Crossbreeding strategies

Crossbreeding strategies can be basically classified into four different categories (Table 1) that differ according to whether or not the hybrid animals will be used for breeding and the number of pure breeds that perpetually contribute to the breeding program. With terminal crosses, hybrids are marketed. With the other categories, hybrids are reproducers and are subsequently mated with animals from one (breed substitution/upgrading), at least two (rotational crossing) or no (synthetic breed creation) continuously available pure breed(s). Each category has different merits or weakness (Table 1).

Table 1 Merits and weakness of various breeding strategies using crossbreeding

The production of terminal F1 crossed individuals constitutes a frequent strategy, considering the use of a female, generally locally adapted and thus endowed with (i.e. naturally selected for) greater fitness (and often maternal abilities), mated with a male, generally exotic and artificially selected for better general production performance. Such a strategy is often applied with the aim of producing animals to be fattened and marketed for meat, although this approach can also be used in dairy systems to produce hybrid females with improved milk production. In a strict terminal cross the offspring of such crosses should not be used for further breeding. Variants may also include a third line in which the female (i.e. the mother of the offspring to be marketed) is an F2 with improved maternal ability.

Rotational crossing is based on the use of crossbred dams that are alternatively mated to different breeds (usually from two to four), with the genetic composition of crossbred dams varying over generations. Similar to terminal crossing, it requires continuous supply of purebred genetic material, but only on the male side, sparing significant cost for breeders, especially in cattle, when a regular source of semen or low-cost males is available. Terminal and rotational crossing aim to optimize the heterozygosity of the product, and therefore the heterosis effect (although heterosis is smaller under rotational crossing). Those two strategies require the management of two (or more) parental lines, with a market chain to provide farmers either purebred reproducers or semen. This need for a continuous germplasm supply represents a major obstacle if infrastructure and logistics are lacking.

The aim of the creation of a synthetic breed is to benefit from the complementary qualities of two or more breeds, for example, adaptation of indigenous breeds, and improved production of exotic ones. In this strategy, crossbreed individuals are used as reproducers and inter se mated over generations. In theory, such programs may include any number of breeds, but two-breed combinations tend to be most common and complexity increases substantially with more than three or four breeds. It requires several generations to have a synthetic breed stabilized, but once the new breed has been provided to farmers, there should be no further need to provide reproducers of the original breeds. The synthetic breed will constitute a new locally adapted breed and ideally will combine the beneficial alleles of the local and exotic breeds. It is important to state that if all farmers adopt the new synthetic breed, such a program may constitute an important threat to local breeds (although the most important alleles from the indigenous populations will presumably be conserved).

Finally, crossing can also be used with the aim of replacing/upgrading a breed. The principle is to backcross hybrid females with males of the exotic breed over a number of generations, increasing subsequently the percentage of genes from exotic origins, until reaching a proportion close to 100%. Such strategies generally imply an even greater threat to local Animal Genetic Resources (AnGRs) than the creation of synthetic breeds, given the fact that indigenous alleles will not likely be conserved, particularly in absence of formal selection programs. Note that breed substitution does not necessarily imply crossbreeding, as indigenous reproducers can also be directly replaced by exotic ones, although this approach is costly owing to the number of females needed.

Although several formal crossbreeding strategies have been well described (Table 1), in practice, crossbreeding is often non-systematic and uncoordinated in developing countries, and as a result, the genetic background of local crossbreeds is often heterogeneous. The studies of Bebe et al. (Reference Bebe, Udo, Rowlands and Thorpe2003) and Kim and Rothschild (Reference Kim and Rothschild2014) on Kenyan Friesian and crossbreds dairy cattle reported a large diversity of origins (Holstein, Ayrshire, Norwegian Red and Guernsey), even for animals nominally considered to be primarily Holstein.

Performance of crossbred animals under different conditions

Multiple studies have investigated the differences in performance level between pure and crossbred animals, considering various environments, strategies, and, of course, breeds and species (Ayalew, Reference Ayalew2000; Burrow, Reference Burrow2006; Madalena et al., Reference Madalena, Peixoto and Gibson2012; Galukande et al., Reference Galukande, Mulindwa, Wurzinger, Roschinsky, Mwai and Sölkner2013). The outcomes of those studies have generally underlined the following elements:

• ∙ Crossbreeding between local and improved genetic resources allows, in a favorable environment, an improvement of performance of production traits such as growth or milk production. For instance, the meta-analysis performed by Galukande et al. (Reference Galukande, Mulindwa, Wurzinger, Roschinsky, Mwai and Sölkner2013) on 23 studies comparing local breed (Bos indicus) performance with Bos taurus crossbred animals (under tropics) showed that individuals with 50% B. taurus showed on average 2.6, 2.4 and 2.2 times higher milk yield than local animals in highland, tropical wet and dry, and semi-arid climatic zones, respectively.

• ∙ In parallel, fitness traits of crossbred animals are usually deteriorated in comparison with local individuals. For example, a recent study on African Shorthorn Zebu in Kenya linked the level of introgression from European breeds (determined with genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism data) to increased vulnerability to infectious diseases (Murray et al., Reference Murray, Woolhouse, Tapio, Mbole-Kariuki, Sonstegard, Thumbi, Jennings, van Wyk, Chase-Topping, Kiara, Toye, Coetzer, Bronsvort and Hanotte2013).

• ∙ In general, studies have reported greater performance for F1 crosses in comparison with F2, underlining the importance of the global heterosis effect (Madalena et al., Reference Madalena, Peixoto and Gibson2012; Galukande et al., Reference Galukande, Mulindwa, Wurzinger, Roschinsky, Mwai and Sölkner2013). In Bangladesh (FAO, 2010a), farmers reportedly interest in the Sonali chicken (Rhode Island Red×Fayoumi) as subsequent generations could not reproduce the good performance of the F1. The disappointed performance of the advanced intercrosses was cited as one of the reasons for the failure of the Sonali project.

• ∙ Genetic×Environment (G×E) interaction is common and consequential, with, as illustrated earlier, a reduction of the relative advantage of crossbreds v. local animals relative to production traits in harsh environments. Burrow (Reference Burrow2006) indicated that for tropical beef production, in general between 25% and 75% of genetic background from the adapted local breed are necessary for optimal beef production, depending on the level of environmental stress. In exceptionally stressful environments, genotypes with 100% local genetics are optimal.

An important qualifier is that the majority of the studies focused on a limited number of production traits, measured only over short periods of time and usually under experimental conditions, rather than comprehensive in situ studies evaluating lifetime economic returns. The studies also rarely took into account the values of all types of services (traction or manure for instance) provided by the livestock populations (FAO, 2007 and 2014), despite local breeds often highly rated by farmers for those services in comparison with crossbred animals. For example, in Senegal crossbred cattle were rated poorly for traction capacity in comparison with purebred N’dama (Steglich and Peters, Reference Steglich and Peters2003). When implementing a given crossbreeding program, it is of paramount importance to consider the consequences on performance not only at the animal level, but also of the farm, including consideration of alternate services, cultural values, and preferences of farmers and consumers. In addition, the impacts on performance and other factors over several generations are rarely addressed and deserve further research.

Economic impacts of crossbreeding

The potential impacts of crossbreeding may also be considered on levels beyond the farm, such as for the local community or even on national basis. Increased production and commercialization of agricultural activities is likely to contribute to economic growth of developing countries, especially for milk and meat, given their increasing demand. The economic profitability differs between dairy systems, with their continuous flow of income, and meat systems, with irregular sales. In East Africa, national economic development goals have led the dairy industry (including smallholders) to rely more on crossbreds and improved dairy cattle to increase milk production (Makoni et al., Reference Makoni, Mwai, Redda, van der Zijpp and van der Lee2013). In Kenya, Karugia et al. (Reference Karugia, Mwai, Kaitho, Drucker, Wollny and Rege2001) estimated that dairy cattle crossbreeding programs had a positive impact on the national economy, increasing social welfare by Ksh. 2.883 billion in 1996 (around $36 million). However, the same authors also underlined that their analysis ignored some societal cost components of crossbreeding programs, such as the enormous costs in the development and maintenance of these technologies (among other things such as research infrastructure, extension services, mitigation of loss of tolerance to diseases), which may drastically reduce the net societal benefits. According to the same study (Karugia et al., Reference Karugia, Mwai, Kaitho, Drucker, Wollny and Rege2001), economic performance on the farm level appeared little improved by the introduction of exotic genes, and the authors speculated that a scenario considering a genetic improvement of local Zebu scenarios may yield the best farm-level performance. In Ethiopia, a recent survey of Roschinsky et al. (Reference Roschinsky, Kluszczynska, Sölkner, Puskur and Wurzinger2015) showed that depending on the context, income improvement could be the main motivation for dairy cattle smallholders to adopt and maintain crossbreeding.

Yet, the analysis performed by Ayalew et al. (Reference Ayalew, Rischkowsky, King and Bruns2003) on economic efficiency of Ethiopian goat flocks showed that improved net benefits were primarily related to better management practices rather than to possession of crossbred animals. For meat production, a case study on crossbreeding of Ongole and Simmental in Java showed that the farming system did not change. Although meat production at farm and national levels increased with crossbreeding, farmer income generation was negatively affected and environmental performance not improved (Widi, Reference Widi2015).

For proper consideration of economic issues, it appears important to differentiate resource-driven systems (i.e. subsidence production systems limited by global input) from demand-driven ones (systems in which production can be adapted to fulfill the demand through output increase and technological improvement). As an example, in Vietnam, Lemke et al. (Reference Lemke, Kaufmann, Thuy, Emrich and Valle Zárate2007) indicated that the use of improved crossed genotypes allowed for increased revenue, but demanded resources that could not be sustained in resource-driven pig systems.

From a general point of view, efficiency of a given genotype largely depends on production and environmental circumstances such as feed and veterinary costs (Kahi et al., Reference Kahi, Kosgey, Cardoso and Van Arendonk1998). Therefore, the general recommendation is the use of indigenous livestock in resource-driven systems and of improved animals (crossbred or exotic) in demand-driven systems (Lemke et al., Reference Lemke, Kaufmann, Thuy, Emrich and Valle Zárate2007).

Factors of success

In recent history, various circumstances have contributed to the success or failure of crossbreeding programs (Table 3). Generally, most of the external reasons for the sustainability of a crossbreeding program can be linked to one or all of three interdependent factors, namely, the access to adequate stock, the opportunity of improved livestock to express its genetic potential and the efficiency of the market chain. The first prerequisite for the success of a given crossbreed program is that performance of crossbred animals must match farmer expectations, which helps ensure that smallholders have the motivation to implement or maintain crossbreeding within their farm (Quddus, 2012; Roschinsky et al., Reference Roschinsky, Kluszczynska, Sölkner, Puskur and Wurzinger2015).

Access to adequate stock

As underlined in Table 1, most crossbreeding strategies require a more or less continuous supply of exotic genetic material. The inability to provide an adequate source of material has been the limiting factor for many failed multiple crossbreeding programs (Table 3). Crossbreeding has frequently been introduced through projects of limited duration, with the assumption that at local stakeholders would eventually take up this responsibility. Although successful in the introduction of crossbreeding, many of these programs have collapsed once the project ended and the costs of genetic material and of breeding/AI center maintenance were no longer supported externally and this responsibility was not taken up by farmers, government or any other stakeholders. This situation occurred for the Bangladesh Sonali chicken improvement program (FAO, 2010a), as the remaining logistic structure was not able to ensure the continuous multiplication needed to provide hybrid chickens to smallholders. As recounted previously, farmers were not satisfied with the productivity of the advanced intercross, and thus were not motivated to support the system for their generation. Similarly, after the end of the Ethiopian Dairy Goat Development Program, the institution in charge of the crossbreeding station decreased the number of crossbred animals produced, whereas the few produced (and already purchased) animals were not delivered to the farmers (Ayalew, Reference Ayalew2000). More recently, the FARM Africa goat project in Kenya encountered difficulties to identify a private structure willing to produce improved goats, even though the breeding stations already involved could not meet the growing demand for improved goats (Peacock et al., Reference Peacock, Ahuya, Ojango and Okeyo2011). In those examples, the institutional background and economic incentives merited deserved more investigation and planning before the project started to ensure the supply in the long run. By contrast, one reason for the sustainability of the Kuroiler chicken system in India is related to the fact that chickens are raised until 2 to 4 weeks and vaccinated before selling them to village households. The primary objective of this initial step is to avoid increased juvenile mortality, but it has created a niche opportunity for local entrepreneurs wishing to exploit the demand by farmers for healthy, highly productive birds (Ahuja et al., Reference Ahuja, Dhawan, Punjabi and Maarse2008).

For large species and especially in cattle, access to AI is a key factor for implementation of crossbreeding, as smallholders do not always have male reproducers. In the study of Miazi et al. (Reference Miazi, Hossain and Hassan2007) in Bangladesh, crossbred animals were available only in close proximity to AI centers. In their study on dairy cattle in Kenya, Bebe et al. (Reference Bebe, Udo, Rowlands and Thorpe2003) also showed that farmers owning European B. taurus breeds were more dependent on AI than the ones using B. indicus. In a smallholder backyard pig production system in India, Kardivel et al. (Reference Kardivel, Kumaresan, Das, Bujarbaruah, Venkatasubramanian and Ngachan2013) showed that a crossbreeding with AI delivered in a participatory manner (i.e. with the involvement of village leaders and self-help groups in the AI delivery mechanism) allowed for a significant increase in income for farmers, including savings in mating and female transport cost. The sustainability of this scheme is, however, highly dependent on the institute providing boar semen.

The questions of how the cost of stock provision (AI or reproducers) and maintenance of breeding centers can be covered (i.e. by farmers, breeding organization and/or government) in the long run are rarely assessed in projects involving crossbreeding, even though they are critical for sustainability. Implementation of AI also relies on the farmers ability to detect heat, which may require specific training. Crossbreeding projects should therefore always plan, from the beginning, the sustainability of genetic material delivery and farmer support, which includes determining the cost recovery of those services.

Opportunity for improved livestock to express its genetic potential

In relation to their higher productivity and generally lower fitness and hardiness, crossbred and exotic animals are likely to be more sensitive to environmental constraints and require more input (i.e. feed and veterinary care) than locally adapted animals. Access to veterinary services, not only physical but also financial, is therefore usually necessary to maintain the good health and productivity of crossbred animals. Crossbreeding programs induce therefore increased costs in terms of management, in particular veterinary support (Karugia et al., Reference Karugia, Mwai, Kaitho, Drucker, Wollny and Rege2001; Nath et al., Reference Nath, Pathak, Ngachan, Tripathi and Mohanty2013). Such costs are often greater in remote areas. Working with Vietnamese pigs, Lemke et al. (Reference Lemke, Kaufmann, Thuy, Emrich and Valle Zárate2007) showed that the cost of veterinary treatments increased in households distant from town, reflecting higher transport costs.

Different studies considering adoption of crossbreeding have indeed shown that in harsh conditions, farmers tend to keep more frequently locally adapted breeds because of their greater hardiness relative to crossbred or exotic animals. For instance, in the study of Bebe et al. (Reference Bebe, Udo, Rowlands and Thorpe2003) on Kenyan dairy farms, the majority of Zebu breeders were in grazing systems (52%) and medium potential agroecological zones (72%), whereas farmers using European taurine breeds were more frequently in semi-zero or zero grazing systems (85% to 86% depending on the breed) and in high potential agroecological zones (71% to 80%).

Absolute feed costs per animal are expected to be greater for crossbred animals than for animals of local populations (Nath et al., Reference Nath, Pathak, Ngachan, Tripathi and Mohanty2013; Widi, Reference Widi2015). The reasons for this increased cost include a generally larger body size, resulting in higher maintenance, and the additional demand associated with increased production. In addition, improved animals tend to demand diets with a greater proportion of high quality, more expensive feeds. Although Kuroiler chicken is considered a scavenging/ semi-scavenging bird, it cannot actually meet its food requirement exclusively through scavenging, and therefore requires supplementary feeding (Ahuja et al., Reference Ahuja, Dhawan, Punjabi and Maarse2008). A global assessment found that, while diets of local dairy cows and buffaloes in developing countries usually consist predominantly of roughage (80% and 90%, respectively), improved breeds of the two species receive more concentrates and compound feed (FAO, IDF and IFCN, 2014). One of the reasons why the production of crossbred animals has been occasionally reported to be lower than expected is that those animals have not been offered the possibility to express their genetic production potential. For instance, Hassen et al. (Reference Hassen, Sölkner, Gizaw and Baumung2002) reported that crossbred lambs did not perform better than Ethiopian indigenous lambs in daily gain, probably owing to the fact that dams were unable to produce enough milk to fulfill the growth potential of F1 lambs, either because of insufficient nutrition or low genetic capacity for milk production. Availability or cost related to increased feeding is therefore a major factor limiting the interest of using improved animals, especially in resource-driven systems.

The ability to pay the increased input costs for acquisition and keeping of crossbred animals is clearly related to the availability of capital. In a recent survey of Bangladeshi dairy farmers, three of the four most commonly cited reasons for not adopting crossbred cattle (1. high costs of inputs, 2. high price of feeding and 3. lack of money for purchasing animals) involved the economic capacity to purchase inputs. The fourth reason was the complexity of management and the additional investment in time (Quddus, Reference Quddus2012). Other smallholder survey in Ethiopia and Tanzania also showed that availability of capital and access to credit facilitate the implementation of crossbreeding (Abdulai and Huffman, Reference Abdulai and Huffman2005; Mekonnen et al., Reference Mekonnen, Dehninet and Kelay2010) by smallholders.

Proper management of crossbred animals also requires greater investment in human capital (e.g. Quddus, Reference Quddus2012). Given the technical skills requirements and management constraints subsequent to the adoption of improved genotypes, there is a need for informing, training and providing support to farmers on the use of crossbreed animals. Therefore, existence of extension services can be considered as a major determinant of crossbred animal adoption, as well as sustainability in the long run (Abdulai and Huffman, Reference Abdulai and Huffman2005; Mekonnen et al., Reference Mekonnen, Dehninet and Kelay2010).

Efficiency of the market chain

As stated earlier, crossbreeding generally increases dependency on farm external input (feed, drugs, improved stock) and technical support (Roschinsky et al., Reference Roschinsky, Kluszczynska, Sölkner, Puskur and Wurzinger2015). The question of how smallholders can obtain those inputs, as well how their outputs are commercialized, must be adequately addressed to ensure the sustainability of any crossbreeding program.

Owing to unstable input supply and uncoordinated government extension, Ethiopian dairy farmers had to fill this gap by using their existing resources (Roschinsky et al., Reference Roschinsky, Kluszczynska, Sölkner, Puskur and Wurzinger2015). As a consequence, mating to local bulls was undertaken on an emergency basis, meaning that the farmers were unable to follow the originally planned breeding strategy. For pig breeding in North Vietnam, Herold et al. (Reference Herold, Roessler, Valle Zarate and Momm2010) proposed to improve the existing unsystematic crossbreeding scheme through a stratified scheme, involving indigenous robust Ban and prolific Mong Cai breeds, as well as Yorkshire sires, linked to a marketing program. The new crossbreeding scheme was unable to allow breeders to be independent in terms of breeding stock supply, however. Although Mong Cai breeders could obtain good prices for sows, this income did not compensate for the low prices obtained for purebred Mong Cai finishers (FAO, 2015). On the other hand, the commercialization of purebred Ban products through a short supply chain was proven to be successful, allowing also the maintenance of a pool of reproducers for smallholders practicing crossbreeding.

Before implementing a given crossbreeding strategy, it is recommended to ensure that there are market signals, such as price rewards, to provide incentives for breeders to increase the quality or quantity of their production (FAO, 2010b). One of the main issues to be considered is the lack of transparency in the price transmission through the various stages of the livestock value chain in many developing countries. The multiplicity of actors (e.g. producers, small and large traders, brokers, transporters), as well as lack of objective standards for selling and buying animals (Kocho et al., Reference Kocho, Abebe, Tegegne and Gebremedhin2011) lower the ability of farmers to capture the economic benefits from crossbreeding. In this context, standardization of marketing procedures could constitute a clear improvement for smallholders. Otieno (Reference Otieno2013) showed that the opportunity for direct sale of animals to the abattoir was a promoting factor of crossbreeding adoption, because abattoir operators were more likely to offer prices based on objective factors such as live weight, whereas in open-air markets, ‘eye-ball’ remained a frequent basis for assessing the value of animals. Linkage to the market is another important point to consider, and in Tanzania and Ethiopia the proximity to local markets favored the adoption of ‘crossbreeding technology’ (Abdulai and Huffman, Reference Abdulai and Huffman2005; Mekonnen et al., Reference Mekonnen, Dehninet and Kelay2010). In the absence of direct market linkages, the opportunity to differentiate the market and provide products adapted to consumer tastes is often missed (Herold et al., Reference Herold, Roessler, Valle Zarate and Momm2010). For instance, in Northern Vietnam, depending on consumers, either lean pork (i.e. from exotic breed pigs) or pork with local flavor/taste (i.e. from local pigs) are preferred (Lapar et al., Reference Lapar, Luan, Jabbar, Figuié, Quang, Moustier, Binh and Steve2010). Only the producers in a short market chain can exploit these differences in consumer preference.

These three different factors (access to breeding stock, opportunity to express the genetic potential and efficiency of the market chain) are all interdependent because they require coordination to ensure the provision of breeding stock and inputs as well as the connection to the market. Therefore, in absence of a formal organization in support of these three factors, the long-term stability of the crossbreeding system will be compromised. Strengthening of local and regional producer organizations is therefore often considered as the best solution for small-scale producers to deal with the challenges associated with market chains, such as the access to credit and other inputs and output markets (Rege et al., Reference Rege, Marshall, Notenbaert, Ojango and Okeyo2011). By organizing themselves, smallholders may increase their competitiveness by, for instance, standardizing marketing price and providing alternative sources of breeding stock. Although horizontal integration may benefit smallholders, vertical integration, either top-down (companies owning farms) or bottom-up (farmers controlling steps of production) may also be an interesting strategy to address the input/output issues (Herold et al., Reference Herold, Roessler, William, Momm and Valle Zarate2012). The Kuroiler example stated above constitutes one example of such vertical integration, where a private company provides 3-week-old vaccinated chickens to smallholders through the intermediate of mother units run by local entrepreneurs.

The establishment of marketing groups or cooperatives linking producers to retail market actors could improve marketing efficacy and profitability of smallholders, and offer the possibility to develop market niches, differentiated for local, crossed or exotic animal products (Kocho et al., Reference Kocho, Abebe, Tegegne and Gebremedhin2011). In terminal crossing programs, integration can provide the opportunity to organize stratified breeding schemes, including price transmission between exotic/F1/local stock producers, on a sustainable basis. This corresponds to the system proposed for pig production in North Vietnam described above (Herold et al., Reference Herold, Roessler, Valle Zarate and Momm2010; FAO, 2015), which included the establishment of a short food supply chain.

The choice of the optimal integration system will depend on the local circumstances as well as the objective of the system. If the main objective is to improve smallholder livelihoods, breeding cooperatives may be preferred over commercial companies, given that the general long-term goal of cooperatives is to maximize the welfare of their members companies aim to maximize their own profits. Specific efforts should be made in developing countries to implement breeding programs in parallel to fostering the marketing of products and breeding animals (Herold et al., Reference Herold, Roessler, William, Momm and Valle Zarate2012). In addition, breeding organizations should be developed considering culture-specific forms of organization (Herold et al., Reference Herold, Roessler, William, Momm and Valle Zarate2012), taking for instance into account local ethnical and gender issues.

Choosing a given strategy

The use of exotic AnGRs should be considered only if there is evidence that such introduction will increase animal performance by more than the arbitrary threshold of 30%, in order to take into account multiple risks and challenges involved (FAO, 2010b).

Choice of the appropriate strategy will have a critical influence on the sustainability of any crossbreeding program. Three principal factors influencing the success of crossbreeding have been discussed earlier. Among these three factors, the ability of improved stock to express their genetic potential (environment control and constraints) and access to breeding stock are particularly critical for the choice of the strategy (Figure 3). Indeed the first factor influences the necessity to maintain genes from the local population (allowing the population to maintain fitness and survival in the local environment), whereas the second factor impacts the capacity of the smallholders to control the genetic composition of their animals. If local breeds do not possess traits of any interest for farmers (typically in industrial systems with no major environmental or feeding constraints), complete or nearly complete substitution with an improved breed will appear as the logical strategy for increasing production and farmer income. In cases where local breeds possess traits of interest, the choice of the strategy will depend of the factors described in Figure 3. Typically, harsher environmental conditions will demand maintaining a large proportion of indigenous genes within the cross (Burrow, Reference Burrow2006), whereas facilitated access to improved stock will favor the choice of terminal cross (for benefiting from heterosis) over synthetic breed creation. The cost of female replacements will be a determining factor for choosing rotational crossing over a terminal system. Although the level of integration within the market chain is less directly important for the choice of a given strategy, the fact that integration usually improves access to breeding stock and other inputs is expected to facilitate the implementation of crossbreeding programs requiring such access (i.e. rotational and terminal crossing, breed substitution).

Figure 3 Schematic representation of choices of breeding strategies as a function of environment and access to improved stock constraints.

Crossbreeding as a catalyst of innovation and development

Several studies have investigated how different technologies and innovations are adopted (or not) by smallholders, including the use of crossbred animals (Abdulai and Huffman, Reference Abdulai and Huffman2005; Mekonnen et al., Reference Mekonnen, Dehninet and Kelay2010). Use of crossbreeding is generally associated with adoption of other technologies (AI, vaccination, improved feeding and record keeping), as crossbred animals require greater care and improved management to achieve their full genetic potential.

For instance, in the survey by Abdulai and Huffman (Reference Abdulai and Huffman2005), Tanzanian cattle farmers used credit for purchasing crossbred animals but also improved feeds, veterinary inputs or barns. The implementation of those technologies is positively associated to improved production, independent of the genotype (crossbred or indigenous) of animal raised (Ayalew, Reference Ayalew2000; Mekonnen et al., Reference Mekonnen, Dehninet and Kelay2010). The examples of dairy goat development projects in Ethiopia and Malawi are particularly interesting in that respect (Ayalew et al., Reference Ayalew, Rischkowsky, King and Bruns2003), because although the smallholders did not adopt crossbred animals at the end of the project, some associated innovations in husbandry practices were still maintained, allowing a significant increase of net benefits on the farms. Introduction of crossbreeding and its related technologies can therefore be considered as a catalyst allowing smallholders to be aware of and adopt other innovations, improving their livelihood in the long run, assuming these innovations are profitable.