Next Article in Journal
An Appraisal of Communication Practices Demonstrated by Romanian District Public Health Authorities at the Outbreak of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Next Article in Special Issue
Capitalizing on the Potential of South African Indigenous Beef Cattle Breeds: A Review
Previous Article in Journal
Factors Allowing Users to Influence the Environmental Performance of Their T-Shirt
Previous Article in Special Issue
Genomic Characterization of the Three Balkan Livestock Guardian Dogs
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 5
10.3390/su13052499
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Livestock Keepers’ Attitudes: Keystone of Effective Community-Based Breeding Programs

by
Bienvenue Zoma-Traoré
1,2,
Lorenz Probst
3,
Salifou Ouédraogo-Koné
2,
Albert Soudré
4,
Dominique Ouédraogo
1,2,
Bernadette Yougbaré
1,5,
Amadou Traoré
5,
Negar Khayatzadeh
1,
Gábor Mészáros
1,
Pamela Anna Burger
6,
Okeyo Ally Mwai
7,
Johann Sölkner
1,
Maria Wurzinger
1,3,* and
Daniel Martin-Collado
8,9
1
Division of Livestock Sciences, Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1180 Vienna, Austria
2
Institute of Rural Development, Nazi BONI University, 1091 Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso
3
Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, Institute for Development Research, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1190 Vienna, Austria
4
Department of Life and Earth Sciences, Norbert ZONGO University of Koudougou, 376 Koudougou, Burkina Faso
5
Department of Animal Production, Environmental and Agricultural Research Institute, 7047 Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
6
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Population Genetics, University of Veterinary Medicine, 1220 Vienna, Austria
7
International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), 30709 Nairobi, Kenya
8
Animal Production and Health Unit, Agrifood Research and Technology Centre of Aragon (CITA), 50059 Zaragoza, Spain
9
AgriFood Institute of Aragon—IA2 (CITA-University of Zaragoza), 50013 Zaragoza, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(5), 2499; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052499
Submission received: 15 January 2021 / Revised: 18 February 2021 / Accepted: 19 February 2021 / Published: 25 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Management of Animal Genetic Resources)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Livestock keepers in southwestern Burkina Faso hold the local Lobi taurine breed, local Zebu cattle, and their crosses. Some communities in the region have begun to implement community-based cattle breeding programs (CBBPs), which involve animal tagging and recording and, potentially, also bull sharing. Based on the hypothesis that the participation of livestock keepers in CBBPs depends on their attitudes towards these programs, we used questionnaires to survey the attitudes of 125 farmers towards cattle breeding strategies and tools. Results were analyzed using principal component analysis. Farmers showed a highly positive attitude towards maintaining the features of their preferred cattle breed, but their attitudes varied substantially towards crossbreeding for breed improvement. Farmers generally agreed that performance was more important than animal appearance, and most of them were willing to cooperate with breeders’ associations but were skeptical about sharing their bulls with other farmers. The majority was reluctant to record performance data, which may be due to a capacity deficit and their confidence in being able to select the best animals based purely on phenotype. Our analysis suggests that breeders’ associations, as a key component of CBBPs, should lay down clear rules and obligations for their members from the outset. Timely consideration of farmers’ attitudes towards different breeding tools may improve their uptake and guarantee the sustainability of CBBPs.

1. Introduction

Local breeds are particularly relevant in developing countries, where they contribute to farmers’ livelihoods and have socio-cultural functions [1]. These breeds have the advantage of adaptability to scarce and low-quality feed resources, adverse climatic conditions, and resistance to parasites and endemic diseases. However, their productivity is low [1,2]. In an effort to increase farm production, farmers are increasingly crossbreeding local breeds with more productive international breeds or even replacing the local breeds entirely [3,4]. This trend threatens the conservation and use of local breeds [5,6,7].
In developing countries, genetic improvement of local breeds is one of the avenues to conserve them sustainably while supporting smallholder farmers [1,8]. Conventional breeding programs can be quite difficult to implement in communities of smallholder farmers in developing countries [9], which has led to the promotion of community-based breeding programs (CBBPs) [9,10,11]. CBBPs focus on indigenous stocks and strive to take into account the needs, views, decisions, and active participation of farmers [9,10,11,12]. Despite this goal, several CBBPs have failed because they did not adequately integrate the views of farmers, which resulted in low participation [9,13]. Thus, CBBP success depends on active participation by livestock keepers as well as consideration of local knowledge and the institutional setting [14,15,16,17]. The attitudes of livestock keepers towards the breeding strategy and tools proposed in CBBPs (or conventional breeding programs) can influence their willingness to participate [18]. However, few studies have systematically examined these attitudes or how they may be linked to CBBP outcomes. Instead, the literature has focused more on technical aspects of program design and implementation [19,20,21] and their possible economic impact on farmers’ livelihoods [22,23].
In fact, farmers’ knowledge, perception, and attitude towards a given technology help determine its success [24]. Farmers’ attitudes are affected, in turn, by many personal factors (e.g., gender, age, marital status), socioeconomic factors (e.g., income, assets, education), and personality factors (e.g., self-confidence, readiness for innovation) as well as familiarity with the technology. Its adoption can also be determined by the agro–ecological environment, surrounding culture, political conditions, user-friendliness of the proposed technology, as well as the costs and benefits for farmers [24].
Better understanding of the livestock keepers’ attitudes towards different breeding tools will help design more effective CBBPs as well as improve farmer participation and support from extension services. Taking into account local attitudes is all the more important because of how much production, management, and socioeconomic factors can vary within and across geographic areas [25,26]. In addition, farmers can vary in their attitudes towards breeding approaches and tools [18] as well as disease risk management, conservation, and animal welfare [27,28,29]. This heterogeneity is particularly evident in developing countries, where farming remains less intensified and homogenized than in developed countries.
The present study assessed the attitudes of farmers in southwestern Burkina Faso towards breeding strategies and explored attitudinal differences among different farmer communities. The study also examined the implications of such attitudes for the design and implementation of CBBPs in the area.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

The research was conducted in the mountainous South-Sudanian ecological zone in southwestern Burkina Faso (Figure 1). The area is inhabited by approximately 850,000 people comprising the “local” ethnic groups Lobi, Dagara, Birifo, Djan, and Pogouli, as well as the “immigrant” groups Mossi, Fulani, and Bobo [30]. Their primary economic activities are cattle and crop production [31]. The breeds in this area include the two most common cattle breeds in Burkina Faso, namely the indigenous Lobi taurine (named after the Lobi ethnic group) and the Zebu, as well as crosses between these two breeds.
Rainfall patterns have recently become more erratic than in the past, and livestock production is constrained by parasite and disease pressures [32]. To improve productivity, farmers have begun crossing the local Lobi taurine breed, reducing the pure local populations [33,34,35]. To help conserve and improve Lobi cattle, local authorities and livestock researchers have recommended CBBPs similar to those that have proven successful in other developing countries [10]. Two universities and one research institute in Burkina Faso, in collaboration with two universities in Austria, have launched the project “Localbreed—Local Cattle Breed—Burkina Faso” to implement CBBPs aimed at conserving and improving pure Lobi cattle as well as Zebu x Lobi crossbreds [36].

2.2. Sampling

In a 2018 study in the same area, we developed a typology of cattle production systems based on a sample of 169 households [32]. Four cattle production systems were identified: (1) sedentary Lobi farms, (2) sedentary crossbreed farms, (3) semi-transhumant Fulani Zebu farms, and (4) transhumant Fulani Zebu farms. Our intention was to include these same households in the present study to investigate the attitudes of farmers toward breeding instruments. However, some households moved away after the previous study, so in the present work, we were only able to include 125 of the original 169 households.

2.3. Farmer Survey and Attitudinal Statements

We evaluated farmers’ attitudes using a set of attitudinal statements towards which farmers stated their agreement using a six-level Likert scale: totally disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree, and totally agree. Such a scale avoids the central tendency bias. We also included the option: “I do not know/I do not have an opinion on this”. The list of attitudinal statements was defined based on a study of sheep and beef farmer attitudes in Australia, New Zealand, and Spain [18]. The statements were adapted to local conditions by taking into account local breeding practices and the current state of breeding programs. For example, statements related to the use of genomic information were removed, and two statements related to farmers’ collaboration and bull sharing were added. The final list consisted of 10 statements, 8 of which were common to the attitudinal scale in the previous work [18] (Table 1). The list of statements that made up the core of a longer questionnaire also included questions about the farming system, farmer profile, farmer breeding strategies, and breeding tools.

2.4. Data Collection

We contacted the heads of household and carried out face-to-face interviews from July to September 2019. We used local materials, such as pebbles or shea nuts, to explain the 7-point scaling system for responding to survey items [37], where 0 meant “I do not know/I do not have an opinion on this”; 1, totally disagree; 2, disagree; 3, somewhat disagree; 4, somewhat agree; 5, agree; and 6, totally agree. The respondents decided where and when to conduct the survey/interview session and in which language (Dioula, Mooré, or French). Before an interview, farmers were individually asked to consent to the recording of the sessions and for the results to be used for scientific work.

2.5. Data Analysis

2.5.1. Dataset Preparation

We first carried out quality control of the dataset. Households for which the interview contained more than three responses of “I do not know/I do not have an opinion on this” were removed, which was the case for one household. This response was given by 37–70% of respondents, depending on the production system, with reference to the statement on artificial insemination, so this statement was removed from the analysis. Therefore, we analyzed nine attitudinal statements in the end. Values were imputed for observation with three or fewer missing values (n = 33) not to miss the remaining statements’ information. We used the expected maximization algorithm in the “Amelia” package of R (version 3.6.1) [18].

2.5.2. Statistical Analyses

Analysis of Responses about Production Systems
Among variables describing farmers’ profile, farming system, and breeding management, the mean and the standard deviation were calculated for continuous variables, while the percentage was calculated for categorical variables. Before data analysis, we carried out the Shapiro test and Q-Q normality plots to examine the distribution of data. As data did not follow a normal distribution, we carried out nonparametric tests. Differences between production systems were assessed for significance using the χ2 test (categorical variables) or using the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test followed by Wilcoxon-test with Bonferroni–Holm correction (continuous variables). Differences were considered significant at p < 0.05.
Analysis of Responses to Attitudinal Statements
Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to investigate relationships among farmers’ attitudes towards different breeding aspects and explore the variability of these attitudes across the entire farmer sample. In particular, we aimed to identify for which attitudinal statements there was concurrence of agreement or disagreement and those for which there was strong heterogeneity. PCA was carried out using the FactoMinerR package, and results were plotted using the FactoExtra package, both in R (version 3.6.1). Principal components (PCs) with an eigenvalue of at least one were retained (Kaiser’s criterion) [38,39]. We analyzed variation in farmers’ attitudes across the four production systems, which were plotted around the mean values for each farming system, and then confidence ellipses were drawn on the PCA plots. Finally, to help interpret the PCA results, we calculated the average agreement for each original attitudinal statement in each production systems
The lengths of the vectors (i.e., arrows) indicate how strongly the associated variable influences the PC. Therefore, they are directly proportional to the variation of that variable in the sample. For example, a very short arrow indicates that the two PCs contain nearly no information about the variable in question. The angle between any two arrows represents the correlation between the associated variables. When the angle between two variable vectors is 90 degrees, the two variables are deemed to be orthogonal and uncorrelated. Smaller angles indicate positive correlation; larger angles, negative correlation. Finally, the location of the dots (i.e., observations) in the plot is related to the score for each variable according to the direction of the arrows.

3. Results

The main characteristics of the four production systems (Table 2) were consistent with those of the 2018 study conducted in the same area [32]. For all production systems, farmers had an average age of 50 years, and most had no formal education. They had all inherited their farms and were working full-time as farmers. Most farmers relied on hired herders; in contrast, farmers who kept Lobi taurine cattle in sedentary systems were more likely to rely on family labor. All farmers had more than one breeding bull, and they preferred those breeding bulls to ones from outside their herd.
PCA identified six PCs with eigenvalues of at least one that together described 90.0% of the total variance (Table 3). The first component explained 25.4% of the variance (Figure 2), and the four primary and positively correlated items were attitudes towards crossbreeding, collaboration between farmers, membership in a breeders’ association, and bull sharing. This first PC correlated negatively with performance recording.
The second component accounted for 17.2% of the variance and was explained by the following five variables: importance of the appearance of the progeny, animal appearance as a performance indicator, the importance of bull sharing, avoiding crossing, and collaboration among farmers. The biplot of PC1 and PC2 suggested a clear attitudinal difference between respondents from the “Sedentary Crossbreed Lobi” or “Transhumant Fulani” production systems. In the plot, the ellipse representing “Sedentary Crossbreed Lobi” lay opposite the variable “AvoidCrossing”, indicating a positive attitude towards crossbreeding (Figure 2 and Figure 4). “Transhumant Fulani” respondents showed an attitude towards bull sharing opposite to that of all the other groups and were critical of farmers’ collaboration as a tool to improve breed features.
Among attitudes that correlated strongly with PC 1 and 2, clear differences were not observed between respondents from “Sedentary Lobi Taurine” or “Semi-Transhumant Fulani” production systems (Figure 2). The confidence ellipses of these two systems lay in the center of the PC plot and covered the entire PC space, indicating high heterogeneity of attitudes. Attitudes varied the most among “Transhumant Fulani” farmers, reflected in the greater spread of the confidence ellipse.
The biplot of PC3 and PC4 revealed that “Sedentary Lobi Taurine” farmers had a strongly positive attitude towards bull sharing, while “Semi-Transhumant Fulani” farmers had a strongly positive attitude towards animal appearance as a good performance indicator (Figure 3). This biplot revealed substantial heterogeneity within both production systems.
Farmers from all four production systems strongly supported maintaining breed features, relying on appearance as a performance indicator, being a member of a breeder’s association, and valuing animal performance more than appearance (Figure 4). “Transhumant Fulani” farmers were more critical towards performance recording, collaboration with other farmers, and sharing their bulls to improve herd performance.

4. Discussion

This study investigated farmers’ attitudes towards aspects of breeding relevant to the successful implementation of CBBPs. We focused on how attitudes varied within and across four production systems related to two ethnic groups (Lobi and Fulani), two livestock breeds (Taurine and Zebu), and three farming styles (Sedentary, Semi-Transhumant, and Transhumant), which we established in previous work [32]. Our analysis identified three issues about CBBPs that may need to be addressed during their design and implementation: whether to prioritize pure breeding or crossbreeding, how to promote cooperation and bull sharing among farmers, and how to promote performance recording and animal tagging. Each of these issues is explored in greater detail below. Ensuring that these issues are resolved in alignment with the attitudes of participating farmers may help ensure that CBBPs are successful and sustainable.

4.1. Prioritizing Pure Breeding or Crossbreeding and “Beauty” or Performance

Across all four production systems, farmers showed a highly positive attitude towards maintaining the features of their preferred cattle breed. Lobi Taurine and Fulani Zebu are traditionally kept by different ethnic groups and play essential roles in their cultural practices, contributing to their respective cultural identities [40,41,42]. This attachment of farmers to a particular breed will likely help conservation and breeding efforts as farmers should be more inclined to participate in breeding programs that are aimed at improving what they value, instead of switching cattle breeds as a response to changes in production systems, environmental factors, or market forces. In Uganda, the Ankole Cow Conservation Association has used this strategy of linking farmer identity to a breeding program to conserve Ankole cattle [2]. However, connections between ethnic groups and cattle breeds can change over time [43].
In our study, farmers from all production systems overwhelmingly supported the need to maintain breed features, yet they kept both pure and crossbred animals, especially the “Sedentary Crossbreed” farmers. Their visual appraisal of animals as pure or crossbred may not always be accurate. For example, Lobi animals that have been mixed with Zebu based on genomic analysis are frequently misclassified as pure by farmers [44]. Indeed, many farmers in developing countries consider crossbreeding an attractive option for increasing their income [8,45,46,47,48]. “Sedentary Crossbreed” farmers in our study area consider crossbreeding two local breeds to be a way to improve herd productivity [32].
However, researchers and international agencies have warned that farmers’ interest in crossbreeding can lead to the loss of purebred cattle in Burkina Faso [33,34] and elsewhere [1,45]. Our study shows that although farmers are clearly interested in crossbred animals, most of them are also concerned about retaining pure breed features. Nevertheless, CBBPs usually do not implement or promote well-designed crossbreeding strategies that minimize the risk of losing purebred cattle. This means that farmers are often left on their own when selecting bulls or making other breeding decisions, especially deciding which bulls to mate with crossbred females. We argue that both pure breeding and crossbreeding can and should be practiced in the same area and that farmers are aware of the benefits and risks of both approaches. Effective and sustainable parallel implementation requires institutionalization and possibly guidance from technical staff.
As part of the issue over pure breeding or crossbreeding, the farmers in our study generally agreed that animals’ performance is more important than their appearance, which is in line with the study of Ankole cattle farmers in Uganda [16]. In many developing countries, farmers consider the well-being indicator “animal body condition score” as more important than any other attribute [49]. A possible explanation is that cattle income makes an essential contribution to the household livelihood and that farmers prefer animals that quickly reach market weight, while buyers prefer animals with good body condition. Indeed, animal body condition strongly influences farm gate price in Benin, Kenya, and Ethiopia [50,51,52,53,54,55], and good body condition is a prerequisite for adequate traction power for plowing. These considerations help explain why most breeding programs in developing countries aim to improve performance [56]. Consensus-building between farmers, researchers, and extension services may help make breeding goals more aligned with farmer attitudes and, therefore, more likely to succeed.

4.2. Promoting Cooperation among Farmers

Our study showed that farmers agreed with the importance of breeders’ associations and inter-farmer collaboration to allow them, for example, to benchmark their herds against others. On the other hand, farmers did not always show positive attitudes towards bull sharing. While farmers appear to perceive the potential benefits of joining breeders’ associations, such as greater income [57] or greater sustainability of breeding programs [58,59], they seem less willing to accept the implications of such participation, which includes bull sharing. In one study, farmers in Burkina Faso who were members of an association or cooperation showed a more positive attitude towards the conservation of Lobi cattle than farmers who were not members [34].
Based on our findings and the literature, we recommend the establishment of formally registered and recognized breeders’ associations for Lobi cattle. These organizations should build on existing social structures to increase acceptance among farmers [15]. Membership should entail clear rules, rights, and obligations for each member [59]. During member discussions, the benefits of bull sharing to the participating farmers and the wider community can be emphasized to counteract the negative attitudes.
Considering the diverse attitudes towards bull sharing and farmer collaboration that we observed in our sample, particularly among “Transhumant Fulani” farmers, we recommend continuous dialog among stakeholders to jointly explore options for preserving and improving cattle breeds. A successful community-based breeding intervention needs to build on the commitment of livestock keepers, and the choice of certain farmers to opt-out must be respected.

4.3. Promoting Data Recording and Animal Tagging

Lack of performance data in smallholder farms is repeatedly cited as a major obstacle for breeding program success [17,60]. Farmers in our study seemed confident that the appearance of animals or that of their progeny are good performance indicators, which implies that they do not see the need to record animal performance. Indeed, farmers may derive a sense of achievement from being able to select the best animals for breeding based only on their external features [43]. Our results reflect the dominance of traditional farming practices in the study area, where the head of household generally exercises absolute power over cattle management [31,32,34]. In addition, all the farmers in our study inherited their farms from their parents, and most of them place value on conforming to their parents’ practices [43]. Our analysis leads us to recommend demonstrating to farmers how performance and pedigree data can be used to preserve and improve the external traits they are familiar with, such as breed purity and bull performance.
Encouraging the recording of performance data will require overcoming several obstacles. These include lack of formal education and technical training among farmers, their advanced age, and their lack of workers with the time to routinely and accurately collect animal performance and pedigree data. For example, farmers from the “Sedentary Lobi Taurine” production system rely mostly on family members, who are often overwhelmed with other farm and domestic activities. Another obstacle is the lack of relevant skills and user-friendly infrastructure in information and communications technology, including robust and interactive databases.
Performance recording requires systematic tagging of animals [12,61], yet many farmers in Ethiopia are reluctant to tag their animals because they believe it may cause infection and even death [58]. We suggest that CBBPs implement animal tagging and identification in a way that creates transparency and trust among stakeholders. One possibility is to implement a data-management responsibility chain [10] in which someone (e.g., an agricultural advisor) records data on the farm while external services analyze the data, the results of which are used to rank the animals.
If “outsiders”, such as extension services, record and manage performance data, they should regularly provide feedback to farmers about the data to ensure trust and transparency and thereby improve farmer participation. This feedback is especially essential at the beginning of a breeding program so that farmers can familiarize themselves with data interpretation and grow in self-confidence. Indeed, continuous exchange with farmers is a critical element of CBBP viability [15,23,60]. Allowing farmers to participate actively in the improvement and fine-tuning of breeding programs can increase their sense of ownership and turn program tools into “public goods” [62].
Our present findings showing heterogeneity of livestock keepers’ attitudes within and across different production systems echo results from our previous study in the same area [32]. These findings suggest that the traditional view of the Fulani ethnic group as pure cattle keepers and the Lobi ethnic group as crop farmers who are less interested in cattle [34] is no longer valid. Both groups seem to have diversified their interests. In addition, the present study demonstrates how quantitative survey methods to investigate attitudes of respondents in rural communities can yield valuable data in contrast to what some have suggested [63,64,65,66]. Careful adaptation of the research instruments to local conditions is essential [35].

5. Conclusions

This investigation of livestock keepers’ attitudes towards breeding strategies and tools in Burkina Faso showed that farmers’ attitudes towards crossbreeding of two local cattle types varied greatly, but they agreed that cattle performance was more important than their appearance. Farmers agreed on the importance of belonging to an association and collaborating with other members but did not necessarily agree on bull sharing. They were reluctant to record data on animal performance, which may reflect a lack of capacity and their own confidence in selecting breeding bulls. Our work shows the potential of attitudinal studies for informing the design and implementation of CBBPs. Conversations on attitudes provide a detailed picture of participating farmers’ values and challenges, thus enabling stakeholders to collaborate more fruitfully. Expanding these conversations about attitudes to other stakeholders, such as extension services and research institutions, may be particularly beneficial. To be successful and sustainable, CBBPs should clearly define the obligations and roles of participating farmers, and they should provide systems for animal identification and performance recording to build trust and encourage stakeholders to continue systematic breeding activities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: D.M.-C., B.Z.-T., M.W., L.P., J.S., S.O.-K., A.S., A.T. and D.O. Methodology: D.M.-C., B.Z.-T. and M.W. Software: D.M.-C. Validation: D.M.-C., J.S. and G.M. Formal analysis: B.Z.-T. Investigation: B.Z.-T. Resources: J.S., A.S. and M.W. Data curation: D.M.-C. and G.M. Writing—original draft preparation: B.Z.-T. and M.W. Writing—review and editing: D.M.-C., L.P., S.O.-K., A.S., D.O., B.Y., A.T., N.K., G.M., P.A.B., O.A.M., J.S., B.Z.-T. and M.W. Visualization: B.Z.-T., D.M.-C. and G.M. Supervision: M.W., L.P. and J.S. Project administration: J.S. and A.S. Funding acquisition: J.S., P.A.B. and A.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by The Austrian Development Agency and the Austrian Partnership Programme in Higher Education and Research for Development (APPEAR 120).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy policy. Personal data from interview partners is not shared on a public space.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to all farmers and livestock technicians for their active participation in the research activities. We also acknowledge help from Karambiri Medina in preparing the map.

Conflicts of Interest

All the authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAO. The Second Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture; Scherf, B.D., Pilling, D., Eds.; FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments: Rome, Italy, 2015; p. 505. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i4787e/i4787e00.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2020).
  2. Dessie, T.; Mwai, O. The Story of Cattle in Africa: Why Diversity Matters; ILRI, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea and AU-IBAR, Bureau for Animal Resources: Nairobi, Kenya, 2019; Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/108945 (accessed on 7 September 2020).
  3. Rege, J.E.O.; Marshall, K.; Notenbaert, A.; Ojango, J.M.K.; Okeyo, A.M. Pro-poor animal improvement and breeding—What can science do? Livest. Sci. 2011, 136, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. ILRI. Climate, Livestock and Poverty: Challenges at the Interface; International Livestock Research Institute: Nairobi, Kenya, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  5. FAO. The State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture; Food & Agriculture Org: Rome, Italy, 2007; Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a1250e00.htm (accessed on 22 September 2020).
  6. Rege, J.E.O. The state of African cattle genetic resources I. Classification framework and identification of threatened and extinct breeds. Anim. Genet. Resour. 1999, 25, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rewe, T.O.; Herold, P.; Kahi, A.K.; Zárate, A.V. Breeding Indigenous Cattle Genetic Resources for Beef Production in Sub-Saharan Africa. Outlook Agri. 2009, 38, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. FAO. Breeding Strategies for Sustainable Management of Animal Genetic Resources; FAO Animal Production and Health Guidelines. No 3.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2010; p. 132. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i1103e/i1103e.pdf (accessed on 7 September 2020).
  9. Mueller, J.P.; Rischkowsky, B.; Haile, A.; Philipsson, J.; Mwai, O.; Besbes, B.; Valle Zárate, A.; Tibbo, M.; Mirkena, T.; Duguma, G.; et al. Community-based livestock breeding programmes: Essentials and examples. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 2015, 132, 155–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Haile, A.; Gizaw, S.; Getachew, T.; Mueller, J.P.; Amer, P.; Rekik, M.; Rischkowsky, B. Community-based breeding programmes are a viable solution for Ethiopian small ruminant genetic improvement but require public and private investments. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 2019, 136, 319–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Sölkner, J.; Nakimbugwe, H.; Valle Zarate, A. Analysis of determinants for success and failure of village breeding programmes. In Proceedings of the 6th World Congress On Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Armidale, Australia, 11–16 January 1998; Volume 25, pp. 273–280. [Google Scholar]
  12. Haile, A.; Wurzinger, M.; Mueller, J.; Mirkena, T.; Duguma, G.; Okeyo Mwai, A.; Sölkner, J.; Rischkowsky, B.A. Guidelines for Setting Up Community-Based Sheep Breeding Programs in Ethiopia: Lessons and Experiences for Sheep Breeding in Low-Input Systems, 2nd ed.; ICARDA: Beirut, Lebanon, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kosgey, I.S.; Baker, R.L.; Udo, H.M.J.; Van Arendonk, J.A.M. Successes and failures of small ruminant breeding programmes in the tropics: A review. Small. Rumin. Res. 2006, 61, 13–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kosgey, I.S.; Okeyo, A.M. Genetic improvement of small ruminants in low-input, smallholder production systems: Technical and infrastructural issues. Small. Rumin. Res. 2007, 70, 76–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wurzinger, M.; Sölkner, J.; Iñiguez, L. Important aspects and limitations in considering community-based breeding programs for low-input smallholder livestock systems. Small. Rumin. Res. 2011, 98, 170–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wurzinger, M.; Gutierrez, G. Analysis of a multi-stakeholder process during the start-up phase of two community-based llama breeding programs in Peru. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 2017, 29, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  17. Getachew, T.; Haile, A.; Rischkowsky, B. How to tailor community based breeding programs for small ruminants to pastoral production systems. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Productions, Auckland, New Zealand, 11–16 February 2018; Volume 11, p. 858. [Google Scholar]
  18. Martin-Collado, D.; Diaz, C.; Benito-Ruiz, G.; Ondé, D.; Rubio, A.; Byrne, T.J. Measuring farmers’attitude towards breeding tools: The Livestock Breeding Attitude Scale. Animal 2021, 100062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Abegaz, S.; Sölkner, J.; Gizaw, S.; Dessie, T.; Haile, A.; Mirkena, T.; Getachew, T.; Wurzinger, M. Optimizing alternative schemes of community-based breeding programs for two Ethiopian goat breeds. Acta Agrar. Kaposváriensis 2014, 18 (Suppl. S1), 47–55. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gizaw, S.; van Arendonk, J.A.M.; Valle-Zárate, A.; Haile, A.; Rischkowsky, B.; Dessie, T.; Mwai, A.O. Breeding programmes for smallholder sheep farming systems: II. Optimization of cooperative village breeding schemes. J. Anim. Breed Genet. 2014, 131, 350–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Mirkena, T.; Duguma, G.; Willam, A.; Wurzinger, M.; Haile, A.; Rischkowsky, B.; Okeyo, A.M.; Tibbo, M.; Solkner, J. Community-based alternative breeding plans for indigenous sheep breeds in four agro-ecological zones of Ethiopia. J. Anim. Breed Genet. 2012, 129, 244–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Kaumbata, W.; Banda, L.; Mészáros, G.; Gondwe, T.; Woodward-Greene, M.J.; Rosen, B.D.; Van Tassell, C.P.; Sölkner, J.; Wurzinger, M. Tangible and intangible benefits of local goats rearing in smallholder farms in Malawi. Small Rumin. Res. 2020, 187, 106095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Haile, A.; Getachew, T.; Mirkena, T.; Duguma, G.; Gizaw, S.; Wurzinger, M.; Soelkner, J.; Mwai, O.; Dessie, T.; Abebe, A.; et al. Community-based sheep breeding programs generated substantial genetic gains and socioeconomic benefits. Animal 2020, 14, 1362–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Meijer, S.S.; Catacutan, D.; Ajayi, O.C.; Sileshi, G.W.; Nieuwenhuis, M. The role of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions in the uptake of agricultural and agroforestry innovations among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. Inter. J. Agri. Sustain. 2015, 13, 40–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Madalena, F.E.; Agyemang, K.; Cardellino, R.C.; Jain, G.L. Genetic improvement in medium-to low-input systems of animal production. Experiences to date. In Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Montpellier, France, 19–23 August 2002; pp. 331–340. [Google Scholar]
  26. Robinson, T.P.; Thornton, P.K.; Franceschini, G.; Kruska, R.L.; Chiozza, F.; Notenbaert, A.M.O.; Cecchi, G.; Herrero, M.T.; Epprecht, M.; Fritz, S. Global Livestock Production Systems; FAO: Rome, Italy; ILRI: Nairobi, Kenya, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  27. Garforth, C.J.; Bailey, A.P.; Tranter, R.B. Farmers’ attitudes to disease risk management in England: A comparative analysis of sheep and pig farmers. Prevent. Vet. Med. 2013, 110, 456–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ahnström, J.; Höckert, J.; Bergeå, H.L.; Francis, C.A.; Skelton, P.; Hallgren, L. Farmers and nature conservation: What is known about attitudes, context factors and actions affecting conservation? Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2009, 24, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Kielland, C.; Skjerve, E.; Østerås, O.; Zanella, A.J. Dairy farmer attitudes and empathy toward animals are associated with animal welfare indicators. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 2998–3006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. INSD. Annuaire Statistique: Ouagadougou-Burkina Faso. Available online: http://www.insd.bf/n/contenu/pub_periodiques/annuaires_stat/Annuaires_stat_nationaux_BF/Annuaire_Statistique_National_2018.pdf (accessed on 10 July 2020).
  31. Ouédraogo, D.; Soudré, A.; Ouédraogo-Koné, S.; Zoma, B.; Yougbaré, B.; Khayatzadeh, N.; Burger, P.; Mészáros, G.; Traoré, A.; Mwai, O.; et al. Breeding objectives and practices in three local cattle breed production systems in Burkina Faso with implication for the design of breeding programs. Livest. Sci. 2019, 232, 103910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zoma-Traoré, B.; Soudré, A.; Ouédraogo-Koné, S.; Khayatzadeh, N.; Probst, L.; Sölkner, J.; Mészáros, G.; Burger, P.A.; Traoré, A.; Sanou, M.; et al. From farmers to livestock keepers: A typology of cattle production systems in south-western Burkina Faso. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2020, 52, 2179–2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Soudré, A.; Ouédraogo-Koné, S.; Wurzinger, M.; Müller, S.; Hanotte, O.; Ouédraogo, A.G.; Sölkner, J. Trypanosomosis: A priority disease in tsetse-challenged areas of Burkina Faso. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2013, 45, 497–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mopaté, L.Y.; Kamuanga, M.J.B.; Hamadou, S.; Kaboré-Zoungrana, C.Y. Evaluation des pratiques paysannes de conservation in situ du taurin Baoulé au Sud-Ouest du Burkina Faso. Anim. Gen. Res. 2014, 54, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Porter, V.; Alderson, L.; Hall, S.J.G.; Sponenberg, D.P. Mason’s World Encyclopedia of Livestock Breeds and Breeding; CABI: Blacksburg, VA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  36. Local Cattle Breeds of Burkina Faso—Characterization and Sustainable Utilization (LoCaBreed). 2014–2020. Available online: https://appear.at/en/projects/current-projects/project-websites/project120-locabreed/ (accessed on 20 November 2020).
  37. Bellon, M.R. Participatory Research Methods for Technology Evaluation: A Manual for Scientists Working with Farmers; CIMMYT: Mexico City, Mexico, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  38. Bidogeza, J.C.; Berentsen, P.B.M.; De Graaff, J.; Oude Lansink, A.G.J.M. A typology of farm households for the Umutara Province in Rwanda. Food Sec. 2009, 1, 321–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kuivanen, K.S.; Alvarez, S.; Michalscheck, M.; Adjei-Nsiah, S.; Descheemaeker, K.; Mellon-Bedi, S.; Groot, J.C.J. Characterising the diversity of smallholder farming systems and their constraints and opportunities for innovation: A case study from the Northern Region, Ghana. NJAS 2016, 78, 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cécile, R. Organisation Sociale des Lobi: Une Société Bilinéaire du Burkina Faso et de Côte d’Ivoire; l’Harmattan: Paris, France, 1987; p. 259. [Google Scholar]
  41. Mopaté, Y.F. Développement des Bovins Trypanotolérants au Burkina Faso: Défis—Potentialités—Opportunités; Université Polytechnique de Bobo-Dioulasso (Burkina Faso): Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  42. Boutrais, J. The Fulani and Cattle Breeds: Crossbreeding and Heritage Strategies. Africa 2007, 77, 18–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zoma-Traoré, B.; Ouédraogo-Koné, S.; Soudré, A.; Ouédraogo, D.; Yougbaré, B.; Traoré, A.; Khayatzadeh, N.; Mészáros, G.; Burger, P.A.; Mwai, O.M.; et al. Values and beliefs that shape cattle breeding in south-western Burkina Faso. Hum. Ecol. under review.
  44. Ouédraogo, D.; Ouédraogo-Koné, S.; Yougbaré, B.; Soudré, A.; Zoma-Traoré, B.; Mészáros, G.; Khayatzadeh, N.; Traoré, A.; Sanou, M.; Mwai, O.A.; et al. Population structure, inbreeding and admixture in local cattle populations managed by community-based breedin programs in Burkina Faso. J. Anim. Breed Genet. in press.
  45. Leroy, G.; Baumung, R.; Boettcher, P.; Scherf, B.; Hoffmann, I. Review: Sustainability of crossbreeding in developing countries; definitely not like crossing a meadow. Animal 2015, 10, 262–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Galukande, E.; Mulindwa, H.; Wurzinger, M.; Roschinsky, R.; Mwai, A.O.; Sölkner, J. Crossbreeding cattle for milk production in the tropics: Achievements, challenges and opportunities. Anim. Genet. Resour. 2013, 52, 111–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Roschinsky, R.; Kluszczynska, M.; Sölkner, J.; Puskur, R.; Wurzinger, M. Smallholder experiences with dairy cattle crossbreeding in the tropics: From introduction to impact. Animal 2015, 9, 150–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Traoré, S.A.; Markemann, A.; Reiber, C.; Piepho, H.P.; Valle Zarate, A. Production objectives, traits and breeds preferences of farmers keeping N’Dama, Fulani Zebu and crossbreed cattle and implication for breeding programs. Animal 2017, 11, 687–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Mutenje, M.; Chipfupa, U.; Mupangwa, W.; Nyagumbo, I.; Manyawu, G.; Chakoma, I.; Gwiriri, L. Understanding breeding preferences among small-scale cattle producers: Implications for livestock improvement programmes. Animal 2020, 14, 1757–1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Mavedzenge, B.Z.; Mahenehene, J.; Murimbarimba, F.; Scoones, I.; Wolmer, W. Changes in the Livestock Sector in Zimbabwe Following Land Reform: The Case of Masvingo Province; Institute for Development Studies: Brighton, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kinkpé, T.A.; Diogo, R.V.C.; Kpadé, C.P.; Yabi, J.A.; Dossa, L.H. The role of cattle attributes in buyers’ choices in Benin. Afr. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2019, 14, 56–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kassie, G.T.; Abdulai, A.; Wollny, C. Heteroscedastic hedonic price model for cattle in the rural markets of central Ethiopia. Appl. Econ. 2011, 43, 3459–3464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Fadiga, M.L. Valuation of cattle attributes in the Malian humid and sub-humid zones and implications for the sustainable management of endemic ruminant livestock. Env. Econ. 2013, 4, 39–50. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ouma, E.; Abdulai, A.; Drucker, A. Measuring Heterogeneous Preferences for Cattle Traits among Cattle-Keeping Households in East Africa. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2007, 89, 1005–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Ruto, E.; Garrod, G.; Scarpa, R. Valuing animal genetic resources: A choice modeling application to indigenous cattle in Kenya. Agri. Econ. 2008, 38, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cloete, S.W.P. Breeding in developing countries and tropics. In Sustainable Food Production; Christou, P., Savin, R., Costa-Pierce, B.A., Misztal, I., Whitelaw, C.B.A., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, 2013; pp. 346–400. [Google Scholar]
  57. Laborde, D.; Porciello, J.; Smaller, C. Ceres 2030: Sustainable Solutions to End Hunger—Summary Report; Cornell University, IFPRI and IISD: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  58. Gutu, Z.; Haile, A.; Rischkowsky, B.A.; Mulema, A.A.; Kinati, W.; Tesfahun, G. Evaluation of community-based sheep breeding programs in Ethiopia; ICARDA: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  59. Wollny, C.B.A. The need to conserve farm animal genetic resources in Africa: Should policy makers be concerned? Ecol. Econ. 2003, 45, 341–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mwacharo, J.M.; Drucker, A.G. Production Objectives and Management Strategies of Livestock Keepers in South-East Kenya: Implications for a Breeding Programme. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2005, 37, 635–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Oldenbroek, K.; van der Waaij, L. Textbook Animal Breeding: Animal Breeding and Genetics for BSc Students; Centre for Genetic Resources and Animal Breeding and Genomics Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2014; 311p, Available online: https://edepot.wur.nl/365431 (accessed on 17 July 2020).
  62. Mrode, R.; Han, J.; Mwacharo, J.; de Koning, D.J. Novel Tools to Inform Animal Breeding Programs; Livestock and Fish Brief 14; ILRI: Nairobi, Kenya, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  63. Abebe, A.S.; Alemayehu, K.; Johansson, A.M.; Gizaw, S. Breeding practices and trait preferences of smallholder farmers for indigenous sheep in the northwest highlands of Ethiopia: Inputs to design a breeding program. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0233040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Duguma, G.; Mirkena, T.; Haile, A.; Okeyo, A.M.; Tibbo, M.; Rischkowsky, B.; Sölkner, J.; Wurzinger, M. Identification of smallholder farmers and pastoralists’ preferences for sheep breeding traits: Choice model approach. Animal 2011, 5, 1984–1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Hamadou, I.; Moula, N.; Siddo, S.; Issa, M.; Marichatou, H.; Leroy, P.; Antoine-Moussiaux, N. Valuing breeders’ preferences in the conservation of the Koundoum sheep in Niger by multi-attribute analysis. Arch. Anim. Breed. 2019, 62, 537–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Siddo, S.; Moula, N.; Hamadou, I.; Issa, M.; Marichatou, H.; Leroy, P.; Antoine-Moussiaux, N. Breeding criteria and willingness to pay for improved Azawak zebu sires in Niger. Arch. Anim. Breed. 2015, 58, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 13 02499 g001 550
Figure 1. Location of study sites.
Figure 1. Location of study sites.
Sustainability 13 02499 g001
Sustainability 13 02499 g002 550
Figure 2. Principal component analysis (PCA) plot of farmers’ attitudes in different production systems towards the variables of PC1 and PC2.
Figure 2. Principal component analysis (PCA) plot of farmers’ attitudes in different production systems towards the variables of PC1 and PC2.
Sustainability 13 02499 g002
Sustainability 13 02499 g003 550
Figure 3. PCA plot of farmers’ attitudes in different production systems towards the variables of PC3 and PC4.
Figure 3. PCA plot of farmers’ attitudes in different production systems towards the variables of PC3 and PC4.
Sustainability 13 02499 g003
Sustainability 13 02499 g004 550
Figure 4. Farmers’ attitudes of four production systems towards breeding tools. Legend for Figure 4. Transhumant: Transhumant Fulani. Semi-Transhumant: Semi-Transhumant Fulani. Sedentary Crossbreed Lobi: Sedentary Crossbreed Lobi. Sedentary: Sedentary Lobi Taurine. * The full sentences can be found in the same order in Table 1.
Figure 4. Farmers’ attitudes of four production systems towards breeding tools. Legend for Figure 4. Transhumant: Transhumant Fulani. Semi-Transhumant: Semi-Transhumant Fulani. Sedentary Crossbreed Lobi: Sedentary Crossbreed Lobi. Sedentary: Sedentary Lobi Taurine. * The full sentences can be found in the same order in Table 1.
Sustainability 13 02499 g004
Table
Table 1. Attitudinal items on the survey.
Table 1. Attitudinal items on the survey.
Attitudinal ItemVariable
* It is very important to maintain the breed features of bulls/cows.MaintainBreedFeatures
* Crossing animals of different breeds should be avoided when improving beef cattle performance.AvoidCrossing
* The appearance of a bull/cow (“beauty of animals”) is sufficient for telling its performance.AppearanceIndicatePerform
* I do not need a person to come and record performance data on a bull/cow in order to know how good the animal is.RecordingNotImportant
* The appearance of a bull/cow (“beauty of animals”) is more important than its performance.AppearanceMoreImpPerform
* The appearance of progeny (“beauty of animals”) completely indicates how good the bull/cow is.AppearanceProgenyImportant
*,# Artificial insemination does not help improve the performance of a cattle herd.AI_NotHelpPerformance
+ Sharing or exchanging bulls between farmers is important for improving the performance of a cattle herd.BullShareImportance
* In order to improve the performance of my herd, collaboration with other farmers to compare animals is crucial.FarmerCollabCrucial
+ Being a member of a cattle breeders’ association helps me to improve my herd.BreederAssocHelps
* Items taken from the survey [20]. + Items that were added to adapt the survey to local conditions. # Removed from the analysis due to the low number of responses.
Table
Table 2. Main characteristics of the four production systems.
Table 2. Main characteristics of the four production systems.
VariableProduction System
IIIIIIIV
Sedentary Lobi taurine
n = 61		Sedentary crossbreed
n = 19		Semi-transhumant Fulani Zebu
n = 33		Transhumant Fulani Zebu
n = 11
Household attributes
Age of household head, yrs (mean ± SD)55.5 ± 11.1 a55.1 ± 12.7 a48.6 ± 12.8 b52.6 ± 8.9 a
Education of household head (%)
None95.1 a73.7 b97.0 ab90.9 ab
Basic3.3 a15.8 a3.0 a0.0 a
Secondary1.6 a10.5 a0.0 a9.1 a
Technical training0.00.00.00.0
Time spent on the farm (%)
Full-time100 a100 a100 a100 a
Part-time0000
Use of hired labor (%)
Yes21.3 a63.2 b51.5 b81.8 b
No78.7 a36.8 b48.5 b18.2 b
Farm inherited by household head (%)
Yes100 a100 a100 a100 a
No0000
Livestock ownership and management
No. of animals (mean ± SD)
Lobi breed
Cows9.2 ± 6.0 a4.5 ± 3.8 b0.9 ± 3.0 c0.0 ± 0.0 c
Bulls3.1 ± 2.1 a1.3 ± 1.5 b0.1 ± 0.4 c0.4 ± 1.2 c
Crossbreeds
Cows0.7 ± 2.0 a14.9 ± 13.5 b11.6 ± 14.2 b11.6 ± 16.2 b
Bulls0.5 ± 0.9 a2.7 ± 2.7 b1.5 ± 1.4 b3.2 ± 4.5 b
Zebu breed
Cows1.5 ± 3.9 a5.5 ± 11.6 b32.2 ± 30.1 c106.0 ± 57.6 d
Bulls1.6 ± 2.3 a1.3 ± 1.1 a3.3 ± 2.6 b6.6 ± 3.8 c
Origin of bulls (%)
(a) Directly from breeders
or other farmers		42.6 a36.8 a6.1 b18.2 ab
(b) Livestock sale/markets1.6 a0.0 a3.0 a9.1 a
Both (a) and (b)1.7 a5.3 a0.0 a0.0 a
From own herd54.1 a57.9 a90.9 b72.7 ab
a,b,c Means within a row with different superscripts are significantly different at p < 0.05 based on the chi-squared test (categorical variables) or the Kruskal–Wallis test (continuous variables).
Table
Table 3. Correlation of initial variables with principal components.
Table 3. Correlation of initial variables with principal components.
VariablePrincipal Component
123456
MaintainBreedFeatures0.20.3 **0.1−0.2−0.1−0.1
AvoidCrossing0.8 ***−0.5 ***0.3 **0.10.10.1
AppearanceIndicatePerform0.10.5 ***0.7 ***0.4 ***0.1−0.2 **
RecordingNotImportant−0.5 ***−0.2 *0.4 ***−0.10.7 ***−0.1
AppearanceMoreImpPerform0.1−0.1−0.4 ***0.9 ***0.20.1
AppearanceProgenyImportant0.2 *0.6 ***0.2−0.10.20.7 ***
FarmersCollabCrucial0.4 ***0.3 ***−0.1−0.3 ***0.3 **−0.5 ***
BreederAssocHelps0.3 **0.2 **−0.1−0.2 *−0.10.2 *
BullShareImportance0.6 ***0.5 ***−0.4 ***−0.10.4 ***−0.2
Eigenvalue3.92.72.42.11.61.4
Percentage of variance explained25.417.215.113.69.98.8
Cumulative variance explained 42.657.771.381.290.0
*, **, *** indicate significance at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, or p < 0.001, respectively.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zoma-Traoré, B.; Probst, L.; Ouédraogo-Koné, S.; Soudré, A.; Ouédraogo, D.; Yougbaré, B.; Traoré, A.; Khayatzadeh, N.; Mészáros, G.; Burger, P.A.; et al. Livestock Keepers’ Attitudes: Keystone of Effective Community-Based Breeding Programs. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2499. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052499

AMA Style

Zoma-Traoré B, Probst L, Ouédraogo-Koné S, Soudré A, Ouédraogo D, Yougbaré B, Traoré A, Khayatzadeh N, Mészáros G, Burger PA, et al. Livestock Keepers’ Attitudes: Keystone of Effective Community-Based Breeding Programs. Sustainability. 2021; 13(5):2499. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052499

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zoma-Traoré, Bienvenue, Lorenz Probst, Salifou Ouédraogo-Koné, Albert Soudré, Dominique Ouédraogo, Bernadette Yougbaré, Amadou Traoré, Negar Khayatzadeh, Gábor Mészáros, Pamela Anna Burger, and et al. 2021. "Livestock Keepers’ Attitudes: Keystone of Effective Community-Based Breeding Programs" Sustainability 13, no. 5: 2499. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13052499

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop