Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:27:05.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bio-economic and operational feasibility of introducing oestrus synchronization and artificial insemination in simulated smallholder sheep breeding programmes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 November 2017

S. Gizaw  and
A. Tegegne
S. Gizaw*
Affiliation:
Livestock and Irrigation Value Chains for Ethiopian Smallholders (LIVES) Project, International Livestock Research Institute, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
A. Tegegne
Affiliation:
Livestock and Irrigation Value Chains for Ethiopian Smallholders (LIVES) Project, International Livestock Research Institute, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
*
† E-mail: s.gizaw@cgiar.org
Get access

Abstract

Low selection intensity due to few selection candidates available at any one time due to thinly spread year-round lambings in villages and prohibitively large nucleus requirements to provide sufficient improved rams to the production tier are the major challenges for designing effective village-based and central nucleus-based breeding programmes, respectively, for smallholder sheep farmers. To tackle these challenges, we used deterministic simulation to design three schemes in village-based programmes introducing hormonal oestrus synchronization (natural oestrus (VNE), single oestrus synchronization (VSE1) and double oestrus synchronization (VSE2)) and three schemes in central nucleus programme introducing artificial insemination (AI) (natural mating with nucleus sizes of 5% (CNM1) and 1% (CNM2) of the total ewe population and natural mating in breeding tier and AI in production tier (CAI)). The schemes were evaluated for their bio-economic and operational feasibility, taking Bonga sheep of Ethiopia as a case study. The selection intensities achieved in VNE, VSE1 and VSE2 were 2.0, 2.3 and 2.4, respectively, for selecting rams for the breeding tier and 0.0, 0.8 and 1.0, respectively, for the production tier. The profits per ewe per year from VNE, VSE1 and VSE2 were Birr 12.2, 21.7 and 24.5, but the profit from VNE for the production tier was zero. CAI generated more genetic gains in the breeding objective (Birr 4.8) than CNM1 (Birr 2.5) and CNM2 (Birr 0.0) in the production tier. However, CAI was less profitable than CNM1 and CNM2. In conclusion, hormonal oestrus synchronization was found to be a feasible technological aide to accelerate genetic progress in village-based programmes. CNM1 and CNM2 could not be recommended as CNM1 requires large nucleus of 10 325 ewes and CNM2 results in zero genetic gain in the production tier. CAI could overcome the challenge in central nucleus programmes, namely unaffordable large nucleus, but the scheme needs to be subsidized by the public sector to be economically feasible for farmers.

Keywords

smallholderbreeding programmeoestrus synchronizationartificial inseminationprofitability
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 7 , July 2018 , pp. 1517 - 1526
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Abegaz, S, Negussie, E, Duguma, G and Rege, JEO 2002. Genetic parameter estimates for growth traits in Horro sheep. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 119, 35–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abegaz, SG, Sölkner, J, Gizaw, S, Dessie, T, Haile, A, Mirkena, T, Getachew, T and Wurzinger, M 2014. Optimizing alternative schemes of community-based breeding programs for two Ethiopian goat breeds. Acta Agraria Kaposváriensis 18, 47–55.Google Scholar
Bradford, GE, Quirke, JF and Famula, TR 1986. Fertility, embryo survival and litter size in lines of Targhee sheep selected for weaning weight or litter size. Journal of Animal Science 62, 895–904.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Central Statistical Agency (CSA) 2015. Agricultural sample survey 2014/15. Volume II: Report on livestock production. CSA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Cloete, SWP, Mitzal, I and Olivier, I 2014. Genetic parameters and trends for lamb survival and birth weight in a Merino flock divergently selected for multiple rearing ability. Journal of Animal Science 87, 2196–2208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danchin-Burgea, C, Allain, D, Clément, V, Piacère, A, Martin, P and Palhière, I 2012. Genetic variability and French breeding programs of three goat breeds under selection. Small Ruminant Research 108, 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eikje, LS, Schaeffer, LR, Adnøy, T and Klemetsdal, G 2010. Sheep breeding schemes utilising artificial insemination; large-scale simulation with a complex breeding goal. Animal 5, 367–377.Google Scholar
Evans, G 1988. Current topics in artificial insemination of sheep. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 41, 103–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gizaw, S, Getachew, T, Goshme, S, Valle-Zárate, A, van Arendonk, JAM, Kemp, S, Mwai, AO and Dessie, T 2013. Efficiency of selection for body weight in a cooperative village breeding program of Menz sheep under smallholder farming system. Animal 11, 1–6.Google Scholar
Gizaw, S and Joshi, BK 2004. Estimates of genetic parameters for growth traits in Menz and Awassi×Menz crossbred sheep in Ethiopia. Indian Journal of Animal Science 74, 864–867.Google Scholar
Gizaw, S, Komen, H, Hanotte, O and van Arendonk, JAM 2008. Indigenous sheep resources of Ethiopia: types, production systems and farmers preferences. Animal Genetic Resources Information 43, 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gizaw, S, Komen, H and van Arendonk, JAM 2009. Optimal village breeding schemes under smallholder sheep farming systems. Livestock Science 124, 82–88.Google Scholar
Gizaw, S, Rischkowsky, B, Valle-Zárate, A, Haile, A, van Arendonk, JAM, Mwai, AO and Dessie, T 2014. Breeding programs for smallholder sheep farming systems: I. Evaluation of alternative designs of breeding schemes. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 131, 341–349.Google Scholar
Gizaw, S, Tesfaye, Y, Mekuriaw, Z, Tadesse, M, Hoekstra, D, Gebremedhin, B and Tegegne, A 2016. Oestrus synchronization for accelerated delivery of improved dairy genetics in Ethiopia: Results from action research and development interventions. LIVES working paper 12, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
Jackson, CG, Neville, TL, Mercadante, VRG, Waters, KM, Lamb, GC, Dahlen, CR and Redden, RR 2014. Efficacy of various five-day estrous synchronization protocols in sheep. Small Ruminant Research 120, 100–107.Google Scholar
Kahi, AK, Nitter, G and Gall, CF 2004. Developing breeding schemes for pasture based dairy production systems in Kenya II Evaluation of alternative objectives and schemes using a two-tier open nucleus and young bull system. Livestock Production Science 88, 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metsafe, M 2016. On-farm performance evaluation of Bonga sheep and its traditional selection methods in Adiyo Kaka Woreda, Southern Ethiopia. MSc thesis, Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Najafi, G, Fatin, C, Hamid, K and Abbas, AS 2014. The effects of using artificial insemination techniques on reproductive performance in Ghezel sheep. International Journal of Advanced Biological and Biomedical Research 12, 2898–2904.Google Scholar
O’Meara, CM, Hanrahan, JP, Donovan, A, Fair, S, Rizos, D, Wade, M, Boland, MP, Evans, ACO and Lonergan, P 2005. Relationship between in vitro fertilization of ewe oocytes and the fertility of ewes following cervical artificial insemination with frozen-thawed ram semen. Theriogenology 8, 1797–1808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omontese, BO, Rekwot, PI, Ate, IU, Ayo, JO, Kawu, MU, Rwuaan, JS, Nwannenna, AI, Mustapha, RA and Bello, AA 2016. An update on oestrus synchronisation of goats in Nigeria. Asian Pacific Journal of Reproduction 2, 96–101.Google Scholar
Safari, A and Fogarty, NM 2003. . Genetic parameters for sheep production traits: estimates from the literature. Technical bulletin 49, NSW Agriculture, Orange, Australia.Google Scholar
Safari, E, Fogarty, NM and Gilmour, AR 2005. A review of genetic parameter estimates for wool, growth, meat and reproduction traits in sheep. Livestock Production Science 92, 271–289.Google Scholar
Schoeman, SJ, Cloete, SWP and Olivier, JJ 2010. Returns on investment in sheep and goat breeding in South Africa. Livestock Science 130, 70–82.Google Scholar
Smith, JF, Parr, J, Beaumont, S, Oliver, IE and Upreti, GC 1995. Comparison of cervical, transcervical and laparoscopic insemination of ewes with chilled stored and frozen ram semen. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 75, 248–250.Google Scholar
Smith, JF, Vetharaniam, I, Mccall, DJ and Tervit, HR 2000. Role of reproductive technologies in reducing the time lag associated with the commercial application of genetic discovery in the sheep industry. Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 60, 36–40.Google Scholar
Tadesse, G, Ashebir, G and Yayneshet, T 2016. Effects of fixed time AI and AI at detected estrus on conception rate in smallholder zebu and crossbred heifers and cows subjected to double PGF2α administration. Tropical Animal Health and Production 48, 1209–1213.Google Scholar
Tegegne, A, Estifanos, A, Tera, A and Hoekstra, D 2012. Technological options and approaches to improve smallholder access to desirable animal genetic material for dairy development: IPMS Experience with hormonal ooestrus synchronization and mass insemination in Ethiopia. Paper presented at the conference on “Resilience of agricultural systems against crises”. Tropentag, 19–21 September 2012, Göttingen.Google Scholar
Tegegne, A, Warnick, AC, Mukasa Mugerwa, E and Ketema, H 1986. Fertility of Bos indicus and Bos indicus×Bos taurus crossbred cattle after oestrus synchronization. Theriogenology 31, 361–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valergakis, GE, Gelasakis, AI, Oikonomou, G, Arsenos, G, Fortomaris, P and Banos, G 2010. Profitability of a dairy sheep genetic improvement program using artificial insemination. Animal 4, 1628–1633.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
William, A, Nitter, G, Bartenchlager, H, Karras, K, Niebel, E and Graser, H-U 2008. ZPLAN-manual for a PC-program to optimize livestock selection schemes Manual Version 2008 for Source Code “z10for”. Institute of Animal Production in the Tropics and Subtropics, Universität Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.Google Scholar
Yotov, SA, Velislavova, DV and Dimova, LR 2016. Pregnancy rate in Bulgarian White milk goats with natural and synchronized estrus after artificial insemination by frozen semen during breeding season. Asian Pacific Journal of Reproduction 5, 144–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeleke, M 2009. Effect of time of pregnant mare serum gonadotrophin administration on oestrus synchronization efficiency and fertility in Blackhead Ogaden ewes. Ethiopian Journal of Animal Production 9, 135–145.Google Scholar
Zeleke, M, Habtemariam, A, Tegegne, A and Muluneh, D 2016. Estrus response and fertility of Menz and crossbred ewes to single prostaglandin injection protocol. Tropical Animal Health and Production 48, 53–57.Google Scholar
Zewdu, E 2014. Characterization of Bonga and Horro indigenous sheep breeds of smallholders for designing community based breeding strategies in Ethiopia. MSc thesis, Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia.Google Scholar