Melani, and 20 and 25 from Tiwane and
Upper Mnxe, respectively. Households were divided into two
categories on the basis of herd size; 1–20 cattle represented small
and more than 20 represented large.
2.3. Data collection
Data on herd dynamics were recorded per household by trained
research assistants at the end of every month from August 2007 to
July 2008. Months were grouped into four seasons namely; cool-
dry (May–August), hot-dry (September–October), hot-wet
(November–February), post-rainy (March–April) (Ellery et al., 1995;
Tainton, 1999). The data collected included herd size, herd
composition (bulls, oxen, steers, cows, heifers and calves), entries
and exits. Entries recorded were births and purchases, whilst exits
comprised of slaughter, sales, mortalities and thefts. The reasons for
entries and exits were also captured.
Off-take was calculated as the number of animals sold and/or
slaughtered per month as percentage of total herd size. Cattle were
categorised into calves, growers and mature cattle for computa-
tions of production potential and production efficiency. Growers
were described as all cattle from weaning to puberty, while all
reproductively active cattle were classified as mature. Calves were
weaned between six and twelve months of age and reached
puberty between 24 and 30 months. Cattle production potential
(CPP) for each household was calculated as:
CPP ¼ N=H
where: CPP ¼ production potential; N ¼ number of mature
cattle þ growing cattle; and H ¼ herd size.
 C. Mapiye et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 73 (2009) 529–536 531

The cattle production efficiency (CPE) was computed for each
household as follows:
CPE ¼ ðM=CPPÞ  100
where: CPE ¼ cattle production efficiency; M ¼ number of mature
cattle consumed or sold; and CPP ¼ cattle production potential.
2.4. Statistical analyses
The PROC FREQ (SAS, 2003) was used to generate frequencies
on incidences of calving and mortality, reasons for purchasing,
slaughtering and selling cattle, and causes of mortality. The chi-
square test was used to determine the association between ran-
geland type and proportion of farmers’ purchasing, slaughtering
and selling cattle, and their theft and mortality experiences (SAS,
2003). The effect of rangeland type, season and their interaction on
herd size and composition were determined using GLM procedure
of SAS (2003). A similar model was used to analyze effects of
rangeland type, season, herd size and their interactions on the
number of births, purchases, total entries, slaughters, sales, thefts,
mortality, total exits, off-take and CPP, CPE. Pair-wise comparisons
of the least square means were performed using the PDIFF
procedure (SAS, 2003).
3. Results
3.1. Herd size and composition
About 60% of the farmers in both rangeland types had small
herd sizes. Fig. 1 shows the effect of rangeland type and season on
herd size and composition of cattle on communal rangelands. There
was a significant interaction between rangeland type and season on
herd size. There were significantly more cattle per household in the
hot-dry season in the sour rangeland compared to the sweet ran-
geland (Fig. 1A). Cattle herds in the sweet and sour rangelands were
mainly composed of cows. Generally, bull to cow ratio in the sweet
rangeland was 1:28 whereas in the sour it was 1:32 and the
respective cow–calf ratios were 5:2 and 3:1. Rangeland type and
season had an effect on the number of cows and heifers. The
highest number of cows and heifers were observed in the sour
rangeland, particularly in the hot-dry season (P < 0.05; Fig. 1B).
Rangeland type and season interaction for the number of steers
and oxen per household was significant. The number of steers was
highest in the sour rangeland in the hot-dry season, whilst oxen
numbers were highest in the sour rangeland during the hot-wet
season (P < 0.05; Fig. 1C). Generally, numbers of both steers and
oxen were low during the cool-dry season (Fig. 1C). There was
a significant interaction between rangeland type and season on calf
numbers. The number of calves was highest in the sour rangeland
during the post-rainy season and lowest in the cool-dry season as
compared to the sweet rangeland (Fig. 1D). The interaction
between rangeland type and season was significant for number of
bulls. The number of bulls was high in hot-wet season in the sour
rangeland (P < 0.05; Fig. 1D).
3.2. Cattle herd entries
There were no cattle that were exchanged-in, entrusted-in or
received as gifts during the study period. Only 4% of the farmers
purchased cattle during the study period. Farmers (95%) attrib-
uted low cattle purchases to lack of capital. The farmers purchased
more heifers (70%) than bulls (10%), cows (8%), calves (6%), steers
(4%) and oxen (2%). Majority of the farmers (94%) perceived that
the purchase of heifers and bulls improves reproductive capacity
of their herds. Rangeland type and season did not affect purchases
(P > 0.05). Herd size had a significant effect on purchases. Farmers
with large herd sizes purchased more (P < 0.05) cattle (1.2  0.44)
compared to those with small (0.1  0.056) herd sizes. There was
an interaction between herd size, rangeland type and season on
births and total entries. The highest number of births and total
entries were observed in large herds in the sour rangelands
during the hot-wet season (P < 0.05; Fig. 2A and 2B). Births
contributed markedly (88%) to the total entries compared to
purchases (12%).

A B Cows sweet rangeland Cows sour rangeland

30 Sweet rangeland Sour rangeland 8 Heifers sweet rangeland Heifers sour rangeland
Number of Animals

c 7 c
(Ls means ± sem)

bc
(Ls means ± sem)

25
d
b 6 b b b
20 ab
Herd size

ab a 5 a
a c a
c c
15 4
10 3 b b ab
a
2
5
1
0 0
Hot-dry Hot-wet Post-rainy Cool-dry Hot-dry Hot-wet Post-rainy Cool-dry
Season Season
C Steers sweet rangeland Steers sour rangeland
D Calves sweet rangeland Calves sour rangeland
Oxen sweet rangeland Oxen sour rangeland 7 Bulls sweet rangeland Bulls sour rangeland
4 c d
Number of Animals

c 6
Number of Animals

(Ls means ± sem)

3.5 bc
(Ls means ± sem)

bc
bc 5
3 c
b c
2.5 4 bc
a ab b b
2 a a 3 a
1.5
2 b b
1 b b
1 a a
0.5
0 0
Hot-dry Hot-wet Post-rainy Cool-dry Hot-dry Hot-wet Post-rainy Cool-dry
Season Season

Fig. 1. Effect of rangeland type and season on herd size (A), number of cows and heifers (B), steers and oxen (C), and calves and bulls (D). a,b,c, Values with different superscripts for
the same class of cattle are significantly different (P < 0.05).
532 C. Mapiye et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 73 (2009) 529–536

A of the households slaughtered cattle during the study period. Oxen

4.5 (40%) followed by steers (30%), cows (25%), bulls (3%) and heifers
Births (Ls means ± sem)

4 d (2%) constituted the slaughtered animals. Herd size affected the

Sweet rangeland small herds
3.5 Sweet rangeland large herds number of slaughters (P < 0.05). Households with large herds
Sour rangeland small herds
3 Sour rangeland large herds slaughtered significantly more cattle (1.2  0.04) compared to
2.5 households with small (0.13  0.02) herds. Cattle were mainly
2 c slaughtered for ceremonies (70% of the slaughters) such as
1.5
b circumcision, funerals and weddings. The other reasons for
ab b
1 ab ab slaughtering were culling (20%) and meat consumption (10%).
a a
0.5 a Highest cattle slaughters were recorded during the hot-wet season
0 in the sour rangeland (P < 0.05; Fig. 3C).
Hot-dry Hot-wet Post-rainy Cool-dry
Herd size had a significant effect on total exits. Households with
Season large herds had highest cattle exits (4.9  0.26) compared to
households with small (1.6  0.07) herds. There was a significant
B interaction between rangeland type and season on total exits. The
Total entries (Ls means ± sem)

4.5 exits were highest during the hot-wet season in the sour rangeland
d
4 Sweet rangeland small herds (P < 0.05; Fig. 3D). Sales contributed more (45%) to the total exits
Sweet rangeland large herds
3.5 Sour rangeland small herds compared to mortality (30%), slaughters (15%) and theft (10%).
3 Sour rangeland large herds
2.5 3.4. Cattle production potential and cattle production efficiency
c
2
1.5 b Rangeland type, season, herd size and their interactions had no
b b b
1 ab ab ab
effect on cattle off-take (P > 0.05). There was a significant interac-
0.5 a a tion between herd size, rangeland type and season on CPP.
0 Households owning large herds in the sour rangeland had the
Hot-dry Hot-wet Post-rainy Cool-dry highest CPP in the post-rainy season (P < 0.05; Fig. 4A). Herd size
Season had no effect on CPE (P > 0.05). For CPE, the interaction between
rangeland type and season was significant. Cattle production effi-
Fig. 2. Effect of herd size, rangeland type and season on births (A) and total cattle
entries (B) in the sweet and sour communal rangelands. a,b,c,d Values with different
ciency was highest during the cool-dry season in the sweet ran-
superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05). geland (P > 0.05; Fig. 4A).

3.3. Cattle herd exits
No cattle were exchanged-out, entrusted-out or given as gifts
during the study period. The proportion of farmers who sold cattle
was not significantly associated with rangeland type. Nearly 8% of
the households sold cattle during the study period. Of all the cattle
that were sold, 44, 36, 12, 6 and 2% were oxen, steers, cows, heifers
and calves, respectively. All the calves were sold together with their
dams. Cash (85% of the farmers) and culling (15%) were the main
reasons for selling cattle. Cash was used for financing household
needs (55%), school fees (21%), hospital bills (12%), village taxes (8%)
and emergencies (4%). Cattle sales were not affected by rangeland
type. Cattle sales were significantly high in the large herds in the
cool-dry and hot-wet seasons (Fig. 3A). Farmers attributed high
cattle sales in cool-dry season to shortage of feed and poor body
conditions. They reported that due to poor body conditions, their
cattle fetched low prices at the markets.
The number of stolen cattle was significantly influenced by
rangeland type. There were significantly more cattle thefts in the
sweet rangeland (1.3  0.05) than in the sour rangeland
(0.2  0.01). Season and herd size had no effect on cattle thefts
(P > 0.05). The proportion of farmers who experienced mortality
problems was significantly associated with rangeland type. About
12 and 30% of the households in the sweet and sour rangelands
experienced cattle mortality problems, respectively (P < 0.05).
There was no association between causes of mortality and range-
land type. As shown in Table 1, the major causes of mortality were
gall-sickness and redwater diseases. Herd size did not affect
mortality (P > 0.05). There was a significant interaction of range-
land type and season on mortality. Generally, most cattle died in
the hot-wet season in the sour rangeland (P < 0.05; Fig. 3B).
Rangeland type was not significantly associated with the
proportion of farmers who slaughtered cattle (P > 0.05). About 5%
4. Discussion
Decreases or increases in cattle population are a consequence of
the interplay of births, deaths, purchases, sales, consumption and
exchanges. Ellery et al. (1995) and Tainton (1999) reported that feed
availability declines from the post-rainy season onwards as
temperature and rainfall drop, reaching a low-point during the
cool-dry season when plant materials are dormant, then rise with
the emergence of new shoots in the hot-dry season, and estab-
lishment of plants following rains in the hot-wet season. In general,
cattle numbers followed a seasonal trend in rainfall and feed
availability. Similar to current findings, Scoones (1995), Fynn and
O’Connor (2000) and Mellink and Martin (2001) reported a curvi-
linear relationship between rainfall, feed supply and cattle perfor-
mance in the arid and semi-arid areas. The marked decline in cattle
numbers in the hot-wet season in the sour rangeland could be
ascribed to high levels of mortality, sales and slaughters that
occurred in the same period in this study.
High cattle numbers observed in the sour rangeland compared
to the sweet rangeland could be attributed to their differences in
rainfall. Sour rangelands receive more precipitation at the end of
the cool-dry season every year compared to the sweet rangeland
(Ellery et al., 1995; Tainton, 1999). The high precipitation ensures
feed availability in the hot-dry season and, could, in turn, reduce
mortality and increase births and, consequently, increase in cattle
populations. Our findings agree with Bebe et al. (2003), Agenas
et al. (2006) and Boone and Wang (2007), who reported strong
relationship between rainfall, feed availability and cattle
populations.
The increased births and calf numbers observed in the rainy
seasons could be attributed to feed availability. Nqeno (2008)
showed that during hot-wet and post-rainy seasons forage quantity
and quality are high and coincide with the periods of increased
parturitions. The rangeland nutritional base during these periods
 C. Mapiye et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 73 (2009) 529–536 533

A B
2.5 1.8
Sweet rangeland Sour rangeland
Small herds Large herds e
1.6

Mortality (Ls means ± sem)

e

Sales (Ls means ± sem)

2 1.4
d d
1.2
1.5 c
1 c

b 0.8
1 b
b
0.6 b

a a 0.4 a
0.5 a a
0.2 a

0 0
Hot-dry Hot-wet Post-rainy Cool-dry Hot-dry Hot-wet Post-rainy Cool-dry
Season Season

C D
2.5 6
Sweet rangeland Sour rangeland
Sweet rangeland Sour rangeland c

Total exits (Ls means ± sem)

Slaughters (Ls means ± sem)

c bc
2
b
4 b
1.5 b

1
2
a a
a a a
a
0.5 a a
a
1 a

0 0
Hot-dry Hot-wet Post-rainy Cool-dry Hot-dry Hot-wet Post-rainy Cool-dry
Season Season

Fig. 3. Effect of season and herd size on number of animals sold (A) and effect of season on mortality (B), number of animals slaughtered (C) and total exits (D). a,b,c,d,e Values with
different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05).

often meets cattle nutrient requirements for maintenance, growth, Coppock, 2002; Kay, 1997; Oba, 2001). As the dry season progresses,
reproduction and lactation (Abeygunawardena and Dematawewa, livestock are obliged to mobilize body fat reserves to balance the
2004). The observation that cattle entries were predominated by deficiency of nutrients in the diet (Agenas et al., 2006). Training
births agrees with Ezanno (2005) and Angassa and Oba (2007). farmers, especially those in the sweet rangelands on cost-effective
The low cattle populations in the cool-dry season in the sweet methods of conserving and adding value to indigenous grasses and
rangeland can be attributed to mortality and sales triggered by tree foliage to improve their utilisation by cattle in the cool-dry
reduced feed and water supply, for example, crude protein content season, could be prioritised.
during the cool-dry season is as low as 2% in the sweet rangelands The low calf to cow ratio could be attributed to low plane of
(Lesoli, 2008). Thus, rainfall modulates livestock populations nutrition, low cow management levels and low bull fertility.
through the impact of seasonal droughts on rangeland productivity According to Abeygunawardena and Dematewewa, 2004, low cow
(Begzsuren et al., 2004; Boone and Wang, 2007; Desta and productivity on communal rangelands is reflected by delayed age at
puberty (24 and 36 months) and first calving (36–48 months) and
long calving intervals (24–48 months). Nqeno (2008) reported that
Table 1 cow productivity in the communal areas is limited by nutrition,
Causes of mortality in the communal herds in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. reproductive diseases, parasites, low bull to cow ratio, low bull
Causes of mortality Frequency (%) fertility and lack of bull exposure. The nutritional deficiency
Gall-sickness 24
observed in the cool-dry season results in loss of body weight,
Red water 20 condition and ovarian activity in cows (Abeygunawardena and
Unknown diseases 14 Dematawewa, 2004). The bull to cow ratio was within the recom-
Black leg 10 mended range of 1:25–30 (Ainslie et al., 2002). Bull exposure was
Lumpy skin 8
not likely to be influential since the bulls and cows were running
Heart water 6
Mastitis 5 together throughout the study period. However, the influence of
Starvation 4 bull fertility and reproductive diseases were not determined in the
Dystocia 4 current study and therefore, merit investigation.
Accidents 3 The farmers rarely purchased breeding stock, in the form of
Selinity 2
heifers, to improve the reproductive capacity of the herd. They
534 C. Mapiye et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 73 (2009) 529–536

A The rise in cattle sales in the cool-dry season could have been an
1 Sweet rangeland small herds Sour rangeland small herds attempt to reduce mortality through starvation. This confirms
Cattle production potential

Sweet rangeland large herds e Sour rangeland large herds

0.9 d earlier assertion by Amanor (1995) and Oba (2001) that increasing
(Ls means ± sem)

0.8 irregularity of rainfall elevates feed insecurity and cattle mortality.

b
0.7 b c Cattle owners then react to high mortality by selling the animals.
b ab
0.6 ab a The observation that farmers largely sold steers in the cool-dry
a
0.5 a a season agree with Coetzee et al. (2005) and Nqeno (2008), who
0.4 reported that instead of providing supplements to all cattle classes
0.3
during the dry season, farmers sold young male animals. They
0.2
preferred retaining and supplementing cows for breeding and milk
0.1
0
production purposes, and oxen for draught power. This generates
Hot-dry Hot-wet Post-rainy Cool-dry sharp and substantial variations in cattle populations, especially for
Season steers.
Since farmers fetched low prices for their cattle during the cool-
B dry season due to poor body condition, supplementary feeding
0.18 could, therefore, be at the core of any strategy to increase cattle off-
Cattle production efficiency

d
0.16 Sweet rangeland Sour rangeland take in the communal areas. Alternatively, farmers may sell their
(Ls means ± sem)

0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08 b (Agenas et al., 2006).
b
0.06
0.04 a can be accredited to the proximity of one of the communities
0.02
0 Kynoch and Ulicki (2001) attributed high stock theft incidences in
Hot-dry Hot-wet Post-rainy
Season
Fig. 4. Effect of herd size, rangeland type and season and on CPP (A) and effect of
rangeland type and season on CPE (B). a,b,c,d Values with different superscripts in the
same row are significantly different (P < 0.05).
depended on the reproductive performance of their herds to
maintain productivity. In general, cattle sales, consumption and
purchases were low. Farmers attributed the low sales and
consumption to small herd sizes, and low purchases to lack of
capital. The observation that farmers with large herds sold and
consumed more cattle than those with small herds agrees with
Coetzee et al. (2005) and Montshwe (2005), who reported that the
propensity to sell and consume increases with herd size. Besides
improving the nutritional status and genetics of the communal
herd, financial organizations should provide funds for the estab-
lishment of breeding stock multiplication centres to supply farmers
with seed for herd building. For example, the University of Fort
Hare and the Department of Agriculture in the Eastern Cape have
embarked on a programme to distribute two bulls and 10 in-calf
heifers to selected communities to allow them to build up Nguni
nucleus herds (Mapiye et al., 2007). After five years, the community
is expected to give back to the project two bulls and ten in-calf
heifers, which are then passed on to another community, such
projects can be worth embarking on.
The finding that sales, and not mortality, dominated cattle
exits contradicts with Upton (1989) and Oba (2001). The high
sales of cattle obtained in the hot-wet season in the sour range-
land were expected as communal farmers usually dispose of their
cattle to meet high household needs during the festive season and
pay school fees. Our findings agree with Coetzee et al. (2005),
Montshwe (2005) and Delali et al. (2006), who reported that
cattle kept by smallholder farmers are often the main source of
income and investment, which is primarily intended for the
family’s education, household needs, health, village taxes and
emergencies. The high cattle sales and consumption during the
festive season can be partly attributed to ceremonies such as
circumcision and weddings, which usually occur during this
period (Ainslie et al., 2002).
cattle at the end of the post-rainy season before they start losing
condition. Before any nutritional improvements are made, it is
important to verify the types and levels of limiting nutrients
c
The high cattle theft incidences reported in the sweet rangeland
(Magwiji) to the border zone between South Africa and Lesotho.
Cool-dry
the South African–Lesotho border zone to the absence of patrols
and slow response by police, long distance between rangelands and
homesteads, lack of cattle identification and poor conviction and
prosecution of cattle rustlers. To minimize thefts, community
members may take turns to herd cattle during the day and kraal or
guard them at night. Use of mobile police posts and intensification
of armed police patrols in the affected areas can be of help. It might
be important to develop a collaborative community security, with
the objective of strengthening social unity among the communities
nearer to the borders (Kynoch and Ulicki, 2001). The Department of
Agriculture should advise farmers on the importance and methods
of cattle identification which would assist farmers to trace their
animals. Joint initiatives between South Africa and Lesotho law
enforcement authorities are of utmost importance in the control of
cross-border stock thefts (Kynoch and Ulicki, 2001).
The high mortality observed in the hot-wet season can be
attributed to warm and moist conditions which prevailed during
the study period, particularly in the sour rangeland. The hot-wet
conditions promote vector survival and multiplication (Marufu,
2008), for example, gall-sickness and redwater diseases which
were reported as the chief causes of cattle mortality in this study
are transmitted by ticks whose rate of proliferation is accelerated
when environmental temperatures and humidity are high (Marufu,
2008; Muchenje et al., 2008). High cattle mortality observed in
cool-dry season in the sour rangeland might be linked to the low
nutrition and breed differences. Cattle in the sour rangeland were
mostly large-framed crosses between exotic and indigenous
breeds. Large-framed cattle could markedly lose body condition
compared to small-framed indigenous Nguni cattle. Poor nutri-
tional status in the cattle imparts a decreased immunity and
resistance against disease and parasites, resulting in mortality
(Coop and Kyriazakis, 2001).
The high mortality rates recorded for cows were related to their
greater vulnerability to seasonal droughts and poor pre-drought
body conditions compared with the mature males (Oba, 2001).
Similarly, Desta and Oba (2004) reported that breeding females are
more adversely influenced by the intra-annual feed availability
than mature males, probably due to low body fat reserves.
Breeding females may be cycling or pregnant and nursing calves,
as well as producing milk for the household. Their physiological
 C. Mapiye et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 73 (2009) 529–536
condition might put them under greater stress and increase their
susceptibility to diseases and parasites (Desta and Oba, 2004).
Losses due to diseases and their interaction with nutrition are,
therefore, a major constraint to communal cattle production.
Provision of supplements might modify the reproductive and
productive performances of communal cattle during the dry
season.
The finding that herd size, rangeland type and season did not
affect cattle off-take might imply that the latter is not a good
indicator of cattle productivity on communal rangelands. There is
little, if any information on the use of CPP and CPE as measures of
herd productivity. The observed CPP values were high and followed
the same trend with cattle numbers in both the sweet and sour
rangelands, implying that the potential of utilising cattle for
consumption or as cash generating assets was high. The highest CPE
value recorded in the cool-dry season in the sweet rangeland could
be ascribed to high sales that occurred in the same season. The
observed higher total exits and CPE in the sweet rangeland
compared to the sour rangeland might mean that farmers in the
sweet rangeland slaughtered and/or sold more cattle relative to
their herd sizes to reduce the risk of mortality through starvation.
Generally, the CPE was very low relative to the production
potential. The production efficiency was probably lowered by the
significant role played by births, mortality and theft in determining
cattle population changes. The fact that cows and heifers were the
major components of the herd, but were rarely sold or consumed,
could, partly, explain the consistently low production efficiency
observed in this study. The observed low CPE values could indicate
its inadequacy as a measure of communal cattle productivity, for
example, it neglects the sale of calves. According to Muchadeyi et al.
(2005) and Chiduwa et al. (2008), under low-input production
systems young animals are rarely purchased, sold or consumed,
since they are highly susceptible to extreme weather, draughts,
diseases and parasites. Calves in this study were, however,
purchased or sold together with their dams. Farmers reported that
this unique cow–calf unit transaction was done to reduce calf
mortality when the dam has been sold-off. The farmers claimed
that chances of calf survival after the dam has been sold are low,
thereby reducing risk. Given training on appropriate calf rearing
practices and feeding management, farmers can retain the calf, sell
it when mature and could realise more profit.
On the other hand, the low CPE values might reflect that
communal cattle have other important roles, which are not
incorporated in the current CPE formulae. These roles include
production outputs such as draught power, milk, manure, fuel,
floor polish and the socio-cultural importance of cattle are not
included in the current CPE computations. Lack of accounting of
all cattle uses in a multipurpose livelihood system potentially
results in significant underestimation of livelihoods (Delali et al.,
2006). Thus, it is vital to modify the CPE formula so that it
captures all production outputs and non-monetary contributions
of cattle in the communal areas.
5. Conclusions
The study shows that cattle numbers, births and CPP were low
in the cool-dry season, especially in the sweet rangeland. Generally,
cattle sales were markedly high in cool-dry and hot-wet seasons in
large herds. Most cattle died in the cool-dry and hot-wet seasons in
the sour rangeland. Mortality mainly affected cows and was mainly
caused by tick-borne diseases. Households owning small herds in
the sweet rangeland had the lowest CPP in the cool-dry season.
Cattle production efficiency was highest during the cool-dry season
in the households owning large herds in the sour rangeland. It was
concluded that, although the CPP was low in the sweet rangelands,
535
households in these areas had higher production efficiency
compared to those in the sour rangelands.
Acknowledgements
Special thank you goes to the farmers and the Department of
Agriculture in Sterkspruit, Cala and Alice for cooperating and giving
invaluable information for the study. We acknowledge Kellog
Foundation and National Research Fund (NRF) of South Africa for
financing the project.
References
Abeygunawardena, H., Dematawewa, C.M.B., 2004. Pre-pubertal and postpartum
anestrus in tropical Zebu cattle. Animal Reproduction Science 82–83, 373–387.
Agenas, S., Heath, M.F., Nixon, R.M., Wilkinson, J.M., Phillips, C.J.C., 2006. Indicators
of under-nutrition in cattle. Animal Welfare 15 (2), 149–160.
Ainslie, A., Kepe, T., Ntsebeza, L., Ntshona, Z., Turner, S., 2002. Cattle Ownership and
Production in the Communal Areas of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. University
of the Western Cape. Research report number 10.
Amanor, K.S., 1995. Dynamics of herd structures and herding strategies in West
Africa: a study of market integration and ecological adaptation. Africa: Journal
of the International African Institute 65 (3), 351–394.
Angassa, A., Oba, G., 2007. Relating long-term rainfall variability to cattle population
dynamics in communal rangelands and a government ranch in southern
Ethiopia. Agricultural Systems 94, 715–725.
Baptist, R., 1990. Simulated livestock dynamics: effects of pastoral off-take practices
and drift on cattle wealth. Tropical Animal Health and Production 22, 67–76.
Bebe, B.O., Udo, H.M.J., Rowlands, G.J., Thorpe, W., 2003. Smallholder dairy systems
in the Kenya highlands: cattle population dynamics under increasing intensi-
fication. Livestock Production Science 82 (2–3), 211–221.
Begzsuren, S., Ellis, J.E., Ojima, D.S., Coughenour, M.B., Chuluun, T., 2004. Livestock
responses to droughts and severe winter in the Gobi Three Beauty National
Park, Mongolia. Journal of Arid Environments 59, 785–796.
Boone, R.B., Wang, G., 2007. Cattle dynamics in African grazing systems under
variable climates. Journal of Arid Environments 70 (3), 495–513.
Chiduwa, G., Chimonyo, M., Halimani, T.E., Chisambara, S.R., Dzama, K., 2008. Herd
dynamics and contribution of indigenous pigs to the livelihoods of rural farmers
in a semi-arid area of Zimbabwe. Tropical Animal Health and Production 40 (2),
125–136.
Coetzee, L., Montshwe, B.D., Jooste, A., 2005. The marketing of livestock on
communal lands in the Eastern Cape Province: constraints, challenges and
implications for the extension services. South African Journal of Agricultural
Extension 34 (1), 81–103.
Coop, R.L., Kyriazakis, I., 2001. Influence of host nutrition on the development and
consequences of nematode parasitism in ruminants. Trends in Parasitology 17,
325–330.
Delali, B.K., Dovie, D.B.K., Charlie, M., Shackleton, C.M., Witkowski, E.T.F., 2006.
Valuation of communal area livestock benefits, rural livelihoods and related
policy issues. Land Use Policy 23, 260–271.
Desta, S., Coppock, D.L., 2002. Cattle population dynamics in the southern Ethiopian
rangelands, 1980–97. Journal of Range Management 55, 439–451.
Desta, Z.H., Oba, G., 2004. Feed scarcity and livestock mortality in enset farming
systems in the Bale highlands of southern Ethiopia. Outlook on Agriculture 33,
277–280.
Ellery, W.N., Scholes, R.J., Scholes, M.C., 1995. The distribution of sweet-veld and
sour-veld in South Africa’s grassland biome in relation to environmental factors.
African Journal of Range and Forage Science 12, 38–45.
Ezanno, P., 2005. Dynamics of a tropical cattle herd in a variable environment:
a modelling approach in order to identify the target period and animals on
which concentrating management efforts to improve productivity. Ecological
Modelling 188 (2–4), 470–482.
Fynn, R.W.S., O’Connor, T.G., 2000. Effect of stocking rate and rainfall on rangeland
dynamics and cattle performance in a semi-arid savanna, South Africa. Journal
of Applied Ecology 37, 491–507.
Kay, R.N.B., 1997. Responses of African livestock and wild herbivores to drought.
Journal of Arid Environments 37, 683–694.
Kgosikoma, O.E., 2006. Effects of Climate Variability on Livestock Population
Dynamics and Community Drought Management in Kgalagadi, Botswana. MSc
thesis, Department of International Environment and Development Studies,
Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway, pp. 1–56.
Kynoch, G., Ulicki, T., 2001. Cross-border raiding and community conflict in the
Lesotho–South African border zone. Southern African Migration Project (SAMP),
Migration Policy Series No. 21.
Lesoli, M.S., 2008. Vegetation and Soil Status and Human Perceptions on the
Condition of Communal Rangelands of the Eastern Cape, South Africa. MSc
thesis, University of Fort Hare, South Africa.
Mapiye, C., Chimonyo, M., Muchenje, V., Dzama, K., Marufu, M.C., Raats, J.G.,
2007. Potential for value-addition of Nguni cattle products in the communal
areas of South Africa: a review. African Journal of Agricultural Research 2
(10), 488–495.
536 C. Mapiye et al. / Journal of Arid Environments 73 (2009) 529–536
Marufu, M.C., 2008. Prevalence of Ticks and Tick-borne Diseases in Cattle on
Communal Rangelands in the Highland Areas of the Eastern Cape province,
South Africa. MSc thesis, Department of Livestock and Pasture Science,
University of Fort Hare, South Africa.
Mellink, E., Martin, P.S., 2001. Mortality of cattle on a desert range: paleobiological
implications. Journal of Arid Environments 49, 671–675.
Montshwe, B.D., 2005. Factors Affecting Participation in Mainstream Cattle
Markets by Small-scale Cattle Farmers in South Africa. MSc thesis,
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Free State, South
Africa, pp. 1–120.
Muchadeyi, F.C., Sibanda, S., Kusina, N.T., Kusina, J.F., Makuza, S., 2005. Village
chicken flock dynamics and the contribution of chickens to household liveli-
hoods in a smallholder farming area in Zimbabwe. Tropical Animal Health and
Production 37 (4), 333–334.
Muchenje, V., Dzama, K., Chimonyo, M., Raats, J.G., Strydom, P.E., 2008. Tick
susceptibility and its effects on growth performance and carcass characteristics
of Nguni, Bonsmara and Angus steers raised on natural pasture. Animal 2,
298–304.
Musemwa, L., Mushunje, A., Chimonyo, M., Fraser, G., Mapiye, C., Muchenje, V.,
2008. Nguni cattle marketing constraints and opportunities in the communal
areas of South Africa: review. African Journal of Agricultural Research 3 (4),
239–245.
National Department of Agriculture (NDA), 2008. Directorate: Agricultural Statistics
of the National Department of Agriculture, Republic of South Africa, pp. 58–73.
Available from: http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/Abstract_08.pdf (accessed
16.07.08.).
Nqeno, N., 2008. Reproductive Performance of Cows in Sweet and Sour Veld Types
Under Communal Production Systems in the Eastern Cape Province of South
Africa. MSc thesis, Department of Livestock and Pasture Sciences, University of
Fort Hare, South Africa.
Oba, G., 2001. The effect of multiple droughts on cattle in Obbu, Northern Kenya.
Journal of Arid Environments 49, 375–386.
SAS, 2003. Users Guide, Version 9. Statistical Analysis System Institute Inc, Carry,
NC, USA.
Scoones, I., 1995. Exploiting heterogeneity: habitat use by cattle in dryland
Zimbabwe. Journal of Arid Environments 29, 221–237.
Tainton, N.M., 1999. Veld Management in South Africa. University of Natal Press,
Pietermaritzburg.
Upton, M., 1989. Livestock productivity assessment and herd growth models.
Agricultural Systems 29, 149–164.