COWS WHO CHOOSE DOMESTICATION.

LOCAL MANAGEMENT OF LIVESTOCK VARIABILITY

AMONG THE WODAABE OF NIGER

DPhil Proposal
(Revised Draft)

Saverio Krätli

Supervisor: Jeremy Swift

May 2002

Institute of Development Studies

University of Sussex
Brighton
1. INTRODUCTION
In the 1980s, Angelo Maliki Bonfiglioli recorded the family history of Tiinde, a
BoDaaDo1 elder in the region of Filingué, central Niger. Narrating his childhood, Tiinde
tells the story of a man whose fine herd of Bororo cattle had been taken by some
soldiers. Those animals, remarks Tiinde, in all their life had never been forced to do
something they didn’t want to. Their owner was not upset, but simply set up to meet the
animals at a water point where he used to take them and where he knew they would
have gone. Although lead away by the soldiers in the opposite direction, by night all the
animals arrived exactly where he was expecting, having run away from the soldiers just
a few hours after they had been taken. ‘Had they been cattle of the Azawak breed — it
is Tiinde’s comment on the anecdote — they would have been lost forever. But the
Bororo cow, although more difficult to content, never forgets the camp. She is attached
to the camp, and always comes back. That’s why a Bororo has more value than an
Azawak, and has more charm than an Azawak’ (Bonfiglioli, 1989: 238).
Domestic biodiversity disappearing at an alarming rate has raised increasing
international concern (FAO 1981; CBD 1992; Lotus and Scherf 1993; FAO 1995; FAO
1999). The latest revision of the FAO Global Strategy for the Management of Farm
Animal Genetic Resources states:
the assumptions which have guided global livestock development for the past 30 or more years must be
redefined […] The strategy had relied on the identification, intensive development and global distribution of
a few specialized, high-input/high-output breeds […]. However, much of the world's animal agriculture will
remain at low to medium input levels for the foreseeable future, and the high inputs required by these highly
specialised types will generally not be available. In the past, far too little attention has been given to
maintaining and enhancing adaptation to specific production conditions and stressors, and indigenous breeds
within developing countries have been seriously undervalued. This situation must change. Successful
livestock development programmes in the future will require both enhancement of productivity and
maintenance of local adaptation (FAO, 1999: 4).
In this new perspective, the active participation of farmers and pastoralists is seen as
central to the management of animal genetic resources. However, when it comes to
practical measures, the strategy is still very much biased towards high-tech top-down
improvement goals. Despite the new emphasis on the role of local production systems,
the strategy is still centred on the research station and the genetic laboratory.
Identification and classification of breeds is done through narrow typological criteria
that fail to account for the fuzzy and dynamic nature of breeds in pastoral production
systems. On the other hand, the emphasis on cryogenic preservation may actually
concur to the erosion of biodiversity by removing genetic resources from the
evolutionary process, which under domestication includes human influence in the form
of both husbandry practices and the transformation of the environment. Domestic
biodiversity, it has been argued, relies on practical and socially embedded knowledge
that will only exist as long as the management of genetic resources remains part of the
pastoral production system.
The central concern of this study is with the ways in which local husbandry practices, in
particular genetic resource management, influence animal variability. At the present, the
socially embedded knowledge involved in this processes is hardly recognised. By
generating substantial data on pastoralists perceptions and practices concerning genetic
resource management, this study will offer a much needed alternative point of view
from the dominant perspective on livestock development.

1
Singular of WoDaaBe

1
WODAABE AND CATTLE

Data on the WoDaaBe’s social organisation, institutions and natural resource

management are abundant, of high quality and span several decades (de Bruijn and van
Dijk, 1995; Bonfiglioli, 1988; 1984, 1981; Thébaud, 1988; Riesman, 1977; de St Croix,
1972; Dupire, 1962; Stenning, 1959; Hopen, 1958). Bonfiglioli’s work also provides a
reconstruction of the history of WoDaaBe in the Niger/Nigeria region up to the 1960s
(1988, 1982). Two doctoral studies on the WoDaaBe of Niger have recently been
completed, concerning respectively environmental knowledge (Schareika 1995, 2001)
and identity (Loftsdóttir 2000).
The WoDaaBe arrived in central Niger in the 1910s, with the gradual recovering of the
herds after the epidemics of rinderpest that, at the end of the nineteenth century, had
driven most pastoral households into full time farming. From the fertile region across
the border with Nigeria, they were progressively pushed north, on ever more marginal
areas, by the desire to avoid the heavy taxation on livestock and by the scarcity of
pasture. Exceptionally favourable terms of trade due to a boost in the demand for meat
from the fast-growing urban settlements in Nigeria, allowed WoDaaBe households with
still relatively small herds to abandon farming altogether and to increasingly specialise
in pastoralism. Herd management strategies changed substantially. Oxen, as burden
animals, were replaced with donkeys. A great increase in the mobility of the whole
household (instead of splitting it into highly mobile units with the bulk of the herd, and
semi-sedentary units with only some milk animals), was made possible by the adoption
of camel as means of transport. In the years to follow, however, WoDaaBe were forced
to continue their migration. The uncontrolled expansion of cultivation progressively
encroached on rangeland (groundnut production passed from 27,000t in the 1930s to
349,000t in 1975, without becoming more intensive), just whilst newly introduced
vaccinations favoured a faster increase of the animal population. In face of pasture
scarcity combined with generally unfavourable state policies and terms of trade vs the
price of cereals, the WoDaaBe continued to move north, encroaching on Twareg
grazing lands, in increasingly dry conditions, and experiencing increased levels of
vulnerability. This process, triggered by a long drought, culminated in the major famine
of 1968-1973 (Bonfiglioli 1989). Since the 1970s crisis, the patterns of ownership have
changed substantially. In mid-1980s, once the total number of animals was restored to
pre-drought figures, the proportion of the national herd controlled by pastoralists,
compared to that owned by farmers2 and urban investors, had very substantially shrunk
(Loftsdóttir, 2000).
As up to ninety percent of the livestock can be lost during a drought, droughts represent
a major factor of selective pressure on livestock. However, looking at drought as a
merely natural phenomenon would be misleading. Well beyond the contingency of the
ecological crisis, droughts/famines have been shown to be legacies of long term social,
political and economic processes, that increase the vulnerability of certain groups in the
face of structural uncertainty (Sen, 1981; Buchanan-Smith and Davies, 1995; White,
1997). Although many animals may die, most of the herd is actually sold for buying
food and therefore the scale of the loss depends dramatically on the terms of trade. On
top of selective mortality, drought therefore involves very intensive selection at the time
of selling, and later on, when the crisis is over, further selection in the process of
2
Although some of these ‘farmers’ are likely to be pastoralists themselves, either fallen out of pastoralism
or living on the margin of the pastoral economy, in the process of reconstructing their herd.

2
purchasing new animals. The practices, criteria and institutions that inform this
intensive and partially involuntary selection are likely to interact with those that inform
routine selection (both intended and unintended) in the years between stochastic crises.
WoDaaBe and Twareg, despite living in virtually the same environment, breed very
different cattle (roughly within, respectively, the Bororo and the Azawak breeds). The
interesting point is that after a major drought, ideal cattle of both types are often dead,
and both Twareg and WoDaaBe breed back to their ideal types in a few cattle
generations, by selection from the relatively unspecialised cattle that constitute the main
survivors of the drought. Today, most WoDaaBe keep both Azawak and Bororo cattle,
and crossbreed animals from these two breeds. About 95 percent of the males are
castrated. The Azawak is very docile, more productive (calves earlier), easier to feed
and, in this respect, is more resistant to drought, but not as good at walking long
distances. The Bororo grows bigger (higher market value) but has much more selective
feeding requirements. However, the capacity of these animals to walk long distances
allows for more sophisticated husbandry strategies that, ultimately, may give an
absolute advantage in relation to drought. WoDaaBe have developed into a fine art the
capacity to follow scarce and scattered rains. For a mobile WoDaaBe household, the
wet season will last for considerably longer than for sedentary people (Schareika, 2001).
The more productive Azawak may represent a good choice for impoverished
households trying to rebuild their herds. However these animals pose serious constraints
to a WoDaaBe’s repertoire of husbandry strategies. For example, large herds, that need
to cover long distances in order to find adequate pasture, are slowed down by Azawak
animals. WoDaaBe prefer long-legged, restless, intelligent, shy, easily panicked
animals, which ‘stand out’ in the herd and which can form strong ties to people. Such
animals are selective in the person they are docile with, running away from — or even
attacking — everybody else, and therefore they are almost impossible to steal. These
animals come when their herders call them by name, are very obedient and will respond
to several specific commands. A herd of these animals won’t need to be herded from
behind, as would be necessary with the Azawak, but will simply follow their herder. In
mixed herds of Bororo and Azawak, the Azawak will follow the Bororo. People say that
Bororo are ‘true’ cattle, cattle ‘with character’. Their milk ‘tastes better’ and their
products are used for healing purposes. Recent animal behaviour research has shown
that all cattle populations apparently include two contrasting types: ‘scroungers’ that
don’t explore and eat anything but are not very efficient transformers of fodder
(although this doesn’t matter much since they don’t expend much energy foraging), and
‘producers’, that is inquisitive cattle which explore, find better forage and grow faster
despite the extra energy expenditure in foraging (Barnard and Silby, 1981; Barta and
Giraldeau, 1998). Azawak and Bororo breeds could reflect different cultural approaches
to cattle, based on these behavioural differences.
Like with other pastoral groups across Africa, cattle are at the core of WoDaaBe’s
social, political, economic, and environmental interactions. Movements or sacrifices of
livestock mark all the important events in a person’s life (e.g. birth, marriage, and
death). As a calf takes on the name of its mother, there is usually a strong symbolic
continuity in the herds across human generations. Shared ownership of livestock is the
backbone of all kin and in-law relations (Bonfiglioli, 1989; see also Baxter and Hogg,
1990) and animal loans are the main avenue for generating social capital. In the
haBBanae loan, for example, the haBBanae animal is a loaned cow whose next three
(Bonfiglioli 1984) or two calves (Loftsdóttir, 2000) become the property of the

3
borrower, but which is itself returned to the owner. In optimal conditions, a
herder/owner has access to a variety of gene pool networks: through his own lineage;
through haBBanae loans; through marriages (of his sisters and daughters); and through
jokkere arrangements (keeping animals of absentee owners in one’s own herd).
Bonfiglioli (1988) describes the way WoDaaBe trace back (matrilinearly) the lineages
of their cattle in parallel to their own human lineages, with at least one hundred years
time depth. For individual households, it is important to have in their own herds not
only cows with specific physical traits (for example, high milk production or the ability
to resist certain diseases), but also cows (with or without such traits) descending directly
from cows in the herds of the household’s lineage ancestors. When such cow lineages
disappear, for example in drought, households seek to find them in the herds of other
human lineages.
A study of animal variability should look across several generations. As cattle have a
long reproductive cycle (6-8 years, the Azawak; 8-10 years, the Bororo), this poses a
serious problem in terms of time. Even more so, as in the case of most extensive
pastoralism, where the herders keep no written records. By working with the WoDaaBe
this problem can be avoided thanks to their intimate knowledge of the lineage history of
their cattle herds.

2. DOMESTIC ANIMAL BIODIVERSITY

In 1980, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) held a Technical Consultation on the Conservation
and management of Animal Genetic Resources. The resulting document included an
analysis of the causes of the erosion in animal genetic resources, and made a case for
their conservation linked with improved management, recommending the establishment
of regional data banks and gene banks (FAO, 1981). In 1988, the European Association
for Animal Production (EAAP) and FAO set up an animal genetic databank (in
Germany) with a comprehensive set of data on all European breeds. A matching data
bank including all developing regions, was set up in 1991. A year later, the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992) recognised ‘domesticated and cultivated species’
as an important component of global biological diversity (Article 2); recommending to
conserve them ‘in the surroundings where they have developed their distinctive
properties’ — as different from the ‘natural surroundings’ referred to with regard to in-
situ conservation of other species (Article 2); and acknowledging the importance of
local ‘knowledge, innovations and practices […] for the maintenance and sustainable
use of biological diversity’ (Article 8). With explicit reference to the CBD, in 1995
FAO launched a Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic
Resources. Despite the effort to present the strategy as a follow up to the CBD, the
programme had a strong technical focus on collection of genetic material destined for
ex-situ conservation (FAO, 1995).
Today, the major international institutions concerned with the conservation and use of
all ‘food species’ are FAO and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR). FAO work on domestic biodiversity has three main components.
Firstly, FAO manages a database — DAD-IS (Domestic Animal Diversity Information
System) — meant to inventory and monitor animal genetic resources world wide. The

4
information, provided by designated national co-ordinators in FAO member countries,
characterises breeds according to their production traits and population size. Secondly,
FAO invests in capacity building for achieving conservation of breeds classified in
DAD-IS as ‘endangered’. Moving from the consideration that not all breeds can be
preserved or are worth preserving, FAO’s strategy is to establish genetic distances
between breeds, in order to prioritise for conservation those breeds that are
taxonomically most distinct. Finally, FAO is committed to promoting the sharing of
stored genetic resources (considered a ‘global resource’) across countries. CGIAR,
through its International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), also focuses on genetics at
molecular level, working on the characterisation of adaptive traits of selected African
breeds and mapping their relative positions, feeding the data into FAO’s global
programme (ILRI, 2002). Both institutions work only through governments. Despite
CBD’s emphasis on in-situ conservation, it is ex-situ conservation, (in the form of
cryogenic conservation or DNA storage) that over the years has received most of the
attention and investment.
Domestic biodiversity can be identified at three levels: diversity of species, diversity of
breeding populations within a species, and genetic variability within a pure breed.
Extensive pastoral production systems are able to exploit a wide variety of ecosystems
and minimise risk (e.g. climate, diseases), by keeping different species (e.g. goats,
sheep, cattle and camels) with different environmental adaptation (e.g. water
requirement) and different feeding needs (e.g. grazers and browsers). Smaller
differences in environmental adaptation, feeding needs and herd management
requirements between breeds of the same species (e.g. cattle), may consent different
human populations to maximise the exploitation of a region and minimise conflict by
using different resources (or the same resources in a different proportion, or at different
times of the year). Finally, a high animal variability within a pure breed allows for
constant tuning-in of the herd with the variable conditions of the production system, as
well as quick small-scale adjustments to unpredictable changes in the environment or in
the market. As domestic biodiversity enables people to optimise the sustainable
exploitation of natural resources, often making available ‘niche’ resources that would
otherwise be inaccessible, it represents a crucial resource for present and future food
security. On the other hand, the loss of domestic biodiversity jeopardises human
potential for food production in marginal ecological areas, as well as undermining the
future capacity of people to adapt to changing ecological conditions and unpredictable
economic situations (ITDG, 1996, FAO 1999). Domestic biodiversity has become
important also for another reason. Intensive production systems tend towards
genetically uniform livestock breeds (selected for a specialised productive function:
milk or meat), and particularly as the control of the gene pool is gradually taken over by
a small number of artificial insemination (AI) companies. This leads to the ‘distillation’
of a multitude of local varieties into just a few best-seller breeds, and makes possible
virtually global breeding populations sustained on exceptionally small gene pools from
centralised sources. As a consequence, high-performance livestock are dangerously
inbred and even minimal levels of fitness and vitality are increasingly difficult to
achieve (Köhler-Rollefson, 2000). In this situation, fresh genetic material is becoming a
sought after resource in the north. In 1990, Australia imported embryos of 269 Turli and
264 Boran cattle from Zimbabwe and Zambia, to improve its Fresian stock in regards to
fertility, docility and environmental stress resistance (RAFI/UNDP, n.d., reference in
Köhler-Rollefson, 2000: 5).

5
The causes of the erosion of domestic biodiversity are manifold and context specific,
ranging from wars, to natural disasters, to the conversion of rangeland for wildlife
conservation purposes. However, two major factors within development policies and
practices have been singled out: (a) a trend towards standardisation in livestock
production practices, particularly through large scale dissemination of a narrow range of
exotic breeds selected for a single trait (meat or milk productivity); and (b) the lack of
appreciation of the value of indigenous breeds and their importance in niche adaptation,
and the more general undermining of local production systems as well as the knowledge
embedded in them (Hammond and Leith, 1995). The growing number of studies on
domestic biodiversity, focus around one of the following three points: i) the need for in
situ conservation; ii) the need for greater local involvement in improvement
programmes; iii) the issue of intellectual property rights and local genetic resources.
Most of the research focuses on plants, with comparatively little attention paid to animal
domestic genetic diversity. One noticeable exception is the work of Ilse Köhler-
Rollefson. Her analysis of the international biodiversity management programmes
points out the limits of a perspective only informed by genetic data. Breeds, she argues,
are products not only of specific eco-regions, but also of specific ‘sociocultural
conditions’, that determine conscious and unconscious genetic resource management
and that cannot be understood (or grasped) in absence of anthropological data (1997:
232). For example, livestock populations in extensive pastoral systems ‘rarely
correspond to the notions of phenotypic distinctness and homogeneity as they are
displayed by the herdbook registered breeds from western countries’ (Ibid.: 231).
However, genetically circumscribed animal populations could be more easily identified
following the social mechanisms that interfere with gene flow, such as husbandry
practices or the networks of livestock exchange and the institutions that regulate the
kind of animals that can be exchanged, as well as the circumstances and the form of the
exchange. This perspective highlights rural people’s knowledge as crucial to the
maintenance of domestic animal biodiversity, not only the knowledge concerning a
particular breed, but wider knowledge concerning the interaction of the production
system with the environment and, more importantly, socially embedded knowledge, that
is mostly tacit knowledge embedded in practices and institutions. Drawing on
anthropological literature, the paper emphasises that domestic animals (livestock) are
not only a means of production but concur to shape the cultural identity of their keepers,
are usually loaded with ritual or religious meaning, and play crucial roles in pastoral
social organisation (Köhler-Rollefson, 1998). Consistently with this social dimension of
livestock, and with the herding conditions in extensive systems, pastoralists’ interest in
their breeds’ attributes goes considerably beyond a focus on productivity, including for
example behavioural patterns that would be invisible or irrelevant in intensive
conditions (Köhler-Rollefson, 1999). As conservation of domestic biodiversity should
focus on the processes that foster it in the first place, programmes should favour in-situ
conservation, intended not as keeping the animals on government farms but as making
sure that locally adapted breeds remain a functional part of production systems: ‘by
nurturing and underlying structures and mechanisms of indigenous animal genetic
resource management, the problem of maintaining animal genetic diversity could be
tackled at the root’ (Köhler-Rollefson 1997: 236, 2000; also Anderson 1995;
Intermediate Technology, 1996). Most of the reflection of Ilse Köhler-Rollefson is
based on experience with camel herders in Rajastan, where in 2000, in Udaipur and
Sadri, the first International Conference and Workshop on Local Livestock Breeds for

6
Sustainable Rural Livelihood was held. The participants of the conference formalised
their position in a document of recommendation — The Sadri Declaration (2000) —
that emphasises the necessity for policy measures directed to increase the livelihood
security of indigenous livestock keepers (ensuring access to key resources), and give
them voice and a central role in breeding policies.

3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In general, the debate on domestic animal biodiversity has been mainly policy oriented,
highlighting the shortcomings of the mainstream approach and suggesting an alternative
perspective, largely based on field experience. To date, the effort to root such a
perspective into a wider theoretical reflection has only involved some areas of the
literature on pastoral development and, quite unfortunately, the poorly structured and
rather controversial literature on indigenous technical knowledge (ITK). This may
actually have contributed to the paradoxical result that, over the years, the approach
suggested by Ilse Köhler-Rollefson has been gradually integrated into the mainstream
rhetoric on domestic animal diversity, but has had little impact within the academic
settings, particularly amongst the anthropologists, who might have been the most
obvious recipients.
One step aside, the research on domestic biodiversity carried out by Catherine Longley
(2000), goes several steps forward in closing this gap. Longley’s in-depth work on local
management of rice seeds in Sierra Leone looks at biological variability from a social
perspective, illustrating ‘how the dynamic nature of crop variability is influenced by the
ways in which seeds are incorporated into the social lives of those who use them’, and
describing ‘the ways in which knowledge and practice are thought to influence the
processes of microevolutionary change’ (2000: 2). Although Longley’s concern is
eminently anthropological, with a strong focus on socially embedded knowledge, she
very lucidly starts her analysis from the evolutionary basis of genetic diversity. On
those grounds, the management of variability under domestication is then investigated
using the ‘ecology of practice’ perspective recently elaborated within ecological
anthropology by A. Endre Nyerges (1997).
Longley’s study represents a great asset for this research. In particular with regard to the
theoretical framework, here below I largely follow her footprints, adapting her model
and building on it when required by the differences between seeds and animals (e.g.
behaviour), and between farming and pastoral production systems (e.g. mobility).

Evolutionary basis. The genetic diversity of domestic animals is influenced by three

basic processes: evolution, domestication and animal breeding, each intimately linked.
As the focus of this research is on variability within a population under a relatively short
period of time (decades rather than hundreds of thousands years), my concern here is
only with the branch of evolutionary theory that explains micro-level change, that is
microevolution.
Modern microevolutionary theory describes population change on the basis of two
conditions: heritable variation in traits and differential reproductive success. When there
is a strong correlation between heritable variation and reproductive success, then the
change is adaptive. The reproductive success of a certain trait, that is the variation in

7
reproductive success and its correlation with the trait under consideration, is referred to
as natural selection. There is no reference to any conscious choice or long-term goal:
‘genes and traits increase or decrease in frequency because of their correlation with the
reproductive success of the organisms that carry them’ (Stearns and Hoekstra, 2000:
12). In its current formulation, microevolutionary theory identifies four basic processes
that can concur to evolutionary change: (i) mutation; (ii) dispersal or gene flow; (iii)
selection; and (iv) genetic drift. Variability is produced in the first two processes and
sorted out in the last two (Grant, 1991) 3. Mutation is the hereditary change in traits
(phenotypic characters) caused by a structural and functional alteration in the genetic
material (genotype). Migration or gene flow is the movement of genes between and
within populations. Genetic drift refers to the chance fluctuation of gene frequencies
over several generations (substantial only in small populations). As mutation and gene
drift are largely beyond the influence of pastoralists, this study will mainly concern
gene flow and selection.
Domestication is an evolutionary process that takes place under the influence of human
activities. The four processes of genetic change described above, are thought to take
place also under domestication, although in this case change is thought to happen more
rapidly. Writing about crops, Lester (1989) describes six conditions that may concur to
this effect. Two of these may also be applied to the domestication of animals: (i) the
weakening of natural selective forces in protected populations that allows for the
reproduction and survival of even relatively unfit animals; and (ii) unnatural selective
pressure (intended and unintended) by humans. Another study of crop variability
explains the acceleration of evolutionary activity under domestication with reference to
the ‘differentiation-hybridisation cycle’ (Harlan, 1970). Isolation of segments of the
breeding population (that is the creation of separate populations with little or no gene
flow between them) results in an accumulation of mutation (differentiation). Successive
hybridisation may then enable further selection. Several features of pastoral production
systems are likely to be especially important to the differentiation-hybridisation cycle.
Firstly, the intensive selective pressure triggered by droughts (selective mortality, sale
of animals and herd reconstitution). Secondly, the numerous institutions for the
circulation of animals between different gene pool networks. Thirdly, the migrations of
specific households or small groups of households into new territories in search of
better pasture (as different from seasonal movements within the same region). Forth, the
separation of a son’s animals from the father’s herd, when the man and his family go to
live by themselves in a different place. Fifth, the frequent recombination of the
productive units in smaller or larger groups due to the changing of productive strategies
and/or to other factors not necessarily linked to production. Another relevant feature
could be the partition of the animal breeding population in correspondence with the
season when most of the cows remain pregnant. In the case of WoDaaBe, the human
communities split into small scattered groups at the end of the rainy season, in October,
and most of the calves in a herd are born the following July (Bonfiglioli, 1981).
Finally, ‘animal breeding’ refers to the conditions of domestication when the processes
of evolutionary change are brought under direct human control. In other words, when
selection, rather than being both ‘artificial’ and ‘natural’, is predominantly artificial and

3
Some authors identify a third process in the first group: recombination. This can be both within
individuals, as in the case of a chromosome mutation (cross-over), and between individuals
(hybridisation). Cross-over, however, may be considered part of the process of mutation (Macfarland,
1999), whilst hybridisation may be seen as a case of gene flow.

8
is done with a precise goal (Bowman, 1984). Bowman is careful to say that the two
forms of selection are usually related, although they may be either complementary or
antagonistic, and this depends on whether the result of artificial selection does or does
not increase ‘the suitability of the characteristics of the gamete or individual to survive
in the environment in which they must exist’ (Ibid.: 26). Longley underlines the
difficulties associated with definitions of selection based on a dichotomy between
nature and humans. As a result of such a dualism, analysis of evolution under
domestication usually focuses on changes (morphological, chemical, cytogenetic) and
selective forces (human action) only, with little attention paid to the dynamic interaction
of environmental, social and cultural factors that guide these selective forces. Longley’s
work shows how the selective agents are usually not individuals but the productive
communities. Moreover, a variety is rarely judged in isolation but, rather, for the ways
in which its characteristics are complementary to those of other varieties in the same
local productive system. Consequently, in order to understand evolution under
domestication, the level of description should focus ‘more on the productive system as a
whole than on its constituent tasks’ (Longley, 2000: 35).
Until relatively recently, the central role given to domestication in the narrative of the
progress of civilisation (agricultural revolution) has resulted in studies of domestication
only concerned in the historical reconstruction of its diffusion and with human agency
(Ucko and Dimbleby, 1969; Mason, 1984; Clutton-Block 1989, 1994) 4. With regard to
animal domestication, a biological approach has been so slow to develop that as
recently as 1992 Stephen Budiansky could make a case for it in a popular book
(Budiansky, 1992). Budiansky’s emphasis is on understanding domestication as a
process of co-evolution of humans and other species, rather than a revolutionary event
in the history of human kind. Consequently, the relative behaviour of humans and other
species, and the way behavioural patterns have been selected in the process of
evolution, is put at the core of the issue. On more specialist grounds, current systemic
approach to the study of evolution (‘evolutionary systems’) puts a very special feedback
loop into the organism-environment model of evolutionary biology, by underlining that
‘the most important part of the environment of a living species are other living species’
(Van de Vijer et al., 1998). This perspective clearly highlights the importance of
behavioural patterns as central to the evolutionary process.

The social perspective. The issue of how both individual action and the social structures
of the wider social system affect production and use of resources in a given context is at
the core of Nyerges’ recent formulation of a practice approach in ecological
anthropology, based on the works of Bourdieu (1977) and Giddens (1979, 1984), and
following the example of Appadurai’s paradigm shift in economic anthropology (1986).
This ‘ecology of practice’, moves from the consideration of the ‘fully sociocultural
character of interactions between individual humans and the environment, i.e. the
crucial concept of the incorporation of natural resources into the social lives of the
individuals who exploit them’ (Nierges, 1997: 10, emphasis in the original; also 1979).
The ecology of practice approach is part of a wider front of theoretical developments
within the social sciences, following the implications of the new ecological perspective
on non-equilibrium dynamics. Three main features characterise this development: the

4
With the noticeable exception of the works that inspired Budiansky’s argument (particularly, Coppinger
and Smith, 1983; Rindos, 1984) and some more recent studies (Hanotte et al, 2002; Troys et al. 2001,
Blench and McDonald, 2000).

9
attention to spatial and temporal dynamics, with emphasis on historical analysis; an
understanding of the environment as the product of, and setting for, human interaction;
and an appreciation of the complexity and uncertainty of social-ecological systems
(Scoones, 1999).
Recent relevant work along these lines has focused on the perception of the
environment (Ellen, 1997); institutional arrangement in face of uncertainty (Mehta et al,
1999, 2001); the sociopolitical differentiation in the quality and quantity of knowledge
across the society, depending on uneven access to resources and therefore to the
practice associated to their use (Fairhead and Leach, 1994); the tacit dimension of
expert knowledge (Bloch, 1992), the particularity, social distribution and variable
internalisation of culture (D’Andrade, 1995), and the tension between intrapersonal and
extrapersonal domains in cognitive processes (Strauss and Quinn, 1997). A now dated
but still unique work on pastoral cognitive systems for cattle classification, outlines
their importance as ‘cognitive concomitants of the resilient arid-land adaptation of
specialised pastoralism’ (Galaty, 1989: 229).
The analysis of the implications of non-equilibrium ecology for pastoral development,
greatly emphasises the role of opportunistic management strategies to track ecosystem
variability. The ‘irrationality’ attributed to pastoral herding practices appears now as a
side-effect of a history of livestock development in Africa which ‘has been one of
equilibrium solutions being imposed on non-equilibrium environments’ (Scoones,
1995: 4). In the context of structurally heterogeneous and discontinuous rangelands
productivity, traditional pastoral strategies of flexibility and opportunism appear
perfectly rational. In fact, so-called ‘traditional’ pastoral systems have higher returns
than ranches under comparable conditions (Ibid.).
From a genetic resource management perspective, stochastic crises such as droughts or
epidemics represent an important factor, as catalysts of very intensive selection.
Directly, as large numbers of animals die, and indirectly, as usually an even larger
proportion of animals leave the herd, as the herders are forced to sell in face of the
crisis. On the other hand, the conditions in which pastoral extensive systems have been
reduced, for example in Niger, by erosion of key resources and progressive loss of
control on means of production (the marginalisation of herders within their own
economy), raises important questions about how and to what extent pastoralists still
manage animal variability.

4. METHODOLOGY

This study is concerned with the WoDaaBe’s perception on animal variability and the
management of it. As it is always a risk with this kind of approach, the informants and
more in general the people I will work with may, deliberately or not, be misleading.
Although this is not a controlled experiment and a certain degree of uncertainty is
structural, during the first period of fieldwork one of my aims will be to find out
characters that the WoDaaBe consider crucial in their cattle, and exploring ways of
measuring them. These measurements could be done both relatively to other
household’s herds (as ranked locally according to the reputation of their owners as cattle
breeders), and relatively to Twareg herds. Establishing an effective working definition

10
of variability, and ways to measure variability outcomes without working with genetic
markers will be a core concern during the first period of fieldwork.
Three aspects of extensive pastoral production systems are most likely to have the
bigger influence on animal variability: (i) the process of herd constitution, including the
purchase of animals and, above all, the allocation and circulation of animals across
different gene pool networks; (ii) the routine selection, including the castration of males
and the purchase and sale of animals; (iii) the involuntary selection associated with
stochastic crises such as drought. The first group of practices creates variability
affecting gene flow, particularly through cycles of isolation of sub-populations and
recombination (hybridisation). The other two groups manage and reduce variability.
Criteria for selection and for decision making associated with circulation of animals are
expected to depend on both the more sought after types of animals and the best animals
in relation to existing repertoire of types at the level of the household herd and perhaps
of household’s gene pool network. I will look at the ways husbandry practices combine
the two processes of creating and reducing variability. In other words, I will look at how
WoDaaBe manage the tension between selecting for desired traits and yet maintaining
high genetic variability in the system, necessary for both constant adjustments to
structural unpredictability and to facing stochastic crises. Below, is a schematisation of
a household’s access to gene pool networks. “L” stands for the human lineage of the
herder; most of the donations of animals come from here. “M” stands for marriage, and
refers to the gene pool networks accessed via the bridewealth of daughters and sisters.
“H”, for haBBanae, refers to gene pool networks accessed via animal loans (usually
with kins and friends). “J”, for jokkere, refers to the animals of absentee owners, usually
cattle of the Azawak breed owned by Twareg, that a herder may look after together with
his own animals.

All gene pool networks will in part overlap: some haBBanae loans will be within the
lineage or between in-laws, some marriages will involve the lineage of friends, etc.
Only jokkere arrangements might, to a certain extent, stand on their own. Absentee
owners are likely to have selection objectives different from those of the pastoral
household and which may, in various ways, affect a herder’s management of variability
(for example, jokkere animals may be kept aside from the rest of the herd). On the other
hand, WoDaaBe often crossbreed Azawak and Bororo, and today jokkere animals have
become so common that they might actually represent a substantial resource for the
creation of variability. This situation will offer an interesting ground for comparison of

11
traits in herds with different proportions of jokkere animals, in order to check the degree
of correlation between productive requirements and variability outcomes.

My theoretical assumption is that the management of animal variability involves the

spatial and temporal dynamic interaction of structural features and individual agency
across a range of scales (see Table 1). Consequently, management of variability results
not only from individual intentional actions associated with explicit knowledge, but also
from both individual and social practices, informed by socially embedded (tacit)
knowledge. I will study circulation of animals, routine selection and involuntary
selection with regard to both these dimensions: agency and structure, explicit and tacit
knowledge. This methodological approach is schematised in Table 1.

Table 1
Practice for herd constitution Scale (level of gene pool) Dimension

allocation of rights on animals

bridewealth constitution
Create variability

bridewealth distribution
purchase
Gene flow bull loans
(e.g. isolation, donation a. Individual animal
hybridisation) haBBanae (bond friendship)
jokkere (absentee owners) b. HH’s herd
isolation of sub herds:

Explicit knowledge

Tacit knowledge
i. seasonal splitting c. HH’s gene pool
ii. splitting from father’s HH networks

d. WoDaaBe
Routine castration and semi-castration
selection slaughtering (male/female) e. Niger
Manage variability

(short term) donation (male/female)

sale (male/female) f. Global
avoidance of inbreeding

Involuntary forced sale

selection purchase after drought
(long term, selective mortality (mainly
e.g. drought) drought and disease related)

Intensive selection resulting from stochastic crises such as drought is largely

involuntary. On the other hand, routine selection may be both intended and unintended,
in the sense that may be the result of negotiation within a mesh of conflicting interests
and power relations. It may also be subject to institutionalised practices or may bend to
criteria that are socially embedded and wider than the individual sphere of decision-
making. Table 2 offers a preliminary schematisation of traits an animal might be
selected for. Whilst the desire for some traits is likely be shared across scales (e.g. milk
quantity, drought resistance, maternal care), other will be specific to one or more levels
of gene pool network, depending on a variety of factors such as location, lineage
history, preferred husbandry strategies, current herd composition, etc.

12
Looking at cattle behavioural patterns in relation to selection, raises the problem of
discerning whether the behaviour is innate, learned (from the mother), or 'cultural'
(induced by husbandry practices). To a certain extent, the ‘cultural’ behaviour might be
discerned from the other two as we can expect only this type of behaviour to be largely
shared across a genetically heterogeneous herd. Ultimately, however, the possibility of a
neat demarcation between these three categories (in uncontrolled environment) is still a
widely debated issue (Phillips, 1993; Albright and Arave, 1997; Alcock, 1997;
McFarland, 1999). I will focus on local perceptions and the theories of animal
behaviour according to the various social groups.

Table 2

Physical Behavioural Symbolical

colour finding good pastures being of the cattle lineage of

horn shape avoiding noxious grass a “survivor” (drought,
body size responding well to the herder disease)
general aspect helping herding (e.g. being being of a cattle lineage
milk quantity an obedient leader, or always owned by the human lineage
milk quality staying at the end of the herd having been given in special
disease resistance when travelling) circumstances
drought resistance staying away from strangers being associated with an
long distance walk resistance always returning to the camp important bond friendship
poor feeding resistance maternal care being associated with an
need of water fostering exceptional event
fattening time courage matching the owner’s human
number of calves produced lineage ideal of good cattle
gender of calves (female
preferred) Systemic

fitting well within current

herd composition
fitting well within current
herd management strategy
fitting well within current
resource management
pattern
fitting well within the cattle
gene pool of the owner’s
lineage

High genetic variability in African livestock in extensive systems is an accepted fact

and it is legitimate to assume it. In any case, I have considered the possibility to test the
assumption with regard to my fieldwork area, checking the genetic markers of a sample.
According to my information (Rege and Hanotte, personal communication) the
collection of the sample presents only modest technical difficulties. The analysis could
always be done by ILRI at a second stage, should the necessity rise.

13
This study is concerned with the social processes involved in managing the gene pool,
not with cattle genetics. Although biology and genetics are clearly relevant on the
background, the study does not directly focus on biological and genetic issues requiring
statistically based genetic sampling. Some aspects of this research are likely to require
support with competence in biology and genetic. In order to gain such support I have
established links with a small panel of scientists interested in my work (Appendix A).
As the subject that this study intends to address is almost entirely new, very little guide
can come from the specialist literature. In response to this situation, at this early stage I
approach the issue with a broad front. In the course of the first period of fieldwork (five
months) my aim will be to collect information and carry out exercises in order to
narrowing down the focus.

Research Question 1: What practices influence gene flow in the process of herd
constitution, and how?

Sub questions
Under what circumstances a male of herd < x > can/is prevented from fecundate a
female of herd < y >?
What actors, criteria, institutions, and circumstances (negotiations, conflicts, power
relationships, past events, current short-and long-term husbandry strategies) inform
the practices concerning:
the allocation of rights on animals from one human generation to the next;
the collection of animals for the bridewealth (groom’s gene pool networks i-iii);
the distribution of animals from the bridewealth (bride gene pool networks i-iii);
the purchase of animals into the herd;
the request and concession of a bull loan for breeding purposes;
the donation of animal to a different household;
the prevention of inbreeding;
the haBBanae loan (on both sides of the bond friendship);
the jokkere arrangement.
What are the wider WoDaaBe objectives in cattle selection? What characteristics do
they want to have available in their gene pool networks?
To what extent and how does keeping jokkere animals influence a household’s
genetic resources management strategies?
What actors, criteria, institutions, and circumstances (negotiations, conflicts, power
relationships, past events, current short-and long-term husbandry strategies) inform
the practices concerning the isolation of sub population of animals from the herd
(e.g. in the case seasonal herd-splitting or in the case of the household of a young
man separating from the household of his father)?
To what extent is the circulation of animals informed by tacit knowledge, embedded
in practices and institutions? And what is the relationship between such tacit
knowledge and the knowledge that consciously informs choices and strategies with
regard to the circulation of animals?

14
Research Question 2: How do the practices associated with routine selection influence
animal variability?

Sub questions
What are the narrow objectives of selection at household level?
What actors, criteria, institutions, and circumstances (negotiations, conflicts, power
relations, past events, current short-and long-term husbandry strategies) inform the
practices concerning:
the castration of young bulls;
the slaughtering of male and female cattle;
the donation of male and female cattle;
the sale of male and female cattle.
To what extent the factors that inform practices concerning livestock selection are
gene-pool-network-specific and scale-specific (i.e. change depending on the gene
pool network and the scale involved)?
To what extent is selection informed by tacit knowledge embedded in practices and
institutions? And what is the relationship between such tacit knowledge and the
knowledge that consciously informs choices and strategies about selection?

Research Question 3: How do intensive/involuntary selection processes and the

practices associated with them influence animal variability?

Sub questions
Do herders try to keep drought resistant animals in their herd? And what is the trade
off between drought resistance and productivity?
Are the factors involved in practices concerning the sale/purchase of animals
different in face of/after a crisis, and how are the related criteria, institutions and
power relations affected?
Are there ‘patterns’ in the animals who survive a crisis, and patterns in the animals
who die (e.g. they are all of one cattle lineage)?
To what extent is intensive selection of animals (selling and buying) in times of
crisis informed by tacit knowledge, embedded in practices and institutions? And
what is the relationship between such tacit knowledge and the factors that inform
routine selling and purchasing strategies?

5. DATA REQUIREMENT AND COLLECTION

A variety of sources of evidence and methods will be used to obtain data. This will
allow for some degree of triangulation. Specific methods/sources to be used include, in
rough order of sequence:

secondary sources (existing literature, researchers and institutions);

participant observation (pastoral households and groups);
key informant interviews (pastoral household members, veterinary and para-
veterinary personnel, local government, teachers);

15
 oral history (elders);
semi-structured interviews (pastoral households and groups);
focus group discussions (pastoral households and groups);
adapted PRA techniques (pastoral households and groups);
adapted PRA5 specific ‘animal biographies’ method (pastoral households);
documentation and archival records (in Niger and France).

I will adapt available PRA experiences to my situation, with the aim of designing
specific tools to be tested during the first period of fieldwork. All data will be collected
disaggregating by social group at both household and group level (age, gender, wealth,
herding reputation/experience). I will also run the following experiment: identify two
families involved in a marriage; reconstruct the composition of the bridewealth; track
all the animals of the bridewealth back to their source; identify their relative ‘status’ in
the original herd (lineage, value); identify the actors who were involved in the choice of
the animal; identify the reasons for and against the choice; track all the animals to their
final destination; identify the actors involved in the allocation; identify the reasons for
and against the allocation; identify the relative status of the animals in the new herd;
compare original herds/households with final herds/households (cf. Goldschmidt,
1969).

Between 1980 and 1982, a major survey of pastoral production systems (WoDaaBe and
Twareg) was carried out in Niger, in the Tahoua department (Swift, 1984). Based on a
sample of nineteen households of the Gojanco’en clan, the study offers detailed data on,
among the rest, herding techniques, social organisation, household production, budgets,
and labour use. During the preliminary fieldwork for this research, carried out in March
2002, I was able to locate seventeen of those nineteen families, and make arrangements
to work with them again. This will add a historical perspective to the research as well as
insights into the changes over the last two decades.

Below, is a description of the data I expect to need and of how I intend to proceed in
their collection.

With particular reference to Research question 1

1. Identification of the animals
A herd < x > is identified and research practicalities (e.g. marking or taking
pictures of the animals) are negotiated with the owner and the herder.
With the help of the herder, each of the animals in the herd is identified
this exercise will also provide crucial information on local systems of
animal naming, recognition and categorisation;
if possible, I will take a picture of each animal and join it with information
about, gender, age and local descriptors, to make a databank.

5
PRA methods have been used in pastoral settings since the 1980s. A rich collection of examples has
been edited by Waters-Bayer and Bayer (1994). A specific technique designed for collecting data on
animal productivity involves semi-structured interviews on the ‘biography’ of each calf of a specific cow,
using a timeline starting at the point at which the oldest animal in the herd was born (Swift, 1981;
Kassaye et al, 1992).

16
2. Herd constitution (at the time of the study)
For each animal, the referential owner6 and the people with rights on it are
identified.
For each animal, the parents and the herd/household where they were born are
identified. When they were born in another herd, I refer to these herds of the
second order as < yi >, < zi >, < wi >, etc.
Are there lineages that have completely disappeared from herd < x >? When?
Under which circumstances?

3. Herd constitution (history)

Biographical information about the earliest animal in herd < x > are collected and
matched with local historical events, in order to make a reference time line for all
the animals in the herd7.
When has each animal entered the herd?
How many calves has each female produced?
What happened (and when) to the animals who were born in < x > but are not in
< x > at the time of the analysis? (e.g. dead/lost (how?); eaten/ sold (why); lent/
given).

4. People’s life history

Did the husbandry strategies of the households < x > change over the course of
the reference time line (as collected in point 3)?
How did these changes affect the practices of acquisition, loan or sale of livestock
and the decisions made in this regard?
Are there other important factors that affected such practices and decisions?

5. Herd constitution — second order: looking at < yi >, < zi >, < wi >, etc.
Where are the < x > animals that have been given away, lent or sold (if to another
herder)?
Where did the animals that entered the herd come from?
With regard to both types of animals:
What is their biography? (lineage, progeny + time line of the matriarch in < yi >,
< zi >, < wi >, etc.)
What is the social relationship between the owner of < x > and the people to
whom the < x > animals have been lent/given, or whose herds they have come
from? To which scale and gene pool network do these people belong?
6. People’s life history — second order: looking at < yi >, < zi >, < wi >, etc.
Did the husbandry strategies of the households < yi >, < zi >, < wi >, etc., change
over the reference time line (as collected in point 5)?
How did these changes affect the practices of acquisition, loan or sale of < x >
livestock and the decisions made in this regard?
Are there other important factors that affected such practices and decisions?

6
By referential owner, I mean the person who must be consulted before selling or slaughtering the
animal, who is not necessarily the one who makes the final decision.
7
Based on the “cows’ biographies” technique as in Swift (1979).

17
7. … and so on.

My aim will be to trace the genealogy of each animal in herd < x > back to at least three
generations (< yiii >, < ziii >, < wiii >, etc.; about twenty five years)8, with as much
information as possible about the circumstances of each movement (e.g. people
involved in making the decision, reasons, time). On top of this, I will collect data on the
circumstances that promote the isolation of breeding populations:
How is the herd split over seasons? (which animal goes with which)
Who decides about the sub-grouping, on which criteria and in negotiation with
whom?

With particular reference to Research question 2

A substantial part of these data are expected to be collected in the course of the exercise
described above with regard to research question 1, for example, relevant information
about the animal naming system, animals’ markers, lineage, status and kin relations, as
well as animal behavioural patterns in relation to local perceptions of an animal’s value.
This information will be integrated with interviews and discussions specifically on the
following themes:
Local understanding of selection
Criteria used for selection
WoDaaBe theory of heredity of characters
WoDaaBe theory of animal behaviour (perception, recognition, analysis of a.b.)
Are specific behaviours innate, learned (from the mother) or ‘cultural’ (induced
by husbandry practices)? To what extent is it possible to make a clear distinction?
Language used to talk about differences or similarities between animals (value,
virtues), and animal behaviour
Descriptions of particularly sought after animals (males and females) with regard
to current herd composition and with regard to standards and preferences within
the herders’ lineage

With particular reference to Research question 3

As with question 2, a substantial proportion of data is expected to be collected in the
course of the exercise with regard to research question 1. Further data will be collected
through interviews and discussions on the following issues:
Are there lineages that are more likely to survive a drought?
What actors, interests and criteria are involved in decision making about the sale
of animals as a crisis develops, and in their purchase once it has passed?
When animals are sold in the face of a crisis, who buys them, and what happens to
them?
Where do the animals purchased after a crisis come from? From whom are they
bought? Are there patterns?

8
WoDaaBe remember cattle genealogies back to one hundred years or more (Bonfiglioli, 1989).

18
Empirical data
These data will be collected mainly through observation, participant observation and,
where possible, small experiments using behavioural ecology methods.
Empirical data on the survival of cattle after the last two droughts (1984, 1998).
Are there animal behaviour patterns with positive or negative management
implications in relation to the following situations:
learning
in the kraal/camp (e.g. standard position, milking, aggressivity)
travelling (e.g. leading, herding, orientation, wandering)
on the grazing land (e.g. pasture recognition, exploration, aggressivity )
with calves (maternal care, fostering)
under stress (lack of food/water, long distance walks, danger, confusion,
climate)
How do herders influence behaviour, and for what purpose?
How do the animals interact with the herder and the other people who handle
them (e.g. body language, vocalisations)?
Which animals join/leave the herd during the study?
Where do the animals come from and go to?

6. TRANSLATION AND LOGISTICS

During the first period of fieldwork (five months) I will work alone, in order to develop
my knowledge of the WoDaaBe’s language (Fulfulde). In the following year of data
collection, during which I expect to be more mobile across several families, I will
employ one or more research assistants, and a guide who will also help with
interpretation. We will move by camel and depend on donkeys for transportation of
food, water and other equipment. When in Niger, I will have a permanent base in a town
with electricity and phone connection (most likely Tahoua or Agadez). I will spend a
couple of weeks there every two-three months, in order to organise/analyse my data and
maintain contact with my supervisor.

7. FIELDWORK ORGANISATION AND LINKS WITH AGENCIES

My fieldwork will be split into two periods. During my first period of fieldwork (about
five months) I will remain with the same extended family, following the movements of
the herd using the same means of transport used by the herders (camel). I will have
three main objectives: learning Fulfulde, finalise and narrow down the focus of the
research, and design/test the methodology (including ways to define and measure
variability). I will also use this period to gradually build up a network of relationships
within the WoDaaBe group (my own social capital), identify exactly what is going to be
my sample group and identify and train the required research assistants (active herders
have very little free time: I will look for people whose labour has recently become
exuberant, for example due to a loss of animals). I will remain in the bush for most of
this period. The second period of fieldwork (thirteen months) will be dedicated to the
data collection. I will spend one or two weeks in town every few months, in order to
organise and pre-analyse the data. I will try to use local herders as research assistants.

19
Between the two periods of fieldwork there will be a break of about 6-8 weeks, during
which I will return to the UK. I will use this period for intensive supervision and for a
fine-tuning of the literature review.
In Niger, my institutional reference will be the Institut de Recherche en Sciences
Humanes (IRSH) in Niamey. I will also have the support of the two main pastoral
associations active in my fieldwork area, AREN 9 and FNEN-DADDO10. I have
established a link with the ILRI-CGIAR office in Niamey. CGIAR has developed a data
bank on the agropastoral production system and climate change in Niger, that I will be
allowed to access. I have also made contact with LASDEL, an independent research
agency that runs a long term research project on power relations and resource
management in my area of fieldwork. Moreover, the first project of amelioration of
livestock and cryogenic conservation of local breeds in Niger will start in July, funded
by the Regione Piemonte (Italian local government) and lead by a co-operation between
the University of Niamey and the University of Turin (Italy). Based in the Toukounous
Ranch (about 15 kilometers north of Filingué), the project will work with AI of the
Azawak breed, and will include a scheme for the integration into the local economy of
the animals produced in the research station. This project would make a potentially
fruitful ground for studying the interface of local and scientific knowledge concerning
breed selection. I have contacted the institutions involved and the possibilities for a
collaboration are being discussed.

PROVISIONAL TIMETABLE
Date Place Activity

Oct 2001 - Feb 2002 Brighton, IDS Literature review, improving knowledge of French,
initial study of Fulfulde language, networking and
preparation for the preliminary fieldwork

Mar - 2002 Niger Preliminary fieldwork: obtaining research permit;

tracking the families involved in the 1980s study;
identifying the fieldwork area and the group of
people to work with

Apr 2002 Brighton, IDS Finalisation of the research proposal

May-Jun 2002 Brighton, IDS Revision and submission of the research proposal;
preparation for the fieldwork

July - November 2002 Niger Fieldwork: learning Fulfulde; narrowing down

research focus; identifying sample group; refining
and testing methodology

Dec 2002- Jan 2003 Brighton, IDS Preliminary analysis of data, finalisation of
methodology

Feb 2003 – Apr 2004 Niger Fieldwork: data collection

May 2004 – Mar 2006 Brighton, IDS Write-up, submission

REFERENCES

9
Association pour la Redynamisation de l’Elevage au Niger.
10
Fédération Nationale des Eleveurs du Niger.

20
Albright J.L. and Arave C.W. 1997. The Behaviour of Cattle, BAC International,
Wallingford UK.

Alcock J. 1998. Animal Behavior. An evolutionary approach, Sinauer Associates, Inc.

Publishers, Sunderland, Ma.

Barnard C.J., Silby R.M. 1981. Producers and scroungers: a general model and its
application to captive flocks of house sparrows. Animal Behaviour 29: 543-550.

Barta Z., Giraldeau L.A. 1998. The effect of dominance hierarchy on the use of
alternative foraging tactics: a phenotype-limited producing-scrounging game.
Behav. Ecolo. Sociobiol. 42: 217-223.

Baxter P.T.W. and Hogg R. (eds) 1990. Property, Poverty and People: Changing Rights
in Property and Problems of Pastoral Development, University of Manchester,
Department of Social Anthropology and International Development Centre,
Manchester.

Blench R. and MacDonald (eds) 2000. The Origins and Development of African
Livestock, UCL Press, London

Bloch M. 1991. Language, Anthropology and Cognitive Science. In: Man (n.s.) 26(2):
183-198.

Bloch M. 1992. What Goes Without Saying: The Conceptualization of Zafimaniry

Society. In: Kuper A. (ed.) Conceptualizing Society, Routledge, London.

Bonfiglioli A.M. 1988. Dudal. Histoire de famille et histoire de tropeau chez un groupe
de Wodaabe du Niger, Cambirdge University Press, Editions de la Maison des
sciences de l'homme, Paris

Bonfiglioli A.M., White C., Loutan L. and Swift J. 1984. The WoDaabe. In: Swift J.
(ed) Pastoral Development in Central Niger, Ministère du Dévelopment Rural and
USAID, Nyamey

Bonfiglioli A.M. 1981. Ngaynaaka. L'élevage des pasteurs WoDaaBe du Niger,

Tahoua, Niger.

Bourdieu P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge University Press,

London, New York.

Bowman J.C. 1984. An Introduction to Animal Breeding. Second Edition, Edward

Arnold (Publishers) Ltd, London.

Budiansky S. 1992. The Covenant of the Wild. Why animals chose domestication,
William Morrow and Compan, Inc., New York.

21
Buchanan-Smith M. and Davies S. 1995. Famine Early Warning and Response: the
Missing Link, IT Publications, London.

CBD 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity,

http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp?lg=0

Clutton-Brock J. 1989. The Walking Larder: Patterns of domestication, Pastoralism

and Predation, Unwin Hyman, London.

Clutton-Brock J. 1994. The unnatural world: behavioural aspects of humans and

animals in the process of domestication. In: Manning A. and Serpell J. (eds)
Animals and Human Society. Changing perspectives, Routledge, London and New
York.

Coppinger R. and Smith C. 1983. The Domestication of Evolution, Environmental

Conservation 10 (4): 283-292.

de Bruijn M. and van Dijk H. 1995. Arid Ways. Cultural Understandings of Insecurity
in Fulbe Society, Central Mali, Thela Publishers, Amsterdam.

de St Croix F.W. 1972. The Fulani of Northern Nigeria. Some General Notes, Gregg
International Publishers, Hants

Dupire M. 1962. Peuls nomades: étude descriptive des WoDaabe du Sahel Nigérian,
Travaux et Mémoirs 64. Institut d'Ethnologie, Musée de l'Homme, Paris

Ellen R. and Fukui K. (eds) 1997. Redefining Nature: Ecology, Culture and
Domestication, Berg, London.

FAO 1981. Animal genetic resources conservation and management. Proceedings of

FAO/UNEP Technical Consultation in 1980, FAO Animal Production and Health
Paper No.24.

FAO 1995. The Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic
Resources, FAO, Rome.

FAO 1999. The Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic
Resources, FAO, Rome.

Fairhead J. and Leach M. 1994. Declarations of Difference. In: Scoones I. and

Thompson J. (eds) Beyond Farmer First. Rural people's knowledge, agricultural
research and extension practice, Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

Galaty J.G. 1989. Cattle and cognition: aspects of Maasai practical reasoning. In:
Clutton-Brock J. (ed.) The Walking Larder: Patterns of domestication, Pastoralism
and Predation, Unwin Hyman, London.

22
Giddens A. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and
Contradiction in Social Analysis, University of California, Berkeley.

Giddens A. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration,

University of California, Berkeley.

Goldschmidt W. 1969. Kambuya's Cattle: the Legacy of an African Herdsman,

University of California, Berkeley.

Grant V. 1991. The evolutionary process: a critical study of evolutionary theory

(Second Edition), Columbia University Press, New York.

Hammond K. and Leith H. 1995. FAO Global programme for the management of farm
animal genetic resources and application biotechnology, paper presented at
Agrobiotic Conference on Advanced Biotechnologies and Agriculture, Ferrara,
Italy.

Hanotte O., Bradley D.G., Ochieng J.W., Verjee Y., Hill E.W., Rege J.E., 2002. African
pastoralism: genetic imprints of origins and migrations, Science 296(5566): 336-9.

Harlan J.R. 1970. Evolution in cultivated plants. In: Franke O.H. and Bennett E. (eds.)
Genetic resources in plants - their exploration and conservation, Blackwell
Scientific Publications, Oxford and Edinburgh.

Hopen C.E. 1958. The Pastoral Fulbe Family in Gwandu, Oxford University Press,
London.

ILRI, 2002. http://www.cgiar.org/ilri

ITDG 1996. Livestock keepers safeguarding domestic animal diversity through their
animal husbandry, Intermediate Technology Development Group, Rugby, England.

Kassaye H., Yisehak M., Tekle G. 1992. Interviewing cows. RRA Notes 15: 52-52.

Köhler-Rollefson I. 1997. Indigenous practices of animal genetic resource management

and their relevance for conservation of domestic animal diversity in developing
countries. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 114(3): 231-238.

Köhler-Rollefson I. and Bräunig J. 1998. Anthropological Veterinary Medicine: the

Need for Indigenizing the Curriculum, Proceeding of the 9th International
Conference of the Association of Institutions of Tropical Veterinary Medicine,
Harare, 1998.

Köhler-Rollefson I. and Bräunig J. 1999. L.P.P.'s Initiative for the Participatory

Conservation of Indigenous Livestock Breeds: A Concept Note. Presented at
Deutscher Tropentag 1999, Forum for International Agriculture Research and
Development, October 14-15, 1999, Humbolt-University of Berlin.

23
Köhler-Rollefson I. 2000. Implementing the Convention on Biodiversity with Respect to
Domestic Animal Diversity, Paper prepared for the Workshop on Experiences in
Farmers' Biodiversity Management, Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin,
Germany 16-18 May 2000.

LLBSR 2001. “Sadri Declaration”. Recommendations made by the participants in the

International Conference and Workshop on Local Livestock Breeds for Sustainable
Rural Livelihoods, Udaipur and Sadri, (Rajastan, India), 1-4 November, 2000,
http://www.gtz.de/agrobiodiv/download/declnov.pdf

Longley C.A. 2000. Social Life of Seeds. Local Management of Crop Variability in
North-western Sierra Leone, PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University College London, London.

Loftsdóttir K. 2000. The Bush is Sweet: Identity and Desire among the WoDaaBe in
Niger, Ph.D. dissertation. The University of Arizona.

Mehta L., Leach M., Newell P., Scoones I., Sivaramakrishnan K and Way S.-A. 1999.
Exploring Understandings of Institutions and Uncertaint: New Directions in
Natural Resource Management, DS Discussion Paper 372, Institute of
Development Studies, Brighton.

McFarland D. 1999. Animal Behaviour. Psychology, Ethology and Evolution, Longman,

Harlow, England.

Mason I. (ed.) 1984. Evolution of Domesticated Animals, Longman, London and New
York.

Nyerges A.E. 1982. Pastoralists, Flocks and Vegetation: Processes of Co-adaptation. In:
Spooner C. and Mann H.S. (eds), Desertification and Development. Dryland
Ecology in Social Perspective, London, Academic.

Nyerges A.E. 1997. Introduction — The Ecology of Practice. In: Nyerges A.E. (ed.),
The Ecology of Practice. Studies of Food Crop Production in Sub-Saharan West
Africa, Gordon and Breach Publishers.

Phillips C.J.C. (ed.) 1993. Cattle Behaviour, Farming Press Books, Ipswich, UK.

RAFI/UNDP n/d. Conserving indigenous knowledge. Integrating two systems of

innovation.

Riesman P. 1977. Freedom in Fulani Social Life, an Introspective Ethnography, The

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Rindos D. 1984. The Origins of Agriculture, Academic Press, Orlando.

Schareika N. 2001. Environmental Knowledge and Pastoral Migration among the

WoDaaBe of South-eastern Niger. Nomadic Peoples 5: 65-88.

24
Scoones I. and Thompson J. (eds) 1994. Knowledge, power and agriculture — towards
a theoretical understanding. In: Scoones I. and Thompson J. (eds) Beyond Farmer
First. Rural people's knowledge, agricultural research and extension practice,
Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

Sen A. 1981. Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation,

Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Simmonds N.W. 1979. Principles of Crop Improvement, Longman Scientific and

Technical, London.

Stearns S.C. and Hoekstra R.F. 2000. Evolution: an introduction, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.

Stenning D. 1959. Savannah Nomads, Oxford University Press, London.

Strauss C. and Quinn N. 1997. A cognitive theory of cultural meaning, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Swift J. 1981. Rapid appraisal and cost effective participatory reserarch in dry pastoral
areas of West Africa. Agricultural Administration 8: 485-492.

Thébaud B. 1988. Elevage et développement au Niger. Quel avenir pour les éleveurs du
Sahel?, Bureau International du Travail, Genève.

Troy C.S., MacHugh D.E., Bailey J.F., Magee D.A., Loftus R.T., Cunningham P.,
Chamberlain A.T., Sykes B.C., Bradley D.G., 2001. Genetic evidence for Near-
Eastern origins of European cattle, Nature 410(6832): 1088-91.

Ucko P.J. & Dimbleby G.W. 1969. The domestication and exploitation of plants and
animals, Duckworth, London.

Van de Vijer G., Salthe S.N. and Delpos M. (eds) 1998. Evolutionary Systems.
Biological and Epistemological Perspectives on Selection and Self-Organisation,
Kluwer Academy Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Waters-Bayer A. and Bayer W. 1994. Planning with Pastoralists: PRA and more. A
review of methods focused on Africa, GTZ, Division 422 Working Paper.

White C. 1997. The Effects of Poverty on Risk Reduction Strategies of Fulani Nomads
in Niger. Nomadic Peoples 1(1): 90-107.

25