File - PhD courseGlobal Challenges: Urbanization
Download
Report
Transcript File - PhD courseGlobal Challenges: Urbanization
LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
GLOBAL CHALLENGES: URBANIZATION, LIVELIHOODS AND FOOD SECURITY
The case of Botswana’s beef cattle production
C. M. Tsopito, PhD
Department of Animal Science and Production
Presentation format
Background
Livelihoods of Batswana
Food security as it relates to Batswana
Urbanization
Livestock production systems of Botswana
Global issues
Conclusions
Background
Botswana is a livestock country and most Batswana are engaged in livestock
farming.
Traditionally, rangelands bordering cropping fields and villages were designated grazing
land and different wards were apportioned grazing rights in a large single large block by the
Chief for which an overseer was appointed (Lawry, 1983).
Livestock production has been as source of livelihood for most Batswana since precolonial and pre-independence times.
Cattle were used as a good for production (draught power, transport and calves) and also
as a consumption good in supplying milk, meat and hides, additionally, as a form of savings
for future use.
The pre-colonial livestock rearing practices took place during the mid-to-late
nineteenth century (Hitchcook, 1980) and then transitioned to private ownership
during the colonial era.
The colonial period brought more water points by drilling boreholes, opened the
grazing wealth of unexploited lands for perennial use, and veterinary medicine
levelled out the fluctuations caused by diseases (Hubbard, 1986).
This resulted in increased cattle production, increased cattle population, increase in offtakes and increased number of water points and increase in the geographical spread of
cattle across the country.
In the late 1950’s new cattle marketing opportunities were created in the UK markets
due to increased beef prices in the US thus creating beef shortfalls there.
This led to New Zealand and Australia switching their beef supplies from the UK to the US,
thus creating a gap in the British beef markets.
The gap created made it possible for the some Commonwealth beef suppliers to be given
preferential consideration by being exempted from heavy tariff on imports of boneless and
canned beef.
In 1947 Botswana with other colonies was allowed to export beef to the UK under the Colonial
Development Corporation (CDC) initiative that financed and operated agricultural developments
by the UK government.
A colonial development and welfare grant of 400,000 pounds was made available to the then
Bechuanaland Protectorate explicitly to drill boreholes for the beef cattle.
The CDF/CD&W grants for borehole drilling totalling over 850,000 pounds between 1935-1965
proved to be a direct and essentially important subsidy to the livestock sector for the country.
However, by 1965 a transformation had occurred in livestock production since water
development had expanded into the sand-veld and the Kgalagadi desert resulting in
further increases in the cattle population and other livestock species.
Those who could not engage in livestock production went into crop production and labour
migration (especially mine labour in South Africa).
Thus, prior to independence, the major livelihood earner for almost all Batswana was livestock
production with a little bit of crop production and labour migration.
Teaching and being police personnel of lower rank were the only formal employment avenues known
then.
Livelihoods of Batswana
Prior to independence, agriculture (particularly livestock production) was the mainstay of the
livelihoods of most Batswana.
The majority of the rural people depend on both informal and formal agricultural economic activities to
sustain themselves.
Besides providing the bedrock for rural livelihoods, the growth of the agriculture is also important for other
sectors of the economy which depend on it for raw materials.
The traditional sector in the livestock industry dominates with 80 – 85% of the cattle population owned.
74.8% cattle, 72.2% sheep and 67.5% goats owned by males.
The livestock farming community comprised mainly of the elderly:
33% were in the 65 or more years old
2.73% were in the 50 – 59 years age group
17.1% in the 40 – 49 years group
The average age of a farmer is 59 years old (Annual Agric. Survey Report, 2011)
Beef cattle are the majority in the livestock sub-sector, followed by goats and sheep.
Livestock is owned mostly by the older generation with over:
1.5 million out of 2.5 million cattle,
1.1 million out of 1.7 million goats, and
184,438 out of a total of 283,075 sheep.
The number of farm workers in the traditional sector remained the same for the period 20102011.
Average farm wages increased from P547 in 2010 to P663 in 2011, compared to the government
approved minimum farm wage of P408 in 2010 to P445 in 2011.
90% of farm workers in farm holdings were locals and 91.7% of them were employed on a permanent basis.
The traditional livestock sector supplies the bulk (80-85%) of the off-take to the Botswana Meat
Commission (BMC) and the domestic market consisting of abattoirs, butcheries, supermarkets,
processors, etc.
Food security issues
Food security is a situation where “All people, at all times, have physical, social and economic
access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences
for an active and healthy life”.
At macro level, Botswana does not fit the definition of a food insecure nation, because although
the country produces on average only about 9% of the national cereal requirements, the
country has the financial resources to import the rest.
However, at household level it depends on the ability of the household to produce its own food or buy
the available food on the market or both.
Households living in absolute poverty are not likely to afford to buy the required food needs and will therefore be
food insecure.
This group includes female-headed households, people living with HIV/AIDS and their family members, the disabled,
the elderly, orphans, the rural and urban poor and the unemployed.
Ten years ago, female-headed households constituted 52% of Botswana’s households and as
depicted in the livelihood slides above, men dominate the livestock sector significantly, leading
to gender imbalances relative to:
Physical capital such as land
Financial resources for production or income generating activities
Additionally, the country’s climate does not favour crop production, thus making it difficult to venture
alternative agricultural activities.
The disabled, elderly and orphans are usually too weak to grow their own food or to generate
from anywhere to purchase food.
HIV/AIDS infected and affected households are food insecure largely because they are too
sick to tend to their farms or jobs, or divert time from productive activities to caring for the sick.
The rural and urban poor and the unemployed lack resources for food production or for income
generating activities, thus, food insecure.
Botswana’s agricultural policy has been to pursue food security instead of food self-sufficiency
since 1991.
This policy relies on open markets and relatively unrestricted trade for main agricultural products.
South Africa provides almost all of the food imports into Botswana but this has its own disadvantage like when
South Africa experienced maize shortages 5 years ago and as such did not allow for exports into neighbouring
countries.
Botswana has four main food security objectives:
To ensure physical availability of adequate food supplies at national and household levels through a
sustainable combination of domestic production, imports, reserves, and well-dispersed effective
distribution and marketing networks.
To ensure economic access, at household level, to available supplies of food through a sustainable
growth in incomes and employment; maintenance of a competitive price regime for basic food
staples; and maintenance of targeted public assistance programmes for the needy and the vulnerable.
To provide, primarily through (i) and (ii) above, support for sustainable improvement in the nutrition
status of the people.
Within the framework of the existing health legislation and controls, and through consumer education,
to ensure food safety and quality.
To achieve these objectives, the government of Botswana came up with a strategy to
operationalize their implementation called Botswana National Food Strategy (BNFS), assisted by
the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) in 2003.
The vision of the strategy was “The realization of a stable and sustainable physical and economic
access for all Batswana to basic supplies of safe and nutritionally adequate food for an active life”.
Over the past few years, especially during the recession, observations are that government has
delivered on its food security objectives since not a single Motswana was recorded to have
succumbed to starvation due to numerous targeted interventions being implemented.
Notwithstanding teething problems with implementation of some of them, e.g. ISPAAD in which there
has been high public expenditure in return for not spectacular or corresponding crop yields valued in
monetary returns.
Urbanization
The ongoing expansion of major villages converting into towns and towns expanding into cities
has encroached and reduced grazing land at the expense of VGAs and peri-urban small scale
farmers.
This loss of grazing land has driven most of these farmers from livestock rearing, in particular extensive
LPS while they cannot afford to change into intensive LPS as a result of its input requirements that are
costly.
Other competing land requirements such as allocating communal land to individuals has
deprived communal groups of grazing land rights at the expense of one individual.
Industrialization of pieces of land formerly used for grazing negatively affected VGA and CPA
adjacent to towns and villages.
This has led to conflicts between municipal authorities and VGA/CPA since some animals stray into
municipal property vandalizing it and so forth.
The emergence of supermarkets and chain stores in developing countries has come with a
structural change in the way that livestock products (meat, milk, eggs) are collected,
processed, inspected, packaged and supplied to consumers.
This change has a deep impact on livestock producers determining who can and who cannot
participate in the mainstream supply chain.
Market segmentation is now observed, between rapidly growing formal and stagnating or
declining informal supply chains, and between the wet markets for fresh meat and the
supermarkets for processed, frozen, packaged and branded livestock products such as meat.
The relative significance of each market segment is tied to the level of economic
development.
It is closely linked to the purchasing power of households and individuals, their demand for preferences
relative to the form and texture of meat upon purchase, and the relative value they give to notions of
food safety and food quality.
Large retailers compete in delivering consistent product quality that is demanded by their market
and reliable supply, consistent volumes, etc.
Vertical coordination therefore presents the opportunity to keep control of operating and
transaction costs while also meeting high standards of food safety.
Quality varies with the suppliers strategies and cultural influences on the other hand. It includes food safety,
nutrition, and attributes related to commercial differentiation of products.
It demands organisational and institutional changes in relationships between the primary producer, agri-food
processor or supermarket giving rise to vertically coordinated transactions or to fully integrated systems
Large retailers in developing countries like Botswana, are adopting vertical coordination.
Vertically coordinated chains may interact with informal markets (traditional sector) that supply inputs of live
animals (such as VGA and CPA) or produce.
Small scale farmers can stay in business by providing their labour input to their own farms at below market
price.
This works well where there are limited employment opportunities in other sectors.
Livestock Production Systems of Botswana
Generally, livestock production systems (LPS) have been determined by the prevailing
ecological and socio-cultural environments within various countries.
Additionally, the purposes and intensities of production contribute to the livestock production system
adopted.
internally (within countries), LPS have been largely sustainable and in equilibrium with such environments.
In semi-arid Botswana, pastoral systems utilizing natural rangelands have been in stable balance with
human-animal-vegetative biomass for many years.
Livestock production systems have also been categorized on the basis of agro-ecological
opportunities and demand for livestock products generated.
Many of these systems are now under pressure to adjust to rapidly changing socio-economic conditions,
and large intensive productions operations.
Botswana has annual rainfall that varies as follows:
700 mm in the north around the Okavango Delta (wet swampy region)
400 mm in the East (hardveld region)
200 mm in the South-west, Kgalagadi region (sandveld – desert)
Botswana had a rangeland of about 450,000 km2 (FAO, 1978) that has significantly decreased
post-independence
Botswana’s rangelands currently support close to 2.5 million cattle, 1.8 million goats and 0.3 million sheep
(Annual Agricultural Survey Report, 2011).
Botswana has exported beef to the European Union (EU) since pre-independence times to date.
LPSs have been classified into a limited number of distinct categories based on the following
criteria:
Integration with crops
Relation to land
Agro-ecological zones
Intensity of production
Type of product
However, Sere and Steinfeld (1996) proposed a classification that only uses the first three of the
above categories that now resulted into eleven (11) LPS categories.
This classification considered LPS as a subset of farming systems and as such, two main groups of LPS are
distinguished:
Those solely based on animal production
Systems in which more than 90% of dry matter fed to animals comes from rangelands, pastures, annual forages
and purchased feeds
And less than 10% of the total value of production comes from non-livestock farming activities.
Crop-livestock based LPS
Are systems in which more than 10% of the total value of production comes from non-livestock farming activities.
Then there are landless LPS which are a subset of the pure livestock systems in which less than 10% of
the dry matter fed to animals is farm produced and in which annual average stocking rates are above
10 LSU (livestock units) per hectare of agricultural land.
Grasslands such as in Botswana are those in which 10% of the dry matter fed to animals is farm
produced and in which annual average stocking rates are less than 10 LSU per hectare of
agricultural land.
A distinction is made between:
Arid/semi-arid tropics and sub-tropics
Temperate zones and tropical highlands
Humid/sub-humid tropics and sub-tropics.
Rain-fed mixed farming LPS are those in which more than 90% of the value of non-livestock farm
production comes from rain-fed land use.
These LPS can be divided into the same agro-ecological sub-classes as above.
Due to Botswana’s erratic rainfall occurrence and distribution, we simply have used the old
systems classification of:
Extensive LPS
Intensive LPS
Semi-intensive LPS
This classification for Botswana is based on land use and land tenure systems divided into:
Communal land (tribal land)
Freehold (private land)
State land (government owned)
Game reserves and National parks (17% of total land area)
Communal LPS:- graze their livestock on open pastures that are communally owned and
managed. These are divided into cattle-post areas (CPA) farmers who operate unfenced areas
with one or more boreholes, away from villages or towns, and village grazing areas (VGA) or
peri-urban farmers who graze from the village or surrounding area (FAO, 2010)
It is estimated that there were 2,100 medium-to-large CPA farmers with a holding of 150 or more cattle,
many operating similar to commercially managed farms but without fencing.
Additional 14,000 -15,000 small scale CPA farmers with herds less than 150.
CPAs farmers manage around 60% of Botswana’s cattle in 2007.
There were an estimated 60,000 VGA farmers in 2002 with their numbers declining as their land was
increasingly lost to fenced farms, and urbanization. These were mainly subsistence or hobby farmers
relying on additional incomes from alternative sources. They do not purchase any inputs.
They manage up to 30% of Botswana’s cattle with an average of 14 cattle per person
The VGA practices can potentially lead to overgrazing, land degradation and bush encroachment..
Commercial LPS: are usually large commercially operated on fenced on freehold or leased
land with exclusive rights to grazing resources. They have fallen from owning about 30% of the
national herd in 1980 to 12% in 2012 primarily due to reduced profits and converting into game
farms and ranches.
Some have moved into weaner production, often with their own feedlots. They practice superior
breeding and off-take performance accompanied by higher costs.
Feedlots and weaner production (intensive production system): the BMC and government
have shifted to intensive feedlot production whereby weaners are put into a feedlot and fed
concentrates to finish them in a shorter time but also adding value to the meat quality. Super
markets and chain stores are also into this LPS since they are assured of sustainable supply of
higher quality meat and sustainable supply.
Factors determining which LPS to use in
Botswana
Land use:
Communal versus freehold (fenced)
In communal LPS every member of the community or tribe has land rights allowing him/her to graze any number of
livestock on the land available without discrimination or otherwise. This has made impossible to carry out any
meaningful management practices or adopt any new land use practise without disadvantages small-scale
farmers.
Contrastingly, under commercial set ups, individuals have sole rights to the land and practice appropriate land use
management techniques dependent on carrying capacities of the land at their disposal. Thus their stocking rates
are determined by the carrying capacity of the land.
Large parts of the country are suitable for extensive livestock production, however, sustainable land
management mechanisms are needed to ensure that overgrazing (common in communal land) does
not occur. Farmers on communal land only enjoy user rights and can only sell improvements not land.
Technologies used:
Traditional versus modern technologies
Old traditional methods are still used as new ones are very expensive to acquire for small-scale farmers who rear
livestock for various reasons (milk, meat, draught power, security, income, wealth, cultural issues).
A cost benefit analysis does not favour these group of farmers, and they are found mainly peri-urban and peri villages.
They are driven by their desires to make profits.
They are influenced by global issues such as free markets and world trade issues
They are able to calculate the benefits of adopting modern ways of rearing livestock and where there is potential make profits,
they will invest into the new modern technologies on offer.
Livelihoods:
Those who can afford to purchase modern technologies are the more progressive and economically empowered.
Subsistence versus commercialisation
Subsistence production is where people produce livestock products for consumptive purposes and may sell any surplus that
may be generated or store the surplus for later use.
Commercial production is geared to generating income by selling livestock products realised for profit.
Prevailing livestock diseases:
Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and Contagious Bovine Pleuro-Pnuemonia (CBPP)
Slaughter policy has been used when outbreaks of these two diseases have occurred and compensation paid to farmers
Farmer Categories in Botswana’s LPS
Subsistence farmers: those with 1 – 40 herd of cattle, resource-poor individuals/households, without a
watering point of their own and are found peri-urban and peri-village utilizing urban/village water
points.
Emerging/progressive farmers: own from 41 – 250 herd of cattle, economically empowered, occupy
communal land away from urban and village areas, operating cattle-posts in a syndicated group
around a borehole. Boreholes are separated by a distance of 6 km radius minimum distance by law.
They occupy between 25 – 35% of total livestock farmers.
Their objectives are to achieve commercial status to make profit from their livestock investments.
Commercial farmers: own from 251 cattle or more. They are found in both fenced farms/ranches and
in communal land.
Those in communal land have sole watering rights for their individually owned boreholes and as such have the
6 km radius dispensation to themselves only but cannot fence the land if it is not designated as freehold,
leased or tribal grazing land purposes only.
Commercial vs Traditional Farms
Distinction is made between commercial and traditional holdings here for the purposes of
statistical and agricultural surveys solely on the basis of type of land ownership.
Commercial farmers are those who operate on freehold, leasehold or Tribal Grazing Land Policy (TGLP)
farms or ranches.
These operations are used solely for producing for meat markets (domestic and exports).
Table 1: Commercial herds as a percentage of total national herd
2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Cattle
7.7
10.0
6.9
7.8
12.4
13.5
15.4
11.5
11.7
Goats
0.3
2.1
1.4
1.5
2.0
2.3
2.7
1.9
2.1
sheep
8.2
4.8
5.2
4.1
7.1
7.1
10.7
4.3
6.0
Source: Statistics Botswana, Agricultural Surveys, various years
Mixed farming systems are used both in the traditional and commercial sectors.
Holders engage simultaneously in crop farming (maize and sorghum) and livestock (cattle and goats)
The traditional sector is by far the most important LPS.
It currently holds >80% of all species of livestock.
This is shown in the above Table 1.
Commercial holdings own about 12 – 15% of total number of cattle in Botswana.
LPS have slowly evolved from transhumance to a sedentary, largely absentee-owner, cattle-post
system concentrated around boreholes with exclusive or shared syndicated water rights.
The day-to-day management has fallen to herd men with little knowledge and limited resources to
manage the animals beyond providing them with water.
Absentee owners visit their cattle-posts or farms a few times in a year to take stock of their livestock and to give
instruction to the herd men (Anton van Engelen et al., (2013) and Botswana Agricultural Value Chain Project – Beef
Value Chain Study(FAO and Min of Agriculture, Botswana).
All LPS are dominated by men, however, female owners or holders account for 30% of cattle
producers.
The rural population engaged in livestock production is relatively old.
At least 60% of holders are aged 50 years and above.
Wages in the traditional operations are lower than in the commercial ones.
This age structure has consequences for the dynamics of the livestock sector since labour is scarce. It is difficult to find
someone for the very hard work and business is usually less dynamic, technologies less innovative because of old age.
Livestock production labour wages amount to about 25% of the monthly average earnings of most other sectors (Labour
Force Survey, 2008).
Productivity:
Livestock productivity in Botswana is low by international and regional standards.
It is consistently lower in traditional operations than in commercial holdings.
Production is also volatile as related to drought cycles and outbreaks of livestock diseases such as FMD.
The Ministry of Agriculture has divided the whole country into disease control zones through
cordon fences in order to prevent the spread of FMD, even from neighbouring countries such
as Zimbabwe.
FMD is generally prevalent in areas where buffaloes can easily mix with cattle but it can also affect
goats and other cloven-hoofed animals.
Beef from cattle in areas with high potential for FMD like those in the North and Okavango-Ngamiland
regions is not eligible for the European Union (EU) market, the country’s largest export market.
Government has a policy practice on FMD outbreaks whereby they slaughter all cattle from the
affected areas and compensate farmers for their destroyed animals
The Botswana Meat Commission (BMC) is responsible for the purchase, slaughter, sale,
marketing and export of livestock and livestock products.
It sells to both domestic and external markets such as EU, Norway and South Africa.
The BMC enjoys a monopoly on the export of beef and it has three slaughter abattoirs in the country.
The Lobatse and Francistown plants are accredited to export to the EU. The Maun plant is in an FMD endemic
zone and can only market locally.
The BMC buys and sells livestock products based on the export parity prices.
The BMC is loss-making and needs regular subsidies and payments for re-capitalisation in times when
exports of beef are suspended due to disease outbreaks.
The Botswana Vaccine Institute (BVI) manufacturers, sells and exports several livestock vaccines
both domestically and internationally (globally). Vaccines produced are for FMD, Anthrax,
CBPP, Black-quarter and others.
Exports of vaccines now count for a major foreign exchange earner for the country.
Table 2: Botswana’s Beef Exports
Year
US$ millions
Pula millions
2003
53.7
260.2
2004
60.1
284.0
2005
59.9
309.9
2006
60.9
363.2
2007
96.3
592.3
2008
79.0
530.3
2009
68.8
480.1
2010
127.6
868.8
2011
68.3
462.4
2012
68.3
522.9
2013
117.5
996.0
The global beef market and
Botswana’s position
In 2013, the global beef exports market was estimated at US$42.4 billion. The market was
divided equally between exports of fresh or chilled, and frozen beef.
The market is dominated by top 10 producers (countries) that account for over 80% of exports.
Botswana is a relatively small player in global beef context with only US$117 million, representing only
0.3% market share and was ranked 22nd and 28th in the world in the export of frozen and chilled beef,
respectively.
Botswana’s beef exports are estimated to account for 1.5% of its mechandize exports.
Nevertheless, it is considered to be a strategically important sector with the country’s pastures providing it with a
natural advantage in producing high quality grass-fed beef free from feed additives and hormones.
The sector’s performance affects the livelihoods of a large number of livestock farmers.
As mentioned above, our beef exports are concentrated in RSA, UK, Norway, Netherlands and
a few African and Middle-east countries.
Table 3: Top 10 global fresh, chilled and
frozen beef exporters
Fresh and chilled
Frozen
2013 Exports
US$ m
World
21,189
1
United States
2,929
2
Netherlands
3
2013 Exports US$
m
World
21,238
1
Brazil
4,504
2,641
2
India
4,411
Ireland
1,901
3
Australia
3,267
4
Australia
1,771
4
United States
2,310
5
Germany
1,649
5
New Zealand
1,505
6
France
1,225
6
Uruguay
940
7
Poland
956
7
Paraguay
771
8
Brazil
855
8
Argentina
337
9
Canada
837
9
Nicaragua
289
Competitive constraints and bottlenecks
Supply-side issues:
Capacity development
The beef sector is dominated by small, potentially uneconomic holdings
Weather fluctuations, droughts and shortage of underground water hamper the sector’s performance
Seasonality of supplies to slaughtering facilities reduces supply chain efficiency
Persistent FMD in red zones reduces volumes and prices achievable for exports
High overhead costs at BMC imposes a cost to the entire sector.
Capacity diversification
Need to invest in technology, R&D and production capacity to produce different cuts, packaging, etc. for export
The range of secondary processed beef available is very limited
Development of skills and entrepreneurship
Traditional pastoral methods often hamper introduction of modern husbandry techniques
Most communal farmers and some commercial farmers do not commercially approach livestock production
Quality of the business environment:
Infrastructure and regulatory issues
Underdeveloped transport and communication infrastructureincreases costs and disrupts access to supplies and
markets
The BMC lacks modern, flexible packaging facilities for exports
The BMC monopoly on exports disrupts the beef value chain
Lack of competition limits innovation and export growth
Lack of technology at BMC to promote commodity-based trading (CBT) in FMD affected zones
Politicization of sector prevents strict enforcement of some regulations
Import restrictions distort the market and reduces scope for exporting high value, high quality beef.
Trade facilitation
Limited technical and economic information available to sector participants
Lack of access to meaningful independent export market intelligence
Limited research into sector’s economics, diseases, etc.
Quality of institutional support
Limitations in capacity of the Competent Authority (Department of Veterinary Services-DVS) has led to lack of
flexibility, low commercial orientation and inconsistent official controls and enforcement.
Dispersal of export responsibilities among MoA departments and Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) requires
consolidation and increased involvement in trade negotiations affecting the sector.
Beef producers associations are underdeveloped and need capacitation
Cost of doing business
High reliance on expensive imported inputs including feeds, energy, etc
Inefficiencies in the sector’s support framework increases costs and risks for participants.
Need to comply with a wide range of certification requirements
Limitation in local testing facilities causes delays and increases costs of production
Market entry:
Market access and policy reform
Shortage of people, knowledge, expertise and focus on trade among policy makers
Limited trade coordination at SADC level and possible misalignment of priorities for Southern Africa that weakens
export negotiations.
Reliance on exporting through South Africa poses risks of disruption
Trade services support
Reliance on one outsourced export agent presents a range of risks
National promotion and branding
Lack of national and product level branding
Botswana’s beef has limited product differentiation and targeting
There is heavy concentration on exports to South Africa and EU, especially the UK.
Development:
Poverty alleviation and employment generation
Traditional communal practices limit income potential
Lack of commercialization limits capacity to generate employment
Environmental sustainability and climate change
Overgrazing near villages and boreholes contributes to environmental degradation coupled with disease
outbreaks
Poor hygiene practices contaminate grazing areas
Livestock and wildlife co-management including fencing creates problems.
Regional development and integration
There is a need for increased effectiveness in regional cooperation in areas such as trade negotiations, research
and disease control.
Gender and youth inclusiveness
There is low involvement of women and youth in the sector.
LPS growth rates:
Significant changes in resource endowment can bring about changes in the nature and extent of
certain production systems. Some major increases have been observed in tropical highland grazing
systems.
No such increases have been observed in Botswana even after increasing the levels of inputs such as
supplementing grazing, or feeding concentrates to intensively produced cattle since there has never been any
corresponding price increases at the slaughter markets for the past 5 – 10 years.
Global implications for food safety
Livestock products have continued to provide calories and protein in both developed and
developing countries.
The livestock industry therefore has great global economic and nutritional significance. However, while the
global importance of livestock products increases, the related changes in the livestock sector affects the
security of the food provided in various ways.
Given the direct links between feed safety and the safety of foods of livestock origin, it is essential
that feed production and manufacture be considered as an integral part of the food production
chain.
Feed products must be subject to quality assurance, including food safety systems based on hazard
analysis and critical control points (HACCP).
The Codex Alimentarius Commission has a Code of Conduct on Safe Animal Feeding (2004) that can used.
LPS in many developing countries (e.g. Botswana) are subject to strong external forces and are in
the process of rapid adjustments.
These adjustments are driving out small scale farmers since they are costly and immediate.
Where traditional and modern forms of livestock production co-exist, with parallel market
channels and outlets, uniform standards are difficult to enforce because of:
equity concerns
disease concerns
certification problems
and other issues
This poses a formidable challenge in regulating and upgrading food safety since the two segments interact.
Standards and regulations for animal health, food safety and food quality affect and are
affected by the structure of livestock food chains.
These standards are increasing in stringency, complexity and cost implications.
They are variable in nature and are driven by multiple forces, such as:
International agreements, international bodies, national policies and laws, requirements of large-scale retailers,
etc.
Consumers in affluent countries have a major impact on standards setting, yet the results of such
standards may affect:
Poor and marginal producers, processors and consumers who do not directly trade in the global market and have
very little voice in the standards setting process.
The private sector has an increasing influence while the impact of the public sector is limited and policies do not
always reflect the needs of the various stakeholders in the livestock food chains.
Food safety requirements are a major determinant shaping the structure (e.g. vertical integration) of the
livestock sector and associated food chains.
The emergence of multinational food chains and a dramatic rise in the market share of supermarkets and the
modern retail sector in many countries have created a number of effects that may compromise food safety
through:
A shift toward cross border systems of procuring goods in their different countries of production/operation
A shift toward preferred-supplier systems by selecting producers who meet specific quality and safety standards and lower
transaction costs
Consolidation of production and processing which may have unexpected impacts on safety
A shift toward safety and quality standards driven by the private sector.
Farmers Associations
Farmers have formed commodity associations to represent their interests.
The associations have members throughout the country.
They work closely with district extension staff to provide input into the design, monitoring, and review of
programme and trade matters concerning their commodity.
They advocate for their rights and privileges with the Ministry of Agriculture through various departments
within the ministry.
Farmers Associations are weak since they are still at formative stages and as such need to be
strengthened and capacitated in terms of management both in terms of day-to-day running,
accountability, advocacy, transparency, professionalism and commodity knowledge
Conclusion
When LPS are only influenced by internal forces (local or domestic issues) they tend to reach
an equilibrium state and may depend solely on agro-ecological resources. However, this
tendency is evolving rapidly due to external forces that are in demand of livestock products.
Urbanization, improved incomes, changes diets and eating habits, improved diet quality and food
safety, and emergence of multinational supermarkets and retailers, convenience and leisure orientedconsumers, have led to this rapid change in LPS.
LPS have become dynamic in order to meet the demands of the now sophisticated consumer
through intensification of technological advances and greater use of inputs from crop
production rather than depend on agro-ecological resources which finite but by a variety of
interacting factors.
vertical integration provides economies of scope, ensures reliability of supply, facilitates quality
management and homogeneity of products.
It is also mitigates threats to food safety and food quality.
It also increases the scale of production and the growth of some LPS.
THANK
YOU
???