Cross-Breeding does not lead to a greater Contribution of
Goats to Household Welfare, but Improved Management does

Workneh Ayalew,^[21] J.M. King,^[22] E.W. Bruns^[23] and B. Rischkowsky^[24]

Abstract

Based on the multiple uses of goats and the multiple resources employed, broad productivity criteria were developed and applied to evaluate subsistence goat production. The results showed that under improved subsistence production, cross-bred goats generated no more unit net benefits than indigenous goats for the resources of land, labour and biomass of goats used. The hypothesis that under improved management cross-breeds generate higher benefits than indigenous goats was therefore rejected. Similar comparisons showed that it was possible to increase the overall contribution of goats to subsistence producers significantly through improved management practices without the incentive of introducing cross-bred goats.

Introduction

In countries such as Ethiopia, cross-breeding has been promoted based on the thesis that cross-breeds are more productive, and hence more beneficial, than indigenous goats. This was also the premise underpinning the Dairy Goat Development Programme (DGDP), which implemented a programme of cross-breeding and improved goat management in Ethiopia between 1989 and 1997. A year after the DGDP ended, a comprehensive evaluation of improvements in goat productivity was undertaken (Ayalew, 2000). This poster presents selected parts of the report.

Materials and methods

The collection of field data was followed by the evaluation of management, performance and utility of 275 cross-bred (Somali x Anglo-Nubian) and 537 indigenous (Somali, Hararghe Highland) goats. The animals belonged to 121 DGDP participants and 37 control households in Gursum and Kombolcha districts, in eastern Ethiopia. The evaluation covered one production year, from July 1998. The overall average annualized flock size was 2.98 goats.

The evaluation was based on the contention that the benefits that accrue to subsistence producers are more than the output of marketable products, and include not only manure, but also socio-economic benefits in the form of, for instance, assets and security. Building on the paradigm suggested by Bosman and Moll (1995), three flock-level composite productivity indices were developed by aggregating both the physical and the quantifiable socio-economic functions of goats. These indices measure the monetary value of the total physical net production (meat, milk, manure) and deduct the total value of purchased external inputs to produce the values added to the flocks. Most of the parameter-estimates for valuation of manure were taken from the literature (e.g. Fernández-Rivera et al., 1995). The addition of the socio-economic benefits in assets (financial) and security (insurance) to the added values provided the total benefits, or the realized net benefits. These were divided by the three major resources used to produce the benefits, namely size of cultivated land, metabolic body size of the annualized average flock size, and the estimated household labour input. Fixed linear models of the statistical analysis system (1989) were applied, whereby district, breed group (cross-bred, indigenous), management (improved, traditional) and level of care within management (weak, medium and strong) were taken as fixed effects.

Results

Intra-household comparisons at the breed level showed that the cross-bred goats were no better than the indigenous goats in the composite productivity indices under the same management environment (Table 1). Similar and consistent results were obtained when the possible intra-household correlations of breed groups were considered, and comparisons were made at the level of each household. The differences between the cross-bred and indigenous breed groups were not statistically significant (Table 2). Thus, the hypothesis that under subsistence production the net benefits are greater from cross-bred animals than from indigenous goats under improved management was rejected.

The indigenous goats maintained under improved management produced significantly (p<0.05) higher net benefits per unit of cultivated land and labour used than those under traditional management (Table 3). The degree of difference was also large: 80 percent more for land and 71 percent more for labour. Most of the improvement came in the form of higher benefits (increased production) from meat and manure (Figure 1).

Table 1. Intra-household comparison of unit net benefits between cross-bred and indigenous goats - least squares means (standard errors)

*Birr (Br) = local currency (1US$ = Br 7.50 in June 1999). **Timad = local unit of land, equivalent to one-eighth of a hectare. ***a = P |(m1-m2 ¹ 0)|.

Table 2. Household dyad pair comparison of unit net benefits between cross-bred and indigenous goats - mean differences and their standard errors

*a = P |(m₁-m₂ ¹ 0)|.

Table 3. Comparison of unit net benefits from indigenous goats under improved and traditional management - least squares means (standard errors)

*a = P |(m₁-m₂ ¹ 0)|.

Figure 1. Comparison of benefits from indigenous goat flocks under improved and traditional management

Because goats of the two groups are not expected to be genetically different, the non-significance of differences in productivity of metabolic body weight was logical. Higher benefits were generated from a larger biomass, and the biomass was equally productive. The mortality rate in traditional flocks was about 29.4 percent (caused by disease, snake-poison, poisoning by plants and predator attack), compared with 15.5 percent in households with improved management. The losses caused by predators, plant poisoning and snakes are linked to the significantly longer amount of free grazing time for goats throughout the year in the traditional households. There is, therefore, sufficient evidence to accept the hypothesis that indigenous goats maintained under improved management of subsistence production generate higher net benefits per unit of cultivated land and labour used, but not per unit of metabolic body weight of the average flock.

Discussion

The greater net benefits from indigenous goats were brought about by a combination of larger stock, higher offtake, reduced losses and higher net weight gains. The improved management was maintained without the introduction of cross-bred goats, which challenges the argument that cross-bred animals provide the incentive to improve the level of management. The results also challenge the prevailing view in Ethiopia that indigenous goats do not respond adequately to improvements in the level of care, while cross-bred goats do. This belief has, in the past, been based on incomplete evaluation of productivity. The case for the introduction of cross-bred goats is further eroded when the practicalities of maintaining an appropriate breeding programme are taken into account. Cross-breeding is therefore inappropriate for subsistence producers. This conclusion is in line with views often expressed in the growing debate on the need for conservation by management of indigenous animal genetic resources.

References

Ayalew, W. 2000. Do smallholder farmers benefit more from cross-bred (Somali x Anglo-Nubian) than from indigenous goats? Cuvillier Verlag, Göttingen. Georg-August University of Göttingen. (Ph.D. thesis)

Bosman, H.G. & Moll, H.A.J. 1995. Appraisal of small ruminant production systems: benefits of livestock and missing markets: the case of goat keeping in south-western Nigeria. In H.G. Bosman, ed. Productivity assessment in small ruminant improvement programmes: A case study of the West African Dwarf goat, pp. 157-182. Department of Animal Production Systems, Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen. (Ph.D. thesis)

Fernández-Rivera, S., Williams, T.O., Hiernaux, P. & Powell, J.M. 1995. Faecal excretion by ruminants and manure availability for crop production in semi-arid West Africa. In J.M. Powell, S. Fernández-Rivera, T.O. Williams & C. Renard, eds. Livestock and sustainable nutrient cycling in mixed farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa, pp. 149-169. Volume II. Technical Papers. International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.