ASSESSMENT OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION PRACTICES AND

FEED RESOURCES IN PERI URBAN AND RURAL AREAS OF

SEKOTA DISTRICT IN WAGHIMRA ZONE, ETHIOPIA

MSc THESIS

ZINASH WORKU

OCTOBER 2015
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

Assessment of Livestock Production Practices and Feed resources in Peri

Urban and Rural areas in Waghimra Zone Sekota District, Ethiopia

A Thesis Submitted to the, School of Animal and Range Sciences

POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM DIRECTORET
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ANIMAL PRODUCTION

Zinash Worku

October 2015
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY
POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM DIRECTORET

We hereby certify that we have read and evaluated this thesis entitled Assessment of Livestock
Production Practices and Feed resources in Peri Urban and Rural areas in Waghimra Zone
Sekota district, Ethiopia prepared under my guidance by Zinash Worku. We recommend that it
be submitted as fulfilling the thesis requirement.

Getachew Animut (PhD)

Major Advisor
Mengistu Urge (PhD)
Co-Advisor

-------------------Signature
-------------------Signature

--------------------------------Date
--------------------------------Date

As a members of the Board of Examiners of the MSc Thesis Open Defense Examination, We
certify that we have read and evaluated the Thesis prepared by Zinash Worku Engida and
examined the candidate. We recommend that the thesis be accepted as fulfilling the Thesis
requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Animal Production.
----------------------------Chairman
----------------------------Internal Examiner
-----------------------------External Examiner

-----------------------Signature
-----------------------Signature
-----------------------Signature

---------------------------------Date
---------------------------------Date
---------------------------------Date

Final approval and acceptance of the thesis is contingent upon the submission of the final copy
of the thesis to the Council of Graduate Studies (CGS) through the College of Agriculture and
Environmental Science Graduate Council (CGC).

DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis manuscript to my mother Alefu Teklehaymanot, my love Assefa
Teshome and my brother Sisay Endalewu and Shiwarega Endalewu for their dedicated
partnership to the success of my life.
.

ii

STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR

By my signature below, I declare and affirm that this Thesis is my own work. I have followed
all ethical and technical principles of scholarship in the preparation, data collection, data
analysis and compilation of this Thesis. Any scholarly matter that is included in the thesis has
been given recognition through citation.

This Thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an MSc degree at
Haramaya University. The Thesis is deposited in the Haramaya University Library and is
made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. I solemnly declare that this Thesis has
not been submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree,
diploma or certificate.

Brief quotations from this Thesis may be made without special permission provided that
accurate and complete acknowledgement of source is made. Requests for permission for
extended quotation from or reproduction of this Thesis in whole or in part may be granted by
the College of Agriculture and Environmental Science when in his or her judgment the
proposed use of the material is in the interest of scholarship. In all other instances, however,
permissions must be obtained from the author of the Thesis.

Name: Zinash Worku

Signature: -------------------------

Date: June 2015

School/Department: Animal and Range Sciences

iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ANRS

Amhara National Regional State

BoANRD

Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resources

CSA

Central Statistics Authority

CP

Crude Protein

DM

Dry Matter

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

IVOMD

In Vitro Organic Matter Digestibility

LDH

Livestock Development and Health

T DM

Total Dry Matter

TLU

Tropical Livestock Unit

UNECA

United Nations Economic Commission for Africa

SDERP

Sustainable Development and Environmental Rehabilitation Program

SPSS

Statistical Package for Social Sciences

SSA

Sub-Saharan Africa

ZADO

Zone Agricultural Department Office

iv

Development

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Miss/Mis. Zinash Worku was born to her father Worku Engida and her mother Alefu
Teklehaymanot on June 16, 1989 in Sekota district in Wag-himra Zone of Amhara Region.
She started her elementary school in 1996 at Sekota elementary school and attended her junior
and high school education at Sekota town, and she took ESLCE in 2006.Then she joined
Jimma University in 2007 and graduated with BSc in Animal science in July 2009. After
graduation, the author was employed by the Dehana Agriculture office in September 2010 and
served for two years as Dhana district in agriculture office and after this in four years in Waghimra zone Disaster prevention and food security office. Then after, she joined the
Postgraduate Program of Haramaya University, in September 2013 to study her Master of
Science degree in Animal Production.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank the Almighty God for blessing invaluable gifts of
health, strength, believes, love, hope, patience and protection to me and my families
throughout my study. Had not been the will of God, nothing would have been possible for me.

I am very much indebted to acknowledge my research advisors Dr. Getachew Animut for his
earnest and constructive comments throughout the study and preparation of the manuscript. He
has worked hard to keep me on the right track and timely accomplishment of the study. I am
again thankful to my co-advisor Dr. Mengistu Urge for his kind willingness to advise me as
well as his valuable guidance and support throughout my research work.

I would like also thank to the Haramaya University, particularly to the School of Graduate
Studies, of Animal and Range Sciences the Department of Animal production, for cooperating
every required support starting from the course work up to the end.

I would also thank Amhara Region Agriculture office and Wag-hemra Zone Administration
office for facilitating financing resource required for my study. I also thank Ato Ephrem
Mesfin for supporting the materials required for my study work.

I also thank all the staff members of Wag hemra zone Agriculture and Rural Development
Office for giving me the required data for my study starting from the Zone experts up to
agricultural DAs in each of the study districts who helped me a lot during data collection.

Finally, I would like to thank my love Ato Asefa Teshome and my mother W/ro Alefu
Teklehaymanot for being with me all the time providing me a moral support and
encouragement while shouldering all my families burden with patience and endurance.
Really, without his committed support it would have been difficult for me to successfully
complete my work.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX
ABSTRACT
1. INTRODUCTION
2. LITERATURE REVIEW

ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
ix
x
xi
xii
1
3

2.1. Livestock Production Systems in Ethiopia

2.1.1. Mixed Crop Livestock Production System

2.1.2. Pastoral Livestock Production System
2.1.3. Agro-Pastoral System
2.1.4. Urban and Peri-Urban Livestock Production System

3
4
5
5

2.2. Major Livestock Feed Resources in Ethiopia

2.2.1. Natural Pasture

2.2.2. Crop Residues
2.2.3. Agro-Industrial by-Products
2.2.4. Improved Forage

6
7
9
10

2.3. Livestock Feed Management

11

2.3.1. Hay Making

2.3.2. Urea Treatment of Crop Residues
2.3.3. Silage Making

12
12
13

2.4. Feeding Systems

13

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

15

3.1. Description of the Study Area

3. 2. Sampling Procedures
3.3. Methods of Data Collection
3.4. Methods of Data Analysis

15
16
17
18

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

21

4.1. Framing System and Household characteristics

4.1.1. Farming System
4.1.2. Household Characteristics
4.1.3. Landholding and Land Use Pattern

21
21
21
23

vii

4.1.4. Livestock Holding and Their Use in the Study Area

4.1.5. Crop Production

4.2. Livestock Management and Husbandry Practices

4.2.1. Purpose of Livestock Keeping
4.2.2. Labor division in the household
4.2.3. Livestock Housing
4.2.4. Livestock Watering System in Study Area

24
25

26
26
27
29
30

4.3. Quality and quantity of available feed resources

33

4.3.1. Available Major Feed Resources and Feeding System

4.3.2. Dry Matter Production from Crop Residues
4.3.3. Dry Matter Yield from Natural Pasture
4.3.4. Hay Production
4.3.5. Dry Matter from Supplemental Feeds

33
34
35
35
36

4.4. Feed Balance

4.5. Livestock Production Constraints and Marketing System
4.5.1. Livestock Production Constraints
4.5.2. Livestock Marketing System

36
38
38
39

4.5.2.1. Livestock marketing

4.5.2.2. Marketing channels
4.5.2.3. Purchasing and selling place of livestock

39
40
41

4. 5.3. Purchasing and Selling Price of Livestock

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
6.
REFERENCES
7.
APPENDIX

42
43
46
52

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

1. Household size and age category per household in study area

22

2. Land holding and land use pattern per household in the study area

24

3. Livestock holding and composition per household

25

4. Purpose of livestock keeping in peri-urban kebeles ranked according to importance

27

5. Purpose of livestock keeping in rural kebeles ranked according to importance

27

6. Labor division in the respondent households

28

7. Housing condition of livestock in the study area

30

8. Major water source during dry and wet season in the study areas

31

9. Watering frequency for livestock species during the dry and wet season in the study area 32
10. Feeding system in the study areas

33

11. Major feed types available in the study area

34

12. Estimated crop residues dry matter yield (ton/hh) from major crops per household

35

13. Feed supply in the study area

37

14. Annual DM requirement (ton) of livestock species in the study area.

37

15. Major livestock production constraints in the study areas

39

16. The mean of purchasing price, selling price and profit of livestock in the different market
places of the study areas

42

ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figures

Page

1. Location map of the study area.

16

2. Educational level of the respondents at the study areas

23

3. The major feed shortage months in the selected kebeles

38

4. Marketing channels of the study area

41

LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX

Appendix Table

Page

1. Total cultivated area (ha), share of different crops and yield (qu) obtained per Household in
peri urban and rural areas

52

2. Questionnaires

52

xi

ASSESSMENT OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION PRACTICES AND

FEED RESOURCES IN PERI URBAN AND RURAL AREAS IN
WAGHIMRA ZONE SEKOTA DISTRICT, ETHIOPIA
ABSTRACT
A study was conducted in Sekota district of the Waghimra Zone of Amhara Regional State,
with the objectives of characterizing the livestock production system, assessing and estimating
the feed resource base and their management practices in the study area. Three rural and
three peri-urban livestock potential kebeles and 40 respondents from each kebele were
purposively selected. Data were collected through interviewing selected farmers, from field
observation and focal group discussions, supported with secondary information from different
sources. The average landholdings of the peri urban and rural kebeles were 2.12 and 2.45 ha
per household, respectively. The average private grazing land was 0.15 ha per household. The
average cattle, sheep, goat, equine and poultry owned by a household area was 7.17, 3.63,
2.70, 0.93 and 15.01, respectively. The dominant crops grown in the study area are maize,
finger millet and teff (Eragrostis teff). The cultivated land of the current study was 2.08 ha for
rural kebeles and 1.95 ha for peri-urban kebeles. Traction and threshing are the main reasons
for keeping cattle followed by as source of milk and income, while sheep and goats and
poultry are kept mainly for income and meat, and equines for transportation and source of
income. Types of available feed resources in the study areas include crop residues,
natural pastures, hay, some fodder trees, and supplement in which their availability vary
depending on season. According to the estimation of this study, there was an annual feed
deficit of 562.9 and 192.2246 ton for the peri-urban and rural kebeles, respectively. Feed
supply, disease, genetic potential of livestock and labour availability has been identified as
livestock production constraints in the study area. Generally, the number of livestock and the
available feed resources do not match to support profitable livestock production in the study
areas, which suggest that the primary focus needs to be improving the existing feed resources
through management, utilization practices and applying improvement practices such as
treatment of crop residues, and improving the existing management system of grazing lands.
Key words: Sekota district. Rural, Peri- urban, livestock

xii

1. INTRODUCTION
Livestock production is an important and integral part of the agricultural sector in Ethiopia.
Livestock farming is vital for the supply of meat and milk; and as a source of additional
income both for smallholder farmers and livestock owners (Ehui et al., 2002). However,
livestock production is constrained with socio-economic and technical problems (Mengistu,
2003). Feed both in terms of quantity and quality is a major bottleneck for livestock
production in Ethiopia. Feed resources as reported by Tolera et al. (2012) can be classified as
natural pasture, crop residue, improved pasture and forage and agro industrial by-products of
which the first two contribute the largest share. The fibrous agricultural residues contribute a
major parts of livestock feed especially in countries where land is prioritized for crop
cultivation. Tolera et al. (2012) reported that crop residues contribute about 50% of the total
feed supply in Ethiopia.

Under smallholder livestock production system, animals are dependent on a variety of feed
resources which vary both in quantity and quality. For optimum livestock productivity, the
available feed resource should match with the number of animals in a given area. However,
there is scanty information regarding the assessment of feed resources in different areas of the
country. Few literatures at hand mainly focuses on available feed resources without
quantifying the amount obtained from each feed types and without indicating their values on
the bases of dry matter available which could satisfy the DM requirement of the livestock. For
example, the study by Alemu et al. (2006) evaluated the utilization of crop residues in selected
agro-ecological zones of eastern Shoa which mainly focused on rural households. Moreover,
the land which used to be allocated for grazing and crop production is being converted to other
businesses which require regular assessment of the change in feed resource base of different
areas.

Livestock production constraints could vary not only across agro-ecology but also among
production systems. For example, different classes of animals are kept by the rural and periurban farmers which are dictated by the demand for the products such as milk and availability
of the supplemental feeds. The peri-urban and urban farmers usually purchase basal feeds

(grasses and crop residues) from the rural area. Shortage of feeds in the rural areas thus affects
the management and productivity of livestock in the urban and peri-urban areas. On the other
hand, peri-urban areas may have a better access to various agro-industrial by-products that can
serve as feed resource to livestock. Therefore, it is necessary to study the production system
and identify the feed production status and production constraints in the rural and urban/periurban livestock production systems. Such information is necessary for policy makers and
farmers in order to alleviate the prevailing problems thereby help enhance livestock
performance.

The major type of livestock reared in Sekota district of Waghimra zone is cattle, goats, sheep,
donkeys, mules, bees, and poultry. Livestock farming are very widely practiced by the farmers
to support their livelihoods (Muluken, 2006). The major feed resources in the area include
natural pasture, crop residue, fodder trees and shrubs, hay, crop aftermath and agro-industrial
by-products (Adefres et al., 2000). However, how much the livestock production system and
feed resources vary between the peri-urban and rural areas of the district appears to be not
clearly documented. There is also little information about the availability and utilization of
feed resources in rural and peri-urban areas of the district. Such information is valuable to
diagnose the existing problems and suggest intervention measures to be taken by farmers and
policy makers. Therefore, it is important to assess the available feed resources in relation to
the requirements of livestock on annual basis in a given area. Therefore, the objectives of this
study were:

To identify the estimate of available feed resources in the area

To characterize the seasonal production and marketing of the major feed resources in
the study area

To generate baseline information on the farming system and livestock related

constraints of Sekota district

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Livestock Production Systems in Ethiopia
In most African countries, the livestock subsector comprises several or all of the following
major small and large-scale production systems: (1) small-scale: that is pastoral, agro
pastoralism livestock production system, transhumance and mixed smallholder farming. (2)
Large scale: ranching, large-scale commercial farming, co-operative farming, and state
farming (ILRI, 1995).Owning to the diversity of Ethiopia's topography, climate and cultural
conditions, it is difficult to generalize livestock production systems in the country (Zewdie
Wondatir, 2010). Numerous authors used different criteria to classify livestock production
systems in Ethiopia. However, about five production systems have been identified based on
integration of livestock with crop production, level of input and intensity of production, agroecology and market orientation. The following systems have been defined such as. Pastoral,
agro-pastoral, mixed crop-livestock farming, urban and peri-urban production (Yitaye
Alemayehu et al., 2007).
2.1.1. Mixed Crop Livestock Production System
Crop-livestock production system is land-use system in which livestock husbandry and
cropping are practiced together complementing each other (Solomon Bogale, 2004). Thus the
system provides a safeguard in spreading income and reducing risks arising either from crop
or livestock. Cropping activities obtains draft power and manure from livestock sector while
livestock production is benefited by feed resources mainly. However, livestock husbandry and
cropping may be parallel activities without much interaction (Azage Tegegne et al., 2009).
Crop-livestock interactions are few in the humid zone because of the prevalence of animal
diseases and cropping patterns. However, this production system is predominantly being
practiced in central highland area of Ethiopia, where more human and livestock population
exist (Dejene, 2003). The highlands (> 1500 m.a.s.l) in Ethiopia comprise nearly half of the
land area of the country and hold more than 85% of the total human population, and

about two thirds of the livestock population (Dejene, 2003). Land degradation in these areas
are more common due to factors such as frequent cultivation (without fallowing), free grazing
and deforestation. Therefore, mixed crop and livestock production system in the area is
constrained and becoming non-productive. Because of serious feed shortage in this production
system the indigenous livestock breeds are dominant than the improved breeds, since they
demand more amount and quality of feeds.

Recently, in order to overcome the severe

constraints of the mixed crop livestock production system, the government of Ethiopia has
initiated rehabilitation of degraded grazing lands as well as deforested lands through
implementation of reducing free grazing, enclosure of land and afforestation programs .

2.1.2. Pastoral Livestock Production System

Pastoralism in Africa is practiced predominantly by small family units in lowland area at an
altitude of below 1500 m.a.s.l. Herds and flocks are raised that vary considerably in size, from
a few sheep and goats in the poorest families to many hundreds of cattle and/or camels in the
wealthiest (IBC, 2004). The size of the herd/flock determines the share of feed resources
obtained from pastures grazed communally under an open access or common property tenure
system characterized by mobility (nomadism or transhumance) as a survival strategy (Azage
Tegegne et al., 2009).

In the lowlands of Ethiopia, pastoral livestock production system with no or little farming is
practiced and livestock are kept to provide mainly for milk. Livestock do not provide inputs
for crop production but are the very backbone of life for their owners, providing all of the
consumable saleable outputs and, in addition, representing a living bank account and form of
insurance against adversity (Coppock, 1994). This is a system mainly operating in the range
lands where the peoples involved follow animal-based life styles which requires of them to
move from place to place seasonally based on feed and water availability. The climate in these
areas is characterized by low, unreliable and unevenly distributed rainfall and by year round
high temperatures. Not only the unfavorable weather conditions but also uneven water point
distribution and further the lack of proper management of the rangelands eventually leads
tribal conflicts, introduction of new animal disease, low animal productivity and also transborder issues (Tsehay Redda, 2004; Azage Tegegne et al., 2009). Even though, information on

both absolute numbers and distribution vary, it is estimated that about 30% of the livestock
population and about 15% of human population of the country are found in the pastoral and
agro-pastoral areas (Ketema Hizkias and Tsehay Redda, 2004; Belete Aniteneh 2006).

2.1.3. Agro-Pastoral System

Due to the recent development of infrastructures in the lowland area of Ethiopia the pastoral
system has given way to the agro-pastoral system. Agro-pastoral

form

of

livestock

production system dominates in mid agro-ecological zones where a tendency for crop
production has shown besides livestock production. Agro pastoralists are sedentary farmers
who grow crops and raise livestock. Livestock are used for draught, savings and milk
production. The production system is subsistence type of milk and or meat production (Zinash
Sileshi et al., 2001; Alemayehu Mengistu 2004). Cattle and small stock play a critical role in
the agro-pastoralist household economy. Agro-pastoralists tend to retain female stock to
produce milk and to maintain the reproductive potential of the herd. Oxen are also important
for draft so that stock sold tend to be oxen and cows, which have lost their productive
capacity. However, because average herd size is generally low, many herders are increasingly
forced to sell young males and even females of optimum reproductive age (ILRI, 1995).

2.1.4. Urban and Peri-Urban Livestock Production System

In Ethiopia, rapid urbanization, consequent demand for livestock products both domestic and
overseas and improved livelihoods have all driven a market oriented livestock production
system. These ever increasing demands have let to the emergence of a new production system
namely urban and peri-urban production systems. This system is developed in areas where the
population density is high and agricultural land is shrinking due to urbanization around
big cities such as Addis Ababa and other regional towns (Sintayehu Yigrem et al., 2008). In
this system, crossbred animals (ranging from F1 to a higher blood level of exotic breeds
mainly Holstein Friesian) are kept in small to medium-sized farms (Tsehay Redda, 2002;
Sintayehu Yigrem et al., 2008). Urban and peri-urban production systems include commercial
to smallholder dairy farms and they are profit oriented. Producers use all or part of their

land for fodder production and purchase of concentrate is also another source of feed
(Yoseph Mekasha et al., 1999).

2.2. Major Livestock Feed Resources in Ethiopia

The major feed resources in Ethiopia were natural grazing lands and crops residue (CSA,
2012/13). The same author also reported that grass hay, agro-industrial by-products, improved
forages and other feeds are also used as animal feed with different levels of contribution.
However, depending on the production system being employed, there are reports that livestock
feed source contribution of crop residues outweigh far more than grazing land (Seyoum
Bediye et al., 2001; Solomon Bogale, 2004). The same study reported that crop-residues and
stubble grazing accounted for 74.15% of the total annual feed supply which was the major
source of feed starting from harvesting of food crops to the wet periods during the time at
which feed from grazing areas is inadequate or almost unavailable in Sinana sub-district (Bale
area). Similarly, in most intensively cultivated areas, crop residues and aftermath grazing
accounts for about 60 -70% of the basal diet, particularly, wheat straw is the dominant feed in
wheat-based farming system (Seyoum Bediye et al., 2001)

2.2.1. Natural Pasture

Natural pastures include annual and perennial species of grasses, forbs, shrubs and trees
naturally grown. Many researchers and development workers agreed that natural pasture
comprises the largest feed resource, but estimates of the contribution of this feed resource vary
greatly (Alemayehu Mengistu, 2004).

The reliability of natural pasture as a feed source is restricted to the wet season (Zinash Sileshi
et al., 1995) and animals feed source is extensively based on roughages for long periods of the
dry season. This is mainly because of the continuous declining of natural grazing lands in the
highlands and rangelands in the pastoral areas. Earlier, it was estimated that about 62 million
ha of natural pastureland were available in the country (Alemayehu Mengistu, 1985), but
because of the continuous change of grazing land into cropping, the size has reduced to 40
million ha (EARO, 2001). It is likely that the available grazing land has diminished more

during the last few years and is expected to continue in the future. The emerging urbanization
could lead to further shrinkage of the existing natural pastureland, as exemplified by the Selale
area (Rehrahie Mesifin and Ledin, 2004). Hence, the share of natural grazing pasture at the
national level as livestock feed resource, has become reduced to about 57% (CSA, 2012/13)
from an earlier level of 90% (Alemayehu Mengistu, 1985). Moreover, the productivity of
grazing lands is estimated to range between 0.5 to 6 tons DM/ha, which is typically low
productivity as compared to yield from improved pasture (Alemayehu Mengistu, 2006). From
grazing viewpoint, production or yield is one of the most important measures in pastureland
productivity. Biomass (yield) as regards to forage refers to the weight of plant material present
at a time (Pieper, 1978). Most estimates of biomass or standing crop includes only that above
the soil surfaces and this material is commonly available to large herbivores (Jerry et al.,
1989). Direct harvesting is considered the most reliable method of determining biomass above
the ground (Snyman, 1993).
In the highlands of Ethiopia, the annual DM yield of the natural pasture on seasonally
waterlogged fertile areas was estimated to be 4-6 tons per hectare (Alemayehu, 1987). On the
other hand, Jutzi et al. (1987) reported 1.5 tons per hectare of DM per annum for continuously
grazed grassland and 3.0 tons per ha for protected grass lands for areas over 2500 m.a.s.l.
Native pasture contributes a maximum of 50% of the total feed supply (Lulseged, 1987).
According to the estimate of FAO (1987), the DM yield of fallow and forestlands were
estimated to be 1.8 and 0.7 tons/ha/annum, respectively. Yihalem (2004) reported that the DM
yield of a well-managed natural pasture varied from 3.05 to 7.97 tons/ha with a mean value of
6.18 tons/ha.

2.2.2. Crop Residues

Crop residues are abundantly produced in almost all parts of the world where there is crop
production. Cereal straws such as teff, barley, and wheat and pulse crop residues are stalked
after threshing and fed to animals during the dry season when the quality and quantity of
available feed from natural pasture declines drastically in different parts of the Ethiopian
highlands (Solomon Bogale, 2004). Livestock also have access to crop stubbles and weedy
fallows, but stubble grazing is declining drastically because of restricted grazing. The supply

of these crop residues is a function of the proportion of land used for cropping and the edible
feed yields per unit area of land, and the straw type (Daniel Keftassa, 1988) cited by
(Sisay Amare, 2006). Among all crop residues, account for more than 29.61 present of the
total crop residue yield in Ethiopia (CSA, 2012/2013) and also yields 61.29 present of the
total feed resources in Bale highlands (Solomon Bogale, 2004). On the average, crop residues
provide generally 10 to 15% of total feed intake in the mixed crop-livestock producing areas
(Alemayhu Mengistu, 2004). In the central highlands of Ethiopia, but in most intensively
cultivated areas, crop residues and aftermath grazing account for above 60-70% of the basal
diet (Seyoum Bediye et al., 2001). Moreover, most of the crop residues used as livestock
feed fluctuate in seasonal supply and used without any treatment and/or strategic
supplementation (Solomon Bogale, 2004).

The crop residues have long been known as important maintenance feed for ruminants.
However, when used alone, they are of very low feeding value with poor metabolizable energy
(ME), negligible available protein and seriously deficient in mineral and vitamins (Staniforth,
1979). On the other hand, crop residues vary greatly in chemical composition and digestibility
depending on varietal differences (Reed et al.1986) and agronomic practices (Staniforth,
1979). The feeding value of crop residues is also limited by their poor voluntary
intakes, low digestibility and low nitrogen, energy, mineral and vitamin contents (Alemu
Yami et al., 1991). The CP content of crop residues ranges form 2.4-7% and the value
of IVDMD for straw is between 34 and 52% (Gashaw Geda, 1992). However, the
nutritional values of crop residues vary according to the type of crop used (Daniel Keftassa,
1988). For example, cereal straws have a CP, NDF, and IVDMD mean values of 4.5, 79.4 and
51.1%, respectively in contrast to pulse straws, which have a CP, NDF and IVDMD mean
values of 7, 62.9 and 63.5%, respectively. Furthermore, straw from oil crops have CP and
NDF values of 5.4 and 66.4%, respectively (Alemu Yami et al., 1991).

Crop stubble is one of the important feed sources in the study area. After harvesting the crops,
livestock are allowed to graze stubble of different crops (barley, wheat, teff, and oats) mainly
from October to November. For the first two months, the stubble is grazed by the animals of
the farm owner and later it becomes accessible to all animals in the community. Kossila

(1988) developed a multiplier of 2.0 to 3.0 for maize depending on the region where it is
produced; whereas De Leeuw et al. (1990) developed a multiplier of 2.0 for maize. In general,
Kossila (1988) proposed a multiplier of 1.5, 2.0 and 3.0 for barely, wheat and maize,
respectively for Africa. Gryseels et al. (1988) proposed a multiplier of 1.45 and 1.39 for wheat
and barley straws, respectively. For small cereal crops, the Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO) (1987) suggested a multiplier of 1.5 for wheat, barley and tef and 1.2 for pulses such as
field pea, faba bean, chickpea, haricot bean and lentil. For crop stubbles, Bekele (1991)
reported an average DM yield of 2 tons/ha per year with 30% utilization rate. According to
FAO (1987), utilizable average Dry Matter Yield (DMY) of stubble grazing is estimated to be
0.5 ton/ha per annum.

2.2.3. Agro-Industrial by-Products

Agro-industrial by-products have special value in feeding livestock mainly in urban and periurban livestock production system, as well as in situations where the productive potential of
the animals is relatively high and require high nutrient supply. The major agro-industrial byproducts commonly used are obtained from flour milling industries, edible oil extracting byproducts, brewery, and sugar producing industries. Traditional brewery by-products such as
Atela and Brint also contribute as supplement feed source for livestock. The current trends of
increasing urban population has a significant effect on the establishment of agro-industries due
to the corresponding inclined demand for the edible main products. Agro-industrial byproducts are rich in energy and/or protein contents or both. They have low fiber content, high
digestibility and energy values compared with the other class of feeds (Seyoum Bediye and
Zinash Sileshi, 1989). Alemu Yami et al. (1991) have also reported more than 35% CP and
50-70% in vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD) for oil seed cakes and 18-20% CP and
more than 80% IVOMD for flour milling by-products. Supplementing ruminants fed on low
quality feeds with agro-industrial by-products enables them perform well due to higher
nutrient density to correct the nutrient deficiencies in the basal diet. According to Firew
Tegegne and Getnet Assefa (2010) the major agro-industrial by-products of available as feed
resources in ANRS are wheat bran, wheat middling, rice bran, oats bran, noug seed cake,
cottonseed cake, sesame seed cake, groundnut cake, and brewery by-products.

10

2.2.4. Improved Forage

Improved forages play varying role in different livestock production systems. In general,
however, they are important as adjuncts to crop residues and natural pastures and may be used
to fill the feed gaps during periods of inadequate crop residues and natural pasture supply.
Even in the presence of abundant crop residues, which are often free fed to ruminants,
improved forage crops especially legumes are needed to improve the nutritional values of crop
residues. Improved forages also provide benefits such as soil fertility through their nitrogenfixing ability and reducing soil erosion (Yeshitila Admassu, 2008). Due to its positive
biological impact on degraded lands the government of Ethiopia has given due attention in
stock exclusion and watershed areas.
However, not much progress achieved till recently (CSA, 2012/13). Similarly, Abebe Mekoya
et al. (2008) reported about the unsatisfactory and limited success rates of improved forage
development because of shortage of land in the mixed crop-livestock agriculture, technical
problems such as planting and managing the seedlings, insect damage and low interest of
farmers were some of the reported reasons for poor adoption of improved forage production.
CSA (2012/13) reported that the improved forage contribution as livestock feed source is at a
meager 0.22 % which calls for further effort in extension and research activities in the area.
Cultivated fodder crops such as oats, vetch, alfalfa, and fodder beet are not well developed
(Alemayehu Mengistu, 2005; Abebe Mekoya et al., 2008).
Improved forages have been grown and used in government ranches, state farms, farmer's
demonstration plots and dairy and fattening areas. Forage crops are commonly grown for
feeding dairy cattle with oats and vetch mixtures, fodder beet, elephant grass mixed with
siratro and desmodium species, Rhodes/Lucerne mixture, phalaris/trifolium mixture,
hedgerows of sesbania, leucaena and tree-Lucerne being common ones (Alemayehu Mengistu,
2006). Due to unprecedented population increase, land scarcity and crop-dominated farming,
there has been limited introduction of improved pasture and forages to smallholder farming
communities and the adoption of this technology by smallholder mixed farmers has been
generally slow (Abebe Mekoya et al., 2008).

11

2.2.5. Other Feed Resources

Livestock feed resources are classified as conventional and non-conventional (Alemayehu

Mengistu, 2003), where the non-conventional ones vary according to feed habit of the
community and others, e.g. vegetable refusals (tobacco, stimulates) are non-conventional.
Related to this anything used as livestock feed in the area additionally were added into the
production of the feed resources to estimate its dry matter production The most commonly
used non-conventional feed in the area is by-product of home brewed and distilled beverages
in Debre Birhan and other small towns. It contributes a lot especially for the urban and periurban dairy farmers. Use of waste from the milling houses and grain stores is common. These
feed sources are used for poultry and sheep. Pulse hulls from lentil, field pea and grass pea are
some sources of supplement feeds especially for horses (Firew Tegegne and Getnet Assefa,
2010)

2.3. Livestock Feed Management

The area of nutrient management encompasses many disciplines. The major areas include
crops, economics, health, manure, nutrition, policy, storage, and water quality. Best
management practices can be implemented by livestock producers that enhance farm
productivity and environmental stewardship (Penn State Extension, 2014).The most feed
management practices used in conservation of feed resources are hay making, traditionally
conserved crop residues, and grazing in the form of standing hay. Hay is the oldest and still the
most important conserved fodder in all altitude zones, despite its dependence on the presence
of suitable weather at the time of harvest. (Ahmed Hassen et al., 2011).

The increase in human population and the associated decrease in the size of the grazing land
had led farmers to use different forms of conservation practices. The most common practices
used in conservation of feed resources are hay making, traditionally conserved crop residues,
grazing in the form of standing hay and silage making. Hay is the oldest and still the most
important conserved fodder in all altitude zones, despite its dependence on the presence of
suitable weather at the time of harvest (Ahmed Hassen et al., 2010).

12

The most commonly used ways of feed preservation techniques in Ethiopia is hay making
which is expected to mitigate problems of livestock feeding during the dry period and
therefore their experience is a good indicator that feeds are being efficiently utilized. However;
as both grasses and legume decline in quality as the dry season progresses, ways of preserving
nutritive quality through haymaking during the rainy season may be worthwhile (Yeshitila
Admassu, 2008).
2.3.1. Hay Making
The most commonly used ways of feed preservation techniques in Ethiopia is hay making. The
principle of hay making is to reduce water content of harvested plant material to retard enzyme
activity. Once dried the farmers transport the hay and put it in stack for future use or they may
readily feed to their livestock. For the dry season usage, farmers store hay under-shed to
protect it from elements of weather and from the animals themselves. However; as both
grasses and legume decline in quality as the dry season progresses ways of preserving nutritive
quality through hay making during the rainy season may be worthwhile (Yeshitila Admassu,
2008).

2.3.2. Urea Treatment of Crop Residues

Urea treatment is important for improving nutritive value of cereal straws and stovers. It has
been used in tropical and in developing countries. Straw treatment with urea has advanced
from providing for maintenance toward improvement of production. It is the ammoniating
effect that improves nutrient content and intake of straw (Willie 2001). Treatment of crop
residues with urea is particularly adapted to the needs of small farms and producers, and can
be undertaken within a family without calling in help from externally paid labor (Chenost and
Kayouli, 1997).

Beyond improving the nutrient content, urea - molasses treatment withstands previous loss of
crop residue and consequently save the bulk which leads to improved utilization of feed proper
to the feeding calendar (Rehrahie and Ledin 2001). The practice of straw treatment in Ethiopia
was mainly concentrated on research stations level with little or no on-farm application. There

13

is a need to demonstrate the technology under farmers management with intention of

developing a system which is both practical and easy for farmers adopt. (Rehrahie and Ledin,
2001)

2.3.3. Silage Making

Silage-making is a fermentation process aimed at preserving forage in its wet state away from
air and also is a management tool that allows producers to match feed resources (forages, crop
residues, agro-industrial byproducts, etc.) with feed demand for a dairy herd. The basic
function of silage-making is to store and preserve feed for later use with minimal loss of
nutritional qualities (Vanbelle, 1985). Silage making, for farmers, is aimed at producing good
quality, high energy and protein-rich conserved feed (Jatkauskas and Vrotniankiene, 2009).
Ensiling of both legume and grass forages is one of the major means of preserving
forages for livestock consumption (Muck, 1996; Jones et al., 1991a; Halling and
Scholefield, 2001). It is a simple technique of conserving forages by compression, followed
by airtight sealing (Danner et al., 2003). Ensiling conserves forage biomass and its byproducts,
together with their nutrients, by using either chemical or biological additives which rapidly
reduce the forages pH to a low final pH (Dini et al., 2010b).

2.4. Feeding Systems

In the central highlands of Ethiopia, livestock grazing on seasonal fallow land and permanent
pasturelands during cropping season, and on croplands after harvest is common (Zinash
Sileshi et al., 1995). Production problem common to most Ethiopian livestock feeding systems
are seasonality in animal feed supplies and of poor quality when fed alone it is often unable to
provide even for the maintenance needs of livestock (Anderson, 1987).

Hay is the main source of nutrients for cattle in non- grazing season, or all the time if they
dont have access to browse. Grass hay provides a moderate amount of protein and energy for
the goat diet. Legume hays, such as clover and alfalfa, usually have more protein, vitamins,
and minerals, particularly calcium, than grass hays. The quality of hay prepared varies with

14

grass legume proportion, leaf to stem ratio and physiological development of the forage up on
harvest. Mature grass, especially those that are weather leached or bleached are low in
digestible energy and protein as well as in soluble carbohydrate, carotene and some of the
minerals (Ensminger et al., 1990).

Some of the cereal grain by-products, particularly fermentation residues from alcoholic drinks
and beverages are abundant in most parts of the country. Tela is traditionally home brewed
local beer in Ethiopia and atela is a residue of tela. The Ethiopian local beer by-product,
atela is produced in large amounts all year round.

15

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Description of the Study Area
The study was conducted in Sekota District, Waghimra zone. Waghimra Zone is one of the 11
administrative zones in Amhara National Regional State (ANRS) and comprises of six
districts. The districts are: Sekota, Dehana, Ziquala, Abergelle, Sehila, and Gazgibla
(Asketema). Sekota is the capital of the zone and it is an administrative town. Sekota is located
between 120 23' and 130 16' north longitudes and 380 44' and 390 21' east latitudes (Adefress et
al., 2000; CSAE, 2005). The altitude varies from 1340 2200 meters above sea level while
annual rainfall ranges between 350 700 mm, falling mainly from July to September. The
pattern and distribution of the rainfall is erratic and uneven. Average temperature ranges from
16 270C (ZAD, 1995). The district extends 98 km in the north south direction and 67 km in
the east west direction. The district is located in the eastern part of the zone.

Sekota district is bordered by Ziquala in the west, Dehana in the southwest, Tigray region and
Abergelle district in the north and east and North Wello Zone and Asketema in the south. The
town of Sekota is located at 435 km north east of Bahir Dar (capital of the region) and 720 km
north of Addis Ababa (capital of the country) (AMAREW, 2006).

16

Figure 1. Location map of the study area.

Sekota Woreda

Source: GIS Team of ANRS BoFED (2015)

3. 2. Sampling Procedures
First, rural and peri-urban potential areas were randomly selected and interviwed. Hence, three
peri urban (Hamusit, Rubariya and sirel) and three rural kebeles (Debrebirhan, Faya and Keba)
were selected based on livestock population. Respondent farmers selection was based on
experience of farmers and only those keeping livestock for not less than two years were
considered. A total of 240 respondents (40 from each study kebele) were selected. Information
about potential Kebeles, respondent households, and on livestock population and distribution
of cross breed animals in the district were obtained from Sekota District Office of Agriculture
and Rural Development and from locally developed organizational structure of the Kebeles
(lowest administrative unit). The condition rating used for the pasture assessment is based on

17

the grass layer. Nevertheless, with the intention of describing the vegetation nature of the
study sites, all components of the herbaceous layer were studied (grasses, legumes and other
herbaceous species). At each sample site the herbaceous species composition and yield were
assessed by harvesting four quadrants randomly at its 50% flowering stage, which were
thrown each time towards the back. In each quadrant (1m x 1m), harvesting was done at the
ground level. After cutting, the samples were weighed immediately and transferred into plastic
bags and fastened at the top. The samples were kept in cool area until sampling for the day
was completed. Vegetation samples were transported to Debre Birhan within 6 hours and then
each sample was sorted out into the different species by hand. After separation, each species
was weighed using electrical sensitive balance and put into a paper bag that was properly
labeled. Thereafter, the paper bags with the plant material inside were oven dried at Debre
Birhan Agricultural Research Center at 60c for 72 hours for DM determination. Based on the
DM weights obtained, percent composition of each species of grass, legume and other
herbaceous plants for each quadrant was calculated and summarized to get the value for each
sample site following the methods of Van Soest (1982).

3.3. Methods of Data Collection

Both primary and secondary data sources were collected and used in the study. Primary data
was collected by using semi-structured questionnaire and field observation. Secondary data
was collected from district and zonal offices targeting on the quantity of feed resources
available in the area and on crop production and land use patterns. Secondary data on annual
and perennial crops and the amount of grains produced in the selected area was also collected,
from which the amount of crop residues and by products that are used as a source of animal
feed were estimated using established conversion factors developed by different researchers
(FAO, 1987; De Leeuw et al., 1990).

The DM yield from natural pasture was estimated using the conversion factors of 2 ton/ha and
from stubble grazing 0.5 ton/ha (FAO, 1987). The total available feed DM was estimated by
summation of DM from the different feed sources. The total DM production from available
feeds was then compared with the annual DM requirement of the livestock population
(converted to total tropical livestock unit, TLU) in order to estimate the discrepancy. For the
standard TLU of 250 kg dual-purpose tropical cattle, a DM requirement of 2.5% of body

18

weight equivalent to 6.25 kg DM per day or 2281 kg DM per year was considered to calculate
feed demand (Jahnke, 1982). Whether this is sufficient for maintenance and production
depends on levels of energy, protein and essential elements, digestibility of nutrients and
availability of water in the feed consumed (Jahnke, 1982).

Primary data was collected using semi-structured questionnaire, checklists and field
observations. Focus group discussion was also implemented to understand the livestock
production system, major feed resource and overall management practices implemented in the
study areas.

Field survey: a formal type of questionnaire was used to collect data. The questionnaire was
prepared and pretested before the actual beginning of the survey. A total of 240 respondent
farmers in peri urban and rural areas selected were interviewed. Data collected using
questionnaire includes livestock production system, major feed resources, management
practice and livestock production constraints in the study.

Group discussion: Two focus group discussions were held at each Kebele with 7 key
informants selected from the study area, encompassing the elders and those who have
better experience with

livestock production practices of the study area. The researcher

facilitated and guided the discussions, and the issues for discussion were livestock production
system, available feed resources and their management system, and utilization of grazing
areas.

Field Observation: Field observation was made to enrich the data about available feed,
utilization and management of communal grazing land and crop-residues.

3.4. Methods of Data Analysis

The collected data was managed and organized with MS-Excels (2007) and were analyzed
using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (version 20). Descriptive statistics were
employed to present the data obtained from the household survey. Pearsons coefficient of

19

correlation was used to determine the relationship of variables. A simplified model for
statistical procedure was presented with the following model.

Yij = +Si+eij
Where,
Yij= Individual observation
= overall mean
Si = the effect of ith locations (peri urban and rural)
eij = random error

The purpose of livestock keeping and major livestock constraints was summarized by index
method. Index was computed with the principle of weighted average according to the
following formula as employed by Musa et al. (2006):

20

Index = Rn*C1+Rn-1*C2.R1*Cn/ Rn*C1+ Rn-1*C2.R1

Where;
Rn = Value given for the least ranked level (example if the least rank is 5th rank, then
Rn-5, Rn-1=4 and R1= 1)
Cn = Counts of the least ranked level (in the above example, the count of the 5th rank =
Cn, and the counts of the 1st rank = C1)

21

4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Farming System and Household characteristics
4.1.1. Farming System
Sekota district is known to be a mixed crop-livestock production system dominant farming
system. Livestock production is subsistence-oriented and is an important component of the
mixed farming system and is well integrated with crop production. Livestock species kept by
the farmers comprise cattle, sheep, goats, equines and chicken. Cattle are the dominant
species, mainly used for draught power, milk and meat production, income and manure for
maintaining soil fertility. In addition to major crops, a cash crop with increasing importance
which many farmers grow at back yard is Gesho (Rhamnus prinoides), which is used for
preparation of local alcoholic drink (Tella).Similar results were found in the study of Belay
(2012) in Dandi District, Oromia Regional State of Ethiopia.

4.1.2. Household Characteristics

Family size and age structure of respondent households in Study area is shown in Table 1. An
average size of 6.65 this is comparable with the value of 6.22 reported for Bure district of
ANRS (Adebabay 2009), while it was greater than the 5.7 persons per household reported for
in Metema district in Northwest Ethiopia (Tsehay, 2007) and the national average of 5.20
(ECSA and ORC Macro, 2006). The ages of the respondents of peri urban and rural areas were
42.79 and 40.9, years an average 41.9 and they were almost comparable in most of the
household parameters across the location.

22

Table 1. Household size and age category per household in study sekota Woreda, 2015
Parameter
Household size
Male
Female
Average Age of the respondents

Peri urban N= 120

Mean (SE)
6.64(0.26)
3.26(0.19)
3.25(0.17)
42.79(1.27)

Rural N=120
Mean (SE)
6.67(0.29)
3.58(0.211)
3.107(0.196)
40.9(0.54)

The educational level of respondents from the peri-urban and rural areas is indicated in Figure
1. On average 41.08% , 44.17% of the respondents are illiterate, whereas 37.33%, 35.72%
are able to read and write, 14.25%, 13.28% have attended primary school, and 7.34%
and 6.83% completed secondary school respectively for the peri-urban and rural areas,
respectively. The trend was similar at both locations. However, the proportional household
with read and write and illiterate were higher in peri urban and rural areas, respectvely. The
higher population of the literate age class at the working district had advantage on the good
acceptance of technologies like trainings, improved agricultural technologies and adopting
them for better livelihood improvement. Results reported by Sisay (2006) indicated that 31%
of the respondents were illiterate, whereas 28% are able to read and write, 2.5% have
religious education, 21.3% have attended primary school, and 17.2 % completed secondary
school in North Gonder Zone, Ethiopia. Adebabay (2009) reported lower percentage of
illiterate family members to be 31.5% in Bure District, Ethiopia. Bedasa Eba (2012) noted an
average value of 50% of the respondents were literate in the Highlands of the Blue Nile
Basin, Ethiopia, Zewdie (2010) reported about 89% of the respondents to be literate in
Highlands and Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia, indicating that literacy rate varies from place to
place associated with various factors such as access to education, and awareness about the
importance of education, and other related factors.

23

Percentage respondants
50.00%
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
illitrate
peri urban
rural

41.08%
44.17%

read and
write
37.33%
35.72%

primery
school
14.25%
13.28%

secondary
school
7.34%
6.83%

Figure 2. Educational level of the respondents at the study areas

4.1.3. Landholding and Land Use Pattern

The average land holding per household is presented in Table 2. The overall land holding of
the study area was 2.18 ha per household. The average landholding of the peri urban and rural
areas was 2.12 and 2.45 ha per household, respectively. The landholding per household in
rural kebelles was higher (P<0.001) than in peri-urban kebelles. The overall land holding per
household in the current study was higher than the 0.93 value reported by Belete (2009) for
Goma district, was comparable to the 2.55 ha per household (Yeshitla, 2008) for Alaba
district, but was lower than the 3.28 ha per household noted by Sisay (2006) in the North
Gonder of Ethiopia. The overall landholding average noted in the current study was slightly
lower than the national average land holding size of 2.5 ha (CSA, 2013).

The average private grazing land in the study area was 0.15 ha per household. The mean
grazing land owned per household in this study was lower than that the 0.33 ha reported for
Bale highlands (Solomon, 2004), and the 0.51 ha reported in Bahir Dar Zuria (Asaminew,
2007). This result might be due to the shifting of grazing lands for crop production and due to
land degradation of grazing land occurred in the study area. In general the average size of land

24

holdings per household for grazing reported in this study is lower when compared with
estimated national average of 0.26 ha per household (CSA, 2013) and the regional level value
of 0.3 ha grazing area per household (BoA, 2014). The result indicated a non-significant
(P>0.05) effect on private grazing land ownership between the rural and peri-urban
households. The amount of crop land and fallow land were relatively greater for the rural as
compared to the peri-urban areas. In both rural and peri-urban areas, a larger proportion of the
land is used for crop production indicating limitations of forage supply from grazing lands or
fallow and the very dependence on crop residues for livestock feeding.
Table 2. Land holding and land use pattern per household in the study area

Total (Ha)
Crop land (Ha)
Grazing land (Ha)
Fallow land (Ha)
SE= standard error

Peri urban N= 120

Mean (SE)
2.12 (0.12)
1.945 (0.11)
0.1546 (0.019)
0.0186 (0.010)

Rural N=120
Mean (SE)
2.45(0.1)
2.08 (0.29)
0.159 (0.0186)
0.33 (0.0023)

4.1.4. Livestock Holding and Their Use in the Study Area

The average numbers of livestock holdings per household is presented in Table 3. Livestock
have multiple roles in the stallholder systems in addition to food source for the farmer
including power for cultivation, threshing, transportation of agricultural products to the market
and bring back their domestic necessities. Livestock also confer a certain degree of security in
time of crop failure, as they are the near cash capital stock in the study area. They also
provide farmyard manure commonly applied to improve soil fertility.

The average cattle, sheep, goat, equine and poultry owned by a household in the study area
was 7.17, 3.63, 2.70, 0.93 and 15.01, respectively (Table 3). Zemenu et al., (2014) reported an
average TLU owned by a household of 7.32 for Debremarkos district, and Yeshitila (2007)
9.87 TLU per household for Alaba district southern Ethiopia. In rural kebeles cattle, goat and
poultry had a relatively greater mean population than peri-urban kebeles, which may be due to
the favorable agro-ecological for goats and the livestock keepers strategy to have many such

25

livestock species to cope with natural disasters, and due to selectively keeping of productive
small number of animals by peri-urban respondents. Differences in livestock ownership
between rural and peri-urban areas might be also attributed to the variation in feed availability,
production system and management differences. The dominant species of livestock in the area
was poultry followed by cattle; and poultry might be mainly be used as an immediate cash
income source for the smallholder farmers and greater number of cattle keeping may be due to
the requirement for oxen to use for traction power. The lower population density in the rural
area might also allow for more grazing land for livestock production which might be an
additional reason for more cattle keeping in the rural settings.

Table 3. Livestock holding and composition per household

Cattle
Goat
Sheep
Equine

Peri urban N= 120

Mean (SE)
6.98(0.46)
2.806(0.526)
5.088 (0.546)
1.06 (0.15)

Rural N=120
Mean (SE)
7.35 (0.56)
4.45 (0.59)
0.308 (0.16)
0.8 (0.13)

Significance
NS
**
***
**
***

N= number of respondent; SE= standard err; NS=non-significant, **=significant at (p<0.01),

***=significant at (p<0.001)

4.1.5. Crop Production

The dominant crops grown in the study area are maize, finger millet and teff (Eragrostis teff)
(Appendix Table 1). This dominancy was due to the favorable environment of the areas for
these crops. The result of the current study showed that peri-urban had lower (P<0.05) land
allocated for crop cultivation as compared to the rural kebeles. Crop yield of the households
in the study areas was influenced by the size of land the household possesses and the
ownership of oxen for plowing. The importance of the different food crops with regard to
land coverage varies between peri-urban and rural due to the difference in agro-ecology and
due to farmers preference.

26

The overall cultivated land of the current study was 2.01 ha, and rural kebeles had higher (2.08
ha) crop land than peri-urban kebeles (1.95 ha). The cultivated land per household obtained in
this study was lower than the finding of Solomon (2004) for Sinana and Dinsho districts of
Bale highlands, Southeast Oromia. Similarly, Sisay (2006) in North Gonder noted that about
74.6% of the total respondent farmers in the study areas have less than the average cultivated
land holding of 2.26 ha.

4.2. Livestock Management and Husbandry Practices

4.2.1. Purpose of Livestock Keeping
The purpose of livestock keeping in the study area is presented in Table 4 and 5. Cattle are the
most important component of the mixed crop-livestock production system of the study area; in
that oxens are used for traction to cultivate food crops. Cows are used for milking which can
be serving as source of income. Respondent ranking indicated that cattle is primarily kept for
traction followed by threshing, for milk production, as source of income from direct selling of
animals or from sale of animal products, as source of manure and source of meat in that order
both in the rural and peri-urban areas (Table 4 and Table 5). Poultry, sheep and goats are kept
mainly as a source of direct cash income when the need arise and as source of meat for the
household I both rural and peri-urban areas. Equines (mainly donkey and mule) are used
primarily for transportation of agricultural inputs from market to home and vice versa, water
transportation (mainly in rural areas), and animal cart to bear additional incomes and for
human transportations. Similar results on the purpose of keeping livestock were reported by
Bedasa (2012) in the Highlands of the Blue Nile Basin of Ethiopia; Zewdie (2010) in the
Highlands and Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia; Asaminew (2007) in Bahir Dar milk shed area;
Sisay (2006) in North Gonder; and Adebabay (2009) in Bure District. During festivals and
religious celebrations, farmers in the study area slaughter sheep/goats for home consumption
and additionally they slaughter oxen in group for sharing the meat (locally named as
Kircha).

27

Table 4. Purpose of livestock keeping in peri-urban kebeles ranked according to importance

Purposes

Cattle

Small ruminants

Equines

Score

Index

Rank

Score

index

Rank

Score

Index

Rank

Poultry
Score

Index

Traction
Threshing
Milking
Income

840
714
390
330

0.35
0.3
0.16
0.14

1
2
3
4

840

0.74

532

0.38

813

0.49

Meat
Manure
Transport

60
66
-

0.03
0.03
-

6
5
-

296
-

0.26
-

2
-

0
19
840

0.01
0.6

3
1

840
-

0.51
-

1
-

Rank

Table 5. Purpose of livestock keeping in rural kebeles ranked according to importance

Purposes
Traction
Threshing
Milking
Income
Meat
Manure
Transport

Cattle

Small ruminants

Equines

Poultry

Score

Index

Rank

Score

index

Rank

Score

Index

Rank

840
537
68
124
3
41
0

0.52
0.33
0.04
0.08
0
0.03
-

1
2
4
3

833
391
-

0.68
0.32
-

1
2
-

209
238

0.47
0.53

2
1

Score

Index

Rank

840
823
-

0.51
0.49
-

1
2
-

4.2.2. Division of Labor in the Household

In the study area cow milking is commonly done twice a day, in the morning and evening. In
both rural and peri urban areas, milking is mainly done was by the husbands and the wife has
only 2.5% contribution for milking. Children also play a minor role in milking in both rural
and peri-urban study kebeles. The whole family is involved more in caring for pregnant
animals, while calf rearing is more of the job of the children in both rural and peri-urban
kebeles. Livestock herding is common done by children, and secondly by hired labour in both
study areas. Barn cleaning is the activity done by house wife and children, which accounts for
more than 85%. Herd feeding and feed collection activities such as collection of hay, crop
residue and purchase of feeds were mainly the task of all family. Livestock product selling
was in most cases performed by wife in both study areas, which might be due to the fact that
females were responsible to product processing that has been adopted as a culture. Similar
results for labor division in the household were reported by Zewdie (2010) for the Highlands
and Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia and by Sisay (2006) for North Gonder area.

28

Table 6. division Labor of in the respondent households

Variable

Milking

Kebele

Peri urban
Rural
Pregnant caring
Peri urban
Rural
Calf rearing
Peri urban
Rural
Herding
Peri urban
Rural
Barn cleaning
Peri urban
Rural
Herd feeding & watering Peri urban
Rural
Livestock product
Peri urban
selling
Rural
Feed collection
Peri urban
Rural

Children

Wife only

Husband only

Hired labor All family

N
3
2
63
53
87
79
52
36
13
43
19
16
3
3

N
3
3
4
3
59
64
86
101
-

N
49
51
4
8
16
12
5
3
21
8

N
2
3
5
15
26
40
8
16
18
36
2
19

%
2.5
1.67
52.5
44.167
72.5
65.83
43.33
30
10.83
35.83
15.83
13.33
2.5
2.5

%
2.5
2.5
3.33
2.5
49.167
53.33
71.67
84.167
-

%
49
42.5
3.33
6.67
13.33
4.167
2.5
10
6.67

%
1.67
2.5
4.167
12.5
21.67
33.33
6.67
13.33
15
30
1.67
15.83

N
17
13
34
39
2
2
7
1
1
4
73
28
8
93
90

%
14.167
10.83
28.33
32.5
1.67
1.67
5.83
0.83
0.83
3.33
60.83
23.33
6.67
77.5
75

29

4.2.3. Livestock Housing

Housing types for livestock in the study area is shown in Table 7. In the study area four types
of housing was identified; simple shed (the house constructed adjacent to the main house),
separated housing (a house constructed separately only for the livestock), in family house
(living together with the family member within the same house) and perch for hens. In both
rural and peri-urban study areas, adult livestock, equines and small ruminants are mainly
housed in simple shed house, with values for peri-urban kebeles being greater than those for
rural kebeles.

Calves are mainly kept in family houses in both rural and peri-urban households, which might
be due to the special care given for calves to try avoid the death of calves. Having seprate
houses for livestock is rare in the studied kebeles. In rural kebeles about 14% of the
households provide separate house for small ruminants. The proportion of households that
keep animals in their same house is greater for calves and poultry as compared to other
livestock species, possibly an attempt to decrease the vulnerability of such animals to
predators and other losses. Moreover, greater percentage of rural households as compared to
peri-urban ones keep small ruminants together with the family house. Keeping poultry in
perchs is a common practice both in the peri-urban and rural areas, but the value was relatively
greater for peri-urban households. The results noted in the current study related to housing of
livestock was generally in agreement with the reports of Solomon (2004) for Sinana and
Dinsho districts of Bale highlands, Zewdie (2010) for the highland and central rift valley areas
of Ethiopia, Belete, (2006) for Fogera district, and Asaminew (2007) for Bahir Dar and Mecha
Districts.

From the current study it was learnt that about 92% of the peri urban respondents and 62.5%
of the rural respondents use both feeding and watering trough at the livestock barn. This
indicated that peri-urban kebeles had better management feeding and watering practice for
their livestock. Additionally the majority of the respondents reported that they practice
cleaning of the livestock barn once a day.

30

Table 7. Housing condition of livestock in the study area

Housing Condition
Simple shed
Adult livestock
Calves
Small ruminant
Equine
Poultry
Separate House
Adult livestock
Calves
Small ruminant
Equine
Poultry
Together with family
Adult livestock
Calves
Small ruminant
Equine
Poultry
Perch with in family house
Adult livestock
Calves
Small ruminant
Equine
Poultry

Peri urban N=120

Frequency Percent

Rural N=120
Frequency
Percent

110
18
103
90
7
1
-

91.67
15
85.83
75
5.83
0.83
-

108
12
61
72
3
-

90
10
50.83
60
2.5
-

17
1

14.167
0.83

9
65
9
29

7.5
54.167
7.5
24.167

12
70
27
1
42

10
58.33
22.5
0.83
35

84

70

72

60

4.2.4. Livestock Watering System in Study Area

Main sources of water in the study areas are borehole, river and spring water (Table 8). In peri
urban areas the major water source for livestock during dry season was borehole (81.6%)
followed by spring water (10%). Whereas in the wet season the major water source were river
water (66.68%) followed by spring water (17.5%). In rural areas the major water source for
livestock during dry season was borehole (58.3%) followed by spring water (25%) and river
water (16.7%). In wet season the major water source for rural areas were river (92.5%)
followed by spring water (5%). As the respondents indicated, during dry season they do not
used river water due to the presence of litch (aleket).

31

Table 8. Major water source during dry and wet season in the study areas
Water source
Dry season
Borehole water
River water
Spring water
Tap water
All
Total
Wet season
Borehole water
River water
Spring water
Tap water
All
Total

Peri urban
Frequency
98
3
12
6
1
120
5
80
21
5
9
120

Percent

Rural
Frequency

Percent

81.6
2.5
10
5
0.83
100

70
20
30
0
0
120

58.33
16.67
25
0
0
100

4.16
66.68
17.5
4.16
7.5
100

111
3
6
0
0
120

2.5
92.5
5
0
0
100

Most of the respondents indicated that during dry season watering of their livestock is
conducted two times a day (99.6%) while during the wet season watering is once a day
(97.5%) (Table 9). This variation may be due to the fact that during the wet season there is
enough water sources around their grazing land or get more water from the feed consumed. In
peri urban and rural areas cattle and equines were watered two times a day during dry season,
with comparable results between the rural and peri-urban households. However, in wet season
cattle are watered once a day by almost of the respondents in the peri-urban system but only
by 80% in the rural system of production. Conversely cattle are watered twice more by the
rural kebeles than the peri-urban ones. Sheep and goats are watered relatively more frequently
than cattle during the dry season both in peri-urban and rural areas. However, during the wet
season sheep and goats are relatively more frequently watered in the peri-urban settings but
watered less frequently in the rural kebeles as compared to cattle. This finding is generally in
agreement with reports of Bedasa (2012) for the Highlands of the Blue Nile Basin, and Zewdie
(2010) for the Highlands and Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia.

32

Table 9. Watering frequency for livestock species during the dry and wet season in the study
area
Frequency
Dry season
Cattle Twice a day
Once a day
Once in two day
Total
Shoat
Twice a day
Once a day
Once in two day
Total
Equine Twice a day
Once a day
Once in two day
Total
Wet Season
Cattle
Twice a day
Once a day
Once in two day
Total
Shoat
Twice a day
Once a day
Once in two day
Total
Equine Twice a day
Once a day
Once in two day
Total

Peri urban
Frequency
117
3
O
120
39
75
6
120
60
49
11
120
2
118
O
120
27
91
2
120
7
104
6
120

Percent

Rural
Frequency

Percent

97.5
2.5
0
100
32.5
62.5
5
100
50
40.83
9.17
100

114
6
0
120
16
104
0
120
109
11
0
120

95
5
0
100
13.33
86.67
0
100
90.8
9.17
0
100

0.67
98.33
0
100
22.5
75.83
0.67
100
5.83
89.17
5
100

24
96
0
120
31
0
89
120
2
103
15
120

20
80
0
100
25.83
0
74.17
100
0.67
85.83
12.5
100

4.2.5. Feeds and Feeding System in Study Area

The feeding system in both peri-urban and rural areas is dominantly grazing based, but value
was greater for the rural than the peri-urban system (Table 10). Conversely, the peri-urban
system employs more home and homestead feeding of livestock as compared to the rural
system of production, which might be due usage of weed as a feed source and grazing lands

33

left around their homestead. In rural areas there are two hours additional grazing time over the
peri-urban kebelles. This might be due to lack of additional feed and absence of awareness on
feeding of livestock at the homestead in the rural areas.
Table 10. Feeding system in the sekota district
Feeding system

Peri urban N=120

Rural N=120

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Indoor feeding

14

11.67

0.83

Homestead

6.67

0.83

Grazing

62

51.66

77

64.17

All

36

30

41

34.17

Total

120

100

120

100

4.3. Quality and quantity of available feed resources

4.3.1. Available Major Feed Resources and Feeding System
The type of available feed resources in the study area includes natural pasture, crop residue,
hay, some indigenous and improved fodder, and supplements (Table 11). The availability of
these feed resources varied depending on season and between rural and peri-urban areas.
According to the respondents the dominant feed types in peri-urban kebelles are from crop
residue followed by grazing land; whereas in the rural areas the dominant feed resources are
grazing land followed by crop residues. The overall contribution of communal grazing land as
feed resource has generally decreased because of the delineation of area to integrate with area
rehabilitation and the grazing lands had given to the organized landless youths living around
the area. Peri-urban areas had still used communal grazing land as a major feed source of
livestock (Table 11). Additionally, as the respondents indicated that fodder trees contribute as
major feed staff in the rural and peri-urban areas, but with more contribution in the rural
kebeles. Conversely, hay production is more of a practice in the peri-urban that rural kebeles.
The use of supplemental feeds is rare in both study areas, but the value was somewhat greater
for peri-urban that rural kebeles, possibly due to difference in the accessibility and awareness
of such feedstuffs. Similar reports had also been reported by Sisay (2006) in North Gondar.

34

The respondents, mainly of the rural areas leave about 0.18 ha of their private grazing land for
hay preparation.

Table 11. Major feed types available in sekota district

Major feed type
Grazing land
Crop residue
Fodder tree
Hay
Supplement
Total

Peri urban N=120

Frequency
Percent
26
21.67
53
44.17
12
10
25
20.83
4
3.33
120
100

Rural N=120
Frequency
Percent
54
45
30
25
26
21.67
8
6.66
2
1.67
120
100

4.3.2. Dry Matter Production from Crop Residues

Crop residues are dominant feed resource in all livestock production systems in Ethiopia
(Alemayehu and Sisay, 2003). The nature of crop residues produced depends on the amount
and type of crops grown in the area (Sisay, 2006). Like other areas, farmers in the current
study area practice mixed crop production and usually produce a mixture of crops and
consequently different types of crop residues, which can be used as feed for livestock. The
major crop residues used as livestock feed in the study area comes from maize, teff, barley,
millet, sorghum and pulses. The mean DM yield of crop residues per household was 3.840.31
and 3.730.413 ton for peri-urban and rural areas, respectively (Table 12). Greater crop
residue DM production in peri urban kebeles might probably be due to the potential of the area
for crop production or the higher productivity of crops in the area due to better soil fertility
and degradation. The feeding system followed for the crop residue was simple feeding,
chopping (mainly for maize), treating with salt and mixing with the by-product of local made
brewery (attela) and green feeds.

35

Table 12. Estimated crop residues dry matter yield (ton/hh) from major crops per household
(MeanSE)
Crop residues

Peri urban N= 120

Mean (SE)

Rural N=120
Mean (SE)

Maize Stover
1.45(0.086)
1.306(0.076)
Teff straw
0.738(0.059)
0.43(0.163)
Barley straw
0.3066(0.043)
0.11(1.35)
Millet straw
0.996(0.066)
0.88(0.0766)
Sorghum stover
0.11(0.04)
0.616(0.083)
Pulse residue
0.313(0.039
0.383(0.043)
Total
3.84(0.307)
3.73(0.413)
N= number of respondent; SE= standard error; hh = household

4.3.3. Dry Matter Yield from Natural Pasture

About 38.23 ha of the area land coverage is natural pasture that is communal and private
grazing land. Approximately 76.46 ton DM feed is produced from communal and private
grazing land. Traditional livestock production in the study area is predominantly based on crop
residue followed by natural pasture. Natural pastures contribute the higher of the total feed in
rural area. In these areas, all classes of livestock are allowed to graze on communal grazing
lands, hence, causing overgrazing and soil degradation.

4.3.4. Hay Production

Though hay utilization in Sekota district is among the lowest, there is growing trend of hay
making from natural pasture, especially from school compounds, church yards and other
public places. Hay is made during October to December and commonly from very late harvest,
and therefore of poor quality. Part of the pasture could be protected and left for standing hay.
Native hay is also used during the dry season (Firew and Getnet, 2010). In the study area, hay
is prepared from late September (mainly in the rural areas) to mid-November (in the periurban areas) of each year. Hay production is widely practiced in all area where feed shortage is
severe. In peri urban and rural areas, out of the total respective respondent farmers, 72.5% and
75% owned grazing land for hay production. This, trend of leaving a communal grazing land
both as a source of hay and grazing had a better opportunity for the improvement of the

36

livestock sector for better household income via improved productivity of the livestock.
Moreover, Cultivation of improved forages as a feed source was practiced in all areas. The
main reason for this is plantation of different species such as pigeon, sesbania, vitivar grass,
and cow pea on area structures like bunds.

4.3.5. Dry Matter from Supplemental Feeds

In view of the poor feed quality of most available feed resources across the study systems, it is
important that farmers supplement livestock with high energy density and higher protein
content feed, if their livestock production objective is to exploit opportunity offered by the
increasing demand for livestock products both locally and globally. Supplementary feeds such
as legume based forages, in addition to providing crude protein for increased animal
productivity; it reduces the rumen carbon to nitrogen ratio and thus improve the digestibility of
the poor quality feeds such as cereal residues. The respondents supplement Attela and Brint
depending on their availability. About 15% of the respondents indicate that they supplement at
peri urban area, of which milking cows supplementation was the major one (7.5%). The rural
households do not much practice supplementation of concentrate feeds due to lack of access
related to distance and absence of supplies (74%) and high cost (26%).

4.4. Feed Balance

Feed resources used to calculate feed supply for livestock in the study areas are crop residues,
natural pasture, forests and shrubs and improved pastures (Table 13). From such feed
resources a total of 904.64415 and 1425.24651 ton DM was produced in the peri-urban and
rural areas, respectively. The major contribution for feed supply in both systems is crop
residue.

37

Table 13. Feed supply in the study area

Feed source

Crop residue
Natural pasture
Forest and shrubs
Improved forages
Total

Peri urban N=120

Area (Ha) Yield
(DM/t/ha
255.0782 28.2903
2
1.3832
1.2
8.325
9.75
293.0767

Rural N=120

Productio
n (tons)
765.2346
56.581
1.6598
81.16875
904.64415

Area (Ha)
725.9918
9.9398
3.9368
2.925
742.7934

Yield
(DM/t/ha
2
1.2
9.75

Production
(tons)
1372.124
19.8796
4.72416
28.51875
1425.2465

The peri urban has 673.59 Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU) (630.6 cattle, 3.614 sheep, 4.446
goat, and 34.93 equines) (Table 14). Assuming that DM requirement for maintenance of one
TLU is 6.25 kg/day (2.28 ton/year/TLU); total annual requirement is about 1535.79 ton DM.
As can be seen from Table 14 the area produces 1728.0146 ton DM showing a deficit of 562.9
ton. The rural area has 872 TLU (813 livestock, 4.81 sheep, 6.24 goat, and 47.95 equines).
Assuming that DM requirement for maintenance of one TLU is 6.25 kg/day (2.28
ton/year/TLU); total annual requirement is about 1988.16 ton DM. The rural area produces
1425.2465 ton DM showing a deficit of 192.2246 tones. Therefore, feed deficit in the per
urban areas is more severe than the rural areas. This is partly because of the higher livestock
population density per small area of grazing land i.e. higher stoking rate and grazing land
shortage due to expansion of house buildings in the peri urban area. Whereas, in the rural areas
the feeding system is more dependent on natural pastures, stocking rate is lower and grazing
land is excess than that of peri urban.
Table 14. Annual DM requirement (ton) of livestock species in the study area.
Livestock
species

Cattle
Sheep
Goat
Equine
Total

TLU
Peri urban
630.6
3.614
4.446
34.93

673.59

DM
Total DM
requirement
Rural head/ Year Peri
rural
urban
813
4.81
6.24
47.95
872

2.28
2.28
2.28
2.28

1437.78
8.24
10.14
79.64
1535.79

1853.64
10.97
14.23
109.33
1988.16

38

According to the respondents of peri urban (75%) and rural kebeles (73.2%), there is no
enough feed resources for their livestock year round. As the respondents indicated during
these times, they minimize their livestock population, conserve and purchase optional feeds as
a coping mechanism. Overall the respondents indicated the major months of feed shortage
occurrences (Figure 3). Feed shortage is severe in June-August in peri-urban areas and
December-February in rural areas. The occurrence of feed shortage during June to August
might be the presence of rain and traction of grazing lands and muddy nature of the available
grazing lands; while the shortage during December to February is attributed to dry period of
the season.

120

100

96

95

93
79

80

83
67

Sep_ Novem

60
48
40

June - August

Decem_ Febru
March_ May

32

20

0
Peri Urban

Rural

Figure 3. The major feed shortage months in the selected kebeles

4.5. Livestock Production Constraints and Marketing System

4.5.1. Livestock Production Constraints
The major livestock production bottlenecks of the study areas are shortage of grazing land,
low productivity of livestock, disease, water, and labor availability (Table 15). According to
the respondents grazing land is the primary constraints for livestock production followed by
livestock diseases. This shortage of grazing land is partly associated with the expansion of

39

crop lands due to increased population, and land degradation due to floods and related causes.
Diseases, mainly foot and mouth disease (FMD), bloat, anthrax, and internal and external
parasites are reported as the major problems in cattle and shoat production; whereas Newcastle
disease is reported to be the main disease of poultry production in the study areas. Predators
were also a challenge mainly for poultry production; but to a lower extent sheep and goats and
equine are also reported to be affected by predators. The third important constraint for
livestock production identified by respondents was low genetic potential for the peri-urban
households, but was shortage of water for the rural kebeles. For the peri-urban areas labour
problem was noted to be even more severe than water shortage. However, labour shortage was
ranked as the least bottleneck for the rural kebeles.
Table 15. Major livestock production constraints in the study areas
Problem

Peri urban N=120

Rural N=120

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Disease

32

26.67

27

22.5

Grazing land

54

45

46

38.34

Productivity

16

13.33

18

15

Water

6.67

24

20

Labour

10

8.33

4.16

Total

120

100

120

100

4.5.2. Livestock Marketing System

4.5.2.1. Livestock marketing
Marketing system was assessed by considering market participants of livestock, purchasing
and selling place of livestock, and purchasing and selling price of livestock. Livestock
marketing in the study area function at two levels: village levels and district levels. At village
level market the volume of animals sold per week or number of market days was relatively
less than the ones at district level. Kebele markets are set at Kebele towns. Market actors were
producers, medium to large traders, broker, butchers, restaurant owners and other farmers

40

buying livestock for replacement. In districts the volume of animal sold was relatively higher
as compared to the village level market and they feed the terminal markets. In both market
types there are no facilities for feeding, watering, housing, weighing and transport services.
Concomitant to this study Shitahun (2009), Aklilu (2004) and Takele and Habtamu (2009)
reported village and nearby district livestock marketing to be dominant market centers in
different places of the country.

Marketing information is crucial to reduce information gaps and uncertainties that exist in the
agricultural sector. It is required by producers in their program of production and marketing.
The way of marketing of livestock products according to the majority of respondents (80.65%)
is that they obtain market information before livestock sale from nearby livestock market,
while 19.35% of the respondent responded that market information is obtained from extension
agents of the area.
4.5.2.2. Marketing channels

Market participants of livestock in the study area were identified as individuals or group
consumers (69.33%), local butchers found in Hamusit, Sekota and Sirel (24.67%), and
Abergelle meat processing factory (6%). The marketing channels identified in this study is
also supported by the report of Shitahun (2009) in Bure district of Amhara region. There was
no significance difference in market participants among the different studied Kebeles. The
majority (98%) of the respondents trek animals to the market by themselves. Almost similar
type of livestock marketing participants were reported by Shitahun (2009).The livestock
marketing channel of the study district is depicted in Figure 4.

41

Export

Figure 4. Marketing channels of the study area

4.5.2.3. Purchasing and selling place of cattle
In the study area, farmers sell cattle at village level market and district level market based on
proximity and price variation. All markets are set one day per week. About 89% of the
respondents stated that there was a price variation between different market places. Price of
cattle was found to be higher in peri-urban area of Sekota district (Sekota market 36%;
Hamusit market 34%; and Sirel market 30%). The lower price in rural areas or price variation
of cattle at different market places is mainly due to differences in market participation,
participation of livestock traders, accessibility of the market, and proximity.

Marketing system was one of the least developments of the livestock sub-sector in the study
area. A large number of highly dispersed markets, which generally lack basic infrastructural
facilities like perimeter fencing, livestock pens, weighting scale, watering, feeding, resting,
and quarantine place characterizes the marketing places in the study areas. With respect to
method of transportation, trekking on foot while purchasing and selling is the modality.
Marketing of cattle took place at the same open area by mixing together with no any shade and
separation structure. This may be favorable for disease transmission from infected to healthy
livestock and even it causes human health problem. According to 44.67%, 30%, 14.67%, 5.33
and 5.33% of the respondents, distances of market place in the study area were <5 km, 5-10
km, 10-15km, 15- 20 and > 20 km, respectively.

42

4. 5.3. Purchasing and Selling Price of cattle

The overall mean purchasing and selling price of cattle in the study areas was about 3942 Birr
and 5050 Birr, respectively; resulting with gross profit of about 1095 Birr (Table 16). Average
purchasing price was not significantly different (P>0.05) among the different market places
(Sirel market, Sekota market and Hamusit market). However selling prices and gross profit
was highest for Sekota market, intermediate for Sirel market and lowest for Hamusit market
(P<0.05). Profit difference among market places per cattle in terms of absolute figure is less
than 12 Birr, which on the other hand indicates prices margin among the market places to be
quite close.

Table 16. The mean of purchasing price, selling price and profit of cattle in the different
market places of the study areas
Category

Kebeles

Significance

Purchasing price

Selling price

Mean SE

Mean SE

NS

Hamusit

80

3922.6035.61

5021.0054.73c

Sekota

80

4072.0028.86

5184.0038.26a

Sirel

80

3932 .4037.06

5047.0047.74b

Overall

240

3942.3319.59

5050.7327.29

a-c

Mean with different superscript within a column are significantly different (P<0.05); NS =

non-significant; N=Number of respondent; SE= Standard Error

Market assessment in the study areas indicated that the price of cattle is a little higher during
holiday times and between the holidays during Easter as compared to Christmas. This may be
due to the more supply of animals during Christmas since the time allowed the farmer to sale
their cattle after finishing point of plowing activity and also better green feed availability
during this period. However, during Easter due to the above mentioned reasons, the supply of
cattle to the market is relatively low, inducing greater market price of livestock during this
time of the year.

43

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This study was conducted in Sekota district of the Waghimra Zone of Amhara Regional State,
Ethiopia in selected peri-urban and rural areas. The main objectives of the study were to
characterize the livestock production system, to assess the feed resource base and their
management practices and to quantify the major livestock feed resources in the study area.
Three rural and three peri-urban potential kebeles for livestock production were purposively
selected based on livestock population. Respondent farmers selection was based on
experience of farmers and those keeping livestock for not less than two years were considered.
A total of 240 respondents (40 from each study kebele) were selected. Information about
potential Kebeles, respondent households, and on livestock population and distribution of
cross breed animals in the district were obtained from Sekota District Office of Agriculture
and Rural Development and from locally developed organizational structure of the Kebeles.
Data were collected through interviewing selected farmers using semi-structured
questionnaire, from field observation and focal group discussions, supported with secondary
information from different sources. Data gathered include household characteristics, land
holding, livestock ownership, livestock production constraints, and amount of feed available
from different sources,

The average mean family size of respondents in the present study was 6.65 persons per
household and was similar between rural and peri-urban kebeles. The average landholding of
the peri urban and rural areas was 2.12 and 2.45 ha per household, respectively. The average
private grazing land in the study area was 0.15 ha per household. The average cattle, sheep,
goat, equine and poultry owned by a household in the study area were 7.17, 2.70, 3.63, 0.93
and 15.01, respectively. The dominant crops grown in the study area are maize, finger millet
and teff (Eragrostis teff). The cultivated land of the current study was 2.08 ha for rural kebeles
and 1.95 ha for peri-urban kebeles. The contribution of the cereal crop in providing crop
residues to the livestock feed was high in the area. Majority of the households do not possess
private grazing land, which confirms that the livestock production is mainly dependent on crop
residues. Generally, crop production and livestock production is interrelated. Traction,
threshing, for milk, as income source, meat, manure and transport are the reasons for keeping

44

livestock in the study areas. Traction and threshing are the main reasons for keeping cattle
followed by as source of milk and income, while sheep and goats and poultry are kept mainly
as source of income and meat, and equines are kept for transportation purpose and as source of
income. Milking is mainly the activity done by the husband, calf rearing and herding is done
by children and that of barn cleaning is done mainly by the house wife and children. Livestock
is dominantly housed in a simple shed in both rural and peri-urban kebeles, followed by
housing within the family house. Separate housing for livestock is rare and perching within the
family house is common for poultry.

The feeding system in both peri-urban and rural areas is dominantly grazing based, but value
was greater for the rural than the peri-urban system. Conversely, the peri-urban system
employs more home and homestead feeding of livestock as compared to the rural system of
production. The types of available feed resources obtained in the study areas include
crop residues, natural pastures, hay, some fodder trees, and supplement in which their
availability vary depending on season. The total feed DM available in peri urban and
rural areas were not enough to satisfy the requirement of the existing livestock per
household. According to the estimation of this study, there was an annual feed deficit of 476
and 965 ton for the peri-urban and rural kebeles, respectively. Feed supply, disease, genetic
potential of livestock and labour availability has been identified as livestock production
constraints in the study area.

Generally, the number of livestock and the available feed resources do not match to support
profitable livestock production in the study areas. In this context, the primary focus needs to
be improving the existing feed resources through management, utilization practices and
applying improvement practices such as treatment of crop residues, and improving the
existing management system of grazing land. Efforts to improve productivity of the major
feed resources for livestock, requires collaborative efforts for the common well-being
of the livestock producers in the study area. Therefore, beneficiaries as well as livestock and
extension personnel, and agricultural research centers need to work together to formulate a
strategy and implement a more productive and sustainable system to alleviate the feed
shortage.

45

Recommendation

Development of strategies in improving the quality and quantity of livestock feed should
be done to enhance feed supply in the study areas.

Proper utilization and conservation methods of the livestock feed should be developed and
used.

The extension services should be improved so that the knowledge of the farming
community be enhanced.

46

6. REFERENCES
Abate Tedla, M.A., Mohammed-saleem, Tekalign Mamo, Alemu Tadesse, and Mirresa Duffera.
1993.

Grain

fodder

and residue

management.

In:

TekalignMamo,

AbiyeAstatke,

K.L.srivastava and Asegid Dibaba (Eds). Improved management of vertisol for

Sustainable crop-livestock production in the highlands. Synthesis report 1986-92.Technical
committee of the joint vertisol project. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Pp. 10-137.
Adebabay KebedeBelew, 2009. Characterization of Milk Production Systems, Marketing and OnFarm Evaluation of the Effect of Feed Supplementation on Milk Yield and Milk Composition
of Cows at Bure District, Ethiopia. M.sc Thesis, Bahir dar University.
Adefress T., T. Agajjie, Y. Aster, K. Birhane., G. Derege, Z. Elias, A. Mengistu, and A. Worku, 2000.
Participatory Farming System Characterization and Interventions Options for Sekota district,
Waghimra Zone, Amhara Region. Holeta Agricultural Research Center, Holeta, Ethiopia
(Unpublished).
Ahmed Hassen, Abule Ebro, Mohammed Kurtu and A. C Treydte (2011) Livestock feed resources
utilization and managementas influenced by altitude in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia.
Alemayehu Mengistu and Sissay Amare. 2003. Integrated Livestock Development Project (ILDP).
Livestock Feed Resources Survey. North Gondar, Ethiopia. pp. 75
Alemayehu Mengistu, 1998. The Borana and the 1991-92 droughts: a range land and Livestock
resources study, institute of sustainable development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Alemayehu Mengistu,1985. Feed resources in Ethiopia. PP.35. In: Animal feed resources for small
scale livestock producers, Proceedings of the second PANESA workshop, held in Nairobi,
Kenya, 11-15 November 1985.
Alemayehu Mengistu., 2004. Pasture and Forage Resource profiles of Ethiopia. PP.19. Ethiopia/FAO.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Alemayehu Mengistu., 2006. Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profiles: Ethiopia. Accessed on
05/01/2009 from http:// www.fao.org/AGp/agpc/doc/counprof Ethiopia.htm.
Alemu Yami, Zinash Sileshi and Seyoum Bediye. 1991. The Potential of Crop Residues and AgroIndustrial By-Products as Animal feed. In: proceedings of ESAP, 3rded.
Amare S (2006). Livestock production systems and availability of feed resources in
different - ecologies of north Gonder Zone, Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis.
University.DireDewa, Ethiopia.P. 64.

Haramaya

47

Asaminew Tassew, 2007. Production, handling, traditional processing practices and quality of milk in
Bahir Dar milk shed Area, Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis. Alemaya University, Ethiopia.
Belete Anteneh. 2006. Studies on cattle milk and meat production in fogeraWoreda: production
system, constraints and opportunities for development, MSc thesis, Debub University,
Awassa, Ethiopia.P57-103.
BoANRD (Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resources Development), 1997.Tigray livestock
development action program.ExecutiveSummary.BoANRD, Mekelle, Ethiopia.
Coppock, D.L., 1994. The Boran Pleatue of Southern Ethiopia: Synthesis of Pastoral Research,
Development and Change, 1980-91. ILCA systems study. No.5,ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
393p.
CSA (Central Statistical Authority), 2008. Agricultural Sample Survey 2007/08.Volume II. Report on
Livestock and livestock characteristics. Statistical Bulletin 417. Addis Ababa: FDRE.
CSAE (Central Statistics Authority of Ethiopia), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 34p.
Dejene A., 2003. Integrated Natural Resources Management to Enhance Food Security: the case
for

community-based

approaches

in Ethiopia.

Working Paper No.

16.

Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Ehui S, Benin S, Williams T and Meijer S, 2002.Food security in Sub-Saharan Africa to 2002, socioeconomic and policy research working paper 49, ILRI (International Livestock Research
Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.P. 60.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 1984. Assistance to land use
planning in Ethiopia. Livestock production and feed resources. UNDO/AO, Technical report
6.rome, Italy.85 pp.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 1987.Land use, production regions,
and farming systems inventory. Technical Report, 3 vol. 1.FAO Project ETH/78/003, Addis
Abeba, Ethiopia.
Fekadu Abate. 1999. Assessment of feed resources base the performance of drought oxen of
the traditional practiced small holder farmers in the eastern Hararge high lands. M.Sc. Thesis.
Alemaya University of agriculture. Alemaya. 133pp.
Fekadu, B. and R.K. Abrahamsen, 1994. Present situation and future aspects of milk production, milk
handling and processing of dairy products in Southern Ethiopia. CSAE, 2005.National
Statistics.

48

Firew Tegegne and Getnet Assefa. 2010. Feed resource assessments in Amhara National Regional
State. Ethiopian Sanitary and phytosanitory standards and livestock and meat marketing
program (SPA-LMM) Texas A and M University system, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.P2-105.
Gryseels G (1988). Role of livestock on a mixed smallholder farmers in Debre Berhan.PhD
Dissertation.

Agricultural

University

of

Wageningen,

The

Netherlands.

P.149.

http://www.fao.org/ag/AGp/agpc/doc/Counprof/Ethiopia/Ethiopia.htm.
IBC (Institute of Biodiversity Conservation). 2004.The state of Ethiopias Farm Animal Genetic
Resources: A contribution to the first report on the state of the worlds animal genetic
resources. May 2004, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 90p.
ILCA (International Livestock Center for Africa). 1980. Policy, finance and technology in
Livestock development in sub Saharan Africa: some critical issues, ILCA bulletin no.
Iwanayanwu, I.E.J., N.H Umunna. And N.I, 1992. Non-conventional feed resources as
Supplements to beef heifers fed low quality hay. In: stress, J.E.S. said A.N. and Kategile, J.A.
(eds.) the complementary feed resources for animal production in Africa. Proceeding of the
joint feed resources network workshop held in Gaborone, Botswana, 4-8 march, 1991.ILCA
Addis Ababa. Pp. 195-196
Kassahun, A., 2002. Integrated forage production, development and management project in
Tigray.

Livestock

Development

Consultancy

Final

Report.

Relief

Society

of

Tigray, Mekelle, Ethiopia

Kearl LC. 1982. Nutrient requirement of ruminants in developing countries. International
Feedstuff Institute, Utah Agricultural Experiment

Station. Utah State University,

London, USA. P. 381

Kidane Gebremeskel, 1993. Effect of cutting date on botanical composition and nutritive value of
native pasture in the central Ethiopia.M.s.c.thesisAlemaya University of agriculture, Alemaya.
105pp.
McDowell, P.R.A. Edwards., J.F.D, Greenhalgh, and C.A, Morgan, 1995.Animal nutrition 5th
(Ed).Longman group, Harlow (UK) pp.607.
Mekoya, A., Oosting, S.J., Fernandez-Rivera, S., Van der Zijpp, A.J., 2008. Multipurpose
fodder trees in the Ethiopian highlands: Farmers' preference and relation 184-194
indigenous knowledge of feed value with laboratory indicators. Agricultural Systems 96,

49

Mengistu A., 2003. Country pasture/forage resources profiles: Ethiopia. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Mengistu,

A., 1997.

Conservation

based

forage development

for Ethiopia.

Self Help

Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Mengistu,

A.,

2006.

Country

Pasture/Forage

Resource

Profiles:

Ethiopia.

Accessed

http://www.fao.org/ag/AGp/agpc/doc/Counprof/Ethiopia/Ethiopia.htm.
Muluken, 2006.Goat husbandry practices and productive performances in Sekota district of
Amhara region. An MSc Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of
Alemaya University.69p.
Seyoum, B., A. Getinet, T. Abate and F. Dereje, 2001. Present status and future direction of
feed resources and nutrition research targeted for wheat based crop livestock production
system in Ethiopia. In Wheat and weed: Food and Feed: Ed., P.C. Wall, Proceedings of twostakeholder workshop on improving the productivity of crop-livestock system in Ethiopia
Shiferaw B.1991. Crop livestock production in the Ethiopian highlands and effects on
sustainability of mixed farming: a case study of Ada district, Debrezeit. M.Sc. Thesis.
Agricultural University of Norway, Oslo, Norway.P. 163.
Sintayehu Yigrem, FekaduBeyene, Azage Tegegne and BerhanuGebremedhin. 2008. Dairy
production, processing and marketing systems of ShashemeneDilla area, South Ethiopia.
Sisay Amare, Maria, W., Azage, Tegegne., and Wemer, Z., 2007. Urban and peri- urban farming
systems and utilization of the natural resources in the North Ethiopian Highlands.PP.5.
Solomon Bogale. 2004. Assessment of Livestock Production Systems and Feed Resource Base in
Sinana Dinsho District of Bale Highlands, Southeast Oromia. M. Sc. Thesis. Alemaya
University of Agriculture, Alemaya.141 pp.
SPSS (Statistical Packages for Social Sciences), 2003. North Caro
Tegegne., Kijora, C., Peter, K.J., 2007. Study on the optimal level of cactus pear (Opuntiaficusindica) supplementation to sheep and its contribution as source of water, Small Rumin. Res.,
72: 157-164.
Tolera A, Said AN.1994. Assessment of feed resources in WolayitaSodo.Ethiopian.J. Agric. Sci.
14:69-87.

50

Tolera A, Yami A, Alemu D. 2012. Livestock feed resources in Ethiopia: Challenges,

Opportunities

and

the

need

for transformation.

Ethiopia

Animal

Feed

Industry

Association, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Tsehay Redda, 2001. Small-scale the study area milk marketing and processing in Ethiopia. In:
proceeding of the south-south workshop on smallholder dairy production and marketing:
constraints and opportunities, an and, India. 12-16 March.
Tsehay, Redda, 2002. Small-scale milk marketing and processing in Ethiopia. PP.352-367. In:
Smallholder dairy production and market opportunity and constraints. Proceeding of a southsouth workshop held at NDDB, Anand, India, 13-16 march 2001. NDDB (National
Dairy Development Board), Anand, India, and ILRI (International Livestock Research
Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.
Tsgie YohannesHabte. 2000. Livestock feed security and associated impact on sustainable
agricultural development. In: proceeding of the 7th annual conference of the production
ESAP) held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 26-27 May 1999, pp.51-61
Tsigewoini, T. 1997. Livestock management and forage production. Tigray Soil and Water
Conservation Action Program, Mekelle, Ethiopia.
UNECA (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa), 1997. Livestock development in Tigray:
forage development strategy as a major entry point towards a sustainable minimum grazing
system, Part I. Sustainable Development and Environmental Rehabilitation Program (SAERP),
UNECA, Addis Ababa.
WBISPP (Woody Biomass Inventory and Strategic Planning Project), 2004. A report on the
natural grazing lands and livestock feed resources. Tigray Regional State, Final Report.
Yeshitila

Admassu.

2008.

Assessment

of

Livestock

Feed

Resources

Utilization

in

alabaworeda,.Southern Ethiopia, M.Sc. Thesis Haramaya University. Haramaya, Ethiopia.

Yitaye, A., Maria, W., Azage, Tegegne., and Wemer, Z., 2007. Urban and peri- urban farming
systems and utilization of the natural resources inthe North Ethiopian Highlands.PP.5.
Yoseph Mekasha. 1999. Impact of Feed Resource on productive and Reproductive Performance of
Dairy Cow in the Urban and Peri urban Dairy production System in the Addis Ababa Milk
Shed Area and Evaluation of Non-Conventional Feed Resources Using Sheep. M.Sc. Thesis
Haramaya University. Haramaya, Ethiopia.P118.
ZAD (Zonal Agricultural Department Office), 1995.Waghimra zone baseline data.

51

ZeratsionTesfay, 2007. Feasibility report on animal husbandry of Asregaarea in TahtayAdiabo

district. Integrated Area Study and Design Team, Tigray Bureau of Agriculture and Rural
Development.

52

7. APPENDIX
Appendix Table 1. Total cultivated area (ha), share of different crops and yield (qu) of
obtained per Household in peri urban and rural areas
N= number of respondent; SE= standard error;
variables
Maize(ha)
Maize (qu)
Teff(ha)
Teff (qu)
Barley(ha)
Barley(qu)
Finger millet(ha)
Finger millet(qu)
Sourgem(ha)
sorgum(qu)
Bean(ha)
Bean(qu)
Pea(ha)
Pea(qu)
Chickpea(ha)
Chickpea(qu)
Grass pea(ha)
Grass pea (qu)
Nigger (ha)
Nigger (qu)

Peri urban N= 120

Mean (SE)
0.65(0.036)
23.97(1.08)
0.48(0.037)
7.77(0.57)
0.2(0.028)
4.13(0.7)
0.49(1.01)
9.51(0.10)
0.0144(0.004)
0.458(0.197)
0.177(0.02)
2.81(0.346)
0.028(0.011)
0.843(0.21)
0.009(0.008)
0.367(0.257)
0.037(0.012)
0.96(0.306)
0.002(0.002)
0.017(0.017)

Rural N=120
Mean (SE)
0.59(0.033)
16.06(0.82)
0.366(0.03)
4.46(0.43)
0.07(0.017)
1.07(0.28)
0.44(0.035)
10.63(1.05)
0.25(0.18)
4.27(0.54)
0.243(0.023)
5.063(0.52)
0.103(0.013)
0.75(0.24)
0.012(0.01)
0.353(0.263)
0.0093(0.006)
0.363(0.36)
0.049(0.0147)
0.313(0.083)

Appendix 2. Conversion factor to compute Tropical livestock Unit (TLU)

No.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Animal Category
Cow
Ox
Donkey (Adult)
Sheep And Goat (Adult)

TLU
1
1.2
0.7
0.13

Appendix 3. Questionnaires
Questionnaires survey for Assessment of livestock production practices and feed resources in
Peri urban and rural areas in Waghimra zone sekota district, Ethiopia

53

I. General Information
1. Date----------------------------------------------

2.

Region--------------------------------------

3. Zone-----------------------------------------------

4.

District--------------------------------------

-5. Kebelle name---------------------------------

6.Aera of kebelle (hr) -----------------

7. PA`S name-----------------------------------------8. Name of house hold-----------------------------------------------------------9. Sex--------------------------------------------------------------------------10. Age-------------------------------------------------11. How many family members do you have?
A) Male----------------------------B) Female------------------------C) Children (14 years) -------------------------------------------------D) Adult (15-64 years) ------------------------------------------------------E) Dependents (>65 years) ---------------------------------------------------------12. Educational status
A. Illiterate

B. Read and write only

C. Primary School

D. Junior Secondary School

E. Secondary School

F. Above Secondary School

13. Land holding and land use system

A. Total area of land owned by the household (ha) ---------------------------------B. Food crop production (ha) ---------------------------------C. Grazing land (ha) ---------------------------------D. Fallow land (ha) -----------------------------------E. Forage production (ha) ---------------------------------F. Forest and woodland (ha) ------------------------------------------G. Rented/contracted land (ha) ---------------------------------------------H. Other (specify) -----------------------------------------------14. Land cover and Grain yield of major crops in the study area
Grain yield
Maize

Land cover/ha

Quintal

54

Teff
Finger millet
Sorghum
Pea
bean
Chick pea
Wheat
Barley
Bean
Other

II. Production system

1. Livestock production
Cattle herd structure
Types of animal

Number of animals
Local

Cross

Total

Milking cows
Dry cows
Oxen
Calves male
Calves female
Heifers
Bulls

Sheep and goats

Type of animal

Number of animal
Local

Ewe
Ram

Cross

Total

55

Lamb
Does
Bucks
Kids

Equine
Type of animal

Total

Horse
Mule
Donkey

Poultry
Types of animal

Number of animal
Local

Cross

Total

Hen
Cock
Cheek

2. Why do you keep the livestock?

a. Traction,

b. Milk, c. Traction and milk,

d. Savings,

e. Other (specify) ---------------

3. Labor division of the family member in livestock management activities

Type of activities

Sex and age of individuals

Male

Milking
Pregnant cow feeding and caring
Calf rearing
Heifer rearing
Bull feeding
Cattle Herding

Age

Female Age

56

Barn cleaning
Herd feeding/watering
Milk and milk product marketing
Feed collection

III. Feeds and feeding

1. What is the major feed resource for your livestock? (in order of availability) (grazing, hay,
straw and Stover, grain, green fodder, concentrates)
2. How do you feed your animals?
a. Indoor feeding (confined in a house) using individual feeding system
b. In a collection yard using group feeding
c. Let to graze in a grazing land (grazing in an improved forage pasture land, natural
d. Other (specify)
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________
3. Do you have access to grazing land?

1. Yes

2. No

4. If yes, is it communal or private? ----------------------------------5. What is the size of your grazing land? -------------------------------------------------ha
6. If you let your animals to graze, for how long do they graze per day? -------------hours
If yes, how much do you feed in local measurement?
7. Do you feed /supplement your animals a concentrated feed?

A. Yes

b. No

7. 1 If yes, where do you get the concentrated feed? ..................

7.2. For what type of animals do you give the concentrate feed? ............
7.3. If No, why? (Cost, distance, low supply)
7.4. What are the major strategies you follow to solve this feed shortage?
____________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
8. What do you feed animals at different months?
Feeding
management

Month
1st

2nd

3rd

4ht

57

Sep

Oct

Nov Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar Apr

May

Jun

Grazing
own
pasture
Grazing
communal
land
Grazing on
crop residue
Crop
aftermath
grazing
Zero
grazing
Weeds from
crop farms
Improved
forage
Others

9. Is the grazing resource adequate to your animals?

a) Yes

b) No

10. If not what measures do you take to alleviate problems of feed shortage?
a) Purchase concentrate

b) Purchase forage (rent grazing land)

c) purchase crop residues

d) Reduction of stock

e) other (specify) -------------------11. At which season do you face feed shortages?

A) Short rainy season (sept-Nov)
C) Short dry season(Dec-Jan)

B) Long rainy season (June-Aug )

D) Long dry season (Feb-Apri)

Jul

Aug

58

12. Do you plant improved forage crops?

a) Yes

b) No

13. If you do not plant improved forage crops, what is your reason?
a) Shortage of land

b) shortage of capital

c) Shortage of improved forage seeds

d) Difficult topography

e) Poor soil fertility and drainage

f) No awareness about it

g) I have no interest

g) others (specify) ------------------------------

14. Do you feed crop residues to your animals?

a) Yes

b) No

15. List the major types of crop residues you feed to your animals in your area?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16. What is the source of crop residues?
A) Purchased

b) produced on farm

c) obtained as gift

d) other (specify)

17. How do you store crop residues?

a) Stacked outside

b) stacked under shade

d) Baled under shade

e) other (specify)

c) baled outside

18. For how long do you store crop residue before feeding?
a) Soon after collection

b) one month after collection

c) two months after collection

d) Over two months after collection

19. In what form do you feed your crop residue?

a) whole

b) chopped

c) treated

d) mixed with other feeds

e) other (specify)--------------------------------------------------------------------------20. What type of grazing system employed during dry season?
a) un herded

b) herded

e) zero grazing

f) other (specify)

c) paddock

d) tethered

21. What type of grazing system employed during wet season?

a) un herded

b)herded

e) zero grazing

f) other (specify)

c) paddock

22. Do you feed your animals improved forge trees?

d) tethered

A) Yes

B) No

23. What type of improved forge trees do you use for your animals?
A) Introduced improved forge trees

B) Indigenous improved forge trees

59

24. List the names of browse trees in order of importance for livestock feed

Types of trees

Time of feeding/availability

Importance

(wet, dry season)

25. In what form do you feed improved forge trees to your animals?
A) fresh as soon as cut

B) by letting to wilt

C) by drying it

D) other (specify)---------26. Do you feed hay to your animals?

A) Yes

B) No

27. If yes where does the source of hay?

A) home grown

B) purchased from the market

28. How do you know the quality of hay? Can you tell us some of the quality parameters
helpful to judge good quality hay?
A) color

B) appearance

E) smell

C) maturity

D) species of forage/grass type

F) other (specify)

IV/ Watering
Livestock

Source

and season

of water

1 Cattle
1.1 Wet
1.2 Dry
2 Small
ruminant
2.1 Wet
2.2 Dry

Ownership

Frequency of
access

Distance

Water
quality

60

3 Equine
3.1 Wet
3.2 Dry

29. What are the major water sources during scarcity?

a/ water harvesting

b/ reduce frequency of drinking

c/ digging holes

d/ other (specify)..

V/ Housing
30 . What type of house do you have for your animals?

Types of animals

Types of housing
Open without

Separate barn In family

Other

enclosure

of shed

/specify

house

Calves
Adult cattle
Small ruminants
Equine

31. What are the main facilities in the house?

a/ water trough

b/ feed trough

c/ both

d/ no facility

32/ How frequent do you clean the barn? ..

VI/ Disease
33. What are the major disease types available in your locality? State with their major
problems.
No.

Local name

Signs and

Season of

Local

Type

of the

symptoms

occurrence

treatments

sppaffected

disease

61

VII/ Breeding system

34. What is the breeding system you follow?

VIII/ Major livestock Constraints
35. What are the major livestock constraints in your locality? Put in rank.
Constraints

Cattle

Rank

Small

Rank

Equines

ruminants
Shortage of feed
Shortage of
grazing land
Health problem
Low productivity
Predators
Water scarcity
Scarcity of labor
Others (specify)

IX/ Forage productivity

No.

Types of feed
available

Area coverage (ha)

In

In fallow

Around

In crop

grazing

lands

homesteads

left over

land

Rank

62