article · animal
Community-based breeding programmes offer an alternative to centralised livestock breeding schemes in developing regions. A ten-year evaluation across three Ethiopian sites assessed the performance and socioeconomic impacts of community-managed sheep breeding. Using participatory selection methods, communities selected for six-month body weight, alongside twinning rates in areas with adequate resources. Analysis of performance records showed consistent, substantial annual increases in six-month weights across all sites, reaching up to 0.21 kilograms per year. Lamb birth weights rose significantly in Menz, whilst prolificacy improved significantly in Bonga and Horro. Together, the genetic improvements in body weight and litter size delivered tangible socioeconomic benefits for participating households. Farmer incomes rose by 20 percent, and annual household meat consumption tripled from one sheep slaughtered per year to three. The findings confirm that decentralised, participatory breeding initiatives are technically viable and can generate sustained genetic progress alongside improved rural livelihoods.
Centralised breeding initiatives often struggle to benefit smallholder farmers in developing nations. Demonstrating that farmer-led, community-based programmes deliver measurable genetic progress and livelihood improvements provides development organisations, agricultural agencies, and rural communities with a proven model. By increasing livestock weights and reproduction rates, these decentralised schemes improve household nutrition and rural incomes under real-world farming conditions.
This applied and field-tested breeding framework provides an operational methodology for agricultural extension services, livestock cooperatives, and rural development agencies. The approach has demonstrated ten-year viability at farm level and can be directly implemented or scaled across smallholder sheep farming systems to enhance livestock productivity, rural meat production, and producer incomes without relying on centralised infrastructure.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
Community-based breeding programs (CBBPs) for small ruminants have been suggested as alternatives to centralised, government-controlled breeding schemes which have been implemented in many developing countries. An innovative methodological framework on how to design, implement and sustain CBBPs was tested in three sites in Ethiopia: Bonga, Horro and Menz. In these CBBPs, the main selection trait identified through participatory approaches was 6-month weight in all three sites. In Horro and Bonga, where resources such as feed and water permitted larger litter sizes, twinning rate was included. Ten-year (2009 to 2018) performance data from the breeding programs were analysed using Average Information Restricted Maximum Likelihood method (AI-REML). Additionally, the socioeconomic impact of CBBPs was assessed. Results indicated that 6-month weight increased over the years in all breeds. In Bonga, the average increase was 0.21 ± 0.018 kg/year, followed by 0.18 ± 0.007 and 0.11 ± 0.003 kg/year in Horro and Menz, respectively. This was quite substantial in an on-farm situation. The birth weight of lambs did not improve over the years in Bonga and Horro sheep but significant increases occurred in Menz. Considering that there was no direct selection on birth weight in the community flock, the increased weights observed in Menz could be due to correlated responses, but this was not the case in Bonga and Horro. The genetic trend for prolificacy over the years in both Bonga and Horro flocks was positive and significant (P < 0.01). This increase in litter size, combined with the increased 6-month body weight, increased income by 20% and farm-level meat consumption from slaughter of one sheep per year to three. The results show that CBBPs are technically feasible, result in measurable genetic gains in performance traits and impact the livelihoods of farmers.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1017/s1751731120000269
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
