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

Abstract

This study was conducted to understand the urban small ruminant production system in the peri-urban area of southern Benin and investigate farmers’ feeding strategies in the dry season. One hundred and twenty-five (125) farms were interviewed (survey n°1) in five urbanized municipalities, using a semi-structured questionnaire on their socio-economic characteristics and production strategies, including their feeding practices. A typology of small ruminant farm types was implemented, and the farm types were characterized. Then, the feeding strategies were investigated in-depth in the most urbanized sub-area (Abomey-Calavi) on 120 farms (survey n°2). In addition, for 03 months in the dry seasons, thirty (30) farms were monitored in the municipality of Abomey-Calavi to assess the diversity of feed resources used. Six small ruminant farming systems were identified throughout the five municipalities. Goat farms were more common than sheep farms. Free grazing on communal grazing lands was the primary forage source, with supplementation provided on all farms. However, the feed supplementation strategies varied between farm types. Feed resources used included tree fodders (Manihot esculenta, Elaeis guineensis, Musa spp., Gliricidia sepium) or agro-industrial by-products (corn bran, soybean bran, cassava peels) in all farm types, and crop residues mainly in SC and SGC when they were available. Variations were observed (p < 0.001) in feeding strategies across farm types in the dry season. Improving animal nutrition by increased recycling of food or vegetable wastes and agro-industrial by-products from the city fringes appears to be an essential factor in enhancing the sustainability of periurban farms.

Keywords:

• Small ruminants
• farm typology
• sustainable farming
• urban agriculture
• farmers’ feeding practices

Reviewing Editor:

• Pedro González-Redondo, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

Subjects:

• Agriculture & Environmental Sciences
• Plant & Animal Ecology
• Rural Development
• Sustainable Development
• Urban Sociology – Urban Studies

1. Introduction

Due to their small size, low fodder requirements, and ease of rearing, small ruminants are the second most popular livestock species in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly Benin. They mainly serve as capital accumulation and income for poor households (Jemberu et al., 2022).

Keeping sheep and goats at the periphery of urban areas in South Benin is not a new phenomenon (Aboh, 2001). Urbanization offers the possibility of promoting urban agriculture through an available, reliable, safe, and profitable market for the livestock keeper (Yassegoungbe et al., 2022). As in other African countries, this activity is increasing in popularity among urban and peri-urban dwellers, evolving in a context of rapid urbanization and high population growth, with competing land uses (Abdulai et al., 2023; Baah et al., 2012; Roessler et al., 2016).

In Benin, due to urbanization, the coastal area vegetation has transformed into traditional agroforestry systems (fallows, fields, and tree/shrub plantations) and human settlements (Koura et al., 2022). Land constraints due to rapid urbanization are at the origin of the reduction in the space allocated to agricultural production and grazing areas. Decreased grazing areas due to urbanization and the ongoing climatic change have affected forage species availability and quality, especially during the dry season (Koura et al., 2021). The reduction in grazing lands and forage quality affected ruminant production, which is, in most cases, extensive on community pastures.

However, the need to be close to the market, the lack of enough land in other areas close to the city, and the need to fertilize the crops push most breeders and livestock keepers to keep animals in the peri-urban areas. However, this cohabitation among herders and farmers in small land leads to frequent conflicts (Koura, Dossa, et al., 2015).

Sheep and goats in the urban and peri-urban areas of West Africa are fed on natural pastures, supplemented with tree/shrub fodders, agro-industrial by-products, or crop residues (Schlecht et al., 2019; Yusuf et al., 2018). Yet, with increasing urbanization, there has been a drastic reduction in pasture area. Consequently, sheep and goat farmers are becoming more dependent on other limited animal feed resources (Yusuf et al., 2018). The sustainability of this important urban livelihood activity calls for more efficient management and use of available feed resources.

However, in contrast to semi-arid areas (Abdulai, 2022; Amadou et al., 2012; Diogo et al., 2010; Dossa et al., 2019; Schlecht et al., 2019), there is a lack of research on urban and peri-urban livestock production systems in sub-humid areas of West Africa like south Benin, in particular in the coastal regions. Coastal vegetation comprises semi-deciduous forests on marshlands and sandy soils, with perennial plants available in coastal sandbanks and wetlands (Akobundu & Agyakwa, 1989) that are grazed by ruminant herds. During dry seasons, poor grass regrowth due to water stress on sandy soils, pastoral pressure, and the advanced state of plant maturity affected the forage quality (Koura et al., 2021). Like cattle herds (Koura et al., 2022), small ruminants face severe feeding constraints during the dry seasons, decreasing the animals’ productivity. While attention so far focuses on cattle production in these areas (Yassegoungbe et al., 2022), little is known about the peri-urban small ruminant production systems prevailing in coastal regions of South Benin, and more specifically about the small ruminant farmers’ uses of different feed sources, and their strategies to cope with the increasing shrinkage of pastures.

This study aims to characterize small ruminant production systems in the periurban area in south Benin and understand farmers’ feeding strategies to further assist them in improving their animal performances.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area

The study was conducted in the peri-urban area of Cotonou, the largest city in Benin. This area is located between 1°35′ to 7°30′ East longitude, and 6°20′ to 7°30′ North latitude (Tèka, 2019). All the five municipalities composing the urban and peri-urban areas of Cotonou were considered. This included Seme-Podji, Cotonou, Abomey-Calavi, Ouidah, and Grand-Popo along the coastal belt of Benin. The area has a subequatorial climate with two rainy seasons alternated with two dry seasons of unequal duration, with annual rainfall ranging between 1000 and 1400 mm (DNM (Direction Nationale de la Météorologie), 2021). The soils are of sandy, hydromorphic and ferrallitic types. The vegetation consists of shrubs, grassland swamps, swamp forests, and mangrove forests on the coastal belt (Akouegninou et al., 2006). Mainly, perennial plants available in the coastal sandbanks and wetlands (Akobundu & Agyakwa, 1989) are grazed by ruminant herds. The urbanization rate in Benin was 45%, and the grazing land was about 15,000 ha, corresponding to 10% of available land (INSTAD, 2022)

2.2. Farm characteristics and production strategies

2.2.1. Data collection

A socio-economic survey (study 1. survey n°1) was conducted in the five studied municipalities. The study was conducted from June to September 2020. One hundred and twenty-five small ruminant farmers (25 in each municipality) were selected using a snowball sampling approach as described by Ahoyo et al. (2018). They were interviewed about farmers’ general characteristics and their production strategies using a semi-structured questionnaire. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected on the farmer characteristics, production systems, and feeding strategies. Interviews were conducted by the second author in the local language, Fongbé. The data collected were used to perform a farm typology.

2.2.2. Farm typology analysis

The categorical principal component analysis (CATPCA) was performed to reduce an original set of 15 variables collected during the survey into a smaller number of components. The 15 variables were ownership of a land title, crop cultivation as a secondary activity, type of supplement, feeding mode, housing, use of manure, labor type, TLU of ruminants, cattle keeping, sheep keeping, goat keeping, experience in breeding, use of concentrate, number of animal species kept, and crop cultivated (Table 1). The CATPCA method is the most appropriate approach to analyze the relationship between quantitative variables and different modalities of qualitative variables, allowing variable reduction (Houessou et al., 2019; Koura et al., 2015). The principal components were chosen using the methodology described by Stevens (1992) and adapted by Costantini et al. (2010). Only variables that loaded greater than 0.5 (Domínguez-Rodrigo et al. 2009; Dossa et al., 2011; Houessou et al., 2019; Koura et al., 2015) on one of the components were selected for further analysis. Seven variables (practice of agriculture, use of manure, ruminant Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU), sheep keeping, goat keeping, breeder experience in small ruminant keeping, and type of crop cultivated) with loadings equal to or higher than 0.5 on one of the two principal dimensions, were selected for the final grouping, using the two-step cluster analysis. The conversion factors used were: 1 cattle equal 0.8 TLU, and 1 sheep/goat equal 0.1 TLU. The variables retained were then used in the two-step cluster analysis to identify homogeneous clusters of farms. All the data analysis was performed using the statistical package SPSS version 20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA; SPSS Inc., 2010).

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

After exploring several cluster solutions, the optimal number of homogenous small ruminant farming systems was retained. Indeed, cluster-solution that showed the best fit was identified using the log-likelihood distance measure to establish different clusters and the Schwarz-Bayesian information criterion (BIC) as suggested by Mooi and Sarstedt (2011). Discriminant and multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed on variables not used in the classification to assess the obtained cluster validity and stability of the obtained clusters (Dossa et al., 2015). These variables were the type of crop cultivated, use of animal manure, cattle keeping, number of animal species kept, type of supplement, and housing mode.

2.2.3. Farm types characterization

The obtained groups were named and characterized. Descriptive statistics were generated for all the variables investigated. Chi-square (χ2) for categorical variables and Kruskal–Wallis followed by Mann–Whitney U tests for post-hoc comparison of numeric variables were used for pairwise comparisons of the identified small ruminant farming systems. For all analyses, differences were considered significant at p ≤ 0.05. All the data analyses were performed using the statistical package SPSS version 20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

2.3. Small ruminant feeding strategies in the municipality of Abomey–Calavi

2.3.1. Data collection

Based on the result of farm typology, an in-depth survey (study 2. survey n°2) was implemented in the municipality of Abomey-Calavi, the municipality that is the closest to Cotonou and holds all the identified farm types. Data were collected in October and November 2020 on 120 farms, 20 in each farm type. The surveyed farms were randomly selected in nine villages, randomly selected in the municipality. The semi-structured questionnaire used for interviews included information on the small ruminant herds’ composition, farmers’ production objectives and practices, feeding strategies, feeding constraints, and farmers’ coping strategies to feed scarcity.

Feeding strategies and feed resources used were recorded in 30 farms, considering 05 farms in each of the 06 farm types identified (study 3. farms monitoring). The major feeding strategy used on the farm at the time of the visit was considered. The individual feedstuff was identified and weighed at each visit using an electronic scale (5 kg ± 1 g). Then, the mean contribution to the daily diet was calculated by dividing the weight of a particular feedstuff by the weight of the diet. At the end of the monitoring trial, the mean contribution to the diet of each feedstuff was calculated. Data were collected every three weeks from October to December 2020 in the dry season.

2.3.2. Data processing and analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated for all the variables investigated. Then, farmers’ feeding practices and feed use strategies were compared across farm types. Frequencies were calculated for categorical variables and cross-tabulations with chi-square statistics, which were used to explore variation in feeding strategies and farm types. For continuous variables, means and standard deviations were calculated and compared across farm types using the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test. Data analysis were performed using the statistical package SPSS version 20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Small ruminant farm types in the peri-urban areas of South Benin

The original variables in the CATPCA analysis (Table 2) were grouped into two dimensions, accounting for about 38% of the total variance. The Alpha-Cronbach coefficient for the overall model was satisfactory (0.883). The two-step cluster analysis revealed four variables (the practice of agriculture, goat keeping, sheep keeping, and ruminant Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU) as the most discriminative permitted to distinguish six farm types. Results showed a silhouette measure of cohesion and separation of 0.80, indicating a good cluster structure and providing a clear differentiation of the farms.

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.

The results of the multinomial logistic regression performed on the type of crop cultivated, use of manure, cattle keeping, number of animal species kept, type of feed supplement used, and housing as explanatory variables showed 88.8% correct classification (Supplementary Appendix, Table A.1). The Cox and Snell pseudo-R-square of the model was 0.937. The model Chi-Square was statistically significant at p < 0.001, and the goodness-of-fit was equal to 1, indicating a good fit.

Six farm types were distinguished (Table 3) and named as follows: goat-only farms (G, 36.8%), mixed goat-crop farms (GC, 24%), mixed sheep-goat-crop farms (SGC, 12.8%), sheep-only farms (S, 12%), sheep-goat farms (SG, 8.8%) and mixed sheep-crop farms (SC, 5.6%). Irrespective of farm type, sheep and goat breeders were middle-aged (48.5 ± 11.35 years old) and literate. Most farmers (82.4%) used agricultural by-products like cereal (corn, millet, sorghum) brans, and soybean meal as feed supplements. However, the farm types differed according to several characteristics in the Supplementary Appendix (Tables A. 2 and A. 3).

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.

Goat-only farms (G, n = 46 farms): this farming group shared many similarities with GC in terms of the number of animal species kept, TLU of ruminants (cattle, sheep, goat), source of labor, grazing duration in dry seasons, women representation, socio-linguistic groups involved. They kept no cattle. These farms were mainly located in the municipalities of Seme-Podji and Cotonou, and the farmers had lower (p˂0.001) experience (41.3% for experience <5 years) in ruminant keeping than others. Similar to SG, animal manure was valorized in 87% of farms. Grazing duration per day was the highest in both the dry (7.6 hours) and wet (7.2 hours) seasons.

Mixed goat-crop farms (GC, n = 30 farms) were also family farms with an average TLU of 1.8. Two-thirds (66.7%) of these farms kept about two animal species but no cattle. They cultivated food crops and commercial vegetables (26.7% of farms). Only 43.3% of these farms used animal manure for soil fertilization. Compared to other farms, they had a high grazing duration in the dry season (7.4 hours). Women represented about 40% of farmers in this group. These farms were mainly located in the less urbanized areas of Grand-Popo (40%) and Ouidah (23.3%). The herds were owned by autochthon (70%), mainly from Fon (56.7%) and Xwla (40%) socio-linguistic groups.

Mixed sheep-goat-crop farms (SGC, n = 15 farms) integrated goat farming with sheep while food crops and commercial vegetables (44%) were produced. A higher (p˂0.001) number of farms (94%) in this group than in the others kept more than three livestock species. Labor was mainly familial (81.2%). Similar to S and SC, these farms kept cattle. Like in SC, the farming system was fully integrated using animal manure (81.2% of farms) for soil fertilization and agricultural waste (87.5% of farms) for animal feeding. However, their grazing duration was higher (7.5 hours) in the dry season compared to the other sheep farm types. Most of these farms were located in the less urbanized municipalities of Ouidah (38%) and Grand-Popo (38%). Women (6.2%) were less represented among these farmers. Like S farms, this group included farmers from diverse socio-linguistic groups and religions with high experience in ruminant keeping. More than half (56.2%) of them were autochthon.

Sheep-only farms (S, n = 15 farms): this group included farmers who only kept sheep as small ruminants, with a relatively higher (p˂0.001) TLU (4.8 ± 2.73) value compared to all other five groups. However, 20% of them kept cattle, and relatively few (13.3%) kept other non-ruminant species (poultry and pigs). They were not engaged in crop cultivation. Animal manure from these farms was either sold (60% of farms) to other farmers or thrown as garbage (33%). These farms mainly used family labor (73.3%), and 28.6% of farmers entrusted their sheep to hired herders. Sheep grazing time was relatively short (p˂0.001) in both seasons, 5.6 ± 2.66 hours in the rainy season and 6 ± 2.80 hours in the dry season. This group was mainly found in the most urbanized areas (47% in Cotonou and 20% in Abomey-Calavi). Very few (6.7% of farmers) women were involved in this farming system, which is mainly practiced by foreign people (87.6%) from Fon (40%) or Dendi (33.3) socio-linguistic groups. These farmers have a high level of experience (>15 years) in ruminant keeping.

Sheep-goat farms (SG, n = 11 farms) kept no cattle and were not engaged in crop cultivation. The average size of the ruminant (cattle, sheep, goat) herd was 3.2 TLU. Animal manure was not used at most (72.7%) of these farms. Like in other goat farms (GC, G), SG farms used family labor only. The duration of grazing was about 6.8 hours in both rainy and dry seasons. Farmers in this group were from the Fon socio-linguistic group (90.9%), and 54.5% had between 5 and 10 years of experience in ruminant keeping. Mixed sheep-crop farms (SC, n = 7): this group consisted of farms mainly located in the municipalities of Seme-Podji (29%) and Ouidah (29%). All farmers in this group were men with at least five years of experience in ruminant keeping. Similar to farmers in the S farm type, SC farmers were from the Dendi and Fon socio-linguistic groups. Most of the farmers of this group were autochthon (57.1%). They kept cattle (28.6%) in addition to sheep and held higher (p˂0.001) ruminant TLU (7.8) compared to farmers in other farm groups. They also produced commercial vegetables (42.9%) and food crops (28.6%). A part of the animal manure was used for soil fertilization (42.9% of farms), and the remaining was sold. These farms mainly used family labor (86% of farms). Grazing duration was similar to S-type farmers but shorter (p ˂ 0.001) in these groups (5.6 hours in the dry season and 5.4 hours in the rainy season) compared to other farm groups.

3.2. Characteristics of small ruminant production in the municipality of Abomey-Calavi

3.2.1. Farmers’ production objectives

The socio-economic characteristics of small ruminant farmers in the peri-urban area of South Benin are presented in Table A.4. (Supplementary Appendix). The farm household size averaged 5.8 ± 2.3 persons. The farmers were either civil public servants/traders (70.8%) living in/or around the city or were farmers (24.2%). For most (92.5%) of the respondents, livestock keeping was a secondary activity. More than half of the farmers (62.5%) had bought the land used for this livelihood activity. They kept small ruminants mainly for financial purposes (92.5%) and social motives (6.7%). Irrespective of the small ruminant species, the short-legged Djallonke breed was commonly kept. The long-legged Sahelian breeds were found in only 15% of the surveyed sheep farms.

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.

Livestock activity contribution to incomes varied (p˂0.001) among different farm types (Table 4). Sheep farms (S: 28% and SC: 26.5%) contributed more than sheep-goat farms to household incomes. However, among farms keeping goats, GC farms were the most contributing (18.5%) and G farms the less (10.5%). Irrespective of farm type, incomes generated from animal sales were mainly used for supplying food to the household (50.3%), paying children’s school fees (17.4%), buying additional animals (12.9%) or inputs (feed/medicine) for animal production (8.1%), and for other purposes (house construction, social purposes, purchase of inputs for crop production).

3.2.2. Herds’ size and structure

The average herd sizes (Table 5) were 12.4 ± 10.9 sheep and 10.4 ± 8.7 goats. Does were the most dominant animal category in the herds (39–50% of the total herd size), whereas adult males represented 7–15% of the herd. The highest (p < 0.05) proportion of does was observed in SG farms (50.1%) and the lowest in GC (32.9%); no difference was found among sheep farms (mean: 43.5%). Irrespective of farm type, young animals in the herds were mainly female. Fewer sheep were castrated (1.2% of the herd) compared to goats (5.3% in goat herds), with the highest proportion (12.6%) of castrated goats observed on GC 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.

3.2.3. Farmers’ management strategies

3.2.3.1. Production factors

Farmers (50.8%) made some investments in their small ruminant farms. These investments were mainly in paddock building or rebuilding (73.8% of farmers) and the rest for purchasing supplements (concentrate or by-products) for animals.

Overall, family labor averaged 2.4 ± 1.4 persons/farm. It was used to perform different activities like cutting and carrying forage, feeding, cleaning, and medicinal care, depending on the category of the family member. Men were mainly responsible for collecting forage and animal health care (85%), whereas women were involved in feeding the animals and cleaning the paddock (65%). Young household members had fewer responsibilities than adults and helped their parents with animal feeding and paddock cleaning (25% of boys and 15% of girls). Veterinarians and livestock technicians were animal healthcare providers in 65.8% of the surveyed farms.

3.2.3.2. Rearing modes and feeding strategies

The herds were kept either in permanent (total) or seasonal (partial) confinement or a free-roaming system (Table 6). Alternating between free grazing and stall feeding was the prominent feeding strategy. However, feeding strategies varied (p < 0.05) between the seasons irrespective of farm type. It also differed (p < 0.001) among farm types during the rainy seasons. The animals were confined during the rainy season in paddocks in SC (75%) and SG farms (55%), whereas they were kept in both (confined and free-roaming) systems in other farm types. In dry seasons, the latter practice was common in all farm types.

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.

Irrespective of the farm type, natural pasture was the primary feed source. Other feed resources included agro-industrial by-products (87.5%), crop residues (41.6%), tree/shrub fodder (70.8%), commercial concentrate (14.2%), and household food waste (67.5%). The use of crop residues and commercial concentrate for supplementing the animals varied among farm types (p < 0.05). Supplementing with crop residues was predominant in SC (80%) and SGC (60%) farms, whereas commercial concentrate was used in S farms (20%) and SG farms (15%). Forage cropping was not a common practice.

All farms generally offered the basal diet and supplements separately (90%). Both basal diet (82.5% of farms) and concentrate (78.3% of farms) were offered more than twice a day without any special preparation or processing (93.3% of farms). However, all small ruminant species and animal categories were fed together. The feeds were stored in burlap bags for later use.

3.2.3.3. Feeding constraints and farmers’ coping strategies

The constraints faced by farmers in feeding their animals varied (p < 0.001) across farm types (Figure 1). Among goat keepers, 45 and 30% of those operating in GC and G farms reported no constraint. The collection of fodder along roadsides or in remote areas was the major constraint to animal feeding, as reported by sheep farmers (S and SC farms). The major limitation for farmers keeping both small ruminant species was the high costs of agro-industrial by-products for animal supplementation.

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

Farmers’ adaptive strategies to cope with these feeding constraints included the increased use of supplements (12.5%), the practice of permanent free-roaming (6.6%), and displacement of herds to less urbanized areas where forage is more abundant (1.7%), while the remaining (79.2%) farmers had no strategy.

3.2.4. Feeding strategies in the dry season

The 3-month herd monitoring revealed temporal variations in farmers’ feeding strategies and use of feed resources (Tables 7 and 8). Sheep in 40% of S farms and 60% of SC farms remained on grazing only. In mixed sheep and goat farms, animals were preferably supplemented with by-products (24–32%) or tree fodder (32–40%). In contrast, goats were supplemented with either tree fodder when kept alone (48% of G farms) or with a mix of tree fodder and by-products in GC farms (52%).

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.

The main agro-industrial by-products were brans from corn Zea mays (25.8%), wheat Triticum aestivum (14.3%), soybean Glycine max (11.7%), and peelings from cassava Manihot esculenta (23.85%) and yams Dioscorea spp. (11.35%). They made up 47–79% of the supplementary diet. Leaves of Cassava (Manihot esculenta) were the most reported crop residues used (25.5%), whereas Elaeis guineensis (19.8%) and Musa spp. (12.5%), Gliricidia sepium (10.3%) was the most reported tree and shrub fodder. The contribution of tree and shrub leaves to the supplementary diet was high, ranging from 47.3% (Elaeis guineensis) to 100% (Musa spp.). Leaves of Ficus spp., Mangifera indica, and Persea americana were used less frequently. Wells (96%) and faucets (22%) were the animals’ main sources of drinkable water.

4. Discussion

4.1. Small ruminant farm types in the periurban areas

In previous studies, the CATPCA analysis followed by the two-step clustering method was useful (Dossa et al., 2015; Houessou et al., 2019, 2021; Koura et al., 2015) in identifying farms with similar characteristics, based on a large set of numeric and nominal variables. Four production characteristics distinguished six periurban small ruminant farm types, including sheep farms (sheep only: S and sheep-crop: SC), goat farms (goat only: G and goat-crop: GC), and mixed sheep-goat farms (sheep-goat: SG and sheep-goat-crop: SGC). The four criteria, for instance, sheep farming, goat farming, total livestock unit, and practice of crop cultivation, appeared among the criteria used by Gunia et al. (2010) for the typology of Creole goat production systems in Guadeloupe and by Sakané et al. (2013) in characterizing smallholder production systems in East Africa. Moreover, our criteria also suggested agricultural production diversification in the periurban areas, consistent with findings of Dossa et al. (2011) in the peri-urban regions of other West African cities, like Bobo dioulasso in Burkina faso, Kano in Nigeria, and Sikasso in Mali.

In Benin, as in most West-African cities (Abdulai, 2022; Baah et al., 2012; Dossa et al., 2015; Yusuf et al., 2018), small ruminants are entirely part of the urban and peri-urban households. Our study showed a diversity of production systems and feeding strategies in peri-urban areas of southern Benin. Sheep and goat production are market-oriented, generating income for the farmers (Baah et al., 2012; Dossa et al., 2015). In general, herd sizes were bigger than those observed by Dossa et al. (2008) in rural areas, where goat keeping was a secondary activity. Similar to findings by Duguma and Janssens (2016) in peri-urban areas of Ethiopia, small ruminants in the study area were the property of people fully engaged in other income-generating activities, such as traders, public and civil servants, for whom this activity was an additional source of income. Moreover, seeking to make a higher economic profit from their small ruminant farming, some owners improved their farm characteristics by using commercial feeds and building barns in concrete materials. This improvement can be considered a progressive shift toward semi-intensive production. Yusuf et al. (2018) observed the same tendency on urban farms in Nigeria. In addition, sheep farmers tended to improve their animals genetically by introducing rams of different Sahelian sheep breeds for crossbreeding, confirming the market orientation of the peri-urban sheep production. Furthermore, the small ruminant herds’ composition is characterized by a high number of producing female animals and a small number of young males as most of them are fattened and sold, suggesting that these peri-urban farms were productive. A similar flock structure has been observed in urban herds in Ghana (Baah et al., 2012).

Goat farms were more common than sheep farms in the peri-urban areas of Benin, a finding that agrees with previous observations by Dossa et al. (2008) who investigated the socio-economic determinants of small ruminant keeping in the south of Benin. These authors reported that compared to sheep, goats are not affected by any ethnic or cultural restrictions and is less risky to invest in and to handle compared with sheep (Dossa et al., 2015). In addition, goat meat is a delicacy among urban dwellers (Baah et al., 2012), thus increasing the demand.

Sheep herds were bigger than goat herds. Baah et al. (2012) reported that sheep are maintained in herds for sale during the Tabaski festival, when they fetch higher prices compared to other periods of the year. Indeed, the sacrifice of sheep by each Muslim household is imperative for the success of this festival, giving sheep a higher economic value during this period and justifying the higher contribution of sheep farming to household income in S and SC farms compared with goats in G and GC farms. This difference in the contribution of sheep and goats to farm income and the higher role of goats as a savings account and insurance had been previously acknowledged (Desta et al., 2020; Houessou et al., 2021).

In contrast with what is commonly observed around cities in most developing countries (Orsini et al., 2013), but similar to observations in Ghana (Baah et al., 2012), the peri-urban farms in southern Benin were familial and were not affected by the high costs of hired labor. However, sheep herds (S and SC) were entrusted and handled together with cattle herds by hired Fulani herders. Indeed, sheep are more dependent on grazing and more labor-demanding than goats. The ruminant entrustment practice is well-known in cattle (Koura et al., 2015; Vanvanhossou et al., 2021), and herding sheep with cattle could allow for more efficient labor use. As shown in our results and literature, few women were involved in keeping sheep compared to goats (Sinn et al., 1999). In addition, the gender division of household labor acknowledged by Kariuki et al. (2022) was also observed in our study; males were responsible for sanitary care and fodder collection, while women helped feed and clean.

The practice of sheep-only (S type) farming in Cotonou, which was, according to INSAE (Institut National de la Statistique et de l’Analyse Economique) (2016), the most urbanized among the municipalities under study, provides evidence of the effect of the farm’s location on the farm types. The S farm type was similar to the intensive sheep fattening units found in the urban and peri-urban areas of Ghana, Nigeria, and countries in the Sahel (Ayantunde et al., 2007; Baah et al., 2012, Yusuf et al., 2018). Indeed, sheep feedlots in populated areas are a good strategy for managing space (Amole et al., 2014). In contrast, integrated farms (SC, SGC, GC) were mostly represented in the Ouidah and Grand-Popo municipalities, less populated than Cotonou, where crop and vegetable cultivation is common (Dassou et al., 2019). In these farms, crop residues were available and used as feed, and the manure generated is used for land fertilization. Sahoo et al. (2021) have acknowledged using vegetable waste as a sustainable ruminant feed source. Similarly, Lemaire et al. (2014) and Koura et al. (2015) acknowledged that the full integration of production observed in these farms is sustainable for the intensification of livestock production in small-scale farms.

Where both sheep and goats were associated (SG) with crop (SGC) and cattle (S, SC, SGC), more grazing land is needed in the urban setting. Therefore, G farms seemed the most appropriate in the most populated areas (Cotonou, Sèmè-Podji), as shown in the current study.

Sheep fattening (S) and full-integrated farming (SGC) were practiced by experienced farmers, who were expected to have more knowledge of small ruminant handling. These systems could be of interest as they could be more productive and profitable (S farms) and sustainable (SGC), as acknowledged by Yusuf et al. (2018). However, farmers with less experience in small ruminant farming preferred goats (GC and G) because they are easier to handle than sheep (Houessou et al., 2021). Indeed, goats (G and GC farms) were the first flock for beginners in small ruminant farming ventures, and farmers could, in years, upgrade to a more intensive fattening system (S farming) in most urbanized areas or to an integrated system (SGC) in the less urbanized ones.

4.2. Feeding strategies in the peri-urban farms

The current study confirms the free-roaming and seasonal confinement during the wet season of small ruminants as found across African countries (Agossou et al., 2017; Houessou et al., 2021). Animals were confined during the wet season to avoid destroying croplands, while in the dry season, they could graze around homesteads (S and SGC farms).

Using the communal grazing lands, the typical feeding strategy of livestock farmers in rural Africa (Houessou et al., 2021), was also the primary feeding strategy in the peri-urban areas of Cotonou and contrasts with findings by Baah et al. (2012) in Ghana, where the use of agro-industrial by-products and food waste were the primary feed resource in urban farms. In the current study, goat farms (G and GC) spent more time grazing in the dry season, searching forage along roadsides and undeveloped plots, as previously reported by Duguma et al. (2017). Sheep are brought to graze together with cattle under the guidance of a herder. They could go far from homesteads to places where forage is abundant, whereas goats survive on browse and grasses of poor quality available along roads, unbuilt plots, and around homesteads (Houessou et al., 2021). Hence, goats remained close to habitations, where they could often return to rest or benefit from supplements, usually from household garbage.

The shrinking of grazing areas in the peri-urban areas due to urbanization in southern Benin (Koura et al., 2015) negatively affects forage availability and quality (Koura et al., 2021). In this context, exploring pasture along roadsides and undeveloped plots in the cities (Baah et al., 2012; Koura et al., 2021) and even in wetlands (Koura et al., 2015) is the main coping strategy to forage scarcity during the dry season. However, this strategy was insufficient and will not sustain ruminant production in the periurban area. Therefore, exploring other feed resources is required to sustain feeding strategies in the periurban farms. Peri-urban small ruminant farms could instead turn to a stall-fed system based on available local feed resources, as described by Ibidhi et al. (2018).

As a supplementation strategy, a greater use of agro-industrial by-products was observed in all farm types, which confirms the findings by Yusuf et al. (2018) in peri-urban areas of Northern Nigeria. The challenge for these farms is to turn into an intensive production, buying by-products to fatten animals quickly for sale, even though the quantities that could be purchased from other households or agro-industrial factories were negligible and could be limited by their cost. This calls for the financial support of periurban small ruminant farms through credit for enhancing investments in farm activities and covering the feeding cost, as done in other regions of Africa (Duguma et al., 2017).

However, goats in G farms received less care in supplementation with by-products, as also found in previous studies (Boyazoglu et al., 2005); indeed, they were preferably supplemented with tree/shrub fodder and household food wastes. Due to the ability of this species to use and degrade a large range of feeds well, using these feed resources available in the area seemed the most uncomplicated strategy in the urban goat farms. An opposite trend was observed in SG, GC farms, and S farms, where the use of purchased concentrate was common.

Regarding the use of agro-industrial by-products, not all farms could afford their high cost. Therefore, a greater use of crop residues was noticed in peri-urban sheep farms (SC and SGC) farms, in contrast to previous studies that reported low use of crop residues in sub-humid areas of Benin (Koura et al., 2015). This practice is well-known in the country’s northern regions (Diogo et al., 2017). In urbanized areas, residues from commercial vegetable production could be used in addition to food wastes. As sheep have higher feed requirements than goats (NRC, 2007), using crop residues in addition to agro-industrial by-products is a strategy to reduce supplementation costs. In addition, these strategies enhance animal integration with urban crop farming and gardening; hence, integration opens ways for nutrient use efficiency (Reichenbach et al., 2021). There could be an increasing interest in using vegetable by-products, as they have good nutritional value for ruminants (Sabater et al., 2020; Sedlar et al., 2021).

Besides crop residues, tree/shrub fodder and household food waste (Duguma & Janssens, 2016; Miresa et al., 2021) were increasingly used. The potential bioactive compounds in tree fodder were an opportunity for increasing forage digestibility, animal health and meat quality (da Silveira Agostini-Costa, 2018; Farghaly et al., 2022; Torres-Fajardo et al., 2021). Supplementing with tree fodder could reduce CH₄ emission (Giamouri et al., 2023) when offered as a supplement to poor forage in the coastal area (Koura et al., 2021). However, due to the limited availability of trees/shrubs in the periurban areas, they make little contribution to feeding sheep and goats. Periurban agroforestry, with the commonly used trees like E. guineensis or G. sepium, could be of interest for sustaining peri-urban ruminant production, as it offers opportunities for increasing agroforestry-based ruminant production systems (Alexandre et al., 2021; Koura et al., 2015). Moreover, the use of multipurpose trees E. guineensis and Acacia auriculoformus could enhance their role as a source of livelihood (Haavisto-Meier, 2018) or rehabilitation of degraded land (Monteiro et al., 2020) in urban and periurban areas.

The use of household food waste is an emerging strategy that could be suitable for urban areas. Recently, some authors have depicted the nutritional importance of urban (food) waste (Georganas et al., 2020; Torok et al., 2021). However, only low quantities are available at the household level. Greater opportunity for recycling human food waste as animal feed could be possible with a sub-city collection (Shurson, 2020).

4.3. Feeding constraints and coping strategies

Because of forage scarcity around the cities, farmers grazed their sheep herds far from their dwellings or collect forage and fodder. Most of the farmers perceived this procedure as time-consuming. Still, the expected intensive feeding systems in urban farms (Dossa et al., 2019) were not observed in the peri-urban area of Cotonou.

The supplementation strategy was inconsistent. In addition, as all animals were fed together, it was not easy to evaluate the individual animal diet. These uncontrolled feeding practices with different resources collected based on their availability could not ensure that the nutritional requirement of the animal is covered (Koura et al., 2021). Baah et al. (2012) noticed inadequate feed use in Ghana’s urban farms, which calls for training the urban small ruminant farmers of southern Benin on good practices of small ruminant feeding. The technical support to be provided to these farmers could focus on farm intensification through a good supplementation strategy of the grazing herds to ensure that ruminants’ nutritional requirements are covered.

Without any credit support, purchasing commercial feeds or adopting permanent free-roaming as an alternative to forage scarcity in the periurban areas will likely not be sustainable. As depicted by Baah et al. (2012), this calls for the research and development of cost-effective feed packages (premixes and compound feeds) based on locally available feed ingredients. Using macroalgae available in the coastal area as an animal feed source could be an option (González-Meza et al., 2023). Still, due to the low quantities available, it is not viable.

Other possible strategies for coping with forage and feed scarcity are forage cultivation and storage as hay or silage (Balehegn et al., 2022). However, land shortage, lack of knowledge, and need for additional labor (Duguma et al., 2017) could limit these strategies in urban areas. In addition, haymaking could be more difficult in humid environments (Maleko et al., 2018), such as southern Benin. Finally, both strategies require training the farmers and the development of fodder markets where crop residues, agro-industrial by-products, and fresh forage could be sold (Konlan et al., 2017). The issue is to improve feed availability by collecting crop residues in remote areas, buying agro-industrial by-products from industries and small factories (Anim-Jnr et al., 2023; Kiatti et al., 2023), and producing forage in rural areas to be stored and used in urban farms. There is also a tremendous but untapped opportunity for the use of fruits and vegetable wastes, which have good nutritional value and potential in livestock nutrition (Tedesco et al., 2021), from city markets like Dantokpa (the biggest open market in west Africa) and other fruits and vegetable markets in Cotonou.

5. Conclusion

This study has provided a better understanding of small ruminant production systems and feeding practices in the peri-urban areas of southern Benin. Six small ruminant farm types were identified. The animals were kept free-roaming, stall-fed, or a combination of both feeding systems according to seasons and farm types. Feed supplementation was practiced in all farms, with small amounts of agro-industrial by-products and tree fodder used alone or together. However, improving animal nutrition appears to be an essential factor in enhancing animal productivity in peri-urban farms. There is an opportunity to sustain small ruminants’ systems by integrating cropping (commercial gardening) and livestock (ruminant production). Using vegetable wastes for animal feeding and fertilizing the farmer’s crop with manure is a strategy in favor of nutrient cycling and ensuring a circular economy. Therefore, farmers need to be trained in good practices in animal feeding and crop-livestock integration.

Ethical approval

Prior to data collection, the participants gave oral consent to participate in the study. Participant data have been anonymized. Written informed consent was obtained from the farmer’s leader to publish the survey data on behalf of all the farmers.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the small ruminant keepers in the study area for their time and willingness to participate in the survey/monitoring and the International Foundation for Science, Stockholm, for financial support for data collection.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

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

Additional information

Funding

This study was financially supported by the International Foundation for Science, Stockholm, Sweden, through the Individual research grant n° B/5863-1, provided to the first author.

Notes on contributors

Bossima Ivan Koura

Dr Bossima Ivan Koura is a senior lecturer in Animal Production at the National University of Agriculture (UNA Benin), Benin. Ivan researches ruminant nutrition, feed resource use efficiency by grazing animals and feedlots, and the effect of nutrition on animal performances and product quality. Currently, he is interested in climate-smart livestock systems by promoting better feeding strategies and intensifying the production of Indigenous cattle and poultry breeds.

Fifame Panine Yassegoungbe

Fifame Panine Yassegoungbe Fifame Panine YASSEGOUNGBE is a Beninese PhD student at the University of Abomey-Calavi (UAC). Her research focuses on the sustainability of dairy cattle farming systems in Benin.

Luc Hippolyte Dossa

Luc Hippolyte Dossa Dr Luc Hippolyte Dossa is a Professor of Animal Breeding and Production Systems and Head of the Laboratory of Animal Sciences at the University of Abomey-Calavi (UAC) in Benin. He teaches several courses related to different aspects of livestock production systems. His research publications cover a wide range of topics, including the sustainable management of local farm animal genetic resources, and a better understanding of the carbon footprints of tropical livestock production systems.