- Author: Daniel K Macon
Folks new to the world of working livestock guardian dogs (LGDs), whether they are producers or dog aficionados, often ask, “What's the best breed?” or “What breed is your dog?” I usually begin my answer with a joke: “He's a North American BWD – Big White Dog!” I then go on to explain that all of my successful dogs have usually been a mix of breeds, and that I put more emphasis on the working abilities of my dogs' parents and on desirable phenological traits (like a short coat) than I do on selecting specific breeds. My most recent dogs have all been mixes – Maremma-Anatolian, or Pyrnees-Akbash, for example. And I suspect that most working LGDs here in North America are not purebred – dogs that work in a production setting are also those who get to reproduce, regardless of whether they are purebred. Sometimes this breeding is intentional! A new paper published in iScience sheds light on the varied ancestries of modern livestock guardian dogs.
In “Multiple ancestries and shared gene flow among modern livestock guarding dogs,” the authors generated genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data from 304 LGDs and combined it with public-genomic data from 2183 modern and 22 ancient dogs. Their analysis suggests shared ancestry and extensive gene flow among modern LGD breeds, which they attribute to historic livestock migrations.
The authors developed genome-wide SNP data from specific LGD breeds extended geographically from the Iberian Peninsula, through Europe, Italy, the Balkans, Western Asia, and Eastern Asia. While much of their analysis goes beyond my very simplistic understanding of genetics, their findings “strongly support the hypothesis that modern LGD breeds from East Asia and the rest of Eurasia are part of two lineages that have evolved independently for millennia.” I find this fascinating – humans who were raising livestock on rangelands in separate regions of the planet looked to dogs as protectors of their livestock! And they developed separate genetic lines with similar physical and behavioral traits!
Transhumance migration – the seasonal movement of people and livestock between high- and lowlands (following the feed) – seems to have played a significant role in the genetic flow between regionally-specificLGD breeds.Transhumance seems to have occurred across many cultures and geographic regions (and still persists today). The nomadic herders of the Mongolian steppes and the open-range sheep outfits of theIntermountain West would recognize eachother's day-to-day work.
Similar to today's Big White Dog breeding strategies, I can imagine multiple family groups taking their sheep and goats along adjacent (or overlapping) migration routes into (and back from) the high country. Perhaps my modern notions of livestock ownership doesn't exactly apply, but I suspect that each family would have tried to keep their livestock separate from the adjacent flocks. But the dogs would have mixed on the margins between these flocks! And they would have reproduced.
In his essay, “Let the Farm Judge,” Wendell Berry describes the powers of observation and adaptation employed by thousands of shepherds over thousands of years on the British Isles that allowed the development of 80 distinct sheep breeds and cross-breeds on a group of islands smaller than California. I can imagine similar observations and adaptations leading to LGD breeds in a transhumance system of livestock production. The dogs that stayed with their flocks – that protected livestock from wolves, brown bears, big cats, other dogs, and even 2-legged human predators – were noted by their owners. And allowed to reproduce – either with other dogs guarding the same flock, or with dogs guarding adjacent herds. If the offspring of these couplings didn't work, they left the gene pool.
The paper notes that reproductive management has not always been intentional in LGD breeds (nor is it today, for that matter). The authors' genetic analyses suggest that there is ongoing gene flow between LGD breeds and free-ranging dogs in specific geographic regions, stating, “Whereas breed clubs and registering bodies forbid dog owners from crossbreeding to dogs from other breeds for the purpose of maintaining traits, such restrictions are not imposed on working landrace populations and, as such, may be challenging to maintain in working dogs frequently left unattended.” In other words, dogs will be dogs – especially LGDs!
Finally, the authors discuss the relatively recent transition of some LGD breeds from working landraces to a registered system of pedigreed pets (notably the Great Pyrenees and Kuvasz breeds). In comparing pet dog genetics with those of working lines, the authors found a higher degree of inbreeding in pet dogs, likely reflective of the use of a handful of popular pedigreed sires.
These last two findings, as the authors indicate, suggest that selecting LGDs for specific guarding behaviors (attentiveness to surroundings, lack of prey drive, or submissiveness to livestock) and other factors (likelihood of roaming, or lack of aggressiveness towards people) may not be entirely (or even mostly) genetically based. In other words, reproductive isolation (that is, only breeding working LGDs to other working LGDs) may not the core mechanism for maintaining the specialized skills of LGDs. Assessing the behavior and performance of a prospective LGD during the puppy selection process becomes even more critical, given these findings – as does the bonding process. While I'm not suggesting that a well-managed bonding process will overcome poorly bred LGDs, this paper seems to confirm that genetics is just one part of a very complicated puzzle! It was a fascinating read!
Coutinho-Lima, D., et al., "Multiple ancestries and shared gene flow among modern livestock guarding dogs." iScience. 110396. August 16, 2024.
- Author: Daniel K Macon
We have several outstanding workshops coming up in the next three weeks! Contact me at dmacon@ucanr.edu or (530) 889-7385 for more information!
Livestock Health & Wildfire Webinar (Thursday, March 28 - 6:00pm-7:30pm) - Virtual: Join Extension Veterinarians Dr. Gaby Maier, Dr. Rosie Busch, and Dr. Lais Costa, along with UCCE livestock advisor Dan Macon, for a webinar focusing on livestock health and wildfire. We'll discuss preparations for fire season, decision-making during a wildfire, and managing livestock health after exposure to fire and smoke. This webinar is free, but you must register to receive the webinar link. Register at https://ucanr.edu/livestockhealth&wildfire.
Ag Technology Showcase (Thursday, April 11 - 4:00pm-6pm) - Auburn, CA: Join UCCE and other farmers and ranchers to look at new agricultural technology! We'll talk about (and demonstrate) virtual fence technology, electronic identification systems, on-farm weather stations, soil moisture monitors, drones, and other technology designed to improve efficiency and reduce costs. Cost: $10/person. Register at https://surveys.ucanr.edu/survey.cfm?surveynumber=42435.
- Author: Dan Macon
The Nevada-Placer-Yuba Disaster Livestock Access Pass Program operated for its second year in 2022. This program, available to commercial livestock producers in the three counties, is the first (and so far, only) multi-county program in California. The program is managed by UC Cooperative Extension and the Nevada, Placer, and Yuba Agriculture Departments, in partnership with CALFIRE and local law enforcement and emergency management agencies.
The program is available for commercial producers raising cattle, sheep, goats, poultry, rabbits, llamas, alpacas, and bees (commercial means the livestock are part of a business). To be eligible for the program, a producer must own 50 head of livestock (including in utero, e.g., 25 bred cows), 100 poultry or rabbits, or 50 beehives. The geographic area of the program matches CALFIRES Nevada-Yuba-Placer Unit and reflects the on-the-ground reality that many commercial livestock producers operate in multiple counties.
The program is not an animal rescue or evacuation program; rather, the pass is designed to provide coordinated and safe access for producers with operations inside evacuation zones. Passholders work with UCCE and county agriculture departments to obtain permission from incident commanders to re-enter evacuation zones when it is safe to do so, for the purpose of feeding and caring for livestock.
In 2022, the program expanded by 68% - 72 producers obtained passes. New producers participated in a 4-hour training session hosted by UCCE, local agriculture departments, CALFIRE, and local law enforcement/emergency management agencies at the UC Sierra Foothill Research and Extension Center (with lunch generously sponsored by the Sutter-Yuba Farm Bureau). Renewing passholders participated in an online refresher training developed by UCCE. While passes were not formally used during the 2022 fire season, the pass program created positive working relationships between the ranching community and first responders. These relationships resulted in opportunities to help address producer and livestock safety during the Rices Fire in Nevada County and the Mosquito Fire in Placer County.
The California State Association of Counties recognized the Nevada-Placer-Yuba program with a 2022 Challenge Award in the Rural Disaster & Emergency Response category, citing the program's innovative tri-county partnership and proactive approach to addressing both public safety and livestock well-being.
Governor Newsom signed AB 1103 (sponsored by Assembly Woman Megan Dahle) in October 2021. This legislation creates a statewide livestock pass program, with new statewide training due out in 2023. Once this new curriculum is rolled out, we will be scheduling training for new and renewing passholders in all three counties! If you'd like updates on these training sessions, or the program in general, contact me at dmacon@ucanr.edu.
2022 Program Statistics
- 28% of passholders had operations in more than one county. On average, passholders operated on 2.4 individual properties.
- 35% had multiple species of livestock.
- 38% of passholders operated in Nevada County; 21% in Placer, 29% in Yuba, and 11% had operations outside of the 3-county region.
- Participation by livestock species:
- Beef Cattle: 65%
- Sheep: 32%
- Goats: 19%
- Poultry: 19%
- Bees: 15%
- Hogs: 8%
- Rabbits: 7%
- Dairy (Goats or Cattle): 6%
- Other Livestock: 11%
- 86% were owners or family members of commercial operations; the balance were employees.
- Author: Dan Macon
Register now for our upcoming September workshops!
Working Rangelands Wednesdays - Remote Sensing and Drought Forecast with Dr. Leslie Roche - September 7 - 6:00pm: The last in our series of Drought Solutions Webinars, this session will focus on efforts to develop forage production forecasting for annual rangelands, and will provide a look ahead at conditions this fall and winter. Register with this link! View previous sessions on our Working Rangelands Wednesdays YouTube Channel!
Crop Insurance / Pasture Range and Forage Insurance - September 13 - 6:30pm: We've invited a local crop insurance agent to walk us through the costs and coverage benefits of Specialty Crop and PRF Insurance. This workshop is FREE! Register here! This workshop will be held at the UCCE office in Auburn.
Beginning Farming Academy - September 30 - October 1: This 2-day intensive workshop provides an introduction to starting a commercial farming or ranching! We'll cover the basics of market-driven farming and ranching, provide you with economic analysis tools, and wrap up with an action plan for jump-starting your enterprise! The cost for the academy is $80 (to cover meals). Apply online.
- Author: Dan Macon
Like many of you, I expect, I've recently debated whether to keep my social media accounts - Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram sometimes seem like a bottomless pit of advertising and argument. But then something like this happens....
Last week, I wrote about the idea of an "ecological calendar" - a way to think about our production calendars from an ecological perspective (read the post here). I included my first rather awkward attempt at graphically displaying my own sheep production calendar - and shared the graphic on Instagram.
Within several hours, I had the most wonderful response from someone who listens to our Sheep Stuff Ewe Should Know podcast - complete with an actual, real-world ecological calendar from a famous sheep-producing region in France! Yeva (@why_suarez on Instagram) shared this:
"The inner orange circle says “troupeau en montage” (herd in the mountains) and troupeau en crau (the Crau is a geographical area). Most sheep farmers in the south of France move their sheep to the mountain areas (like Haute Savoie, the mountains between Italy and France. Pyrenees is another system yet again) as there's not enough green pastures available, because of the high temperatures that dry out the land and/or because the irrigated areas are used to produce hay (there are more reasons, but that's the short version!). Wolves are a big issue, they will be guarded by a shepherd throughout the summer. But back to the calendar.
"You see two blue lines pass through all the circles, one: mid-June; one: beginning of October. That's when the sheep are away, which matches with the outer circle that says “estives dans les alpages.” Estives means summer pasture. Most of the sheep will be taken there, represented in the tiny sheep symbols. Outside that period is says in the circle “enneigement en montagne,” which is basically snow in the mountains!
"The arrows show the movement of the sheep to the different kind of pastures. In the Crau, you basically have two kinds, the green one that is irrigated and produces the hay and the dry one or the “Coussouls” that have a very specific kind of biodiversity and is known for its many rocks.
"It's a bit complicated to explain because it's a circular system, so it's all linked – which also makes it very cool, because the entire calendar is pasture and hay based, including lambing dates, etc. But basically, Foins de Crau is a very famous hay that's produced with a complicated irrigation system and is subject to many rules if it wants to qualify as “foins de crau,” as it's known for its very high quality. They cut it three times a year (in the calendar it says “1ere coupe = first cut, etc.). Each “cut” has a different nutritional component and is marketed differently. The fourth cut is not actually cut; it is eaten by the sheep when they return from the mountains. That's why you see the sheep symbols between October and February in the same circle as the “cuts” – we call those kinds of pastures the “prairies.”
"Half February (the blue line only overlaps the prairies and coussouls) they are then moved to the coussouls. The prairies will start growing again for the first foins de crau cut and the cassouls offer enough food. Some other shepherds bring sheep to hill areas nearby instead of the coussouls – it tends to depend on the particularities of that farm. The amount of sheep symbols has grown in the cassouls circle, because the herds tend to be much bigger as this calendar reflects an autumn lambing period, which is the overall tendency here.
"Outside the inner circle is a smaller blue one that shows when the prairies are irrigated with water and when not (“arrossage de pres”). The specific timing of the movement of the herds would be a much longer story! But I hope the different layers of the calendar are clearer now and why they are linked."
I shared this calendar explanation with my friend Dr. Hailey Wilmer, who is the Research Rangeland Management Specialist at the U.S. Range Sheep Production Efficiency Research Unit, in Dubois, Idaho. Her observation was that "calendars can help tell stories across landscapes." I agree - looking at the calendar Yeva shared, and the explanation she provided, helped me look again at my own calendar. I asked myself these questions:
- What is the heart of our sheep operation in terms of nutrition and forage? For us, I think, it's the annual rangeland we use in the winter and again in summer.
- What is the second most important forage resource? In our case, it's our irrigated pasture. Pasture is more productive - and also more costly. With sheep, we could probably figure out how to get along without it.
- Finally, how do our production needs (vaccinations, shearing, lambing, etc.) fit within these underlying forage cycles?
All of this brings me to a question for you! How does your production system fit the ecological cycles in your region? I hope you'll share! And I guess I'll keep my social media accounts for now....