An economic comparison of commercial and communal beef production in Namibia

Abstract

The title of the paper "An economic comparison of Commercial and Communal beef production in Namibia" has raised and put hidden challenges to both producers and academics alike. Suffice it to say that more questions have been raised rather than answers provided. The latter factor signifies the need for more research to determine the production levels in these two sectors. Certainly, the current literature and other secondary sources are totally insufficient to form a solid base for a meaningful argument. Due to the limited resources at hand, farmers' interviews have been conducted. Once again I should emphasise the point that:a)The four interviews (two communal and two commercial farmers) can not be regarded as a representative sample of the two sectors under discussion. b)Too little information was gathered through these interviews, thus generalisation is difficult given these barriers. However, the use of the four interview responses must be viewed as a demonstration type of how the study could be conducted to make it practical and relevant to the discussion

Therefore chapter one deals with the background information regarding production, management and marketing related issues of beef in Namibia, under the two sectors in discussion. It further highlights the project objectives and methodology used while building in hypothesis knowing the limitations, as the project nature tend to be artificial

Chapter two and three lay the foundation for the main argument. These chapters gathered figures and data mainly from secondary sources in the areas of production and marketing of beef. Evidently, the communal sector has too little information and data

Chapter four is the main discussion of this paper. Though figures has been provided from statistical calculations, using 'demonstration type data', this will not do any justice two both sectors (in terms comparisons) as said earlier

Finally, the paper managed to conclude with recommendations in terms of:c)Improving the conditions for future research initiatives. d)Emphasise the eminent felt nee.d among academics and farmers alike. I personally appeal to all those who in one or the other way may want to refer or quote from this paper to bear in mind these limitations. Even though, I'm happy to present this paper as an eye opener for the gab left in my discussion.