Experiences with breeding Experiences with breeding structures for genetic structures for genetic improvement of small improvement of small

ruminantsruminantsJoaquin Mueller

National Institute for Agricultural Technology, Argentina

25-28 October 2010, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

55th th All Africa Conference on Animal Agriculture All Africa Conference on Animal Agriculture 1919thth ESAP Annual Conference ESAP Annual Conference

Commercialization of Livestock Agriculture in Africa: Challenges and opportunities

No experience in Africa

Breeding structuresBreeding structures

No Conventional Single Open Nucleus

DispersedOpen Nucleus

∆G, lag and ∆F, properties and optimization summarized in text

“Local” breeds

“International” breeds

Within flock,group, village

Within village

Intervention strategiesIntervention strategies

Generate a breeding structure

Improve efficacy of breeding structure

Some experiences with sheep, alpacas and goats

Improvement of a conventional Improvement of a conventional structure:structure:

Merino sheep in ArgentinaMerino sheep in Argentina

• 7 Million Merino sheep• 80% are family flocks

• Studs: small, pedigree + visual • Multipliers: insufficient, visual• Base: dissatisfaction with

Initial situation (1980s – 1990s)

• Studs: central progeny testing, performance recording (BW, FW, FD), => BLUP evaluation.

• Multipliers: “MPR”, performance testing (index), above average + visual get MPR eartags. Top MPR rams can replace conventional pedigree rams.

• Base: “MP”, visual inspection + MPR rams => extension

The “Pure Merino Program”

Farmers pay

Genetic progress at stud level

Source: Mueller (2010), n= 25 000

Adjusted to year 2000=0 Body weight (kg)

Fiber diameter (mic)

Fleece weight (kg)

MPR:Visually acceptedIndex above 100

MP:Visually accepted

More than 80 000 animals involved

Genetic progress at multiplier level: ¿?On station genetic progress as difference from a control line

Mueller (2010). Adult females 1984-2009

About 80 000 animals inspectedAbout 100 farmers involved

Indicator:MPR’s are sold for much higher prices

Economic evaluation of the MPR Program (wool, expanded)

Items Program Breeders Woolgrowers Processors Totals

Research -100 000 -100 000

Genetic evaluation 80 000 -80 000 0

Rams 1 390 000 -1 390 000 0

Wool 4 800 000 -4 800 000 0

Tops       16 905 810 16 905 810

Benefit (income-costs)

1 310 000 3 410 000 12 105 810 16 825 810

Return (income/ costs)

17.4 3.5 3.5 169.1

Participation in total benefit

8% 20% 72% 100%

Source: Mueller (2010), in USD.

Village based open nucleus Village based open nucleus systems:systems:

South American Camelids in South American Camelids in Bolivia and PeruBolivia and Peru

• 6 Million in both countries• Important: culturally, meat, fiber, hides,

transport, draft power, manure.

• No breeding structure• Village organization and cooperatives• Small family flocks, some village flocks

Llamas Alpaca Huacaya

Alpaca Suri Alpaca Suri

Alpaca Huacaya

Macusani Cooperative near Puno, Peru

Macusani Cooperative alpaca open nucleus breeding structure

• Nucleus was established with best females available (visual)

• Replacements selection visual + FD, very good females are bought into nucleus from base farmers.

• Nucleus males are classed in 3• Farmer alpaca females are classed as

they come for mating• Mating with equal or superior males.• Mated females return to farmers

First class males

Second class males

Third class males

First class females

Second class females

Third class females

NucleusMales

BaseFemales

Mating at the Macusani nucleus

flocks

Munay Paq’ocha nucleus Itita nucleus

Alpaca males

-Macusani cooperative manager: “We get better price for our

fiber”• Organized farmers• Collaboration, support • Fiber measurement facility

…Our success is based on:

Pasco alpaca three tier open nucleus structure

Multi-communal nucleus

Communal flocks

Huacahuaganan nucleus

Ayaracra nucleusBest femalesMales

Two multi-communal nucleus flocks

Individual farmer

Establishment of multi-communal nucleus

1. Young promising males are selected visually in

each household

2. Participants feed and manage young males in turns separate from females

4. Males go for 15 days mating in participants flocks

3. Participants select their

preferred males

Pool of males

Turco (Bolivia) llama breeding structure

Breeding structure drawing at community

school

Selecting llama males in Turco

-Discussion of breeding objectives

Accuracy of visual breeding value

estimation is not zero

Measuredperformance

Selection+Family Selection

(BLUP)

30%

60%

90%

GenomicSelection

100%

VisualSelection

Randomselection

0%

Example for FW h2=0.4

√0.4=0.63

r=0.5

n=40

Within flock open nucleus:Within flock open nucleus:Cashmere goats in IranCashmere goats in Iran

• 4 Million Raeini cashmere goats• Nomad extended families or tribes• 600 goats / tribe, managed together

summer

winter

Breeding objective: meat, fiberVisual traits: size, color, density, staple lengthMeasurements: body weight (growth rate), fleece

weight (+ down percentage, fiber diameter)

Breeding system40+2

• Separate visually best 40 females and 2 bucks• Mate nucleus and base first 20 days separately• During night keep in corral• During day graze or feed separately• After 20 days graze/mate together as usual

• At kidding identify nucleus progeny by date of birth• Castrate males in base• Replace worse buck on progeny test with best nucleus

born young buck• Use next best bucks in base• Avoid mating with daughters: circulate / exchange

Corral for nucleus mating at night

Sustainability - Results

• Cost per tribe:– Fence: once only, local government? – Barley or labor: yearly, decreasing– Fleece samples: yearly, research?

• Expected results:– Response as in woolen sheep– Cashmere suitable for yarn making (dehairing issue)– Improved raw cashmere for export (= chinese, 25%)

• We have the tools to estimate progress, lags and inbreeding to design optimum breeding structures.

• In practice we usually work with an existing or evolving breeding structure and will need tactical optimization.

• The important point is to discuss the logic of a structure with the farmers and analyze options for implementation.

• Open nucleus systems are particularly useful when selection objectives are not clearly expressed and when data collection is difficult.

• Breeding structures usually lead to other collective actions such as joint marketing of products.

Some experiences and Some experiences and commentscomments

Thank you very much

jmueller@bariloche.inta.gov.ar