Production systems and strategies of peri-urban goat and sheep farmers for dry season feeding: a case study from Benin (West-Africa)

Figures & data

Table 1. List of variables and description.

Variable	Brief description	Level
Categorical
Ownership of a land title	Farmer hold a land title for his farm	Yes, no
Crop cultivation as a secondary activity	Herder practices agriculture as a secondary activity	Yes, no
Type of supplement	Related to the type of supplement used	Agro-industrial by-products, tree fodders, crop residues, commercial concentrate
Feeding mode	Related to the major feed resources used	Pasture only, pasture and supplementation
Housing	Housing for animals	yes, no
Use of manure	The utilization of manure	Own use, sale, own use and sale, No use
Labor type	Type of labor used	Family; hired
Cattle keeping	The herder is keeping cattle	Yes, no
Sheep keeping	The herder is keeping cattle	Yes, no
Goat keeping	The herder is keeping cattle	Yes, no
Use of concentrate	The herder uses commercial concentrate to supplement the animals	Yes, no
Crop plant cultivated	Type of crop cultivated	Food, vegetables, cash Food and cash/vegetables, Vegetables and cash, no crop
Origin	Origin of the herder	Autochthon, foreigner
Continuous
TLU of ruminants	Tropical livestock unit: standardized animal of 250 kg liveweight; 1 cattle =0.8 TLU; 1 sheep/goat = 0.1 TLU.	n. of TLU
Experience in livestock keeping		n, years
Number of animal species kept		N

Table 2. CATPCA model summary and component loadings for small ruminant farming systems in Benin.

		Dimension
	Total	1	2
Cronbach’s alpha	0.883	0.736	0.641
Total eigenvalue	5.679	3.190	2.489
Total variance explained (%)	37.859	21.264	16.595
Variables	Ownership of a land title	0.210	0.054
	Crop cultivation as a secondary activity	0.485	0.708
	Type of supplement	−0.245	0.279
	Feeding mode	−0.058	−0.346
	Housing	0.284	−0.126
	Use of manure	0.580	0.438
	Labor type	−0.318	0.427
	TLU of ruminants	−0.777	0.392
	Cattle keeping	0.467	−0.013
	Sheep keeping	0.722	−0.307
	Goat keeping	−0.516	0.614
	Experience in breeding	−0.571	−0.051
	Use of concentrate	0.252	−0.225
	Number of animal species kept	−0.310	−0.465
	Crop cultivated	0.484	0.709

* TLU: tropical livestock unit: standardized animal of 250 kg liveweight; 1 cattle = 0.8 TLU; 1 sheep/goat = 0.1 TLU.

CATPCA: categorical principal component analysis. In bold, variables that score more than 0.5.

Table 3. Characteristics of small ruminant farms differentiated by the two-step clustering algorithm performed on 125 peri-urban small ruminant farms in South Benin.

	Farm types
	S (n = 15)	SC (n = 7)	SGC (n = 16)	SG (n = 11)	GC (n = 30)	G (n = 46)	Chi^2	p (<)
Variables	Frequencies (%)
Goat farming							125	0.001
Yes	0	0	100	100	100	100
No	100	100	0	0	0	0
Sheep farming							125	0.001
Yes	100	100	100	100	0	0
No	0	0	0	0	100	100
Practice of crop cultivation							125	0.001
Yes	0	100	100	0	100	0
No	100	0	0	100	0	100
	Mean ± standard deviation
*TLU of ruminants	4.8^A ± 2.73	7.8^A ± 4.31	4.2^A ±2.25	3.2^A ± 1.50	1.8^B ± 0.95	1.8^B ± 0.74

* TLU: tropical livestock unit: standardized animal of 250 kg liveweight; 1 cattle =0.8 TLU; 1 sheep/goat = 0.1TLU.

S: sheep only farms; SC: mixed sheep-crop farms; SGC: mixed sheep-goat-crop farms; SG: sheep-goat farms; GC: mixed goat-crop farms; G: goat only farms.

^A,Bon the same line. The values assigned to different letters are different at p˂0.01, respectively.

Table 4. Contribution (%) of small ruminant farming to household incomes in the municipality of Abomey-Calavi.

Variables	Production systems
	S (n = 20)	SC (n = 20)	SGC (n = 20)	SG (n = 20)	GC (n = 20)	G (n = 20)
Share of household incomes(%)	Mean ± standard deviation
Crop cultivation	0.0^C ±0.0	49.0^A ±26.9	31.5^B ±24.98	0.0^C ±0.00	22.5^B ±28.26	0.0^C ±0.0
Sheep farming	28.0^A ±17.35	26.5^A ±8.75	15.5^B ±12.24	13.25^B ±11.62	0.0^C ±0.00	0.0^C ±0.00
Goat farming	0.0^C ±0.00	0.0^C ±0.00	16.75^AB ±13.98	12.75^AB ±11.06	18.5^A ±10.27	10.5^B ±10.99
Other activities	72.0^B ±17.35	24.5^D ±24.17	37.25^CD ±29.71	74.0^B ±14.65	58.5^BC ±30.95	83.5^A ±24.12

^A,B,COn the same line. The values assigned to different letters are different at p˂0.01, respectively.

S: sheep only farms; SC: mixed sheep-crop farms; SGC: mixed sheep-goat-crop farms; SG: sheep-goat farms; GC: mixed goat-crop farms; G: goat only farms.

Table 5. Herd size and structure across small ruminant farm types surveyed in the municipality of Abomey-Calavi (n = 20 farms per farm type).

	Farm types
Sheep	S	SC	SGC	SG
Total sheep (n)	13.5 ± 11.4	13.8 ± 9.5	10.6 ± 7.9	11.6 ± 14.3
Female (%)
Ewe	39.5 ± 19.8	45.7 ± 12.7	38.5 ± 20.7	50.2 ± 24.5
Young	15.6 ± 15.5	10.6 ± 15.2	15.1 ± 27.9	12.1 ± 18.3
Lambs (<6 months)	14.4 ± 17.6	16.1 ± 16.1	13.5 ± 17.2	4.9 ± 10.1
Male (%)
Rams	14.7 ± 13.1	12.3 ± 9.1	7.89 ± 10.0	13.1 ± 15.7
Young	8.8 ± 17.2	6.4 ± 13.4	8.50 ± 17.6	14.7 ± 24.8
Lambs (<6 months)	6.1 ± 7.1	9.0 ± 12.1	7.69 ± 12.0	4.0 ± 8.4
Castrated	1.0 ± 4.5	0.0 ± 0.0	3.75 ± 16.8	0.0 ± 0.0
Goat	G	GC	SGC	SG
Total goat (n)	8.5 ± 4.7	14.3 ± 12.5	9.1 ± 6.8	9.7 ± 8.1
Female (%)
Does	34.4^ab ± 19.4	32.9^b ± 12.5	40.2^ab ± 17.7	50.1^a ± 26.9
Young	14.2 ± 19.2	11.2 ± 23.4	7.9 ± 18.8	10.9 ± 23.0
Kids (<6 months)	15.2 ± 17.6	15.6 ± 14.3	17.6 ± 19.6	10.4 ± 11.9
Male (%)
Buck	10.9 ± 10.9	9.2 ± 13.9	7.7 ± 14.1	8.7 ± 14.5
Young	11.3 ± 15.0	8.6 ± 18.3	8.2 ± 12.8	9.1 ± 13.4
Kids (<6 months)	11.2 ± 14.2	9.9 ± 12.2	10.3 ± 15.9	8.3 ± 15.0
Wether	2.7^b ± 6.8	12.6^a ± 14.8	3.2^b ± 7.3	2.5^b ± 7.7

S: sheep only farms; SC: mixed sheep-crop farms; SGC: mixed sheep-goat-crop farms; SG: sheep-goat farms; GC: mixed goat-crop farms; G: goat only farms.

^a,bOn the same line. The values assigned to different letters are different at p˂0.05, respectively.

Table 6. Rearing modes and feeding strategies in the peri-urban small ruminant farms surveyed in the municipality of Abomey-Calavi (n = 20 farms per farm type).

	Farm types						Chi^2
	S	SC	SGC	SG	GC	G
Parameters	Frequency (%)							p(<)
Rearing mode
During rainy season
Confinement	30	75	5	55	35	40	35.7	0.000
Free roaming	40	5	30	5	5	10
Both modes	30	20	65	40	60	50
During dry season
Confinement	5	5	0	20	10	20	20.8	0.022
Free roaming	45	20	35	5	10	10
Both modes	50	75	65	75	80	70
Feed resource groups’ utilization
Agro-industrial by-products							14.97	0.130
Main feed	15	0	0	20	20	10
Supplement	75	80	90	80	70	65
No use	10	20	10	0	10	25
Crop residues							27.85	0.002
Main feed	0	0	0	0	0	5
Supplement	30	80	60	25	30	20
No use	70	20	40	75	70	75
Commercial concentrate							18.63	0.045
Main feed	10	0	0	15	0	0
Supplement	20	5	5	15	15	0
No use	70	95	95	70	85	100
Food waste							–	–
Main feed	0	0	0	5	0	10
Supplement	65	70	65	50	70	90
No use	35	30	35	45	30	0
Tree and shrubs fodders							11.63	0.310
Main feed	0	0	5	5	0	15
Supplement	65	55	65	75	60	60
No use	35	45	30	20	40	25

S: sheep only farms; SC: mixed sheep-crop farms; SGC: mixed sheep-goat-crop farms; SG: sheep-goat farms; GC: mixed goat-crop farms; G: goat only farms.

Figure 1. Feeding constraints (% of responses, n = 120) in the peri-urban small ruminant farm types in the municipality of Abomey-Calavi.

Table 7. Feeding strategies used in the small ruminant farms during the monitoring (n = 25, for each farm type).

	Farm types
	S	SC	SGC	SG	GC	G
Parameters	Frequency (%)						Chi^2	p(<)
Feeding strategies							46.536	0.000
Pasture only	40	60	28	24	20	4
Pasture + by-products	20	16	32	24	4	12
Pasture + tree fodders	28	12	32	40	24	48
Pasture + by-products + tree fodder	12	12	8	12	52	36

S: sheep only farms; SC: mixed sheep-crop farms; SGC: mixed sheep-goat-crop farms; SG: sheep-goat farms; GC: mixed goat-crop farms; G: Goat only farms.

Table 8. Supplement feeds utilization in small ruminants’ production systems during the monitoring (n = 150).

Feed ingredients	Frequency of use	Average contribution to daily diet (%)
Agro-industrial by-products
Bakery waste	2.7	30.77
Corn bran	25.81	78.95
Food waste	3.4	54.58
Millet bran	2.7	100
Soybean bran	11.7	69.35
Sorghum bran	2.8	100
Sorghum meal	9.5	40
Wheat bran	14.3	47.09
Peelings from
Carica papaya	9.5	100
Citrus X sinensis	2.8	11.11
Dioscorea spp.	11.35	63.60
Manihot esculenta	23.85	75.85
Tree and shrub fodders
Elaeis guineensis	19.77	47.25
Ficus spp.	9.7	64.86
Gliricidia sepium	10.25	53.98
Haematoxylum campechianum	5.4	44.61
Mangifera indica	9.67	67.47
Manihot esculenta	25.5	78.94
Moringa oleifera	5.5	38.35
Musa spp.	12.5	100
Newbouldia laevis	2.7	7.69
Persea americana	5.5	65
Spondia mombin	8.3	34.93
Zanthoxylum spp.	8.1	20.29

n = 150 monitoring times. Correspond to 30 farms monitored *5 times/farm during 3 months.

S: sheep only farms; SC: mixed sheep-crop farms; SGC: mixed sheep-goat-crop farms; SG: sheep-goat farms; GC: mixed goat-crop farms; G: Goat only farms.

Data availability statement

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.