REVIEW Genetic Resources (2025), 6 (11), 82–98 DOI: 10.46265/genresj.NNFE5064 https://www.genresj.org ISSN: 2708-3764 Strategies to balance productivity and genetic diversity for the sustainable use of indigenous livestock breeds: A case study of Ethiopia Amine Mustefa * Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute, Comoros street, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Abstract: Livestock genetic improvement and conservation approaches follow divergent paths to achieve livestock productivity and genetic diversity, respectively. However, designing a win-win solution is mandatory to secure sustainable utilization of indigenous livestock breeds. To recommend a balanced solution, a systematic review was conducted to summarize the advantages and limitations of both approaches in developing countries using Ethiopia as a case study. Within-breed selection, breed substitution and crossbreeding programmes were implemented to achieve livestock genetic improvement while in situ and ex situ methods were used to maintain the genetic diversity of the indigenous livestock breeds. The genetic improvement approach offers advantages such as increased productivity, climate change mitigation and reduced animal aggression. However, it is also associated with limitations, including genetic erosion, maladaptation, inbreeding, high costs, and longer time requirements. On the other hand, the conservation approach focuses on maintaining genetic diversity, adaptable breeds, unique traits, cultural heritage and market-demanded products. However, maintaining indigenous breeds without genetic improvement is often associated with lower productivity, which hinders food security and income generation for farmers. Therefore, a balanced application of both approaches is recommended to achieve optimal productivity while preserving the genetic diversity of indigenous breeds. To ensure sustainable utilization, it is recommended to identify indigenous livestock breeds through phenotypic, genomic and historical characterization; conduct breed-, sex- and age-specific population censuses; evaluate breeds on station and on farm; delineate conservation areas; implement cryoconservation; and improve husbandry practices. Keywords: Adaptability, climate change, conservation, genetic erosion, inbreeding Citation: Mustefa, A. (2025). Strategies to balance productivity and genetic diversity for the sustainable use of indigenous livestock breeds: A case study of Ethiopia. Genetic Resources 6 (11), 82–98. doi: 10.46265/genresj.NNFE5064. © Copyright 2025 the Authors. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Introduction In many developing countries, livestock (cattle, sheep, goats, poultry, camels, horses and donkeys) play a vital role in rural economies (CSA, 2021). Livestock provide meat, milk, eggs and other products essential for human nutrition. Livestock also serve as a source of income, draught power and manure for crop production. Moreover, livestock is deeply intertwined with cultural practices and traditions, making it an integral part of the social fabric (Adane and Girma, 2008; Gizaw, 2009; CSA, 2022). The sector is dominated by indigenous ∗Corresponding author: Amine Mustefa (amine.mustefa@ebi.gov.et) animals that have evolved over centuries and are managed in diverse production environments, including lowlands, highlands, arid and semi-arid areas (EBI, 2016; Assefa and Hailu, 2018). However, the sustainable use of livestock in most developing countries has been significantly affected by two major challenges: climate change and the poor productivity of indigenous breeds. Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges of our time, with far-reaching impacts on agriculture and food security (El-Bilali et al, 2020). Developing countries, which are often more vulnerable to climate variability, face significant risks to their livestock production systems. Climate change exacerbates existing challenges in livestock production, including water scarcity, feed Received: 06.02.2025 Accepted: 12.05.2025 Published online: 13.06.2025 https://www.genresj.org https://www.doi.org/10.46265/genresj.NNFE5064 https://www.genresj.org https://www.doi.org/10.46265/genresj.NNFE5064 mailto:amine.mustefa@ebi.gov.et Genetic Resources (2025), 6 (11), 82–98 Balancing livestock productivity and diversity in Ethiopia 83 shortages and disease outbreaks (Degefu and Milkias, 2024). Rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns can reduce the availability of pasture and water, leading to decreased productivity and increased mortality rates (Woldeyohannes et al, 2023). At the same time, the poor productivity of indigenous breeds poses a significant challenge to the livestock sector in many developing countries, limiting the sector’s potential benefits. This issue stems from a combination of low genetic potential and environmental constraints, including inadequate feed, veterinary care and management practices (Gizaw, 2009; Mustefa, 2022). Therefore, to ensure the sustainable use of live- stock, addressing these two major challenges is essential. In this context, two primary strategies have emerged: genetic improvement and the conservation of indige- nous breeds. Livestock production and productivity can be enhanced through the implementation of vari- ous genetic improvement programmes. Selective breed- ing, crossbreeding and breed substitution are viable options for improving the genetic potential of indige- nous breeds (Philipsson et al, 2006). On the other hand, the application of in situ and ex situ conservation, or a combination of both can help maintain the diversity of indigenous livestock breeds, enabling them to cope with upcoming climate-driven changes. Indigenous livestock breeds are known for their ability to adapt, produce and reproduce under harsh environmental conditions, such as scarce feed and water, extreme temperatures, disease challenges and prolonged drought periods (EBI, 2016; Assefa and Hailu, 2018; Endris et al, 2022). In addition to their adaptability, indigenous breeds are valued for their desirable products, such as eggs, meat and milk. The market value of products from indigenous breeds is often higher than those from exotic breeds. However, enhancing productivity and diversity simul- taneously is challenging because the concepts of genetic improvement are often associated with decreasing diver- sity (EBI, 2016). Moreover, according to Article 2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), sustainable use is defined as “the use of components of biological diversity in a way and at a rate that does not lead to the long-term decline of biological diversity, thereby main- taining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations” (CBD, 2004). Therefore, balancing genetic improvement with the conservation of indigenous livestock breeds is crucial. To achieve this, it is necessary to review the principles and on-the-ground impacts of these approaches. Thus, the current study aims to recap the advantages and limitations of both options (conservation and genetic improvement) for the sustainable utilization of indigenous livestock breeds with a focus on cattle, sheep, goats and chicken, using Ethiopia as a case study, and to recommend a win-win solution. A systematic review was conducted, following five steps as stated in Khan et al (2003): • Step 1: Framing review questions. The review question focused on the advantages and limita- tions of livestock genetic improvement and conser- vation programmes related to the sustainable uti- lization of the livestock production sector. • Step 2: Identification of relevant work. Relevant published articles as well as unpublished MSc and PhD thesis works addressing the framed review questions were extensively searched. • Step 3: Quality assessment. Articles published in reputable journals were selected alongside the MSc and PhD thesis works. • Step 4: Summarization of evidence. Information related to the genetic improvement programmes using within-breed selection, crossbreeding and breed substitution approaches, as well as in situ and ex situ conservation programmes, was compiled. • Step 5: Interpretation of findings. The main find- ings from Step 4 were interpreted by compar- ing the achievements and limitations of genetic improvement and conservation approaches, as well as examining them against scientific justifica- tions. Genetic improvement Livestock genetic improvement refers to the enhance- ment of the genotype of live animal breeding pop- ulations to increase their productivity, efficiency and resilience (Mueller and Van Eenennaam, 2022; Tesfa et al, 2024). The primary goals of livestock genetic improvement activities in most developing countries are to increase meat, milk and egg production, as well as improve feed efficiency. This can be achieved through selective breeding, crossbreeding, breed substi- tution and the use of advanced biotechnologies such as genomic selection and gene editing (Belew et al, 2016; Haile et al, 2020; Woldeyohannes et al, 2023). Within-breed improvement involves selecting supe- rior animals from the same population to serve as parents for the next generation while culling low- performing animals from the flock (Haile et al, 2020). Crossbreeding improves the genotype of indigenous animals by crossing them with high-performing exotic breeds. Breed substitution, on the other hand, involves replacing low-performing indigenous animals with high- performing exotic breeds (Vaccaro and Steane, 1990; Solomon et al, 2014). Ethiopia has successfully implemented genetic improvement programmes of cattle (Beneberu et al, 2021), sheep (Getachew et al, 2020), goats (Solomon et al, 2014), and chicken (Yigzaw et al, 2024). Alongside within-breed selective breeding initiatives, numerous crossbreeding and breed substitution programmes have been implemented, introducing several exotic cattle, chicken and small ruminant breeds (Table 1). 84 Mustefa Genetic Resources (2025), 6 (11), 82–98 Table 1. Exotic livestock breeds that were introduced into Ethiopia in the past decades Livestock species/breeds Introduction year References Cattle Angus 1950s Tucho et al (2021) Brahman 1950s Chebo and Alemayehu (2012) Brown Swiss 1947 Hunde (2018) Hereford 1950s Tucho et al (2021) Holstein-Friesian 1950s Albero (1983) Jersey 1987 Beneberu et al (2021) Simmental 1950s Mwenya (1992) Sheep Awassi 1980 Getachew et al (2020) Corriedale 1967 Getachew et al (2016) Dorper 2007 Habtegiorgis et al (2025) Hampshire 1967 Sheriff and Alemayehu (2018) Merino 1944 Getachew et al (2016) Rambouillet 1967 Tibbo et al (2006) Romney 1967 Sheriff and Alemayehu (2018) Goats Anglo-Nubian 1970s Workneh (2000) Boer 2007 Mustefa et al (2019b) Saanen 1940s Awgichew et al (1989) Toggenburg 1975 Girma et al (2000) Chicken Arbor Acre 2000s Alemneh and Getabalew (2019) Australorp 1953 Gage and Suntebo (2023) Bovans Brown 1950s Melkamu et al (2017) Brown Leghorn 1950s Chebo et al (2022) Cobb-500 2000s Sidrak et al (2021) Dominant Brown D102 2000s Guteta (2021) Dominant Sussex 2000s Yigzaw et al (2024) Fayoumi 1996 Geleta et al (2013) Hubbard Classic 2015 Fekadu et al (2022) Hubbard JV 2015 Tolasa (2021) ISA Brown 1950s EBI (2016) Koekoek 1950s Abadi et al (2020) Lohman Brown 1950s Kidie et al (2024) Lohmann Silver 2022 Fekadu et al (2022) New Hampshire 1953 Gage and Suntebo (2023) Novo Brown 1950s Yigzaw et al (2024) Rhode Island Red (RIR) 1953 Hussen and Anja (2017) SassoT44 2014 Chebo et al (2022) Sussex 1950s Chebo et al (2022) White Leghorn 1953 Chebo et al (2022) Genetic Resources (2025), 6 (11), 82–98 Balancing livestock productivity and diversity in Ethiopia 85 Advantages of livestock genetic improvement programmes Increased Productivity The primary significance of genetic improvement methods lies in enhancing productivity (Mueller and Van Eenennaam, 2022). The objectives of genetic improvement programmes can differ with focuses on aspects like growth, production and reproductive performance. Some of the reported results for each species are presented below. Cattle Most of the cattle genetic improvement programmes carried out in Ethiopia so far were aimed at increasing milk yield (Getahun et al, 2020). The lactation milk yield results of both the indigenous and crossbred cows are presented in Table 2. Notable differences were observed between the indigenous and crossbred cows where the latter performed more than threefold in most cases. The Holstein Friesian crosses were observed to produce better milk yield than the Jersey crosses. Furthermore, the on-farm results were lower than the on-station reports. This might be due to the suboptimal management practices of the farmers as well as limited adaptability of the crossbred animals to the local environment. Small ruminants Thus far, most of the small ruminant genetic improve- ment programmes carried out in Ethiopia have targeted growth traits (Tesema et al, 2020). Body weight results from birth to yearling age of both the indigenous and crossbreds are presented in Table 3. Differences were observed between the indigenous and crossbreds in most cases. Most of the crossbreds had better growth perfor- mances than the indigenous breeds except for Afar sheep and Central Highland Goat crosses where the indigenous performed better than the crosses. This might be due to the lower adaptability of the crossbreds which were managed on station with intensive and semi-intensive management systems. On the other hand, community- based breeding programmes (CBBP) were observed to bring outstanding results in Bonga sheep while their effect was small in Menz sheep and Abergelle goats. Chicken Chicken genetic improvement programmes primarily aimed to improve egg production, while growth and reproduction traits were also given due considera- tion (Dana et al, 2010; Esatu, 2015; Chebo et al, 2022). According to Alemneh and Getabalew (2019), the overall egg production of the Ethiopian indigenous chicken breeds was reported to be 30–60 per hen per year. Compared to this value, notable productivity gain were obtained through the implementation of genetic improvement programmes under intensive and exten- sive management systems (Table 4). Extremely lower egg production was also observed for Sasso (133) and Bovans Brown (124), which might be due to adaptation problems under certain production conditions (Assefa et al, 2019; Litigebew et al, 2021). Similarly, notable successes have also been doc- umented using the within-breed selection approach where a 21% egg number increment at 24 weeks was reported for the indigenous Horro chicken selec- tive breeding programme (Esatu, 2015). Moreover, improved Horro chicken showed a 124% egg increment by week 45 (Wondmeneh et al, 2016), and were also reported to produce 150 eggs/hen/year, which is signif- icantly higher than the egg production per year of the unimproved Horro chicken (Moges et al, 2010). Climate change mitigation Climate change, driven by rising temperatures, is among the factors limiting the sustainable use of animals and their products. The emission of greenhouse gases, including methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and halocarbons, is regarded as the primary driver of temperature increases. While livestock production is often seen as a victim of climate change, it is also identified as a major contributor to the process (Cassandro, 2020). Therefore, minimizing the contribution of livestock production to climate change is imperative. Genetic improvement is recognized as an important tool for mitigating climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Cassandro, 2020; Stranden et al, 2022). The intensification approach to genetic improvement, which reduces the total number of animals while improving their efficiency, has been reported to decrease emissions (Cassandro, 2020). According to Jardine et al (2012), reducing the number of animals could result in an estimated 8% drop in greenhouse gas emissions. Alongside decreasing animal numbers, increasing feed efficiency has been shown to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in dairy production (Edwards-Jones et al, 2009; Bell et al, 2011). Hence, genetic improvement in addition to extensive pasture-based farming systems is regarded as a cost-effective approach to climate change mitigation (Cassandro, 2020; Stranden et al, 2022; Marchegiani et al, 2025). Reducing aggressiveness Animal temperament, or docility, is an important trait in cattle production, influencing not only human safety but also animal welfare and productivity (Norris et al, 2014). According to Norris et al (2014), poor animal temperament is associated with reduced performance, carcass quality and animal health. Thus, temperament affects the sustainable use of a given breed, with docile animals often preferred over aggressive ones (Dickson et al, 1969). Most indigenous breeds are reported to be more aggressive than exotic breeds. Therefore, crossing indigenous breeds with or replacing them with exotic breeds may reduce their aggressive temperament. One widely introduced cattle breed in most developing countries is the Holstein Friesian. According to Dickson et al (1969), Holstein Friesians, known for their high 86 Mustefa Genetic Resources (2025), 6 (11), 82–98 Table 2. Lactation milk yield (kg) of representative indigenous and crossbred cows in Ethiopia. HF, Holstein-Friesian; JE, Jersey. Breeds/Genotypes Lactation milk yield Breed type Management References Arsi (AR) 809 Indigenous On station Niraj et al (2014) 50% HF x 50% AR 2,247 Crossbreds On station Million et al (2004) 75% HF x 25% AR 2,497 Crossbreds On station Million et al (2004) 50% JE x 50% AR 1,741 Crossbreds On station Niraj et al (2014) Begait (BE) 672 Indigenous On station Tadesse and Dessie (2003) 50% HF x 50% BE 2,312 Crossbreds On station Tadesse and Dessie (2003) 75% HF x 25% BE 2,373 Crossbreds On station Tadesse and Dessie (2003) 50% HF x 50% BE 1,488 Crossbreds On farm Bekele et al (2011) 50% JE x 50% BE 970 Crossbreds On farm Bekele et al (2011) Borana (BO) 771 Indigenous On station Demeke et al (2000) 50% HF x 50% BO 2,203 Crossbreds On station Getahun et al (2020) 75% HF x 25% BO 2,959 Crossbreds On station Getahun et al (2020) 50% JE x 50% BO 1,684 Crossbreds On station Gebregziabher et al (2014) 75% JE x 25% BO 1,832 Crossbreds On station Gebregziabher et al (2013) Horro (HO) 559 Indigenous On station Gizaw et al (2011) 50% HF x 50% HO 1,836 Crossbreds On station Gebregziabher et al (2013) 75% HF x 25% HO 2,184 Crossbreds On station Gebregziabher et al (2013) 50% JE x 50% HO 1,621 Crossbreds On station Gebregziabher et al (2013) 75% JE x 25% HO 1,724 Crossbreds On station Gebregziabher et al (2013) Table 3. Growth performance of some indigenous and crossbred small ruminants in Ethiopia. BHS, Black Head Somali; TU, Tumelie; DO, Dorper; AW, Awassi; CHG, Central Highland Goats; WG, Woyto Guji; BW, birth weight; WW, weaning weight; SMW, six months’ weight; YW, yearling weight; IN, indigenous; CR, crossbred; OS, on station; OF, on farm; CBBP, community-based breeding programme. Species Breed/Genotype BW WW SMW YW Breed type Management References Sheep Afar (AF) 2.7 11.5 - 26.6 IN OS Yibrah (2008) 50% DO x 50% AF 2.6 9.5 13.2 25.0 CR OS Abebe et al (2016) BHS 2.5 11.3 - 23.1 IN OS Yibrah (2008) 50% DO x 50% BHS 3.0 15.1 - - CR OS Teklebrhan et al (2014) Menz (ME) 2.1 9.1 - 17.3 IN OS Markos (2006) 50% DO x 50% ME 2.8 12.3 17.3 31.3 CR OS Abebe et al (2016) Menz 2.6 9.0 13.3 19.9 IN CBBP Abebe et al (2020) Tumele (TU) 2.4 8.5 11.9 22.4 IN OS Lakew et al (2014b) 50% DO x 50% TU 3.2 15.0 20.4 31.4 CR OS Lakew et al (2014b) Wollo (WO) 1.9 10.8 15.7 21.6 IN OF Amare et al (2018) 50% AW x 50% WO 2.4 13.8 22.7 30.4 CR OF Amare et al (2018) Bonga - - 16.7 - IN OF MoA (2018) Bonga 3.9 16.3 27.8 - IN CBBP Arega et al (2024) Goats Abergelle (AB) 2.2 6.9 9.5 14.2 IN OF Hagos et al (2018) 50% BO x 50% AB 2.9 15.3 19.6 27.9 CR OS Belay et al (2014) Abergelle (AB) 2.0 7.2 10.1 15.9 IN CBBP Gobeze et al (2017) CHG 2.0 9.0 13.8 20.6 IN OF Deribe and Taye (2013) 50% BO x 50% CHG 2.6 8.8 11.2 16.7 CR OS Mustefa et al (2019b) WG 2.0 9.0 11.5 - IN OF Zergaw et al (2016) 50% BO x 50% WG 2.8 11.6 16.2 29.2 CR OS Dea et al (2019) Genetic Resources (2025), 6 (11), 82–98 Balancing livestock productivity and diversity in Ethiopia 87 Table 4. Egg production per hen per yearof exotic chicken breeds in Ethiopia under intensive and extensive production management. Intensive management system Breed Eggs References Bovans Brown 292 Melkamu et al (2017) Lohman Brown 275 Kidie et al (2024) Faoumi 160 Geleta et al (2013) Extensive management system Breed Eggs References Bovans Brown 218 Melkamu et al (2017) Koekoek 176 Abadi et al (2020) Sasso 133 Assefa et al (2019) Bovans Brown 124 Litigebew et al (2021) milk yield and good temperament, have been selected for docility over generations. Moreover, within-breed selection for more docile animals may reduce the aggressiveness of indigenous breeds; however, this type of selection is not commonly practised in developing countries, including Ethiopia. The Sheko cattle breed of Ethiopia, known for its trypano-tolerant ability, is also noted for its aggressiveness (Desta et al, 2011; Aleme and Mengistu, 2023). For this reason, farmers often choose to cross it with other relatively docile cattle breeds (Desta et al, 2011; Aleme and Mengistu, 2023). Therefore, reducing aggressiveness is another advantage of genetic improvement approaches. Limitations of livestock genetic improvement programmes Genetic erosion The concept of genetic improvement in indigenous livestock breeds is often associated with a reduction in within- and among-breed genetic variation. Both the less destructive within-breed selection approach and the more destructive indiscriminate crossbreeding and breed substitution approaches contribute to decreasing genetic diversity in indigenous breeds (Belew et al, 2016; Woldeyohannes et al, 2023). Even though its effect is less severe than other methods, continued within-breed selection can lead to genetic erosion due to random genetic drift. This occurs when a few genes responsible for economically important traits are favoured, while a large proportion of genes responsible for survival and adaptation traits are lost. The more severe options, such as crossbreeding and breed substitution, are even more destructive, with their contribution to genetic erosion observable within a short period (Rahman et al, 2013). Genetic erosion, caused by genetic drift, reduces adaptive genetic variation, limiting evolutionary responses (Köhler-Rollefson and Mundy, 2010). Therefore, genetic erosion negatively affects the long-term sustainable utilization of indigenous livestock breeds. Thus, genetic improvement approaches contribute negatively to the future sustainable use of indigenous livestock breeds due to their role in the erosion of adaptive genotypes (Rahman et al, 2013). Maladaptation Maladaptation is a significant limitation of genetic improvement approaches using exotic livestock breeds. Crossbreeding and breed replacement are not always effective potentially due to the poor adaptation of exotic breeds to local environments (Köhler-Rollefson and Mundy, 2010). Morbidity and mortality rates of cross- bred livestock breeds in different locations of Ethiopia are presented in Table 5. Accordingly, a significantly higher mortality rate was observed for the crossbreds of Boer goats with Central Highland and Woyto Guji goats indicating their suboptimal adaptability to local conditions. Similarly, higher morbidity and mortality rates were also observed for the crossbreds of Holstein Friesian cattle. Moreover, the lower egg production per hen per year presented in Table 4 for Sasso (133) and Bovans Brown (124) might be due to their maladap- tation to the local environment (Assefa et al, 2019; Litigebew et al, 2021). Exotic breeds, developed and selected for specific environmental conditions, often per- form poorly when introduced to new environments due to adaptation problems (Köhler-Rollefson and Mundy, 2010). Inbreeding Genetic improvement is associated with the selection and use of a few high-performing sires as parents for the next generation (Mueller and Van Eenennaam, 2022). The use of elite sires, increased selection pres- sure and reproductive technologies like artificial insem- ination (AI) increase the likelihood of offspring being half-siblings, leading to inbreeding in successive gen- erations (De-Roos et al, 2011). One of the negative effects of inbreeding is inbreeding depression, where the increased likelihood of offspring inheriting two copies of harmful recessive genes leads to reduced fertility, vigour and overall fitness (Tongsiri et al, 2019; Lozada-Soto et al, 2021). Reduced genetic diversity is another neg- ative effect of inbreeding. Inbreeding decreases genetic diversity within a population, making it more vulnera- ble to diseases, parasites and environmental changes. These factors decrease productivity and increase mor- tality rates, making livestock production less sustain- able (Tongsiri et al, 2019; Lozada-Soto et al, 2021). Moreover, ethical concerns arise from inbreeding, as it can lead to increased suffering and reduced welfare for animals due to genetic defects and health prob- lems (Frankham, 2005; Skotarczak et al, 2020). On the other hand, selecting traits that enhance animal welfare, such as reduced aggression, can lead to more humane and sustainable use of animal populations. Cost and time Implementing genetic improvement programmes can be expensive, requiring investments in infrastructure, 88 Mustefa Genetic Resources (2025), 6 (11), 82–98 Table 5. Morbidity and mortality rates of crossbred livestock breeds in different locations of Ethiopia. Exotic breeds (HF, Holstein- Friesian cattle; DO, Dorper sheep; BO, Boer goats; Bovans Brown; Sasso); Indigenous breeds (GHC, Gojjam Highland Cattle; AM, Ambo cattle; GO, Gofa cattle; TU, Tumelie sheep; WL, Wolaita sheep; AD, Adilo sheep; CHG, Central Highland Goats); OS, on station; OF, on farm. Breed/Genotype Morbidity (%) Mortality (%) Management Location References Cattle 50% HF x 50% GHC 56.5 28.1 OF Bahir Dar zuria Ferede et al (2014) 50% HF x 50% GHC 65.0 37.0 OF Gozamen Ferede et al (2014) 50% HF x 50% AM 62 22.0 OF Ada’a Liben Wudu et al (2008) 50% HF x 50% GO 66.7 20.0 OF Wolaita soddo Assefa and Ashenafi (2016) 50% HF x 50% GHC 47.3 17.9 OF Bahir Dar Yeshwas (2015) Sheep 50% DO x 50 TU - 7.0 OS Tumelie Lakew et al (2014a) 50% DO x 50 WL - 28.4 OF Mente Dubo Habtegiorgis et al (2025) 50% DO x 50 AD - 9.8 OS Boloso Gemiyo et al (2017) Goats 50% BO x 50 CHG - 56.1 OS Ataye Mustefa et al (2019a) 75% BO x 25 CHG - 64.0 OS Ataye Mustefa et al (2019a) 50% BO x 50 WG - 48.0 OS Jinka Molla (2016) 50% BO x 50 WG - 41.0 OS Konso Dea et al (2019) Chicken Bovans Brown - 3.2 OS Mekelle Melkamu et al (2017) Bovans Brown - 20.3 OF Mekelle Melkamu et al (2017) Sasso 16.1 12.7 OS Sidama Hailegebreal et al (2022) technology and skilled personnel (Wojtkowski, 2008; Biscarini et al, 2015). Moreover, genetically improved animals often require better management because the genetic modifications that enhance certain produc- tivity traits can also create new vulnerabilities or amplify existing issues, making them more susceptible to environmental stressors and requiring more precise care to maintain their optimal health and productiv- ity (Wojtkowski, 2008; Biscarini et al, 2015). However, smallholder farmers in developing countries often have limited access to the technology and resources needed to implement effective genetic improvement programmes. Therefore, the high cost of genetic improvement pro- grammes can be a significant barrier for smallholder farmers in developing countries. In addition to higher costs, genetic improvement approaches also require con- siderable time. Genetic improvement is a long-term pro- cess, often taking many generations to achieve sig- nificant results. This can be a challenge for farmers who need immediate solutions to improve their liveli- hoods (Biscarini et al, 2015). Conservation Conservation of farm animal genetic resources refers to various human interventions aimed at maintaining the diversity of farm animal genetic resources, without genetic change as far as possible, to contribute to current and future food and agricultural needs (Henson, 1992). Conservation of indigenous breeds not only preserves their genotypes but also allows farmers and breeders to select and develop new breeds that can adapt and produce under changing environmental conditions, making this approach critically important for sustainable utilization (Gicquel et al, 2020). Animals can be conserved using in situ and ex situ conservation methods. In situ conservation maintains live animal breeding populations in their production environments (Henson, 1992). Under this approach, the animals continue to contribute to the food and agriculture of their breeding areas. On the other hand, ex situ conservation maintains genetic resources outside their production systems. There are two ways of conserving genetic resources using the ex situ approach: ex situ in vivo and ex situ in vitro. Ex situ in vivo involves maintaining live animal breeding populations outside their production environments, while ex situ in vitro involves the cryopreservation of semen, oocytes, embryos, cells and/or tissues in genebanks (FAO, 2012a). In recent decades, several in situ and ex situ conservation programmes have been implemented in Ethiopia (Table 6). The primary objective and progress of the in situ conservation programmes have been to create exotic-free breeding tracts for the mentioned breeds. Similarly, the ex situ in vivo approach conserves live animal populations at ranches or research centres to produce pure parental lines for genetic improvement programmes, but has been applied to two indigenous cattle breeds so far: the Sheko and Fogera cattle breeds (Tibbo et al, 2004). Moreover, the ex situ in vitro conservation programmes aim to preserve the semen of Genetic Resources (2025), 6 (11), 82–98 Balancing livestock productivity and diversity in Ethiopia 89 the cattle breeds for future restoration purposes, but has been applied to five indigenous cattle breeds so far: the Sheko, Fogera, Borana, Begait, and Irob cattle breeds out of the country’s registered 28 cattle breeds (Assefa et al, 2021). The success of these programmes has been directly linked to the restoration of dwindling population sizes. Restoration of endangered breeds requires more budget and time than other conservation programmes, which are typically carried out through successive awareness-raising campaigns. Below are some of the advantages of conservation approaches for the sustainable utilization of indigenous livestock genetic resources. Advantages of conservation Genetic diversity One of the main advantages of conservation pro- grammes is the maintenance of genetic diver- sity (Köhler-Rollefson and Mundy, 2010; Gicquel et al, 2020). Maintaining genetic diversity is crucial because once genes are lost, they cannot be replaced except through cumulative selection or mutation (Smith, 1984). Maintaining within- and among-breed variability supports current and future research and develop- ment activities. It also enhances the effectiveness of within-breed selection-based genetic improvement pro- grammes. Genetic improvement is more attainable in highly variable populations than in populations with low variability. Highly variable populations provide opportunities for the development of specialized breeds. The creation of synthetic breeds for specific purposes through crossbreeding requires the conservation of pure parent stocks. Maintaining the variability of indige- nous breeds is also essential for their ability to adapt, produce and reproduce under future environmental changes (Silva et al, 2019; Gicquel et al, 2020). More- over, ensuring a diverse genetic pool helps secure a more reliable and resilient food supply, which is partic- ularly important in the face of climate change and other unpredictable challenges that can impact food produc- tion (Köhler-Rollefson and Mundy, 2010). According to Smith (1984), the conservation of indigenous breeds provides alternative breeding stock for future changes in market demands, husbandry practices and climate- driven environmental changes. Therefore, the conser- vation of indigenous breeds maintains genetic diversity, which in turn supports the sustainability of livestock production. Adaptability Adaptation to local environments can be defined in var- ious ways, including disease resistance and tolerance to harsh conditions. Many indigenous breeds have natu- ral resistance to local diseases and parasites (Köhler- Rollefson and Mundy, 2010). For example, the Sheko cattle breed is known for its trypano-tolerance (Desta et al, 2011; Aleme and Mengistu, 2023). Such genetic resilience is invaluable in most developing countries, where access to veterinary care and modern disease control methods is limited. On the other hand, indige- nous breeds are often well-suited to challenging envi- ronments, such as arid and mountainous regions. They can thrive on limited resources and withstand harsh weather conditions, making them valuable assets for food security in marginal areas. The overall adaptability of indigenous breeds is due to their long-term evolution in specific local environments. In addition, in the face of future climate change, indigenous breeds often offer several advantages over exotic breeds (Silva et al, 2019). Thus, the conservation of indigenous breeds makes them more efficient and sustainable under current local cli- matic and management conditions, as well as future cli- mate change (Köhler-Rollefson and Mundy, 2010; Gic- quel et al, 2020). Unique traits The conservation of indigenous breeds is significantly associated with maintaining their unique traits. For example, the conservation of Sheko cattle in southwest Ethiopia is directly linked to preserving their trypano- tolerant ability (Desta et al, 2011; Aleme and Mengistu, 2023). Similarly, other special traits of indigenous breeds have been reported, such as the screw horns of Racka sheep in Hungary (Bodo, 1994) and the seaweed-eating sheep (Balasse et al, 2019). Moreover, indigenous breeds are known to produce items with special qualities, such as coloured wool, super-fine fibre, and tasty products like milk, meat and eggs (Köhler- Rollefson and Mundy, 2010). Therefore, for local communities that have adapted to these traits, the sustainable approach is to conserve them rather than crossbreed or replace them with high-yielding exotic breeds. Cultural heritage Indigenous breeds are deeply woven into the fabric of many cultures, playing significant roles in various aspects of life, from sustenance and livelihoods to social customs, traditions and religious practices (Smith, 1984; Köhler-Rollefson and Mundy, 2010; Marsoner et al, 2018). Indigenous breeds are often associated with specific cultural identities and traditions. They may be used in ceremonial events, festivals and traditional practices, symbolizing heritage and cultural continuity. Similarly, in many cultures, indigenous breeds are used as sacrificial offerings in religious ceremonies, symbolizing devotion and gratitude (Marsoner et al, 2018; Silva et al, 2019). Therefore, the conservation of indigenous breeds helps preserve cultural identity and history, which in turn supports the sustainable use of these breeds. Market demand In most developing countries, consumers highly prefer products from indigenous livestock breeds over those from exotic breeds (Sharif and Farooq, 2004; Silva et al, 2019). Several traditional beliefs and scientific reasons 90 Mustefa Genetic Resources (2025), 6 (11), 82–98 Table 6. Ethiopian indigenous livestock breeds under conservation. Livestock breeds Conservation type References Cattle Sheko In situ & ex situ in vivo Aleme and Mengistu (2023) Ex situ in vitro Assefa et al (2021) Fogera In situ & ex situ in vivo Tesfa et al (2024) Ex situ in vitro Assefa et al (2021) Borana In situ Tessema et al (2022) Ex situ in vitro Assefa et al (2021) Begait Ex situ in vivo Mekuriaw and Kebede (2015) Ex situ in vitro Assefa et al (2021) Begaria In situ Aseged et al (2023) Raya In situ Assefa et al (2021) Irob Ex situ in vitro Assefa et al (2021) Sheep Washera In situ Amane et al (2010) Menz In situ & ex situ in vivo Gizaw et al (2013) Bonga In situ & ex situ in vivo Mustefa (2023) Wollo In situ Assefa et al (2021) Horro In situ & ex situ in vivo Molla (2020) Gedeo In situ Assefa et al (2021) Goats Highland In situ Assefa et al (2021) Arsi-Bale In situ Assefa et al (2021) Chicken Horro In situ Taye (2024) Metekel In situ Assefa et al (2021) Jarso In situ Assefa et al (2021) Kundudo Ex situ in vivo Sufiyan (2022) can explain this preference. In Sri Lanka, for example, it is traditionally believed that milk from indigenous cows has medicinal and therapeutic properties due to its low likelihood of causing milk allergies in humans (Rajapakshe et al, 2015). According to Silva et al (2019), milk from indigenous cows is preferred in the Southern Province of Sri Lanka due to its high-fat content, which produces a firm curd structure and good flavour. Scientifically, meat from indigenous chickens has been reported to have better physicochemical and sensory parameters than meat from commercial broilers (Rajapaksha et al, 2014). Senarathne et al (2016) reported high mineral and fat contents in eggs from indigenous chickens. Physical and chemical analyses by Lordelo et al (2020) indicated higher quality in eggs from indigenous chicken breeds in Portugal compared to commercial breeds in many characteristics. Therefore, due to consumer preferences, eggs, meat and milk from indigenous breeds have become highly priced products in most developing countries (Silva et al, 2019). Thus, maintaining indigenous breeds helps ensure the availability of these preferred products in the market which also improves the income of farmers. Limitations of conservation Maintaining indigenous livestock breeds is significant for securing the sustainable utilization of these genetic resources; however, it comes with its own set of challenges. Below some of the limitations are presented. Lower productivity Compared to modern, high-yielding exotic breeds, indigenous cattle breeds often have lower milk yields, slower growth rates and lower feed conver- sion efficiency. For example, the average milk yield of Ethiopian indigenous cattle breeds (1.32–2.19 litres/cow/day) (Ayalew et al, 2018) and the aver- age egg production of most indigenous chicken breeds (45–75 eggs/hen/year (Tolasa, 2021) and 30–60 eggs/hen/year (Alemneh and Getabalew, 2019)) are significantly lower than those of their exotic coun- terparts. Similarly, the slower growth rates of indige- nous livestock breeds mean it takes longer for them to reach market weight, leading to increased feeding costs and delayed returns on investment for farmers. More- over, the lower feed conversion efficiency of indigenous breeds means they require more feed to produce the same amount of meat or milk compared to modern breeds under uniform management and controlled envi- Genetic Resources (2025), 6 (11), 82–98 Balancing livestock productivity and diversity in Ethiopia 91 ronment. This increases production costs and reduces profitability. These factors can result in lower profits for farmers, making indigenous breeds less attractive to those who need to maximize their outputs to remain profitable. Thus, solely maintaining indigenous breeds can affect sustainable food security and income genera- tion goals, which can further influence their sustainable use. Discussion In Ethiopia, livestock genetic improvement programmes have been implemented through within-breed selec- tion, crossbreeding and breed-substitution programmes. The within-breed selection programmes were mainly implemented in small ruminants and chicken through community-based breeding programmes (CBBPs) and on-station selection programmes. Similarly, several exotic breeds of cattle, sheep, goats and chicken were also imported to conduct crossbreeding and breed- substitution programmes. Accordingly, notable achieve- ments were reported in cattle milk yield, chicken egg production and growth performances of small ruminants. Alongside increasing livestock productivity, livestock genetic improvement programmes were also reported to minimize the aggression of indigenous live- stock breeds. These programmes were also reported to contribute to climate change mitigation. However, despite these achievements, livestock genetic improve- ment programmes were reported to have some limi- tations. These include the facilitation of genetic ero- sion and inbreeding, maladaptation of the exotic and crossbred to the local production environment, the need for a long implementation time, and high costs for both importing and managing the high-producing exotic breeds. Similarly, conservation programmes were also reported to have advantages and limitations regarding sustainable utilization of the livestock production sector. The advantages of conservation programmes include the preservation of genetic diversity of indigenous adapt- able breeds, the maintenance of unique traits and cul- tural heritage, and the availability of products from indigenous breeds that meet market demands. However, maintaining indigenous breeds without genetic improve- ment is often associated with keeping low-productivity animals, which hinders food security and income gen- eration for farmers. Therefore, designing a balanced approach is recommended to achieve optimal productiv- ity while preserving the genetic diversity of indigenous breeds. The way forward Although genetic improvement and conservation approaches are inherently opposite and cannot be applied simultaneously to the same livestock popula- tion, it is essential to find a win-win solution for the sustainable utilization of indigenous livestock genetic resources to optimize outcomes in the livestock produc- tion sector. To achieve this, some recommendations are proposed below. Identification of indigenous breeds Characterization of indigenous cattle breeds is a foun- dational step prior to any breeding programme (FAO, 2012b). Several variables need to be considered at this stage, including the assessment of morphometric and morphological traits, identification of their produc- tion environments (origin/breeding tract and distribu- tion areas), identification of unique traits, cultural val- ues, adaptability to harsh environments (e.g. extreme weather conditions and climate change), adaptability to limited resources (e.g. feed, water and veterinary care), and assessment of indigenous knowledge asso- ciated with these breeds (FAO, 2012b). Alongside phe- notypic and environmental variables, assessing within- breed genetic diversity is necessary to identify a breed. Similarly, assessing the degree of genetic relationship with other indigenous breeds (population structure) is required to determine the number of breeds in the coun- try. Therefore, phenotypic, genomic and historic charac- terization is recommended. Breed-level population size census After identification, conducting a breed-level population size census is essential to assess the endangered status of each breed. Therefore, data on the number of animals by breed, sex and age are required to determine whether conservation or genetic improvement programmes should be implemented. Conservation programmes can be recommended for breeds with small populations to help maintain their genotype. Based on their current population size, appropriate conservation methods can be selected. In situ and ex situ conservation methods can be applied to critically endangered breeds. An indigenous breed with a large population size and a wide distribution area may be considered for a controlled crossbreeding programme to enhance targeted traits. Breed evaluation The assessment of on-station and on-farm phenotypic performances – such as growth, production, repro- duction and survival traits – is necessary to under- stand the potential of each breed. A genomic eval- uation of a breed for specific traits is also essen- tial to assess its genetic potential. This evaluation is crucial for selecting a breed, trait, method and loca- tion for genetic improvement. Furthermore, within- breed selection-based genetic improvement programmes are recommended for populations with high genetic diversity. In contrast, populations with low genetic diversity may require a controlled crossbreeding pro- gramme. Before implementing any livestock breeding programme, evaluating the complementarity of each parent breed is essential. Therefore, breed evaluation is mandatory. 92 Mustefa Genetic Resources (2025), 6 (11), 82–98 Breed and area delineation for breeding programmes The results of characterization, breed-level census and breed evaluation activities need to be used to iden- tify suitable breeding programmes for each livestock breed and production environment. Accordingly, breeds and areas can be delineated either for conservation or genetic improvement programmes. Based on this, a con- servation programme can be applied to the economically important and endangered livestock breeds. It is also advisable not to implement crossbreeding and breed- substitution programmes in the origin and breeding tract of the indigenous livestock breeds. Within-breed selec- tion approaches can be considered in these areas to bring the desired genetic improvement. Areas out of the indigenous livestock breed origin can be considered for either crossbreeding or breed-substitution programmes based on the complementarity of these livestock breeds with exotic ones. Additionally, exotic livestock breeds can be recommended in commercial farms with inten- sive management systems and controlled environments. In situ and ex situ conservation In situ and ex situ conservation options can be applied simultaneously or separately for economically important endangered indigenous breeds according to the situa- tion (FAO, 2012a). In situ conservation, the maintenance of livestock breeds in their natural production environ- ment, can be carried out for livestock breeds with rel- atively higher population sizes. Establishing a commu- nity and designing an incentive-based approach can be considered during the in situ conservation programmes. Similarly, ex situ conservation can be applied to livestock breeds with alarming population size or as a comple- mentary method to in situ conservation. In vivo and/or in vitro can be considered simultaneously or separately to the livestock breeds with dwindling population size. Ex situ in vitro/cryoconservation is an advanced method of preserving genetic material at extremely low tem- peratures, typically using liquid nitrogen (-196◦C). This technique is widely used in the conservation of livestock breeds, wildlife, plant species and in human medicine (e.g. preserving sperm, eggs and embryos). For indige- nous livestock breeds, cryoconservation is a powerful tool to protect genetic diversity and ensure the survival of rare or endangered breeds. The implementation of these methods is expensive and needs a more skilled workforce than the in situ method FAO (2012a). Husbandry practices Alongside genetic improvement, improving husbandry practices enhances livestock productivity and diversity by optimizing animal health, nutrition, breeding selec- tion and environmental management (Dristan, 2025). These improvements lead to increased yields of meat, milk and eggs, and the development of better genetic traits, while also promoting a broader range of livestock breeds suited to various ecological conditions and mar- ket demands (Dristan, 2025). Therefore, improving hus- bandry practices is essential to ensure the sustainable use of indigenous livestock genetic resources. Acknowledgements The author is grateful to the authors of the published articles used in this review. Conflicts of interest The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest. References Abadi, T., Gebretsadik, D., Gebremedhin, K., Tsigab, T., Zenebe, M., and Desta, D. (2020). On-farm Evaluation and Demonstration of Koekoek chicken under farmers’ condition in North western Tigray, Ethiopia. Int J Vet Sci Res 6(1), 064–067. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10. 17352/ijvsr.000056 Abebe, A., Banarjee, S., Goshmie, S., Bisrat, A., Abebe, A., Besufikad, S., Zewdie, T., and Gizaw, S. (2020). Selection efficiency for growth performance of Menz sheep in a community-based breeding program. Livestock Research for Rural Development 32(152). url: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd32/9/ascha32152.html. Abebe, A., Getachew, T., Gizaw, S., Lemma, S., Zewdie, T., and Bisrat, A. (2016). Pre-Weaning Performances of Lambs in the highlands of Ethiopia. In Proceeding of the 9th Annual Regional Conference on Completed Livestock Research Activities. 9-20 March, 2015, Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia, 150-163. Adane, H. and Girma, A. (2008). Economic significance of sheep and goats. In Ethiopian Sheep and Goat Productivity Improvement Program, ed. Yami, A. and Merkel, R., (Addis Ababa: Branan printing enterprise), 1-4. Albero, M. (1983). Comparative performance of F1 Friesian × Zebu heifers in Ethiopia. Animal Production 37(2), 247–252. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1017/S0003356100001793 Aleme, M. and Mengistu, G. (2023). Management practice of the Sheko cattle breed in Ethiopia: A review. Genetic Resources 4(8), 64–70. doi: https: //doi.org/10.46265/genresj.IBNU2035 Alemneh, T. and Getabalew, M. (2019). Exotic chicken production performance, status and challenges in Ethiopia. Int J Vet Sci Res 5(2), 039–045. doi: https: //dx.doi.org/10.17352/ijvsr.000040 Amane, A., Taye, M., Gizaw, S., and Siraw, B. (2010). Sustainable Utilization of Washera Sheep in Amhara Region: Conservation-Based Breeding Program for Washera Sheep. Andassa Livestock Research Center, Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute. Working Document. url: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/ RG.2.2.16483.12326. Amare, T., Goshu, G., and Tamir, B. (2018). Lamb Growth Performance Evaluation of Wollo Highland https://dx.doi.org/10.17352/ijvsr.000056 https://dx.doi.org/10.17352/ijvsr.000056 http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd32/9/ascha32152.html https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100001793 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100001793 https://doi.org/10.46265/genresj.IBNU2035 https://doi.org/10.46265/genresj.IBNU2035 https://dx.doi.org/10.17352/ijvsr.000040 https://dx.doi.org/10.17352/ijvsr.000040 http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16483.12326 http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16483.12326 Genetic Resources (2025), 6 (11), 82–98 Balancing livestock productivity and diversity in Ethiopia 93 Sheep and Their F Crossbreds on Smallholder farm in South Wollo, Ethiopia. Middle East J Sci Res 26(1), 35– 45. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2018. 35.45 Arega, H., Begna, R., Masho, W., and Bayou, E. (2024). Evaluation of flock structure and performances of Bonga sheep under extensive management conditions in Kaffa Zone, South Western Ethiopia. Cogent Food & Agriculture 10(1), 2296101. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1080/23311932.2023.2296101 Aseged, T., Getachew, T., Banerjee, S., Melak, A., Belayhun, T., Engdawork, A., Kefyalew, E., Assefa, A., and Hailu, A. (2023). Designing of community- based conservation and breeding program for Begaria cattle breed found in Arid and Semi-Arid areas of Benishangul Gumuz region of Ethiopia. Ecological Genetics and Genomics 28, 100188. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.egg.2023.100188 Assefa, A. and Ashenafi, K. (2016). Dairy Calf Morbidity and Mortality and Associated Risk Factors in Sodo Town and Its Suburbs, Wolaita Zone. Slovak J. Anim. Sci 49(1), 44–56. url: http://www.cvzv.sk/slju/16 1/ 6 Asmare.pdf. Assefa, A. and Hailu, A. (2018). Ethiopian indigenous cattle breed’s diversity, distribution, purpose of keeping, and their potential threats. J. Biol. Innov 7(5), 770–789. url: https://www.jbino.com/docs/ Issue05 10 2018.pdf. Assefa, A., Hailu, A., Mustefa, A., Melak, A., and Getachew, T. (2021). Characterization, Conserva- tion and Sustainable Utilization of Ethiopian Animal Genetic Resources: Status, Challenges and Opportu- nities. A review. International Journal of Management Studies and Social Science Research 3(1), 230–241. url: https://ijmsssr.org/paper/IJMSSSR00310.pdf. Assefa, S., Melesse, A., and Banerjee, S. (2019). Egg Production and Egg Quality Traits of Local and Exotic Chicken Breeds Reared in Two Agroecologies under Traditional Management System. Research Journal of Food and Nutrition 3(1), 11–17. doi: https://dx.doi. org/10.22259/2637-5583.0301003 Awgichew, K., Yacob, Y., and Fletcher, I. C. (1989). Productivity of purebred Adal and quarterbred Saanen × Adal goats in Ethiopia. In African Small Ruminant Research and Development, ed. Wilson, R. T. and Melaku, A., (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: ILCA), 510-523. Ayalew, H., Chanie, D., and Lamesegn, D. (2018). Review on productive and reproductive performance of indigenous dairy cattle breeds under farmer’s management practices in Ethiopia. Online J. Anim. Feed Res 8(6), 20169–174. url: https://bit.ly/ GenResJ268-3. Balasse, M., Tresset, A., Obein, G., Fiorillo, D., and Gandois, H. (2019). Seaweed-eating sheep and the adaptation of husbandry in Neolithic Orkney: new insights from Skara Brae. Antiquity 93(370), 919– 932. doi: https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2019.95 Bekele, T., Yilma, Z., Wold, A. G., and Demisse, S. (2011). Milk yield performance of two and three breed crosses of dairy cattle in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of Agriculture and Development 2, 59–74. url: https://core.ac.uk/ download/pdf/43539102.pdf. Belay, S., Gebru, G., Godifey, G., Brhane, M., Zenebe, M., Hagos, H., and Teame, T. (2014). Reproductive performance of Abergelle goats and growth rate of their crosses with Boer goats. Livest Res Rural Dev 26(5). url: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd26/1/bela26005. htm. Belew, A. K., Tesfaye, K., and Belay, G. (2016). The state of conservation of animal genetic resources in developing countries: A review. Int J Pharma Med Biol Sci 5(1), 58–66. url: https://www.ijpmbs.com/ papers/10-A0222.pdf. Bell, M. J., Wall, E., Simm, G., and Russell, G. (2011). Effects of genetic line and feeding system on methane emissions from dairy systems. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol 166, 699–707. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.anifeedsci.2011.04.049 Beneberu, N., Alemayehu, K., Mebratie, W., Getahun, K., and Tesema, Z. (2021). Evaluation of Reproductive Performance of Jersey Cattle Raised under Semi- Intensive Management in Ethiopia. Asian Journal of Dairy and Food Research 40(1), 8–13. doi: https: //doi.org/10.18805/ajdfr.DR-215 Biscarini, F., Nicolazzi, E. L., Stella, A., Boettcher, P. J., and Gandini, G. (2015). Challenges and opportunities in genetic improvement of local livestock breeds. Front Genet 6(33). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/ fgene.2015.00033 Bodo, I. (1994). The Hungarian Racka. Animal Genetic Resources Information 13, 75–82. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S1014233900000304 Cassandro, M. (2020). Animal breeding and climate change, mitigation and adaptation. J Anim Breed Genet 137, 121–122. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ jbg.12469 CBD (2004). Decision adopted by the conference of the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its seventh meeting. Kuala Lumpur. url: https://www. cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-07/cop-07-dec-28-en.pdf. Chebo, C. and Alemayehu, K. (2012). Trends of cattle genetic improvement programs in Ethiopia: Challenges and opportunities. Livestock Research for Rural Development 24(109). url: http://www.lrrd.org/ lrrd24/7/cheb24109.htm. Chebo, C., Betsha, S., and Melesse, A. (2022). Chicken genetic diversity, improvement strategies and impacts on egg productivity in Ethiopia: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 78(3), 803–821. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2022.2067020 CSA (2021). Agricultural Sample Survey 2020/21 (2013 E.C). Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency. Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics Statistical Bulletin No. 589, Volume II (Addis Ababa Ethiopia) 199p. CSA (2022). Agricultural Sample Survey 2021/22 (2014 E.C). Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central https://dx.doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2018.35.45 https://dx.doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2018.35.45 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2296101 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2023.2296101 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egg.2023.100188 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egg.2023.100188 http://www.cvzv.sk/slju/16_1/6_Asmare.pdf http://www.cvzv.sk/slju/16_1/6_Asmare.pdf https://www.jbino.com/docs/Issue05_10_2018.pdf https://www.jbino.com/docs/Issue05_10_2018.pdf https://ijmsssr.org/paper/IJMSSSR00310.pdf https://dx.doi.org/10.22259/2637-5583.0301003 https://dx.doi.org/10.22259/2637-5583.0301003 https://bit.ly/GenResJ268-3 https://bit.ly/GenResJ268-3 https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2019.95 https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/43539102.pdf https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/43539102.pdf http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd26/1/bela26005.htm http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd26/1/bela26005.htm https://www.ijpmbs.com/papers/10-A0222.pdf https://www.ijpmbs.com/papers/10-A0222.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.049 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.04.049 https://doi.org/10.18805/ajdfr.DR-215 https://doi.org/10.18805/ajdfr.DR-215 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2015.00033 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2015.00033 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1014233900000304 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1014233900000304 https://doi.org/10.1111/jbg.12469 https://doi.org/10.1111/jbg.12469 https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-07/cop-07-dec-28-en.pdf https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-07/cop-07-dec-28-en.pdf http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/7/cheb24109.htm http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/7/cheb24109.htm https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2022.2067020 https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2022.2067020 94 Mustefa Genetic Resources (2025), 6 (11), 82–98 Statistical Agency. Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics Statistical Bulletin No. 594, Volume II volume II. (Addis Ababa Ethiopia) 219p. Dana, N., Dessie, T., Van Der Waaij, H. L., and Van Arendonk, A. M. J. (2010). Morphological features of indigenous chicken populations of Ethiopia. Animal Genetic Resource 46, 11–23. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1017/S2078633610000652 De-Roos, A. P. W., Schrooten, C., Veerkamp, R. F., and Van Arendonk, J. A. M. (2011). Effects of genomic selection on genetic improvement, inbreeding, and merit of young versus proven bulls. J. Dairy Sci 94, 1559–1567. doi: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010- 3354 Dea, D., Eramo, E., Gambura, M., and Zeleke, B. (2019). Performance of Boer and Woyto-Guji Crossbred F1 Goats (50%) under Semi-Intensive Management System in Konso District, South Ethiopia. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences 4(1), 15–25. doi: https://doi.org/10.20372/jaes.v4i1.202 Degefu, S. and Milkias, D. (2024). Impacts of Climate Change on Livestock Productivity and Adaptation Strategies among Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia: A Review on Climate Smart Livestock Production. Middle East Res J Econ Management 4(3), 84–87. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21839/jaar.2018.v3i3.150 Demeke, S., Neser, F. W. C., Schoeman, S. J., Erasmes, G. J., and Van Wyk, J. B. (2000). Crossbreeding Holstein Friesian with Ethiopian Boran cattle in tropical highland environment: preliminary estimates of additive and hetrotic effects on milk production traits. South African Journal of Animal Science 30. doi: https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v30i4.3897 Deribe, B. and Taye, M. (2013). Growth performance and carcass characteristics of central highland goats in Sekota District, Ethiopia. Agricultural Advances 2(8), 250–258. url: http://sjournals.com/index.php/ AA/article/view/902/pdf. Desta, T. T., Ayalew, W., and Hegde, B. P. (2011). Breed and trait preferences of Sheko cattle keepers in southwestern Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod 43, 851–856. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-010- 9772-2 Dickson, D. P., Barr, G. R., Johnson, L. P., and Wieckert, D. A. (1969). Social Dominance and Temperament of Holstein Cows. Journal of Dairy Science 53, 904–907. doi: https://doi.org/10.3168/ jds.S0022-0302(70)86316-0 Dristan, H. (2025). Improving Livestock Pro- ductivity through Effective Animal Husbandry. J Fisheries Livest Prod 13(633), 1000633. url: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/ improving-livestock-productivity-through-effective- animal-husbandry-136412.html. EBI (2016). Ethiopian National Strategy and Plan of Action for conservation and utilization of Animal Genetic Resources (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute). Edwards-Jones, G., Plassmann, K., and Harris, I. M. (2009). Carbon footprinting of lamb and beef production systems: insights from an empirical analysis of farms in Wales, UK. Journal of Agricultural Science 147, 707–719. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0021859609990165 El-Bilali, H., Bassole, I. H. N., Dambo, L., and Berjan, S. (2020). Climate change and food security. Agriculture and Forestry 66(3), 197–210. doi: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.17707/AgricultForest.66.3.16 Endris, M., Kebede, K., and Abebe, A. (2022). Chal- lenges of community based small ruminant breed- ing program: a review. Glob. J. Anim. Sci. Res 10(2), 114–127. url: http://www.gjasr.com/index. php/GJASR/article/view/142. Esatu, W. (2015). Genetic improvement in indigenous chickens of Ethiopia: one step ahead. Ph.D. thesis, Wageningen University, Netherlands. FAO (2012a). Cryoconservation of animal genetic resources. FAO Animal Production and Health Guide- lines No. 12. url: https://www.fao.org/4/i3017e/ i3017e00.pdf. FAO (2012b). Phenotypic characterization of ani- mal genetic resources. FAO Animal Production and Health Guidelines No. 11. url: https://www.fao.org/ 4/i2686e/i2686e00.pdf. Fekadu, T., Esatu, W., Takele, D., Tesfaye, E., Zewdie, Y., Amssalu, K., Yirgu, T., Endawek, M., Shiferaw, S., Million, B., Yitayih, M., Dessie, and T (2022). Ethiopia National Poultry Development Strategy 2022-2031. Federal Government of Ethiopia, Ministry of Agriculture (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia). Ferede, Y., Mazengia, H., Bimrew, T., Bitew, A., Nega, M., and Kebede, A. (2014). Pre-Weaning Morbidity and Mortality of Crossbred Calves in Bahir Dar Zuria and Gozamen Districts of Amhara Region, Northwest Ethiopia. Open Access Library Journal 1, e600. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1100600 Frankham, R. J. (2005). Stress and adaptation in conservation genetics. Evolutionary Biology 18, 750– 755. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005. 00885.x Gage, A. A. and Suntebo, M. M. (2023). Existing Status and Prospects of the Chicken Production in Ethiopia. J Fisheries Livest Prod 11(408). url: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/existing- status-and-prospects-of-the-chicken-production-in- ethiopia-124079.html. Gebregziabher, G., Skorn, K., Mauricio, A., and Thanathip, S. (2013). Variance components and genetic parameters for milk production and lactation pattern in an Ethiopian multi-bred dairy cattle popu- lation. Asian Australas journal of Animal Science 26, 1237–1246. doi: https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013. 13040 Gebregziabher, G., Skorn, K., Mauricio, A., and Thanathip, S. (2014). Genotype by Environment interaction effect on lactation pattern and milk pro- duction traits in an Ethiopian Dairy cattle population. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2078633610000652 https://doi.org/10.1017/S2078633610000652 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3354 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3354 https://doi.org/10.20372/jaes.v4i1.202 http://dx.doi.org/10.21839/jaar.2018.v3i3.150 https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v30i4.3897 http://sjournals.com/index.php/AA/article/view/902/pdf http://sjournals.com/index.php/AA/article/view/902/pdf https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-010-9772-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-010-9772-2 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(70)86316-0 https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(70)86316-0 https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/improving-livestock-productivity-through-effective-animal-husbandry-136412.html https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/improving-livestock-productivity-through-effective-animal-husbandry-136412.html https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/improving-livestock-productivity-through-effective-animal-husbandry-136412.html https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859609990165 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859609990165 http://dx.doi.org/10.17707/AgricultForest.66.3.16 http://dx.doi.org/10.17707/AgricultForest.66.3.16 http://www.gjasr.com/index.php/GJASR/article/view/142 http://www.gjasr.com/index.php/GJASR/article/view/142 https://www.fao.org/4/i3017e/i3017e00.pdf https://www.fao.org/4/i3017e/i3017e00.pdf https://www.fao.org/4/i2686e/i2686e00.pdf https://www.fao.org/4/i2686e/i2686e00.pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1100600 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.00885.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.00885.x https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/existing-status-and-prospects-of-the-chicken-production-in-ethiopia-124079.html https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/existing-status-and-prospects-of-the-chicken-production-in-ethiopia-124079.html https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/existing-status-and-prospects-of-the-chicken-production-in-ethiopia-124079.html https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13040 https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2013.13040 Genetic Resources (2025), 6 (11), 82–98 Balancing livestock productivity and diversity in Ethiopia 95 Kasetsart Journal of Natural Science 48, 38–51. url: https://bit.ly/GenResJ268-4. Geleta, T., Leta, S., and Bekana, E. (2013). Production performance of Fayoumi chickens under intensive management condition of Adami Tulu research center. International Journal of LivestockProduction 4(10), 172–176. url: https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/259198664 Production performance of Fayoumi chickens under intensive management condition of Adami Tulu research center. Gemiyo, D., Abebe, G., Ganga, G., Tera, A., and Gemeda, B. S. (2017). Early growth and survival rates of crossbred lambs (Dorper x indigenous) under semi- intensive management at Areka, Southern Ethiopia: effects of non-genetic factors. Afr. J. Agric. Res 12(23). doi: https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2017.12280 Getachew, T., Haile, A., Mészáros, G., Rischkowsky, B., Huson, H. J., Gizaw, S., Wurzinger, M., Mwai, A. O., and Sölkner, J. (2020). Genetic diversity, population structure and runs of homozygosity in Ethiopian short fat-tailed and Awassi sheep breeds using genome-wide 50k SNP markers. Livestock Science 232, 103899. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2019.103899 Getachew, T., Haile, A., Wurzinger, M., Rischkowsky, B., Gizaw, S., Abebe, A., and Sölkner, J. (2016). Review of sheep crossbreeding based on exotic sires and among indigenous breeds in the tropics: An Ethiopian perspective. African Journal of Agricultural Research 11(11), 901–911. doi: https://doi.org/10. 5897/AJAR2013.10626 Getahun, K., Hundie, D., Tadesse, M., and Tadesse, Y. (2020). Productive Performance of Crossbred Dairy Cattle. Ethiop. J. Agric. Sci 30, 55–65. url: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 341489580 Productive Performance of Crossbred Dairy Cattle 6685. Gicquel, E., Boettcher, P., Besbes, B., Furre, S., Fernández, J., Danchin-Burge, C., Berger, B., Bau- mung, R., Feijoo, J. R. J., and Leroy, G. (2020). Impact of conservation measures on demography and genetic variability of livestock breeds. Ani- mal 14(4), 670–680. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/ S1751731119002672 Girma, A., Merkel, R. C., and Sahlu, T. (2000). Enhancing food security and income generation potential of families in southern Ethiopia through improved goat production and extension. In The opportunities and challenges of enhancing goat production in East Africa: Proceeding of a conference held at Awassa, Debub University, ed. Markel, R. C., Abebe, G., and Goetsch, A. L. 113-117. Gizaw, K., Mulugeta, K., Tesfaye, M., and Sisay, E. (2011). Comparative reproductive performance of Horro (Zebu) with Horro x Friesian and Horro x Jersey females in sub humid environments of Bako. Livestock research and rural development 23(8). url: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd23/8/Kebe23171.htm. Gizaw, S. (2009). Goat breeds of Ethiopia: A guide for identification and utilization technical bulletin no. 27. In Ethiopian Sheep and Goat Productivity Improvement Program. Gizaw, S., Abegaz, S., Rischkowsky, B., Haile, A., Mwai, A. O., and Dessie, T. (2013). Review of sheep research and development projects in Ethiopia (Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI).). Gobeze, M., Wondim, B., Amare, B., Bahiru, A., Assefa, and A (2017). Implementation of Community based Breeding Program to Improve Growth and Milk Production Performances of Abergelle Goat in Wag Himra, Ethiopia. In Proceeding of the 10th Annual Regional Conference on Livestock Completed Research Activities, 13-16 March, 2017, Amhara Agricultural Research Institute, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia, 148p. Guteta, A. (2021). Dynamics of Poultry Production System, Constraints, Opportunities and Marketing in Ethiopia. Journal of Marketing and Consumer Research 77. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.7176/JMCR/77-01 Habtegiorgis, K., Gemiyo, D., Abebe, A., and Jimma, A. (2025). Performance Evaluation of Different Blood Levels of Crossbred Dorper Sheep and Farmers’ Perception Toward Crossbred DorperSheep in Central South Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Advances in Agriculture 2025, 5949685. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1155/aia/5949685 Hagos, H., Brihene, M., Brhane, G., Gebru, G., Zeneb, M., Tekle, D., Redae, M., Hagos, T., Tesfay, Z., Estifanos, A., and Amare, H. (2018). Demonstration and evaluation of Begait goat breed in comparison of Abergelle goat breed under farmer’s management system in Tanqua Abergelle district. Livestock Research for Rural Development 30(2). url: http://www.lrrd. org/lrrd30/2/hail30022.html. Haile, A., Getachew, T., Mirkena, T., Duguma, G., Gizaw, S., Wurzinger, M., Soelkner, J., Mwai, O., Dessie, T., Abebe, A., Abate, Z., Jembere, T., Rekik, M., Lobo, R. N. B., Mwacharo, J. M., Terfa, Z. G., Kassie, G. T., Mueller, J. P., and Rischkowsky, B. (2020). Community-based sheep breeding programs gener- ated substantial genetic gains and socioeconomic ben- efits. Animal 14(7), 1362–1370. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S1751731120000269 Hailegebreal, G., Tanga, B. M., Woldegiorgis, W., Sulayeman, M., and Sori, T. (2022). Epidemiological investigation of morbidity and mortality of improved breeds of chickens in small holder poultry farms in selected districts of Sidama Region, Ethiopia. Heliyon 8(8), e10074. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon. 2022.e10074 Henson, E. L. (1992). In situ conservation of livestock and poultry. In: FAO animal production and health paper 99 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). url: https://openknowledge. fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/c75d958c-6780- 4214-a59f-467df4151d95/content. Hunde, D. (2018). Dairy Cattle Breeding Program in Ethiopia: Lesson Learned from Case Studiesin the Tropical Countries. Acad. Res. J. Agri. Sci. https://bit.ly/GenResJ268-4 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259198664_Production_performance_of_Fayoumi_chickens_under_intensive_management_condition_of_Adami_Tulu_research_center https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259198664_Production_performance_of_Fayoumi_chickens_under_intensive_management_condition_of_Adami_Tulu_research_center https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259198664_Production_performance_of_Fayoumi_chickens_under_intensive_management_condition_of_Adami_Tulu_research_center https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259198664_Production_performance_of_Fayoumi_chickens_under_intensive_management_condition_of_Adami_Tulu_research_center https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2017.12280 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2019.103899 https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2013.10626 https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2013.10626 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341489580_Productive_Performance_of_Crossbred_Dairy_Cattle_6685 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341489580_Productive_Performance_of_Crossbred_Dairy_Cattle_6685 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341489580_Productive_Performance_of_Crossbred_Dairy_Cattle_6685 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731119002672 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731119002672 http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd23/8/Kebe23171.htm https://dx.doi.org/10.7176/JMCR/77-01 https://doi.org/10.1155/aia/5949685 https://doi.org/10.1155/aia/5949685 http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd30/2/hail30022.html http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd30/2/hail30022.html https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731120000269 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731120000269 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10074 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10074 https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/c75d958c-6780-4214-a59f-467df4151d95/content https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/c75d958c-6780-4214-a59f-467df4151d95/content https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/c75d958c-6780-4214-a59f-467df4151d95/content 96 Mustefa Genetic Resources (2025), 6 (11), 82–98 Res 6(2), 97–104. url: https://www.researchgate. net/publication/358797874 Dairy Cattle Breeding Program in Ethiopia Lesson Learned from Case Studies in the Tropical Countries. Hussen, A. T. and Anja, A. (2017). Rhode Island Red Poultry Production and Management in Halaba Special Woreda, Southern Ethiopia. Int. J. Adv. Res. Biol. Sci 4(12), 219–225. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10. 22192/ijarbs.2017.04.12.023 Jardine, C. N., Boardman, B., Osman, A., Vowles, J., and Palmer, J. (2012). Methane UK (Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford), 96p. Khan, K. S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., and Antes, G. (2003). Five steps to conducting a systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 96, 118–121. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014107680309600304 Kidie, H. A., Alebel, M. G., and Abdo, M. A. (2024). Performance Evaluation of Lohman Brown Commer- cial Layer Chicken Breeds Under On-Station Manage- ment at Pawe, Benishangul Gumuz, Ethiopia. Ameri- can Journal of Zoology 7(2), 12–21. doi: https://doi. org/10.11648/j.ajz.20240702.11 Köhler-Rollefson, I. and Mundy, P. (2010). Adding value to livestock diversity - Marketing to promote local breeds and improve livelihoods. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No.168 (Rome: LPP, LIFE Network, IUCN–WISP and FAO). url: https:// www.fao.org/4/i1283e/i1283e.pdf. Lakew, M., Haile-Melekot, M., Mekuriaw, G., Abreha, S., and Setotaw, H. (2014a). Reproductive Performance and Mortality Rate in Local and Dorper × Local Crossbred Sheep Following Controlled Breeding in Ethiopia. Open Journal of Animal Sciences 4, 278–284. doi: https://doi.org/10.4236/ojas.2014.45035 Lakew, M., Hailemelekot, M., and Mekuriaw, G. (2014b). Evaluation of growth performance of local and local x Dorper crossbred sheep in Eastern Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Iran J Appl Anim Sci 4(4), 787–94. url: https://journals.iau.ir/article 513485 e9b3b1582824b10eade48c8474cd149a.pdf. Litigebew, A., Moges, F., and Kebede, D. (2021). Growth, survival and egg production of exotic chicken breeds under small scale production system in Bahir Dar City Administration, Ethiopia. Ethiop. J. Sci. Technol 14(2), 123–137. doi: https://doi.org/10.4314/ejst.v14i2.3 Lordelo, M., Cid, J., Cordovil, C. M. D. S., Alves, S. P., Bessa, R. J. B., and Carolino, I. (2020). A comparison between the quality of eggs from indigenous chicken breeds and that from commercial layers. Poultry Science 99(3), 1768–1776. doi: https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.psj.2019.11.023 Lozada-Soto, E. A., Maltecca, C., Lu, D., Miller, S., Cole, J. B., and Tiezzi, F. (2021). Trends in genetic diversity and the effect of inbreeding in American Angus cattle under genomic selection. Genet Sel Evol 53(50). doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-021-00644-z Marchegiani, S., Gislon, G., Marino, R., Caroprese, M., Albenzio, M., Pinchak, W. E., Carstens, G. E., Ledda, L., Trombetta, M. F., Sandrucci, A., Pasquini, M., Deligios, P. A., and Ceccobelli, S. (2025). Smart technologies for sustainable pasture-based ruminant systems: A review. Smart Agricultural Technology 10, 100789. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2025. 100789 Markos, T. (2006). Productivity and health of indigenous sheep breeds and crossbreds in the central Ethiopian highlands. Ph.D. thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden. Marsoner, T., Vigl, L. E., Manck, F., Jaritz, G., Tappeiner, U., and Tasser, E. (2018). Indigenous livestock breeds as indicators for cultural ecosystem services: A spatial analysis within the Alpine Space. Ecological Indicators 94, 55–63. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolind.2017.06.046 Mekuriaw, G. and Kebede, A. (2015). A review on indigenous cattle genetic resources in Ethiopia: adaptation, status and survival. Online J. Anim. Feed Res 5(5), 20125–137. url: https://bit.ly/GenResJ268- 2. Melkamu, T., Kumar, N., Gebrekidan, B., Kebede, E., and Tkue, T. (2017). Performance of Bovans Brown chickens under intensive and backyard management system in Mekelle, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Veterinary Science and Animal Production 1(1), 74– 81. url: https://journal.mu.edu.et/index.php/ejvsap/ article/view/567/432. Million, T., Tadelle, D., and Egbert, K. (2004). Genetic and Non genetic effects on production and repro- duction parameters of Arsi cattle and their Holstein Friesian crosses in Ethiopia. Eth. J. Anim. Prod 4(1), 70–79. MoA (2018). Livestock breeding strategy for Ethiopia: small ruminant breeding strategies (2015–2030). (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ministry of Agriculture (MoA)). Moges, T., Mellesse, A., and Dessie, T. (2010). Assessment of village chicken production system and evaluation of the productive and reproductive performance of local chicken ecotype in Bure district, North west Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research 5(13), 1739–1748. doi: https://doi.org/10. 5897/AJAR09.690 Molla, B. (2016). The health performance of imported Boer goat (Capra hircus) and their crosses with Woito- Guji goat breeds in South Omo Zone. Tropical Animal Health and Production 48, 855–861. doi: https://doi. org/10.1007/s11250-016-1018-5 Molla, M. (2020). Conservation-based breeding program for indigenous sheep breeds in Ethiopia: the way forward. Online J. Anim. Feed Res 10(1), 17–24. doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.36380/scil.2020.ojafr3 Mueller, M. L. and Van Eenennaam, A. L. (2022). Syner- gistic power of genomic selection, assisted reproduc- tive technologies, and gene editing to drive genetic improvement of cattle. CABI Agric Biosci 3(13). doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43170-022-00080-z Mustefa, A. (2022). Do we need importing exotic breeds to improve performances of the indige- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358797874_Dairy_Cattle_Breeding_Program_in_Ethiopia_Lesson_Learned_from_Case_Studies_in_the_Tropical_Countries https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358797874_Dairy_Cattle_Breeding_Program_in_Ethiopia_Lesson_Learned_from_Case_Studies_in_the_Tropical_Countries https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358797874_Dairy_Cattle_Breeding_Program_in_Ethiopia_Lesson_Learned_from_Case_Studies_in_the_Tropical_Countries https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358797874_Dairy_Cattle_Breeding_Program_in_Ethiopia_Lesson_Learned_from_Case_Studies_in_the_Tropical_Countries http://dx.doi.org/10.22192/ijarbs.2017.04.12.023 http://dx.doi.org/10.22192/ijarbs.2017.04.12.023 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014107680309600304 https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajz.20240702.11 https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajz.20240702.11 https://www.fao.org/4/i1283e/i1283e.pdf https://www.fao.org/4/i1283e/i1283e.pdf https://doi.org/10.4236/ojas.2014.45035 https://journals.iau.ir/article_513485_e9b3b1582824b10eade48c8474cd149a.pdf https://journals.iau.ir/article_513485_e9b3b1582824b10eade48c8474cd149a.pdf https://doi.org/10.4314/ejst.v14i2.3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2019.11.023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2019.11.023 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-021-00644-z https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2025.100789 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2025.100789 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.06.046 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.06.046 https://bit.ly/GenResJ268-2 https://bit.ly/GenResJ268-2 https://journal.mu.edu.et/index.php/ejvsap/article/view/567/432 https://journal.mu.edu.et/index.php/ejvsap/article/view/567/432 https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR09.690 https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR09.690 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-016-1018-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-016-1018-5 https://dx.doi.org/10.36380/scil.2020.ojafr3 https://doi.org/10.1186/s43170-022-00080-z Genetic Resources (2025), 6 (11), 82–98 Balancing livestock productivity and diversity in Ethiopia 97 nous animals? a review on Boer goats’ impact in Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Biodiversity 3(1), 52–69. url: https://ebi.gov.et/wp-content/uploads/ 2024/12/Vol-3-No.1-4.pdf. Mustefa, A. (2023). Significance of community based breeding programs to conservation and sustainable utilization of small ruminants in Ethiopia. A review. Small Ruminant Research 226, 107040. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2023.107040 Mustefa, A., Banerjee, S., Gizaw, S., Taye, M., Getachew, T., Areaya, A., Abebe, A., and Besufekad, S. (2019a). Reproduction and survival analysis of Boer and their crosses with Central Highland goats in Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development 31(166). url: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd31/10/amine31166.html. Mustefa, A., Gizaw, S., Banerjee, S., Abebe, A., Taye, M., Areaya, A., and Besufekad, S. (2019b). Growth perfor- mance of Boer goats and their F1 and F2 crosses and backcrosses with Central Highland goats in Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development 31(89). url: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd31/6/amine31089.html. Mwenya, W. N. M. (1992). The impact of the introduction of exotic cattle in east and southern Africa. In A, J. A. K. J. and Mubi, S., Future of livestock industries in East and southern Africa. Proceedings of a workshop held at Kadoma Ranch Hotel, Zimbabwe, 20-23 July 1992. ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 227p. Niraj, K., Alemayehu, E., Abreha, T., and Hailelul, A. Y. (2014). Productive performance of indigenous and Holstein-Friesian crossbred dairy cowsin Gondar. Ethiopia. Vet. World 7(3), 177–181. doi: http://dx.doi. org/10.14202/vetworld.2014.177-181 Norris, D., Ngambi, J. W., Mabelebele, M., Alabi, O. J., and Beny, K. (2014). Genetic selec- tion for docility: A review. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences 24(2), 374–379. url: https://research.biust.ac.bw/en/publications/ genetic-selection-for-docility-a-review-2. Philipsson, J., Rege, J. E. O., and Okeyo, A. M. (2006). Sustainable breeding programmes for tropical farming systems. In Animal Genetics Training Resource, version 2, ed. Ojango, J. M., Malmfors, B., and Okeyo, A. M., (Nairobi, Kenya; Uppsala, Sweden: International Livestock Research Institute). Rahman, M. M., Hoqu, M. A., Saha, N. G., and Faruque, M. O. (2013). Studies on management system and identification of the causes of genetic erosion of indigenous cattle in Mymensingh district. Bang. J. Anim. Sci 42(1), 23–28. doi: https://doi.org/10. 3329/bjas.v42i1.15769 Rajapaksha, T., Abeykoon, M., and Silva, G. (2014). Potential of expanding the capacity of indigenous poultry farmers in Sri Lanka: a case study in Thirappane Area volume 18 of University of Peradeniya International Research Sessions. (Peradeniya, Sri Lanka) . Rajapakshe, R., Madushani, L., Silva, G., and Himali, S. (2015). Effect of Ecotypes and Feeding Systems on the quality and functional properties of Backyard chicken eggs volume 19 of University of Peradeniya International Research Sessions. (Peradeniya, Sri Lanka) . Senarathne, O., Rajapskha, R., Silva, G., and Jayasena, D. (2016). Comparison of quality characteristics of breast meat between Sri Lankan indigenous chickens and commercial broilers at retail. 6th Research Symposium of Uva Wellassa University. Sharif, M. and Farooq, U. (2004). Study on current and potential market supply and demand, market opportu- nities and consumer preferences for indigenous breed animals/products (Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI). Sheriff, O. and Alemayehu, K. (2018). Small rumi- nant production systems and breeding programs in Ethiopia: achievements, challenges and lessons learned: A Review. Online J. Anim. Feed Res 8(3), 2059–73. url: https://bit.ly/GenResJ268-1. Sidrak, S., Bekele, B., and Tunsisa, L. (2021). Intro- duction and demonstration of Commercial broilers (cobb-500) in and around Hawassa town. Journal of Animal Research and Nutrition 6(9), 110. doi: https: //doi.org/10.36648/2572-5459.6.9.110 Silva, P., Weerahewa, J., Gonzalez, I., Bouterakos, M., and Yanoma, Y. (2019). Indigenous Livestock and Poultry for Alleviating Under-Nutrition Among Women and Children in Rural Farm-Households of Sri Lanka. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. url: https://openknowledge.fao.org/ handle/20.500.14283/ca4666en. Skotarczak, E., Szwaczkowski, T., and Ćwiertnia, P. (2020). Effects of inbreeding, sex and geographical region on survival in an American bison (Bison bison) population under a captive breeding program. The European Zoological Journal 87(1), 402–411. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/24750263.2020.1797194 Smith, C. (1984). Genetic aspects of conservation in farm livestock. Livestock Production Science 11, 37–48. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(84) 90005-8 Solomon, A. K., Mwai, O., Grum, G., Haile, A., Rischkowsky, B. A., Solomon, G., and Dessie, T. (2014). Review of goat research and development projects in Ethiopia. ILRI Project Report (Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute). Stranden, I., Kantanen, J., Lidauer, M. H., Mehtiö, T., and Negussie, E. (2022). Animal board invited review: Genomic-based improvement of cattle in response to climate change. Animal 16, 100673. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.animal.2022.100673 Sufiyan, A. (2022). Kundudo feral horse: Trends, status and threats and implication for conservation. Glob J Zool 7(1), 10–014. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.17352/ gjz.000022 Tadesse, M. and Dessie, T. (2003). Milk production per- formance of Zebu, HF and their Crosses in Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development 15(3), 1–11. url: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd15/3/Tade153.htm. https://ebi.gov.et/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Vol-3-No.1-4.pdf https://ebi.gov.et/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Vol-3-No.1-4.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2023.107040 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2023.107040 http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd31/10/amine31166.html http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd31/6/amine31089.html http://dx.doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2014.177-181 http://dx.doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2014.177-181 https://research.biust.ac.bw/en/publications/genetic-selection-for-docility-a-review-2 https://research.biust.ac.bw/en/publications/genetic-selection-for-docility-a-review-2 https://doi.org/10.3329/bjas.v42i1.15769 https://doi.org/10.3329/bjas.v42i1.15769 https://bit.ly/GenResJ268-1 https://doi.org/10.36648/2572-5459.6.9.110 https://doi.org/10.36648/2572-5459.6.9.110 https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/ca4666en https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/ca4666en https://doi.org/10.1080/24750263.2020.1797194 https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(84)90005-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(84)90005-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2022.100673 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.animal.2022.100673 http://dx.doi.org/10.17352/gjz.000022 http://dx.doi.org/10.17352/gjz.000022 http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd15/3/Tade153.htm 98 Mustefa Genetic Resources (2025), 6 (11), 82–98 Taye, S. (2024). Poultry Genetic Resource Conservation and Utilization: A review article on Current Status and Future Prospects in Ethiopia. Asian J. Biol. Sci 17(4), 763–770. doi: https://doi.org/10.3923/asb. 2024.763.770 Teklebrhan, T., Urge, M., Mekasha, Y., and Baissa, M. (2014). Pre-weaning growth performance of crossbred lambs (Dorper x indigenous sheep breeds) under semi-intensive management in eastern Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod 46, 455–60. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-013-0513-1 Tesema, Z., Taye, M., and Kebede, D. (2020). Cur- rent status of livestock crossbreeding in Ethiopia: Implications for research and extension. Journal of Applied Animal Science 13(2), 9–26. url: https: //www.researchgate.net/publication/349324158 Current status of livestock crossbreeding in Ethiopia Implications for research and extension. Tesfa, A., Alemayehu, K., Taye, M., and Kassahun, D. (2024). Genetic improvement of indigenous cattle breeds in Ethiopia: A systematic review of the Fogera cattle open nucleus breeding scheme. Genetic Resources 5(10), 94–106. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.46265/genresj.LYOQ7265 Tessema, T., Teshome, D., and Kumsa, S. (2022). In situ conservation of boran cattle through commu- nity/cooperative bull scheme based breeding program in Borana, Ethiopia. International Journal of Live- stock Production 13(2), 49–55. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.5897/IJLP2021.0787 Tibbo, M., Ayalew, W., Awgichew, K., Ermias, E., and Rege, J. E. O. (2004). On-station characterization of indigenous Menz and Horro Sheep breeds in the central highlands of Ethiopia. AGRI 35, 61–74. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1014233900001814 Tibbo, M., Philipsson, J., and Ayalew, W. (2006). Sustainable sheep breeding programs in the tropics: a framework for Ethiopia. In Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development, Tropentag, University of Bonn (2006, October), 1-8. Tolasa, B. (2021). Current Status of Indigenous and Highly Productive Chicken Breeds in Ethiopia. Advances in Agriculture 2021, 8848388. doi: https: //doi.org/10.1155/2021/8848388 Tongsiri, S., Jeyaruban, G. M., Hermesch, S., Van Der Werf, J. H. J., Li, L., and Chormai, T. (2019). Genetic parameters and inbreeding effects for production traits of Thai native chickens. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 32(7), 930–938. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ ajas.18.0690 Tucho, T. A., Woldu, T., and Shelima, B. (2021). Review of beef cattle breeding research and achievements in Ethiopia. J Agric Sc Food Technol 7(1), 133–137. doi: https://doi.org/10.17352/2455-815X.000100 Vaccaro, L. and Steane, D. E. (1990). Practical technologies and options for the genetic improvement of livestock in developing countries. In Strategies for sustainable animal agriculture in developing countries. Proceedings of the FAO Expert Consultation held in Rome, Italy 10–14 December 1990 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Wojtkowski, P. A. (2008). 3 - Vector Theory, Agroecological Economics (Academic Press), 27- 44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012374117- 2.50005-4 Woldeyohannes, T., Batsha, S., and Melese, A. (2023). Cattle Genetic Improvement for Adaptation, Conser- vation and Sustainable Utilization to Changing Cli- mate in Ethiopia: A Review. J Animal Sci 7, 38–38. doi: https://doi.org/10.36648/2577-0594.7.2.38 Wondmeneh, E., Van Der Waaij, M. J. U., Tadelle, D., and Van Arendonk, J. A. M. (2016). Village Poultry Production System: Perception of Farmers and Simulation of Impacts of Interventions. African Journal of Agricultural Research 11(24), 2075–2081. doi: https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2015.10493 Workneh, A. (2000). Do smallholder farmers benefit more from crossbred (Somali × Anglo-Nubian) than from indigenous goats? Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, George-August University of Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany. Wudu, T., Kelay, B., Mekonnen, H. M., and Tesfu, K. (2008). Calf Morbidity and Mortality in Smallholder Dairy in Ada Liben District of Oromia, Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod 40, 369–376. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11250-007-9104-3 Yeshwas, F. (2015). Epidemiological determinants and magnitude of calf morbidity and mortality. M.Sc. Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Yibrah, Y. (2008). Environmental and genetic parame- ters of growth, reproductive and survival performance of Afar and Blackhead Somali sheep at Werer Agricul- tural Research Center, Fellowship report submitted to International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Ethiopia. Yigzaw, M., Demeke, S., and Hassen, W. (2024). Egg production performance of three strains of laying hens kept in floor pens. AGBIR 40(3), 1100–1103. doi: https://doi.org/10.35248/0970-1907.24.40 Zergaw, N., Dessie, T., and Kebede, K. (2016). Growth performance of Woyto-Guji and Central Highland goat breeds under traditional management system in Ethiopia. Liv Res Rural Dev 28(1). url: http://www. lrrd.org/lrrd28/1/nets28008.htm. https://doi.org/10.3923/asb.2024.763.770 https://doi.org/10.3923/asb.2024.763.770 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-013-0513-1 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349324158_Current_status_of_livestock_crossbreeding_in_Ethiopia_Implications_for_research_and_extension https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349324158_Current_status_of_livestock_crossbreeding_in_Ethiopia_Implications_for_research_and_extension https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349324158_Current_status_of_livestock_crossbreeding_in_Ethiopia_Implications_for_research_and_extension https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349324158_Current_status_of_livestock_crossbreeding_in_Ethiopia_Implications_for_research_and_extension https://doi.org/10.46265/genresj.LYOQ7265 https://doi.org/10.46265/genresj.LYOQ7265 https://doi.org/10.5897/IJLP2021.0787 https://doi.org/10.5897/IJLP2021.0787 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1014233900001814 https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8848388 https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8848388 http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.18.0690 http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.18.0690 https://doi.org/10.17352/2455-815X.000100 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012374117-2.50005-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012374117-2.50005-4 https://doi.org/10.36648/2577-0594.7.2.38 https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2015.10493 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-007-9104-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-007-9104-3 https://doi.org/10.35248/0970-1907.24.40 http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd28/1/nets28008.htm http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd28/1/nets28008.htm Introduction Genetic improvement Advantages of livestock genetic improvement programmes Increased Productivity Cattle Small ruminants Chicken Climate change mitigation Reducing aggressiveness Limitations of livestock genetic improvement programmes Genetic erosion Maladaptation Inbreeding Cost and time Conservation Advantages of conservation Genetic diversity Adaptability Unique traits Cultural heritage Market demand Limitations of conservation Lower productivity Discussion The way forward Identification of indigenous breeds Breed-level population size census Breed evaluation Breed and area delineation for breeding programmes In situ and ex situ conservation Husbandry practices Acknowledgements Conflicts of interest