Options for the delivery of primary animal health care for livestock farmers on communal land in South Africa : Mnisi community case study

Abstract

Livestock farmers on communal land rely heavily on state veterinary services (SVS) for animal health care. State provided primary health care services are however, not readily accessible to many such communities. The study was conducted to investigate the primary animal health care (PAHC) delivery methods that are preferred by communal land-based livestock farmers, with special focus on the possibility of using community-based animal health workers (CAHW). The study was conducted in Mnisi community in Bushbuckridge local municipality of Mpumalanga Province. Questionnaire-based interviews were conducted with 133 cattle farmers from 10 of the 15 inspection points in Mnisi community. After analysis of the data from the questionnaire surveys, group discussions were held at five inspection points to obtain clarity on the community’s needs and expectations for the delivery of PAHC services. Data was captured and analysed in Microsoft Excel using descriptive statistics. Responses from the group discussions and other interviews were captured and reported on. The respondents were predominately male (72 % of all respondents), owners of the livestock (80%) and had an average of 13 cattle each. The major reasons given for the exit of cattle from the herds were sales (38% of exits), drought (18.2%), stock theft (15.6%) and diseases (14.8%). Overall 55.1% of exits were losses while 43.7% were for beneficial purposes (1.2% of the exits from the cattle herds were not explained). The farmers perceived nutritional problems, animal diseases, access to water, stock theft, drought and ticks/dipping the six important constraints to livestock production. Amongst diseases and disease conditions, tick burdens, lumpy skin disease and internal parasites were considered the major challenges. Most farmers (77%) did not vaccinate their cattle. The main reason that was given for not vaccinating cattle was that vaccines were provided free by the SVS. None of the farmers felt that the vaccines were not available, not effective or too cumbersome to apply. Despite the free vaccines, 67% did not know if their cattle were ever vaccinated and or what diseases the administered vaccines prevented. All farmers controlled ectoparasite infestation either by plunge dipping (90.2%) or use of pour-on acaricides (9.8%). Furthermore, 78% of those who dipped their cattle also used other methods to control ectoparasites, popularly, whole body and/or spot spraying as and when it was necessary. Endoparasites were controlled by 59.4% of the respondents, predominately by drenching as and when it was necessary. The alternative products for ectoparasites and endoparasites were obtained mainly from the farmers’ cooperative in Hoedspruit. For 99% of the respondents the primary providers for animal health care in Mnisi were SVS professionals (predominately Animal Health Technicians, AHTs). Other community members were consulted by 30% of the respondents. The common routes of contact were visiting the SVS offices, contact at the inspection points and calling the officials with a cell phone. Two-thirds of the farmers reported diseases to SVS and most of them (94%) were happy with the response to the reports. In general the farmers were satisfied with the accessibility of the AHTs (72%), state veterinarians (95%) and the animal clinic staff (77%). They were also satisfied with the information that they received from SVS. The most preferred providers of animal health care were the AHTs (77%). When prompted, 92% of the respondents said they would use the services of a community-based person trained to handle animal health problems, mainly for advice on disease management, drug administration, disease surveillance, diagnosis and castration. During the group discussions, facilitating access to fodder and water were included in the tasks for the community-based persons. Forty-two percent of the respondents said that they would use such a person frequently and 83% were willing to pay for the services in cash and/or kind. The general impression was that young people should be trained to carry out these tasks. Farmers preferred that the community-based person should work closely with the AHTs and be in contact with the farmers as frequently as 2–3 times a week to monthly. It is concluded that farmers of Mnisi community were satisfied with the availability and accessibility of the PAHC services provided by the SVS, and in fact preferred the SVS for this service. The farmers however lacked the knowledge and ability to adequately handle the production, animal health and livestock security problems with which they were confronted. A community-based service would therefore be beneficial if it holistically addressed the critical challenges of access to fodder and water, control of diseases and ticks, ensured livestock security, and also equipped farmers to manage these challenges. It is therefore recommended that Community-based Livestock Workers could be engaged if they are adequately qualified to fulfil this role. The use of Farmer Field Schools facilitated either by AHTs or CLWs for capacitation of the farmers should be investigated. The cost implications, potential benefits and effectiveness of selected options should be explored further before conclusive decisions are taken. It is further recommended that some effort should be invested in stimulating community cohesion amongst farmers to enable them to collectively address challenges that are common to them. The needs for the delivery of PAHC services in Mnisi community illustrate that such services should be tailor-made for the intended beneficiary communities, taking into consideration the existing support structures, the communities’ socio-cultural issues, cost effectiveness and the possible impact of the services. Copyright