Search

Somalia, one of the world's poorest countries, has livestock as the mainstay of the economy, with an estimated 65% of the population engaged in the livestock sector. This paper presents a gendered study on the traditional livestock breeding practices of Somali pastoralists for camels, cattle, sheep and goats, with a focus on documenting livestock traits of importance, the criteria used to select male breeding animals and the criteria used to cull female breeding animals. Data for the study were obtained by performing participatory rural appraisals (PRAs) with separate male and female pastoral groups from 20 settlements of the Tog-Dheer region of Somaliland (in north-western Somalia). In total, more than 500 pastoralists were involved. In terms of livestock ownership, goats were the most common species kept (97% of all households), followed by sheep (64%), camels (37%) and cattle (9%), with considerable herd size variation across households. Traits of key importance to the pastoralists varied by species and gender of the PRA group, but included adaptedness to harsh environmental conditions, high market value/high meat production and high milk production. The pastoralists practised sensible criteria for the selection of male breeding animals for all species, capturing aspects of productivity (milk yield, reproduction), adaptedness (good hardiness) and marketability (body size and conformation). Similarly, they practised sensible criteria for culling of female breeding animals, with females removed from the herd primarily for poor performance, but also to meet the livelihood needs of the family. Differences in the selection and culling criteria were noted by species, as well as gender of the pastoralists. On the whole, there was strong alignment between the livestock selection criteria used by the Somali pastoralists, their reasons for keeping livestock and the market requirements. This is not surprising given the intimate and long-standing relationship between Somali pastoralists and their livestock.

Developing country livestock production systems are diverse and dynamic, and include those where existing indigenous breeds are currently optimal and likely to remain so, those where non-indigenous breed types are already in common use, and systems that are changing, such as by intensification, where the introduction of new breed types represents significant opportunities. These include opportunities to improve the livelihood of the world's poor, increase food and nutrition security and enhance environmental sustainability. At present, very little research has focused on this issue, such that significant knowledge gaps in relation to breed-change interventions remain. The purpose of this study is to raise awareness of this issue and suggests strategic research areas to begin filling these knowledge gaps. Such strategic research would include (i) assessing the impact of differing breed types in developing country livestock productions systems, from a range of viewpoints including intrahousehold livelihood benefit, food and nutrition security at different scales, and environmental sustainability; (ii) identification of specific livestock production systems within developing countries, and the type of livestock keepers within these system, that are most likely to benefit from new breed types; and (iii) identification of new breed types as candidates for in-situ testing within these systems, such as through the use of spatial analysis to identify similar production environments combined with community acceptance studies. Results of these studies would primarily assist stakeholders in agriculture, including both policy makers and livestock keepers, to make informed decisions on the potential use of new breed types.

Summary High levels of inbreeding in East African dairy cattle are a potential concern because of use of a limited range of imported germplasm coupled with strong selection, especially by disease, and sparse performance recording. To address this, genetic relationships and breed composition in an admixed population of Kenyan dairy cattle were estimated by means of a 50K SNP scan. Genomic DNA from 3 worldwide Holstein and 20 Kenyan bulls, 71 putative cow-calf pairs, 25 cows from a large ranch and 5 other Kenyan animals were genotyped for 37 238 informative SNPs. Sires were predicted and 89% of putative dam-calf relationships were supported by genotype data. Animals were clustered with the HapMap population using Structure software to assess breed composition. Cows from a large ranch primarily clustered with Holsteins, while animals from smaller farms were generally crosses between Holstein and Guernsey. Coefficients of relatedness were estimated and showed evidence of heavy use of one AI bull. We conclude that little native germplasm exists within the genotyped populations and mostly European ancestry remains.

Three microsatellite markers on goat chromosome 23 adjacent to the MHC were used to test for quantitative trait loci (QTL) affecting faecal worm egg count (WEC) and leukocyte traits in ten Australian Angora and twelve Australian Cashmere half-sib families (n = 16-57 per family). Data were collected from 280 Angora and 347 Cashmere kids over a 3- and 4-year period. A putative QTL affecting trichostrongyle WEC was found in two small families at the 5% chromosome-wise threshold level. The biggest QTL effect for WEC of 1.65 standard deviations (sigma(p)) was found within the region of OarCP73-BM1258. A significant QTL affecting blood eosinophil counts at the 1% chromosome-wise threshold level was detected at marker BM1258 (at 26 cM) in two Angora and Cashmere families. The magnitude of the putative QTL was 0.69 and 0.85 sigma(p) in Angora and Cashmere families, respectively. Due to the comparatively low power of the study these findings should be viewed as indicative rather than definitive.

State natural resource and environmental protection agencies are increasingly interested in ecosystem management for a variety of reasons. States began considering alternate and flexible management techniques during the mid1 990s to address the inadequacy of standards set primarily for human health, environmental impacts across multiple media, and the carrying capacity of entire waterbodies or ecosystems. In addition, states agencies recognized the need to coordinate their efforts with those of local governments, business, and private landowners. State environmental directors have become vocal about the lack of flexibility afforded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the programs it delegated to the states (Roberts 1993). Some problems the directors cited included excessive oversight, unrealistic standards, and lack of flexibility for implementing the programs in arid and/or rural regions. EPA began a working group of senior staff to determine if the agency could use ecosystem management to solve some intractable problems facing it. In late 1993 the EPA began to consider whether "ecosystem protection" would solve some of these problems (Browner 1993). Since then, EPA has altered the title from time to time, using terms like "ecosystem management," "placed-based" or "community-based" decision making. Some EPA staff may use terms like "watershed management" interchangeably when discussing ecosystem matters. States have begun to explore ecosytem management as one alternative to prescriptive federal rules. At approximately the same time as EPA was discovering ecosystem management, several states were either already using it, or beginning ecosystem programs of their own. These fall into two broad categories, natural resource management and environmental protection. Natural resource programs usually address management of resources such as forests or water (quantity). Environmental protection programs usually are regulatory programs, such as those related to drinking water or water quality. Sometimes, the distinction between natural resource management and environmental management is less pronounced. This typically occurs in states that have merged the two functional agencies into one agency. Examples of state activities are provided in the following paragraphs. In 1995, The Council of State Governments surveyed states about their ecosystem protection projects underway at the state or local level (Rombel et al. 1995). States responded with a variety of approaches to ecosystem protection. Many incorporate holistic management principles into their watershed protection programs. Several states are working closely with existing community projects as a starting point for a broader statewide initiative. Some states are defining ecoregional boundaries for the entire state and putting together natural resource expert teams specific to each area. A few states have restructured their departments to better accommodate interagency coordination of ecosystem management. Most of the more comprehensive ecosystem protection initiatives are still in the planning stages, and states are finding barriers in the management requirements for federal programs currently delegated to the states that make ecosystem management problematic as a management option. Until these barriers can be removed, ecosystem management may continue to be a niche management technique, at least in regulatory agencies.