Breeding programs for smallholder sheep farming systems: I. Evaluation of alternative designs of breeding schemes

Village‐ and central nucleus‐based schemes were simulated and evaluated for their relative bio‐economic efficiencies, using Ethiopia's Menz sheep as example. The schemes were: village‐based 2‐tier (Scheme‐1) and 1‐tier (Scheme‐2) cooperative village breeding schemes, dispersed village‐based nuclei scheme (Scheme‐3), conventional 2‐tier central nucleus‐based scheme (Scheme‐4), and schemes linking a central nucleus and village multiplier nuclei with selection in central nucleus (Scheme‐5) or in both central and village nuclei (Scheme‐6). Among village‐based schemes, Scheme‐1 gave the highest genetic progress, while Scheme‐2 was economically the most efficient with genetic gain in the breeding objective of Birr 5.6 and a profit of Birr 37.2/ewe/year. The central nucleus schemes were more efficient than the village schemes. Scheme‐4 was the most efficient with genetic gain in the breeding objective of Birr 13.5 and a profit of Birr 71.2, but is operationally more difficult as it requires a very large central nucleus. The choice between village and central nucleus‐based schemes would depend on local conditions (availability of infrastructure, logistics and technical knowhow and support). Linking central nucleus with village‐based nuclei (Scheme‐6) would be a feasible option to overcome the operational difficulties of the conventional central nucleus scheme. If a village‐based breeding program is envisaged as should be the 1st step in most low‐input systems, then Scheme‐2 is the most efficient. To scale out to an entire Menz breed level, Scheme‐3 would be recommended.