Contents - Previous - Next

4.1.2 Wildlife ranching

The feasibility and profitability of game ranching have been amply demonstrated by a number of studies. The rationale behind advocating game ranching in Africa is that conditions in many parts of' the continent, whether resulting from inadequate rainfall or presence of certain disease organisms' are not appropriate for production of exotic cattle and other domestic stocks. Indigenous wild animal species on the other hand have evolved in the African ecosystem and are better adapted to the prevailing conditions and should therefore be more productive.

Game ranching is currently most developed in southern Africa (particularly South Africa Namibia and Zimbabwe), although a private game ranch, the Galana Ranch, was established in Kenya in the 1970s (King and Heath, 1975; Thresher, 1980). The ranch initially focused on three species: the fringe eared oryx, Oryx beisa callotis, the African buffalo and the eland. Reported advantages of the eland over the Boran cattle included much lower water requirement, faster breeding and growth, earlier maturity and ability to put on weight in grazing conditions under which the Boran cattle began to lose weight and approximately 14 % higher dressing out weight. In addition to these biological and physiological advantages a cost-benefit analysis of maintaining a breeding herd of 11,000 oryx and 5000 Boran on the ranch showed clearly that the financial returns on the oryx was far superior to that of cattle (Thresher, 1980).

Luxmoore (1985) estimated that there were 7000-10,000 farmers in South Africa who derived some income from game ranching. Income from the wildlife on the ranches was derived from live animal sales, sport and trophy hunting and touristic use. Most land in South Africa is privately owned, fenced and has been used over long period for grazing domestic stock or for arable crops. By 1992, South Africa had 3,500 game ranches (Grossman et al., 1992); the network of private reserves and game ranches has grown from less than 2 million in 1979 to more than 16 million acres (Chadwick, 1996).

In other southern African countries such as Zimbabwe, more and more private farmers are converting their lands into wildlife ranches or incorporating wildlife on cattle ranches as mixed ranches while communal lands are increasingly being managed for wildlife. Campbell & Brigham (1993) classifies wildlife production into the small scale sector and the large scale sector (fig xx). Producers in the large scale sector include individual farmers, large companies, the Zimbabwean Forestry Commission and the Department of Parks and Wildlife Management. The small scale sector comprises production on communal lands. It is estimated that 22 % of the country is devoted wildlife production. Approximately 2.7 million hectares of this total (roughly 20%) is commercial farmland being managed for wildlife production (sometimes on mixed ranches with livestock).

Ghana's Shai Hills Game Production Reserve (recently re-named Shai Hills Resource Reserve) was one of the first attempts at game ranching within the west African sub-region. The project was first mooted in the early 1970s and the idea was to restock the heavily depleted wildlife resources of the 22 km² reserve with selected ungulates for meat production. The source of the animals for the re-stocking oscillated between capturing from other wildlife conservation areas in the country, particularly from Mole National Park, to bringing animals in from east Africa (Kenya). Although the feasibility studies undertaken for the project indicated that the project could be viable, it never took off but still remains on the books.

Burkina Faso's Nazinga Game Ranch (Box 9) has demonstrated that even in West Africa where wild animal populations are relatively low, game ranches are feasible and can be profitable. The 940 km² ranch is basically a protected area where wildlife is produced and harvested on a quota system. Local hunters are trained to do the cropping and the local communities benefit from the meat as well as the revenue from the other forms of usage, e.g., tourism and sport hunting that is allowed on the ranch.

A number of studies have been undertaken to document the comparative advantages of wild animal production in Africa in terms of their biological, ecological and physiological attributes, efficiency in utilising available vegetation, productivity and economic viability (see e.g. King and Heath, 1975; Surujbally, 1975; Thresher, 1980; Eltringham, 1984; Luxmoore, 1985; Muir, 1989; Bojo, 1995). The argument is that because wild animals have evolved in Africa over a very long period of time, they must be more highly adapted. physiologically and ecologically. to the natural environment than domestic stock brought in from elsewhere. Wildlife are also known to be better capable of converting vegetable matter into protein without causing deterioration of the habitat and under circumstance such as in country infested with tsetse flies wildlife provide a more appropriate means of making such land productive. A brief summary of the advantages of wild animals over cattle is presented below (see also Box 9), but for a more comprehensive review, the reader is referred to Reul 1 979.

Fig. 5 Estimated land areas (km²) used for wildlife conservation and production in Zimbabwe in 1990 (Source Campbel & Brigham, 1993)

Reproduction: Most species of wild ungulates up to the size of eland and buffalo are characterized by a relatively high reproduction potential, rapid growth and early maturity as compared with cattle. Calving intervals for cattle range from 591-759 days in Africa and reproductive efficiency of 35-60% have been reported for the American tropics. In comparison, the females of most ungulates up to the size of oryx normally produce one young per year. The African buffalo has a reproductive efficiency of 75 % despite the fact that the gestation period of 11.5 months far exceeds that of cattle. First breeding varies from just under one year for smaller antelopes and gazelles to between one and two years of age for larger antelopes. First breeding age for eland and buffalo is between 3 and 4 years which is approximately the same as for cattle.

Growth Rate: There is some evidence that wild animals reach marketable or economically harvestable size at an earlier age than domestic stock (Table 4.3). Studies in East Africa, report weight gains varying from 0.06 kg per day for Thompson gazelle to 0.33 kg per day for eland (de Vos, 1969) as compared with 0.14 kg per day for poorly managed cattle on similar conditions on the East African rangelands (Talbot et. al. 1962).

Table 4.3 Growth rates of domestic cattle and sheep as compared with those of wild ungulates in Central and East Africa. (Source. Reul, 1979)

Physiological adaptations: a number of studies suggest that wildlife is better adapted in terms of water conservation and heat stress under semi-arid and arid areas; that they possess greater resistance to endemic diseases and yield a higher production than cattle in such areas. There is also evidence that wildlife utilises the vegetation better by using everything from the grass on the ground to the leaves on the trees and that they do not damage the habitat as quickly or as markedly as do domestic stock. Wild ungulates such as oryx, impala wildebeest and eland have specialized water conservation systems and require considerably less water than cattle under the same circumstances. According to Taylor & Lyman (1967) this is due to a high oxygen-extraction efficiency which implies a smaller loss of water in expired air, and a flexible thermo-regulation system. Some species have excellent renal and faecal water resorption and are able to survive on water obtained from plants and shrubs without drinking water for long periods of time. This study also demonstrated that eland and oryx can tolerate a heat stress of 45° C without any problems. This degree of tolerance is attributed to their ability to permit their body temperature to rise, thereby avoiding the loss of water in thermo-regulation. Diurnal variations in body temperature of more than 10° C were recorded. These physiological adaptations are further enhanced by behavioural patterns such as resting in the shade and feeding at night on succulent leaves.

The practical implication of such water conservation abilities is that wild animals are less dependent upon free water for their survival and can utilise semi-arid and arid range more effectively than domestic stock which requires considerably more water. This also means that the wild ungulates are able to disperse over greater areas of land and thus the trampling, overgrazing and consequent land deterioration characteristic of areas around watering points of domestic animals like cattle is avoided. Under drought conditions, hundreds of thousands of cattle die. not because of lack of water alone but also because of starvation due to the heavy concentrations around the watering holes.

Resistance to disease: Wild animal diseases and the role of wild animals as reservoirs of disease pathogens affecting humans and domestic animals continue to be a controversial issue in animal husbandry which militates against the commercial utilisation of wild animals for meat production. Advocates for the use of wildlife for meat production argue that wildlife are immune to many stock diseases. For example wild animals are known to be more tolerant to diseases like trypanosomiasis to which cattle succumb easily. This makes wild animal production a more appropriate option in tsetse infested areas. Those who oppose the use of wild animals for meat production (understandably large scale cattle farmers) on the other hand claim that wildlife are disease carriers and should be exterminated from all areas where cattle are found. Unfortunately, information on wildlife disease relationships of is lacking in both quantity and quality and is sometimes conflicting in nature. Diseases of cattle on the other hand have been studied in great detail over a long period of time.

Ecological: The physiological advantages of wild animals make them better adapted to the climatic and habitat conditions of African rangelands than cattle. Secondly, different wild animal species show varying feeding habits in terms of preferred food species and parts of plant food items selected. They are therefore able to utilise available vegetation better as compared to domestic stock which have a narrow spectrum of food selection patterns. The feeding habits of domestic animals often leads to inefficiency in the use of available vegetation and over-exploitation of specific components of the vegetation resulting in habitat degradation.

Productivity:

A number of studies have shown that under good management, off-take rates on wildlife ranches can be very high. For example, studies of Thomson's gazelle on Kekopey and Suguroid ranches in Kenya registered annual population growth rates of 60% and indicated a sustainable off-take of 40% except in very dry years (Blankenship et al., 1990). Game animals on the whole have much faster rates of growth than cattle. so that on a body weight conversion basis they would be more efficient meat producers. Allowing for the fact that small antelopes consume more food relative to body size, it is estimated that impala under a commercial ranching situation would still give a conversion efficiency 10-20% greater than cattle. Live weight production per unit area for the Thomson gazelle in Kenya was found to be 17% higher than that of cattle (Hopcraft and Arman, 1971). Feer (1993) analysed reproduction, growth and productivity of several wild species that are either already used or are experimentally/potentially usable for intensive or semi-intensive rearing and compared this with figures for selected domestic species reared in the humid tropics (Table 4.4). The conclusion was that in terms of meat return, rodents like the grasscutter and the smaller antelopes were comparable to the domestic pig and far superior to cattle.

Meat yield: Wild ruminants are known to have higher nutritional efficiency than domesticated ruminants . The dressed weight of African game animals is found to be 50 to 63% of the live weight as compared with 44 to 50% in domestic stock (Talbot et. al., 1962). Studies at the Galana Ranch in Kenya reported carcass yield of 57% for oryx, 55% for eland and 52% for cattle. In terms of actual protein production, the value of game is even higher than that indicated by the carcass yield since cattle could have up to 40% fat content in dressed carcasses compared with 2.5% in wild ungulates. Thus on the whole, wild animals yield higher lean meat than domestic animals (Table 4.5).

Table 4.4 Birth rates, reproductive efficiency, meat productivity per female per
individual of reared tropical domestic and wild species.
(extracted from Feer, 1993)

1 = bcd/a
2 = fcd
3 = fcd/a
4 = fg/e
5 = g/e

Table: 4.5 Liveweights, carcass weights (kg.) and fat component of some adult East African mammals. (Source: Reul, 1979).

Box 10 COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF WILDLIFE AND CATTLE PRODUCTION (Source Muir, 1989)

Economic considerations: In an attempt to determine the relative profitability of cattle and wildlife in the arid regions of Zimbabwe, Jansen et al. (1992) estimated returns to investment and the comparative advantage of 89 cattle ranches, wildlife ranches and combined d cattle/wildlife ranches in 1989/90. Their analysis indicated that in general wildlife had higher economic returns than cattle. However the results varied (in terms of appropriateness of either wildlife' cattle or both as a land use systems) depending on the area. "Cattle only'' enterprises had an average 1.8% financial (private) return on investment, the return to cattle on ranches combining cattle and wildlife, was 2.6%. The weighted average return of came enterprises was Z$2.78 per ha. Only four out of the 77 ranches producing beef had a greater than 10% return on investment and only three cattle enterprises had returns greater than Z$25.00/ha. The speculative return on holding land was excluded from all analyses. Thirty-nine percent of the cattle enterprises had a negative adjusted net revenue and to continue in operation most of the ranches were destocking or borrowing. Wildlife only ranches were the most financially viable with average returns on investment of 10.5% Over half of the wildlife enterprises had a greater than 10% return on investment and only 4 had negative adjusted net revenue. The weighted average return of wildlife enterprises was Z$5.8 per hectare. Recent studies of the wildlife industry in Zimbabwe (Martin, 1994) confirm the profitability of wildlife ventures and indicate that the net financial returns from land under wildlife significantly exceed what is possible from land under cattle (US$1.11 per ha. for wildlife as against US$0.60 for cattle). There are also indications that the potential for increasing revenue from wildlife (up to US$5 per ha for sport hunting and US$25 per ha for eco-tourism) is far greater than for cattle.

Based on computer models, Thresher (1981) compared the value of a maned lion as a resource on the Amboseli rangelands to cattle ranching and concluded that the value of the single lion to the national economy was equivalent to a base herd of 30,000 zebu cattle or 6.400 steers in a year. The reason that wildlife offers much higher potential returns than cattle lies in the fact that wildlife can be marketed for more than just the basic value of its meat, skin and other products. The value can be greatly enhanced through wildlife based industries such as tourism and sport hunting, even at much lower levels of stocking and utilisation

Contents - Previous - Next