Chapter 6: Labour and livestock management

B E Grandin, P N de Leeuw and M de Souza

6.1 Labour¹
6.2 Livestock management practices
References

The first section of this chapter deals with allocation of labour to different tasks, and mechanisms used to overcome labour shortages. The main focus is on herding arrangements, as herding uses more labour than any other activity in the Maasai production system. The second section deals with livestock management practices including watering and grazing operations, care of young stock and animal health care.

6.1 Labour¹

6.1.1 Introduction
6.1.2 Division of responsibility and labour in livestock production
6.1.3 Actual labour inputs
6.1.5 Labour sufficiency
6.1.6 Labour recruitment for herding
6.1.7 Cooperative herding arrangements

¹ Section 6.1 is based on Grandin (1983) and Grandin (1988).

6.1.1 Introduction

This section first describes the culturally accepted age/sex divisions of responsibilities and labour. It then presents recorded labour inputs. This is followed by estimates of the number of workers required for an independent operation, and the actual amount of labour available by household, boma and ranch. Ways in which labour is recruited are described.

6.1.2 Division of responsibility and labour in livestock production

The Maasai have strong, culturally prescribed norms for the division of responsibilities and labour between age groups and sexes. This division must be understood to appreciate properly the system as it functions at present and to identify possibilities for intensification. All too often studies report physical labour inputs only, ignoring aspects of control of labour and decision-making. The general description of responsibilities and tasks below represents the ideal; the actual division of labour and time spent by task are discussed under Section 6.1.3: Actual labour inputs.

Men

Adult married men are primarily managers and supervisors. It is their responsibility to gather the necessary information on range conditions, water availability and marketing. They make the initial decision on residence location, decide on herd movement and splitting, on the watering location, the daily orbit of grazing and who will do the herding. They tell the herder where to go and often accompany the herd to make sure that it follows the intended orbit. Men usually oversee watering to ensure that animals are watered in an orderly fashion and are not pushed away by someone else's animals.

When water points need maintenance or repair, men organise it and pay for it if it is done by hired labourers. Men organise the functioning of dips and perform most of the dipping. If animals are sprayed by hand this is usually done by younger men (often with the help of women, who carry the water), but older men are often there to supervise. In the evening, men inspect animals as they return home to make sure none are lost, to determine whether animals have grazed enough, whether any are about to give birth or are sick. When an animal goes missing, men constitute the search party. Men buy and administer veterinary drugs and perform castrations and other minor veterinary procedures. They also decide when and which animals should be slaughtered or sold, although they may consult other family members.

Some farming occurred in the study sites. This is primarily the responsibility of men, but much of the actual work is done by hired labour in the north and by both men and women in the south.

Political affairs, both traditional and modern, are entirely in the hands of men. In recent years they have required considerable amounts of time, largely because of the formation and management of group ranches.

Adult women

Women make all major domestic decisions, including those relating to childcare, food preparation, collection of water and fuelwood and house-building and maintenance. They also take part in livestock management. Each woman takes care of the cattle and smallstock allocated to her sub-household. Women care for very young stock, which spend the day around the boma. They make sure young animals have ample suckling time, supply fodder to young calves and occasionally supply water to sick animals in the boma. Women inspect the animals of their sub-household to make sure all have returned from grazing and are in good health. Problems are brought to the attention of the household head.

Women do the milking and have the right to the milk of their animals. They make most decisions about milk offtake, although these may be scrutinised by their husbands. Women foster orphaned calves and smallstock and remove ticks from the teats of their animals by hand. Women own the skins of stock allocated to them and make leather from them

In households that engage in cropping, women may help with planting and harvesting. In southern Mbirikani, women prepare land for irrigated agriculture, while the men do the irrigation.

Women sometimes assume men's responsibilities. This occurs mainly in households of young men in Kaputiei, who prefer to live and manage their animals alone even when they are involved in activities such as trading which take them away from the boma for considerable periods of time. Their wives must then assume many of their daily responsibilities.

Children

Much of the routine work of the Maasai household is carried out by children, who do almost all of the herding and much of the work around the boma Children become involved from when they are 3 or 4 years old, helping with such tasks as carrying kids and lambs into or out of the house and watching animals around the boma. This fulfils three functions: it helps protect the animals from predators, it trains the children as future herders and it keeps the children occupied so their mothers can do other jobs.

At 6 or 7 years old a child becomes a full-time herder, beginning with smallstock. Herding smallstock is a demanding job as smallstock wander and are easily lost or taken by predators. Children start herding calves at 8 or 9 years old. This is less arduous than herding smallstock and children welcome the change. By the age of 11, children, particularly boys, begin to herd older cattle, initially as apprentices to an older herder. Normally cattle herding is a supervisory activity as animals know the way and set the pace. Herders follow the animals, keeping them from straying and watching for predators.

Girls tend to do more smallstock and calf herding and less cattle herding than boys. Cattle herding is considered too arduous for girls, particularly if distances walked are long. If girls herd calves or smallstock, they usually return to the boma in time to help with young-stock management, preparations for milking and domestic tasks.

Children who attend school are expected to herd on weekends, which increases the labour supply and keeps them in training. Poorer households educate as many children as labour needs and finances will allow, while richer households tend to choose only one or two boys to educate.

After circumcision girls are ready for marriage, and their labour will soon be lost to the household; boys become moran (warriors) and are then nominally free from routine labour². However, they may be called upon to help with herd-splitting, and watering in severe dry seasons. When herds are split, moran commonly manage the distant camps, particularly in Mbirikani where herd-splitting is common and moran are older. In the north, moran are younger and herd-splitting is less common (see Section 6.1.5: Labour sufficiency). In addition, moran help with spraying and dipping, with maintaining water points and are the chief source of the limited amount of hired labour used.

² This relative idleness of moran is much criticised by national authorities who, using standards from other cultures, believe that adolescent boys and young men should be more productively occupied. The Maasai, on the other hand, view this period as an important time of socialisation, of establishing contacts and of learning about areas beyond the immediate vicinity of one's home. A boy moves from the influence of the purely domestic arena to the wider socio-political sphere during this period.

6.1.3 Actual labour inputs

The actual annual labour inputs were based on a time allocation study in Olkarkar³. The recorded division of labour between children and adults and between males and females as a percentage of each livestock management task is shown in Table 6.1. The category "children" includes those from about 6 years of age until marriage. As many moran lived away from home and as most girls married soon after circumcision, this category comprised mainly children between 6 and 15 years old.

³ Data were derived from a 14-month time allocation study, during which the activity of each member of the household was recorded at random times twice a month. Through this series of "snap-shots", accurate estimations of total labour inputs are possible (Grandin, 1983; Johnson, 1978). The data presented are aggregates by each age/sex group within each wealth class averaged over one year; they are not an indication of what any given individual does on any given day.

Table 6.1. Division of labour by sex and age in Olkarkar (as a percentage of each task)¹.

Task	Children2		Adults
	M	F	M	F
Watering supervision	15	5	74	6
Herding	48	44	3	5
Dipping/spraying		5	74	21
Other livestock work	17	23	33	27
Milking	1	18	0	81

¹ From time allocation data.
² Children 6 years and above.

Children did almost all the herding (92%), while men supervised most of the watering, dipping and spraying (74%). All age/sex classes participated in other livestock work, primarily the tasks in and around the boma, while women did most of the milking (81%), with some assistance from older girls.

Inputs to livestock management were also measured in terms of people's total time allocation, i.e. the average number of hours spent daily on various activities (Table 6.2). Observations covered a 14-hour day from 0600 to 2000 hours. Children spent 4-5 hours a day herding and about 1 hour on livestock work around the boma and other livestock work. Girls spent 2.5 hours on domestic activities, to which boys contributed very little. Boys spent more time in school than girls, and also had more leisure time.

Men spent an average of 5.5 hours a day on livestock-related work. More than 2 hours a day of their time was unaccounted for, during which they were away from the boma but for which no activity was recorded. In Olkarkar men often went to Simba town after watering their stock to meet friends or attended formal group ranch or age-set meetings. Men spent more time visiting and at ceremonies than any other group of people, but spent little time on domestic chores. Business activities, mainly livestock trading, accounted for almost 10% of men's time.

Women spent an hour and a half a day on livestock management, just over an hour on milking and about 6 hours on domestic chores. Many domestic activities (e.g. cooking and child-care) were done simultaneously and at least one woman remained in the boma to watch children and young stock during the day.

Table 6.2. Time spent on various activities by household members of different sex/age groups, Olkarkar¹.

		Mean time spent on each activity (hours/day)
		Children2		Adults
Activity		Male	Female	Male	Female
Watering supervision		0.3	0.1	2.0	0.1
Herding		4.5	5.0	0.4	0.4
Dipping/spraying		0.0	0.3
Boma livestock work		0.7	1.2	2.1	0.8
Other livestock work		0.3	0.1	0.7	0.1
	Subtotal	5.8	6.4	5.5	1.4
Milking			0.4	0.0	1.2
Water/wood			0.2		1.3
Cooking		0.1	0.2	0.2	1.4
Other domestic work		0.4	1.7	0.1	3.6
	Subtotal	0.5	2.5	0.3	7.5
Business3		0.3	0.1	1.2	0.2
School		1.5	0.5		0.0
Social activities		0.8	0.2	1.6	1.1
Other activities		4.7	3.6	3.0	3.0
Unknown		0.5	0.7	2.3	0.7
Subtotal		7.8	5.1	8.1	5.0

¹ Mean values based on time allocation study.
² Children 6 years and above.
³ Includes trading and other income-generating work.

Table 6.3 shows the average number of hours devoted to livestock management per day by each age/sex group in poor, medium-wealth and rich households. Girls did more livestock work than boys in rich and medium-wealth households, in which boys spent more time in school than did girls. In poor households boys and girls spent roughly equal amounts of time in school and inputs to livestock management did not differ by sex. Women spent much less time on livestock-related activities than did children and men. Poor households spent about 24 hours a day on livestock management, while rich households spent about twice as much (Table 6.4). However, the latter owned more than nine times as many livestock units and hence spent only one quarter as many hours per livestock unit as poorer households. This was partly due to "economies of scale" (especially in herding and watering), and partly to less intensive boma management in rich households than in medium-wealth and poor households.

Table 6.3. Time spent on livestock management by adults and children in poor medium-wealth and rich households, Olkarkar Group Ranch.

	Mean time spent on livestock management (hours/day)
	Children		Adults
Wealth class1	Male	Female	Male	Female
Poor	4.3a	4.3a	4.5	0.8
Medium	7.5a	7.9	4.6	1.8
Rich	5.7a	6.9	6.9	1.6

¹ Poor = <5 tropical livestock units (TLU) per active adult male equivalent (AAME); medium = 5-12.99 TLU/AAME; rich = ³ 13 TLU/AAME.

^a Children in these groups spent a mean of approximately 1.5 hours a day at school.

Table 6.4. Total time devoted daily to various livestock-related tasks by poor, medium-wealth and rich households, Olkarkar.

	Time devoted to livestock management (hours/household per day)
	Wealth class1
Task	Poor	Medium	Rich
Watering	2.4	3.0	4.6
Herding	13.5	18.7	29.1
Dipping	0.3	0.6	0.6
Boma livestock work	6.6	7.5	10.9
Other livestock work	1.3	1.8	2.7
Total hours	24.1	31.6	47.9
Livestock units (TLU)	29	62	272
Total hours/TLU	0.8	0.5	0.2

¹ Poor = <5 tropical livestock units (TLU) per active adult male equivalent (AAME), medium = 5-12.99 TLU/AAME; rich = ³ 13 TLU/AAME.

6.1.4 Labour requirements for critical tasks in livestock management

Although labour requirements vary by wealth status and location, it is useful to assess minimum requirements for an independent operation through critical task analysis (Torry, 1977; Dahl, 1979; Sperling, 1984; Grandin, 1983). In the study sites, observations and interviews indicated that the most time-consuming livestock management tasks are herding, watering and care of livestock in the boma. Of these, shortage of labour for herding is the main constraint in the study sites, whereas in other pastoral systems the amount of labour needed for water extraction may limit livestock production (Cossins and Upton, 1987).

Herding

The amount of labour needed for herding depended on the division of livestock into herding groups. Livestock holdings are commonly divided onto the following categories for herding:

· Adult and immature cattle of both sexes
· Older suckling calves (often combined with resting bulls, sick and weak adults)
· Adult and immature sheep and goats
· Young calves, kids and lambs around the boma.

In Mbirikani the cattle herd was commonly further split into:

· A wet herd: lactating cattle left in the home boma to provide milk to women and children;
· A dry herd: dry cattle, steers and immatures which are moved to distant grazing.

Herds in the north were split only in severely dry periods.

Adult and immature cattle, older calves and smallstock required full-time herders, while young animals remained around the boma often under the care of small children with supervision from women. Thus a normal operation required a minimum of three herders per day. However, as the herding day lasts 10-12 hours (see Section 6.2.3: Herd management and behaviour), and children are not expected to herd for more than 2 days in every 3 (3 out of every 4 days at most) five children are needed, although it is possible to manage with four. Households with extremely large herds (500 or more head) may divide the adults from the immatures (this requiring an additional daily herder) or they may use several children simultaneously or a young adult male for herding. When herds are split to go to distant grazing, as is common in Mbirikani, at least two additional herders are required, making a total of six or seven herders.

Watering

Labour requirements for watering were low compared with other pastoral systems (Cossins and Upton, 1988; Swift, 1981; Helland, 1977). The amount of labour required for watering depended primarily on the water source (see Section 4.5: Water resources). For most watering facilities (boreholes, pipelines, surface water), a single adult per herd was necessary to ensure that animals were not pushed away prematurely. However, in Merueshi, extracting water from the wells in the dry riverbed at Ilkilunyeti required a lot of work: water is scooped up and poured into a trough by one person who stands in the shallow well, while a second person supervises the movement of animals (see Section 6.2.2: Watering management).

Livestock work at the boma and milking

Livestock work at the boma included inspecting and treating animals, putting suckling young with their dams and separating them after suckling. The return of the animals to the boma marked the busiest time of the day. Almost everyone over the age of four was occupied in some task. As a minimum, livestock work at the boma required two women, one to take care of children and young stock at the boma while the other is away from the boma to fetch water and firewood.

Milking occurred mainly between 0600 and 0700, before cattle left for grazing, and between 1830 and 2000, after they returned. Women prefer to milk by daylight but often milk in the dark in the dry season. Milking can be done by the same two women involved in other livestock work at the boma.

In summary, an ideal minimum labour force in the north consists of five herders, a male manager/supervisor and, preferably, two female milkers/domestic workers. Herd splitting in the south requires two more herders, one extra male manager and one more female manager/domestic worker. In addition, each unit needs access to other workers of various age/sex categories for less common tasks (e.g. dipping/spraying).

6.1.5 Labour sufficiency

Most households commanded a total labour force of 610 people, although poor households on Mbirikani had more than 12 workers and rich households on Merueshi had more than 17 workers (Table 6.5). Most households on the northern ranches (Olkarkar and Merueshi) had enough male managers but too few herders (Table 6.6). The pattern was similar for Mbirikani assuming no herd-splitting, but less than half the households had enough labour to allow herd-splitting.

Since few households on Mbirikani have enough labour to split their herds, households on this ranch have maintained closer social ties, larger bomas and greater co-operation in livestock management than those on the northern ranches. Households in Merueshi showed the highest labour self-sufficiency, and this was reflected in their more individual mode of residence and production (see Chapter 5: The study area: Socio-spatial organisation and land use). Finally, it should be noted that rich households require more than the minimum number of workers be cause they split their large herds and flocks, and hence their level of self-sufficiency, particularly with regard to herders, is probably slightly overestimated.

Table 6.5. Mean number of workers in poor medium-wealth and rich households on Olkarkar Merueshi and Mbirikani group ranches.

Wealth class1	Number of workers
	Olkarkar	Merueshi	Mbirikani
	Herders
Poor	3.9 (8)	4.2 (6)	8.2 (6)
Medium	2.9 (7)	45 (12)	45 (8)
Rich	5.5 (9)	9.0 (3)	5.0 (9)
	Adult women
Poor	1.8	1.7	2.8
Medium	2.3	2.2	2.1
Rich	3.3	5.7	3.3
	Male managers
Poor	1.0	1.0	1.3
Medium	1.1	1.3	1.0
Rich	1.3	3.0	1.2

Numbers in parentheses are numbers of households.

¹ Poor = <5 tropical livestock units (TLU) per active adult male equivalent (AAME); medium = 5-12.99 TLU/AAME; rich = ³ 13 TLU/AAME;

Table 6.6. Self-sufficiency in labour by wealth class and ranch.

Wealth class1	Percentage of households self-sufficient
	Olkarkar	Merueshi	Mbirikani
			No splitting	Splitting
	Herders
Poor	38	50	83	50
Medium	0	33	50	25
Rich	56	67	33	33
	Adult women
Poor	50	67	83	33
Medium	70	75	50	25
Rich	89	100	100	56
	Male managers
Poor	100	100	100	33
Medium	86	100	100	38
Rich	77	100	100	44

¹ Poor = <5 tropical livestock units (TLU) per active adult male equivalent (AAME); medium = 5-12.99 TLU/AAME; rich = ³ 13 TLU/AAME;

6.1.6 Labour recruitment for herding

Most households in the study area had too few people to run an independent operation, particularly with regard to labour for herding. The extent of the labour shortfall was mainly determined by the stage of the domestic cycle of the household (see Section 3.2: Maasai social structure). "Young" households, i.e. those that are newly independent, have relatively inexperienced managers and few of their own children of herding age. "Mature" households have more experienced adults and more children for herding. "Extended" households retain married sons, their wives and children, thus combining experienced, older adults with energetic younger ones and children of all ages. "Declining" households are those in which married daughters and sons have left; these eventually cease to exist following the death of the household head or their incorporation in a younger unit.

Households with surplus labour can move towards more autonomous production, try to improve the quality of their livestock management, increase other activities (education, leisure) or contract their household labour supply to others. Households with too little labour can adopt a variety of strategies to overcome it depending on the severity of the shortage, its expected duration, and the opportunities open to the producer (given his wealth, social network etc). A major criterion affecting the decision, especially in the north, is whether the producer is willing to sacrifice autonomy through joint herding or whether he wants to herd individually. Essentially, the most important ways that a household can increase its labour supply are by:

· joining with other households in cooperative herding and watering

· expanding the household by marriage, taking in impoverished dependants or borrowing a child, usually from close relatives (see Section 5.1: The household and the boma)

· hiring labour for herding (a recent development).

Clearly these are not mutually exclusive alternatives; many households used a combination of these methods. Table 6.7 characterises these ways of increasing labour in terms of how long it takes for the worker to become available and old enough to contribute; how long the worker is expected to stay; the control the producer has over the worker; the social obligations entailed by using that worker; and the regular monthly cost of the worker (maintenance in the case of family members, a salary and maintenance for hired workers).

In terms of flexibility and social and financial costs, cooperative herding is the best way to increase labour supply and this was the traditional norm. The primary cost, decrease in management autonomy, was offset by frequent movements and consequent changes in herding partners. As a compromise, cross-boma herding emerged recently in Olkarkar, in which producers who have their own bomas and olopololis regularly herded their adult cattle with producers from neighbouring bomas but herded their calves and smallstock individually.

The percentage of sample households that used these various means of marshalling labour is shown in Table 6.8. In general, households on Merueshi were less involved in labour acquisition or joint herding than those on either of the other ranches, reflecting their greater degree of self-sufficiency in labour. Hiring labour is a recent development, found only in Olkarkar and in less than 10% of the households. Those hired were usually young men from poor households hired by rich households as herders. Hiring of labour increased during the drought of 1984, and is likely to increase with further individualisation of production and decreased social cohesion.

Table 6.7. Characteristics of ways in which herding labour was recruited.

Type			Time to develop	Duration	Control of worker	Social obligations	Monthly cost
Cooperative herding			Short	Variable	Low	Medium	None
Expanded household
	Marriage (own/sons)		Very long	Very long	High	High	Medium
	Dependant household		Short	Long	High	High	Medium
	Borrowed child
		Short term	Short	Short	Low	High	Low
		Long term	Short	Long	High	Medium	Low
Hire			Short	Variable	High	Low	High

Table 6.8. Percentage of sample households recruiting labour through various means, Olkarkar, Merueshi and Mbirikani group ranches.

Type		Percentage of households1
		Olkarkar	Merueshi	Mbirikani
Cooperative herding		79	29	79
Expanded household
	Son's family	21	18	18
	Dependants	58	36	41
	Borrowed children	38	27	38
Hire		8	0	0

¹ Many households used more than one labour type so totals far exceed 100%.

As expected, labour-deficient households in Olkarkar and Mbirikani herd co-operatively; in Merueshi some households with insufficient labour and all labour-sufficient households herd alone (Table 6.9). On the whole, more poor households than rich households herded co-operatively, no matter what their labour availability. Overall, households herding cooperatively had 4.2 herders while those herding alone had 7.5 herders.

Households that herded cooperatively sent proportionately more children to school than those herding alone, particularly on the northern ranches (Table 6.10).

6.1.7 Cooperative herding arrangements

Cooperative herding groups differ in their duration and their "symmetry" i.e. the extent to which each household contributes labour versus the extent to which they benefit from that labour. Some herding groups are short-term ad hoc arrangements (during periods of high mobility or emergencies due to illness). Most, however, are usually more stable, lasting at least a season and commonly several years in the north. Herding groups range from symmetrical to highly asymmetrical. The latter often involve households of different wealth ranks, the poorer household providing much more labour relative to its livestock holdings than does to richer household. In such an arrangement, the poor herdowner sacrifices the management of his own animals (as they will be in a much larger herding group with greater delays at watering, more competition for forage etc) but benefits from the labour of others and, more importantly, from the patronage of the rich herdowner. The rich herdowner receives the additional labour he needs with little sacrifice in management, but accumulates informal obligations to the poorer household.

Table 6.9. The effect of labour sufficiency on the occurrence of cooperative herding on Olkarkar, Merueshi and Mbirikani group ranches.

Ranch	Wealth class1	Households herding cooperatively
		Low labour sufficiency (0-4 herders)		High labour sufficiency (> 4 herders)
		%	No. 2	%	No. 2
Olkarkar	Poor	100	5	100	3
	Medium	86	7	0	0
	Rich	100	4	40	5
Merueshi	Poor	67	3	0	3
	Medium	50	8	0	4
	Rich	0	1	0	2
Mbirikani	Poor	100	1	80	5
	Medium	100	4	25	4
	Rich	100	6	25	3

¹ Poor = <5 tropical livestock units (TLU) per active adult male equivalent (AAME); medium = 5-12.99 TLU/AAME; rich = ³ 13 TLU/AAME;

² Total number of households in wealth class/labour sufficiency category.

Table 6.10. Percentage of children attending school by herding pattern and wealth class, Olkarkar Merueshi and Mbirikani group ranches.

Wealth class1/herding pattern	Percentage of children attending school
	Olkarkar	Merueshi	Mbirikani	Weighted mean
Poor
Alone	14	31	17
With others	30	44	24	30
Medium
Alone	11	20	17
With others	29	40	17	27
Rich
Alone	7	25	6	12
With others	26		15	21
Total
Alone	8	20	11	16
With others	28	42	19	26

¹ Poor = <5 tropical livestock units (TLU) per active adult male equivalent (AAME); medium = 5-12.99 TLU/AAME; rich = ³ 13 TLU/AAME;

6.2 Livestock management practices

6.2.1 Introduction
6.2.2 Watering management
6.2.3 Herd management and behaviour
6.2.4 Calf management
6.2.5 Management of young smallstock
6.2.6 Animal health care

6.2.1 Introduction

In general, Maasai grazing and watering management practices were aimed at:

· minimising distances between the night boma, the water point and grazing locations, for the benefit of both the herded animals and the herders

· avoiding predator attacks and other losses, in particular of smallstock

· ensuring animals arrived at the water point and night location at the appointed times

· providing the best possible grazing for each stock class.

To achieve these goals herders selected specific water points, where animals were watered at a predetermined frequency, and a daily grazing orbit that included one or more grazing locations (see Section 5.3: Water utilisation, grazing patterns and stocking rates).

6.2.2 Watering management

Distribution and types of watering facilities varied considerably among the three ranches (see Section 4.5: Water resources), and this influenced the frequency with which animals were watered. In general, the further a producer lived from water, the more likely it was that he practised alternate-day watering. Thus, alternate-day watering was much more common in Olkarkar and Mbirikani than in Merueshi (Table 6.11). It was also more common in dry periods than in wet periods, when ephemeral ponds or pools in riverbeds provided additional water points. Smallstock were watered less frequently during the rains than during dry periods because the Maasai believe that the green herbage available during the rains provides much of the water the animals need. The relationship between watering regimes and boma location was discussed in Chapter 5 (The study area: Socio-spatial organisation and land use) and the implications of watering frequency for milk production will be discussed in Chapter 7 (Productivity of cattle and smallstock).

Table 6.11. Percentage of herds of adult cattle and young cattle and flocks of smallstock that were watered daily, every second day, every third day or infrequently, Olkarkar (Olk.) and Merueshi (Mer.) group ranches.

Watering frequency	Adult cattle		Young cattle		Smallstock
	Olk.	Mer.	Olk.	Mer.	Olk.	Mer.
Daily	56	84	56	79	23	39
Every 2nd day	43	15	42	19	56	34
Every 3rd day	1		2		9	9
Infrequently		1		2	12	18

6.2.3 Herd management and behaviour

As noted in Section 6.1.4 (Labour requirements for critical tasks in livestock management), cattle were usually divided into two groups for herding: adult cattle, comprising lactating and dry cows as well as the older heifers and steers; and all young stock from the ages of 4 to 24 months, most of which were weaned. The largest producers occasionally created a third herding group, of older immatures, to reduce the size of their adult herd. When the animals were taken to distant pastures, resulting in their being away from the boma for several days or longer, lactating cows and their calves were kept at home to provide milk for remaining household members. Such herd-splitting was very common in Mbirikani and many herds remained split for most of the minor drought from February to November 1982 (see Section 5.3.3: Grazing patterns and stocking rates in the southern ranch).

Sheep and goats were herded together. Flocks included both adults and the young that were mature enough to cover the daily orbit. The proportion of young animals in the flock was usually much higher in the long dry season than during rainy seasons because of the highly seasonal pattern in lambing and kidding (see Section 7.2.3: Reproductive performance).

The mean size of herding units, derived from four aerial surveys, ranged from 85 to 120 head of cattle and from 80 to 105 head of smallstock (King et al, 1985), but some of the largest producers had herding groups of 400-700 adult cattle. Such larger groups were herded either by adults or by more than one child. In addition, joint herding, which was common in Olkarkar and Mbirikani, increased the size of herding groups (see Section 7.1.4: Reproductive performance).

Throughout the study period, cattle herds and smallstock flocks were followed to record their activities during the herding day. Two different methods were Used: these are described in de Leeuw and Peacock (1982) and in Semenye (1987)⁴. During 1982 and in early 1983, cattle herds were followed for 25 days. Herds in five locations were followed for a total of 61 days in 1983, covering the short dry season (February-March), the end of the rainy season (May-June), and the latter part of the long dry season (September-October) (Semenye, 1988a). Flock behaviour was recorded only in Mbirikani for a total of 30 days in 1982/83 following the methodology of de Leeuw and Peacock (1982).

⁴ The method described by de Leeuw and Peacock (1982) used continuous recording of group behaviour; percentages of the group engaged in the various activities were noted each time a change in group behaviour occurred. Speed was recorded in order to calculate distances travelled, while details of the grazing orbit (species composition, terrain etc.) were noted at regular intervals. The advantage of the method is that only one recorder is needed and problems of animal selection are avoided. The method employed by Semenye (1987) was based on recording the activity of three sample animals at 5-minute intervals. Supplementary data were derived from a vibracorder attached to the animal which logged grazing time over a 6-day period.

In an analysis of Maasai herd and flock activities in relation to watering regimes, seasons and resources, consideration has to be given first to the system of herding employed by Maasai producers. Herding was mostly done by children, who acted mainly as observers and rarely influenced animal behaviour directly. Herd activity patterns were largely determined by the lead cows or old steers. However, the grazing orbit was determined by the herdowner's decisions on when the herd should depart and whether, when, and where it was to be watered. These decisions determined the distance to be walked, the amount of time spent at the water point and therefore how much time was left for grazing. Thus although the herdowner did not participate in the actual herding, he accompanied the herd out of the boma and met it at the water point at a predetermined time; he ensured that animals were watered in an orderly fashion and got enough time to drink.

Daily grazing management was quite uniform across ranches, sizes of production unit and seasons Cattle were normally herded from dawn to dusk, the period when the animals were at least risk from predators. Adult cattle left the boma between 0630 and 0730 except in good rainy seasons, when herd departure was sometimes delayed until about 0800. Ordinarily, herds rarely returned before 1815 and most entered the boma between 1830 and 1915. Hence the length of the herding day was quite uniform at about 11 to 12 hours, with little influence of ranch or season⁵. Calves and immature cattle usually left about 1 hour after the adult cattle and returned earlier.

⁵ In several West African agropastoral systems the grazing day was much shorter during rainy seasons than during dry seasons (van Raay and de Leeuw, 1974; Bayer, 1986). This is usually associated with a high demand for labour for cropping during the rainy season. Maasai have no such demands and therefore can keep the grazing day constant across the year knowing that cattle need as much or more time to graze during rainy seasons as in dry seasons.

Since the length of the herding day was quite constant, it follows that the time available for grazing depended on the amount of time spent trekking and watering. Actual time spent on watering was usually low (about half an hour a day) and did not vary much between the different types of water point. The difference in time spent on different activities between watering and non-watering days was mainly that a larger proportion of time was spent on walking (without grazing) on watering days. On dipping days the herd commonly left the boma 1 hour earlier than usual; almost 6 hours were spent on dipping, watering and walking, leaving only 6.7 hours for grazing.

How the remaining hours were used depended largely on the herd, as did the partitioning between actual grazing, walking during grazing, resting and ruminating. Cattle spent an average of 48 minutes ruminating during the day (72 minutes in the dry season and 24 minutes in the wet season) and about 2 hours at night (Semenye, 1988b).

The amount of time available for grazing was generally between 6.7 and 9.5 hours a day. Grazing can be subdivided into three parts: forage harvesting or actual grazing, walking in search of forage and walking between periods of harvesting. Actual grazing time varied less than the available grazing time, indicating that animals compensated for loss of available grazing time by increasing the proportion of time available that was spent actually grazing. Actual grazing time was similar to that recorded by Semenye (1988b), who found an overall mean of 6.2 hours a day, ranging from 5.7 hours in dry periods to 6.6 hours in periods when green forage was available.

Although trekking time ranged from 0.4 to 2.9 hours a day, the total distance covered was much less variable (12 to 15 km). The extent of the grazing orbit was determined by two factors: the distances walked between the boma the grazing area and the watering-point, and the distance moved during grazing. Animals that had trekked further to grazing tended to move less during grazing than did those that had walked a shorter distance to grazing.

The activity profiles of smallstock in Mbirikani were fairly similar to those of cattle Herding days were slightly shorter (7.5 to 10 hours, compared with 10 to 12 hours for cattle) because smallstock were usually allowed out of the boma after the adult cattle herd had left. They also returned earlier from grazing staying and stayed near the boma until they were kraaled at dusk. Grazing orbits of smallstock were much shorter than those of cattle hence smallstock spent less time walking than did cattle with the result that their total and actual hours spent on grazing were similar to those of cattle In contrast to cattle sheep and goats grazed for fewer hours during green periods than during dry periods (de Souza and de Leeuw, 1984).

6.2.4 Calf management

Maasai calf management has two components, both of which are geared to avoiding losses rather than promoting fast calf growth⁶. First, milk offtake was carefully controlled to maintain a safe balance between the needs of the calf and human consumption (see Section 7.1.7: Milk offtake and lactation yield). Second, calves were very gradually adapted to grazing.

⁶ In times of drought, this goal may be sacrificed in order to take care of immediate family needs. A few "sacrifice" animals may be left with women and children when the bulk of the herd moves. These are milked until the death of the dam or its calf.

The Maasai believe that the amount of milk that a calf needs varies with the age of the calf. During the first 34 days after birth the calf was allowed al most all its dam's milk. Ideally, dams were milked only once a day for several weeks postpartum; calves were allowed to suckle during and immediately after milking and were then separated from their dams. The norm in Maasailand is for the woman to milk the two left teats, leaving the two right ones for the calf. However, in times of need the woman may strip three teats. Once the health of the calf seems well assured the intensity of milking increased.

Calves were penned in well-protected enclosures until they were 1 month old. From 1 month until 3 months old, they were tethered in the shade and occasionally taken out to graze. During the dry season women sometimes cut grass and carried it home for calves; the more severe the dry season, the more important this became. At 3 to 4 months old, calves were taken to reserved grazing areas (olopololis), which usually had a better herbage cover than unprotected areas and were usually close to the homestead and on the way to the water point so that the trekking distance to water was short.

The amount of milk required by older, grazing calves depended on the availability and quality of fodder and water, which in turn were largely determined by season and proximity of the household to water sources, respectively. Calves from homesteads near water were watered at an earlier age and were subsequently watered more frequently than calves from homesteads further from water (see Section 7.1.7: Milk offtake and lactation yield). In general, calves were not weaned forcibly but continued to have access to their dams at milking, and also when milking had stopped, for as long as the dam was willing to suckle them. Usually, natural weaning occurred when the dam was in calf again (see Section 7.1.3: Breeds and weights).

6.2.5 Management of young smallstock

Young smallstock require particular care. Women build roofed enclosures for them, either as part of the main house or as a separate structure. In Mbirikani, and sometimes in Merueshi, young lambs and kids were kept in small enclosures whereas most Olkarkar producers allowed them to roam freely around the boma. Very young lambs and kids were often kept in the house, even in the daytime, as they are particularly vulnerable to cold. At peak periods of lambing and kidding children and women helped match dams with their lambs and kids; extra attention was given to twins. Women saw to it that young kids and lambs were brought to their dams for suckling in the morning and in the evening. A recalcitrant dam is held so the young can suckle. At approximately 3 months old, lambs and kids join the smallstock flock and are herded together with their dams or sometimes with young calves. As with cattle weaning was gradual. Since adults and young were herded together, suckling continued when out grazing and stopped whenever the dams ceased to lactate or became pregnant again. Maasai usually castrated their smallstock around weaning time or sometimes when they were still suckling.

6.2.6 Animal health care

This section describes the preventive measures producers take against cattle and smallstock disease. The specific diseases are discussed in relation to cattle and smallstock mortality in Chapter 7 (Section 7.1.5: Mortality; Section 7.2.4: Mortality and disease incidence).

Cattle were supposed to be vaccinated twice a year against foot-and-mouth and any other diseases specified by government order. Vaccines were administered by the government veterinary services. Ticks were mainly controlled by handspraying or dipping livestock with acaricide, although some, mainly poor producers, removed ticks by hand. Producers stated that their aim was to control tick burden rather than tick-borne diseases. Many producers stated that cattle should be dipped or sprayed fortnightly and tried to do so, particularly when the tick burden was high. Actual frequency was affected by shortages of cash, acaricide and labour, and by dip breakdowns and ranged from weekly when tick burden was high to infrequently. During the study period cattle were dipped an average of 13 times a year on Olkarkar and 16 times a year on Mbirikani (Peacock, 1984).

Because of the problems with dips many producers changed to hand-spraying their cattle in small enclosures. Although this is less effective than dipping, it is cheaper and easier to organise, since each producer can decide on his own schedule, acaricide type and strength (de Leeuw and ole Pasha, 1987).

Most livestock owners were familiar with the common veterinary drugs and bought them from wherever they were available, including veterinary officers, chemists, pharmaceutical companies and the open market. Injectable tetracycline and trypanocidals were the most commonly used drugs and were used by most households. Most owners owned syringes and needles, which they cleaned but did not sterilise. Anthelminthics were used occasionally. The Maasai have traditional

References

Bayer W. 1986. Agropastoral herding practices and grazing behaviour of cattle in the subhumid zone of Nigeria. ILCA Bulletin 24:8-13.

Cossins J J and Upton M. 1987. The Borana pastoral system of southern Ethiopia. Agricultural Systems 25:199-218.

Dahl G. 1979. Suffering grass: Subsistence and society of Waso Borana. Department of Social Anthropology, University of Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden. 287 pp.

Grandin B E. 1983. Labour data collection. In: Stewart R A (ed.), Pastoral systems research in sub-Saharan Africa. Proceedings of the workshop held at ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 21 to 24 March, 1983. ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp. 305-319.

Grandin B E. 1988. Wealth and pastoral dairy production. A case study from Maasailand. Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary Journal 16:1-21.

Helland J. 1977. Social organization and water control among the Borana of southern Ethiopia. In: Westley S B (ed.), East African pastoralism: Anthropological perspectives and development needs. ILCA (international Livestock Centre for Africa), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp. 93-116.

Johnson A W. 1978. Quantification in cultural anthropology: An introduction to research design. Stanford University Press, Stanford, USA.

King J M, Sayers A R. Chara P, de Leeuw P N. Peacock C P, Fillo F and Maehl J H H. 1985. Improving aerial counts of Maasai Livestock. Agricultural Systems 16:231-256.

de Leeuw P N and ole Pasha I. 1987. The cost of tick control in Maasai herds in eastern Kajiado District, Kenya. In: Proceedings of the Sixth Small Ruminant CRSP Annual Workshop, Nairobi, November 1987. Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Program, Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 171-180.

de Leeuw P N and Peacock C P, 1982. The productivity of small ruminants in the Maasai pastoral system. In: Proceedings of the First Small Ruminant CRSP Workshop. Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Program, Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 118-138.

Peacock C P. 1984. The productivity of small stock in three group ranches in Kajiado district, Kenya. PhD thesis, Reading University, Reading, UK. 384 pp.

van Raay H G T and de Leeuw P N. 1974. Fodder resources and grazing management in a savanna environment: An ecosystem approach. Occasional Papers 45, Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, The Netherlands. 23 pp.

Semenye P P. 1987. Factors influencing Maasai cattle productivity and nutrition in Kajiado District, Kenya. PhD thesis, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya. 326 pp.

Semenye P P. 1988a. Grazing behaviour of Maasai cattle. In: Pasture Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (PANESA), African forage plant genetic resources, evaluation of forage germplasm and extensive livestock production systems. Proceedings of the Third Workshop held at the International Conference Centre, Arusha, Tanzania, 27-30 April 1987. ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp. 325-330.

Semenye P P. 1988b. Nutritional values of the diets of Maasai cattle. In: Pasture Network for Eastern and Southern Africa (PANESA), African forage plant genetic resources, evaluation of forage germplasm and extensive livestock production systems. Proceedings of the Third Workshop held at the International Conference Centre, Arusha, Tanzania, 27-30 April 1987. ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp. 373-382.

de Souza A P M and de Leeuw P N. 1984. Small stock use of reserved grazing areas on Merueshi group ranch. In: Proceedings of the Third Small Ruminant CRSP Workshop. Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Program, Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 289-299.

Sperling L. 1984. The recruitment of labour among Samburu herds. Working Paper 414, Institute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya. 36 pp.

Swift J 1981. Labour and subsistence in a pastoral economy. In: Chambers R. Longhurst R and Pacey A (eds), Seasonal dimensions to rural poverty. Frances Pinter (Publishers) Ltd. London, UK. pp. 80-87.

Torry W I. 1977. Labour requirements among the Gabra. In: Westley S B (ed.), East African pastoralism: Anthropological perspectives and development needs. ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp. 159-170.