| Literature DB >> 31105739 |
Eveline M Ibeagha-Awemu1, Sunday O Peters2, Martha N Bemji3, Matthew A Adeleke4, Duy N Do1.
Abstract
The African continent is home to diverse populations of livestock breeds adapted to harsh environmental conditions with more than 70% under traditional systems of management. Animal productivity is less than optimal in most cases and is faced with numerous challenges including limited access to adequate nutrition and disease management, poor institutional capacities and lack of adequate government policies and funding to develop the livestock sector. Africa is home to about 1.3 billion people and with increasing demand for animal proteins by an ever growing human population, the current state of livestock productivity creates a significant yield gap for animal products. Although a greater section of the population, especially those living in rural areas depend largely on livestock for their livelihoods; the potential of the sector remains underutilized and therefore unable to contribute significantly to economic development and social wellbeing of the people. With current advances in livestock management practices, breeding technologies and health management, and with inclusion of all stakeholders, African livestock populations can be sustainably developed to close the animal protein gap that exists in the continent. In particular, advances in gene technologies, and application of genomic breeding in many Western countries has resulted in tremendous gains in traits like milk production with the potential that, implementation of genomic selection and other improved practices (nutrition, healthcare, etc.) can lead to rapid improvement in traits of economic importance in African livestock populations. The African livestock populations in the context of this review are limited to cattle, goat, pig, poultry, and sheep, which are mainly exploited for meat, milk, and eggs. This review examines the current state of livestock productivity in Africa, the main challenges faced by the sector, the role of various stakeholders and discusses in-depth strategies that can enable the application of genomic technologies for rapid improvement of livestock traits of economic importance.Entities:
Keywords: Africa; breed improvement; genomic breeding; stakeholders; sustainable livestock development
Year: 2019 PMID: 31105739 PMCID: PMC6499167 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2019.00357
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Genet ISSN: 1664-8021 Impact factor: 4.599
Statistics∗ on major meat and livestock products imported by Africa in the period 2012–2016.
| Bovine | Cheese | Eggs in | Pig meat | Poultry meat | Sheep meat | Ovine meat | Milk | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Unit | meat | and curd | the shell | (fresh) | (fresh) | (fresh) | (fresh) | equivalent |
| 2012 | Tons | 482,111 | 128783 | 91,367 | 184,322 | NA | 29,326 | 29,326 | 8,683,819 |
| 2013 | Tons | 549,127 | 159867 | 70,445 | 217,845 | 1,646,964 | 34,713 | 34,713 | 8,179,410 |
| 2014 | Tons | 866,902 | 155154 | 86,134 | 775,640 | 2,057,367 | 35,095 | 35,095 | 10,006,915 |
| 2015 | Tons | 700,110 | 160501 | 77,701 | 483,221 | 1,725,336 | 32,259 | 32,259 | 9,915,196 |
| 2016 | Tons | 612,353 | 148419 | 63,096 | 252,611 | 1,680,672 | 28,112 | 28,112 | 9,437,991 |
Livestock population∗ in Africa and regions in year 2016.
| Species | Africa | Eastern Africa | Middle Africa | Northern Africa | Southern Africa | Western Africa | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Annual | Annual | Annual | Annual | Annual | ||||||||
| Total | increase∗∗ | Total | increase | Total | increase | Total | increase | Total | increase | Total | Changes | |
| Cattle | 324,844,768 | 2.14% | 165,472,085 | 4.37% | 24,633,591 | 1.72% | 41,755,788 | -3.76% | 19,298,301 | -3.76% | 73,685,002 | 2.95% |
| Chicken | 1,903,550,000 | 2.69% | 3,64,295,000 | 3.26% | 128,523,000 | 4.21% | 660,049,000 | 2.98% | 183,689,000 | 2.98% | 566,994,000 | 3.80% |
| Goat | 387,667,193 | 2.71% | 142,956,328 | 4.25% | 27,771,055 | 0.63% | 49,987,818 | 0.25% | 9,848,516 | 0.25% | 157,103,476 | 3.04% |
| Pig | 36,625,241 | 3.30% | 13,895,837 | 5.56% | 7,584,063 | 2.26% | 28,169 | -0.88% | 1,700,072 | -0.88% | 13,417,100 | 2.54% |
| Sheep | 351,579,045 | 2.06% | 92,885,970 | 6.69% | 13,307,827 | 6.93% | 107,971,977 | -1.12% | 27,074,442 | -1.12% | 110,338,829 | 2.94% |
FIGURE 1Trends in livestock productivity (meat and milk) in Africa and regions from 2010 to 2016.
African livestock production systems∗.
| Major category | Production system | Source of labor | Characteristics | Input | Output | Utilization of output | Constraints |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small scale | Pastoral | Small family unit | Transhumance with few to hundred animals, high mortality. | Open communal grazing land shared depending on herd size, manure. | Low production of meat, milk, hide and skin, draft power. | Primarily for home consumption | Recurrent drought, conflict, weak governance, disease, lack of veterinary services and feed resources. |
| Agro-pastoral | Pastoral family members | Settled with few to hundreds of animals but migratory for survival, involved in cropping as well. | Open communal grazing land, crop by-products, manure, labor and seeds. | Low production of meat, milk, hide and skin, draft power, crops. | Mainly for home consumption with small portion sold or battered. | Disease, drought, migration of labor to urban areas for jobs, conflict, weak governance, lack of veterinary services and feed resources. | |
| Mixed smallholder farming | Range from family unit to hired labor depending on herd size. | Small herd size, proximity to markets in urban city, specialization in crop and animal farming. | Crop by-products, household wastes and forage, limited access to inputs such as commercial feeds, manure, fertilizer, improved seeds, irrigation. | Low production of meat, milk, hide and skin, draft power, crops. | Mainly for sale with limited quantity retained for home consumption. | Disease, drought, loss of labor to rural urban migration, conflict, weak governance, limited access to veterinary services and feed resources. | |
| Urban/ peri-urban | Mainly family unit and hired labor | Small herd-size | Crop by-products, household waste and commercial feed. | Low production of meat and milk. | Home consumption and sale. | Disease, high cost of drugs and feed, and limited water resources and housing. | |
| Large scale | Ranching | Mainly hired herders depending on herd size supported by family members in some instances. | Large herd size, mainly for commercial purpose. | Large rangeland, Veterinary services, drugs, vaccines, supplemented feeds especially during the dry season. | Meat, milk, and hide | Majorly for sale. | Diseases, limited access to veterinary services and land. |
| Large scale commercial farming | Hired labor | Access to amenities, infrastructure, organized structure, access to local and export markets. | Veterinary services, drugs, vaccines, feed mill, modern equipment. | Meat, milk, and hide. | Entirely for sale. | Diseases and instability in government policy. | |
| Cooperative farming | Farm families and also hired labor | Limited access to amenities, infrastructure, local and export markets. Weak organizational structure. | Veterinary services, drugs, vaccines, feeds, few equipment. | Meat, milk, and hide. | Entirely for sale. | Diseases, fluid government policy. | |
| State owned farms | Civil servants employed by the state | Financed by government, access to local and export markets. | Veterinarians and other livestock professionals, modern equipment and access to government facilities. | Meat, milk, and hide. | Entirely for sale. | Diseases, fluid government policy and bureaucracy. |
Adaptive characteristics of some African livestock breeds.
| Breed | Species | Character | Main location | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| West African Dwarf | Goat | Trypanotolerant, resistant to gastro-intestinal parasites, prolific, good kidding interval | West Africa | Review by |
| Red Sokoto | Goat | High quality skin | West Africa | “ |
| Galla | Goat | Trypanotolerant | Kenya/East Africa | “ |
| Mubende | Goat | High quality skin | Uganda | “ |
| Nubian | Goat | High milk yield | The Sudan | “ |
| Small East African | Goat | Trypanotolerant, resistant to gastro-intestinal parasites | Kenya/East African | “ |
| West African Dwarf goat | Goat | Trypanotolerant | West Africa | |
| West African Dwarf sheep | Sheep | Trypanotolerant, | West Africa (humid and sub-humid areas) | “ |
| D’man | Sheep | Fecundity | West Africa | “ |
| Blackhead Persian | Sheep | Trypanotolerant, heat tolerant | East Africa | “ |
| Red Maasai | Sheep | Trypanotolerant, resistant to gastro-intestinal parasites | East Africa (humid and sub-humid areas) | “ |
| West African Dwarf sheep | Sheep | Trypanotolerant | West Africa | |
| Muturu | Cattle (humpless short horn cattle) | Trypanotolerant | Nigeria | |
| N’Dama | Cattle (humpless long horn cattle) | Trypanotolerant, tolerant to cattle ticks | West Africa | |
| N’Dama | Cattle (humpless long horn cattle) | Trypanotolerant, tolerant to cattle ticks | Central and West Africa | |
| Ankole | Cattle (humpless long horn cattle) | Tolerant to cattle ticks | West Africa | “ |
| Doayo ( | Cattle | Trypanotolerant | Cameroon | |
| Taurine × Zebu crossbred | Cattle | Trypanotolerant | Burkina Faso | |
| Sheko | Cattle (humpless short horn cattle) | Trypanotolerant | Ethiopia | |
| Orma Boran | Cattle (large East African Zebu) | Trypanotolerant | Kenya | |
| Nuba Mountain Zebu | Cattle (small East African Zebu | Trypanotolerant | Sudan | |
| Azaouak | Cattle (West African Zebu) | Adapted to drought | Niger, Nigeria | |
| Landim | Cattle (South African Sanga) | Resistant to foot and mouth disease | South Africa | Reviewed by |
| Tswana | Cattle (South African Sanga) | Resistance to endemic heartwater, tolerance to ticks | South Africa | |
| Red Fulani | Cattle (West African Zebu) | Trypanotolerant, good beef characteristics | West Africa | |
| White Fulani | Cattle (West African Zebu) | Good dairy and beef characteristics | West Africa | |
| Raya-Azebo | Cattle (East African Sanga) | Good draft power | Ethiopia | |
| Indigenous | Pig | Tolerance to African swine fever | Western Kenya | |
| Indigenous | Pig | Descent growth rate, good meat quality, decent litter size, low feed cost | South Africa | |
| Ashanti Dwarf | Pig | Hardy with disease resistant traits | Ghana | |
| Indigenous | Chicken | Disease, drought and heat tolerance | Rwanda | |
| Indigenous | Chicken | Disease and stress tolerance, good egg hatchability and good meat taste | Ethiopia | |
| Indigenous | Chicken | Heat tolerance | Kenya | |
| Ecotypes | Chicken | Tolerance to environmental stress | Uganda and Rwanda |
FIGURE 2Different stakeholders that should be harnessed for successful livestock breeding programs in Africa.
Sample breeding programs for genetic improvement of livestock in Africa.
| Breeding system | Characteristic/objective | Species | Region | Advantage | Disadvantage | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selection within breed or strain | Selection based on productivity in individual populations for litter size, growth and mature size etc. | Small ruminants | Tropics | Increase average level of genetic merit of the population; Less costly compared to selection between breeds | Small populations; single sire flocks; Lack of animal identification; inadequate performance and pedigree recording; high mobility of pastoral flock. | Review by |
| Selection between breeds or strains | Selection of most appropriate of two or more genetically distinct breeds | Small ruminants | Tropics | Can achieve rapid genetic change when there are large genetic differences between populations | Involves high cost when there is need to replace males and females (not always feasible to replace whole flock). | |
| Crossbreeding | Grading up or repeated crossing to a new breed using males or semen | Small ruminants | Tropics | More gradual improved genetic changes in desired traits | Unsuccessful and unsustainable in long term due to incompatibility of genotypes with breeding objectives and management approaches of the prevailing low input traditional production systems. | Review by |
| “ | Market oriented dairy goat farming | German Alpine × Kenyan local goat breeds | Kenya | Improved average daily milk yield | Lower survival rate for crossbred. | |
| “ | Dairy farming (cattle) | Improved milk yield | Crossbreds are more susceptible to diseases. | Review by | ||
| “ | Dairy farming (cattle) | Ankole × European cattle | Burundi | Milk yield increased in crossbreds with increasing European ancestry | Not reported | |
| “ | Large body size, fertility, drought ability and milk yield | Ndama × Fulani Zebu and crossbred | Southern Mali | Disease resistance for Ndama, high market price for Fulani Zebu and crossbred cattle | Not reported | |
| “ | Trypanotolerance | Taurine × Zebu cattle | South Western Burkina Faso | Increased anemia control by crossbred cattle | Not reported | |
| Terminal cross-breeding | To demonstrate the performance of Nguni and Afrikaner as dam lines | Cattle (Nguni and Afrikaner) | South Africa | Reduced calving difficulty, increased survival percentage from calving to weaning, the ratio of the weaning weight of the calf to the dam weight at the birth of the calf was 56.8% for cross-bred | Limitation in calving difficulty and birth weight restricted to mid-parent value or below. | |
| Traditional village breeding | Organize smallholder farmers into cooperative breeding groups for genetic improvement | Sheep (Menz) | Ethiopia | Annual increase in body weights at birth, 3 and 6 months of age were 0.004, 0.11, and -0.12 kg, respectively. The genetic gain in 6-month weight of lambs was 0.92 kg. | Uncontrolled mating, random selection, low selection intensities. There is stagnating or declining trends in body weights. | |
| Cooperative village breeding | Optimization of a cooperative village-based sheep breeding scheme | Sheep (Menz) | Ethiopia | The genetic gain in 6-month weight of lambs was1.54 kg. Allows farmers’ cooperation and leads to genetic improvement | Efficiency of controlled mating was 0.75. Small flock sizes. Difficulty’ in actively getting farmers involved in cooperative village breeding. Selection intensity reduces with declining membership because of smaller flock sizes. With uncontrolled mating, percentage of the village ewes available for mating by unselected rams increased as the level of participation in the selection program reduced. Genetic progress dropped with declining participation of villagers. | |
| Crossbreeding | Determination of better performing breed and breed combination | Goat (Mubende and Teso) | Uganda | Crossbreds had higher body weight and growth rate relative to the pure breeds | Not reported |
Major concerns and possible solutions for development of improved livestock breeding programs in Africa.
| Constraint | Way forward |
|---|---|
| Small herd sizes with single sires; lack of proper identification; variability between farms; uncontrolled breeding and high mobility of pastoral flock. | Organized livestock production systems: cooperative farming; formation of national breed societies with regulatory agencies. |
| High disease burden, limited access to drugs and veterinary services. | Government should train veterinarians and provide free/subsidized veterinary services and medication. Increase/provide funding for research on livestock diseases. |
| Limited feed resources to meet nutrient requirements of animals. | Develop feed resources and grazing pastures and train animal nutritionist, animal feed producers and farmers. |
| Limited information on production characteristics of indigenous breeds under existing production systems. | Systematic characterization of animal productivity in the various production systems is necessary for implementation of improvement strategies. |
| Lack of government policies that protect indigenous livestock/support its gainful exploitation. | Enabling government policies must be put in place to guide/define the gainful exploitation of indigenous livestock and the roles of other stakeholders (e.g., NGOs). |
| Lack of infrastructure for routine recording of production and health traits and limited research facilities leading to inadequate performance and pedigree records. | Establishment of national/regional recording and improvement scheme that will attract all stakeholders. Increase research funding and upgrade infrastructure. |
| Limited information on characterization of national animal genetic resources. | Provide funding to support characterization of production systems, breeds and preservation of local breeds. |
| Absence of large number of accurately phenotyped animals managed in well-defined contemporary groups with expected breeding values to serve as reference population for genomic selection; limited/lack of genotyping infrastructure; SNP chips derived from different breeds. | Requires a robust national/regional cohesive strategy; more concerted effort required to educate and change the orientation of national policy makers toward funding of research in livestock sector; increased funding by government; private sectors should be encouraged to fund research; put in place infrastructure to deliver genomic services. Develop customized SNP chips based on African livestock populations. Devote financial resources to creating large reference populations with well phenotyped and genotyped animals. |
| Potential environmental hazards/ethical concerns about genomic approaches to livestock improvement. | Implementation of appropriate biosafety measures and regulatory mechanisms. |
| Limited expertise or human capacity about genomic breeding approaches for livestock improvement. | Capacity building for all stakeholders (farmers, policy makers, students, and professionals); Train Ph.D. level manpower to measure ‘not too easy to measure’ traits and statistical ability to handle big data. Collaborative research and implementation of improvement techniques with experts in Western countries. |
| Lack of active and efficient breed associations and no linkages across livestock populations. | Building effective breed association to support producer decisions when needed. Government funding to support establishment of breed associations. Use of artificial insemination even in small holder systems will help to create genetic linkages across livestock populations. |
| Impatience to implement long-term breeding programs, tendency toward implementation of quick and unstainable breeding methods. | Training and adequate funding to support sustained long term breeding programs. Donor organization to also support sustained long-term programs with participation of producers. Require certain roles of the breeding business section to contribute to sustainability of the development of livestock breeding. |
| Difficulty of implementing genomic based selection programs. | Appropriate selection programs adapted to each production system implemented; genomic selection suitable for all production systems; selection in nucleus herds using artificial insemination, embryo transfer or embryo sexing; development of appropriate methods/procedures of genotyping and genomic predictions for joint evaluations of small populations. |