Integrating Ecosystem Services and Disservices in Valuing Smallholder Livestock and Poultry Production in Three Villages in South Africa
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Data Collection
2.2.2. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Ecosystem Services
3.1.1. Livestock and Poultry Ownership, Numbers and Importance
3.1.2. Livestock Goods and Services and Value
3.2. Ecosystem Disservices
3.2.1. Frequency, Ability to Cope and Associated Economic Impact
Livestock Related EDS
Poultry-Related EDS
3.2.2. Pre-Emptive and Coping Strategies
3.2.3. Financial Cost of Selected EDS to Households
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Dovie, D.; Shackleton, C.; Witkowski, E. Valuation of communal area livestock benefits, rural livelihoods and related policy issues. Land Use Policy 2006, 26, 260–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shackleton, C.; Shackleton, S.; Netshiluvhi, T.; Mathabela, F. The contribution and direct-use value of livestock to rural households in the Sand River catchment, South Africa. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 2005, 22, 127–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Priyanti, A.; Cramb, R.; Hanifah, V.; Mahendri, I. Small-scale cattle raising in East Java: A pathway out of poverty? Asia Pac. Viewp. 2015, 56, 335–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hauck, M.; Artykbaeva, G.; Zozulua, T.; Dulamsuren, C. Pastoral livestock husbandry and rural livelihoods in the forest-steppe of east Kazakhstan. J. Arid Environ. 2016, 133, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vetter, S. Development and sustainable management of rangeland commons: Aligning policy with the realities of South Africa’s rural landscape. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 2013, 30, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altaye, S.; Kassa, B.; Agza, B.; Alemu, F.; Muleta, G. Smallholder cattle production systems in Metekel zone, northwest Ethiopia. Res. J. Agric. Environ. Manag. 2014, 3, 151–157. [Google Scholar]
- Chatikobo, P.; Choga, T.; Ncube, C.; Mutambara, J. Participatory diagnosis and prioritization of constraints to cattle production in some smallholder farming areas of Zimbabwe. Prev. Vet. Med. 2013, 109, 327–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mburu, S.; Zaibet, L.; Fall, A.; Ndiwa, N. The role of working animals in the livelihoods of rural communities in West Africa. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 2012, 24, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Hanke, H.; Barkmann, J. Insurance function of livestock, farmers coping capacity with crop failure in south western Madagascar. World Dev. 2017, 96, 264–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ncube, A.; Mangwaya, P.; Ogundeji, A. Assessing vulnerability and coping capacities of rural women to drought: A case study of Zvishavane district, Zimbabwe. Int. J. Disaster Risk Manag. 2018, 28, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mtembu, N. Exploring Characteristics of Farming Systems in Former Labour Tenant Communities: The Case of Ncunjane and Nkaseni in Msinga. Master’s Thesis, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Beyene, S.; Mlisa, L.; Gxasheka, M. Local perceptions of livestock husbandry and rangeland degradation in the highlands of South Africa: Implications for development interventions. J. Hum. Ecol. 2014, 47, 257–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nqeno, N.; Chimonyo, M.; Mapiye, C. Farmers’ perceptions of the causes of low reproductive performance in cows kept uner low-input communal production systems in South Africa. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2011, 43, 315–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Okello, W.O.; Muhanguzi, D.; MacLeod, E.T.; Welburn, S.C.; Waiswa, C.; Shaw, A.P. Contribution of draft cattle to rural livelihoods in a district of southeastern Uganda endemic for bovine parasitic diseases: An economic evaluation. Parasites Vectors 2015, 8, 571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Adehan, S.; Adakal, H.; Gbinwoua, D.; Yokossi, D.; Zoungrana, S.; Toe, P.; Ouedraogo, M.; Gbaguidi, M.; Adoligbe, C.; Fandohan, B.; et al. West African cattle farmers’ perception of tick-borne disease. Ecohealth Alliance 2018, 15, 437–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adesehinwa, A.; Okunola, J.; Adewumi, M. Socio-economic characteristics of ruminant livestock farmers and their production constraints in some parts of south-western Nigeria. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 2004, 16, 838–842. [Google Scholar]
- Saunders, M.; Luck, G. Limitations of the ecosystem service versus disservices dichotomy. Conserv. Biol. 2016, 60, 1363–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Farrell, P.; Donaldson, J.; Hoffman, M. The influence of ecosystem goods and services on livestock management practices on the Bokkeveld plateau, South Africa. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 122, 312–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friess, D. Ecosystem services and disservices of mangrove forests: Insights from historical colonial observations. Forests 2016, 7, 183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shackleton, C.; Ruwanza, S.; Sinasson Sani, G.; Bennett, S.; De Lacy, P.; Modipa, R.; Mtati, N.; Sachikonye, M.; Thondhlana, G. Unpacking pandora’s box: Understanding and categorizing ecosystem disservices for environmental management and human wellbeing. Ecosystems 2016, 19, 587–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanco, J.; Sourdril, A.; Deconchat, M.; Ladet, S.; Andrieu, E. Social drivers of rural forest dynamics: A multi-scale approach combining ethnography, geomatic and mental model analysis. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2018, 188, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Statistics South Africa. Njela/Gogogo/Ludaka. Available online: www.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=4286&id=4467 (accessed on 6 July 2016).
- Herd-Hoare, S. The Relative Roles of Ecosystem Services and Disservices in Rural Livelihoods in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Master’s Thesis, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Mucina, L.; Scott-Shaw, R.; Rutherford, M.; Camp, K.; Matthews, W.; Powrie, L.; Hoare, D. Indian Ocean Coastal Belt. In The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland; Macina, L., Rutherford, M., Eds.; South African Biodiversity Institute: Pretoria, South Africa, 2006; pp. 568–583. [Google Scholar]
- Rutherford, M.; Mucina, L.; Powrie, L. Biomes and Bioregions of Southern Africa. In The Vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland; Macina, L., Rutherford, M., Eds.; South African National Biodiversity Institute: Pretoria, South Africa, 2006; pp. 31–50. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses, Revision 2; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Chaminuka, P.; Udo, H.; Eilers, K.; van der Zijpp, A. Livelihood roles of cattle and prospects for alternative land uses at the wildlife/livestock interface in South Africa. Land Use Policy 2014, 38, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gwelo, A. Farmers’ perceptions of Nguni Cattle Feeding Behaviour and Behaviour and Vegetation Nutrient Dynamics in Two Communal Rangeland, Eastern Cape. Master’s Thesis, University of Fort Hare, Fort Hare, South Africa, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Tavirimirwa, B.; Mwembe, R.; Ngulube, B.; Banana, N.; Nyamushamba, G.; Ncube, S.; Nkomboni, D. Communal cattle production in Zimbabwe: A review. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 2013, 25, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Mapiliyao, L.; Pepe, D.; Chiruka, R.; Marume, U.; Muchenje, V. Production practices and constraints to sheep productivity in two ecologically different and resource-poor communal farming systems in South Africa. Sci. Res. Essays 2012, 7, 3209–3217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ainslie, A. The sociocultural contexts and meanings associated with livestock keeping in rural South Africa. Afr. J. Range Forage Sci. 2013, 30, 35–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Randolph, T.; Schelling, E.; Grace, D.; Nicholson, C.; Leroy, J.; Cole, D.; Demment, M.; Omore, A.; Zinsstag, J.; Ruel, M. Invited Review: Role of livestock in human nutrition and health for poverty reduction in developing countries. J. Anim. Sci. 2007, 85, 2788–2800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Smith, J.; Sones, K.; Grace, D.; McMillan, S.; Tarawali, S.; Herrero, M. Beyond milk, meat and eggs: Role of livestock in food and nutrition security. Anim. Front. 2013, 3, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Minjauw, B.; McLeod, A. Tick-Borne Diseases and Poverty: The Impact of Ticks and Tick-Borne Diseases on Livelihoods of Small-Scale and Marginal Livestock Owners in India and Eastern and Southern Africa Edinburgh; DFID Animal Health Programme, Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine: Edinburgh, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Moyo, B.; Masika, P. Tick control methods used by resource-limited farmers and the effect of ticks on cattle in rural areas of the Eastern Cape province, South Africa. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2009, 41, 517–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sungirai, M.; Moyo, D.; De Clercq, P.; Madder, M. Communal farmers’ perceptions of tick-borne diseases affecting cattle and investigation of tick control methods practiced in Zimbabwe. Ticks Tick-Borne Dis. 2016, 7, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Wesonga, F.; Kitala, P.; Gathuma, J.; Njenga, M.; Ngumi, P. An assessment of tick-borne diseases constraints to livestock production in a smallholder livestock production system in Machakos District, Kenya. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 2010, 22, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
- Mapiye, C.; Chimonyo, M.; Dzama, K. Seasonal dynamics, production potential and efficiency of cattle in the sweet and sour communal rangelands in South Africa. J. Arid Environ. 2009, 73, 529–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masika, P.; Sonandi, A.; van Averbeke, W. Perceived causes, diagnosis and treatment of babeiosis and anaplasmosis in cattle by livestock farmers in communal areas of the central Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 1997, 68, 40–44. [Google Scholar]
- Marufu, M.; Chimonyo, M.; Dzama, K.; Mapiye, C. Seroprevalence of tick-borne diseases in communal cattle reared on sweet and sour rangelands in semi-arid area of South Africa. Vet. J. 2010, 184, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Muchenje, V.; Dzama, K.; Chimonyo, M.; Strydom, P.; Raats, J. Tick susceptibility and its effects on growth performance and carcass characteristics of Nguni, Bonsmara and Angus steers raised on natural pasture. Animal 2008, 2, 298–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Trinca, C.; Ferrari, S.; Lees, A. Curiosity killed the bird: Arbitrary hunting of Harpy Eagles Harpia harpyja on an agricultural frontier in southern Brazilian Amazonia. Contiga 2008, 30, 5–12. [Google Scholar]
- Sigwela, A.; Elbakidze, M.; Powell, M.; Angelstam, P. Defining core areas of ecological infrastructure to secure rural livelihoods in South Africa. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 27, 272–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kepe, T. Grassland ablaze: Vegetation burning by rural people in Pondoland, South Africa. S. Afr. Geogr. J. 2005, 87, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mwale, M.; Masika, P. Ethno-veterinary control of parasites, management and role of village chickens in rural households of Centane district in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2009, 41, 1685–1693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, K.; Ainslie, A.; Beinart, W. Animal disease and the limits of local knowledge: Dealing with ticks and tick-borne diseases in South Africa. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 2013, 19, 319–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hlatshwayo, M.; Mbati, P. A survey of tick control methods used by resource-poor farmers in the Qwa-Qwa area of the eastern Free State province, South Africa. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 2005, 72, 245–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hesterberg, U.; Bagnall, R.; Perret, K.; Horner, R.; Gummow, B. A questionaire survey of perceptions and preventive measures related to animal health amongst cattle owners of rural communities in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 2007, 78, 205–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Skowno, A.; Thompson, M.; Hiestermann, J.; Ripley, B.; West, A.; Bond, W. Woodland expansion in South African grassy biomes based on satellite observations (1990-2013): General patterns and potential drivers. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 23, 2358–2369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blair, D.; Shackleton, C.; Mograbi, P. Cropland abandonment in South African smallholder communal lands: Land cover change (1950–2010) and farmer perceptions of contributing factors. Land 2018, 7, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chalmers, N.; Fabricius, C. Expert and generalist local knowledge about land-cover change on South Africa’s Wild Coast: Can local ecological knowledge add value to science? Ecol. Soc. 2007, 12, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lele, S.; Springate-Baginski, O.; Lakerveld, R.; Deb, D.; Dash, P. Ecosystem services: Origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alternatives. Conserv. Soc. 2013, 11, 343–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vang Rasmussen, L.; Christensen, A.; Danielsen, F.; Dawson, N.; Martin, A.; Mertz, O.; Sikor, T.; Thongmanivong, S.; Xaydongvanh, P. From food to pest: Conversion factors determine switches between ecosystem services and disservices. Ambio 2017, 46, 173–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Category | Cattle | Poultry | Goats | Pigs | Sheep |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Njela | |||||
All HH (%) | 11 | 80 | 26 | - | - |
LS 1 owning HH (%) | 40 | NA 2 | 90 | - | - |
Mean no. per owning HH | 4 ± 2 | 7 ± 6 | 5 ± 3 | - | - |
Range | 2–7 | 2–30 | 2–12 | - | - |
Gogogo | |||||
All HH (%) | 28 | 74 | 33 | 10 | 8 |
LS owning HH (%) | 52 | NA 2 | 62 | 19 | 14 |
Mean no. per owning HH | 6 ± 6 | 9 ± 7 | 15 ± 20 | 1 ± 0 | 12 ± 12 |
Range | 2–12 | 1–30 | 1–70 | 1–1 | 5–26 |
Ludaka | |||||
All HH (%) | 48 | 75 | 8 | 25 | 55 |
LS owning HH (%) | 68 | NA 2 | 11 | 36 | 79 |
Mean no. per owning HH | 6 ± 5 | 9 ± 8 | 7 ± 2 | 4 ± 3 | 16 ± 12 |
Range | 1–15 | 1–30 | 5–8 | 1–8 | 5–58 |
Cattle | Poultry | Goats | Pigs | Sheep | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Njela | |||||
Av. no. 2015 | 6 ± 1 | 16 ± 11 | 7 ± 7 | - | - |
Av. no. 2016 | 4 ± 2 | 7 ± 6 | 6 ± 3 | - | - |
Av. change | −2 ± 4 | −6 ± 11 | −3 ± 4 | - | - |
% change 2 | −35 ± 25 | −39 ± 59 | −31 ± 32 3 | - | - |
Gogogo | |||||
Av. no. 2015 | 6 ± 6 | 8 ± 6 | 20 ± 23 | 0 ± 0 | 20 ± 21 |
Av. no. 2016 | 6 ± 6 | 6 ± 6 | 15 ± 20 | 1 ± 0 | 12 ± 12 |
Av. change | 0.2 ± 3 | −0.5 ± 4 | −4 ± 6 | 1 ± 0 | −8 ± 10 |
% change 2 | +3 ± 34 | −72 ± 24 | −13 ± 46 | +100 ± 0 | −35 ± 9 |
Ludaka | |||||
Av. no. 2015 | 8 ± 5 | 20 ± 11 | 11 ± 1 | 3 ± 4 | 23 ± 20 |
Av. no. 2016 | 6 ± 4 | 9 ± 8 | 7 ± 2 | 4 ± 3 | 16 ± 12 |
Av. change | −2 ± 4 | −10 ± 13 | −4 ± 1 | 1 ± 3 | −6 ± 13 |
% change 2 | −21 ± 46 | −33 ± 92 | −38 ± 11 | 73 ± 129 | −13 ± 50 |
Av. % change | −16 ± 42 | −48 ± 66 | −12 ± 60 | +81 ± 10 | −16 ± 47 |
Benefit Status | Goods and Services | Proportion (%) of | Average Value (R/year) per | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
All HH | Owner HH | Owner User HH | Owner HH | |||
Cattle | Direct-use value | Milk | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Manure (fertiliser + sealant) | 71 | 75 | 324 ± 213 | 244 ± 238 | ||
Plough | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Trade value | Cash sales | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Other | Slaughter (ritual + consumption) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Total (R/year) | (a) owner user HH: 324 ± 213; (b) owner HH: 244 ± 238; (c) all HH: 28 ± 106 | |||||
Chickens | Direct-use value | Eggs | 74 | 93 | 1362 ± 1564 | 1073 ± 1494 |
Trade value | Cash sales | 3 | 4 | 413 (n = 1) | 15 ± 78 | |
Other | Slaughter (ritual + HH consumption) | 51 | 64 | 884 ± 797 | 568 ± 766 | |
Total (R/year) | (a) owner user HH: 1990 ± 1886; (b) owner HH: 1848 ± 1888; (c) all HH: 1478 ± 1842 | |||||
Goats | Trade value | Cash sales | 3 | 11 | 9000 (n = 1) | 1000 ± 3000 |
Other | Slaughter (ritual + HH consumption) | 9 | 33 | 2000 ± 866 | 667 ± 1090 | |
Total (R/year) | (a) owner user HH: 5000 ± 4822; (b) owner HH: 1666 ± 3473; (c) all HH: 429 ± 1840 | |||||
Pigs | Trade value | Cash sales | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Other | Slaughter (ritual + HH consumption) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Total (R/year) | (a) owner user HH: 0; (b) owner HH: 0; (c) all HH: 0 | |||||
Sheep | Trade value | Cash sales | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Other | Slaughter (ritual + HH consumption) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Total (R/year) | (a) owner user HH: 0; (b) owner HH: 0; (c) all HH: 0 | |||||
Av. Gross Total (R/year): (a) owner user HH: 2605 ± 3311; (b) owner HH: 2257 ± 3203; (c) all HH: 1935 ± 3065 |
Benefit Status | Goods and Services | Proportion (%) of | Average Value (R/year) per | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
All HH | Owner HH | Owner User HH | Owner HH | |||
Cattle | Direct-use value | Milk | 3 | 9 | 1792 (n = 1) | 162 ± 540 |
Manure (fertiliser + sealant) | 78 | 82 | 462 ± 229 | 378 ± 261 | ||
Plough | 13 | 45 | 440 ± 313 | 275 ± 303 | ||
Trade value | Cash sales | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Other | Slaughter (ritual + consumption) | 5 | 18 | 20,000 ± 14,142 | 3636 ± 9244 | |
Total (R/year) | (a) owner user HH: 5352 ± 10,797; (b) owner HH: 4379 ± 9897; (c) all HH: 1204 ± 5389 | |||||
Chickens | Direct-use value | Eggs | 60 | 92 | 1497 ± 1568 | 1239 ± 1534 |
Trade value | Cash sales | 3 | 4 | 640 (n = 1) | 25 ± 126 | |
Other | Slaughter (ritual + HH consumption) | 48 | 73 | 1044 ± 676 | 709 ± 743 | |
Total (R/year) | (a) owner user HH: 2169 ± 1750; (b) owner HH: 2016 ± 1777; (c) all HH: 1410 ± 1750 | |||||
Goats | Trade value | Cash sales | 8 | 21 | 9333 ± 6110 | 2000 ± 4641 |
Other | Slaughter (ritual + HH consumption) | 10 | 29 | 3500 ± 3000 | 1000 ± 2184 | |
Total (R/year) | (a) owner user HH: 6000 ± 5164; (b) owner HH: 3000 ± 4690; (c) all HH: 1050 ± 3071 | |||||
Pigs | Trade value | Cash sales | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Other | Slaughter (ritual + HH consumption) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Total (R/year) | (a) owner user HH: 0; (b) owner HH: 0; (c) all HH: 0 | |||||
Sheep | Trade value | Cash sales | 3 | 33 | 12,000 (n = 1) | 4000 ± 6928 |
Other | Slaughter (ritual + HH consumption) | 8 | 100 | 4667 ± 4618 | 4667 ± 4618 | |
Total (R/year) | (a) owner user HH: 4667 ± 4616; (b) owner HH: 4667 ± 4616; (c) all HH: 350 ± 1626 | |||||
Av. Gross Total (R/year): (a) owner user HH: 5353 ± 8228; (b) owner HH: 4866 ± 7987; (c) all HH: 4014 ± 7473 |
Benefit Status | Goods and Services | Proportion (%) of | Average Value (R/year) per | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
All HH | Owner HH | Owner User HH | Owner HH | |||
Cattle | Direct-use value | Milk | 3 | 5 | 1792 (n = 1) | 94 ± 411 |
Manure (fertiliser + sealant) | 93 | 100 | 472 ± 291 | 447 ± 303 | ||
Plough | 15 | 32 | 600 ± 310 | 200 ± 336 | ||
Trade value | Cash sales | 8 | 16 | 20,000 ± 6928 | 3158 ± 7841 | |
Other | Slaughter (ritual + consumption) | 10 | 21 | 15,000 ± 6000 | 3333 ± 6894 | |
Total (R/year) | (a) owner user HH: 7438 ± 12,168; (b) owner HH: 7046 ± 11,959; (c) all HH: 3347 ± 8962 | |||||
Chickens | Direct-use value | Eggs | 43 | 57 | 1184 ± 574 | 606 ± 701 |
Trade value | Cash sales | 13 | 17 | 976 ± 891 | 232 ± 571 | |
Other | Slaughter (ritual + HH consumption) | 60 | 80 | 508 ± 271 | 407 ± 318 | |
Total (R/year) | (a) owner user HH: 1328 ± 958; (b) owner HH: 1240 ± 984; (c) all HH: 954 ± 1009 | |||||
Goats | Trade value | Cash sales | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Other | Slaughter (ritual and HH consumption) | 3 | 33 | 8000 (n = 1) | 2667 ± 4619 | |
Total (R/year) | (a) owner user HH: 8000 (n = 1); (b) owner HH: 2667 ± 4619; (c) all HH: 200 ± 1265 | |||||
Pigs | Trade value | Cash sales | 8 | 30 | 3333 ± 1155 | 1000 ± 1155 |
Other | Slaughter (ritual and HH consumption) | 13 | 50 | 1800 ± 1304 | 900 ± 1287 | |
Total (R/year) | (a) owner user HH: 3800 ± 2950; (b) owner HH: 1900 ± 2807; (c) all HH: 475 ± 1585 | |||||
Sheep | Trade value | Cash sales | 13 | 23 | 15,900 ± 25,601 | 3614 ± 13,090 |
Other | Slaughter (ritual and HH consumption) | 28 | 50 | 3136 ± 1951 | 1568 ± 2095 | |
Total (R/year) | (a) owner user HH: 8142 ± 15,991; (b) owner HH: 5182 ± 13,205; (c) all HH: 2850 ± 10,035 | |||||
Av. Gross Total (R/year): (a) owner user HH: 9753 ± 20,177; (b) owner HH: 9457 ± 19,931; (c) all HH: 8002 ± 18,614 |
EDS | Njela | Gogogo | Ludaka | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
% Owner HH | Av. Unit Lost p.a | Av. econ. Loss per HH (R/year) | % Owner HH | Av. Unit Lost p.a | Av. econ. Loss per HH (R/year) | % Owner HH | Av. Unit Lost p.a | Av. econ. Loss per HH (R/year) | ||
Cattle | Tick-borne disease | 50 | 3 ± 1 | 27,000 ± 12,728 | 18 | 5 ± 4 | 50,000 ± 42,426 | 53 | 4 ± 4 | 50,400 ± 47,598 |
Chickens/ Chicks | Birds of prey | 68 | 163 ± 202 | 5727 ± 7093 | 100 | 86 ± 63 | 3014 ± 2203 | 77 | 9 ± 6 | 329 ± 236 |
Forest cats | 18 | 11 ± 16 | 1136 ± 1725 | 23 | 4 ± 2 | 409 ± 196 | 3 | 1 (n = 1) | 84 (n = 1) | |
Monkeys | 14 | 36 ± 24 | 1242 ± 852 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
Chicken disease | 50 | 14 ± 15 | 1439 ± 1615 | 96 | 11 ± 8 | 1115 ± 824 | 63 | 18 ± 23 | 1500 ± 1930 | |
Goats | Disease | 44 | 4 ± 4 | 6000 ± 6363 | 50 | 4 ± 4 | 8286 ± 7251 | 33 | 3 (n = 1) | 6000 (n = 1) |
Pigs | Disease | - | - | - | - | - | - | 20 | 2 ± 0 | 4000 ± 0 |
Sheep | Disease | - | - | - | 100 | 2 ± 2 | 4667 ± 3055 | 68 | 7 ± 7 | 11,000 ± 11,405 |
Average economic loss amongst owner HHs (R/year): Njela: 8326 ± 9657; (b) Gogogo: 8289 ± 15,073; (c) Ludaka: 22,426 ± 38,208 |
EDS | Pre-Emptive | Reactive |
---|---|---|
Birds of prey | -In past: papers or plastic bottle attached to overhead wires -Current: Plant long-leafed plants which provide safe space for chicks to hide -Construction of small structures -Shouting and waving arms | -None identified |
Chicken disease | -Biomedical solution or Aloe sp. added to water trough | -Slaughter entire flock before one infected chicken spreads disease |
Ticks and tick-borne disease | -Biomedical treatment at mean R1000 per annum for treatment and prevention -Medicinal plants, especially amongst poorer resident | -None identified |
Njela | Gogogo | Ludaka | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
% of Owners | Av. Cost (R/year) | Range (R/year) | % of Owners | Av. Price (R/year) | Range (R/year) | % of Owners | Av. Price (R/year) | Range (R/year) | |
Cattle | 50 | 550 ± 212 | 400–700 | 73 | 1075 ± 685 | 250–2000 | 84 | 913 ± 818 | 250–3000 |
Chickens | 18 | 149 ± 127 | 13–350 | 46 | 112 ± 141 | 7–500 | 51 | 167 ± 158 | 30–500 |
Goats | 89 | 350 ± 303 | 52–1000 | 86 | 986 ± 1662 | 12–1000 | 100 | 900 ± 557 | 300–1400 |
Pigs | - | - | - | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Sheep | - | - | - | 66 | 1105 ± 1265 | 200–2000 | 91 | 958 ± 690 | 100–3000 |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Herd-Hoare, S.C.; Shackleton, C.M. Integrating Ecosystem Services and Disservices in Valuing Smallholder Livestock and Poultry Production in Three Villages in South Africa. Land 2020, 9, 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9090294
Herd-Hoare SC, Shackleton CM. Integrating Ecosystem Services and Disservices in Valuing Smallholder Livestock and Poultry Production in Three Villages in South Africa. Land. 2020; 9(9):294. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9090294
Chicago/Turabian StyleHerd-Hoare, Shannon C., and Charlie M. Shackleton. 2020. "Integrating Ecosystem Services and Disservices in Valuing Smallholder Livestock and Poultry Production in Three Villages in South Africa" Land 9, no. 9: 294. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9090294