Constraints to ruminant production in East Mamprusi District of Ghana

A study was designed to identify species-specific constraints to ruminant production as perceived by animal owners in East Mamprusi District. The hypothesis was that the constraints to production as perceived by sheep, goat and cattle farmers were sufficiently different to warrant species-specific strategies being recommended. A total of 516 ruminant owners were chosen from the 10 agricultural zones of the district using a multistage sampling technique. They were interviewed using a questionnaire with open-ended and closed questions. A total of 496 completed questionnaires were acceptable, comprising 32.9 per cent sheep owners, 36.7 per cent goat owners, and 30.4 per cent cattle owners. The response rate was 96 per cent. The study showed that the background or perceptions of sheep, goat and cattle owners differed significantly ( P <0.05) in major occupation, average numbers of animals kept, length of experience, management systems, and in reasons for keeping a particular species to rear. Most respondents considered diseases to be the primary problem constraining production, irrespective of the species kept, followed by housing, feeding, or lack of knowledge on management. Their perceptions on most beneficial assistance were not significantly different. It was, therefore, concluded that species-specific solutions were unnecessary when addressing issues concerning constraints to ruminant production identified in this study in East Mamprusi District of Ghana.


Introduction
Ruminants are important to the smallholder farmer in rural areas. Winrock International (1983) noted that livestock are a source of food supplementation or income or both to rural farmers.
According to Akyeampong (1994), almost all ruminant livestock production in Ghana is based on a low-cost, low-output traditional system using natural pastures in the open range and crop residues from the farm. Consequently, increases in productivity are difficult. However, the government of Ghana aims to increase meat and milk production in the country and reduce dependence on imports of livestock and livestock products. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the constraints to ruminant production.
The major constraints reported for ruminant production in the tropics include year-round feed supply and animal health, together with institutional, natural resource, land use and policy issues (Winrock International, 1992). Gyening (1986a) reported that the major constraints to livestock production in Ghana were lack of adequate nutrition and proper management, lack of clearly defined breeding objectives and programmes, absence of good breeding stock, ineffective extension and co-ordination services, and constant threat of diseases. These constraints are general and may or may not apply to all ruminant species. Moreover, these constraints had often been identified from the perspective of researchers without involving the stakeholdersthe livestock farmers.
This study was, therefore, designed to identify species-specific constraints to ruminant production as perceived by the farmers. The hypothesis was that the constraints to production as perceived by sheep, goat and cattle farmers were sufficiently different to warrant recommending species-specific strategies rather than generic ones. The aim was to find out whether there were species-specific constraints to ruminant production in East Mamprusi District. The district was chosen because previous interactions with farmers in that area brought out several problems experienced in their animal production activities. Furthermore, the whole district may be classified as rural, making it easier to generalize findings. (Naandam, 2001). This is the first study that presents and compares the perceptions of sheep, goat and cattle farmers on constraints to ruminant production in Ghana.

Materials and methods
A multistage sampling technique was used in choosing 516 ruminant owners from the 10 agricultural operational zones of the district. The sampling was weighted proportionally to reflect the livestock numbers in the various zones. However, a minimum sample size of 10 farmers per ruminant species per zone was chosen to facilitate statistical inference. In all, 163, 182 and 151 respondents were classified as sheep, goat and cattle farmers, respectively.
The farmers were interviewed using a questionnaire on the background of respondents, management practices, reasons for keeping livestock, reasons for choice of species to rear, and perceived constraints to and assistance for livestock production. The questionnaire used the open-ended and closed types of questions. Agricultural Extension Agents in the zone, trained before data collection, administered the questionnaire. The data were collected between February and April 2000.
Data processing involved coding of all closed questions for entry on computer using Microsoft Excel R . Open-ended questions that required itemization were tallied manually. Analyses involving descriptive statistics were applied using Statistix R software (Version 3.5, Analytical Software Inc., St. Paul, MN, USA). Tests of significance for differences in proportions or means were applied using EpiInfo R (Version 6.04b, Center for Diseases Control and Prevention, Atlanta, USA and World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland). Naandam (2001) provides details of the methods.

Results
The excellent overall response rate was 96.1 per cent (496/516). Some respondents failed to provide responses to several questions, thereby reducing response rates to specific questions, explaining why sample sizes differed. The proportions of respondents classified as sheep, goat or cattle farmers were 32.9, 36.7 and 30.4 per cent (n=496), respectively. The differences in these proportions were not significantly different. Hence, any differences seen among the three types of livestock keepers could not be due to differences in the proportions within the sample.

Background
Most respondents (78.1%, n=470) were household heads rather than household members. Male respondents were predominant, making up 91.3 per cent (n=161), 87.2 per cent (n=180) and 99.3 per cent (n=150) of sheep, goat and cattle farmers, respectively. Compared to small ruminant farmers, the proportion of males was significantly higher among the cattle farmers, buttressing the assertion that cattle-rearing is a male-dominated farming enterprise.
Overall, 83.1 per cent of the respondents did not have any formal education, 11.2 per cent had had primary education, and 3.8 per cent had had secondary or technical education, while only 1.9 per cent had had post-secondary or tertiary education. From the species kept, the proportions of illiterates were high, being 81.9 per cent (n=155), 79.2 per cent (n=178) and 89.0 per cent (n=145) of sheep, goat and cattle farmers, respectively.
Crop farming was the main occupation of the respondents, cited by 85.2 per cent (n=162), 84.0 per cent (n=181) and 95.3 per cent (n=149) of sheep, goat and cattle farmers, respectively. Significantly higher proportions of cattle owners were crop farmers, compared to those owning sheep or goats.
The proportions of respondents who owned the animals they were rearing were 94.7 per cent (n=150), 91.9 per cent (n=161) and 93.7 per cent (n=129) of sheep, goat and cattle farmers, respectively.
The lengths of experience (mean years ± SD) for the various categories of respondents were 13.6 years ±11.1 for sheep farmers (n=161), 12.6 years ± 9.7 for goat farmers (n=179), and 22.6 years ±14.1 for cattle farmers (n=140). The differences in the means for years of experience were significant (P<0.05). Cattle farmers had significantly longer years of experience in rearing ruminants, compared to sheep or goat farmers.
Significantly higher proportions of cattle farmers (98.0%, n=143), compared to sheep farmers (91.1%, n=158) and goat farmers (67.8%, n=183), practised the semi-intensive production system. The extensive system was more predominant among goat farmers (31.1%, n=183), compared to sheep farmers (7.0%, n=158) and cattle farmers (1.4%, n=147). Table 1 provides various reasons given by the three types of respondents for keeping livestock. The total number of responses was more than the sample sizes, because some respondents gave more than one reason.

Reasons for choice of species to rear
Respondents were asked the basis for their choice of ruminant species to rear. Again, the responses were more than the sample sizes because some respondents gave more than one reason. Table 2 shows the proportions for the various reasons.

Knowledge of taboos against ruminant production
Respondents were asked if they were aware of any taboos against ruminant production. The proportions answering "No" were 89.7 per cent for sheep farmers (n=156), 96 per cent for goat farmers (n=175), and 91.2 per cent for cattle farmers (n=147). The differences in the proportions were not significant. Some taboos identified by the few who answered 'Yes' included the following: 1. Ruminants should not be slaughtered unless it is for customary rites. 2. "Very old animals should not be kept or they may become witches and wizards." 3. Female twin kids should not be reared together. 4. Ruminants should not be sold unless there is a need.

Provision of shelter
The proportions of respondents who provided shelter for their animals were 89.5 per cent for sheep farmers (n=153), 88.5 per cent for goat farmers (n=174), and 55.2 per cent for cattle farmers (n=143). Most farmers (>70%) kept their animals in pens or kraals (Table 3).

Perceived constraints
The major constraints to livestock production perceived by the livestock keepers and the proportions of respondents (n=1287) citing them were as follows: 1. Diseases resulting in losses or death (19.8%). 2. Housing of animals or fencing for kraals or pens or both (17.0%). 3. Feeding of animals (15.1%). 4. Lack of or high cost of veterinary drugs (14.7%). 5. Stock theft (9.9%). 6. Lack of knowledge on animal management practices (6.6%).     13. Ingestion of polythene bags by animals resulting in death (0.1%). 14. Lack of legislation on animal rearing (0.1%). The three major constraints were diseases, housing, and feeding. Diseases and their related issues (high cost of drugs and lack of drugs, and high mortality of young ones) formed over a third (37%) of the responses. Most respondents considered diseases to be their number one problem, irrespective of the species kept, followed by housing. For small ruminant farmers, lack of knowledge on management was third; whilst for cattle owners, feeding was third (Table 4).

Perceived beneficial assistance
To meet the needs of respondents more appropriately, respondents provided what they felt would be the most beneficial assistance to improving their livestock production. Table 5 shows the proportions for the three types of livestock keepers.

Discussion
The profile of animal owners may affect how they make decisions regarding livestock production. The status, sex, level of education, main occupation, ownership, numbers of animals owned, length of experience, reasons for keeping livestock, and choice of species to rear may all contribute to the success or failure in production. Similarly, management practices such as type of production system and provision of shelter may be contributory factors.
The dominance of males and household heads in this study is important because they are the decision-makers in most homes and may, therefore, influence the adoption or rejection of whatever strategies are recommended to improve ruminant production. In some traditional societies in Ghana, although women and children own and take care of small ruminants, disposal, additions, building of shelters, and others are decided with the final approval of the household head or husband or father. The role of males and household heads in transferring and adopting technologies is, therefore, critical.
High levels of illiteracy among livestock keepers may hinder effective extension work, constraining the assimilation of new technology likely to improve ruminant production.
Most respondents indicated that their major occupation was crop farming. However, nearly all Most respondents generally had crop farming as a main occupation, which emphasises that livestock production is a subsidiary enterprise. This confirms the assertion by Oyenuga (1968) that animal production is "a low labour input and a low priority adjunct to arable and cash crop farming". Ntifo-Siaw & Ghartey (1988) and Turkson (1992) have also noted that livestock production in Ghana is a secondary occupation of the rural farmer.
Ownership of an animal is important as it allows better decision-making concerning the needs of the animal. When animals in a herd are owned by various people, the herdsman or keeper has difficulty deciding on his own without first consulting the owners, thereby delaying responses. In this study, the proportions owning their animals were significantly higher.
The differences in the mean numbers of the major species kept by the three types of livestock keepers were significant (P<0.05). Compared to other studies, the average numbers of animals owned by the respondents were significantly higher. Turkson (1992) and the World Bank (1992) reported averages of nine cattle per owner and 7 to 10 sheep or goats per owner in Ghana. The higher average numbers in this study was as a result of the purposive classification into sheep, goat and cattle farmers, based on which species of ruminant the respondent kept in larger number. There were significant differences between the three types of livestock keepers, from years of experience. Sheep and goat farmers tended to be more recent entrants to livestock production compared to cattle farmers, because traditionally animal rearing starts with a smaller animal.
Significant differences were recorded between the types of livestock keepers regarding keeping livestock to support crop farming, as a business investment, or to generate income (Table I).
Significantly higher proportions of sheep and cattle farmers kept livestock to support crop farming. The findings of this study do not support the assertion that livestock owners do not view their animals as commercial entities. The major reasons for keeping livestock may be broadly grouped into economic (to provide financial security, to support crop farming, to generate income, and as business investment) and cultural (for use in funeral and marriage ceremonies). Winrock International (1992) noted that livestock significantly improve the stability of farm enterprises by serving as living banks of capital, providing financial reserves during economic stress, and by acting as a buffer against crop failure in storing potential energy that can be eaten during food shortage. The cultural reasons involved use of livestock for social celebrations. Reijntjes et al. (1992) reported similar findings.
The reasons for choosing ruminant species could be broadly grouped into animal characteristics (prolificacy, docility), economic gains (supporting crop farming), or providing financial security. From Table 2, sheep were chosen for rearing more for their docility and ease of handling, while goats were chosen more for prolificacy. According to Upton (1985), goats are more prolific, but sheep are bigger, heavier and experience lower mortalities, while fetching a higher price. Cattle were chosen mainly to support crop farming.
Goat farmers significantly practised the extensive system compared to sheep and cattle farmers who used the semi-intensive system more significantly. In this study, the semi-intensive system was defined as a system in which animals were confined during part of the day and released later to be herded or to graze on their own. Few respondents kept ruminants under the intensive system in which they were confined at all times. Goats were perceived by the owners as hardier and able to fend for themselves better, making them survive well under the extensive system involving roaming about on their own always. Sheep and cattle were more likely to be in a semiintensive system. Sumberg & Cassaday (1985) explained that because of their propensity to wander and damage crops, sheep in South-western Nigeria were often tied or tethered during the cropping season, if they were under the extensive system. Systems for managing livestock may directly or indirectly constrain production. For instance, the morbidity rate for mange mite infestation in free-roaming goats (extensive system) in Nigeria was 23 per cent (Adeoye, 1985), compared to 5 per cent in confined goats regularly washed with acaricide in a similar environment in Nigeria (Smith et al., 1988). Armbruster & Peters (1993) noted that improved management reduced early and high losses in West African dwarf goats.
Shelter is important to protect against inclement weather. Inappropriate or inadequate shelter is a recognised risk factor for respiratory diseases, especially during the rainy season. Significantly more sheep and goat farmers provided shelter for their animals, compared to cattle farmers. Because cattle are comparatively larger and, therefore, costs involved in providing shelter are prohibitive, compared to the lower costs for smaller ruminants. Also, traditionally, cattle have been kept in kraals, rather than in permanent structures with roofs. In some communities, cattle are kept and moved around in kraals on crop fields close to the homes to provide dung for fertilising the fields.
The top five perceived constraints to ruminant production were diseases, housing, dry-season feeding, lack of or high cost of inputs such as drugs, and stock theft. These were similar to the major factors mentioned by livestock keepers as their primary problem (Table 4). For cattle farmers, dry-season feeding was third after diseases and housing. Similar findings have been reported by Hanssen & Autreve (1989), Turkson (1992), Adam et al. (1995), and Okali (1989). These factors may directly or indirectly affect the health and wellbeing of the animal, and may constrain productivity and production (Winrock International, 1992).
Diseases, especially helminthiasis and ectoparasite infestation, are widespread in tropical Africa and seriously limit the productivity of ruminants (Otchere, 1986). Gyening (1986b) noted the importance of some of these diseases as constraints to livestock production in Ghana. The need is to strengthen the delivery of veterinary services to reduce the threat of disease.
Dry-season feeding is a major problem because of the lack of fodder and forage during the long dry spell from about November to April each year, with animals losing weight and having to travel longer distances in search of food. Food quality is a major problem in the sub-humid zone of Africa where native fodders are of poor quality whilst dry-season feeds are extremely low in protein (Winrock International, 1992). A suggestion is to develop year-round feed supply based on native and improved pastures, residues and by-products of locally grown crops, cultivated legumes and forages, locally grown high-protein feeds and other feed crops adapted to an agro-ecological zone.
Stock theft may discourage livestock production. Complaints of theft similar to those the respondents mentioned have been reported elsewhere in cattle and small ruminants in the Central and Volta regions of Ghana (Amezah, Antwi & Humado, 1989;Turkson, 1992).
Mitigating programmes or packages to address some constraints identified in this study could be designed to meet the needs of the farmer. To meet these needs appropriately, the respondents suggested what they perceived as beneficial assistance. All three types of livestock keepers ranked provision of drugs, availability of loans from banks or government, and provision of breeding males or improved breeds above all other factors. These should be targeted as the basis of a package geared toward improving ruminant production in the study area.

Conclusion
The study has shown that the background and perceptions of sheep, goat and cattle farmers differed significantly in main occupation, average numbers of animals kept, years of experience, management systems practised, and some reasons for keeping of and choice of livestock species. However, their perceptions on constraints were not significantly different. Also, most perceptions on beneficial assistance were similar. Therefore, to a large extent, a general model for improving ruminants, rather than a species-specific model, could be developed to address issues concerning constraints to ruminant production in East Mamprusi District.