Factors that influence market participation among traditional beef cattle farmers in the Meatu District of Simiyu Region, Tanzania.

Market participation among beef cattle farmers is key to ensuring better income, food security, and sustainable beef supply. Farmers in the traditional beef cattle sector, nevertheless, are well known for their low market participation. This study, thus, sought to examine factors that influenced market participation among beef cattle farmers in the Meatu district of Simiyu region, Tanzania. The study randomly selected a sample size of 393 farmers. The cross-sectional data collected through interviews and questionnaires were analyzed using descriptive statistics and ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models. The descriptive analyses showed that the average age of the interviewees was 53.73 years with a family size of 13.11. On average, the respondents had about 24.14 years of farming experience. Most of the respondents (67.9%) had primary education. Among the respondents, about 61.3%, 4.6%, and 32.6% had access to market information, farm credits, and veterinary services, respectively. The average cattle herd size was 53.46 heads. About 90.1% of farmers had participated in the markets by selling an average of 5 heads each, per year. This study has revealed low volume of sales, low education levels, and poor access to credits and veterinary services as the major factors that limit market participation. Furthermore, econometric results show that the key factors that significantly influenced farmers to increase the volume of beef cattle sales in the market at P < 0.05 included price, herd size, off-farm income, distance to market, age of the farmer, and cattle fattening. Moreover, membership in cooperatives, access to market information, and farming experience also had significant influence at P < 0.05. This study recommends establishment of strategic cooperatives to function not only as a communication channel for farm credits, price, market information, and training on commercial farming, but also to assist farmers in selection of profitable markets.

1. Introduction

Increase in beef cattle sales through market participation has become an important aspect in commercialization of the traditional beef cattle sector in rural areas [1]. Globally, it is estimated that over 600 million people keep beef cattle, and nearly 75% lives in rural areas [2]. Beef cattle production in Tanzania is one of the major agricultural production sectors. It contributes to over 50% of the beef cattle farmer’s household income, 5.9% to the national GDP, export earnings, and a great source of employment [3-6]. Despite its potential for economic development, the traditional beef cattle sector has thinly been developed, partly due to the limited commercialization (market participation) [7]. Various factors are attributed to the limited market participation among traditional beef cattle farmers in Tanzania. These factors include limited access to market and its opportunities [8].

Tanzania is ranked as the third (3rd) leading producer of beef cattle in Africa and 11th in the world. The country is estimated to have a beef cattle population of over 34.5 million with a 2.8% annual growth rate [1, 5, 6]. Beef cattle farming in Tanzania is, to a great extent, traditional. Available data indicate that 94% of total beef cattle herds is predominantly produced under the traditional beef cattle farming (a free-range production system), whereas, only 6% is under commercial beef cattle ranching [4, 9]. The potential for growth of the beef cattle in Tanzania is high since the country has favourable conditions and vast land, which can support growth of the sector. Approximately, Tanzania has 60 million hectares of rangelands suitable for grazing [3].

Given that 94% of beef cattle herds in Tanzania is produced under the traditional beef cattle sector which supplies 95% of the country’s beef meat [3, 4], the government strives to commercialize the sector. The effort intended to ensure that the sector effectively promotes household food security and income, as well as responding to increasing demand from domestic and international meat markets [10, 11]. The efforts undertaken to commercialize the sector include; linking farmers to profitable markets, subsidizing inputs, and enabling farmers’ access to credit and veterinary services [12, 13]. In addition, the government encourages farmers to reduce large cattle herds, settle on land allocated for grazing, and fatten beef cattle before selling (value addition) [10, 12, 13].

Beef cattle commercialization typically leads to increased diversity of marketed commodities and specialization. This encourages farmers to produce high quality beef cattle, thereby increase their incomes [14]. Market participation is related to commercialization: it refers to the gradual shift from traditional to commercial beef cattle farming. It also refers to the farmers’ act of entering the beef cattle market to exchange their products for cash [15]. Generally, market participation ensures; a continuous supply of beef cattle to markets, farmers’ better income, food security, and poverty reduction.

Despite the government effort to commercialize the traditional beef cattle sector, most traditional beef cattle farmers continue to live in poverty [10, 11]. The country, thus has continued to import quality beef meat (over 700 metric tons per year), meanwhile, the existing beef meat processing abattoirs have been operating at less than 50% of their operational capacities [3, 4, 16, 17]. This is quite an indication of a low supply of beef cattle in the market. It has been observed that wealth protection and prestige that is perceived by cattle farmers after accumulating huge beef cattle herds exceed market incentives, thus jeopardizing the integration of beef cattle farmers into organized markets [18]. The traditional beef cattle sector in Tanzania still has huge potential to boost income from and supply of beef cattle, both, domestically and internationally: farmers’ market participation is most likely one of the best means to this end.

According to the Tanzania Livestock Master Plan (TLMP) [9], projected beef meat demand-supply gap by 2031/32 is estimated to be 1.7 million tons. The projected high demand of beef meat is driven by an increasing human population, particularly in developing countries, income growth, urbanization, growing tourist industry, and income elasticity of demand. This expansion provides potential opportunities to beef cattle farmers to increase earn more income through market participation.

Recent estimates indicate that, due to low market participation among traditional beef cattle farmers in Tanzania, by the year 2021/22, contribution of the traditional beef cattle sector to the national red meat production will decrease by 8.43%, whereas, that of commercial beef cattle ranching will increase by 85.94% [9]. The commercial beef cattle ranching system is more market-oriented than the traditional one. More efforts should be put to transform traditional beef cattle farmers from subsistence farming to market-oriented; beef cattle farmers need to perceive beef cattle farming as a business. This may encourage beef cattle farmers to set aside larger volumes of beef cattle for sale each year [16].

This study, thus, sought to examine factors that influenced market participation among traditional beef cattle farmers in Tanzania: this is essential for establishing a sustainable development policy framework for maximizing rural economic growth and sustainable beef cattle supply to domestic and international markets [18].

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Description of the study site

This study was conducted in the Meatu District of the Simiyu Region. Located in northern Tanzania, southeast of Lake Victoria, Simiyu Region, particularly the Meatu District, is dominated by traditional beef cattle farming as its major economic activity. Simiyu Region is among the regions with high beef cattle populations, with a significant contribution to the national beef cattle herd stock. With a population of 1,584,157 people, the region is estimated to hold a total of 1,512,911 beef cattle, and covers an area of 25,212 square kilometres. The study district has a population of 299,619 people, and it is estimated to hold a total of 495,890 beef cattle. Rainfal in Meatu District ranges between 600 mm and 900 mm per year and temperature ranges from 18 0C to 31 0C. Generally, grazing land occupies 80% of the total area and the remaining 20% is used for agricultural production and settlements [5, 19].

2.2. Ethical considerations

This study was first approved by the Jilin Agricultural University Graduate Research Ethics Committee in China. It was then submitted to and approved by the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries (MLF) with reference number (AB.16/2020/01). During the data collection process, all ethical considerations were dealt with accordingly; first, the participants’ consent was obtained verbally, and then the detailed information in the consent form was explained to all the participants. The participants were then allowed to fill in and sign the forms as proof of their consent to participate in the study before their actual participation. All the participants were informed of their right to decline their participation anytime they felt so. The Ward Executive Officer (WEO) witnessed and approved the consent.

2.3. Sampling procedures

The study applied a multi-stage stratified sampling technique to select respondents among beef cattle farmers. Selection of respondents at different stages involved purposive and randomised sampling. Stratified random sampling creates stratification based on members who share similar attributes [20]. Strata in this study were made of the five major beef cattle producing regions and their districts. One region (Simiyu) was then randomly selected from the five regions. Similarly, one district (Meatu) was purposely selected among the five districts since it is the leading beef cattle producing district in the region. In the study district, three villages; Nkoma, Mwambegwa, and Mwambiti were randomly selected. This study targeted traditional beef cattle farmers (N = 24,139) and applied Slovin’s formula to determine a randomly selected sample size of 393 respondents [21] as; Whereby N is the targeted population size, n is a sample size, and e is the error tolerance level. The number of respondents selected from each village (stratum) was determined by utilizing the percentage proportion (see Table 1).

Table 1

Sample size.

District	Villages	Population	Percentage Proportion	Sample
Meatu	Nkoma	8,006	33.17	130
	Mwambiti	7,943	32.91	129
	Mwambegwa	8,190	33.93	133
Total		24,139	100	393

2.4. Data collection

The cross-sectional survey was used to collect primary data using structured questionnaire and interview methods. The structured questionnaires captured three sections. Section I included the socioeconomic characteristics of beef cattle farmers, section II was designated for beef cattle production information, and section III for beef cattle sales (market participation) information.

2.5. Analytical models

This study applied both descriptive statistic and econometric models. Firstly, the socioeconomic characteristics of beef cattle farmers, beef cattle marketing activities, together with public service related factors were examined using descriptive statistics which involved percentages, frequencies, means, and standard deviation.

Secondly, in econometric analysis, ordinary least squares (OLS) multiple linear regression model was applied to determine factors that influenced beef cattle farmers intention to increase the volume of beef cattle sales in the market. The OLS is a mathematical modelling method that can be used to explain the relationship between a continuous dependent variable (volume of beef cattle sold) and multiple independent variables [22]. The actual OLS model used was as follows: Where

Yi denotes the number of beef cattle sold, β0 is an intercept or constant, β1,…,‥ βn are the coefficients to be estimated, and X1,…., and Xn represent the vectors of the explanatory variables and ε the error term.

The truncated OLS regression model for factors determining the volume of beef cattle sold was specified as: Table 2 below shows the hypothesized sign effects of the independent variables used in the OLS multiple regression model.

Table 2

Independent variables and their expected effects on the volume of beef cattle sold by beef cattle farmers.

Variables	Variable type	Measurements	Hypothesized signs
Age of a farmers	Continuous	Age in years	±
Education level	Continuous	Years of schooling	+
Access to market information	Dummy	If 0 = No,1 = Yes	+
Distance from home to market	Continuous	Total kilometres	-
Household size	Continuous	Number of members	±
Beef cattle herd size	Continuous	Number of beef cattle	+
Beef cattle farming experience	Continuous	In years	+
Off-farm income	Continuous	In Tanzanian shillings	±
Access to veterinary services	Dummy	If 0 = No,1 = Yes	+
Access to credits	Dummy	If 0 = No,1 = Yes	+
Grazing land owned	Continuous	In hectare	+
Price of beef cattle	Continuous	In Tanzanian shillings	+
Beef cattle fattening practice	Dummy	If 0 = No,1 = Yes	+
Cooperative membership	Dummy	If 0 = No,1 = Yes	+
Cows owned	Continuous	Number of cows	±
Bulls owned	Continuous	Number of bulls	+
Steers-Oxen owned	Continuous	Number of oxen	-
Heifers owned	Continuous	Number of heifers	±
Local breed beef cattle	Continuous	Number of local breeds	-

2.6. Conceptual framework

To commercialize the traditional beef cattle sector in Tanzania for a sustainable supply of beef cattle to the market and poverty reduction among beef cattle farmers, this study conceptualized that traditional beef cattle commercialization is dependent on the relationship between increased beef cattle sales (extent of market participation) and their determinants.

The relationship between the determinant (independent) variables and the dependent variable included in the study, together with the externalities, are illustrated in Fig 1. Thus, an increased volume of beef cattle sales in the market (dependent) was assumed to be influenced by farmers’ age, education level, beef cattle herd size, cattle farming experience, cooperative membership, grazing land owned, access to market information, access to credits, and access to veterinary services. Moreover, other factors assumed to influence the volume of beef cattle sales in the market included distance to market, price of beef cattle, off-farm income, household size, beef cattle fattening practice, number of cows owned, number of bulls owned, and the local beef cattle breed.

Fig 1

Conceptual framework.

The conceptual framework also shows interaction of some externalities supporting increased volumes of beef cattle sales. Based on the above factors, the expected outcomes are: poverty reduction, increase in beef meat production and beef cattle supply to both domestic and international markets, which finally leads to the national economic growth and foreign direct investment (FDI) in the beef cattle sector. The conceptual framework in Fig 1 underpins the adoption and development of empirical analysis.

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Descriptive analysis

3.1.1. Comparison of the socioeconomic characteristics of market and non-market participants based on the average scores of continuous variables

Results in Table 3 show that among the 393 sampled beef cattle farmers, about 90.1% (354) had participated in the beef cattle market by selling an average of 5 beef cattle per year, while 9.9% (39) did not engage in beef cattle marketing at all. This indicates that the majority of beef cattle farmers are dependent on income generated from beef cattle sales to secure their financial situations. The average age of market and non-market participants was 54.52 and 46.56 years, respectively. This indicates that both market and non-market participants were in the active age of the labour force, which is important in the adoption of beef cattle production technologies and a willingness to engage in beef cattle marketing. The average household size among market participants was 13.41, which is higher than the 10.44 obtained for non-market participants. This indicates a higher labour force potential for beef cattle production and marketing activities among market participants. It also shows that market participants had 25.04 years of farming experience, which is higher than the 18.74 years obtained for non-market participants. Beef cattle farming experience increases beef cattle productivity through acquisition of skills and knowledge, thereby increasing the farmers’ probability to participate in the market [18, 23]. Furthermore, the results revealed that the market and non-market participants had an average of 54.46 and 44.3 beef cattle herd size, respectively. These results indicate that the larger the beef cattle herd size, the more the beef cattle farmers’ motivation to participate in the markets. The study results also revealed that the average off-farm income among market participants was 1,228 US$ per year. This was higher than the 626 US$ obtained for non-market participants. Apparently, off-farm income increases farm productivity if reinvested in beef cattle production, thereby increasing the chance of beef cattle farmers participating in the market. The mean grazing land owned by market participants was 39.88 ha, while the corresponding value for the non-market participant was 24.38 ha. Grazing land availability is important in beef cattle productivity, which enhances availability of the beef cattle for sale.

Table 3

Comparison of socioeconomic characteristics of market and non-market participants based on the average scores of continuous variables.

Variables	Overall (N = 393)	Market participants (N = 354)	Non-market participants (N = 39)
Age of a farmer	53.73	54.52	46.56
Household size	13.11	13.41	10.44
Beef cattle herd size	53.46	54.46	44.31
Farming experience	24.14	25.04	18.74
Off-farm income(US$)	1,169	1,228	626
Grazing land owned (ha)	38.35	39.88	24.38
Cows owned	23.93	24.32	20.36
Bulls owned	11.43	11.75	8.59
Steers-Oxen owned	8.89	8.83	9.49
Heifers owned	9.59	10.00	5.87

The study findings also show that the beef cattle flock characteristics such as cows, bulls, and heifers were higher on average among market participants. These factors are concerned with beef cattle herd dynamics marked with increased beef cattle productivity, hence promoting market participation. The steers-oxen average was found to be higher among non-market participants. Steers-oxen are mostly used as a source of draught animal power in rural areas, which reduces beef cattle surplus to be offered for sale, thereby reducing the opportunity to participate in the market.

3.1.2. Comparison of socioeconomic characteristics of market and non-market participants based on frequency and percentage scores of categorical variables

Results in Table 4 revealed that traditional beef cattle farming was dominated only by men. This indicates gender disparity: females should be encouraged to engage in beef cattle farming. Women are also responsible for farming and food processing, as men migrate from rural to urban centres in search for employment [15]. Analysis further revealed that 68.9% and 59% of the market and non-market participants, respectively, had primary education, while only 2.3% and 20.8% of the market and non-market participants, respectively, had secondary education. The remaining 28.8% and 20.5% of the market and non-market participants, respectively, had no formal education. These findings revealed that most farmers had low level of education. Farmers should be provided with tailor-made training and education to promote the development of the traditional beef cattle sector. Education improves one’s ability to observe product quality, effectively negotiate price, and access available market information. People with high levels of education should be encouraged to invest in beef cattle production to boost quality production and marketing.

Table 4

Comparison of socioeconomic characteristics between market and non-market participants based on frequency and percentage scores of categorical variables.

Variables	Overall (N = 393)		Market participants (N = 354)		Non-market participants (N = 39)
	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage	Frequency	Percentage
Gender of a beef cattle farmer
Male	393	100	354	100.0	39	100.0
Education level
No education	110	28.0	102	28.8	8	20.5
Primary ed.	267	67.9	244	68.9	23	59.0
Secondary ed.	16	4.1	8	2.3	8	20.8
Access to market information
Yes	241	61.3	226	63.8	15	38.5
No	152	38.7	128	36.2	24	61.5
Access to credits
Yes	18	4.6	16	4.5	2	5.1
No	375	95.4	338	95.5	37	94.9
Access to veterinary services
Yes	128	32.6	112	31.6	16	41.0
No	265	67.4	242	68.4	23	59.0
Membership to Cooperatives
Yes	58	14.8	53	15.0	5	12.8
No	335	85.2	301	85.0	34	87.2
Practicing beef cattle fattening(value addition) before sale
Yes	24	6.1	24	6.8	0	0.0
No	369	93.9	330	93.2	39	100

Findings in this study also show that 63.8% and 38.5% of market and non-market participants, respectively, had access to market information. This may suggest that market participants were more exposed to market information. Obtaining accurate market information is an essential factor for the farmers to participate in the market. Furthermore, this study has shown that only 4.5% and 5.1% of market and non-market participant, respectively, had access to farm credit. This implies that both market and non-market participants had poor access to farm credits. Beef cattle farmers need suitable and convenient arrangements as well as assistance in establishment of a marketing system for securing farm credit. Farm credit is important for investing in beef cattle production and marketing activities, thus boosting beef cattle productivity, which increases the tendency to enter the market [18]. Regarding access to veterinary services, results show that 31.6% and 41% of market and non-market participants, respectively, had access to veterinary services. This also indicates that farmers had limited access to veterinary services. Access to veterinary services should be improved through reducing the cost of acquiring consultations necessary for improved beef cattle production.

Findings in this study also revealed that involvement in cooperative activities was limited among, both, market and non-market participants. Results show that only 15% and 12.8% of market and non-market participants, respectively, were engaged in farmer’s cooperatives. Cooperatives help farmers mobilize resources, share market information, improve their bargaining power, promote their services, and reduce cost through economies of scale [18]. Incentives should be set forth to attract beef cattle farmers to join cooperatives.

Findings in this study further revealed that only 6.8% of market participants added value (fattening) to their beef cattle before sale, whereas, none among the non-market participants did. The findings indicate low beef cattle value addition among farmers. In Tanzania, fattening beef cattle has been designated as one of several ways to increase beef cattle productivity and quality [24]. Beef cattle of a lower quality are fed with cotton husks, corn bran, or cottonseed cakes for three to four months to improve their quality by gaining weight, and then sell them at high prices [24]. Incentives to encourage beef cattle farmers to practice fattening are imperative. Generally, these findings suggest that higher mean values of variables among market participants positively influenced market participation.

3.2. Econometric analysis

3.2.1. Factors influencing the volume of beef cattle sold in the market by beef cattle farmers

Table 5 shows the ordinary least squares (OLS) multiple linear regression output on the factors that influenced the volume of beef cattle sold in the market by beef cattle farmers. The R2 value from the OLS multiple regression analysis was 0.792. This shows that the independent variables account for approximately 79.2% of the change in the total volume of beef cattle sold in the market. The model was estimated using SPSS v.22, and the model was a good fit and significant at P < 0.05.

Table 5

Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) multiple linear regression estimates on the factors determining the volume of beef cattle sold in the market by beef cattle farmers N = 393).

Variables	Coefficients (β)	Std. Error
Age of a farmers	0.197*	0.035
Education level of a farmer	-0.003	0.431
Access to market information	-0.432*	0.915
Distance to market	0.148*	0.220
Household size	-0.027	0.060
Beef cattle herd size	2.703*	0.114
Farming Experience	-0.127*	0.031
Off-farm income	0.260*	0.000
Access to veterinary services	-0.095	1.034
Access to credits	-0.048	1.254
Grazing land owned	0.047	0.004
Price of beef cattle(market price)	0.110*	0.000
Practicing beef cattle fattening	0.399*	1.590
Cooperative membership	-0.088*	0.615
Cows owned	1.023*	0.114
Bulls owned	0.476*	0.124
Steers-oxen owned	0.222*	0.123
Heifers owned	0.512*	0.111
Local breed beef cattle	0.809*	0.053
Constant	-5.165	2.375
R Squared (R2)	0.792(79.2%)
Adjusted R squared (Adj.R2)	0.780(78.0%)

*Indicate significance level at 5% (P < 0.05).

Holding other factors constant, age of the beef cattle farmers had a positive effect on the volume of beef cattle sold in the market and was statistically significant at the 5% significance level. The positive effect indicates that as the farmer’s age increases, the volume of beef cattle sold in the market increases. Age of a farmer was closely associated with the decision on what volume of beef cattle to offer for sale. This may also suggest the cumulative effect of cattle over time and acquired experience in beef cattle production and marketing among older farmers. These results correspond with the study by Randela et al. [25], who found a positive association between age and the extent of market participation.

Market information leads to improved beef cattle productivity, hence increased surplus beef cattle for sale in the market [8]. This study, however, revealed that access to some market information negatively influenced the volume of beef cattle sold in the market, and was statistically significant at the 5% significance level. This implies that access to inaccurate market information discouraged beef cattle farmers from offering more beef cattle for sale.

The distance from home to the beef cattle market had a positive impact on the volume of beef cattle sold in the market and was statistically significant at the 5% significance level. According to [26], travelling long distances in search of beef cattle markets consumes time and increases transportation costs, thus increasing marketing transaction costs. Higher transaction costs hinder beef cattle farmers’ market participation. In rural areas however, the farther the market location the higher and more profitable the price for beef cattle. Distance to markets motivates farmers to offer more beef cattle for sale. Market infrastructures in the proximity need to be improved to facilitate reliable pricing methods and market information.

As expected, beef cattle herd size had a positive effect on the volume of beef cattle sold in the market and was statistically significant at a 5% significance level. The results indicate that as beef cattle herd size increased, the volume of beef cattle offered for sale also increased. This study is in line with the previous studies by [18, 23] which observe that beef cattle herd size is directly linked to the increases in the beef cattle for sale. This indicates that the larger the beef cattle herd size, the more likely it is to enter the market by selling more beef cattle [18].

Beef cattle farming experience indicated a significant negative effect on the volume of beef cattle sold in the market. This result does not correspond with the studies by [8, 18, 27–29], which found a positive correlation between the increase in farming experience and market participation rate. Farming experience captures the influence of social networks and links accumulated over time to enhance the search for potential customers [23]. Moreover, knowledge and production techniques are acquired through farming experience and are known to be useful in production and marketing activities [29]; however, experienced beef cattle farmers in rural areas are inefficient in producing surplus beef cattle, hence decreasing the volume of beef cattle to be offered for sale.

The off-farm income factor had a positive effect on the volume of beef cattle sold in the market and was statistically significant at a 5% significance level. This implies that keeping other factors constant, beef cattle farmers with a high off-farm income are likely to offer more volume of beef cattle for sale. This study corresponds with the studies by [18, 30], who reported that higher off-farm income motivates beef cattle farmers to participate more in the market by offering more beef cattle for sale, nevertheless, this finding is not in line with the study by [31], who reported a negative correction between off-farm income and the decision to engage in beef cattle marketing.

Price of beef cattle indicated a positive impact on the volume of beef cattle sold in the market and it was statistically significant at a 5% significance level. This indicates that when the price of beef cattle goes up, beef cattle farmers increase the volume of beef cattle for sale. Higher prices act as an incentive for beef cattle farmers to participate in the market by selling more beef cattle. Market prices for beef cattle are the ultimate motivation for beef cattle sellers [18]. Price control on beef cattle market is recommended.

The coefficient for practicing beef cattle fattening (value addition) had a positive effect on the volume of beef cattle sold in the market and was statistically significant at the 5% significance level. Fattening practice adds value to beef cattle and, in turn, increases productivity and market value, which enhances the availability of surplus beef cattle, thereby increasing the volume of beef cattle sales in the market.

Furthermore, being a member of the cooperative was negatively associated with the volume of beef cattle sold in the market and was statistically significant at the 5% significance level. This indicates that cooperatives lack proper strategies to improve farmer’s knowledge on beef cattle production and fail to link farmers to social networks to get accurate market information about the beef cattle market. Policies should be formulated to encourage establishment of informed strategic cooperatives, particularly marketing cooperatives.

Addition of beef cattle flock characteristics on the determinants of the volume of beef cattle sold in the market is distinctive to this study. The coefficients of cows, heifers, bulls, and steers-oxen cattle had a positive effect on the volume of beef cattle sold in the market at 5% significance level. Cows, heifers, and bulls are important in the beef cattle herd size multiplication through reproduction. This multiplication motivates beef cattle farmers to offer more beef cattle for sale to the market. Steers-oxen are non-reproductive beef cattle; hence the availability of these stocks encourages beef cattle farmers to offer more beef cattle for sale. Additionally, these findings also showed that though local breed beef cattle are characterized by low rates of growth and productivity compared to crossbreeds (hybrids), its coefficient positively correlated with the volume of beef cattle offered for sale in the market. This is because local breeds are more resistant to diseases, drought and heat stress, hence, their low mortality rate. Low mortality rates results in increases the surplus beef cattle to be offered for sale to the market.

4. Conclusion

Market participation is an important way to ensure better income and food security among beef cattle farmers. It also promotes sustainable beef cattle supply to the market. This study examined factors that influenced market participation among beef cattle farmers. More specifically, the study sought to examine factors that influenced the volume of beef cattle sold in markets. The findings in this study indicated that more farmers participated in the market to secure their financial situations, nevertheless, the volume of sales was low. The findings suggest that higher mean values of variables among market participants positively influenced market participation. Furthermore, results in this study showed that price, farming experience, age of a farmer, off-farm income, beef cattle herd size, cooperative membership, distance to market, cattle fattening, and access to market information were significant variables on the volumes of beef cattle sold in the market. Most importantly, the results showed that increase in beef cattle sales mainly depended on the farmer’s cattle herd size. Beef cattle farmers are thus encouraged to keep crossbreeds to enhance productivity. Crossbreed cows can increase herd size, which increases the birth rate and quality of beef cattle. Hybrids have the advantage of heterosis that improves beef cattle productivity. These in turn increase the volume of beef cattle sales in the market.

Access to veterinary services should be improved by reducing the consultation costs. Consultations are necessary for improved beef cattle production. Another significant factor to be emphasised is market price for beef cattle. Prices for beef cattle are the ultimate motivation for beef cattle sellers. The government should take control on beef cattle price to avoid price fluctuations. Additionally, extension services need to be coordinated to provide training on commercial farming, pricing, and beef cattle marketing.

Policy recommendations in this study focus on agricultural and marketing cooperative societies (AMCOS) in Tanzania, which deal with production, processing, transporting, and marketing of various crops. The AMCOS should expand their services to beef cattle farming to enhance beef cattle productivity and marketing. Strong and effective marketing cooperatives should be established to facilitate access to and utilization of farm credits, and market information. Moreover, marketing cooperatives should aim to provide education and training on new technologies and entrepreneurial skills related to beef cattle marketing and production. These strategies will sensitize beef cattle farmers to treat beef cattle farming as business, hence increase market participation. This will further improve beef cattle farmers’ livelihood and encourage sustainable supply of beef cattle to both the domestic and international markets.

Questionnaire in English.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Questionnaire in Swahili.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

(SAV)

Click here for additional data file.

(ZIP)

Click here for additional data file.

21 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-32555

Analysis of the Influencing Factors of Traditional Beef Cattle Farmers’ Market Participation in the Meatu District of Simiyu Region, Tanzania.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kibona,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript was reviewed by two experts in the field, and they have recommended some modifications be made prior to acceptance.

I therefore invite you to make the modifications and write a response to reviewers prior to re-submission.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 04 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

I wish you the best of luck with your revisions.

Hope you are keeping safe and well in these difficult times.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Simon Clegg, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Title: Analysis of the Influencing Factors of Traditional Beef Cattle Farmers’ Market Participation in the Meatu District of Simiyu Region, Tanzania

The topic is interesting. The author tried to identify the determinants of beef cattle production at smallholder level in Tanzania. Outputs of the study can be used as inputs to improve beef cattle productivity in the country. However, the manuscript requires appropriate revision prior to publication. Please have a look at and try to address the detailed comments given in the attached file, inside the manuscript.

In summary:

The English is poor: long and complex sentences are prevalent, grammar issues…thus requires appropriate revision

The introduction part has several redundant words, phrases and sentences.

Literature review part is a repetition of the introduction section, better to remove.

In the materials and methods section (line 183), the respondents selected purposively and randomly. Why purposively? How many were selected purposively? How was the sample size (393) determined? justify

Results are described repeatedly in different sentences.

Draw your conclusion in relation to your objective and hypothesis.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting article, but it is quite poorly written. There are some very long sentences, sometimes the same word or two words is in the same sentence up to 5 times. Please reword it to make it easier to read, I have tried to flag them up in the review but there are so many of them. Some of the sentences are very long and need splitting

I would usually recommend rejection based on the standard of writing, however I think that the data is important and beneficial to the field, so I have recommended a major revision with the hope that you can tidy the manuscript up and have it written in a much better way to enable simple reading and extrapolation of the data.

Line 21-25- please have spaces between text and numbers in brackets

Your references are in a strange order. It is often better to start at 1 from the intro and work down. A reference management software will do this for you

Line 41- you have sector in a sentence twice- maybe reword

Line 43- these contributions are untapped the full potential …. – this does not make sense. Please reword it.

Lines 56-62- this is difficult to read. Is there any way to simplify this?

Line 63- but are not limited to (add in word)

Line 62-69- again a long difficult to read sentence- can this be shortened?

Line 76- proven effective may sound better? Also why have they not been effective?

Start line with a capital letter after too

Line 75-80- a very long difficult to read sentence which jumps around a lot, can you please simplify?

Please ensure that there is a space between numbers and units- e.g 1.7 tonnes rather than 1.7tonnes throughout

Line 101-102- repetitive from above

I would combine the literature review with the introduction, and shorten it all, as much of it is repetitive.

A map of the study area may be useful?

Line 183- when you say purposefully, do you mean you chose beef farmers over dairy farmers etc? It is a bit misleading as ideally the sample needs to be random- but can be a random selection of beef farmers

Line 184- was a sample size calculation performed? Or is this all beef farmers in the area?

Line 189- it would be nice to have the questionnaire uploaded too

Line 202- not good to start a sentence with an acronym

Line 243- varies how? By how much?

Line 238- is that age of owner or animal?

Line 244-248- another long sentence, consider shortening or breaking

There are a lot of hypotheses in the methodology section which seems odd

Line 316- there are a lot of places where you have several mentions of ‘beef cattle’ in a sentence which makes it a bit difficult to read

I am also not completely sure that all of the methods data needs to be in the methods section.

Line 352- space between 354 and % brackets

Line 360- was 13.4 times higher, or was 13.4 which is higher than that seen in the other group? Please clarify

Line 362- had more beef cattle farming experience

Line 368-369- not sure that this is needed

Line 370- due to …

Line 375- delete of

Line 375-377- repetitive, please revise

Line 384- doesn’t make sense, please reword

Line 384- change most to mostly

I found table 3 very confusing- is it possible to make it clearer and improve the legend so it is easier to understand?

Line 404-406- reword- 100% means nothing, and can remove a participants

Line 406- females

Line 409-410- two formal educations in close proximity

Line 413- two participants in close proximity

Line 419- space after full stop

Line 423- had limited access to farm credit may sound better?

Line 426-429- better to split this sentence into two for ease of reading

Line 438- lower doesn’t need a capital

Table 4- college ed and the gender sections are almost useless as there are none which fit that group

Line 456- 460- another long sentence, please split

Line 477- distances

Line 476- 481- another long sentence which would benefit from being split

Line 489- studies?

Line 540- out doesn’t need a capital

Line 541- space between 354 (90.1%), and line 542

The conclusion is not as much a conclusion, it is more a summary- please rework

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-32555_reviewer.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

18 Feb 2021

Response to the Reviewers’ Comments

We thank the editor and reviewers for taking their time to read and give their comprehensive and constructive comments, which have improved our manuscript. Below; we provide a point by point response to your comments and suggestions and how each one has been addressed in the revision.

Response to the Editors’ Comments

Comment 1: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Response: We thank the editor for reminding us. We have checked and followed all the requirements to make sure our manuscript meets the PLOS ONE standards.

Comment 2: Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

Response: We thank the editor for this comment. We have included a copy of the questionnaire, in both the original language (Swahili) and English, as supporting information.

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

General Comments

Comment 1: Title: Analysis of the Influencing Factors of Traditional Beef Cattle Farmers’ Market Participation in the Meatu District of Simiyu Region, Tanzania. The topic is interesting. The author tried to identify the determinants of beef cattle production at smallholder level in Tanzania. Outputs of the study can be used as inputs to improve beef cattle productivity in the country. However, the manuscript requires appropriate revision prior to publication. Please have a look at and try to address the detailed comments given in the attached file, inside the manuscript.

Response: We thank the reviewer for these comments. We appreciate the compliment from the reviewer that the outputs of the study can be used as inputs to improve beef cattle productivity in the country. We agree with the reviewer that our manuscript requires appropriate revision prior to publication. We have corrected our manuscript based on the reviewers’ comments. We hope that the current manuscript will satisfy our reviewer.

Comments in Summary from Reviewer 1

Comment 1: The English is poor: long and complex sentences are prevalent, grammar issues, thus requires appropriate revision.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for disappointing our esteemed reviewer with the poor English, long and complex sentences, and grammar issues in our previous manuscript. We have requested a native English speaking colleague and English experts to read and correct the complexity of sentences and English grammar of our manuscript as suggested by the reviewer. We hope the reviewer will be satisfied with the current English grammar and the structure of the sentences.

Comment 2: The introduction part has several redundant words, phrases and sentences

Response: We appreciate this comment from the reviewer. We agree with the reviewer that the introduction part has several redundant words, phrases, and sentences. We checked and removed all the redundant words, phrases, and sentences based on the reviewer’s comments.

Comment 3: Literature review part is a repetition of the introduction section, better to remove.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have checked the literature review part and agree with the reviewer to remove it.

Comment 4: In the materials and methods section (line 183), the respondents selected purposively and randomly. Why purposively? How many were selected purposively? How was the sample size (393) determined? Justify.

Response: Thank you very much for this important comment. We are sorry for the mistakes. The respondents were selected randomly. The study targeted traditional beef cattle farmers (N = 24,139) and applied Slovin’s formula to determine a randomly selected sample size of 393 respondents as;

n= N/(1+Ne^2 )= 24,139/(1+24,139 (〖0.05)〗^2 )=393.48 ≈393

Whereby N is the targeted population size, n is a sample size, and e is the error tolerance level. The number of respondents selected from each village (stratum) was determined by utilizing the percentage proportion as indicated in the current manuscript.

Comment 5: Results are described repeatedly in different sentences.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have checked and corrected the description of the results section to avoid repetition

Comment 6: Draw your conclusion in relation to your objective and hypothesis.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have drawn our conclusion in relation to our objective and hypothesis as suggested by reviewers. More comments are welcome.

Responses to Specific Comments in the annotated PDF from Reviewer 1

-Title Section

Comment 1: A title is not a sentence, thus full stop at the end is not required

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for this mistake. We have removed the full stop at the end of the title. In addition, the title has been modified to read “Factors that Influence Market Participation among Traditional Beef Cattle Farmers in the Meatu District of Simiyu Region, Tanzania.”

-Abstract Section

Comment 2: Please make a space here and next, after the parenthesis.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We appreciate the help provided by the reviewer in correcting the mistakes in our manuscript. We have added the space as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment 3: This sentence is incomplete and complex. Make it at least four short sentences as follow. In this study, the average age of the interviewees was 54.52 years with a family size of 13.41. On average, the respondents have about 24.14 years (not 25.04) farming experience. The average off-farm income was found to be 1228 US$. Among the respondents, about 63.8% have access to market information. While the average cattle herd size is 54.46 heads, the average grazing land size is about 39.88 ha per a respondent.

Response: We appreciate the comment from the reviewer. We are sorry for the incomplete and complex sentence. We have followed the suggestions from the reviewer to rewrite the sentence into four short sentences.

Comment 4: Note: cows, bulls, heifers; these are components of the herd and separate report is not important in the abstract.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We appreciate the help provided by the reviewer in correcting the abstract section. We have removed the herds' components as a separate report in the abstract as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed pdf-file.

-Introduction Section

Comment 5: introduction is the first parts of the manuscript that require literature citation. Thus, numbering of the reference should start from 1 here and proceed accordingly.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have followed the suggestions from the reviewer using the enclosed pdf-file to renumber the reference in the introduction part starting from 1 and proceeding accordingly. However some references have been cited more than once, thus the reference numbers may appear several times.

Comment 6: good to say The beef cattle production in Tanzania.... because the word sector is repeated twice in a sentence.

Response: We appreciate the comment from the reviewer. We have followed the suggestions from the reviewer using the enclosed pdf-file to rewrite the sentence to read as Beef cattle production in Tanzania, because the word sector is repeated twice in a sentence.

Comment 7: These contributions are untapped the full potential" this phrase is not clear or seems incomplete. Please make a meaningful sentence before stating the causes. i,e. due to the limited

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are very sorry for the incomplete and unclear sentences. We have corrected the phrase to make a meaningful sentence.

Comment 8: long and complex sentence! make it short and informative!

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are very sorry for the long and complex sentence. We have corrected the sentence and make it short and informative based on the reviewer's comment.

Comment 9: About 100 words in one sentence! please rewrite, and make short and clear sentences!

Response We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the long and complex sentence. We have rewritten the sentences based on the comment from the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 10: beef cattle and beef... not necessary!. Enough to say ... the increasing demand for meat in both the domestic and international

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have rephrased the sentence based on the comments from the reviewer.

Comment 11: Provided; the efforts have not provided effective:” this is incomplete! delete it or modify it

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the incomplete sentence and for confusing the reviewer. We have agreed to delete the sentence as suggested by the reviewer to avoid confusion.

Comment 12: Close the sentence here!

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have corrected the sentence based on the comment from the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 13: Already mentioned around line 48, thus delete it.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this observation. We checked and deleted the phrase as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 14: Better to delete

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have agreed with the reviewer to delete the phrase to avoid confusion.

Comment 15: Better to delete, already mentioned

Response: We thank the reviewer for the observation. We agree with the reviewer. We have deleted the phrase to avoid repetition.

Literature Review Section

Comment 16: better to exclude the literature review part! because the introduction part has already several literature sources with the same information mentioned here.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have excluded the literature review part as advised by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Materials and Methods Section

Comment 17: why purposely? needs justification. Because, to be representative, respondents need to be selected at a random.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the unforeseen mistake. The respondents were randomly selected.

Comment 18: How was the sample size determined?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The study targeted traditional beef cattle farmers (N = 24,139) and applied Slovin’s formula to determine a randomly selected sample size of 393 respondents as;

n= N/(1+Ne^2 )= 24,139/(1+24,139 (〖0.05)〗^2 )=393.48 ≈393

Whereby N is the targeted population size, n is a sample size, and e is the error tolerance level. The number of respondents selected from each village (stratum) was determined by utilizing the percentage proportion as indicated in our current manuscript.

Comment 19: Delete the blank space

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The blank space has been deleted.

Comment 20: The OLS is...

Response: Thank you for the observation. We have corrected the phrase to start with ‘The OLS is’ as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 21: Incomplete or rewrite it as follow: These variables are assumed to have influence on the volume of beef cattle sold in the market

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the incomplete sentence and for confusing the reviewer. We have deleted the rephrase to avoid confusion.

Comment 22: close the sentence here, and start new sentence as follow: According to Randela et al. [32], the farmers' age and their decision to increase the volume of beef cattle sales have positive correlation although Kgosikoma and Malope [31] found a negative relationship.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have closed the sentence and started a new sentence as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file. However, this section has been deleted based on the reviewer’s suggestion.

Results and Discussion Section

Comment 23: Among the 393 sampled beef cattle farmers, about 90.1% (354) had participated....

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have rephrased the sentence to read, “Among the 393 sampled beef cattle farmers, about 90.1% (354) had participated”, as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 24: The farmers are dependent on .

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. The highlighted section has been rewritten as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment 25: 13.41, which is higher than the 10.44 obtained for non-market....

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have rephrased the sentence to read, “The average household size among market participants was 13.41, which is higher than the 10.44 obtained for non-market participants” for clarity as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 26: Redundant!

Response: We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We have deleted the phrase accordingly.

Comment 27 Due to the

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the mistake. The missing words have been inserted as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment 28: Space before currency

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The space before currency has been added as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 29: delete

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We agree with the reviewer. The highlighted sentence in the enclosed PDF file has been deleted.

Comment 30: Delete "of" and rewrite the sentence as follow: The mean grazing land owned by market participant farmers was 39.88 ha, while the corresponding value for non-market participant was 24.38ha.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have deleted the word ‘of’ and rewritten the sentence as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 31: abbreviated as ha in the abstract.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We agree with the reviewer. We have abbreviated the word hectares as ‘ha” as in the abstract to avoid confusion.

Comment 32: mostly.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have changed the word ‘most’to mostly as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 33: Highlighted word (marketable surplus)

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have rewritten the word marketable surplus to mean surplus beef cattle.

Comment 34: May be better to say “... the higher average values of these variables.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have agreed, the sentence has been rephrased as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 35: This is confusing! you have not reported crossbreeds and exotic breeds, thus the cattle you listed are locals. Why you mentioned the phrase local breeds owned? again the average should be the same with beef cattle herd size. Or make it clear. Local breed animal (cattle) is more informative than "local breeds owned". It looks like that you are counting the number of breeds that are local.

Response 36: We thank the reviewer for these comments. We are sorry for the mistakes and confusion to the reviewer. To avoid confusion, we have deleted the phrases local breeds and crossbreeds owned. This indicates that all the beef cattle mentioned here are local.

Comment 37: delete

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The highlighted word participants have been deleted throughout the manuscript as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment 38: Rewrite it

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The highlighted section has been rewritten as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 39: highlighted text

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. The highlighted words have been rewritten as suggested by the reviewer to read “the remaining 28.8% and 20.5% of market and non-market participants, respectively, had no formal education” to make it clear.

Comment 40: Rewrite

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. The highlighted section has been rewritten as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment 41: Had poor access to farm credits.

Response: We thank the reviewer. We agree with the reviewer. We have rephrased the sentence to read “had poor access to farm credits” as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment 42: Close the sentence here.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have closed the sentence as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file.

Comment 43: Among non-market participants

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have rephrased the sentence as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment 44: lower

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the typing error. We have corrected the capital letter L to read as small letter in the word “lower”.

Comment 45: The dote (.)

Response: We thank the reviewer for this close observation. We are sorry for the typing error. We have inserted the full stop and deleted the coma.

-Conclusion Section

Comment 46: Your conclusion should adhere to the key findings of the study i.e. the hypothesis or objectives. It should not be another results and discussion

Response: We thank the reviewer for the important comment. We have drawn our conclusion in relation to our key findings, objective, and hypothesis as suggested by reviewers. More comments are welcome.

Comment 47: Already abbreviated

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We agree with reviewer. We have deleted the phrase since it is already abbreviated.

Comment 48: Not part of this study.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We checked and deleted the highlighted phrase since it is not directly the part of this study.

Response to Reviewer 2

General Comments

Comment 1: This is an interesting article, but it is quite poorly written. There are some very long sentences, sometimes the same word or two words is in the same sentence up to 5 times. Please reword it to make it easier to read, I have tried to flag them up in the review but there are so many of them. Some of the sentences are very long and need splitting.

Response: We thank the reviewer for seeing the useful information contained in our manuscript and consider it as an interesting article despite its weakness. We are sorry for disappointing our esteemed reviewer for the poor English, long and complex sentences, and grammar issues in the previous version of our manuscript. We have improved our manuscript based on the reviewers’ comments. We hope the reviewer will find it more useful.

Comment 2: I would usually recommend rejection based on the standard of writing; however I think that the data is important and beneficial to the field, so I have recommended a major revision with the hope that you can tidy the manuscript up and have it written in a much better way to enable simple reading and extrapolation of the data.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the shortcomings in our previous manuscript. We appreciate the compliment from the reviewer that the data is important and beneficial to the field. We diligently and carefully corrected our manuscript in a much better way to enable simple reading and extrapolation of the data based on the valuable comments given by the reviewer. We kindly request you to reconsider it for publication.

Specific Comments from Reviewer 2

Abstract Section

Comment 1: Line 21-25- please have spaces between text and numbers in brackets

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The spaces between text and numbers in blackest have been added. However the section has been rephrased based on the reviewer comment.

Introduction Section

Comment 2: Your references are in a strange order. It is often better to start at 1 from the intro and work down. Reference management software will do this for you.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this important comment. We have followed the suggestions from the reviewer to renumber the reference in the introduction part starting from 1 and proceeding accordingly. However some references have been cited more than once, thus the reference numbers may repeat.

Comment 3: Line 41- you have sector in a sentence twice- maybe reword.

Response: We thank the reviewer for yet another important reminder. We have corrected the whole manuscript to ensure that the word sector or other words do not appear twice in a sentence. The word sector in a given phrase has been changed to production to read, “Beef cattle production in Tanzania is one of the major agricultural production sectors….

Comment 4: Line 43- these contributions are untapped the full potential …. – this does not make sense. Please reword it

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are very sorry for the incomplete and unclear sentences. We have rephrased the sentence; these contributions are untapped the full potential to read, “Despite its potential for economic development, the traditional beef cattle sector has thinly been developed, partly due to the limited commercialization (market participation).

Comment 5: Lines 56-62- this is difficult to read. Is there any way to simplify this?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have simplified and shortened the phrase to make it clear. We hope it is clear now.

Comment 6: Line 63- but are not limited to (add in word)

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for confusing the reviewer. We have checked and deleted this phrase to avoid confusion.

Comment 7: Line 62-69- again a long difficult to read sentence- can this be shortened?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for a long difficult to read sentence. We have rephrased, and make short based on the comment from the reviewer.

Comment 8: Line 76- proven effective may sound better? Also why have they not been effective?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have agreed to rephrase the sentence following the suggestion given by the reviewer. However this phrase has been deleted as suggested by the reviewer in the enclosed PDF file to avoid confusion.

Comment 9: Start line with a capital letter after too.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The phrase has been modified and each line has been started by capital letter.

Comment 10: Line 75-80- a very long difficult to read sentence which jumps around a lot, can you please simplify?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for a very long difficult to read sentence which jumps around a lot. We have rephrased, and make short and clear sentence based on the comment from the reviewer

Comment 11: Please ensure that there is a space between numbers and units- e.g 1.7 tonnes rather than 1.7tonnes throughout.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The space between numbers and units has been added throughout the current manuscript.

Comment 12: Line 101-102- repetitive from above

Response: We thank the reviewer for this observation. We checked and deleted the phrase since it is repetitive as commented by the reviewer.

Literature Review Section

Comment 13: I would combine the literature review with the introduction, and shorten it all, as much of it is repetitive

Response: We thank the reviewer for this important comment. We have agreed to combine the literature review with introduction and shortened it; however a large part of the literature review has been deleted to avoid repetition as suggested by the reviewer.

Materials and Methods Section

Comment 14: A map of the study area may be useful?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this important suggestion. We acknowledge the suggestion by the reviewer wishing inclusion of a physical map in our article. However, given the complexities in obtaining available technically and locally constructed maps of specific areas in the country, the map could not be included. We hope the omission of the map does not in any manner devalue the quality of geographical descriptions of the study location.

Comment 15: Line 183- when you say purposefully, do you mean you chose beef farmers over dairy farmers etc? It is a bit misleading as ideally the sample needs to be random- but can be a random selection of beef farmers

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the unforeseen mistake and misleading the reviewer. The respondents (beef cattle farmers) were randomly selected

Comment 16: Was a sample size calculation performed? Or is this all beef farmers in the area?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. A sample size calculation was performed. The study targeted traditional beef cattle farmers (N = 24,139) and applied Slovin’s formula to determine a randomly selected sample size of 393 respondents as.

n= N/(1+Ne^2 )= 24,139/(1+24,139 (〖0.05)〗^2 )=393.48 ≈393

Whereby N is the targeted population size, n is a sample size, and e is the error tolerance level. The number of respondents selected from each village (stratum) was determined by utilizing the percentage proportion as indicated in the current new manuscript.

Comment 17: Line 189- it would be nice to have the questionnaire uploaded too

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. A questionnaire has been uploaded as supplementary information.

Comment 18: Line 202- not good to start a sentence with an acronym

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have corrected the phrase to start with ‘The OLS is’ as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment 19: Line 243- varies how? By how much?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the incomplete sentence and for confusing the reviewer. We have deleted the phrase to avoid confusion.

Comment 20: Line 238- is that age of owner or animal?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have corrected in our new manuscript to indicate the age as the age of a beef cattle farmer.

Comment 21: Line 244-248- another long sentence, consider shortening or breaking

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the long sentence. We have shortened the sentence to make it clear and easy to read. However, this section has been deleted, as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment 22: There are a lot of hypotheses in the methodology section which seems odd

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for introducing many hypotheses in the methodology section, which seems odd; however, we aimed to justify the validity of the variables selected for this study. We have deleted this section to avoid too many hypotheses.

Comment 23: Line 316- there are a lot of places where you have several mentions of ‘beef cattle’ in a sentence which makes it a bit difficult to read.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. This section has been deleted to avoid confusion.

Comment 24: I am also not completely sure that all of the methods data needs to be in the methods section.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. Some of the methods data (line 244 - 320) in the methods section has been deleted.

Results and Discussion Section

Comment 25: Line 352- space between 354 and % brackets.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The space between 354 and % brackets has been added as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment 26: Line 360- was 13.4 times higher, or was 13.4 which is higher than that seen in the other group? Please clarify.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have corrected the phrase to read “the average household size among market participants was 13.41, which is higher than the 10.44 obtained for non-market participants”.

Comment 27: Line 362- had more beef cattle farming experience

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have rewritten the phrase to read “market participants had 25.04 years of farming experience, which is higher than the 18.74 years obtained for non-market participants”.

Comment 28: Line 368-369- not sure that this is needed

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have checked and agreed with the reviewer. The highlighted phrase has been deleted.

Comment 29: Line 370- due to …

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the mistake. We have added the missing words, as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment 30: Line 375- delete of

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The word “of” has been deleted as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment 31: Line 375-377- repetitive, please revise.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have revised the sentence as follows: The mean grazing land owned by market participant farmers was 39.88 ha, while the corresponding value for the non-market participant was 24.38ha.

Comment 32: Line 384- doesn’t make sense, please reword.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have rewritten the phrase to read “on average, steers owned by beef cattle farmers were found to be high among non-market participants, thus affected the market participation”.

Comment 33: Line 384- change most to mostly

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have changed the word “most” to mostly.

Comment 34: I found table 3 very confusing- is it possible to make it clearer and improve the legend so it is easier to understand?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the mistakes and the confusion to the reviewer. We have improved the legend by deleting the phrases local breeds and crossbreeds owned. It means that all the beef cattle mentioned here are local.

Comment 35: Line 404-406- reword- 100% means nothing, and can remove a participants

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. The highlighted word participant has been deleted throughout the manuscript as suggested by the reviewer. In addition, the phrase “100% of males dominate the beef cattle farming” has been rewritten to read a traditional beef cattle farming was dominated only by men.

Comment 36: Line 406- females.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. The word female has been changed to females as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment 37: Line 409-410- two formal educations in close proximity

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. The phrases have been rewritten to read “the remaining 28.8% and 20.5% of the market and non-market participants, respectively, had no formal education”.

Comment 38: Line 413- two participants in close proximity.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have rephrased the sentence to read, “63.8% and 38.5% of the market and non-market participants, respectively, had access to market information”. We have deleted the word participants to avoid repetition.

Comment 39: Line 419- space after full stop.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have added the space after full stop.

Comment 40: Line 423- had limited access to farm credit may sound better?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have rephrased the sentence to read “had poor access to farm credits”.

Comment 41: Line 426-429- better to split this sentence into two for ease of reading

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have agreed with the reviewer to split the sentence into two for ease of reading as indicated in our new manuscript with track changes.

Comment 42: Line 438- lower doesn’t need a capital.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the typing error. We have corrected the capital letter L to read as small letter in the word “lower”.

Comment 43: Table 4- college ed and the gender sections are almost useless as there are none which fit that group.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have deleted the college ed and gender sections, particularly females section as suggested by the reviewer. More suggestions are welcome.

Comment 44: Line 456- 460- another long sentence, please split.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the long sentence. We have decided to remove the section to avoid repetition.

Comment 45: Distances.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the typing error. We have corrected the word “distance” to distances.

Comment 46: Line 476- 481- another long sentence which would benefit from being split.

Response 47: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the long sentence. We agreed with the reviewer to split the sentence into three short sentences for easy reading.

Comment 48: Line 489- studies?

Response: We thank the reviewer for the comment. The word study has been changed to studies as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment 49: Line 540- out doesn’t need a capital.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We are sorry for the typing error. We have removed a capital letter from the word “out” as suggested by the reviewer.

Comment 50: Line 541- space between 354 (90.1%), and line 542.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. This section has been rephrased to improve the conclusion section as suggested by the reviewers.

Conclusion Section

Comment 51: The conclusion is not as much a conclusion, it is more a summary- please rework

Response: We thank the reviewer for the important comment. We have drawn our conclusion in relation to our key findings, objective, and hypothesis. We hope this will be clear to our reviewer.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

2 Mar 2021

Factors that Influence Market Participation among Traditional Beef Cattle Farmers in the Meatu District of Simiyu Region, Tanzania

PONE-D-20-32555R1

Dear Dr. Kibona,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Simon Clegg, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

Many thanks for resubmitting your manuscript to PLOS One

As you have addressed all the comments and the manuscript reads well, I have recommended it for publication

You should hear from the Editorial Office shortly.

It was a pleasure working with you and I wish you the best of luck for your future research

Hope you are keeping safe and well in these difficult times

Thanks

Simon

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The comments are addressed adequately. The present version of the manuscript is greatly improved. I recommend the manuscript for publication at PLOS ONE.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

25 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-32555R1

Factors that Influence Market Participation among Traditional Beef Cattle Farmers in the Meatu District of Simiyu Region, Tanzania

Dear Dr. Yuejie:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Simon Clegg

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE