assessment of indigenous sheep production systems in bale zone, oromia regional state...

American Journal of Agricultural Science

2017; 4(6): 126-137

http://www.aascit.org/journal/ajas

ISSN: 2381-1013 (Print); ISSN: 2381-1021 (Online)

Keywords Bale Zone,

Breeding Objectives,

Indigenous Sheep Types,

Production System,

Trait Preference

Received: April 25, 2017

Accepted: October 18, 2017

Published: November 14, 2017

Assessment of Indigenous Sheep Production Systems in Bale Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia

Belete Asefa1, Tadesse Abate

1, *, Eshetu Adugna

2

1Department of Animal and Range Sciences, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources,

Madda Walabu University, Bale Robe, Ethiopia 2Department of Animal and Range Sciences, Sinana District Livestock Agency, Bale Robe,

Ethiopia

Email address [email protected] (T. Abate) *Corresponding author

Citation Belete Asefa, Tadesse Abate, Eshetu Adugna. Assessment of Indigenous Sheep Production

Systems in Bale Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural Science.

Vol. 4, No. 6, 2017, pp. 126-137.

Abstract The present study aims to describe production system of indigenous sheep types,

selective breeding objectives and traits preferences of sheep types in five districts of Bale

zone (Agarfa, Dinsho, Goba, Sawena and DaweKechan). The study was performed

based on household survey using structured questionnaires. Three kebeles from each

district and 20 households from each kebeles were sampled using simple random

sampling techniques. For household survey, 300 households (60 from each district) were

involved. Data were analyzed using SAS versions 9. Pastoral, agro pastoral and mixed

crop livestock production system were the main production system in the study area with

large proportion of sheep per house hold were found in Dinsho (15.6) and Goba (15.4).

Across all the districts, Sheep were used primarily as a source of income generations

through the sale of live animals with index value of 0.39, 0.42, 0.39, 0.38 and 0.37 for

Agarfa, Dinsho, Goba, Sawena and Dawe Kechan District, respectively. In the study area

selection was practiced both for male (70.33%) and female (86.33%) and appearance

was the most selection criteria both for male and female sheep. Diseases, feed shortage

and lack of good genotypes were the 1st, 2

nd and 3

rd production constraints with index

value of 0.28, 0.19 and 0.18, respectively. The study indicated that the information

obtained would assist in planning suitable conservation, improvement and extension

programs for the indigenous sheep types.

1. Introduction

In Ethiopia, sheep are reared mainly by smallholder farmers and are grazed in small

flocks on communal open natural pastures. Ethiopia has a diverse indigenous sheep

population numbering 25.9 million heads (CSA, 2010). of which, 75% found in the

highlands where mixed crop-livestock systems dominate, while the remaining 25 percent

of the sheep is reared in the arid pastoral areas of the lowland (DAGRIS, 2006). Sheep is

important in the socio-economic lives of people around the world, particularly where

crop production is unreliable and where livestock is the mainstay of livelihoods. Sheep

have social and economic importance to the producers who keep indigenous breeds for

meat, hair production and income generation (Tesfaye et al., 2008).

Ethiopia is home for at least 9 breeds and 14 traditional sheep populations, distributed

across diverse ecology, production systems and communities or ethnic groups (Solomon

American Journal of Agricultural Science 2017; 4(6): 126-137 127

et al., 2007). As a result of their wide range of habitat,

behavioral and reproductive adaptations, sheep have evolved

into a large number of different geographically separate

phenotypic forms or races varying in size, fleeces,

conformation, muscling and coat color. Indigenous sheep

breeds have a great potential to contribute more to the

livelihood of people in low input, smallholder and pastoral

production systems (Kosgey et al., 2007), However, their

productivity is low due to several factors such as genotype,

environmental and institutional constraints (Mulata, 2013).

Characterizing the existing sheep production systems and

analyzing their production constraints are important tools to

diagnose the status and trends of the system, and thus to

identify areas for future interventions (Markos, 2006). Arsi

bale sheep is distributed in highlands of bale zone, Arsi,

Hararghe and Sidama (Workneh et al., 2004). Bale zone is

characterized by diverse agro-ecological settings constitute

both lowland and highland where sheep play increasingly

significant roles for communities that herd them. However,

most of the identified and locally recognized breeds of the

region are not well characterized mainly about their

production environment. Again, farmers and pastoralists in

the area practices traditional type of sheep production system,

which is characterized by poor feeding, housing, breeding,

and health management that potentially hinders expected

income from the sale of animal (Dawit et al., 2012).

The current study identify and categorize the existing

sheep production system in bale zone, trait preference and

breeding objectives. This can open the door for researchers,

extension services to improve the productivity and

sustainability of these farming systems and it also provides

information needed in strategizing conservation and

improvement programmes. Therefore, this study was under

taken to assess sheep production systems, to assess farmer’s

selective breeding objectives and trait preferences in the

study area.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Description of Study Area

An on-farm survey was conducted in three highland

districts of bale zone (Agarfa, Dinsho and Goba) and two

lowland districts of bale zone (Sawena and Dawekechan) in

year of 2015/2016. Figure 1. Shows locations of the districts

that the study were conducted.

Figure 1. Districts in bale zone from which the study was conducted.

128 Belete Asefa et al.: Assessment of Indigenous Sheep Production Systems in Bale Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia

2.2. Sample Size and Sampling Techniques

Sample size was determined based on the formula

recommended by Arsham (2007) for survey studies.

N=0.25/SE2

With the assumption of 3% standard error, a total sample

size of 300 households were used for the study. Depending

on the information gathered from group discussion,

agriculture and rural development office experts,

development agents and communities, three high land

districts from bale zone and two low land districts were

selected using purposive sampling technique and three

kebeles from each districts and 60 households from each

kebele were also selected by using simple random sampling

techniques.

2.3. Data Collection

Data was collected by using semi-structured questionnaire,

participatory appraisal and discussion with key informants.

Data about various aspects of general household

characteristics, livestock herd size and composition,

husbandry practices, animal health aspects, breeding

practices, herd dynamics, production and reproductive

performance, trait preference and purpose of keeping sheep

were gathered based on prepared questionnaire.

A total of 15 participatory appraisal discussion groups

(one per kebele) which contains 5-10 members per group

consisting of male and female farmers who were

purposively selected based on their good knowledge of

sheep production was organized. Development agents were

involved in the identification of farmers for the group

discussion.

2.4. Data Management and Statistical

Analysis

All data were coded and recorded in Microsoft excel sheet.

Survey results were summarized using descriptive statistics

like mean, standard deviation and percentage. Indices were

calculated to provide ranking the reason of keeping sheep,

selection criteria for male and female sheep and the major

reproduction and production problems, and calculated as:

Index (I) = sum of (3 for rank 1 + 2 for rank 2 +1 for rank 3)

given for an individual criteria (attribute) divided by the sum

of sum of (3 for rank 1 + 2 for rank 2+1 for rank 3) for overall

criteria. Furthermore, rate of inbreeding was calculated in the

population. Effective population size for a randomly mated

population was calculated using the following formula. The

rate of inbreeding (∆F) was calculated from Neas

∆F=�

�� and Ne=

�(�×��)

� ��

Where Ne = Effective population size

Nm = Number of breeding male population

Nf = Number of breeding female population

3. Result and Discussion

3.1. Household Characteristics

The average household age and family size in the study

area were given in Table 1. The average family size of the

households in the study area were 5.4±0.3, 8.5±0.6, 7.7±0.4,

5.9±0.4 and 5.9±0.4 for Agarfa, Dinsho, Goba, Sawena and

Dawekechan, respectively. The average age of household

were higher for Dawekechan as compared with other districts.

There is significance difference (p<0.01) between districts

for average family size which is higher for Dinsho and Goba.

Table 1. Average household and family size in the study areas.

Household characteristics

Districts

Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/k

mean±�� mean±�� mean±�� mean±�� mean±��

Av. HH age 43.33±1.7bc 47.17±1.3ab 39.58±1.5c 44.1±1.5ab 47.8±1.2a

Av. family size 5.4±0.3b 8.5±0.6a 7.7±0.4a 5.9±0.4b 5.9±0.4b

Means with the same letter are not significantly different (p<0.05); HH = household; Av. = average

Educational level, sex of household and marital status of

respondents were given in Table 2. Majority of the household

in the study area were illiterate (27.67%) followed by

primary school (20.67%). There is no significance difference

between districts for sex of household (p>0.05). Male and

female household constitute 78.67% and 21.33%. The report

of (Belete, 2013) in the same area where also showed that

male headed were higher than female counter part. The

present study confirmed findings of (Workneh and J.

Rowlands 2004), who reported that the majority of the

households (94%) in Oromia region were male headed, while

the rest 6% were female headed.

There is significance difference for marital status (p<0.05).

According to respondents in this study, the overall proportions

of married, unmarried, divorced and widowed households

were 87.33%, 3.33%, 3% and 6.33%, respectively (Table 2).


Table 2. Household characteristics in study area.

Household characteristics

District Over all


N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%)

Educational status

Illiterate) 13(21.67) 4(6.67) 8(13.33) 26(43.33) 32(53.33) 83(27.67)

Religious school 4(6.67) 9(15) 1(1.67) 8(13.33) 8(13.33) 30(10.00)

Elementary (1-4) 2(3.33) 3(5) 4(6.67) 24(40.00) 20(33.33) 53(17.67)

Primary (5-8) 17(28.33) 20(33.33) 23(38.33) 2(3.33) 0(0.0) 62(20.67)

Secondary (9-10+2) 12(20) 23(38.33) 18(30) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 53(17.67)

Above 12(20) 1(1.67) 6(10) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 19(6.33)

X2-value 175.98**

Sex household

Female 12(20) 11(18.33) 12(20) 15(25) 14(23.33) 64(21.33)

Male 48(80) 49(81.67) 48(80) 45(75) 46(76.67) 236(78.67)

X2-value 1.07ns

Marital status

Married 49(81.67) 58(96.67) 54(86.67) 44(73.33) 57(95) 262(87.33)

Divorced 2(3.33) 1(1.67) 2(3.33) 2(3.33) 2(3.33) 9(3)

Widowed 3(5.0) 1(1.67) 4(6.67) 10(16.67) 1(1.67) 19(6.33)

Un married 6(10) 0(0.00) 0(0) 4(6.67) 0(0.00) 10(3.33)

X2-value 28.77**

*P<0.05; **P<0.01; x2 = Pearson Chi-square; N = Number of observation; ns = non significant

3.2. Composition of Livestock

Table 3. Livestockcompositionandtheir number per house hold in the study

area.

Livestock District (Means ± SE)


Cattle 7.1±0.5b 9.1±0.8a 9.2±0.6a 4.6±0.5c 5.9±0.6bc

Sheep 8.3±1.1b 15.6±1.2a 15.4±0.9a 8.4±0.7b 9.7±0.5b

Goat 1.3±0.3c 0.7±0.2c 0.2±0.1c 14.1±0.9a 12.0±0.4b

Donkey 1.8±0.2a 1.5±0.1ab 1.4±0.1ab 0.5±0.1c 1.2±0.1b

Mule 0.2±0.1bc 0.7±0.1a 0.3±0.1b 0.0±0.0c 0.1±0.1bc

Horse 1.4±0.3c 2.9±0.2a 2.2±0.2b 0.0±0.0d 0.0±0.0d

Camel 0.0±0.0b 0.0±0.0b 0.0±0.0b 2.3±0.4a 2.2±0.4a

Chicken 3.1±0.6bc 6.1±0.6a 4.0±0.5a 2.2±0.6c 3.5±0.5bc

Means with the same letter within the same row and class are not

significantly different at p (0.05); SE= standard error

The major livestock species in the study area were sheep,

goat, cattle, donkey, horse, mule, chicken and camel (Table

3). Due to the fact that this study considered only those

households who had sheep, the number of sheep per

household were higher. There is significance difference in

number of sheep per household and other livestock species

(p<0.05). The number of sheep per household was higher in

Dinsho (15.6) and Goba (15.4). In all districts of highland the

number of animal per house hold is higher for sheep followed

by cattle where as for pastoral districts the number of animal

per household were higher for goats followed by sheep. The

number of goat and camel per household in pastoral area

were higher than that of highland. This implies that the

livelihood of the society in pastoral area was mainly

depending on environmentally adapted and harsh resistant

animals like camel and goats. The numbers of sheep per

household were 8.3, 15.6, 15.4, 8.4 and 9.7 for Agarfa,

Dinsho, Goba, Sawena and Dawekechan districts,

respectively. The present result revealed that the number of

sheep per household was higher than the report of (Wossenie,

2012; Dawit, 2012; Helen et al., 2015) in eastern Hararghe

zone but lower than black head Somali sheep breed (19.19)

in Somali region (Fekerte, 2008)

3.3. Flock Size and Structure

In total, 3549 sheep of 300 household were classified

according to age and sex (Table 4). The overall mean of

sheep flock size was higher for Dinsho district except for

castrated sheep which is higher for Goba district. Male

accounted about 36.8% of the flock and majority of them

were suckling male (36.10%) and the number decrease as the

age increase. This was due to the sheep were sold at the age

of weaning for the purpose of fulfilling the home requirement.

There were significant difference between districts in sheep

flock size and structure (p<0.05). The largest number of flock

structure in the study area were matured female sheep across

all the districts. The farmers remain their ewe for breeding

purpose which accounted the greater portion of the newly

born animals, while rams are either castrated or sold when

they reach market age. The present result is in line with

(Zelealem, 2012) but in contrast with the report of (Amelaml

et al., 2015) where the largest sheep category is ram lambs

less than six month old (2.0 ±1.8) for Tocha special district

of southern region of Ethiopia.

In the study area, the ratio of male to female and the ratio

of mature male to mature female was 1:1.72 and 1:4.2,

respectively (Table 7). The ratio of breeding ram to breeding

ewes was comparable with the report of (Amelaml et al.,

2015) for Dawuro zone and konta special district sheep. In

contrast this ratio is higher than 1:6.7 for Gumuz (Solomon,

2007), 1:8.3 reported for Menz, 1:17.4 reported for Afar

sheep (Tesfaye, 2008).


Table 4. Flock size and structure in the study area.

Sheep age group Total sheep Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/k

No % Mean±SE Mean±SE Mean±SE Mean±SE Mean±SE

Suckling male lamb 471 13.27 1.4±0.2a 1.5±0.2a 1.8±0.2a 1.6±0.2a 1.6±0.2a

Suckling female lamb 444 12.5 1.3±0.3b 2.5±0.2a 1.6±0.1b 0.8±0.1c 1.2±0.1bc

Weaned male lamb 369 10.4 1.4±0.2ab 1.5±0.2a 1.7±0.2a 0.6±0.1c 1.0±0.2bc

Weaned female lamb 365 10.3 0.8±0.1bc 1.9±0.2a 1.9±0.1a 0.5±0.2c 1.0±0.2b

Matured male (> year) 342 9.6 0.6±0.1b 2.2±0.3a 2.1±02a 0.3±0.1b 0.5±0.1b

Matured female (> year) 1434 40.4 2.3±0.4c 6.3±0.6a 5.8±0.6ab 4.6±0.3b 4.9±0.3b

Castrated 124 3.5 0.2±0.1b 0.3±0.1b 1.4±0.3a 0.0±0.0b 0.0±0.0b

Means with the same letter within the same row and class are not significantly different at p (0.05); D/K=Dawekechan

3.4. Farming Activities

Farming activities for their livelihood in the study area were

presented in (Table 5). Practicing of both crop production and

livestock rearing were the main farming system in Agarfa

(93.33%), Dinsho (93.33%) and Goba (96.67%) where as

livestock rearing was the dominant farming activities in

Sawena (65%) and Dawekechan districts (73.33%). The

degrees of dependency of farming activities for income

generation and for food were mainly based on farming

practices in the study area. The result reveal that the society

mainly based on livestock rearing for cash income (65.67%)

and for food (51.67%). This implies the areas have potential

for different livestock production and the livelihoods of the

society in the study area are based on livestock production.

Table 5. Farming activities in the study area.

Farming activities Agarfa

N(%)

Dinsho

N(%)

Goba

N(%)

Sawena

N(%)

D/k

N(%)

Over all

N(%)

Livestock rearing 4(6.67) 2(3.33) - 39(65)) 44(73.33)) 89(29.67)

Crop production - 2(3.33) 2(3.33) 3(5) 1(1.67) 8(2.67)

Both 56(93.33) 56(93.33) 58(96.67) 18(30) 15(25 203(67.67)

For cash

Livestock rearing 43(71.67) 40(66.67) 16(26.67) 47(78.33) 51(85) 197(65.67)

Crop production - 10(16.67) 13(21.67) 9(15) 7(11.67) 29(9.67)

Both 17(28.33) 10(16.67) 31(51.67) 4(6.67) 2(3.33) 64(21.33)

For food

Livestock rearing 19(31.67) 22(36.67) 11(18.33) 49(81.67) 54(90) 155(51.67)

Crop production 7(11.67) 26(43.33) 9(15) 6(10) 6(10) 54(18)

Both 34(56.67) 12(20) 40(33.33) 5(8.33) - 91(30.33)

N= number of respondents

3.5. Feed Resource and Availability

Feed resources commonly used by farmers/pastoralist in

the study area across the different seasons are presented in

Table 6. The quantity and quality of available feed resources

for animals primarily depends upon the climatic and seasonal

factors (Zewdu, 2008). In this study, natural pasture, Shrubs,

Tree/branch, crop residues, Concentrate, Khat left over and

house left over are the common feed resources used.

According to the respondents in the study area, natural

pasture was the main feed source for sheep in highland where

as shrubs and tree brunch were the most dominant feed

resource in pastoral areas (Table 6). The main feed resource

during wet season (47.67%) and dry season (31.67%) was

natural pasture. The result is in line with the report of

(Amelaml et al., 2015) and (Solomon, 2007) where natural

pasture as major feed resource for sheep. There are variation

of availability of feed resource in lowland and highland

districts.

In the study area both full days grazing and grazing early

in the morning and afternoon (ware) were practiced. Herding

of sheep was the most dominant grazing method both in wet

season (82.67%) and dry season (58.33). This indicates that

there is no free communal land and each farmer has their

own land without releasing. Free grazing was practiced in

highlands after crops were collected and when aftermath was

available. Tethering were practice in Agarfa and Dinsho

districts because of it avoids crop damage; protect the stock

against theft, ease of protecting from predation and proper

utilization of the limited grazing land. The finding is also in

line with the report of (Amelaml et al., 2015).

Table 6. Feed resource and grazing system in the study area.

Feed source

Agarfa Dinsho Goba

WS DS WS DS WS DS

N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%)

Pasture/grass 48(80) 39(65) 33(55) 38(63.33) 26(43.33) 18(30)

Shrubs 2(3.33) - 8(13.33) - 3(5) 1(1.67)

Tree/branch - - 2(3.3) - 2(3.33) 7(11.67)

crop residues 3(5) 5(8.33) 5(8.33) 20(33.33) 5(8.33) 17(28.33)


Feed source

Agarfa Dinsho Goba

WS DS WS DS WS DS

N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%)

Concentrate 4(6.67) 8(13.33) 5(8.33) - 16(26.67) 17(28.33)

Khat left over - - - - - -

House left over 3(5) 8(13.33) 7(11.67) 2(3.33) 8(13.33) -

Length of grazing

Full day 3(5) 1(1.67) 7(11.67) 4(6.67) 26(43.33) 28(46.67)

Morning &afternoon 57(95) 59(98.33) 53(88.33) 56(93.33) 34(56.67) 32(53.33)

grazing method

Free grazing 24(40) 17(28.33) 1(1.67) 50(83.33) 5(8.33) 34(56.67)

Herding 31(51.67) 39(65) 55(91.67) 6(10) 55(91.67) 26(43.33)

paddock - - 2(3.33) - - -

tethered 5(8.33) 4(6.67) 2(3.33) 4(6.67) - -

Table 6. Continued.

Sawena D/K Over all

Feed source WS DS WS DS WS DS

N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%)

Pasture/grass 21(0.35) - 15(25) - 143(47.67) 95(31.67)

Shrubs 9(15) 20(33.33) 13(21.67) 16(26.67) 35(1.67) 37(12.33)

Tree/branch 16(26.67) 16(26.67) 22(36.67) 15(25) 42(14) 38(12.67)

crop residues - 11(18.33) 2(3.33) 13(21.67) 15(5) 66(22)

Concentrate 2(3.33) 4(6.67) 1(1.67) 4(6.67) 28(9.33) 33(11)

Khat left over 12(20) 5(8.33) 4(6.67) 7(11.67) 16(5.33) 12(4)

House left over - 4(6.67) 3(5) 4(6.67) 21(7) 18(6)

Length of grazing

Full day 17(28.33) 58(96.67) 29(48.33) 59(98.33) 82(27.33) 150(50)

Morning &afternoon 43(71.67) 2(3.33) 31(51.67) 1(1.67) 218(72.67) 150(50)

grazing method

Free grazing 12(20) 9(15) 1(1.67) 6(10) 43(14.33) 116(38.67)

Herding 48(80) 50(83.33) 59(98.33) 54(90) 248(82.67) 175(58.33)

paddock - - - - 2(0.67) -

tethered - 1(1.67) - - 7(2.33) 9(3.00)

Table 7. Herding mechanisms of sheep in the study area.

Herding District

sheep flock herded as Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/K Overall

N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%)

Together with cattle 11(18.33) 4(6.67) 32(53.33) 14(23.33) 4(6.67) 65(21.67)

Together with goat - - - 15(25) 31(51.67) 46(15.33)

Together with calve 2(3.33) - - - - 2(0.67)

Together with equine - 4(6.67) - - - 4(1.33)

All herded together 31(51.67) 26(43.33) 16(26.67) - - 63(21)

sheep is herded separately 16(26.67) 26(43.33) 12(20) 31(51.67) 21(35) 106(35.33)

sheep herded as

Male and female separate 6(10) 12(20) 9(15) 6(10) 5(8.33) 38(12.67)

lamb separate 3(5) 3(5) 0(0) 4(6.67) 3(5) 13(4.33)

All classes herded together 51(85) 45(75) 51(85) 50(83.33) 52(86.67) 249(83)

Way of herding

sheep of HH run as flock 52(86.67) 58(96.67) 46(76.67) 28(46.67) 35(58.33) 219(73)

sheep of >1HH mix together 8(13.33) 2(3.33) 14(23.33) 32(53.33) 25(41.67) 81(27)

Average no of HHMsh

2HH 6(75) 2(100) 4(28.57) 14(43.75) 4(16) 30(37)

3HH 2(25) - 10(71.43) 9(28.13) 10(40) 31(38.3)

>3HH - - - 9(28.12) 11(44) 20(24.7)

N= number of household, HHMsh=household mixed sheep

3.6. Herding

Herding system of sheep in the study area was varied from

district to district based on the types of animal they have

(Table 7). According to the report of respondents in the study

area majority of them were herd their sheep separately from

other livestock (35.33%). Within flock of sheep all classes of

sheep (male, female and male) were herded together. The

reason is that the males in the herd are used for breeding and

lambs were grazed with its mother since milk consumption is

not known in the study area. Mixing of sheep flocks of several

households was not practiced by most of the sheep owners and


they run their own flock (73%). Among household practicing

mixing of flock majority of them (38.3%) were three

household who mixed their flock of sheep. The finding was

disagreement with the report (Helen et al., 2015) of where

about 70% of mixed crop livestock and 55.6% of agro-pastoral

were practice mixing of flock of several household.

Figure 2. Grazing system in the highland district.

Figure 3. Grazing system in lowland district.

3.7. Water Source and Availability

Figure 4. Watering system in the study area.

According to response obtained from the respondent

spring water was the major water source for Agarfa (46.67%),

Dinsho (51.67%) and Goba (58.33%) district while

dam/pond water was the main water source for Sawena

(53.33%) and Dawekachen (38.33%) district (Table 8).

According to response of the respondent, most of the ponds


were old and less emphasis were given for it. In these area

ponds were serves both for human drinking and livestock.

Majority of sheep in the study area were watered with

frequency of once a day (35.67%) followed by once in two

days (28.67%). Quality water is one factor of sheep

production which is related to healthy of sheep. Majority of

the water in the study area was mixed with soil/muddy both

during wet season (47.6%) and dry season (33.33%).

Table 8. Water source and watering system in the study area.

Water source Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/K Overall

N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%)

Bore hole 0(0) 7(11.67) 1(1.67) 1(1.67) 10(16.67) 19(6.33)

Dam/pond - 5(8.33) 4(6.67) 32(53.33) 23(38.33) 64(21.33)

River 20(33.33) 16(26.67) 18(30) 2(3.33) 6(10) 62(20.67)

Spring 28(46.67) 31(51.67) 35(58.33) 8(13.33) - 102(34)

Pipe water 7(11.67) - - 16(26.67) 20(33.33) 43(14.33)

Rain water 3(5) - - - - 3(1)

Frequency of watering

Freely available 4(6.67) 14(23.33) 6(10) 36(60) 14(23.33) 74(24.67)

Once a day 29(48.33) 21(35) 48(80) 3(5) 6(10) 107(35.67)

Once in 2 day 27(45) 15(25) 6(10) 11(18.33) 27(45) 86(28.67)

Once in 3 day - 10(16.67) 2(3.33) 10(16.67) 13(5) 35(11.67)

Water quality

Wet season

Clean 14(23.33) 22(36.67) 40(66.67) 16(26.67) 14(23.33) 106(35.33)

Muddy 46(76.67) 15(25) 20(33.33) 29(48.33) 33(55) 143(47.6)

Salty - 19(31.67) - 12(20) 8(13.33) 39(13)

Smelly - 4(6.67) - 3(5) 5(8.33) 12(4)

Dry season

Clean 20(33.33) 18(30) 56(93.33) 37(61.67) 1(1.67) 132(44)

Muddy 32(53.33) 18(30) - 6(10) 44(73.33) 100(33.33)

Salty 5(8.33) 24(40) 4(6.67) 12(20) 7(11.67) 52(17.33)

Smelly 3(5) - - 4(6.67) 7(11.67) 14(4.67)

3.8. Sheep Housing Systems

Good housing can determine productivity by reducing

stress, disease hazards and making management easier. In the

study area, sheep are housed in different ways (Table 9).

Majority of household in highland were housed their sheep in

separate house with roof while in pastoral district kraal

without roof was the dominant types of housing system. The

types of house and housing material were based on the

availability of local material and to fit with the existing

environmental condition. Since in highland the climate

condition is cold they make house for their sheep to protect

from it. But, in lowland no need of upper cover of house

(roof) and the wall is also air proof type (no need of warm

condition). The report of (Helen et al., 2015) also

inconvenient with the present finding where in pastoral and

agro pastoral production system kraal without roof is the

dominant sheep house. Majority of farmers in Agarfa

(71.17%), Dinsho (93.33%) and Goba (61.67%) were housed

the lambs with adult. This may be one cause of lamb

mortality since lambs are susceptible to disease and poor

management. Majority of the respondent were not housed

their sheep with cattle (98.67%). Across all studied district

house cleaning were not practiced. Due attention must be

given for these issue because poor housing and unclean

house may cause occurrence of disease further reduction of

production and productivity.

Table 9. Housing and housing materials for sheep in the study area.

Types of house

District

Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/K Overall

N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%)

Family house - 5(8.33) 4(6.67) - - 9(3)

Separate house 48(80) 47(78.33) 41(68.33) 2(3.33) - 138(46)

Veranda 7(11.67) 8(13.33) 15(8.33) - - 30(10)

Kraal - - - 28(46.67) 51(85) 79(26.33)

Open Yard 5(8.33) - - 30(50) 9(15) 44(36.67)

lamb housed with adult

Yes 43(71.17) 56(93.33) 37(61.67) - 2(3.33) 138(46)

No 17(28.33) 4(6.67) 23(38.33) 60(100) 58(96.67) 162(54)

sheep housed with cattle

Yes 3(5) - - - 1(1.67) 4(1.33)

No 57(95) 60(100) 60(100) 60(100) 59(98.33) 296(98.67)

N= number of respondents


3.9. Purposes of Keeping Sheep in the Study

Area

The purpose of keeping sheep by farmers/pastoralist in the

study areas is presented in Table 10. Knowledge of reasons

for keeping animals is a prerequisite for deriving operational

breeding goals (Jaitner, et al., 2001). The primary purpose of

keeping sheep in Agarfa, Dinsho, Goba, Sawena and D/K

was reported for cash income with an index value of 0.39,

0.42, 0.39, 0.38, 0.37 and 0.39, respectively and followed by

as source of meat with index of 0.29, 0.26 and 0.21 for Goba,

Sawena and Dawekachen, respectively. But in Agrfa and

Dinsho insurance ranked second with index of 0.34 and 0.41,

respectively. The finding is agreement with the report of

(Amelaml, 2015) where the primary purpose of keeping

sheep by farmer was as income generation. In the entire

district farmers reported that female sheep are not used for

milk production purpose as home consumption rather milk is

used for lambs which are agreement with the report of

(Markos, 2006).

Table 10. Purpose of sheep keeping in each district and ranking of these

purpose.

Purpose Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/K Overall

I I I I I I

Meat 0.16 0.14 0.29 0.26 0.21 0.21

Milk 0.01 0.0 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01

Cash 0.39 0.42 0.39 0.38 0.37 0.39

Skin 0.02 0.0 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.02

Manure 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.02

Wealth 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.09 0.08 0.06

insurance 0.34 0.41 0.24 0.11 0.11 0.24

tail fat 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.14 0.05

I= index; Index = sum of (3 for rank 1 + 2 for rank 2 +1 for rank 3) given for

an individual reason (attribute) divided by the sum of sum of (3 for rank 1 +

2 for rank 2+1 for rank 3) for overall reason.

3.10. Selection Criteria for Breeding Rams

In the study area about (70.33%) of respondents select

male sheep (Table 11). Appearance is selected in all of the

study area as the first criteria of selection. Better sexual

ability and growth rate was considered as second criteria of

selection in Agarfa and Dinsho with selection index of 035

and 0.33, respectively. Color was the second criteria of ram

selection in Goba, Sawena and D/K with index value of 0.2,

0.28 and 0.37, respectively.

Table 11. Selection criteria for breeding Rams in the study area.

Criteria

District

Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/K

I I I I I

Appearance 0.36 0.34 0.53 0.41 0.40

Color 0.02 0.09 0.20 0.28 0.37

Character 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.06

Growth 0.09 0.33 0.12 0.04 0.02

Prolificacy 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.00

Testicular characteristics 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.07

Better sexual ability 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.05

Pedigre 0.09 0.14 0.00 0.07 0.01

Criteria

District

Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/K

I I I I I

wool 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02

tail type 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

I= index = sum of (3 for rank 1 + 2 for rank 2 +1 for rank 3) given for an

individual criteria (attribute) divided by the sum of sum of (3 for rank 1 + 2

for rank 2+1 for rank 3) for overall criteria.

3.11. Selection Criteria for Breeding Ewes

In the study are about (86.33%) respondents select female

sheep (Table 12). Appearance is selected in all of the study area

as the first criteria of selection. Family history is considered as

second criteria of selecting breeding ewes in Agarfa and Dinsho

with index value of 0.34 and 0.13, respectively while color is

considered as second criteria of election in Goba, Sawena and

D/K district with index value of 0.30, 0.24 and 0.26, respectively.

Selection criteria for rams and ewes were parallel across all the

districts. The selection criteria of the traits are more subjective.

The finding of (Tabbaa and R. Al-Atiyat, 2009) revealed that

farmers in Jordan are using more subjective than objective

selection criteria.

Selection by farmers implies that they try to maintain good

performing animals and cull the inferior ones, but the

selected does are not necessarily mated with selected rams as

they are freely roaming and grazing together with other

flocks, which make mating uncontrolled. Most of the farmers

were based on economical and adaptive trait as selection

criteria.

Table 12. Selection criteria for breeding Ewes in the study area.

Criteria Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/K

I I I I I

Size/appearance 0.48 0.38 0.36 0.37 0.44

Color 0.07 0.13 0.30 0.24 0.26

Mothering ability 0.12 0.12 0.02 0.05 0.05

lamb survival 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.02

lamb growth 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00

Short lambing interval 0.00 0.12 0.11 0.01 0.00

Twining ability 0.00 0.03 0.13 0.00 0.00

Better milk yield 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.20 0.17

Family history 0.34 0.13 0.00 0.10 0.07

I= index; Index = sum of (3 for rank 1 + 2 for rank 2 +1 for rank 3) given for

an individual criteria (attribute) divided by the sum of sum of (3 for rank 1 +

2 for rank 2+1 for rank 3) for overall criteria;

3.12. Breeding System in the Study Area

In the study area, about 57% of the respondents have their

own ram (Table 13). Among household having their own ram,

the main source of their breeding ram was born in the flock

(83.04%) followed by purchased from the market (15.78%).

The main reason of keeping breeding ram in the flock is for

the purpose of mating (81.87%). Across all the districts, there

is shortage or absence of breeding rams in the flock. The

main reason for the decline of breeding ram in the flock was

farmers/pastoralist sold male sheep in the early age and lack


of awareness about the role of ram in the flock. They use

neighboring rams (49.61%) and at communal grazing

(41.86%) to breed their ewes. The main identification

methods of sheep flock in the study area was through

observation (32.67%) followed by color of sheep (27.67%).

Natural mating with selective ram was practiced in Agarfa

(93.33%), Dinsho (53.33%) and Goba (55%) (Table 14). In

Sawena and D/K district the main mating system was natural

mating with nonselective ram. The main reason of un

controlled mating was sheep graze together (43%) followed

by lack of awareness about lack of inbreeding (33.7%).

Table 13. Ram management and its selection practices in the study area.

Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/K Overall

Parameters N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%)

Do you have breeding ram

Yes 35(58) 44(73.3) 43(71.7) 28(46.7) 21(35) 171(57)

No 25(42) 16(26.7) 17(28.3) 32(53.3) 39(65) 129(43)

Source of breeding ram

Born in the flock 28(80) 34(77.27) 39(90.67) 23(82.14) 18(85.71) 142(83.04)

Purchased from market 7(20) 10(22.72) 4(9.33) 3(10.71) 3(14.28) 27(15.78)

Gift from relatives - - - 2(7.14) - 2(1.17)

Purpose of keeping breeding ram

Mating 26(74.28) 34(77.27) 39(90.69) 23(82.14) 18(85.71) 140(81.87)

Social culture 9(25.71) 10(22.73) 4(9.30) 3(10.71) 3(14.28) 29(16.95)

For fattening - - - 2(7.14) - 2(1.17)

If didn’t have ram, how do you mate

Neighbor ram 13(52) 8(50) 5(29.41) 20(62.5) 18(46.15) 64(49.61)

Communal grazing 12(48) 8(50) 8(47.05) 8(25) 18(46.15) 54(41.86)

Unknown - - 4(23.53) 4(12.5) 3(7.69) 11(8.5)

Do you practice selection of (M)

Yes 43(71.67) 31(51.67) 29(48.33) 52(86.67) 56(93.33) 211(70.33)

No 17(28.33) 29(48.33) 31(51.67) 8(13.33) 4(6.67) 89(29.67)

Do you practice selection of (F)

Yes 57(95) 52(86.67) 53(88.33) 53(88.33) 44(73.33) 259(86.33)

No 3(5) 8(13.33) 7(11.67) 7(11.67) 16(26.67) 41(13.67)

Identification mechanisms

color of sheep 31(51.67) - 24(40) 25(41.67) 3(5) 83(27.67)

Individual characteristics 6(10) 60(100) - 4(6.67) 2(3.33) 72(24)

Unique marks on the sheep 16(26.67) - - - 20(33.33) 36(12)

By observation 7(11.67) - 25(41.67) 31(51.67) 35(58.33) 98(32.67)

by counting - - 11(18.33) - - 11(18.33)

M= male; F= female

3.13. Effective Population Size and Rate of

Inbreeding

In this study the small number of breeding ram per

household is believed to increase the level of inbreeding

(Table 14). Homogeneous sheep breed can be the result of

the effect of inbreeding where increased level of inbreeding

and decreased genetic diversity may be the result of the

utilization of breeding ram/s born with in the flock, small

flock’s size, random mating and lack of awareness about

inbreeding. In this study the small number of breeding ram

per household is believed to increase the level of inbreeding.

The effective population size (Ne) and the rate of

inbreeding coefficient (∆F) calculated for sheep types in the

study area are presented in Table 15. When sheep flock of a

household were not mixed, ∆F for sheep in Agarfa, Dinsho,

Goba, Sawena and D/K were 0.26, 0.07, 0.08, 0.44 and 0.27,

respectively. The value was higher than the maximum

acceptable level of 0.063 (Armstrong, 2006). Report

showed lower ∆F of 0.079 for Menz and 0.2 for Afar sheep

than the result for Agarfa, Sawena and D/K District

(Tesfaye, 2008).

Table 14. Effectivepopulation sizeandrate ofinbreeding of sheep flock in the

study area.

District When flocks are not mixed

Nm Nf Ne ∆F

Agrfa 0.6 2.3 1.90 0.26

Dinsho 2.2 6.3 6.52 0.07

Goba 2.1 5.8 6.17 0.08

Sawena 0.3 4.6 1.13 0.44

D/K 0.5 4.9 1.81 0.27

Mean 1.14 4.78 3.51 0.14

Nm= number of male; Nf = number of female; Ne= effective population size;

∆F=rate of inbreeding

3.14. Major Breeding Problems

Major breeding problems of the study area are presented in

(Table 15). In the study area, breeding problems are

frequently observed. Across all the district abortion is the

main breeding constraints followed by lamb mortality in

Agarfa, Dinsho and Goba district with index values of 0.23,


0.24 and 0.16, respectively and repeat breeding is the second

rank in sawena and Dawekechan district with index value of

0.22 and 0.20, respectively. The main reason of abortion of

sheep in the study area was related with the disease and feed

related factors. Lamb mortality was related with feed

shortage and frequent occurrence of disease.

Table 15. Effectivepopulation sizeandrate ofinbreeding of sheep flock in the

study area.

District When flocks are not mixed

Nm Nf Ne ∆F

Agrfa 0.6 2.3 1.90 0.26

Dinsho 2.2 6.3 6.52 0.07

Goba 2.1 5.8 6.17 0.08

Sawena 0.3 4.6 1.13 0.44

D/K 0.5 4.9 1.81 0.27

Mean 1.14 4.78 3.51 0.14

Nm= number of male; Nf = number of female; Ne= effective population size;

∆F=rate of inbreeding

3.15. Major Constraints of Sheep Production

Identifying the constraints of sheep production is a base to

solve the problem and to improve sheep genetic resource and

sheep productivity. Thus, major constraints challenging

sheep production in the study area are presented in (Table 16).

Disease prevalence, feed shortage and lack of good genotype

were considered as the most important constraints limiting

sheep production in the study area with index value of 0.28,

0.19 and 0.18, respectively (Table 16). This is agreement

with the finding of where feed shortage and disease are the

most constraints of sheep production in Ethiopia Amelaml et

al., 2015; Helen et al., 2015).

Table 16. Major Constraints of sheep Production.

Agarfa Dinsh Goba Sawena D/K Overll

Criteria I I I I I I

Genotype 0.36 0.27 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.18

Feed shortage 0.17 0.29 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.19

Water shortage 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.23 0.14 0.08

Disease 0.21 0.20 0.38 0.27 0.34 0.28

Drought 0.21 0.16 0.06 0.10 0.09 0.11

Market 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.04

Predator 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.23 0.09

I = Index; Index = sum of (3X constraint ranked first+2X constraint ranked

second+1X constraint ranked third) given for each districts divided by sum

of (3 X constraint ranked first +2 X constraint ranked second+1X constraint

ranked third) for all district.

4. Conclusion

Planning of any breeding program including community

based breeding strategy and /or breed improvement scheme

needs the identification of genotypic and phenotypic traits of

the particular sheep breed and also to know the genetic

ability of that breed and the production environment that can

influence productivity of the animal. The study was

conducted in Bale zone oromia regional state of Ethiopia.

Even though the study areas are rich in livestock resources

including small ruminants, nothing has been done to

characterize, identify and document the existing indigenous

sheep types and its production system.

One of the main conclusions to be drawn from this

study is that the sheep plays a significant role for farmers

and pastoralist in the study area as income generation,

meat and insurance throughout the years. But, livestock

production system in the study area in general and sheep

production in particular was more of extensive production

system which constrained by disease occurrence, feed

shortage, water problems, poor of veterinary service and

less focus on breed and breeding system to improve

productivity of sheep. The results further reveal that

though dealing with animals from different districts, the

farmers have relatively similar production and breeding

objectives. Therefore, this finding was put baseline for

understanding about production and breeding practices of

sheep as first step in designing a sustainable breeding

programme in the study area.

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank MaddaWalabu University for

allowing and funding budget to undertake the research

activities. Special appreciation and thanks goes to the

farmers/pastoralists of Agarfa, Dinsho, Goba, Sawena and

Dawekechan districts of Bale zone for their time devotion

and providing necessary data.

References

[1] Amelaml Alemayehu, Yoseph Mekasha, Solomon Abegaz and Adisu Jimma (2015). Description of Sheep Production System, Husbandry Practices and Assessment of Major Constraint in Dawuro Zone and Konta Special Wereda of South Region of Ethiopia. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research: Agriculture and Veterinary 15 (6).

[2] Armstrong, J. B., 2006. Inbreeding: Why we will not do it? Accessed on September 15, 2008 from http://www.parispoodles.com/Inbreeding.html.

[3] Belete Asefa, 2013. On Farm Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Goat Types and Their Production System In Bale Zone Of Oromia Region, Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Haramaya University Pp 116.

[4] Central Statistics Authority (CSA) (2010). Agricultural sample survey, 2009/10 (2002 E. C). Volume II, report on livestock and livestock characteristics. Statistical bulletin, 331, March 2010, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

[5] Dawit Abate, Teklu Wegi, SisayBelete, Sultan Usman, and W. Jane (2012). Characterization of the farming and livestock production systems and potentials of feed based interventions for improving livestock productivity in sinana district, Bale highland, Ethiopia. FEAST (feed assessment tools) report (unpublished).

[6] Fekerte Firew, 2008. On-farm characterization of Black head Somali sheep breed and its production system in Shinile and Erer districts of Shinile zone. An M.Sc Thesis presented to the school of Graduate Studies of Hramaya University of Agriculture, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia.


[7] Helen Nigussie, Yoseph Mekasha, Solomon Abegaz, Kefelegn Kebede, Sanjoy Kumar Pale, 2015. Indigenous Sheep Production System in Eastern Ethiopia: Implications for Genetic Improvement And Sustainable Use. American Scientific Research Journal For Engineering, Technology, And Sciences (Asrjets) Vol. 11, No 1.

[8] Jaitner, J., Sowe, J., Secka-Njie, E., Dempfle, L (2001). Ownership pattern and management practices of small ruminants in The Gambia implications for a breeding programme. Small Ruminant Research vol. 40

[9] Kosgey, I. S., and A. M. Okeyo (2007). Genetic improvement of small ruminants in low-input, smallholder production systems: Technical and infrastructural issues. Small Rumin. Res. vol. 70.

[10] Markos, T. 2006. Productivity and health of indigenous sheep breeds and crossbreds in the central Ethiopia highlands. PhD dissertation. Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Science (SLU), Uppsala, Sweden. 74 pp.

[11] Mulata Hayelom, 2013. Management Practice and Constraints of Sheep Production in Southern, South Eastern and Eastern Zones of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. World Journal of Animal Science Research. 1 (1).

[12] Niftalem Dibissa, 1990. On-farm study of reproductive and growth performance of the Menz sheep in DebreBerhan-Ethiopia. An M.Sc. Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University of Agriculture, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia. 93p.

[13] Solomon Abegaz, 2007. In situ characterization of Gumuz sheep under farmers’ management in north western lowland of Amhara region. An M.Sc Thesis presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia. 32p.

[14] Solomon Gizaw, Sisay Lemma, H. Komen and J. A, M. van Arendonk, 2007. Estimates of genetic parameters and genetic trends for live weight and fleece traits in Menzsheep. Small Rumin. Res. Vol. 70.

[15] Statistical Analysis System (SAS 2003). SAS for windows, Release 9.1. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.

[16] Tabbaa, M. J., R. Al-Atiyat (2009). Breeding objectives, selection crite-ria and factors influencing them for goat breeds inJordan. Small Ruminant Research vol. 84.

[17] Tesfaye Get chew, 2008. Characterization of Menz and Afar indigenous sheep breeds of smallholders for designing community-based breeding strategies in Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis. Haramya University. 134. pp.

[18] Tesfaye G, Haile A, Tibbo M, Sharma A K, Sölkner J and Wurzinger M, (2010). Herd management and breeding practices of sheep owners in a mixed crop-livestock and a pastoral system of Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 5, No. 8.

[19] Workneh Ayalew and J. Rowlands (2004). Design, execution and analysis of the livestock breed survey in Oromiya Regional State, Ethiopia. OADB (Oromiya Agricultural Development Bureau), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.

[20] Workneh Ayalew, Ephrem Getahun, Markos Tibbo, Yetnayet Mammoand J. E. O. Rege. 2004. Current State of Knowledge on Characterisation of Farm Animal Genetic Resources in Ethiopia. Proceedings of the 11th Annual conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production, Pp: 1-22.

[21] Wossenie Shibabaw, 2012. On-Farm Phenotypic Characterization of Hararghe Highland Sheep and their Production Practices in Eastern Hararghe Zone, Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Haramaya University. Pp 140

[22] Zelealem Tesfaye Gebretsadik, aAnal, A. K. & Gebregzabiher Gebreyohanis (2012). Assessment of the sheep production system of northern Ethiopia in relation to sustainable productivity and sheep meat quality. International journal of advanced biological research. vol. 2, No. 2.

[23] Zewdu Edea., 2008. Characterization of Bonga and Horro indigenous sheep breeds of smallholders for designing community-based breeding strategies in Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis. Haramya University. 124pp.

assessment of indigenous sheep production systems in bale zone, oromia regional state...

Documents