Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:31:00.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Smallholder experiences with dairy cattle crossbreeding in the tropics: from introduction to impact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 September 2014

R. Roschinsky ,
M. Kluszczynska ,
J. Sölkner ,
R. Puskur  and
M. Wurzinger
R. Roschinsky*
Affiliation:
BOKU – University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor Mendel Strasse 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
M. Kluszczynska
Affiliation:
BOKU – University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor Mendel Strasse 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
J. Sölkner
Affiliation:
BOKU – University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor Mendel Strasse 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
R. Puskur
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
M. Wurzinger
Affiliation:
BOKU – University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Gregor Mendel Strasse 33, 1180 Vienna, Austria
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Crossbreeding of indigenous tropical and improved western dairy cattle breeds as tool to improve dairy cattle performance on smallholder farms has been widely advocated, criticised and yet applied. The government of Ethiopia supported this technology for decades but adoption rate is low. Constraints are documented but there is little information about farm level introduction and development of crossbreeding. A total 122 smallholders with mixed crop livestock farms and at least 8 years of successful crossbreeding were interviewed using a pre-tested questionnaire in two contexts in Amhara Regional state in north-western Ethiopia. Crossbreeding initiator was either uncoordinated government extension or a coordinated development project, also implemented with governmental support. Qualitative and quantitative data on farmers’ motivations, crossbreeding introduction, initiator support, breeding adaptation and impacts at farm level were analysed. Results show that even though motives vary between contexts the underlying reason to introduce crossbreeding was economic profit. To be able to introduce crossbreeding support of initiators (e.g. extension) and other farmers was essential. The crossbreeding introduction context had some influence. Governmental actors were the main source of support and supplier of exotic genetics but the farmer network acted as safety net filling gaps of government support. Breeding strategies focused on performance increase. A lack of basic understanding of crossbreeding has been identified. A surprising, probably biased, result was general satisfaction with initiator support and with breeding services. It was challenged by the high proportion of farmers unable to follow a breeding strategy due to insufficient bull and/or semen supply. Crossbreeding changed the smallholder production system to a high input – high output system. Except for crossbred adaptation problems, challenges were ranked context specific and influenced by the initiator. Farmers perceived crossbreeding as success and recommended it. We conclude that farmers can realize income increase with crossbreeding. The complexity of this technology, high initial investment and the need for support services and external production inputs are probable reasons why crossbreeding uptake is low. Improving the availability of semen and/or bulls must be the top priority for breeding service providers to enable farmers to follow a breeding strategy and reach a suitable and sustainable herd performance. Access to investment capital, input supply, strong technical support and market linkages are crucial for successful crossbreeding.

Keywords

adoptioncrossbreedingdairy cattleEthiopiafarmers’ breeding methods
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , January 2015 , pp. 150 - 157
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2014 

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

Abdulai, A and Huffman, WE 2005. The diffusion of new agricultural technologies: the case of crossbred-cow technology in Tanzania. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87, 645–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Addisu, B, Mesfin, B, Kindu, M and Duncan, A 2012. Production aspects of intensification and milk market quality in Amhara region, Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 24, Article #154. Retrieved September 8, 2014, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/9/bite24154.htm Google Scholar
Ayenew, YA, Wurzinger, M, Tegegne, A and Zollitsch, W 2009. Performance and limitation of two dairy production systems in the North western Ethiopian highlands. Tropical Animal Health and Production 41, 1143–1150.Google Scholar
Basunathe, VK, Sawarkar, SW and Sasidhar, PVK 2010. Adoption of dairy production technologies and implications for dairy development in India. Outlook on Agriculture 39, 134–140.Google Scholar
Batz, FJ, Peters, KJ and Janssen, W 1999. The influence of technology characteristics on the rate and speed of adoption. Agricultural Economics 21, 121–130.Google Scholar
Bitew, A, Bahata, M, Mekonnen, K and Duncan, A 2011. Dairy intensification and milk market quality in Amhara region, Ethiopia. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
Chebo, C and Alemayehu, K 2012. Trends of cattle genetic improvement programs in Ethiopia: challenges and opportunities. Livestock Research for Rural Development 24. Retrieved 12 June 2012, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/7/cheb24109.htm.Google Scholar
CSA and International ICF 2012. Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2011. Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), Calverton Maryland. Retrieved 2 December 2013, from http://www.csa.gov.et/docs/2011%20Ethiopia%20DHS%20Final%20Report% 2003-30-2012.pdf.Google Scholar
Felleke, G and Geda, G 2001. The Ethiopian dairy development policy: a draft policy document. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Retrieved 2 December 2013, from http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/en/dairy/pfl/docs/P1assessmentmainethiopia.pdf.Google Scholar
García, CGM, Dorward, P and Rehman, T 2012. Farm and socio-economic characteristics of smallholder milk producers and their influence on technology adoption in Central Mexico. Tropical Animal Health and Production 44, 1199–1211.Google Scholar
Gebremedhin, D 2008. Assessment of problems/constraints associated with artificial insemination service in Ethiopia. MSc Thesis, Addis Ababa University. Retrieved 2 December 2013, from http://www.ipms-ethiopia.org/content/files/Documents/publications/MscTheses/FinalThesis_DesalegnGebremedhin.pdf.Google Scholar
Haile, A, Ayalew, W, Kebede, N, Dessie, T and Tegegne, A 2011. Breeding strategy to improve Ethiopian Boran cattle for meat and milk production. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers. Working Paper No. 26, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
Haile, G 2009. The impact of global economic & financial crises on the Ethiopian dairy industry. In Impact of the global economic crisis on LDC’s productive capacities and trade prospects: threats and opportunities. A case study: the dairy sector in Ethiopia, document prepared for the Least Developed Countries Ministerial Conference, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Herrero, M, Grace, D, Njuki, J, Johnson, N, Enahoro, D, Silvestri, S and Rufino, MC 2013. The roles of livestock in developing countries. Animal 7 (suppl. 1), 3–18.Google Scholar
Ibrahim, N, Abraha, A and Mulugeta, S 2011. Assessment of reproductive performances of crossbred dairy cattle (Holstein Friesian×Zebu) in Gondar town. Global Veterinaria 6, 561–566.Google Scholar
Integrated Livestock Development Project (ILDP) 2003. Mid-Term Evaluation Report Integrated Livestock Development Project Phase II (2002-2004). Project internal report for ILDP, Gondar, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Kahi, AK 2002. Crossbreeding systems and appropriate levels of exotic blood: Examples from Kilifi Plantations. AGTR Case Study, International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya. Retrieved 23 February 2013, from http://mahider.ilri.org/bitstream/handle/10568/3578/casestudy-Kahi-queries.pdf?sequence=1.Google Scholar
McDowell, RE, Wilk, JC and Talbott, CW 1996. Economic viability of crosses of Bos taurus and Bos indicus for dairying in warm climates. Journal of Dairy Science 79, 1292–1303.Google Scholar
Mekonnen, H, Dehninet, G and Kelay, B 2010. Dairy technology adoption in smallholder farms in Dejen district, Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production 42, 209–216.Google Scholar
Mulindwa, H, Galukande, E, Wurzinger, M, Okeyo Mwai, A and Sölkner, J 2009. Modelling of long term pasture production and estimation of carrying capacity of Ankole pastoral production system in South Western Uganda. Livestock Research for Rural Development 21. Retrieved 2 December 2013, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd21/9/muli21151.html.Google Scholar
Mullins, G, Wahome, L, Tsangari, P and Maarse, L 1996. Impacts of intensive dairy production on smallholder farm women in coastal Kenya. Human Ecology 24, 231–253.Google Scholar
Nicholson, CF, Thornton, PK, Mohammed, L, Muinga, RW, Mwamachi, DM, Elbasha, EH, Staal, SJ and Thorpe, W 1999. Smallholder Dairy Technology in Coastal Kenya. An adoption and impact study. ILRI Impact Assessment Series 5. ILRI International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya. Retrieved 2 December 2013, from http://www.ilri.org/Infoserv/webpub/fulldocs/CoastImp/Toc.htm.Google Scholar
Patil, BR and Udo, HMJ 1997. The impact of crossbred cows at farm level in mixed farming systems in Gujarat, India. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 10, 621–628.Google Scholar
Peacock, C, Ahuya, CO, Ojango, JMK and Okeyo, AM 2011. Practical crossbreeding for improved livelihoods in developing countries: The FARM Africa goat project. Livestock Science 136, 38–44.Google Scholar
SAS (Statistical Analytical Software) 2009. SAS Software Version 9.2 for Windows. Copyright © 2009 SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Samdup, T, Udo, HMJ, CHAM, Eilers, Ibrahim, MNM and van der Zijpp, AJ 2010. Crossbreeding and intensification of smallholder crop–cattle farming systems in Bhutan. Livestock Science 132, 126–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syrstad, O 1996. Dairy cattle crossbreeding in the tropics: choice of crossbreeding strategy. Tropical Animal Health and Production 28, 223–229.Google Scholar
Tadesse, M and Dessie, T 2003. Milk production performance of Zebu, Holstein Friesian and their crosses in Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Retrieved 22 November 2012, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd15/3/Tade153.htm.Google Scholar
Tassew, A and Seifu, E 2009. Smallholder dairy production system and emergence of dairy cooperatives in Bahir Dar Zuria and Mecha Woredas, Northwestern Ethiopia. World Journal of Dairy & Food Sciences 4, 185–192.Google Scholar
Tekeba, E, Wurzinger, M and Zollitsch, W 2012. Effects of urea-molasses multi-nutrient blocks as a dietary supplement for dairy cows in two milk production systems in north-western Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Retrieved 18 June 2013, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/8/teke24130.htm.Google Scholar
Wilson, RT 2009. Fit for purpose – the right animal in the right place. Tropical Animal Health and Production 41, 1081–1090.Google Scholar