Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:12:34.985Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The domestic livestock resources of Turkey: sheep breeds and cross-breeds and their conservation status

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2013

Orhan Yilmaz ,
Firat Cengiz ,
Mehmet Ertugrul  and
R. Trevor Wilson
Orhan Yilmaz
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey
Firat Cengiz
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Yil University, Van, Turkey
Mehmet Ertugrul
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Ankara University, 06100 Ankara, Turkey
R. Trevor Wilson*
Affiliation:
Bartridge Partners, Umberleigh, Devon EX37 9AS, UK
*
Correspondence to: R. Trevor Wilson, Bartridge Partners, Umberleigh, Devon EX37 9AS, UK. email: [email protected]
Get access

Summary

Turkey's 21.8 million head of sheep comprise a rich array of fat-tailed and thin-tailed native breeds and crosses of these with animals of exotic origin. The structure of agriculture is such that most farms are predominantly subsistence oriented, of small size, keep few animals and provide only minimal inputs. Native breeds have evolved to meet these conditions and are generally well adapted to the natural environment, inadequate and unbalanced nutrition and disease stress. In the last 80 years, there have been attempts to modify the natural gene pool and many distinct breed types are in danger of or have already suffered extinction. This paper describes some of the major sheep genetic resources and their conservation status. The government is now aware of the danger of impoverishment or loss of this important aspect of biodiversity and has established programmes for conservation and preservation of several native breeds. Government, research institutions and producers should work together to ensure that the local gene pool is preserved and can thus continue to contribute to biodiversity and sustainable livestock production.

Résumé

Les 21,8 millions d'ovins de la Turquie comprennent une vaste gamme de races indigènes à queue grasse et fine ainsi que des animaux de ces races croisés avec d'autres d'origine exotique. La structure de l'agriculture est telle que la plupart des fermes s'orientent principalement vers une agriculture de subsistance, sont de petite taille, élèvent peu d'animaux et ont une faible productivité. Les races indigènes ont évolué avec ces contraintes et sont en général bien adaptées à l'environnement naturel, à une alimentation pauvre et déséquilibrée et au stress causé par diverses maladies. Au cours des 80 dernières années, les modifications du pool génétique naturel ont été nombreuses, ce qui a fait que, de nos jours, plusieurs races différentes se trouvent menacées d'extinction ou se soient déjà éteintes. Cet article fournit des détails sur quelques-unes des principales ressources génétiques ovines, y compris leur état de conservation. Le gouvernement a actuellement pris conscience du danger qui découle de l'appauvrissement ou la perte de cette importante composante de la biodiversité et a, en conséquence, établi des programmes pour la conservation et préservation de plusieurs races indigènes. Le gouvernement, les instituts de recherche et les producteurs devraient travailler ensemble pour assurer la préservation du pool génétique local, contribuant ainsi au maintien de la biodiversité et au développement de la production animale durable.

Resumen

Los 21,8 millones de cabezas de ganado ovino de Turquía comprenden un amplio abanico de razas nativas de cola grasa y cola fina así como cruces de estas razas con animales de origen exótico. La estructura de la agricultura es tal que la mayoría de las explotaciones están orientadas a la subsistencia, son de pequeño tamaño, mantienen pocos animales y presentan una baja productividad. Las razas nativas han ido evolucionando con estos condicionantes y, por lo general, se han adaptado adecuadamente al medio natural, a una alimentación pobre y desequilibrada y al estrés causado por diversas enfermedades. A lo largo de los últimos 80 años, se han producido modificaciones del acervo genético natural que han llevado a que muchos de estos tipos raciales se encuentren actualmente en peligro de extinción o se hayan extinguido ya. Este artículo describe algunos de los principales recursos genéticos ovinos así como su estado de conservación. En la actualidad, el gobierno es consciente del peligro que entraña el empobrecimiento o pérdida de este importante componente de la biodiversidad y por ello, ha puesto en marcha programas de conservación y preservación de varias razas nativas. Gobierno, centros de investigación y productores deberían trabajar conjuntamente para garantizar el mantenimiento del acervo genético local, contribuyendo así al desarrollo de la biodiversidad y la producción ganadera sostenible.

Keywords

native breedsbiodiversityproduction systemscross-breedingrisk statusextinctionconservationraces indigènesbiodiversitésystèmes de productioncroisementétat de risqueextinctionconservationrazas nativasbiodiversidadsistemas de produccióncruzamientoestado de riesgoextinciónconservación
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Genetic Resources/Resources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales , Volume 52 , June 2013 , pp. 147 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2013 

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

Anon. 1987. Genetic resources in livestock breeding. In Biological Diversity in Turkey, pp. 37–61, Ankara, Environmental Problems Foundation of Turkey.Google Scholar
Anon. 2009. Turkiye Ciftlik Hayvanlari Genetik Kaynaklari Katalogu. Tarim ve Koyisleri Bakanligi, Tarimsal Arastirmalar Genel Mudurluru: Ankara. (Catalogue of Turkish Farm Animal Genetic Resources. General Directorate of Agricultural Research, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs: Ankara).Google Scholar
Arat, S. 2011. In Vitro Conservation and Preliminary Molecular identification of some Turkish Domestic Animal Genetic Resources (Turkhaygen-I). Gebze, Kocaeli, Turkey, Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology Institute.Google Scholar
Arbuckle, B.S., Oztan, A. & Gulcur, S. 2009. The evolution of sheep and goat husbandry in central Anatolia. Anthropozoologica, 44: 129–157.Google Scholar
Atsan, T., Emsen, E., Yaprak, M., Dagdemir, V. & Gimenez Diaz, C. 2009. An economic assessment of differently managed sheep flocks in eastern Turkey. Italian Journal of Animal Sciences, 6: 407–414.Google Scholar
DAD-IS. 2010. Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (DAD-IS). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (available at http://www.fao.org/dadis/).Google Scholar
Ekiz, B., Kocaka, O., Ozcana, M. & Yilmaz, A. 2007. Effects of parity and litter size on maternal behaviour in Kivircik ewes. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Sciences, 57: 81–88. doi: 10.1080/09064700701766726.Google Scholar
Ertugrul, M., Akman, N., Askin, Y., Cengiz, F., Firatli, C., Turkoglu, M. & Yener, S.M. 1993. Hayvan Yetistirme (Yetistiricilik). Baran Offset: Ankara (Animal Husbandry (Breeding). Baran Offset: Ankara).Google Scholar
Ertugrul, M., Dellal, G., Soysal, I.M., Elmaci, C., Akin, O., Arat, S., Baritci, I., Pehlivan, E. & Yilmaz, O. 2009. Turkiye Yerli Koyun Irklarinin Korunmasi. Uludag Universitesi Ziraat Fakultesi Dergisi, 23(2): 97–119. (Conservation of Turkish native sheep breeds. Journal of the Agricultural Faculty of Uludag University, 23: 97–119.)Google Scholar
Ertugrul, M., Dellal, G., Elmaci, C., Akin, A.O., Pehlivan, E., Soysal, M.I. & Arat, S. 2010. Ciftlik Hayvanlari Genetik Kaynaklarinin Kullanilmasi ve Surdurulebilir Kullanimi. Turk Ziraat Muhendisligi VII. Teknik Kongresi. (Conservation of farm animal genetic resources and their sustainable use. Turkish Agricultural Engineering Technical Congress VII, 11–15 January 2010. Ankara.)Google Scholar
Kaymakci, M. 2008. Turkiye koyunculugunda melezleme calismalari. Hayvansal Uretim, 49(2): 43–51. (Crossbreeding experiments with Turkish Native sheep breeds. Enimal Production, 49(2): 43–51.)Google Scholar
Keskin, A., Dagdemir, V. & Demir, N. 2010. Economical analysis of sheep breeding according to the NUTS Level 1 region in Turkey. Science of Research Essays, 5: 641–645.Google Scholar
Koban, E. 2004. Genetic diversity of native and crossbreed sheep breeds in Anatolia, Unpublished PhD Thesis. Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.Google Scholar
MARA/FAO 2001. Agriculture in Turkey. Guzelis Ltd: Ankara (ISBN 975-8153-00-5).Google Scholar
Macit, M. 2002. Growth and carcass characteristics of male lambs of the Morkaram breed. Small Ruminant Research, 43: 191–194.Google Scholar
Macit, M., Esenbuga, N. & Karaoglu, M. 2002. Growth performance and carcass characteristics of Awassi, Morkaram and Tushin lambs grazed on pasture and supported with concentrate. Small Ruminant Research, 44: 241–246.Google Scholar
Mason, I.L. 1996. A World Dictionary of Livestock Breeds, Types and Varieties, 4th edition, Wallingford, UK, CAB International.Google Scholar
Oflaz, M., Soydan, E., Onder, H. & Ocak, N. 2010. The oestrous behavior of the Karayaka sheep in Turkey. Asian Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 5: 93–102. doi:10.3923/ajava.2010.93.102.Google Scholar
Sonmez, R. 1975. Hayvan Yetiştirme. Ege Universitesi Agricultural Faculty Publication: 141. Izmir. (Animal Husbandry. Faculty of Agriculture Publication No 141: Ege University.)Google Scholar
Sonmez, R. 1978. Sheep Husbandry and Wool. Faculty of Agriculture Publication No. 108: Ege University.Google Scholar
Sonmez, R. 2009. Turkiye Koyun Islahi Calismalari. Uludag Universitesi Ziraat Fakultesi Dergisi, 23(2): 43–65. (Sheep Breeding Research in Turkey. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture, Uludag University, 23(2): 43–65.)Google Scholar
TurkStat. 2010. Statistical Year Book 2010. Ankara, Turkish Statistical Institute, Prime Ministry.Google Scholar
Uzun, M., Gutiérrez-Gil, B., Arranz, J.J., Primitivo, F.S., Saatci, M., Kaya, M. & Bayón, Y. 2006. Genetic relationships among Turkish sheep. Genetics, Selection, Evolution, 38: 513–524. doi:10.1186/1297-9686-38-5-513.Google Scholar
Wilson, R.T. 2009. Fit for purpose – the right animal in the right place. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 41: 1081–1090.Google Scholar
Wilson, R.T., Yilmaz, O. & Ertugrul, M. 2011. The domestic livestock resources of Turkey: Pigs. Pig Journal, 66: 26–30.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, H, Cripps, P.J., Turan, N., Ozgur, N.Y., Green, L.E., Anil, M.H., Ilgaz, A. & Morgan, K.L. 2002. A postal survey of abortion in Turkish sheep. Small Ruminant Research, 45: 151–158.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, O. 1984. Turkiye Yerli Koyunlarini Tanimlayici Parametreler, Unpublished B.Sc. Thesis. Ankara, Ankara Universitesi, Ziraat Fakultesi, Zootekni Bolumu. (Descriptive parameters of Turkish indigenous sheep breeds. Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Ankara University).Google Scholar
Yilmaz, O. 1995. Some repeatability and heritability characters on Scottish Black Face Sheep. Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis. Faculty of Agriculture, Aberdeen University, Aberdeen, UK.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, O., Ertugrul, M. & Wilson, R.T. 2011a. The domestic livestock resources of Turkey: water buffalo. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 44: 707–714. doi:10.1007/s11250-011-9957-3.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, O., Ertugrul, M. & Wilson, R.T. 2011b. The domestic livestock resources of Turkey: Camel. Journal of Camel Practice and Research, 18: 21–24.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, O., Akin, O., Yener, M., Ertugrul, M. & Wilson, R.T. 2012. The domestic livestock resources of Turkey: cattle breeds and types and their conservation status. Animal Genetic Resources, 50: 65–73.Google Scholar
Zeder, M.A. 2008. Domestication and early agriculture in the Mediterranean Basin: origins, diffusion, and impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 105: 11597–11604. doi:10.1073/pnas.0801317105.Google Scholar