Management and field performance of horses and donkeys used for ploughing on smallholder farms. An example from North Kordofan, Sudan

Elsamawal Khalil Makki and Ezdehar Omer Mohammed Musa

School of Rural Extension, Education and Development, Ahfad University for Women, Omdurman, Sudan.
P.O. Box 167 Omdurman Postal code 14411, Sudan
sammakki@hotmail.com

Abstract

This study explored the effect of draught horse and donkey management on the field capacity and efficiency during ploughing . The study followed the cross-sectional survey design with a sample of 100 farmers selected randomly from 10 clusters (villages). Data were collected using a structured questionnaire in face to face interviews combined with direct field measurements during ploughing.

Health care, feeding, harnessing and care of the plough were determined and found to be sub-optimal. These may have contributed to the low working speed, poor field capacity and efficiency recorded by the majority of farmers when ploughing. The study did not identify a significant relationship between the selected animal management practices and performance as determined by measurement of field capacity and efficiency.  Low field performance may have been at least partly due to poor work practices and skills that masked any positive effect of good animal management. 

Key words: equids, field capacity, field efficiency, husbandry

Introduction

The important components of draught animal management are adequate feeding, health care, and appropriate use of animals to ensure their sustained use on-farm (Fall et al 1997). This list can be expanded to cover harnessing, housing and implement-animal matching and skill of operator. All management practices interact together and affect the level field capacity and efficiency at which animals work on the field. Animals used for work need to be productive, healthy, well trained and manageable. If animals are not maintained in a reasonable condition during the dry season, they will be physically weak and their productivity will be affected (James and Krecek 2000). 

In areas with a short history of working animals in agriculture, improving work output of the animals becomes the main concern of researchers and extension officers; as this allows the technology to thrive and motivates more farmers to employ work animals on their farms. One of the areas in which investigation can potentially boost animal productivity when working is good animal management.  

Draught animal technology (DAT) was introduced to EN-Nhoud area, north Kordofan State, Sudan accompanied with various extension activities aiming at improving the standard of living of the rural population by increasing crop production and decreasing the cost of total cultural practices (ENCCP 1997). 

Many policy makers count on the technology for solving the food insecurity problem of the rural farmers that is associated with the traditional hand tools they use. The only animal types used in the area are horses and donkeys mainly in land preparation. Research results showed many gaps in farmers’ knowledge, attitudes and practices regarding feeding, health care and harnessing of work animals (Makki and Musa 2011). All these together will affect the performance of animals and farmers will blame the animals and technology instead of blaming themselves. Therefore, this study was carried out to identify the current management practices of work donkeys and horses and to investigate its effect on field capacity and efficiency during ploughing in land preparation for planting, to give farmers some solutions to their concerns.

Materials and methods

Study area 

Field data was collected in EN-Nhoud locality during May -July 2012 to investigate the effect of work donkeys and horses management on ploughing field capacity and efficiency. EN-Nhoud locality is located in the semi-arid savanna zone in North Kordofan state. The area consists of five rural councils. Different tribes live in the area with the hamar being dominant. Most of the population depends on crop production beside other activities like animal breeding and poultry production. The average land holding of the family is about 4.5 feddans (1 feddan = 0.42 ha), but only 60% of that area is annually cultivated (ENCCP 1997). 

The dominant system of agriculture in EN-Nhoud area is the traditional rainfed farming system which is known as a small holding farming system, that is mainly characterized by being subsistence oriented. No systematic agricultural rotation is followed, and farmers always tend to the horizontal expansion to increase crop production (Dahab and Hamad 2003). The land is flat to undulating and there are only a few seasonal water streams (khors). However, the soil is mostly sandy to sandy loam but clay soil (gardood) covers the southern parts of the area. Groundnuts, hibiscus "karkade", sorghum, sesame and water melon are the main crops in the area. The area is famous for production of groundnuts as the main cash crop (ENCCP 1997). The agricultural production of both food and cash crops depends mainly on family labour mostly in an agricultural sharing system. The area is well known for livestock production for milk and meat. 

Sampling 

This study was based on the cross-sectional survey design.  A sample of 100 farmers was selected from 10 villages (clusters) following the systematic random sampling technique based on geographical location. The first of every three farmers was chosen along a survey line drawn across the farming area in each cluster starting at the upper end until 10 farmers had been selected. 

Data collection and analysis 

The main management parameters considered in this study were:

• Animal feeding.

•  Animal health (veterinary care, vaccination and wounds management)

•  Animal harnessing (care for harness, padding and sores and wounds related to harness).

•  Plough condition (care measures and plough condition).

Further, field capacity and efficiency were determined as direct assessments of the management practices. 

Data were collected using a formal survey questionnaire in a face to face interview for literacy reasons and by direct field measurements during land preparation. Some information was recorded as observations to avoid farmers’ bias on issues they can consider “sensitive”. Direct field measurements were concerned with determining field capacity and field efficiency in accordance with Gbadamosi and Magaji (2004) and Abubakar et al (2009). Two stop watches and a tape measure were used to record the total and net times of operation and the land dimensions, respectively. 

Other parameters computed from the field performance data were; working speed (km/h), effective field capacity (ha/h) and field efficiency (%), expressed as:

Working speed = distance of run (km) / overall time taken (h)

Then the effective field capacity (ha/h) was taken as the product of dividing the area worked (ha) by the total time (h) as follows:

Effective field capacity (F.C)  =  Area (ha)/Total time (h)

And the field efficiency = Net productive time/Total time of operation 

Survey data were entered into an SPSS computer programme (SPSS 14.0) and analysed to produce frequency tables and the different parameters were assessed using the chi square test (SPSS.14).

Results and discussion

Animal health 

All the farmers believed that good animal health is about feeding (Table 1). While 88% of them focused on adequate feed supply, 12% mentioned adding supplements and concentrates to the feed. Most of them (83%) vaccinated their animals against different diseases, but they appeared to confuse any injection given to the animal as vaccination. This is evident from the fact that they all mentioned types of diseases that animals are not vaccinated for. Moreover, 43% of them mentioned “maintaining health” as the type of vaccination, while they refer to vitamin injections. Farmers’ understanding of vaccination is a direct result of lack of information from their side and draws attention to the extension service provided by the Administration of Agriculture in the locality. Difficulty in accessing the veterinary centre was the major reason for not vaccinating the animals. This difficulty extended to influence the regular veterinary care of animals as less than one half of the farmers (52%) mentioned that they take their animals regularly to the veterinary centre which is established in the locality centre and it becomes difficult for the farmers living in distant villages to access it in an area with rural transportation problems. Accordingly farmers resorted to buying the medicines from veterinary pharmacies (38%) or using traditional remedies (19%). A comparable situation was reported by Taylor et al (1999) in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa where treatments were largely with local remedies. This was because as most veterinary service were out of reach geographically and financially for many equid owners. Despite this, farmers in our study in Sudan had a positive opinion on the effect of veterinary care on their animals. They distributed as follows:

• Improve animal status 69%.

•  Increase its ability to work 22%.

The practice of care for animals is well understood by the farmers as they all inspect animals’ hoofs, tongues and clean them frequently. 

Care for animals’ wounds was generally similar between farmers, and the majority of the farmers (60%) buy medicines and treat the animals by themselves; 19% did nothing and wait for the wounds to heal; 12% used local remedies and only 3% take their animals to the veterinary centre. The problem of access and availability of veterinary service appears to be the major concern of animal owners. Few farmers get advice on decisions regarding wounds management from health officers or veterinarians. The same concerns and situation was reported by Krecek (1999) in North-west Province, South Africa. 

Animal feeding and watering 

Free grazing was not an option for the farmers. They all relied on providing feed for their animals; either purchased from the market (47%) or collected by the farmer (53%). Most of the farmers (96%) feed their animals dry feed (sorghum, millet and groundnut straw) supplemented with grain sorghum and peanuts cake. The rest feed their animals green fodder supplemented with grain sorghum and peanuts cake (Table 2). Feeding time was less than 1 hour before work for the majority of the farmers (67%), while it was 1 – 2 hours for the rest of them (33%). This practice is less beneficial to the animals according to Pearson (1998) who reported that feeding at least two hours before work insures a ready supply of energy yielding substrates for working muscle particularly in horses and donkeys. Further, horses and donkeys were almost fed similarly; a practice that Aganga et al (2000) considered mismanagement as they reported donkeys should not be fed like horses.

• Farmers feed their animals individually (99%).

•  They mostly feed their animals in containers (94%).

• They all increase the amount of feed at the beginning of the season.

• They all feed grains un-crushed.

• Only three farmers added salt to the feed; and only one of them gave his horse cooking oil. The rest mentioned that they do not know about that.

• The majority of the farmers (66%) stored animal feed for periods of 6 to 10 months.

• All the farmers who stored feed lacked information on the suitable measures for its storage and preparation.

• The majority of the farmers (63%) offered water to their animals before eating.

• Almost all the farmers did not offer water to their animals during work claiming that it causes laziness.

From the list above it is clear that feeding practice is being poorly handled by most of the farmers and the lack of scientifically based practice is quite evident. All these together can reflect on reducing the potential work output of horses and donkeys. 

Animal harnessing 

Animal harness showed interesting variations (Table 3). Farmers mostly (95%) used collar harness, while only 5% used breast straps. Collars supported by a back saddle and belly straps/belts represented 34% of the sample and collars with direct ropes connection to the swingle tree represented 61%. The latter group risked the firm placement of the collar around the animal neck. Injuries from the collar friction/rubbing against the animal neck and shoulder are potentially possible especially when the collar is wide and does not fit the animal. Farmers do not realize that different types of harness can result in different work outputs even for the same animal. They also lack the proper information on good harnessing practice for the efficient utilization of their harness and donkeys in ploughing as presented by Pearson et al (2003). Most of the collars (91%) were enforced with different material with steel enforcement being marginal. Further, leather collars were seldom in the area due to their high cost.  The market was the major source of collars (96%); but this does not reflect perfect design and/or suitability to the animals as all the collars were wide and did not fit the animals. A different situation was reported by Taylor et al (1999) for Eastern Cape Province where farmers prepare the harness by themselves. Wide poor fitting collars can obviously lead to animal discomfort and they become more difficult to handle and control as suggested by James and Krecek (2000). This problem is worsened with farmers’ tendency (70%) to not pad the collars, not clean the harness (95%) and store it poorly after the working day, often tossing it on the ground by the animal. All this shows that farmers lack knowledge on harnessing issues and this is reflected in the many bruises and wounds related to the harness on all the animals; on the back of the animals’ neck (80%), hair loss (13%) and sores on the animal’s back (6%).  

Animals were mostly (85%) controlled using halters bought from the market, while bridles were used for the rest. Halters are not necessary in the study site, but farmers had the tradition of using it with horses in all the cases and having horses representing most of the animals justifies this trend. However, all the halters were suitable in size and matched the animals. 

Care for the plough 

Almost all the farmers (98%) used the light single mouldboard plough (locally known as a Koriat plough) and only two of them used the five tine cultivator (locally known as a Nubian hoe) for ploughing. This marginal portion raises questions on the source of their information on using the five tine cultivator for ploughing. It is clear that the introduction of this implement had not been carefully advocated by the Administration of Agriculture or the cost excluded farmers from its use. Lack of knowledge on the plough appeared clearly in farmers’ responses regarding the procedure followed to check the plough before and after work and at the end of the season (Table 4).

Further, 85% of the farmers had wrenches and nut- drivers with them in the field and 82% had extra nuts and bolts for plough repair. Plough handle condition was accepted by 80% of the farmers while the rest mentioned that it is not suitable without taking any attempt to improve it. Lack of proper information on plough care is a result of the fact that farmers obtained the information on the technology from other (peers) farmers and the extension work is almost absent. A marginal portion (6%) mentioned the NGOs who introduced the technology to the area two decades ago. A similar condition that resulted in poor technology performance in Ghana was reported by Madama et al (2008) who stated that 67% of the farmers learnt how to use the technology from other farmers with a marginal portion getting the information from NGOs and the Ministry of Agriculture; suggesting that this cycle must be complemented by more attention from the government. This draws attention to the sustainability, role played by the Administration of agriculture and capacity building issues. As a result most of the farmers (72%) mentioned that animal traction is not a priority for the Administration of Agriculture when compared to the other extension activities offered by them; and consequently 28% of the farmers were not interested in getting more information on the technology.

Institutional neglect was one of the major problems mentioned by the farmers in the study area, a situation similar to the problems identified in using donkeys for work in Zambia (Ahmadu et al 2000).

Field capacity and efficiency 

A considerable portion of the farmers (12%) recorded very low working speed of less than 1 km/h (Table 5), while almost two fifths of them (38%) recorded very high working speeds (3.6 – 4.5 km/h). Farmers recording working speeds of 2 -3 and 3.0 – 3.5 km/h were 29 and 21%, respectively. When animals are poorly harnessed they tend to walk slower. Geza (1999) and Nengomasha (1999) reported comparable forward speed of 3.9 and 3.1 km/h for horses and heavy donkeys, respectively.

The working speed range reflected on the effective field capacity and slightly less than one third of the farmers (30%) recorded field capacities between 0.04 – 0.10 ha/h. An almost equal group (31%) recorded 0.11 – 0.15 ha/h. Farmers recording high field capacities (0.16 – 0.20 ha/h) were 28% of the sample, while those recoding greater capacities were only 11%. The low field capacities are probably a direct result of the poor harnessing, low capacity of the farmers both leading to frequent stoppage of animals. Comparable low field capacities were reported for draught horses with collar harness in Ethiopia by Geza (1999). Nengomasha (1999) reported similar low capacities for heavy male donkeys harnessed to the same type of plough used in the study area. 

Field efficiency results were rather on the low side (40 – 70%) for 31% of the farmers. Those who recorded 71 – 80% were 29% of the sample. Farmers recording high efficiencies (>80%) were 40% of the total farmers. The low ranges of field efficiency can possibly be attributed to the frequent stoppage time while ploughing. Stoppage from its side relates to the poor harnessing of both horses and donkeys. Since field efficiency is taken as a product of net-working time to the total time of operation, any stoppage will result in lower values. 

Field capacity could not be attributed or associated with any specific management practices/factors tested (Table 6). This could be a direct result of the poor field working practices that may have masked the positive impact good management can potentially bring in ploughing. Horses consistently outnumbered donkeys in all the field capacity ranges. The majority of the horses and most of the donkeys recorded moderate- to low field capacity values.  In all the field capacity ranges animals in good body condition outnumbered those in medium or poor ones. Further, having the animals recording moderate- to low field capacities is conforming to Pearson (1998) who mentioned that “there is little conclusive evidence to show that animals in good body condition work faster and/or longer than those in poor condition at the start of the work season”.

Animals harnessed with both types of collars outnumbered those with breast straps in all the field capacity ranges. In the moderate- to high field capacity ranges (0.16 – 0.20 ha/h) animals with collars and saddles outnumbered those in collars and ropes who dominated in the low field capacity range. This can successfully be attributed to the firm positioning of the collar by the saddle particularly with the commonly used wide-unfitting collars. The better performance of collar harness over breast straps was also reported by Geza (1999) and Joubert (1999) who mentioned that a poorly fitting harness will influence the work rate and result in reduced daily work output. It is not only the poor fitting harness that was associated with the low rates of field capacity, but also the condition of the swingle tree to which the plough is connected and the plough adjustment procedure. 

Harness padding did not have a significant effect on field capacity. This is acceptable keeping in mind that animals were generally poorly harnessed therefore, any harnessing improvement efforts not directed towards improving the harness itself will not succeed. An ill-fitting harness needs to be improved first before padding. In all the field capacity ranges animals with unpadded harness outnumbered those with padded ones with comparable percentages at the 0.16 – 0.20 ha/h field capacity range.

Field efficiency as well was not significantly influenced by the specific animal management practices reported (Table 7). In all the field efficiency ranges the horses consistently outnumbered the donkeys with most of them recording moderate- to high values. Horses are stronger than donkeys and do not stop frequently while ploughing despite the serious issues and differences related to harness type and condition. 

A considerable portion of the animals in a good body condition (30%) recorded low field efficiencies suggesting that field efficiency is affected more by factors other than the animal condition. The same applies to animals in medium body condition. 

Animals harnessed in collars and ropes recorded higher efficiencies compared to those harnessed in collars and saddles. This contradicts field capacity results in some of the efficiency ranges. Animals harnessed with breast straps recorded comparatively lower values. This is probably because the latter were mostly donkeys that tend to stop frequently while working.  The relationship between harness padding and field efficiency was interestingly different as animals with unpadded harness consistently recorded higher values over the padded ones except for the <50% field efficiency range. This suggests that padding is either poorly made or the poor condition of the harness itself masked the positive effect that can be brought by padding.

Conclusion

• Indicators of animal mismanagement are evident in the study area. This is a direct result of the lack of extension and capacity building and consequently field capacity and efficiency of work were rather on the weak side. Harnessing and poor field practices seem to have a greater influence on both field capacity and efficiency, than general animal management practices did. It maybe that the skill of the operator in setting the plough and working the animals also had an influence effect on field performance , as well as the harness type and fit did. .

Acknowledgements

This research is published as part of the activities of the Development Partnership in Higher Education- DelPHe project No. 804 (Capacity building of rural farmers and extension workers applying draught animal technology (DAT) in agriculture to aid food security) funded by the British Council and DIFD. We thank Dr R. Anne Pearson for comments on the manuscript.

References

Abubakar M S,  Tekwa I J and Ahmed M 2009 Effects of soil physical and mechanical properties on field efficiency of ox-drawn mouldboard plough in Yola, Adamawa State. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Ejournal. XI, 1369-2137-1.

Aganga AA, Letso M and Aganga A O 2000 Feeding donkeys; Livestock Research for Rural    Development (12) 2: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd12/2/agan122.htm.

Ahmadu B, Chisenga N and Chipasha P 2000 Performance of donkeys as draught animals in Zambia: an overview. In Kaumbutho P G, Pearson R A and Simalenga T E (editors), 2000. Empowering Farmers with Animal Traction. Proceedings of the workshop of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA) held 20-24 September 1999, Mpumalanga, South Africa. 344p.

Dahab M H and Hamad S F 2003 Comparative of weeding by animal-drawn cultivator and manual hoe in En-nohoud area, Sudan. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America 34(3), 27-30.

ENCCP 1997 EN-Nhoud Cooperative Credit Project. Annual report.

Fall A, Pearson RA, Laurence P R and Fernàndez-Revera S 1997 Feeding and working strategies for oxen used for draught purposes in semi-arid West Africa. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya. 76 pp.

Gbadamosi L and Magaji A S 2004 Field study on animal draught power for farmers in Zuguma village of Niger State; Proceedings of 5th International conference and 26th Annual General meeting of Nigeria Institution of Agricultural Engineers (NIAE). 26: 84-85.

Geza M 1999 Harnessing techniques and work performance of draft horses in Ethiopia. In: Starkey P and Kaumbutho P (eds), 1999. Meeting the challenges of animal traction. A resource book of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA), Harare, Zimbabwe. Intermediate Technology Publications, London. 326p. pages 143-147.

James M and Krecek R C 2000 Management of draught animals: a welfare and health perspective in South Africa. In Kaumbutho P G, Pearson R A and Simalenga T E (editors), 2000. Empowering Farmers with Animal Traction. Proceedings of the workshop of the Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA) held 20-24 September 1999, Mpumalanga, South Africa. 344p.

Joubert B 1999 Matching draught oxen and primary tillage implements for work. In: Pearson R A, Wythe S, Joubert B, O’Neill D and Simalenga  T (editors). Management and Feeding of Animals for Work. Proceedings of a Workshop at Fort Hare University, Alice, Eastern Cape. Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Draught Animal Power technical report 4.

Krecek R C  1999 Management and welfare of working animals: experiences with communities in North-West Province, South Africa. In: Pearson R A, Wythe S, Joubert B, O’Neill D and Simalenga  T (editors). Management and Feeding of Animals for Work. Proceedings of a Workshop at Fort Hare University, Alice, Eastern Cape. Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Draught Animal Power technical report 4.

Madama E A. Naazie A,  Adogla-Bessa T and Adjorlolo L K 2008 Use of donkeys and cattle as draught animals in the Northern and Upper East and Volta Regions of Ghana. Draught Animal News 46(1):10-13.

Makki E K and Musa E O M 2011 A survey on draught animal technology (DAT) in EN-Nhoud area, North Kordofan State, Sudan. Tropical Animal Health and Production 43(5):923-928.

Nengomasha E 1999 Feeding and managing donkeys for work in Zimbabwe. In:Pearson R A, Wythe S, Joubert B, O’Neill D and Simalenga  T (editors). Management and Feeding of Animals for Work. Proceedings of a Workshop at  Fort Hare University, Alice, Eastern Cape. Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Draught Animal Power technical report 4.

Pearson R A 1998 Draught animals and their management: The future in rain-fed agriculture. Annals of the Arid Zone 37(3):233-251.

Pearson R A, Simalinga T E and Kercek R C 2003 Harnessing and hitching donkeys, horses and mules for work. Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, 34pp.

Taylor D, Kneale J A and Pearson R A 1999 The use of donkeys, horses and mules on smallholder farms in Eastern Cape Province. In: Pearson A, Wythe S, Joubert B, O’Neill D and Simalenga  T (editors). Management and Feeding of Animals for Work. Proceedings of a Workshop at Fort Hare University, Alice, Eastern Cape. Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Draught Animal Power technical report 4.

Received 18 January 2013; Accepted 30 March 2013; Published 1 May 2013

Go to top