IN the early settlement years, the British South African Company (BSAC), under whose administration the territory fell until 1923 when it was accorded a form of semi-independent responsible Government, depended on indigenous grown agricultural produce; they coveted the land mainly for mining interests.
The failure to locate the anticipated large gold deposits, the costs of military expeditions following the rebellions against the settlers, and the declining share value on the London Stock Exchange caused an embarrassment to Rhodes and his cohorts who had promised their investors massive returns; it was forced to revise its strategy and economic policies.
As a solution, vast stretches of land were granted to white settlers in the hope that the hitherto gold diggers would develop productive farms instead and generate enough income to justify the colony’s continued administrative costs to the empire.  
The new policy, based on agriculture and inaugurated in 1907, resulted in a number of successive land commissions appointed to study apportionment and appropriation of land, which resulted in land appropriations at the expense of the terrigenous population.
Indigenous people were forcibly relocated to make room for white colonial settler-farmers and their livestock; the fertile Chiweshe-Negomo reserves being the main sufferers.
This was followed by the imposition of multiple taxes on African males to coerce them into wage-labour.
The territory was delineated into five regions of distinct agro-ecological zones: arid, semi-arid, sub-tropical and highland farming zones which roughly corresponded to rainfall patterns, which under the terms of the 1930 Southern Rhodesian Land Apportionment Act, land ownership was determined by race with regions one, two and three were reserved exclusively for white settlement.
Regions three and four, that suffered sporadic drought, were regarded suitable for livestock and crops requiring little rainfall.
Region five in the lowveld, due to its dry environment, was not suitable for agriculture and therefore, was considered viable for limited livestock farming
Region five and a section of region two, with the least rainfall, were formed into tribal trust lands (TTLs), reserved exclusively for indigenous African use and ownership.
This resulted in overuse and over grazing of the land rendering them unproductive; due solely to overpopulation — while some prime white-owned farmland lay idle due to their vastness.
To control the rate of erosion that resulted from overcrowding and overuse, the colonial authorities introduced voluntary cattle destocking schemes.
When these met with little success, the destocking programme became mandatory in 1941, forcing all residents in communal reserves to sell or slaughter their surplus animals.
Faced with unfamiliar contact and management between African indigenous people and their domestic animals, expert colonial officials, veterinarians and animal scientists attempted to control indigenous livestock whose physical and behavioural characteristics, food preference and disease resistance were unlike those of the cattle of their homelands.
The settlers introduced exotic cattle breeds into Africa as seed stock to revolutionise the overstocked African ‘inferior’ cattle economy.
The African Land Husbandry Act passed in the early 1950s, attempted to reform the communal land system that gave Africans the right to ‘apply’ for formal title deeds to specific areas. 
This legislation proved so unpopular and difficult to enforce that the incoming Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Douglas Smith, in the mid-1960s, ordered its suspension.
The communal areas were not only over-populated, but 75 percent of the population lived in dry farming areas where any agriculture proved near impossible — less than 20 percent of all communal areas were considered good for agriculture.
It became obvious the agrarian structure needed reform; thus the Zimbabwe Government began to address issues of land equity.
Between April 1980 and September 1987, the acreage of land occupied by white-owned commercial farms was reduced by approximately 20 percent and by 1985 the communal, resettlement and small-scale herd stood at 3 409 000 animals.
The unattractiveness of indigenous cattle to settler-cattle breeders, who became partial to them after the Second World War (1939-1946), was mainly due to prejudice and ignorance and the assumption that indigenous breeds were unproductive and could not support commercial beef production.
However, ongoing evaluations have confirmed the opposite.
Indigenous breeds are well adapted to a wide range of climatic and environmental conditions, which imported Occidental breeds failed to adapt to and are known to suffer when adaptability is poor; their performance is usually less satisfactory compared to their performance in the northern hemisphere.
Due to its small body size, Shona indigenous cattle carries less meat than imported Occidental breeds; however, the meat is of extremely good quality, tasty and nutritious, with less fat and gristle. A well-fattened full-grown steer will yield between 250-275kg of meat.
I well recall stories recounted by Chikambi-Zvimba from his own great-great grandfathers how beef at Great Zimbabwe was famed and prized, and that people came from all around to taste and partake in its delectableness.
Since commercial livestock production was introduced in the early colonial period, breeding guidelines and beef production have been based on the use of imported Occidental and Asian cattle breeds that include: Brahman, Charolais, Hereford, Simmental, Aberdeen Angus and Sussex. Other cross-breeds have been achieved with the Friesland, Jersey-Ayrshire and Guernsey cattle with local indigenous bulls.
By independence in 1980, there were 15 recognised cattle breeds and beef brands in Zimbabwe which, according to records, were of better than average quality due to what cattle were fed on – ‘the sweet veld districts of Mashonaland and southern Matabeleland’.
The extensive use of indigenous cattle by commercial breeders in cross-breeding programmes has resulted in cattle that have inherited a fast growth rate, larger body size at maturity and a good measure of hardiness and resistance to tropical diseases.
By 1933, the limited knowledge of the problems associated with imported cattle breeds necessitated the urgent development of a breeding policy for the country.
As a result, the Matopos Research Station was set up in 1938.
Here, the possibilities of crossbreeding indigenous breeds with imported cattle were explored; since then, breed evaluation work has been sustained.
Early results from research done at Matopos Research Station proved the overall superiority of indigenous breeds which outperformed imported breeds owing to their high survival and calving rates; only marginally worse for calf growth traits in comparison to imported breed stock, despite low growth rates.
Even research carried out in Botswana also showed the mortality rate in imported cattle was higher against indigenous cattle breeds.
Studies have shown that local indigenous breeds require less feed and vaccine than the big bodied exotic breeds to maintain them under the local semi-arid conditions.
In spite of the evidence of the superiority of indigenous stock, commercial production and research policy continued to favour the use of imported stock for both beef cattle and other species.
The justification given for continued reliance on imported Occidental cattle breeds was that it was the environment, not the breed stock, which should be changed.
Consequently, research continued to concentrate on improved husbandry in order to make the local environment suitable for optimum beef production based on continued use of imported stock.
Results from the Matopos Research Station reveal that despite significant improvements in management and veterinary hygiene practice over the years, performance of the more adaptable indigenous breeds is still superior to that of exotic cattle.
Dr Tony Monda holds a PhD in Art Theory and Philosophy and a DBA (Doctorate in Business Administration) and Post-Colonial Heritage Studies. He is a writer, lecturer, musician, art critic, practicing artist and corporate image consultant. He is also a specialist art consultant, post-colonial scholar, Zimbabwean socio-economic analyst and researcher. E-mail: tonym.MONDA@gmail.com