ROMANIAN SHEEP PRODUCTION SPECTACULAR PAST,
DECLINE, UNCERTAIN FUTURE
Drăgănescu, C.
Institute of Biology and Animal Nutrition
Agricultural University
Bucharest, Romania
—————————————————————————————————————————————
ABSTRACT
Sheep production was and must be an important branch of Romanian agriculture. The 32.7 percent grazing
area, mostly marginal (4.8 million ha. – 2.7 million ha in mountain and alpine areas), gives a support capacity for
some 12-16 million sheep. Goats were a neglected species in Romania even though their number rose to 1.08
million in 1989. There are four main traditional extensive sheep production systems (8-11 month grazing on
marginal lands, flocks of some 300-500 sheep) which comprise some 98 percent of sheep now and about 95
percent before 1996; (1) located on arable area (40-50 percent of sheep); (2) on mountain area (30-40 percent);
(3) pendulation (1-2 days walk) between sub-alpine pasture and arable area (15-20 percent); (4) transhumance,
the most spectacular and the wealthiest enterprise (up to 1920 this included some 40 mountain villages, with 4-6
million sheep, 1300/owner, routes from Bohemia-Istria to North Caucasus, now some 1-5 percent of sheep); (5)
semi-intensive systems (1950-1990) in state and cooperative farms (up to 50 percent of sheep, 6-7 month
grazing) and industrial lamb fattening. There were always three types of peasants owners (in 1950-1990 there
were no cooperative farms in mountain areas, one-third of Romanian territory); (1) non-shepherd peasants, who
keep sheep more for their own subsistence (1-20 sheep, 4.9/owner in 1997, owning 67.1 percent of all
sheep=5.27 million); (2) professional shepherds (20-200 sheep, 44.63/owner, 24.3 percent of sheep, 3.3 percent
of sheep owners) employees of non-shepherd peasants and of big sheep-masters; (3) middle (200-500 sheep,
265/owner) and big sheep-masters (over 500; 700/owner), most of them transhumant or former transhumant
shepherds (0.1 percent of owners with 4.95 percent of sheep); (4) former state farms having some 4.5 percent of
sheep (408-449, seven times less than in 1985). The sheep cooperative farms (6.24 million in 1985, or 33.55
percent) disappeared in 1990. The evolution of sheep number (18.6 million in 1985, 16.2 million in 1989, 11.16
million in 1997) seems to be in steady regression, checked just because the peasant-owner-but-not-shepherds
reacted with delay. The decreases have the following causes; (1) dramatic drop (three to four times) in the price
of wool, subsidized before 1989 by the state; (2) selection pressure in 1950-1990 just on wool, on the
introduction of Merino breeds and on the intensification of sheep production for wool; (3) reduction of demand
for sheep milk and meat products due to increase of production price and decrease of family revenue; (4) the
meat export income did not affect the producer income. For economical and ecological reasons the regression of
sheep production must be stopped by: (1) organization of strong integrated (production processing, marketing)
associations of big shepherds; some financial support should be given at the beginning of activity; (2) some
economical measures to check the decrease of sheep number to the non-shepherd peasants; (3) extensification of
wool breeds management and some intensification of milk breeds management; (4) change the pressure of
selection of all breeds to milk and meat production, recommendation of local milk breeds (Black-head Tsigai)
and of the industrial crossing for meat; (4) sheep extensive and intensive economy and management should
become of more and more concern to the scientists.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
179
INTRODUCTION
Sheep were in the past, as well as in the twentieth century and must be in the future an
important branch of Romanian agriculture. From Romanian agricultural areas, 32.7 percent
are grassland area, two-thirds of which are of poor and very poor quality in mountain and
alpine zones. This area, other marginal land and marginal agricultural products give a support
capacity for some 12-16 million sheep. Moreover in Romania there is still a great tradition,
experience and breeds for sheep production. The Romanian ("Walach") transhumant
shepherds were known in Central- and Eastern-Europe. Dwellers of some 40 mountain
villages, clustered in four centres (Sibiu, Brasov, Covasna) , used to have some 4-6 million
sheep. Their routes until 1 600 went from Silezia in the North-West up to Istria in the SouthWest, and until 1920 to the border of the Black Sea up to Crimea and the Caucasus. It seems
that the sheep husband's methods, even the lexicon and the sheep breeds from this territory
have been influenced by them (Vuia-1964,Dunare-1984, Draganescu-1994, 1995).
Having to face the twentieth century challenge, to change from and to the market economy,
Romanian sheep production is now in a steady decline with no clear future. This report will
try to explain clearly the present situation and to forecast some possibility of monitoring the
development.
OLD AND PRESENT SHEEP PRODUCTION SYSTEMS
Romanian sheep production was slow to change in the twentieth century from old and
traditional forms of husbandry to new and more intensive systems. The environmental
restrictions and the traditions checked the process and the normal evolution of social and
economic life pushed the change, but not with great success, sometimes even with a danger to
damage it. Even the totalitarian regime from 1950-1989 did not succeed to make great
changes. Before describing the systems, which include a set of owners, management methods,
inputs and outputs acting for a particular target, it is important to know the production
objectives and the sheep owners.
Production objectives
Sheep are kept in Romania for their dairy products, for the slaughtered young lambs (4-6
weeks, 10-12 kg), for wool production and sometimes fore manure. All ewes of all breeds,
including Merino and Karacul, are milked; for sheep dairy products there is always a market,
and the prices are seldom restricted by family revenue.
For sheep meat Romania is not a good market; half of Romanians don't like sheep meat.
The proximity of Moslem countries is, however, a potential good market; in some years the
export exceeded one million sheep and lambs.
Wool used to have a good price in Romania, three to four times above the world market in
the last 30 years, price protected by the state. As a result, there was an increase of Merino
breeds from 0.5 percent in 1949 to some 32 percent in 1986 even though the profitability of
the Tsigai breed was higher (19.94 percent) than the Merino (19.92 percent, Saghin, 1955).
With respect to income, meat production had the first place in the Tsigai (50.76 percent) and
Merino (49.39 percent); but in the second place for the Tsigai was the milk (26.88 percent,
just 11.50 percent for Merino) and in second place for the Merino was the wool (35.85
percent, 19.31 percent on Tsigai) - Table 1.
180
Table 1. Comparable income (%) and profitability (%) of Tsigai and Merino breeds
Income
Tsigai breed
Merino breed
- Milk
26.88
11.50
- Wool
19.31
35.85
5.30
4.69
38.36
26.47
-Increase of flock
7.10
18.23
- Manure
3.05
3.20
- Slaughtered animals
- Sold animals
Profitability
19.94
14.92
(Saghin, 1955)
Type of owners and flock size
Most sheep were and are, in Romania, in the property of the peasant, small "farmers"
(2.3 ha) who can rent some pasture from village or state land. That was true even in 19501989, when in the arable area, agricultural production cooperatives had been organized. In
1985 from 18.6 million sheep, 6.2 million (33.3 percent) were in private property of peasants
and members of cooperatives, and 3.2 million (17.2 percent) were in the property of hill and
mountain peasants. The cooperative farms used to have 6.2 million sheep (33.5 percent and
the state farms 2.9 million sheep (15.9 percent). Now, in September 1997, 95.5 percent of
sheep (10 656 132) are owned by private peasants, 0.04 percent in intensive flocks, and 0.5
percent (49 392) are in permanent associations. The public sector (former state farms, etc.)
owns 4.5 percent of sheep, 43.4 percent are in intensive flocks (Table 2).
Table 2.
Sheep number in private and public proprietorship, in extensive and intensive
production systems
Ownership
Private
Type of management
1985
Sept. - 1997
Millions
%
Millions
%
Total
9.402
50.52
10.656
95.50
- Individual peasants
3.199
17.17
10.602
94.60
6.202
33.33
-
-
- Associations
-
-
0.049
0.50
- Intensive associations
-
-
0.004
0.04
6.243
33.55
-
-
2.964
15.92
0.503
4.50
0.218
1.96
Extensive farms:
- Peasants from
cooperative farms
Cooperative farms
State (public)
farms:
Total
Total
- Intensive
18.609
100
11.159
100
181
In Romania there are now and have always been the following types of peasant sheep
owners: (a) Some 30 percent of all non-shepherd peasants (in 1935, 53.8 percent) have some
1-20 sheep, an average 4.9 percent per owner in 1997, but possess 67.1 percent of all ewes,
and represent 96.3 of all owners. They seem to keep the sheep more for their subsistence than
for market, and the sheep production for them is an additional activity to other main farming
activities.
Table 3. Types of sheep owners and the number of their ewes (Sept. 1997)
Type of owners
Type of
property
Number of
owners
Number of ewes:
total
% of sheep
Per owner
Peasants not
Private
1 075 377
5 270 277
4.9
Professional shepherds
Public
15
223
14.9
(1-20 ewes)
Total
1 075 392
5 270 500
4.9
67.1
Professional shepherds
Private
40 489
1 807 052
44.63
24.3
(20 – 200 ewes)
Public
56
6 397
114.2
1.6
40 545
1 813 449
44.7
23.09
Total
70.7
0.05
Middle sheep masters
Private
1 037
274 485
264.6
3.7
(200 – 500 ewes)
Public
83
28 234
340.2
6.9
1 120
302 722
270.3
3.85
Total
Big sheep masters
Private
134
93 815
700
1.2
(above 500 ewes)
Public
235
373 592
1 589.7
91.5
Total
369
467 407
1 266
Private
1 117 037
7 445 629
Public
389
408 449
1 117 426
7 854 078
Total
Total
6.67
1 050
7.03
5.9
100
100
100
During the summer, late spring and early autumn their sheep are in the care of professional
shepherds (flocks of 300-500 sheep) in an association or enterprise system. The owner
prepares the winter fodder and keeps the sheep during the winter (1-4 months) including the
lambing season.
(b) The professional shepherds (3.3 percent of owners) have some 20-200 sheep, 44.63 per
owner, representing 24.3 percent of all sheep. They are employees of peasants "not shepherds"
associations, of big shepherds and of state farms, and always have been accepted with their
sheep. Some of them organize a sort of enterprise during the milking period: they take the
ewes of peasants in return for a given amount of dairy products.
(c) The middle (200-500 ewes, 265 per owner in 1997) and the big sheep masters (over 500
ewes, some 700 per owner registered in 1997) represent some 0.1 percent of owners who
possess some 4.95 percent of sheep. Most of them are transhumant shepherds and it is
difficult to know exactly the number of sheep. In the past it seems that the transhumant
shepherds had bigger flocks; the size registered when they passed the Danube in 1831-1833 to
and from the former Turkey was 1289 to 1654 sheep. The maximum flock size was 3380
(border point Brãila, 1833) and 5520 (border point iua Pietrii, 1833), but in North Caucasus
there was a flock of 40 000 sheep (Dragomir, 1931) and a single village (Răşinari Sibiu) had
some half-million sheep in 1817 cross through one border point. As many sheep masters
182
passed through that border then as are now known in the whole country. The distribution of
different types of sheep owners on the territory is not uniform. Most of the big sheep masters
are in the former transhumant centres (Sibiu, 26, Braşov 11, Valcea 3), but also in their place
of wintering (Black Sea border, NW-SW). In some departments over 90 percent of the sheep
are in the property of non-shepherd peasants (Bistriţa, Buzău, Vâlcea).
Table 4. Size of migratory flocks and their structure: Danube cross in 1831 and 1833
Transhumance
Border point, direction, date
centre
Number of transhumant
owners
Sibiu
Bran-Braşov
Number of villages from the Sãcele
transhumant centre
Covasna
Brãila, Cãlãraşi, Piua Pietrii
to Turkey
from Turkey
13 Dec. 1833
4 March-24 Apr. 1831
186/8
80/5
31/5
18/2
131/12
6/4
9/2
-
590 411 / 1 654
134 077 / 1 289
3 778 / 10.6
1 610 / 15.5
557 / 1.6
224 / 2.1
988
Brãila
Number of animals /
Animals per owner:
Total
- sheep + goats
- horses
- donkeys
Shepherd
Total
2 412
Sheep per shepherd
Total
245
136
(Constantinescu Mirceşti, 1976)
Production systems
In Romania there are four main traditional extensive sheep production systems (Herseni,
1936, Vuia 1964) and some to half-intensive and intensive systems. The extensive systems are
the following:
(a) Local sheep production in arable area (30-40 percent of sheep). It is the system of nonshepherd peasants, of their employees--professional shepherds, of some middle sheep owners
and even of some state farms. The sheep are grazed more on marginal land (pasture, stable
field) in flocks of some 300-500 sheep. In the winter the sheep are fed mostly with marginal
agricultural products, and during the lambing with some concentrate (first lambing at 2 years,
production life 5 years). They sell some one-half to three-fourths of their dairy products (some
5 kg cheese/ewe), three-fourths of lambs (105 percent natality) and some wool.
(b) Local sheep production on non-arable area (hills, mountains) (30-40 percent of sheep).
The management patterns are more and less as in arable area, but in the summer time
flocks are grazed generally in sub-alpine and alpine pasture and in spring and autumn in
mountain meadow. For wintering peasants prepare hay on mountain slope meadows.
(c) Pendulation (1 to 3 days walk) between alpine pasture and arable area (15-20 percent of
sheep). The system, accepted sometimes as "short-transhumance" is practiced by some
professional shepherds and middle sheep owners, dwellers in mountain or plain villages.
183
(d) Transhumance was and is the main production system of big shepherds. The big flock
of mountain dwellers alternate between alpine pasture and some area of winter pasture at a
distance of hundreds of kilometers nowadays, at thousands of kilometers in the past. With one
exception (N-W), their wintering routes were correctly marked on the Müller-Braudel-Grigg
map (1938, 1966, 1977).
On his road, a transhumant shepherd is never in a hurry. The sheep are grazing, the pasture
costs nothing and that is the basis of the old conflict between shepherds and agriculturists.
Among some 40 transhumant villages known at the beginning of this century, only one is still
recognized as transhuman (Poiana - Sibiu). Nevertheless, there still exist transhumant
shepherds, who live in former, and not exclusively, transhumant villages. Between 1971 and
1982 some 45 transhumant flocks per year from Poiana-Sibiu were in transhumance. About
60 percent of these flocks wintered in Banat (SW), 26 percent in Satu-Mare (NW) and 14
percent in Danube Meadow and Delta (some 200-300 km, about 2 weeks walk).
Breeds
In Romania there are two autochthon, native breeds: Tsurcana, named also Zackel
(“mountain peasant”, “Romanian”) or Walachian (“Romanian”), is the sheep of Sibiu
transhumant shepherds, and Tsigai, the sheep of Braşov and Covasna transhumant shepherds.
Both are well adapted to the conditions of Romania, but maybe Tsurcana is better adapted to
the alpine pasture. Tsigai, 20 percent of sheep, a medium-wool breed related with Merino and
British meat breeds, have good milk production, especially the Blackhead Tsigai, and good
meat production. Tsurcana (70 percent of sheep in 1949, 44 percent in 1986), a long coarsewool breed, have good milk production, but poor meat production. From the imported breeds,
Merino breeds are now more important (32 percent of sheep in 1986) and Karakul (5 percent).
For the improvement of milk production, East-Friesian sheep were imported many times in
the last century without any result, and most recently Awasy, with the same effect. It seems
that the milk production is limited at first by the extensive management and mountain pasture
and the improvement is possible from Blackhead Tsigai. For the improvement of meat
production Finnish, Landrace, Romanov and Suffolk have been imported (1971). It was
difficult to introduce a crossbreeding programme. Finnish, Landrace and even Romanov were
not resistant to local conditions.
DANGEROUS DECLINE, POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
The old Romanian sheep production systems were not adapted to the economic and social
challenges of twentieth century.
Transhumance, the wealthiest Romanian sheep production system, was the first affected
before 1950. Two to three forces worked against it: (1) difficult life of the transhumant
shepherds; (2) the animosity of agricultural farmers towards transhumance, because in their
routes the transhumant flocks damage crops and (3) after 1920 the transhumance routes were
strictly limited to the Romanian borders. They survived after 1960 just because they received
some non-official help from some state and cooperative farms (wintering facilities, accepted
routes, etc.) and from the state recorder office. Some of them used to be the only officially
known millionaires of Socialist Romania. For economical, ecological and historical reasons,
they must receive further state and scientific support.
184
The sheep production system of non-shepherd peasants is a half-subsistence system and is
not just historically old-fashioned, but has low efficiency. It has shown itself capable of
surviving many difficult economic situations, frequently by tightening the belt, i.e. by
continuing to operate on reduced income below which a sheep master or a farming company
fails to be viable. By that they check the decrease of sheep number in difficult economic
periods of change. That is the explanation in the totalitarian regime and its importance in this
moment of crisis in sheep production.
Critical present situation
In 1950-1989 the wool production was the main objective of sheep improvement and
production. Its price was supported by the state three to four times above the world market.
From 1989 the wool price dropped to the level of the world market and the income of all
sheep owners dropped dramatically. A steady but marked decline, some 6.3 per year was
noted in the sheep number and sheep product (Table 5). From 16.452 million sheep in 1989
there were just 10.317 million in 1996 (62.7 percent) and we have the impression that the
decline was checked because the non-shepherd peasants react slowly. The most affected are
the former state farms (fourfold reduction in sheep number). The private sheep owners, who
can better face the decline because their extensive production system is cheaper and their
production is more diversified with dairy products and meat, are continuing to operate with
reduced income. However, the problem is not solved.
The sheep breeds have been selected just for wool production, and Merino breeds carry a
great weight in the sheep number. There is a reduction of demand for sheep dairy products and
meat products due to increase of production price and decrease of family revenue. The salary
of professional shepherds increased as their number decreased. The profit from the export of
sheep to Arab countries influence the sheep owners’ income. The next social category affected
seems to be the non-shepherd peasant owners. If they will decrease the sheep number it will
be a great problem. We hope that the small number of big shepherds, especially migrant, who
have to face a lot of problems on their migratory routes and winter pasture will have enough
managerial ability to overcome the crisis, but is just a hope. A whole economic and scientific
strategy is necessary to keep the sheep number and the sheep production at the support
capacity and necessity of the country.
A Note on the economical strategy to survive
An economical managerial strategy of the state is the first step to stop the decline of sheep
production to survive the crisis. The basic principle of the strategy is to save the big owner,
including the former state farms and the professional shepherds, the pillars of sheep market
production, and to maintain for awhile the non-shepherd peasant sheep owners. Some
possibilities follow:
 strongly integrated organizations (production, processing, marketing) in a cooperative
association of big and professional shepherds; some financial support should be given at
the beginning of activity;
 some facilities to rent the pasture for a longer time;
185




a programme for the formation of new, young professional shepherds (economic
encouragement of good shepherds to have young apprentices during the grazing and
milking period);
a programme for the improvement of working conditions of shepherds (shelters, milking
installation);
some indirect control for the wool market and the wool industry to assure the utilization of
indigenous wool;
a programme for planning, directing and supporting the scientific research, the extension
services and breeding organization to find the way to long economic sustainability of the
system.
Table 5. Sheep number and sheep production (1989-1996)
Year
Number of sheep x 1000
Total
Private
1989
16 452
13 722
1996
Ewes x Lambs x Milk x
1000
1000 1000 hl
Meat x
1000 tonnes
Wool
tonnes
216
35 386
State
2 730
9 989
10 579
4 080
10 317
9592
725
7662
8 261
3 566
158
22 730
1996 /1989 %
62.7
69.9
26.6
76.7
77.9
87.4
73.1
64.2
Decrease per year
-6.3
-4.9
-17.7
-2.9
11 411
10 909
532
7 000
31 VIII 1997
7 755
2 905
104
21 780
(Ministry of Agriculture data)
Research, breeding and extension actions necessary to make the Romanian
sheep production competitive
The way to solve the substance of deadlock of sheep production must be found by
fundamental and operational scientific research. The scientific decisions must be applied by
cooperation or subordinated extension and breeding services. The extension and breeding
services can act on the whole systems through the sheep owners not shepherds who practically
control the production of shepherd peasants (some 90 percent of sheep production).
By scientific scrutiny and a systematic approach, an improvement of traditional production
systems and elaboration of new systems of production must be done. We noticed that up to
now sheep management has not been subject to scientific scrutiny. The traditional systems of
sheep production were the main concern of ethnologists rather than that of animal scientists.
The changes of production to milk and meat mean an urgent modification of breeding
programmes and of sheep recording of all breeds, except Karakul, in that direction.
New dairy, prolific and meat breeds must be found or created for intensive production
systems. It is not allowed to recommend an intensive system with extensive breeds, as has
been done. A compromise is possible by the utilization of industrial crossbreeding especially
for meat production.
With respect to sheep, research must be conducted on the problems related to competition
on the common market and on the world market (quality of lamb meat, time of slaughter, milk
product) with all their complications (breeding, nutrition, management).
If the alpine and sub-alpine pasture is not grazed it will become wild, with ecological and
economical consequences.
186
REFERENCES
Braudel F. 1965. La Mediterranée et le mond mediterranéen a l' époque de Phiippe 11. Paris
Constantinescu Mirceşti C 1976. Pastoritul transhumant in secolele 17-19. Ed Acad –
Bucureşti
Drăgănescu C 1995. Origin and relationship between Walachian and Tsigai sheep from the
danubian area. Stocarstvo, Zagreb 49: (9-12) 321-327
Drăgănescu C 1996. Azov Tsigai, Chushka and Steppe Voloshian -- Branches of Romanian
Tsigai and Tsurcana. 47 EAAP
Dragomir C 1938. Păstorii Mărgineni în Basarabia, Crimea, Caucaz, America de Nord. Lucr
Inst Geogr Cluj 6, 254-298
Dunăre N 1954. Types traditionelles de vie pastorale dans les regions carpatique de paturage
et de fenaisons. In: Simp Clermont-Ferrand, 50-58
Grigg D E 1974. The agricultural systems of the world. In: Cambridge Univ. Press
Herseni Tr 1936. L' organization pastorale en Roumanie. In: Arch Sci 13, 242-256
Muller E. 1938. Die Herdenwanderungen in Mittelmeer. In Pettermann's Mittellungen Vua E
(1964) Tipuri de pastorit la Romani 252 Ed Acad, Bucureşti
187