Factors Affecting the Production of Rabbits by Small Holder … 1.pdf · can hinder (if negative)...

7Amity Journal of Agribusiness

Volume 1 Issue 1 2016 AJAB

ADMAA

Amity Journal of Agribusiness1(1), (7-21)

©2016 ADMAA

Factors Affecting the Production of Rabbits by Small Holder Farmers in Mt Darwin District of Zimbabwe

Deliwe S Tembachako & May N J MremaAfrica University, Mutare, Zimbabwe

(Received: 02/12/2016; Accepted: 13/04/2016)

IntroductionThe high level of poverty experienced in Africa has been a concern for a long time. A World

Bank report of 2008 showed that in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), poverty levels shot from about 200 million to 220 million in the rural areas between 1993 and 2002, (World Bank 2008). The expectation is that the number of rural poor will exceed that figure by 2040. It has therefore been agreed that there is a need to put in place measures that can reduce the poverty levels and improve the livelihood of most poverty stricken rural families (Casidra1, 2015). By embarking on income generating projects, rural farmers can have their lives changed for the better. Some

AbstractThe study looked at economic factors affecting commercialization of rabbit production in rural areas

of Mt Darwin District of Zimbabwe. All the 85 rabbit producing farmers identified were used in a survey conducted in four wards of Nohwedza, Dotito, Mudzengerere and Karoi. Findings of the research revealed that crop production was the main source of income (98 per cent of farmers), however where rabbits were concerned; fathers were the main owners of rabbits (81%), followed by sons and mothers at 15% and 4% respectively. Rabbits were mainly kept for consumption purposes (39 rabbits/farmer/year) and a few rabbits (31/farmer/year) were sold each year. On average only 1% of the rabbit producers sold more than 100 rabbits per year, 9%, between 50-100; and 90%, between 0-50. Farmers indicated lack of access to credit and feeds as the major challenge to rabbit production. Regression results revealed that the main factors affecting commercial rabbit production are lack of extension services, low rabbit price, low agricultural education and lack of experience in rabbit keeping. These were significant at p < 0.05. Rabbit farmers revealed that they need assistance in market identification, extension service and government support in terms of market creation through the setting up of rabbit meat and fur industries.

Keywords: Rabbits, Commercialization, Rabbit Meat, Ownership

JEL Classification: Q13

Paper Classification: Research Paper

8 Amity Journal of AgribusinessADMAA

Volume 1 Issue 1 2016AJAB

projects have a high cost fee attached to them for the rural farmers to embark on. The raising of broiler chickens, for example, is a viable income generating project, but many communal farmers cannot embark on such a project because of the initial costs that are associated with such a project. However, it was agreed that one project that can be tried by rural farmers to improve their livelihoods is raising rabbits (Oryctologuscuniculus) mainly because of the low initial cost required to start such a project (Owen, Khali & Afifi, 2004; Dolberg 2001).

Literature ReviewIn other developing countries, rabbit projects have contributed to food security and income

(Casidra, 2015). Rabbit scientists have advocated for years that a great potential exists for rabbits in Less Developing Countries (LDCs).This implies that when rabbits are raised appropriately they can improve the income and diet of both rural and urban low income families. Through implementation of Research and Development (R&D), successful rabbit projects have been recorded in some parts of Africa, for example, the CECURI Rabbit Project in Benin Republic (Lukefahr, 2000), Egypt, and in Ghana.

Rabbit farming in other countries has grown from raising a few rabbits for family consumption to large commercial operations with hundreds of rabbits. In Egypt, for example, rabbit projects involving the youth reduced youth migration from rural to urban area, (Lukefahr, 2008). The idea behind NGOs offering such a service is to encourage rural families to produce inexpensive meat for consumption and to raise income for their welfare. It, therefore, shows that a great potential exists in rabbit keeping raising income and improving lives. There are some advantages that are inherent in raising rabbits as a business for less resourced communal farmers. One of them is that expansion of a rabbit project is much simpler than other livestock alternatives (Shaeffer, Kime & Harper 2008). This is because a large range of existing facilities can be changed to cater for rabbit keeping and land requirements are negligible. Similarly, Son (2008) echoed the same when he noted that rabbits do not need elaborate houses or equipment because their requirements are not as complicated as for other animals. Another important factor that is taken into consideration by those who would want to start up a rabbit business is the low cost that is associated with obtaining the start up stock (Gichoya, 2013). In many cases, obtaining the starting stock is an impending task for most business aspiring entrepreneurs as the costs will be prohibitive. However, in the case of rabbits, initial capital outlay for starting the project is very low (Lukefahr, 2008); because of this any poor rural farmer is able to start rabbit farming with minimum constraints. Rabbit feeding is not expensive; rabbits can be fed from forage and garden waste grown in the surrounding areas (Lukefahr, 2004; Samkol & Lukefahr, 2008). It, therefore, means that rabbit producers can start small and then expand later. This can be achieved by keeping a small number, feeding them on green forages, selling some and raising money to buy artificial feeds later. By doing so, the project can expand to greater levels.

Advantages of Keeping Rabbits by Smallholder FarmersRabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus), in Africa are mostly produced by low income and

resource poor farmers who maintain small-scale operations for meat and income. These are mostly produced under small scale or backyard systems. Rabbit production has a number of advantages for smallholder farmers. These advantages could be in the form of food supply and income (Cheeke, 2004). Farmers can benefit from a good supply of meat and their income will increase through the sale of extra fryers (Gichoya, 2013; Oseni & Lukefahr, 2014). Obtaining



ADMAA

the starting stock is easier as compared to other livestock like cattle, goats and sheep. Apart from obtaining the stock easily, rabbits waste is very valuable manure. As the cost of fertilizers increases, so does the value of rabbit manure. In some countries, there is a notable increase in home gardening and organic farming. Rabbit manure has been found to give good results (Cheeke, 2004). Farmers could use the manure to improve crop production and reduce costs of fertilizer inputs. This brings about the benefits rabbit production has on other farm activities. Rabbit pelts can also be converted into drum skins, hats and even rugs and this could be exploited as a source of income too.

Known Constraints in Keeping RabbitsThere are some constraints that are related to rabbit production. The lack of knowledge

of markets and marketing skills is a contributory factor that plays a role in farmers’ decision to embark on the project (Gono, Dube, Petronillah & Muzondiwa, 2013; Kabir, 2005) and to expansion of rabbit projects. Most smallholder farmers tend to be immobile and hence information about markets and marketing is lacking. The religious beliefs of a community about something can hinder (if negative) or promote (if positive) the expansion of a potential business like that of rabbits (Appiah, Nimoh, Tham-Agyekum & Tracoh, 2011). While proper management of rabbits has been noted to give good returns, the reverse is true. Gono et al., (2013) noted that the issue of inadequate nutrition due to lack of feed was among the major hindrance to commercial rabbit keeping in the tropics

Rabbit Production in ZimbabweZimbabwe is a developing country with a large population residing in the rural areas, and

who are engaged in agricultural production as a major means of livelihood. The agricultural production system is mainly rain fed and traditional, characterized by low inputs and other technologies. The Zimbabwean Government is currently encouraging small income generating projects for the rural farmers. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are also playing a crucial role in helping to implement such projects. Currently, one such NGO, The Red Cross International, has given money to women groups in the study area to raise goats in order to generate income for family sustainability. Another NGO, AFRICARE (AFC), also did rabbit production with rural people on a trial basis. The NGO would give a buck and a doe to a household. These households would breed the rabbits and then pass on a doe and a buck to the next household and the process would go on and on until many households had rabbits. The benefits from rabbit keeping are twofold, that is immediate and long term. Immediate benefits are those that create local demand for rabbits thus bringing additional income. Long term benefits are created when rabbits give an insurance against possible future shocks, through livestock diversification and also they avail funds for purchase of other livestock species such as goats, sheep and cattle if the project is done with passion. However, most rural smallholder farmers are raising rabbits as an alternative source of income and meat protein requirement apart from the vegetable protein they heavily depend on (Owen et al., 2004). Zimbabwe is among the 5 countries producing less than 1000 tonnes of rabbit carcasses per year. This study tries to see why rabbit production has not been taken up commercially by these farmers in order to enhance their incomes as have the adoption of bigger animals like cattle and goats production.



Research Gap and Contribution of this StudyThere is still much to be done in the research on rabbit production. There is need to do

research on the marketing needs that would give the producers information on where to market their rabbits and at what prices. This would trigger expansion in production of rabbits over and above the current production levels. This study offers policy makers valuable information of some of the constraints that hinder production and marketing of rabbits in rural areas of Zimbabwe which if attended to would enhance incomes of the rural communities that would lead to poverty alleviation.

Methods and Materials

Type of StudyThe study data was done through a survey, using cross sectional data. The district where

the research took place is located in Mashonaland Central, in the Northern part of Zimbabwe. It is found in the agro-ecological region IV, receiving an annual rainfall between 450 and 600mm making crop production a risky venture.

Sampling MethodThe district where the study took place was done purposefully, but that of the households

with rabbits was done in two stages. In the first stage, 4 wards were selected from the 34 wards found in Mt Darwin District. The four wards selected were: 8 (Nohwedza), with 39 villages, ward 9 (Dotito), with 6 villages plus the growth point ward 17 (Mudzengerere), with 35 villages and ward 36 (Karoi), with 37 villages and the total population of individuals in the 4 wards was 5737 Snowball sampling technique was used to select the sample in the 4 wards. Each village head was requested to identify a rabbit producer who would in turn identify others. By obtaining referrals in succession, this process was carried out in waves and all rabbit farmers were identified in the selected wards. A total of 85 rabbit producers were identified and this was used as the sample for the study. Observations of the hutches and housing of rabbits was also done.

The number of farmers keeping rabbits is low in the district because in Zimbabwe, the bigger animals kept are cattle followed by goats since these are more preferred to rabbits. The culture of rabbit meat is still very new and consumers are yet to adopt the culture of eating rabbit meat as opposed to beef and goat meat.

Method of Data CollectionData was collected from the selected household sample using structured questionnaires.

The questionnaires had both open and closed ended questions which were clear and easy to understand. Interviews with key informants (chiefs of villages, extension officers and livestock officers), and of farmers were conducted and observations was done during data collection.



ADMAA

Data Needs and SourcesThe data collected that would fulfil the set objectives is shown below

Data needed and variables Objective

Household characteristics-Age-Gender-Education level-Marital status-Source of income- Family labor-Land size-Income-Marketing-Management of rabbits

1. To characterize the socio-economic patterns among rabbits producers in Mt Darwin communal areas.

-Gender of household head-Age of respondent- Education status of HH- Labor availability- Experience in rabbit production- Agricultural training of respondent- Extension services- Price- Land size

2. To identify factors hindering commercialization of rabbit production amongst smallholder producers in Mt Darwin communal areas.

-Costs of raising rabbits-Revenue from sale of rabbits

3. To determine whether rabbit production is a viable project

HH = Head of Household

Description of the Variables Used in the Model Y= level of production of rabbits; X1 = AGE of the farmer (head of household), measured in

years; X2 = Gender of farmer, this is a dummy variable that assumes a value of 1 if the head is male and 0 if otherwise. X3 =ED being education status of rabbit keepers and is a variable with 1 if producer has not gone to school; 2 if attained primary level; 3 if secondary level and 4 if tertiary level; X4 =AT being agricultural training attained by rabbit farmers and is a variable with (1 none, 2 if master farmer; 3 certificate; 4 if Diploma and 5 if University degree); X5=EXPRBT being experience in rabbit keeping and is a continuous variable for experience, (1 if 0-5yrs; 2 if 6-10; 3 if 11-15 yrs, and 4 if 15yrs); X6 = EXTCONT is the number of days of contact with extension the household had within the year and X7 = P is the price of rabbit sold.

Hypotheses TestedHo1: : The existing socio-economic factors do not hinder commercialization of rabbit production

Ho2: The economic factors existing in Mt Darwin do not hinder commercialization of rabbit

The Model Used in Analysis Y = βo+ β1X1+β2X2+ β3X3+ β4X4+ β5X5+ β6X6+ β7X7+ µ .

Its verification is shown in Table 7 later in the paper. A number of regression models were used and the one with the best fit was adopted.



Statistical Tools UsedStatistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 21 was used for data analysis. Gross

margins were also used to assess viability of rabbit production projects in Mt. Darwin.

Results and Discussion

Current Situation of Rabbit Production in the DistrictThe ages of rabbit farmers in the four wards are as shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Farmers in each age group and number of rabbits produced per year

Ward Name ( % of respondents) N = 85

20 -30 years 31 - 40 years 41 -50 years 51 - 60 years Above 60

8 10.3(261) 33.3(852) 35.9(919) 20.5(525) 0.0

9 0.0 44.4(292) 44.4(292) 0.0 11.1(75)

17 16.7(114) 25.0(171) 33.3(228) 25.0(171) 0.0

36 4.0(74) 20.0(347) 48.0(891) 28.0(520) 0.0

The figures in parentheses show the number of rabbits produced by different age groups in each wardWard 8, 9, 17 and 36 represented ward Nohwedza, Dotito, Mudzengerere and Karoi respectively.

Across all wards, the 20-30 age group of respondents with rabbits ranged between 0 – 17%, the 31 to 40 years age group ranged between 20- 44 per cent. The 41-50 age group was between 33-48 per cent while the 51-60 age group ranged between 0-28 per cent . Those falling under the 60 and above age group ranged between 0-11%. The average age of all the farmers with rabbits interviewed across wards was 41 years but 40% of them were in the 41-50 year age group. Twenty eight percent of this age group of farmers with rabbits was found in ward 36. Only ward 9 had rabbit keepers above 60 years who constituted 11.1 per cent of the total farmers with rabbits. The study found that 40 per cent of between the ages of 40-51 years old had an average of 583 rabbits. The 20 -30 years age group who kept rabbits were very few in all wards with a mean average of 7.5% and these kept an average of 112 rabbits per ward. The 31-40 year age group produced an average of 421 rabbits; the 51-60 age group produced 304 rabbits while the 60 and above group produced an average of 18 rabbits per year. This means that much of rabbit keeping is done by farmers between 40-51 years of age (Table 1). These are people with young families who need to be fed nutritionally and fees paid for at school from sale of some rabbits. The younger and very old households who kept rabbits were the fewest. This shows the lack of family responsibility for these two groups. Both these groups have few members of households to feed, clothe and pay fees for, hence the lack of interest to keep more rabbits. Table 2 shows the correlation between the household size and rabbits produced.

Table 2: Household Size for families keeping rabbits

Ward Household size % of households N = 85

1 – 5 6 - 10

8 (Nohwedza) 50 (1313) 50(1247)

9(Dodito) 67(438) 33(220)

17(Mudzengerere) 34(228) 66(458)

36(Karoi) 40(743) 60(1115)

The figures in brackets show the number of rabbits produced by different household sizes per each ward per year.



ADMAA

On the whole the total respondents with 1-5 members of household produced a total of 2322 rabbits per year. Those with 6-10 members produced less, with a total of 2040. On the whole, it was expected that the larger households (6-10) would keep more rabbits because they have a bigger labour force to tend to the rabbits and also more needs and a higher demand for meat from rabbits for nutritional purposes. On the whole the rabbit produced were only 67 rabbits per household per year. Nohwedza ward produced the bulk of the rabbits in the Mt Dawn district across all age groups, followed by Karoi ward.

Reasons for Rabbit KeepingAs shown in Table 3 below, three major reasons were given for keeping rabbits; home

consumptions which was the main purposes as shown by the high percentage of households in this category, for utilizing of both kitchen and garden waste and lastly for manure in the home gardens. This shows how keeping rabbits complements other farm activities.

Table 3: Reasons farmers gave for keeping rabbits

Ward Reason for keeping rabbits (per cent of farmers) N = 85

Home consumption

Making use of kitchen and garden waste

Manure for home garden

8(Nohwedza) 58 31 13

9(Dotito) 44 23 33

17(Mudzengerere) 50 25 25

36(Karoi) 76 8 16

Rabbit Production Activities done by GenderAlthough in all wards ownership of rabbits was mainly by the fathers, (Table 4), (Ward 36 had

96%, ward 17, 8 and 9 fathers owned 69%, 78% respectively), many of the production activities except breeding (that is culturally a man’s job) are done by the females of the households (Figures 1 and 2). The highest ownership by women was in ward 8 with 21% followed by ward 9 with 11 per cent, respectively in the mentioned wards. Women who owned rabbits were either widowed or divorced.

Table 4: Rabbit ownership in the family by gender of family member

Ward name N = 85

Rabbit ownership

Per cent of farmers

Father Mother Son Daughter

8(Nohwedza) 69 21 10 0

9((Dotito) 78 11 11 0

17((Mudzengerere) 83 0 17 0

36(Karoi) 96 4 0 0

Total Mean % 82 4 15 0



Figure 1. Participation of breeding by gender

Figure 2. Members of households responsible for feeding rabbits in the wards

Factors Affecting Commercialization of RabbitsFarmers in all the four wards (Nohwedza, Dotito, Mudzengerere and Karoi) had some

experience in rabbit keeping. In ward 8, 51% of rabbit farmers had between 6-10 years experience in rabbit keeping. Ward 17 had the highest number of farmers with experience between 6-10 years while ward 36 and 9 had 40 per cent and 44 per cent of farmers with experience of between 6-10 years. Ward 36 is the only ward with more new rabbit farmers, (48 per cent). More experience in rabbit keeping means more and better information and the ability to improve rabbit production.

This shows that with such knowledge farmers are able to train each other as Master Farmers in rabbit production. However, despite the fact that most farmers have such long experiences in keeping rabbits the study found out that not many rabbits are produced and sold for income. Rabbits are kept mainly for provision of meat for the households, since their family size is large (Table 2). However keeping rabbits for home consumption is saving the family money that would have been used to buy other sources of protein for such big households.

As discussed above, the average number of rabbits per annum/ per household, kept is low (67 rabbits) and only 46% are left for selling in the market. The main reasons given for not selling more rabbits is that do not have sufficient feeds (Figure 3) for the rabbits and many have resorted to feeding them on greens coming from their gardens and kitchen waste (Table 5) because the



ADMAA

farmers do not have enough money to buy pellets. The lack of feeds for these farmers is shown by the number of farmers who said the feeds in their wards is insufficient (Figure 3) and this means the rabbits do not grow fast enough or big enough for sale. It also means that expansion of projects is also restricted.

Table 5: Different types of feeds used in feeding rabbits

Ward Name Type of feed

Greens Greens and kitchen waste

Pellets (purchased)

% of farmers

8 35 54 11

9 79 10 11

17 92 0 8

36 60 16 16

Successful production of rabbits requires that farmers give supplements to their rabbits. Results from the four wards showed that farmers who gave supplementary feeding to their rabbits ranged from 8% -16% and in all the four wards non supplementation ranged from 83%-92%. Ward 36 had 16% rabbit farmers that supplemented while in wards 8, 9 and 17 stood at 11%, 11% and 8% respectively. In Ward 17, had the highest number of farmers (92%) who did not give supplements to their rabbits followed by ward 9, 8 and 36 at 89%, 87% and 84% respectively. In ward 36, 16% farmers use commercial pellets. Basically supplementation of greens is not common with these famers. On average farmers in all wards (88%) indicated that they do not supplement the greens they feed to their rabbits. This is basically related to their sources of income which are not adequate and consistent as most of them have no formal employment. Their main source of income is from sales of surplus crops (mainly maize) after taking care of their subsistence needs. This surplus is very little taking into account the size of households they have and low yields realized and small size of farms they own (an average of 5 ha). Since crop failure is common in the area due to inadequate rains and resources, it becomes difficult for these farmers to buy supplements for the rabbits. They therefore keep only enough rabbits which they can feed using greens available and this reduces the total number of rabbits kept and liveweight of the rabbits.

Figure 3. Feed adequacy for rabbits in the study area

Figure 4 below shows the level of assistance communal farmers of rabbits receive from the extension body AGRITEX, Livestock Production Division (LPD) as well as local breeders in the



production of rabbits in the four wards under study. An average of 92% of farmers in all wards receives most of their assistance from their peers in and around their villages. Most rabbit farmers (92 – 100%) indicated that they did not get any help in the production and marketing of rabbits from the AGRITEX staff. Contact with extension staff has a major influence on the perception of farmers and hence their decision to increase production. Appiah et al, (2011) found out that extension contact had a significant effect on the taking up of rabbit technologies. When a project gets attention from extension staff, farmers will focus on it and want to try it as they feel safe to do so. A project where extension staff mingles and work with farmers helps build confidence in farmers enabling them to implement information dissemination by extension staff. In Darwin, it seems extension staff is not interested in rabbit production but instead concentrate more on other livestock species (cattle, broiler chickens and pigs). This might be the reason why an average of 82% of farmers was found to be using breeding stock from their own units and almost 50% do not give water to their rabbits due to ignorance on the proper ways to produce rabbits properly and increase production and sell more.

Figure 4. Provision of assistance on rabbit production

Rabbits in the area of study are housed in hutches and these are required to provide the necessary ventilation, light, shade and adequate space for the rabbits. The results showed that only 25% of the farmers on average had hutches with good ventilation for their rabbits, an average of 67% had poorly ventilated hutches while an average of 8% partially provided good ventilation. On average 55% of the hutches were found to be leaking or were not properly constructed to house these rabbits. It was found out that on average across the four wards, 96% of the rabbit farmers lacked construction material, and hence the hutches were built on poor materials from the local forests. This resulted in poor shade for the rabbits across wards.

Such hutches expose rabbits to thieves and pythons as well as rats and to rain. Material that is mainly used for the construction of the rabbit hutches comprises of grass for thatching, poles and mad bricks. Fencing using wire mesh was found to be very limited. It was found that an average of (96%) across wards had this problem, hence the living conditions of these animals is unfavorable. A considerable fraction (31%) keep rabbits in open hutches, leading to management difficulties while most of those hutches with shades were found to leak during rainy seasons. An average of 55% rabbit keepers across wards had such a situation. Farmers said that they have challenges with pythons that eat the rabbits due to insecure hutches caused by limited resources to construct secure hutches. Rats were also a menace as they would eat the newly born because entry to the hutches was easy due to the poorly constructed hutches.



ADMAA

Table 6: Farmers with different housing and hatch designs for rabbit

Ward Name Hutches built on the ground (% of farmers)

Hatchets build off the ground (% of the farmers)

8(Nohwedza) 64 36

9(Dotito) 56 44

17(Mudzengere) 50 50

36(Karoi) 28 72

Technically, hutches should be off the ground for ease of management and to allow free air for both animals and animal attendant during feeding, breeding and watering. Results showed that rabbits are not housed separately owing to lack of resources hence breeding and record keeping becomes difficult. At the same time reproductive management of animals becomes a great challenge. This could be the reason why rabbits are weaned late (10 weeks). Hutches are small and are not demarcated for ease of management. Even if rabbits are kept off the ground, rabbit waste was all over the floor because there was no wire mesh to allow waste to drop to the ground. This poses great risk to the health of the animals. The same is true for those hutches on the ground. Rabbits are at great risk of eating food mixed with wastes and chances of getting diseases like coccidiosis are high.

Some hutches were constructed on the ground and chances are that rabbits can eat infected feed as they pass out their wastes on the ground. Light is limited in the hutch and the general appearance shows that construction material is poor. Material for construction is poor and is not adequate for large production of rabbits. The floor does not have wire mesh to allow rabbits’ waste to drop down onto the ground for hygienic purposes and hence posing health danger to the rabbits.

Credit to purchase inputs for rabbit production is also a problem as shown by the response by farmers. Respondents who had no access to loans ranged from 91% to100% in all the wards. Ward 8 (Nohwedza) and ward 9 (Dotito) had 100% of the rabbit farmers indicating that they had no access to loans while ward 17 (Mudzengere) and ward 36 (Karoi) had 91% and 92% respectively. One of the reasons for inaccessibility if that on average, 65% farmers indicated that they do not have any information about loans and for those who have heard about loans, on average, 43% said collateral was a problem. Only (3.5%) of farmers had access to loans across wards. They also have limited information or knowledge on how they can access a loan to finance their business. Findings by Addlai et al, (2005) also show that access to loans is positively related to farmers’ decision to embark on agricultural enterprises.

Farmers in the study area do not have access to loans to boost their production and little extension services, hence deterring production of rabbits on a commercial basis. Availability of funds enables farmers to embark on farming business projects. In this study farmers have no motivator to drive them to turn rabbit production into a business. Access to loans enables farmers to expand the project as they will be able to meet all the necessary requirements to increase and raise rabbit production and marketing in highly priced markets in the urban areas.

Markets and Marketing StrategiesA number of factors are considered in determining when and how to sell rabbits. It is only

when products are sold that one can receive revenue for all his household and farm activities. Marketing of any rabbits was found to pose problems in communal setup. Almost all the wards



agreed that their market is within their surrounding villages with a record of 100% response in wards 8, 9 and 17 respectively, while only a small percentage (4%) in ward 36 sometimes sell in Mt Darwin urban area. The rabbits are sold only when there is need for cash for a specific need. The average price per rabbit is considered low by farmers at $5/rabbit Rearing of rabbits was found to give a farmer a profit of $3/rabbit since investment, feeding and disease treatment costs are minimal since breeding rabbits are given to farmers by CARE International, while feeds com from kitchen waste and garden leftovers and building materials for hutches come from local materials.

Fifty two percent (52%) of these farmers indicated that they sell when the rabbits are many. Twenty two per cent (22%) of the farmers indicated that they sell when they need money to cater for something, while 26% sell their rabbits when they are big enough to sell, which due to the feeding problem and inbreeding the period between birth and a weight to be sold takes longer. The marketing strategy used by these farmers is generally not conducive to business practices as an average of 88% of respondents in the four wards indicated that they just wait for customers to come and buy rabbits at their homesteads while only 12% try advertising. An average of 54% farmers in all wards indicated that the market is not available, while 46% indicated that the market is there but they have no means of reaching it.

Regression Analysis to Find which Factors Affect Production of RabbitsIn order to find and verify what variables (factors) really affect significantly production of

rabbits in the study, a multiple regression analysis was done using the model and variables mentioned in the methodology above. The results are presented in Table 7 below in which 9 predictors( gender, age, rabbit price, land size, years of experience in rabbit keeping, extension service, education status and agricultural education, market availability) were used to determine their effect on total number of rabbits produced per year.

Table 7: Regression Coefficients Results Coefficients

Model Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t Sig. Correlations Collinearity Statistics

B Std. Error

Beta Zero-order

Partial Part Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) 24.97 28.88 0.87 0.39

Age of respondent -0.68 .416 -0.17 -1.64 0.11 -0.24 -0.26 -0.16 0.98 1.126

Gender of respondent

4.13 9.721 0.04 .424 0.67 0.10 0.059 0.04 0.92 1.122

Total land size 6.75 5.24 0.13 1.29 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.86 1.170

Experience in rabbit keeping

11.42 5.30 0.28 2.15* 0.03 0.10 0.24 0.21 0.54 1.838

Education status -8.45 7.29 -0.18 -1.15 0.25 0.19 -0.13 -0.11 0.4 2.519

Agric education 28.98 7.930 0.62 3.65* 0.00 0.27 0.39 0.35 0.32 3.086

Rabbit price 43.28 12.590 0.53 3.43* 0.01 -0.01 0.37 0.33 0.39 2.556

Market availability -0.32 7.863 -0.01 -0.04 0.97 0.13 -0.01 -0.04 0.87 1.153

Extension visits 11.72 4.125 0.30 2.84 0.01 0.30 0.31 0.27 0.80 1.245

R2 : 0.66, F: 5.1Dependent variable (Y): Total number of rabbits produced; *, denotes significance at p = 0.05



ADMAA

Out of the 9 variables used, four were found to be significant while the other five were not significant. The regression model was significant (p < 0.05) for extension service, rabbit price, agricultural education and experience in rabbit keeping, the other variables (education status, market availability, gender of respondent, age and total land size) did not significantly influence total number of rabbits produced per year.

Level of agricultural education was the most important factor influencing rabbits produced. It had a significant value of p=0.001 and a b coefficient value of 28.9. If agricultural education increases by one unit, (year in school) it would cause an increase of rabbits produced by almost 30 rabbits. This is consistent with expectations. Farmers with agricultural training are better informed on production issues and hence are in a better position to increase production. Extension service is the other variable that had a significant effect in explaining why commercial rabbit production is not being done. It had a significant value of p=0.006 and a beta coefficient of 11.7. The total number of rabbits produced per year increases by 11.7 with one visit. Therefore if contact of extension service with rabbit farmers is increased, then production of rabbits is likely to increase. Farmers who had more visits by extension workers had a better number of rabbits compared to those who were visited less and not at all. The result of this study is in agreement with findings by Appiah et al. (2011).

Rabbit price was found to be significant and positively affect the number of rabbits produced per year. The variable had a significant value of p = 0.001 and a coefficient value of 43.3. This means that if rabbit price was to increase by a dollar, the production of rabbits per year would increase by 43 rabbit. Price is therefore also a critical factor that determines whether rabbit farmers can increase their production or not. At the time of the study the average price/rabbit was an average of $5/ rabbit, a price the farmers said was less than that of a broiler chicken which ranges from $6-$7 per bird. Farmers see no point in increasing production because of the unfavorable price.

Experience in rabbit production is also another factor that was found to be significant to explaining why production is not done at commercial level. The predictor had a significant value of p=0.034 and a coefficient value of 11.4 indicating that as the experience of farmers is increased by one unit, production of rabbits by farmers would also increase by 11.4. As more experience is gained, production is expected to increase. In this case the average number of years of rabbit keeping is 6 years.

Gender was found to be insignificant in explaining why rabbit production is not being increased in the study area. It had a p value of 0.67 and affects commercialization of rabbit’s production by 4.1. The regression results shows that whether household head is male or female does not affect the number of rabbits produced. Women in Africa are marginalized in ownership of livestock and decision making in rural communities. However the results show that gender is not a factor that is significant in explaining why rabbit production is not being commercialized in the study. Age was also a variable that was found to be insignificant with a p value of 0.105 and an increase in age by one year, affects production by -0.68 or -1 rabbit.

Education status of rabbit farmers was also found to be insignificant with a p value of 0.250 and a coefficient of -8.45. It can, therefore, not explain why farmers are not increasing rabbit production to commercial level. Market availability also was insignificant. It had a p value of 0.97 and only affected the number of rabbits produced by -0.33. Apriori expectations were that market unavailability would impact negatively on number of rabbits produced. The result of the regression is consistent with the apriori expectations. The market for the rabbits was only the local



market whose capacity to buy at good prices is hindered by the consumers’ incomes which come mainly from crops and also production is meant for consumption. Total land size was expected to have significance in explaining the number of rabbit produced per year. This was so because the expectation was that the larger the total land size cultivated by the farmer, the more was to be produced and so the farmer would be in a position to feed and provide for more needs for the more rabbits produced. However the results of the regression showed that land size had no significance in explaining the number of rabbits produced by farmers in the study area. The variable had a p value of 0.201 and a coefficient of 6.75.

ConclusionAlthough efforts are being made to raise the livelihoods status of communal smallholder

farmers in Zimbabwe by starting small businesses like rabbit keeping on a commercial basis a number of constraints is making it difficult for these farmers to take up commercialization of rabbit production. Some of these constraints are the large household sizes in each family that require more of the rabbits to be kept for home consumption instead of for the market unless severe cash needs arise. Lack of supplements to feed the rabbits, poor management for example poor housing that are prone to health hazards, predator infiltration. Lack of information on marketing and on production from extension workers and low prices of the rabbits have also contributed to the lack of expansion of these enterprises that would have seen a rise in the incomes of smallholder farmers in communal rural areas of Zimbabwe.

ReferencesAppiah P., Nimoh F., Tham-Agyekum E. K., & Tracoh L.Y. (2011). Rabbit technologies: adoption studies in

the Ashanti region of Ghana. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(11), 2539-2544.

Casindra. (2015). Rabbit production. Assessed on July 2015 in UTA E-Leaf.

Cheeke, P. R. (2004). Contemporary issues in animal agriculture. New Jersey, Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.

Dolberg, F. (2001). A livestock development approach that contributes to poverty alleviation and widespread improvement nutrition among the poor lives. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 13(5). Accessed on http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd13/5/dolb135.htm.

Ellis, F. (1998). Household strategies and rural livestock diversification. Journal of Development Studies, 35(1) 1-38.

Gichoya, F. (2013). Project focus: rabbit farmers reap big in Kenya in Baobab. AgriCultures Network, 67, June 2013.

Gono, R. K., Dube, J., Petronillah, R. S., & Muzondiwa, J. V. (2013). Constraints and opportunities to rabbit production in Zimbabwe: A case study of the Midlands Province, Zimbabwe. International Journal of Science and Research, 2(9), 365-369.

Kabir, P. (2005). The market potential for grasscutter production: A case study in the Sunyani Metropolis of Brong-Ahafo region. Bachelor of Education Dissertation, University of Education, Winneba, Ghana.

Lukefahr, S. D. (2000). National Rabbit Project of Ghana: a genetic case study. ICAR Technical Series 3, 301-317.



ADMAA

Lukefahr, S. D. (2004). Sustainable and alternative systems of rabbit production. Proceedings of the 8th world rabbit congress, Puebla, Mexico, 1452-1468.

Lukefahr, S. D. (2008). Role of organic rabbit farming for poverty alleviation. Department of animal and wildlife sciences, MSC. 228, Texas A and M University, Kingsville, TX, USA.

Oseni, S. O., & Lukefahr, S. D. (2008). Rabbit production in low-input systems in Africa: Situation, knowledge and perspectives – A review. World Rabbit Science, 22, 147-160.

Owen, J. E., Khali, M. H., & Afifi, E. A. (2004). A review of phonetic and genetic parameters associated with meat production traits in rabbits. Animal Breed Abstracts, 54(4), 752-749.

Samkol, P., & Lukefahr, S. D. (2008). A challenging role for organic rabbit production towards poverty alleviation in South East Asia. 9th World Rabbit Congress, Italy.

Shaeffer, R., Kime, L. F., & Harper, J. K. (2008). Agricultural alternatives: rabbit production. The Pennsylvania State University.

Son, K.Y. (2008). An assessment of the potential of rabbit production in the household economy in Northern Vietnam. A case study of Ninh Phuc and Yen Binh communes. National goat and rabbit research centre. Vietnam, 67-76.

World Bank, (2008) Agriculture for development. The World Bank, Washington. D.C. Retrieved from http://www.ukfg.org.uk?docs/wdr2008.pdf.

Authors’ Profile May N Mrema is a senior Lecturer in the Department of Agribusiness, Faculty of Agriculture and

Natural Resources, Africa University, Zimbabwe. She has previously taught agribusiness and agricultural economic courses at three other Universities, in Botswana (University of Botswana), Tanzania (Sokoine University of Agriculture) and Uganda (Makerere University). She has also worked at ICRAF (now WAC) project (AFRENA) in Uganda. Her research areas are agricultural marketing, agricultural policy and project appraisal. She has widely published widely more than 30 papers in Refereed journals and participated in over 20 conferences internationally.

Deliwe S Tembachako is a Lecturer in Agribusiness, at Zimbabwe Open University, Zimbabwe. Her Research interests are rural livelihoods, small income generating projects for smallholder farmers, climate change and food security.

Factors Affecting the Production of Rabbits by Small Holder … 1.pdf · can hinder (if negative)...

Documents

Transcript of Factors Affecting the Production of Rabbits by Small Holder … 1.pdf · can hinder (if negative)...