Land Use Planning for Sustainable Agricultural Development

BOTSWANA

PROPOSEDAGRICULTURAL LAND USE PLAN

FOR

FORMER FREEHOLD FARMS25/77 NQ AND 27/77 NQ

NORTH EAST DISTRICT

Food & Agriculture Republic of United NationsOrganization of the Botswana DevelopmentUnited Nations Programme

MARCH 1994

BOT791/001Field Document 2

Land Use Planning for Sustainable Agricultural Development

BOTSWANA

PROPOSEDAGRICULTURAL LAND USE PLAN

FOR

FORMER FREEHOLD FARMS25/77 NQ AND 27/77 NQ

NORTH EAST DISTRICT

by

P.S. Wijesuriya and Z. Phi!lime

Agricultural Land Use Planners,Francistown Region

with the assistance of

M. Powell, D.J. Radcliffe, and A. Neher

Livestock Production Specialist, Chief Technical Adviserand Geographical Information Systems Specialist respectively

Food & Agriculture Republic of United NationsOrganization of the Botswana DevelopmentUnited Nations Programme

MARCH 1994

BOT/91/001Field Document 2

Wijesuriya, P.S., Phi!lime, Z., Powell, M.J., Radcliffe, D.J., and Neher, A. 1994. ProposedAgricultural Land Use Plan for Former Freehold Farms 25/77 NQ and 27/77 NQ, North EastDistrict. FAO/UNDP Government of Botswana Project BOT/91/001 Land Use Planning forSustainable Agricultural Development. Field Document 2. 71pp.

This field document is one of a series of reports prepared during the course of theproject identified on the title page. The conclusions and recommendations in thereport are those considered appropriate at the time of its preparation. They may bemodified in the light of further knowledge gained at subsequent stages of theproject.

The definitions employed and the presentation of the material and maps in thisdocument does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part ofthe Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal orconstitutional status of any country, territory or sea area or concerning thedelimitation of frontiers.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . ......................... . . . . . . . . . v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi

INTRODUCTION . . . . . ............... . . . . ..... . . . . .

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 2

2.1 Location ..... . . . .......... . . . . . . . . ..... . ..... . 2

2.2 Climate ............ . . . . ............. . . . . . . . ... 2

2.2.1 Rainfall . . . . . ........ . ........ . ..... . . . . . . . 2

2.2.2 Air Temperature Humidity and Wind Speed 2

2.2.3 Evapotranspiration .*. . . . . . . . . . .............. . . 5

2.3 Geology and landform ................... . . . . . . . . .. 5

2.4 Soils . . . . . . . . ................. . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . 62.4.1 Previous studies . . . . . . . . ....... . . . ...... . ..... . . 62.4.3 Soil Survey of Irrigation Block ............ . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.5 Land Cover and Present Land Use . . . . . _ _ ..... . ...... . . 7

2.5.1 Vegetation . . . ......... . ..... . . . . . 72.5.2 Land Use 8

2.6 Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ ...... . 82.6.2 Present Water Use .......... . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.7 Land Units . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF PROSPECTIVE SETTLERS . ...... . . 123.1 Population

_ ....... 11223.2 Socio-economic status of farmers . ........ . . . . .

3.3 Present farming systems/practices ..... . ........ . 1 3

3.4 Institutions . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....3.5 Infrastructure . .................... . ..... . 16

4. LAND EVALUATION 174.1 Evaluation of capability for major kinds of land use . . . . . .. ... 174.2 Land Suitability for Rainfed Crop based Production systems . 19

4.2.1 Predicted performance of different production systems 194.2.1 Erosion Hazard on Cropland ...... . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... 21

4.3 Land Evaluation for Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214.3.1 Availability of Water . . . . . . . . ..... . ..... . . ...... . . 214.3.2 Availability of Land ................... . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4.4 Land Evaluation for Livestock Production . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . 244.5 Land Evaluation for Veld Products ............ . . . . . . . . . . . 24

THE LAND USE PLAN . . . . . ......... . . . . ...... .5.1 Spatial Plan . . ........... . ........ . . . . ....... . 265.2 Rainfed Arable Area . . ......... . . ...... .5.3 Irrigation Area 295.4 Settlements . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . ....... . . . 305.5 Horticulture 315.6 Woodlot 31

ANNEX 1:Introduction to the Crop Yield Simulation and Land Assessment Model for Botswana(CYSLAMB) . , . . ....... . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . 40

ANNEX 2:Herd Projections and Monetary Flows for three Cattle Enterprise Systems 43

SYSTEM 1: Low Input/Existing Managementand Uncontrolled Stocking Option 43SYSTEM 2: Medium Input/Managementand Controlled Stocking Option 52SYSTEM 3: High Input/Managementand Controlled Stocking Option . . . . . .................... . 61

ANNEX 3:Inclusion of Land Units in Recommended Paddocking System . . . . ...... . . . . 70

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Monthly and Annual Rainfall at Tonota 27°28'E; 21°27'S; 940m . . . . . . 4Table 2: Average Monthly Synoptic data for Tonota 27°28'E; 21°27'S; 940m . . . 5Table 3: Land Units . ..... . . . . ...... . . . . ......... . 11Table 4: Matopi Population Estimates 12Table 5: Livestock Statistics of Matopi and surrounding areas 1992 ..... . . 14Table 6: Livestock Statistics of Matopi and surrounding areas 1993 14Table 7: Generalised Land Capability of Land Units . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . 17Table 8: Crop based Production systems: Farming System A - traditional . . . . . . 19Table 9: Crop based Production systems: Farming System B - improved traditional 20Table 10: Results of Crop Yield Simulation for Land Unit 1 20Table 11: Areas Proposed for Specific Uses . . . . . . . ....... . . . . . . . . . 26Table 12: Calculation of Subsistence Ratio based on 5 ha sorghum 28Table 13: Recommended stocking rates for the proposed paddocking system . . . 34Table 14: Financial Indicators for different Livestock Options 35

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1: Location of Farms 25/77 NQ and 27/77 NQ . . . . . . . . ...... . ..... 3Map 2: Land Units 10Map 3: Land Units of Irrigation Block 23Map 4: Proposed Land Use . . . . . . . ............ . . . . . . . ..... . 27

iv

5.7 Smallstock 325.8 Cattle . . . . . . . . ... ......... 33

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 366.1 Conclusions 366.2 Recommendations 36

REFERENCES . . . ..... . . . . ..... . ........ . ................. 39

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study vvas carried out under the guidance of Mr. I. Mandevu, National ProjectCoordinator and Mr. D. Radcliffe, former Chief technical Adviser of the Project. Thedirection and logistical support they provided are very much appreciated.

Technical advice provided by Mr. D. Radcliffe, former Chief Technical Adviser, Mr. M.Powell, Livestock Production Specialist, Mr. A. Neher,, GIS Specialist and other colleaguesare acknowledged. Thanks are due to Mr. J. Pulles, Agricultural Land Use Planner, for thefinal editing and production of the maps and to Mr. F. Berding, Chief Technical Adviser, forthe final editing of the report.

Mr. E. Wotho, Regional Agricultural Officer of the Francistown Region, and his staff arecredited with providing insights into the prevalent farming situation and with providinglogistical support whenever necessary.

N/

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Construction of the Lower Shashe Dam, which is planned to commence in 1997, andflooding of the associated reservoir area will encroach on the grazing area, arable landand village plots of Matopi village, which is located in North East District, close to theconfluence of the Shashe and Ramokgwebane Rivers.

2. Farms 25/77 NQ and 27/77 NO were purchased by the Government from the freeholderin 1990 with the objective of compensating Matopi villagers for the loss of land incurredby flooding the reservoir. The farms comprise a total area of 8,148 ha. Most of this areahad been managed as a commercial ranch, but a small area (130 ha gross) had beendeveloped for sprinkler irrigation.

The area covered by the farms has a semi arid climate with a mean annual rainfall of431 mm, and an annual coefficient of variation of 46%. The landform is a plain whichis dissected and rolling in the west, and dominantly gently undulating in the east, andthe most favourable soils, which are moderately deep chromic Luvisols, occur mainlyin the east central part of the farm. Soils in the west are shallow and gravelly, withfrequent rock outcrops.

Eight land units (LUs) are identified and mapped on the basis of soil, topographiccharacteristics and flood risk. LU 1, with an area of 702 ha, is suitable for arablecropping. Approximately 60% of the irrigated block falls within this unit. LUs 2a and 2b,together accounting for 2,179 ha, have shallower soils, which make it more suited tocontrolled grazing of cattle or small stock, while 2ask and 2alp (2,809 ha) are underlainby shallow regosols and leptosols which limit grazing to a lower intensity than on 2aand 2b. The relatively steep, rocky terrain of LU 3 (1,005 ha), with a high erosion risk,is only suitable for very limited dry season grazing. The two valley LUs, V1 and V2(1,453 ha), are generally suitable for arable or horticultural development, but have aslight flood risk. LUs 1, V1 and V2 are also suitable for livestock grazing.

The settlers comprise 41 households of diverse ethnic origins, who currently subsist ona mixture of livestock raising, arable farming and drought relief, with the latter probablybeing the major source of income for most families. Livestock numbers are difficult toestimate as sources are contradictory. However maximum estimates of stock movingto the new settlement would be approximately 1,300 cattle, 1,400 goats, 100 sheepand 100 donkeys.

Levels of technical ability and motivation of the Matopi farmers are generally low, andagricultural extension support has been weak, largely due to the competing demandsof drought relief and other administrative matters.

Simulation of potential rainfed crop yields using the CYSLAMB land evaluation modelindicates that sorghum is a more suitable staple cereal crop than maize. However, duemainly to the low and unreliable rainfall, the dependable sorghum yield (calculated asthe yield exceeded in 75% of years), under an assumed 'improved traditional'management system, is only barely sufficient to cover standard production costs. Underthis yield projection an area of 4 ha of sorghum would be required to satisfy thesubsistence calorie requirements of an average household.

The land use plan recommends allocation of land to fulfill settlers' needs for residentialsettlement, subsistence, grazing for animals, some form of agricultural cash income, andfuelwood. Selection of a given option must depend not only upon its technical feasibilitybut also upon the management abilities and support services available to the

vi

implementors. All the options given are technically feasible but an improved level ofextension support will be required to improve crop and livestock husbandry and todevelop the horticultural and woodlot components.

We recommend that each household is allocated a 10 ha plot for rainfed arablecultivation. Five hectares would be cultivated in any one year and the remainder eitherfallowed or planted to fodder crops on a rotational basis. The total area available forrainfed cropping is 586 ha. Allowing for allocations to 41 households and 5% lossesdue to infrastructure, 147 ha would be available for future expansion.

Sorghum is the most suitable cereal crop for the rainfed arable areas and should be thestaple, with smaller areas planted to beans, cowpeas, melons and other subsidiarycrops. Farmers should plough early, using oxen or donkeys, and should aim to plant atleast half of their cultivated field at the first climatically determined planting opportunityafter 20th November. Planting should be in rows in order to obtain an even density andto facilitate weeding, which should be carried out in a timely manner. The arable areashould be enclosed within a drift fence.

Given the need for capital investment in rehabilitating the irrigation infrastructure, andthe limited state of knowledge of the farmers in irrigated farming, it is recommendedthat the irrigated block is taken out on a commercial lease agreement, either with theBotswana Development Corporation or with a private investor. Revenue would accrueto the Tati Land Board from this agreement and the commercial farm should provide asource of wage labour for the village.

From comparative studies of three options for managing the cattle herd, therecommended projection involves fencing into paddocks and control of stocking ratesaccording to estimated rangeland production. Continuation of the present system ofuncontrolled grazing, while favourable economically, is unsustainable due to rangelanddegradation as a result of overstocking. The recommended option (system 2) involvesfencing into paddocks, and stocking at rates determined by the estimated carryingcapacity of the land units. Cattle and smallstock should preferably be run together toimprove efficiency of range utilization. This option has an estimated net present valueof Pula 213,144 at a discount rate of 15%, and has a financial internal rate of returnof 31%. Estimated annual income per family would be Pula 1319.

Two alternative new settlement sites are identified, each with a gross area of 50 ha.One site is located close to the Ramokgwebana River and has advantages of proximityto a potential horticultural area and a potential woodlot area on the river alluvium. Theother site has better road access and is closer to the rainfed arable area. A residentialplot size of 900 rri2 is recommended by the Land Board.

The present settlement site has a fuelwood shortage due to continued removal of stocksfrom the surrounding bush. While the proposed settlement site has adequate firewoodto satisfy immediate needs, a fuel wood lot should be developed to ensure a sustainablesupply. A site of 30 ha on LU V2 has been identified and should be planted withEucalyptus camaldulensis at the rate of 3 ha/year. The first 3 ha plot will becomeavailable for harvest after 10 years, with an estimated yield of 60 m3.

vii

1 . INTRODUCTION

Farms 25/77 NQ and 27/77N0, located in North East District, were acquired by the Governmentfrom the freeholder, Mr Blackbeard in 1990. The purchase followed the recommendations of theconsultants appointed to conduct the feasibility study of the Lower Shashe dam (SMEC, 1990), andhad the objective of providing compensatory land for Matopi villagers who need to be relocatedbefore flooding of the reservoir.

During the latter part of 1990, the Tati Land Board proposed compensating Matopi residents byrelocating them within the bounds of farms 25/77 and 27/77NQ. As a portion of the farm had beendeveloped for irrigated agriculture, however, the Ministry of Agriculture was concerned that thisresource should not be wasted, and that any potential for expansion of the irrigated area beinvestigated prior to land allocation. A study was therefore initiated in late 1990 by the Ministry ofAgriculture to evaluate the farm for alternative land use options including resettlement of Matopipeople. This study concluded that the potential for expanding the present irrigated area was limited.

Since this study, however, no follow up has been made by the responsible land authorities, despitethe interest in resettlement of Matopi residents shown in sessions of the District Land Use PlanningUnit (DLUPU) and in the newspapers. The Regional Agricultural Officer for Francistown requestedthat the present land use plan be drawn up to enable further progress in the resettlementprogramme and the agricultural development of the area.

The land use plan is based on assessing the suitability of the land occurring on the farms for anumber of uses with special reference to the needs of the resettled Matopi villagers. The report isstructured so that the physical environment of the farms is first described, followed by the socio-economic conditions of the target group. Land evaluation is then carried out for relevant crop andlivestock based production systems, and a spatial plan shows the areas of the farm recommendedfor settlement, irrigated cropping, rainfed cropping, and livestock production.

2. PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

2.1 Location

The farm is situated south of Matsiloje village between the Ramokgwebana and Tati rivers northof their confluence. The area of the farm under study is about 8148 ha. It is bordered to the eastby the Ramokgwebana river, to the south by the Tati river, to the north by freehold farm [26/77NQJ, and to the east by freehold farm 23/77 NO [figure 11. The latter farm is also owned by MrBlackbeard and its purchase is also currently under consideration. The farms under study can bereached by proceeding from Francistown along Francistown-Matsiloje road up to Matsiloje, turningright into Matopi road running along the levee of the Ramokgwebana river and continuing for about23 km (see Map 1).

The study area falls within Tonota Agricultural District and Matsiloje Extension area.

2.2 Climate

The climate of the study area is semi-arid with rainfall occurring in the summer months of Octoberto April. Summer months are hot while winter months are dry but cool during the nights.

There is no weather station or official rain gauge within the study area. Climatic data is thereforetaken from Tonota, which is the nearest rainfall station with a sufficiently long series of records.Synoptic data for Tonota are interpolated from the nearest surrounding synoptic weather stations(Francistown, Plumtree and Mahalapye).

2.2.1 Rainfall

Interannual variations in rainfall are more significant than spatial variation within the area. Theprobability of rainfall and its distribution during the year has become the most reliable index foragricultural planning and for making decisions on agricultural activities and livestock management.

Monthly and annual rainfall totals from 1959/60 to 1992193 for Tonota are shown in Table 1. Thearea receives an average annual rainfall of 431 mm with a coefficient of variation of 46%. Therainy season starts in October or November, reaches its maximum in December - January and endsin March or April. Dry spells of several weeks are common during the rainy summer.

2.2.2 Air Temperature Humidity and Wind Speed

Average synoptic data for Tonota are shown in Table 2. The average maximum temperature variesbetween 23.1 and 31.5°C during the warmest months of October, November and December. Theaverage minimum temperature varies between 4.8 and 19.0°C and the low temperatures wererecorded during the months of May, June,July and August. Light frost may occur during the night,but temperatures rise to above 23 degrees by midday.

2

Map 1

Location of Farms 25/77 NQ and 27/77 NQ

Table 1

Monthly and Annual Rainfall at Tonota 27°28'E; 21°27'S; 940m

(mm)

4

Year July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June Annual

59160 0 2 32 84 10 112 58 9 7 0 316

60/61 0 2 3 4 47 72 12 143 93 36 0 2 411

61/62 0 0 16 1 28 39 241 23 12 44 0 0 402

62163 0 0 17 0 203 33 139 61 0 86 0 29 569

63/64 2 0 0 15 24 109 67 22 0 3 0 0 240

64/65 0 0 0 4 56 58 89 0 0 0 0 0 206

65/66 0 0 0 0 33 4 35 204 24 0 0 0 300

66/67 0 0 0 0 40 126 149 96 0 60 0 0 471

67/68 0 0 0 0 23 11 75 59 9 65 33 0 274

68/69 0 0 0 0 31 60 99 205 160 20 5 0 580

69/70 0 0 57 37 97 44 0 56 10 16 0 21 338

70/71 0 0 0 5 19 94 130 9 1 33 0 0 290

71/72 0 0 17 45 106 41 300 13 56 13 3 0 594

72/73 0 0 0 38 19 32 44 9 42 15 10 1 207

73/74 0 0 7 23 100 102 235 88 35 34 4 0 628

74/75 0 0 68 0 150 65 336 155 108 63 14 1 960

75/76 0 0 0 0 11 124 82 128 137 16 61 1 562

76/77 0 0 0 33 104 83 79 140 175 1 0 0 617

77/78 0 3 19 42 124 227 60 90 9 49 2 0 823

78/79 0 0 0 62 42 30 52 247 33 17 0 0 484

79/80 0 0 0 29 69 25 102 242 4 17 0 0 491

80/81 0 2 7 17 110 75 269 203 30 10 2 0 722

81/82 0 0 0 49 101 69 34 4 0 48 1 0 306

82/83 0 0 0 81 71 56 48 12 50 4 0 4 328

83/84 0 2 0 15 44 42 16 31 94 0 0 2 246

84/85 no data

85/86 1 0 0 57 0 19 10 40 31 94 0 0 251

86/87 0 0 0 33 33 44 32 11 0 0 0 0 153

87/88 no data

88/89 no data

89/90 no data

90/91 0 0 0 9 13 74 108 179 0 0 0 0 383

91/92 0 0 0 0 0 38 178 76 53 0 0 0 345

Mean O O i 21 60 65 105 92 42 26 5 2 431

c.o.v 350 247 227 111 82 69 88 85 119 105 260 308 46

Note: Annual figures may not always correspond exactly to the sum of mon hly figures due torounding.

The average relative humidity within the area does not vary much but the humidity in the mornings(50-73%) is normally higher than during the afternoons (26-51%). The wind velocities range from4.4 to 7.9 km/hr. The seasonal winds that occur during the periods of September, October andNovember can cause considerable damage to shallow rooted trees and to those having brittle stemsand branches.

2.2.3 Evapotranspiration

The monthly Penman evapotranspiration varies from 89 mm to 188 mm with the lowest valuesrecorded in the months of June and July and the highest values in October.

2.3 Geology and landform

The area is situated on the Hardveld and is underlain by Precambrian rocks of the BasementComplex, which mainly comprise gneisses and arkose. A belt of ultramafic schists and amphibolitesis associated with the rolling - hilly topography in the south of the farm.

The landform of the study area consists dominantly of gently undulating to undulating plains andvalleys of low relief. The topography of the north-eastern portion of the study area is nearly levelto gently undulating while the north-western portion is confined to an undulating to rolling type oflandform. The shallow valley system within the farm mostly originates from the north and thedrainage lines slope towards the south. The degree of dissection increases towards the Tati River,and the topography becomes rolling in the south-central and south-western parts of the farm, withsmall hills and and hummocks occurring locally.

Table 2

Average Monthly Synoptic data for Tonota 27°28'E; 21°27'S; 940m

5

Month Temperature (°C) Relative Humidity(%)

Sunshine(hrs/day)

Wind

(km/hr)PET

(mm)Frost days

(days/month)

Mean Mean Extreme Extreme 08.00 14.00 Air Groundmax. min. mas. min.

July 22.7 5.4 29.9 -3.9 66 29 9.6 4.9 98 3 12

August 24.9 8.1 34.8 -3.7 57 26 9.8 5.7 127 1 4

September 29.2 12.6 36.6 2.1 50 27 9.5 7.2 162 0 0

October 30.9 16.1 39.6 4.7 54 32 8.9 7.9 188 0 0

November 30.5 16.9 40.0 5.3 59 41 8.0 6.9 182 0

December 29.8 18.2 38.5 9.4 67 45 7.6 6.3 181 0 0

January 30.1 18.5 39.8 10.5 68 48 7.8 5.9 180 0 0

February 29.1 18.0 37.7 10.7 73 51 8.0 5.8 161 0

March 28.8 16.6 38.0 5.7 71 47 8.1 5.7 155 0 0

April 27.2 13.5 34.8 4.4 71 41 8.5 4.9 128 0

May 25.1 8.9 33.1 -0.6 68 33 9.3 4.4 107 0

Juno 22.5 5.8 30.3 -3.9 65 35 8.9 4.5 89 4 12

2.4 Soils

2.4.1 Previous studies

The soils of the area have been previously mapped at the scale of 1:250,000 at a reconnaissancelevel under the Soil Mapping and Advisory Service project of the Land Utilization Division of theMinistry of Agriculture (Radcliffe, Venema, and De Wit, 1990).

2.4.2 Detailed reconnaissance soil survey

As the available soil map (scale 1:250,000) does not provide the details required for establishinga land unit map, a detailed reconnaissance soil map of the study area was prepared by theAgricultural Land use Planner. The map is based on the interpretation of aerial photographs, scale1:50,000 and flown in 1988. Limited field checks were carried out which led to the identificationof an area of soils suitable for arable farming. This area was then surveyed in more detail in orderto establish the boundaries with the less suitable land units. The classification was made accordingto the FAO-Unesco Soil Map of the World Revised Legend (FAO, 1990). Four soil units, namelyChromic Luvisols, Calcic Luvisols, Eutric Regosols and Eutric Leptosols, have been recognizedwithin the study area and are discussed below.

Chromic Luvisols

Chromic Luvisols are the dominant soils in the eastern half of the study area. These welldrained, shallow to moderately deep, medium textured soils are developed on basicigneous and metamorphic rocks. The surface horizon is dark reddish brown in colour andmostly has a coarse loamy to fine loamy texture.

The texture of the subsurface horizon is fine loamy and shows some tendency tobecome heavier with increasing depth. Cation exchange capacity is around 10 - 20 meqper 100 g soils.

The base saturation is high and the soil reaction is slightly acid. The surface andsubsurface horizons have low organic carbon content. The exchangeable potassium ishigh in the surface horizon and moderate in the subsurface horizon.

The Chromic Luvisols occur as the skeletic phase, with an effective depth of between0.5 and 1.0 m, and as the lithic phase, with effective depths of between 0.3 and 0.5m. These depth classes are used in the definition of land units.

Eutric Regosols, lithic phase, and Leptosols

These soils are dominant in the western half of the farm. Regosols are well to somewhatexcessively drained and shallow (lithic phase with effective depths of between 0.3 and0.5m), while Leptosols are normally very shallow ( < 0.3 m deep). The surface horizonis reddish brown and the texture ranges from sandy loams to sandy clay loams.

Calcic Luvisols

A very small area of these soils is found at the confluences of higher order streams ofthe area, joining the two major rivers of the Ramokgwebana and Tati. The soils areslightly acid to neutral in reaction. The cation exchange capacity ranges from 1 Oto 20%meq per 100g soil while base saturation is high in the subsoil. The organic carboncontent is low, in both surface and sub surface horizons (0.3%). The available

6

phosphorus is low but the exchangeable potassium is high. The secondary CaCO3 richsubsurface horizon can prevent root penetration of deep rooted crops if the land isirrigated.

2.4.3 Soil Survey of Irrigation Block

In addition to the detailed reconnaissance soil survey of the study area a medium intensity soilsurvey was carried out of the 130 ha fenced area. Part of the fenced area was previously irrigatedand the aim of this survey was to determine the extent of deep irrigable soils within the fencedarea. Preliminary boundaries were plotted from aiphoto interpretation. The reliability of theseinterpreted boundaries and their relationship to soil distribution was checked, corrected andconfirmed by detailed field observations and check bores. The average density of field observationswas one per seven ha.

The final soil map (Map 3) is reproduced at a scale of 1:10,000. Soil types are converted to LandUnits and the map is presented in Section 4.3 (p.23), where land suitability for irrigation isdiscussed.

Moderately deep Chromic Luvisols are the dominant soil in the irrigation block, although shallowerChromic Luvisols (skeletic and lithic phases), Calcic Luvisols, and Leptosols are also represented.

2.5 Land Cover and Present Land Use

2.5.1 Vegetation

There is a direct relationship between soil, topography and the vegetation type throughout the area.Nearly level and deep well drained land carries vegetation which includes a variety of relatively tall,single stemmed trees. Undulating and moderately deep to shallow land carries mixed vegetationwhich includes medium height trees with multiple stems. Low catenary sequences with imperfectlydrained land usually carries shrubs, often of uniform height and consists of a limited number ofspecies.

Seven main vegetation types were identified in the whole area in the SMEC (1990) report. Threeof these occur as major vegetation types in the farm area (Sebego, 1990, Range Ecology Section,Ministry of Agriculture) and are briefly described below.

Riparian Woodland

Dense woodland along the Tati river consisting mainly of an overstorey of Combretumerythrophyllum, C. hereroense, Acacia karoo, A. tortilis, A. erioloba, Ziziphusmucronata, and an understorey of Euclea undulata, Diospyros lycioides, Grewiaflavescens, G. flava, Maytenus senegalensis, M. heterophylla and Dichrostachyscinerea. The herbaceous layer on farm is characterised by excellent forage species suchas Panicum maximum, Urochloa trichopus, Brachiaria deflexa and Dactylocteniumaegyptium whilst in similar sites in the vicinity of Tati village the annual species ofUrochloa trichopus and Brachiaria deflexa occur.

A less dense riparian woodland along the smaller streams feeding the Tati river wasrecorded as being dominated by Combretum hereroense, Peltophorum africanum,Ziziphus mucronata, Rhus pyroides, Bolusanthus speciosus, Acacia fleckii, A. Wallis andTerminalia sericea

7

Acacia Woodland

This vegetation type is found along the banks of all the river systems in the area awayfrom the actual riparian woodland. Three subassociations were recognised dominatedby Acacia mellifera, A. tortilis and A. erubescens/Combretum apiculatum respectivelyOther tree/shrub species recorded are, Combretum hereroense, Lonchocarpus carpassa,Boscia albitrunca, and Ziziphus mucronata. The understorey vegetation is composed ofDiospyros lycioides, Grewia bicolor, G. subspathulata, G flavescens and regeneratingtree species. The grasses of the herbaceous layer are mainly Eragrostis trichophora, E.

biflora, Urochloa trichopus, Brachiaria deflexa and Aristida con gesta.

Mopane woodland

Colophospermum mopane is the dominant species throughout the area. It is found ineither pure stands or as a co-dominant with Acacia nigrescens, Combretum apiculatum,or Commiphora pyracanthoides on the valley slopes of the rolling to hilly landformsystem of the study area.

Other tree species found here include, Combretum molle, Acacia fleckii and Terminaliaprunoides. Shrubs are mostly Dichrostachys cinerea, Ximenia americana, Grewia flavaand G. bicolor. The herbaceous layer is poor and contains Ryncheletrum repens,Schmidtia pappophoroides, Aristida congesta and Era grostis rigidior.

2.5.2 Land Use

A large portion of the farms was utilized for livestock grazing and approximately 130 ha has beendeveloped for irrigation. Both were well managed by Mr Roy Blackbeard prior to acquisition by theGovernment. From the acquisition, ownership of the farms was vested in the Tati Land Board, andsince then no development or any resettlement has been made. At present the farm is neglectedand appears to be a refuge for stray cattle. No crop farming is currently taking place in the farmarea.

2.6 Water Resources

2.6.1 Sandbed aquifers

Sandbed aquifers of Ramokgwebana and Tati are considered to be the most reliable and easilyexploitable water source available in the area. However, the quantity of water harvested from thesesources during dry spells is highly dependent on the hydro-geomorphology of their catchments aswell as the shape of the longitudinal section of the river channel.

Sandbed Aquifer of Ramokgwebana River

The Ramokgwebane river has a large catchment area of 312 km2. The river carries alarge amount of runoff water along the river channel during heavy rains. Recharge rateof the sandbed aquifer is rapid during the rainy season [November to January] but theamount of water stored in the river bed which could be extracted during the rest of theperiod of the year depends on the amount of sand deposited over the river bed.Observations indicate that sand depths of between 3m and 4m occur on average in ariver channel of some 150m wide.

Any large scale constructions to improve the yield, such as recharge dams, requirebilateral negotiations before initiation, as the Ramokgwebana river delineates the border

8

between Botswana and Zimbabwe. Previous local experiences have indicated problemsin sharing common water bodies across this international boundary.

Access to this source along the Botswana embankment is provided by stiles over thefence at irregular intervals.

Sandbed aquifer of Tati river

Possible water extraction from the Tati river sandbed aquifer is relatively low incomparison to the Ramokgwebana river sandbed aquifer. Significant water shortageswere experienced when the irrigated portion of the Blackbeard farm was in full operation[personal communication, Mrs Blackbeard].

With the completion of the proposed Lower Shashe Dam, the reservoir water will retreatalong the Tati river and reach closer to the irrigable part of the study area. Theadministration of the reservoir falls under the Water Utility Corporation and theutilization of the reservoir water will become uneconomical for large scale irrigatedagriculture [12,000 Pula/ha, SMEC, 1990].

2.6.2 Present Water Use

Eleven Government stockwatering points with an electrically driven (Mono) suction pumps andstorage tanks have been installed around Matselagabedi, Matsiloje and Matopi area by theDepartment of Animal Health and Production. Water is pumped into storage tanks (approximately50 rn3 capacity) inside the cordon fence and released into watering troughs. Consumption at onesuch installation is estimated at 10 m3 day by the pump operator.

Since pumps were installed, no water shortages were experienced except in one location which isclose to Matsiloje during the dry season, according to pump operators and farmers.

A number of wells are found along the river in the area which are used to irrigate small scalehorticultural plots. Estimated water use for irrigated horticulture at one such installation is 1.4 m3/hour [Mr Siku, personal communication].

2.7 Land Units

Well defined land units and a land unit map are the essential physical basis for land evaluation andthe selection of alternative land uses. In the present study, land units (LUs) have been defined fromtaxonomic characteristics of the soils and from properties such as surface rockiness, soil depth,gravel content, and slopes. A detailed reconnaissance soil survey was carried out to accurately mapthe boundaries between land units.Measurable land characteristics such as soil physical and chemical properties, and terrain featurescan be combined into land qualities for the purposes of land evaluation. Land qualities include suchfactors as moisture availability for arable crops during the major growing season [ summer ],nutrient availability, and resistance to erosion. Land evaluation considers the optimum land qualityrequirements for a particular land utilization type.

Table 3 shows the major characteristics of each LU, and Map 2 shows their distribution in the studyarea as well as the existing fencing layout.

9

Map 2

Land Units

(see overleaf)

_22

2e

2esk

VI

Map

2

Land

uni

tsw

ith e

xist

ing

fenc

es

er

2500

mLe

gend

: see

text

, tab

le 3

_fsl

Tab

le 3

Lan

d U

nits

LV

x: C

hrom

ic L

uvis

ol, L

Vk:

Cal

cic

Luv

isol

, RG

e: E

utri

c R

egos

ol, L

Pe: E

utri

c L

epto

sol

sk: s

kele

tic p

hase

, li:

lithi

c ph

ase

No

soil

anal

ysis

ava

ilabl

e. A

vera

ge v

alue

s of

P c

onte

nt in

rel

evan

t soi

l typ

es in

nor

th e

aste

rn B

otsw

ana

are

take

n fr

om R

adcl

iffe

et a

l (19

90).

In

the

abse

nce

of f

ertil

izer

, val

ues

on th

e

pote

ntia

lly a

rabl

e un

it (1

) ar

e as

sum

e.d

to e

quili

brat

e at

a lo

wer

leve

l aft

er s

ever

al y

ears

of

crop

ping

.

11

Lan

d U

nit

Lan

dfor

mD

omin

ant

slop

es (

%)

Soils

Are

a (h

a)

FAO

Leg

end

SLB

Cla

ssE

ffec

tive

dept

h (m

)D

rain

age

Cla

ssD

omin

ant

Tex

ture

Gra

vel

Est

imat

edA

WH

C(m

rn/m

)

Ava

ilabl

e

P (P

Pm)"

Surf

ace

Subs

oil

1.Fl

at-

Und

ul-

atin

g Pl

ain

0-3

LV

xsk

G2c

0.75

-1.0

Wel

lsa

ndy

clay

loam

nil

few

110

370

2

2a.

Und

ulat

ing

Plai

n

3-8

LV

xsk

G2c

0.5-

0.75

Wel

lsa

ndy

clay

loam

few

man

y65

81.

584

2ask

Und

ulat

ing

Plai

n3-

8R

Gel

i,L

Vxl

iG

lc, B

l0.

3-0.

5So

mew

hat

exce

ssiv

esa

ndy

loam

man

yab

unda

nt25

82,

151

2alp

Und

ulat

ing

Plai

n3-

8L

PeG

lc<

0.3

Som

ewha

tex

cess

ive

sand

y lo

amm

any

n.a

208

658

2bR

ollin

gPl

ain

8-15

LV

xsk

G2c

0.3-

0.75

Wel

lsa

nd c

lay

loam

few

man

y50

859

5

3.R

ollin

gPl

ain

8-15

LPe

Glc

<0.

3So

mew

hat

exce

ssiv

esa

ndy

loam

man

yn.

a20

81,

005

V 1

Shal

low

valle

ys1-

3L

Vx

G2c

>0.

75M

oder

atel

yw

ell

sand

y cl

aylo

amni

lni

l13

08

1,12

4

V2

Val

leys

,sl

ight

flo

odri

sk

0-1

LV

kA

9>

1.0

Mod

erat

ely

wel

l -Im

perf

ect

clay

loam

nil

nil

150

832

9

Fs'

Are

a to

be

floo

ded

at f

ull s

uppl

y le

vel (

fsl)

of

he f

utur

e L

ower

Sha

she

Dam

206

Not

e'

Not

e"

3. SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF PROSPECTIVE SETTLERS

3.1 Population

The population of Matopi is diverse, having come from Matsiloje and its environs which stretchedup to the Zimbabwean border. The majority are Kalanga-speaking and others are Khurutshe, Rolong,Ng wato or Khoesan in origin.

The indicated population of the Matopi area is summarised in Table 4. Estimates are based on 1981Census data, field surveys conducted by SMEC team and the 1991 Census published by the CentralStatistics Office.

Table 4

Matopi Population Estimates

12

Source Households Population

1981 Census 41 177

SMEC, 1988 50 246

1991 Census 41 223

Note. The determination of the 1988 population estimates is based on the homestead countwhich vvas multiplied by the average number of people found occupying dwellings in thearea at the time of the 1981 Census.

The area to be resettled is more than sufficient for this number of people with all their livestock.However, conversations with the headman indicate that they wish to bring in other related peopleswith their animals. Providing a strict control is established this would be acceptable since it wouldenable a viable financial unit to be formed providing the incomers were carefully screened withregard to livestock and resources. It would certainly be preferable to settle people of a commonbackground in the same area.

3.2 Socio-economic status of farmers

Matopi villagers could be considered as Remote Area Dwellers in terms of welfare received fromthe government. In 1987 virtually 75% of villagers were involved to some degree or another indrought relief (SMEC, 1990). This has been of assistance but has been insufficient to lift themabove the poverty line. Few of the family members are employed in Selebi -Phikwe or Francistown,and not any in local mines. The Khoesan household normally comprises large families who are ina weak position. The tradition found among this community is the grown-up children with theiroffspring sometimes continuing to live with their parents. Relatively few find employment outsidetheir communities. Children of the able families receive their education at Matsiloje CommunityJunior Secondary School.

The principle means of livelihood of Matopi villagers is animal husbandry. Agriculture under semi-arid conditions in Matopi, like in the rest of the North-East region is a high risk activity. Both arablefarming and livestock rearing are affected by the unreliable weather conditions.

The current level of motivation within the village is low and they will need to be stimulated throughextension in forestry, horticulture, arable and livestock if the more attractive options outlined in thisdocument are to be selected. Without such extension it is felt better to follow a lower level option.However, there appears to be a will to provide labour for tree planting and maintenance, an interestin horticultural and fruit tree cultivation and a knowledge of cattle management and the productionof soured milk.

3.3 Present farming systems/practices

Cropping within the old Matopi settlement is characterised by low input, low management cropsystems, mainly based on sorghum with smaller amounts of maize, millet, sweet reed andwatermelon.

Discussions with the headman reveal a base resource of draught power, mainly consisting ofdonkeys, which would enable early planting. However, the lands which they have cultivated are notof the highest quality and extension support has been weak because the Agricultural Demonstrator(AD), who supervises a large area, has been involved with the Drought Relief Programme in areasaway from Matopi. If the 'improved traditional' crop production systems described in Section 4.2(p. 19) are to be achieved there is a need for significantly improved extension support.

The Matopi area was originally established as a cattle post and the cattle workers and theirdependents formed the basis of todays settlement. Many cattle have died in the past two or threeyears and, at present, only a few of the cattle grazing the area are owned by the Matopi people,In fact, the present cattle holdings (March 1994) as estimated by the headman are around 100 headwith some 930 small stock and around 100 donkeys, whilst the Agricultural Demonstrator for thearea estimates them to be 132 head of cattle and similar numbers of small stock and donkeys. Thishigh level of small stock and donkeys, other people's livestock and past drought years, has led toan extremely sparse level of vegetation cover over the whole grazing area which, in conjunctionwith the slopes, has resulted in erosion.

The communal area has been grazed in the past by cattle from Matopi, Mabete and Marmun Hillcattle posts plus some encroachment by cattle south of the River Shashe. The Matopi people arenot happy about such encroachment. SMEC (1988) quotes figures of 1700 livestock units (LSUs)for the area however this includes cattle from the Central District. Livestock statistics from theAnimal Health and Production Department, Francistown, for 1992 and 1993 show such differencesthat they are hard to reconcile. (Tables 5 and 6). This may reflect the confusion caused by mafisaand ownership.

Cattle numbers at Polometsi, south of the Shashe river, in 1988, were given in the SMEC (1990)report, as 504. Crush figures for 1993 are 149 cattle, 328 goats, 39 sheep and 20 donkeys.

13

Table 5

Livestock Statistics of Matopi and surrounding areas 1992

Table 6

Livestock Statistics of Matopi and surrounding areas 1993

A conservative (high) estimate of the total stock using the area can be based on the 1992 livestockstatistics figure plus the 1993 Polometsi figure which would give a total of 1,329 cattle, equivalentto 930 LSUs using a 0.7 conversion factor, 1,462 goats, equivalent to 292 LSUs using aconversion factor of 0.2, 97 sheep, equivalent to 19 LSUs using a conversion factor of 0.2 and 103donkeys eqivalent to 72 LSUs again using a conversion of 0.7. Total LSUs utilising the previouscommunal area before inundation would therefore be in the region of 1,313. The previous grazingarea was 4,370 ha and, at this stocking level, it is not difficult to understand why the rangelandin the area is degraded and also the rise in small stock numbers which are able to survive wherecattle cannot, browsing their way to the second stage of degradation.

The traditional grazing system used in the past, when there has been an adequacy of cattle, hasbeen as follows:

14

Village/Cattlepost

CattleCrush

Livestock Types

Cattle Goats Sheep Donkeys

Matopi Matopi 270 352 7 24

Mabete Mabete 297 127 11 23

Patayanmatebele

MarmunHills

341 451 18 13

Morotole Morotole 272 204 22 23

TOTAL 1,180 1,134 58 83

Village/Cattlepost

CattleCrush

Livestock Types

Cattle Goats Sheep Donkeys

Matopi Matopi 208 903 26 94

Mabete Mabete 96 167 42 2

Patayanmatebele

MarmunHills

38 439 12 15

Morotole Morotole N/A N/A N/A N/A

TOTAL 342 1,509 80 111

Grazing by cattle is confined to the defined grazing area during the cropping season and is basicallyunsupervised, animals graze/browse around water points during this season when forage is plentifuland return toward the kraals in the evening. Cows are shut in at night and milked in the morning.Small amounts of milk that are not required for consumption are soured and later sold. Small stockremain within the village area and are herded fairly carefully. Cattle and small stock are herded onto arable wastes once harvest is complete after which uncontrolled, unsupervised grazing is thenorm until the next cropping season.

Some owners of larger cattle herds feed salt and bonemeal as supplements and some maintenancelicks over the hardest three months of the dry season but this is exceptional. Small stock areseldom, if ever, supplemented.

Owners of boreholes and privileged friends/relations water their stock at the borehole withoutpayment. Non borehole owners water at small wells until these dry at which time they pay boreholeowners for the use of the water. Charges are dependent on herd size.

3.4 Institutions

The Matopi communal lands and grazing areas fall under the jurisdiction of the Tati Land Board,which has its headquarters in Francistown. The Land Board, which comprises Government officialsand elected representatives of the community, has the executive authority for allocating land toindividuals for arable farming or other uses. The District Land Use Planning Unit provides technicaladvice to the Land Board on matters of land allocation.

The area is serviced by the Regional Agricultural Office in Francistown and the District AgriculturalOffice in Tonota. Specialist officers dealing with crop production, horticulture, irrigation, soilconservation and range ecology are based in the RAO office. A forestry project funded by theEuropean Union is supplying 3 forest extension staff based at the Francistown RAO and proposalshave been made to government to expand the service through the creation of a number of ForestryExtension Agent posts.

Matopi is located in Matsiloje agricultural extension area and the Agricultural Demonstrator is basedin Matsiloje. Due largely to the demands on the AD of administering drought relief, agriculturalextension provided to Matopi has been weak.

The Department of Animal Health and Production (DAHP) have a major regional office inFrancistown. DAHP is responsible for providing extension in all aspects of livestock husbandry andhealth through veterinary assistants (VAs). There is a VA responsible for servicing the Matopi area.Technical officers concerned with ranch extension and smallstock are based in Francistown.

The service provides an excellent veterinary input but is understaffed (and loaded withadministrative matters) with VAs often having more than the approved 13 crushes to service.Although the intention is to have VAs available within their areas for the majority of the time forextension purposes, the reality is that due to the Regional exigencies, many are away onvaccination programmes for long stretches of time.

Correct utilization and conservation of natural resources, including soils, rangeland and water, istheoretically controlled by the Agricultural Resources Board, which is represented at the Districtlevel by the District Conservation Committee (DCC). The DCC comprises Government officials andelected representatives, and the secretary is normally the Land Use Officer, although this post iscurrently vacant in the Francistown RAO. The Agricultural Resources Conservation Act of 1974 isthe statutory instrument available to the DCC to control improper use of land. However, the

15

provisions of this act are rarely applied to such issues as overstocking and related rangelanddegradation.

At the village level, Matopi has a village development committee, but local institutions are otherwisepoorly developed.

3.5 Infrastructure

Matopi is a relatively neglected settlement which does not yet have official village status. In theearly 1980s the people in the area were encouraged to consolidate their holdings around a singlesettlement and some basic services were established. This was mainly to enable assistance underthe drought relief programme to be channelled more effectively. Matopi is served by a mobile healthshop and a children's non formal education group. The nearest schools are in Matsiloje, and thenearest major centres are Tonota and Francistown. These settlements are linked to Matopi viatracks, which sometimes become impassable during heavy rains.

16

4. LAND EVALUATION

4.1 Evaluation of capability for major kinds of land use

In order to focus further, more detailed, evaluation on areas with specific potentials, an initialgeneralised assessment was carried out of land capability for the major land uses of rainfed arablecropping and livestock grazing of varying intensity. Since the study mainly deals with the landsuitability for limited agricultural land uses, the suitability for non-agricultural utilization types otherthan wildlife is not taken into account.

This assessment was made on the basis of soil depth, surface rockiness, gravel content and slope.Soils deeper than 75 cm are considered as potentially suitable for arable cultivation. Shallow rockyland with rolling terrain is considered as only suitable for limited grazing or wildlife utilization.

Four capability classes are recognized, according to the degree of limitation or hazards, for thearable farming and livestock rearing [including smallstock]. Lands with no limitation or hazards forutilization for successful arable agriculture are placed in Capability Class 1. A tract of land havingone moderate limitation which could not be easily corrected for arable farming has been placed inClass 2. 2d is an example where the limitation present is insufficient depth of soil. Land Class 3 canhave either one severe limitation or two interacting moderate limitations. Land Class 4 has yet moresevere limitations. For example, 4td referes to a land unit which is shallow, steep and rocky, andis only suitable for limited dry season grazing.

Table 7 summarises the generalised capability of land units.

Table 7

Generalised Land Capability of Land Units

Notes # Subscripts indicate limitations as follows:d: soil depth/ available water; t: topography; f: flash flood risk; w: drainage / flood risk

## Includes some areas also suitable for irrigated cultivation.

17

LandUnit

Landcapability

class#

Land Area(ha)

Capability(most intensive recommended use)

1. 1 702 Rainfed arable cultivation##

2a 2d 1,584 Settlements and controlled grazing

2ask 3d 2,151 Controlled grazing

2alp 3d 658 Controlled grazing

2b 3t 595 Controlled grazing

3. 4td 1,005 Dry season controlled grazing

V1 2f 1,124 Controlled grazing

V2 2w 329 Horticulture, fruit trees, poles andfuelwood production, controlledgrazing

4.1.1. Recommended Land Use for Land Units

Land Unit 1

Previous experience [personal communication, previous owned has confirmed that thephysical and chemical characteristics of the soils of the LU 1 are adequate for goodresults when utilized for rainfed agriculture. However, suitable crops are limited due tolow and erratic rainfall while water availability limits the extent of irrigationdevelopment. Land not required for arable cultivation can be used for grazing.

Land Unit 2a

Whilst LU 2a has the limitation of insufficient soil depth for cropping under low rainfallconditions, the crests of this land unit are nearly level and would thus be suitable forsettlement areas since they are also well drained. Areas not settled would be suitablefor controlled grazing.

Land Units 2ask, 2alp and 2b

These LUs have slopes of 3 to 15 % and the gravelliness and shallowness of the soils,nutrient deficiencies and droughtiness makes this land not suitable for arable production.The slopes indicate a need for caution with regard to stocking rates since the thin soilsare highly erodible. Controlled grazing of livestock is therefore the recommended use.

Land Unit 3

Shallow rocky terrain and a rolling landscape with a high risk of further degradationindicate that this unit is suitable for limited grazing only if this were to be strictlycontrolled. It is recommended that this area be carefully grazed in the dry season only.

Land Unit V1

These shallow valleys could be used for arable agriculture but are, in reality, unsuitabledue to their dendritic nature. In addition, removal of the vegetation and cultivationwould result in gully formation and topsoil loss since, owing to their water collectionfunction, flow is concentrated in these areas. Controlled grazing of livestock is thereforethe recommended use.

Land Unit V2

This LU is composed mainly of riparian areas where there may be a very occasional riskof short term flooding. One area of 56 ha bounded by the Ramokwebana river on oneside and the recommended settlement site (Option 1)on the other is considered to havevirtually no risk of flooding. Existing vegetation shows that if flooding has occurred, ithas not done so over the past decade. Under exceptional rainfall there is some slightpossibility, but this is considered so small as to enable recommendation of the area forhorticulture and for fruit tree establishment. In addition, riverine areas adjacent to thishorticultural site would be suitable for the establishment of a woodlot of 30 ha. Theremainder is suitable for controlled grazing.

18

4.2 Land Suitability for Rainfed Crop based Production systems

4.2.1 Predicted performance of different production systems on Land Unit 1

Crop based production systems are evaluated on Land Unit 1 using the Crop Yield Simulation andLand Assessment Model for Botswana (CYSLAMB). For an introduction to CYSLAMB and anexplanation of the structure of the model see ANNEX 1.

In the present study, CYSLAMB was run for 10 production systems which are classified intoFarming System A, reflecting current management practices and inputs, and Farming System B,reflecting possible improved levels of management. The evaluation runs were carried out on LU 1,which is rated as the most capable for rainfed arable cropping, using the climatic data for Tonotaover the 27 year period 1959/60to 1988/89. The characteristics of the production systems testedare listed in Tables 8 and 9, and the results, expressed as dependable and median yields, arepresented in Table 10.

Table 8

Crop based Production systems: Farming System A - traditional

Constant factors: Produce: grainIrrigation capacity: 0 mmIrrigation frequency: 0/dekadDegree of weed infestation: 80% of maximumPeriod when early ploughing can occur: OCT1 - NOV3Soil moisture requirement for early ploughing: 30 mmPeriod when planting can occur: DEC3 - FEB3Soil moisture requirement for planting: 30 mmEffective rainfall requirement for planting: 30 mm/dekad.No fertilizer

19

ProductionSystemCode

Crop Variety Plantdensity

(/ha)

No.planting

occasions

Weeding(days

afterplanting)

Al S Sorghum Segaolane 10,000 3 60

Al Mz Maize Kalahari EarlyPearl

10,000 3 60

Al MI Millet undetermined 10,000 3 60

AlC Cowpea undetermined 10,000 3 60

Al G Groundnut undetermined 10,000 3 60

Crop based Production systems: Farming System B - improved traditional

Constant factors:

Table 9

Produce: grainIrrigation capacity: 0 mmIrrigation frequency: 0/dekadDegree of weed infestation: 80% of maximumPeriod when early ploughing can occur: OCT1-NOV3Soil moisture requirement for early ploughing: 30 mmPeriod when planting can occur: NOV3 - FEB3Soil moisture requirement for planting: 30 mmEffective rainfall requirement for planting: 30 mm/dekad.No fertilizer

Table 10

Results of Crop Yield Simulation for Land Unit 1

20

ProductionSystemCode

Crop Variety Plant

density(Tha)

No.

plantingoccasions

Weeding(daysafter

planting)

B1S Sorghum Segaolane 30,000 2 30

BlMz Maize Kalahari EarlyPearl

15,000 2 30

B1 MI Millet undetermined 30,000 2 30

B1 C Cowpea undetermined 30,000 2 30

B1G Groundnut undetermined 30,000 2 30

ProductionSystem

Crop Management level Yield (kg/ha holding)

Dependable Median

Al S Sorghum traditional 90 650

B1S Sorghum improved traditional 400 1160

AlMz Maize traditional 0 450

BlMz Maize improved traditional 120 1060

A 1 MI Millet traditional 60 430

B1 MI Millet improved traditional 280 880

Al C Cowpea traditional 30 210

.B1C Cowpea improved traditional 150 320

A 1 G Groundnut traditional 180 690

B1G Groundnut improved traditional 620 880

The results in Table 7 demonstrate the unreliability of rainfed cropping in the area, particularly if theexisting traditional practices of late planting, poor weed control and low plant densities arefollowed. Even with the projected improvements of planting at the first two opportunities from 21stNovember, higher crop densities and better weed control, the dependable yields are still low. Theapparently good relative performance of groundnut suggests that it could be planted on a trial basisas a possible cash crop.

Current prices of 0.34 Pula/kg for maize and 0.40 Pula/kg for sorghum imply that yields of 530kg/ha and 390 kg/ha respectively must be achieved to cover the ALDEP estimated production costsof 163.59 Pula/ha for maize and 142.53 Pula/ha for sorghum' (ALDEP, 1991). Even if theimproved traditional range of practices is adopted, the dependable yield of maize is considerablybelow that required to break even. Sorghum is more suited to this environment and, given theimproved practices, farmers can expect to break even on production costs in approximately 75%of years. The existing traditional cultivation system can only produce sorghum yields high enoughto cover costs in good years. Bearing in mind that projected yields may need to be further adjusteddownwards due to incidence of pests and diseases, which are not accounted for in the CYSLAMBmodel, it is apparent that, without subsidies, settlers cannot afford to depend on rainfed croppingalone for their livelihood.

4.2.1 Erosion Hazard on Cropland

Application of the SLEMSA model (Elwell, 1980) to LU 1, using the rainfall/ erosivity relationshipdefined by Van der Poel (1980) and assuming a soil erodibility of 2.5 (Radcliffe, 1992) and a slopeof 1%, gave an estimated average annual soil loss of 8t/ha/yr under a crop of poor maize orsorghum. As this exceeds the anticipated rate of soil formation in the study area, continuouscultivation is likely to result in a small steady depletion of soil depth. Contour ploughing and densercrop stands should reduce this soil loss and may bring it within tolerable limits.

4.3 Land Evaluation for Irrigation

Under semi-arid climatic conditions large scale irrigated agriculture is highly dependent on theavailability of water and the crop water requirement. For the selected crop, soil requirements aresimilar to those for rainfed arable farming as described in Section 4.1.

4.3.1 Availability of Water

Assuming a uniformly shaped river channel with an average width of 150 m, and a depth of 3.5m of coarse sand with an approximate specific yield of 15% (Wikner, 1980), the yield at fullsaturation would be 79 000m3/km. A further reduction of 40% could be expected due to thevariation of the sandbed thickness, the sand bed properties, the river bed rockiness, and based onthe assumption that the real water level in the sand river are on average some 1 m below fullsaturation. The sand storage volume in the length of Ramokgwebana river section which isaccessible to the irrigable portion fie some 10 km length amounts to 47 000 m3/km. Therefore an

These yields assume 10% harvest losses.

21

average quantity of 470 000 m3 of water can be expected from this river section during the yearfor irrigation.

Previous management experiences of Motloutse river basin have indicated that 17 000 rn3 irrigationwater would be needed to irrigate one hectare of land. Based on the above projection, a maximumarea of 28 ha could be irrigated annually.

4.3.2 Availability of Land

The fenced irrigation block of 130 ha was subjected to a medium intensity soil survey as describedin Section 2.4.3 (p.7). The soils are related to land units, and the resulting map is illustrated as Map3.

LU 1 and, to a lesser extent LU V1, have some potential for irrigated agriculture using a sprinklerbased system. These units together amount to 112 ha and occur as a continuous area in the centraland western part of the block. LU 1 is preferred over LU V1, due to a greater erosion risk and apossible tendency for carbonate accumulation in the latter unit. As the extent of irrigation is limitedby water availability, it should be possible to select the deepest soils on LU 1 for development.

22

V1

Map 3

Land Units of Irrigation Block

2alp

23

2 lp

2a

2ask _24

o 500 mAMEN

For legend to Land Units, see Table 3 (p.11)

A wide variety of cereals, pulses, oilseeds and subsidiary crops could be grown undersupplementary irrigation. Crop choice will largely depend on availability of markets, and, bearing inmind that the irrigation block is recommended for commercial leasing, and is not therefore anintegral part of the settlement scheme, a detailed analysis of cropping patterns is not included inthe present study.

4.4 Land Evaluation for Livestock Production

As indicated in para 4.1 Land Units 2, 3, V1 and V2 are considered to be suitable for livestockproduction. Estimates of dry matter production and related carrying capacity are based on fieldinspections during the 1 99 3/94 rainy season.

Land Unit 2a would yield an average biomass of approximately 900 kg Dry Matter (DM). On aconservative proper use factor (puf) of 50% (take half, leave half) and an expected DM intake (DMI)of 2.5% of empty body weight (11 kg DMI/day) this area could be expected to carry approximately1 LSU per 10 ha. Although browse production has not been taken into account in calculating thecarrying capacity it is felt that this extra forage availability would provide insurance during badyears.

Due to shallower and stony soils, LUs 2alp, 2ask amd 2b would yield an average herbaceousbiomass of approximately 600 kg DM. On a conservative puf of 50% (take half, leave half) and anexpected DMI of 2.5% of empty body weight (11 kg DM l/day) this area could be expected to carryapproximately 1 LSU per 14 ha. Once again it is felt that browse production will provide a bufferagainst droughty years.

LU 3 is more marginal, and is expected that this land unit would yield an average herbaceousbiomass of approximately 400 kg DM. On a conservative puf of 50% (take half, leave half) and anexpected DMI of 2.5% of empty body weight (11 kg DM l/day) this area could be expected to carryapproximately 1 LSU per 18 ha.

The valley units, V1 and V2 produce a higher level of rangeland biomass and have been estimatedto have a carrying capacity of 1 LSU per 7 ha (1,150 kg DM/ha).

If the parts of land unit 1 not required for cropping are grazed, they can be assumed to have asimilar dry matter production and carrying capacity to LMU 2a. The arable area actually cropped willyield sufficient stover to give an average carrying capacity of 1 LSU per 7 ha.

4.5 Land Evaluation for Veld Products

The main veld products in this farm are Grewia for making local beer, timber for constructionpurposes and fuel wood, phane and thatching grass.

Grewia flava, though commonly present, is not present in quantities large enough for commercialexploitation.

There is a substantial stand of pure Colophospermum mopane in some areas, but very little phanein the farm this year. Our suspicion is that it was over exploited in previous seasons such that

24

nothing or very little was left to metamorphose. Even though there is no phane this year, the areahas the potential to support a substantial amount.

Building and fencing material will be in great demand once people are relocated because most ofthem cannot afford modern building materials. Therefore it will be necessary to supervise the rateat which trees are cut for this purpose. It would be reasonable to encourage people to use thematerial cut from those areas recommended for arable farming since they will have to clear theseareas in any event.

Fuelwood supplies will be adequate for local use (but not for sale) for a number of years but,dependent upon the siting of the village, will, over time, become scarce in the easily exploitedvicinity of the village. For this reason a woodlot has been recommended.

25

5. THE LAND USE PLAN

5.1 Spatial Plan

The Land Unit map (Map 2) provides the template for spatial planning of the settlement andassociated grazing and arable areas. Land is allocated on the basis of its suitability for the useproposed, and Map 4 labels areas A through E, which are recommended for specific uses. Theseareas and their proposed uses are summarised in Table 8.

Table 11

Areas Proposed for Specific Uses

If not used for settlement, the area can be added to the grazing land.Includes area for church, school, clinic, playing fields etc., plus areas for expansion.

Map 4 also shows the proposed fencing layout, the existing road and the proposed spur road,required to achieve the recommended options.

5.2 Rainfed Arable Area

Area A, located on LU 1, which comprises the land recommended for arable cropping, consists of586 ha. This area should be protected from incursions by livestock by a drift fence, which isindicated on Map 4.

Traditional systems do not generally use all of the available arable area at any one time. It istherefore necessary to allow for some reserve land in deciding the amount for allocation. A totalallocation of 10 ha per household is recommended. This assumes a total cultivated area of 5 ha inany one year, and allows a further 5 ha for a fallow. There is therefore an allowance for expansionof cultivated area per family, and perhaps for development of fodder crops, as suggested inlivestock option 3 (p. 34). Rotation of the fallow area will help to conserve water and balancenutrient removal by crops, thereby enhancing the sustainability of the farming system.

26

Area Label Land Units Proposed Use Area (ha)

A 1 Rainfed arable cropping 586

Ai 1, 2a, 2ask, 2alp, V1 Irrigated cropping Ion LU 1) 130

B 2a Settlement ( alternative 1)" 50*

C V2 Horticulture and fruit trees 56

D 2a Settlement (alternative 21 50'

E V2 Woodlot 30

None 2a, 2ask, 2alp, 3, V1, V2 Cattle grazing 7,244

Map

4

Rec

omm

ende

d la

nd u

se

025

00m

with

pro

pose

d fe

nces

/ pa

ddoc

ks

Lege

nd: s

ee te

xt, t

able

s 11

and

13

Allowing a total allocation of 10ha to the current 41 Matopi households, and assuming 5% of AreaA is taken up by tracks and other infrastructure, 147 ha of Area A is available for future expansionof the settlement.

If farmers adopt the recommended 'improved traditional' management system outlined in Section4.2 (p. 19), which implies taking advantage of the first planting opportunity after November 20th,timely weeding, and a plant density of around 30,000 plants /ha, and plant 5 ha to sorghum in 2planting occasions, they can expect a dependable yield of 400 kg/ ha, equivalent to a totaldependable production of 2000 kg.

Assuming there are no losses due to pests or disease, which are factors not modelled in theCYSLAMB assessment of potential productivity, the farmers may be expected to cover their costsof production in approximately 75% of years, but rarely to make any significant profit. However,a more realistic scenario may be to assume some additional loss due to pests, particularly birds orinsects. If 25% of the potential yield is lost due to these factors, and a further 10% to post harvestlosses, the dependable yield would fall to only 260 kg/ha, giving a total production of 1350 kg.

Table 12

Calculation of Subsistence Ratio based on 5 ha sorghum

Note " : Assumes 4.5 'adult equivalents' each vvith an annual requirement of 0.95 MCals/ year.

In addition to the questionable financial performance of the production system, the total productionof sorghum from 5 ha, taking the lower projection which allows for 25% losses by pests anddiseases, is barely sufficient to cover the annual subsistence Calorie requirements of an averagehousehold in 75% of years. Table 12 shows the basis of this calculation.

28

Parameter Quantity Units

Average Household size 5.44 persons

Annual Calorie requirement' 4.28 CaIs x 106

Sorghum Yield (CYSLAMBpredicted)

400 kg/ha

Yield adjusted for pests and postharvest losses

260 kg/ha

Yield adjusted for raw productconversion

230 kg/ha

Calorie content of sorghum 3,400 CaIs/kg

Total Calorie Yield 0.78 CaIs x 106

Total Calorie production from 5 ha 3.91 CaIs x 106

'Subsistence ratio' (Availability/requirement)_

0.91

5.3 Irrigation Area

The previously irrigated area comprises 130 ha of fenced land, located on mainly on LUs 1 and V1.This is labelled as Area Ai on Map 4, and is treated as a separate block in the land use plan.

The results of land evaluation indicate that shortage of irrigation water is a more serious constraintto irrigation development than shortage of irrigable land (Section 4.3, p. 21). Although 112 ha havesoils suitable for irrigation, the maximum net irrigation area to be developed is 28 ha. Seasonalconstraints of water availability may limit cropping to one or two crops per year.

Possible options for irrigation development are as follows:

to lease the block to commercial interests

to lease the block to the Botswana Development Corporation

to divide the block into small units, to be leased separately

for the Ministry of Agriculture to run the farm, either for seed productionor as a tree nursery.

to set up a community managed scheme, run by Matopi residents, withthe support of the Ministry of Agriculture.

It is recommended that the Land Board leases the block to commercial interests or to BDC (options1 or 2 above) for the following reasons:

Although some of the irrigation works are still in place, considerabledamage has occurred due to neglect over the past three years when thefarm was unoccupied.

The knowledge and experience of the villagers in irrigated farming is low.Some villagers, particularly women, had previously worked as labourerson the irrigated plot when the farm was commercially run, but they havelittle or no experience of how to organize and manage an irrigationscheme.

It follows that if options iii, iv or v were chosen, considerable Government investment would berequired to rehabilitate the irrigation works. The marginal availability of water may hinder equitabledistribution if option iii is selected, and the Ministry of Agriculture has not expressed interest inoption iv. If irrigation was developed as a community managed project (option v), MoA would needto employ a manager to coordinate and run the project, at least in the short to medium term, andto step up the level of extension support to individual farmers. A study of potential markets wouldbe essential to define economic feasibility and to select cropping patterns.

It is considered that the possible social advantages of option v are outweighed by the economicuncertainties and by the additional costs to government. Leasing the plot out to a commercialfarmer is a simpler and possibly more viable alternative, provided an interested lessee withexperience in irrigated farming can be found. The commercial irrigated farm would then provide a

source of employment to villagers, as was the situation under the previous farm ownership. The

29

revenue from the lease would accrue to the Tati Land Board. The possibility of redirecting some ofthe benefits to the village could be investigated.

The actual irrigation layout, plot distribution and cropping patterns depend on the option selected.Detailed consideration of cropping patterns and the technical and economic aspects of irrigation isbeyond the scope of this report.

5.4 Settlements

The Land Board have identified a prospective settlement site and some plot delineation has alreadytaken place (Area D,Map 4). Inspection of the area indicates that there is a second option (Area B)which may be preferable from economic and social aspects. The comparative advantages anddisadvantages of both options are described below.

Area B is located on a 99 ha block of LU 2a land situated near to the Ramokgwebana river. 50 haof this should be delineated as the settlement area. For 41 families this would be more thansufficient assuming the homestead area of 900 m2 prescribed by the Land Board (Tati Land Board,personal communication). It would also allow for expansion to over 100 families and areas forschool, clinic and church facilities. The proximity of the Zimbabwean village of Manehge may bea factor in deciding whether to adopt this site.

Advantages of the site are:

That it is close to the Ramokgwebana river. Should there be a breakdownin the borehole supply, water is close and can be carried to the village.

That 56 ha of LU V2 (Area C) or part of it, lying between the potentialsettlement site and the Ramokgwebane, may be used for the productionof vegetables and fruit trees. A basic unit of 0.10 ha would produceample vegetables for a family. Since it is so close to the recommendedsettlement area crops can be protected against game.

That, over time, this horticultural enterprise could expand to a small scalecooperative business venture.

That 30 ha of LU V2 (Area El lying between the potential settlement siteand the Ramokgwebana, may be used for the production of poles andfuelwood (woodlot).

Disadvantages are:

That a spur road, marked on Map 4, from the existing Matsiloje - Matopitrack for a distance of 6 km would need to be constructed, at anestimated cost of P150,000 on the crest of the ridge and maintainedannually at an estimated P3,600.

That the settlement site is at a distance of 4km from the lands area.

Area D is within LU 2a and is the area on which the settlement site has already been demarcated.Advantages of this area over that recommended are:

30

That the existing Matsiloje - Matopi road runs to the site and there wouldthus be no need to construct a spur road.

That the distance from the lands area is 2.5 km thus reducing thedistance by 1.5 km.

Disadvantages are:

It is unlikely that a horticultural enterprise would evolve since the areasuitable for this lies 1.5 km from the settlement site in the oppositedirection to the lands and little protection could be given to the gardencrops against monkeys and warthog or other depredations.

That the establishment of a woodlot is unlikely so far from the centre ofuse.

5.5 Horticulture

Area C (56 ha), situated on LU V2 in the curve of the Ramokgwebana river, is recommended forhorticultural use (vegetables and fruit trees). The suggestion for the horticultural component is thatany person wishing to avail themselves of the opportunity to create a vegetable garden be allocateda plot of approximately one tenth of a hectare. This is sufficient to grow vegetables for a familyand, if managed properly, will yield sufficient for a small surplus for sale. In the first instance theavailability of water carried from the Ramokgwebana will merely extend the wet season allowingthe production of fresh vegetables into the dry season. Some of Area C can be replanted with fruittrees, but the community needs to be advised so that they are aware of the reasons for treeplanting, and the husbandry of both trees and horticultural crops. Once established after 3 or 4years, the fruit trees will have tapped the subsoil water and will require no further irrigation.

Once some expertise has been acquired it is hoped that, with the encouragement of theHorticultural Officer, hand dug wells on the banks of the Ramokgwebana will be used with a smallmotorised pump to extend the season still further and lead to the production of a marketablesurplus. Formation of a producer co-operative would be the logical next step.

5.6 Woodlot

It is important both from the viewpoint of rangeland conservation and from a social viewpoint thatthe area close to the settlement is not denuded of vegetation in the quest for firewood, as theMatopi village area has been in the past. Although the existing bush will be adequate for some time,it is apparent that the first areas to be denuded will be close to the settlement area and where theavailable fuel wood grows most abundantly. This is along the Ramokgwebane river, particularly inthe curve of the river (LU V2) where Area C and, further upstream, Area E have been delineated.The replanting of 30 ha of Area E to a woodlot would provide a sustainable source of poles andfuel.

Metro (1955) indicates that Eucalyptus camaldulensis tolerates periodic flooding but that it requiresa minimum rainfall of approximately 700 mm in summer rainfall areas with a severe dry season.However with subsoil moisture availability, as there would be at the suggested site, this amount

31

of rainfall could be reduced. E. camaldulensis has little tolerance to high pH but near neutral valuesare anticipated from analysis of similar sites.

A 10 year period will be required before the first harvest can be carried out. The area should thenbe clear felled, at just above ground level, and the poles carted off the site and stored. Piecemealfelling is not recommended since it damages coppice growth. For this reason it is consideredpreferable to plant up 3 ha each year for a 10 year period and harvest each area in turn. Coppicegrowth should be left for two years when the two strongest leaders on each bole should beselected and the remainder discarded.

Production from each 3 ha plot will be of the order of 60 cu metres (approx 60 tonnes) per 10 yearswhich should be sufficient for community use. It is expected that the population (especially thewomen) will not be difficult to persuade to establish a woodlot since they have had experience nowof the increasing difficulty, and distance, of supply of this essential commodity. Discussions withthe headman indicate that communal labour could be expected for the establishment of a woodlot.

5.7 Smallstock

The remainder of LUs 2a, 2ask, 2alp, 2b, 3, V1 and V2, totalling 7,244 ha, are considered suitablefor livestock production at the stocking rates indicated. Allowance has been made within the cattleplanning for sufficient rangeland to adequately support existing smallstock numbers. It is notexpected that the smallstock numbers will appreciate overmuch since these are maintained as asource of meat and for immediate cash needs rather than as a commercial enterprise. Despite this,numbers should be monitored and, should they rise appreciably, would need to be controlled.

In addition, the smallstock are predominantly goats which, by preference, are browsers. Whilst thisprovides a balance with the cattle which are predominantly grazers, the management systems forcattle and smallstock differ to the extent that the smallstock are mainly confined to areas aroundthe village whilst the cattle graze, during the growing season, within the designated grazing areas.This leads to a situation whereby the areas around the village are overutilised by a large number ofsmall stock who effectively kill out all browse up to a height of 1.8 metres, and then are forced todo the same to the herbaceous layer. This can be seen around the Matopi cattle post area.Conversely, if overstocking of the cattle grazing areas is allowed, the cattle will kill out the grassin those areas allowing bush encroachment and the pattern of grass under bush and bare spacesbetween is established. It is apparent therefore that range would benefit from running thesmallstock and cattle together in a number which the range can support without degeneration.

Expected production from the smallstock flock will be around a 68% kidding which was the averagebirth rate from 1978 - 1988 inclusive (MoA, Farm Management Survey results, 1988).Approximately half the flock would be breeding females which, based on the reported Matopinumbers of 903 head would give an annual production rate of 614 kids. Of these approximately18% would die leaving a total of 503 kids and culls for consumption over the year. Cull animalswould be replaced by young females.

5.8 Cattle

Three possible systems are projected for the cattle enterprise. All are financially viable, andeconomic indicators as to their performance are given in Table 10, and full calculations of herdprojections and monetary flows are given in ANNEX 2. All make allowance for the small stock and

32

donkey populations reported as belonging to Matopi village community. In basic terms all systemswould use the following procedures of generalised management the differences would be in termsof control of grazing.

System 1: Low input/existing management and uncontrolled stocking options

The first projection simulates grazing of the total stock numbers at present using the Matopi cattlepost grazing area, i.e. no controls are imposed by either the village authority or the DistrictConservation Committee and stock numbers are allowed to rise to the level at which they arelimited by rangeland primary production. Under this system calvings are lower, mortality higher andequilibrium production occurs with range degradation a natural corollary.

The system is however, the most immediately profitable, returning a Net Present Value (NPV) at15% of P184,298including salvage value of the herd. Since the Net Benefit Stream never becomesnegative it is not possible to calculate a Financial Internal Rate of Return (IRR) The system alsorequires negligible inputs and capital resources. Loss of cattle is high, especially in drought years.If no interventions are made this is the system which will be practised since it is unlikely that thecommunity has the necessary resources to support a less environmentally destructive system.

System 2: Medium input/management and controlled stocking option

System two is medium level. It entails control of stock numbers through fencing but does notmaximise stocking rates by using the arable area, except for stubble grazing. Investment costs areonly slightly lower than under system two but operating costs are considerably lower since thereis no preparation of land or input costs for a forage legume. Stocking levels are lower enabling thestock belonging to Matopi vilage plus a further 350 head of cattle to be kept.The system is straightforward, requires medium level management skills, shows an NPV of P213,144 at 15% and a financial IRR of 31%.

It is suggested that the fencing layout as depicted in the Proposed Land Use map (Map 4) map befollowed. The following stocking rates (Table 13) are considered safe under normal rainfallconditions. For a detailed account of land units per proposed paddock see ANNEX 3.

33

Table 13

Recommended stocking rates for the proposed paddocking system

System 3: High input/management and controlled stocking option

System three is based on utilisation of the fallowed arable areas by including them as leguminousforage areas in a rotation. Thus each year there would be an area of a drought resistant foragelegume such as Siratro (Macroptilium atropurpurium) or Townsville Lucerne (Stylosanthes humilis)and one of arable cereals. The leguminous forage areas would be cut or lightly grazed by milkingcows and weaker animals as a high protein supplement in the driest part of the year. This wouldencourage the intake of poorer quality roughage from browse and dried grasses. After three yearsthe forage area would be ploughed and used for arable cropping whilst the old arable area wouldbe put down to a forage legume.

Stock numbers would consist of those animals directly associated with Matopi village plus a further500 head of cattle which could be accomodated within the area. The area would need to beboundary fenced and paddocked at a cost of about P74,000 spread over two years. This would benecessary to protect the arable lands against encroachment by the cattle, to control use of theforage legume and to control encroachment by non-participating stock. In addition the cost ofplanting each year, one quarter of the arable area, to a forage legume is high; P17,000 on averageeach year. Costs are shown to rise as an increased area of arable land is opened over time.

Although it is almost certain that there would be an improvement in crop yields from the nitrogenfixation by the forage legume over the three year periods and from the increase in availablephosphorus from the single supers applied at planting of the legume, this has not been shown asa benefit since it is difficult to quantify.

The system is complex, requires a high level of management skills, resources and control. Returnsfrom the system improve over a long period and it can support a higher level of stocking on thesame area. The major drawbacks are that the profitability levels rise extremely slowly (the first threeyears show an operating loss) until livestock performance improves to provide an adequate return.In addition the level of investment is high. The Financial IRR is 19%.

An overview of the economic indicators for each system is given in Table 14.

34

Paddock Area LSUs Paddock Area LSUs

1039 ha 94 2 901 ha 60

1329 ha 108 4 522 ha 55

5 711 ha 60 6 319 ha 33

7 513 ha 47 8 494 ha 53

9 460 ha 47 10 280 ha 28

11 292 ha 33 Total 6860 ha 618

Table 14

Financial Indicators for different Livestock Options

Within the livestock production area existing fencing is shown on Map 2. The boundary fence is inpoor condition and will need replacement. This should be based on shared costs between theresettlement area and Mr. Strauss on the one side, Mr. Blackbeard on the other and a portionexclusively for the resettlement area. Should the second option be chosen for the livestockmanagement system there will be a need to divide the arable area into four more or less equal areasin order to arrange a forage legume/arable 4 year rotation. Costs for appropriate fencing have beenincluded in the projections.

Control of livestock numbers should be vested in the village authority with a supervisory role beingadopted by the District Conservation Committee. In order to control stocking rates threerequirements will need to be met:

Firstly that the livestock grazing the area be restricted to those animals owned by the Matopicommunity and invited participants, whilst livestock owned by other communities graze elsewhere.This would reduce the total pressure on the area to an approximate 398 LSUs, based on the 1993Department of Animal Health and Production (Francistown) figures, plus a further number asindicated in the annex.

Secondly that boundary fencing is renewed and maintained to reduce encroachment byneighbouring cattle and that internal fences are modified and maintained in order to control themovement of livestock within the system.

Thirdly that range condition is reviewed over time and cattle, small stock and donkey numbersadjusted in the light of these findings.

35

Indicator System 1:Low input/

existing management,uncontrolled stocking

System 2:Medium input/

medium management,controlled stocking

System 3:High input/

high management,controlled stocking

Net present value @

15% (Pula)184298 213144 168424

Financial Internal Rateof Return (%)

Not calculable 31% 19%

Annual Income at fullproduction (Pula)

2002 54094 49341

Income per family (41families) at stableproduction (Pula)

49 1319 1203

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusions

The purchase of farms 25/77 NO and 27/77 NO provides adequate land to compensate the Matopivillagers for the loss incurred due to construction of the Lower Shashe dam and flooding of thereservoir. A fenced block of 130 ha with irrigation works is also included within the purchased area.The farms are located adjacent to the present communal grazing area of Matopi, and are subjectto similar constraints of climate and soils. Suitable areas for settlement, rainfed cropping, livestockgrazing and limited fuelwood and horticultural development exist within the farms. Rainfed croppingis very marginal due to drought risk, and cannot serve as the sole means of household livelihood.It is important, therefore, that each household has access to alternative sources of income, suchas cattle, smallstock, a horticultural plot or wage labour.

The present settlement comprises 41 households and does not have official village status. Currentstandards of crop and livestock husbandry are low and the grazing land around the village isseverely degraded. Most of the households are heavily dependent on Government drought reliefschemes for their survival.

Bearing in mind the generally poor levels of technical ability and motivation of the Matopi farmers,effective extension is important if land use is to improve in a sustainable way on the new settlementarea. However, due largely to the competing demands of drought relief and other administrativematters (Section 3.4, p. 15) extension to Matopi village has been weak.

It is against this background of physical and socio-economic constraints, and overstretchedextension services that the recommendations which comprise the land use plan are drawn up.Selection of a given option must depend not only upon its technical feasibility but also upon themanagement abilities and support services available to the implementors. All the options given aretechnically feasible, however the management abilities of the community are confined to thoseareas within which they have had past experience, which may be described as basic traditional. Inorder to be able to extend this experience it is necessary to have improved methods of productiondemonstrated to them.

6.2 Recommendations

Recommendations are described as sectoral components of a farming system. Livestock grazing,rainfed crop production and settlement are the essential components of the system. Settlers are alsooffered opportunities for cultivation of small scale horticultural plots, and a communally managedwoodlot is recommended for supply of building poles and fuel on a sustainable basis. The irrigationblock should be offered for commercial leasing and is thus excised from the land use plan.

36

Rainfed Arable Cropping

A gross area of 586 ha (Area A, Map 4, p 27), located in the north-central part of thefarm on LU 1, is identified for rainfed arable cropping. Each household should beallocated a 10 ha plot, on the assumption that 5 ha of this will be cultivated in any oneyear, and the remainder fallowed on a rotational basis. Sorghum is the most suitablecereal crop and should be the staple, with smaller areas planted to beans, cowpeas,melons and other subsidiary crops. Farmers should plough early, using oxen or donkeys,and should aim to plant at least half of their cultivated field at the first climaticallydetermined planting opportunity after 20th November. Planting should be in rows inorder to obtain an even density and to facilitate weeding, which should be carried outin a timely manner. The arable area should be enclosed within a drift fence.

Settlement

Two possible settlement sites are identified. One site (Area C, Map 4, p 27) is near theRamokgwebane river and potential horticultural and woodlot areas. However, a new 6km access road would need to be constructed to this site. The other site (Area D) iscloser to the proposed arable area and would not require a new access road, but isfurther from the proposed horticultural and woodlot sites. The Land Board hasprescribed a 30 x 30 m residential plot for each household.

Cattle

It is possible that with sufficient "top-down" interest in the resettlement a sustainableand profitable livestock package could be evolved with the co-operation of thecommunity.

System two (Section 5.8, p 33 and Tables 13, p 34 and 14, p 35) is recommended forcattle since this combines ease of management, is less environmentally damaging, hasan extremely good IRR, and has lower resource requirements. This last component isimportant since it is unlikely that the community has extensive financial resources evento the extent of being able to fund the fencing component. If this is not supplied bygovernment therefore, the likelihood is that the system used will be system 1 with itsattendant degradation of the localised natural resources. This is, of course, a form ofenvironmental blackmail, but pragmatically cannot be avoided. It is felt reasonablehowever that if government supplies fencing in order to conserve the environment ofits citizens, those same citizens should undertake to control stock numbers and tomanage the environment as sensitively as possible. The control of stock numbers istherefore a priority and the supply of fencing with no attendant controls is a total wasteof resources both financial and environmental.

It is not envisaged that the community will immediately appreciate the advantages ofstock controls and woodlots. Unless there is a possibility of regular livestock andforestry extension to convince the community of the need for these components andbackup from the Tribal Authority, neither will occur. If it is decided that extensionpersonnel are not available or that neither the Tribal Authority nor the DistrictConservation committee are able to control stock numbers then the recommendationmust be that the system to be adopted should be system 1 with no fencing supplied by

37

government. If this is the unavoidable choice then it must also be accepted that the costwill be, over time, considerable environmental degradation.

Woodlot

A strip of alluvial land alongside the Ramokg webane River is identified as a woodlot site(Area E, Map 4, p 27). This woodlot is required to provide a sustainable supply of polesand fuel wood, and to prevent the denudation of natural trees, such as has occurred inthe vicinity of the present settlement. 30 ha should be planted to Eucalyptuscamaldulensis at the rate of 3 ha per year. After a 10 year establishment period, each3 ha plot should be clear felled. Coppice growth can be harvested after a further 2 yearperiod.

Horticulture

The alluvial area within the meander of the Ramokgwebane River (Area C, Map 4, p 27),close to the Area B settlement site, is assigned for small scale horticultural development.Fruit trees and fresh vegetables can be grown, initially for home consumption. 0.1 haplots will be allocated to interested households.

Smallstock

Numbers of small stock should be kept constant relative to the present flock. This wouldsupply a regular offtake of around 500 animals for home consumption or sale. Ratherthan using the present system of grazing smallstock near the village, cattle andsmallstock should preferably be run together for a more effective utilization of the range.

Irrigation Block

The 130 ha fenced block containing the irrigation infrastructure should be let on acommercial lease. The revenue from the lease would accrue to the Tati Land Board, andthe commercial irrigated farm should provide a possible source of wage employment forthe settlement.

REFERENCES

Arable Lands Development Programme (ALDEP), 1991. Final Report of Agronomist. Ministry ofAgriculture, Gaborone.

Elwell, FLA., 1980. A soil loss estimation technique for southern Africa. Proceedings 'Conservation'80', Silsoe, Beds., U.K.

FAO, 1990. Soil Map of the World. Revised Legend. World Soil Resources Report 60 (Reprinted).FAO/UNESCO/ISRIC. Rome, Italy.

Metro, A. 1955. Forestry and Forests Products Studies no 11. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Radcliffe, D.J. 1992. An approach to the assessment of sheet erosion hazard on cropland inBotswana. FAO/ Govt. of Botswana Project TCP/BOT/0053 Land Resource Assessment forAgricultural Land Use Planning Field Document 4, Ministry of Agriculture, Gaborone.

Radcliffe, D.J., Venema. J. and De Wit, P.V. 1990. Soils of North Eastern Botswana. UNDP/ FAO/Government of Botswana Project BOT/85/011 Soil Mapping and Advisory Services. Field Document17. Ministry of Agriculture, Gaborone.

Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC), 1990. Feasibility/ Preliminary Design Study,Lower Shashe Dam. Summary report and Environmental Impact Study. Min. Mineral Resources andWater Affairs, Gaborone.

Van der Poel, P. 1980. Rainfall erosivity and its use for soil loss estimation. Soil ConservationSection, Ministry of Agriculture, Gaborone.

Wikner, T. 1980. Sand Rivers of Botswana: A reconnaissance of the major sand rivers. Departmentof water Affairs, Gaborone. Vol. 1, 4Opp.

39

ANNEX 1:

INTRODUCTION TO THE

CROP YIELD SIMULATIONAND

LAND ASSESSMENT MODEL FOR BOTSWANA(CYSLAMB)

40

INTRODUCTION TO CYSLAMB

The structure of CYSLAMB is illustrated in Figure 1. The characteristics of the selected land units(effective rainfall and synoptic meteorological data, soil and weed characteristics) and productionsystems (crop characteristics, target plant densities and management practices) are read fromseparate databases. Using this input data, CYSLAMB then simulates crop biomass production andyield for every year required by the run.

Radiation and TemperatureLimited Biomass Yield

Drainage Module

Nutrient Module

7ToXicity

Module

Salinity

Sodicity

Alkalinity

Ammommomm7,---72,7...

thirvc,;1 indfx adjustment

Potential Crop Yields

Figure 1: CYSLAMB Structure

41

INPUTDATA

CYSLAMB

MODULES

]OU FPUTS

Land Unit

Soil TypeClimatic ref. station

Soil characteristicsRainfall/Synoptic data

Land Use

Production System

Crop characteristicsManagement specifications

oisture Balance Module:

Pre-planting

Identity plantingopportunity

Post-planting

CYSLAMB first calculates what would be the maximum possible biomass yield for the crop underthe specified management conditions if there are no constraints due to soils or rainfall. Thistheoretical maximum yield is determined by solar radiation and temperature. The model then setsup a moisture balance from the first dekad 10 day period) of each hydrological year (1st - 10thSeptember is normally chosen in Botswana), taking into account incident effective rainfall, bare soilevaporation or weed evapotranspiration and water losses due to percolation or run-off. Criteria forthe definition of a planting opportunity are defined based on effective incident rainfall and storedsoil moisture. When these criteria are met, the crop/soil water balance is then simulated throughthe crop growth cycle, and periods of moisture stress are accounted for in the calculation of themoisture limited biomass yield. The moisture limited yield is then adjusted to take account of theeffects of drainage conditions, nutrient supply and toxicities. The biomass yield is converted to theyield of economic product by the harvest index.

The resulting yields reflect the production on the specified soil type under the climatic conditionsprevailing in that particular year. If the model is run over a number of years the outputs can beanalysed statistically to give estimates of the yield exceeded at stated levels of probability and therisks of crop failure. Dependable yields (surpassed in 75% of years) and median yields (surpassedin 50% of years), give useful indices on which to base land suitability.

42

ANNEX 2:

HERD PROJECTIONS AND MONETARY FLOWSFOR THREE CATTLE ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS

SYSTEM 1

LOW INPUT/EXISTING MANAGEMENT

AND UNCONTROLLED STOCKING OPTION

43

Max

imum

num

ber

of b

reed

ing

cow

s -

No

limit

head

Leng

th o

f Gic

win

g S

easo

n12

9 da

ysM

irim

um s

ize

purc

hase

d fa

ttene

r he

rd20

hea

d

Tot

al G

raza

Ce

Are

a71

15 h

aM

axim

um s

ize

purc

hase

d fa

ttene

r he

rd0.

0 he

ad

New

Pas

ttire

Utii

satio

n10

015

(in fi

rst y

ear

of p

rodu

ctio

n)M

arite

l pric

e of

milk

/litr

e0,

9 P

ula

LSU

(liv

es! o

ck U

nit)

500

kgP

'CC

O5

units

Mar

ke4

pric

e of

sou

r m

ilk/li

tre

3,5

Pul

aR

educ

tion

Fre

sh to

Sou

r0.

315

285

0R

esid

ual h

erd

valu

e**

--a

-e-lr

In--

Ir-1

0n -

----

r--*

*--

- -,

* --

r-o

atr

.nir1

-st*

ovn

in.n

.n.r

.rn.

nPni

r-F

mlo

r,

ha/L

SU 10

1543 14

2997

7

1388 18

932 7

255 4 0

7115

Tot

al L

S U

's a

vaila

ble

Lesa

req

uire

men

t for

sm

alls

tock

Less

req

uire

men

t for

don

keys

LU 2

eT

otal

ha

LU 2

alp

,2 6

55,2

9T

otal

ha

LU 1

, V1,

V2 T

otal

ha

LU 3

Tot

al h

aA

rabl

e W

aste

s LU

1T

otal

ha

Rot

atio

nal F

orag

eT

otal

ha

LSU

s av

aila

ble

for

catte

Are

a de

velo

ped

as a

%O

vera

ll ca

rryi

ng c

apac

ity

......

..**I

rtIr

It....

*.**

****

***

****

****

****

****

****

*.**

****

***

7Y

ear

8Y

ear

9Y

ear

10Y

ear

11Y

ear

12Y

ear

13Y

ear

14Y

ear

15Y

ear

16Y

ear

17Y

ear

18Y

ear

19Y

ear

20T

EC

HN

ICA

L C

OE

FF

ICIE

NT

SE

xist

ing

Yea

r 1

Yea

r 2

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yea

r

Cal

ving

%43

8or

talit

y re

te(%

) -

Adu

lts13

- C

alve

s-

Pur

ch. F

atte

ners

lkk

/cow

/day

5 210

0-

lact

atio

n (d

ays)

ng%

AN

AG

EM

EN

T F

AC

TO

RS

Bul

lsB

reed

ing

cow

s-

Hei

fers

Join

ing

rate

(Cow

s/B

ulf)

at B

ullin

g -

Hei

fers

sale

Bul

ls/S

teer

s (y

ears

)al

e C

ull h

eife

rs (

year

s)sa

le B

reed

ng h

eile

rs (

year

s)

****

.***

****

** *

***-

.Yro

hirr

t*

Bot

swan

a kJ

- s1

ry. o

fD

epar

trre

nt o

f Cro

p P

rodu

ctio

n7

For

eoit,

Land

Jt.1

: sat

ron

on

Pro

pose

d A

gric

ultu

ral L

and

Use

Pro

t For

rner

Fre

ehol

d F

arro

s25

177

NO

and

271

77 N

O, N

orth

Eas

t Dis

tric

t

Low

Mau

Man

agem

ent a

nd U

ncon

trol

led

Sto

clan

g O

ptio

ntr

d P

roje

ctio

nD

ate:

13-

Aug

-95

10 13 10 202 4 3 3

*IxM

rnIr

lelr-

--...

..r.*

****

*.**

***5

1r**

.***

****

*.1.

-Int

le4r

1r**

**,-

**.*

*.**

**

6Y

ear

3333

3333

3333

3333

3333

3333

3333

3333

38

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

109

8

1515

1515

1515

1515

1515

1515

1515

1514

13

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

5

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

57

1013

1313

1313

1313

1313

1313

1313

55

55

7a

510

101

o10

1 o

1 o

1010

10

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

44

44

44

44

44

44

44

44

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

3

1593

159

1573

157

1553

155

1543

154

1543

154

1543

154

1543

154

1543

154

2997

214

021

40

214

021

40

214

021

40

214

021

4

1388

198

019

80

198

018

80

198

019

80

198

019

8

932

520

520

520

520

520

520

520

52

205

2522

3220

3510

360

360

3636

36

00

00

00

00

00

652

653

654

654

654

654

654

854

312

312

312

312

312

312

312

312

7272

7272

7272

7272

268

269

270

270

270

270

270

270

7878

7878

7878

7878

1111

1111

4343

435

88

1313

55

5

22

2

100

120

1010

10

1313

1310

1010

2020

202

22

44

41

33

31

33

3)

Yea

r 9

Yea

r 10

on

Hec

tare

T L

UH

ecta

re T

L U

A. I

raal

e...*

1543

154

1543

154

214

021

4

196

019

8

5252

36as

00

654

654

312

312

7272

270

270

7878

1111

TO

CK

It4G

DA

TA

capa

city

Hec

tare

T L

UH

ecta

re T

L U

Hec

tare

T L

UH

ecta

re T

L U

Hec

tare

T L

UH

ecta

reT

L U

Hec

tare

T L

UH

ecta

re T

L U

Car

ryin

gY

ear

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4Y

ear

5Y

ear

6Y

ear

7Y

ear

8

C.7

1

HE

RD

CO

MP

OS

IT O

N S

BU

ILD

UP

LOU

Val

ue(P

ula)

Exi

stin

gS

ikV

ean

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4Y

ear

5Y

ear

6Y

ear

7Y

ear

8Y

ear

9Y

ear

10Y

ear

11Y

ear

12Y

ear

13Y

ear

14Y

ear

15Y

ear

16

1. B

reed

ng c

ows

0.9

700

On

hand

at b

egnn

ing

of y

ear

565

544

526

500

465

424

388

356

326

299

274

250

229

210

193

176

163

Less

cul

ls c

erne

d 9

mon

ths

Plu

s pu

rch

ases

28 O

27 0

37 o50 o

60 o55 o

50 o

46 o42 o

39 o36 o

33 o30 o

27 o

25 o23 o

21o

Plu

s re

plw

emen

t hei

fers

6767

6767

6662

5852

4844

4037

3431

2826

25

Tot

al b

reed

ng c

ows

604

584

556

517

471

431

396

362

332

304

278

254

233

214

196

179

167

Less

dea

t s60

5856

5247

4340

3833

3028

2523

2120

1613

Less

sal

esO

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

On

herid

at e

nd 0

1 ye

ar54

452

650

046

542

438

835

632

629

927

425

022

921

019

317

616

315

4

Ave

rage

LS

Us

lar

year

517

482

462

434

400

365

335

307

281

258

236

216

198

181

166

153

143

2 B

reed

ng b

ulla

1.1

800

On

henM

ilk S

ales

3027

2625

2322

2018

1615

1313

1211

109

5

Less

cul

lsP

ka p

u rc

hase

s60

032

3 o3 o

3 o

2 o20

2 o2 o

2 o

2 o/ o

oa

1 ooi

1 o

1

Plu

s re

pbc

emen

ts1

55

43

22

23

22

1

11

8T

otal

bre

edng

bul

ls30

2920

2624

2220

1817

1514

1312

1//O

9

Less

dea

t s3

33

32

22

22

21

11

11

1

Lesa

sal

es0

O0

00

00

00

0o

oo

oo

oo

On

hend

at e

nd o

f yea

r27

2625

2322

2018

1615

1313

1211

109

a7

Ave

rage

LS

Us

for

year

3129

2826

2523

2119

1715

1414

1312

109

a

3H

eite

r C

alve

s0.

210

0B

om d

uiin

g ye

ar98

9895

9184

7770

6559

5449

4541

3835

3233

Less

dea

t s15

1514

1413

1211

109

87

7a

54

4

On

hEnd

al e

nd o

f yea

r83

8381

7771

6559

5550

642

3835

3230

2829

Ave

rage

LS

Us

for

year

2020

2019

1816

1514

12ii

109

96

77

7

4.B

ull c

alve

s0.

210

0

Bom

dur

in g

yea

r98

9895

9084

7670

6459

5450

4542

3835

3234

Less

dea

t s15

1514

1413

1111

109

aa

76

65

44

On

h E

rd a

t end

of y

ear

8383

8176

7165

5954

5046

4238

3632

3028

30

Ave

rage

LS

Us

lar

year

2020

2019

1516

1513

1211

109

9a

77

7

5 H

eler

o 1-

2 ye

so0.

530

0

On

herd

at b

egnn

ing

al y

ear

8383

8381

7771

6559

5550

4642

3835

3230

28

Less

dea

t sa

e7

76

65

54

44

32

On

h an

d at

end

of y

ear

7575

7573

6964

5853

4945

4138

3431

2927

26

Ave

rage

LS

Us

for

year

3636

3635

3330

2825

2321

2018

1615

1413

12

6. O

tees

1-2

yea

rs0.

530

0O

n he

nd a

t beg

nnin

gol

year

8353

8381

7671

6559

5450

4642

3836

3230

28

Less

dea

tis0

aa

aa

77

65

55

44

43

32

On

h tr

d al

end

o/ye

ar75

7575

7368

6458

5349

4541

3834

3229

2725

Ave

rage

LS

Us

for

year

3636

3635

3230

2825

2321

2018

1615

1413

12

7H

eife

rs 2

-3 y

ears

400

On

hsnd

at b

egnn

ing

of y

ear

7575

7575

7369

6458

5349

4541

3834

3129

27

Less

dea

tsa

a8

a7

76

65

55

44

33

32

Rep

lmem

ents

lobr

eedn

g he

rd67

6767

5766

6258

5248

4440

3734

3128

2625

On

hand

at E

ndal

year

Oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

O

Ave

rage

LS

Us

for

year

2525

2525

2523

2220

1817

1514

1311

1010

8S

teer

s 2-

3 ye

ars

0.7

350

On

hand

at b

egrin

ing

ofye

ar75

7575

7573

6864

5853

4945

4138

3432

2927

Less

ote

ar's

ae

ae

77

66

55

54

43

33

2

Leas

sal

esC

00

00

OO

O0

Oo

oo

oo

o0

On

hrnd

ab

end

ofye

ar67

6767

6765

Si58

5248

4440

3734

3129

2625

Ave

rage

LS

Us

bar

year

4848

4848

4743

4137

3431

2926

2422

2119

18

HE

RD

CO

MP

OS

ITIO

N &

BU

ILD

UP

Yea

r 1

Yea

r 2

Vea

n 7

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 9

Yea

r 10

Yea

r 11

Yea

r 12

Yea

r 13

Yea

r 14

Yea

r 15

Yea

r 15

9. H

eife

rs 3

-4 y

eart

'0.

970

0O

n tr

and

a/ b

egnm

ng o

fea

rO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

less

cul

ls s

old

star

t e y

ear

040

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Less

dea

tiSO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

Rep

,x e

^,er

ls to

bre

edng

herd

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OLe

ss s

ales

as

bree

rsO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

On

hand

at e

nd o

f yea

ro

OO

OO

OO

OO

00

0O

00

00

Ave

rage

US

Us

for

year

OO

OO

O0

00

00

00

00

00

O

10, S

teer

s 3-

4 ye

ars

0.9

400

On

herid

at b

egnn

ing

of y

ear

6767

6767

6766

6158

5248

4440

3734

3129

26Le

sa o

reat

s7

77

77

76

e5

54

44

33

32

Leas

rep

lace

men

ts to

bre

adin

g bu

lls5

55

43

22

23

22

11

11

11

Leas

sal

esO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

On

hand

at e

nd o

f yea

r55

5555

5657

5753

5044

4138

3532

3027

2523

Ave

rage

LS

Us

lar

year

5555

5555

5655

5149

4340

3734

3129

2624

22

11. S

teer

s 4-

5 ye

ars

On

helo

r at

beg

nnin

g of

yea

rLe

ss d

eahs

Less

sal

esO

n he

rid a

t end

of y

ear

Ave

rage

LS

Us

lar

year

Ste

ers

5-8

year

s1.

150

0O

n S

aid

at b

egnn

ing

of y

ear

Leas

dea

fisLe

sa s

ales

On

Sai

d at

end

of y

ear

Ave

rage

LS

Us

for

year

Ste

ers

8-7

year

s50

0O

n ho

rror

al b

egnn

ing

of y

ear

Leas

dea

lhs

Less

sal

esO

n he

rid a

t end

of y

ear

Ave

rage

LS

Us

lar

year

11. C

ull c

ows

(car

rled

9 m

onth

s)0.

740

0C

ulle

d al

sta

rt o

f yea

rLe

sa d

eafis

Less

sal

esO

n h

End

at a

nd o

f yea

rA

vera

ge L

SU

s la

r ye

ar

TO

TA

L F

iAN

CH

BR

ED

LS

Us

Sur

plis

LS

Us

PU

rch

ased

fatte

sers

gra

zed

6 m

onth

s

Tot

al L

SU

s

DE

AT

HS

Pur

chas

ed S

teer

s/bu

llsB

reed

ng C

ows

Bre

edng

Bul

lsH

eife

r ca

lves

Bul

l Cal

ves

Hei

fers

1-2

Ste

ers/

bulls

1-2

Hei

fers

2-3

Ste

ers/

bulls

2-3

Hei

fers

3-4

Ste

ers/

bulls

3-4

Ste

ers/

bulls

4-5

Ste

ers/

bulls

5-6

Ste

ers/

bulls

6-7

Cul

l cow

s

Tot

al D

eath

s

1.1

450

5555

5555

5657

5753

5044

4138

3532

3027

256

66

66

6e

55

44

44

33

22

4949

4949

5051

5148

4540

3734

3129

2725

23O

OO

O0

00

00

00

00

0o

o0

3030

3030

3131

3129

2824

2321

1918

1715

14

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

000

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

Oo

oo

oO

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

2727

3750

6055

5046

4239

3633

3027

2523

21

24

23

45

43

33

32

22

22

2525

3446

5551

4643

3935

3331

2825

2321

210

OO

OO

Oo

oo

oo0

oo

oo

oO

99

1317

2019

1716

1413

109

98

760

743

713

674

620

573

525

477

438

403

369

339

310

284

263

245

-492

-474

-443

-404

-350

-303

-255

-207

-168

-133

-99

-69

-40

-14

725

Oo

oo

Oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

o

760

743

713

674

620

573

525

477

438

403

389

339

310

284

263

245

0.0

0.0

0.0

00.

00.

0O

0.0

o0.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

058

5652

4743

4036

3330

2825

2321

2016

133

33

22

22

22

11

11

11

1

1514

1413

1211

109

87

76

65

44

1514

1413

1111

109

8a

76

65

44

8e

85

77

66

55

44

43

32

Se

8e

77

65

55

44

43

32

ae

e7

76

e5

55

44

33

32

8e

57

7e

65

55

44

33

32

Oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

O7

77

77

66

55

44

43

33

2e

66

65

e5

54

44

43

32

2O

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

23

45

44

33

33

22

22

21

138.

013

5,0

132.

012

311

3.0

106.

086

87.0

5075

.066

.082

.056

.051

.044

.035

.0

oo o oo

GA

ULE

SA

LES

Val

ueY

earl

Y a

r 2

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 6

Yea

rY

ear

8Y

ear

9Y

ear

10

(Pul

a 00

0s)

Hea

dN

oV

alue

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

No

Val

ue

Bre

edng

Cow

s70

00

00

0.0

00.

00.

00

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

Bre

edng

Bul

la80

00

00

0.0

00.

00.

00

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

Cul

l Cow

s40

025

10,0

0034

13,6

046

.018

,400

55.0

2200

,51

.020

,400

4618

,400

417

,200

39.0

15,6

0038

.014

,400

33.0

13,2

0

Cul

l Exi

ft60

03

1,80

03

1,80

3.0

1,80

02.

01,

202.

01,

200

21,

201,

200

2.0

1,20

2.0

1,20

01.

060

Cul

l Hai

lers

400

00

00.

00

0.0

0.0

00

0,0

0.0

00.

0

Sur

plus

Hei

fers

RW

B70

00

00

0.0

00.

00.

00

00.

00.

00

0.0

Ran

ch S

teer

s 2+

yrs

350

00

00.

00

0.0

0.0

00

0.0

0.0

00.

0

Ran

ch S

teer

s 3+

yrs

400

00

00.

00

0.0

0.0

00

0.0

0,0

00.

0

Ran

ch S

teer

s 4-

+ y

rs45

049

22,0

5049

22,0

549

.022

,050

50.0

22,5

051

.022

,950

5122

,95

421

,60

460

20,2

540

.018

,000

37.0

16,6

5

Ran

ch S

teer

s 5+

yrs

500

00

00.

00

0.0

0.0

00

0.0

0.0

00.

0

Ran

ch S

teer

s 8+

yrs

500

00

00.

00

0.0

0.0

00

0.0

0.0

00.

0

Tot

al R

anch

Bre

d S

ales

7733

,850

8537

,450

95.0

42,2

5010

7.0

45,7

0010

4.0

44,5

5099

42,5

5093

40,0

0086

.037

,050

78.0

33,6

0071

.030

,450

Pur

chas

ed F

atte

n er

s75

00

00

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

00

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

0

Tot

al C

attle

Sal

es77

33,8

5086

37,4

5098

42,2

5010

745

,700

104

44,5

5099

42,5

5093

40,0

0056

37,0

5078

33,6

0071

30,4

50

ILK

PR

OD

UC

TIO

N&

SA

LES

Yr

1Y

r 2

Yr

3Y

r 4

Yr

5Y

r 6

Yr

7Y

rSY

r 9

Yr

10Y

r 11

Yr

12Y

r 13

Yr

14Y

r 15

Yr

16Y

r 17

Yr

18Y

r 19

Yr

20

Milk

Pro

duce

d ('0

00 L

itres

)37

,960

36,1

4033

,605

30,6

1528

,015

25,7

4023

,530

21,5

8019

,760

18,0

7016

,510

15,1

4513

,910

12,7

4011

,635

12,5

2512

,525

12,5

2512

,525

12,5

25

Hom

e co

nsum

ptio

n ('0

00 L

itres

)18

,980

18,0

7016

,803

15,3

0514

,008

12,8

7011

,765

10,7

909,

880

9,03

58,

255

7,57

36,

955

6,37

05,

818

6,26

36,

263

6,26

36,

263

6,26

3

Milk

Sal

es (

'000

Bul

a)16

,323

15,5

4014

,450

13,1

6412

,046

11,0

6810

,118

9,27

98,

497

7,77

07,

099

8,51

25,

981

5,47

85,

003

5,38

65,

386

5,38

65,

386

5,38

6

Sou

r M

ilk S

ales

('0

00 P

ula)

21,9

2220

,871

19,4

0717

,650

16,1

7914

,865

13,5

8912

,462

11,4

1110

,435

9,53

58,

746

8,03

37,

357

6,71

97,

233

7,23

37,

233

7,23

37,

233

Tot

al V

alue

of F

resh

Milk

Pro

ch32

,646

31,0

8025

,900

26,3

2924

,093

22,1

3620

,235

18,5

5916

,994

15,5

4014

,199

13,0

2511

,963

10,9

5610

,006

10,7

7210

,772

10,7

7210

,772

10,7

72

-- -

----

----

---

-- -

----

-

Yea

r 1

Yea

r 2

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 6

Yea

r 7

Yea

r 8

Yea

r 9

Yea

r 10

PU

RC

HA

SE

(Rila

'000

s)N

oV

alue

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

No

Val

ue

Bre

edng

Cow

s75

00

00

00

.00

0.0

00

00

0

Bre

edng

Bul

is10

000

00

00.

00

0.0

00,

00

00

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

0

Fat

teni

ng S

teer

s30

00

00

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

00

00.

00.

00

0.0

0

NE

T IN

CO

ME

(B

ula

'000

s)E

xist

ing

Sto

ckC

attle

1329

Goa

ts14

62S

heep

97D

onke

s10

3

Yea

r 1

Yea

r 2

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 6

Yea

r 7

Yea

r 8

Yea

r 9

Yea

r 10

Yea

r 11

Yea

r 12

Yea

r 13

Yea

r 14

Yea

r 15

Yea

r 16

Yea

r 17

Yea

r 18

Yea

r 19

Yea

r 20

Yea

r 21

55,7

7255

,321

61,6

5763

,380

60,7

2957

,415

53,5

8949

,512

45,0

1140

,885

37,8

3534

,496

31,6

8329

,307

26,9

6926

,183

26,1

5326

,153

26,1

5326

,183

26,1

53

Tot

al P

urch

ases

Qo

Qo

o0

§8,

bbin

.3gb

-F;

g

-spp

,3

M00

0;o!

zo; 0

,065

'2a

666

°°°'

s-

X

FFF

gs,

Bbi

n

o

0,o6

Obi

boo

b

oPO

boo

olP

0Obl

obo

ggg

ggg

00.

ggg

gf

!W

g.

IT7]

.104

'

9Si8

ib4

.PO

O

" gggg

g

oo0O

Ob6

6°.

oo0O

Pbb

O°°

gopp

pib

b0.0

P"

"

g;N

RE

,O.

gr;

;FF

F

ggg

o,

000

Sgg8

-6P

O'`.

.;

Ara

ble

Sal

esC

attle

Sal

es33

850

3745

042

250

4570

044

550

4255

040

003

3705

033

600

3045

0

Milk

Sal

es38

245

3841

133

857

3084

528

225

2593

323

706

2174

219

908

1820

6

Tot

al S

ales

OP

ER

AT

ING

EX

PE

ND

ITU

RE

1 S

alar

ies

& W

ages

Yea

r 1

Yea

r 2

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 6

Yea

r 7

Yea

r 8

Yea

r 9

Yea

r 10

Cos

t p.a

.U

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

t

1.M

ilker

/Lab

oure

r10

0015

1500

315

1600

3.0

14.0

14.0

00.0

1313

000.

012

.012

000

11.0

1100

311

.011

(300

.010

.010

003.

09.

090

000

8.0

8000

.0

Sub

-to

tal

3 M

aint

enan

ce

Fen

cing

10.0

01g

1927

1319

2713

19.0

2713

1927

1319

.027

1319

.027

1319

.027

1319

.027

1319

.027

1319

.027

13

Sub

-tot

al27

1327

1327

1327

1327

1327

1327

1327

1327

1327

13

4 V

eter

inar

y H

ealth

e. M

ater

ials

27V

acci

nes

lum

p su

m y

oung

sto

ck11

279

310

273

303

262

291

245

272

224

249

205

228

188

209

173

192

158

175

145

161

27D

rugs

lum

p/LS

U2.

876

212

7420

771

199

6718

862

173

5716

053

146

4813

34-

412

240

112

4.D

ip W

ash

lum

p/LS

U0.

176

038

743

3771

336

674

3462

031

573

2952

526

477

2443

822

403

6.S

emen

(50

.6 c

ows)

429

211

6827

811

1225

910

3423

694

221

686

219

879

218

172

416

608

415

260

813

9

Sub

-to

tal

5 S

uppl

emen

tary

Fee

ds

5*M

iner

al s

uppl

emen

tsan

d m

aint

enan

ce

Sub

-to

tal

Bot

swan

a N

inis

try

of A

gncu

lture

Dep

artr

nent

of C

rop

Pro

duct

ion

and

For

estr

yLa

nd U

tilis

atio

n D

ivis

ion

Pro

pose

d A

gric

ultu

ral L

and

Use

Ran

o/ F

orm

er F

reeh

old

Far

ms

Num

bers

251

77 N

O a

nd 2

7177

NO

, Nor

th E

ast D

istr

ict

Low

Inpu

VE

xist

ing

Man

agem

ent a

nd U

ncon

trol

led

Sto

ckin

g C

ptio

nS

ales

and

Ope

ratin

g E

xpen

ditu

re

Yea

r 1

Yea

r 2

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 6

Yea

r 7

Yea

r 8

Yea

r 9

Yea

r 10

7209

573

861

7610

776

545

7277

568

483

6370

658

792

5350

848

656

1500

015

000.

014

000.

013

000.

012

000

000

1100

0.0

1000

0.0

9000

.060

00.0

1728

1659

1559

1436

1315

1208

1105

1013

927

14.4

750

1091

474

310

669

713.

010

239

674

9679

620.

069

0357

3.0

8228

525.

075

3947

7.0

6850

438.

062

9040

3.0

5787

1091

410

569

1023

996

7989

0382

2875

3968

5062

9057

87

6 C

osta

of F

orag

e P

rodu

ctio

n

Cul

evat

ons

ha11

00

00

0.0

0.0

0.0

00.

00.

0

Sirs

tro

ha50

00

00.

00.

00.

00

0.0

0.0

Sin

e S

uper

sha

400

00

0.0

0.0

0.0

00.

00.

0

Sow

ing

ha20

00

00.

00.

00.

00

0.0

0.0

7 S

ales

Cos

ts

3.D

rugs

Sub

-tot

al

Tra

nspo

rthe

ad50

7751

6056

6880

9875

4010

755

6010

453

2099

7920

9374

4086

6880

7562

4071

Sub

-to

tal

6160

6880

7840

5560

8320

7920

7440

6880

6240

Tot

al36

514

3692

236

351

3538

733

251

3106

929

797

2745

625

170

Phy

sica

l Con

tinge

ncy

5004

1826

1846

1815

1769

1663

1553

1490

1373

1259

Tot

al O

perf

iting

Cos

to38

340

3876

838

169

3715

734

913

3262

331

287

2882

926

429

-=

--N

et In

com

e33

755

3509

337

938

3938

537

562

3556

032

419

2996

327

079

1.A

ssum

es o

ne la

bour

er p

er 5

0 Lo

u ba

sed

on a

ctua

l fig

ures

from

farm

ers

27V

acci

nes

Cos

t/dos

eC

alf p

arat

ypho

id0.

3

Lum

py S

Iffn

0.5

Ent

erot

oaae

rni a

0.0

Pas

teur

elia

0.4

Tot

al1,

1

An

assu

mpt

ion

Is m

ade

that

Cea

se v

acci

nes

are

give

n to

imm

atur

e st

ock

only

Tot

al2.

8A

n as

sum

ptio

n is

mad

e th

at tr

eatm

ent i

s re

quire

d in

onl

y 10

f% o

f the

cat

tle

4*D

ip W

ash

adm

inis

tere

d W

th K

naps

ack

spra

yer

-W

hils

t cor

rect

ly th

e co

st w

ould

be

P1/

LSU

per

wee

k, In

rea

lity

the

spre

Ong

is r

educ

edin

bot

h co

ncen

trat

ion

and

freq

uenc

y to

a c

osta

l a,o

prox

imat

ely

P1/

LSU

per

mon

th. T

his

is fe

lt to

be

1001

0w a

nd a

cos

t of P

0.5(

LSU

per

wee

kha

s be

en u

sed.

Min

eral

sC

attle

Men

tena

nce

Lick

(50

kg)

24.5

Sal

t (50

kg)

7.9

Bon

emea

l (50

kg)

39.5

Tot

al71

.810

kg

of s

alt a

nd b

oner

neel

per

hea

d pe

r ye

ar, 1

0 kg

of m

eint

enen

ce li

ck o

ver

the

dry

seas

on

Sem

en50

% o

f ow

ners

of c

ows

assu

med

to h

ave

thei

r ca

tGe

serv

ed b

y A

l with

bul

ls r

unni

ng w

ith c

ows

as in

sura

nce.

Cos

t per

inse

min

atio

n =

P 8

%m

bar

of in

sem

inat

ions

per

cow

= 2

Ter

ram

ycin

2.1

Sul

pham

ezat

hin

0.7

o

o

00.

00

0.0

0.0

0,0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

000

0.0

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00

0.0

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00

0.0

00.

00.

00,

C1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

00

Yea

r 1

Yea

r 2

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 6

Yea

r 7

Yea

r 8

Yea

r 9

Yes

r 10 24

151

2447

4

Cas

irP

WS

Inve

strn

ent

Ope

ratin

g E

xpen

ditu

re

Tot

al o

utflo

w

Net

Ben

ekt S

trea

mN

PV

at

1500

%18

4298

IRR

ER

R

Net

Inco

me

per

fam

ilyB

ased

on

41

Bot

swan

a A

lnis

try

of A

gric

ultu

reD

epar

tmen

t of C

rop

Pro

duct

ion

and

For

estr

yLa

nd U

tilis

atio

n D

ivis

ion

Pro

pose

d A

gncu

ltura

l Lan

d U

se P

lan

of F

orrn

er F

reeh

old

Far

ms

Num

bers

25/

77 N

Q a

nd 2

7[77

NO

Nor

th E

ast D

istr

ict

Low

Inpu

t/Exi

stin

g M

anag

emen

t SI1

d U

ncon

trol

led

Sto

ckin

g O

ptio

nC

ash

Flo

w

Yea

r 1

Yea

r 2

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 6

Yea

r 7

Yea

r 8

Yea

r 9

Yea

r 10

Yea

r 11

Yea

r 12

Yea

r 13

Yea

r 14

Yea

r 15

Yea

r 16

Yea

r 17

Yea

r 18

Yea

r 19

Yea

r 20

Yea

r 21

Cas

h In

flow

s Sal

es72

095

7386

176

107

7554

572

775

6848

363

706

5879

253

508

4865

637

535

3449

631

683

2930

726

969

2615

326

153

2618

326

183

2618

326

183

Tot

al in

flow

7209

573

861

7610

776

545

7277

568

453

6370

558

792

5350

848

556

3783

534

496

3168

329

307

2696

926

183

2618

326

183

2615

326

183

2618

3

2916

80

00

038

340

3876

838

169

3715

734

913

3262

331

287

2882

926

429

2418

124

151

2418

124

181

2418

124

181

2418

124

181

2418

124

181

2418

124

181

6750

838

758

3816

937

157

3491

332

623

3128

728

829

2642

924

181

2418

124

181

2418

124

181

2418

124

181

2418

124

181

2418

124

181

2418

1

4587

3509

337

938

3938

837

862

3586

032

419

2996

327

079

2447

413

653

1031

575

0251

2627

8820

0220

0220

0220

0220

0215

4852

112

855

925

961

923

875

791

731

660

597

333

252

183

125

6849

4949

4949

3777

ANNEX 2:

HERD PROJECTIONS AND MONETARY FLOWSFOR THREE CATTLE ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS

SYSTEM 2:

MEDIUM INPUT/MANAGEMENT

AND CONTROLLED STOCKING OPTION

52

Bot

swan

a M

nist

ry o

f Agn

cultu

reD

epar

tmen

t of C

rop

Pro

duct

ion

and

For

estr

yLa

nd U

tilis

atio

n D

ivis

ion

Pro

pose

d A

gric

ultu

ral L

and

Use

Fla

n of

For

mer

Fre

ehol

d F

arm

s N

umbe

rs 2

5/77

NO

and

271

77 N

O, N

orth

Eas

t Dis

tric

tM

ediu

m In

put/M

anag

emen

t and

Con

trol

led

Sto

ckin

g O

ptio

nH

erd

Pro

ject

ion

Dat

e: 1

3Aug

95

Leng

th o

f Gro

win

g S

easo

n12

0 da

ysT

otal

Gra

zabl

e A

rea

7115

.0 h

a

Max

imum

num

ber

of b

reed

ing

cow

sM

irim

um s

ize

purc

hase

d fa

ttene

r he

rdM

axim

um s

ize

purc

hase

d fa

ttene

r he

rd

193

head

20 h

ead

0 he

adN

ew P

astu

re U

tilis

atio

n10

0.00

'ht (

in fi

rst y

ear

of p

rodu

ctio

n)M

arke

t pric

e of

miik

ilitr

e0.

9 P

ula

LSU

(Li

vest

ock

Uni

t)50

0 kg

P '0

005

units

Mar

ket p

hce

of s

our

milk

/litr

e3.

5 P

ula

****

**.*

*..*

****

****

****

****

****

****

Res

idua

l her

d va

lue

240

800

Rec

luct

ion

Fac

tor,

Fre

sh to

Sou

r0.

3a,

n A

a A

R

Car

ryin

gY

ear

1**

****

****

****

****

****

****

** ..

... .

...Y

ear

2Y

ear

3

****

****

****

****

**Y

ear

4**

****

****

****

****

****

****

****

****

****

*k**

****

****

****

****

**n.

... *

****

****

****

****

.r**

****

****

****

****

****

****

****

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 6

Yea

r 7

Yea

r 8

Yea

r 9

it A

*

Yea

r 10

on

int

ST

OC

KIN

G D

AT

Aca

paci

tyha

/LS

UH

ecta

re T

LU

Hec

tare

T L

UH

ecta

re T

LU

Hec

tare

T L

UH

ecta

re T

LU

Hec

tare

T L

UH

ecta

re T

LU

Hec

tare

T L

UH

ecta

re T

LU

Hec

tare

T L

U

Lill

2a10

1 59

315

915

7315

715

5315

515

4315

415

4315

415

4315

415

4315

415

4315

415

4315

415

4315

4T

otal

ha

1543

LU 2

alp

,2 a

sk,2

b14

2997

214

021

40

214

021

4o

214

o21

40

214

021

40

214

021

4T

otal

ha

2997

LU 1

, VI,

V2

713

8819

8o

198

019

80

198

198

198

019

80

198

019

80

198

Tot

al h

a13

88LU

318

932

520

520

5252

5252

052

052

052

052

Tot

al h

a93

2A

rabl

e W

aste

s LU

17

205

2920

3220

as10

3636

aa36

3638

35T

otal

ha

255

Rot

atio

nal F

orag

e4

00

00

00

oo

oo

o0

Tot

al h

ao

7115

Tot

al L

S U

's a

vaila

ble

652

653

654

654

654

654

654

654

654

654

Less

req

uire

men

t for

sm

alls

tock

186

186

186

186

186

166

186

186

186

186

Less

req

uire

men

t tor

don

keys

66es

eses

65ea

se55

6655

LSU

s av

aila

ble

for

cattl

e40

040

140

240

240

240

240

240

240

240

2

Are

a de

velo

ped

as a

%78

7878

7878

7878

7878

78O

vera

ll ca

rryi

ng c

apac

ity11

1111

1111

1111

11

..*...

.***

****

****

****

****

****

****

**m

. n *

****

*.*.

**.*

****

***.

****

****

****

****

W**

****

*.**

****

****

****

****

**W

****

****

****

****

TE

CH

NIC

AL

CO

EF

FIC

IEN

TS

Exi

stin

gY

ear

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4Y

ear

5Y

ear

6Y

ear

7Y

ear

8Y

ear

9Y

ear

10Y

ear

11Y

ear

12Y

ear

13Y

ear

14Y

ear

15Y

ear

16Y

ear

17Y

ear

18Y

ear

19Y

ear

20

Cal

ving

*4,

3333

5060

6565

6565

6565

6565

6565

6565

6565

es65

65M

orta

lity

rate

(%)

Adu

lts10

9a

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

Cal

ves

1512

10a

76

666

66

66

66

66

66

66

Pur

ch. F

atte

ners

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

5M

ilk (

)tak

elit

res/

cow

/day

22

22

22

222

22

22

22

22

22

2la

ctat

ion

(day

s)10

012

012

013

014

014

015

015

015

015

015

015

015

015

015

015

015

015

015

0

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

FA

CT

OR

S

Cul

ling

%B

ulls

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

Bre

edin

g co

ws

57

1013

1313

1313

1313

1313

1313

1313

1313

1313

Hei

fers

55

55

78

910

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

ning

rat

e(C

ows/

Bul

l)20

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

zozo

zo20

zozo

20A

ge a

Bul

ling

Hei

fers

22

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

3

3A

ge a

t sal

e B

ulls

/Ste

ers

(yea

rs)

44

44

44

44

44

44

44

44

44

44

Age

at s

ale

Cul

l hei

fers

(ye

ars)

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

3A

ge a

t sal

e B

reed

ing

hdfe

rs (

year

s)3

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

....

****

**. .

...**

*It*

****

****

****

****

**t

.***

****

****

*n.1

.***

***

n**

*Yr.

..**

****

***

****

****

****

***I

nF*I

init*

Irlir

Ir**

***

HE

RE

)B

UIL

D U

P

1, B

reed

ng c

ows

LOU

0,9

Val

ue(n

ula)

700

Exi

s-tin

gS

tock

Yea

r 1

Yea

r 2

Yea

r 3

Yee

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 6

Yea

r 7

Yea

r8Y

ear

9Y

ear

10Y

ear

11Y

ear

12Y

ear

13Y

ear

14Y

eer

15Y

en-

'6

On

hend

at

ejnn

in g

of y

ear

242

227

223

190

189

198

183

183

153

183

183

183

153

153

183

183

193

Less

cul

is c

erne

d 9

mon

ths

1211

1619

2526

2424

2424

2424

2424

2424

24P

lus

pu r

ehac

eso

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

o0

Plu

s re

plec

emen

t hei

fers

2029

o28

4421

3434

3434

3434

3434

3434

34T

otal

bre

edng

cow

s25

024

520

719

920

819

319

319

319

319

319

319

319

319

319

319

319

3Le

so d

es?,

sLe

ss s

ales

23 022 O

17

O

10 O

10O

10 O

10 O

10 O

10O

10 O

10O

10

O

10

010

010 0

10 010

,01

On

hand

at e

nd o

f yea

r22

722

319

018

919

818

318

318

318

318

318

318

318

318

315

318

315

3IA

vera

ge L

SU

s fo

r ye

ar21

520

318

617

117

417

116

516

516

516

516

516

516

516

516

516

516

51I

2. B

reed

ng b

ulls

800

On

hand

at b

egnn

ing

of y

ear

1312

119

99

99

99

99

99

99

9

Less

cul

is50

01

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

111

Plu

s pu

rcha

ses

0o

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

o'P

lus

repb

cem

ents

11

02

22

22

22

22

22

22

2

Tot

al b

reed

ng b

ulls

1312

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

10

Less

dea

tis1

11

11

11

11

11

1

11

11

1

Less

sal

es0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0o

05h

end

at e

nd o

f yee

r12

119

99

99

99

99

99

99

99

Ave

rage

LS

Us

for

year

1413

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

3. H

elfe

r ca

rves

0.2

100

Bom

dur

ing

year

4141

6162

6468

6263

6263

6263

6263

6263

62Le

ss d

eets

a5

65

44

44

44

44

44

44

41

On

hand

at e

nd o

f yea

r35

3655

5760

6458

5958

5958

5958

5958

5958

1A

vera

ge L

SU

s fo

r ye

ar9

913

1314

1514

1414

1414

1414

1414

1414

1

4. B

ull c

alve

s0.

210

01

Bom

dur

ing

year

4040

6262

6567

6362

6362

6362

6382

6362

63

Less

dea

hsO

n ha

nd a

t end

of y

ear

6 343

5 5

6 565

575 60

4 634 59

458

4

594

584

594 58

4 594 58

459

4 584

59A

vera

ge L

SU

s fo

r ye

are

e13

1314

1514

1414

1414

1414

1414

1414

5, H

eife

rs 1

-2 y

ears

0.5

300

On

Sai

d at

beg

nnin

g of

yea

r35

3536

5557

6064

5859

5859

5859

5859

5859

1

Less

dea

t s3

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

On

h en

d at

end

of y

ear

3232

3352

5457

5155

5655

5655

5655

5655

55A

vera

ge L

SU

s fo

r ye

ar15

1516

2425

2628

2526

2526

2526

2526

2526

6. S

teer

s 1-

2 ye

ars

0.5

300

On

hand

at b

egnn

ing

of y

ear

3434

3556

5760

6359

5859

5859

5559

5559

68

Less

dea

hs3

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33(

On

hand

et e

nd o

f yea

r31

3132

5354

5760

5655

5655

5655

5655

5655

1

Ave

rage

LS

Us

for

year

1515

1525

2526

2826

2526

2526

2526

2526

251

7. H

eife

rs 2

-3 y

ears

0.7

400

On

h E

nd a

t beg

nnln

g of

yea

r32

3232

3352

5457

6155

5655

5655

5655

5655

1

Less

dea

ls3

33

23

33

33

33

33

33

331

Rep

lece

men

ts to

bre

edng

her

d20

2929

0o

oo

oo

oo

oo

0o

o01

On

hand

at e

nd o

1 ye

ar9

00

3149

5154

5852

5352

5352

5352

5352

1A

vera

ge L

SU

s fo

r ye

ar14

1111

2234

3537

4036

3736

3735

3736

3736

1 1

5. S

teer

s 2-

3 ye

ars

0.7

350

1

On

herid

at b

egnn

ing

of y

ear

3131

3132

5354

5760

5655

5655

5655

5655

551

Less

dea

t s3

32

23

33

33

33

33

33

33

Less

sal

esO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

On

hend

at a

nd a

l yea

r28

2529

3050

5154

5753

5253

5253

5253

5253

1

Ave

rage

LS

Us

for

year

2020

2021

3535

3739

3736

3736

3736

3736

37:1

'HE

RD

CO

MP

OS

R IO

N &

BU

ILD

UP

9. H

eife

rs 3

-4 y

ears

On

hand

at b

egnn

ing

of y

ear

Less

cul

ls s

old

star

t of y

ear

Less

cle

at s

Rep

lace

men

ts to

bre

edng

her

dLe

ss s

ales

as

bree

ders

On

h E

nd a

t end

of y

ear

Ave

rage

LS

Us

for

year

10. S

teer

s 3-

4 ye

ars

0.9

450

On

hand

at b

egnn

ing

of y

ear

2828

2829

3050

5154

5753

5253

5253

5253

52Le

ss d

eat s

33

21

23

33

33

33

33

33

3

Less

rep

lEce

men

ts to

bre

edin

g bu

lls1

1o

22

22

22

22

22

22

22

Less

sal

es0

00

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

On

hand

at e

nd o

f yea

r24

2426

2626

4546

4952

4847

4847

4847

4847

Ave

rage

LS

Us

for

year

2323

2425

2543

4446

4945

4545

4545

4545

45

11, S

teer

s 4-

5 ye

ars

1.1

600

On

hand

at b

egnn

ing

of y

ear

2424

2426

2626

4546

4952

4847

4847

4847

48

Lesa

dea

ts2

22

11

12

22

32

22

22

22

Less

sal

es22

2222

2525

2543

4447

4946

4546

4546

4546

On

held

at e

nd o

f yea

r0

00

00

00

00

00

00

Ave

rage

LS

Us

for

year

1313

1314

1414

2525

2729

2626

2622

00

06

2626

26

Ste

ers

5-6

year

s1.

160

0

Lesa

dea

hs0

00

00

00

000

00

0O

00

00

00

00

00

On

hand

at b

egnn

ing

of y

ear

00

00

00

00

Less

sal

es0

00

00

Oo

oo

Oo

oo

oo

o0

On

held

at e

nd o

f yea

r0

00

oo

Oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

Ave

rage

LS

Us

/or

year

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

o

Ste

ers

6-7

year

s1.

160

0O

n ha

nd a

t beg

nnin

g of

yea

rLe

ss d

eath

sLe

ss s

ales

On

h en

d at

end

of y

ear

Ave

rage

LS

Us

for

year

LOU

Val

ue(P

ula)

0.9

700

040

0

Exi

vtrn

gY

ear

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4Y

ear

5Y

ear

6Y

ear

7Y

ear

8Y

ear

9Y

ear

10Y

ear

11Y

ear

12Y

ear

13Y

ear

14Y

ear

15Y

ear

16

99

00

3149

5154

5852

5352

5352

5352

530

00

02

34

56

55

55

55

55

11

00

12

22

32

22

22

22

2

00

00

2821

3434

3434

3434

3434

3434

34e

eo

oo

2311

1315

1112

1112

1112

1112

00

00

00

00

022

00

00

00

44

00

1321

2122

2321

2221

2221

2221

22

oo

oO

00

00

00

020

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

O0

002

00

00

001

CO

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

11. C

ull c

ows

(car

ried

9 m

ont s

)0.

740

0C

ulte

d at

sta

rt o

/ yea

r11

ii16

1925

2824

2424

2424

2424

2424

2424

Less

cle

at s

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

1

Less

sal

es10

1015

1824

2523

2323

2323

2323

2323

2323

On

hand

at e

nd o

f yea

r0

00

00

00

oo

oo

oo

oo

o0

Ave

rage

LS

Us

for

year

44

56

99

85

e8

88

88

a8

TO

TA

L R

AN

CH

BR

ED

LS

Us

341

325

314

330

378

406

406

409

407

401

402

401

402

401

402

401

402

Sur

plis

LS

Us

5975

5772

24-4

-4-7

-51

Ot

O1

O1

Rrt

chas

ed fa

dete

rs g

raze

d 6

mon

ths

io

OO

OO

0o

oa

oo

oo

0o

o

Tot

al L

SU

s32

531

433

037

840

640

640

940

740

140

240

140

240

140

240

140

2

0

101 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 0 o 39

010

1 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 0 0 1

1010

11

44

44

33

33

33

33

22

33

22

O0 o

00

1010

1 44

44

33

33

33

33

22

33

22

00

1

DE

AT

HS

Pur

chas

ed S

teer

s/bu

lls0.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00

Bre

edng

Cow

s22

1710

1010

1010

1010

10

Hef

erca

Nes

56

54

4B

reed

ng e

.,,IN

11

1i

1

44

44

41

11

11

44

44

4B

ull C

alve

s5

95

54

33

33

3H

eife

rs 1

-23

33

33

33

33

3S

teer

t/bul

ls 1

-23

33

33

33

33

3H

eife

rs 2

-33

32

33

33

33

3S

teer

stbu

lls 2

-33

22

33

22

32

2H

eife

rs 3

-41

oo

12

33

33

3S

teer

s/bu

lls 3

-43

21

23

22

23

2S

teer

s/bu

lls 4

-52

21

i1

Ste

ers/

bulls

5-6

00

00

00

00

00

0o

oo

oo

Ste

ers/

bulls

6-7

00

o1

1I

11

1co

cow

91

1

.939

40T

oar

Dea

ths

4604

.._

..__

_....

.__

3'4

39

CA

TT

LE S

ALE

SV

alue

Yea

r 1

Yea

r 2

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yel

r 5

Yea

r 7

Yea

r:.,

-: 3

Yea

r 10

(Pal

a 'C

O0s

)H

ead

No

Val

veN

oV

alue

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

ria

li.Je

No

Val

ueB

reed

ng C

ows

700

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

Bre

edng

Bus

800

00

000

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

C

Cul

l Cow

s40

010

4,00

015

6,00

07,

200

249,

600

2510

,000

2392

00,

239,

200

239,

200

239,

200

2392

00,

Cur

l Bul

450

01

500

150

01

500

150

01

500

150

01

500

150

01

500

150

0C

ull H

eife

rs40

00

00

00

02

800

31,

200

41,

600

52,

000

62,

400

62,

000

52.

000

Sur

plus

Hat

ers

9I5E

370

0a

5,77

50

00

00

023

16,1

0011

7,70

013

9,10

015

10,5

0011

7,70

012

8,40

0R

anch

Ste

ers

2+ y

rs35

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0R

anch

Ste

em 3

4- y

rs45

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0R

anch

Ste

ers

4+ y

rs60

022

13,2

0022

13,2

0025

15,0

0025

15,0

0025

15,0

0043

25,8

0044

26,4

0047

28,2

0049

28,4

0046

27,8

00R

anch

Ste

ers

5+ y

rs60

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0R

anch

Ste

ers

6+ y

rs60

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

0

Tot

al R

anch

Bre

d S

ales

4123

,475

3819

,700

4422

,700

5225

,900

7742

,800

8244

,800

8847

,200

9250

,800

8948

,800

8747

,700

Puc

hase

d F

atts

ners

600

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00

00

00

0--

----

----

---

----

-T

otal

Cat

tle S

ales

4123

,475

3819

,700

4422

,700

5225

,900

7742

,800

8244

,800

8647

,200

9250

,800

8948

,800

8747

,700

----

--M

ILK

PR

OD

UC

TIO

N E

S S

ALE

SY

r 1

Yr

2Y

r 3

Yr

4Y

r 5

Yr

6Y

r 7

Yr

8Y

r 9

Yr

10Y

r 11

Yr

12Y

r 13

Yr

14Y

r 15

Yr

16Y

r 17

Yr

18Y

r 19

Yr

20M

ilk O

tttak

ed (

600

Litr

es)

15,9

2524

,840

28,6

5535

,152

35,1

2635

,126

37,6

3537

,635

37,6

3537

,635

37,6

3537

,635

37,6

3537

,635

37,6

3537

,635

37,8

3537

,635

37,8

3537

,635

Hom

econ

sum

plon

('0

00 L

itres

)7,

963

5,00

05,

000

5,00

05,

000

5,00

05,

600

5,00

05,

000

5,00

05,

000

5,00

05,

000

5,00

05,

000

5,00

05,

000

5,00

05,

000

5,00

0M

ilk S

ales

(60

0 P

ala)

6,84

817

,082

20,3

4425

,931

25,9

0825

,908

26,0

6e28

,066

28,0

6628

,068

28,0

6625

,066

28,0

6828

,066

28,0

6628

,066

28,0

8628

,066

28,0

6628

,066

Sou

r M

ilk S

ales

('0

00 P

ula)

9,19

722

,915

27,3

2334

,826

34,7

9634

,796

37,6

9337

,693

37,6

9337

,693

37,6

9337

,693

37,6

9337

,693

37,6

9337

,693

37,6

9337

,693

37,6

9337

693

-T

otal

Val

ue o

f Fre

sh M

ilk P

roch

13,6

9621

,362

24,6

4430

,231

30,2

0830

,208

32,3

6632

,366

32,3

6632

,366

32,3

6632

,366

32,3

6832

,366

32,3

6632

,366

32,3

6632

,366

32,3

6632

,366

-0--

--

2==

==

==

22,.=

=-,

..--=

==

----

=-

PU

RC

HA

SE

(Nla

600

s)B

reed

ng C

ows

Bre

edng

Bol

lsF

atte

ning

Ste

ers

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 6

Yea

r 7

Yea

r 8

Yea

r 9

Yea

r 10

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

0.0

00.

00

00

00

00

0.0

00.

00

0,0

00.

00

0.0

00

00

00

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

0.0

00.

00

00

00

00

Tot

al P

urch

ases

00

00

00

Yea

r 1

Yea

r 2

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 6

Yea

r 7

Yea

r 8

Yea

r 9

Yea

r 10

Yea

r 11

Yea

r 12

Yea

r 13

Yea

r 14

Yea

r 15

Yea

r 16

Yea

r 17

Yea

r 18

Yea

r 19

Yea

r 20

Yea

r 21

NE

T IN

CO

ME

(P

ala

'000

5)32

,672

42,6

1550

,023

60,7

2677

,596

79,5

9684

,893

88,4

9386

,493

85,3

9384

,093

55,3

9384

,093

85,3

9384

,093

85,3

9385

,393

85,3

9385

,393

85,3

9385

,393

Eid

stIn

g S

tock

Cat

tle27

0G

oats

903

She

ep26

Don

keys

94

Sug

gest

ed e

xtra

stoc

ldng

: 300

App

rox

LSU

s: (

270-

1-30

(270

+30

0)00

.7 =

399

Yea

r 1

No

Val

ueY

ear

2N

oV

alue

750

00

010

000

00.

00

300

00

0.0

0

0.0

00

1M

00030'5.,00

OT

000

! Prg

Agg

qg;n2;lP

3

-,$

L.SA

,OZ

1=5

zgva;

't-"e

ggg1:R

4!.!2132!V

A;

"FPE

11M

h.0R90..0R

EPA

R

0.0fflE

R

AA

A

Agg

Pb'4"7gL

IW

!

NI

.1,

'242,sg3

.V

0000010i60660

00.0001016666616i

2222gig

97C3gg

"AA

iIi'i11

1;ci

I; ,1

1

4

I1

90qq0;

00000:,t

6600600600

gg2gg

22g 22

R9R

RR

023E

, 11gi0of61g3

I1

0..,0600,6

ri

g221

222

2221

2,22

222

222

ggg

g22

1 I11f

g22

;;1I,

001000,0

,goovF45^

1I1i1go

lgLg 1

Ea

5

SER

60M1S10

pq,

)t0;lx

NN

.-NN

.00-

ooIEg5

52giE

E

g

gr-R

RR

EA

RSE

grg

,5!§§

8.8:1

li2E

E

1515555N

?AI

2223W

SA

rabl

e S

ees

Cab

le S

sies

Milk

S d

es

Tot

al S

ales

OP

ER

AT

ING

EX

PE

ND

ITU

RE

1 S

earle

s &

Wag

es

1.M

ilker

/Lab

oure

r

Sub

tota

l

Pro

pose

d A

gric

ultu

re! L

and

Use

Ran

of F

orm

er F

reeh

old

Far

ms

Num

bers

25/

77 N

O a

nd 2

7/77

NO

, Nor

th E

ast D

istr

ict

Med

ium

Inpu

t/Man

agem

ent a

nd C

onan

fled

Sto

clan

g C

pbon

See

s an

d O

pera

ting

Exp

endi

ture

Yea

r 1

Yea

r 2

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 6

Yea

r 7

Yea

r 8

2347

519

700

2270

025

900

4280

044

500

9197

2291

527

323

3482

634

796

3479

6

Bot

swa^

a fa

nist

y o,

Agr

icul

ture

Dep

arbn

enl o

f Cro

p P

rodu

cton

and

For

estr

yLa

nd U

tlisa

tion

Dos

ion

4720

050

800

4880

037

693

3769

337

693

Yea

r 9

Yea

r 10 47

700

3769

3

Yea

r 1

Yea

r 2

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 6

Yea

r 7

Yea

r 8

Yea

r 9

Yea

r 10

Cos

t p.a

.U

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

t10

007

7000

660

007

729)

a80

038

8000

580

008

8000

a80

208

5000

880

00

170

0060

0070

0080

0080

0050

(8)

8000

8000

8000

5000

2 M

aint

enan

ce

Fen

cing

1300

1458

.583

5358

.583

5358

,583

5356

583

5358

.583

5358

.583

53

Sub

tota

l93

5383

5353

5383

5383

5383

5383

53

5983

5359

8353

5983

53

8353

8353

8353

1

3 V

eter

inar

y H

ealth

& M

ater

ials

2*V

acci

nes

lum

p su

m y

oung

sto

ck1.

111

612

915

917

617

919

915

620

619

521

618

921

018

320

318

420

418

320

318

420

4D

rugs

lurn

p/L0

5U2.

833

9131

as33

92as

105

4111

341

113

4111

441

114

4011

240

112

Dip

Was

hlu

rnp/

LSU

0,1

325

1631

416

330

1737

819

406

2040

620

409

2040

720

401

2040

220

8.S

eMen

(50

1k c

oses

)4,

012

349

010

441

410

039

810

441

697

38e

9738

697

386

9738

697

385

9738

6

Sub

tota

l72

669

470

574

773

672

972

472

472

172

2

4 S

uppl

emen

tary

Fee

ds

5.M

iner

al s

uppl

emen

ts14

.432

545

6731

445

0933

047

3937

854

2840

658

3040

658

3040

958

7340

758

4540

157

5840

257

73an

d m

aint

enan

ce

Sub

tota

l46

6745

0947

3954

2858

7357

5857

73

7759

5.5

7959

5.5

8489

388

493

8649

385

393

3267

1.7

4261

5.2

5002

2 7

6072

5.6

----

----

5 C

osts

of F

orag

e P

rodu

ctio

n

3°D

rugs

Cul

tivat

ions

ha11

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00.

00

Sira

tro

ha50

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0S

ingl

e S

oper

oha

ao0.

00.

00.

0ao

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0,0

0.0

0.0

0S

owin

gha

20ao

0,0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

ao0.

0ao

0.0

0.0

o

Sub

-tot

alO

00

00

0

6 S

ales

Cos

to

Tra

nspo

nhe

ad80

4133

0338

3040

4435

2052

4160

7761

6082

6580

8668

8092

7380

8971

2087

6960

00

0O

00

00

00

Sub

-tot

al33

0030

4035

2041

6061

6055

6068

8073

6071

2069

60

Tot

al24

046

2259

624

317

266E

829

080

2947

329

830

3028

229

953

2980

9P

hysi

cal C

ontn

genc

y5.

0014

1202

1130

1216

1334

1454

1474

1492

1514

1498

1490

Tot

al O

pera

ting

Cos

ts25

248

2372

625

533

2802

330

534

3094

731

3223

1796

3145

031

299

==

..N

et In

com

e74

2318

889

2448

932

703

4706

248

649

5357

255

597

5504

354

094

1*A

ssum

es o

ne la

bour

er p

er 5

0 LO

U b

ased

on

actu

al fi

gure

s fr

om fa

rmer

s2*

Vac

cine

sC

osV

dose

Cal

? pa

raty

phoi

d0.

3Lu

mpy

Siln

0.5

Ent

erot

oxae

mi a

aoP

aste

urel

la0.

4

Tot

al1.

1

An

assu

mpt

ion

is m

ade

that

thes

e va

ccin

es a

re g

iven

to im

mat

ure

stoc

k on

ly

Ter

rarn

ycin

2.1

Sul

phar

neza

thin

0.7

Tot

al2.

8/V

I ass

umpt

ion

is m

ade

that

trea

tmen

t is

requ

ired

in o

nly

10%

of t

he c

attle

Yea

r 1

Yea

r 2

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 6

Yea

r 7

Yea

r 8

Yea

r 9

Yea

r 10

I

4"D

ip W

ash

adm

inis

tere

d w

ith K

naps

ack

spra

yer

-W

hils

t cor

rect

ly th

e co

st w

ould

be

Pl/L

SU

per

wee

k, in

rea

lity

the

spra

ying

is r

educ

edin

bot

h co

ncen

trat

ion

and

freq

uenc

y to

a c

ost o

f app

roxi

mat

ely

P1/

LSU

per

mon

th. T

his

is fe

l to

be to

o lo

w a

nd a

cos

t of P

0.5/

LSU

per

wee

k ha

s be

en u

sed.

5*M

iner

als

Cat

tle M

ente

danc

e Li

ck (

50 k

g)S

alt (

50 k

g)B

onem

eal (

50 k

g)

24.5 7.9

39.5

Tot

al71

,810

kg

of s

alt a

nd b

oner

neal

per

hea

d pe

r ye

ar, 1

0 kg

of m

aint

enan

ce li

ck o

ver

the

dry

seas

on

6.S

emen

50%

of o

wne

rs o

f cow

s as

sum

ed to

hav

e th

eir

cattl

e se

r-ve

d by

Al w

ith b

ulls

run

ring

with

cow

s as

insu

ranc

e.C

ost p

er in

sem

inat

ion

Pa

Num

ber

of in

sem

inat

ions

per

cow

= 2

o O oo

00

00

00

00

00

00

000

00

00

00

0

Cas

h In

flow

s Sal

es

Tot

al In

flow

Cas

h O

utflo

ws

Inve

stm

ent

6557

57E

688

0o

o

Net

Ben

ert S

trea

mN

PV

at

1500

%21

3144

IRR

31%

Net

Inco

me

per

fam

ily

Bot

swan

a N

ims

Dep

artm

ent o

f Cro

p P

ro-d

uo-

cmF

or,,-

/La

tid U

tilis

atio

n D

.

Pro

pose

d A

gnci

atur

ai L

atid

Lls

e R

an o

f Far

mer

Fm

,-,-

-Yd

For

ms

Num

bers

25/

77 N

O a

nd 2

7/77

NO

, Nor

tizr

t

Med

um In

put/M

,nag

erne

nt a

-1 C

ontr

olle

d S

tock

ing

Opt

ion

C33

1

Yea

r 1

Yea

r 2

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 6

Yea

r 7

Yea

r 8

Yea

r 9

Yea

r 10

Yea

r 11

Yea

r 12

Yea

r 13

Yea

r 14

Yea

r 15

Yea

r 16

Yea

r 17

Yea

r 15

Yea

r 19

Yea

r 20

Yea

r 21

3267

242

615

5002

360

726

7759

679

596

8489

388

493

8849

385

393

8409

385

393

8409

385

393

8409

385

393

8539

355

393

8539

385

393

3267

242

615

5002

360

726

7759

679

596

8459

358

493

8649

355

393

8409

385

393

8409

355

393

8409

385

393

8539

355

393

8539

385

393

8539

3

Ope

ratin

g E

xpen

ditu

re25

248

2372

625

533

2802

330

534

3094

731

322

3179

631

450

3129

931

299

3122

931

299

3129

931

299

3129

931

259

3129

931

299

3129

9

Tot

al o

utflo

w90

823

1004

1425

533

2802

330

534

3094

731

322

3179

631

450

3129

931

299

3129

931

299

3129

931

299

3129

931

299

3129

931

299

-581

51-5

7799

2448

932

703

4706

248

649

5357

256

697

5504

354

094

5279

454

094

5279

454

094

5279

4

8539

3

3129

931

299 4

-141

5-1

410

597

798

1148

1187

1307

1383

1343

1319

1288

1319

1288

1319

1288

1319

1319

1318

1319

1319

7193

ANNEX 2:

HERD PROJECTIONS AND MONETARY FLOWSFOR THREE CATTLE ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS

SYSTEM 3:

HIGH INPUT/MANAGEMENT

AND CONTROLLED STOCKING OPTION

61

Bot

swan

a kf

i-str

y of

Agr

icid

ure

Dec

artm

ent 5

1 C

rco

Pro

duct

on a

ed F

ores

teLa

nd t.

:Mis

al/4

n O

H s

on

Pro

pose

d A

gric

ultu

ral L

ard

Use

Pla

n of

For

mer

Fre

ehol

d F

arm

s N

urric

er25

/77

NO

and

27/

77 N

O, N

or1h

Eas

t Dis

tric

tH

igh

Irga

A/M

anag

emen

t and

Con

trol

led

Sto

ckirg

Opt

anH

erd

Pro

tect

ion

Dat

e: 1

3-A

ug -

55

Sta

bilis

ed N

utre

, er

of B

reed

ing

Cow

s21

4 he

adLe

ngth

O G

row

ing

Sea

son

120

days

Min

imum

siz

epur

chas

ed fa

ttene

r he

rd20

hea

dT

otzi

Gra

zabi

e A

res

7370

ha

Max

imum

siz

e pu

rcha

sed

fatte

ner

herd

O h

ead

New

Per

dure

Utti

satio

n40

% (

in fi

rst y

ear

of p

rodu

ctio

n)M

arke

t eric

e of

milk

ilitr

e0.

9 P

ilaLS

U (

Live

stoc

k U

nir)

450

kgP

'000

sun

itsM

arke

t pric

e of

sou

r m

ilkili

tre

3.5

Pul

aR

esid

ual h

erd

valu

e24

530

0R

educ

tion

Fac

tor,

Fre

sh to

Sou

r03

31...

.,e...

.t..*

*....

......

..***

*.**

......

....*

***,

.**.

.*.*

****

4.,,,

.....*

*...y

...*

*..*

*,,..

*.**

-.,*

.rve

***Y

r....

..**.

......

.....1

.**.

f.**.

.411

,....Y

.,-5,

.....*

,... t

legt

...*.

wf .

.411

,.....

......

*$,..

,/..r

tiert

ielt*

*.**

***,

..1,M

.,,,,o

nt,,,

ht.*

*,,,.

..-sf

..*.

**...

......

..ir

at e

rl,t..

*1".

.-*

**Y

olt

Car

ryin

gS

TO

CK

ING

DA

TA

443

acia

,ha

iLS

U

Yea

r 1

Hec

tare

T L

UY

ear

2H

ecta

re T

L U

Vea

? 3

Hec

tare

T L

UY

ear

4H

ecta

re T

L U

Yea

r 5

Hec

tare

T L

UY

ear

6H

ecta

re T

L U

Yea

r 7

Hec

tare

T L

UY

ear

8H

ecta

re T

L U

Yea

r 9

Hec

tare

T L

UY

ear

10 o

nH

ecta

re T

L U

LU 2

310

1543

164

1623

162

1603

160

1593

159

1593

159

1593

159

1593

159

1593

159

1593

154

1593

159

Tot

al h

a15

43

LU 2

alp

,2 a

sk,2

b14

2997

214

021

4o

214

021

4o

214

o21

4o

214

o21

4o

214

021

4T

otal

he

2997

LU 1

, VI,

V2

713

8879

o19

6o

198

019

8o

198

198

o19

80

198

019

8O

198

Tot

al h

a13

66

LU 3

1893

252

052

052

052

O52

52o

52o

52o

52o

52T

Ord

ha

432

Ara

ble

\Ara

stei

s LU

I7

205

29zo

3224

3514

3636

3638

36ae

36T

otei

ha

255

Rot

atio

nd F

orag

e4

205

2120

5320

5810

6254

6464

6464

64T

ete

ha25

573

70T

otal

L S

Va

avai

labl

e55

971

171

772

172

372

372

372

372

372

3Le

ss r

equi

rem

ent f

or s

mai

lsto

ck18

518

518

618

818

618

618

618

615

618

6Le

ss r

equi

rem

ent f

iar

donk

eys

6666

6566

6666

6666

6566

LOU

, ava

ilabl

e fo

r ca

tos

307

459

405

469

471

471

471

471

47/

471

Are

a de

velo

ped

as a

%78

7878

7878

7878

7878

78O

yera

n ca

rryi

ng c

apac

ity10

1010

1010

1010

1010

TE

CH

NIC

AL

CO

EF

FIC

IEN

TS

Exi

stin

gY

ear

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4Y

ear

5Y

ear

6Y

ear

7Y

ear

8Y

ear

9Y

ear

10Y

ear

I/Y

ear

12Y

ear

13Y

ear

14Y

ear

15Y

ear

16Y

ear

17Y

ear

18Y

ear

19Y

ear

20

CaN

ing

%33

3350

6085

6565

6565

6565

6565

6565

6565

8565

6565

Mor

tallt

y ra

te(%

) -

Adu

lts10

5e

s5

55

55

55

55

ss

s5

55

5-C

alva

s15

1210

e7

8a

e8

ae

ea

ea

aa

a6

aa

- P

urch

. Fat

tene

rs5

55

a5

55

5s

55

55

55

55

55

55

e -

Ittes

/cow

/day

1002

212

02

22

z2

1502

22

1502

2

1502

22

22

22

- la

ctat

Ion

(day

s)12

013

014

014

015

015

015

015

015

015

015

015

015

02

150

150

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

FA

CT

OR

S

Cur

ling

%-

Bid

s10

1010

1010

1010

lo10

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

10-

Bre

edin

g co

as5

710

1313

1313

1313

13/3

1313

1313

1313

1313

/3-

Hei

ters

5

55

57

eo

1010

1010

1010

1010

1010

10/O

10B

i.11

join

ing

rete

(Cow

s/B

UI)

2 0

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

2020

20A

ge a

t Bul

ling

- H

eife

rs2

23

33

a3

3a

33

33

33

33

33

3A

ge a

t sal

e B

ulla

/Ste

ers

(yea

rs)

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

Age

a/ s

ale

CL/

1 he

l/era

(ye

ars)

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

Age

al s

ale

Bre

edin

g he

ifers

(ye

ars)

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

63

HE

RD

CO

MP

OS

rt&

._01

. UP

Hel

lers

3-4

yea

rsO

n ha

nd a

t bed

nnm

g of

yea

rLe

ss c

ulls

sol

d st

art o

f yea

rLe

ss d

eals

sR

eple

cem

ents

to b

reed

ng h

erd

Less

sal

es a

s br

eede

rsO

n he

nil a

t end

of y

ear

Ave

rage

LS

Us

for

year

Ste

ers

3-4

year

s1.

045

0

On

hind

at b

egnn

ing

of y

ear

Less

dea

tlsLe

ss r

eple

cem

ents

to b

reed

ing

bulls

Less

teje

sO

n h

End

at e

nd o

f yea

rA

vera

ge L

SU

s fo

r ye

ar

Ste

ers

4-5

year

s1_

260

0O

n ha

nd a

t beg

nnin

g of

yea

rLe

ss c

leat

sLe

ss s

ales

On

hind

at E

nd o

f yea

rA

vera

ge L

SU

s fo

r ye

ar

Ste

ers

5-6

year

s1.

260

0O

n ha

nd a

t beg

nnin

g of

yea

rLe

ss d

eals

Lesa

sal

esO

n h

end

at e

nd o

f yea

rA

vera

ge L

SU

s fo

r ye

ar

Ste

ers

6 ye

ars+

1.2

600

On

h en

d at

beg

nnin

g of

yea

rLe

sa c

leat

sLe

ss s

ales

On

hind

at e

nd o

f yea

rA

vera

ge L

SU

s fo

r ye

ar

Cul

l cow

s (c

arrie

d 9

mon

ths)

0.8

400

Cul

led

at s

tart

of y

ear

Less

cle

at s

Lesa

sal

esO

n hE

nd a

t end

ol y

ear

Ave

rage

LS

Us

for

year

-T

OT

AL

FLA

NC

H B

RE

O L

SU

sS

urpl

is L

SU

sP

U r

chas

ed fa

ttede

rs g

race

d 6

mon

ths

Tot

al L

SU

s

DE

AT

HS

Pur

ahas

ed S

teer

s/bu

llsB

nsec

Ing

Cow

sB

reec

lng

Bul

lsH

elfe

r ca

lves

Bul

l Ceb

esH

eife

rs 1

-2S

teer

s/bu

lls 1

-2H

eife

rs 2

-3S

teer

s/bu

lls 2

-3H

eife

rs 3

-4S

teer

s/bu

lls 3

-4S

teer

s/bu

lis 4

-5S

teet

s/bu

lls 5

-6S

teer

s/td

ulls

6+

Cul

l cow

s

Tot

al D

eath

s

L1.

E, s

! -.E

Yea

r,E

.:::

Yea

r 3

Yes

: 4Y

ear

5Y

eer

8

(F3

1S

iCe-

,

1.0

700

oo

o33

5253

5661

5960

5960

5960

59E

:,0

400

0o

o0

24

45

66

66

66

66

e

O0

00

22

23

33

33

33

a3

3

0O

O29

3537

3737

3737

3737

3737

370:

OO

00

1110

1115

1314

1314

1314

1314

OO

OO

OO

OO

Oo

oo

oo

oO

:.

O0

00

1624

2526

2827

2727

2727

2727

271

1

3030

3030

3252

5356

6060

5960

5960

59so

591

33

22

23

33

33

33

33

33

32

2o

13

22

22

22

22

22

221

2525

2827

2747

4851

5555

5455

5455

5455

541

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oal

1515

1515

1626

2728

3030

3030

3030

3030

301

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

0O

OO

O

I

0

OO

OO

OO

Oo

oo

oo

oo

oal

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

ooa

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

o1

o,o

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

o;,

1

OO

Oo

ool

ooo

oo

o;o

oo

o'

o° o

oo

oo

oO

OO

oo

oo

ao

oo

oo o

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oO

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

00o

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

0

1212

1620

2527

2626

2626

2626

2626

2626

28f

11

11

11

11

111

11

11

111

1111

1519

2426

2525

2525

2525

2525

2525

25O

OO

oo

oo

ooo

oo

oo

oo

55

6s

olo

lolo

lolo

lolo

loio

lolo

362

352

366

424

453

462

470

472

471

471

471

471

471

471

471

471

-55

107

9745

189

f-1

OO

OO

OO

OO 01

362

352

368

424

453

462

470

472

471

471

471

471

471

471

471

471

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

o23

1710

1111

lI11

1111

1111

1111

1111

11

11

11

11

11

11

/1

11

11

56

55

44

44

44

44

44

44

5s

55

44

44

44

44

44

441

33

33

3a

33

33

33

33

331

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

33

23

33

33

33

a3

33

33

33

23

33

33

33

33

33

33

oo

22

23

33

33

33

33

3

32

22

3a

33

33

33

33

33

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

5045

3439

3838

3939

3939

3939

3939

3939

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

Oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

o

CA

TT

LE S

ALE

SV

alue

Yea

r 1

Yea

r 2

(Pul

a '0

005)

Hea

dN

oV

alue

No

Val

ueB

reed

ng C

ows

700

00

0B

reec

ing

Bul

ls80

00

00

Cul

l Cow

s40

011

4,40

015

690

Cul

l Bul

ls50

01

500

150

Cul

l Hei

fers

400

00

0

Sur

plus

Hei

fers

RW

B70

00

00

Ran

ch S

teer

s 2+

yrs

350

00

0R

anch

Ote

es 3

+ y

rs45

025

11,2

5028

12,6

0R

anch

Ste

ers

4+ y

rs60

00

00

Ran

ch S

teer

s 5+

yrs

600

00

0

Ran

ch S

teer

s 6+

yrs

600

00

0

MIL

K P

RO

DU

CT

ION

8 S

ALE

SY

r 1

Yr

2Y

r 3

Yr

4Y

r 5

Yr

6Y

r 7

Yr

8Y

r 9

Yr

10Y

r 11

Yr

12Y

r13

Yr

14Y

r15

Yr

16Y

r 17

Yr

18Y

r 19

Yr

20M

ilk O

fttak

ed (

000

Litr

es)

16,6

5625

,680

29,6

6438

,673

38,9

4838

,948

41,7

3041

,730

41,7

3041

,730

41,7

3041

,730

41,7

3041

,730

41,7

3041

,730

41,7

3041

,730

41,7

3041

,730

Hom

e co

nsum

ptio

n (0

00 L

itres

)8,

328

5,00

05,

000

5,00

05,

000

5,00

05,

000

5,00

05,

000

5,00

05,

000

5,00

05,

000

5,00

05,

000

5,00

05,

000

5,00

05,

000

5,00

0M

ilk S

ales

('0

00 R

ile)

7,16

217

,755

21,2

1127

,239

29,1

9529

,195

31,5

8831

,588

31,5

8831

,588

31,5

8831

,588

31,5

8831

,588

31,5

8831

,588

31,5

8831

,588

31,5

8831

,588

Sou

r M

ilk S

ales

('0

00 P

ula)

9,61

923

,885

28,4

8736

,582

39,2

1039

,210

42,4

2342

,423

42,4

2342

,423

42,4

2342

,423

42,4

2342

,423

42,4

2342

,423

42,4

2342

,423

42,4

2342

,423

Tot

al P

urch

ases

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 6

Yea

r 7

Yea

r 8

Yea

r 9

Yea

r 10

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

197,

600

249,

600

2610

,400

2510

,000

2510

,000

2510

,000

2510

,000

2510

,000

150

01

500

150

01

500

150

01

500

150

01

500

00

280

04

1,60

04

1,60

05

2,00

06

2,40

06

2,40

06

2,40

00

00

117,

709

107,

000

117,

700

1510

,500

139,

100

149,

800

00

00

00

00

00

_0

00

00

2712

,150

2712

,150

4721

,150

4821

,600

5122

,950

5524

,750

5524

,750

5424

,300

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

000

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

3716

,150

4419

,100

4720

,250

5423

,050

8941

,350

8840

,700

9343

,150

102

48,1

5010

046

,750

100

47,0

000

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

3716

,150

4419

,100

4720

,250

5423

,050

8941

,350

8840

,700

9343

,150

102

48,1

5010

046

,750

100

47,0

00

14,3

2422

,085

25,5

1131

,539

33,4

9533

,495

35,8

8835

,888

35,8

8835

,888

35,8

8835

,888

35,8

5835

,888

35,8

8835

,888

35,8

8835

,888

35,8

8835

,888

-Y

ear

1Y

ear

2Y

ear

3Y

ear

4Y

ear

5Y

ear

6Y

ear

7Y

ear

8Y

ear

9Y

ear

10N

oV

alue

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

No

Val

ueN

oV

alue

No

Vai

ueN

oV

alue

No

Val

ue75

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

1000

000

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

300

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

oo

oo

oo

Yea

r 1

Yea

r 2

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 6

Yea

r 7

Yea

r 8

Yea

r 9

Yea

r 10

Yea

r 11

Yea

r 12

Yea

r 13

Yea

r 14

Yea

r 15

Yea

r 16

Yea

r 17

Yea

r 18

Yea

r 19

Yea

r 20

Yea

r 21

25,7

6942

,985

48,7

3759

,632

80,5

6079

,910

85,5

7390

,573

89,1

7389

,423

89,1

7389

,423

89,1

7389

,423

89,1

7389

,423

89,4

2389

,423

89,4

2389

,423

89,4

23

Tot

al R

anch

Bre

d S

ales

R./

chas

ed F

attw

ers

750

Tot

al C

attle

Sal

es

Tot

al V

alue

of F

resh

Milk

Pro

cti

PU

RC

HA

SE

(Nla

'000

s)B

rew

ing

Cow

sB

reed

ng E

3ulls

Fat

teni

ng S

teer

s

NE

T IN

CO

ME

(R

ila '0

00s)

Exi

stin

g S

tock

Cat

tle27

0G

oats

903

She

ep26

Don

keys

94

Sug

gest

ed e

xtra

Sto

cici

ng:

300

App

rord

mat

e LS

U:

270+

07!9gg

"'SF

°.0E E

00,1090$13iR

--_N-1

09O/9

000lo:8F,

0.0

0..28SM

g5in

mp

111

a .,E

13-Fp;

2

t7

1f

1g

Pt

z

OE

EtlE04RA

;

Ic

g giE

_H

I

E

,g2g

In,t,3

'6150rg

Ó-51%

NT

2r

!q!

mm

cr

0 0

°POO

.g000g

000q0ciddog

qggg2

N0.0990§,§od

qgo

N 0.1

gggigg

ggggg

ggggg

ggggg

000090228

01

CI, 0 0

ggg

ggg

9g0.00g

ggg

ggg

ggg

ggg

22g

gggig 2oglg

gggg99§81§

g8

t21§aN

.1!

?8

0000

2,7,2

090512R

"RW

P;

0 IsZ

s:tg:1

EIrgd.90N

3R

09R"S§

Ei

SA

LES

5 S

uppl

emen

tary

Fee

ds

5.M

iner

al s

uppl

emen

tsen

d m

ente

nanc

e

Sub

tota

l

Bot

swan

a M

inis

try

of A

giic

urtu

reD

epar

tmen

t of C

rop

Pro

duct

ion

and

For

estr

yLa

nd U

tilis

atio

n D

ivis

ion

Pro

pose

d A

gric

uttu

rai L

end

Use

Pla

n of

For

mer

Fre

ehol

d F

arm

s N

umbe

rs 2

5/77

NO

and

27(

77 N

O, N

Or9

1 E

ast D

istr

ict

Fig

h hp

ut/M

anag

emen

t end

Con

trol

led

Stc

c lá

ng O

pton

Sal

es a

nd O

pera

ting

Exp

endi

ture

Yea

r 1

Yea

r 2

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 6

Yea

r 7

Yea

r 8

Yea

r 9

Yea

r 10

Ara

ble

Sal

esC

attle

Sal

es16

150

1910

320

250

2305

041

353

4072

343

150

4815

)46

750

4702

3M

ilk S

ales

9619

2388

528

487

3658

239

210

3921

042

423

4242

342

423

4242

3

Tot

al S

ales

2576

942

985

4873

759

632

8056

979

910

8557

390

573

8917

389

423

s==

OP

ER

AT

ING

EX

PE

ND

FT

UR

E

1 S

alar

ies

8. W

ages

Yea

r 1

Yea

r 2

Yea

r 3

Yea

r 4

Yea

r 5

Yea

r 6

Yea

r 8

Yea

r 9

Yea

r 10

Cos

t p.a

.U

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

tU

ntts

Cos

tU

nits

Cos

tC

ost

Uni

tsC

ost

Uni

tsC

ast

Uni

tsC

ost

1.M

ilker

/Lab

oure

r10

007

7000

770

007

7090

880

009

9000

990

0090

009

9000

990

009

9000

Sub

tota

l70

0070

0070

0080

0090

0090

0090

0090

0090

0090

00

3 M

aint

enan

ce

Fen

cing

10.0

0%66

9424

6694

2466

9424

6694

2466

9424

6694

2494

2466

9424

6894

2466

9424

Sub

tota

l94

2494

2494

2494

2494

2494

2494

2494

2494

2494

24

4 V

etel

inar

y H

ea/th

8. M

ater

als

Vec

cine

slu

mp

sum

you

ng s

tock

1.1

122

135

166

184

186

206

193

214

203

225

206

229

226

205

228

204

226

205

228

Dru

gslu

mp/

LSU

2,8

3610

135

9837

103

4211

845

126

4612

913

147

132

4713

147

131

Dlp

Was

hlu

mp/

LS U

0.1

362

1835

218

366

1842

421

453

2346

223

2447

224

471

2447

124

VS

emen

(50

% c

ows)

412

851

310

742

810

341

210

943

410

742

810

742

842

810

742

810

742

810

742

8

Sub

tota

l76

772

874

078

880

280

980

981

150

981

14.4

362

5198

352

5055

368

5284

424

6089

453

6505

462

6634

6749

472

6778

471

6764

471

6764

5198

5055

5284

6089

6505

6634

8749

6778

8764

6754

Cut

tivat

ons

ha11

020

33:3

2023

:121

523

650

2023

3320

2022

0320

323:

215

2365

0

Sira

tro

ha50

2010

1-3

2013

3121

5'0

750

20:3

320

1075

320

t 003

.20

1031

215

1075

0'

Sin

e S

uper

aha

4031

2003

320

800

215

0600

2033

)20

6'0,

186

C7

2080

020

331

215

8600

1

Sav

dng

ha20

235

420

4:0

2040

021

543

0020

430

2040

343

0120

400

2040

021

543

001 -i

Sub

-tot

alt

- 23

4000

4000

4300

040

0040

0043

000

4000

4000

4300

3 t 3i

7 S

ales

Cos

ts

Tra

nspo

rthe

ad80

3729

6044

3520

4737

6054

4320

8971

2088

7040

7440

102

8160

100

8000

100

8000

00

00

00

00

00

Sub

-tot

al29

6035

2037

6043

2071

2070

4074

4081

6080

0080

00

Tot

al66

350

2972

730

208

7162

136

852

3690

776

423

3817

337

997

7699

8

Phy

sica

l Con

tinge

ncy

5.00

%33

1714

8615

1035

8118

4318

4538

2119

0919

0038

50

Tot

al O

pera

ting

Cos

ta69

667

3121

431

719

7520

238

694

3875

380

244

4006

239

897

8084

8

Net

Inco

me

-438

9811

772

1701

8-1

5569

4186

641

157

5329

5049

149

276

8575

Ass

umes

one

labo

urer

per

50

LS U

bas

ed o

n w

tual

figu

res

from

farr

ners

Vea

cin

esC

ost/d

ose

Cal

f par

atyp

hoid

0.3

Lum

py S

kn0.

5E

nter

otos

aem

ia0.

0P

aste

urel

la0.

4

Tot

al1

1

An

assu

mpl

on is

nad

e th

at th

ese

vcin

es a

re g

iven

to im

mat

ure

stoc

k on

ly

Dru

gsT

erra

myc

inS

ulph

arn&

athi

rr

Yea

hY

ear

nY

es 4

'-'ea

Yea

r 6

Yea

r 7

Yea

r 8

Yea

r 9

Yeu

0t

2.1

0.7

Tot

al2.

8A

n as

sum

ptio

n is

mad

e th

at tr

eatm

ent i

s re

csar

ed in

onl

y 10

% c

l Ore

cat

tle

Dip

Was

had

min

iste

red

vdth

Kn

aps=

k sp

raye

r -

Whi

lst c

orre

ctly

the

cost

wou

ld b

e P

1/LS

U p

er w

eek,

in r

eafit

y th

e sp

rayi

ng is

rec

isce

dIn

bot

h co

ncen

trat

ion

and

frec

penc

-y to

a c

ost o

f app

roai

rnat

eiy

P1/

LSU

per

mon

th. T

hls

is le

ft to

be

too

low

and

a c

ost o

f P0.

5/LS

Upe

r w

eek

has

besn

use

d.

Min

eral

sC

attle

Mai

nten

ance

Lic

k (5

0 kg

)24

.5S

alt (

50 k

g)79

Bon

emea

l (50

kg)

39.5

Tot

al71

.810

kg

of s

att a

nd b

onem

ea/ p

er h

ead

per,

year

, 10

kg o

f mai

nten

ance

Ida

over

the

dry

seas

on

Ser

nen

50%

of o

wne

rs o

f cow

s as

sum

ed to

hav

e th

eir

cattl

e se

rved

by

Al w

ith b

ulls

sin

ning

with

cow

s as

insu

ranc

e,C

ost p

er in

sem

inat

ion

= P

8 N

umbe

r of

inse

min

atio

ns p

erco

w =

2

69

Botswana Ministry of AgncultureDepartment of Crop Prodaction and Forestry

Land Utlfisal on Ddslon

Proposed Agricultural LeId Use Plan of Former Freehold Farrns Numbers 25(77 NO and 27/77 NO, North East Districtrigh h put/Man ag ern Ent end Controlled Stcc king Opten

Cash Flow

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Yeart Year 10 Year 11 Year 12 Year 13 Year 15 Year 16

Cash Inflows

Sales 25709 42985 48737 59632 50560 79910 85573 90573 89173 89423 89173 89423 89173 89173 89423

Total Inflow 25769 42985 48737 59632 80560 79910 85573 90573 89173 89423 89173 89423 89173 89173 59423 .

Cash Outflows

Investment 76820 1260 0 0 0

Operating Expenditure 69667 31214 31719 75202 38694 38753 80244 400E2 39897 80848 40082 39897 80848 39597 80848

Total outflow 146487 32474 31719 75202 38694 38753 80244 40082 39897 80848 400e2 39897 80845 39897 80848 .

Net Benefit Stream 120718 10512 17018 15569 41866 41157 5329 50491 49276 8575 49091 49528 8325 49276 8575

NPV at 15.00% 168424

IRR 19%

Net ncome per family 2944 256 415 380 1021 1004 130 1231 1202 209 1197 1208 203 1202 209

Based on 41 families

ANNEX 3:

INCLUSION OF LAND UNITS

IN RECOMMENDED PADDOCKING SYSTEM

70

NCLUSION OF LAND UNITS IN RECOMMENDED PADDOCKING SYSTEM

71

Paddock No Land Unit Area ha/LSU LSUs

1 7 02a 219.5 10 222b 14 0

2ask 621.0 14 442alp 14 0

3 2.0 18 0

V1 196.1 7 28V2 7 0

Total 1,038.6 11 94

2 1 7 0

2a 8.7 10 1

2b 14 0

2ask 69.8 14 5

2alp 14 03 721.0 18 40V1 101.4 7 14V2 7 0

Total 900.9 15 60

1 7 0

2a 70.3 10 7

2b 14 02ask 773.4 14 552alp 87.0 14 63 199.6 18 11

V1 198.8 7 28V2 7 0

Total 1,329.0 12 107

4 1 7 0

2a 442.7 10 442b 14 0

2ask 15.4 14 1

2alp 14 03 18 0

V1 63.7 7 9

V2 7 0

Total 521.9 10 54

5 1 7 0

2a 98.8 10 102b 14 02ask 2.7 14 0

2alp 523.9 14 373 18 0V1 85.9 7 12V2 7 0

Total 711.4 12 59

6 1 7 o2a 71.7 10 7

2b 40.1 14 32ask 95.0 14 72alp 14 03 18 0V1 112.4 7

V2 7 o

Total 319.2 10 33

Paddock No Land Unit Area h SU LSUs

7 1 35.0 7

2a 49.9 102b 147.3 142ask 188.2 14 13

2alp 14 0

3 18 0V1 92,1 7 13V2 7 0

Total 512.6 11 47

1 25.3 7 4

2a 263.7 10 262b 50.8 14 4

2ask 43.7 14 3

2alp 14 0

3 18 0

V1 79.1 7

V2 31.5 7

Total 494.1 9 53

1 4.5 7 1

2a 96.1 10 102b 193.4 14 142ask 14 0

2alp 14 03 5.0 18 0V1 96.2 7 14V2 65.0 7 9

Total 460.0 10 48

10 1 0.0 7 02a 55.8 10 6

2b 0.0 14 02ask 134.8 14 102alp 14 0

3 18 0V1 0,0 7 0V2

Total

89.6

280.2

7

10

13,

11 1 0.0 7 C

2a 166.2 10 172b 0.0 14 0

2ask 10.6 14 1

2alp 14 03 4.1 18 0

V1 0.0 7 0

V2 111.0 7 16

Total 292.0 9 34

Total 1 64.8 7 9

2a 1543.4 10 1542b 431.6 14 312ask 1,954.5 14 1402alp 610.9 14 443 931.7 18 52V1 1,025.8 7 147V2 297.1 7 12

Total 6,859.8 11 619