BY: PHESHEYA KUNENE | EDITOR
EZULWINI — For years, one of the difficult questions facing an Eswatini livestock farmer has been deceptively simple: What is my animal actually worth?
Two cattle of different age, weight, body condition and meat potential can enter the market, yet without a harmonised national grading system, pricing can depend heavily on negotiation and subjective assessment. The draft National Livestock and Carcass Grading Policy says this has particularly affected smallholder farmers and has meant producers investing in better genetics, nutrition, animal health and husbandry are not consistently rewarded for producing better animals.
That is the problem Government, with support from the European Union and International Trade Centre (ITC) through the Eswatini Livestock Value Chain Development Programme, is seeking to address through the country’s first National Livestock and Carcass Grading Policy. The policy was subjected to stakeholder validation at the Royal Villas in Ezulwini on 23 September.
For farmers, the proposed change is significant: move away from simply looking at an animal and bargaining over its price towards measuring its commercial quality and linking that quality to what the producer is paid.
FROM GUESSING VALUE TO MEASURING IT
Under the draft framework, live animals would be assessed using measurable characteristics including age, sex, live weight, body condition, conformation, muscling and health status, with the applicable criteria varying by species and production system.
Carcasses would then be evaluated using factors including weight, age, fat cover and conformation.
The policy proposes transparent price grids so that farmers can understand how those characteristics translate into the final price they receive. It also envisages certified independent graders and calibrated weighing equipment at licensed facilities.
This could begin answering a question livestock farmers need to ask before selling: What must I improve in this animal to improve its value?
Instead of feeding an animal for additional months without knowing whether that expenditure will translate into a better return, a farmer could increasingly use grading information to make decisions about nutrition, breeding, animal health and when to market.
FARMERS SHOULD KNOW WHY THEY WERE PAID THAT PRICE
Another proposed solution is the introduction of detailed kill sheets.
The draft envisages farmers receiving information showing carcass weight, grade and itemised pricing after slaughter. The proposed digital system would link the carcass back to the animal and farm through the Eswatini Livestock Identification and Traceability System (SLITS).
This means the farmer would not only receive payment, but information that can help explain the payment.
That information can then become a management tool. If animals repeatedly achieve poor fat cover, weight or conformation, the producer has evidence to review feeding, genetics or the age at which animals are marketed.
BETTER QUALITY SHOULD HAVE A CLEARER PRICE
The draft proposes moving away from flat rate purchasing towards quality based grid pricing, particularly within participating formal markets.
Abattoirs and processors would publish price schedules based on carcass classes so that producers can see how characteristics such as weight, fat cover and dentition affect price. Farmers would also have a proposed rapid appeal mechanism where they dispute a grade or weight assessment.
This directly addresses one of the problems identified in the draft: farmers who spend money improving genetics, nutrition and animal health are not always consistently rewarded because objective quality standards are absent or unevenly applied.
Principal Secretary’s representative Luyanda Khumalo said the proposed policy seeks to “promote fair and transparent pricing, strengthen carcass traceability systems and ensure inclusivity, including recognition of indigenous breeds.”
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE HEAD, HIDE AND OFFAL?
The policy also tackles a longstanding commercial question surrounding the so called “fifth quarter”, which includes hides, skins, the head and edible offal.
The draft identifies disagreement between producers and abattoirs over the ownership and value of these products.
Its proposed solution is greater transparency before slaughter: the handling, ownership and financial value of these products should be agreed through written commercial contracts, including whether their value is incorporated into the carcass price or dealt with separately.
For farmers, that means one important question before sending livestock for slaughter should become: What exactly am I selling, and what happens to everything else after slaughter?
INDIGENOUS LIVESTOCK SHOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY LOSE OUT
The draft also recognises concerns that conventional grading systems could disadvantage indigenous and pasture raised animals if standards are designed primarily around fast growing exotic breeds.
It therefore proposes that the grading system should be objective and production system neutral so that indigenous breeds, communal livestock and pasture raised animals are not unfairly disadvantaged.
This is particularly important for smallholders whose livestock may be produced differently from animals in intensive commercial systems.
THE FARMER WILL ALSO HAVE TO CHANGE
The grading system will not only place obligations on abattoirs and buyers. It will require farmers to manage livestock with the eventual market grade in mind.
The draft envisages producers keeping identification and animal records, maintaining animal health, observing medication withdrawal periods, using grading information before marketing and studying kill sheets afterwards to improve future feeding and breeding decisions.
Bhekani Magongo of the European Union captured the market challenge during the validation process: “What is the point of improving the livestock sector without policies that address the issues affecting the sector, including markets?”
FARMER’S GUIDE: START PRODUCING FOR VALUE, NOT JUST SIZE
The policy is still being validated and implementation will require trained graders, equipment, functioning information systems and clear regulations. Farmers should therefore not assume that all the proposed measures are already operational.
But its direction carries an immediate lesson.
A livestock farmer should increasingly think beyond how many cattle or goats are in the kraal and focus on what determines the commercial value of each animal: genetics, nutrition, health, age, weight, body condition, muscling, traceability and the market being targeted.
The proposed grading system is ultimately trying to solve a basic livestock business problem: give the farmer clearer evidence of what the animal is worth, give the buyer a common standard for determining that value, and make the relationship between quality and price easier to understand.
