Extensive Production Systems

In extensive production systems, buffalo are free-ranging and occur at natural densities, with or without the ability to migrate between natural resources and without managerial or veterinary intervention, as seen through most of the range states in Africa. Wildlife in extensive production systems is managed to be utilized for ecotourism and/or regulated hunting (Bothma and Du Toit, Reference Bothma, du and Du Toit2016).

Community-Based Natural Resources Management and Multi-Species Hunting

The introduction of community-based natural resources management (CBNRM) in the early 1980s was perceived as a necessary intervention to benefit wildlife and communities (Child et al., Reference Child, Musengezi, Parent and Child2012). Where CBNRM is implemented properly, wildlife can be used sustainably as an economic engine in communal lands while simultaneously encouraging conservation (Child et al., Reference Child, Musengezi, Parent and Child2012). For example, the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) is an example of a CBNRM programme that was designed and implemented by the Government of Zimbabwe in 1989 to stimulate the long-term development, management and sustainable use of natural resources in the country’s communal farming areas adjacent to state-protected areas. Thus, under CAMPFIRE, extensive natural wildlife areas were actively managed by local communities in order to reduce unsustainable exploitation of wildlife and human–wildlife conflicts, while also providing local communities with conservation benefits and incentives (Muboko and Murindagomo, Reference Muboko and Murindagomo2014). A major shift in the business model was the sharing of benefits inclusive of bushmeat derived from organized trophy hunting of multiple species of wild animals based on a participatory and sustainable quota setting system.

In 2022, a total of 58 of 60 districts in Zimbabwe were under CAMPFIRE programmes with a total area of 50,000 km² (12 per cent of Zimbabwe’s surface area), which supports approximately 200,000 households (Machena et al., Reference Machena, Mwakiwa and Gandiwa2017; Campfire Association Zimbabwe, 2022). On average, CAMPFIRE generates about €1.85 million per year with trophy hunting, constituting the major source of revenue while other sources of revenue include ecotourism and lease fees (Machena et al., Reference Machena, Mwakiwa and Gandiwa2017). Thus, under CAMPFIRE, local communities realize both direct and indirect benefits from the sustainable management of local natural resources (Figure 13.2). The buffalo is identified as one of the ‘Big Five’ species, is valuable for both meat and trophy hunting and is a high-value species for photographic tourism. Local communities are tasked with conducting anti-poaching patrols and general resource monitoring in CAMPFIRE areas. Studies on CAMPFIRE show that wildlife habitats are being maintained well and have created conditions for increased wildlife populations outside protected areas (Gandiwa et al., Reference Gandiwa, Heitkönig and Lokhorst2013; Musiwa and Mhlanga, Reference Musiwa and Mhlanga2020). Nonetheless, there has been some criticism of the CAMPFIRE experience (e.g. Dzingirai, Reference Dzingirai2003). Elsewhere, similar CBNRM programmes (e.g. Botswana and Namibia) have led to enhanced conservation, benefits for local communities and recovery of wildlife populations (Mogomotsi et al., Reference Mogomotsi, Stone, Mogomotsi and Dube2020; Stoldt et al., Reference Stoldt, Göttert, Mann and Zeller2020).

Figure 13.2 Flow of direct and indirect benefits from CAMPFIRE programmes (Tchakatumba et al., Reference Tchakatumba, Gandiwa and Mwakiwa2019). *RDC refers to Rural District Council.

Source: with permission of Taylor & Francis.

Semi-Extensive Production Systems: Game Ranches

A semi-extensive production system is a natural area that is large enough for self-sustaining wildlife populations to be managed, that is a game ranch or a national, provincial or private park or reserve (Cloete et al., Reference Cloete, van der Merwe and Saayman2015). It can be fenced or unfenced, but humans need to intervene to provide either water, supplementary and/or complementary feeding, control of parasites, control of predation or the provision of health care (Cloete et al., Reference Cloete, van der Merwe and Saayman2015). Camp sizes (subportion of a game ranch/reserve) vary from several hundred to several thousand hectares depending on the habitat, climate, environment, other herbivore species, topography of the land and the nature and scope of the business. Every production system is unique, with specific ecological and animal management parameters addressed scientifically and professionally by experts. Game ranches may be considered as an innovative, sustainable form of agriculture or animal husbandry where an important outcome is the rewilding of an area.

Buffalo ranching often occurs in semi-extensive multi-species production systems as one element of the herbivory with or without natural predation. Stocking rates may exceed the natural carrying capacity of the rangeland; hence, in such cases, the need to supply supplemental feed during the dry season. Without careful rangeland management, there is subsequently a risk of ecological deterioration of natural habitat conditions. Buffalo ranching is often practiced on marginal agricultural land that was formerly severely degraded due to monocropping or domestic stock farming, and there is a need over time for sophisticated habitat rehabilitation programmes to be implemented (Chapter 14).

Such systems also require the management of sex and age structure by (i) limiting the number of mature breeding bulls (selective per individual animal profiling), normally 1 bull per 20–40 mature cows; (ii) removing surplus young bulls, mostly allowing only one bachelor group of <10, or complete removal of all young bulls, to limit social confrontation and fighting with the usually very valuable breeding bull; and (iii) removing and/or replacing post-age and non-productive females from the population.

Its reputation has given the buffalo the status of being recognized worldwide as one of the ‘Big Five’. The buffalo is the most dangerous of all African game species, especially if wounded or solitary. Its economic value has been further enhanced (Figure 13.3) by veterinary restrictions that prevent its translocation due to the danger of spreading disease. Consequently, the captive breeding of disease-free buffalo in semi-extensive confinement has become a lucrative business, but one which must be approached properly to ensure success. There was a boom in prices after the worldwide economic crises of 2008, reaching a record high in 2017 (Figure 13.3), followed by a fall to more normal pricing trends during 2018–2019.

Figure 13.3 Auction prices of live breeding buffalo bulls over time and illustrating the value initially placed by purchasers on buffalo of East African origin for reasons discussed in the section dealing with production of buffalo with large horn size, below. East African buffalo, formerly recognized as a subspecies, is phenotypically 12 per cent larger in body size, 10–20 cm higher shoulder height, with greater horn spread, lesser curve-drop and smaller bosses, than the southern African buffalo. East African buffalo was introduced into the South African production systems adding specific value market traits.

© Deon Furstenburg.

Figure 13.4 Horizon, the most expensive African buffalo bull ever bred so far, was sold at an auction for €10.8 million. Horizon was bred by Jacques and Caroline Malan of Lumarie. According to the SCI method (following the external curve of the horns, in inches), he measures an impressive 55 6/8".

© Nyumbu Game.

Intensive Production Systems: Game Farms

Intensive wildlife production systems occur in small fenced areas where wild animals are intensively managed for the production of meat, hides and live animals. Buffalo farming is also sometimes practiced intensively in small camps on game farms, mainly to produce highly priced animals for live sales, that is specific disease-free and specifically selected for phenotypes (e.g. body size, horn size and shape) of trophy buffalo (Figures 13.5 and 13.6; Bothma and Du Toit, Reference Tambling, Venter, Toit, Child, Child, Roxburgh, Do Linh San, Raimondo and Davies-Mostert2016). A camp is fenced off to more closely manage rare and valuable animals that cannot move freely. These small camps vary in size from 5 ha pens to 80 ha camps. As a result of the small surface areas of the camps, daily supplement feeding, or even a complete feed, is provided all year round, the ratio depending on the camp size and quantity (biomass) and quality (nutritional contents) of the grass production. The animal load in the camps exceeds natural vegetative carrying capacity generally by two- to threefold or more. One mature bull (selected by its animal and genetic profile) and 10–40 mature cows depending on the specific situation are usually kept as a herd in a camp. As a result of socio-spatial restrictions, only one bull is kept and all male progeny are removed to a different camp before reaching sexual maturity and the risk of intersocial confrontation, that is fighting. However, because of the recent dramatic decline in prices attained for buffalo and due to the cost of management, feed, veterinary services and medication in these intensive systems, the truly intensive breeding facilities have begun to turn more to semi-intensive methods of ranching.

Figure 13.5 Aerial view of a 460-ha intensified multi-camp buffalo production system in savanna habitat with centred pens for handling, supplement feeding and rotation of stocking between camps. Optimal habitat management entitles (i) a 2-camp system per buffalo herd and rotated every 8 months, or (ii) a 3-camp system per herd and rotated every 4 months.

(Furstenburg, Reference Furstenburg2017a)

Figure 13.6 Example outlay of a semi-extensive buffalo production camp system (2-camps, on average 230 ha each, per breeding herd, including two free-roaming areas >4,000 ha each for surplus animals) constructed per vegetation survey map in arid Kalahari savanna habitat.

(Furstenburg, Reference Furstenburg2017b)

Live Sales of Breeding Animals

Many game ranchers took the opportunity to breed game animals for live sales. Most of these specialized in specific so-called rare species, for example bontebok, black wildebeest, sable antelope, roan antelope. Others specialized in specific, sought-after characteristics such as buffalo and sable with trophy-quality horns and body conformation. Yet others focused on multiplying colour variants that occur naturally but rarely in nature, such as black impala, golden wildebeest, etc. The breeding, sale and translocation of these animals resulted in the rewilding of marginal conventional agricultural land that was converted into game ranches. Today, this market segment is less lucrative than at its summit in 2017 but is still thriving.

Non-Consumptive ‘Ecotourism’/Wildlife-Viewing Tourism

Non-consumptive tourism in the form of wildlife-viewing tourism can also be regarded as a production system where the product or service is a photographic, educational or recreational safari sold to clients who buy a period of time spent in nature to watch fauna and flora including buffalo. Buffalo, as one of the ‘Big Five’ and with a reputation of being dangerous, are highly prized by wildlife-viewing tourists. With appropriate management, both consumptive and non-consumptive tourism can be conducted in the same area to increase and diversify the value of the ecosystem service.

Consumptive Tourism/Hunting Tourism = Sustainable Utilization

By definition, hunting tourism harvests a very low percentage of individuals within populations, old males or excess animals only, with the ecological and economic objectives of (i) conserving a buffalo population and its habitats through sustainable hunting and (ii) sustaining the hunting enterprise as well as the ranch. The trophy-hunting model aims to produce large trophies, while the sport-hunting model aims to offer fair chase hunts to tourist hunters who are more interested in the quest than in the trophy.

These buffalo-hunting production systems operate over large to very large areas where the buffalo densities appear at their natural levels, which are low compared to intensive systems. In all of the countries where buffalo tourism hunting occurs, hunting areas are unfenced open range extending in size from between 50,000 and 300,000 ha. South Africa, where buffalo are hunted in fenced hunting areas of smaller but still physically substantial sizes such as a few thousand hectares, is an exception. Given the demand and value realized by these forms of buffalo hunting, hunting buffalo for meat in these semi-extensive systems is rare, in contrast with the hunting of more common, less expensive game species (Chapter 16).

Animal Products

Game meat is considered a delicacy in many parts of the world where it is in demand for its rarity and its health benefits, such as high protein and low fat content. There are specialist harvesters who harvest excess animals for the purpose of supplying specialist game meat processors. The jurisprudence with respect to the South African Meat Safety Act 40, 2000 still needs (after >12 years of negotiations) to be amended to ensure that game meat can reach its true potential as a source of good, healthy, natural protein.

Many different curios are manufactured, formally and informally, from many parts of carcasses used for trophies and meat, including from skins (leather goods such as skin floor mats, shoes, handbags and belts, even furniture coverings), horns (door handles, lamps, wall decorations), bones (carved salt and pepper cellars, knife handles, lamp stands), etc.

The Buffalo in South Africa

In South Africa, the game ranching industry was born with the promulgation of the Stock Theft Act in South Africa in 1991, which confers ownership of game to the owner of the land so long as the land is adequately fenced. It got a further growth boost in 1996 when the new South African Constitution was adopted; Section 24 of this constitution recognizes the principle of the sustainable use of natural resources in South Africa.

The 2008 economic crisis played a further role with investors seeking different ways to invest their money. At its summit in 2015/2017, 8,000–10,000 game ranches covered almost 20 million ha (i.e. 14 per cent of the national estate, an area 2.2 times larger than the formally protected areas of the country). Many game ranches were established on marginal land, that is farmland with low agricultural production potential. Others were established on degraded agricultural farmland that was previously occupied by monocultures of domestic stock and/or crops such as maize (Cloete et al., Reference Cloete, van der Merwe and Saayman2015), thus rewilding and converting former farms into wildlife-based enterprises.

Sustainable use as a form of conservation was at the beginnings of a massive private and privately funded ‘rewilding’ of the country. This brought about a major turnaround in the numbers of many endangered species, as well as in the ‘ownership profile’ of animals in the country. As can be seen from Table 13.1, the numbers of species, including endangered species, are much higher on privately owned game ranches compared to state land.

The same successful contribution has been made by private owners on private land to the survival of buffalo in South Africa. Table 13.2 indicates the number of buffalo in national and provincial parks versus game ranches as well as their disease status. There are only 645 disease-free buffalo in state parks compared with 75,000 disease-free buffalo on private ranches.

Legal Status of Buffalo in South Africa

The South African Government Gazette No. 42464 dated 17 May 2019 amended table 7 of the Animal Improvement Act (Act no. 62 of 1998) and now lists 32 new wild animal species, including 24 indigenous mammals (e.g. the African buffalo), to provide for the breeding, identification and utilization of genetically superior animals to improve the production and performance of animals in the interest of the Republic. By declaring these wild animals as landrace breeds (in table 7 of the regulations), the Act typically provides for landrace breeds to be bred and ‘genetically improved’ to obtain superior domesticated animals with enhanced production and performance. Similarly, provision is made for the Breeders Association to lay claim to the breed and to establish specific breed standards for animals to be included in stud books. Animals declared as landrace breeds can also be used for genetic manipulation, embryo harvesting, in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfers.

Numerous concerns about the new legislation have been raised, including from scientists, over negative genetic consequences, ecological and economic risks, as well as direct conflict with other biodiversity laws in South Africa (e.g. IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group, 2015; IUCN, WCC 2016; Somers et al., Reference Somers, Walters and Measey2020). However, many if not all of these concerns could be mitigated by the Code of Conduct of the game breeder association (Wildlife Ranching South Africa), which intends to become the administrative and implementing agent under this legislation.

Macroeconomics

On the 20 million hectares occupied by game ranches, an income stream of €1.2 billion (ZAR 20 billion; €1 = ZAR 16.31) is generated annually, resulting in numerous decent jobs and outperforming the national economy (Oberem and Oberem, Reference Oberem and Oberem2016).

Surveys of game ranch usage in South Africa (Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Child and Lindsey2020) revealed important facts about the benefits of private game ranching. Eighty per cent of private ranches utilized some form of consumptive sustainable use, with 5 per cent of the total land area covered by these private properties utilized for intensive breeding of rare species or colour variants. While profitability varied greatly between the properties, they produced an average return on investment (ROI) of 0.068 and employed more people at higher wages than equivalent domestic livestock operations. From the survey, it was concluded that the South African model could be a suitable option for other African countries seeking sustainable land-use alternatives.

A further survey (Taylor et al., Reference Taylor, Lindsey and Nicholson2021) assessed how the wildlife ranching sector (including intensive and semi-extensive) contributes to the conservation of herbivores. It concluded that individual ranches had a mean of 15.0 (±4.8) species, 1.9 (±1.5) threatened species and 3.6 (±3.1) extralimital species per property. In comparison to 54 state Protected Areas, wildlife ranches had significantly higher species richness, more threatened species but also more extralimital species, with total herbivore numbers estimated to be as many as 7.5 million. The report concluded that private game ranching in South Africa represents one of the few examples on earth where indigenous mammal populations are thriving and demonstrating how sustainable use can lead to rewilding.

Nel (Reference Nel2021) reported that 50 per cent of game ranches obtain an income from hunting, with hunting being the main income stream for 30 per cent of these ranches. Of these game ranches, 5 per cent conduct photographic tourism and 52 per cent are engaged in all four of the economic activity pillars. Table 13.3 indicates the income obtained from the economic activity pillars on game ranches.

In South Africa, buffalo was the number one income-generating species in 2016 (North-West University, 2017; Table 13.4), although it does not appear on the list of the top ten most hunted species. This is an outstanding demonstration of a high-value species that produces high income with a small number of harvested individuals.

Basics of the Game Ranching Technology

In general, smaller properties require far more management inputs than larger ones where the size, diversity and lower density levels of animals allow for less close oversight and interventions.

Infrastructure

Fences around game farms in South Africa are regulated by law. To own wild animals the property is required to have a Certificate of Adequate Enclosure (CoAE), which is issued by the Department of Environmental Affairs. The specifications (height, number of stands, etc.) are dictated by the law. In order to introduce and release African buffalo onto the property, a permit (WR number for the property) is required from Veterinary Services. Properties with buffalo also have specific minimum fencing requirements. Fences are not generally electrified, they are so usually only when very valuable animals are kept in small camps (<80 ha), and this to keep aggressive bulls in adjacent camps from fighting and to prevent predation of the calves.

In order for any buffalo to be moved from one property to another, both properties need to be approved and registered (WR numbers) by Veterinary Services, the animals have to be tested for the four controlled diseases, namely FMD, corridor disease (i.e. theileriosis), bovine brucellosis/contagious abortion (CA) and bovine tuberculosis (bTB). Permits must then be issued by the Department of Environmental Affairs in the provinces involved (two if moving the animals from one province to the other).

Bomas, or small, sturdily built camps of 1 ha or less, are not often used. When they are, it is mainly only for temporary housing, for example when holding animals while waiting for disease test results and permits (no animals may be moved without permits, see above), while in quarantine and/or for adaptation purposes to new farms in new and different geographic areas (Figures 13.7 and 13.8).

Figure 13.7 Buffalo in boma.

© Q. Strauss – MLP Media.

Figure 13.8 Buffalo in boma.

© J. Malan.

The sectoral focus that is the main economic driver and the size of the game ranch determine the need and type of water provision and/or water facilities provided. The biggest ranches would most likely rely mainly on natural water resources and sources such as rivers, dams and wetlands with perhaps (as is seen even in the 2 million ha Kruger National Park) some additional artificial drinking reservoirs and troughs to supplement the resource and ensure better utilization of the available habitat (pasture). At the other extreme, smaller farms and camps may rely entirely on such artificial sources.

Genetic Perspective of Buffalo Ranching

In South Africa, all buffalo are in fenced areas, either on private game ranches or National or Provincial Protected Areas. Similarly, veterinary fences and national boundaries in many cases prevent the migration and free movement of buffalo. This has created separate genetic pockets in regions, countries, reserves and private ranches. Given the earlier genetic bottlenecks the African buffalo has suffered, namely the great rinderpest epidemic, and hunting and veterinary controls, this further genetic isolation is of great concern. Private game ranchers, however, have by the nature of their businesses traded and moved animals, in particular bulls, from farm to farm, a practice of metapopulation species management. The purpose was and is twofold, namely to (i) mitigate against inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity and (ii) enhance the quality of the animals on a property by being healthy specimens of the typical buffalo in line with the descriptions recorded by Skinner and Chimimba (Reference Skinner and Chimimba2005).

A study of 4,000 buffalo from 26 private ranches (Greyling et al., Reference Greyling, Furstenburg and van Hooft2013) revealed that 11 ranches had a genetic diversity 3 per cent lower, and nine ranches had a genetic diversity greater than that of Kruger National Park. The latter indicates the enhancement obtained from metapopulation outbreeding because of frequent trading between private populations. In comparison, relative heterozygosity of private production populations ranges from 1.05 to 0.7 (disease-free) compared to protected conservancy-based populations of (i) Kruger National Park = 1 (diseased, meaning with the four main diseases cited above, that is bTB, CA, FMD and theleiriosis), (ii) Hluhluwe–iMfolozi = 0.85 (diseased), (iii) Addo = 0.65 (disease-free) and St Lucia Estuary = 0.62 (diseased) (Greyling, Reference Greyling2017).

Metapopulation macro-genetic management by private production systems could not only enhance, but also restore historically depleted genetic diversity of game species, with a positive contribution to the survival of the species. The combination of climate change and human industrial development poses increased risk to species adaptation and survival (Furstenburg and Scholtz, Reference Furstenburg and Scholtz2009; Scholtz et al., Reference Scholtz, Furstenburg and Maiwashe2010). Consequently, increased species and population heterozygosity (genetic integrity) has become directly essential for species survival, and sustained species marketing traits as incentive for production breeding being indirectly essential (Chapter 3).

Production of Specific Disease-Free Buffalo

After detecting bTB in Kruger National Park in 1990, a project was developed to preserve the Kruger buffalo genotype. In 1998, 11 disease-free calves were successfully bred and moved to private land outside of Kruger National Park. As a result of the subsequent successful breeding of more than 27,000 privately owned disease-free buffalo in South Africa, the project was terminated in 2011 (Bengis et al., Reference Bengis, Govender and Lane2016). In contrast to state and provincial parks, all buffalo in the private buffalo sector are thus currently disease-free (Table 13.2; Chapter 12).

Production of Large Horn Size Buffalo

Early travellers’ journal entries and many scientific studies indicate that buffalo, like many other species (e.g. sable, Hippotragus niger; greater kudu, Tragelaphus strepsiceros; eland, Tragelaphus oryx; elephant, Loxodonta africanus; and more), were exploited during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by continuous selective hunting. Trophy hunters in particular often first shot the largest individual in a herd, consequently possibly gradually depleting the natural genetic integrity and quality of the species. Studies of kudu populations by Furstenburg (Reference Furstenburg, du, Bothma and van Rooyen2005) in both free-roaming conservancy production and semi-extensive production systems in the Eastern Cape and in Namibia revealed genetic quality depletion in under 20 years by continuous selective harvesting/hunting.

During the wildlife price boom of the 2010s, East African buffalo had greater trade value for having a 12 per cent larger body size and a greater horn spread than the Kruger and Addo phenotypes. Kruger buffalo are known for thick bosses and a deep drop at the side of the head before curving upwards, and Addo buffalo have smaller body sizes and smaller bosses. East African buffalo were introduced and bred with the Southern African private populations during the late 1990s. Gradually, trophy quality increased, and the first 50-inch trophy bull was auctioned in September 2013 for €1.6 million (ZAR 26 million), and re-auctioned in February 2016 at an all-time record for buffalo of €10.8 million (ZAR 176 million; the animal shown in Figure 13.4). Indications from auctions are that today there are more than 50 bulls with greater than 50-inch trophies among the breeding stock in private production systems in South Africa.

The extent to which this is manipulated genetic engineering versus the restoration of historic natural genetic integrity continues to be debated at the national and international levels. At the national level, disagreements between various organizations are flaring, including between hunting organizations (Selier et al., Reference Selier, Nel and Rushworth2018). Somers et al. (Reference Somers, Walters and Measey2020) point out numerous concerns in the new legislation, including the process of consultation, and argue that the law will not improve the genetics of the species mentioned but will have considerable negative genetic consequences and pose ecological and economic risks. At the international level, there is much concern about intentional genetic manipulations of wildlife, for example (i) the World Conservation Congress at its session in Hawaii, United States of America, 1–10 September 2016, adopted the recommendation WCC-2016-Rec-100-EN on management and regulation of selective intensive breeding of large wild mammals for commercial purposes (IUCN WWC, 2016); and (ii) the Antelope Specialist Group of IUCN released in 2015 a position statement warning about intentional genetic manipulation of antelopes (IUCN SSC Antelope Specialist Group, 2015).

The twin impacts of indiscriminate hunting of the better trophy buffalo bulls in the rest of Africa and the managed breeding and sustainable use of these animals in South Africa are clearly visible in Figure 13.9 (Safari Club International, 2022). The growth of hunted buffalo’s average horn length in South Africa can be seen in the graph of records from the 1990s. In comparison, the horn lengths of hunted buffalo from the rest of eastern and southern Africa have shown a steady decline, probably as a result of indiscriminate hunting of the better horned bulls.

Figure 13.9 Average horn length in Cape buffalo (Syncerus caffer caffer) in South Africa (n = 777, 22 per cent) and in the ‘Rest of Africa’ (RoA), a variable composed of data from 11 countries from eastern and southern Africa: Angola, n = 19; Botswana, n = 35; Kenya, n = 89; Mozambique, n = 100; Namibia, n = 16; Rwanda, n = 3; Tanzania, n = 857; Uganda, n = 4; Zambia, n = 482; Zimbabwe, n = 811. All buffalo were hunted for trophy hunting in South Africa when buffalo in other countries may have been hunted for other reasons.

Graph drawn from data published by Safari Club International (2022).

Domestication

Domestication of a species is a process whereby, over time, and via genetic selection and modification of a species, it may be adapted for human association and use. Some species, through their genetic plasticity, are better suited for this process (e.g. the dog). It is important to distinguish domestication from ‘taming’ and ‘habituation’, both processes being short-term, individual- or small group-based and not involving genetic modification. Habituation can occur even in areas as large as Kruger National Park, where animals of all types become accustomed to and accepting of, for example, tourists in their vehicles on the roads and behave as if the latter were not there. Similarly, the concept of buffalo herding as practiced recently in Zimbabwe and historically in Mozambique is another example of habituation rather than domestication.

Domestication of the African/savanna buffalo, although unsuccessfully attempted on a few occasions, is not something to consider. First, the buffalo’s aggressive temperament, massive size and huge horns renders this a risky exercise. Second, its value as a tourism (both consumptive and non-consumptive) icon would be eroded. As domestication would require genetic selection for docility and other ‘agriculturally favourable’ traits it might, if not very carefully managed, lead to a weakening of the desirable survival traits/genes of the species.

Extensive Grazing and Stocking Rates

Safe stocking rate (referred to as ‘carrying capacity’ by many game and livestock ranchers) can be defined as the number of animals that a specific piece of land can accommodate annually without degrading the quality of the forage, and can be measured in different animal units, generally known as large stock or large animal units (LSU or LAU), grazing and browsing units (GU/BU) in southern Africa. With irregularities existing in stocking rate methodology and the interpretation of the animal units in these methods, researchers developed a model where the different methods could be interpreted on a metabolizable energy basis measured in megajoules (MJ ME), establishing a calculated large stock unit (LSU^C), grazing and browsing unit (GU^C/BU^C) to be used in the model. One LSU is equivalent to a steer (cattle) with a body mass of 450 kg that is growing 500 g per day by feeding on grazing that has a mean digestible energy concentration of 55 per cent, thus supplying 75 MJ ME per day (Meissner, Reference Meissner1982). A grazing unit (GU) is a 180 kg blue wildebeest and a browsing unit (BU) is a 180 kg kudu (Van Rooyen and Bothma, Reference Van Rooyen, Bothma, du, Bothma and Du Toit2016) requiring 29.71 MJ ME per day (Shepstone et al., Reference Shepstone, Meissner and Van Zyl2022). These methods are conservative ways to calculate a piece of land’s safe stocking rate if its grazing and browsing capacity has been assessed. This prevents overutilization of the available forage and ensures that the quantity and quality of grazing do not deteriorate over time.

When estimating the carrying capacity and stocking rate on semi-extensive systems, the average LSU^C or GU^C/BU^C value for the specific species should be used. Using averages for all production phases mentioned in Table 14.1 will undersupply energy to lactating females, as well as growing and adult males. Intensive systems should either use the fixed values in Table 14.1, where the number of animals is multiplied by the LSU^C or GU^C/BU^C value for each respective physiological state in a spreadsheet, or use the lactating cow (cow with calf) LSU value of 1.32 as the baseline parameter. For example, using the LSU^C value of 1.32, a herd of 20 breeding buffalo will need 264 ha if the carrying capacity of the property is 10 ha/LSU. On commercial ranches in southern Africa, stocking rates vary and range between 2.6 and 13.3 ha/LSU (Hildebrandt, Reference Hildebrandt2014). The methodology behind calculating the ME requirements, calculated large stock, grazing and browsing unit values and dry matter intake (DMI), is described by Shepstone et al. (Reference Shepstone, Meissner and Van Zyl2022).

When the stocking rate exceeds the assessed safe stocking rate, the property is overstocked, making it necessary to purchase or supply stored roughage of a suitable quality to reach the desired reproductive goals. In circumstances where the stocking rate equals, or is lower than, the assessed safe stocking rate, and the quality of the available grazing is not suitable for optimal reproductive performance, the specific nutrients that nature cannot supply must be provided so the ranch can reach the desired production goal. The production constraining nutrients normally found in dry grasses are digestible protein, minerals and vitamins. It is important to note that no specific nutrient guidelines currently exist for buffalo, so cattle data are used to extrapolate the nutrient requirements for buffalo and other similar species. When supplying animals with supplemental feed formulated to mitigate a deficiency, it is important to understand that content and quantity of a particular nutrient will differ from one production system to another, and from one ranch to another. The nutrient concentration and the amount to be fed are directly influenced by the nutrient requirements of the animals/herds at that specific time, the quantity and quality of the natural grazing (high correlation with rainfall) or supplied roughage, seasonal changes, availability of raw materials, manufacturing equipment and storage of the mixed feed and raw materials. In order to ensure optimal rangeland utilization on a piece of land, and to limit rangeland degradation by overutilization (i.e. too many animals), routine vegetation studies are necessary to calculate its respective annual safe stocking rate and to take measures to ensure a conservative stocking rate using either or both the calculated LSU^C, GU^C and BU^C methods. Similar animal unit methods are used internationally, such as the animal unit (AU) used in North America and the tropical livestock unit (TLU) used in tropical countries. Be aware of the differences before translating values 1 to 1.

Nutrient Requirements

When considering nutrient requirements for wild animals, a similar well-studied species is used as a proxy when formulating feeds; when considering the bulk-grazing African buffalo, other bulk grazing species such as beef cattle and water buffalo (Bubalis bubalus) data can be used. In this document, we use nutrient requirements of beef cattle in the United States (National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, 2016) as the baseline comparative nutrition proxy because rangeland beef cattle in southern Africa select a similar diet, live in similar habitats and have a similar daily water requirement to the African buffalo. On the other hand, water buffalo are animals housed and raised similarly to how the dairy industry houses and raises their dairy cattle, making this species less comparable to the African buffalo from a comparative nutrition point of view. Using cattle nutrient requirement data to estimate the daily nutrient requirements of buffalo is of little value if the buffalo’s average weight, physiological state and daily DMI are unknown; thus, these are important factors to account for when formulating a supplement/feed for buffalo. Knowing the physiological state and average weight aids in calculating the animal’s nutrient requirements, and nutrient analysis of the grass or roughage supplied to the animals will aid in calculating what shortfalls exist.

In addition to providing sufficient quantities of feed, the quality (nutrients) of feed, which includes the energy, protein, fibre and trace elements (vitamins and minerals) content, is important for ensuring optimal production and reproduction based on the animals’ nutrient requirements. The calculated LSU^C, GU^C and BU^C methods discussed above is currently the most accurate method to calculate the energy requirements for game animals (Shepstone et al., Reference Shepstone, Meissner and Van Zyl2022), where the energy used by the animal is expressed as ME, measured in megajoules (MJ). When conditions are favourable, ruminants eat to meet their energy requirements rather than to fill their rumens (intake capacity). However, during the dry season, when the available ME in the selected grazing is too low to meet maintenance/lactation requirements, the animals cannot consume more grass or browse to satisfy their requirements, the main reason being that the total amount of feed intake per unit of time is restricted by their thoracic cavity (restricted rumen capacity). Furthermore, a cow in her last trimester of pregnancy has even less space (as the calf is taking up a lot of the abdominal cavity) for food in her rumen. The average voluntary feed intake (VFI) for buffalo is calculated to be approximately 1.8–2.3 per cent of their live body mass (530 kg) for a dry cow and a lactating cow, respectively (Shepstone et al., Reference Shepstone, Meissner and Van Zyl2022), which compares well to the published value of 2.5 per cent of live body mass on a dry mass (DM) basis (Prins, Reference Prins1996).

The supply and intake of protein are the main factors controlling production performance in ruminants like cattle (Köster et al., Reference Köster, Cochran and Titgemeyer1996) and buffalo on dry rangeland. The minimum crude protein requirement of buffalo is 7–8 per cent (Prins, Reference Prins1996), which may be provided by browse when available. When considering dietary protein supply in ruminants, it can generally be broken down into rumen-degradable protein (RDP) and rumen-undegradable protein (UDP). Ruminants require protein (nitrogen and amino acids) for two important functions. First, specific amino acids are needed for their metabolic processes (UDP). Second, and more importantly, protein from grass and supplemental feed is needed to supply the necessary nitrogen (RDP) to the rumen microbes to multiply, playing a pivotal role in increasing the VFI of dry forage. A ruminant’s RDP requirement in general can be calculated using the following equation: RDP = live body weight^0.75 × 4. The VFI of dry grass is directly related to the concentration of RDP in the forage and/or feed.

While buffalo can increase their dietary protein intake by increasing their VFI, they are constrained by the need to ruminate, which competes with grazing time. In addition to selecting more browse during periods when high quantities of mixed quality food are available or under food scarcity/poor quality conditions, buffalo apply bulk grazing, whereby they graze during periods of adequate or high grazing volume availability and spend equal amounts of time grazing and ruminating (Prins, Reference Prins1996). When the quantity and quality of grazing is poor, buffalo spend more time in search of food, therefore they have less time for rumination and digestion on a daily basis, and are limited by rumen fill (capacity) regardless of passage rate. Feed supplementation should be considered to meet the nutrient requirements of buffalo, especially with regards to RDP during the dry season or during periods of increased productive/reproductive performance.

The most important goal of supplementation, particularly RDP (nitrogen), is to maximize the VFI of dry roughage during the dry season to ensure optimal ruminal microbe proliferation and supply of microbial protein. With a limited supply of RDP (nitrogen), fewer microbes are available to ferment the finer particles of grass that have been masticated into small particles by rumination, thereby reducing the fermentation rate of the ingested food, causing food to stay in the rumen for longer periods. As it takes the animal a longer amount of time to degrade and digest the food, the animal starts losing condition, forcing it to mobilize stored energy (fat) and protein (muscle) to survive. When this problem can be diminished or even prevented by increasing the VFI of dry grass, the animal will have more nutrients to maintain its good body condition. This can be done by ensuring adequate amounts of RDP are available all year round. Green grazing normally has sufficient RDP to maintain the animal’s condition, but as the dry season progresses the plants dry out, causing the quality and supply of protein to become limited for the rumen bacteria first, thereby making it necessary to supply additional RDP. Supplements formulated to supply the appropriate amount and ratio of RDP and other nutrients will enable beneficial microbes to proliferate. With a larger microbe population, the animals can degrade and ferment more food, thereby increasing their VFI of dry grass, resulting in improved production, body condition, health, milk, and colostrum quality and strong calves. As buffalo are ruminants, they can utilise nitrogen from non-protein nitrogen (NPN) sources such as urea and convert this into microbial protein (McDonald et al., Reference McDonald, Edwards, Greenhalgh and Morgan2002), making it possible to design supplements that include NPN sources such as urea.

In addition to energy and protein, minerals (macro-minerals > 100 mg/kg feed and micro-/trace minerals < 100 mg/kg feed) and vitamins are nutrients important for herbivorous animals including buffalo. Macro-minerals, micro-minerals and vitamins are important components of supplementary feed if optimal reproductive performance is desired. As grass is the main component of a buffalo’s diet, the animal relies on the minerals and vitamins that grass supplies. The mineral content and the availability of grass to the animal are influenced by different factors, including grass species and stage of maturity of the grazing, the type of soil, climate and seasonal conditions, and the condition of the soil, such as pH and mineral content as well as fertilization and liming (McDonald et al., Reference McDonald, Edwards, Greenhalgh and Morgan2002). The (trace) elements that are typically deficient are phosphorous, sodium, chloride, sulphur, iron, iodine, copper, cobalt, manganese, and selenium (Schmidt and Snyman, Reference Schmidt, Snyman, Du, Bothma and Du Toit2016), although there may be specific minerals that are deficient in specific areas.

Vitamins are needed in small quantities by herbivorous animals, and ruminants require even less as they have microorganisms that synthesize some vitamins in the rumen that can be used in the buffalo’s body. Under natural extensive conditions, vitamin levels in green grazing are generally high enough to meet the animals’ requirements. The exception is vitamin A, which normally is found in low concentrations in dry mature grass and grains used in formulated feeds. As with most supplementation of shortages, the most effective starting point to control or manage a mineral or vitamin shortage is to accurately predict its extent. A possible way of predicting the mineral shortages of buffalo is to analyse the grass species selected by the animal on the ranch at different stages of growth, and then formulate a mineral supplement that makes up for the shortfalls of the grazing (Schmidt and Snyman, Reference Schmidt, Snyman, Du, Bothma and Du Toit2016). However, this method might prove impractical and/or costly. Alternatively, basic knowledge of the animal’s well-being and behaviour, regular observation and accurate record-keeping combined with basic knowledge of the environment (type of veld, general shortages in the area, weather patterns, parasites, etc.) should suffice to identify most shortages. The buffalo themselves are the best indicators of mineral shortages, and if the animals maintain good health with 13-month intercalving periods, and the calves display optimal growth and health, then any changes made are likely unwarranted. Any unnecessary changes to the ‘environment’ may have an adverse effect on production and cause monetary losses.

The planting of additional grazing (pastures) is an effective management method in areas that provide low-quality natural grazing (such as sourveld in the dry months; ‘sourveld’ is the term used in Southern Africa for nutrient-poor, dystrophic savannas and grassland types), especially for overwintering. By irrigating these planted pastures, the feed production of the pasture can be raised substantially, and the expense of feed costs can be lowered. Nonetheless, these planted pastures can be a potential reservoir for parasites, especially in cases where the grazing forms a thick matt at the base, such as kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum, also known as Cenchrus clandestinus) and should be managed accordingly. Additional advantages include the fact that many of these grasses are perennial grasses, and once established, all that is needed for growth is sufficient water and, depending on the soil type, at times fertilizer. The grass not used for grazing can be baled and either stored for drought years or sold as an additional source of income.

Influence of Season on Nutrition and Feeding

Three factors need to be taken into consideration to estimate what nutrient shortfalls exist, if any, namely: (i) a nutrient analysis of the grass or roughage supplied to the animals; (ii) an assessment of the physiological state of the particular class of animals, including body condition, to gauge their nutrient requirements; and (iii) for the same reason, an estimate of the typical weights of the particular class of animals for which one wants to estimate the possible nutrient shortfall. The available grass on reserves and game ranches is normally a combination of annual and perennial grass species. These grasses have a green growing phase and a dry phase (Figure 14.1). During the dry phase, perennial grasses go into dormancy and store most of their nutrients in their roots and seeds, while the annual grass species release their seeds and die. Under free-ranging conditions, many buffalo populations would migrate shorter or longer distances, grazing higher-quality food elsewhere, but within ranches they are stuck in an area (due to fencing) where the grass nearly always deteriorates to a point where the buffalo lose condition. Buffalo in a poor body condition have lower conception rates, fewer calves, less milk and fewer calves that reach adulthood (see Chapter 7); in addition, the general health of the adult and subadult deteriorates over time.

Figure 14.1 How the season affects the quality of the grazing and animals’ body condition in southern Africa. Considering the months of January through to December (a full year), each month has a shade of green (rainy season), or yellow to orange (dry season). The green blocks correspond with the rumen and plant (in green) and the green arrow below it, portraying the time of the year when the selected feed gets degraded and digested in less than 24 h. The yellow to orange blocks correspond with the rumen and plant (in yellow/orange) and the orange arrow below it, portraying the time of the year when the selected takes longer than 24 h to be degraded and digested.

Source: Craig Shepstone.

The changes in nutrient quality from a high-/higher-quality green plant to a dry, brownish, poor-quality plant have a direct effect on the buffalo’s ability to break down and digest the available grass. Protein, energy, macro-minerals, trace minerals and vitamin concentrations decrease as the plant dries out, while the fibre portion increases. The drastic decrease in nutrient concentration, particularly RDP, results in fewer microbes proliferating, slowing down the degradation and digestion of the ingested fibrous feed, and thus the production of volatile fatty acids (VFA). VFAs produced by these microbes are the main energy source for ruminants and thus buffalo. The small population of microbes present when buffalo feed on poor-quality feed takes longer to degrade the fibrous feed, resulting in the feed remaining in the rumen for a longer period, forcing the animals to mobilize stored nutrients to survive (Figure 14.1) and resulting in the animal losing body condition.

As shown in Figure 14.1, the nutrient-rich green grass available from January to April supplies enough nutrients for increased VFI. Bulk grazing ruminants like buffalo then only need between 8 and 24 h to digest the green grass, resulting in an improved body condition (poor to improved body condition). However, in the dry season (June to November), buffalo can take as long as 3.7 days to digest the nutrient-poor grazing available, resulting in poorer body condition. The lower the RDP concentration in the dry grazing, the longer it takes to be digested in the rumen. Supplying the correct amounts of the necessary nutrients in the dry season will aid in reaching the desired production/reproduction goals, reducing feed digestion time from 3.7 days (worst case scenario) to 24 h.

For optimal production, managers should pre-empt the negative effects of the upcoming dry season and supply supplemental feed in small amounts before the grass deteriorates and the animals start losing condition. As the dry season progresses, it may be necessary to supply more nutrients for optimal body condition; the reason for this is that grass nutritional quality deteriorates further as the dry season progresses, particularly the protein and energy contents. Supplementing ranched/managed animals with the feed nutrients they need during the times when nature cannot supply these nutrients will not only speed up the time taken to digest the ingested food, but will also improve body condition, conception, milk production and general health. Not unimportant, it will assist in raising healthy calves. Furthermore, when considering optimal production in times of drought where the quality and the quantity of the available feed gets poorer, it is imperative that animal numbers are reduced, or additional high-quality roughage be supplied. Droughts have deleterious effects on production, reproduction and growth, with young and weaned animals being the most vulnerable (Chapter 7).

Supplementary Feeding of Ranched Buffalo

High-quality feeds can be used to supplement buffalo during critical periods (without having to decrease the number of animals) and can be found in different forms. These include everything from pellets to home-mixed rations, which are normally supplied in an amount smaller or equal to one-third of total daily intake. Supplementary feed for buffalo on dry grazing focuses on supplying RDP, energy, minerals and vitamins. In situations where grazing is limited or not available (in a ‘boma’, also known as ‘kraal’ or ‘corral’), feed must be supplied daily with all of the above nutrients together with ample high-quality roughage. In the rainy season, when the quantity and quality of grazing are high, supplying adequate amounts of protein and energy, some minerals may nonetheless remain deficient. For example, phosphorus, copper and zinc are deficient in most parts of southern Africa, making it advisable to supply some minerals to the animals throughout the year. Mineral licks composed of salt, macro-, and trace minerals will supply the nutrients for the animals to reach their owners’ production goals.

For any rancher/manager interested in obtaining well-balanced feeds, licks in both meal and block form for supplying buffalo the nutrients nature cannot, feed companies throughout southern Africa (South Africa, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Zambia) can be contacted, who will formulate and supply custom diets for the game ranches’ specific need. Purchased or self-mixed feeds usually come in the form of a supplement (concentrated feed) providing ≤⅓ of total DMI a semi-ad-libitum feed supplying approximately ⅔ of total DMI and full feeds, otherwise known as total mixed rations (TMR). Semi-ad-libitum feeds are usually 50:50 concentrated nutrients: high-quality roughage. Some pellets on the market, known as high-fibre pellets, are designed to be fed as semi-ad-libitum feeds. A TMR for buffalo usually contains roughly one-third (33–40 per cent) of the total daily amount of feed as concentrated nutrients that supply all of the desired trace minerals and vitamins, and most of the protein and energy, with the rest of the roughage making up the difference. To ensure optimal rumination in the bulk-grazing African buffalo, fibre length should be at least 2.5–3.5 cm.

Intakes of concentrated supplemental feed, known in Africa as lick, in a meal (powder) or block form can be controlled by increasing or decreasing the concentration of salt, ammonium sulphate and monocalcium phosphate and by hardening the licks in block form by adding binders like calcium hydroxide, magnesium oxide and molasses syrup.

When pellets or fine meals are used as ⅔ of the total DMI, the concentrations of the nutrients, particularly protein, energy and copper, should be kept in mind. Do not supply a pellet or fine meal that is designed as a supplement as a semi-ad-libitum feed at approximately two-thirds of DMI or as a full feed at three-thirds. This will result in the overconsumption of some nutrients or minerals, which could cause deleterious effects. Additives like Poly Ethylene Glycol (PEG) can be added to a supplemental diet to aid the buffalo in degrading and digesting tannin-rich browse when they need to consume browse as a food source. Mycotoxin binders should be added to all self-mix recipes. If self-mix recipes are stored for periods longer than 2 or 3 days, the addition of a mould inhibitor is advised. The addition of an active yeast product will aid in the control of rumen pH (reducing the risk of acidosis) and enhance fibre digestion (Chaucheyras‐Durand et al., Reference Chaucheyras‐Durand, Ameilbonne and Bichat2016). All dry or semi-dry feed should be stored in a well-ventilated (dehumidified if necessary) storeroom or container (rodent-, insect- and bird-free), preferably on pallets, and never in direct sunlight.

Buffalo should receive good-quality grass hay as the largest portion of their diet. When hays (alfalfa, grass, oat or other cereal hays) are supplied to the animals in the camp (ad-libitum if limited or no grazing is available), place them in or near the feeding area, in a separate bowl or hay rack that keeps the hay off the ground (reducing losses and cost). All hay that falls on the ground should be removed, preventing young animals from eating wet/soiled/mouldy hay. Mouldy or dusty hay can cause pneumonia, colic and/or heaves. All roughage with any visible signs of mould should not be used, as it usually contains high levels of mycotoxins. If poor-quality grass is the only source of grass hay available to the animals, it would be advisable to mix 10–20 per cent legume hay (alfalfa) into the roughage diet to augment the amount of protein. Legume hay roughage, such as soya bean or peanut, can be used as a roughage source if the products are free of mycotoxins, as the pods often house the fungus. When in doubt, use a suitable mycotoxin binder when using any such roughage as feed. Macronutrient analysis of all hay should be done routinely. This will not only help illustrate what the buffalo are eating, but it will also assist in deciding how much legume hay is needed to be mixed into a ration if the grass hay is of poor nutrient quality. Exclusive use of small grain hay and alfalfa hay for the Cape buffalo is discouraged as it may lead to mineral imbalances, laminitis, colic and diarrhoea, and other dietary abnormalities.

When the season changes and the nutrient quality of the grass drops to levels where it is necessary to supplement the animals with a supplemental (concentrated) feed to keep them in good condition, it is critical to remember that the animals need to be slowly adapted to the feed (over 5 weeks) to avoid conditions like acidosis, rumenitis and Clostridium-related illnesses, which can be fatal. This is also important when changing concentrated feeds, where the new feed is mixed with the old in increasing increments of over the 5 weeks. Animals should be vaccinated against red gut (frequently caused by sudden feed changes to ruminant diets, thought to be caused by excess growth of Clostridium perfringens type A, which causes an enterotoxaemia or torsion of the gut). During the growing season, it is necessary to supply a well-balanced mineral lick, and a well-balanced supplement/semi-ad-libitum feed in the dry season.

When a particular spot in a camp is used continuously as a feeding site, problems could arise in the long term, namely parasite build up (wire and other roundworms and coccidia) and a breeding place for disease due to the high number of flies and mould growing in old food, leading to possible mycotoxicosis. Unfortunately, feeding sites that are used continuously are often associated with accumulated faeces and urine. To prevent the build up of the abovementioned problems, and to encourage the animals to eat grass in a different part of the reserve or game ranch, feeding sites should be moved regularly. Small enclosures are an exception, making dedicated feeding sites necessary. These feeding areas need to be designed so they can be cleaned and disinfected routinely. Feed should not be placed near water troughs, and placing feed bowls a short distance away will limit the amount of collected feed falling out of the animal’s mouth into the water. Water troughs and feed bowls must be cleaned routinely, and new feed should not be added on top of old remaining feed.

A rule of thumb suggested to ranchers who keep animals where both male and female animals have horns is to place a bowl per animal and an extra bowl for every four animals, but observation of the competition at feeding is necessary, and it may be necessary to increase the number of bowls. Place the bowls 2.5 animal lengths apart in a rectangular chessboard-like fashion and only feed the animals when they are near the feed bowls. Move one line of bowls every second or third day (Figure 14.2). This not only saves time but also gives the keeper the chance to clean all the bowls at least once a month.

Figure 14.2 Feed bowl placement in a camp and movement suggestions. The circles represent bowls, and the figures refer to a column of bowls that need to be moved together periodically, from left to right as shown in the diagram. Spaces between bowls should be 2.5 the animal’s length.

Source: Craig Shepstone.

Water Provision

The importance of water in ruminant nutrition is often overlooked; water being the basis of rumen fluid creates a suitable environment in which the beneficial anaerobic bacteria can degrade (ferment) and digest the selected food, making it imperative that animals like buffalo need a regular supply of clean water.

The water requirements of buffalo differ according to the different circumstances and environments. Factors affecting water requirements include the gestation, age and physiological condition of the buffalo, the composition of the vegetation fed on and environmental conditions. Watering points are needed at regular intervals to supply adequate water without the buffalo having to travel long distances. Buffalo can utilize most types of water sources but seem to prefer artificial water holes and dams over troughs. In the case of intensive ranching, it is advisable to use water sources that can be controlled. Controlled water points can be tested and analysed for quality and contaminants (which is advised when ranching intensively with high-value species) and filtered if harmful agents are found in the water, as opposed to open and stagnant ground-/rainwater which could contain toxin-producing bacteria or other harmful agents. Open groundwater also doubles as a potential mud hole for wallowing, which is a part of daily activity in warm months, especially by bulls. As buffalo tend to urinate or defecate in these mud holes, it is advised to limit these to only wallowing (and not drinking as well) to prevent any potential diseases emanating from these activities.

Field Operation and Slaughter

Two of the challenges involved in the large-scale harvesting of buffalo in the field is to shoot a sufficient number of animals rapidly and efficiently ensuring that the procedures comply with animal welfare standards and human safety requirements, and to ensure that the carcasses all fall in an area as small as possible to facilitate the further slaughtering and loading of the carcasses for transport to the abattoir. Due to these challenges, a typical system that has been shown to work efficiently is to shoot a group of buffalo out of a helicopter with darts containing scoline (suxamethonium chloride, also known as suxamethonium or succinylcholine). This is a medication used to cause short-term paralysis; in most countries the use of scoline has to be managed by a veterinarian. The helicopter pilot can herd the darted group of buffalo (four to eight, depending on terrain, herd size and abattoir capacity) into a small compact group until all of the darted animals have dropped (±5 min from the first dart). Before the cull, careful selection of the ‘killing zone’ needs to be made to ensure that the animals are close to this area and that it is accessible to the ground team and all vehicles. After dropping, the animals are killed with a free bullet shot in the head with a heavy-calibre rifle.

Although cost-effective, safe for the operators and widely used since the 1980s, the use of scoline is prone to ethical issues. Herding, darting buffalo with scoline and resulting asphyxia was shown to generate high levels of cortisol concentrations compared to animals shot at a standstill (Hattingh et al., Reference Hattingh, Wright and De Vos1984). Such response could partly be ascribed to conscious perception of asphyxia in conscious animals with resulting fear (Button and Mülders, Reference Button and Mülders1983). Previous studies suggested that residues of scoline in meat and biltong are apparently considered acceptable by public health authorities (Button et al., Reference Button, Bertschinger and Molders1981). This statement should be re-examined in the light of recent technologies and standards, also taking into consideration that using scoline alters physical meat quality attributes (pale, soft and exudative meat; Hoffman, Reference Hoffman2001). In a context of evolving animal welfare standards, the cost–benefits associated with the use of scoline should also be reconsidered.

After shooting, the animals are bled/exsanguinated, preferably on a slope or suspended. Using a terrain vehicle that is equipped with a conveyer belt whereupon the buffalo carcasses are placed helps to speed up the time between exsanguination and the hanging process. Removal of the internal organs from the carcass takes place in the field to ensure that there is no bloating of the carcass (which increases the risk of contamination). Ideally, transportation to the abattoir should not take longer than 2 h. It is important to ensure that knives are sterilized throughout and that hand-cleaning facilities are available. The primary meat inspection is conducted by a state veterinarian in the field and includes inspecting the head, pluck (red offal), feet, abdominal and reproductive organs of a partially dressed game carcass with the pluck and carcass then being sent to a registered game abattoir. Most of the white offal is left in the field for predators or vultures. However, some of the white offal will be cleaned and taken for consumption by the staff, such as the plies (third stomach) and set of tripe (weasand, first, second and fourth stomach and rectum).

Following the field operation, buffalo arrive at the abattoir offloading section (Figure 14.3). The carcasses are hoisted up, suspended from both Achilles tendons, and weighed. The head is removed, and trophy-worthy heads are cleaned and dried in the sun to be sold as trophies to hotels and restaurants as decoration or to individuals, while the smaller heads and the condemned (i.e. rejected) carcasses go to the rendering plant to produce an end product known as bone meal that can be sold as fertilizer. The skin is then removed, and to prevent contamination, removal of the hides should be done carefully, preferably when the carcass is warm, and all of the cuts are made from the inside to the outside to prevent contamination of the meat, using the two knife principles. The hides are normally processed (salted and dried) to be sold at auctions.

Red offal is preferably removed at the abattoir and is hung on a separate line, in the same order as the carcasses, for inspection by the veterinarians so that they may be correlated with the carcass, which is also individually inspected. The carcasses should be split with a saw blade along the spinal column to promote chilling. Lastly, the carcasses are washed with potable water, to remove all blood and bone sawdust, quartered between the ninth and tenth ribs, and weighed before being placed in the cold room (<7°C).

If only the red offal is affected, and the rest of the carcass is normal, only the red offal is condemned (lungs, heart and liver). However, if the intestines are linked to general diseases such as enlargement of the lymph glandes, fever, or hepatitis, etc. the whole carcass is condemned. The condemned carcasses and condemned organs are sent to the rendering plant to create bone meal. Carcasses can be partially or totally condemned. Affected areas are condemned for various reasons, such as infections caused by systematic or generalized lesions.

Older buffalo, depending on where they have been reared and with which other species (generally wild dogs and carnivores) they have interacted, can contain intermediate stages of tapeworm parasites (cysticerci and hydatid cysts) and need to be frozen for a minimum of 72 h with an air temperature of at least –18°C before being deemed fit for human consumption. However, the freezing compromises the quality of the meat and it is no longer suitable for selling as tender prime meat and should thus be processed further.

Deboning and Products

While no official carcass grading system is currently used for buffalo, or any other game species really, Table 14.2 provides a suggested grading system that could be utilized to class buffalo carcasses according to age. The application of a grading system helps to categorize buffalo carcasses, guiding the deboning team to know which carcasses will go for prime steaks, ageing, value-added products and processed meat. Incorporating the grading of buffalo at the abattoir will help speed up the process and prevent adult/old buffalo meat from being sold as prime tender (and expensive) steaks.

Grades A and AB (subadult) buffalo carcasses should be used for aged primal cuts as well as processing for value-added products. Grades B, C (adult) and detained (frozen) buffalo carcasses can be used for processed meats (mainly biltong, a traditional dried lightly salted/spiced meat product) and value-added products. However, the fillets of all the carcasses can be sold as primal steaks at the highest price.

Deboning is the process whereby the fore and hind quarters of the carcass are taken and processed into various primal cuts (similar to those from beef carcasses, and illustrated in Figure 14.4) at 24–36 h post-mortem. The primal cuts from the hind quarter are silverside (biceps femoris), fillet (psoas major and psoas minor), sirloin (longissimus thoracis et lumborum), prime rump (gluteus medius), T-bone, topside (semimembranosus), knuckle (vastus medialis and other related muscles) and hind shin (Peronaeus terius, extensor digitorum longus and extensor digiti terii proprius).

Figure 14.4 Primal cuts of African buffalo carcasses for further processing and marketing.

Source: Tersia Needham.

Block tests are a measure established for wholesalers and retailers to price a variety of cuts given a certain producer price. By using the block test, the quantity of meat that will be produced can be predicted, and the price per carcass can be calculated. Therefore, block tests (Table 14.3 on a buffalo with a carcass weight of 277 kg) should ideally be conducted regularly to help determine the number of different cuts that will be produced from a buffalo carcass.

Primal cuts should be vacuum-packed and matured for a minimum of 25 days under refrigerated conditions (and labels should clearly indicate the day in and suggested sale date) before being sold, with the sirloin and topside muscles in particular identified as valuable cuts. The fillets of all animals can be sold as soon as they are removed; due to their inherent nature/composition, they need not be aged. In contrast, the silverside is ideal for biltong production, as toughness will not decrease over a more extended ageing period, and it will thus remain a tough muscle. The offcuts and trimmings could be used for value-added meat products, including biltong, droëwors (traditional dried sausage product made from meat off-cuts, sheep/beef fat and traditional spices), patties, boerewors (traditional fresh sausage) and minced meat. Biltong can be produced from frozen-thawed (detained) carcasses using different drying methods, which creates a larger profit margin because frozen carcasses can only be used for processing biltong, stewing meat and mince.

Early Days

January 1895. Makanga country, now in Mozambique. Edouard Foa, a French explorer, is struggling to gain an audience with the powerful and feared Chief Tchanetta Mendoza. Foa had come there on his way to cross the continent by foot from the Indian Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean. Eventually, after having threatened Foa, the Chief consented to grant him a clearance to walk across and hunt on this land. At that time, the country was rich in game and Tchanetta forbade unnecessary shooting. Because Arabs used to come there from the North once a year for times immemorial, the Chief had them hunt elephants exclusively, measuring the powder for each hunter himself. Buffalo (Syncerus caffer), antelope, and other game were reserved to indigenous hunters for feeding his people. The tribute to be paid to the Chief for hunting elephant was one tusk per elephant killed. When the beast had fallen, the tusk that was on the ground side was the property of the Chief of the territory. Locally, in Portuguese, this tax was named ‘o dente da terra’, the Earth’s tooth (Foa, Reference Foa1900).

The price to pay for the right to hunt existed long before Foa. As early as the sixteenth century, Portuguese records state that no elephant could be killed and consumed without the consent of the Chief in the lands south of the Zambezi, where the ‘dente da terra’ tax already existed by unwritten law (Manyanga and Pangeti, Reference Manyanga, Pangeti, Manyanga and Chirikure2017). Such hunting levies were not only restricted to this area. In western Tanzania, Foa had to pay the ‘hongo’, a tribute to walk and hunt on a Chief’s land (Foa, Reference Foa1900). In western Zimbabwe, Lobengula (1836–1894), Chief of the Ndebele, was issuing hunting concessions for foreign hunters as a way to protect Ndebele hunting rights (Moyo et al., Reference Moyo, O’Keefe and Sill1993).

These ancient situations reveal extremely important historical traits: systems of governance and management of wildlife were already in place in precolonial times, mainly enacted by traditional leaders and their ruling families (Sansom, Reference Sansom and Hammond Tooke1974; Campbell, Reference Campbell1995; Carruthers, Reference Carruthers1995), even endorsed by spirit mediums, at least in the Zambezi valley (Hasler, Reference Hasler1996). These systems did not disappear abruptly under colonial rule and often coexisted with new foreign regulations.

Today, the current trophy fee paid by the hunting tourist is nothing other than a modern form of the historical ‘dente da terra’. The present listing of particular species as fully protected is nothing other than ancient rules such as the prohibition by Lobengula of hunting hippopotamus, and the fee paid by the hunting operator to lease a hunting concession from the State is nothing other than the historical tribute to be paid to the landlord for being allowed to walk and hunt on his land. Today, by delegating the appropriate authority from central to local levels, the now widespread mechanism of community-based natural resources management is in a way reviving precolonial systems, but with more democratic efforts than under the past feudal regimes.

Colonial Times

With the establishment of colonies, foreign powers assumed that the traditional sanctions and precolonial institutions that regulated hunting were an inadequate means of conserving wildlife in the face of growing human populations and competition for wildlife resources (Child, Reference Child and Child2004). By transposing their foreign laws, many colonial regimes prescribed wildlife as res nullius: with wildlife now belonging to no one and managed by the State, traditional rulers were disempowered from controlling hunting. It is even assumed that some of them let poaching happen to steal State goods in revenge for having lost control.

The settlers who began arriving at the Cape of Good Hope in 1652 hunted wildlife for food and commercial gain (Booth and Chardonnet, Reference Booth and Chardonnet2015), and to open land to develop agriculture and livestock husbandry. In less than two centuries, wildlife had been deeply impacted by the introduction of millions of muzzleloaders, metal gin-traps, etc. (Richards, Reference Richards1980), the development of agriculture, and the expansion of livestock accompanied by several exotic diseases. The rinderpest outbreak in the 1880s wiped out up to 95 per cent of the buffalo populations (Robertson, Reference Robertson1996; Spinage, Reference Spinage2003; Chapters 9 and 12). Regarded as common game, buffalo did not benefit from special protection and were even destroyed in southern Africa in the attempt to eradicate tsetse flies. Most colonial regimes maintained special, relatively cheap meat hunting licences to feed populations and plantation workers (Anderson, Reference Anderson and Flack2017).

At the end of the nineteenth century, a number of hunters throughout Africa recognized the harm of uncontrolled hunting and played a key role in establishing protected areas (Kruger National Park in 1894 in South Africa, Selous Game Reserve in 1896 in Tanzania). In the meantime, they also introduced modern protective game laws. All over Africa, many if not most of the Hunting Reserves that were gazetted at that time are the ancestors of today’s National Parks. The turn of the century was the period when hunting for trading ivory and skins or for collecting specimens for museums (Roosevelt, Reference Roosevelt1910) gave birth to hunting for sport, adventure and exotic travels named safari (safari means travel in Swahili). Hunting tourism arose in East Africa with pioneer farmers and explorers guiding foreign hunters (Lindsey et al., Reference Lindsey, Roulet and Romañach2007). After the First World War, the hunting safari industry expanded, policed by law and administration. After the Second World War, sport hunting became more organized and regulated as a business (Booth and Chardonnet, Reference Booth and Chardonnet2015).

Independence

After independence, game and hunting laws were progressively modernized and the network of Protected Areas developed. Safari hunting continued except for a few countries like Kenya, where it was banned in 1977, which precipitated the steep decline of game numbers in the country (Western et al., Reference Western, Russell and Cuthill2009; Ogutu et al., Reference Ogutu, Piepho and Said2016). In contrast, neighbouring Tanzania, after a temporary hunting ban between 1973 and 1977, has maintained until today safari hunting on vast areas while also succeeding in maintaining the highest numbers on Earth of large mammals such as lion and buffalo. Unexpectedly, the bans on hunting in Kenya and temporarily in Tanzania made both safari hunting clients and professional hunters look for new hunting fields in other regions of Africa, which boomed following the bans in East Africa (Hurt and Ravn, Reference Hurt, Ravn, Prins, Grootenhuis and Dolan2000).

While buffalo remained common in some areas, more and more situations were arising, especially in West and Central Africa, where local buffalo populations were diminishing as human population growth drove demand for more land at the expense of wilderness, with agriculture and livestock encroachment, and with increasing poaching pressure for bushmeat. Gradually, hunting became controlled by sustainability norms and integrated into conservation strategies. The rationale was to create sustainable revenue streams for rural communities and State wildlife agencies, thus providing incentives to preserve Hunting Areas as duly gazetted Protected Areas, in a challenging attempt to prevent their conversion into agriculture or other environment-unfriendly land uses (Prins and de Jong, Reference Prins, de Jong, Kiffner, Bond and Lee2022). In several African countries, there was a gradual alignment of trophy-hunting industries with conservation and development policies, supported by a number of international donor agencies (Lindsey et al., Reference Lindsey, Roulet and Romañach2007).

Starting in the 1980s with the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) programme in Zimbabwe, new approaches aiming at increasing benefits from hunting and other wildlife uses for local populations led to a paradigm shift towards connecting sustainable use and hunting with rural development and livelihoods (Murphree, Reference Murphree2000; Chapters 1 and 13). This approach progressively expanded throughout Africa with the Administrative Management Design programme (ADMADE) in Zambia, the Programme de Développement des Zones de Chasse Villageoises (PDZCV) in CAR, the Zones d’Intérêt Cynégétique à Gestion Communautaire (ZICGC) programme in Cameroon, the Gestion Participative des Ressources Naturelles et de la Faune (GEPRENAF) programme in Burkina Faso, and the Ecosystèmes Protégés d’Afrique Soudano-Sahélienne (ECOPAS) programme (Lindsey et al., Reference Lindsey, Roulet and Romañach2007). The foundation of this Community-Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) approach is to allocate user rights to local people, thereby allowing for benefits from wildlife use and creating conservation incentives (Baldus, Reference Baldus2009). However, the implementation of this approach is not always that simple. In south-eastern Zimbabwe, for example, Poshiwa et al. (Reference Poshiwa, Groeneveld, Heitkönig, Prins and van Ierland2013) show the limitations of revenues from wildlife diversification, even though wildlife income is less volatile than income from the agro-pastoral system, and wildlife can be used as a hedge asset to offset risk from agricultural production without compromising on return.

In these utilization schemes, hunting tourism has in most cases the highest income potential (Booth, Reference Booth2010). As one of the most numerous large game animals, the buffalo is a core species for high-income hunting tourism (Lindsey et al., Reference Lindsey, Balme, Booth and Midlane2012). Buffalo hunts contribute a high share to community hunting income under CBNRM, for example in CAR (Bouché, Reference Bouché2010) and Tanzania (TAWA, 2019).

Hunting Buffalo for Meat and Other Reasons

Buffalo Hunting Tourism

Throughout Africa

To most hunters, the buffalo is a fascinating game for being (i) one of the so-called ‘dangerous game’ and (ii) one of the ‘Big Five’, the term commonly used to describe the five major big game species. Hunting accidents with buffalo are not uncommon, even with experienced professional hunters. The buffalo is widely regarded as dangerous to hunt, which certainly adds to the attractiveness of its hunt: ‘He looks as if you owe him money’ (Ruark, Reference Ruark1987, italics added for emphasis). In 2022, buffalo can be legally hunted by hunting tourists in 16 sub-Saharan African countries, that is in 43 per cent of the 37 buffalo range countries (Figure 16.1). The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 prevented hunting tourists from travelling, which severely impacted hunting tourism like all forms of tourism. The situation slightly returned to normal in 2022.

Figure 16.1 Buffalo range countries where hunting tourism is lawful in 2022 for the four subspecies of buffalo recognized by the IUCN Red List so far. Note: Buffalo in northern and central Angola were categorized as ‘Cape buffalo’ by IUCN (2019), but phenotypically and perhaps even genetically they are ‘forest buffalo’.

Source: Author.

Among the four subspecies thus far recognized by the IUCN Red List (Chapters 3 and 4), the Cape buffalo is by far the most hunted, being legally hunted in nine countries. This obviously reflects its much higher abundance than the other subspecies, but also other factors like a greater development of the tourism industry, a safer security situation, a larger expansion of CBNRM programmes, etc. The forest buffalo is the least hunted subspecies with only three countries where it can be hunted legally, a situation resulting from a more restricted range, landlocked hunting grounds, the difficulty of the hunt in thick habitats, and also probably a degraded conservation status. The West and Central African savanna buffalo, both subspecies being rather similar and intermixed, can be hunted in eight countries. However, the overall number of buffalo trophy-hunted annually in these two regions has always been quite low, about 300 a year. We need to mention that the hunting community recognizes a fifth subspecies, the Nile buffalo, which ranges in Ethiopia, northern and western Uganda, and appears as an intermediate form between the Central African savanna buffalo and the Cape buffalo. The reality of the transitional shape of its trophy explains that hunters specifically hunt this particular buffalo and register their trophies distinctly in the records books.

Hunting quotas (the maximum number of adult male buffalo allowed to be hunted per year per Hunting Area) and offtakes (number of buffalo effectively harvested per year per Hunting Area) vary greatly between regions, with the highest figures in Tanzania and Southern Africa and the lowest in West and Central Africa (Table 16.2). The national offtake rate (ratio of offtake to quota) is not only the result of the number of buffalo taken per Hunting Area, but also of the percentage of Hunting Areas being leased and operational, which is a sign of the functionality of the industry in the country. In nearly all of the hunting countries, the hunt concerns free-ranging buffalo in unfenced Hunting Areas. South Africa, where buffalo hunting happens behind fences, is a major exception. Another peculiar feature of South Africa is that hunting quotas are set by the landowner, while they are generally set by government authorities quasi-everywhere else.

Table 16.2 Buffalo hunting quotas and offtakes in selected countries throughout Africa.

			2011/2012	2012/2013	2013/2014	2014/2015	2015/2016	2016/2017	2017/2018	2018/2019	2019/2020	Average
West Africa	Benin (PNP, 2018, 2019; PNW, 2018, 2019)	Buffalo quota (N buffalo)	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	75	75	n/a	75
		Buffalo offtake (N buffalo)	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	57	59	n/a	58
		Buffalo offtake rate (%)	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	76	79	n/a	77
	Burkina Faso (DFRC, 2018)	Buffalo quota (N buffalo)	147	163	153	153	183	183	181	n/a	n/a	166
		Buffalo offtake (N buffalo)	115	136	129	82	115	81	81	n/a	n/a	106
		Buffalo offtake rate (%)	78	83	84	54	63	44	45	n/a	n/a	64
Central Africa	Cameroon (MINFOF, 2020)	Buffalo quota (N buffalo)	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	352	341	356	381	358
		Buffalo offtake (N buffalo)	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	156	184	125	99	141
		Buffalo offtake rate (%)	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	44	54	35	26	39
East Africa	Tanzania (Wildlife Division, personal communication, 2021)	Buffalo quota (N buffalo)	2130	2130	2130	1948	1456	1456	1456	1456	1456	1735
		Buffalo offtake (N buffalo)	1129	901	889	940	828	672	655	625	737	820
		Buffalo offtake rate (%)	53	42	42	48	57	46	45	43	51	47
Southern Africa	Zimbabwe (ZPWMA, personal communication, 2022)	Buffalo quota (N buffalo)	n/a	n/a	1794	1751	1205	1308	1343	1252	1289	1420
		Buffalo offtake (N buffalo)	n/a	n/	717	699	593	642	592	585	200	575
		Buffalo offtake rate (%)	n/	n/	40	40	49	49	44	47	16	41
	Namibia (only for Communal Conservancies) (MEFT and NACSO, personal communication, 2022)	Buffalo quota (N buffalo)	n/a	n/a	106	106	108	122	122	122	132	117
		Buffalo offtake (N buffalo)	n/a	n/a	88	93	93	110	99	114	61	94
		Buffalo offtake rate (%)	n/a	n/a	83	85	86	90	81	93	46	80

Central Africa

Central Africa is the region where buffalo are the most diverse, with three subspecies occurring out of four. Buffalo there is not the first game of appeal for tourist hunters, who mainly look for the Eastern giant eland (Tragelaphus derbianus gigas) and the Western or lowland bongo (Tragelaphus eurycerus eurycerus). However, buffalo is part of the hunting package and is sought after for providing serious stalking by foot with outstandingly skilful trackers from local communities.

Cameroon is the country with the highest number of legal big game hunters in all of West and Central Africa in recent years. In 2018, 285 tourists came to Cameroon for hunting (MINFOF, 2019). In this country, Hunting Areas are a major component of the national network of Protected Areas: 71 gazetted Hunting Areas (Zones d’Intérêt Cynégétique) cover 57,000 km² (11.9 per cent of the country), that is 1.5 times the size of National Parks and Reserves (39,000 km², 8.2 per cent of the country; MINFOF, 2019). Over four hunting seasons between 2016 and 2020, the average annual quota was 358 buffalo (341–381) with 69 per cent savanna buffalo and 31 per cent forest buffalo. During this period, an annual average of 141 buffalo (99–184) were hunted for an average annual offtake rate of 39 per cent (MINFOF, 2020; Table 16.2). Such a low offtake rate reflects an important proportion of unleased Hunting Areas, as a number of them are no longer operational due to degradation by all sorts of activities which are illegal in protected areas: poaching, livestock invasion (Figure 16.2), cotton encroachment, gold mining, logging, and the charcoal trade.

Figure 16.2 Livestock sightings in the BSB landscape covering the transboundary national parks of Bouba Ndjidda (Cameroon) and Sena Oura (Chad) as well as the seven neighbouring Hunting Areas (Cameroon), during the aerial wildlife survey in 2018 (total surface of about 10,500 km²). The estimated livestock population (117,134 heads) was six times higher than the estimated population of the 11 largest wild mammals (20,136 individuals), and located mostly within the Hunting Areas surrounding the National Parks.

(data and illustration reproduced from WCS and MINFOF, 2018, with permission)

The Central African Republic (CAR) could be named the ‘buffalo country’, as it is the only one on the continent where three subspecies of buffalo occur and can be legally hunted, although the forest buffalo is rarely hunted there. In this country, 89 gazetted Hunting Areas cover 220,000 km² (35 per cent of the country), that is 3.6 times the size of the National Parks and Reserves (61,000 km², 10 per cent of the country). Before the political unrest initiated in 2012, CAR was a prime destination for big game hunting. It is still practiced in 2022, but so far remains marginal. Before the collapse of tourism, the buffalo was the second most abundant large game species after the giant eland in the Zones cynégétiques villageoises (ZCV, Village Hunting Zones) of northern CAR, with a density of 1.1 buffalo per km² (Bouché, Reference Bouché2010). In these ZCV only, the buffalo was the most hunted game species: in the 2008–2009 hunting season, 44 buffalo were harvested by hunting tourists, ahead of 26 giant eland (Bouché, Reference Bouché2010).

Chad is renowned for hosting the typical form of Syncerus caffer aequinoctialis with its wide, flattened horn shape. The country used to be famous for big game hunting until the contemporary civil turmoil. Despite these constraints, hunting tourism continued to be practiced in 2022, but at a lower scale.

In the Republic of Congo, hunting tourism has recently resumed with only a few forest buffalo harvested per year.

The security situation in Central Africa has been deteriorating for a longer time than in West Africa, and this has undermined the hunting industry as well as conservation. The region is experiencing what Scholte et al. (Reference Scholte, Pays, Adam and Chardonnet2021) call a conservation overstretch: with increasing insecurity and declining revenues, governments find themselves confronted with too few resources to protect vast areas.

Legal Framework at a Glance

Monitoring Buffalo Hunting

Monitoring is an essential process for the assessment of population trends in evaluating the conservation status of species at multiple scales over time. For management purposes, monitoring helps determine whether an intervention like hunting is on track to meet its objective and, if not, when, where and how changes may need to be made (Bell, Reference Bell and Owen-Smith1983, Reference Bell, Bell and McShane-Caluzi1984; CSIR, Reference Ferrar1983; Martin, Reference Martin, Bell and McShane-Caluzi1984).

Trophy Quality

For most species, trophies only represent a small fraction of the older adult males in the population, mainly after their breeding time, and therefore a very small proportion of the total population. Removing this segment of the population does not impact the survival of the population because no females are hunted and only a tiny proportion of the old males are harvested as trophies. However, selection pressure on bulls actively breeding can impact on characters in a population such as horn length. Removing breeding animals with superior horns can possibly result in a decrease in such specimens in the population, and increase specimens with inferior horns (Crosmary et al., Reference Crosmary, Loveridge and Ndaimani2013). Therefore, trophy quality should be monitored per hunting area per hunting season. The trophy quality is indexed by the trophy size of hunted individuals.

The Rowland Ward (RW) system of measurement, founded in 1870, has been the traditional method for measuring hunting trophies, for example 30th Edition for Africa in 2020 of Rowland Ward’s Records of Big Game (Rowland Ward, 2020). In 1977, North American trophy hunters introduced the Safari Club International (SCI) Record Book of Trophy Animals (SCI, 2022) with a measurement system built upon the original RW system, but nonetheless quite different. For buffalo, the RW system measures the greatest outside spread of the horns, which is not affected by the wear of the horns (RW method 12-a for Cape, Central African and Nile buffalo, rowlandward.org; Figure 16.3). Note that RW uses a different method (12-b) for West African and Dwarf buffalo. The SCI system measures the so-called ‘tip to tip length of the horns’ following the curves all along both horns, which is obviously much affected by the horns’ wear (SCI method 4 for African buffalo, safariclub.org). Thus, by penalizing worn horns, the SCI system encourages hunters to hunt younger breeding bulls with longer tip-to-tip lengths (Grobbelaar and Muselani, Reference Grobbelaar and Masulani2003; Taylor, Reference Taylor2005). Using Taylor’s (Reference Taylor1988) predictive tooth wear and age relationship, and relating this to trophy score with both RW and SCI systems (Taylor, Reference Taylor2005), it is clear that the SCI scoring system favours the attributes of younger individuals and leads to rates of offtake that are too high for sustaining trophy quality. The Namibian Professional Hunters Association is considering adopting an Age-Related Measuring System that scores according to age in addition to other criteria, and where immature animals are disqualified (NAPHA, 2021).

Figure 16.3 Method for measuring the trophies of Cape, Central African and Nile buffalo according to Rowland Ward’s Records of Big Game, Rowland-Ward-Method-12-a-Cape.pdf (rowlandward.org).

Illustration reproduced from © RowlandWard.org with permission.

While determining the age of individual hunted animals provides an additional refinement to monitoring, it can also be considered as a further imposition on safari operators, professional hunters and their hunters. However, where there may be concern over sustainability and possible diminishing trophy size, the measurement of the first molar tooth for age determination of hunted buffalo (Taylor, Reference Taylor1988) should be implemented as part of good adaptive management. This will necessitate the proper collection, labelling and storing of lower jaws (mandible).

Overall and simply, when hunting a male trophy buffalo, ideally:

1. (i) do not hunt buffalo males in herds; rather, hunt males in bachelor groups or individually,

2. (ii) think RW not SCI when selecting the individual to hunt,

3. (iii) select the oldest of the old males; however, if none of the bulls is old enough refrain from hunting,

4. (iv) post-hunt measure trophy using RW should be mandatory and SCI optional,

5. (v) hunter/hunting guide/hunting operator must determine age of hunted buffalo by extracting the first permanent molar and measuring tooth cusp height.

Buffalo Hunting, Conservation and Livelihood

According to IUCN (2016), legal, well-regulated trophy hunting can, and does, play an important role in delivering benefits for both wildlife conservation and for the livelihoods and wellbeing of indigenous and local communities living with wildlife.

Threats to Buffalo Hunting

Hunters Their Worst Enemies?

While the hunting community is certainly skilled, with a great deal of field experience and knowledge of the bush, members rarely produce or publish peer-reviewed scientific articles which nevertheless largely make the basis of conservation politics. Moreover, a number of hunting professionals tend to be reluctant to seek the collaboration of scientists. As a result, reliable standardized data on the hunting sector are certainly missing (Lindsey et al., Reference Lindsey, Roulet and Romañach2007; Snyman et al., Reference Snyman, Sumba and Vorhies2021). This situation appears detrimental to the hunting industry at a time it badly needs more science in all sorts of domains, for example biological, socioeconomic, management. In Western Zimbabwe, Crosmary et al. (Reference Crosmary, Côté and Fritz2015b) showed that harvested populations of large herbivores in trophy Hunting Areas may perform as well, and sometimes even better, than in National Parks where trophy hunting is not authorized. However, Buckley and Mossaz (Reference Buckley and Mossaz2015) pointed out that this study represented only one example, concluding that more studies are needed to understand the benefits of hunting tourism to wildlife conservation. Crosmary et al. agree and concur with Selier and Di Minin (Reference Selier and Di Minin2015) that scientists are needed to establish long-term wildlife monitoring systems that also integrate the social and financial benefits of trophy hunting for local communities.

There is probably some kind of misunderstanding on the part of hunting stakeholders, who find it difficult to accept critics in a polemic context. However, and counterintuitively, the hunting activity holds a broad set of very strong assets in favour of conservation, not only of the hunted game, but also of non-game species and their habitats, of the entire biodiversity in fact (fauna and flora), of all ecosystem services, without even talking about the livelihoods of local communities. In other words, hunters are poor advocates of their achievements. This said, some poorly performing individuals, companies and administrations certainly jeopardize the profession, like in any profession, whether because they lack training, professionalism, ethics or something else. While these kinds of internalities probably affect all sectors, they cannot be hidden in the hunting industry.

Beyond these internalities, there are also powerful externalities that fall beyond the responsibility of the hunting community and severely affect Hunting Areas and the hunting activity. The current hunting industry inherited ancient situations that are no longer suitable today, for example Hunting Areas that are very (too?) large to take care of in view of the fast-growing human population, and which require much more funding than before for their proper management (Scholte et al., Reference Scholte, Pays, Adam and Chardonnet2021). The profession is also facing newly arising tricky situations such as increasing numbers of all sorts of new arrivals claiming to be local communities despite not being indigenous people, more pastoralists with ever larger herds of livestock replacing wildlife in Hunting Areas (e.g. Figure 16.2 in Cameroon; Bouché et al., 2012 and Aebischer et al., Reference Aebischer, Ibrahim and Hickisch2020 in CAR; Musika et al., Reference Musika, Wakibara, Ndakidemi and Treydte2021 and Musika et al., Reference Musika, Wakibara, Ndakidemi and Treydte2022 in Tanzania), illegal goldminers, wild loggers, without mentioning bandits and even terrorists. Other contemporary constraints are the intense pressure of lobbies promoting commercial crops at all costs, especially the cotton value chain, which are heavily supported by national and international agencies with hardly any exception. Overall, many externalities have appeared on the scene and reshuffle the game, making hunting work more difficult, less viable and threatening ever more the conservation of natural resources. There is definitely a need to reform the governance and administration of hunting tourism (Booth and Chardonnet, Reference Booth and Chardonnet2015), but given the above-mentioned externalities, the reform should not be considered in isolation (Leader-Williams et al., Reference Leader-Williams, Baldus, Smith, Dickson, Hutton and Adams2009).