Advertisement

Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 50, Issue 7, pp 1519–1527 | Cite as

A comparison of economic performance between high-yielding temperate breeds and zebu-crossbreds on smallholder dairy farms in Southern Malawi with particular focus on reproductive performance

  • Christian GazzarinEmail author
  • M. C. Banda
  • M. Lips
Regular Articles

Abstract

As in other sub-Saharan African countries, purebred dairy genetics such as Holsteins were imported to Malawi. The study investigated their economic performance by comparing them with local Zebu-crossbreds based on 131 smallholder dairy farm observations from Southern Malawi. High-yielding purebred cows and crossbred cows showed no significant differences in lactation yield and calving interval. Looking at the farms’ actual costs, by-products such as maize bran clearly dominated the cost structure for both breeds, but crossbreeds showed significantly lower concentrate costs. While there was no statistically significant difference in income for both breed types, a substantial share (23%) of farms under investigation shows negative incomes. Based on survey data, two typical farms were established representing standard costs with homogenous assumptions such as identical milk price. The comparison of typical farms covering the full dairy system clearly indicated that crossbred dairy cows outperformed purebreds. In addition, a simulation of a shorter calving interval for both typical farms revealed a substantial positive impact on income for both breed types with more than 30% increase. We conclude that focusing on crossbreds in combination with improved feeding and fertility management offers a more promising strategy for smallholder dairy farms in Southern Malawi than just acquiring high-yielding purebreds.

Keywords

Smallholder dairy production Breed type Malawi Reproductive performance Profitability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the Department of Agricultural Research Services (DARS) and Lilongwe University of Agricultural and Natural Resources (LUANAR) together with their staff for conducting the survey in Malawi, especially Dr. Fanny Chigwa and Daniel Chiumia. This study was supported by Swiss Agency for Development for Cooperation (SDC), Switzerland and Royal Museum of Central Africa, Belgium in the frame of an ERA-ARD Project (“Improving rural livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa: Sustainable and climate-smart intensification of agricultural production”).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Agar, J. and T.L. Donaldson. 2012. Final Evaluation of the Malawi Dairy Development Alliance Land O’Lakes Malawi. Final Report. Google Scholar
  2. Banda, L. 1996. Evaluation of the productive and reproductive performances of Friesian x Zebu and Jersey X Zebu crossbred cattle at Bunda College farm in Malawi. Malawi Journal of Science and Technology, 3(1), 25–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banda, L., T. Gondwe, W. Gausi, C. Masangano, P. Fatch, K. Wellard, J.W. Banda and E.W. Kaunda. 2011. Challenges and opportunities of smallholder dairy production systems: A case study of selected districts in Malawi. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 23, 226.Google Scholar
  4. Banda, L. J., L.A. Kamwanja, M.G.G. Chagunda, C.J. Ashworth and D.J. Roberts. 2012a. Status of dairy cow management and fertility in smallholder farms in Malawi. Tropical animal health and production, 44(4), 715–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Banda, L., T. Gondwe and M.G.G. Chagunda. 2012b. Dairy cow fertility in Malawi. Included in: Chagunda et al. (2012), Smallholder Dairy Production in Malawi: Current status and future solutions. Optimising Smallholder Dairying project, funded by Scottish Government.Google Scholar
  6. Banda, M.C., F. Chigwa and D. Chiumia. 2016. Developing and evaluating sustainable integrated farming systems for improvement of smallholder dairy production in milk-shed areas of Malawi—baseline survey report of IFS-SMADAP Project (unpublished).Google Scholar
  7. Baur, I., M.C. Banda, C. Gazzarin and M. Lips. 2017. The determinants of the performance of dairy smallholders in Malawi. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics. Vol. 118 No. 1 (2017) 59–68.Google Scholar
  8. Chagunda, M., E. Bruns, J. King and C. Wollny. 2004. Evaluation of the breeding strategy for milk yield of Holstein Friesian cows on large-scale dairy farms in Malawi. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 142(05), 595–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chenyambuga, S.W. and K.F. Mseleko. 2009. Reproductive and lactation performances of Ayrshire and Boran crossbred cattle kept in smallholder farms in Mufindi District, Tanzania. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 21100. Retrieved March 21, 2016, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd21/7/chen21100.htm.
  10. Chindime, S., Kibwika, P. and Chagunda, M. 2017. Determinants of sustainable innovation performance by smallholder dairy farmers in Malawi, Cogent Food & Agriculture, 3, 1379292,  https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1379292 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DAHLD (2010). National livestock census, Department of Animal Health and Livestock Development, Lilongwe.Google Scholar
  12. Duguma, B., Y. Kechero and G.P.J. Janssens. 2012. Productive and reproductive performance of Zebu x Holstein-Friesian crossbred dairy cows in Jimma Town, Oromia, Ethiopia. Global Veterinaria 8 (1): 67–72.Google Scholar
  13. FAO, IDF and IFCN. 2014. World mapping of animal feeding systems in the dairy sector, Food and Agriculture Organization, International Dairy Federation and the International Farm Comparison Network, Rome.Google Scholar
  14. Gondwe, T. 2012. Dairy cattle breeding in Malawi. Included in: Chagunda et al. (2012), Smallholder Dairy Production in Malawi: Current status and future solutions. Optimising Smallholder Dairying project, funded by Scottish Government.Google Scholar
  15. Haggblade, S., and P.B. Hazell. 2010. Successes in African Agriculture: Lessons for the future. Baltimore: John Hopkins University for the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).Google Scholar
  16. Heins, B.J., L.B. Hansen and A.J. Seykora. 2006. Fertility and Survival of Pure Holsteins versus Crossbreds of Holstein with Normande, Montbeliards and Scandinavian Red. Journal of Dairy Science Volume 89, Issue 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heins, B.J., L.B. Hansen, A.J. Seykora, D.G. Johnson, J.G. Linn, J.E. Romano and A.R. Hazel. 2008. Crossbreds of Jersey × Holstein Compared with Pure Holsteins for Production, Fertility, and Body and Udder Measurements During First Lactation. Journal of Dairy Science Volume 91, Issue 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hemme, T. 2000. Concept for international analysis of the policy and technology impacts in agriculture, International Farm Comparison Network, IFCN Dairy Research Center, Kiel.Google Scholar
  19. Hüttner, K. 2000. Impact Assessment of a Community-based Animal Health Service Program in Northern Malawi. PhD thesis, Massey University. Retrieved March 23, 2016, from https://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Colleges/College%20of%20Sciences/Epicenter/docs/KlimHuttnerMVS.pdf?160A1EAB97B5868BA3DC4035C2054BAA.
  20. King, J., D.J. Parsons, J. Turnpenny, J. Nyangaga, P. Bakari and C. Wathes. 2006. Modelling energy metabolism of Friesians in Kenya smallholdings shows how heat stress and energy deficit constrain milk yield and cow replacement rate. Animal Science, 82(05), 705–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kiwuwa, G.H., J.C.M. Trail, M.Y. Kurtu, G. Worku, F. Anderson, J. Durkin. 1986. Productivité de bovins laitiers métis dans la région d’Arsi en Ethiopie, ILRI (aka ILCA and ILRAD).Google Scholar
  22. Madalena, F.E., A.M. Lemos, R.L. Teodoro, R.T. Barbosa and J.B.N. Monteiro. 1990. Dairy Production and Reproduction in Holstein-Friesian and Guzera Crosses, Journal of Dairy Science Volume 73, Issue 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Madalena F.E. 1993a. La utilización sostenible de hembras F1 en la producción del ganado lechero tropical. Estudio FAO No 111 Producción y Sanidad Animal, FAO, Rome. 87p.Google Scholar
  24. Madalena, F.E. 1993b. A simple scheme to utilize heterosis in tropical dairy cattle, World Animal Review 74/75, 17–25.Google Scholar
  25. Mburu, L.M., K.W. Gitu and J.W. Wakhungu. 2007. A cost-benefit analysis of smallholder dairy cattle enterprises in different agro-ecological zones in Kenya highlands. Livestock research for rural development 19 (95). Retrieved March 23, 2016, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/7/mbur19095.htm.
  26. McDowell, R.E. 1985. Crossbreeding in Tropical Areas with Emphasis on Milk, Health, and Fitness. Journal of Dairy Science Volume 68, Issue 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muller, C.J.C., J.P. Potgieter, S.W.P. Cloete and J.A. Botha. 2014. Reproductive performance of Holstein and Jersey heifers and cows in pasture-based system in South Africa. Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Breed. Genet. 21: 290–293Google Scholar
  28. Mwale, S., C. Wollny, J. Banda, M. Chagunda and E. Bruns. 1999. Evaluation of Malawi Zebu and its crosses on smallholder dairy farms in Mzuzu, Northern Malawi. Deutscher Tropentag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  29. Nyekanyeka, T. 2011. Analysis of profitability and efficiency of improved and local smallholder dairy production: A case of Lilongwe milk shed area. Master thesis, LUANAR, Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources.Google Scholar
  30. Perera, O. 1999. Management of Reproduction. In: L. Falvey and C. Chantalakhana (eds), Smallholder Dairying in the Tropics (International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi), 241–264.Google Scholar
  31. Piccand, V., E. Cutullic, F. Schori, P. Kunz, J. Troxler, M. Wanner and P. Thomet. 2011. Comparison of Swiss breeds with New Zealand Holstein-Friesian in pasture-based, seasonal-calving systems. Grassland Science in Europe, Vol. 16.Google Scholar
  32. Rawlins, R., S. Pimkina, C.B. Barret, S. Pedersen and B. Wydick. 2014. Got milk? The impact of Heifer International’s livestock donation programs in Rwanda on nutritional outcomes. Food Policy 44: 202–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sattar, A., R.H. Mirza, A.A.K. Niazi and M. Latif. 2005. Productive and reproductive performance of Holstein Frisian cows in Pakistan. Pakistan Veterinary Journal 25(2):75–81.Google Scholar
  34. Sokouri, D., Z.L. Gbodjo, K.E. N'goran and B. Soro. 2014. Performances de reproduction et production laitière de croisés Montbéliarde x N’Dama du “Projet Laitier Sud”(Côte d’Ivoire). International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 8(3), 925–936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Staal, S. J., Waithaka, M., Njoroge, L., Mwangi, D. M., Njubi, D. and Wokabi, A. 2003. Costs of milk production in Kenya: estimates from Kiambu, Nakuru and Nyandarua districts. Smallholder Dairy Project, International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi.Google Scholar
  36. Tadesse, M. and T. Dessie. 2003. Milk production performance of Zebu, Holstein Friesian and their crosses in Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development (15) 3.Google Scholar
  37. Tebug, S. F., G.R. Njunga, M.G.G. Chagunda and S. Wiedemann. 2012. Health Constraints and Farm Management Factors Influencing Udder Health of Dairy Cows in Malawi. Journal of Agricultural Science, Vol. 4, No. 6.Google Scholar
  38. Toure, A., N. Moula, A. Kouriba, B. Traore, P. Leroy and N. Antoine-Moussiaux. 2015. Dairy farms typology and management of animal genetic resources in the peri-urban zone of Bamako (Mali). Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics (JARTS), 116(1), 37–47.Google Scholar
  39. Van Schaik, G., B.D. Perry, A.W. Mukhebi, G.K. Gitau and A.A. Dijkhuizen. 1996. An economic study of smallholder dairy farms in Murang'a District, Kenya. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 29 (1): 21–36. Retrieved March 23, 2016, from https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/29498 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vaccaro, L.P. de. 1990. Survival of European dairy breeds and their crosses with zebus in the tropics. Animal Breeding Abstracts, Vol. 58, No. 6, pp. 475–494.Google Scholar
  41. Wathes, D.C., V.J. Taylor, Z. Cheng and G.E. Mann. 2003. Follicle growth, corpus luteum function and their effects on embryo development in the post partum cow. Reproduction 61: (suppl.) 219–237.Google Scholar
  42. Yifat, D., B. Kelay, M. Bekana, F. Lobago, H. Gustafsson and H. Kindahl. 2009. Study on reproductive performance of crossbred dairy cattle under smallholder conditions in and around Zeway, Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 21088. Retrieved March 21, 2016, http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd21/6/yifa21088.htm

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AgroscopeEttenhausenSwitzerland
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural Research Services (DARS)Ministry of Agriculture and Food SecurityLilongweMalawi

Personalised recommendations