Proceedings Buffalo Workshop December  2001

http://www.mekarn.org/procbuf/skun.htm

Changes of Cattle and Buffalo Production in Village Farming Systems and Their Long-term
Impacts on Buffalo Raising

 

P Skunmun, T  Poondusit, A Koga* and C Chantalakhana
 

Buffalo and Beef Production R&D Center, Suwanvajokkasikit Animal R&D Institute

 Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand

*Institute of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Tsukuba, Japan
 

 

Abstract

 

Cattle and buffalo populations in Thailand which were mostly integrated in village farming systems have drastically declined since the last decade, especially the buffalo population.  This study aimed to investigate factors that caused changes in animal populations and their long-term impacts on buffalo raising.  Two villages in Northeast Thailand having different farming systems were studied.  One was a  lowland village occupied mostly by paddy rice, and another was mixed lowland-upland village mainly consisted of paddy rice and field crops. 

 

The findings showed that during 1992 and 2000 the two villages faced with dramatically high reduction in numbers of buffalo raising households (39 to 50%).   A moderate decline of cattle raising households (12%) was in lowland village, but 2% increase of those in mixed lowland-upland village.  The reduction in buffalo number was severely high in both villages (7-9.5% per year); but that in cattle number was 2.8% in lowland village, while lowland-upland village had opposite direction (5.1% increase).  Opinions concerning the decline of buffalo raising of the two villagers were drawn.  Factors affecting the changes in cattle and buffalo production and their long-term impacts on buffalo raising were classified as internal, external and animal factors. Internal factors were the role of mechanization, farmers’debts, lack of household labor, grazing area and breedable bull, and attitude of young generation towards buffalo raising.  External factors included government policies and socioeconomic factors. Animal factor was the difference in heat tolerance between cattle and buffalo.

 

Limitations of smallholder farmers in keeping buffaloes for production and uses in village farming systems from this study might be an example for government sector to consider means to tackle the problems concerning the decline in buffalo numbers.

Key words: Buffaloes, cattle, villages, farming systems 

 

Introduction

 

Commonly cattle and buffalo have been integrated in crop-animal production systems of small farms in which crops are the major component.  According to the statistics of the Department of Livestock Development (Section of Livestock Economics 1999), the numbers of cattle and buffalo dramatically decreased during 1994 to 1999, from 7.40 to 4.63 million head for cattle and from 4.22 to 1.80 million head for buffalo, due to high demand of beef for human consumption.  The rate of decline was greater in buffalo (11.48% per year) than in cattle (7.48% per year).

A case study of two villages in the Northeast of Thailand by Bunyavejchewin et al. (1995) pointed out that the promotion of mechanization on small farms was one of the major factors for the transition of draught buffalo to hand tractor, no matter how high the cost of farming was.  Thereby, many small farmers kept a limited number of buffaloes for other uses, e.g. manure for fertilizer and live animals for sale, but some gave up buffalo raising.  Due to the economic crisis in Thailand in 1997, the exchange rate of the baht reduced by almost a half, along with high price of imported fuels, chemical fertilizers, and spare parts of mechanical tools the costs of small farm production had increased substantially.  Moreover the changes of buffalo and cattle production in village farming systems may have an impact on the conservation and use of Thai swamp buffalo through crop-animal production systems.  There is an urgent need to understand the real causes of decrease in buffalo population in order to find ways to slow down the declining. 

 

This paper, therefore, presents the results of an investigation on the causes that affected changes in cattle and buffalo production of small farmers in two different village farming systems; lowland and mixed lowland-upland, in rain-fed area of Surin province in Northeast Thailand, and their long-term impacts on buffalo raising. 

Socio-economic Aspects of Two Villages

Village description

Two villages in Surin province having topographical differences, lowland and mixed lowland-upland, were selected to represent two typical farming systems prevalent in the lower-northeast region of Thailand. Farmers in these villages depended on rainfall, normally from May to October, for crop production.  Buffalo and cattle were integral parts of their farming systems.  Research findings from the two villages in the past were reported by Chantalakhana et al. (1991) and Bunyavejchewin et al. (1995), whose information on village farming systems was used to compare with this study. Details of the two villages are given in Table 1. 

 

Lowland village (LV): In the year 2000, there were 139 households (HHs), of which 65% grew crop, mainly rice.  Most farmers used hand tractors for land preparation.  Thirty-four percent of total HHs raised some swamp buffalo; the average was 0.8 head per HH and the total 116. The percentage of HHs raising cattle was 37, the average was 1.1 head per HH and the total 150.  There were some backyard pigs and poultry (ducks and chickens) in the village.  Besides income from crops and livestock, villagers earned additional income from off-farm employment.

Mixed lowland-upland village (UV): In the year 2000, the total number of HH in this village was 96, of which 78% grew crops the whole year round.  Most farmers used hand tractors for land preparation.  The major crops, offering main income of the HH, were rice, Chinese radish, maize and groundnut.  The total number of buffaloes in the village was 68 raised by 37% of total HH, the average was 0.6 head per HH.  The total number of cattle was 365, of which more than five times of buffalo, raised by 75% of total HH with the average of 3.3 head per HH.  Other livestock in the villages were the same kinds as in LV but in different percentages. 

Village economy

This study used the “debts” of villagers as an indicator to assess the economy of the two villages in general.  Credits were made from different sources as shown in Table 2.  Regardless of any occasional loans like Miyazawa, BAAC (Bank of Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives) was the major source of credits for the villagers.  In 1999, two major reasons of villagers in crediting were for cropping and HH expenses.  It was noted that other reasons included the purchase of hand tractors, pick-up trucks and land by both villagers; the expenses in livestock business, homestead repairing as well as an investment for small trading.  While kinds of crops grown in the two villages were not much different from the past 9 and 12 years, the annual income of most villagers could not cover HH expenses and the investment of cropping in the next season.

 

Changes in some socioeconomic characteristics of two villages

Socioeconomic characteristics of the two villages in this study (Table 1) were data collected in the year 2000, as compared with those described by Chantalakhana et al. (1991) and Bunyavajchewin et al. (1995) of which data were collected in the respective years of 1988 and 1992.  Differences in some characteristics among the three periods (the years 2000, 1992 and 1988) were pointed out and shown in Table 3. 

.

Table 3.  Differences in some characteristics of two villages in 2000, 1992 and  1988
Characteristics	Lowland			Lowland-Upland
	Y2000	Y19921	Y19882	Y2000	Y1992	Y1988
Total no. of HHs	139	121	115	96	96	90
Ave. members per HH	4.3	4.4	5.0	4.5	4.9	4.9
Land holding, rai	11.8	20.2	-	12.6	18.1	-
No. of HH growing crops, %	65	98	~100	78	98	~100
No. of  HH raising
- buffalo	34	73	73	27	79	88
- cattle	37	49	-	75	73	-
No. of hand tractors holding	36	19	4	49	28	2
1 Bunyavejchewin et al. (1995),   2  Chantalakhana  et al. (1991)

       

With an increase in village population during 12 years (1988-2000), the new households were registered at the rate of 2.2 HHs/year in LV which was higher than that of UV (0.5 HH/year).  The rate of increase in UV had been steady for the last 8 years (1992-2000).  The average HH members and land holding in this study decreased from the two comparative years, faster rate was found in LV than in UV.  For agricultural activities, villagers involved in crop production were relatively 22-35% lower than twelve years ago.  Within 12 years (1988 to 2000) the percentage of HHs raising buffalo declined from 73 to 34 in LV and 88 to 27 in UV; while LV had 12% decrease in the numbers of HH raising cattle, but UV had 2% increase in that.  On the contrary, the number of hand tractors dramatically increased in the two villages during the same period.

 

Cattle and Buffalo Production of Farmers and Their Changes

Practices in cattle and buffalo production of villager

Generally, cattle and buffalo in the two villages have been integrated in crop-animal production systems of small farms.  Farmers have utilized manure from the animals as fertilizer for crop growing, while crop residues from the fields, especially rice field, have been used as animal feeds.  The use of draught buffalo for land preparation in the year 2000 was uncommon in the villages due to the replacement by mechanization.  Practices in animal husbandry of the two villagers were similar.  During dry season cattle and buffalo were tethering mainly in rice fields after harvest, their major feeds were rice stubble and green grass.  Rainy season was the period in which animal feeds were scarce, since the fields were mostly covered with crops.  Most farmers tethered their animals in some specifically available areas in the fields (94-96% of HH raising animals) or in their garden (35-47%).  Straw feeding, and cut and carry of green grasses, corn stover or other vines for animals during this season were commonly practiced.

In the year 2000, cattle were raised more in UV than in LV (365 vs 150 head).  Native cattle and crossbreds of native and Brahman at different blood levels were the major breeds in the two villages.  The number of cattle classified by breed, sex and age were shown in Table 4, in which breedable females shared the greatest percentages in herd composition of both villages.  It was noted that LV had no breedable bull, while UV had two. 

Table 4.  Numbers of cattle and buffalo in two villages classified by breed, sex and age in  the year 2000.
	Lowland			Lowland-Upland
	Native	Crossbred	Total	Native	Crossbred	Total
Total no. of cattle, head			150			365
Breedable male, %	0	0	0	0	2	2
Breedable female, %	28	19	47	22	25	47
Young bull 3, %	5	8	13	2	10	12
Heifer3, %	5	6	11	4	12	16
Young male4, %	3	11	14	4	8	12
Young female4, %	11	4	15	2	9	11
Total no. of buffaloes, head			116			68
Breedable male, %	0	0	0	0	0	0
Breedable female, %	47	12	48	50	0	50
Young bull, %	14	0	14	12	0	12
Heifer, %	15	0	15	15	0	15
Young male, %	11	0	11	13	12	14
Young female, %	12	0	12	9	0	9
1  Crossbred of native and Brahman at different blood levels. 2  Crossbred of native and Murrah. 3  1-3 years, 4 < 1 year.

 

 

The total numbers of buffaloes in LV (116) and UV (68) were smaller than those of cattle, and LV had approximately 40% higher than UV.  Similar to cattle, breedable females shared the greatest proportion in village herds, 48% and 50% in LV and UV (Table 4).  Surprisingly, no breedable buffalo bull was available at the time of data collection. The Department of Livestock Development has had a buffalo bull loan program for farmer groups since 1995 (Skunmun et al. 1998), the two villages might not have sufficient number of cows to get a loan bull. 

Changes in numbers of cattle and buffalo

The numbers of cattle and buffalo in the years 1988, 1992 and 2000 were compared in Table 5.   During 1988 and 1992 cattle number went up and down in the opposite direction to the change in buffalo number, while the total numbers of animals during that time period were rather steady; 460 head in LV and 537-547 head in UV.  From 1992 to 2000, the reduction rate of buffaloes was remarkably high, 7% and 9.5% per year in LV and UV.  In the case of cattle, LV had decreasing numbers at 2.8% per year, but increasing rate of 5.1% was found in UV.  It was evident in the same period of time that most of the farmers in the two villages shifted power use from draught buffalo to mechanization almost totally (Table 5).  In the year 2000, buffalo holding per total HH was only 0.8 in LV and 0.6 in UV; while cattle holding was higher, 1.1 and 3.3 in LV and UV. 

Table 5.  Differences in characteristics of cattle and buffalo production in the years 2000, 1992 and 1988.
	Lowland			Lowland-Upland
	Y2000	Y1992	Y1988	Y2000	Y1992	Y1988
Cattle
Total number, head	150	194	170	365	259	273
Ave. numbers per HH, head1	1.1	1.6	1.4	3.3	2.7	3.0
Buffalo
Total number, head	116	266	290	68	288	264
Ave. numbers per HH, head1	0.8	2.2	2.2	0.6	3.0	3.2
Power sources for tillage2
HH using buffalo, %3	4	36	97	1	6	98
HH using buffalo and tractor, %	9	32	0	2	43	0
HH using tractor, %	87	30	3	96	49	2
1  Averaged from total number of HHs. 2  Only HHs which had their own cropping activities. 3  Percentage of total HHs growing crops.

 

 

Villagers’ Opinions on Decline of Buffalo Raising

 

Opinions concerning the decline of buffalo raising of villagers drawn from every HH in the two villages were made by interviewing.  Results thereby come out as follows.

 

1.  Role of buffalo.  Most respondents still considered that buffalo had important roles for villagers.  Firstly buffalo was an important source of saving (92-99% of respondents), the females could give calves and farmers would be able to turn growing ones to needy cash.  Secondly buffalo manure made soil fertile which could maintain crop productivity (94% of respondents).  And thirdly, smaller proportion of respondents (35-43%) realized that the cost of crop production would be reduced, if buffalo remained as the integral part in the systems.

2.  Why did greater proportion of villagers give up buffalo raising?  Although most villagers considered that buffalo was one of important commodities for village economy, the dramatic reduction of buffalo raising in the two villages was evident.  Fifty-three and 69 farmers in LV and UV who gave up buffalo raising within the last 5 years (1996 to 2000) were interviewed to find causes. Respondents raised three principal reasons for that from high to low i.e. due to the lack of family labor, the sale of buffaloes for needy cash to cover HH expenses, and the use of hand tractor for land preparation.  In addition some villagers mentioned the reasons of having off-farm employment, the lack of grazing land as well as going out of agricultural sector, then, no need to keep buffalo.

3. Possibility for turning back to buffalo raising. Results from 90 and 79 respondents in LV and UV revealed that only 39% of both groups wanted to turn back to integrate buffalo in crop-animal production systems, but greater percentage or 61% refused to keep buffalo.  Three major reasons for the positive group were that buffalo calves would be additional income for HH, buffalo manure could lower the cost of cropping, and a need to turning back the use of buffalo for draught.  However, the other group who refused buffalo raising was due to lacking HH labor and grazing land (in UV), while cattle raising was preferred to buffalo raising, and working in construction company was much more desirable (in LV).

4.  Buffalo raising in the future. At the time of data collection, 48 and 27 HHs keeping buffaloes in LV and UV were left, of which 96 and 90% insisted to go on raising buffalo for future uses.  Moreover, they had capability to increase a few numbers on-farm. Anticipation of all villagers towards buffalo raising in the next 5 and 10 years was drawn. An equal 7% of total HHs in the two villages believed that buffalo would go towards extinction within the next 5 years because the sale of buffalo for cash was still going on.  The percentage of such belief was found to be 14% and 22% in LV and UV that buffalo raising would end within the next 10 years, due to the fact that it would come to an end of old generations which highly valued buffalo for agricultural activities.

5. How to slow down the decline of buffalo raising. Villagers presented their views in the resolution of declining buffalo raising. 

• Most of them pinpointed to the role of government in this matter.  Seventy-two to 80% of villagers said that government should take action in supports of buffaloes to enable farmers who really wanted to increase some numbers on-farm as well as to assist farmers who intended to return to raising buffaloes.                                                                          

•  Few percentages of villagers suggested that large-scale buffalo raising should be promoted as commercial production.

•  Campaigns for uses of buffaloes on small farms in rural rainfed areas as practiced in the previous time should be made (3-5%).                                   

•   Less than 1% of villagers mentioned that there should be an effective measure from the government to prohibit the sale of pregnant buffaloes to any persons who would take them for slaughter.

 

 

Factors Affecting Changes in Cattle and Buffalo Production and Their Long-term Impacts on Buffalo Raising

 

The findings in the earlier sections showed a trend of transition from buffalo raising to cattle raising by farmers in the two villages.  As a matter of fact both animals were complementary to crop production, but higher percentage of villagers chose to keep cattle instead of buffalo on-farm when decision making had to be made.  Factors affecting changes in cattle and buffalo production and their long-term impacts on buffalo raising were identified through data compiled from the two villages as well as from authors’ observations.  These push factors were classified as internal, external and animal factors. 

Internal factors

1)   Mechanization.  The role of mechanization for agricultural activities in the villages was prominent, while buffalo was no longer used.

2)   Farmers’ debts.  The debt situation of farmers at the time of this study comparing to the year 1992 was more serious (see Table 2).  It might be due to more expenses for external inputs were used in agriculture e.g. the purchase of hand tractor, chemical fertilizer, hiring off-farm labor, etc.

3)   Lack of HH labor.  Due to seasonal migration of younger members of HHs at working age to work in industrial sector or in construction company, the labor remained in the HH was elder members.  Not enough family labor was used to tend buffalo.

4)   Lack of grazing area.  Average land holding of villagers was decreasing (see Table 1) and limited land for grazing during cropping season pushed the villagers to keep limited numbers of large animals on-farm.  Their first choice was to sell some buffalo out.

5)   Lack of breedable bull.  It was evident that the breedable bull was not available in the villages.  Female buffaloes missed some chance to be bred which affected the number of calves to be born.

6)   Attitude of young generation towards buffalo raising.  The young generation in the villages preferred to raise cattle than buffalo.  Raising buffalo for HH income and agricultural activities was seen as the backward way of life, while high technology was available. 

External factors

1)   Government policies. 

• For the last two decade government policy was to promote tractor use in small farm systems as well as credit given to farmers through the BAAC (Bank of Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives) with certain conditions for the purchase.  Without any feasibility study of how suitable the hand tractor was for use by small-scale farmers under village circumstance, some farmers were heavily in debt (Bunyavejchewin et al. 1995). 

• The policy on cattle raising has been promoted for many years, but the promotion for buffalo raising has just started. 

•  A large scale of monocropping promoted in some areas caused a change from crop-animal production systems to monocropping.  Therefore buffalo which used to be integrated in the systems was disappeared.

2)      Socioeconomic factors.

• Price of buffalo.  At the time of this study the supply of live buffaloes did not meet the demand within the country which pulled the price of buffalo to go up and could be comparable to that of crossbred cattle.  It was a difficult situation for small farmers who wanted to buy some buffalo back to their farms because they could not afford that.

• Changes in agricultural culture.  Formerly villagers took turn in giving hands for agricultural activities.  That practice was mostly disappeared, but hiring a set of labors from outside came into a picture.  Then buffalo was sold out for cash expenses.

• Social value.  Tractor ownership was regarded as an indicator of high socioeconomic status comparing to buffalo holding.  Little thought was given to the economic use of hand tractor and draught buffalo.

• Job opportunity.  Jobs in industrial sector were more attractive for young generation at working age than buffalo raising at home.  Thereby HH labor for tending buffalo was lacking.

• Education.  Higher education in young generation pushed most of them to work outside the HH with general attitude of villagers that ones who stayed and worked on-farm at home were unemployed persons.

Animal factor

A physiological difference in heat tolerance between buffalo and cattle was the important factor for final decision of farmers.  Buffalo had lower heat tolerance than cattle.  Since no longer use of buffalo for draught as well as the constraint of HH labor and grazing area, cattle were the first choice of farmers to keep on-farm because cattle could be grazed under the sunlight during the day. Shading for buffalo tethering was very important.  Farmers had to change buffalo shades a few times during the day to protect buffalo from heat stress when exposed to strong sunlight for a long time. It was evident in UV that a buffalo died due to heat stress.  For farmers who had cropping land far away from home or tethering place, it was their burden to travel back often to change buffalo shades especially during on-cropping season.

 

The limitations of smallholder farmers in keeping buffalo for use on-farm in the two village farming systems learned from this study might be an example for government sector to consider means to tackle the problems concerning the decline in buffalo numbers.  Furthermore, a village which still has high density of buffalo should be a case study for future research in order to find any pull factors that make small farmers remain their buffalo raising on-farm. 

 

Acknowledgement

 

This research project was financially supported by Kasetsart University Research and Development Institute and in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

 

References

 

Bunyavejchewin, P., S. Sangdid and C. Chantalakhana.  1995.  Socioeconomic conditions

affecting the use of draught buffalo versus two-wheeled tractor in some villages of Surin province.  In Improving Draught Capacity of the Multi-purpose Buffaloes in Small Farm Systems, P. Bunyavejchewin, T. Poondusit and C. Chantalakhana (eds.), pp.41-54,  Bangkok, Thailand.  222 p.       

  

Chantalakhana, C., P. Bunyavejchewin, S. Chotemethepirom and K. Kaewsomprasong. 1991.   Household characteristics and monitoring of year-round buffalo husbandry and activities in two villages in Northeast Thailand.  In Draught Power from Swamp Buffalo In Asia,  P. Bunyavejchewin and C. Chantalakhana (eds.), pp.239-268, Bangkok, Thailand. 307 p.

 

Section of Livestock Economics.  1999.  Livestock Statistics in the Year 1999.  Division of         Livestock Extension, Department of Livestock Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Bangkok, Thailand.  150 p.

Skunmun, P., S. Kiewkamjan, A. Limsakul, K. Kaewsomprasong, T. Poondusit and S.  Konanta.  1998.  Problems of buffalo bull loan to farmers’groups in rural area. Paper Presented at the 36th Academic Conference of Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand, on 4th February 1998. 19p. (in Thai).

 

Go to top 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

File : BufHanoiVN