Farmers breeding knowledge, needs and constraints in genetic improvement program for communal sheep in the Eastern Cape, South Africa

W Tyeni, M Mpayipheli and V Muchenje

Department of Livestock and Pasture Science, University of Fort Hare, P. Bag X 1314, Alice 5700, South Africa
tyeniw047@gmail.com

Abstract

The study was conducted to determine breeding knowledge, needs and constraints faced by communal sheep farmers in genetic improvement program. A questionnaire was used to gather information from 82 farmers involved in the sheep breeding program. The farmers were selected from two villages with similar ecological conditions. Cochran’s Q test of XLSTAT 2016 was used to evaluate differences in farmers’ breeding knowledge, needs and constraints across the two villages. Results showed that both villages were dominated by elderly (> 50 years) farmers. The majority of farmers interviewed in Diphala (77.27%) and Cimezile (73.68%) were males. The importance of community based farmers’ organisation (i.e. information dissemination, disease control, veld management and marketing), breeding knowledge (i.e. genetic improvement target traits, improved traits, factors influencing trait improvement and heritability of traits), needs (i.e. preferred traits) and constraints in terms of rangelands condition and wool theft different (p < 0.05) across the two villages. Reasons for keeping sheep were not different (p > 0.05) between the two villages. The results revealed that there is a gap in sheep breeding knowledge, preferred traits and constraints faced by farmers in genetic improvement breeding system.

Keywords: breeding system, CATA, genetic improvement

Introduction

Sheep production is a common practice throughout the world (FAO 2007). In developing countries, sheep play an important socioeconomic role on the livelihoods of many farmers (Kosgey 2004, Gowane et al 2019). This is evident in resource limited rural communities where food insecurity is high at household level (DAFF 2011). Be that as it may, sheep production in rural communities is still characterised by low productivity. Lack of improved breeding stock and infrastructure are some of the limiting factors (Mueller et al 2015; Lakew et al 2017). As such, genetic improvement programs were introduced to improve the productivity of small stock such as sheep in communal areas (Edea et al 2012). Although the aim was to improve the livelihoods of livestock owners by increasing animal productivity (Karnuah et al 2018), socioeconomic goals of farmers were poorly integrated in many genetic improvement programmes (Kosgey et al 2006).

In developing countries, sustainable livestock improvement can be achieved through farmer involvement (Karnuah et al 2018). This is to ensure that farmers’ needs and aspirations are taken into consideration (Edea et al 2012). As previously stated by Gizaw et al (2009), that relative roles of keeping sheep by farmers should be incorporated in the breeding goals for sustainable genetic improvement programs. Lack of farmer participation in the planning and implementation of genetic improvement programs lead to lack of commitment by the target group (Haile et al 2019). Similarly, when measuring the success or failure of genetic improvement programs, farmer perceptions should be considered to avoid misrepresentation of facts (Kosgey et al 2006). In South Africa, a few studies have tried to evaluate the success of communal sheep genetic improvement from an experimental point of view using traits of economic importance (Marais 2007; Mvinjelwa et al 2014). However, communal sheep genetic improvement program was initiated to improve the livelihoods of farmers that practice farming in communally owned rangelands (De Beer 2012), herein referred to as communal farmers. Therefore, farmer perceptions should also be used to determine the success of communal sheep genetic improvement programs. Hence, this study seeks to determine farmers breeding knowledge, needs and constraints in genetic improvement program to understand its impact of the livelihoods of communal farmers.

Materials and methods

Site description

The research was conducted in two communal areas, namely; Diphala and Cimezile. Diphala is located at 32°32' S and 26°79′ E with an altitude of 2637 m whereas Cimezile is at 32°15' S and 26°38′ E with an altitude of 1311 m. The vegetation in both areas is characterized as Queenstown Thornveld with an average annual rainfall that is about 500 mm (Mucina and Rutherford 2006). Based on the annual rainfall received in the two villages, the veld type for both areas can be described as sweet veld which is characterized by perennial grasses that can sustain palatability and nutritional status throughout the year (Ellery et al 1995). Both villages are participating in sheep genetic improvement program where farmers are organised in groups, and supplied with Dohne Merino rams. These areas are inhabited by full time and part time farmers who keep non-descript Merino like sheep breeds. Farmers depend on communally owned rangelands for their livestock. There is little or no supplementation during the dry season. The average sheep numbers at Diphala was ±23 and at Cimezile was ±19. In these areas, farmers are equipped with sheep husbandry skills, shearing shed equipment, sheep handling facilities and also assisted with renovation of old dipping facilities (DAFF 2016).

Sampling procedure

A snowball sampling technique was used to select farmers that were interviewed. Farmers with whom contact had already been made through community leaders were asked to give referrals of other sheep farmers. The community leaders were contacted through the help of extension officers from the Eastern Department of Agriculture. A total number of 82 farmers (44 in Diphala and 38 from Cimezile) participating in genetic improvement program were interviewed.

Data collection

Ethical clearance with reference number MUC491STYE01 was obtained from the University of Fort Hare ethics committee. Check-all-that-apply (CATA) questionnaire was used to gather information from the farmers. The questionnaire was a structured question format from which respondents were requested to select all attributes relevant to them (Ares et al 2010; Jorge et al 2015; Jaeger et al 2015). The questionnaire was used because it is easy and not tiresome to complete (Jaeger et al 2013; Jaeger and Ares 2014) for communal farmers whose average age exceed 50 years (Mapiliyao et al 2012; Lungu and Muchenje 2018). The questionnaire covered demographics, importance of community-based farmers organisation, knowledge about genetic improvement program, most preferred traits by farmers, reasons for keeping sheep and constraints.

Farmers were asked to rank reasons for keeping sheep on a scale of 1 to 6 with 1 being the most important and 6 the least important reason. All interviewed farmers were members of a community-based sheep farmers organisation

Statistical analysis

The XLSTAT 2016 software was used to analyse all the data for Check-all-that-apply (CATA) data analysis. The analysis was amended to particularly fit in this study as suggested by Lungu and Muchenje (2018). Cochran’s Q test was used in this study to evaluate differences in farmers’ perception of the role of community-based farmers organisation, breeding knowledge, needs and constraints from two villages. PROC FREQ of SAS 2006 was used to determine frequencies for demographic information. Reasons for keeping sheep between the two villages were compared using PROC NPAR1WAY (Wilcoxon test) of SAS 2006.

Results

Demographic and socio-economic information of farmers

The results for demographic and socio-economic information showed that, there were more male farmers (77.27% and 73.68%) than females (22.73% and 26.32%) among interviewees in both villages, respectively (Table 1). The average age of a farmer in both villages was greater than 50 years. The number of unemployed farmers was higher at Diphala (100%) than at Cimezile (89.47%). In both villages most farmers received old age social grant as the main source of income.

Participation in community-based farmers organisation for sheep breeding program

The results for the role of community-based sheep farmer’s organisation, participation and attendance of organizational meetings in the two villages indicated that, participation, attendance of organisational meetings and importance of community-based sheep farmers organisation in terms of information dissemination, disease control, veld management and marketing differed (p < 0.05) across the two villages (Table 2).

Farmers’ knowledge of genetic improvement program

Farmer’s knowledge of traits targeted by genetic improvement program, traits improved by genetic improvement program, factors that attributed to traits improvement and heritability of traits were evaluated (Table 3). Differences (p < 0.05) were observed for meat, and wool; body frame size, meat, and wool; rangelands condition, and wool quality for traits targeted by genetic improvement program, traits that were improved, factors that attributed to traits improvement and heritability of traits across the two villages, respectively.

Reasons for keeping sheep by farmers in genetic improvement program

In both villages, the reasons for keeping sheep were not different (p > 0.05). Income from live sheep and wool sales was listed as the most important reason for keeping sheep among the two villages (Table 4).

Most preferred sheep traits by farmers in genetic improvement program

There were four sheep traits preferred by farmers including wool production, body frame size, growth rate and multiple births from the two villages (Table 5). Farmer preference for bigger body frame size and wool production differed (p < 0.05) between the two villages.

Constraints faced by communal farmers in genetic improvement program

Eighteen sheep production constraints were faced by communal farmers in genetic improvement program (Table 6). There was no difference (p > 0.05) in challenges faced by farmers in the two villages apart from rangeland conditions and wool theft.

Discussion

Involvement of women in all animal management activities is important for sustainable animal production. In the case of married women, the experience may be helpful should the head of the household pass on first. This could help prevent the feed shortages and basic animal health problems alluded by Mapiliyao et al (2012) for households headed by female farmers. From the youngest age, males are given the responsibility to look after or assist in livestock while females take care of household chores. This may explain why there were more male farmers in both villages than females in this study. Lakew et al (2017) and Onzima et al (2018) also reported similar results with high number of male farmers compared to females. The privilege given to men as head of households, cultural values and direct inheritance of livestock are also some of the reasons for male domination in livestock production (Mthi et al 2017). In some villages the cultural values are extreme such that adult females are denied entry into the livestock housing areas. In the absence of children, this may create an overload of work on elderly male farmers. In this study, farmers in both villages were above 50 years and were mostly dependent on old age social grant. Similar findings were reported by Onzima et al (2018) for goat producers in Uganda as well as Lungu and Muchenje (2018) for sheep farmers in South Africa. In both these studies, most farmers were older than 50 years. It was alluded that youth from the villages migrate to urban areas in search of better job opportunities (Mthi et al 2017; Lungu and Muchenje 2018). Hence, communal areas are dominated by elderly farmers who may be poorly adjusted to new farming technologies (Lungu and Muchenje 2018).

Community based farmers organisation (CBFO) is fundamental for the sustainability of communal sheep genetic improvement breeding system (Kahi et al 2005). It ensures that everyone is involved in decision making regarding rangelands management, breeding and control of diseases (Gizaw et al 2014). This is because members in a CBFO are joined by a common goal i.e. to improve their breeding stock (Kahi et al 2005). In this study, farmers in both villages thought CBFO was important for information dissemination, disease control, veld management and marketing. However, the number of farmers who acknowledged the importance of CBFO was higher at Diphala compared to Cimezile. Hence, there was a high number of active versus non-active farmers in the CBFO at Diphala compared to Cimezile. Consequently, there were contrasting answers on attendance of organizational meetings from Cimezile farmers compared to Diphala. The contrasting views from Cimezile farmers could be caused by lack of cooperation. Lack of cooperation amongst farmers in genetic improvement program could negatively affect the breeding goals. In communally owned rangelands like the current study areas, it could make it difficult to control mating resulting in an unwanted flow of genetic traits from one flock to another (Gizaw et al 2014).

The genetic improvement program has a potential to improve the livelihoods of communal farmers through increased income from keeping sheep (Gizaw et al 2009). According to De Beer (2012) some of the traits targeted in sheep genetic improvement breeding systems (GIBS) include reproduction, growth performance, wool quantity and quality in the Eastern Cape. However, in this study, farmers thought that the aim of sheep genetic improvement program was to improve meat and wool production. Hence, in both villages, farmers cited body frame size, meat and wool production as the most improved traits by GIBS. Similar results were reported in experimental studies by Marais (2007) and Mvinjewa et al (2014) on sheep from genetic improvement programs in the Eastern Cape. In Ethiopia, fast growth and improved body size at lambing were also reported in sheep genetic improvement programs (Haile et al 2011). The results in this study also suggest that the improvement was more significant at Diphala compared to Cimezile. This is based on the high number of farmers who cited body frame size, meat and wool production as the most improved traits at Diphala compared to Cimezile. This could be attributed to the fact that farmers at Diphala were more organised and working together as a community which can help in applying proper sheep and rangelands management practices. Hence, a majority of farmers at Diphala attributed improved sheep traits to good rangelands condition as compared to Cimezile. More farmers at Diphala as compared to Cimezile, also thought that wool quality was highly heritable. The farmer perceptions are similar to findings reported by Scobie et al (2012). In the aforementioned study, heritability estimates for wool quality traits were moderate to high. This could explain why wool production was among the most improved traits according to farmer perceptions in the two villages.

The relative roles of keeping sheep for individual farmers differs from economic to social point of view (Mapiliyao et al 2012). The reasons for keeping sheep by farmers are influenced by agro-ecological regions, social standing and market (Lungu and Muchenje 2018). In this study, farmers kept sheep for income (wool and live sheep sales), insurance against emergencies, home consumptions, manure, skins, cultural ceremonies in both villages. The reasons for keeping sheep by farmers in the current study are similar to those reported by Kosgey et al (2008) in kenya; Edea et al (2012) in Ethiopia and Lungu and Muchenje (2018) in South Africa. In the Eastern Cape of South Africa, wool income seems to be the most important reason for keeping sheep by communal farmers (Lungu and Muchenje 2018). The impact of genetic improvement program on communal wool production may have created a platform for wool producers to participate in the export market resulting on increased income (De Beer 2012).

In developing countries, most breeding programs have failed due to lack of farmers’ involvement at planning (Wurzinger et al 2011). Involvement of farmers at planning ensures that the breeding goals for genetic improvement program are relevant to communal farmers (Kosgey and Okeyo 2007). In this study, farmers from both villages preferred sheep with bigger body frame size, high wool quantity and quality. In studies conducted by Kosgey et al (2008); Duguma et al (2011) and Haile et al (2013) farmers also preferred sheep with bigger body frame size. In contrast to our findings, adaptability and reproductive performance were the most important traits for farmers in a study conducted by Kosgey et al (2006). Such differences may be influenced by agro-ecological conditions and social standing of farmers amongst other reasons. It is also important to note that the number of farmers who preferred bigger body frame size, high wool quantity and quality was high at Diphala compared to Cimezile. Body frame size has a direct effect on meat and wool quantity (Duguma et al 2011; McGregor 2016), which could explain why most farmers preferred bigger sheep. However, the difference between the two villages could imply that the impact of genetic improvement breeding system was high at Diphala compared to Cimezile. Hence, a high number of farmers highlighted that body frame size, meat and wool production were the most improved traits at Diphala compared to Cimezile. Be that as it may, the genetic potential of sheep in communal areas is limited by a wide range of challenges.

The challenges faced by sheep farmers across the two villages were the same except for rangeland conditions and wool theft. Farmers at Cimezile were facing poor rangeland conditions than at Diphala. The results were similar to those reported by Mekuriaw et al (2012) whereby sheep were under nutritional stress due to poor rangelands. The difference in rangelands condition between the two villages may be attributed to poor grazing management amongst other factors since both villages were in sweet veld. Farmers at Diphala were well organised and committed to community-based sheep farmers organisation which could make it possible to communally manage rangelands compared to Cimezile. Furthermore, there were many farmers who complained about wool theft at Diphala compared to Cimezile. However, there is a lack of documented information on wool theft in South Africa. Therefore, research is needed in this aspect in order to determine the causes of wool theft in communal areas involved in genetic improvement program. In some countries like Welsh, cases of unlawful shearing of sheep have been reported although it is surprising since wool income for farmers was very low at the time (Woodward 2008). In South Africa, wool theft may be common in genetic improvement program due to the recent increase in farmer’s income.

Conclusions

• The study revealed that breeding knowledge, needs and constraints faced by farmers in genetic improvement programs may differ from one village to another.
  
  
• There were more inconsistencies in the number of farmers who selected certain attributes related to breeding knowledge and preferred traits at Cimezile compared to Diphala.
  
  
• The unanimity in farmer perceptions at Diphala could be attributed to the high number of participants in the community-based farmers organisation (CBFO).
  
  
• Majority of farmers at Diphala thought CBFO was important for information dissemination, disease control, veld management and marketing.
  
  
• Reasons for keeping sheep, and constraints faced by farmers were not different across the two villages except for rangelands condition and wool theft.
  
  
• Diphala had better rangelands condition with high wool theft as compared to Cimezile.
  
  
• Better rangelands condition at Diphala might have resulted from good veld management.
  
  
• Therefore, this study shows that greater results can be achieved in genetic improvement breeding programs when farmers within one village are active in CBFO and work together as a unity to achieve a common goal.
  
  
• Active participation of farmers in community-based farmers organisation should be encouraged in all communities involved in genetic improvement programs.
  
  
• Government services for livestock production should be provided through community-based farmers organisations to promote participation.

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest concerning this paper.

References

Ares G, Barreiro C, Deliza R, Giménez A N A and Gambaro A 2010 Application of a check‐all‐that‐apply question to the development of chocolate milk desserts. Journal of Sensory Studies, 25: 67-86.

De Beer L 2012 The wool sheep development program in communal areas of South Africa. In: Proceedings of 2012 strategies to overcome poverty and Inequality conference. Towards Carnegie III. University of Cape town pp.3-7.

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) 2011 Food security report. Directorate Economics Services. Department of Agriculture, South Africa. Retrieved January 10, 2019, from https://www.nda.agric.za/docs/genreports/foodsecurity.pdf

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) 2016 A profile of the South African mutton market value chain, Directorate marketing, Department of Agriculture, South Africa.

Duguma G, Mirkena T, Haile A, Okeyo A M, Tibbo M, Rischkowsky B, So¨ lkner J and Wurzinger M 2011 Identification of smallholder farmers and pastoralists’ preferences for sheep breeding traits: choice model approach. The Animal Consortium, 5: 1984–1992.

Edea Z, Haile A, Tibbo M, Sharma A K, Sölkner J and Wurzinger M 2012 Sheep production systems and breeding practices of smallholders in western and south-western Ethiopia: Implications for designing community-based breeding strategies. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 24. Retrieved March 2, 2018, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/7/edea24117.htm.

Ellery W N, Scholes R J and Scholes M C 1995 The distribution of sweetveld and sourveld in South Africa's grassland biome in relation to environmental factors. African Journal of Range and Forage Science, 12: 38-45.

Fayemi P O and Muchenje V 2013 Farmers perception on ante-mortem welfare of sheep and slaughter indicators in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Scientific Research and Essays, 8: 1334-1342.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 2007 The State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, FAO, Rome.

Gizaw S, Goshme S, Getachew T, Haile A, Rischkowsky B, van Arendonk J, Valle-Zárate A, Dessie T and Mwai AO 2014 Feasibility of pedigree recording and genetic selection in village sheep flocks of smallholder farmers. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 46: 809-814. Retrieved February 23, 2018, from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11250-014-0569-6.

Gizaw S, Komen H and van Arendonk J A 2009 Optimal village breeding schemes under smallholder sheep farming systems. Livestock Science, 124: 82-88.

Gowane GR, Kumar A and Nimbkar C 2019 Challenges and opportunities to livestock breeding programmes in India. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics. Retrieved September 16, 2019, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jbg.12391 .

Haile A, Gizaw S, Getachew T, Mueller J P, Amer P, Rekik M and Rischkowsky B 2019 Community‐based breeding programmes are a viable solution for Ethiopian small ruminant genetic improvement but require public and private investments. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics. Retrieved September 16, 2019, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/jbg.12401.

Haile A, Mirkena T, Duguma G, Wurzinger M, Rischkowsky B, Tibbo M, Okeyo M and Sölkner J 2013 Community based sheep breeding programs: Tapping into indigenous knowledge. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 25. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/12/hail25219.htm

Haile A, Wurzinger M, Mueller J, Mirkena T, Duguma G, Okeyo Mwai A, Sölkner J and Rischkowsky B A 2011 Guidelines for setting up community-based sheep breeding programs in Ethiopia: Lessons and experiences for sheep breeding in low-input systems. ICARDA. Aleppo, Syria. Retrieved June 6, 2019, from https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/16486/GuidelinesSheepBreeding.pdf? .

Jaeger S R and Ares G 2014 Lack of evidence that concurrent sensory product characterization using CATA questions bias hedonic scores. Food Quality and Preference, 35: 1-5.

Jaeger S R, Beresford M K, Paisley A G, Antúnez L, Vidal L, Cadena R S, Giménez A and Ares G 2015 Check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions for sensory product characterization by consumers: Investigations into the number of terms used in CATA questions. Food Quality and Preference, 42: 154-164.

Jaeger S R, Chheang S L, Jin D, Bava C M, Gimenez A and Vidal L 2013 Check-all-that-apply (CATA) responses elicited by consumers: Within-assessor reproducibility and stability of sensory product characterizations. Food Quality and Preference, 30: 56–67.

Jorge É C, Mendes A C G, Auriema BE, Cazedey H P, Fontes P R, Ramos A D L S and Ramos E M 2015 Application of a check-all-that-apply question for evaluating and characterizing meat products. Meat Science, 100: 124-133.

Kahi A K, Rewe T O and Kosgey I S 2005 Sustainable community-based organizations for the genetic improvement of livestock in developing countries. Outlook on Agriculture, 34: 261–270.

Karnuah A B, Dunga G and Rewe T 2018 Community based breeding program for improve goat production in Liberia. MOJ Current Research and Reviewers, 1(5): 216-221.

Kosgey I S 2004 Breeding objectives and breeding strategies for small ruminants in the tropics. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Netherlands, pp. 272. Retrieved January 21, 2019, from https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/121527 .

Kosgey I S and Okeyo A M 2007 Genetic improvement of small ruminants in low-input, smallholder production systems: Technical and infrastructural issues. Small Ruminant Research, 70: 76-88.

Kosgey I S, Baker R L, Udo H M J and Van Arendonk J A 2006 Successes and failures of small ruminant breeding programmes in the tropics: a review. Small ruminant research, 61(1): 13-28.

Kosgey I S, Rowlands G J, van Arendonk J A M and Baker R L 2008 Small ruminant production in smallholder and pastoral/extensive farming systems in Kenya. Small Ruminant Research,77: 11–24.

Lakew A, Melesse A and Banerjee S 2017 Traditional sheep production systems and breeding practice in Wolayita Zone of Southern Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 12(20): 1689-1701.

Lungu N S and Muchenje V 2018 Check All-That-Apply (CATA) analysis of lamb management practices and constraints faced by resource-limited sheep farmers in two ecologically different regions of South Africa. Small Ruminant Research, 160: 107-115.

Mapiliyao L, Pepe D, Chikura R, Marume U and Muchenje V 2012 Production practices and constraints to sheep productivity in two ecologically different and resource-poor communal farming systems of South Africa. Scientific Research and Essays, 7:3209–3217.

Marais P G 2007 Evaluation of the genetic potential for growth and wool production of typical Transkei ewes and rams, Grootfontein Agricultural Development Institute, Middelburg, South Africa.

McGregor B A 2016 Allometric relationships determined for skin area and fleece production of Angora goats. Small Ruminant Research, 145: 28-32.

Mekuriaw S, Mekuriaw Z, Taye M, Yitayew A, Assefa H and Haile A 2012 Traditional management system and farmers’ perception on local sheep breeds (Washera and Farta) and their crosses in Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 24. Retrieved February 28, 2018, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/1/meku24004.htm

Mthi S, Skenjana A and Fayemi P O 2017 Characteristics of small-scale sheep production systems in some communal areas of the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. International Journal of Livestock Production, 8: 199-206.

Mucina L and Rutherford MC (eds) 2006 The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria.

Mueller J P, Rischkowsky B, Haile A, Philipsson J, Mwai O, Besbes B, Valle Zárate A, Tibbo M, Mirkena T, Duguma G and Sölkner J 2015 Community-based livestock breeding programmes: essentials and examples. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 132(2): 155-168.

Mvinjelwa S A, Mapekula M, Maposa V and Muchenje V 2014 Body and fleece weight woolen sheep in veld communal rangeland of Eastern Cape Province. Tropical Animal Health Production, 46: 913- 918. Retrieved April 15, 2016, from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11250-014-0584-7

Onzima R B, Gizaw S, Kugonza D R, van Arendonk J A and Kanis E 2018 Production system and participatory identification of breeding objective traits for indigenous goat breeds of Uganda. Small Ruminant Research, 163: 51-59.

Scobie D R, Bray A R, Smith M C, Woods J L, Morris C A and Hickey S M 2012 Wool staple tenacity in New Zealand Romney sheep: heritability estimates, correlated traits, and direct response to selection. Animal Production Science, 52: 448–455.

Woodward N 2008 Seasonality and sheep-stealing: Wales, 1730-1830. The Agricultural History Review, 56: 25-47.

Wurzinger M, Sölkner J and Iñiguez L 2011 Important aspects and limitations in considering community-based breeding programs for low-input smallholder livestock systems. Small Ruminant Research, 98: 170-175.

Received 11 October 2019; Accepted 24 January 2020; Published 2 March 2020

Go to top