Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:49:46.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Production objectives, trait and breed preferences of farmers keeping N’Dama, Fulani Zebu and crossbred cattle and implications for breeding programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2016

S. A. Traoré ,
A. Markemann ,
C. Reiber ,
H. P. Piepho  and
A. Valle Zárate
S. A. Traoré*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Husbandry in the Tropics and Subtropics, University of Hohenheim, Garbenstrasse 17, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
A. Markemann
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Husbandry in the Tropics and Subtropics, University of Hohenheim, Garbenstrasse 17, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
C. Reiber
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Husbandry in the Tropics and Subtropics, University of Hohenheim, Garbenstrasse 17, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
H. P. Piepho
Affiliation:
Institute of Crop Science, Biostatistics Unit, University of Hohenheim, Fruwirthstrasse 23, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
A. Valle Zárate
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Breeding and Husbandry in the Tropics and Subtropics, University of Hohenheim, Garbenstrasse 17, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Many local livestock breeds in developing countries are being replaced by exotic breeds, leading to a loss of genetic resources. In southern Mali, for the past two decades, a trend towards increasing crossbreeding between the trypanotolerant N’Dama cattle and the trypano-susceptible Fulani Zebu cattle has been taking place. A survey with 160 farmers owning a cattle herd was carried out in southern Mali to investigate their production objectives, as well as trait and breed preferences and correlated socio-economic determinants in order to understand farmers’ breeding decisions and to identify comparative advantages of three breed groups (N’Dama, Fulani Zebu and crossbreds) raised in the study area. Data were analyzed using an exploded logit model. The reasons for raising cattle, as well as trait and breed preferences reflected the multiple objectives of the farmers. Draught power and savings were the most important production objectives. Productive traits were ranked highest; farmers reported large body size as the most preferred trait, followed by fertility, draught ability and milk yield. Crossbreds were the favored breed group. Breed preferences were mainly explained by ‘resistance to disease’ for N’Dama cattle and ‘high market price’ for Fulani Zebu and crossbred cattle. Production objectives, trait and breed preferences were mainly influenced by farmer group (local farmers and settled transhumants). Local farmers put comparatively more emphasis on livestock functions linked to crop production such as draught power. They had a higher preference for traction ability as a selection trait and preferred N’Dama over Fulani Zebu cattle. Settled transhumants emphasized milk yield as a selection trait and preferred Fulani Zebu over N’Dama. The results indicate that the trend towards more crossbreeding will continue putting the N’Dama breed under high risk of genetic dilution in southern Mali. The N’Dama cattle remain a valuable breed due to their adaptive traits such as disease and drought tolerance and their good traction ability, fulfilling the diverse objectives of local farmers. Crossbreeding was found to be a promising breeding strategy, which might contribute to the maintenance of the local breed, provided that breeding schemes are thoroughly planned and organized.

Keywords

breed preferencescrossbreedingN’Damaproduction objectivestrait preferences
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 4 , April 2017 , pp. 687 - 695
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agyemang, K 2005. Trypanotolerant livestock in the context of trypanosomiasis intervention strategies. PAAT Technical and Scientific Series 7, FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Allison, PD and Christakis, NA 1994. Logit models for sets of ranked items. Sociological Methodology 24, 199–228.Google Scholar
Anderson, S 2003. Animal genetic resources and sustainable livelihoods. Ecological Economics 45, 331–339.Google Scholar
Ayantunde, AA, Asse, R, Said, M and Fall, A 2014. Transhumant pastoralism, sustainable management of natural resources and endemic ruminant livestock in the sub-humid zone of West Africa. Environment, Development and Sustainability 16, 1097–1117.Google Scholar
Bebe, BO, Udo, HMJ, Rowlands, GJ and Thorpe, W 2003. Smallholder dairy systems in the Kenya highlands: breed preferences and breeding practices. Livestock Production Science 82, 117–127.Google Scholar
Bennison, JJ, Barton, D and Jaitner, J 1997. The production objectives and feeding strategies of ruminant livestock owners in the Gambia: implications for policy makers. Agricultural Systems 55, 425–444.Google Scholar
Bocoum, Z, Diarra, M, Maiga, HM, Sanogo, YT and Traoré, O 2012. African animal trypanosomiasis in the zone of project management sustainable livestock endemic (Progebe) Mali: results of entomological and parasitological surveys. Journal of Community Medicine and Health Education. Retrieved on 16 June 2014 from http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2161-0711.1000183.Google Scholar
Bosma, RH, Bengaly, M and Defoer, T 1993. Pour un système durable de production au Mali-Sud: accroître le rôle des ruminants dans le maintien de la matière organique des sols. In Livestock and sustainable nutrient cycling in mixed farming systems of Sub-Saharan Africa, Technical Papers, vol. II, Proceedings of an International Conference held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 22 to 26 November 1993 (ed. JM Powell, S Fernadez-Rivera, TO Williams and C Renard), pp. 171–182. International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Bosso, NA, Van der Waaij, EH, Kahi, AK and Van Arendonk, JAM 2009. Genetic analyses of N’Dama cattle breed selection schemes. Livestock Research for Rural Development 21. Retrieved on 15 October 2015 from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd21/8/boss21135.htm.Google Scholar
Dempfle, L and Jaitner, J 2000. Case study about the N’Dama breeding programme at the International Trypanotolerance Centre (ITC) in the Gambia. In Workshop on developing breeding strategies for lower input animal production environments (ed. S Galal, J Boyazoglu and K Hammond), pp. 347–354. International Committee for Animal Recording, Technical Series 3, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Duguma, G, Mirkena, T, Haile, A, Okeyo, AM, Tibbo, M, Rischkowsky, B and Wurzinger, M 2011. Identification of smallholder farmers and pastoralists’ preferences for sheep breeding traits: choice model approach. Animal 5, 1984–1992.Google Scholar
Ejlertsen, M, Poole, J and Marshall, K 2013. Traditional breeding objectives and practices of goat, sheep and cattle smallholders in the Gambia and implications in relation to the design of breeding interventions. Tropical Animal Health and Production 45, 219–229.Google Scholar
FAO 2015. 2nd State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ed. BD Scherf and D Pilling). FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Grace, D, Randolph, T, Affognon, H, Dramane, D, Diall, O and Clausen, PH 2009. Characterisation and validation of farmers’ knowledge and practice of cattle trypanosomosis management in the cotton zone of West Africa. Acta Tropica 111, 137–143.Google Scholar
Herold, P, Roessler, R, William, A, Momm, H and Valle Zarate, A 2010. Breeding and supply chain systems incorporating local pig breeds for small-scale pig producers in Northwest Vietnam. Livestock Science 129, 63–72.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, I 2013. Adaptation to climate change – exploring the potential of locally adapted breeds. Animal 7, 346–362.Google Scholar
Jabbar, M.A and Diedhiou, ML 2003. Does breed matter to cattle farmers and buyers? Evidence from West Africa. Ecological Economics 45, 461–472.Google Scholar
Kamuanga, M, d’Ieteren, GDM, Tano, K, Jabbar, MA, Swallow, BM and Pokou, K 1999. Farmer preferences of cattle breeds, their market values and prospects for improvement in West Africa: a summary review. In Proceedings of the 25th Meeting of the International Scientific Council for Trypanosomiasis Research and Control, Mombasa, Kenya, 27 September to 2 October 1999 (ed. KR Sones), pp. 271–298. Organization of African Unity/International Scientific Council for Trypanosomiasis Research and Control, Publication No. 120, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
Leroy, G, Baumung, R, Boettcher, P, Scherf, B and Hoffmann, I 2016. Review: sustainability of crossbreeding in developing countries; definitely not like crossing a meadow. Animal 10, 262–273.Google Scholar
Mapiye, C, Chimonyo, M, Dzama, K, Raats, JG and Mapekula, M 2009. Opportunities for improving Nguni cattle production in the smallholder farming systems of South Africa. Livestock Science 124, 196–204.Google Scholar
Murray, M, Stear, MJ, Trail, JCM, d’Ieteren, G, Agyemang, K and Dwinger, R 1991. Trypanosomiasis in cattle: prospects for control. In Breeding for disease resistance in farm animals (ed. JB Owen and RFE Axford), pp. 203–223. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, England.Google Scholar
Mwacharo, JM and Drucker, AG 2005. Production objectives and management strategies of livestock keepers in south-east Kenya: implications for a breeding programme. Tropical Animal Health and Production 37, 635–652.Google Scholar
Ndumu, DB, Baumung, R, Wurzinger, M, Drucker, AG, Okeyo, AM, Semambo, D and Sölkner, J 2008. Performance and fitness traits versus phenotypic appearance in the African Ankole Longhorn cattle: a novel approach to identify selection criteria for indigenous breeds. Livestock Science 113, 234–242.Google Scholar
Ouma, EA, Abdullai, A and Drucker, A 2007. Measuring heterogeneous preferences for cattle traits among cattle-keeping households in East Africa. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89, 1005–1019.Google Scholar
Piepho, HP 2012. A SAS macro for generating letter displays of pairwise mean comparisons. Communications in Biometry and Crop Science 7, 4–13.Google Scholar
Rege, JO, Marshall, K, Notenbaert, A, Ojango, JK and Okeyo, AM 2011. Pro-poor animal improvement and breeding – what can science do? Livestock Science 136, 15–28.Google Scholar
Roschinsky, R, Kluszczynska, M, Sölkner, J, Puskur, R and Wurzinger, M 2015. Smallholder experiences with dairy cattle crossbreeding in the tropics: from introduction to impact. Animal 9, 150–157.Google Scholar
SAS Institute 2012. Base SAS® 9.3 procedures guide: statistical procedures, 2nd edition. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Scholtz, MM and Theunissen, A 2010. The use of indigenous cattle in terminal cross-breeding to improve beef cattle production in Sub-Saharan Africa. Animal Genetic Resources 46, 33–39.Google Scholar
Shaw, APM and Hoste, CH 1987. Trypanotolerant cattle and livestock development in West and Central Africa. vol. 2. Trypanotolerant cattle in the national livestock economies. FAO Animal Production and Health Papers, No 67/2. FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Tamboura, T, Bibe, B, Babile, R and Petit, JP 1982. Results of crossbreeding between local breeds and improved dairy breeds in Mali. Revue D'élevage Et De Médecine Vétérinaire Des Pays Tropicaux 35, 401–412.Google Scholar
Steglich, M 2006. Participatory assessment of local cattle breeding systems: the case of the Gambia. PhD, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Tano, K, Kamuanga, M, Faminow, MD and Swallow, B 2003. Using co-joint analysis to estimate farmers’ preferences for cattle traits in West Africa. Ecological Economics 45, 393–407.Google Scholar
United Nations Development Program (UNDP) 2007. In-situ conservation of endemic ruminant livestock in West Africa. Retrieved on 2 December 2008 from http://www.gefweb.org/Documents/Work_Programs/wp_July04/Bio_-_Regional_-_In-situ_Conservation_-_Project_Document.pdf.Google Scholar
Wurzinger, M, Ndumu, D, Baumung, R, Drucker, A, Okeyo, AM, Semambo, DK, Byamungu, N and Sölkner, J 2006. Comparison of production systems and selection criteria of Ankole cattle by breeders in Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. Tropical Animal Health and Production 38, 571–581.Google Scholar
Zander, KK and Drucker, AG 2008. Conserving what’s important: using choice model scenarios to value local cattle breeds in East Africa. Ecological Economics 68, 34–45.Google Scholar