| Literature DB >> 28736609 |
Ayodele O Majekodunmi1,2, Charles Dongkum3, Tok Langs4, Alexandra P M Shaw1, Susan C Welburn1.
Abstract
This paper presents an in-depth investigation of the livelihood strategies of Fulani pastoralists in north central Nigeria. Results show a diversified crop-livestock system aimed at spreading risk and reducing cattle offtake, adapted to natural resource competition and insecurity by extensification, with further diversification into off-farm activities to spread risk, increase livelihood security and capture opportunities. However, significant costs were associated with extensification, and integration of crop and livestock enterprises was limited. Mean total income per capita in the study area was $554 or $1.52/person/day with 42% of households earning less than 1.25/person/day. Income levels were positively correlated with income diversity and price received per animal sold, rather than herd size. The outcomes of this livelihood strategy were favourable across the whole community, but when individual households are considered, there was evidence of moderate economic inequality in total income, cash income and herd size (Gini coefficient 0.32, 0.35 and 0.43 respectively). The poorest households were quite vulnerable, with low assets, income and income diversity. Implications for sustainability are discussed given the likelihood that the negative trends of reduced access to natural resources and insecurity will continue.Entities:
Keywords: Agro-pastoralism; Economic inequality; Livelihood diversification; Pastoral production; Sustainability; Vulnerability
Year: 2017 PMID: 28736609 PMCID: PMC5496975 DOI: 10.1186/s13570-017-0091-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pastoralism ISSN: 2041-7136
Figure 1Land holding per household
Land tenure
| Mode of acquisition | No. households | % households | Duration of settlement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inheritance | 14 | 43 | 35 to 100 years |
| Purchase | 10 | 30 | 5 to 63 years |
| Lease | 5 | 17 | 7 to 47 years |
| Occupation | 2 | 7 | 3 years |
| Gift | 1 | 3 | 20 years |
Figure 2Crops grown by households
Household crop income
| Land per household (ha) | Households with crop sales (%) | Mean household cash income from crops ($) | Mean household crop consumptiona ($) | Mean total income from crops ($) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 to 2 | 50 | 117 | 2,202 | 2,319 |
| >2 to 4 | 56 | 717 | 2,351 | 3,068 |
| >4b | 25 | 133 | 2,911 | 3,044 |
| All | 50 | 867 | 2,341 | 3,208 |
aCalculated using number of hectares per crop, 2012 commodity price per kilogram and yield per hectare (Global-Yield-Gap 2017, FAO 2012)
bFewer than five households in this group sold crops
Wealth groups, assets and income (based on McPeak, Little and Doss 2012)
| All | High livestock, high cash | High livestock, low cash | Low livestock, high cash | Low livestock, low cash | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % of households | 100 | 17 | 33 | 33 | 17 |
| Land (ha) | 3.9 | 3.4 | 4.4 | 3.6 | 3.9 |
| Household size | 18 | 22 | 24 | 12 | 13 |
| Tropical Livestock Units | 141 | 224 | 264 | 47 | 42 |
| Tropical Livestock Units per capita | 6.4 | 9.3 | 9.4 | 4.1 | 3.1 |
| Cash income per capita ($) | 345 | 434 | 185 | 578 | 121 |
| Total income per capita ($) | 554 | 619 | 371 | 863 | 266 |
| Mean price per animal sold ($) | 416 | 429 | 380 | 513 | 311 |
| Livestock cash (%) | 83 | 86 | 88 | 76 | 80 |
| Milk cash (%) | 6 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 4 |
| Crop cash (%) | 8 | 9 | 2 | 10 | 7 |
| Other cash (%) | 3 | 0 | 4 | 10 | 9 |
Figure 3Livestock production costs
Livestock enterprise output using mean household values
| Number | Unit price ($) | Total value ($) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sales | |||
| Cattle | 10 | 458.00 | 4,580 |
| Sheep | 5 | 52.31 | 262 |
| Litres of milk (wet season)a | 855 | 0.33 | 282 |
| Home consumption | |||
| Cattle | 2 | 458.00 | 916 |
| Sheep | 2 | 52.31 | 105 |
| Litres of milk (wet season) | 450 | 0.33 | 149 |
| Litres of milk (dry season)b | 330 | 0.33 | 109 |
| Purchases | 0 | ||
| Cattle | 1 | −245.90 | −246 |
| Change in herd value | 0 | ||
| Cattle | 3 | 458.00 | 1,374 |
| Sheep | −2 | 52.31 | −105 |
| Total Enterprise Output | 7,425 |
a90 days of wet season × 9.5 l sold and 5 l home consumption per day per household
b270 days of dry season × 1.2 l home consumption per day per household and no sales
Income levels and diversity
| Income Sources | Livestock only | Livestock + crops | Livestock + off-farm | All |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| % households | 33 | 37 | 17 | 13 |
| Mean cash income per capita ($) | 260 | 398 | 444 | 278 |
| % livestock income | 95 | 78 | 85 | 57 |
| % crop income | – | 17 | – | 8 |
| % milk income | 5 | 5 | 6 | 4 |
| % off-farm income | – | – | 9 | 32 |
Figure 4Lorenz curves of the distribution of total income, cash income and TLU
Livelihood adaptations of agro-pastoral populations in West Africa
| Location | Specialisation | Extensification | Intensification | Market integration | Diversification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Senegal (Adriansen | Abandoned cultivation | Use boreholes and watering tubes to exploit more rangeland | High capital and labour investment; dramatic changes in herd composition to fit market demand: high proportions of small ruminants for Eid al Adha and all beef rather than milk herds of cattle | High engagement in off-farm enterprise, including large-scale livestock trading | |
| Mali (Ramisch | Integrated mixed farming | ||||
| Cameroon (Moritz | Long-range transhumance | Stall-feeding industrial cottonseed cake and crop residues | High integration with urban markets which makes the increased labour and cost of stall-feeding worthwhile | ||
| Ivory coast (Diallo | |||||
| Niger (Ayantunde et al. | Long-range transhumance | Night grazing, integrated mixed farming | |||
| Nigeria This study | Long-range transhumance | Significant investment in off-farm enterprises |