Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Livestock & Meat Advisory Council
2019 Annual Report
Including Allied Associations
2019 Annual Report of the Livestock and Meat Advisory Council and Allied
Associations
Celebrating 25 years of service to the livestock sector
1994 – 2019
ii
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................ iv
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. vi
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. vii
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1
Livestock & Meat Advisory Council ............................................................................................... 2
Membership ........................................................................................................................................... 3
Finances.................................................................................................................................................. 3
Activities ................................................................................................................................................. 3
Stockfeed Manufacturers Association ........................................................................................ 13
Zimbabwe Association of Abattoirs ............................................................................................ 47
Livestock Identification Trust ..................................................................................................... 54
Zimbabwe Herd Book ................................................................................................................. 54
2019 Registrations ............................................................................................................................... 54
National Breed Sale 2019 ..................................................................................................................... 55
Beef School 2019 .................................................................................................................................. 57
Annual General Meeting ...................................................................................................................... 59
Goat Breeders Association of Zimbabwe ............................................................................................. 59
Zimbabwe Poultry Association ................................................................................................... 61
Production News .................................................................................................................................. 61
Poultry Indaba 2019 ............................................................................................................................. 78
Pig Producers Association of Zimbabwe ..................................................................................... 79
Symposium 2019 .................................................................................................................................. 83
Meat Processors Association of Zimbabwe ................................................................................. 85
Zimbabwe Association of Dairy Farmers ..................................................................................... 88
Zimbabwe Fish Producers Association ........................................................................................ 90
Fish Farming Indaba ............................................................................................................................. 93
iii
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 94
Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 95
Feed and Veterinary Supply Security for Zimbabwe's Livestock Sector. .............................................. 95
Review of Cotton Meal Supply Situation 2019 ................................................................................... 100
Impact of Agricultural Marketing Authority, Rural District Councils, National Biotechnology Authority
and Environmental Management Agency on Livestock Sector Ease of Doing Business .................... 104
iv
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations AAZ ActionAid Zimbabwe
AGRITEX Department of Agricultural, Technical and Extension Services
AI Avian Influenza
AMA Agricultural Marketing Authority
ASF African Swine Fever
CAP Command Agriculture Programme
CP Crude Protein
DoC Day-old Chick
DRP Dairy Revitalisation Programme
DVS Department of Veterinary Services
EoDB Ease of Doing Business
EMA Environmental Management Agency
ESAP Economic Structural Adjustment Programme
FFRI Fertilisers, Farm Feeds and Remedies Institute
FMD Foot and Mouth Disease
GBAZ Goat Breeders Association of Zimbabwe
GMB Grain Marketing Board
GMO Genetically Modified Organism
IPVC Inclusive Poultry Value Chain
IQF Individually Quick Frozen
Kg Kilogramme
KMPA Kurima Mari Poultry App
LIT Livestock Identification Trust
LMAC Livestock and Meat Advisory Council
MDM Mechanically Deboned Meat
MoAMID Ministry of Agriculture, Mechanisation and Irrigation Development
MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development
MoLAWCRR Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Water, Climate and Rural Resettlement
MoLGURD Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development
mt metric tonne
NAMC National Agricultural Marketing Council
NBA National Biotechnology Authority
OPC Office of the President and Cabinet
PPAZ Pig Producers’ Association of Zimbabwe
PBAs Poultry Business Associations
RDC Rural District Council
RRI Rapid Results Initiative
RTGS Real Time Gross Settlement
SADC Southern Africa Development Community
SI Statutory Instrument
v
SMA Stockfeed Manufacturers Association
SMEs Small to Medium Scale Enterprises
SMPs Small to Medium Producers
VCA Value Chain Analysis
VPH Veterinary Public Health
ZDIT Zimbabwe Dairy Industry Trust
ZHB Zimbabwe Herd Book
ZIMRA Zimbabwe Revenue Authority
ZimSTATS Zimbabwe National Statistical Agency
ZPA Zimbabwe Poultry Association
vi
List of Figures Figure 1 Broiler breeder stocks, 2017 to 2019
Figure 2 Broiler breeder in-production stocks, 2013 to 2019
Figure 3 Locally produced broiler hatching eggs, 2016 to 2019
Figure 4 Broiler hatching eggs and day-old chicks, 2017 to 2019
Figure 5 Broiler day-old chicks, 2016 to 2019
Figure 6 Annual Production of Broiler day-old chicks, 2009 to 2019
Figure 7 Broiler day-old chick production and prices, 2017 to 2019
Figure 8 Broiler day-old chick and Layer sexed pullet prices in USD
Figure 9 Large-scale broiler meat production, stockholding and whole bird wholesale price,
2017 to 2019
Figure 10 Broiler meat production, 2017 to 2019
Figure 11 Broiler meat production, 2016 to 2019
Figure 12 Broiler meat wholesale price trends (ZWL), July 2018 to 2019
Figure 13 Broiler meat wholesale price trends (USD), July 2018 to 2019
Figure 14 Layer breeder stocks, 2017 to 2019
Figure 15 Layer hatching eggs and sexed pullets, 2017 to 2019
Figure 16 Large-scale layer production stocks, 2017 to 2019
Figure 17 Table egg production and wholesale prices, 2017 to 2019
Figure 18 Average monthly table egg production by quarter, 2013 to 2019
Figure 19 Production of poultry feeds and broiler day old chicks, 2017 to 2019
Figure 20 Prices (ZWL) of maize, solvent extracted soya meal and layer and broiler feeds, July
2018 to December 2019
Figure 21 Prices (in USD relative to the interbank rate) of maize, solvent extracted soya meal
and layer and broiler feeds, July 2018 to December 2019
vii
List of Tables Table 1 Broiler average monthly production returns, 2018 - 2019
Table 2 Broiler meat production (mt), 2018 – 2019
Table 3 Broiler annual production returns, 2013 to 2019
Table 4 Layer average monthly production returns, 2018 – 2019
Table 5 Layer quarterly table egg production (million dozen), 2018 – 2019
Table 6 Layer annual production returns, 2013 to 2019
1
Livestock & Meat Advisory Council
2019 Annual Report
Including Allied Associations
Executive Summary The Livestock and Meat Advisory Council, inaugurated as the Meat Advisory Council, was formed at
a meeting held at the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture and Water Development on 2nd December
1994. The aims and objectives of the Advisory Council “shall be to protect, promote and further
the interests of those persons engaged in the Livestock and Meat Industry in Zimbabwe, to further
the promotion and development of a sound, healthy and economically viable Livestock and Meat
Industry…”
The Council meets to discuss and deliberate upon issues that affect the livestock industry. It draws
together representatives of its allied Associations to create partnerships for lobbying and advocacy
to ensure a viable and sound livestock and meat industry.
As in previous years, the Council has facilitated workshops, presentations and seminars for the
livestock industry and Council has continued its advocacy to address overlapping regulations in the
sector.
The Council attended many meetings arranged and hosted by its business partners and the relevant
reports are described under Activities.
The website and Facebook page were updated regularly and the circulation of Industry and
Livestock Market Updates continued.
2019 has been an interesting but challenging year for the Livestock and Meat Advisory Council and
it is anticipated that 2020 will be as varied and stimulating.
For further information about the Livestock and Meat Advisory Council and its
allied Associations,
please contact the office on
024 – 2756 600, 2772 915 and 2777 391
e-mail: [email protected]
www.livestockzimbabwe.com
2
Livestock & Meat Advisory Council 2018 Annual Report
Including Allied Associations
Livestock & Meat Advisory Council The Livestock and Meat Advisory Council (LMAC), inaugurated as the Meat Advisory Council, was
formed at a meeting held at the Ministry of Lands, Agriculture and Water Development on 2nd
December 1994. The aims and objectives of the Advisory Council “shall be to protect, promote
and further the interests of those persons engaged in the Livestock and Meat Industry in
Zimbabwe, to further the promotion and development of a sound, healthy and economically viable
Livestock and Meat Industry…” The most important function of LMAC is to provide a platform for
all stakeholders to meet and deliberate on issues pertaining to the industry.
The mandate of LMAC is to promote the development of a sound, healthy, vibrant and
economically viable livestock and meat industry in Zimbabwe:
▪ Through lobbying and advocacy;
▪ By identifying key constraints affecting livestock and meat production and growth and making
recommendations to improve production such as agro-ecologically and agro-economically
suitable input packages;
▪ By recommending and monitoring implementation of strategies for the increase in livestock
production and improved meat security;
▪ By recommending methods of strengthening linkages between government and private sector
production activities;
▪ By recommending measures to promote a balanced and broad based production system;
▪ By recommending strategies and instruments to reduce livestock and meat product insecurity at
national and household levels;
▪ By reviewing and recommending ways of improving marketing of livestock and meat product by
producers with particular reference to smallholder farmers;
▪ By recommending methods of maximising benefits from international and regional trade
agreements.
LMAC was restructured in 2017 and is now run by a Board of Governors, made up of the
Chairpersons of all livestock member Associations and with the day to day administration provided
3
by the Secretariat housed at Exhibition Park. With its new organisational structure, LMAC is better
able to serve Zimbabwe’s diverse and growing livestock sector.
Membership
Membership of LMAC includes but is not limited to the following:
Auctioneers
Bankers Association of Zimbabwe Commercial Farmers’ Union
Livestock Identification Trust Pig Producers Association
Meat Processors Association Sheep and Goats
Stockfeed Manufacturers Association
Zimbabwe Association of Abattoirs
Zimbabwe Association of Dairy Farmers Zimbabwe Herd Book
Zimbabwe Fish Producers Association
Zimbabwe Free Range Poultry Association
Zimbabwe Commercial Farmer’s Union Zimbabwe Farmers’ Union
Zimbabwe National Farmers’ Union Zimbabwe Poultry Association
Finances
The Livestock Identification Trust (LIT) provides secretariat services to LMAC and its allied
Associations. The LIT secretariat comprises part-time services of an administrator, secretary,
accounts manager and receptionist. A full-time Senior Economist and Liaison Officer are also
employed.
Activities
Grains and Oilseeds Marketing Season
The Agricultural Marketing Authority (AMA) convened meetings on 14th February 2019 to discuss
the preparations for the grains and oilseeds marketing season which provided a platform for
stakeholders to share information about these subsectors and offer recommendations to the
authorities.
In the 2018/19 production season, plantings were reduced, mostly because of the high costs of
inputs and the erratic rains. According to farmers' unions, the expected maize yield was estimated
to be between 700 – 800,000 metric tonnes (mt) which is lower than the previous season’s yield
and imports were anticipated. Subsistence plantings also declined, posing a threat to household
food security.
4
However, the Grain Marketing Board (GMB) reported that about 996,000mt of maize was in stock
and an intake of 500,000mt was projected during the marketing season. Thus, the carry-over stocks
plus the anticipated harvest would be sufficient to last until the next season based on GMB
estimates. The irrigated maize crop was successful despite an increase in the cost of inputs.
It was noted that late payment for maize deliveries by the GMB affected farmer production as they
were not able to procure inputs for the next crop. GMB had been undergoing a system upgrade
hence the late payment to farmers and this had been resolved. With regards to the Presidential
input scheme, GMB had distributed between 80 – 90% of them.
The local supply of maize meal was adequate. However, there was a shortage of maize bran due to
low throughput at milling companies as most people have bought maize for their own milling.
Commercial millers were also affected by skyrocketing packaging costs.
A ban on maize exports out of Zambia and Malawi was noted. A shortfall in maize yield in Zambia
was anticipated as some farmers had switched to cotton and other cash crops. There were limited
carry-over stocks in South Africa and a reduced maize yield for 2018/2019 was forecast.
According to GMB, most of their wheat stocks were allocated to millers through the Grain Millers
Association of Zimbabwe and there was less than a month's supply until the next harvest in
September. Based on average monthly demand, the projected import requirement is 40,000mt per
month over the next six months.
Flour of 12.5 % protein was being imported at USD 407/mt, landed. Out of the monthly
requirement of 40,000mt, only 6,000mt had been received and 30,000mt is currently in Beira
awaiting payment. The shortage of foreign exchange had also affected the milling industry as only
USD 2.5million had been disbursed to suppliers from the USD 30 – 50million required per month to
import wheat. The current demand for bread is 1.4 to 1.7 million loaves per day. The ideal
requirement is that 280,000mt of local wheat is blended with 120,000mt of imported wheat to
ensure good quality bread. It was highlighted that the shortage of local flour is due to the fact that
there is no incentive for farmers to grow wheat and no producer price has been set yet.
An increase in the hectarage planted under oilseeds was anticipated at the expense of the reduced
maize acreage. 600,000mt of oilseeds is required to meet the demand for cooking oil.
200,000mt of soya beans is also required per annum to cater for the needs of the feeds industry in
addition to cooking oil. GMB had no soya beans in stock and the recommendation is that industry
imports. Stakeholders highlighted issues from last year’s allocation system and the need to correct
certain aspects of it to ensure fairness for all concerned. In raising concerns about meal quality,
users of full fat meal requested that they purchase their own beans for toll crushing.
Zambia was expecting a new harvest of 400,000mt of soya beans against a consumption of
200,000mt and future exports of beans may be banned in favour of the export of soya meal.
Malawi was also expecting a good crop of 160,000mt and is likely to be self-sufficient this year.
5
190,000mt of beans are available in Uganda with no local usage. 300,000mt are available from
South Africa which is expecting a harvest of 1.2 million mt this season.
Fuel Tax Refund System
LMAC was invited to a consultative meeting hosted by the Zimbabwe Revenue Authority (ZIMRA) to
discuss the framework to refund the increase in fuel excise duty brought about by Statutory
Instrument (SI) 9 of 2019, Customs and Excise (Tariff) (Amendment) Notice, 2019 (No. 7) to provide
relief for the mining, agriculture, manufacturing and transport sectors.
LMAC was specifically invited to contribute to the modalities in providing relief to the agriculture
and manufacturing sectors.
The initial proposal from ZIMRA was that participants in the sectors targeted for relief, pay for fuel
at the new prices and then apply for a rebate afterwards. The quantum of the rebate would be the
difference between the new excise duty and rate of excise duty prior to January 12th. This
amounted to $1.65 per litre for diesel and $1.82 per litre for petrol. However, for a farmer or
company to benefit from the rebate, certain criteria had to be satisfied, including:
• Being a member of an industry Association;
• Being tax compliant;
• Prove that there had not been any increase in prices after January 12th, 2019 attributed to
increase in fuel prices; and
• Provide evidence of productive use of the procured fuel.
The requirement that beneficiaries should be members of an Association was to weed out bogus
beneficiaries as well as for the Association to provide further evidence on the productive use of fuel
by beneficiaries. LMAC highlighted that Returns currently being collected for a number of their
allied associations such as the Stockfeed Manufacturers Association (SMA), Zimbabwe Association
of Abattoirs and Zimbabwe Poultry Association (ZPA) could serve as a basis for assessing the
productive use of fuel.
Participants raised a number of issues about the implementation of the broad ZIMRA rebate
proposals including the following:
• Excise duty on petrol and diesel was increased by 275% and 358%, respectively. For target
beneficiaries to pre-finance this increased outlay without increasing the prices of their
products will negatively impact on profitability as they may need to borrow, thereby
increasing the costs of production;
• Participants also expressed concern about the possible delays in processing of rebates
which will affect their cash flows, especially given their experience with delays by ZIMRA in
refunding other types of rebates;
• Many smallholder farmers and Small to Medium Scale Enterprises (SMEs) are not registered
under ZIMRA for tax purposes and hence stand to lose out from the benefits of rebates;
6
• For smallholder farmers and SMEs who do not participate in formal markets, it is difficult to
prove productive use of procured fuel.
Although the fuel rebate system was rolled out in the first quarter of the year, the submission of
paperwork to claim the refund was tedious and cumbersome and by the time refunds were
processed, the price of fuel had significantly increased, and the refund system became non-
functional.
Zimbabwe Agricultural Growth Programme: Inclusive Poultry Value Chain (IPVC) Project
The performance and competitiveness of the poultry sector has been affected by an increasing
inability to control domestic costs and prices as a result of hyper-inflation. The cost of poultry feeds
has increased dramatically and the costs of compliance in the value chain are also very high.
Zimbabwe’s broiler industry has recorded phenomenal growth since 2009, from 18 million chicks
yielding 26,000mt per annum to 91 million chicks yielding 143,000mt in 2018.
Two-thirds of the production emanates from small to medium producers (SMPs) mainly supplying
independent butcheries and supermarkets in low-income markets. However, even though SMPs
have been the key actors of the poultry sector in Zimbabwe, productivity remains sub-optimal, with
poor linkages, high costs of transactions and insecure markets.
Similarly, table egg production increased from 14 million dozen in 2009 (less than one egg per
capita per month) and peaked at 55 million dozen in 2016, before declining to 36 million dozen in
2018 due to the outbreak of Avian Influenza (AI) in May 2017. As with broiler meat production,
more than half the production is from SMPs. While there is tremendous room to increase
production and consumption of table eggs, major constraints include supply of point of lay birds
and the centralised marketing of table eggs.
The IPVC Project is being led by COSPE and project partners Welthungerhhilfe, Sustainable
Agriculture Technology, Cultivating New Frontiers in Agriculture and LMAC.
Objectives
The overall objective of the IPVC Project is the development of an efficient poultry value chain
which contributes to inclusive green economic growth in Zimbabwe. Most of the broiler production
is carried out by SMPs whose recovery is vital for the inclusive growth of the sector. The IPVC
Project therefore seeks to implement interventions to improve the productivity of the SMPs which
will be achieved by improving the economic, social and environmental performance of the poultry
value chain and creating an enabling environment for a sustainable and inclusive poultry sector.
Interventions
The IPVC seeks to build the capacities of SMPs for market integration as well as to improve the
social and environmental performance of out-grower schemes.
7
The Project will implement replicable innovations that lower feed costs such as developing
decentralised feed production systems and find alternative crops to maize, especially in dry areas.
Policy advocacy and marketing campaigns to promote the benefits of locally produced broilers will
be encouraged.
The Project seeks to understand poultry disease outbreaks, especially AI to support a national Avian
Influenza surveillance plan. Quality Management Systems will be promoted for all target groups
across the poultry value chain for the prevention of disease outbreaks, improve hygiene, better
management practices and the adoption of demand driven vaccination programmes for Newcastle
Disease and other poultry diseases in their endemic areas.
The inclusive approach towards value chain organisation, capacity building and integration will
mitigate against risks of intervention relevance and continuation post-project.
The Project target areas are Bulawayo, Gweru, Harare, Mutare, and Masvingo.
Organising the Poultry Value Chain
The IPVC project will address issues of profitability, competitiveness, growth, inclusiveness and
promoting an enabling environment in the poultry sector.
Integrators
Private sector integrators may be any company or organisation involved at any node along the
poultry value chain which it is championing, or interested in championing, offering innovative
business partnerships that are inclusive, transformative, and bankable. The partnerships will have
potential for significantly improving market competition, reducing costs, increasing net incomes
and realising positive social impacts of the value chain.
Green and Waste-to-energy Solutions
SMPs’ henhouses consume large quantities of fuel, wood and/or low-quality charcoal. The use of
biogas–powered heating system for SMPs will be promoted for better natural resource
management. This will reduce the time burden on women for the collection of fuel wood and
reduce indoor air pollution and mortality in the henhouses.
Decent Rural Employment
This is an innovative participatory process to engage commercial actors in defining Decent Rural
Employment and how they can adopt and promote core labour standards.
Youth Inclusion
The mapping exercise will be conducted with youth hired with the support of the Zimbabwe Youth
Council. Following the mapping exercise, IPVC will facilitate the integration of these youth in the
extension teams of the integrators. At least 50% of the youth will be hired by integrators as part
time business service providers by the end of the Project.
8
Smart Integration of Gender
The action will prioritise the active participation and leadership of women and girls.
Poultry Information Management Systems
This information system is mainly going to be used by ZPA to support poultry farmers. For the
system to be functional, farmers need to be at the centre of it as they are the ones who will input
the information into the system.
Kurima Mari Poultry App (KMPA)
KMPA (Business Advisor) is both an on- and offline, multi-functional app designed to assist and
support the perspective of the poultry producer of farming as a business and equipping them with
necessary tools and information to achieve success.
The app covers technical, operational, financial and marketing aspects of poultry production in
Zimbabwe by providing both on- and offline functionality to guide the farmer. The app’s wide
offering is expected to attract a large number of producers, thus creating revenue opportunities
from input suppliers and services providers advertising their products to the wide subscribership.
Poultry Business Associations (PBAs)
PBA is a physical space which offers services to farmers, farmer associations and groups and with
the assistance of ZPA, IPVC will facilitate the establishment of PBAs which will espouse the value
propositions to reduce costs of production, increase revenue and leverage on existing service
provision.
World Egg Day
The IPVC project joined the world in celebrating World Egg Day on 11th October 2019. World Egg
Day was established in Vienna in 1996 to raise awareness of the benefits of eggs and their
importance in human nutrition. Today, the event is celebrated across the globe, as countries
continue to promote the importance and health benefits of eggs as one of the original superfoods.
The Project focussed on raising awareness on the nutritional qualities of eggs and as part of the
campaign. Star FM and Radio Zimbabwe broadcast messages and jingles and newspaper adverts
were flighted in the Herald and Sunday Mail during the week leading to World Egg Day. World Egg
Day flyers and posters were distributed to the Department of Veterinary Services (DVS) and feed
and animal health companies.
Other Meetings and Activities
The Zimbabwe chapter on Frontier Agricultural Insects for Food and Commercial Feeds was
launched during the World Bank sponsored Harare International Conference on Edible Insects for
Transforming Livelihoods in Africa and IPVC was invited to attend.
IPVC was invited to attend the Lead Trust Feed the Future Crop Project to ascertain whether the
project or any other sister projects were promoting sunflower production in Midlands, Masvingo
and Manicaland.
9
Research and data analysis were contributed to the first draft of the Value Chain Analysis that was
completed in September.
Due diligence and initial discussions with potential integrators begun in September.
Meetings have been held with youth projects to discuss poultry opportunities as well as the Small
to Medium Enterprises Association of Zimbabwe to discuss areas of collaboration.
Continued discussions on Ease of Doing Business (EoDB) focussing on eliminating multiple
registration requirements for livestock value chain participants as well as overlapping mandates
leading to high costs of compliance. Discussions have yielded positive results with suspension of SI
157 of 2018 that required importers and exporters of biological products to be subjected to
duplicated and expensive registration and supervision procedures by the National Biotechnology
Authority (NBA). This should reduce cost of trading in poultry feed raw materials, breeder birds,
hatching eggs and poultry products.
Collection and synthesis of national poultry wholesale and retail Market Price Bulletins for sharing
with relevant authorities and stakeholders within the value chain.
Exhibitions
IPVC exhibited at the Zimbabwe Poultry Farmers Union Expo held in Harare and the Shurugwi
farmers show as well as at the Harare Agricultural Show.
IPVC attended the Sasso Hybrid Bird training workshop held in Harare which highlighted the
advantages of the dual-purpose birds that can thrive well with limited resource environments.
Value Chain Analysis Workshops
IPVC flighted print media adverts inviting stakeholders to attend the IPVC Value Chain Analysis
(VCA) Validation workshops which took place in Harare, Gweru and Bulawayo. Workshops were
well attended and included presentations on the IPVC Project overview, VCA findings and general
application of the PBA concept.
Following the VCA validation workshop presentation, two working groups on organisational
development have already been set up in Bulawayo and Mutare. Work is in progress for the
formation of the industry working groups for Harare and Gweru.
Statutory Instrument 129 of 2017: Agricultural Marketing Authority (Livestock Development Levy)
Regulations, 2017
Many efforts have already been undertaken to lobby against the implementation of SI 129 of 2017
through various channels. In an effort to improve the ease of doing business, the World Bank
10
carried out a study in 2018 to assess the legality of the SI. Their findings indicated that legally, AMA
should not collect a levy for the same purpose as that of a levy already in existence.
The last collective proposal requested a suspension of the SI to allow for engagement between the
then Minister of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement and AMA.
SI 129 is at variance with the excellent private-public sector collaborations being fostered within the
industry to boost productivity such as the Command Livestock Programme (CAP), the EoDB
consultative meetings and Rapid Results Initiatives (RRI). The then Ministry of Agriculture,
Mechanisation and Irrigation Development (MoAMID) and the Ministry of Industry and Commerce
were hosting weekly sessions of stakeholder discussions on policy reforms to reduce the regulatory
cost of compliance and improve the competitiveness of the agricultural sector. Policy discussions
were focussed on reducing the cost of compliance by at least 50% in the livestock value chains.
Stakeholders have repeatedly requested wider consultations towards a livestock development fund
whose terms are agreeable to beef, poultry and dairy farmers, industry and government. They
have also requested that this fund be structured and managed as a public-private partnership fund,
capitalised through consolidated livestock development levies for each value chain.
The dairy industry has already successfully implemented such an initiative which the poultry and
beef sectors would like to emulate. Dairy processors have been contributing to the development of
the Zimbabwe dairy industry through the Zimbabwe Dairy Industry Trust (ZDIT) with payment of
voluntary levies to the umbrella body. ZDIT has coordinated the Dairy Revitalisation Program (DRP)
through contribution of levies that have funded the importation of dairy heifers and helped
generate an increase of 1.2 million litres in national raw milk production.
The current structure of SI 129 of 2017 does not support the development of effective public-
private sector partnership initiatives as envisaged by stakeholders and in the case of the dairy
industry, will actually drain resources that would otherwise go into activities of the DRP. The SI also
did not address the high regulatory cost of compliance in the beef industry where a multiplicity of
regulators are already collecting levies from the sector.
Stakeholders in the livestock sector fully support contributing financially to the development of
livestock value chains. However, it is the opinion of stakeholders that the approach of SI 129 of
2017 by government and reiterated at various forums and correspondence (see below) will not be
effective in fostering growth and development of value chains.
Correspondence submitted to the relevant authorities:
1) Private-Public Sector Partnership for Revitalisation of the Beef Value Chain: submitted to the
then MoAMID and also jointly presented at the CAP Planning Workshop organised by the
Office of the President and Cabinet (OPC) in February and March, respectively.
2) Discussion points on SI 129 tabled to the meeting of stakeholders on 20th October 2017.
11
3) Correspondence to the Permanent Secretary, MoAMID, 26th October 2017.
4) Position Paper, SI 129 of 2017, submitted to the EoDB Consultative meeting and RRI and
Command Livestock Public – Private Partnership Financing Strategies, October 2017.
5) Follow up letter to the Permanent Secretary, MoAMID, 7th November 2017.
6) Correspondence to the Minister, MoAMID, 19th December 2017.
7) Correspondence to Acting Chief Executive Officer, AMA, 20th March 2018.
8) Response from the Permanent Secretary, MoAMID, 5th April 2018.
9) Correspondence to the Permanent Secretary, MoAMID, 4th May 2018.
10) Correspondence to Acting Chief Executive Officer, AMA, 4th February 2019.
11) Correspondence to the Deputy Minister, Livestock, Ministry of Lands, Agriculture, Water,
Climate and Rural Resettlement (MoLAWCRR), 16th July 2019.
12) Correspondence from the Zimbabwe Association of Abattoirs to the Minister, MoLAWCRR,
19th August 2019.
13) Correspondence from the Zimbabwe Poultry Association to the Minister, MoLAWCRR, 19th
August 2019.
Ease of Doing Business
LMAC attended the Launch of the EoDB meeting organised under the auspices of the OPC on 5th
September. Representatives from industry Associations made presentations on the deleterious
impact of the costs of regulatory compliance on competitiveness of local products at home and in
regional export markets.
The costly regulatory overlaps between departments in various Ministries offering value-added
services coupled with the desire of regulatory authorities to raise funds for their operations was
also highlighted.
A summary of recommendations regarding compliance issues was submitted to the Ministry of
Finance and Economic Development (MoFED). These were being addressed by a Working Party
made up of Permanent Secretaries of thirteen Ministries whose resolutions are to be debated by
the corresponding Ministers under the chairmanship of MOFED and their recommendation will be
presented to Cabinet for final decisions.
LMAC is an active member of two fundamental working groups:
12
- EoDB in Agriculture and Manufacturing; and
- Thematic Taskforce to look at streamlining and rationalising the regulatory environment for
EoDB.
An Action Plan is to be presented within 75 days (by 21st November 2019) to the Chief Secretary of
the Cabinet with the goal of enhancing EoDB rankings of Zimbabwe from 155 out of 191 to under
50 in the next 8 months. This is a mammoth task requiring that Government and industry think
outside the box and focus only on regulations for facilitating business and not on creating quasi-
fiscal revenue for the regulator and parent Ministry.
13
Stockfeed Manufacturers Association
Raw Materials Usage and Feed Production Returns
December 2019
The tonnage, costs and values of raw materials procured and feeds manufactured for the Stockfeed
Manufacturers Association for the period ending December 2019 are summarised in the tables and
graphs below.
Returns were collated from the following twenty-five companies: ABS TCM Feeds, AG Franceys &
Sons, Agrifoods, Berghaan Feeds, Capital Feeds, Country Feeds, Edurate Investments, Fairhill Farm,
Feedmix, Fivet Animal Health, Hamara Feeds, Hyperfeeds, Ice Feeds, Irvine’s Zimbabwe, Kudu
Creek, Meadow Enterprises, Muller Bros, National Foods Ltd, Natkam Piggeries, Organisation of
Collective Cooperatives in Zimbabwe, Solar Farming, Profeeds, Sunset Marketing, Triple C Pigs and
Windmill.
Procurement of raw materials and production of stockfeeds in the fourth quarter of 2019 averaged
46,720 and 47,952mt per month respectively, representing decreases of 17 and 19% respectively
over the same period in 2018 and increases of 1 and 8% over the third quarter of 2019. Total
procurement of raws and production of feeds in 2019 were 624,372 and 623,704 mt, being 3 and
0% higher than 2018.
The cost of raw materials procured and value of feeds produced over this period were ZWL 266.9m
and ZWL 286.6m/month, respectively, being increases of 587 and 481% over the same period last
year and 155 and 58% over the third quarter of 2019. The average cost of raw materials procured
in the fourth quarter of 2019 was ZWL 5,713/mt. The total values of raws procured and feeds
manufactured in 2019 were ZWL 1,456.9m and ZWL 1,899.3m, being increases of 380 and 373%
over 2018 respectively.
Maize and soya procurements during the fourth quarter constituted the bulk of raw materials used,
accounting for 43% and 20% of all raw materials procured by weight and 33% and 36% by value,
respectively. Average monthly procurement of maize and soya bean derivatives in the fourth
quarter of 2019 were 19,971mt (worth ZWL 89.26m) and 11,797/month (ZWL 96.7m) respectively,
representing volume changes for the quarter of -23% (+201% in value) and -25% (+118% in value)
respectively over the same period last year and -6% (+67% in value) and -10% (+54% in value)
respectively over the third quarter of 2019.
14
Poultry feeds continue to dominate the stockfeed industry and in the fourth quarter of 2019,
production averaged 29,897mt/month (worth ZWL 182.8m), being a decrease of 19% in volume and
an increase of 413% in value respectively over the same period last year and an increase of 5% in
quantity and increase of 30% in value respectively over the third quarter. Poultry feeds accounted
for 62% of all feeds produced by weight and 64% by monetary value. The production of broiler and
layer and breeder feeds were 27% and 5% lower, respectively than the fourth quarter of 2018 and
16% higher and 15% lower, respectively than the third quarter of 2019. Production of poultry
concentrates was 19% lower than the fourth quarter of 2018, and 12% lower than the third quarter
of 2019. Pig and ruminant feeds accounted for 9% and 24% of the total value of feeds produced,
respectively.
On average, prices of raw materials procured in the fourth quarter of 2019 increased by 179%.
Notable increases were full-fat soya (274%), high crude protein (CP) cotton meal (314%) and
roughages (wheat bran: 377%; maize bran: 337%; screenings: 490%; and hay: 298%).
In contrast, fourth quarter prices of feeds on average, increased by 59% compared to third quarter
prices. Average weighted wholesale prices of broiler and layer feeds rose by 23% and 39%,
respectively, to ZWL 5,961 and ZWL 5,530/mt.
Fourth quarter (October to December) average monthly tonnages of raws procured and feeds produced, 2012 to 2019
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Raws procured 34,846 41,067 42,532 50,069 44,662 38,193 56,026 46,720
Maize 14,803 17,452 18,466 20,019 18,878 16,500 25,780 19,971
Soya (bean equivalent) 10,263 10,451 12,097 13,363 10,966 10,772 15,806 15,351
Other inputs 9,780 13,164 11,970 16,686 14,818 10,920 14,440 11,398
Feeds produced 33,828 42,293 42,321 51,333 44,731 36,871 59,547 47,952
Poultry feeds 21,776 28,947 29,435 32,839 29,394 23,179 36,812 29,897
Pig feeds 2,595 2,816 2,322 2,941 2,833 3,244 5,090 4,320
Ruminant feeds 7,384 8,675 8,674 13,669 10,473 8,236 15,073 12,419
Fish feeds 1,500 1,233 1,219 968 891 855 551 137
Other feeds 573 622 670 916 1,141 1,356 2,021 1,179
15
Fourth quarter (October to December) average monthly values (millions ZWL) of raws procured and feeds produced, 2012 to 2019
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Average cost of procurements, ZWL /mt 404 397 391 352 362 333 693 5,713
Raws procured 14.1 16.3 16.6 17.6 16.2 12.7 38.9 266.9
Maize 4.5 6.2 6.6 6.0 6.4 4.5 7.4 89.2
Soya bean derivatives 6.5 6.3 6.3 6.9 5.6 5.2 12.8 96.7
Other inputs 3.1 3.8 3.7 4.7 4.2 2.9 18.6 81.1
Feeds produced 16.0 23.4 22.9 25.4 23.2 20.0 49.3 286.6
Poultry feeds 11.7 18.3 18.0 18.4 16.8 13.9 35.6 182.8
Pig feeds 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.6 4.2 26.2
Ruminant feeds 1.6 2.4 2.5 3.7 3.3 2.5 7.4 67.7
Fish feeds 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.5 0.2
Other feeds 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.6 9.7
Total annual tonnages (‘000mt) of raws procured and feeds produced, 2012 to 2019
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Raws procured 373 428 460 529 516 431 609 624
Maize 172 191 204 215 227 187 270 293
Soya (bean equivalent) 112 121 128 150 135 122 187 172
Other inputs 89 116 128 163 154 122 152 159
Feeds produced 341 421 477 543 523 422 626 624
Poultry feeds 233 305 335 367 355 282 401 408
Pig feeds 30 33 31 33 43 37 58 57
Ruminant feeds 58 64 87 117 98 77 136 132
Fish feeds 14 13 16 15 13 11 8 4
Other feeds 6 6 9 11 15 15 23 22
Total annual values (millions ZWL) of raws procured and feeds produced, 2012 to 2019
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Average cost of procurements, ZWL /mt 387 421 402 364 364 358 499 2,333
Raws procured 144.3 180.4 185.2 192.6 187.6 154.2 303.6 1,456.9
Maize 47.2 66.9 74.0 67.6 73.2 58.4 76.0 442.3
Soya bean derivatives 64.7 75.4 69.9 77.8 68.4 61.0 114.2 587.3
Other inputs 32.4 38.0 41.3 47.2 46.0 34.9 113.4 427.3
Feeds produced 166.3 240.3 260.2 280.4 264.9 229.0 401.3 1,899.0
Poultry feeds 123.7 191.9 206.4 212.5 196.8 165.1 292.1 1,292.5
Pig feeds 15.4 17.9 15.5 16.5 20.5 19.1 35.2 177.2
Ruminant feeds 14.2 17.9 23.3 31.1 26.3 24.1 51.8 355.8
Fish feeds 10.4 9.5 11.1 13.8 12.8 11.2 6.0 5.9
Other feeds 2.6 3.1 3.9 6.5 8.4 9.6 16.3 67.7
16
Feed Raw Materials 2017 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Sep Q4 '18 Q3 '19
Maize 15,542 19,791 21,017 23,461 25,780 26,986 29,509 21,221 19,971 -23% -6%
Sorghum 1,339
Soya beans 486 2,118 2,420 2,231 1,706 1,892 1,298 918 696 -59% -24%
Soya meal - FF 1,838 2,593 2,373 2,717 2,444 2,309 2,457 1,745 1,323 -46% -24%
Soya meal - ME 1,387 1,245 1,413 1,705 2,012 1,711 2,017 1,627 1,539 -24% -5%
Soya meal - SE 4,455 5,513 6,377 7,373 6,652 6,828 7,693 6,217 5,781 -13% -7%
Total Soya (bean equivalent) 10,203 13,906 15,326 17,212 15,806 15,700 16,807 13,180 11,797 -25% -10%
Wheat Bran 5,229 5,598 5,069 6,117 4,731 4,846 4,851 3,700 4,135 -13% 12%
Maize Bran 2,702 2,665 3,023 4,272 4,293 5,061 4,893 5,023 5,665 32% 13%
Rice Bran 110 123 78 256 332 70 85 71 255 -23% 262%
Screenings 76 106 129 182 303 98 41 56 103 -66% 83%
Cotton cake < 30% CP 153 118 169 220 445 678 335 281 315 -29% 12%
Cotton meal >30% CP 83 236 199 298 764 305 397 493 470 -38% -5%
Cotton seed - Whole 118 106 180 204 280 189 201 161 153 -45% -5%
Sunflower cake/meal 371 217 338 426 444 337 430 419 234 -47% -44%
Molasses 791 847 803 1,479 1,351 784 1,042 1,010 985 -27% -2%
Citrus Pulp 13 - - 42 - - - - 4
Urea 64 55 121 157 119 67 216 190 94 -21% -51%
Salt 137 145 211 232 299 177 248 182 162 -46% -11%
Cotton hulls 161 278 263 331 733 476 578 628 973 33% 55%
Hay 195 219 150 406 297 96 128 207 249 -16% 20%
MCP 160 163 194 189 230 224 240 205 182 -21% -11%
Fine Limestone Flour 716 731 844 1,340 999 1,015 1,105 939 906 -9% -3%
Coarse Limestone Flour 307 311 231 329 415 413 494 408 407 -2% 0%
Methionine 37 50 56 66 57 53 52 39 38 -33% -2%
Lysine 36 43 582 54 46 49 48 82 35 -25% -58%
Meat and Bone Meal 672 591 649 569 561 633 413 300 471 -16% 57%
Fish Meal 53 59 63 46 50 58 60 47 51 1% 9%
Vitamins and Premixes 206 553 633 683 426 346 280 185 -73% -34%
Totals 35,895 44,128 47,504 55,334 56,026 55,781 59,176 46,448 46,720 -17% 1%
2018
Q4 '19
2019
Average Monthly Tonnages of Raws Procured - 2017 to 2019
compared to
17
Production/Sales
Poultry 2017 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Sep Q4 '18 Q3 '19
Broiler Starter 3,094 4,073 5,062 5,599 5,229 4,622 5,347 3,553 4,161 -20% 17%
Broiler Grower 4,767 6,240 7,907 8,769 9,911 9,775 9,990 5,731 6,865 -31% 20%
Broiler Finisher 6,980 8,674 11,376 10,982 11,161 10,876 12,199 7,393 8,269 -26% 12%
Layer Rearing Feed 800 748 1,081 2,623 1,169 1,355 1,749 1,170 1,044 -11% -11%
Layer Production Feeds 4,316 3,254 4,040 5,762 5,376 6,474 7,084 6,160 5,177 -4% -16%
Poultry Breeder feeds 2,372 1,869 1,915 2,014 2,705 2,931 3,361 3,176 3,356 24% 6%
Poultry Concentrates 1,137 920 1,581 2,384 1,259 1,043 1,056 1,165 1,025 -19% -12%
Dairy
Dairy meals 2,057 2,380 3,131 5,619 4,405 3,635 4,146 3,154 3,318 -25% 5%
Beef
Beef Pen Fattening 2,996 3,669 4,095 7,188 9,176 2,874 6,555 5,716 6,849 -25% 20%
Beef Maintenance Feeds 299 227 298 678 1,117 1,275 1,121 827 1,950 75% 136%
Beef Concentrates 1,098 749 88 1,991 375 1,862 173 168 303 -19% 80%
Pig
Juvenile Feeds 290 437 421 533 554 547 559 471 547 -1% 16%
Growing and Fattening feeds 1,700 2,258 2,471 2,524 2,566 2,991 3,217 2,763 2,545 -1% -8%
Pig Breeder Feeds 605 840 868 988 1,042 629 691 647 698 -33% 8%
Pig Concentrates 527 660 881 1,223 928 858 817 654 530 -43% -19%
Fish
Aqua Feeds 879 713 757 704 551 517 528 107 137 -75% 28%
Sundry Feeds
Quail 15 14 4 2 2 1 - - -
Road Runner 287 321 409 901 900 812 782 714 505 -44% -29%
Horse 255 239 238 284 369 280 284 272 234 -37% -14%
Dog 175 160 871 291 192 175 121 133 105 -45% -21%
All Other species feeds 510 975 397 611 558 1,900 403 362 334 -40% -8%
Totals 35,157 39,422 47,891 61,670 59,547 55,431 60,183 44,335 47,952 -19% 8%
Poultry feeds
Broiler 14,841 18,987 24,345 25,350 26,302 25,273 27,536 16,677 19,295 -27% 16%
Layer 5,116 4,002 5,122 8,385 6,546 7,830 8,833 7,329 6,221 -5% -15%
Breeder 2,372 1,869 1,915 2,014 2,705 2,931 3,361 3,176 3,356 24% 6%
Concentrates 1,137 920 1,581 2,384 1,259 1,043 1,056 1,165 1,025 -19% -12%
Poultry - Total 23,466 25,779 32,962 38,133 36,812 37,077 40,787 28,348 29,897 -19% 5%
Broiler day old chicks, millions 5.74 7.10 7.42 7.76 7.98 6.47 6.97 5.61 5.17 -35% -8%
Sexed pullets, thousands 136 216 107 196 170 266 237 254 176 4% -31%
2019
Average Monthly Tonnages of Feeds Manufactured - 2017 to 2019
2018
Q4 '19
compared to
18
Q4 '19
compared
Feed Raw Materials 2017 2018 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec to Q3 '19
Maize 312 281 294 693 1,426 4,449 212%
Sorghum 3,289
Soya beans 593 670 1,326 2,128 3,957 10,572 167%
Soya meal - FF 659 774 1,344 1,855 2,678 10,023 274%
Soya meal - ME 632 715 1,874 2,517 5,388 9,182 70%
Soya meal - SE 611 764 1,515 2,940 4,420 10,589 140%
Wheat Bran 149 154 293 536 716 3,376 371%
Maize Bran 188 181 258 417 670 2,925 337%
Rice Bran 150 173 271 577 917 3,000 227%
Screenings 123 133 189 317 403 2,376 490%
Cotton cake < 30% CP 324 309 489 1,344 2,633 4,267 62%
Cotton meal >30% CP 331 351 871 1,632 1,598 6,612 314%
Cotton seed - Whole 343 338 373 1,159 2,589 4,278 65%
Sunflower cake/meal 464 564 1,884 2,297 3,562 5,172 45%
Molasses 157 194 459 643 879 2,848 224%
Citrus Pulp 156
Urea 652 954 1,550 3,564 4,648 9,467 104%
Salt 223 377 837 2,005 1,925 4,717 145%
Cotton hulls 195 208 283 510 756 2,374 214%
Hay 162 182 433 668 814 3,241 298%
MCP 747 1,336 2,764 3,548 7,943 12,418 56%
Fine Limestone Flour 112 161 175 417 751 1,770 136%
Coarse Limestone Flour 152 291 522 610 1,056 2,770 162%
Methionine 4,289 5,729 11,379 12,770 22,024 47,418 115%
Lysine 2,096 3,093 6,522 6,722 12,688 26,069 105%
Meat and Bone Meal 751 1,185 1,492 2,311 5,216 12,944 148%
Fish Meal 1,506 2,486 5,143 6,245 12,157 26,799 120%
Vitamins & Premixes 7,864 12,536 11,144 40,337 84,586 110%
2019
Prices of Raws Procured - 2017 to 2019
19
Q4 '19
compared
Feed Raw Materials 2017 2018 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec to Q3 '19
Broiler Starter 658 775 1,222 2,281 5,231 6,598 26%
Broiler Grower 642 767 1,191 2,043 4,555 5,581 23%
Broiler Finisher 602 727 1,098 1,891 4,888 5,936 21%
Layer Rearing Feed 517 576 1,064 1,665 4,004 5,082 27%
Layer Production Feeds 472 567 869 1,632 3,984 5,633 41%
Poultry Breeder feeds 452 540 833 1,296 3,092 5,584 81%
Poultry Concentrates 819 1,137 2,229 3,736 7,736 10,872 41%
Dairy
Dairy meals 403 423 657 1,758 3,545 6,222 76%
Beef
Beef Pen Fattening 281 321 521 1,084 2,397 5,103 113%
Beef Maintenance Feeds 320 313 458 1,062 2,486 4,974 100%
Beef Concentrates 278 492 849 1,731 3,415 6,657 95%
Pig
Juvenile Feeds 729 960 1,565 2,566 5,650 8,509 51%
Growing and Fattening feeds 440 498 783 1,585 3,462 5,032 45%
Pig Breeder Feeds 431 485 677 1,520 2,970 4,814 62%
Pig Concentrates 692 839 1,420 2,724 5,643 9,887 75%
Fish
Aqua Feeds 1,047 740 860 1,457 5,062 1,667 -67%
Sundry
Quail 585 588 353
Road Runner 560 614 983 1,925 4,102 8,571 109%
Horse 441 525 703 1,769 3,460 4,266 23%
Dog 764 887 1,432 2,333 4,669 10,630 128%
Blended Prices of Poultry Feeds
Broiler 627 751 1,157 2,020 4,849 5,961 23%
Layer 479 569 900 1,639 3,986 5,530 39%
Prices of Feeds Manufactured - 2017 to 2019
2019
20
2017
Feed Raw Materials Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Q4 '18 Q3 '19
Maize 4,864 5,566 5,877 6,499 7,403 7,941 20,625 29,647 89,217 1105% 201%
Sorghum 4,923
Soya beans 279 1,214 1,609 1,572 1,257 2,765 2,875 3,561 7,374 487% 107%
Soya meal - FF 1,212 1,785 1,627 2,148 2,262 3,121 4,700 4,679 13,258 486% 183%
Soya meal - ME 876 754 882 1,163 1,918 3,179 4,950 8,849 14,380 650% 63%
Soya meal - SE 2,713 3,355 3,981 5,150 7,375 10,362 22,859 27,230 61,641 736% 126%
Total Soya (bean equivalent) 5,081 7,108 8,099 10,032 12,812 19,427 35,384 44,319 96,654 654% 118%
Wheat Bran 767 732 692 872 968 1,442 2,630 2,794 14,055 1352% 403%
Maize Bran 502 493 453 712 948 1,310 2,128 3,389 16,404 1631% 384%
Rice Bran - 18 10 39 89 19 56 58 766 759% 1217%
Screenings - 13 14 24 49 19 12 25 242 395% 887%
Cotton cake < 30% CP 49 35 49 66 157 331 434 721 1,355 761% 88%
Cotton meal >30% CP 23 68 68 109 326 243 665 827 3,084 846% 273%
Cotton seed - Whole 41 36 58 67 101 72 240 407 650 543% 60%
Sunflower cake/meal 172 88 146 214 444 638 1,000 1,574 1,182 166% -25%
Molasses 122 122 123 228 416 357 687 908 2,795 572% 208%
Citrus Pulp - - - - -
Urea 42 42 83 124 173 99 800 859 813 370% -5%
Salt 31 39 59 70 193 148 530 351 758 292% 116%
Cotton hulls 32 56 50 74 162 133 299 462 2,205 1260% 378%
Hay 31 34 23 71 71 42 87 170 828 1059% 387%
MCP 119 159 231 240 442 619 860 1,610 2,264 413% 41%
Fine Limestone Flour 81 97 133 180 218 178 472 706 1,603 637% 127%
Coarse Limestone Flour 47 61 56 71 215 215 305 429 1,126 424% 162%
Methionine 159 254 318 279 445 600 664 846 1,826 310% 116%
Lysine 77 109 993 151 204 321 323 1,026 908 346% -11%
Meat and Bone Meal 506 561 669 753 783 938 915 1,560 6,114 681% 292%
Fish Meal 79 114 111 122 178 296 381 573 1,418 697% 147%
Vitamins and Premixes - 666 2,381 4,182 12,055 5,408 3,869 11,301 15,734 31% 39%
Totals 12,852 16,468 20,695 25,179 38,852 40,793 73,364 104,561 266,924 587% 155%
Average Monthly Value of Raws Procured (ZWL 000) - 2017 to 2019
2018
Q4 '19
compared to2019
21
Production/Sales 2017
Poultry Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Q4 '18 Q3 '19
Broiler Starter 2,036 2,765 3,525 3,894 5,363 5,648 12,220 18,435 27,863 420% 51%
Broiler Grower 3,064 4,132 5,369 5,990 10,313 11,635 20,677 26,060 39,259 281% 51%
Broiler Finisher 4,211 5,510 7,417 7,176 10,737 11,918 23,601 35,334 49,344 360% 40%
Layer Rearing Feed 412 386 564 1,360 857 1,426 2,982 4,585 5,296 518% 16%
Layer Production Feeds 2,034 1,638 2,036 2,936 4,059 5,637 11,599 24,316 29,559 628% 22%
Poultry Breeder feeds 1,070 922 956 951 1,890 2,452 4,382 9,862 20,248 971% 105%
Poultry Concentrates 932 768 1,453 1,985 2,404 2,313 3,800 9,192 11,181 365% 22%
Dairy
Dairy meals 830 954 1,225 2,167 2,271 2,418 7,408 11,278 20,606 807% 83%
Beef
Beef Pen Fattening 840 1,004 1,060 2,064 4,234 1,481 7,534 14,327 34,972 726% 144%
Beef Maintenance Feeds 96 68 74 176 508 585 1,180 2,220 9,573 1786% 331%
Beef Concentrates 240 282 36 803 355 1,615 299 572 2,516 609% 340%
Pig
Juvenile Feeds 212 391 350 436 722 858 1,465 2,674 4,688 549% 75%
Growing and Fattening feeds 752 1,042 1,123 1,155 1,580 2,349 5,191 9,615 12,926 718% 34%
Pig Breeder Feeds 260 377 358 425 687 425 1,109 1,941 3,352 388% 73%
Pig Concentrates 365 438 562 840 1,248 1,218 2,319 3,715 5,224 318% 41%
Fish
Aqua Feeds 933 506 551 472 455 443 753 530 228 -50% -57%
Sundry Feeds
Quail 9 9 3 1 1 1 - - -
Road Runner 161 193 245 490 638 799 1,489 2,884 4,264 568% 48%
Horse 112 119 119 140 226 197 476 930 1,008 347% 8%
Dog 134 100 664 219 270 251 281 670 1,122 315% 67%
All Other species feeds 381 870 271 344 503 2,153 886 1,827 3,326 561% 82%
Totals 19,083 22,472 27,959 34,026 49,322 55,822 109,652 180,969 286,554 481% 58%
Average Monthly Value of Feeds Manufactured (ZWL 000) - 2017 to 2019
2018
Q4 '19
compared to2019
22
Fourth Quarter Monthly Average Tonnages of Raws Procured and Feeds Produced
Fourth Quarter Monthly Average Cost of Raws Procured and Feeds Produced
23
Fourth Quarter Monthly Average Cost of Raws Procured and Feeds Produced Relative to the
Interbank Rate
Total Annual Tonnages of Raws Procured and Feeds Produced
24
Total Annual Cost of Raws Procured and Feeds Produced
Total Annual Cost of Raws Procured and Feeds Produced Relative to the Interbank Rate
25
Monthly Tonnages of Raws Procured and Feeds Produced
Monthly Tonnages of Raws Procured and Feeds Produced
26
Monthly Values of Raws Procured and Feeds Produced
Value of Raws Procured and Feeds Manufactured Relative to the Interbank Rate
27
Monthly Cumulative Value of Raws Procured
Monthly Cumulative Value of Raws Procured Relative to the Interbank Rate
28
Tonnage Raws Procured
Value of Raws Procured
29
Tonnage Maize Procured
Maize Price
30
Value of Maize Procurements
Tonnage Soya Products Procured Expressed as a Bean Equivalent
31
Cumulative Tonnage Soya Products Procured Expressed in Bean Equivalent
Tonnage Soya Bean Products Procured Expressed as a Bean Equivalent
32
Prices of Soya Products
Price of Solvent Extracted Soya Meal
33
Value of Soya Products Procured
Price of Maize and Solvent Extracted Soya Meal
34
Value of Maize and Soya Products Procured
Prices
35
Prices
Prices
36
Prices
Prices
37
Tonnage Raws Procured and Feeds Produced, and Broiler Day-old Chicks Produced
Tonnage Raws Procured and Feeds Produced, and Broiler Day-old Chicks Produced
38
Tonnage of Feeds Produced
Value of Feeds Produced
39
Tonnage Feeds and Broiler Day-old Chicks Produced
Tonnage Feeds and Broiler Day-old Chicks Produced
40
Tonnage Poultry Feeds and Broiler Day-old Chicks Produced
Tonnage Poultry Feeds and Broiler Day-old Chicks Produced
41
Tonnage Poultry Feeds Produced
Tonnage Poultry Feeds Produced
42
Production of Poultry Feeds and Day-Old Chicks
Production of Poultry Feeds and Day-old Chicks
43
Weighted Poultry Feed Prices
Weighted Broiler Feed Prices
44
Weighted Layer Feed Prices
Prices of Maize, Solvent Extracted Soya and Weighted Prices of Broiler and Layer Feeds
45
Prices of Raws Procured and Feeds Produced Relative to the Interbank Rate
Tonnage Ruminant Feeds Produced
46
Tonnage Ruminant Feeds Produced
Value of Ruminant Feeds Produced
47
Zimbabwe Association of Abattoirs
Total cattle slaughters for 2019 were 236,781 head, a decrease of 11% on the previous year as
shown in the figure below.
Total slaughters through formal abattoirs in 2019 were the lowest since 2011. A difficult operating
environment existed, characterised by uncertainties regarding pricing by cattle producers wary of
trading in a rapidly depreciating local currency; higher operating costs; challenges with restricted
movements due to Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) outbreaks, and depressed selling patterns
because of losses from Theileriosis. The effect of the drought did not have the anticipated effect of
increasing cattle sales over the course of the year.
The regulatory burden on cattle producers in 2019 increased as statutory instruments were
gazetted that affected the trade of livestock by several rural district councils and also restricted the
trade of maize.
Income compression in real terms negatively affected the demand for beef and associated meat
products.
Annual Cattle Slaughters, 2010 – 2019
The figure below shows the large variability in the number of cattle slaughtered on a month by
month basis in 2019. The highest monthly slaughter of 23,970 head occurred in June and
48
thereafter, slaughters declined in consecutive months. The lowest figure of 14,831 head was
recorded in November, the second lowest on record since March 2010.
Monthly Cattle Slaughters, 2015 - 2019
Slaughters at monitored abattoirs in 2019 was highest in Mashonaland West province, recording
43,755 slaughters and accounting for 18% of total slaughters. Masvingo, Matabeleland South and
Midlands were second, third and fourth with 15, 14 and 12%, respectively. Manicaland had the
lowest slaughters, accounting for just under 1%, which may reflect a combination of the lack of
monitored abattoirs and lower cattle ranching activity, rather than the absence of cattle slaughters.
Year on year, Mashonaland Central registered the highest increase of 53%, attributed mainly to an
increase of monitored abattoirs in the province. Slaughters in Midlands increased by 10% from the
2018 figure.
However, nationally, the decline in slaughters was driven by Bulawayo, Masvingo and Matabeleland
provinces that recorded a year on year decline of 40, 25 and 20% respectively.
49
Annual Cattle Slaughters by Province, 2017 – 2019
The grade composition of slaughtered cattle by province is shown in the figure below. 46% of cattle
slaughtered in Bulawayo province were graded in the Super category, followed by Matabeleland
North, Harare and Masvingo with 40, 33 and 24% respectively. In the Economy grade, Manicaland
had the highest composition of total slaughters at 58%, followed by Mashonaland East,
Mashonaland Central and Midlands with 54, 51 and 51%, respectively.
Quality Composition by Grade, 2019
50
In 2019, the national quality composition of slaughtered cattle shows that both the Manufacturing
and Economy grade accounted for 46% while Super grade accounted for 19%.
The figure below shows a general decline in the quality of slaughters. In 2014, the Super category
made up 22% of total slaughters. However, in 2019, this category accounted for only 19%.
Similarly, in 2014, Economy grade accounted for 33% of total slaughters but increased to 39% in
2019.
Grade Classification by Province, 2014 – 2019
The occurrence of drought exacerbates the prevalence of the lower grades in total slaughters as
85% of slaughters are derived from the communal areas where producers rely most heavily on
natural pastures and intervention mechanisms in the event of drought are driven by social and not
commercial motives.
Within the small-holder sector, cattle serve a number of functions and sales serve as a residual
value recoupment strategy and this reality is reflected in the high proportion of aged cattle. In
Manicaland, Midlands, Mashonaland East and Central and Matabeleland South, 76, 73, 66, 62 and
62%, respectively of slaughtered cattle were classified as full mouth and full attrition.
51
Provincial Slaughters Composition by Age, 2019
National cattle slaughters classified by age in 2019 have not changed much since 2014, reflecting
little change in the ownership patterns of cattle being delivered for slaughter.
Annual Cattle Slaughters by Age, 2014 – 2019
Matabeleland North boasted the highest average carcass size, averaging between 217 and 258
kilogrammes (kg) in 2019. Bulawayo was second, averaging between 139 and 211kg, respectively.
Mashonaland East had the smallest carcass weight, ranging between 136 and 178kg. The national
weighted average carcass weight ranged between 160 and 189kgs.
52
Provincial Average Cold Dressed Weight (kg), 2019
The wholesale price of Super grade increased by the highest percentage of all meat grades, soaring
by 817% over 2019 from ZWL 9.60 to ZWL 88/kg as depicted in the figure below. The wholesale
price of Economy grade increased by 814% over 2018 from ZWL 7.63 to ZWL 69.75/kg. Prices for
Choice, Commercial and Manufacturing grades increased by 794, 750 and 616% over the course of
the year.
Increases in meat prices are being driven in the main by a deepening macroeconomic decline with
supply conditions a secondary driver in the price of beef products.
Beef Prices (ZWL/kg), 2018 and 2019
53
The figure below notes USD prices using the Old Mutual Implied Rate. An analysis of both 2018 and
2019 appears to display a strong psychological motivation in driving the pricing of products and
services. Meat prices in USD terms in 2018 through to February 2019 show a significant lag in the
depreciation of the exchange rate. Post-February 2019, it appears that the market re-set to reduce
the lag between a decline in the exchange rate and a corresponding upward review of meat prices.
Beef Prices in USD/kg, 2018 and 2019
The export of raw hides is set to resume following the gazetting of SI 279 of 2018 which suspends
the export surtax of $0.75/kg for selected exporters. However, international hide prices are low,
and exports are being driven by the need to generate foreign currency for importing essential
spares and raw materials.
Foot and Mouth Disease
In July, it was noted that Zimbabwe was on high alert following the emergence of new strains of
FMD serotypes O and A, which cause severe clinical diseases and deaths in pigs and small ruminants
such as goats and sheep.
The strains — types O and A — are new to the Southern African Development Community (SADC)
region and pose a serious threat to livestock, particularly small stock which is mainly owned by
smallholder farmers. Types O and A can be severe in wildlife and has caused deaths in gazelles and
wild pigs.
Historically, FMD outbreaks in the region have been caused by Southern African Territories types 1,
2 and 3. Outbreaks of the new strain have been recorded in Zambia, Tanzania, Comoros and the
DRC. Countries at risk include Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia, Botswana, Mozambique and Malawi.
54
Livestock Identification Trust
The Trust continues to supply cattle identification and traceability services under the Zimbabwe
Cattle Traceability Scheme to a number of cattle producers.
Zimbabwe Herd Book
2019 Registrations
Stud registrations in 2019 remained stable with the number of registered breeding animals having
only decreased by 3% (see table below).
Zimbabwe Herd Book 2019 Registrations
Breed Studs Animals Breed Studs Animals
Dorper 1 132 Mashona 3 418
Boer 1 109 Santa 3 313
Ayrshire 1 3 Simbra 3 295
Brahman 55 4,709 Limousin 3 41
Boran 21 2,746 D/Master 1 157
Tuli 15 2,264 Bonsmara 1 81
Simmental 6 492 Charbray 1 47
Beefmaster 4 729 Sussex 1 17
Nguni 4 125 Total 124 12,678
*Breeding stock born before 1.01.18
55
National Breed Sale 2019
The Zimbabwe Herd Book (ZHB) National Breed Sale 2019 was by all accounts a tremendous
success. A total of 205 breeding animals were sold (3 Boer Goat Bucks, 97 bulls and 105 heifers),
the highest number since 2012, mainly due to the increased numbers of heifers.
The average prices were significantly higher than 2018, reflecting devaluation of the local currency.
The average prices for bucks, bulls and heifers were ZWL 8,000, 32,263 and 14,938, respectively.
The top price was for a Ruvale Brahman bull bred by the Pilossof family, which sold for a whopping
ZWL 172,000, followed by ZWL 75,000 for another Brahman bull, again bred by the Pilossof family.
The third highest price of ZWL 60,000 was paid for a red Brahman bull bred by Mr Sibanda, Little
Beatrice Brahman Stud. Bidding for heifers was firm.
Remarkably, average prices in real terms also remained firm at USD 3,226 for bulls and USD 1,494
for heifers (using exchange rates of 1.5, 2.2 and 10:1 for 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively) despite
the prevailing macroeconomic conditions and the severe drought.
Bulls from six beef breeds were on offer and Simmental had the highest average price per bull (ZWL
35,143) followed by Brahman (ZWL 33,952) and Beefmaster (ZWL 32,333). Most of the heifers on
offer were Brahman which averaged ZWL 14,018 while the four Boran heifers sold for an average of
ZWL 28,000.
Number of stud animals sold (No) and average prices (USD) obtained at the Zimbabwe Herd Book
National Breed Sale 2009 to 2019
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Rams No 15 23 13 19 9 10 7 8 8 6
$ 672 572 1,338 1,114 1,214 1,308 1,221 1,316 975 2,150
Ewes No 35 33
19 5 10 15 12 6 4
$ 378 463
494 475 613 367 325 300 600
Bucks No
3 3 3
$
1,283 1,633 8,000
Bulls No 127 130 100 113 107 93 65 71 89 99 97
$ 2,129 2,915 3,235 2,964 3,340 3,244 3,064 3,053 4,518 6,719 32,263
Heifers No 58 75 55 75 61 54 18 41 49 71 105
$ 1,430 1,635 1,263 1,516 1,496 1,522 936 1,235 2,478 3,593 14,938
56
Number of stud animals and average prices obtained by breed at the Zimbabwe Herd Book
National Breed Sale 2019
Bulls Heifers
Breed Number Price Number Price
Beefmaster 9 32,333 12 18,167
Bonsmara 3 20,333
Boran 7 27,071 4 28,000
Brahman 63 33,952 83 14,018
Simmental 7 35,143
Tuli 8 25,375 6 12,500
Number of bulls and heifers sold on the Zimbabwe Herd Book National Breed Sales, 2009 to 2019
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Nu
mb
er
Bulls Heifers
57
Average price of bulls and heifers sold on the Zimbabwe Herd Book National Sale, 2009 to 2019
Average inflation adjusted price of bulls and heifers sold on the Zimbabwe Herd Book National
Breed Sale, 2009 to 2019
Beef School 2019
Commencing in 2012, the livestock industry came together to organise the Beef School, held under
the auspices of ZHB. Hosting this event was stimulated by the huge success of the Aldam (South
Africa) Stockman’s School which is also an annual event. The Beef School brings together local,
regional and international experts to discuss a wide range of topics that influence beef production.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Ave
rage
Pri
ce
Bulls Heifers
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Ave
rage
Infl
atio
n A
dju
sted
Pri
ce
Bulls Adj Heifer Adj
58
ZHB are indebted to the assistance and support from Dr Michael Bradfield, South Africa. Michael
arranges speakers for the Stockman School and facilitates their participation in the ZHB Beef School
as well. He also arranges their flight details to and from Johannesburg and ZHB arranges their
itineraries to and from Zimbabwe. Mark Hayter and Mario Beffa have also been integrally involved
in the Beef School putting together interesting and varied programmes that draw producers
together from across the country.
The School hosts both international and local guest speakers and the theme for 2019 was
“Innovative Technologies for the Beef Industry” and topics included adopting new technologies for
precision farming in Australia, Europe and the United States. Pasture management and the control
of woody plants as a management tool for improving pasture productivity on extensive rangeland
was also discussed. Presentations on Theileriosis, Dermatophilosis and Compartmentalisation for
FMD were made.
This exceptional event attracted 175 participants and consisted of two days of intensive lectures
from international, regional and local speakers. Steve Miller, Hugh Nivison and Kim Matthews from
the US, Australia and UK, respectively, gave excellent presentations on the adoption of innovative
technologies in the beef cattle industry in their countries. New technologies include taking the
blood pressure of animals by inserting long catheters through the jugular vein into the ventricles of
the heart. This data allows for the selection of bulls adapted to high altitudes and to breed animals
with improved tolerance to ‘high altitude disease’ in mountainous areas.
Electronic ‘wearable’ tags for cows are now available which cater for the measurement of a wide
range of ‘difficult but nice to have traits’ including location (grazing behaviour), activity
(temperament, oestrus, calving and health), rumination (efficiency and health), eating (efficiency)
and respiration (health). Presentations also introduced participants to the significant strides being
made by using genomics to measure and select for a wide range for traits.
The most eye-opening presentation was made by Prof John Lawrence who has spent many years
researching Theileriosis (January disease) in cattle. The new thinking is that the disease is being
spread by the reintroduction of Lowveld Brown Ear tick to the highveld areas. With the breakdown
of dipping services, and the lack of modern acaricides, Theileriosis is becoming a major health crisis.
The tick is also well adapted to most cattle areas in South Africa and so it is likely that Theileriosis
will become a crisis there as well.
Stimulating and thought-provoking presentations included discussion on bush dairy as a alternative
to beef production, principles of veld management, chemical control of bush encroachment, history
of veterinary work in Zimbabwe, Senkobo (dermatophilosis) disease and compartmentalisation for
improved biosecurity and as a means to safeguard trade.
59
Annual General Meeting
At the Annual General Meeting held in May 2019, Keith Swales stepped down as Chairman of ZHB
after 16 years in office. He guided ZHB through the period of the land reform programme and the
economic changes in 2008. His hard work and commitment to re-building and growing ZHB is
testament to his vision. His stewardship of ZHB through many difficult years has been
characterised by innovative ideas, strategic thinking and tireless efforts to increase the visibility
and credibility of the Herd Book. The relationships that have been fostered with breeders ensures
that ZHB will continue to prosper and the farming community are indebted to his adept leadership
and wise counsel.
John Crawford was elected as Chairman and has been passionately involved in cattle farming from a
very tender age and represents three generations of stud breeding in Zimbabwe. He has both
shown and judged cattle at agricultural shows and has a genuine desire to improve cattle farming in
this country.
Amendments to the Constitution and Rules and Regulations
Mr Crawford, newly elected Chairman of the Council of ZHB, tabled proposed amendments to both
the Constitution and Rules and Regulations of ZHB at the Annual General Meeting.
These amendments had already been tabled at the Executive Meeting held on 12th March 2019 and
after lengthy discussions and further minor changes, the Council had agreed that the amendments
were ready for tabling, adoption and ratification at the AGM.
Each amendment was tabled separately, discussed where necessary, proposed, seconded and
adopted accordingly. After ratification, the proposed amendments were submitted to the Minister
for his approval before the proposed changes can be enacted.
Goat Breeders Association of Zimbabwe
In line with its objective of promoting the breeding of goats in Zimbabwe, the goat value chain was
under the spotlight at the inaugural Goat Indaba hosted by the Goat Breeders Association of
Zimbabwe (GBAZ), on Wednesday 18th September at Henderson Research Institute, Mazowe. The
launch of the Zimbabwe Agricultural Growth Programme Goat Value Chain Initiative also took place
on the same day.
60
GBAZ was established in 2018 to drive production and management of goats and establish
standards for goat breeding in Zimbabwe. The Association seeks to address challenges in the goat
industry such as the absence of a formal structure, lack of economies of scale, training and value
chain integration, low commercialisation, poor networking and institutional framework.
Key functions of GBAZ include capacity building of members through training, dissemination of
relevant and crucial sector information, advocacy and lobbying initiatives with policy makers for the
creation of a viable goat industry. GBAZ is run by a Council elected under the Constitution and By-
laws of the Association and breed standards for Boer, Kalahari Red and Savanna goats have been
developed for the Zimbabwean Goat Herd Book. The Association is also establishing affiliations with
goat breeding societies in South Africa and Namibia.
GBAZ is affiliated to ZHB which oversees the registration of pedigree livestock and the submission
of performance data such as birth notifications, weights etc for stud breeding. The registration
process provides assurance of the breeding history and adherence to breed standards of pedigree
animals.
It is estimated that the goat population in Zimbabwe is more than 3.8 million head, 95% of which
are in the smallholder sector. Global consumption of goat meat is on an upward trend and
consumption in Africa has increased to almost 400mt per annum. In Zimbabwe, the local demand
for goat meat is not being met by producers and there is huge potential to grow the sector. Goat
production requires small parcels of land and if managed well, they can provide food security,
nutrition and poverty alleviation as well as mitigate against climate change.
The goat industry has huge potential for development of both large- and small-scale commercial
farmers given that goats are resilient and prolific breeders that require minimal management.
In order to maximise the profitability of goat farming, “Transforming Goat Production to
Commercialisation” was the theme for this first Indaba. Stephan Botes, Chairman of the Boer Goat
Breeders’ Society of Namibia made a presentation about breeding, production and marketing of
goats in Namibia and how Zimbabwe can learn from their experiences. Joe Sikosana is a renowned
local expert on goats and spoke about indigenous goat breeds in Zimbabwe and their adaptability
to the harsh dry environment. A panel of technical experts and key players in the goat industry led
the open discussion in the afternoon and imparted knowledge, expertise and tools on goat
production on nutrition, goat health, husbandry and forages and participating farmers had an
opportunity to learn how to manage their goat farms. In addition, the Indaba discussed ways of
improving breeds and addressing bottlenecks that have hampered commercialisation of small and
medium scale goat producers.
The Goat Value Chain Initiative under the European Union funded Zimbabwe Agricultural Growth
Programme was launched at the Indaba. The Project will run for four years and is being
implemented by ActionAid Zimbabwe (AAZ) with the support of COSV and Mercy Corps together
with two private integrators, namely Michview Enterprises and Zvikomborero Farm. The project is
61
supported by Matopos and Grasslands Research Institutes in the areas of research on fodder, cost
saving feed and goat breeds.
The Goat Indaba was an incredibly successful event and over 330 goat producers attended.
Honourable Haritatos, Deputy Minister Livestock, officially opened the Indaba and commented on
the exceptional turnout. The Indaba was supported by stockfeed manufacturers and animal health
providers and networking with producers was also an important part of the event.
The Goat Stud Breeders Junior Course was also fully booked, and this intensive one-day event
included discussions on breed standards, goat husbandry and animal health. Stephan Botes
facilitated the Course, and his in-depth knowledge of goats and goat breeding was deeply
appreciated by participants.
Zimbabwe Poultry Association
Production News
Broiler Breeding: Total broiler growing and in-production breeding stocks continued to decline by
17% from a peak of 796,150 birds in May 2019 to 657,105 birds in December (Table 1, Figures 1&2),
which is similar to previous peak stock levels in 2016.
While in-production breeder stocks recovered to a second peak of 470,496 birds in October before
declining by 16% to 393,071 birds in December (Figure 2), growing stocks declined by 29% from a
peak of 370,285 birds in May 2019 to 264,034 in December (Table 1, Figure 1).
Local production of hatching eggs averaged 8.6 million per month in Q4 (October to December) of
2019, being 10% higher than Q4 of 2018 and 8% higher than Q3 of 2019 (Table 1, Figure 3). Total
annual production of hatching eggs in 2019 was a record high of 97 million (Table 3, Figure 3). On
the back of increased local production and softening demand for day-old chicks, there were no
imports of hatching eggs in Q4 of 2019 (Table 1, Figure 4) for the first time in the past seven years.
Total broiler hatching eggs averaged 8.6 million per month in Q4 which was 14% lower than Q4 of
2018 but 4% higher than Q3 of 2019 (Table 2, Figure 4).
After the dramatic drop in broiler day-old chick production to 4.4 million in August, chick
production showed partial recovery to 5.2 million chicks per month in Q4, being 35% and 8% lower
than Q4 of 2018 and Q3 of 2019, respectively (Table 1, Figures 4&5). Despite the slump in
production in Q4, total annual production was 73.6 million, being 19% lower than record achieved
62
in 2018 but on par with peak production achieved 2014 to 2016 (Table 2, Figures 5&6). Chick prices
continued to increase in Q4 of 2019 (Table 1, Figure 7) and reached $9.00 per chick in December.
However, in USD terms (based on the interbank rate), the price of day-old chicks (DoC's) was 54c,
37% lower than the prices in early 2017 (Figures 7&8).
Broiler Meat Production: the number of birds processed by large-scale abattoirs were 1.8 million
per month in Q4 of 2019 which was 24 and 9% lower than Q4 of 2018 and Q3 of 2019, respectively
(Table 1). Similarly, large-scale broiler meat production declined by 25 and 11% in Q4 of 2018 and
Q3 of 2019, respectively (Tables 1&2, Figures 9&10).
Despite this decline, fourth quarter large-scale broiler meat production was the second highest ever
recorded after 2018.
In contrast, Q4 small-scale broiler meat production estimated at 5,145mt/month, represented
decreases of 41 and 7% compared with Q4 of 2018 and Q3 of 2019, respectively (Tables 1&2, Figure
10).
Fourth quarter total meat produced was estimated to be 8,064mt/month, being 36 and 8% lower
than that of Q4 in 2018 and Q3 in 2019, respectively (Tables 1&2 and Figure 8). Total meat
production in 2019 was estimated at 114.3 thousand metric tonnes, being 20% lower than that of
2018, but similar to total estimated production in the years 2014 to 2016 (Table 3, Figures 10&11).
Large-scale meat production in 2019 was 39.1 thousand metric tonnes which was 13% down on
2018 but the second highest volume recorded. Production from the small-scale sector was
estimated at 75.3 thousand metric tonnes, 23% down on 2018 and the lowest since 2013.
Wholesale prices continued to rise sharply each month (Table 1, Figures 9&12) reflecting the local
currency devaluation and increasing costs of inputs, particularly feeds. Wholesale prices of whole
bird and 2kg Individually Quick Frozen (IQF) pieces in December were ZWL 57.30 and ZWL 54.67/kg
respectively. Wholesale prices expressed in USD (relative to the interbank rate) were between 7
and 11% higher compared with prices in early 2017 (Figure 13).
Layer Breeding: Total growing and in-production layer breeder stocks averaged 46,692 birds per
month in Q4 of 2019, decreases of 34 and 37% respectively compared with Q3 of 2018 and Q4 of
2019 (Table 4, Figure 14).
Current stocks are comparable to those of 2015 to May 2017 (before the outbreak of Avian
Influenza).
Production of layer hatching eggs in Q4 averaged 0.7 million eggs per month, being decreases of 19
and 31% compared with Q4 2018 and Q3 of 2019, respectively (Table 4, Figure 15).
Sexed pullet (layer day-old chicks) production averaged 175,940 per month in Q4, being an increase
of 4% over Q4 of 2018 but a reduction of 31% compared with Q3 of 2019
63
(Table 4, Figure 7). The average price of sexed pullets rose by 42% in Q4 (Table 4) and peaked at
ZWL 12.75 per pullet in December. However, in USD terms (relative to the interbank rate), average
sexed pullet prices in December were 77c, 35% down on prices in early 2017 (Figure 8).
Table Egg Production: Large-scale growing and in-lay layer production stocks softened by 8% in Q4
(Table 4, Figure 16), and stock levels are comparable to those between 2015 and May 2017 (before
the outbreak of Avian Influenza).
Large-scale table egg production remained static at 1.9 million dozen per month in Q4, being an
increase of 21% over Q4 of 2018 (Table 4, Figures 17&18). In contrast, small-scale table egg
production is estimated to have increased by 14% to 2.6 million dozen per month, an increase of
43% over Q4 of 2018.
As a result, total egg production is estimated to have increased by 9% to 4.6 million dozen per
month, an increase of 43% over Q4 of 2018 (Tables 4 &5, Figures 17&18), approaching previous
peak production realised in 2016 (Figure 18).
Annual production of table eggs was estimated at 50.4 million dozen (Table 6), an increase of 38%
over 2018.
As with broiler meats, the wholesale price of table eggs has increased dramatically since March
2019 and in December was ZWL 52.86 per tray of 30 eggs (Table 4, Figure 17). The price of a tray of
eggs in USD terms (relative to the interbank rate) was $3.20 which is 7% softer than prices realised
in early 2017.
Inputs and Raw Materials
Poultry feeds continue to dominate the stockfeed industry and in Q4 of 2019, production averaged
29,897mt/month (worth ZWL 182.8m), being a decrease of 19% in volume and an increase of 413%
in value respectively over the same period last year and an increase of 5% in quantity and increase
of 30% in value respectively over Q3 of 2019 (Figure 19).
Poultry feeds accounted for 62% of all feeds produced by weight and 64% by monetary value. The
production of broiler and layer and breeder feeds were 27% and 5% lower, respectively than Q4 of
2018 and 16% higher and 15% lower, respectively than Q3 of 2019. Production of poultry
concentrates was 19% lower than Q4 of 2018, and 12% lower than Q3 of 2019.
On average, prices of raw materials procured in Q4 increased by 179% (Figure 20). Notable
increases were full-fat soya (274%), high CP cotton meal (314%) and roughages (wheat bran: 377%;
maize bran: 337%; screenings: 490%; and hay: 298%).
In contrast, fourth quarter prices of feeds on average, increased by 59% compared to third quarter
prices. Average weighted wholesale prices of broiler and layer feeds rose by 23% and 39%,
respectively, to ZWL 5,961 and ZWL 5,530/mt (Figure 21). However, in USD
64
terms (relative to the interbank rate), prices of broiler and layer feeds in December were $430 and
$383, respectively, being 33 and 22% down on prices in early 2017.
Market Watch
Depreciation of the ZWL against the USD in Q4 of 2019 continued to exert pressure on feed and
day-old chick prices that were not matched by increases in consumer disposable incomes. However,
demand remained strong, largely due to greater increases in prices of alternative livestock proteins,
primarily beef, pork and fish.
Going into 2020, demand for poultry products is projected to slow down given the continued
erosion of disposable incomes.
Imports
Statistics show limited importation of poultry products given the low local retail prices in USD
terms. However, going forward, reduced viability of local production is likely to lead to withdrawal
from poultry production especially by small to medium scale farmers who depend on purchased
feeds. This will likely lead to an upsurge in both legal and illicit imports of cheap poultry products.
Table 1. Broiler average monthly production returns, 2018 - 2019
%
Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec change
Female Parent Stock
Chick Sales and Retentions 70,224 29,554 52,523 65,641 38,396 32,754 65,993 53,243 -19%
Growing 235,371 298,895 263,511 284,629 324,757 314,931 319,137 263,310 -17%
In-Production 281,594 268,530 347,463 351,564 410,923 463,921 408,454 437,126 7%
Hatching Eggs, millions
Produced 5.5 4.6 5.8 7.9 7.5 8.2 8.0 8.6 8%
Imported 3.6 4.8 5.0 2.2 0.9 1.0 0.4 - -100%
Total 9.1 9.4 10.8 10.1 8.5 9.1 8.3 8.6 4%
Day Old Chicks, millions
Chick Sales and Retentions 7.1 7.4 7.8 8.0 6.5 7.0 5.6 5.2 -8%
Price per 100 chicks, $ 97.33 96.37 106.50 165.27 163.00 242.74 403.18 796.28 97%
Large-Scale Broilers
Number slaughtered, millions 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.8 -9%
Average live weight 1.79 1.84 1.87 1.87 1.78 1.84 1.79 1.79 0%
Producer price, $/kg 2.03 2.03 2.02 3.12 3.34 5.28 11.54 25.14 118%
Total dressed weight, tonnes
Large-Scale 3,935 3,481 3,721 3,869 3,429 3,403 3,270 2,918 -11%
Estimated Small-Scale 7,278 8,163 8,521 8,694 6,777 7,639 5,532 5,145 -7%
Total 11,213 11,644 12,242 12,563 10,205 11,042 8,803 8,064 -8%
Wholesale prices, $/kg
Whole bird 3.61 3.42 3.46 7.05 6.19 10.96 21.91 50.23 129%
Leg quarters 4.30 4.11 4.33 7.56 7.49 12.37 25.76 57.64 124%
Breast 4.95 4.75 4.99 8.93 9.23 15.07 31.07 72.16 132%
1kg IQF 3.96 3.55 3.77 6.80 6.28 10.94 20.82 49.40 137%
2kg IQF 3.58 3.20 3.30 5.60 5.87 10.65 21.12 48.85 131%
Stock Holding (tonnes) 869 1,128 370 727 1,335 1,014 1,327 642 -52%
2018 2019
65
Table 2. Broiler meat production (mt), 2018 – 2019
2018 2019 %
Jan-Mar
Apr-Jun Jul-Sep
Oct-Dec
Jan-Mar
Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec change
Large-scale
11,805
10,443
11,162
11,607
10,287
10,209
9,810
8,755 -11%
Small-scale
21,833
24,488
25,563
26,081
20,330
22,918
16,597
15,435 -7%
Total
33,638
34,931
36,725
37,688
30,616
33,127
26,408
24,191 -8%
Table 3. Broiler annual production returns, 2013 to 2019
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 % change
Female Parent Stock, monthly averages, thousands
Chick Sales and Retentions 58 42 34 34 18 54 48 -13%
Growing 335 321 282 294 216 271 306 13%
In-Production 417 427 332 341 322 312 430 38%
Total Hatching Eggs, millions
Produced (ea) 79 82 77 82 74 71 97 36%
Imported (ea) 8 20 26 16 17 47 7 -86%
Total (ea) 87 102 103 98 91 118 104 -12%
Day Old Chicks Total Chick Sales and Retentions, millions 64 78 76 75 69 91 74 -19%
Average price per 100 chicks 79 70 69 62 76 116 401 245%
Large-scale broilers
Total number slaughtered, millions 20.6 20.9 22.2 21.8 22.7 27.3 23.6 -14%
Live weight 1.54 1.87 1.90 1.78 1.76 1.84 1.80 -2%
Producer price, $/kg 2.12 2.04 1.95 1.82 1.91 2.30 11.32 392%
Dressed weight, '000 tonnes
Large-scale 31.5 32.3 35.5 35.9 35.3 45.0 39.1 -13%
Small-scale 66.8 88.2 80.8 82.0 70.7 98.0 75.3 -23%
Total 98.3 120.5 116.3 117.9 106.0 143.0 114.3 -20%
Wholesale prices, $/kg
Whole bird 3.38 3.26 3.13 2.85 3.35 4.39 22.32 409%
Leg quarters 3.90 3.74 3.67 3.41 3.88 5.07 25.82 409%
Breast 5.40 5.05 5.08 4.61 4.85 5.91 31.88 440%
1kg IQF 3.34 3.12 3.05 2.77 3.30 4.52 21.86 384%
2kg IQF 3.27 3.06 2.91 2.66 3.20 3.92 21.62 452%
Average monthly stock holding, tonnes 744 688 868 1,053 384 774 1,079 40%
66
Table 4. Layer average monthly production returns, 2018 – 2019
Table 5. Layer quarterly table egg production (million dozen), 2018 – 2019
2018 2019 %
Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec change
Large-scale 2.8 3.2 3.8 4.8 6.1 5.7 5.7 5.8 2%
Small-scale 5.3 5.5 5.6 5.5 5.8 6.5 7.0 7.9 14%
Total 8.1 8.6 9.4 10.3 11.9 12.1 12.6 13.7 9%
Layers %
Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec change
Female Parent Stock
Chick Sales and Retentions - 4,992 4,848 3,164 5,068 - 1,667 1,163 -30%
Growing 16,103 16,854 21,770 25,726 35,062 29,752 24,048 12,583 -48%
In-Production 17,275 24,338 29,843 44,786 36,046 45,137 49,529 34,109 -31%
Hatching Eggs
Produced (ea) 342,074 436,845 621,491 902,054 822,590 631,967 1,056,397 728,556 -31%
Imported (ea) - - - - 18,000 - - -
Total (ea) 342,074 436,845 621,491 902,054 840,590 631,967 1,056,397 728,556 -31%
Day Old Chicks
Chick Sales and Retentions 216,340 106,850 196,219 169,620 265,548 236,594 253,641 175,940 -31%
Price per 100 chicks 133.44 142.78 170.83 219.61 263.25 334.17 769.11 1,094.61 42%
Large-Scale Point of Lay
Sales 12,928 7,404 22,553 13,642 11,925 11,791 4,320 4,115 -5%
Price per bird 11.28 11.67 11.97 16.04 20.42 18.06
Large-Scale Layers
Growing 268,064 369,903 347,944 214,786 217,723 318,950 278,731 240,296 -14%
In-lay 487,633 534,882 765,924 879,310 942,691 890,611 954,626 896,977 -6%
Sale price of spent hens 3.67 3.59 3.67 6.06 6.13 10.53 24.25 48.74 101%
Table Eggs, million dozen
Large-scale 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.6 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 2%
Estimated Small-scale 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.6 14%
Total 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.4 4.0 4.0 4.2 4.6 9%
Wholesale price per tray 4.50 4.45 4.30 6.34 6.96 10.86 23.82 45.41 91%
Stockholding (doz) 48,703 52,331 94,607 132,455 148,632 133,072 203,795 203,953 0%
2018 2019
67
Table 6. Layer annual production returns, 2013 to 2019
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 % change
Female Parent Stock, monthly averages
Chick Sales and Retentions 5,644 1,950 3,608 2,284 2,296 3,251 1,974 -39%
Growing 25,475 21,843 19,456 19,247 16,510 20,113 25,361 26%
In-Production 50,656 41,173 27,969 25,123 20,970 29,061 41,205 42%
Total Hatching Eggs, thousands
Produced (ea) 10,660 9,762 6,266 6,909 5,012 6,907 9,719 41%
Imported (ea) 160 648 2,649 364 267 - 54
Total (ea) 10,820 10,410 8,914 7,273 5,278 6,907 9,773 41%
Day Old Chicks Total Chick Sales and Retentions, thousands 2,406 2,333 3,213 2,019 1,707 2,194 3,065 40%
Average price per 100 chicks 120 129 133 116 126 167 615 269%
Point of Lay
Total sales, thousands 194 141 351 131 43 170 96 -43%
Average price per bird 9.78 10.48 10.09 8.27 10.62 12.74
Layers, monthly averages, thousands
Growing 408 331 338 285 212 300 264 -12%
In-lay 1,091 1,010 819 886 717 667 921 38% Average sale price of spent hens 4.17 4.05 3.85 3.33 3.68 4.24 22.41 428%
Table Eggs, million dozen
Large-scale 24.6 21.8 18.8 22.3 17.0 14.5 23.2 60%
Small-scale 23.6 22.7 29.2 33.0 20.8 21.9 27.2 24%
Total 48.2 44.5 48.0 55.3 37.8 36.4 50.4 38% Wholesale price per tray of eggs 3.89 4.21 3.78 3.18 3.82 4.90 21.76 344% Average monthly stockholding 0.23 0.18 0.20 0.24 0.10 0.08 0.17 110%
68
Figure 1. Broiler breeder stocks, 2017 to 2019
Figure 2. Broiler breeder in-production stocks, 2013 to 2019
69
Figure 3. Locally produced broiler hatching eggs, 2016 to 2019
Figure 4. Broiler hatching eggs and day-old chicks, 2017 to 2019
70
Figure 5. Broiler day-old chicks, 2016 to 2019
Figure 6. Annual Production of Broiler day-old chicks, 2009 to 2019
71
Figure 7. Broiler day-old chick production and prices, 2017 to 2019
Figure 8. Broiler day-old chick and Layer sexed pullet prices in USD
72
Figure 9. Large-scale broiler meat production, stockholding and whole bird wholesale
price, 2017 to 2019
Figure 10. Broiler meat production, 2017 to 2019
73
Figure 11. Broiler meat production, 2016 to 2019
Figure 12. Broiler meat wholesale price trends (ZWL), July 2018 to 2019
74
Figure 13. Broiler meat wholesale price trends (USD), July 2018 to 2019
Figure 14. Layer breeder stocks, 2017 to 2019
75
Figure 15. Layer hatching eggs and sexed pullets, 2017 to 2019
Figure 16. Large-scale layer production stocks, 2017 to 2019
76
Figure 17. Table egg production and wholesale prices, 2017 to 2019
Figure 18. Average monthly table egg production by quarter, 2013 to 2019
77
Figure 19. Production of poultry feeds and broiler day old chicks, 2017 to 2019
Figure 20. Prices (ZWL) of maize, solvent extracted soya meal and layer and broiler feeds, July
2018 to December 2019
78
Figure 21. Prices (in USD relative to the interbank rate) of maize, solvent extracted soya meal and
layer and broiler feeds, July 2018 to December 2019
Poultry Indaba 2019
The Poultry Indaba 2019 held at ART Farm in early July was a vibrant, festive event attended by
more than 200 people. The Indaba itself was held in the auditorium at the Farm and exhibitor
stands were set up around the charming gardens. The weather was also perfect and poultry
farmers, experts and other stakeholders participated in an informative day of discussion and
networking on poultry production.
In order to maximise the profitability of a poultry enterprise, “Back to Basics” was the theme of the
Poultry Indaba and this full day event explored the feeding and management of chickens during the
winter season so that poultry producers can minimise losses and maintain healthy flocks for
increased production efficiency. Technical sessions are a key part of the Poultry Indaba and this
year’s programme included presentations about: Factors affecting feed performance in broilers and
layers; Optimising layer production in winter; Troubleshooting poultry production problems; and the
cost-effectiveness routine laboratory testing. Poultry producers asked questions, sought advice and
interacted with nutritionists and veterinarians.
The “Back to Basics” theme also explored common causes of mortalities in winter as well as
biosecurity issues. In 2017, the outbreak of Avian Influenza severely constrained the operations of
79
a major poultry producer with drastic knock-on effects to the industry and continuing outbreaks of
Newcastle Disease regularly impact upon small flocks in and around poultry markets. To avoid
future catastrophic consequences from Avian Influenza, the industry needs to develop effective
mitigation strategies. To this end the state of preparedness by Zimbabwe to effectively manage
poultry disease was discussed at length.
Pig Producers Association of Zimbabwe
Cumulative pig slaughters for 2019 were 193,820 head, 12 and 27% higher than 2018 and 2017,
respectively. The slaughters were also the highest since 2013 and may be due to destocking in the
small to medium-scale sector which is the most vulnerable from the impact of a declining economy.
Dislocations in the supply of raw materials, along with the rising cost of stockfeed have been
compounded by reduced spending by consumers whose purchasing power is being eroded by
inflation. As a result, some producers are facing viability challenges and are either downscaling or
closing their operations. It is estimated that a kilogram of pork costs between ZWL 35 and 40 to
produce and at the end of 2019, the producer price was virtually the same.
Annual Pig Slaughters, 2014 – 2019
Monthly pig slaughters in averaged 16,152 head, against 14,475 in 2018. November and June
recorded the lowest and highest slaughters of 13,983 and 18,277 head, respectively.
80
Monthly Pig Slaughters, 2016 – 2019
The graph below illustrates the monthly breakdown by grade for 2018 and 2019. December 2018
showed the highest composition of Manufacturing and General Purpose grades and also the highest
monthly slaughter.
Monthly Pig Slaughters by Grade
The dominance of General and Manufacturing grades in all provinces except Mashonaland West
may point to the high incidence of small to medium-scale producers both entering and exiting pig
farming in that province.
81
Proportionate Provincial Slaughters by Grade, 2019
On a national scale, in 2019 the average composition of grades was 28% for both Manufacturing
and General Purpose and 34% for Baconers while Porkers made up 38% of the total slaughters.
National Slaughters by Grade, 2014 – 2019
Pig producer and wholesale prices for 2019 rose by 648% and 762%, respectively while in 2018 they
rose by 30% and 23%, respectively.
The ZWL depreciated by 400% in 2019, while in 2018, it depreciated by 235%.
82
Wholesale prices in 2019, when compared to producer prices, carried margins ranging between 15
– 40%, reflecting an improvement in margins for wholesalers over the same period that ranged
between 13 – 20%.
Pig Producer and Wholesale Prices USD/kg, 2019
In real terms and using the Old Mutual Implied rate, pork producer and wholesale prices declined
from January through to May 2019 before a muted recovery for the rest of the year. Producer
prices ranged between USD 1.05 – 1.57/kg while wholesale prices traded between USD 1.21 –
2.09/kg.
Pig Producer and Wholesale Prices, USD/kg, 2017 – 2019
-
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
Exch
ange
Rat
e
Po
rk P
rice
s
Porker Producer Price Porker Wholesale Price ZWL/US$ Exchange Rate
83
African Swine Fever
In February 2019, DVS circulated an advisory about the suspected outbreak of African Swine Fever
(ASF) in the Nyamaropa and Nyakomba areas of Nyanga North. ASF is a highly contagious
haemorrhagic viral disease of domestic and wild pigs which is responsible for serious economic and
production losses. It is a transboundary animal disease which can be spread by live or dead pigs,
domestic or wild, and pork products. There is no vaccine against ASF.
A second outbreak of African Swine Fever in the Mt Darwin district was driven in the main by free
roaming pigs and the region remains susceptible given the proximity to the border with
Mozambique where disease control is being compromised by the porous border. DVS carried out
awareness campaigns, established quarantine areas, set up a roadblock at Sohwe business centre
and engaged with stakeholders to support their efforts.
Symposium 2019
For Zimbabwe’s pig farming community, all roads led to ART Farm, Pomona, Harare on 10th October
for the annual Pig Symposium hosted by the Pig Producers Association of Zimbabwe (PPAZ).
Resuscitated in 2010, the mission of PPAZ is to represent the pig industry with one unified voice and
to promote and educate for a sustainable and socially responsible, profitable and globally
competitive pork industry.
The launch of the European Union funded Zimbabwe Agricultural Growth Programme Pig Value
Chain Initiative led by AAZ also took place at the event. AAZ is collaborating with two private sector
integrators in the pig industry, Braford Enterprises and Shamiso Farms, to implement the project
and the initiative is focused on transforming and promoting the pork value chain in Zimbabwe to
supply safe, quality assured pork and pork products. The project will also work with the Pig Industry
Board to formalise the establishment of two Pork Production Business Syndicates in Mashonaland
East and West provinces for efficient delivery of value-added business services to members through
collective business strategies.
Domestic Pig Industry
The fortunes of the industry have been on an upward trend following interventions by government
and the private sector and is currently made up of nearly 19,000 sows (adult female pig) with an
estimated herd in excess of 400,000 pigs.
Pig slaughters through formal abattoirs have grown by more than 40% from 120,000 in 2013 to
more than 170,000 in 2018. The increase in pig farming activities over the years following a dip in
early 2000 has been driven by technical training at a nominal cost, effective stockfeed manufacture,
improved genetics and better market access for pork products. An increasingly health conscious
consumer has increased the consumption of white meat as part of a balanced diet which has
benefited the pork industry.
84
Global Dynamics
Global meat consumption excluding fish and seafood sources for 2013 according to the Food and
Agricultural Organisation was 43kg per capita with pork accounting for 37%. In Africa, meat
consumption averaged 19kg per capita with pork consumption accounting for only 8%. According to
the Poverty Income and Expenditure Survey of 2011, Zimbabwean meat consumption in the same
year was 9kg per capita of which the consumption of pork made up 5%.
The local pig industry has scope to increase market share in the long term by promoting the
consumption of pork. The current trade tensions between major economies of the United States
and China and the outbreak of ASF in China present short term opportunities to enter the export
market if quality standards and competitive production practices are adhered to.
Domestic Market
Economic difficulties exacerbated by severe weather shocks have characterised the operating
environment in Zimbabwe. The effects of drought on agricultural production and electricity
generation, the impact of cyclone Idai and the significant fiscal consolidation have dampened the
business environment. The February currency reforms and the depreciation of the exchange rate
has fostered high inflation which reached almost 300% (year-over-year) in August.
The pig industry has not been spared from the adverse effects of the deteriorating economic
environment as the costs of stockfeed and the bottlenecks in the supply of soya meal and maize has
put price pressures on pork products. Pig producers and processors alike have reduced margins as
they absorb some cost pressures. Disposable incomes have been noticeably eroded by inflation,
resulting in intense price competition amongst the different animal proteins.
Health
Globally, the continuing outbreaks of ASF has raised concern among animal health experts and the
industry at large. The ASF virus is of the Asfarviridae family which causes haemorrhagic fever with
high mortality rates in domestic pigs.
The Chinese pig industry has been devastated by ASF with their pig herd estimated to have declined
by 39% to 200 million head to August 2019. As a result, pork prices have spiked by 40% this year.
Outbreaks have also been reported in North and South Korea, Vietnam and most recently,
Australia.
Closer to home, 14 outbreaks of ASF have been reported in South Africa in the North West,
Mpumalanga, Gauteng and the Free State provinces, mainly among smallholder farmers.
Locally, an outbreak of ASF has been contained in the north-east of the country bordering
Mozambique and producers have been encouraged to implement high biosecurity standards.
In order to maximise the profitability of a pig enterprise, “Back to Basics” was the theme of the
Symposium and this one day event reminded pig producers of their underlying core business
functions to position their operations for enduring commercialisation and profitability. Technical
85
sessions are a key part of the Symposium and this year’s programme included farmer testimonials
from their humble beginnings to success and presentations on livestock financing and alternatives
and export opportunities. The afternoon session was devoted to managing pig farms and includes
topics such as alternative feed sources, practical feeding concepts and pig health.
Meat Processors Association of Zimbabwe Cumulative imports of mechanically deboned meat (MDM) for January to September 2019 was
1,197mt, a decline of 61% on imports for the same period in 2018. The average cost decreased by
35% from USD 746 to 486/mt.
Imports of Mechanically Deboned Meat, 2015 – September 2019
Total value of MDM imports in the nine months to September 2019 amounted to USD 581,830
whereas for the same period in 2018, imports amounted to USD 2,3million.
86
Value of Mechanically Deboned Meat, 2015 – September 2019
Imports of Mechanically Deboned Meat, 2016 - 2019
Sausage Casings
Imports of sausage casings to September 2019 amounted to USD 664,682, a decline of 51% on
imports between January and September 2018 at a value of USD 1.7m. Total quantity imported was
68mt compared with 132mt in 2018.
87
Monthly Imports of Sausage Casings, 2017 – September 2019
The average import cost of sausage casings between January and September 2019 was USD
9,682/mt, a decrease of 33% over the same period in 2018 and was also 25% lower than the
average cost in 2018.
Average Price and Quantity of Imported Sausage Casings, 2015 – September 2019
The global sausage casings market is being primarily driven by factors such as an increase in fast
food restaurants, increasing household consumption of processed meats and the growing meat
processing industry in emerging markets. Although the demand for natural casings is high, with
increasing costs of production, the supply of artificial casings is growing at a significant pace.
88
Zimbabwe Association of Dairy Farmers Milk production in Zimbabwe continues to register steady positive growth and in 2019 amounted to
79.9 million litres, an increase of 6% over 2018.
Monthly double-digit growth was registered in milk production in the first four months of 2019
when compared with the previous year. Thereafter, growth in each successive month slowed while
in October, a decrease of 2% was recorded.
The trend over the year has been attributed to the increasing challenges being faced by dairy
farmers. The cost of dairy feed spiked in 2019 and access to water on the back of the drought
caused some producers to reduce their dairy herd. Another factor has been the long periods of high
temperatures, negatively affecting milk yields as dairy cows are sensitive to high temperatures.
Annual Milk Production, 2014 – 2019
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Mill
ion
Lit
res
Full Year
89
Monthly Raw Milk Production, 2014 – 2019
Annual Milk Production, 1988 – 2019
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 4.69 4.12 4.61 4.57 4.76 4.86 4.89 5.07 5.04 5.04 4.64 5.26
2016 5.52 5.09 5.38 5.28 5.32 5.31 5.47 5.74 5.58 5.60 5.30 5.80
2017 5.54 4.39 5.66 4.97 5.24 5.40 5.80 5.84 5.72 5.90 5.90 5.96
2018 6.01 5.26 5.66 5.70 6.05 6.01 6.29 6.78 6.56 7.08 6.86 7.07
2019 6.71 6.20 6.47 6.41 6.65 6.81 6.77 6.97 6.81 6.93 6.36 7.09
M-o-M % change -5% -8% 4% -1% 4% 2% -1% 3% -2% 2% -8% 11%
Y-o-Y % change 12% 18% 14% 12% 10% 13% 8% 3% 4% -2% -7% 0%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
% C
han
ge
Mill
ion
litr
es
2015 2016 2017 2018
2019 M-o-M % change Y-o-Y % change
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05
20
07
20
09
20
11
20
13
20
15
20
17
20
19
Mill
ion
Lit
res
90
Zimbabwe Fish Producers Association Exports of fish between January and September 2019 were 2,318mt, valued at $4.9m, an increase
of 37% and 12% in quantity and value, respectively when compared to the same period in 2018.
Exports were dominated by fresh water frozen fish and frozen tilapia that made up 47% and 52%,
respectively of total exports. Consumer incomes have not kept pace with increasing costs of fish
production, and as a result, fish producers are increasingly exploring regional and international
markets to compensate for the local drop in demand.
Exports of Fish (mt), 2015 – 2019
91
Value of Exports of Fish (USD), 2015 – 2018
Imports
Imports of fish from January to September 2019 were 2,075mt, a decline of 86% over the same
period in 2018 and the value declined by 80% from USD 14.7 million to 3.0 million. Foreign currency
shortages appear to have had a severe negative impact upon the import of fish.
Imports of Fish (mt), 2015 – 2019
92
Value of Fish Imports (USD), 2015 – 2019
Monthly Fish Imports (mt), 2016 – 2019
Fish imports to September 2019 were dominated by frozen Jack and Horse Mackerel, both in
quantity (58%) and value (54%) at an average price of $782/mt. Dried freshwater fish were also
imported at $2,098/mt.
93
Quantity Imported Fish (mt), January – September 2019
Value of Imported Fish (USD), January – September 2019
Fish Farming Indaba
The 2019 Fish Farming Indaba, held on 29th March, attracted 105 participants and was a very
successful day. The programme was interesting and varied and demonstrations were held at the
fishponds at Henderson Research Institute, also the venue for the Indaba. Management of the
water eco-system is an important part of fish husbandry and fish require different feeding regimes
at each growth stage, from fingerling to harvest-ready fish.
The Zimbabwe Fish Producers Association believes that fish production in Zimbabwe will grow
significantly, with aquaculture proudly taking its place alongside the chicken, pork and beef
94
industries as a key supplier of tasty, nutritious, home-grown protein for a growing population. With
the right policies and strategies, there is enormous potential to develop fish farming in Zimbabwe,
using tilapia - Africa’s own indigenous fish which achieve good growth rates under intensive
production.
As the fish farming industry grows in Zimbabwe, there is need for accredited and certified trainers
to provide expertise and practical training for fish farmers, a topic that was explored at the Indaba
as well as bio-security requirements for fish farming, including effective pest control, regular
monitoring of water quality and correct handling of fish to ensure that fish are maintained in a
healthy environment for optimum production.
For Zimbabwe to realise the full potential of aquaculture, the private sector and government must
work together with financial institutions to establish an Aquaculture Development Fund, a strategy
that stakeholders tabled during the planning phase of the National Fisheries Development. It was
proposed that a surtax of 10cents/kg on all fish imports entering Zimbabwe be implemented which
will then directly capitalise the Fund. This innovative idea was discussed and recommended by
participants.
Summary LMAC and its various associations will continue to strive for strengthening in 2020 to ensure it is in
a better position to provide demand driven services and benefits to its members. The Council also
hopes to create more platforms to interact with both public and private stakeholders in the
livestock and meat industry and foster mutually beneficial relationships.
95
Appendices
Feed and Veterinary Supply Security for Zimbabwe's Livestock Sector.
Issues Paper January 2019
1.0 Introduction
2018 was characterised by high meat and milk prices. The key driver of these increased retail prices
has been the high cost and frequent stockouts of key raw materials that are used in the
manufacture of feeds. For commercial beef and dairy production, the availability and cost of
molasses and cotton cake have negatively affected the viability of farmers. In the pig and chicken
sectors, the availability and cost of soyabean meal and the brans of maize and wheat are critical for
farmers to supply affordable meat to the market.
It is important to note that the key raw materials noted above are by-products of processing of
sugarcane, cotton, soyabean and grains.
The 18 feed manufacturing companies who currently employ 3,500 workers transform these by-
products into 450,000mt of feeds each year to satisfy the requirements of beef and dairy cattle
producers, pig farmers, 35,000 broiler farmers, 10,000 egg producers, as well as fish, horse and pet
keepers. Of this amount, 70% goes into poultry, fish and pig feed production. Thus, ensuring the
viability of the stockfeed sector in the livestock product value chain is important for both economic
growth, employment creation and consumer access to affordable nutrition.
In this issues paper, the problems are outlined that are currently being faced by feed manufacturers
in accessing these key raw materials and policy suggestions are proffered to ensure their availability
as well as the viability of livestock farming and affordable products for consumers.
2.0 Soyabean Meal
Production of poultry, fish and pig feeds use maize and soyabean meal as the main ingredients.
Members of the Stockfeed Manufacturers Association use 120,000mt per year of soyabean meal. A
further 30,000mt is used by farmers who mix their own feeds on-farm. The country therefore needs
nearly 192,000mt of raw soyabeans for processing into soyabean meal by local oil expressers. In
2018, only 60,000mt of soyabeans were harvested, enough to produce 49,000mt of soyabean meal.
Thus, Zimbabwe has had to depend on imports for the shortfall of 100,000mt of soyabean meal.
However, when allocated foreign currency, oil expressers prefer to import crude vegetable oil
which is much cheaper on international markets rather than raw beans. As a result, most of the
requirements by the livestock sector for soyabean meal have been satisfied through direct imports
of meal rather than soyabeans which can be value-added into cooking oil with the remaining meal
being used in the manufacture of feed.
96
Another issue facing the industry has been the over-dependency on soyabean meal as the main
source of protein for chicken and pig feed formulations. Soyabeans are generally grown in the
highly fertile areas of Mashonaland East, West and Central. Due to the lack of appropriate
harvesting technologies suitable for smallholder farmers, most soyabeans are grown by large-scale
producers such as those under A2 farms. Sunflower is an alternative protein source that can be
grown successfully under smallholder conditions and can be used to express oil. Sunflower also has
the advantage of generating good yields in drier areas of the country including Midlands,
Matabeleland, Masvingo and northern parts of the Mashonaland provinces.
A number of strategies need to be explored to reduce the soyabean meal constraint in the country.
There is need to promote maize-soyabean rotation under CAP as a way to increase maize
productivity and reduce fertiliser costs. Soyabeans trap nitrogen in the root system which benefits
the following rotational crop. Currently, CAP for soyabeans and maize are treated as separate sub-
programmes. If participation in Command Maize is made conditional to adopting a soyabean-maize
rotation, this improves both maize and soyabean production and productivity and help the country
achieve the multiple goals of cooking oil, soyabean meal and maize food and feed security.
Secondly, there is need for the promotion of sunflower production for both cooking oil and oilseed
cake for livestock. The advantage of a sunflower and soyabean combination is amply demonstrated
in South Africa where sunflower is grown in drier regions such as Limpopo province and soyabean
in highly fertile areas such as KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga. In the Zimbabwean climate,
sunflower production can be promoted in the low potential regions in the smallholder farming
sector. However, there is need to boost production or import high yielding sunflower seed by
Zimbabwe's seed suppliers.
Finally, in the short-term, there is need to ensure the cost-effective import of soyabeans for local oil
expressers and feed manufacturers. Currently, individual companies and traders import small lots
of beans which increases transaction costs. LMAC supports the bulk importation of beans under
an authority such as the GMB to enable local oil and feed processing companies to enjoy economies
of scale. As price discounts can be negotiated for large quantities, transportation optimised and
import administration costs reduced. This will also ensure fair access to products by smaller players.
If GMB coordinates bulk imports, Zimbabwe can safely import and process soyabeans that are free
of genetic modification which will reduce the risk of contaminating local soyabean varieties.
Soyabeans that are genetically modified generally cost less on international markets.
3.0 Availability of Molasses
Zimbabwe has a comparative advantage in the production of sugarcane as pre-processing of the
crop yields molasses. Surplus molasses is produced which enables value-addition for the
manufacture of feeds in the local dairy, sheep, goat and beef sectors as well as yeast for export into
regional markets.
Molasses is used to produce beef feedlot and dairy concentrates to enhance meat and milk
production. It is also a key ingredient in the manufacture of urea-molasses licks that enable cattle,
97
sheep and goats to effectively utilise dry grass during the lean grazing period from June to the start
of the rainy season.
Currently, however, the local livestock feed sector has not been able to access adequate amounts
of this raw material due to high mandatory ethanol blending requirements instituted by
Government. The feed industry is now having to depend on expensive imported molasses, draining
the foreign currency reserves of the country.
Tongaat-Hulett produced 3.5mt of sugarcane in the 2017 – 18 season, enough to yield 460,000mt
of refined sugar of which an estimated 145,000mt is supplied to the export market and 315,000mt
to the local market for direct consumption as well as value-addition through the food and beverage
processing industries.
This level of sugar production is enough to produce 160,000mt of molasses (5% of total cane
grown). This is adequate to supply the 50,000mt of molasses needed by beef and dairy operations
and 10,000mt required by the yeast production industry. The remaining 100,000mt will produce 22
million litres of ethanol (20ml of ethanol is created from every 100gms of molasses) for fuel
blending to complement the 75 million litres of ethanol generated by Green Fuels.
During 2018 it was estimated that molasses requirements for the livestock industry was under-
supplied by 35% as considerably more molasses was diverted to ethanol production than in
previous years. Therefore, foreign currency savings derived from fuel blending is offset by the need
to import molasses for stockfeed manufacture.
Green Fuels and Tongaat-Hulett charge $1.10 and $0.88 / litre, respectively for ethanol used in
blending with imported petrol. Given the current landed import prices of $0.75/l of petrol, the price
of ethanol does not yield any fuel cost advantages to the nation's motorists. In addition, the 100
million litres of ethanol added to imported petrol is dwarfed by the 1.44 billion dollars required
each year by the country to import fuel.
Meanwhile, the cost of imported molasses contributes to the high cost of stockfeed feed, causing
increased costs of meat and milk. In the current economic environment and foreign currency
shortages, farmers have done away with utilising molasses in home-mixes, resulting in decreased
production of meat and milk. Reduced milk production has impacted upon the gains that the Dairy
Revitalisation Programme has generated in the last four years and imports of milk have increased
again, costing the country through the leakage of foreign currency.
LMAC proposes that 50,000mt and 10,000mt of molasses be ring-fenced for the livestock feed and
for the yeast production sector, respectively with the remainder being diverted to ethanol
production. The issue here is that local value-addition needs to be balanced with the requirements
for blending fuel.
98
4.0 Cotton cake
The processing of cotton yields oil for blending into cooking oil and cotton cake. In most years, the
country produces surpluses of cotton cake for value-addition to meet the stockfeed needs of the
local dairy, sheep, goat and beef sectors with excess available for export into regional markets.
Cotton is the main protein ingredient in the manufacture of feed for cattle, sheep and goats.
Currently, however, the local livestock feed sector has not secured adequate amounts of cotton
cake as oil expressers have preferred to export cotton cake to earn foreign currency. The livestock
industry has to depend on expensive imported cotton cake which drains the fiscus.
Most cotton is currently being grown with subsidised financing from the Government. It is
therefore unfair for oil expressers to gain from foreign earnings generated by public funding of
cotton production at the expense of livestock farmers and – by extension – consumers of meat and
milk.
The country is more than self-sufficient in cotton cake production. It is proposed that the livestock
sector – farmers, feed manufacturers and feedlot operators – have first priority in accessing cotton
cake before any excess can be exported.
An argument used by oil expressers is that when they buy and crush cotton seed, they should not
be liable for storage costs to cater for the users of cotton cake. A proposed solution is to allow feed
manufacturers, feedlot operators and dairy and beef farmers to buy cotton seed directly from
ginners. As and when cotton cake is required, producers and manufacturers can toll process with
expressers.
5.0 Maize and Wheat Bran
The stockfeed feed industry is highly dependent on maize and wheat brans generated by the grain
milling industry. Brans constitute a high proportion of ingredients in the manufacture of dairy, beef,
pig and poultry feeds and supplies both protein and energy. Currently, both types of brans are in
short supply due to the preference by milling companies to export brans to generate foreign
currency. Exporting brans to neighbouring countries such as Botswana and South Africa generates
jobs and value-addition in those countries at the expense of the local livestock sector. Meanwhile,
feed companies are having to source brans at a high cost from countries such as Mozambique and
Malawi to satisfy the needs of the local livestock sector.
On balance, the country suffers a net loss in foreign currency as brans are exported at less than the
export parity price while incurring greater import parity prices. In addition, livestock products
become non-competitive relative to products from neighbouring countries, encouraging both legal
and illicit imports of meat and poultry products.
As the case with cotton, maize production has depended heavily on funding by Government of CAP
for input supply as well as price support ($390/mt). Millers have been benefiting as they have
obtained low priced maize from GMB at the subsidised rate of $250/mt.
99
The objective of Government under CAP is to stimulate local production as well as value addition to
improve availability and affordability of products, including milling and livestock products. Similarly,
millers have enjoyed generous foreign currency allocations for the importation of wheat grain.
Thus, for millers to then earn foreign currency from an essential raw material for local value-
addition defeats the whole thrust of Government policy.
LMAC proposes a ban on the export of brans to improve the availability and affordability of raw
materials for the livestock sector. To boost the supply of locally produced brans, LMAC also
advocates the foreign currency is allocated only for the importation of whole grains. Not only would
this support employment generation in the milling sector but will also ensure that adequate brans
are available for the feed sector to reduce pressure on the cost of livestock production and – by
extension – reduce prices of livestock products to consumers.
6.0 Foreign Currency Shortages and the Livestock Sector
Finally, in the last quarter of 2018, the stockfeed industry could not secure a foreign currency
allocation at the stipulated rate of 1:1 for ZWL to the dollar. Manufacturers were forced to source
foreign currency on the parallel market at premium of between 2.50 – 3.50 ZWL for the USD. This
has put significant pressure on the cost of feeds.
Soyabeans is by far the main imported feed raw material and USD 9.9 million is required to
purchase 12,000mt of soyabean meal. Due to the shortages of molasses as highlighted above, feed
manufacturers have had to import 1,200mt of molasses at a cost of USD 240,000 per month. In
addition, high performance livestock feeds require extra ingredients, the majority of which are
imported. These include vitamins, amino acids and minerals such as calcium, phosphorous and
other trace elements. The industry currently needs USD 2.3 million each month for importations of
minerals, amino acids and vitamin premixes.
Thus, the feed industry requires USD 12.43 million each month. If it is obtained at the
recommended rate of 1:1, the retail price of poultry feeds would be RTGS 25 – 36 per 50kg bag.
However, as foreign currency has been purchased at a premium rate, retail prices have increased to
between RTGS 36 – 81 per bag range, resulting in an increase of poultry meat prices from RTGS 6 to
14.50/kg.
For healthy animals and the efficient use of feeds, livestock require veterinary drugs, the shortage
of which adversely affects the management and control of zoonotic diseases, posing a threat to
human health and food security. In total, USD 3.5 million is required each month to adequately
protect the health of the country's livestock. Vaccines to control the outbreak of Foot and Mouth
Disease cost USD 800,000 per month while animal medicines and other drugs require USD 2.7
million per month. Availing this amount at the recommended rate of 1:1 would make drugs
affordable to farmers and help boost their viability.
100
Review of Cotton Meal Supply Situation 2019
1.0 Introduction
The cotton sector recorded a significant increase in the 2018 harvest due to generous support by
the Government of Zimbabwe. From only 28,425mt during the 2016-17 marketing season, the
sector grew to 73,000mt in 2017-18 and 143,000mt in the 2018-19 marketing season.
However, despite this remarkable growth, stockfeed manufacturers, dairy and beef farmers and
feedlotters were unable to access adequate supplies of cotton cake and cotton hulls from oil
expressers during the last quarter of 2018 with prices rising dramatically. During the same period,
oil expressers exported meal to neighbouring countries, raising concerns by stakeholders in the
livestock sector that the country may run out of cotton meal during a year in which demand is likely
to be elevated due to poor rainfall in the main livestock production areas.
In response to the concerns raised by stakeholders, the Agricultural Marketing Authority convened
a stakeholder meeting in January to craft a way forward in managing the available cotton meal in
the country to ensure that the local livestock sector is well supplied and that each of the expressers
have some meal to export and earn foreign currency for imports of their input requirements.
2.0 Assessment of Supply and Demand
The figure below summarises the current supply and demand of cotton cake/meal.
From the 143,000mt of seed cotton produced in the 2018-19 farming season, the sector expects
about 81,510mt (57%) of cotton seed. 13,000mt is expected to be retained and processed as
planting seed by Quton and Alliance Ginneries while another 10,000mt is expected to be sold as
whole seed for feeding dairy and beef cattle. The remaining 58,510mt will be sold to oil expressers
for processing into oil and cotton cake/meal.
At the meeting, stakeholders revealed that Surface Wilmar and ETG-Parrogate were each allocated
20,000mt of the available seed while CanGrow and Gapban received 8,000 and 5,000mt,
respectively. The remaining 6,510mt was distributed to members of the Zimbabwe Small Scale Oil
Processors Association.
Stakeholders estimate that 85% of the seed is processed into high CP meal (36 – 38% CP) while the
rest is processed into low crude protein cake (25 – 26% CP). The yield of cotton meal from cotton
seed is 56% from high CP processing while that of cotton cake is 74% from low CP processing. This
implies that the potential production from seeds allocated to the expressers is 27,742mt of high CP
meal and 6,456mt of low CP cake for a total of 34,198mt of meal and cake. The processing of high
CP meal also generates a by-product – cotton hulls – which are also used in feed manufacture.
The main users of cotton meal/cake are feed manufacturers and on-farm feed mixers including
feedlot operators, dairy and beef farmers.
101
Based on quarterly returns by members of the Stockfeed Manufacturers Association, the feed
manufacturing industry used an average of 900mt of cotton meal each month in 2018 which
translates to a demand of 10,800mt over the year.
The main feedlot operators are also abattoir operators. A quick survey of members of the
Zimbabwe Association of Abattoirs and the Zimbabwe Association of Dairy Farmers revealed that
abattoir operators and on-farm dairy feed mixers require nearly 5,900mt and 4,566mt of cotton
cake and meal each year, respectively.
Therefore, the total needs of the livestock sector are 20,066mt of high CP cotton cake and meal.
The table below tracks the supply and demand situation between 2012 and 2018. Averaging excess
cake over that period indicates that the local livestock market for cotton cake is just below
20,500mt which is very close to the above assessment of local needs.
Given a total potential meal/cake supply of 34,198mt and the projected local demand of 20,066mt,
the 2018 harvested crop has a projected surplus meal of 14,132mt available for export by oil
expressers to help in alleviating foreign currency shortages for essential imports of inputs.
102
Table: Historical Cotton Meal/Cake Supply and Disappearance
Marketing Season
Seed Cotton
Production (mt)
Equivalent Seed (mt)
Planting Seed and
Seed used for feed (mt)
Available for
expressers (mt)
Potential Cotton
Cake Yield (assuming 85% high CP and
15% low CP) (mt)
Meal Imports
(mt)
Meal Exports
(mt)
Meal Net Exports (mt)
Balance of meal
available locally for livestock
and carry-over
stocks
June 2011-May 2012 250,000 142,500 23,000 119,500 70,147 431 44,984 44,553 25,594
June 2012-May 2013 350,000 199,500 23,000 176,500 103,606 10,549 53,394 42,845 60,761
June 2013-May 2014 143,000 81,510 23,000 58,510 34,345 8,849 30,139 21,290 13,055
June 2014-May 2015 143,100 81,567 23,000 58,567 34,379 680 17,416 16,736 17,643
June 2015-May 2016 103,000 58,710 23,000 35,710 20,962 3,713 6,598 2,885 18,076
June 2016-May 2017 28,425 16,202 23,000 (6,798) (3,990) 1,099 1,550 451 (4,441)
June 2017-May 2018 73,035 41,630 23,000 18,630 10,936 412 2,739 2,327 8,609
June-Dec 2018 143,000 81,510 23,000 58,510 34,345 - 9,876 9,876 24,469
AVE 20,471 Source: Cotton Ginners Association for production and ZimSTATS for trade figures
103
3.0 Going Forward
Trade information from Zimbabwe National Statistical Agency (ZimSTATS) show that between June and
December 2018, oil expressers had already exported 9,876mt cotton meal to countries in the SADC
region. This implies that if the local livestock sector is to remain adequately supplied up to the next
cotton harvest, further exports of meal will have to be limited to 4,266mt.
Preference for exporting this amount need to be given to oil expressers that to date, have not yet
exported any meal to ensure fairness in accessing foreign currency export receipts. It is therefore
important that all expressers provide information on how much they have exported as well as sold on
the local market as a basis for distribution of the remaining export quota.
The meeting also raised an important issue regarding the pricing of meal on the local market. Oil
expressers have acquired cotton seed at the RTGS rate of 270/mt which they have converted into
meal. It is therefore unfair for expressers to charge for meal at import parity prices.
Cotton Cake Trade - ZimSTATS
Imports Exports
Marketing Season Kgs $ Price Kgs $ Price($/mt)
June 2011-May 2012 431,250 80,363 186 44,984,202 11,066,848 246
June 2012-May 2013 10,548,760 1,488,757 141 53,393,623 14,984,203 281
June 2013-May 2014 8,849,000 1,961,226 222 30,139,000 7,267,019 241
June 2014-May 2015 680,000 133,906 197 17,416,000 5,136,178 295
June 2015-May 2016 3,712,560 532,435 143 6,598,000 1,786,280 271
June 2016-May 2017 1,099,000 139,538 127 1,550,000 433,350 280
June 2017-May 2018 412,340 40,528 98 2,739,000 677,792 247
June-Dec 2018 - - - 9,876,410 2,288,915 232
104
Impact of Agricultural Marketing Authority, Rural District Councils, National Biotechnology Authority and Environmental Management Agency on Livestock Sector Ease of Doing
Business
1.0 Introduction
The Government of Zimbabwe has identified improving ease of doing business a key requirement to
boost economic growth and the attainment of the goal of becoming a middle income country by 2030.
Growth in the agricultural sector in general and livestock in particular has been identified as key to
economic growth, export earnings generation, poverty alleviation as well as food and nutrition
security. Achievement of these objectives requires that policy and regulations do not drive a wedge
between what farmers get and what consumers pay.
Observations by livestock industry actors are that numerous regulations are currently hindering ease of
doing business within the sector. However, four institutions have been identified as contributing the
most to hindering ease of doing business. These include the Agricultural Marketing Authority, Rural
District Councils, National Biotechnology Authority and the Environmental Management Agency.
The sections below briefly explain the nature of the impacts on ease of doing business in the livestock
sector by each of these four institutions and offers some alternative ways the operations of the
institutions can be transformed to better serve the development objectives of the livestock sector.
2.0 Agricultural Marketing Authority
From its formation in 1967 till pre-Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP), AMA was an
institution whose mandate was to support the operation of parastatals such as the Cold Storage
Commission, Grain Marketing Board, Cotton Marketing Board and Dairy Marketing Board by raising
money on the open market to buy farmers' produce as well as the provision of information on
marketing activities of the parastatals. Post-ESAP, the privatisation of agricultural markets made AMA
redundant and its operations were terminated in 1994. It was resuscitated in 2004 when government
was mulling a return to controlled marketing of agricultural produce. As the narration below shows,
the operation of AMA under a free marketing regime has increased the cost of doing business through
excessive levies and its mandate overlapping with other existing government agencies with no clear-
cut value-addition to livestock and other agricultural value chains.
2.1 AMA and Feed Raw Materials Buyers and Sellers
Before 2012, companies that contracted or bought and sold grains, oilseeds and by-products, only
needed to be registered under the Companies Act. This changed with the gazetting of SI 147 of 2012,
Agricultural Marketing Authority (Registration of Companies and Submission of Returns) Regulations,
2012. This legislation required all companies that intend to be in the business of buying and
contracting agricultural products to register annually, pay a registration fee of USD 500 and submit
105
periodic returns on products bought and processed and to keep records of the same. The SI states that
any company that fails to comply with these requirements would be liable to a fine not exceeding level
four or imprisonment for a period of three months or both. This regulation covers all agricultural
commodities under AMA, apart from those covered by specific regulations such as tobacco
(administered under the Tobacco Marketing Board Act).
The scope of the above legislation was further expanded with gazetting of SI 140 of 2013, Agricultural
Marketing Authority (Grain, Oilseed and Products) By-Laws, 2013 whose stated objectives are to:
a) regulate the participation in the production, buying or processing of any grain (i.e. maize,
wheat, barley, sorghum, rice, pearl millet [mhunga] finger millet [rapoko], ground nuts [nyimo],
sugar beans, cowpeas, Michigan pea beans and sesame), oilseeds (i.e. soyabeans, sunflower,
groundnuts) and the processing of by-products by producers, buyers or processors;
b) promote orderly marketing and fair trade practices in the grain and oilseeds industry;
c) promote production of grain and oilseeds, including contract farming; and
d) provide a mechanism for enforcement of contractual obligations to protect the investment of
farmers, contractors and suppliers.
SI 140 of 2013 increased annual registration fees as follows:
• Application for registration as a grain industry stakeholder association requires completion of
application form AMAG1 and an annual fee of USD 500;
• Application for registration as a contractor or processor requires completion of application form
AMAG2 and an annual fee of USD 1,000 or USD 2 000 if lodged late;
• Application for registration as a buyer, trader or broker requires completion of application form
AMAG3 and an annual fee of USD 1,000 or USD 2,000 if lodged late;
• Though not currently being enforced, application for registration as a grower requires
completion of application form AMAG4 and an annual fee of USD 1 or USD 2 if lodged late; and
• Application for registration as a grain service hammer mill requires completion of application
form AMAG5 and an annual fee of USD 2 or USD 5 if lodged late.
The regulations and fees noted above have several negative impacts on the cost of doing business in
grain and oilseed marketing including:
• Increase in overhead costs for contractors and grain and oilseed buyers and sellers which are
passed on to users of these products, including feed manufacturers. One major stakeholder in
grain procurement reported incurring costs of USD 3,500 in annual AMA registration fees, being
USD 1,000 to operate as a trader, USD 1,000 to operate as a contractor and USD 500 for each of
three warehouses it operates.
•
106
• The high registration fees discourage buyers and sellers of small volumes of grain and oilseed to
participate in the marketing system in favour of large volume traders who can spread the fees
over greater tonnage. This has the effect of reducing market access for surplus producing
farmers who are in areas that produce little surplus grain. In addition, this is counter to the
Governments goal of encouraging inclusive economic growth.
• The high registration fees also discourage companies from engaging in contract farming
arrangements, contrary to the country's objective of boosting local production of key raw
materials for the feed industry to reduce import dependency.
2.2 AMA and Feed Manufacturers
Prior to 2012, feed manufacturers only needed to be registered under the Fertilisers, Farm Feeds and
Remedies Act [Chapter 18:12]. The Act requires that feed manufacturers pay an annual registration
fee of USD 200. In addition, any new feed formulation sold by a company had to be registered with the
Fertilisers, Farm Feeds and Remedies Institute (FFRI). However, after 2012, feed manufacturers who
import some of their raw materials needed to be registered with AMA. Under SI 147 of 2012 and SI
140 of 2013, manufacturers must register with AMA and pay an annual registration fee of USD 1,000,
five times the registration fee of FFRI, the recognised technical body for ensuring safe feed supply to
farmers.
The overlap in mandates goes further. AMA, which falls MoLAWCRR, also requires stockfeed
companies to seek letters of support for the importation of raw materials when several institutions
under MoLAWCRR are already involved in issuing certificates to import. DVS issues a veterinary import
permit at a cost of USD 10 per permit, Plant Protection Unit also charge USD 25 per permit while
Economics and Markets Department issues the final import permit at a cost of USD 70 per permit. It
therefore appears that AMA is merely duplicating services offered by sister organisations within
MoLAWCRR, adding to bureaucratic delays for importers of raw materials.
2.3 AMA and Abattoir Registration
Under SI 147 of 2012 (Registration of Companies and Submission of Returns) Regulations, AMA
requires abattoirs to register and pay annual registration fees of USD 1,000 for Class A and B abattoirs
and USD 200 fees for Class C abattoirs. This is despite all abattoirs being required to register and pay
annual inspection fees by the Veterinary Public Health (VPH) department. VPH ensure that abattoirs
produce meat that is safe for the consuming public. The justification by AMA for the annual
registration fees is that there is need to collect statistics from producers, traders, processors and
retailers. This is despite such information already being collected by the Meat Graders section of
Department of Agricultural, Technical and Extension Services (AGRITEX) stationed at abattoirs. The
107
double registrations are unnecessary and merely increase the high cost of production by value chain
participants in the livestock sector at a time when consumer demand has declined.
2.4 SI 129 of 2017 and the Livestock Sector
The most far-reaching AMA regulation is Statutory Instrument 129, Agricultural Marketing Authority
(Livestock Development Levy) gazetted in October 2017 which requires that all registered cattle
abattoirs be charged USD 10 per animal slaughtered; all registered milk processors be charged 1 cent
per litre; and all registered chick producers be charged 1 cent per chick produced. These levies
according to the SI will go into a fund for disease control and livestock development activities.
Collectively the livestock sector participants raised concerns at the:
• Lack of consultation before the SI was gazetted;
• Lack of clarity in the SI itself;
• The quantum of the levies in relation to ease of doing business; and
• Questionable benefits of the levy in relationship to ongoing livestock development thrusts in
the affected livestock value chains.
2.4.1 SI 129 and the Beef Sector
A key justification for the levy under SI 129 of 2017 is that it would contribute to funding the control of
FMD, a disease that is currently spreading across the country and has significant bearing on
Zimbabwe's ability to export beef. But FMD is a disease burden that should not be carried by the beef
producing sector alone. Below, a brief outline of salient features about FMD and how it affects the
livelihoods of farmers is provided.
Zimbabwe is one of the World’s top destinations for the so-called “Big Five” watching (African
Elephant, Cape Buffalo, leopard, lion and rhinoceros) and hunting safari operations. Most cattle
production for beef is carried out in the drier areas of the country which also happen to be adjacent to
the major wildlife reserves from which the country derives most of its tourism benefits. By virtue of
living close to wildlife areas, a significant number of farmers dependent on beef cattle for their
livelihoods are under constant risk from attacks on their being as well as their cattle assets and crops.
According to Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, during 2017 there were 59
reported lion attacks; 44 hippo attacks; 41 elephant attack; 37 reported crocodile attacks of which 30
were fatal; 35 buffalo attacks; and 9 hyena attacks on people. Due to the shrinking grazing land,
elephants, buffaloes and hippos often encroach upon crop fields further negatively impacting farmers'
livelihoods. Lions and hyenas also kill farmers' livestock.1
1 https://theculturetrip.com/africa/zimbabwe/articles/these-are-zimbabwes-most-dangerous-animals/
108
However, by far the greatest negative effects on farmers' livelihoods is from FMD. FMD is a disease
that is carried by buffalos and is transmitted to hoofed animals including cattle, small ruminants and
pigs. To eradicate FMD in Zimbabwe would require removing buffalos from the ecosystem. However,
Zimbabwe derives economic benefits from maintaining buffalos in wildlife reserves and conservancies.
As one of the 'big five' it is an integral species for sight-seeing tourism as well as photographic and
hunting safaris.
Livestock farmers, by virtue of living adjacent to wildlife areas, are perpetually under risk of having
their animals infected. The areas they farm are classified as being in FMD red zones and are limited in
marketing their cattle for only direct slaughter. They cannot market their cattle for breeding to farmers
outside their zones for risk of spreading disease. Breeding cattle sales realise greater prices compared
to slaughter animals. Thus, they bear a direct cost in maintaining buffalos in the wildlife areas with
limited benefits from the proceeds of tourism derived from buffaloes. Currently benefits from tourism
are appropriated and managed by local authorities, private conservancy operators, Department of
National Parks and the national treasury.
Statutory Instrument 129 of 2017 makes the control of FMD the sole responsibility of the beef
producing sector. The people being called upon to contribute are themselves the victims of the
decision by Zimbabwe as a nation to conserve and benefit from buffalos through tourism. The 250 000
to 270 000 head of beef cattle slaughtered in registered abattoirs generate only USD 100 to 110 million
each year based on a per animal price of USD 400. This is dwarfed by the USD 900 million to USD 1
billion generated each year from tourism. From a fairness point of view, there is greater scope for
funding FMD control through a tax on tourism rather than trade in cattle.
2.4.2 SI 129 and the Dairy Sector
The dairy sector also contributes to the beef sector through sale of male calves and females that have
reached the end of their production life and hence the issues highlighted under 2.4.1 also apply.
However, the dairy value chain presents a unique challenge to the reasoning behind SI 129 of 2017.
Against a backdrop of declining dairy production resulting in local milk production failing to meet
domestic demand and net importation of milk and dairy products, farmers, public sector and private
sector stakeholders formed ZDIT to solve common problems and to grow the dairy sector in Zimbabwe
to a net exporter of milk and milk products. Membership of ZDIT includes:
• MoLAWCRR represented by the Department of Livestock Production Development and Dairy
Services;
• Zimbabwe Association of Dairy Farmers;
• Smallholder Dairy Farmers Association of Zimbabwe;
• Zimbabwe Dairy Processors Association;
• Small-scale Processors Association;
109
• Stockfeed Manufacturers Association of Zimbabwe; and
• Retailers Association of Zimbabwe.
Through the initiatives of ZDIT, there has been a steady growth in milk production from a low of 36
million litres in 2009 to 65 million litres in 2017. Sector-wide employment levels have equally increased
from 6,000 in 2009 to nearly 14,0000 in 2017. The Trust put together the Dairy Revitalisation Program
funded by voluntary levies and wholly managed by members of the sector. The fund has supported
herd improvement efforts through importation of heifers and semen, training of farmers as well as
importation of FMD vaccines in response to the recent outbreaks.
The industry has put in place a transparent system to regulate players, protect and grow the industry
and is a success story of how the private sector and government can work together for the mutual
growth of the economy. Realising the importance of milk to the health of the nation, the industry has
worked tirelessly with support from government to ensure that milk continues to be available at an
affordable price. Apart from the Dairy Revitalisation Programme, individual processors have voluntarily
provided services to farmers through extension support, working capital support and importation of
animals.
With this level of success, it is therefore no surprise that members of ZDIT do not see the value
addition from setting up another fund through SI 129 of 2017. In contrast, the Instrument threatens
the mutual trust that existed between Government and private sector under ZDIT, threatening
sustainability of the growth that has been registered over the years. Further, the instrument does not
give adequate voice to private sector players in how the fund will be administered as the Disbursement
Committee for the fund will only have one member to represent the interests of all processors whether
they are in beef, poultry or dairy.
2.4.3 SI 129 and the Poultry Sector
The timing of SI 129 of 2017 came at a time the poultry sector was struggling to deal with the negative
impact brought about by the outbreak of AI. The AI outbreak reduced breeding capacity of the
industry, reduced supply of DoCs which resulted in increases in the price of DoCs. Through dialogue,
Government and the poultry sector collaborated to incentivise the importation of breeder birds as well
as hatching eggs to improve local supply of DoCs, lower prices of chicks and boost supply of chicken
and eggs into the market.
Veterinary authorities and the poultry industry invested in awareness programmes to limit the spread
of AI and to promote investment by farmers in stronger on-farm biosecurity (ie disease mitigation)
measures to ensure that the risk of Avian Influenza is minimised. By increasing the price of chicks, SI
129 of 2017 reduces the scope for farmers to invest in extra biosecurity and thus negating all these
collaborative efforts to revive the sector.
110
2.5 Suggestions on AMA Reorientation
AMA’s mandate is too broad for it to go it alone. They need to work closely with value chain
organisations, farmers unions, input suppliers and processor organisations to tackle market
development constraints affecting each value chain.
To achieve the above objective, AMA can adopt an approach similar to the National Agricultural
Marketing Council (NAMC) in South Africa. Under NAMC, value chain forums made up of farmer
commodity associations, processors, distributers, exporters and retailers within a value chain jointly
propose time bound industry levies to support agreed developmental objectives of the particular value
chains. These may include support of farmer organisations at local level, market infrastructure
development (cold chains, warehouses, etc), research, downstream industry organisation, product
development, training, export promotion, among others. NAMC then proposes the statutory levy to be
made into law to ensure all industry stakeholders contribute their share to the fund levy. NAMC then
oversees disbursement of the funds to the initiatives suggested by the value chain forums and jointly
with industry associate members of the forums, ensures accountability for the funds.
The above approach is very similar to the Dairy Revitalisation Programme under the dairy value chain
forum, ZDIT. Limiting AMA to a coordinating role ensures that it facilitates development of the many
agricultural value chains in Zimbabwe from horticulture, tree crops, beef, dairy, maize, wheat,
soyabean, cotton, to name just a few.
3.0 Rural District Council Marketing Levies
In 2006, the Ministry of Local Government, Urban and Rural Development (MoLGURD) issued a circular
suggesting that Rural District Councils (RDCs) charge 10.5% of the agreed price of cattle traded at
Council auctions as a levy to the Council. Farmers' unions and the Zimbabwe Association of Abattoirs
have argued against the levy because it is deemed excessive, leading to poor viability of livestock
farming, and that the money raised by the levy is not being applied to help the growth of the livestock
sector. Also, basing the levy on the value of an animal effectively punishes farmers who sell good
quality animals.
In 2013, MoLGURD drafted model by-laws to be adopted by all RDCs to charge 10.5% on all livestock
sales from each district. Several RDCs, some without passing necessary by-laws, have implemented the
proposal. The proposed levies have also been expanded to include cattle marketed through direct
buyer-farmer negotiations instead of just being applied to cattle traded at Council operated auctions.
In addition, some RDCs require buyers of cattle to register for a fee of USD 250 per quarter to be
allowed to buy cattle in the district. The table below gives a breakdown of the composition of the levy.
111
Proposed Levies on Cattle Traded at RDC Auctions
Institution Levy (% of Auction Price)
Council 6
Meat Graders 3
Auctioneer 1.5
TOTAL 10.5
Stakeholders in the cattle value chain have registered their strong objections to the proposed by-laws
as they argue that such a policy, in addition to reducing the viability of cattle production by communal
farmers, will negatively affect the orderly marketing of cattle in the country.
To clearly see the impact of the above proposed policy on the cattle sector, how cattle are currently
being traded in the rural areas needs to be understood. Most live cattle are currently being sold
through private buyer-farmer negotiations. In 2012, only 7% of cattle sold were through auction sales
and the rest were sold through private treaty. Trends show that since 2009, the proportion of cattle
being sold through auctions has declined from 11% to 7% in 2012. Though data for subsequent years is
not available, it is believed that the proportion of cattle sold at auctions is still less than 15% of
slaughters in registered abattoirs.
A key flaw in the proposed by-laws is that private negotiated sales which are currently being levied, do
not benefit from the services in the model by-laws. These sales are not conducted at Council sales
pens, are not managed by auctioneers, nor do they use grading services provided by Meat Graders
from AGRITEX. Thus, private negotiated sales are levied for services that are not rendered.
Stakeholders point out that the predominance of private treaty sales reflects weaknesses in the current
auction system and the high taxation imposed on auction trade. Private buyer-farmer sales are not
ideal as they:
- Impose a burden on farmers who are not usually skilled negotiators compared with
experienced full-time buying agents and traders and lead to sub-optimal prices;
- Impose time and travelling investments by buyers in clearing cattle for movement as this is
done at the sellers’ homestead instead of at centrally located auction pens;
- Encourage buyers to engage in corruption and bribing of officials to shortcut the clearance
procedures; and
- Buyers generally incur excessive aggregation costs to buy adequate numbers of cattle for
transporting out of communal areas.
The most efficient way to trade cattle is through auction sales. However, a number of constraints are
currently hindering the use of auctions for live cattle sales and spurring the growth of private treaty
sales. Chief amongst these are the excessive RDC levies being charged and which MoLGURD is
112
proposing to increase and broaden. There is irrefutable evidence that increasing levies causes a
reduction in auction sales. A good example is the closure of the CC Sales auction market in Headlands
which used to sell 250 beasts per month following introduction of the model by-laws. Other
constraints include the poor state of repairs of access roads and most rural sale pens.
Stakeholder consultations convened by LMAC in February 2013 in Harare noted more pointed
reservations about the proposed harmonised model by-laws. The concerns include the following:
- The proposal by MoLGURD does not attempt to reduce levies. In fact, by standardising them for
the whole country, levies will be increased in those districts currently charging lower levies;
- The proposal does not justify through a cost-benefit analysis, the size of the proposed levies;
- The levies are unfair for cattle farmers, most of whom are found in low potential agro-
ecological regions. Some RDC's have been requiring crop buyers already registered under AMA
to again be registered and pay annual fees under the RDC to enable them to buy commodities
in the districts;
- Buyers of cattle will pay VAT of 15% on monies generated by RDC levies and auctioneers’
commission (i.e. 15% of [6% to RDC plus 1.5% to auctioneers] = 1.125%). This effectively passes
on the cost of VAT to buyers. However, producers will ultimately pay the cost as buyers will
offer lower bids;
- Stakeholders question why RDC and Meat Grader levies should be based on a percentage of the
value of an animal sold. This effectively penalises sellers of good quality cattle. For example, an
animal sold for USD 500 attracts a combined RDC and Meat Grader levy of USD 45 compared
with USD 22.50 for a low-quality animal valued at USD 250. The services provided by the RDC
and Meat Graders are the same, regardless of whether or not the animal is of poor or good
quality. A fairer taxation system will be a constant dollar denominated charge per animal;
- Stakeholders also question the rationale behind the levy of 3% charged by Meat Graders. This
levy was introduced in 2006, when Meat Graders classified and determined the minimum bid
prices for each grade of animal to protect farmers under conditions of hyper-inflation. This
service is no longer required and merely inflates levies to the detriment of buyers and,
ultimately, cattle farmers.
There are also broad-based economic implications of the current cattle marketing levies. The
application of the by-laws subject cattle meant for on-farm livestock investment to the levy, including
herd building by newly resettled farmers and cattle bought by farmers for value-addition through
feedlot operations. This is counter to the objectives of the Transitional Stabilisation Programme of
economic growth and value addition with negative impacts on local (district) economic development.
It is also pertinent to note that currently, 90% of cattle entering the market are from the smallholder
sector where farmers typically own herds of 12 animals and only sell one or two head each year.
113
A secondary impact has been an increase in operations of unscrupulous traders who use bribes to
avoid paying levies and facilitate illegal cattle movements, creating a break-down in disease and stock
theft control. The current FMD epidemic spreading across the country is partly blamed on such illegal
movements of cattle. Reasonable auction fees charged by RDCs would encourage the resuscitation of
regular rural livestock sales which will have many beneficial impacts, including better monetary returns
for the producer and improved livestock movement controls (disease and theft). A small commission
charged on large volumes of animals will increase income to service providers, including RDCs.
Stakeholders are not averse to paying a levy if they are reasonable and are applied to improving the
production and marketing of cattle. Indeed, the Rural District Council Act (particularly Sections 96 and
97) provides for the collection of levies to support livestock related investments as outlined in the
Schedule appended to the Act. These include investments among others, in control of the spread of
diseases, dip tanks and water sources. However, in designing local Council policies, there is need to
take cognisance of broader national economic development goals of poverty alleviation, employment
creation and value addition as espoused in the Transitional Stabilisation Programme economic blue-
print.
Stakeholders in the cattle industry have tabled the following proposal on cattle levies:
• A levy based on a flat fee per animal traded at auctions, in the amount comparable with similar
levies in neighbouring countries such as Botswana, Zambia and Namibia who draw a significant
amount of their processed beef from the smallholder sector. Marketing levies in these countries
cost USD 2 per head. A similar fee is proposed for Council services provided at auctions; and
• Charge a fixed development levy of USD 2 per head for cattle sold to abattoirs for slaughter but no
charge for cattle sold to farmers for their herd building investments.
The above system, applied countrywide, includes a number of advantages:
- Cattle are not subject to double taxation when they are destined for farms and then later sold
to abattoirs. This supports the Government objectives of local value-addition;
- More auction sales will be encouraged as RDC levies will be reduced and based on a lower flat
fee per animal which will minimise illegal cattle movements and corruption.
4.0 National Biotechnology Authority and the Feed Industry
The Government, without consultation with stakeholders, promulgated three Statutory Instruments on 24th August 2018: SI 157, SI 159 and SI 160 of 2018. Two of these Instruments significantly extend the mandate of the enabling NBA Act beyond its intended primary focus and formally introduced additional costs of compliance to locally manufactured foodstuffs, feedstock and food/feed additives.
Statutory Instrument 157 of 2018 (Food, Feed, Food and Feed Additives and Seed) (Imports, Export and
Transit) Regulations of 2018 makes it a legal requirement for companies (and individuals) involved in
114
the importation, exportation, and transportation into or through Zimbabwe of any good of a biological
nature (food, feeds, additives to food/feeds, livestock, eggs etc) to:
a) Register with NBA for an annual fee of USD 500 per company;
b) Obtain an import/export/transit permit for each commodity at a fee ranging from USD 30 to 80,
depending on volume and valid for only 3 months;
c) Subject cargo for inspection by NBA at a fee of USD 20 per truck plus transport cost for NBA
inspectors to travel to and from depot;
d) Obtain from NBA an appropriate Genetically Modified Organism (GMO)
declaration/certification of each consignment a fee of USD 250 per consignment; and
e) For consignments under 500kgs presumed to be for personal non-commercial purposes, an
NBA permit is required and obtainable for a fee of USD 10 to 20, depending on its size.
This SI will increase the cost of importing key livestock inputs (see Second Schedule) including live
breeding animals, hatching eggs, semen and embryos, and grain and oilseed based feed raw materials
including maize and soyabean meal. Between 2016 and the promulgation of SI 157 of 2018, NBA was
already levying these fees without a legal instrument.
Statutory Instrument 159 of 2018 (Genetically Modified Food and Feed Labelling) compels food
manufacturers to label the Genetically Engineered status of their products. According to this SI, all food
and feed stuffs in retail outlets will need to carry labels declaring whether or not they are GMO-free or
contain some GMOs. The Act states that the GMO labelling shall "apply to all food or feed irrespective
of threshold of the content of genetically modified material". Under the SI, food and feed
manufacturing companies are also required to register annually with NBA and pay a fee of USD 1,000
and inspection fees of USD 150. These fees together with direct costs of labelling will increase cost of
feeds, reduce viability of livestock farmers and increase prices to consumers.
Following the announcement of the return of the Zimbabwe dollar the above USD denominated fees
have been adjusted by a factor of 6.5. Thus, annual registration with NBA to import any biological
product which was USD 500 is now costing ZWL 3,250. In addition, ZIMRA is now fining importers and
exporters ZWL 3,000 per bill of entry for failure to register with NBA and this caught most importers by
surprise. An NBA Biosafety Import Licence can only be issued if the importer is registered with NBA and
has been issued with a Certificate of Registration.
There also seems to be confusion in the interpretation of products subject to regulations in SI 157 and
159 of 2018 at the border. Some importers of minerals that are raw materials in feed manufacture
such as limestone and mono-calcium phosphates (non-biological products implicitly excluded under
the definitions in the statutory instruments) are being required to register and pay NBA import fees. In
addition, NBA have been charging inspection fees per feed additive within a consignment load. For
instance, on a load carrying six different additives, there is a flat USD 20 fee per additive.
115
Of the three statutory instruments recently promulgated, Statutory Instrument 160 of 2018 NBA
(Agricultural Biotechnology Products Regulation) is the only one that closely reflects the stated primary
objectives of the National Biotechnology Act. The SI sets up the modalities for:
a) Regulating domestic trials and commercial release of biofertilisers, biopesticides, biostimulants
and the setting up of a technical committee for that purpose; and
b) Establishes the processes and procedures for application to import, export, commercialise or
carry out trial releases of biofertilisers, biopesticides, biostimulants which now therefore
renders illegal any trading or usage of such products without registration and certification by
NBA.
To reduce the cost of doing business, there is need for the Government to repeal SI 157 and 159 of
2018 and have NBA focus its work under guidance of SI 160 of 2018. This will remove extra cost drivers
to the livestock value chain and ensure better access to livestock products by consumers. It is
important to note that in the SADC region, only products that are not certified as GMO-free from
countries of origin are subject to controls by bio-safety competent authorities and internationally, food
labelling is voluntary. The legislation as espoused in SI 157 and 159 of 2018 therefore makes
Zimbabwe products non-competitive on local and regional markets.
5.0 Environmental Management Agency (EMA) and the Livestock Sector
EMA regulations are provided for under the Environment Management Act [Chapter 20:27] of 2002.
Prior to this Act, environmental regulations were under the National Resources Act [Chapter 2013],
Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act [Chapter 20.03], Hazardous Substances and Particles Act
[Chapter 15.5] and the Noxious Weeds Act [Chapter 19.07] administered through a department in the
Ministry of Environment and Tourism. The EMA Act consolidated elements contained within these old
Acts into one Act and provided for the setting up of a parastatal Environmental Management Agency to
administer subsidiary legislation under the Act, funded by an Environmental Fund generated by levies
and fees. Whereas the old Acts were funded from central Government funds allocated to departments,
the EMA Act is funded by levying value chain actors.
Subsidiary regulations under the EMA Act include:
1) Environment Management (Effluent and Solid Waste Disposal) Regulations of 20072;
2) Environmental Impact Assessment and Ecosystems Protection Regulations3;
3) Air Pollution Control Regulations4; and
4) Environmental Management (Hazardous Substances, Pesticides and other Toxic Substances)
Regulations5.
2 Statutory Instrument 6 of 2007 3 Statutory Instrument 7 of 2007 4 Statutory Instrument 72 of 2009 5 Statutory Instrument 12 of 2007
116
5.1 Farm level EMA Regulations
Key regulations applicable to beef, poultry, pig and dairy farming operations are contained in the
Environment Management (Effluent and Solid Waste Disposal) Regulations of 2007. According to these
regulations, no person shall dispose of waste or effluent into a public stream or any other surface or
ground water, whether directly or through seepage, except under a license.
An applicant shall submit an application for a blue, green, yellow or red license together with the
prescribed fee to the Agency. If the applicant does not know which class of license to apply for, the
appropriate fee for the issue of a yellow license shall be submitted, pending determination. Upon
receiving an application, the Agency may, after inspection as it deems fit, issue one of the following
licenses:
Blue: in respect of disposal which is considered to be environmentally friendly;
Green: in respect of disposal which is considered to present a low environmental
hazard;
Yellow: in respect of disposal which is considered to present a medium environmental
hazard;
Red: in respect of disposal which is considered to present a high environmental
hazard.
The cost of testing samples to determine the class of license is borne by the applicant and is USD 200
per quarter. The applicant delivers the samples to the laboratory and to obtain a laboratory number,
makes payment at the EMA Head Office, then returns to the laboratory to show proof of payment.
The table below shows the registration and monitoring fees set by EMA (quarterly discharge levy and
administration fee).
117
Annual Fees for Effluent and Solid Waste Disposal
Regulatory cost Effluent Disposal Solid Waste Disposal
Annual registration fee (per year) USD 32 USD 32
Monitoring fees (per year)
Blue USD 80 USD 80
Green USD 155 USD 155
Yellow USD 300 USD 300
Red USD 585 USD 585
Discharge levy (per quarter)
Blue USD 80 USD 160
Green USD 155 + 0.0075 x
cubic meters of
effluent
USD 310
Yellow USD 300 + 0.015 x
cubic meters of
effluent
USD 600
Red USD 585 + 0.030 x
cubic meters of
effluent
USD 1,200
Red License Penalty fee 50% of Discharge levy + Monitoring Fees +
Registration fees
Administration Fees 5% of all the above fees for each type of
license
Another cluster of regulations affecting livestock farm operations are contained in the Environmental
Management (Hazardous Substances, Pesticides and Other Toxic Substances) Regulations6 of 2007,
which stipulate that no person shall use herbicides, pesticides, fungicides or any toxic substances for
commercial agriculture or public health pest control or veterinary vector control without a license from
6 Statutory Instrument 12 of 2007.
118
EMA. The Regulations require submission of an application and payment of the prescribed fee for
storage and use of hazardous substances for green, amber and red classes at USD 457, 525 and 672,
respectively. Since practically all crop and livestock farmers store pesticides or veterinary vector
control products, they are required to register and pay fees. In addition, to transport more than 200
litres of fuel requires permits from EMA at a cost of USD 200.
The "Offences and Penalties" section of the EMA Act on agricultural waste specifies that no person
shall dispose of agricultural waste directly into water and disposal of such waste to any part of the
environment is prohibited except under a waste disposal license. It further states that any agricultural
waste which is not purely organic, but has added chemicals, will be classified as hazardous substances.
Any person who contravenes this section of the Regulations shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a
fine not exceeding level fourteen (USD 5,000) or to an imprisonment for a period not exceeding five
years or to both such fine and imprisonment.
The Act also further stipulates that any land user shall put in place appropriate fire prevention
measures on their land and any person who contravenes this section will be liable to a fine not
exceeding level eight (USD 500) or an imprisonment not exceeding one year.
The penalties under the Environmental Management (Hazardous Substances, Pesticides and other
Toxic Substances) Regulations of 2007 also include a fine not exceeding level fourteen (USD 5,000) or
imprisonment for a period of one year or to both such fine and imprisonment.
5.2 Processor Level EMA Regulations
As the case with large scale dairy, piggeries and poultry producers, livestock processing plants including
abattoirs and milk processors are required to register, pay annual registration fees and pay quarterly
discharge fees to EMA. In addition, EMA issues emission licenses for air pollution processes that are
prescribed under SI 72 of 2009. As with effluent disposal, air pollution licenses have four levels based
on the concentration of the emission and the mass flow. The annual registration fee for the license is
USD 32. An inspector has to access the pollution site for purposes of inspection and collecting samples
and a farmer has to pay an annual monitoring fee depending on the license band. The fees are noted
below:
Blue License USD 100
Green License USD 145
Yellow License USD 280
Red License USD 555
119
During the year, environmental fees are paid quarterly depending on the license band and quantity of emissions released into the atmosphere. The table below summarises the fees applicable under the Air Pollution Control Regulations.
Fees Payable by Licenses under Air Pollution Control Regulations of 2009
Annual Registration Fees USD 32
Annual Monitoring Fee
Blue USD 100
Green USD 145
Yellow USD 280
Red USD 555
Quarterly environment fees for each license band and quantity of emissions
License band Volume of emissions discharge per mt per quarter
< 5 mt > 5 but < 50mt
> 50 but < 100 mt
> 100 but < 200 mt
> 200 mt
Blue USD 100 USD 145 USD 280 USD 555 USD 1,110
Green USD 145 USD 280 USD 555 USD 1,110 USD 2,000
Yellow USD 280 USD 555 USD 1,110 USD 2,000 USD 4,500
Red USD 555 USD 1,110 USD 2,000 USD 4,500 USD 9,000
5% administration fee shall be charged on all fees Source: SI 72 of 2009
Several livestock sector value chain participants have reported that EMA has been charging pollution
charges on factory equipment such as diesel powered generators and forklifts. Other regulatory
charges include the testing of exhaust emissions at a cost of USD 150 per quarter, the results of which
are required by EMA as part of their monitoring. If a company disputes the Agency’s decision, a fee of
USD 240 is paid to lodge an appeal to the Minister. A duplicate license costs USD 150.
For example, a dairy processing plant in the yellow license category incurs the following regulatory
charges:
a) Receiving bay effluent: Annual registration fee: USD 32
Annual monitoring fee: USD 300
Quarterly discharge levy: USD 300; and
Administration fee: 5%.
This is even though the milk spilt at the receiving bay is channeled to the municipal sewage treatment
plant for a separate fee.
120
b) Boiler gaseous emissions: Annual registration fee: yellow licence USD 32
Annual license monitoring fee: USD 280
Quarterly discharge levy: USD 280 and
Administration fee: 5%.
c) Boiler effluent (that is, waste hot water from the boiler) also incurs regulatory charges including:
Annual registration fee: USD 32
Annual license monitoring fee: USD 300
Quarterly discharge levy: USD 300 and
Administration fee: 5%.
These add unnecessary costs to processing plants which, unfortunately, are passed onto consumers,
making milk non-competitive relative to imported milk products. The impact on the cost of production
is significant when it is considered that EMA fees are charged at both the farm and processor level.
Processors are double taxed as they also have to pay discharge fees to municipalities. Innocuous boiler
gaseous emissions are also subject to charges despite there being no proof that such emissions cause
environmental damage. The quantum of the fees has also been questioned by stakeholders.
Worldwide, Veterinary Public Health departments are accepted as the competent authorities in
registration of food processing plants. In Zimbabwe, these authorities charge lower fees to inspect and
certify plants than those currently being charged by EMA.
5.3 Towards a More Developmental EMA Regulatory Environment
Sustainable agriculture requires that production processes do as little damage to the environment as
possible. Thus, there is need for environmental safeguards to ensure sustainable agricultural
development. However, several EMA Regulations do not adequately take the Zimbabwean context
into account. A case in point are the Regulations on emissions control. According to farmers, effluent
from farming processes such as dairy, piggeries and poultry houses are not environmentally bad but
contribute to crop nutrition in the form of manure, some of which is re-cycled to produce on-farm feed
(maize grain, soya bean, maize silage etc). The scale of production among Zimbabwean farmers is very
small compared to countries such as Europe or the United States. At the current scale of production,
all effluent and solid wastes can be absorbed by the on-farm environment with little escape to
constitute pollution. EMA Regulations appear to be based on intensive production in developed
countries, most of which are in temperate climates where on-farm environments are unable to absorb
wastes generated by livestock production. It is recommended that EMA stops levying farmers based
on how much effluent or solid wastes are produced by their livestock operations and, instead, provide
extension on proper ways to turn these wastes into valuable crop nutrition resources to enhance on-
farm productivity.
121
Farmers also object to the need for annual registration and monitoring fees for using pesticides and
agrochemicals or for carrying more than 200 litres of fuel. Farmers argue that no modern commercial
farming can occur without these inputs. The prudent intervention which EMA can provide is education
on the proper storage and use of such products.
Where farmers concur with EMA is the need to encourage the creation of fire guards and punitive
penalties for starting fires which reduces the availability of grazing during the dry months. These
Regulations contribute directly to productivity in the livestock sector.
From 2007 onwards, processors have been subjected to an array of registrations with EMA which
requires annual registration and monitoring fees as well as quarterly disposal fees under SI 7 of 2007
(Effluent and Solid Waste Disposal) and SI 72 of 2009 (Air Pollution). A small dairy processor needs to
pay at least USD 4,500 per year in registration, inspection and disposal fees. This adds to fixed costs
and makes processed products non-competitive. Livestock industry stakeholders argue that this policy
which advocates payment for the right to pollute does not solve pollution problems. They prefer that
EMA work together with industry on safe ways to dispose of waste. Abattoirs have invested in waste
disposal structures under the Animal Health Act while milk processors are also required to have
acceptable waste disposal structures under the Dairy Act. There is need therefore for EMA to work
with Dairy Services and DVS to avoid duplication. Only processors who do not adopt safe ways of
handling waste should be required to pay punitive penalties.
