Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:49:20.762Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The donkey as a draught power resource in smallholder farming in semi-arid western Zimbabwe: 2. Performance compared with that of cattle when ploughing on different soil types using two plough types

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

E.M. Nengomasha ,
R.A. Pearson  and
T. Smith
E.M. Nengomasha
Affiliation:
Department of Research and Specialist Services, Matopos Research Station, P. Bag K 5137, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
R.A. Pearson
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh, Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, Easter Bush, Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9RG
T. Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Research and Specialist Services, Matopos Research Station, P. Bag K 5137, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
Get access

Abstract

The work performance of two teams of four donkeys (heavy, 680 kg and light, 460 kg) and one pair of Jersey crossbred oxen (646 kg) was compared when they ploughed 4 hi day on four types of soil (clay, redsoil, sandy soil and sandy clay) using two types of plough, a conventional ox plough (40 kg) and a lighter prototype, the ‘Walco’ plough (32 kg) on an experimental farm. Work parameters were also measured with farmers’ cattle and donkey teams ploughing on f arms in Matobo and Nkayi districts. Working speed, power and effective field capacity (ETC) were higher for the ox-team (1·03 m/s, 920 W and 14·5 h/ha for the conventional plough and 0·99 m/s, 745 W and 13·9 h/hafor the Walco plough) and the heavier donkey team (0·87 m/s, 689 W and 14·2 h/hafor the conventional plough and 0·87 m/s, 787 W and 17·3 h/hafor the Walco plough) than for the lighter donkey team (0·59 m/s, 461 W and 22·1 h/hafor the conventional plough and 0·64 m/s, 445 W and 23·4 h/hafor the Walco plough). Expressed as a proportion of live weight or metabolic live weight there were no significant differences in draught forces exerted between teams but power output per unit live weight was greater in the ox-team than in the light donkey team but similar to that in the heavy donkey team. The Walco plough required a lower force (742 N) to operate than the conventional plough (816 N) but apart from this did not have any marked advantages over the conventional plough. On-farm, team sizes of donkeys varied from three to seven animals (team weight 340 kg to 1007 kg) and cattle team sizes from two to four animals (team weights 558 to 1709 kg). Regardless of team number, the heavier teams tended to out-perform the lighter teams (speed range 0·63 to 1·08 m/s, power 395 to 1136 W, EFC 9·1 to 25 h/ha)) with one exception, a well trained team of two oxen (team weight 879 kg, speed 1·02 m/s, power 775 W, EFC 9·1 h/ha). Donkeys tended to plough at a slower pace than oxen, with a lower power output, although when weight differences between teams were equalized (four heavy donkeys compared with two oxen), then there was little to chose between the species. Results suggested that teams of three or more donkeys can effectively be used for ploughing on the soils tested. The results highlighted the importance that team live weight and training/experience have in determining work performance.

Keywords

cattledonkeysdraught animalsploughingwork
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 69 , Issue 2 , October 1999 , pp. 305 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barwell, I. and Ayre, M. 1982. The harnessing of draught animals. Intermediate Technology Publications, Ardington, Oxfordshire, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betker, J. and Kutzbach, H.D. 1991. The role of donkeys in agricultural mechanisation in Niger — potential and limitations. In Donkeys, mules and horses in tropical agricultural development (ed. Fielding, D. and Pearson, R.A.), pp. 223–230. Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Ellis-Jones, J., Muvirimi, F., Nengomasha, E.M. and Msara, P. 1994. A rapid rural appraisal of Semukwe, Chikwanda and Sebungwe communal farming areas (with emphasis on the use of draught animals). Project working document no. 1. OD/9/20. Natural Resources International, Chatham, Kent, UK.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization. 1984. SADCC agriculture: toward 2000. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Goe, M.R. 1983. Current status of research on animal traction. World Animal Review 45: 2–17.Google Scholar
Hagmann, J. and Prasad, V.L. 1995. Use of donkeys and their draught performance in smallholder farming in Zimbabwe. Tropical Animal Health and Production 27: 231–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard, C.R. 1980. The draft ox. Management and uses. Zimbabwe Rhodesia Agricultural Journal 77: 19–34.Google Scholar
Inns, F.M. 1991. The design and operation of animal/implement systems: guidelines for cultivation implements. In Donkeys, mules and horses in tropical agricultural development (ed. Fielding, D. and Pearson, R.A.), pp. 258–265. Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Lawrence, P.R. and Pearson, R.A. 1985. Factors affecting the measurements of draught force, work output and power of oxen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 105: 703–714.Google Scholar
Mbanje, E. 1997. Database for animal drawn tillage implements. Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Harare.Google Scholar
Minitab Inc. 1994. Minitab for Windows Version 10.2. State College, Pennsylvania, USA.Google Scholar
Nengomasha, E.M., Pearson, R.A. and Smith, T. 1999. The donkey as a draught power resource in smallholder farming in semi-arid western Zimbabwe. 1. Live weight and food and water requirements. Animal Science 69: 000–000.Google Scholar
Nicholson, M.J. and Butterworth, M.H. 1986. A guide to condition scoring of zebu cattle. International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Pearson, R.A. and Ouassat, M. 1996. Estimation of the live weight and body condition of working donkeys in Morocco. Veterinary Record 138: 229–233.Google Scholar
Prasad, V.L., Marovanidze, K. and Nyathi, P. 1991. The use of donkeys as draught animals relative to bovines in the communal farming sector of Zimbabwe. In Donkeys, mules and horses in tropical agricultural development (ed. Fielding, D. and Pearson, R.A.), pp. 231–239. Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Thompson, J.G. 1960. Matopos Research Station: soil survey report. Chemistry branch. Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Southern Rhodesia.Google Scholar
Ward, H.K., Richardson, F.D., Denny, R.P. and Dye, P.J. 1979. Matopos Research Station: a perspective. Rhodesia/Zimbabwe Agricultural Journal 76: 5–18.Google Scholar