Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Genetic improvement of small ruminants in Ethiopia have failed and need re-think

78 vues

Publié le

Presented by Aynalem Haile, Tesfaye Getachew and Azage Tegegne at the Public talk, Arbaminch University, 11 April 2019

Publié dans : Sciences
  • Soyez le premier à commenter

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Genetic improvement of small ruminants in Ethiopia have failed and need re-think

  1. 1. International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas icarda.org cgiar.org A CGIAR Research Center Genetic improvement of small ruminants in Ethiopia have failed and need re-think Aynalem Haile, Tesfaye Getachew and Azage Tegegne Public talk Arbaminch University 11 April 2019
  2. 2. icarda.org 2 • Context • Small ruminant genetic improvement • Examples of failures • Community-based breeding programs • Success story • Lessons Contents
  3. 3. icarda.org 3 • Sheep and goat populations 30.7 and 30.2 million, respectively (CSA, 2017) • Agriculture provides sustenance for more than 80% of the population and accounts for 34.9% of GDP and 83.9% of total exports (NBE, 2018) • Livestock sector contributes up to 25.6% of agricultural GDP and 10.5% of total Ethiopian foreign exchange earnings (NBE, 2018) • Ethiopia’s annual exports of cattle and sheep meat were valued at USD 79.13 million in 2012, while Botswana with a much lower stock number was able to reach USD 150 million export earnings from beef alone • Lower export level attributed to stronger local demand leading to higher prices, lower meat output and differences in efficiency of meat production systems Livestock contribution
  4. 4. Per capita milk and meat consumption (kg/year)) Country Milk Meat Developed countries • Finland • Sweden • Netherlands 217.0 361.2 355.9 320.2 95.7 67.4 76.1 89.3 Developing countries 55.0 31.6 Sudan 180.7 21.0 Kenya 120.0 14.3 Tanzania 42.0 10.0 SS Africa 31.0 10.9 Ethiopia 19.0 7.9 Source: FAOSTAT
  5. 5. 5 Demand and supply projections for red meat, chicken meat, milk and eggs from 2013 to 2028, with and without investment interventions Source: LMP, 2014
  6. 6. 6 Projections to 2028 Due to exploding demand due to rapid increases in population growth to 127 million people and rising per capita income: • Red meat consumption will grow by about 276% from 775,000 tons in 2013 to 2.9 million tons, with an average annual consumption of 24.5 kg per year. Meat deficit of about 1.3 million, 53% MT • Milk consumption will grow by 127% from 5 billion liters in 2013 to 11 billion liters. • Domestic milk production expected to cover more than 71% of the total consumption requirement representing a production-consumption gap of 3.2 billion liters. Milk deficit of about 3,185 million litres, 29% of milk in 2028.
  7. 7. GTP2 Performance The current situation 1. Live animal export GTP II – 1.2million animals/474 million USD/annum Performance- 67million USD/2017 (14%) 1. Meat export GTP II - 92 000 tone/500 million USD/year Performance – 21000 tone-2017/101 m USD) (20%) • Quality ( the market requires tender, juicy and less fat meat ~ eg for cattle 320 kg at 24 months/ currently > 4yrs 0 50 100 150 200 250 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Total 0 100 200 300 400 500 200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017 ThousandsUSD 1.3. Imports of meat types (2006-mid, 2017) Beef Lamb Swine Others Linear (Beef)
  8. 8. icarda.org 8 • High potential • Huge demand • Little consumption • Little contribution at HH and national level • We need to do something about it Summary points
  9. 9. icarda.org 9 • A powerful tool for enhancing productivity of livestock is genetic improvement • Livestock development need to consider holistic approach, dictated by value chain analysis • Genetic changes are passed on to the next generation while changes in husbandry practices have to be sustained continuously • You also need the right genetics to respond to changes in feed, health, husbandry Why genetic improvement?
  10. 10. icarda.org 10 • Very little work by projects, Universities, Research centers • Most efforts focused on import of exotic and crossbreeding • Some on-station selective breeding • Most were expensive failures Small ruminant breeding programs
  11. 11. icarda.org 11 Examples of failures
  12. 12. icarda.org 12 Launched in 1989 and its implementation continued in three successive phases until June 1997 The specific components of this package: • organization of participating women into self-help credit and extension groups, • improved forage development, tethered management, strategic supplementation, • indigenous goat restocking on revolving credit, • community-based animal health services, • training of extension staff and participating women in improved goat management, • genetic improvement of goats through crossbreeding • close follow up and monitoring of activities 1. The Dairy Goat Development Program (FARM AFRICA)
  13. 13. icarda.org 13 • Selected participants were first provided with indigenous goats on credit after having organised themselves into voluntary self-help groups, started developing some improved forage and participated in extension training. • Those who maintained continued interest in the programme then received F1 crossbred goats on credit upon repayment of at least 50% of the credit for local goats. • The aim of the DGDP had been to enable the farmers to maintain the crossbred (Somali x Anglo-Nubian) and indigenous (Somali, Hararghe-Highland) goats managed under improved level of care in terms of feeding, health care and housing and produce better than the local flocks in traditional management. • Maintain 50% exotic blood level in crossbreds for the prevailing level of management (i.e. F1 does together with F1 bucks); • The F1 does are distributed with 50% kid in-utero;
  14. 14. icarda.org 14 • Higher unit net benefits were obtained in both the crossbred and the indigenous goats under improved management. • Crossbred goats did not produce higher unit net benefits than indigenous goats based on land, metabolic body weight and labour input. • The greater weight losses of the crossbreds lead to a higher risk of reaching critically low body conditions during the dry season. • Shortages of crossbred breeding males also led to gradual backcrossing of the does, resulting in an increasingly mosaic mix of crossbreds. • As a result activities relating to the introduced technologies have declined after the DGDP was phased out. • The prevailing prejudgment in Ethiopia that indigenous goats do not adequately respond to improvements in level of care compared to crossbred goats is not true. • The case for the introduction of crossbred goats was further eroded by the practicalities of maintaining an appropriate breeding programme. Major results from the evaluation
  15. 15. icarda.org 15 Amed Guya/Debre Berhan Ranches and other introductions through projects
  16. 16. icarda.org 16 • Debre Berhan ranch – size 531 ha, 1500 animals all types • Amed Guya – size 860 ha, 1100 sheep (most of them are local) • Many importations of Awassi sheep from Israel for crossbreeding and distribution of rams • Dissemination was banned between 2001 to 2008 • Again very high level of Maedi-visna reported recently in Amed Guya – Many positive animals (2300/3000) were destocked- restocking again • Sudden death – has been reported at Debre Berhan
  17. 17. 17 • During 1969 to 1974, a total of 96 ram lambs distributed • During 1974 to 2001 more than 4000 disseminated from both ranches • Both ranches disseminated a total of 3088 crossbred sires between the year 2008 and 2018
  18. 18. 18 ❑ Dorper sheep were introduced into the Jijiga area (Somali Region) in the late 1980s ❑ There was no on-farm evaluation during that time ❑ All sheep were looted from the ranch during the political instability in 1991 ❑ Dorper sheep again introduced in 2006 and 2011- kept in diferent stations ❑ Except Debre Berhan all failed to mainained and multiply required animals Late 1980s, 2006, 2011
  19. 19. 19 Challenges • Disease outbreak • Management • Physical characteristics of animals (colour, tail, ..) • Adaptation problem • Lack of proper breeding program
  20. 20. Community-based breeding • Centralized breeding schemes, entirely managed and controlled by governments have failed • Importation of improved breeds in the form of live animals, semen, or embryos and crossbreeding didn’t succeed • Participatory breeding – decentralized plans and programs • Improvement programs carried out by communities of smallholder farmers often at subsistence level • Considers proper farmers breeding objectives, infrastructure, participation and ownership
  21. 21. 21 Steps for setting up CBBP
  22. 22. 22 Guidelines for setting up CBBP
  23. 23. icarda.org 23 • Rapid value chain analysis to identify challenges and opportunities • Where genetics is a problem, CBBP implementation started • Understanding the system as a whole • Identification of population, communities and partners • Baseline, animal identification, sire group formation, • One-tier community breeding scheme • Selection is carried out in the whole community sheep population. The villagers select breeding rams from across all the flocks in the village taken as one big breeding flock and use the selected rams communally How do we do it???
  24. 24. How do we do it cont… • Performance records: • weight (birth, weaning, 6 and 12 months) • wool yield??? by households and technicians • number weaned; twinning • Ram selection: • candidates are ranked based recorded information (EBV) • physical soundness (tail type, coat color, horns, conformation and general appearance) • A research team and a committee consisting of five community members jointly screen the candidates
  25. 25. • Ethiopia, 3200 HH in 40 villages directly benefiting; 35 functional cooperatives • Increased income (average of 20%) from CBBP in Bonga, Horro and Menz • Increased mutton consumption (average of 3 vs 1) in Bonga, Horro, Menz • CBBP is strategy of choice for small ruminants in Ethiopia: LMP, GTP2, WB Major outcomes/impact of CBBP in Ethiopia
  26. 26. 26 Genetic trend of body weight at birth (left) and 6 months (right) in Bonga y = -0.00065x + 0.005 -0.020 -0.015 -0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 BirthweightEBV(kg) Year y = 0.2087x - 0.2732 -0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 SixmonthsweightEBV(kg) Year Year Bonga Horro Menz Overall 0.34±0.044 0.24±0.037 0.31±0.038 2010 0.21±0.194 0.10±0.076 0.00±0.097 2011 0.00±0.124 0.29±0.072 0.28±0.106 2012 0.14±0.144 0.26±0.157 0.17±0.112 2013 0.56±0.100 0.23±0.123 0.40±0.116 2014 0.57±0.081 0.33±0.085 0.53±0.107 2015 0.81±0.080 0.91±0.084 0.10±0.107 2016 0.28±0.081 0.00±0.082 0.60±0.105 2017 0.26±0.087 0.00±0.151 0.58±132
  27. 27. 27 Boka-Shuta cooperative in Bonga Establish: 2010 Lambs: 19342 Members: 507 Flock size: 5989
  28. 28. 28 Cooperative Capital Capita Source Amount (Et.Birr) Initial capital Revolving fund 33280 From Share 1380 Total 34660 Current Capital Cash 651,000 Animal 331,500 Materials 533,700 Total 1,516,200
  29. 29. 29 Cooperative participation in Dev's Participation Type Et. Birr Bond 20000 Tax 59223 Road construction 23000 School construction 10000 Kebele office support (30 chair) 5000 Dividend 1133641 Total 1,250,864
  30. 30. 30 CBBP up/ outscaling Where? When did it start? How many villages? Ethiopia 2007 More than 40 Uganda 2014 4 Tanzania 2017 2 Malawi 2014 6 South Africa 2017 2 Iran 2018 1 Sudan 2018 1 Tunisia 2017 1 Mongolia 2017 1
  31. 31. Key messages • CBBP is technically feasible and economically rewarding technology • institutional arrangements including establishment of breeders’ cooperatives • capacity development of the different actors • support for long periods with committed technical staff • complementary services needed • adaptation to different situations and production systems
  32. 32. Thanks a lot!!!

×