- Email: [email protected]
Performance of and factors affecting the small-holder sheep production system in Egypt
Small Ruminant Research Small Ruminant Research
19 (1996) 97-102
Performance of and factors affecting the small-holder sheep production system in Egypt E.S.E. GalaP*,
H.R.M. Metawib, A.M. Aboul-Nagab, A.I. Abdel-Aziz”
“Animal Production Departtnent, Faculty ofAgriculture, Ain Shams University. Cairo. Egypt “Animal Production Research Institute, Nadi El-Seid Street, Do!&. Cairo, Egypt ‘National Planning institute, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt Accepted
10 April 1995
Abstract
A total of 67 flocks of sheep, comprising 155 local ewes and 220 1/4F (Finnish Landrace) 3/4L (Local) ewes, raised under the Egyptian small-holder sheep production system were studied for a period of 2 years to investigate the biological and financial
performance of the system. Biological criteria were total liveweight of litter at 4 months per kg of breedable ewe (LWTE) and per lambing ewe unit metabolic weight (LWTEM), while financial indicators were annual gross income per ewe lambing (GI), annual net income per ewe lambing (NI) and internal rate of return (IRR). Least-squares means of LWTE, LWTEM, GI, NI and IRR were 0.62 kg kg- ‘, I .62 kg per unit of metabolic weight, 151.1 Egyptian pounds (LE) ( 1 US$ = 3.39 LE, 1994). LE 34.5 and 13.83%. respectively. Feeding represented the largest item of expenditure in the system, ranging from 69.0% to 87.5% of the total cost and the percentage increasing with flock size. Sale of lambs contributed from 70.0% to 75.6% to GI with no obvious relation to the flock size. Among all factors studied in all traits, only availability of ram had an effect (P < 0.05) on GI. Flocks with ever present ram had 30% higher GI than those with rams only intermittently available. Ram availability showed a similar trend with other traits studied, but lacked statistical significance. As the flocks got larger all performances seemed to decrease. The introduction of Finn sheep genetics did not improve the performance of the system. Kqwords:
Sheep; Systems; Small-holder;
Financial return; Biological
performance;
1. Introduction
Egyptian agriculture is characterized by small irrigated land holdings ranging from 0.2 ha to 4.0 ha. A typical small land holding will also include two to eight small ruminants, one to four cows and buffaloes and sometimes a donkey (Metawi, 199 1) . More than 90% of livestock is raised in such a system. Thus it seems imperative that any substantial national improvement * Corresponding author at: FAO Regional Office for the Near East. PO Box 2223, Dokki, Cairo, Egypt. 0921~4488/96/$15.00 0 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved .SSDIO921-4488(95)00750-4
Crossbreeding
in livestock will have to come from the small-holder, at least in the short and medium terms. Egyptian sheep breeds are of medium size, breed all year round and have small litter size ranging at birth from 1.03 to 1.40. In an attempt to increase meat production from local Egyptian breeds Finn sheep genetics was first introduced in 1970 on an experimental basis; field tests were started in 1987, as explained below, in 80 farms and four successive batches of rams and ewes were imported later. The objective of this study was to evaluate the smallholder sheep production system in Egypt and to inves-
ES. E. Gala1 et al. /Small Ruminant Research I9 (1996) 97-102
98
tigate different factors affecting the performance system, cross-breeding in particular.
ewes distributed plus those produced on the farm. Fiftynine farmers had either local or cross-bred sheep and eight had both classes. Table 1 shows the breakdown of records analyzed. Regular field visits were conducted biweekly to collect data.
of the
2. Materials and methods
2.3. System of production and management animals
2.1, Sample A total of 880 farmers were picked at random in four villages in Sharqia Governorate, east of the Nile delta. Out of these farmers 98% had 4 ha or less. All farmers had irrigated lots of land in an integrated cropping system with livestock as a supplementary enterprise. The average number of small ruminants (SR) per farmer was 3.4 heads, and 42% of all farmers had less than five heads of SR while 33% had no SR. Out of the total number of farmers surveyed, 80 in four villages had at least three adult sheep, less than 2.1 ha of farming land and were willing to participate in the study. However, a disease broke out in one of the four villages which caused a high mortality rate and emergency slaughter among sheep, both Finncrosses and locals, and the data on that village were discarded. Thus, the final sample was 67 farmers/producers in three villages including three landless sheep raisers (one from each village) who had larger flocks ( > 20 ewes).
of
The average land area per participating farmer (rented or owned) was 1.12 ha with an average of five to six small ruminants and one or two large ruminants (cattle and buffaloes). In winter, about 47% of the arable land was cultivated with berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum) as a fodder, 30% wheat, 7% legumes and the rest minor crops and vegetables. In summer, 40% of the land was cultivated with corn, 36% rice, 6% green fodder (maize or Sudan grass) and the rest minor crops and vegetables. Rams ran with the ewes all year round but lambings were more frequent in February-March and November-December from both local and Finncross ewes. Culling ewes was practised irrespective of age and commonly for a pressing need for cash, unsatisfactory production, health reasons or to avoid anticipated losses due to prevailing diseases. Sheep were fed on berseem during winter and berseem hay, concentrate and wheat straw in the summer. They also grazed stubble and scavenged around village dwellings during the whole year. The biological performance of the system was measured by the annualized total weight of litter at 4 months of age per kg of ewe lambed (LWTE) or per metabolic unit weight (ewe weight, kg”.75) per ewe lambed (LWTEM).
2.2. Animals A total of 191 ewes and 11 rams of the genotype I! 4 Finnsheep (F) 3/4 local Rahmani (R) produced by mating local Rahmani rams to F, (F X R) ewes were distributed to the farmers. Ewes were pregnant by rams with similar genotype. Analysis of the data included the local ewes the farmer originally had and Finncross Table 1 Number of farmers, local ewes and Finncross ewes in the analysisa Village
No. of breeders
No. of ewes Local
Finncross
Total
A B C
17 22 20
62 28 65
80 68 72
142 96 137
Total
s9
155
220
375
‘Eight of the 59 breeders had both cross-bred
and local flocks; all together they make 67 breeder-flocks
E.S.E. Gala1 et al. /Small
Ruminant Research 19 (1996) 97-102
2.4. Financial analysis Measurements used to evaluate the financial performance of the sheep in Egyptian pounds (LE) (US$ = LE 3.39, 1994) were gross income (GI) per ewe per year, net income (NI) per ewe per year, and internal rate of return (IRR) , defined as the interest rate that a project could pay on the investment outstanding from year to year during the project’s life (Gittinger, 1989). For the financial analysis the inputs included building and equipment, flock (ewes and rams), working capital, labour, feeding, veterinary care, land and miscellaneous while the outputs included weaned male lambs, surplus young ewes, culled ewe and rams, manure and wool. Flock projection of the full project assuming a lifetime of 15 years was built up by applying the technical coefficient (litter size, lamb mortality rate to 4 months, weight of lambs at 4 months, lambing interval, annual ewe mortality, replacement rate, fleece weight and manure production) derived from the flock.
99
labour requirement is low and, in most instances, it is supplied by family members. Most of the family labour is provided by women and children. Family labour is assumed to have zero cost; crop residues and farm byproducts are assumed to have zero cost; average BW of breeding ram is 60 kg (Galal, 1987) ; breeding ram purchase and sale prices are assumed to be the same. This is because most of the breeders are keen not to keep the breeding rams until they get too old in order to be able to get good market prices. Sheep are kept with no special provision for housing. They are herded in loose flocks or tethered by day and penned in open or roofed enclosures, or inside of the house at night. There are virtually no buildings or equipment costs. The average veterinary cost is calculated as LE 5 per head per year. The purchase and sale prices for ewes and lambs did not vary among breeds.
3. Results and discussion
2.5. Statistical analysis
3.1. Biological performance
The statistical model used for all traits included the main effect, village, flock size, breed, ram availability and the possible interactions FS X B and B X RA. In the model, village was considered random while other effects were considered fixed. A farmer having both local and cross-bred ewes was considered in the analysis as two flocks. The left-hand side of the model represents the flock. The least squares procedures were used (Harvey, 1987).
A comprehensive analysis of different traits of sheep in this study was made by Metawi ( 199 1) . In the present context two biological flock criteria were considered, LWTE and LWTEM, as indices that take feed requirements into consideration. One kg of ewe live weight produced an average 0.62 kg litter at the age of 4 months (Table 2). None of the factors considered in the model had a significant effect on LWTE or LWTEM. Availability of ram was the closest to being significant (P < 0.08). Finncross ewes were non-significantly more efficient than the local ewes. When regression of LWTE and LWTEM on litter size at 4 months of age (M04), lambing interval (LI) (days), litter weight at 4 months of age (MARK) (kg), BW (kg) of the ewe (LBW) and ewe mortality (EM) were included in the statistical model, they all had significant effects (P < 0.001) on LWTE and LWTEM with regression coefficients being 0.555, and -0.001 and 1.443, -0.002, 0.031, -0.14 - 0.005, 0.08 1, - 0.026 and - 0.002, respectively. Litter size of Finncross ewes at 4 months after lambing was not significantly larger than their local counterparts ( 1.05 vs. 1.03). Litter weights at the same stage were alsosimilar (21.8 vs. 21.4 kg; Metawi, 1991). Inability of 25% of Finnsheep genetics to raise litter size in local
2.4. Assumptions Assumptions made in the study were: breeding season extended all the year round; flocks are raised under irrigated land conditions; the flock produces its own replacements; ewe lambs enter their first mating season at about 12 months of age; when rams are available in the flock, they are left with the ewes all the time; in case the flock did not have rams, service cost is LE 6 per ewe per mating; average number of ewes per ram differed with the size of the flock; lambs are sold at 4 months of age; fattening of lambs before marketing is not practised; most of the farmers used manure to fertilize their land. Manure was evaluated at market price. Annual manure production is 2.5 m3 per head per year;
E.S.E. Gala1et al. /Small RuminantResearch 19 (1996) 97402
100
Table 2 Least squares means (M) and SE for flock productivity Classification
No.’
and measurements
of financial performance’
LWTE3
LWTEM4
G15
N16
IRR’ (%)
(MfSE)
(M*SE)
(M*SE)
(MfSE)
(MrtSE)
Overall mean
67
0.62 kO.04
1.62kO.11
151.1 f 10.3
34.5 f 9.2
13.83k3.61
Breeds L 1/4F3/4L
18 49
0.59 kO.06 0.65 f 0.06
1.54*0.16 1.69&0.15
150.7 f 14.8 151.5f 14.2
34.8 f 13.2 34.2 f 12.7
13.89f5.21 13.77*5.01
Flock size” l-5 6-10 1I-20 21-50
49 10 4 4
0.67 f 0.05 0.64 f 0.07 0.66f0.10 0.52f0.11
1.73f0.13 1.68o!O.18 1.72 f 0.27 1.34 f 0.29
165.5 f 12.0 166.5 f 17.3 150.7 f 25.7 121.8k27.5
44.6 39.3 35.0 19.0
16.44 13.47 14.08 11.34
Availability of ram Intermittently Continuously
51 16
0.55 f0.06 0.69 f 0.06
1.43fO.14 1.80f0.16
131.6a”f 13.7 170.6b f 14.9
24.5 f 12.2 44.4* 13.3
f f f f
10.8 15.4 22.9 24.6
k4.24 f 6.09 f 9.05 f 9.70
11.90*4.81 15.77 +5.24
‘The interactions flock size X breed and breed X availability were also included in the model; *Number of flocks; 3kg litter liveweight at 4 months per year per kg dam weight; 4kg litter liveweight at 4 months per year per kg dam metabolic weight; ‘Gross income; LE per ewe per year; ( 1 US$ = 3.39 LE. 1994); 6Net income, LE per ewe per year; ‘Internal rate of return; sL, Local Rahmani; F, Finnish Landrace; ?Vumber of adult ewes in the flock, head; ‘“Means followed by different litters differ (P < 0.05).
sheep could be an indication of environmental insufficiency. Metawi ( 1991) estimated litter size at birth in local and l/4 F 3/4 L ewes as 1.23 and 1.29, respectively, with the difference being non-significant. This estimate for l/4 F 3/4 L ewes agrees well with the estimate of 1.30 reported in another flock in Egypt for l/4 F 3/4 L by Zahed (1988) but lower than that of 1.4 reported by Aboul-Naga ( 1989). The differences between Finncross and local ewes in lambing interval (294 vs. 305 days) and annual ewe mortality (0.09 vs. 0.04) were not significant (Metawi, 1991). The small-holder system described in the present study seems to be more productive than the semi-intensive system based on the desert Barki sheep producing in newly reclaimed desert. While average performance in the former was 25 kg of lambs at 4 months of age, 10.5 kg of culled ewes, 1.3 kg of fleece and 1.3 m3 of manure per ewe per year in the flock, the corresponding range of data for the latter were 6.5-14.0 kg, 3.0-4.0 kg, 1.7-1.8 kg and 1.3-1.4 m3, respectively (Gala1 et al., 1993). 3.2. Financial performance Contribution of different sources to gross income and total annual expenditure per ewe is shown in Table
3. Marketed lambs constituted most of the GI ranging in contribution from 70% to 75.6%. Thus, in order to increase flock profitability it is important to increase kg marketed per ewe through improving biological factors such as litter size and survival of lambs, lambs growth rate and frequency of lambing. The components of annual expenditure (AE) are feeding and veterinary costs and some other miscellaneous items such as service charge cost in the case of flocks without rams and ram feeding and veterinary costs in the case of the flocks with their own rams. Feeding costs include that for breeding ewes and lambs. The share of feeding costs to AE is of great importance, ranging from 69% to 87.5% (Table 2). Under commercial flock conditions, Gala1 et al. ( 1993) found that marketed lambs constitute from 60.7% to 73.8% of the total outputs, while feeding costs constituted from 68.7% to 74.5% of the total annual inputs. Increasing flock profitability could be achieved by reducing the relative contribution of maintenance feeding costs and finding cheaper feedstuff. Klosterman ( 1972) reported that a large cost item of the sheep enterprise is the feed for maintaining the ewe flock. Increasing birth rate or decreasing mortality shifts allocations of feed energy resources to productive activities (Fitzhugh, 1978).
E.S.E. Gala1 et al. /Small
Ruminant Research 19 (1996) 97-102
3.3. Flock income The average annual GI per ewe in the flock was LE 15 1.0 with a corresponding NI of LE 34.5 (Table 2). The difference of LE 116.5 between the two figures, represents the annual expenditure per ewe. All sources of expenditure shown in Table 3 are charged to the ewe. None of the factors considered in the statistical model had a significant effect on GI or NI except availability of ram on GI. Farmers drew similar GI and NI from local and Finncross ewes. Flocks with an all-time-available ram had LE 39.0 (30%) and LE 19.9 (8 1%) more GI and NI per ewe, respectively, than those who had rams only when required. Although flock size had no significant effect, there was a clear trend that as flocks got larger income got smaller. Both GI and average expenditure per ewe generally got smaller as the flock got larger but the decrease was more pronounced in GI, with the result that NI got also smaller with increase in flock size. In another analysis where M04, LI, MARK, LBW and EM were included in the regression model, they all had significant effects (P < 0.001) on both GI and NI. Partial regression coefficients of GI and NI on each were 48.9, -0.2, 5.8, 0.8 and - 1.6 and 58.8, -0.2, Table 3 Average contribution Item
5.4, - 1.0 and -0.6, respectively. Partial regression coefficients of GI and NI on LBW, positive in the former and negative in the latter, indicated that the superiority of heavy ewes over lighter ones in their reproductive performance (and consequently GI) were negated by their higher feed consumption, hence reduced NI.
3.4. Internal rate of return (IRR)
Table 2 shows that the estimated general mean for IRR was 13.8% at a time when the contemporary interest rate offered by the banks ranged from 12% to 16%. This indicates that, although some flocks had high IRR, the average IRR earned from such sheep enterprise under the small-holder conditions was not higher than the interest rate offered by the bank, i.e. such enterprise did not offer more attractive investment opportunities than bank interest rates. None of the sources of variation considered in the model had a significant effect on IRR. However, IRR decreased with increasing flock size. The IRR earned was 16.4% in the smallest flock size (one to five ewes). Also, running a ram with the ewes all the time increased
(%) of different sources to gross income and expenditure Contribution
Gross income Culled rams Culled ewes Lambs Wool Manure
Expenditure ReplacemenP Feeding Veterinary Miscellaneous
item to total expenditure
per ewe
%
Flocks without own ram I
101
II
Flocks with own mm III
I
II
III
18.1 15.9 1.1 5.1
20.4 12.1 1.2 5.7
19.7 73.0 1.3 6.0
7.9 15.3 70.0 1.2 5.6
3.0 15.8 75.6 1.0 4.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
86.8 5.2 8.0
88.7 5.3 6.0
87.8 5.1 6.5
10.9 69.0 4.5 15.6
5.0 83.4 4.4 7.2
3.0 87.4 5.4 4.2
2.9 87.2 5.5 4.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
“Number of adult ewes in the flock: I, 1-5; II, 6-10; III, 1 l-20; IV, 21-50 heads. bEwe replacements from te flock, ram replacements bought outside the flock.
1.7 16.6 75.6 1.1 5.0
IV”
1.7 18.8 72.6 1.2 5.7 100.0
102
E.S.E. Gala1 et al. /Small Ruminant Research I9 (1996) 97-102
IRR by 3.9% as compared with the intermittent presence of the ram. When M04, LI, MARK, LBW and EM were included in the model, they all had a significant effects (P <0.05) on IRR. IRR increased by 36.8% and 1.8% per one lamb increase in MO4 and per kg increase in MARK, respectively. While for each 1 day decrease in LI, 1 kg decrease in LBW and 1% decrease in EM, the IRR earned increased by O.l%, 0.4% and 0.7%, respectively.
4. Conclusions Within the range of naturally occurring litter sizes in the small-holder production system, number of lambs marketed had a great impact on both the biological and financial performance of the system. Finnsheep genetics was introduced with the objective of increasing litter size, but the system had little response to that. Apparently the system has been evolved to take care of the naturally occurring twinning rate in the local breeds (up to 30%) ; anything higher than this will have to be matched by raising the environmental level to warrant the expression of the introduced input. Actual results on the performance of 1/4F 3f4L under conditions of experimental stations of the Ministry of Agriculture showed that 1/4F 3/4L ewes gave litter size at birth of 1.42-1.44 and at 4 months of age 1.19-1.28 (AboulNaga et al., 1989). Expected theoretical results for litter size at birth for 1/4F 3/4L was 0.23-28 and at 4 months of age 0.15-22, above the local ewes. In a simulation study, when the environment was appropriately raised to a semi-intensive production system based on the Egyptian desert Barki Sheep, the system did not respond financially because of the inadequate potential of Barki sheep (Gala1 et al., 1993). The breed had to be changed/modified to be more prolific and faster in growth in order to get a favourable response to the extra environmental input. Although Finn ewes are seasonal breeder in their home environment of Finland, the cross-breeds with the local Egyptian sheep breed all year round. Lambing intervals for the local and 1/4F 3/4L were 305 days and 294 days, respectively.
The present results show that, in this production system, availability of the ram considerably affected all biological and financial performances of the flocks. Flocks that had a ram available all the time did better always than those that did not and got the ram service only when they needed it. Although a small flock investment in a ram is proportionally higher than in larger flocks, yet the present study showed that it is a worthwhile practice to have the ram in the flock. However, in all criteria considered in this study the scale factor, generally, played in favour of the smaller flocks. The study finding that the average IRR for the flocks was within the prevailing bank interest rates, indicates that sheep raising in the small-holder system in Egypt is not based entirely on commercial factors. Other factors are also involved, e.g. social and cash reserve.
References Aboul-Naga, A.M., 1989. Some experiences with Finn sheep in some tropics. FAO Anim. Prod. Health Rome, 74: 136-167. Aboul-Naga, A.M., Aboul-Ela, M.B., Mansour, H. and Gabr, M., 1989. Reproductive performance of Finn sheep and crosses with subtropical breeds under accelerated lambing. Small Rumin. Res., 2: 143-150. Fitzhugh, H.A., 1978. Bio-economic analysis of ruminant production systems. J. Anim. Sci., 46: 797-806. Galal, E.S.E., 1987. Sheep and goat production research and development in Egypt. In: Small Ruminants in the Near East. FAO, Rome, Anim. Prod. Health Pap., 54: 117-155. Galal, ES. E., Ahmed, A.M., Abdel-Aziz, A.I., and Younis, A.A., 1993. Effects of increasing lambing frequency and crossbreeding on performance of sheep production systems in semi-arid environments, Small Rumin. Res., 10: 143-152. Gittinger, J.P., 1989. Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects. Economic Institute of the World Bank. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, pp. 506. Harvey, W.R., 1987. User’s Guide for LSMLMW 87 Mixed Model Least Squares and Maximum LikeIihood Computer Program. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. Klostennan, E.W., 1972. Beef cattle size for maximum efficiency. J. Anim. Sci., 34: 875-880. Metawi, H.R., 1991. Assessment of sheep production systems in Egypt. Ph.D. Thesis, Fat. of Agriculture, Ah-Shams University, Cairo, Egypt, 219 pp. Zahed, SM., 1988. The reproductive performance of some local breeds of sheep and their crosses with foreign breeds. M.Sc. Thesis, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt, 213 pp.
19 (1996) 97-102
Performance of and factors affecting the small-holder sheep production system in Egypt E.S.E. GalaP*,
H.R.M. Metawib, A.M. Aboul-Nagab, A.I. Abdel-Aziz”
“Animal Production Departtnent, Faculty ofAgriculture, Ain Shams University. Cairo. Egypt “Animal Production Research Institute, Nadi El-Seid Street, Do!&. Cairo, Egypt ‘National Planning institute, Nasr City, Cairo, Egypt Accepted
10 April 1995
Abstract
A total of 67 flocks of sheep, comprising 155 local ewes and 220 1/4F (Finnish Landrace) 3/4L (Local) ewes, raised under the Egyptian small-holder sheep production system were studied for a period of 2 years to investigate the biological and financial
performance of the system. Biological criteria were total liveweight of litter at 4 months per kg of breedable ewe (LWTE) and per lambing ewe unit metabolic weight (LWTEM), while financial indicators were annual gross income per ewe lambing (GI), annual net income per ewe lambing (NI) and internal rate of return (IRR). Least-squares means of LWTE, LWTEM, GI, NI and IRR were 0.62 kg kg- ‘, I .62 kg per unit of metabolic weight, 151.1 Egyptian pounds (LE) ( 1 US$ = 3.39 LE, 1994). LE 34.5 and 13.83%. respectively. Feeding represented the largest item of expenditure in the system, ranging from 69.0% to 87.5% of the total cost and the percentage increasing with flock size. Sale of lambs contributed from 70.0% to 75.6% to GI with no obvious relation to the flock size. Among all factors studied in all traits, only availability of ram had an effect (P < 0.05) on GI. Flocks with ever present ram had 30% higher GI than those with rams only intermittently available. Ram availability showed a similar trend with other traits studied, but lacked statistical significance. As the flocks got larger all performances seemed to decrease. The introduction of Finn sheep genetics did not improve the performance of the system. Kqwords:
Sheep; Systems; Small-holder;
Financial return; Biological
performance;
1. Introduction
Egyptian agriculture is characterized by small irrigated land holdings ranging from 0.2 ha to 4.0 ha. A typical small land holding will also include two to eight small ruminants, one to four cows and buffaloes and sometimes a donkey (Metawi, 199 1) . More than 90% of livestock is raised in such a system. Thus it seems imperative that any substantial national improvement * Corresponding author at: FAO Regional Office for the Near East. PO Box 2223, Dokki, Cairo, Egypt. 0921~4488/96/$15.00 0 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved .SSDIO921-4488(95)00750-4
Crossbreeding
in livestock will have to come from the small-holder, at least in the short and medium terms. Egyptian sheep breeds are of medium size, breed all year round and have small litter size ranging at birth from 1.03 to 1.40. In an attempt to increase meat production from local Egyptian breeds Finn sheep genetics was first introduced in 1970 on an experimental basis; field tests were started in 1987, as explained below, in 80 farms and four successive batches of rams and ewes were imported later. The objective of this study was to evaluate the smallholder sheep production system in Egypt and to inves-
ES. E. Gala1 et al. /Small Ruminant Research I9 (1996) 97-102
98
tigate different factors affecting the performance system, cross-breeding in particular.
ewes distributed plus those produced on the farm. Fiftynine farmers had either local or cross-bred sheep and eight had both classes. Table 1 shows the breakdown of records analyzed. Regular field visits were conducted biweekly to collect data.
of the
2. Materials and methods
2.3. System of production and management animals
2.1, Sample A total of 880 farmers were picked at random in four villages in Sharqia Governorate, east of the Nile delta. Out of these farmers 98% had 4 ha or less. All farmers had irrigated lots of land in an integrated cropping system with livestock as a supplementary enterprise. The average number of small ruminants (SR) per farmer was 3.4 heads, and 42% of all farmers had less than five heads of SR while 33% had no SR. Out of the total number of farmers surveyed, 80 in four villages had at least three adult sheep, less than 2.1 ha of farming land and were willing to participate in the study. However, a disease broke out in one of the four villages which caused a high mortality rate and emergency slaughter among sheep, both Finncrosses and locals, and the data on that village were discarded. Thus, the final sample was 67 farmers/producers in three villages including three landless sheep raisers (one from each village) who had larger flocks ( > 20 ewes).
of
The average land area per participating farmer (rented or owned) was 1.12 ha with an average of five to six small ruminants and one or two large ruminants (cattle and buffaloes). In winter, about 47% of the arable land was cultivated with berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum) as a fodder, 30% wheat, 7% legumes and the rest minor crops and vegetables. In summer, 40% of the land was cultivated with corn, 36% rice, 6% green fodder (maize or Sudan grass) and the rest minor crops and vegetables. Rams ran with the ewes all year round but lambings were more frequent in February-March and November-December from both local and Finncross ewes. Culling ewes was practised irrespective of age and commonly for a pressing need for cash, unsatisfactory production, health reasons or to avoid anticipated losses due to prevailing diseases. Sheep were fed on berseem during winter and berseem hay, concentrate and wheat straw in the summer. They also grazed stubble and scavenged around village dwellings during the whole year. The biological performance of the system was measured by the annualized total weight of litter at 4 months of age per kg of ewe lambed (LWTE) or per metabolic unit weight (ewe weight, kg”.75) per ewe lambed (LWTEM).
2.2. Animals A total of 191 ewes and 11 rams of the genotype I! 4 Finnsheep (F) 3/4 local Rahmani (R) produced by mating local Rahmani rams to F, (F X R) ewes were distributed to the farmers. Ewes were pregnant by rams with similar genotype. Analysis of the data included the local ewes the farmer originally had and Finncross Table 1 Number of farmers, local ewes and Finncross ewes in the analysisa Village
No. of breeders
No. of ewes Local
Finncross
Total
A B C
17 22 20
62 28 65
80 68 72
142 96 137
Total
s9
155
220
375
‘Eight of the 59 breeders had both cross-bred
and local flocks; all together they make 67 breeder-flocks
E.S.E. Gala1 et al. /Small
Ruminant Research 19 (1996) 97-102
2.4. Financial analysis Measurements used to evaluate the financial performance of the sheep in Egyptian pounds (LE) (US$ = LE 3.39, 1994) were gross income (GI) per ewe per year, net income (NI) per ewe per year, and internal rate of return (IRR) , defined as the interest rate that a project could pay on the investment outstanding from year to year during the project’s life (Gittinger, 1989). For the financial analysis the inputs included building and equipment, flock (ewes and rams), working capital, labour, feeding, veterinary care, land and miscellaneous while the outputs included weaned male lambs, surplus young ewes, culled ewe and rams, manure and wool. Flock projection of the full project assuming a lifetime of 15 years was built up by applying the technical coefficient (litter size, lamb mortality rate to 4 months, weight of lambs at 4 months, lambing interval, annual ewe mortality, replacement rate, fleece weight and manure production) derived from the flock.
99
labour requirement is low and, in most instances, it is supplied by family members. Most of the family labour is provided by women and children. Family labour is assumed to have zero cost; crop residues and farm byproducts are assumed to have zero cost; average BW of breeding ram is 60 kg (Galal, 1987) ; breeding ram purchase and sale prices are assumed to be the same. This is because most of the breeders are keen not to keep the breeding rams until they get too old in order to be able to get good market prices. Sheep are kept with no special provision for housing. They are herded in loose flocks or tethered by day and penned in open or roofed enclosures, or inside of the house at night. There are virtually no buildings or equipment costs. The average veterinary cost is calculated as LE 5 per head per year. The purchase and sale prices for ewes and lambs did not vary among breeds.
3. Results and discussion
2.5. Statistical analysis
3.1. Biological performance
The statistical model used for all traits included the main effect, village, flock size, breed, ram availability and the possible interactions FS X B and B X RA. In the model, village was considered random while other effects were considered fixed. A farmer having both local and cross-bred ewes was considered in the analysis as two flocks. The left-hand side of the model represents the flock. The least squares procedures were used (Harvey, 1987).
A comprehensive analysis of different traits of sheep in this study was made by Metawi ( 199 1) . In the present context two biological flock criteria were considered, LWTE and LWTEM, as indices that take feed requirements into consideration. One kg of ewe live weight produced an average 0.62 kg litter at the age of 4 months (Table 2). None of the factors considered in the model had a significant effect on LWTE or LWTEM. Availability of ram was the closest to being significant (P < 0.08). Finncross ewes were non-significantly more efficient than the local ewes. When regression of LWTE and LWTEM on litter size at 4 months of age (M04), lambing interval (LI) (days), litter weight at 4 months of age (MARK) (kg), BW (kg) of the ewe (LBW) and ewe mortality (EM) were included in the statistical model, they all had significant effects (P < 0.001) on LWTE and LWTEM with regression coefficients being 0.555, and -0.001 and 1.443, -0.002, 0.031, -0.14 - 0.005, 0.08 1, - 0.026 and - 0.002, respectively. Litter size of Finncross ewes at 4 months after lambing was not significantly larger than their local counterparts ( 1.05 vs. 1.03). Litter weights at the same stage were alsosimilar (21.8 vs. 21.4 kg; Metawi, 1991). Inability of 25% of Finnsheep genetics to raise litter size in local
2.4. Assumptions Assumptions made in the study were: breeding season extended all the year round; flocks are raised under irrigated land conditions; the flock produces its own replacements; ewe lambs enter their first mating season at about 12 months of age; when rams are available in the flock, they are left with the ewes all the time; in case the flock did not have rams, service cost is LE 6 per ewe per mating; average number of ewes per ram differed with the size of the flock; lambs are sold at 4 months of age; fattening of lambs before marketing is not practised; most of the farmers used manure to fertilize their land. Manure was evaluated at market price. Annual manure production is 2.5 m3 per head per year;
E.S.E. Gala1et al. /Small RuminantResearch 19 (1996) 97402
100
Table 2 Least squares means (M) and SE for flock productivity Classification
No.’
and measurements
of financial performance’
LWTE3
LWTEM4
G15
N16
IRR’ (%)
(MfSE)
(M*SE)
(M*SE)
(MfSE)
(MrtSE)
Overall mean
67
0.62 kO.04
1.62kO.11
151.1 f 10.3
34.5 f 9.2
13.83k3.61
Breeds L 1/4F3/4L
18 49
0.59 kO.06 0.65 f 0.06
1.54*0.16 1.69&0.15
150.7 f 14.8 151.5f 14.2
34.8 f 13.2 34.2 f 12.7
13.89f5.21 13.77*5.01
Flock size” l-5 6-10 1I-20 21-50
49 10 4 4
0.67 f 0.05 0.64 f 0.07 0.66f0.10 0.52f0.11
1.73f0.13 1.68o!O.18 1.72 f 0.27 1.34 f 0.29
165.5 f 12.0 166.5 f 17.3 150.7 f 25.7 121.8k27.5
44.6 39.3 35.0 19.0
16.44 13.47 14.08 11.34
Availability of ram Intermittently Continuously
51 16
0.55 f0.06 0.69 f 0.06
1.43fO.14 1.80f0.16
131.6a”f 13.7 170.6b f 14.9
24.5 f 12.2 44.4* 13.3
f f f f
10.8 15.4 22.9 24.6
k4.24 f 6.09 f 9.05 f 9.70
11.90*4.81 15.77 +5.24
‘The interactions flock size X breed and breed X availability were also included in the model; *Number of flocks; 3kg litter liveweight at 4 months per year per kg dam weight; 4kg litter liveweight at 4 months per year per kg dam metabolic weight; ‘Gross income; LE per ewe per year; ( 1 US$ = 3.39 LE. 1994); 6Net income, LE per ewe per year; ‘Internal rate of return; sL, Local Rahmani; F, Finnish Landrace; ?Vumber of adult ewes in the flock, head; ‘“Means followed by different litters differ (P < 0.05).
sheep could be an indication of environmental insufficiency. Metawi ( 1991) estimated litter size at birth in local and l/4 F 3/4 L ewes as 1.23 and 1.29, respectively, with the difference being non-significant. This estimate for l/4 F 3/4 L ewes agrees well with the estimate of 1.30 reported in another flock in Egypt for l/4 F 3/4 L by Zahed (1988) but lower than that of 1.4 reported by Aboul-Naga ( 1989). The differences between Finncross and local ewes in lambing interval (294 vs. 305 days) and annual ewe mortality (0.09 vs. 0.04) were not significant (Metawi, 1991). The small-holder system described in the present study seems to be more productive than the semi-intensive system based on the desert Barki sheep producing in newly reclaimed desert. While average performance in the former was 25 kg of lambs at 4 months of age, 10.5 kg of culled ewes, 1.3 kg of fleece and 1.3 m3 of manure per ewe per year in the flock, the corresponding range of data for the latter were 6.5-14.0 kg, 3.0-4.0 kg, 1.7-1.8 kg and 1.3-1.4 m3, respectively (Gala1 et al., 1993). 3.2. Financial performance Contribution of different sources to gross income and total annual expenditure per ewe is shown in Table
3. Marketed lambs constituted most of the GI ranging in contribution from 70% to 75.6%. Thus, in order to increase flock profitability it is important to increase kg marketed per ewe through improving biological factors such as litter size and survival of lambs, lambs growth rate and frequency of lambing. The components of annual expenditure (AE) are feeding and veterinary costs and some other miscellaneous items such as service charge cost in the case of flocks without rams and ram feeding and veterinary costs in the case of the flocks with their own rams. Feeding costs include that for breeding ewes and lambs. The share of feeding costs to AE is of great importance, ranging from 69% to 87.5% (Table 2). Under commercial flock conditions, Gala1 et al. ( 1993) found that marketed lambs constitute from 60.7% to 73.8% of the total outputs, while feeding costs constituted from 68.7% to 74.5% of the total annual inputs. Increasing flock profitability could be achieved by reducing the relative contribution of maintenance feeding costs and finding cheaper feedstuff. Klosterman ( 1972) reported that a large cost item of the sheep enterprise is the feed for maintaining the ewe flock. Increasing birth rate or decreasing mortality shifts allocations of feed energy resources to productive activities (Fitzhugh, 1978).
E.S.E. Gala1 et al. /Small
Ruminant Research 19 (1996) 97-102
3.3. Flock income The average annual GI per ewe in the flock was LE 15 1.0 with a corresponding NI of LE 34.5 (Table 2). The difference of LE 116.5 between the two figures, represents the annual expenditure per ewe. All sources of expenditure shown in Table 3 are charged to the ewe. None of the factors considered in the statistical model had a significant effect on GI or NI except availability of ram on GI. Farmers drew similar GI and NI from local and Finncross ewes. Flocks with an all-time-available ram had LE 39.0 (30%) and LE 19.9 (8 1%) more GI and NI per ewe, respectively, than those who had rams only when required. Although flock size had no significant effect, there was a clear trend that as flocks got larger income got smaller. Both GI and average expenditure per ewe generally got smaller as the flock got larger but the decrease was more pronounced in GI, with the result that NI got also smaller with increase in flock size. In another analysis where M04, LI, MARK, LBW and EM were included in the regression model, they all had significant effects (P < 0.001) on both GI and NI. Partial regression coefficients of GI and NI on each were 48.9, -0.2, 5.8, 0.8 and - 1.6 and 58.8, -0.2, Table 3 Average contribution Item
5.4, - 1.0 and -0.6, respectively. Partial regression coefficients of GI and NI on LBW, positive in the former and negative in the latter, indicated that the superiority of heavy ewes over lighter ones in their reproductive performance (and consequently GI) were negated by their higher feed consumption, hence reduced NI.
3.4. Internal rate of return (IRR)
Table 2 shows that the estimated general mean for IRR was 13.8% at a time when the contemporary interest rate offered by the banks ranged from 12% to 16%. This indicates that, although some flocks had high IRR, the average IRR earned from such sheep enterprise under the small-holder conditions was not higher than the interest rate offered by the bank, i.e. such enterprise did not offer more attractive investment opportunities than bank interest rates. None of the sources of variation considered in the model had a significant effect on IRR. However, IRR decreased with increasing flock size. The IRR earned was 16.4% in the smallest flock size (one to five ewes). Also, running a ram with the ewes all the time increased
(%) of different sources to gross income and expenditure Contribution
Gross income Culled rams Culled ewes Lambs Wool Manure
Expenditure ReplacemenP Feeding Veterinary Miscellaneous
item to total expenditure
per ewe
%
Flocks without own ram I
101
II
Flocks with own mm III
I
II
III
18.1 15.9 1.1 5.1
20.4 12.1 1.2 5.7
19.7 73.0 1.3 6.0
7.9 15.3 70.0 1.2 5.6
3.0 15.8 75.6 1.0 4.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
86.8 5.2 8.0
88.7 5.3 6.0
87.8 5.1 6.5
10.9 69.0 4.5 15.6
5.0 83.4 4.4 7.2
3.0 87.4 5.4 4.2
2.9 87.2 5.5 4.4
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
“Number of adult ewes in the flock: I, 1-5; II, 6-10; III, 1 l-20; IV, 21-50 heads. bEwe replacements from te flock, ram replacements bought outside the flock.
1.7 16.6 75.6 1.1 5.0
IV”
1.7 18.8 72.6 1.2 5.7 100.0
102
E.S.E. Gala1 et al. /Small Ruminant Research I9 (1996) 97-102
IRR by 3.9% as compared with the intermittent presence of the ram. When M04, LI, MARK, LBW and EM were included in the model, they all had a significant effects (P <0.05) on IRR. IRR increased by 36.8% and 1.8% per one lamb increase in MO4 and per kg increase in MARK, respectively. While for each 1 day decrease in LI, 1 kg decrease in LBW and 1% decrease in EM, the IRR earned increased by O.l%, 0.4% and 0.7%, respectively.
4. Conclusions Within the range of naturally occurring litter sizes in the small-holder production system, number of lambs marketed had a great impact on both the biological and financial performance of the system. Finnsheep genetics was introduced with the objective of increasing litter size, but the system had little response to that. Apparently the system has been evolved to take care of the naturally occurring twinning rate in the local breeds (up to 30%) ; anything higher than this will have to be matched by raising the environmental level to warrant the expression of the introduced input. Actual results on the performance of 1/4F 3f4L under conditions of experimental stations of the Ministry of Agriculture showed that 1/4F 3/4L ewes gave litter size at birth of 1.42-1.44 and at 4 months of age 1.19-1.28 (AboulNaga et al., 1989). Expected theoretical results for litter size at birth for 1/4F 3/4L was 0.23-28 and at 4 months of age 0.15-22, above the local ewes. In a simulation study, when the environment was appropriately raised to a semi-intensive production system based on the Egyptian desert Barki Sheep, the system did not respond financially because of the inadequate potential of Barki sheep (Gala1 et al., 1993). The breed had to be changed/modified to be more prolific and faster in growth in order to get a favourable response to the extra environmental input. Although Finn ewes are seasonal breeder in their home environment of Finland, the cross-breeds with the local Egyptian sheep breed all year round. Lambing intervals for the local and 1/4F 3/4L were 305 days and 294 days, respectively.
The present results show that, in this production system, availability of the ram considerably affected all biological and financial performances of the flocks. Flocks that had a ram available all the time did better always than those that did not and got the ram service only when they needed it. Although a small flock investment in a ram is proportionally higher than in larger flocks, yet the present study showed that it is a worthwhile practice to have the ram in the flock. However, in all criteria considered in this study the scale factor, generally, played in favour of the smaller flocks. The study finding that the average IRR for the flocks was within the prevailing bank interest rates, indicates that sheep raising in the small-holder system in Egypt is not based entirely on commercial factors. Other factors are also involved, e.g. social and cash reserve.
References Aboul-Naga, A.M., 1989. Some experiences with Finn sheep in some tropics. FAO Anim. Prod. Health Rome, 74: 136-167. Aboul-Naga, A.M., Aboul-Ela, M.B., Mansour, H. and Gabr, M., 1989. Reproductive performance of Finn sheep and crosses with subtropical breeds under accelerated lambing. Small Rumin. Res., 2: 143-150. Fitzhugh, H.A., 1978. Bio-economic analysis of ruminant production systems. J. Anim. Sci., 46: 797-806. Galal, E.S.E., 1987. Sheep and goat production research and development in Egypt. In: Small Ruminants in the Near East. FAO, Rome, Anim. Prod. Health Pap., 54: 117-155. Galal, ES. E., Ahmed, A.M., Abdel-Aziz, A.I., and Younis, A.A., 1993. Effects of increasing lambing frequency and crossbreeding on performance of sheep production systems in semi-arid environments, Small Rumin. Res., 10: 143-152. Gittinger, J.P., 1989. Economic Analysis of Agricultural Projects. Economic Institute of the World Bank. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, pp. 506. Harvey, W.R., 1987. User’s Guide for LSMLMW 87 Mixed Model Least Squares and Maximum LikeIihood Computer Program. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. Klostennan, E.W., 1972. Beef cattle size for maximum efficiency. J. Anim. Sci., 34: 875-880. Metawi, H.R., 1991. Assessment of sheep production systems in Egypt. Ph.D. Thesis, Fat. of Agriculture, Ah-Shams University, Cairo, Egypt, 219 pp. Zahed, SM., 1988. The reproductive performance of some local breeds of sheep and their crosses with foreign breeds. M.Sc. Thesis, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt, 213 pp.