Governance of grazing lands and schemes in Zimbabwe with emphasis on schemes in Masvingo province

A research paper on the governance of grazing lands in a province of rural Zimbabwe.There have been concerns about land degradation and many other problems associated with agricultural production in the communal lands (areas) of Zimbabwe. Concern over high stocking rates of livestock, “overgrazing”, and what was perceived as a low level of productivity in peasant farming areas was first expressed by government officials in the 1920s and has over the years involved several attempts to restructure land use settlement patterns (Cousins, 1988). These attempts include the introduction of grazing schemes. Grazing schemes are interventions aimed at, firstly, improving livestock productivity in communal areas, and secondly, conserving the vegetation cover of grazing land and reducing the risk of irreversible environmental degradation (Cousins, 1988). It was assumed that the low productivity was due to poor management, both of stock and range-land feed resources, and that the high stocking rates caused severe land degradation. In general, grazing schemes in the Zimbabwe communal areas aim to control stock numbers, restrict access to communal range-land by means of fences, and manage the range-land by means of rotational resting systems. Grazing schemes have involved the modification of traditional tenure rules and the development of a new kind of resource management institution, the committee. Sometimes management decisions and procedures are embodied in sets of by-laws, formally written down and officially sanctioned or else informally held in the memories of community members. They are an example of the evolution of common property management systems

Goat feeds and feeding practises in a semi-arid smallholder farming system in Zimbabwe

This study was conducted to identify the available goat feed resources for smallholder farmers in the semi-arid region of Zimbabwe. An ecological rangeland assessment was combined with participatory research methods to determine the diversity of feed resources in two wards of the Beitbridge District, namely Chamunangana and Joko. One hundred and twenty households were surveyed. All farmers depended on rangeland as the main feed resource. Some 87% of the respondents indicated that rangeland was not adequate, yet only 54% practiced supplementation. Participants predominantly used crop residues (40%), browse tree foliage (28%) and commercial feeds (22%) as supplements. Of the 46% who did not apply supplements, 53% attributed this to unavailability of feeding material and 29% were not aware of the importance, whereas the rest thought it unnecessary. Farmers in Chamunangana and those who milked their goats were more likely to supplement feed (p < 0.05). Respondents who supplemented had received training in goat husbandry (p < 0.05). The Shannon–Wiener diversity index (H′) was higher in Chamunangana (1.29), compared with Joko (1.19). There was no difference in biomass production between the study sites (p > 0.05). Improved goat nutrition could be achieved through farmer trainings in goat husbandry and incorporating available feeds into balanced rations

Storage quality and marketability potential of bagged silage for smallholder dairy farmers in Zimbabwe

Bagged sole maize and maize–cowpea silages in three bag sizes were assessed at 42 and 282 d post-ensiling for sensory and chemical quality. A survey of dairy farmers on silage use and preferences was conducted in the Chikwaka communal area and Marirangwe small-scale commercial farming area. Only silage dryness changed with time. Percentage neutral detergent fibre significantly changed in 20 kg bags from 58.1 ± 0.75% at 42 d to 52.3 ± 0.86% at 282 d and in 10 kg maize–cowpea bags from 48.6 ± 0.75% to 56.0 ± 0.86%. Percentage crude protein significantly decreased (P < 0.05) for 15 kg (11.8 ± 0.30% to 9.4 ± 0.35%) and 20 kg bags (11.4 ± 0.30% to 8.9 ± 0.35%) for maize– cowpea. All 45 farmers surveyed knew about silage and 90% were feeding it to cows, 53% were making their own and 37% purchased silage. Challenges in making silage included unavailability of forage choppers, lack of requisite resources and inadequate knowledge. Silage unavailability and difficulties in transportation and storage resulted in a low frequency of silage purchases. There was no association (χ2 = 0.18; P > 0.05) between farming system and farmers’ willingness to buy or sell silage, and larger bags were preferred (χ2 = 78.96; P < 0.05). Computed silage costs per tonne were farm-produced sole maize US$57.54, maize–cowpea US$58.59 and bought-in sole maize US$89.80.Keywords: bag silage, dairy, marketing, nutrition, qualit