Cattle ownership and production in the

Researchreportno. 10

S C H O O LG O V E R N M E N TU N I V E R S I T Y O F T H E W E S T E R N C A P E

of

Edited by Andrew Ainsliewith contributions by

Thembela KepeLungisile Ntsebeza

Zolile Ntshonaand Stephen Turner

Cattle ownership andproduction in the

communal areas ofthe Eastern Cape,

South Africa

Cattle ownership andproduction in the communalareas of the Eastern Cape,

South Africa

Edited by Andrew Ainsliewith contributions by

Thembela KepeLungisile Ntsebeza

Zolile Ntshonaand Stephen Turner

Research report no. 10

Programme for Landand Agrarian StudiesApril 2002

�It is not easy to challenge a chief�: Lessons from Rakgwadi

Cattle ownership and production in the communal areas of the Eastern Cape, South Africa

Edited by Andrew Ainslie

Published by the Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, School of Government,University of the Western Cape, Private Bag X17, Bellville, 7535, Cape Town.Tel: +27 21 959 3733. Fax: +27 21 959 3732. E-mail: [email protected]

Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies Research report no. 10

ISBN 86808-529-5

April 2002

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted, in anyform or means, without prior permission from the publisher or the author.

Copy editor: Laurie Rose-InnesCover photograph of villager using ox-drawn sleigh to pull grass inKhanyayo, Eastern Cape: Thembela KepeLayout: Rosie CampbellMaps and figures: Anne Westoby

Typeset in TimesReproduction: House of ColoursPrinting: Hansa Reproprint

ContentsList of figures and tables iii

Acknowledgements iv

Executive summary v

Map 1: The Eastern Cape, South Africa vii

Map 2: The former Transkei and Ciskei viii

Map 3: Magisterial districts used for the case-studies ix

Chapter 1: Introduction: Setting the scene 1Andrew Ainslie

Chapter 2: The historical context of cattle ownership 18Andrew Ainslie

Chapter 3: Cattle numbers 38Andrew Ainslie

Chapter 4: Cattle production in Xhalanga district 46Lungisile Ntsebeza

Chapter 5: The dynamics of cattle production and governmentintervention in communal areas of Lusikisiki district 59

Thembela Kepe

Chapter 6: The social and economic structure of livestock productionsystems in Maluti district 80

Zolile Ntshona and Stephen Turner

Chapter 7: A review of cattle production in Peddie district 98Andrew Ainslie

Chapter 8: Conclusions 121Andrew Ainslie

i


ii

List of figures and tablesFigure 3.1: Centane – Cattle numbers 1974–1995 42Figure 3.2: Engcobo – Cattle numbers 1974–1998 42Figure 3.3: Umzimkulu – Cattle numbers 1974–1995 42Figure 3.4: Umtata – Cattle Numbers 1974–1998 42Figure 3.5: Xhalanga – Cattle numbers 1974–1999 43Figure 3.6: Xhalanga – Cattle numbers 1921–1999 43Figure 5.1: Cattle populations in Lusikisiki district, 1904–1999 65Figure 5.2: Cases of stolen cattle reported to the police in 1999 74Figure 6.1: Numbers of cattle in Maluti district, 1904–1998/99 84

Table 3.1: Livestock population in Tyefu Location, Peddie district 41Table 4.1: Distribution of cattle 51Table 4.2: Cattle distribution at Beestekraal 51Table 4.3: Ages of respondents 52Table 4.4: Cases of stock theft, Cala Police Station 54Table 6.1: Land use types in Maluti district, 1985 81Table 6.2: Land use patterns in Maluti district, 1989/90 81Table 6.3: Estimated land use potential in Maluti district, 1985 81Table 6.4: Land uses in CBLM pilot areas (hectares) 82Table 6.5: Numbers of cattle in Maluti district, 1904–1998/99 83Table 6.6: Reasons for keeping cattle in CBLM pilot areas, Maluti District 85Table 6.7: Reasons for keeping livestock in Mkemane 90Table 6.8: Livestock ownership and principal sources of livelihood in Mkemane 91Table 6.9: Cattle ownership and principal sources of livelihood in Mkemane 91Table 6.10: Sheep ownership and principal sources of livelihood in Mkemane 91Table 6.11: Goat ownership and principal sources of livelihood in Mkemane 92Table 6.12: Livestock ownership and well-being categories in Mkemane 93Table 6.13: Expenditure on livestock feed by well-being categories in Mkemane 93Table 6.14: Livestock sales by well-being categories in Mkemane 95Table 7.1: Numbers of owners in Peddie district by category of cattle owned 103Table 7.2: Survey respondents by number of cattle they owned 103Table 7.3: Age distribution of household heads in the survey 105Table 7.4: Gender distribution of household heads 106Table 7.5: The educational level of household heads in the sample 106Table 7.6: Cattle holdings by age of household head 107Table 7.7: Sources of household livelihood 109Table 7.8: Place and number of cattle sold in the past five years 110Table 7.9: Herding of cattle 113

iii


Acknowledgements

Financially, this study was madepossible entirely through thegenerous funding of BP SouthernAfrica. As the recipient of the BP

Southern Africa Rural Development Re-search Award of 1999, I conceived of thestudy as a state-of-the-art review of ourcurrent understanding of cattle productionin the former Bantustan areas of the prov-ince, illuminated by a small number ofdistrict-based case-studies. Fortunately,four trusted colleagues at the Programmefor Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS) atthe University of the Western Cape agreedto contribute to the study from their estab-lished fieldwork bases around the prov-ince. I am indebted to Thembela Kepe,Lungisile Ntsebeza, Zolile Ntshona andStephen Turner* for their enthusiasticresponse to my call for collaboration andtheir subsequent sustained interest to thisproject. I also extend my thanks to BenCousins (Director, PLAAS) for his interestin this study. AR (Tony) Palmer, Mxolisi DHintsa, Nokuzola Mgxashe and LouisaVerwey (ARC-Range and Forage Institutein Grahamstown) are thanked for theirongoing support. I am grateful to several

people who assisted me in various waysduring the course of the project: Mr MGwababa, Dr Nick Fischer, Dr I Lwanga-Iga, Ms Lulama Mpati and Mrs VuyokaziMahlakatha.

I thank Chris de Wet for his continuedinterest in my work. At the AgriculturalResearch Council, Dr Amie Aucamp(Director, Range and Forage Institute) hasbeen consistently supportive of my workand of this project in particular.

To my perennial teacher, Welile(Ta’Mzo) Mzozoyana, who yet again wasan invaluable and engaging partner on thisproject, I express my heartfelt thanks. Mywife, Katie, and daughter, Francescadeserve a special mention for helping tokeep my priorities in view. Lastly (as sooften is their lot), to the people in the ruralareas of the Eastern Cape, who continue togive of their time and knowledge in theinterests of research and ‘progress’,Ndiyanibulela nonke.

The opinions expressed in this reportare those of the individual contributors andshould not be attributed to any of theorganisations or individuals mentioned inthese acknowledgements.

iv

* Please note that the contributing authors have each included their ownacknowledgements in their respective chapters.

stant for close to five decades, with mostlydrought-induced fluctuations.

The study focuses on patterns andtrends in cattle ownership and productionin four magisterial districts (as defined inthe pre-1999 Demarcation Board period)in the province: Xhalanga, Lusikisiki,Maluti and Peddie districts. No claims aremade about the representativeness of thissample of districts, but a number of issuesemerge that may be applicable morewidely across the province. These issuespoint to several developments in the sectorthat are giving rise to tensions among ruralresidents: less than half of the householdsin rural areas now own cattle. Grazingresources are under pressure in manyareas, largely as a result of the consider-able encroachment of residential sites ontothe available rangeland. Stock theft contin-ues to pose a serious challenge to both theowners of stock and law enforcementagencies, and appears to be giving rise toincreased vigilantism. A lack of clarityabout the long-term future of existinggovernment support programmes, such asthe dipping and inoculation programmes,is giving rise to further uncertainty. Theconcern among rural cattle owners that theyouth are not interested in livestock pro-duction is widespread and, as a possiblysignificant future trend, is likely to lead togreater concentration of cattle ownershipin future. The ongoing lack or inadequacyof infrastructure and facilities, as well asthe unequal terms of trade, continue tofrustrate stock owners’ efforts to selec-

Executive summary

This report documents a study ofthe social and economic structureof cattle ownership and produc-tion in the communal tenure

areas of the Eastern Cape (i.e. the formerBantustans of Transkei and Ciskei).

The report begins with a review of theconventional arguments relating to cattleproduction systems in communal tenureareas, i.e. that they are inefficient andirrational. In seeking to challenge thesepervasive assumptions concerning the wayin which cattle production systems in theseareas apparently work, it is argued, first,that very little systematic and detailedknowledge of these systems actually existson which to base arguments that have hadconsiderable impact and, second, thatcattle ownership and production for Afri-can people in the Eastern Cape, quite apartfrom its obvious utility and cultural reso-nance, has been, for many decades, ex-pressly about political-economic struggleagainst the state and its varied policies,which have had the effect – if not alwaysthe explicit intention – of the gradualproletarianisation of the rural population.

To support this argument, the history ofcattle ownership and the impact of a rangeof programmes of intervention carried outby the state at various times in the EasternCape are reviewed. Despite wide-rangingstate intervention, cattle ownership contin-ues to hold considerable appeal for ruralpeople. Evidence of this is that cattlenumbers (although not numbers of cattleowners) have remained remarkably con-

v


tively increase their sales of cattle.Clearly, cattle ownership will continue

to be a culturally relevant, economicallyrational and socially acceptable form ofaccumulation in rural areas of the provincefor the foreseeable future. It is argued inthis report that, in terms of its overalldevelopment agenda and its constitutionalcommitments, it is squarely in the interestsof the state to safeguard and enhance thesespecific investments (i.e. cattle) by ruralpeople with targeted interventions. Suchinterventions should aim to increase theproductivity of cattle in former Bantustanreserve areas (for example, by improvingweaning percentages) and at improving thereal value (i.e. in rands) of the herds in

these areas. It seems clear that the criticalpoint of engagement for both of these isthe radical improvement in the scope andquality of the animal health programmesoffered to cattle owners in rural areas.

If this study itself has one glaringshortcoming, it is that the role of cattle hasbeen considered in isolation from that ofgoats, sheep, equines and other stock thatare owned in considerable numbers byrural people in the province. This is afunction of the time and personnel con-straints under which the study was con-ducted. As with much research of thisnature, this initial stab at what is a complextopic has thrown up a wide range of areasin need of further investigation.

vi

Map 1: The Eastern Cape, South Africa

vii


Map 2: The former Transkei and Ciskei

viii

Map 3: Magisterial districts used for the case-studies

ix

1

Background to this studyEven a cursory survey of the literature dealing with livestock productionand its correlate, rangeland management, in the former �reserves�,Bantustans or �independent homelands� of South Africa, reveals thatanalyses in this area are predicated on essentially four interrelatedassertions.1

These assertions are that:1. Compared with commercial agricultural

enterprises in the rest of (formerly‘white’) South Africa, rangelands incommunal areas are vastly overstockedand on the brink of ecological collapse.

2. This situation arises because of the freerider problem inherent in communalsystems, which means there is noincentive to manage grazing, andconsequently, use of grazing resourcestakes place in a ‘free-for-all’ environ-ment.

3. Off-take (to the market) is negligible,invariably well under 10% of total herdsize per annum, and consequently theseproduction systems are wasteful interms of their use of scarce grazingresources.

4. Livestock production techniques in thecommunal sector are backward andexhibit little or no regard for scientificproduction techniques, such as herdimprovement through selective breed-ing or disease control.

Significantly, each of these assertions,which continue to be restated with depress-ing regularity in the literature (see HobartHoughton 1973:70–5; Bembridge1984:71, 370; Van Zyl, McKenzie &Kirsten 1996:254; Bembridge & Tapson1993; Erasmus 1996:61), relies on a

Chapter 1:Introduction: Setting the scene

Andrew Ainslie

remarkably small body of empirical studiesof Bantustan livestock production systems,some of which were conducted severaldecades ago. In fact, many of the keyarguments of the latter can themselves betraced back to the sporadic and partialaccounts of early travellers and missionar-ies from the 19th century, and to studiesconducted by anthropologists in the earlydecades of the 20th century.

Not only this, but there is considerableand somewhat arbitrary cross-referencingof studies across time and space so that‘composites’ emerge of, for example,Transkei livestock production, with argu-ments and assertions that are based on datafrom other communal areas in the country.Steyn (1988) for instance, quiteunproblematically states that the ‘essentialdiet of the Xhosa consists of milk’, whenthis was certainly not the case in the late1980s!

Of course, it is possible that little haschanged in communal livestock produc-tion systems over the past century and thatall communal areas in the country exhibitsimilar characteristics, but this seemshighly unlikely and should not simply beaccepted without some more rigorousattempt at empirical verification (seeTapson 1982:41).

With respect to the veracity or otherwiseof the first of the four assertions,

2

Cattle ownership and production in the communal areas

of the Eastern Cape, South Africa

O’Reagain and Turner (1992:43, 44) pointout that ‘it is regrettable that, after nearlysixty years of rangeland research in South-ern Africa, basic questions in rangelandmanagement remain unanswered’. Theygo on to caution that ‘the research commu-nity as a whole should adopt a morecritical attitude so as to actively prevent theassimilation of untested hypotheses intoaccepted theory’. In the same vein,Shackleton (1993) has weighed up theevidence for the long-standing calls forintervention to ‘save’ the communalrangelands of the country from ecologicalcollapse, and found these argumentssufficiently wanting to advocate a policyof non-intervention – in respect of nottrying to match livestock numbers toofficial carrying capacity estimates – in thefirst instance, particularly in the moist andmesic grasslands of the country.

Similarly, Tapson (1993:12) acknowl-edges that ‘a major problem [in formulat-ing policy for the communal sector] is thepaucity of reliable information especiallyregarding levels of production’ and later(1993:52), ‘At the technical level, verylittle research has been done on productionsystems under sub-optimal conditions …little information is available to supportthis type of production.’ Cousins(1996:185) notes that ‘there appears tohave been relatively little detailed researchon how grazing resources in South Africa’sblack rural areas are actually used’.

Significantly, data on off-take fromthese areas (i.e. the sale, slaughter andexchange of livestock) are probably leastcomplete, with practically all reports onthis aspect of livestock production in theprovince relying on just three references,namely Benso (1976) and latterly, Fraser &Antrobus (1988) for the Ciskei and for theTranskei, Bembridge (1984). In his analy-sis of one year’s (1981) annual statisticsfor cattle in the Transkei, Tapson (1982:5)admits to ‘an abiding sense of unease’when the figures do not balance and over6 000 cattle remain unaccounted for in thedata and his analysis thereof. Further tothis point, Antrobus et al. (1994) also

decry the ‘dearth of primary data for theCiskei and Transkei areas’ and the conse-quent need to rely on secondary sources.

The question as to why these keyassertions have been so pervasive andenduring is addressed in a later section ofthis report. Clearly, however, it is incum-bent upon any fresh attempts at analysis ofthis sector to pick their way carefullythrough the existing corpus of material oncommunal area livestock production andrangeland management systems, remainingalert all the while to the possibility ofunsubstantiated assertions masqueradingas factual evidence. It is nevertheless thecase, however, that in respect of the docu-mented history of livestock ownership andproduction in the communal areas of theprovince, this body of work, taken with theofficial livestock census records, of whichwe have every right to be similarly critical(see below), is most often the only data wehave to go by.

Why analyse communal cattleproduction in the Eastern Cape?In terms of the monetary value of people’sinvestments, the largest agricultural sectorin the former Transkei and Ciskei parts ofthe Eastern Cape province is undoubtedlythat of livestock production (see Tapson1982:2).2 Department of Agriculture(1998) estimates suggest that taken to-gether, the former Transkei and Ciskei holdover 1.7 million cattle or 38% of thenational herd in the so-called ‘developingareas’ (i.e. former Bantustan areas). Theseareas also hold upwards of 2.8 millionsheep (84% of the national ‘developingareas’ flock) and nearly 2 million goats(46% of all the goats in the ‘developing’sector of the country). The former Transkeiis said to hold 65% of all the cattle in theEastern Cape province as a whole(Antrobus et al. 1994:16). MALA (1998)estimates that cattle account for between80% and 90% of the asset value of live-stock in the small-scale sector.

The considerable numbers of livestockheld in the former Bantustan areas attest tothe significant appeal that livestock con-

3

tinue to have for large numbers of ruraland urban-based people (see Lenta &Maasdorp 1988:227). It is perhaps prima-rily in the relative absence (and the per-ceived unreliability) of other repositoriesof savings, such as banks, that livestockcontinue to serve as ‘stores of wealth’ parexcellence for thousands of rural families.Several studies note, however, that anincreasing concentration of livestockownership is a feature of this sector.

The role of government in livestockproductionIt is probably fair to say that governmentpolicy, certainly at provincial level, has notyet been clearly articulated at the presenttime. Certainly no overarching strategiesand programmes for ‘livestock develop-ment’ in the communal sector are yet inevidence.3 This apparent lack of clarity interms of provincial policy continues tofrustrate livestock owners, particularly incommunal areas, not least in respect ofsuch day-to-day practical concerns as theerratic provision of dipping materials bythe Veterinary Directorate of the Depart-ment of Agriculture.

Should the provincial government bepaying closer attention to the developmentof clear and coherent policies for themanagement and development of thissector? Very much so, I would argue for atleast four reasons.

First, the vast numbers of livestock inthis sector underscore the fact that live-stock form a substantial component ofboth the national agricultural sector andthe provincial economy. This is unlikely tochange in the short- to medium-term.

Second, given these high numbers oflivestock, it is an enduring conundrum thatthe Eastern Cape continues to be a netimporter of meat from outside the prov-ince,4 because of low levels of meat pro-duction (Daily Dispatch 16/02/1999). AsTapson (1982:2) argues for the formerTranskei, given its high overall number ofcattle, ‘it would be reasonable to expectorganised, purpose-designed marketing’.Yet this does not happen in the former

Bantustan areas. While the reasons for thisdeficiency are multiple, a clear starting-point appears to be the provision of infra-structure and facilities to promote sucheconomic activity.

Third, the (commercial) animal-produc-tion sector is by far the largest employer oflabour in the agricultural sector of theEastern Cape. For a province in whichunemployment is rife, any potential av-enues for further job creation must beidentified and carefully nurtured.

Fourth, grazing land comprises 81% ofthe total surface area of the province, aratio that is much higher than the nationalaverage, making a strong case for thisvaluable resource to be managed wiselythrough the new millennium (Erasmus1996:57).

Given the economic and cultural impor-tance of livestock to rural people in theEastern Cape, it is essential that govern-ment begins both to address these knowl-edge and policy lacunae and to ensure thata more nuanced understanding than thatencapsulated by the ‘four assertions’(above) is nurtured in public officials at alllevels within this sector.

Dualism in the conventionalunderstanding of the agricultural sectorSince the early, influential work on thestructure of the South African economy byHobart Houghton (1960, also see Lipton1977), a dualist model has been an en-trenched feature of economic analyses ofthe country as a whole (see Bundy1979:2–3 for a critique of this model). Interms of this dualist model, and particu-larly in respect of cattle, the western sideof the Eastern Cape province is regardedas a generally well-resourced, commercialbeef and dairy producing sector whichconsists of some 6 552 almost exclusively‘white-owned’ farms (Antrobus et al.1994:8).

Significantly, much of their economicactivities – in sharp contrast to those oflivestock owners in the communal areas –take place in the ‘formal’ economic and

Chapter 1: Introduction: Setting the scene

4



institutional sphere, in that:· they are at least liable to pay taxes

(both income and value-added taxes);· they are organised in producer organi-

sations (formerly ‘produce boards’) thatkeep records of production outputs;

· they are supported by agriculturalresearch and extension services thathave maintained detailed records offarm production histories (primarily forthe purposes of implementing andmonitoring government support pro-grammes, such as drought reliefschemes);

· they were (and are) eligible for lowinterest bank loans from dedicatedlending institutions such as the LandBank; and

· they participate in official agriculturalcensuses.

As a result, the contribution of thesecommercial farmers to the formal economy(as measured by the Gross National Prod-uct – GNP) is, by and large, amenable toeconomic and statistical measurement.

What generally remains unquantified,however, is the extensive cash-based tradethat has been going on for decades be-tween white and Xhosa livestock owners(particularly in ‘border’ areas of, forexample, Komgha, Peddie, Albany,Bathurst, Maluti and Kokstad). Whitefarmers and speculators have for manyyears bought, sold and exchanged live-stock to Xhosa-speaking farmers in theformer Bantustan areas. As these transac-tions are cash-based, the actual transac-tions are not recorded anywhere and onlyfeature in the official statistics as aggre-gates of livestock ‘bought in’ by livestockowners in communal areas. Thus, in asituation where herd mortality virtuallyequals births, the purchase of livestockfrom white, commercial farmers to restockdrought-depleted herds in communalareas, contributes in no uncertain terms toprosperity of the ‘formal, commercial’sector (see Tapson 1982:4; Steyn1988:330; Cousins 1997:32).5

The largely quantifiable situation ofcommercial farmers is often contrasted

with that of an under-resourced, largely‘subsistence-based’ production system thatis carried on in a relatively unorganisedfashion (i.e. without organisational sup-port) by a much larger number of Xhosa-speaking livestock owners in the formerBantustan areas 6 in the central and easternparts of the province. This is the so-called‘developing agricultural area’ of the prov-ince (Antrobus et al. 1994:12).

In this area, as mentioned above, little isknown about aggregate production levels,regional specialisations or even basicinvestment and expenditure in livestockmanagement. For instance, it is well-known that rural cattle owners buy and sellcattle to each other, but the extent of thesetransactions and the nature of their subse-quent investments remain virtually un-documented. Crucially, nothing beyondcrude estimates is available on the contri-bution of this sector to GNP. The effect ofthis relative lack of information and under-standing about the communal sector hasbeen its characterisation as an undifferenti-ated, stagnant (‘subsistence’) economicbackwater that does not merit officialattention, other than the patchy, and whatwere inevitably perceived as politically-motivated, development efforts ofBantustan regimes.

Based as it is on some 150 years ofofficial agricultural policy in South Africa,this dualist model is very resilient andcontinues to be influential in the ‘new’South Africa, specifically among many ofthe role-players in the province. It contin-ues to allow for the rote bifurcation ofanalyses of agriculture that permeates theofficial records, policies and practicesinherited from the recent past. This realityand its manipulations by role-players in thesector is revisited below.

Challenging the assumptionsabout cattle production in thecommunal sectorThe central aim of this report is to chal-lenge the key assertions (listed above)made in relation to cattle production in the

5

former Bantustan areas of the province.Taken together, these assertions constitutea particular development narrative thatpurports to explicate ‘the problem’ ofcommunal livestock production. In sodoing, the narrative, like all narratives,seeks to structure and define the possibleuniverse of both policy and practicalresponses directed at addressing this‘problem’ (Hoben 1995:1008). As such, itconstitutes ‘not merely a set of beliefs or atheory but a blueprint for action’ and canthus be a dangerous instrument in thecontext of policy formulation and pro-gramme implementation. For this reasonalone, the ‘four assertions’ need to besubjected to critical scrutiny.

Low off-takeThis is the assumption on which the dualistmodel largely rests: the issue of low off-take in the ‘subsistence’ or ‘communal’sector. Taking the orthodox view thatlivestock production equates (or shouldequate) with beef production specificallyfor the commercial market, many analystshave been critical of the historically lowbeef output of the communal sector. Thelow rates of off-take, it has been argued,relate to the largely ‘subsistence’ and‘cultural’ reasons why people in the formerBantustan areas keep livestock, and hencewhy they have historically been so reluc-tant to sell their livestock.

First, however, it is worth noting at theoutset that figures produced in previousstudies (mentioned briefly above) shouldbe regarded with circumspection, as theyoften only record ‘formal’ sales, i.e.through agricultural parastatals, co-opera-tives, to abattoirs, at stock auctions, and soon. These figures do not, in general, recordthe out-of-hand sales to speculators and toneighbours, which to date have remaineddifficult to quantify accurately and whichwould tend, significantly, to outweigh theformer (see Tapson 1982:4; Cousins1997:28). It is also important to note that avery significant number of cattle arerecorded annually as having been ‘slaugh-tered for home use’ (usually for ritual

purposes): in 1981, this amounted to79 771 animals in the Transkei (Tapson1982:4). An informed estimate of thenumber of home-slaughtered cattle in theformer Transkei for 1997 was 120 000animals.7 Many of these cattle are, in fact,sold locally for cash, to other ‘homes’which require them for ritual slaughter.

Second, it is now well-known andwidely accepted that rural people in com-munal tenure areas have widely rangingreasons for keeping livestock. In short,these reasons include keeping livestock asstores of wealth, for reasons of utility, suchas the provision of milk, draught power,manure and, less frequently, meat (Cousins1997:32). Ownership of cattle, in particular– but also of goats and sheep – bestowsprestige and status on the owner (and his/her household) in the community. In someinstances, cattle are still used for lobola(bridewealth) payments and, more com-monly, for ritual slaughter. Cattle thusserve as social goods that underpin socialrelationships in quintessentially non-market ways.

Furthermore, cattle are not only inherit-able goods (when the present owner passesaway) but are subject to overlappingclaims by people within an agnatic clusteror family. This means that the ‘owner’ of abeast may not be free to sell it when he orshe chooses, because other people whohave ‘shares’ in the beast, may need to beconsulted first. It is also the case thatholding animals does not equate withowning them, as absentee, urban-basedowners leave stock in the care of ruralrelatives or employ herders to care for theircattle.

Moreover, the colours and patterns ofthe hides of animals (and sometimes thefact that they have horns, i.e. have notbeen polled) – rather than only or prima-rily the current physical condition of theanimal – may also affect their social orritual utility, since the performance ofcertain rituals requires animals of a particu-lar size, colour and horn shape (see Steyn1981:25; Tapson 1982:15; Bembridge &Tapson 1993:368).


6



To summarise, rural people keep cattlefor a number of reasons other than theproduction of beef or dairy products(Schmidt 1992). They thus attach a highervalue, relative to commercial beef farmers,to the non-beef and non-market relateduses of cattle, or what Cousins (1999)refers to as the ‘invisible capital’ of live-stock production in communal areas(Lenta & Maasdorp 1988:227–8). In theformer Ciskei, in the early 1970s, forinstance, Brown (1971:179) found thatoxen, which were retained for draughtpurposes (and eventual sale or slaughter),comprised nearly 38% of the total cattlepopulation. These complex factors, whichare individually weighted by each live-stock owner according to his or her ownsocial circumstances and accumulationstrategies, significantly affect the incentiveof particular cattle owners to keep cattlepurely for their cash value, i.e. solely forbeef production, and hence to subscribe toa strictly ‘commercial’ model of produc-tion.

Third, as previous studies have pointedout, the average herd size in the communalsector – for those people who own live-stock at all – is 5–6 head of cattle, 3–4goats and 13 sheep per owner (Tapson1993:17). Another study found that 78.2%(Transkei) and 69% (Ciskei) of cattleowners had ten or less head of cattle(Bembridge 1987). These averages maskconsiderable regional and local variation.The low numbers of individually ownedlivestock translate into owners who are notin a position to market animals regularlyand who are instead constantly trying tobuild up their livestock holdings.

Fourth, the actual marketing of live-stock in many parts of the former Transkeiand Ciskei areas continues to be a formida-ble challenge:8 poor transport networks(roads and rail) to get livestock, especiallycattle, to markets; poorly developed ornon-existent formal marketing channels forthe regular and reliable marketing of cattle;arbitrarily strict regulation of the move-ment of livestock from one ‘controlled’area to another; inadequate abattoir facili-

ties; a consequent dearth of knowledgeabout market prices and quality criteriaamong cattle owners; and the perceptionthat unscrupulous buyers (often ‘white’speculators) pay highly variable but gener-ally below the ‘real’ market prices forcattle in rural areas (Cousins 1997:35;Tapson 1982:2).

Overstocking and overgrazingThere is the decades-old contention thatthe apparently excessive (i.e. in excess ofsome perceived notion of ‘carrying capac-ity’) numbers of livestock held in theformer Bantustan areas has had, andcontinues to have, a deleterious effect onthe availability and condition of communalgrazing resources.9 This, in turn, adverselyaffects the quality of the livestock andhence both their reproductive rates andtheir market value. Indeed, given the factof finite grazing resources, ‘overstocking’and ‘overgrazing’ are seen as two sides ofthe same coin.

Recently, some analysts (see Scoones1995; Shackleton 1993) have challengedthe notion that rangeland degradation incommunal areas is the inevitable result ofwhat is officially regarded as excessiveoverstocking (as compared to stockingrates in line with recommended carryingcapacities). This ‘new’ approach torangeland science has seriously questionedthe applicability of much of the conven-tional, commercially oriented understand-ing of rangeland dynamics to particularlythe communal sector.

This approach argues that in typicalAfrican savannah rangelands, rainfall andnot livestock numbers plays the pre-eminent role in determining forage avail-ability. The impact of this non-equilibriumapproach has been to throw into questionthe (until recently) widely accepted truismthat all communal rangelands are uni-formly overstocked and overgrazed andhence degraded. It has tentatively beendrafted into national agricultural policy,although it continues to encounter opposi-tion from many conventional rangelandscientists.

7

Rational vs. irrational livestock ownersAn often-cited reason for the perceivedoverstocking of these areas, is a valuejudgement which is attributed to the live-stock owner in communal areas. This is thedictum that ‘quantity is more importantthat quality’ and that, in line with Hardin’sflawed ‘tragedy of the commons’ thesis,each rational livestock owner will attemptto increase his/her animal numbers adinfinitum. This is because each ownerknows that the returns on the additionalbeast will accrue to him/her, but the costsin terms of negative effect on the grazingresource, will be shared by all the ownersof livestock.10 However, since these (ever-increasing) animals are generally in poorcondition, reproductive and weaning ratesare low and natural increase is generallymuch slower than in commercial beeffarming systems. Viewed from a commer-cial perspective, the former approachconstitutes an inefficient (i.e. wasteful orirrational) use of the resources (land,grazing, water – not to mention govern-ment subsidy of dipping and vaccinationprogrammes) that are used to maintainthese high numbers of ‘unproductive’animals.

This narrative, constructed with suchapparently compelling and seductivesimplicity, actually masks a whole range ofcontentious issues. First, as has beenargued above, livestock production in thecommunal areas is not only about commer-cial (i.e. beef or milk) production, sincelivestock have considerable social signifi-cance and hence ‘non-economic’ value. Inthis sense, even periodically emaciatedanimals have social and (some) utilityvalue.

Second, and as a barrage of recentstudies have pointed out, the greatest flawin Hardin’s ‘tragedy of the commons’argument was the conflation of commonproperty systems with open access situa-tions, where grazing is literally ‘free-for-all’. In practically all communal areas inthe Eastern Cape, there are mechanismswhich, at the very least, exclude those whoare blatant outsiders11 from access to

grazing resources. This is despite the best(if not always intentional) efforts of theapartheid state and its Bantustan surrogatesto undermine these conventions of exclu-sion by removing and resettling groups ofpeople in virtually every corner of theprovince, thereby disrupting extant localpatterns of control over resources.

Third, as argued above, livestock incommunal areas are not subject to deci-sions made exclusively in the profit max-imising domain of rational choices avail-able to actors (i.e. livestock owners).Rather, besides the undeniably rationalmultiple use values that derive from ani-mals (their draught, milk and manurebenefits), other more ‘social’ factors arealso often taken into account in terms oftheir consumptive uses. So, for example, inselling a cow to a neighbour or kinsman, aperson may seek to increase their localstanding in respect of socially desirablequalities such as a reputation for generos-ity and fair play (perhaps by selling theanimal at a reduced price as well as lettingthe buyer pay this amount in instalmentswith no interest charged), often at theexpense of economic profit (see Hunter1936:69). This constitutes an act of eco-nomic irrationality by the standards of acommercial livestock owner.

Fourth, an interesting and revealingaspect of this argument is that it portrayslivestock owners in communal areas asboth rational and irrational in their actions:they quite rationally seek to increase theirindividually owned numbers of livestockad infinitum (thus apparently supportinggrave misgivings of the inevitable resultsof communal land ownership), and thenthey irrationally do not concern them-selves with the condition or health of theiranimals or the condition of the forageavailable to their animals. This irrationalneglect results, among other things, inlower reproduction rates for livestockowned by people whose main aim is toensure that they multiply. What this re-veals, I would argue, is that the manycriticisms of livestock production in com-munal areas are more expressions of faith12


8



that this system is intrinsically ‘wrong’ or‘unworkable’ than empirically groundedarguments for imaginative engagement inthis sector.

The communal tenure system: The �realproblem�?At the heart of the ‘problem’ of highanimal numbers and low off-take, it isconventionally argued, lies the intractabil-ity and backwardness of the communaltenure system itself.13 It is this system, it issaid, which impoverishes the vast numberof people living in these areas by denyingthem the opportunity to own and invest inland as a basis of individual (or house-hold), private economic accumulation.Indeed, livestock development pro-grammes in sub-Saharan Africa have, overthe past four decades at least, had twobroad objectives, that of increased (com-mercial) animal output and of rangelandconservation: both of these have beentackled primarily by means of tenurereform (Behnke & Scoones 1993; Lane &Moorehead 1995; Cloete 1989:18).

To be sure, a historical perspective onthese matters is critical to arriving at amore balanced characterisation of commu-nal tenure areas: these areas are certainlynot to be naïvely equated with pre-colo-nial, ‘traditional’ forms of land tenure andland use. In every significant aspect oftheir make-up and functioning, they arecreations of the colonial, Union and apart-heid state to (changing) imperatives in thedesire to control the lives of rural Africanpeoples in the countryside.

It is also worth keeping sight of the factthat criticisms of African land use and‘irrational’ livestock ownership have along genealogy in South Africa: they firstsurfaced in the Cape Colony in the face ofincreasing shortages of grazing land forthe expansionary trekboers followed bythe rapacious14 competition for farmlandengendered by the awarding of farms toBritish settlers in the hinterland (Marquand& Standing 1939:83–85; Peires 1981:122;Bundy 1979:22–25; Beinart 1984:56ff).Residual areas of African settlement were a

thorn in the side of these settlers and theiracquisitive interests.

Also, as Beinart (1984:62) notes, theconcerns of settler farmers were seen to bedirectly or indirectly impacted upon bywhat was happening in the then reserveareas: scab in African-owned sheep couldthreaten white farmers’ flocks, the ticksthat carried East Coast fever did not re-spect fences and boundaries and thesescourges had to be eliminated across theboard if settler livestock were to be safe infuture (see Beinart 1997:246ff).

This discourse of an ‘irrational andinefficient’ African sector was taken up bythe last decades of the nineteenth centurywith the growing need for African labourin the burgeoning mines and industries onthe diamond fields and the Witwatersrand(Bundy 1979; McAllister 1992:204).

One influential solution to the ‘eco-nomic problems’ inherent in communalareas in South Africa – most notably asproposed by Tomlinson (1955) – is anassault on the perceived evils of communaltenure itself. The far-reaching proposals ofTomlinson’s Commission aimed to aban-don the ‘one-man-one-plot’ policy that wasintroduced into the reserves with theinception of the Glen Grey Act in 1894.Tomlinson sought to reverse the break-down of ‘institutional controls’, by advo-cating the consolidation of land into‘economic units’, by removing the ‘super-fluous’, landless half of the rural popula-tion from the rural areas and into the cities,by addressing issues of land degradationand by promoting greater commercialisa-tion in livestock production, i.e. by in-creasing livestock quality and off-take rate(see Bundy 1979:227; Beinart 1984:79).

Although many of Tomlinson’s recom-mendations were swiftly rejected due tochanging policy emphases in the apartheidstate (Bundy 1979:227), it is striking thatTomlinson’s ideas continue to resonate inthe neo-liberal arguments about ‘too manypeople, too many animals’ that are stillcurrent in recent studies of formerBantustan areas. Advocates of his broadapproach are still to be found in the work

9

of Lyne and Nieuwoudt (1990) and Louw(1988) amongst others.

The essence of the debate about com-munal tenure can be reduced to an ideo-logical tug-of-war over forms of property:a neo-liberal, market perspective regardscommunal ownership as inefficient and asa hindrance to the unfettered operation ofthe market. The opposing view is thatforms of communal ownership of land inrural areas can and do offer a residualsafety net to the more vulnerable catego-ries of people in society (see De Wet &McAllister 1987; McAllister 1992; Cross &Haines (eds) 1988; and Cousins (ed) 2000for debates on these issues).

Livestock in communal areasSo how does livestock ownership incommunal areas of the Eastern Capework? At the most basic level, a combina-tion of birth and residence in a communalarea in the Eastern Cape affords a personthe right to run all the livestock s/he ownson the communal rangeland. Not only this,but absentees from rural areas are allowedto run their stock on rural rangelands. In asituation of increasing socio-economicdifferentiation, the ownership of livestockin these areas must almost inevitablybecome more concentrated. This has givenrise to the contention that the communaltenure system is ‘unfair’ to the poor whodo not own livestock, because a smallnumber of people with large numbers oflivestock are able to monopolise thegrazing resources – see McAllister’s(1992:211ff) critique of the TranskeiAgricultural Development Study (TADS1991). One proposal which takes this lineof argument to its logical conclusion is thatof formally recognising people’s ‘rights tograzing’ (TADS 1991; Tapson 1982;Bembridge & Tapson 1993:370). Theserights, it is posited, should be quantified –based on a negotiated finite number oflivestock per person allowed in that areafor a particular year – and issued as shares,which can then be traded between localpeople, depending on their individual/household needs and differential livestocknumbers. While the idea is not without

appeal to technocrats, it would face formi-dable obstacles if it were to be imple-mented in rural areas. Such a systemwould, even if it managed, against consid-erable odds, to win the support of all ruralconstituencies, require a well-developedmanagement system at local level, repli-cated around the province. It would alsorequire recourse to a higher authority to setthe rules of the game and to adjudicate inthe event of disputes. But probably itsweakest area would be in the regulating ofthe essential ‘livestock per person’ aspect,which would conceivably remain open tomanipulation on a grand scale and, in sodoing, undermine the whole project.

In contrast to these and other radicalproposals and efforts aimed at social andlandscape engineering in communal areas,it has been recognised more recently thatcommunal tenure systems still hold consid-erable appeal for large numbers of ruralpeople (including rural élites), even thoughthe degree of socio-economic differentia-tion present in these systems is an un-avoidable reality. Again, account must betaken of the wider social benefits affordedto the rural poor by the livestock that areowned by their kin and neighbours. Forexample, the redistributive aspects of ritualevents (i.e. the free availability of meat andfood) that are commonly held in all ruralareas, and which are attended by all localinhabitants, may in fact be a consciouscomponent of the survival strategies of thepoor.

Critically, it must be stressed that it isnot so much that common ownership anduse of rangeland are intrinsically ineffi-cient, but that, for a variety of reasons,such systems may suffer from an absenceof clear definitions of user groups, oflocally endorsed operational rules and ofan appropriate, nested legal frameworkthat supports its functioning (Cousins1996b:169–171; MALA 1998). If thislevel of institutional support, which islegally afforded to landholders in theparallel freehold system, is extended toareas under communal tenure, then thelatter can be a viable form of land owner-


10



ship and management. This is especially sogiven the flexibility that this form of tenureallows for (DLA 1997; McAllister 1992).Far from being done away with, communaltenure systems are being modified andgiven a new lease on life in the form ofcommunal property associations (CPAs)and other common ownership arrange-ments, including more controversial ‘tribal’land-owning initiatives currently said to bein vogue.

This policy direction suggests that theproponents of the conventional paradigmof livestock production in communal areashave failed, at least partially or for themoment, to convince policy-makers thatprivate ownership of land is a prerequisitefor livestock development in these areas(see MALA 1998).15 Indeed, given that theextensive evidence, especially from Afri-can countries with broadly similar agrariancircumstances, suggests that tenure reformtowards a system of private land owner-ship often creates more problems than itsolves, it is difficult to imagine exactlyhow the project could be undertaken inthis country on a large scale and yield adifferent result (see Shipton & Goheen1992:318).

Beyond dualism?It is somewhat ironic that, in stressing whyand how the multiple objectives of thelivestock owner in the communal sectordiffer substantively from those of thecommercial beef producer, proponents ofthe ‘new paradigm’ of rangeland manage-ment buttress the dualist model that inevi-tably carries so much baggage.16 Does the‘new paradigm’ make it more difficult forpolicy-makers to delve beneath the rheto-ric and general opacity that still character-ises our limited understanding of thecommunal sector?

In contrast to the dualist model, consen-sus appears to be building, in policydocuments at least, around a perspectivewhich recognises that livestock owners lieon a ‘continuum of scale of activity, fromthe specialised, simplified systems ofpurely commercial farmers, through those

who – when given the opportunity –diversify their enterprises and consumesome of their output, to those who con-sume the bulk of their output [or have usesfor it, other than commercial] but who may[sometimes] supply a portion to the mar-ket’ (Tapson n.d:3). This perspective hasthe potential, I would argue, to move thedebate forward and away from the di-chotomy of the ‘commercial vs. subsist-ence’ model and away from the obsessionwith typologising and seeking out ‘real’farmers from among the many gradationsof rural cattle-owners (Van Averbeke & DeLange 1995:50).

Who stands to gain by emphasisingagricultural dualism in the �new� SouthAfrica?Whatever official consensus, if any, isreached about the continued dualismwithin the agricultural sector in the EasternCape, particularly in terms of how thisshould be taken account of in the formula-tion of policy, it is interesting to note thatthe proponents for the ongoing existenceof such a dualism have changed substan-tially. In the past, the supposed existenceof a sharp dichotomy between ‘commer-cial’ and ‘subsistence’ sectors was used byorganised, ‘white’ agricultural unions toassert their claim for the lion’s share ofstate resources to be channelled to their‘commercial’ enterprises, which helped (atleast in theory) to fill government coffers.This rhetoric became increasingly self-fulfilling as the gap between the ‘twoagricultures’, in terms of measurable (and,as I have argued, measured) output, con-comitant state support and, indeed, ‘ration-ality’ was seen to widen. It was thoselivestock owners in the communal areaswho had some inclination towards com-mercial production that were to be mostsorely frustrated under this dualist regime.

As the consolidation of the Bantustansgathered speed in the 1970s and early1980s, a new category of ‘emerging blackfarmer’ – even the patronising name issuggestive (Where have they ‘emerged’from?) – was created, made possible by

11

the vacation of previously white-ownedfarms then within ‘consolidated’ Bantustanboundaries.

These ‘emerging farmers’, among themsenior bureaucrats, agricultural officials,other civil servants and businessmendrawn from the ranks of the Bantustanpetty bourgeoisie, began to participate inagriculture with a significant degree ofBantustan (and RSA, often in the form offinancial support from the DevelopmentBank of Southern Africa) governmentsupport, and with greater or lesser degreesof success. These ‘farmers’ began to blurthe sharp (racial) lines between commer-cial and subsistence sectors.

In the post-1994 period, these ‘emerg-ing’ farmers have become an increasinglyvocal and mobilised force within agricul-ture. These people (and increasingly manyof them regard themselves primarily asaspirant or fully ‘commercial’ farmers), areinvolved in an intriguing contest: they aredesperate to see the processes of landredistribution17 speeded up, so that theycan take titled ownership of farmlandwhich they now occupy and, in manycases, over which they have a rathertenuous hold (see Bernstein 1997:23–4, 27).

At the same time, these farmers, in apost-1994 era of rapid and, for many,surprisingly radical, adoption of neo-liberal economic policies by the nationalgovernment, are attempting to distancethemselves and their enterprises from the‘hopeless’ (my term) position of communalareas (see NERPO n.d:41). This strategywould seem to suit formerly ‘white’-dominated agricultural bodies that areunder enormous pressure to, in the par-lance, ‘broaden the profile of their mem-bership’ by attracting articulate blackfarmers into their ranks. However, ‘emerg-ing’ black farmers have thus far managedto evade what they perceive to be theexpedient embrace of organised ‘white’agriculture, especially with the politicalcapital of the latter group at an all-timelow (see Cousins 1997; Farmer’s Weekly19/03/1999). With disarming candour,black farmers argue that until such a time

as they have enjoyed all the government-provided material benefits previouslyenjoyed, over many decades, by the‘white’ commercial sector, it is not in theirinterests to do away with the (racial com-ponent of the) dualist model. What theyare instead trying to do is to insert be-tween, at one level, the dualist notions of‘white-commercial-freehold-advanced’ and‘black-subsistence-communal-backward’,the new category of ‘black-commercial-disadvantaged-in need of freehold title-butprogressive and politically loyal’ (seeNERPO n.d.).18

One such group is the Eastern CapeEmerging Redmeat Producers’ Organisa-tion (ECERPO), which is the biggestaffiliate to the National Emerging RedmeatProducers’ Organisation (NERPO). Suchorganisations are engaged in the process ofstrategically positioning themselves indebates within the national agriculturalsector. On the one hand, politicians arekeen to be seen to be listening to, andaddressing, the many concerns of ‘blackagriculture’, to the point of public endorse-ment of the organisations purporting torepresent these interests.19 On the otherhand, these bodies have not yet managedto put together a package that clearlyarticulates their needs and concerns and topresent this to government in a way that itcan assimilate and begin to incorporatemore definitively into policy. This has ledto exhortations by the Eastern Cape MEC20

for Agriculture and Land Affairs, Mr MaxMamase, for black farmers to ‘get organ-ised’ and to ‘form co-operatives’ (DailyDispatch 18/07/1998, 4/02/1999).

The lesson to take from the discussionabove is, I believe, a fairly self-evidentone: that agriculture in South Africa, basedso fundamentally, as everywhere in theworld, on access to and ownership of land,is and has always been deeply politicised.Moreover, in the absence of any visibleprogress being made in land tenure reformand redistribution (as opposed to restitu-tion), there is no reason to expect anychanges to this situation in the foreseeablefuture. The sector will continue to witness


12



a considerable degree of uneven govern-ment intervention, in terms of both policyand practice in future, and each of theseinterventions is likely to be highly con-tested throughout the province.

With this perspective in mind, then,questions arise as to what is known aboutthe current state of livestock production inthe communal sector in the Eastern Cape?What are its defining characteristics and towhat extent are these undergoing change?Given that the programmes of the govern-ment in the overall management of thesector will hopefully become more focusedover time, what insights can new researchprovide into the complex nature of live-stock production in the former Bantustansand thereby contribute to policy formula-tion in the Eastern Cape and nationally?

These questions are all central to ananalysis of the social and economic role oflivestock in communal tenure areas. Whilenot all of them can be addressed in thisstudy, it is hoped that this study will con-tribute to the renewed interest in this areaof enquiry.

Objectives of this study1. The first objective of this study is to

begin the crucial task of consolidatingour knowledge by revisiting historicaldebates and materials and by criticallyreviewing current information aboutcattle production and ownership in the‘communal’ areas of the province.

2. The second objective is to provide ananalysis of rural livelihoods, specifi-cally looking at the many, dynamicreasons why rural people living in theEastern Cape at the beginning of the21st century still own cattle, what rea-sons they have for disposing of theircattle, and what constraints they face indoing so.

3. Reliable, up-to-date and accessible dataon livestock numbers and ownershipprofiles is an obvious starting point forany meaningful analysis of, and inter-vention in, the sector. For this reason,the third objective is to develop a betterunderstanding of the numbers and

distribution of cattle and of the patternsof ownership across the province.

Research methodologyThis study made use of various researchtechniques: a literature review of publishedmaterial and ‘grey’ literature on cattleproduction in the former Bantustan areaswas conducted to inform the provincialoverview. Archival research was con-ducted into the historical antecedents ofcattle ownership and management in theseareas, particularly in the district level case-studies. Key informant interviews wereconducted with a number of the majorrole-players in the province to establish anoverall picture and understanding of thecurrent state of cattle production, andgovernment thinking and policy in thisregard, in the province. Two conferences(of ECERPO and NERPO) were attendedby members of the project team during thecourse of the year.

Four detailed case-studies into cattleownership, production and managementissues were undertaken across the prov-ince. These case-studies were conducted inthe (then) magisterial districts of Cala(Xhalanga), Lusikisiki, Maluti and Peddie.The research involved conducting semi-structured interviews with localstakeholders and key informants. It alsoinvolved tracing records on cattle numbersand production for each district as far backin time as possible. In some instances, itincluded administering questionnairesurveys to a sample of livestock owners inthe district.

Limitations of the studyThe primary limitation of the study is thatit is mostly restricted to an analysis ofcattle production only, and does not lookat livestock production more generally (i.e.including goats and sheep). This was apragmatic decision, based on the time andresource constraints under which theproject was completed. In the context ofrural production systems in the EasternCape, however, it is clear that cattle cannotbe seen in isolation from goats and sheep

13

and, to a lesser extent, equines (Shackletonet al. 1999). This fact should be borne inmind when reading this report.

Another limitation is that the four case-study districts are not necessarily repre-sentative of the former Bantustan areas.The case-studies were selected because allthe researchers who conducted the studiesalready had an established research pres-ence in these districts. Generalising on thebasis of four district case-studies, for anarea of the province which until recentlyhad 36 magisterial districts (11% sample),can be criticised. Nevertheless, the districtsselected represent a consistent (albeitconvenient, non-random) sampling of theoverall study area, namely one of the eightdistricts of the former Ciskei (13%) andthree of the 28 districts of the formerTranskei (11%).

Lastly, as the four case-studies wereconducted by researchers already estab-lished in the four districts, who are allconducting their own, longer-term, inde-pendent research projects, it was notpossible to entirely standardise the re-search instruments used. For this reason,the questionnaires administered in Malutidistrict varied from those in Xhalanga andin Peddie, while no questionnaires wereadministered in the case of Lusikisiki forthe purposes of this study (see case-studychapters for more details on researchmethodologies).

The structure of this reportThis report consists of seven further chap-ters. In Chapter 2, the historical anteced-ents of current cattle ownership patterns byXhosa-speakers in the Eastern Cape prov-ince are explored. The attempts of thesuccessive colonial, Union and apartheidstate(s) to intervene in issues involvingcattle ownership and production are alsoanalysed in some detail.

In Chapter 3, the issues around therecording of cattle numbers, including themethods employed by the government torecord livestock numbers and the accuracyof these figures, are examined. The avail-able data for the communal areas of the

province, and specifically for selecteddistricts within the former Ciskei andTranskei, are presented and reviewed.

Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7 comprise thedistrict case-studies, which examine as-pects of cattle ownership and production inXhalanga, Lusikisiki, Maluti and Peddiedistricts that are of relevance to this study.

Chapter 8 concludes the report andoffers some insights that could inform bothfuture research and government/privatesector initiatives in this area.

Endnotes1. Each of these assertions is treated

separately below. See McAllister(1992:214,217) for a trenchant critiqueof a similar list of such ‘assertions’ andLenta & Maasdorp (1988:226–8),Tapson (1982:43) and MALA (1998)for a lucid consideration of the sameissues.

2. For all the ‘reserves’ in South Africa,the value of pastoral production wasaround two thirds of the value of totalagricultural output in the period 1920-1960. Stock holdings were the mostimportant capital asset in Transkeiagriculture during this period (Simkins1981:260). This is a trend which hasonly become more accentuated sincethe 1960s.

3. What is clearly not still in incubation isthe firm conviction of the NationalDepartment of Agriculture that appliedresearch needs to be ‘reorientated to aconsiderable extent towards the require-ments of small scale, resource-poorfarmers’. In particular, the governmentrecognises that ‘special research pro-grammes to understand livestock man-agement systems in the former home-lands are needed in order to improvefertility and off-take, and avoid stocklosses during winter’ (MALA 1998).

4. From places as diverse as Australia,Ireland, New Zealand (mostly mutton),France and, until the BSE-scare, Britain.

5. Steyn (1988:330) notes that the increasein cattle numbers in the former Ciskei inthe years subsequent to the devastating


14



drought of 1983/84, were ‘almostentirely due to imports from the RSA[sic]’. (emphasis added)

6. Many Xhosa-speaking farm workers onwhite-owned commercial farms alsoown and farm with livestock, but theirpredicament is not a focus of this study.

7. N Khayltash, Deputy Director, EasternCape Veterinary Services, personalcommunication, 21/08/1998.

8. As recently as 1981, Steyn noted thatthe Amatola Basin in Ciskei ‘is notserved by a railway, has no main roadlink, no regular bus service, no electric-ity and no recreational facilities’(1981:13-14). The dipping facilitieswere ‘most inadequate’ (1981:29).

9. An early preoccupation of the state waswith the incidence and causes of soilerosion in both settler and peasantareas. See Beinart (1984) for an authori-tative analysis of these issues.

10. Also see Crotty (1981).11. The issue of who exactly constitutes an

outsider is complicated by claims ofbirthright in an area, kin group and clanmembership, as well as by claims thatresult from resettlement, both forcedand voluntary (see Bank 1993).

12. Based on weakly grounded economisticmodels that seek to depoliticise the coreissues.

13. See Tapson (1982:43) for a critique ofthis argument.

14. Peires (1981:122) notes that ‘the possi-bility of reselling land obtained for nextto nothing created an unquenchablethirst [among Settlers] for new grants’(also see Beinart 1984:61).

15. But see below for the discussion of‘emerging’ black farmers who want theissue of their ownership of farmlandurgently addressed (cf. Cousins 1997).

16. Similarly, this study concentrates exclu-sively on the former Bantustan areas ofthe province, endorsing in some ways a‘dualist’ model. It will be shown, how-ever, that the ‘two sectors’ or dominantproduction orientations (commercialand subsistence) are far more closelyintegrated than is generally perceived.

17. The work of the Heath Special Investi-gation Unit (SIU) into the ‘legitimacy’of land transfers and purchases in theformer Bantustans is generally wel-comed by this group as part of anoverdue process of conferring moresecure tenure (i.e. private ownership)over this farm land (see NERPOn.d:21).

18. Indeed, at the recent ECERPO congress,one influential speaker, spoke of theneed to ‘identify the “real” farmers’ inthe former Bantustan areas.

19. Former President Mandela, the premier ofthe Eastern Cape and a veritable ‘who’swho’ of national cabinet ministers anddirectors-general were scheduled toaddress the 2nd Annual Congress ofNERPO in Port Elizabeth, 13–15 October1999. Several of these high-profileguest speakers did not attend in the end.

20. Member of the Executive Council of theprovincial government.

ReferencesAntrobus, GG, Fraser, GCG, Levin, M &

Lloyd, HR. 1994. An overview of theagricultural economy of Region D. Unitfor Statistical Analysis, Report No.14.Port Elizabeth, Vista University.

Bank, L. 1993. Informal settlements in theTranskei, Ciskei and Eastern Cape: Apilot study. Human Sciences ResearchCouncil report. Pretoria: HSRC.

Behnke, RH & Scoones, I. 1993. Rethink-ing range ecology: Implications forrangeland management in Africa. InBehnke, RH, Scoones, I & Kerven, C(eds). pp.1–30.

Behnke, RH, Scoones, I & Kerven, C(eds). 1993. Range ecology at disequi-librium. London: Overseas Develop-ment Institute.

Beinart, W. 1984. Soil erosion, conserva-tion and ideas about development: Asouthern Africa exploration 1900–1960.Journal of Southern African Studies,11(1):52–83.

Bembridge, TJ. 1984. A systems approachstudy of agricultural development

15

problems in Transkei. UnpublishedPh.D thesis. Stellenbosch: University ofStellenbosch.

Bembridge, TJ. 1987. Aspects of cattleproduction in Transkei. South AfricanJournal of Animal Science 17(2).

Bembridge, TJ & Tapson, DR. 1993.Communal livestock systems, in Live-stock production systems edited by CMaree & NH Casey. Pretoria: Agricul-ture Development Forum. pp.361–373.

Benso. 1976. Black development in SouthAfrica. Benso: Pretoria.

Bernstein, H. 1997. Social change in theSouth African countryside? Land andproduction, poverty and power. LandReform and Agrarian Change in South-ern Africa, An Occasional Paper Series,No.4. Programme for Land and Agrar-ian Studies, School of Government,University of the Western Cape.

Brown, DL. 1971. Chapter seven: Agricul-ture in the Ciskei – a challenge, in TheCiskei – A Bantu homeland: A generalsurvey. Alice: Fort Hare UniversityPress.

Bundy, C. 1979. (2nd ed. 1988) The riseand fall of the South African peasantry.Cape Town: David Philip.

Cloete, JG. 1989. A proposed animalproduction research-developmentprogramme for Transkei,Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei.Compiled on behalf of the ResearchSub-Committee of the Animal Produc-tion Working Group of the Secretariatfor Multi-Lateral Development inSouthern Africa.

Cousins, B. 1996a. Range managementand land reform policy in post-Apart-heid South Africa. Occasional PaperNo.2. Programme for Land and Agrar-ian Studies, School of Government,University of the Western Cape.

Cousins, B. 1996b. Livestock productionand common property struggles inSouth Africa’s agrarian reform. Journalof Peasant Studies 23 (2 and 3):166–208.

Cousins, B. 1997. Conditions of entry intothe red meat industry for black livestockproducers. Draft report for ResearchProject on ‘Restructuring Agriculture inSouth Africa’. University of Natal.

Cousins, B. 1998. Invisible capital: Thecontribution of communal rangelands torural livelihoods in South Africa. In DeBruyn, TD & Scogings, PF (eds). pp.16–29.

Cross, C & Haines, R (eds). 1988. Towardsfreehold ? Options for land and devel-opment in South Africa’s black ruralareas. Johanneburg: Juta.

Crotty, C. 1981. Cattle, economics anddevelopment. London: CommonwealthAgricultural Bureau.

De Bruyn, TD & Scogings, PF (eds). 1998.Communal rangelands in SouthernAfrica: A synthesis of knowledge.Proceedings of a symposium on policymaking for the sustainable use ofsouthern African communal rangelands.Department of Livestock and PastureScience. Alice: University of Fort Hare.

De Wet, CJ. & McAllister, PA with Hart, T(eds). 1987. The land tenure and ruraldevelopment workshop: an analyticaloverview. Development Southern Africa4(3).

Department of Agriculture. 1998. Abstractof agricultural statistics. Pretoria:Directorate Agricultural Statistics.

DLA (Department of Land Affairs). 1997.White paper on South African landpolicy. Pretoria: Department of LandAffairs.

Erasmus, J. 1996. Eastern Cape: A humandevelopment profile. DevelopmentPaper 108. Johannesburg: DevelopmentBank of Southern Africa.

Fraser, GCG & Antrobus, GG. 1988. Therole of agricultural marketing in trans-forming subsistence agriculture: anAfrican case study, in Governmentintervention in Agriculture edited byB Greenshields & M Bellamy. Interna-tional Association of Agricultural


16



Economists, Occasional Paper No.5.pp.270–275.

Government of Transkei. 1990. TheTranskei Agricultural Plan. Umtata.

TADS (Government of Transkei). 1991.The Transkei Agricultural DevelopmentStudy. Umtata.

Hobart Houghton, D. 1964 (3rd ed. 1973).The South African economy. CapeTown: Oxford University Press.

Hoben, A. 1995. Paradigms and politics:The cultural construction of environ-mental policy in Ethiopia. World Devel-opment 23(6):1007–1021.

Hunter, M. 1936. Reaction to conquest.London: Oxford University Press.

Lane, C & Moorehead, R. 1995. Newdirections in rangeland and resourcetenure and policy, in Scoones, I (ed.).pp.116–133.

Lenta, G & Maasdorp, G. 1988. Limitfactors on food production in the home-lands, in Towards freehold? edited by CCross & R Haines. Cape Town: Juta.

Lipton, Merle. 1977. South Africa: Twoagricultures? in Farm labour in SouthAfrica edited by F Wilson, A Kooy & DHendrie. Cape Town: David Philip.pp.72–85.

Louw, L. 1988. Black tenure vs. whitetenure in South Africa: What is theimpact on development? in Cross andHaines (eds). pp.294–301.

Lyne, MC & Nieuwoudt, WL. 1990. Thereal tragedy of the commons: Livestockproduction in KwaZulu. South AfricanJournal of Economics 58(1):88–96.

MALA (Ministry for Agriculture and LandAffairs). 1998. Agricultural policy inSouth Africa. A discussion document.Pretoria: Ministry for Agriculture andLand Affairs.

Marquand, L & Standing, TG. 1939. Thesouthern Bantu. London: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

McAllister, PA. 1992. Rural production,land use and development planning inTranskei: A critique of the Transkei

Agricultural Development Study. Jour-nal of Contemporary African Studies11(2):200–222.

NERPO. n.d. The emerging red meatproducers’ road to prosperity. Pretoria:The National Emerging Red MeatProducers’ Organisation.

O’Reagain, PJ & Turner, JR. 1992. Anevaluation of the empirical basis forgrazing management recommendationsfor rangeland in southern Africa. Jour-nal of the Grassland Society of South-ern Africa 9(1):38–49.

Peires, J. 1981. The House of Phalo.Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Schmidt, MI. 1992. The relationshipbetween cattle and savings: A cattle-owner perspective. Development South-ern Africa Vol.9 (4):433–444.

Scoones, I. 1993. Why are there so manyanimals? Cattle population dynamics inthe communal areas of Zimbabwe, inBehnke, RH, Scoones, I & Kerven, C(eds).

Scoones, I. 1995a. New directions inpastoral development in Africa, inScoones, I (ed.).

Scoones, I (ed.). 1995b. Living with uncer-tainty: New directions in pastoraldevelopment in Africa. London: Interna-tional Institute for Environment andDevelopment.

Shackleton, C. 1993. Are the communalrangelands in need of saving? Develop-ment Southern Africa 10(1):65–78.

Shackleton, SE, Shackleton, CC & Cous-ins, B. 1999. The economic value ofland and natural resources to rurallivelihoods: Case studies from SouthAfrica. Paper prepared for the Land andAgrarian Reform Conference, Pretoria,26–28 July 1999.

Shipton, P & Goheen, M. 1992. Introduc-tion: Understanding African land-holding: Power, wealth and meaning.Africa 62(3):307–325.

Simkins, C. 1981. Agricultural productionin the African reserves of South Africa,

17

1918–1969. Journal of SouthernAfrican Studies 7(2):256–283.

Steyn, GJ. 1981. Amatola Basin RuralDevelopment Project, Section III:Present land use: Animal production inthe Amatola Basin. Agricultural andRural Development Research Institute.Report No.6/81. Alice: University ofFort Hare.

Steyn, GJ. 1988. A farming systems studyof two rural areas in the Peddie districtof Ciskei. Unpublished D.Sc. thesis.Alice: University of Fort Hare.

Tapson, DR. 1982. Proposals for a cattlemarketing strategy for Transkei. Agri-cultural and Rural Development Re-search Institute, Report No.1/82. Alice:University of Fort Hare.

Tapson, DR. 1993. Models of land useactivities: Case study of livestock in theEastern Cape. World Bank Rural Re-structuring Programme for South Africa.LAPC Research Paper 8a. Johannes-burg: Land and Agriculture PolicyCentre.

Tapson, DR. n.d. Chapter 13: Livestockproduction and services. Mimeo copyin the author’s possession.

Tomlinson Commission. 1955. Report ofthe Commission for the Socio-EconomicDevelopment of the Bantu Areas withinthe Union of South Africa. Pretoria:Union of South Africa.

Van Averbeke, W & De Lange, AO. 1995.Chapter one: Agro-ecological condi-tions and land use, in Regional over-view of land reform-related issues in theEastern Cape Province edited by CJ DeWet & W van Averbeke. Report com-missioned by the Land and AgriculturePolicy Centre (LAPC), Johannesburg.

Van Zyl, J, McKenzie, C & Kirsten, J.1996. Natural resource managementissues in rural South Africa, in Agricul-tural land reform in South Africa editedby J Van Zyl, J Kirsten & HPBinswanger. Cape Town: Oxford Uni-versity Press. pp.236–258.

Newspaper and popular magazinearticlesDaily Dispatch 18/02/1998, 4/02/1999,16/02/1999Farmer’s Weekly 19/03/1999


18



Pre-colonial cattle ownership by Xhosa-speakersFrom what has been written about the ownership of livestock by Xhosapeople before the arrival of European travellers (and later settlers) in theEastern Cape, it is clear that these Xhosa-speakers were agro-pastoralistswho arrived in what is now the Eastern Cape around the 15th century(Sansom 1974; Crais 1992:16). Here they encountered Khoikhoigroups of pastoralists, as well as San hunter-gatherers (Hall 1986). TheXhosa-speakers established political control over the area between theMbashe River in the east and the Sundays River in the west (Crais1992:17; Hall 1986:48).

raiding (Peires 1981; Beinart 1984:74).Economically, Xhosa-speakers were

agro-pastoralists: they were cattle and goatkeepers and hoe-culturalists, cultivatingmaize, millet, sorghum, kidney beans,pumpkins, melons and tobacco(Hammond-Tooke 1969:89; Bundy1979:16; Crais 1992:19). They dependedon their livestock, particularly their cattle,for their basic protein intake, in the form ofmilk, sour milk and, less frequently, meat.They also hunted game and gathered wildplants, tubers, roots and berries (Bundy1979:17,19).

Among the Mpondo, Hunter (1936:68)recorded the economic primacy of cattle.The Mpondo are reported to have 57 termsfor describing the colour and markings ofbeasts and five for horns (Hunter1936:70). Not only were cattle importantfor subsistence purposes, but cattle-racingwas a favourite pastime (Bundy 1979:49;Shaw 1974:94). All of Hunter’s informants

Chapter 2:The historical context of cattleownership

Andrew Ainslie

Xhosa-speakers depended on the presenceof ample grazing resources in the region tosustain their herds of cattle, and theyengaged in systems of seasonaltranshumance and of maintaining cattle-posts away from settlements. Hall(1986:44) notes, for example, that theMbalu chiefs maintained their settlementsin the vicinity of the Tyhumie Valley at thebase of the Amatola range, where sourveldprovided the summer grazing for theirlivestock. During winter, they took theirstock down to the sweetveld areas alongthe middle reaches of the Koonap River.Similarly, the Ndlambe are known to havemoved their stock between the coastal areaaround the Bushman’s River and thesweetveld of the Fish River valley.

Xhosa-speakers also engaged in loansand exchanges between kinsmen andbetween patron-clients to disperse theirherds and flocks in order to reduce theirlosses in the event of disease outbreaks or

19

were emphatic that less land had beencultivated formerly and that ‘milk andmeat [formerly] played a greater part in thediet of the people than they do today, yeteven today [i.e. in 1931] they are principalitems in Pondo diet’ (Hunter 1936:70).

Cattle, unless they died from sickness,in which case they were eaten, weremostly slaughtered for ritual occasions.Consumption of beef was, however,complicated by rules of distribution basedon criteria of kinship and residentialassociation. These rules hindered the useof meat as a commodity to be marketed(Sansom 1974:152). Nevertheless, meat-eating was ‘eating capital and a fine exam-ple of conspicuous consumption’, i.e. itmight constitute a display of one’s wealthin animals (Sansom 1974:152).

Before contact with Europeans, clothingwas made of hide, supplemented by theskins of goats and wild animals. Cattlehides also provided war shields and thongs(Bundy 1979:17). Dung was used onfloors and as binding and plastering mate-rial in the construction of houses.

Cattle were the principal medium ofexchange and the medium in which courtfines were levied. Wealth was accumulatedmainly in cattle. The possession of cattleconferred social importance, for they werethe primary means of securing many wives(through bridewealth transfers) and adher-ents, and of dispensing hospitality andshowing generosity, on which virtuesstatus largely depended. The cattle ofcommoners was appropriated for themarriage of chiefs to their senior wives, forthe payment of fines and through witch-craft accusations, the latter particularlyassociated with chieftainship (Crais1992:21).

The investment in cattle by individuals(and homesteads) created considerablepotential for socio-economic differentia-tion or what Sansom (1974:152) refers toas ‘spectacular discrepancies in wealth’.Cattle ownership made for a highly capital-ised economy among Xhosa-speakinggroups.

Cattle were also the means of obtainingsexual satisfaction, since a legal marriage

could not take place without the passage ofcattle (Shaw 1974:94). Fines for illegalrelations were levied in cattle. Further-more, cattle were the means of keeping ongood terms with the ancestral spirits(amathongo), and so of securing healthand prosperity. Crais (1992:21ff) presentsa perceptive analysis of the role of cattle inbroadly Xhosa-speaking culture in which,he argues, cattle represented ‘a criticalintersection of economics, authority andcosmology’:

The inhabitants of the umzi [home-stead] sacrificed cattle for the ances-tors who had been prominent headsof the settlement, sharing in theconsciousness of the past of the umziand re-enforcing the authority of thesenior male of the homestead … Atone level cattle constituted thematerial embodiment and continua-tion of the economic order. By re-stricting access to cattle as lobolathe senior male maintained controlover the labour-power employed inthe economic activities of the home-stead. (Crais 1992:21)

The economies of pre-colonial Xhosagroups were by no means static, and themobility of these groups was engenderedby two factors. First, in the face of periodicdroughts and sourveld/sweetveld seasonalmigrations, there was a constant need toseek out fresh grazing resources. Thismobility brought different groups intocontact with each other. In the late 16th andearly 17th centuries, contact betweenwestward moving Xhosa-speakers andKhoikhoi peoples increased, especiallyduring the reign of the Xhosa paramount,Tshiwo (Crais 1992:25). Slowly, Khoikhoigroups were incorporated in Xhosachieftaincies.

Second, the segmentary tensions thatsuccession in Xhosa notions of chieftaincyengendered, meant that contests, andindeed protracted conflicts, over leadershipwere a feature of the Xhosa polities. Theseconflicts were perhaps particularly pro-nounced in the 17th and 18th centuries(Crais 1992:25ff; Peires 1981).1 After

Chapter 2: The historical context of cattle ownership

20



Phalo’s death in 1775, as a notable exam-ple, his sons Gcaleka and Rharhabe cameout in open conflict against each other.Rharhabe was vanquished, but was laterpermitted to move west with his followersand settled near the present-dayStutterheim.

Not only did conflict at the level ofchieftaincies result in mobility, but thesegmentation at the level of every umzigave rise to an expansionary tendency, asmature sons married and established theirown imizi, apart from those of their fathers.In the context of the ever-present tendencytowards a decentralisation of politicalpower, in which commoners2 could amassconsiderable wealth in cattle and gather afollowing around themselves, the positionof the chieftaincy remained an ambiguousone: chiefs who failed to redistributewealth to their followers could quickly findthemselves deserted in favour of otherswho did (Hammond-Tooke 1965; Kuper1997).

From the 1770s, the Dutch-speakingpastoralist trekboer entered this unpredict-able ecological and volatile politicalenvironment, with disastrous results forboth Khoikhoi and Xhosa-speaking peo-ples (Crais 1992:36–52). Over the courseof the ensuing century, the majority ofKhoikhoi peoples were to be exterminatedby disease, hunted down and murdered bywhite colonists or became slaves, peonsand indentured labourers on white-ownedfarms. Nor did the Xhosa-speaking groupsfare much better: they were engaged in noless than nine ‘Frontier Wars’, banishedfrom the land that had been under theircontrol for centuries, economically andpolitically subjugated and unequivocallybrought under the heel of the colonialstate, forced to labour on white-ownedfarms and, later, in distant mines andemerging industries.

For over a century following the 1870s,the further elaboration and consolidationof racially based subjugation entailed whatmay be regarded as an unbridled assaulton Xhosa identity and culture. Beinart(1980:91) notes that the homesteads of

Mpondo chiefs, which had been amongthe wealthiest in the pre-colonial period,sought to hold onto their position in theearly decades of the 20th century. Theyoften had large numbers of cattle and smallstock, and herds which were passed downfrom generation to generation. Some ofthese chiefs still invoked ‘customary’tribute rights to claim stock from common-ers and also ran courts and exacted fines inlivestock, even though their judicial pow-ers were not recognised by the colonialadministration. Having existing economicresources meant that these homesteadscould exploit economic opportunities morereadily than those that were less wellendowed. These early signs of socio-economic differentiation would develop asthe century unfolded and were to have aconsiderable impact on poverty levels andon rural inter-household relations through-out the ensuing decades.

Throughout these fundamental changesthat were wrought in the overarchingpolitical economy, Xhosa-speaking peoplehave sought variously and with greater orlesser degrees of success, to hold ontotheir cultural notions and ideals by resist-ing, accommodating, rejecting, incorporat-ing and challenging the imposition ofEuropean notions and institutions ofsociety and social organisation (seeHendricks 1991:194–5). As Hunter(1936:141) noted for the Mpondo: ‘Be-cause they now trade Pondo [sic] aredirectly affected by affairs in Europe andAmerica.’ Critically, however, Xhosa-speakers have continued to identify inmultifarious ways with their patrilineallyorganised cultural universe and, specifi-cally, with the central place of cattle in thisuniverse (see Mayer 1961; Hendricks1991; McAllister 1985, 1997; Beinart &Bundy 1987).

Government intervention incattle production systems3

It is important to note, as Hendricks(1989:306) does, that there is often a widediscrepancy between the stated objectivesof government plans and policies and their

21

eventual implementation. This observationserves as a warning against the inclinationto view ‘the state’ as a monolithic, single-minded institution which analyses thecomplex issues confronting it in rationalways, and proceeds from there to thecoherent formulation and the uniformexercise of power, including the imple-mentation of policy, in ways that aresomehow entirely free of contradiction(see Ainslie 1998:73–78).

Rather, the colonial, Union and (post-1948) apartheid and, indeed, the post-1994democratic state in South Africa canusefully be viewed as successive sites ofongoing contestation over competinginterests and meanings in the developingpolitical economy in the country. A genericfeature of all states, namely the extensionof bureaucratic and social control over itscitizenry for the purposes of, inter alia,taxation, with the aim (at least, theoreti-cally) of facilitating the provision andsubsequent administration of public goodsand services, including education, healthcare, law enforcement, basic infrastructureand defence, are clearly at work here.

It is, however, the differential, raciallybiased nature of this extension of controlover its citizenry which has left a particu-larly telling legacy in rural South Africaand which is of primary interest here. Tonarrow it down still further, it is the legacyof intervention by the state with respect topatterns of cattle ownership and produc-tion that are especially relevant to us.Three areas of state intervention, whichsometimes but not always overlapped inpractice, were attempts to:1. control the spread of livestock diseases;2. introduce stock limitation programmes

as part of the various permutations ofland rehabilitation (including Better-ment Planning); and

3. increase the off-take of cattle in theseareas.

Mobile cattle and roving diseasesThe main mode of transport in the EasternCape by the late 1860s was the ox wagon.Between the larger towns of East London,King William’s Town, Port Elizabeth and

Grahamstown and the rural hinterlandwhere traders were setting up their tradingstations, Europeans and Africans alikewere making a living as transport ridersand contractors (cf. Bundy 1979:54ff, 67).They transported consumer goods, includ-ing hoes, picks and, significantly, ploughsinto rural areas and came out with agricul-tural produce, especially wool and hides,but also wheat and maize (and otherproducts such as firewood) for sale in thetowns and for export (Bundy 1979:58).

The discovery of diamonds also pro-vided a welcome boost for agriculturalproduction in the Eastern Cape. Bundy(1979:67) characterised this boost as a‘virtual explosion of peasant activity in the1870s’. Indeed, Beinart (1997:246) pointsout that the number of oxen recorded inthe Cape census rose dramatically from249 000 to 422 000 between 1865 and1875.4

These new forms of economic activityhad two key consequences in terms ofcattle production:1. the increasingly widespread use of

cattle (oxen) in providing draughtpower, both for ploughing and fortransport; and

2. the increased investment and sales oflivestock (cattle, but also sheep) andlivestock products to meet the growingdemand for cattle.

Both of these developments meant that allcattle, even Xhosa-owned cattle, hadfirmly entered the ‘formal’ economicrealm, the latter dominated by the interestsof ‘merchant capital’ and the demands ofdistant markets. This gave rise to newsocial and economic forms of activity,value and meaning in respect of cattleownership that would necessitate recurringnegotiation and mediation by future gen-erations of Xhosa-speaking people. Withthe heightened investment in the sector,particularly in terms of the increased utilityof cattle, but also due to the considerablevalue of wool exports, official concernswere soon raised about the prevalence,aetiology and the combating of livestockdiseases in the countryside.5


22



Redwater disease, which had beenprevalent in the Colony and Transkei in the1870s, reappeared in a virulent formaround King William’s Town and EastLondon in 1882. Hutcheon, the ColonialVeterinary Surgeon at the time, was con-vinced that the disease ‘was spread mostlyby means of transport’ (Beinart 1997:246).Notwithstanding the limited understandingof disease at this time, veterinary opinionheld that any movement of stock waspotentially problematic in spreading anepizootic.

Hutcheon attempted to impose the thenrecently promulgated Contagious DiseasesAct No. 2 of 1881, which enabled theproclamation of a district or area as ‘in-fected’ and the prohibition of animalmovement in and out of the zone.Hutcheon also argued that farmers shouldfence the perimeter of their farms to pre-vent access by passing animals that strayedfrom the main transport routes when theywere outspanned, in their search for graz-ing. While these measures were designedto safeguard the interests of the livestock‘industry’ as a whole by the deliberatespatial confinement of disease outbreaks, itis likely that they were resented by thoseinconvenienced by their implementation.6

Livestock owners might well have recog-nised this intervention as representing thethin end of the wedge, portending evergreater government intervention in thelivestock sector.7

When, in 1885, redwater spread fromthe coastal districts as far as Cathcart andQueenstown, livestock from the Transkei,which were among the most seriouslyaffected, were denied entry to older colo-nial districts. Farmers along the maintransport routes fenced their farms morequickly in order to protect their stockfrom passing transport teams (Beinart1997:247). In 1891, a further epizooticspread as far as Aliwal North and BarklyEast where redwater had not been reportedbefore.

Now that the expanding veterinarydepartment, and indeed the whole Depart-ment of Agriculture, had the authority to

act more decisively, greater control overcattle movements could be exercised in theevent of emergencies, such as the outbreakof epidemics. Following the Scab Commis-sion (1892–94), the dipping of sheepagainst scab, which had been compulsoryin some districts since 1886, becamecompulsory throughout the Cape after1894 (Beinart 1997:248).

Beinart (1997:249) argues that there islittle evidence in this early work of theveterinarians of the 1870s and early 1880sthat ever-present concerns about livestockdiseases were feeding into segregationistdemands. Rather, it appears that black-owned stock was usually viewed neutrallyor with some favour. On the other hand,the ideas of vets concerning sanitation andanimal health came to the fore in their callfor spatial reorganisation and separation,particularly in attempts to keep sheep outof what were regarded as potentiallydisease-ridden kraals; and, as a corollary,the fencing of farms and of paddocks orcamps within them (see next section).

Arguments about animal health were ‘asignificant although by no means the onlyfactor in the tightening of the Cape’s stillfluid internal boundaries’, through theincreasing use of fencing (Beinart1997:250). At a later stage, the issue ofanimal diseases would come into playcentrally in defining boundaries betweenwhite and black (Beinart 1997:250).Indeed, at a recent, i.e. 1999 (largely‘white’) farmers’ conference inQueenstown, farmers ‘expressed concernover the spreading of contagious abortionand scab from the old Ciskei and Transkeiareas which was resulting in massive coststo farmers on adjoining farms. The spreadof disease was exacerbated, they argued,by [African] farmers using communalgrazing, non-compliance with dippingrequirements and a lack of governmentalfunding to assist farmers in dipping theiranimals.’ (Daily Dispatch 14/05/1999)

In 1896–97, there was a rinderpestepidemic in the Cape. Rumours circulatedthat rinderpest was spread by whites so asto induce poverty and to compel Africans

23

to seek work for very low wages (VanOnselen 1972:475; Bundy 1988:120).Africans called the disease ‘zifozonke’meaning ‘every disease’ or ‘masilangane’which means ‘let us all be equal’. Rinder-pest, and the campaign to eradicate it,destroyed 80 to 90% of the cattle in theTranskei – animals, which at that stage,still very much formed the real wealth ofthe rural people (see Van Onselen1972:484) – and nearly as many in theCiskei. Although provision was made forthe payment of compensation to owners ofinfected cattle that had to be shot, in theearly stages of the outbreak, no compensa-tion was paid. This in spite of the policy of‘stamping out’, i.e. culling, entire herdspurportedly infected by the disease. Withno compensation forthcoming, the re-sponse from cattle owners was a distinctlack of co-operation (Van Onselen1972:474).

In the wake of the rinderpest epidemic,the transport system of the province wascrippled by the loss of draught-oxen (VanOnselen 1972:484). Africans were forcedinto the cash economy to obtain funds forrestocking their herds, despite the highruling prices (Van Onselen 1972:486). TheChief Magistrate of the Transkei reportedin 1899 that:

It is surprising (notwithstanding thehigh price of cattle in the Colony)how many cattle, principally younganimals, are being purchased fromcolonial farmers with money earnedin the mines and public works, andbrought into the territories. (BlueBook 1899:71, quoted in VanOnselen 1972:486)

Rinderpest was successfully eradicated inSouth Africa in 1904 (Farmer’s WeeklyJune 18, 1999), only to be followed a fewyears later by East Coast Fever. In fact, by1904, East Coast Fever, which had beenmoving down the east coast of Africa for adecade, had reached the northern Trans-vaal. It was decided to introduce compul-sory dipping against East Coast Fever inthe Transkei through the Council system,so that the costs of the dipping could be

recovered locally by charging cattle own-ers directly (Bundy 1987:194–5). In 1910,the programme was only just gettingunderway, but it was too late to prevent thesouthward spread of East Coast Fever fromNatal to the Transkei reserve areas in 1911.

In 1911, the Stock Diseases Act waspassed and when it was extended to theTranskei in 1912, it introduced even moresevere anti-fever regulations (Bundy1987:195). These had particularly onerousconsequences for cattle owners in theTranskei:· dipping became compulsory and its

avoidance punishable in court;· dipping was to occur every seven days;· it thus became more expensive for

cattle owners;· every and any case of illness among

cattle had to be reported;· transporting an animal from one loca-

tion to another involved paddocking,taking its temperature and securing therequired authorisation from a veterinaryofficer;

· this made it virtually impossible tomove cattle;

· it was very difficult to sell stock andthen only at very depressed prices; and

· transport-riding opportunities dried upwith the restriction on movement.

The disease decimated herds and impover-ished rural people. Because the diseasetended to linger and to reinfect ‘cleandistricts’, it proved more troublesome thanrinderpest and had a longer-term negativeeconomic effect on rural people. Theregulations imposed for the control of EastCoast Fever made it impossible for ruralpeople to sell their cattle to anyone but thelocal trader at very low prices (Bundy1987:196; Bundy 1988:124).

These regulations remained in force forfour years, in the face of considerablediscontent from the local population(Bundy 1987:198). In 1914, troops weresent to East Griqualand when the long-standing popular opposition to the compul-sory dipping of cattle, especially in thedistricts of Mount Frere and Fletcher andMatatiele,8 threatened to break out in open


24



insurrection (Bundy 1987:191–2, 203). Anumber of dipping tanks and sheds wereattacked and burned and armed bands ofmen traversed the countryside lootingtrading stores and threatening dippingofficers.

People also resented the dipping pro-gramme because they reasoned that thedipping of cattle allowed the authorities tocount the numbers of cattle in their local-ity, information they were not happy todivulge. Bundy (1987:218) notes that EastCoast Fever lingered in the Transkei andonly in 1930 were the restrictions on stockmovements finally lifted. By 1931, Hunter(1936:67) noted that:

the Government has introduced asystem of compulsory dipping tocombat disease in stock. Tanks havebeen built all through the country,and [African] dipping foremen, paidby the Government, appointed. Allcattle must be dipped at regularintervals, varying from a week to amonth with the district and theseason. Sheep and goats are alsodipped. The foremen are supervisedby Europeans. Compulsory dipping,and the accompanying tax (cf.Hunter 1936: 141), and the regula-tions regarding the movement ofstock are much resented.

Mpondo people complained to Hunter thatthe frequent dipping made oxen less fit torace, and the restrictions on movementmade large gatherings of cattle for racingimpossible and further increased thedifficulties of marketing (Hunter 1936:67;also see Bundy 1988:125).

For the period 1950 to 1980, not muchpublished literature is available regardinganimal health programmes, although,given more time, it might be possible totrack down ‘grey’ literature on the subject.Mager (1992, 1995) has documented thewidespread opposition to governmentdipping in the African areas of Peddie andneighbouring districts that fed into otherstruggles being waged around the imposi-tion of ‘betterment’ planning in the face ofrising rural landlessness, drought, poverty

and deprivation. Anthrax, in particular,remains a constant threat and inoculationshave been compulsory throughout theAfrican areas, including the former Ciskei,where inoculations were done annually bythe Veterinary Section (Steyn 1981:29).

The implementation of dipping andinoculation programmes remain dogged bydifficulties: there are ongoing problems ofveterinary staff shortages – for the formerTranskei, Bembridge (1984:85) noted thatthere was one ‘field veterinarian’ for every179 000 cattle, which allowed ‘little atten-tion to be given to individual stock own-ers’ livestock disease problems’, fundingshortages,9 misunderstandings and mistrustbetween cattle owners and veterinary staff,which undermines the co-operation whichis essential if a state-managed and adminis-tered preventative animal health pro-gramme is to be successful. The recentuncertainty concerning long-term govern-ment policy, especially with regard to theprovision and organisation of dipping incommunal tenure areas, only contributes tothe malaise. The ongoing shortage ofveterinary surgeons in the province hasbegun to receive attention, with legislationpassed to make the remuneration packageof surgeons in the civil service moreattractive.

The government-provided dippingprogramme, a senior official has sug-gested, is an unfortunate and expensiveartefact from the past. ‘It should be everyman for himself when it comes to dipping.’The department, he felt, should only beresponsible for controlling the zoonoticdiseases that can be transferred fromanimals to humans, such as rabies, anthraxand bovine tuberculosis. Draft policy tothis effect has already been drafted andwas due to come into effect in 2000.10

The MALA Discussion Document(1998) notes that the Constitution of SouthAfrica provides a framework for thegovernment’s livestock and animal healthservices. Animal health control and dis-eases are listed as a ‘concurrent nationaland provincial competency’. The follow-ing are listed as provincial and local

25

competencies: veterinary services, facilitiesfor the accommodation, care and burial ofanimals, the licensing and control ofundertakings that sell food to the public,municipal abattoirs and pounds. For themany cash-strapped local councils aroundthe province, meeting their responsibilitiesin terms of these provisions, where at allpossible, is increasingly difficult.

While the Animal Diseases Act No. 35of 1984 emphasises the threat posed byinfectious animal diseases and parasites tothe agricultural sector in South Africa, thisAct needs revision to bring it in line withthe new Constitution and to clarify provin-cial and national responsibilities. It isproposed that under the Animal HealthBill, the NDA be made responsible for theco-ordination of all aspects of animaldisease control and eradication throughoutthe country. The legislation will authorisethe government to:· co-ordinate and maintain a competent

epidemiological database and informa-tion system of notifiable disease surveil-lance, based upon disease-incidencereporting and supported by field andlaboratory testing;

· develop programmes in consultationwith provincial governments andprivate agricultural stakeholders tocontain and eradicate diseases whichmay pose a threat to the nationaleconomy;

· set standards for routine control meas-ures for those notifiable diseases andparasites which are the agreed responsi-bility of the provincial governments,and institute effective monitoringprocedures to ensure compliance withthose measures; and

· adopt quality control measures for theregular accreditation of all laboratoriesoffering veterinary testing services.

Land rehabilitation and stock limitationprogrammesIn a seminal article, Beinart (1984) pro-vides a cogent analysis of the emergenceof environmental ‘conservationism’ inSouth Africa. Conservationism, he argues,

was a set of ideas generated, at least inpart, by the closing of the frontier and aconviction that settlers could not longersimply ‘mine’ the land and move on. Theproponents of this new paradigm regardedrational planning, technical solutions andthe use of new technologies as central tothe future of capitalist agrarian develop-ment (Beinart 1984:59).

More importantly, in ‘an approachwhich lent itself to unilateral action by thestate, advocates of this approach thoughtthat the process of decline had gone too farfor farmers to look after the land them-selves’ (Beinart 1984:60). Of equal import,was that those within the state departmentswho advocated the compulsory enforce-ment of strategies of land managementbegan to dominate those whose adminis-trative concern was to maintain socialorder (Beinart 1984:75).

The imperative to control, administer,and to extract taxes from rural Africans,account for the attention that came to befocussed on the ‘reserve’ areas, in the formof much political rhetoric and misguidedintervention over several decades (seeBeinart & Bundy 1987; Switzer 1993;Beinart 1984:63). But such interventionwas also guided by internationally (mostlyUSA) sourced concerns about the appar-ently rapid and deleterious spread of soilerosion as a result of incorrect farmingmethods (Beinart 1984:67ff).

Some of the early impetus for theemergence of this approach can be tracedback to the 1922 Drought Commission’sfinal report, which was to have a profoundinfluence on the development of conserva-tionist interventions in colonial territoriesfar beyond the borders of South Africa(also see Bundy 1979:245–6). In the main,the report focussed on a detailed analysisof the nature and causes of soil erosion inpastoral farming areas, including soilcompaction that increased run-off, and theperceived inadequacies of peasant farmingin dealing with the ‘dust bowl’ scenariowhich the apparently increasing erosionpromised (Beinart 1984:59,61).11

The Commission noted that it was notoverstocking alone, but the practice of


26



kraaling sheep and cattle that destroyedthe veld: kraaling created paths throughthe veld and depleted grazing resourcesnear the farmstead. It also meant longerjourneys for stock each day as they wentfurther afield in search of grazing andwater. Controlled use of pasturage, andthereby the protection of more palatablegrasses, was clearly difficult in thesecircumstances. In the place of kraaling, theCommission recommended the use ofpaddocking or a system of camps (Beinart1984:59; Moll 1988:6,22).

This level of state interest, that is, rightdown to the farm or reserve/location levelwas not entirely new: as Marquand andStanding (1939:103) observed, the GlenGrey Act (of 1894), which established aDistrict Council for the whole of the GlenGrey district, listed among the duties ofthis Council the construction and controlof dipping-tanks and agricultural improve-ment in the district generally. The NativeAffairs Act of 1920 provided for theestablishment of local councils in reserveareas (Ainslie 1998:96–7). Notably,Section 6 of the Act empowered thesecouncils to fulfil functions that included:1. the construction and maintenance of

roads, dams and channels, and theprevention of soil erosion;

2. the provision of a suitable system ofwater supply;

3. the combating of livestock diseases;4. the eradication of weeds;5. an efficient system of sanitation;6. the improvement of agricultural meth-

ods; and7. afforestation.A few years later, the Native Administra-tion Act No. 38 of 1927 (and its lateramendments) gave the Minister of NativeAffairs considerable powers to make lawsby proclamation for all (African) areas,including in such matters as irrigation, thecombating of soil erosion, the dipping ofstock and the reporting of stock diseasesand the unauthorised presence of ‘strange’stock, the impounding of stray stock, theapplication of the principle of collectiveresponsibility for stock theft or damage to

dipping tanks and the limitation of thenumber of donkeys that could be kept in(African) areas. Significantly, it also in-cluded aspects of ‘social control’, includ-ing the prohibition, in certain areas, ofpublic meetings without the permission ofthe magistrate and the reporting of anyunlawful presence of strangers and fugitiveoffenders (Marquand & Standing1939:147; Moll 1988:20–1; Rogers1933:13).

The regulations allowing for restrictionson the entry of cattle into African loca-tions, which were passed in the 1920s,were considered inadequate in controllingthe numbers of animals in rural areas. In1930, the UTTGC (‘Bhunga’) Proceed-ings12 noted that: ‘unless the evils ofoverstocking are remedied, it will beimpossible to cope with the soil erosionproblem … [African] customs and habitsall tend to overstocking.’

Provision was thus made for the cullingof livestock, although this usually meantenforced sale rather than simply culling(i.e. slaughter), in the Betterment Procla-mation of 1939 (Beinart 1984:73). Thiswas achieved by means of the unpopularLivestock Control and ImprovementProclamation No. 31 of 1939, which wasthe first legislation on overstocking in theReserves and has essentially remained inforce since this time (Moll 1988:23–25).13

Stock limitation14 was to be enforced soas to match livestock numbers to a no-tional ‘carrying capacity’ of rangeland indifferent areas (Moll 1988:24). Withinthree months of the ‘carrying capacity’having been determined, every extraneousanimal was to be slaughtered or removedfrom the ‘betterment’ area. If owners didnot comply throughout, they were liable toforfeit their stock, to be slapped with a fineof 20 pounds or three months imprison-ment. These provisions were first appliedin the Tanga Ward, a portion of Location 1(Gcuwa A) in Butterworth district towardsthe end of 1939, which became a modelfor the rest of the Transkei (Moll1988:24).

In 1942, the Young Commission onOverstocking in the Transkei found that a

27

‘more overall and compulsory system oflimiting stock numbers … was inevitable’(Beinart 1984:73). Further, the Commis-sion recommended that ‘livestock im-provement’ should be applied to the wholeTranskei, ‘whether the local inhabitantsliked it or not’ and that arable, grazing andresidential areas should be systematisedand reallocated where necessary andfenced (Moll 1988:24).

The culling of cattle15 was held upduring the Second World War by financialconstraints and staff shortages. As indi-cated above, stock limitation was seen asforming an integral part of the widerimplementation of ‘betterment’ schemes.Not surprisingly, however, it invokedwidespread discontent and persuadedmany South African reserve dwellers toresist the whole range of agriculturalpolicies (Beinart 1984:74–5; Moll1988:25). As Mager (1995:770) points out,stock limitation was:

the one single issue which provokedthe greatest resentment … To reducea man’s cattle was not only to striphim of his wealth … but to destroyhis social base in the community andthe foundations of male supremacy.Reducing cattle numbers interfereddrastically with African social andeconomic relationships … While menheld onto cattle they retained thesymbolic power of the patriarchalorder.

Stock culling was, in short, ‘the most hatedelement’ of the rehabilitation programmes(Moll 1988:34).

Bundy (1979:227) notes that Proclama-tion 116 of 1949 instituted a new variantof ‘Betterment or Closer SettlementSchemes’ in the African reserves, although,as Moll (1988:26) points out, the ingredi-ents of this ‘new’ policy were alreadybeing espoused in 1944. These ‘Reclama-tion’ schemes were aimed at stabilising andincreasing crop production, at improvingland use (including arresting soil erosion)and would follow on from ‘betterment’efforts which sought to improve animalhusbandry practices.

With the rise of the National Party in1948, the concerns over African popula-tion growth, urban migration, modernisa-tion and the maintenance of segregation,already a major preoccupation in the early1940s, came very much to the fore in theefforts of the state to intervene in ‘develop-ment’ generally and agricultural produc-tion in particular, in the reserve areas(Beinart 1997). Moll (1988:27) shows howstate expenditure increased dramatically inthe period 1945–1953, as the state at-tempted to purposefully intervene in thereserves. Implementing the scheme en-countered resistance, however, particularlywith regard to the culling of livestock.

While it was opined by local officialsthat conditions in the ‘planned’ areas wereimproving, this was often at the expense ofneighbouring locations to which stockdestined to be culled had been removed bytheir owners (Moll 1988:29; Mager 1992).As pressure to speed up what was regardedby the authorities as an essentially techni-cal-economic process mounted, localconsultation was largely sacrificed andeconomy measures were introduced, bothof which fed local opposition to theschemes. As Beinart (1984:74) notes: ‘Ifthe camp system was reluctantly acceptedin some areas, it also helped, particularlybecause it was tied together with culling inthe process of planning, to keep stateintervention in the sphere of stock-keepingat the forefront of rural politics.’

One comprehensive solution to the‘problems’ inherent in communal areas inSouth Africa, proposed by Tomlinson(1955),16 was an assault on the perceivedevils of communal tenure itself. Thisproposal, which built on policies andpronouncements that had emerged fromthe 1940s, advocated that to reverse thebreakdown of institutional controls, it wasnecessary to consolidate land into ‘eco-nomic units’, to remove the superfluous,landless half of the rural population fromthe rural areas into cities, to address issuesof land degradation and to promote greatercommercialisation in livestock production,i.e. by increasing quality and off-take (seeBeinart 1984:79).17


28



Although Tomlinson’s model proposeda fundamental break with whatever rem-nants had remained of a pre-colonialtenure and economic system, the actualinterventions, arising out of Nationalistpolicy from the early 1950s through to the1980s, were largely subverted to fit thestate’s political agenda at the time (Moll1988:38). This agenda was essentially theadoption of policies of ‘grand apartheid’,including the implementation of the BantuAuthorities Act of 1951, which in theEastern Cape occurred mostly in the late1950s. This went hand in hand with thedesire of the state to institute restrictions onthe numbers of Africans in towns whilemaximising the number of people confinedto the reserve areas (see Moll 1988:35–36).

Under new policy, introduced in 1954by a rejuvenated NAD under its newminister, HF Verwoerd, it was envisagedthat stock culling would take place withinthree to four years of the initial phase of‘stabilisation’ starting in a particular loca-tion. If the people resisted, sanctionswould be applied as necessary, such asreducing expenditure on education, trans-port or other services in the area (Moll1988:40). Rural people resented the in-creased ‘reach’ of the state which wasbeing extended over their lives with thecollusion of most of those in the employ ofthe state: the chiefs, headmen, dippingforemen and police.18

Interventions by the state after thisperiod included the implementation of‘betterment’ schemes and the extension oflivestock dipping and culling programmes.On the whole, these interventions contin-ued to reap bitter harvests and few rewards(De Wet 1987; Yawitch 1981). After thecontrol of aspects of stabilisation andreclamation were taken over by BantuAuthorities in the late 1950s and 1960s,the culling of stock slowed down and, withthe introduction of limited self-governmentin the Transkei in 1963, was eventuallyabandoned, as the Bantustan governmentswere reluctant to entertain the high politi-cal costs that accompanied these schemes(Beinart 1984:83). The Ciskei was granted

self-governing status in 1972, and in 1973the culling of stock was abolished (Steyn1981).19 Nevertheless, the Transkeiangovernment still sought to control stocknumbers through the introduction of alivestock levy in 1977, which almostimmediately hit resistance on the groundand was soon halved and then reducedfurther (Beinart 1977; Bundy 1988:228). Itwas only in 1988, however, that GeneralHolomisa finally dropped the stock tax.20

Cattle �development� programmes21

Attempts to improve cattle qualityIn the Transkei by the end of the 1920s,100 African demonstrators had beentrained and sent into reserve areas to ‘showthe benefit of new implements, rotation,fallowing and stock improvement throughcastrating scrub bulls’ (Beinart 1984:68).During the 1930s, stock improvementpolicies implemented in the Transkeireserves were intended to supply localpeople with pedigree bulls and rams and toencourage the elimination of scrub males(Beinart 1984:72). The availability ofimproved breeds would mean, it wasargued, higher yields and thus requirefewer animals, thereby saving the grazingresources. As argued throughout thisreport, however, this line of reasoning isflawed in that the rationale of the livestockowner in a communal tenure setting is notbased exclusively or even primarily onhigher yields of beef (or even milk), but ona multiple function model of cattle owner-ship and utility. As a result, stock quality interms of beef production is not the primaryconsideration for most cattle owners.

In the Ciskei, the Department of Agri-culture launched a breeding scheme in1949, allowing stock owners to purchaseimproved sires of specific breeds on asubsidised basis (Steyn 1981:24). In the1960s and early 1970s, the Ciskei depart-ment favoured the Brown Swiss as sires forcattle herds in communal areas (Brown1971:178). These were introduced throughthe Tribal Authorities, but as Steyn(1981:25) notes, they were not well-adapted to the area and most died soon

29

after introduction, usually from tick-bornediseases.

Between 1961 and 1970, the Depart-ment introduced a total of 901 bulls intoCiskei reserve areas. This programme waslater adjudged not to be particularly suc-cessful, because people tended to sell theanimals while they were still of serviceableage. They were not cared for properlywhen they were ‘bought for the commu-nity’. Nevertheless, in 1979/80, the AnimalHusbandry Section supplied a further 104bulls to Ciskeian farmers (Dept. Agricul-ture and Forestry (Ciskei), Annual Report1979/80).

Similarly, Beinart (1977:133–4) foundthat the Transkei Department of Agricul-ture was trying to improve herds throughthe subsidised sale of improved bulls andrams. Besides the Brown Swiss andAfrikander introduced earlier, the Depart-ment was also promoting the use of ‘dis-ease-resistant’ indigenous Mpondo cattle.Not surprisingly, the introduction of exoticbreeds that were not adapted to conditionsin communal areas was not successful(Beinart 1984:73).22

Many of these improvement schemessurvived for decades, however, and werein evidence in many parts of the formerTranskei and Ciskei as recently as the early1990s, run by agricultural parastatals andthe respective departments of agriculture.The Ciskei Agricultural Development Actof 1989, for instance, left the provisionsfor the approval of bulls for breedingpurposes (Chapter 6 of the Act) unchangedfrom the earlier 1973 Act of the samename.

Other than annual reports of the twoDepartments of Agriculture and Forestry(Transkei and Ciskei), not much material isavailable on how much success wasachieved with these schemes. Clearly,where pedigree bulls were running to-gether with other ‘scrub’ bulls on commu-nal rangeland, the impact of the former onthe quality of local stock would be diluted(see Beinart 1977:134; Bembridge &Tapson 1993:368).

Certainly, it is now the stuff of legendsthat, whilst the state spent a great deal oftime and resources castrating and culling‘scrub’ Nguni/Nkone bulls in rural areas,those Nguni bulls which survived thisregime, are now in the hands of commer-cial ‘white’ stud breeders and fetch up toR40 000 per head.23 Indeed, the EasternCape Department of Agriculture and LandAffairs announced recently that it had‘facilitated the ordering of 20 breed bullswhich were sold to [African] stock farmersat low prices in order to improve the breedof cattle in the province’ (Daily Dispatch16/02/1999). It is not clear whether theseanimals were sold to farmers in communalareas or farmers with access to freeholdland. Ironically, the fact that highly valued‘indigenous’ bulls are now held and care-fully bred by white farmers may alter theircharacteristic and highly desirable ‘adapta-tion through natural selection’, i.e. the veryquality that made them (belatedly) sought-after in the first place.

Attempts to increase off-takeLivestock culling was not the only methodintroduced by the authorities in theirattempts to limit the numbers of cattle oncommunally held rangeland. Beinart(1984:73) argues that the commercialisa-tion of stock-keeping was seen by theauthorities as an important means ofbreaking down the long-held African‘cattle complex’, which represented amajor threat to the soil. Indeed, this hasbeen a recurring theme throughout sub-Saharan Africa for several decades.

In the Eastern Cape, ongoing attemptshave been made to increase the turnover ofcattle through (voluntary) sales. From theearly 1930s, once East Coast fever hadbeen largely eradicated, cattle owners andofficials called for the organisation ofgovernment-controlled stock sales. Beinart(1984) notes that large numbers of animalswere sold, mostly for slaughter in urbanareas in these early sales. This may bepartly explained by the high cattle num-bers, which peaked at their highest evernumber in the mid and late 1930s (seeChapter 3).


30



In later decades, the response was lessenthusiastic, even though the increasedprices offered indicated continued de-mand. On the one hand, given the on-slaught by the state on cattle ownership inthe reserves (and later Bantustans), it isunderstandable that people who wereresisting the forced culling of their stockshould also desist from selling this stock atgovernment-sponsored sales. On the otherhand, as several observers have pointedout, the period 1940–1970 was one ofconsiderable economic hardship in thereserve areas, with one result being thatpeople did not have excess cattle to sellregularly (Mager 1992).

Official cattle marketing schemes thatwere set up in the former Bantustansbetween the 1960s and 1990s, thus metwith mixed, but generally disappointingresults. By the late 1970s, Beinart(1977:132) contended that the number ofstock sales in the Transkei had decreasedand that the off-take of cattle was lowerthan in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Heargued that the widespread losses of stockas a result of recent outbreaks of redwaterdisease had driven up prices, as those whostill had some cattle were reluctant to sellthem. This, in turn, meant that it was nolonger profitable for outside buyers to buystock in the Transkei for resale to butchersand meat processors outside the area. Healso noted the depressed state of stocksales in Lusikisiki, a traditionally activedistrict in terms of stock sales, at whichonly 25 head of cattle were changinghands, where previously 100 head wouldhave been sold (Beinart 1977:132).

Bantustan governments entered intoagreements with private concerns to offerauction sale and abattoir services (seeTapson 1982:6–8). In 1980/81, the com-pany operating sales of cattle throughauctions in the Transkei recorded a paltry 4768 cattle sold, with only 8 of the 32 salepens throughout the Transkei recordingsales in excess of 100 head for the year(Tapson 1982:8). Tapson accounted forthis poor performance by suggesting thatsales were badly publicised and thus

poorly supported by both sellers andbuyers. There was a lack of grading andweighing equipment and in some areas theinfrastructure, such as sale yards, was inbad condition.

In 1939, Marquand and Standing(1939:91–2) noted that a ‘recent Govern-ment commission’ had recommended thata meat-canning factory be set up in theTranskei to encourage the African farmersto sell more stock and so reduce the loadthat the soil is expected to carry. It is notclear at what stage this recommendationwas taken up, but as Tapson (see below)reports, by 1980 Transkei Meat Industries(TMI) was running a government-ownedmeat factory in Umtata.

In 1971, Brown could report that ‘num-bers of [African]-owned cattle forwardeddirect to the East London abattoir in recentyears [i.e. late 1960s] have shown a fairlysharp upward trend’ (Brown 1971:178–9).This was despite the fact that 90% of thecarcasses only achieved 3rd or 4th grades,meaning that the sellers would have re-ceived low prices for their stock.24 Pricespaid were ‘fair when the comparativelyhigh incidence of cysticercosis is takeninto account’ (Brown 1971:179). A total of5 543 cattle were sold at local auction salesin the Ciskei in 1968. Considering that theformer Ciskei areas held far fewer cattlethan the Transkei, it is clear that cattleowners in the former Ciskei have histori-cally sold relatively more of their livestockthan their counterparts in the Transkei,which is perhaps a sign of their earlier andmore thorough-going proletarianisation(see Moll 1988:42). But, as De Wet andMcAllister (1983:69) point out, stock salesin the Ciskei in the mid-1970s amounted toonly eight cattle-units per village perannum: hardly a noteworthy number.25

What is clear from the above discussionis that livestock owners in different areasof the former Bantustans sell animals inresponse to both their own immediateeconomic need and, to some extent, localand seasonal environmental conditions.The often unreliable opportunities forselling livestock through formal channels

31

that have existed at the local level meansthat many sellers have to resort to otheroptions of selling their animals, such as‘out of hand’ sales. Unfortunately, thesetwo factors often reinforce each other inundermining the marketing of cattle: lownumbers of stock presented for sale orauction at formal stock sales means highereconomic costs that must be borne by theorganisers, who then typically schedulefewer sales in that area. This, in turn,means that those wishing to make emer-gency sales at short notice cannot waituntil the next formal sale, with the resultthat the numbers presented at formal salesstays low (see Tapson (1982:13–14) forother, confounding factors).

More detailed research needs to beconducted – and this study starts thatprocess – into whether regional patterns inrespect of these responses exist and whatinfluence reliable, properly organised sales(where these exist, such as in Peddiedistrict) have over cattle owners’ decisionsabout when and how to sell their stock inthe medium- and long-term (see Tapson1982:29). Tapson’s own illuminatinganalysis of marketing in the Transkei, forinstance, is based on a single year’s off-take data, that of 1980/81.

However, it is not only the regularityand reliability of sales that influence thenumbers offered: the perception on thepart of sellers of the even-handedness ofthe organisers and the buyers is also animportant factor. Trust between seller andbuyer is an important element in thesetransactions, especially given the fluctuat-ing prices of ‘dressed’ beef that directlyaffects the prices realised in the auctionring. If sellers feel that they are consist-ently been short-changed at these sales,they will not support them. In situationswhere small numbers of cattle are offeredat stock sales, with a correspondinglysmall number of buyers, the potential forespecially desperate sellers to be exploitedthrough low prices is real (Tapson1982:19).

One of the biggest obstacles to greateroff-take has always been the combination

of stringent regulations (albeit with shakyenforcement) around the slaughter ofanimals and the lack of adequate abattoirfacilities close to cattle producing areas.26

Even a bigger centre like Umtata has adismal record in this regard (Director ofVeterinary Services Annual Report 1981;Tapson 1982:27). The first-mentioned(1981) report suggested that only theabattoirs at Cala, Cofimvaba, Idutywa andButterworth were in a satisfactory condi-tion. In 1981, the Transkei’s Director ofVeterinary Services noted that the Transkeiwas ‘at [that] stage without an outlet for itslivestock industry and … that priorityshould be given to the erection of anexport abattoir in Umtata and to the im-provement of the smaller regional abat-toirs’ (Tapson 1982:2). By 1981, thegovernment of Transkei had a contractwith Transkei Meat Industries (TMI), thelatter responsible for the management ofthe government-owned abattoir and meat-works in Umtata and certain holdinggrounds. In 1980/81, this abattoir, the onlyfunctioning one in the then Transkei,slaughtered 4 805 head of cattle (Tapson1982:7).

Given this situation, Tapson (1982:9)was able to record that 28 out of 53 ruraland urban butchers that he surveyed in theTranskei were slaughtering cattle them-selves in order to sell beef, rather thanbuying carcasses exclusively from regis-tered abattoirs. This indicated, Tapsonsuggested unsurprisingly, ‘a lack of acontrolled slaughter and distributionnetwork within Transkei’. Nevertheless, hisrespondents overwhelmingly felt that theycould always get as much beef as theyrequired and at the quality that they re-quired (Tapson 1982:10). The ruralbutcheries, Tapson argued, operated in avery informal and ad hoc fashion, with themean monthly turnover in beef in hissample of 326kg or just over one beast permonth, while in urban butcheries theturnover was, as might be expected,considerably higher. Tapson argued that itwas difficult to see how this ingenious andenterprising system could be improved


32



upon (Tapson 1982:10–11). Nor did thissituation improve through the 1980s: the1987/88 annual report of the TranskeiVeterinary Services noted that, ‘of the 32abattoirs in Transkei only three are operat-ing with a valid certificate of approval.Most of the abattoirs are operating underunhygienic conditions … The abattoirsituation in this country is a matter thatrequires urgent attention from our directo-rate.’ By all accounts, carrying out theprovisions laid out in the Animal Slaughter,Meat and Animal Products Hygiene ActNo. 18 of 1981, which were supposed toprovide for ‘the maintenance of properstandards of hygiene in the slaughtering ofanimals (including the prevention ofcruelty to animals), handling of meat andanimal products as well as the preventionor transmission of diseases to humans andother animals through infected meat oranimal products’, was beyond the capacityof the Meat Hygiene Unit of the Transkei’sVeterinary Services directorate. ‘Personnelshortages and the lack of a reliable dutyvehicle’ were reported to be the majorconstraints of the Meat Hygiene section(Transkei Veterinary Services AnnualReport 1990/91). The unit operated on a‘nationwide basis’ with only three officers.

In 1991/92, the Annual Report notedthat 11 districts in the Transkei had noslaughter facility whatsoever. Among thesedistricts were those such as Maluti andUmzimkulu, which have large numbers ofcattle (1991/92:46).

Much more recently, Cousins (1997:29)has noted that most people’s meat con-sumption needs are met by buying fromlocal and informal slaughtering of stockbought purposefully from local herds andflocks.

In 1999, the provincial Department ofAgriculture and Land Affairs announcedthat it had approved the establishment byAbakor, a parastatal (with a national remit)which controlled abattoirs in the province,of ‘two giant meat markets in Mdantsaneand Port Elizabeth where small farmers cansell their meat’ (Daily Dispatch 11/02/1999).27 This would, the Department’s

spokesman claimed, prevent ‘small farm-ers being cheated when they sold theirlivestock to unscrupulous buyers whoenriched themselves by selling the meat tothe market’. While the same article quotedthe MEC for Agriculture and Land Affairsas saying that ‘the shortage of approvedabattoirs producing safe meat in the east-ern part of the province was of concern’, itis not clear what plans are afoot to addressthis situation.

According to the MALA DiscussionDocument (1998), the state is responsiblefor all food and food-related safety. Thehygienic production of food of animalorigin is a Veterinary Public Health (VPH)concern. Meat hygiene legislation iscurrently controlled under the AbattoirHygiene Act No. 121 of 1992, while thenew Meat Safety Bill will cover all animalslaughter facilities of a commercial nature.The proposed National Food Safety Act,once enacted, will co-ordinate all foodsafety by:· empowering the Department of Agricul-

ture, in consultation with the Depart-ment of Health, the provinces, theprivate sector and NGOs, to set mini-mum SPS standards for food safety andtrade-related requirements;

· providing for a Food and AgriculturalCommodities Inspection Agency (FA-CIA) which will monitor uniformcompliance with sanitary control meas-ures;

· recognising the responsibility of theprovinces to legislate and provide forthe required Veterinary Public Healthservices, in accordance with the nation-ally established minimum norms andstandards; and

· ensuring that standards for abattoirs arenot unduly stringent, as long as they donot compromise public health.

ConclusionsWhat emerges most clearly, firstly, fromthis review of cattle ownership is that cattlefulfilled several key social and economicroles among Xhosa-speaking peoples inthe pre-colonial era. After colonial contact,

33

government intervention in the livestocksector increased steadily over some 100years, so that it has had direct, far-reachingand often severe effects on the ruraleconomy. Government policies, looked atwithin the changing political parameters inwhich they evolved over the decades, havesought variously to control movement,limit supposed ecological damage andincrease the off-take of African-ownedcattle from areas under communal tenure.For a number of reasons, these policiesand programmes have enjoyed limitedsuccess and have often succeeded only inalienating cattle owners and the ruralpopulation in general. This chapter hasreviewed a number of these interventionsand found most of them wanting in variousways.

So how much is likely to change in themedium-term, even with the best intentionsof new legislation introduced by a govern-ment that enjoys overwhelming popularsupport? What does not seem likely tochange is the limited capacity of theprovincial government to ‘transform’ oreven adequately regulate the cattle produc-tion sector in the former Bantustan areas.There are several factors that contribute tothis limited capacity, principally a lack offunds and trained staff. What this seems toindicate is that, in the absence of wide-spread, damaging natural disasters, such asoutbreaks of disease epidemics, like therecent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease,the future scenario for the sector seems tobe one of business as usual. It is to counterthis scenario that livestock owners’ organi-sations such as ECERPO, operating at thelevel of the province, need to establish acoherent and inclusive set of objectives, tomobilise a much broader membership andbegin to play a more active role in lobby-ing government for changes in the sector.Lower-level associations are urgentlyneeded to far more clearly articulate themany concerns of cattle owners in thevillages and locations/wards of the prov-ince.

For its part, government needs to care-fully assess, given its severely limited

resources, where it must unequivocallytake the lead in the sector, such as thecombating of serious livestock diseasesand maintaining accurate cattle censusdata, and where it should create both an‘enabling’ policy and law-enforcementenvironment in which local actors canmake a positive impact on the sector.

Endnotes1. It is of course quite probable that more

recent conflicts loom larger in both theoral and (subsequent) recorded history.

2. Bundy notes that ‘the institution of“eating up” operated against the osten-tatious accumulation of wealth by anindividual and against political ambi-tions which might accompany suchenrichment: “eating up” involved theconfiscation and redistribution of thebeasts of a stockowner deemed to betoo wealthy after legal-religious cer-emonies’ (1979:21–22).

3. This section, which takes up the narra-tive in the late 19th century, relies on asmall number of secondary sources –notably the incisive and stimulatingcontributions of William Beinart –for the bulk of the data presented.

4. It was only in the mid-1880s thatrailways made a significant impact indisplacing long-distance wagoncarriage.

5. In 1877, the Report of the Commissionappointed to ‘inquire into and reportupon Diseases in Cattle and Sheep inthis Colony’ was published as G.3-1877. This followed closely on theappointment of the first ColonialVeterinary Surgeon at the Cape in1876 (Beinart 1997:231).

6. Hutcheon had ordered the slaughter of6 000 lung sickness-infected angoragoats in 1881, which did not endearhim to their owners (Beinart 1997:237).

7. See Beinart (1997:227–239) for anilluminating discussion of earlierproposals and interventions byveterinarians in shaping livestockmanagement and land use policy in theCape hinterland. These included meas-


34



ures that had sought to isolate infectedcattle during the rinderpest outbreak of1865 and to deal with the lung sicknessepidemic at the Cape in the 1860s, andsaw the promulgation of the Scab Act of1874, aimed at combating scab insheep.

8. Bundy (1987:203) offers a usefulanalysis as to why resistance in thesethree districts was particularly vehe-ment.

9. Fully 96% of the ECDALA budget for1999–2000 for veterinary services wasearmarked for personnel expenditure(Daily Dispatch 13/03/1999).

10. Interview with Mr Dave Fourie, Provin-cial Control Animal Health Technician(Bisho, 17/09/1999). By February2002, this had not yet happened.

11. Marquand and Standing (1939:91)referred to ‘… perhaps the worst featureof the Reserves, overstocking. Over-stocking and the absence of fencing areresponsible for the impoverishment ofthe soil and for erosion. In many partsof the Reserves desert conditions arebeing created. This kind of primitivesubsistence economy is very wasteful.’

12. Quoted in Moll (1988:22).13. Moll (1988) outlines four distinct

phases of state intervention in theTranskei: an initial period (1925–1935),a Betterment phase (1936–1944), apost-war Reclamation phase (1945–1954), which were similar to thoseoutlined by Tomlinson (1955) and apost-1954 phase, which saw apartheidpolicies coming to the fore.

14. Also dealing with the issue of livestockculling, were Proclamation No. 116/1949 and NAD Report 1945–7, as wellas U.G. 14/1948 and the Native AffairsDepartment (NAD) ‘Report on StockReduction in Native Areas’, unpub-lished but dated 1951 (see Beinart1984:73, footnote 70).

15. Moll (1988:31–33) notes that, overall,sheep were culled more heavily thancattle. Further, although the culling ofcattle was only implemented in a hand-ful of locations in the 1940s, it was the

real threat that potential culling heldthat deeply antagonised different strataof rural people.

16. The Tomlinson Commission was actu-ally set up in 1949. The SummaryReport of the Commission For theSocio-Economic Development of theBantu Areas within the Union of SouthAfrica (Tomlinson Commission) ap-peared as U.G. 61/55 in 1955.

17. The Report of the Departmental Com-mittee on Stock Reduction in the NativeAreas (De Wet Nel Committee), 1954,quoted in Moll 1988. This unpublishedreport apparently includes much usefuldata on the culling of stock, stock sales,economic farming units and localresistance to culling.

18. It would be incorrect to suggest thatopposition to ‘betterment’ and theimposition of Bantu Authorities wasuniform across the former Transkei andCiskei reserve areas. Several sourcesargue, in fact, that the extent of opposi-tion was rather variable. Overall, how-ever, it is probably fair to say thatattempts to cull livestock were univer-sally unpopular, even where compensa-tion was paid.

19. Ciskeian Proclamation 187 of 1972ushered in self-government.

20. Personal communication, Mr Gwababa,Control Animal Technician, CentralRegion, ECDALA (Umtata, 21/04/1999).

21. This report does not deal with thedevelopment of dairy schemes in theformer Bantustan areas, or with dairyfarming in general.

22. Cloete (1989:40) lists these exoticbreeds for the Transkei: Brown Swiss,Drakensberger, Bonsmara, Simmentaler,Sussex, Brahman and Hereford; for theCiskei: Bonsmara, Brahman, andSimmentaler.

23. Cloete (1989:42) appears to anticipatethis turn-around. He notes that ‘aftermore than 24 centuries, the survival ofthe Nguni may be attributed to adapta-tion through natural selection to tick-borne diseases, sub-optimal nutrition,

35

harshness of climate and the uniquemanagement system practiced [sic] byNguni tribes which induced high fertil-ity. Performance testing results indi-cated the Nguni to be the most fertilebeef breed in South Africa (calvingpercentage 97) … These important, butoften ignored, production traits of theNguni places new perspective on itspotential under good feeding andmanagement conditions.’ (emphasisadded)

24. In 1996, Cousins found that most stockoffered for sale at auctions in theTranskei were older beasts fallingwithin the lower grades (1997:27).

25. They were quoting figures from theCiskei (Dept. Agriculture) AnnualReport of 1976.

26. Interestingly, Tapson (1982:20) claimsthat the marketing system in theTranskei functioned in the completeabsence of permits, slaughter control,price-setting, subsidy and bureaucracy.

27. There are 69 registered and 16 unregis-tered abattoirs in the province, themajority of these in the western half ofthe province (Daily Dispatch 18/07/1998).

ReferencesAinslie, A. 1998. Managing natural re-

sources in a rural settlement in Peddiedistrict. Unpublished M.Soc.Sc thesis.Grahamstown: Rhodes University.

Beinart, W. 1977. The livestock levy inTranskei. Africa Seminar CollectedPapers Vol.1/1978. Centre for AfricanStudies. Cape Town: University of CapeTown.

Beinart, W. 1980. Labour migrancy andrural production: Pondoland c.1900-1950, in Black villagers in an industrialsociety edited by P Mayer. Cape Town:Oxford University Press.

Beinart, W. 1984. Soil erosion, conserva-tion and ideas about development: aSouthern Africa exploration: 1900-1960. Journal of Southern AfricanStudies, 11(1):52–83.

Beinart, W. 1997. Vets, viruses and envi-ronmentalism: The Cape in the 1870sand 1880s, in Ecology and Empireedited by T Griffiths & L Robin. Edin-burgh: Keele University Press.

Beinart, W & Bundy, C. 1987. Hiddenstruggles in rural South Africa. Politicsand popular movements in the Transkeiand Eastern Cape 1890-1930. London:James Currey; Johannesburg: RavanPress.

Beinart, W & Bundy, C. 1987. Introduc-tion: ‘Away in the Locations’, inBeinart, W & Bundy, C.

Bembridge, TJ. 1984. A systems approachstudy of agricultural developmentproblems in Transkei. UnpublishedPh.D thesis. Stellenbosch: University ofStellenbosch.

Bembridge, TJ & Tapson, DR. 1993.Communal Livestock Systems, inLivestock Production Systems editedby C Maree & NH Casey. Pretoria:Agriculture Development Forum.pp.361–373.

Brown, DL. 1971. Chapter Seven: Agri-culture in the Ciskei – A Challenge, inThe Ciskei – A Bantu homeland: Ageneral survey. Fort Hare UniversityPress.


Bundy, C. 1987. We don’t want your rain,we won’t dip, in Hidden struggles inrural South Africa. Politics and popularmovements in the Transkei and EasternCape 1890-1930 edited by W Beinart& C Bundy. London: James Currey;Johannesburg: Ravan Press. pp. 191–221.

Cloete, JG. 1989. A proposed animalproduction research-developmentprogramme for Transkei,Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei.Compiled on behalf of the ResearchSub-Committee of the Animal Produc-tion Working Group of the Secretariatfor Multi-lateral Development in South-ern Africa.


36



Cousins, B. 1997. Conditions of entry intothe red meat industry for black livestockproducers. Draft report for ResearchProject on ‘Restructuring Agriculture inSouth Africa’. University of Natal.

Crais, C. 1992. White supremacy and blackresistance in pre-industrial SouthAfrica: The making of the colonialorder in the Eastern Cape 1770–1865.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

De Wet, CJ. 1987. Land tenure and ruraldevelopment: Some issues relating tothe Ciskei/Transkei region. Develop-ment Southern Africa 4(3):459–478.

De Wet, CJ. & McAllister, PA. 1983. Ruralcommunities in transition: A study ofthe socio-economic and agriculturalimplications of agricultural bettermentand development. Department of An-thropology and Institute of Social andEconomic Research, Rhodes University.

Directorate of Veterinary Services(Transkei). Annual Report 1981.Umtata: Government of Transkei.

Directorate of Veterinary Services(Transkei) Annual Report 1990/91.Umtata: Government of Transkei.

Hall, SL. 1986. Pastoral adaptations andforager relations in the Eastern Cape.South African Archaeological SocietyGoodwin Series, 5:42–49.

Hammond-Tooke, WD. 1965. Segmenta-tion and fission in Cape Nguni politicalunits. Africa 35(2):143–66.

Hammond-Tooke, WD. 1969. The presentstate of Cape Nguni ethnographicstudies. Ethnological and LinguisticStudies. Pretoria: Government Printer.pp.81–97.

Hammond-Tooke, WD (ed). 1974. TheBantu-speaking peoples of SouthernAfrica. London: Routledge and KeganPaul.

Hendricks, Fred T. 1989. Loose planningand rapid resettlement: The politics ofconservation and control in Transkei,South Africa, 1950–1970. Journal ofSouthern African Studies 15(2):306–325.

Hendricks, Fred T. 1991. Displacedproletarians in Transkei, in Towards anew agrarian democratic order: ASAERT reader on the South Africanland question edited by S Matlhape& A Munz. Amsterdam: SAERT.pp.189–221.


Kuper, A. 1997. The academic frontier.History and social anthropology inSouth Africa, in Culture and the com-monplace, edited by P McAllister.

Mager, A. 1992. The people get fenced:Gender, rehabilitation and Africannationalism in the Ciskei and Borderregion, 1945–1955. Journal of South-ern African Studies 18(4):761–782.

Mager, A. 1995. Patriarchs, politics andethnicity in the making of the Ciskei,1945–1959. African Studies54(1):48–72.

MALA (Ministry for Agriculture and LandAffairs). 1998. Agricultural policy inSouth Africa. A discussion document.Pretoria: Ministry for Agriculture andLand Affairs.

Marquand, L & Standing, TG. 1939. TheSouthern Bantu. London: OxfordUniversity Press.

Mayer, P. 1961 (2nd ed. 1974, with Mayer,I.). Townsmen or tribesmen. Conserva-tism and the process of urbanization ina South African city. Cape Town: Ox-ford University Press.

McAllister, PA. 1985. Beasts to beer pots –Migrant labour and ritual change inWillowvale district, Transkei. AfricanStudies 44(2):121–135.

McAllister, PA. 1997. Ritual and socialpractice in the Transkei, in Cultureand the commonplace edited byP McAllister. Johannesburg:Witwatersrand University Press.pp.279–309.

Moll, TC. 1988. No blade of grass: Ruralproduction and state intervention inTranskei,1925–1960. Cambridge Afri-can Occasional Papers 6. Cambridge:African Studies Centre.

37

Peires, JB. 1981. The House of Phalo.Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.

Rogers, H. 1933. (2nd edition 1949, revisedby P.A. Linnington). Native administra-tion in the Union of South Africa.Pretoria: The Government Printer.

Sansom, B. 1974. Traditional EconomicSystems, in The Bantu-speaking peo-ples of Southern Africa edited by WDHammond-Tooke. London: Routledgeand Kegan Paul.

Shaw, M. 1974. Material Culture, inHammond-Tooke (ed.).

Steyn, GJ. 1981. Amatola Basin RuralDevelopment Project, Section III:Present land use: Animal production inthe Amatola Basin. Agricultural andRural Development Research Institute.Report No.6/81. Alice: University ofFort Hare.

Steyn, GJ. 1988. A farming systems studyof two rural areas in the Peddie districtof Ciskei. Unpublished D.Sc. thesis.Alice: University of Fort Hare.

Switzer, L. 1993. Power and resistance inan African society: The Ciskei Xhosa

and the making of South Africa.Pietermaritzburg: University of NatalPress.


Tomlinson Commission. 1955. Report ofthe Commission for the Socio-EconomicDevelopment of the Bantu Areas withinthe Union of South Africa. Pretoria:Union of South Africa.

Van Onselen, C. 1972. Reactions to rinder-pest in Southern Africa 1896–97.Journal of African History, Vol.13(3):473–488.

Yawitch, J. 1981. Betterment: The myth ofHomeland agriculture. Johannesburg:Institute of Race Relations.

Newspaper and popular magazinearticlesDaily Dispatch 18/07/1998, 11/02/1999,16/02/1999, 13/03/1999, 14/05/1999

Farmer’s Weekly 18/06/1999


38



Questions of accuracySerious questions have been posed about the accuracy of official censusfigures of cattle numbers in the former Transkei and Ciskei areas. At leastin this regard, they are certainly not unique: Cloete (1989:16) notesthat �the reliability of data on livestock populations, production,consumption and marketing statistics in Africa is in many cases open toquestion and may � be notoriously inaccurate�.

As we have seen, the state has been inter-ested in counting the gross numbers ofcattle on communal rangeland for most ofthe previous century. From the perspectiveof African cattle owners, the state has byno means always used this data in the bestinterests of rural cattle owners. A keyresponse on the part of cattle owners hasbeen to resist these efforts to count theirstock in whatever ways they could: sincethe dipping tank proved to be the mostobvious place to count animal numbers,many people declined to dip their stock(see Beinart & Bundy 1987).1 Owners oflarge numbers of stock loaned out theirstock to kinsmen in other areas in order toevade official efforts to count their num-bers. Brown (1971:177) remarked on ‘theprobability of under-counts having beenmade due to illegal livestock movementsin each location prior to the annual enu-meration’. Another strategy adopted bycattle owners, although it is not clear howwidespread it was, was to maintain ‘ghostherds’, in which 50% of a herd would bedriven to the dipping tank on one occasionand the balance of the herd would bedriven to the next dipping episode (seeBundy 1987:200 for similar exploits attheir most brazen – and most desperate –

Chapter 3:Cattle numbers

Andrew Ainslie

during the opposition to anti-East CoastFever dipping).2

Apart from these efforts at evasion, thecounting of cattle was made difficultthrough the unplanned, sporadic andlocalised nature of cattle sales and the factthat people could claim to have slaugh-tered cattle for rituals and/or home con-sumption (see Tapson 1982).

There is some reason to suspect thatcensus records were more accurate for theTranskei areas when compared to those ofthe former Ciskei (see Kepe’s chapter inthis report). On the whole, data for evenaggregate cattle numbers in the formerCiskei ‘reserve’ areas are harder to comeby than those for the Transkei, whereofficials claim more rigorously enforceddipping and stringent measures on cattlemovements meant that the administrationhad a much better grasp of cattle numbersoverall.3 Beinart for one feels that therecords of stock numbers in the Transkeiwere ‘relatively well kept’ (1984:74).Hendricks (1991:221) concurred with this:

Notwithstanding these difficulties(see below), it seems as if the DippingForemen possess the most reliableinformation on stock ownership. Thisis particularly so since the dipping

39

of livestock against diseases becameinstitutionalised … In order to ad-minister and control this exercise,Dipping Foremen keep a record ofthe number of owners together withthe size of their herds.

Hendricks did concede, however, that ‘theonly possible irregularities in this sourcemay occur when certain people do notregister their newborn stock or do notreport stock deaths’ (Hendricks 1991:221)and also that ‘caution should be exercisedin generalising from [his figures on cattle-holding families in Libode] since thecustomary practice of cattle-lending andborrowing conceals the exact nature ofcattle-holding as well as the extent ofstocklessness’ (Hendricks 1991:204).

One reason for less accurate cattlecensus records in the former Ciskei mightbe the more ‘chequerboard’ effect in thisarea, with blocks of white-owned farmsinterspersed with reserve areas undercommunal tenure. It seems that the earlierstock records do not always differentiatesatisfactorily between the cattle of thewhite farmer, his employees and neigh-bouring rural people in adjacent reserveareas, which were frequently all dipped atthe closest functional dipping tank.

Overall, there are other reasons forconcern about the reliability of the censusdata. These include bureaucratic changes:Moll (1988:11) cites cattle figures forTranskei (for the period 1918–1952) thatare from dipping returns on 1 January eachyear. By 1974, the census records list cattlenumbers on 1 April of each year. It is notclear when the ‘change-over’ occurred orexactly how it was handled at the time.More worrying, however, is the evidenceof apparent bureaucratic bumbling: boththe 1981 and the 1991 Annual Reports forthe Ciskei Department of Agriculture andForestry have no stock census data, al-though presumably this data was collected(at least in 1991) and is available.

A related problem is that when theCiskei Department of Agriculture movedits offices from Zwelitsha to Bisho, theVeterinary Section stayed on in Zwelitsha.

At some stage, however, some of their staffand offices were also moved to Bisho.With both staff turnovers and the movingof offices, it is not a simple exercise tolocate historical records for areas of theformer Ciskei. In contrast, the equivalentofficials, including some knowledgeablelong-serving staff, in the former Transkeihave long been housed in the BothaSigcau building in Umtata and have amore ‘user-friendly’ retrieval system.

A further problem in connection withcensus records is that during the periods,albeit sporadic, in which dip has not beenavailable (and in which dipping staff havekept a low profile for obvious reasons), itis not clear how accurately the dippingforemen actually managed to recordchanges in cattle numbers (see below forfuture concerns in this regard).

Is there a need for precisecattle numbers?If the former Bantustan areas under com-munal tenure are essentially about peopleowning multi-purpose herds of cattle,rather than about the production of beef,then a valid question might be: Should thestate spend considerable resources (bothhuman and financial) in trying to secureaccurate census data for these ‘subsist-ence’ activities?

The answer to this question must be, Iwould argue, an unequivocal and resound-ing ‘yes’. A central theme of this report isthe chronic lack of data about the owner-ship and management of cattle in commu-nal areas. The adoption of any coherentpolicy of intervention (including that ofnon-intervention – see Tapson 1982 andShackleton 1993) in this sector must bebased on detailed analysis of far morecomprehensive data-sets of how the sector‘works’ than are available at present.Clearly, the state would experience greatdifficulty in fulfilling any of its statutoryresponsibilities with respect to agriculturein the absence of accurate livestock num-bers with which to predict and anticipatefuture needs and developments in thesector. Consequently, I would argue that it

Chapter 3: Cattle numbers

40



is essential for the key role-players in thelivestock sector4 to know as accurately aspossible:· how many cattle are held in rural areas

under communal tenure;· what proportions of these cattle are

oxen, bulls, cows, etc.;· what their age classes are;· to what extent cattle holdings are con-

centrated, i.e. how cattle are distributedacross households within rural commu-nities and across the province as awhole;

· what people are doing with them: whatuses cattle are serving, how people aremanaging, moving, selling, slaughter-ing, exchanging, etc. their cattle; and

· what range of factors influence peopleto invest in cattle or to liquidate theirbovine assets.

From an animal health perspective, withoutaccurate census data, it would be impossi-ble for the Directorate of Animal Health tobudget properly for the provision ofinoculations and other preventative meas-ures for dealing with serious zoonoticdiseases, such as anthrax or bovine TB.5

Perhaps for this reason, it has historicallybeen a key and statutory responsibility ofthe veterinary section (animal health) ofthe Department of Agriculture to gatherup-to-date information on cattle numbers.This task was performed at the mostlogical and frequent point of contact withcattle owners, i.e. at the dipping tank.Now, however, if changes are being con-templated regarding the way in whichdipping services are provided by the statein the future, i.e. the promotion of locallivestock associations that will take oversome of the functions of supplying dippingmaterials and the actual dipping of ani-mals, then it is not clear who will performthe task of recording cattle numbers orhow successful the province-wide co-ordination of this activity is likely to be.

Historical trends in cattlenumbersDespite the reservations expressed above,it is the case that these official cattle census

records are the only long-term data that areavailable on cattle ownership in communalareas.6 Census data was collected sporadi-cally during the 19th century for locationsand districts, but it seems that the firstreasonably comprehensive census ofAfrican-owned cattle was conducted in1904. The African ‘reserve’ areas seemonly to have been included on a regularbasis in the agricultural section of the Capecensus from 1922 (see Muller & Mpela1987:3).

As with most archival material, the datatend to throw up many more questionsthan the answers they provide. They do,however, provide a starting-point for ananalysis, and it is from these data that wemust attempt to discern trends in owner-ship patterns and shape our future ques-tions about the often very localised trajec-tories of economic development and socialchange, as seen through the (rather) partialindex of cattle ownership (see Scoones1993).

Taking a long perspective, it is clearfrom the census data that cattle numbers inthe former reserve areas grew rapidly afterthe East Coast Fever epidemic of 1911–13to reach their highest numbers in the 1930s(Hunter 1936:67; Muller & Mpela 1987).Moll (1988:9) notes that ‘reserve livestocknumbers were probably at an all-time peakin about 1931 or 1932, though stockcensuses were not taken in these years’.This increase was probably due to thewidespread impact of the governmentdipping programme on overall herd pro-ductivity. Few magisterial districts havematched these high numbers again (seecharts below for selected districts in theformer Transkei and Ciskei).7

For the Transkei (except Glen Grey andHerschel) as a whole, Beinart (1977:127)argued that ‘in the last century, nearlyevery family in Transkei owned or pos-sessed stock. Whereas about thirty yearsago [i.e. the late 1940s] perhaps 30 percent of families were without cattle, a fewsmall surveys indicate that the numbermay now be over 50 per cent.’ Further-more, the little statistical evidence avail-

41

able suggests that only around 10–15% offamilies in the Transkei have ten or morehead of cattle. The remaining 35–40% ofthe population, or 70–80% of the cattleowners may be classified as smaller stockowners, with less than ten animals (Beinart1977:130).

Moll (1988:9), relying on data from theTomlinson Commission report of 1954,argues that there was a radical drop incattle numbers as a result of the 1933drought and that over the following 15years to 1948, total Transkei cattle num-bers fell slightly, with an overall net fall of250 000 cattle in the 12 years after 1940.Total Transkei stock numbers continuedfalling in the 1950s and 1960s, accordingto Rutman (1972:144, quoted in Moll).Moll (1988:12) also argues that, after1934, an increasing percentage of animalswere dying in the spring (September –October), rather than in January (after thespring calving) as before. He also refers toRutman’s (1972:147) assertion that by the1950s, cattle in Transkei ‘were down to anaverage weight of only 400 pounds froman optimum weight of around 600 poundswhich had often been achieved in the1920s’. This, Moll argues, implied anegligible milk yield and an inability toplough deeply and efficiently. Moll con-cedes, however, that investment in stockwas still taking place and that stock num-bers ‘would rise considerably in goodyears, e.g. 1938–39, 1947–48, but such[increases constituted] “temporary over-stocking of poor veld” that would soon beeliminated via stock deaths the followingwinter and spring, or the next droughtperiod’.

Hendricks’ (1991) study of Nyandeniadministrative area, Libode district inWestern Pondoland, is interesting, for itreveals a remarkable constancy in thenumbers of livestock over a period of 38years (1946–1984). In 1946, when reha-bilitation was first introduced, there were3 146 cattle in Nyandeni (and a total of4 603 large stock units, when goats, sheepand donkeys were included). In 1984,when the area was replanned, there were

2 973 head of cattle (and a total of 4 213large stock units). The human populationhad almost doubled in the same period(Hendricks 1991:203). In 1984, 52% ofthe total population of 839 ‘families’ inNyandeni owned cattle. Almost 80% ofthese cattle-holding families had herds ofbetween one and ten head of cattle. Only3% of the cattle holders had between 21and 50 head of cattle.

For the former Ciskei ‘reserve’ areas,processes of proletarianisation were said tobe in advance of those in the Transkeiareas (Mager 1992, 1995; Lewis 1985).Bundy (1979:224) notes that by 1946,60% of households in these areas ownedfive or fewer cattle, while 29% owned nocattle at all. Ainslie (1999) observed thatfor Tyefu Location, Peddie district, num-bers of cattle have remained remarkablyconstant overall (although, no doubt,subject to the usual drought-inducedfluctuations) over a period of 143 years, inwhich time the human population of thelocation had increased over nine times andthe number of goats by more than 14times.8

Table 3.1: Livestock population in TyefuLocation, Peddie district

Populat ionPopulat ionPopulat ionPopulat ionPopulat ion 18541854185418541854 19461946194619461946 19971997199719971997Categor ie sCategor ie sCategor ie sCategor ie sCategor ie s

Cattle 2 989 2 938 3 548

Sheep 46 5 388 5 120

Goats 514 18 464 14 488

Sources: Ainslie (1998); Dept. Agriculture, Peddie

What exactly can we deduce from thesedata? First, we do not know whether thethree census years in question coincidedwith a ‘wet’ or ‘dry’ period in terms ofrainfall, or were recorded just as a droughtwas ending, etc. and as a result, we cannotextrapolate very much from these figures.In this sense, the data is synchronic, witheach data set (for example, that of 1946)representing a fuzzy snapshot of thesituation that prevailed on the day of thecensus. This situation would not improve if


42



we had gross census data at five-yearintervals – or even every year – from1846, unless we had accurate rainfallfigures and some indication of sales andother exchanges, home-slaughter, birthsand deaths, for the same intervals.

Second, such gross data do not tell usanything about the structure of the overallherd in the location, much less the struc-ture (male/female and ages) of individuallyowned herds. We are thus none the wiserabout whether the number of heifers in theindividual herds was such that an increase,given good rains, could be expected in duecourse or what the proportion of oxenwere in each case.

Third, we learn nothing of the actualdistribution of cattle ownership among thepopulation, notwithstanding that the latterremains problematic in terms of definition,whether it is taken as adult (usually male)individuals or ‘households’, which havethemselves changed considerably over thisperiod.

Fourth, we are none the wiser aboutwhat factors might underpin any observedchanges in cattle numbers. The possiblerange of constraints and opportunities inthe local economy and the larger, politicaleconomy that may have been impacting onpatterns of cattle ownership remain unknown.

Fifth, as the data in the table suggests, itis dangerous to consider trends in cattlenumbers in isolation to changes in thenumbers of goats and sheep in the samearea. So, what can we learn from a cursoryexamination of aggregate cattle numbers atthe magisterial district level per annum?Given the many obstacles in the way of theaccurate recording of such numbers (seeabove and Kepe, this report), and theproblems highlighted above, I wouldsuggest that the reply is: ‘not a great deal’.

It is for this multiplicity of reasons that Ihave not included cattle census data for theentire 28 districts in the former Transkeiand the eight districts of the former Ciskei.Such data that does exist is alluded to inthe case-study chapters that follow. Con-ducting detailed and historically informedanalyses of cattle numbers within the local

context of each magisterial district in theprovince remains an important task for thefuture.

Cattle census data for selecteddistricts

Figure 3.1: Centane – Cattle numbers1974–1995

Figure 3.2: Engcobo – Cattle numbers1974–1998

Figure 3.3: Umzimkulu – Cattle numbers1974–1995

Figure 3.4: Umtata – Cattle numbers1974–1998

43

Figure 3.5: Xhalanga – Cattle numbers1974–1999

Figure 3.6: Xhalanga – Cattle numbers1921–1999

DiscussionThis chapter has argued that cattle censusdata, collected as they are at the dippingtank, are notoriously unreliable for anumber of reasons. The fact that the statehas used these data for intervening in anumber of ways that were perceivednegatively by rural cattle owners, is justone of these reasons.

Despite the experiences of the past inthis regard, it is still of considerable inter-est to policy-makers, provincial officialsand informed observers seeking to docu-ment and analyse changes in the sector, tohave access to reliable census data. Forthis reason, it is important to continuestriving to overcome the problems inherentin capturing these data in as much detail aspossible, so that it will be possible toidentify longer-term trends in cattle owner-ship. There is a sense that the nationalstatistics do not provide enough informa-tion at the desired level of detail withwhich to analyse trends at the local level.Every effort must be made, first, to captureas much of the richness of the local censusdata as possible and, second, to make allthese data available to provincial and

national offices, where the statistics arecompiled.

In the final analysis, it appears that inmost districts and municipalities across theprovince, the numbers of cattle have beenremarkably stable for nearly five decades,except for drought-related decreases. Insome areas, longer-term upward or down-ward trends in cattle ownership are dis-cernible. In some cases, this trend appearsto have a correlation with the numbers ofgoats and sheep owned. Given this sce-nario, it seems essential that local agricul-tural staff receive the necessary trainingand are given the responsibility to make agreater contribution to the overall collec-tion and collation of cattle census data forthe province.

Endnotes1. Even now, some people in the former

Transkei are opposed to dipping andthey resent their animals being counted(Mr Gwababa, the Control AnimalTechnician, Central Region, Umtata,personal communication, 21/04/1999).It is fair to say, however, that in manyareas people seemed resigned to thefact that the number of cattle theyowned was, for the most part, publicknowledge. They were not as openabout their numbers of small stock.

2. The fact that stock was generally drivento the dip by young boys could nothave helped with co-ordinating theexercise.

3. This view was also expressed by MrGwababa, Umtata 11/08/1999. Transkeiapparently had a system of ‘closedcontrol’, while the Ciskei operated an‘open control’ system, which was farmore porous and difficult to regulate.

4. It would appear that the first three ofthese criteria have been met by authori-ties in the Transkei in the past, but asKepe (this report) suggests, with socialand political costs.

5. Mr Dave Fourie, (provincial) animalhealth technician, felt that overall ‘thestock census is inaccurate [and that] we


44



don’t have exact numbers – peopledon’t bring their cattle to dip, and theymove their cattle around and so on.There is a critical need to have perfect[sic] figures: what if an anthrax out-break occurs?’ Interview, Bisho,17/09/1999.

6. Other data can be gleaned from con-temporary sources and more recentsurveys which at times deal specificallywith magisterial districts, thus facilitat-ing comparison with census data.

7. It was not possible to find equivalentlongitudinal census data for the formerCiskei districts as is available for theTranskei.

8. Human population totals for the threeperiods were 1 509, 4 889 and 14 000respectively.



Ainslie, A. 1999. When ‘community’ is notenough: Managing common propertynatural resources in rural South Africa.Development Southern Africa16(3):375–401.

Beinart, W. 1977. The livestock levy inTranskei. Africa Seminar CollectedPapers Vol.1/1978. Centre for AfricanStudies. Cape Town: University of CapeTown.

Beinart, W. 1984. Soil erosion, conserva-tion and ideas about development: ASouthern African exploration: 1900–1960. Journal of Southern AfricanStudies, 11(1):52–83.

Beinart, W & Bundy, C. 1987. Hiddenstruggles in rural South Africa. Politicsand popular movements in the Transkeiand Eastern Cape 1890–1930. London:James Currey; Johannesburg: RavanPress.

Beinart, W & Bundy, C. 1987. Introduc-tion: ‘Away in the locations’. In Beinart,W & Bundy, C. pp.1–45.

Brown, DL. 1971. Chapter seven: Agricul-ture in the Ciskei – A challenge, in TheCiskei – A Bantu homeland: A generalsurvey. Alice: Fort Hare UniversityPress.


Bundy, C. 1987. We don’t want yourrain, we won’t dip. In Beinart, W &Bundy, C. pp.191–221.

Cloete, JG. 1989. A proposed animalproduction research-developmentprogramme for Transkei,Bophuthatswana, Venda and Ciskei.Compiled on behalf of the ResearchSub-Committee of the Animal Produc-tion Working Group of the Secretariatfor Multi-Lateral Development inSouthern Africa.

Hendricks, Fred T. 1991. Displaced prole-tarians in Transkei, in Towards a newagrarian democratic order: A SAERTreader on the South African land ques-tion edited by S Matlhape & A Munz.Amsterdam: SAERT. pp.189–221.


Moll, TC. 1988. No blade of grass: Ruralproduction and state intervention inTranskei, 1925–1960. CambridgeAfrican Occasional Papers 6. AfricanStudies Centre. Cambridge.

Muller, ND & Mpela, VN. 1987. Livestocknumbers in the Transkei 1918–1986.Umtata: Univerity of the Transkei.

Rutman, GL. 1972. Regional developmentin Southern Africa with special refer-ence to the Transkei, in South of theSahara: Development in African econo-mies edited by SP Schatz. London andBasingstoke:Macmillan. pp.140–153.

Scoones, I. 1993. Why are there so manyanimals? Cattle population dynamics inthe communal areas of Zimbabwe, inRange ecology at disequilibrium editedby RH Behnke, I Scoones & C Kerven.London: Overseas Development Insti-tute.

45

Shackleton, C. 1993. Are the communalrangelands in need of saving? Develop-ment Southern Africa 10(1):65–78.



46



IntroductionA study of livestock production and its future in the former Bantustans,especially the rural areas, must take into account the changing nature ofthese areas. Colonial conquest, dispossession, capitalist development,�Western� education, Christianity and apartheid have greatly altered andtransformed the character and nature of rural life in South Africa.

The restriction of the majority of Africansto the former Bantustans led to overcrowd-ing in these areas. By the 1930s, there wasgrowing evidence of poverty and soilerosion in the former Bantustans, whichcould not be neglected by the state(Chaskalson 1987). Mainly, but not exclu-sively, as a result of these developments,many Africans were forced to be lessdependent on subsistence production andto sell their labour in the mines, farms andcities for an income.2 Vicious apartheidpolicies of influx control and urban remov-als could not prevent the growth in num-bers of urban Africans, some of whombecame permanent urban dwellers, butmany of whom were migrant workers(Hindson 1987).

Migrant workers have played a criticalrole in rural transformation (Delius 1996;Drew 1996; Mbeki 1984). This transforma-tion has been brought about by the mannerin which urban areas have influencedmigrant workers. Initially rejected byurban born and bred youth, and alsoencapsulating themselves from the influ-ence of urban life, migrant workers wereoften compelled to change and adapt tourban conditions. For example, someended up becoming members of urban

Chapter 4:Cattle production in Xhalangadistrict1

Lungisile Ntsebeza

youth gangs (Ntsebeza 1993). In the 1970sand 1980s, when the labour movement re-emerged, some of its leaders, for exampleMoses Mayekiso and Enoch Godongwana,were migrant workers. Upon returning totheir rural backgrounds, migrant workersbrought back with them some of the urbanand trade union influences, thereby chang-ing the character and nature of rural life.Further, the advent of electricity andelectronic media, including radio andtelevision in rural areas has enormouslyaccelerated the urban influence and con-sumerism.

Despite this urbanisation trend, about40% of South Africans still reside in ruralareas. Census reports over the years showa growth of the number of people living inrural areas. At the same time, land that wasallocated for African occupation wasofficially restricted to 13% of South Afri-ca’s land. The rise in population was notmet with an increase in the amount of land.Instead, the increasing rural populationwas allocated land on the commonage. Byso doing, the size of grazing land wasreduced. In the late 1980s and early 1990s,a number of informal settlements mush-roomed on commonages in rural areas.This followed a similar trend in urban

47

areas.3 In most rural areas, people unilater-ally returned to land that they were removedfrom when the ‘betterment’ conservationand rehabilitation plan was introduced andimplemented in the 1930s and 1940s. Mostof the land from which people were re-moved was converted into commonagesthat were used for grazing purposes. Theirreturn to their old land, while retaining thenew land acquired as a result of ‘better-ment’, meant that the size of grazing landwas further reduced.

The purchase of historically white farmsby the Development Trust4 for transfer tothe Transkei as part of Bantustan consoli-dation in the mid to late 1970s did notalleviate land shortage in rural areas. In thecase of Xhalanga5 district, farms known asBeestekraal were purchased by the SouthAfrican state and transferred to theTranskeian administration. These farmswere earmarked for use, and not purchase,by Xhalanga farmers. Most were leased,essentially to people who were in the goodbooks of KD Matanzima. Some of thefarmers are not even residents ofXhalanga. A widely held view is that thesefarmers, or some of them, did not even payrent. One of the farms was converted into a‘communal’ area.

Despite the post-1994 land reformprogramme one of whose aims is ‘toprovide the disadvantaged and the poorwith access to land for residential andproductive purposes’ (Department of LandAffairs 1997:9), the position with regard toland shortage in the rural areas of theformer Bantustans, including Xhalanga,remains largely the same as in pre-1994.Apart from decrease in the size of grazingland, land administration, in the form ofmanaging grazing land, has almost col-lapsed. For example, in the town of Cala,no dipping of cattle is currently takingplace. According to the animal healthtechnicians, the dipping site was damagedby people from Ndondo Square, an infor-mal settlement that was established in Calain the early 1990s.6 Recalling this episode,one animal health inspector remarked:

Here in town there is no dipping. Wefind it difficult to deal with this

matter. We tell Cala people that thedipping tanks was [sic] destroyedright in front of them and materialwas used by people at the squattercamp. They don’t know what to donow. It is difficult for them even toinoculate.7

In the rural areas, rotational grazing is notpossible, given that fences have been cutand Tribal Authorities and rangers nolonger find it possible to enforce rules andregulations. Finally, as this case-studyshows, there is very little support forlivestock production coming from govern-ment.

These developments, the influences ofurbanisation and Western education inchanging the nature of rural society andeconomy, the decreasing size of the com-monage, and poor land administration andgovernment support, raise a number ofquestions about livestock (specificallycattle) production in the small towns andrural areas of the former Bantustans thatthis study will attempt to address. Some ofthe key questions are:· What is the current number of cattle in

the Xhalanga district? How does thisnumber compare with previous years?How are these numbers arrived at? Howreliable are these figures? If there havebeen changes in the number of cattleover time, how do people explain thedifferences?

· Who keeps cattle? Why do people keepcattle? What do they do with cattle?

· What problems do cattle owners en-counter regarding cattle?

· What is the future of cattle production?· What is the role of government in cattle

production in the Xhalanga district?This study will attempt to address thesequestions.

MethodologySecondary literature was reviewed for thesocio-economic background and descrip-tion of the Xhalanga magisterial district.Livestock figures for the period 1904–1975 were drawn from a report entitled,

Chapter 4: Cattle production in Xhalanga district1

48



‘Statistical Time Series No 2’, published inAugust 1987 by the Bureau for AfricanResearch and Documentation (BARD),University of Transkei. For the period1976–1999, assistance was received fromthe animal health technicians based inCala. Special mention should be made ofMr M Mkabile, who went out of his way tocompile the figures.

In-depth interviews were conductedwith animal health inspectors in Cala on arange of issues, including how they arriveat the number of livestock in Xhalanga,how reliable these figures are, whetherthere have been any major shifts in num-bers, if so, how they would account forthem, problems the cattle owners confront,the role of government, and the future ofcattle production in Xhalanga.

Most of these questions were posed to25 informants from two rural areas, CalaReserve and Luphaphasi.8 One part-timefarmer, who resides in Cala, was alsointerviewed in depth. Cala Reserve is a‘peri-urban’ area, located about 5km fromCala. Luphaphasi is a remote rural areathat is difficult to access, largely due to thestate of the roads.

It must be categorically stated that noattempt is made in this study to generaliseon the basis of the above interviews. Theidea was to establish possible trends withregard to cattle production in Xhalanga.More time and a bigger sample would berequired to take the bold step of generalis-ing.

The Xhalanga magisterialdistrictThe magisterial district of Xhalanga, whichhas an estimated population of 100 000people (Kodua-Agyekum 1997; Kayter1994) was established after the annexationof the Transkeian Territories in 1878. In1884, Cala was established as its adminis-trative town. As with most districts in theformer Bantustans, merchants, missionar-ies, magistrates and labour recruitersshaped and transformed the people ofXhalanga. The phenomenon of migrantlabour is visible. A survey conducted in

1995 shows that more than 50.6% of thepopulation was made up of people underthe age of 19 years, of which 52.1% werethe children of migrant workers. Thesechildren lived with their grandparents andguardians (Kodua-Agyekum 1997:83).People of 60 years and above, accordingto this study, made up 7.4%.

Most of the active people from ruralareas are in urban areas as migrant work-ers. The majority of migrant workers aremen. The 1995 survey that has alreadybeen cited shows that 42% of the popula-tion was made up of people in the agegroup 20–59 years, the age group of theactive labour force.9 Of these, 54.2% werewomen. The unemployed constitute 23%;just over 50% are in the 20–59 years agegroup. The unemployed are made up ofpeople who have been retrenched fromneighbouring commercial farms, re-trenched mine workers and school leavers(Kodua-Agyekum 1997:90). Of those whoare employed, the majority, 12.5%, workfor the government as teachers, nurses andcivil servants. The rest are employed byprivate business and transport, or aredomestic workers.

Given the above figures, the conclusiondrawn by the survey that the female/maleratio is ‘low’ and that this ratio ‘furtherreduces potential labour supply, especiallyfarm labour’ (Kodua-Agyekum 1997:71),should be challenged. Although women inthe age group of 20–59 are in the majority(54.2%), the margin is not vast. Men makeup 45.8% of this age group, which iscertainly not an insignificant figure. Inviewing the female/male ratio, it is impor-tant to note the impact of retrenchments,especially from the late 1980s onwards,forcing some men to (temporarily?) returnto rural areas, on the one hand, and theincreasing movement of women betweenurban and rural areas, on the other.

Pensions, according to the survey, are amajor source of income, and account for35.5% of the respondents. The surveyfound ‘a relatively low reliance on migrantremittances in Xalanga: only 20.5% of thesample’.10 Only 5.5% of the sample identi-

49

fied themselves as full-time farmers(Kodua-Agyekum 1997:92–3).

In terms of formal education, the 1995survey shows that 21.5% of the respond-ents had no formal education at all. About51% of the respondents had primaryschool education (Grade 1 to Grade 8).Only 6% had post-matric education.Women, according to the survey, were‘slightly better educated than men’, and‘the migrants are better educated thanthose who remain behind’ (Kodua-Agyekum 1997:88).

The survey suggests that the low lit-eracy rate among the male population ‘isthe consequence of the socio-economicdemands made on the time of the youngboys to herd livestock’ (Kodua-Agyekum1997:88). The present study, though, hasestablished from respondents that youngpeople do not show interest in livestock.

Elders in the district recall thatXhalanga was once prosperous. It wasrenowned for its fruit production, espe-cially peaches and apricots. One informantin her 90s narrated, with excitement, howthey used to load ox wagons of peaches insearch of markets in neighbouring Elliotand Dordrecht.11 However, various factors,including periodic droughts, land shortage,changing socio-economic conditionswhich impacted on how people viewedagriculture, and so on, have altered condi-tions in the district. The people ofXhalanga now import fruit and vegetables(Kodua-Agyekum 1997:98; Kayter1994:4).

Xhalanga is currently classified as oneof the poorest districts in the old Transkei.Some researchers attribute this state ofaffairs to neglect by the Bantustan authori-ties (Kodua-Agyekum 1997:67; Keyter1994). Keyter (1994:3) dramaticallydepicts the Xhalanga situation in theseterms:

Within a neglected Transkei sub-region, lies a neglected Xalangadistrict, which has been left as aforgotten pocket of the sub-region formore than three decades even as the

Transkeian post-independent focuson development shifted to areas suchas Qamata, Ncora Butterworth, andUmtata.

This neglect is not surprising given theopposition put up by the people ofXhalanga when the Bantu Authoritiessystem was introduced in the late 1950sand early 1960s. In particular, it wasopposition to the imposition of KDMatanzima as a paramount chief of Emi-grant Tembuland, which included theXhalanga district. This imposition dividedthe community of Xhalanga, leading to along-drawn struggle between 1958 and1963, commonly known as tshisa-tshisa(put fire-put fire), in one of the administra-tive areas, Mnxe.12 When the apartheidstate conferred almost unfettered powerson KD Matanzima, Xhalanga was one ofthe districts that he isolated for especiallyharsh treatment. Matanzima’s hostilitytowards Xhalanga people is widely ac-cepted at one of the main reasons for theneglect. What is indeed surprising is thatvery little has been written aboutXhalanga. People in the district have along history of struggle, which goes backto their opposition to the Glen Grey Act of1894 to the 1980s and early 1990s.

While it is important to consider thepolitical neglect of Xhalanga in under-standing cattle production in the area, andproblems encountered by cattle owners,equally important to bear in mind is thephysical background and climatic condi-tions.13 The landscape is characterised byhigh mountains and deeply incised valleys.A large part of the area, about 75%, ismountainous and hilly. The town of Calastands at 1 628m above sea level, whilethe administrative areas stand at between1 400m and 1 700m above sea level.

The district is a high altitude, lowrainfall area of the Transkei region, EasternCape. The annual average rainfall seldomexceeds 400mm. Most of the rain falls insummer. Summer is generally hot, espe-cially in January and February. Recurrentdroughts are a common feature. The


50



winters are extremely cold and windy.Snow occasionally falls in winter.

These climatic conditions, coupled withthe heavy clay soils, with sandy patches,do not make the district conducive toagricultural production. However, thenatural vegetation consists mainly ofgrassy veld which is nutritious. The area isconsequently renowned for its sweetveldgrazing, which is good for sheep. In agood year, when there are good rains, thecondition of cattle improves vastly (Keyter1994:4,18).

The advantages of sweetveld grazingare offset by overgrazing. The grass isrelatively short, with the result that erosionoccurs on the foothills of the mountains. Inaddition, overgrazing has encouraged theencroachment of bush on the grassy veld(Kodua-Agyekum 1997:78).

As has been stated above, one of thecontributing factors to overgrazing is landshortage and population growth, whichhave meant that portions of the grazingcommonage are converted into residentialsites. At the same time, the number ofstock has remained largely the same. Landshortage is the direct result of the 1913Natives Land Act and the 1936 Native andTrust Land Act. These laws restricted theamount of land for African occupation tonot more than 13%.

Against this brief background, let usconsider cattle in the Xhalanga district.

Livestock population in theXhalanga district with specificreference to cattle14

Number of cattle and how to arrive atthese numbersAs can be seen from the data on cattlenumbers in Xhalanga (see previous chap-ter), there are gaps in the period 1904 to1975. In addition, some of the figures, forexample, 1919, 1920, 1967–8 and 1970are highly suspicious, if not inaccurate.The figures for the 1904–1975 period weredrawn from the ‘Statistical Time SeriesNo 2’ referred to above. It was not possibleto establish how they arrived at these

figures, and how they would explain thegaps and discrepancies. Those from 1976to 1999 were compiled by animal healthtechnicians (Oonobhula) in Cala.15

With regard to how these numbers ofcattle16 are arrived at, animal health techni-cians in Cala explained that they relyexclusively on counting that takes place atthe dipping sites. Each cattle owner has astock card in which the total number ofcattle and their classification are recorded.On the dipping day, the stock card ispresented to the dipping foreman(Unodiphu) who counts the cattle andcompares them with what is recorded inthe stock book. Each stock card has col-umns for date, total number of cattle,increases (as in the case of birth or acquisi-tion of additional cattle), decreases (as inthe case of deaths or sale of cattle) and thesignature of the dipping foreman. Discrep-ancies are taken up with the owner of thecattle. It is only after this process of check-ing and counting has been satisfied thatcattle are dipped (in summer) and theforeman signs the stock card.

Dipping takes place every fortnight insummer and on a fixed day of the week. Insummer, cattle actually dive into thedipping tank. In winter ‘dry checking’ isconducted once a month, also on a fixedday.17 Towards the end of the year, a stockcensus is made at the dipping site.

The procedure with respect to farmersin Beestekraal18 is different. Most of thesefarmers conduct their own dipping. How-ever, farmers must arrange with animalhealth technicians for supervision of thedipping. Animal health technicians paycompulsory, regular (at least once amonth) visits to these farms. It is duringthese visits, and when dipping takes place,that they count the cattle. They also use thevisits to help farmers with inoculation.

How reliable are these figures?When asked about the reliability of thenumbers of cattle, the Cala animal healthtechnicians were adamant that the figuresare indeed reliable. They argued that there

51

is a cost on the part of the cattle owner, innot dipping one’s cattle. Cattle that are notdipped are not registered. If cattle are notregistered, the owner cannot:· report them when they are lost;· claim them when impounded; or· get a permit in the event of transporting

them to another area.In addition, animal health techniciansargue that local people often report ‘suspi-cious’ cattle to the police. In a nutshell, theview of these officials was that there arevery few people, if any, who do not regis-ter their stock.

Farmers who dip their own cattle arealso compelled to register their stock andsubmit to agricultural officers the numberof stock they hold. The Cala officers statedthat although they do not have as muchcontrol over farmers as they do withordinary rural people, farmers who do notregister their stock are as constrained asrural people when it comes to applying forpermits, reporting stolen stock, and so on.

As indicated, in Cala no dipping hastaken place from the mid-1990s. Despitethe fact that no dipping takes place intown, counting, according to the animalhealth technicians, does take place. Theyclaim that when dipping could not takeplace, Cala cattle owners came to theDepartment of Agriculture and LandAffairs offices and complained. Theanimal health technicians subsequentlyarranged to have a headcount of cattleonce a month. This occasion is also used,as with farmers, to help cattle owners withinoculation. The same disadvantages onnot registering stock that have been high-lighted above, affect Cala cattle ownerstoo.

Of the 26 cattle owners who wereinterviewed, 21 firmly held that cattleowners dip their cattle. The remaining fiveinformants were not absolutely sure. Theythought that there might be a few who donot dip, and therefore do not register, theircattle. One suggested that the dippingforemen are no longer rigorous whencounting stock.

Distribution of cattle ownershipThe table below shows that about 85% ofthose interviewed owned between one andten cattle, with 50% of the respondentsowning between one and five cattle.

Table 4.1: Distribution of cattle

Number of cattle Respondents

1�5 13

6�10 9

11�15 2

16�20 1

21�30 1

TOTAL 26

A cursory look at the figures of the Depart-ment of Agriculture in Cala seemed toconfirm that the bulk of cattle owners inXhalanga own less than 30 cattle. In CalaReserve, for example, one owner, who isalso a ranger, has 83 cattle. The rest of thecattle owners in the area own between oneand 22. The figures on the Beestekraalfarms are also not impressive, as thefollowing table shows.

Table 4.2: Cattle distribution at Beestekraal

Number of cattle Owners

1�10 1

11�20 4

21�30 2

31�40 7

41�50 4

51�60 -

61�70 -

71�80 -

81�90 1

91�100 2

141�150 1

Above 150 (±200) 1

TOTAL 23


52



At least two of these farmers, one owning143 and the other 89 cattle, are not fromthe Xhalanga district. They are known tobe relatives of KD Matanzima, which mayexplain why they were given farms. Thebiggest cattle owner, though, is from thedistrict. He is highly regarded amongstcattle owners. Word has it that he sells anaverage of 26 beasts when there is astokvel. One animal health technicianstated that it takes more than 30 minutes todip his cattle.

Although it may be dangerous to gener-alise on the basis of a very small sampleand a cursory look at records, the sugges-tion is that the Xhalanga district does nothave big (wealthy) cattle owners. Thequestion of who is perceived as wealthy interms of ownership of cattle was posed toanimal health inspectors and the 26 cattleowners who were interviewed. Accordingto Cala animal health technicians, theyregard a wealthy cattle owner (indodaemiyo) as one who owns 40 head andabove. On the other hand, about 70% ofthose interviewed thought that a personwith 20 or more cattle would be regardedas wealthy. Significantly, most stressed thatthis figure is in terms of ‘today’s condi-tions’ (imeko zanamhlanje).19 In the past,they submitted, wealthy stock ownerswould own 50 or more cattle, measured interms of the number of spans of cattle onecould assemble.

Who owns cattle?The gender breakdown of the respondentsreflects that 18 of the 26 respondents aremale, with only eight female. All the cattleowners in Beestekraal are male. Onceagain, without generalising, the patternseems to be that cattle ownership is stilldominated by men. This is not surprisinggiven the legacy of associating cattle withmen.

In terms of the educational level of thecattle owners interviewed, only three,about 12% of the respondents, had gonebeyond Standard 6 (Grade 8). About 35%claimed to be illiterate.

Responses from the interviews suggestthat cattle are owned by middle-aged to

elderly people, most probably people whohave retired from work in the cities. In thetable below, the majority of cattle owners,about 77% of the respondents, are abovethe age of 50 years.

Table 4.3: Ages of respondents

Age Number of respondents

31�40 2

41�50 4

51�60 10

61�70 4

71� 5

No response 1

TOTAL 26

There is a growing fear among the inter-viewees that the youth are not interested inlivestock production. Over 60% of therespondents expressed this fear. The sameconcern was shown by Cala animal healthtechnicians.

Uses of cattleAlmost all of the respondents agreed thatthey use their cattle for milk and manure.About 65% indicated that they use theircattle for ritual purposes (ukugugisa). Onlyfive respondents, about 20%, use theircattle for meat consumption other thanritual purposes.

Half the respondents claimed that theyuse cattle for lobola. There is wide accept-ance of money for purposes of payinglobola. Although lobola is still announcedin terms of the number of cattle, the priceper beast, when converting cattle to cash,is much lower than the price one wouldpay at the market place. Some informantsclaimed that the lobola price could be lessthan half the market price of the beast.Given the low number of cattle owned bythe majority of cattle owners, as was shownabove, it is not surprising why money/cashis an accepted form of paying lobola.

Reliance on tractors is shown by thefact that only 39% of cattle owners use

53

their cattle for ploughing. They claim that,due to drought conditions, their cattlecannot cope.

Almost all respondents indicated thatthey see their cattle as a source of wealthin cases of emergency. The type of emer-gency that was often mentioned was theneed to raise money to pay fees towardsthe education of children. This responseemphasises the importance that ruralpeople are now attaching to education.This trend to educate children, even if itmeant selling cattle, according to inform-ants, became prominent in the 1970s. KDMatanzima, the feared leader of BantustanTranskei up to 1985, is often credited forcompelling rural people to send theirchildren to school.

Problems encountered by cattleownersA number of problems facing cattle own-ers in Xhalanga were cited by the animalhealth technicians and respondents. Themain problems highlighted were:· land shortage;· land administration;· drought;· lack of government support;· diseases;· water;· accidents; and· theft.Shortage of land for grazing purposes wascited by the animal health technicians asone of the main problems faced by cattleowners. According to the technicians, thisproblem of land is aggravated by lack ofgrazing control and proper land adminis-tration. They recalled that before theadvent of democracy, there was rigorouscontrol of grazing by Tribal Authorities,who worked closely with agriculturalofficers and a ranger. The ranger was alocal resident.

Things fell apart, according to thetechnicians, with the advent of democracyin 1994. They claimed that informalsettlements, mainly for residential pur-poses, were established on the grazingland (commonage) and fences that divided

grazing camps were cut and removed.This, according to the officers, resulted in‘a free flow of cattle’, and limited land forgrazing.

The suggestion by the Cala animalhealth technicians that problems aroundland administration only started after 1994is not entirely true. The phenomenon ofestablishing informal settlements inXhalanga started in earnest in the early1990s.20 Already in 1991 there werecomplaints to the Cala magistrate andQamata Regional Office of the TranskeiDepartment of Agriculture that there werepeople who were ‘invading’ land in theLuphaphasi administrative area.21 Recordsin the Lands Division of the Department ofAgriculture and Land Affairs in Cala showthat in 1993 and 1994 there were ‘applica-tions for residential and arable land ongrazing camps’ from the Qolombeni TribalAuthority (Upper Cala) and KwaGcina(Nyalasa).

The issue of shortage of land for graz-ing as a result of the mushrooming ofinformal settlements for residential pur-poses on the commonage is widely ac-knowledged. All the interviewees raisedthis as a key problem. The problem cropsup almost spontaneously in any conversa-tion that focuses on livestock.

Closely tied to the issue of land short-age are periodic droughts that hit the area.Although elderly people often create animpression that drought is a new phenom-enon in Xhalanga, some even suggestingthat it started when ‘ whites’ left the area inthe late 1960s, what seems reasonable tosay is that shortage of land aggravatesthings.22 For example, informants point outthat in the past they used to practice rota-tional grazing, where some camps wererested in anticipation of, and preparationfor, leaner periods, including winter anddrought. Since the early 1990s and theestablishment of residential sites on graz-ing camps, it is no longer possible toreserve camps.

In addition, almost all respondentspointed out that there is very limitedgovernment support when it comes to


54



chemicals for dipping and inoculation.This limited support from government wasconfirmed by the Cala animal healthtechnicians. According to the technicians,government is responsible for preventingand addressing what they term ‘notifiable/scheduled diseases’. Government is sup-posed to provide for anthrax, black quarterand dipping.

The technicians recall that during theMatanzima era, a stock rate tax was leviedon cattle owners to finance the aboveservices by the government. However, thepayment of the stock rate tax was termi-nated during the period of the militarydictatorship of General Bantu Holomisa inTranskei. But the service of preventing andaddressing diseases continued to be pro-vided by the military dictatorship. Thismeant that these services were providedfree of charge.

When democracy was introduced in1994, the free service was continued.However, by 1996, according to thetechnicians, there were shortages of chemi-cals and other medicines. In 1999, thetechnicians claimed that they could notinoculate because of a shortage of drugs.As indicated, the technicians confirmedwhat was pointed out by respondents.

This means that, despite the legalrequirements that government is responsiblefor preventing and addressing ‘notifiable/scheduled diseases’, this responsibility isnot met. It is not clear what governmentpolicy with regard to cattle is. Rumour hasit in government circles that formerlygovernment-supplied services will gradu-ally be privatised. Already, there are,according to Cala animal health technicians,private veterinarians who are offeringservices that government is either nolonger rendering or is poorly providing.

The other problem cited by animalhealth technicians and cattle owners isdiseases. They cited the following com-mon diseases:· redwater (amanz’ abomvu);· gall sickness (inyongo);· tuberculosis;· umbendeni;

· lamp skin;· ticks (amakhalane); and· heart water.Animal health technicians in Cala submit-ted that most of the above diseases wouldnot be prevalent had there been dippingand had government fulfilled its legalobligation to address and prevent notifi-able diseases.

Although stock theft was cited as aproblem in interviews, it is not a majorproblem in Xhalanga. Only eight respond-ents stated that they lost cattle throughtheft.23 The police in Cala reported thatthere are few cases of stock theft that arereported to them. The following tableshows the number of cases that wererecorded by the police in the period be-tween January and October 1999.

Table 4.4: Cases of stock theft, Cala PoliceStation

January 14

February -

March 6

April -

May 3

June 2

July 6

August 6

September -

October 2

TOTTOTTOTTOTTOTALALALALAL 393939393924

As can be seen, the highest figure, about35% of the cases, was reported in January,and there are months when no cases arereported. Figures for correspondingmonths in 1997 and 1998 were evenlower.

The above figures refer to reportedcases. It was not possible to establish howmany cases were brought to court andfinalised. According to the police, somestock owners leave their stock on thecommonage and mountains in winter. This

55

makes it difficult for the owner to knowwhen exactly their cattle went missing.Often it is only when cattle are supposed tobe taken to the dipping tank, which is oncea month in winter, that cattle owners noticethat there are missing cattle. Even then,they may not report the cattle immediately,as they may want to make a thoroughsearch, including asking people.

The police commented that the figureswould be even lower had grazing campsbeen fenced. They complained that campswere not fenced and cattle roam around.They also complained that the brand marksused to identify cattle were ‘old-fashioned’and easily changed by professionalthieves.

Other seemingly important problemsconfronting cattle owners that were men-tioned in interviews were water shortage,especially during droughts, and accidentsas a result of cattle slipping and fallingwhile grazing on the mountains.

The future scenario with regardto ownership and numbersThe current position is that cattle owner-ship in Xhalanga, especially in the ruralareas, is spread across the population.Respondents stated that over half of ruralhouseholds own cattle. However, in termsof future possibilities, there seems to beless optimism about the spread of owner-ship. About 54% of the respondents wereof the view that cattle ownership will bemore concentrated than is the case now.This means that fewer people, ‘those whocan afford to buy medicine’, as one in-formant put it, will own a greater propor-tion of cattle.

With regard to the future number ofcattle in Xhalanga, well over half, about62%, of the respondents were not optimis-tic about the future of cattle in the district.They were of the opinion that the numberof cattle will, over time, decrease in ruralareas. The shrinking size of the grazingcommonage and drought were cited as themain reasons for the decrease in thenumber of stock. Respondents argued thatthe expense involved in maintaining cattle,

especially now that there is no regulardipping taking place, coupled with increas-ing unemployment, will force many cattleowners to sell their stock. They alsoshowed concern at the lack of interest instock that is displayed by the youth. Asone elderly man put it: Abantwanaabakhoyo abazifuni iinkomo (Today’schildren don’t want cattle). One informantstated that the youth are interested invehicles.

Barely 20% of respondents thought thatthe numbers will not decrease. This in-cluded a 75-year-old man who was ada-mant that ‘people like cattle and care aboutthem’. Cattle are ‘our lifeblood’(Ngundoqo wobomi bethu). The rest of therespondents were not sure.

About half of the respondents were ofthe view that more and more people arekeeping goats instead of cattle. Theyargued that goats are more resistant todrought and are cheaper to maintain. Onthe other hand, the other half of the re-spondents argued that people still prefer tokeep cattle. The main reason given wasthat it is not as easy to steal cattle as it iswith goats.

Animal health technicians, on their side,predicted that cattle production will con-tinue in Cala. In the words of one of theagricultural officers: ‘It is difficult forpeople to stop’ (Kunzima ukuba abantubayeke).25According to him, rural peopleuse cattle for draught power to plough,lobola payments, rituals, milk, manure andselling in cases of emergencies such aseducating children. He, however, con-ceded that periodic droughts in theXhalanga magisterial district are causingpeople to lose interest in keeping stock.This is particularly the case with the youth.‘The youth’, he remarked, ‘is not inter-ested.’ (Ulutsha alufuni ukulandela.)

Despite the lack of enthusiasm on thepart of the youth, the animal health techni-cians observed that over the last threeyears or so, there has been a steady in-crease in the total number of cattle in theXhalanga district. They attributed this tothe concentration of cattle in the hands of a


56



few cattle owners. This increase, accordingto them, coincided with the allocation ofthe former Beestekraal farms to residentsof the Xhalanga district who are takingfarming seriously. They mentioned, as anexample, the Xhalanga farmer who ownsthe highest number of stock, as shownabove.

The role government can play,as seen by the respondentsOne of the questions that respondents wereasked was what role they saw governmentplaying in promoting livestock (cattle)production in Xhalanga. All the respond-ents were unanimous that governmentshould provide them with:· more land for grazing, fenced and with

water; and· dipping and inoculation.The question of provision of land wasprobed in interviews, in particular, whetherany land was available that governmentcould provide for grazing. In the case ofLuphaphasi, respondents pointed out thatthere are adjacent, historically white farmsthat can be bought for them. Cattle ownerswould not have to move as these farms areclose to the area. Some even suggestedthat these farms could be leased for them.They pointed out that there are alreadyindividuals from Luphaphasi, those whocan afford to pay, who lease some farms inwinter. It has not been possible to establishwhether these farms are available forpurchase or lease, and if so, how many.

The situation in Cala Reserve is differ-ent. This administrative area is surroundedby other administrative areas and the town.If new land were to be acquired for them,it would be far away from their existinghomes. The case of Cala Reserve is typicalof many rural areas in the formerBantustans. When this problem was raisedwith cattle owners in this area, theypointed out that they want additional land,even if it is far away. Some even suggestedthat a farm could be bought for them inElliot. What was not clear is the form ofsettlement in the new area.

Apart from the issues of additionalgrazing land, dipping and inoculation,various respondents suggested that gov-ernment could play a role in the following:· provision of grants and loans at a low

rate of interest;· relief aid in the form of feed in winter

and drought;· bulls;· more support from agricultural officers;

and· training to cattle owners.

ConclusionThe question that confronts us is the futureof cattle production in the formerBantustans, including Xhalanga. Thisstudy has attempted to trace the changingsocio-economic conditions in the ruralareas of the former Bantustans, in particu-lar, and how they impact on livestockproduction. The study has shown thatdespite urbanisation trends, in the form ofpeople moving from rural to urban areas,the size of population in rural areas isincreasing. Retrenchments in the urbanareas that have been prevalent since the1980s are forcing more and more migrantworkers to return, albeit for temporarymoments to rural areas. It is against thisbackground that this study attempted tolook at cattle production in Xhalanga.

Some of the findings of this study,based on a small sample of 26 respondentsand four animal health technicians, are thatcattle production is still dominated by menover the age of 50 years and who are semi-literate. The study has found that the futureof cattle production, spread across the ruralpopulation, is bleak, largely due to agrowing perception that the youth are notinterested in cattle. This view predicts aconcentration of cattle with a few cattleowners, rather than the current spread.

Despite this pessimism about the futureof cattle in rural areas, it has been estab-lished that cattle serve a multi-purposefunction for rural people, including milk,manure, lobola and conversion into cash incases of emergency. In the current, post-1994 situation, where people lose jobs

57

instead of more people getting employ-ment, the role that cattle play in ruralhouseholds seems significant.

One of the main problems faced bycattle owners, this study has establishedfrom respondents, is the shrinking size ofthe grazing commonage, and the limitedsupport that cattle owners get from govern-ment. Land shortage and limited support,especially in a drought-stricken area suchas Xhalanga, make cattle productionunattractive, especially to young people,who are often tempted to explore otheravenues, especially the urban job market.What is difficult to predict is what differ-ence more land and support would makein changing current perceptions held byyouth, in particular, about the viability ofcattle production.

No clear policy seems to be emergingfrom central, provincial and local govern-ment with regard to cattle production. Thisis manifested by the animal health techni-cians in Cala who conceded that they arenot aware of policy developments in thepost-1994 period. They claimed that, to theextent that they follow policies, it is the oldpolicies and legislation that they are using.What is clear, however, is that governmentsupport to cattle owners in diminishing.Talk about the possibility of privatisingmost, if not all, of the services that govern-ment used to render has the implicationthat only those cattle owners who arewealthy will be able to afford these serv-ices.

Endnotes1. Since the demarcation of municipal

boundaries and the second democraticlocal government election in 2000,14 of the 20 administrative areas ofXhalanga, and the village town of Cala,have been amalgamated with the neigh-bouring Elliot district to form one big,new municipality: Sakhisizwe. However,in this paper, the term Xhalanga will beused, given that research was con-ducted in 1999.

2. The migrant labour system was anessential part of government policy to

secure cheap labour to build the SouthAfrican capitalist economy.

3. For the case of Cala, see Bank 1992.4. The Development Trust was established

to buy additional land to meet govern-ment’s target to make available 13% ofland to Africans. The purchase of thesefarms was thus not an addition to thepromised 13%.

5. Xhalanga is often written as Xalanga,without the ‘h’. The author prefers toinsert the ‘h’, in keeping with how theword is pronounced, and should thus bewritten.

6. For details of the establishment of thissettlement, see Bank 1992.

7. Interview with Mr Mkabile, 6 Septem-ber 1999.

8. Most of these interviews were con-ducted with the assistance of someemployees from Calusa, a Cala-basedNGO that is involved in rural develop-ment programmes. I am particularlygrateful to this NGO for the supportthey gave me.

9. An earlier study showed that unemploy-ment in Xhalanga in 1994 was 45.3%(Kayter 1994:11).

10. Kayter’s 1994 study showed that 10.1%of his sample relied on migrant remit-tances.

11. Interview with Mrs Mguli, 11 January2000.

12. The author is currently undertakingresearch on Rural Local Governmentand the role of traditional authorities.This area, Mnxe, is going to be thecase-study. Opposition to Bantu Au-thorities by the people of Xhalanga isone of the issues that will be exploredin this study.

13. Most of this section draws from Kodua-Agyekum (1997).

14. Due to time constraints and fundinglimitations, this study focuses on cattle.

15. I am particularly grateful to Mr MMkabile for his readiness to assist incompiling these figures and in helpingwith other information on livestock inXhalanga.

16. As indicated, this study focuses on


58



cattle. The decision to choose cattle wasmainly influenced by time constraints.

17. Officials in Cala indicated that regulardipping takes place in areas along thecoast throughout the year. These areasdo not conduct ‘dry checking’.

18. See introduction for reference toBeestekraal.

19. These conditions relate to changingvalues of people with regard to live-stock production and the fact that cattleare no longer the sole measure ofwealth.

20. For an account of the establishment ofinformal settlements in Cala, see Bank(1992).

21. Letter written by an agricultural officer,Luphaphasi file in the Department ofAgriculture and Land Affairs, Cala.

22. Correspondence by magistrates aboundwith statements of drought conditions inXhalanga from the time the district wasestablished towards the end of thenineteenth century.

23. It seems as if more sheep and goats arestolen than cattle.

24. Records shown to the author at Calapolice station, 17 November 1999.

25. Interview with Mr Mkabile, 6 Septem-ber 1999.

ReferencesBank, L. 1992. Squatting and the politics

of urban restructuring in Transkei: Thecase of Cala. Journal of ContemporaryAfrican Studies, Vol 11, No. 2.

Chaskalson, M. 1987. Rural resistance inthe 1940s and 1950s. Africa Perspec-tive, Vol 1, Nos 5 & 6.

Delius, P. 1996. The lion among the cattle.Johannesburg: Ravan Press.

Department of Land Affairs. 1997. WhitePaper on South African Land Policy

Drew, A. 1996. The theory and practice ofthe agrarian question in South Africansocialism. Journal of Peasant Studies,23, January to April.

Hindson, D. 1987. Pass controls and theurban proletariat. Johannesburg: RavanPress.

Keyter, C. 1994. Profile of a neglectedarea: The Xalanga district of theTranskei-subregion, Eastern Cape.Unpublished survey report.

Kodua-Agyekum, C. 1997. Analysis of therural development experience in theformer Transkei: The case of Xalangadistrict. Unpublished MA thesis. Durban:University of Natal.

Mbeki, G. 1984. South Africa: A peasantrevolt. London: International Defenceand Aid Fund.

McAllister, P & Deliwe, D. 1995. Youth inrural Transkei: The demise of ‘tradi-tional’ youth associations and thedevelopment of new forms of associa-tion and activity – 1975 to 1993, inYouth in the New South Africa edited byF van Zyl et al. Pretoria: HSRC.

Ntsebeza, L. 1993. Youth in urban Africantownships 1945–1992. A case study ofthe East London townships. Unpub-lished MA thesis. Durban: University ofNatal.

University of Transkei. 1987. StatisticalTime Series No 2. Bureau for AfricanResearch and Documentation (BARD),August.

59

It can be argued that this is due to themulti-purpose role of cattle in the liveli-hoods of these people, including theirvalue in consumption (e.g. milk and meat),draught power, the provision of raw mate-rials (e.g. hides, bones, manure), savings,source of cash, rituals and social status.While all this was arguably true for thelarge part of the 20th century, social andbio-physical changes in many parts of thecontinent encouraged a review of theseearlier perceptions.

Thus, during the 1980s and 1990sseveral studies attempted to situate the roleof cattle and other livestock in the widerlivelihood context of the rural poor. Thefocus of many of these studies was tohighlight the complex and diverse natureof rural livelihoods. In other words, live-stock was not viewed in isolation to otherlivelihood sources, but as a part of numer-ous pieces that people bring together tomake a living. Seen in this way, andconsidering gradual transformation in therural economy over many decades, it istherefore tempting to want to reconsiderthe earlier views on the importance oflivestock in rural livelihoods. In SouthAfrica, some authors have observed agradual process of de-agrarianisationtaking place in rural areas. In response to

industrialisation, urbanisation and popula-tion growth, Manona (1998) argues, thereis a re-orientation of economic activitiesaway from the agrarian patterns of thepast, to a largely non-agricultural resourcedependency. This alone puts into questionthe role played by livestock in rural liveli-hoods.

However, while these new patternswithin the African rural economy areacknowledged, it would be misleading todismiss the role of livestock as unimpor-tant in today’s rural South Africa for atleast two main reasons. Firstly, livestock,even if it is kept in small numbers, contin-ues to have a very significant role in ruraland to some extent urban livelihoods ofAfricans, due to the enduring culturalpractices among these people. Secondly,the degree of transformation of the ruraleconomy differs from one rural area toanother. There are still numerous areas inSouth Africa where de-agrarianisation hasbeen relatively slow to occur and wherelivestock continues to fulfil more than justtheir social role in rural livelihoods.2 Forthese reasons, there is a need to understandthe nature of this importance and its rela-tionship with the wider social, economicand political forces of change over timewithin the country. It needs to be under-

Chapter 5:The dynamics of cattle productionand government intervention incommunal areas of Lusikisiki district1

IntroductionThe importance of livestock to the African people has been well-documented for most of the 20th century. Cattle in particular have beenseen to occupy a special place in the social and economic life of Africanrural people.

Thembela Kepe

60



stood whether livestock-related pro-grammes or efforts by the state are worththeir while in areas where there are stillclaims concerning a major contribution oflivestock to livelihoods. In the EasternCape Province of South Africa, especiallyin the former Transkei Bantustan, suchareas exist.

This paper aims, firstly, to examine anarray of government interventions regard-ing cattle in this district over the last 100years or so. Secondly, it aims to explorethe dynamics of access to and control overcattle by rural people in Lusikisiki district.Following this introduction, the methodol-ogy used in this study is discussed, fol-lowed by the general background onLusikisiki district. A historical overview ofpatterns of access to and control overcattle, as well as the impact of state regula-tions by successive governments is exam-ined in the ensuing section. Case-studiesfrom villages in Lusikisiki follow thissection, and the chapter concludes with adiscussion of the main issues.

MethodologyThis study has made use of material andinsights from a 1996 to 1997 study onEnvironmental Entitlements,3 which usedthe district of Lusikisiki as one of the case-study areas. More insights and materialwere gained during subsequent monthlyresearch visits by the author from 1997 to1999. In both periods, a variety of meth-ods were used to collect information. Thisincluded interviews with relevant inform-ants, focus groups, participant observationand a range of Participatory Rural Ap-praisal techniques, as well as the reviewand analysis of secondary material. Theannual reports of the Livestock and Veteri-nary Services Department were particularlyuseful for the understanding of cattlepopulations.

Extensive interviews were conductedwith the staff of the Livestock and Veteri-nary Services Department of the EasternCape Province, based in Lusikisiki, Umtataand Bisho. Three villages were visited on aregular basis to interview cattle farmers.The author spent an initial nine months

living in Ngwenyeni village in KhanyayoAdministrative Area (April-December1996), and subsequently visited almostmonthly until December 1999. In LambasiAdministrative Area, the villages ofNtlavukazi and Ndengane were visited ona regular basis, mostly late in 1999.

Background to the case-study:Lusikisiki districtBio-physical environmentLusikisiki district is situated on the WildCoast, on South Africa’s eastern seaboard.It is the largest coastal district in the formerTranskei, covering an area of approxi-mately 208 926ha (Cawe 1999). Lusikisikitown is the administrative centre of thedistrict. In general, this area experiences awarm, temperate and humid climate, withminimal temperature fluctuations. Com-pared to the rest of the Eastern CapeProvince, this coastal district experiences arelatively high rainfall with mean annualrainfall exceeding 1 000mm. Soils closestto the coast, especially in the north-easternsection of Lusikisiki district, are underlainby Natal Group sandstone. Consequently,they are sandy, highly leached and rela-tively shallow. In general, these soils arenot suitable for intensive agriculture(Nicolson 1993). Further from the coast-line, patches of rich clay soils of Dwykaorigin are common (Feely 1987).

The vegetation of Lusikisiki district islargely grassland, with limited tree patchesfound along gorges or ravines or alongdune systems by the coast (Kepe &Scoones 1999).4 Some commentatorsconsider these grasslands to be secondary,with the forest patches being relics of aformer extensive forest (Acocks 1953;Tainton 1981). However, such a view hasbeen disputed by extensive archaeologicalinformation (Feely 1987; McKenzie 1984;Ellery & Mentis 1992), which shows thatthe grasslands have been in existence forseveral thousand years. According to VanWyk (1994), grasslands falling within thisdistrict are considered the most dense insouthern Africa and are particularly vigor-ous. While patches of different grassspecies, with different significance to

61

different people and livestock are present,the unpalatable Aristida junciformis hasbecome dominant in most communal areasof Lusikisiki (Beinart 1982; Van Wyk1994; Kepe 1997).

People and politicsLusikisiki District is one of four magisterialdistricts in Eastern Pondoland, under theheadship of Paramount Chief MpondombiniSigcawu and has been part of the WildCoast District Council following the politi-cal changes of 19945. It is inhabited byXhosa-speaking people (amaMpondo),who gain their livelihoods through amixture of arable and livestock farming,the collection of a range of natural re-sources, and off-farm sources of livelihood,including remittances and pensions (Kepe1997). There are 49 Administrative Areas;each headed by a government-appointedheadman. Following the Bantu AuthoritiesAct of 1951, the 49 Administrative Areaswere clustered into groups to make upseveral Tribal Authorities, which areheaded by (hereditary) chiefs, who areemployed by the government. All thechiefs are in turn responsible to the para-mount chief of Eastern Pondoland. EachAdministrative area is further divided intoseveral villages (izigodi or amabandla).

Sub-headmen are appointed from thedominant lineage group within the village,but are not paid a salary. There are, how-ever, several opportunities for them to berewarded for their services through ‘inkind’ means. Larger villages are furtherdivided into several neighbourhood group-ings which are organised in a well-definedgeographical cluster, often centring arounda dominant lineage, and with their ownleader. The name given to such groupingsis izithebe (singular – isithebe), or matassociations, after the grass mat on whichfood is prepared for the group duringfeasts (Hammond-Tooke 1963; Hunter1979). Leaders of these groupings areconsequently called oonozithetyana.

The 1960s saw a substantial number ofadministrative areas in the Lusikisikidistrict subjected to ‘Betterment Planning’,which was introduced by the state as ameasure for combating the deterioration of

the rural environment. This was done bydividing land in a locality into residential,arable and grazing sections. This policywas forcibly implemented throughout thecountry, but was met with resistance inmost areas (see De Wet 1995; Mbeki1964). Reasons for rejecting ‘betterment’ranged from the alleged restrictions itimposed on the movement of livestock, toreduction of grazing areas and croppingland. In areas where the size was notperceived as a problem (e.g. in LambasiAdministrative Area in Lusikisiki), peoplecomplained that betterment re-arrangedenvironments which were previouslysuitable for specific land-uses. For in-stance, areas which were good for grazingended up as residential areas or as cropfields.6 Coastal districts of Lusikisiki andBizana, however, offered most resistanceagainst ‘betterment’ (Mbeki 1964; Copelyn1974), something which led to violentrevolts, which were, in turn, viciouslycrushed by the government. But the resist-ance was enough to result in numerouscoastal villages escaping ‘betterment’.

Spiegel (1992) cites chiefs and head-men (who were respectively introducedand strengthened by the Bantu AuthoritiesAct of 1951), the magistrates and the civilservice, together with police and informersas three layers of control by the state onvillagers in the former Transkei. AsMcAllister (1992) suggests, however,‘betterment’ was another layer of controlby the state, because villagers lost localautonomy and the established territorialand organisational structures were brokendown, in a way that enhanced regulationand control of rural people’s lives by thestate. How exactly these four layers ofcontrol affected dynamics of livestockfarming in Lusikisiki district, will bediscussed later in this chapter.

Cattle in Lusikisiki: HistoricalbackgroundEastern Pondoland, within whichLusikisiki district falls, has received muchrecognition over the last century andearlier for its relative suitability for cattleproduction within the former Transkei

Chapter 5: The dynamics of cattle production and government

intervention in communal areas of Lusikisiki district

62



(formerly Transkeian Territories). In thelate 19th century for instance, Sampson(1882:105) wrote of the area during one ofhis visits to Lusikisiki:

I had seen the natives of Mount Frerealmost frantic at the sight of two orthree thousand head of capturedcattle, but here, in light and shade ofthe green hills, was to be appreci-ated the true beauty of the manyherds. No wonder with their pleasantland, luxuriant crops, and multitudi-nous cattle, the Pondos are contentto abide in the paths of peace …

Later, Caesar Henkel (1903:46), when hewrote of Mpondo cattle, made a similarobservation:

Pondoland, of all parts of the territo-ries, is ‘par excellence’ the cattlebreeders’ paradise. Before the ad-vent of the ‘Rinderpest plague’enormous herds of fine large andhealthy cattle could have been seenin East and West Pondoland.

During the 19th century, access to andcontrol over cattle played a prominent rolein the wars between the Mpondo and othernations in their vicinity (Stapleton 1998;Beinart 1982), an indication of the rela-tively large numbers of cattle and theirimportance to people’s livelihoods.

According to Beinart (1982), livestockloaning was the most common way inwhich cattle were redistributed inPondoland, at least for most of the 19th

century. The royal household served as anucleus from which cattle were drawn bycommoners’ households, usually as areward for their loyalty or for labourservices they provided to the chief. Late inthe 19th to early 20th century, migrants whowent to work in the mines were given abeast, taken on credit from a local trader,for each six month contract, as an ad-vance. While the state and some peoplewithin Pondoland later saw this system ofadvances as exploitative, leading to itsabolition in 1910, Beinart (1979) contendsthat it had some notable advantages to thelocals. Firstly, migrants were encouragedto return home after their contracts ex-

pired, because they would not have cash toremain in the towns. Secondly, whilewaiting for the return of the migrant, othermembers of the household could make useof the beast for milk and draught purposes.Thirdly, cattle could be exchanged withtraders for higher prices to purchase othercommodities, after the migrant had re-turned home. In other words, this systemalso played a role in hastening commer-cialisation of cattle exchanges in the area.Trading was, however, strictly controlledby the government. For instance, livestockspeculators had to be licensed, and at onestage were not allowed to purchase directlyfrom the rural people. Government-organ-ised sales served as a middle point.7

Fourthly, rights to cattle were clearlydefined within the household compared tocash. This potentially reduced householdconflicts that could result from differencesin spending behaviour. Lastly, followingmajor livestock diseases like rinderpest,cattle advances were a good way of re-plenishing cattle herds.

Rinderpest, a devastating cattle disease,killed many herds throughout southernAfrica from about 1897 onwards. Despiteattempts to isolate their herds, Mpondopeople were also hit very hard by cattledeaths, especially towards the end of 1897(Henkel 1903; Beinart 1982). As much as80% losses of cattle were experienced(Beinart 1980). The outbreak of anotherdisease, a tick-borne East Coast Fever in1912 was a huge blow to the recoveringpost-rinderpest herds of Pondoland. Itappears that the districts of Flagstaff andLusikisiki were hardest hit by East CoastFever related cattle deaths, having lostalmost 80% between 1911 and 1914(Beinart 1982).

According to Beinart (1982), the cattledisease outbreaks saw the rise in theimportance of small-stock keeping inPondoland. Another effect of the diseaseson cattle keeping was the imposition bygovernment of restrictions on livestockmovements within and into the districts ofPondoland. While Mpondos might haveappreciated the benefits of keeping poten-

63

tially infected livestock away fromPondoland, restrictions of internal move-ments were not very welcome, as theyreduced the use of coastal areas for wintergrazing (Beinart 1982).

Cattle numbers within the district ofLusikisiki rose gradually during the 1920s,after the outbreak of East Coast Fever,reaching the highest levels in the 1930s.This observation is in line with that ofBeinart (1992) for the rest of the formerTranskei. Since the 1930s, the cattle popu-lation has remained above 80 000 withinthe district of Lusikisiki, with declinesresulting from drought impacts in the early1980s and early 1990s (Kepe & Scoones1999).

Beinart (1992) cites four reasons thatmay have contributed to a general rise inthe cattle numbers in the ‘Transkei’ afterthe East Coast Fever. The first one was thegood condition of the grazing areas in theyears that followed the outbreak of thedisease. Secondly, the break-up of largehomesteads meant that more cattle had tobe used for draught purposes. Thirdly,cattle prices were relatively cheaper thanthe wages of migrant workers, allowingindividuals to purchase more. Fourthly,government-introduced dipping helpedkeep more animals alive.

Besides enforcing the dipping of cattle,the government imposed control on live-stock production in many other ways. Asmentioned earlier, following the rinderpestand East Coast Fever, movement of stockwas severely restricted, and inoculationwas made compulsory for most of the firsthalf of the 20th century. Grazing manage-ment was also affected. In 1955, forinstance, a headman had to seek permis-sion from the Native Commissioner toburn grass in his village.8 By the 1960s,cattle owners from the district were beingrestricted even in their trading activities.African cattle owners were only allowed tobuy one heifer for every two cattle sold ata government-organised stock sale.9 Thiswas effectively a measure to imposecontrol on cattle numbers, as it was knownthat cows (iinkomo ezalayo) are worth

more to a Mpondo for keeping purposesthan an ox or a bull.

The Transkeian government, bothbefore and after independence in 1976,continued to enforce the previous govern-ment’s legislation on livestock. Dipping ofcattle and the permit to remove animalswere two particular pieces of legislationthat were fully embraced by the TranskeiBantustan government. Dipping remainedcompulsory until the new government tookover in 1994. In terms of the AnimalDiseases and Parasites Act 13 of 1956, asamended, animals moved from one local-ity to another had to be accompanied by apermit signed by a state veterinarian. Theheadmen, magistrates and the police hadthe responsibility of ensuring that theseregulations were observed. But if theheadmen did not report cases to the policeor the magistrate (as was often the case inLusikisiki area), offences remained un-prosecuted.10

Over the last 100 years there has beenpersistent resistance to government controlover livestock production in the area.Resistance took different forms, includingboth peaceful defiance and violence. Inmost cases, people simply defied a govern-ment regulation, claiming that they werenot interfering with government property,but their own (Kepe 1997). While boycott-ing and picketing were common forms ofindicating displeasure with enforceddipping, violence was occasionally usedby villagers on dipping attendants (Beinart& Bundy 1987). But as the example ofresistance against ‘betterment’ shows, anyintense resistance from the rural peoplewas met with intense power from the state.The government’s response to reactionsagainst livestock regulations was legiti-mised and supported by the provisions ofapartheid legislation. Therefore, the end ofapartheid (on paper) in 1994 raised hopes,among some, of a harmonious and opti-mistic future in rural areas of the formerBantustans. The next section will examinedynamics of cattle production in theformer Transkei, with special reference toLusikisiki. It will focus briefly on present



64



and proposed legislation regarding cattleand how farmers respond to it.

The post-apartheidgovernment�s intervention inlivestock production11

The new government did not introduceany dramatic changes regarding livestockin the Eastern Cape Province, includingLusikisiki district. More than five yearsafter the Transkei, Ciskei and the EastCape region amalgamated as the newEastern Cape Province, however, govern-ment’s intervention in livestock productioncould hardly be described as consistent.Instead, each of the three areas still main-tain more or less similar regions of opera-tion, staff, abundance or limited resourcesand some legislation, as the case wasbefore 1994.

Livestock statistics and reportingIn general, the former Bantustan areashave been known for poor administrativeabilities, which also affected the quality ofrecords kept over time. In the Transkei,however, regular compulsory dipping ofcattle, which was introduced in the 1910sto combat East Coast Fever, has kept cattlestatistics somewhat realistic, compared toother agricultural produce (Beinart 1992).A good indicator is how trends in thelivestock populations coincide with knownmajor events over certain periods (e.g.major disease outbreaks and drought).Using mostly figures gained from dippingrecords in the whole of the formerTranskei, Muller and Mpela (1987) pro-vided a useful time series for livestocknumbers, from 1910 to 1975. While theirreport has a few questionable figures, it isprobably the most comprehensive report ofits nature in the former Bantustans of theEastern Cape. Livestock figures providedby Muller and Mpela (1987) for Lusikisikidistrict, combined with updates receivedfrom the department of Livestock andVeterinary Services in the Eastern Cape,provide a historical picture of populationsfor the district (see Figure 1). Having madethis point, several questions about the

usefulness of such a picture need to beanswered.

The first question that needs to beanswered is whether dipping records are areliable source of information about thelivestock populations in communal areas.At this stage, one would have to respondnegatively for several reasons. Firstly, injust about every village in Lusikisikidistrict there are livestock keepers whonever dip their cattle in government facili-ties, because of the distance from thedipping tank, informed or uninformedopposition to using government dippingtanks, and using forms of treatment otherthan a dip.

Secondly, even those farmers who dosend their cattle to a government dippingtank are rarely forthright about what theyown. Declarations of deaths, theft andbirths provide opportunities for twistingnumbers, as the cattle being declaredwould not be at the dipping tank to becounted. The word of the farmer is all thatmatters.

Thirdly, small-stock figures are evenmore suspect as they are based on quar-terly inspections for contagious diseasesthat are supposed to take place in villages.In coastal areas of Lusikisiki district, theseinspections are very rare, probably due tothe shortage of qualified staff. In all thesecases, detailed village studies still providethe most reliable source of livestockstatistics.

The second question that needs to beanswered is whether the Department ofLivestock and Veterinary Services couldstill improve the way statistics are collectedand kept. In this regard, the department’sannual report is seen as the ultimate recordof what happened during each year. Sev-eral points need to be noted here. Firstly,up to 1998, all livestock figures reported inthe annual report were given by district,not by specific administrative areas. Inother words, while the dipping foremencollected figures per administrative area,once they reached the office, the informa-tion was fed into district figures. This doesnot make things easy for research, by both

65

government and other interested partiesalike. For the first time, the annual reportfor 1999 will report livestock figures byadministrative area.

Secondly, while those who collect thefigures during dipping might provide anidea of how many people hold whatnumber of livestock, this information is notrecorded in the annual report, making it aninadequate source to serve as a full pictureof livestock dynamics in communal areas.

Thirdly, the reports do contain discrep-ancies from time to time.12 A good exam-ple is the livestock figures for cattle, sheepand goats from Lusikisiki in 1998, whichare exactly the same as those recorded for1995. While this is not absolutely impossi-ble, it is highly unlikely that these figuresare correct. In other words, it would appearthat care is not taken to check the informa-tion entered in the report, especially beforeit goes for printing. It also appears thatvery few officials care to read this sectionof the report, as this discrepancy was onlynoted by some key people during inter-views conducted for this case-study.

The other information contained in theannual report is about cattle deaths, birthsand slaughter, and problem diseases foreach district. This information is equallyuseful, but also inconsistent and at timessuspect. Take data relating to animal healthfor example. Where there is a shortage ofpersonnel to visit individual livestockkeepers in villages, as is the case inLusikisiki district, and where people rarelygo to town to seek professional help, it isdoubtful if any reliable information aboutdiseases can be recorded.

In concluding this section, it is arguedthat if the annual report is to be regardedas a useful resource by a wider audienceinterested in livestock issues, including infuture years, then an effort must be madeto collect reliable data. With government-assisted dipping in communal areas of theprovince in doubt for the future, the gov-ernment would have to devise other meansof keeping track of livestock production inthese areas. In fact, this might meanstrengthening human resources within thedepartment, in such a way that contact

Figure 5.1: Cattle populations in Lusikisiki district, 1904–1999(Source: Muller & Mpela 1987; Livestock and Veterinary Department, Lusikisiki and Umtata)



66



with farmers is improved. Only then canthere be chances of producing relativelyreliable livestock data.

Animal health careIn the former Transkei, skilled healthprofessionals from other African countries,who were brought in by the Bantustangovernment, continue to play a vital role inan otherwise gloomy livestock healthsituation. These professionals, mostlyveterinary surgeons, are currently over-worked and enjoy minimal support interms of facilities and other requirementsfor a successful animal health care regime.Other problems that they currently encoun-ter include, firstly, not commanding thesame level of respect from farmers invillages compared to their white colleagueswho once worked in these areas. Secondly,their support staff, which includes DippingForemen and General Assistants, have verylittle education. The Dipping Foremen arenot trained in animal healthcare and arethus limited to tasks such as mixing dipand collecting cattle statistics duringdipping sessions. The General Assistantsare even worse, as they are mostly womenwho cannot read or write, and whose tasksare limited to carrying water from thesource to the tanks, and to doing somemaintenance of the dipping area. The stateveterinarian based in Lusikisiki is currentlyresponsible for the three districts ofBizana, Flagstaff and Lusikisiki and some220 000 cattle. Sheep, goats, horses,donkeys and mules are also his responsi-bility.

According to the veterinarian inLusikisiki, one of the main problemsconcerning the health of animals in thedistrict – beside the inadequacy of healthcare facilities and personnel – is the impor-tation of cattle from other centres. Localfarmers purchase cattle from other districtsand nearby farms, but do not bother toensure that these animals are healthy.There are reported cases of white farmersselling cattle whose teeth are non-existentor badly damaged. When these animalshave to graze the tough Aristida

junciformis (iNkonkoni) and theSporobulus africanus (uMsuka) in thecommunal areas, they cannot cope forlong. The veterinarian argues that this isnot a major problem if the animal is to beslaughtered soon after purchase. But mostof the animals purchased in this mannerare usually meant for long-term keeping.

The second health problem in thedistrict is that of tick-borne diseases suchas Babesiosis, Anaplasmosis and Heartwa-ter, all of which can cause death. Thesediseases are most prevalent during thesummer months when rainfall is high.Worm infestation tends to be a problem inyoung animals. While Tuberculosis is not amajor problem in the district, cases arereported from time to time. With only onequalified veterinarian serving such a largearea, villagers end up not consultinganyone, or visiting a local pharmacist.With villagers coming without any pre-scription or advice from the veterinarian,and the pharmacist not being qualified intreating cattle as such, unsuitable treatmentis usually purchased. Sometimes thetreatment is near its expiry date, but thefarmer may be illiterate and continue touse it even after it has expired.

Another increasing problem in thedistrict is surgery performed on animals byunqualified people. Two of the mostcommon surgeries performed on cattle arecastration (ukuthena) and the removal ofthe clitoris (impene). While castration initself is not necessarily a life-threateningoperation, and is performed by non-professional people throughout SouthAfrica, conditions seem to be worse inLusikisiki. First of all, blunt knives areused to perform the surgery. Secondly, thewound is usually not properly treated. Themost common post-surgery treatment isputting soil, ash or dung on the wound,leading to severe infection and even death.

The removal of the clitoris is equallyserious. When cattle heifers delay inconceiving or when cows conceive andthen show no signs of pregnancy later,villagers usually blame this on the impene.Any sharp instrument, ranging from a

67

knife, to a razor or a piece of glass is usedto remove the clitoris. The claim by villag-ers is that once this is removed, the cowalways conceives. But the farmers whowere interviewed in the Lambasi andKhanyayo Administrative Areas claim thatin most cases cows which have had theirimpene removed, have difficulty duringthe calving process. More often than not,they die during the process of giving birth.

Dr Kasule has an explanation for boththe disappearance of pregnancy and thedifficulty in giving birth. His clinicalresearch has shown that almost all thereported impene cases are related to Bru-cellosis or Contagious Abortion. Cowssuffering from this disease are often undi-agnosed by the farmer, resulting in the‘magical’ disappearance of the pregnancy.His explanation of the difficulty duringcalving is that the unprofessional surgeryperformed in the birth canal during theremoval of impene causes so much scar-ing, resulting in loss of elasticity of thevagina. So great is the problem that thoseanimals do not survive without assistance.

The surgeries are never discussed withthe veterinarian or other staff before theyhappen. When asked why they do not seekadvice about castration or impene, onefarmer from Lambasi remarked ‘we don’ttake from their (professionals) kraals, wetake from ours’.13 In Dr Kasule’s percep-tion, only a very well-organised extensionprogramme, combined with adequatesupport from government can make apositive contribution to combating life-threatening animal diseases.

Old and new legislationA range of provincial and national legisla-tion affects cattle production in the district.Probably the two most relevant pieces oflegislation worth discussing in this paperare the Animal Diseases and Parasites Act13 of 1956 and the Animal Diseases Act35 of 1984. According to the AnimalDiseases and Parasites Act, the state was toprovide facilities and other material for thecontrol of ticks and tick-borne diseases. Inthe former Transkei, this Act, which en-forced dipping, made it possible for the

state to monitor cattle in communal areasfor census purposes and to carry outsurveillance on other potentially dangerousdiseases (Government of the Eastern Cape,1999). Together with this in the formerTranskei was a ‘Permit to Remove Ani-mals’ which had to accompany all animalsthat were moved from one locality toanother. Conditions of the permit were thatanimals to be transferred should not beinfected or suspected of being infectedwith particular diseases or infested withcertain parasites. Upon incorporation intothe new Eastern Cape Province, the‘Transkei’ was no longer bound by thisAct. In other words, the permit system wasdone away with. Yet in the year 2000,offices of the Veterinary Services all overthe former Transkei are still often packedwith people seeking permits to transferlivestock. Senior personnel of the depart-ment are fully aware that the permit systemwas abolished in 1994, but argue that thisis still one of the best ways to monitormovements of livestock within communalareas. Livestock keepers on the other handare not aware that the permit system is nolonger law. They clearly detest having tovisit the offices for the purpose of gettingthe permit, and would not voluntarilycontinue with the system.

Another nuisance for farmers inLusikisiki is having to submit the spleensof all slaughtered cattle to the dippingforeman. The spleen was used to test forcontagious tick-borne diseases, particularlyEast Coast Fever. While this exercise wasdeclared unnecessary many years ago, atthe time of writing of this paper, dippingforemen were still collecting spleens fromfarmers. Senior officials have admitted thatthe spleen collection is no longer neces-sary and enforcing it is in fact illegal. Butthey have also argued that the submissionof the spleen assists with tracking downcattle thieves. Whether this goal is everachieved remains unclear. Like the permitsystem, farmers resent having to keep thespleen for the foreman. They have arguedthat they would rather eat the spleeninstead of wasting it for a small sample tobe taken from it.



68



The Animal Diseases Act has replacedthe Animal Diseases and Parasites Act inthe province. Provisions of this Act nolonger require the state to provide dippingfacilities for cattle. But up to now, the statehas continued to provide for dipping freeof charge to the communities. Budgetaryconstraints in the province have, however,resulted in a rethink in so far as free dip-ping is concerned. A draft document,proposing a gradual withdrawal of thisassistance, was circulated to ‘relevantstakeholders’ late in 1999. Included in therecommendations are the following:· that people who keep cattle pay a sum

of R15 per head per annum to theRevenue Services or magistrates;

· that a uniform stock card be kept by allfarmers in the communal areas of theprovince, and these be stamped uponpayment of the fee;

· general dipping assistants would bephased out; and

· dipping foremen would receive trainingin animal health, to assist livestockkeepers in diagnosing and treatingminor ailments.

Problems with these proposals are ex-pected throughout the province. Alreadymixed messages are reaching the villagers.Some livestock keepers allege governmenthas told them that they have to buy theirown dip. Some have heard about theproposed R15 and see this as a moneymaking venture by government. Thisconfusion may have arisen from the factthat the document has not been properlycirculated to the relevant people. Accord-ing to senior officials of the department,the document has gone to associations ofestablished commercial and emergingcommercial farmers for comments. Theofficials admit that it is much easier toconsult these people, even though theproposals are not about commercial farms,but about livestock in communal areas. Itremains to be seen whether the consultingeffort will be worth its while and what theimplications of the whole process will bein communal areas.

Cattle in villagesAccess to and control over cattleIt was mentioned in an earlier section thatcattle statistics collected during dipping inrural areas were likely to paint an incom-plete picture of how many cattle are inthese areas. But it was also argued thatthey do provide a useful indicator ofpopulation trends over time. What remainselusive, however, is a sense of how cattleare distributed between households withina particular locality. In his analysis ofmostly published information, Beinart(1992) reviews different scenarios fordifferent areas of the former Transkei overthe last few decades. From this reviewthere appears to be a consensus among theauthors of the studies that, using per capitaestimations, in any one locality about 50%of households own cattle, with about 15%of them owning more that ten head. Incon-sistencies in the way that these studieswere conducted make it difficult to get acomplete picture of the situation, ratherthan a pieced-together one. Surveys con-ducted in some rural areas over shortperiods of time are also exposed to a lot ofunreliability, as people – especially thosewho have a considerable number of ani-mals – remain suspicious of people andstudies seeking details of cattle ownershipby person or household.

My sense for the Lusikisiki district –based on over four years of detailedqualitative research – is that patterns ofcattle holdings in these coastal villages arenot much different to that which has beenobserved in other districts. What I havefound is that while there are about 50% ofhouseholds with cattle, it is becoming atrend that most cattle are concentratedin very few households. In KhanyayoAdministrative Area for instance, therewere about 3 101 cattle for about 800households, giving a holding of four headper household. Yet only about 20 house-holds have cattle holdings of between 30and 150, with the majority of the house-holds having far less cattle.

What has become very clear from thisstudy, though, is that small numbers or

69

non-ownership of cattle within a house-hold is no indication of cattle’s importanceto a household. In general, individualswithin households aspire to own cattle orcontinue to reap benefits from them inmany ways (Kepe & Cousins 1998). Oneway of seeking an understanding of thisbehaviour is to go beyond individual cattleholdings, to examine briefly the existenceof social institutions which ameliorate theunequal and skewed distribution currentlyexperienced. Sharing of benefits fromcattle is key to these social relationships.But how widespread are these sharingrelationships in contemporary, rural SouthAfrica? We argue that in the coastal districtof Lusikisiki, with its favourable climateand vegetation, combined with high levelsof poverty, remoteness from larger centres,as well as the history of cattle ownership inthe area, these incidences are likely to behigher than in many areas of South Africa.These institutions range from those thatmediate access to and control over actualcattle, to those that mediate access to andcontrol over benefits deriving from cattle.A selection of these is discussed below.

Kin livestock sharing (Ukufuyisa14)A person who owns a reasonable numberof livestock often gives some to his or herkin with no conditions attached and this isknown as ukufuyisa. The name for thisinformal institution comes from the word‘mfuyo’ which means livestock. Ukufuyisais literally translated as ‘to make someoneto keep livestock’, from the verb ‘fuya’which means, ‘keep livestock’. The mostcommon beneficiaries of this institutioninclude sons, nephews and brothers of thelivestock owner, although there are a fewcases where women become beneficiariesas well. For the son, this may start withgiving him a chicken at an early age, togiving him a goat, sheep or a cow when hegets married and starts his own household.While there is no material benefit to theperson who gives livestock at the time ofthe process, looking after the livestockwhilst a child is the most common motiva-tion for this type of sharing. On the other

hand, an older brother who has inheritedlivestock from his parents would normallygive one or more to his younger brothers,although he is not obliged to do so.

Clearly, the combination of the twoinstitutions (kinship and ukufuyisa) is keyto this form of arrangement. It is very rarethat people can gain entitlement to live-stock through ukufuyisa without being kin.Kinship is also important as an institutionthat interacts with other institutions toprovide entitlement to people under differ-ent situations.

Inheritance (Ilifa)Beside purchasing, the most common wayof gaining effective control over cattle isthrough inheritance. Unlike withukufuyisa, inheritance only happens whenthe owner dies or is presumed dead. Themost common beneficiaries are the oldestmales in the household. But if the son wasable to accumulate his own cattle while hisfather was still alive, the son’s eldest sonwould inherit the cattle from his grandfa-ther (Hunter 1979). Women whose hus-bands have died and have male childrenbecome de facto owners of the cattle whilethe de jure beneficiaries are still young. Ifthere are no male children, a male relativeof the man who has died (e.g. the brother)becomes the de jure beneficiary while thewife remains de facto owner. In caseswhere the man who died had himselfinherited the livestock from his father, hisnext younger brother can – according tolocal laws – legally remove the cattle to hisown homestead even if the deceased man’swidow is still alive, often arguing that he issimply taking what naturally belongs tohim from his father, since his brother hasdied. This often causes a lot of conflictwith the dead man’s wife and male chil-dren, especially if the cattle being takenaway are no longer the same (e.g. throughpurchases, exchanges and offspring) asthose left by the father. In cases wherewomen are de facto owners of the cattle,they still have to consult male relatives ofthe husband before they can slaughter, sell,exchange or loan an animal.



70



Livestock loaning (Ukusisa15)Livestock loaning is a characteristic ofmany pastoral communities around theworld. Evidence shows that during muchof the 19th century, livestock loaning wasone of the ways in which poor householdscould access livestock from those whokept many (Beinart 1982). In those days, itwas usually the chiefs who gave livestockaway, as a strategy to spread labour re-sponsibilities involved in looking afterlivestock. It thus served the two partiesinvolved reasonably well, in that theperson who received livestock could usethem as if they belong to them (e.g. formilking, ploughing, manure, etc.) as wellas getting a share of some offspring. Othersocial benefits for the person who loansout livestock include recognition andsomewhat higher status in the community(Kuckertz 1990; Duvel & Afful 1996;Hunter 1979; Sneesby 1933).

Livestock loaning in Pondoland hasevolved over the many years it has beenpracticed. Firstly, contrary to the manystudies in South Africa that closely linkloaning to cattle, goats, sheep and chick-ens are increasingly being loaned as well.While these small stock do not benefit theperson who receives the loan the sameway as cattle do (e.g. draught power), theirreproductive turnover is relatively higherthan that of cattle. In other words, moreoffspring are usually shared on a regularbasis. Secondly, while certain rituals andexpectations based on tradition still existaround these loaning arrangements, thereis a tendency among rural people to relaxthese patterns. For instance, it used to bethe offspring of the same loaned animalthat would be shared after some time, butthese days money can replace livestock,thus eliminating feasts that went along withthe time of sharing. In many situations, theonly benefits gained by the people whoreceive loans are access to milk, draughtpower, manure or eggs, in case of chick-ens. In other words, no offspring or moneychanges hands in those cases. Thirdly,there are situations where relatives fromanother village (e.g. 20km away) simplyask relatives who live in areas which have

better grazing to keep their cattle on a verytemporary basis. This could be for only afew weeks or months during a particulartime of the year. More often than not, theonly benefit to the people who keep thelivestock may be an addition to their storeof manure. In this case, the strengtheningof kinship networks is the major benefit.

Lobola (bridewealth)Payment of bridewealth takes place indifferent forms in many parts of the world.In South Africa, this institution is com-monly referred to as lobola. While theincidence of using cattle for this socialexchange has somewhat declined in SouthAfrica, gaining livestock through lobola isstill common. Cattle are most often givento the family of the bride by the groom’sfamily. These cattle can range in numberfrom five to 15, and are sometimes accom-panied by goats, sheep or a horse. Wherethe groom gives cash instead of cattle, thebride’s family usually express their ex-pected lobola in terms of cattle or can buythem from somebody else. Consequently,it is not uncommon that many of thehouseholds which have large numbers ofcattle, are also those that have a goodnumber of married daughters.

The marketThe market is a key institution throughwhich villagers can gain access and con-trol over cattle, both from within or outsidethe village, through three different ways.Firstly, people who need to acquire cattlecan use money to purchase them. Besidecattle that are purchased from commercialfarms (usually by migrant workers) nearthe towns of Lusikisiki and Flagstaff, mostof the selling and buying takes placewithin the villages. Local wisdom is thatone should wait for desperate moments tobe able to negotiate for the best price forselling or buying cattle. If there is a personwho needs to have access to cash urgentlyfor some reason, they usually take the firstperson that offers to buy the animal theyare seeking to sell. The buyer could havebeen waiting for some months for suchmoments during which they have an upperhand in price negotiation. On the other

71

hand, a desperate potential buyer whoneeds cattle, say for a funeral or otherritual, will be forced to pay a slightlyhigher price, as the seller is aware of thedesperation and, therefore, has an upperhand in price negotiation. This all meansthat people do not normally sell cattleoutside these desperate situations.

Secondly, people can gain access to andcontrol over cattle of their choice throughexchange with their available resources.The resources that people make availablefor exchange may include their labour forbuilding a house, a vehicle, a gun, a horseand so forth. Again, cattle are involved inmost of these exchanges compared tosmall stock. In cases where the resourceexchange does not balance, cash may beused to supplement either way.

The third way in which people can gainaccess to and control over cattle throughthe market is when they keep them tempo-rarily or permanently after they had beengiven as collateral for a cash loan. Peoplewho have cattle that they do not wish tosell, but are in desperate need for cash cangive them to be kept as collateral by theperson who is prepared to loan them themoney. More often than not, people whotake these loans are from poorer house-holds who only have a few head of cattle,hence their reluctance to sell. However,due to their inability to pay the moneyback within the agreed time frame, theircattle rarely come back to them.

Ploughing companies (Inkampani )In areas that have favourable conditionsfor rain-fed cropping, such as the coastalparts of the former Transkei, co-operativelabour continues to be a social norm, albeitat probably much reduced levels. Whilelabour as a factor of production is often theresource that is shared during ploughing,weeding and sometimes harvesting, wherethe use of draught power is still prevalent,cattle are an important factor in co-opera-tive labour. During ploughing, severalhouseholds usually contribute differentresources required for ploughing, includ-ing cattle, the plough, labour, seeds and soforth, and this is refereed to as inkampani.

More often than not, wealthier householdscontribute livestock, while poorer house-holds contribute labour. While it is thepossession of draught animals that increasesthe bargaining power of a particular house-hold (Heron 1991), even the poorestmember of the inkampani has equal enti-tlement to services provided by draughtanimals.

Although the sharing of cattle fordraught purposes emphasises the aspect ofbenefits accruing to the poorer households,it should be made clear that costs to theploughing company members also exist.First, beside investing labour and resourcesother than cattle, each member of theinkampani would have had to establishstrong social links with other membersprior to taking part in this contract. Theseinvestments may include having helped inweeding, harvesting, putting out fires, or akin member (e.g. a child) having lookedafter the draught animals for free. Secondly,during the time that the animals are onduty, any cost that is incurred (e.g. for anew yoke) is shared by the members. Butthese costs still do not compare to thebenefits provided by access to draughtanimals to the households with few or nocattle.

Isithebe (neighbourhood grouping)The sharing of benefits from livestock isnot confined to live animals and theirservices (e.g. draught power), but peopleof a particular isithebe share slaughteredcattle during feasts on a regular basis. Withthe exception of pork, locally slaughteredmeat is never sold in the district. Whenevera beast is slaughtered, either during aparticular ritual (e.g. a coming of ageceremony for girls) or when it is old orinjured beyond recovery, people in thevillage are entitled to varying shares of themeat.

Since a village may have severalizithebe, each of the groupings has a shareof particular portions from the beast, withthe people of the isithebe where the animalcomes from getting the largest share. It isargued that the people of the local isithebedeserve to benefit more than others,



72



because they are usually the first ones tolend a helping hand in times of need.

Indeed, when a beast slips and falls intoa gorge for instance, men of the isithebenever wait to be invited to go and help topull it out, while women often bring waterand wood for preparing the meat. Evenduring the day that the beast is slaugh-tered, only the local isithebe residents andrelatives are expected to partake. Whenother villagers belonging to differentizithebe arrive, they have to sit a gooddistance away from the kraal to await theirshare.

Depending on the type of feast, visitingizithebe are either given the meat raw tocook or roast it themselves or after it hasbeen cooked, but would have to divide itinto pieces themselves. For each isithebethere is a leader (often the sub-headman orunozitetyana) who looks after the interestsof his people. The meat is served on agrass mat (isithebe).

While adults are entitled to slaughteredmeat from a different isithebe within thevillage, only children (often boys) from thehosting isithebe can get a share from themeat. The argument is that these boys wereresponsible for looking after the animalwhen it was still alive. Men and women

who attend the feasts often take somecooked pieces of meat to their children.

Challenges to the tradition of cattleraising in Lusikisiki district�Our sons care about bicycles and girls thesedays�Talking to elderly men in the district, itsoon becomes clear that the use of cattle asadvances for migrant labour early in the20th century had a profound effect onperceptions about migrancy. Even after theadvances system was abolished, Mpondomigrants continued to measure their suc-cess at the sugar-cane plantations or goldand coal mines by the number of cattlethey were able to bring home. Those menwho worked as migrants for most of theirlives, until retirement 20 years or so ago,cannot help but show disappointment athow the priorities of migrant labourershave changed over the last two decades.The prevalence of households with veryfew or no cattle is blamed on ubulokishi(adoption of urban lifestyle). Hence aneighty-something year old former migrantremarked that ‘oonyana bethubakhathalele iibayisekilenamantombazana kule mihla’ (‘our sonscare about bicycles and girls these days’).

Life history of Nyawuza (68 years)Nyawuza was born in Ntlavukazi, Lambasi. His parents only had two children

(both sons). He never went to a formal school. His father was a known womaniserwith many amadikazi. Because of this, his father never could accumulate enoughmoney to buy cattle. Most of his money was spent on women. But Nyawuza still grewup like other boys looking after his uncle’s cattle. When the time came, he went for asix month contract in a sugar cane area in Umzinto. After his next contract, he was notto return home for many years (ukutshipha). When he finally came back, he married awoman from the same village in 1965. The two were in love before they married eachother. They have four children, three of whom are daughters. He has now been receiv-ing a government old age pension for the last ten years. Nyawuza cultivates maizeand madumbe for home consumption. He has ten sheep, but no cattle. He argues thathe really wants to keep cattle and he won’t rest until he has some. He believes that asa man he has to leave something (cattle) for his son. But cattle are expensive. It wouldcost him seven sheep to get one cow. He now is only forced to buy cattle when he hasa ceremony that requires slaughtering. He argues that his situation is different from hisfather’s. While he was also a womaniser, he wants cattle. He does not think that hespent his money on women only.

73

He strongly believes that a yearning forurban pleasures and other modern conven-iences is replacing the tradition of raisingcattle. Instead of coming home with cattle,young men either spend the money withwomen or buy modern gadgets such asbicycles and televisions instead of cattle.

The link between non-ownership ofcattle and urban pleasures is, however, notconfined to recent times. Interviews withelderly men who were migrant workersduring the 1960s, for instance, show howthis perception has a long history in thisarea. The interview with Nyawuza in thebox above serves to illustrate the point.

The life history of Nyawuza highlightsanother point about the desire or non-desire to own cattle. While both Nyawuzaand his father spent their money withwomen in urban areas and both did notown any cattle, Nyawuza sees himself asbetter off because he always had and stillhas a desire to own cattle. So it appearsthat there are two categories of those whodo not have cattle. There are those with thedesire, who attempt to have cattle, andthere are those who could not care less.The youth who work as migrants areleaning more towards the latter, hencefears of a dying Mpondo tradition.

�Boys go to school now�People interviewed in Khanyayo andLambasi Administrative Areas also fearthat the increasing number of boys attend-ing school is negatively affecting cattlefarming in rural areas. It used to be thatboys from each homestead or relativeswould be responsible for looking afterlivestock, with small-stock and graduatingto cattle. Now, by the age of seven, mostboys are in school, leaving their families tohire unemployed m en to look after theircattle. It has become clear that manyfamilies without access to the labourprovided by boys, are feeling the burdenof having to either pay for herding servicesor the costs of impoundment when theircattle get into people’s fields. Some fami-lies are, therefore, deciding that paying anadult man for looking after two or threecattle is not worth it.

On the other hand, teachers at primaryschools are complaining that if there aretwo or three boys from the same home-stead, they take turns looking after cattleand attending school. In other words, inany one week of schooling, such boysmay attend a maximum of three days each,if there are two of them. Inevitably, muchlearning is lost.

Homesteads with many cattle often donot struggle as much in accessing labour.More often than not, these homesteads caneither afford to pay for a full-time herds-man or have a number of kin childrenliving with them who can fulfil this task.These children might be there for years,either because their parents cannot affordto raise them or they have been orphaned.The orphans usually never get an opportu-nity to go to school for the rest of theirlives. Another strategy for those with manycattle is to loan them to other villagers,thus sharing labour costs. It would appear,however, that those who will survive thecrisis of labour shortage are those withmany livestock already. In other words, thepatterns could remain the same far into thefuture.

Cattle theft: Who are the villains and who arethe victims?16

The last few years have seen many ruralareas of the former Transkei ravaged byvery high levels of violence, leading todeath and/or to people abandoning theirhomes. In many of these areas it has beennecessary to call in the South AfricanNational Defence Force to control thesituation. While there is a range of reasonsgiven for these tensions between neigh-bouring communities – including bound-ary disputes, the harvesting of naturalresources and issues of the legitimacy ofparticular traditional authorities – cattletheft is one of the key reasons given.Indeed, in the case of Lusikisiki, the policerecords confirm this problem.

In the winter months, after the harvest,the incidence of cattle theft is very high(see Figure 5.2). This is the time whencattle are left to graze unguarded in peo-ple’s fields or in the mountains. The police



74



say that sometimes owners can remain forthree months without knowing or caringwhere their cattle are. In many cases, bythe time the owner reports to the police,the cattle would have changed handsseveral times already. Another reason forthe delay in reporting stolen cattle to thepolice is the traditional authority system inthe villages. When a person suspects his orher livestock to be stolen, they must firstlet their family members know before thecase goes to the sub-headman’s(unozithetyana) court. If the headman andthe neighbourhood people cannot solvethe problem, the case goes to the headmanof the administrative area. It is only afterthe headmen have attempted and failed tosolve the problem that the police arenotified. At each stage of the traditionaljustice system, possible suspects arebrought, evidence is collected and the casecan go on for weeks or months until theheadmen admit that it is beyond them andrecommend that the police should benotified.

The police argue that it is difficult totalk of a typical profile of a stock thief, asthere are many potential villains. There areyounger people who steal cattle andquickly sell them to business people inother localities. Licensed speculators whooperate near the towns of Lusikisiki andFlagstaff have been suspected of accept-ing, for exchange, cattle without properdocumentation from the people who bringthem. The police contend that these specu-lators are aware that cattle which are notaccompanied by documentation are likelyto be stolen. There are also people who fitthe profile of a respectable village elderwho steal cattle and drive them manykilometres to other districts to friends orrelatives, mainly for the purposes ofexchanging them for other cattle. Thepolice argue that this second group is verydifficult to prosecute, as the livestock israrely found to serve as evidence.

However, probably the most complicat-ing thing of all is the emergence of vigi-lante groups acting against cattle theft. In

Figure 5.2: Cases of stolen cattle reported to the police in 1999(Source: police records in Flagstaff, Stock Theft Division)

75

other areas, these groups are multi-pur-pose, serving as a burial association and soforth, for migrants in the urban areas. Backin the rural areas, these people supporteach other when one of them has a stocktheft problem. In the district of Lusikisiki,one such group was established in 1999.This group calls itself Masifunisane Devel-opment Project. Masifunisane is a Xhosaword for ‘let us help each other to look forit’. This particular group introduced itselfto the police in Lusikisiki and Flagstaff bygiving them their constitution and claimingto have been given the go-ahead by theProvincial Government in Bisho. It is notclear which department gave them this go-ahead, and the police remain unconvincedthat Masifunisane is legitimate.

According to interviews conducted withvillagers and police, Masifunisane is fearedin all areas in which they operate. In theirconstitution it is stipulated that all SouthAfricans of 18 years and older can becomemembers. So if a member reports stolencattle, the other members would go out atnight looking for the suspects. The major-ity of members of Masifunisane carry gunsand other dangerous weapons during theseraids. Once the suspects are captured, theyare tortured until they confess to theiralleged crime. There are claims that thetorture methods used by Masifunisanealways yield a 100% confession rate.These methods range from roasting thefeet of the suspect on a big fire to hangingthe person in deep gorges with chains.Police in Lusikisiki and Flagstaff say theyhave recently received complaints fromvictims of torture. Claims are that themajority of these victims are innocent,while many members of Masifunisane are‘reformed’ stock thieves.

Most of the cases that are investigatedby the members of Masifunisane are neverreported to the police. The organisationhas its own ways of conducting the trialand passing judgement. It is alleged that ifa person confesses to stealing one cow forinstance, they must return a cow to replacethe one they stole, plus three more head ofcattle. Two of these cattle will go to the

person who reported a stolen cow; thethird extra beast will be slaughtered andeaten by the members of Masifunisane.According to the police, there are endlessfeasts by the members, as there are guaran-teed successes in their investigations.

Police now admit to not knowing whothe real stock thieves are. They also claimthat budget cuts from the province havemade it difficult to conduct their own raids.But they are certain that Masifunisane hasbecome one of the ugliest faces of ruralPondoland, and has complicated theirwork in dealing with cattle theft.

Government development projectsThe Wild Coast area, including the districtof Lusikisiki has and continues to experi-ence a range of government-supported‘development’ projects that are in conflictwith cattle-raising activities. During thefirst decade of the 20th century, manyforests near certain villages were reserved,limiting the areas in which cattle could goand graze. The demarcation of Mkambatias a leper reserve in 1920, and in 1977 asa nature reserve and state farm, resulted inthe loss of almost 18 000ha of land by thepeople of Khanyayo. During the 1960s,some areas were affected by ‘betterment’planning, which again restricting freedomthat people had about where their cattlecould graze. More recently, it has been theintroduction of the Spatial DevelopmentInitiatives (SDIs) throughout the WildCoast (see Kepe 2000) that has unsettledcattle farmers. As part of the SDI, villagersare being encouraged by government togive land to investors for a range ofprojects including forestry, nature-basedtourism and so forth, in return for rents,jobs and co-ownership. Subsistence farm-ing including cattle farming is seen as abackward alternative. Indeed, with themajority of people in this area without jobsand not owning cattle, the future of cattlecould be threatened for the few who stillhave them.

Death in the gorgesLivestock speculators in Lusikisiki andFlagstaff have booming businesses selling



76



cattle to residents of the Lusikisiki district.But a large number of these cattle are notdestined for long-term keeping in thevillages. They are to be slaughtered fortraditional ceremonies related to deathrituals. For any deceased person, a mini-mum of two beasts is slaughtered within ayear of their death. One beast is slaugh-tered on the day of the funeral and theother a year later, when the period ofmourning has come to an end. Householdswho only have two or three beasts whenthey face this death in the family areeffectively depleted of their herds andoften discouraged to replenish them. Whileno survey has been made, interviews andobservations in the case-study areas revealthat no age group is spared when it comesto death, but younger people die the most.Some blame witchcraft, while others blameHIV/AIDS. So high is the rate of death insome communities there are at least threedeaths every week for a community of nomore than 250 households. Here cattlehave become both very important and verythreatened.

DiscussionThis paper began by acknowledging thehistorical, social and economic importanceof cattle to the livelihoods of Africanpeople in South Africa. But it was alsoacknowledged that gradual shifts withinrural society from a largely agrarianeconomy to a more industrialised economyare said to be taking place. National andinternational political and economicchanges have also played a role in this de-agrarianisation of rural areas. What isargued, however, is that in the midst of allthese global dynamics, the social role oflivestock is still very important to manyrural people. Hence the need by the stateto define or re-define its role in the raisingof cattle in communal areas of SouthAfrica. In support of this is the case ofthe Lusikisiki district, which has about100 000 cattle, 60 000 sheep, 80 000 goatsand over 14 000 horses, donkeys and mules.

The analysis of the history of livestockkeeping in rural Transkei shows that the

state has throughout the last 100 years orso played a major role in determining thedynamics of cattle farming in communalareas. As part of colonial and apartheidoppression, the state restricted movement,numbers and trading of cattle in communalareas. Much of this was done in the nameof development or for the good of thenation. For instance, only certain peoplewere given licenses to trade, while others(mostly Africans) were told how muchthey could sell and to whom. Dipping,while an understandable measure to com-bat certain diseases, soon became one ofthe many ways of keeping an unwelcomesurveillance on African-owned livestock.Statistics collected from dipping tankswere useful in supporting the introductionof ‘betterment’ in certain areas.

The homeland administration did notbring relief to the tension experienced bycattle farmers in rural Transkei. Instead,most colonial or apartheid measuresregarding livestock were maintained.Dipping and the permit system havecontinued to this day. The new govern-ment is, however, attempting to remedy thesituation, by giving back the responsibilityto farmers. While this notion is desirable,taxing of livestock is unlikely to be ac-cepted without resistance by farmers. Thepoor communication strategy by govern-ment with regard to new livestock policiesis likely to prove costly.

Meanwhile people raising cattle arefaced with numerous challenges, whichinclude poor animal healthcare, stock theft,cattle-costly death rituals that are AIDS-related, and urbanisation in general. Ingovernment’s view, commercialising cattlein communal areas will solve many prob-lems. But research and lessons fromelsewhere have shown that this is not sosimple. What buffets cattle raising today inrural areas is an array of factors, includingstate reforms (e.g. tenure reform), increas-ing violence, education, urbanisation andso forth. It appears that treating livestock,in particular cattle, in communal areas asan isolated challenge, may prove to beboth costly and ineffective.

77

Endnotes1. This research was completed before the

new demarcation of district and munici-pality boundaries in 2000. Referencesto Lusikisiki district have been retained,because it does not refer to the newdistrict council and municipalityboundaries, but to a magisterial district,which has been in use for over 100years.

2. In Lusikisiki district alone, there areabout 100 000 cattle, 60 000 sheep,80 000 goats and over 14 000 horses,donkeys and mules.

3. See Leach et al. 1997 and Kepe 1997.4. The district has 38 demarcated forests

(Cawe 1999) and numerous smallerpatches, classed as headmen’s forests.

5. Other districts of eastern Pondoland areFlagstaff, Bizana and Ntabankulu.

6. Interview with Nyawuza, Ntlavukazivillage, 05/01/00.

7. Cape Archives – CMT 3/1249 (16/09/12).8. Umtata Archives – File 104.9. Cape Archives – CMT 3/1544 (29/09/

01).10. Umtata Archives – File 104.11. The author would like to thank Mr

Gwababa of the Livestock Office inUmtata; Dr Kasule and Mr D Fodo ofthe Lusikisiki office and Dr Lwanga-Igain Bisho.

12. This could perhaps explain why theprovincial Minister of Agriculture andLand Affairs Mr Max Mamase, in hisaddress to Red Meat Producers onSeptember 17, 1998, quoted 1996statistics of cattle as the latest available.

13. Interview with livestock farmers inNdengane village, Lambasi area,Lusikiski – 09/11/1999.

14. Ukufuyisa is used in Pondoland, whileukuphawulela (to put your own mark)is used in the rest of the Xhosa-speak-ing areas.

15. This is also referred to as ukubusa orinqoma.

16. Most of the information here is basedon interviews conducted in Lusikisikiwith Captains Matha and Mdidi of theSouth African Police Services, and withInspector Govuzela in Flagstaff, on

06/01/00. Inspector Govuzela was alsohelpful in making statistics used inFigure 5.2 available.

ReferencesAcocks, JPH. 1953. Veld types of South

Africa. Memoirs of Botanical Survey ofSouth Africa 28. Pretoria: Departmentof Agriculture.

Beinart, W. 1979. Joyin’ Inkomo: Cattleadvances and origins of migrancy fromPondoland. Journal of Southern AfricanStudies, Vol. 5, No. 2:199–219.

Beinart, W. 1980. Labour migrancy andrural production: Pondoland c.1900–1950, in Black Villagers in an IndustrialSociety edited by P Mayer. Cape Town:Oxford University Press.

Beinart, W. 1982. The political economy ofPondoland 1860 to 1930. Johannesburg:Ravan Press.

Beinart, W. 1992. Transkeian smallholdersand agrarian reform. Journal of Con-temporary African Studies, Vol. 11,No. 2: 178–199.

Beinart, W & Bundy, C. 1987. Hiddenstruggles in rural South Africa. Politicsand popular movements in the Transkeiand Eastern Cape 1890–1930. London:James Currey.

Cawe, S. 1999. Spatial and temporalutilization patterns of Flagelleriaguineensis Schumach in the demarcatedforests of the Lusikisiki district ofTranskei, South Africa. South AfricanJournal of Botany, Vol. 65, No. 1:69–74.

Copelyn, JA. 1974. The Mpondo Revolt,1960. BA(Hons) thesis. Johannesburg:University of the Witswatersrand.

De Wet, C. 1995. Moving together, driftingapart: The dynamics of villagisation ina South African Homeland. Johannes-burg: Witwatersrand University Press.

Duvel, GH & Afful, DB. 1996. Sociocul-tural constraints on sustainable cattleproduction in some communal areas ofSouth Africa. Development SouthernAfrica, Vol. 13, No. 3:429–440.



78



Ellery, WN & Mentis, MT. 1992. How oldare South Africa’s grasslands? in Natureand dynamics of forest-savannaboundaries edited by P Fullery, J Proc-tor & J Ratter. London: Chapman andHall.

Feely, JM. 1987. The early farmers ofTranskei, Southern Africa. Monographsin African Archeology 24, Cambridge.

Government of the Eastern Cape. 1999.Draft dipping policy for the EasternCape Province. Unpublished document.

Hammond-Tooke, WD. 1963. Kinship,locality and associations: Hospitalitygroups among the Cape Nguni. Ethnol-ogy, Vol. 2, No. 3:302–319.

Hatch, G. 1996. Livestock and rurallivelihoods in KwaZulu-Natal, in Land,labour and livelihoods in rural SouthAfrica. Vol.2: KwaZulu-Natal andNorthern Province edited by M Lipton,F Ellis & M Lipton. Durban: IndicatorPress.

Henkel, CC. 1903. History, resources andproductions of the country betweenCape Colony and Natal, or Kaffrariaproper. Hamburg: Hamburg.

Hunter, M. 1979. Reaction to conquest.Effects of contact with Europeans on thePondo of South Africa. Abridged edi-tion. Cape Town: David Phillip.

Kepe, T. 1997. Environmental entitlementsin Mkambati: Livelihoods, social institu-tions and environmental change on theWild Coast of the Eastern Cape. Re-search Report No.1, Programme forLand and Agrarian Studies, Universityof the Western Cape, Bellville.

Kepe, T. 2000. Clearing the ground in theSpatial Development Initiatives:Analysing ‘process’ on South Africa’sWild Coast, in At the crossroads: Landand agrarian reform in South Africainto the 21st century, edited by BenCousins. Cape Town/Johannesburg:Programme for Land and AgarianStudies, University of the WesternCape/National Land Committee.

Kepe, T & Cousins, B. 1998. Livestock,social institutions and entitlements:

Sharing benefits and costs on the WildCoast of South Africa, in Proceedings ofa symposium on common propertyresource management, Nylvlei, 4–5August edited by S Shackleton & ATapson.

Kepe, T & Scoones, I. 1999. Creatinggrasslands: social institutions andenvironmental change in Mkambatiarea, South Africa. Human Ecology,Vol. 27, No. 1:29–51.

Kuckertz, H. 1990. Creating order: Theimage of the homestead in Mpondosocial life. Johannesburg:Witwatersrand University Press.

Leach, M, Mearns, R & Scoones, I (eds).1997. Community-based sustainabledevelopment: Consensus or conflict.IDS Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 4.

Manona, C. 1998. Land tenure and use:Perspectives from a village in theEastern Cape, South Africa. AfricanSociological Review, Vol. 2, No. 2:77–94.

McAllister, P. 1992. Rural production, landuse and development planning inTranskei: A critique of the TranskeiAgricultural Development Study. Jour-nal of Contemporary African Studies,Vol. 11, No. 2:200–222.

McKenzie, B. 1984. Ecological considera-tions of some past and present land usepractices in Transkei. Phd thesis, Uni-versity of Cape Town.

Mbeki, G. 1964. South Africa: The Peas-ants’ Revolt. Harmondsworth: PenguinPress.

Muller, N & Mpela, V. 1987. Transkeilivestock census data by magisterialdistricts, 1910–1975. (Statistics Series 2).Bureau for African Research and Docu-mentation, University of Transkei,Umtata.

Nicolson, G. 1993. Transkei coastal devel-opment plan: Annexure 1. Descriptionand analysis of the coast, a draft.Umtata: TDC.

Sampson, V. 1882. A trip throughPondoland to the mouth of the St Johns

79

River. Cape Quarterly Review, Vol. 2,no. 5:100–119.

Sneeby, GW. 1933. Eastern Pondoland: Ageographical study. South AfricanJournal of Geography, Vol.16:39–49.

Spiegel, A. 1992. A trilogy of tyranny andtribulation: Village politics and adminis-trative intervention in Matatiele duringthe early 1980s. Journal of Contempo-rary African Studies, Vol. 11,No. 2:31–54.

Stapleton, TJ. 1998. ‘Him who destroysall’: Reassessing the early career ofFaku, King of the Mpondo, c.1818–

1829. South African Historical Journal,Vol. 38:55–78.

Tainton, NM. 1981. The ecology of themain grazing lands of South Africa, inVeld and pasture management in SouthAfrica edited by NM Tainton.Pietermaritzburg: Shuter and Shooter.

Van Wyk, AE. 1994. Maputaland-Pondoland region: South Africa,Swaziland and Mozambique, in Centresof plant diversity: A guide and strategyfor their conservation, Volume 1 editedby SD Davies, VH Heywood & ACHamilton. Cambridge: IUCN Publica-tions.



80



IntroductionLivestock in communal areasIt is not easy to identify clear South African policy for rural andagricultural development in the communal areas or former �homelands�.However, by their words, actions and omissions, policy-makers and civilservants at national, provincial and local levels show perceptions oflivestock production in such areas that have been common in Africa�s�development� experience.

People in communal areas invest inlivestock for a variety of reasons. Becauseof low market off-take of livestock fromcommunal areas (Tapson 1990), andbecause outsiders tend to measure live-stock productivity only in terms of meatoutput (Scoones 1990), the important andmultiple roles that livestock play in theseareas are often overlooked (Hatch 1996).

Hatch found that the livestock sector inKwaZulu-Natal, and the role of livestockin household livelihoods, were poorlyunderstood. He argued that the outsideperception of:

cattle ownership under communaltenure ranges from the concept of a‘cattle complex’ (Schneider, 1957) orprivate unreason, which suggeststhat cattle owners act irrationallyand attach importance to simplyholding stock, to the ‘tragedy of thecommons’ notion (Hardin, 1968) orsocial unreason, which holds thatresource degradation is the invari-

Chapter 6:The social and economic structureof livestock production systems inMaluti district

Zolile Ntshona and Stephen Turner1

They tend to assume that Africans in areaslike the former Transkei are economicallyirrational, putting sheer numbers of live-stock owned ahead of any other motivessuch as production or incomemaximisation. Consequently, they oftenbelieve that livestock owners in the com-munal areas have no market orientation,and are not interested in selling theiranimals. They suppose that these owners,therefore, have little interest in optimisingthe condition of their stock through sup-plementary feeding or veterinary care. Allthese perceptions lead many in SouthAfrica to distinguish between a ‘commer-cial’ livestock sector on the largely white-owned private farms, and a ‘communal’sector where commercial motives andbehaviour do not apply and where live-stock care and services are consequentlyof little interest. This paper tests thesearguments with reference to data fromfieldwork undertaken in a communal areaof the Eastern Cape.

81

able outcome of a communal landtenure. These perceptions are due inpart to fundamental differences inobjectives of holding stock. Livestockin the commercial sector are re-garded primarily as a source ofincome, while their role in communalareas incorporates both an incomeand a wealth function. (Hatch1996:77)

As Tapson (1990) shows, livestock makemany valuable contributions to communalarea livelihoods. He argues that cattle inKwaZulu-Natal comprise an array of high-value goods in the household economy,and that this explains the behaviour oflivestock owners. Livestock in most ruralareas are kept for numerous reasonsincluding milk, sales, investment, savings,feasts and ceremonies, bridewealth, meatand draught power. Studies have alsorevealed that, per unit area, livestock incommunal areas generate more benefitsthan those on commercial farms (Hatch1996, citing Abel, De Ridder & Wagenaar1986; Barrett 1992; Scoones 1992; Abel1993). Communal graziers are seen asacting rationally, though not necessarily inthe sense of profit maximisation (Vink &Van Zyl 1991, cited in Hatch 1996).

This paper seeks to unravel some ofthese dynamics, with special reference tothe multiplicity of benefits derived fromlivestock in a communal area of the EasternCape. The focus is mainly on cattle, butreference is made also to sheep and goats.

Maluti districtThe fieldwork on which this paper is basedwas done in Maluti district. Maluti districtis located in the former Transkei area ofthe Eastern Cape, bordering Lesotho andKwaZulu-Natal (see Map 3). It is 2 219km2

in extent, and in 1991 had a reportedpopulation of 160 777 (LAPC 1995). Thismade it one of the most populous districtsin the former Transkei, and suggests apopulation density of 72 people per km2.The average annual rainfall in the district is500mm. The district receives most of itsrain between January and April, andduring spring

A variety of land uses takes place in thedistrict, as is shown by the estimates fromthe 1980s that are reproduced in the tablesbelow.

Table 6.1: Land use types in Maluti district,1985

Land use type Hectares

Arable land 80 640

Grazing 89 318

Community gardens 4 076

Home gardens 217

Forestry 835

Woodlots 14 000

Nature conservation 183

Non-agricultural land 32 622

Source: LAPC (1995).

Table 6.2: Land use patterns in Maluti district,1989/90

Land use patterns %

Arable land 18.0

Grazing 75.2

Forestry 0.4

Other 6.4


Table 6.3: Estimated land use potential inMaluti district, 1985

Estimated potential land use type Hectares

Arable land 40 000

Forestry 1 000

Woodlots 2 000

Grazing

Conservation 175 601

Non-agricultural

Private commercial farming 3 290


Chapter 6: The social and economic structure of livestock

production systems in Maluti district

82



A limited amount of infrastructure forthe livestock sector was built in the districtby the apartheid administration. Therewere stock sale pens at Tsitsong, Queen’sMercy, Ongeluksnek, Nyaniso andMzongwana. Like much other infrastruc-ture, livestock facilities have deterioratedduring the 1990s. There were four shear-ing sheds in the district in 1987, but onlytwo in 1991 and 1994. This is sympto-matic of the decline in services to commu-nal area livestock producers that has takenplace during the 1990s.

Like most people in the communalareas of South Africa, the population of theformer Transkei build their livelihoodsfrom a variety of activities. Sources ofincome include salaries, remittances andpensions. In the past, remittances havebeen the largest source of income, but thismay be changing as migrant labour oppor-tunities dwindle.

Field research areasFieldwork was carried out in three admin-istrative areas of Maluti district. Withinthese, three villages were selected. Thesewere pilot communities for the Commu-nity-Based Land Management (CBLM)programme carried out from 1997 to 2000by the Environmental and DevelopmentAgency Trust (EDA), a non-governmentalorganisation that was active in the EasternCape, Gauteng and Northern Province.This research was carried out in collabora-tion with EDA, which aimed to promotesustainable livelihoods and to enhancenatural resource management in the dis-trict. The three CBLM pilot areas wereMadlangala, Mvenyane and Mkemane. Ascan be seen from Table 6.4, Mkemane usesa larger proportion of its area for grazing

than the other two villages. It also has amuch larger territory than the others.

Maluti district comprises a total of 25administrative areas. Mvenyane is situatedin the Kaka administrative area. Mvenyaneis about 17 km south-west of Cedarville. Itcontains 12 wards. With the help of EDA, asurvey was conducted in Magxeni ward.

Madlangala has four wards, of whichtwo contain about 100 households and theother two about 50 households. This areais very close to the southern border ofLesotho. Like most parts of the district,Madlangala has no electricity or telecom-munications.

Mkemane is where the most detailedfieldwork was done (see below). It islocated about 70km from Matatiele and asimilar distance from Mount Frere. It isnamed after the Mkemane river, whichpasses certain villages that constitute theLudidi administrative area. Initial scopingwork for the CBLM programme showedthat, unlike the people of Mvenyane andMadlangala, Mkemane residents rankedlivestock sales as their most importantsource of income. That, and the extent ofits grazing areas, led to the choice ofMkemane as the site of detailed investiga-tions.

Methods usedData for this study were collected fromfour sources:· The office of the provincial Department

of Agriculture in Umtata providedlivestock data for the former Transkei.

· An auctioneer in Cedarville, a commer-cial farming area close to Mkemane andMvenyane, was interviewed. Theinformation provided by this branch of

Table 6.4: Land uses in CBLM pilot areas (hectares)

Land use Madlangala Mvenyane Mkemane

Grazing 1 221 2 109 12 270

Residential 233 864 629

Arable 184 542 2 194

Source: Maluti District Agricultural Office.

83

Stock Owners’ Co-operative Ltd. wasmost helpful in understanding market-ing off-take of livestock in Malutidistrict.

· A survey of livestock owners in thethree CBLM pilot areas was carried out.A total of 25 households were inter-viewed, using a short, structured ques-tionnaire on cattle numbers, health andproduction.

· This information is supplemented bydetailed research data gathered in thecourse of an M.Phil study in theMkemane area (Ntshona forthcoming).A variety of research methods wereused in Mkemane. These included the

use of various participatory rural ap-praisal (PRA) tools as well as a struc-tured questionnaire. Using PRA meth-ods, people in Mkemane ranked all thehouseholds in the village according toperceived household poverty levels.Some of the data below are categorisedaccording to these poverty rankings.

Livestock numbersRecent dataAs is so often the case, the available dataon livestock numbers in Maluti district areincomplete and apparently erratic. All thenumbers presented here must, therefore, betreated with caution.

Table 6.5: Numbers of cattle in Maluti district, 1904�1998/99

Year Cattle Year Cattle

1904 45 904 1956/57 67 2421905�1910 No data 1957/58 66 3331911 70 252 1958/59 68 7021912�1921 No data 1959/60 59 5051922/23 44 920 1960/61 66 5131923/24 54 667 1961/62 69 3851924/25 57 141 1962/63 70 8621925/26 59 190 1964�1977 No data1926/27 59 570 1978 75 1681927/28 60 160 1979 78 7661928/29 65 768 1980 78 8841929/30 62 890 1981 79 2901931/32 No data 1982 76 9141933/34 47 294 1983 78 0371934/35 48 309 1984 67 4601935/36 50 138 1985/86 No data1936/37 56 860 1987 76 7681937/38 57 477 1988 75 7711938/39 61 155 1989 81 6631940�1944 No data 1990 79 6851945/46 66 469 1991/92 No data1946/47 61 845 1993 79 1231947/48 72 940 1994 79 6281949�1953 No data 1995/96 84 0081954/55 58 092 1997/98 84 5021955/56 66 288 1998/99 84 008

Source: Department of Agriculture, Umtata; Muller & Mpela 1987.



84



Data collated by the Land and Agricul-ture Policy Centre (LAPC) in the mid-1990s suggest that there were 106 294large stock units (LSUs) in Maluti district,representing 0.84ha of grazing land perLSU. The LAPC report (1995) stated thatthe appropriate number of livestock for thedistrict, given the calculated carryingcapacity, was 66 819, or 63% of the actualnumber. However, the report does notexplain how this carrying capacity wascalculated, and the concept of carryingcapacity has come under increasinglycritical scrutiny in recent years. It is at leastclear that there is a big gap between scien-tific calculations of what is appropriate andwhat is actually practised by local stockowners.

Trends during the 20th centuryThe Department of Agriculture office inUmtata was able to supply an incompleteset of estimated livestock numbers forMaluti district, dating from 1904. Thesefigures included the categories ‘Natives inEuropean farms’, ‘Europeans’, ‘Natives intotal’ and ‘Natives in location’. We haveassumed that the ‘Natives in location’ data

are the ones to use for communal areaslike Maluti district. A second source ofdata, covering the period 1910–1975, isMuller & Mpela (1987).Table 6.5 and Figure 6.1 clearly showthe erratic character of the data across the20th century. Overall, they indicate asubstantial rise in cattle numbers. This canin part be attributed to the increasinghuman population and its dependence oncattle; to breeding improvements duringthe period of ‘betterment’; and to theopportunities for livestock acquisition thatwere afforded by migrant labour remit-tances. These remittances are now declin-ing, which may be one reason why manycommentators believe that cattle numbersare now growing more slowly or willactually start to decline. Other problemsthat may contribute to slower growth or adecline in the district cattle herd are out-breaks of redwater disease (due to a dete-rioration in dipping programmes); thehigher cost of school fees, causing ownersto sell stock; unemployment, which alsoprompts sales; and increasing stock theft,which discourages people from investingin cattle.

Figure 6.1: Numbers of cattle in Maluti district, 1904–1998/99

85

The livestock sector in MalutidistrictThe importance of livestockIn a 1997 study of Maluti district, Cousinsdiscovered a range of reasons for livestockkeeping. 63% of the sample interviewedsaid that they used them for ploughing.25% referred to slaughtering livestock formeat. 63% mentioned milk production. Allrespondents mentioned the possibility ofselling livestock, while 25% referred to thesavings and investment function of theanimals. The reasons for selling livestockthat people in Maluti district mentionedincluded generating cash for householdconsumption purposes (53%); the fact thatlivestock keeping is a business (47%); thedisposal of old stock and the purchase ofyoung animals (30%); meeting urgent cashneeds (12%); and other reasons such asaverting loss to stock theft (30%) (Cousins1997:40).

The importance of livestock keepingvaries from person to person. Some peo-ple’s enthusiasm for livestock productionis inspired by what they see being done oncommercial farms. The number and condi-tion of the cattle on these private farmsmotivates many people in the communalareas to try to emulate this mode of pro-duction. Agricultural extension officersand the Eastern Cape Emerging RedmeatProducers’ Organisation also encouragepeople to farm ‘commercially’, althoughthe existing livestock production systemsof communal area residents incorporatemany commercial elements. Many peoplefeel that these commercial motives weremore strongly supported under the ‘better-ment’ programme of agricultural planningand extension that was imposed by theapartheid authorities, and are keen to seesuch services provided to them again.

Overall, cattle make many contributionsto communal area livelihoods. People usethem for milk, draught power, meat, sales,investment and savings, cultural andaesthetic purposes. Interviews in the threeCBLM pilot areas ranked the reasons forcattle keeping as follows:

Table 6.6: Reasons for keeping cattle in CBLMpilot areas, Maluti district

Reasons people keep cattle %

Slaughter for feasts and ceremonies 92

Savings 92

Draught power 92

Meat (ukugugisa) 80

Ritual slaughter 76

Milk 76

Bridewealth/lobola 72

Sales 56

Aesthetic value2 40

n=25

Home consumptionHome consumption of livestock in Malutidistrict includes slaughtering for feasts andceremonies, some of which combinesocial, cultural and economic functions.Ukugugisa (literally, ‘to cause ageing’) isthe slaughter of old cattle, and is one formof home consumption. The various typesof home consumption are most common inDecember, when migrant labourers arehome from work and the schools areclosed.

Slaughter of cattle for home consump-tion is not common. About 80% of re-spondents in the three CBLM pilot villagessaid that they mainly do so when theanimals are old (ukugugisa). This is largelybecause cattle perform so many importanteconomic functions while they are alive,even if they are not marketed.

MarketingThe Cedarville auctioneers sold about 400cattle from neighbouring communal areasin 1999. The animals came from Malutiand nearby Mount Fletcher districts. Ourinformant said that they used to sell thou-sands of cattle from these areas. Specula-tors used to play a major role, but are nolonger so prominent because there is muchless stock on offer. The auctioneer told usthat the size of the livestock offered forsale has declined. Prices vary with condi-



86



tion and market demand. The sellersinclude both large herd owners and peoplewith only one or two head. Sales throughthe auctioneers seem to be mainlyprompted by urgent cash needs, and arenot seasonal.

In Mvenyane, cattle numbers are lowand people are unwilling to sell unless theybadly need money. Some sell when theiranimals are old and have less value forother economic functions in the house-hold. In Madlangala, increasing stock thefthas encouraged many people to sell theiranimals, although some people are tryingto hold on to their small herds because oftheir important role in their livelihoods. InMkemane, there is competition for milksales between local cow owners andnearby commercial farmers. The latter,who sell milk along the road to Mkemanethat passes through their area, offer lowerprices than village milk producers.

A common transaction in Mkemane isthe exchange of cattle without payment, orwith only small amounts of money chang-ing hands. It is common for people toexchange cows for beasts that can be usedfor feasts and ceremonies.

Cultural usesPeople ascribe great value to the culturaluses of their livestock. Ancestor worshipand other activities perceived necessary bylocal clans are taken very seriously. Acase-study from Mkemane village showshow important cattle are for the process ofinitiation. Large numbers of cattle, sheepand goats are consumed in December andJanuary when the schools are closed andinitiates go for circumcision.

Hlubi and Sotho people are dominant inthe CBLM pilot areas. Hlubis and Xhosasare based mostly in Mvenyane andMkemane, while the Sotho are mainlydominant in Madlangala. Ethnic differ-ences are reflected in the ways thesegroups value livestock. Unlike the Xhosas,the Hlubis and Sothos go to the initiationschool in large numbers (usually severaldozen at a time). The parents of eachinitiate contribute the equivalent of almosthalf a cow in goats towards the food

supplies that will be consumed during theinitiation period. Each of the initiates wearsa tanned cowhide at the initiation school.For the 28 initiates that went for initiationin December 1999, for example, thatmeant that 28 cowhides had to be pro-cured. When the boys return from theinitiation school, they accompany oneanother to their respective homes, wheretheir fathers usually welcome them with acow. If no cow is available for the wel-come, a sheep or goat is used. The fathershows the cow to the young man whileuttering a few words of welcome. Thesefeasts happen mainly during Decemberand January and are attended by manyvillage residents.

Herd and range managementIn Mkemane, it is very rare to kraal cattle.The only cattle that are kraaled are thosethat have recently given birth. People lettheir cattle graze in the mountains, but it isthe duty of the owner to check whetherhis/her animals are still within the area.This happens mainly when a dipping dayis imminent or when the owner needs tomake some productive use of the animals.

People believe that there are benefitsfrom not herding livestock. They say thatthe condition of both the animals and thepasture improve in this way. When ananimal that has been lost for a couple ofdays is recovered, they say, its conditionwill have improved significantly. From theenvironmental perspective, not kraalingprevents stock from creating trails towardsthe kraal that can lead to soil erosion.

Nevertheless, people in the area arenostalgic for the ‘betterment’ scheme,whose fencing of the rangeland into campscollapsed long ago. They claim that if thescheme or something like it could bereintroduced, the management and condi-tion of the rangelands would improve, thusenhancing their livelihoods. They seeproper range management as an opportu-nity for more investment in livestockproduction. While some people are scepti-cal about livestock production because ofthe many problems that can arise, manycontinue to harvest benefits from the sector

87

despite these difficulties. Although peopledo not approve of culling, they are con-cerned about the condition of therangelands and the condition of theiranimals.

Problems in the sectorDisease

Disease has always been a problem forlivestock producers in Maluti district. Inthe 1950s, prominent diseases were EastCoast Fever and anthrax. In the 1970s,redwater and gall sickness (inyongo)caused problems for cattle owners. In the1990s, redwater was exacerbated by thelack of dipping chemicals from govern-ment, due to budgetary constraints. Rabieswas also a problem, although veterinariansbelieve that it is only people’s ignoranceand resistance that prevent them fromovercoming it (Maluti District VeterinaryOffice, pers. comm. 1999).

In Mvenyane, 70% of respondentsreported that redwater disease was a

problem. This disease, known locally asumbendeni, is tick-related. There havebeen several outbreaks in recent yearsbecause the government does not providedipping chemicals as it did before 1994.

TheftAs in many other parts of South Africa,

stock theft is rife in Maluti district. It is agrowing disincentive to livestock produc-tion. In Madlangala (close to the Lesothoborder, where the problem is worst), therewere 1 300 head of cattle in 1997. In 1999there were only 500, including calves.

The benefits and costs of livestockproduction: Two case-studies

The matters dealt with above suggestthe many contributions that livestock maketo livelihoods in Maluti district, but alsohint at some of the costs and problems thatafflict livestock owners. The case-studybelow sums up the situation for one house-hold in the district. This is a household thatis heavily involved in livestock production.

Case-study oneThis household head has 32 cattle, 15 goats and 80 sheep. The number of his cattlehas decreased. His goat holdings have increased, on the other hand, and he has hadmixed experience with sheep.

This household keeps cattle for meat, hides, draught power, cultural purposes andincome generation through sales. They keep goats for meat, hides, milk, culturalpurposes and sales. Sheep are kept for meat, wool and sales. In the past, he tried toimprove his livestock by introducing commercial bulls to his cows.

Stock Year1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Cattle 3 stolen 2 died 1 died, 1 died 4 sold1 stolen

Goats 4 gave birth 4 gave birth 6 gave birth, 8 gave birth,1 died 3 died

Sheep 35 gave birth, 40 gave birth, 40 gave birth, 35 gave birth, 37 gave birth,15 lambs died 25 lambs died 35 lambs died 32 lambs died 7 lambs died,

10 sheep sold

The household head said that he sold livestock for the following reasons:· to get money to buy livestock vaccines;

· to buy young cows and commercial bulls; and

· to buy seeds and fertiliser.



88



The second case-study also refers to ahousehold with substantial numbers oflivestock, although they are not quite onthe scale of the first case-study and do notinclude sheep.

Both case-studies describe households thattake livestock production seriously in orderto achieve multiple economic and somecultural goals. Both owners strive towardsprofessional management of their animals

and undertake livestock marketing when thisis required within their broader livelihoodand herd management strategies. It is clearlywrong to suppose that communal area stockowners like these are completely outsidethe commercial sector, or that their onlymotive is the cultural desirability of pos-sessing large numbers of animals. We turnnow to more detailed evidence from onevillage in which detailed research was done.

He sells livestock to local people when they are needed for occasions like wed-dings and funerals. He also sells at auctions. His recent income from livestock sales is:

1996 R750 (sale of 5 sheep)1997 R1 500 (sale of 1 cow)1998 R1 600 (sale of 8 sheep)1999 R2 000 (sale of 10 sheep) R6 000 (sale of 4 cows)

He has many problems with livestock diseases, including:1995 Sheep: ibhula (shedding of the skin) and urudo (diarrhoea)

Cattle: umbendeni (redwater), foot rot, ticksGoats: ibhula, isiboko (bottlejaw) and ukuphunza (miscarriage)

1996 Sheep: blue tongue, ibhula, iintshulube (worms), urudo, ukuphunzaCattle: umbendeni, ticks

1997 Sheep: iintshulube, urudo, pulp kidney, blue tongue, ibhula1998 Sheep: iintshulube, urudo, pulp kidney, blue tongue, ibhula1999 Sheep: iintshulube, urudo, pulp kidney, blue tongue, ibhula

Cattle: umbendeni, foot rotGoats: iintshulube, blue tongue, ukhwekhwe (mange), urudo

In recent years the household has spent the following amounts on livestock vac-cine and feed:

Vaccine (R) Feed (R)1995 750 3001996 800 3001997 900 3801998 4501999 1 900 500

The household’s cows produce 15 litres of milk per day, which is not sold but usedfor family consumption. They also consume goat milk and sell goat hides. The house-hold head once sold wool in Butterworth, but in recent years he has sold to the BKBorganisation. Income from wool has been:

1995 R3501996 R2901997 R4001998 R350

Case-study one (continued)

89

The livestock sector inMkemane villageThe importance of livestockIn Mkemane, data were collected from 58randomly sampled households in 1998–1999 (Ntshona, forthcoming). These dataagain show the many reasons why peoplekeep livestock, and clearly disprove thenotion that they do so simply for the sakeof owning large numbers of animals. InMkemane, 43% of the sample householdsown cattle. 10% have sheep, and 38% owngoats.

As shown in Table 6.7, cattle are themost common form of livestock owned inMkemane. Savings, daily subsistence inthe form of milk, draught power, slaughterfor feasts and ceremonies and cultural useswere the most usual reasons why peoplesaid they own cattle. Slaughter for feastsand ceremonies is distinguished from‘ritual slaughter’. The latter (amasiko) wereexplained to mean things like rituals, andfeasts and ceremonies were taken as other

activities not in honour of the ancestors.The use of livestock for meat is taken inMkemane to mean the slaughter of an oldcow (ukugugisa) that does not have amarket value. People would never slaugh-ter a cow that is not old for meat, exceptfor a major ceremony or feast. In manyhouseholds, sheep would occasionally beslaughtered.

Reasons for keeping livestock werewidely distributed among all owners, withthe exception of goats. For these animals,cashmere and mohair production and salesof goats were the least popular reasons forownership. Cashmere production wasintroduced to the area by agriculturalextension officers. The few who managedto produce a little did not get their moneyback. Since then, people have been reluc-tant to try it again. No households have theangora goats that produce mohair.

Overall, it can be seen that economicreasons are the predominant motives forlivestock keeping in this communal area.The frequent mention of livestock having a

Case-study two

This household head owns 13 cattle, 22 goats and no sheep. Since 1995 his holdingsof cattle have been increasing. In that year, one of his cows gave birth in the mountains.In 1996, he bought a cow from a white shop owner. He expected it to mate immedi-ately, but that did not happen. In 1998 he wanted to slaughter it for his daughter’swedding, but then found that it was about to give birth. In 1999, it was one of four ofhis cows that had calves. Another was the one that had earlier given birth in the moun-tains, and the other two were cows that he had received as bridewealth from his son-in-law.

He keeps cattle for draught power (pulling fuel wood home, ploughing and har-vesting tasks); milk for home consumption; sales in times of difficulty; and the pro-duction of hides. He sells hides or uses them to make leather ropes. His commercialdairy cow gives him five litres of milk a day, and his other indigenous breeds3.5 litres. He also gets manure from keeping cattle, and uses it during the plantingseason. Fear of stock theft stimulates him to sell cattle.

Since 1995, the number of his goats has increased too. He puts this down to propermanagement and inoculation. He keeps goats for milk, meat, skins, cultural uses andsales in times of difficulty. In the past, he tried to improve his goats by buying com-mercial animals, which are larger. In 1995 he sold three goats and received R1 200.

He has spent R300 per year since 1995 on inoculating his livestock. They weremainly troubled by worms. He has also spent almost R2 500 on livestock feed between1995 and 1999.



90



‘savings’ function is particularly notable.Cultural reasons are not insignificant, andsome cattle owners agree that they have an‘aesthetic’ motive for keeping these ani-mals.

Livestock and livelihoodsIt is useful to look at the distribution oflivestock ownership across the differenttypes of livelihood that predominate inMkemane. Table 6.8 does this with refer-ence to the main source of livelihood onwhich each sample household said itdepended.

It is interesting that the ownership of cattleis distributed across all but three of theprincipal source of livelihood categoriesshown in Table 6.8. Goat ownership is alsoquite widespread. It is important to notethat this is a small sample. For example,there is only one taxi owner in the sample,out of the total of three in Mkemane.

We now show the distribution of differ-ent sizes of holdings of cattle across thevarious main source of livelihood catego-ries. Table 6.9, which includes only thosehouseholds that own cattle, shows that allthose whose main source of livelihood is

Table 6.7: Reasons for keeping livestock in Mkemane

Reasons people keep livestock % of households with this % of households with thistype of stock that indicated type of stock that indicated�yes� �no�

Cattle (43% of households own cattle)Cattle (43% of households own cattle)Cattle (43% of households own cattle)Cattle (43% of households own cattle)Cattle (43% of households own cattle)Draught power 80 20Ritual slaughter 80 20Savings 76 24Milk 68 32Slaughter for feasts and ceremonies 52 48Meat 32 68Bridewealth 40 60Aesthetic value 36 64Sales 16 84

Sheep (10% of households own sheep)Sheep (10% of households own sheep)Sheep (10% of households own sheep)Sheep (10% of households own sheep)Sheep (10% of households own sheep)Savings 100 0Wool 100 0Manure 100 0Meat 100 0Sales 67 33Slaughter for feasts and ceremonies 67 33Ritual slaughter 67 33

Goats (38% of households own goats)Goats (38% of households own goats)Goats (38% of households own goats)Goats (38% of households own goats)Goats (38% of households own goats)Savings 91 9Ritual slaughter 91 9Manure 82 18Meat 68 32Slaughter for feasts and ceremonies 41 59Sales 23 77Cashmere 0 100Mohair 0 100

91

Table 6.8: Livestock ownership and principal sources of livelihood in Mkemane

Main source of livelihood % of households with livestockSheep (%) Cattle (%) Goats (%)No Yes No Yes No Yes

Pension 81 19 69 31 63 37Piece jobs 100 0 85 15 77 23Remittances 100 0 54 46 77 23Kin dependency 100 0 100 0 100 0Herding livestock 100 0 100 0 100 0Herbalist 100 0 0 100 0 100Unemployment Insurance Fund 100 0 0 100 0 100Subsistence agriculture 60 40 20 80 40 60Dead husband�s pension 100 0 0 100 100 0Early pension 100 0 0 100 0 100Spaza 100 0 0 100 0 100Combination of natural resources & remittances 100 0 100 0 100 0Specific skill 100 0 0 100 0 100Local security guard 100 0 0 100 0 100Taxi owner 0 100 0 100 0 100

Table 6.10: Sheep ownership and principal sources of livelihood in Mkemane

Main source of livelihood % of households owning sheep by flock size Total1�5 16�20 21�25 26�30 46�50 >50

Pension 33 0 33 33 0 0 100Subsistence agriculture 0 50 0 0 0 50 100Taxi owner 0 0 0 0 100 0

Table 6.9: Cattle ownership and principal sources of livelihood in Mkemane

Main source of livelihood % of households owning cattle by herd size Total1�5 6�10 11�15 21�25 >25

Pension 60 40 0 0 0 100Piece jobs 100 0 0 0 0 100Remittances 50 17 17 17 0 100Herbalist 100 0 0 0 0 100Unemployment Insurance Fund 0 100 0 0 0 100Subsistence agriculture 25 0 50 0 25 100Dead husband�s pension 100 0 0 0 0 100Early pension 100 0 0 0 0 100Spaza 100 0 0 0 0 100Specific skill 100 0 0 0 0 100Local security guard 100 0 0 0 0 100Taxi owner 0 100 0 0 0 100



92



piece jobs have between one and fiveanimals. Various other categories fall intothis group with comparatively small hold-ings of cattle, including herbalists andhouseholds that mainly depend on spazashops or employment as security guards.Larger holdings of cattle are restricted tohouseholds who said that their main sourceof livelihood was ‘subsistence’ agricultureor remittances.

The ownership of sheep is much morenarrowly distributed, and apparentlyrestricted to households that are somewhatbetter off.

Goats, on the other hand, are morewidely distributed among Mkemanehouseholds (Table 6.11). Poorer house-holds, such as those whose main source oflivelihood is piece jobs, also own theselivestock. One third of this group have 16–20 goats. The one herbalist in the sample(out of a total of three in Mkemane) has alarger flock of goats than anyone elseinterviewed. Economically, it wouldappear that the goat is a more versatileanimal than the sheep in the livelihoods ofcommunities like Mkemane.

Livestock and well-beingWe can look further at the distribution oflivestock across the economic strata ofMkemane society by referring to the fourlevels of well-being3 into which peoplethere categorised themselves during par-ticipatory research exercises.

Table 6.12 shows that all the house-holds that people categorised in the ‘rich’and ‘upper middle’ groups own cattle,whereas the majority of those categorisedin the ‘lower middle’ and ‘poor’ groups donot. None of the ‘poor’ households ownssheep, but 14% of them have goats. All thehouseholds categorised as ‘rich’ havegoats, as do 80% of those in the ‘uppermiddle’ group. 4% of the ‘lower middle’and 19% of the ‘poor’ households have nolivestock whatever, which was taken tomean no cattle, sheep, goats, pigs or poultry.

In the categorisation of well-being,people considered households that werereceiving remittances regularly to be‘upper middle’, and those that did notreceive them regularly as ‘poor’. Theconclusion we draw from the data is thatpeople whose main source of livelihood isremittances or subsistence agriculture havemore livestock units than those who haveother sources of livelihood. People whodepend on activities like piece jobs, live-stock herding, support from kin and acombination of natural resources andremittances tend to have no cattle.

In Mkemane, people with ten cattle areperceived to be better off than people withfive cattle. As Hatch (1996) puts it, theactual number of cattle counts. However,this is not because of some abstract signifi-cance of numbers themselves. Morelivestock means more economic value.

Table 6.11: Goat ownership and principal sources of livelihood in Mkemane

Main source of livelihood % of households owning goats by flock size Total1�5 6�10 11�15 16�20 21�25 36�40

Pension 33 17 50 0 0 0 100Piece jobs 33 33 0 33 0 0 100Remittances 33 33 0 33 0 0 100Herbalist 0 0 0 0 0 100 100Unemployment Insurance Fund 0 0 0 0 100 0 100Subsistence agriculture 0 67 0 33 0 0 100Early pension 100 0 0 0 0 0 100Spaza 100 0 0 0 0 0 100Specific skill 100 0 0 0 0 0 100Local security guard 100 0 0 0 0 0 100Taxi owner 0 100 0 0 0 0 100

93

People with four to five cattle can ploughtheir fields without necessarily beinginvolved in work parties. Disposals ofcattle by this group are very rare. Thefewer the cattle, the less likely it is for thehousehold to dispose of them. As thenumber of cattle increases, more benefitsaccrue. People are able to sell or exchange.

Caring for livestockThe comparative prosperity that remit-tances may bring is now threatened by therate of retrenchments in the formal sector.More people must contemplate a totallyrural livelihood, and may be tempted toconvert their capital from the formal sectorinto livestock, which they believe mightsupport their livelihoods in the long run.Although this is true in some cases, dis-eases are a major problem. The supportthat government can provide throughlivestock health services is, therefore, animportant factor. Partly because of disease

risks, the viability of livestock productionas a livelihood alternative, and the corre-sponding commitment to sustainablenatural resource management, are cur-rently not assured.

Some households, although they ownlivestock, do not have the money to pro-vide feed for their animals in winter. Mostof these are categorised as ‘poor’ house-holds. Only 4.8% of them bought feed in1998, and no ‘poor’ household bought it in1999. As can be seen in Table 6.13, 50%of the ‘rich’ bought livestock feed in both1998 and 1999. Even for these better offhouseholds, the purchase of livestock feeddoes not seem to be a universal practice. InTable 6.13, levels of annual expenditurefrom R701 to R1 100 are not shown,because no household reported spendingan amount in this range.

Expenditure on animal health is simi-larly concentrated among the better off

Table 6.12: Livestock ownership and well-being categories in Mkemane

Levels of well-being Households with some livestock Households with Total(% of total) Cattle ownership Sheep ownership Goat ownership no livestock (%) (%)

No (%) Yes (%) No (%) Yes (%) No (%) Yes (%)�Rich� (3.4%) 0 100 50 50 0 100 0 100�Upper middle� 0 100 70 30 20 80 0 100(17.2%)�Lower middle� 64 36 92 8 64 36 4 100(43.1%)�Poor� (36.2%) 81 19 100 0 86 14 19 100

Table 6.13: Expenditure on livestock feed by well-being categories in Mkemane

Well- Amount spent on feed (R) TotalDid not 1�100 101�300 301�500 501�700 >1 100 Unknownbuy feed

�98�98�98�98�98 �99�99�99�99�99 �98�98�98�98�98 �99�99�99�99�99 �98�98�98�98�98 �99�99�99�99�99 �98�98�98�98�98 �99�99�99�99�99 �98�98�98�98�98 �99�99�99�99�99 �98�98�98�98�98 �99�99�99�99�99 �98�98�98�98�98 �99�99�99�99�99%%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%%

�Rich� 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 0 0 100

�Upper 60 50 10 0 10 20 10 20 10 10 0 0 0 0 100middle�

�Lower 88 92 4 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 100middle�

�Poor � 95 100 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100



levelsbeing

94



strata of Mkemane households. All thosehouseholds categorised as ‘rich’ indicatedthat they had bought vaccines, while 50%of the ‘upper middle’ and 4% of the ‘lowermiddle’ said that they had done so. Otherforms of livestock medicine can be ob-tained from natural resources in the area.50% of the ‘rich’ and ‘upper middle’, 24%of the ‘lower middle’ and 14% of the‘poor’ indicated that they had used naturalresources for animal health care. Clearly,the natural resource base is providing anecessary input for livestock productionthat poor people cannot otherwise afford.However, we do not have data as to thecomparative effectiveness of commerciallivestock medicines and those based onnatural resources.

Overall, the data suggest that livestockowners in Mkemane are not blind to thebenefits of supplementary feeding andanimal health measures. They do notpractise either as intensively as ‘commer-cial’ farmers. This is partly because theirlivestock economy does not generate themonetary turnover that would be needed toachieve the level of inputs that their neigh-bours on privately owned farms maintain.It is also because stock farmers in thecommunal areas were able to turn togovernment veterinary services for manydecades, but during the 1990s have foundthemselves largely deprived of thesefacilities. So far, few of them are in aposition to make alternative arrangements.

Livestock marketingAnother problem for livestock producersin places like Mkemane is the availabilityof market outlets. Many people struggle tosell their livestock for good returns. Inmany cases they have to sell for very lowprices, especially when they are pressedfor money. Not surprisingly, the ‘rich’ areearning more money from livestock sales.50% of those who sold animals did so tolocal people, while the rest sold their stockin neighbouring villages, to relatives or atstock sales.

Table 6.14 shows that in 1998, 50% ofthe ‘rich’, 20% of the ‘upper middle’ and4% of the ‘lower middle’ earned more than

R1 100 from livestock sales. Those in thetwo ‘middle’ groups did not earn thatmuch in 1999, but the same proportion ofthe ‘rich’ did so, as did 9.5% of the ‘poor’.However, the table shows that in bothyears, the large majority of all groupsexcept the ‘rich’ did not sell livestock atall.

ConclusionWe have presented these data from Malutidistrict and Mkemane village in order totest the common assumption of ‘privateunreason’ among communal area livestockowners in South Africa. Although this is alimited data set, it supports the contraryargument that livestock keeping is a highlyrational activity with a series of economicfunctions, as well as a number of culturalor social purposes. We will not enter hereinto the economic anthropology of theselatter purposes. Suffice it to say that theboundaries between economic and culturalor social rationales in African livelihoodsare less absolute than outsiders suppose,and that there are economic dimensions tomany of the cultural practices that involvelivestock in African societies.

However, it is also clear from the Malutiand Mkemane cases that livestock produc-tion in such areas faces a number ofobstacles. Some are long-standing. Othersare steadily becoming more severe:· The nutritional and health conditions

for livestock production are not ideal.Supplementary feeding and veterinarymeasures are needed to enhance theeconomic functions of livestock. Theformer is beyond the reach of mostowners. The latter used to be providedmainly by government, which has now– intentionally or by default – largelywithdrawn from such services.

· Like ‘commercial’ farmers, these com-munal area stock owners believe inrotational range management, ideallythrough a system of fenced camps ofthe kind imposed by the ‘betterment’programme of the apartheid administra-tion. Although they would certainly notwelcome the hostile social approach of

95

‘betterment’, these farmers would beglad to see a new government interven-tion along similar technical lines. Thereis little sign yet of government provid-ing one, or achieving any kind ofpractical action with regard to commu-nal areas range management.

· Stock theft, for generations a minorirritant in South African livestockproduction, is now a crisis for ‘commer-cial’ and ‘communal’ farmers alike.

· Partly because of the multiple functionsthat their livestock must perform in anenvironment of poverty, and partlybecause of a lack of infrastructure,communal area stock owners find itdifficult to engage profitably in market-ing, or in the purchase of feed and otherinputs. Market outlets and supply pointsare inadequate and often remote. Pro-duce prices are low. Input prices arehigh.

The evidence and arguments suggest anumber of conclusions for South Africanpolicy:· The former ‘homelands’ are not an

economic vacuum as far as livestockkeeping is concerned. On the contrary,they are the site of complex economicoperations in which stock owners makesophisticated economic and technicaljudgements about how to optimise theirbenefits across a series of functions.The single purpose enterprise of the‘commercial’ dairy or beef farmer issimple by comparison. Policy must

begin from the assumption that live-stock production in the former ‘home-lands’ is economically sophisticated andsignificant.

· Whatever the current trends towards theprivatisation of services in South Africansociety, policy must recognise that thestructure of the communal areas live-stock economy requires the provisionof adequate veterinary services by thestate.

· The extension of co-operative market-ing and input supply arrangements tocommunal area producers, which hasalready begun in some places, shouldbe stimulated.

· Government should intensify its exist-ing efforts to curtail stock theft.

· Government should engage seriouslywith the challenges of community-based natural resource management,within the framework of land tenurereform for the communal areas, so thatlivestock producers in the former‘homelands’ can achieve the technicalbenefits that they know effective rangemanagement can generate.

The differences between ‘commercial’livestock production on privately ownedfarms and the practices of stock owners inthe ‘communal’ areas are much less abso-lute than South African policy has as-sumed. ‘Private unreason’ is at least ashard to find among Maluti district stockfarmers as it is among their ‘commercial’colleagues. The profit motive is just as

Table 6.14: Livestock sales by well-being categories in Mkemane

Well- Amount received from livestock (R) TotalDid not 1�100 101�300 301�500 501�700 >1 100 Unknownsell livestock

�98�98�98�98�98 �99�99�99�99�99 �98�98�98�98�98 �99�99�99�99�99 �98�98�98�98�98 �99�99�99�99�99 �98�98�98�98�98 �99�99�99�99�99 �98�98�98�98�98 �99�99�99�99�99 �98�98�98�98�98 �99�99�99�99�99 �98�98�98�98�98 �99�99�99�99�99

%%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%% %%%%%

�Rich� 50 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 0 0 100�Upper 80 80 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 10 0 100middle��Lower 92 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 100middle��Poor� 95.2 90.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9.5 4.8 0 100



levelsbeing

96



strong; but it is calculated in a more com-plex manner across a wider set of eco-nomic functions. By intervening in theways recommended above, policy canunlock the full realisation of the profitpotential inherent in ‘communal’ arealivestock production.

Endnotes1. The authors thank Lungisile Ntsebeza

for his invaluable contribution to thedevelopment of this paper and for hisuseful comments. Thanks also go to MrGwababa of the Umtata VeterinaryOffice for livestock data; Mr Ndwayi ofthe Maluti Agricultural Office for infor-mation on animal health; Mr Ndaba, PatDlamini, Sis Mazoz and Sis Nosizwe ofEDA for organising all the meetings; MrChase of Stock Owners in Cedarville;Thembela Kepe for advice in the initialstages of this study and reference torelevant people; and last but not least toparticipants in discussions in Mkemane,Madlangala and Mvenyane villages.

2. Literally means to gaze in appreciation.Because cattle in the district are seldomkraaled, people have to consistentlycheck on the well-being of their cattlewhich graze in the mountains. Morethan that many cattle owners do this fortheir own self-fulfilment because cattlethat stay in the mountains are healthierthan those that come home every day,allowing cattle owners to aestheticallyappreciate their investment.

3. A wealth-ranking exercise was used toget the four levels of well-being in thestudy area. People gave indicators ofwhom they considered ‘rich’, ‘uppermiddle’, ‘lower middle’ and ‘poor’.

ReferencesAbel, NOJ. 1993. Reducing cattle numbers

on southern African communal range: isit worth it? In Range ecology at disequi-librium, edited by RH Behnke, IScoones & C Kerven. London: Over-seas Development Institute.

Barrett, JC. 1992. The economic role ofcattle in communal farming systems inZimbabwe. Pastoral DevelopmentNetwork Paper 32b. London: OverseasDevelopment Institute.

Cousins, B. 1997. Conditions of entry intothe red meat industry for black livestockproducers. Cape Town: Unpublishedreport, Programme for Land and Agrar-ian Studies, University of the WesternCape.

De Ridder, N & Wagenaar, KT. 1986.Energy and protein balances in tradi-tional livestock systems and ranching inEastern Botswana. Agricultural Sys-tems, 20:1.

Hatch, GP. 1996. Livestock and rurallivelihoods in KwaZulu-Natal, in Land,labour and livelihoods in rural SouthAfrica. Vol. 2: KwaZulu-Natal andNorthern Province edited by M Lipton,F Ellis & M Lipton. Johannesburg:Indicator Press.

Hardin, G. 1968. The tragedy of thecommons. Science, 162:1243–1248.

LAPC (Land and Agricultural PolicyCentre). 1995. Overview of the Transkeisub-region. Johannesburg: LAPC.

Muller, ND & Mpela, VN. 1987. Transkeilivestock census data – by magisterialdistrict (1910–1975). Statistical TimeSeries, 2. Umtata: Bureau for AfricanResearch and Documentation, Univer-sity of Transkei.

Ntshona, ZM. forthcoming. The contribu-tion of communal rangelands to ruralpeople’s livelihoods in the Malutidistrict. Cape Town: MPhil thesis,University of the Western Cape.

Schneider, HK. 1957. The subsistence roleof cattle among the Pakot of East Af-rica. American Anthropologist, 59:278–299.

Scoones, I. 1990. Livestock populationsand the household economy: A casestudy from southern Zimbabwe. Lon-don: PhD thesis, University of London.

97

Scoones, I. 1992. The economic value oflivestock in the communal areas ofsouthern Zimbabwe. AgriculturalSystems, 39:339–359.

Tapson, DR. 1990. A socio-economicanalysis of smallholder cattle producersin KwaZulu. Johannesburg: PhD thesis,

Vista University.

Vink, N & Van Zyl, J. 1991. Policy optionsfor livestock development in the com-munal grazing sector of southernAfrica. Paper presented at the annualcongress of the Grassland Society ofSouthern Africa.



98



Second, the high levels of economicinteraction between white, commercialfarmers and speculators on the one hand,and African cattle owners on the other aresuch that, certainly in ‘border’ districtssuch as Peddie, it makes little sense tospeak of a strictly dualist agriculturaleconomy. In fact, as will be argued below,it may be wholly counter-productive tocontinue to use the notion of a dualeconomy in describing particularly cattleproduction in areas like Peddie district,because of the ideological baggage thisdistinction carries.

Third, along with the high levels ofunemployment and impoverishmentexperienced by the majority of ruralhouseholds in districts like Peddie, it isclear that the ownership of cattle hasbecome more concentrated, i.e. broadlythe same number of cattle are increasinglyowned by fewer people, with implicationsfor the future operation of local mecha-nisms for wealth redistribution withincommunities. For this reason, the analysisin this chapter pays particular attention to

who currently owns cattle in the communalareas of Peddie district.

Given the financial and labour coststhat cattle ownership entails, it is also clearthat for the majority of households, suchownership now constitutes an unattainablesocial and economic goal. Instead, cattleownership and production have becomejust one of a broad and differentiated rangeof potential livelihood strategies thatconstitute the complex bricolage of liveli-hoods that people construct to survive. AsI argue below, however, what is of consid-erable significance to policy-makers andwould-be development agents, is that thecontinued presence of cattle does providethose who own cattle with a mechanism tomake a wide range of economically sig-nificant (redistributive) transfers within therural setting in particular. These transfersgo unnoticed and unrecorded by formalaccounting procedures and are difficult tocapture in ‘snapshot’ research surveys. Forthis reason, the importance and culturalrelevance of cattle ownership and produc-tion for both the urban to rural and the

Chapter 7:A review of cattle production inPeddie district

Andrew Ainslie

IntroductionThe current patterns of cattle production in Peddie district1 underline thethree major themes in this report: first, that African people in the EasternCape continue to make extensive use of cattle and cattle products. Thelogic they employ in this process cannot be understood only in terms ofan economic rationality, but rather as part of the risk-aversive livelihoodstrategies that rural people everywhere in Africa and elsewhere developand use to survive.

99

intra-rural redistribution of wealth is oftenundervalued.

The following case-study of Peddiedistrict begins with a brief overview of thebio-physical attributes of the district. Itthen moves on to give a demographic andsocio-economic profile of the district,before turning to consider cattle ownershipand production in some detail. The conclu-sion returns to the issues alluded to aboveand attempts to point out a way forwardfor the understanding of cattle productionsystems in the communal areas.

Bio-physical descriptionPeddie district is situated in the central partof the Eastern Cape province. During theperiod 1981–1994, the district formed partof the nominally ‘independent’ CiskeiBantustan territory. The district comprisesan area of 1 760km² (176 000ha) and liesbetween the Great Fish and Keiskammarivers.

Peddie district is regarded as semi-aridwith a summer rainfall regime. Rainfallincreases from west to east, with thecoastal parts of the district experiencingthe highest rainfall. The latter receive some650mm of rainfall per annum while thedrier interior receives around 500mm ofrain per annum. The Great Fish Rivervalley itself receives least rain of all: attimes less than 400mm per annum. (DeLange et al. 1994:5).

Rainfall variability in the district is highand greatly increases the inherent risks ofdryland crop farming. This variability inrainfall and the shortage of arable landhave contributed to the steady decrease inextensive arable production across thedistrict since the 1950s. Only in the vil-lages close to the coast, which experiencehigher and more reliable rainfall, dopeople continue to cultivate their arableland, usually to maize and vegetables.

Soils in Peddie district consist of avariety of sedimentary rocks dating backto the Karoo sequence. These soils gener-ally have very limited dryland croppingpotential, and they are shallow, highly

dispersive, erodible and exhibit a phospho-rus deficiency. A particular ecologicalconcern that has been raised over the pastdecades regarding Peddie district is that ofaccelerated soil erosion, which is consid-ered to have affected many parts of thedistrict, especially those areas undermodified communal tenure regimes(Loxton et al. 1979; Kakembo 1997).

Much of the endemic vegetation inPeddie district consists of two main veldtypes: both are variants of ValleyBushveld, namely Fish River Scrub and itsSouthern Variation, and the grasslandwhich is known as the False Thornveld ofthe Eastern Province. Acocks argued thatthe dense Fish River Scrub had beenthinned out through over-utilisation bydomestic and wild ungulates, leading to(some of) the landscape being invaded bycactus, euphorbia and unpalatable Karoovegetation (see Palmer & Avis 1994).Fabricius and Burger (1994:5) contend thata feature of the endemic vegetation is thatit is highly sensitive to grazing pressure bylivestock and wild ungulates and that it isvery slow to recover once a thresholdamount of woody vegetation has beenremoved through over-utilisation.

Overall, given the real constraints toagriculture described above, it is perhapsnot surprising that Peddie district has cometo be regarded best suited – and then only‘moderately’ so – to extensive livestockproduction from natural grazing (Steyn1988).

A demographic sketch of thedistrictIn terms of ‘urban’ settlements, Peddiedistrict consists of the town of Peddie, andthe hamlets of Wesley and Hamburg. Therural hinterland comprises 35 ‘locations’(consisting of some 66 villages) andaround 60 freehold farms. The total popu-lation of the district is estimated at around61 000 people (1996 Census).2

The town of Peddie, which comprises aresident population of about 10 000 people,has expanded to include the adjacent

Chapter 7: A review of cattle production in Peddie district

100



settlements and villages. Nonetheless, byfar the majority of the population of thedistrict resides in the rural areas, wheresome opportunities continue to exist foragricultural production. This does notmean that cattle ownership by residents ofPeddie town is negligible: on the contrary,large numbers of cattle utilise the grazingon the Peddie commonage and adjacentareas (see Higginbottom et al. 1995).

Given that a considerable proportion ofland in the district is under nominallyprivate forms of tenure (especially freeholdland which previously constituted ‘white’-held farms), with concomitant (artificially)low population densities on this land, therural, Xhosa-speaking population is heav-ily concentrated in what were historicallythe ‘reserve’ areas. In terms of landhold-ing, these areas are state-held and thesettlements have modified forms of com-munal tenure.

Since at least the late 1940s, Peddiedistrict has experienced high people-to-land ratios in its communal tenure areas(see Ainslie 1998:78–81). Accentuating theimpact of the large and growing (throughin-migration) numbers of residents was thefact that the ‘reserve’ areas were hemmedin by white-owned freehold farms, makingexpansion of the area available for settle-ment by the former impossible. The big-gest population increase occurred in theperiod 1951–1985 (the African populationof Peddie district nearly trebled in thisperiod), as apartheid planners and legisla-tors sought to confine African people inethnic enclaves.

In Peddie district, the forced removalsand resettlements that accompanied thecreation and consolidation of the CiskeiBantustan, forced thousands of families tore-establish their homes as best they couldin the already overcrowded and impover-ished ‘reserve’ areas (Mager 1992). Reset-tlement camps were established in Peddiedistrict at Glenmore, Kammaskraal,Zweledinga, Bell and Bingqala, wherethousands of people (4 500 people inGlenmore alone) endured years of hard-ship and uncertainty about their future

(SPP 1983). Many other families relocatedto existing villages, where the additionalovercrowding, land-hunger and generalimpoverishment contributed to consider-able social tensions (Manona 1980).

Recent research (Ainslie et al. 1997)indicates that Peddie district exhibits manyof the distinctive features of the ruralEastern Cape hinterland, viz. high indicesof economic out-migration, high absentee-ism of men (and women) of employableage, and the typical rural demographicprofile of fairly high numbers of elderlypeople matched only by even largernumbers of young and very young people.Lloyd and Levin (1995) show that Peddiedistrict has one of the lowest percentagesof resident adult males (aged 20 to 64years) in the Eastern Cape (note that thesefigures predate the 1996 census, but theoverall percentages are probably reliable)at 10.2% of the total rural population(almost certainly indicative of the dire lackof rural job opportunities) while children(0 to 19 years) constitute 63% of thepopulation.

Socio-economic conditions inPeddie districtAs early as 1905, Bundy (1988) argues,‘reserve’ areas in the district, despite thecontinued efforts by Africans to engage inarable cultivation and to farm livestock,had largely become reservoirs of labourwhich underpinned the development of theurban industrial economy of the country.Ironically, directly adjacent to these ‘re-serves’ resided prospering white farmerson freehold land, who would come toregard these farming areas of Peddiedistrict as ‘some of the best grazing land inthe country’.

For the rural African population, thesituation deteriorated steadily. The 1940swere a particularly difficult period for ruralpeople, especially given a devastatingdrought in 1945, which killed more thanhalf of the cattle and sheep and a third ofthe goats in the ‘reserve’ areas of theCiskei, including those in Peddie district(Mager 1999). Arable production was dealt

101

a serious blow by the scarcity (and weak-ness) of surviving oxen for ploughing andby the spread of erosion, which partlyresulted from desperate ploughing meas-ures. From the late 1940s, recurrentdroughts, increasing landlessness and awidespread lack of resources for invest-ment in agriculture ensured that the major-ity of rural people in Peddie district wouldnever again engage in arable productionon a scale beyond the cultivation of smallgardens (see Cinderby 1997; Ainslie1998).

As the apartheid policies of the Nation-alist government began to bite, politicaltensions in particularly ‘chequerboard’districts like Peddie were heightened.‘White’ farmers began to hear rumours thatthey would be directly affected by stateplans to ‘consolidate’ the boundaries of theCiskei and incidents of racial animositybegan to surface more regularly in thedistrict. What was not seriously under-mined, it seems, was the long-standingpractice whereby a number of local ‘white’farmer-speculators, fluent in isiXhosa,were able to scour the ‘reserve’ areas forcattle to purchase with a view to resellingthem after they had been fattened up (seeAinslie 1998; Beinart 1979). This is apractice that continues to this day (seebelow).

Socio-economic conditions during thedecades 1970–1990 were similarly harshfor rural people, with the national eco-nomic downturn affecting those employ-ment opportunities that were available tounskilled workers in the wider economy.Out-migration by those people who wereable to command some of the necessaryresources, to acquire formal training andskills and to set up homes in urban ‘town-ships’ was to have a further, negativeimpact on the economic situation in ruralvillages.

State support during this time wasvirtually non-existent, except for occa-sional public works and poverty reliefprogrammes, which often consisted ofnatural resource management programmes,including soil conservation projects. State

pensions were very low: in the mid-1980s,an old age pension in the Ciskei was R46per month (Steyn 1988). One importantconsequence of these developments wasthe entrenchment of socio-economicdifferentiation in the countryside. De Wet(1995:57) lists a number of possiblefactors that contributed to the markeddegree of differentiation:· differential access to pensions;· the regularity and extent of migrant

remittances;· differential access to arable land and

livestock;· the length of residence in an area; and· the extent of access to political and

bureaucratic power and patronage.Access to political patronage was to be-come a real factor in districts like Peddie:the growth of civil servant job opportuni-ties that accompanied the elaboration ofthe former Ciskei Bantustan administrationcreated opportunities for upward mobility– albeit for a relatively small number ofpeople – that were eagerly embraced,despite their political taint. With bureau-cratic office, further opportunities forenrichment opened up. Senior officials, forexample, were able to purchase freeholdfarms in districts like Peddie and Alice thathad been consolidated into the CiskeiBantustan. It is this group which forms thecore of the so-called ‘emerging’ Africancommercial farmers in the district, whohave access to sufficient land and grazingresources, and often to a non-farm income,either salary-based or from their otherbusiness interests, which they can invest intheir livestock production enterprises.

Current local employment opportunitiesin the formal sector remain limited to thecivil service-based jobs associated with thehealth care sector, the magistrate’s court,police service, the Department of Agricul-ture and the municipality in Peddie andHamburg towns. There is a growingnumber of businesses in Peddie town,including a hotel, liquor stores, generaldealers, furniture retailers, butcheries,petrol stations and hardware stores, whichemploy a growing number of people.


102



However, self-created (‘informal’) jobsremain central to the livelihoods of manypeople, particularly in the transport indus-try and in the provision for sale of foodand a wide range of other goods andservices.

In rural parts of the district, entrepre-neurial activities are hampered by, interalia, the poor condition of the rural roadand telecommunications networks and thecomplete absence of formal banking andcredit institutions. In the informal sector,women sell goods, run crèches, shebeens,spaza shops, do hair-dressing and enterinto service for wealthier households. Mensimilarly construct multiple livelihoods byundertaking the building and renovation ofrural dwellings, herding livestock, repair-ing kraals, collecting and selling firewoodand running taxi services. The overall cashcontribution of agriculture, both of live-stock and arable production, to theselivelihoods is low but does increase alongthe coastal area of the district. It is evidentthat the consumption of produce fromgarden cultivation and of animal productscontinues to offset domestic cash expendi-ture, something which is critical for manyhouseholds.

Overall, the predominantly ‘subsist-ence’ economy that has come to character-ise rural Peddie district has several implica-tions: possibly the most significant and far-reaching of these is that people in thedistrict have invested heavily in urbannetworks. There exist elaborate andlongstanding patterns of rural-urbanmigrations and interactions between ruralPeddie and specific urban centres in theEastern Cape. Patterns of circular migra-tion between town and rural area play acritical role in providing resources in cashand in kind for the relatively impoverishedrural economy. Maintaining ties withfamily in their rural villages provides thenecessary security for urban-based work-ers who wish to retain the option of retiringto the rural area in future (or of fallingback on this environment in case of re-trenchment).

Since 1994, rural prospects have im-proved somewhat, though not because of

any real increase in employment opportu-nities. Rather, it is the considerable cover-age, although not yet 100%, that has beenachieved in the provision of services,principally water, electricity and telephoneservices to most rural villages (albeit at anongoing cost), that has been most wel-comed by rural residents.

A significant improvement to house-hold incomes has been the steady, ifconsistently below inflation,3 increases inthe value of state transfers in the form ofold age pensions, disability grants andchild support grants. Not surprisingly, thishas seen a considerable shifting of theburden of securing livelihoods for themajority of rural households onto theelderly recipients of these pensions andgrants. Ainslie et al. (1997) found that fully67% of households in their sample of 379households in six villages in Peddie districtwere in receipt of at least one old agepension. To a lesser extent, migrant remit-tances are still significant for the poorestand for ‘younger’ households where nomembers are old enough to qualify for anold age pension. Rising unemploymentlevels in the urban sector have oftentranslated into increased return migrationof people (both men and women) to ruralvillages, especially where the delivery ofmuch-needed services has taken place andwhere rural household members havesecured access to state transfers. It is notentirely clear, however, to what extent theunemployed who are returning from urbancentres are doing so with significantresources to invest.

Certainly, most villages in Peddiedistrict now boast several conspicuouslylarge and expensive houses that have beenconstructed in the past decade years or so.These are generally owned by a youngergeneration of people in civil service or inpositions in corporate business who haveunequivocally sought to invest in a ruralpresence. It is often the case, however, thatthe work commitments of this potentiallyinfluential group of people generally meanthat they remain out of the village forextended periods.

103

Studying cattle ownership andproductionTo begin to understand the distribution ofcattle in the district, dipping records werecollected from all the dipping foremen inthe district. These veterinary section recordsindicate that in July 1998, there were 2 644cattle owners in the ‘reserve’ areas of Peddiedistrict. This means that the cattle-holdinghouseholds constitute some 26% of thetotal households in the district, with thelatter numbering around 10 200.

Using this dipping records data set as asampling frame, I then stratified the popu-lation in two ways: first, the whole districtwas divided into four zones. The fourzones correspond closely to those used bylocal government for planning purposes onthe basis of agro-ecological and socio-demographic factors. From these fourzones, four nodal settlements were selectedat random as broadly representative of thatzone (in some cases, dipping tanks were

the de facto unit of analysis selected,especially where a dipping tank was usedby livestock from more than one village).4

The second stratification of the sampleconsisted of dividing the owners on thecattle dipping registers into differentcategories according to the number ofcattle they owned. The four categoriesselected and the corresponding numbers ofowners are listed in Table 7.1.

Using these proportions of numbers ofcattle owned, cattle owners in the fourvillages were selected in such a way thatthe random selection of owners in eachvillage corresponded with the proportionslisted in Table 7.2. below. Where itemerged, however, during an interview thatthe actual numbers owned by the respond-ent differed from the figure noted in thedipping register, this was noted, but theinterview was not terminated. In all, 48interviews and their corresponding ques-tionnaires could be used.

Table 7.1: Numbers of owners in Peddie district by category of cattle owned

Categories of ownership No. of owners Percentage of total

Nil cattle* (893) 0.0

1�6 cattle 1412 53.4

7�12 cattle 691 26.1

13�20 cattle 323 12.2

21+ 218 8.2

Total (owners only) 2644 ~100

* A high percentage (25%) of the people who are listed on the register no longer have anycattle, although they had owned some in the past (up to ten years previously) and remain onthe register.

Table 7.2: Survey respondents by number of cattle they owned

No. of cattle No. of owners interviewed Percentage of total interviewed

1�6 23 48

7�12 14 29

13�20 6 12.5

21+ 5 10.4

TOTAL 48 ~100


104



Other research methods used in thestudy included observation at two of theregular stock sales that occurred in thedistrict during the course of the study: oneat the stock pens adjacent to Peddie townand the other at the pens close to Lover’sTwist (Mansfield). At both sales, buyerswere interviewed about their buyingpatterns and perceptions of local livestockproduction regimes. Furthermore, some ofthe records on stock sales for the period1972–1986 were available at the offices ofthe Department of Agriculture and thesewere consulted.

Other records consulted were those ofthe subsidy programme for sire bulls thatwere leased and sold to rural people overan extended period. Additional archivalresearch was conducted using the exten-sive archival material on Peddie districtthat is now housed in the Provincial Ar-chives Service in King William’s Town.The owners of two butcheries in the districtwere interviewed as was one commercialfarmer, who runs a successful Bonsmarastud in Peddie.

Problems with the methodsadoptedAccuracy of records of cattle numbersThe agricultural staff were not prepared torelease their records of the numbers ofcattle held by ‘emerging’ commercialfarmers on freehold land in Peddie district,even though these are up-to-date5 as aresult of the very recent TB testing pro-gramme which has been carried out in thedistrict. Of course, there is some merit intheir argument and concerns, as releasingthese figures would be tantamount to one’sbank manager releasing one’s bank bal-ance to a third party on request. For live-stock owners in the ‘reserve’ areas thesituation is different, since their numbersare officially recorded and are in the publicdomain. This is a situation that most (butnot all) livestock owners in the lattersituation have come to accept, at least onthe face of it, but that was not always thecase. Indeed, a few informants declined to

provide the numbers of the goats andsheep they own, as they were well awarethat these numbers are not the subject ofpublic records and they desired to keepthis information confidential.

A second issue concerning the cattlenumbers captured in dipping registers isthat the state of some the actual registersviewed (as opposed to the aggregatedfigures that are forwarded from the dippingtank to the Peddie office of the Departmentof Agriculture) are a cause for concern. Onthe one hand, it is clear that the differentindividuals involved, all of whom aresalaried employees of the Department,fulfil their tasks with different degrees ofaccuracy and care. On the other hand,everyday activities such as sales andpurchases, calving and deaths, not tomention the practices of farming out cattle(particularly by migrants) and of movingone’s cattle within the district (and thus toa different dipping tank) in times ofdrought, bedevil the retention of accuratefigures and allow considerable room for‘manoeuvre’ by cattle owners. This dy-namic situation requires that the dippingforemen engage continuously in what boththey and cattle owners may well regard assomewhat anti-social ‘detective work’ inorder to keep abreast of changes in localcattle ownership patterns and thus to keeptheir registers up-to-date.6

Furthermore, their position in the localorder is undermined when, as in recenttimes, the supply of dipping materials bythe Department, over which they have nocontrol, becomes erratic. This may result incattle owners resorting to dipping theirown cattle or simply not dipping at all.Quite apart from the implications forbroader management of tick-borne dis-eases, both of these developments willdetract from the immediate and futureaccuracy of the dipping registers kept bythe dipping foremen. In the final analysis,the best that can be done is to continue tosupervise the work of each of the dippingforemen in the district, but also to offeradvice and retraining where necessary inorder to ensure that their recording is of a

105

consistently high standard so as not torender the whole exercise futile.

Categories of people interviewedIn retrospect, it is regrettable that only theless than one-third of households whocurrently own cattle were interviewed. Theapproach adopted thus has the built-in biasof only dealing with the situations andopinions of cattle owners, while those ofpeople who do not own cattle are notreflected in the data. As a result, what isnot clear from this study is whether, forinstance, there will be significant numbersof newcomers to the ranks of cattle ownersin future.

In terms of the broader objectives ofthis study, it would have been very in-formative to interview a sample of house-holds who do not own cattle to find outtheir reasons for this. Not having inter-viewed any of these individuals or house-holds, it would be unreasonable to imputeany reasons they may have, but the ques-tion of what factors account for theirpresent state and what circumstances maypersuade them to again invest in cattle,remains one of considerable interest.

Representativeness of the survey sample48 questionnaires were used for the pur-poses of this analysis.7 This represents aminiscule 1.8% sample of the 2 644 cattleowners in Peddie district. The results of thesurvey are described and discussed below,and it is argued that the sample can betaken as broadly representative of cattleowners in the ‘reserve’ or modified com-munal areas of Peddie district.8 It shouldalso serve as a useful starting point for

more directed and in-depth studies aboutcattle ownership in the district.

Characterising cattle-owninghouseholds in Peddie districtThe first significant feature which emergesfrom the survey, is that the average age ofthe household heads9 in the survey is 61.4years. 46% of the household heads in thesurvey are 65 years and older (see Table7.3). In fact, for this category of 22 re-spondents (65 years and over), the averageage is 71.3 years.10 These figures shouldbe seen against the backdrop of a ruraldemographic situation where the category65 years old and over, for both men andwomen, constitutes some 8% of the ruralpopulation of Peddie district (Lloyd &Levin 1995:54,73).11

While the prevalence of cattle-owninghousehold heads who are particularlyadvanced in age (i.e. 80 years plus) issomewhat unexpected, it is not surprisingthat this group should be elderly in the firstinstance. This is after all an established andfamiliar trend in terms of the demographicpatterns known to characterise the ruralEastern Cape: it is typical for people in thisage group, who have generally ‘retired’earlier from urban-based employment, tohave returned permanently to a ruralvillage where they have, over a number ofyears, endeavoured to build up their herdsof cattle.

Where the household head is a woman,a similar pattern is prevalent, except thatshe is usually an elderly widow – some-times of long standing – who is in receipt

Table 7.3: Age distribution of household heads in the survey

Age of household head Number of households Percentage

Up to 40 years 7 15*

41�50 years 5 10*

51�64 years 12 25

65 years plus 22 46

Do not know 2 4

Total 48 100

* rounded off to the nearest percentage point


106



of a pension, or she is the eldest daughterin a household in which both parents aredeceased (see Table 7.4 below for thegender distribution of household heads).The advanced age profile of the householdheads does not mean, however, that thesecattle-owning households consist only ofelderly people. Equally, one should notinfer from this that cattle ownership is anartefact from an earlier period of moreactive agrarian production in Peddie. Onthe contrary, these are predominantlymulti-generational households, whichalmost invariably include a number ofyounger people.

The average household size for thesample is 6.6 people, although given thehigh indices of rural-urban mobility, not allof these people are necessarily resident inthe respective households at all times.12 Itis often these younger people (particularlyboys and young men) who are responsiblefor the actual herding duties, includingtaking the cattle for dipping, for kraalrepairs and other matters relating to cattleand small stock (including milking, whererelevant). Where such younger people are

absent, the herding work may be con-tracted out to a neighbour or young herds-man in the same locality. It is thus difficultto argue that husbandry skills are beinglost across the board, as the youngergeneration still performs much of the cattlehusbandry work.

Table 7.4 indicates that only ten cases(21% of the households in the sample)volunteered that they constitute a ‘femaleheaded household’. Six of these householdheads indicated that they had been wid-owed and had inherited cattle upon thedeath of their husbands. In all ten cases,the female heads indicated that they con-sulted their male (and sometimes female)adult children or other kin when makingdecisions about the management, includ-ing the sale, of these cattle. Some respond-ents claimed that cattle held by a widoware only nominally under her control: theyinsisted that she is simply ‘keeping’ themfor the eldest son of her deceased husband,who will inherit them upon her death.

With respect to gender, the ten female(21%) headed households, the heads ofwhich feature in each of the age groups in

Table 7.4: Gender distribution of household heads

Household heads by gender Number Percentage

Male headed households 38 79

Female headed households 10 21

Total 48 100

Table 7.5: The educational level of household heads in the sample

Level of education No. of household heads Percentage

No formal education 16 33

Sub A to Std. 1 8 17

Std.2 to Std.4 6 13

Std.5 to Std.8 8 17

Std.9 to Std.10 3 6

Tertiary 2 4

No response 5 10

Total 48 100

107

Table 7.3, currently hold a total of 68cattle, or an average of 6.8 cattle perhousehold. These households, irrespectiveof age, thus hold the lowest averagenumber of cattle, but this disguises the factthat four of these households have ten ormore cattle, proving once again thatgeneralisations about who owns cattle canoften be misleading.

33% of the household heads in thesample have never been to school (Table7.5 above). A further 30% have enjoyedless than seven years of formal education.Only two individuals (4% of the sample)have tertiary education and both of thesepeople hold teaching diplomas. This sorrystate of affairs is a serious indictment ofthe policies of the previous governmentand the legacy this has left, particularly inthe rural areas of the country.

This lack or rather limited amount offormal education, together with people’sexperiences under apartheid, tend tounderpin all manner of misunderstanding,suspicion and frustration in the mostlysporadic interactions that many of thehousehold heads have with ‘outsiders’,including government officials and ‘white’buyers at stock sales.13

The reality is that the experience ofmany rural cattle owners in dealing withofficialdom in the past has been predomi-nantly a negative one, as discussed inChapter 1 of this report. In this respect, thecattle owners of Peddie are no different.

Who owns cattle?Given that we might expect the more‘senior’ households to hold more cattle on

average, it is noticeable that no significantpositive correlation between the age of thehousehold head and the number of cattleper household was found for the wholesample. On average, the 46% of the totalsample that have heads of household over65 years of age, own 9.5 head of cattle,with only five households (10.4%) in thisgroup currently owning 13 or more headof cattle. This is, however, slightly morethan the average of 9.1 cattle per house-hold for the entire sample. For the other24 households (50%) for which data isavailable on the age of the householdhead, the average cattle holding is alsonearly 9.5 head. Six (12.5%) of thesehouseholds owned 13 or more head ofcattle. However, it is only once the cattleholdings are broken down further by ageof household head, as in Table 7.6, that wesee more clearly their distribution acrossthe different age groups in the sample.

As Table 7.6 indicates, it is, on average,the age group 41 to 52 years that has theleast cattle per household of all the agegroups in the sample.14

It is also this age category of householdhead that we would expect to be leastlikely to have disposable income to investin cattle: given the stage of the life cycle atwhich they find themselves, they do nothave access to pensions and there arelikely to be pressing expenses includingeducation, clothing of teenage children,and possibly the cost of caring for veryyoung grandchildren, which of necessitytake precedence over cattle ownership. Onthe other hand, the cost of these expenses

Table 7.6: Cattle holdings by age of household head

Age of household head No. of cattle Average no. of cattle per household

Up to 40 years 82 11.7

41�52 years 32 6.4

53�64 years 99 8.3

65 years plus 209 9.5 (7.7) 15

Do not know 14 7

Total 436 9.1


108



may in fact be offset primarily through thesale of cattle.

Intra-district differences certainly exist:when the average cattle holdings areplotted by village of residence it emergesthat the lowest average holdings in thesample are in Peddie Extension (6.2 headper household on average) while Qetovillage has the highest average (13 headper household). This is not unexpected, asthe practically urban nature of the formersettlement is least conducive to cattleholding, specifically with the shortage ofgrazing in the area and the loss of stock asa result of stock theft and road accidents.Also contributing to this low average is thefact that many of the residents of PeddieExtension have moved at least twicebefore settling there. Each move hasalmost inevitably resulted in some loss oflivestock.

Quite surprisingly, it is the sevenyoungest household heads who have,on average, the highest number of cattle(11.7 head). Why is this so? First, the smallsample again makes it dangerous to gener-alise, as these seven households hold thefollowing cattle:

Household 1: 2 headHousehold 2: 3 headHousehold 3: 6 headHousehold 4: 7 headHousehold 5: 7 headHousehold 6: 27 headHousehold 7: 30 head

It is obvious from the above that the lasttwo households own by far the most cattlein this category. Significantly, the heads ofboth households were absent at the time ofthe interview as both have formal employ-ment elsewhere.

Second, as Household 6 demonstrates,inheritance can largely explain why thisgroup own cattle: for Household 6, the eightadult children of the late household headhave inherited his 27 head of cattle, ninegoats and 12 sheep. Two of these childrenwork in industries in Port Elizabeth andanother two are teachers in Humansdorp.The livestock are nominally ‘owned’ bythe legitimate (but not eldest) son of the

late man, but this son must take majordecisions regarding the livestock only afterreaching consensus with his siblings.

Household 7, however, seems excep-tional: it consists of a 29-year-old man, hiswife and four dependents. He is in formalemployment. He owns 30 cattle and heclaims not to have inherited any of these. Itseems likely that he managed to build upthis considerable herd on a formerly white-owned farm, prior to moving to the villageof Lover’s Twist. Although he has soldcattle at stock sales in the past, he claims tohave no other investments or savings andis thus ‘still building up his herd’.

Another issue which is addressed in thesurvey is that of absentee herd ownership.Only two cases of absentee owners wererecorded: in the first case, the householdhead, who has six cattle and 15 sheep, isresident in the village and is heavilyengaged in arable farming activities, aswell as buying, rearing and selling chick-ens. He is responsible for his elder, urban-based brother’s ten head of cattle and fivesheep. In the second case, a man witheight head of his own also looks after theseven head of an absentee neighbour.There were cases of goats and sheep beingcared for on behalf of absentee owners,but in all instances the numbers of animalsinvolved are low. If these cases reflectwhat is happening generally in the district,then the ‘problem’ of absentee owners oflivestock can hardly be said to exist in the‘reserve’ areas of Peddie district. Thesituation on the freehold farm areas maybe different.

Securing livelihoodsAs has been borne out in earlier reports(Ainslie et al. 1997), state transfers by wayof old age pensions have become thelifeblood of rural people’s livelihoodstrategies (see Table 7.7 on the followingpage). 61% of the households in ourcurrent sample are in receipt of one ormore old age pension or disability grant.The second largest contribution in terms oflivelihoods is the informal sector, wheremembers of the households in the sample

109

are involved in running izirhoxo (villageshops), raising and selling chickens,selling firewood, hawking chicken pieces,running a herbal cure business and findingemployment in the taxi industry. Onlyseven (15%) of the heads of households inthe sample are in salaried employment, butgiven that 61% are receiving old agepensions, this is not surprising. While onlyfive households claimed to be in receipt ofremittances from members of their familyin urban centres, there are at least 17urban-based members of the households inthe sample who may be contributing to thelivelihood of the household in ways thatwere not specified during the interview.

An interesting fact to note is the numberof people who claim to sell livestock (i.e.cattle, goats, sheep and pigs): 88% of thehouseholds in the sample claim to do so aspart of their multiple livelihood strategy.This is very plausible given that peoplereadily sell chickens, pigs and small stock,such as sheep and goats. Actual sales ofcattle are somewhat more circumscribed(see below).

40% of the sample (19 households)indicated that they have no savings in abank or post office and rely on their cattle(and other stock) as their bank.

13% of the total (six households) arenot in receipt of an old age pension orformal wages and really do appear to ‘relyon their kraals’ for their livelihoods. Theycharacterised their strategy in the followingways:

Our cattle are our bank.I have exhausted my savings, I

depend on my kraal.I do not have savings in a bank, Isave in my kraal. Cattle are thesafest way to save money.

Sales of cattleOrganised stock sales for African-ownedcattle are not new in Peddie district:records kept by the Department of Agricul-ture show that sales have been held sinceat least 1972, while oral testimony sug-gests that regular sales were taking place inthe early 1950s. In 1972, sales wereconducted every two months, with 445animals offered for sale during that year.Of these, 105 animals were not sold,bringing the total that were sold to 340.Prices ranged considerably, for example,the highest price paid for an ox in Decem-ber 1972 was R220, and the lowest pricewas R56.

During 1999, a total of 12 stock saleswere organised at the two auction sites inPeddie district, namely in town and atLover’s Twist. These sales were conductedby Cape Eastern Stockowners, in co-operation with the Department of Agricul-ture. They were advertised well in ad-vance, professionally conducted andsupported by some six or seven ‘white’farmers and speculators and one Africanfarmer/butchery owner from Peddie.

Turning once again to the households inour sample, when asked whether they hadsold any cattle in the past five years, 26households (54% of the households)claimed to have sold one or more head ofcattle during this time (see Table 7.8

Table 7.7: Sources of household livelihood 16

Source of livelihood No. of households Percentage of households in sample

1 pension/grant 18 38

2 old age pensions 11 23

Salaried employment 7 15

Informal sector 12 25

Remittance 5 10

Livestock sales 42 88


110



below). A further ten households (21% ofthe total) indicated that they had sold cattlein the period prior to the past five years.

The response of the remaining 12(25%) households, when asked whetherthey had sold any cattle, was: ‘not yet, weare building our herds’. This may indicatea willingness to sell at some point in thefuture, as ten of these households haveseven or less head of cattle and may wellbe attempting to consolidate their holdingsfirst.

Moreover, five of the 12 households areeach in receipt of an old age pension andthe heads of two others have salariedemployment. They may thus not be in anydesperate need to sell the few animals theyhave. What is not clear, though, is thethreshold number of animals at which theywill feel secure enough to commenceselling. In a more likely scenario, they maybe forced by future economic circum-stances to begin to sell their cattle, quitepossibly before they deem their herds tohave been ‘built’, but, even then, in these‘distress sales’, they are likely to disposeof mature cattle, i.e. unproductive cowsand big oxen, first.

A minimum of 121 head of cattle weresold by the 26 households for which saleswere recorded in this five-year period (seeTable 7.8).17 Sixty-two of these cattle camefrom of what amounted to a ‘dispersal sale’upon the death of a widowed head ofhousehold (his eldest surviving offspringi.e. the new head of household, was a 36-year-old woman, who is employed as ateacher and is firmly of the opinion that‘people are selling all their cattle’).

While 19% of the total sample claim tosell at both formal stock sales and toneighbours or others in the village, asignificant number of the other householdsin the sample have strong views on wherethey sell their cattle (or where they wouldsell them in future) and why. Ten house-holds (21%) either have negative experi-ences of their own to relate concerning thesale of animals at stock sales, or havenever been there because, they argue, ofthe negative impression they have of thesesales:

I don’t sell there anymore: theycharged me R80 when I last soldthere and I had to pay people to drivemy cattle to the stokvel in Peddie … Irecently sold a young cow [to myneighbour] and got R1 500 for it; atthe stokvel, I would have got R980 forthe same size animal.A stokvel hits me very painfully –they don’t pay [there].I don’t want to [sell at the stokvel].They manipulate prices there.

What remains largely unstated here is thatmany people only sell cattle when theyexperience financial difficulty. In thesesituations, they are under pressure toliquidate a bovine asset quickly and thus ina weak position vis-à-vis the bidders inhaggling over the price. At stock sales,many would-be sellers reject the priceoffered and choose to return home with theanimal unsold. The difference in pricesought and price offered can be surpris-ingly large, indicating a lack of experiencein selling animals, or alternatively, that theseller is ‘not hungry’ and will return withthe animal at another time or sell it locally.

Table 7.8: Place and number of cattle sold in the past five years

Place of sale No. (and %) of households No. of cattle sold

Village/neighbourhood 7 (15) 8+

Stock sales 8 (17) 19+

Village and stock sales 9 (19) 92+

To �white� speculators 2 (4) 2

TTTTTota lo ta lo ta lo ta lo ta l 26 (54) 121+

111

The fact that many of these people live upto 20 kilometres away from the two sites ofregular stock sales in Peddie, i.e. Peddietown and Lover’s Twist, means that theyhave incurred considerable effort and oftencost in driving their cattle to the stock saleon foot in the first place, only to be disap-pointed by the prices offered. If they aredesperate to sell and thus sell at these lowprices, the experience is likely to put themoff following this route in future.18

As the comments indicate, there is alsodissatisfaction with – and possibly misun-derstanding about – the ‘deductions’ madeby the auctioneers for their commission(which amounts to 7% of the sale price).People expressed their displeasure thateven the – for them low – price realised inthe auction ring, is not the sum that theseller finally pockets after the sale. Somerespondents have a political/racial angle onstock sale prices:

The prices at the stokvel are control-led by white people.

Certainly, there are some people who sellat stock sales more regularly and who havea more nuanced grasp of this process.They are all too aware of their disadvan-taged position vis-à-vis the buyers19 interms of their limited information on thecurrent state of the market and their lack ofan alternative public market, but they areusually in more regular attendance at thesale, and thus more in tune with currentlocal prices, and thus ultimately moreconfident about accepting or rejecting anoffer for a particular animal:

I did sell there, but the price was notgood because the animals were notin good condition.At the stokvel, the condition of thebeast affects the price.The prices at the stokvel depend onthe market.

Eleven households declared that theypreferred not to sell to local people in theirvillage or neighbourhood:

I don’t sell to local people unlessthey are genuine buyers.I do sell locally, but if I can’t get the

price I want, then I take it to thestokvel.

Both of these statements suggest that agreater degree of perhaps subtle hagglingis likely to occur over the price of animalsoffered for sale in the village. This situa-tion may arise from the more personalnature of the sale, particularly if the buyerand seller are known to each other andperhaps have a prior and ongoing socialrelationship. This may allow the buyer toapply moral pressure on the seller to begenerous both with the price and the termsof payment. Given that the seller probablywishes to meet some pressing need forcash through this sale, this scenario isunlikely to appeal to him/her.

Sales to butchers, abattoirs andspeculatorsNone of the respondents listed their mak-ing any sales to butchers in Peddie district,but an interview with a butcher in Peddiebrought to light that, on average, thisbutcher ‘reluctantly’ purchases one liveanimal per month out of hand from privateindividuals in Peddie. The animal is thentransported, with its health status un-known, to the abattoir in East London atsome cost to the butcher. If the animal iscondemned for whatever reason (forexample, internal parasites), then thebutcher receives no compensation andwould not be able to recover the moneythat was paid to the seller. Not surprisingly,buying graded carcases directly from theabattoir is a more economically prudentoption.

There is a total of seven smallbutcheries around the district, three ofwhich are situated in Peddie town. Someopen for business only sporadically.Several are owned by ‘commercial’ farm-ers holding freehold land in the district,who slaughter their animals at the abattoirin East London and then sell the meat intheir own butcheries.

At least five ‘white’ buyers operateindependently in Peddie district on aregular basis, buying and exchangingcattle directly with rural people. Three of


112



these people farm in nearby Bathurst andAlbany districts, and are also regularbuyers at the stock sales in Peddie. It is notknown what number of animals are in-volved in the activities of these buyers, butit is possibly as high as 80 animals/buyerper month.20

Multiple use benefits fromcattleWith respect to income to households fromother cattle products, there is not a singleinstance of sales of (dressed) beef per seby the households in the sample. Manypeople were emphatic that cattle are neverslaughtered simply to eat meat, insteadpeople preferred to slaughter sheep for thispurpose. Outside of consumption for ritualslaughter, cattle are only consumed if theydie of old age or disease.

Four households listed occasional salesof sour milk or milk locally. The sumsinvolved in milk sales, although not quan-tified in the survey, are likely to be small.On a ‘subsistence’ level, 75% of the house-holds in the survey indicated that they milktheir cows whenever possible.21 No re-spondents in the present survey could,however, provide quantitative estimates ofwhat this milk yield might be and, whenpressed, many indicated that they in facthad no cows ‘in milch’ at that time.

In terms of other domestic uses ofcattle, only four households (8% of thetotal) indicated that they make use of theircattle for draught purposes, specifically forploughing. Two households listed the localsale of manure as a source of income fromtheir cattle. A few respondents indicatedthat if they could interest someone inbuying manure, they would definitely sellit. For several other respondents, especiallythose from Tyefu Location, kraal manure isregarded as ‘belonging to the ancestors’and is expressly not used to fertilise theirgardens or fields.

23 households (48% of the total) listedthe sale of hides as a further source ofincome. Many respondents indicated thatthe trader who ‘used to buy hides’ has notbeen seen in the district for a long time and

that they have not been able to dispose ofthe hides they have accumulated. Oneelderly male respondent volunteered thathe made and sometimes sold leatherthongs locally.

Purchases of cattleWhile not much information was collectedon the purchase of cattle by people in thesample, it was established that the majorityof households rely on the natural increaseof their existing animals in order to buildtheir herds. They may only be tempted topurchase an animal if their existing herddoes not include a fertile cow or if theywish to hold a ritual and do not have therequisite animal in their existing herd.22

What did emerge is that a small proportion(4%) of the total animals they own, havebeen acquired through lobola(bridewealth) exchanges. Only five house-holds (10% of the sample) indicated thatthey have acquired cattle in this way.

More substantial were the numbers ofcattle acquired through inheritance: at least87 cattle (20% of the total number of cattleowned by those in the sample)23 wereinherited by 21% of the households. Theproportion of inherited cattle is skewed byone case of inheritance described above, inwhich 53 head of cattle were inherited(and then duly sold off by the children ofthe deceased man).

Local purchases in the village or localarea do occur, but the majority of pur-chases are made from neighbouring‘white’ and Xhosa-speaking (freehold)farmers. Steyn (1988), who conducted hisresearch in two Peddie villages (Nyanisoand Lujiko), found that especially therebuilding of post-drought herds wasbased almost entirely on purchases from‘white’ farmers. Some of these farmersboth sell cattle outright to people in Peddieand also exchange young cattle (oftenheifers) with Peddie people. These ex-changes, where the farmer provides two‘tollies’ in exchange for a full-grown ox,are a practice of longstanding in the area(see Ainslie 1998). One of the Africancommercial farmers in Peddie indicated

113

that he has ‘a queue of local people want-ing to buy cows, both heifers and maturecows’. The latter are for ‘culling’, i.e. ritualslaughter, and it is not uncommon to seeseveral trucks traversing the district on aThursday or Friday afternoon with a beastloaded on the back that has been pur-chased so that it can be ritually slaughteredin a village that weekend.

A further means of acquiring animalshas been through the various governmentschemes aimed at the introduction of‘improved sires’ into the ‘reserve’ areas.Documents in the Department of Agricul-ture in Peddie show that in one example ofthis programme (in 1992), people inPeddie were able to hire ‘improved’ bullsfrom the Ciskei Department of Agricultureand Forestry. Several cattle owners tookadvantage of this offer and many of thesewent on to buy ‘subsidised sires’ at re-duced cost. A Nkone bull was quoted ascosting between R1 000 and R1 100 at thetime. Bonsmaras, bred on the CiskeiNational Ranch in Peddie South, wereleased and sold most frequently. It wouldbe very instructive to get access to anydocumented evaluations that may havebeen conducted on these subsidy schemes.This is especially so in the light of thereported desire of the MEC of Agricultureand Land Affairs to destroy all bulls incommunal areas that do not meet thequality standards set by his department.The owners would be compensated andrural communities would be supplied withquality sires at government expense.24

Herd managementHerd management has several dimensions,and only two areas are of interest to ushere:· Who does the actual work of herding

the cattle?· What costs are people incurring in

keeping cattle?

Who does the work?Responses to the first question are cap-tured in Table 7.9 below. The question ofwho does the actual work of herding cattleis a function of the composition andstructure of the household in question andthus whose labour the household com-mands. The household head of the cattle-owning households herds or participates inthe herding of his or her cattle in 54% ofthe households in the sample.

Hired help comprises only eight casesor 17% of the households. With 61% of allthe households in the sample in receipt ofold age pensions and unemployment athigh levels, there are both retired elderlymen and (otherwise unemployed) youngmen in cattle-holding families who cantake on the responsibility of herding theircattle.

Women and girls participate in herdingas well, although their role is probablyunderstated in the responses given byinformants, except where the head of thehousehold is a migrant. In these instances,it is often clear that his wife and daughtersplay an active role. For the elderly men inthe sample, the major consideration is theirphysical frailty, which limits the amount ofherding work they can actually do. As they

Table 7.9: Herding of cattle

Who herds? No. of households Percentage

Self 21 44

Self and children 5 10

Son and other kin 13 27

Hired help 8 17

No data 1 2

TTTTTota lo ta lo ta lo ta lo ta l 4848484848 100


114



receive pensions, they are not particularlyconcerned about the opportunity costsassociated with herding. But for youngermen, there is an opportunity cost in beingengaged in herding duties: the time spentherding could be spent more profitably byseeking a job and (possibly) earning a cashincome.

The costs of keeping cattleIn terms of what it costs to keep cattle inrural Peddie, it appears that the mostexpensive element is that of kraal mainte-nance, which is usually undertaken once ayear, sometimes more frequently if a ritualis to be held in the kraal. Even so, only 19households (40% of households) indicatedthat they pay cash for someone to do thistask. The remaining 60% of households dothe work themselves at no cost. For thosewho pay, this involves paying for the:· chopping of amahlahla (saplings and

sticks) in the forest;· transportation of these materials by

tractor or truck; and· labour involved in the repair/rebuilding

of the kraal itself.Where payment is made for kraal mainte-nance, the payment varies from R20(which seems to be a one-off tokenamount paid to small boys or a familymember for their assistance) to R650 perannum. The average sum paid for by the19 households for kraal maintenance isR272 per annum, which seems low, buttaken as nearly R23 per month, it is anotable household expense.

The second major cost is made for thepurchase of medicines and dip for cattle.There is a travel cost component here too,as people usually have to travel to KingWilliam’s Town or East London to buystock remedies, although they wouldordinarily combine such trips with otherconsumptive activities (e.g. grocery shop-ping). In some villages, when the govern-ment dipping programme has lapsed onoccasion, cattle-owners have pooled theirresources (usually R5 per household),bought dip and dipped their own animals.Cattle owners in other villages stated thatthey do not incur any costs for dipping and

stock medicines, preferring to rely on thegovernment dipping programme andassistance given by the veterinary sectionin the Department of Agriculture in Peddietown.

Six households indicated that they payherdsmen to care for their cattle. The costsof hired herders varied between R50 andR200 per month, depending on what thisherding involved: some owners do notkraal their cattle on a daily basis, allowingthem to stay out for three days or more.The herdsman is only required to walkthrough the grazing area periodicallyduring this time to check that all the cattleare still there and not in any distress. Suchcattle are often only kraaled for the nightbefore a dipping day. Other owners requiretheir cattle to be kraaled every evening andto be herded more closely during the day.The herdsman is also required to take thecattle to the dip and ensure that they aredipped properly, and is responsible formonitoring their health more generally.

So what are the average costs incurredby cattle-keeping households in Peddie? Intotal, 41 households25 in the sample of 48households provided reliable data on thesubject of total costs incurred. Of these 41,11 households (i.e. 27%) indicated thatthey have no costs in respect of keepingcattle. These 11 households hold 100 headof cattle, at an average of just over ninehead each, indicating that it is not simply acase of people who own only two or threeanimals incurring minimal cost in theirmaintenance. For the remaining 30 house-holds, costs range from R5 per annum(these are people who have never incurredany costs in relation to their cattle in thepast, but who have recently paid a smallsum towards dipping costs) to R2 560 perannum. The total outlay incurred by these30 households in maintaining the 258 headof cattle they own is R13 850 per annum,or an average of R54 per animal perannum. When the cattle of the other 11households, which incur no cost in keep-ing their cattle, are included, then theoverall average cost of keeping cattle inPeddie drops to R39 per animal per an-

115

num, which amounts to just over R3 peranimal per month (based on data from ourreduced sample of 41 households).

What this average cost per animal perannum does not elucidate is the highlyvariable costs incurred per household.These costs range widely between differenthouseholds, partly because of the differentnumbers of cattle they hold, but alsobecause of their particular circumstances,for example:

Household A is headed by a widow,Mrs M, and holds 13 cattle. Mrs M re-ceives an old age pension and remittancesfrom her children. With no one in herhousehold available to herd the cattle, shepays a herdsman R200 per month tomanage the cattle. The herdsman alsomaintains the kraal. Mrs M estimates thatshe spends R160 per annum on medicinesand dipping material. Her annual cost tomaintain her herd is thus R2 560, or someR213 monthly. Her average cost peranimal is R197 per annum (or more thanR16 per animal per month).

Household B is headed by an 84-year-old man, Mr Q. He and his wife bothreceive old age pensions. Like Mrs M, heholds 13 cattle (he also has six sheep). MrQ and his son do all the herding of theircattle. He pays R300 per annum for kraalmaintenance and a further R40 per annumfor stock medicines and inoculations. Histotal annual outlay is thus R340, or justover R28 per month. His average cost peranimal is a mere R26 per annum (just overR2 per animal per month), which is lessthan one-seventh of the cost that Mrs Mincurs.

What emerges from this simple exampleis that cattle-owning households in Peddieincur highly variable costs in maintainingtheir cattle. Clearly, some householdscontinue to invest a large percentage oftheir cash resources in the maintenance ofa herd of cattle. One important implicationis that, because of their considerable cashinvestment, rather than their investment interms of the absolute number of cattleheld, these people might be expected to bemore sensitive to any changes initiated

from outside, in the way cattle are main-tained or controlled (for example, changesin the government dipping programme, orincreased grazing pressure in their area).

As mentioned above, people spend anot inconsiderable sum of money on kraalmaintenance. The saplings, sticks andtwigs used (mostly acacia karoo), do notlast long and kraals need regular attention.Payment for kraal repair may well be anongoing, ‘legitimate’ way of distributingwealth – and of dissipating the possiblearousal of jealousies because of visiblewealth discrepancies – in the villages, as itis often unemployed men who are hired toundertake this work.26 A major cost is,however, the hire of a tractor and trailer orbakkie to transport the amahlahla from theforest to the homestead, often with theadded pressure that a ritual is to be per-formed in the kraal in due course. This is atask that cannot easily be undertaken byunemployed men who, virtually by defini-tion, do not own tractors or bakkies.

Animal health issuesVeterinary services are provided in Peddieby staff of the Department of Agriculture,who work under considerable pressure:they are understaffed in critical areas and,for the most part, underfunded.27 For muchof the past five years, a single State Veteri-narian has been responsible for animalhealth in six districts of the former Ciskei.With this workload, he relies heavily on his‘second-in-command’ in each of thesedistricts to ensure that policies and pro-grammes of the department are imple-mented, with mixed results.

Some of the veterinary staff have strongviews on the dipping of cattle. They feelthat the provision of dipping material bythe government is a legacy of the past andthat there is little or no justification forcontinuing to provide this service now.Their main concern, however, is about theimmediate problems caused by the ‘on-again off-again’ nature of the dippingprogramme, as well as the overall lack ofclarity about the longer-term future of thedipping programme, given the budgetary


116



constraints that the provincial Departmentof Agriculture and Land Affairs faces. Thislack of clarity undermines their relation-ship with cattle owners, who look to themfor information and direction on this issue.

There is also an argument made aboutthe equity of providing dip free of charge:such provision is said to benefit those withlarge herds, including some freeholdAfrican farmers who apparently make useof the village dipping facilities. Since itcurrently costs around R1.20 per month todip one animal, the larger, wealthier herdowners with 30 plus cattle are beingsubsidised to the tune of R36 per month.The many households with only two orthree animals are only receiving a subsidyof between R2.40 and R3.60 per month. Itis argued that some other, more equitableway must be devised for ‘cutting the cake.’

Again, irregular attendance at dippingdays is said to be linked to the free provi-sion of dip: where cattle owners do nothave to pay for dip, they are not particu-larly concerned about attending everydipping day. Conversely, if the samepeople were paying for the service, theywould make more effort to dip their cattleregularly. This begs questions aboutwhether owners would be prepared to (orare able to) pay for regular dipping, theextent to which dipping can be regarded asa necessity for cattle in the ‘reserve’ areasand other questions concerning the appar-ently negative effects of regular dipping,such as increasing the resistance of ticks todipping chemicals.28

Clearly, aspects of the way the dippingprogramme functions are a source offrustration for all the role-players. Never-theless, a rigorously managed dippingregime remains critical in places likePeddie district that have a particularly highexposure to ticks and tick-borne diseases.The department is coming around to theunderstanding that a freely provideddipping programme is unlikely to befiscally sustainable in the longer-term.Instead, the department needs to set aboutdevising ways and means of ensuring theongoing management of the state-owned

dipping infrastructure. One suggestion isthat this infrastructure could be handedover to self-organised groups or collectivesof cattle owners, who will undertakedipping programmes on behalf of theirmembers. If this is the emerging trend,then new strategies for estimating cattlenumbers, that have historically taken placeat the dip-tank, will also have to be de-vised and tested.

ConclusionsWhat this chapter has shown is that thestudy of cattle ownership cannot be re-stricted only to the technical aspects ofanimal husbandry. Patterns of cattle owner-ship in areas like Peddie district appear tohave a great deal to do with the currentsocio-economic situation in the district andlocal people’s assessments of economicopportunities that are available to them.Changes in the overall economic situationwill inevitably result in them modifyingtheir livelihood decisions.

Furthermore, the data presented in thischapter show just how risky it is to usebroad brush strokes to characterise cattle-holding households in Peddie district oranywhere else, as there is considerablevariability on the ground. This variabilitystems from a number of factors, whichinclude economic factors, specifically pastemployment experience and people’sassessment of future prospects for a reli-able income (including by way of employ-ment and pensions) and the current invest-ment portfolios and strategies of ruralhouseholds. All of this impacts on theextent to which these households are ableto accumulate or conversely, may beforced to liquidate bovine assets (i.e.cattle) to meet emergency expenses.

Socio-structural factors have also beenshown to be significant, particularly thestage of a household in the domestic cycle,the number and nature of rituals that thishousehold has to, or feels inclined to,conduct and the number of dependents toconsider (including the care and educationof grandchildren).

117

Other factors include local perspectiveson the continued importance and relevanceof owning cattle to the well-being ofXhosa families and in particular, to thestatus of Xhosa men in a rural context.Numerous other factors, including theseasonal and inter-annual availability ofgrazing, as well as questions over access tograzing land, the local incidence of stocktheft, the loss of cattle through road acci-dents, the quality and reliability of veteri-nary care provided by the state, the acces-sibility of, and prices paid at, stock sales,all impinge on people’s livelihood strate-gies and decisions around cattle holding.

The changing rural economy that ischaracteristic of much of Peddie district –and indeed of the former Ciskei ‘reserve’areas – is bound to impact on people’sviews of cattle ownership in future. Inwhat appears to be an increasing tendency,cattle owners in Peddie derive minimalutility benefits from their cattle: very fewpeople still plough with cattle and the day-to-day consumption of other cattle prod-ucts, such as milk, also appears to bedeclining.29

What we might expect in future inplaces like Peddie, therefore, is not adecline in the overall attractiveness ofcattle ownership to rural people – althoughfurther concentration of ownership appearsto be a likely scenario – but a greatercommodification of cattle, in the sense thattheir importance in terms of their monetaryvalue as fungible assets is likely to in-crease relative to their utility values. In thisway, off-take of cattle may remain erratic,i.e. linked to distress sales, but may beexpected to show an upward tendencyover time. This means that the ‘through-put’ of cattle may increase, while theoverall numbers of cattle remain reason-ably constant, implying that either herdproductivity will increase (which appearsunlikely at this stage) or cattle owners willbe purchasing more cattle from neighbour-ing ‘white’ farmers and selling them morefrequently or at younger ages.

Possibly the greatest uncertainty forcattle owners at this time is the future of

the government’s dipping programme andveterinary support, key areas of concern inrespect of prospects for improved animalhealth. The direction that these pro-grammes are to take in future, needs to beclearly and unambiguously articulated as amatter of urgency, so that cattle ownerscan begin to organise themselves, indi-vidually and collectively, for dealing withthe fall-out from this that is likely to affectthem.

As this case-study has demonstrated,one key aspect of cattle husbandry inPeddie district is the significant role playedby ‘white’ farmers and speculators in thecommunal areas: they are both a signifi-cant source of young animals and practi-cally the only reliable market for the saleof mature animals. This throws into ques-tion the existence of a hard dualism inagricultural production in this and other‘border’ districts. Rather, the reality is thathigh levels of integration exist between theenterprises of ‘white, commercial’ farmersand speculators on the one hand andXhosa-speaking, ‘subsistence’ farmers onthe other.

There is nothing inherently ‘backward-looking’ about continuing to own cattle incommunal areas of Peddie district. Rather,rural people here continue to strategise, toimplement their current livelihoods and toplan for their future security in ways thatdo two things:· promise maximum material benefits –

given the limited options open to them;and

· resonate with cultural values that arestill deemed to be important.

Understanding the interplay of thesestrategies in a dynamic social and eco-nomic environment remains a challengefor analysts and policy-makers in thelivestock and rural development sectors.

Endnotes1. As of November 2000, ‘Peddie district’

no longer officially exists. It has beenre-demarcated (together with 42 vil-lages of the former Zwelitsha district)and renamed ‘Ngqushwa municipality’.


118



A similar fate has befallen the other‘district’ case-studies in this report, buthopefully such changes spell progress,not just change!

2. But see previous footnote.3. I am grateful to Ben Cousins for point-

ing this out to me.4. These four villages/dipping tanks are,

with the number of questionnairesurveys administered in brackets:Mgecwa tank (10), Lover’s Twist (12),Peddie Extension – including Peddietown and German village – (13) andQeto (13).

5. There are said to be between 10 000and 15 000 cattle on these freeholdfarming areas of Peddie district (per-sonal communication, Dr. Nick Fischer,State Veterinarian, Peddie, 28/05/1999).There are some 24 000 cattle in thecommunal areas of the district.

6. The comment of one informant, Mr F,during an interview illustrates the point:‘You have taken from the governmentrecords that say I have nine head [ofcattle]. I show you records that say Ihave forty-seven. Both records comefrom the same government. Clearlywork is not being done [properly] inour dips.’

7. No inferential statistical analysis hasbeen conducted with these data.

8. The ‘emerging’ commercial cattleowners, of which there are about ten to13 in the district, and who are farmingwith far larger numbers of cattle onleased or privately owned freeholdland, did not form part of the surveysample.

9. The notion of household head is notunproblematic, given: (1) the localcontext of extensive rural-urban interac-tions, which can bifurcate the house-hold and affect the way decisions aremade within such households, and (2)households nominally headed bywidows, in which a male kinsman (thehusband’s brother or eldest son) mayplay a central role in decision-making.

10. Remarkably, nine of the respondents(19% of total households) are 80 years

or older.11. This source uses data that predates that

of the 1996 Census. The latter was notavailable to the author in this sort ofdetail.

12. Ainslie (1998:153) found that theaverage de facto household size inGwabeni village (Peddie district) was3.4 resident people. When all the bonafide members of the household wereincluded (i.e. including absentee house-hold members), this average rose to10.1 people.

13. Obviously, formal education and‘worldliness’ or ‘savvy’ are not thesame thing, as the vast literature on‘peasant’ resistance to dominationattests.

14. Interestingly, the average holding forthe combined age category 41 to 64years, is also 7.7 head of cattle.

15. This average is skewed by one house-hold that owns 47 head of cattle, by farthe most in the sample. Excluding thishousehold brings the average for thiscategory down to 7.7 head per house-hold.

16. The percentages do not add up to100%, as most respondents gave morethan one response with respect to theirsources of livelihood.

17. This is definitely an undercount of thesales, as several people were not pre-pared to volunteer the exact number ofcattle they had sold, even though, givenmore time, this information might begleaned from their stock cards. Afurther complication is that people canenter ‘slaughtered for ritual’ or ‘died’when, in fact, they may have sold thebeast out of hand.

18. Included in this effort is the securing ofa written statement and stamp of thelocal ‘headman’ (nowadays, usually thechairperson of the local residents’association), verifying that the animalsto be offered for sale are in fact theproperty of the seller.

19. There is indeed evidence of somecollusion (buying ‘rings’) amongstbuyers with relation to the prices paid

119

for the animals on offer at these stocksales.

20. An informed estimate of the annual off-take of cattle from the communal areasof Peddie district is between 26% and35%. This is made up of formal stocksales (8%), informal sales of cattle invillages (7%), sales to speculators, whobuy in villages (12.5%) and homeconsumption of sick animals (1.5%),i.e. 29% (or about 6 960 cattle perannum, although this will fluctuate fromyear to year) out of a total of 24 000cattle per annum. I would argue thatthis level of off-take is not exceptionalfor what I call ‘border’ districts in theprovince.

21. This is much higher than Steyn’s figuresof 49% and 32% for ‘cattle owners’ inNyaniso and Lujiko respectively in themid-1980s, but the impact of the severedrought in 1983–4 would have to befactored in here.

22. For rituals connected with funerals,people will slaughter an ox for a de-ceased man and a cow for a deceasedwomen. In both instances, the size ofthe animal (and sometimes its colour) isan important consideration: the animalshould not be ‘too small’ since there areoften many people to be fed.

23. A total of ten households indicated thatthey had inherited cattle, but two house-holds did not indicate the number ofcattle they had inherited.

24. Personal communication, WMzozoyana, based on attendance at theNERPO AGM, Port Elizabeth 13–15October 1999.

25. Information elicited from seven house-holds on the actual costs (in rands) ofkeeping cattle was either vague orambiguous and could not be used.These households own a total of 78cattle.

26. The same may be said of herding, tosome extent, except that householdsappear to resort to hiring herdsmen onlywhen their domestic situation demandsit: payment for herding work can beeither a token R50 per month to a

kinsman or R200 per month for anothervillager’s labour.

27. The bulk of the available budget stillcomprises salaries and wages: at least100 ‘watermen’ in the districts ofPeddie, Alice and Seymour are paidbetween R400 and R500 per month toensure that water is available at dippingtimes. These positions are a legacy ofthe Ciskei Bantustan and the greatmajority of these posts are superfluous.

28. Transkei Veterinary Services AnnualReport 1986/87 notes that young ani-mals have the ability to develop resist-ance against ticks and tick-borne dis-eases. A light tick infestation is consid-ered to be beneficial and allows for thedevelopment of natural resistance.Young animals, it is therefore sug-gested, should not be dipped until theage of six to eight months unless theyhave heavy infestations. For the samereason, dipping intervals should beincreased gradually, where possible,with the long-term strategy of produc-ing tick-resistant animals. This suggeststhat serious questions need to be askedabout the efficacy and desirability of ablanket, ‘one-size-fits-all’ government-organised (as opposed to funded)dipping programme.

29. This is quite unlike other parts of theprovince, for example, Lusikisiki wherethe overall utility of cattle remains high.


sources in a rural settlement in Peddiedistrict. M.Soc.Sc thesis. Grahamstown:Rhodes University.

Ainslie, A, Cinderby, S, Petse, T, Ntshona,Z & Bradley, PN. 1997. Rural liveli-hoods and local level natural resourcemanagement in Peddie district. Unpub-lished report. Grahamstown: Institute ofSocial and Economic Research, RhodesUniversity.

Beinart, W. 1979. Joyin’ Inkomo: Cattleadvances and the origins of migrancyfrom Pondoland. Journal of SouthernAfrican Studies. 5 (2):199–219.


120



Bundy, C. 1988. The rise and fall of theSouth African peasantry. London:Heinemann.

De Lange, A, van Averbeke, W, Sonandi,A, Letsoetsa, TE, Witbooi, W & Mei, P.1994. Mid-Fish River zonal study: Adescription and analysis of the soilsand climate and the agricultural landuse systems. Agricultural and RuralDevelopment Research Institute: Uni-versity of Fort Hare.

De Wet, CJ. 1995. Land tenure, economicdifferentiation and social interaction ina Ciskei settlement. Journal of Contem-porary African Studies 13(1):57–74.

Fabricius, C & Burger, M. 1994. Therelation between land management andbiodiversity – comparing commercialand communal livestock farming tonature conservation in the mid-FishRiver Valley. Unpublished report. PortElizabeth: Cape Nature Conservation.

Higginbottom, K with Nstebeza, L,Kedama, W & Bank, L. 1995. The fateof the commons: Urban land refrorm,squatting and environmental manage-ment in the Eastern Cape Province.Development Studies Working PaperNo.65. Grahamstown: Institute of Socialand Economic Research, Rhodes Uni-versity.

Kakembo, V. 1997. A reconstruction of thehistory of land degradation in relationto land use change and land tenure inPeddie district, former Ciskei. M.ScThesis. Grahamstown: Rhodes Univer-sity.

Lloyd, HR & Levin, M. 1996. A popula-tion analysis of the Eastern CapeProvince. Research Report No.64.Employment Research Unit, VistaUniversity.

Loxton, RF, Venn & Associates. 1979.Lower Fish River Irrigation Project.Vol. 2. Ciskei: Loxton, Venn and Associ-ates Ltd.

Mager, A. 1992. The people get fenced:Gender, rehabilitation and Africannationalism in the Ciskei and Borderregion, 1945–1955. Journal of South-ern African Studies. 18(4):761–782.

Mager, A. 1999. Gender and the making ofa South African Bantustan,1945–1959.Cape Town: David Philip.

Manona, CW. 1980. Ethnic relations in theCiskei, in Ciskei: A Bantu Homelandedited by N Charton. London: CroomHelm.

Palmer, AR & Avis, AM. 1994. The mid-Fish zonal study: Description, mappingand evaluation of recent changes in thecontemporary vegetation patterns.Report for the Land and AgriculturePolicy Centre. Johannesburg: LAPC.

Statistics South Africa. 1998. 1996 Na-tional Census Data. Pretoria: SSA.

Steyn, GJ. 1988. A farming systems studyof two rural areas in the Peddie districtof Ciskei. D.Sc thesis. Department ofAgriculture. Alice: University of FortHare.

Surplus People Project (SPP). 1983. Forcedremovals in South Africa. The SPPReports, Vol. 2: The Eastern Cape.Cape Town: Surplus People Project.

121

As Ainslie points out in the Introduction tothis report, this dominant discourse of ‘lowoff-take coupled to overstocking andovergrazing leading in turn to a wastefuluse of resources’, has been, at least fromthe perspective of those outside this sys-tem, self-fulfilling. This sector of the ruraleconomy, i.e. cattle production in commu-nal areas, has long been seen as inherently‘irrational’ and ‘inefficient’ and, as a result,state support, at least as seen by politiciansand bureaucrats, was not warranted, exceptto curb the perceived excesses ofovergrazing, land degradation and thespread of animal disease (Chapter 2). Ingeneral, the state has historically sought tocontrol and administer the people and thecattle in these ‘reserve’ areas at minimumcost to itself. The result has all too oftenbeen a bleak legacy of inadequate levels ofinvestment in infrastructure, education,agricultural extension and marketingsupport in this sector.1

Given this scenario, ownership of cattlein the former Bantustans has proven to beremarkably resilient over the decades,although there has been a steady concen-tration of ownership of cattle. Numerous

other challenges, not least that of humanovercrowding and the subsequent pressureon grazing resources, institutional conflictand problems like stock theft, as describedby Ntshona and Turner (Chapter 6) havealso increased the stakes in this sector.Nevertheless, the overall numbers of cattlein these areas have been fairly constant forthe past five decades, except for the peri-odic, drought-induced decreases in animalnumbers.2 As all the case-studies in thisreport show, and given the considerableinvestment in cattle (an estimated1.7 million for both the former Transkeiand Ciskei in 1998), it is clear that cattleremain an attractive proposition for manyrural people. Not only this, but as Kepe’sand Ntshona and Turner’s chapters demon-strate, cattle are still firmly embedded insocial and economic relationships betweenmany, if not most, people in the ruralsector. Furthermore, communal forms oftenure, under which this production systemoperates, are highly unlikely to be abol-ished or even radically modified in theforeseeable future. This means that theoverarching system of practices thataccompany this tenure regime, for exam-

Chapter 8:Conclusions

Andrew Ainslie

IntroductionOne theme of this report has been to account for, and address, theserious lack of detailed data concerning patterns of ownership and formsof management of cattle in the areas under communal tenure in the formerBantustans of the Eastern Cape, i.e. the former Transkei and Ciskei (seeTapson 1993:52). In the absence of such data, several poorlysubstantiated assertions concerning cattle production and holdings, andthe impact of this production on grazing resources in these areas, havebeen allowed to prevail for a number of decades.

122



ple that of common property grazingmanagement, are set to remain in placeand will have to be recognised, understoodand accommodated by policies and inter-ventions in this sector.

Understanding patterns of cattleproduction and ownershipThe poverty of understanding andconceptualisation of the political econo-mies of the former Bantustans in theEastern Cape stems partly from the factthat broad, ideologically loaded and oftenimplicitly unilinear analyses of the pasthave ignored or downplayed the inherent‘messiness’ of the reserve areas (seeAinslie 1998). More recently, it has be-come more acceptable, and indeed morerealistic, to acknowledge that, at leastsocio-economically, the former Bantustansare complicated places, which are concep-tually ‘messy’ and thus consistently defyattempts at pigeon-holing into neat devel-opment concepts and categories, especiallyof the sort that are proffered by agriculturaleconomists and other development special-ists. One example here would elucidatethis point: the notion that a small group offull-time, ‘committed’ commercial farmersexists ‘out there’ that might be identifiedand plucked out of this system, is one thathas spawned a number of previous studies,launched multi-million rand irrigationschemes and ‘farmer-support schemes’,and still tantalises some analysts andpolicy-makers. However, given the politi-cal and economic realities that exist, theestablishment of a ‘yeoman class’ of anydepth remains an illusion.

Undoubtedly, both ecological andsocio-economic conditions in the formerCiskei and Transkei show a high degree ofgeographical variability. Significant varia-tion exists at the levels of access to infra-structure, local employment opportunitiesincluding ‘off-farm’ economic opportuni-ties, access to markets and information.Even within those areas that may beregarded as broadly homogeneous,marked levels of socio-economic differen-tiation exist between households. Thesevariables do indeed complicate efforts at

broadly conceptualising what is ‘going on’in the former reserves, but do not make thetask any less urgent.

If part of the project of understandingcattle production includes building amodel of expected cattle numbers, then thepoints discussed below may be useful inflagging the issues for developing a frame-work to analyse this sector. This may inturn provide some predictive power withrespect to the actual and future numbers ofcattle held and how this might be affectedby other developments (see Cousins1997).

1) Spatial variation is important, as isvariation in agro-ecological zones: wherelow rainfall or poor soils render arablecultivation insignificant, the use of cattlefor draught power is likely to be negligi-ble. Also, the existing agro-ecologicalconditions may render certain areas of theprovince more suitable to sheep and goatproduction than to cattle and this willaffect the numbers of cattle that localpeople hold.3 In this vein, Cousins (1997)speculates that sales of livestock for cashmay be more important for drier areas withpoor cropping potential.

Moreover, spatial variation in respect ofinfrastructure can be equally significant:some ‘reserve’ areas within the formerBantustans have historically had relativelygood access to dipping facilities, roadnetworks and markets, and are at leastpartially integrated into the commercialbeef production system. Accessibility isobviously a major consideration here.Road and telecommunication networksvary considerably across the province andwithin districts. It is clearly difficult tomarket cattle and livestock products in themany parts of the province where the roadand transport (including rail) network is ina bad condition.

2) The macro-economic profile of thearea: districts that have historically beenregarded as economic backwaters (oftenthose in ‘deep rural’ areas) or as hotbeds ofpolitical activism (such as Xhalanga) arealso more likely to suffer from officialneglect, resulting in an inadequate provi-sion and maintenance of infrastructure,

123

such as dipping tanks, as well as a legacyof negative sentiment from the Departmentof Agriculture that make cattle productionmore difficult, time-consuming and thusless profitable. Other districts were fa-voured during the Bantustan era and‘enjoyed’ the attentions of agriculturalcorporations and development agencies.This often meant large and essentiallyunsustainable investments in infrastructurethat have left an ambiguous legacy, espe-cially in the wake of the collapse andsubsequent liquidation of the agriculturaldevelopment corporations.

However, even providing the best roadand communication networks and otherphysical infrastructure in the world isunlikely to bring forth an endless stream ofcattle and cattle products from the formerTranskei and Ciskei rural areas (see Tapson1982). This is because, as the chapters inthis report have clearly demonstrated,other macro- and micro-economic andsocial factors impinge on people’s abilityor willingness to own and particularly, tomarket their animals.

One of these factors is how the employ-ment profile of the area or district, which isoften a function of its relative proximity tourban centres in the province, such asUmtata, East London-Mdantsane, KingWilliam’s Town-Bisho-Zwelitsha,Queenstown or Kokstad, impacts on localpatterns of labour migrancy and thus thenature of livelihood options available torural people. Some districts such asGatyana (‘Willowvale’) are apparently stilldeeply engaged in the more ‘traditional’practices of long-distance migrant labour,coupled with agrarian pursuits (both arableand livestock production) in the ruralsector (see McAllister 1999). This impliesthat cattle ownership in these areas maystill be attractive both for utility purposes,such as ploughing, manuring and milking,and as a component of longer-term retire-ment plans, i.e. as a ‘store of wealth’.

Residents in districts such as Zwelitsha,Alice and Umtata have become moreclosely associated, in terms of economicopportunities and livelihoods, with the

former Bantustan administrative bureauc-racies in Bisho and Umtata. These proxi-mal employment opportunities underpinthe more localised patterns of rural-urbanmobility that people here are involved in(see De Wet & Whisson (eds) 1997). Thesepeople probably have a wider suite ofeconomic options with respect to invest-ments in both rural and urban spheres fromwhich to choose, including livestock, ruralbusinesses, and so on, but also financialsector options, such as bank savingsaccounts and investment ‘policies’ (unittrusts, shares, life insurance, pensions,burial policies, etc.).

The macro-economic effects of therecent rise in the value and coverage of oldage pensions and disability grants, issomething that needs to be factored in here(see Sagner 2000). As regular and reliableinjections of cash into the rural economy,pensions now appear to constitute a criticalcomponent of the rural economy and tounderpin the livelihoods of an increasinglyhigh number of households in most dis-tricts around the province. This is alarminggiven that the real value of pensions hasdeclined since 1994.

3) In terms of micro-economic factors,whether a household has access to, or islikely to get access to secure employmentor (as is more likely) a pension in theforeseeable future, will impact on expendi-ture and investment decisions made bymembers of the household. The skills baseand formal educational qualifications ofthe members of the household are furtherfactors that are likely to impact on oppor-tunities for employment and thus onupward mobility. This, in turn will influ-ence the regularity with which the house-hold may be forced to liquidate whateverbovine assets it possesses to meet emer-gency expenses.

4) With respect to socio-structuralfactors, the structure and composition ofrural households, the stage that a particularhousehold is at in the domestic cycle andhence the number of wage earners anddependents to consider (including the careand education of children and/or grand-

Chapter 8: Conclusions

124



children), all affect the labour available tothe household for herding and managingcattle (McAllister 1992). These factors alsoaffect the disposable income and thus theinvestment strategies that the householdmay adopt (see Ainslie 1998; Kepe’schapter in this report).

5) ‘Cultural values’, which are by nomeans static, continue to shape people’sinvestment decisions. These may includelocal (even household) perspectives on thecontinued importance and relevance ofcattle ownership to Xhosa people. Localopinions on the necessity of actuallyowning or simply being able to accesscattle for the purposes of ritual slaughterwill affect people’s decisions regardingcattle ownership. Attitudes towards thepayment of bridewealth in live animals asopposed to the more widespread use ofproxy cattle, i.e. cash, may be significantin shaping trends in the ownership anddisposal of cattle in particular districts.

Patterns of inheritance and the notionsthat inform them also impact on cattleownership and management, particularlywhen cultural discourses that influence therole of women in cattle ownership are alsotaken into account. The alleged lack ofinterest of ‘the youth’ in cattle ownershipwas mentioned by rural informants inLusikisiki, Xhalanga and Peddie districts,and by Department of Agriculture staff inUmtata and Bisho. Ntsebeza notes, forinstance, that ‘cattle are no longer the solemeasure of wealth’ in rural areas ofXhalanga. This apparent lack of interestamong the younger generation, and newsocial priorities, suggest that attitudes andvalues towards cattle may be changing insignificant ways that may best be under-stood through longitudinal study.

Priorities for the futureIt is now commonplace to assert that thepoor – and the majority of the people wholive in the former Bantustans continue tofall into this category – of necessity con-struct their livelihoods from multiplesources in order to spread the real risks ofimpoverishment and hunger. It is equally

so that this notion, i.e. of rural peopleengaging in multiple livelihoods, runscounter to the modernist ideas that stilldominate development thinking in thiscountry, as government and developmentagencies seek the holy grail that will‘unlock agricultural production in thecommunal areas’ and ‘transform subsist-ence producers into commercial farmers’.4

If, however, development broadlyconstrued, is about increasing both thecapacity and the options of poor people toenable them to make strategic investmentsin their own futures, then it is relativelyclear how government and other agentswith developmental pretensions, shouldproceed, at least in terms of cattle owner-ship and production in these formerBantustan areas.

The first step would be to officiallyrecognise that cattle ownership for manyXhosa-speaking people in the EasternCape remains a culturally resonant, eco-nomically rational and socially acceptableoption for strategies of production andaccumulation. This being the case, the roleof the state in this sector should be tosafeguard and enhance these investmentswith targeted interventions that expresslyincrease both the productivity (for exam-ple, in weaning percentages) and theoverall rand value of the herds in the‘reserve’ areas. A critical starting point inthis regard is that of improving the actualimplementation of animal health pro-grammes, specifically the dipping pro-gramme, which are already provided bythe state. This will translate into betteroverall prices for those animals that theowners choose to sell in the marketplace.Moreover, by increasing the capacity ofcattle owners to deal with stock disease,such as contagious abortion and measlesinfestations, through educational pro-grammes and improved access to veteri-nary medicines, the same goal would berealised. Overall, the emphasis should beon providing the services and know-howfor doing the basics of animal husbandrymore effectively, rather than more news-worthy – but far less effective – interven-

125

tions such as bull leasing schemes. Clearly,issues like stock theft should also enjoypriority attention, to prevent any generalspread of lawlessness, includingvigilantism.

For their part, progressive analysts andresearchers need to conduct studies thatcharacterise and highlight all the subtleties,complexities and, indeed, fragilities ofrural life and people’s livelihoods. Thisengagement is critical to check the inclina-tion of policy-makers to fall back ontechnicist solutions for what are essentiallycomplicated social and economic chal-lenges (see Kepe 2001). Moreover, morenuanced, historically informed perspec-tives can stress the critical importance ofactor-directed change, as opposed to aperception that any modifications or‘improvements’ necessarily come fromoutside interventions and expert prescrip-tions that can be imposed on this sector,once processes of ‘consultation’ have beenfollowed.

More specifically, future researchshould address the incomplete picture thatexists of the overall distribution of cattleacross rural households in the province. Atpresent, we are still forced to rely onextrapolations from case-studies of smallareas. Research into herd productivity insitu, including reproductive rates, birth andweaning rates, for different areas of theprovince, is needed. It is still not possibleto say anything definitive about the actualproductivity of individual herds in commu-nal areas, because the longitudinal data donot exist, except in the somewhat tenuousform of ‘stock cards’ that remain difficultto access. The average age and composi-tion of individual herds, which has a directinfluence on productivity, is also largelyunknown.

On a more practical note, it is stronglyadvocated that agrarian research under-taken in Eastern Cape rural areas in futureshould, as far as possible, consciouslyextrapolate the level of the (post-1999local government demarcations) munici-pality, so that data from a variety ofsources can be integrated meaningfully at

a common unit of aggregation, enabling usto establish and then build iteratively onmacro-data sets for each municipality ofthe province. This will also allow for muchgreater depth and continuity in our under-standing of processes of social and agrar-ian change across the province.

Endnotes1. This paragraph admittedly simplifies a

far more complex reality: in bothBantustans, sizeable monetary invest-ments were made (particularly in thelate 1970s and 1980s) in cattle produc-tion programmes, but much of theseinvestments appear to have had limitedimpact due to mismanagement andbecause of opposition to the explicitlypolitical nature of the apartheid ‘sepa-rate development’ policy and thedepoliticising nature of these pro-grammes.

2. Some districts, such as Maluti andLusikisiki, have experienced steadyincreases in cattle numbers since the1940s.

3. A detailed exploration of therationale(s) people have for keeping(and switching between) various combi-nations of cattle, goats and sheep wasbeyond the scope of this study, but it issomething which should enjoy attentionfrom researchers in future.

4. It is astounding how many aspects ofthese debates were passionately en-gaged in by analysts working in neigh-bouring states such as Zimbabwe,Botswana and Lesotho in the mid-1980s to early 1990s and how thearguments made in this report resonateso strongly with many of the ones laidout in those cases.



Beinart, W & Bundy, C. 1987. Hiddenstruggles in rural South Africa. Politicsand popular movements in the Transkei

Chapter 8: Conclusions

126



and Eastern Cape 1890–1930. London:James Currey; Johannesburg: RavanPress.

Bembridge, TJ. 1984. A systems approachstudy of agricultural developmentproblems in Transkei. UnpublishedPh.D thesis. Stellenbosch: University ofStellenbosch.

Bishop, EJB. 1984. Calf mortality in aCiskeian beef herd, in Fort Hare Papers7(6):419–425.

Bishop, EJB, Miles, G & Brown, DL.1984. A study of second-calver calvingpercentages in a beef herd, in Fort HarePapers 7(6):377–382.

Cousins, B. 1997. Conditions of entry intothe red meat industry for black live-stock producers. Draft report for Re-search Project on ‘Restructuring Agri-culture in South Africa’. University ofNatal.

De Wet, C J. 1995. Land tenure, economicdifferentiation and social interaction ina Ciskei settlement. Journal of Contem-porary African Studies 13(1):57–74.

De Wet, CJ & Whisson, M (eds). 1997.From reserve to region. Apartheid andsocial change in the Keiskammahoekdistrict of (former) Ciskei: 1950–1990.Occasional Paper No.35. Institute ofSocial and Economic Research, RhodesUniversity.

Jury, MR & Levey, K. 1993. The EasternCape drought. Water SA 19(2):133–137.

Kepe, T. 2001. Waking up from the dream:The pitfalls of ‘fast-track’ developmenton the Wild Coast of South Africa.Research Report No.8. Programme forLand and Agrarian Studies, Universityof the Western Cape.

McAllister, PA. 1992. Rural production,land use and development planning inTranskei: A critique of the Transkei

Agricultural Development Study. Jour-nal of Contemporary African Studies,11(2):200–222.

McAllister, PA. 1997. Ritual and socialpractice in the Transkei. In Cultureand the commonplace edited byP McAllister pp.279–309.

Sagner, A. 2000. Ageing and social policyin South Africa: Historical perspectiveswith particular reference to the EasternCape. Journal of Southern AfricanStudies 26(3):523–553.

Scoones, I. 1995. New directions in pasto-ral development in Africa, in Livingwith uncertainty: New directions inpastoral development in Africa editedby I Scoones. London: InternationalInstitute for Environment and Develop-ment.

Stampa, SHE & Bishop, EJ. 1975. Thereproductive rate of cattle owned byblacks in a Ciskei area. Fort HarePapers 6(2):157–161.


Tapson, DR. 1993. Models of land useactivities: Case study of livestock in theEastern Cape. World Bank Rural Re-structuring Programme for South Africa.LAPC Research Paper 8a. Johannes-burg: Land and Agriculture PolicyCentre.

Tyson, PD. 1990. Modelling climaticchange in southern Africa: a review ofavailable methods. South AfricanJournal of Science 86:318–330.

Vogel, C. 1994. (Mis)management ofdroughts in South Africa: Past, presentand future. South African Journal ofScience 90:4–6.