2.1. Livestock characteristics
2.1.1. Habitat and livestock infrastructure
Table 2 shows the habitat and livestock infrastructure of Zebu Azawak in the northern part of Benin. In the majority of farms surveyed (72.22%), animals are parked in the open air and in 22.22% of farms, they are housed in modern buildings (livestock buildings built of cement-based walls and covered with sheet metal or tile) compared to 5.56% of farms that have traditional buildings (makeshift livestock buildings built from sheet metal sheets and wooden support) (Figure2). The cattle scale is used only in the Okpara breeding farm. Nearly half of the Azawak herders surveyed have feeders and drinkers on their farms. The containment corridor is found in 22.22% of breeders and the silage pit in 11.11% of respondents. All breeders using feeder and drinkers ensure their cleanliness so wash them regularly.
Table2: Habitat and Livestock Infrastructure
Habitat and livestock infrastructure
|
Number of farm
|
Percentage (%)
|
CI
|
Habitat Type
|
Modern
|
18
|
22.22 a
|
19,21
|
Traditional
|
18
|
5.56 b
|
10,58
|
Open air
|
18
|
72.22 c
|
20,69
|
Livestock infrastructure
|
Containment corridor
|
18
|
22.22 a
|
19,21
|
Cattle scale
|
18
|
5.56 b
|
10,58
|
Silage pit
|
18
|
11.11 ab
|
14,52
|
Feeders
|
18
|
55.56 c
|
22,96
|
Drinkers
|
18
|
55.56 c
|
22,96
|
Infrastructure cleaning
|
Cleaning feeders and drinkers
|
18
|
55.56 a
|
22,96
|
Sweeping habitat
|
18
|
94.44 b
|
10,58
|
CI: Confidence interval, Intra-class percentages followed by different letters differ significantly at the 5% threshold
2.1.2. Food
Table 3 shows how Azawak feeds in northern Benin. Feeding the animals is provided by natural pasture, artificial pasture and food supplements. All breeders of Zebu Azawak use natural pasture for the feeding of their animals. Some breeders (72.22%), in addition to natural pasture, use artificial pasture. The most common artificial pasture used by herders is the maximum Panicum C1. Fodder corn is used by 11.11% of respondents and 5.56% use cowpea leaves in the Azawak diet. However, the proportion of farmers using cowpea leaves was not significantly different from that of those using fodder corn. For farms using artificial pasture, the area of forage space is often small. In fact, 44.44% of these farms have an area of less than 2 hectares. Only one herder has 2 ha of Panicum C1 and only one also has more than 5 ha of Panicum C1. As for food supplements, the most commonly used are crop residues, peanut leaves, cassava peels, Veto-Service food and cotton seeds. Among these supplements, crop residues are those used in all farms (100%) while peanut leaves, cassava peels, Veto-Service food and cotton seeds are used by 55.56% respectively; 38,89% ; 38.89% and 27.78% of the farms surveyed. Silage is used by 11.11% of the farmers surveyed. Brewers' grains, cereal brans, soya cakes, and waste from cotton ginning are used by 5.56% of farms, respectively. Dietary supplements, other than those mentioned above, are used by 16.67% of farms. In total, crop residues are used more in the diet of Azawak than peanuts leaves. However, these leaves are more used (P<0.05) than the Veto Service food and cassava peels. Finally, brewers' grains, cereal bran and soya cakes are the least used (P<0.05) in the diet of the Azawak in the northern area of Benin.
On all farms, dietary supplements are used in the dry season, when natural grazing is scarce. However, 11.11% of farms provide food supplements to animals during the rainy season.
In most (94.44%) of the farms surveyed, animals travel a distance of more than 5 km in search of fodder against a minority (5.56%) travelling a distance of between 3 and 5 km. In all the farms surveyed, the duration of grazing during the day is more than 6 hours.
Table 3
Feeding
|
Number of farm
|
Frequency (%)
|
CI
|
Feeding mode
|
Natural pasture
|
18
|
100.00a
|
0,00
|
Artificial pasture
|
18
|
72.22a
|
20,69
|
Artificial grazing
|
Panicum C1
|
18
|
72.22a
|
20,69
|
Cowpea leaves
|
18
|
5.56b
|
10,58
|
Fodder corn
|
18
|
11.11b
|
14,52
|
Area of artificial forage space
|
Less than 2 ha
|
18
|
44.44a
|
22,96
|
2 ha
|
18
|
16.67ab
|
17,22
|
3 to 5 ha
|
18
|
0.00b
|
0,00
|
Plus 5ha
|
18
|
16.67ab
|
17,22
|
Food supplements
|
No complement
|
18
|
0.00a
|
0,00
|
Cotton seeds
|
18
|
27.78b
|
20,69
|
Brewer’s grains
|
18
|
5.56ab
|
10,58
|
Veto-Service Food
|
18
|
38.89b
|
22,52
|
Cereal bran
|
18
|
5.56ab
|
10,58
|
Soya cakes
|
18
|
5.56a
|
10,58
|
Peanut leaves
|
18
|
55.56c
|
22,96
|
Cassava peels
|
18
|
38.89b
|
22,52
|
Crop residues
|
18
|
100.00d
|
0,00
|
Ensilage
|
18
|
11.11a
|
14,52
|
Other supplements
|
18
|
16.67a
|
17,22
|
Period of use of the supplement
|
Dry season
|
18
|
100.00a
|
0,00
|
Rainy season
|
18
|
11.11b
|
10,58
|
Distance grazing area-stable
|
3 to 5 km
|
18
|
5.56b
|
10,58
|
more than 5 km
|
18
|
94.44a
|
10,58
|
Less than 6 km
|
18
|
0.00b
|
0,00
|
more than 6 km
|
18
|
100.00a
|
0,00
|
CI: Confidence interval, intra-class percentages followed by different letters differ significantly at the 5% threshold. |
2.1.3. Reproduction
Table 4 presents the reproductive abilities of Azawak cattle from the farms surveyed. In 88.89% of farms, animals are used as broodstock. The riding was free in 87.50% of the farms while it was organized at 12.50% of the farms. On farms where Azawak cattle are used for breeding, 93.75% believe that they have a good riding ability compared to 6.25% who say that the ability to ride is not satisfactory.
The females most used for crossbreeding were the Borgou. They are used by 93.75% of farms, while the Somba, Goudali, Azawak and Yakana breeds are used by 6.25%, 6.25%, 18.75% and 6.25% of the farms surveyed respectively. Females used as breeders support the Azawak bull well according to 93.75% of the breeders surveyed. Regardless of which female is used, no problems have been recorded during gestation and calving is easy and is done without the intervention of the breeder.
Table 4
Variables
|
Number of farms
|
Percentage
|
CI
|
Reproduction
|
Animals used as breeders
|
18
|
88,89
|
14,52
|
Riding
|
Free riding
|
16
|
87.50a
|
16,21
|
Organized riding
|
16
|
12.50b
|
16,21
|
Ability to riding
|
Bad
|
16
|
6.25b
|
11,86
|
Good
|
16
|
93.75a
|
11,86
|
Females used for breeding
|
Borgou
|
16
|
93.75a
|
11,86
|
Somba
|
16
|
6.25b
|
11,86
|
Goudali
|
16
|
6.25b
|
11,86
|
Azawak
|
16
|
18.75b
|
19,13
|
Yakana
|
16
|
6.25b
|
11,86
|
Females react to riding
|
Support the male
|
16
|
93.75a
|
11,86
|
Problems during gestation
|
Problems during gestation
|
16
|
0,00
|
0,00
|
CI: Confidence interval, intra-class percentages followed by different letters differ significantly at the 5% threshold
2.1.4. Health monitoring of Azawak
Table 5 presents the results of the health monitoring of Azawak. Dermatosis are the most recorded diseases (P<0.05) by Azawak cattle producers in the northern area of Benin. Next came trypanosomiasis (27.78%) and the least cited diseases (P<0.05) are foot-and-mouth disease (16.67%) and respiratory diseases (5.56%).
On all farms, animals benefit from preventive treatments, namely: internal and external deworming, vaccinations against PPCB and bovine pasteurellosis, trypanoprevention and vitaminoprevention.
Azawak have low disease resistance according to half of the breeders while 38.89% believe they have good resistance to disease and 11.11% say they have acceptable resistance. The difference is not significant between the proportions of exploitation that the Azawak have low resistance and those who feel they have good resistance. Azawak are less resistant than local breeds according to 55.56% of breeders while 44.44% say they have the same resistance. Similarly, the difference between these two percentages was not significant and no breeder found Azawak to be more resistant than local cattle.
Table5: Azawak Health Monitoring
Variables
|
|
Number of farms
|
Percentage
|
CI
|
Registered diseases
|
Dermatosis
|
18
|
50.00a
|
23,10
|
Foot-and-mouth disease
|
18
|
16.67b
|
17,22
|
Respiratory diseases
|
18
|
5.56 b
|
10,58
|
Trypanosomiasis
|
|
27.78c
|
20,69
|
Preventive treatments
|
Vaccination
|
18
|
100,00
|
0,00
|
Internal deworming
|
18
|
100,00
|
0,00
|
External deworming
|
18
|
100,00
|
0,00
|
Trypanoprevention
|
18
|
100,00
|
0,00
|
Vitaminoprevention
|
18
|
100,00
|
0,00
|
Azawak resistance to diseases
|
Low
|
18
|
50.00a
|
23,10
|
Acceptable
|
18
|
11.11b
|
14,52
|
Good
|
18
|
38.89ab
|
22,52
|
Resistance of the Azawak against local breeds
|
Less resistant
|
18
|
55.56a
|
22,96
|
Even resistant
|
18
|
44.44a
|
22,96
|
CI: Confidence interval, intra-class percentages followed by different letters differ significantly at the 5% threshold
2.1.5. Behaviour and health monitoring of crossbred
In the 18 farms surveyed, crossbred births were recorded in 10 with a high crossbred survival rate in 70% of farms, an acceptable rate in 10% of farms and a low rate in 20% (Table 6). However, there were no significant differences between the last two rates. Diseases recorded at the crossbred level were trypanosomiasis (10% of farms), nodular dermatosis (10%), diarrhea (10%), dermatophilosis (20%) and digestive disorders (10%). The difference between these percentages was not significant. In 70% of farms, farmers rated the resistance of the crossbreds as good while 20% said it is acceptable and 10% that it is weak. However, the difference between the last two percentages was not significant. In case of diseases, the reaction of the crossbreds to the treatments was described as poor by 66.67% of breeders and very good by 33.33%. All breeders who have received Azawak are in contact with the supply structure (Okpara Livestock Farm or UDOPER) and 43.75% of breeders say they received training or advice to the acquisition of the animals.
Table 6
Survival Rates, Diseases Encountered and Resistance to Cross-Growth Diseases
Variables
|
|
Number of farms
|
Percentage
|
CI
|
Crossbred Survival Rate
|
Low
|
10
|
20.00a
|
24,79
|
Acceptable
|
10
|
10.00a
|
18,59
|
High
|
10
|
70.00b
|
28,40
|
Crossbred Diseases
|
Trypanosomiasis
|
10
|
10.00a
|
18,59
|
Nodular Dermatosis
|
10
|
10.00a
|
18,59
|
Diarrhea
|
10
|
10.00a
|
18,59
|
Dermatophilosis
|
10
|
20.00a
|
24,79
|
Digestive disorders
|
10
|
10.00a
|
18,59
|
Crossbred resistance to disease
|
Low
|
10
|
10.00a
|
18,59
|
Acceptable
|
10
|
20.00a
|
24,79
|
Good
|
10
|
70.00b
|
28,40
|
Reaction to treatment
|
Poor
|
3
|
66.67a
|
53,34
|
Very good
|
3
|
33.33a
|
53,34
|
CI: Confidence interval, Intra-class percentages followed by different letters differ significantly at the 5%threshold. |
2.1.6. Population parameters
On the Okpara and UDOPER farms, fertility and calving rates were 90% each. Prolificity and birth rates were 100%. The abortion rate was 10%, and the mortality rate between birth and 15 days was 0%. The overall pre-weaning mortality rate was 5.56% (Figure 3).
2.1.7. Milk production
Milk production of the Azawak cow in northern Benin averaged 3.8 liters per day.
2.2. Levels of adaptation of zebus Azawak
Three axes were selected for the interpretation of the results of the factor analysis of the matches (χ²= 258.46). In the first factor axis, breeders who believe that the resistance of Azawak to diseases is good and that their resistance is similar to that of local breeds oppose those who find that the Azawak are sensitive to dermatosis and trypanosomiasis and have a low resistance compared to the local breed. In this axis, breeders Alidou, Bani, David, Mouedassou, Sara and SK are met. A minority of these herders use artificial pasture, while most use peanuts leaves and cassava peels.
In the second axis, the identical resistance of Azawak compared to local breeds, the corridors of restraint, the organized riding, and the presence of cattle scale, oppose the free riding, the open habitat, the reported presence of dermatosis and respiratory diseases. This axis discriminates against the breeders Aboumon, Bania, Bariki, Bata, Dakaora, El-hadj Alassane and Kigani.
Finally, animals that have acceptable resistance to disease are represented in Axis 3. This axis is represented by the Monastery Farm, the “Trois rivières Farm”, the Okpara Farm, the UDOPER Farm and the Zakaria Farm. These farms are characterized by modern habitat, the presence of a silage pit, the use of Azawak females, the use of vet food service and cotton seeds as dietary supplements and the presence of foot-and-mouth disease.
Figure 4 shows Zebu Azawak's levels of adaptation on the factor plane represented by axes 1 and 2. Three levels have been identified based on the characteristics of the farms and each level corresponds to a group of breeders. Group 1 is made up of Mouedassou farms, Sara, Bani, Alidou, David and SK who believe that the resistance of Azawak to diseases is good and that their resistance is similar to that of local breeds, while group 2 is made up of the farms of Bania, Bata, Bariki, Elhadj Alassane, Dakaora, Zakaria and the ‘’Trois rivières’’ who think that the Azawak are less resistant than the local breeds; they have low resistance to disease. Finally, the Okpara Breeding Farms, monastery, UDOPER, Kigani and Aboumon are group 3. In this group, Azawak are less resistant than local breeds; however, they are acceptable resistance to disease. The frequencies and confidence intervals of livestock characteristics based on adaptation levels are reported in Tables 7 to 9.
Apart from the characteristics of the breeding of Azawak cattle that discriminate three levels of adaptation, common breeding practices are also recorded. Thus, all breeders in the three groups all use natural pasture and crop residues and dietary supplements are used in the dry season. The duration of grazing during the day is more than 6 hours and the animals are vaccinated against diseases according to the national vaccination program. They do preventive treatment for trypanosomosis, gastrointestinal parasitosis and ectoparasitos and make vitaminoprevention. The ability to ride is good according to all breeders, matings are done with the Borgou cow or sometimes in purebred (between Azawak at FEO, UDOPER and Kigani). Borgou cows support Azawak males well and gestation is smooth.
2.2.1. Habitat and livestock infrastructure by group
In all Group 1 farms, the animals are parked in the open area. In this group, there is a small presence of livestock infrastructure. In fact, 16.67% of these farms have a containment corridor and 33.33% have a feeder and drinkers (Table 7). The cattle scale and the silage pit is non-existent. All breeders ensure the cleanliness of the infrastructure they have. The clean-up of these infrastructures is done on a daily basis.
On the other hand, group 2 consists of 85.71% of farms where animals are parked in the open air and 14.29% are housed in traditional habitats. The containment corridor does not exist on farms, so does the cattle scale and the silage pit is non-existent. In this group, 42.86% of farms have feeders and drinkers that are cleaned daily. Finally, all breeders in this group sweep the animal lodge on a daily basis.
Group 3, on the other hand, consists of 80% of farms where animals are housed in modern habitats, 20% of farms where they are parked in the open air. In this group, there is an existence of livestock infrastructure: In fact, more than half of the farms (60%) have containment corridor, 20% have cattle scale and 40% have silage pit. All farms in this group have feeders and drinkers and these facilities are cleaned daily.
Table 7
Habitat and Livestock Infrastructure by Group
Variables
|
Group 1
|
Group 2
|
Group 3
|
Test
Statistical
|
N
|
%
|
CI
|
N
|
%
|
CI
|
N
|
%
|
CI
|
Types of habitat
|
Modern
|
6
|
0b
|
0,00
|
7
|
0b
|
0,00
|
5
|
80a
|
35,06
|
**
|
|
Traditional
|
6
|
0
|
0,00
|
7
|
14,29
|
25,93
|
5
|
0
|
0,00
|
Ns
|
|
Open air
|
6
|
100a
|
0,00
|
7
|
85.71a
|
25,89
|
5
|
20b
|
35,06
|
**
|
|
Livestock infrastructure
|
Containment corridor
|
6
|
16.67b
|
29,82
|
7
|
0ab
|
0,00
|
5
|
60a
|
42,94
|
**
|
|
Cattle scale
|
6
|
0
|
0,00
|
7
|
0
|
0,00
|
5
|
20
|
35,06
|
Ns
|
|
Silage pit
|
6
|
0
|
0,00
|
7
|
0
|
0,00
|
5
|
40
|
42,94
|
Ns
|
|
Feeder
|
6
|
33.33b
|
37,72
|
7
|
42.86ab
|
36.66a
|
5
|
100a
|
0,00
|
**
|
|
Drinkers
|
6
|
33.33b
|
37,72
|
7
|
42.86ab
|
36,66
|
5
|
100a
|
0,00
|
Ns
|
|
Cleaning of livestock infrastructure
|
Cleaning feeder and drinkers
|
6
|
33.33b
|
37,72
|
7
|
42.86ab
|
36,66
|
5
|
100a
|
0,00
|
Ns
|
|
Sweep lodge
|
6
|
100
|
0,00
|
7
|
100
|
0,00
|
5
|
80
|
0,00
|
Ns
|
|
N: Total staff; %: Percentage; CI: Confidence interval. The percentages of the same line followed by different letters differ significantly at the 5% threshold
2.2.2. Food and reproduction of Azawak by group
Panicum C1 is used in all groups. It is used in all Group 3 farms compared to 57.14% of Group 2 farms and 66.67% of Group 1 farms (Table 8). Group 3 breeders also use cowpea leaves (20%) and feed corn (40%). However, there is no significant difference between these percentages.
No Group 1 farm uses cotton seeds in animal feed. On the other hand, this supplement is used by 57.14% of breeders in group 2 and 20% of breeders in the group3. Silage is absent in groups 1 and 2 farms, but is used in 40% of Group 3 farms. Peanuts leaves are used by 83.33% of group 1 breeders compared to 42.86% for group 2 and 40% for group 3. The Veto service food and cassava peels are also used by breeders in all three groups. In addition to these supplements, some breeders offer other supplements to their animals.
In all groups 1 and 3, Azawak were used as breeding stock. In group 2, on the other hand, they were used as breeding stock in 71.43% of farms. Rinding is free on all groups 1 and 2 farms. In Group 3, it is free in 60% of farms and organized in 40% of farms. The Azawak's riding ability was described as good in all groups 1 and 3 farms. But in group 2, 20% of breeders say that the ability to ride of Azawak is poor compared to 80% who say it is good. In all groups 1 and 2 farms, the females used for breeding are local breeds. On the other hand, in 60% of group 3 farms, Azawak females are used for breeding, i.e. Azawak are bred as purebred on these farms.
Table 8
Feeding and Breeding Azawak Zebus by group
Variables
|
Group 1
|
Group 2
|
Group 3
|
Testing
|
N
|
%
|
CI
|
N
|
%
|
CI
|
N
|
%
|
CI
|
Significance
|
Artificial grazing
|
Panicum C1
|
6
|
66,67
|
37,72
|
7
|
57,14
|
36,667
|
5
|
100
|
0,00
|
Ns
|
Cowpea leaves
|
6
|
0
|
0,00
|
7
|
0
|
0,00
|
5
|
20
|
35,06
|
Ns
|
Fodder Corn
|
6
|
0
|
0,00
|
7
|
0
|
0,00
|
5
|
40
|
42,94
|
Ns
|
Food supplements
|
Cotton seeds
|
6
|
0b
|
0,00
|
7
|
57.14a
|
36,66
|
5
|
20ab
|
35,06
|
**
|
Veto Service Food
|
6
|
16,67
|
29,82
|
7
|
28,57
|
33,47
|
5
|
80
|
35,06
|
Ns
|
Peanut leaves
|
6
|
83,33
|
29,82
|
7
|
42,86
|
36,66
|
5
|
40
|
42,94
|
Ns
|
Cassava peels
|
6
|
66,67
|
37,72
|
7
|
28,57
|
33,47
|
5
|
20
|
35,06
|
Ns
|
Silage
|
6
|
0
|
0,00
|
7
|
0
|
0,00
|
5
|
40
|
42,94
|
Ns
|
Other
|
6
|
0 a
|
0,00
|
7
|
14,29
|
25.92a
|
5
|
40
|
42.94b
|
**
|
Distance grazing area-stable
|
3 to 5 km
|
6
|
16,67
|
29,82
|
7
|
0
|
0,00
|
5
|
0
|
0,00
|
Ns
|
Plus 5 km
|
6
|
83,33
|
29,82
|
7
|
100
|
0,00
|
5
|
100
|
0,00
|
Ns
|
Reproduction
|
Yes
|
6
|
100
|
0,00
|
7
|
71,43
|
33,46
|
5
|
100
|
0,00
|
Ns
|
Type of
riding
|
Free riding
|
6
|
100
|
0,00
|
5
|
100
|
0,00
|
5
|
60
|
42,94
|
Ns
|
Organized riding
|
6
|
0
|
0,00
|
5
|
0
|
29,82
|
5
|
40
|
42,94
|
Ns
|
Ability to
riding
|
Bad
|
6
|
0
|
0,00
|
5
|
20
|
35,06
|
5
|
0
|
0,00
|
Ns
|
Good
|
6
|
100
|
0,00
|
5
|
80
|
35,06
|
5
|
100
|
0,00
|
Ns
|
Female used
|
Azawak
|
6
|
0
|
0,00
|
5
|
0
|
0,00
|
5
|
60
|
42,94
|
Ns
|
p ˂ 0.01; N: Total staff; NS: Not significant; CI: Confidence interval. The percentages of the same line followed by different letters differ significantly at the 5% threshold
2.2.3. Diseases of the Azawak by group
Dermatosis were registered in 85.71% of group 2 farms and in 60% of group 3 farms, but it is totally absent in group 1 farms (Table 9). The difference between these percentages is significant (0.01). Foot-and-mouth disease, respiratory diseases and trypanosomiasis are also absent in group 1. On the other hand, these diseases are recorded in 28.57% of group 2 and 20% of group 3 for foot-and-mouth disease and 42.86 and 40% for trypanosomiasis. Respiratory diseases are recorded in 20% of the group's farms
Table9: Registered Diseases and Animal Resistance by group
Variables
|
Group 1
|
Group 2
|
Group 3
|
Testing
|
N
|
%
|
CI
|
N
|
%
|
CI
|
N
|
%
|
CI
|
Significance
|
Registered diseases
|
Dermatosis
|
6
|
0 b
|
0,00
|
7
|
85.71a
|
25,93
|
5
|
60a
|
42,94
|
**
|
Foot-and-mouth disease
|
6
|
0
|
0,00
|
7
|
28,57
|
33,47
|
5
|
20
|
35,06
|
Ns
|
Respiratory diseases
|
6
|
0
|
0,00
|
7
|
0
|
0,00
|
5
|
20
|
35,06
|
Ns
|
Trypanosomiasis
|
6
|
0
|
0,00
|
7
|
42,86
|
36,66
|
5
|
40
|
42,94
|
Ns
|
Animal resistance to disease
|
Low
|
6
|
0 b
|
0,00
|
7
|
85.71a
|
25,93
|
5
|
60a
|
42,94
|
**
|
Acceptable
|
6
|
0
|
0,00
|
7
|
14,29
|
25,93
|
5
|
20
|
35,06
|
Ns
|
Good
|
6
|
100 a
|
0,00
|
7
|
0b
|
0,00
|
5
|
20b
|
36,06
|
**
|
Resistance of the Azawak against local breeds
|
Less resistant
|
6
|
0 b
|
0,00
|
7
|
100a
|
0,00
|
5
|
60a
|
42,94
|
**
|
More resistant
|
6
|
0
|
0,00
|
7
|
0
|
0,00
|
5
|
0
|
0,00
|
Ns
|
Same resistance
|
6
|
100 a
|
0,00
|
7
|
0b
|
0,00
|
5
|
40a
|
42,94
|
**
|
p ˂ 0.01; N: Total staff; NS: Not significant; CI: Confidence interval. The percentages of the second line followed by different letters differed significantly at the 5% threshold