Abstract
There is little information on the involvement of farmers as key stakeholders in the design of successful breeding programs that aim to improve indigenous Tswana sheep production. This study used farmers’ participatory approaches to characterise production systems, breeding practices and trait preferences among farmers raising Tswana sheep in Southern and Central agro-ecological zones (AEZ) of Botswana. A structured questionnaire was administered to 190 farmers. An index-based system was used to rank farmers’ preferred traits and data collected were analysed using SPSS. Demographic data showed that most Southern agro-ecology farmers were unmarried males, possessed secondary education and primarily relied on salaries/wages as household income source. In Central agro-ecology, most farmers were males, widowed, had primary education and livestock sales were the main source of income. Tswana sheep are either kept in extensive or semi-intensive production systems. Most Tswana sheep are kept in extensive production systems and there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in the most preferred production systems across regions. Most farmers prefer using purebred and crossbred Tswana rams from their own flocks for breeding purposes, which mostly is done throughout the year and is uncontrolled. Farmers from Southern agro-ecology cull sheep with small body size and those in Central region cull sheep based on maladaptation. Keeping sheep for income generation through the sale of animals ranked first across AEZ. The highest-ranking trait preferred amongst Southern region farmers was for economic production traits (large-bodied animals) (0.311) whereas in Central region, preference for adaptation traits ranked highest (0.310). These results are key inputs to designing successful and sustainable community-based breeding programs for indigenous sheep in Botswana.
Keywords: Production environment, Smallholder farmers, Selection criteria, Trait preferences
Introduction
Sheep play an important role in food security and socio-cultural obligations of resource poor farmers (Molina-Flores et al. 2020; Derbie and Tilahun 2023). In Botswana, the indigenous Tswana sheep is the dominant sheep breed and constitutes 58% of the national herd (Statistics Botswana 2019). The Tswana sheep is mostly kept under low input traditional management system where it significantly contributes to the nutrition and income needs of the less privileged (Bolowe et al. 2022). Tswana sheep are recognised by rural farmers for harbouring unique gene variants that make them highly adapted and resistant to a wide range of harsh ecological conditions including extreme weather and local endemic diseases (Nsoso et al. 2004; Bolowe et al. 2022). Despite this, most farmers are of the view that indigenous livestock perform poorer in most production traits than their exotic counterparts (Mahlobo 2016). This perception has received political backing in many African countries (Scholtz et al. 2008). In that regard, breeding programmes developed in Africa have immensely concentrated towards promoting exotic breeds such that local breeds are disregarded yet these exotic breeds cannot survive the local production environment as indigenous ones do. Other farmers make efforts to improve this purported low productivity of indigenous genotypes by crossbreeding them with exotic genotypes in an endeavour to produce F1 crossbreds with enhanced survivability and performance than their pure indigenous parents (Ngumula et al. 2022). Consequently, this leads to decline in indigenous sheep populations and genetic purity, while numbers of exotic breeds and their crosses increase. In Botswana for instance, between 2014 and 2019, indigenous Tswana sheep populations declined from approximately 163 587 to around 140 897 while crosses of indigenous Tswana sheep with exotic genotypes and pure exotic sheep populations increased from 53 458 to 81 029 and from 10 202 to 20 985, respectively (Statistics Botswana, 2016; Statistics Botswana 2019).The promotion of exotic genotypes over the locally adapted indigenous genotypes is however not sustainable due to incompatibility of exotic genotypes and their crosses with low input production systems and adverse local production environments like endemic diseases and parasites and very high environmental temperatures (Ngumula et al. 2022). Such conditions are adverse to the non-adapted exotic breeds yet normal to indigenous genotypes. The associated high maintenance costs involved in raising exotic genotypes and their crosses further renders such improvement efforts futile as they are unsustainable and unaffordable to resource poor farmers (Ngumula et al. 2022). The need to develop realistic breed improvement programs and strategies aimed at conservation and sustainable utilization of locally adapted AnGR genotypes at farm level therefore becomes mandatory (Karnuah et al. 2018). The key to devising strategies and policies geared towards their improvement and sustainable future utilisation is having a comprehensive understanding of the production environment in which Tswana sheep are raised. Amongst the many approaches used to achieve this, active involvement of smallholder farmers in the characterisation of livestock production systems and the subsequent planning and implementation of sustainable breeding programs has proven to be successful in Africa (König et al. 2016; Onzima et al. 2018; Haile et al. 2020; Tyasi et al. 2022). Similarly in Botswana, the starting point is the active involvement of indigenous Tswana sheep farmers in clearly defining and incorporating their indigenous knowledge on selection, management, breeding objectives and trait preferences of indigenous Tswana sheep genetic resources as a fundamental prerequisite to development of genetic improvement strategies and breeding programs.
Participatory approaches have been used in defining breeding goals and farmers trait preferences in smallstock (Onzima et al. 2018; Gowane et al. 2020; Mtshali et al. 2021; Mathapo et al. 2025). In Botswana, previous efforts to characterize indigenous Tswana sheep production systems were, due to lack of resources, not able to cover in detail all AEZ of Botswana. They focussed on few Tswana sheep populations in part of one agroecological region, thus they lacked an in-depth analysis and understanding, at a national level, the breeding objectives, traits preferences and the production systems (whether extensive, semi-intensive or intensive) in which Tswana sheep are raised (Bolowe et al. 2022). This is despite Botswana having diverse ethnic groups spread across four different AEZ with varying agro-climatic conditions, all which uniquely influence the choice of either of the three production systems in the AEZ. Consequently, the sheep production system and trait preferences of Tswana sheep keepers in all the 4 AEZ of the country have not been explored since trait preference is dependent on the production system adopted. Therefore, this study used farmers participatory approaches to characterize indigenous Tswana sheep production systems, and trait preferences and breeding objectives in the different AEZ of Botswana. As this study is the first attempt to characterise indigenous Tswana sheep production systems in two AEZ of Botswana, representing all the presumed indigenous Tswana sheep populations in the country, it is but a first step of many in designing successful and sustainable sheep breeding programs for indigenous Tswana sheep in Botswana.
Materials and methods
Description of the study area
The country was demarcated into four AEZ, Central, Southern, Ngamiland and Ghanzi zones, thus all the AEZ were surveyed. However, during data collection, it was realised that Tswana sheep are found in only two AEZ, Southern and Central AEZ. These were thus the study areas (Fig. 1). The AEZ vary in geographical landscapes, climatic conditions and vegetation. The Central region, which is the largest, is made up of Central and North-East districts and stands at 3002ft above sea level, with coordinates 22°00’S and 26°00’E and covers a total area of 147, 730 km². Annual precipitation is around 650 mm and is experienced mostly during the summer season from November to May. This region’s geographical landscape is dominated by mountainous, sandy and savanna woodland particularly colophospermum mopane trees. The Southern AEZ, made up of Kweneng, Kgatleng, Southern and South-East districts is the smallest and stands at 3,002ft above sea level with coordinates 22°00’S and 26°00’E. The region covers a total area of 74,100 km² with an annual precipitation of around 550 mm which also occurs during the summer seasons between November and May (Woods and Sekhwela 2012). Southern region is classified as a hardveld savanna characterized by tall grasses, bushes and trees. The other two AEZ, The Northwest also called the Ngamiland agroecological region is made up of the Ngamiland and Chobe districts. It is geographically located in the Okavango wetlands with areas sharing boarders with Namibia, Zimbabwe and Zambia. The region is classified as a sand veldt with thick forest, luscious green plains of the Okavango Delta and semi-arid shrub savanna trees. The Ghanzi/Kgalagadi AEZ is geographically situated in the West and South-west Botswana. It is made up of the Kgalagadi and Ghanzi districts and mainly compromises of sand-veldt with limited shrub savanna trees as most of the land is covered with sand-dunes.
Fig. 1.
Map showing geographical location of study areas
Sampling methods
A multi-stage purposive sampling technique was employed to select two AEZ, and all districts in the regions (two in Central and four in Southern regions, as detailed above) were selected for sampling. The purposive sampling strategy targeted traditionally recognized Tswana sheep farmers and was complemented by systematic random sampling where four to ten geographically distant and ecologically isolated villages of traditionally recognized indigenous Tswana sheep populations within villages were selected. The random sampling technique was then used to select between 2 and 4 households per village based on their willingness to participate in the study. A total of 99 farmers (sampled from four districts in the AEZ, ten villages from each district and sampling on average 2.5 farmers per village) from Southern region were sampled to participate in this study. From Central region, ten villages and five households on average were sampled in Central district whereas in the North-East district of Central region, ten villages were sampled and from each village an average of 4.1 households were sampled, totalling 91 farmers in this AEZ. The sample size is supported by Maswana et al. (2022) and Mathapo et al. (2025) who highlighted that a sample size of atleast 26 farmers based on their willingness to participate in this type of study is adequate. The individual households were visited and briefed about the objectives of the study and administered the questionnaire after consent was given.
Data collection
A structured questionnaire and visual observations were used to investigate and collect information on the production, husbandry systems and trait selection criterion of farmers keeping indigenous Tswana sheep in the two different agro-ecological regions of Botswana. This questionnaire was validated by running a pilot study using thirty (30) Tswana sheep farmers around Gaborone to verify the usability of the questionnaire; that is, to test whether the questionnaire would gather the intended information to significantly improve the strength, credibility and overall value of the research. The questionnaire used was a slightly modified version of those designed and recommended for livestock breeds surveys in Africa (Bath et al. 2016; Hirwa et al. 2017). The questionnaire included socio-economic parameters, educational level of farmers and breeding management practices, selection criteria, farmer’s trait preferences and major production systems respondents in all the agro-ecological regions.
Data analysis
The data collected from the questionnaires were recorded, coded, and analysed using Statistical Package for Social Science 26.0. Descriptive statistics such as frequencies and percentages were used for categorical variables including socio-economic characteristics, breeding practices and production systems. Chi-square statistics were used to compare the mentioned categorical variables between four AEZ and statistical differences were declared significant at P < 0.05.
Individual farmers’ production objectives, selection criteria for preferred traits in selecting rams, culling criteria and weightings were assigned to each criterion to determine the relative importance of each criterion to a particular household. The formulas by Kogsey (2004) and Tam and Lee (2006) were adopted for the weighted criteria as follows:
 |
Where w is the weighting given to each factor by the respondent, ranging from 1 to 3. For example: n1 = number of respondents for least important, n2 = number of respondents for fairly important and n3 = number of respondents for most important. A is the highest weight (i.e. 3 in this study) N is the total number of respondents. The relative importance index ranged from 0 to 1 (Kogsey 2004; Tam and Le 2006). The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to compare the means of reasons for production objectives, selection and culling criteria between AEZ.
Results
Distribution of Tswana sheep across the country
During data collection, it was realised that indigenous Tswana sheep are only found in two AEZ in Botswana; Southern and Central AEZ which occupy almost half of the eastern corridor of the country.
Social and general demographic profiles of sheep keepers
The demographic attributes of 190 indigenous Tswana sheep farmers interviewed in Southern (n = 99) and Central (n = 91) AEZ are presented in Table 1. The overall proportion of male headed households across regions was higher than female headed households (79.5% vs. 20.5%). Most respondents (69.5%) in the current study were elderly people aged 36–65 and youth formed the lowest proportion (9.5%) of interviewed households across the regions. There were significant (P < 0.05) differences in marital status of respondents across regions. A high proportion of respondents in Southern agroecological region (65.7%) were not married whereas 42.9% of respondents from Central region were widowed. Tswana sheep farmers in Southern region had higher education level than those from Central agroecology. Specifically, 43.4% of respondents in Southern AEZ possessed secondary education level, 37.4% had primary education and 18.2% had tertiary education level. In Central region, most respondents (68.1%) attained primary education followed by 28.6% with secondary education and only 3.3% had tertiary education level. Majority of farmers in Southern agroecology (45.5%) solely depended on wages/salaries as a major income source while the livelihoods of most farmers from Central agroecology (34.1%) was more dependent on livestock.
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics of respondents interviewed in the two AEZ of Botswana
| Variable | Southern | Central | Total | Χ2 value | P-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | (%) | N | (%) | N | (%) | |||
| Gender | ||||||||
| Male | 74 | (74.7) | 77 | (84.6) | 151 | (79.5) | ||
| Female | 25 | (25.3) | 14 | (15.4) | 39 | (20.5) | 2.83 | 0.092 |
| Age | ||||||||
| < 35 | 15 | (15.2) | 3 | (3.3) | 18 | (9.5) | ||
| 36–65 | 61 | (61.6) | 71 | (78.0) | 132 | (69.5) | ||
| > 66 | 23 | (23.2) | 17 | (18.7) | 40 | (21.0) | 10.79 | 0.013 |
| Marital status | ||||||||
| Married | 34 | (34.3) | 33 | (36.3) | 67 | (35.5) | ||
| Single | 65 | (65.7) | 19 | (20.9) | 84 | (44.2) | ||
| Windowed | 0 | (0) | 39 | (42.9) | 37 | (20.6) | 63.98 | < 0.001 |
| Education level | ||||||||
| Primary | 37 | (37.4) | 62 | (68.1) | 99 | (52.1) | ||
| Secondary | 43 | (43.4) | 26 | (28.6) | 69 | (36.3) | ||
| Tertiary | 18 | (18.2) | 3 | (3.3) | 21 | (11.1) | ||
| None | 1 | (1.0) | 0 | (0) | 1 | (0.5) | 21.92 | < 0.001 |
| Income source | ||||||||
| Crops | 12 | (12.1) | 19 | (20.9) | 31 | (16.3) | ||
| Livestock | 25 | (25.3) | 31 | (34.1) | 56 | (29.5) | ||
| Wages | 45 | (45.5) | 16 | (17.6) | 61 | (32.1) | ||
| Livestock, crops & wages | 17 | (17.5) | 25 | (27.5) | 42 | (22.1) | 14.74 | < 0.003 |
Livestock holding per household
The mean and standard deviations of major livestock species kept by the sampled households in the study areas are presented in Table 2. Indigenous Tswana sheep were jointly kept with other livestock species including cattle, goats, pigs and chicken. In both AEZ, the highest average flock size was for goats, followed closely by that of sheep. There were significantly (P < 0.05) more sheep kept per household in Southern agroecology than Central agroecology.
Table 2.
Average number of livestock species kept per household in the two surveyed AEZ of Botswana
| Species | Southern | Central | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Median | Range | Mean ± SD | Median | Range | |
| Sheep | 25.22 ± 1.90a | 19.00 | 5-113 | 20.41 ± 1.98b | 17.00 | 3–65 |
| Cattle | 12.48 ± 1.90b | 9.00 | 0-115 | 19.43 ± 2.95a | 0.00 | 0-160 |
| Goats | 30.30 ± 2.54 | 22.00 | 0-127 | 32.53 ± 2.65 | 32.00 | 0-106 |
| Pigs | 0.79 ± 0.15a | 0.00 | 0–11 | 0.09 ± 0.16b | 0.00 | 0–4 |
| Chicken | 7.96 ± 1.01 | 0.00 | 0–44 | 9.49 ± 1.15 | 6.00 | 0–49 |
| Horses | 0.26 ± 0.16 | 0.00 | 0–4 | 0.63 ± 0.16 | 0.00 | 0–7 |
| Donkeys | 1.40 ± 0.26 | 0.00 | 0–8 | 1.62 ± 0.27 | 0.00 | 0–16 |
Sheep flock composition
Of the livestock per household kept as indicated above, flocks in Southern and Central AEZ were mostly composed of breeding ewes (52% and 48%) while proportion of rams per flock was low in both regions (7% and 8%) (Fig. 2a and 2b). The mating ratio of breeding rams to ewes was 1:7. In the flocks, pre-breeding ewes and uncastrated males aged below 6 months are either kept as replacement breeding stock or are sold for income generation. The flocks from Central agroecology had more lambs than those in Southern agroecology (26% vs. 14%).
Fig. 2a.
Categories of Tswana sheep flock reared in Southern region
Fig. 2b.
Categories of Tswana sheep flock reared in Central region
Sheep production objectives
Analysis of the multiple response questions on the purpose for which farmers in the two AEZ keep sheep is shown in Table 3. With the highest index values of 0.413 and 0.422 for Southern and Central AEZ respectively, income generation through sale of sheep was the primary reason for keeping sheep in Botswana. The secondary reason for keeping sheep, after cash generation in Central agroecology was meat consumption, whereas in Southern agroecology the secondary reason for keeping sheep was for socio-cultural ceremonies, particularly weddings and funerals. Other reasons such as manure production, investments and use for cultural rites were listed although they ranked less important in the lives of smallholder farmers in the AEZ.
Table 3.
Index values and rankings for sheep production objectives among smallholder farmers in Botswana
| Production objectives | AEZ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Southern Index Rank | Central Index Rank | |||
| Meat | 0.104 | 3 | 0.283 | 2 |
| Manure | 0.087 | 5 | 0.049 | 5 |
| Ceremonies | 0.262 | 2 | 0.087 | 4 |
| Cultural rites | 0.036 | 6 | 0.027 | 6 |
| Investments | 0.098 | 4 | 0.132 | 3 |
| Cash | 0.413 | 1 | 0.422 | 1 |
Production objectives and their significance level
Table 4 shows production objectives (meat consumption, manure production, ceremonies, cultural rites, investments and cash generation) and their significance levels across the AEZ. Purposes of keeping sheep for meat consumption, use during ceremonies and raising sheep as an investment significantly (P < 0.05) differed across AEZ whereas raising sheep for cash generation, manure production and cultural rites did not significantly (P > 0.05) differ across AEZ.
Table 4.
Mean ranks for production objectives and their level significance according to Kruskall-Wallis test
| Agroecological zone | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Southern | Central | |||
| Production objectives | Mean Rank | Mean Rank | Kruskall Wallis test | Asymptotic significance |
| Meat | 19.23a | 12.15b | 9.632 | 0.021* |
| Manure | 11.67 | 14.53 | 4.140 | 0.231 ns |
| Ceremonies | 13.22a | 9.34b | 1.722 | 0.041* |
| Cultural rites | 9.78 | 6.77 | 2.894 | 0.221ns |
| Investments | 17.89a | 14.21b | 30.611 | 0.036* |
| Cash | 25.22 | 23.64 | 28.421 | 0.871 ns |
a, b means with different superscripts differ significantly; * = significance at P < 0.05; ns = non-significant (P > 0.05)
Sheep production system, feeding and supplementation
Most Tswana sheep across study areas were kept by small scale communal farmers who practiced mixed livestock-crop production (Table 5). Livestock production was the major production activity for households keeping Tswana sheep across AEZ. Most Tswana sheep farmers across regions (89.5%) raised their sheep in extensive/traditional management systems, applying indigenous knowledge and practices in animal management and breeding. Only 10.5% of farmers in the study areas raised their sheep in intensive management systems. Under these extensive management systems, Tswana sheep are kept in communal areas, which was the main feed source of these animals during both the wet and dry seasons in both AEZ. Thus, there were no significant (P > 0.05) differences in the feeding regime across AEZ during the dry and wet seasons. Almost all farmers from Southern and Central AEZ (97.4% vs. 96.8%) freely grazed their sheep on natural pastures in communal areas during both seasons. However, 57.9% of farmers across study areas supplemented their sheep with roughages and crop residues during the dry season (Fig. 3. b) whereas 15.3% did not supplement at all (Fig. 3. a). Most farmers across AEZ (85.3%) did not supplement their sheep during the wet season. However, only a few farmers, (about 26%) particularly those from Southern agroecology supplemented their sheep during both the dry and wet season using different feed resources including mineral blocks & vitamins, crop residues and commercial feed concentrates.
Table 5.
Type of production system and feeding regime of Tswana sheep during the wet and dry seasons in Botswana
| Variables | Southern | Central | Total | χ2 | P- | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | (%) | N | (%) | N | (%) | Value | ||
| Major farm activity | ||||||||
| Livestock | 81 | (89.0) | 87 | (87.9) | 176 | (88.4) | ||
| Non-livestock | 18 | (19.8) | 4 | (4.0) | 22 | (11.6) | 8.89 | 0.07 |
| Management system | ||||||||
| Extensive | 89 | (89.9) | 81 | (89.0) | 170 | (89.5) | ||
| Intensive | 10 | (10.1) | 10 | (11.0) | 20 | (10.5) | 0.040 | 0.842 |
| Grazing dry season | ||||||||
| Headed | 2 | (2.0) | 1 | (1.1) | 3 | (1.5) | ||
| Free grazing | 95 | (96.0) | 90 | (98.9) | 185 | (97.4) | ||
| Paddocking & free grazing | 2 | (2.0) | 0 | (0.0) | 2 | (1.1) | 2.14 | 0.344 |
| Grazing Wet season | ||||||||
| Herded | 1 | (1.0) | 0 | (0.0) | 1 | (0.5) | ||
| Paddocking | 2 | (2.0) | 1 | (1.1) | 3 | (1.6) | ||
| Free grazing | 94 | (95.0) | 90 | (98.9) | 184 | (96.8) | ||
| Paddocking & free grazing | 2 | (2.0) | 0 | (0.0) | 2 | (1.1) | 3.09 | 0.378 |
|
Supplementary feeding (dry season) |
||||||||
| Roughage/crop residues | 52 | (52.5) | 58 | (63.7) | 110 | (57.9) | ||
| Minerals salts/vitamins | 7 | (7.1) | 4 | (4.4) | 11 | (5.8) | ||
| Bought in concentrates | 4 | (4.0) | 2 | (2.2) | 6 | (3.2) | ||
| None | 15 | (15.2) | 14 | (15.4) | 29 | (15.3) | ||
| Roughage & concentrates | 12 | (12.1) | 4 | (4.4) | 16 | (8.4) | ||
| Residues & Mineral salts | 9 | (9.1) | 9 | (9.9) | 18 | (9.5) | 10.86 | 0.145 |
|
Supplementary feeding (wet season) |
||||||||
| Roughage/crop residues | 11 | (11.1) | 1 | (1.0) | 12 | (6.3) | ||
| Minerals salts/vitamins | 9 | (9.1) | 1 | (1.0) | 10 | (5.3) | ||
| Bought in concentrates | 6 | (6.1) | 0 | (0) | 6 | (3.2) | ||
| None | 73 | (73.7) | 89 | (89.9) | 162 | (85.3) | 22.06 | 0.003 |
Fig. 3.
(a) Tswana sheep grazing on dry pastures (b) Tswana sheep supplemented with crop residues
Sheep housing types and housing materials used
The type of housing for sheep is also a critical aspect to consider in characterising production systems. All flocks under study were housed in separate open kraals made up of various materials including thorny trees, treated, untreated poles, wires and corrugated iron sheets. Most Tswana sheep kraals (47.3%) in Central region were the traditional kind made from branches of thorny trees and mostly had no shelters erected in them. Following distally were kraals made up of a combination of untreated, treated poles and fences (21.9%) (Fig. 4). With advancement in development of the sheep sector, there is paradigm shift in the type of housing materials for sheep. Accordingly, a substantial number of farmers (18.68%) in this region now use treated gum poles and fences to erect kraals that had shelters made with corrugated iron sheets. In Southern agroecology, a significant proportion of Tswana sheep kraals (46.5%) are predominantly made up of untreated poles, treated gum poles and fences with shelters made up of corrugated iron. The use of thorny branches as material for making kraals in this region is not so prominent occupying only just below 20% of the kraals. Only a few kraals (12.1%) are strictly made up of treated gum poles and fences only and these kraals also have iron sheet shelters.
Fig. 4.
Housing materials used for Tswana sheep houses across AEZ
Mating system, breeding management and farmers preferred ram genotype
Most Tswana sheep farmers across study regions (97.4%) practiced uncontrolled mating (Table 6). Most farmers 78.5% owned rams used for breeding purposes and most of these breeding rams (41.4%) were bred and born within the flocks, 27.9% were bought elsewhere while 9.5% were donated rams. The remaining 16.3% of the farmers had no breeding rams and accessed ram breeding services from their neighbours and relatives (communal rams). A significantly high (P < 0.05) proportion of farmers (98.9%) across AEZ castrate their rams when they are between 1 and 3 months to control breeding. Majority of farmers (40%) across AEZ preferred pure Tswana and crossbred Tswana rams born in the flock for breeding purposes whereas only 21.6% prefer pure-bred Tswana sheep genotypes for breeding purposes.
Table 6.
Frequencies (N, %) of mating systems & management, breed(s) of ram(s) kept and their origin
| Variable | Southern N % |
Central N % |
Total N % |
Χ2 value | P-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mating system | ||||||||
| Uncontrolled | 96 | (97) | 89 | (97.8) | 185 | (97.4) | ||
| Controlled | 3 | (3.0) | 2 | (2.2) | 5 | (2.6) | 2.18 | 0.337 |
| Castration | ||||||||
| Yes | 98 | (98.9) | 90 | (98.9) | 188 | (98.9) | ||
| No | 1 | (1.01) | 1 | (1.10) | 2 | (1.05) | 0.004 | 0.952 |
| Age of castration | ||||||||
| < 3 months | 78 | (78.8) | 72 | (79.1) | 150 | (78.9) | ||
| 3–6 months | 8 | (8.1) | 10 | (10.9) | 18 | (9.5) | ||
| > 6 months | 12 | (12.1) | 8 | (8.8) | 20 | (1.05) | 21.94 | < 0.001 |
| Reason for castration | ||||||||
| Control breeding | 78 | (78.8) | 80 | (87.9) | 158 | (83.2) | ||
| Better temperament | 6 | (6.1) | 4 | (4.4) | 10 | (5.3) | ||
| Improve meat quality | 14 | (14.1) | 7 | (7.7) | 21 | (11.1) | 7.48 | 0.052 |
| Breed of ram | ||||||||
| Tswana | 22 | (22.2) | 19 | (20.9) | 41 | (21.6) | ||
| Pure Dorper | 17 | (17.2) | 9 | (9.9) | 26 | (13.7) | ||
| Meat-master | 4 | (4.0) | 3 | (3.3) | 7 | (3.7) | ||
| Tswana & Dorper crosses | 36 | (36.4) | 40 | (44.0) | 76 | (40.0) | ||
| Pure Dorper & crosses | 5 | (5.1) | 4 | (4.4) | 9 | (4.7) | ||
| No ram | 15 | (15.2) | 16 | (17.6) | 31 | (16.3) | 11.28 | < 0.012 |
| Source of breeding Ram | ||||||||
| Own ram (self-bred) | 35 | (35.4) | 43 | (47.3) | 78 | (41.1) | ||
| Own ram (bought) | 29 | (29.3) | 24 | (26.4) | 53 | (27.9) | ||
| Ram donated | 13 | (13.1) | 5 | (5.5) | 18 | (9.5) | ||
| Ram borrowed | 7 | (7.1) | 3 | (3.3) | 10 | (5.3) | ||
| Communal area Ram | 15 | (15.2) | 16 | (17.6) | 31 | (16.3) | 46.71 | < 0.009 |
Ram selection criteria and farmers trait preferences
The index values calculated for Tswana sheep farmers selection criteria for breeding rams are presented in Table 7. Production traits (growth rate, body size) were considered more important than adaptability traits by Tswana sheep farmers in Southern agroecology. Farmers in this region primarily preferred rams with large body sizes (0.311) and good body conformation (0.265) and adaptability traits (0.210) ranked third in importance. In Central agroecology, adaptability traits that allow Tswana sheep to survive and reproduce were considered more important than production traits when selecting breeding rams. Accordingly, the presence of horns on rams was considered an important attribute by farmers in this region while body weight was ranked second.
Table 7.
Farmers selection criteria and preferences of breeding Rams across AEZ
| Preferred trait | Southern Index Rank |
Central Index Rank |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colour | 0.082 | 5 | 0.09 | 5 |
| Body Conformation | 0.265 | 2 | 0.163 | 4 |
|
Production traits (Body size) |
0.311 | 1 | 0.210 | 2 |
| Performance/Adaptability (Presence of horns) | 0.210 | 3 | 0.310 | 1 |
| Temperament | 0.132 | 4 | 0.227 | 3 |
Trait preferences and their significance level
Trait preferences when selecting breeding stock and their significance levels in the two AEZ are displayed in Table 8. The results indicate that preference based on body condition, production traits, performance/adaptability and temperament significantly (P < 0.05) varied across AEZ while preference based on colour did not significantly (P > 0.05) differ across AEZ.
Table 8.
Mean ranks for trait preference and their level significance based on Kruskall-Wallis test
| Agroecological zone | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Southern | Central | |||
| Preferred trait | Mean Rank | Mean Rank | Kruskall Wallis test | Asymptotic significance |
| Colour | 16.48 | 15.35 | 26.339 | 0.374ns |
| Body conformation | 13.63a | 9.32b | 11.218 | 0.021* |
| Production traits | 14.14a | 9.81b | 7.751 | 0.024* |
| Performance/adaptability | 15.47b | 21.78a | 4.612 | 0.013* |
| Temperament | 12.47b | 16.23a | 28.274 | 0.043* |
a, b means with different superscripts differ significantly; * = significance at P < 0.05; ns = non-significant (P > 0.05)
Herd health management and disease control
Most farmers (85.7% and 86.9% in Central and Southern regions, respectfully) give veterinary attention to their indigenous Tswana sheep (Table 9). Just about 15% of farmers in both regions do not vaccinate nor practice any disease control measures for their sheep. There were significant differences (P < 0.05) in the method used in controlling diseases between the two AEZ. In Southern region, most farmers (87.2%) who give veterinary attention to their sheep use new/conventional medicines to treat diseases and just a few (12.8%) use traditional remedies. To the contrary, in Central region the use of traditional remedies in curing diseases and parasites is more prominent than conventional methods (53.8% vs. 46.2%) indicating a profound reliance on ethnoveterinary medicine in Central region than Southern (53.8% vs. 12.8%). The findings indicate that of farmers who give veterinary attention to their indigenous sheep in Southern region, 57.6% do it themselves, 17.1% of them obtain veterinary services from veterinary extension officers and 12.2% from government extension. Similarly, most Tswana sheep farmers (43.9%) in Central region provide veterinary services to their animals themselves and 20.8% of them get the service from extension officers.
Table 9.
Herd health management for Indigenous Tswana sheep in Botswana
| Variable | Southern N % |
Central N % |
Total N % |
Χ2 value | P-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disease control | ||||||||
| Yes | 86 | (86.9) | 78 | (85.7) | 164 | (86.3) | ||
| No | 13 | (13.1) | 13 | (14.3) | 26 | (13.7) | 0.053 | < 0.817 |
| Access to health services | ||||||||
| Government Vet | 12 | (12.2) | 0 | (0.00) | 12 | (6.3) | ||
| Extension | 17 | (1.01) | 10 | (20.8) | 27 | (14.2) | ||
| None | 13 | (13.1) | 13 | (14.3) | 26 | (13.7) | ||
| Self | 57 | (57.6) | 40 | (43.9) | 97 | (51.1) | ||
| Extension & self | 0 | (0.00) | 1 | (1.00) | 1 | (0.53) | 48.51 | < 0.001 |
| Control method used | ||||||||
| Ethnoveterinary | 11 | (12.8) | 42 | (53.8) | 53 | (32.3) | ||
| Modern/conventional | 75 | (87.2) | 36 | (46.2) | 111 | (67.9) | 39.5 | < 0.001 |
Reproductive management
Culling criteria for unwanted rams and ewes
Different culling criteria used by farmers in the study areas are presented in Table 10. Given the highest index value of 0.30, most respondents in Southern agroecology emphasized that Tswana sheep with small body sizes and poor body conformation are not desired and thus eliminated from their flocks. With indices of 0.291 and 0.298 for rams and ewes in Central agroecology, respectively, sheep with poor adaptive performance and features are culled from the flock. Farmers across the two AEZ under study reported that nature normally culls sheep with the undesired black coat colours. Old age was not regarded as a primary culling criterion in Tswana sheep across AEZ studied.
Table 10.
Rank proportions and index values for culling criteria in Southern and central AEZ
| Rams | Ewes | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reason for culling | Southern | Central | Southern | Central | ||||
| Index | Rank | Index | Rank | Index | Rank | Index | Rank | |
| Small body size | 0.301 | 1 | 0.088 | 5 | 0.300 | 1 | 0.132 | 4 |
| Body Conformation | 0.208 | 2 | 0.066 | 6 | 0.224 | 2 | 0.093 | 5 |
| Old age | 0.052 | 6 | 0.04 | 7 | 0.02 | 7 | 0.06 | 6 |
| Colour | 0.030 | 7 | 0.142 | 4 | 0.03 | 6 | 0.03 | 7 |
| Health | 0.112 | 5 | 0.230 | 2 | 0.176 | 3 | 0.173 | 3 |
| Adaptation | 0.121 | 4 | 0.291 | 1 | 0.112 | 5 | 0.298 | 1 |
| Poor fertility | 0.176 | 3 | 0.143 | 3 | 0.140 | 4 | 0.246 | 2 |
Reasons for culling and their significance level
Table 11 displays the reasons for culling breeding stock and their significance in the two AEZ. The culling for sheep with undesired small body, poor body confirmation and adaptation levels significantly (P < 0.05) varied across AEZ. Culling sheep due to old age, colour, health and poor fertility did not differ (P > 0.05) across AEZ.
Table 11.
Mean ranks for breeding stock culling criteria and their significance level based on Kruskall-Wallis test
| Agroecological zone | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Southern | Central | |||
| Reason for culling | Mean Rank | Mean Rank | Kruskall Wallis test | Asymptotic significance |
| Small body size | 13.67a | 8.67b | 9.34 | 0.021* |
| Body Conformation | 15.35a | 11.03b | 4.56 | 0.011* |
| Old age | 11.47 | 13.47 | 3.71 | 0.140ns |
| Colour | 8.67 | 9.67 | 0.447 | 0.875ns |
| Health | 17.12 | 16.21 | 3.21 | 0.674ns |
| Adaptation | 13.23b | 21.11a | 18.65 | 0.001** |
| Poor fertility | 15.56 | 14.23 | 5.67 | 0.323ns |
a, b means with different superscripts differ significantly; * = significance at P < 0.05; ns = non-significant (P > 0.05)
Discussion
Social and general demographic profiles of sheep keepers
More men than women households keeping indigenous Tswana sheep found in this study is consistent with Bosenu et al. (2014) and Gebreyowhens et al. (2016) who reported that 73.3% and 76.7% of the total interviewed indigenous sheep farmers in Eastern and Northern Ethiopia respectively, were male headed. This high proportionality of male headed households is attributed to the existing livestock policies where farms are supposed to be located far away from human settlements, automatically being less accessible to women who fear attacks either by thieves or wild animals. Furthermore, in Botswana, sheep depend on communal pastures for grazing, which also makes it difficult for women to herd sheep because of fear reasons. Another reason may be the inherent cultural traditions that impose that men have greater experience in sheep husbandry than females hence their higher proportion. The low participation proportion of youth involved in Tswana sheep production reported in this study is consistent with Monau et al. (2017) who reported low involvement of youths in small ruminants keeping in Botswana. This is attributed to the fact that although agriculture particularly livestock production is projected to remain an important income source and employer for people particularly the rural populace, young people still prefer working in non-farm sectors (Mutua et al. 2017). Furthermore, youth have a negative perception towards agriculture owing to low returns, poor access to unregulated markets and general lack of prestige of the sector compared to white collar jobs (Trevor and Musole 2018). The lack of participation of youth in smallholder sheep production implies failure to transfer indigenous knowledge on sheep production from elders to subsequent generations (Mtshali et al. 2021). Thus, there is a risk of such important indigenous knowledge becoming unknown or extinct over time. Therefore, active participation of youths in sheep production, ought to be encouraged if fostering Botswana’s economic development is to be achieved. Trevor and Musole (2018) emphasized that youths constitute an important resource for ensuring sustainable agricultural productivity which is key for economic development. The low participation of Botswana youth in sheep farming is therefore worrisome and has negative implications on continuity and sustainable development of this livestock sub-sector. The demographic differences between these areas with specific reference to education level is one notable factor that could typically influence breeding practices between the AEZ. Accordingly, the high proportion of farmers with tertiary education in Southern AEZ mean that these farmers may be more aware of efficient breeding and general management practices like castration at a later age to allow the benefit of testosterone in enhancing growth of young rams, crossbreeding with exotic breeds, all which align to their production objective of producing large framed animals to meet market demands.
Regarding household income, the high proportion of farmers depending on salaries as a major income source in Southern agroecological region reported in this study agrees with Monau et al. (2017) who reported that salaries and wages were the major income source for Tswana goat owners who stayed near cities. This high proportion is attributed to the fact that farmers in this region are proximate to urban areas where they have access to non-agriculture related cash flow economic activities. Furthermore, most of these farmers are well educated and have formal employment hence salaries are their major source of income.
Livestock holding per household
The current number of sheep per household in the current study is comparable to that of Bolowe et al. (2022) but higher than that reported by Gebreyowhens et al. (2016) and Abebe et al. (2020) for Ethiopian sheep. The current flock size per household is however lower than sheep flock sizes of 39.8 ± 7.5 sheep per household reported by Mavule et al. (2013) for South African Zulu sheep. The fact that sheep were second to goats in average flock size of species kept by farmers in the AEZ under study is testament of their importance in the livelihoods of resource poor farmers in the two agro-ecological zones. Accordingly, the highest number of sheep kept per household in Southern agroecology may be attributed to the need to meet mutton demands in urban areas like Gaborone and major villages like Molepolole, Kanye and Mochudi which are within the region. Sheep in Southern agroecology play a pivotal role in socio-cultural activities like weddings hence their prominence over other livestock species in the region. The predominance of smallstock over cattle in Southern agroecology may be related to limited grazing resulting rural -urban migration and the allocation of previously communal grazing areas for human settlements in the city and large villages. Households in Central region keep sheep which are mostly sold to provide household income and for meat production.
Sheep flock composition
The significantly higher number of ewes over rams in flocks reported in this study is in consonance with Abebe et al. (2020) who reported that ewes in Ethiopia accounted for majority (51%) of the total flock whereas rams accounted for low proportions. Bolowe et al. (2022) also found that farmers in Southern districts of Botswana only select breeding rams whilst all ewes are retained for breeding purposes, resulting in flocks with generally high number of ewes than rams. However, due to the constant dwindling of flock sizes, the current ram to ewes mating ratio reported in this study is justified. The current finding of the ratio of breeding rams to ewes is in agreement with Edea et al. (2012) for indigenous sheep of Ethiopia. The finding that flocks in Central agroecology are composed of more lambs than those in Southern is attributed to the differences in management, where most farmers in Central agroecology stay in their own farms managing their own flocks and not necessarily depending on hired labor. This is not the case for most farmers in Southern agroecology, where farmers spend most of their time at work in cities leaving the herders to manage the flocks on their own. Consequently, lamb mortalities are prone to be high in Southern agroecology (due to negligence and poor management) resulting in reduced numbers. From a breeding perspective, the small number of sheep kept per household under study is not desirable as small flocks are prone to inbreeding and thus reduced diversity and lower responses to selection (Abebe et al. 2020). This has a negative impact on the diversity of these vital animal genetic resources (AnGR) which in turn compromises their improvement, productivity and sustainable utilization. It is therefore necessary for farmers to pool their flocks to increase flock sizes thereby increasing genetic variation and improving responses to selection and continued sustainable utilization of these AnGR.
Sheep production objectives
Comprehensive knowledge on the purpose for which farmers keep sheep is fundamental in formulating breeding goals and conservation programmes (Silveira et al. 2021). Indigenous Tswana sheep play multifaceted roles in the livelihoods of smallholder farmers across the two AEZ studied. The primary objectives of keeping Tswana sheep advanced in the current study are consistent with Dagnew et al. (2017) and Abebe et al. (2020) who reported similar sheep production objectives in Ethiopian indigenous sheep. The primary reason for keeping Tswana sheep advanced (sale of animals to generate household income) concurs with other studies in developing countries that underscored the importance of livestock in generating income for smallholder farmers (Onzima et al. 2018; Mtshali et al. 2021). The respondents indicated that smallholder farmers sell their sheep as live animals, mostly during the major religious festivals (Easter and Christmas) and other annual celebrations such as New Year celebrations. The generated cash is used for household needs including health, paying school fees and other needful basic household needs.
Differences in the order of purposes for keeping sheep between AEZ exist. For instance, secondary to cash generation through sales, in Central agroecology sheep are kept for meat consumption. The meat is mostly eaten fresh in funerals and weddings. These functions clearly highlight the significance of indigenous Tswana sheep in alleviating poverty at a household level. In Southern region, sheep serve socio-cultural obligations and significance in ceremonies like weddings. During such ceremonies, live sheep are offered to the in-laws emphasizing the symbolic value of sheep as naturally noble animals and therefore a direct reflection of how brides ought to conduct themselves towards their in-laws. According to Kogsey et al. (2006), consideration of socio-cultural benefits of sheep to farmers is paramount for the successful implementation of breed improvement programs. Other reasons advanced for keeping Tswana sheep in this study like manure production ranked low in importance. These findings are contrary to Tadesse et al. (2013) and Onzima et al. (2018) who reported that manure production was considered an important reason for keeping small stock in Ethiopia and Uganda, respectfully.
Sheep production system, feeding and supplementation
The preference of livestock production over crops by indigenous Tswana sheep smallholder farmers in both AEZ in this study is consistent with Mtshali et al. (2021) who reported the preference of livestock production over crops citing that weather and soil conditions that do not favor crop production in Ethiopia. This is however contrary to Onzima et al. (2018) who reported that livestock was not the main livelihood activity of most smallholder goat farmers in Uganda due to small land holdings amongst many reasons advanced. According to Ngumula et al. (2022), farmers’ choice of production systems is influenced by the agroecological conditions of a particular area. In view of that, the predominance of keeping Tswana sheep in extensive management systems reported in the current study is attributed to agroecological conditions unique to the regions such as housing, watering and feeding regimes. For instance, feeding under this system is majorly dependent on the communal grazing land. The finding of the current study agrees with several authors (Mavule et al. 2013; Welday et al. 2019; Arandas et al. 2020) who reported high dependency of farmers on communal grazing lands as a major feed source for sheep kept under extensive management systems during both the dry and wet seasons. The high reliance of Tswana sheep on natural pastures in communal areas as a major feed resource is contrary to Gebreyowhens et al. (2016) whose index ranking on feed sources revealed that most farmers in Northern Ethiopia cut hay and take it to their sheep in kraals while communal grazing ranked less prominent. Under the extensive production system, supplementary feeding of Tswana sheep is minimal. However, if it is done, it is during the dry season where crop residues are the main supplementary feed. Indigenous Tswana sheep farmers across regions cited that lack of supplementation is usually due to financial constraints, the saving grace being the hardiness of Tswana sheep and their ability to withstand extreme periods of feed shortage. The finding of supplementing Tswana sheep with crop residues is consistent with Arandas et al. (2020) who reported that 92.30% of the Morada Nova breeders in Brazil were supplemented with crop residues during the dry season when feed resources are dramatically reduced.
Sheep housing systems and housing materials used
Proper housing is key in sheep production. Animals kept in clean, safe and comfortable housing are less likely to undergo stress, illnesses and injury. Consequently, their productivity is enhanced which can result in higher profits. The practice of grazing sheep during the day and closing them in kraals at night reported in this study has also been reported by Taye et al. (2016) in Ethiopian sheep. The rising use of modernized building materials like treated gum poles, fences and corrugated iron sheets in making sheep kraals and shelters found in this study, particularly in Central region, signal a paradigm shift from the olden structures where kraals were made of branches of thorny trees. The shift is seen among newly established farms owned by younger people. This could mean farmers in the region may be moving towards intensive sheep management production. Furthermore, use of iron sheets to provide shade is deemed a modification of the sheep natural physical environment as interventions to mitigate and protect animals from harsh weather conditions like rain and hot weathers. These conditions are becoming highly prevalent in Central region as exacerbated by climate change due to global warming. The earth floor types of kraals reported in this study encourages piling of manure and could easily become unhygienic and a favorable breeding ground for disease causing pathogens. Diseases like food rot, navel ill and other infectious diseases are inevitable in earth floors especially where there was inadequate surface drainage (Bolowe et al. 2022).
Mating system, breeding management and farmers preferred ram genotype
For improvement of animal productivity to be achieved, controlled mating as a livestock breeding management activity is key (Ngumula et al. 2022). Despite this, Tswana sheep farmers in this study reported high levels of uncontrolled breeding attributable to the traditional production system in which most Tswana sheep are kept across AEZ. Under the traditional systems, there is high dependency of farmers on grazing in unfenced communal grazing lands. In this system rams can freely mate any ewe including its close relatives (dam, daughter, sister). The obvious adverse effect of this is inbreeding which leads to reduced genetic variation and adversely affect fitness traits (survival and reproduction) in the population (Boose et al. 2018). Although most farmers in the study areas had their own rams, majority of those rams are born and bred within flocks. This further encourages inbreeding, ultimately rendering breed improvement efforts futile. These results are comparable to Abebe et al. (2020) who also reported that most indigenous sheep farmers in Ethiopia had rams bred and born within their flocks and those without rams depended on communal rams for breeding services. There are however efforts to control breeding by using castration. This similar approach to control breeding has also been reported by Taye et al. (2016) in Doyogena sheep of Ethiopia. However, although farmers do castrate unwanted rams in an endeavour to control breeding, the progress made by such efforts are reversed due to mingling of flocks at grazing and watering points, where uncontrolled breeding is inevitable. Farmers in this study mentioned that they castrate young rams at an early as that agrees to animal welfare issues in that they believe castration at an early age causes less pain to the animals (Stafford 2017). A substantial number of farmers, however, hold the view that castration at an early age ‘stunts growth’ hence resorted to the castration of rams when they are over 3 months, taking advantage of the male hormone, testosterone, which enhances faster growth in males (Baneh and Hafezian 2009). There is therefore a fervent need to come up with a concrete plan and sustainable strategy to mitigate inbreeding challenges in such communal grazing areas. One such strategy is the development, implementation and adoption of community-based breeding programmes (CBBPs) specifically tailored for indigenous Tswana sheep farmers. A CBBP is a village-based breeding strategy planned, designed and implemented by smallholder farmers individually or cooperatively, with the intent of improving their flocks whilst conserving indigenous resources (Haile et al. 2020). These programs involve local communities at every stage from planning to operation of the program. CBPPs thus demands a comprehensive understanding and holistic indigenous knowledge of the communities on breeding practices, objectives and selection criterion of traits which livestock keepers wish to improve and base their selection.
Farmers across AEZ acknowledged variations in their production environments and production goals and therefore underlined the importance of selection of ram genotypes using their own criteria to suit their production goals under their unique production environments. The preference of indigenous ram genotypes over exotic Dorpers continues to decline. Despite this trend, a small portion of farmers still prefer pure Tswana ram genotypes, vehemently underlining that Tswana rams have better survival and reproduction abilities than exotic genotypes, under the prevailing Botswana production environment. Several authors (Kugonza et al. 2011; Onzima et al. 2018) suggested that the ability to utilise low quality feed resources, resist diseases and environmental stressors by indigenous genotypes attest to the notion that they outperform their exotic counterparts under local conditions. According to Onzima et al. (2018) is worth noting that though adaptation traits may have no monetary value attached to them, their comprehensive understanding and inclusion in breeding goals is fundamental for developing sustainable improvement programs for indigenous farmers. Another noted reason for the preference of purebred Tswana sheep over their crossbreds is the unpredictability of performance of crossbreds which varies by location and the dependence costly management associated with crossbreds. Furthermore, indiscriminate crossbreeding without prior analysis of sustainability of crossbreds in the Botswana production scenarios presents potential threat to the adapted indigenous Tswana sheep genotypes.
It was observed during the study that farmers in Central agroecology buy exotic Dorper rams from Southern region and breed them to their Tswana ewes, to take advantage of breed complementarity and hybrid vigour in an endeavour to improve animal meat production for better cash generation. However, these exotic rams become short lived within flocks due to their poor resistance and tolerance to heart water disease caused by the Amblyomma ticks which are prevalent in Central agroecology. Consequently, pure bred dorper rams breed once, die and leave behind their F1 crosses, which farmers raise and retain as breeding rams. This justifies the high proportion of farmers having Dorper x Tswana F1 crosses as breeding rams. This trend indicates a paradigm shift in Tswana sheep farmers breeding goals which are now more inclined towards breeding for high market value traits like meat production using Dorper x Tswana crossbreds with less emphasis on functional traits like adaptability.
Ram selection criteria and farmers trait preferences
The significance of active participation of farmers in setting their breeding objectives and designing sustainable breed improvement programmes cannot be overemphasized (Hailu et al. 2020). The use of indices in ranking the farmers trait preferences when selecting their breeding animals seems to be a rather objective and accurate approach (Onzima et al. 2018). Farmers across regions in the present study highlighted that selection of animals to be parents of the next generation is normally intensively done only in rams while all mature ewes are retained for breeding purposes. The higher preference of rams with traits that could enhance production (large body size) by Tswana sheep farmers in Southern agroecological region is attributed to the purpose for which these farmers keep Tswana sheep, where large-framed animals are preferred for cash generation through sales in the urban markets in the region. Several authors, (Gebreyowhens et al. 2016; Ojango et al. 2016; Onzima et al. 2018) also reported a desire for large-framed animals for market-oriented farmers since large animals are easy to sell and fetch better prices. Worth noting is that it was realized during the study that these farmers careless about selecting for multiple birth traits. This is even though rams born not as singletons may appear small at a tender age, they have potential to grow as large as singletons and they can pass their multiple birth genes to subsequent generations thereby increasing flock size. This trait is worth considering for inclusion as a ram selection criterion among indigenous Tswana sheep farmers in this region.
In Central region, the preference of rams with horns by Tswana sheep farmers was because horns serve as a defence mechanism against predators and for establishing dominance amongst competitors for access to ewes during mating. This finding agrees with Shiotsuki et al. (2016) who echoed that presence on horns, especially in extensive management systems is a merit as animals with horns can use their horns as defence weapons against aggression of predators. Unexpectedly, farmers in this region showed preference of rams with medium body size versus those with large bodies. These farmers cited that medium body sizes are a survival mechanism in that it allows sheep to travel long distances in search for feed, flee predators and withstand the hot temperatures that are prominent in the region. The results of this study are in consonance with those of Marshall et al. (2016).
Herd health management and disease control
The development of successful and sustainable community-based breeding programmes (CBBP) requires thorough knowledge on diseases and health care management of animals as practiced in each agroecological region. The findings of the current study about most indigenous Tswana sheep farmers providing veterinary attention to their sheep agrees with Boyd-Weetman et al. (2024) who reported that 91% of sheep farmers in Australia give veterinary attention to their sheep. The findings of the current study differ with Thutwa et al. (2020) who reported that most indigenous pig farmers (75.7%) in Southern districts of Botswana do not give veterinary care to their animals. Farmers who do not give veterinary attention to their sheep in this study, believe that indigenous Tswana sheep hardly become sick and if they do, they are able to recover without veterinary intervention. The observed discrepancies observed in this study where there is high use of ethnoveterinary medicine among Tswana sheep farmers in Central than in Southern could be is attributed to their believe that some human diseases arise due to animal products from animals treated with modern medicine, hence the resort to ethnomedicine. Another contributing factor advanced was that ethnoveterinary medicine is cheap and readily available. This finding is consistent with Tchetan et al. (2021) who reported that inaccessibility of modern medicine coupled with the low prices for ethnoveterinary medicine are amongst the reasons why small ruminant breeders use traditional remedies to treat livestock diseases. In Southern region, the high use of modern medicine could be ascribed to financial buying power of these farmers who are able to afford modern medication. Farmers in this region are mostly young people, who lack sufficient knowledge on traditional remedies and their use thereof.
Culling criteria for unwanted rams and ewes
Knowing which sheep to cull varies from farm to farm based on a particular farm’s breeding goals and management style. Therefore, sheep that no longer meet the farms goals are either removed from the breeding line or removed from the herd entirely. The culling criterion for indigenous Tswana sheep farmers in Southern region is contrary their production objectives in that sheep with small body sizes and poor body conformations are not desired for breeding purposes and thus eliminated from their flocks. This finding is in line with Abebe et al. (2020) who reported that 97% of farmers in their study indicated that indigenous rams and ewes with small body sizes in the Northwest highlands of Ethiopia were not preferred for breeding purposes thus culled from their flocks. The primary reasons for culling Tswana sheep advanced in the current study are however contrary to Gebreyowhens et al. (2016) who reported that indigenous sheep kept in the Northern highlands of Ethiopia are primarily culled due to old age, followed distally by sterility and diseases. The findings of this study where nature selects and culls sheep with black coat colours is contrary the reports of Gebreyowhens et al. (2016) and Abebe et al. (2020) where indigenous sheep farmers in Ethiopia cull sheep with black coat colour themselves as opposed to allowing nature to do the culling. The finding that Tswana sheep farmers across AEZ keep their animals for as long as they could live until the animals dies itself is contrary to Abebe et al. (2020) who reported an average culling age of 9.78 years for ewes while rams were culled at a much earlier age before becoming too old in indigenous sheep of Ethiopia.
Conclusions
The study indicated the characteristics of the production system of Tswana sheep in Botswana. Demographic data showed that most Tswana sheep across AEZ were mainly kept by males aged 36 to 65 years. In Southern agroecology, most of these farmers were single people with secondary education level and their major household income source was salaries/wages. In Central agroecology, most farmers were widowed, attained primary education level and mostly depended on livestock as a major household income source. Indigenous Tswana sheep are kept under extensive production systems. The participatory results indicated that Tswana sheep across regions play significant multifaceted roles in the livelihoods of resource poor farmers, primarily, cash generation through sales. Most of the farmers preferred their own (self-bred) Tswana-Dorper crosses for breeding purposes. Consequently, large body size and body confirmation (economic production traits) were the main selection criteria when selecting breeding rams in Southern agroecology whereas Central agroecology prioritized adaptation traits. This is expected when the main purpose for keeping sheep is for income generation. To control mating, farmers castrate male lambs at 1–3 months of age, however efforts made to control mating are futile as sheep randomly mate during grazing in pastures. A practical recommendation to successfully curb inbreeding under such production systems is the establishment of CBBPs, a holistic approach that involves all community members thus ensuring the success of control on inbreeding. Farmers in Southern agroecological region mainly cull Tswana sheep with small body sizes and poor body conformation whereas farmers in Central agroecological region cull sheep with poor ability to survive (resistance to diseases and drought conditions) and reproduce in the harsh environmental conditions. This study therefore indicated that adaptation traits ought to be considered alongside key production objectives, if successful breeding programs for sheep are to be drawn in Botswana. It is therefore of paramount importance that the farmers preferences identified in this study be included in Tswana sheep breeding objectives.
Author contributions
Study conception and design [Monosi Andries Bolowe] and [Patrick Monametsi Kgwatalala]. Material preparation, data collection were perfomed by [Monosi Andries Bolowe] and analysis were performed by [Ketshephaone Thutwa]. The first draft of the manuscript was written by [Monosi Andries Bolowe] and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
The authors acknowledge the Botswana University of Agriculture and Natural Resources for sponsoring this study.
Data availability
All data generated or analyzed in this study are included in the manuscript.
Declarations
Ethical approval
The study did not include the handling of any animals nor collect any confidential or private information of the farmers therefore the Botswana University of Agriculture and Natural Resources Ethics Committee has confirmed that no ethical clearance approval is required.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants who were interviewed in the study.
Consent to publish
The authors affirm that owners of animals provided informed consent for publication of images in Figs. 3a and b and 4.
Competing Interests
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- Abebe AS, Alemayehu K, Johansson AM, Gizaw S (2020) Breeding practices and trait preferences of smallholder farmers for Indigenous sheep in the northwest highlands of Ethiopia: inputs to design a breeding program. PLoS ONE 15(5). 10.1371/journal.pone.0233040
- Arandas JKG, Alves ÂGC, Facó O, Belchior EB, Shiotsuki L, Ribeiro MN (2020) Characterization of the sheep farming system in the Brazilian semiarid from the multivariate perspective. Am J Anim Vet Sci 15(3):185–197 [Google Scholar]
- Baneh H, Hafezian SH (2009) Effect of environmental factor on growth traits in Ghezel sheep. Afr J Biotechnol 8:2903–2907 [Google Scholar]
- Bath GF, Penrith M-L, Leask R (2016) A questionnaire survey on diseases and problems affecting sheep and goats in communal farming regions of the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. JSAVA 87(1): 1–10
- Bolowe MA, Thutwa K, Monau PI, Malejane C, Kgwatalala PM (2022) Production characteristics and management practices of Indigenous Tswana sheep in Southern districts of Botswana. Anim 12(830):1–13 [Google Scholar]
- Bosenu A, Kebede K, Gizaw S (2014) Indigenous breeding practices and selection criteria of sheep breed in Selale Area, central Ethiopia. Int J Livest Res 4(7)
- Bosse M, Megens HJ, Derks MFL, de Cara ÁMR, Groenen MAM (2018) Deleterious alleles in the context of domestication, inbreeding, and selection. Evol Appl. 8;12(1):6–17
- Boyd-Weetman J, Alam L, Dhungyel O, Muir WI (2024) Perceptions of sheep farmers and district veterinarians towards sheep disease management in new South Wales, Australia. Animals 14(8):1249. 10.3390/ani14081249 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dagnew Y, Urge M, Tadesse Y, Gizaw S (2017) Sheep production and breeding systems in Northwestern lowlands of Amhara Region, ethiopia: implication for conservation and improvement of Gumz sheep breed. Open J Anim Sci 7:179–197 [Google Scholar]
- Derbie Y, Tilahun H (2023) Phenotypic characterization of Indigenous sheep breeds in the Jimma Zone, oromia. Ethiopia J Appl Anim Res 51:644–652 [Google Scholar]
- Edea Z, Haile A, Tibbo M, Sharma AK, Sölkner J, Wurzinger M (2012) Sheep production systems and breeding practices of smallholders in Western and Southwestern Ethiopia. Implications for designing community-based breeding strategies. Yabello Pastoral and Dryland Agriculture Research Centre, Ethiopia [Google Scholar]
- Gebreyowhens W, Gebretsadik Z, Tesfay Y (2016) Management and breeding objectives of Indigenous smallholder Highland sheep in Northern Ethiopia. JBAS 6(1):96–106 [Google Scholar]
- Gowane GR, Sharma LM, Misra SS, Mallick PK, Kumar A (2020) Farmer’s participatory approach for breed improvement in Malpura sheep. J Anim Breed Genet 00:1–15
- Haile A, Getachew T, Mirkena T, Duguma G, Gizaw S, Wurzinger W, Soelkner J, Mwai O, Dessie T, Abebe A, Abate Z, Jembere T, Rekik M, Lobo RNB, Mwacharo JM, Terfa ZG, Kassie GT, Mueller JP, Rischkowsky B (2020) Community-based sheep breeding programs generated substantial genetic gains and socioeconomic benefits. Animal 14(7):1362–1370 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hirwa CD, Donald K, Murekezi T, Jean R, Aline K, Arsene M, Jean S, Felicien S, Manzi M, Theogene S (2017) Management and phenotypic features of Indigenous cattle in Rwanda. Int J Livest Prod 8(7):95–112 [Google Scholar]
- Karnuah AB, Osei-Amponsah R, Dunga G, Wennah A, Wiles WT, Boettcher P (2018) Characterisation of local sheep production system and morphology in Liberia. AJRD 3(4):943–954 [Google Scholar]
- König EZ, Mirkena T, Strandberg E, Audho J, Ojango J, Malmfors B (2016) Participatory definition of breeding objectives for sheep breeds under pastoral systems: the case of red Maasai and Dorper sheep in Kenya. Trop Anim Health Prod 48(1):9–20 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kosgey IS (2004) Breeding objectives and breeding strategies for small ruminants in the Tropics. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands. (ISBW: 90-5808-990-8) Germany. p. 271
- Kosgey IS, Baker RL, Udo HMJ, van Arendonk JAM (2006) Successes and failures of small ruminant breeding programs in the tropics: A review. Small Rumin Res 61:13–28 [Google Scholar]
- Kugonza DR, Nabasirye M, Hanotte O, Mpairwe D, Okeyo AM (2011) Pastoralists’ Indigenous selection criteria and other breeding practices of the long-horned Ankole cattle in Uganda. Trop Anim Health Prod 44:557–565 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mahlobo BT Multi – criteria livestock assessment for sustainability of smallholder farms in Kwa-Zulu Natal. Master’s Thesis. Stellenbosch University., Marshall K, Mtimet N, Wanyoike F, Ndiwa H, Ghebremariam H, Mugunieri R, Costagli R (2016) (2016). Traditional livestock breeding practices of men and women Somali pastoralists: trait preferences and selection of breeding animals. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 133(6): 534–547
- Marshall K, Tebug S, Juga J, Tapio M, Missohou A (2016) Better dairy cattle breeds and better management can improve the livelihoods of the rural poor in Senegal. ILRI Research Brief 65. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI
- Maswana M, Mphahlele R, Mathapo MC, Hlokoe VR, Tyasi TL (2022) Evaluation of socio-economic status and breeding practices for goat farmers in Madiga village of capricorn District, Limpopo Province, South Africa. Genet Biodivers J 6(3):72–79 [Google Scholar]
- Mathapo MC, Tyasi LT, Mugwabana TJ (2025) Breeding objectives and trait preferences of Nguni goat farmers in Limpopo province, South Africa. Trop Anim Health Prod 57:49 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Mavele BS, Muchenje V, Kunene NW (2013) Characterisation of Zulu sheep production system: implications for conservation and improvement. Acad J 8(26):1226–1238 [Google Scholar]
- Molina-Flores B, Manzano-Baena P, Coulibaly MD (2020) The role of livestock in food security, poverty reduction and wealth creation in West Africa. Accra FAO. 10.4060/ca8385en [Google Scholar]
- Monau PI, Visser C, Nsoso SJ, Van Marle-Köster E (2017) Phenotypic and genetic characterization of Indigenous Tswana goats. S Afr J Anim Sci 48(5):925–934 [Google Scholar]
- Mtshali TF, Mapholi ON, Ncube KT, Dzomba EF, Matelele TC, Chokoe TC, Mphahle TD, Muchadeyi FC, Hadebe K (2021) Goat farmers’ production objectives and trait preferences in the North West Province of South africa: an approach to identify selection criteria for community-based breeding programs. Int J Livest Prod 12(2):64–75 [Google Scholar]
- Mutua E, Bukachi S, Bett B, Estambale B, Nyamongo I (2017) Youth participation in smallholder livestock production and marketing. IDS Bull 48 (3)
- Ngumula A, Kyallo M, Tarekegn GM, Loina R, Nziku Z, Cheyambuga S, Pelle R (2022) Typology and chacraceristics of Indigenous goats and production systems in different agro-ecological zones of Tanzania. Trop Anim Health Prod 54(1):70 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Nsoso SJ, Podisi B, Otsogile E, Mokhutshwane BS, Ahmadu B (2004) Phenotypic characterization of Indigenous Tswana goat and sheep breeds in botswana: continuous traits. Trop Anim Health Prod 36:789–800 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Ojango JMK, Audho J, Oyieng E, Recha J, Okeyo AM, Kinyangi J, Muigai AWT (2016) System characteristics and management practices for small ruminant production in climate smart villages of Kenya. Anim Genet Resour /Resources génétiques Animales/Recursos genéticos Animales 58:101–110 [Google Scholar]
- Onzima RB, Gizaw S, Kugonza DR, van Arendonk JAM, Kanis E (2018) Production system and participatory identification of breeding objective traits for Indigenous goat breeds of Uganda. Small Rumin Res 163:51–59 [Google Scholar]
- Scholtz MM, Bester J, Mamabolo JM, Ramsey KA (2008) Results of the National cattle survey undertaken in South Africa, with emphasis on beef. S. Afr J Anim Sci 1:1–9 [Google Scholar]
- Shiotsuki L, Silva PHT, Silva KM, Landim AV, Morais OR, Faco O (2016) The impact of Racial pattern on the genetic improvement of Morada Nova sheep. Anim Genet Resour 58:1–10 [Google Scholar]
- Silveira RMF, Vasconcelos AM, Silva VJ, Vega, WHO, Mujica PT, Ferreira J (2021) Typification, characterization, and differentiation of sheep production systems in the Brazilian semiarid region. NJAS 93:48–73 [Google Scholar]
- Stafford K (2017) Husbandry procedures. In Advances in Sheep Welfare Volume 1. Eds D. M. Ferguson, C. Lee, A. Fisher. Elsevier 211–226
- Statistics Botswana (2019) Annual agricultural survey report 2019. Gaborone, Botswana. https://www.statsbots.org.bw/sites/default/files/BotswanaAgricultureCensusReportFinal2019.pdf [Google Scholar]
- Tadesse D, Urge M, Animut G, Mekasha Y (2013) Perceptions of households on purpose of keeping, trait preference, and production constraints for selected goat types in Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod 46:363–370 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Tam VWY, Le KN (2006) Environmental assessment by power spectrum. Sustainable Development through Culture and Innovation: Executive Summaries. The Joint International Conference on Construction Culture, Innovation and Management (CCIM); 2006 Nov 26–29; Dubai
- Taye M, Yilma M, Mengistu S, Abiso T, Bassa Z, Wolde S, Rischkowsky B, Dessie T, Okeyo M, Mekuriaw G, Haile A (2016) Characterization of production system and breeding practices of sheep producers in doyogena district, Southern Ethiopia. Afr J Agric Res 11(52):5192–5201 [Google Scholar]
- Tchetan T, Olounlade PA, Houehanou TD, Azando EVB, Kaneho JA, Houinato MRB, Hounzangbe-Adote SM, Quetin-Leclercq J, Gbaguidi FA (2021) Ethnoveterinary knowledge of sheep and goat farmers in Benin (West Africa): effect of socioeconomic and environmental factors. Heliyon 7(7):1–14 [Google Scholar]
- Thutwa K, Chabo R, Nsoso SJ, Mareko MHD, Kgwatalala PM, Owusu-Sekyere E (2020) Indigenous Tswana pig production characteristics and management practices in Southern districts of Botswana. Trop Anim Health Prod 52(1&)
- Trevor S, Musole KJ (2018) Rural youth participation in agriculture in Zambia. J Agric Ext 22(2):51–61 [Google Scholar]
- Tyasi TL, Ng’ambi J, Mogashoa S (2022) Breeding practices and trait preferences of goat keepers at Lepelle-Nkumpi local Municipality, South africa: implication for the design of breeding programmes. Trop Anim Health Prod 68(1):68 [Google Scholar]
- Welday K, Urge M, Abegaz S (2019) Sheep production systems and breeding practices for selected zones of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Open J Anim Sci 9:135–150 [Google Scholar]
- Woods J, Sekhwela MBM (2012) The vegetation resources of botswana’s savannas: an overview. S Afr Geogr J 85(1):169–179 [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data generated or analyzed in this study are included in the manuscript.