• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content


Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

Like this presentation? Why not share!

Experiences with breeding structures for genetic improvement of small ruminants



Presentation by Joaquin Mueller at the 5th All Africa conference on animal production, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 25-28 October 2010.

Presentation by Joaquin Mueller at the 5th All Africa conference on animal production, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 25-28 October 2010.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Experiences with breeding structures for genetic improvement of small ruminants Experiences with breeding structures for genetic improvement of small ruminants Presentation Transcript

    • Experiences with breeding structures for genetic improvement of small ruminants Joaquin Mueller National Institute for Agricultural Technology, Argentina 25-28 October 2010, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 5 th All Africa Conference on Animal Agriculture 19 th ESAP Annual Conference Commercialization of Livestock Agriculture in Africa: Challenges and opportunities
    • No experience in Africa
    • Breeding structures No Conventional Single Open Nucleus Dispersed Open Nucleus ∆ G, lag and ∆F, properties and optimization summarized in text “ Local” breeds “ International” breeds Within flock, group, village Within village
    • Intervention strategies Generate a breeding structure Improve efficacy of breeding structure Some experiences with sheep, alpacas and goats
    • Improvement of a conventional structure: Merino sheep in Argentina
      • 7 Million Merino sheep
      • 80% are family flocks
      • Studs: small, pedigree + visual
      • Multipliers: insufficient, visual
      • Base: dissatisfaction with
      Initial situation (1980s – 1990s)
      • Studs: central progeny testing, performance recording (BW, FW, FD), => BLUP evaluation.
      • Multipliers: “MPR”, performance testing (index), above average + visual get MPR eartags. Top MPR rams can replace conventional pedigree rams.
      • Base: “MP”, visual inspection + MPR rams => extension
      The “Pure Merino Program” Farmers pay
    • Genetic progress at stud level Source: Mueller (2010), n= 25 000 Adjusted to year 2000=0 Body weight (kg) Fiber diameter (mic) Fleece weight (kg)
    • MPR: Visually accepted Index above 100 MP: Visually accepted More than 80 000 animals involved
    • Genetic progress at multiplier level: ¿? On station genetic progress as difference from a control line Mueller (2010). Adult females 1984-2009
    • About 80 000 animals inspected About 100 farmers involved Indicator: MPR’s are sold for much higher prices
    • Economic evaluation of the MPR Program (wool, expanded) Source: Mueller (2010), in USD. Items Program Breeders Woolgrowers Processors Totals Research -100 000 -100 000 Genetic evaluation 80 000 -80 000 0 Rams 1 390 000 -1 390 000 0 Wool 4 800 000 -4 800 000 0 Tops       16 905 810 16 905 810 Benefit (income-costs) 1 310 000 3 410 000 12 105 810 16 825 810 Return (income/ costs) 17.4 3.5 3.5 169.1 Participation in total benefit 8% 20% 72% 100%
    • Village based open nucleus systems: South American Camelids in Bolivia and Peru
      • 6 Million in both countries
      • Important: culturally, meat, fiber, hides, transport, draft power, manure.
      • No breeding structure
      • Village organization and cooperatives
      • Small family flocks, some village flocks
    • Llamas Alpaca Huacaya Alpaca Suri Alpaca Suri
    • Alpaca Huacaya
    • Macusani Cooperative near Puno, Peru
    • Macusani Cooperative alpaca open nucleus breeding structure
      • Nucleus was established with best females available (visual)
      • Replacements selection visual + FD, very good females are bought into nucleus from base farmers.
      • Nucleus males are classed in 3
      • Farmer alpaca females are classed as they come for mating
      • Mating with equal or superior males.
      • Mated females return to farmers
      First class males Second class males Third class males First class females Second class females Third class females Nucleus Males Base Females
    • Mating at the Macusani nucleus flocks Munay Paq’ocha nucleus Itita nucleus Alpaca males
    • -Macusani cooperative manager: “We get better price for our fiber”
      • Organized farmers
      • Collaboration, support
      • Fiber measurement facility
      … Our success is based on:
    • Pasco alpaca three tier open nucleus structure Multi-communal nucleus Communal flocks
        • Huacahuaganan nucleus
        • Ayaracra nucleus
      Best females Males Two multi-communal nucleus flocks
        • Individual farmer
    • Establishment of multi-communal nucleus
    • Turco (Bolivia) llama breeding structure 1. Young promising males are selected visually in each household 2. Participants feed and manage young males in turns separate from females 4. Males go for 15 days mating in participants flocks 3. Participants select their preferred males Pool of males
    • Breeding structure drawing at community school
    • Selecting llama males in Turco -Discussion of breeding objectives
    • Accuracy of visual breeding value estimation is not zero Measured p erformance Selection +Family Selection (BLUP) 30% 60% 90% Genomic Selection 100% Visual Selection Random selection 0% Example for FW h 2 =0.4 √ 0.4=0.63 r=0.5 n=40
    • Within flock open nucleus: Cashmere goats in Iran
      • 4 Million Raeini cashmere goats
      • Nomad extended families or tribes
      • 600 goats / tribe, managed together
      summer winter
    • Breeding objective: meat, fiber Visual traits: size, color, density, staple length Measurements: body weight (growth rate), fleece weight (+ down percentage, fiber diameter)
    • Breeding system 40+2
      • Separate visually best 40 females and 2 bucks
      • Mate nucleus and base first 20 days separately
      • During night keep in corral
      • During day graze or feed separately
      • After 20 days graze/mate together as usual
      • At kidding identify nucleus progeny by date of birth
      • Castrate males in base
      • Replace worse buck on progeny test with best nucleus born young buck
      • Use next best bucks in base
      • Avoid mating with daughters: circulate / exchange
    • Corral for nucleus mating at night
    • Sustainability - Results
      • Cost per tribe:
        • Fence: once only, local government?
        • Barley or labor: yearly, decreasing
        • Fleece samples: yearly, research?
      • Expected results:
        • Response as in woolen sheep
        • Cashmere suitable for yarn making (dehairing issue)
        • Improved raw cashmere for export (= chinese, 25%)
    • Some experiences and comments
      • We have the tools to estimate progress, lags and inbreeding to design optimum breeding structures.
      • In practice we usually work with an existing or evolving breeding structure and will need tactical optimization.
      • The important point is to discuss the logic of a structure with the farmers and analyze options for implementation.
      • Open nucleus systems are particularly useful when selection objectives are not clearly expressed and when data collection is difficult.
      • Breeding structures usually lead to other collective actions such as joint marketing of products.
    • Thank you very much [email_address]