The Role of Livestock

Livestock are an important and sometimes overlooked element of the livelihood strategies of the poor. As much as 70 percent of the rural poor depend on livestock to some degree. Livestock holdings are diverse and include cattle, goats, sheep, pigs, poultry, horses, camels, yaks, and llamas. An estimated 600 million poor people, including 150 million landless poor, own livestock (Delgado et al. 1999; IFAD et al. 2004:9,10; Thornton et al. 2002).

Livestock are a crucial source of financial capital for the rural poor. For many, livestock ownership is the only form of savings available. In fact, for pastoralists and often for poor women, livestock are the most important fungible asset they own. Livestock provide a critical reserve against emergencies and decrease vulnerability to financial shocks from ill health, crop failures, and other risks. They yield direct benefits in the form of food, wool, or hides, and can raise farm productivity by providing manure and draught power (PPLPI 2003:1). In a comparative study of poor livestock keepers in Bolivia, India, and Kenya, households in all three countries ranked livestock above business and housing as their best investment (Heffernan et al. 2002 in IFAD et al. 2004:14).

In 40 percent of Kenya’s districts, livestock represent more than a quarter of total household income (Thornton et al. 2002:75). In rural Nepal, they contribute 9-14 percent of production for home consumption, and are even more important as a source of cash income. For Nepal’s isolated mountain communities, livestock are among the few items exchanged for cash, constituting nearly half of total farm cash income (Maltsoglou and Taniguchi 2004:24-25). Studies have found that livestock generally contribute significantly more to the income stream of poor households—particularly the income controlled by women—than to the incomes of those living above the poverty line (Thornton et al. 2002:75; Heffernan 2001:60; Delgado et al. 1999).

The benefits from livestock can even extend to those who don’t own livestock—often the poorest members of the community. Non-owners are sometimes able to obtain milk, dung for fuel, or help with ploughing of fields. These may be given free of charge from livestock owners, or at greatly reduced prices (Shackleton et al. 2000b:53; Shackleton 2005).

Perhaps not surprisingly, livestock figure prominently in the movement of households into and out of poverty. In a study of household poverty dynamics in 20 communities in Kenya, researchers found that more than 40 percent of families that escaped poverty did so by diversifying their farm income, primarily by acquiring livestock (Kristjanson et al. 2004:12). When the poor have access to markets, livestock can serve as a source of collateral, giving households access to other forms of capital and opening pathways for further income diversification (IFAD et al. 2004:3).

The role of livestock in rural communities extends significantly beyond their economic value. Most notably, livestock play a prominent role in social and cultural relationships. Loans and gifts of livestock contribute to family and community ties and often play a central role in cultural traditions such as weddings and funerals. Owning livestock can also bring better nutrition to some of the most vulnerable groups, including women and children (IFAD et al. 2004:19-20).

Despite the benefits, livestock rearing is also risky for the poor. Production risks—from harsh weather to predators to lack of proper veterinary care—are greater among low-income producers (IFAD et al. 2004:14). Loss of livestock holdings can have a long-term impact on a family far beyond the value of the individual animals, because herds generally take such a long time to build up. Catastrophic losses from natural disasters or having livestock stolen can therefore have a devastating effect on family finances. Even intentional loss, such as use of livestock for funeral feasts, can be hard on the poor. In western Kenya, slaughter of livestock for funerals has been identified as a major cause of falling into poverty (Kristjanson et al. 2004:iv).