| Title |
Do traditional sheep breeders perform conscious selection? An example from a participatory breeding program of Morada Nova sheep
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Tropical Animal Health and Production, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11250-017-1350-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Janaina Kelli Gomes Arandas, Ângelo Giuseppe Chaves Alves, Olivardo Facó, Ernandes Barboza Belchior, Luciana Shiotsuki, Paulo Márcio Barbosa de Arruda Leite, Maria Norma Ribeiro |
| Abstract |
The implementation of sustainable breeding programs requires genetic breeding strategies that are appropriate for the reality production systems. It is also essential that the choice of animal selection criteria be based on breeders' knowledge and objectives. This work is an ethno-zootechnical study of the Morada Nova sheep breed and its crossbreeds. The goals of this study were to register and analyze indigenous breeders' knowledge and practices regarding animal selection criteria and to generate technical information to support a participatory breeding program of the breed. This study was conducted in the Morada Nova municipality in the state of Ceará, Brazil. Semi-structured interviews were evaluated using two groups of individuals, purebred Morada Nova sheep breeders (RMN, n = 13) and breeders of Morada Nova crossbreeds (MMN, n = 48). Interview questions were used to identify local selection criteria adopted by each group in the choice of animals for breeding. Data from the interviews were submitted to frequency distribution analysis and the Shapiro-Wilk test to verify their distribution. Later, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the two groups of farmers based on that information, in addition to multivariate statistical analysis and evaluation of Smith salience index. Breeders in the RMN group used selection criteria related to breed standards, such as pelage color. In contrast, breeders of the MMN group used criteria related to productivity, such as body conformation and milk production. Breeders should be engaged in the development of breeding programs, and it is important to consider their preferences and objectives when evaluating breeding animals. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Researcher | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 13 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 32% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 20 | 49% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 August 2017.
All research outputs
#4,456,044
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Tropical Animal Health and Production
#58
of 1,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,404
of 319,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Tropical Animal Health and Production
#2
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,384 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,176 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.