Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T10:43:11.262Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identification of smallholder farmers and pastoralists’ preferences for sheep breeding traits: choice model approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2011

G. Duguma ,
T. Mirkena ,
A. Haile ,
A. M. Okeyo ,
M. Tibbo ,
B. Rischkowsky ,
J. Sölkner  and
M. Wurzinger
G. Duguma*
Affiliation:
Biotechnology Theme, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Gregor-Mendel-Str. 33, A-1180 Vienna, Austria Division of Animal Production, Bako Agricultural Research Center, Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, PO Box 03, Ethiopia
T. Mirkena
Affiliation:
Biotechnology Theme, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Gregor-Mendel-Str. 33, A-1180 Vienna, Austria Department of Animal and Range Sciences, College of Agriculture, Hawassa University, PO Box 05, Hawassa, Ethiopia
A. Haile
Affiliation:
Biotechnology Theme, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), PO Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
A. M. Okeyo
Affiliation:
Biotechnology Theme, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), PO Box 30709, Nairobi 0108, Kenya
M. Tibbo
Affiliation:
Diversification and Sustainable Intensification of Production Systems Program, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), PO Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria
B. Rischkowsky
Affiliation:
Diversification and Sustainable Intensification of Production Systems Program, International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), PO Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria
J. Sölkner
Affiliation:
Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Gregor-Mendel-Str. 33, A-1180 Vienna, Austria
M. Wurzinger
Affiliation:
Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Gregor-Mendel-Str. 33, A-1180 Vienna, Austria
*
†E-mail: gdjaallataa@yahoo.com
Get access

Abstract

Identification of breeding objective traits pertinent to specific production environments with the involvement of target beneficiaries is crucial to the success of a breed improvement program. A choice experiment was conducted in four locations representing different production systems and agro-ecologies that are habitat to four indigenous sheep breeds (Afar, Bonga, Horro and Menz) of Ethiopia with the objective of identifying farmers’/pastoralists’ preferences for sheep breeding traits. Following a synthesis of secondary information and diagnostic surveys, two communities per location consisting of 60 households each having at least four breeding ewes were identified. Producers’ priority attributes used in the choice sets were identified through in-depth production system studies conducted from December 2007 to March 2008. On the basis of prior information, four to seven attributes were used to design choice sets with different profiles in order to capture results that mimic real life of the different communities. The attributes and levels chosen for the sheep profile were as follows: body size (large/small), coat color (brown/white/black), tail type (good/bad) for both rams and ewes; horn (polled/horned) and libido (active/poor) for rams; and lambing interval (three lambings in 2 years/two lambings in 2 years time), mothering ability (good mother/bad mother), twinning rate (twin bearer/single bearer) and milk yield (two cups per milking/one cup per milking) for ewes. A fractional factorial design was implemented to construct the alternatives included in the choice sets. The design resulted in a randomized selection of 48 sheep profiles (24 sets) for both sexes, which were grouped into four blocks with six choice sets each. An individual respondent was presented with one of the four blocks to make his/her choices. Results indicate that producers’ trait preferences were heterogeneous except for body size in rams and mothering ability in ewes where nearly homogeneous preferences were investigated. In the pastoral production system, attention was given to coat color of both breeding rams and ewes, favoring brown and white colors over black. Ram libido influenced producers’ decisions in Bonga, Horro and Menz areas. The influence of milk yield and twinning on respondents’ decision making was high in Afar and Horro, respectively. Breeders in all areas attempt to combine production and reproduction traits as well as they can in order to maximize benefits from their sheep. The elicited measurable objective traits were used to design alternative community-based sheep breeding plans for the four indigenous sheep breeds in their production environments that have been implemented since.

Keywords

sheepbreedingchoice experimentcommunity-basedEthiopia
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 12 , 10 November 2011 , pp. 1984 - 1992
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.)

Footnotes

a

Both authors made equal contributions.

References

Ayele, G, Jabbar, MA, Teklewold, H, Mulugeta, E, Kebede, G 2006. Seasonal and inter-market differences in prices of small ruminants in Ethiopia. Journal of Food Products Marketing 12, 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balasse, M, Smith, AB, Ambrose, SH, Leigh, SR 2003. Determining sheep birth seasonality by analysis of tooth enamel oxygen isotope ratios: the late Stone Age site of Kasteelberg (South Africa). Journal of Archaeological Science 30, 205–215.Google Scholar
Central Statistical Agency (CSA) 2008. Summary and Statistical Report of the 2007 Population and Housing Census. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 114 pp.Google Scholar
Denboba, MA 2005. Forest conversion–soil degradation-farmers’ perception nexus: implications for sustainable land use in the southwest of Ethiopia, Ecology and Development Series No. 26 (PLG Vlek, M Denich, C Martius, C Rodgers and N van de Giesen), 169 pp. Cuvillier Verlag, Göttingen, Germany.Google Scholar
Edea, Z 2008. Characterization of Bonga and Horro indigenous sheep breeds of smallholders for designing community-based breeding strategies in Ethiopia. MSc. Thesis, Haramaya University, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Elkin, E 2004. Beyond binary outcomes: PROC LOGISTIC to model ordinal and nominal dependent variables. Retrieved on 4 September 2009, from: http://www.lexjansen.com/wuss/2004/data_analysis/i_das_beyond_binary_outcomes.pdfGoogle Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2009. FAOSTAT data. Retrieved on 19 October 2009, from: http://faostat.fao.org/Google Scholar
Galal, ESE 1983. Sheep germplasm in Ethiopia. FAO Animal Genetic Resources. Information Bulletin 1, 5–12.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. Thesis, Haramaya University, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Gizaw, S, van Arendonk, JAM, Komen, H, Windig, JJ, Hanotee, O 2007. Population structure, genetic variation and morphological diversity in indigenous sheep of Ethiopia. Animal Genetics 38, 621–628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoyos, D 2010. The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecological Economics 69, 1595–1603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kassie, GT, Abdulai, A, Wollny, C 2009. Valuing traits of indigenous cows in Central Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Economics 60, 386–401.Google Scholar
Kuhfeld, WF 2005. Marketing research methods in SAS: experimental design, choice, conjoint, and graphical techniques. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USA. Retrieved on 14 October 2010, from: http://support.sas.com/techsup/technote/ts722.pdf.Google Scholar
Lancaster, K 1966. New approaches to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 74, 132–157.Google Scholar
McFadden, D 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in econometrics (ed. P Zarembka), pp. 105–142. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
McFadden, D 2001. Economic choices. The American Economic Review 91 (3), 351–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olana, BT 2006. People and dams: environmental and socio-economic changes induced by a reservoir in Fincha'a watershed, western Ethiopia. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Omondi, IA, Baltenweck, I, Drucker, AG, Obare, GA, Zande, KK 2008a. Valuing goat genetic resources: a pro-poor growth strategy in the Kenyan semi-arid tropics. Tropical Animal Health and Production 40, 583–596.Google Scholar
Omondi, IA, Baltenweck, I, Drucker, AG, Obare, GA, Zander, KK 2008b. Economic valuation of sheep genetic resources: implications for sustainable utilization in the Kenyan semi-arid tropics. Tropical Animal Health and Production 40, 615–626.Google Scholar
Ouma, O, Abdulai, A, Drucker, AG 2007. Measuring heterogeneous preferences for cattle traits among cattle-keeping households in East Africa. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89, 1005–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reece, JD, Sumberg, J 2003. More clients, less resources: toward a new conceptual framework for agricultural research in marginal areas. Technovation 23, 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roessler, R, Drucker, AG, Scarpa, R, Markemann, A, Lemke, U, Thuy, LT, Valle-Zarate, A 2008. Using choice experiments to assess smallholder farmers’ preferences for pig breeding traits in different production systems in North-West Vietnam. Ecological Economics 66, 184–192.Google Scholar
SAS 2002. Statistical analysis system. SAS for windows, release 9.1 (2002–2003). SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Scarpa, R, Ruto, ESK, Kristijanson, P, Radney, M, Drucker, AG, Rege, JEO 2003a. Valuing indigenous cattle breeds in Kenya: an empirical comparison of stated and revealed preference value estimates. Ecological Economics 45, 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarpa, R, Drucker, AG, Anderson, S, Ferraes-Ehun, N, Gomez, V, Risopatron, CR, Rubio-Leonel, O 2003b. Valuing genetic resources in peasant economies: the case of ‘hairless’ Creole pigs in Yucatan. Ecological Economics 45, 427–443.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Tibbo, M 2006. Productivity and health of indigenous sheep breeds and crossbreds in the Central Ethiopian highlands. PhD Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Train, KE 2009. Discrete choice methods with simulation, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Wilson, RT 1986. Strategies to increase sheep production in East Africa. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 58, 125–130.Google Scholar
Wilson, RT 1991. Small ruminant production and the small ruminant genetic resources in tropical Africa. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 88, 194 pp.Google Scholar
Wurzinger, M, Ndumu, D, Baumung, R, Drucker, AG, Okeyo, AM, Semambo, DK, Sölkner, J 2006. Assessing stated preferences through the use of choice experiments: valuing (re)production versus aesthetics in the breeding goals of Ugandan Ankole cattle breeders. 8th WCGALP, 13–18 August, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Google Scholar
Zander, KK, Drucker, AG 2008. Conserving what is important: using choice model scenarios to value local cattle breeds in East Africa. Ecological Economics 68, 34–45.Google Scholar