Are farmers motivated to select for heat tolerance? Linking attitudinal factors, perceived climate change impacts, and social trust to farmers' breeding desires.

This study provides an understanding of dairy farmers' willingness to include heat tolerance in breeding goals and the modulating effect of sociopsychological factors and farm profile. A survey instrument including a choice experiment was designed to specifically address the trade-off between heat tolerance and milk production level. A total of 122 farmers across cattle, goat, and sheep farms were surveyed face-to-face. The results of the experiment show that most farmers perceive that heat stress and climate change are increasingly important problems, and that farming communities should invest more in generating knowledge and resources on mitigation strategies. However, we found limited initial support for selection for heat tolerance. This attitude changed when farmers were presented with objective information on the benefits and limitations of the different breeding choices, after which most farmers supported selection for heat tolerance, but only if doing so would compromise milk production gains to a small extent. Our results show that farmers' selection choices are driven by the interactions between heat stress risk perception, attitudes toward breeding tools, social trust, the species reared, and farm production level. In general, farmers willing to support selection of heat-tolerant animals are those with positive attitudes toward genetic values and genomic information and a strong perception of climate change and heat stress impacts on farms. On the contrary, negative support for selection for heat tolerance is found among farmers with high milk production levels; high trust in farming magazines, livestock farmers' associations, and veterinarians; and low trust in environmental and animalist groups.

Invited review: Current production trends, farm structures, and economics of the dairy sheep and goat sectors.

Dairy small ruminants account for approximately 21% of all sheep and goats in the world, produce around 3.5% of the world's milk, and are mainly located in subtropical-temperate areas of Asia, Europe, and Africa. Dairy sheep are concentrated around the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions, where their dairy products are typical ingredients of the human diet. Dairy goats are concentrated in low-income, food-deficit countries of the Indian subcontinent, where their products are a key food source, but are also present in high-income, technologically developed countries. This review evaluates the status of the dairy sheep and goat sectors in the world, with special focus on the commercially and technically developed industries in France, Greece, Italy, and Spain (FGIS). Dairy small ruminants account for a minor part of the total agricultural output in France, Italy, and Spain (0.9 to 1.8%) and a larger part in Greece (8.8%). In FGIS, the dairy sheep industry is based on local breeds and crossbreeds raised under semi-intensive and intensive systems and is concentrated in a few regions in these countries. Average flock size varies from small to medium (140 to 333 ewes/farm), and milk yield from low to medium (85 to 216 L/ewe), showing substantial room for improvement. Most sheep milk is sold to industries and processed into traditional cheese types, many of which are Protected Denomination of Origin (PDO) cheeses for gourmet and export markets (e.g., Pecorino, Manchego, and Roquefort). By comparing break-even milk price among FGIS countries, we observed the following: (1) most Greek and French dairy sheep farms were unprofitable, with the exception of the intensive Chios farms of Greece; (2) milk price was aligned with cost of production in Italy; and (3) profitable farms coexisted with unprofitable farms in Spain. In FGIS, dairy goat production is based on local breeds raised under more extensive systems than sheep. Compared with sheep, average dairy goat herds are smaller (36 to 190 does/farm) but milk yield is greater (153 to 589 L/doe), showing room for improvement. Goat milk is mainly processed on-farm into dairy products for national markets, but some PDO goat milk cheeses (e.g., Murcia al Vino) are exported. Processed goat milk is sold for local human consumption or dehydrated for export. Mixed sheep-goat (e.g., Feta) and cow-sheep-goat milk cheeses are common in many countries. Strategies to improve the dairy sheep and goat sectors in these 4 countries are proposed and discussed.

Implementing electronic identification for performance recording in sheep: II. Cost-benefit analysis in meat and dairy farms.

Costs and secondary benefits of implementing electronic identification (e-ID) for performance recording (i.e., lambing, body weight, inventory, and milk yield) in dairy and meat ewes were assessed by using the results from a previous study in which manual (M), semiautomatic (SA), and automatic (AU) data collection systems were compared. Ewes were identified with visual ear tags and electronic rumen boluses. The M system used visual identification, on-paper data recording, and manual data uploading to a computer. The SA system used e-ID with a handheld reader in which performances were typed and automatic uploaded to a computer. The use of a personal digital assistant (PDA) for recording and automatic data uploading, which transformed M in a SA system, was also considered. The AU system was only used for BW recording and consisted of e-ID, automatic data recording in an electronic scale, and uploading to a computer. The cost-benefit study was applied to 2 reference sheep farms of 700 meat ewes, under extensive or intensive production systems, and of 400 dairy ewes, practicing once- or twice-a-day machine milkings. Sensitivity analyses under voluntary and mandatory e-ID scenarios were also included. Benefits of using e-ID for SA or AU performance recording mainly depended on sheep farm purpose, number of test days per year, handheld reader and PDA prices, and flock size. Implementing e-ID for SA and AU performance recording saved approximately 50% of the time required by the M system, and increased the reliability of the data collected. Use of e-ID increased the cost of performance recording in a voluntary e-ID scenario, paying only partially the investment made (15 to 70%). For the mandatory e-ID scenario, in which the cost of e-ID devices was not included, savings paid 100% of the extra costs needed for using e-ID in all farm types and conditions. In both scenarios, the reader price was the most important extra cost (40 to 90%) for implementing e-ID in sheep farms. Calculated extra costs of using the PDA covered more than 100% of the implementation costs in all type of sheep farms, indicating that this device was cost-effective for sheep-performance recording.

Cost structure and profitability of Assaf dairy sheep farms in Spain.

Twenty dairy sheep farms of Assaf breed, located in the Spanish autonomous community of Castilla y León and included in a group receiving technical support, were used to study their production cost structure and to assess their economic profitability during 2009. On average, farms had 89.2±38.0 ha (own, 38%), 592±63 ewes, yielded 185.9±21.1×10(3) L/yr (i.e., 316±15 L/ewe), and were attended by 2.3±0.2 annual working units (family, 72%). Total annual income was €194.4±23.0×10(3)/yr (€1.0=$1.3) from milk (78.6%), lamb (13.2%), culled ewes (0.5%), and other sales (0.8%, wool and manure), and completed with the European Union sheep subsidy (6.9%). Total costs were €185.9±19.0×10(3)/yr to attend to feeding (61.6%), labor (18.2%), equipment maintenance and depreciation (7.6%), finances (3.0%), animal health (2.5%), energy, water and milking supplies (2.2%), milk recording (0.5%), and other costs (4.4%; assurances, shearing, association fees, and so on). Mean dairy sheep farm profit was €8.5±5.8×10(3)/yr (€7.4±8.3/ewe) on average, and varied between -€40.6 and €81.1/ewe among farms. Only 60% of farms were able to pay all costs, the rest had negative balances. Nevertheless, net margin was €31.0±6.5×10(3)/yr on average, varying between €0.6 and €108.4×10(3)/yr among farms. In this case, without including the opportunity costs, all farms had positive balances. Total annual cost (TAC; €/ewe) and total annual income (TAI; €/ewe) depended on milk yield (MY; L/ewe) and were TAC=161.6 + 0.502 MY (R(2)=0.50), and TAI=78.13 + 0.790 MY (R(2)=0.88), respectively, with the break-even point being 291 L/ewe. Conversely, farm TAC (€/yr) and farm TAI (€/yr) were also predicted as a function of the number of ewes (NOE) per flock, as TAC=18,401 + 282.8 NOE (R(2)=0.89) and TAI=330.9 NOE (R(2)=0.98), with the break-even point being 383 ewes/flock. Finally, according to the increasing trend expected for agricultural commodity prices, it was calculated that a 10% increase of concentrate price will require 5.2% milk price increase for constant profit. Similarly, a 10% increase of forage price will require 2.0% milk price increase to maintain profitability. Under these scenarios of increasing the commodity prices of key feedstuffs, a change of flock feeding should be expected to compensate the losses in farm profitability. Most Assaf dairy sheep farms studied were economically profitable, with flock size, milk yield, and feeding costs key for their profitability.

Structure and performance of Awassi and Assaf dairy sheep farms in northwestern Spain.

Data of 69 dairy sheep farms (70% Assaf and 30% Awassi crossbred), located in the Spanish Autonomous Community of Castilla y León and grouped for receiving technical advice, were used to study their structure and performance. Farm surface was 55.4ha, on average. Approximately 25% of the farms did not have cultivation land, and the other 75% had, on average, 73ha (from which 67% were devoted to forage). Farms used 2.1 annual work units (familiar, 90%), 493 ewes, and yielded 147,000 L/yr of milk. Farmers were tenant (84%), younger than 45 yr (70%), had new houses, and were grouped in cooperatives (83%). Sheep were fed indoors (occasional grazing only) in modern loose stalls and had machine milking. Planned mating (summer to fall) was done in 91% of farms (hormonal treatment, 54%) but artificial insemination was scarce (23%). Annual milk sales averaged 309 L/ewe (fat, 6.5%; protein, 5.3%; log(10) somatic cell count, 5.7), and milk was sent to local dairy industries for cheese production, and 1.35 lambs/ewe were harvested as milk-fed lambs (lechazo). Artificial lamb rearing was done in 38% of farms (automatic, 81%; manual, 19%). Total mixed rations were used in 33% of farms, and the rest used rationed concentrate (including self-produced cereals) according to physiological stage of the ewes (0.45 to 1.97 kg/d) and ad libitum forage (dehydrated, 70%; hay, 68%; fresh, 25%; silage, 12%). The concentrate-to-forage ratio ranged between 32 and 61%. In total, 68% of farms bought more than half of the forage, and 87% of them bought more than half of the required concentrates. According to structural, productive, and managerial traits, 4 types of farms were differentiated by using multiple correspondence analysis and cluster analysis. Type groups were: 1) large-surface farms, devoted to cereal and forage production, predominantly with Awassi crossbreed sheep and a high level of self-consumed commodities (12% of the farms); 2) large flocks with intermediate farm surfaces devoted to forage production and predominantly with Assaf sheep (30% of the farms); 3) high-yielding farms, with intermediate sized flocks of Assaf sheep and very intensive management (42% of the farms); and, 4) no-land farms predominantly with Assaf sheep (16% of the farms). In conclusion, the dairy sheep farms studied showed more adoption of intensive production systems than traditional farms, which resulted in higher milk and lamb yields. Despite all of them being based on familiar units, as traditional farms, they were highly dependent on external resources and became more vulnerable, faced with future uncertainties of the market.

Cost evaluation of the use of conventional and electronic identification and registration systems for the national sheep and goat populations in Spain.

A cost model was developed to compare different implementation strategies of the new European Commission regulation for sheep and goat identification and registration (EC 21/2004) in Spain. Strategies were as follows: 1) conventional identification (CID) by two ear tags; 2) electronic identification (EID) by one bolus and one ear tag; and 3) mixed CID and EID strategy (MID), consisting of CID for fattening stock and EID for breeding stock. Complete and simplified implementations of the regulation were considered as options. Total costs per animal identified for all strategies and options varied according to the implementation option, ranging from Euros 2.48 and 4.64. The EID was the most expensive strategy (Euros 4.47 to 4.64) for all implementation options. Cost of CID and MID strategies ranged from Euros 2.63 to 2.98 and from Euros 2.48 to 3.03, respectively. The model was submitted to a sensitivity analysis without considering extra benefits of sheep and goat identification. Critical values for which the cost of MID equaled CID depended on strategy and option, and ranged from 7.5 to 11.5% for ear tag losses and from Euros 1.80 to 3.30 for bolus price. In conclusion, the use of a mixed strategy combining conventional ear tags (animals intended for slaughter) and electronic boluses (breeding stock) seems to be an affordable strategy that fulfills the European Commission regulation requirements for the identification of sheep and goats in Spain. Price reductions for devices and equipment would make the full electronic identification strategy less expensive in the future.