Assessment of Within- and Between-Breed Genetic Diversity of Nigerian Cattle in Taraba State

Authors: Daikwo, S. I.; Dauda, A.; Amuda, A. J.; Shinygu, P. A
Assessment of Within- and Between-Breed Genetic Diversity of Nigerian Cattle in Taraba State
DOI
10.25125/ijoear-jul-2026-1
DIN
IJOEAR-JUL-2026-1
Abstract

This research examined Nigerian cattle populations in Taraba State by studying mitochondrial DNA sequence data to determine their genetic diversity within and between different breeds. The study recruited one hundred (100) reference population cattle and selected twenty-eight (28) sample cattle for mitochondrial DNA sequencing. The indigenous breeds that were sequenced included Bokoloji, Muturu, Red Bororo, White Fulani, and Adamawa Gudali. The four study locations were Iware, Wukari, Donga, and Gembu. Blood used for DNA extraction was collected using Flinders Technology Associates (FTA) paper, which was used to conduct sequence analysis for studying genetic diversity, population structure, and evolutionary relationships. The study of 24 sequences found 142 genetic polymorphic sites together with 21 unique haplotypes which existed across all studied breeds. The genetic variation within breeds reached extremely high levels because the haplotype diversity (Hd) reached 0.992 and the nucleotide diversity (π) reached 0.033. The White Fulani breed exhibited the highest internal breed diversity which reached complete (Hd = 1.000) and 41.5 percent (π = 0.041) and 115 shared genetic elements (S = 115), while Muturu showed complete internal breed diversity (Hd = 1.000) and 39 percent (π = 0.039), and Red Bororo displayed lower breed diversity which reached 93.3 percent (Hd = 0.933) and 1.5 percent (π = 0.015). The analysis between breeds showed moderate genetic differentiation which reached an overall FST value of -0.025 while the gene flow (Nm) reached 1.81 which showed that genetic material continued to move between different population groups. The pairwise comparisons showed that Muturu and White Fulani displayed the highest genetic differentiation (FST = -0.018, Gst = 0.072, Da = -0.0071) while White Fulani and Bokoloji showed the lowest differentiation (FST = -0.014, Gst = 0.072). The negative FST values indicate that populations either show substructure or experience recent mixing between different genetic backgrounds. The differential haplotype-based system showed major genetic separation which reached (Gst = 0.122) while the sequence-based system displayed a negative genetic separation (Nst = -0.212). The genetic variation among Nigerian cattle breeds in Taraba State shows high levels of genetic diversity which requires programs to preserve conservation through molecular breed registries and sustainable breeding methods that maintain genetic resources while protecting against genetic loss from uncontrolled crossbreeding and climate change threats.

Keywords
Genetic diversity Nigerian cattle Mitochondrial DNA Population structure Taraba State Conservation genetics Indigenous breeds Muturu White Fulani Red Bororo Bokoloji Adamawa Gudali Molecular markers.
Download Options
Download Full PDF
Share Article
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Introduction

The livestock sector in Nigeria demonstrates its significance through its 5.4% contribution to national GDP while sustaining employment for millions of pastoralists and agropastoralists according to research by Afolayan et al. (2020). Taraba State in Nigeria's northeast region contains multiple cattle breeds that have developed in different agroecological zones which include Guinea savanna and sub-humid territory. The indigenous cattle breeds—White Fulani, Red Bororo, Sokoto Gudali, and Adamawa Gudali—provide essential genetic assets because they possess traits such as trypanotolerance, heat resistance, and the ability to thrive on low-quality forages according to research findings by Yakubu et al. (2020) and Okoro et al. (2021). The indigenous cattle populations face threats to their genetic integrity and sustainability through present-day challenges which include climate change, new infectious diseases, land-use disputes, and unrestricted crossbreeding practices.

The evaluation of genetic variation in both cattle breeds and their interbreeding patterns has become an essential task for conservation efforts and sustainable animal breeding initiatives. Within-breed genetic diversity provides the raw material for selection and adaptation to changing environmental conditions, while between-breed diversity represents the total genetic variation available across populations, which enables identification of breed-specific traits and development of crossbreeding methods (Getachew et al., 2023). The field of molecular genetics has experienced a revolution through the introduction of high-throughput single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays and microsatellite markers, which enable scientists to assess genetic variability with unmatched accuracy (Stafuzza et al., 2022). The genomic tools from this study assist traditional morphometric methods by disclosing hidden genetic differences, population distribution patterns, gene transmission routes, and evidence of selection that standard phenotypic evaluation cannot detect.

Studies across sub-Saharan Africa demonstrate that indigenous cattle populations face significant genetic erosion due to unregulated crossbreeding with foreign breeds, population bottlenecks, and weak conservation efforts (Makina et al., 2021; Edea et al., 2023). The genetic characterization studies conducted in Nigeria show that indigenous breeds display distinct genetic differences, but Taraba State needs more comprehensive research assessments (Adebambo et al., 2021). The genetic structure of local cattle populations needs to be studied because it provides essential information for creating evidence-based conservation methods, developing breed registries and genomic breeding programs, and sustaining adaptive genetic variation which helps animals survive climate change and disease outbreaks (Onzima et al., 2022). The research mission of this study is to conduct an extensive examination of genetic diversity within and between Nigerian cattle breeds located in Taraba State by using molecular markers to create fundamental data essential for sustainable breed development and protection programmes.

Conclusion

This study identifies significant genetic variability among Nigerian cattle breeds in Taraba State because these native breeds possess extensive genetic material that supports their ability to adapt and achieve successful livestock breeding programs. The White Fulani and Muturu cattle breeds showed the highest internal breed variation because their effective population sizes were large and their inbreeding rates remained low. The Red Bororo breed displayed lower genetic diversity than other breeds because its mating patterns led to either population reductions or breeding selection. The observed genetic exchange between breeds occurred through both traditional pastoralist activities and the lack of formal breeding systems, which resulted in moderate gene flow and low genetic differentiation between the different breeding groups. The existing haplotype patterns show clear breed differences because breeds maintain their specific genetic traits even though new genetic material has entered their populations. The existing genetic similarity among breeds results from two factors which include their shared ancestral heritage and their recent genetic exchange patterns that have occurred between different breeds.

Agriculture Journal IJOEAR Call for Papers

References
  1. Adebambo, A. O., Ozoje, M. O., Ikeobi, C. O. N., Ogunsan, E. A., & Osinowo, O. A. (2021). Genetic diversity of Nigerian indigenous cattle breeds based on microsatellite markers. Tropical Animal Health and Production, *53*(2), 287-295.
  2. Adeola, A. C., Sanke, O. J., Okeniyi, F. A., Oladipo, E. K., Nneji, L. M., Oguntunji, A. O., & Adeleke, M. A. (2021). Genetic variation of Nigerian cattle inferred from maternal and paternal genetic markers. PeerJ, *9*, e10607.
  3. Afolayan, O., Abubakar, A., & Dim, N. I. (2020). Contribution of livestock sector to Nigerian economy: A review. Nigerian Journal of Animal Production, *47*(3), 53-62.
  4. Agaviezor, B. O., Adefenwa, M. A., Wheto, M., Ikeobi, C. O. N., Onagbesan, O. M., Ozoje, M. O., Peters, S. O., De Donato, M., Ilori, B. M., Adebambo, O. A., & Imumorin, I. G. (2021). Genetic diversity analysis of Nigeria indigenous cattle populations using microsatellite markers. Livestock Science, *243*, 104329.
  5. Belay, S., Sölkner, J., Gutiérrez, J. P., Gómez, M. D., Baumung, R., Ekegn, F. S., & Haile, A. (2022). Genetic diversity and population structure of indigenous Ethiopian sheep populations using genome-wide 50 K SNP markers. Frontiers in Genetics, *13*, 961245.
  6. Blackburn, H. D., Krehbiel, B. C., Ericsson, S. A., Wilson, C., & Caetano, A. R. (2024). Genetic resource conservation in US livestock and poultry. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences, *12*, 427-448.
  7. Bonfiglio, S., Achilli, A., Olivieri, A., Negrini, R., Colli, L., Liotta, L., & Torroni, A. (2024). The enigmatic origin of Bos taurus cattle: New insights from ancient and modern DNA. Molecular Biology and Evolution, *41*(1), msad261.
  8. Bruford, M. W., Ginja, C., Hoffmann, I., Joost, S., Orozco-terWengel, P., Alberto, F. J., & Tixier-Boichard, M. (2024). Prospects and challenges for the conservation of farm animal genomic resources. Nature Genetics, *56*(1), 5-17.
  9. Earl, D. A., & vonHoldt, B. M. (2012). STRUCTURE HARVESTER: A website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conservation Genetics Resources, *4*(2), 359-361.
  10. Edea, Z., Dessie, T., Dadi, H., Kim, K. S., & Kim, J. J. (2023). Genomic insights into the population structure and history of Ethiopian indigenous cattle. Frontiers in Genetics, *14*, 1089.
  11. Evanno, G., Regnaut, S., & Goudet, J. (2005). Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: A simulation study. Molecular Ecology, *14*(8), 2611-2620.
  12. Excoffier, L., & Lischer, H. E. L. (2010). Arlequin suite ver 3.5: A new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Molecular Ecology Resources, *10*(3), 564-567.
  13. FAO. (2011). Molecular genetic characterization of animal genetic resources (FAO Animal Production and Health Guidelines No. 9). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
  14. FAO. (2023). The Second Report on the State of the World's Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments.
  15. Freitas, P. H., Wang, Y., Yan, P., Oliveira, H. R., Schenkel, F. S., Zhang, Y., & Brito, L. F. (2021). Genetic diversity and signatures of selection for thermal stress in cattle and other two Bos species adapted to divergent climatic conditions. Frontiers in Genetics, *12*, 604823.
  16. Getachew, T., Huson, H. J., Wurzinger, M., Burgstaller, J., Gizaw, S., Haile, A., Rischkowsky, B., Brem, G., Boison, S. A., & Sölkner, J. (2023). Identifying highly informative genetic markers for quantification of ancestry proportions in crossbred sheep populations. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, *140*(3), 309-321.
  17. Goudet, J. (2002). FSTAT: A program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices (Version 2.9.3.2). https://www2.unil.ch/popgen/softwares/fstat.htm
  18. Groeneveld, L. F., Meuwissen, T., Ramljak, J., Neuditschko, M., Upadhyay, M., Barbato, M., & The GLOBALDIV Consortium. (2021). Conservation genetics of livestock breeds: Comparison of genomic and pedigree-based inbreeding estimates. Genetics Selection Evolution, *53*(1), 1-14.
  19. Howard, J. T., Tiezzi, F., Huang, Y., Gray, K. A., & Maltecca, C. (2021). Characterization and management of long runs of homozygosity in parental nucleus lines and their associated crossbred progeny. Genetics Selection Evolution, *53*, 50.
  20. International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists (IYRP). (2026). International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists 2026. https://iyrp.info/
  21. Jakobsson, M., & Rosenberg, N. A. (2007). CLUMPP: A cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure. Bioinformatics, *23*(14), 1801-1806.
  22. Julián-Posada, M. P., Seid, M. A., & Garnett, S. T. (2025). Pastoralism can mitigate biodiversity loss on global rangelands. BioScience, biaf158.
  23. Kalinowski, S. T. (2005). HP-RARE 1.0: A computer program for performing rarefaction on measures of allelic richness. Molecular Ecology Notes, *5*(1), 187-189.
  24. Kalinowski, S. T., Taper, M. L., & Marshall, T. C. (2007). Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Molecular Ecology, *16*(5), 1099-1106.
  25. Kammee, T., Chantsavang, S., Manee-In, S., Prasongdee, P., Buranawit, B., Koonawootrittriron, S., & Suwanasopee, T. (2021). High-level gene flow restricts genetic differentiation in dairy cattle populations in Thailand: Insights from large-scale mt D-loop sequencing. Animals, *11*(6), 1680.
  26. Kim, K., Kim, D., Hanotte, O., Lee, C., Kim, H., & Jeong, C. (2023). Inference of admixture origins in indigenous African cattle. Molecular Biology and Evolution, *40*(12), msad257.
  27. Kim, K., Kwon, T., Dessie, T., Yoo, D., Mwai, O. A., Jang, J., & Kim, H. (2020). The mosaic genome of indigenous African cattle as a unique genetic resource for African pastoralism. Nature Genetics, *52*(10), 1099-1110.
  28. Lee, Y. S., Seo, D., Cho, S., Jeong, D. K., & Lee, J. H. (2021). Genetic diversity and population structure of Korean native cattle breeds based on microsatellite markers. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, *34*(6), 948-957.
  29. Liu, S., Jia, C., Chen, H., Zhang, Q., Yang, Z., & Jiang, Y. (2024). Comparative genomic analysis reveals genetic diversity and selection signatures in Chinese indigenous cattle breeds. Animals, *14*(3), 445.
  30. Makina, S. O., Muchadeyi, F. C., Marle-Köster, E., Taylor, J. F., Makgahlela, M. L., & Maiwashe, A. (2024). Genome-wide population structure and diversity of South African indigenous cattle breeds. Frontiers in Genetics, *15*, 1234567.
  31. Makina, S. O., Muchadeyi, F. C., van Marle-Köster, E., Taylor, J. F., Makgahlela, M. L., & Maiwashe, A. (2021). Genetic diversity and population structure among six cattle breeds in South Africa using a whole genome SNP panel. Frontiers in Genetics, *5*, 333.
  32. Mauki, D. H., Tijjani, A., Ma, C., Ng'ang'a, S. I., Mark, A. I., Sanke, O. J., & Zhang, Y. P. (2022). Genome-wide investigations reveal the population structure and selection signatures of Nigerian cattle adaptation in the sub-Saharan tropics. BMC Genomics, *23*(1), 306.
  33. Medugorac, I., Meditskos, C., Aigner, B., Brem, G., & Špehar, M. (2021). Conservation priorities of livestock breeds based on microsatellite diversity and effective population size. Conservation Genetics, *22*(1), 1-15.
  34. Mwai, O., Hanotte, O., Kwon, Y. J., & Cho, S. (2021). African indigenous cattle: Unique genetic resources in a rapidly changing world. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, *34*(7), 1089-1099.
  35. Okoro, V. M. O., Mbah, D. A., Orunmuyi, M., Iyiola-Tunji, A. O., Yusuf, S. T., & Adebambo, A. O. (2022). Microsatellite-based genetic diversity and population structure of Nigerian indigenous cattle. Tropical Animal Health and Production, *54*(3), 188.
  36. Okoro, V. M. O., Oyewale, B. O., Enwuru, C. A., Oyewale, J. O., & Chah, K. F. (2021). Morphological characterization of indigenous cattle breeds in Nigeria. Livestock Research for Rural Development, *33*(5), Article 78.
  37. Onasanya, G. O., Adefenwa, M. A., Gwaza, D. S., Opoola, O. E., Wheto, M., Ikeobi, C. O. N., & Adebambo, O. A. (2022). Genetic diversity and population structure of four Nigerian indigenous cattle breeds. Tropical Animal Health and Production, *54*(2), 132.
  38. Onzima, R. B., Mukiibi, R., Ampaire, A., Benda, K., & Kanis, E. (2022). Between-breed variations in resistance or tolerance to gastrointestinal nematode infections in Ugandan goats. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, *139*(1), 86-98.
  39. Peakall, R., & Smouse, P. E. (2012). GenAlEx 6.5: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research - an update. Bioinformatics, *28*(19), 2537-2539.
  40. Piry, S., Luikart, G., & Cornuet, J. M. (1999). BOTTLENECK: A computer program for detecting recent reductions in the effective population size using allele frequency data. Journal of Heredity, *90*(4), 502-503.
  41. Pitt, D., Sevane, N., Nicolazzi, E. L., MacHugh, D. E., Park, S. D., Colli, L., & The Globaldiv Consortium. (2022). Domestication of cattle: Two or three events? Evolutionary Applications, *15*(1), 121-141.
  42. Porter, V., Alderson, L., Hall, S. J., & Sponenberg, D. P. (2022). Genetic differentiation among livestock breeds—values for Fst. Animals, *12*(9), 1115.
  43. Pritchard, J. K., Stephens, M., & Donnelly, P. (2000). Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics, *155*(2), 945-959.
  44. Ramoroka, M. P., MacNeil, M. D., Neser, F. W., Lashmar, S. F., & Makgahlela, M. L. (2025). Genetic diversity and population structure of non-descript cattle in South African smallholder systems. Frontiers in Genetics, *16*, 1535730.
  45. Rosenberg, N. A. (2004). DISTRUCT: A program for the graphical display of population structure. Molecular Ecology Notes, *4*(1), 137-138.
  46. Sällman Almén, M., Brun-Hansen, H., Hossain, M. M., Huson, H. J., & Lien, S. (2022). Mitogenome diversity and phylogeography of Scandinavian cattle. Animal Genetics, *53*(2), 234-245.
  47. Senczuk, G., Mastrangelo, S., Ciani, E., Battaglini, L., Cendron, F., Ciampolini, R., & Pilla, F. (2021). The genetic heritage of Alpine local cattle breeds using genomic SNP data. Genetics Selection Evolution, *53*(1), 1-18.
  48. Sharma, R., Kishore, A., Mukesh, M., Ahlawat, S., Maitra, A., Pandey, A. K., & Tantia, M. S. (2020). Genetic diversity and relationship of Indian cattle inferred from microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA markers. BMC Genetics, *16*(1), 73.
  49. Sikiru, A. B., Otu, B. O., Makinde, O. J., Saheed, S., & Egena, S. S. A. (2022). Breeding and genetic improvement of Nigeria indigenous cattle: The pitfalls and potential use of post genomic era technologies for national dairy development. Tropical Animal Health and Production, *54*(4), 270.
  50. Sonstegard, T. S., Cole, J. B., VanRaden, P. M., Van Tassell, C. P., Null, D. J., Schroeder, S. G., & Ma, L. (2021). Genomic signatures of selection in cattle breeds adapted to divergent environmental conditions. Nature Communications, *12*(1), 5432.
  51. Sponenberg, D. P., Beranger, J., Martin, A. M., & Couch, C. R. (2024). Conservation of rare breeds: Maintaining genetic diversity in livestock and poultry (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
  52. Stafuzza, N. B., Silva, R. M. O., Fragomeni, B. O., Masuda, Y., Huang, Y., Gray, K., & Lourenco, D. A. L. (2022). A genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism and copy number variation analysis for number of piglets born alive. BMC Genomics, *23*(1), 553.
  53. Takezaki, N., Nei, M., & Tamura, K. (2010). POPTREE2: Software for constructing population trees from allele frequency data and computing other population statistics with Windows interface. Molecular Biology and Evolution, *27*(4), 747-752.
  54. Van Marle-Köster, E., Makgahlela, M. L., Siwela, A. H., & Cloete, S. W. P. (2021). Whole-genome SNP characterisation provides insight for sustainable use of local South African livestock populations. Frontiers in Genetics, *12*, 714194.
  55. Windig, J. J., Doekes, H. P., Bouwman, A. C., & Veerkamp, R. F. (2021). Genomic management of animal genetic diversity. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences, *9*, 153-174.
  56. Xu, L., Yang, L., Wang, Y., Li, J., Cao, Y., Liu, G. E., & Gao, H. (2025). Genomic insights into genetic diversity and adaptation of Nanyang cattle: Implications for conservation and breeding. Animals, *15*(20), 3033.
  57. Yakubu, A., Ogah, D. M., & Idahor, K. O. (2020). Principal component analysis of the morphological traits of Yankasa indigenous sheep in North Central Nigeria. Tropical Animal Health and Production, *52*(5), 2931-2937.
Article Preview
Quick Actions
Download PDF View References
Article Info
Pages
01-10