Abstract
The purpose of this research was to generate organized information on breeding objectives, breeding practices and choice criteria of farmers in Farta, Lay Gayint and Sekela districts. A sum of 180 households was selected to survey questionnaires in selected districts, Semi structured questioner and group discussions were used as information sources. The average separation of the Statistical Analysis System was used to analyze the flock size and structure in the three districts. An index was calculated to supply an overall ranking of categorical variables. The average flock per house holding the study districts was 8.8±0.05 heads. For source of income (0.45), home use (0.28), saving (0.20), and manure (0.04) were the reasons of sheep keeping. The uncontrolled mating system was practiced by most (72.6 %) of households. In the study districts 37.7 % of farmers received their own breeding rams while the rest farmers shared with their neighbors. Appearance (0.38), growth rate (0.34), color (0.13), pedigree (0.10) and tail type and size (0.10) were the sheep owner’s standards for breeding ram, while the appearance (0.29), coat color (0.18), lamb growth (0.17), lambing interval (0.12), age at first lambing (0.09) and lamb survival (0.08) where the farmers' selection criteria for breeding ewes. Going through a breed improvement program considering the farmers’ production objectives and existing breeding practices is important. Nevertheless, designing alternative breeding strategies to key out the optimal number of traits to be considered and size of flocks to be mixed is crucial before setting up a breeding plan.
Keywords: Breeding practice, Breeding objective, Farta sheep, Flock structure, Selection criteria, Washera sheep.
Received: 13 June 2019 / Revised: 18 July 2019 / Accepted: 20 August 2019/ Published: 8 October 2019
Contribution/ Originality
This study is one of very few works which have investigated to evaluate the existing breeding practice and choice criteria of sheep farmers’ in Ethiopia. This inquiry is important to design breeding strategies for improvement breeding practices and choice of traits chosen by farmers in the study districts.
1. INTRODUCTION
In developing countries, livestock production is mostly subsistence oriented and fulfills numerous capacities that contribute more to food security (Roessler et al., 2008; Duguma et al., 2010).The small ruminants account for 40% of cash income earned by farmers, 19% of the total value of subsistence food derived from all livestock production and 25% of total domestic meat consumption (Hirpa and Abebe, 2008). Sheep have multipurpose function and contribute to the livelihood of a large number of small and marginal farmers (Tefera and Jabarin, 2006; Thiruvenkadan et al., 2009). Smallholder sheep productions are the major source of food security serving a diverse role, including cash income, savings, fertilizer, socio-cultural functions and fiber yield. Sheep are especially significant for farmers in the subalpine highlands and pastoralist and agro-pastoralist where crop production is unreliable. The highland area of smallholder sheep production systems characterized by erratic and unevenly distributed rainfall, recurrent drought and scarcity in livestock feeds and feed that is poor in quality (Solomon et al., 2008). In those production environments the role of sheep in supporting the livelihood of smallholder farmers is increasing due to recurrent crop failure (Yeheyis et al., 2004; Tibbo, 2006).
Ethiopian sheep are classified based on their morphological characteristics and geographic distribution into 14 sheep types/population (Gizaw, 2008). Locally available breeds of livestock are important economic resources since they adapt to the existing production constraints such as feed shortages, prevalent diseases, etc. According to CSA (2017) there are about 30 million numbers of sheep populations in Ethiopia of which about 27.16 % Males and 72.84 % Females. Within the country almost all (99.85 %) of the sheep breeds are local breeds. Compared to temperate breeds indigenous breeds productivity is low, but their ability to survive and produce in the harsh and mostly unpredicted tropical environment is remarkable (Awgichew, 2000). In malice of the large population of sheep and the great part of sheep both to the lively hood of resource-poor farmers and the national economy at large; the current level of on farm productivity in the smallholder production system is down. The country sheep production and productivity is constrained by feed shortages, diseases, poor infrastructure, lack of market information and technical capacity, and an absence of planned breeding programs and breeding policies (Gizaw et al., 2013).
Existing breeds are adapted to the existing environmental condition which is characterized by feed shortage and disease challenge (Gizaw, 2008). Environmental pressure also maintains a wide range of genotypes, each adapted to a specific set of circumstances (Getachew et al., 2010). Despite the role sheep play in the economic system, sustainable improvement programs targeting the species have been lacking. The development of relevant breeding objectives and breeding strategies for livestock in general and sheep in particular for smallholder and pastoral production systems has been noted as an issue that has received little attention in the tropics (Kosgey, 2004). The sheep have multipurpose role like a source of income, meat, skin, manure and coarse wool or long hairy fleece, means of risk avoidance during crop failure and their role in different cultural functions during thefestival is well documented (Kosgey et al., 2008). Indigenous knowledge of animal breeding practices and techniques is important to develop sustainable genetic improvement schemes under smallholder situations. Lack of such knowledge leads to the setting up of unrealistic breeding goals in the design of livestock genetic improvement programs and the consequence of which can put in danger the conservation of indigenous animal genetic resources (Wuletaw et al., 2006). The farmers’ decision on selection criteria could be affected by breeds, production system and herd size (Thiruvenkadan et al., 2009).
Table-1. Description of the study districts.
Features |
Farta |
Lay Gayint |
Sekela |
Attitude (m) |
1920-4135 |
1300-3500 |
2000 – 3535 |
Temperature (oC) |
9-25o |
9 - 19o |
11.8 - 28.4o |
Rainfall (mm) |
900-1099 |
600-1100 |
1000-2000 |
Human population |
232,181 |
206,499 |
138,691 |
Animal population |
|||
Sheep |
113,978 |
88,836 |
90,532 |
Goat |
51556 |
48758 |
11,089 |
Agro-ecology |
|||
Frost (%) |
1.5 |
2.7 |
- |
Mountain (%) |
42.5 |
45.4 |
65.0 |
Midland (%) |
56.0 |
39.4 |
35.0 |
Low land (%) |
- |
12.5 |
- |
Longitude |
37o 31’-38o 19’ |
38o 12’-38o 19’ |
37o 00’0.00” |
Latitude |
11o 32’-12o 03’ |
11o 32’-12o 16’ |
11o 09’60.00” |
Previous study has identified breeding objective and breeding practices associated with the raring of indigenous sheep in Ethiopia (Getachew et al., 2011; Zewudu et al., 2012). Nevertheless, the information is limited about breeding objective and practices, trait preferences, and selection criteria of sheep improvement in the study area. Therefore, this study was important to identifying existed breeding objectives, practice and selection criteria of smallholder farmers in Farta, Lay Gayint, and Sekela districts.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Study Area Description
Description of the study districts is represented in Table 1 and Figure 1. The study was conducted in Farta and Lay Gayint districts in South Gondar Zone and Sekela district in West Gojjam Zone of Amhara Region, Ethiopia.
Figure-1. Map of the study districts.
2.2. Site Selection and Sampling Techniques
Discussions were carried with the Zone agriculture bureau livestock experts before deciding on the survey areas to know in which district sheep population was concentrated. Based on their sheep potential and accessibility the three districts were selected purposely. Purposive sampling was too applied to ‘kebeles’ considering sheep population and accessibility. So, three rural kebeles for each district (a sum of nine Kebeles) were chosen for the survey. A total 180 (60 from each district 20 from each kebeles) respondents were selected by simple random sampling.
2.3. Data Collection Methods
Both primary and secondary information sources were collected and used in this study. From the respective district of Agriculture offices secondary data like climatic data (temperature and rain), geographical location, and human and livestock demography were collected. Semi-structured questionnaire and group discussions were used to generate primary data. To get to the questionnaire language easily understandable by the respondents converted into the local (Amharic) language. The questionnaire was pre-examined before the start of actual study and some re-arrangement, and correction were made to make sure respondent perception. Enumerators were recruited and trained the questionnaires for the purpose administered the household, with a help of the researchers. Sheep flock size and structure, keeping sheep purpose, practices of breeding and criteria of selection were collected by trained enumerators used for breeding ewe and ram. Also, data was collected from the group discussion. The group was formed by sheep farmers, elders, local leaders, socially respected individuals, women and livestock experts. History of sheep, sheep utility pattern, the main problems of sheep production, unique characteristics of sheep production system, social laws like communal land utilization were the major point’s discussions were centered.
2.4. Data Management and Statistical Techniques
Necessary information collected from the study was coded and recorded in Microsoft Excel 97-2003. Data from focus group discussion were held back for their completed before the conclusion of each academic term. Data collected from focus group discussions were summarized and synthesized and used to better understand the household survey results. Sheep flock size and structure data were analyzed by mean separation of SAS version 9.2 (SAS, 2008). The adjusted Tukey-Kramer comparison test was applied to compare the sub factor brought a significance difference. Descriptive statistics were utilized to distinguish the results as percentages for all districts.The ranking of reasons for keeping sheep was done by Microsoft excel , the ranking being expressed as an Index = Sum of (3 x ranked first + 2 x ranked second + 1 x ranked third) given for an individual reason divided by the sum of (3 x ranked first + 2 x ranked second + 1 x ranked third) for all reasons (Kosgey, 2004). Similar indices were calculated for ranking selection criteria associated with both breeding ewes and rams.
3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Sheep Flock Size and Structure
Average sheep flock size and structure per household in the study districts is represented in Table 2. The flock owner determined the makeup of the flock on the basis of economic and management considerations. The overall average sheep flock size in the study districts was 8.8 heads. The proportion of the different classes of animals reflects the management decision of the producers which in turn is determined by their production objectives (Gizaw et al., 2010). In the flock Lay Gayint district ewe lambs and breeding rams were significantly higher in number (P< 0.05) than in Farta and Sekela districts. However, among the three districts there was no significance difference (P> 0.05) in flock size/structure, for the number of breeding ewes, lambs less than six months, ram lambs and castrated males.
Table-2. Average sheep flock size and structure per household in the study districts.
Class of sheep |
Districts |
Overall (N=180) |
||||||||||
Farta (N=60) |
Lay Gayint (N=60) |
Sekela (N=60) |
||||||||||
N |
Mean±SE |
% |
N |
Mean±SE |
% |
N |
Mean±SE |
% |
N |
Mean±SE |
% |
|
Breeding Ewes (˃ 1 yr) |
234 |
3.9±0.14 |
44.7 |
242 |
4.0±0.12 |
40.3 |
211 |
3.6±0.07 |
45.7 |
687 |
3.8±0.12 |
43.4 |
Lambs (< 0.6 yr) |
172 |
2.9±0.35 |
34.5 |
170 |
2.8±0.51 |
28.5 |
156 |
2.6±0.06 |
33.5 |
498 |
2.8±0.06 |
31.7 |
Ewe lambs (0.6-1 yr) |
37 |
0.6±0.06b |
7.4 |
78 |
1.3±0.13a |
13.0 |
34 |
0.6±0.03b |
7.7 |
149 |
0.8±0.04 |
9.4 |
Ram lambs (0.6-1 yr) |
41 |
0.7±0.08 |
8.4 |
63 |
1.0±0.12 |
10.5 |
41 |
0.7±0.08 |
8.9 |
145 |
0.8±0.05 |
9.1 |
Rams (˃ 1 yr) |
15 |
0.2±0.02b |
2.9 |
40 |
0.7±0.05a |
7.0 |
12 |
0.2±0.02b |
2.5 |
67 |
0.4±0.03 |
4.5 |
Castrated |
9 |
0.2±0.30 |
2.3 |
12 |
0.1±0.01 |
0.6 |
8 |
0.1±0.30 |
1.6 |
29 |
0.2±0.02 |
1.8 |
Total |
508 |
8.6±0.01 |
100 |
605 |
9.9±0.04 |
100 |
462 |
7.8±0.02 |
100 |
1575 |
8.8±0.05 |
100 |
a, b values with different subscript are significant at (P< 0.05) level. SE = standard error, N = Number of respondents, n= number of animals. % = Percentage values (animals by sex and age group) was calculated across class of sheep.
In this work, as likened to other age groups breeding ewes made a major share (43.4 %), followed by lambs less than 6 months (31.7 %) in all districts while the breeding ram accounted only 4.5 %.Granting to the group discussion made by farmers male sheep was sold for income generation at an early age than females indeed on the off chance that high quality rams are holding up for breeding as it were and commonly castrated at an early age for fattening or simple management. Breeding males to breeding females the proportion was 1: 4.73, 1: 4.62 and 1: 3.11 in Farta, Sekela, and Lay Joint districts, respectively. These results were comparable to the ratio of breeding males to breeding females was 1: 5.01 in Goncha Siso Enesie District reported by Getie et al. (2017). The ratio observed in this study indicates that in the flock low numbers of breeding rams are kept.
3.2. Purpose of Keeping Sheep
The aim of keeping sheep in the study areas is shown in Table 3. According to Jaitner et al. (2001) information of reasons for keeping animals could be a prerequisite for determining operational breeding objectives. Rank of purposes of keeping sheep in Farta, Lay Gayint, and Sekela districts were the comparative indeed in spite of the fact that the file esteem for each of the destinations are diverse. The role of sheep as a multipurpose animal was common to all the study districts and related to the farmers need in the long or short term. The outcome of the current study indicated that most of the farmers in all the study districts primarily sheep reared for generating income (0.45) which was utilized for purchase seed and plant food, emergency events, educational fees and for other family expenses. Having sheep for meat for home consumption (0.28) was rated second in all the study districts. Saving was the tertiary purpose of rearing sheep in the study districts.
Table-3. Purpose of keeping sheep in the Farta, Lay Gayint, and Sekela district as ranked by farmers.
Purpose of holding |
Districts |
Overall |
|||||||||||
Farta |
Lay Gayint |
Sekela |
|||||||||||
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
Index |
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
Index |
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
Index |
Index |
|
Income |
392 |
24 |
0 |
0.47 |
392 |
24 |
0 |
0.43 |
406 |
0 |
10 |
0.46 |
0.45 |
Meat |
28 |
252 |
65 |
0.28 |
21 |
252 |
75 |
0.30 |
14 |
144 |
155 |
0.27 |
0.28 |
Saving |
0 |
84 |
205 |
0.21 |
7 |
78 |
150 |
0.19 |
0 |
168 |
110 |
0.21 |
0.20 |
Manure |
0 |
0 |
56 |
0.03 |
0 |
6 |
80 |
0.05 |
0 |
42 |
30 |
0.04 |
0.04 |
Ceremony |
0 |
0 |
30 |
0.01 |
0 |
0 |
56 |
0.03 |
0 |
0 |
44 |
0.02 |
0.02 |
The Index = sum of [3 for rank 1 + 2 for rank 2 + 1 for rank 3] for giving for each cause of keeping divided by the sum divided by the sum of [3 for rank 1 + 2 for rank 2 + 1 for rank 3] for all causes of preserving in a study site.
3.3. Breeding and Herd Management
3.3.1. Breeding Ram Ownership and Mating System
Farmers breeding practice in the study area is shown in Table 4. Overall, 37.7 % of the respondents have the breeding ram in Lay Gayint (40 %), Farta (38.3 %), and Sekela (35 %) of the answerers. This result was different from 7.33% and 14% of the household were kept their own breeding males in DebreLibanos and Wuchale, respectively (Abera et al., 2014a). In contrast to this, Abera et al. (2014b) reported that above 23% and 50% native sheep keepers in Gubalafto and Habru lacked breeding rams types in North Wollo zone, And also districts in Tanqua-Abergelle (93.7%), Kola-Tembien (91.46 % ) and Adwa (86%) had their own indigenous breeding ram (Hagos et al., 2018). Whereas Sekela (65%), Farta (61.7%) and Lay Gayint (60%) sheep owners who do not have breeding ram, stated that they tend to use neighbor breeding ram or random mating with available rams at communal grazing and watering points.
Granting to the group discussion with farmers, most farmers were using free grazing, widely in seasons other than summer and the three districts, there are two ways to access rams: the most common strain is at grazing areas/ watering point where masses of related households (that normally settle in close proximity) graze together and the other is rams could be adopted and brought to the flock areas or ewes in heat may be taken two rams. The social network plays major role in sharing of breeding rams and this traditional ram sharing practice important to breed improvement in organizing of ram use groups involve the communal ram use through different arrangements including ram groups to increase breeding male to breed female ratio. This is a good chance to initiate a community based breeding program. In Farta district mating the ewe from borrowing neighbor rams 65%, communal grazing area 10% and both borrow neighbor ram and communal grazing area 25%. In Sekela district mating the ewe from borrowing neighbor ram, communal grazing area and both borrow neighbor ram and communal grazing area were 81.7%, 5%, and 13.3%, respectively. In Lay Gayint district 59 % borrow ram from neighbor, 9 % mating in communal grazing land, 14% mating in both borrowing from neighbors and in grazing land and very few owners (3.2 %) were used communally (group) rams given by the extension office.
Ram sharing tradition and herd mixing could potentially serve to downplay the risk of inbreeding and to speed up genetic improvement by increasing selection differential. These practices agreed with Abera et al. (2014a) report on Selale indigenous sheep and report on Horro and Bonga breeds (Zewdu, 2008). In the present work, in all the three districts most respondents’ answer that they were not practicing controlled breeding mating in Lay Gayint, Farta, and Sekela were 76.3 %, 73.3%, and 68.3%, respectively. Moreover, most of the respondents (84%) allow the ram to mate his daughter, mother and sister Lay Gayint, Farta and Sekela were 93%, 85.7%, and 73.3%, respectively. The pattern that allows mating within relatives can be associated with accumulation of inbreeding over time. Those in agreement with that of Getachew et al. (2010); Abera et al. (2014a) reported that the mating system of small ruminant under smallholder farmers are predominantly uncontrolled. Similarly, studies in the country reported that natural mating was a method to breed different livestock species and almost all farmers practiced this system (Menbere, 2005). Farmers in Sekela (73.3%) and Lay Gayint (66.7 %) districts claimed that they were attempting to identify the sire of the lambs by relating lambs to the color and appearance /shape of rams. Only according to the farmers in Farta 60% of the respondents try to identify the sire of lambs by observing rams during mating, this suggests that farmers practice rams selection and it is important to work breed improvements.
Table-4. Farmers breeding practice.
| Breeding and herd management | Farta |
Lay Gayint |
Sekela |
Overall |
||||
N |
% |
N |
% |
N |
% |
N |
% |
|
| Breeding ram presence | ||||||||
| Yes | 23 |
38.3 |
24 |
40.0 |
21 |
35.0 |
68 |
37.7 |
| No | 37 |
61.7 |
36 |
60.0 |
39 |
65.0 |
112 |
62.3 |
| Allow rams to mate close relatives | ||||||||
| Yes | 51 |
85.0 |
56 |
93.3 |
44 |
73.3 |
151 |
83.9 |
| No | 9 |
15.0 |
4 |
6.7 |
16 |
26.7 |
29 |
16.1 |
| Allow your ewe to mate by any ram | ||||||||
| Yes | 56 |
93.3 |
53 |
88.3 |
58 |
96.7 |
167 |
92.8 |
| No | 4 |
6.7 |
7 |
11.7 |
2 |
3.3 |
13 |
7.2 |
| Allow your ram to serve other than your ewes | ||||||||
| Yes | 47 |
78.3 |
60 |
100 |
58 |
96.7 |
165 |
91.7 |
| No | 13 |
21.7 |
- |
- |
2 |
3.3 |
15 |
8.3 |
| Identify sire of lambs | ||||||||
| Yes | 57 |
95.0 |
52 |
86.7 |
59 |
98.3 |
168 |
93.3 |
| No | 3 |
5.0 |
8 |
13.3 |
1 |
1.7 |
12 |
6.7 |
| How to identify sir of lamb | ||||||||
| Appearance and color | 17 |
28.3 |
40 |
66.7 |
44 |
73.3 |
101 |
56.1 |
| Knowing the sire during mating | 36 |
60.0 |
15 |
25.0 |
12 |
20.0 |
63 |
35.0 |
| Both | 7 |
11.7 |
5 |
8.3 |
4 |
6.7 |
16 |
8.9 |
N=number of respondents.
% = percentage.
3.4. Breeding Rams Selection Criteria
Choice standards for selecting breeding rams as ranked by farmers in the survey area is given in Table 5. The existed sheep breed is definitely the result of long-term man-made and natural choice. In the study area selection of ram for the next generation was common. The foremost measure to select breeding ram was the appearance/conformation (0.38) accompanied by growth rate (0.34) and coat color (0.13) and tail type (0.10). According to focal group discussions with farmers more preferred color is brown/ red and snowy and the preferred tail type was short fatty tail. These selection practices agreed to Zewdu (2008) report on Horro and Bonga breeds. Similarly, this result was in lined with Getachew (2008) report appearance or conformation ranked first for both Afar and Menz sheep owners with an index of 0.35 and 0.29, respectively and this result was similar with in selecting a breeding ram, appearance /conformation ranked first for both DebreLibanos and Wuchale sheep owners with an index of 0.42 and 0.311, respectively (Abera et al., 2014a). And also this result was comparable with appearance or body size was ranked first by sheep owners in Basonawerena and Angolelatera with an index of 0.32, and 0.26, respectively (Haile et al., 2015).
Table-5. Breeding rams selection criteria rank value.
Selection criteria |
Districts |
Overall |
|||||||||||
Farta |
Lay Gayint |
Sekela |
|||||||||||
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
Index |
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
Index |
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
Index |
Index |
|
Appearance/ conformation |
456 |
121 |
20 |
0.38 |
288 |
198 |
70 |
0.41 |
216 |
231 |
160 |
0.36 |
0.38 |
Tail type and size |
12 |
154 |
160 |
0.10 |
96 |
209 |
200 |
0.08 |
84 |
143 |
70 |
0.11 |
0.10 |
Horn |
0 |
0 |
40 |
0.05 |
72 |
24 |
40 |
0.06 |
0 |
10 |
9 |
0.04 |
0.05 |
Growth rate |
144 |
319 |
20 |
0.33 |
228 |
165 |
150 |
0.32 |
252 |
198 |
120 |
0.35 |
0.34 |
Adaptability |
0 |
0 |
10 |
0.03 |
0 |
0 |
20 |
0.02 |
0 |
11 |
30 |
0.05 |
0.03 |
Color type |
60 |
11 |
170 |
0.13 |
12 |
33 |
70 |
0.10 |
96 |
44 |
160 |
0.17 |
0.13 |
Character |
12 |
0 |
20 |
0.02 |
36 |
22 |
20 |
0.07 |
24 |
22 |
30 |
0.05 |
0.03 |
Pedigree |
36 |
33 |
130 |
0.12 |
0 |
22 |
20 |
0.10 |
72 |
0 |
10 |
0.09 |
0.10 |
The Index = sum of [3 for rank 1 + 2 for rank 2 + 1 for rank 3] for giving for each selection criteria divided by the sum divided by the sum of [3 for rank 1 + 2 for rank 2 + 1 for rank 3] for all selection criteria in a study site.
3.5. Castration Practice
The percent of respondents who practiced ram castration and method of castration is presented in Table 6. The ratio of respondents who practiced castration and the average age of castration different from area to area. Both Sekela and Lay Gayint 91.7 % of the respondent practiced castration. In Farta district 81.7 % of the respondent have practiced castration. Traditional method of castration is practiced by more than 50% of respondents, in Farta (66.03%) and Lay Gayint (61.7 %) districts. And 31.8 % in Sekela district used traditional castration methods. In study districts wooden material locally known as ‘Biter’ and smooth and circular waterway stone locally known as ‘Alollo’ was used for traditionally closed castration. More than 50 % of the rams in all the three study districts castration age of rams were from 1.5 up 2 years in Lay Gayint (70.7 %), Farta (64.2%) and Sekela (53.3 %). In Farta 33.9 %, in Sekela 26.6%, and in Lay Gayint 17.2 % of the respondents practiced ram castration at the age of greater than two years. These results castrated comparable with the farmers in both Watchable and Debre Libanos districts rams from 2 years to 2.5 years of age (Abera et al., 2014a). Alemayehu (2011) reported castration age of 6 months to 18 months in Konta, Mareka and Tocha districts of southern Ethiopia.
The motivation for the castration of rams across the three studied districts was mainly to improve fattening so that it can get a good price in local markets. In Sekela (70.3 %) Lay Gayint (63.3 %) and Farta (54.9 %) districts castrate rams for fattening purpose. In addition, 16.7 % in Sekela district, 15.0 % in Lay Gayint and 9.8 % in Farta district performed castration to control/breeding/ pregnancy from unwanted ram. In Farta district 33.3 % of the respondent practiced castration for both fattening and control breeding.
Most of the farmers the reasons that have not practiced castration are selling the ram at an early age in Lay Gayint 100 %, 93.1 % in Sekela and 87.5 % in Farta districts.
Table-6. Castration practices of districts.
Activities |
Districts |
Overall |
|||||||
Farta |
Lay Gayint |
Sekela |
|||||||
N |
% |
N |
% |
N |
% |
N |
% |
||
Do you practice castration |
Yes |
49 |
81.7 |
55 |
91.7 |
55 |
91.7 |
159 |
88.4 |
No |
11 |
18.3 |
5 |
8.3 |
5 |
8.3 |
21 |
16.4 |
|
Reasons of castration |
Control breeding |
5 |
9.8 |
9 |
15.0 |
9 |
16.7 |
23 |
13.8 |
Fattening |
28 |
54.9 |
38 |
63.3 |
38 |
70.3 |
104 |
52.1 |
|
Both |
17 |
33.3 |
7 |
3.3 |
2 |
3.7 |
26 |
13.4 |
|
Better temperament |
1 |
1.9 |
5 |
8.3 |
5 |
9.3 |
11 |
6.5 |
|
Age of castration |
Less than 12 months |
1 |
1.9 |
7 |
12.1 |
12 |
20.0 |
20 |
11.3 |
1-2 years |
34 |
64.2 |
41 |
70.7 |
32 |
53.3 |
107 |
62.7 |
|
1.5 to 2 years |
35 |
66.1 |
48 |
82.8 |
44 |
73.3 |
127 |
74.0 |
|
Greater than 2 years |
18 |
33.9 |
10 |
17.2 |
16 |
26.6 |
44 |
26.0 |
|
Castration methods |
Modern |
18 |
33.96 |
22 |
36.7 |
30 |
68.2 |
70 |
46.5 |
Traditional |
35 |
66.03 |
38 |
61.7 |
14 |
31.8 |
87 |
53.5 |
|
N = number of respondents.
% = Percentage
3.6. Breeding Ewe Selection Criteria
Selection criteria for selecting breeding ewes as ranked by farmers in the study districts are shown in Table 7. In the study districts, farmers had different selection criteria for female sheep as breeding ewe. The foremost measure to select breeding ewe was the appearance/size (0.29) followed by coat color (0.18) and growth rate (0.17) and lambing interval (0.12). In whole, the study districts the primary criterion was appearance/size the index was Lay Gayint (0.31), Farta (0.29) and Sekela (0.28). This result was similar with selection criteria was reported by Getachew (2008) in Menz district and farmers in Angolelatera give due attention primarily towards appearance (Index=0.33) (Haile et al., 2015). In Farta, coat color, growth rate, lambing interval, lamb survival, and age at first lambing were ranked second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth with an index of 0.18, 0.14, 0.12, 0.10 and 0.08, respectively.
Table-7. Breeding ewe selection criteria rank.
Selection Criteria |
Districts |
Overall |
|||||||||||
Farta |
Lay Gayint |
Sekela |
|||||||||||
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
Index |
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
Index |
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
Index |
Index |
|
Appearance/size |
324 |
121 |
110 |
0.29 |
386 |
66 |
80 |
0.31 |
312 |
198 |
80 |
0.28 |
0.29 |
Age at 1st lambing |
36 |
198 |
140 |
0.08 |
24 |
220 |
30 |
0.10 |
48 |
66 |
90 |
0.09 |
0.09 |
Lambing interval |
132 |
143 |
50 |
0.12 |
0 |
110 |
120 |
0.11 |
96 |
110 |
80 |
0.13 |
0.12 |
Growth rate |
108 |
121 |
50 |
0.14 |
120 |
77 |
50 |
0.15 |
132 |
143 |
140 |
0.22 |
0.17 |
Coat color |
48 |
0 |
0 |
0.18 |
0 |
33 |
70 |
0.19 |
0 |
33 |
50 |
0.16 |
0.18 |
Lamb survival |
12 |
88 |
90 |
0.10 |
24 |
11 |
10 |
0.05 |
84 |
88 |
110 |
0.08 |
0.08 |
Liter size |
60 |
0 |
30 |
0.06 |
12 |
0 |
70 |
0.04 |
12 |
0 |
20 |
0.01 |
0.03 |
History |
0 |
55 |
30 |
0.03 |
108 |
66 |
150 |
0.05 |
24 |
22 |
20 |
0.03 |
0.04 |
The Index = sum of [3 for rank 1 + 2 for rank 2 + 1 for rank 3] for giving for each selection criteria divided by the sum divided by the sum of [3 for rank 1 + 2 for rank 2 + 1 for rank 3] for all selection criteria in a study site.
Coat color, growth rate, lambing interval , age at first lambing and lamb survival and pedigree were ranked second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth with an index 0.19, 0.15, 0.11, 0.10, 0.05 and 0.05, respectively. In contrast to Farta and Lay Gayint farmers, Sekela farmers do not include coat color as secondary criterion for selecting breeding ewe. Instead growth rate (0.22), coat color (0.13) , lambing interval (0.13), age at first lambing (0.09) and lamb survival (0.08) were ranked second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth, respectively. During group discussion of Farmers in Sekela district said they do not preferred more twining rate because that decline growth rate of their lambs.
3.7. Coat Color Preferences
Farmers coat color preferences in the study districts is shown in Table 8. The discernment of a farmer for a particular coat color might be associated with socio-cultural patterns, market demand, disease tolerance, and environmental factors. Among the broad scope of colors, farmers do receive a preference only for certain types of colors. In Farta (0.36) and Lay Gayint (0.42) districts most of the communities were preferred coat colors such as solid red or light brown colors. In Sekela district the mixture of white and red/Gosem (0.51) color was more preferable followed by red (0.311) (Abegaz et al., 2005) also reported that in the East Wellega and West Shewa farmers preferred white and brown colored sheep. Black colored animals were not preferred by across the three sites, because of less demand for black sheep in the market and cultural taboo for home consumption. Almost all respondents in the study area, sheep color like black, mixed, spotted, gray and white/Jebema, were not preferred. The reported preference for coat color in this particular study is in agreement with the report of Zewdu (2008) in Adiyo Kaka and Horro communities and the report of in DebreLibanos and Wuchale districts.
Table-8. Color preferences of the study districts.
Preferred color |
Districts |
Overall |
|||||||||||
Farta |
Lay Gayint |
Sekela |
|||||||||||
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
Index |
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
Index |
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
Index |
Index |
|
White |
69 |
26 |
24 |
0.33 |
18 |
20 |
39 |
0.22 |
15 |
20 |
22 |
0.18 |
0.21 |
Red |
51 |
72 |
6 |
0.36 |
84 |
60 |
2 |
0.42 |
63 |
32 |
7 |
0.31 |
0.36 |
White and red |
60 |
22 |
30 |
0.31 |
78 |
38 |
12 |
0.36 |
112 |
46 |
11 |
0.51 |
0.39 |
The Index = sum of [3 for rank 1 + 2 for rank 2 + 1 for rank 3] for giving for each preferred color divided by the sum divided by the sum of [3 for rank 1 + 2 for rank 2 + 1 for rank 3] for all preferred colors in a study site.
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The existed sheep breeds was played multi-functional roles in this mixed crop-livestock production system. Income generation, meat production through improving growth rate, lambing interval, appearance, age at first lambing, coat colour and physical appearance were found to be the breeding objectives of farmers. Small flock size characterized by replacing sire from own flock and mating of relatives is predominant in the area. This would cause a negative consequence on the genetic improvement and increment of inbreeding. Thus, designing alternative breeding strategies to key out the optimum number of traits to be considered and size of flocks to be mixed is crucial before setting up a breeding plan.
| Funding: This research is funded by Bahir Dar University, Biotechnology Research Institute. |
| Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. |
| Contributors/Acknowledgement: The authors would like to thank the smallholder farmers to Sekela, Lay Gayint and Farta districts, local agricultural extension agents and district livestock experts for their cooperation during data collection. |
REFERENCES
Abegaz, S., G. Duguma, U. Galmessa, B. Soboqa and F. Terefe, 2005. Small ruminant production system in east wollegga and west shoa zones. Research Report, Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Bako Agricultural Research Center, Bako, Ethiopia.
Abera, B., K. Kebede and S. Gizaw, 2014a. Indigenous breeding practices and selection criteria of sheep breed in Selale area, Central Ethiopia. International Journal of Livestock Research, 4(7): 49-56.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5455/ijlr.20140423043726.
Abera, B., K. Kefelegn and G. Solomon, 2014b. Traditional husbandry practices of indigenous sheep types in Selale Area, Central Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 2(10): 188-195.
Alemayehu, A., 2011. Phenotypic characterization of indigenous sheep types of dawuro zone and konta special woreda of snnpr, Ethiopia. M.Sc.Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Haramaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia.
Awgichew, K., 2000. Comparative performance evaluation of horro and menz sheep of Ethiopia under grazing and intensive feeding conditions. PhD Dissertation. Animal Science, University of Wales, UK. pp: 173.
CSA, 2017. Federal democratic republic of Ethiopia central statistics agency, agricultural sample survey 2016/19 [2009 e.C.] volume ii report on livestock and livestock characteristics (private peasant holdings) statistical bulletin 583 addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Duguma, G., T. Mirkena, A. Haile, L. Iñiguez, A. Okeyo, M. Tibbo, B. Rischkowsky, J. Sölkner and M. Wurzinger, 2010. A participatory approach to investigate the breeding goals of livestock keepers. Participatory definitions of the purpose of breeding and implementation of community-based sheep breeding programs in Ethiopia, 7.
Getachew, T., 2008. Characterization of menz and afar indigenous sheep breeds of smallholders and pastoralists for designing community-based breeding strategies in Ethiopia. MSc Thesis in Agriculture (Animal Genetics And Breeding). Haramaya, Ethiopia: Haramaya University.
Getachew, T., S. Gizaw, S. Lemma and M. Taye, 2011. Breeding practices, growth, and carcass potential of fat-tailed Washera sheep breed in Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 43(7): 1443-1448.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-011-9874-5.
Getachew, T., A. Haile, M. Tibbo, A. Sharma, J. Souml and M. Wurzinger, 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, 5(8): 685-691.
Getie, B., K. Alemayehu and A.Z. Mekuriaw, 2017. Production system and husbandry practices of sheep under farmers’ management condition in North Western Highlands of Amhara region, Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 7(5): 88-94.
Gizaw, S., 2008. Sheep resources of Ethiopia: Genetic diversity and breeding strategy. Phd Thesis, Wageningen University, the Netherlands.
Gizaw, S., H. Komen and J.A. van Arendonk, 2010. Participatory definition of breeding objectives and selection indexes for sheep breeding in traditional systems. Livestock Science, 128(1-3): 67-74.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2009.10.016.
Gizaw, T., Z. Getachew, T. Edea, T.M. Mirkena, D. G., R. B., M. O., D. T., M. Wurzinger, J. Solkner and A. Haile, 2013. Characterization of indigenous breeding strategies of the sheep farming communities of Ethiopia: A basis for designing community-based breeding programs. ICARDA Working Paper, Aleppo, Syria. pp: 47.
Hagos, H., A. Banerjee and Y. Mummed, 2018. Indigenous breeding practices and selection criteria of sheep breed in central zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. International Journal of Livestock Production, 9(6): 151-159.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5897/ijlp2017.0425.
Haile, D., S. Gizaw and K. Kefelegn, 2015. Selection criteria and breeding practice of sheep in mixed crop livestock farming system of North Shoa, Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 5(21): 168-174.
Hirpa, A. and G. Abebe, 2008. Economic significance of sheep and goats. In: Yami, A., merkel, R.C. (Eds.), Sheep and goat production handbook for Ethiopia. Ethiopia Sheep and Goat Productivity Improvement Program (esgpip). pp: 1-4.
Jaitner, J., J. Sowe, E. Secka-Njie and L. Dempfle, 2001. Ownership pattern and management practices of small ruminants in The Gambia—implications for a breeding programme. Small Ruminant Research, 40(2): 101-108.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0921-4488(00)00221-2.
Kosgey, I., G. Rowlands, J.A. van Arendonk and R. Baker, 2008. Small ruminant production in smallholder and pastoral/extensive farming systems in Kenya. Small Ruminant Research, 77(1): 11-24.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2008.02.005.
Kosgey, I.S., 2004. Breeding objectives and breeding strategies for small ruminants in the tropics. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University.
Menbere, S., 2005. Characterization of livestock production system; A case study of yerer water shed, adaa liben district of East showa, Ethiopia. An M. Sc Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia. pp: 184.
Roessler, R., A.G. Drucker, R. Scarpa, A. Markemann, U. Lemke, L.T. Thuy and A.V. Zarate, 2008. Using choice experiments to assess smallholder farmers' preferences for pig breeding traits in different production systems in North–West Vietnam. Ecological Economics, 66(1): 184-192.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.023.
SAS, 2008. Sas/stat ® 9.2 user's guid. Cary, Nc, USA: Sas Institute Inc.
Solomon, B., S. Melaku and A. Yami, 2008. Potential use of crop residues as livestock feed resources under smallholder farmers conditions in Bale highlands of Ethiopia. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 8(1): 107-114.
Tefera, B. and A.S. Jabarin, 2006. Sheep price patterns and factors affecting price variations in the highland markets of North Shewa, Ethiopia. Jordan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2(1): 65-79.
Thiruvenkadan, A., K. Karunanithi, M. Murugan, K. Arunachalam and R. Babu, 2009. A comparative study on growth performance of crossbred and purebred mecheri sheep raised under dry land farming conditions. South African Journal of Animal Science, 39(1): 121-125.Available at: https://doi.org/10.4314/sajas.v39i1.61325.
Tibbo, M., 2006. Productivity and health of indigenous sheep breeds and crossbreds in central Ethiopian Highlands. PhD Dissertation. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Wuletaw, Z., W. Ayalew and J. Sölkner, 2006. Breeding scheme based on analysis of community breeding objectives for cattle in North-Western Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Animal Production, 6(2): 53-66.
Yeheyis, L., A. Sebsibe and G. Anteneh, 2004. On-farm evaluation of the effect of supplementing grazing menz sheep during the dry season in gerakeya woreda, North Shewa. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia In Proceedings of the 12 Annual Conference, August 12-14. pp: 371-375.
Zewdu, E., 2008. Characterization of bonga and horro indigenous sheep breeds of smallholders for designing community based breeding strategies in Ethiopia. An MSc Thesis Presented to Shool of Graduate Studies of Haramaya University, Ethiopia. pp: 81-125.
Zewudu, E., A. Haile, M. Tibbo, A. Sharma, J. Sölkner and M. Wurzinger, 2012. Sheep production systems and breeding practices of smallholders in Western and South-Western Ethiopia: Implications for designing community-based breeding strategies. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 24(7): 2012.
Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), International Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Research shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. |