Production objectives of smallholder farmers: Implications on beef value chain in livestock development programmes

Production objectives of smallholder farmers: Implications on beef value chain in livestock development programmes | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Production objectives of smallholder farmers: Implications on beef value chain in livestock development programmes Enock Muteyo, Chomuzinda Gift This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5659878/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract In this current context of production objectives which has shifted from pro commercial to one that is largely dominated by the small to medium cattle producers a case study in beef agro- ecological zones was conducted in Gokwe South and Mount Darwin, two administrative districts in Zimbabwe, to assess its effectiveness in beef value chain (BVC) in livestock development programmes. A total of 100 respondents were randomly drawn from the two districts three villages from Gokwe South and six from Mount Darwin. A structured questionnaire was developed and pretested to ensure that the questions were properly developed and structured. The tool was uploaded on Kobo, a data collection Kit and administered by well-trained enumerators. Key modules of the collected Data included biodata, profiling production systems, objectives of keeping animals, constraints in the production systems, marketing practices, herd dynamics and adaptive mechanism. Data was analyzed by SPSS version 23. The findings showed that smallholder beef farmers in the surveyed districts practice subsistence farming prioritized keeping cattle for draught power, and as a moving bank which also has a positive bearing on their socio-economic status. The study also noticed that breeding was rarely practiced thou pen-fattening was popular production systems among farmers. The marketing of the cattle was random and opportunistic, mainly to solve immediate family problems, with a small niche of farmers adopting business models such as pen fattening. Natural grazing was identified as the main source of feed, with minimal to no rangeland management system in use such as paddocking, this exposed the farmers to seasonal drought risks. Farmers highlighted challenges which they encountered, these ranged from lack of technical know-how due to limited access to advice from extension workers/experts, lack of infrastructure, lack of inputs, and diminishing herd sizes due to drought and diseases. The study concluded that cattle production remained a priority livelihood for the smallholder farmers with multiple roles including direct income and supporting other enterprises such as cropping. The smallholder participation in the BVC remains critical for the livestock development programmes. Recommendations were framed around capacity building efforts, innovations around extension methods, improving market access, herd rationalization and supporting modern farming practices such as breed improvement and feedlots. beef value chain breeding herd size production Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Figure 9 Introduction Smallholder farmers play a pivotal role in sustaining beef industry in Southern African compared to other regions. Sub-Saharan Africa SSA (excluding South Africa) generated employment for 62% of the population and contributed 27% towards GDP in 2005 [ 1 ]. Unfortunately, Smallholder farmers remain marginalised from competitive markets due to low yields, limited knowledge, lack of appropriate technology and inherent market risks due to ineffective institutional and market linkages [ 2 , 3 ]. This is despite immense contribution of smallholder farmers to livestock improvement programmes in rural communities with the intention to enhance rural livelihoods and alleviate poverty [ 4 ]. Case studies in Botswana [ 5 ],South Africa [ 6 ], Zambia [ 7 ]and. Tanzania Muzzo [ 8 ] share the same sentiments on existing opportunities for smallholder in improving the beef value chain. Livestock production is an integral component of the farming systems in developing countries [ 9 ]. Cattle production is an important part of agriculture which significantly supports the livelihoods of the Sub-Saharan (SSA) population and beyond. Beef production model being practiced by the smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan (SAS) has been experiencing major setbacks which has affect its off take. Zimbabwe beef sector mimic climatic condition common in most SSA countries and provides an interesting case since the introduction of the agrarian reform which has initiate a new trajectory in production objectives among smallholders. The Zimbabwean beef sector has been going through transformation since 2000 land reform process, with significant ownership, use and management shifts from a largely commercial farmer-led sector (consisted of 80% commercial farmers) with over US $ 50 million beef exports annually [ 10 ]. The transformation to a predominantly smallholder sector has been accompanied by characterized declines in key production parameters owing to the legacy of challenges associated with smallholder cattle production in Zimbabwe, with implications for disease management, marketing, and production [ 11 ]. Aggregate changes in land ownership patterns precipitated in the commercial farming sector declining from 4,000 to 725 farmers [ 12 ]. The Zimbabwean beef sector is now framed around small-scale and communal farming systems, where 72% of the 5.5 million Zimbabwean beef cattle herd are reared in the communal smallholder and resettlement sub-sectors [ 13 , 12 ]. There is potential for the largely small to medium (StM) smallholder farmers to scale up to emerging commercial farmers (ECF) and small-scale commercial farmers. Currently, this potential is vested in the 22% ECFs and 6% commercial farmers in the sector. According to [ 14 ], medium-scale commercial farmers are key for agrarian accumulation and commercialisation, characterised by contrasting patterns of agricultural production and marketing, asset ownership and upscaling, local employment, and financial structures. However, production objectives compounded by environmental and socio-economic challenges affect the Beef Value Chain (BVC). These are exacerbated by climate-related challenges such as recurrent droughts. According to [ 15 ],[ 16 ], conclude that all Agroecological zones (AEZ) in Zimbabwe, particularly AEZ five in Southern Zimbabwe, are prone to incessant droughts, with an increasing frequency recorded in the last few years.[ 17 ] indicate that communally oriented production is characterised by 80% of livestock being in the drier regions of Zimbabwe, and 44% of these being at risk of drought-induced mortality challenges include poor nutrition with onward ramifications of poor calving rate (39%), high mortality (4.2%), low disease resistance and drought induced mortality. This compounds low offtake (estimated to have declined to 11% in the commercial sector and 5% in the smallholder sector), poor carcass weights, poor management, and market viability of the sector [ 18 ]. Thus, the beef value chain is largely challenged by the negative effects of the climate change. Most smallholder beef farmers are in inherently infertile sandy soil in marginal areas characterised by low and erratic rainfall [ 19 ]. It is in this context that the Beef Enterprise Strengthening and Transformation (BEST) project intervened in assisting small holder farmers. Climate change in Zimbabwe has been characterised by rising mean maximum temperature, decreasing mean annual rainfall changes in agricultural calendar, unpredictable weather patterns and lengthened periods of mid -season droughts [ 20 , 14 ]. This has immensely derail livestock growth due to poor pasture availability, palatability, and digestibility; accompanied by poor crop yields, negatively affecting rural livelihoods. Smallholder beef sector is characterized by low-paying unstructured market channels for the largely inferior livestock breeds of low carcass quality. Within this context, poor incomes from livestock have meant that rural households who rely on livestock and agriculture experience food insecurity, malnutrition, income erosion, poor livelihood outcomes and food inflation. According to [ 21 ] the annual food inflation rate for Zimbabwe was estimated at 353%, with a disproportionate effect on poor households already economically challenged by drought impacts. The livelihood role of livestock for small holder farmers is heavily compromised. Cattle provide income, nutrition, employment, draught power, and a safety net, thus has important socio-economic roles in rural livelihoods whose dominant source of livelihoods is livestock [ 22 ]. Evidence from [ 16 ], indicates that rural farmers experience livestock losses from drought as they often lack cattle-saving strategies such as fodder banks. Hence overreliance on natural grazing threats the rangeland integrity, particularly driven by increasing habitat fragmentation, invasive alien species or bush encroachment, climate change and deleterious management strategies. Worsened by diseases prevalent such as foot and mouth disease which is transboundary limits the movement of cattle; depressed local markets and unexploited regional and international markets emanating from poor productivity in terms of volumes, quality, and consistency [ 23 ]. It is in this context the purpose of the study seeks to assess production objectives which enhance countries livestock development programmes and support policies which will improve smallholder beef farmers livelihoods. Study area. The study was conducted in two administrative districts of Zimbabwe, namely Mount Darwin in Mashonaland Central Province and Gokwe South in Midlands Province. The two districts resemble natural region 3/4 respectively which resembles the climatic conditions in Sub-Saharan countries. The two districts are characterized by average to below-normal rainfall which ranges from 450–750 mm and temperatures of minimum of 14 and maximum of 32 degrees. The two districts fall under a semi-arid region that favours mixed crop- livestock production systems, where farmers use non arable lands as grazing, cropping of adaptive varieties and animals salvaging crop residues from arable lands during the non-productive season. Materials and Method A multi-stage random sampling was done, firstly to pick the wards, then villages to be surveyed then study respondents from the registered cattle owners. Focus group discussions (FDGs) and Key Informants (KI) were sampled from key stakeholders in the districts such as district administrator, farmers development committee, and extension officers. FDGs and KI were selected on account of their willingness to partake in the study and the accessibility of their location. FDGs and KI were administered to gather further qualitative data and for cross-tabulation with observed trends. A structured questionnaire was developed and pretested to ensure its effectiveness. The questionnaire was uploaded onto KoBoCollect (a data collection software) and administered randomly to 100 selected smallholder beef farmers in two districts to gather information, 50 from each district by trained enumerators. The data collection tool (KoBoCollect) allowed viewing progress, consistency, and quick analysis (descriptive statistics). Data capturing was done at farmers' homesteads during the period of October and November 2020. According to [ 24 ], rule of thumb given the proposed design of the choice experiment, a minimum sample of 62 households is required. Hence sample of 100 households − 50 in Gokwe South and − 50 Mount Darwin representing 10% of beef smallholder farmers in two districts were selected in the study. Data captured includes biodata, production systems, and objectives of keeping cattle. Research ethics and COVID-19 protocols were observed during the entire process of the research. Study limitations: The study was undertaken during Covid, which excluded some wards and villages especially in Gokwe. Sample sizes had to be met in the accessible and cleared villages. Statistical analysis The data was analyzed using SPSS Version 23. Two types of analysis were performed i. e. a) descriptive analysis involving descriptive statistics of the independent variables; and b) inferential statistics analysis looking at correlation to find relationships between variables such as socio-demographic characteristics, herd size, and production systems and the application of the findings to the wider population. The differences, if there are any between the two districts. RESULTS The respondents were 66% male and 34% female. The results also show that only 30% percent of the respondents were youths, 47% of them being in the range of 36-50, 18% in the range 51-65 years, and 5% being adults over 65 years. More males attained basic secondary education (43%) compared to women with a relatively smaller percentage of 15%. An equal total number of females and males attained primary-level education. Whilst males had a relatively higher percentage (10%) of attaining technical education, technical education was attained by females at the young age group (18-35 years) ( Fig. 1). Farmers level of commitment to livestock farming Only 3% of the respondents were involved in full-time cattle business mainly males whilst 40% practiced mixed farming and 57% had other livelihood options in addition to the cattle production business ( Fig. 2 ). Response by districts and village Three villages with a total of 49 respondents and six villages with a total of 51 respondents were sampled in Gokwe South District and Mount Darwin District respectively. This was largely due to accessibility issues, and the enumeration had to focus on the accessible village in Gokwe until the target sample was reached (using buffer/reserved sampling units) (Fig. 3 ). Reasons for keeping cattle Survey results (Fig. 4 ) revealed that farmers reasons of keeping cattle vary with majority household (99%) used for draft power, social status 78%, own consumption 25% , religious reasons 12%, 5% income generation / business. Herd size. Herd sizes ranged from 2 to 52 and the mean cattle holding was 8. While within the herds majority, (99%) owned indigenous breeds, 4% had crosses and 1% had pure breeds ( Fig. 5 ). Farmers methods of production Cattle breeding was identified as the major production system, allowing female cows to reach reproductive age and give offspring, a practice being done by 53% of the respondents. Pen fattening and cow-calf enterprises were done by 37% and 10% of the farmers respectively ( Fig. 6 ). The results reflected that 100% of the respondents used natural veld for grazing, and 95% used a combination of rangelands and crop residues, with purchased feeds not being part of their production system ( Fig. 7 ). Reserve paddocks. Only 9% (9 respondents) had reserve paddocks, while 91% (91 respondents) relied entirely on communal rangeland year-round (Fig. 8). The respondents identified key challenges affecting their enterprises, chief amongst them being diseases (92%), followed by lack of extension (55%), lack of expertise 51%, high cost of inputs (47%), inadequate infrastructure (42%), lack of financial resources (41%), drought (26%) and theft (18%) (Fig. 9). This augurs with the results presented in earlier graphs. Generally, the patterns of the two districts were the same except for thefts which were predominantly in Gokwe South. Herd dynamics. Table 1 results show stagnation in cattle numbers from the previous year largely because of deaths (6.78) for cows, 16% for heifers, steers 1.47% and 2% for oxen. While there was significant rise in calves of 77.4% due to calving. Animal purchases were very minimal with a total of 10 animals for the entire sample, largely for bulls (5), heifers (3), and oxen (2). Animals sales were also very minimal translating to 2.76% in the past 12 months. Combined mortality translated to 5.76%. Prices for acquiring animals were invariably higher with an average of USD$262.67 than disposal of the animals with an average price of USD $117.5. Table 1 Herd dynamics period from 2018-2020 cows Bulls Heifers steers calves born in the last 12 months Oxen Stock this year 260 24 79 197 110 128 Stock same time last year 280 20 100 204 62 137 Animal purchases in the last 12 months 3 5 0 0 0 2 Purchase price per animal 200 338 0 0 0 250 Animal sold in the last 12 months 2 0 7 4 0 8 Sale price per animal 120 0 125 100 0 125 Animals consumed in the last 12 months 1 0 0 0 0 0 Animals that died in the last 12 months 19 1 16 3 4 3 Discussion Gender, age, and literacy of respondents Cattle ownership within the herd was dominated by male spouses owning 37% and female spouses owning 34% within the herd. The gender disparity in cattle ownership was non-significant, meaning that women had direct ownership of cattle, contrary to Botswana and Swaziland where male dominate the beef production space [ 25 ]. However, this ownership did not translate to decision-making power, as women are often excluded from training in agriculture and general management of livestock [ 26 , 27 ]. This is reflected in the lower education status of women in the study group. (Mainstreaming gender and youth inclusion should therefore become key considerations for livestock improvement programs amongst other factors to ensure sustainability. Sidelining of women from livestock farming contribute to extinguishing of intrinsic motivation among females and driving rural-to-urban migration [ 28 ]. In certain society, women are not allowed to make any management decisions regarding animals as that is considered men’s terrain [ 6 ]. This might be the case in the studied area contributing to the low decision-making power of women. Improved literacy levels amongst farmers in general is an important intervention that may assist in improving access to information and its effective utilization [ 29 ]. Having attained at least a secondary education would be helpful to comprehend and apply scientific information. It therefore becomes imperative to purposefully ensure that women attain basic literacy levels to enhance their participation in the beef value chain (BVC) since they have a relatively large cattle ownership. Conversely, it contradicts with Otieno et al [ 30 ] who found that smallholder farmers with formal education and higher income in Kenya, were relatively less efficient. Level of commitment to cattle farming The results showed that 40% of the respondents practiced mixed farming. Communal and emerging commercial farmers practice mixed livestock and crop production systems with the enterprises supporting each other [ 12 ]. Cattle provide draft power; manure and the animals benefit from crop residues and fodder crops [ 31 ]. The fact that these enterprises operate below capacity under a low level of management makes other complementary/alternative sources of income key in acquisitions of new stock, buying drugs, supplementary feeds, seeds, and fertilizers [ 25 ].Households tend to be food secure and have a higher dietary diversity score in mixed livestock-crop enterprises [ 32 ] .The fact that women own a significant percentage of the cattle in the herd also brings in a key issue, women are usually busy with other light jobs and household chores deviated from their cattle investment. However, the benefits of crop-livestock integration are diminished by losses through mortality. This underpins the need to integrate crop-livestock technologies with improved livestock health practices. Spatial distribution of respondents Gokwe South district and Mt Darwin districts fall within the natural region (NR) 3–4, with average to below normal rainfall. The climate conditions are conducive to beef production which is like majority SSA countries. ZAGP identified the districts as cattle-producing regions with a greater reliance on livestock for survival and income. The results indicate similarities in most studies parameters, [ 33 ] in Matabeleland revealed that cattle are used as investments and a status symbol which validates our findings spatially. Ownership of the cattle within the herd Spouses owned the greater percentage (67%) of cattle in the herd. Whilst the findings concur with previous studies which also noted that because of historical trends, and traditional and historical reasons, men continue to dominate livestock production [ 26 , 31 ] however, this study further unearthed that there were no significant differences in terms of ownership between female and male spouse (p > 0.05). The study shows greater or increasing cattle ownership by women as compared to previous studies, for instance, studies in Nkayi showed that 45% of men owned cattle compared to 23% of women [ 34 ]. However, men overshadow women in terms of the use and disposal of cattle [ 26 ] and this is reflected by the fact that all the animals will be in the male spouses’ stock card, meaning that any sale or transfer will need consultation and endorsement of the male spouse. The historical trends seem to have a mark on the ownership pattern between the male and female children (16% ownership against 1% for female children), yet also pointing to the source of female ownership of these cattle post their youth after marriage or when they get their lobola shares, which seem to provide sufficient strength to offset the herd ownership patterns. For the male children, this could be attributed to the future role of livestock in lobola and wealth creation, as males are regarded as the heads and providers of the family [ 26 ]. Women easily acquire cattle through lobola, and other cultural awards and these animals are not easily disposed of, even when the family has a need (duty of male spouse’s animals), hence their herd build-up. This presents an important entry point for gender-balanced programming and women empowerment, that programming should consider. These gender differences are also presented in other livestock species; for example, in the Nkayi study, 63 percent of the women-owned poultry compared to 13 percent of men, 32 percent of men own goats compared to 27 percent of women [ 31 ], Sheep and goats were also seen as financial security that could easily be disposed-off in exchange for money to meet important family needs and at the same time safeguard large livestock like cattle as such, women’s participation in livestock chains used to be tilted towards smaller stock [ 35 ]. The results concur with [ 26 ] findings in their gender analysis of livestock study for Zimbabwe, where it emerged that women preferred to own small livestock, mainly goats and chickens. Their primary reason which needs redress is to do with decision making and power to dispose of, hence they may prefer smaller stock which in addition to providing meat, milk, eggs, and manure, could easily be sold, or exchanged for food or labour in times of need, and they are easy to sell within their communities [ 26 ]. Female cattle ownership and decision making is silent due to gender roles and historical trends, yet these dynamics could mean a lot to BVC transformation. Smallholder farmers kept cattle for multiple reasons. This concurs with Mapiye et al [ 36 ] findings, that cattle management systems and production in communal farming systems differ significantly from commercial systems. The reasons for keeping livestock are very diverse in communal systems [ 37 ] .In addition to these roles, the respondents had oversight on other roles like milk production possibly because of the herd composition which is tilted to steers for draft power; timing of the survey -dry season when the cows will be struggling to maintain calves, so milking will be an extra burden in the face of dry season feed challenges and low calving rates. Also, roles such as manure seem to be downplayed possibly due to the increased usage of fertilizers in crop enterprises to optimise productivity. Other functions of cattle in the Communal Lands of Zimbabwe are less readily measured and valued but are nevertheless of importance [ 12 ]. These identified multiple roles of communally owned cattle make it difficult to commercialize cattle production in this farming system, as prime cattle for slaughter are retained, used, and disposed of as salvage or when their value would have depreciated. Further to that, selection and culling therefore do not follow basic animal management practices. Disposal of livestock will follow a threat to the herd, the need to solve family need, or when it's old suggesting a renewed mindset of communal livestock farmers, a better way to deal with uncertainties and coming up with other forms of wealth creation and store of value. It also follows that this non-economic value of cattle is not recognized in assessing the value of cattle in smallholder systems. Econometrics in smallholder systems is concerned with off-take, largely not considering the value of non-economic by-products of cattle. Herd sizes The average herd size was eight. This is consistence with many of Sub-Sahara countries such as Tanzania and Malawi [ 38 ]. These herd sizes are, however, difficult to commercialize, noting the multiple ownership pattern and lack of technical expertise. Herd size (cattle population) has a negative and significant effect, which implies farmers owning larger herds are more technically efficient than those owning small herds [ 5 ]. Indigenous breeds were owned by 99% of the respondents, similar to Zambia, [ 39 ] and South Africa, [ 3 ] who noted that a higher percentage of cattle (88%) in the communal areas are mainly indigenous breeds or crossbreeds that are of predominantly indigenous blood, as opposed to the commercial sector which is dominated by exotic breeds. Indigenous breeds though with some desirable traits, like drought and disease tolerance, do not usually conform to the market requirements and tend to have lower productivity traits, these further disadvantages the communal cattle producers. While the value of indigenous cattle for marketing is poor, given the limited access to resources and disease prevalence in smallholder communities, indigenous cattle are valuable. It then follows that marketing structures suitable for indigenous cattle can be developed rather than focusing on commercial breeds and marketing systems. Production systems The results showed that breeding is the most preferred activity to increase the average herd size. Cattle acquisition is mainly through birth [ 26 ] with literally most female animals retained to be breeders. The herd compositions are also tilted towards the identified roles, yet these such as draft power usage promote the selection of animals that are not for breeding in terms of sex. A breeding herd should have more females than male animals or steers if it will achieve herd growth. In addition, there must be a bull in the herd, to increase the conception rate. The production systems are predominantly subsistence with minimal inputs and offtake (spinning of the herd), thus lacking basic practices of records, selection, culling, and minimal avoidance of inbreeding. Pen fattening was also identified as a key production system, this could largely be the realization of low weights, poor grades, and ultimately low incomes obtained when marketing [ 40 ]. Cattle fattening is a game changer as it improves animal weights and grades especially when it is the festive season when meat products will be in high demand and prices being reasonably higher [ 41 ]. It also helps to steam up cattle in the face of limited grazing availability and older animals with worn-out teeth that cannot graze well. The animals take time to reach their target weight and are disposed of after having been used either for breeding or draft power over several years [ 3 ]. Feeding systems The results showed that farmers depend on natural rangelands for their animal feed and in most of cases a combination of natural ranges and crop residues. This analogous to [ 42 ] Sub-Saharan Africa has the largest area of permanent pasture, and it also has a larger number of pastoralists than any other continent. Small to medium cattle producers depend on rangelands for their animal nutritional supply [ 43 ]. Rangelands offer the cheapest source of feed for the animals, be it on common lands or private lands [ 36 ]. Communal farmers are subsistence-oriented, own 5–10 cattle, and have limited use of technology and external inputs [ 3 ]. As such this method of feeding has a bearing on productivity and potential incomes from their enterprises. Calvers in the lean season risk losing their calves and them succumbing to nutritional stress [ 2 ]. Survivors must cover lots of compensatory growth in the growing season. Communal cattle also travel for long distances particularly in the dry season to find low-quality dry grass or leaves and water. This concurs with [ 4 ], findings that the feeding regime for the smallholder farmers entails communal grazing in summer, foraging on crop residues and vleis in winter, and browsing on new leaf, crop residues and vleis in spring. Several constraints were identified by the farmers chief among them were diseases, lack of extension, lack of expertise, high cost of inputs, inadequate infrastructure, lack of financial resources, drought, and theft. These findings concur with [ 17 ], who highlighted that the major constraints identified in communal production systems are prevalence of high disease and parasite, poor management, low quality and insufficient forage in dry season, and lack of reliable marketing linkages. This concur with [ 43 ] beef industry in developing countries is hampered by lack of infrastructure mainly inadequate housing, lack of improved breeds and low quality feed. Herd dynamics Smallholder livestock suffers high mortalities due to persistence spike in disease and parasite exacerbated by low level of management [ 17 ]. This is further substantiated by [ 44 ], high calves and cow mortalities in the communal areas due to nutritional stress. Similar studies indicated disease outbreak as the major contributor to calf mortality [ 31 ]. Poor nutrition and lack of breeding structure impact negatively the calving rate [ 43 ]. Acquisition (purchase) prices are higher than disposal values, suggesting sales are associated with the salvage value of spent low-quality stock of indigenous breeds. Indigenous breeds are not popular in commercial setups in Zimbabwe due low dressed weights and low grades at the markets [ 45 ]. The study findings concur with [ 28 ], lack of improved breeds in most developing countries is often criticised for inefficient resource use, low economic returns, lack of social security, and sustainable livelihoods. The herd dynamics for the communal livestock production system are a cause for concern, showing serious stagnation with very low inputs and outputs. The producers consistently show that the farmers are still trying to put their fit on the ground despite the many years in practice. Any growth strategy must draw lessons from best practices that were characteristic of commercial farmers and the adoption of farming as a business concept. This will not only encourage investments and priority but also has potential buy-in of other value chain actors in a coordinated fashion. Conclusion The findings of the study outline the production system of smallholder beef farmers in which the participation of women in key decision-making is yet to be realised. The production model of smallholder beef farmers still has many challenges in terms of breeding, pen fattening, methods of feeding, and reserve of paddocks. Whilst communal production systems offer few innovative options due to the communal management of resources, opportunities exist in forage/fodder production inlays and farrow lands, fodder gardens, use of bush meal diets, on farm rations, water supply to minimise wastage of nutrients particularly in the dry season through distance travelled to access water points, used of farmer groups in both acquiring inputs and marketing outputs (may include finishing) and coordinated management of the community assets such as having grazing management plan. Recommendations Any livestock development program aimed at improving livestock production systems in communal areas should validate and evaluate these constraints as a basis for formulating intervention strategies. The issue of communal management of key assets such as grazing and dipping services needs formulation of new work arrangements, that sustainably promote ownership and productivity. In addition, the role of public extension, the private sector, and development partners need a whole new definition in pluralistic extension fashion, singing the same hymn to promote a change of mindset and ultimate practice within the smallholder sector it is important to note that the smallholder farmers cannot deal with these constraints due to resource constraints, the subsistence nature of their enterprises, and lack of technical knowhow. With this changing balance between the commercial and communal/smallholder productions systems, any plans to improve livestock productivity in-country should zero down on these constraints before any introduction of programs meant to stimulate production and productivity. Authors contribution Muteyo E and Chomuzinda G: Conceptualization, methodology formulation, writing - original draft, supervision, formal analysis, Muteyo E writing - original draft, Chomuzinda G writing - review & editing. Ethical and legal consideration The research was ethically approved by the Ethics Committee of the Zimbabwe Open University in line with Research Council of Zimbabwe. The identified farmers participated on their free will. The study was conducted in agreement with the guidelines governing research involving human participants, as outlined by the Ethics Committee of the Zimbabwe Open University. Abbreviations AEZ Agroecological zones BEST Beef Enterprise Strengthening Transformation BVC Beef Value Chain DVC Directorate of Veterinary Services ECF Emerging Commercial Farmers FDGs Focus Discussion Groups GDP Gross Domestic Product KI Key Informants LMAC Livestock and Meat Advisory Council SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science StM Small to Medium enterprise UNDP United Nations Development Programme ZAGP Zimbabwe Agricultural Growth Programme ZCFU Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers Union Declarations Authors contribution Muteyo E and Chomuzinda G: Conceptualization, methodology formulation, writing - original draft, supervision, formal analysis, Muteyo E writing - original draft, Chomuzinda G writing - review & editing. Ethical and legal consideration The research was ethically approved by the Ethics Committee of the Zimbabwe Open University in line with Research Council of Zimbabwe. The identified farmers participated on their free will. The study was conducted in agreement with the guidelines governing research involving human participants, as outlined by the Ethics Committee of the Zimbabwe Open University. Acknowledgement We are grateful for the financial support from We Effect and smallholder beef farmers Gokwe South and Mount Darwin for their participation in the project. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s) Data availability All data is available within the manuscript. Informed Consent statement Informed consent was obtained from all the participants involved in the study ,participants were furnished with sufficient knowledge on the purpose of the study in order to make their decisions prior to the commencement of the study, all the participants were over 18 years of age. References Staatz, J., & Dembele, N. (2007). Agriculture for development in sub-saharan Africa. Background paper for the World Development Report 2008. Muregerera, H. 2009. The importance of communal rangelands: A case study of three Mapiye, C., Chimonyo, M., Muchenje, V., Dzama, K., Marufu, M. C., & Raats, J. G. (2007). Potential for value-addition of Nguni cattle products in the communal areas of South Africa: a review. African Journal of Agricultural Research , 2 (10), 488-495. Chinembiri F.M 1999; Communal area livestock management systems in Zimbabwe Bahta, S., & Malope, P. (2014). Measurement of competitiveness in smallholder livestock systems and emerging policy advocacy: An application to Botswana. Food Policy , 49 , 408-417. Mapiye, O., Makombe, G., Mapiye, C., & Dzama, K. (2018). Limitations and prospects of improving beef cattle production in the smallholder sector: a case of Limpopo Province, South Africa. Tropical Animal Health and Production , 50 , 1711-1725. Mumba, C., Häsler, B., Muma, J. B., Munyeme, M., Sitali, D. C., Skjerve, E., & Rich, K. M. (2018). Practices of traditional beef farmers in their production and marketing of cattle in Zambia. Tropical animal health and production , 50 , 49-62. Muzzo, B. I., & Provenza, F. D. (2018). A review of strategies for overcoming challenges of beef production in Tanzania. Livestock Research for Rural Development , 30 (12), 1-11. Sibanda B, Dube J.B and Dube A.J (2014) Beef cattle development initiatives UNDP Africa Renew report 2019 Mavedzenge, B. Z., Mahenehene, J., Murimbarimba, F., Scoones, I., & Wolmer, W. (2008). The dynamics of real markets: cattle in southern Zimbabwe following land reform. Development and Change , 39 (4), 613-639. Bennett, B., Chakoma, C., Figué, M, Vigne, M., Katic, P.; 2019. Beef Value Chain An` for Development. Zimbabwe Commercial farmers Union Report, 2020. Shonhe et al., 2020. Medium-scale commercial agriculture in Zimbabwe: the experience of A2 resettlement farms. Frischen et al., 2020. Drought Risk to Agricultural Systems in Zimbabwe: A Spatial Analysis of Hazard, Exposure, and Vulnerability. Ndlovu, 2019. Coping with drought: Reflection of communal cattle farmers in Umzingwane district in Zimbabwe LMAC 2017; 2017 Annual report Tavirimirwa, B., Mwembe, R., Ngulube, B., Banana, N. Y. D., Nyamushamba, G. B., Ncube, S., & Nkomboni, D. (2013). Communal cattle production in Zimbabwe: A. Development, 25, 12. Gambiza J and Nyama C (2000). Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile, Zimbabwe. Available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof/zimbabwe/zimbab.htm. Accessed on 15 February 2012 Climate Development and Knowledge Network, 2019. Lessons for climate compatible development from African agriculture FAO, 2022. GIEWS Country Brief: Zimbabwe.https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/4bd3e1a2-fba8-550e-9b16-0fba4e5a68ec/ [Accessed 2 Feb 2022] Herrero et al., (2013). The roles of livestock in developing countries. Tavirimirwa, B., Manzungu, E. & Ncube, S. 2012. The evaluation of dry season nutritive value of dominant and improved grasses in fallows in Chivi district, Zimbabwe. Online J. Anim. Feed Res, 2 , 470-474. Orme B 2010. Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. 2nd edition. Research Publishers LLC, Madison, WI, USA. Dlamini, S. I. (2020). Analysis of beef cattle production in Eswatini: a gender based comparative description and determinants. Int. J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. Stud , 7 , 1-18. FAO (2017) Country Gender Assessment Series National gender profile of agriculture FAO 2014 Country report on the state of the world’s animal genetic resources, FAO, Marandure T, Bennett J, Dzama K, Makombe G, Mapiye C. (2020) Drivers of low in put farmers’ perceptions of sustainable ruminant farming practices in the Eastern Cape Province Environment, Development and Sustainability, South Africa https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00973-x Gundu M. (2009) The effect of literacy on access to and utilization of agricultural Otieno, D. J., Hubbard, L. J., and Ruto, E. (2012). Determinants of technical efficiency in beef cattle production in Kenya (No. 1007-2016-79780) . Maburutse, B. E., Mutibvu, T., Mbiriri, D. T., & Kashangura, M. T. (2012). Communal livestock production in Simbe, Gokwe south district of Zimbabwe. Online Journal of Animal and Feed Research , 2 (4), 351-360. Rufino M.C (2008) Quantifying the contribution of crop-livestock integration to African farming PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands Ndebele J J, Muchenje V, Mapiye C, Chimonyo M, Musemwa L and Ndlovu T 2007Cattle breeding management practices in the Gwayi smallholder farming area of South-western Zimbabwe. Livestock Research for Rural Development 19 (12). http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/12/ndeb19183.htm Ogolla, K. O., Chemuliti, J. K., Ngutu, M., Kimani, W. W., Anyona, D. N., Nyamongo, I. K., & Bukachi, S. A. (2022). Women’s empowerment and intra-household gender dynamics and practices around sheep and goat production in South East Kenya. Plos one , 17 (8), e0269243. Mupawaenda A, Chawatama S & Muvavarirwa P. (2009). Gender issues in livestockproduction: A case study of Zimbabwe. Tropical animal health and production. 41. 1017-21. 10.1007/s11250-008-9268-5. 17. Mapiye C, Mwale M, Chikumba N, Poshiwa X, Mupangwa J F and Mugabe, PH (2006).A review of improved forage grasses in Zimbabwe. Tropical and subtropical agroecosystems 6:125-131. Otte, M.J. and Chilonda, P. 2002. Cattle and small ruminant production systems in sub-Saharan Africa. A systematic review. Livestock Information Sector Analysis and Policy Branch, Sikamwaya, R. M., & Guiyu, Z. (2020). An Analysis of the Beef Production Industry and Marketing in Zambia. South Asian Journal of Social Studies and Economics , 8 (3), 46-62.Bahta, S. T., Baker, D., & Marobela, O. (2013). Competitive smallholder livestock in Botswana: Results of a livestock value chain survey in the Central district of Botswana Sibanda, S. (2001, June). Land reform and poverty alleviation in South Africa. In SARPN Conference on Land Reform and Poverty Alleviation in Southern Africa, held at the Human Science Research Council, Pretoria (p. 5). Zimbabwe Agricultural Growth Programme (ZAGP) (2019). Available online at: http://zagp.org.zw/Content/Uploads/ZAGP_Profile.pdf (accessed June 15, 2021). Otte, J., Pica-Ciamarra, U., & Morzaria, S. (2019). A comparative overview of the livestock-environment interactions in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Frontiers in Veterinary Science , 6 (open in a new window), 37. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00037 Ngongoni, N. T., Mapiye, C., Mwale, M., Mupeta, B., & Chimonyo, M. (2007). Potential of farm-produced crop residues as protein sources for small-medium yielding dairy cows. Zaw Win, T., Campbell, A., Soares Magalhães, R.J. et al. Characteristics of Livestock Husbandry and Management Practice in the Central Dry Zone oMyanmar. Trop Anim Health Prod 51, 643–654 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-018-1738-9 Zimbabwe Ngongoni, N. T., Mapiye, C., Mwale, M., & Mupeta, B. (2006). Factors affecting milk production in the smallholder dairy sector of Zimbabwe. Livestock research for rural development , 18 (05), 1-21. Francis, J., & Sibanda, S. (2001). Participatory action research experiences in smallholder dairy farming in Zimbabwe. Livestock Research for Rural Development , 13 (3), 1-6. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5659878","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":402460624,"identity":"a832e63c-bc7b-4762-8078-ab3856f7314a","order_by":0,"name":"Enock Muteyo","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zimbabwe Open University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Enock","middleName":"","lastName":"Muteyo","suffix":""},{"id":402460625,"identity":"52d3a640-eb8d-4130-80ac-f49d40b2f689","order_by":1,"name":"Chomuzinda Gift","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Marondera University of Science and Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chomuzinda","middleName":"","lastName":"Gift","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-12-17 08:38:33","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5659878/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5659878/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":73942847,"identity":"28ed47e9-9689-4f84-90ea-cfb8529e95ca","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-16 08:12:19","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":22531,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGender, age and education level of the respondents\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5659878/v1/b33c4af68b8b29321bf3adac.png"},{"id":73943176,"identity":"131391d4-7de1-4a88-a9fc-fbbecdbc3714","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-16 08:20:19","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":41947,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFarmers commitment to livestock farming\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5659878/v1/29ab07ab4a502fabf76f5e41.png"},{"id":73943177,"identity":"69b949e8-9cd6-4201-a123-743bdefd40fb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-16 08:20:19","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":35600,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFarmers response by districts and village\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5659878/v1/98c10b0c930ba99a400c84e8.png"},{"id":73942854,"identity":"ac041415-48f4-4666-92fa-00200beed036","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-16 08:12:19","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":29961,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFarmers reasons for keeping cattle\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5659878/v1/b3620bfe94b6aa4690c58399.png"},{"id":73942859,"identity":"acf39749-a922-4899-8fe6-b088c4a96f59","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-16 08:12:19","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":43253,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFarmers data on the herd size\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5659878/v1/b62226fb5fd82f5ed3568cc1.png"},{"id":73942871,"identity":"e851f810-6265-4628-84d2-160f86d4dd39","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-16 08:12:19","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":23417,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFarmers practicing various production methods\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5659878/v1/101270321be0e0fead632083.png"},{"id":73942868,"identity":"29b415c9-1267-4431-89df-ab58d7ac4e27","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-16 08:12:19","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"Figure 7","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":23861,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eDifferent methods of feeding\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5659878/v1/776f966cf1d62e09247fa2b2.png"},{"id":73943181,"identity":"1751329e-2d98-4909-b7b1-001169ce4967","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-16 08:20:19","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"Figure 8","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":15466,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFarmers holding or reserve paddocks\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"8.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5659878/v1/e8a6ee1fc83c273940afee8f.png"},{"id":73942874,"identity":"3d1e7b53-0e91-4d13-90c6-8f16bbe3d4f8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-16 08:12:19","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"Figure 9","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":51204,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConstraints faced by smallholder beef farmers in beef production.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"9.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5659878/v1/c897d1ae83392f382efaf62f.png"},{"id":80823951,"identity":"b2d838d6-5c39-439d-9e3a-c7c966e9d0a5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-17 12:47:07","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":953300,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5659878/v1/a9cf1841-b7f5-4c92-a16c-57798570a018.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Production objectives of smallholder farmers: Implications on beef value chain in livestock development programmes","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSmallholder farmers play a pivotal role in sustaining beef industry in Southern African compared to other regions. Sub-Saharan Africa SSA (excluding South Africa) generated employment for 62% of the population and contributed 27% towards GDP in 2005 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. Unfortunately, Smallholder farmers remain marginalised from competitive markets due to low yields, limited knowledge, lack of appropriate technology and inherent market risks due to ineffective institutional and market linkages [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. This is despite immense contribution of smallholder farmers to livestock improvement programmes in rural communities with the intention to enhance rural livelihoods and alleviate poverty [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Case studies in Botswana [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e],South Africa [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e], Zambia [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]and. Tanzania Muzzo [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e] share the same sentiments on existing opportunities for smallholder in improving the beef value chain. Livestock production is an integral component of the farming systems in developing countries [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. Cattle production is an important part of agriculture which significantly supports the livelihoods of the Sub-Saharan (SSA) population and beyond. Beef production model being practiced by the smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan (SAS) has been experiencing major setbacks which has affect its off take. Zimbabwe beef sector mimic climatic condition common in most SSA countries and provides an interesting case since the introduction of the agrarian reform which has initiate a new trajectory in production objectives among smallholders.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Zimbabwean beef sector has been going through transformation since 2000 land reform process, with significant ownership, use and management shifts from a largely commercial farmer-led sector (consisted of 80% commercial farmers) with over US\u003cspan\u003e$\u003c/span\u003e50\u0026nbsp;million beef exports annually [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. The transformation to a predominantly smallholder sector has been accompanied by characterized declines in key production parameters owing to the legacy of challenges associated with smallholder cattle production in Zimbabwe, with implications for disease management, marketing, and production [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Aggregate changes in land ownership patterns precipitated in the commercial farming sector declining from 4,000 to 725 farmers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. The Zimbabwean beef sector is now framed around small-scale and communal farming systems, where 72% of the 5.5\u0026nbsp;million Zimbabwean beef cattle herd are reared in the communal smallholder and resettlement sub-sectors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. There is potential for the largely small to medium (StM) smallholder farmers to scale up to emerging commercial farmers (ECF) and small-scale commercial farmers. Currently, this potential is vested in the 22% ECFs and 6% commercial farmers in the sector. According to [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], medium-scale commercial farmers are key for agrarian accumulation and commercialisation, characterised by contrasting patterns of agricultural production and marketing, asset ownership and upscaling, local employment, and financial structures. However, production objectives compounded by environmental and socio-economic challenges affect the Beef Value Chain (BVC). These are exacerbated by climate-related challenges such as recurrent droughts. According to [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e],[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e], conclude that all Agroecological zones (AEZ) in Zimbabwe, particularly AEZ five in Southern Zimbabwe, are prone to incessant droughts, with an increasing frequency recorded in the last few years.[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] indicate that communally oriented production is characterised by 80% of livestock being in the drier regions of Zimbabwe, and 44% of these being at risk of drought-induced mortality challenges include poor nutrition with onward ramifications of poor calving rate (39%), high mortality (4.2%), low disease resistance and drought induced mortality. This compounds low offtake (estimated to have declined to 11% in the commercial sector and 5% in the smallholder sector), poor carcass weights, poor management, and market viability of the sector [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, the beef value chain is largely challenged by the negative effects of the climate change. Most smallholder beef farmers are in inherently infertile sandy soil in marginal areas characterised by low and erratic rainfall [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. It is in this context that the Beef Enterprise Strengthening and Transformation (BEST) project intervened in assisting small holder farmers. Climate change in Zimbabwe has been characterised by rising mean maximum temperature, decreasing mean annual rainfall changes in agricultural calendar, unpredictable weather patterns and lengthened periods of mid -season droughts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. This has immensely derail livestock growth due to poor pasture availability, palatability, and digestibility; accompanied by poor crop yields, negatively affecting rural livelihoods. Smallholder beef sector is characterized by low-paying unstructured market channels for the largely inferior livestock breeds of low carcass quality. Within this context, poor incomes from livestock have meant that rural households who rely on livestock and agriculture experience food insecurity, malnutrition, income erosion, poor livelihood outcomes and food inflation. According to [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e] the annual food inflation rate for Zimbabwe was estimated at 353%, with a disproportionate effect on poor households already economically challenged by drought impacts. The livelihood role of livestock for small holder farmers is heavily compromised. Cattle provide income, nutrition, employment, draught power, and a safety net, thus has important socio-economic roles in rural livelihoods whose dominant source of livelihoods is livestock [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Evidence from [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e], indicates that rural farmers experience livestock losses from drought as they often lack cattle-saving strategies such as fodder banks. Hence overreliance on natural grazing threats the rangeland integrity, particularly driven by increasing habitat fragmentation, invasive alien species or bush encroachment, climate change and deleterious management strategies. Worsened by diseases prevalent such as foot and mouth disease which is transboundary limits the movement of cattle; depressed local markets and unexploited regional and international markets emanating from poor productivity in terms of volumes, quality, and consistency [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. It is in this context the purpose of the study seeks to assess production objectives which enhance countries livestock development programmes and support policies which will improve smallholder beef farmers livelihoods.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eStudy area.\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted in two administrative districts of Zimbabwe, namely Mount Darwin in Mashonaland Central Province and Gokwe South in Midlands Province. The two districts resemble natural region 3/4 respectively which resembles the climatic conditions in Sub-Saharan countries. The two districts are characterized by average to below-normal rainfall which ranges from 450\u0026ndash;750 mm and temperatures of minimum of 14 and maximum of 32 degrees. The two districts fall under a semi-arid region that favours mixed crop- livestock production systems, where farmers use non arable lands as grazing, cropping of adaptive varieties and animals salvaging crop residues from arable lands during the non-productive season.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Method","content":"\u003cp\u003eA multi-stage random sampling was done, firstly to pick the wards, then villages to be surveyed then study respondents from the registered cattle owners. Focus group discussions (FDGs) and Key Informants (KI) were sampled from key stakeholders in the districts such as district administrator, farmers development committee, and extension officers. FDGs and KI were selected on account of their willingness to partake in the study and the accessibility of their location. FDGs and KI were administered to gather further qualitative data and for cross-tabulation with observed trends.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA structured questionnaire was developed and pretested to ensure its effectiveness. The questionnaire was uploaded onto KoBoCollect (a data collection software) and administered randomly to 100 selected smallholder beef farmers in two districts to gather information, 50 from each district by trained enumerators. The data collection tool (KoBoCollect) allowed viewing progress, consistency, and quick analysis (descriptive statistics). Data capturing was done at farmers' homesteads during the period of October and November 2020. According to [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e], rule of thumb given the proposed design of the choice experiment, a minimum sample of 62 households is required. Hence sample of 100 households \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;50 in Gokwe South and \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;50 Mount Darwin representing 10% of beef smallholder farmers in two districts were selected in the study. Data captured includes biodata, production systems, and objectives of keeping cattle. Research ethics and COVID-19 protocols were observed during the entire process of the research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eStudy limitations: The study was undertaken during Covid, which excluded some wards and villages especially in Gokwe. Sample sizes had to be met in the accessible and cleared villages.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data was analyzed using SPSS Version 23. Two types of analysis were performed i. e. a) descriptive analysis involving descriptive statistics of the independent variables; and b) inferential statistics analysis looking at correlation to find relationships between variables such as socio-demographic characteristics, herd size, and production systems and the application of the findings to the wider population. The differences, if there are any between the two districts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe respondents were 66% male and 34% female. The results also show that only 30% percent of the respondents were youths, 47% of them being in the range of 36-50, 18% in the range 51-65 years, and 5% being adults over 65 years. More males attained basic secondary education (43%) compared to women with a relatively smaller percentage of 15%. An equal total number of females and males attained primary-level education. Whilst males had a relatively higher percentage (10%) of attaining technical education, technical education was attained by females at the young age group (18-35 years) \u003cstrong\u003e(\u003c/strong\u003eFig.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;1).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFarmers level of commitment to livestock farming\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOnly 3% of the respondents were involved in full-time cattle business mainly males whilst 40% practiced mixed farming and 57% had other livelihood options in addition to the cattle production business \u003cstrong\u003e(\u003c/strong\u003eFig. 2\u003cstrong\u003e).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResponse by districts and village\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThree villages with a total of 49 respondents and six villages with a total of 51 respondents were sampled in Gokwe South District and Mount Darwin District respectively. \u0026nbsp;This was largely due to accessibility issues, and the enumeration had to focus on the accessible village in Gokwe until the target sample was reached (using buffer/reserved sampling units) (Fig.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e3\u003cstrong\u003e).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReasons for keeping cattle\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSurvey results (Fig.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e4\u003cstrong\u003e)\u003c/strong\u003e revealed that farmers reasons of keeping cattle vary with majority household (99%) \u0026nbsp;used for draft power, social status 78%, own consumption 25% , religious reasons 12%, 5% income generation / business.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHerd size.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHerd sizes ranged from 2 to 52 and the mean cattle holding was 8. While within the herds majority, (99%) owned indigenous breeds, 4% had crosses and 1% had pure breeds \u003cstrong\u003e(\u003c/strong\u003eFig. 5\u003cstrong\u003e).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFarmers methods of production\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCattle breeding was identified as the major production system, allowing female cows to reach reproductive age and give offspring, a practice being done by 53% of the respondents. Pen fattening and cow-calf enterprises were done by 37% and 10% of the farmers respectively \u003cstrong\u003e(\u003c/strong\u003eFig. 6\u003cstrong\u003e).\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results reflected that 100% of the respondents used natural veld for grazing, and 95% used a combination of rangelands and crop residues, with purchased feeds not being part of their production system \u003cstrong\u003e(\u003c/strong\u003eFig. 7\u003cstrong\u003e).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReserve paddocks.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOnly 9% (9 respondents) had reserve paddocks, while 91% (91 respondents) relied entirely on \u0026nbsp;communal rangeland year-round (Fig. 8). \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe respondents identified key challenges affecting their enterprises, chief amongst them being diseases (92%), followed by lack of extension (55%), lack of expertise 51%, high cost of inputs (47%), inadequate infrastructure (42%), lack of financial resources (41%), drought (26%) and theft (18%) (Fig. 9). \u0026nbsp;This augurs with the results presented in earlier graphs. Generally, the patterns of the two districts were the same except for thefts which were predominantly in Gokwe South.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHerd dynamics.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1 results show stagnation in cattle numbers from the previous year largely because of deaths (6.78) for cows, 16% for heifers, steers 1.47% and 2% for oxen. While there was significant rise in calves of 77.4% due to calving. Animal purchases were very minimal with a total of 10 animals for the entire sample, largely for bulls (5), heifers (3), and oxen (2). Animals sales were also very minimal translating to 2.76% in the past 12 months. Combined mortality translated to 5.76%. Prices for acquiring animals were invariably higher with an average of USD$262.67 than disposal of the animals with an average price of \u0026nbsp; USD $117.5.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eHerd dynamics period from 2018-2020\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"623\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 241px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ecows\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBulls\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeifers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003esteers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ecalves born in the last 12 months\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOxen\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 241px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStock this year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e260\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e197\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e110\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e128\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 241px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStock same time last year\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e280\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e204\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e137\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 241px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnimal purchases in the last 12 months\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 241px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePurchase price per animal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e200\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e338\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e250\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 241px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnimal sold in the last 12 months\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 241px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSale price per animal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e120\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e125\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e125\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 241px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnimals consumed in the last 12 months\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 241px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnimals that died in the last 12 months\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 64px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eGender, age, and literacy of respondents\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCattle ownership within the herd was dominated by male spouses owning 37% and female spouses owning 34% within the herd. The gender disparity in cattle ownership was non-significant, meaning that women had direct ownership of cattle, contrary to Botswana and Swaziland where male dominate the beef production space [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. However, this ownership did not translate to decision-making power, as women are often excluded from training in agriculture and general management of livestock [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. This is reflected in the lower education status of women in the study group. (Mainstreaming gender and youth inclusion should therefore become key considerations for livestock improvement programs amongst other factors to ensure sustainability. Sidelining of women from livestock farming contribute to extinguishing of intrinsic motivation among females and driving rural-to-urban migration [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. In certain society, women are not allowed to make any management decisions regarding animals as that is considered men\u0026rsquo;s terrain [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. This might be the case in the studied area contributing to the low decision-making power of women. Improved literacy levels amongst farmers in general is an important intervention that may assist in improving access to information and its effective utilization [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. Having attained at least a secondary education would be helpful to comprehend and apply scientific information. It therefore becomes imperative to purposefully ensure that women attain basic literacy levels to enhance their participation in the beef value chain (BVC) since they have a relatively large cattle ownership. Conversely, it contradicts with Otieno et al [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e] who found that smallholder farmers with formal education and higher income in Kenya, were relatively less efficient.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLevel of commitment to cattle farming\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results showed that 40% of the respondents practiced mixed farming. Communal and emerging commercial farmers practice mixed livestock and crop production systems with the enterprises supporting each other [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. Cattle provide draft power; manure and the animals benefit from crop residues and fodder crops [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. The fact that these enterprises operate below capacity under a low level of management makes other complementary/alternative sources of income key in acquisitions of new stock, buying drugs, supplementary feeds, seeds, and fertilizers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e].Households tend to be food secure and have a higher dietary diversity score in mixed livestock-crop enterprises [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e] .The fact that women own a significant percentage of the cattle in the herd also brings in a key issue, women are usually busy with other light jobs and household chores deviated from their cattle investment. However, the benefits of crop-livestock integration are diminished by losses through mortality. This underpins the need to integrate crop-livestock technologies with improved livestock health practices.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSpatial distribution of respondents\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGokwe South district and Mt Darwin districts fall within the natural region (NR) 3\u0026ndash;4, with average to below normal rainfall. The climate conditions are conducive to beef production which is like majority SSA countries. ZAGP identified the districts as cattle-producing regions with a greater reliance on livestock for survival and income. The results indicate similarities in most studies parameters, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e] in Matabeleland revealed that cattle are used as investments and a status symbol which validates our findings spatially.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eOwnership of the cattle within the herd\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpouses owned the greater percentage (67%) of cattle in the herd. Whilst the findings concur with previous studies which also noted that because of historical trends, and traditional and historical reasons, men continue to dominate livestock production [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e] however, this study further unearthed that there were no significant differences in terms of ownership between female and male spouse (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). The study shows greater or increasing cattle ownership by women as compared to previous studies, for instance, studies in Nkayi showed that 45% of men owned cattle compared to 23% of women [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]. However, men overshadow women in terms of the use and disposal of cattle [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e] and this is reflected by the fact that all the animals will be in the male spouses\u0026rsquo; stock card, meaning that any sale or transfer will need consultation and endorsement of the male spouse. The historical trends seem to have a mark on the ownership pattern between the male and female children (16% ownership against 1% for female children), yet also pointing to the source of female ownership of these cattle post their youth after marriage or when they get their lobola shares, which seem to provide sufficient strength to offset the herd ownership patterns. For the male children, this could be attributed to the future role of livestock in lobola and wealth creation, as males are regarded as the heads and providers of the family [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. Women easily acquire cattle through lobola, and other cultural awards and these animals are not easily disposed of, even when the family has a need (duty of male spouse\u0026rsquo;s animals), hence their herd build-up. This presents an important entry point for gender-balanced programming and women empowerment, that programming should consider. These gender differences are also presented in other livestock species; for example, in the Nkayi study, 63 percent of the women-owned poultry compared to 13 percent of men, 32 percent of men own goats compared to 27 percent of women [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e], Sheep and goats were also seen as financial security that could easily be disposed-off in exchange for money to meet important family needs and at the same time safeguard large livestock like cattle as such, women\u0026rsquo;s participation in livestock chains used to be tilted towards smaller stock [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. The results concur with [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e] findings in their gender analysis of livestock study for Zimbabwe, where it emerged that women preferred to own small livestock, mainly goats and chickens. Their primary reason which needs redress is to do with decision making and power to dispose of, hence they may prefer smaller stock which in addition to providing meat, milk, eggs, and manure, could easily be sold, or exchanged for food or labour in times of need, and they are easy to sell within their communities [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. Female cattle ownership and decision making is silent due to gender roles and historical trends, yet these dynamics could mean a lot to BVC transformation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSmallholder farmers kept cattle for multiple reasons. This concurs with Mapiye et al [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e] findings, that cattle management systems and production in communal farming systems differ significantly from commercial systems. The reasons for keeping livestock are very diverse in communal systems [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e] .In addition to these roles, the respondents had oversight on other roles like milk production possibly because of the herd composition which is tilted to steers for draft power; timing of the survey -dry season when the cows will be struggling to maintain calves, so milking will be an extra burden in the face of dry season feed challenges and low calving rates. Also, roles such as manure seem to be downplayed possibly due to the increased usage of fertilizers in crop enterprises to optimise productivity. Other functions of cattle in the Communal Lands of Zimbabwe are less readily measured and valued but are nevertheless of importance [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. These identified multiple roles of communally owned cattle make it difficult to commercialize cattle production in this farming system, as prime cattle for slaughter are retained, used, and disposed of as salvage or when their value would have depreciated. Further to that, selection and culling therefore do not follow basic animal management practices. Disposal of livestock will follow a threat to the herd, the need to solve family need, or when it's old suggesting a renewed mindset of communal livestock farmers, a better way to deal with uncertainties and coming up with other forms of wealth creation and store of value. It also follows that this non-economic value of cattle is not recognized in assessing the value of cattle in smallholder systems. Econometrics in smallholder systems is concerned with off-take, largely not considering the value of non-economic by-products of cattle.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eHerd sizes\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe average herd size was eight. This is consistence with many of Sub-Sahara countries such as Tanzania and Malawi [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e]. These herd sizes are, however, difficult to commercialize, noting the multiple ownership pattern and lack of technical expertise. Herd size (cattle population) has a negative and significant effect, which implies farmers owning larger herds are more technically efficient than those owning small herds [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Indigenous breeds were owned by 99% of the respondents, similar to Zambia, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e] and South Africa, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e] who noted that a higher percentage of cattle (88%) in the communal areas are mainly indigenous breeds or crossbreeds that are of predominantly indigenous blood, as opposed to the commercial sector which is dominated by exotic breeds. Indigenous breeds though with some desirable traits, like drought and disease tolerance, do not usually conform to the market requirements and tend to have lower productivity traits, these further disadvantages the communal cattle producers. While the value of indigenous cattle for marketing is poor, given the limited access to resources and disease prevalence in smallholder communities, indigenous cattle are valuable. It then follows that marketing structures suitable for indigenous cattle can be developed rather than focusing on commercial breeds and marketing systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProduction systems\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results showed that breeding is the most preferred activity to increase the average herd size. Cattle acquisition is mainly through birth [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e] with literally most female animals retained to be breeders. The herd compositions are also tilted towards the identified roles, yet these such as draft power usage promote the selection of animals that are not for breeding in terms of sex. A breeding herd should have more females than male animals or steers if it will achieve herd growth. In addition, there must be a bull in the herd, to increase the conception rate. The production systems are predominantly subsistence with minimal inputs and offtake (spinning of the herd), thus lacking basic practices of records, selection, culling, and minimal avoidance of inbreeding. Pen fattening was also identified as a key production system, this could largely be the realization of low weights, poor grades, and ultimately low incomes obtained when marketing [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. Cattle fattening is a game changer as it improves animal weights and grades especially when it is the festive season when meat products will be in high demand and prices being reasonably higher [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]. It also helps to steam up cattle in the face of limited grazing availability and older animals with worn-out teeth that cannot graze well. The animals take time to reach their target weight and are disposed of after having been used either for breeding or draft power over several years [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFeeding systems\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe results showed that farmers depend on natural rangelands for their animal feed and in most of cases a combination of natural ranges and crop residues. This analogous to [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e] Sub-Saharan Africa has the largest area of permanent pasture, and it also has a larger number of pastoralists than any other continent. Small to medium cattle producers depend on rangelands for their animal nutritional supply [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]. Rangelands offer the cheapest source of feed for the animals, be it on common lands or private lands [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e]. Communal farmers are subsistence-oriented, own 5\u0026ndash;10 cattle, and have limited use of technology and external inputs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. As such this method of feeding has a bearing on productivity and potential incomes from their enterprises. Calvers in the lean season risk losing their calves and them succumbing to nutritional stress [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Survivors must cover lots of compensatory growth in the growing season. Communal cattle also travel for long distances particularly in the dry season to find low-quality dry grass or leaves and water. This concurs with [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e], findings that the feeding regime for the smallholder farmers entails communal grazing in summer, foraging on crop residues and vleis in winter, and browsing on new leaf, crop residues and vleis in spring. Several constraints were identified by the farmers chief among them were diseases, lack of extension, lack of expertise, high cost of inputs, inadequate infrastructure, lack of financial resources, drought, and theft. These findings concur with [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e], who highlighted that the major constraints identified in communal production systems are prevalence of high disease and parasite, poor management, low quality and insufficient forage in dry season, and lack of reliable marketing linkages. This concur with [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e] beef industry in developing countries is hampered by lack of infrastructure mainly inadequate housing, lack of improved breeds and low quality feed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eHerd dynamics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSmallholder livestock suffers high mortalities due to persistence spike in disease and parasite exacerbated by low level of management [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. This is further substantiated by [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e], high calves and cow mortalities in the communal areas due to nutritional stress. Similar studies indicated disease outbreak as the major contributor to calf mortality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. Poor nutrition and lack of breeding structure impact negatively the calving rate [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]. Acquisition (purchase) prices are higher than disposal values, suggesting sales are associated with the salvage value of spent low-quality stock of indigenous breeds. Indigenous breeds are not popular in commercial setups in Zimbabwe due low dressed weights and low grades at the markets [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e]. The study findings concur with [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e], lack of improved breeds in most developing countries is often criticised for inefficient resource use, low economic returns, lack of social security, and sustainable livelihoods. The herd dynamics for the communal livestock production system are a cause for concern, showing serious stagnation with very low inputs and outputs. The producers consistently show that the farmers are still trying to put their fit on the ground despite the many years in practice. Any growth strategy must draw lessons from best practices that were characteristic of commercial farmers and the adoption of farming as a business concept. This will not only encourage investments and priority but also has potential buy-in of other value chain actors in a coordinated fashion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings of the study outline the production system of smallholder beef farmers in which the participation of women in key decision-making is yet to be realised. The production model of smallholder beef farmers still has many challenges in terms of breeding, pen fattening, methods of feeding, and reserve of paddocks. Whilst communal production systems offer few innovative options due to the communal management of resources, opportunities exist in forage/fodder production inlays and farrow lands, fodder gardens, use of bush meal diets, on farm rations, water supply to minimise wastage of nutrients particularly in the dry season through distance travelled to access water points, used of farmer groups in both acquiring inputs and marketing outputs (may include finishing) and coordinated management of the community assets such as having grazing management plan.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRecommendations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAny livestock development program aimed at improving livestock production systems in communal areas should validate and evaluate these constraints as a basis for formulating intervention strategies. The issue of communal management of key assets such as grazing and dipping services needs formulation of new work arrangements, that sustainably promote ownership and productivity. In addition, the role of public extension, the private sector, and development partners need a whole new definition in pluralistic extension fashion, singing the same hymn to promote a change of mindset and ultimate practice within the smallholder sector it is important to note that the smallholder farmers cannot deal with these constraints due to resource constraints, the subsistence nature of their enterprises, and lack of technical knowhow. With this changing balance between the commercial and communal/smallholder productions systems, any plans to improve livestock productivity in-country should zero down on these constraints before any introduction of programs meant to stimulate production and productivity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAuthors contribution\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMuteyo E and Chomuzinda G: Conceptualization, methodology formulation, writing - original draft, supervision, formal analysis, Muteyo E writing - original draft, Chomuzinda G writing - review \u0026amp; editing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEthical and legal consideration\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e The research was ethically approved by the Ethics Committee of the Zimbabwe Open University in line with Research Council of Zimbabwe. The identified farmers participated on their free will. The study was conducted in agreement with the guidelines governing research involving human participants, as outlined by the Ethics Committee of the Zimbabwe Open University.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eAEZ \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Agroecological zones\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBEST Beef Enterprise Strengthening Transformation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBVC \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Beef Value Chain\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDVC Directorate of Veterinary Services\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eECF Emerging Commercial Farmers\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFDGs Focus Discussion Groups\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGDP Gross Domestic Product\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKI \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Key Informants\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLMAC Livestock and Meat Advisory Council\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSPSS Statistical Package for Social Science\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStM Small to Medium enterprise\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUNDP United Nations Development Programme\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZAGP Zimbabwe Agricultural Growth Programme\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZCFU Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers Union\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMuteyo E and Chomuzinda G: Conceptualization, methodology formulation, writing - original draft, supervision, formal analysis, Muteyo E writing - original draft, Chomuzinda G writing - review \u0026amp; editing.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical and legal consideration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research was ethically approved by the Ethics Committee of the Zimbabwe Open University in line with Research Council of Zimbabwe. The identified farmers participated on their free will. The study was conducted in agreement with the guidelines governing research involving human participants, as outlined by the Ethics Committee of the Zimbabwe Open University.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe are grateful for the financial support from We Effect and smallholder beef farmers Gokwe South and Mount Darwin for their participation in the project.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDisclosure statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data is available within the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed Consent statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all the participants involved in the study ,participants were furnished with \u0026nbsp;sufficient knowledge on the purpose of the study in order to make their decisions prior to the commencement of the study, all the participants were over 18 years of age.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStaatz, J., \u0026amp; Dembele, N. (2007). Agriculture for development in sub-saharan Africa. Background paper for the World Development Report 2008.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMuregerera, H. 2009. The importance of communal rangelands: A case study of three\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMapiye, C., Chimonyo, M., Muchenje, V., Dzama, K., Marufu, M. C., \u0026amp; Raats, J. G. (2007). Potential for value-addition of Nguni cattle products in the communal areas of South Africa: a review. \u003cem\u003eAfrican Journal of Agricultural Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(10), 488-495.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChinembiri F.M 1999; Communal area livestock management systems in Zimbabwe\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBahta, S., \u0026amp; Malope, P. (2014). Measurement of competitiveness in smallholder livestock systems and emerging policy advocacy: An application to Botswana. \u003cem\u003eFood Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e, 408-417. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMapiye, O., Makombe, G., Mapiye, C., \u0026amp; Dzama, K. (2018). Limitations and prospects of improving beef cattle production in the smallholder sector: a case of Limpopo Province, South Africa. \u003cem\u003eTropical Animal Health and Production\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e, 1711-1725.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMumba, C., H\u0026auml;sler, B., Muma, J. B., Munyeme, M., Sitali, D. C., Skjerve, E., \u0026amp; Rich, K. M. (2018). Practices of traditional beef farmers in their production and marketing of cattle in Zambia. \u003cem\u003eTropical animal health and production\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e, 49-62.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMuzzo, B. I., \u0026amp; Provenza, F. D. (2018). A review of strategies for overcoming challenges of beef production in Tanzania. \u003cem\u003eLivestock Research for Rural Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e30\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1-11. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSibanda B, Dube J.B and Dube A.J (2014) Beef cattle development initiatives\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eUNDP Africa Renew report 2019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMavedzenge, B. Z., Mahenehene, J., Murimbarimba, F., Scoones, I., \u0026amp; Wolmer, W. (2008). The dynamics of real markets: cattle in southern Zimbabwe following land reform. \u003cem\u003eDevelopment and Change\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e39\u003c/em\u003e(4), 613-639.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBennett, B., Chakoma, C., Figu\u0026eacute;, M, Vigne, M., Katic, P.; 2019. Beef Value Chain An` for Development.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZimbabwe Commercial farmers Union Report, 2020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShonhe et al., 2020. Medium-scale commercial agriculture in Zimbabwe: the experience of A2 resettlement farms. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrischen et al., 2020. Drought Risk to Agricultural Systems in Zimbabwe: A Spatial Analysis of Hazard, Exposure, and Vulnerability.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNdlovu, 2019. Coping with drought: Reflection of communal cattle farmers in Umzingwane district in Zimbabwe\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLMAC 2017; 2017 Annual report\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTavirimirwa, B., Mwembe, R., Ngulube, B., Banana, N. Y. D., Nyamushamba, G. B., Ncube, S., \u0026amp; Nkomboni, D. (2013). Communal cattle production in Zimbabwe: A. Development, 25, 12.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGambiza J and Nyama C (2000). Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile, Zimbabwe. Available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof/zimbabwe/zimbab.htm. Accessed on 15 February 2012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClimate Development and Knowledge Network, 2019. Lessons for climate compatible development from African agriculture\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFAO, 2022. GIEWS Country Brief: Zimbabwe.https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/4bd3e1a2-fba8-550e-9b16-0fba4e5a68ec/ [Accessed 2 Feb 2022]\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerrero et al., (2013). The roles of livestock in developing countries.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTavirimirwa, B., Manzungu, E. \u0026amp; Ncube, S. 2012. The evaluation of dry season nutritive value of dominant and improved grasses in fallows in Chivi district, Zimbabwe. \u003cem\u003eOnline J. Anim. Feed Res,\u003c/em\u003e 2\u003cstrong\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 470-474.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOrme B 2010. Getting started with conjoint analysis: strategies for product design and pricing research. 2nd edition. Research Publishers LLC, Madison, WI, USA. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDlamini, S. I. (2020). Analysis of beef cattle production in Eswatini: a gender based comparative description and determinants. \u003cem\u003eInt. J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. Stud\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e, 1-18.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFAO (2017) Country Gender Assessment Series National gender profile of agriculture\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFAO 2014 Country report on the state of the world\u0026rsquo;s animal genetic resources, FAO,\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMarandure T, Bennett J, Dzama K, Makombe G, Mapiye C. (2020) Drivers of low in put farmers\u0026rsquo; perceptions of sustainable ruminant farming practices in the Eastern Cape Province Environment, Development and Sustainability, South Africa https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00973-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGundu M. (2009) The effect of literacy on access to and utilization of agricultural \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOtieno, D. J., Hubbard, L. J., and Ruto, E. (2012). \u003cem\u003eDeterminants of technical efficiency in beef cattle production in Kenya (No. 1007-2016-79780)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaburutse, B. E., Mutibvu, T., Mbiriri, D. T., \u0026amp; Kashangura, M. T. (2012). Communal livestock production in Simbe, Gokwe south district of Zimbabwe. \u003cem\u003eOnline Journal of Animal and Feed Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(4), 351-360.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRufino M.C (2008) Quantifying the contribution of crop-livestock integration to African farming PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNdebele J J, Muchenje V, Mapiye C, Chimonyo M, Musemwa L and Ndlovu T 2007Cattle breeding management practices in the Gwayi smallholder farming area of South-western Zimbabwe. Livestock Research for Rural Development 19 (12). http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/12/ndeb19183.htm\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOgolla, K. O., Chemuliti, J. K., Ngutu, M., Kimani, W. W., Anyona, D. N., Nyamongo, I. K., \u0026amp; Bukachi, S. A. (2022). Women\u0026rsquo;s empowerment and intra-household gender dynamics and practices around sheep and goat production in South East Kenya. \u003cem\u003ePlos one\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(8), e0269243.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMupawaenda A, Chawatama S \u0026amp;amp; Muvavarirwa P. (2009). Gender issues in livestockproduction: A case study of Zimbabwe. Tropical animal health and production. 41. 1017-21. 10.1007/s11250-008-9268-5. 17.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMapiye C, Mwale M, Chikumba N, Poshiwa X, Mupangwa J F and Mugabe, PH (2006).A review of improved forage grasses in Zimbabwe. Tropical and subtropical agroecosystems 6:125-131.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOtte, M.J. and Chilonda, P. 2002. Cattle and small ruminant production systems in sub-Saharan Africa. A systematic review. Livestock Information Sector Analysis and Policy Branch, \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSikamwaya, R. M., \u0026amp; Guiyu, Z. (2020). An Analysis of the Beef Production Industry and Marketing in Zambia. \u003cem\u003eSouth Asian Journal of Social Studies and Economics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e8\u003c/em\u003e(3), 46-62.Bahta, S. T., Baker, D., \u0026amp; Marobela, O. (2013). Competitive smallholder livestock in Botswana: Results of a livestock value chain survey in the Central district of Botswana\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSibanda, S. (2001, June). Land reform and poverty alleviation in South Africa. In \u003cem\u003eSARPN Conference on Land Reform and Poverty Alleviation in Southern Africa, held at the Human Science Research Council, Pretoria\u003c/em\u003e (p. 5).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZimbabwe Agricultural Growth Programme (ZAGP) (2019). Available online at: http://zagp.org.zw/Content/Uploads/ZAGP_Profile.pdf (accessed June 15, 2021).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOtte, J., Pica-Ciamarra, U., \u0026amp; Morzaria, S. (2019). A comparative overview of the livestock-environment interactions in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Veterinary Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(open in a new window), 37. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2019.00037\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNgongoni, N. T., Mapiye, C., Mwale, M., Mupeta, B., \u0026amp; Chimonyo, M. (2007). Potential of farm-produced crop residues as protein sources for small-medium yielding dairy cows.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZaw Win, T., Campbell, A., Soares Magalh\u0026atilde;es, R.J. et al. Characteristics of Livestock Husbandry and Management Practice in the Central Dry Zone oMyanmar. Trop Anim Health Prod 51, 643\u0026ndash;654 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-018-1738-9 Zimbabwe\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNgongoni, N. T., Mapiye, C., Mwale, M., \u0026amp; Mupeta, B. (2006). Factors affecting milk production in the smallholder dairy sector of Zimbabwe. \u003cem\u003eLivestock research for rural development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(05), 1-21.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFrancis, J., \u0026amp; Sibanda, S. (2001). Participatory action research experiences in smallholder dairy farming in Zimbabwe. \u003cem\u003eLivestock Research for Rural Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(3), 1-6. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"beef value chain, breeding, herd size, production","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5659878/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5659878/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eIn this current context of production objectives which has shifted from pro commercial to one that is largely dominated by the small to medium cattle producers a case study in beef agro- ecological zones was conducted in Gokwe South and Mount Darwin, two administrative districts in Zimbabwe, to assess its effectiveness in beef value chain (BVC) in livestock development programmes. A total of 100 respondents were randomly drawn from the two districts three villages from Gokwe South and six from Mount Darwin. A structured questionnaire was developed and pretested to ensure that the questions were properly developed and structured. The tool was uploaded on Kobo, a data collection Kit and administered by well-trained enumerators. Key modules of the collected Data included biodata, profiling production systems, objectives of keeping animals, constraints in the production systems, marketing practices, herd dynamics and adaptive mechanism. Data was analyzed by SPSS version 23. The findings showed that smallholder beef farmers in the surveyed districts practice subsistence farming prioritized keeping cattle for draught power, and as a moving bank which also has a positive bearing on their socio-economic status. The study also noticed that breeding was rarely practiced thou pen-fattening was popular production systems among farmers. The marketing of the cattle was random and opportunistic, mainly to solve immediate family problems, with a small niche of farmers adopting business models such as pen fattening. Natural grazing was identified as the main source of feed, with minimal to no rangeland management system in use such as paddocking, this exposed the farmers to seasonal drought risks. Farmers highlighted challenges which they encountered, these ranged from lack of technical know-how due to limited access to advice from extension workers/experts, lack of infrastructure, lack of inputs, and diminishing herd sizes due to drought and diseases. The study concluded that cattle production remained a priority livelihood for the smallholder farmers with multiple roles including direct income and supporting other enterprises such as cropping. The smallholder participation in the BVC remains critical for the livestock development programmes. Recommendations were framed around capacity building efforts, innovations around extension methods, improving market access, herd rationalization and supporting modern farming practices such as breed improvement and feedlots.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Production objectives of smallholder farmers: Implications on beef value chain in livestock development programmes","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-01-16 08:12:14","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5659878/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"2a09477a-0ee8-4c97-90e4-d017e68e1796","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 16th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-04-17T12:38:55+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-01-16 08:12:14","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5659878","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5659878","identity":"rs-5659878","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}