Risk factors associated with occurrence of anthelmintic resistance in sheep of resource-poor farmers in Limpopo province, South Africa

Anthelmintic treatment is the most common way of controlling nematode infections in ruminants even though several countries have reported anthelmintic resistance (AR), resulting in limitation for sustainable small ruminant production. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the knowledge of resource-poor sheep farmers in Limpopo province of South Africa on the use of anthelmintics. A questionnaire regarding helminthosis control practices was administered to small ruminant farmers in five districts of Limpopo province namely Capricorn, Sekhukhune, Waterberg, Vhembe, and Mopani. A total of 77 resource-poor farmers were interviewed between June and August of 2017 using a structured questionnaire with a combination of qualitative and quantitative open-ended questions. The interviewed farmers were divided into three groups based on their farming experience (< 5; 6–10, and ˃ 10 years of farming experience). Limited farming experience was shown as one of the risks, as farmers that owned sheep for less than 10 years could not identify the symptoms of gastrointestinal parasites infection and did not know how nematodes are transmitted to animals. However, no significant difference (p < 0.05) was found to exist between the three groups of farmers in terms of clinical signs identification and correct application of anthelmintics. About 43% of the respondents were unaware of gastrointestinal nematodes (GI) that infect sheep, could not identify the clinical symptoms of gastrointestinal nematodes infection, and only 34% knew how animals become infected. Although 67.5% of farmers mentioned that they never dose their sheep, 32.5% use anthelmintics at varying times in a year. None of the farmers weighed their sheep before dosing them instead visual appraisal of individual weight was the most common means of estimating the anthelmintic dose. The above information is an indication of risks associated with possible occurrence of anthelmintic resistance in the study areas. There is therefore, a need to give training to resource-poor farmers of small stock on proper application of anthelmintic treatment and to educate them on how to prevent development of AR. Future studies on AR should also be conducted in the province in flocks with high-treatment frequencies to establish the occurrence of AR using both in vivo and in vitro methods. The most common risk factor associated with the occurrence of AR in all the five districts of Limpopo province was found to be the use of anthelmintics without weighing the animals to determine the correct dosage.The first author is supported by a grant holder bursary of the Collaborative Postgraduate Training Grant of National Research Foundation (NRF) of South Africa (GUN: 105271) made available to OMMT. This study was made possible by the funding from Afrivet Chair on Primary Animal Health Care (University of Pretoria) research grant made available to RM and the NRF incentive grant for rated researchers (GUN94187) made available to OMMT.http://link.springer.com/journal/112502020-03-01hj2019Production Animal Studie

Land reform in South Africa : Beneficiary participation and impact on land use in the Waterberg District

National challenges of food insecurity and unemployment in South Africa prompted an increase in expectations for agricultural land acquired through land reform programmes to make meaningful contributions. Embedded in these expectations is the need for understanding the situation in reformed farms. This study reviewed policies and literature on land reform, and analyzed beneficiary participation in reformed farms and the impact of land reform on land use in land restitution and land redistribution farms in the Waterberg District Municipality. Data were collected through individual surveys, key informants interviews and stakeholder workshop. Beneficiary participation levels were significantly lower in restitution farms (18% per farm) than in redistribution farms (65% per farm). The changes in land redistribution policy over time resulted in significant differences in beneficiary participation among land redistribution models, with participation levels increasing with time. Land redistribution model SLAG had the lowest beneficiary participation level (19% per farm) while the latest model PLAS had the highest (100% per farm). The changes in land redistribution policy over time resulted in significant differences in extent of land used among land redistribution models, though the trend was not systemic. On average, redistribution farms under SLAG and LRAD2 models used ≤70% of the farm land, while farms under LRAD1 and PLAS models used more than 90% of the farm land. The research approach used in this study found similar results in beneficiary participation to those in literature where case studies approach was used in restitution farms. On the contrary, in redistribution farms the research approach resulted in findings that differed from case study literature and revealed the needs for representative sample and time if conclusive recommendations were to be reached

Agriculture in land reform farms: Impact on livelihoods of beneficiaries in the Waterberg district, South Africa

Countries have pursued land reform (LR) to contribute towards equity, poverty alleviation and job creation. Land confiscation and market-assisted approaches are used the most in expediting LR. The approach adopted in each of the countries will depend on the prevailing circumstances and priorities of those advocating for LR. South Africa implemented LR for the past two decades aimed to provide meaningful contribution to the livelihood of beneficiaries, among others. However, economic quantification of livelihood gains attained by households (hhs) from LR farms is unknown. The present paper aimed to quantify the economic contributions to livelihoods of various activities at LR farms, and to analyse factors underlying these contributions. We surveyed 87 hhs who were active in 43 LR farms in the Waterberg District, Limpopo Province. Five LR farm types were distinguished: Restitution (Rest), settlement/land acquisition grant (SLAG), land redistribution for agricultural development phases 1 and 2 (LRAD1 and LRAD2) and proactive land acquisition strategy (PLAS) farms. We used a stepwise approach for data collection, which included focus group discussions, household (hh) surveys and livelihood pie charts. On-farm contributions were higher (±49.5%) in LRAD1, LRAD2 and PLAS, compared to on-farm contributions of hhs in Rest and SLAG (±15.5%), because most of the hh heads (±68.3%) were younger (≤59 years), and hhs were physical capital endowed and farmed in physical capital endowed farms. Livestock farming was a key land use activity because of the prevailing agroecological conditions. The LR policy should prioritise provision of farm physical capital and livestock production to improve on-farm livelihood contributions in physical capital poor farms