International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964
Vol 6 (7) Jul’16
Characterization of Goat Production System in Shifting and Permanent
Farming Systems in Western Ethiopia
Yilma Tadesse1, Alemayehu Abebe2, Shibeshi Zerihun2, Tesfaye Debelu2, Workneh Tezera2
1
Eng. Abdullah Baqshan for Bee Research, Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Food Science and
Agriculture, King Saud University, KSA, Riyadh. P.O. Box 1460, RIYADH 11451
2
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Assosa Agricultural Research Center P.O. Box 265 Assosa,
ETHIOPIA
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Rec. Date:
Jun 21, 2016 04:41
Accept Date:
Jul 18, 2016 22:59
Published Online:
July 20, 2016
DOI
10.5455/ijlr.20160718105920
Abstract
This study was conducted in two zones and one special district in Western part Ethiopia to assess the
production system, economic importance of goats, identify the major constraints and to suggest
appropriate interventions of goat production in the region. Seven districts representing permanent
farming system (PFS) and shifting farming system (SFS) were selected for the present study. Households
(HHs) rearing goats and who are accessible were purposely selected (102 HHs from each farming system
(FS)). Data was collected using exploratory study, cross-sectional survey, focus group discussions,
structured questionnaire, key informant interviews and review of secondary sources. Data was analyzed
using JMP-5 and SPSS software and reported using descriptive and inferential statistics. Results revealed
that goat keepers in PFS were better educated than in SFS. There was no significant variation in family
size and land size among HHs in the FSs. In both FSs, goats were primarily kept for income and home
consumption. The major feed resources included indigenous browses, open grasslands, hillsides, swampy
areas and aftermaths. Thatched houses with slatted floors were commonly used goat shelters in the FSs.
Goats on average produce 0.5lts of milk per day during early lactation. In SFS goats attain weaning age
later than goats reared in PFS, but relatively longer kidding interval was reported in PFS. Peste des
petits Ruminants, Contagious Caprine Pluero Pneumonia, Foot and Mouth Disease, internal and external
parasites and abortion were the major health problems in both FSs and shortage of grazing land in PFS
in particular. It was generally observed that, both the production and reproductive performances of
goats in the study areas were low which in turn affect their contribution to household wellbeing.
Therefore, interventions aiming at improving goat husbandry practices should be in place to exploit their
potential contribution to goat raisers.
Production System in Shifting and Permanent Farming Systems in Western Ethiopia. International
Journal of Livestock Research, 6 (7), 24-37.doi:10.5455/ijlr.20160718105920
[email protected]
DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20160718105920
Page
How to cite: Tadesse, Y., Abebe, A., Zerihun, S., Debelu, T. & Tezera, W. (0) Characterization of Goat
24
Key words: Economic Importance, Goat Management, Performance, Western Ethiopia
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964
Vol 6 (7) Jul’16
Introduction
Goat production is part of the traditional farming systems in Beneshangul Gumuz Regional State (BGRS),
Western end of Ethiopia. Shifting farming system (SFS) and permanent farming systems (PFS) are the
two major farming systems practiced among native and settler farming communities, respectively in the
region (AsARC, 2006a). These communities have their own long developed farming practices, livestock
keeping, and natural resource management. The two groups of communities (natives and settlers) also
differ in socio-economic characteristics like land holding and the use of farm (AsARC, 2006b). Each
farming system (FS) has different cropping patterns, land use management and production potentials, and
consequently feed resources availability. Five goat types (Gumuz, Arab, Agaw, Oromo and Felata) were
reported to exist in the region (Getinet, 2005). The number of goats owned per household ranges from 199 heads (CSA, 2008). Grazing is the main source of feed. The majority of livestock herders depend on
green fodder/grazing (86.9%), crop residues (9.5%), improved feed (0.4%), hay (1.5%), by-products
(0.5%), and others (1.3%) as feed resources for their animals (CSA, 2008). Critical feed shortage occurs
during December to April when the communities practice burning of grasses and bushes to avoid ticks
and other parasites (AsARC, 2006a).Although some characterization works have conducted on goats in
the region (AsARC, 2006a; AsARC, 2006b), studies on the goat production systems and associated
constraints have been generally limited.
Understanding the economic importance, phenotypes, constraints, potentials, in particular and the
production system of goats in general are crucial for the overall improvement of the goat production and
enhancing its contribution to household livelihoods and also to the national economy. This entails
baseline studies prior to initiating improvement interventions. Therefore, the objectives of this study were
to assess the production system and economic importance of goats, identify the major constraints, and to
suggest appropriate interventions for future improvements of goats in the region.
Materials and Methods
Study Areas
The study was carried out in seven districts (Sherkole, Assosa, Bambasi, Mao-komo, Kamashi,
Agalometi, and Yaso) of two Zones (Assosa and Kamash) and one special Wereda (Mao-komo) of
Benishangul Gumuz Regional State, located about 660 km away from Addis Ababa in the Western end of
Ethiopia. It is located between geographical coordinates: 9o 30'N to 11o 39'N latitude and 34o 20'E to
Meteorological Station, 2008). Goat production is the integral part of traditional farming systems. The
farming system of the area encompasses both shifting and permanent farming systems which are practiced
[email protected]
DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20160718105920
Page
annual rainfall ranging from 700 – 1450mm and temperature ranging from 21 – 35oC (Assosa
25
36o30'E longitude with altitude ranging from 1272 – 1573 masl (AsARC, 2006). The area has mean
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964
Vol 6 (7) Jul’16
by native and settler farming communities, respectively. The differences in the farming systems and
practices characteristics are expected to result in differences in goat production and utilization systems.
Data Collection Techniques
Data was collected by field survey conducted during February to May, 2012. Exploratory study, crosssectional survey, focus group discussions, structured questionnaire, key informant interviews and review
on secondary sources were some of the techniques used for data collection.
Exploratory study was conducted to have an overview of the study components and to pre-test the
designed questionnaire. A cross-sectional survey was undertaken to gather adequate data on the major
constraints, the goat production system in general, the economic importance of goats, and on the
perceived developmental interventions for future improvement of goat husbandry in the region. The
survey involved 102 households purposely selected from each farming system (SFS and PFS), hence a
total sample of 204 households. Selection of the households was made with the help of respective
development agents and local informants based on engagement of the households in goat production as
one of their livelihood activity and accessibility. The minimum criteria used for selecting a HH was
owning a flock of at least one breeding female and a minimum of one year experience in goat production.
Households, who were assumed to have equal chance to be incorporated in to the sample, were randomly
selected. Pre-tested structured and semi-structured questionnaires were used for collecting primary data
on different aspects of goat production and utilization in the study areas. Researchers, technical assistants,
DAs and other trained enumerators were involved in the questionnaire survey. Some of the important
variables collected in the survey include: Socio-economic settings, production objectives, farming
characteristics, management aspects (composition of the flock mix, watering issues, feeding systems,
housing of flock, health issues), and production and reproductive performances of goats. Besides, some
aspects of marketing and constrains of goat production were assessed.
Additional information regarding the general goat production system, their economic importance, major
constraints and the appropriate interventions perceived for the future improvement of goat husbandry in
the region were also gathered through focus group discussions. Seven group discussions, one per each
Wereda, comprising eight to ten members with the involvement of key informants and other pertinent
bodies, were undertaken. The key informants were community elders, wereda agricultural office experts,
DAs and Non-governmental organizations operating in the study areas. Secondary information were
Page
agricultural offices, metrological stations, and Districts’ Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Offices.
26
collected by reviewing documented sources and communications with the regional, zonal and district
[email protected]
DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20160718105920
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964
Vol 6 (7) Jul’16
Data Analysis
Data was analysed using SAS (SAS, 2002: version 5), SPSS and descriptive statistics based on the type
and nature of the data. Mean differences for the various quantitative variables were tested using TukeyKramer HSD tests while relationships of qualitative or nominal variables were seen by correspondence
analysis.
Results and Discussion
Socio-Economic Characteristics
The major social characteristics of the responding households are shown in Table 1. The mean age of the
respondents was 37.1 ± 12.9 in the SFS and 39.9 ± 10.5 in the PFS. Indigenous farming communities
dominate (P < 0.05) in SFS and settlers in the PFS. While indigenous farming communities were also
found to practice PFS besides SFS, the settlers were practicing only SFS.
Table 1: Social Settings of the Responding Households in SFS and PFS
SFS
N (%)
PFS
N (%)
DF
Test
X2-value
P-value
100 (96.15)
4 (3.85)
34 (34.00)
66 (66.00)
1
87.38
0.000
 Christian
64(61.54)
60 (60.00)
 Muslims
Ethnic Composition
40 (38.46)
40 (40.00)
1
0.05
0.822
32 (30.77)
62 (59.62)
4 ((3.85)
2 (1.92)
2 (1.92)
2 (1.92)
16 (16.00)
14 (14.00)
4 (4.00)
0 (0.00)
46 (46.00)
20 (20.00)
5
92.67
0.000
General Characteristics
Farming Communities
 Indigenous
 Settlers
Religion






Berta
Gumuz
Mao
Komo
Amhara
Oromo
Source: The Current Study
This may indicate that indigenous farming communities have been adopting the permanent farming
tradition from settlers, who have been practicing it in the Northern part of the country before their
migration to the current study area in the 1979/80 and 1985/86 GC resettlement programs implemented
Berta ethnic groups, while PFS was mainly practiced by the Amhara ethnic groups. The study also
revealed that PFS was practiced by almost all ethnic groups in the study areas with varying extents, which
[email protected]
DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20160718105920
Page
Correspondence analysis showed that SFS was dominantly (P<0.05) practiced by Gumuz followed by
27
by the Derg regime.
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964
Vol 6 (7) Jul’16
could imply that SFS is being evolving into PFS. The constitution of ethnicity in the present study was in
agreement to CSA (2003), report of the regional ethnic composition. Both, Christian and Muslim goat
herders practice both FSs, which could imply similar goat consumption patterns, which mostly follows
religious events. The average land holding of the respondents was 2.3 ± 1.97ha in SFS and 2.0 ± 1.45ha in
PFS. This result was similar to the figure (2.3 ± 0.09ha) reported in Alaba, southern Ethiopia (Tsedeke,
2007). Similarly, studies by Yilma (2012) indicated average landholding of 1.9±0.16ha per household in
PFS, but higher figure (2.9 ± 0.16ha per household) in the SFS. Education levels of surveyed households
in the two FSs are presented in Fig. 1. Correspondence analysis indicated illiteracy to be higher (P<0.05)
in SFS as lower proportion of households reported to attend basic education as compared to households in
the PFS. This might be due to better access to schools by the communities in the PFS than those in SFS in
which the communities were settled over scattered areas with poor access to basic infrastructures
including schools.
Fig 1: Educational Levels of the Responding Households in SFS and PFS
Better literacy levels mean better livestock management practices as literacy enables societies to be aware
of efficient utilization of natural resources and adopt improved technologies. The average family size of
the two farming systems (6.9±3.88 in SFS and 6.7±2.67 in PFS) is found to be approximately equal.
However, key informants argue that, during dry season the shortage of labor was pronounced in PFS.
important factor that determines household’s decision in the extent of exploitations of sheep and goat
(Zelalem, 2007).
[email protected]
DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20160718105920
Page
more time at school. This might reduce the motivation of farmers to raise goats, as family size is a very
28
According to them, the scarcity occurs when children, who are more involved in goat management, spend
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964
Vol 6 (7) Jul’16
Goat Production Objectives
The major purposes of keeping goats in the study areas as ranked by the responding households were
shown in Table 2. Both farming communities keep goats primarily for income followed by home
consumption and manure production. In agreement to this, Budisatria (2006) in Central Java-Indonesia,
Seare (2007) in Tigray region of Northern Ethiopia, and USAID (2006) in Iraq explained that the majority
of smallholders keep sheep and goat primarily for income source.
Table 2: Major Purposes of Keeping Goats As Ranked By the Respondents in SFS and PFS
Production Objectives
SFS
PFS
N (index)
Rank
N (index)
Rank
Income source
100(0.43)
1
98(0.43)
1
Home consumption
94(0.37)
2
90(0.30)
2
Manure supply
56(0.09)
3
44(0.08)
3
Religious value
2(0.00)
6
16(0.04)
4
Live animal saving
20(0.04)
4
16(0.04)
6
Response to environment
20 (0.03)
5
24 (0.05)
5
Source: The Current Study
Index = Rn*C1+Rn-1*C2…. +R1*Cn / ∑ Rn*C1+Rn-1*C2…. +R1*Cn; Where, Rn = Value given for the least ranked
level (example if the least rank is 5th, then Rn = 5, Rn-1 = 4, R1 = 1); Cn = Counts of the least ranked level (in the
above example, the count of the 5th rank = Cn, and the count of the 1st rank = C1)
Keeping goats as live animal saving in SFS and for religious purpose in PFS were also reported to be the
other important purposes of goat production in the areas.
Management of Goats
The communities in both FSs practice crop and livestock production as their livelihood activities (Table
3). Crop production was the main agricultural activity followed by livestock production as an integral part
of the farming system. Goat production was the important component of the livestock sector as a second
source of income for the communities in both FSs. Off-farm activities like mining was also the important
Page
29
source of income for the farming communities in both the FSs.
[email protected]
DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20160718105920
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964
Vol 6 (7) Jul’16
Table 3: Farming Activities and Major Sources of Household Income in SFS and PFS
SFS
N (%)
PFS
N (%)
DF
Test
X - value
P-value
13 (12.75)
59 (57.84)
30 (29.41)
6 (5.88)
56 (54.90)
40 (39.22)
2
0.13
0.1297
60 (58.82)
16 (15.69)
26 (25.49)
84 (82.35)
14 (13.73)
2 (1.96)
2
26.71
0.001
78(76.47)
87(85.29)
2
5.76
0.056
84(82.35)
98(96.08)
2
10.63
0.005
Farming Activities
General Farming Activity
 Livestock production
 Crop production
 Both crop and livestock
First Source of Income
 Crop production
 Livestock production
 Off-farm activities
Second Source of Income

Livestock production
2
Third Source of Income

Non farming activities
Source: The Current Study
The Goat Flock Structure
Relative proportions of the different goat flocks owned per household were more or less similar in both
the FSs as shown in Fig. 2. Nevertheless, the breeding flocks (Does and bucks) constituted relatively
higher proportions of flocks in the SFS than PFS. This could indicate that goat keepers in SFS might have
more interest to keep large flock size. This may in turn be attributed to the availability of abundant feed
resources (bush and shrubs, the feeds most preferred by goats) in the SFS. Similarly, a line of
investigation in Tigray region of Ethiopia, Yayneshet et al (2008) found that goats preferred feed
resources obtained from bushes and shrubs.
Feeding, Watering and Housing of Goats
Grazing on open grasslands, hillsides, swampy areas, aftermath grazing and indigenous grasses and
browses were the main feed resources used for feeding goats in both farming systems. However, there
were variations in availabilities and utilization of the different feed resources across the different seasons
and farming systems. The overall feed availability in the study areas vary according to seasonal
distribution of rainfall. In general, although they differ in their species and canopy coverage which in turn
depends on the amount of moisture in the soil and sunlight, natural pastures are the most important feed
communal feed resources in the PFS whereas indigenous bushes/shrubs dominated rangelands in SFS
30
(Table 4). In the PFS, most communal rangelands were deforested for fuel wood and changed to open
Page
resources for goats (Ibrahim, 1998; Werkneh and Rawlands, 2004). Open grasslands dominate the
[email protected]
DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20160718105920
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964
Vol 6 (7) Jul’16
grasslands, while there were better coverage of indigenous bushes and shrubs in the SFS. Alganesh et al
(2004) reported similar feeding system, where grazing on communally owned natural pasture is the most
common practice for all species of animals in a district closer to the present study areas.
Fig 1: Flock Structure (%) of Goat Owned By the Responding Households in SFS and PFS
Table 4: Types of Communal Grazing/Browsing Lands Used As Sources of Feed for Goats According to
the Respondents in SFS and PFS
SFS
PFS
Grassland Types
N(index)
Rank
N(index)
Rank
Open grasslands
74(0.28)
2
99(0.41)
1
Tree covered
76(0.25)
3
75(0.08)
2
Fenced
3(0.01)
5
21(0.09)
5
Bush/shrub covered
91(0.34)
1
57(0.08)
3
Swampy
61(0.12)
4
46(0.16)
4
Source: The Current Study
Index = Rn*C1+Rn-1*C2…. +R1*Cn / ∑ Rn*C1+Rn-1*C2…. +R1*Cn; Where, Rn = Value given for the least ranked
level (example if the least rank is 5th, then Rn = 5, Rn-1 = 4, R1 = 1); Cn = Counts of the least ranked level (in the
above example, the count of the 5th rank = Cn, and the count of the 1st rank = C1)
In both FSs, rivers were the major sources of water. Secondary water sources including spring, pipe
water, dams/ponds, and borehole/well also substantially contribute to the water supply in the areas.
Similar studies in the Oromia National Regional State indicated that during both wet and dry seasons,
rivers are the most important sources of water followed by spring, rain and dam for goats (Werkneh and
Rowlands, 2004). Watering points were evenly distributed across the grazing and browsing areas in both
the FSs and there was no marked problem with respect to access to water by goats and other livestock
adulterate rivers and secondary water sources. In agreement to this, Werkneh and Rowlands (2004)
31
reported, during the rainy season, most of the households fetch muddy water, while during the dry season,
Page
species. The quality of water generally decreases during the wet season as eroded earthen materials
[email protected]
DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20160718105920
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964
Vol 6 (7) Jul’16
85% of the households have had access to good quality water for their small ruminants in Oromia
National Regional State of Ethiopia.
Typical housing types for small ruminants in SFS and PFS are shown in Figure 3. Slatted roof and
elevated floor houses observed in the SFS were loose types which allow easy collection of manures.
Moreover, as the floors were elevated 2 meter above the ground, the predators could not easily attack the
animals.
Fig 3: Typical Houses of Goats in SFS (left) and PFS (right)
These houses were similar with goat houses reported by Wathes and Charles (1994) as most convenient
and economic from the point of view of human management. The houses could also be best adapted to
extended rainfall, which could result in muddy house conditions. No matter what type of housing
provided, it should be planned and constructed in such a way that animals should be protected from
adverse weather, predators and parasite infestations to improve the productivity and contribution of goats
to livelihoods of the communities. Similarly, Wathes and Charles (1994) reported that the basic
necessities of houses are to provide shelter, plenty of fresh air and protection from rain, humidity and
predators.
Common Diseases and Parasites
Table 5 indicates the most common goat diseases, parasites, and abnormalities according to the sample
respndents in the two farming systems. Resuts implied similar diseases, parasites and abnormalities affect
Page
32
the health condition of goat flocks in both FSs.
[email protected]
DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20160718105920
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964
Vol 6 (7) Jul’16
Table 5: Common Diseases, Parasites and Abnormalities Affecting Goats in the Study Areas
Diseases, Parasites and Abnormalities
Season of Higher Prevalence
Peste des petits Ruminants (PPR)
Dry season
Contagious Caprine Pluero Pneumonia (CCPP)
Jan - Jun
Foot and mouth disease (FMD)
Rainy season
Trypanosomiasis
Rainy season
Internal parasites
Rainy season
External parasites
Rainy and dry season
Abortion
Throughout the year
These diseases could be considered as major menace to goat production in both FSs. The majority of
these diseases were also reported by Alganesh et al (2004) in the nearby areas. The most common
external parasites were tick, mites, tsetse flies, and mange in that order of importance. Besides, foot rot
causing bacterias (Dichelobacter nodosus and Fusobacterium necrophorum) were still most important
challenges of the health conditions of goats in the FSs. As reported by Roger (2008), the presences of
these parasites and associated setbacks have an impact on an animal’s welfare and predispose the animal
to various health problems. Most of the sample hoseholds in the PFS reported to access animal health
centers within 1 to 5 km radius from their home due to better infrastructural development. On the other
hand, the communities in the SFS had to travel longer distances to access the veterinary services. In both
FSs, vetrinary services were almost completely delivered by government with some involvement by
paravets and private sectors. In both FSs, there were shortages of medicines and practitioners in the
vetrinary centers. The Regional Animal Health Center has been working on disease diagnosis. Roger
(2008) reported that diagnosis of disease does not alleviate welfare problems. Vaccination against
diseases and periodic de-worming are necessary to ensure health status of goats (Gopalakrishnan and Lal,
1985). However, in this study it was understood that there was no regular vaccination programs, but
vaccinations were reported to be given in case of outbrake of diseases in both the FSs.
Constraints of Goat Production
The constraints of goat production as ranked by the sample households in the study areas were presented
in Table 6. In SFS, health, poor genetic make-up, inadequate veterinary services, shortage of
supplementary feeds and abortion in that order were reported to be the top five problems constraining
production in the SFS. Similarly, health, shortage of grazing/browsing land, inadequate veterinary
33
services, shortage of supplementary feeds, and shortage of labour were reported to be the top five priority
Page
goat production in SFS. Health related constraints were generally the major bottlenecks of livestock
[email protected]
DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20160718105920
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964
Vol 6 (7) Jul’16
problems of goat production in the PFS. Unlike in SFS, shortage of grazing lands was second most
important constraint in PFS; which could be attributed to the encroachment by arable lands. This was in
agreement with Budisatria (2006), who stated that constraints to sheep and goat production relate to the
availability of feed resources and the limited access to grazing areas due to competition between crops
and livestock and between small and large ruminants.
Table 6: Goats Production Constraints As Ranked By Households in SFS and PFS
Problems/Constraints
Grazing land
Health
Labor
Predator
Water
Supplementary feed
Market
Breed resistance to disease
Housing
Drought
Veterinary service
Extension service
Abortion
Theft
SFS
N(index)
4(0.01)
103(0.33)
15(0.02)
22(0.04)
19(0.03)
57(0.10)
33(0.07)
630.12)
1(0.00)
11(0.02)
58(0.10)
44(0.07)
48(0.08)
2(0.00)
PFS
Rank
13
1
10
8
9
4
6
2
14
11
3
7
5
13
N(index)
54(0.15)
108(0.31)
39(0.08)
28(0.04)
6(0.01)
56(0.09)
8(0.01)
17(0.04)
7(0.01)
1(0.00)
50(0.11)
45(0.07)
52(0.07)
8(0.02)
Rank
2
1
5
8
12
4
11
9
13
14
3
6
7
10
Source: The Current Study
Index = Rn*C1+Rn-1*C2…. +R1*Cn / ∑ Rn*C1+Rn-1*C2…. +R1*Cn; Where, Rn = Value given for the least ranked
level (example if the least rank is 5th, then Rn = 5, Rn-1 = 4, R1 = 1); Cn = Counts of the least ranked level (in the
above example, the count of the 5th rank = Cn, and the count of the 1st rank = C1)
The constraints in both FSs have similar nature with the observations by Siedahmed (1986), Ibrahim
(1998), and Lebbie et al (1993), who indicated health as the major problem constraining livestock
production.
Production and Reproductive Performances
Except in very few cases, the use of goats’ milk for human consumption was not common in the study
areas (in both the farming systems). Goats were reported to produce around 0.5 liters of milk per day
(EARO, 2000). Gopalakrishnan and Lal, (1985) reported that goats generally produce more milk than a
34
cow from the same quantity of nutrients indicating their better feed conversion and productive efficiency.
Page
during early lactation. This was in line with the reported average milk yield of less than 0.5kg/day/doe
[email protected]
DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20160718105920
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964
Vol 6 (7) Jul’16
Although goat milk is reported to be an important source of nutrition for the population in East Africa
(Ibrahim, 1998), this immense potential remains unexploited in the current study area. Table 7 presents
production and reproduction performances of goats as estimated by the sample households in the study
areas. The assessment showed that goats attain weaning age latter in the SFS than in PFS (P < 0.05),
while relatively extended (P<0.05) period between two successive births was reported in the PFS. All the
goat flocks including the kids were allowed to browse together with free kid-dam contact all the time.
This could be the main reason for the observed longer weaning age in the SFS. In the case of PFS, kids
were managed in isolation from their dams during certain periods of the day and goats were relatively
well monitored than the case in SFS.
Table 7: Some productive and reproductive performances of goats as estimated by the sample
respondents in SFS and PFS
SFS
PFS
P-Value
Variables
N (Mean ±SD)
N (Mean ±SD)
Weaning age (months)
102(5.2± 1.29)a
102(4.8±1.10)b
0.032
a
a
Puberty age (months)
102(7.9±1.65)
102(8.2±3.89)
0.440
a
a
First mating age (months)
102(9.7±2.28)
102(10.1±2.92)
0.337
a
b
Kidding interval (months)
102(6.0±2.54)
102(6.2±2.27)
0.684
Litter size/prolificacy
102(1.9±0.46)a
102(1.7±0.47)a
0.089
a
a
Mating after birth (days)
102(51.9±33.96)
102(52.2±39.32)
0.955
a
b
Slaughtering age (months)
102(9.4±3.73)
102(10.8±3.53)
0.008
a
b
Number of services/pregnancies
102(1.5±0.50)
102(1.3±0.46)
0.020
Castration age (months)
102(10.6±5.88)a
102(17.7±6.94)b
0.000
a
b
Marketable age (months)
102(9.8±2.81)
102(11.1±3.57)
0.006
Values with different superscript letters within a row are significantly (P<0.05) different
Source: The Current Study
Results of the current study revealed selection for renowned and capable bucks are relatively better in
PFS than in SFS, where free browsing is more common. As a result, the use of efficient and selected
buck for mating might be to the reason for the lower (P < 0.05) number of services per pregnancies
observed in PFS than in SFS. Moreover, the overall productive and reproductive performances of goats in
the present assessment were better in SFS than in PFS. This could be associated with the availability of
browsing species (bushes and shrubs) in SFS than in PFS as indicated in Table 4. In Oromia National
Regional State of Ethiopia, Werkneh and Rawlands (2004) reported similar castration ages (≥ 6 months).
better in SFS than in PFS implying the tendency of increased utilization of the sub-sector in the former
Page
FS.
35
Generally, environmental factors affecting reproductive performances of goats appear to be relatively
[email protected]
DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20160718105920
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964
Vol 6 (7) Jul’16
Conclusions
Goat raisers in the two farming systems (SFS and PFS) had significantly different farming communities,
ethnic compositions, and literacy levels while they have similar religious composition, landholding, and
family sizes. These settings were seen under the framework of existence of good socio-economic
opportunities for the development of the goat sector in the region. Nonetheless, overall production
objectives were not beyond subsistence. Production was mainly based on extensive management systems
coupled with various constrains like health problems and shortage of browsing land. But still, production
and reproduction performances in the two FSs lied under improvable circumstance through appropriate
strategies of goat husbandry practices.
Recommendations
In the effort of exploitation of the existing goat production opportunities in the region, augmentation of
the agricultural sector with appropriate agricultural technologies shall be in accordance to the existing
socio-economic settings. Besides, mechanisms of increasing the goat productivity of the area to enhance
commercialization and industrialization of the livestock sector need to looked in to. Furthermore,
participatory health extension focusing on strengthening veterinary services and interventions on
improved forage production and supplementation could at least shuffle the current goat production status
a step ahead. In line with this, designing cross breeding schemes and development of dairy goat
production system could boost the performances of goats in which the later can still be taken as an
adaptive strategy towards cattle trypanosomiasis infection, which is rampant in the region.
[email protected]
DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20160718105920
Page
1. Alganesh T., Mathewos B., and Gizaw K. 2004. Survey on Traditional Livestock Production Systems
in Manasibu District of West Wallaga, Ethiopia. Paper presented at the 11th annual conference of the
Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP) held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, August 28-30, 2003.
ESAP, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
2. AsARC (Assosa Agricultural Research Center). 2006a. Results of Farming System Survey in
Benshangul Gumuz Regional State. Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Assosa Agricultural
Research Center, Assosa, Ethiopia (unpublished).
3. AsARC (Assosa Agricultural Research Center). 2006b. Research Strategy Document. Ethiopian
Institute of Agricultural Research, Assosa Agricultural Research Center, Assosa, Ethiopia
(unpublished).
4. Assosa Meteorological Station. 2008. Climatic data. Benishangul Gumuz Regional State of Ethiopia,
Assosa Ethiopia.
5. Budisatria, I.G.S. 2006. Dynamics of sheep and goat development in Central Java-Indonesia. PhD
Thesis, Animal Production Systems Group. Wageningen University.
6. CSA (Central Statistical Authority). 2003. Sample enumeration 2001 -2002 (1994 E.C.), Results for
Benishangul Gumuz Region. Part I. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
7. CSA (Central Statistical Authority). 2008. Agricultural sample survey 2007 - 2008. Volume II. Report
on livestock and livestock characteristics (Private peasant holding). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
36
References
International Journal of Livestock Research eISSN : 2277-1964
Vol 6 (7) Jul’16
Page
37
8. EARO (Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization. 2000. National Sheep and goats Research
Strategy Document. EARO, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
9. Getinet A, Hedge B.P, Bekele T, Eniyew N, and Workineh A. 2005. Phenotypic Characterization of
Goat Types in Northwestern Ethiopia. Eth.J.Anim.Prod. 5(1)-2005:13-31.
10. Gopalakrishnan C. A. and Lal G.M.M. 1985. Livestock and poultry enterprises for rural development.
Pp 1096. Vikas publishing house pvt. Ltd.
11. Ibrahim H. 1998. Sheep and goat Production Techniques. ILRI Manual 3. ILRI (International
Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 207 pp.
12. Lebbie S. H. B., Rey B. and Irungu E. K. 1993. Sheep and goat Research and Development in Africa.
Proceedings of the Second Biennial Conference of the African Sheep and goat Research Network,
AICC, Arusha, Tanzania, 7-11 December 1992. ILCA (International Livestock Centre for
Africa)/CTA (Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Co-operation). ILCA, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia. 268 pp.
13. Roger P.A. 2008. The impact of disease and disease prevention on sheep welfare. Sheep and goat
Research 76 (2008) 104–111. Accessed in March, 2009 at: http://www.elsevier .com/locate/
smallrumres.
14. SAS Institute Inc. 2002. JMP-5 Statistical Software, Version 5. Cary, NC, USA.
15. Seare T.D. 2007. Study on physical characteristics, management practices, and performance of
Abergelle and Degua sheep breeds fed on urea treated wheat straw with cactus. MSc thesis, Mekelle
University, Ethiopia.
16. Sidahmed A. E. 1986. Increasing land utilization by sheep and goats in developing countries. FAO
animal production and health paper 58. Sheep and goat production in the developing countries.
Proceedings of an Expert Consultation held in Sofia, Bulgaria, 8–12 July 1985. Timon V. M. and
Hanrahan J. P. (eds). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy.
17. Tsedeke K.K. 2007. Production and marketing systems of sheep and goats in Alaba, Southern Ethipia.
MSc thesis, University of Hawassa. Hawasa, Ethiopia.
18. USAID (United States Agency for International Development). 2006. Sheep and goat animals in Iraq.
IZDIHAR (Iraq Private Sector Growth and Employment Generation). Iraq. 28 pp.
19. Wathes C. M. and Charles D. R. 1994. Livestock Housing. CABI publishing, Oxon, UK. 448 pp.
20. Workneh A. and Rowlands J. (eds). 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. 260 pp.
21. Yayneshet T., Eik L. O., and Moe S. R. 2008. Influences of fallow age and season on the foraging
behavior and diet selection pattern of goats (Capra hircus L.). Sheep and goat Research 77 (2008) 25–
37. Accessed in March, 2009, at: http://www.elsevier. com/locate/smallrumres.
22. Yilma T. 2012. Sheep and goats in mixed farming systems: production and utilisation in shifting and
permanent farming systems in Western Ethiopia. ISBN 978-3-659-15774-5. Pp 124. Lap lambert
academic publishing, German. Available on www.amazon.co.uk
23. Zelalem T. 2007. Adoption of sheep and goats’ fattening package in agropastoral areas, Meiso
Wereda, Eastern Oromia. MSc thesis, Haramaya University, Ethiopia.
[email protected]
DOI 10.5455/ijlr.20160718105920