Small ruminant production systems: General descriptive
Small ruminant populations in different governorates of the study area (Irbid, Jerash, Ajloun and Mafraq) distributed among 3614, 1136, 831 and 5824 animal holders respectively are presented in Fig 1.
Small ruminant production systems in Northern Jordan were characterized by a majority of holders falling within the middle-age group (40-59 years) at 58%. Educational levels vary between climatic regions, with higher rates of illiteracy observed in Mafraq (47%) compared to the Mediterranean Governorate (<3%). Most farmers (75%) had less than a high school education and had an average of over 31 years of experience in small ruminant production. Small ruminant production was the primary source of cash income for 70% of farmers, with the majority engaging in a mixed system that includes small ruminants and crops. Labor of small ruminants was primarily carried out by family members, accounting for 69% of the total effort.
The primary source of small ruminants was through herders’ own animals (88% of the total holdings). The average total holding/farmer varies significantly among climatic regions, with Mafraq Governorate having the highest average holding per farmer (516 head/ farmer). Small ruminant production was primarily conducted by medium holders (own 100-500 animals). The Awassi breed dominated the sheep population in Northern Jordan, while the local Baladi breed was the predominant goat breed. Other sheep breeds presented in the study area included Israeli (improved Awassi, 9%), Chios (2.2%), Assaf (1.7%), Hamadani (1%), Najadi (0.2%) and Erabi (Chuffali) sheep (0.2%; Fig 2a). Additionally, other goat breeds identified included the Desert (7%), predominantly located in the eastern region of Mafraq Governorate, Shami (3%), Albino (2%), Hijazi (1%) and Indian (0.2%) goat breeds (Fig 2b). The primary objective of keeping small ruminants was to generate cash income (46%), although there were variations in objectives between different regions, with some focusing more on milk production. The majority of farmers (50.0%) utilizing semi-extensive methods, only 7.6% of farmers practiced intensive methods. Variations were observed among climate regions, with Ajloun having the highest proportion of semi-extensive farming at 62.5% and Irbid having no intensive production systems at all.
Small ruminant production systems: Typological analysis
By utilizing (MCA) and (HAC) analysis of 51 variables, these variables were divided into 36 main variables are classified into 14 themes based on the relationship between the variables (Table 1). Through this analysis, the variables were clustered into five distinct groups (Fig 3,4).
The First group (G1) focuses on the management of labor in small ruminant production systems. This group includes 11 farmers (4% of the total sample), with a majority located in Mafraq governorate. All farmers were in the middle age. They typically hire 2 full-time workers and 2 part-time workers, with 46% also employing family members. Small ruminant production was the main source of income for 64% of farmers, who had an average flock size of 450 animals. Most farmers use semi-extensive production systems.
The Animal Replacement Strategy is the main criteria for the second group (G2). This group, consisting of 123 farmers (42.4% of the total sample), focuses on replacing animals by purchasing new ones. These farmers were evenly distributed across climate regions, with an average age of 52 years, had an average of 30 years of farming experience. Most farmers (60%) engaged in both crop cultivation and raising small ruminants, with small ruminant production being the main income source for 63% of them. The primary purpose of raising small ruminants varies, with 40% focused on milk production, 37% on cash sales and 23% on both. The majority of farmers (86%) replaced animals from their own stock for sustainability, while 14% purchased new animals. Most farmers utilized a semi-extensive production system. Additionally, over 85% provided supplemental feed in the form of trees’ trimming, shrubs and rain-fed residues.
The third group (G3) is characterized by market-driven production systems, which consists of farmers with moderate experience in small ruminant production who operate under intensive production systems and buy their animals as a source of small ruminants. 6% of total farmers are in this group, with 55% located in Mediterranean regions. The average age was 48, with 78% middle-aged. 55% had a high school education or lower. 56% had 5-10 years of experience, while 44% had 10-30 years. 56% relied solely on small ruminant production, while 44% also grew crops. 67% did not hire workers and relied on family labor. All relied on outside income, with an average holding of 164 small ruminants. Most had small flocks and raised both sheep and goats. On average, 44% raised small ruminants for cash sale, 44% for milk production and 11% for both. 56% did not provide supplementary feed like rain-fed residue and 67% purchase new animals to sustain their stock.
The fourth group (G4) is characterized by extensive sheep farming,” with farmers primarily raisingsheep in large flock sizes of over 500 heads. These farmers rely on natural resources rather than supplemental feed and focus on cash sales. The majority of G4 farmers were located in Mafraq. Most farmers filled into the Middle-aged category (49%). 65% of farmers had limited education, with an average of 35 years of experience in sheep farming. While only a small percentage of farmers also cultivated crops, the majority rely on family labor for their operations. Small ruminant production served as the main source of income for 91% of farmers, with sheep being the primary asset. The average flock size was 826 heads, with approximately half having large flocks. Most farmers (87%) focus on cash sales rather than milk production. The majority utilizing an extensive production system. Limited provision (less 8%) of rain-fed residue or tree trimming was seen, with sustainability remaining a common theme in the management of these flocks.
The last group (G5) consists of experienced small ruminant farmers with medium flock size and diversified sources of income, representing 17% of the total. These farmers typically had 10-30 years of experience and relied on small ruminants as their main source of income. They had medium-sized flocks, and also engaged in crop production. The majority of these farmers (65%) were located in the Mediterranean region, particularly in Jerash and Irbid governorates. The majority of farmers (55%) falling into the middle age group. In terms of literacy, 12% have a bachelor’s degree, 4% have higher education, 31% have less than a Tawjhi, 29% can read and write and 25% have a Tawjhi. These farmers have an average of 35 years of experience. The majority of them cultivate crops and raise small ruminants, with over 71% hiring paid workers. Small ruminants are the main source of cash for 74% of the farmers and all farmers rely on their own animals. The average flock size is 290 head, with 76% of farmers having a medium-sized flock. These farmers use a semi-extensive production system, feed their animals tree trimmings, shrubs and rain-fed residues.
The examination of small ruminant production systems in the Northern Jordan did not reveal uniformity in terms of structural, cultural, technical and economic aspects through the use of descriptive statistics. The typological analysis identified five distinct groups with unique management strategies, highlighting the importance of tailoring interventions to specific group characteristics. Multivariate analysis proved effective in characterizing farming systems, although results may be influenced by data nature
(Arandas et al., 2020). Categorizing farms with similar characteristics can streamline system characterization and deepen understanding of unique system characteristics (
Silveira, 2021).
The first group (G1) identified in our analysis focuses on the management of labor within small ruminant production systems, with variables such as family members, paid-workers, part-time workers and the source of small ruminants playing a crucial role in system efficiency and productivity. Hiring paid part-time workers indicates a farmer’s willingness to supplement their labor force, while the source of small ruminants may impact the decision to hire additional labor, especially in larger flocks or herds requiring more assistance. Small ruminant farmers with higher levels of education may have a greater understanding of animal husbandry practices and access to advanced farming techniques, potentially leading to outside interests and job opportunities that could affect their ability to care for their animals. Collaboration with skilled part-time workers can help address the challenges of balancing outside commitments with the demands of livestock farming, while under-standing the dynamics of family labor and the increasing reliance on hired labor can in-form strategies for sustainable small ruminant production systems
(Hostiou et al., 2020). Research by
Dupraz and Latruffe (2015) suggests that hired labor complements rather than substitutes family labor in management tasks and technical operations, emphasizing the importance of effective labor management for the sustainability and viability of small ruminant production systems.
The second group (G2) displays a strategic approach to managing the economics and sustainability of small ruminant production systems. By making well-informed decisions regarding animal replacement, these farmers aim to ensure the long-term viability and profitability of their operations. The preference for replacing animals from their own stock within this group highlights a focus on sustainability and self-sufficiency, potentially reducing the need for external inputs and associated costs. However, the choice between purchasing new animals or utilizing existing stock for replacement depends on various factors such as financial implications, confidence in the productivity of purchased animals, disease-free status, inbreeding concerns, access to breeding stock and individual farmer objectives for their production system
(Eteqadi et al., 2014; Tabbaa et al., 2018). These findings align with previous studies that show the influence of factors like property and flock types on replacement management, emphasizing the importance of genetic management within the herd to maintain a healthy and sustainable small ruminant population (
Tesema and Kebede, 2022 ;
Awad et al., 2023a ;
Awad et al., 2023b).
The variables within the third group (G3) are interconnected around market-driven production. Farmers with low and moderate experience tend to have a better understanding of market demands, enabling them to make informed decisions when purchasing small ruminants. This aligns with previous research by
Yusuf et al., (2018) showing the benefits of experience in managing sheep and goats. The adoption of intensive production systems and the focus on meeting market demands suggest a business-oriented approach to small ruminant farming by G3. Furthermore, the adoption of an intensive production system suggests a keen focus on maximizing productivity and efficiently meeting market de-mands. This perspective is supported by studies conducted by
Tiezzi et al., (2019).
Variables in Group 4 (G4) are interconnected in characterizing a large-scale sheep production operation that aims to maximize profitability while minimizing costs. The type of work, flock size and flock structure indicate the scale and goals of the operation. The main purpose of raising small ruminants and the chosen production system reveal the economic objectives and strategies being used. The feed supplement variables, particularly the lack of tree trimming or shrubbery, highlight the reliance on natural resources and minimal use of supplemental feed in this farming system. These features align with previous studies confirming that extensive farming systems involve animals grazing on natural pasture with little supplementary feeding, categorized as low-input farming systems
(Khaskheli et al., 2020; Karthik et al., 2021). Furthermore,
Qi et al., (2023) have observed that extensive farming systems have lower intensity but higher sustainability compared to other farming methods.
Group 5 includes farmers with 10-30 years of experience, who rely on small ruminants for income, have medium-sized flocks, engage in crop production and use a semi-extensive production system. Sustainability and diversified income sources are important to this group
(Kasapidou et al., 2021). This system is gaining popularity due to its profitability and sustainability. It provides a balance between cost-effectiveness and production potential, making it a viable option for farmers looking to lower feeding costs while maintaining efficiency
(Lawal et al., 2020). 
