University of Nigeria Research Publications

UGWU, S. D.

Auth

or

PG/M. Sc. /84/2745

Title

Livestock Production in the Compound Farming System Context in Anambra State,

Nigeria

Facu

lty

Agriculture

Dep

artm

ent

Agric- Economics

Dat

e

April, 1984

Sign

atur

e

I ' ': !

LIVESTOCK P R O I X I ~ I O N IN THE COMPOUND FARMING SYSTEM CONTEXT IN ANPdT3RA STATE,

NIGERIA

I

Drn3EL S. Umu 5. AGRIC. (I-IONS. J ANUUiL SCIEMCE , N I G E R I A

DEPARTMENT OF AGRXC . ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA

N r n K V A

LIVESTOCK P R O D ~ ~ I O N IN m COMPOUND FWLNG SYSTEM CONTENT IN MWBRh STATE, NIGERIA

A TI-TESXS SWMTTTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF WGERIA , NSUWA, IN PARTIAL FIJLFmhrT OF W? REQU33SMlNTS FOR THE DE;GEE OF MA!X'ER OF SCIENCE IN AGRIC. FCONOM3:CS .I

TO MY P M S , MR. Rc MRS. EZEMA UGW

CERTIFICATION

I cert ify that this work was carried out by

Mr. Ugwu, D. S, of the Departmnt of Agricultural

Econod.cs, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.

(SUPERVIsOR ( SUPERV '::o'. ) Department of Agric, Econodcs Department cf ~mfm(r?- Sc!..tnce

University of Nigeria, TIniversitv ( N?.qeria, Nsukka IJFV fc ,

3H. 0. OK17RLKL ( HEAD OF DLPAItTW:I\PT ) Uqmrtment of Aqric. Economics

University or Nigeria, Nsukka.

the downward trend sln the supply of m e a t and meat pr~Iuztm ?n

were vretestcd and validated. Averages, percartaqee , mum

people In terms of provision of cash Jncms, s e b i g l o v s varahip,

Aga ln , livcatock providsd manure to the ca~~nrnd fwr mr!l in bxn

obtain& feed arll w e l l as m b d i e i n e fsam the canporad 'm.

An InputLoutpu-t aalsessmmt of cornpmc! lfvestoc': production

chowerl &at it wam wofitabls. Hormrar, the farmer had such prcb

socitties and also use impwd brmdm of livemtock,,

I wish to express my pqofound gratitude to my P :eject 9upcrvisors, I

!

Proi. F, I. Nweke and Dr, E', 0. Anugwa for the* hv'lluable ndv!,cc,

x x i s t a n c ~ and thorough supervision of my work.

My sincere thanks also go to Mcs, E, C, Okeke c f the Dmartment

of Home Science and Nutrition and Dr, J , C. Okafor (f the Forctr.+q

Commission, ':nugu for t h e i r contributions to t h e suc cesu of t h i r

1 am also grea t ly Indebted to Prof. B. N. Okio 10, the Deputy

Director General of the International Institute of ?ropical

Agriculture ( I I T A ) , for his technical and material ;upport. The

Snrncnse con.trrWtions of Dr. N, D, Hahn also C F ?)IF. I I T A w e r e

vrsy ~nuch appreciated. d

TO all and sundry who cofitrfbuted in one way ( r the 0 t h ~ ~ to

the. success of t h ? ~ work I owe my immense gratitwle..

Above all, T thank God f o r the grace to go I3-r.ouqh t h i s project

successfully.

U g w u , Daniel S .

CI W T E R 2: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem Def hition . . 1.2 Objectives of the Study ,. 1.3 Significance of the Study

1.4 Limitations' and Assumptions

1.5 Llter~ture Hevlew .I-

C[ IAEJ1'1+;R 2 : MLTI-IOUCWGY -. rn . . I D c ~ i q n of the Study . 2.2 Data Collection .. . 3.3 Anolysln of Dnta .. . . 3.4 Thrt Study Arm ..

CI W1'l'ISR 31 TI IT.; FARMERS' BACKGROUND . . rn 3. '1 G a n c r n l ChnrncCeJAstics . . 3.2 Age nnd Qccupntion . 3.3 Household Features I

PAGE . . 1

4.2 Tree

5-1 Types, Nu LLvesb&

5.4 Costa and Livcatock

Diatrlbutian of respondents by age . I - I ~ i s t r i b d ~ m of respoardcnte according t o main occupations . e . I , O 0 . Diotrlbution of respondants acmrding to the r .nnrnn for livestock-kecpag .. .. L . . . a I Coets and returna Sn sheep and p t a praduddo~ per household In I985 . . . I , O ..

Disklbution of respondents acrcarding to the pmb2rmm encountered ln compound l%vestoc! prcdw~on ,, .

Figures PAGE

P Distribution of respatdent?r accardlnu m reason8 for L.tvoatock-kcm:'ng I .- 36a

1.1 Problem Dcf.lnitlon

M e a t ia an enscntial food I t a m in aur dim'.. It i n a r-2ch

oaurce of protein, vitamins, fatty- msd rn n-s. Z M a

notu~khet&dhq, #a prmdslon of? m e a t m d me-': grodmtn cm-

atitute n ser26us and challmginq problem ln ?' .crorb whea

per c~pita protab Intake is vary low anQ gmr 'Lv Ir~kttd.

Gyenuga (1967) contandad that the avscagc N i p -Ann cmsmas

17 gms of m e a t p a day as cornparad to f% 9 s s ~ d 6tl p n per

day in the United States of Amarica (U.S.A. 1 r ?d A u m t r a l l a

into the subject of m e e t i n g the protein nsadn r f the mvemcra

NZgcrian.

1.4 L M t a t h n s And Aaswnptions _ I _

1. W i t h l n the scope of tlma and ranaurcc , :he 8-y 3.8 lZmited to twelve (12) Lacal Government Areas ' fJ3As) of

Angmhra State. It ia aaswn& 'that the f W h g - r w i l l reflect

what & a k s in most parts of the State.

2, n a validity of the r w y -tt Ihlttd Iro the extm*

In Anambra Stake, and elrewhere h danst ky p o p u l n t d nrrbln

Mmaqemrnt System

The livastock prdudion ayn?-,rm l a not a cmplex t p e n t

the v i 1 l . r ~ ~ ~ Imd, Oyaruqa (1967) dsscr.ibcm it a~ P. low .innut

and l o w priori ty adjunct to trdrticnnl and caa'l crop farmlng,

Macha (1975b) pointad out that the mont c m m tymtm of

the dry aeaem, they wander abut In the fie'!ds, campotads,

and Utchen area.

to give lnfclrrath on produerr pricaa or pl-ofit n--4mn,

thou& rtrrdics which have beam c u r b 3 out iwqgsrt +Ant tho

profLt8 w a d hy niddlmrr nr+ reananrrble r~nd khr?t pr.i.vnL,s

marketing syatms are falrly dficirrt (ILC-,, 1973).

kccp 1lvc::;tock in ordt~s to provide small p e r i o d i , ~ income

. m c l thus serve a5 an investment (Matthewman, 197'7).

A p i ~ t from couccea of vegetable p r o t e i n , rural popu-

l ~ ~ t i o n r ; i n Soukhcrn N i g e r i a r e l y on domestic rum inants ,

t h a t t h e major constraint t o sheep production in N i g e r i n

is t h e hiqh h c l d m c e of dioease particularly he'.minthiasls

and pneumo-qas tromtcritis (Kata) which aeco&ts for a high

pmcentngf! of mortalLty especially under Intensi . *e mmngc-

~ n c n l l .

A p x :. from disease, pltmt poi so^: 'ng could c n ~ t i t u t c a

s r z f o u s p~"(~L>lm to Nigerian liveotock, e~pccinll'~ wit11 pro-

long& mnurl l dry season and periodic drouqhtrj (IWucle ax:

Pnrtron, 2977).

Alco poor brrckqround, Insuf flcicnt knowlrdq a and lnck

01. brls1.c ~killn scrprding l i v e o t o c k husbnnclq cry l ld con:: tl.-

tutc r l of-rlouri problrm (Mack, Sumberq nnd O ' - - d i , 19134).

CtIAWKR 'PWO C-. --.----CTII

MKTI romrmx

2.2 Dcr:i11111 Of: Thc- Study

T h i s wnfi barred on the clasfiificatlon o f the f K, cultural.

; r ( : . l in to stx ecolorjical zones ( O n w u e j i o ~ , 19821 . Thry nrc: 3.. Thd Southern hal f of the scarpland of St uth-

cast- Nigeria.

2. The Southern h d f of t h e low- Niqer Bav in.

3. T h c Midwest lowlands.

4. The Niger D e l t a ,

5. The palm belt of Southeastern Nigeria.

6. The Cross RLver Basin.

The study, howwer, concentrated m three ecol?gicd. zones 6

w.i.tl-1:Ln Anarrtbm State; namely the Scarpland, the N i r ?r D e l t a ,v.rl

U s h q t h e Anmbrn S t a t e popul~t ion estimate, + ~ e l v e Locril

- 10 - ! ) ~ . e zq. km) .

' 1 'h r . s~ U A r ; were t h m pl.aced into thelr ecoloqic~~l zoncps bnscd

on t h e population dmsity categorization. In t h e Sc lrpland ecological

zone none fell in the low density population area. : wka, NsuWca,

Igbo-Eze, A p l t a and Ihialn =As were in the m e d i u m qlensity

Chairt: 11 TIP croloqicnl 7mr,9 and popu1ntlon rlrnnl%.L~n of t h a IGAn - imr? : i t s l + ' ~ : t ( ~ l villnrlt-rr in Emflmbr~9 ..t8it.c

- I ~ o p u l , a t l m ~ e n s i t l e s

. . - . - ,

Dash i . I

2.2 Data Collection

Data were collected by direct obsarvaticn~, and by the

use of cpesticmnaFres. A questionnake wan rcnnpned base3

on tht? prevlom bowledge about the s w a y u-ems. A pre-

test w a ~ i crrrled out to crane any ambiguity rmd to mnwa

t tw t the deat%red information were elicited f~an the res-

pondmts. F h e k responaee w a r e reflsctd In the f i n a l

d r d t ,

The m a i n sources of error w e r e f m d t o be due to memory,

exaggeration and under-estimation on the par? of the farmers.

The time period over which data w e r e requ5r?r3 was therefore

4

2.3 Analysis t3f D a t a

The data collectad fran the intervlan B chdulee w e r e

means, and averages. Cross tabulations or cxmtlgency tablee

were also used to s h w the rslatlonshlp b&4m different

variables from the data,

2.4 The Study Area

Anambra S t a t e of Nigeria is lacatad wl* ,h ln Latitudes

5O 45' N and 7O N and Longituden 6' 40' E a d k 28' E. The State is boundsd to the South by Imo State and t o the

North by Benue State, To the East and West, it l a f l n i k d

by the C r o s s RLver and B m d a l States reupc.ctLw'!y (FLe. 'I).

It has rich md vast agricultural and rdn~-al. resources

and estimated population af a b u t 5,273,560 (1P1"3) w i t h m

area of approximately 16,727 sq, h of I d .

Anrvnbra State can be classified I n to * b-owl rellef u n i t n , the p l n h a not exceding 200 m e t e r s .nC 'ha highlande

ranging bekwean 200 to 750 m e t e r s ,

The climate of Anamhra S t 8 t s is canparativdy qwblc,

The mean tanperature fn the hottest periods of 'pebruaq t o

AprU 18 about 30%. M e a n minimum tmparaturc 3f 2 2 ' ~ is

r-ad about the rahy aeascn, and It: I s gencal ly cool

during this period, Rainfall in almost artire3y seasonal,

most of it falling betwatn April and Oatobur ar* year

w i t h a short break a Auqrtlt callad the m l i t t l c s dry meason"

(Ucsanrnl, 1972). The annual rainfall rang- h & a m

2500 - 1800 mm w i t h marked w e t .nd dry aa*aorrp. me soils are matte rp of sandrtxmas a . n h l e m derived

fm~ the Platmu mxfacem ma the- parent mt~-!M (Ofamntn,

2975 . Thane moil unit8 h c l u d m lithomola, f s-ralitlc so?&, hydnmorphic moils and young mila derlvad fran rscmtly

depooited matmialn.

Lyinq partial ly w i t h i n the a d - t r o p S c a l . rainfarest

b c l t of: Youth- Nigerln, the State sprrMda in rn North-

m a t e r n d l r e c t h with I t s vegetation chmginc grdually

from the tropical ralnfnrast belt to men e l a n d tha

to Snvanna land, as it approaches It. nor the r r axtrsnity

at the hundrry w i t h Benue State. There ace c'mmsr

vcqekntlon In the South wbet-~aa the 9avrma bc ?t 5 1 intsr-

sprraed w Z t h clumps of Crrsrrr.

CHAPTER THREE -

3.1 G e n e r a l Characteristics

About 95% of the respondants were M a haa I s of the

howcholda and only about 5% w a r e widw heads c 5 thtir

housd.rolds. Out of the total nmbcr o f farmer- ?'tar-

viewed, about 85% wwc fllitarutem W e mbout 5': had

some l itt le formal education. Literacy per me rlnv not be

a necessaxy and WfLciemt req-ukemcnt for manl-?-.a in

livestock pmductlnn. The type of education 3; t could be

relevant ko Xivsmtock fanning is canpetmcy h a r d on

tachnlcal educatian.

Distribution of R ~ s p a n d c n t s 5-e

Young 30 yaara 0 r

W d l e (30 - 50 years) Old a 5 0 years 24 C;?

T o t a l 38 TOC

About 90% of the raspoardsnts had f.w?na nc: '-heir primary

or main occupation. Only about 10% ha:' mqa fobs.. A g a b , out

of the total nmber of the fanners l n t ~ r f i e w a l 35': had seecndary

, occupations such as trading, RrWayins, pmfws:!aral dr?.vkg,

baking, etc. (TKble 2) ; .65% had rime,

3. 7 l Icju:; chold Features

h typical household was characterised by t t e prcsencc

of thc male head, the w i f e / w i v e s , the ch i ld ren , and some

r ~ : l n h c r s of the extended family. The average fan i l y sfzc

t o g e t h a w ' l t h t h e extended famlly w a s seventeen (17) rmqLng

from swm to twenty-five menbers pes household.

'NIP f~lrnily ldbour w e r e f u l l y responsible f c c all i31~

co~npound and/or o u t l y - h g field f ~ w m operationu. The adul ts

In t h ( . l1ou:i~hold pcrformcd most of the f a r m c h o r e s , for

example, feeding and management of the livestock.

Most of t h e vil lages where t h e s e compound f~rmcrs livcd

11;ld no piped water, and where n v n i l o b l e , It was on-i~nction~~l.

A l s o thwc wexe only l imi ted acceEs roads leadin 7 to t h w c

conmunitic::. W h ~ r r ? tl1r.y exist&, they w e r e not bird ;1nc1

w t r c a b.~11 y nalntrlinid. T h e ! r ~ v ~ r a q ~ rt Sntance of ',h~ con~potrnd

to 1:htr ccntrr~l mi=krbt wtia about 1.6 krn.

CHAPTER F W R -- THE ARAEUE AND TREE CROPS IN THIE COMPC JND FARM P -- --.--- -

A p e from the livestock unit, the canpotmd farmLm

system in sAnanrbra State is made up of both t h c arable

tomato, 9% sweet potato, bambara gromdnut , chc %~'horus and castor. only about 7% of the farmerrs had p i q c o ~ ~ prw and

bit ter vine and 4% yam bean.

Most of theee arable a o p a were u s d far h me cu18mn-

p t h , as source of cash i n m e , livestock feed'ng and as

mcic. iche.

The ed lb le pa r t s of most of these crops rarge from the

roots/tubers, frults/mede to the leaves, dep&lng m the

p&iculm crop. The roota/tubars of such e r o p r aa yam,

cassava, cocoyam and sweet potatoes were eat= ! T a'hoat

all the parts of .the State, The leaves uf sweet po+atoes

w e r e , howwer, eaten in Nsukka Local Govanunmt Was (Wid.

The fruLts/.s&s of maize, l h a bean, p i q m pm. yam been,

bambarn pundnut , m e l a n , punpkin, qm'm q g , f ' utec! pumpkh, okro, papper, bra to and custcl- w a r e am' ea 51 almost

al.1 the arean of the Sta te . Furthenno-9, the let vas of BIT?

p l m t e as the pmakln, T c l f a r i a (fluted punpkin).. -- Solanun -. .,p_ (anma) w e r e enten, apart from t h e frults/aaadr.. with such

p l m t o like african spln .zh, chochorurr (ahrhara) , and b:-ttcr

v b a , only tha leaves w e r e -tan in n1' +ha a r e a r . me3.r

f a t s w e r e not eaten.

ma hkmentead fanncra r a l i d vary mrrh on t h a n e cropm

for their source of lncune. Thus most of these c:op.r w e r e

sold either as primary product8 ar as procesr sd food materiaLa.

Out of the nmnber of frumera intrervlcwd, a'., procr~ssed

cassava and maize, 36% m e l o n , 11% carrtror and 7% cocoyam.

The survey c?!.so showed that out of the tea l respondents,

33% sold,yam, malze, o m , and bitter leaf w l . t h i n arc year,

28% sold cassava and melon, 22% cocoym, tm*lb, md qardm

egg. Only about 17% sold sweet potato, lima bean, pepper,

chcdmrus, and plgem pea, None, hwcvcr, so ld cantor and

blttcr vlne.

Sane parta of most of these arable 9% in the c m p o ~

farm were very siqdficant in the fecdinq of livestock, far

example, tbe fruita/seeds, leaves as w e l l ar tbeir rc?sldraes.

About 29% o f the farmer respoardamts indicated the use of

casaava residues in the feeding of liventoct, 21% made use of

y m residuem, and maize gralno (espcc.ially 3 or poultry) , 19% make lenvea, 16% cocoym residues, XVL mai:.a residuan md

casaava leavea. Only 3% used met t o t ~ t o J asldue. Thc r-!dues

from lima bean (&Mi), plgaon pea, bnmbara gromdnvt, Talferla

nnd pumpkin a* well an Ammnnthua l t n v s n w e m fevour.4 by only

2% of the' rmmpandcnt8. A l l the#. provide clubohydrc.%cn,

v i tamlns and minmala t o the livemtock,

9 m e of these arable craps w a r s usd E s m e d i c i n e &

They w e e ussd h one way or the other to cure many human

bitter leaf could be uscd against stutiach trwble or WT*,

pumpkin againat m a l a r i a and bitter vine aflaJv~st ca+ixr'~ aqd

stcmach tmublc. Caator could be urped eff ect:ively in the

cmtrol of convulelnn and when fcrmmtd as ,m antldote

agajns t drug polacmlng . 4.2 The Tree Crops

In the compound farms of Anambra State, a wlda ranqe

#an others. b u t 10016 of the reapandants 1 red orangen an

a o F r a m p o d farme. Of a l l the other tree crape 1691 had

oil palm, 35% cocmut, 14% bruadfmlt ( W a ) , and pnwpaw; and

13% kola and 'ogbu' (Ficus spp) . MrLcan pear (ube), mancro,

in the canpounds by about 12% of the reaponden+ a. Agaln 1%

Only about 3% of the farmer. had bi t ter kolm 87 ?. 1% 013 bean

farm in t h e form of food, cash h e m e , 8013. Im~covmcnt ,

on the type, awera l of these tree craps could be -ten In

the form of vsgetables, fruits and nuts, c m d h e n t s , local

bwerage(;,edible fats and oil. P a r t s of ,these +me@ crqm

eaten wcre t1the-c t!m 'frul.tn/nar?ds, naps or l e ~ v w . 'Phe

f r u i t n / m r d n of elmoat ell the dLF9m~mt txlibllr km crops

were oatm in almost rll tttu part. of kha Stat.,. Fran the

fiurvcy, the leaves of Ficus up1 (Ocrbu) w e r e m ' . y eaten by

hmm bdnqs in such areas aa ABakallk1, Oji F ?vm, A g u a t a

and hnmbra Local Cwernment U e a a {UXa). h31y of Ulma

woody plants have apprcw=i&le mounts of protrla, fatn and

011, cnrbhydrate, ~ninacala and v i t n d n n as ir ~ i c a t u i by

many w a r k ~ r s {Okafor and Okolo, 1974, Okigbo, 1?75a and

1976, Oymugct, 1968).

crops to t he conpomd farm is the -ah. incame t 'q gmerate,

d k e c t l y or indirectly, C u h Income w a r e m e l by vlrtuor

one y a w , .about 29% of the fanner8 sold orangar-, 24% rnmgo,

19% ufrkm pear end braadfmit, Agah about '.A% of the

respandents sold star apple (udala), coccnut, m u p a w and

bananas, and 9% sold kola, bitter kola, guava, pinsapple

and plantain. Only 5% of than sold canhaw ancf avocado pear,

Some of these tree crop8 u u a either m l d or c:aroumed in the

procesned fonn, Of a l l the farmers intanriearld during tho

survey, 18% proce~aed Xrvingia (aabono/uc ki) , 57% pro- cessed oil palm and 25% braadfruit (u~.wal.

S a e of the t r e e crop8 obat tvd to pmm k c moll c c m d t t i a

or f e r t l l l t y included - Acio beteri (Ahaba) , A-\thonotha mact-ophylln (Ubaba ntioka) , ,Berlinh qrmdlf lorn (Ubabr) , Ndpl.rmnn Imc"r1a l in (Ukpcxlu) , and Pwtnc1c1 h= maccophylln -- .,- (ukpilktt, ugbd, 'heae tree c r o p ~ w e r e lnte~pltmtcci w l t h

k l n q back to t h e top soil t h e nutrients wt..Ich hnvm b m din-

pl .acd, thravgh leaching, to the deeper so? 1 layer (Foulam,

1978). Thuy also protect the sail aqainot ~ o r s l o n ln m y

ways by serving as w i n d breaks, interccptlng rainfall,

in traciitional religion. Palm o i l tmether w i l h yam w e r e

used essentially for sacrifice. 'Ogbu' (F icus spp) w e r e

used for eracting shrinaa.

LIVE.';'I'OCK PKODUCTION IN THE COMPOUND F W N G SYTEM - -- !;.I 'IJptz, Number and Dintrlbutlm mf Llvestrck

Thr* mdm livestack types reared in m

farm~xs, All the livestock reared h thr- canpound of Ar~am?xn

S - ! ! t c were local breeda.

t h e l r sheep and goats by tethering thm motrid the conpomd farm

in the day or h the house or pen, and t ! e n ccmf.ined %rn M I d e

This restriction ar c o n f b e m m t of these mimale by mist homeholds

in hamha State could be attr-ibutad t o the !cncraasincr threat poed

by these animals tn tecms of damage at- de.-*xuci;.Pon to the field

a q S r

However, In the cane of poultry nearly 100% of t h q fanners

fanner's house during the night, Some of them also roc& on

branch- and tops of houses. Separate homes ar pena ware rarely

provided for them by the rural household fann~rs.

5.3 lnteractims Fn the Compound Farm

There a m s to he an Inttrsrcl,ation&ip mdatf.zq in the can-

pound farming systan. These intaractima mdst bet4m +he Uve-

sbck , the c r h n and the houachold people.

5.3.1 LAve~m-le - %I the ccmpar~ld farm, people benefit P r u n the ? Svesbdc and

vice versa. The farmerst benefits fran the compaund l i v c s ~

emcompass all the resans why they keep l i v e 8 ~ J

(a) Cash Incaner To the indivfdual livestock1 ompr, the m a l n

benefit from livestock fannhg was the prwLsim of vnnll, periodic

cash Ancame. Hou~~ehold n e d s could easily be tnet by se?-Xina an

m a l ; sheq, qmts or poultry, Suefr needs as paymmk of school

fees, taxes, dowries or even the nurct,asa of food it,e?s could be

solved

(b) Religiont LLwstock could also be u e d b sac-r5fice or

~vlcestsal warshLp. A t times when the local farmers rnspectcd the

anger of the gcda, they sacrlflmd one of these rmimaler to appease

thorn.

(c) Ct~rrnonles/Feetivalsr LSvestock could be of a -ent kpartnnce

in tLUotak.tng and in cerwnies or feet?.vals such nu C h r i n h n s

and E a s t e r celebratima, New yam (or IwadI) fe&Ave'la, mpsr3-aucs

m ( l burial cecemonica. Ownerahip of livestock could aleo 8-P an

a symbol of prestiae or enhanced social status to +An people or

hdividual. local farmer.

(d) M e consumption: Livestock on the canpound fann wcre only

kil led or slauqfitered cm special occa~3ms, Although these f m

anlmals were seldom ki l lad to provlde meat far h m a cmnurnptlon,

t h e potential cxmtrlbution to human p o k e i n roquirrment is sigrti-

Elcant.

About 32% of the local fanners 3ntcrwLawcd hdicated their

rcnrmo for keephg livestock as malnly c a ~ h incane, 23% ccremoniee

or festivals, 12%home consumption, 7% traditinn, man c e and enter-

tainmmt respectively; 6% rellgicm and speia l Intereqt rcswectivcly,

In other wosda, among the various reasons, cash incan3 ranked hiqhest

followed by cercmonitssff eat.iv.1~ and hane cmaunptlon respective?-y,

Religion and special interest ranked laat I.Takle 31,

T r a d i t i o n (T)

Ceranonies CCI Religion (R)

On t h e other hand, household fanners con%rlbuted to the welfare

of thc livestock through such management-, practices as the provision

(a) Animal feed8 In t h e compound f m , feed were 7ivm t o live~tock

e:;smtially In the form of supplementation. These w e r ? n o t conventional

or cornmercinl feed supplements but such I tems as k i t chm food residues,

yam, cassava and cocoym p e e l h g s , and maize offal6 , e2.c. Fecrding of

puull-ry took only n fcw mlnutcs each day and waB normally cmr--ial out

by m y n~cmbt!r of t h e rural household. fn the case of t'lf! small

r ~ r ~ x i n a n t s , howwer, c u t and carry fodder, for example, 46pil ia africana

( b a n j i l a ) , - A d o beteri (Ahaba) , Eupator im d o r ~ t u m ! 5 .-am weed or . .

k i t i k a ) , etc w r s c fed td t h e m . These w e r e got from eit'ler the compound

(b) Water: Local fanners only give water to &a1 ~ivestock

occ. ~ : : i o n ~ d l y e:;pc-cially during the dry season. Most of the.se f nr:tlcra

clid n o t consider the provision of w a t e r to ILvestock very n e c c o s q .

( c ) Shelter /HomFng: Household farmers provided s h ~ l t u l - -in the

form of separate pens for such livestock as ~ h e e p and gij ~ t s , m d

occasionally f m poultry. H o w w e r , in most cases livest^-~ck usually

cmcl oLhcr prutators like the snakr?s,

f u r their Livestock when s i c k or diseased. 'Chis depcmder on h i s

awarcnenn nnd available resources, In t h e canpounl farms, m t a l A t y

as a result of disease was high. Fran the flurvey, L t was discovered

t h a t for the previous one year, the death +k?.l was 27% for shew,

30% for goats and 43% for poultry. Thus m& of Ch* total l l v s t o c k

nunber, 40% d$ed as er result of disease, Farm an?-181s generally

nuffcrd from parasite infeatation8 nuch EF t l ckr , wom~, l k a

which seldom if ewx rtcdved veterinary nktmth.

5.3.2 Livestock And Canpound Cropa

?a the ccmpound fnrmlng system, llvas+A bemefit from the

compound f m s o p s and the canpound farm crops h turn g a h fra

t h e livestock, Llvcatodc could obtain feed and mdicine fnsm the

compound fann crops.

(a) Feeds Ar&Le ~ f c p like yam, cassava, cocoi?am, maize provide

feed for lives+mk .Ln the form Q£ y m , cnaamvn and cocayam pcellngs

for sheep and goats, and whole m h o r#. m s l z e off a 'la for tho poultry,

Leaves of such crops as oil palm, *a@bu' (F?-c 1s spp) , ' O W d (Rlchodendon hendelotii) , 'Ibodo@ (Drac~ena arbor -a) , D i a l i n auineasc (Icheku) as w e l l as the residues fswn aralge, banana, rcI---

mango, pawpaw, could a lao be fed to livestuck. Alqo ~~~n

africnna (pulp), Dacryodea edulis (need) and - -- ?a qabclnenain (pulp) w e r e also fed to livestock in many parts of Anambra State.

A l l these came mainly from the canpound farm,

scabbies and ether ecbparas Infections of f m m m a l s SLke

sheep and goats. L

Lives todc , an the other hand, p r a r i a d rnmure c.9 the ccmpcmnd

farm. This could be in the form of faeces or dump m d m p h g a

d urine of fann arJmals. P o u l t r y dropphgs wpre a rich source

of manure. They not mly r n ~ ~ e d the fertLlFty of the sol1 but

also increased it. It is intemwtlng to note that crops benefitad

fran the soil f e r t i l i t y through intake ah soLl nutrfentn nnd people

bmefited AndLrectly through feeding an the cram. Flus the cycle

of inter-dependence and Inter-rtlationship is sustainfd in the

canpound farming system.

5.4 Costs And R e t u r n s In The Compound Lives tock Prodwr4zcr -.---L-. Us--.

Costs and r&urns from livestock on avatagc basis far the

survey hous~:holds are sunmarised in T a b l e s 4 and 5.

No. sold 5 (mainly kids)

No. slaughtered 4 57-00 228.00

Manure sales (kg) 398 0.07 27.86

2, Corrts

Stock

Home ar pen

C o n s t r w t i o n

Mediche

T a b l e 5:

1. Anlmol Offtake - Numb- sold

N m e slaughtered '10 6-93 69.30

~lmrber of Eggs Cfrm 3 hezd 81 0.30 24.30

2. Costs - Stock

Xnpit-output aa6esr:rnent: of the viability of I lvestock productLon

in tho ccmpound farm could not be dcne with much fccuracy because of

khe inherent problan of lack of farm recot-3~. Th: s aasessmcnt was

therefore baaed on the m e m o r y of t he respmdmta.

L i t t e r t h e campound farms thereby contribut.t.lg to t'le rcaintenence

;tnd improvement of soil ferti l i ty.

In t h e same vein, houseJpen could not add to tYe cost of ~ro-

duction in poultry on the compomd fann because they w a r e non--ey5stent

shce most fanners allowed the* birds to go fr-rmge. They only

had access to the farmer's house only in the night. In & h a wards,

they w e r e extensively managad.

On the whole, the result o f the analyeis indicates that l ive-

st& production in the m p o m d f-g system crrntert is e c m a i c d l y

viable. This is confirmed by the fact t ha t the major reasan why

the rural household famers keep Uvestock is to p m j d e periodic

cash incane (Fig. 2) .

The fanness w e e faced with a lot of p.mblems in. i e pr&ucthn

of different types f v f livestock in the canpound fan, Eva?. though

they could easily identify the pmblms esroclatcd wtth th& live-

stock, *e fanners d i d not seem to have solutians to m a ~ t of thm.

The farmers interviewed lndicatsd disease as the greatest or

major conf l t rah t followad by cash/flnmce, accanmodatior , m c d i d n e , fee3 and hazard, and managanent respectively. G u t of the total

number of respondents interviewed, 33% Ldcntified diseas? as the*

m a j o r canstraht, 30% fhance, 13% accmmdaklrxl, 8% rned:'.cine, 6%

- 37 - f e d and hazards respectively, and 4% manaqgncnt (Td7le 6).

T ~ a b l e 6 : Distribution of Respondmts According t o tt!e Problms --

Accommodation 6 23 I

Cash/Fhance 14 ! I/ (

3 0

Feed

Disease 4 I

PI& icine I. 4 P 0 i

Mazards I 3 1 6 I 1 Management 'I 2 i 4 I

The f a r m e r s found disease the most challmging pnblen but had the

d i f f i c u l t y of identifylng the names and symptcms of s p x i f L c disease.

I lot~evcr, such disease problems as pnemlonla , cold, diarrhoea wexe among

the ccmmon ailments during t h e rainy season. Suqh pou:try diseases as

Newcastle and coccidlosis were most prevalent durhg *e dry season

especially dut-lng the months of November and December.

The farmers also noted cash/fhance as a second ma:or prohlm.

The rural farmers needed cash for the purchase of new s.-occ, provision

of accommodation and at times drugs for the sic4 animal:;. They also

needed cash for large scale production where possjble as well as

rncctbq general family neds such as payment of school f ces, dowrlcs,

The problem of acconrmodation or space could be attributed to

population pressure and ecological factors. Anambr~ S b t e , w i t h

a hiqh population density of 215 per square kilanetrz, has limited

land space for accommodating a reasonably large nmiker of livestock.

This has siqnificent effect on heEd size kept by f a r m e r s . In terms

of ecological factars, certain parts of Anambra State Ire iostly

cavered by water and have l i t t le or no canpomd farms e.g. A t a n i in

Onitsha Local G o v e ~ m € n t Area.

* Again, the problem of veterinary service i s an acute me,

Nearly 100% of the respondents indicated that they hRd nwer had W e l t

animals treated by veterinary o f f ida l s .

P r o v i s h of animal feed also constituked a p m ~ l e m to the fanner.

The forages w e r e nutritionally poor espgdally d u r i n ~ the d q seasaa.

Only a l i t t l e natural supplements, far example, m d z 2 grains and

maize offals w e r e given to poultry which mostly feign for themselves,

Althouq?~ these animals w e r e sanetimes given supplane~tary f&s smh

as seasonal cmp residues iind by-products, vpr, l i t t l e f m a l supple-

mentary f ed ing was practised. Inadquate nutrition was reflected

in Ngh mortality especially amang the young, low reproduction and

gcuwth rates.

Furth-e, such hazanls as motor accidents, H l i w e s and

predators (e.g. hawks, snakes, cats etc) posed a a=:-ous canstraint

slnce they took a reasonable toll of the livestock. This is because

m o s t of the livestock w e r e free-raunhg. Sheep nnd were

at road-sides durlng the dry seasan, The poultry were frp-rmgers

that only returned to the farmer's house in the nit-4ht.

W i t h regard to managanent problem only about A'% of tho farmars

acknowledged it .a8 a poaniblc hindrarce to canpound l i v u b c k pro-

ductian, Management problan h this context implieq lack of b a s k

skills, inwlequmte feeding, aecanmodaticm and m a l i c r ~ r m , etc,

C W E R SIX - SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND K!PYENMTICNS

7 . --.-------.-.I

6.1 Surmnary of Findings

The m a i n results of the project w e r e as fol:.crwsi-

1 .About 20% of: the intemimd famaera grew caaaava,

cocoym, okro on the* compound fkma; 15% 'lad yam, maize,

f l u t d pumpkin ( T d f ecia) , and p q p e r , 15% Lima bean, pumpkin, african splnach, and bittclr l e d . N n o about 15%

of the reopondcnts had m u l o n (quai) , 14% LColanum SJ& L-

(afiara) and tomato, 9% aw& potato, bambarr groundnut,

chochnrus and castor. Only about 7% of t ? c s fanners hAd pigam

pea and bitter vlne and 4% yanr been. Thest. arable c m p ~ w e r e

e n s c n t i a l ~ y used for consumpticn, incan@ c*m.bg, medlclne,

2. Ownership of tree cropa ar the compound fannu varied

w i d e l y . 100% of the re6p0ndent6 had arancnea, 16% had oil

palm, 35% coconut, 14% breadfruit I uLwa) rrnd p q a w , and 139:

in the compounds by about 1296 of Via m n n d m t ~ . A q s h IT$

hud 'nqhno* , 691 plnenppls and camhew, 7% 'okwet, avocado

- 41 - Only about 3% of the farmar8 had blttcc kola and 1% oi l bean

tree. These tree craps played fmportant roles rs fwd,

Income earner, and m e d i c i n e . They w e r e wsd for boundary

eatttblishment or danarcatien, oil hprovunent and for

3. Among the various types of Ilvemtodc rear4 In the

compound fanns, 7!9% were poultry, 1% w e r e goatn and 4% shaop.

The number was highest for poultry. Small nmfbcks w a r e r-d

pc r houscholdt 9 poultry, 4 goats and laflu than one for ah-,

C r i t t l c and p i g w e r e scantily d1atributKJ. C a t t l e s e m to be

restricted by the preaence of b&se fllc8 in the aouthcm

parts of N i g e r L a .

4, About 41% of the farmere restrictad t h e h ahtep snd

m a l t in the pcme, and tlmi-lntansive ayatan a n p a h l l y for

the small runhmts.

5, h u t 3- of the reapondent8 Indlcatad +cash incmo'

6. Inpuboutput assessment; of the ccmrpaun* ILvw'.cr_k

p r d u c t i o n showed that it WRB viable. An avmm 1s farmer sold

about five qoats/sheep, mainly the nalc kids, mvm adult

birds, mainly the cocks and a b o u t e T q h ~ n c c ~ and realiscd

about: H178.23 from livestock In rmc ycm.

7. About 33% of the rsspmdmta ;tdenWicl d b u m ar

the major cmstralnt to canpounc'. '?i.:r+-~todc proEi lctian, 30%

f ' h n n c e , 13% accomnodation, 8% madiclnc, 6% fecr mcl hrrmwda

respectively m d 4% managanent (Table 6). The d f - W e a8 n

result of dlamse wms 2791. for uheep, 3% for qm'itn ~ n d 43%

for poultry. O u t of the total liveakk nunbcr rSO% died

ac a result of disease.

production in the compound farms of An-a Sta :ex

1 P o u l t r y , sheep and goat8 wera the dcl.n?nrmt spacj~rr of

llveatock In mont compound f m a and t h a k ~ror!snctim nhould

thcrcdme ha ~ C O W P I Q ~ .

7 , C(xopowul l i v oatock prductim wlln canu.idsr d wonun!chll.y

v l nljltr nnrl U1err*fare? cga~tributcd to cnmpowr 1 hclunrhold

n?rpUll'l.cru~tXy,

1. Irrproved Management Systmt

(a) Small ruminmt p r d u c c r s should be encouraqd ':o idopt

syritcni. Food crops may be planted in alley^ !.- .twccm

7 - l . ' ~u -L i~ i< r rc?..;c;lrch should be carried out h t o such Y - ~ C R S as

t I P 11-C> l ~ i c t i v l t y of incligenous or local I ivestoc! s p ~ c i c n ,

rc1 n t i o n r h i p between animal and c~op prcduction 5 1 the cox-

~ m l u l r ? f a r m , fodder prcduction anc! livestock dise; ?e prohlmr;.

'1'11~ abavc recommendations aim at increasing the F rduct iv l ty

o.!. c:ornpolmd livestock farming without d r n s t i c changes In the socia-

9, ~WMTIEWMAN, R. W. (1979). S m a l l Rmlnnnt: F m d u ~ ~ l t o n in the I-Iumld

14. OKAFWR, J, C. 19791, Edible Indigmoue d y pla its In the rural economy of tho Nigerian Farmu+, 7me. In: The N Q e r h Rahf orest Ecosystem, ed. D,ll ,Urn C %5l. pp, 262 - 292,

Ti, OKCLFOR, J. C, and OKOLD, H, C. (19741, Rotcntiallt!cs of sane indigenoue fruit tre~ of YL9wLa. 5 ;h Annual C m f , Forestry Asaoc, Nigeria, 30s. 1 - 6 )ec.

19. OKON , Em ( 1975 ) . "Biology of the Dment i c %wlU, mh?,opa Pub. House, Benin.

22. POULSEN , G, ( 19781, M a n and T r e e In Trmkal Mric !S Three essayls an the role of trees In t h e African r .v%rment. kt. Dm. R e s , Centre, O%+nwa ?I innda,

2 . UPTON, M. ( 1967). Agriculture in Soukhuest NigerLcr , D a v e l o p m t Studies No. 3, D a p a r t m c n t of Ecmnadclp, Untv zraity of Reading,

Enmeram Name

Date v i s i t N a m e of Vfilage

Name of IX;A

G m d w Aac

P r J m i r y mcl Sccmdarry Oecupatlon

1.

F - Fanner H - HaueewLfe F. - I 3 n p l q d SE - Self -1oytd 0 - 0th-

General Data to be Canrp~.&cd After the k~.l_rMew

Pbcd Water

Tcamcd Road

Dictnnce to Local Mark&

Trruz-y?t

Car - Motorcyr LC Bicycl- - None -

OTHER C O I q m S

i 'i-

COWC)LR\ID - AIWXLE AND TREE CROP3

w ANY OF THE NWLE AND/OR TREE CROPS HAVE SSIF~BOLIC BFX?

Y e s No

WIICH CHOPS KND/Oi? TREES AND H W ARE THM USED?

ARE THERE ANY ARABLE CROPS WHICH llRE PLANTED FOR SOII rmPROVEMEN!l!?

Y e s No

WHICH CROPS?

ARE THERE ANY TREES PLANTED FOR SO= l7'4PRO-3

Which t ree crops are u n d far bounduries?

LNESTOCK WE!!TIO NEI RI RE

To t a l Number of Animals

N Never I

I S Dark niqht Only sen- son

CF Compound ~ h r r n ! OF Ou k?.y J nfl k ' ~ 1 1 1 i 1 1 Ctr Cunuw:ccliil Saurcca j

I, !! i - , I

W ~ n t qttiu~l.lt-y of mmurr do t he i udnul'ln I r r n lucr-7 i 1

I

What do you use the mnnure , I for?

FC Fert i l ize Canpo~md FYI F c s t i l i z e Outlying

S Sold

No. Sold Jn the Last 12 7-

Manths I !

Given Away in Che last , ,

12 M m t h n

U u r r ~ in last 12 months , 1 ; 1 , ; , I I I

I I ' / - Numb- I J w q h t In Last , 12 Months t

Causes of dca th , L5 known ........

20. Whnt m e the rcclsms for which you k e q l.tvcstodc?

22. Whnt diri you do with the animals you slaughtered An -.hm laat 1 2 montho?.

22. Undcrr what u i t u a t h s did you sell your livestock?

23. Do you qrnzt these animals?

Y e s /1 NO

24, Where do you graze these animals?

CF (Compound) OF (Outlylnq Field -.

UGWU_S_D_1984PreliminariesTitle PageDedicationCertificationAbstractAcknowledgementTable of ContentsList of TablesList of Figures

Chapter One: IntroductionChapter Two: MethodsChapter Three: The Farmers' BackgroundChapter Four: The Arable and Tree Crops in the Compound FarmChapter Five Livestock Productionin the Compound Farming systemChapter Six: Summary, Conclusions and RecommendationsReferencesAppendices

2008-11-04T10:40:30+0100Vincent EkwelemI have reviewed this document