The donkey as a draught power resource in smallholder farming in semi-aridwestern Zimbabwe 1. Live weight and food and water requirements

Citation
Em. Nengomasha et al., The donkey as a draught power resource in smallholder farming in semi-aridwestern Zimbabwe 1. Live weight and food and water requirements, ANIM SCI, 69, 1999, pp. 297-304
Citations number
29
Categorie Soggetti
Animal Sciences
Journal title
ANIMAL SCIENCE
ISSN journal
13577298 → ACNP
Volume
69
Year of publication
1999
Part
2
Pages
297 - 304
Database
ISI
SICI code
1357-7298(199910)69:<297:TDAADP>2.0.ZU;2-8
Abstract
Three experiments were undertaken to assess the Zimbabwean donkey. In the f irst study, 191 male and 144 female working donkeys from Matopos, Nkayi and Matobo districts were weighed. Age, sex and coat colour were recorded and heart girth, umbilical girth, body length and height were measured. There w ere no differences (P > 0.05) in live weight, 142 and 142 kg, heart girth 1 15 and 115 cm, body length 89 and 90 cm and height 105 and 105 cm between m ales and females. This suggests that draught potential might be similar bet ween the sexes. Heart girth was the best single predictor of live weight: l ive weight (kg) = heart girth (cm)(2.83)/4786 (R-2 = 0.86). Donkeys were si milar in size to others in Africa. In the second study, the voluntary dry-m atter intake (PA II) of a poor quality hay was measured for 35 days in nine male (mean live weight 150 kg) and nine female donkeys (142 kg) allocated to one of three treatment groups: wafer available ad libitum, or given ever y 48 h, or every 72 h.:There were significant differences in daily wafer (P < 0.001) and DMIs (P < 0.05): 8.5, 4.9 and 5.1 l and 3.1, 2.8 and 2.7 kg f or the three treatment groups, respectively However even with restricted ac cess to wafer, donkeys maintained a relatively high DMI. In the third exper iment a 3 x 3 Latin square was designed with three teams of four male donke ys each, either working (5 h/day)/no access to food (5 h/day); not working/ no access to food (5 h/day) or not working/access to food 24 h/day, for 63 days. For working and non-working donkeys, there were no significant differ ences (P > 0.05) in DMI, DM apparent digestibility and mean retention time (MRT) of hay. Time of access to food did not influence DMI. The apparent la ck of response was attributed primarily to the poor quality of the hay.