Characterizing husbandry practices and breeding objectives of Sheko cattle owners for designing conservation and improvement strategies in Ethiopia

E Bayou, A Haile¹, S Gizaw² and Y Mekasha²

Haramaya University, P.O. Box 138, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia
eliasbayou2009@yahoo.com
¹ International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, C/O ILRI Addis P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
² International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Abstract

A survey was conducted through single field visits and interviews with 360 respondents in selected districts of Bench Maji Zone, Southwestern Ethiopia to asses the Sheko cattle farming system, breeding practices, and identify cattle breeding goals and constraints for designing Sheko cattle conservation and improvement strategies. The total populations of Sheko cattle herd structure in the sampled districts within each PA obtained by counting directly on the field were estimated to be 2813.Under random mating, the inbreeding coefficient was higher in midland (1.72) than in lowland (1.35) agro ecological zones (AEZs).

The mean Sheko cattle herd size per household was 1.09 in midland and 1.29 in lowland AEZs. About 93.9% and 88.3% of the households, respectively, in midland and lowland do not have breeding bull. Random mating predominates in both midland (87.2%) and lowland (85%) AEZs. The reported peak season of mixing of the different Sheko cattle herd within a village start after the crop aftermath (February to May) was picked from the cultivated land, whereas, beginning from main rainy season in June to the end of crop harvesting time usually on January smallholder farmers in both AEZs keep their cattle separately. The observed male to female mating ratio was 1:16.4 in midland and 1:8.6 in lowland. Sheko bulls were castrated at the age of 4.2 and 4.8 years in midland and lowland respectively. Appearance/conformation was the most important trait in choosing of breeding male for both midland and lowland small holder Sheko owners. Whereas, milk yield was the most important trait for the choice of breeding cows in both AEZs. The purpose of keeping Sheko cattle in midland area was for draught followed by milk, income, saving and dowry, in that order. In lowland agro ecology milk production, draught power, and income generation are the purposes for keeping Sheko cattle. In both AEZs feed shortage, disease and labor shortage were the most important cattle production constraints in that order. It has been found that an integrated system approach to breed conservation and improvement needs to incorporate traits sought by the cattle keepers, the multiple roles of cattle, and the existing traditional herding and breeding practices.

Key words: lowland, midland, survey, trait preferences

Introduction

Ethiopia is home to at least 27 cattle breeds (Tadelle 2012) with an estimated 53.9 million heads (CSA 2013). Among 34.3 million cattle aged between 3 and 10 years, approximately 24.7% are used for draught purposes, 21.9% for breeding, 12.5% for milk, 0.81% for beef and 3.67% for other purposes (CSA 2013). Despite their importance, efforts made to sustain genetic improvement programmes considering the relative importance to the farmers of tangible benefits of indigenous breeds under traditional production environment are very few. Additionally, the need to include traits related to intangible returns are poorly understood (Kosgey 2004). Programs for livestock development in the developing countries focusing on introduction of exotic breeds have also often failed (Rege et al 2001) mainly due to weak planning, particularly due to poor involvement of livestock owners and other stakeholders, and implementing livestock improvement programs without taking into consideration the breeding objectives that incorporate preferences of farmers (Sӧlkner et al 1998; Kosgey et al 2006).

From the foregoing, it seems vital to develop a breeding program with the utilization of indigenous breeds that is acceptable to the farmers and adaptable to existing specific production environment, with full involvement of farmers at all stages in the design and operation of the scheme. The suggested village breeding program for cattle (Hegde 2007) becomes a viable option for sustainable genetic improvement programs and activities under low-input smallholder production systems in developing countries (Kosgey and Okeyo 2007).

A cattle improvement program, which was initiated at Beggie Ranch for some Ethiopian cattle breeds, includes the Sheko breed. The program was terminated because the Ranch was vandalized just two years after its establishment due to political unrest in 1991. Sheko is now considered endangered by gradual interbreeding with the local zebu (DAGRIS 2004). This, therefore, calls for an immediate conservation and improvement program to reverse or at least halt further decline of the breed. This initially requires defining the production system, exploring indigenous knowledge of managing the breed, setting of breeding objectives and finally designing appropriate mating systems with full participation of farmers (Sölkner et al 1998; Kosgey et al 2006). The available information so far has been the lack of comprehensive and specific information to design a community-based cattle breeding and conservation program (Takele 2005; Stein Jenny 2011). This current study was, therefore, undertaken to assess traditional Sheko cattle breeding practices and farming systems, identify trait preferences and production constraints of smallholder farmers in their respective environment to assist in designing Sheko cattle breed conservation and improvement strategies.

Materials and methods

Description of the study area

The study was carried out in three districts (woredas) (i.e., Sheko, Debub Bench and Semein Bench) of Bench Maji zone of the Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Regional State in South-west Ethiopia.

Sheko

The name refers to the Sheko people, whose homeland lies in this Woreda. The major area of Sheko is classified under warm and humid to peri humid agro-ecological zone (Lemecha et al 2006). The farming system is largely characterized by mixed crop-livestock production. The region lies between latitude and longitude of 6⁰ 50' N and 35⁰ 00' E coordinates, respectively, and at an altitude that ranges from 950 to1800 meters above sea level (SARDO 2010). The season of the region is divided into three: the main rainy season (June-October), dry season (November-February) and short rainy season (March-May). According to the annual report of Sheko Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development (SARDO 2010), the mean annual temperatures were 22.6 ⁰C and the annual rainfall at Mehal Sheko town (the capital of the Sheko district) ranges from 1200 to 2200 mm. The soil type includes red brown and sandy loam.

Topographically, flat plains to mountains and valleys are found in the district. Agro- ecologically, the largest part of the district falls in lowland or kola (61.8%) and midland or woina dega (48.2%) (SARDO 2010). From the natural vegetation perspective, one of the few remaining extensive natural forest areas in the country is found in Sheko, with tropical species covering lowland and low midland elevations.

Debub Bench

Most recently, Debub Bench was separated from the former Bench Woreda and organized on the Woreda level. The major area of the district is classified under warm and humid zone to peri humid agro-ecology. Mixed crop-livestock farming system is practiced. The region has an altitude that ranges from 980 to 1900 meters above sea level, and is subdivided into two ecological zones: midland or woina dega (42.2%) and lowland or kolla (57.8%) (DBARDO 2010). The area is characterized by bimodal rainfall pattern with major and minor rainy seasons mostly lasting from June to October and March to May, respectively. The dry season extends from November to February. Based on an annual report of Debub Bench Woreda Agriculture and Rural Development (DBARDO 2010), the average total annual rainfall is 1800 mm and the mean annual maximum and minimum temperatures recorded in were, correspondingly, 17.2 and 27.5 ⁰C. Topographically, plain areas and rolling terrain from the surrounding lowland to steep slopes stretching midland topographies are found in the district (DBARDO 2010). The predominant soil types of the area include red brown, deep reddish and sandy loam.

Semein Bench

The Northern part of the former Bench woreda was used to create Semein Bench Woreda. The major area of Semein Bench is classified under humid to peri humid climatic condition. It lies at an altitude ranging from 1050 to 2400 m.a.s.l (SBARDO 2010). Average annual temperature ranges from 21.3 to 26 ⁰ C, and the mean annual rainfall of the district varies from 1200 to 2200 mm (SBARDO 2010). The season is divided into three: the main rainy season (June-October), dry season (November-February) and short rainy season (March-May). The soil type includes red brown, deep reddish, sandy loam and clay.

The farming system of the study area is largely characterized by mixed crop-livestock production system. Topographically, from flat plain to mountain and massif with stony and rocky surfaces rises from the surrounding lowland to steep slopes stretching to highland agro- ecology are found in the district. Semein Bench district consists of 2.0% highland or dega, 53.7% mid altitude or woina dega and 44.2% lowland or Kolla (SBARDO 2010).

Site selection and sampling technique

A rapid field survey was conducted before the main survey to identify the distribution and major areas of concentration of the Sheko cattle breed in the study area. Based on the reconnaissance survey and secondary information gathered from the district office of agriculture, three districts, namely; Sheko, Semein Bench and Debub Bench that are known for keeping Sheko cattle were purposely selected. The districts were further classified, based on agro-ecology into lowland and midland agro ecological set ups. This was followed by identification of four Peasant Association (PAs), two from midland and two from lowland from each district. These included Mehal Sheko, Shayita, Boyita and Fajek from Sheko district, Genja, Endekael, Wushikin and Garikin from Semein Bench, and Miah, Kokin, Kitte and Zemika from Debub Bench, where the first two PAs represent midland while the other 2 represent lowland. The PAs were selected purposively based on their suitability for cattle production, accessibility to market and road, availability of common grazing land and willingness of the community to participate in the program. A total of 360 farmers (30 from each PA) were purposely sampled for the interview from within the selected agro-ecology and the surrounding PAs having similar agro-ecology. This is because the sample populations were not equal in each PA. Sampling of households was done by setting criteria; having at least one Sheko animal and willingness to participate in the study. For focused group discussion, a total of 10 household heads (HH) were involved in each peasant association.

Data collection

Data were generated by administrating a pre-tested structured questionnaire, through focused group discussion and from secondary sources. Information on farming activity, status of Sheko cattle breed, herd size and species composition, herding practice, castration, Sheko bull ownership pattern, breeding practices, purpose of keeping breeding bull, preferred traits for Sheko cattle breed, reasons for keeping the Sheko cattle, feeds and feeding, animal health and constraints to Sheko cattle production were collected. Data on Sheko cattle ownership were collected from 180 households (HHs) in the midland and 180 households in the lowland area by counting directly on the fields. Besides, head count of the Sheko cattle in all PAs of the sampled Woreda were collected from 374 HHs in Sheko, 569 HHs in Semein Bench and 428 HHs in Debub Bench districts with assistance of the local Agricultural and Rural Development staff and PAs administrators. Each surveyed animal was identified by sex, site, herd number and estimated age group based on dentition. Focused group discussions with elderly farmers were mainly on the current status and major constraints of the breed, and production system. General information of the study area, topography, and climatic data on temperature and rain fall was collected from secondary sources of the respective Woreda Office of Agricultural and Rural Development.

Data analysis

Data collected through the questionnaire were analyzed by descriptive statistics using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 20.0 for window release 20.0 2011). Descriptive statistics like mean, standard deviation and proportion were used to describe the characteristics of the farming system in the different agro-ecological zones of the study areas. Chi-square was employed to test the independence of categories while t-test was used to assess the statistical significance. Indexes were calculated to provide ranking of the importance of the parameters considered. An index was calculated as Index = Sum of (3 X number of household ranked first + 2 X number of household ranked second + 1 X number of household ranked third) given for particular purpose, criteria or preference divided by the sum of (3 X number of household ranked first + 2 X number of household ranked second + 1 X number of household ranked third) for all purpose, criteria or preferences. Effective population size for a randomly mated population was calculated as Ne = (4Nm X Nf) / (Nm + Nf), where, Ne = effective population size, Nm = number of breeding males and Nf = number of breeding females. The inbreeding coefficient (ΔF) was calculated from Ne as ΔF = 1/2Ne (Falconer and Mackay 1996).

Results and discussion

Farming activities

All of the surveyed farmers in both AEZs practiced mixed crop-livestock production. The average land holding of farmers in midland agro ecology area was 1.42 ± 0.87 hectares of which most of the land was used for growing food crops. In addition to the communal grazing land, a very few number (11%) of the respondent had private grazing land by allotting part of their crop land used for direct grazing by animals or cutting the grass for zero grazing. Out of the total crop land, about 69.8% was used for main season cropping and the remaining 30.2% was used for short rain cropping. In lowland AEZ, the average land holding of farmers was 1.90 ± 0.89 hectares. A few respondents (17%). allotted part of their crop land for private grazing. In this area, main season and short rainy season cropping constituted 74.6% and 25.4% of the total cropping, respectively. The results showed significant (P<0.01) differences were observed in land holding between agro ecological zones.

In midland agro-ecology, farmers put first priority for the production of food crops for the family, with an index of 0.74 followed by cattle, sheep and goats, with indexes of 0.18, 0.05 and 0.03, respectively. Regular cash income crops received a higher ranking from any other farming activities, with a total index of 0.75 followed by cattle, sheep and goats with indexes, correspondingly, of 0.14, 0.07 and 0.04. In lowland agro-ecology, crops contributed a higher proportion to food (index = 0.71) for the family, followed by cattle, goats and sheep with index of 0.22, 0.04 and 0.03, respectively. For regular cash income, crops received a higher ranking, with a total index of 0.81 followed by cattle, goats and sheep with index of 0.13, 0.04 and 0.02, respectively.

The contribution of cattle to family food (on average index = 0.20) and income (on average index = 0.13) in both AEZs, was relatively high, indicating that the area was suitable for cattle production. As shown by Kosgey (2004), the importance that farmers attach to livestock for food and income suggests that a genetic improvement program targeting livestock would be successful if appropriately designed.

Herd size and structure

Table 1 shows the estimated number of Sheko cattle by herd structure and district in the entire study area. Current population size of a livestock species is an important factor in determining its risk status (FAO 2007). The total populations of Sheko cattle by herd structure in the sampled districts (covering all the PAs) obtained by counting directly on the field was estimated to be 2813, of which 15.1% were calves, 15.2% young heifers, 6.75% young bulls, 44.8% breeding females, 5.1% breeding males and 13.1% draught oxen. Available secondary data also confirm the same Sheko cattle population by herd structure in the sampled three districts (DBARDO 2010; SARDO 2010; SBARDO 2010). The total Sheko cattle’s holding was highest in Debub Bench districts whereas the lowest holding was found in Sheko district (Table 3). Agro ecologically, total Sheko cattle’s holder is higher in lowland than midland (Table 3). Numerically, the current population size of breeding females and breeding males or the observed male to female ratio of the Sheko cattle herd obtained in the present study does not classify the breed under the endangered category based on the classification used by FAO (2000). However, the results obtained in this study and previous reports on the status of the Sheko cattle breed showed that their unmanageable and aggressive behaviour, early castration practices especially to control their aggressive behaviour, indiscriminate inter breeding with local zebu, inbreeding, sparse distribution over a wide geographical area, and a critical shortage of bulls were the important factors affecting the survival risk of the breed.

 Under random mating, Ne and ΔF for Sheko cattle in midland AEZs were 0.29 and 1.72, respectively (Table 2). In lowland AEZ, Ne was 0.37 and ΔF was 1.35. In both AEZs, Ne was much lower and ΔF was much higher. In both cases, the level of inbreeding was within the proposed level to conserve endangered domestic animals that would result in inbreeding rates of between 1 and 4% (Armstrong 2006). Moreover, the results obtained in this study and from previous reports (e.g., Takele 2005) on the status of the Sheko cattle breed also showed that their unmanageable and aggressive behaviour, early castration practice especially to control their aggressive behaviour, indiscriminate inter breeding with local zebu, inbreeding, sparse distribution over a wide geographical area, and critical shortage of bulls were the important factors affecting the survival risk of the breed.

 Information on herd structure sheds light on the production objective of management by the owners, whether the main interest was in the production of milk, meat or draught (Table 3). Similarly, herd sizes reflect a community’s cattle production strategies and the breeding goals are affected by the farming system of a specific location (Takele 2005). Farmers’ preference to marketable products (e.g., milk) is determined by how proximal they are to the major markets. Farmers living in high trypanosomosis challenge areas prefer to give high priority to adaptability, while farmers living mainly on crop cultivation are more interested in draught capacity. Consequently, selection of breeding goals in a genetic improvement or conservation program should take into consideration the preferences of cattle keepers as well as challenges of the production environment. The mean reported Sheko cattle possession in the sampled HHs was 1.09 ± 0.42 in midland and 1.29 ± 1.02 in lowland. Generally, the average herd sizes of the Sheko cattle were small, indicating that the scope for within-herd selection amongst replacement cattle was small.

In the midland area, the breeding cows took the largest portion (91.7%) followed by breeding bulls (5.50%) and castrates (2.76%). Similarly, in the lowland agro-ecology, breeding cows were dominant (77.5%) followed by breeding bulls (9.30%), castrates (6.20%), male calves (4.65%) and female calves (2.33%). The larger proportion of breeding cows in both the midland and lowland obtained in this study is expected in systems where the main utility function is supply of milk (Mwachero and Rege, 2002 cited by Takele 2005), which is found to be consistent with the importance of Sheko cattle as dairy animals. The main purpose of keeping cattle in the highland is for draught power and it is estimated for about 60 percent of the cattle product by value (Azage and Crawford 2000). However, the predominance of breeding males in the lowland area observed in the present study, might be because of the fact that the naturally existing tolerance of the breed against the trypanosomiasis disease. Trypanosomiasis is a big challenge, especially in the low-lying parts of area, such that an alternative zebu breed would be unlikely to provide the same level of utility. Moreover, a study by Takele (2005) also indicated that the Sheko breed was perceived by farmers as more adaptive to the existing stressors (heat load, feed scarcity, tick infestation, internal parasite infestation and annoyance by biting flies) than Zebu cattle in the region.

The ratio of breeding bull to cows was 1:16.4 and 1:8.6 in the midland and lowland, respectively. The ratio obtained for Sheko cattle in both agro-ecological zones (AEZs) may be sufficient to breed females in the study area. The breeding bull to cows’ ratio obtained in the current study for Sheko cattle were lower than values reported by other studies for Raya cattle (1:1.56 and 1:2.74 of the corresponding AEZs) (Derje 2005) and Fogera cattle breed (1:7.6 and 1:7.4) (Fasil 2006). However, as observed in the present study, the predominance of uncontrolled mating, lack of awareness about inbreeding and small herd sizes in smallholder production (Seleka 2001) result in an increase in inbreeding, whicheads which leads to a dramatic loss of heterozygosity or genetic diversity. The use of bulls by farmers, either home-grown or neighbour’s bull, might imply that the relationship of animals within the herd is narrow and inbreeding is wide and high.

Herding practice

The percentage of households mixing their Sheko cattle with other livestock species by AEZs are presented in Table 4. In both AEZs, different classes of cattle are managed together during the day time.

Calves were normally managed separately from the dams to prevent suckling during the lactation period of the cows. In the midland AEZ, about 72.8% of the Sheko cattle owners herded their cattle with small ruminants (sheep and goats), 9.4% managed them separately and 7.8% with small ruminants and equines. In the lowland AEZ, about 70% of the Sheko cattle owners kept the cattle with small ruminants, 13.9% of the farmers kept them sometimes separately and other times by mixing with small ruminants, and 7.2% kept separately. The remaining 10% of survey respondents in the midland and 8.9% in the lowland practice tethering, whereby the animals were confined by tying them within a restricted location for grazing due to the high labour demand for other activities. Due to the aggressive behaviours of the Sheko cattle, it is difficult to harness and control them by old persons, women, children and disabled persons and, therefore, men older than fifteen years (88.8% for midland and 91.2% for lowland) were usually responsible for herding the cattle. Females greater than 15 years were less frequently involved in herding of the Sheko cattle both in the midland (11.2%) and lowland (8.8%). When tethering was the major grazing system, the role of the husband and/or housewife was far greater than for any other household member. Averagely, over 85% of the respondents practiced tethering in both AEZs, especially from the beginning of the main rainy season in June to when the crops were harvested from the cultivated land. This was to protect them from extreme weather condition and to avoid crop damage where most of the crop land was covered by crops. A small proportion of farmers in both areas herded their cattle on their private land along with tethering to exploit natural pasture grown by the rain and in crop fields. After the crops were harvested, cattle were grazed everywhere, and about 92.0% of the smallholder farmers in the midland and 84.0% in the lowland areas reported that their cattle had a possibility of mixing with other Sheko cattle herds within the village.

Castration

Out of the total sampled 360 household (180 in midland and 180 in lowland farmers) that owned Sheko cattle in both AEZs, 32 HHs (11 HHs and 21 HHs, respectively, of the corresponding totals for the midland and lowland farmers) owned one bull. Of these, 31.2% (correspondingly, 3 HHs and 7 HH in the midland and lowland) practiced castration. About 70% (n=2 in the midland and n= 5 in lowland of the corresponding totals that practiced castration) used traditional methods to castrate their bulls, e.g., use of local materials like stones, wood and hammer. The average age of castration is 4.2 and 4.8 year in midland and lowland respectively. Reasons for castration of the Sheko bulls in the midland zone were to improve draught power and docility of the bull (60%), and to improve draught power and temperament and fetch better market price (40%). The reported reasons in lowland AEZ were to fetch better market price only (16.7%), improve draft power and improve behaviour of the bull (50%) and for all of the above cases (33.3%).

Ownership and purpose of keeping Sheko bull

Of the sampled households in the current study, most (93.9%) of the respondents in the midland and lowland (88.3%) had no breeding bull. The remaining very few proportions of farmers in the midland (6.11%) and in lowland (11.7%) owned one bull, with an average of 0.06 and 0.12 breeding bulls per flock of a household, respectively. Households with no breeding bull obtained mating services from their neighbours’ or from grazing fields. Of the total Sheko cattle bulls, 63.6% were home-born and 36.4% were purchased from the market in the midlands. In lowlands, 76.2% of the breeding bulls were born within the herd and 23.8% were purchased. In the midland AEZ, all of the farmers kept breeding bulls for the purpose of breeding and draught power whereas in the lowland, majority (66.7%) of the farmers kept breeding bulls for the purpose of breeding and draught power, and 33.3% of them for breeding only. Farmers in the midland AEZ kept breeding bulls primarily for the draught power and breeding purposes than in the lowland AEZ.

Breeding practices

Natural uncontrolled mating was the predominant breeding method. Artificial insemination was not used in any of the herd surveyed. Majority of farmers in the midland (87.2%) and lowland (85%) AEZs practiced random mating. The remaining proportions of farmers in the midland (12.8%) and lowland (15%) AEZs practiced controlled mating, and methods like bull isolation were mainly used to control mating in both AEZs. About 70.6% of the interviewed smallholder farmers in the midland and 76.1% in the lowland AEZs were not aware about the disadvantage of inbreeding. The remaining proportion of farmers in midland (29.4%) and lowland (23.9%) AEZs were aware about negative effects of inbreeding but controlled mating to avoid inbreeding appeared to have been rarely practiced and often ignored among the farmers in the current study.

Reasons for keeping the Sheko cattle

Table 5 shows the reasons given by cattle keepers for ranking cattle production objectives. Purposes for which cattle were kept resembled more or less the breeding objectives farmers had for cattle (Ayalew and Rowlands 2004). However, the breeding goals of livestock keepers were often multifaceted and were mainly driven by the underlying production systems (Wollny 2003; Ouma et al 2007). The primary reason for keeping Sheko cattle in mid highland AEZ was for draught power followed by milk, income, saving and dowry in that order. However, the primary reason of keeping the Sheko cattle in lowland AEZ was for the purpose of milk production, followed by draught power, and to generate income. The keeping of the Sheko cattle for wealth status was not a requirement in the midland AEZs, whereas very few farmers considered it as a purpose in the lowland AEZs.

Ayalew and Rowlands (2004) indicated that animal draught power was very important to the agricultural sector in both the midland and lowland AEZs, and use of draught power was the most important function of cattle in the mixed farming systems of the midland than for lowland AEZs. The reasons for keeping the Sheko cattle, as elaborated in the present study, were as a source of draught power, especially in the mixed farming systems of the midland than the lowland AEZs (Table 5).

Preferred traits for the Sheko cattle breed in the study area

The mean (±SD) selection age of Sheko cattle bulls in the midland and lowland AEZs were 35.8 ± 4.66 months and 34.3 ± 4.19 months, respectively. Ranking of preferred traits by farmers for the selection of the breeding bull and female are presented in Table 6. Irrespective of the AEZs, appearance and/or conformation were the main trait for choosing the breeding bull in the midland and lowland AEZs, with indexes of 0.31 and 0.32, respectively. Fast growth, milk performance of the dam, coat colour, and mating ability ranked second, third, fourth and fifth with corresponding indexes of 0.21, 0.21, 0.18, and 0.03 in the midland AEZ. In the lowland AEZs, milk performance of the dam, fast growth, coat colour, and temperament ranked second, third, fourth and fifth with indexes of 0.20, 0.18, 0.13, and 0.07, respectively. The average selection age of the Sheko heifers in the midland and lowland were, correspondingly, 37.5 and 36.6 months. In selecting the breeding cow, milk yield, appearance and/or conformation, calving interval, coat colour, and mothering ability ranked as the first five attributes in the midland AEZ in that order with indexes of 0.29, 0.19, 0.12, 0.12 and 0.09, respectively. In the lowland AEZs, milk yield, calving interval, appearance and/or conformation, coat colour and polledness were the five most important traits with corresponding indexes of 0.26, 0.17, 0.17, 0.10 and 0.09. In both AEZs, farmers gave more attention for the coat colour and pattern of their animals. The most preferred coat colours were pure red, red-brown, patchy red, white and yellow in that order over black influenced the selection decision of the respondents in both the midland and lowland AEZs. Black colour was not preferred because farmers perceived it as attracting biting flies. The ecological significance of coat colour is widely recognized by the cattle keepers in their specific production environment (Ouma et al 2004).

Shiferaw (2006) reported that farmers preferred coat colour more than fertility traits for the Kereyu cattle type in Fentalle district. Ouma et al (2004) noted that the Maasai pastoralists in Kenya and pastoralists in Ethiopia prefer dark coat coloured cattle. Based on the selection criteria for trait preferences of Sheko breeders, the main breeding goal has been defined as increasing milk production and draught power (improve growth rate and conformation), and to improve calving rate in both the midland and lowland AEZs. Additionally, their preferred colours as well as their adaptability traits should be maintained.

Feeds and feeding

The main feed resource used for the livestock in the area was natural pasture. All farmers in both AEZs reported that feed shortage was rampant when most of the farm lands were covered with food crops during the wet season, and grasses were depleted during the dry season. To cope with feed shortage, farmers fed supplements (local brewery by-products and cultivated forages) in both dry and wet seasons.  Forage development by allotting part of their crop land or cultivation of annual forage during the main rainy season using the land allotted might be considered in both AEZs, but the use of it as animal feed was insignificant. In both AEZs, crop residues, particularly maize and sorghum stover, were also used to a limited extent as animal feed when it was fresh before it was over matured and dried. Apart from animal feeds, excess crop residues had alternative use, and were widely used for fuel, construction, sale, mattress and thatches.

In the midland AEZ, about 82.2% farmers in the dry season and 70.5% in the wet season provided supplementary feed while 13% farmers in the dry season and 28.2% in the wet season did not feed supplements. Approximately 4.8% of the farmers in the dry season and 1.3% in the wet season sold their animals to reduce the herd size. In the lowland AEZ, about 69.2% farmers in the dry season and 54.7% in the wet season provided supplementary feed, while approxi

Animal health

In the current study, diseases like trypanosomosis were not found to be important as Sheko cattle contracted trypanosomosis much less frequently, and even some did not get sick at all. The Sheko breed has been reported to be trypanotolerant (Sisay 1996; DAGRIS 2004; Takele 2005). Moreover, Sheko cattle keepers mentioned such traits as an advantage of the Sheko breed over the local zebu. However, within the Sheko cattle, this trait was taken for granted and, therefore, did not influence the decision on ranking of diseases and parasites affecting the breed. Households in the study area reported incidence of diseases and parasites (Table 7). The major diseases affecting productivity of the Sheko cattle in the midland AEZ were those caused by internal parasites followed by blackleg, anthrax and pasteurellosis in that order with corresponding indexes of 0.39, 0.15, 0.13 and 0.11. The corresponding mean indexes for farmers in the lowland area were 0.31, 0.14, 0.14 and 0.12, respectively. About 91.9% of the farmers in both AEZs used the government veterinary service and open markets as sources of drugs to treat sick animals. The remaining 8.1% of them used both government veterinary service and traditional indigenous practices. Most farmers were not willing to frankly describe the type of plants that were known for traditional healing practices. Community-based animal health programs, wider utilization of indigenous breeds tolerant to disease (Njoro 2001), and strengthening the existing extension of animal health service are required to reduce loss of cattle productivity caused by diseases and parasites.

Major constraints to Sheko cattle production

Feed shortage and disease problems were the most important production constraints frequently reported by respondents in both AEZs (Table 8). Shrinkage of grazing land (due to human population growth, expansion of cropping and land grabbing for cultivation) and poor management of the communal grazing land were major causes for reduced quality and quantity of feed. In the midland AEZ, feed shortage and disease ranked first and second with indexes of 0.42 and 0.32, respectively. Similarly, in the lowland AEZ, feed shortage and disease ranked first and second with corresponding indexes of 0.34 and 0.31. Shortage of labour and genotype were the third and fourth constraints with indexes of 0.12 and 0.07, respectively, in the midland AEZ, whereas labour and shortage of capital ranked third and fourth with corresponding indexes of 0.14 and 0.06 in the lowland AEZ.

Conclusion

• Uncontrolled mating, critical shortage of breeding bulls in many of the herds, especially in the midland AEZ, small herd sizes, feed shortage and incidence of disease were the most important challenges of the production environment. These have to be taken into consideration when implementing breeding programs for the Sheko cattle. However, a relatively higher proportion of farmers practiced mixed herds grazing, which allowed breeding females to freely mate with breeding males from other herds. This provided a good potential to solve the issue of scarcity of breeding bulls, minimized inbreeding and increased selection intensity. Strengthening the existing practice by organizing farmers utilizing common grazing land, based on their interests is, therefore, an important prerequisite to start community-based breeding programs. Breeding strategies targeted at genetic improvement and conservation of the Sheko cattle need to involve farmers, considering the existing breeding practices, management systems and trait preferences of the community and the multi-functional roles of the target animal. Additionally, non-marketable traits of the animal (i.e., draught power, coat colour and pattern, and adaptability) should be taken into consideration. Generally, an integrated systems approach to genetic improvement and conservation of the Sheko cattle is desirable and is likely to be the best approach. This requires a holistic way of looking at the production system and involving target groups in devising effective breeding programs.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Ministry of Education and Bench Maji Zone Administration Office for financial support, and all the facilitators and respondents for their cooperation.

References

Armstrong J B 2006 Inbreeding: Why we will not do it? Retrieved on September 15, 2012, from http://www.parispoodles.com/Inbreeding.html.

Ayalew W and Rowlands J 2004 Design, Execution and Analysis of the Livestock Breed Survey in Oromiya Regional State, Ethiopia. OADB (Oromiya Agricultural Development Bureau), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.

Azage Tegegne and Crawford T W 2000 Draft animal power use in Ethiopia. Center for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, Scotland. Draught Animal News 33: 24-26

CSA (Central Statistics Authority) 2013 Agricultural Sample Survey, 2012/13 (2005 E.C). Volume II, Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics. Statistical bulletin, 570, April, 2013, Addiss Ababa, Ethiopia.

DBARDO (Debub Bench District Agriculture and Rural Development Office) 2010 Annual Progress Report. Debub Bench, Ethiopia, pp. 1-6.

DAGRIS (Domestic Animal Genetic Resources Information System) 2004 International Livestock Research Institute. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Retrieved on November 5, 2012, from http:// dagris. ilri.cgiar.org.

Derje Tadesse 2005 On-farm Phenotypic Characterization of Cattle Genetic Resources and their Production Systems in South and North Wollo Zones of Amhara Region, North Eastern Ethiopia. MSc Thesis, School of Graduate Studies, Alemaya University of Agriculture, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia, 105pp.

Falconer D S and Mackay T F C 1996 Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 4th ed. Harlow, England, Longman, 438pp.

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nation) 2000 World Watch List for Domestic Animal Diversity, 3^rd ed. B. D. Scher (ed.). FAO. Rome, Italy, 726pp.

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nation) 2007 The State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome, Italy, 352pp.

Fasil Getachew 2006 On-farm Phenotypic Characterization of Cattle Genetic Resources and their Production Systems in Awi, East and West Gojjam Zones of Amhara Region, Ethiopia. MSc Thesis, School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University of Agriculture, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia. 105pp.

Hegde B P 2007 Review of Cattle breeding strategy to improve milk production in Ethiopia. Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia, 11pp.

Kosgey I S 2004 Breeding Objectives and Breeding Strategies for Small Ruminant in the Tropics. Ph.D. Thesis, Animal Breeding and Genetics Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands, 272 pp.

Kosgey I S, Baker R L, Udo H M J and van Arendonk J A M 2006 Successes and failures of small ruminant breeding programs in the tropics: a review. Small Rumin. Res., 61:14-27.

Kosgey I S and Okeyo A M 2007 Genetic improvement of small ruminants in low-input, smallholder production systems: Technical and infrastructural issues. Small Rumin. Res. 70:76–88

Lemecha H, Mulatu W, Hussein I, Rege E, Tekle T, Abdicho S and Ayalew W 2006 Response of four indigenous cattle breeds to natural tsetse and trypanosomosis challenge in the Ghibe valley of Ethiopia. Veterinary Parasitology 141: 168pp

Mwacharo J M and Rege J E O 2002 On-farm characterization of the indigenous small East African Shorthorn Zebu cattle (SEAZ) in the southeast rangelands of Kenya. Animal Genetic Resources Information 32: 73-86.

Njoro J N 2001 Community initiatives in livestock improvement: the case of Kathekani, Kenya. In. Community-based Management of Animal Genetic Resource, Proceedings of the Workshop held in Mbabane, Swaziland. 75-82pp.

Ouma O, Abdulai A and Drucker A G 2007 Measuring heterogeneous preferences for cattle traits among cattle-keeping households in East Africa. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 89:1005–1019.

Ouma O, Abdulai A, Drucker A G and Obare G 2004 Assessment of farmer preferences for cattle traits in smallholder cattle production systems of Kenya and Ethiopia. In: Proceedings of the Deutscher Tropentag 2004, Humboldt-University Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany, October 5 to 7, 2004.

Rege J E O, Kahi A K, Okomo-Adhiambo M, Mwacharo J and Hanotte O 2001 Zebu Cattle of Kenya: Uses, Performance, Farmers’ Preferences, Measure of Genetic Diversity and Options for Improved Use. Animal Genetic Resources Research I. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya, 103pp.

SARDO (Sheko District Agriculture and Rural Development Office) 2010 Annual Progress Report. Sheko, Ethiopia, 1-6pp.

SBARDO (Semein Bench District Agriculture and Rural Development Office) 2010 Annual Progress Report. Semein Bench, Ethiopia, 1-6pp.

Seleka T B 2001 Determinants of short-run supply of small ruminants in Botswana. Small Rumin. Res. 40: 203-214.

Shiferaw Garoma 2006 In-situ Phenotypic Characterization of Kereyu Cattle Type in Fentalle district of Oromia region, Ethiopia. MSc Thesis, School of Graduate Studies, Alemaya University of Agriculture, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia, 105pp.

Sisay G 1996 Characterization of Some Indigenous Cattle Breeds of Ethiopia Using Blood Protein Polymorphisms. MSc Thesis, School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University of Agriculture, 183pp.

Sölkner J, Nakimbigwe H and Valle-Zarate A 1998 Analysis of determinants for success and failure of village breeding programmes. In: Proceedings of the sixth World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production,Vol. 25, Armidale, NSW, Australia, 11 to 16 January, 1998, pp. 273 – 282.

SPSS for Windows 2011 Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS). Release 20.0. The Apasche Software Foundation.

Stein J 2011 Trypanotolerance and Phenotypic Characteristic of Four Ethiopian Cattle Breeds. Doctoral Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, 4 pp. http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/8124/

Tadelle Dessie 2012: Biodiversity, Resource Base, Animal Breed Level Characterization, and Utility of the Information for Goat Rresources in Ethiopia. Training Course on Methods and Approaches of Phenotypic Characterization of Animal Genetic Resources (Goats). 20-21 December, 2012, ILRI-ICARDA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Retrieved on May21, 2014, from http://dagris.ilri.cgiar.org

Takele Taye 2005 On-Farm Phenotypic Characterization of Sheko Breed of Cattle and Their Habitat in Bench Maji zone, Ethiopia. MSc Thesis, School of Graduate Studies, Alemaya University of Agriculture, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia, 43-72pp.

Wollny C B A 2003 The need to conserve farm animal genetic resources in Africa: should policy makers be concerned? Ecological Economics 45: 339-353.

Received 30 August 2014; Accepted 16 November 2014; Published 1 December 2014

Go to top