Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Community-Based Management of Small Ruminants in Benin: Interim Report  Hippolyte Dossa, PhD  Fellow Georg-August Universi...
Specific Aspects of the Current Study Within the ILRI-BMZ Project <ul><li>Activity 1: Identification of communities, prior...
Overview of the Presentation <ul><li>General background </li></ul><ul><li>Objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Study area in Benin...
Objectives <ul><li>Characterize the husbandry system </li></ul><ul><li>Characterize phenotypes of local breeds  </li></ul>...
Study Area Dassa (Centre) : 7°46’N and 2°10’E 37.4 inhabits/sq km Agriculture, livestock and trade Cotton growing zone Tof...
Methodological Approach Situational analysis Stakeholder analysis & household census Accessing relevant data & local knowl...
The “Prior Informed Consent “ Concept is applied <ul><li>Communities are involved as equal partners </li></ul><ul><li>Rese...
Selection of Villages <ul><li>Contact with local administrations </li></ul><ul><li>Four villages preselected in each locat...
Identification of Communities: Resource Mapping
Identification of the Communities: Wealth Ranking <ul><li>Aims </li></ul><ul><li>Understand local criteria of well being <...
Example of Local Criteria for Well-being: Village C1 <ul><li>Size of landholdings </li></ul><ul><li>Size of plantation of ...
Characteristics of the Poorest : Example of the Village C1 <ul><li>Clay dwelling with thatched roof </li></ul><ul><li>Face...
Rich Households keep more Livestock Species than poor Households X ² > P value: 0.0005 13 38 34 16 146 Total 2 26 51 21 39...
Regardless of Location and Wealth, Chicken and Goat are the Species kept by the Majority of Households 0.909 0.955 0.069 0...
Cattle and Pig are more Kept in the  Centre than in the South 0.1600 0.0000 0.0004 0.055 0.0013 X ² > P value 97 100 95 10...
Goat Types of Benin <ul><li>There are generally considered to be two types of goats in Benin: the Sahel type and the West ...
Goat Types of Benin (Cont.) <ul><li>Up to know, no comprehensive morphological studies </li></ul><ul><li>Assumption: 47% o...
Material and Methods  <ul><li>21 locations </li></ul><ul><li>1268 mature female goats  </li></ul><ul><li>Body measurements...
Spatial Differentiation of Goat Ecotypes by Phenotype Other variables measured: Thorax depth, rump height, body length, he...
<ul><li>Main discriminating criteria (perception of farmers) included: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>- Length of legs </li></u...
Local Name of Goat Types in Dassa and Toffo Very short legged type S1 & S2:  Gbò Ak ètè C2:  Gbò Gli  or  Gbò  wl èkè wlèk...
Local Name of Goat Types in Dassa and Toffo (Cont.) Long legged type from North Benin S1 & S2: not mentioned C1 &  C2  :  ...
Local Name of Goat Types in Dassa and Toffo (end) Crossbred long legged type from North Benin with Local average legged ty...
Reproductive and Productive Traits are  Equally Important for Farmers  ª  W= Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance ,  *** P...
Formal Markets do not play any Role in Breed Stock Acquisition 14.6 17.5 11.9 Other (caretaking,..) 2.4 0.0 4.8 Formal mar...
Irrespective of the Location, Sale and Ceremonies Purposes are the Main Reasons for Offtakes ª  W= Kendall’s Coefficient o...
Diseases rank high as a Major Constraint ª  W= Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance ,  *** P<0.001 5.62 ( 6) 5.60 ( 5) 4.8...
Conclusion <ul><li>The participatory approach has : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Allowed better understanding of farmers’ perspec...
What‘s Next? <ul><li>1 Participatory planning  </li></ul><ul><li>Development of breeding goals </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Compl...
Thank You For  Your Attention
General Background <ul><li>Poor  characterisation  of breeds:  performance  data and information on  adaptation & disease ...
The Average Household Flock Size of Goat is Not Affected by Wealth 7.0 1.9 7.9 6.8 7.8 SD 0.051 Pr > F value 6.0 8.2 75 To...
Farmers’ Preference is for the Local Goat with Average Legs Length *The number of types kept by a farmer ranges from 1 to ...
Irrespective of the Village, The Major Disease is The Peste des Petits Ruminants (PPR)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Community-based management of small ruminants in Benin: Interim report

1,138 views

Published on

Presented by Hippolyte Dossa at the Second Annual Review and Planning Workshop, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 13-17 September 2005.

ILRI-BMZ Project on 'Improving the Livelihoods of Poor Livestock-keepers in Africa through Community-Based Management of Indigenous Farm Animal Genetic Resources'

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Community-based management of small ruminants in Benin: Interim report

  1. 1. Community-Based Management of Small Ruminants in Benin: Interim Report Hippolyte Dossa, PhD Fellow Georg-August University of Göttingen, Germany Second Annual Review and Planning Workshop Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 13-17 September 2005
  2. 2. Specific Aspects of the Current Study Within the ILRI-BMZ Project <ul><li>Activity 1: Identification of communities, priority indigenous breeds/species </li></ul><ul><li>Activity 2: Community-based research action leading to the development and establishment of frameworks for community based management </li></ul><ul><li>Activity 3: Analysis of the economic, market and policy factors </li></ul><ul><li>Activity 4: Capacity building </li></ul>
  3. 3. Overview of the Presentation <ul><li>General background </li></ul><ul><li>Objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Study area in Benin </li></ul><ul><li>Methodology </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Code of conduct </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Selection of villages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identification of the villages </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Results of the completed activities </li></ul><ul><li>Perspectives </li></ul>
  4. 4. Objectives <ul><li>Characterize the husbandry system </li></ul><ul><li>Characterize phenotypes of local breeds </li></ul><ul><li>Identify farmers breeding goal and strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Develop a framework of participatory community–based management (CBM) breeding programs </li></ul>
  5. 5. Study Area Dassa (Centre) : 7°46’N and 2°10’E 37.4 inhabits/sq km Agriculture, livestock and trade Cotton growing zone Toffo (South) : 6°50’N and 2°5’E 122.0 inhabits/sq km Agriculture, livestock, and trade Particularly noted for palm oil and banana production S N
  6. 6. Methodological Approach Situational analysis Stakeholder analysis & household census Accessing relevant data & local knowledge Community dialogue: Problem census & prioritization Participatory action planning Development of Framework for CBM (incl. development of institutions & rules & monitoring plans) Implementation of action plan & rules Participatory monitoring & evaluation of outcomes
  7. 7. The “Prior Informed Consent “ Concept is applied <ul><li>Communities are involved as equal partners </li></ul><ul><li>Research objectives are explained transparently and exhaustively </li></ul><ul><li>------------------------------------------------------------------- </li></ul><ul><li>Results are shared with communities </li></ul><ul><li>Concerns expressed by communities with respect to AnGR are considered </li></ul><ul><li>Actions and activities that compromise rights of the communities are avoided </li></ul>
  8. 8. Selection of Villages <ul><li>Contact with local administrations </li></ul><ul><li>Four villages preselected in each location </li></ul><ul><li>Rapid Rural Appraisal (incl. direct observations, focused group discussions ) </li></ul><ul><li>Four villages (Dassa C1 and C2; Toffo S1 and S2) retained based on following criteria: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Accessibility in all seasons </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pristine (not over researched) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interest of communities (participation) </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Identification of Communities: Resource Mapping
  10. 10. Identification of the Communities: Wealth Ranking <ul><li>Aims </li></ul><ul><li>Understand local criteria of well being </li></ul><ul><li>Identify households and informants from different socio-economic groups </li></ul><ul><li>Method : Individual card sorting exercise done with 3 to 4 key informants </li></ul><ul><li>List of all households drawn by local authorities </li></ul><ul><li>List cross checked separately by each informant </li></ul><ul><li>Local criteria and terms for well being (WB) and number of WB groups defined by each informant </li></ul><ul><li>Households ranked by the informant </li></ul>
  11. 11. Example of Local Criteria for Well-being: Village C1 <ul><li>Size of landholdings </li></ul><ul><li>Size of plantation of cashew tree </li></ul><ul><li>Possession of car and/or motorbike </li></ul><ul><li>Type of dwelling </li></ul><ul><li>Possession and number of houses in urban area </li></ul><ul><li>Number of wives and children </li></ul><ul><li>Capacity to send their children to school </li></ul><ul><li>Ownership of cattle herd and/or oxen </li></ul><ul><li>Possession of mills </li></ul><ul><li>Food availability and consumption </li></ul><ul><li>Frequency of employment by others in cropping activities </li></ul>
  12. 12. Characteristics of the Poorest : Example of the Village C1 <ul><li>Clay dwelling with thatched roof </li></ul><ul><li>Face frequent food shortage </li></ul><ul><li>Few children (max. 5) </li></ul><ul><li>Children do not reach secondary school </li></ul><ul><li>Have no land ownership or land size <1 ha </li></ul><ul><li>Frequently employed by other families in cropping activities </li></ul><ul><li>Children live in foster homes </li></ul><ul><li>Daughters are involved in forced marriage </li></ul>
  13. 13. Rich Households keep more Livestock Species than poor Households X ² > P value: 0.0005 13 38 34 16 146 Total 2 26 51 21 39 Poorest 9 38 24 29 34 Poor 14 41 34 11 44 Rich 31 48 21 0 29 Richest > Three to five species Three species Two species One species Percent (%) of observation n Group
  14. 14. Regardless of Location and Wealth, Chicken and Goat are the Species kept by the Majority of Households 0.909 0.955 0.069 0.218 0.0000 X ² > P value 97 95 97 97 97 chicken 34 27 72 15 146 Total 31 18 64 2 39 Poorest 32 21 68 6 34 Poor 36 30 73 16 44 Rich 34 45 86 41 29 Richest pig sheep goat cattle Percent (%) of observation n Group
  15. 15. Cattle and Pig are more Kept in the Centre than in the South 0.1600 0.0000 0.0004 0.055 0.0013 X ² > P value 97 100 95 100 92 chicken 34 27 72 15 146 Total 8 36 56 10 39 S2 32 47 71 0 38 S1 0 13 81 32 31 C2 89 11 82 21 38 C1 pig sheep goat cattle Percent (%) of observation n Village
  16. 16. Goat Types of Benin <ul><li>There are generally considered to be two types of goats in Benin: the Sahel type and the West African Dwarf type (Meyer, 2002) </li></ul>Distribution of West African Dwarf goat Distribution of Sahel goat
  17. 17. Goat Types of Benin (Cont.) <ul><li>Up to know, no comprehensive morphological studies </li></ul><ul><li>Assumption: 47% of all goats in Benin are West African Dwarf (Wilson, 1991) </li></ul><ul><li>Hypothesis : There are different ecotypes of West African Dwarf goats in Benin and that they can be characterized through quantitative and qualitative traits </li></ul>
  18. 18. Material and Methods <ul><li>21 locations </li></ul><ul><li>1268 mature female goats </li></ul><ul><li>Body measurements </li></ul><ul><li>Qualitative traits: incidence of wattles, ear position, incidence of beard, supernumeray teats </li></ul><ul><li>Semi structured questionnaire: local name, parturition histories </li></ul>
  19. 19. Spatial Differentiation of Goat Ecotypes by Phenotype Other variables measured: Thorax depth, rump height, body length, heart girth, tail length, neck length, horn length. Means ± SD <0.0001 11.2±1.8 9.6±0.9 9.44±1.1 Ear length <0.0001 49.9±5.9 43.1±2.7 41.7±2.7 Height at Withers Pr>F North (n=616) Centre (n=164) South (n=488) Variable (in cm)
  20. 20. <ul><li>Main discriminating criteria (perception of farmers) included: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>- Length of legs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>- Length of ears </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>- Presence or absence of wattles </li></ul></ul></ul>Up to 6 Types of Goats are Known by Farmers 5 16 31 34 14 Total (n=94) 0 0 13 65 22 Toffo (n=46) 11 31 48 4 6 Dassa (n=48) <0.0001 Six Five Four Three One X ² > P value Frequency (%) of responses per number of types known
  21. 21. Local Name of Goat Types in Dassa and Toffo Very short legged type S1 & S2: Gbò Ak ètè C2: Gbò Gli or Gbò wl èkè wlèkè C1: Erèwo Idégb é Local average legged type S1 & S2: Gbò koungbo , Gbò assaga C2: Gbò koun or gbagba C1: Erèwo guiga or Erèwo lakoun
  22. 22. Local Name of Goat Types in Dassa and Toffo (Cont.) Long legged type from North Benin S1 & S2: not mentioned C1 & C2 : Nord Gbò or Djabadjaba Long legged type from Sahel S1& S2: Haoussa Gbò, Ayògbò C2: Haoussa Gbò, Fulani Gbò C1: no specific name
  23. 23. Local Name of Goat Types in Dassa and Toffo (end) Crossbred long legged type from North Benin with Local average legged type (F1) S1 & S2: not mentioned C1: no specific name C2 : no specific name Goat with wattles S1: not mentioned S2: Gbò akandokò C2: no specific name C1 : Erèwo Olud é
  24. 24. Reproductive and Productive Traits are Equally Important for Farmers ª W= Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance , *** P<0.001 W=0.40*** W=0.49*** W=0.41*** W ª =0.53*** STATISTIC 5.11 (3) 6.60 (6) 3.98 (3) 4.22 (3) Disease resistance 6.70 (6) 4.10 (3) 3.81 (2) 3.86 (2) Good mothering 2.93 (1) 2.76 (1) 4.09 (4) 4.75 (4) Size 3.61 (2) 3.17 (2) 3.34 (1) 2.03 (1) Litter size S2 (n=22) S1 (n=24) C2 (n=29) C1 (n=18) Mean Rank (order) Traits
  25. 25. Formal Markets do not play any Role in Breed Stock Acquisition 14.6 17.5 11.9 Other (caretaking,..) 2.4 0.0 4.8 Formal market 4.9 0.0 9.5 Another region 24.4 7.5 40.5 Neighboring village 53.7 75.0 33.3 Keeper in the village 0.0002 Overall (n=82) Toffo (n=40) Dassa (n=42) Χ ² >P % of responses Source of stock
  26. 26. Irrespective of the Location, Sale and Ceremonies Purposes are the Main Reasons for Offtakes ª W= Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance , *** P<0.001 0.82*** 0.77*** 0.71*** 0.66*** STATISTIC (W ª) 5.15 (5) 5.00 (6) 4.40 (5) 4.71 (6) Gift 4.20 (4) 4.32 (4) 4.02 (3) 4.57 (5) Home consumption 3.42 (3) 4.82 (5) 4.64 (6) 3.90 (4) Sacrifices 6.70 (6) 3.80 (3) 4.31 (4) 3.50 (3) Stock sharing 2.04 (2) 2.04 (2) 2.47 (2) 3.07 (2) Ceremonies 1.00 (1) 1.00 (1) 1.14 (1) 1.23 (1) Sale S2 n=20 S1 n=20 C2 n=21 C1 n=21 Mean Rank (order) Reasons for offtakes
  27. 27. Diseases rank high as a Major Constraint ª W= Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance , *** P<0.001 5.62 ( 6) 5.60 ( 5) 4.88 (7) 4.45 (5) Early disposal of animals 5.62 (5) 5.67 (6) 4.12 (3) 4.71 (6) Lack capital 0.63*** 0.77*** 0.47*** 0.29*** STATISTIC (W ª ) 5.62 (7) 5.67 (7) 4.81 (5) 4.85 (7) Limited access to market 3.22 (4) 4.50 (4) 2.52 (2) 3.85 (3) Theft 2.12 (1) 2.05 (1) 4.85 (6) 4.33 (4) Feeding 2.67 (2) 2.20 (2) 4.69 (4) 3.26 (2) Lack housing 3.10 (3) 2.30 (3) 2.12 (1) 2.52 (1) Diseases S2(n=20) S1(n=20) C2(n=21) C1(n=21) Mean Rank (order) Constraints
  28. 28. Conclusion <ul><li>The participatory approach has : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Allowed better understanding of farmers’ perspectives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fostered active participation of farmers from all socio-economic groups in the ongoing research </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Different goat phenotypes have been identified throughout the country </li></ul><ul><li>Farmers’ perceptions of constraints, goat types and traits have been identified and are valid for the research locations </li></ul>
  29. 29. What‘s Next? <ul><li>1 Participatory planning </li></ul><ul><li>Development of breeding goals </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Complete and comprehensive list of breeding goals </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Commitment on the goal values and predictors with the farmers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Definition and planning of breeding strategies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identification potential breeding animals and flocks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Development plans to avoid inbreeding/indiscriminate crossbreeding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Development improvement schemes (testing and selection against breeding goals) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Training of farmers: record keeping, improved management, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>2 Implementation of the breeding strategies </li></ul><ul><li>3 Participatory monitoring and assessment </li></ul>
  30. 30. Thank You For Your Attention
  31. 31. General Background <ul><li>Poor characterisation of breeds: performance data and information on adaptation & disease tolerance scanty </li></ul><ul><li>No breeding programme for local breeds </li></ul><ul><li>Indiscriminate crossbreeding </li></ul><ul><li>Risk status: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>local goat = critical </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>local sheep = unknown </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(DAGRIS, 2004 ) </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  32. 32. The Average Household Flock Size of Goat is Not Affected by Wealth 7.0 1.9 7.9 6.8 7.8 SD 0.051 Pr > F value 6.0 8.2 75 Total 4.0 4.4 16 Poorest 6.0 8.2 21 Poor 10.0 10.8 21 Rich 7.0 8.6 17 Richest Median Mean n Group
  33. 33. Farmers’ Preference is for the Local Goat with Average Legs Length *The number of types kept by a farmer ranges from 1 to 3 in Dassa while in Toffo all respondents keep only one type. - 0 2 With wattles - 0 4 Crossbred 2x4 - 0 2 Long legged from North Benin (4) 0.950 91 92 Local with average legs (2) 0.247 9 17 Very short legged (1) Toffo* Dassa* Χ ² >P Frequency (%) of responses ( NB:multiple responses ) Goat types kept by farmers
  34. 34. Irrespective of the Village, The Major Disease is The Peste des Petits Ruminants (PPR)

×