Low Cattle Milk Production in South Sudan: What could be the actual causes?

By Makur Garang Apadieer, Abyei, South Sudan 

Tuesday, December 14, 2021 (PW) — When one looks at a specific timeline, the trend would always be marked by enormous changes in different aspects of the nature: rainfall pattern, vegetation growth or decline, prevalence of either unusual drought or a disastrous flood, low milk productivity in cattle which once were highly productive, and some more. What could be the problem? One very specific and current explanation provided worldwide, is the effect of climate change due to global warming as a result of human economic activities.

This exposition presents general condition which sounds quite convincing. But could this low milk productivity in cattle in South Sudan be attributed to climate change?Let’s critically examine a few following factors that many traditional cattle keepers, agricultural and animal production professionals advance as grounded in their long-term experience in rearing cattle and practice by the professionals in supporting cattle keepers.

1. Constant Migration 

One important reason given is that constant migration and trekking for long distance in search of pasture and water leads to tremendous energy expenditure, hence less energy is inevitably assigned to production of milk and other vital biological functions in the animal body. The recent emergence of cattle theft and raiding exacerbated this scenario as the thieves or raiders speedily drive cattle away to escape conflict from the owners. Consequently,theft and raiding accelerates a need for constant migration to evade loss and tragedy that emanates from attacks to raid cattle.

Seasonal nomadism or migration has been in practice by cattle keeping communities (Collo, Nuer, Jieeng, Taposa, Didinga, Murle, Reel and Mundari) since time immemorial in South Sudan. However, milk production wasn’t as low as it is currently. Low milk producing cow in 1980s, yielded 4-5 litres per day (2-2.5 litres in the morning and evening) and the high milk producing cow yielded between 10-20 litres per day respectively. The author of this article grew up in the cattle camp until his adolescence and had thus witnessed the glorious time when a cow could, on average, mostly produce enough milk for adult consumption. It is critically important to note that in Lakes, most communities keep their cattle far away from home. This entails that those in the cattle camp would entirely depend on milk as alternative means of transport were then lacking, contrary to the present cattle rearing where those in the cattle camps would entirely depend on farm produce brought from home as less milk yield is obtained from lactating cows.

A farmer in Abyei testified that in 1981, he had 10 lactating cows and they could fully fill four big gourds (ajep/ajop, piau) and calabashes when milked. He lamented that he had 27 lactating cows in 2020 but the collective milk yield from 27 cows could not even fill a small single gourd for a child. What exactly led to such a sharp decline in milk productivity? Let’s continue to explore possible causes in the following sections.

2. Destruction of rangelands 

Random burning of forests destroys grass and other plants. Cattle keepers set forests on fire on pretext toencourage regeneration of new and tender grass, which is suitable for livestock grazing but this, unfortunately, does not last for long as the dry season with its concomitant intense heat inhibits further growth or biomass (organic matter) development. Through burning, well developed biomass that would be good fodder for livestock is virtually lost due to bad practice. Biodiversity (various living organisms: animals & plants and interdependence) is imperatively reduced as fires destroy tender plants and killed microorganisms in the soil. Other reasons abound as to why they set forests on annual fires. This relates to ensuring security from wild animals. However, the recent emergence of cattle raiding had compounded the adamant desire to clear the bushes using fire to enable those who accompany cattle to the grazing land see far away, the imminent threats from either humans or wild animals.

Another very important practice which contributes to rapid destruction of rangelands is migration to flood plainsbefore water recedes and dries, where cattle constantly graze in water. While grazing in water, cattle usually tramples on and submerges pasture under water. The submerged pasture rots up to the roots, hindering any prospective regeneration after water evaporated and infiltrated. Besides, the decaying matter contaminates water in terms of filthy odour and bad taste, hence jeopardizing health of cattle, and thus reduce further milk productivity due to poor health or death.

The reduced grass biomass for livestock grazing results in low milk production during the dry season. This is practically true as the author himself witnessed for many years in cattle camp. But the practice is controllable if the government can enact and enforce laws which prohibit random burning of forests and farm fields and early migration to flood plains before drying.

But why is milk production even low during the wet season when rangelands are abundantly full of grazeable, palatable and nutritious grass biomass? Others contend that the types of grasses which nourish cattle health and enable them produce high milk have become extinct. This is utterly untrue as the present grasses are still the same types which existed three to five decades ago. I know that we are still far from any convincing explanation. The next sections may provide an additional glimpse, though not conclusively comprehensive.

3. Selection of breeding stock

The contemporary practice by the cattle keepers in the selection of breeding stock firmly considers structure, body conformation, well designed horns, good fur and predominantly white or creamy colours. They never consider parents milk productive capacity. 

In the past, a bull (dam) is selected and raised from a mother (cow) that produces high milk. The direct rationale here is that the dam will sire offspring which will inherit high milk producing characteristics. Besides, heifers from the same high milk yielding cow are well nurtured and encouraged to reproduce and increase in numbers. In other words, the heifers or mother are not easily sold, paid for fines, compensations, or marriages. The prime objective is to keep the cows with high milk yielding traits to enhance adequate milk availability to nourish the survival and nutritional needs of the family members.

Conversely, the prevalent practice at the moment entirely overlooks the virtues embedded in the traditional wisdom of rearing cattle. This partially justifies the fact that farm produce majorly constitutes the present meal in the cattle camps as oppose to sole dependence on milk.

No convincing answer is provided yet but let’s delve more into the matter. The next section concerns livestock health and how this might have negatively or positively affected milk productive capacity in livestock.

4. Health 

Traditionally and before the advent of modern livestock drugs and vaccines, the cattle keepers used natural solutions in treating cattle ailments. Though they didn’t have vaccines, the milk production was very high on average. But the presence and use of clinical medicines and vaccines has achieved and is still achieving only: 1) good livestock health which consequently increased cattle population, and 2) reduction in spread of zoonotic diseases from animals to human beings. 

However, the expectation is that milk production should have dramatically increased but unfortunately the reverse occurred. This certainly mind boggling! Are vaccines for inoculation or drugs for treatment inadvertently contributing to a sharp decline in the average milk production? Are our livestock production and animal health specialists critically checking on the validity and purity of drugs and vaccines delivered and administered in the country? We surely do not know.

At the moment, vaccinations of livestock are scientifically or commercially scheduled and undertaken twice a year; with each round of vaccines to last only for six months. So, an animal requires two rounds of vaccinations with a similar vaccine for a healthy annual life. This is indicatively entailing a very high cost of vaccines, although the current vaccines are sourced and delivered by humanitarian actors in the country. What advantage is the current vaccination regime to livestock and livestock owners? Where do these vaccines and drugs originate? Is similar vaccination regime in practice in the country of vaccines origin? Are vaccines in use similar to what are delivered to South Sudan? If similar vaccines and regime are used, what effects do they have on indigenous livestock, in terms of milk productive capacity, in the country of vaccines origin?

With the rising manifestation of doing business in bad faith, I am surely tempted to think otherwise. Can we (South Sudanese) start and develop our own livestockdrugs and vaccines to avoid or evade further deterioration? With the present state of affairs in our beloved country, this question may imaginatively look in many readers’ minds like a fallacy or myth, but it is a doable and achievable proposition.

Have you learnt something, though inadequate and incomplete? It is a call-to-action article! Let’s start right immediately.

The author, Makur Garang Apadieer, is a concern citizen who can be reached at johnmakurgarang@gmail.com. The views expressed in this article are solely of the author but do not represent the opinions of the employer.

If you want to submit an opinion article, commentary, or news analysis, please email it to the editor: info@paanluelwel.com or paanluel2011@gmail.com. PaanLuel Wël Media (PW) website does reserve the right to edit or reject material before publication. Please include your full name, a short biography, email address, city, and the country you are writing from.

About Post Author