Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T20:23:25.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using the choice experiment method in the design of breeding goals in dairy sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 September 2014

A. Ragkos  and
Z. Abas
A. Ragkos*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Technology, Alexander Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki, Sindos, 57400 Thessaloniki, Greece
Z. Abas
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Development, Democritus University of Thrace, Pantazidou 193, 68200 Orestiada, Greece
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Market failures are the main cause of poor acknowledgement of the true impact of functional sheep traits on the management and economic performance of farms, which results in their omission from the breeding goal or the estimation of non-representative economic weights in the breeding goal. Consequently, stated-preference non-market valuation techniques, which recently emerged to mitigate these problems, are necessary to estimate economic weights for functional traits. The purpose of this paper is to present an example of the use of a choice experiment (CE) in the estimation of economic weights for sheep traits for the design of breeding goals. Through a questionnaire survey the preferences of sheep farmers are recorded and their marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) for 10 production and functional traits is estimated. Data are analysed using random parameter logit models. The results reveal unobserved preference heterogeneity for fertility, adaptability to grazing and resistance to disease, thus highlighting that these traits are appreciated differently by farmers, because their needs are diverse. Positive MWTP is found for Greek breeds, high milk production and lambs with low fat deposition, for which there is high demand in Greek markets. On the other hand, MWTP for the cheese-making ability of milk is negative, stemming from the fact that sheep milk prices in Greece are not formulated according to milk composition. In addition, farmers seem to understand differences between udder shapes and attribute different values to various types. This application of the CE method indicates that communication channels among farmers and breeders should be established in order to enhance market performance and to provide orientation to the design of breeding programmes. Non-market valuation can be used complementarily to market valuation techniques, in order to provide accurate estimates for production and functional traits.

Keywords

dairy sheep breedingeconomic weightsnon-market valuationsheep traits
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , February 2015 , pp. 208 - 217
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

Abas, Z, Sinapis, E, Roustemis, D, Hatziminaoglou, I, Banos, G and Pampoukidou, A 2004. Image analysis and udder linear trait classification in dairy ewes. Proceedings of the 34th Biennial Session of the International Committee for Animal Recording (ICAR), Sousse, Tunisia, 1–3 June, 63pp.Google Scholar
Adamowicz, W, Louviere, J and Swait, J 1998. Introduction to attribute-based stated choice methods. Resource Valuation Branch, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce, USA.Google Scholar
Amer, PR 1994. Economic theory and breeding objectives. Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Guelph, Canada, 7–12 August, pp. 197–204.Google Scholar
Arrow, K, Solow, R, Portney, P, Learner, E, Radner, R and Schuman, H 1993. Contingent valuation methodology report, Report of the NOAA Panel on contingent valuation. Federal Resister 58, 4602–4614.Google Scholar
Barillet, F 2007. Genetic improvement for dairy production in sheep and goats. Small Ruminant Research 70, 60–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, LJ, Carson, RT, Day, B, Hanemann, M, Hanley, N, Hett, T, Jones-Le, M, Loomes, G, Mourato, S, Ozdemiroglu, E, Pearce, DW, Sugden, R and Swanson, J 2002. Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birol, E, Karousakis, K and Koundouri, P 2006. Using a choice experiment to account for preference heterogeneity in wetland attributes: the case of Cheimaditida wetland in Greece. Ecological Economics 60, 145–156.Google Scholar
Boutonnet, J-P 1999. Perspectives of the sheep meat world market on future production systems and trends. Small Ruminant Research 34, 189–195.Google Scholar
Byrne, TJ, Amer, PR, Fennessy, PF, Hansen, P and Wickham, BW 2012. A preference-based approach to deriving breeding objectives: applied to sheep breeding. Animal 6, 778–788.Google Scholar
Byrne, TJ, Amer, PR, Fennessy, PF, Cromie, AR, Keady, TWJ, Hanrahan, JP, McHugh, MP and Wickham, BW 2010. Breeding objectives for sheep in Ireland: a bio-economic approach. Livestock Science 132, 135–144.Google Scholar
Chatziminaoglou, I 2001. Sheep and goats in Greece and worldwide. Giahoudi-Giapouli, Thessaloniki, Greece.Google Scholar
Dekkers, JCM and Gibson, JP 1998. Applying breeding objectives to dairy cattle improvement. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fragkos, K 1988. Sheep and goat breeding program in Greece. Review of Animal Science (Special Edition) 5, 123–131 (in Greek).Google Scholar
Fuerst-Waltl, B and Baumung, R 2009. Economic values for performance and functional traits in dairy sheep. Italian Journal of Animal Science 8, 341–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebre, KT, Fuerst-Waltl, B, Wurzinger, M, Philipsson, J, Duguma, G, Mirkena, T, Haile, A and Sφlkner, J 2012. Estimates of economic values for important traits of two indigenous Ethiopian sheep breeds. Small Ruminant Research 105, 154–160.Google Scholar
Gizaw, S, Getachew, T, Tibbo, M, Haile, A and Dessie, T 2011. Congruence between selection on breeding values and farmers’ selection criteria in sheep breeding under conventional nucleus breeding schemes. Animal 5, 995–1001.Google Scholar
Hanemann, WM 1989. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete response data: reply. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71, 1057–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensher, DA, Rose, JM and Greene, WH 2005. Applied choice analysis: a primer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingersent, KA and Rayner, AJ 1999. Agricultural policy in Western Europe and the United States. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.Google Scholar
Johansson, P-O 1991. An introduction to modern welfare economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Kogsey, IS 2004. Breeding objectives and breeding strategies for small ruminants in the tropics. PhD, Animal Breeding and Genetics Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Krinsky, I and Robb, AL 1986. On approximating the statistical properties of elasticities. The Review of Economics and Statistics 68, 715–719.Google Scholar
Lagka, V 2005. Sheep and goat farming. Alexander Technological Educational Institute, Thessaloniki (in Greek).Google Scholar
Lancaster, K 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. The Journal of Political Economy 74, 132–157.Google Scholar
Lopes, FB, Borjasa, AR, da Silva, MC, Facó, O, Lôbo, RN, Fiorvantia, MCS and McManus, C 2012. Breeding goals and selection criteria for intensive and semi-intensive dairy goat system in Brazil. Small Ruminant Research 106, 110–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, A 1920. Principles of economics: an introductory volume, 8th edition. Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Mpizelis, I 2013. Evaluation and use of Greek sheep and goat breeds. Animal Science Review (Special Issue) 39, 40–43.Google Scholar
Nielsen, HM and Amer, PR 2007. An approach to derive economic weights in breeding objectives using partial profile choice experiments. Animal 1, 1254–1262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, HM, Olesen, I, Navrud, S and Kolastad, K 2011. How to consider the value of farm animals in breeding goals. A review of current status and future challenges. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 24, 309–330.Google Scholar
Omondi, I, Baltenweck, I, Drucker, AG, Obare, G and Zander, KK 2008. Economic valuation of sheep genetic resources: implications for sustainable utilization in the Kenyan semi-arid tropics. Tropical Animal Health and Production 40, 615–626.Google Scholar
Ouma, EA and Abdulai, A 2006. Contribution of economics to design of sustainable cattle breeding programs in Eastern Africa: a choice experiment approach. Proceedings of the International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, 12–18 August. Retrieved July 26, 2014, from http://purl.umn.edu/25587.Google Scholar
Papavasileiou, D 2013. Evaluation and development of genetic material from Arta breed sheep. Animal Science Review (Special Issue) 39, 35–39.Google Scholar
Revelt, D and Train, K 1998. Mixed logit with repeated choices: households’ choice of appliance efficiency level. The Review of Economics and Statistics 53, 647–657.Google Scholar
Roessler, R, Drucker, AG, Scarpa, R, Markemann, A, Lemke, U, Thuy, LT and Zarate, AV 2008. Using choice experiments to assess smallholder farmers’ preferences for pig breeding traits in different production systems in North-West Vietnam. Ecological Economics 66, 184–192.Google Scholar
Rovai, M, Thomas, DL, Berger, Y and Caja 2004. Udder morphology and effects on milk production and ease of milking in dairy sheep. Proceedings of the 10th Great Lakes Dairy Sheep Symposium, Hudson, WI, USA, November 4–6.Google Scholar
Sinapis, E, Diamantopoulos, K, Abas, Z and Vlachos, I 2006. Effect of vacuum level on milking efficiency, somatic cell counts (SCC) and teat end wall thickness in ewes of Greek mountain Boutsiko breed. Livestock Science 104, 128–134.Google Scholar
Sinapis, E, Stergiadis, S, Abas, Z and Katanos, I 2008. Study of udder traits in Greek mountain sheep by digital image analysis. Epitheorese Zootehnikes Epistemes 38, 13–33 (in Greek).Google Scholar
Stiglitz, JE 1989. Markets, market failures, and development. The American Economic Review 79, 197–203.Google Scholar
Tano, K, Kamuanga, M, Faminow, MD and Swallow, B 2003. Using conjoint analysis to estimate farmer’s preferences for cattle traits in West Africa. Ecological Economics 45, 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tietenberg, T and Lewis, L 2006. Environmental and natural resource economics, 8th edition. Pearson Education, Inc., Boston.Google Scholar
Tolone, M, Riggio, V, Maizon, DO and Portolano, B 2011. Economic values for production and functional traits in Valle del Belice dairy sheep using profit functions. Small Ruminant Research 97, 41–47.Google Scholar
Wolfova, M and Wolf, J 2013. Strategies for defining traits when calculating economic values for livestock breeding: a review. Animal 7, 1401–1413.Google Scholar
Zervas, N, Boyazoglu, J, Kalaissakis, P, Papadimitriou, T and Flamant, JC 1977. Comparaison des races ovines Chios et Frisonne avec leurs croisements en Grèce continental II. Production laitière. Annales de Génétique et de Sélection Animale 9, 181–202.Google Scholar
Zygoyiannis, D 2006. Sheep production in the world and in Greece. Small Ruminant Research 62, 143–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar