Confronting pastoralists' knowledge of cattle breeds raised in the extensive production systems of Benin with multivariate analyses of morphological traits.

Cross-border seasonal livestock movements in West Africa bring into close contact several cattle breeds. In the coastal countries hosting migrating herders from the Sahel, it often affects the genetic variability and geographical distribution of traditional cattle breeds, through their indiscriminate but also intended crossbreeding with larger-framed Sahelian cattle breeds. The need to secure and effectively manage this genetic variability, in order to respond to changing production and market conditions, is widely recognized by the scientific community, livestock herders and policy-makers. This however requires a comprehensive knowledge of the breeds' characteristics. The indigenous criteria used by pastoralists to characterize and distinguish cattle breeds remain unclear and further validation is required. This study was therefore designed to document and validate herders' knowledge on cattle breeds. From June 2015 to June 2016, 803 cattle herders participated in a phenotypic breed description in seven pastoral communities across the country. Each cattle herder was asked to name and describe morphologically the different cattle breeds in his herd. Subsequently, fifteen body measurements taken on a total of 1401 adult cattle (964 cows and 439 bulls) were submitted to multivariate analyses. Participants distinguished ten different cattle breeds kept in traditional herds according to six primary morphological traits and clearly separated zebuine from taurine breeds. These results were consistent with those of the multivariate analyses of the measured traits. However, herders' classification approach proved to be more accurate in distinguishing breeds within the zebuine subspecies. Hence, while metric measurements and molecular genetic analyses are promising approaches to fill the knowledge gap on the diversity of local farm animal genetic resources, they should integrate livestock herders' traditional knowledge for more precision.

Introduction

West Africa is rich in a wide variety of cattle breeds represented by the taurine (Bos taurus) and Zebu subspecies [1,2]. Exposed to complex social, political and environmental processes over centuries, these genetic resources have developed under harsh conditions to which they have adapted [3]. They are appreciated for their adaptive traits which include the resistance to diseases and drought, ability to walk long distances, and capacity to survive on poor pastures [2]. Yet, this valuable diversity is increasingly threatened by genetic dilution due to changes in production systems, livestock herders' preferences for specific breeds and/or traits, market conditions and opportunities [4]. Several studies revealed admixtures among the taurine and zebu subspecies [5,6,7] as the result of the continuous genetic flow that occurs every year during seasonal cross-border livestock movements from the drier Sahelian zones in the north to the more humid zones in the south of West and East Africa. The importance of these local genetic resources for the livelihoods of livestock herders and the sustainability of the production systems in which they are raised calls for the urgent need to promote their sustainable use [2,8,9,10] and conservation [11]. The latter author has argued that biodiversity conservation and food security are two sides of the same coin.

Yet, as revealed by the review of existing literature, the first obstacle to sustainable management of local farm animal genetic resource in African livestock production systems is the insufficient knowledge on their specific features and genetic diversity [2,8]. In Benin, like in several African countries, there are virtually no inventories of these resources and thus no reliable data available. The precise identification of animal types and breeds, and an improved understanding of their values or adaptive traits are thus necessary but depend on the availability of accurate and comprehensive information on their characteristics as well as their production and marketing environments.

The Second Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture [12] acknowledged recent and ongoing efforts of description and characterization of livestock breeds in several West African countries. But most of these efforts tend to be fragmentary and limited either to their phenotypic [13,14,15,16], or genotypic and molecular characterization [7,17,18,19,20,21] out of the production system context, paying little attention to the local knowledge of the communities who keep them. Given its importance, livestock herders’ indigenous knowledge has been recommended to be an integral part of breed characterization [22]. This knowledge is mainly useful in quantitative morphological characterization that represents the first step in the characterization process [23,24,25] and can provide, to some extent, a reasonable representation of genetic difference among populations [26]. This is more evident in Sub-Saharan Africa, where, cattle are basic assets of cattle herders who mostly are still involved in pastoralism, which is still the dominant ruminant livestock system [27]. Hence, cattle breeds are subject of much discussion among these herders [28] who have accumulated a wealth of untapped knowledge of these farm animal genetic resources and of their production environments [29,30,31,32].

Multivariate discriminant analyses of morphological traits have been reported, in several previous studies, to be effective for a precise and objective discrimination of different populations of cattle [13,14,15,33]; goats [26,34], sheep [35,36,37], and horses [38]. Therefore, results of such analyses may represent an objective basis for comparison with herders’ indigenous knowledge. So far, however, no studies of which we are aware combine the two approaches in order to test their complementarity and validate pastoralists’ classification of cattle breeds. This study aimed to document and validate herders' knowledge of differences among cattle breeds raised in Benin with quantitative data.

Material and methods

Study sites

The study was conducted in seven (07) localities which are representative of three vegetation zones along the geographical north-south gradient in Benin (Fig 1). Ferralitic soils and a bimodal rainfall with an average annual precipitation of 1250 mm characterize the regions of Kétou and Agonli in the Guinea-Congolian zone (GCZ). In the Guinean zone (GSZ), which includes Savalou and Tchaourou, the soils are of ferruginous type and the annual precipitation averages 1150 mm with a bimodal and unimodal rainfall pattern in Savalou and Tchaourou respectively. The Sudanian zone (SZ) included Kandi, Sinendé and Boukombé. It is characterized by ferruginous soils and a bimodal rainfall pattern with an average annual precipitation of 1000 mm. These locations, whose some demographic characteristics are presented in Table 1, were selected because of the presence of relatively high numbers of resident cattle herds but also because of the important influx of seasonal and cyclical migrating herds in search of pasture and water. These migrating herds are further designed as transhumant herds.

Fig 1

Map of Benin showing the locations of the municipalities investigated.

Table 1

General characteristics of the study locations and number of cattle herds surveyed in Benin.

Location	Geographic coordinates	Climate [39]	Area (km2)	Population density (people/km2)[40]	Estimates of the total cattle population (heads) [41]	Cattle herds sampled (n)
Kétou	7° 21′ N 2° 36′ E	Sub-equatorial	1775	88	16000	120
Agonli	7° 13′ N 2° 20′ E	Sub-equatorial	1758	132	6170	50
Tchaourou	8° 53′ N 2° 36′ E	Tropical subhumid	7256	30	47000	110
Savalou	7° 55′ N 1° 58′ E	Tropical subhumid	2674	54	32000	120
Kandi	‎11° 07’N 2° 56’ E	Dry tropical	3421	52	159000	148
Sinendé	10° 20′ N 2° 22′ E	Dry tropical	2289	39	80000	135
Boukombé	10° 11′ N 1° 06′ E	Dry tropical	1 036	80	30100	120

Data collection

Ethical statement

The study involved taking body measurements from cattle with the consent and in the presence of the cattle herder. There is no specific legislation for body measurements and hence no approval was necessary. All the data was collected in traditional farms and the animal owners agreed to be involved in the project through the Communal Sector for Agricultural Development (SCDA) which is the decentralized institution for the management of the agricultural sector in the surveyed municipalities. All the animals included in this study were managed in accordance with the criteria for the assessment of animal welfare identified by the Welfare Quality Project (WQP) [42].

Assessment of pastoralists’ knowledge about cattle breeds’ characteristics

First, informal interviews were organized with all actors involved in livestock production, including officers of local extension services in each of the research locations, to obtain some preliminary information about cattle production, lists of cattle camps and of the places where cattle herds and herders gather.

Individual interviews were then conducted from June 2015 to June 2016 with 803 resident cattle herders randomly selected from those who had at least 10 years of experience in cattle herding and had spent at least five (05) years in the locality. Unequal distribution of the livestock camps resulted in unbalanced samples across the studied villages (Table 1). The herders were asked to name in their local language the breeds of cattle kept in their area and to indicate the most relevant traits they used to distinguish between them. Breed was defined according to [43] as: “either a sub-specific group of domestic livestock with definable and identifiable external characteristics that enable it to be separated by visual appraisal from other similarly defined groups within the same species, or a group for which geographical and/or cultural separation from phenotypically similar groups has led to acceptance of its separate identity”. Thus, cattle breed in this study is referred to cattle of similar physical features perceived by herders as being of the same genetic origin.

Morphological characterization

In each surveyed herd, one mature cow and, where available, one breeding bull representative of each cattle breed present and named by the herder were then randomly selected for morphometric measurements. They maturity was ascertained by the visual examination of their dentition (possession of either three or four pairs of permanent teeth). A total of 1401 adult cattle of both sexes (943 cows and 458 bulls) was measured and included in this study.

Fifteen body measurements and ten qualitative traits (Table 2) were assessed following the FAO guidelines for phenotypic characterization of animal genetic resources [25]. The qualitative traits described were sex, presence of horn, horn color, horn shape, cephalic profile, ear shape, ear orientation, body coat color and body coat color pattern, presence of hump and dewlap size. The body measurements were carried out using a measuring stick, a measuring tape or wooden caliper on animals standing on a level surface and maintained in upright posture by their respective owners.

Table 2

Morphological traits measured on 1401 individual cattle across seven locations in Benin.

Variable	Description
Quantitative (in cm)
Height at withers (WH)	Vertical distance from the bottom of the front foot to the highest point of the shoulder between the withers
Rump height (RH)	Distance from the highest point of rump to the ground
Heart girth (HG)	Circumference of body just behind the forelegs
Body length (BL)	Distance between the horn site to tail drop
Scapula-ischial length (SIL)	Distance from tip of the shoulder to the ischial tuberosity
Face length (FAL)	Distance from between the horn site to the lower lip
Ear length (EL)	Distance from the point of attachment to the tip of the ear
Head width (HW)	Distance between the most prominent points of the zygomatic arches
Tail length (TL)	Distance from the tail drop to the tip of the tail
Hip Width (HW)	Distance between the ends of the bone of the iliac crest
Horn length (HL)	Distance from the root of the horn to its tip along the outer curvature
Hock circumference (HC)	Circumference taken just above the hock joint
Muzzle circumference (MC)	Complete distance around the outside of the mouth
Chest depth (CD)	Vertical distance from the apex of the withers to the bottom of the chest
Shoulder point width (SPW)	Distance between the right and left shoulder points
Qualitative
Sex	Male, female
General aspect of the coat	Uniform, Spotted, Composed
Unique color of coat	Black, White, Dark red, Brown, Fawn
Other color of coat	White spotted black, Black spotted white, White spotted red, Red spotted white
Cephalic profile	Concave, Convex, Straight
Presence of hump	Absent, Present
Presence of horn	Absent, Present
Color of horn	Black, Brown, White, Black and Brown, Black and White, Brown and white
Horn shape	Straight, Crown, Cup, Folded back cup, Crescent, Lyre, Folded back lyre, Wheel, Spiral, Numeral three
Ear shape	Rounded, Pointed
Orientation of ear	Erected, Horizontal, Dropping

Statistical analysis

Collected data were processed and analyzed using SAS software, version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Metric data were first checked for consistency. This resulted in the exclusion of the five animals named by herders as of Djelliji breed and one male of Dageeji breed, which are not included in the 1401 individual cattle.

Descriptive analyses were firstly performed to explore statistical differences among the different cattle breeds. Frequencies and chi-square (χ2) tests for independence were performed on the aforementioned qualitative traits to explore statistical differences among breeds. Similarly, the quantitative variables were subjected to analysis of variance using PROC GLM. The least square means (LSMEANS) were calculated for males and females separately, and for both together. Comparison of means between groups was performed using the Students Newman and Keuls (SNK) multiple mean comparison tests. The results were used to screen for the most useful variables for further discriminant analysis. The canonical discriminant analysis using the CANDISC procedure was performed to determine the best linear combination of the quantitative variables that would group or separate the named cattle breeds. Canonical variables that summarize between-breeds variation were generated and the pairwise squared Mahalanobis distances calculated. PROC GPLOT was used to plot the individuals onto canonical variables for visual examination of the ordering of the different breeds in the multivariate space. The ability of these canonical functions to assign each individual animal to its original group was calculated as the percentage of correct assignment to each genetic group using the DISCRIM procedure (Nearest Neighbour Discriminant Analysis). The degree of morphological similarity or divergence between the investigated cattle breeds was assessed and their classification in homogenous groups was carried out using the method of Ascending Hierarchical Clustering (AHC) according to the criterion of the jump of Ward in the PROC CLUSTER and TREE procedures. The Mahalanobis distances generated during the canonical discriminant analysis were used to construct a dendrogram using the Unweighted Pair Group Method Analysis (UPGMA). Finally, the association between the qualitative traits was investigated through a Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) using PROC CORRESP.

Results

Herders’ perceptions of morphological characteristics of the main cattle breeds

A total of ten cattle breeds were identified from the surveyed herders’ responses and named in Fulfulde language, spoken by almost all of the herders, as follows: Boboji, Somba, Yakanaji, Goudali/Bokoloji, Bodeeji/Bororo, Djelliji, Dageeji/Dage, Bargouji/Muti, Keteeji and one unnamed type perceived as crossbreed.

The following morphological traits were used by herders to distinguish among different cattle breeds: body size (dwarf, small, middle, large), size of horn (absent, short, middle, long, long and white), hump size (absent, small, poorly developed, well developed), size of sheath/ umbilical fold (small, poorly developed, well developed), dewlap size (small, poorly developed, well developed), coat color (white, reddish-brown/ black, white/reddish, variable, white and black neck).

Table 3 presents the characteristics of the different cattle breeds according to the participating herders. The two taurine breeds, namely Somba and Boboji (S1 and S2 Figs), were described with similar characteristics (variable coat color, very small size, short horns and absence of hump).

Table 3

Key morphological traits used by herders (%) to classify nine cattle breeds raised in Benin.

Trait	Trait expression	Cattle breeds
		Yakanaji	Goudali	Bodeeji	Djelliji	Dageeji	Bargouji/Keteeji	Boboji	Somba
Coat color		(n = 407)	(n = 463)	(n = 422)	(n = 84)	(n = 261)	(n = 298)	(n = 111)	(n = 100)
	White	100.0	84.9	0.0	0.0	100.0	95.6	0.0	0.0
	Reddish Brown / Black	0.0	0.0	100.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
	White/Reddish	0.0	0.0	0.0	98.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
	Variable	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.2	0.0	4.4	100.0	100.0
	White and black neck	0.0	15.1	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Body size		(n = 477)	(n = 396)	(n = 376)	(n = 215)	(n = 217)	(n = 400)	(n = 215)	(n = 220)
	Large	95.6	100.0	99.7	96.7	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
	Medium	4.4	0.0	0.0	3.3	100.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
	Small	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0	100.0	0.0	0.0
	Dwarf	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	100.0	100.0
Size of horn		(n = 527)	(n = 557)	(n = 418)	(n = 209)	(n = 251)	(n = 380)	(n = 170)	(n = 219)
	Absent	0.0	100.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
	Long	100.0	0.0	100.0	0.0	100.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
	Medium	0.0	0.0	0.0	100.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
	Short	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Size of hump		(n = 337)	(n = 374)	(n = 242)	(n = 202)	(n = 116)	(n = 418)	(n = 138)	(n = 210)
	Absent	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	35.6	100.0	100.0
	Well developed	100.0	100.0	62.8	100.0	19.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
	Poorly developed	0.0	0.0	37.2	0.0	81.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
	Small	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	64.4	0.0	0.0
Size of dewlap		(n = 174)	(n = 223)	(n = 163)			(n = 120)
	Well developed	0.0	100.0	0.0	-	-	0.0	-	-
	Poorly developed	100.0	0.0	100.0	-	-	0.0	-	-
	Small	0.0	0.0	0.0	-	-	100.0	-	-
Size of sheath/ umbilical folds		(n = 202)	(n = 247)	(n = 54)		(n = 44)	(n = 82)
	Well developed	100.0	100.0	0.0	-	0.0	0.0	-	-
	Poorly developed	0.0	0.0	100.0	-	36.4	0.0	-	-
	Small	0.0	0.0	0.0	-	63.6	100.0	-	-

The five zebu breeds (Yakanaji, Goudali, Bodeeji, Djelliji, and Dageeji) (S3–S7 Figs) also shared many similarities. With the exception of the hornless Goudali and Djelliji whose horn was perceived by respondents as of medium size, the zebus were, in their majority, described as large-framed and long-horned animals with a well or poorly developed hump. The Bodeeji breed was further differentiated from the Yakanaji breed by its reddish brown to red dark coat color and white horns.

Moreover, the Dageeji breed, in contrast to others, was perceived as a medium-sized zebu with a poorly developed hump and a small sheath/ umbilical fold.

The Bargouji breed (S8 Fig) was described as a shorthorn taurine-like cattle, but with a larger body size than taurine, a white coat, absence of hump or presence of small hump, a small dewlap and a small sheath/ umbilical fold. The morphological characteristics of Keteeji cattle were not presented separately because herders perceived Bargouji/Muti and Keteeji as two morphologically close cattle breeds. They however assumed that the pure Bargouji is generally humpless or has only a small hump whereas Keteeji is always humped with a small or poorly developed hump. They also asserted that Keteeji is sometimes larger in size than Bargouji.

Comparison of measured morphometric traits among breeds

The differences between the cattle breeds for the morphometric variables of male and female animals and their pooled data are presented in Table 4, Table 5 and S1 Table, respectively. All linear body measurements significantly varied (P<0.05) among breeds. Major morphological traits such as height at withers (WH), rump height (RH), body length (BL) and scapulo-ischial length (SIL) were significantly greater (P<0.05) for humped cattle breeds compared with humpless ones. Within breeds, they were also significantly greater (P<0.05) in bulls than in cows. The highest mean values of WH were recorded in Bodeeji cows followed by the Yakanaji cows whereas the lowest values were obtained in the Boboji and Somba cows. In terms of morphometric traits, these two taurine breeds presented no significant differences.

Table 4

Least square means (± standard error) and pairwise comparison of morphological traits measured in cows across nine cattle breeds raised in Benin.

Trait	Cattle breeds
	Bargouji	Boboji	Bodeeji	Dageeji	Goudali	Keteeji	Crossbreed	Somba	Yakanaji
	(n = 206)	(n = 58)	(n = 26)	(n = 23)	(n = 22)	(n = 138)	(n = 94)	(n = 84)	(n = 312)
MC	40.6c ± 0.37	43.1b ± 0.60	46.5a± 0.52	44.0b± 0.44	40.3c± 1.07	46.8a± 0.32	43.6b±0.36	40.1c± 0.37	44.5b±0.21
HW	19.5b ± 0.15	19.2b ± 0.23	20.1b±0.18	19.2b± 0.28	20.4b± 0.57	23.5a±0.33	20.3b±0.24	17.4c± 0.16	20.4b±0.15
FAL	45.7c ± 0.42	43.9d ± 0.56	48.4b ±0.21	47.6bc± 0.67	46.0c±0.60	46.9a± 0.47	46.9bc±0.36	39.9e± 0.41	46.8bc±0.3
EL	19.5cd ± 0.22	17.4e ± 0.22	20.6c ± 0.26	19.0d± 0.23	21.9b± 0.63	23.4a ±0.48	20.5c±0.27	15.4f± 0.13	20.7c±0.18
HL	37.0e ± 0.51	28.1f ± 1.46	65.8a ±1.86	49.1bc± 1.74	14.1g± 4.10	47.7c ±1.04	42.4d±1.51	15.8g± 1.46	52.8b±0.68
HG	152.8d ±0.99	148.9d ± 1.49	179.4a±1.42	169.1b ±2.12	171.8b±2.60	159.1c±0.91	166.4b±1.15	142.5e± 1.42	171.4b±0.93
HC	35.6d ±0.25	39.6c ± 0.44	44.3b ±0.60	47.4a ±0.93	40.4c±0.86	38.5c±0.26	44.5b±0.45	35.4d± 0.54	43.5b±0.62
TL	99.0ab ± 0.83	87.6b ± 1.01	103.6ab± 1.06	97.8ab± 0.69	103.9ab±2.50	102.7ab±1.35	109.7a±9.65	91.7ab± 0.74	103.1ab±0.65
SPW	34.7b ± 0.27	28.2d ±0.44	33.3a± 0.76	30.4c± 0.42	33.9 ±1.03	36.4a±0.44	32.3b±0.42	29.0cd ±0.43	36.6b±0.38
HW	42.7b ± 0.23	41.0c ±0.51	45.8a± 0.63	44.3ab±0.37	46.0a±1.01	45.1a±0.31	44.3ab±0.35	36.4d ±0.37	46.4a±0.25
CD	63.9a ±0.35	54.6c± 0.72	66.1a±0.68	64.6a±0.90	64.9a± 1.46	67.0a±0.51	60.8b±0.46	49.8d± 0.37	65.7a±0.51
WH	115.9d ± 0.63	110.5f±0.83	137.8a± 0.85	129.1b± 1.32	130.3b ±1.30	131.1b±0.53	123.4c±0.78	100.4f±0.47	131.4b±0.76
RH	117.4d ±0.74	113.1e±0.85	136.4a±0.68	129.0bc±1.02	129.8bc±1.05	134.1a±0.61	125.4c±0.74	105.3f±0.51	132.4b±0.65
BL	115.9d ± 0.63	114.6d±1.07	132.6a±0.94	124.4bc± 1.18	120.8c± 2.44	129.6a±0.85	121.7c±0.74	100.2e±0.76	128.2b±0.66
SIL	164.2d ±0.75	150.4e±1.74	193.2a± 2.69	180.3bc±1.49	173.9c± 1.97	175.1c±1.25	177.0c± 2.22	141.1f±0.78	184.4b±1.39

Means with different superscript in the same row are significantly different (P ≤ 0.001), SNK’s multiple mean comparison test

MC: Muzzle circumference, HW: Head width, FAL: Face length, EL: Ear length, HL: Horn length, HG: Heart Girth, HC: Hock circumference, TL: Tail length, SPW: Shoulder point width, HW: Hip Width, CD: Chest depth, WH: Withers height, RH: Rump height, BL: Body length, SIL: Scapula-ischial length.

Table 5

Least square means in cm (± standard error) and pairwise comparison of morphological traits measured in bulls of nine cattle breeds raised in Benin.

Traits				Cattle breeds
	Bargouji	Boboji	Bodeeji	Goudali	Keteeji	Crossbreed	Somba	Yakanaji
	(n = 131)	(n = 5)	(n = 10)	(n = 10)	(n = 93)	(n = 16)	(n = 109)	(n = 63)
MC	43,5b±0,31	44,8abc±1,96	44,2abc±0,94	45,6abc±1,09	46,2a±0,39	47,5a±1,19	42,2b±0,34	48,0a±0,52
HW	20,1ab±0,17	19,8ab±0,20	21,6ab±0,58	22,0ab±1,01	21,8ab±0,27	23,1a±1,02	18,0b±0,17	22,5a±0,38
FAL	49,2a±0,28	45,8b±1,74	48,9a±0,97	48,2a±0,79	51,2a±0,30	50,0a±1,18	40,1b±0,38	50,4a±0,56
EL	19,8a±0,21	17,4b±0,60	21,0c±0,54	21,9c±0,62	21,9c±0,27	20,6c±0,52	15,9b±0,18	21,7c±0,29
HL	34,6b±0,82	28,2bc±3,77	52,8a±3,03	16,3c±5,07	42,3ab±1,06	40,8ab±4,65	16,8c±0,52	53,0a±1,79
HG	155,4cd±0,79	155,9cd±5,04	160,2bc±1,33	180,1a±3,03	162,0bc±0,97	174,9ab±3,84	144,2d±0,74	174,7ab±1,99
HC	34,6b±0,31	38,7b±0,86	46,5a±1,23	47,9a±1,20	38,2b±0,28	48,9a±0,90	37,9b±0,31	46,4a±0,70
TL	101,8ab±1,25	81,7c±2,53	106,8ab±2,14	118,4a±3,56	107,7ab±1,57	110,4ab±2,49	93,4bc±0,85	109,9ab±1,52
SPW	34,8ab±0,33	29,2b±0,80	33,6ab±0,88	35,4ab±1,87	36,4a±0,43	35,1ab±0,98	29,0b±0,35	36,6a±0,63
HW	42,5a±0,35	41,0ab±2,07	42,9a±1,09	44,9a±1,56	43,7a±0,41	45,5a±0,91	36,4b±0,40	47,4a±0,55
CD	62,9b±0,40	56,6b±1,40	59,0b±0,61	65,4ab±1,22	64,7ab±0,48	63,6ab±1,40	51,8b±0,48	68,5a±0,90
WH	117,0b±0,58	109,2bc±1,22	137,0a±1,41	135,1a±1,41	128,8ab±0,52	130,4a±2,09	101,8c±0,51	136,5a±0,94
RH	123,6bc±0,49	111,6c±2,87	139,7a±1,89	139,0a±1,58	133,8a±0,59	134,3a±2,00	107,0c±0,57	138,2a±0,64
BL	119,4b±0,71	115,8bc±5,26	134,1a±2,26	132,1a±4,53	123,2b±0,94	124,4b±1,92	103,2c±0,67	131,8a±1,02
SIL	163.8b±1.12	151.4c±1.70	198.4a± 0.90	182.8b± 1.46	173.6ab±3.15	184.8a± 3.10	144.7c±1.70	186.8a±1.39

Means with different letters in rows are significantly different between locations at P ≤ 0.001; SNK’s multiple mean comparison test

MC: Muzzle circumference, HW: Head width, FAL: Face length, EL: Ear length, HL: Horn length, HG: Heart Girth, HC: Hock circumference, TL: Tail length, SPW: Shoulder point width, HW: Hip Width, CD: Chest depth, WH: Withers height, RH: Rump height, BL: Body length, SIL: Scapula-ischial length

Within the recorded qualitative traits, only a few (presence of hump, shape and orientation of horns002C size of dewlap) were useful in discriminating the zebus from the taurine breeds (S2 and S3 Tables). The white color was dominant in the zebus except for the zebu Bodeeji which generally presented a single reddish brown coat color. Taurine and crossbreed presented variable coat colors. In addition, about half of the animals sampled as of the Bargouji breed had no hump, and the same observation was made for the Keteeji breed.

Typology of cattle breeds

The canonical coefficients showing the contribution of each measured morphometric trait to the total variation are presented in S4 Table. The first two canonical variates together accounted for 86.26% of the total variation among breeds. The correlation between the cattle breeds and CAN1 was 0.896 and the one between the breeds and CAN2 was 0.771 and the two axes were significant (P<0.001) and sufficient to classify all individual cattle studied. The variables height at withers (WH), rump height (RH), scapulo-ischial length (SIL), horn length (HL), body length (BL), hip width (HW), heart girth (HG), chest depth (CD), ear length (EL), and hock circumference (HC) proved to be the most useful in discriminating among the nine cattle breeds investigated.

The plot of the centroid values of these first two canonical discriminant functions (Fig 2) shows a clear cut separation between zebu and taurine breeds. The taurine breeds of Boboji and Somba appeared to be the two most homogeneous groups whereas Bargouji animals partially overlap with the Keteeji. Furthermore, there was no clear cut separation among zebu breeds and also between zebus and unnamed crossbreeds.

Fig 2

Scatterplot of 1401 individual animals on the first two canonical discriminant functions.

S5 Table shows the pairwise Mahalanobis distances among the nine cattle breeds investigated. All pairwise distances between the breeds were significant (P<0.001). The greatest distance was observed between Somba and Bodeeji (46.87), followed by Somba and Dageeji (33.89) whereas the smallest was observed between Yakanaji and Bodeeji (2.54) followed by Yakanaji and crossbreeds (2.59).

The dendrogram based on the distance matrix (Fig 3) shows three main clusters: Group 1 included the Bargouji breed which was clearly separated from zebu breeds but close to the two taurine breeds of Somba and Boboji (Cluster 2). The third cluster included all zebu breeds, the unnamed crossbreeds and the Keteeji.

Fig 3

Cluster analysis (UPGMA) of cattle breeds based on Mahalanobis distances.

The two discriminating functions correctly classified about 75% of the individuals into their a-priori groups (Table 6). However, it is worth noting that about half of the Yakanaji and crossbreed individuals were incorrectly classified whereas almost all Somba animals were successfully assigned to their original group.

Table 6

Percent (%) of individual cattle classified into their a-priori breeds.

Breed	Posterior probability (%)									Total
	Bargouji	Boboji	Bodeeji	Dageeji	Goudali	Keteeji	Crossbreed	Somba	Yakanaji
Bargouji	80.71	1.78	0.00	1.19	0.89	11.57	1.48	0.59	1.78	337
Boboji	0.00	84.13	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	4.76	11.11	0.00	63
Bodeeji	0.00	0.00	83.33	2.78	0.00	0.00	2.78	0.00	11.11	36
Dageeji	0.00	0.00	8.33	75.00	0.00	0.00	8.33	0.00	8.33	24
Goudali	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	84.38	0.00	6.25	0.00	9.38	32
Keteeji	9.96	0.43	1.30	0.00	0.00	83.55	2.60	0.00	2.16	231
Crossbreed	5.45	11.82	7.27	10.00	5.45	0.00	49.09	0.91	10.00	110
Somba	0.52	3.11	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.52	95.85	0.00	193
Yakanaji	4.27	1.33	14.13	15.20	2.67	4.80	20.00	0.00	37.60	375
Rate	0.192	0.158	0.166	0.250	0.156	0.164	0.509	0.041	0.624	0.251
Priors	0.111	0.111	0.111	0.111	0.111	0.111	0.111	0.111	0.111	0.111

NB: The percentage of well classified cow is read on the first diagonal (in bold)

Correspondence analysis of breeds’ qualitative traits

The Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) of the qualitative characters produced slightly different results from those obtained with the Canonical Discriminant Analysis of the quantitative traits (Fig 4). The first dimension separated the taurine breeds (Group I) and the group of Bodeeji breed (Group II), from a very heterogeneous group (Group III) which included the other zebu breeds, the unnamed crossbreeds, the Keteeji and the Bargouji breeds. Group I was characterized by spotted and composed aspects of their coat with dominant black, white or brown colors, cup and numeral three forms of horns and absence of hump whereas Group II was associated with a reddish or red spotted white coat color. The animals of the third group, which is the most heterogeneous, had a dominant white coat color.

Fig 4

Multiple correspondence analysis of the morphological traits of cattle breeds.

Discussion

The originality and the innovative character of our approach in the West African extensive livestock production systems lie in linking herders’ description of cattle breeds with metric measures of phenotypes. Herders’ accuracy in describing and distinguishing different cattle breeds underlines the relevance of this approach for investigating the phenotypic and genetic variability in farm animal genetic resources. As observed in this study, herders’ classification offers the advantage to be easily comparable to the quantitative classification obtained from the metric measures of phenotypes, as the discriminating criteria used by herders are in agreement with those most commonly used in morphological characterization studies in livestock [25].

There was also a considerable consistency in the local names attributed to each of the identified cattle breeds regardless of the geographic location of the herders. Cattle breeds were mainly named in Fulfulde language, the language of Fulani/Fulbe people, as the majority of pastoralists in West Africa belong to this ethnic group [44]. The breeds names given by cattle herders have previously been reported by many authors and match with the majority of cattle breeds commonly found in West Africa: Yakanaji known as Daneeji/Akuji/Bunaji/White Fulani [15,44], Bokoloji/Goudali or Zomanta in Fongbe language (the most common native language spoken in Benin) and known as Sokoto Goudali [15,44], Bodeeji/Bororo also called WoDaaBe, Red Fulani or Red Bororo [44,45], Djelliji/Djelli/Djalli known as Peulh Nigérien [46], Dageeji also called Dage [47], and Bargouji/Bargou commonly designated as Borgou [48]. Somba and Keteeji are also reported in the literature under these same names [48, 49,50,51]. Boboji was the only cattle name that does not appear in the existing literature. According to its traits, as described by the herders, it is a cattle of small size, humpless with shorthorns, and reported to be mainly found in the southern regions of Benin. The given characteristics are most similar to those of the shorthorn lagoon taurine cattle, commonly known as Lagunaire or Lagune [52].

The findings of this study reveal the diversity of cattle breeds traditionally raised in Benin and confirm that herders have a good knowledge of their animal genetic resources [53]. The number of breeds reported by the surveyed herders in this study is however greater than those reported in previous studies. For instance, a recent study conducted in northern Benin [53] reported only five cattle breeds (Keteeji, Jaliji/Djelliji, Bodeeji, Tchiwali/Yakanaji and Goudali) out of the total of ten recorded in the current study. However, the last authors’ study differs with respect to geographical focus. Indeed, in contrast to our study, which considered seven localities along the geographical north-south gradient in Benin, the investigation by [53] was limited to the Biosphere Reserve of W National Park, in the extreme north of the country. Likewise, the national report to FAO in 2004 [54] also mentioned the presence of eight distinct cattle breeds, omitting the Dageeji cattle, which has never been mentioned in previous studies. Main reasons for its neglect may include its small population size and limitation to a few herds in regions not considered in these studies as pastoral areas. Similarly, the Domestic Animal Genetic Resources Information System (DAGRIS), the web-based electronic source of information on selected indigenous farm animal genetic resource [55] reports fewer cattle breeds for Benin than the current study.

Herders’ description of cattle breeds clearly differentiated the humpless small-framed Boboji and Somba cattle from the humped and larger-framed zebus. This difference between zebu and taurine cattle subspecies was confirmed by the multivariate analysis performed on the recorded metric traits. Similar results have been obtained through other studies [16,56]. In the same way, the closeness of the Boboji and Somba breeds to each other in their physical appearance as mentioned by our respondents have been confirmed by the classical methodologies (AHC and MCA) of classifying farm animal genetic resources based on measured morphometric traits. However, the scatterplot displaying all individual animals on the canonical discriminant functions successfully separated these two breeds, with almost no overlap. This finding is consistent with the results from a previous molecular comparison of the two breeds by [56] and suggests that the morphological characterization may be appropriate and sufficient to study and compare the genetic structure in these two morphologically close breeds.

In contrast, with the exception of the Bodeeji, which was separated from others zebu in MCA performed with qualitative traits, the zebu breeds distinguished by herders could not be accurately separated in the multivariate analyses. This underlines the relevance of qualitative information in the morphological description of livestock. Although often considered subjective [16, 57], well-provided information on the qualitative traits of animals could be useful for supplementing quantitative data and may also help in rapidly sampling an animal breed for in-depth studies such as molecular analyses.

The difficulty for a perfect separation of zebu cattle types corroborates the challenges in identifying genetic variation patterns among West African livestock breeds from their morphology as previously reported [17,58]. These authors explain this situation by the lack of selection and high levels of gene flow due to cyclical cross-border cattle herd movements known as “transhumance” and to extensive commercial transactions of cattle on the hoof in the West African region. For these zebu breeds, further discrimination at the molecular level may be necessary.

The Mahalanobis distance obtained between breeds showed, however, a significant variation in the morphological closeness among breeds. The low values of Mahalanobis distances between Yakanaji and several other zebu breeds, for instance Bodeeji and Dageeji, as well as between Yakanaji and unnamed crossbreeds reveal a high degree of overlap in morphological characteristics among these breeds. Yakanaji, in fact, appeared to be the most heterogeneous zebu breed in the study area as revealed by the low percentage of individuals from this breed correctly classified in their a-priori group. The aforementioned overlap hampers the differentiation of these breeds on the exclusive basis of multivariate analyses of their morphometric traits.

The great heterogeneity of the Yakanaji cattle might result from their large use in crossbreeding by livestock herders [52] due to their good production performance and adaptive traits [44,59,60]. Unsupervised and indiscriminate crossbreeding with local cattle breeds, as often encountered, represents an important threat to the conservation and sustainable use of the latter.

In contrast to Yakanaji, the highest values of Mahalanobis distances between Goudali and the other zebu cattle breeds are consistent with the specific characteristics of this cattle breed especially its conformation and the absence of horn. Further, this breed is less used in crossbreeding in the surveyed areas. Its sensibility to trypanosomiasis [61,62], an infectious disease caused by a protozoan parasite, could explain its geographical restriction in Benin to the virtually tsetse free Northern Sudanian zone.

Interestingly, there has been a considerable inconsistency in the classification of Bargouji and Keteeji cattle breeds using multivariate techniques. While the AHC performed on the quantitative traits clearly separated the two cattle types, they were grouped together in the MCA approach using their qualitative traits. In the scatterplot (Fig 2) as well as in the dendogram (Fig 3), individuals from the Bargouji breed were very close to the taurine breeds (Somba and Boboji) in their morphological characteristics whereas Keteeji were grouped with zebus and unnamed crossbred. This important overlap between zebus and Keteeji is certainly due to the presence of hump in more than half of the individuals recorded as Keteeji. But herders considered the “true” Bargouji as a humpless animal; they also firmly identified some humped individuals as Bargouji and the “true” Keteeji as a humped animal. We can therefore argue that there exist two sub-types (one humped and one humpless) in each of the two cattle breeds. These results, in contrast to those obtained with the analysis of the qualitative traits, are in congruence with herders’ classification who exhibited a very good knowledge of the two cattle breeds. It highlights that neither qualitative nor quantitative traits alone are sufficient in breed characterization, but a good combination of both.

But, both cattle breeds of Bargouji and Keteeji show body size values intermediate between those of taurine and zebu subspecies which certainly explains the difficulty to distinguish them in previous scientific reports. [48] recognized the existence of both the Keteeji and the Bargouji (Barguuji/ Borgou according to the author) in Benin but considered the latter as a taurine and the Keteeji as a crossbreed between zebu and taurine. According to [51], who reported its presence since 1918 in the Niger Valley in the Northern Sudanian zone of the country, the Keteeji is a “crossbreed between the zebu and the small N’dama cattle from the more humid south Borgou”. Yet, the N’dama breed, a longhorn taurine cattle native of Guinea, was introduced to Benin only in 1952 [63]. The absence of N’dama cattle among the cattle breeds elicited by the herders participating in the present study is consistent with the progressive disappearance of this breed in Benin, previously highlighted [54].

Also, the recent study [53] confounded Keteeji to Borgu (Borgou). In the official reports on cattle breeds from Benin and West Africa, these two cattle breeds are indiscriminately referred to as “Borgou” cattle, a “stabilized” crossbreed between Yakanaji and Somba [64], even though more than half of the Borgou herds were further mated with zebus [65]. One of the issues that emerge from these findings and that has already been pointed out [7,52] is the heterogeneity in many “stabilized” crossbreeds in West Africa. Hence, our results provide support for the hypothesis that Keteeji and Bargouji are two varieties of the Borgou cattle. It also confirm the necessity of combining molecular analyses, phenotypic characterization and herders’ knowledge for a more accurate differentiation of the breeds and subtypes of cattle raised in extensive African livestock production systems for their effective management and preservation. Several of them have already disappeared before being formally identified [12].

Conclusions

The aim of this study was to validate pastoralists’ classification system and knowledge of cattle breeds with quantitative morphometric analyses. The results showed the need to associate qualitative traits and quantitative traits measurement in morphological discrimination of cattle breeds. The findings reveal that livestock herders have a good knowledge of the morphological trait characteristics of the cattle breeds raised in their herds. The multivariate analyses of the morphometric traits showed less accuracy than herders’ classification approach in discriminating most of the zebu breeds because of high variability within and among breeds. The difficulty of perfect separation of these cattle breeds, whatever the single approach of classification, suggests combining livestock herders’ traditional knowledge with phenotypic and molecular genetic approaches as an integrated tool for the appropriate characterization of farm animal genetic resources.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study involved taking body measurements from cattle with the consent and in the presence of the cattle herder. There is no specific legislation for body measurements and hence no approval was necessary. All the data was collected in traditional farms and the animal owners agreed to be involved in the project through the Communal Sector for Agricultural Development (SCDA), which is the decentralized institution for the management of the agricultural sector in the surveyed municipalities. All the animals included in this study were managed in accordance with the criteria for the assessment of animal welfare identified by the Welfare Quality Project (WQP) [42].

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Least square means in cm (± standard error) of morphological variables for nine cattle breeds raised in Benin (pooled data for both cows and bulls).

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Distribution (in %) of measured qualitative traits among nine cattle breeds raised in Benin.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Distribution (in %) of measured qualitative traits among nine cattle breeds raised in Benin (continued).

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Canonical loadings of fifteen measured morphological traits from nine cattle breeds raised in Benin on the first two canonical variables.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Pairwise Squared Mahalanobis distances among nine cattle breeds raised in Benin (based on data measured from both cows and bulls).

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Somba cow.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Boboji/Lagunaire cow.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Yakanaji/Bunaji/White Fulani cow.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Goudali/ Bokoloji /Sokoto Gudali cow.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Bodeeji/ Bororo/ Red Bororo cow.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Djelliji/Djalli/Peulh Nigérien bull.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Dageeji/Dage cow.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Bargouji / Keteeji/Borgou cow.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

11 Jul 2019

PONE-D-19-14824

Confronting pastoralists’ knowledge of cattle breeds raised in the extensive production systems of Benin with multivariate analyses of morphological traits

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Dossa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Aug 25 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Juan J Loor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/sar/article/view/0/39141

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper Confronting pastoralists’ knowledge of cattle breeds raised in the extensive production systems of Benin with multivariate analyses of morphological traits is a good paper.

In my opinion need:

1. In Table 1:) Suggest drop this information [Region; Agroecological zone (a); Soil type (a); Rainy season] on the table. Write in Material and Method (text body)

2. In Line 58: Version of SAS (2008) – is a paid program. Need use a actual version or use a SAS Student; (49. SAS (Statistical Analysis System Software), 2008. SAS Version 9.2, SAS Institute Inc, 512 Cary, NC, USA.)

3. The authors can insert an image et one cattle bread (Supporting information); Need insert the general names of each breed if had.

4. On the table 3: what’s means Trait expression ;;) coat color Variable?

Reviewer #2: This paper is valuable in that it helps to fill the large data-gap on African cattle. The paper is also well written and statistically sound.

My main comments are to (a) reduce the length of the introduction, (b) add a disccussion on the meaning of 'breed' which is subjective, and how you define it in this work.

If you do have tissue / blood / hair samples from the animals you measured, it would be extremely interesting to compare genomic results to those presented here.

Reviewer #3: Comments to the Author

Comments about the manuscript entitled “Confronting pastoralists’ knowledge of cattle breeds raised in the extensive production systems of Benin with multivariate analyses of morphological traits”.

Authors investigated on the pastoralists’ knowledge about of the cattle breeds raised in Benin. Methods used were clearly explained, but some precisions are necessary. Obtained results must be encouraged.

In general, this manuscript can be accepted for publication. Further remarks are given below.

Abstract

L21: change “characteristics-” to “characteristics.”

L34: Change ‘‘keepers’’ to ‘‘herders’’ and harmonize it in all the text

Introduction

L56-58: Add reference sources

L91-95: Change ‘‘[42] further argues that in traditional livestock production systems, …. phenotypic traits.’’ to ‘‘Further, in traditional livestock production systems, …. phenotypic traits [42].’’

L97-98: Move ‘‘[47,48]’’ at the end of the sentence

L99: Change ‘‘with the aim’’ to ‘‘in order to’’

L100-102: Rephrase to show clearly the study aim like that is in the abstract

Material and methods

How were interviewed herders sample population fixed? The study may justify that

Table 1: Change ‘‘(a)’’ to [70]; ‘‘(b)’’ to [72] and ‘‘(c)’’ to [71]

Table 1: Change ‘‘Estimated total cattle population’’ to ‘‘Estimating of the total cattle population’’

L1: Harmonize expression ‘‘cattle farmer’’ or ‘‘cattle herder’’ in the all of the text

L6-7: CARDER was the departmental institution. So Communal Sector of the Agricultural Development (SCDA) was the local institution in the municipalities.

L11: Delete ‘‘reported by’’

L17: Rephrase ‘‘identify the villages’’

L59-60: Why this exclusion? Were these 6 animals included in the 1401 individual cattle?

Results

L88-89: What were the language of these breed names?

L97-99: What about of Keteeji Bargouji ? are they taurine or zebu breeds?

L105: Table 3: 8 breeds were described. What about of ‘‘Keteeji’’ ?

L105: Table 3: Goudali or Gudali? Harmonize it

Discussion

L207: Write ‘‘Fongbe language’’

L219-221: Rephrase: ‘‘For instance, a recent study conducted in ??? reported only five cattle breeds (Keteeji, Jaliji/Djelliji, Bodeeji, Tchiwali/Yakanaji and Gudali) [48] out of the total of ten recorded in the current study’’

L221: Change ‘‘their study’’ to ‘‘the last authors study’’

L234: Rephrase ‘‘by [16,60]’’ to ‘‘through others studies [16,60]”

L252: Rephrase ‘‘as previously reported by [17,62]’’ to ‘‘as previously reported [17,62]’’

Ovoid ‘‘by […]’’ and harmonize it in the all of the text.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Sèmanou Robert DOGNON

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-14824_reviewer.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

25 Aug 2019

Please see attached file named "Response to Reviewers"

Academic Editor (Comments provided as attached pdf file)

Comment 1: Recent analysis has shown there are no pure Bos Indicus in Africa - delete and just keep the term Zebu

Response: We thank the editor for this comment. We Have delete “Bos indicus” as suggested. Line 52

Comment 2: Rephrase 'they are mostly characterised by various adaptive and performance traits' as it doesn't add much meaning. E.g. to 'adaptive traits they are characterised by inlcude......'

Response: The sentence has been revised as follows: They are appreciated for their adaptive traits which include the resistance to diseases and drought, ability to walk long distances, and capacity to survive on poor pastures [2]. Line 54-56

Comment 3: I don't agree with high fertility - reproductive performance of African cattle is typically very low, often because of the poor management conditions / harsh environment. This should be removed.

Response: This was reported in the review paper by Mwai et al 2015. But as suggested by the reviewer, we have removed “high fertility”. Line 54-56

Comment 4: This sentence “Indeed, the characterization of livestock breeds can be performed through well-designed phenotypic, genetic and molecular studies that include pertinent and well thought-out analysis and interpretation of quantitative data.” seems to contradict the previous where you suggest that only doing phenotypic, genotypic and molecular characterisation is not sufficient. .....I think it is a grammer problem (more than the point you are trying to make)

Response: We thank the editor for this remark. While shortening the introduction as suggested by most reviewers, this sentence has been removed.

Comment 5: Yes and also all the other phenotypic chacterisations that are beyond morphological e.g. calving interal, milk yield, disease resistance and so forth

Response: We thank the editor for this important detail.

Comment 6: Here I would suggest changing no studies to limited studies, or 'no studies of which we are aware'

Response: We thank the editor for this comment. Changes have been made as follows:

So far, however, no studies of which we are aware combine the two approaches in order to test their complementarity and validate pastoralists’ classification of cattle breeds. Line 93-95

Comment 7: The length of the introduction should be reduced by at-least one-third. Also here, or in the methodology, the concept of breed needs to be explained and the definition of breed you are using in this article given (see e.g. SoW AnGR)

Response: We thank the editor for the comments.

We have reduced the length of introduction section by about one-third of the initial characters.

A discussion has also been provided in Material and methods section on the meaning of “breed” as suggested by the editor as follows:

Breed was defined according to [43] as: “either a sub-specific group of domestic livestock with definable and identifiable external characteristics that enable it to be separated by visual appraisal from other similarly defined groups within the same species, or a group for which geographical and/or cultural separation from phenotypically similar groups has led to acceptance of its separate identity”. Thus, cattle breed in this study is referred to cattle of similar physical features perceived by herders as being of the same genetic origin. [Line 137-142]

Comment 8: This paragraph can be consdierably shortened - you don't need to mention the things your study did not do (adverse animal handling etc.)

Response: Following the reviewer’s suggestion the paragraph has been shortened. [Line 119-126]

Comment 9: This paragraph can be said more briefly - all these details are not reqwuired (community sensitisation is standard practice before any research engagement)

Again remove unncecessary details e.g. the statement about arranging a suitable time

Add dates of the study

Response:

Following the reviewer’s suggestion some details have been removed. But, other important information as requested by the reviewers (dates of the study, the way of herders’ population sampling selection, the discussion about the meaning of “breed”) have been kept in the paragraph.

Comment 10: be consistent on use of 'or' vs '/'

Response: We thank the editor for this observation. Changes have been made accordingly.

Reviewer #1:

General comment: The paper Confronting pastoralists’ knowledge of cattle breeds raised in the extensive production systems of Benin with multivariate analyses of morphological traits is a good paper.

Response: We thank the reviewer for his encouraging comments on the manuscript.

In my opinion need:

1. In Table 1:) Suggest drop this information [Region; Agroecological zone (a); Soil type (a); Rainy season] on the table. Write in Material and Method (text body)

Response: We have revised the Table1 and added the information in the text body as suggested by reviewer [Lines 101-108]

2. In Line 58: Version of SAS (2008) – is a paid program. Need use a actual version or use a SAS Student; (49. SAS (Statistical Analysis System Software), 2008. SAS Version 9.2, SAS Institute Inc, 512 Cary, NC, USA.)

Response: The citation has been revised accordingly [Line 167-168]

3. The authors can insert an image et one cattle bread (Supporting information); Need insert the general names of each breed if had.

Response: Animal breed images have been added in supporting information as suggested.

4. On the table 3: what’s means Trait expression ;;) coat color Variable?

Response: Variable named “Coat color” referred to the “Body hair coat color” as suggested in a scientific reference paper [Food and Agriculture Organization. (2012). Phenotypic characterization of animal genetic resources.]

Reviewer #2:

This paper is valuable in that it helps to fill the large data-gap on African cattle. The paper is also well written and statistically sound.

Response: We thank the reviewer for his encouraging comment.

My main comments are to (a) reduce the length of the introduction, (b) add a disccussion on the meaning of 'breed' which is subjective, and how you define it in this work.

Response:

a) We have reduced the length of introduction section by about one-third.

b) A discussion has been provided on the meaning of “breed” as suggested by reviewer as follow:

Breed was defined according to [43] as: “either a sub-specific group of domestic livestock with definable and identifiable external characteristics that enable it to be separated by visual appraisal from other similarly defined groups within the same species, or a group for which geographical and/or cultural separation from phenotypically similar groups has led to acceptance of its separate identity”. Thus, cattle breed in this study is referred to cattle of similar physical features identify by herders as being of the same genetic origin.

[lines 137-142]

If you do have tissue / blood / hair samples from the animals you measured, it would be extremely interesting to compare genomic results to those presented here.

Response: We confirm that hair samples have been collected and cattle breeds presented in the manuscript are being compared on the genomic scale in a subsequent study.

Reviewer #3:

Comments about the manuscript entitled “Confronting pastoralists’ knowledge of cattle breeds raised in the extensive production systems of Benin with multivariate analyses of morphological traits”.

Authors investigated on the pastoralists’ knowledge about of the cattle breeds raised in Benin. Methods used were clearly explained, but some precisions are necessary. Obtained results must be encouraged.

In general, this manuscript can be accepted for publication. Further remarks are given below.

Response: We thank the reviewer for his comments and observations; We have revised the manuscript accordingly.

Abstract

L21: change “characteristics-” to “characteristics.”

Response: We thank the reviewer for his observation. Changes have been made accordingly. [L33]

L34: Change ‘‘keepers’’ to ‘‘herders’’ and harmonize it in all the text

Response: We thank the reviewer for his observation. Changes have been made accordingly throughout the document

Introduction

L56-58: Add reference sources

Response: Reference has been added. [L68]

L91-95: Change ‘‘[42] further argues that in traditional livestock production systems, …. phenotypic traits.’’ to ‘‘Further, in traditional livestock production systems, …. phenotypic traits [42].’’

Response: This sentence has been removed while reducing the introduction length as suggested by another reviewer.

L97-98: Move ‘‘[47,48]’’ at the end of the sentence

Response: This sentence has also been removed in order to reduce the introduction length as suggested by another reviewer.

L99: Change ‘‘with the aim’’ to ‘‘in order to’’

Response: Change made and the sentence revised accordingly [L94]

L100-102: Rephrase to show clearly the study aim like that is in the abstract

Response: The study aim has been rephrased as suggested by reviewer as follows:

This study aimed to document and validate herders' knowledge of differences among cattle breeds raised in Benin with quantitative data. [line 95-96]

Material and methods

How were interviewed herders sample population fixed? The study may justify that

Response: The sample population was fixed as follows:

Sampling herds were chosen among those hold by herders who have at least 10 years of experience in cattle herding and supposed as resident herders (herders that reside in the municipality for 05 years at least).

We have now provided this information in the text by revising the sentence on Lines 132-134 as follows “Individual interviews were then conducted from June 2015 to June 2016 with 803 resident cattle herders randomly selected from those who had at least 10 years of experience in cattle herding and had spent at least five (05) years in the locality”.

Table 1: Change ‘‘(a)’’ to [70]; ‘‘(b)’’ to [72] and ‘‘(c)’’ to [71]

Table 1: Change ‘‘Estimated total cattle population’’ to ‘‘Estimating of the total cattle population’’

Response: Changes have been made in Table 1 as suggested.

L1: Harmonize expression ‘‘cattle farmer’’ or ‘‘cattle herder’’ in the all of the text

Response: We thank the reviewer for this observation. We have made changes throughout the document as suggested.

L6-7: CARDER was the departmental institution. So Communal Sector of the Agricultural Development (SCDA) was the local institution in the municipalities.

Response: Thanks again for the remark. Change has been made as suggested. [122-124]

L11: Delete ‘‘reported by’’

Response: Change has been made as suggested.

L17: Rephrase ‘‘identify the villages’’

Response: The expression has been removed as suggested by another reviewer.

L59-60: Why this exclusion? Were these 6 animals included in the 1401 individual cattle?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this observation. We have removed the six animals given the too small size of sampled individual measured in each of these breeds (five individual cattle of Djelliji breed and only one male of Dageeji breed), which could further compromise statistical comparison between breed.

No, the 6 excluded animals were not included in the 1401 individual cattle.

Results

L88-89: What were the language of these breed names?

Response: The language of the breed name was “Fulfulde language”. This has been mentioned in results [Line 200] and in discussion section [Line 320]

L97-99: What about of Keteeji Bargouji ? are they taurine or zebu breeds?

Response: Keteeji and Bargouji are crossbreed animals between taurine and zebu breed. They may be referred to Borgou cattle but with a difference in zebu blood level. This difference has been discussed in the discussion section [Lines 396-418]

L105: Table 3: 8 breeds were described. What about of ‘‘Keteeji’’ ?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this remark. Using these key morphological traits, herders did not sharply distinguish Bargouji from Keteeji, except for the larger in size than Bargouji. This has been mentioned in result section Lines 223-230 and discussed in discussion section Lines 396-418

L105: Table 3: Goudali or Gudali? Harmonize it

Response: We have retained “Goudali” and harmonize throughout the text.

Discussion

L207: Write ‘‘Fongbe language’’

Response: Change has been made as suggested. Line 324

L219-221: Rephrase: ‘‘For instance, a recent study conducted in ??? reported only five cattle breeds (Keteeji, Jaliji/Djelliji, Bodeeji, Tchiwali/Yakanaji and Gudali) [48] out of the total of ten recorded in the current study’’

Response: The sentence has been revised and study area has been added as follows: For instance, a recent study conducted in northern Benin [53] reported only five cattle breeds (Keteeji, Jaliji/Djelliji, Bodeeji, Tchiwali/Yakanaji and Gudali) out of the total of ten recorded in the current study. [Lines 336-338]

L221: Change ‘‘their study’’ to ‘‘the last authors study’’

Response: Change has been made as suggested. Line 338

L234: Rephrase ‘‘by [16,60]’’ to ‘‘through others studies [16,60]”

Response: Sentence has been rephrased as suggested

L252: Rephrase ‘‘as previously reported by [17,62]’’ to ‘‘as previously reported [17,62]’’

Ovoid ‘‘by […]’’ and harmonize it in the all of the text.

Response: Sentence has been rephrased as suggested. Line 371

And “by” has also been avoided accordingly in all the text.

Submitted filename: Responses to reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

9 Sep 2019

[EXSCINDED]

Confronting pastoralists’ knowledge of cattle breeds raised in the extensive production systems of Benin with multivariate analyses of morphological traits

PONE-D-19-14824R1

Dear Dr. Dossa,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Juan J Loor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors answered the suggestions and I believe the work is projected to be published.

As a reviewer, I don't see what else to add.

Post it.

Reviewer #3: Authors gave response about all of my comments. I recommend publication of this paper. My congratulations to the authors

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Sèmanou Robert DOGNON

13 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-14824R1

Confronting pastoralists’ knowledge of cattle breeds raised in the extensive production systems of Benin with multivariate analyses of morphological traits

Dear Dr. Dossa:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Juan J Loor

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE