Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T20:18:24.091Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Congruence between selection on breeding values and farmers’ selection criteria in sheep breeding under conventional nucleus breeding schemes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2011

S. Gizaw ,
T. Getachew ,
M. Tibbo ,
A. Haile  and
T. Dessie
S. Gizaw*
Affiliation:
Debre Birhan Agricultural Research Centre, PO Box 112, Debre Birhan, Ethiopia
T. Getachew
Affiliation:
Debre Birhan Agricultural Research Centre, PO Box 112, Debre Birhan, Ethiopia
M. Tibbo
Affiliation:
International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), PO Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria
A. Haile
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
T. Dessie
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute, PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
*
†E-mail: s.gizaw@live.com; s_gizaw@yahoo.com
Get access

Abstract

Designing breeding schemes suitable for smallholder livestock production systems in developing regions has hitherto been a challenge. The suggested schemes either do not address farmers’ breeding goals (centralized station-based nucleus schemes) or yield slow genetic progress (village-based schemes). A new breeding scheme that integrates the merits of previously suggested schemes has been designed for Menz sheep improvement in Ethiopia. It involves selection based on breeding values in nucleus flocks to produce elite rams, a one-time only provision of improved rams to villagers and a follow-up village-based selection to sustain genetic progress in village flocks. Here, we assessed whether conventional selection of breeding rams based on breeding values for production traits, which is the practice in station-based nucleus flocks, meets farmers’ breeding objectives. We also elicited determinants of farmers’ ram choice. Low but significant correlations were found between rankings of rams based on farmers’ selection criteria, estimated breeding values (EBV) and body weight (BW). Appearance traits (such as color and horn) and meat production traits (BW and linear size traits) significantly determined farmers’ breeding ram choice. The results imply that conventional selection criteria based solely on EBV for production traits do not address farmers’ trait preferences fully, but only partially. Thus, a two-stage selection procedure involving selection on breeding values in nucleus centers followed by farmers’ selection among top- ranking candidate rams is recommended. This approach accommodates farmers’ preferences and speeds up genetic progress in village-based selection. The Menz sheep scheme could be applied elsewhere with similar situations to transform conventional station-based nucleus breeding activities into participatory breeding programs.

Keywords

sheepselectionbreeding programbreeding valuefarmer participation
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 7 , 31 May 2011 , pp. 995 - 1001
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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

Duguma, G, Mirkena, T, Haile, A, Iñiguez, L, Okeyo, AM, Tibbo, M, Rischkowsky, B, Sölkner, J, Wurzinger, M 2010. Participatory approaches to investigate breeding objectives of livestock keepers. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Retrieved April 14, 2010, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd22/4/dugu22064.htm.Google Scholar
Getachew, T 2008. Characterization of Menz and Afar indigenous sheep breeds of smallholders and pastoralists for designing community-based breeding strategies in Ethiopia. MSc, Haramaya University.Google Scholar
Gizaw, S, Komen, H, van Arendonk, JAM 2009. Optimal village breeding schemes under smallholder sheep farming systems. Livestock Science 124, 82–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gizaw, S, Komen, H, van Arendonk, JAM 2010. Participatory definition of breeding objectives and selection indexes for sheep breeding in traditional systems. Livestock Science 128, 67–74.Google Scholar
Gizaw, S, Lemma, S, Komen, H, van Arendonk, JAM 2007. Estimates of genetic trends and genetic parameters for live weight and fleece traits in Menz sheep. Small Ruminant Research 70, 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosgey, IS 2004. Breeding objectives and breeding strategies for small ruminants in the tropics. PhD, Wageningen University.Google Scholar
Meyer, K 2009. WOMBAT: a program for Mixed Model Analyses by Restricted Maximum Likelihood. User note, version 1, Armidale, Australia.Google Scholar
Ndumu, DB, Baumung, R, Wurzinger, M, Drucker, AG, Okeyo, AM, Semambo, D, 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
Perezgrovas, R 1995. Collaborative application of empirical criteria for selection high quality fleeces: Tzotzil shepherdesses and sheep scientists work together to develop tools for genetic improvement. Retrieved January 19, 2010, from http://www.unesco.org/most/bpik17-2.htm.Google Scholar
Ponzoni, RW 1992. Genetic improvement of hair sheep in the tropics. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 101, Rome, Italy, 168 pp.Google Scholar
Statistical analysis software (SAS) Institute Inc. 2002. SAS/STAT Software Release 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Sölkner, J, Nakimbugwe, H, Valle Zarate, A 1998. Analysis of determinants for success and failure of village breeding programs. Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production 25, 273–281.Google Scholar
Tadesse, F 2009. Price and performance analysis of indigenous sheep Breed marketing in Menz districts of Ethiopia. MSc, Haramaya University.Google Scholar
Tano, K, Kamuanga, M, Faminow, MD, Swallow, B 2003. Using conjoint analysis to estimate farmers’ preferences for cattle traits in West Africa. Ecological Economics 45, 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar