Proximate determinants of the effective demand for animal health services in smallholder sector of Zimbabwe

J Mutambara, R Mano*, P Chatikobo** and J Masvong

University of Zimbabwe, Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, P.O Box MP 167, Harare, Zimbabwe
jmutambara@agric.uz.ac.zw
* University of Zimbabwe, Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, P.O Box MP 167, Harare, Zimbabwe
rtmano@agric.uz.ac.zw
** Faculty of Veterinary Medicine Umutara Polytechnic, P. B. 57, Nyagatare, Rwanda
paulkobo@gmail.com
*** University of Zimbabwe, Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, P.O Box MP 167, Harare, Zimbabwe
jmasvongo@gmail.com

Abstract

In order to determine the possibility of commercialization and privatization of animal health services in smallholder farming areas as alternatives to public service delivery given the prevailing financial challenges, a questionnaire based survey was used to obtain data from 333 livestock farmers randomly selected in Gutu district of Masvingo Province, Zimbabwe. The questionnaire obtained information on farmer’s ability to pay for animal health services (expenditure on animal health per year) and their animal health related socio-economic circumstances (need, enabling and predisposing factors to animal health). Regression analysis was used to determine the relationship between expenditure on animal health and socio-economic factors.

About 62% of the households were effectively demanding animal health care while 48% were not paying for animal health services. The effective demand for animal health services were positively influenced by livestock units, income, asset ownership and years in education at 10%, 1%, 5% and 5% levels of significance respectively. Household size was inversely related to effective demand at 1% level. Outcomes from this analysis provided evidence that there is potential to commercialize and privatize animal health services in smallholder areas given that most farmers are effectively demanding the services. To further stimulate effective demand in smallholder sectors, policy targets should focus on improving livestock ownership, education and resource base of farmers in terms of physical and financial assets.  Household size with adverse effects on effective demand can be controlled through family planning programmes to ensure that family sizes can be streamline especially among the young age groups.

Key words: Commercialization, Enabling, Expenditure on animal health, Financial Challenges, Need, Predisposing, Privatization

Introduction

The failure of public owned veterinary services to effectively deliver animal health services to farmers is a cause of concern in most developing countries including Zimbabwe. The public owned institutions have a low geographic coverage, heavily limited by scarce resources and in contrast confronted with increased animal health need such that optimal health care will not be achieved with reliance on public sector only (Mills et al 1993). Animal health care is more important now than ever given the expected increase in animal health related challenges plus continuous deterioration of natural grazing pastures under this era of climate change with changes in temperatures, humidity, wind and other climate related variables that affect diseases and pests incidences and growth in pastures. 

The livestock industry in Zimbabwe falls into two major categories namely large-scale and smallholder production. The large-scale production includes the recently introduced large scale indigenous farms (A2) sector and the commercial sector. The smallholder production system includes the new small-holder indigenous farms (A1), communal, small-scale and resettlement areas. The smallholder farmers currently own over 80% of most livestock species (cattle, goats, sheep, donkeys, and pigs) (DVS annual report 2002). According to Perry et al 2003, almost every rural household owns some chickens. In Zimbabwe, livestock plays an integral part of the agricultural sector as a whole and contributes about 15-25% of the value of the agricultural sector, estimated at about US$2.57 billion dollars (AWLDeC 2004). There is a strong interrelationship between livestock farming and crop farming with inputs and outputs flowing from one sector to the other. Most rural farmers cannot afford advanced machinery and fertilizers for their crop farming and hence highly depends on livestock to support cropping. Livestock provides manure and draught power that is required in crop farming (AWLDeC 2004). 

World wide, the demand for animals and animal products is increasing with time. According to the World Bank 1990, in Africa, the human population is growing at an average of 2.7% per annum, a rate that will result in an addition of 650 million people by 2025. It is estimated that 19 million tonnes of meat and 43 million tonnes of milk will be needed per year to feed the African population by 2025 (World Bank 1990).  

In Zimbabwe, it has been noted that livestock production has been decreasing over the past 4 years in both the communal and commercial sectors (DVS annual reports). This has mainly been attributed to diseases, the general socio-economic decline, and natural disasters like droughts. Animal diseases are crucial constraints in animal production. The threat from diseases can result in deaths of animals, human health problems due to zoonotic diseases, sickness of animal and loss of draught power due weakness, product (meat, hide, milk) condemnation, loss of trade, and inability to participate in socio-cultural ceremonies. The animals of most rural farmers are particularly vulnerable to diseases because of the expense, absence and unsuitability of animal health and production inputs. According to FAO 2002, the distribution of foot and mouth disease in the world closely follows poverty indicators. Smallholder farmers have few animals and few reserves on which to survive during lean times and use for recovery, therefore, the loss of individual animals has a proportionally greater impact. The availability and quality of animal health services proved to have real impact in improving the productivity of livestock all over the world (Anteneh 1989).  FAO 1990, estimated that the decline in livestock productivity due to diseases in developed countries is around 15%, while in developing countries the figure is twice as high. 

The failure of public owned veterinary services to effectively deliver animal health services to smallholder farmers is a cause of concern in most developing countries including Zimbabwe. In Zimbabwe, the state (department of Veterinary services) is responsible for delivery of animal health services to smallholder farmers, while the commercial sector is serviced by private vets. In the smallholder sectors, services provision is on a cost recovery basis as the farmers are expected to pay for drugs and other treatments, while the government pays for the salary and transport of the service providers. Cost recovery generates revolving funds that can be used to supplement limited government funding. However, the public owned institutions have a low geographic coverage, heavily limited by scarce resources and in contrast confronted with increased animal health need such that optimal health care will not be achieved with reliance on public sector only (Mills et al 1993).  

In light of diseases threats associated with changes in agro-ecological conditions resulting from climate change and the failure by public health institutions to deliver services, proposals have been to explore alternative options of financing and providing services. Holden et al 1996 encouraged the use of community-based approaches, privatization, commercialization and cost recovery as possible alternatives. Community Based Animal Health Worker (CBAHWs) are considered cost effective, easy to establish, easily accessible and a move towards community empowerment in animal health (Catley 2002). CBAHW approach is a form of commercialization (privatization) that reduces pressure of service delivery by allowing private players to provide some services (Holden et al 1996). However, the concept of CBAHWs has not been fully adopted in Zimbabwe.  Whether the involvement of the private sector, community based institutions and introduction of user charges by the conventional delivery system will improve overall effectiveness in the delivery of animal health services will depend greatly on the demand response of livestock producers who must make decisions about the health of livestock 

The study investigated the circumstances under which farmers can effectively demand animal health services in smallholder farming sector of Zimbabwe and inform policy options on the prospects for commercialization and privatization.

Materials and Methods

Study site 

The study was carried out in Gutu district of Masvingo Province in the southern parts of Zimbabwe. The area falls under natural regions III and IV on the basis of soil types, rainfall and general climatic conditions. There are nine Animal and management centres in Gutu district. Figure 1 below show the map of Masvingo province and Gutu district in Zimbabwe.

Sampling strategy 

Areas of study focus in the district were veterinary services Animal Health and Management Centers (AHMC). Multi-stage sampling strategy was used. Five out of nine AHMCs were randomly selected from the total of nine to represent the whole population in the district. About 333 individual farmers were randomly selected by proportions from the five selected AHMCs. A questionnaire survey was used to collect data on expenditure on animal health, need, enabling and predisposing characteristics of individual farmers.   

Data Collection  

Primary data was collected through group discussions and a questionnaire survey with farmers in Gutu district. Group discussions were used to prioritize factors that were important in animal health decisions and to obtain the general information for development of the questionnaire survey. A questionnaire survey was used to collect detailed quantitative and qualitative data that was used in the analysis in this paper. 
 

Data Analysis 

Descriptive statistics was used to summarize the data collected for further analysis.  A Z test was used to determine the significance of the differences in farmer socio-economic factors between farmers who effectively demand animal health services and those who do not demand. Regression analysis was used to determine factors that were associated with effective demand for animal health.    Different forms of regression namely linear, Cobb Douglas, exponential and semi -log were fitted on the data as given in 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

Y =      a₀ + a₁ X₁ + a₂ X₂ + …………… + a₁₀X₁₀ +U…………..…………………(1)

Log Y=a₀+a₁logX₁+a₂logX₂+……..+a₁₀logX₁₀ +logU….…………………...…… (2)

Log Y = a₀ + a₁ X₁ + a₂ X₂ +……… + a₁₀X₁₀ +U....………….……………………(3)

Y = a₀ + a₁ log X₁ + a₂ log X₂ +……+a₆ logX₆ +logU ............................................(4) 

Where a₀….a₁₀ = unknown parameters.

            U         = Error term

The best fitting equation was chosen on the basis of the magnitude of the multiple coefficients of determination (R²), significance of coefficients, significance of overall production function as given by F value, and the appropriateness of signs of the regression coefficients based on a priori expectations. The t-test was used to determine the significance of variables in the model.

Results

General Socio-Economic Characteristics of Livestock Farmers

Livestock Ownership 

Results from the survey indicated that farmers in Gutu district of Masvingo province owned a variety of livestock species namely cattle, goats, chickens and donkeys among other species. About 70% (N=333) of the farmers owned cattle, 80% owned goats, 100% owned chickens and only 10% owned donkeys (Figure 2). Other livestock species kept by farmers were sheep, rabbits, free ranging pigs, turkey and ducks.

Animal Health Challenges 

All (100%)  surveyed farmers indicated that diseases were a major challenge to livestock production. The most common disease mentioned was foot and mouth disease with 98% score. Rabies, heart water, anaplasimosis, babesiosis and black leg were other important diseases scoring on average 50% (Figure 3). Other diseases mentioned were mastitis and lumpy skin disease.

Challenges to animal health service delivery were cited as unavailability of drugs (69%), lack of dipping (67%), high cost of drugs (55%), inadequate grazing (40%), shortage of veterinary staff (20%) and poor knowledge on animal health by farmers (20%). 

Household Expenditure Patterns 

The general priority ranking of expenses by individual households was high on groceries with 50% of total expenditure. Other important expenses are on school fees and farming inputs with 13% and 17% respectively. Animal health and the rest of other expenses are in this case secondary or minor expenditure areas as indicated by their percentage allocation of about 5% and less (Figure 4).  

Factor Affecting Farmer’s Expenditure on Animal Health 

From the group interviews with farmers, important factors that were believed to affect animal health decisions by farmers were identified as ownership of livestock, sex, age, years in education, agricultural training, income, assets, maize output, household size and employment status (Table 1).

On top of the list with 100% score of importance were livestock ownership and income. Other important factors were sex, agricultural training, maize output, household size and employment status with 75%, 90%, 70%, 80% and 75% respectively. Other factors mentioned were asset ownership, years in education and age (Table 1). 

Livestock Units 

The livestock units variable was included as an indicator of the need for animal health services. Farmers indicated that they consulted veterinary expects mainly for their cattle and in some instances goats while there was little or no care for health problems on other species. Based on the expenditure patterns on livestock health that was biased on cattle and goats, the livestock units variable used in the analysis was calculated on the basis of cattle and goats. The calculation of livestock units was done to quantify a wide range of different livestock types and sizes in a standard manner. The concept of Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU) was used where on average cattle had an equivalent of 0.7 TLU and goats had an equivalent of 0.1 TLU (http:/www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/lead/toolbox/Mixed1/TLU.hmt.). The average livestock units for the sampled farmers were 6.87 units (N=333). Farmers who managed to pay for their animal health services (62%) had higher average livestock units of 7.4 and those who did not pay for services (38%) had  lower livestock units of 6 on average. 

Sex of Household Head 

The sex of head of household was indicated by whether head is male=1 or female =0. Results showed that 73.5% (N=333) of the heads of households were males while the remainder were female headed, most of whom were widows. This outcome showed the dominance of male persons in decision making concerning livestock in rural households.  

Age of Head of Household 

Age was measured in years, the average age of head of household was 52 years indicating that most of the livestock owners in rural areas were mature adults. 

Years in Education 

The average years in education for household heads interviewed was 8 years indicating that most household heads managed to complete primary education but did not acquire secondary education given that it normally takes 7 years for one to complete primary education. 

Agricultural Training 

Respondents were asked to indicate if they attended any training in agriculture in their lives. On average 50% indicated that they attended agricultural training, this indicated that more farmers in rural areas are yet to be exposed to some agricultural training for them to have a better understanding of farming.  

Total Income 

Income earnings per year from all sources (farming, non-farming, remittances) was on average was $259. Most of the income earned was from sale of farm produce (80%) while other sources of income included off farm projects and remittances from friends and relatives.  

Asset Ownership 

Households were asked to indicate the various types of the movable agricultural assets they owned. Assets owned included scotch carts, wheel barrows, cultivators, ploughs, bicycles, shovels, picks, machetes and hoes. Each variety of asset would be indicated by a score. The asset ownership score was on average 6.4 indicating that most households owned at least an asset for agricultural purpose in their homes. 

Maize Output 

The total amount of maize produced per season by households was considered an important indicator of the level of food self sufficiency. On average each household was harvesting about 1442 kg per season. This indicated that most farmers were growing maize and this is justified by the fact that the crop is a staple food crop.  

Household size 

The average household size  was given as 5 persons. About 60% of the people in the household were minor of below 15 years of age while the remaining were adults and elderly people.   

Employment status 

Households employment status was measured by indicating if head of household is formally employed (1) or not formally employed (0). Results showed that most (84%) household heads were not formally employed and the average employment status was 0.1.   

Effective demand for animal health 

Effective demand for animal health was measured by the amount of money spend on animal health by households. The proportion of households expenditure on animal health versus expenditure on other items was only 5% indicating a very low preference towards animal health by households according to figure 3 above. About 62% of households were spending money on animal health while 38% were not spending any money on animal health (Table 2).  

The proportion of farmers who effectively demand animal health services is higher than those who do not. 

Differences in Socio-Economic Status of Farmers Spending and Not Spending on Animal Health Services 

Households spending on animal health were found to have greater livestock units of 7.4 units than households not spending (6 units) and the differences were significant at 5%. There were more males than female heads in households spending on animal health (0.74) than those not spending (0.73) and the differences were not significant. The average age of households spending on animal health was lower (52 years) than the average age of those not spending (53 years) but the differences were not significant. Households spending on animal health had more years in education (8.4 years) than those not spending (7.7) and the differences were significant at 10%. There were more households (0.37) with exposure to agricultural training among those spending on animal health than those not spending (0.3) but the differences were not significant. Income, asset ownership and maize output were significantly (1%. 1% and 5% respectively) higher for household spending on animal health with values of $308, 7 and 1685kgs respectively than among those not spending with values of $123, 5.4 and 1106kgs respectively. Household size for households spending on animal health was 5 persons and for those not spending was 6 persons on average though  the differences were not significant. There were more households who were formally employed (0.2) among households who did not spend money on animal health than among those who were spending (0.1) and the differences were significant at 5% (Table 3). Outcomes from this analysis showed that there were differences in some socio-economic factors between households who spent money on animal health and those who did not.  

 Determinants of effective demand (Spending money) on animal health service 

Based in the criteria mentioned in the methodology, the Cob Douglas functional form was the lead equation and was chosen in this analysis.  Results showed that the coefficients of variables representing livestock units, years in education, income, assets ownership, household size and constant were significant at 10%, 5%, 1%, 5%, 1% and 10% respectively. From the results 22.2% of the variation in expenditure on animal health was explained by the variables in the model while the balance of 77.8% was explained by other factors not specified in the model (Table 4). 

Dependent variable: Expenditure on animal health ($) 

Livestock index was positively (1.54) associated with expenditure on animal health and the relationship was significant at 10%. Years in education was positively (1.16) associated with effective demand for animal health, indicating that the higher the education, the greater the demand and the relationship was significant at 5%. .Total income and assets ownership were both positively related to expenditure on animal health with coefficients of 0.72 and 1.34 respectively and the relationship was significant at 1% and 5% respectively.  The size of household was inversely related to expenditure on animal health and the relationship was significant at 1%. The constant with a coefficient of -1.22 was also significant at 10% indicating an autonomous tendency not to spend on animal health services by farmers (Table 4).

Discussion

This section discusses results from this study in relation to theoretical evidence on animal health services, empirical literature and expectations by researcher on concepts in the study given the prior hypotheses in that motivated this study. Issues discussed include animal health challenges and expenditure patterns by farmers, socio-economic characteristics of farmers spending on animal health and those not spending and determinants of expenditure on animal health services by farmers. Details of the discussion are given below under the three sub-themes.  

Animal Health challenges and Expenditure Patterns by Farmers in Gutu  

Livestock keeping was found to be an important activity in the rural sector as indicated by the proportions of farmers owning species such as chickens (100%), cattle (70%) and goats (80%). This is justified by the fact that livestock industry has been an important and integral part of the agricultural sector as a whole in Zimbabwe. Livestock has contributed to 15-25% of the total value of agricultural output from all farming sub-sectors (AWLDeC 2004 and Sibanda 2007). Livestock products also form part of the important inter-relationships that exit between agriculture and other sectors of the economy contributing to food security and export earnings (Sibanda 2008). All farmers (100%) surveyed indicated that they were facing challenges with animal health issues according to results. This outcome indicates that the problem is a serious one and if left unattended will cause production losses to farmers and the nation at large. According to Swallow, 2000 diseases have multiple effects that includes production losses, control costs that will inversely affect potential benefits from livestock such as food, manure, , income and overall welfare of human beings. Further to this there are negative externalities associated with animal disease that have adverse effects on society at large.  Thus to protect human livelihoods, animal health related challenges need to be considered seriously. Disease challenges included foot and mouth disease with a 98% score. Rabies, heart water, anaplasimosis, babesiosis and black leg were other important diseases scoring on average 50%. Other diseases mentioned were mastitis and lumpy skin disease. Despite existence of these diseases, farmers were confronted with the problems of unavailability of drugs (69%), lack of dipping services (67%), prohibitive cost of animal health services (55%), inadequate grazing (40%), poor knowledge about animal health and shortage of veterinary staff. All these challenges justify the existence of animal diseases and inability of farmers to deal with them and poses a threat on livelihoods to rural based households. Most of the diseases indicated are tick borne diseases in support of the problem of dipping services indicated by farmers. The increased demand for services with more livestock challenges over years and limited financial resources for government is the major cause of all the animal health challenges indicated by farmers. The government does not have the capacity in terms of human and other support services to adequately deliver services hence the call for alternative service delivery channels to supplement government efforts. Holden et al in 1996 encouraged privatization as the most frequently implemented alternative by developing countries. In 2002, Catley indicated that animal health service delivery by private sector is justified if financial conditions permit among other factors. Farmers have to be able to pay for animal health services to encourage private participation and elimination of animal health service challenges earlier on alluded to.  

This study identified factors such as ownership of livestock, sex, age, years in education, agricultural training, income, assets, maize output, household size and employment status as determinants of  expenditure behavior on animal health services. These factors represents the socio-economic factors that collectively influences decisions by farmers on the farm.  Economic factors (income), farm characteristics (assets, maize output, household size and livestock ownership), and farmer characteristics (sex, age, years in education, agricultural training, and employment status) according to the conceptual model influence farm decisions, Chilonda 2001.  Damen in 2000 presented a model of factors that influences demand for animal health services as need, enabling and predisposing factors. The identified factors in the survey can also easily fit into this model, ownership of livestock can be seen as representing both need in the sense that the livestock will need health and enabling factor given that livestock are also assets that can be disposed to enable payment for animal health. Sex, age, years in education and employment status can be viewed as factors that predisposes farmers to animal health issues while income, assets, maize output household size and employment status can defines the asset base of farmers that enable them to pay for service.  

Despite being confronted with animal health challenges, animal health does not seem to be on the priority list of farmers given that on average; allocation to animal health caters for only 5% of the overall expenditure per season by farmer according to results. Food items were on the top of the expenditure list; this justifies prior indications by farmers that maize output is a determinant of expenditure on animal health as it reduces expenditure on food items given that maize is a staple food crop thus creating space for other expenditures such as animal health. School fees and farming inputs were also on the top expenditure priority. The presence of mostly minor children in household composition requiring school fees presents a strong justification for farmers nominating household size as a determinant factor.   

The majority (62%) of the farmers were effectively demanding animal health services although as a low priority expenditure. This is a positive indication especially given the policy shifts from complete public service to public- private services. Privatization of services will require farmers who can pay for the services thus if some farmers are already paying it implies that issues of cost recovery, commercialization and privatization can be implemented successfully with farmers who are willing to pay for the service. The issue that remains is on how policy can stimulate further the effective demand for service and induce willingness and ability to pay for those farmers who are yet to commit resources to pay for animal health services. 

Determinants of the Effective Demand for Animal Health Services 

Results have evidence to prove that socio-economic factors have an influence on the willingness and ability of farmers to pay for animal health services. Coefficients of variables representing livestock units, years in education, income, assets ownership, household size and the constant were significant at 10%, 5%, 1%, 5%, 1% and 10% respectively. The Z test indicated that most of these significant determinants of effective demand for animal health were also statistically different between farmers spending and not spending on animal health. From the results 22.2% of the variation in expenditure on animal health was explained by the variables in the model while the balance of 77.8% was explained by other factors not specified in the model. The low level of the coefficient of determination (R2) indicated that there were other factors not specified in the model that explained the behavior of expenditure by farmers in animal health, and if policy efforts are to use the identified factors, they will be required in much greater magnitudes for them to influence farmers to pay for animal health services in their respective directions.  

Livestock units represents a need factor in accordance with Damen 2000 arguments that farmers who owns livestock already have a need for the service. The factor is positively related to expenditure on animal health indicating that the higher the units of livestock, the greater the likelihood of spending on animal health. As livestock number increases say without complementary changes in other necessary factors such as housing, grazing lands and labour, the chances of increased diseases outbreak are high as management practices also affects diseases (Swallow 2000) thus an increase in livestock units can cause high diseases incidence and create a greater need for animal health services. Livestock ownership represents an asset base for farmers that can be disposed in times of need to meet other animal health expenses. In this regard livestock ownership is a resource that can enable farmers to acquire income to spent on animal health.  

Years in education was positively related to demand for animal health services, implying that the higher the years in education the more likely a farmer will demand services and pay for it. Education according to Bonnem 1990 is an intervention on human capital that improves its quality and enables them to comprehend production and hence improve productivity. In animal health education predisposes human capital to understanding quality animal production or production in general and thus gives them the social background and modifies their attitudes (Damen 2000) towards an appreciation of animal health in livestock production and thus induces willingness and ability to pay for services.  

Income and assets are another component of the resource base of farmers that enables them to acquire animal health services and other services they need in life. These factors are positively associated with expenditure on animal health indicating that as people get more and more wealth, they will be able to pay for services they need such as animal health because they have more means at their disposition. This is in agreement with Damen 2000 in the model on factors that influences demand for animal health where income and prices (determinants of real income) were indicated as factors that creates an enabling environment for service demand.  

Household size was inversely related to expenditure on animal health. In the general characterization of factors in the model, household size was dominated (60%) by minor age group (15 years and less) an indication of high child birth among households. According to Rosling 2009 poor economies are characterized by big families whose main aspirations are for basic provisions such as food for the family while rich economies are mainly characterized by small families with higher aspirations for more luxurious things in life.  Thus the inverse relationship between household size and expenditure on animal health  is justified by lack of basic need among the poor and developing families that prevents them from aspiring for greater needs in life such as animal health care.  

Conclusions

• Livestock are an integral part of human livelihoods and the sustainability of livestock production is seriously affected by animal health challenges. Public service alone has not adequately provided the service as service delivery has been characterized by a number of challenges most of which are linked to resource limitations. There are high prospects for successful implementation of alternative options such as cost recovery, commercialization and privatization as the majority of farmers are effectively demanding animal health services for their animals.

  
  

• From the regression analysis, there was a significant level of association between socio-economic factors and effective demand for animal health. Livestock ownership, years in education, income, assets were found to be positively associated with effective demand while household size and the autonomous component were negatively associated with effective demand for animal health. It is therefore concluded that socio-economic factors have an influence on effective demand for animal health services in support of theoretical evidence presented by Damen 2000 and Chilonda 2001.

  
  

• It is therefore recommended that to stimulate effective demand for animal health services and support service pricing policy in smallholder sector, efforts should be directed towards educating farmers to enable them to understand and appreciate services and hence become more willing to pay. Farmers should also be economically empowered and in so doing improving their resources base and standards of living, a factor that will enables them to effectively demand services. Furthermore, by raising the standards of the poor families, population growth rate is reduced and thus effective demand for animal health is enhanced.

References

Africa wildlife and development Consultants (AWLDeC) 2004 Disaster mitigation options for livestock production in communal farming systems in Zimbabwe.7p.

Anteneh A 1989 Livestock and food production in Africa: Challenge and opportunities for the national livestock and veterinary services: Revue scientifique et Technique office international des Epizooties 8(3): 591-606.    

Bonnen J T 1990 Agricultural Development: Transforming Human Capital, Technology and institutions. In: Eicher C K and Staatz J M 1990 Agricultural Development in the Third World. Second Edition, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. 89-97

Catley A, Blakeway S and Leyland T 2002 Community-based animal health care: a practical guide to improving primary veterinary services, Intermediate Technology Development Group Publishing, London. 368p. 

Chilonda P and Huylenbroeck G V 2001  A conceptual framework for the economic analysis of factors influencing decision-making of small-scale farmers in animal health management, Revue scientifique et Technique office international des Epizooties 20 (3), 687-700. 

Department of veterinary services 2002 Annual report. Ministry of lands and agriculture, Harare, Zimbabwe. 

Food and Agriculture Organization 1990 Strengthening animal health services in developing countries, Rome (Italy),15-19 Sep 1990 / FAO, Rome (Italy). Animal Production and Health Division.

Food and Agriculture Organization 2002 Improved Animal Health for Poverty Reduction and Sustainable Livelihoods, Animal production and health paper 153, Animal Production and Health Division, FAO Agriculture Department, Publishing and Multimedia Service, Information Division, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy. Chapter 1.  http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y3542E/y3542e04.htm#TopOfPage  

Holden S, Ashley S and Bazeley P 1996 Improving the delivery of animal health services in developing countries: A literature review 96p. 

Mariam D H 2000 Traditional insurance mechanisms and the choice of health care provider in Ethiopia. In Africa’s changing markets for health and veterinary services: the new institutional issues. Ed D K Leonard. Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham, Wiltshire, United Kingdom. pp40-64. 

Mills  A and Lee K 1993 Health economics research in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  

Rosling H 2009 Global population growth http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html  

Sibanda S 2007 Zimbabwe’s Agricultural Policy Framework: Livestock and Fisheries. In Agricultural Policy For Zimbabwe, Ministry of Agriculture. 

Sibanda R 2008 Beef cattle production and the on-going programmes to develop the national herd. In: The Livestock Sector After the Fast Track Land Reforms in Zimbabwe. Eds T C Khombe and R L Ndlovu. Institute for Rural Technologies. National University of Science and Technology. 42p. 

Swallow B M 2000 Impacts of trypanosomiasis on African agriculture. Technical and scientific series, Food and Agriculture Organization. No. 2. Rome. 

Received 10 June 2012; Accepted 12 July 2012; Published 1 October 2012

Go to top