A financial cost-benefit analysis of the implementation of a small-camp system in ostrich farming to allow veld restoration

[摘要] ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Before the ostrich industry started in the Klein Karoo region of South Africa in 1863, the veldwas used mainly for large and small stock production. Returns per hectare (ha) from largeand small stock production are low due to the low carrying capacity of the veld in this region.However, when the veld is utilised predominantly to provide space for breeding ostrichessustained mainly by lucerne-based feed supplements, the limited-feed production capacity nolonger determines the long-term stocking rate. The returns, per ha, from ostrich productioncan therefore be much higher than from sheep, goats and cattle. This has resulted in highostrich stocking rates, which in turn, has caused degradation to most of the veld to a greateror lesser extent. Driven by a personal conviction to manage the veld sustainably, as well as bya fear of environmental damage connotations for ostrich leather products, which could restrictmarket access, ostrich farmers in the Klein Karoo, represented by the South African OstrichBusiness Chamber (SAOBC), increasingly place an emphasis on veld restoration.The various phases of ostrich production are breeding and hatching eggs to produce day-oldchicks, rearing chicks, raising birds, and the final phase of weight addition to slaughter. Thephase that is considered in this study is the production of day-old chicks. There are twosystems that can be used for producing day-old ostrich chicks, namely, the flock breedingsystem and the small-camp system. Shifting from the flock breeding system to the smallcampsystem will enable the farmer to practice genetic selection. This switch from the flockbreeding system to the small-camp system requires the farmer to invest in fencing material.The SAOBC requested a study to determine whether the expected private benefits frommoving breeding ostriches to small camps in order to free up the large veld camps for veldrestoration would justify investing in these small camps. If this investment is not financiallyjustified, the veld restoration will have to be financed via payment for ecosystem services.Both passive and active veld restoration techniques are considered in this study. Passiverestoration requires the farmer to invest in fencing material needed for the erection of thesmall camps. Active restoration requires the farmer to invest not only in fencing material, butalso in soil manipulation and seeding.The main aim of this study is to find out if the private (financial) benefits from the switch tosmall camps can compensate for fencing costs, without the cost of active restoration, or if theswitch to small camps can compensate for fencing costs with the cost of active restoration.Typical farm models were developed for this purpose, and the results showed that the privatebenefits compensate for the investment cost of fencing material used for passive restorationas well as for restoration of 10% of the veld that is heavily degraded. When the full cost ofactive restoration of the moderately degraded veld (30%) was added, the private benefitscould not compensate for the full restoration cost.

[发布机构] Stellenbosch University