Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T23:58:23.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Production systems of Creole goat and their implications for a breeding programme

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2010

M. Gunia
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Unité de Recherches Zootechniques, Domaine Duclos, 97170 Petit Bourg, Guadeloupe
N. Mandonnet*
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Unité de Recherches Zootechniques, Domaine Duclos, 97170 Petit Bourg, Guadeloupe
R. Arquet
INRA, Domaine de Gardel, 97160 Le Moule, Guadeloupe
C. de la Chevrotière
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Unité de Recherches Zootechniques, Domaine Duclos, 97170 Petit Bourg, Guadeloupe
M. Naves
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Unité de Recherches Zootechniques, Domaine Duclos, 97170 Petit Bourg, Guadeloupe
M. Mahieu
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Unité de Recherches Zootechniques, Domaine Duclos, 97170 Petit Bourg, Guadeloupe
G. Alexandre
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Unité de Recherches Zootechniques, Domaine Duclos, 97170 Petit Bourg, Guadeloupe
Get access


The Creole goat is a local meat breed well adapted to the tropical environment of Guadeloupe, a French island in the Caribbean. A survey of 47 goat farmers was conducted in May 2008 to describe the Guadeloupean goat farming systems. It was the preliminary step for the implementation of a breeding programme for Creole goats. Farmers had 31 does on average. A small number (4%) kept only Creole goats. Most of them (62%) had a mixed herd of Creole and crossbreds. One-third of them (34%) reared only crossbred goats. Farmers appreciate the rusticity and resistance of the Creole goat but consider its growth as too slow. The most desired traits for goat selection were conformation and growth for males (77% of the answers). These traits were also important for females (30% of the answers). Maternal qualities were also frequently cited (maternal behaviour 23%, reproduction 20% and milk production 17%). Disease resistance was not seen as an important trait (10% and 7% of the answers for bucks and does, respectively). A typology constituted of five groups of farmers was also created. Farmers of three groups were retained to participate at a selection programme. They kept Creole goats and have expressed a strong willingness to join a selection programme. The results of the survey suggest that a breeding programme should mostly focus on the Creole goat as a maternal breed. Real consideration should be given to disease resistance. The Creole goat has indeed a key role to play in the sustainability of local farming systems.

Full Paper
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

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.)


Agreste Guadeloupe 2007. L’agriculture guadeloupéenne en 2006. Retrieved September 10, 2009, from Scholar
Alexandre, G, Asselin de Beauville, S, Shitalou, E, Zebus, MF 2006. Traditional use of goat products in the Guadeloupean society. In Livestock farming systems: product quality based on local resources leading to improved sustainability (ed. R Rubino, L Sepe, A Dimitriadou and A Gibon), EAAP Publication no. 118, pp. 183188. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Alexandre, G, Mandonnet, N 2005. Goat meat production in harsh environments. Small Ruminant Research 60, 5366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexandre, G, Asselin de Beauville, S, Shitalou, E, Zebus, MF 2008. An overview of the goat meat sector in Guadeloupe: conditions of production, consumer preferences, cultural functions and economic implications. Livestock Research for Rural Development 20, Article 14. Retrieved September 10, 2009, from Scholar
Alexandre, G, Leimbacher, F, Maurice, O, Domarin, D, Naves, M, Mandonnet, N 2009. Goat farming systems in Martinique: management and breeding strategies. Tropical Animal Health and Production 41, 635644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aumont, G, Pouillot, R, Simon, R, Hostache, G, Varo, H, Barré, N 1997. Parasitisme digestif des petits ruminants dans les Antilles françaises. INRA Productions Animales 10, 7989.Google Scholar
Ayalew, B, Rischkowsky, B, King, JM, Bruns, E 2003. Crossbreds did not generate more net benefits than indigenous goats in Ethiopian smallholdings. Agricultural Systems 76, 11371156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, RL, Gray, GD 2004. Appropriate breeds and breeding schemes for sheep and goats in the tropics. In Worm control for small ruminants in tropical Asia (ed. RA Sani, GD Gray and RL Baker), Monograph no. 113, pp. 6375. Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research (ACIAR), Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
Bath, GF, Malan, FS, Van Wyk, JA 1996. The ‘FAMACHA’ ovine anaemia guide to assist with the control of haemonchosis. Proceeding of the 7th Annual Congress of the Livestock Health and Production Group of the South African Veterinary Association, 5–7 June 1996, Port-Elizabeth, South Africa, pp. 152–156.Google Scholar
Bishop, SC, Morris, CA 2007. Genetics of disease resistance in sheep and goats. Small Ruminant Research 70, 4859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brundland, GH 1987. Our common future. World commission on environment and development. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Chessel, D, Dufour, AB, Thioulouse, J 2004. The ade4 package-I: one-table methods. R News 4, 510.Google Scholar
Devendra, C 1980. Potential of sheep and goats in less developed countries. Journal of Animal Science 51, 461473.Google Scholar
Dubeuf, JP, Boyazoglu, J 2009. An international panorama of goat selection and breeds. Livestock Science 120, 225231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dossa, LH, Wollny, C, Gauly, M 2007. Smallholders’ perceptions of goat farming in southern Benin and opportunities for improvement. Tropical Animal Health and Production 39, 4957.Google ScholarPubMed
FAOSTAT 2007. FAOSTAT – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved September 10, 2009, from Scholar
Galal, S 2005. Biodiversity in goats. Small Ruminant Research 60, 7581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gau, D, Naves, M, Alexandre, G, Shitalou, E, Mandonnet, N 2000. Systèmes de production et orientations génétiques en élevage caprin en Guadeloupe. Procceedings of the 7th International Conference on Goats, 15–18 May 2000, Tours, France, pp. 368–370.Google Scholar
Gicheha, MG, Kosgey, IS, Bebe, BO, Kahi, AK 2007. Efficiency of alternative schemes breeding for resistance to gastrointestinal helminths in meat sheep. Small Ruminant Research 69, 167179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaitner, J, Sowe, J, Secka-Njie, E, Dempfle, L 2001. Ownership pattern and management practices of small ruminants in The Gambia – implications for a breeding programme. Small Ruminant Research 40, 101108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kosgey, IS, Baker, RL, Udo, HMJ, Van Arendonk, JAM 2006. Successes and failures of small ruminant breeding programmes in the tropics: a review. Small Ruminant Research 61, 1328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosgey, IS, Rowlands, GJ, Van Arendonk, JAM, Baker, RL 2008. Small ruminant production in smallholder and pastoral/extensive farming systems in Kenya. Small Ruminant Research 77, 1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lassalle, C, Patry, C 2007. Management practices and socio-economic study of Gir and Jaffarabadi breeds in their native tract (Saurashtra, Gujarat, India). AgroParisTech, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Lebbie, SHB 2004. Goats under household conditions. Small Ruminant Research 51, 131136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liméa, L, Gobardham, J, Gravillon, G, Nepos, A, Alexandre, G 2009. Growth and carcass traits of Creole goats under different pre-weaning, fattening and slaughter conditions. Tropical Animal Health and Production 41, 6170.Google ScholarPubMed
Mahieu, M, Archimède, H, Fleury, J, Mandonnet, N, Alexandre, G 2008. Intensive grazing system for small ruminants in the tropics: the French West Indies experience and perspectives. Small Ruminant Research 77, 195207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahieu, M, Arquet, R, Kandassamy, T, Mandonnet, N, Hoste, H 2007. Evaluation of targeted drenching using Famacha© method in Creole goat: reduction of anthelmintic use, and effects on kid production and pasture contamination. Veterinary Parasitology 146, 135147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandonnet, N, Aumont, G, Fleury, J, Arquet, R, Varo, H, Gruner, L, Bouix, J, Khang, JVT 2001. Assessment of genetic variability of resistance to gastrointestinal nematode parasites in Creole goats in the humid tropics. Journal of Animal Science 79, 17061712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandonnet, N, Menendez-Buxadera, A, Arquet, R, Mahieu, M, Bachand, M, Aumont, G 2006. Genetic variability in resistance to gastro-intestinal strongyles during early lactation in Creole goats. Animal Science 82, 283287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morand-Fehr, P, Boutonnet, JP, Devendra, C, Dubeuf, JP, Haenlein, GFW, Holst, P, Mowlem, L, Capote, J 2004. Strategy for goat farming in the 21st century. Small Ruminant Research 51, 175183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naves, M, Alexandre, G, Leimbacher, F, Mandonnet, N, Menendez-Buxadera, A 2001. Les ruminants domestiques de la Caraïbe: le point sur les ressources génétiques et leur exploitation. INRA Productions Animales 14, 181192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute 1999–2000. SAS release 8.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Silanikove, N 2000. The physiological basis of adaptation in goats to harsh environments. Small Ruminant Research 35, 181193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thioulouse, J, Chessel, D, Dolédec, S, Olivier, JM 1997. ADE-4: a multivariate analysis and graphical display software. Statistics and Computing 7, 7583.Google Scholar
Wurzinger, M, Ndumu, D, Baumung, R, Drucker, A, Okeyo, AM, Semambo, DK, Byamungu, N, Solkner, J 2006. Comparison of production systems and selection criteria of Ankole cattle by breeders in Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda. Tropical Animal Health and Production 38, 571581.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed