ANIMAL POWER

Introduction
• Food security for over 850 million population in the developing world
is achievable partly through improvements in farm power availability
to the resource poor farmers (Rosegrant & Cline, 2003).
• Since the poor farmer’s only asset is his own muscle power, increased
and less variable rural labour productivity is an important
intermediate objective in the struggle to end hunger and famine.
• Threats from scarce food supply will reduce if agricultural production
technologies in use ensure ample local food supply.
Introduction
• From pre-historic times when man changed status from hunter-gatherer to settled
agriculturist, he harnessed the muscle power of large domestic animals to augment his
own physical efforts in food production and leisure.
• Nowadays in any agricultural crop production system, humans, draught animals and
engines or motors provide the motive power in various proportions for crop production,
harvesting, transport and processing (Rijk, 1989; FAO, 2003; Pearson, 2005).
• According to FAO (2001), in sub-Saharan Africa, human power use accounts for 75 to 85
percent of harvested area. However, this dominance of human power is threatened by
aging farming population, rural-urban exodus of the youth, increased school enrolment,
and recently, the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
• Also, due to rising global fuel cost and the past failures of tractor mechanization projects
in many developing countries, there is renewed interest in research and extension
activities on efficient use of animal traction especially, for ploughing and carting.
Benefits
Why DAP?
• Animal traction has a long history in agricultural production.
• It is an appropriate, affordable and sustainable technology requiring very low external inputs.
• It has played and still playing an important role in meeting the power requirements of farming
system in developing countries.
• The importance of draught animal power (DAP) is now recognised by governments and agencies
concerned with agricultural production and development.
• Draught animals provide approximately 80% of the power used for farming in developing
countries (Pearson, 1993).
• The improvement of DAP will be particularly important in the coming years, in view of the future
financial constraints in Zimbabwe’s public sector.
• Economic structural adjustment programmes have resulted in farmers having cuts in subsidies,
extension, and veterinary services. Therefore, there is an increased need to use limited
resources effectively.
Why DAP?
• Large domestic animals (cattle, buffaloes, horses, donkeys, camels, etc) when properly
trained, fed and harnessed, are renewable source of energy.
• Wilson (2003): more than half of the world's population depends on animal power as its
main energy source. The global population estimate of working animals is 300-400
million (Barwell & Ayre, 1982), a resource equivalent to 35 GW of agricultural tractor
power in those countries where they are used (O’Neil & Kemp, 1989).
• Savings of 20 billion tonnes of petroleum are made, valued at that time at $6-10 billion
(Ramaswamy, 1998; Wilson, 2003), providing energy for cultivating 52% of the area sown
and hauling 25 million animal drawn carts (Ramaswamy, 1998).
• Other estimates showed that in 1994 in developing world, 51% of the 921 million cattle,
35% of the 135 million buffalo, 65% of 43 million horses, 87% of 43 million donkeys, 70%
of 14 million mules and 15% of 20 million camels were used for work (Pearson, 1999).
Why DAP?
• In sub-Saharan Africa, draught animals predominantly oxen, donkeys,
camels and horses, are used on rain-fed lands in the cereal-based
farming systems of western, eastern and southern Africa and the
highlands mixed systems of Ethiopia.
• The use of animals for work in many parts of Asia, Northern Africa
and Ethiopia, is part of a culture, where as in other sub-Saharan
African countries, DAP introduction and adoption is recent.
Why DAP?
• Oxen can generally generate sustained draft force equal to about 1/8th of
their body weight at about 2.0 to 2.9 km/h and about 1/10th at higher
speeds of about 4.0 km/h. They can maintain this level of work for about
3 to 6 hours per day in the tropics.
• Donkeys can pull 1/6th of their weight at about 2.5 to 2.8 km/h for 3 to 3
½ hours per day. Instantaneous effort is much greater. A donkey can exert
a momentary force of twice its weight and an ox can exert two-thirds its
weight at working speeds (CEEMAT, 9-29:1972).
• In teaming animals to gain additional force, getting them to pull together
introduces inefficiencies of at least 7.5% for two animals, 15% for three,
22% for four, 30% for five and 37% for six.
Power from common DA
Components of DAP
• DAP can be categorized into five distinct components, namely; animal,
harness, implement, operator and the soil or load, whose condition or
position we want to change.
• With respect to the above components and other factors including
training, management, operational parameters such as speed and
depth of ploughing as inputs, and productivity and animal welfare as
outputs need to be considered.
Components of DAP
• The interrelationships between crops and livestock are complex. While animals, being multi-
purpose, provide draught power for crop production and use crop residues and by products
profitably as feed, they also compete with crop production for resources such as land and labour.
• Animal traction is influenced by numerous mechanical, biological, management and socio-
economic factors.
• Mechanical factors include the harnessing system, implement design, soil resistance, angle of
pull, and friction.
• Biological factors such as sex, animal condition, size, nutrition, weight, pregnancy, lactation
status, temperature, and general health of the animal are important in determining work
performance.
• Other sources of influence include management and socio-economic factors.
• There is need to simultaneously consider these factors if efficient management systems of
animal traction are to be developed.
Components of DAP
Components of DAP
• Management is often a matter of compromise because of the
resource constraints within semi-arid smallholder farming systems.
• Requirements for work and availability of feed resources are often
seasonal and do not coincide. The aim of good management is,
• therefore, to ensure that DAP requirements can be met without
jeopardising other animal production functions such as growth,
lactation and pregnancy.
The DAP-Simulator
• Chawatama et al (2003) developed a computer-based draught animal power simulation
model, named DAP-Simulator, to estimate the parameters which are suitable for use in
semi-arid conditions.
• DAP-Simulator has been developed particularly for smallholder farming areas in the drier
parts of summer rainfall regions where animals are a major source of draught power.
• The model is interactive and allows the user to change the values of parameters and
initial values of variables to accommodate the conditions and management options that
the user wishes to simulate.
• The present version of the model assumes the animals are adapted to the environment,
and therefore the effects of ambient temperature on animal performance is not
sufficiently extreme in the environment that is simulated, to warrant representation of
this source of variation.
Conceptual diagram of the DAP-Simulator model
linking management, the animal and draught
The DAP-Simulator
• Equations for the model were developed for different factors that
influence draught performance. Most of these equations were taken
from literature and modified to suit the prevailing smallholder
conditions in Zimbabwe.
• Where possible, available parameter values were obtained from work
done in Zimbabwe or areas with similar conditions.
Carting loads

• The force requirement for carting loads was calculated as a function of the net mass of the cart (Cartmass),
weight of the load (Wload), implement’s frictional resistance (Fr) and the horizontal (Costhet) component of the
angle of pull. This is the angle between the line of pull and the horizontal line at the beam end along its travel.

• The value 9.81 is the force due to gravity used to convert kilograms to Newtons.
• The term RRC denotes the coefficient of rolling resistance as explained by Hunt and Gaver (1973). The
coefficient of rolling resistance takes into account the nature of the ground surface and wheel type. It decreases
with the firmness of the ground. The rolling resistance refers to the frictional coefficient between the axle and
wheels (Hunt and Gaver, 1973).
• The rolling resistance explains why the force can remain the same for different as one increases load sizes on a
cart. For example, if you increase the load by 20% the increase in force requirements will be less than 20%
because of rolling resistance.
Ploughing
• The force required to pull a plough is a function of the weight of the plough (Plowmass), ploughing
width (ww), ploughing depth (wd), the specific soil resistance (ssr), the fraction of soil moved by
the implement (wdf), and the horizontal (Costhet) and vertical (Sinthet) components of the angle
of pull:

• The specific soil resistance is determined from a table of soil texture (Van der Lee et al., 1993)
which bases the specific soil resistance on the texture of the soil.
• There is need to determine the specific soil resistances for local soils.
• There is also need to quantify the effects of soil moisture on specific soil resistance as this system
does not take this into account.
Area ploughed per day
• Area is calculated as a function of the distance travelled per hectare and the
speed of working (Speeday). The distance travelled per hectare has been
modified to allow calculation of area.

• Speeday is a conversion of working speed per second to speed per day and dt is
the integration step length expressed as a fraction of a day.
• The distance travelled per hectare (DH) is simulated as a function of the working
width (ww), space not cultivated between two furrows (sbf), the number of
passes (NP) and the turning distance (TD), i.e:
 Area ploughed per day

The term 1.0Exp04 is 10 000 expressed in exponent form and

converts square metres to hectares.
Energy expenditure in various work-related
activities
• The model simulates the energy expenditure of the animal while
either walking on a flat surface or uphill, pulling, lifting, in lactation or
pregnancy based on energy expenditure.
• Energy expended during lactation and pregnancy are related to the
stages of lactation or pregnancy. Lactation and pregnancy form the
basis of sex determination of working animals giving the user the
option of using cows or oxen for work.
• Calculations are based on the net energy (NE) expended.
Net energy for walking on a flat surface
• The animal expends energy for moving its own body during work or when grazing.
• The net energy for walking is calculated as a function of the period of walking, the
speed per day (Speeday), the animal’s weight (weight) and the energy required to
lift unit mass of liveweight per unit distance (Nerw).
• The energy costs of walking will depend on the ground surface and the soil type.
Animals working in clay or ploughed soil will expend more energy than animals
working on sandy or unploughed soil (Dijkman, 1992; Fall et al., 1997).
• The period of walking is under the user’s control.
• The equations in this section are multiplied by a kt value which converts
metabolisable energy to net energy. The default value for traction is 0.3 (Lawrence,
1985).
 Net energy for walking on a flat surface

• The number 1.0Exp06 converts joules to mega joules.

• However, this equation does not adequately describe energy costs of walking.
• The main factors determining the draught capacity of animals are ground surface and liveweight.
Unless the ground surface is firm, it is unlikely that animals will be able to pull loads to their capacity.
When animals are ploughing in pairs, the lead animal (animal walking on ploughed soil) has
beenshown to use 25% more energy than the partner animal (Matthewman and Dijkman, 1993).
• So users should calculate the energy requirements for walking for a lead animal by a ground surface
coefficient (GF) which is the proportion of extra energy expended due to unfirm ground.
Net energy for pulling loads
• Net energy requirements for pulling are calculated by splitting the vertical and
horizontal components.
• The horizontal component of the net energy for pulling is a function of the energy
used to move unit mass per unit distance (Nerh=2.6 J per kg per m), rate of
working (workrate), the horizontal component of the angle of pull (Costhet) and
the team size (TS):

where Workrate=forceSpeeday.
Net energy for pulling loads
• The vertical component of the net energy for pulling is calculated as in
the above equation but using the vertical component of the angle of
pull instead of the horizontal component:
Net energy for walking uphill
• Net energy for walking uphill (NEslope) is a function of the weight
(weight) of the animal, the distance (m) moved vertically upwards
(Height) and the efficiency of raising body weight (D):

• The default parametric values for Height and D are 2 and 0.35,
respectively (Lawrence, 1991).
Total Energy for Work
• The energy for work (NEwork) is thus a summation of the energy for
walking (NEwalk), pulling (NEhoriz), lifting (NEvert), and moving uphill
(NEslope).
Animal characteristics
• Team efficiency
The inclusion of animals in a team (span) is associated with a loss of efficiency which is due to
co-ordination problems. The more the animals there are in a team the lower the efficiency.
Team efficiency (TE) is a function of team size (TS) and declines by 7.5% for each extra animal
used in a team (ILCA, 1986).

The team efficiencies are 1 for a single animal span, 0.925 for two, 0.85 for three, and 0.775 for
four.
Animal characteristics
• Condition score
If the animal is working it loses weight unless the extra energy required for work is met by
adequate nutrition. The condition of the animal therefore declines with the loss of weight.
A large frame size is more important in work performance of light animals than the state of
its body condition.
However, condition score helps ascertain the animal’s ability to sustain fatigue and maintain
a normal walking speed over a long period of time (Bansal and Thierstein, 1991).
Condition score (CS) is calculated based on the animal’s present liveweight (weight) relative
to the optimum weight (OptWt).
The body condition scores range from 1 to 3 in condition classes of 50–70, 70–90, and >90%
of optimal weight (Van der Lee et al., 1993).
 Animals with less than 50% are excluded from work.
Animal characteristics

• The weight of an animal is of paramount importance in draught work.

It is important to be able to estimate the weight of the animal in the
field without having to depend on conventional tools of measurement.
• The optimum weight is rather arbitrary and depends on the breed of
the animal. The value used for a 350 kg liveweight animal in this
model is 380 kg.
Animal characteristics
• Load as a proportion of liveweight
The load pulled by a working animal can be expressed as a proportion of its liveweight.
 It ranges from 10 to 15% in cattle. This is a measure of the draught capacity of the animal.
Cattle under 200 kg are too light to cope with the strain of work and the optimum weight for
draught is 500 kg (AGRITEX, 1986).
Liveweight percentage (LWP) is calculated as a function of the condition (CS) of the animal and
harnessing score (HS).
The harnessing system used affects the transfer of energy from the animal to the implement with
an efficiency factor which is expressed as the harnessing score.
Harnessing score is a measure of the efficiency of energy transfer from animal to implement and
ranges between 1 and 3 (Van Der Lee et al., 1993).
An efficient harnessing system is given a score of one, and average and inefficient are given scores
of 2 and 3, respectively.
Animal characteristics

• The figure 8 is a constant. This means that animals in good

condition are able to pull a larger percentage of their liveweight and
an inefficient harnessing system will make animals expend more
energy.
Animal characteristics
• Animal’s potential force (forcepot)
This ascertains whether the animal can be able to perform the work
at hand.
The potential force of the animal (Forcepot) is calculated based on
the animal’s current liveweight (weight), the liveweight percentage
(LWP, which incorporates condition and harnessing scores) and the
team efficiency (TE) as a product of the force due to gravity (9.8).
Animal characteristics

• If the potential force is smaller than the force requirement of either

carting or ploughing then the animal is excluded from work.
• The potential force of the animal is compared with the force
requirements of the work task. For the animal to be selected for
work its potential force must be greater than or equal to the force
requirements.
Animal characteristics
• Basal metabolism
The basal metabolism (Hb) is calculated as a function of the efficiency
of utilization of metabolisable energy for maintenance (EGM), and the
metabolic weight (weight^0.67):
Animal characteristics
• Basal Metabolism
The factor of 1.08 converts liveweight to fasted body weight (AFRC, 1995).
Lawrence (1985) considered that maintenance energy can be assumed to be the
same as for non-working animals.
However, during exercise there is an increase in the metabolites used to fuel
muscle tissue.
 Lawrence et al. (1989) showed that basal metabolism increased by 14% when
animals were working.
 If the animals are working the following equation is used to calculate basal
metabolism where Workf, the factor by which basal metabolism increases in
working animals, is given a value of 1.4. or 1.10 (Pearson, 1997):
Animal characteristics