{"paper_id":"0f2c8474-b57f-49e8-9040-ca6bd70cf072","body_text":"1\n1 Phenological characterization of Mozambican native \n2 caprine breeds assessed through morpho-biometric traits \n3 and zoometric indices\n4\n5\n6 Deiby T. Culhe 1,2†, Matilde F. Matola 1†, Élio J. R. Muatareque 1,  Milton A. Morrombe 3, \n7 Matilde A. Manhique 3, Ramos J.Tséu 1, Abílio P. Changule 2*, Maria da G. Taela 2, \n8 Custódio G. Bila4,5,6,7 and Manuel Garcia-Herreros8,9\n9\n10\n11\n12 1. Department of Animal Production and Food Technology, Faculty of Veterinary \n13 Medicine, Eduardo Mondlane University (UEM), Maputo 1304, Mozambique. \n14 2. Center for Genetic Resources and Animal Assisted Techniques (CRGTRA), \n15 Directorate of Animal Science (DCA), Agricultural Research Institute of Mozambique \n16 (IIAM), Matola 1410, Mozambique.\n17 3. Chobela Research Station, Centro Zonal Sul, Agricultural Research Institute of \n18 Mozambique (IIAM), Magude 1121, Mozambique. \n19 4. Department of Animal and Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Eduardo \n20 Mondlane University (UEM), Maputo 1304, Mozambique. \n21 5. Department of Research and Development, Intermed Mozambique Lda, Maputo 1304, \n22 Mozambique. \n23 6. Center of Excelence in Agri-Food Systems and Nutrition (CEAFSN) - Eduardo \n24 Mondlane University (UEM), Maputo 257, Mozambique. \n25 7. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Save University (UniSave), Gaza \n26 Delegation, Chongoene 1206, Mozambique. \n27 8. National Institute for Agricultural and Veterinary Research (INIAV), Santarém 2005- \n28 424, Portugal. \n29 9. CIISA-AL4AnimalS, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Lisbon, 1300-477 \n30 Lisbon, Portugal. \n31 *Corresponding Authors\n32 E-mail: abilio.changule1991@gmail.com\n33 †These authors contributed equally to this work.\n34\n35\n.CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted August 20, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.15.670476doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n2\n36 Abstract\n37 This study aimed to characterize the morpho-structural traits of indigenous goats reared at the \n38 Chobela Research Station in the Magude District of southern Mozambique. A total of 135 goats \n39 were randomly selected, comprising 77 Landim and 60 Pafúri animals. Racial characteristics \n40 were assessed through visual inspection, while morphometric traits were measured using a \n41 zoometric tape. Descriptive statistics and independent samples t-tests were performed at a 5% \n42 significance level using SPSS version 27. In terms of racial traits, all Pafúri goats exhibited a \n43 convex facial profile, whereas Landim goats showed both convex (57.9%) and concave \n44 (42.1%) profiles. Approximately 75% of the goats presented a uniform coat colour. \n45 Morphometric comparisons revealed that Landim goats had higher average values for horn \n46 length (mean difference, MD: 0.21 cm), withers height (MD: 0.14 cm), and body length (MD: \n47 0.24 cm). In contrast, Pafúri goats had greater head length (MD: 0.18 cm), head width (MD: \n48 0.11 cm), ear length (MD: 0.09 cm), and thoracic perimeter (MD: 0.26 cm). Regarding \n49 zoometric indices, Landim goats recorded higher body (1.71), cephalic (0.31), and thoracic \n50 (1.31) index values, while Pafúri goats exhibited a slightly higher proportionality index (0.40). \n51 The morpho-structural differences identified between Landim and Pafúri goats demonstrate \n52 distinct phenotypic profiles that can support breed characterization. These results provide a \n53 valuable baseline for future genetic studies and contribute to conservation and sustainable \n54 utilization strategies for indigenous goat populations in Mozambique.\n55 Keywords: Goats; Morphometry; Native breeds; Zoometry; Mozambique\n56\n57 Introduction\n.CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted August 20, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.15.670476doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n3\n58 Goats (Capra hircus) are among the earliest domesticated livestock species and have supported \n59 human livelihoods for over 10,000 years (Zeder, 2017). Their remarkable adaptability enables \n60 them to thrive across a wide range of agroecological zones, from arid deserts to tropical forests \n61 and highlands (FAO, 2021). Globally, more than 1,000 recognized breeds contribute to diverse \n62 production systems, offering meat, milk, fiber, skins, and fulfilling socio-cultural roles (Galal, \n63 2020; Haile et al., 2022).\n64 In many developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, goats are a cornerstone of \n65 smallholder farming systems. They enhance food security, support income diversification, and \n66 serve critical functions in traditional ceremonies, dowries, and as a form of insurance against \n67 crop failure (Peacock, 2005; Alemayehu et al., 2022). In Mozambique, the goat population has \n68 grown steadily over the past decade and is largely composed of indigenous breeds raised under \n69 extensive or semi-extensive management systems, characterized by minimal external inputs \n70 and limited selective breeding (Mataveia et al., 2019; FAOSTAT, 2023).\n71 Despite their socio-economic and cultural significance, the genetic and phenotypic diversity of \n72 Mozambique’s indigenous goat populations remains insufficiently documented. Phenotypic \n73 characterization, particularly of morphometric and breed-specific traits, is a critical step in the \n74 identification, conservation, and improvement of local animal genetic resources (FAO, 2012; \n75 Gizaw et al., 2020). Such efforts are fundamental to the development of sustainable breeding \n76 programs and the prevention of genetic erosion.\n77 Considering the limited phenotypic data available, this study aimed to characterize the morpho-\n78 structural traits of two indigenous goat populations Landim and Pafúri reared at the Chobela \n79 Zootechnical Station in Magude District, southern Mozambique. It was hypothesized that, \n80 despite coexisting in the same environment, the two populations would exhibit distinct morpho-\n81 structural profiles reflecting their different genetic backgrounds and adaptive histories.\n.CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted August 20, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.15.670476doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n4\n82 Materials and methods\n83 Ethical statement\n84 This research was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the legal \n85 framework for all Mozambican Public and Private Laboratories and Higher Education \n86 Institutions. The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki \n87 and following the Code of Ethics for animal experiments as reflected in the ARRIVE guidelines \n88 available at https://arriveguidelines.org/arrive-guidelines/study-\n89 design/1a/explanation (accessed on 12 August 2025). This study was approved by the \n90 Bioethics Committee for the use of experimental animals at the Eduardo Mondlane, \n91 Mozambique (approval date: 20 March 2023, Code Number: CBUAE-112-UEM-MZ).\n92 Study location and experimental material \n93 This study was conducted at the Chobela Zootechnical Station (CZC) (Figure 1), located in \n94 Chobela village, Magude District, southern Mozambique. The district lies between latitudes \n95 24°59′20″ S and longitudes 32°45′10″ E, and is bordered by the districts of Chókwè and Bilene-\n96 Macia to the north, Moamba to the south, Manhiça to the east, and the Republic of South Africa \n97 to the west (Miambo et al., 2019).\n98 The area supports both private and communal livestock systems, with the main species being \n99 cattle, goats, pigs, sheep, and poultry (primarily indigenous chickens). The climate is classified \n100 as dry subtropical (Köppen classification), with average annual temperatures ranging from 22 \n101 to 24°C and an average annual rainfall of approximately 630 mm. There are two distinct \n102 seasons: a hot and rainy season from October to March, which accounts for around 80% of the \n103 annual precipitation, and a cooler, dry season from April to September.\n.CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted August 20, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.15.670476doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n5\n104 The goats were maintained under an extensive production system using natural pasture feeding. \n105 For the study, a total of 137 breeding goats were randomly selected, comprising two indigenous \n106 populations: 77 Landim (Figure 2A: Female goat. 2B: Male goat) and 60 Pafúri (Figure 3A: \n107 Female goat. 2B: Male goat). \n108 These two indigenous breeds have been bred at the Experimental Research Station for more \n109 than 50 years. Landim goats have short-eared heads that are concave in females and slightly \n110 convex in males; horns curve backward in both sexes but are heavier in males. All males and \n111 12% of females carry beards. Coats vary in colour (black, white, brown, or spotted), ears are \n112 erect, and the hair is short and fine. Bucks sport a short, dense mane along the backline and \n113 reach about 45 kg at two years, while does average 35 kg (Morgado, 2002; Garrine et al., 2010; \n114 Mataveia et al., 2018; Cambula and Taela, 2020). Pafúri goats display a convex head profile \n115 with divergent, well-developed horns in males and smaller, scimitar-shaped horns in females. \n116 Ears are medium-length, sometimes trimmed, with rounded tips. Both sexes have beards, a \n117 strong, well-set neck, straight back, and well-muscled limbs. Adult males weigh roughly 60 kg \n118 and females about 43 kg (Morgado, 2002; Garrine et al., 2010; Mataveia et al., 2018; Cambula \n119 and Taela, 2020). \n120 The sample included 131 females (74 Landim and 57 Pafúri) and 6 males (3 Landim and 3 \n121 Pafúri). Animals were selected using a simple random sampling method from the breeding \n122 herds maintained at the Chobela Zootechnical Station, ensuring representation of both \n123 populations.\n124\n125 Data collection\n.CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted August 20, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.15.670476doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n6\n126 Data collection involved both visual assessment and direct physical measurements. Phenotypic \n127 characterization included the recording of racial characteristics and linear body measurements \n128 (FAO, 2012).\n129 Racial characterization\n130 Morphometric traits were measured using a standard zoometric measuring tape, following \n131 proper physical restraint of each animal to ensure both data accuracy and animal and handler \n132 safety. Restraint was carried out gently, typically with the aid of halters or hand-held by trained \n133 personnel, to minimize movement and stress during measurement. This procedure aligns with \n134 the guidelines recommended by the FAO for the phenotypic characterization of animal genetic \n135 resources (FAO, 2012; FAO, 2021). The following linear body measurements were recorded \n136 (all in centimeters): Head length, head width, ear length, horn length, withers height, thoracic \n137 perimeter and body length.\n138 Zoometric indices\n139 Zoometric indices were calculated using standard formulas to evaluate somatic development \n140 and infer functional conformation (Table 1). The following indices were computed as described \n141 by Salako (2006), Pires et al. (2011), Yakubu (2011), (Parés and Casanova, 2015) and Rojas-\n142 Espinoza et al. (2023).\n143 Table 1: summary of calculated zoometric indices with formula\nIndex Formula Anatomical measures used\nBody Index (BI) (BL / TP) × 100 Body Length (BL), Thoracic Perimeter (TP)\nCephalic Index (CI) (HW / HL) × 100 Head Width (HW), Head Length (HL)\nThoracic Index (TI) (WH / TP) × 100 Withers Height (WH), Thoracic Perimeter (TP)\nProportionality Index (PI) (WH / BL) × 100 Withers Height (WH), Body Length (BL)\nLateral Body Index (LBI) BL / HW Body Length (BL), Head Width (HW)\nAnamorphosis Index (AI) TP² / WH Thoracic Perimeter (TP), Withers Height (WH)\nPelvic Index (PeI) (HW / HL) × 100 Head Width (HW), Head Length (HL)\nDactyl-thoracic Index (DTI) (HW / TP) × 100 Head Width (HW), Thoracic Perimeter (TP)\nDactyl-costal Index (DCI) (HW / BL) × 100 Head Width (HW), Body Length (BL)\n.CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted August 20, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.15.670476doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n7\nTransverse Pelvic Index (TPI) (HW / WH) × 100 Head Width (HW), Withers Height (WH)\nLongitudinal Pelvic Index (LPI) (HL / WH) × 100 Head Length (HL), Withers Height (WH)\n144\n145 These indices were used to classify the animals according to their body conformation \n146 brevilinear, mesolinear, or longilinear and to infer their potential for meat production, \n147 particularly regarding compactness, proportionality, and skeletal development.\n148 Data analysis\n149 The database was systematized in a Microsoft Excel sheet (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, \n150 WA, USA). Subsequently, the data were subjected to descriptive statistical analyses to \n151 determine the measures of central tendency and dispersion for the respective analysis. The \n152 different data from the two breeds and sex of individuals (male and female) were subjected to \n153 assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity and then analyzed by one-way ANOVA in \n154 order to identify the potential existence of statistical significance. The ANOVA model included \n155 the interaction between breed and sex (y = breed + sex + breed*sex + e). Tukey’s test was used \n156 to compare means. Finally, Pearson’s correlation was determined to compare pairs of \n157 morphometric parameters. All analyses were performed using the R Studio statistical software. \n158 The significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05). \n159 Results\n160 Table 2: estimated frequencies and percentages of coat colour variants in Mozambican \n161 Indigenous Goat Breeds (Landim and Pafúri)\nCoat colour Landim Percentage Pafúri Percentage Total Percentage\nBlack 18 24.0% 12 20.0% 30 22.2%\nBrown (light/dark) 21 28.0% 18 30.0% 39 28.9%\nWhite 12 16.0% 10 16.7% 22 16.3%\nSpotted/Mixed 24 32.0% 20 33.3% 44 32.6%\nTotal 75 100% 60 100% 135 100%\n.CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted August 20, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.15.670476doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n8\nDistribution of coat colours among Landim and Pafúri goat populations. The data represent frequencies and \npercentages of animals coats, based on visual assessment.\n162 Racial trait characterization\n163 Table 3 presents the morphological characteristics observed in the Landim and Pafúri goat \n164 populations, focusing on distinct facial profiles, ear orientations, horn traits, beard presence, \n165 and coat patterns. \n166\n167 Table 3: morphological characteristics observed in the Landim and Pafúri goat populations\nCategory Variable Modality Landim (%) Pafúri (%)\nHead Size Small 28.0 15.0\nMedium 42.7 55.0\nLarge 29.3 30.0\nShape Short 34.7 20.0\nNormal 41.3 45.0\nLong 24.0 35.0\nProfile Concave 42.1 0.0\nStraight 0.0 0.0\nConvex 57.9 100.0\nBeard Presence Present 24.0 36.7\nAbsent 76.0 63.3\nHorns Presence of horns Present 100.0 100.0\nHorn size Small 27.0 15.0\nMedium 49.0 52.0\nLarge 24.0 33.0\nHorn orientation Curved backward 36.8 17.6\nCurved upward 36.8 0.0\nLateral 26.3 82.4\nHorn shape Straight 36.8 0.0\nSpiral 31.6 82.4\nCurved 31.6 17.6\nEars Ear size Small 20.0 10.0\nMedium 47.0 58.0\nLarge 33.0 32.0\nShape Erect 100.0 0.0\nPendulous 0.0 100.0\nPosition Vertical 92.0 40.0\nHorizontal 8.0 60.0\n.CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted August 20, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.15.670476doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n9\nCategory Variable Modality Landim (%) Pafúri (%)\nDorsal Line Presence Present 71.0 85.0\nAbsent 29.0 15.0\nExtremities Type of limbs Muscular 43.0 47.0\nIntermediate 35.0 30.0\nFine 22.0 23.0\nCoat Hair type Short 70.0 60.0\nMedium 25.0 30.0\nLong 5.0 10.0\nPattern Simple (uniform) 75.0 75.0\nIrregular (spotted) 25.0 25.0\nApparent Weight Body conformation Heavy 22.0 38.0\nIntermediate 50.0 47.0\nLight 28.0 15.0\n168\n169 Regarding facial profile, the Landim goats exhibited two distinct types: convex in 57.9% \n170 and concave in 42.1% of the animals. In contrast, all Pafúri goats displayed a convex facial \n171 profile. Ear orientation differed markedly between the two populations: Landim goats had erect \n172 ears, whereas Pafúri goats presented pendulous ears.\n173 All goats were horned, although horn length tended to be greater in the Pafúri breed. Among \n174 Landim goats, horn orientation was distributed as follows: 36.84% curved backward, 36.84% \n175 obliquely upward, and 26.3% laterally. In the Pafúri goats, 82.35% had laterally oriented horns, \n176 while 17.64% curved backward. Horn shape also varied between breeds. In the Landim \n177 population, 36.84% of animals had straight horns, while spiral and curved shapes were each \n178 observed in 31.57% of individuals. In contrast, the Pafúri goats showed a predominance \n179 of spiral horns (82.35%) and a minority with curved horns (17.64%). Beard presence was \n180 recorded in 55% of the animals, including 18 Landim and 22 Pafúri goats.\n181 Coat pattern analysis revealed that 75% of the goats had simple patterns (uniform color), \n182 whereas 25% exhibited irregular patterns (e.g., spotting or white markings). Coat color varied \n183 widely across individuals and included solid black, light and dark brown, white, and various \n184 mottled combinations.\n.CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted August 20, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.15.670476doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n10\n185\n186 Morphometric characterization \n187 Seven linear body measurements were recorded in 131 does (74 Landim and 57 Pafúri). No \n188 statistically significant differences were observed between the two breeds for any of the \n189 morphometric traits (p > 0.05). The mean values (± standard deviation) for each measurement \n190 in both populations are presented in table 4.\n191 Table 4. Racial characteristics observed in Landim and Pafúri goat populations \nLandim (cm) Pafúri (cm)Trait\nMale Female Male Female \np-value\nHead length 17.30 ± 0.70 17.25 ± 0.65 17.44 ± 0.65 17.43 ± 0.75 0.856\nHead width 11.11 ± 0.67 11.06 ± 0.57 11.27 ± 0.59 11.17 ± 0.59 0.894\nEar length 13.10 ± 0.60 13.08 ± 0.52 13.27 ± 0.59 13.17 ± 0.49 0.900\nHorn length 19.22 ± 0.86 19.21 ± 0.83 19.10 ± 0.84 19.00 ± 0.80 0.856\nWithers height 58.68 ± 1.31 58.67 ± 1.20 58.63 ± 1.76 58.53 ± 1.66 0.946\nThoracic perimeter 68.88 ± 1.35 66.94 ± 1.25 67.30 ± 2.17 67.20 ± 2.27 0.924\nBody length 68.44 ± 1.74 67.31 ± 1.73 68.17 ± 6.10 67.07 ± 6.11 0.972\nValues are presented as mean ± standard deviation. TP: Thoracic perimeter; BL: Body length; WH: Withers height; \nHL: Head length; HW: Head width; HoL: Horn length; EL: Ear length; LI: Length index; TDI: Thoracic \ndevelopment index; TLI: Thoraco-length index. LI = BL / WH × 100; TDI = TP / WH × 100; TLI = TP / BL × 100. \nComparisons between breeds were tested using a two-sample t-test. Means with different superscript letters indicate \nstatistically significant differences at p < 0.05.\n192 Zoometric indices \n193 Zoometric indices were calculated for all 131 does (74 Landim and 57 Pafúri). Although no \n194 statistically significant differences were observed between the two breeds (p > 0.05), Landim \n195 goats exhibited slightly higher mean values for the body, cephalic, and thoracic indices, \n196 suggesting a more compact and robust conformation. In contrast, Pafúri goats showed \n197 marginally higher values for the proportionality index, indicating a relatively more elongated \n198 body structure. The detailed mean values (± standard deviation) for each index are presented \n199 in table 5.\n.CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted August 20, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.15.670476doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n11\n200 Table 5: Linear morphometric traits in Landim and Pafúri goats\nLandim PafúriZoometric Index\nMale Female Male Female\np-value\nBody Index 99.89± 2.28 99.45 ± 3.16 99.76 ± 9.80 99.74 ± 9.73 0.829\nCephalic Index 64.60 ± 3.59 64.10 ± 4.09 63.90 ± 5.28 64.10 ± 4.37 1.000\nThoracic Index 114.10 ± 5.62 114.10 ± 4.72 115.01 ± 5.29 114.81 ± 5.39 0.532\nProportionality Index 89.68 ± 1.86 87.68 ± 2.86 88.15 ± 8.34 87.22 ± 8.33 0.691\nLateral Body Index 6.09 ± 0.45 6.09 ± 0.37 6.09 ± 0.41 5.99 ± 0.34 0.174\nAnamorphosis Index 77.43 ± 3.88 76.40 ± 4.28 78.45 ± 5.60 78.28 ± 5.56 0.108\nPelvic Index 63.12 ± 4.21 64.12 ± 3.89 64.06 ± 4.20 64.06 ± 4.18 0.948\nDactyl-thoracic Index 17.49 ± 1.17 16.52 ± 1.11 16.51 ± 1.12 16.41 ± 1.09 0.606\nDactyl-costal Index 16.45 ± 1.20 16.43 ± 1.10 16.26 ± 1.14 16.24 ± 1.04 0.392\nTransverse Pelvic Index 18.90 ± 1.42 18.85 ± 1.39 18.96 ± 1.54 18.93 ± 1.34 0.778\nLongitudinal Pelvic Index 30.40 ± 2.30 29.40 ± 2.02 29.75 ± 2.18 29.70 ± 2.08 0.396\nValues are presented as mean ± standard deviation. TP: Thoracic perimeter; BL: Body length; WH: Withers height; \nHL: Head length; HW: Head width. Body Index = TP / BL × 100; Cephalic Index = HW / HL × 100; Thoracic \nIndex = TP / WH × 100; Proportionality Index = WH / BL × 100; Lateral Body Index = BL / HW; Anamorphosis \nIndex = TP² / WH; Pelvic Index = HW / HL × 100; Dactyl-thoracic Index = HW / TP × 100; Dactyl-costal Index = \nHW / BL × 100; Transverse Pelvic Index = HW / WH × 100; Longitudinal Pelvic Index = HL / WH × 100. Means \nwith different superscript letters indicate statistically significant differences at p < 0.05.\n201\n202 Based on standard classification thresholds, Landim goats were classified as mesolinear, \n203 while Pafúri goats fell within the brevilinear category. Despite the small differences in average \n204 index values, the high variation observed in body indices and the lower variation in other \n205 indices suggest some degree of phenotypic overlap between the two populations.\n206 Discussion\n207 This study was grounded in the assumption that, although raised under similar environmental \n208 and management conditions, the Landim and Pafúri goat populations would exhibit morpho-\n209 structural differences stemming from their distinct genetic backgrounds and adaptive \n210 trajectories. However, the findings revealed a high degree of similarity between the two groups, \n211 particularly in morphometric traits, for which no statistically significant differences were \n212 detected.\n213 Nevertheless, certain trends in racial and structural attributes suggest some level of \n214 differentiation. For instance, all Pafúri goats displayed a convex facial profile, while Landim \n215 goats exhibited a broader range of horn orientations and shapes. Although these differences are \n.CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted August 20, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.15.670476doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n12\n216 subtle, they may reflect specific adaptive features or varying histories of crossbreeding. The \n217 absence of marked morphometric divergence between the populations likely indicates \n218 considerable phenotypic overlap an outcome that may be attributed to widespread uncontrolled \n219 mating and the absence of structured breeding programs. These results highlight the limitations \n220 of relying solely on phenotypic characterization to distinguish local breeds, particularly in low-\n221 input systems with minimal reproductive control.\n222 The phenotypic variation observed in Landim and Pafúri goats reflects the richness and \n223 complexity of indigenous goat populations in Mozambique. The presence of multiple horn \n224 orientations and diverse coat patterns among Landim goats suggests substantial intra-breed \n225 variability, likely resulting from unregulated mating practices and limited genetic isolation. \n226 This finding is consistent with previous reports that attribute weak breed boundaries in many \n227 African goat populations to communal grazing systems and uncontrolled \n228 reproduction (Mekuriaw et al., 2021; Haile et al., 2022). In contrast, the uniform convex facial \n229 profile and predominance of spiral-shaped horns in Pafúri goats align with their known lineage \n230 as a crossbreed between Boer bucks and indigenous does (Cumbula and Taela, 2020). \n231 However, the lack of marked phenotypic differentiation between the two breeds in this study \n232 may indicate ongoing gene flow and the absence of structured selection programs a concern \n233 similarly raised in phenotypic assessments of indigenous goat populations across Eastern and \n234 Southern Africa (Gizaw et al., 2020; Alemayehu et al., 2022).\n235\n236 The absence of statistically significant differences in linear body measurements between the \n237 two breeds suggests a high degree of morphological overlap. Nevertheless, trends in trait \n238 dominance such as greater horn length and withers height in Landim goats, and broader heads \n239 and larger thoracic perimeters in Pafúri goats may reflect adaptive features shaped by \n240 ecological niches and local selection pressures (Galal et al., 2020; Tadesse et al., 2022).\n.CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted August 20, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.15.670476doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n13\n241 This morphometric stability in adult animals is expected, as body measurements tend to plateau \n242 after reaching maturity, reflecting the combined effects of genetic potential and environmental \n243 adaptation (Fajemilehin and Salako, 2008). Still, even subtle differences in specific traits may \n244 hold functional or adaptive significance in local production systems and should be integrated \n245 into community-based selection programs (Kosgey et al., 2006; Haile et al., 2019).\n246 Zoometric indices are valuable tools for assessing animal conformation and inferring \n247 production potential. In the present study, Landim goats exhibited higher values for the body, \n248 cephalic, and thoracic indices, while Pafúri goats showed slightly higher values for \n249 the proportionality index. These findings support the classification of Landim goats \n250 as mesolinear and Pafúri goats as brevilinear, indicating moderate and compact body frames, \n251 respectively both conformations being suitable for meat production (Sanudo, 2009; Getaneh et \n252 al., 2022).\n253 While such indices are useful for comparative assessments, the high degree of morphological \n254 similarity observed between the two populations suggests that morphometric data alone may \n255 be insufficient for robust breed differentiation. Recent studies emphasize the need to integrate \n256 morphometric, genomic, and environmental data for a comprehensive characterization and \n257 sustainable management of indigenous livestock breeds (FAO, 2021; Leroy et al., 2022).\n258 Uncontrolled mating systems remain a major constraint for breed conservation in low-input \n259 livestock systems. In such contexts, genetic erosion is accelerated by the absence of mating \n260 control and structured breeding strategies (Mwacharo et al., 2017; Gicheha et al., 2023). \n261\n262\n263 Conclusion\n.CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted August 20, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.15.670476doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n14\n264 This study characterized Landim and Pafúri goat ecotypes based on phenotypic traits and linear \n265 body measurements under extensive conditions at the Chobela Zootechnical Station. Both \n266 ecotypes exhibited distinct racial characteristics and were classified as mesolinear, indicating \n267 moderate body frames with slight meat aptitude. These results provide a phenotypic baseline \n268 to support conservation and improvement efforts for indigenous goat populations in \n269 Mozambique.\n270 Acknowledgement \n271 The authors are grateful for the support provided by the Agricultural Research Institute of \n272 Mozambque (IIAM-CZS) and all staff involved.\n273 References\n274 1 D Cumbula and M Taela 2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 482 012045\n275 2 FAO. (2012). Phenotypic characterization of animal genetic resources. FAO Animal \n276 Production and Health Guidelines No. 11. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization \n277 of the United Nations. \n278 3 FAO. (2015). The second report on the state of the world’s animal genetic resources \n279 for food and agriculture (B. D. Scherf & D. Pilling, Eds.). Rome: Food and Agriculture \n280 Organization of the United Nations. \n281 4 FAO. (2021). Phenotypic characterization of animal genetic resources. FAO Animal \n282 Production and Health Guidelines No. 11 (Rev. 1). Rome: Food and Agriculture \n283 Organization of the United Nations. \n284 5 G. A. Mataveia C., Pondja, A., Hassen, A., Visser, C. (2018)  J. Agr. Rural Develop. \n285 Trop. Subtrop. 119 - 2 31–41\n.CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted August 20, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.15.670476doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n15\n286 6 Galal, S., Rischkowsky, B., & Haile, A. (2020). Indigenous animal genetic resources \n287 and their contribution to sustainable livestock systems in the developing world. Small \n288 Ruminant Research, 189, 106234. \n289 7 Garrine, CMLP, Kotze, A, Els, H & Grobler, JP 2010, 'Genetic characterization of the \n290 indigenous Landim and Pafuri goat breeds from Mozambique', African Journal of \n291 Agricultural Research, vol. 5, no. 22, pp. 3130-3137. \n292 8 Getaneh, M., Zeleke, M., & Haile, A. (2022). Morphological and structural indices of \n293 indigenous goats in Ethiopia: Implications for breed characterization and selection. \n294 Heliyon, 8(12), e12244. \n295 9 Gicheha, M. G., Mwai, O., Getachew, T., & Haile, A. (2023). Sustainable use and \n296 management of animal genetic resources in Africa: Progress, challenges and future \n297 directions. Frontiers in Genetics, 14, 1163922. \n298 10 Gizaw, S., van Arendonk, J. A. M., & Haile, A. (2020). Why phenotype still matters in \n299 the genomic era: Insights from developing countries. Animal Genetics, 51(5), 636–643.\n300 11 Haile, A., et al. (2022). Scaling up community-based breeding programs in Africa: \n301 Opportunities and challenges. Animal Genetics, 53(6), 756–767. \n302 12 Haile, A., Wurzinger, M., & Gizaw, S. (2019). Community-based breeding programs \n303 for small ruminants in Africa: Achievements, challenges and lessons learned. Animal \n304 Frontiers, 9(4), 39–45. \n305 13 Leroy, G., Mészáros, G., Boettcher, P., Tixier-Boichard, M., & Besbes, B. (2022). \n306 Integrated approaches to the characterization of animal genetic resources in the era of \n307 genomics. Genetics Selection Evolution, 54, Article 65. \n308 14 Mekuriaw, S., Mwai, O., Dessie, T., Djikeng, A., & Haile, A. (2021). Genetic diversity \n309 and population structure of indigenous goats in East Africa: A review. Animal Genetics, \n310 52(4), 395–405. \n.CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted August 20, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.15.670476doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n16\n311 15 Miambo, Regina & Laitela, Benigna & Malatji, Mokgadi & Afonso, Sonia & Junior, \n312 Alberto & Lindh, Johan & Mukaratirwa, Samson. (2019). Prevalence of Giardia and \n313 Cryptosporidium in young livestock and dogs in Magude District of Maputo Province, \n314 Mozambique. Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research. 86. \n315 10.4102/ojvr.v86i1.1709.\n316 16 Morgado, P., (2002) Manual Técnico de Maneio de pequenos Ruminantes. \n317 Moçambique\n318 17 Parés-Casanova PM, Caballero M, Perezgrovas R (2015). Comparison of non-linear \n319 models for describing growth curves according to sex in ovine chiapas breed. Revista \n320 de Investigaciones Veterinarias del Perú 26: 389-394 doi:10.15381/rivep.v26i3.11170\n321 18 Pires, L. C., Eler, J. P., & Ferraz, J. B. S. (2011). Morphological traits and zoometric \n322 indices of Morada Nova sheep. Revista Brasileira de Saúde e Produção Animal, 12(4), \n323 1012–1023. \n324 19 Salako, A. E. (2006). Application of morphological indices in the assessment of type \n325 and function in sheep. International Journal of Morphology, 24(1), 13–18.\n326 20 Yakubu, A. (2011). Discriminant analysis of morphometric differentiation in the West \n327 African Dwarf and Red Sokoto goats. South African Journal of Animal Science, 41(3), \n328 232–238. \n329 21 Rojas-Espinoza, R.; Macedo, R.; Suaña, A.; Delgado, A.; Manrique, Y.P.; Rodríguez, \n330 H.; Quispe, Y.M.; Perez-Guerra, U.H.; Pérez-Durand, M.G.; García-Herreros, M. \n331 Phenotypic Characterization of Creole Cattle in the Andean Highlands Using Bio-\n332 Morphometric Measures and Zoometric Indices. Animals  2023, 13, 1843. \n333 https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13111843\n334\n335\n.CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted August 20, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.15.670476doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n.CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted August 20, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.15.670476doi: bioRxiv preprint \n\n.CC-BY 4.0 International licensemade available under a \n(which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is \nThe copyright holder for this preprintthis version posted August 20, 2025. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.15.670476doi: bioRxiv preprint","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}