Sheep and goat production and utilization in different agro-ecological zones in Tigray, Ethiopia

Assen Ebrahim and Aklilu Hailemichael

Department of Animal Science and Ecotourism, Aksum University, P.O.Box 1010, Aksum, Ethiopia
hassenwukro@yahoo.com

Abstract

This study was undertaken to develop baseline understanding of sheep and goat production and utilization in relation to highland (HL), midland (ML) and lowland (LL) agro-ecological zones (AEZ) in Tigray, Ethiopia. A cross-sectional random survey of 150 households (50 from each AEZ) was undertaken using structured and semi-structured questionnaire to obtain information on management practices, (re)productive performances, consumption and marketing of sheep and goats. A farm recording was conducted with a sub-sample of 30 households per AEZ to monitor sheep and goat flock dynamics at household level. In addition, market monitoring survey was carried out to elicit data on the number of sheep and goat supplied, sold, selling prices, reasons for selling and buying in different market events in the three AEZ's. Data were analyzed using ANOVA, Chi-squire, index ranking and Qualitative analysis. 

Average number of goats per household was significantly higher (P<0.05) in LL (8.66) than in HL (5.14) and ML (5.48). Average sheep holding per household was significantly higher (P<0.05) in HL (8.96) than in ML and LL (7.04). A larger portion of households used browse plants as sheep and goat feed in LL than in HL and ML. Sheep and goat mortality was more than two folds higher in LL than in HL and ML. For sheep, estimated average age at puberty (8.42 month), age at first parturition (13.16 month) and lambing interval (8.02 month) month were significantly lower (P<0.05) in the HL than in  LL. Goats in LL had significantly lower (P<0.05) average age at puberty(8.04 month) ,age at first parturition(14.02 month) and kidding interval(7.66) than in HL and ML.Significantly  higher (P<0.05)percentage of households in LL (44%) reported the consumption of goats milk compared to households in HL (4%) and ML (14%).Prices for sheep and goat were higher during festive periods (Idul Adha and Christmas) than during non-festive periods. Some constraints to and opportunities for sheep and goat development are agro-ecological context dependent and thus improvement interventions have to be designed and implemented accordingly to enhance the livelihood of smallholders.

Keywords: Consumption, management practices, marketing, production performance

Introduction

In Ethiopia, sheep and goats represent an important component of the farming system by providing about 12 % of the value of livestock products consumed and 48 % of the cash income generated at the farm level (Kassahun et al 1989). They contribute a quarter of the domestic meat consumption; about half of the domestic wool requirements; 40% of fresh skins and 92% of the value of semi-processed skin and hide export trade in Ethiopia. An estimated 1,078,000 sheep and 1,128,000 goats are used annually in Ethiopia for domestic consumption (Adane and Girma 2007). 

Sheep and goat are farmed in various agro-ecological contexts. Efforts geared towards improving sheep and goat production in Ethiopia have to be made through developing situation specific development interventions. The suitability of an area for either animal or crop production, and the type of animal or crop to be produced depends on the agro-ecological conditions of the area. The feasibility of cropping and the type of crops to be produced depend on climatic, edaphic and biotic factors (Adugna and Aster 2007). The extent of cropping and the type of crop, in turn, determine the quantity, quality and distribution of animal feed resources throughout the year. On the other hand, the feed resource base and disease challenge determine the animal production system of the area (Adugna and Aster 2007). Therefore, this implies  that the first consideration in planning and implementing any context specific sheep and goat development intervention, is to describe and understand the existing real constraints and performance levels of sheep and goats vis-à-vis agro-ecological zones (AEZ). This in turn enables to identify agro-ecological based development options. In this regard, little or no research has been done so far to identity the overall husbandry practices, (re)productive performance, utilization and marketing of sheep and goats in respect of AEZ in parts of Ethiopia like Tigray. This study was, therefore, initiated to generate baseline understanding of sheep and goat production in relation to different agro-ecologies as a basis for planning and implementing context specific interventions for future development of the sector. 

Materials and Methods

The study was carried out in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia, situated between latitudes 12°15’ N and 14°57’ N and longitudes 36°27’ E and 39°59’ E. The area was selected based on small ruminant population, the presence of varying agro-eco-zones; Dgua Tembien, Laelay Mychew and Mereb Lehe districts located in central Tigray zone were chosen as study areas representing Highlands (HL), Midlands (ML) and Lowlands (LL) AEZs, respectively. The classification of agro-ecologies in to HL, ML and LL was based on agro-ecological factors, mainly altitude and rainfall. According to the agro-ecological classification made by the Tigray Agriculture and Rural Development Bureau (2002), Highland, Midland and Lowland refer to areas having an altitude of 2300-3200 meter above sea level(M.S.L) and 600-800 mm annual rainfall (RF), 1500-2300 (M.S.L and >600 mm annual RF and 500-1500 (M.S.L and 400-600 mm annual RF, respectively. In the Ethiopian context, the level of infrastructure and socioeconomic characteristics is also different between AEZ, the low land being the one characterized as relatively remote, inaccessible and sparsely populated than the other ones.

Data collection

Cross-sectional survey 

A cross-sectional random survey was undertaken in order to collect data on sheep and goat management practices, (re)productive performances, utilization and market situations. Data were collected using structured and semi-structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was translated into Tigrigna (local language) and pre-tested before the actual data collection in order to evaluate the appropriateness of the design, clarity of the questions, and interpretation of the questions by the farmers and time required for an interview. Result from the pre-test was used to re-frame the final questions. The interviews were conducted by trained research assistants under close supervision by the researcher.  

A two stage sampling procedure was used to select households who participated in the cross-sectional survey. In the first stage, households who owned at least a breeding sheep and a breeding goat (target population) were identified and listed from each AEZ with the help of the three district livestock development agents. In the second stage, based on the information obtained, a total of 150 households were chosen using systematic random sampling technique (50 farmers from each agro-ecological zone) to participate in the cross-sectional survey.

Focus group discussions 

To cross check and complement the information collected using cross-sectional survey and to elicit data which were difficult to obtain using cross-sectional survey, three focus group discussions comprising five to eight participants were held with the respective districts livestock production experts, veterinarians, development agents and key informants. In addition, nine group discussions comprising 5 to 8 participants were held with producers/sellers and traders in the three market places of the three AEZ, using guidelines for discussion.

Farm recording 

Farm recording was used to monitor sheep and goat flock dynamics at household level. The farm monitoring records served to collect quantitative data on flock entries and exits such as the numbers of sheep and goat that entered the flock through birth, purchase, gift and share and left through death, sale, home slaughter, theft, predator, gift and sharing. Data were collected monthly from 90 households (30 from each AEZ). In collaboration with research assistants and farmers, 270 farm records were collected from October 2008 to February 2009. Data were collected using farm recording sheets developed in Tigrigna (local language) that were filled by the research assistants’ together with farmers. 

Market monitoring survey

Market monitoring survey was carried out to collect data on the number of sheep and goat supplied, sold, selling prices, reasons for selling and buying. Three major marketing places representing each AEZ, namely Hagere-selam from the highland, Axum from the midland and Rama from the lowland) were selected and monitored. Each market was visited in different market events (during normal/non-festivity, Christmas fasting period of Orthodox Christians, Idul Adha and Christmas) from October 2008 to January 2009. A total of 644 and 587 observations were made for sheep and goats, respectively, in the three market places of the three AEZ. Data were collected through interviews in the market when sellers and buyers come into agreement using market data collection sheet. 

Data analysis

Depending on the type of information collected, different analysis methods were applied using SPSS statistical package (16.0, 2007). A one-way analysis of variance was applied for a quantitative dependent variable by a single factor (independent) variable such as livestock holdings, mortality rate, flock dynamics, (re)productive performances. The difference between means was separated via Tukey HSD. Chi-square (χ²) test followed by correspondence analysis was used to determine differences in categorical variables, for example, type of feed used by households in different AEZ. Index method of ranking was employed for ranking households’ livestock species preference. 

Results and discussion

Management practices by agro-ecological zones

Livestock holding

Table 1 presents average number of different livestock species per household in HL, ML and LL agro-ecological zones. The average number of cattle per household was larger in LL than in HL and ML while this value was comparable between HL and ML.

Average number of sheep per household was higher in HL than in ML and LL. According to Solomon et al (2007), sheep are more dominant than goats in the HL and ML mixed crop-livestock production system. The average holding of sheep per household in HL (8.96), ML (6.9) and LL (7.04) is in line with CSA (2008) which indicated the presence of 18,194 households having 5-9 heads of sheep in central Tigray zone. Average goat flock size per household was significantly higher in LL than in the rest AEZ’s (Table 1). This is consistent with the findings of CSA (2008). The distribution of livestock species and the size of the herd/flock per household vary from one AEZ to another depending on the availability of feed resources, water, prevalence of diseases and parasites. Accordingly, due to the availability of shrubs and bushes for browsing, the LL is purely suitable for goat production; hence, average livestock holding of goat per household in LL is higher than in the HL and ML agro-ecological zones (Tessema et al 2003). In this study, camel keeping is practiced only in LL. 

Livestock species preference

Table 2 presents households’ preference ranking of livestock species in the different AEZ’s. Cattle ranked highest in all AEZ’s, while sheep in HL and ML, goats in LL are the second preferred species next to cattle. In the low input production system of HL, ML and LL sheep and goats were the second most important animals next to cattle (IBC 2004). In mixed farming system of the highlands and mid-altitudes of Ethiopia where crop production is important; cattle are the most important livestock species for cultivation, threshing, manure and milk production (Getachew et al 1993). In the lowlands where crop production is not reliable, goat production has experienced success (Tsegahun et al 2000). The abundance of browse plants could favor goat keeping in the lowland than in the HL and ML AEZS and this could be the major reason why goats ranked second next to cattle.

Major feed resources of sheep and goats

The major feed resources of sheep and goats are presented in Table 3. Overall, the most important feed resources of sheep and goats in the three surveyed AEZ were grazing on natural grazing lands (including road side grazing, river side grazing, hill side grazing, and grazing on the boarders of crop land), browse(more important for goat), crop aftermath, crop residues and weeds, respectively. Jemal (2008) identified similar feed resources for goats in Tanqua-abergelle district, north Ethiopia. More proportion of respondents in HL and ML reported utilizing crop-residues as a feed resource for sheep and goats than those who did so in LL. This could be because of the steady conversion of grazing lands into cropping lands, crop residues are getting more and more essential in HL and ML. Crop residues are particularly important during dry season when there is critical feed scarcity, otherwise farmers let sheep and goats to forage by themselves and crop residues are given in priority for cattle.

A large proportion of the interviewed flock owners in LL indicated the utilization of browsing plants (Acacia species, shrubs and Acacia species pods) for sheep and goats than respondents from HL and ML. This is probably due to the abundance of browse in the LL. Farmers in the LL use Acacia pod in two ways, dry and green. Fresh/green pods are fed mainly from September to November, and dry pods from December to June. The practice of using weeds (essentially during wet season) as sheep and goat feed was found more important in HL and ML than in LL. The utilization of agro-industrial by-products and improved forages were not common in all the surveyed AEZ. Farmers who had wells and irrigation cultivated and used improved forages (mainly Sesbania sesban, Leucaena leucocephala and Pennisetum purpureum). Agro-industrial by-products utilization is limited only to the towns where there is access for these feeds. 

Sheep and goats mortality rate

Average mortality rate in all stocks of both sheep and goat in the past 12 months was significantly higher in LL than HL and ML (Table 4). The result obtained through farm monitoring survey also revealed the presence of high mortality in LL than the other two agro-ecological zones (Table 5 and 6). The average mortality rate in all stocks of sheep (state the value) in the highland AEZ of the present study is lower than the average mortality rates in all stocks of sheep (16.84%) reported in the central highlands of Ethiopia (Abebe 1999). The average mortality rate in all stocks of goats obtained in the LL of the present study is close to the average mortality rates in all stocks of goats (26.7%) reported in Tanqua Abergelle districts of central Tigray zone, northern Ethiopia having similar agro-ecology with the LL in the present study (Jemal 2008).

Relatively high disease and parasite infestation of animals including sheep and goats is common in LL probably due to the presence of communal and fallow-grazing lands and movement of animals is also common from place to place in these areas (Tessema et al 2003). Besides the way sheep and goats are managed and very limited access for private and public veterinary services could result in higher mortality rates of both sheep and goats in LL. Focus group discussions indicated that the main reason for the loss of flock in the past 12 months was mainly disease followed by predators, accidents and drought (particularly in LL). Therefore, this result suggests the need to develop health interventions which can reduce mortality of sheep and goat in order to optimize their productivity. Sheep and goats flock dynamics.

The average flock entries and exits of sheep are given in Table 5. There was no significant difference for variables considered as sheep inflow (birth, purchase and gift) across the three AEZs. Average sheep outflow through death was significantly higher in LL than in HL and ML (Table 5).  

The high death in LL could be linked to lack of access to veterinary service compared to the HL and ML. This is because, in the Ethiopian context, the level of infrastructure is different between AEZs; the LL being the one characterized as relatively remote and inaccessible. Reducing the mortality rate (particularly in LL) by developing appropriate small ruminant health interventions could help to exploit the existing sheep and goat resources so as to bring a meaningful change in the life of smallholder farmers. There was no variation in the average outflow of sheep through sale, home slaughter and predators across the three AEZs (Table 5).

The average flock entries and exits of goat are given in Table 6. There was no significant difference in the average inflow of goat flock through purchase, share and gift.

Unlike sheep, the average addition of goat flock through birth was considerably higher in LL than in HL and ML. The lowland nature of the environment and abundance of browse plants could favor high average birth for goat in LL than in the other two AEZs. Significantly higher numbers of goats were removed through sale and death in LL than in HL and ML. Focus group discussions showed that LL was affected by drought in the year the study was conducted. This has forced farmers to sell goats to purchase food items that resulted in high sale of goats in LL than in the other two AEZs. In general, the result obtained through this farm recording reflected birth as the major route of both sheep and goat inflows in all the three AEZs. This highlights the importance of reproduction rates (birth) of sheep and goat owned by farm household for sheep and goat flock growth and maintenance (Asfaw and Jabbar 2008). The same report further noted that for sheep and goat, birth is more important than purchase from the market in building and maintaining the size of sheep and goat flocks. The present farm recording indicates that death and sale are the major exits of sheep and goat flock in AEZs.

Reproductive and productive performance of sheep and goats

Table 7 presents households’ estimates on the reproductive and productive performance of sheep and goat in HL, ML and LL. The estimated average age at puberty (AP), age at first parturition (AFP), lambing interval (LI) and kidding interval (KI) of sheep and goat varied significantly (P<0.05) across the three AEZs. Sheep reared in HL reached the age of puberty earlier (8.42 month) than in the LL (9.74). Similarly, sheep raised by households in HL took shorter time (13.16 month) to give their first birth (AFP) than in LL (14.84).

Lambing interval (LI) was longer for sheep reared in LL and comparable between HL and ML (Table 7). The average age at puberty (8.42) and age at first parturition (13.16) of sheep in HL of this study are in agreement with the findings of Workneh and Rowlands (2004). The LI of sheep observed in HL of this study is comparable with Ibrahim (1998) who reported LI of eight months in about 65% of Menz sheep in the Ethiopian highlands.

The estimated age at sexual maturity for goats was significantly lower in LL than in HL and ML (Table 7). Jemal (2008) also reported that goats in LL took shorter time to give their birth (Jemal 2008). However, AFP was comparable between HL and ML. The AFP of goats in HL and ML of the present study were higher than the 12.8 and 13.1 months of age reported in HL and ML AEZ of Oromiya regional state, Ethiopia (Workneh and Rowlands 2004).

The interval between two successive kidding (KI) was longer for goats in HL than in LL and ML (Table 7). Kidding interval of goats in HL and ML was close to the 8.9 months kidding interval of goats in both HL and ML AEZs of Oromiya regional state, Ethiopia (Workneh and Rowlands 2004). Kidding interval in LL in this study is in agreement with the 7.87 kidding interval (Jemal 2008) observed in Abergelle goat breed. The lowland nature of the environment and abundance of browse plants could favor better performance of goats in LL than in HL and ML agro-ecological zones.

Sheep and goat production constraints

Table 8 presents households’ ranking of sheep and goat production constraints in HL, ML and LL. Shortage of feed ranked the first most important constraint that affects sheep and goat production followed by animal health problem in HL and ML. Similarly, during focus group discussions identified shortages of feed and health problem as the first two most important constraints of sheep and goats in that order.

In the LL, animal health problem rated the first most important constraint of sheep and goat production followed by shortage of feed, scarcity of water and drought problem. Previous studies in Ethiopia also showed that disease and feed shortage are top constraints for LL and HL, respectively (Seare 2007). In the HL, labor shortage and poor extension services ranked as the third and fourth constraints of sheep and goat production, respectively, whereas respondents in the ML rated labor shortage as the fourth most important constraint that affected sheep and goat production. In general, sheep and goat production constraints are different in different AEZs.  Therefore, this implies that there is a need to plan and implement sheep and goat development interventions accordingly. 

Utilization and marketing of sheep and goats by households in HL, ML and LL AEZs 

Sheep and goat meat consumption 

The reported events for slaughtering sheep and goats in three AEZ are presented in Table 9. According to the majority of respondents (84% in HL, 90% in ML and 90% LL) in all the three AEZ, sheep and goats are slaughtered for family/home consumption mostly during religious holidays and festivities (particularly Christmas and Easter) and wedding, respectively. Except the aforementioned events, slaughtering of sheep and goats for regular family consumption was virtually uncommon. This result could suggest the need to exert efforts in increasing the economic level of smallholders so that they could move to consuming mutton and chevron whenever they want; instead of consuming only during religious festivities. Tsedeke (2007) indicated that sheep and goats are slaughtered for household meat consumption and major slaughters are made during festivals and various family and cultural events both in sheep and goat dominating areas of Southern Ethiopia.

About 88%, 86% and 78% of the respondents in the HL, ML and usually slaughtered male sheep than females. Only few households’ (about 6% in HL, 4% in ML and 8% in LL) reported slaughtering of female sheep. Similarly about 86% in HL, 82% both in ML and 82% in LL of the interviewed flock owners in the three study AEZs revealed slaughtering of male goats than female goats. According to the respondents, it is not usual to slaughter female sheep and goats unless they have physical abnormalities, health complications, are over aged, injured, and die due to disease or other reasons. However, if male sheep or goats were not available in the house, females were likely to be slaughtered or farmers may purchase male sheep/goat from the market or from their neighbor. Apart from these female sheep and goats were kept essentially for breeding purpose.

Sheep and goat milk consumption 

Consumption of sheep milk was rare in the three surveyed AEZs. Similarly, Tsedeke (2007) noted that in sheep dominating areas of southern Ethiopia, sheep are not milked as there is no custom of consuming sheep milk. According to Adugna and Aster (2007), milking of sheep is done only by very few households’ in pastoral areas of southern Ethiopia, having similar physical environmental conditions with the lowland AEZ of the present study. Significantlyhigher(P<0.05)  percentage of households in LL (44%) reported the consumption of goats milk compared to households in HL (4%) and ML (14%). Zelealem and Fletcher (1993) reported the importance of milk production from goats to poor smallholder farmers in the HL mixed farming systems, but in the HL of this study goats were not milked and their milk was not consumed. Similar to this study, the majority (98.9%) of goat keeping respondents in goat dominating sites of southern Ethiopia, milk their flock for household consumption (Tsedeke 2007). Tsegahun et al (2000) reported that goats in the LL area are kept both for milk and meat production, whereas in the HL they are mainly kept for meat. The majority of respondents who did not utilize sheep and goat milk in HL (52.6%) and ML (50%) reported that consumption of sheep and milk is not a common practice in the area. On the other hand, the majority (87%) of the interviewed households in LL who did not utilize sheep and goat milk indicated the low lactation yield of sheep and goat beyond their lamb/kid as the main reason for not consuming sheep and goat milk. This result suggests the presence of good opportunity for consuming goat milk in LL and the need to increase the availability of goat milk for smallholder farmers’ in the area through different interventions including introduction of best milk producing goat breeds.

Sheep and goats marketing in high, mid and low land agro-ecological zones

Trends in the prices of sheep and goats 

The majority of respondents (62% in HL, 48% in ML and 54% in LL) in the three surveyed AEZs reported that the current price for sheep and goats increased by one fold compared to the price in the past ten years (Table 10) due to income growth, increase in urban consumers (such as increase in government employee and urban dwellers and increase in the number of consumers). Similarly, Tsedeke (2007) reported the growing in the price of both sheep and goats in recent years in sheep dominating, goat dominating and mixed areas (where both sheep and goats are found in equal proportion) of Southern Ethiopia. This is also confirmed by the information obtained from the focus group discussions of the present study.

According to respondents, particularly in HL and ML the increase in the number of traders who are involving in sheep and goat marketing is increasing in recent years that had additionally contributed to the rise in the price of sheep and goats. The possible explanation for the impact of increase in the number of traders on price of sheep and goats is that, as the number of traders’ increase, competition among them also increases which in turn result in the rise of sheep and goat prices. Rapid expansion in hotels and restaurants together with strong consumer preference for mutton and chevron compared to beef contributed for the change in price.

Selling price for sheep and goats 

Table 11 indicates the average prices of sheep and goats traded in different market events. The result revealed that market events had significant effect on the price of both sheep and goats traded. The highest average selling price for both sheep and goats was obtained during Christmas and the lowest during Christmas fasting period of Orthodox Christians. This is in line with previous reports that during major cultural and religious holidays prices of animals’ increase (Tsedeke 2007). Similarly, Aklilu (2007) stated that prices increase in the onset of religious festivities and decrease in fasting periods. This report further noted that it is difficult to change this demand pattern as it is a matter of religion; the only option is to cope with the existing situation.

Table 12 presents the average selling price of sheep and goats in HL, ML and LL. AEZs had significant effect on the selling price of both sheep and goat. The highest average selling price for both sheep and goat was observed in ML while the lowest selling price for both species was in the LL. This result implies that beside AEZ access to large urban consumers market and distance have the influence on the price of sheep and goats than markets distantly located from large urban consumers market; in this regard farmer in ML had better access to large urban consumer in Axum town. Sheep and goat producers in the LL are fetched relatively lower prices from the sale of their animals compared to farmers in the ML and HL. This may be due to relatively remoteness to the large urban towns and the presence of poor market infrastructure including roads. This suggests the need to organize farmers in cooperatives and make available market information to benefit the farmers from the sale of their sheep and goats in the LL AEZ.

Conclusions

• The present study indicated that flock holdings, preferences and performance of sheep and goat are different to different AEZs
  
  
• Sheep and goat production constraints depend on AEZs (for instance disease is the first constraint in LL while feed shortage in the HL and ML)
  
  
• To maximize the economic benefit from the increase in the price of sheep and goats during major religious festivities (like Christmas, Easter and Idul Adha), farmers should plan and manage sheep and goat production carefully to match the fluctuating market demand
  
  
• Generally, it was concluded that for the poor producers to benefit through commercialization of the sheep and goat sector, interventions should be planned and implemented considering agro-ecological context

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Department of Animal Range and Wildlife Sciences, College of Agriculture, Mekelle University, Ethiopia and NORAD Project II for financial Support. The authors also would like to thank farmers and all staff members of the Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resources involved in this study for their kind cooperation.

References

Abebe M 1999 A husbandry practices and productivity of sheep in Lallo-mama mider woreda of central highlands of Ethiopia. Msc Thesis, Alemaya University, Alemaya, Ethiopia.

Adane H and Girma A 2007.Economic Significance of Sheep and Goats. In: Alemu Yami and Merkel, R.C., (eds.). Sheep and Goat Production Handbook for Ethiopia. ESGPIP (Ethiopian Sheep and Goat Productivity Improvement Program). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Adugna T and Aster A 2007 Livestock production in pastoral and agro-pastoral production systems of southern Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 19, Article #177.Retrieved February 12, 2009, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/12/tole19177.htm

Aklilu H 2007 Village poultry in Ethiopia: socio-technical analysis and learning with the farmers. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Asfaw N and Jabbar M 2008 Livestock ownership, commercial off-take rates and their determinants in Ethiopia. Research Report 9.International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya. 52 pp.

BoANR 2002 Household based agricultural and natural resource package. Bureau of Agriculture and Natural Resources (BoANR), Tigray, Mekelle, Ethiopia.

CSA (Central Statistical Agency) 2008 Agricultural Sample Survey, 2007/08, Volume II Report on: Livestock and Livestock characteristics (Private Peasant Holdings).Statistical Bulletin 417, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Getachew A, Haile B, Werkneh N and Gezahegn A 1993 A survey of farming systems of vertisol areas of the Ethiopian highlands. In: Tekalign Mamo, Abiye Astatke,  Srivastra K L and Asgelil Dibabe (eds). Improved managgement of vertisols for sustainable crop-livestock production in the Ethiopian highlands. Synthesis Report 1986-92.Technical committee of the joint vertisol project, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. p. 29-49.

IBC (Institute of Biodiversity Conservation) 2004 The State of Ethiopia's Farm Animal Genetic Resources: Country Report. A Contribution to the First Report on the State of the World's Animal Genetic Resources. IBC. May 2004. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

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

Jemal G 2008 Phenotypic Characterization and Performance Evaluation of Abergelle Goat under Traditional Management System in Tanqua-Abergelle District of Tigray, Ethiopia. MSc Thesis, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia.

Kassahun A, Getachew G, Zelalem A, Nigussie A, and Feltcher I 1989 Sheep and goat production in Ethiopia: Constraints and future prospects in Ethiopia. In: Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR) .Proceedings third National Livestock Improvement conference, 24-26 May 1989. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Pp. 78-81.

Seare T 2007 Study on Physical Characterization, Management Practices and Performance of Abergelle and Degua Sheep Breed Fed on Urea Treated Wheat Straw with Cactus. Msc Thesis, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia.

Solomon A, Girma A and Kassahun A 2007 Sheep and Goat Production Systems in Ethiopia.In: Alemu Yami and Merkel, R.C., (eds.). Sheep and Goat Production Handbook for Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Tessema , Aklilu A and Ameha S 2003 Assessment of the Livestock Production System, Available Feed Resources and Marketing Situation in Belesa Woreda: A Case Study in Drought Prone Areas of Amhara Region. Paper presented at the proceeding of the 10^th Annual conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP) held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, August 22-24, 2002. ESAP, Addis Ababa. 407pp.

Tsedeke K 2007 Production and marketing systems of sheep and goats in Alaba, southern Ethiopia. Msc Thesis, University of Hawasa, Awasa, Ethiopia.

Tsegahun A, Lemma S, Ameha S, Abebe M and Zinash S 2000  National goat research strategy in Ethiopia.  In: Merkel R C, Abebe G  and Goetsch A L (eds) The Opportunities and Challenges of Enhancing Goat Production in East Africa.  Proceedings of a conference held at Debub University, Awassa, Ethiopia from November 10 to 12, 2000.  E (Kika) de la Garza Institute for Goat Research, Langston University, Langston, OK  pp. 1-5.

Workneh A 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, and ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 260 pp.

Zelealem A and Fletcher I 1993 Small ruminant productivity in the central Ethiopia mixed farming systems.  In: Proceedings of the Forth National Livestock Improvement Conference, 13-15 November 1991.  Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. IAR, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Received 9 September 2011; Accepted 19 December 2011; Published 4 January 2012

Go to top