Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T14:20:50.105Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The domestic livestock resources of Turkey: goat breeds and types and their conservation status

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2012

Orhan Yilmaz ,
Askin Kor ,
Mehmet Ertugrul  and
R. Trevor Wilson
Orhan Yilmaz
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Igdir University, Igdir, Turkey
Askin Kor
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Yuzuncu Yil University, Van, Turkey
Mehmet Ertugrul
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey
R. Trevor Wilson*
Affiliation:
Bartridge Partners, Umberleigh, Devon EX37 9AS, UK
*
Correspondence to: R. Trevor Wilson, Bartridge Partners, Umberleigh, Devon EX37 9AS, UK. e-mail: trevorbart@aol.com.
Get access

Summary

Goats were first domesticated in Turkey some 10 000–11 000 years ago. The country's population of 5.1 million goats in 2009 (down from 24.6 million in 1960) are still an important livelihood asset for smallholder farmers and nationally are a rich array of farm animal genetic resources of current enormous and future inestimable value. The structure of agriculture is such that most farms are predominantly subsistence oriented, of small size, keep few animals and provide only minimal inputs. Native breeds have evolved to meet these conditions and are generally well adapted to the natural environment, inadequate and unbalanced nutrition and disease stress. In general, there are two classes of goat, the one being the iconic Angora that produces mohair and the other the “common” or “hair” goat. The reduction in numbers is owing to a variety of reasons both internal and external to the country, but the Angora, which now amounts to only 2.5 percent of national goat numbers, has suffered relatively more than the hair types. This paper, based on detailed reviews of the literature and on the authors' own experiences, provides information on 17 breeds or recognized populations of Turkey's goat genetic resources and their conservation status. The government is now aware of the danger of the impoverishment or loss of this important aspect of biodiversity and has established programmes for conservation and preservation of several native breeds. The government, research institutions and producers should work together to ensure that the local gene pool is preserved and can thus continue to contribute to biodiversity and sustainable livestock production.

Résumé

En Turquie, les chèvres ont été domestiquées pour la première fois il y a 11 000 à 10 000 ans. La population de chèvres du pays, qui était en 2009 de 5,1 millions d'animaux (en baisse par rapport à 24,6 millions en 1960), représente encore un avoir important relatif aux moyens d'existence des petits exploitants et, au niveau national, une riche gamme de ressources génétiques d'animaux d'élevage ayant une valeur énorme à présent et inestimable pour l'avenir. La structure de l'agriculture est telle que la plupart des fermes sont essentiellement de petite taille et orientées vers la subsistance, élèvent peu d'animaux et ne fournissent que le minimum d'intrants. Les races indigènes ont évolué pour remplir ces conditions et sont généralement bien adaptées au milieu naturel, à une alimentation inadéquate et déséquilibrée et aux stress des maladies. En règle générale, il existe deux catégories de chèvres: l'emblématique chèvre angora qui produit le mohair; et la chèvre «commune» ou «à poils». Les populations de chèvres ont diminué pour des raisons différentes, aussi bien internes qu'externes au pays, mais la chèvre angora, qui ne représente aujourd'hui que 2,5 pour cent des chèvres au niveau national, a souffert relativement plus que les types communs. Cet article, basé sur les analyses détaillées de plusieurs publications et sur les expériences des auteurs, donne des informations sur 17 races ou populations reconnues de ressources génétiques de chèvres de la Turquie et sur leur état de conservation. Le gouvernement est à présent conscient du danger de l'appauvrissement ou de la perte de cet aspect important de la biodiversité et a mis en place des programmes de conservation et de préservation pour plusieurs races indigènes. Le gouvernement, les instituts de recherche et les producteurs devraient collaborer pour garantir la conservation du pool de gènes local et sa contribution continue à la biodiversité et à la production animale durable.

Resumen

Los animales de la especie caprina fueron domesticados por primera vez en Turquía hace entre 11.000 y 10.000 años. El censo nacional, 5,1 millones de cabras en 2009 (frente a 24,6 millones en 1960), sigue siendo un importante medio de subsistencia para los pequeños agricultores, representado a nivel nacional una destacable variedad de recursos genéticos animales de enorme valor en la actualidad e incalculable de cara al futuro. La estructura de la agricultura está orientada en su mayoría hacia explotaciones de subsistencia, de pequeño tamaño, pocos animales y llevando a cabo las mínimas inversiones. Las razas autóctonas han evolucionado para satisfacer estas condiciones y, generalmente, están bien adaptadas al medio ambiente natural, a una alimentación insuficiente y desequilibrada y al estrés provocado por determinadas enfermedades. En general existen dos tipos de cabras, una que es la de Angora, que produce la fibra mohair, y la otra denominada cabra “común” o “de pelo”. La reducción del censo se debe a motivos muy diversos, tanto internos como externos al país, pero la de Angora, que asciende a sólo el 2,5 por ciento de la población caprina nacional, se ha visto más afectada que la de pelo. Este trabajo, basado en revisiones bibliográficas y en las propias experiencias de los autores, ofrece información acerca de 17 razas o poblaciones reconocidas de recursos genéticos de la especie caprina de Turquía y de su estado de conservación. El gobierno es consciente actualmente del peligro de empobrecimiento o de pérdida de este importante aspecto de la diversidad biológica y ha establecido programas para la conservación y preservación de varias razas autóctonas. El gobierno, las instituciones de investigación y los productores deben trabajar conjuntamente para garantizar que el acervo genético local sea conservado y, por lo tanto, se siga contribuyendo a la conservación de la biodiversidad y a la producción ganadera sostenible.

Keywords

biodiversityconservationcross-breedingnative breedsproduction systemsrisk statusbiodiversitéconservationcroisementraces indigènessystèmes de productionétat de dangerbiodiversidadconservacióncruzamientorazas nativassistemas de producciónsituación de riesgo
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Genetic Resources/Resources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales , Volume 51 , December 2012 , pp. 105 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anon. 2009. Turkiye Ciftlik Hayvanlari Genetik Kaynaklari Katalogu. Tarim ve Koyisleri Bakanligi, Tarimsal Arastirmalar Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara. (Catalogue of Turkish Farm Animal Genetic Resources. General Directorate of Agricultural Research, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Ankara.)Google Scholar
Arat, S. 2011. In vitro conservation and preliminary molecular identification of some Turkish domestic animal genetic resources (Turkhaygen-1). In Proceedings of the Eighth Global Conference on the Conservation of Animal Genetic Resources, 4–8 October 2011, Tekirdag, Turkey, 51–58.Google Scholar
Arik, I.Z. 2011. Koyun ve Keçi Yetiştiriciliği Sorunlar ve Çözüm Önerileri, 10. TUYEM Uluslararas Yem Kongresi ve Yem Sergisi, Yem Magazin Tuyem 10 Özel Say, s:131–139, 22–25 Nisan, 2010, Antalya. (Problems and solutions of sheep and goat husbandry. Journal of Tuyem Animal Food, 10th Special Edition 10th (TUYEM International Animal Food Congress and Show, 22–25 April 2010, Antalya, Turkey) 131–139.)Google Scholar
Ataseven, V.S., Ataseven, L., Tan, T., Babur, C. & Oguzoglu, T.C. 2006. Seropositivity of agents causing abortion in local goat breeds in Eastern and South-eastern Anatolia, Turkey. Rev. Méd. Vét., 157: 545–550.Google Scholar
Aziz, O.K. 2009. Cashmere production from Maraz goats. J. Zankoy Sulaimani, 12A: 13–21.Google Scholar
BAGS. 2011. About Angora goats. British Angora Goat Society, Hampton Lucy, UK (available at http://www.britishangoragoats.org.uk/about.htm).Google Scholar
Bingol, M., Gokdal, O., Aygun, T., Yilmaz, A. & Daskiran, I. 2012. Some productive characteristics and body measurements of Norduz goats of Turkey. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 44: 545–550. doi: 10.1007/s11250-011-9934-xGoogle Scholar
Cañón, J., García, D., García-Atance, M.A., Obexer-Ruff, G., Lenstra, J.A., Ajmone-Marsan, P. & Dunner, S. 2006. Geographical partitioning of goat diversity in Europe and the Middle East. Anim. Genet., 37: 327–334. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2052.2006.01461.x.Google Scholar
DAD-IS. 2010. Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (DAD-IS), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/dadis/.Google Scholar
Darcan, N. & Guney, O. 1997. Strategies of small ruminant production under intensive and subtropical climate conditions in the East Mediterranean region. In Gabiña, D., Bodin, L., eds., Data collection and definition of objectives in sheep and goat breeding programmes: new prospects (Proceedings of the Meeting of the FAO-CIHEAM Network of Cooperative Research on Sheep and Goats, Subnetwork on Animal Resources, Toulouse, France, 9–11 March 1997). Options Méditerannéennes, Series A 33, 41–46.Google Scholar
Daskiran, I. & Cedden, F. 2004. Norduz goat of East Anatolia. J. Anim. Vet. Adv., 3: 881–883.Google Scholar
Daskiran, I., Bingol, M., Kor, A., Demir, O.A. & Karaca, S. 2006. Feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of Norduz male kids. J. Anim. Vet. Adv. 5: 430–433.Google Scholar
Daskiran, I., Cedden, F., Bingol, M. & Abkin, A. 2008. Some physical characteristics of coarse fibre obtained from Norduz goat. J. Anim. Vet. Adv., 7: 545–547.Google Scholar
Daskiran, I., Bingol, M., Karaka, S., Yilmaz, A., Cetin, A.O. & Kor, A. 2010. The effect of feeding system on fattening performance, slaughter and carcass characteristics of Norduz male kids. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 42: 1459–1463. doi: 10.1007/s11250-010-9577-3.Google Scholar
Dellal, I. & Dellal, G. 2005. Türkiye keçi yetiştiriciliğinin ekonomisi. Süt Keçicili I Ulusal Kongresi. 26–27 Mayis 2005. Izmir. (The economics of Turkish goat production. 1st National Congress on Milk Goat Production, 6–27 May 2005, Izmir, Turkey.)Google Scholar
Ertugrul, M., Akman, N., Askin, Y., Cengiz, F., Firatli, C., Turkoglu, M. & Yener, S.M. 1993. Animal Production. Baran Ofset, Ankara.Google Scholar
Ertugrul, M., Dellal, G., Elmaci, C., Akin, A.O., Pehlivan, E., Soysal, M.I. & Arat, S. 2010. Conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources of farm animals. In Proceedings of the Turkish Agricultural Engineering VII Technical Congress, 11–15 January 2010, Ankara, Turkey. 179–198.Google Scholar
Gerstmayra, S., Gunes, H., Yalcin, B.C. & Horst, P. 1995. Effects of upgrading Turkish Angora goats with American Angoras. Small Ruminant Res., 15: 163–169.Google Scholar
Gokmen, M. & Boztepe, S. 2004. Determination of cashmere fiber production and quality traits in Turkish Hair goats. J. Anim. Vet. Adv., 3: 781–784.Google Scholar
Gunes, H., Horst, P., Evrim, M. & Valle-Zárate, A. 2002. Studies on improvement of the productivity of Turkish Angora goat by crossing with South African Angora goats. Small Ruminant Res., 45: 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guney, O., Bicer, O. & Torun, O. 1992. Fertility, prolificacy and milk production in Cukurova and Taurus dairy goats under subtropical conditions in Turkey. Small Ruminant Res., 7: 265–269. doi: 10.1016/0921-4488(92)90231-R.Google Scholar
Guney, O., Cebeci, Z., Torun, O. & Bicer, O. 1997. Country report of Turkey on small ruminant production with special reference to the selection programme for increasing milk production in dairy goat flock of University of Çukurova. In Gabiña, D., Bodin, L., eds., Data collection and definition of objectives in sheep and goat breeding programmes: New prospects (Proceedings of the Meeting of the FAO-CIHEAM Network of Cooperative Research on Sheep and Goats, Subnetwork on Animal Resources, Toulouse, France, 9–11 March 1997). Options Méditerannéennes, Series A, 33: 185–192.Google Scholar
Gursoy, O. 2005. Small ruminant breeds of Turkey. In Iniguez, L., ed., Characterization of small ruminant breeds in West Asia and North Africa. Vol. 1. International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ECARTE), Aleppo, Syria, 239–416.Google Scholar
Gursoy, O. 2006. Characterizing and improving the traditional goat production system on the highlands of Eastern Mediterranean region of Turkey. In Ramalho Ribeiro, J.M.C., Horta, A.E.M., Mosconi, C., Rosati, A., eds., Animal products from the Mediterranean area. EAAP Publication No. 119, Santarém, Portugal. 113–123.Google Scholar
Ince, D. 2010. Reproduction performance of Saanen goats raised under extensive conditions. Afr. J. Biotechnol., 9(48): 8253–8256.Google Scholar
Kambera, U. 2007. The traditional cheeses of Turkey. Food Rev. Int., 24: 175–192. doi: 10.1080/87559120701764613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kence, A. 1987. Biological diversity in Turkey. Environmental Problems Foundation of Turkey, Ankara.Google Scholar
Konyali, A., Tolu, C., Ayah, B.C. & Akbag, H.I. 2011. Observations on hand-mating behaviors, several physiological and hematological parameters in Turkish dairy goats. Anim. Sci. J., 82: 251–258. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2010.00851.x.Google Scholar
Kor, A., Keskin, S., Bingol, M. & Daskiran, I. 2006. Udder characteristics of Norduz goats. Indian Vet. J., 83: 413–415.Google Scholar
Kosum, N., Alcicek, A., Taskin, T. & Oneng, A. 2003. Fattening performance and carcass characteristics of Saanen and Bornova male kids under an intensive management system. Czech. J. Anim. Sci., 48: 379–386.Google Scholar
Kosum, N., Taskin, T., Akbas, Y. & Kaymakci, M. 2004. Heritability estimates of birth and weaning weights in Saanen, Bornova and Saanen × Kilis goats. Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 7: 1963–1966.Google Scholar
Koyun, H. 2011. Endangered endemic species of Lake Van: Norduz and Karakas sheep, Norduz goat and Van cats. Faculty of Agriculture, Van University, Van, Turkey (available athttp://www.nas.boku.ac.at/fileadmin/_/H93/H932.../ESF.../Koyun.pdf.).Google Scholar
Kul, B.C. & Ertugrul, O. 2011. mtDNA diversity of some Turkish native goat breeds. In 62nd EAAP Annual Meeting, 29 August–1 September, 2011, Stavanger, Norway.Google Scholar
MacHugh, D.E. and Bradley, D.G. 2001. Livestock genetic origins: goats buck the trend. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 98: 5382–5394. doi: 10.1073/pnas.111163198.Google Scholar
MARA/FAO. 2001. Agriculture in Turkey. Guzelis Ltd, Ankara (ISBN 975-8153-00-5).Google Scholar
Mason, I.L. 1996. A world dictionary of livestock breeds, types and varieties, 4th edition. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
MRC. 2011. Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology Institute. Marmara Research Centre, Tubitak, Turkey (available at http://www.turkhaygen.gov.tr).Google Scholar
Ocak, S., Guney, O., Onder, H. & Darcan, N. 2006. Growth and development performances of Cukurova Saanen kids under tropical climate conditions. J. Anim. Vet. Adv., 5: 985–989.Google Scholar
Olfaz, M., Tozlu, H. & Onder, S. 2011. Effect of hair colour variation on milk production and kid growth in Turkish Hair goat. J. Anim. Vet. Adv., 10: 1037–1040.Google Scholar
Sengonca, T., Kaymakci, M., Harnes, N., Flood, T. & Steinbach, G. 2002. A dairy goat for western Anatolia: Bornova goat. Anim. Prod., 43: 79–85.Google Scholar
Sonmez, R. 1975. Advanced animal husbandry, Agricultural Faculty Publication Number 141. Ege University, Izmir.Google Scholar
Sonmez, R. 1978. Sheep husbandry and wool. Agricultural Faculty Publication Number 108. Ege University, Izmir.Google Scholar
Soysal, M.A. 2009. Goat husbandry as farm animal genetic resources. Tekirdag, Ankara. ISBN: 978-9944-5405-4-4.Google Scholar
Takma, C., Akbas, Y. & Taskin, T. 2009. Modelling lactation curves of Turkish Saanen and Bornova goats. Asian J. Anim. Vet. Adv., 4: 122–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toplu, H.D.O. & Altinel, A. 2008 Some production traits of indigenous Hair goats bred under extensive conditions in Turkey. 1st communication: reproduction, milk yield and hair production traits of does. Arch. Tierzucht, Dummerstorf, 51: 498–506.Google Scholar
Turkstat. 2011. LivestockSstatistics. Turkish Statistical Institute, Ankara (available at http://www.turkstat.gov.tr).Google Scholar
Ugur, F., Sava, T., Dosay, M., Karabayir, A. & Atasoglu, C. 2004. Growth and behavioral traits of Turkish Saanen kids weaned at 45 and 60 days. Small Ruminant Res., 52: 179–184.Google Scholar
Ureyen, M. 1995. Hayvancilik Bilgisi. Anadolu Universitesi, Aç kö retim Fakültesi Yay nlar. p. 91. Eski ehir. (Basic Livestock Information. Faculty of Open and Distance Education, University of Anadolu Publications, Eskisehir, Turkey.).Google Scholar
Weinberg, P., Deidi, T., Masseti, M., Nader, I., de Smet, K. & Cuzin, F. 2008. Capra aegagrus, in, IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2 (available at http://www.iucnredlist.org, downloaded on 12 November 2011).Google Scholar
Wilson, R.T. 2009. Fit for purpose – the right animal in the right place. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 41: 1081–1090.Google Scholar
Wilson, R.T., Yilmaz, O. & Ertugrul, M. 2011. The domestic livestock resources of Turkey: Pigs. Pig J., 66: 26–30.Google Scholar
Yalcin, B.C. 1986. Sheep and goats in Turkey (Animal Production and Health Paper No 60). Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.Google Scholar
Yarkin, I. 1965. Goat, camel, pig husbandry (Ankara University Publication Number 243). Ankara University Printing House, Ankara.Google Scholar
Yigit, G.K. 2011. Angora goat and mohair production in Turkey. Arch. Appl. Sci. Res., 3: 145–153.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, O., Ertugrul, M. & Wilson, R.T. 2011. The domestic livestock resources of Turkey: Camel. J. Camel Pract. Res., 18: 21–24.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, O., Ertugrul, M. &, Wilson, R.T. 2012. The domestic livestock resources of Turkey: Water buffalo. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., doi: 10.1007/s11250-011-9957-3.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, O., Akin, O., Metin Yener, S., Ertugrul, M. & Wilson, R.T. 2012. The domestic livestock resources of Turkey: cattle local breeds and types and their conservation status. Anim Genet. Resour., 50: 65–73. doi: 10.1017/S2078633612000033.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, O., Akin, O., Yener, S.M., Ertugrul, M. & Wilson, R.T. 2012b. The domestic livestock resources of Turkey: sheep. Anim. Genet. Resour., SubmittedGoogle Scholar