Table 3.
Association between farmers’ perceptions of climate change impact on cattle farming and feedlot locations (n = 161).
| Variables | F1 (%) No Yes |
F2 (%) No Yes |
F3 (%) No Yes |
Total (%) No Yes |
X2 | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Have you ever heard of climate change | 8(5) 20(12) | 11(6.8) 42(26.1) | 7(4.3) 73(45.3) | 26(16) 135(84) | 7.3 | 0.03∗ |
| 2. What changes have one noticed in the environment suggesting a changing climate? | ||||||
| Dry winters | 25(16) 3(2) | 50(31) 3(2) | 60(37) 20(12) | 135(84) 26(16) | 9.5 | 0.01∗ |
| Drought | 14(8.7) 14(8.7) | 25(16) 28(17.4) | 21(13) 59(37) | 60(37) 101(63) | 8.3 | 0.02∗ |
| Heat stress | 10(6.2) 18(11) | 42(26) 11(6.8) | 47(29) 33(20) | 99(61) 62(39) | 15 | 0.001∗ |
| Dry pastures | 10(6.2) 18(11) | 38(24) 15(9.3) | 51(32) 29(18) | 99(61) 62(39) | 10 | 0.01∗ |
| Increased crop failure | 16(9.9) 12(7.5) | 46(29) 7(4.3) | 59(37) 21(13) | 121(75) 40(25) | 8.8 | 0.01∗ |
| 3. Which climate shock gave more problems? | ||||||
| Drought | 13(8) 15(9.3) | 14(8.7) 39(24.2) | 8(5) 72(44.7) | 35(22) 126(78) | 18 | 0.001∗ |
| Heatwaves | 9(5.6) 19(11.8) | 42(26) 11(6.8) | 64(40) 16(9.9) | 115(71) 46(29) | ||
| Floods | 23(14.3) 5(3.1) | 51(31.7) 2(1.2) | 58(36) 22(14) | 132(82) 29(18) | ||
| 4. What was done to reduce production losses due to climate change? | ||||||
| Sold part of cattle | 14(8.7) 6(3.7) | 39(24.2) 3(1.9) | 51(32) 22(14) | 104(65) 31(19) | 8.6 | 0.01∗ |
| Bought supplements and medication | 1(0.6) 19(11.8) | 9(5.6) 33(20.5) | 20(12) 53(33) | 30(19) 105(65) | 4.6 | 0.1 |
| Erected shades | 20(12) 0(0) | 38(23.6) 4(2.5) | 62(39) 11(6.8) | 120(75) 15(9) | 3.8 | 0.15 |
| Drilled a dam | 19(11.8) 1(0.6) | 37(23) 5(3.1) | 64(40) 9(5.6) | 120(75) 15(9) | 0.9 | 0.64 |
| Bought highly tolerant breeds | 17(10.6) 3(1.9) | 41(25.5) 1(0.6) | 70(43.5) 3(1.9) | 128(80) 7(4.3) | 4.8 | 0.09 |
| Sought government assistance | 13(8) 7(4.3) | 36(22) 6(3.7) | 63(39) 10(6.2) | 112(70) 23(14) | 5.4 | 0.07 |
| 5. Which adaptation strategies were effective in reducing production losses | ||||||
| Sold part of cattle | 15(9.3) 5(3.1) | 37(23) 5(3.1) 11(6.8) 31(19.3) 36(22.4) 6(3.7) 35(21.7) 7(4.3) 41(25.5) 1(0.6) 41(25.5) 1(0.6) |
50(31) 23(14) | 102(63) 33(21) | 5.5 | 0.06 |
| Bought supplements and medication | 5(3.1) 15(9.3) | 29(18) 44(27) | 45(28) 90(56) | 2.9 | 0.23 | |
| Erected shades | 20(12) 0(0) | 61(38) 12(7.5) | 117(73) 18(11) | 3.7 | 0.16 | |
| Drilled a dam | 20(12) 0(0) | 62(39) 11(6.8) | 117(73) 18(11) | 3.7 | 0.16 | |
| Bought highly tolerant breeds | 19(11.8) 1(0.6) | 66(41) 7(4.3) | 126(78) 9(5.6) | 2.3 | 0.31 | |
| Sought government assistance | 17(10.6) 3(1.9) | 65(40.4) 8(5) | 123(76) 12(7) | 3.5 | 0.17 | |
| 6. If no strategies were employed, what were the reasons? | ||||||
| Lack of financial resources | 16(9.9) | 27(16.7) | 33(20.5) | 76(47.2) | 18 | 0.06 |
| Lack of information | 1(0.6) | 7(4.3) | 20(12.4) | 28(17.4) | ||
| Lack of awareness of climate change | 2(1.2) | 2(1.2) | 10(6.2) | 14(8.7) | ||
| Multiple cattle ownership | 0(0) | 3(1.9) | 4(2.5) | 7(4.3) | ||
| Other | 1(0.6) | 1(0.6) | 4(2.5) | 6(3.7) | ||
| N/A | 8(5) | 13(8.1) | 9(5.6) | 30(18.6) | ||
Note: ∗Statistically significant at p < 0.05, X2: Chi-square, %: Percentage; F1: Raymond Mhlaba; F2: Mnquma; F3: Intsika Yethu.