David Stanley's 1965 Nuffield Report

Report of 1965 Kenya Nuffield Farmer — David Stanley (age 29)

Introduction

This report gives me the opportunity of formally thanking the Trustees of the Nuffield Trust, for the "once in a lifetime" opportunity which I have been fortunate enough to have been given. I consider myself extremely favoured to have had the opportunity to visit the United Kingdom to study aspects of farming which will be of benefit to Kenya and myself.

Besides technical knowledge which I have gleaned, there are several side effects which I consider will eventually prove to be the greatest value of the Fellowship. For a full time farmer in any country, the opportunity to travel and meet men of broad interest may come only at an age when the fire of enthusiasm is less bright and years to put new ideas into effect may be fewer. Similarly for a farmer working full time in a developing country the chances to meet technical and scientific men, are limited. One tends to become self-reliant to a point where suspicion of new ideas which are not proven, may lead to missed opportunities. I returned from the tour, far more critical of my own methods and considerably humbled by the high standards of farming which I saw.

Not being a Government officer, or one directly concerned with Agricultural Extension in the rapidly changing farming scene in Kenya, I don't expect to exert a revolutionary effect on the country's progress. However, I believe that I can make a valuable contribution by example. "Yoani" is a particularly difficult patch of Africa and it is not many years since parts of it were literally unexplored for the first time. It is situated in close proximity to the land units of the Kamba and Masai tribes and if I can, in the midst of vast areas of land which is sub-economically run, create a good example, then my job is worthwhile and the value of overseas travel will be justified.

Turning to the mechanism of the Nuffield Farming Scholarships I would unhesitatingly say that the help given by the N.A.A.S, N.F.U. and Milk Marketing Board literally make the scholarships possible. My thanks are extended to these bodies for all the help they gave. The Milk Marketing Board's generous gesture in making available a car for the whole period of my visit is greatly appreciated, for without this I can well imagine the strain and weariness which six months of train and bus travel would impose on someone strange to Britain and with no immediate ancestors to fall back on!

The Kenya farmers, in the past, has invariably arrived late for the Trusts' "initiation ceremonies" and the bus trip round the country. My case was no exception, although for a different reason than is usually given, namely the necessity of Kenya mixed farmers to be at home in February/March for some obscure seasonal operation. My lateness in 1965 was due to the last-minute retirement of the candidate first selected. However this leads me to suggest that the Kenya man misses a great deal of briefing and acclimatisation, which the other Commonwealth men obtain. He also misses the opportunity of teaming up with one or more of the other farmers who may have similar interests and of travelling together. There is nothing which shortens a long trip on the motorway more than a vigorous discussion of a controversial subject. May I therefore, without wishing to appear critical, suggest that the Selection Advisory Committee in Kenya make their nominations on future occasions, in time to coincide with the other dominion Farming Scholars arrival.

Soon after embarking on my tour, I realized that I could waste a lot of time in following up well meant recommendations, which, although of general interest, would be of little value. Thus I attempted to plan my trip with visits concerning my particular subjects namely, Beef and Dairy Husbandry and Breeding and Developments in Nutrition. A list of visits to places and people would look impressive indeed. A summary is as follows.

Nearly eight thousand miles of travel took me to most major A.R.C. Institutes in Britain, N.A.A.S Experimental farms, many Pedigree cattle breeders, commercial feed company farms and their demonstrations, two Royal shows and one Breed Society show and sale, a week spent at an M.M.B Artificial Insemination Centre and a thorough look at the Boards A.I. Friesian stud and their progeny testing schemes, two other A.I. centres, 2 Agricultural colleges, The Summer meeting of the British Society of Animal Production, countless farming countrymen, and finally when the weather became too unbearable, 10 days welding instruction with the British Oxygen Company. Last but not least, my thanks go to the staff at Nuffield Lodge who could not have been more generous with their help and advice and the welcome they always extended.

The overall standard of farming in Britain is strikingly high. More so perhaps to one who is used to seeing regular famine conditions in a land which is inherently fertile, like Kenya. Only when one gets closer to the ground and hears at first hand from men on the land in UK, is it evident that, even now, after rapid post war progress there is a vast untapped potential and the outlook for feeding the nation is good.

My arrival in U.K. coincided with the N.F.U. Campaign for a "Fair Deal for Farmers". I can appreciate the feelings of men, who, having the technical means at hand to increase the productivity of their farms, are discouraged from doing so by national policy. The very structure of the economy of an Industrial Britain precludes the export of food while the products of heavy industry take priority. I believe though that increasing world demand for meat and protein will favour the efforts of research into the production of these products in Britain.

While travelling I kept in the back of my mind, and it was necessary to do so, that farming in Kenya has its own particular local problems and most things seen in Britain do not apply to the situation in Kenya. One of the first things that struck me was the way in which the relative security of tenure of land in Britain enables farmers to plan sufficiently far ahead, and the temptation to work for short term profits is hardly ever encountered. Even the tenant system which is practiced is normally stable enough to encourage sound development.

To comment on the financial structure of farming in Britain would be to play with fire indeed. Suffice it to say that the ever increasing price of land makes it extremely difficult for a newcomer to establish himself. It is being left more and more to large concerns with strong financial backing to take up the process of land consolidation, to use a local term. The most fortunate farmers, financially speaking are owner occupiers who have inherited their land. Tenant farmers who have their land on favourable rentals are probably as well off. With prices for lowland acres in the vicinity of £300, it is easy to calculate the return necessary to clear a bank rate of interest. The pressure of servicing borrowed capital would be equally as formidable. The ideal of cheap food for the British housewife makes it necessary for the government to subsidise almost every product and improvement, to prevent what would lead to an increased export of food to more lucrative Continental markets.

The Advisory service of the Ministry of Agriculture is an extremely efficient and well staffed body. I have heard it said that too much emphasis is placed on technical advice to the exclusion of managerial advice but I noticed and gathered from several N.A.A.S Advisors, and many farmers that this is not the case. Considering that the Advisory services are completely free and that expert farm management advice and business analysis is available, it surprised me that more advantage is not taken of the N.A.A.S. While on rounds with a Veterinarian in Lancashire I came across one farmer who had never heard of the services. If this can occur in an enlightened Britain, how much more often would it occur in a country like Kenya where there is an equally conservative farming population? This leads me to suggest that to gain any quick improvement in Kenya, changes in practice must come about as a result of legislation in the first instance and then followed up by Advisory services.

For example, The Veterinary Department have certain regulations for governing and stopping the spread of cattle disease in Kenya. Legislation exists but is not strictly enforced. If they were rigorously applied it would soon confine many diseases, which are now endemic and would make the lot of the emerging African farmer running exotic cattle far easier. Bull licencing in Britain has played a major role in the rapid improvement of stock. It is perhaps unnecessary at the present time, but its application in a country like Kenya could have a dramatic effect, provided an alternative source of calves is available. I will refer to this again later.

Dairying

When confronted with the latest advances in milking machine technology and dairy layouts, I was again reminded of the need for requirements for a developing country to be considered separately. If one were to transplant some of the highly complicated labour saving gadgets, which are being pressed onto farmers in U.K., to Kenya conditions there would be problems indeed. The experts at N.I.R.D are aware of this requirement and all their research is tempered to give as simple a system as possible requiring minimum skilled maintenance. On the other hand certain commercial firms seem bent on selling farmers the most intricate labour saving devices and will go to great pains to substitute a gadget for a simple manual operation, forgetting that when the gadget breaks down, the day is usually Sunday and the electronics expert is probably spending the day in a traffic jam on his way to the beach!!

It must not be overlooked that the maximum possible rate of milking is still 20 cows/unit/hour no matter how sophisticated the arrangements for doing so may be.

In all my visits it was very evident that those farmers whose records and analysis sheets showed that they were making handsome profits, invariably had the simplest of systems.

A particular dairy farmer in Buckinghamshire comes to mind where specialisation had simplified management to a degree where the farmer had short working hours and yet his nett farm family income off 78 acres after 4 years was £2750 and still rising. After seeing this farm it led me to believe that the future of the smallholder need not be as bleak as it is made out, especially when expert advice from the Min of Ag is there for the taking. Another example of specialization illustrating the value of the expert advice available in U.K. was a property in Gloucestershire where a highly efficient but simple grassland/irrigation and dairy enterprise of 250 acres was producing a nett margin of £37/acre compared with the standard in that area of £13/acre.

With the problems of high cost labour it was interesting to see work done at the N.I.R.D. to reduce the labour requirements of milking to a minimum. Foreseeing the trend towards factory farming in Dairying they have built a large covered unit with cubicles for the cows on grating. Feeding of the cows was to be mechanised and automatic from porcelain stove enamel lined silos. In planning this unit the aims were:

Eliminate all manual and time consuming tasks from the cowman's routine. Thus feeding of silage and concentrates and disposal of dung were mechanised.
Maximum cows per man. This will be limited by the physical time taken for actual milking. The possibility of shift milking is anticipated.

I saw some dairies where up to 8 units were handled per man. I consider these men were exceptional and do not think the average cowman could be expected to handle this number, if due care to the cattle is expected as well.

Greatest efficiency of food conversion by offering cattle conserved fodder of the highest digestibility and dry matter content. It was not intended to be a completely conservation feeding enterprise, spring and summer grazing in top quality grass paddocks was arranged.
Reduce roof space and reduce capital costs.

I don't anticipate seeing any such schemes in Kenya dairying world for a good while yet. The capital outlay would not be justified with labour costs, cattle values and returns for products as they are. I did not see figures justifying the scheme at N.I.R.D.

Fodder Conservation

With the mechanised harvesting of grass and crops for silage and hay reaching a high degree of efficiency, emphasis is rightly turning these days to the important question of the value of the product so produced.

Conventional methods of silage making such as stack and bunkersilos with self feeding arrangements although requiring small capital outlay are wasteful to say the least. Average figures quoted for wastage under these conditions are in the region of 35% from the time of cutting to the time it has been offered to stock. In many cases the figure is higher.

Work at the Grasslands Research Institute has shown that it is possible to produce pasture of a high digestibility, up to 80%, depending on the age, stage of growth and variety. Experiments have shown that given herbage of such quality it is possible, under grazing conditions, to maintain a growth rate in young cattle of 2 lbs liveweight/day. However, and I quote, "Blaxter has pointed out that as the digestibility of fodder falls, not only does the amount eaten decrease but also the efficiency with which nutrients are used for production."

Accepting this as true, it is clear that some of the material we have been used to offering our stock is not much better than a gut fill and would necessarily have to be supplemented with expensive concentrates if we expect to realize our cows full potential or to produce liveweight gain when fed to beefers.

In the effort to improve the situation, we have now in Britain three schools of thought:

Those who see the answer in the American method, using airtight silos, made of various materials often lined with enamels or glass.
The "Vacuum Silage" fraternity whose main argument is the low cost of the method, but who haven't yet answered some important points.
Those who are waiting for a "breakthrough" and are sitting on the fence or sticking to the old methods.

Turning to 1. Impressive and effective though these silos may be, they are nevertheless very expensive. They do enable the job to be done and they do reduce wastage to a minimum but when priced with their ancillary equipment the cost per ton of silage stored is high. A 300 ton silo with its necessary tackle costs at least £2500. The interest charges alone on this type of silage works out to £4/ton. To this must be added depreciation charges and maintenance costs. Altogether quite expensive. Of course and I nearly forgot — the exchequer stands a large part of this cost — there is a subsidy. Apart from this it is an efficient system and may pay, provided careful budgeting is applied.

Now we come to the group who say that it can't pay under any circumstances. Among them are the promoters of Vacuum Silage. Without entering into the technicalities of the latter method, it has claimed for it certain distinct advantages:

(a) capital costs are low and a flexible farm policy is maintained

(b) Nutrient losses are reduced considerably, it is claimed, to the order of 5–10% only by the rapid end to respiration and a quick production of lactic acid.

The position at the moment is that lots of people have ideas on the subject but virtually no-one has any reliable information or experimental evidence. Something over 1000 vacuum stacks were made in U.K. during 1965 and indications regarding moulding of the silage once the pack is opened will be available by now. Experiments at Grasslands are in progress at the moment to answer the main question "Does evacuation do anything more than ensure the silo is completely airtight?" Evidence now shows that it may be necessary, to obtain the high qualities of palatability and minimum losses which are so desirable.

The present methods of making vacuum silage are not suited to either completely mechanised filling or feeding out. Self feeding is wasteful and uncontrolled and unless one is prepared to risk the chances of blocked intestines from cattle eating the bottom plastic sheet, it is not possible with vacuum silage as it is now made. No doubt these are merely temporary disadvantages. I suspect that airtight concrete pads may be used instead of a bottom plastic sheet. The quality and gauge of plastic used must be better than has been advised up to now. I saw several stacks whose sheets had been badly damaged by wind etc. Not good for the silage inside.

Now we come to the groups who say that it can't pay under any circumstances. Among them are the promoters of Vacuum Silage. Without entering into the technicalities of the latter method, it has claimed for it certain distinct advantages.

(a) capital costs are low and a flexible farm policy is maintained

(b) Nutrient losses are reduced considerably, it is claimed, to the order of 5–10% only by the rapid end to respiration and a quick production of lactic acid.

(3) The "breakthrough" may be on the lines of the latter system.

Whatever system develops, the combination of low losses with high nutritive value and high intake characteristics is the real test. If it can be done cheaply, so much the better.

In Kenya the principle of fodder conservation has yet to be driven home to the majority of farmers and it may be some while before such problems as digestibility and maximum intake will be of any concern to the majority of African stockowners. There are more basic problems of husbandry to be overcome yet.

In some parts of Kenya where dairying is evolving, and the coastal region comes to mind climatic influences are not conducive to high milk production. Upgraded dairy stock are a possibility. The climate is such that there is a tremendous flush of herbage at certain seasons of the year and a complete dearth at others. This gives a characteristic fluctuation in milk supply so great that it is in the order of 75% difference. My thoughts immediately go towards some system where cattle are housed throughout the year and entirely conservation fed. Silage being cut at the optimum stages, conserved to feed continually. By this means a completely consistent product is on offer to the stock and would overcome the notorious dry weather milk shortage, so well known at the coast.

Plainly it would need good management to be a success but I cannot see any great financial obstacle or technical reason why such a system should not work. I hesitate to talk about zero grazing systems since they have little to offer over conventional grazing methods.

Haymaking in Britain is as I had expected it to be — a dicey business. 1965 was a year farmers will remember. I heard one farmer say he baled his hay one afternoon and the next morning they had disappeared having floated away!

Moving from pure fodder conservation, I would like to touch on another subject which should be of interest to the Kenya farmer and which is receiving increased attention from research in Britain, namely the utilization of low quality roughages of which there is an abundance in Britain. There is nothing new about the feeding of straw to livestock nor the use of non protein nitrogen to provide a balance for high carbohydrate diets. In Kenya when one sees the advertisements for urea blocks one knows that there is a draught on the go somewhere, generally too close for comfort.

Scientific experiments are being conducted in various places in Britain and we can expect to hear before long some positive recommendations on the use of urea and ammonium acetate to balance high barley diets in cattle. Preliminary indications are that non protein nitrogen can replace conventional protein supplements in a barley diet.

However we cannot expect research workers in Britain to concern themselves with the type of low quality roughages encountered in Africa. One of the most abundant of these waste products is sisal waste which is available in large quantities in Kenya and Tanganyika. I have good reason to believe that sisal waste is palatable to stock but does not provide a production ration and more likely only provides a sub maintenance diet for cattle.

Perhaps research into this waste product is being done in Kenya. It would be of immense benefit to the present sisal producing areas if an economic method of supplementing sisal waste was devised to make it into a productive ration. In considering any supplementary feeding for beef in Kenya it must however be borne in mind that the return for beef is approx 1/3 of that in U.K. and 1/2 of what is obtained in Rhodesia. A situation which I suggest cannot last long in Kenya if the desired expansion in beef is to be achieved.

Artificial Insemination and its Application to Breed Progress

I was very generously given much time by the M.M.B A.I. Staff at Sutton Bonnington which enabled me to brush up on the latest techniques in practical insemination, being put through my paces at the Fat Stock Marketing Corporation slaughter works in Derby. It is necessary for stockmen in Africa to be well versed in practical insemination since there is no possibility of an A.I. centre providing an adequate Inseminators service in outlying areas.

In addition to this side of the process I had much time to study the collection, processing and freezing of semen, and its storage in liquid nitrogen. The simplification of the freezing method and semen storage holds good prospects for the future. The technique developed in France of the storage of semen in plastic straws has distinct practical advantages over the vacuum glass ampoule method. The development of the frozen pill of semen to be thawed out when required in a measured amount of diluent also offers great prospects. Both methods are giving very good conception rates and in the latter the main drawback at present is the problem of sire identification on the "pill."

Arising from these advances there is no reason why breeders in all parts of the Commonwealth should not be able to use the benefits of a large cattle population in Britain and the resultant progeny tested sires. With all the aid being dispensed to developing countries it is not unreasonable to suggest that a small amount of these funds could be used to provide a supply of semen from progeny tested and merit bulls with a high Contemporary Comparison to countries where it is impossible to organize an A.I. progeny testing scheme. Liquid nitrogen containers are not necessarily costly and liquid nitrogen is available in Kenya. The advantages of L.N. storage over CO₂ are very great.

Hitherto bulls at the Central Artificial Insemination Station at Kabete are not in any way proven having been bought as young bulls. Results from them can be expected to be around breed average — albeit better than the population they are working in, in most cases.

My contacts with British Semen Exports revealed that semen from the majority of tested bulls in U.K. is available for export and most bulls produce semen suitable for freezing whether in CO₂ or liquid nitrogen.

The Milk Marketing Board's progeny testing of bulls is an efficient method and whatever pedigree breeders and others in direct competition with the Board's A.I. services say, it is a positive step in the right direction and is backed by adequate funds. The selection panels and the testing of young bulls has provided much information and the method of assessment used by the Board is the Contemporary Comparison. First lactation yields of a bulls daughters are compared with the yields of heifers by other bulls, milking in the same herd at the same time. It enables results from different herds to be combined. The resulting single figure for a bull shows the average amount by which first lactation yields of his daughters differs from that of their contemporaries. The accuracy of the Contemporary Comparison depends primarily upon the number of "effective daughters" on which it is based. The greater the number of effective daughters, the more the test reflects the true worth of the bull. From this a "weighting" factor is obtained which should always be examined together with the C.C. The daughters are further inspected for other important commercial characteristics such as udder shape and teat placement, teat size and position, ease of milking, hind legs and feet and general appearance. A bull is often rejected from progressing into intended usage if he fails to please the panel on a point of conformation in his test daughters.

The emphasis on beef qualities from the Friesian breed has led to the performance testing of young bulls at Chippenham being introduced in 1955. This is providing breeders with useful data on the secondary value of their breed. Animal Breeding is a vast subject and not within the scope of this report to cover. I would like to mention some aspects of crossbreeding which are producing quicker economic results than long term selection within a breed.

The poultry industry was the first to be revolutionised and it is common knowledge now that many former breeds have virtually disappeared, replaced by hybrid and computer bred herds with specialised uses. These principles are being extended to sheep and pigs and it is not inconceivable that cattle will eventually be affected.

In the words of one of the pioneer breeders in this field "We decided that the fewer factors that we bred for, the better chance there would be of making progress. We also decided not to select for any factor unless it affected the income or profit from the animal. We drew up a simplified breeding programme."

Crossbreeding is now going apace, with the bulk of beef in Britain resulting from some cross more often than not from the Dairy herd. At one time the Channel Island breeds were losing ground to the Friesian, because of the popularity of the Friesian for producing a fast growing bullock suitable for feed lot purposes. Its cross, from the Hereford and other recognised beef breeds, commands a premium.

The advent of the Charolais has considerably changed the outlook for Channel Island breeders. Tests have shown that the crossbred calf has a very good performance. At one trial and demonstration I visited, the results from Charolais × Guernsey steers were as follows:

Metric	Result
Average age	335.1 days
Average liveweight	838.1 lbs
Daily liveweight gain	2.22 lbs
Food cost to date/lb liveweight	14.41 d
Calf cost	2/6 lb/lw

Butchers appraisal of the carcases were glowing and were of the opinion that these were just what the modern trade demanded. Yellow fat had been eliminated and was not wasteful, proportion of cuts were good. Prices now obtained for Charolais × Channel Island calves are approaching those paid for Friesian. Obviously an important source of calves is being opened up.

Cross breeding for milk has been slower in taking on. The ABRO experiments at Cold Norton with hybrids of the Jersey/Friesian and Ayrshire breeds and their various reciprocals and crosses show with little better production than the mean of breed performances can be expected. In the order of 5–10%. The main benefit from heterosis comes in the improved:

(a) Viability of calves and adults

(b) Fertility of the crossbreds is higher

Further work is being done to determine whether there is any validity to the argument that the breed of the dam is most important when making a cross. For example it is claimed that the Friesian dam × Jersey sire produces a better animal than the reciprocal. Attributed to maternal influences. The Cold Norton experiments hope to give the answer to this controversy.

Notes on Breeds for Sub-Tropics

I had the opportunity of meeting geneticists concerned with overseas breeds and also had time to read papers in the Commonwealth Bureau of Animal Breeding and Genetics in Edinburgh. Many points confirming some previously held opinions of my own.

The Sahiwal as a milk producer has been a breed which was strongly promoted by successive Kenya Governments. Having had some personal experience of Sahiwals and further discussing the matter I make the following remarks.

Except possibly at very low altitudes and under conditions of extreme nutritional stress, European Dairy Breeds are greatly superior to any pure zebu as milk producers. Crossbreds quite often have an advantage over either pure breed.

The Sahiwal has not been a success as a milk producer. It has two severe limitations:

Poor temperament
Absence of let down or absence of milk.

A great deal of effort can be wasted in trying to improve the milking qualities of a breed when these qualities do not exist in the first place. Genetic improvement of milk yield in a closed population is at best a slow process. With straight line selection for milk yield alone and making full use of progeny testing the maximum rate of improvement that can be expected will be about 1% per annum. If effort is made under a mass selection programme, results in one trait will be disappointing. For this reason I think the Sahiwal can be made better use of as a beef breed and as a sire of crossbred cattle for particular circumstances.

Under competitive commercial conditions of Dairy production in Kenya, it is unwise for prospective dairy farmers to embark on a herd programme which would contain more than only a small amount of Zebu, especially if replacements are to be home bred. The culling percentage of heifers with poor let down, temperament or complete absence of milk is exceptionally high if Zebu's are used. Further, no reliable prediction as to numbers in milk can be made because of this characteristic. Without a doubt there are many cases with large percentages of zebu milking, but little is heard of the numbers that have fallen by the wayside. Figures obtained from the Government Sahiwal herd show that up to 40% of first calf heifers are culled for "no milk".

The solution for the commercial milk producer lies entirely in the provision of an improved environment and the use of European Dairy breeds.

The only justification for using Zebu or Zebu crosses for milk production is where human subsistence is the primary requirement and under conditions where the cattle will be subjected to nutritional stress. The qualities of Zebu breeds to survive such conditions is unquestioned. This is not commercial dairying, however it is an important aspect to be considered in Kenya. The sheer necessity for adequate food supplies in certain areas precludes the commercial outlook and it is necessary to consider what improvement can be made with materials available at present to improve the production of cattle kept in these chronic famine areas.

It would be desirable to introduce cattle with the following points.

An ability to live and produce a certain amount of milk under conditions of nutritional stress, pure European breeds are unsuitable.
A higher milk potential than the cattle already in these areas.
A better carcase value.

It is clear that this cannot be achieved if peasants are expected to rear their own stock, therefore this part of the management must be expertly done. How and where these cattle be introduced and what will be their breed and their source?

We will start with the sources of cattle. There are in Kenya many herds of well run exotic dairy breeds, as well as a Sahiwal stud and large numbers of well run Boran cattle.

Let us assume that the half bred as a result of the cross made from a zebu with an exotic dairy animal is as near to the type of animal which would suit these conditions as is possible. Any other grade on back crosses only complicates the issue. Given the right incentive, both Boran breeders and purebred European dairy herd owners could produce large numbers of the desired crossbred heifers or calves. The male of the cross would not be unacceptable as beef except in the case of Channel Island breeds. Crossbred heifers from these breeds could be obtained not from crossing with Channel Island onto the Boran herds, but Boran bulls in Dairy herds.

Provided the source is established we move onto the next problem — that of rearing and distributing the in calf heifers.

Until we can eliminate a middle man and the principle of "flying herds" is firmly established in the developing areas, it appears that government backed rearing and distributing farms will have to handle the initial introductions. Thus cross-bred stock can be reared and held on Government farms until it is required.

How to introduce these cattle to the settlements and how to maintain the principles behind the idea is the most difficult part. In the past any livestock improvement scheme has come unstuck whenever the question of replacements for the foundation stock arises. Inexperienced farmers are quite incapable of successfully rearing heifers and keeping them through their unproductive years. Inevitably a stunted beast results, quite useless as a producing cow. For this reason the principle of "flying herds" is probably the best way of educating African stockmen to the more difficult task of breeding replacements.

There has got to be legislation to assist any such scheme to be a success or it would go off half cocked. The most important points will be:

To introduce bull licencing and to control the progeny of such bulls that are licenced.
Strict veterinary regulation, vigorously enforced.
De stocking of areas. An exchange system could be devised where in calf crossbreds could be obtained by exchanging for poor quality native stock.

The progeny of the cross-bred cows would have to be careful controlled and their rearing would have to be undertaken in the same way as the parent stock. The calves being bought from the new owners. This F2 generation would be 3/4 European and suitable only for selected circumstances.

Sufficient A.I. services would be necessary.

To avert failure such a scheme would have to be initiated on a pilot scale first, staffed by men fully aware of the principles. Suitable incentives would be marked out for those Africans partaking in the scheme.

I reiterate that if cross-breds are indiscriminately introduced into reserves and allowed to be mated to any bull and the progeny retained, it will be waste effort.

When choosing the right exotic breed to cross onto Boran, due consideration must be given to the beef qualities of the bull calves so produced. Personal experience has shown that the Friesian produces a bullock suitable for ranching under most conditions.

Notes on Selection with Reference to the Boran in Kenya

This breed has been in the hands of skilled cattlemen for a good many years and it has unquestionably came a long way. Whether its high standards have come about largely by improved environment and management or by skillful selection is a subject which cannot be broached without raising the hackles of the men at the helm.

I would say however that the majority of commercial improvement has come about as a result of improved environment. The breeders have largely culled to standardise their breed and eliminated the obvious unprofitable strains. The real task has yet to come.

There is now a recognisable breed and this is very creditable especially from the aspect of sales of breeding stock, what does appear to be lacking however and this concerns more than one breed and breed society is an appreciation of the part that modern scientific breeding approach could achieve. The Boran will be competing in a beef market which is largely dictated by a housewife who has never heard of the breed, neither would she care if she had. She is becoming more and more concerned with obtaining a piece of meat in a plastic packet which she can pop in the oven half an hour before hubby and the kids come home. What is true in U.K. will eventually apply in Africa, and the trends in market requirements there should be watched for at some stage Boran beef has to compete.

In Kenya it is obviously impractical and largely unnecessary to devise large scale progeny and bull performance testing schemes, but the breed would benefit from the adoption of more objective standards for measuring performance and base their selections on these measurements. To achieve this the advice of a consultant geneticist with experience would be required to devise breeding plans. In any breeding plan the small number of herds which control the improvement of the breed must be the centre of main attention.

The early formative years of a breed are most important and the work of Breed Societies to promote their breed, provide standards, promote sales and to prevent "pirate" sales of stock using the good name and to generally protect the interests of breeders are very important. There comes a time however when the operation should cease to be looked upon as a grading up process with the aim of producing pedigree animals. Commercial objectives should take priority. If these can be combined so much the better.

One can argue indefinitely on the subject of what economic merit may be. Pedigree men will say that the price obtained for breeding stock is what counts. Others will state that fertility, milk production and meat as applied to the individual animal, are all important. On closer examination it will be seen that output per acre, pen man and per £100 capital invested are the real criteria. As far as the Boran is concerned it is no use ignoring this fact and ranching areas cannot gain indefinitely judge their merit on results shown by individual animals performances on the hook.

The policy must take into account the return to capital. It is clearly related to the efficiency of food conversion and carcase quality.

In conclusion I quote an eminent geneticist:

"Some people take the view that an animal has many important traits features and that when making selections for breeding it is necessary to take into account all of them. Before you accept this seemingly reasonable view, I suggest you consider these points. Firstly are there any good grounds for supposing a neglected character will deteriorate? Secondly are all characters to be used, inherited? Thirdly would it not be better to improve an important character quickly by concentrating on it. If in the end breeders opt for a complex specification we must reconcile ourselves to very slow changes."

End.