Classification and characterisation of livestock production systems in northern Tanzania

Abstract

25Livestock keepers in sub-Saharan Africa face a growing range of pressures, including climate 26 change, land loss, restrictive policies, and population increase. Widespread adaptation in 27 response to such pressures can lead to the emergence of new, non-traditional typologies of 28 livestock production. 29We sought to characterise livestock production systems in northern Tanzania, a region 30 undergoing rapid social, economic, and environmental change. Questionnaire and spatial data 31 were collected from 404 livestock-keeping households in 21 villages in Arusha and Manyara 32 Regions in 2016. Multiple factor analysis and hierarchical cluster analysis were used to classify 33 households into livestock production systems based on household-level characteristics. 34Indicators of vulnerability, including household-level reports of hunger, illness, livestock loss, 35 land loss and crop losses were compared between production systems.

Peste des petits ruminants Virus Transmission Scaling and Husbandry Practices That Contribute to Increased Transmission Risk: An Investigation among Sheep, Goats, and Cattle in Northern Tanzania

“…The lowest AIC among GLMMs with no random effect, and random effects at the village, sub-village, and household level was for the model with sub-village as a random effect (Table S4). The addition of the smallholder classification to this study's dataset based on [26] did not enhance predictability of the variation patterns in FOI or PPR seroprevalence seen at finer geographic scales ( Figures S9 and S10).…”

“…In a further refinement of the distinction between pastoral and agropastoral households regarding growing crops, de Glanville et al [26] used multiple factor and hierarchical cluster analysis to classify Tanzanian households into three clusters that broadly mapped onto conventional definitions of agropastoral, pastoral, and smallholder systems. There have been many proposed approaches to defining production systems [43], but these approaches have been changing over time (reviewed in [26]).…”

“…In a further refinement of the distinction between pastoral and agropastoral households regarding growing crops, de Glanville et al [26] used multiple factor and hierarchical cluster analysis to classify Tanzanian households into three clusters that broadly mapped onto conventional definitions of agropastoral, pastoral, and smallholder systems. There have been many proposed approaches to defining production systems [43], but these approaches have been changing over time (reviewed in [26]). This study identifies possible evidence that agropastoral systems may be too broad of a definition at a household level ( Figure S2) and possibly sub-village level as there is a larger number of outliers in PPRV seroprevalence, suggesting that some other household characteristic or husbandry practice is missing from traditional definitions.…”

“…Blood samples for the cross-sectional serosurvey and household questionnaires were collected as part of the “Social, Economic, and Environmental Drivers of Zoonoses” (SEEDZ) study. The SEEDZ study data collection, data cleaning, and laboratory testing methods have been described in detail previously [ 11 , 21 , 26 ]. The relevant methods are summarized below.…”

“…An alternate classification system with smallholder as a third category, matching that of de Glanville et al [26], was used to explore seroprevalence variation and species pair force of infection relationships at the sub-village and household scales. In that work, factor analysis for mixed data (FAMD) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) were used to identify three distinct clusters which were comparable to agropastoral, pastoral, and smallholder systems.…”