Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:12:08.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysing innovations among cattle smallholders to evaluate the adequacy of breeding programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2018

Y. Camara ,
N. Moula Open the ORCID record for N. Moula [Opens in a new window] ,
F. Sow ,
M. M. Sissokho  and
N. Antoine-Moussiaux
Y. Camara
Affiliation:
Fundamental and Applied Research for Animals & Health (FARAH), Sustainable Animal Production, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liege, 4000 Liege, Belgium ISRA, Bel Air, routes des hydrocarbures, BP 3120 Dakar, Sénégal
N. Moula
Affiliation:
Fundamental and Applied Research for Animals & Health (FARAH), Sustainable Animal Production, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liege, 4000 Liege, Belgium Tropical Veterinary Institute, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liege, 4000 Liege, Belgium
F. Sow
Affiliation:
ISRA, Bel Air, routes des hydrocarbures, BP 3120 Dakar, Sénégal
M. M. Sissokho
Affiliation:
ISRA, Bel Air, routes des hydrocarbures, BP 3120 Dakar, Sénégal
N. Antoine-Moussiaux*
Affiliation:
Fundamental and Applied Research for Animals & Health (FARAH), Sustainable Animal Production, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liege, 4000 Liege, Belgium Tropical Veterinary Institute, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Liege, 4000 Liege, Belgium
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Many breeding programs have been implemented in developing countries, many of which have been unsuccessful. To better understand the failure of these breeding programs, it is proposed to analyze their adequacy with innovations that are actually adopted by smallholders. The proposed methodology takes account of these innovations, the reasons for their adoption and the objectives of livestock keeping. The N’Dama cattle-breeding program in Senegal was used as a case study. Surveys were carried out among 54 farmers: 27 breeders who participated in this program, 17 of whom recently resigned, and 27 breeders who have never participated. Feeding was the most frequently cited area of innovation, followed by infrastructure. Genetics, animal health and reproduction held the third rank. Milk production appeared as an important objective of breeders, although the context remains one of strong multifunctionality. Principal component analysis highlighted three categories of breeders according to the innovations they adopted: institutional, modernizing, and integrating innovators. The groups of institutional and modernizing innovators dominate, gathering each 41% of the farmers. In the first category, breeders have organized themselves in an association and use N’Dama sires, livestock aiming at an insurance objective. In the second category, artificial insemination with exotic breeds and other technical innovations (cowshed, vaccination, urea treatment of straw) are used to improve production of milk and meat. The third group is termed ‘integrating innovators,’ since their innovations aim at integrating livestock and crop production. Gathering 18% of the sampled breeders, this group presents intermediate features between the two previous groups, using animals as draught power and for manure production. These results indicate that a process of intensification is at play and that the genetic improvement through the selection of N’Dama cattle for production criteria does not meet the breeders’ demand. However, the N’Dama’s adaptive traits justify its use as part of the breeding strategy of farmers, either in pure-breeding or in crossbreeding. The study thus tends to show the interactive link between genetic improvement and other innovations. It suggests that the success of a breeding program depends on its adequate positioning within the set of innovations adopted by breeders and proposes a method to inform breeding programs accordingly.

Keywords

genetic improvementN’Damabreeding objectivescrossbreedingSenegal
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , February 2019 , pp. 417 - 426
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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

Alter, N 1999. Sciences de l’homme et entreprise: Les innovateurs sont-ils deviants? Sciences humaines. Retrieved 04 May 2017 from http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2016519.Google Scholar
Ayalew, W, King, JM, Bruns, E and Rischkowsky, B 2003. Economic evaluation of smallholder subsistence livestock production: lessons from an Ethiopian goat development program. Ecological Economics 45, 473–485.Google Scholar
Charbonneau, M and Poinsot, Y 2008. De l’individuel au collectif. Les modes de gestion de l’élevage dans la puna péruvienne. Études rurales 181, 39–60.Google Scholar
Dieye, PN 2006. Arrangements contractuels et performances des marchés du lait local au Sud du Sénégal: Les petites entreprises de transformation face aux incertitudes de l’approvisionnement. PhD thesis, National Agronomic school, of Montpellier, Montpellier, France, 211pp.Google Scholar
Dieye, PN, Faye, A, Seydi, M and Cissé, SA 2002. Production laitière périurbaine et amélioration des revenus des petits producteurs en milieu rural au Sénégal. Cahiers Agricultures 21, 417–426.Google Scholar
Drucker, AG, Gomez, V and Anderson, S 2001. The economic valuation of farm animal genetic resources: A survey of available methods. Ecological Economics 36, 1–18.Google Scholar
Ejlertsen, M, Poole, J and Marshall, K 2013. Traditional breeding objectives and practices of goat, sheep and cattle smallholders in The Gambia and implications in relation to the design of breeding interventions. Tropical animal health and production 45, 219–229.Google Scholar
Fall, A, Diop, M, Sandford, J, Wissocq, YJ, Durkin, J and Trail, JCM 1982. Evaluation of the productivities of Djallonke sheep and N’Dama cattle at the Centre de Recherches Zootechniques, Kolda, Senegal. ILCA Research Report 3. ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 70pp.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization 2015. The state of capacities: characterization, inventory and monitoring. In The second report on the state of the world’s animal genetic resources for food and agriculture (ed. BD Scherf and D Pilling), pp. 237–250. FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Gaulier, A 2005. Etude des innovations dans les ceintures laitières périurbaines de Haute Casamance (Sénégal). MSc thesis, Mediterranean Agronomic Institute, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France, 112pp.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, I 2010. Livestock biodiversity Institutional setting and concepts. Revue scientifique et technique de l’Office international des Epizooties 29, 73–86.Google Scholar
Ilatsia ED, Roessler R, Kahi AK, Piepho HP, Valle Zárate A 2012. Production objectives and breeding goals of Sahiwal cattle keepers in Kenya and implications for a breeding programme. Tropical animal health and production 44, 519–530. Google Scholar
Josse, J and Husson, F 2012. Handling missing values in exploratory multivariate data analysis methods. Journal de la Société Française de Statistique 153, 79–99.Google Scholar
Kamuanga, M, Tano, K, Pokou, K, Jabbar, M, Swallow, B and Dieteren, G 1999. Farmers’ preferences of cattle breeds, their market values and prospects for improvement in West Africa: a summary review*. Proceedings of the 25th Meeting of the International Scientific Council for Trypanosomiasis Research and Control (ISCTRC) 120, 271–298.Google Scholar
Kilelu, CW, Klerkx, L and Leeuwis, C 2013. Unravelling the role of innovation platforms in supporting co-evolution of innovation: contributions and tensions in a smallholder dairy development programme. Agricultural Systems 118, 65–77.Google Scholar
Klerkx, L, Aarts, N and Leeuwis, C 2010. Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: the interactions between innovation networks and their environment. Agricultural Systems 103, 390–400.Google Scholar
Kosgey, IS, Baker, RL, Udo, HMJ and Arendonk, JAM van 2006. Successes and failures of small ruminant breeding programmes in the tropics: a review. Small ruminant research: the journal of the International Goat Association 61, 13–28.Google Scholar
Leroy, G, Baumung, R, Boettcher, P, Scherf, B and Hoffmann, I 2016. Review: sustainability of crossbreeding in developing countries; definitely not like crossing a meadow. Animal 10, 262–273.Google Scholar
Leroy, G, Boettcher, P, Hoffmann, I, Mottet, A, Teillard, F and Baumung, R 2016. An exploratory analysis on how geographic, socioeconomic, and environmental drivers affect the diversity. Journal of Animal Science 94, 5055–5063.Google Scholar
Philipsson, J, Rege, J, Zonabend, E and Okeyo, AM 2011. Sustainable breeding programmes for tropical low- and medium input farming systems. In Animal genetics training resource, version 3 (ed. JM Ojango, B Malmfors and AM Okeyo), pp. 1–35. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya and Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Roosen, J, Fadlaoui, A and Bertaglia, M 2005. Economic evaluation for conservation of farm animal genetic resources. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 122, 217–228.Google Scholar
Roschinsky, R, Kluszczynska, M, Sölkner, J, Puskur, R and Wurzinger, M 2015. Smallholder experiences with dairy cattle crossbreeding in the tropics: from introduction to impact. Animal 9, 150–157.Google Scholar
Schut, M, van Asten, P, Okafor, C, Hicintuka, C, Mapatano, S, Nabahungu, NL, Kagabo, D, Muchunguzi, P, Njukwe, E, Dontsop-Nguezet, PM, Sartas, M and Vanlauwe, B 2016. Sustainable intensification of agricultural systems in the Central African Highlands: The need for institutional innovation. Agricultural Systems 145, 165–176.Google Scholar
Siddo, S 2017. Evaluation socio-économique du potentiel de diffusion du zébu Azawak sélectionné au Niger. PhD thesis, Liege University, Liege, Belgium, 124pp.Google Scholar
Siddo, S, Moula, N, Hamadou, I, Issa, M, Marichatou, H, Leroy, P and Antoine-Moussiaux, N 2015. Breeding criteria and willingness to pay for improved Azawak zebu sires in Niger. Archive of Animal Breeding 58, 251–259.Google Scholar
Swaans, K and Pali, P 2013. Directives pour les plateformes d’Innovation: Facilitation, suivi et évaluation. ILRI Manuel 8. PP 40, Nairobi, Kenya.Google Scholar
Toure, A, Moula, N, Kouriba, A, Traore, B, Tindano, K, Leroy, P and Antoine-Moussiaux, N 2015. Dairy farms typology and management of animal genetic resources in the peri-urban zone of Bamako (Mali). Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics 116, 37–47.Google Scholar
Traoré, SA, Markemann, A, Reiber, C, Piepho, HP and Zárate, AV 2017. Production objectives, trait and breed preferences of farmers keeping N’Dama, Fulani Zebu and crossbred cattle and implications for breeding programs. Animal 11, 687–695.Google Scholar
Vall, E, Blanchard, M, Diallo, MA and Lecomte, P 2012. L’innovation par simplification expliquée par le principe de moindre quantité d’action de Maupertuis: cas de l’intégration agriculture-élevage en Afrique soudano-sahélienne. Rencontre Recherche Ruminants 19, 401–404.Google Scholar
Wane, A, Ancey, V and Touré, I 2010. Pastoralisme et recours aux marchés: Cas du Sahel sénégalais (Ferlo). Cahiers Agricultures 19, 14–20.Google Scholar
Wollny, CBA 2003. The need to conserve farm animal genetic resources in Africa: Should policy makers be concerned? Ecological Economics 45, 341–351.Google Scholar
Wurzinger, M, Sölkner, J and Iñiguez, L 2011. Important aspects and limitations in considering community-based breeding programs for low-input smallholder livestock systems. Small Ruminant Research 98, 170–175.Google Scholar
Zaibet, L, Traore, S, Ayantunde, A, Marshall, K, Johnson, N and Siegmund-Schultze, M 2011. Livelihood strategies in endemic livestock production systems in sub-humid zone of West Africa: Trends, trade-offs and implications. Environment, Development and Sustainability 13, 87–105.Google Scholar