Next Article in Journal
High-Accuracy Cotton Field Mapping and Spatiotemporal Evolution Analysis of Continuous Cropping Using Multi-Source Remote Sensing Feature Fusion and Advanced Deep Learning
Previous Article in Journal
Image-Based Interpolation of Soil Surface Imagery for Estimating Soil Water Content
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 15
Issue 17
10.3390/agriculture15171813
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Importance of Indigenous Ruminant Breeds for Preserving Genetic Diversity and the Risk of Extinction Due to Crossbreeding—A Case Study in an Intensified Livestock Area in Western Macedonia, Greece

by
Martha Tampaki
1,
Georgia Koutouzidou
1,
Katerina Melfou
1,
Athanasios Ragkos
2 and
Ioannis A. Giantsis
1,3,*
1
Department of Agriculture, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Western Macedonia, 53100 Florina, Greece
2
Agricultural Economics Research Institute, Hellenic Agricultural Organization—DIMITRA, 11528 Athens, Greece
3
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Environment, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54621 Thessaloniki, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(17), 1813; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15171813 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 30 June 2025 / Revised: 6 August 2025 / Accepted: 23 August 2025 / Published: 25 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Farm Animal Production)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Livestock plays a crucial role in the global food system, not only as an important source of nutrients but also as a means of economic and social well-being. It constitutes a critical parameter of agricultural production in Mediterranean countries, with the majority of farms still having a relatively small herd size and depending largely on family labor. The purpose of this study is to record and evaluate the perceptions of livestock farmers in the Region of Western Macedonia, Greece (which represents a typical paradigm of an agricultural region), regarding the future prospects and the actions taken to ensure the sustainability of their farms. The research is based on a survey carried out from May to October, 2024, on ruminant farmers. Selective breeding and crossbreeding with higher-productivity breeds are some of the genetic improvements that are generally applied to increase productivity and were, therefore, investigated in this study. Through gradual crossbreeding, farmers attempt to improve the composition of their initial herds by incorporating high-productivity traits—although without officially participating in any recognized improvement program. This increases the risk of extinction for indigenous breeds, which are abandoned for use by the farmers. Our results also showed that most livestock farms derive from inheritances, with many livestock farmers practicing grazing mainly in mountainous areas and still rearing indigenous breeds. From the farmers’ point of view, more information and education regarding market conditions are needed. Furthermore, the sustainability of farms largely depends on subsidies, which are crucial due to difficulties in economic viability, particularly in mountainous areas. Encouraging the support of market differentiation and public awareness for the nutritional value of products derived from local breeds may serve as a promising agrobiodiversity conservation strategy.

1. Introduction

The role of livestock in nutrition and food security, as well as regional development and national economies, is highly important, providing income and employment and playing a particular role in economically vulnerable communities. Through animal husbandry, the human population is provided with adequate, reliable supplies of animal product nutrients that constitute 39% of the protein and 18% of the calorie intake worldwide—percentages which are, however, not distributed fairly [1].
The second sustainable development goal (SDG 2) of the United Nations, established as a promise to end hunger by 2030, promotes food security, improved nutrition, and sustainable agriculture. The goal is premised on the objective that 8.6 billion people will have equal opportunities to eat in 2030.
The solution towards this achievement requires a reorientation of agri-food systems that can only be achieved through addressing farmers’ attitudes [2]. The phenomena of globalization and urbanization reinforce the livestock revolution, offering, on the one hand, business opportunities to many livestock farmers, but on the other hand, presenting lurking risks concerning food and nutrition security, livelihoods and equality, animal health and welfare, and, eventually, the environment [1]. The intensive animal husbandry sector, with high-yielding animals confined to buildings that require highly nutritious feed to ensure their health and productivity, emits approximately 7.1 GT CO2 equivalent per year, which represents 14.5% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [3]. Farmers have the capability to manage and alter these numbers via sustainable operations. In this context, traditional and extensive livestock farming can contribute to important ecosystem services, nutrient cycling, soil organic carbon sequestration and the maintenance of agricultural landscapes [1]. The use of manure is a critical source of natural fertilizer, and livestock used as draft animals can help increase productivity in areas characterized by low mechanization levels [3]. It is thus realized that farm animals play an extremely important role in the agricultural economy, food production and ecosystem sustainability, as well as in the daily lives of farmers, through whom environmental sustainability can be accomplished.
It is necessary at this point to mention a basic categorization of animal farms in terms of the selection for breeding that takes place in Mediterranean countries. Farming systems are either characterized by highly intensive systems (in which animals are fed with condensed balanced rations) or totally extensive and ‘traditional’ farming systems (in which animals graze out to natural pastures) [4]. Livestock farming is, therefore, a key driver for the sustainable development of agriculture in this region. Intermediate forms also occur in temperate latitudes, where animals may go out during spring and summer months but are kept within sight in stalls and are fed with rations during autumn and winter.
For more than 150 years in Greece, there have been official registrations in the agricultural sector, with the first agricultural and livestock census created in 1860 and the first systematic agricultural census established in 1911 [5]. Livestock in Greece is a highly important parameter of agricultural production, with the majority of Greek farms still possessing a relatively small herd size and remaining highly dependent on family labor. Despite modernization efforts, many Greek livestock farmers lack mechanized milking systems and still believe that creating a more farmer-friendly environment is crucial for sector improvement and will promote productivity, working conditions and incomes [6]. Farming systems in Greece, a typical country of temperate latitude, are divided into the categories of the intensive system, the extensive or semi-intensive system, and the transhumance system [7]. Extensive livestock farming is proving to be resilient and sustainable in situations of crisis and hardship, such as those caused by rising feed and energy costs [8]. To address energy costs, every year the breeder moves his herd between winter and summer pastures in order to avoid the extreme weather conditions that may occur during the winter or summer period [7]. These severe effects of climate change can cause heat stress in animals and changes in their physiology and productivity [9]. In addition, this process strengthens pastoralism, and by extension, the role of mountainous and disadvantaged areas that are isolated but constitute a significant percentage of the agricultural area of Greece [10]. If the rearing of farm animals is managed in a way that contributes to the sustainable management of pastures—applying practices that promote the well-being of farm animals and the general protection of the environment by avoiding chemical substances—two other forms of animal husbandry arise: the organic method, following the aforementioned features, and the conventional.
According to the latest census of the Greek statistical authority, small ruminants are considered one of the most dynamic branches of the agricultural economy both in terms of employment and overall income. Cattle are another group of farm animals that contribute substantially to the agricultural economy of Greece, with a recent trend towards meat production through free-range cattle rearing. Equally important are the contributions of pigs, horses, poultry, rabbits and bees [11]. The categories of farm animals reared in Greek territory, according to the Greek Ministry of Rural Development and Food, are goats, sheep, cattle, rabbits, pigs, horses, land snails, some species of birds, bees and silkworms. According to data from the most recent livestock census, carried out in Greece in 2022, the following interesting results emerged. Despite their great importance, cattle, sheep and goats have decreased in terms of the absolute number of these animals in Greece [11]. At the same time, the number of livestock holdings with a reference year in 2022 also decreased compared to previous years. Most notably, however, is the increase in cattle and sheep represented in the number of animals per holding that occurred, as well as the intense genetic improvement of herds via selective breeding and crossbreeding with breeds of higher productivity [12]. This fact illustrates that those who have decided to continue raising these animals are willing to grow and develop their practices [11]. As far as goats are concerned, the sector is facing financial and structural difficulties due to the decrease in the number of animals and policy changes in public funding [13]. Goat breeding plays an important role in creating a basic family agricultural income, mainly in geographically mountainous regions, border areas and disadvantaged areas. At the same time, it contributes to the preservation of the tradition of farming [14], operating as a special activity adaptable to nature, providing high-quality products [13].
Through this prism, the scope of the present study is to examine animal farmers’ perceptions concerning future perspectives and actions performed to ensure the viability of their holdings. The novel, specific insights of our study stand on the edge of the traditional farming techniques, applying grazing and rearing indigenous breeds. Genetic improvements via selective breeding, crossbreeding with higher-productivity breeds, mechanization and the increase of reared populations are some of the actions generally proposed to increase productivity and, hence, were investigated in this study. The Region of Western Macedonia was chosen as a study area, serving as an excellent paradigm for research where animal farming plays a consistently important role for regional development and local economy, including both traditional and modern intensive farms [15]. Our study is focused on cattle, sheep and goats, and it also compares extensive and intensive farming systems [11]. Ultimately, the aim of our work was to investigate whether the livestock farmer who is included in sustainable development programs is operating consistently with aspects such as sustainability, genetic improvement, organic farming and conservation of local genetic resources. An additional goal was to ascertain whether this can affect the final agricultural product in combination with the final recipient of the production process, the consumer.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area, Sampling, Data Collection and Research Tools

The study area of our research is the Region of Western Macedonia in Greece. The survey was carried out from May to October, 2024, with 55 livestock farmers, with the help of a structured questionnaire that mostly included closed-ended questions (Supplementary Material). Keeping in mind that approximately 17% of the land of Western Macedonia comprises transitional wooded, shrubby, herbaceous-vegetated or no-vegetation pasture areas [15], these farms were selected as representatives of the different pasture categories to cover all types of animal husbandry in the region. The survey was conducted among farmers who owned the farms, not exploring the intention that a son or daughter would take over the farm in the future, since this was a variable that could not be confirmed. Some questions of this type were formulated with a Likert scale, while others took the form of multiple choice with the possibility of several answers at the same time, and still others had the possibility of only one choice in the answer. The data were collected using the questionnaire exclusively in hardcopy form by hand, the construction of which was based on criteria that examined whether the farmer who is participating in sustainable development programs feels satisfied. In addition, the questionnaire was targeted to investigate factors examining whether this can affect the final agricultural product in combination with the final recipient of the production process, i.e., the consumer. In particular, the questions examined the breeds of farm animals that the interviewed farmers prefer to raise, and for what reasons, whether they apply and trust genetic improvement methods, the promotion and marketing options for their livestock products, and their general opinions about their choice to engage in the livestock sector. In addition, there were open-ended questions for the respondents to record their personal opinions concerning their particular interests regarding the choice of breeds of farm animals they rear and why they have chosen animal husbandry as a professional occupation.
Initially, the questionnaire was piloted on a small sample of 10 interviewed breeders in order to identify possible ambiguities or portions that were not clear and required additional clarification. Two additions were made after the piloting process that had not been included in the initial version, i.e., feed production in the farm as a separate question and whether the farmer is the head of the farm. The questionnaire was then finalized and addressed to the respondent farmers through personal visits to their livestock holdings or at another meeting point close to their area of residence. In order to strengthen the credibility of our findings, it is deemed necessary to clarify that the sample was random and defined within specific geographic boundaries, as determined by the proximity to pasture areas. Additionally, as mentioned above, the same research instrument was tested at the beginning of our research to confirm the reliability of our findings.

2.2. Statistical Analysis

The statistical exploratory analysis was performed based on a Mixed Effects Model according to a series of hypotheses, resulting in χ2 ratios and p-values. In our study, 55 livestock units were investigated for the needs of the research, providing the required power for the analysis, as indicated by the G*Power analysis in the software version 3.1.9.7 (http://www.gpower.hhu.de/ accessed on 10 May 2025). Chi-square tests were applied to validate the goodness of fit, homogeneity and independence, and Likert-scale answers were treated as categorical data. All Likert data were based on a 5-point scale. The Pearson correlation method [16] was performed to investigate the dependence between variables related to the profile of the respondents, such as gender, age, whether they have children and the location of their livestock farm, as well as variables that express the perceptions and preferences of the livestock farmers regarding the farm animal breeds they prefer, the leading factors for this choice, their perceptions of genetic improvement and crossbreeding, the products they produce and the correlation with ecosystem services and promotion, along with their perspectives on engaging in the livestock sector. All analyses were performed in IBM SPSS software (version 29.0), and significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.
Additionally, a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was carried out in the software R v. 4.4.2 employing the variance explanation for each factor for (a) the selection of the breed and (b) the reasons affecting the application of genetic improvement schemes. Both datasets for the two factors (a) and (b) were analyzed based on the Generalized Linear Model [17]. Analyses of association were visualized by a two-component PC score.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Data Curation, Age and Demography of Farmers’ Profession

Data were collected from 55 animal farmers, rearing in total more than 15,000 small or large ruminants. Many of the respondents not only replied with the predicted answers suggested by the questionnaire, but also provided additional information about the situation that exists and that they experience every day. This extra information is discussed in the following sections, included as necessary and when reliable. Nevertheless, there were also cases in which the respondents were quite cautious and skeptical regarding their answers.
Concerning the general demographic data collected (Table 1), the most notable was the age of the farmers, as only 7 of the 55 participants (12.7%) were below 40 years old (Table 1). Although this is not the main topic of the present study, and as discussed below it is occasionally correlated with several specific features as well as the farmers’ attitudes, our data confirm that the decline of young farmers is a severe obstacle for the future development of the agri-food production sector in the European Union, even more so in countries with prevalent small-scale holdings, such as Greece [18].
Evaluation of the age variable in correlation with the origin of the farm revealed a statistically significant relationship (x2 = 12.858, p = 0.045) between the young age of the respondents and the answer of “Inheritance” to the question “What is the origin of your farm?”. On the other hand, only 37% (representing a not statistically significant percentage) of the older farmers claimed inheritance as the manner of establishing their holdings. These results emphasize the problem of the deficit of young farmers, who, according to our findings, mainly choose this profession when it originates from their parents. Similarly, according to previous studies by Katanos et al. [19,20] using surveys conducted on sheep and goat farms in close Greek regions in the Lagkadas and Drama areas, respectively, the majority of livestock farmers were in the age group of 46–60 years. At the same time, the origin of their farms was primarily inheritance from their ancestors, while their intention to continue this work in the upcoming years had a high percentage of positive responses. In the present study, we have found similar inferences, reinforcing these assumptions in our own research area. Interestingly, such inferences are mainly observed in small ruminant holdings that are still held using traditional practices applying pastoralism—not requiring a large fund as a beginning—a fact that has been proposed to make farming more attractive to young people [21]. Thus, small ruminant farming represents an ideal form of farming to maintain populations in rural areas and support regional development, even with the inheritance of holdings. Interestingly, examining the same variable, the statistical correlation test showed a statistically significant relationship (x2 = 9.955, p = 0.019) with the question concerning the surveyed livestock farmers’ year of establishment of their farms. Almost half, with a percentage of 47.3%, began their activity in livestock farming before the year 2000. However, in this case, most of them have children, while in the case of the origin of the farm, the test showed an equally statistically significant relationship (x2 = 10.018, p = 0.018), with the percentage relating to the answer INHERITANCE being greater among childless livestock farmers.

3.2. Breeds and Genοtype Preferences

In total 55 farms were surveyed, ten of which rearing dairy or beef cattle while all the remaining small ruminants, with 15 both sheep and goats. Despite the more than 25 indigenous sheep breeds characterized in Greece [22], only a minority of the holdings (12/45, 26.7% of the small ruminants and 4/10, 40% of the cattle) rear pure indigenous breeds, indicating a general trend towards the abandonment of locally adapted indigenous breeds. In line with the general preferences of Greek farmers, 18 rear Lacaune, 7 rear Assaf, and the remaining 8 rear crossbreeds between the local breed Chios or Karagkouniko with Lacaune (Figure 1).
These results highlight the significance of high-productivity dairy sheep breeds, more so than goats, reflecting the farmers’ preferences for highly valued Greek dairy products, plenty of which are exported. In combination with these preferences, these data confirm the extensive import of the Lacaune breed in Greece, illustrating that the genetic gain in milk-production improvement is stably ongoing [23] despite the non-native nature of the breed, while it constitutes the most intensively reared sheep breed in Greece during the last two decades.
An additional variable that showed statistical significance across many questions was the “morphology of the area in which the farm is located”—whether it is mountainous, semi-mountainous or flat. Initially, statistical significance was observed between the category pairs denoting mountainous areas or semi-mountainous areas and indigenous goat farming, which is translated by the relationship (x2 = 15.541, p = 0.016) in the section of questions concerning goat breeds. Thus, with a percentage of 16.4% of all respondents, Greek goat breeds are preferred by livestock farmers who operate in mountainous areas. However, it should be clarified that there are only two officially recognized indigenous Greek goat breeds, the purity of which is occasionally questioned.
On the other hand, regarding cattle, half of the surveyed farms are rearing the recently recognized (Greek Ministry of Rural Development Protocol 172684/10-8-2011) Greek Red Bovine breed, which is a pure beef cattle genetically derived from Limousin, which is the result of continuous crossings of mixed-breed Greek indigenous cows with purebred Limousin bulls. This activity of the farmers mirrors a recent trend in line with the increasing demand and market value of high-quality beef [24].

3.3. Rationale for Breed Selection

From the investigation of the sections of the questions concerning the reasons for continuing to breed the specific breed they chose, as well as the advantages of this breed, three answers were identified that presented a statistically significant relationship for sheep farms. Firstly, for the affirmative responses to “You continue to breed this breed because you received it from your ancestors”, it emerged that there was a statistically significant relationship (x2 = 16.187, p = 0.006) with the sheep farmers (Table 2), although this was not the case with the beef cattle farms, which are considered to compose an efficient type of primary production, particularly in large-scale operations [25]. Other factors that influence the choice of farmers to rear the same breed are shown in Table 2. Secondly, regarding the advantages of the breed they choose, there was a statistically significant relationship (x2 = 12.912, p = 0.024) between the sheep farmers, regardless of breed, and the assumption that they STRONGLY AGREE that the quality of milk is an advantage of the breed. This inference clearly reflects the high importance of dairy products in Greece, which is a common situation in Mediterranean countries [26]. Thirdly, regarding the perceived advantage of multiplicity and high fertility that prevailed among all respondents, with a percentage of 66%, an additional statistically significant relationship (x2 = 11.993, p = 0.035) was observed for the sheep farmers, which was not the case for the cattle farmers. Indeed, small ruminant farmers from the temperate latitudes, where reproduction seasonality limits milk production throughout the year, tend to choose breeds accordingly or to apply genetic improvement towards the reduction of this phenomenon [27], and to this end, the Lacaune and Assaf breeds constitute non-reproductively seasonal breeds preferred by the farmers. Although the Assaf breed has been reared relatively recently in Greece, Lacaune sheep have been raised in Greece for more than three decades and are characterized by somewhat lower productivity than in France, where they originate [28]. Due to the generally similar conditions between the two countries, they have been acclimatized to a great extent and are also used in genetic improvement programs [29], reflecting that, despite the lower productivity, there is a positive opinion of this breed, which, according to our results, is recognized by the farmers. More specifically, based on the farmers’ observations, genetically adapted Lacaune animals in Greece have the potential to achieve increased productivity of high-quality dairy products, taking advantage of the Greek flora when grazing.
Additionally, a correlation worth mentioning was observed with age regarding the advantages of the breed being farmed, in which two answers showed a statistically significant relationship between the age of the respondents and their answers. Specifically, older age was correlated with the assumption that “The advantage of the breed being farmed is the ease of milking” (x2 = 16.200, p = 0.04) as well as with “The advantage of the breed is the low cost of medical care/resilience”, and a statistically significant relationship emerged (x2 = 23.183, p = 0.01).
Notably, the answer I STRONGLY AGREE with the assumption regarding “ease of milking in mountainous and semi-mountainous areas” prevailed, with a statistically significant relationship (x2 = 21.372, p-value = 0.006), in sheep farmers, whereas quantity of milk and, secondly, quality of milk prevailed among all respondents, with percentages of 73.6% and 69.4%, respectively. In addition, and reaching statistical significance (x2 = 18.899, p = 0.015), the answer I STRONGLY AGREE prevailed with the assumption regarding “nice color and appearance” in mountainous and semi-mountainous areas, again for sheep farmers. Finally, with a statistically significant relationship (x2 = 20.811, p-value = 0.022 < 0.05), the answer I STRONGLY AGREE with the assumption regarding the suitability for an extensive farming system (grazing) prevailed among all farmers, those with both small and large ruminants, a factor that demonstrated a significant correlation with the low food costs among the sheep farmers’ breed choices. Traditionally, breed selection has been based on morphological traits, with color representing one of the most important factors [22]. Surprisingly, and in line with our results, attractiveness or beauty was proven to be the most important motive for keeping a local breed in Croatia [30].
Occasionally, however, farmers question the use of high-yielding breeds as a potential factor for achieving higher herd milk production [31]. In the present survey, farmers interviewed in mountainous and semi-mountainous areas who used to raise local breeds of animals have chosen to replace them with other, higher-yielding breeds, mainly through gradual crossbreeding. Hence, interestingly, there is also a noticeable proportion of crossbred-reared animals using as ancestors the Lacaune breed with the Karagouniko, Chios or Florina breeds, which are considered by the surveyed livestock farmers as advantageous in mountainous areas due to their adaptability to the local climatic conditions. In line with these inferences, it has been proposed that local breeds of small ruminants reared in Greece and their crosses withstand local climatic conditions better than imported pure breeds [32]. This has been confirmed in a survey carried out in areas of Ioannina, where local breeds of goats and sheep were considered great opportunities in the choices of livestock farmers because they display good adaptation to the environmental conditions of the area under study [33]. Nevertheless, it is noted that the state apparatus is trying to empower breeders with local breeds of both cattle and sheep and goats through livestock farm-strengthening programs, a fact observed in the Balkans in general [34,35].
Concerning cattle, the breed choice of farmers follows a different pattern. Farmers in mountainous areas are not interested in milk production and demonstrate a trend toward choosing beef cattle breeds in line with the increasing prices, taking advantage of the Greek pastures [36]. Specifically, in Greece, the vast majority of pasture lands are public or municipal, and the grazing of animals on them is often uncontrolled and communal. The use of shared pastures by sheep farmers is also practiced in other European countries. This is the case, for instance, in Poland, in the mountainous regions where communal grazing is practiced, and local sheep breeds are also reared there. Similarly with our findings, in this case, wool color is also important to farmers in terms of being able to create regional costumes [37]. Often, regardless of the breed and its economic viability, products from local breeds reared in mountainous areas that utilize pastures are of a unique quality and good nutritional value [38]. This communal grazing system that exists in 85% of Greek pastures is not found anywhere else in Europe. Regarding the variable morphology of the area in which the farm is located, the results of the survey showed that 85.5% of all surveyed livestock farmers chose grazing. In contrast, research has shown that the practice of grazing sheep and goats is not the only way to achieve better economic results from a livestock farm [39]. The largest percentage of livestock farmers in our survey who practice grazing maintain their farms in mountainous areas. Notably, another survey carried out in a coastal pasture in the Evros Delta reported that the grazing of livestock is a promising tool with which, after proper management, the maintenance of the desired vegetation could be positively affected by up to 75% [40]. In line with this finding, in Poland, there are 17 native breeds included in the Polish sheep genetic resources conservation program. A positive element of the implementation of the conservation of genetic resources program for sheep is the accompanying measures, which are based on the use of the non-productive role of the species. Extensive sheep grazing, as a form of nature conservation, serves to preserve valuable natural landscapes and the culture of the local communities associated with sheep farming [41].

3.4. Breed Selection and Subsidies

A specific part of the results regarding the farmers’ perceptions of the advantages of the particular breed of animals they choose is related to the subsidies. Specifically, there was a statistically significant correlation for all purebred indigenous animal breeds, regardless of age. The correlation test showed a statistically significant relationship (x2 = 7.026, p = 0.030) between the size of the holding and the question “Have you received funding from any co-financed program?” regarding farms with fewer than 500 small ruminants and/or 100 cattle.
For goat farmers, and particularly for extensive, wide holdings, it is more common not to participate in co-financed programs, operating simply with empirical knowledge and their own funds on their farms [42]. Similarly, in our own survey, owners of large holdings do not regularly participate in such programs. On the other hand, the surveyed farmers who choose to raise indigenous breeds for the subsidies are entitled to keep them. Similar results emerged in a study carried out in disadvantaged areas of Greece, where the farms under study are also heavily dependent on subsidies [43]. Also worth mentioning is research conducted on the island of Lemnos in Greece, where livestock farmers likewise depend on subsidies and the immediacy of payment [44]. Subsidies are generally controversial because they make breeders of local sheep breeds dependent, but at the same time, they serve as an effective tool in maintaining native breeds [45]. EU subsidies are intended to address two objectives: (a) to absorb farmers’ losses from the attendant lower productivity and (b) to encourage such practices to continue in an attempt to support the conservation of local genetic resources [46]. It should be noted, however, that this policy has been largely blamed as inefficient because economic support is not always correctly evaluated.
The visualized model of the factors affecting breed selection, depicted in the PCA plot in Figure 2, demonstrates two tight clusters: rationales related to milk, and reasons such as inheritance, economy and resilience, with the latter showing the highest positive influence. Notably, subsidies were the highest influencing factor in the second pattern. On the contrary, color showed a negative influence according to PC1, and multiplicity, although positive, was not related to any other factors.

3.5. Genetic Improvement and Participation in Collaborative Actions

Regarding the question “Do you participate in a genetic improvement program?”, statistical significance was shown in relation to the mountainous area of operation of the respondents (x2 = 6.421, p = 0.040), with the vast majority (89.1%) of the livestock farmers who participated in the survey claiming NO (Table 3). A statistically significant relationship (x2 = 17.226, p = 0.008) was also revealed regarding the question concerning the services provided by the genetic improvement agency. In this case, in mountainous areas, 41.8% of the respondents participate solely in milk measurements. However, it should be highlighted that there is a willingness among livestock farmers to participate in an educational process related to the genetic improvement and management of their livestock [47].
Further, a statistically significant relationship (x2 = 11.674, p = 0.020) was demonstrated between the question “Have you used another breed of animals in the past other than the one you are currently raising?” and mountainous areas, which is in agreement with the crossbreeding occurring between the Lacaune and Greek indigenous pure breeds. As a continuation of the previous question, the next three questions present statistical significance and reflect the opinion of the livestock farmers regarding pure breeding versus crossbreeding. The first question reached statistical significance and refers to the breeds of animals the farmers used to have. With the relationship (x2 = 13.383, p = 0.037), 18.2% answered GREEK BREEDS in mountainous and semi-mountainous areas. The second question reached statistical significance and refers to the reason why they replaced the breeds of animals they had previously used. With the relationship (x2(8) = 17.658, p-value = 0.024 <0.05), 16.4% answered PROBLEM WITH MILK in mountainous and semi-mountainous areas. It is worth noting that a small percentage of the total number of respondents in mountainous areas answered PROBLEM WITH MEAT, while in semi-mountainous areas they answered PROBLEM WITH DISEASES. The third question reached statistical significance and refers to the way in which the change of the breeds in the herd was carried out. With the relationship (x2 = 10.167, p = 0.038), 54.5% responded GRADUALLY WITH CROSSINGS among all respondents, with the highest percentage observed in mountainous areas.
The next two questions that presented statistical significance follow the same pattern, with the first, “Did you participate in any collective organization (Cooperative, producer group, union, etc.)?”, reaching statistical significance (x2 = 9.181, p = 0.010), with a substantial abstention of livestock farmers from such participation; nevertheless, a percentage of 14.5% in mountainous areas is active in such activities. The next question references the previous answer, querying whether what they are participating in is a vehicle for genetic improvement; with a statistically significant relationship (x2 = 9.181, p = 0.010), the assumption is confirmed mainly in mountainous areas. It is also worth mentioning that a relatively large percentage of the surveyed livestock farmers do not participate in funded support programs that could help modernize their facilities. In particular, livestock farmers aged 41–60 struggle with using their own funds to keep their agricultural businesses viable. Similar results were observed in another survey related to goat farmers, which found that goat farming depended mainly on private funds [14].
It is also interesting to explore the reasons for not performing genetic improvement and maintaining breeds of lower productivity without crossbreeding. According to a related question, there was a significant relationship (x2 = 30.585, p = 0.001) with the assumption that it is environmentally friendly to keep indigenous breeds. In this case, in mountainous areas, 43.6% of respondents answered AGREE. For the same question, the correlation test showed a statistically significant relationship (x2(10) = 23.357, p-value = 0.010 < 0.05) with the assumption that the breeder does not have the financial resources to improve the herd. In this case again, in mountainous areas, 20.4% of respondents answered AGREE. Furthermore, the statistical correlation test showed a significant relationship (x2 = 30.893, p = 0.001) with the assumption that the breed is local. Again, in this case, in mountainous areas, 23.6% of respondents answered AGREE. The last answer concerns the assumption that the breeder had obtained the farm from his ancestors, with the test showing statistical significance (x2 = 22.982, p = 0.011 < 0.05), whereas in mountainous areas, 25.5% of respondents answered AGREE. The cluster of those features in the PCoA plot in Figure 3 indicates that genetic improvement is independent of crossbreeding, and farmers who maintain indigenous breeds are located mostly in mountainous areas and are more likely to participate in cooperatives, although mainly for milk measurements.
Based on these findings, the increasing risk of the loss of indigenous breeds, as well as the loss of the genetic diversity of indigenous breeds, due to the continuous abandonment of indigenous breeds and their crossbreeding with foreign breeds, respectively, is recognized by farmers. The primary rationale for these findings is related to the productivity of dairy products regarding sheep and goats, and beef in cattle. To this end, subsidies support conservation, but this is mainly the case in mountainous areas hosting extensive farms.

3.6. Farmers’ Perceptions of Viability Indicators

The most intense awareness of animal farmers concerns the market conditions they are currently facing, a problem already considered as one of the greatest threats to sheep farming of various autochthonous breeds [48], which was significantly correlated with the age group of 41–60 (x2 = 9.224, p-value = 0.0336). Analyzing the results of our survey that addresses the future viability of the sector, livestock farmers aged 41–60 largely consider that, in relation to the marketing of their products, low milk prices are a severe problem they are currently facing. However, an impressive percentage, reaching 80%, is again found in the same age group—those who are not disappointed and intend to continue this professional path for the next 5–10 years. The statistical correlation test showed a significant relationship (x2 = 19.617, p = 0.033) between the age of the respondents and the assumption that “Low milk prices are considered a problem that the farmer faces in marketing his products”. Farmers aged 41–60 years, with a percentage of 64.8% of the total respondents, consider that generally low milk prices are a problem that they face in marketing their products, while 37% of the respondents consider this to be a MODERATE fact. At the same time, “the low level of information about market conditions” was statistically significant in relation to the age of the respondents. This problem that plagues livestock farmers, with (x2 = 19.184, p = 0.038), reached a percentage of 63.5% in the age group of 41–60 years, while the characteristic answer VERY received a percentage of 26.9% of the total number of respondents. Notably, according to a recent study focusing on indigenous chicken breeds, support of market differentiation in threatened indigenous breeds could represent a promising strategy for the conservation of agrobiodiversity [49].
Another statistically significant relationship that emerged (x2 = 11.529, p = 0.021) was between the age of the respondents and the question “Whether they intend to continue this business in the next 5–10 years”. An overwhelming 80.8% of the livestock farmers answered positively, with 57.7% of the respondents aged between 41 and 60. This impressive determination is in agreement with an earlier survey, which found that livestock farmers continue to work in the livestock sector despite low milk prices and cash flow problems [32] due to late payments from companies. This fact was then interpreted as due to the weak organization of cooperation strategies to promote their interests.
Furthermore, a statistically significant relationship (x2 = 11.331, p = 0.023) was observed between the holding size of the respondents and their opinions regarding the small cheese factory as a place to sell their products that are derived from animal husbandry. Of the total number of respondents, 25.5% prefer the small cheese factory, while large-scale farmers (with a percentage of 65.5%) notably do not choose it.
It is additionally important to make livestock farmers aware that, in order to reduce production costs, it is advisable for them to produce the feed by cultivating it [25]. In our results, statistical significance was shown in the admissions of the surveyed livestock farmers who originate mainly from mountainous areas that they choose not to produce the feed they use themselves. In particular, there was a statistically significant relationship (x2 = 21.639, p = 0.001) between the question concerning the production of animal feed by livestock farmers and mountainous areas, with the percentage of respondents who do not produce animal feed reaching 32.7% in total, while only 16.4% in semi-mountainous areas produce their own coarse and concentrated animal feed. This fact was confirmed in a survey carried out in the region of Central Macedonia in Greece, where higher feed costs are observed because more use is made of pastures, and they cultivate less land for the production of concentrated feed [25]. At the same time, regarding grazing, the results, although expected, are of particular interest due to the very large percentage, 85.5%, of the total sample practicing grazing. Notably, the relationship confirms the statistical significance of the test (x2 = 9.468, p = 0.009), and we mention the percentage of 58.2% that concerns livestock farmers who graze and come exclusively from mountainous areas.
Regarding feed production, while in a survey carried out in goat farms in northern Greece, farmers apply it to reduce costs [38], in our results, in mountainous areas there was a smaller percentage of farmers involved in the self-production of feed for their farms. However, the combination of crop and livestock production is considered essential, and systematic and organized fodder cultivation is expected to help reduce the production costs of livestock farmers in mountainous areas [50].
Concerning the practice of organic farming in livestock farming, the surveyed livestock farmers in mountainous areas responded positively. According to Tzouramani et al. [51], organic farming is a promising option, mainly in mountainous and semi-mountainous areas. The correlation test showed a statistically significant relationship (x2 = 15.157, p-value = 0.019) with the question concerning the practice of certified organic farming on the farm. In this case, in mountainous areas, 29.6% of respondents practice certified organic farming. Through the adoption of best practices and ecofriendly procedures, such as organic farming, livestock management can operate sustainably [52]. The sectors of cattle and sheep farming, specifically, may become more efficient by applying organic farming in the use of resources, and the existence of vertical integration in production could be strengthened by focusing on the development of the agricultural market for the direct sale of products to the consumer [32].

4. Conclusions

In conclusion, an important fact inferred is that most livestock farms derive from inheritances. Despite some limitations of the study, related mainly to the small number of surveyed farms, some important inferences can be drawn, as follows. A large percentage of the surveyed livestock farmers practice grazing mainly in mountainous areas, particularly those who rear indigenous breeds. Livestock farmers feel that they would benefit from having more information and education concerning market conditions in order to promote their products. At the same time, they believe that the sustainability of their farms largely depends on subsidies. Many of them, through gradual crossbreeding, try to improve the composition of their initial herds by incorporating high-productivity breeds, without, however, officially participating in any recognized improvement program. In fact, larger-scale farmers are less dependent on subsidies and are more willing to apply genetic improvement in their animals. Farmers in general want to continue this activity in the upcoming years. Regarding the advantages of the farmed animals, the surveyed livestock farmers consider in each case that there is ease of milking in small ruminants, suitability for grazing and the existence of a positive impression regarding the quality of the milk; the color of the animals plays a crucial role as well. Finally, based on our findings regarding purebreeds’ rearing areas, mountainous areas can be a refuge for preserving pure local breeds without crossbreeding with other breeds because the farmers living there are attached to them as a local heritage.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agriculture15171813/s1, The questionnaire surveyed.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.A.G. and A.R.; methodology, M.T.; software, G.K.; validation, I.A.G. and K.M.; formal analysis, M.T.; investigation, M.T.; resources, I.A.G.; data curation, I.A.G.; writing—original draft preparation, M.T.; writing—review and editing, I.A.G. and K.M.; visualization, A.R.; supervision, I.A.G.; project administration, K.M.; funding acquisition, K.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The collection of data via distributing questionnaires to the farmers was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki in the framework of M. Tampaki’s PhD dissertation and was approved by the Administrative Assembly Institutional Board of the Department of Agriculture of the University of Western Macedonia (protocol number 1470/29 July 2021).

Data Availability Statement

Data are included in the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO). Shaping the Future of Livestock. 10th Global Forum for Food and Agriculture (GFFA); FAO: Berlin, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  2. United Nations-1. Transforming Our World. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda (accessed on 20 May 2025).
  3. World Bank Group. Moving Towards Sustainability: The Livestock Sector and the World Bank. Brief: (18 October 2021). Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/agriculture/brief/moving-towards-sustainability-the-livestock-sector-and-the-world-bank (accessed on 3 March 2025).
  4. Gibon, A.; Sibbald, A.R.; Flamant, J.C.; Lhoste, P.; Revilla, R.; Rubino, R.; Sørensen, J.T. Livestock farming systems research in Europe and its potential contribution for managing towards sustainability in livestock farming. Live-Stock. Prod. Sci. 1999, 61, 121–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO). Greece-Agricultural-Livestock Census 2021-Metadata Review; FAO: Berlin, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  6. Manolopoulou, E.; Aktypis, A.; Matara, C.; Tsiomi, P.; Konstantinou, E.; Mountzouris, K.; Tsakalidou, E. An overview of sheep farming features and management practices in the region of south western Peloponnese and how they reflect on milk microbial load. J. Hell. Vet. Med. Soc. 2018, 69, 759–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Intangible Cultural heritage of Greece. National Index of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Greece. Intangible Cultural Heritage Element Sheet—Transhumance Livestock Farming. Available online: https://ayla.culture.gr/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/TRANSHUMANCE_GREECE_TRANSL.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2025).
  8. Bakogiorgos, G.; Lappa, V.; Tasios, A.; Papadopoulos, A.; Pantera, A. Assessment of Sustainability of Extensive Livestock Farming in Central Greece (Evrytania prefecture) Using SWOT Analysis. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology, Athens, Greece, 30 August–2 September 2023; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Georgios-Bakogiorgos/publication/378684085_Assessment_of_sustainability_of_extensive_livestock_farming_in_Central_Greece_Evrytania_prefecture_using_SWOT_Analysis/links/65e45a6ce7670d36abeef808/Assessment-of-sustainability-of-extensive-livestock-farming-in-Central-Greece-Evrytania-prefecture-using-SWOT-Analysis.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2025).
  9. Georgopoulou, E.; Gakis, N.; Kapetanakis, D.; Voloudakis, D.; Markaki, M.; Sarafidis, Y.; Tzamtzis, I. Climate Change Risks for the Mediterranean Agri-Food Sector: The Case of Greece. Agriculture 2024, 14, 770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hadjigeorgiou, I. Past, present and future of pastoralism in Greece. Pastor. Res. Policy Pract. 2011, 1, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hellenic Statistical Authority (ELSTAT) 2022. Agriculture, Livestock. Available online: https://www.statistics.gr/statistics/agr (accessed on 20 May 2025).
  12. Hellenic Statistical Authority (ELSTAT) 2022. Livestock Surveys (Pigs—Bovine Animals—Sheep—Goats): YEAR 2022. Available online: https://www.statistics.gr/el/statistics/-/publication/SPK13/- (accessed on 20 May 2025).
  13. Tsiouni, M.; Aggelopoulos, S.; Pavloudi, A.; Siggia, D. Economic and financial sustainability dependency on subsidies: The case of goat farms in greece. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tsiouni, M.; Gourdouvelis, D.; Aggelopoulos, S.; Siggia, D. Improve the financial management practices in goat farms with the study of financial rati-os. The case of Greece. Int. J. Manag. Financ. Account. 2022, 14, 184–196. [Google Scholar]
  15. Tampaki, M.; Koutouzidou, G.; Melfou, K.; Ragkos, A.; Giantsis, I.A. The contrasting mosaic of consumers’ knowledge on local plant genetic resources sustainability vis a vis the unawareness for indigenous farm animal breeds. AIMS Agric. Food 2024, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bolboacă, S.D.; Jäntschi, L.; Sestraş, A.F. Pearson-fisher chi-square statistic revisited. Information 2011, 2, 528–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Harvey, A.C. Forecasting, Structural Time Series Models and the Kalman Filter; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chatzitheodoridis, F.; Kontogeorgos, A. New entrants policy into agriculture: Researching new farmers’ satisfaction. Rev. De Econ. E Sociol. Rural 2020, 58, 193664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Katanos, J.; Karabalis, K.; Papadopoulou, S. Status of Sheep and Goat Farming in Lagkada Province of Thessalonika Prefecture, in Central Macedonia, Greece. In Nutritional and Foraging Ecology of Sheep and Goats; Papachristou, T.G., Parissi, Z.M., Ben, S.H., Morand, -F.P., Eds.; CIHEAM: Zaragoza, Spain, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  20. Katanos, I.; Laga, V.; Skapetas, B. Goat breeding in Drama district of East Macedonia, Greece. In Animal Production and Natural Resources Utilisation in the Mediterranean Mountain Areas; Wageningen Academic: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 344–347. [Google Scholar]
  21. Skordos, D.; Ragkos, A.; Karanikolas, P.; Vlahos, G. Sustainability Indicators of Different Production Systems of a Greek Local Sheep Breed. Sustainability 2025, 17, 1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Giantsis, I.A.; Antonopoulou, D.; Dekolis, N.; Zaralis, K.; Avdi, M. Origin, demographics, inbreeding, phylogenetics, and phenogenetics of Karamaniko breed, a major common ancestor of the autochthonous Greek sheep. Trop. Anim. Health Production 2022, 54, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Vouraki, S.; Astruc, J.M.; Lagriffoul, G.; Rupp, R.; Banos, G.; Arsenos, G. Genotype-by-Environment Interactions and Response to Selection for Milk Production Traits in Lacaune Sheep from Greece and France. Vet. Sci. 2025, 12, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Smith, S.B.; Gotoh, T.; Greenwood, P.L. Current situation and future prospects for global beef production: Overview of special issue. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 31, 927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tsiouni, M.; Gourdouvelis, D.; Aggelopoulos, S.; Vrontis, D.; Galati, A. Measuring technical efficiency of Greek red suckler cow breed’s farms in Central Macedonia region using a data envelopment analysis model. J. Int. Bus. Entrep. Dev. 2022, 14, 329–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Antonopoulou, D.; Giantsis, I.A.; Symeon, G.K.; Avdi, M. Association of MTNR1A and GDF9 gene allelles with the reproductive performance, response to oestrus induction treatments and prolificacy, in improved and non-improved local indigenous sheep breeds. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2023, 58, 1532–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Antonopoulou, D.; Giantsis, I.; Avdi, M. Utilisation of genes and SNPs in selective breeding of small ruminants for anoestrus period reduction. J. Hell. Vet. Med. Soc. 2024, 75, 8389–8394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Priskas, S.; Valergakis, G.; Tsakmakidis, I.; Vouraki, S.; Papanikolopoulou, V.; Theodoridis, A.; Arsenos, G. The role of housing conditions on the success of artificial insemination in intensively reared dairy ewes in greece. Animals 2022, 12, 2693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Lianou, D.T.; Michael, C.K.; Vasileiou, N.G.; Liagka, D.V.; Mavrogianni, V.S.; Caroprese, M.; Fthenakis, G.C. Association of breed of sheep or goats with somatic cell counts and total bacterial counts of bulk-tank milk. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 7356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cerjak, M.; Faletar, I.; Šmit, G.; Ivanković, A. Breeding Motives and Attitudes Towards Stakeholders: Implications for the Sustainability of Local Croatian Breeds. Agriculture 2025, 15, 321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Perucho, L.; Hadjigeorgiou, I.; Lauvie, A.; Moulin, C.H.; Paoli, J.C.; Ligda, C. Challenges for local breed management in Mediterranean dairy sheep farming: Insights from Central Greece. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2019, 51, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Katsarou, E.I.; Lianou, D.T.; Papadopoulos, E.; Fthenakis, G.C. Long-term climatic changes in small ruminant farms in Greece and potential associa-tions with animal health. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pappa, E.C.; Kondyli, E.; Sotirakoglou, K.; Bosnea, L.; Mataragas, M.; Allouche, L.; Pappas, A.C. Farmers profile and characterization of sheep and goat dairy chain in northwestern Greece. Sustainability 2021, 13, 833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Djedovic, R.; Radojkovic, D.; Stanojevic, D.; Savic, R.; Vukasinovic, N.; Popovac, M.; Mitrovic, I. Base Characteristics, Preservation Methods, and As-sessment of the Genetic Diversity of Autochthonous Breeds of Cattle, Sheep and Pigs in Serbia: A Review. Animals 2024, 14, 1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tampaki, M.; Koutouzidou, G.; Ragkos, A.; Melfou, K.; Giantsis, I.A. Eco-value and public perceptions for indigenous farm animal breeds and local plant varieties, focusing on Greece. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Papanikolopoulou, V.; Tsitsos, A.; Dokou, S.; Priskas, S.; Vouraki, S.; Economou, V.; Stylianaki, I.; Argyriadou, A.; Arsenos, G. Impact of Breed and Slaughter Hygiene on Beef Carcass Quality Traits in Northern Greece. Foods 2025, 14, 1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kawęcka, A.; Krupiński, J. Sheep in the Polish Carpathians: Genetic resources conservation of the Podhale Zackel and Colored Mountain Sheep. Geomat. Land Manag. Landsc. 2014, 1, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. B Benedetti del Rio, E.; Berton, M.; Amalfitano, N.; Ramanzin, M.; Sturaro, E. Added Value of Products from Endangered Local Sheep Breeds in Mountain Areas. Animals 2024, 14, 2855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Papadopoulou, A.; Ragkos, A.; Theodoridis, A.; Skordos, D.; Parissi, Z.; Abraham, E. Evaluation of the contribution of pastures on the economic sustaina-bility of small ruminant farms in a typical Greek area. Agronomy 2020, 11, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vasiliadis, I.; Karmiris, I.; Kazantzidis, S.; Platis, P.; Papachristou, T. Avian diversity and abundance in relation to season, livestock presence and vegeta-tion cover in a Mediterranean coastal wetland. Eur. J. Ecol. 2022, 8, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kawęcka, A.; Pasternak, M.; Miksza-Cybulska, A.; Puchała, M. Native Sheep Breeds in Poland—Importance and Outcomes of Genetic Resources Protection Programs. Animals 2022, 12, 1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Batzios, A.; Theodoridis, A.; Bournaris, T.; Semos, A. Technical indicators and economic performance of dairy goat farms in Greece: An efficiency analysis. Livest. Sci. 2023, 271, 105210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Papanikolopoulou, V.; Vouraki, S.; Priskas, S.; Theodoridis, A.; Dimitriou, S.; Arsenos, G. Economic performance of dairy sheep farms in less-favoured areas of Greece: A comparative analysis based on flock size and farming system. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chatzitheodoridis, F.; Michailidis, A.; Theodossiou, G. Comparative analysis of sheep–goat farming in a typical Greek island: Economy and environment. Appl. Econ. Policy Anal. 2007, 1, 191–200. [Google Scholar]
  45. Kawęcka, A.; Pasternak, M.; Puchała, M.; Sikora, J.; Peist, I. Current issues and prospects for the conservation of sheep genetic resources in Poland. Rocz. Nauk. Zoot 2023, 50, 197–210. [Google Scholar]
  46. Van Dyke, F. Conservation Biology: Foundations, Foncepts, Applications; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lioutas, E.; Charatsari, C.; Siardos, G. Exploring the Landscape of Greeks’ Stock-Breeders Training Needs. In Proceedings of the 19th European Seminar on Extension Education, Assisi, Italy, 15–19 September 2009; INEA: Rome, Italy, 2009; p. 178. [Google Scholar]
  48. Sossidou, E.; Ligda, C.; Mastranestasis, I.; Tsiokos, D.; Samartzi, F. Sheep and Goat Farming in Greece: Implications and Challenges for the Sustainable Development of Less Favoured Areas. 2013. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Sheep-and-Goat-Farming-in-Greece%3A-Implications-and-Sossidou-Ligda/4a47577627c67ff30c17c8f6bab4a183d7a17163 (accessed on 29 June 2025).
  49. Aggelopoulos, S.; Tsiouni, M.; Pavloudi, A.; Chioteris, C. Analyzing basic components of production cost in Greek sheep and goat farms. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference of the EuroMed Academy of Business, Cascais, Portugal, 23–24 September 2013; Vrontis, D., Weber, Y., Tsoukatos, E., Eds.; EuroMed Press: Nice, France, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  50. Romero, C.; Yustos, J.L.; Sánchez-Román, I.; López-Torres, M.; Chamorro, S. Assessment of performance and egg quality in laying hens of Spanish indigenous breed Black Castellana as compared with a selected white egg-layer strain. Poult. Sci. 2024, 103, 104096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Tzouramani, I.; Sintori, A.; Liontakis, A.; Karanikolas, P.; Alexopoulos, G. An assessment of the economic performance of organic dairy sheep farming in Greece. Livest. Sci. 2011, 141, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO). Livestock and the Environment. Available online: https://www.fao.org/livestock-environment/en (accessed on 28 March 2025).
Agriculture 15 01813 g001
Figure 1. Proportional display of the reared breeds.
Figure 1. Proportional display of the reared breeds.
Agriculture 15 01813 g001
Agriculture 15 01813 g002
Figure 2. PCA plot of the factors affecting the selection of the breed.
Figure 2. PCA plot of the factors affecting the selection of the breed.
Agriculture 15 01813 g002
Agriculture 15 01813 g003
Figure 3. PCoA plot of participation in cooperative actions and genetic improvement schemes.
Figure 3. PCoA plot of participation in cooperative actions and genetic improvement schemes.
Agriculture 15 01813 g003
Table 1. The main socio-demographic characteristics of the farmers surveyed.
Table 1. The main socio-demographic characteristics of the farmers surveyed.
VariableFrequencyPercentage (%)
SexMale50/5590.9%
Female5/559.1%
Age<407/5512.7%
41–6040/5572.7%
>608/5514.5%
ChildrenNo25/5545.4%
One14/5525.4%
Two12/5521.8%
More than two4/550.7%
Area morphologyMountainous32/5558.1%
Semi-mountainous7/5512.7%
Flat16/5529.1%
Table 2. Factors influencing the choice of the farmers to continue to rear the same breed in relation to the landscape category.
Table 2. Factors influencing the choice of the farmers to continue to rear the same breed in relation to the landscape category.
MountainousFlatSemi-MountainousTotalp-Value
N (%)N (%)N (%)N (%)
Environmentally friendlyStrongly disagree0 (0)2 (3.6)0 (0)2 (3.6)0.001
Disagree0 (0)0 (0)1 (1.8)1 (1.8)
Neither agree nor disagree4 (7.3)2 (3.6)0 (0)6 (10.9)
Agree24 (43.6)0 (0)5 (9.1)29 (52.7)
Strongly agree6 (10.9)8 (14.5)2 (3.6)16 (29.1)
Inability to improve the herdStrongly disagree3 (5.6)6 (11.1)0 (0)9 (16.7)0.010
Disagree5 (9.3)3 (5.6)3 (5.6)1 (20.4)
Neither agree nor disagree10 (18.5)0 (0)2 (3.7)12 (22.2)
Agree11 (20.4)2 (3.7)1 (1.9)14 (25.9)
Strongly agree3 (5.6)0 (0)0 (0)3 (5.6)
Indigeneity of the breedStrongly disagree4 (7.3)10 (18.2)0 (0)14 (25.5)0.001
Disagree8 (14.5)0 (0)2 (3.6)10 (18.2)
Neither agree nor disagree2 (3.6)0 (0)0 (0)2 (3.6)
Agree13 (23.6)0 (0)4 (7.3)17 (30.9)
Strongly agree5 (9.1)2 (3.6)1 (1.8)8 (14.5)
Inheritance from ancestorsStrongly disagree3 (5.5)7 (12.7)0 (0)10 (18.2)0.001
Disagree8 (14.5)1 (1.8)4 (7.3)13 (23.6)
Neither agree nor disagree1 (1.8)0 (0)0 (0)1 (1.8)
Agree14 (25.5)1 (1.8)3 (5.5)18 (32.7)
Strongly agree6 (10.9)3 (5.5)1 (1.8)10 (18.2)
Table 3. Participation in genetic improvement programs and the related percentages of farmers.
Table 3. Participation in genetic improvement programs and the related percentages of farmers.
Area Morphology
MountainousFlatSemi-MountainousTotalp-Value
N (%)N (%)N (%)N (%)
Participation in genetic
improvement program		Yes1 (1.8)3 (5.5)2 (3.6)6 (10.9)0.040
No34 (61.8)9 (16.4)6 (10.9)49 (89.1)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tampaki, M.; Koutouzidou, G.; Melfou, K.; Ragkos, A.; Giantsis, I.A. The Importance of Indigenous Ruminant Breeds for Preserving Genetic Diversity and the Risk of Extinction Due to Crossbreeding—A Case Study in an Intensified Livestock Area in Western Macedonia, Greece. Agriculture 2025, 15, 1813. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15171813

AMA Style

Tampaki M, Koutouzidou G, Melfou K, Ragkos A, Giantsis IA. The Importance of Indigenous Ruminant Breeds for Preserving Genetic Diversity and the Risk of Extinction Due to Crossbreeding—A Case Study in an Intensified Livestock Area in Western Macedonia, Greece. Agriculture. 2025; 15(17):1813. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15171813

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tampaki, Martha, Georgia Koutouzidou, Katerina Melfou, Athanasios Ragkos, and Ioannis A. Giantsis. 2025. "The Importance of Indigenous Ruminant Breeds for Preserving Genetic Diversity and the Risk of Extinction Due to Crossbreeding—A Case Study in an Intensified Livestock Area in Western Macedonia, Greece" Agriculture 15, no. 17: 1813. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15171813

APA Style

Tampaki, M., Koutouzidou, G., Melfou, K., Ragkos, A., & Giantsis, I. A. (2025). The Importance of Indigenous Ruminant Breeds for Preserving Genetic Diversity and the Risk of Extinction Due to Crossbreeding—A Case Study in an Intensified Livestock Area in Western Macedonia, Greece. Agriculture, 15(17), 1813. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15171813

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