Assessment of Small Ruminant Production System in Hadero Tunto

ASSESSMENT OF SMALL RUMINANT PRODUCTION SYSTEM IN HADERO TUNTO ZURIYA WOREDA IN KEMBATA TEMBARO ZONE OF SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA AND ON-FARM EVALUATION OF REPLACEMENT VALUE OF COWPEA (Vigna Unguiculata) HAY FOR CONCENTRATE MIX ON PERFORMANCE OF SHEEP FED NAPIER GRASS (Pennisetum Purpureum) AS BASAL DIET

M.SC. THESIS

MEKEYA BEDRU

HAWASSA UNIVERSITY

Collage of Agriculture

Hawassa, Ethiopia

November, 2018

MEKEYA BEDRU KEDIR

MAJOR-ADVISOR: AJEBU NURFETA (PROFESSOR, PhD)

CO-ADVISOR: ADUGNA TOLERA (PROFESSOR, PhD)

CO-ADVISOR: MELKAMU BEZABIH (PhD)

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF ANIMAL AND RANGE SCIENCES,

HAWASSA UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ANIMAL AND RANGE SCIENCES (SPECIALIZATION: ANIMAL NUTRITION)

Hawassa, Ethiopia

November, 2019 SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

Hawassa University

Advisor's Approval Sheet (Submission sheet -1)

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Assessment of Small Ruminant Production System in Hadero Tunto Zuriya Woreda in Kembata Tembaro Zone of Southern Ethiopia and On Farm Evaluation of Replacement Value of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) Hay for Concentrate Mix on Performance of Sheep Fed Napier Grass (Pennisetum purpureum) As Basal Diet” Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for The Degree of Master with Specialization in Animal Nutrition, the Graduate Program of School of Animal and Range Science, and has been carried out by Mekeya Bedru Kedir, under our supervision. Therefore, we recommended that the student has fulfilled the requirements and hence hereby can submit the thesis to the department.

Approved by Advisors:

Ajebu Nurfeta (Professor,PhD) ______

Name of major advisor Signature Date

Adugna Tolera (Professor, PhD) ______

Name of co-advisor Signature Date

Melkamu Bezabih (PhD) ______

Name of co-advisor Signature Date

DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis to my beloved parents, W/ro SERBELE BEDRU, NEJMIYA BEDRU,

ABDI BEDRU, NASIR AMEDIN, TOFIK SHEMUSEMA, and TOFIK AMAN, for nursing me with affection and love and for their dedicated partnership to ensure my success in life.

Name……………………………………… Signature………………………..

Date………………………………………….

STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR I declare that this thesis is my genuine work and all sources of materials used in the thesis have been duly acknowledged. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillments of the requirement for Msc degree at Hawassa University and is deposited at the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. I solemnly declare that this thesis is not submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree, diploma or certificate.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Request for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the materials is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.

Name……………………………………… Signature………………………..

Place: Hawassa University College of Agriculture, Hawassa, Ethiopia

Date………………………………………….

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ADF Acid detergent fiber

ADL Acid detergent lignin

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

CF Crude fiber

CP Crude Protein

CSA Central Statistical Agency

CV Coefficient of variance

DE Digestible energy

DM Dry Matter

EE Ether extract g Gram

GLM General linear model

Ha Hectare

ILRI International Livestock Research Institute

Kcal Kilo calorie

Kg Kilo gram m.a.s.l Meter above sea level

ME Metabolizable energy

MJ Mega joule

Mm millimeter

N Nitrogen

NDF Neutral detergent fiber

NFE Nitrogen free extract

NIRS Near infrared reflectance spectroscopy

OM Organic matter

P Phosphorus

RCBD Randomized complete block design

S Sulfur

SAS Statistical analysis system

SE Standard error

SEM Standard error of mean

SIMLIESA Sustainable Intensification of Maize-Legume Systems for Food

Security in Eastern and Southern Africa

SL Significance level

SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science

IVOMD In vitro organic matter digestibility

TLU Tropical livestock unit

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost the author thanks Almighty Lord for his hidden, but timely revealed genuine and planned guidance and encouragements. Earthly words cannot and will never express the internal feelings of the author in giving thanks to the lord.

This work was made possible through the coordinated efforts and willingness of many large hearted individuals. A few of them are mentioned below. My Special thanks and heartfelt appreciations goes to my major advisor, Professor Ajebu Nurfeta for spending his precious time and provided me genuine and regular advice, comments and encouragement from the beginning of research proposal writing to the very end of this manuscript preparation. I am very much indebted to my co-advisors, Professor Adugna Tolera and Dr. Melkamu Bezabih for the valuable efforts they made in my thesis work through this encouragement, sincere guidance, supervisions, useful comments and excellent cooperation starting from the research idea generation, up to the last minute of this thesis preparation. My special thanks and appreciation also goes to my ILRI supervisors and SIMLIESA project Coordinator Ato Abera Adie and Dr. Enkalkachew W/Meskel for their commitment in budgeting this thesis research as well as constructive comments, suggestions and continuous follow up and supervision of the work. I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to Interaid France teams; Mr. Getamesay Demeke for his invaluable cooperation and facilitation of the work throughout the study period with tireless communication with partner institutes; Mr. Abebe Tilahun, Mr. Tsegaye Yohanise, Mr. Niguse Anito and Mr. Gizachew

Hanisebo for their kind help and assistance from the beginning of preliminary application of the fellowship to the end of the work.

I would like to express my deepest acknowledgment to South Agricultural Research Institute for allowing me to pursuit my master study. My thanks also special for ILRI-SIMLIESA project for

viii sponsoring my thesis work with require budget and necessary facilities. My deepest gratitude also directed to Dr.Mulgeta , Dr. Daniel, Mr. Tsegaye , Mr. Mehertu, Mr. Aklilu, Mr.Ageghew Assefa and Mr. Tsegaye Tamerat for their useful cooperation and helps in the survey work and on farm

Feeding trial, farmers facilitation and data collection.

My gratitude also extends to ILRI Animal Nutrition Laboratory Teams, Mr. Yonas Asmare, Mr.

Degsew and Mr. Alemeshet Zewde for their unreserved assistance and helps during laboratory works.

My special thank goes to my fellow friends Mr. Yusuf Kedlla, Mr. Mohamed Sitot, Miss Genet

Simion, Miss Tigest Shiferaw, Mr. Melse Alemu, Mr. Billeligh Mekonen ,Mr. Melkamu Tilahun

Mr. Hailu Dukako, Mr. Shimelse Mengistu and Mr. Nenko Balie for their precious moral support and encouragement in various aspects during my study and thesis work. Finally, my deepest gratitude goes to all members of my family who offered me comprehensive moral support and treatment that enabled me succeed throughout my academic life. I owe them more than a mere expression of thanks.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Content Page

DEDICATION ...... iv STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR ...... v ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...... vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... viii LIST OF TABLES ...... xiii LIST OF FIGURES ...... xiv LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDICES ...... xv ABSTRACT ...... xvi 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 5 2.1 Population and genetic diversity of sheep and goats in Ethiopia ...... 5 2.2 Importance of sheep and goat in smallholder systems ...... 5 2.2.1 Special features of sheep and goats ...... 6 2.3 Description of smallholder sheep and goat production system ...... 7 2.3.1 Small ruminant production system ...... 8 2.4 Sheep and goat marketing system ...... 9 2.5 Major Feed Resources in Ethiopia ...... 9 2.5.1 Natural Pasture ...... 11 2.5.2 Crop residue ...... 11 2.5.3 Improved forage ...... 12 2.5.4. Agro-industrial by-products ...... 21 2.6 Influence of Nutrition on Sheep Performance ...... 25 2.6.1 Feed intake ...... 26 2.6.2 Digestibility ...... 27 2.6.3 Body weight change ...... 29 2.7 Nutrient Requirements of Sheep ...... 30 2.8 Role of Supplementation ...... 31 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 32

3.1. Description of the Study Area ...... 32 3.2. Experimental Procedures and Methods of Data Collection ...... 34 3.2.1. Survey on Small Ruminant Production System ...... 34 3.2.2. On-farm feeding and Digestibility Experiment ...... 35 3.3 Statistical Data Analysis ...... 39 3.4 Partial Budget Analysis ...... 41 4. RESULTS ...... 42 4.1Survey on small ruminant production system in the study district ...... 42 4.1.1Household characteristics ...... 42 4.1.2 Farming Characteristics ...... 43 4.1.3 Sheep and Goat Flock Size and Structure ...... 45 4.1.4 Purpose of keeping sheep and goat ...... 45 4.1.5 Sheep and goat Production and Management...... 46 4.1.6 Sheep and goat marketing ...... 56 4.1.7 Sheep and goats production and marketing constraints...... 57 4.2 On-Farm Feeding and Digestibility Experiment ...... 60 4.2.1Chemical Composition of Treatment Feeds ...... 60 4.2.2 Dry matter and Nutrient Intake ...... 61 4.2.3 Dry Matter and Nutrients Digestibility ...... 62 4.2.4 Body Weight Gain and Feed Conversion Efficiency ...... 63 4.2.5 Partial Budget Analysis ...... 65 5. DISCUSSION ...... 66 5.1 Survey on small ruminant production system in the study District...... 66 5.1.1 Household and Farming Characteristics ...... 66 5.1.2 Sheep and Goat Flock Size and Structure ...... 68 5.1.3 Sheep and goat Production and Management...... 69 5.1.4 Sheep and goat marketing and marketing constraints ...... 75 5.1.5 Sheep and goats production constraints ...... 76 5.2 On-farm Feeding and Digestibility Experiment ...... 77 5.2.1Chemical Composition of Treatment Feeds ...... 77 5.2.2 Feed and Nutrient Intake ...... 79

5.2.3 Dry Matter and Nutrients Digestibility ...... 80 5.2.4 Body Weight Gain and feed conversion efficiency ...... 82 5.2.5 Partial Budget Analysis ...... 84 6. CONCULISION AND RECOMMENDATION ...... 85 6.1 Conclusion ...... 85 6.2 Recommendations ...... 86 7. REFERENCE ...... 87 8. APPENDIX ...... 106 8.1 Appendix I: Survey Questionnaire ...... 106 8.2 Appendix II: Conversion equivalents of sub-Saharan Africa livestock into TLU ...... 117 8.3 Appendix III: Agro ecological zonation system for selecting soil and water conservation (SWC) options in Ethiopia based on field observations ...... 118 8.4 Appendix IV: Analysis of Variance ...... 120

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1: Mineral composition of Napier grass ...... 13 2: Chemical composition (g/kg DM) and digestible organic matter (g/kg DM) of Napier grass . 14 3: Chemical composition of different cow pea parts ...... 17 4: Energy and Protein Requirement of Sheep ...... 30 5: Age, sex educational level and family size of the household ...... 42 6: Major occupation and land holding ...... 44 7: Livestock holding per individual Household in the study area ...... 44 8: Sheep and goat flock structure in the study area ...... 45 9: Purposes of keeping sheep and goats...... 46 10: Major feed resources for sheep and goat in the study area ...... 46 11: Common feed supplement used for sheep and goat ...... 47 12: Reason for Tether grazing ...... 47 13: Water sources and utilization ...... 48 14: Cause of Death/loss for sheep and goat in the study area ...... 49 15: Reason for expanding sheep and goat flock ...... 50 16: Productive and Reproductive parameters of sheep and goat flocks ...... 50 17: Management practice of the flock ...... 51 18: Selection criteria of sheep and goat flock ...... 52 19: Housing of Sheep and Goats in the study area ...... 53 20: Labor allocation in sheep and goat management ...... 54 21: Mode of sheep flock entry and exit (in percent) during the last12 months ...... 55 22: Purpose of sale of sheep and goat ...... 56 23: Major constraints of sheep and goat production...... 57 24: Reason for feed shortage...... 58 25: Major sheep and goat marketing Constraints ...... 59 26: Chemical composition of experimental feeds ...... 60 27: Feed intake of Sheep fed on Napier grass and supplemented with different proportions of Cowpea hay and concentrate mix...... 61 28: Nutrient apparent digestibility % in sheep fed on Napier grass and supplemented with different proportions of Cowpea hay and Concentrates mix...... 62 29: Body weight parameters of Sheep fed on Napier grass and supplemented with different proportions of Cowpea hay and concentrate mix...... 63 30: Partial budget analysis of sheep fed on Napier grass and supplemented with different proportions of Cowpea hay and concentrate mix...... 65

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Figure 1: Map of Hadero TuntoWoreda ,KembataTembaro Zone ...... 33 Figure 2: Trend in body weight change in sheep fed on Napier grass and supplemented with different proportions of cowpea hay and concentrate mix...... 64

xiv

LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDICES

Appendix Table Page

1: Summary of ANOVA for daily DM and nutrient intake of sheep fed on Napier Grass and supplemented with different proportions of cowpea hay and concentrate mix...... 120 2: Summary of ANOVA for DM and nutrient intake during digestibility trial of sheep fed on Napier Grass and supplemented with different proportions of cowpea hay and concentrate mix...... 121 3: Summary of ANOVA for apparent digestibility of dry matter and nutrients in sheep fed on Napier Grass and supplemented with different proportions of cowpea hay and concentrate mix...... 122 4: Summary of ANOVA for body weight parameters of sheep fed on Napier Grass and supplemented with different proportions of cowpea hay and concentrate mix...... 123

Assessment of Small Ruminant Production System in Hadero Tunto Zuriya Woreda in Kembata Tembaro Zone of Southern Ethiopia and On Farm Evaluation of Replacement Value of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) Hay for Concentrate Mix on Performance of Sheep Fed Napier Grass (Pennisetum purpureum) As Basal Diet By: Mekeya Bedru (Bsc), Major Advisor: Professor Ajebu Nurfeta (PhD), Hawassa University; Co-Advisors: Professor Adugna Tolera (PhD), Hawassa University; Dr.Melkamu Bezabih (PhD), International Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa. ABSTRACT The study comprised field survey and animal feeding trial. For the field survey four representative kebeles were purposively selected from Hadero Tunto Zuriya district and 30 farmers were randomly selected from each kebele. Accordingly, 120 household heads were interviewed to assess the production and marketing system of small ruminants. On-farm feeding and digestibility trial were conducted using 24 (8-10 month old) ram lambs with mean initial body weight of 16.45± 0.19 kg to evaluate replacement value of cowpea forage for concentrate mix on performance of sheep. The treatment used were 300 g concentrate mix (T1), 200 g concentrate mix+100 g cowpea hay (T2), 100 g concentrate mix+200 g cowpea hay (T3) and 300 g cowpea hay (T4) as a supplement to a basal diet of fresh Napier grass fed ad libitum . The feeding and digestibility experiments lasted for 70 days and 7 days, respectively. The purpose of keeping sheep and goat was to generate income followed by meat production and saving. Flock production was constrained by outbreaks of disease and parasites, feed and water shortage, lack of extension support and capital. The highest (P<0.05) total dry matter (DM), organic matter (OM) and metabolizable energy intake was for T1 while the lowest (P<0.05) was for T4. The crude protein (CP) intake for T1 and T2 was greater (P<0.05) than T4 while T3 had an intermediate value. Sheep fed T2 had the highest (P<0.05) DM and OM digestibility as compared to sheep fed other treatment diets. The CP digestibility for T2 and T4 was higher (P<0.05) than that of T1. The average daily gain for T1 and T2 was greater (P<0.001) than T3 and T4. Feed conversion efficiency for T1, T2 and T3 was similar (P>0.05). Based on the marginal analysis, T3 (184.9%) was superior to other treatments. Supplementation of 100g concentrate mix and 200 g cowpea (T3) to a basal diet of Napier grass was found to be more affordable and profitable under the conditions of the current experiment. Key words: Cowpea, Napier grass, on-farm, substitution, Weight Gain

xvi

1. INTRODUCTION

Smallholder farmers predominate in developing countries and they are entirely dependent on agriculture for their livelihoods (Dixon et al., 2001). In Ethiopia, more than 80% of the human population depends on agriculture for their livelihoods (Azage, 2005) and usually keep livestock as pastoralists or in mixed crop livestock systems. Ethiopia is known as the largest livestock producer in Africa and one of the largest in the world. This livestock sector has been contributing considerable portion to the economy of the country, and is still promising to make significant contribution to the economic development of the country.

Small ruminants are widely reared in a crop-livestock farming systems and are distributed across different agro-ecological zones of Ethiopia. Sheep and goats production is an important activity for smallholders, particularly for resource poor farmers in many parts of the country. They provide a vast range of products and services such as immediate cash income, meat, milk, skin, manure, risk spreading/ management and social functions (Adane and Girma, 2008). They are also sources of foreign currency (Berhanu et al., 2006). Sheep and goats, with their higher reproductive capacity and growth rates, are ideally suited to production by resource-poor smallholders (Tibbo, 2006).

Improvement in small ruminants’ productivity can be achieved through identification of production constraints and introduction of new technologies or by refining existing practices in the system. In Ethiopia, the small ruminant production system in different agro-ecological zones is not studied fully and farmers’ needs and production constraints have not been identified (EARO,

2001a). Assessment of the small ruminants’ production system and identification and prioritization of the constraints of production is a prerequisite to bring improvement in small ruminants

‘productivity in the country. Prioritization of the production constraints is essential as it helps to

1 use the scarce resources efficiently. Understanding the production system helps to design appropriate technologies, which are compatible with the system.

Due to seasonal changes, there is serious shortage of feedstuffs that result in the fluctuation of animal production. Various factors contribute to the low feed supply to livestock. Grazing lands are decreasing in area (Alemayehu, 2005). Poor soil fertility and unreliable and seasonal rainfall limit the amount of feed obtained from these areas (EARO, 2001a).

Therefore, there is a need for an alternative feeding strategy which could alleviate livestock feed problem (Alemayehu, 2003). Supplementation with palatable feed resources, mainly agro- industrial by-products has been used in many developed countries for improving locally available nutrients of feed resources (Xianjun et al., 2012). Supplementing protein source concentrates and/or agro-industrial by products to low-quality tropical grass hay is known to improve intake and digestibility of roughages (Nurfeta, 2010).

However, the use of such protein supplements is limited under smallholder livestock production systems due to the unavailability and high cost. Consequently, there is limited prospect for using agro-industrial by product protein source supplements such as oil seed cakes as livestock feed by smallholder farmers. In order to mitigate the problems associated with the lack of protein supplements due to reasons of availability and high cost, there is a need to look for alternative protein sources such as supplementation with forage legumes that farmers can produce at their own farms (Hunegnaw, 2015). These forage legumes can improve the growth performance of young ruminant animals on fibrous diets through the provision of more nutrients and optimization of fermentative digestion in the rumen (McDonald et al., 2002). Among the forage

2 legumes, Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) could be easily grown at farmer’s levels and play an important role in supplementing diets of growing sheep.

Even though some attempts have been made by institutions involved in Research and Extension of small ruminant to improve their productivity in the country, sheep feeding is often an ignored area and little emphasis has been given to the development of sheep production through research in the past. Moreover, much of the works published have the disadvantage of having been carried out under the controlled conditions at research stations. Thus, the results may not reflect the actual situations of small-scale production systems prevailing in rural areas.

Identification and on farm evaluation of the importance of supplementing improved legume forage mix with grass (Cowpea with Napier) in a given agricultural system helps to design appropriate interventions. In general, assessment of the production system is important to plan development and research activities and bring improvements in productivity. In Hadero Tunto Zuriya district, small ruminant production and marketing systems are not studied and precisely known and constraints are not identified and prioritized. In addition, improved animal feeding practices and their biological, social and economic feasibility to be adopted by smallholder farmers have not been tested in the district. Hence, assessment of the small ruminant production and marketing systems and testing of improved feeding practices are necessary in the district in order to achieve improvements in sheep productivity. Therefore, this study was conducted with the following objectives:

• To assess the small ruminants production and marketing systems and to identify and

prioritize the constraints in Hadero Tunto Zuriya Woreda,

• To evaluate the effect of grass legume mix supplementation on feed intake, growth and

digestibility of yearling sheep,

• To estimate the economic feasibility of supplementations.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Population and genetic diversity of sheep and goats in Ethiopia

Domestic sheep (Ovis aries) and goats (Capra hiricus) are the first ruminants to be domesticated between 10,000 and 6,000 BC in Southwestern Asia (Iran and Iraq). Ethiopia has long been recognized as a gateway of genetic material from Asia to Africa, and its diverse ecology served to further diversify and develop the genotypes it received (IBC, 2004). Sheep and goats, maintained virtually under the traditional subsistence oriented management systems, constitute an important livestock component in all ecological zones and agricultural systems in the country (CACC, 2003).

In a national systematic breed survey, 11 phenotypically distinct indigenous goats (FARM Africa,

1996) and 14 sheep (IBC, 2004) populations have been identified based on a combination of their morphological appearance and management systems. Molecular characterization based on the traditionally recognized populations using microsatellite reported eight goats (Tesfaye et al., 2006) and nine sheep (Solomon, 2006) separate genetic entities or breeds in the country. Indigenous sheep and goat genetic resources have developed specific adaptations to survive and produce under adverse local environmental conditions (climatic stresses, poor quality feed, seasonal feed and water shortage, endemic disease and parasite challenge) that make them suitable for use in the traditional, low-external-input production system (IBC, 2004).

2.2 Importance of sheep and goat in smallholder systems

Sheep and goats are widely distributed and adapted to a wide range of environmental diversity

(EARO, 2000). They are of great importance as major sources of livelihood (Tembely, 1998) and contribute to the sustenance of landless, smallholder and marginal farmers (Adugna, 1998) especially to the poor in the rural areas throughout the developing countries (Devendra and Burns,

1983). Sheep and goats are very important for resource-poor smallholder systems of rural Ethiopia due to their ease of management and significant role in provision of food (protein, essential micronutrients: vitamin A, iodine, and iron) and generation of cash income (Ewnetu et al., 2006).

They serve as a living bank for many farmers, closely linked to the social and cultural life of resource poor farmers (Workneh, 2000) and provide security in bad crop years (Ehui et al. 2000).

2.2.1 Special features of sheep and goats

Sheep and goats are highly adaptable to a broad range of environments. Certain breeds of sheep and goats are tolerant to diseases and parasites such as helminthosis (Rege, 1993). Sheep and goats have short generation cycles and high reproductive rates, which lead to high production efficiency.

Goats are more effective at grazing selectively and the efficiency of converting feed into milk is higher than in other dairy animals (Winrock International, 1976 cited in Rege, 1993). In smallholder production systems, sheep and goats are important as they require low initial capital and maintenance costs, are able to use marginal land, produce milk and meat in readily usable quantities, and easily cared for by most family members including women and children (Ibrahim,

1998; Sinn et al., 1999). Small ruminants are prolific and need only short periods to increase flock sizes after catastrophes or in periods of high prices and thus off-take rate can respond to price increases (Ngategize, 1989). The small size of sheep and goats has distinct economic, managerial, and biological advantages. Low individual values mean a small initial investment and correspondingly small risk of loss by individual deaths. They occupy little housing space, lower feed requirements, and supply both meat and milk in quantities suitable for immediate family consumption, which is important in view of lack of means of preservation (Ibrahim, 1998). For similar reasons, Dinksew and Girma (2000) reported that sheep production is becoming a viable

6 alternative for urban production considered as a means to fulfill parts of home consumption and income needs during severe shortage of cash.

2.3 Description of smallholder sheep and goat production system

The performance of the livestock sector in Africa has been poor due to failure to design projects and technologies widely applicable to the problems commonly confronted (ILCA, 1990). This stemmed from failure to understand the situation of the small farmer/pastoralist. The knowledge of the factors, which influence production decisions at the farm level, has been inadequate.

Description of the production systems is useful in the design of development strategies, in particular for identifying target populations and priorities and opportunities for development

(Fernandez-Rivera et al., 2004). Attempts to improve the prevailing animal husbandry systems in the rural settings necessitate a better understanding of the components of the production systems and its operations, the present limitation, potentially feasible improvements and the opportunities to develop more productive system (Adugna, 1998). A detailed comprehensive database on traditional smallholder animal enterprises, aspects of the household, animal management and husbandry practices, the constraints to production and the interaction of animal farming with other farming activities would help to identify the major gap to be filled by research, extension and other animal development projects (Berhanu, 1998). Development strategies should be geared to address farmers’ real problems and constraints to help them expand their production and attain self- sufficiency. This, in turn, requires careful and detailed analysis and understanding of farmers’ circumstances and practices before carrying out development activity (Abebe et al., 2000). This, unlike the one size-fits-all strategy (Ehui et al., 2002), provides information on location-specific production conditions and improvement options appropriate to particular systems (Abebe et al.,

2000).

2.3.1 Small ruminant production system in Ethiopia

Livestock production system and the relative importance and potential for increased production by livestock species in varied areas differ markedly due to differences in resource endowment, climate, population, disease incidence, level of economic development, research support and government economic policies (Beets et al., 1990). In Ethiopia, sheep and goats are maintained under two broad production systems (EARO, 2000).

2.3.1.1 Mixed crop-livestock farming system

In the central highlands of Ethiopia small ruminants depend mostly on grazing fallow lands, overgrazed natural pasture and crop residues usually with no extra-supplement and receive minimum health care. Farmers maintain one to three rams (depending on the size of the flock) for year round breeding (Tembely, 1998). Productivity is low and is under nutritional stress for much of the year due to cropping intensity. Sheep carry heavy internal and external parasite burdens

(EARO, 2000).

2.3.1.2 Agro pastoral and pastoral system

Small ruminant production is associated with the purely livestock based nomadic and transhumance pastoral production systems based largely on range, primarily using natural vegetation. In the lowlands of Ethiopia, livestock is comprised of large flocks and herds of sheep and goats, cattle and camels mainly transhumant, where only surplus are sold at local markets or trekked to major consumption centers. Extensive livestock keeping is the backbone of the economies of the lowlands (EARO, 2000).

2.4 Sheep and goats marketing system

Small ruminants (i.e. sheep and goats) make a very valuable contribution to the poor in the rural areas. Their importance is indicating by various functional contributions (meat, milk, fibre, skin etc), socio-economic relevance and stability to farming systems (Rangnekar, 2006). Small ruminants contribute enormously towards promotion of livelihood security and as an insurance cover to cope with crop failures particularly for rural landless, small and marginal male /female farmers (Misra, 2005). Goat farming is also increasingly being taken up by peri urban poor population due to easy market access and as a source of nutritional security for the household (Pollot and Wilson, 2009).

An important aspect of production and its response to demand and supply is knowledge of markets and marketing systems. To shift production from subsistence to a more commercial outlook is especially important to describe and intervening aspects of marketing infrastructure and facilities, market channels and outlets, buyer preferences for live animals and their meats, major market payers, government intervention and role of the private sector (Devendra, 2007).

2.5 Major Feed Resource in Ethiopia

The major available feed resources in Ethiopia are natural pasture, crop residues, aftermath grazing, and agro-industrial by-products (Yaynshet, 2010). The current report of CSA (2015) revealed that 56, 30 and 1.2% of the total livestock feed supply of the country is derived from grazing on natural pasture, crop residues and agro industrial byproducts respectively.

However, the contribution of the natural pasture, is retreating from time to time due to poor management and continued expansion of crop farming (Solomon et al., 2003), indicating that livestock feed shortage in the country is further aggravated by the continuous conversion

9 of grazing land to crop land. The available grazing lands are also vulnerable to degradation and consequently become barren and gullies due to poor management (Zewdie andYosef, 2014).

To some extent, agro-industrial by-products and cultivated improved forage crops are also used.

However, natural pasture does not fulfill the nutritional requirement of animals, particularly in the dry season, due to poor management and inherent low productivity and poor quality

(Alemayhu, 2003).

Among feed resources, hay is forage harvested during the growing period and preserved by drying.

The aim of haymaking is to reduce the moisture contents of green crops to 15-20% to inhibit the action of plant and microbial enzymes (Banerjee, 1998). Despite its several advantages, hay has some shortcomings. It varies in nutrient content and palatability more than any other feed, late hay harvest affects its quality (Ensiminger et al., 1990). This level of CP content reduces feed intake and affects digestibility (Kidane, 1993). Feeds low in digestible protein such as mature dry native grasses require supplementation with some kind of nitrogenous feed (Devendra and Mcleroy, 1982). Natural pasture would be adequate for body maintenance and weight gain during wet season, but would not support maintenance level for the rest of the year (Zinash et al., 1995). Yihalem et al., (2006), also reported similar findings Maximum production cannot be achieved on hay alone. According to FAO (1997) annual and perennial grasses from natural pasture consumed during the dry season and often at late stage of maturity together with the straw and stalk from cereal crops constitute low quality forages, with high lignified cell wall and poor nitrogen.

2.5.1 Natural Pasture

Natural pasture is a major livestock feed resource (Solomon et al., 2008; CSA, 2015). which currently is being declining in coverage to conversion of pasture land in to crop land (Mekasha et al., 2014).the productivity of currently existing pasture land is low due to poor management and overstocking which causes fluctuation in yield and nutrient density in different season (Funte,

2010). The grazing especially of natural pasture depends on the amount of herbage biomass produced in a specific season. During dry season, the grazing capacity of a given area is low but high during rainy season. Due to deterioration of natural pasture that caused lower carrying capacity, animals are forced to forage on farm lands with minimum litter cover resulting in over degradation of land, damage of physical and biological soil and water conservation structures. This situation in turn has resulted in reduction on yield of food and crop and incurring additional cost for construction and maintenance of natural resource conservation structure every year. Degraded natural pastureland can be rehabilitated by either proper management and/or allowing it to be free from freely roaming livestock. Over and proper management, controlled grazing or cut and carry system of feeding is an option for natural pasture land to have fast and potential re growth so that sufficient forage can be harvested to be fed as fresh or to be conserved as hay ,especially in mixed farming production system.

2.5.2 Crop residue

Crop residue includes cereal and legumes residue like wheat straw, barly straw,teff straw, fabe bean straw, field pea straw and maize stover. Currently ,conversion of grazing land to crop land is increasing from time to time resulting in more biomass crop residues, which contribute about 50

% (that grow up to 80% in the months from December to April) of ruminant feed during dry season of the year and are becoming the most important feed resource covering significant amount of

11 livestock feed in the highlands of Ethiopia, especially during dry season(Adugha,2007).But

,quality and digestibility is very low with less than 50% digestibility, high fiber content(more than

70% NDF) and low crude protein(<15% CP)(Gizachew and Smit,2005)

2.5.3 Improved forage

There are a number of improved forage varsities of both grass and legume species suitable for various agro ecologies (ESGIPIP, 2008).Among these, Napier grass and cowpea forage species are widely known and distributed.

2.5.3.1 Napier grass (Pennistum purpureum)

Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum), also known as Elephant grass, is used as fodder crop. The plants tiller freely and a single clump may produce 50 tillers under favorable climatic and soil conditions. Unfortunately, the grass is coarse-textured, the leaf blade and sheaths hairy, leaf margins sharply toothed and stems less juicy and fibrous. Herbage yield of Napier grass may be affected by the harvesting day after planting. Generally, as grass ages, herbage yield is increased due to rapid increase in the tissues of the plant (Minson, 1990). Leaves of grass have been generally reported to contain more crude protein and cell contents than the stem (Reid et al., 1973). Napier

Grass has become by far the most important fodder due to its wide ecological range (from the coast to over 2,000 metres), high yield and ease of propagation and management; sometimes-herbaceous legumes or fodder shrubs are associated with the grass but their use is limited and their economics poorly documented. Napier grass, which is robust perennial forage with vigorous root system, sometimes stoloniferous with a creeping rhizome is native to eastern and central Africa and has been introduced to most tropical and sub-tropical countries. Its natural habitat is damp grassland, forest margins and riverbeds. Mature plants normally reach up to 4m in height and have up to 20 nodes (Henderson & Preston, 1977). Boonman (1997) found it growing to a height of 10m in

12 riverbeds and recorded a harvest at Kitale of 29 tones/ha DM taken in one cut on a very mature stand (more than 2 years overdue).

2.5.3.1.1 Chemical Composition, Nutritive Value and Digestibility of Napier Grass

Serra et al. (1996) contrasted the mineral composition of Napier grass with the required dietary concentrations for ruminants and concluded that it is likely to be deficient in most of the minerals considered (Table 1). Inadequate availability of macro elements such as calcium (Ca) phosphorus

(P), Sulphur (S), Potassium (K), Sodium (Na), Chlorine (Cl) and Magnesium (Mg) and a range of micro elements may lead to deficiency diseases in ruminants and may limit fiber digestion and microbial protein synthesis (Hanna & Gates, 1990). The availability of P for nucleic-acid formation and S for the synthesis of sulphur amino acids is particularly important. Calcium is closely related to P metabolism. Mineral deficiencies for Ca, P, Co, Mo, Zn and Cu have been reported in some parts of Kenya and this has been attributed to low soil fertility (Jumba et al.,

1995).

Table 1: Mineral composition of Napier grass

Minerals Ca P Mg K Cu Zn Mo Co Mn Fe (g/kg DM) (mg/kg DM) Concentration 3.5 2.0 1.7 8.0 7.1 50.4 14.4 2.0 33 40.4 Critical level 3.0 2.5 2.0 0.7 10.0 30.0 6.0 0.1 35 30.0 Source: Sierra et al. (1996)

Chemical composition of the forage is a major determinant in animal production (Minson, 1990).

As Napier grass matures, the leaf to stem ratio declines (Kariuki, 1989) causing changes in the chemical composition and a concomitant reduction in feed value (Minson, 1990). Feed quality

13 may affect voluntary feed intake and animal performance in terms of milk yield or body weight gain. Grass maturity is usually negatively related to CP content (Minson, 1990) and the results summarized by Williams & Hanna (1995) confirm this for Napier grass with the rate of decline in

CP content more rapid in stems than leaves (Brown & Chavulimu, 1985). The cell wall, composed primarily of the structural carbohydrates cellulose and hemicellulose, is the most important factor affecting forage utilization (Van Soest, 1994) as it comprises the major fraction of forage DM and its extent of degradation by the micro flora has important implications on forage digestibility and intake (Paterson et al., 1994). The cell wall content in Napier grass increases less prominently with age compared with other tropical grasses such as Kikuyu and Pangola grass (Minson & Mcleod,

1970) and ranges between 650 to 750g/kg DM, Whereas other tropical grasses showed a daily decline of 0.30 to 0.50 units of DM digestibility, Napier grass only declined by 0.20 units per day

(Reid et al., 1973) which was lower than the mean of 0.26 units per day for tropical forages

(Minson, 1990). This makes Napier an attractive feed since it can retain a given level of digestibility for a slightly longer period compared with other tropical grasses. Stobbs & Thompson

(1975) reported that OM digestibility of most tropical grasses ranged from 50 to 60%, which is consistent with observations by Minson (1990). The data summarized in Table 2 confirm this.

However, in well-fertilized fields, Chaparro & Sollenberger (1997) recorded a range of 65 to 79

% in vitro DM digestibility for dwarf Napier grass so it is important to bear in mind that climate, soil fertility, cutting interval, variety and management practices may have an important influence on chemical composition and digestibility of Napier grass.

Table 2 : Chemical composition (g/kg DM) and digestible organic matter (g/kg DM) of Napier grass

References CP NDF ADF ADL DOM Serra et al., 1996 106 668 397 18 - Devasena et al., 1993 82 714 - - 550 Abate & Abate, 1991 90 706 436 58 - Van Eys et al., 1986 119 733 441 69 505 Muinga et al., 1993 72 - - - 504 Anindo & Potter 1994 110 705 - 63 560 Muinga et al., 1995 64 690 - - 515 Kariuki et al., 1998 118 587 301 47 517 Abdulrazak et al., 1996 79 680 - - 554 Anindo & Potter, 1986 86 - 413 39 - Grant et al., 1974 60 658 450 70 543 Ibrahim et al., 1995 86 647 364 32 634 Source: Osman, (2011) DM= dry matter; OM = Organic matter, CP= Crude Protein; NDF= neutral detergent fibre; ADF acid detergent fibre; ADL=Acid detergent lignin, DOM= digestible organic matter

Nutritive value has been defined as the amount of feed ingested and the efficiency with which nutrients are extracted from a given feed (Norton & Poppi, 1995). From this perspective, little information is available on the nutritive value of Napier grass as the bulk of the available literature deals with its agronomy. Previous studies on Napier grass in Eastern Africa have concentrated on aspects such as effects of climate, fertilizer and cutting interval on DM yield, and to a lesser extent on leaf stem ratio, proximate composition and in vitro digestibility (Anindo & Potter, 1994).

Similar studies have been reported from other parts of the world (Chaparro & Sollenberger, 1997).

Compared to other well known tropical pasture grasses such as Digitaria decumbens, Chloris gayana, Kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum) and Panicum maximum, relatively few data are available on the effects of feeding Napier grass on animal performance (Minson, 1990).

Voluntary intake, crude protein and structural carbohydrates mainly determine the nutritive value of forage and digestible DM and CP content and the extent of degradation (Minson, 1990) influence forage intake. The structural polysaccharides composed primarily of cellulose and hemicelluloses are primary restrictive determinants of nutrient intake. The digestibility of forage in the rumen is related to the proportion and extent of lignification (Van Soest, 1994). Chemical composition and digestible DM may be poor indicators of the nutritive value of Napier grass because the farmer fails to take into account nutrient availability whilst the latter does not provide the profile of absorbed nutrients. Therefore, if nutrient value is to be of practical importance, the ultimate measure should be animal performance. It has been well documented that animal performance is closely associated with the capacity of a feed to promote effective microbial fermentation in the rumen and to supply the quantities and balances of nutrients required for different productive status (Beever, 1997) thus milk yield or weight gain should be closely related to intake, forage composition and digestibility. In ruminants, the use of CP or digestible CP to determine nitrogen value is regarded as inadequate because they ignore the role of rumen microbes

(Tamminga et al., 1994), yet in all forage diets, protein quality of each dietary component is important in evaluating response to supplementation. Current protein evaluation systems partition feed nitrogen into the amount degraded in the rumen and that, which escapes rumen degradation

(Tamminga et al., 1994).

2.5.3.2 Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)

2.5.3.2.1 The nutritive value of cowpea

Cowpeas are important legumes and sources of protein in livestock diets (Giami, 2005). Compared to grasses, cowpea has a relatively higher concentration of crude protein. Bressani (1985) and

Nielsen et al. (1997) indicated that the crude protein content ranges from 22 to 30% in the grain

16 and leaves, and from 13 to 17% in the haulms with a high digestibility and low fibre level (Tarawali et al., 1997). The chemical composition and nutritional properties of cowpeas have been shown to vary considerably according to cultivar (Akinyele et al., 1986). The chemical composition of cowpea is also influenced by environmental and genetic factors (Singh et al., 2006). Evaluation of the nutritional characteristics of cowpeas is important because of the recent increase in the use of this material in ruminant livestock diets (Reed, 1995). Arora and Das (1976) reported that total soluble sugars, starch, and organic matter of cowpeas range from 179 to 275, 138 to 198, and 507 to 670 g/ kg, respectively. Generally, it has been observed that cowpea leaves have less crude protein than seeds (Gohl, 1981). Table 3 presents the protein contents of different cowpea parts.

Table 3: Chemical composition of different cowpea parts

Plant DM OM(g/kg CP NDF ADF EE Reference Part (%) DM) (%) (%) (%) (%) Roots 927 9.15 7.7 Savadogo et al., 2000 Stems 91.9 934 7.8 Savadogo et al., 2000 Leaves 88.5 932 14.6 Savadogo et al., 2000 Leaves 393 26.1 1.05 Rivas-Vegas et al., 2006

Leaves 14.7 0.3 Kay, 1979; Tindall, 1983 Leaves 15.4 37.2 21.2 Baloyi et al., 2001 Leaves 909 14.4 51.1 2.3 Van Wyk, 1955 Leaves 90.9 919 22.4 50.72 38.67 Chakeredza et al., 2002 Seeds 903.6 20.3 1.9 Onder et al., 2006 Seeds 952 23.8 30.0 6.8 1.7 Singh et al., 2006 Seeds 560 24 1.3 Kay, 1979; Tindall, 1983 Source: Ravhuhali, (2010): DM: Dry matter; OM: Organic matter; NDF: Neutral detergent fibre; ADF: Acid detergent fibre; CP: Crude protein, EE: Ether extract

2.5.3.2.2 Supplementary Value of Cowpea

The feeding value of cowpea hay has long been recognized, as it has been used extensively for all kinds of livestock in Africa (Thompson et al., 1988). The above ground parts of cowpea, except pods, are harvested for fodder. Cowpea can be used green or as dry fodder. Digestibility and yield of certain cultivars are satisfactory and if cowpea hay is well cured, it provides high nutritive value.

The principal value of this hay lies in its high percentage of digestible protein. Leng et al. (1992) suggested that the role of cowpeas in ruminant diets can be seen as three fold, firstly, as a nitrogen and mineral supplement to enhance fermentative digestion and microbial growth efficiency in the rumen of ruminants on poor quality forage. It can be a source of post-ruminal protein for digestion.

Mupangwa et al. (2000) indicated that dry matter digestibility was higher for legume hays. The organic matter digestibility ranged from 0.579 for cassia hay to 0.617 for stylo hay and there were no differences among the legume hays. Cowpeas are also total feeds, supplying almost all the biomass and other nutrients needed to support high levels of animal production. Tarawali et al.

(1997) found the cowpea species valuable after reviewing the literature on the use of cowpea haulms as fodder in different parts of the world.

One benefit of the use of cowpea and other legume fodders as a supplement is the provision of nitrogen to the rumen microbes, allowing them to improve utilization of the low quality forage. At some levels of supplementation, nitrogen becomes surplus to available carbohydrates for microbial growth and additional nitrogen may be wasted. An example of this diet development is found in the study of Koralagama et al. (2008) who fed either 150 or 300 g/d haulms from either a forage- or dual purpose-type cowpea to Ethiopian sheep fed a basal diet of maize stover. Dietary nitrogen was increased by cowpea haulm addition and higher levels of cowpea feeding resulted in higher nitrogen intakes. Total feed intake increased with increasing levels of cowpea supplementation and diet digestibility was greater for diets containing cowpea haulms. The results of the study indicated that nitrogen level for the lower levels of cowpea supplementation likely matched the needs of the rumen microbes for the type of carbohydrate found (fiber) in these diets. This is also supported by increased urinary nitrogen excretion in sheep fed cowpea at 300 g/d compared to 150 g/day, indicating that some nitrogen was likely leaving the rumen as ammonia nitrogen rather than being incorporated into microbial cells. Sheep in these studies gained between 32 and 51 g/d when supplemented with cowpea (Ravhuhali, 2010).

Chakeredza et al. (2002) found a 22.7% increase in microbial protein supply when cowpea haulms were added to a diet of maize stover, which also illustrates how cowpea improves nitrogen supply for rumen microbes. This hypothesis supports the results of the study reported by Singh et al.

(2003), in which additions of about 200 g cowpea haulms were shown to be the most economically viable level in feeding systems based on cereal stover compared to feeding either 400 or 600 g of supplemental haulms. Although increasing amounts of cowpea in a diet based on sorghum stover resulted in increased gains, the amount of increase diminished with each subsequent increase, resulting in the lowest level of cowpea addition (200 g) being the most economical. This is also

19 consistent with economic theory that the economically optimal supplementation level will always be somewhat less than the maximum biological efficiency from supplementation (Torrell and

Rimbey, 2010).

Maintenance intake is the level of feed intake that provides adequate nutrients for bodily functions such as respiration and digestion, without excess nutrients for use in weight gain or other non- essential functions. To support productive functions such as growth, milk production, and pregnancy, it is necessary to increase intake above maintenance. To provide options for optimal mixes of sorghum stover and cowpea haulms, Savadogo et al. (2000) fed 21 kg rams varied levels of cowpea haulms in addition to sorghum stover at levels that allowed selective consumption of stover. This allowed rams to select between sorghum leaf and stem, a factor that affects digestibility and intake of the diet. The researchers then calculated the varied amounts of cowpea haulms needed to reach various levels of maintenance intake up to two times maintenance. For example, maintenance intake was reached with 61 g organic matter (OM) per kg 0.75 body weight

(BW) for sorghum stover and an additional of 48 g cowpea OM/kg 0.75 BW was required to reach two times maintenance. The studies showed the wide range in stover–cowpea combinations that could result in the same level of maintenance intake. This approach provides information useful for mixing diets relative to targeted production goals and can be used in combination with feed price information to develop diets producing the best economic returns. The use of low-quality forage, such as cereal stover, as the major feedstuff in ruminant diets can limit both energy density and intake. Supplementation of low-quality forage with legumes will increase diet utilization to some extent, but for higher levels of production, increased dietary energy density using higher quality forage and some grain may become of interest to livestock producers (Ravhuhali, 2010).

Singh et al., 2006 have also described the use of cowpea residues as a supplement to low quality roughages in animal production. The level of supplement required will depend on the quality of the basal diet (Norton et al., 1992). Singh et al. (2003) also found that incremental levels of cowpeas as a supplement to poor quality roughages indicate that they are valuable to animals.

When cowpeas were fed to lambs under dry lot conditions the animals gained weight as well as those receiving an oat-hay-corn- soybean diet (Thompson et al., 1988). Singh et al. (2006) found that there were differences in total dietary intake on sheep due to differences in the intake of the basal diet. Legume fodders such as cowpea can remain an important part of these higher energy diets. Though there are limited studies previously reported on the DM yield of cowpea, 3.4 ton

DM/ha are recorded in Ghana (Aikins and Afuakwa, 2008). Cowpeas are likely to be a significant source of minerals when fed in high amounts but animals are likely to require supplementation where dry feeds deficient in minerals make up 20–30% of the total dry matter intake (Goodchild and McMeniman, 1994).

2.5.4. Agro-industrial by-products

Agro-industrial by-products are the by-products of the primary processing of crops, including bran and related by-products of flourmills, oilseed cakes from small and large-scale oil processing plants and by-products of the sugar factory such as molasses. These by-products such as oilseed cakes and meals, wheat bran and molasses are important components of the concentrate feeds.

Most tropical forages are low in nutrient content and cannot supply adequate nutrient for optimum animal performance. Agro-industrial by-products along with grazing and scavenging are important source of feed ingredients for sheep production and they can be grouped according to their nutrient contents namely: energy rich supplements (<20% CP and <18% CF), protein rich supplements (≥

20% CP and < 18% CF), and miscellaneous by-products mostly supply minerals as well as energy

21 and protein such as by-products from brewery, fruit and vegetable industries (Ranjhan, 2001).

Agro-industrial by-products such as noug seed cake, linseed meal, barley and wheat bran are important source of protein and energy for supplementing basal diet (Getahun, 2006).

2.5.4.1 Oil Seed cakes

During processing, some seeds may have part of their outer, fibrous layers removed (dehulling or decortications) before the actual removal of oil, which may be achieved simply by crushing

(expeller) or by crushing followed by the use of chemical solvents (extraction). The outer fibrous material is used as livestock feed. The residues remaining after removal of the oil contain most of the fibrous carbohydrate and protein fractions present in the original seeds (Lonsdale, 1989).

These residues form the group of feeds known as oil seed cakes. Oil seed cakes have broadly similar nutritional characteristics and to some extent they are interchangeable. Their nutritive value varies with the amount and digestibility of the carbohydrate fraction, the level and type of the protein present and the content of residual oil. The carbohydrate fraction comprises of different proportions of fiber, starch and sugar, which influences the digestibility, and therefore, the energy value of the cake. In general, the most fibrous materials are the least digestible (Lonsdale, 1989).

Comparison of leguminous hay and oil seed cakes for supplementary value to growing sheep fed a basal diet of teff straw also demonstrated that equal intake of CP from different sources does not support the same live weight gain (Lemma, 1991). Protein sources which slowly degrade resulted in the highest live weight gain. Improvement in live weight gain compared to un-supplemented diet was 6% for noug seed cake supplemented diets vs. 158% for luceaena and 116% for siratro.

Chemical composition of oil seed cakes vary widely depending on species and methods of processing (Solomon, 1992). Oil seed cakes are generally characterized by high protein, fat and

22 low fiber contents. The mean chemical composition of 68 samples of oil seed cakes belonging to

6 genera resulted in CP content of 35%, ether extract (EE) content of 11%, neutral detergent fiber

(NDF) content of 30% and lignin content of 7% (Solomon, 1992). Because of processing effect, oil seed cakes exhibit higher contents of N bound to fiber; acid detergent fiber nitrogen (ADF-N) depending on the technology of extraction.

According to Solomon (1992), the content of ADF-N is higher in oil seed cakes obtained from small scale press mills than larger scale press mills, and oil seed cakes from solvent extraction.

The author also indicated that the concentrations of P, K and Mg are higher than optimum level for ruminant diets, but lower in Ca and Na contents. Seyoum (1995) confirmed that oil seed cakes have medium to high EE, high CP and low cell wall constituents and medium to high IVOMD.

2.5.4.1.1 Noug seed cake

“Noug” seed (Guizotia abyssinica) cake is one of the by-products of oil processing from “noug” seed that can be used as a protein supplement in animal feeding. Annually, about 84,802.34 tons of “noug” seed are produced in Ethiopia and oil extraction is done almost entirely by mechanical press with predominantly old machines used in the milling industry (CSA, 2003). The protein content of “noug” seed cake depends on variety and method of processing, as processes that affect efficiency of edible oil extraction equally affect the cake quality (Alemu, 1981). Tekeba (2005) reported the chemical composition of noug seed cake as 32.74% CP, 6.29% EE, 26.90% CF, and

1821 kcal ME/kg DM. The high CP and ME values are indicative of the potential of the oil seed cake as a protein and energy supplement in crop residue based feeds of for ruminants. Seyoum

(1995) reported that the EE content of oil seed cakes ranged from 5.5% in noug seed cake to 14.6% in sunflower cake with a mean of 10%, and the IVOMD of oil seed cakes ranged from 58% in noug seed cake to 88% in peanut cake. Earlier works indicated that noug seed cake and urea

23 molasses blokes (UMB) can be used along with poor quality hay and teff (Eragrostis teff) straw for milk production (Little et al, 1987) and fattening sheep (Solomon et al., 1991a; Lemma, 1991) as protein supplement. Supplementation of animals with NSC improved live weight. Solomon et al. (1991a) reported 94.89 -136.79 g/day body weight gain for grazing Horro sheep supplemented with graded level (200-500 g/day) of concentrate mixture of noug seed cake and maize. Lemma

(1991) also reported body weight gain of 33 g/ day for Horro sheep fed teff straw and supplemented with noug seed cake and ground maize.

2.5.4.1.2 Wheat Bran

Wheat bran is an important source of carbohydrates, protein, minerals and vitamins and considered as one of the feeds that can be used for fattening. Wheat bran is usually an abundant agro-industrial by-product that can be used in animal feeding and is readily available (Alemu et al., 1989). The

CP content and fat content of wheat bran ranges from 13.3 to 17.0% and 3.0 to 4.5%, respectively

(Lonsdale, 1989). The CP in wheat bran reported by Solomon et al. (2004b) was 16.5%. Tekeba

(2005) reported CP content of wheat bran at 16.40%, EE 4.20%, CF 10.98% and ME 2996 kcal/kg and 16.7% CP in wheat bran was also reported by Zemicael (2007). Lonsdale (1989), indicated that CF and CP contents of wheat bran may vary from 100 to 130 g/kg DM and 170 to 180 g/kg

DM, respectively and its ME content may range from 10 to 11 MJ/kg DM. Devendra and McLeroy

(1982) reported that wheat bran is quite palatable, and well known for its ability to prevent constipation because of its swelling and water holding capacity. This capacity of wheat bran is due to its fiber and non-starch carbohydrate content. Wheat bran has an amino acid balance superior to whole wheat, high in phosphorus and low in calcium Devendra and McLeroy (1982). It consists of about 18% CP and 67.2% TDN. The CP of wheat bran has a digestibility coefficient of about

0.75 and has 0.51 to 0.70 rumen degradability (Lonsdale, 1989).

Fiber and ME content of wheat bran vary slightly depending on the specification of the wheat being milled and the exact processes used in the mill, as these factors affect the overall blend of bran components (Ravhuhali.2010). Zemicael (2007) reported 50 g of average daily body weight gain for Arado sheep fed on teff straw and supplemented with 300 g/day of wheat bran and 66-

78.89 g/day for the same breed when supplemented with 300 g/day of wheat bran and sesame seed cake mixture. Similarly, Simret (2005) reported daily body gain of 39.90 - 44.72 g/day for Somali goats fed on hay basal diet and supplemented with graded levels of peanut cake and wheat bran mixture.

2.6 Influence of Nutrition on Sheep Performance

Plane of nutrition is the major factor influencing the fat deposition pattern of animals whereby high plane of nutrition promotes earlier fattening while a low plane results in a delayed or slower fattening process. It is possible to manipulate growth paths of lambs maintained on relatively poor quality pasture to produce carcasses of better quantity and quality (Thatcher and

Gaunt, 1992).

According to Gatenby (1986), the higher the level of nutrition or the lower the growth capacity, the more fat is deposited in lambs at any given age and body weight. In carcass merit evaluation, dressing percentage is an important trait. However, according to the review by Ruvuna et al.

(1992), dressing percent is known to be affected by breed, age, castration and it is also highly affected by feeding and degree of fattening. They have also reported that proportion of lean and fat in carcasses increased with age while the proportion of bone decreased. Gruszecki et al.

(1994) have reported that the carcass composition of Polish Lowland sheep and its crosses, whose slaughter weights range from 38- 40 kg, to be in the range of 61-63 % lean, 17-20 % fat and 19-22 % bone.

In a similar investigation on mutton-type lambs of diverse genetic background, Streitz et al. (1994) observed that lean and fat contents of carcasses were 62.4 % and 16.8%, respectively for those lambs which had below 30 kg live weight and 58.2 % and 3.6%, respectively for those above

30 kg live weight. Ruminant production is a function of nutrition, health, genetics, climate and management among which nutrition plays an important role (Seyoum et al., 1996).

In general, the body of lambs born in the wet season, the season when adequate feed is to be found, contains a little more fat and less protein than lambs born into the dry season. Although some of the differences between lambs born in the different seasons were not significant, there seems to be some advantage of lambing in the wet season as lambs were able to maintain good body condition throughout the growth period (Hunegnaw,2015).

2.6.1 Feed intake

Feed intake is the first parameter that determines animal production (Savadogo et al., 2000), which is likely to be influenced by the animal, characteristics of the feed and other environmental factors.

The dry matter intake is dependent up on many factors like the density of energy in the diet, digestibility, succulence, amount of crude fiber and the physical nature of the feed (Rehrahie et al., 2003).

Feed intake in ruminants consuming fibrous forages is primarily determined by the level of rumen fill, which in turn is directly related to the rate of digestion and passage of fibrous particles from the rumen (McDonald et al., 2002). Feeds that are digested rapidly are also of high digestibility and promote high intake. The author also noted that the faster the rate of digestion, the more rapidly is the digestive tract is emptied and the more space is made available for the next meal. There is a positive correlation between digestible fraction of the feed and DM intake. Feed intake is negatively impacted by the quantity of indigestible fractions (such as lignin) or fractions with low

26 digestibility like NDF and ADF content due to the need of more retention time in the rumen for further fermentation (Bruinenberg et al., 2003).Obviously, the high NDF and ADF contents in the diet are expected to increase resistance to physical breakdown and contribute to more ruminal fill resulting in a lower voluntary intake. Feed that is low in protein and high in fiber content results in low digestibility and voluntary feed intake (Adugna et al., 2002). Supplementation of concentrate to poor quality roughages stimulated microorganism function in the rumen, reduced retention time and thus increased the intake of poor quality feeds (Do Thi, 2001). Concentrate supplies more easily degradable components to fibrolytic microorganisms that improve fiber degradation (Liu and Lee, 2005).

The highest roughage DM intake comes synchronously with the highest ruminal fibrolytic activities. If ruminants are offered un-supplemented low quality roughage, there will be a loss in body weight because of inability to meet both energy and protein requirements. In feeding system where straws and grass hay are the basic diet of ruminants, the low intake of these roughages requires supplementation to meet the requirements for production. Addition of crude protein supplement may stimulate efficient rumen fermentation, more passage rate and intake (Huneghaw,

2015). Awet (2007) reported that among the supplemented treatments, sheep fed the medium (250 g) and high level (350 g) of wheat bran supplement had significantly higher total DM intake which was 883.8 and 963.74 g/day/head, respectively compared to those fed low level (150 g) of supplementation which consumed 826.38 g/day.

2.6.2 Digestibility

The digestibility of a feedstuff is the proportion of the feed or of any single nutrient of the feed which is not recovered in feces (Ranjhan, 2001). Although the potential value of a feed can be

27 approximately determined by proximate analysis, the actual value of the feed to the animal can be determined only if the digestibility is known. The digestibility coefficients of various nutrients from the same feedstuffs is affected by species of the animal, age of the animals, level of feeding, feed composition and ration composition (Ranjhan, 1999). The primary chemical composition of feeds that determines the rate of digestion is neutral detergent fiber which is itself a measure of cell wall content; thus there is a negative relationship between the neutral detergent fiber content of feeds and the rate at which they are digested. The fiber fraction of feed has the greatest influence on its digestibility (McDonald et al., 2002). Barkie and Hogan (1996) indicated that much of the energy contained in the fiber of sheep diet requires fermentation by microbial enzymes to hydrolyze the linkage in the fiber.

Digestibility of a feed is influenced not only by its composition, but also by the composition of others feeds consumed with it. For the ruminant to express their full genetic potential for growth, the apparent digestibility should exceed 70% on dry weight basis. When apparent digestibility is

60%, performance will be intermediate and the minimum range of apparent digestibility to assure body maintenance needs is 42-45%, whereas at lower digestibility of feeds animals lose weight

(McDowell, 1988). For satisfactory digestion of poor roughage, adequate amount of supplementation is needed. The addition of small amount high quality concentrate will increase rumen digestion. Apparent digestibility was improved when “noug” seed cake was used as a sole supplement or at higher proportions as compared to hay alone or supplementation with sole rice bran (Abebaw, 2007).

Similarly, supplementation with legume crop residues contributes fermentable energy to the rumen in the form of available cellulose and hemicellulose, which stimulate fiber digestion (Silva and

Ørskov, 1985). Reddy (1997) reported that supplementation of legume straw increase nutritive value and crude protein digestibility of rice straw. According to Koralagama et al. (2008), supplementation of cowpea haulms increased digestibility of dry matter, organic matter and neutral detergent fiber in male Ethiopian highland sheep fed a basal diet of maize stover. Similarly, Ajayi et al. (2008) showed that forage legume supplementation significantly improved dry matter, organic matter, crude protein and acid detergent fiber digestibility due to the fact that forage legumes enhance efficient rumen fermentation which optimizes microbial growth for increased digestibility.

2.6.3 Body weight change

Body growth commonly refers to an increase in size or weight of animals (Warriss, 2000). It is crude because change in body weight of intestinal contents, which in ruminants may often account for 20% of body weight gain (McDonald et al., 2002) affects body weight of the animal. Nutrition is perhaps the most important consideration in livestock management as it has much influence on growth rate and body composition. Nutrition level largely determines growth rate in lambs and kids (Sayed, 2009).

Animal performance is a function of feed intake and the relative digestibility of the diet that leads towards nutrient availability (Topps, 1995). Rate of weight gain of sheep is influenced by the type of management of animals and stage of growth (Takele et al., 2006). Larbi and Olaloku (2005) suggested that with increasing level of crude protein in the diets of small ruminants there is a proportional improvement in average daily gain and hence growth performance. Similarly, increasing protein and energy levels in the diet improves average daily body weight gain and feed conversion efficiency of animals (Ebrahimi et al., 2007). Increasing the energy level may allow the production of more fermentable metabolizable energy for rumen microorganisms resulting in

29 a rise in the synthesis of microbial protein and the amount of protein available to the animal (Sayed,

2009).

2.7 Nutrient Requirements of Sheep

Proper nutrition is primary issue to be given due attention to improve sheep production and productivity as it has a large influence on well being, flock reproduction milk production and lamb growth (ESGPIP,2008) and to efficiently exploit genetic potential. Nutrient required by sheep include water, energy, protein, vitamins and minerals of which energy usually become the most limiting factor in a diet to sustain life, produce and reproduce. A ration composed of quality forage and concentrate mix can supply energy required by animals. Protein is also critical nutrient for growth of sheep, especially for young stock. Protein enhance the growth of rumen microorganisms which play vital role in facilitating digestion of fibrous feeds and serving as sources of microbial protein. Male sheep of about 20 kg with average daily weight gain of 100 gm requires 5.8 MJ/kg

ME, 61 g/day Metabolizable protein and 0.56 kg dry matter per day (Mc Donaled et al., 2010).

Table 4: Energy and Protein Requirement of growing Sheep

Daily weight gain(g/day) Sheep class Nutrient 0 50 100 150 DM intake (kg/day)

Female ME(MJ) 3.4 4.5 5.8 6.5 0.56 MP(g) 21 45 58 71 Castrated male ME(MJ) 3.4 4.5 5.7 6.2 0.56

ME(MJ) MP(g) 21 47 61 76

Growing male sheep ME(MJ) 3.9 4.8 5.8 6.4 0.56

ME(MJ) MP(g) 21 47 61 76 Source: Mc Donald, (2010): ME=Metabolizable energy, MP=Metabolizable protein,MJ=Mega Joule. DM=Dry matter

2.8 Role of Supplementation

According to FAO (1997), the objective of supplementation is to ensure additional supply of nutritional elements to the animals to allow them to develop target performance levels and to increase their feed intake. The purpose of supplementation is to provide rumen microorganism optimum readily degradable energy, nitrogen and/or minerals that will enhance activity of microorganisms and rumen function. Supplementation of low quality feeds with concentrates or forage legumes enhances the utilization of the basal diet, thereby improving the performance of ruminants. For instance, Washera sheep achieved weight gain in the range 25- 35.3 g/day due to supplementation with 200-400 g concentrate mix in urea treated rice straw feeding regime (Abebe,

2008). Abebaw and Solomon (2008) also reported better body weight gain for Farta sheep supplemented daily with 300 g noug seed cake, rice bran and brewery dried grain mixtures.

According to Pond et al. (1995), consumption of low quality roughages such as straw and poor grass hay can be increased markedly by the addition of protein supplements. Therefore, supplementation especially with protein sources is critical particularly for young, rapidly growing and lactating animals, as protein sources can determine the quantity or the quality of protein

(essential amino acids) reaching the small intestine that are required for growth and milk production (McDonald et al., 2002). These amino acids must come from either microbial protein synthesized in the rumen or from dietary protein that is not degraded in the rumen. Dietary protein

31 consumed by ruminants is categorized as rumen degradable protein (RDP) or rumen un-degradable protein (RUP). The RUP has sometimes been referred to as rumen by-pass protein or simply escape protein. The RDP is available for use by the rumen microbes to make microbial protein (McDonald et al., 2002).

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Description of the Study Area

The study was conducted in Hadero Tunto Zuriya District, Kembata Tembaro Zone of Southern

Nations Nationalities and Peoples Regional State of Ethiopia. Hadero is bordered on the south by the Wolayita zone, on the west by Tembaro woreda, on the north by the Hadiya zone, and on the east by Kacha Bira district and the total area of the district is 17,169 km2.Hadero tunto zuriya

32 district is located between 37035’-37040’ E longitude and 70 10’-70 15’ N latitude with altitude ranging from 1501 to 2500 m.a.s.l (District report). Its mean annual maximum and minimum temperatures are 22.50C and 17.60 C, respectively, whereas the mean annual rainfall of the district varies from 1201 to 1400 mm. It receives a bimodal rainfall, namely the main rainy season and short rainy season. The main rainy season extends from the beginning of July to mid of September while the short rainy season starts at the end of December and lasts up to the end of February .The district has three agro ecology namely ‘Dega’ (33%) (>2300 m.a.s.l), Moist ‘Weyina dega’ (53%)

(1800-2100 m.a.s.l), Dry ‘Weyina Dega’ (13%) (<1700 m.a.s.l) (District report).Gelebe,

Hachecho, Lalo and Ajora kebeles were the targeted study site within the district. The first one represents ‘Dega’ the second two kebeles represent Moist ‘Weyina Dega’ and finally the last one represented Dry ‘Weyina Dega’.

Figure 1: Map of Hadero TuntoWoreda ,KembataTembaro Zone ( Bassa et al., 2016)

3.2. Experimental Procedures and Methods of Data Collection

The study had two components: survey and on farm feeding and digestibility experiment.

3.2.1. Survey on Small Ruminant Production System

Prior to the main sampling attempt, discussions were made with districts livestock experts to make clear the purpose of the study and collaborations needed during the study. All kebeles in the study districts were identified and ranked based on the number of sheep and goats and selected by considering agro ecology and access to infrastructure. From the total 15 rural kebeles (8, Moist midlands, 5 highlands and 2 dry midland), 4 representative kebeles were selected based on the secondary data and participation of district livestock and crop experts. The selected kebeles were

Gelbe (High land), Hachecho (Moist Mid altitude), Lalo (Moist Mid altitude) and Ajora (Dry Mid altitude). Hurni (1986) in his guidelines for development agent on soil conservation in Ethiopia’ provided a classification system for Ethiopia according to altitude and length of growing period

(rainfall amount) and type of main crop grown in the area. Due to this mid attitude was divided into three vertical classification (Dry midland (<120 days growing period with wheat and teff as main crops in the area), Moist midland (120-240 days growing period and maize, sorgum, teff, wheat, noug, dagussa and barely as main crops), Wet midland (>240 days growing period and teff, maize enset, barely and noug as main crops in the area).

Households that have small ruminants and a minimum of one year experience in small ruminant production and/or fattening were identified and listed in each kebele and 30 households per kebele were randomly selected. Accordingly, 120 rural households were interviewed. Before the commencement of the actual survey, Developmental agents (Das), kebele leaders, elders and influential persons with in the respective selected kebeles was contacted to create awareness about the purpose of the study. Pre-tested structured questionnaire were used to collect information on

34 the following variables: Household characteristics, purposes of keeping sheep and goats, inventory of sheep and goats, feeds and feeding and reproductive performance of sheep and goat, constraints, housing, diseases and parasites, share of responsibilities in sheep and goat production, fattening practices, market chains/routes, season of marketing, transportation for market, problems associated with marketing. Development agents (Das) who speak the local language were recruited trained and collected the data under close supervision. Group discussions were held with key informants (elders involved in small ruminant farming for years, DAs and experts) in each study area (kebele) in order to gain an in-depth insight about the topics covered during interview.

Litter size and annual reproductive rate was estimated according to the following formula Source:

Tsedeke, (2007)

Litter size/prolificacy = Number of offspring produced Number of females that gave birth

365 x litter size Annual reproductive rate (ARR) = Days of lambing interval

3.2.2. On-farm feeding and Digestibility Experiment

3.2.2.1 Animal management, Experimental design and Treatment

Twenty-four male sheep with an average age of about 8 to 10 months old and weighing 16.45±0.19 kg (Mean±SE) were purchased from the local market. The age of animal was identified through dentition and information obtained from the owners. Animals were kept in kebeles nursery site for

15 days adaptation periods. All sheep were ear tagged, vaccinated against ecto- and endo-parasites using invermectin and anthelmintics (albendazol). The sheep were assigned to the treatment feeds using completely randomized block design (RCBD) based on initial weight and distributed to 12 farmers. Three Farmers with two sheep were purposively assigned to each treatment group based

35 on cowpea amount grown on the farm. The concentrate mix was composed of wheat bran and noug cack at 2:1 ratio.

The treatments (as fed basis) were:

Treatment 1 (T1) = Napier grass ad libitum + 300 g Concentrate mix (CM)

Treatment 2 (T2) = Napier grass ad libitum + 200 g CM + 100 g Cow pea hay

Treatment 3 (T3) = Napier grass ad libitum + 100 g CM + 200 g Cow pea hay

Treatment 4 (T4) = Napier grass ad libitum + 300 g Cow pea hay

The above treatment composition were made based on the information that Napier grass (with 9.3

% CP and 8.8 MJ/Kg ME) (Osman,2011).Cowpea(with 18.6 % CP and 8.81 MJ/Kg ME) (Mbuso,

2017), and Concentrate mix with 10-12 MJ/kg DM ME and 17% CP can satisfy the nutrient requirement of sheep (109 g CP and 6.86 MJ/Kg DM ME) having 20 kg live weight and with 100 g daily weight gain on average (Paul et al,.2003).

3.2.2.2 Experimental feed preparation and feeding

The basal diet for this study was Napier grass and supplemental forage legumes used in this study was cowpea. The basal diets and the supplemental forage legumes were established at farmers plot.

The forage legumes cowpea was harvested at about 3 month of age, cured as hay and chopped at

3-5 cm length and stored in clean sack for later use. During the feeding period, Napier grass was harvested daily to feed as green from existing plot. Napier grass was chopped to about 5-8 cm before being offered to animals. A concentrate mixture of noug seed cake (NSC) and wheat bran

(WB) at the ratio of 33% NSC and 67% WB was formulated to be used as a supplement for treatment groups. Actual feeding trial was conducted on farm for 70 days following the 15 days

36 adaptation period to the experimental diet. Basal feed sample was collected every fourteen days for the purpose of dry matter determination.

Experimental animals were kept tied separately while they stay feeding in the barn. The basal feed

(Napier grass) was offered as fresh ad libitum at 10-15% level of refusal which was adjusted daily and cowpea was presented in the form of hay, water was available free choice and 10-gram salt

(with supplemental concentrate mix) was provided for each animal per day. For those experimental animals receiving cowpea hay as a supplement, dissolved salt was spread over and mixed with cowpea hay of the daily offer. The daily amounts of fresh Napier grass, forage legumes and concentrate mix were offered in separate troughs. Supplement feeds were offered twice a day in two equal portions in the morning (8:00AM) and evening hours (9:00 PM) throughout the feeding trial. Daily feed offer and refusal were measured using sensitive balance and sub samples (100g) of the offer and refusal were collected throughout the feeding period to form a bulk from which representative samples were taken for chemical analysis at the end of feeding experiment. Feed offer samples (Napier grass) were also collected and kept in air dried for the purpose of feed dry matter determination through oven drying at 1050C overnight.

3.2.2.3 Live weight changes and feed conversion efficiency

Initial body weights of the experimental animals were taken at the beginning of the study after three consecutive weighing in the morning before feeding. Body weight measurements were taken every 14 days during the feeding trial period. The weights of the animals were measured using 50 kg size suspended balance. Average daily gain was calculated as the difference between final live weight and initial live weight divided by the number of days of the feeding trial.

Feed conversion efficiency is used to know how efficient the rams are converting the feed into meat. It was measured using the formula suggested by Gülten et al. (2000).

Feed conversion efficiency =Average Daily live weight gain(g) Average Daily Feed Intake(g)

3.2.2.4 Digestion Trial

The digestibility trial was conducted after seventy days of feeding trial. It was comprised of three days period for animals to adapt to carrying of the fecal collecting bags followed by a seven day of feces collection period. Feces was collected and weighted every morning for each animal before offering feed and water. The daily collected feces from each animal was weighed, mixed thoroughly and 20% was sampled and kept in airtight plastic containers and stored at -20 oC in refrigerator up to the completion of the digestibility trial. In, addition, amount of feed offered and refusals was collected, weighted and recorded every morning. At the end of the digestibility trial, the fecal samples were thawed, thoroughly mixed and sub samples were taken, weighed and partially dried at 60 oC for 48 hours. The collected fecal samples for dry matter digestibility determination was air dried and kept in tightened polyethylene bag until oven drying at 105 0C.

The partially dried feces were ground to pass through a 1 mm sieve, stored in plastic bags pending laboratory analysis.

Percentage of DM, CP, OM, NDF, ADF and ADL was determined using the following formula

(McDonald et al., 2002);

Nutrient intake –Nurient excreated in feaces Nutrient digestibility = ∗ 100 Nutrient intake

3.2.2.5 Chemical analysis

All collected feed and fecal samples were transported to ILRI animal nutrition laboratory, Addis

Ababa for laboratory analysis. Samples of feed offered, refusal and feces were dried at 60°C for about 48 hour in a forced draft oven and ground to pass through 1 mm size using Wiley mill and packed into paper bags and stored pending to further laboratory works. The samples of feed offered, refusals and feces were analyzed for DM, Ash, CP, NDF, ADF, ADL, IVOMD and ME at ILRI Laboratory using Near Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy (NIRS) prediction. Crude protein (CP %) of feed samples were determined by multiplying N content of the samples with the conversion factor of 6.25. For scanning purpose, already ground sample was dried overnight at 60 oC in oven to standardize the moisture conditions. Then, the partially dried sample was filled into

NIRS cup and scanned using Foss NIRS 5000 with software package WinISI II in the 1108-

2492nm spectra ranges (Win Scan version 1.5, 2000, intrasoft international, L.L.C). Finally, NIRS scanned information of all feed and fecal samples were used for the prediction of the above mentioned nutritional value variables, using predictive equations developed based on previously conducted conventional analyses.

3.3 Statistical Data Analysis

Data collected through questionnaire were analyzed by descriptive statistics using Statistical

Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 20). Chi-square was employed when required to test the independence of categories or to assess the statistical significance. Indices were calculated to provide ranking of the reasons of keeping sheep and goat, production constraint, selection criteria, and contribution of different farming activity to the family food and income etc. Index was calculated as Index = Sum of (4 X number of households who ranked first + 3 X number of households who ranked second + 2 X number of households who ranked third+1 X number of

39 households who ranked fourth) given for an individual reason, criteria or preference divided by the sum of (3 X number of households who ranked first + 2 X number of households who ranked second + 1 X number of households who ranked third) for overall reasons, criteria or preferences.

The data collected on feed intake, digestibility, and body weight gain was subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) model for randomized complete block design (RCBD) using

Statistical Analysis System Software (SAS version 9.0).

When the differences in treatment means was significant at the probability level of P<0.05, the means were compared using Least significant difference (LSD) test.

The statistical model used was:

• For body weight gain, intake and digestibiity

Yij = µ + Ti + Bj + Eij

Where Yij = the dependent variable,

µ =overall mean,

Ti =effect of treatment, and

Bj=Block effect

eij =random error.

3.4 Partial Budget Analysis

The partial budget analysis was taken to determine cost benefit (profitability) analysis of supplementation of different proportions of dried cowpea hay instead of concentrate mix to supplement in feeding of sheep. The partial budget analysis was calculated from the variable costs and benefits. At the end of the experiment, three experienced local sheep and goat dealers estimated the selling price of each experimental sheep and the average of those three-estimation prices was taken. The variable costs were calculated from supplementary feeds, which are supplied for each experimental sheep treatment costs. The total returns (TR) were determined by calculating the difference between the estimated selling prices and purchasing price of experimental sheep.

Net return (NR) was calculated as;

NR = TR – TVC

The change in net return (ΔNR) was calculated as the difference between change in total return

(ΔTR) and the change in total variable costs (ΔTVC).

ΔNR = ΔTR – ΔTVC

The marginal rate of return (MRR) measures the increase in net income (∆ NR) associated with each additional unit of expenditure (∆ TVC) and was calculated as

MRR = (∆ NR/ ∆ TVC) X 100

4. RESULTS

4.1Small ruminant production system in the study area

4.1.1Household characteristics

Sex, family size and education background of the respondents in study area are presented in Table

5. The male headed households were greater than female headed ones. Majority of the household were in the active productive age (15-55 years old) and about 64 % having attended different levels of education.

Table 5: Age, sex educational level and family size of the household

Highland Moist midland Dry midland kebele kebeles kebele Over all

Descriptor (n1=30) (n2=60) (n3=30) (N=120)

Household sex (N/%) X2 P-value Male 27(90) 58(96.7) 24(80) 109(90.8) 6.7 0.035 Female 3(10) 2(3.3) 6(10) 11(9.2) Educational Status (N/%) Illiterate 10(33.3) 22(36.7) 11(36.7) 43(35.8) 2.5 0.862 Grade(1-5) 9(30) 17(28.3) 6(20) 32(26.7) Grade(6-10) 8(26.7) 14(23.3) 11(36.7) 33(27.5) Grade(>10) 3(10) 7(11.7) 2(6.7) 12(10) Household family size( Mean/SE) P-value Family Size 7.4(0.45) 6.3(0.23) 7.4(0.27) 6.87(0.18) 0.008 Active worker(15-55 yr) 5.6(0.64) 3.6(0.28) 4.9(0.45) 4.45(0.25) 0.002 *Highland kebele=Gelbe; Moist Midland Kebeles=Hachecho and Lalo and Dry mid land Kebele=Ajora; SE=Standard Error; X2=Chi-Square

4.1.2 Farming Characteristics

4.1.2.1 Household occupation and landholding

The household occupation and land holding is presented in Table 6. Major occupation in the district

was farming followed by both farming and non-farming activity. There was significant variation

(P<0.05) in total land holding among agro ecology, where the land holding for highland kebele

was the highest. Major crop grown in the area include maize, teff, haricot bean, potato, Yam, filed

pea, banana and coffee.

Table 6: Major occupation and land holding

Major occupation Highland Moist midland Dry midland (N/%) kebele Kebeles Kebele Overall X2 P-value Farming activity 22(73.3) 37(61.7) 20(66.7) 79(65.8) 1.22 0.543

Both farming and non 8(26.7) 23(38.3) 10(33.3) 41(34.2) farming activity Land Holding(ha, Mean/SE) P-value Total land 1.36(0.09) 1.09(0.07) 0.45(0.59) 1.0(0.05) 0.000 Crop land 1.26(0.09) 0.98(0.07) 0.33(0.04) 0.89(0.05) 0.000 Grazing land 0.1(0.008) 0.097(0.006) 0.06(0.017) 0.09(0.005) 0.047

4.1.2.2 Livestock holding and composition

The farmers in the study kebeles rear different types of livestock. Cattle, sheep, goat, horse,

donkey, mule and chicken rearing are common in the area. Farmers also keep bee colonies. There

was significant (P<0.05) difference in number of sheep and equine among the study kebeles. Goat

accounts for major small ruminant holding.

Table 7: Livestock holding per individual household in the study area

Livestock Species Highland Moist midland Dry midland (Mean/SE) Kebele Kebeles Kebele Over all P- value Cattle 4.85(0.58) 3.96(0.32) 3.03(0.31) 3.95(0.24) 0.026 Sheep 3.76(0.52) 1.86(0.24) 0.063(0.23) 2.03(0.21) 0.000 Goats 4.9(0.63) 3.21(0.32) 3.96(0.66) 3.82(0.28) 0.050 Equines 0.53(0.14) 0.06(0.32) 0.16(0.07) 0.20(0.045) 0.000 Chicken 3.85(0.79) 5.18(0.50) 3.37(0.46) 4.68(0.38) 0.156 TLU(Mean/SE)

Cattle 3.97(0.39) 2.89(0.23) 2.23(0.26) 3.0(0.17)

Sheep 0.37(0.05) 0.18(0.02) 0.06(0.02) 0.2(0.02)

Goats 0.49(0.06) 0.32(0.03) 0.39(0.06) 0.38(0.028)

Equines 0.27(0.07) 0.033(0.016) 0.083(0.034) 0.10(0.023)

Chicken 0.009(0.003) 0.028(0.004) 0.009(0.003) 0.18(0.002)

Total 5.1(0.57) 3.45(0.3) 2.8(0.38) 3.86(0.24)

Cattle being the most important animal constituted 81% of the total TLU while sheep, goats,

equines and chicken constitute 5.48%, 10%, 2.88% and 0.51%, respectively.

4.1.3 Sheep and Goat Flock Size and Structure

Sheep and goat flock size of the sampled households in the study area is presented in Table 8.

Breeding female was higher in number than breeding male.

Table 8: Sheep and goat flock structure in the study area

Sheep Goat

Sheep and goat flock structure N(SE) % N(SE) %

Suckling (<3 month) 33(0.1) 14 31(0.07) 6.8 Male(3_6 month) 24(0.04) 9.8 32(0.06) 7.0 Female(3_6 month) 22(0.05) 9.0 52(0.14) 11.0 Breeding female 105(0.13) 43.0 213(0.12) 46.0 Breeding male 60(0.47) 25.0 128(0.11) 28.0

4.1.4 Purpose of keeping sheep and goat

The primary reason for keeping small ruminant was as a source of income generations through

the sale of live animals (Table 9). The second main reason of keeping sheep and goat was for meat

production which was followed by saving. Distribution of benefits or risks with other animal

(4thrank) was one of the reasons to keep small ruminant.

Table 9 : Purposes of keeping sheep and goats

Rank

Purpose 1 2 3 4 Index

Income 70 27 16 6 0.387

Meat 13 62 22 10 0.283

Saving 18 11 29 48 0.205

Distribute benefits/risks with other animals 9 7 20 31 0.124

4.1.5 Small ruminant Production and Management

4.1.5.1 Feed and water resources, seasonal availability and utilization

The common feed resources in the study area are given in Table 10. There was significant (P<0.05)

difference among the study site or agro ecology in availability of feed resources. Enset and banana

were the major feed resource in the highland kebele followed by weed and private grazing.

Table 10: Major feed resource available in the study area

Highland Kebele Moist midland Kebeles Dry mid land Kebele

Rank Rank Rank

Feed Resource 1 2 3 Index 1 2 3 Index 1 2 3 Index

Communal grazing 2 3 2 0.078 3 7 9 0.089 3 6 6 0.15

Road sides grazing 4 4 3 0.128 8 12 10 0.161 4 4 3 0.128

Grazing stubble 2 5 3 0.106 9 3 5 0.106 5 3 5 0.144

Private grazing 6 3 1 0.139 9 4 7 0.117 3 0 2 0.061

Crop residues 0 1 4 0.033 4 5 7 0.081 1 5 4 0.094

Browse species 0 3 2 0.044 5 5 8 0.092 3 4 4 0.117

Improved forages 0 9 5 0.128 3 4 5 0.061 9 0 0 0.15

Enset and banana 11 0 3 0.2 7 2 0 0.069 0 3 3 0.05

Weeds 5 2 7 0.144 12 18 9 0.225 2 5 3 0.106

The main feed types supplemented for sheep and goat for fattening purpose were all parts of Enset

from pseudo stem to tip part of leaves, banana leaves and stem from green fodder followed by

grains and concentrates and salt/bole and household food leftovers and attela.

Table 11: Common feed supplement used for sheep and goats (N/%)

Highland Moist midland Dry midland Particulars Kebele Kebeles Kebele Over all X2 P-value Green fodder 12(40) 31(51.6) 11(36.7) 54(45) 21.50 0.01 Food leftovers and attela 6(20) 9(15) 6(20) 21(17.5) 21.01 0.01 Grains(cooked/roasted) 7(23.3) 9(15) 7(23.3) 23(19.2) 15.84 0.07 Salt, bole 5(16.7) 11(18.3) 6(20) 22(18.3) 20.47 0.02 Total 30(100) 60(100) 30(100) 120(100)

Tether grazing is mainly practiced to avoid crop damage, to avoid theft and predator and to

decrease labor requirement. Theft and predator is common and big challenges for goat and sheep

owner.

Table 12: Reason for Tether grazing (N/%)

Highland Moist midland Dry midland Reasons Kebele Kebeles Kebele Overall X2 P-value Avoid crop damages 9(30) 33(55) 11(36.7) 53(44.2) 18.43 0.1 Save labor 5(16.7) 8(13.3) 7(23.3) 20(16.7) 16.79 0.16 Protect from predators 8(26.7) 18(30) 10(33.3) 36(30) 19.39 0.08 Use marginal lands 7(23.3) 1(1.6) 2(6.7) 10(8.3) 26.45 0.01 Avoid unwanted breeding 1(3.3) - - 1(0.8) 16.67 0.16

Total 30(100) 60(100) 30(100) 120(100)

4.1.5.1.1 Water sources and watering

River water was the major water source (90 and 95%) for sheep and goats in wet and dry seasons,

respectively, in all agro ecologies (Table 13). The distances to watering points varied during the

dry and wet seasons. The majority (64% for dry and 60% for wet seasons) of the respondents water

their animals within less than 1 km distance. Few respondents traveled more than 5-km in search

of water especially in highland kebele.

Table 13: Water sources and utilization (N/%)

Particulars Highland Moist midland Dry midland Source of water Kebele Kebeles Kebele Overall River 29(96.7) 40(66.6) 26(86.7) 95(79.2) Spring - 9(15) - 9(7.5) Pond 1(3.4) 11(18.3) 4(13.4) 16(13.3) Total 30(100) 60(100) 30(100) 120(100) Distance of water Water at home - 1(1.6) 4(13.3) 5(4.17) Less than 1 km 3(10) 45(75) 16(53.4) 64(53.3) 1–5 km 1(3.4) 11(18.3) 6(20) 18(15) 6–10 km 26(86.7) 3(5) 4(13.3) 33(27.5)

Total 30(100) 60(100) 30(100) 120(100) Sheep Goat

Frequency of watering N (%) N (%)

Any time needed 11(12.8) 21(18) Daily 25(29) 36(30.8) Every two days 50((58.2) 60(51.2)

Total 86(100) 117(100)

4.1.5.2 Sheep and goat Health Managements

According to the respondents feed poisoning and deficiency and/or poisonous local botanicals

were the major causes of sheep and goat death or loss (Table 14). About 30% of the respondents

reported that diseases and parasites were the second main cause of flock mortality. There was no

significant (P<0.05) variation in the cause of death or loss of sheep and goat in the study sites.

Table 14: Cause of death/loss for sheep and goat in the study area (N/%)

Highland Moist midland Dry midland Cause of death/ Loss Kebele Kebeles Kebele Overall X2 P-value Diseases and parasites 4(18.2) 7(22.5) 13(48.1) 24(30) 14.57 0.27 Feed poisoning and 12(54.5) 10(32.2) 11(40.7) 33(41.2) 13.43 0.57 deficiency - 1(3.2) - 1(1.2) 17.87 0.27 Physical damages 4(18.2) 9(29.0) 2(7.4) 15(18.8) 16.48 0.35 Predators 1(4.5) 1(3.2) 1(3.7) 3(3.8) 17.50 0.13 Undetermined reasons 1(4.5) 3(9.6) - 4(5) 15.59 0.41

Total 22(100) 31(100) 27(100) 80(100)

4.1.5.3 Preference to Sheep and goats

About 31.6% of the respondents prefer sheep over goats as they are easy to manage, but about

21.05% and 15.79% of respondents, respectively, prefer goats to sheep for high market demand

and high market prices (Table 15).

Table 15: Reason for expanding sheep and goat flock

Sheep Goat Attributes N (%) N (%) High market demand 15(15.79) 24(20.2) High market value/price 20(21.05) 30(25.3) Tame to manage 30(31.58) - Immediate returns 20(21.05) 20(16.8) Adaptive to production environment 10(10.53) 35(29.5) Produce milk for family consumption - 10(8.4) Total 95(100) 119(100)

About 21.05% sheep and 16.8% goat owners comparably appreciate immediate return due to high reproduction efficiency. About 29.5% of the respondents indicated that adaptation of goats under climatic stresses and extensive production environment are considered as valuable attributes.

4.1.5.4 Sheep and goat Breeding Management

4.1.5.4.1 Productive and reproductive performances of sheep and goat

Productive and reproductive Performance of sheep and goat flocks are given in Table 16. Different factors were identified to hinder the productivity performance of the flock in the area, including diseases/parasite burden (29.2%), inconvenient climatic condition (28.3%), inadequate feed and water supply (21.7%) and lack of breeding male with qualified performance (20%).

Table 16: Productive and reproductive parameters of sheep and goat flocks

Sheep Goat Male Female Male Female Parameter Mean(SE) Mean(SE) Mean(SE) Mean(SE) Weaning age(month) 4.9(0.174) 4.01(0.123)

Age at puberty(month) 6.78(0.11) 7.08(0.09) 6.56(0.12) 6.90(0.11) Slaughter age(month) 8.8(0.28) 8.17(0.29) 8.46(0.29) 7.66(0.17) Age at first parturition(month) 14.46(0.18) 13.27(0.17) Parturition interval(month) 7.93(0.14) 6.85(0.11) litter size 1.44(0.13) 1.77(0.21) Annual reproductive rate 0.93(0.17) 1.57(0.28)

4.1.5.4.2 Flock management practices

The majority of the respondents (66.7%) castrate their male animals (Table 17). About11.8% of the households uses modern methods of castration (using Burdizzo) at kebeles animal clinic. The majority (81.6%) of the households use traditional methods (using stick, stone to crash vas deference of the testes) of castration. The average age of castration was 2.83 years for sheep and

2.81years for goats. About 45% of sheep owing respondents dock the tail of female sheep at an average age of 7.52 days to facilitate mating.

Table 17: Management practice of the flock

Particulars N (%) Castrate sheep and goat 80(66.7) Traditional method 62(81.6) Modern method 9(11.8) Both(traditional and modern) 5(6.6) Provide special management for fattening animal 107(89.2) Practice culling of sheep and goat 89(74.2) Dock/cut tail of female sheep 54(45) Mean(SE)

Age at tail dock of female sheep (days) 7.52(0.48) Age at castration of ram (years) 2.83(0.095) Age at castration of buck (years) 2.81(0.092)

The selection criterion for small ruminant in the study area is given in Table 18. The results indicate that the primary selection criteria for sheep (42.5%) and goat (44.1%) were based on conformation while physical trait was the second criteria for the sheep (34.5%) and goat (36%). About 74.2% of the respondents practice culling out of unproductive or poor performing flocks. About 40% and

44.2% of the sheep and goat owners (respectively) indicated that coat color is one of the most important traits.

Table 18: Selection criteria of sheep and goat flock (N/%)

Characteristics Sheep Goat Conformation 37(42.5) 49(44.1) Known local ecotype 16(18.4) 18(16.2) Physical trait 30(34.5) 40(36) Age 4(4.6) 5(4.5)

Physical traits

Coat color 40(40) 53(44.2) Horn 20(20) 11(9.2) Ear 2(2) 8(6.7) Tail 18(18) 5(4.2) Body length 20(20) 42(35.3)

The orientation of horns is prominently considered according to 9.2% goat and 20% sheep owners.

The width, length and fatness of the tail are vitally important in sheep where 18% of the respondents look intently.

4.1.5.5 Housing of sheep and goats

Different types of houses, housing materials, and the common housing systems are shown in Table

19. The majority of the respondent (48.3%) house sheep and goat in the adjoining house together with cattle. About 30.8% of the respondent house sheep and goat in the main house together with the family. Separate sheep and goat housing was also reported by 20.8% of households.

Table 19: Housing of Sheep and Goats in the study area (N/%)

Highland Moist midland Dry midland Housing and construction kebele Kebeles kebele Overall Main house 12(40) 17(28.3) 8(26.6) 37(30.8) Adjoin house 14(46.6) 27(45) 17(56.6) 58(48.3) Separate house 4(13.3) 16(26.6) 5(16.6) 25(20.8) Material used to build Pen Grass thatched 21(70) 22(36.6) 5(16.6) 48(40) Wood 9(30) 38(63.3) 25(83.3) 72(60) Total 30(100) 60(100) 30(100) 120(100)

4.1.5.6 Household division of labor for management of sheep and goats

In general, all activities regarding management of sheep and goat were similar and done by the family labor (Table 20). Although all household members were involved in sheep and goat management activities to a varied degree, respondents reported specific responsibilities of the different household members. Purchasing and selling of sheep and goats was the major responsibility of husband (mostly household heads) followed by wife, boys and girls. Wives were reported to be responsible for cleaning flock barns (55.8%), caring for kids (33.3%), and engaging

53 in flock herding (15.8%). Boys were responsible for flock herding (44.2%), watering (15%), cut and carry feeding (20%) and delivering extensive caring (19.2%) for young animals. Husband rendered about 60 % traditional and veterinary services for sick animals. Women owned considerable (12.5%) flock, while boys (15%) and girls (8.3%) own some of the flocks. 64.2% is the proportion of men responsible for selling sheep and goats. About 90.8% husbands possess more power in deciding the use of incomes generated from sale of animals and skins.

Table 20: Labor allocation in sheep and goat management

Responsibility

Tasks Men (%) Women (%) Boys (%) Girls (%) Flock herding 30.5 15.8 44.2 7.5 Cut-and-carry feeding 29.2 31.7 20 19.2 Watering flock 10.8 48.3 15 25.8 Clean flock barn 1.7 55.8 1.2 41.3 Care for young flock 2.5 33.3 19.2 45 Fattening managements 66.7 31.7 1.7 - Treat sick flock 60 37.5 0.8 1.7 Sale sheep and goats at markets 64.2 20 12.5 3.3 Decides on use of proceeds 90.8 9.2 - - Owner of the flocks 64.2 12.5 15 8.3

4.1.5.7 Sheep and goat Flock Dynamics

The major factors that account for the increase and reduction of flock size are shown in Table 21.

About 39.5% and 29.4% of the respondent reported that selling is the major disposal mechanism of sheep and goats, respectively. Slaughter represents a total disposal of 23.7% in sheep and 21.5% in goat. About 8.9 % in goat and 5.26 % were lost due to predators’ attack. Share holding represent

5.26% in sheep and 15.2% in goat. Purchasing the flock was a major source of building household flock which constituted about 59.6% in sheep and 53.1% in goat flocks. Home born, gifts from family and relatives and share holding, respectively, contribute 21.3%, 14.9% and 4.26% of the total sheep acquisitions, while it was 27.16%, 9.9% and 9.9% for goats.

Table 21: Mode of sheep and goat flocks entry and exit during the last 12 months (% of respondents)

Routes Sheep Goat Overall

Enter through Home born 10(21.3) 22(27.16) 32(25) Share holding 2(4.26) 8(9.9) 10(7.81) Gifts/inheritance 7(14.9) 8(9.9) 15(11.7) Purchased 28(59.6) 43(53.1) 71(55.5) Exit through Sales 15(39.5) 27(34.2) 42(35.9) Mortality 4(10.5) 6(7.6) 10(8.55) Slaughter 9(23.7) 17(21.5) 26(22.2) Theft/robber 3(7.9) 1012.7) 13(11.1) Predator 2(5.26) 7(8.9) 9(7.69) Gift/inheritance 3(7.9) - 3(2.56) Share holding 2(5.26) 12(15.2) 14(12)

4.1.6 Sheep and goat marketing

4.1.6.1 Household Marketing

4.1.6.1.1 Purposes of sales

Sheep and goat are sold to fulfill immediate cash requirements. About 17%, 16%, 15% of the total respondents sold their sheep and goats for children school expense, to pay back credit and family medical expenses, respectively. About 12.9 % and 11.4% of the household’s reported that selling sheep and goats to generate incomes for purchasing family food items and farm inputs during cropping seasons.

Table 22: Purpose of selling sheep and goat (N/%)

Highland Moist midland Dry midland Purpose kebele Kebeles kebele Overall X2 P-value Purchase farm - 3(8.1) 5(21.7) 8(11.4) 15.54 0.41 input School expenses 2(20) 9(24.3) 6(26.1) 17(24.3) 10.85 0.76 Medical 1(10) 10(27.0) 4(17.4) 15(21.4) 16.44 0.35 expenses Escape loss risks 2(20) 2(5.4) 1(4.3) 5(7.1) 9.207 0.87 Purchase food 2(20) 6(16.2) 1(4.3) 9(12.9) 10.35 0.8 items Pay back credits 3(30) 7(18.9) 6(26.1) 16(22.9) 14.63 0.48

Total 10(100) 37(100) 23(100) 70(100)

4.1.7 Sheep and goats production and marketing constraints

4.1.7.1 Sheep and goat production constraints

The problem of diseases and parasites, inadequate quantity and poor quality of feed were similar across the sites (Table 23). Respondents reported the current extension system is providing them little support to enable them expanding their flock production. Lack of capital to build flock holding and purchase of production inputs (largely health and feeding) was among limiting factor for respondents.

Table 23: Major constraints of sheep and goat production according to the respondent

Highland Kebele Moist midland Kebeles Dry mid land Kebele

Rank Rank Rank

Constraints 1 2 3 Index 1 2 3 Index 1 2 3 Index

Diseases and parasites 7 - 5 0.14 17 12 10 0.24 14 5 12 0.36

Feeds and nutrition 3 8 2 0.15 14 21 12 0.27 6 22 8 0.39

Water - 4 3 0.06 - 4 5 0.04 1 - - 0.02

Labor shortage 1 - 2 0.03 - 4 6 0.04 - - 1 0.01

Drought 1 1 1 0.03 3 1 7 0.05 1 - - 0.02

Predators 1 2 2 0.05 - 2 8 0.03 - - 1 0.01

Marketing 1 - 3 0.03 - 3 2 0.02 - - - 0

Lack of Technologies 3 8 6 0.17 4 8 7 0.1 1 - 4 0.04

Lack of Extension Support 7 - 3 0.13 9 2 3 0.09 3 3 4 0.11

Lack of capital 3 3 2 0.09 8 1 - 0.07 3 - - 0.05

Lack of input 3 4 1 0.1 5 2 - 0.05 1 - - 0.02

Shrinking sizes of the grazing lands driven by the expansion of land cultivation reported was to be the leading reasons for feed shortage. Declining yield and carrying capacity of grazing lands were rated as the second important impediment in supplying adequate amounts of feeds across the study sites.

Table 24: Reason for feed shortage (N/%)

Highland Moist midland Dry midland Overall X2 P-value Particulars Kebele Kebeles Kebele Cultivation of grazing 12(40) 28(46.6) 13(43.3) 53(44.2) 20.8 0.05 land Increase in livestock 6(20) - 1(3.3) 7(5.8) 78.9 0.000 population Drought 6(20) 4(6.6) 1(3.3) 11(9.2) 11.0 0.530 Declining yield of 3(10) 25(41.6) 16(50) 43(35.8) 54.6 0.000 grazing lands Increase in human 3(10) 3(5) - 6(5) 33.7 0.000 Population

Total 30(100) 60(100) 30(100) 120(100)

4.1.7.2 Marketing constraints of sheep and goats

About 25.8 % of the households reported taxation as a primary marketing problem, particularly

charges imposed in cases where animals are not sold in one or more market days. About 25% of

the household responded that sheep and goats marketing are highly abused by brokers .About

11.7% of the total respondents reported that they hold less power to determine sale prices. About

14.2% stated lack of access to incentive for export and domestic markets.

Table 25: Major sheep and goat marketing constraints (N/%)

Highland Moist midland Dry midland Overall X2 P-value Constraints kebele Kebeles kebele Taxation 10(33.3) 11(18.3) 10(33.3) 31(25.8) 11.16 0.52 Brokers/dealers 7(23.3) 20(33.3) 3(10) 30(25) 22.8 0.03 Seasonality of markets 5(16.7) 15(25) 8(26.7) 28(23.3) 9.744 0.64 Lack of access to market 3(10) 8(13.3) 6(20) 17(14.2) 13.54 0.33 road Lack of price 5(16.7) 6(10) 3(10) 14(11.7) 13.73 0.32 information

Total 30(100) 60(100) 30(100) 120(100)

4.2 On-Farm Feeding and Digestibility Experiment

4.2.1Chemical Composition of Treatment Feeds

The chemical composition of the feeds used in the present study is given in Table 26. Napier grass

had relatively high CP and ME content. Cowpea had the highest lignin content. Concentrate and

wheat bran had high IVOMD. The CP content for Napier grass and cowpea in the refusal is lower

than that of offer.

Table 26: Nutrient composition of experimental feeds (% DM, unless specified)

Feed Offered DM Ash CP NDF ADF ADL IVOMD ME (%) (MJ/ kg) Napier grass 25.80 21.15 10.85 62.98 32.50 4.82 68.88 9.93 Cow pea hay 90.99 14.89 15.30 53.48 43.85 8.63 69.61 9.34 Noug seed cake 93.05 8.09 41.24 47.91 12.38 3.72 68.81 8.19 Wheat bran 94.28 1.32 16.35 41.58 7.60 1.27 81.66 12.31 Concentrate mix 93.23 0.81 19.63 44.85 8.32 2.00 80.40 11.59

Feed Refused Napier grass refusal T1 25.65 20.38 7.23 65.08 36.61 6.09 66.49 9.59 T2 25.78 22.81 7.60 63.44 36.22 5.91 64.32 9.27 T3 25.69 20.74 8.14 64.08 36.38 6.06 69.38 10.00 T4 25.68 20.02 7.83 66.68 40.21 6.21 67.34 9.71 Cow pea hay refusal T2 91.21 16.12 12.27 61.37 52.09 9.92 63.83 8.74 T3 91.12 13.53 10.17 61.03 50.83 9.15 65.91 9.30 T4 91.00 15.84 10.06 61.52 51.75 9.86 64.21 8.79 ADF= acid detergent fiber; ADL= acid detergent lignin; CP= crude protein; DM= dry matter; NDF= neutral detergent fiber; OM= organic matter; NG= Napier Grass ; CM= Concentrate Mix ; WB= Wheat bran; NSC= Noug seed cake; T1 = Napier grass ad libitum+ 300 g/head/d

60 concentrate mix ; T2= Napier grass ad libitum + 200 g/head/d concentrate mix+ 100g/head/d cowpea hay ; T3 = Napier grass ad libitum + 100 g/head/d concentrate mix+ 200g/head/d cowpea hay; T4= Napier grass ad libitum+ 300 g/head/d cowpea hay.

4.2.2 Dry matter and Nutrient Intake

The daily DM and nutrient intake of sheep fed on Napier grass supplemented with different proportions of cowpea hay and concentrates mix are presented in Table 27. Napier grass DM intake for T1 was higher (P<0.05) than that of T4. There was no significant difference in Napier grass

DM intake among T2, T3 and T4. The highest (P<0.05) cowpea DM intake was for T4 while the lowest (P<0.05) was for T2. The highest (P<0.05) total DM, OM and ME intake was for T1 while the lowest (P<0.05) was for T4. When expressed in terms of metabolic body weight, the DM intake was similar among treatments. The CP intake for T1 and T2 was greater (P<0.05) than T4 while

T3 had an intermediate value.

Table 27: Feed intake of Sheep fed on Napier grass and supplemented with different proportions of Cowpea hay and concentrate mix

Parameters T1 T2 T3 T4 SEM SL Napier grass DM intake (g/d) 479.07a 463.01ab 469.03ab 468.38b 3.8 ** Cowpea DM intake (g/d) - 71.075c 157.25b 216.72a 0.96 *** Concentrate mix DM intake(g/d) 279.7a 186.47b 93.23c - 21.73 *** Total DM intake (g/d) 758.77a 720.55b 719.52b 685.1c 4.16 *** DM intake (% BW) 3.1 3.09 3.15 3.29 0.08 ns DM intake(kg(W0.75) 60.42 58.5 59.3 57.63 0.87 ns OM intake (g/d) 657.01a 633.47b 606.29c 545.86d 4.3 *** CP intake (g/d) 100.89a 102.36a 96.86ab 93.08b 2.0 * NDF intake (g/d) 425.39a 412.06b 424.59ab 396.19c 4.26 ***

ADF intake (g/d) 174.78c 199.16b 227.32a 230.02a 3.55 *** ADL intake (g/d) 30.31b 31.25b 36.62a 38.39a 0.62 *** ME intake (MJ/ kg DM/d) 8.03a 7.28b 7.30b 6.78c 0.05 *** Digestible Nutrient intake(g/d)

Dry Matter 627.33a 632.22a 571.85b 521.56c 14.15 *** Organic Matter 558.6a 555.25a 491.4b 425.6c 12.43 *** Crude Protein 89.27a 94.45a 78.75b 82.6b 2.25 *** a, b, c, d means with different superscripts in a row are significantly different. *= (P<0.05); **= (P<0.01) ***= (P<0.001); ADF= acid detergent fiber; BW= body weight; CM= concentrate mix; CP= crude protein; DM= dry matter; ME= metabolisable energy; NDF= neutral detergent fiber; OM=organic matter; SEM= standard error of mean; d=day;. T1 = Napier grass ad libitum+ 300 g/head/d concentrate mix ; T2= Napier grass ad libitum + 200 g/head/d concentrate mix+ 100g/head/d cowpea hay ; T3 = Napier grass ad libitum + 100 g/head/d concentrate mix+ 200g/head/d cowpea hay; T4= Napier grass ad libitum+ 300 g/head/d cowpea hay.

4.2.3 Dry Matter and Nutrients Digestibility

Dry matter and nutrient digestibility in sheep fed different proportion of concentrate and cowpea are presented in Table 28. Sheep fed on T2 had the highest (P<0.05) DM and OM digestibility as compared to sheep fed on the other treatment diets. The CP digestibility for T2 and T4 was higher

(P<0.05) than that of T1 and T3. The NDF and ADF digestibility in T2, T3 and T4 were similar

(P>0.05) but higher (P<0.01) than T1.

Table 28: Nutrient apparent digestibility percentage in sheep fed on Napier grass and supplemented with different proportions of Cowpea hay and Concentrate mix

Parameters T1 T2 T3 T4 SEM SL

DM digestibility 74.67b 79.98a 73.94b 73.07b 1.82 * OM digestibility 77.36ab 81.77a 75.50b 75.08b 1.78 * CP digestibility 81.76b 86.2a 80.02b 84.3ab 1.54 * NDF digestibility 67.44b 76.11a 73.22ab 74.46a 2.03 * ADF digestibility 59.70b 71.83a 69.18a 66.05ab 2.4 ** a, b, ab means with different superscripts in a row are significantly different. *= (P<0.05);**=(p<0.01);ADF= acid detergent fiber; CP= crude protein; DM= dry matter; NDF= neutral detergent fiber; OM=organic matter; SEM= standard error of mean; T1 = Napier grass ad libitum+ 300 g/head/d concentrate mix ; T2= Napier grass ad libitum + 200 g/head/d concentrate mix+ 100g/head/d cowpea hay ; T3 = Napier grass ad libitum + 100 g/head/d concentrate mix+ 200g/head/d cowpea hay; T4= Napier grass ad libitum+ 300 g/head/d cowpea hay.

4.2.4 Body Weight Gain and Feed Conversion Efficiency

Mean body weight change and feed conversion efficiency of the experimental animals are

presented in Table 29. The average daily gain for T1 and T2 was greater (P<0.001) than T3 and

T4. The lowest (P<0.01) FCE and PUE were for T4.

Table 29: Body weight parameters of Sheep fed on Napier grass supplemented with different proportions of Cowpea hay and concentrate mix

Parameter T1 T2 T3 T4 SEM SL Initial body weight (kg) 16.75 16.33 16.5 16.23 0.197 ns Final body weight (kg) 24.75a 23.53ab 23.08b 20.9c 0.54 *** BW Change (kg) 8.0a 7.2ab 6.58b 4.66c 0.48 *** Average daily gain (g/d) 114.3a 102.86ab 94.05b 66.67c 6.8 *** FCE (g DBWG/g DDMI) 0.15a 0.14a 0.13a 0.098b 0.006 ** PUE (g DBWG/g DCPI) 1.13a 1.01a 0.98a 0.72b 0.073 ** a, b, c means with different superscripts in a row are significantly differ. *=(P<0.05); **=(p<0.01)***= (P<0.001); ns=non-significant; BW= body weight; DBW= Daily Body weight gain; DDMI=Daily dry matter intake; DMI= dry matter intake; DCPI= Daily crude protein intake; FCE= Feed conversion efficiency; PUE=Protein use efficiency; SEM= standard error of

63 means;T1 = Napier grass ad libitum+ 300 g/head/d concentrate mix ; T2= Napier grass ad libitum + 200 g/head/d concentrate mix+ 100g/head/d cowpea hay ; T3 = Napier grass ad libitum + 100 g/head/d concentrate mix+ 200g/head/d cowpea hay; T4= Napier grass ad libitum+ 300 g/head/d cowpea hay.

The trend of weight changes across the feeding days (Fig. 2) revealed that all treatment groups, showed similar pattern of body weight gain up to 14th day. After 42 days, sheep in T1, T2 and T3 showed a steady growth rate throughout the experimental period.

15 T1 T2 10 T3

Body weight change(Kg) weight Body 5 T4

0 0 14 28 42 56 70 Feeding Days

T1 = Napier Grass ad libitum+ 300 g/head/d concentrate mix ; T2= Napier Grass ad libitum +

200 g/head/d concentrate mix+ 100g/head/d cowpea hay ; T3 = Napier grass ad libitum + 100 g/head/d concentrate mix+ 200g/head/d cowpea hay; T4= Napier grass ad libitum+ 300 g/head/d cowpea hay.

Figure 2: Trend in body weight change in sheep fed on Napier grass and supplemented with different proportions of cowpea hay and concentrate mix.

4.2.5 Partial Budget Analysis

The partial budget analysis of sheep fed on Napier grass supplemented with different proportions of cowpea hay and concentrate mix is shown in Table 30. The mean purchase and selling price were 45 and 60 Ethiopian birr per kg live weight, respectively. According to the result of partial budget analysis, the highest net benefit was obtained from the use of T2 (555.22 birr/head), followed by T3 (537.52 birr/head), T1 (530.63 birr/head) and T4 (470.50 birr/head).According to dominance analysis, T1 and T4 were dominated by other treatments, hence, eliminated from further economic analysis. Based on the marginal analysis, T3 (184.9% MRR) and T2 (67.3% MRR) were superior to other treatments.

Table 30: Partial budget analysis of sheep fed on Napier grass and supplemented with different proportions of Cowpea hay and concentrates mix.

Parameter T1 T2 T3 T4

Initial body weight 16.75 16.33 16.5 16.23 Final body weight 24.75 23.53 23.08 20.9 Cow Pea hay(Kg/sheep) 5.45 12.09 16.73

Concentrate mix(Kg/sheep) 21 14 7

Salt(Kg/Sheep) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 Total supplement consume as fed Base (Kg/sheep) 21.7 20.15 19.79 17.43 Supplement cost(ETB/Sheep)

Cost of Cowpea 0 27.25 60.45 83.65 Cost of Concentrate mix 178.5 119 59.5 0 Cost of Salt 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 Purchase price of sheep 741.7 741.7 741.7 741.7 Total Variable Cost(A) 924.4 892.1 865.8 829.6 Selling Price of Sheep(B) 1455 1447 1403 1300 Net Return(C)=(B-A) 530.63 555.22 537.52 470.5

Change of Total Variable Cost(∆TVC) 32.25 26.3 36.27 0 Change in Net Return(∆NR) -24.6 17.7 67.07 0 MRR(%)=(∆NR/∆TVC)*100 D 67.3 184.9 D MRR=Marginal Rate of Return; ETB=Ethiopian Birr D=Dominated

5. DISCUSSION

5.1 Small ruminant production system

5.1.1 Household and Farming Characteristics

The family size reported in the present study was higher than the average family sizes (5.9) of the country (CSA 2015).The presence of large family size might be attributed to labor demand for agricultural activities in the area and lack of awareness about proper family planning methods. The ages of the majority of the respondents were between 15-55 years which is in agreement with the report by Tassew and Seifu (2009) from Bahir Dar Zuria and Mecha districts. The presence of large proportion active working force (between 15-55 years old) can be an opportunity to undertake different agricultural activities effectively (Tassew and Seifu, 2009).The result of this study shows that majorities of the respondents were literate, which could help farmers to adopt new technologies and innovations in the communities (Hizkel et al.,2018).

Household occupation and land holding

The average land holding in the present study was consistent with the 1.3 ha reported for Burie district (Yenesew, 2010). Landholdings range from 1.01 to 2.00 ha for about 30.8% of farmers in the SNNPR and for 33.3% of farmers at the national level (CACC, 2003). The average land holdings per household in Hadero Tunto Zuriya districts was lower than that was reported (1.93 ha) by (Belete, 2009) for Gomma district of Jimma zone. However, land holding found in this study is higher than the regional (0.73ha) and comparable with the national (1.22ha) holdings

(ESS, 2014). The average crop land holding in the present study was consistent with 0.94 ha reported for Gamo gofa zone (Fsahatsion et al., 2013). On the other hand, the mean grazing land holding per household observed in the present study was lower than 0.24 ha/HH reported by

Fsahatsion et al., (2013). The size of landholding is an important factor that determines availability of feed for livestock.

Livestock holding and composition

The overall mean cattle holding in current study was consistent with the values (3.75 and 3.9) reported for Bensa district of Sidama zone (Hizkel et al., 2018) and Bati area of Amhara Region

(Hulunim, 2014), respectively. However, the overall mean cattle holding of the households in the current study were lower than the value (10.4) reported by Hulunim (2014) for Borena area of

Oromia Region. The overall mean goat holdings in the current study were similar with the figure reported for Kochere district Gedio Zone, SNNPRS (Selamawit and Matiwos, 2015). Keeping small number of animals is related to the availability of feed resources (Osterele et al., 2012).The higher number of cattle could be attribute to the high demand of cultivation activities, cash sources and animal source foods (Salo et al., 2017).The small number of small ruminant holding could due to shortage and poor productivity of grazing land (Ahmed et al, 2010).

The higher proportion of goat and cattle as compared to sheep might be due to the fact that goat can thrive well under adverse and hot climatic conditions (disease, and drought), respectively, while sheep are considered more sensitive to hot environment (Tsedeke, 2007).

5.1.2 Sheep and Goat Flock Size and Structure

The proportions of breeding ewes in the current study were below the report (72.52%) of Hizkel et al., (2018) in Bensa district, SNNPRS, but consistent with the report (42.4%) of Abebe et al.

(2000) in Debre Berhan and does in the present study were comparable to the value of 39.4% in

Alaba special woreda (Tsedeke, 2007). Keeping of high proportion of female sheep and goat imply the production of larger number of lamb and kids, which has direct impact on selection intensity.

The breeding rams found in this study is above the reports (2.0%, 12.5%, 8.6%) of Duguma et al.,

(2005) , Abebe et al., (2000) and Berhanu (1998), respectively, but similar with the value reported

(22.4%) by Agyemang et al., (1985). The bucks (18.9%, 5.9%) in this study are higher than the reports of Markos (2000) and Tsedeke (2007) for Sidama and Alaba area, respectively, but similar with the value (22.1%, 25.3%) reported by FARM-Africa (1996) for Arsi-Bale goats in rift valley areas and for Keffa goats in southwestern Ethiopia, respectively. The high proportion of intact sheep and goats observed in the present study might be related to the objective of meat production.

Based on the current study kids (male and female, 3-6 month) of the goat flock was lower than the finding of Tsedeke (2007) i.e., 51.7 % in Alaba. The flock owner determines the flock composition based on economic and management considerations.

5.1.3 Sheep and goat Production and Management

Feed resources, seasonal availability and utilization

Weeds, grazing stubble and road side grazing were common feed sources in the study area. Tesfaye

(2008) indicated that natural pasture was the main source of feed for livestock in Ethiopia.

Alemayehu (2003) estimated that natural pasture provides from 80–90%, and crop residues 10–

15% of the total livestock feed intake in Ethiopia. Although there are differences in the utilization across months of the years, communal grazing lands are utilized throughout the year. The availability and quality of forages are not favorable and uniform in all year round. As a result, indigenous browses are other sources of feed in the study area especially for goats which are mostly found in dry mid land kebele compared to moist mid and high land kebeles. Belete (2009) reported that indigenous browses are sources of feed other than natural pasture in Goma District of Jimma

Zone. Yeshitila (2007) also reported the utilization of indigenous browses as feed resources in

Alaba district of SNNPR.

Availability of feeds in the study district depends on the season of the year. After harvest of Belg crops (December/January) sheep and goats graze the crop stubbles for few months and then the

Meher crops take over from July to part of December. During these extended times when land is covered with crops, grazing on communal, private, road, riversides constitute major sheep and goat feeds. In the current study area sheep and goats are under close supervision throughout the day and in all seasons of the year to prevent them from damaging crop and to protect them from predators.

After harvest, crop residues (straws and fresh tops and thinning of stovers) and crop stubble are the major feeds for sheep and goats. Improved forages in the district is demonstrated by a number of forage demonstration and multiplication sites including on farm and on station level in the district with the support of NGOs and developmental agents by creating awareness towards the

69 use of improved forages for smallholder farmers. Supplementary feeding of small ruminant is not commonly practiced in the study area. However, flock holders in the study area occasionally, depending availability of feed, provide feed supplements in the morning before the animals are turned out for grazing and in the afternoon when the animal return home. In contrary to the present study Endeshaw (2007) reported that sweet potato, haricot been residue, maize from early stage to post harvest are commonly used feeds in Dale district of Sidama zone. Tsedeke (2007) also reported that 23% and 34 % of the households supplement green fodder and attela, respectively in

Alaba area. Provision of Bole, a form of mineral supplement, and common salt for feeding sheep and goat were carried out by the household especially when they fatten sheep and goats. The same practice was reported around Metema area (Solomon, 2007) in Afar and Menz area (Tesfaye, 2008) and in Bonga and Horro area (Zewedu, 2008).

Water sources and watering

The major source of water in the present finding was in line with the study from Dale district of

Sidama zone where river and well water were the major source of water (Endeshaw, 2007).

Similarly, the use of river water as a major source of water for goats was reported from Ebnat and

Farta district of Amhara region (Damitie et al., 2015). To the contrary Hulunim (2014) described that 45.45% and 23.48% of households in Borena and Siti (around Dire Dawa) areas traveled more than 6 km to find water. The result of this study shows that few respondents indicated that they travel more than 5 km in search of water for their livestock. .

Sheep and goat Health Managements

Under traditional management system diseases are the major setback in any profitable livestock production system. Major diseases and parasites causing mortality and morbidity in this study is in agreement to the reports of Tesfaye (2009) for goats in Metema woreda and Berhanu (1998) for

70 sheep in southwestern parts of Ethiopia. This confirms the findings of Tekelye et al. (1992) who reported considerable morbidity and mortality of sheep primary caused by infectious under farmers’ management condition of Debre Berhan area. Pneumonia at large (Tekelye et al., 1992) and endo-parasites (fascioliasis, cestodiasis and gastrointestinal nematodes and lungworms)

(Tekelye and Kasali, 1992) are major causes of morbidity and mortality in sheep. Similarly,

Tembely (1998) reported that parasitic diseases (gastrointestinal nematodes and fasciolosis) and infectious diseases (Peste des Petits Ruminants/PPR, Contagious Caprine Pleuro-

Pneumonia/CCPP and respiratory disease syndrome) are major causes of morbidity and mortality of sheep and goats in Ethiopia. Households apply various traditional methods of treatments for their flocks with health problems.

Sheep and goat Breeding Management

The results of the interviews indicated that breeding was uncontrolled which is in close agreement with that of Tajebe et al., (2011) who reported that uncontrolled breeding is a management tradition with the hope to have lambing distributed throughout the year in order to obtain year round output and reduce risk. The farmers themselves in the districts own the breeding rams and bucks. However, in the absence of the same, they usually use breeding males available with the neighbors and very few respondents purchased ram and bucks for breeding purpose. This agrees with previous observation reported for sheep and goat flocks (Berhanu, 1998).Uncontrolled breeding could also result in inbreeding which causes low production and productivity of sheep and goat. Consistent with the present finding, uncontrolled breeding of small ruminant was reported in Alaba area (Tsedeke, 2007). The majority of breeding rams and bucks are originated from the same village. In dry season, immediately after crop harvest ram and buck from different flocks which roam freely mates females within the same village or from other villages. Mukasa-

Mugerwa et al. (2002) found that mating of ewes in the dry season lead to higher fertility than those mated in the wet season that ewes from the previous wet season came with enough body reserves. The same author confirmed that lambing in the subsequent wet season further enhanced weaning rates and productivity due to better grazing during lactation. In rams, Takele et al. (2006) confirmed that adequate seasonal feed availability result superior reproductive performance. This implies that major lambing and kidding during wet season is favorable to the new borne.

Productive and reproductive performances of sheep and goat

The mean weaning age for kids and lambs in this study is earlier than 5.9 and 6.6 months reported in Kochere district (Adugna, 1998) and 4.8, and 5.3 months, in Wolaita area, respectively, for kids and lambs (Adugna, 1990),but comparable with 4 and 4.6 month respectively for kid and lamb in

Alaba area (Tsedeke, 2007). This could be attributed to the relative better feed supply compared to the densely populated Kochore and Wolaita areas. The mean age at puberty for sheep observed in this study is comparable to 6.7 month for male and 6.9 month for female sheep in Alaba area

SNNPRS (Tsedeke, 2007). The mean age at puberty reported for goats is also comparable with observation of Tsedeke (2007) who reported 6.6 months for male and 7 month for female goat.

Slaughter ages observed in this study are earlier than the findings of Adugna (1998) who reported

10.8 months for both male and female kids and 13.5 months for female and 13.8 months for male lambs.

FAO (2002) reported age at first lambing ranging between 16.2 and 16.9 months and that at first kidding from 13.5 to 17.5 months in mixed farming systems of sub-Sahara African countries. Early age at first parturition observed in this study agree with finding of Wilson (1989) reported management decisions concerning the age at which females should be mated for the first time may be based on a minimum age, on a minimum weight or on a combination of both criteria. The same

72 investigator found that under uncontrolled breeding systems in Ethiopia, about 95% of ewes conceived for the first time before the age of 15 months. Lambing interval for ewes found in this study confirms earlier report of Wilson (1989) ranging between 230-437 days. Yikal (2015) also reported a comparable lambing interval of 8.1month in Chencha district Gamo Gofa zone. Kidding interval observed in this study is earlier than 9 to 12 months for flocks in Awassa Zuria woreda

(Markos, 2000). Similar with the present finding Tsedeke (2007) and Yikal (2015) reported kidding interval of 6.9 and 6.8 months in Alaba district and Mirab abaya district of Gamo Gofa zone, respectively. According to Tsedeke (2007) report shorter kidding interval could attribute to the uncontrolled breeding systems.

According to the response of the respondent, the average litter size or prolificacy observed in this study are comparable to observations in African flocks ranging between 1.08 and 1.75 for does and 1.02 and 1.43 for ewes (Wilson, 1989). Endeshaw (2007) also reported litter size of 2.07 for goats in drier parts of Dale district. Foote (1991) (cited in Mukasa-Mugerwa et al., 2002) reported litter size between 1.01-1.60 for tropical sheep. Selamawit and Matiwos (2015) also reported average litter size 1.78 for sheep and 1.7 for goat in Gedio zone of SNNPRS.

The reproductive performance of the breeding female is possibly the single most important factor influencing flock productivity (ILCA, 1990) and there is evident potential of high reproductive efficiency in African indigenous small ruminants ( Tatek et al., 2004). Traditional breeders appear to exploit this potential relatively well, especially concerning age at first parturition and the intervals between successive births (Wilson, 1989).

Flock Management practices

Castrating of ram and bucks is common practice in the study area. Most of the respondent use traditional method of castration ,which is consistent with the previous reports from Bati, Borena

73 and Siti area of Amhara, Oromia and Somali regions, respectively (Hulunim, 2014). The average age of castration reported for sheep and goats in the present study area was higher than other reports (Yikal,2015;Tsedeke,2007 and Belete et al,2015).Generally almost all household practice castration to fetch more money from the sale of fattened sheep and goats. Facilitating easy mating was the main reason of the respondent to dock their female sheep.

Besides to the dynamics of flocks through major exit routes, the study identified that body conformation (height and length) and physical characteristics (coat color, horn, tail) are the major criteria that household consider to select sheep and goats for castration and fattening. This agrees to the findings of Jaitner et al. (2001) who reported that growth (conformation and growth rates), color, horns and breeds are important traits of owners in the Gambian. Coat color, body length and horn in both sheep and goats and tail in sheep are very important traits. This clearly depicts body conformation, certain physical traits (tail, coat color, horn) are foremost criteria that producers, traders and consumers critically consider, and accordingly breeding efforts needs to assimilate the stakeholder preferences.

Housing of sheep and goats

Housing sheep and goats is common practice in the study area. The respondent confines all sex and age group together including lamb and kids. Small ruminant are sheltered for protection in most rural communities such as southern part of Ethiopia (Endeshew, 2007; Tsedeke, 2007); in central rift valley (Samuel, 2006); and in Metama district of Amhara region (Tesfaye, 2009).

However, places of sheltering and type of house vary. The major reason for housing flocks is to minimize attack by predators and to avoid theft. Predators rarely destroy barns and main houses and causes complete loss of flocks. The results conform to the ones reported by Geoff and Trevor,

(2009) that most smallholder farmers keep their livestock in buildings and pens made from local materials such as wood or sun dried bricks, thatch from local grasses and bush poles.

Sheep and goat Flock Dynamics

Sale accounted an average total disposal of sheep and goats. According to the report of Workneh

(2000) and Tsedeke, (2007 ) 35.7% of goat in Eastern Ethiopia and 31.1% sheep in Alaba district exit through sales. Intact male, castrated and weaned young animals are usually sold in need of immediate cash. Pre-weaned young and breeding females are disposed as the last resort. Fattened flocks are sold at targeted seasonal festival markets. Sheep and goat exist through slaughter represents in the current study were higher than Tsedeke (2007) (8.0%) goats in Alaba area and

Hizkel et al., (2018) 7.25% sheep in Bensa district.

5.1.4 Sheep and goat marketing and marketing constraints

The result from the study indicated that sheep and goat are sold coinciding with several factors, the most important being the need of immediate cash to meet up some sudden and unforeseen family needs besides selling the animals when there are incidences of diseases in the area.

Sometimes sheep and goat are also sold when there are shortage of food and feed in the area; during these times the farmers keep only a few animals (to serve as replacement stock and other are sold off). In these household sheep and goats are considered as the major farm-buffering assets.

Similarly, Tsedeke (2007) reported that rural households do not sale large animals and other farm resources for urgent needs because acquiring back them is not easy. Therefore, sheep and goat are always at disposal to buffer disaster of the farm households.

Marketing constraints of sheep and goats

Marketing of sheep and goat generate significant incomes to the rural households. However, they face various marketing constraints. Households selling sheep and goat are often interfered by excessive tax and seasonality of markets, access to incentive and brokers. The results of the group discussion revealed that producers were not market oriented; they did not consider when to produce sheep and goats, even the preferable time of sales was not considered by a majority of the farmers. And also the absence of market information exposes small holder producers for exploitation by brokers. Similar to the current lack of market information was one of the constraints of small ruminant marketing in Burie district (Yenesew, 2010) and other parts of the country

(Getachew et al., 2008).

5.1.5 Sheep and goats production constraints

Small ruminant production in area prioritized the major constraints as diseases and parasite, feed and nutrition deficiency and lack of extension support. In contrast, respondent in the current study condemned that the current extension system is providing them little support to enable them to expand their flock production. It is anticipated that the extension service system could impartially support the farming activities that uphold the livelihood of the smallholder farmers. Sheep and goats are providing an evident contribution through income, food, manure, saving and social and cultural functions. However, the current extension system in the district is undergoing insignificant intervention towards addressing the identified bottlenecks. Lack of capital to build flock holding and purchase production inputs (largely health and feeding) is among limiting factor for respondents.

According to the respondents in Hadero Tunto Zuriya district severe feed shortage mainly occurs during dry season (January-April) but this does not mean there is no feed shortage in other months

76 of the year. Feed shortage limits productivity of small ruminants and it was further worsened due to the absence of awareness and practice of feed conservation techniques. There was significant different among the study areas with respect to reason of feed shortage except the two reason which is increasing of livestock population and drought which could be due to weather condition, soil fertility, water availability difference from one place to another. Moreover, forage development has been given less attention by the farmer. Dhaba et al., (2012) in Ilu Abba Bora

Zone showed that 16, 10, 52, 15% of the respondents stated shrinkage and decline in productivity of grazing land, increased animal population, cultivation and settlement on grazing lands and increased human population as the reasons for feed scarcity.

5.2 On-farm Feeding and Digestibility Experiment

5.2.1Chemical Composition of Treatment Feeds

Napier grass is being adopted owing to its high dry matter, palatability and suitability to cut and carry system. The CP content of Napier grass in the current study is above 7% CP required for microbial protein synthesis in the rumen that can support at least the maintenance requirement of ruminants (Van Soset, 1994). Napier grass has a mean CP level of 5.9-13.8 % (Kahindi et al.,

2007; Kanyama et al., 1995). The level of crude protein of the Napier grass used in the present study was slightly lower than the level (11–12% CP) required for moderate levels of production

(ARC, 1980), but higher than the limiting level (6–8%) below which appetite and forage intake are depressed (Minson, 1982; Forbes, 1986).The CP content of the grass refusals was low while the content of NDF, ADF and ADL were high as compared to the grass offered, indicating selectivity by animals for nutritious parts of the grass, although there was an attempt to decrease selectivity by chopping in this study. The CP value is closer to the 10.25% reported by Mpairwe et al., (1998) but, higher than the 8.5% and 9.3% values reported by Kaitho and Kurivkr, (1998)

77 and Osman, 2011, respectively. The difference in protein content among reports might be due to differences in management practice and climatic condition of the different area. Cheeke (1999) has reported that roughage with NDF content greater than 65% is classified as low quality feed.

According to this classification, Napier grass used in this study can be classified as good quality feed.

The nutrient concentration of wheat bran used in this study is in line with the values reported in different studies (Sultana, 2012; Takele and Getchew, 2011 and Girma 2017). The CP content of noug seedcake used in the present study was not comparable to values 31.1-34.9% reported by various authors (Alemu, 1981; Seyoum and Zinash, 1989; Tesfaye, 2009; Diriba et al., 2013;

Alem, 2014; Worknesh, 2014). The difference in CP content of NSC and WB from different studies might be due to differences in the raw material (varieties of plant) and method of processing

(Solomon, 1992).

The CP content of cowpea hay used in the present study is closer to the 16.69% reported by

Huneghaw (2015). However, it is incomparable with the value of 18.9 and 19.5% reported by

Koralagama (2008), and Michaele et al, (2017), respectively. In agreement to this study, Okoli et al. (2003) also reported that most browse plants have high crude protein content, ranging from 10 to more than 25% on dry matter basis. The variation in crude protein values might be due to varietal differences in the cowpea plant, soil condition, season, age of the plant at harvest, climatic condition (Smith, 1992). Lonsdale (1989) reported that the feeds that have <12%, 12-20% and

>20% CP are classified as low, medium and high protein sources, respectively. Based on this classification concentrate mix and Cowpea hay used in this study are classified as medium protein source feeds.

5.2.2 Feed and Nutrient Intake

The offered quantities of supplements for cowpea hay were not completely consumed by the experimental sheep. This might indicate that there was difference in quality of the collected cowpea forage. The higher total dry matter and basal diet intake observed in T1 and T2 could be related with the high inclusion and intake of concentrate and the preference to green feed in these treatment groups. The low total dry matter intake found in T4 (high inclusion of cowpea hay) might be due to the low level of CP and high content of fiber and lignin in the cowpea hay compared to concentrate mix. Adugna et al. (2002) reported that fed basis that is low in protein content and high in fiber constituents has resulted in low voluntary feed intake. McDonald et al. (2002) reported that feed intake in ruminants consuming fibrous forages is primarily determined by the level of rumen fill, which in turn is directly related to the rate of digestion and passage of fibrous particles from the rumen.

Concentrate supplementation (T1) was superior to cow pea hay substitution and supplementation in terms of the OM and total DM intake improvement in the present study. Fiuharty and Mcclure

(1997) also noted an increase in DM intake when lambs were fed a higher protein diet (18.9% CP) compared with a diet containing lower CP (14%). Supplementation of low quality feeds with CP increased digestibility and intake (Lambourne et al., 1986). This might be because supplementation created a favorable rumen environment resulting in enhanced fermentation of the basal roughage and thus increasing microbial protein synthesis (Osuji et al., 1995). As the rate of breakdown and rate of digestion increased, feed intake accordingly increased (Van Soest, 1982).

The positive effects of supplementation on feed intake may have been a reflection of the increase in the intake of essential nutrients such as energy, vitamins and minerals and in particular nitrogen.

Generally concentrate feeds rich in protein content promotes high microbial population

(McDonald, 2002), which may facilitate rumen fermentation and thereby intake. Inclusion of legumes in Napier grass-based diets has previously been shown to increase dry matter intake

(Abdulrazak et al., 1996), which has been attributed to improved palatability and digestibility. The total DM intake in the present study was comparable to the values (3.25- 4.29%) of BW reported by Zillur et al. (2015) for growing sheep. The discrepancy in total DM intake in different studies could be attributed to the difference in BW of the experimental sheep and the type of diet used in different experiments. Schoenian (2003) mentioned the exact percentage of DM intake varies according to the size of the animal, with smaller animals needing a higher intake to maintain their weight and intakes per unit of BW decrease as the size increase. Significant difference observed among treatments in CP intake which could be attributed to basal and total DM intake. Among the cowpea substituted group (T2 and T3), the CP intake increment was consistent with the increment of concentrate mix level in the supplementary diet and this might be attributed to the higher CP content of concentrate mix used in this experiment. The result of this study indicated that supplementation of concentrate mix and cow pea hay significantly increased total CP intake of sheep. The CP intake in the present study was comparable with 100-105 g/day reported by

Huneghaw (2015) for wollo sheep supplemented with Pigeon pea, cowpea and lablab hay. The highest OM, CP and ME intake in T1,T2 and T3 in respective order could be attributed to the highest nutrient concentration (especially CP and ME) in mixed concentrate supplement.

5.2.3 Dry Matter and Nutrient Digestibility

Digestibility can be affected by feed chemical composition, energy to protein ratio composition, feed processing and level of feeding and animal factor (Mc Donald et al., 2010).Higher DM, OM and CP digestibility in T2 could be attributed to lower NDF content of cowpea forage in the treatment diet which was supported by other reports indicating that legume fiber ferment more

80 rapidly in the rumen (Negash et al, 2017).Frankic et al.,(2009) also reported that herbs stimulate the secretion of pancreatic enzyme that are important factors in nutrient digestion and retention.

Digestibility of a feed is determined largely by chemical composition of the feed (Khan et al.,

2003). The higher CP intake in T2 in the current experiment could have created a better environment by providing more nitrogen for rumen microorganisms which resulted in higher digestibility of DM which is consistent with the report Yinnesu and Ajebu (2012) since high CP intake is usually associated with better CP digestibility (McDonald et al., 2002). Crude protein supplementation increases the rate of cell wall carbohydrate digestion of forages, containing less than 8% CP (Whitman, 1980). It has been reported that nutrients recovered from fermented grains which include low soluble carbohydrate, relatively high fiber and high CP content, as in the case of T2 and T3 diets, stimulate cellulose digestion in the rumen (Huang et al., 1999). It can be inferred that in nutrient digestibility especially major nutrients in T2 and fibers in T3 could be possibly due to the effect of improved microbial growth in the rumen and thus enhanced ruminal fermentation (Aregheore and Perera, 2004). However, when more fiber is added to the diet beyond the optimal level for a given production level, fiber begins its second distinctive effect: limiting intake and digestibility of the diets(Jones et al.,1998).This effects of high fiber diets might be reflected in sheep fed T4 which resulted in decreased digestibility as compared to T2 and T3 diets.

The lower digestibility of DM, CP, NDF, ADF and ADL in T1 (with highest concentrate inclusion) compared to T2 could be associated with decreasing activity of celloulytic micro organism(pH effect) and /or attributed to the physical size reduction of green basal diet which would result in high passage rate which is supported by other findings (Karimizadeh et al.,2017). McDonald et al., (2002) remarked that concentrate feed rich in protein promotes high microbial population which in turn facilitates rumen fermentation. Ranjhan (1997) also noted that the level of protein

81 influences the digestibility of feed. As the level of protein in the feed increased, the apparent protein digestibility would be improved. If protein rich feeds are added to balance low protein roughages, the activities of microorganisms is increased and nutrient digestibility consequently be improved (Ranjihan, 1997). However, in this study, digestibility of CP in T1 did not follow a similar trend with that of CP intake. This may be attributed to differences in the nature of CP contents found in supplemental diets. Supplementation of low quality roughage with moderate levels of protein source has been known to stimulate higher digestibility and therefore, improved feed intake (Ferrell et al., 1999; Fonseca et al., 2001). McDonald et al., (2002) pointed out that digestibility of the feed may be reduced by deficiency or excess of nutrients or other constituents.

Furthermore, ARC (1980) indicated that digestibility is much reduced when a ration has too little protein as compared to the amount of readily digested carbohydrates. All these indicate that the protein and/or nutrients supplied by the different combination of supplements employed in this study were enough to induce more or less similar effect on the digestibility of DM and nutrients.

The mean digestibility of DM, OM, CP, NDF and ADF in the current study were higher than the value reported for black headed Ogaden, Horro and Washera breeds fed local grass hay and concentrate (Ayele et al., 2017). McDowell (1988) mentioned that for the ruminant to express their full genetic potential for growth, the apparent digestibility of feeds should exceed 70% on dry weight basis and when apparent digestibility is 60%, performance will be intermediate and the minimum range of apparent digestibility to assure body maintenance needs is 42-45%, whereas animals lose weight.

5.2.4 Body Weight Gain and feed conversion efficiency

The result in the present study indicated that the effect of feed used was significant on average daily body weight gain, feed conversion efficiency and protein utilization efficiency. This might

82 be associated with the differences in daily DM and CP intake and FCE; Despite T4 numerically had lower daily BW gain as compared to others. This might be associated with inefficient utilization of nitrogen for growth than T1, T2 and T3.The differences in daily BW gain between treatments in the present study more or less reflect the differences in daily DM, CP and metabolizeble energy intake between treatment groups. Similarity in ADG between T1 and T2 showed that cowpea has potential to replace the commercial concentrate in sheep feeding as CP supplements (commercial concentrate) are not available in the area. The average body weight gain achieved in the current performance study was higher than reports for Horro breed(63-75 g) and

Menze breed (15-51g) with on farm management (ICARDA,2017); Washera breed fed local grass hay with concentrate (43.3g)(Ayele et al.,2017),on local grass hay supplemented with different proportion of lupin and concentrate (73.7-91.3g) (Likawent,2012), Horro breed (59.8g) and black head Ogaden (49.2g) fed local grass hay plus concentrate (Ayele et al.,2017).The mean daily weight gain in the current study was also higher than Wollo sheep (20.33g) fed on local grass hay with 200 gram wheat bran and 260 g cowpea hay (Huneghaw,2015) and Begait Sheep (49.2g) fed on local grass hay with 200 g wheat bran and 180g cowpea hay (Michaele et al.,2017). The weight gain variation between the results obtained in the current study and other finding probably is attributed to difference in feed quality (both offered and supplement), form of feed offer(fresh versus dried),form of feed preparation and handling(chopping and storage),farmers care and management, animal movement (restricted verses free movement), environmental variation and probably breed and age. Most basal feed used in the previous finding indicated above were local grass hay and straw that are expected to be lower than green Napier grass. The higher performance of sheep in the current study is attributed to sufficient nutrient contents, higher dry matter and nutrient intake and higher digestibility of diets in the treatment composition.

The cause of increasing BW by all experimental animals in the few days after the start of the experiment could be due to the residual effect of energy and body fat in the first phase of the experimental period (Fig: 2), which was probably high and due to restricted movement that saved energy wastage (Bruh, 2008). In effect, animals can survive with lower nutrients and slight body growth since energy requirement of an animal is influenced by muscular activity (NRC, 1981).

Generally, the result of this experiment showed that use of cowpea hay at different proportions

(100g and 200g cowpea hay) replaced commercial concentrate mix result in improving body weight gain and this shows that cowpea hay can be used as supplement instead of concentrates mix in small ruminant feeding strategy to reduce the cost of feeding at least in smallholder production system, where cowpea can be cultivated at back yard for multipurpose as an option in forage development strategy.

5.2.5 Partial Budget Analysis

As per the current finding, higher net benefit was obtained from T2 followed by T3 diet. This was mainly due to numerically higher weight gain obtained, feed conversion efficiency and higher selling price of animals in this treatment than other treatments groups and lower cost of cowpea as compared to concentrate mix. The result of current study revealed that total variable cost was decreased as the level of cowpea hay increased across the treatment groups. The marginal rate of return obtained from T3 and T2 implies that for 1.0 birr investment in sheep production, and they were recorded above the minimum acceptable rate of return (CIMMYT, 1988).Hence T3, diet is affordable and economical for majority of the farmers as there might be financial constraint to purchase more concentrate.

6. CONCULISION AND RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Conclusion

From this study, sheep and goat production in Hadero Tunto Zuriya district was small-scale subsistence oriented production system. Sheep and goats play an important role in the livelihoods of people in the study area, and they have potential for greater contribution through better health management and genetic improvement. On the other hand, from the reproductive and productive performance for the sheep and goat in flocks in the traditional production systems, it would appear that the reproductive performance of sheep and goats is similar with so many others reports for local sheep and goat breeds in Ethiopia.

The output of on farm feeding and digestion experiment revealed that T1 diet (Napier grass ad libitum+300 gm concentrate mix) and T2 (Napier grass ad libitum+200 gm concentrate mix+100 gm cowpea hay) are superior in supporting to lamb growth performance while T3 (Napier grass ad libitum+100 gm concentrate mix+200 gm cowpea hay) diet also shows good growth performance and economically feasible.

6.2 Recommendations

The following sets of recommendations were forwarded from the results of the study

❖ To reduce loss due to disease, there should be an urgent attention by development actors

and partners to strengthen veterinary services including training, credit facilities, and

formation of farmers cooperative to facilitate drugs supply and distribution.

❖ Inputs and improved technologies relevant to the smallholders need to be delivered.

Marketing intervention of equipping (marketing infrastructures and delivery of market and

price information) for efficient marketing should be given in emphases.

❖ Supplementation or substitution of cowpea for concentrate feed mix specially T3 diet

(using Napier grass ad libitum+100 gm concentrate mix+200 gm cowpea hay) is

recommended, as it can be affordable by majority of farmers with financial scarcity to

purchase more concentrate. To confirm the current results further study is recommended

on the effect of that forage on carcass quality of sheep and cow milk.

7. REFERENCE

Abdulrazak, SA, Muinga, RW, Thorpe, W, Orskov, ER. 1996. The effects of supplementation with Gliricidia sepium or Leucaena leucocephala forage on intake,digestion and live weight gains of Bos taurus x Bosindicus steers offered napier grass. Animal Science 63:381-388

Abebaw N. and Solomon M. 2008. Effects of rice bran and noug seed(Guizotiaabyssinica) cake supplementation on feed utilization and body weight change of Farta sheep. http://WWW.springerlink.Com/content/g

Abebaw Nega 2007. The effect of supplementation with rice bran, “noug” (Guizota abyssinica) seed cake and their mixtures on feed utilization and live weight change of Farta Sheep. MSc Thesis, Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia.

Abebe H. 2008. Supplementation of graded levels of concentrate mixture on feed intake, digestibility, and body weight and carcass characteristics of Washera sheep fed urea treated rice straw. MSc. thesis presented to school of graduate studies of Haramaya University, Ethiopia, 64p.

Abebe Mekoya, Alemu Yami and Mekonen H/Mariam 2000. Management of traditional sheep production in Lallomamma Mider Woreda, North Shoa, Amhara Region. In: ESAP (Ethiopian Society of Animal Production) 2000. Livestock production and the environment-Implication for sustainable livelihoods. Proceedings of the 7th conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP) held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 26-27 May 1999. ESAP (Ethiopian Society of Animal Production),Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Pp143-153.

Adane Hirpa and Girma Abebe 2008. Economic significance of sheep and goats.pp.2- 24. Sheep and Goat production Handbook for Ethiopia. ESGPIP (Ethiopia Sheep and Goats Productivity Improvement Program).Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Adugna Tolera. 2007. Feed resources for producing export quality meat and livestock in Ethiopia: Examples from selected woredas of Oromia and SNNPRS. Ethiopian Sanitary & Phytosanitory Standards and Livestock and Meat Marketing Program (SPSS-LMM), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, p88.

Adugha Tolera. 2012.Potential for Development of Alternative Feed Resource in Ethiopia. Report Prepared for ACDI/VOAC.Addis Ababa Ethiopia. pp 20.

Adugna Tolera, Merkel, R.C., Goetsch, A.L., Tilahun Sahlu and Tegene Negesse 2002. Nutritional constraints and future prospects for goat production in East Africa.Merkel, R.C. Adebe, G. Goetch, A.L. (eds.). Langston University, Oklahama, United States.

Adugna Tolera. 1998.Production situation and some productivity and physical characters of traditionally managed sheep and goats in Kochore District, Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Applied Animal science. 13: pp 49-59 Agyemang, K., Negussie Akalework, Vurtuizen, A. and Anderson, F.M. 1985. A rapid survey of sheep production in the traditional sector of Debre Berhan area, Ethiopian highlands, In: Wilson, R.T. and Bourzat, D. (eds).Small ruminant in African Agriculture. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp 175-185.

Aikins, S.H.M., Afuakwa, J.J. 2008. Growth and dry matter yield responses of cowpea to different sowing depths. Journal of Agriculture and Biological Science. 3:5-6. Ajayi, F.T., Babayemi, O.K. and Taiwo, A.A. 2008. Effects of supplementation of Panicummaximum with four herbaceous forage legumes on performance, nutrient digestibility and nitrogen balance in West African dwarf goats. Animal Science Journal, 79(6): 673- 679. Akinyele, I.O., Onigbinde, A.C., Hussain, M.A. And Omololu, A. 1986. Physicochemical Characteristics Of 18 Cultivars Of Nigerian Cowpeas (VignaUnguiculata) And Their Cooking Properties. Journal of Food Science 51: 1483-1485. Alem Dida. 2014. Substitution of concentrate mix with graded levels of dried moringa (Moringa stenopetala) leaf meal on feed intake, digestibility, live weight change and carcass characteristics of Arsi-bale sheep. MSc Thesis, Haramaya Universty, Haramaya, Ethiopia. Alemayehu Mengistu, 2005. Feed resources base of Ethiopia: Status and opportunities for integrated development. Pp. 377 – 386. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, August 12 – 14, 2004, ESAP (Ethiopian Society of Animal Production) Alemayehu, M. (2003): Country pasture/forage resource profile of Ethiopia, 36p. http://WWW.fao.org/AG/agp/agpc/doc/pasture/forage.htm. Alemu Yami, Zenash Seleshi and Seyoum Bedyie, 1989.The potential of crop residues and agro- industrial by-product in Ethiopian high land. In: proceeding of Third National Livestock Improvement Conference 24 – 26 may, 1989.Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 54p. Alemu Yami. 1981. Laboratory evaluation and estimation of nutritive value of some feedstuffs produced in the Alemaya Woreda. MSc Thesis, Alemaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia. Anindo, D.O. and Potter, H.L. 1994. Seasonal variation in productivity and nutritive value of Napier grass at Muguga, Kenya. E. Africa. Agric. For. J. 59:177-185.

ARC (Agricultural Research Council), 1980. The Nutrient Requirements of Ruminant Livestock. Technical Review by Agricultural Research Council Working Group. Published on behalf of the Agricultural Research Council by the Common Wealth Agricultural Bureaux, Famham Royal, England. pp. 114-151. Aregheore,E.M.,and Perera,D.2004.Effect of Erythrina variegate,Gliricidia Sepium and Leucanea leucocephala on dry matter intake and nutrient digestibility of maie stover before and after spraying with molasses.Animal and Feed Science Technology.111:119 Arora, S.K. and Das, B. 1976. Cowpea as Potential Crop for Starch. Chemical Laboratories, Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar-125004. India. pp 158-160.

Awet Estifanos. 2007. Feed utilization, body weight and carcass parameters of intact and castrated Afar sheep fed on urea treated tef straw supplemented with wheat bran. MSc Thesis, Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia. Ayele S.,Urge M.Animut G. and Yusuf M. 2017.Feed intake ,Digestibility, growth, performance and blood profile of three Ethiopian fat tail hair sheep fed hay supplemented with two level of concentrate supplement. Open Journal Animal Science 7:149-167.

Azage Tegegne, 2005. Improving productivity and market success of Ethiopian farmers. ESAP Newsletter, Issue No. 11. ESAP (Ethiopian Society of Animal Production), Addis Ababa.

BAI Publication 2008. http://sapplpp.org/ thematicfocus/small-ruminants.

Baloyi, J.J., Ngongoni, N.T. and Hamudikuwanda. H. 2008. The effect of feeding forage legumes as nitrogen supplement on growth performance of sheep. Tropica Animal Health and Production, 40:35-67. Banerje, G.C. (1998): A Textbook of Animal Husbandry 8th edition, Oxford and 1BH Publishing Co. PVT. LTD. NEW Delhi Calcutta, India, 1079p.

Bassa Z, Mengistu S, Tessema F, AbisoT, Tera A. 2016. Rapid Assessment on Status of Forage Seed Production and Marketing in Doyogena District of Kembata-Tembaro Zone, SNNPR, Ethiopia. J Fisheries Livest Prod4: 171. doi: 10.4172/2332 2608.1000171. Beets, W. C. 1990. Raising and sustaining productivity of smallholder farming systems in the tropics. A hand book of sustainable agricultural development. Alkmaar, Holland, AgBe publisher, 1800GC.

Beever, D.E.1997. Meeting the protein requirements of ruminant livestock. South Africa Journal of Animal Science 26:20-26.

Belete Aseta, Kefelegh Kebede and Kefena Effa. 2015.Assesment of production and reproduction system of indigenous goat type in bale Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia, Academic Journal of agriculture research. 3(12):348-360.

Belete Shenkute 2009.Production and marketing system of small ruminate in Gomma district of Jimma Zone, Western Ethiopia. Msc Thesis, Hawassa University,Ethiopia.144p.

Berhanu Belay. 1998. Traditional Sheep Management and Production Situation in The South Western Parts of Ethiopia. Proceeding of 5th Conference of ESAP. pp. 117-127.

Berhanu G, Hoekstra D and Azege T 2006. Improving the Competitiveness of Agricultural Input Markets in Ethiopia: Experiences since 1991.Paper presented at the Symposium on Seed-fertilizer Technology, Cereal productivity and Pro-Poor Growth in Africa: time for New Thinking 26th Triennial Conference of the International Association of Agricultural Economics(IAAE),August12,18,2006,GoldCoast,http://mahider.ilri.org/bitstream/1056 8/613/3/26IAAE.pdf

Boonman, J.G. (1997). Farmers success with tropical grass: crop/pasture rotation in mixed farming in East Africa. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague. pp. 95.

Bressani, R. 1985. Nutritive Value Of Cowpea: In Cowpea Research, Production And Utilization, Edited By S.R. Singh And K.O. Rachie. John Wiley & Sons, NewYork, USA. Pp 353- 360.

Brown, D. & Chavulimu, E. 1985. Effects of ensiling on five forage species in Western Kenya: Zea mays (maize stover), Pennisetum purpureum (Pakistan napier grass),Pennisetum spp. (Bana grass),Ipomoea batatas (sweet potato vines) and Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea leaves). Animal and Feed Science Technology 13:1-2.

Bruh Weldemariam. 2008.Supplementation with dried foliage of selected indigenous browses: effects on feed intake, digestibility, and body weight gain and carcass characteristics of Abergelle goats offered hay. MSc Thesis, Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia.

Bruinenberg, M.H., Valk H. and Struik, P.C. 2003. Voluntary intake and in vivo digestibility of forages from semi-natural grasslands in dairy cows. National Journal of Applied Science, 51(3): 219-235. CACC (Central Agricultural Census Commission) 2003. Ethiopian Agricultural Sample Enumeration, 2001/02.Results at country level. Statistical report on socio-economic characteristics of the population in agricultural household, land use, and area and production of crops. Part I (July, 2003), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Chakeredza, S., ter Meulen, U. and Ndlovu, L.R. 2002. Effect of cowpea hay, groundnut hay, cottonseed meal and maize meal supplementation to maize stover on intake, digestibility, and microbial protein supply and acetate kinetics in weaner lambs. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 34: 49–64.

Chaparro, C. & Sollenberger, L. E.1997. Nutritive value of clipped mott elephant grass herbage. Agron.J.89:786-793.

Cheeke, P.R. 1999. Applied Animal Nutrition. Feeds and Feeding, 2nd Edition. Prince-Hall, Inc., New Jersey. pp. 26-96.

CIMMYT (International maize and wheat improvement center).1988.Farm Agronomic to farmer recommendation. An economic training manual. Completely revised edition, D.F.Mexico .51p. CSA (Central Statistical Agency). 2003. Statistical Report on Area and Production of Temporary Crops Part III A: Ethiopian Agricultural Sample Enumeration, 2001/02.Central Statistical Agency, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

CSA (Central Statistical Authority), 2015.Agricultural sample survey agricultural sample survey livestock and livestock characteristics (private peasant holdings), Ethiopia. D. R. Mpairwe, E. N. Sabiiti and J. S. Mugerwa.1998. Effect of dried Gliricidia sepium leaf supplement on feed intake, digestibility and nitrogen retention in sheep fed dried KW4 elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) ad libitum. Agroforestry Systems 41: 139–150.

Damitie Kebede, Alemash Melese, Kefyalw Alemayehu, Shigdaf Mekuriaw, Silesh Andualem.2015.Indiginious goat production system in selected districts of western Amhara,Ethiopia.Journal of Harmonized Reaserch in Applied Science.3(4):p.186. Devendra, C. 2007. Small ruminants in Asia; Contribution to food security, poverty alleviation and opportunities for productivity enhancement. http://www.mekarn.org/procsr/pdf.

Devendra, C., and Mcleroy, B.G. 1982: Goat and Sheep Production in the Tropics. Longman, London and New York, 84p. Dhaba Urgessa, Belay Duguma, Solomon Demeke and Taye Tolamariam, 2012. Sheep and Goat Production Systems in Ilu Abba Bora Zone of Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia: Feeding and Management Strategies. Global Veterinaria 9 (4): 421-429, 2012 ISSN 1992-6197. Diriba Geleti, Mekonnen Hailemariam, Ashenafi Mengistu and Adugna Tolera. 2013. Nutritive value of selected browse and herbaceous forage legumes adapted to medium altitude sub humid areas of Western Oromia, Ethiopia. Journal of Global Veterinaria, 11(6): 809-816.

Dixon, J. and A. Gulliver with D. Gibbon, 2001. Farming systems and poverty: Improving farmers’ livelihoods in a changing world. FAO and World Bank, Rome, Italy and Washington D.C., USA. 412p.

Do Thi Thanh Van. 2001. Local feed resources in diets for small ruminants in Vietnam. MSc Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden. EARO (Ethiopian Agricultural organization).2000. National Small ruminants Research Strategy Document .EARO. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. EARO (Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization), 2001a. Small ruminant research strategy. EARO (Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization), Addis Ababa. 59p. EARO (Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization), 2001b. Feeds and nutrition research strategy. EARO (Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization), Addis Ababa. 40p.

Ebrahimi, R., Ahmadi, H.R., Zamri, M.T. and Rowghani, E. 2007. Effect of energy and protein levels on feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of Mehraban lambs. Pakistan Journal of biological Science, 15(10): 1679-1684. Ehui .SK. Benins and NegaGebireSellassie. 2000. Factors affecting urban demand for live sheep. The case of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Socio- Economics and policy research Working paper. 311 ILRI (International Live stock Research Institute), Nirobi, Kenya. 32pp. Endeshaw Assefa, 2007. Assessment of Production and Marketing System of Goats In Dale District, Sidama Zone. MSc Thesis Submitted to The School of Graduate Studies Department of Animal Production and Range Sciences, Hawasa University. Ensiminger, M., E, Oldfield, J. E. and Heinemann, W.W. (1990): Feeds and Nutrition. 2nd (ed). The Ensiminger Publishing Company. 1544p.

ESGPIP (Ethiopia Sheep and Goat Productivity Improvement Program).2008.Sheep and Goat production hand book for Ethiopia ESS (Ethiopian socioeconomic survey), 2013/14. Central statistical agency and living standard measurement study,world bank,2015. Ewnetu Ermias, AlemuYami and Reje J.E.O. 2006. Slaughter characteristics of Menz and Horro sheep, small ruminant research 64; 10-15. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 1997. Roughage Utilization in Warm Climate. In: FAO Animal Production and Animal Health Paper (135). FAO 2006. FAOSTAT data (htt://WWW.Fao.org.agp/Agpc/doc/counpr of Ethiopia. Htm

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1997. An international statistical database 1961-1998 on CD-ROM. FAO, Rome, Italy.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2002. Cattle and Small Ruminant Production Systems in sub-Saharan Africa - A Systematic Review. Otte, M.J.

and Chilonda, P. (eds). Livestock Information Sector Analysis and Policy Branch. FAO, Rome, Italy.

FARM-Africa. 1996. Goat Types of Ethiopia and Eritrea. Physical description and management systems. Published jointly by FARM-Africa, London, UK and International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.

Fernanddez-Rivera,S., Okike, I., Manyong, V., Williams, T.O., Kruska, R.L. and Tarawali, S.A. 2004. Classification and description of then major farming systems incorporating ruminant livestock in west Africa. Williams T.O., Tarawali S.A., Hienaux and Fernandez-Rivera S (eds). 2004. Sustainable crop-livestock production for improved livelihoods and natural resource management in West Africa. Proceeding of an international conference held at then International institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria.

Ferrell, C.L., Kreikemeier, K.K. and Freely, H.C. 1999.The effect of supplemental energy, nitrogen, and protein on feed intake, digestibility and nitrogen flux across the gut and liver in sheep fed low quality forage. Journal of Animal Science 77: 3353-3364.

Fonseca, A.J.M., Dias-da-Silava, A.A. and Laurenco, A.L.G. 2001. Effect of maize and citrus pulp supplementation of urea-treated wheat straw on intake and productivity in female lambs. Journal of British Society of Animal Science 73:123-136.

Forbes .J.M .1986.The Voluntary Feed intake of farm animals. London: Butter worths

Frankic T,Voljc M, Salobir J, Rezar V. 2009.Use of herbs and spices and their extract in animal nutrition. Act Agricultural Slovenca, 94(2),95-102.

Fsahatsion Hailemarriam, Aberra Melesse and Sandip B.2013.Traditional sheep production and breeding practice in Gamo gofa zone, South Ethiopia, International Journal Livestock Production Reaserch.1(3):26-43.

Funte S.,Negesse T and Legesse G.2010.Feed resource and their management systems in Ethiopia highlands :The case of Umbulo Wacho watershade in south Ethiopa. Tropical and Subtropical Agro ecosystems.12:47-56.

Gatenby, R. M. 1986. Sheep Production in the Tropics and Sub-Tropics. Tropical Agriculture Series. Longman Group Limited.

Getahun Kebede Yadete 2014.Effect of concentrate supplementation on performance of Ethiopian Lowland Afar and Black head Ogaden lambs. Animal and veterinary Science .2(2):36-41.

Getahun Kebede, 2006. Effect of urea treatment and leucaena (leucaena leucocephala) supplementation on the utilization of wheat straw by sheep. An MSc. Thesis, Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia. Getnet Alemu, Atsede Assefa, Edilegnaw Wale and Yihenew Zewdie (Eds).2005. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on the Ethiopian Economy held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Volume 1. Ethiopian Economic Association (EEA), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp187-212.

Giami, S.Y. 2005. Compositional And Nutritional Properties Of Selected Newly Developed Lines Of Cowpea (VignaUnguiculataL.Walp).Journal Of Food Composition And Analysis 18: 665-673. Gizachew L.and Smit G.N.2005.Crude protein and mineral composition of major crop residue and supplemental feeds produced on vertisole of the Ethiopian Highland. Animal feed Science and Technology.119:143-153. Gohl, B. 1981. Tropical Feeds. Fao, Rome. Pp 529.

Goodchild, A.V. And Mcmeniman, N.P. 1994. Intake and digestibility of low quality roughages when supplemented with leguminous browse. Cambridge Journal of Agricultural Science 122: 151-160. Gruszecki, T., Lipecka, C. and Wiercinski, J. 1994. The contents of fatty acids in the meat tissue of lambs of various genotypes.Paper presented at the 45thAnnual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production (EAAP), Edinburgh, U.K, 5-8 September 1994. SS 44. Gülten, K., Rad, F. and Kindir, M. 2000. Growth performance and feed conversion efficiency of Siberian Sturgeon juveniles (Acipenser baeri) reared in concentrate ways. TurkeyJournal of Veterinary and Animal Science, 24: 435-442.

Hanna, W.W. & Gates, R.N. 1990. Plant breeding to improve forage utilization. In: Akin, D.E., Ljung, L.G., Wilson, J.R. & Harris, P.J. (Eds). Microbial and plant opportunities to improve lignocellulose utilization by ruminants. Elsevier, Athens. pp. 197-204.

Henderson, G.R. and Preston, P.T. (1977). Fodder farming in Kenya. East African Literature Bureau, Nairobi. pp.149. Hizkel Kenfo , Yoseph Mekasha and Yosef Tadesse .2018. A Study on Sheep Farming Practices in relation to future production strategies in Bensa District of Southern Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production (2018) 50:865–874.

Huang,H.J.,Chiou,P.W.S.,C.R.,Chiang,J.K.,Yu,B.1999.Effect of dried rice distillers and grain supplementation on the performance of lactating cows. Feed science and Technology.77:303-315.

Hulunim Gatew.2014 On-farm phenotypic Characterization and evaluation of Bati,Borena and Short eared Somalia Goat Populations of Ethiopia. Msc .Thesis, Haremaya University,Ethiopia.140p.

Hunegnaw Abebe, 2015: Effects Of Supplementation With Pigeon Pea (CajanusCajan), Cowpea (VignaUnguiculata) And Lablab (Lablab Purpureus) On Feed Intake, Body Weight Gain And Carcass Characteristics Of Wollo Sheep Fed On Grass Hay Hurni, H., 1986: Soil conservation in Ethiopia. Guidelines for Development Agents. MoA, 100 pp (also in Amharic) IBC (Institute of Biodiversity Conservation). 2004. The State of Ethiopia’s Farm animal Genetic Resources: Country Report. A Contribution to the First Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources. IBC, May 2004. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ibrahim H. 1998. Small Ruminant Production Techniques. ILRI Manual 3. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 207 pp.

ICARDA.2017 Irish potato production in Doyogenea woreda. http://googl/C9W02v(Accessed on 10 Augest,2018)

ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa). 1990. Livestock systems research manual. Working Paper 1, Vol. 1. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 287 pp.

Jones,D.F.,W.H.Hoover and ,Miller Webster T.K.1998.Effect of concentrations of peptides on microbial metabolism in continuous culture.Journal of Animal Science.76:611-616.

Jumba, I.O., Suttle, N.F., Hunter, E.A. & Wandiga S.O.1995b. Effects of soil origin and mineral composition and herbage species on the mineral composition of forages in the mount Elgon region of Kenya 2. Trace elements. Trop. Grassl. 29:47-52. Kahindi R K, Abdulrazak S A and Muinga R W. 2007. Effect of supplementing Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum) with Madras thorn (Pithecellobium dulce) on intake, digestibility and live weight gains of growing goats. Small Ruminant Research 69: 83– 87 Kanyama Phiri G Y, Powell C and Gill M. 1995. The effect of levels of supplementation with Sesbania sesban foliage on intake and live weight changes in goats. African Feed Resources Network. pp. 117-121

Kariuki, J.N. 1989. Evaluation of two Napier grass (Pennisetum) cultivars at different growth stages. MSc thesis, University of Nairobi.

Khan, M.A., Mahr-UN-Nisa and Sarwar, M. 2003. Review techniques measuring digestibility for the nutritional evaluation of feeds. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 5(1): 91-94.

Kidane, G. 1993. Effects of cutting date on botanical composition and nutritive value of native pasture in central highlands. MSc. thesis presented to AU Ethiopia, 105p. Koralagama, K.D.N., Mould, F.L., Fernandez-Rivera, S., and Hanson, J. 2008 The Effect of supplementing maize stover with cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) haulms on the intake and growth performance of Ethiopian sheep. Animal 2: 954–961. Larbi A. and Olaloku, E.A. 2005. Influence of plane of nutrition on productivity of ruminants in the sub-humid zone of West Africa. pp.149-156. In: Ayantunde A.A., FernándezRivera S. and McCrabb G. (Eds). Coping with feed scarcity in smallholder livestock systems in developing countries. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya. Lemma Gizachew, 1991. Comparison of legume hay, urea and noug cake as protein supplements for sheep fed teff straw. pp. 211- 215. In: Proceedings of the Fourth National Livestock Improvement Conference. 13-15 November, 1991. IAR, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Leng, R.A., Bird, S.H., Klieve, A., Choo, B.S., Ball, F.M., Asefa, G., Brumby, P., Mudgal, V.D., Chaudry, U.B., Suharyan, O. And Hendratno, N. 1992. The potential for tree forage supplements to manipulate rumen protozoa to enhance protein to energy ratios in ruminants fed on poor quality forages: FAO. Animal Production and Health Paper 102: 177-191. Likawent Y.,Claudia K.,Firew T.and Kurt J.P.2012.Sweet Blue Lupin(Lupins augustifolius L.) Seed as a substitution for concentrate mix supplementation in the diets of yearling washera rams fed on natural pasture hay as a basal diets I Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and peoduction.44:1255-1261. Little, D.A., F.M. Anderson and J.W. Darkin, 1987. A note on the effect of supplementation with noug (Guizotia Abyssinica) cake on milk production of cross breed cows. pp 137-141. Liu, X., Wang, Z. and Lee, F. 2005. Influence of concentrate level on dry matter intake, N balance, nutrient digestibility, ruminal outflow rate and nutrient degradability in sheep. Small Ruminant Research, 58(1): 55-62. Longe, O.G. 1983. Varietal differences in chemical characteristics related to cooking quality of cowpea. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation 7: 143- 150. Lonsdale C., 1989. Raw Materials for Animal Feed Compounders and Farmers. Chalcombe Publications. 88p. Markos Tibbo, 2000. Livestock production constraints in a M2-2 sub-agro ecological zone with special reference to goat production. In: Theopportunities and challenges of enhancing goat production in East Africa. Proceeding of a conference. Markel, R.C.,Abebe, G. and Goetsch, A.L. (eds.) 113-117. Langston Univ., OK (USA). E (Kika) dala Garza Inst. for Goat Research; Debub Univ. Awassa (Ethiopia). College of Agriculture, 10-12 Nov. 2000, Awassa, Ethiopia

Markos Tibbo, 2006. Productivity and health of indigenous sheep breeds and crossbreds in the central Ethiopian highlands. Faculty of Medicine and Animal Science Department

of Animal Breeding and Genetics. Ph.D. dissertation. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.pp.11-63. Mbuso Jethro Mbukwane.2017 Chemical Composition and invitro ruminal fermentation characteristics of cowpea varieties in the Limpopo province, South Africa. Thesis submitted to university of Pretoria.

Mc Donald P.,Edward, RA, Green, J.F.D. and Morgan, G.A Sinclair L.A and Wilkinson, R.G. 2010. Animal Nutrition.7th Edition.Ashford colour press Ltd.Gosport Pp.117-373. Mc Donald, P., Edward, RA, Green, J.F.D. and Morgan, G.A. 2002.Animal Nutrition 6thed. Pearson Educational Limited. Edinburgh, Great Britain. 544p. Mc Dowell, E.R. 1988. Importance of crop residues for feeding livestock in small holder farming systems. pp. 3-28. In: J.D. Reed, B.S. Capper and P.J.H. Neate (eds.), Plant breeding and the nutritive value of crop residues. Proceeding of a Workshop Held in AddisAbaba, Ethiopia, 7-10 December 1987, International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Mekasha A.,Gerared B.,Tesfaye K.,Nigatu L.,and Duncan A.J. 2014. Inter-connection between land use/land cver change and herder/farmers livestock feed resource management strategies: a case study from three Ethiopian eco-environments. Agricultuer, Ecosystem and Environment.188:150-62 Michaele Yirdaw, Ashenafi Mengistu, Berihan Tamir, Gebreyohannes Brhane, 2017. Effect of Feeding Cotton Seed Cake, Dried Acacia saligna, Sesbania sesban or Vigna Unguiculata on Growth and Carcass Parameters of Begait Sheep in North Ethiopia. Agriculture Forestry and Fisheries. Vol. 6, No. 5, 2017, pp. 149-154. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20170605.11

Minson, D.J. & Mcleod, M.N. 1970. The digestibility of temperate and tropical grasses. In Proc. XIth Int. Grassl. Congr.. Surfers Paradise, Queensland, Australia. pp. 719-722.

Minson, D.J. 1990. Forage in ruminant nutrition. Academic Press, San Diego. pp. 483.

Mukasa-Mugerwa, E., Anindo, D., Sovani, S., Lahlou-Kassi, A., Tebely, S., Rege, J.E.O. and Baker, R.L. 2002. Reproductive performance and productivity of Menz and Horro sheep lambing in the wet and dry seasons in the highlands of Ethiopia. Small Ruminant Research 45 (2002) 261-271.

Mupangwa, J.F., Ngongoni, N.T. Topps, J.H., Acamovic, T., Hamudikuwanda, H. And Ndlovu, L.R. 2000. Dry matter intake, apparent digestibility and excretion of purine derivatives in sheep fed tropical legume hay. Small Ruminant Research 36: 261-268. Negash D, Animut G, Urgie M, Mengistu S.2017.Chemical Compostion and Nutritive Vlue of oats (Avina Sativa) grown in mixture with vetch(Vicia Villosa) with or without phosphorus fertilizer in east shoa zone, Ethiopia. Journal of Nutrition and Food Science.7:609. 97

Ngategize, P.K. 1989. Constraint identification and analysis in African small ruminant systems. In. Wilson R T and Azeb M (eds). African small ruminant research and development. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Nielsen, S., Ohler, T. And Mitchell, C. 1997. Cowpea leaves for human consumption: production, utilization, and nutrient composition. Advances in cowpea research. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS), Ibadan, Nigeria. pp 326-332. N'jai, O. 1998. Comparisons of groundnut hay, sesame seed cake, Leucaenaleucocephala, and Gliricidia sepiumas protein sources for rams. Proceedings of the International Workshop. FACTnet Reports, Special Issue. pp 170- 180.

Norton, B.W. & Poppi, D.P. 1995. Composition and nutritional attributes of pasture legumes. In: D’Mello, J.P.F. & Devendra, C. (eds). Tropical legumes in animal nutrition. CAB, Walling, UK. pp. 23-47.

Norton, B.W. 1981. Differences between species in forage quality. In: Hacker, J.B. (Ed). Nutritional limits to animal production from pasture. CAB, Farnham Royal, UK. pp. 89-110.

Norton, B.W., Kamau, F.K. And Rosevear, R. 1992. The nutritive value of some tree legumes as supplements and sole feed for goats. Nonthaburi, Thailand. Proceedings of the Sixth AAAP Animal Science Congress 3: 151. NRC (National Research Council). 1981. Nutrient requirements of goats. No. 15. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., vii + 91 pp.

Nurfeta, A. 2010. Feed intake, digestibility, nitrogen utilization and body weight change of sheep consuming wheat straw supplemented with local agricultural and agro-industrial by-products. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 42: 815–824. Okoli, I.C., Anunobi, M.O., Obua, B.E. and Enemuo, V. 2003. Studies on selected browses of southeastern Nigeria with particular reference to their proximate and some endogenous anti - nutritional constituents. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Osman Alhassan.2011. Effects of Supplementation With Leaves Of Paper Mulberry (Broussonetia Papyrifera) On Growth Performance and Blood Indices of West African Dwarf Sheep (Djallonké) Fed Napier Grass Basal Diet. A Thesis submitted to the Department of Animal Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology. Osuji, P.O., Fernandez-Rivera, S., Odenyo, A., 1995. Improving fibre utilization and protein supply in animals fed poor quality roughages: ILRI nutrition research plans. In: Wallace, R.J., Lahlou-Kassi, A. (Eds.), Proceedings Workshop at ILRI, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Rumen Ecology Research Planning, ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya, pp. 1–22.

Pond, W.G., Church, D.C. and Pond, K.R. 1995. Basic Animal Nutrition and Feeding. 4th (ed). John Willy: Sons, New York, 601p.

Porwal K, Karim S A, Sisodia S L and Singh V K. 2006. Socio economic Survey of sheep farmers in Western Rajasthan, Indian Journal of Small Ruminants,12(1): 74-81.

R.J.Kaitho and J.N. Kariuki .1998.Effect of Desmodium, Sesbania and Calliandra supplementation on Growth of Dairy Heifers Fed Napier Grass Basal Diet.AJAS 1998 Vol.11(No.6) 680-684.

Rangnekar D V. 2006. Livestock in the livelihoods

Ranjhan, S.K. 2001. Animal nutrition in the tropics, 5th revised edition. Vikas Publishing House PLtd. New Delhi, India. Ranjhan, S.K. 1999. Animal Nutrition in the Tropics. 4th revised edition, New Delhi, India. Ranjihan, S. K., 1997. Animal Nutrition in the Tropics. 4theds. Vikas publishing House P. Ltd. New Delhi, India. Pp.557. Ravhuhali Khuliso Emmanuel 2010. Effect Of Cowpea Cultivar Supplementation On Productivity Of Pedi Goats And Dorper Sheep Fed Ad Libitum Buffalo Grass, Dissertation submitted to University of Limpopo. Reddy, D.V. 1997. The effect of supplementation of legume straw on utilization of rice straw poultry droppings-rice bran-fish meal based diet in Buffaloes. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 69(4): 305-314. Reed, J.D. 1995. Nutritional toxicology of tannins and related polyphenols in forage legumes. Journal of Animal Science 73: 1516-1528. Rege, J.E.O. 1993. Indigenous African small ruminants: a case for characterization and improvement. In: Lebbie S H B. Rey B and Irungu E K. (Eds). Small Ruminant Research and Development in Africa. Proceedings of the Second Biennial Conference of the African Small Ruminant Research Network, AICC, Arusha, Tanzania, 7-11 December 1992.ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa)/CTA (Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Co-operation).ILCA,Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.268 pp

Reharhie Mesfin, Yohannes Gojjam and Agajie Tesfaye. 2003. Milk yield and economic evaluation of two concentrate feed to crossbred Boran X Friesian (BF) and Boran Jersey (BJ) dairy cows at Holetta Research Center. pp: 347-354. In: Yilma Jobre and Getachew Gebru (eds.), proceeding of the 10th Annual Conference of Ethiopian Societyof Animal Production (ESAP). 21-23 August 2003. Ethiopian Society of Animal Production, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Reid, R.L., Post, A.J. & Mugerwa, J.S. 1973. Studies on the nutritional qualityof grasses and legumes in Uganda. I. Application of in vitro digestibility techniques to species and stage of growth effects. Trop. Agric. (Trinidad). 50:1-15.

Ruvuna, F., Taylor, J.F., Okeyo, M. Wanyoike, M. and Ahuya, C. 1992. Effects of feed and castration on slaughter weight and carcass composition of goats. Small Ruminant Research, 7: 175-183. S.S.Paul,A.B.Mandal,G.P.Madal,A.Kannan,N.N.Pathak.2003.Driving nutrient requirement of growing Indian sheep under tropical condition using performance and intake data emanated from feeding trial conducted in different research institutes. Small Ruminant Research. 50:97-107. Savadogo M., Zemmelinkb, G. and Nianogo, A.J. 2000. Effect of selective consumption on voluntary intake and digestibility of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) stover, cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) and groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) haulms by sheep. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 84: 265-277. Sayed, A.B.N. 2009. Effect of different dietary energy levels on the performance and nutrient digestibility of lambs. Veterinary World, 2(11): 418-420. Schoenian.S.2003.General health care of sheep and goats. Maryland Small ruminant western Maryland Research and education center.

Selamawit Debele and Matiwos Habta. 2015. Sheep and goat production practice in agro forestry systems of Gedio Zone, Ethiopia. International Journal of Environment.Volume-4.

Serra, S.D., Serra, A.B.T. & Fujihra T.1996. Amonut and distribution of dietary minerals in selected Philippines forage. Asian Aust. J. Anim. Sci 9:139-147.

Seyoum Bediye and Zinash Sileshi. 1989. The composition of Ethiopian feeds. IAR Research Report. Institute of Agricultural Research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp. 80.

Seyoum Bediye, 1995. Evaluation of nutritive values of herbaceous legumes, Browse species and Oilseed cakes using chemical analysis, In vitro digestibility and Nylon bag technique. An MSc Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University of agriculture, Ethiopia, Pp148. Seyoum, B., Ummana., V.I., Nsahlia., I.V., Zinash, S. and Alemu, Y. 1996. Interrelationships of chemical properties, in vitro digestibility and rumen degradability characteristics of protein sources. Pp. 129-138. In: Proceedings of the 4thNational Conference of Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP). 18-19 April, 1996, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Simret Betsha 2005. Supplementation of graded levels of peanut cake and wheat bran mixture on nutrient utilization and carcass parameters of Somali goats. An M.Sc. Thesis Presented

100

to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University of Agriculture, Alemaya, Ethiopia. 60p. Singh, B.B., Ajeigbe, H.A., Tarawali, S.A., Fernandez-Rivera, S. and Abubakar, M. 2003. Improving the production and utilization of cowpea as food and fodder.Field Crops Research, 84: 169–177. Singh, S., Kundu, S.S., Negi, A.S. And Singh, P.N. 2006. Cowpea (Vignaunguiculata) legume grains as protein source in the ration of growing sheep. Small Ruminant Research 643: 247-254. Sinn, R., Ketzis, J., Chen, T. 1999. The role of women in the sheep and goat sector. Small Ruminant Research 34 (1999) 259-269.

Skerman, P.J. & Riveros, F. 1990. Tropical Grasses. FAO, Rome. pp.832.

Smith, O.B. 1992. Fodder trees and shrubs in range and farming systems in tropical humid Africa. In: Speedy, A. and Pugliese, P. (eds). Legume Trees and other Fodder Trees as Protein Sources for Livestock. Proceedings, FAO Expert Consultation, Malaysian Agricultural Research and Development Institute (MARDI), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Solomon Melaku, Peters K.J. and Azage Tegegne, 2003. In vitro and in situ evaluation of selected multipurpose trees, wheat bran and Lablab purpureus as potential feed supplements to teff (Eragrostistef) straw. Animal Feed Science and Technology.

Solomon B.,Solomon M.,AlemuY. 2008.Influence of rainfall pattern on grass/legume composition and nutritive value of natural pastuer in bale Highlands of Ethiopia.Livestock Reaserch for Rural Development. Volume 20, Article38. http://www.irrd.org/irrd20/3/boga20038.htm

Solomon Gizaw Gebremichael. 2006. Genetic diversity and conservation priorities for Ethiopian sheep. Proceedings of a workshop on Sheep Breeding Strategies for Ethiopia held at ILRI, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on 21 November 2006. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.

Solomon Gizaw, Solomon Abegaz and Asfaw Negassa, 1991a. Growth responses of Horro sheep to different level of maize and Noug Cake supplements. pp. 113-118. In proceeding of the 4th National Livestock Improvement Conference (NLIC). 13-15 November 1991, IAR. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Solomon Mogus, 1992. The effect of processing methods of oil seed cakes in Ethiopia on their nutritive value: In vitro N degradability and N- Metabolism in growing sheep fed a basal diet of maize stover. PhD. Thesis University of Bonn, Germany. Solomon, M. (2004b): Nitrogen utilization and rumen function in Menz rams supplemented with Lablab purpureus or graded levels of Leucaena pallida 14203 and Sesbania sesbania 1198. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 55:1117- 1124. 101

Streitz, E. Baulain, U. and Kallweit, E. 1994.Estimation of body composition in live lambs by means of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Paper Presented at the 45 thAnnual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production (EAAP). 5-8 September, Edinburgh, UK.Stobbs,T.H. & Thompson, P.A.C, 1975. Milk production from tropical pastures. World Anim. Rev.13:27- 31. Tajebe Seare, Gangwar S K & Kefelegn Kebede 2011 Performance and physical body measurement of Abergell sheep breed under traditional management system of Tigray Regional state, Northern Ethiopia. International Journal of Science and Nature, Volume. 2(2): 225 – 230. Takele Feyera and Getachew Animut.2011. Digestion, Intake and Live Weight Changes of Horro Lambs Fed Vetch (Lathyrus sativus) Haulm Basal Diet Supplemented with Sole Wheat Bran, Acacia albida Leaf Meal or Their Mixture

Takele Kumsa, Gemeda Duguma, Fikru Terefe, Ulfina Galmessa and Yohannes Gojjam. 2006. Study on sexual and fattening performance of partially castrated Horro rams. Ethiopian Journal of Animal Production, 6(2): 29-36.

Taminga, S., Van Straalen, W.M., Subnel, A.P.J., Meije, R.G.M., Steg, A., Wever, C.J.G., & Blok, M.C. 1994. The Dutch protein evaluation system: the DVE/OEB system. Livesrock Production Science. 40:139-155.

Tarawali, S., Singh, B.B., Peters, M. And Blade, S.F. 1997. Cowpea haulms as fodder. In Advances in Cowpea Research, edited by B.B. Singh, D.R. Mohan Raj, K.E; Dashiell and L.E.N. Jackai. International Institute of TropicalAgriculture (IITA) and Japan International Research Center for AgriculturalSciences (JIRCAS). pp 313-325.

Tatek Woldu, Hailu Dadi, Mieso Guru and Dadi Gelashe. 2004. Productivity of Arsi Bale goat types under farmers’ management condition: a case of Arsi Negelle. Tamrat Degefa and Fekede Feyissa (Eds). Proceedings of the 13th Annual conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP) held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, August 25-27, 2004. ESAP, Addis Ababa. pp67-71.

Tekeba Eshetie, 2005. Compatiblity of quality protein maize and sesame seed meal as a substitute for synthetic amino acids in Broiler Rations. An MSc Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University of agriculture, Ethiopia, 46p.

Tembely S. 1998. Small Ruminant production in Ethiopia: prospects for improving production. Proceedings of the 5th conference of ESAP. Pp. 82- 90. Tesfaye Alemu Tucho, Yadav, B. R, Hanotte, O. and Jianlin, H. 2006. Genetic characterization of indigenous goat populations of Ethiopia using microsatellite DNA markers. Proceedings of a workshop on Sheep Breeding Strategies for Ethiopia held at ILRI, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on 21 November 2006. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.

102

Tesfaye D. 2008. Assessment of feed resources and rangeland condition in Metema district of north Gondar zone, Ethiopia. Msc. Thesis. Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia.

Tesfaye Hagos and Solomon Melaku, 2008. Feed intake, digestibility, body Wight and carcass parameter of Afar rams fed teff (Eragrostics tef) straw supplemented with graded levels of concentrate mixtures.Tropical Animals Health production Springer nether lands Springer likes Log in-resource secured .htm. Tesfaye Tsegaye. 2009. Characterization of goat production systems and on- farm evaluation of the growth performance of grazing goats supplemented with different protein sources in Metema woreda. MSc Thesis, Haramaya University Haramaya, Ethiopia.

Thatcher, L.P. and Gaunt, G.M. 1992. Effects of growth path and post-slaughter chilling regime on carcass composition and meat quality of ewe lambs. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 43: 819-830. Thompson, J., Swartz, H.A., Marsh, D. And Alexander, M. 1988. Effect of feeding cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) and grain-oat hay diet on performance and carcass characteristics of lambs. Journal of Animal Science 66: 92. Topps, J.H. 1995. Forage legumes as protein supplements to poor quality diets in the semiarid tropics. pp: 183-190. In: Wallace R.J. and Lahlou-Kassi A.(eds),Rumen Ecology Research Planning, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya. Torell, L.A. and Rimbey, N.R. 2010. Economically efficient supplemental feeding and the impact of nutritional decisions on net ranch returns. Pp. 170–179. In: Proceedings of the 4th Grazing Livestock Nutrition Conference, edited by B.W. Hess, T. Del Curto, J.G.P. Tsedeke KK 2007. Production and Marketing Systems of Sheep and Goats in Alaba, Southern Ethiopia. MSc Thesis submitted to University of Hawassa, Hawassa on April 2007.

Van Soest, P.J. 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminants. (2 nd ed.) Cornell University Press. pp.476.

Van Soest, P.J., 1982. Nutritional ecology of ruminants. Ruminant metabolism, nutritional strategies, the Cellulolytic fermentation and the chemistry of forage and plant fibers. Comstock Publishing Associate, Cornell University Press, Ithala and London. 24-73pp.

Warriss, P.D. 2000. Meat Science. An Introductory Text. CABI Publishing. Biddles ltd,King’s Lynn. UK. Whitman,P.C.1980.Tropical Pasture Science. Oxford University Press,Oxford.392pp.

Williams, M.J. & Hanna W.W. 1995. Performance and nutritive quality of dwarf and semi- dwarf grass genotypes in south-eastern USA. Trop. Grassl.29:122-127.

103

Wilson, R.T., 1989. Strategies to increase sheep production in east Africa. In: Small Ruminate Production in developing country. FAO Animal production and health Paper, 58. Roma, P. 118-123.

Woodard, K.R. & Prine, G.M. 1991. Forage yield and quality of elephant grass as affected by harvesting frequency and genotype. Agron. J. 83:541-546.

Workneh Ayalew .2000. Do small holder animal farmers benefit mare from cross bred (Somali Anglo -Nubian) than from indigenous goats PhD Thesis George –August University of Gottingen, Germany, CuvillierVerlag, Gottingen. Worknesh Seid. 2014. Digestibility and Growth Performance of Dorper×Afar F1 Sheep Fed Rhodes Grass (Chloris gayana) Hay Supplemented with Alfalfa (Medicago sativa), Lablab (Lablab purpures), Leucaena leucocephala and Concentrate Mixture. MSc Thesis, Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia.

Xianjun, Yuan, Chengqun, Yu, Shimojo, M. and Tao, Shao. 2012. Improvement of fermentation and nutritive quality of straw-grass silage by incubation of wet hulless-barley distillers grain in Tibet. Asian-Australia. Journal of Animal Science, 25(4):479-485. Yaynshet Tesfay, 2010. Feed Resources Available in Tigray Region, North Ethiopia, For Production of Export Quality Meat and Livestock Addis Ababa Ethiopia. Yenesew Abebe.2010. Assessment Of Small Ruminant Production Systems And On-Farm Evaluation Of Urea Treated Wheat Straw And Concentrate Feeding On Sheep Body Weight Change In Burie Woreda, West Gojjam. A Thesis Submitted To The Department Of Animal Sciences, School Of Graduate Studies Haramaya University. Yeshitila A. 2007. Efficiency of livestock feed resources utilization and forage development in Alaba woreda, southern Ethiopia. MSc Thesis. Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia.

Yihalem, D., Berhan, T., and Solomon, M., 2006. Effect of harvesting date on composition and yield of natural pasture in North Western Ethiopia: WWW3.Inter science. Wiley.Com /Journal/ 1122250621. Accessed July, 2017. Yilkal Tadele.2015. Small Ruminant Production and Marketing: Constraints and Opportunities in Chencha and Mirab Abaya Districts, Southern Ethiopia. World Journal of Biology and Medical Sciences Volume 2, Issue- 1, 14-32

Yinnesu, A and A. Nurfeta, 2012. Effects of supplementing Erythrina brucei leaf as a substitute for cotton seed meal on growth performance and carcass characteristics of Sidama goats fed basal diet of natural grass hay. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 44: 445- 451.

104

Zelalem Alemayehu and Fletcher 1991.Small ruminant productivity in the central Ethiopia mixed farming system, pp.141. In: Proceeding of the fourth national livestock improvement conference 13-15 November1991, Institute of Agricultural Research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Zemicael Gereslassie, 2007. Supplementation of sesame seed (Sesame indicum) cake, wheat bran and their mixtures on feed intake, digestibility, live weight changes and carcass characteristics of Arado sheep fed a basal diet of teff straw. An MSc Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University of Agriculture, Ethiopia. Zewdie Wondatir and Yosef Mekasha, 2014. Feed resources availability and livestock production in the central rift valley of Ethiopia. International Journal of Livestock Production. 5(2), pp.30-35. Zillur Rahman, Yousuf Ali, Azharul Islam, Talukder Ershaduzzaman and Sumona Akter. 2015. Effect of feeding tree forages on productive performances on growing sheep. Asian Journal of Medicinal and Biological Research. 2015, 1 (3), 648-653; doi: 10.3329/ajmbr.v1i3.26489.

Zinash Silesh, Siyoum Bediye, Luelseged Gebirehiwot and Tadele Gebiretsadik. 1995. Effect of harvesting stage on yield and quality of natural pasture in the central high lands of Ethiopia. In proceedings of the 3rd Annual conference of The Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP), Addis Ababa. Ethiopia.

105

8. APPENDIX

8.1 Appendix I: Survey Questionnaire SECTION ONE: GENERAL A. Demography, occupation and education in the last 12 months 1. Name of the interviewer ------

2. Sex 1. Male 2. Female

3. Age ------

4. Educational status a. illiterate b. literate /1 – 4/ c. literate /5 – 8 / d. literate /9 – 12 / e. other /specify/ ______

5. Kebele ------

6. Gote ------

7. List of family members (including household head)

No. Name of family Sex Age Educational status Relationship with Member 1. Male 1. Illiterate household head 2. Female 2. Literate /1 – 4/ 1. Household 3. Literate /5 – 8 / head 4. Literate /9 – 12 / 2. Wife 5. Other (specify) 3. Child 4. Relative 5. Non-relative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

B. Land holding and land use systems

1. What is the size of your total land holding? (Exactly as indicated on land holding certificate) ____ha

106

2. How much is your land allocated for the followings? 1=Crop land______timad 3=Fallow land______timad 2=Grazing/pasture land _____timad 4=Others______timad C. Purpose of keeping sheep and goat in the three cluster groups of households

1. Why you keep sheep and goats? (Rank) 1=Sale (income source) 2=Meat 3=Milk 4=Manure 5=Sacrifices/rituals 6=Social and cultural functions 7=Saving 8=Distribute benefits/risks with other animals 9=Others, specify

D. Compositions and ownership of household livestock in the last 12 months

1. How many of the following animals you keep?

No Structure Size ownership origin owned Own share family Home purchase gift born Cattle herd 1 Cows 2 Bulls 3 Heifers 4 Male calves 5 Female calves 6 Oxen (draft) 7 Oxen (fatten) Sheep flock 1 Lambs (<3 months) 2 Male lambs (3-6 m 3 Female lambs (6-12 4 months) 5 Ewes 6 Rams (intact) (>6m 7 Castrates/fattening Goat flock 1 Kids (<3 months) 2 Male kids (3-6mon 3 Female kids (6-12 m 4 Does 5 Bucks (>6months) 6 Castrates/fattening Equines 1 Stallion /male horse 2 Mare/female horses 3 Female donkey

107

4 Male donkey 5 Mules Chicken Total

SECTION TWO: SHEEP AND GOAT PRODUCTION

A. Feed resources, feeding management and water resource

1. What are the major basal feed resources of sheep and goats and their availability?

N Feed types and Seasonal availability o. sources Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug 1 Communal grazing land 2 Road side grazing 3 Grazing aftermath 4 Grazing in river side 5 Private grazing land 6 Cut grass and browses 7 Crop residues (straw,stovers) 8 Indigenous browses 9 Fodder/improved forage 10 Enset and banana 11 Root crops( tubers,leaves) 12 Weeds 13 Tillers and fillers 14 Other specify

2. Do you graze your sheep and goats? 1=Yes 2=No

3. If yes, for how long? ______days in a week ______hours a day

4. How sheep and goat graze? 1=Sheep alone 2=Goat alone 3=Both alone 4=Together with other livestock

108

5. How you practiced grazing your sheep and goats in the dry season? 1=Free grazing 2=Partly kept/tethered grazing 3=Fully kept/tethered grazing

6. How you practiced grazing your sheep and goats in the wet season? 1=Free grazing 2=Partly kept/tethered grazing 3=Fully kept/tethered grazing

7. Is there any poisoning grasses and browses that kills or make sick sheep and goats in this area? 1=Yes 2=No

8. If yes, what are they (local and Amharic names)? ______

9. Do you usually provide your sheep and goats with supplementary feeds in addition to grazing? 1=Yes 2=No

10. If yes, what type of feed and others?

No. Feed type Classes of flocks Sheep Goat Young Ewe Ram Casterates Younge Doe Buck Castertes lambs kids 1 Wheat bran 2 Oil cakes 3 Maize grain 4 Haricot bean grain 5 Crop residue 6 Leak mineral/stone 7 Roots and tubers 8 Food leaf over 9 Enset (leaf,corn.stem) 10 Fooder leaves/improved forage legume

11. When you usually offer your sheep and goats with supplements? 1=Dry season 2=Wet season 3=Both

12. In what intervals you offer supplements to your sheep and goats? 1=Daily 2=Twice a day 3=Whenever available 4=Others, specify

13. If you not provide with supplements, why? 1=Not accessible 2=Expensive 3=Not want to offer sheep and goats 4=Others, specify

109

14. Do you practice tether feeding of sheep and goats? 1=Yes 2=No

15. If yes, why? 1=To avoid crop and vegetation damages 2=Save labor 3=Protect from predators and theft 4=Utilize marginal land and hillsides 5=Prevent breeding 6=Others, specify

16. Is there feed shortage/constraint for your sheep and goats? 1=Yes 2=No

17. If yes, when? 1=Dry season 2=Wet season 3=Both

18. If feed shortage in your locality, why? (Rank) 1=Shrinking and decline in productivity of grazing lands 2=Increase of animal population 3=Cultivation, settlement and protection on grazing lands 4=Drought 5=Increase of human population 6=Others, specify

19. What are the common water source of sheep and goat in this area?

No. Source of water Estimated Rainy season Wet season distance(1hr=5km) 1 River 2 Pond 3 Rain water 4 Pipe 5 Deep well 6 Water harvest 7 Other specify

20. At what interval you give sheep and goat with water?

No. Frequency Sheep Goats Dry season Wet season Dry season Wet season 1 Any time needed 2 Once a day 3 Twice a day 4 Every three day 5 Every four day 6 Others ,specify

21. Is there any water shortage problem to sheep/goats? a. yes b. no

22. If yes? When? ------

23. Why shortage of water? (Rank)

a. drying of water source

b. far distance from water source

110

c. not allowed to use sources

d. provide other livestock than sheep and goats

e. others specify

B. Sheep and goats health management

1. What are the common diseases and parasites that affect health and production of sheep and goat? Local name and affect?

2. What would you do when your sheep and goats sick? 1=Treat with ethno veterinary practices 2=Sales immediately 3=Slaughters immediately 4=Takes to veterinary center 5=Treat with treatments from local traders 6=Others, specify

3. From where you usually obtain veterinary services? 1=OoARD 2=DA offices 3=NGOs 4=Private institutions 5=Open markets

4. Are you accessible to veterinary services in your locality/near distance? 1=Yes 2=No

5. If yes, how far? ______Km

6. How did you obtain services from these institutions? 1=Free of charge 2=Payment 3=Credit 4=others, specify

7. Did your sheep and goats get vaccine in recent times? 1=Yes 2=No

8. If yes, how? 1=after report of disease cases 2=After certain animals died 3=Before outbreaks

9. Do you use medicines and drugs from open markets/illegal traders for sheep and goats? 1=Yes 2=No

10. If yes, why? 1=Cheap 2=Not accessible to veterinary center 3=Not want to use veterinary center 4=Others

11. If not use, why? 1=Not cures 2=DAs and health experts advised not to use 3=Expensive 4=Not accessible 5=Others

12. Do you cut and/or brand your sick sheep and goats with hot iron? 1=Yes 2=No

13. If yes, why? 1= Treatment of sick animals 2=Identify/tag the animals 3=Others, specify

14. If not, why? 1=Learnt that it affects quality of skin 2= Reduce price of skin 3=Not to form infection 4=Others

15. Has there been any death of your sheep and goats over the last 12 months? 1=Yes 2=No

111

16. What were the major causes for death/loss of your sheep and goats? (Rank) 1=Diseases and parasite infections 2=Nutritional deficiency and toxicity 3=Mechanical causes 4=Predators 5=Undetermined 6= Ectoparasites 7=Others, specify C. Sheep and goats breeding and reproductive managements

1. Do you select your male and female animals for breeding purpose? 1=Yes 2=No

2. Do you have your own breeding male animals (ram & buck)? 1=Yes 2=No

3. What are the common sources of breeding males for your flocks? Sources of breeding males Ram Buck 1, Own 2, Neighbors 4 Others, specify

4. How is the reproductive performance of sheep and goats in your farm?

4. 1 Age at first mate------sheep------goat

4. 2 Age at first parturition (months) ------sheep------goat

4.3 Parturition interval (months) ------sheep------goat

4.4 Average litter sizes (single, twin, triplets) ------sheep------goat

4.5 Infertile------sheep------goat

4.6 Slaughter age (months) ------sheep------goat

4. 7 Number of females mated in the past 12 months------sheep------goat

4. 8 Number of females gave offspring in the past 12 months------sheep------goat

4.9 Total number of offspring born from mated females in the past 12 months------sheep------goat

4.10 Total number of offspring weaned out of total born in the past 12 months------sheep------goat

5. What are the reasons you justify that hinders fertility and reproduction of sheep and goats? 1=Inadequate feed and water supply 2=Inconvenient climatic conditions 3=Disease and parasite burdens 4=Lack/shortage of breeding male 5=Drought in the area 6=Others, specify D. Lamb and kid rearing, castration and culling

1. Do you provide lambs and kids additional feed to their mother’s milk until they begin grazing? 1=Yes 2=No 2. If yes, what types of feed resources and feeding? Lambs Kids Feed types ______How feed ______

3. Do you practice weaning of lambs and kids? 1=Yes 2=No

112

4. If yes, when? Lambs______months Kids ______months

5. Do you practice castration of sheep and goats? 1=Yes 2=No

6. If yes, why? 1=To fatten and sale 2=To control unwanted breeding 3=To tame them 4=Others

7. At what age you usually castrate? Sheep __years (months) Goat __years/months

8. How you select sheep and goats for fattening? (Rank) 1=Conformation (height, length and appearance) 2=Breed (known local ecotypes) 3=Physical characteristics (color, horn, tail length and width, ear etc) 4=Age 5=Others, specify

9. If you practice select with physical characteristics, (Rank) 1=Color 2=Horn 3=Ear 4=Tail 5=Body length and height 6=Others, specify

10. Do offer specific feeding and other management practices for castrated sheep and goats? 1=Yes 2=No 11. If yes, what feeds and for how long? Feed types Duration Sheep ______Goat ______

12. What is the common method you castrate your sheep and goats? 1=Local methods (using stone, stick, metal) 2=Burdizzo (OoARD) 3=Others, specify

13. Do you practice fattening of sheep and goats for targeted market seasons and market places? 1=Yes 2=No

14. If yes, which season/months (Rank)? 1=New Year festival 2=Easter 3=Christmas 4=Meskel 5=Ed Al Fetir 6=Arefa 7=Others, specify

15. Is there and emerging opportunity of increased demand and incentive price for fattened sheep and goats? 1=Yes 2=No

16. Do you practice culling of sheep and goats from flock? 1=Yes 2=No

17. If yes, reasons for culling (rank)? 1=Old 2=Sick 3=Reproductive problem 4=Physical defect 5=Unwanted physical characteristics (black olor) 7=Others, specify

18. How sheep and goats left from your flock over the last 12 months? 1=Sale 2=Death 3=Slaughter for home consumption 4=Theft 5=Predator 6=Gift 7=Share arrangements 8=Others, specify

19. How you replace/own sheep and goats left the household flock in various ways? 1=Home born 2=Share arrangements 3=Gift 4=Purchase 5=Not replace 6=Others, specify

20. If you sale sheep and goats for urgent income needs, which you prefer to sale? 1=Lambs and kids 2=Rams and bucks 3=Ewes and doe 4=Castrates 5=Others

113

21. How you sale young male sheep and goats? 1=Sale all when reach to marketing age 2=Sale holding some for breeding 3=Sale holding some to castrate and fattening 4=Others, specify

22. Do you cut tail of female sheep/ewe? 1=Yes 2=No 23. If yes, why and when (age, months)? ______E. Marketing of sheep and goats, their products and by-products

1. Have you sold sheep and/or goats in the past 12 months? 1=Yes 2=No

2. If yes, why? (Rank) 1= Generate income for farm inputs (fertilizer, seed, others) 2= Generate income for children school 3= Generate income for family and animal health treatments 4= Shortage of grazing land and feeds 5=Generate income to purchase foods 6=To pay back credits 7=Others, specify

3. Where you sold your animals? 1= Farmers in the same village 2= Farmers in nearby village3= Hadero market 4= Shinshicho 5= Doyogena 6= Adilo 7= Areka

4. Have you purchased sheep and/or goats in the last 12 months? 1= Yes 2= No

5. Why you purchased sheep and goats? 1=Slaughter for festivals 2= Slaughter for ceremonies/rituals 3=Breeding 4=Fattening 5=Others, specify

6. If yes, from where you purchased? 1= Farmers in the same village 2= Farmers in nearby village 3= Hadero market 4= Shinshicho 5= Doyogena 6= Adilo 7= Areka

8. When in the year you prefers to sale and/or purchase sheep and goats? S Sheep Goats N When Sale Purchase Sale Purchase 1 During festivals (specify) 2 During planting 3 During harvesting 4 Others, specify

9. How you sales your animals? 1= Live weight basis 2= ‘Eye ball’ estimation 3=Both

10. Why you prefer this mode of marketing? (Selected above) 1= Incentive prices 2= Avoids mischief 3= Most purchasers like this way 4= Saves my time and energy 5= Other, specify

11. Did you ever obtain animal market price information? 1= Yes 2= No

12. If yes, from where? 1= DAs 2= Governmental organizations, specify 3= NGOs 4= Others, specify

13. Do you face any problem in marketing of your animals? 1= Yes 2= No

14. If yes, what? (Rank) 1= Tax burden 2= Unwanted broker disorder and high commission fees 3= Seasonality of market demand and prices 4= Lack of market road from my areas 5= Lack of market and price information 6= Others, specify

15. Do your family sales milk products from sheep and goats? 1= Yes 2= No

114

16. If not market your products, why not? 1= Not produce at all 2= Produce but consume at home 3= Not fetches reasonable price 4= Don’t have any market demand in my locality 5= Others, specify

F. Sheep and goats production and marketing constraints

1. Do you want to expand sheep and goats flock sizes and production in the future? 1=Yes 2=No

S.N Reasons to expand Sheep Goats Both 1 High market demand 2 Incentive market prices 3 Easy to manage and keep 4 Distribute benefits and losses 5 Immediate returns 6 Appropriate for slaughter and home Consumption 7 Others, specify

2. If no, why? 1=Shortage of grazing lands and feeds 2=Shortage of labor 3=Prefer another animal species 4=Marketing problem 5=Lack of capital to purchase animals and inputs 6=Others, specify

3. What are major constraints hinder production of sheep and goats in this area? (Rank) 1=Disease and parasites 2=Feed and grazing land shortages 3=Water shortage 4=Labor shortage 5=Drought 6=Predators 7=Marketing problems 8=Inadequate/lack of inputs 9= Inadequate/lack of extension and support 10=Inadequate/lack of technologies and innovations 11=Lack of capital and credits 12=Others

SECTION THREE: SOCIAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS A. Gender, labor allocation and decision on benefits from sheep and goats

1. Do you encounter labor shortage in sheep and goat production? 1=Yes 2=No

2. For what major tasks you face labor shortage? 1=Herding and tethering 2=Watering 3=Looking after lambs and kids 4=Construction of shelter 5=Take care of sick animals 6=Others, specify

3. How you overcome the labor shortage? 1=Hire laborer 2=Use family labor 3=Use fence 4=Keep turn by turn with neighbor 5=Others, specify

4. Who do the different tasks and decides on benefits obtained from sheep and goats?

115

Particulars Men Wife Boys Girls Hired labour 1 Herding and/or tether 2 Cut-and-carry grasses and Browses 3 Water/take to water sources 4 Clean sheep and goat barns 5 Take care of lambs and kids 6 Take care of sick animals 7 Fattening managements 8 Milk 9 Process milk 10 Sale animals 11 Decides on use of income and Benefits 12 Owns sheep and goats

5. Is there any cultural, traditional and religious taboo in the area that prohibits use of sheep and goat products in this area? 1=Yes 2=No

6. Is there any tradition and culture that exceptionally prefers/requires certain sheep and goat color the area? 1=Yes 2=No

7. Do you sacrifices sheep and/or goats for any religious or traditional occasions? 1=Yes 2=No

SECTION FOUR: BUILDINGS

1. Where you confine sheep and goats? 1=Main house 2=Adjoin house 3=Separate constructed house 4=Grazing area (open kraals) 5=Others, specify

2. How many houses you have and how they are constructed?

SN Building Main Roof materials (Code 3) (Code1) purposes(Code 2) 1 2 3 4

Code for 1 1=Main hose 2=Storages 3=Barns 4= Muslim Salat house 5=Others, Specify 116

Code for 2 1=Resident 2=Storage 3=Animal barn 4= Salat house 5=Kitchen 6=Toilet 7=Other houses Code for 3 1=Grass thatched 2=Iron sheet 3=Roofing tile

8.2 Appendix II: Conversion equivalents of sub-Saharan Africa livestock into TLU (FAO, 2002).

Species TLU Oxen/bull 1.1 Local cow 0.8 Heifers 0.5 Immature males 0.6 Calves 0.2 Sheep/goats 0.1 Horses/mules 0.8 Donkeys 0.5 Chicken 0.01

117

8.3 Appendix III: Agro ecological zonation system for selecting soil and water conservation (SWC) options in Ethiopia based on field observations (Hurni, 1986)

118

8.4 Appendix IV: Analysis of Variance Appendix Table 1: Summary of ANOVA for daily DM and nutrient intake of sheep fed on Napier Grass and supplemented with different proportions of cowpea hay and concentrates mix.

Parameter To DF E SS To SS EMS To MS F-V P>F CV% mean SL

TBFI 23 1571.79 3135.14 87.322 734.352 3.08 0.0536 1.99 469.87 ns

TSFI 23 98.3 12353.4 5.46 4091.22 748.08 0.0000 0.93 251.11 ***

TDMI 23 1862.4 19036.7 103.47 5972.86 52.53 0.0000 1.41 720.98 ***

TOMI 23 1996.7 44178.8 110.9 14315.7 124.15 0.0000 1.72 610.66 ***

TASHI 23 778.81 5017.93 43.27 1469.3 32.06 0.0000 5.63 116.74 ***

TCPI 23 440.021 914.774 24.446 209.352 4.29 0.0189 5.03 98.298 *

TNDFI 23 1954.95 5842.01 108.61 1490.78 10.34 0.0004 2.51 414.56 ***

TADFI 23 1357.7 13779.9 75.43 4246.78 54.09 0.0000 4.18 207.82 ***

TADLI 23 40.79 355.813 2.2661 112.572 41.66 0.0000 4.41 34.143 ***

TMEI 23 0.33254 5.49678 0.01847 1.79824 86.86 0.0000 1.85 7.3508 ***

PBWFI 23 0.65709 2.009 0.03651 0.68636 1.43 0.2668 6.06 3.155 ns

TDMI=Total Dry Matter Intake; TOMI= Total Organic Matter Intake; TASHI=Total Ash Intake; TCPI=Total Crude Protein Intake; TNDFI=Total Neutral Detergent Fiber Intake; TADFI=Total Acid Detergent Fiber Intake; TBFI=Total Basal Feed Intake; TCFI=Total Supplement Feed Intake; TADLI=Total Acid Detergent Lignin Intake; PBWFI= Percentage Body Weight Feed Intake; SL= 120 significance level; TDF=Total Degree Freedom; ESS=Error Sum Square; TSS=Total Sum Square; EMS=Error Mean Square; F-V=F- Value; CV%=Coefficient of Variation Percentage.

Appendix Table 2: Summary of ANOVA for DM and nutrient intake during digestibility trial of sheep fed on Napier Grass and supplemented with different proportions of cowpea hay and concentrates mix.

Parameter TDF ESS TSS EMS To MS F-V P>F CV% mean SL

TDM intake 11 9431.5 37407.6 1571.92 11289.2 5.43 0.038 5.08 780.5 ***

TASH intake 11 809.31 2709.74 134.885 859.089 3.35 0.0968 8.93 130.02 ***

TOM intake 11 5983.5 45717.8 997.3 14280.5 13.2 0.0047 4.82 654.87 ***

TCP intake 11 329.904 721.192 54.984 188.597 2.26 0.1822 7.16 103.58 ***

NDF intake 11 4301.7 11325.1 716.95 3160.83 2.98 0.1183 6.74 397.02 **

TADF intake 11 2434.56 5717.03 405.76 1546.55 2.47 0.1597 8.96 224.76 **

TADL intake 11 64.905 122.5 10.8175 32.1465 1.38 0.3361 9.09 36.168 **

TME intake 11 1.06235 5.94982 0.17706 1.82302 9.01 0.0122 5.29 7.9525 ***

TDM= Total of Dry Matter Intake; TOMI= Total Organic Matter Intake; TCPI= Total Crude Protein Intake; TNDFI= Total Neutral Detergent Fiber Intake; TADFI= Total Acid Detergent Fiber Intake; TIVOMD=Total In vitro organic matter ;TEM=Total Metabolizeble Energy SL= significance level; TDF=Total Degree Freedom; ESS=Error Sum Square; TSS=Total Sum Square;EMS=Error Mean Square; FV=F-Value; CV%=Coefficient of Variation Percentage.

121

Appendix Table 3: Summary of ANOVA for apparent digestibility of dry matter and nutrients of sheep fed on Napier Grass and supplemented with different proportions of cowpea hay and concentrates mix.

Parameter TDF E SS TSS EMS TMS F-Val P>F CV% mean SL DM digestibility 11 366.36 479.635 61.06 103.135 0.48 0.7099 10.36 75.417 *

ASH digestibility 11 290.808 691.198 48.468 188.095 2.5 0.1566 10.66 65.337 *

OM digestibility 11 384.316 503.365 64.0526 109.533 0.44 0.7337 10.34 77.428 *

CP digestibility 11 340.132 416.267 56.6886 83.6149 0.39 0.7628 9.06 83.068 *

NDF digestibility 11 507.246 710.495 84.5411 164.858 0.5 0.6935 12.63 72.81 *

ADF digestibility 11 653.61 1042.53 108.935 262.466 0.75 0.5603 15.65 66.693 **

ADL digestibility 11 2239.34 3988.99 373.224 1074.53 0.93 0.4819 63.89 30.24 ***

DM= Dry Matter Intake; OMI= Organic Matter Intake; CPI= Crude Protein Intake; NDFI= Neutral Detergent Fiber Intake; ADFI= Acid Detergent Fiber Intake ADL=Acid Detergent Lignin; SL= significance level; TDF=Total Degree Freedom; ESS=Error Sum Square; TSS=Total Sum Square; EMS=Error Mean Square; TMS= Total Mean Square FV=F-Value; CV%=Coefficient of Variation Percentage

122

Appendix Table 4: Summary of ANOVA for body weight parameters of sheep fed on Napier Grass and supplemented with different proportions of cowpea hay and concentrates mix.

Parameter TDF E SS TSS EMS TMS F-Val P>F CV% mean SL Initial body weight (kg) 23 4.1608 77.7796 0.2312 36.8876 1.32 0.2977 2.92 16.454 ns

Final body weight (kg) 23 32.013 155.513 1.7785 55.7824 8.71 0.0009 5.78 23.067 ***

BW Change (Kg) 23 24.5392 61.9063 1.3633 13.9895 8.89 0.0008 17.66 6.6125 ***

Daily BW gain (g/d) 23 5008 12633.9 278.22 2854.98 8.89 0.0008 17.66 94.464 ***

FCE (g DBWG/g DDMI) 23 0.00941 0.01952 5.23E-04 0.00395 6.24 0.0043 17.54 0.1303 **

PUE (g DBWG/g DCPI) 23 0.57153 1.11137 0.03175 0.21195 5.65 0.0066 18.59 0.9586 **

BW= body weight; DMI= dry matter intake; FCE= Feed conversion efficiency; ns=non significant; PCE=Protein Conversion Efficiency; SL= significance level; TDF=Total Degree Freedom; ESS=Error Sum Square; TSS=Total Sum Square; EMS=Error Mean Square; F-V=F-Value; CV%=Coefficient of Variation Percentage.

123

BIOGRAPHICAL SKECH

The author, Miss Mekeya Bedru was born on May, 29, 1992 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. She attended her education at Biherawi Bête Mengist Primary School (Grade 1-8), Minillik the second and Yekatit 66 Secondary School (Grade 9-10) and Minilik the second Preparatory School (Grade

11-12) at Addis Ababa from September 1999 to July, 2011. She then joined Debere Tabor

University, in December, 2012 and awarded BSc degree in Animal Science in July, 2014. After graduation, she employed by South Agricultural Research Institute and Joined Worabe

Agricultural Research Center, Livestock research case team as Junior Animal Nutrition Researcher in October, 2014 and worked there for two years. After two years of service, In October 2016, she joined School of Graduate Studies at Hawassa University to pursue her graduate study in

Animal Nutrition.

124