Assessment of Indigenous Sheep Production Systems in Bale Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia

Transcription

1 American Journal of Agricultural Science 2017; 4(6): ISSN: (Print); ISSN: (Online) Assessment of Indigenous Sheep Production Systems in Bale Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia Belete Asefa 1, Tadesse Abate 1, *, Eshetu Adugna 2 Keywords Bale Zone, Breeding Objectives, Indigenous Sheep Types, Production System, Trait Preference Received: April 25, 2017 Accepted: October 18, 2017 Published: November 14, Department of Animal and Range Sciences, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Madda Walabu University, Bale Robe, Ethiopia 2 Department of Animal and Range Sciences, Sinana Livestock Agency, Bale Robe, Ethiopia address tadeabate@gmail.com (T. Abate) * Corresponding author Citation Belete Asefa, Tadesse Abate, Eshetu Adugna. Assessment of Indigenous Sheep Production Systems in Bale Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural Science. Vol. 4, No. 6, 2017, pp Abstract The present study aims to describe production system of indigenous sheep types, selective breeding objectives and traits preferences of sheep types in five districts of Bale zone (Agarfa, Dinsho, Goba, Sawena and DaweKechan). The study was performed based on household survey using structured questionnaires. Three kebeles from each district and 20 households from each kebeles were sampled using simple random sampling techniques. For household survey, 300 households (60 from each district) were involved. Data were analyzed using SAS versions 9. Pastoral, agro pastoral and mixed crop livestock production system were the main production system in the study area with large proportion of sheep per house hold were found in Dinsho (15.6) and Goba (15.4). Across all the districts, Sheep were used primarily as a source of income generations through the sale of live animals with index value of 0.39, 0.42, 0.39, 0.38 and 0.37 for Agarfa, Dinsho, Goba, Sawena and Dawe Kechan, respectively. In the study area selection was practiced both for male (70.33%) and female (86.33%) and appearance was the most selection criteria both for male and female sheep. Diseases, feed shortage and lack of good genotypes were the 1 st, 2 nd and 3 rd production constraints with index value of 0.28, 0.19 and 0.18, respectively. The study indicated that the information obtained would assist in planning suitable conservation, improvement and extension programs for the indigenous sheep types. 1. Introduction In Ethiopia, sheep are reared mainly by smallholder farmers and are grazed in small flocks on communal open natural pastures. Ethiopia has a diverse indigenous sheep population numbering 25.9 million heads (CSA, 2010). of which, 75% found in the highlands where mixed crop-livestock systems dominate, while the remaining 25 percent of the sheep is reared in the arid pastoral areas of the lowland (DAGRIS, 2006). Sheep is important in the socio-economic lives of people around the world, particularly where crop production is unreliable and where livestock is the mainstay of livelihoods. Sheep have social and economic importance to the producers who keep indigenous breeds for meat, hair production and income generation (Tesfaye et al., 2008). Ethiopia is home for at least 9 breeds and 14 traditional sheep populations, distributed across diverse ecology, production systems and communities or ethnic groups (Solomon

2 American Journal of Agricultural Science 2017; 4(6): et al., 2007). As a result of their wide range of habitat, behavioral and reproductive adaptations, sheep have evolved into a large number of different geographically separate phenotypic forms or races varying in size, fleeces, conformation, muscling and coat color. Indigenous sheep breeds have a great potential to contribute more to the livelihood of people in low input, smallholder and pastoral production systems (Kosgey et al., 2007), However, their productivity is low due to several factors such as genotype, environmental and institutional constraints (Mulata, 2013). Characterizing the existing sheep production systems and analyzing their production constraints are important tools to diagnose the status and trends of the system, and thus to identify areas for future interventions (Markos, 2006). Arsi bale sheep is distributed in highlands of bale zone, Arsi, Hararghe and Sidama (Workneh et al., 2004). Bale zone is characterized by diverse agro-ecological settings constitute both lowland and highland where sheep play increasingly significant roles for communities that herd them. However, most of the identified and locally recognized breeds of the region are not well characterized mainly about their production environment. Again, farmers and pastoralists in the area practices traditional type of sheep production system, which is characterized by poor feeding, housing, breeding, and health management that potentially hinders expected income from the sale of animal (Dawit et al., 2012). The current study identify and categorize the existing sheep production system in bale zone, trait preference and breeding objectives. This can open the door for researchers, extension services to improve the productivity and sustainability of these farming systems and it also provides information needed in strategizing conservation and improvement programmes. Therefore, this study was under taken to assess sheep production systems, to assess farmer s selective breeding objectives and trait preferences in the study area. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Description of Study Area An on-farm survey was conducted in three highland districts of bale zone (Agarfa, Dinsho and Goba) and two lowland districts of bale zone (Sawena and Dawekechan) in year of 2015/2016. Figure 1. Shows locations of the districts that the study were conducted. Figure 1. s in bale zone from which the study was conducted.

3 128 Belete Asefa et al.: Assessment of Indigenous Sheep Production Systems in Bale Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia 2.2. Sample Size and Sampling Techniques Sample size was determined based on the formula recommended by Arsham (2007) for survey studies. N=0.25/SE 2 With the assumption of 3% standard error, a total sample size of 300 households were used for the study. Depending on the information gathered from group discussion, agriculture and rural development office experts, development agents and communities, three high land districts from bale zone and two low land districts were selected using purposive sampling technique and three kebeles from each districts and 60 households from each kebele were also selected by using simple random sampling techniques Data Collection Data was collected by using semi-structured questionnaire, participatory appraisal and discussion with key informants. Data about various aspects of general household characteristics, livestock herd size and composition, husbandry practices, animal health aspects, breeding practices, herd dynamics, production and reproductive performance, trait preference and purpose of keeping sheep were gathered based on prepared questionnaire. A total of 15 participatory appraisal discussion groups (one per kebele) which contains 5-10 members per group consisting of male and female farmers who were purposively selected based on their good knowledge of sheep production was organized. Development agents were involved in the identification of farmers for the group discussion Data Management and Statistical Analysis All data were coded and recorded in Microsoft excel sheet. Survey results were summarized using descriptive statistics like mean, standard deviation and percentage. Indices were calculated to provide ranking the reason of keeping sheep, selection criteria for male and female sheep and the major reproduction and production problems, and calculated as: Index (I) = sum of (3 for rank for rank 2 +1 for rank 3) given for an individual criteria (attribute) divided by the sum of sum of (3 for rank for rank 2+1 for rank 3) for overall criteria. Furthermore, rate of inbreeding was calculated in the population. Effective population size for a randomly mated population was calculated using the following formula. The rate of inbreeding ( F) was calculated from Neas F= ) and Ne=( Where Ne = Effective population size Nm = Number of breeding male population Nf = Number of breeding female population 3. Result and Discussion 3.1. Household Characteristics The average household age and family size in the study area were given in Table 1. The average family size of the households in the study area were 5.4±0.3, 8.5±0.6, 7.7±0.4, 5.9±0.4 and 5.9±0.4 for Agarfa, Dinsho, Goba, Sawena and Dawekechan, respectively. The average age of household were higher for Dawekechan as compared with other districts. There is significance difference (p<0.01) between districts for average family size which is higher for Dinsho and Goba. Table 1. Average household and family size in the study areas. s Household characteristics Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/k mean± mean± mean± mean± mean± Av. HH age 43.33±1.7 bc 47.17±1.3 ab 39.58±1.5 c 44.1±1.5 ab 47.8±1.2 a Av. family size 5.4±0.3 b 8.5±0.6 a 7.7±0.4 a 5.9±0.4 b 5.9±0.4 b Means with the same letter are not significantly different (p<0.05); HH = household; Av. = average Educational level, sex of household and marital status of respondents were given in Table 2. Majority of the household in the study area were illiterate (27.67%) followed by primary school (20.67%). There is no significance difference between districts for sex of household (p>0.05). Male and female household constitute 78.67% and 21.33%. The report of (Belete, 2013) in the same area where also showed that male headed were higher than female counter part. The present study confirmed findings of (Workneh and J. Rowlands 2004), who reported that the majority of the households (94%) in Oromia region were male headed, while the rest 6% were female headed. There is significance difference for marital status (p<0.05). According to respondents in this study, the overall proportions of married, unmarried, divorced and widowed households were 87.33%, 3.33%, 3% and 6.33%, respectively (Table 2).

4 American Journal of Agricultural Science 2017; 4(6): Table 2. Household characteristics in study area. Household characteristics Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/k Over all Educational status Illiterate) 13(21.67) 4(6.67) 8(13.33) 26(43.33) 32(53.33) 83(27.67) Religious school 4(6.67) 9(15) 1(1.67) 8(13.33) 8(13.33) 30(10.00) Elementary (1-4) 2(3.33) 3(5) 4(6.67) 24(40.00) 20(33.33) 53(17.67) Primary (5-8) 17(28.33) 20(33.33) 23(38.33) 2(3.33) 0(0.0) 62(20.67) Secondary (9-10+2) 12(20) 23(38.33) 18(30) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 53(17.67) Above 12(20) 1(1.67) 6(10) 0(0.0) 0(0.0) 19(6.33) X 2 -value ** Sex household Female 12(20) 11(18.33) 12(20) 15(25) 14(23.33) 64(21.33) Male 48(80) 49(81.67) 48(80) 45(75) 46(76.67) 236(78.67) X 2 -value 1.07ns Marital status Married 49(81.67) 58(96.67) 54(86.67) 44(73.33) 57(95) 262(87.33) Divorced 2(3.33) 1(1.67) 2(3.33) 2(3.33) 2(3.33) 9(3) Widowed 3(5.0) 1(1.67) 4(6.67) 10(16.67) 1(1.67) 19(6.33) Un married 6(10) 0(0.00) 0(0) 4(6.67) 0(0.00) 10(3.33) X 2 -value 28.77** *P<0.05; **P<0.01; x 2 = Pearson Chi-square; N = Number of observation; ns = non significant 3.2. Composition of Livestock Table 3. Livestockcompositionandtheir number per house hold in the study area. Livestock (Means ± SE) Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/k Cattle 7.1±0.5 b 9.1±0.8 a 9.2±0.6 a 4.6±0.5 c 5.9±0.6 bc Sheep 8.3±1.1 b 15.6±1.2 a 15.4±0.9 a 8.4±0.7 b 9.7±0.5 b Goat 1.3±0.3 c 0.7±0.2 c 0.2±0.1 c 14.1±0.9 a 12.0±0.4 b Donkey 1.8±0.2 a 1.5±0.1 ab 1.4±0.1 ab 0.5±0.1 c 1.2±0.1 b Mule 0.2±0.1 bc 0.7±0.1 a 0.3±0.1 b 0.0±0.0 c 0.1±0.1 bc Horse 1.4±0.3 c 2.9±0.2 a 2.2±0.2 b 0.0±0.0 d 0.0±0.0 d Camel 0.0±0.0 b 0.0±0.0 b 0.0±0.0 b 2.3±0.4 a 2.2±0.4 a Chicken 3.1±0.6 bc 6.1±0.6 a 4.0±0.5 a 2.2±0.6 c 3.5±0.5 bc Means with the same letter within the same row and class are not significantly different at p (0.05); SE= standard error The major livestock species in the study area were sheep, goat, cattle, donkey, horse, mule, chicken and camel (Table 3). Due to the fact that this study considered only those households who had sheep, the number of sheep per household were higher. There is significance difference in number of sheep per household and other livestock species (p<0.05). The number of sheep per household was higher in Dinsho (15.6) and Goba (15.4). In all districts of highland the number of animal per house hold is higher for sheep followed by cattle where as for pastoral districts the number of animal per household were higher for goats followed by sheep. The number of goat and camel per household in pastoral area were higher than that of highland. This implies that the livelihood of the society in pastoral area was mainly depending on environmentally adapted and harsh resistant animals like camel and goats. The numbers of sheep per household were 8.3, 15.6, 15.4, 8.4 and 9.7 for Agarfa, Dinsho, Goba, Sawena and Dawekechan districts, respectively. The present result revealed that the number of sheep per household was higher than the report of (Wossenie, 2012; Dawit, 2012; Helen et al., 2015) in eastern Hararghe zone but lower than black head Somali sheep breed (19.19) in Somali region (Fekerte, 2008) 3.3. Flock Size and Structure In total, 3549 sheep of 300 household were classified according to age and sex (Table 4). The overall mean of sheep flock size was higher for Dinsho district except for castrated sheep which is higher for Goba district. Male accounted about 36.8% of the flock and majority of them were suckling male (36.10%) and the number decrease as the age increase. This was due to the sheep were sold at the age of weaning for the purpose of fulfilling the home requirement. There were significant difference between districts in sheep flock size and structure (p<0.05). The largest number of flock structure in the study area were matured female sheep across all the districts. The farmers remain their ewe for breeding purpose which accounted the greater portion of the newly born animals, while rams are either castrated or sold when they reach market age. The present result is in line with (Zelealem, 2012) but in contrast with the report of (Amelaml et al., 2015) where the largest sheep category is ram lambs less than six month old (2.0 ±1.8) for Tocha special district of southern region of Ethiopia. In the study area, the ratio of male to female and the ratio of mature male to mature female was 1:1.72 and 1:4.2, respectively (Table 7). The ratio of breeding ram to breeding ewes was comparable with the report of (Amelaml et al., 2015) for Dawuro zone and konta special district sheep. In contrast this ratio is higher than 1:6.7 for Gumuz (Solomon, 2007), 1:8.3 reported for Menz, 1:17.4 reported for Afar sheep (Tesfaye, 2008).

5 130 Belete Asefa et al.: Assessment of Indigenous Sheep Production Systems in Bale Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia Table 4. Flock size and structure in the study area. Sheep age group Total sheep Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/k No % Mean±SE Mean±SE Mean±SE Mean±SE Mean±SE Suckling male lamb ±0.2 a 1.5±0.2 a 1.8±0.2 a 1.6±0.2 a 1.6±0.2 a Suckling female lamb ±0.3 b 2.5±0.2 a 1.6±0.1 b 0.8±0.1 c 1.2±0.1 bc Weaned male lamb ±0.2 ab 1.5±0.2 a 1.7±0.2 a 0.6±0.1 c 1.0±0.2 bc Weaned female lamb ±0.1 bc 1.9±0.2 a 1.9±0.1 a 0.5±0.2 c 1.0±0.2 b Matured male (> year) ±0.1 b 2.2±0.3 a 2.1±02 a 0.3±0.1 b 0.5±0.1 b Matured female (> year) ±0.4 c 6.3±0.6 a 5.8±0.6 ab 4.6±0.3 b 4.9±0.3 b Castrated ±0.1 b 0.3±0.1 b 1.4±0.3 a 0.0±0.0 b 0.0±0.0 b Means with the same letter within the same row and class are not significantly different at p (0.05); D/K=Dawekechan 3.4. Farming Activities Farming activities for their livelihood in the study area were presented in (Table 5). Practicing of both crop production and livestock rearing were the main farming system in Agarfa (93.33%), Dinsho (93.33%) and Goba (96.67%) where as livestock rearing was the dominant farming activities in Sawena (65%) and Dawekechan districts (73.33%). The Table 5. Farming activities in the study area. degrees of dependency of farming activities for income generation and for food were mainly based on farming practices in the study area. The result reveal that the society mainly based on livestock rearing for cash income (65.67%) and for food (51.67%). This implies the areas have potential for different livestock production and the livelihoods of the society in the study area are based on livestock production. Farming activities Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/k Over all Livestock rearing 4(6.67) 2(3.33) - 39(65)) 44(73.33)) 89(29.67) Crop production - 2(3.33) 2(3.33) 3(5) 1(1.67) 8(2.67) Both 56(93.33) 56(93.33) 58(96.67) 18(30) 15(25 203(67.67) For cash Livestock rearing 43(71.67) 40(66.67) 16(26.67) 47(78.33) 51(85) 197(65.67) Crop production - 10(16.67) 13(21.67) 9(15) 7(11.67) 29(9.67) Both 17(28.33) 10(16.67) 31(51.67) 4(6.67) 2(3.33) 64(21.33) For food Livestock rearing 19(31.67) 22(36.67) 11(18.33) 49(81.67) 54(90) 155(51.67) Crop production 7(11.67) 26(43.33) 9(15) 6(10) 6(10) 54(18) Both 34(56.67) 12(20) 40(33.33) 5(8.33) - 91(30.33) N= number of respondents 3.5. Feed Resource and Availability Feed resources commonly used by farmers/pastoralist in the study area across the different seasons are presented in Table 6. The quantity and quality of available feed resources for animals primarily depends upon the climatic and seasonal factors (Zewdu, 2008). In this study, natural pasture, Shrubs, Tree/branch, crop residues, Concentrate, Khat left over and house left over are the common feed resources used. According to the respondents in the study area, natural pasture was the main feed source for sheep in highland where as shrubs and tree brunch were the most dominant feed resource in pastoral areas (Table 6). The main feed resource during wet season (47.67%) and dry season (31.67%) was natural pasture. The result is in line with the report of (Amelaml et al., 2015) and (Solomon, 2007) where natural Table 6. Feed resource and grazing system in the study area. pasture as major feed resource for sheep. There are variation of availability of feed resource in lowland and highland districts. In the study area both full days grazing and grazing early in the morning and afternoon (ware) were practiced. Herding of sheep was the most dominant grazing method both in wet season (82.67%) and dry season (58.33). This indicates that there is no free communal land and each farmer has their own land without releasing. Free grazing was practiced in highlands after crops were collected and when aftermath was available. Tethering were practice in Agarfa and Dinsho districts because of it avoids crop damage; protect the stock against theft, ease of protecting from predation and proper utilization of the limited grazing land. The finding is also in line with the report of (Amelaml et al., 2015). Agarfa Dinsho Goba Feed source WS DS WS DS WS DS Pasture/grass 48(80) 39(65) 33(55) 38(63.33) 26(43.33) 18(30) Shrubs 2(3.33) - 8(13.33) - 3(5) 1(1.67) Tree/branch - - 2(3.3) - 2(3.33) 7(11.67) crop residues 3(5) 5(8.33) 5(8.33) 20(33.33) 5(8.33) 17(28.33)

6 American Journal of Agricultural Science 2017; 4(6): Agarfa Dinsho Goba Feed source WS DS WS DS WS DS Concentrate 4(6.67) 8(13.33) 5(8.33) - 16(26.67) 17(28.33) Khat left over House left over 3(5) 8(13.33) 7(11.67) 2(3.33) 8(13.33) - Length of grazing Full day 3(5) 1(1.67) 7(11.67) 4(6.67) 26(43.33) 28(46.67) Morning &afternoon 57(95) 59(98.33) 53(88.33) 56(93.33) 34(56.67) 32(53.33) grazing method Free grazing 24(40) 17(28.33) 1(1.67) 50(83.33) 5(8.33) 34(56.67) Herding 31(51.67) 39(65) 55(91.67) 6(10) 55(91.67) 26(43.33) paddock - - 2(3.33) tethered 5(8.33) 4(6.67) 2(3.33) 4(6.67) - - Table 6. Continued. Sawena D/K Over all Feed source WS DS WS DS WS DS Pasture/grass 21(0.35) - 15(25) - 143(47.67) 95(31.67) Shrubs 9(15) 20(33.33) 13(21.67) 16(26.67) 35(1.67) 37(12.33) Tree/branch 16(26.67) 16(26.67) 22(36.67) 15(25) 42(14) 38(12.67) crop residues - 11(18.33) 2(3.33) 13(21.67) 15(5) 66(22) Concentrate 2(3.33) 4(6.67) 1(1.67) 4(6.67) 28(9.33) 33(11) Khat left over 12(20) 5(8.33) 4(6.67) 7(11.67) 16(5.33) 12(4) House left over - 4(6.67) 3(5) 4(6.67) 21(7) 18(6) Length of grazing Full day 17(28.33) 58(96.67) 29(48.33) 59(98.33) 82(27.33) 150(50) Morning &afternoon 43(71.67) 2(3.33) 31(51.67) 1(1.67) 218(72.67) 150(50) grazing method Free grazing 12(20) 9(15) 1(1.67) 6(10) 43(14.33) 116(38.67) Herding 48(80) 50(83.33) 59(98.33) 54(90) 248(82.67) 175(58.33) paddock (0.67) - tethered - 1(1.67) - - 7(2.33) 9(3.00) Table 7. Herding mechanisms of sheep in the study area. Herding sheep flock herded as Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/K Overall Together with cattle 11(18.33) 4(6.67) 32(53.33) 14(23.33) 4(6.67) 65(21.67) Together with goat (25) 31(51.67) 46(15.33) Together with calve 2(3.33) (0.67) Together with equine - 4(6.67) (1.33) All herded together 31(51.67) 26(43.33) 16(26.67) (21) sheep is herded separately 16(26.67) 26(43.33) 12(20) 31(51.67) 21(35) 106(35.33) sheep herded as Male and female separate 6(10) 12(20) 9(15) 6(10) 5(8.33) 38(12.67) lamb separate 3(5) 3(5) 0(0) 4(6.67) 3(5) 13(4.33) All classes herded together 51(85) 45(75) 51(85) 50(83.33) 52(86.67) 249(83) Way of herding sheep of HH run as flock 52(86.67) 58(96.67) 46(76.67) 28(46.67) 35(58.33) 219(73) sheep of >1HH mix together 8(13.33) 2(3.33) 14(23.33) 32(53.33) 25(41.67) 81(27) Average no of HHMsh 2HH 6(75) 2(100) 4(28.57) 14(43.75) 4(16) 30(37) 3HH 2(25) - 10(71.43) 9(28.13) 10(40) 31(38.3) >3HH (28.12) 11(44) 20(24.7) N= number of household, HHMsh=household mixed sheep 3.6. Herding Herding system of sheep in the study area was varied from district to district based on the types of animal they have (Table 7). According to the report of respondents in the study area majority of them were herd their sheep separately from other livestock (35.33%). Within flock of sheep all classes of sheep (male, female and male) were herded together. The reason is that the males in the herd are used for breeding and lambs were grazed with its mother since milk consumption is not known in the study area. Mixing of sheep flocks of several households was not practiced by most of the sheep owners and

7 132 Belete Asefa et al.: Assessment of Indigenous Sheep Production Systems in Bale Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia they run their own flock (73%). Among household practicing mixing of flock majority of them (38.3%) were three household who mixed their flock of sheep. The finding was disagreement with the report (Helen et al., 2015) of where about 70% of mixed crop livestock and 55.6% of agro-pastoral were practice mixing of flock of several household. Figure 2. Grazing system in the highland district. Figure 3. Grazing system in lowland district Water Source and Availability Figure 4. Watering system in the study area. According to response obtained from the respondent spring water was the major water source for Agarfa (46.67%), Dinsho (51.67%) and Goba (58.33%) district while dam/pond water was the main water source for Sawena (53.33%) and Dawekachen (38.33%) district (Table 8). According to response of the respondent, most of the ponds

8 American Journal of Agricultural Science 2017; 4(6): were old and less emphasis were given for it. In these area ponds were serves both for human drinking and livestock. Majority of sheep in the study area were watered with frequency of once a day (35.67%) followed by once in two Table 8. Water source and watering system in the study area. days (28.67%). Quality water is one factor of sheep production which is related to healthy of sheep. Majority of the water in the study area was mixed with soil/muddy both during wet season (47.6%) and dry season (33.33%). Water source Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/K Overall Bore hole 0(0) 7(11.67) 1(1.67) 1(1.67) 10(16.67) 19(6.33) Dam/pond - 5(8.33) 4(6.67) 32(53.33) 23(38.33) 64(21.33) River 20(33.33) 16(26.67) 18(30) 2(3.33) 6(10) 62(20.67) Spring 28(46.67) 31(51.67) 35(58.33) 8(13.33) - 102(34) Pipe water 7(11.67) (26.67) 20(33.33) 43(14.33) Rain water 3(5) (1) Frequency of watering Freely available 4(6.67) 14(23.33) 6(10) 36(60) 14(23.33) 74(24.67) Once a day 29(48.33) 21(35) 48(80) 3(5) 6(10) 107(35.67) Once in 2 day 27(45) 15(25) 6(10) 11(18.33) 27(45) 86(28.67) Once in 3 day - 10(16.67) 2(3.33) 10(16.67) 13(5) 35(11.67) Water quality Wet season Clean 14(23.33) 22(36.67) 40(66.67) 16(26.67) 14(23.33) 106(35.33) Muddy 46(76.67) 15(25) 20(33.33) 29(48.33) 33(55) 143(47.6) Salty - 19(31.67) - 12(20) 8(13.33) 39(13) Smelly - 4(6.67) - 3(5) 5(8.33) 12(4) Dry season Clean 20(33.33) 18(30) 56(93.33) 37(61.67) 1(1.67) 132(44) Muddy 32(53.33) 18(30) - 6(10) 44(73.33) 100(33.33) Salty 5(8.33) 24(40) 4(6.67) 12(20) 7(11.67) 52(17.33) Smelly 3(5) - - 4(6.67) 7(11.67) 14(4.67) 3.8. Sheep Housing Systems Good housing can determine productivity by reducing stress, disease hazards and making management easier. In the study area, sheep are housed in different ways (Table 9). Majority of household in highland were housed their sheep in separate house with roof while in pastoral district kraal without roof was the dominant types of housing system. The types of house and housing material were based on the availability of local material and to fit with the existing environmental condition. Since in highland the climate condition is cold they make house for their sheep to protect from it. But, in lowland no need of upper cover of house (roof) and the wall is also air proof type (no need of warm Table 9. Housing and housing materials for sheep in the study area. condition). The report of (Helen et al., 2015) also inconvenient with the present finding where in pastoral and agro pastoral production system kraal without roof is the dominant sheep house. Majority of farmers in Agarfa (71.17%), Dinsho (93.33%) and Goba (61.67%) were housed the lambs with adult. This may be one cause of lamb mortality since lambs are susceptible to disease and poor management. Majority of the respondent were not housed their sheep with cattle (98.67%). Across all studied district house cleaning were not practiced. Due attention must be given for these issue because poor housing and unclean house may cause occurrence of disease further reduction of production and productivity. Types of house Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/K Overall Family house - 5(8.33) 4(6.67) - - 9(3) Separate house 48(80) 47(78.33) 41(68.33) 2(3.33) - 138(46) Veranda 7(11.67) 8(13.33) 15(8.33) (10) Kraal (46.67) 51(85) 79(26.33) Open Yard 5(8.33) (50) 9(15) 44(36.67) lamb housed with adult Yes 43(71.17) 56(93.33) 37(61.67) - 2(3.33) 138(46) No 17(28.33) 4(6.67) 23(38.33) 60(100) 58(96.67) 162(54) sheep housed with cattle Yes 3(5) (1.67) 4(1.33) No 57(95) 60(100) 60(100) 60(100) 59(98.33) 296(98.67) N= number of respondents

9 134 Belete Asefa et al.: Assessment of Indigenous Sheep Production Systems in Bale Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia 3.9. Purposes of Keeping Sheep in the Study Area The purpose of keeping sheep by farmers/pastoralist in the study areas is presented in Table 10. Knowledge of reasons for keeping animals is a prerequisite for deriving operational breeding goals (Jaitner, et al., 2001). The primary purpose of keeping sheep in Agarfa, Dinsho, Goba, Sawena and D/K was reported for cash income with an index value of 0.39, 0.42, 0.39, 0.38, 0.37 and 0.39, respectively and followed by as source of meat with index of 0.29, 0.26 and 0.21 for Goba, Sawena and Dawekachen, respectively. But in Agrfa and Dinsho insurance ranked second with index of 0.34 and 0.41, respectively. The finding is agreement with the report of (Amelaml, 2015) where the primary purpose of keeping sheep by farmer was as income generation. In the entire district farmers reported that female sheep are not used for milk production purpose as home consumption rather milk is used for lambs which are agreement with the report of (Markos, 2006). Table 10. Purpose of sheep keeping in each district and ranking of these purpose. Purpose Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/K Overall I I I I I I Meat Milk Cash Skin Manure Wealth insurance tail fat I= index; Index = sum of (3 for rank for rank 2 +1 for rank 3) given for an individual reason (attribute) divided by the sum of sum of (3 for rank for rank 2+1 for rank 3) for overall reason Selection Criteria for Breeding Rams In the study area about (70.33%) of respondents select male sheep (Table 11). Appearance is selected in all of the study area as the first criteria of selection. Better sexual ability and growth rate was considered as second criteria of selection in Agarfa and Dinsho with selection index of 035 and 0.33, respectively. Color was the second criteria of ram selection in Goba, Sawena and D/K with index value of 0.2, 0.28 and 0.37, respectively. Table 11. Selection criteria for breeding Rams in the study area. Criteria Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/K I I I I I Appearance Color Character Growth Prolificacy Testicular characteristics Better sexual ability Pedigre Criteria Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/K I I I I I wool tail type I= index = sum of (3 for rank for rank 2 +1 for rank 3) given for an individual criteria (attribute) divided by the sum of sum of (3 for rank for rank 2+1 for rank 3) for overall criteria Selection Criteria for Breeding Ewes In the study are about (86.33%) respondents select female sheep (Table 12). Appearance is selected in all of the study area as the first criteria of selection. Family history is considered as second criteria of selecting breeding ewes in Agarfa and Dinsho with index value of 0.34 and 0.13, respectively while color is considered as second criteria of election in Goba, Sawena and D/K district with index value of 0.30, 0.24 and 0.26, respectively. Selection criteria for rams and ewes were parallel across all the districts. The selection criteria of the traits are more subjective. The finding of (Tabbaa and R. Al-Atiyat, 2009) revealed that farmers in Jordan are using more subjective than objective selection criteria. Selection by farmers implies that they try to maintain good performing animals and cull the inferior ones, but the selected does are not necessarily mated with selected rams as they are freely roaming and grazing together with other flocks, which make mating uncontrolled. Most of the farmers were based on economical and adaptive trait as selection criteria. Criteria Table 12. Selection criteria for breeding Ewes in the study area. Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/K I I I I I Size/appearance Color Mothering ability lamb survival lamb growth Short lambing interval Twining ability Better milk yield Family history I= index; Index = sum of (3 for rank for rank 2 +1 for rank 3) given for an individual criteria (attribute) divided by the sum of sum of (3 for rank for rank 2+1 for rank 3) for overall criteria; Breeding System in the Study Area In the study area, about 57% of the respondents have their own ram (Table 13). Among household having their own ram, the main source of their breeding ram was born in the flock (83.04%) followed by purchased from the market (15.78%). The main reason of keeping breeding ram in the flock is for the purpose of mating (81.87%). Across all the districts, there is shortage or absence of breeding rams in the flock. The main reason for the decline of breeding ram in the flock was farmers/pastoralist sold male sheep in the early age and lack

10 American Journal of Agricultural Science 2017; 4(6): of awareness about the role of ram in the flock. They use neighboring rams (49.61%) and at communal grazing (41.86%) to breed their ewes. The main identification methods of sheep flock in the study area was through observation (32.67%) followed by color of sheep (27.67%). Natural mating with selective ram was practiced in Agarfa (93.33%), Dinsho (53.33%) and Goba (55%) (Table 14). In Sawena and D/K district the main mating system was natural mating with nonselective ram. The main reason of un controlled mating was sheep graze together (43%) followed by lack of awareness about lack of inbreeding (33.7%). Table 13. Ram management and its selection practices in the study area. Agarfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/K Overall Parameters Do you have breeding ram Yes 35(58) 44(73.3) 43(71.7) 28(46.7) 21(35) 171(57) No 25(42) 16(26.7) 17(28.3) 32(53.3) 39(65) 129(43) Source of breeding ram Born in the flock 28(80) 34(77.27) 39(90.67) 23(82.14) 18(85.71) 142(83.04) Purchased from market 7(20) 10(22.72) 4(9.33) 3(10.71) 3(14.28) 27(15.78) Gift from relatives (7.14) - 2(1.17) Purpose of keeping breeding ram Mating 26(74.28) 34(77.27) 39(90.69) 23(82.14) 18(85.71) 140(81.87) Social culture 9(25.71) 10(22.73) 4(9.30) 3(10.71) 3(14.28) 29(16.95) For fattening (7.14) - 2(1.17) If didn t have ram, how do you mate Neighbor ram 13(52) 8(50) 5(29.41) 20(62.5) 18(46.15) 64(49.61) Communal grazing 12(48) 8(50) 8(47.05) 8(25) 18(46.15) 54(41.86) Unknown - - 4(23.53) 4(12.5) 3(7.69) 11(8.5) Do you practice selection of (M) Yes 43(71.67) 31(51.67) 29(48.33) 52(86.67) 56(93.33) 211(70.33) No 17(28.33) 29(48.33) 31(51.67) 8(13.33) 4(6.67) 89(29.67) Do you practice selection of (F) Yes 57(95) 52(86.67) 53(88.33) 53(88.33) 44(73.33) 259(86.33) No 3(5) 8(13.33) 7(11.67) 7(11.67) 16(26.67) 41(13.67) Identification mechanisms color of sheep 31(51.67) - 24(40) 25(41.67) 3(5) 83(27.67) Individual characteristics 6(10) 60(100) - 4(6.67) 2(3.33) 72(24) Unique marks on the sheep 16(26.67) (33.33) 36(12) By observation 7(11.67) - 25(41.67) 31(51.67) 35(58.33) 98(32.67) by counting (18.33) (18.33) M= male; F= female Effective Population Size and Rate of Inbreeding In this study the small number of breeding ram per household is believed to increase the level of inbreeding (Table 14). Homogeneous sheep breed can be the result of the effect of inbreeding where increased level of inbreeding and decreased genetic diversity may be the result of the utilization of breeding ram/s born with in the flock, small flock s size, random mating and lack of awareness about inbreeding. In this study the small number of breeding ram per household is believed to increase the level of inbreeding. The effective population size (Ne) and the rate of inbreeding coefficient ( F) calculated for sheep types in the study area are presented in Table 15. When sheep flock of a household were not mixed, F for sheep in Agarfa, Dinsho, Goba, Sawena and D/K were 0.26, 0.07, 0.08, 0.44 and 0.27, respectively. The value was higher than the maximum acceptable level of (Armstrong, 2006). Report showed lower F of for Menz and 0.2 for Afar sheep than the result for Agarfa, Sawena and D/K (Tesfaye, 2008). Table 14. Effectivepopulation sizeandrate ofinbreeding of sheep flock in the study area. When flocks are not mixed Nm Nf Ne F Agrfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/K Mean Nm= number of male; Nf = number of female; Ne= effective population size; F=rate of inbreeding Major Breeding Problems Major breeding problems of the study area are presented in (Table 15). In the study area, breeding problems are frequently observed. Across all the district abortion is the main breeding constraints followed by lamb mortality in Agarfa, Dinsho and Goba district with index values of 0.23,

11 136 Belete Asefa et al.: Assessment of Indigenous Sheep Production Systems in Bale Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia 0.24 and 0.16, respectively and repeat breeding is the second rank in sawena and Dawekechan district with index value of 0.22 and 0.20, respectively. The main reason of abortion of sheep in the study area was related with the disease and feed related factors. Lamb mortality was related with feed shortage and frequent occurrence of disease. Table 15. Effectivepopulation sizeandrate ofinbreeding of sheep flock in the study area. When flocks are not mixed Nm Nf Ne F Agrfa Dinsho Goba Sawena D/K Mean Nm= number of male; Nf = number of female; Ne= effective population size; F=rate of inbreeding Major Constraints of Sheep Production Identifying the constraints of sheep production is a base to solve the problem and to improve sheep genetic resource and sheep productivity. Thus, major constraints challenging sheep production in the study area are presented in (Table 16). Disease prevalence, feed shortage and lack of good genotype were considered as the most important constraints limiting sheep production in the study area with index value of 0.28, 0.19 and 0.18, respectively (Table 16). This is agreement with the finding of where feed shortage and disease are the most constraints of sheep production in Ethiopia Amelaml et al., 2015; Helen et al., 2015). Table 16. Major Constraints of sheep Production. Agarfa Dinsh Goba Sawena D/K Overll Criteria I I I I I I Genotype Feed shortage Water shortage Disease Drought Market Predator I = Index; Index = sum of (3X constraint ranked first+2x constraint ranked second+1x constraint ranked third) given for each districts divided by sum of (3 X constraint ranked first +2 X constraint ranked second+1x constraint ranked third) for all district. 4. Conclusion Planning of any breeding program including community based breeding strategy and /or breed improvement scheme needs the identification of genotypic and phenotypic traits of the particular sheep breed and also to know the genetic ability of that breed and the production environment that can influence productivity of the animal. The study was conducted in Bale zone oromia regional state of Ethiopia. Even though the study areas are rich in livestock resources including small ruminants, nothing has been done to characterize, identify and document the existing indigenous sheep types and its production system. One of the main conclusions to be drawn from this study is that the sheep plays a significant role for farmers and pastoralist in the study area as income generation, meat and insurance throughout the years. But, livestock production system in the study area in general and sheep production in particular was more of extensive production system which constrained by disease occurrence, feed shortage, water problems, poor of veterinary service and less focus on breed and breeding system to improve productivity of sheep. The results further reveal that though dealing with animals from different districts, the farmers have relatively similar production and breeding objectives. Therefore, this finding was put baseline for understanding about production and breeding practices of sheep as first step in designing a sustainable breeding programme in the study area. Acknowledgements Authors would like to thank MaddaWalabu University for allowing and funding budget to undertake the research activities. Special appreciation and thanks goes to the farmers/pastoralists of Agarfa, Dinsho, Goba, Sawena and Dawekechan districts of Bale zone for their time devotion and providing necessary data. References [1] Amelaml Alemayehu, Yoseph Mekasha, Solomon Abegaz and Adisu Jimma (2015). Description of Sheep Production System, Husbandry Practices and Assessment of Major Constraint in Dawuro Zone and Konta Special Wereda of South Region of Ethiopia. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research: Agriculture and Veterinary 15 (6). [2] Armstrong, J. B., Inbreeding: Why we will not do it? Accessed on September 15, 2008 from [3] Belete Asefa, On Farm Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Goat Types and Their Production System In Bale Zone Of Oromia Region, Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Haramaya University Pp 116. [4] Central Statistics Authority (CSA) (2010). Agricultural sample survey, 2009/10 (2002 E. C). Volume II, report on livestock and livestock characteristics. Statistical bulletin, 331, March 2010, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. [5] Dawit Abate, Teklu Wegi, SisayBelete, Sultan Usman, and W. Jane (2012). Characterization of the farming and livestock production systems and potentials of feed based interventions for improving livestock productivity in sinana district, Bale highland, Ethiopia. FEAST (feed assessment tools) report (unpublished). [6] Fekerte Firew, On-farm characterization of Black head Somali sheep breed and its production system in Shinile and Erer districts of Shinile zone. An M.Sc Thesis presented to the school of Graduate Studies of Hramaya University of Agriculture, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia.

12 American Journal of Agricultural Science 2017; 4(6): [7] Helen Nigussie, Yoseph Mekasha, Solomon Abegaz, Kefelegn Kebede, Sanjoy Kumar Pale, Indigenous Sheep Production System in Eastern Ethiopia: Implications for Genetic Improvement And Sustainable Use. American Scientific Research Journal For Engineering, Technology, And Sciences (Asrjets) Vol. 11, No 1. [8] Jaitner, J., Sowe, J., Secka-Njie, E., Dempfle, L (2001). Ownership pattern and management practices of small ruminants in The Gambia implications for a breeding programme. Small Ruminant Research vol. 40 [9] Kosgey, I. S., and A. M. Okeyo (2007). Genetic improvement of small ruminants in low-input, smallholder production systems: Technical and infrastructural issues. Small Rumin. Res. vol. 70. [10] Markos, T Productivity and health of indigenous sheep breeds and crossbreds in the central Ethiopia highlands. PhD dissertation. Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Science (SLU), Uppsala, Sweden. 74 pp. [11] Mulata Hayelom, Management Practice and Constraints of Sheep Production in Southern, South Eastern and Eastern Zones of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. World Journal of Animal Science Research. 1 (1). [12] Niftalem Dibissa, On-farm study of reproductive and growth performance of the Menz sheep in DebreBerhan- Ethiopia. An M.Sc. Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University of Agriculture, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia. 93p. [13] Solomon Abegaz, In situ characterization of Gumuz sheep under farmers management in north western lowland of Amhara region. An M.Sc Thesis presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia. 32p. [14] Solomon Gizaw, Sisay Lemma, H. Komen and J. A, M. van Arendonk, Estimates of genetic parameters and genetic trends for live weight and fleece traits in Menzsheep. Small Rumin. Res. Vol. 70. [15] Statistical Analysis System (SAS 2003). SAS for windows, Release 9.1. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA. [16] Tabbaa, M. J., R. Al-Atiyat (2009). Breeding objectives, selection crite-ria and factors influencing them for goat breeds injordan. Small Ruminant Research vol. 84. [17] Tesfaye Get chew, Characterization of Menz and Afar indigenous sheep breeds of smallholders for designing community-based breeding strategies in Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis. Haramya University pp. [18] Tesfaye G, Haile A, Tibbo M, Sharma A K, Sölkner J and Wurzinger M, (2010). Herd management and breeding practices of sheep owners in a mixed crop-livestock and a pastoral system of Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 5, No. 8. [19] Workneh Ayalew and J. Rowlands (2004). Design, execution and analysis of the livestock breed survey in Oromiya Regional State, Ethiopia. OADB (Oromiya Agricultural Development Bureau), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. [20] Workneh Ayalew, Ephrem Getahun, Markos Tibbo, Yetnayet Mammoand J. E. O. Rege Current State of Knowledge on Characterisation of Farm Animal Genetic Resources in Ethiopia. Proceedings of the 11th Annual conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production, Pp: [21] Wossenie Shibabaw, On-Farm Phenotypic Characterization of Hararghe Highland Sheep and their Production Practices in Eastern Hararghe Zone, Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Haramaya University. Pp 140 [22] Zelealem Tesfaye Gebretsadik, aanal, A. K. & Gebregzabiher Gebreyohanis (2012). Assessment of the sheep production system of northern Ethiopia in relation to sustainable productivity and sheep meat quality. International journal of advanced biological research. vol. 2, No. 2. [23] Zewdu Edea., Characterization of Bonga and Horro indigenous sheep breeds of smallholders for designing community-based breeding strategies in Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis. Haramya University. 124pp.