adminLivestock, particularly cattle, has immense commercial and consumptive value; they are sold for pecuniary gain and slaughtered for the pot. Perceptions of their commercial value are fairly recent though, coming as they arguably did with the advent of the monetised economy after 1890 as it relates to Zimbabwe. Their consumptive value is as old as humanity because beef is an ancient delicacy for a majority of Zimbabweans.
In addition to the above is their social utility in traditional Zimbabwean communities. In these communities it is cattle’s social value that is paramount. Here the cattle owner is so emotionally attached to his herd that even if he has no money or food, he would not sell it for cash or kill it for its beef. Only as a last resort would he sell or kill it, reluctantly. In this context, it is regrettable when a situation arises such as the one in Matabeleland South where livestock is in real danger given the lack of pasture caused by yet another poor rainfall season.
Farmers are in danger of losing their animals through starvation and with that their commercial, consumptive and social value. In the province, cattle owners are looking around for options to save their livestock but are failing to get any. Many of the alternatives are too costly, and others are simply impracticable. Buying supplementary feeding is unaffordable to most while translocation is equally impossible because the province is quarantined.
What remains as an option is for the Government to declare the situation in the province a national disaster as Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers’ Union president, Mr Donald Khumalo, suggested. If the Government does this, cattle owners hope it would, as such a declaration ordinarily entails, stimulate broader action from not only the State but also development partners to step in to save the stricken livestock.
We don’t see any other option. Farmers are in a crisis but most are too poor to buy feed for their cattle, at the same time they cannot, in terms of the regulations of quarantine, translocate their animals to areas where there is enough grazing. So, as it stands, mobilising resources to feed the animals where they already are is the way to go. Non-governmental organisations have helped save human lives during food crises before; they can be called upon once again to save livestock. It is possible that they and their funders might not see this as urgent enough and resultantly fail to respond positively. This can happen but there is no harm in seeking assistance where it can be obtained because there is a possibility that some help can indeed, come from that end.
Development partners can provide resources, but the Government must play a lead role in channelling resources to the farmers in need. We do not expect authorities to plead poverty on this one because what is in danger is not just animal life, but also human livelihoods and ultimately the national economy.
On another note, we appreciate the reasons why the quarantine was imposed on cattle in the province, but is it not also important for the Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development to reconsider the ban so as to fully respond to the obtaining crisis? The ban can be lifted, carefully that is, as part of the range of measures to stop a disaster in Matabeleland South.
But in recent years there has been a kind of permanent emergency in the province as it relates to livestock and human welfare. This calls for the Government, its partners and farmers themselves to always think ahead. Cattle production can and must be re-looked at in the province and similar marginal zones like Masvingo and Midlands to provide reserve paddocks to feed the animals when crisis strikes.
Destocking can be done. Considering the value cattle owners attach to their herds, this can be a challenge to implement but why not when there would come a time when nature does it on behalf of farmers when their cattle starve as they watch?
Londile Moyo
Bongani Ndlovu