It is not a purpose of this report to make specific recommendations for programmes to preserve declining breeds of sheep. However, some general observations are not inappropriate. Ideally, local varieties of livestock should be maintained in their traditional (“natural”) environment with customary ways of husbandry. For many of the threatened breeds, especially the nomadic and the transhumant, this is no longer feasible. Other approaches to the problem include:
Small flocks managed at Government breeding farms and research stations. At present, the less common varieties of sheep usually are not kept at these facilities. Prominent exceptions are Yannitsa Station, Greece, and Ege University Farm, Turkey, which maintain many of the minor local breeds. Rams at stud, rather than breeding flocks, are kept at some places, e.g., the Peone at Pauves à Puget-Théniers, France, and the Sakiz at Çeşme, Turkey.
Subsidy for purebred production.
Farm parks, where breeding stock is maintained and the animals are on public display.
A long-term arrangement by which the producers of crossbreds contract to purchase replacements for their flocks from the breeders of purebreds (viz. Thônes-Marthod).
Of the four methods, the first would be the least difficult to implement in the countries of the breeds surveyed.
Less common breeds are overlooked and underrated
None of the seven countries of the survey has an agency of government that is responsible for the survival of its native varieties of livestock. As a first step toward the restoration of threatened breeds, it needs to be officially acknowledged that their preservation is in the national interest. The livestock programmes under the direction of the Ministries are formulated and budgeted almost exclusively for improvement and enhanced production, and the few old, minor breeds that have been rehabilitated have exceptional characteristics for production that are currently in demand. Preservation based upon current market needs is a short-sighted approach, as MASON (1974), BOWMAN (1974), RYDER (1974a), and others have pointed out.
In each country, the academic community should accept the responsibility for articulating the importance of the local breeds as a national resource. A committee with members from the universities and the research institutes, drawn from the social sciences and the natural sciences, could advise the Government of the most effective means by which the survival of the declining breeds may be achieved.
The survey found that breed numbers may decline to a critically low level in a short period of time. Therefore, census enumerations are needed for both the common and the minor breeds. Endangered and vulnerable breeds should be monitored annually, with particular attention to the number of purebred rams remaining.
| Table 3: SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SHEEP BREEDS SURVEYED | |||||||||||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |||||||
| TYPES AND NAMES OF THE BREEDS (after Mason, 1967) Common breeds in italics | LOCATION | ENVIRONMENT M mountain I intermediate L lowland | FLOCK
MOVEMENT S sedentary T transhumant N nomadic (perennial) | USE D dairy M meat W wool | ADAPTATION H hardy F frugal P prolific T adapted to hot-summer climates | BREED
NUMBERS Mature “purebreds” est. 1974-75 ( )=rams, if known | STATUS I Endangered II Vulnerable III Rare IV Not threatened V Indeterminate | REASONS FOR DECLINE if endangered or vulnerable A Crossbreeding B Breed displacement C Husbandary system changes D Sheep raising depressed (see next page for key to coding) | |||||||
| A. | FINE-WOOLED BREEDS | ||||||||||||||
| 1. Spanish Merino | Spain: central, western (Fig. 1) | I | N | T | S | M | W | COMMON BREED | |||||||
| B. | SEMI-FINE WOOLED BREEDS | ||||||||||||||
| 1. Saloia | Portugal: near Lisbon (Fig. 1) | L | S | D | 20 000 | IV | |||||||||
| 2. Levant Red | Eastern Spain: Mediterranean coast (Fig.1) | L | S | M | F, P | 1 336 | I | D3, D4, A1 | |||||||
| 3. Ansotana | Spain: western Pyrenees (Fig.1) | M | T | M | 8 000 | IV | |||||||||
| 4. Roncalesa | Spain: western Pyrenees (Fig.1) | M | T | M | 20 000 | IV | |||||||||
| 5. Lourdes | France: western Pyrenees (Fig.1) | M | T | M | H | 25 000 | II | A1; B1; D1. | |||||||
| 6. Aure and Campan | France: central Pyrenees (Fig.2) | M | T | M | 15 000 (75) | II | A1; D1. | ||||||||
| 7. Castillon | France: central Pyrenees (Fig.2) | M | T | M | H | 300–1 000 (10–25) | I | A1. | |||||||
| 8. Roussillon Red | So. France: Perpignon (Fig.2) | L | S | M | F, T | 750 | I | A1; B2; D3. | |||||||
| 9. Peone(1) | S.E. France: Maritime Alps (Fig. 2) | M | T | M | H | 1 200–1 500 (50–60) | I | A1; B1. | |||||||
| 10. Sambuco | W. Italy: near Cuneo (Fig. 3) | M | T | W | 1 400–1 600 | I | A1; B1. | ||||||||
| 11. Garessio | W. Italy: near Cuneo (Fig. 3) | M | T | M | F | 600–700 | I | A1 | |||||||
| 12. Carapelle | S. Italy: Apulia (Fig. 5) | L | S | D | W | 0–10 | I | D3; A2. | |||||||
| 13. Pag | Yugoslavia: Adriatic Is. (Fig. 4) | L | S | D | M | W | F | 25 000 | IV | ||||||
| 14. Dubrovnik | Yugoslavia: near Dubrovnik (Fig. 4) | L | S | D | M | P | 1 000 | I | D4. | ||||||
| C. | SEMI-COARSE WOOLED BREEDS | ||||||||||||||
| 1. Garrigues Causses | France: south central (Fig. 2) | I | T | M | H | 20 000–35 000? | V | ||||||||
| 2. Thônes-Marthod | S.E. France: Alpine valleys (Fig. 2) | M | T | M | P, H | 400–2 000 | II | A1; B1. | |||||||
| 3. Savoy | N.W. Italy: (Fig. 3) | M | T | M | H | 100 (5–6) | I | A1. | |||||||
| 4. Rosset(1) | N.W. Italy: (Fig. 3) | M | T | M | 150–300 (25) | I | A1. | ||||||||
| 5. Varese | N.W. Italy: (Fig. 3) | I | S | M | H, P | 100 | I | A1. | |||||||
| 6. Val d'Ultimo | N. Italy: (Fig.3) | M | T | M | 32 000 | IV | |||||||||
| 7. Tyrol Mountain | N. Italy, S. Austria | M | T | M | H | COMMON BREED | |||||||||
| 8. Lamon | N. Italy (Fig. 4) | M | N | T | S | M | W | H, F | 5 000? | II | C1; D1 | ||||
| 9. Vicenza | N. E. Italy (Fig. 4) | I | T | W | 1 000 | I | A1;D1 | ||||||||
| 10. Cadore | N. E. Italy (Fig. 4) | M | T | M | H | 0–50 | I | A1;D3 | |||||||
| 11. Friuli | N. E. Italy (Fig. 4) | I | S | D | 0–25 | I | D1;B1;A1 | ||||||||
| 12. Zante | Greece: I. of Zakinthos (Fig. 5) | L | S | D | M | P | 300–500(60) | I | A1; D1; C2. | ||||||
| D. | CARPET-WOOL DAIRY BREEDS | ||||||||||||||
| 1. Imroz(1) | Turkey: N. W. Anatolia (Fig. 5) | I | S | D | 30 000–67 000 | IV | |||||||||
| E. | ZACKEL BREEDS | ||||||||||||||
| 1. Pramenka | Yugoslavia. | I | N | T | D | M | W | F, H | COMMON BREED | ||||||
| 2. Vlach | Greek mainland: (Fig. 5) | M | T | S | D | M | H, F | COMMON BREED | |||||||
| 3. Mountain Epirus | N.W. Greece (Fig. 5) | M | T | D | M | H | COMMON BREED | ||||||||
| 4. Sarakatsan | Greece: Macedonia, Thrace; (Fig. 5) | I | T | S | D | 65 000? | IV | ||||||||
| 5. Drama Native(1) | Northern Greece: (Fig. 5) | M | T | M | 2 000 | III | |||||||||
| 6. Florina(1) | Northeastern Greece: (Fig. 5) | M | T | S | M | 3 000 | IV | ||||||||
| 7. Karagouniko | Central and northern Greece (Fig. 5) | L | S | D | M | COMMON BREED | |||||||||
| 8. Skopelos | Greece: Sporades Is and adjacent area of mainland (Fig. 5, 6) | L | S | D | P | 1 200–1 500 | II | D3, D2 | |||||||
| 9. Sfakia | Greece: western Crete (Fig. 5) | I | T | D | M | H | 50 000 | IV | |||||||
| 10. Psiloris | Greece: central Crete (Fig. 5) | M | T | D | M | H | 50 000 | IV | |||||||
| 11. Sitia | Greece: eastern Crete (Fig. 5) | L | T | M | T | 1 000 | I | A2. | |||||||
| 12. Levkimmi | Greece: I. of Corfu: (Fig. 5, 7) | L | S | D | M | P | 500 | I | D4; A2 | ||||||
| F. | UNIFORM-WOOLED (RUDA) BREEDS | ||||||||||||||
| 1. Serrai | Northern Greece: (Fig. 5) | I | S | D | M | W | COMMON BREED | ||||||||
| 2. Katafigion | Greece: S. Macedonia (Fig. 5, 7) | M | S | M | H, F | 50–100 | I | D2;A2 | |||||||
| 3. Chalkidiki | Greece: S. E. Macedonia (Fig. 5, 6) | I | S | D | M | F | 700–900 (100) | I | A2 | ||||||
| 4. Roumloukion | Greece: central Macedonia (Fig. 5) | I | T | S | D | M | W | COMMON BREED | |||||||
| 5. Thraki (Kivircik) | Greece: Thrace; N.W. Turkey (Fig. 5) | I | T | S | D | M | W | COMMON BREED | |||||||
| G. | FAT-TAILED SHEEP | ||||||||||||||
| 1. Argos | Greece: N.E. Peloponnese (Fig. 5) | I | T | S | D | P | 1 000? | V | |||||||
| 2. Chios (Sakia) | Greece: Aegean Is.; Turkey: W. of Izmir (Fig. 5) | L | S | D | COMMON BREED | ||||||||||
| 3. Ödemiş(1) | Turkey:W. of Izmir (Fig. 5) | I | S | M | P | 30 000–35 000 | IV | ||||||||
| 4. Dağliç | Turkey: W. central & S.W. Anatolia (Fig. 5) | I | T | S | D | M | W | COMMON BREED | |||||||
(1) Tentative classification; not in Mason.
Key to coding for Column 9, Table 3
A1-crossbreeding for meat
A2-crossbreeding for meat and milk
B1-displaced by a meat breed
B2-displaced by a meat and milk breed
C1-husbandry changed from an extensive system to semi-intensive or intensive
C2-husbandry changed from an intensive system to semi-intensive
D1-sheep raising depressed by cost of labour (for shepherds, milkers)
D2-decline in work force because of emigration or alternative employment (other than tourism)
D3-land-use changed; conversion of grazing land to field crops, orchard, etc.
D4-sheep raising diminished or replaced by tourism.
| No. of breeds | STATUS | |||||
| I | II | III | IV | V | ||
| Portugal | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Spain | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| France | 7 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Italy | 11 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Yugoslavia | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Greece: | ||||||
Mainland | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
Islands | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Turkey | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Total | 38 | 18 | 6 | 1 | 11 | 2 |
| Semi-Fine Wooled | No. of breeds | STATUS | ||||
| I | II | III | IV | V | ||
Portugal | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Spain | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
France | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Italy | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Yugoslavia | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Total | 14 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| Semi-Coarse Wooled | ||||||
France | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Italy | 8 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Greece | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 11 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Carpet-Wool Dairy | ||||||
Turkey | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Zackel Breeds | ||||||
Greece | 8 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 |
| Uniform-Wooled (Ruda) | ||||||
Greece | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Fat-Tailed | ||||||
Greece | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Turkey | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Total | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
STATUS
| I | Endangered | |
| II | Vulnerable | |
| III | Rare | |
| IV | Not threatened | |
| V | Indeterminate |
| Mountain | No. of breeds | STATUS | ||||
| I | II | III | IV | V | ||
Spain | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
France | 5 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Italy | 6 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Greece | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Total | 17 | 7 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 0 |
| Intermediate | ||||||
France | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Italy | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Greece | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
Turkey | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Total | 11 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 |
| Lowland | ||||||
Portugal | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Spain | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
France | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Italy | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Yugoslavia | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Greece | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 10 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Dairy | No. of breeds | STATUS | ||||
| I | II | III | IV | V | ||
Portugal | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Italy | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Greece | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Turkey | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Total | 6 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 |
| Meat | ||||||
Spain | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
France | 7 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Italy | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Greece | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Turkey | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Total | 21 | 11 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 1 |
| Wool | ||||||
Italy | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dairy-Meat | ||||||
Yugoslavia | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Greece | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Total | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Dairy-Wool | ||||||
Italy | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Meat-Wool | ||||||
Italy | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dairy-Meat-Wool | ||||||
Yugoslavia | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Transhumant | No. of breeds | STATUS | ||||
| I | II | III | IV | V | ||
Spain | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
France | 6 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Italy | 8 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Greece | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 |
| Total | 22 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 7 | 2 |
| Sedentary | ||||||
Portugal | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Spain | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
France | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Italy | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Yugoslavia | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Greece | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Turkey | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Total | 14 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| Transhumant and Sedentary | ||||||
Greece | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| Nomadic, Transhumant, and Sedentary | ||||||
Italy | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
STATUS
| I | Endangered | |
| II | Vulnerable | |
| III | Rare | |
| IV | Not threatened | |
| V | Indeterminate |
