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).
American Journal of Agricultural Science 2017; 4(6): 126-137 129
Table 2. Household characteristics in study area.
Household characteristics
District Over all
Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/k
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)
Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/k
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).
130 Belete Asefa et al.: Assessment of Indigenous Sheep Production Systems in Bale Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia
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)
American Journal of Agricultural Science 2017; 4(6): 126-137 131
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
132 Belete Asefa et al.: Assessment of Indigenous Sheep Production Systems in Bale Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia
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
American Journal of Agricultural Science 2017; 4(6): 126-137 133
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
134 Belete Asefa et al.: Assessment of Indigenous Sheep Production Systems in Bale Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia
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
American Journal of Agricultural Science 2017; 4(6): 126-137 135
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,
136 Belete Asefa et al.: Assessment of Indigenous Sheep Production Systems in Bale Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia
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.
American Journal of Agricultural Science 2017; 4(6): 126-137 137
[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.