Reporting Back Workshop
LIVESTOCK BREED SURVEY OF
OROMIYA REGIONAL STATE
25–26 February 2003
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Oromiya Agricultural Development Bureau
P.O. Box 8770, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
International Livestock Research Institute
P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Reporting Back Workshop
LIVESTOCK BREED SURVEY OF
OROMIYA REGIONAL STATE
25–26 February 2003
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
H.A. van Dorland, J. Rowlands, Asfaw Tolossa and E. Rege
Oromiya Agricultural Development Bureau
P.O. Box 8770, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
International Livestock Research Institute
P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
CONTENTS
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ iii
Foreword ...................................................................................................................................... vi
1. Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State................................................................. 1
1.1 Background and introduction ....................................................................................... 1
1.2 Objectives of the survey ............................................................................................... 1
1.3 Summary of methodology ............................................................................................ 2
2. Data structure............................................................................................................................. 4
3. Characteristics of the environment ............................................................................................ 5
4. Breed types and distribution ...................................................................................................... 9
5. Purpose of keeping cattle......................................................................................................... 12
6. Husbandry practices ................................................................................................................ 16
7. Breed performance and herd dynamics ................................................................................... 23
8. Quality of breed traits .............................................................................................................. 29
9. Phenotypic description of breed types ..................................................................................... 30
10. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 32
References ................................................................................................................................... 33
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.
Table 21.
Table 22.
Table 23.
Table 24.
Table 25.
Table 26.
Table 27.
Table 28.
Table 29.
Table 30.
Table 31.
Table 32.
Table 33.
Division of Oromiya Region into four phases for execution of survey
Location of survey sites and number of questionnaires completed by Zone
Percentages of selected households by Zone and agro-ecological zone
Percentages of selected households by Zone and livestock density
Percentage of selected households by agro-ecological zone and livestock density
Type of production system by Zone
Type of production system by agro-ecological zone
Type of production system by livestock density
Percentages of households owning different species of livestock by agroecological zone
Percentages of households owning different species of livestock by livestock
density
Percentages of households owning different species of livestock by production
system
Number of households owning different breed types by Zone
Other breed types, and crosses from Table 32
Major breed types by agro-ecological zone
Major breed types by livestock density
Major breed types by production system
Percentages of households indicating different purposes for keeping male and
female cattle by agro-ecological zone
Percentages of households indicating different purposes for keeping male and
female cattle by livestock density
Percentages of households indicating different purposes for keeping male and
female cattle by production system
Percentages of households indicating different purposes for keeping male and
female cattle by breed types
Cattle activities of family by age and gender for crop–livestock systems
Cattle activities of family by age and gender for agro-pastoral systems
Cattle activities of family by age and gender for pastoral systems
Percentages of households housing animals under a roof during dry and wet
season by agro-ecological zone
Percentages of households supplementing during dry and wet season by agroecological zone
Percentages of households supplementing during dry and wet season by livestock
density
Percentages of households using different breeding methods by Zone
Percentages of households using different types of mating by agro-ecological
Zone
Percentages of households using different types of mating by livestock density
Percentages of households reporting prevalence of diseases by agro-ecological
Zone
Percentages of households reporting prevalence of diseases by livestock density
Percentages of households reporting prevalence of diseases by Zone
Percentages of households reporting different distances to the nearest veterinary
service by Zone
iii
Table 34.
Table 35.
Table 36.
Table 37.
Table 38.
Table 39.
Table 40.
Table 41.
Table 42.
Table 43.
Table 44.
Table 45.
Table 46.
Table 47.
Table 48.
Table 49.
Table 50.
Table 51.
Table 52.
Table 53.
Table 54.
Age and sex structures of cattle for major breed types
Fertility rate of major breed types
Fertility rate by agro-ecological zone
Fertility rate by livestock density
Fertility rate by production system
Average milk production per animal per day in litres for major breed types
Average lactation length per animal for major breed types
Average milk production per animal per day in litres by production system
Average lactation length per animal in months by production system
Numbers of cattle entering the households in the previous 12 months by agroecological zone
Numbers of cattle exiting from the households in the previous 12 months by agroecological zone
Numbers of cattle entering the households in the previous 12 months by
production system
Numbers of cattle exiting from the households in the previous 12 months by
production system
Percentages of households that reported reasons for death by agro-ecological
zone
Percentages of households that reported reasons for death by livestock density
Percentages of households that reported reasons for death by production system
Percentage of households considering a trait good by major breed types
Percentages of animals with different body coat colour combinations of Guji
breed (94 observations)
Percentages of animals with different head colour combinations of Guji breed (94
observations)
Percentages of animals with different ear tips and tail switch colour
combinations of Guji breed
Physical characteristics of Guji breed type (adult female animals)
iv
FOREWORD
This report provides background information for the reporting-back workshop on the
planning, execution, and analysis of the Livestock Breed Survey conducted in the Oromiya
Regional State. The Livestock Breed Survey was a collaborative initiative from the Oromiya
Agricultural Development Bureau (OADB) and the International Livestock Institute (ILRI),
who started the project in 2000.
The report contains a description of the methodology applied and, as to illustrate the results, a
selection of tables on cattle. The report is intended to give a brief background of the project,
and a flavour of the kind of results obtainable from it. These results represent a very small
part of what can be obtained from the large amount of information collected during the
survey.
Many people have contributed to the success of this project. Firstly, we would like to thank
the farmers of Oromiya Regional State, who were willing to provide us with information on
their livestock. In addition, we would like to acknowledge all the zonal, and woreda livestock
experts, and development agents from the Agricultural Offices, who actually conducted the
survey.
All the way from the preparation, and execution of the survey, up till the report writing, there
was close communication with Asfaw Tolossa, who formed the link between the Regional
Office in Addis and in the field with the ILRI team. As representative for Oromiya
Agricultural Development Bureau (OADB), and Oromiya Regional State, his input into this
project was indispensable.
On the ILRI-side the following persons were involved: Ed Rege initiated the project, and had
overall supervision, Enyew Negussie led the first part of the project, which involved the
development of the questionnaires, sampling frame, and part of the field coordination of the
survey, Anette van Dorland led the second part of the project, which involved the second part
of the field coordination of the survey, and data analyses, and John Rowlands provided
biometric assistance.
Our thanks go also to the following people, who contributed in various ways to this study, and
the outcome; Workneh Ayalew, Fisseha Teklu, Gemechu Degefa, Nigatu Alemayehu, Eshetu
Zerihun, Michael Tadesse, Ewnetu Ermias, and a large number of data entry assistants.
The survey fieldwork, analysis, and report preparation was funded by the Oromiya
Agricultural Development Bureau (OADB) from funds provided by the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI).
This workshop is funded by the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO)
through the Oromiya Agricultural Research Institute (OARI) from the ‘Agricultural Research
& Training Project’ (ARTP) funds. We would like to thank Ato Aliye Hussein for his
contribution in organising the funds for the project and the workshop.
v
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
1. LIVESTOCK BREED SURVEY OF OROMIYA REGIONAL
STATE
1.1 Background and introduction
Oromiya Regional State is one of Ethiopia’s sixteen regions covering a little over 30% of the
whole of Ethiopia. It is the largest Region. The region is characterized by immense
geographical and climatic diversity with altitudes ranging from below 500m up to over 4300
m. The climatic types prevailing in the region may be grouped into three major categories: the
dry climate, tropical rainy climate, and temperate rainy climate. The rainfall amount is
variable reaching up to 1600–2400 mm in the highland part of the region, and less than 400
mm annually in the semi-arid lowlands. The diversity in altitudes and climatic types has
resulted in a variety of habitats. The selection pressure of these habitats on domestic animals,
and the human selection for domestic animals suited best for their needs, has led to the
development of a variety of localized livestock breeds and strains. These breeds/strains or
breed types are well adapted to the specific local environments in which they are kept.
Only limited technical information is available on domestic animal genetic resources in
Oromiya Regional State as well as in the country as a whole. There is a need to characterize
the diverse livestock breeds/strains, so that action can be taken to develop them, to meet the
current and future demand for animal products, and to conserve them, so that the genetic
diversity is not lost, and can be used in future for the genetic improvement of domestic
animals.
Characterization of domestic animal genetic resources (AnGR) includes all activities
associated with the description of them aimed at better knowledge of these resources and their
state (FAO, 1999). Characterization of domestic AnGR will identify breeds and/or
populations along with their specific traits, which can be used in livestock development
programs. Secondly, characterization will identify breeds and/or populations which are at risk
of extinction or which are highly desired by farmers, and hence should form an important
input into nation livestock development planning.
In response to the situation as described above, the Oromiya Agricultural Development
Bureau (OADB), and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) undertook the
“Oromiya–ILRI Livestock Breed Survey” project in 2000.
1.2 Objectives of the survey
The overall objective of the breed survey was to identify and describe the indigenous Animal
Genetic Resources (AnGR) of Oromiya Regional State and the production systems in which
they are found.
In addition, the survey aimed to describe the economic, social and cultural roles of AnGR as
well as farmer’s preference for traits and breeds.
The data collected from the survey will be used to generate baseline information on AnGR of
the region and their production environments. The baseline information will support livestock
development activities and will identify possible causes of threat for AnGR, and possible
actions to mitigate their impacts. Another objective of this study was to assess the suitability
of the field survey methodology and questionnaire design applied as a tool for breed
characterization and to suggest possible improvements to facilitate future application.
1
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
The emphasis of the survey was on pure indigenous livestock, but information was also
collected on crosses between indigenous breeds with exotic breeds, as well as on pure exotic
breeds.
1.3 Summary of methodology
Sampling frame
The sampling frame was based upon the administrative structure of the Region, using Zones
(the largest unit), woredas, and Peasant Associations (the smallest units) as the separate
layers. A clustered sampling approach was undertaken to select the woredas and PAs.
Households within PAs were the sampling units. Farmers owning livestock formed the target
population.
At the time of the planning of the survey Oromiya region comprised of 12 administrative
Zones, 180 woredas, 5,386 Peasant Associations (PAs), and some 3.5 million households
(Physical Planning Department, 2000). The survey covered all Zones of the Region.
Stratification was employed in the two remaining layers. Woredas and PAs were stratified by
livestock density and agro-climatic zone: Highland (“dega”), Midland (“weinadega”),
Lowland (“kolla”). Households were stratified by numbers of livestock owned, and species
(cattle, sheep or goats). At each administrative layer, within the different strata, the method of
random sampling was used. Purposive sampling was occasionally used to include pockets of
unique livestock populations that would otherwise have been left out.
The sampling frame as described above resulted in the following proportions sampled at each
administrative layer: 100% of all Zones (12), about 30% of all woredas (55), about 17% of all
PAs (185), and 30 households per PA. The total number of households surveyed was 5587
(about 0.2% of the total number of households present in the Region).
Questionnaire design and content
Three types of questionnaires were developed each with main focus on cattle, sheep or goats.
These three species were referred to as “Primary” species. Cattle, sheep and goats were
selected as primary species due to their high numbers and wide distribution in the Region.
Within each of the three questionnaires information was collected on the other species, which
were referred to as “Secondary” species. These were chickens, donkeys, mules, horses, and
camels. This was done in order to reduce the overall size of a questionnaire but without
leaving out any of the livestock species mentioned above.
The questionnaires were designed to collect information on the environment in which the
animals are kept (e.g. descriptors of the environment, farming system, husbandry practices,
etc.), and on the breed types observed in the Region as well as the herd/flock structure,
population size and trend, physical, adaptive, and production characteristics, main uses and
reasons for keeping the breed, etc. Information collected on the secondary species was less
detailed than that collected on primary species.
The questionnaires consisted of open-ended, closed-ended, and scaled-response questions. A
pre-test was conducted prior to the actual survey in West and East Shewa Zone in order to
refine the questionnaire.
2
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
Field data collection
The Oromiya Regional State was divided into four phases to conduct the field activities of the
survey. The division was based upon rainfall and accessibility, crop activities, and location of
Zones (Table 1). People working within the Oromiya administrative structure were involved
in the actual fieldwork. Development agents (DAs) were employed as enumerators and were
supervised by the woreda livestock experts, who were in turn supervised by the zonal
livestock experts. Training was given to enumerators and supervisors in each zone prior to the
commencement of the actual survey. After training, necessary materials were distributed to
enumerators and supervisors to enable them to carry out the interviews and supervision. The
survey was conducted in the second half of 2001, and took ten days, on average, per Zone.
Table 1. Division of Oromiya Region into four phases for execution of survey in 2001
Phase
Zone
Month of survey
No. of
No. of PAs
woredas
I
II
III
IV
Total number of
households
Arsi
June
5
22
600
Bale
May/June
5
21
428
Borana
May
5
20
450
East Hararge
August
5
14
510
West Hararge
August/September
4
25
419
East Shewa
August
4
17
420
North Shewa
October
4
16
360
West Shewa
October
5
26
600
Jimma
October
4
14
390
East Wellega
December
5
23
420
West Wellega
December
5
27
390
Illubabor
December
4
14
600
Data entry and analysis
Completed questionnaires were checked for errors and incompleteness, and data were
coded. A data-capture system in Microsoft Access 2000 was developed to store the
survey data. The SAS software and XLSTAT-Pro 6.0 software were used for the
analysis.
Recommendations
The survey, from its planning to implementation, data analysis and report writing did not go
without constraints. As a result of these experiences set of recommendations has been formed
to guide planning, implementation and analysis of future surveys of this type. These
recommendations are:
1.
2.
The timing of the survey should be in dry season when roads are accessible and
farmers are not heavily involved with cropping activities
It is recommended to visit each survey site prior to the survey to create awareness
and to discuss planning, logistics, transportation, budget issues, and to review the
selection of survey sites
3
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The survey team should make sure it is aware of market days, and holidays, so
that these will not coincide with survey activities
Only minimal changes should be made in the questionnaire after the
commencement of the survey. Even so, a careful consideration has to be made as
to how these changes may affect the final analysis, including how the analysis
will be handled.
Enumerators should be thoroughly trained. The training period should be at least
5 days for each group!
More than the exact number of enumerators should be trained in case of dropouts
Enumerators should never make false promises to farmers
Communication at all levels is essential!
4
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
2.
DATA STRUCTURE
Table 2 shows the total number of households interviewed during the survey in each zone. In
addition, it shows a breakdown of the households owning different species of livestock, which
is further broken down into households that provided information on pure breeds and cross
breeds, and on their phenotypic description.
5
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromia Regional State
Table 2. Location of survey sites in Oromiya Region and number of questionnaires completed by Zone
Zone
Item
Species
Total no. of households
East
West
East
North
West
East
Illu-
West
Borana
Bale
Arsi
Shewa
Hararge
Hararge
Shewa
shewa
Wellega
Jimma
babor
Wellega
Overall
600
428
450
510
419
420
360
600
390
420
390
600
5587
sampled
No. of households keeping
Cattle
595
405
448
504
389
375
355
589
382
388
362
514
5306
Sheep
416
217
359
336
207
225
223
339
258
207
253
332
3372
Chickens
287
144
279
311
247
133
215
431
262
192
287
486
3274
Goats
479
232
263
339
273
301
161
286
156
178
181
276
3125
Donkeys
236
191
231
439
213
226
220
278
167
73
28
276
2578
Horses
120
134
259
120
3
10
92
288
79
46
125
33
1309
Mules
67
34
35
30
3
2
21
49
30
48
33
93
445
Camels
146
45
6
11
5
69
0
0
0
0
0
1
283
Pigs
0
1
1
3
0
1
0
2
0
0
2
1
11
Pure breeds
Cattle
595
402
444
503
390
400
350
587
383
386
362
511
5313
Cross breeds
Cattle
7
16
34
12
5
50
55
0
13
1
2
0
195
Phenotypic info of pure breeds
Cattle
200
157
149
170
138
125
117
200
130
139
130
200
1855
Phenotypic info of cross breeds
Cattle
6
11
16
6
5
29
28
0
7
1
1
0
110
No. of records providing data
on
6
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromia Regional State
3.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ENVIRONMENT
Agro-ecological zone and livestock density were used as stratification criteria on which the selection
of the households was based. Selected peasant associations were classified by three agro-ecological
zones: dega (Highland), weinadega (Midland), and kolla (Lowland). Woredas were classified by
livestock density: the total number of cattle, sheep and goats per square kilometre. Livestock density
was grouped into four categories: Low (1–50 number of animals per km2), Medium (51–100 number
of animals per km2), High (101–200 number of animals per km2), and Very high (above 200 number
of animals per km2). In this chapter, the selected households are presented by agro-ecological zone,
and livestock density. The types and distributions of production systems and livestock species across
agro-ecological zones and livestock density categories are considered as part of the environmental
characteristics and are presented in this chapter too.
Table 3. Percentages of selected households by Zone and agro-ecological zone
Agro-ecological zoneb (%)
No. of
Zone
householdsa
Dega
Weinadega
Kolla
Borana
600
20
25
55
Bale
428
41
20
39
Arsi
452
60
32
9
East Shewa
509
24
53
23
West Hararge
417
2
57
41
East Hararge
422
14
22
64
North Shewa
360
19
53
28
West Shewa
502
37
51
13
East Wellega
389
18
83
–
Jimma
420
–
71
29
Illubabor
210
29
43
29
West Wellega
600
–
60
40
5309
22
47
32
Overall
a
278 households are missing, because several peasant associations had not yet been classified by agro-ecological zone at the
time these data were analysed.
b
Dega = Highland, weinadega = Midland, and kolla = Lowland.
Table 4. Percentages of selected households by Zone and livestock density
Livestock densitya (%)
No. of
Zone
households
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Borana
600
20
40
40
–
Bale
428
58
–
25
17
Arsi
452
–
40
20
40
East Shewa
509
–
<1
24
76
West Hararge
417
–
50
50
–
East Hararge
422
21
–
21
57
North Shewa
360
–
–
50
50
West Shewa
600
–
20
60
20
East Wellega
389
23
54
23
–
Jimma
420
–
21
57
21
Illubabor
390
15
62
23
–
West Wellega
600
20
60
20
–
5587
13
30
35
23
Overall
a
Low is 1–50 animals/km2, Medium is 51–100 animals/km2, High is 101–200 animal/km2, and Very high is >200
animals/km2.
7
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromia Regional State
Table 5. Percentage of selected households by agro-ecological zone and livestock density
Agro-ecological
Zoneb
households
Dega
1135
Weinadega
Kolla
Overall
a
Livestock densitya (%)
No. of
Low
Medium
High
Very high
9
12
48
31
2494
4
38
36
23
1680
31
27
24
18
5309
14
29
35
23
Low is 1–50 animals/km2, Medium is 51–100 animals/km2, High is 101–200 animal/km2, and Very high is >200
animals/km2.
b
Dega = Highland, weinadega = Midland, and kolla = Lowland.
Table 6. Type of production system by Zone
No. of
Zone
Production system (%)
households
Crop–livestock system
Borana
574
43
27
30
Bale
404
91
8
1
Arsi
446
98
2
0
East Shewa
500
77
23
0
West Hararge
387
86
14
0
East Hararge
371
80
13
7
North Shewa
353
100
–
–
West Shewa
584
99
1
–
East Wellega
377
99
1
–
Jimma
386
100
–
–
Illubabor
359
99
1
–
510
100
–
–
5251
88
8
4
West Wellega
Overall
Agro-pastoral
Pastoral
Table 7. Type of production system by agro-ecological zone
Agro-ecological
zonea
No. of
Production system (%)
households
Crop–livestock system
Kolla
576
97
Weinadega
838
93
7
–
Dega
373
73
15
12
1787
87
9
4
Overall
a
Agro-pastoral
Pastoral
3
<1
Dega = Highland, weinadega = Midland, and kolla = Lowland.
Table 8. Type of production system by livestock density
Livestock
densitya
No. of
Production system (%)
households
Crop–livestock system
Low
254
73
10
17
Medium
548
88
8
4
High
647
92
6
1
425
89
11
–
1874
88
8
Very High
Overall
a
Low is 1–50
animals/km2,
Medium is 51–100
animals/km2,
Agro-pastoral
Pastoral
High is 101–200
4
animal/km2,
and Very high is >200
animals/km2.
8
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromia Regional State
Table 9. Percentages of households owning species of livestock by agro-ecological zone
Agro-ecological Zonea (%)
Species
Dega
No. of householdsb
Weinadega
Kolla
Overall
1134
2493
1679
5306
Cattle
98
94
94
95
Sheep
77
57
53
60
Chickens
59
63
49
58
Goats
49
51
69
57
Donkeys
46
46
51
48
Horses
65
17
3
23
Mules
9
9
6
8
Camels
<1
<1
16
5
Pigs
<1
<1
<1
<1
a
Dega = Highland, weinadega = Midland, and kolla = Lowland.
b
Numbers of households are presented in Italics to distinguish them from the percentages
Table 10. Percentages of households owning species of livestock by livestock density
Livestock densitya (%)
Species
No. of
householdsb
Low
Medium
High
Very High
Overall
730
1647
1934
1273
5584
Cattle
92
96
94
97
95
Sheep
55
63
58
64
60
Chickens
43
68
60
53
59
Goats
59
55
54
58
56
Donkeys
30
44
43
63
46
Horses
13
22
28
25
23
Mules
7
12
6
7
8
Camels
Pigs
a
19
5
3
1
5
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Low is 1–50 animals/km2, Medium is 51–100 animals/km2, High is 101–200 animal/km2, and Very high is >200
animals/km2.
b
Numbers of households are presented in Italics to distinguish them from the percentages
Table 11. Percentages of households owning species of livestock by production system
Production system (%)
Species
No. of householdsa
Crop/livestock
Agro-
system
pastoral
Pastoral
Overall
4897
442
200
5539
Cattle
95
98
100
95
Sheep
61
48
75
61
Chickens
62
44
4
59
Goats
53
76
91
56
Donkeys
45
60
40
46
Horses
26
9
2
23
Mules
8
5
11
8
Camels
2
22
52
5
<1
–
–
<1
Pigs
a
Numbers of households are presented in Italics to distinguish them from the percentages.
9
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromia Regional State
4.
BREED TYPES AND DISTRIBUTION
Table 12. Numbers of households owning breed types by Zone
Zone
Borana
Breed type
Bale
Arsi
East
West
East
North
West
East
Shewa
Hararge
Hararge
Shewa
shewa
Wellega
Jimma
Illubabor
Wellega
West
Overall
16
106
215
235
179
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
751
Borana
290
7
2
8
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
307
Guji
267
4
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
271
29
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
29
Ogaden
1
15
–
–
36
1
–
–
–
–
–
–
53
Bale
–
54
–
2
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
56
Dega
–
38
–
–
2
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
40
Jilbeguro
–
28
–
–
1
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
29
Salea
–
47
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
47
Karayuu
–
–
1
33
1
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
35
Chefe
–
–
–
22
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
22
Oboo
–
–
–
16
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
16
Anniya
–
–
–
–
–
78
–
–
–
–
–
–
78
Doba
–
–
–
–
85
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
85
Issa
–
–
–
–
2
37
–
–
–
–
–
–
39
Somali
–
–
–
–
8
37
–
–
–
–
–
–
43
Sidamo
–
–
–
–
–
34
–
–
–
–
–
–
34
Buche
–
–
–
–
15
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
15
Arsi
Konso
–
17
3
34
5
55
2
1
–
–
3
5
125
Unknown local
2
98
228
179
37
150
348
600
383
412
362
508
3307
Anniya × Somera
–
–
–
–
–
16
–
–
–
–
–
–
16
Local × Holstein
–
4
4
4
–
1
46
–
4
–
–
–
63
–
1
21
1
–
1
5
–
9
–
–
–
38
Unknown local cross
–
1
1
–
2
10
–
1
–
1
–
1
17
crossesa
7
12
12
7
41
32
5
–
–
1
2
–
119
Other breed
typesa
Friesian
Unknown Local ×
Exotic
Other
a
Breed types under “Other”, and “Other crosses” are listed by Zone in Table 13
10
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromia Regional State
Table 13. List of breed types reported under ‘Other breed types’ and ‘Other crosses’ in Table 12a
Zone
West
Borana
Bale
Arsi
East Shewa
East Hararge
North Shewa
Hararge
West
shewa
Arsi × Borana
Gedo
Kofele
Abichu
HF
Abadho
Damen
Borana × Guji
Kola
Negele
Fogora
Baltu
Babile
Borana ×
Kurbi
Unknown exotic
Chore
Etu
Loon Hunde
Arsi × HF
Gimbichu
Sanete
Borana crossc
Arsi × HF
Arsi ×
HFb
West
Jimma
Arsi ×
Illubabor
Wellega
Abigar
Messala
Dalacha
Horro cross
Red horned
Hawiya
Arsi × HF
Abigar cross
Abigar
Jamusi
Tumiro
Arsi cross
Aroji
Wabora
Borana × HF ×
Rogitu
Obora
Adal
Asabote
Maye
Mayo
Messala
Alaa
Bale × HF
Red horned
Fedis
Ogaden ×
Tullo
Jijiga
Baku
Momu
Afuran Qalo
Fatah (Somali)
Nole
Abadho ×
HF
Konso
Jersey
Arsi × Borana
Karayuu
Arsi × HF
Borana ×
Borana cross
Konso
Ogaden ×
Salea
Salea
Arsi × Boran ×
HF
Sidamo
Short breed
Anniya ×
Wabora
Mola
Anniya × Soka
Arsi × Doba
Anniya × Obera
HF ×
Anniya ×
Jamusi
Sidamo
11
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromia Regional State
Arsi cross
Babile cross
Arsi × Adal
Babile × Fedis
Doba ×
Issa cross
Mola
Issa × Somali
Issa × Sidamo
Sidamo cross
Aroji × Somali
a
The maximum number of times any of these breeds was reported is 14
b
HF refers to Holstein Friesian
c
Borana cross refers to a cross with another local breed type.
12
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
Table 14. Major breed types by agro-ecological zone
Agro-ecological zonea (%)
Breed type
Dega
No. of households
Arsi
Weinadega
Overall
630
620
1555
52
63
31
48
1
10
39
20
Borana
Guji
Kolla
305
39
15
10
17
Anniya
1
0
12
5
Doba
0
6
8
5
HF × Local
7
7
0
4
a
Dega = Highland, weinadega = Midland, and kolla = Lowland.
Table 15. Major breed types by livestock density
Livestock densitya (%)
Breed type
No. of households
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Overall
226
444
449
377
1496
Arsi
27
34
36
85
46
Borana
43
28
18
3
21
3
27
33
–
18
Guji
27
–
2
2
5
Doba
–
11
8
–
6
HF × Local
2
<1
4
11
4
Anniya
a
Low is 1–50 animals/km2, Medium is 51–100 animals/km2, High is 101–200 animal/km2, and Very high is >200
animals/km2.
Table 16. Major breed types by production system
Production system (%)
Crop–livestock
Breed type
No. of households
Arsi
Borana
Guji
system
Agro-pastoral
Pastoral
917
371
57
3
Overall
184
1472
44
1
47
29
90
20
24
11
3
18
Anniya
4
9
7
5
Doba
6
8
–
6
HF × Local
7
–
–
4
13
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
5.
PURPOSE OF KEEPING CATTLE
Cattle are kept for many purposes. In any one household different species of livestock (e.g.
cattle) are kept for multiple purposes, e.g. milk and income, work and meat. Purposes for
which cattle are kept resemble more or less the breeding objectives for cattle by farmers. The
tables presented in this chapter show purposes for which cattle are kept by agro-ecological
zone, livestock density, and production system. Data were collected for male and female
cattle separately.
Table 17. Percentages of households indicating different purposes for keeping male and
female cattle by agro-ecological zone
Agro-ecological zonea (%)
Species
Dega
Weinadega
Kolla
Overall
Male
No. of householdsb
372
833
567
1772
Work
98
92
86
92
Breeding
88
88
89
88
Income
73
88
79
82
Manure
74
88
59
76
Meat
66
65
70
67
Savings
56
56
52
55
Hides
41
35
37
37
Wealth
36
31
39
34
Ceremony
44
28
33
33
Dowry
34
27
38
32
Blood
6
4
18
9
372
836
571
1779
Milk
96
98
97
97
Breeding
99
98
96
97
Income
68
84
72
77
Manure
71
84
54
71
Meat
52
52
53
53
Savings
52
52
45
50
Hides
40
33
35
35
Wealth
34
30
35
33
Dowry
34
29
37
33
Ceremony
38
24
28
28
Work
25
19
14
19
Blood
5
4
15
8
Female
No. of households
a
Dega = Highland, weinadega = Midland, and kolla = Lowland.
b
Numbers of households are presented in Italics to distinguish them from the percentages
14
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
Table 18. Percentages of households indicating different purposes for keeping male and
female cattle livestock density
Livestock densitya (%)
Species
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Overall
Male
No. of householdsb
250
548
643
420
1861
Work
82
93
93
95
92
Breeding
90
90
83
88
87
Income
64
86
81
92
82
Manure
57
77
81
81
77
Meat
80
69
62
63
67
Savings
55
52
57
51
54
Hides
57
34
33
31
36
Wealth
38
30
31
44
35
Ceremony
45
29
28
40
33
Dowry
44
22
29
36
31
Blood
16
9
7
6
9
Female
No. of households
254
548
644
421
1867
Milk
96
97
98
98
97
Breeding
97
98
96
98
97
Income
60
82
75
88
78
Manure
56
72
76
75
72
Meat
66
52
49
47
52
Savings
53
47
51
45
49
Hides
54
33
30
28
34
Wealth
35
29
29
41
33
Dowry
42
27
29
35
31
Ceremony
39
24
24
31
28
Work
17
20
21
14
18
Blood
13
7
6
6
8
a
Low is 1–50 animals/km2, Medium is 51–100 animals/km2, High is 101–200 animal/km2, and Very high is >200
animals/km2.
b
Numbers of households are presented in Italics to distinguish them from the percentages
15
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
Table 19. Percentages of households indicating different purposes for keeping male and
female cattle by production system
Production system (%)
Species
Crop–livestock
Agro-pastoral
Pastoral
Overall
system
Male
No. of householdsa
1632
157
70
1859
Work
94
93
37
92
Breeding
86
98
97
87
Income
85
64
57
82
Manure
84
38
3
77
Meat
63
89
99
67
Savings
52
72
46
54
Hides
34
55
47
36
Wealth
31
54
76
35
Ceremony
31
52
50
33
Dowry
26
68
59
31
Blood
5
18
67
9
1637
158
70
1865
Milk
97
98
99
97
Breeding
97
94
97
97
Income
80
61
47
78
Manure
78
37
4
72
Meat
49
67
81
52
Savings
47
67
31
49
Hides
32
53
40
34
Wealth
29
51
67
33
Dowry
27
64
57
31
Ceremony
25
46
40
28
Work
19
13
5
18
Blood
5
14
46
8
Female
No. of households
a
Numbers of households are presented in Italics to distinguish them from the percentages
16
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
Table 20. Percentages of households indicating different purposes of keeping male and
female cattle by breed types
Breed type (%)
Purpose
Arsi
Borana
Guji
Anniya
Doba
HFxLocal
Overalla
Male
No. of householdsb
261
108
94
26
38
39
1861
Work
93
69
Breeding
87
96
95
89
97
100
92
93
100
74
95
87
Income
83
Manure
80
41
25
100
100
87
82
8
32
15
58
95
77
Meat
Savings
66
97
92
58
61
80
67
64
56
75
50
61
77
54
Hides
56
54
80
4
24
31
36
Wealth
48
72
47
46
32
36
35
Ceremony
40
57
55
23
8
31
33
Dowry
48
51
63
46
21
46
31
Blood
11
61
22
–
–
–
9
Female
No. of householdsb
265
108
94
26
38
39
1867
Milk
97
97
99
92
97
100
97
Breeding
97
96
96
96
90
100
97
Income
76
34
17
92
95
87
78
Manure
78
9
30
19
50
82
72
Meat
55
75
58
50
47
62
52
Savings
63
47
68
31
61
67
49
Hides
55
46
75
4
24
31
34
Wealth
47
67
42
39
24
33
33
Dowry
48
51
62
42
21
49
31
Ceremony
35
47
43
15
5
23
28
Work
22
7
5
4
26
18
18
Blood
11
46
18
4
–
–
8
a
‘Overall’ from analysis of all breed types in the Region
b
Numbers of households are presented in Italics to distinguish them from the percentages
17
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
6.
HUSBANDRY PRACTICES
Husbandry practices cover all aspects of management, which include housing, feeding,
breeding, health care, etc. Husbandry practices are part of the immediate environment of the
animals, and these will influence their performance. The results in this chapter are presented
by Zone, agro-ecological zone, livestock density and production system, but each
classification system is not necessarily applied for each variable. Selection of tables only is
presented.
Table 21. Cattle activities of family by age and gender for crop–livestock systems
Age and sex group (%)
Activity
Number of
Male
householdsa
≥15 yrs
Female
Male
Female
≥15 yrs
< 15yrs
< 15 yrs
Purchasing
1629
98
17
Selling
1636
98
19
2
1
Herding
1480
56
31
70
32
Breeding
1487
93
34
21
8
Health care
1598
96
40
15
7
Feeding
1570
82
61
38
22
Milking
1591
8
97
4
16
Making dairy products
1516
5
97
4
19
Selling dairy products
1464
4
97
3
12
a
2
<1
Sometimes more than one category of adult males, adult females, boys and girls within a household is
involved in the same activity.
Table 22. Cattle activities of family by age and gender for agro-pastoral systems
Age and sex group (%)
Activity
Number of
Male
Female
Male
Female
householdsa
≥15 yrs
≥15 yrs
< 15yrs
< 15 yrs
Purchasing
157
99
5
1
–
Selling
158
99
8
2
1
Herding
148
41
28
85
50
Breeding
148
95
29
33
19
Health care
155
97
27
17
10
Feeding
154
78
68
44
38
Milking
154
8
97
6
29
Making dairy products
135
2
96
5
33
Selling dairy products
124
6
96
6
27
a
Sometimes more than one category of adult males, adult females, boys and girls within a household is involved in
the same activity.
18
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
Table 23. Cattle activities of family by age and gender for pastoral systems
Age and sex group (%)
Activity
Number of
Male
Female
Male
Female
householdsa
≥15 yrs
≥15 yrs
< 15 yrs
< 15 yrs
Purchasing
67
99
5
–
–
Selling
68
99
5
–
–
Herding
69
41
35
87
71
Breeding
55
86
53
53
44
Health care
70
97
61
36
33
Feeding
69
44
93
38
39
Milking
70
21
100
27
37
Making dairy products
70
–
100
11
43
Selling dairy products
54
2
100
20
46
a
Sometimes more than one category of adult males, adult females, boys and girls within a household is involved in
the same activity.
Table 24. Percentages of households housing animals under a roof during dry and wet
season by agro-ecological zone
Agro-ecological zonea (%)
Groups of animals
Dega
Weinadega
Kolla
Overall
Dry season
No. of householdsb
263
641
347
1251
Cows
40
38
34
37
Bulls
29
31
26
29
Oxen
36
35
30
34
Calves
98
93
90
93
Other young stock
32
32
23
29
263
640
355
1258
Cows
39
44
39
42
Bulls
27
34
31
32
Oxen
35
41
38
39
Calves
98
93
90
93
Other young stock
34
34
26
32
Wet season
No. of householdsb
a
Dega = Highland, weinadega = Midland, and kolla = Lowland.
b
Numbers of households are presented in Italics to distinguish them from the percentages
19
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
Table 25. Percentages of households supplementing during dry and wet season by agroecological zone
Type of supplementation (%)
Agro-ecological
zonea
No. of
Roughage/crop
Minerals/
Households
residues
vitamins
Concentrates
None
Other
Dry season
Dega
365
74
73
15
2
2
Weinadega
789
76
68
10
1
6
Kolla
497
70
56
6
1
5
1651
74
66
10
1
5
Dega
351
55
85
10
2
2
Weinadega
785
52
87
8
1
6
Kolla
545
34
91
3
2
4
1681
47
88
7
2
5
Overall
Wet season
Overall
a
Dega = Highland, weinadega = Midland, and kolla = Lowland.
Table 26. Percentages of households supplementing during dry and wet season by livestock
density
Type of supplementation (%)
Livestock
densitya
No. of
Roughage/crop
Minerals/
Households
residues
vitamins
Concentrates
None
Other
Dry season
Low
220
68
66
5
2
7
Medium
533
58
82
6
2
8
High
604
80
65
12
1
4
Very high
382
85
46
13
1
3
1739
73
66
9
1
5
Low
242
27
96
5
2
–
Medium
522
37
94
7
3
–
High
608
48
88
6
1
–
Very high
374
70
76
8
1
–
1746
46
88
7
2
–
Overall
Wet season
Overall
a
Low is 1–50
animals/km2,
Medium is 51–100
animals/km2,
High is 101–200
animal/km2,
and Very high is >200
animals/km2.
20
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
Table 27. Percentages of households using different breeding methods by Zone
Breeding method (%)
No. of
Zone
Artificial
households
Natural
Insemination
Both
Borana
198
100
–
–
Bale
158
98
1
1
Arsi
149
97
–
3
East Shewa
165
97
–
3
West Hararge
139
99
–
1
East Hararge
141
99
–
1
North Shewa
120
90
–
10
West Shewa
195
99
1
1
East Wellega
129
100
–
–
Jimma
140
99
–
1
Illubabor
130
99
–
1
West Wellega
197
99
1
–
1861
98
<1
2
Overall
Table 28. Percentages of households using different types of mating by agro-ecological zone
Agro-ecological
No. of
Mating (%)
Zonea
households
Dega
362
10
80
11
Weinadega
824
19
69
12
567
19
66
15
1753
17
70
13
Kolla
Overall
a
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Both
Dega = Highland, weinadega = Midland, and kolla = Lowland.
Table 29. Percentages of households using different types of mating by livestock density
Livestock
No. of
Densitya
Mating (%)
Households
Controlled
Uncontrolled
Both
Low
248
7
82
Medium
540
10
82
8
High
639
20
65
15
415
30
53
17
1842
17
70
13
Very High
Overall
a
Low is 1–50
animals/km2,
Medium is 51–100
animals/km2,
12
High is 101–200 animal/km2, and Very high is >200
animals/km2.
21
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
Table 30. Percentages of households reporting prevalence of diseases by agro-ecological
zone
Agro-ecological zonea (%)
Disease
No. of
Dega
householdsb
Weinadega
Kolla
Overall
280
683
502
1465
Blackleg
56
47
41
46
Anthrax
39
34
26
32
FMD
21
19
25
21
–
24
25
20
20
19
18
19
Bloat
9
14
17
14
Trypanosomosis
6
6
17
10
Skin disease/cito
Pasteurollosis
Mastitis
CBPP
Lung diseases
Internal parasites
Other diseases
6
10
4
7
11
3
10
7
3
5
10
6
10
5
6
6
3
9
14
10
a
Dega = Highland, weinadega = Midland, and kolla = Lowland.
b
Numbers of households are presented in Italics to distinguish them from the percentages
Table 31. Percentages of households reporting prevalence of diseases by livestock density
Livestock densitya (%)
Disease
No. of
householdsb
Low
Medium
High
Very high
Overall
206
404
530
370
1510
Blackleg
48
39
47
53
46
Anthrax
36
18
33
45
32
FMD
26
15
20
28
21
Skin disease/cito
18
39
17
2
19
Pasteurollosis
22
15
15
27
19
Bloat
17
13
13
12
13
Trypanosomosis
26
8
6
8
10
Mastitis
2
2
6
15
7
CBPP
10
7
9
<1
6
Internal parasites
13
6
6
5
6
Lung diseases
7
8
7
2
6
Other diseases
8
7
9
14
9
a
Low is 1–50 animals/km2, Medium is 51–100 animals/km2, High is 101–200 animal/km2, and Very high is >200
animals/km2.
b
Numbers of households are presented in Italics to distinguish them from the percentages
22
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
Table 32. Percentages of households reporting prevalence of diseases by Zone
Disease (%)
Zone
No. of
Skin
households
Blackleg
Anthrax
FMD
disease
Pasteurollosis
Bloat
Tryps
Internal
Lung
Mastitis
CBPP
parasites
diseases
Other
Borana
176
25
32
23
3
22
1
38
2
53
14
1
18
Bale
113
63a
25
17
–
4
5
42
6
1
11
15
5
Arsi
101
51
29
18
–
–
16
–
1
–
12
2
4
East Shewa
159
76
80
34
–
45
1
–
–
–
6
–
4
West Hararge
136
38
–
6
71
6
66
1
2
–
–
1
1
East Hararge
133
44
–
13
10
38
52
1
2
1
2
4
32
North Shewa
120
46
38
23
–
9
3
–
66
–
3
1
2
West Shewa
162
61
57
33
–
24
–
8
–
–
1
1
7
East Wellega
109
82
65
37
–
10
5
–
–
–
10
–
2
Jimma
77
38
–
23
–
3
12
27
8
–
1
5
42
Illubabor
36
–
–
42
6
33
–
–
3
–
25
–
–
188
16
20
5
94
20
–
–
–
–
4
31
1
1510
46
32
21
19
19
13
10
7
6
6
6
9
West Wellega
Overall
a
Highlighted are the highest proportions of households for a disease in each zone
23
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
Table 33. Percentages of households reporting different distances to the nearest veterinary
service by Zone
No. of
Zone
households
Distance (%)
< 1 km
1–5 km
6–10 km
> 10 km
Borana
192
3
31
5
60
Bale
154
6
30
16
49
Arsi
149
2
28
33
38
East Shewa
166
9
16
33
42
West Hararge
138
4
42
20
35
East Hararge
140
9
21
11
59
North Shewa
110
6
29
34
32
West Shewa
198
5
35
15
46
East Wellega
125
22
46
21
11
Jimma
137
5
12
29
55
Illubabor
129
5
25
26
44
West Wellega
200
12
21
14
55
1838
7
28
20
45
Overall
24
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
7.
BREED PERFORMANCE AND HERD DYNAMICS
Production characteristics give an idea of the performance of livestock under the
circumstances in which they are kept. The flow of animals in and out the farming system
gives an indication of the dynamics in animal numbers.
Table 34. Age and sex structures of cattle for major breed types
Proportions of animals
Breed type
No. of
No. of
Households
animals
≥ 3 years
< 3 years
Male
Castrate
Female
Male
Castrate
Female
Arsi
751
9184
16
1
17
15
15
37
Borana
307
6686
15
<1
18
13
7
47
Guji
271
3117
16
<1
20
17
3
43
Doba
85
498
15
1
15
16
17
36
Anniya
78
1489
20
0
21
15
–
45
HF × Local
63
311
22
1
24
7
14
33
1555
21284
16
<1
18
15
10
42
Overall
Table 35. Fertility rate of major breed types
No. of
No. of
No. of
Fertility rate
households
calves born
Adult cows
(%)
28
42
75
67
1
4
6
67
Doba
22
165
246
56
Guji
90
258
568
45
Arsi
238
613
1489
41
98
356
1109
32
1710
4499
9903
45
Breed type
Anniya
HF × Local
Borana
Overalla
a
Fertility rate for all breed types
Table 36. Fertility rate by agro-ecological zone
Agro-ecological
zonea
No. of
No. of
No. of
Fertility rate
households
calves born
Adult cows
(%)
Dega
337
1086
1888
58
Weinadega
760
1702
3769
45
Kolla
525
1550
3942
39
1622
4338
9599
45
Overall
a
Dega = Highland, weinadega = Midland, and kolla = Lowland.
Table 37. Fertility rate by livestock density
Livestock densitya
No. of
No. of
No. of
Fertility rate
households
calves born
Adult cows
(%)
Low
241
924
1650
56
Medium
527
1449
3746
39
High
582
1226
2527
49
Very high
360
900
1980
46
1710
4499
99.03
45
Overall
a
Low is 1–50
animals/km2,
Medium is 51–100
animals/km2,
High is 101–200 animal/km2, and Very high is >200
animals/km2
25
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
Table 38.
Fertility rate by production system
Production system
No. of
No. of
No. of
Fertility rate
households
calves born
Adult cows
(%)
1490
3613
7761
47
146
523
1135
46
69
361
989
37
1705
4497
9885
46
Crop–livestock system
Agro-pastoral
Pastoral
Overall
Table 39. Average milk production per animal in litres per day for major breed types
No. of
Breed type
Average milk production per animal (litre)
Households
Mean±STD
Rangea
Arsi
258
1.4 ± 0.6
0.3–4
Borana
104
1.7 ± 0.6
0.5–4
Guji
87
1.1 ± 0.5
0.5–3
Doba
39
1.8 ± 1.0
0.5–5
Anniya
27
1.4 ± 0.7
0.5–3
HF × Local
25
6.2 ± 3.6
1.3–14
1985
1.4 ± 1.1
0.1–14
Overallb
a
b
Households indicating milk production per animal per day above 14 litres were excluded from analysis (outliers)
Average milk production for all breed types
Table 40. Average lactation length per animal in months for major breed types
No. of
Breed type
Average lactation length per animal (months)
Households
Mean±STD
Rangea
Arsi
259
9.3 ± 2.8
3–22
Borana
100
8.8 ± 3.5
3–24
Guji
88
9.8 ± 3.9
3–24
Doba
37
9.1 ± 2.2
5–16
Anniya
27
8.5 ± 3.5
5–25
HF × Local
25
9.5 ± 2.9
6–16
1958
9.1 ± 3.3
3–24
Overallb
a
Households indicating lactation lengths above 24 months and below 3 were excluded from analysis
b
Average milk production for all breed types
Table 41. Average milk production per animal per day in litres by production system
Average milk production per day
Production
System
Crop–livestock system
Agro-pastoral
Pastoral
Overall
a
No. of
per animal (litres)
Mean±STD
Rangea
1739
1.5 ± 1.2
0.1–14
175
1.4 ± 0.6
0.3–4
69
1.6 ± 0.5
0.3–3
1983
1.4 ± 1.1
0.1–14
Households
Households indicating milk production per animal per day above 14 litres were excluded from analysis (outliers)
26
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
Table 42. Average lactation length per animal in months by production system
Production
System
No. of
Mean±STD
Rangea
1716
9.1 ± 3.4
3–24
175
9.4 ± 2.8
3–22
65
8.5 ± 3.5
3–24
1956
9.1 ± 3.3
3–24
Households
Crop–livestock system
Agro-pastoral
Pastoral
Overall
a
Average lactation length per animal (months)
Households indicating lactation lengths above 24 months and below 3 were excluded from analysis
Table 43. Numbers of cattle entering the households in the previous 12 months by agroecological zone
Agro-ecological zonea
Type of entry
Dega
Weinadega
Kolla
Total
Male
No. of householdsb
376
838
576
1790
Born
592
896
842
2330
91
126
115
332
Donated
3
14
4
21
Exchanged
3
5
2
10
689
1041
963
2693
602
930
811
2343
57
113
63
233
Donated
4
18
2
24
Exchanged
3
11
3
17
666
1072
879
2617
1355
2113
1842
5310
Bought
Total
Female
Born
Bought
Total
Grand total
a
Dega = Highland, weinadega = Midland, and kolla = Lowland.
b
Numbers of households are presented in Italics to distinguish them from the frequencies
27
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
Table 44. Numbers of cattle exiting from the households in the previous 12 months by agroecological Zone
Agro-ecological zonea
Type of exit
Dega
Weinadega
Kolla
Total
Male
No. of householdsb
376
838
576
1790
Sold
338
536
470
1344
19
36
46
101
Slaughtered
Exchanged
Died
Stolen
Donated
Total
2
16
11
29
251
732
1036
2019
3
6
10
19
18
83
41
142
631
1409
1614
3654
164
279
333
776
15
24
31
70
Female
Sold
Slaughtered
Exchanged
Died
Stolen
11
8
21
752
1406
2447
2
5
5
12
30
85
64
179
502
1156
1847
3505
1133
2565
3461
7159
Donated
Total
Grand total
2
289
a
Dega = Highland, weinadega = Midland, and kolla = Lowland.
b
Numbers of households are presented in Italics to distinguish them from the frequencies
Table 45. Numbers of cattle entering the households in the previous 12 months by production
system
Production system
Crop–livestock
Type of entry
Agro-Pastoral
system
Pastoral
Total
Male
No. of householdsa
1648
158
70
1876
Born
1953
262
202
2417
307
39
7
353
14
5
2
21
Bought
Donated
Exchanged
Total
9
1
0
10
2283
307
211
2801
1969
288
164
2421
211
35
1
247
13
10
2
25
Female
Born
Bought
Donated
Exchanged
17
0
1
18
Total
2210
333
168
2711
Grand total
4493
640
379
5512
a
Numbers of households are presented in Italics to distinguish them from the frequencies
28
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
Table 46. Numbers of cattle exiting from the households in the previous 12 months by
production system
Production system
Crop–
Type of exit
Agro-Pastoral
livestock
Pastoral
Total
system
Male
No. of householdsa
1648
158
70
1876
Sold
1064
182
155
1401
65
12
25
102
Slaughtered
Exchanged
Died
19
10
0
29
1379
266
428
2073
Stolen
16
4
1
21
Donated
47
74
21
142
2590
548
630
3768
553
108
135
796
56
5
11
72
Total
Female
Sold
Slaughtered
Exchanged
Died
Stolen
Donated
17
3
1
21
1440
317
741
2498
9
3
0
12
80
64
35
179
Total
2155
500
923
3578
Grand total
4745
1048
1553
7346
a
Numbers of households are presented in Italics to distinguish them from the frequencies
Table 47. Percentages of households that reported reasons for death by agro-ecological zone
Agro-ecological
No. of
Reason for death (%)
zonea
households
Predators
Disease
Accident
Poison
Drought
Unknown
Other
Dega
190
8
81
23
4
5
25
1
Weinadega
483
13
83
17
2
10
18
1
Kolla
377
28
87
10
3
24
14
4
1050
18
84
16
3
14
18
2
Other
Overall
a
Dega = Highland, weinadega = Midland, and kolla = Lowland.
Table 48. Percentages of households that reported reasons for death by livestock density
Livestock
No. of
Densitya
households
Predators
Disease
Accident
Poison
Drought
Unknown
Low
192
28
84
10
3
23
16
6
Medium
351
20
88
14
1
13
15
<1
High
369
15
81
18
2
12
22
2
Very High
198
6
81
19
6
8
19
–
1110
17
84
16
3
14
18
2
Overall
a
Reason for death (%)
Low is 1–50 animals/km2, Medium is 51–100 animals/km2, High is 101–200 animal/km2, and Very high is >200
animals/km2.
29
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
Table 49. Percentages of households that reported reasons for death by production system
Production
System
No. of
Reason for death (%)
households
Predators
Disease
Accident
Poison
Drought
Unknown
Other
Crop–livestock
942
13
84
17
3
10
19
2
Agro-pastroral
107
23
81
13
4
28
12
1
60
62
87
3
2
45
10
5
1109
17
84
16
3
14
18
2
Pastoral
Overall
30
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
8.
QUALITY OF BREED TRAITS
Besides the production characteristics that were collected during the survey, farmers were
also asked to indicate the quality of the traits of their breed types. They were asked to rank a
range of traits as ‘not important’, ‘poor’, ‘average’, ‘good’, or ‘no opinion’. Table 50
summarises the results.
Table 50. Percentage of households considering a trait good by major breed types
Breed type (%)
Trait
Arsi
Borana
Guji
Doba
Anniya
215–598
79–247
53–227
6–74
18–74
HF ×
Local
No. householdsbc
7–57
a
82
84
89
95
87
Colour
66
80
79
62
96
90
Horns
39
57
50
30
72
42
Heat tolerance
55
56
56
69
94
35
Cold tolerance
54
54
57
41
8
27
Temperament
68
79
65
62
72
91
Work
82
78
78
82
84
92
Milk yield
32
71
58
73
67
79
Meat
62
93
81
81
79
48
Ability to walk long distances
71
86
66
76
84
48
Drought tolerance
46
45
28
61
82
10
Growth rate
42
74
64
65
70
87
Fertility
44
60
56
65
86
72
Longevity
59
58
54
68
65
48
Disease tolerance
32
31
39
63
11
13
Size
a
59
Numbers in this table represent number of households reporting trait as ‘good’ as a percentage of (‘poor’ +
’average’ + ‘good’). Coloured are the percentages above 70%.
b
Range in numbers of households by traits for considering a trait good.
c
Numbers of households are presented in Italics to distinguish them from the percentages
31
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
9.
PHENOTYPIC DESCRIPTION OF BREED TYPES
In this chapter the phenotypic characteristics of the Guji breed type are described to
demonstrate the information collected on phenotypic characteristics at breed/strain level.
Table 51. Percentages of animals with different body coat colour combinations of Guji breed
(94 observations)
Secondary colour (%)
Primary colour
Uniform
Black
White/crème
Grey
Blue grey
Brown
Red brown
20
–
31
–
2
1
–
White/crème
9
5
–
–
1
1
2
Grey
1
–
–
–
–
–
–
Blue grey
1
–
–
1
–
–
–
Brown
5
2
–
–
–
–
1
Red brown
7
2
8
–
–
1
–
Yellow brown
1
–
–
–
–
–
–
Beige
–
–
1
–
–
–
–
Black
Table 52. Percentages of animals with different head colour combinations of Guji breed (94
observations)
Secondary colour (%)
Primary colour
Uniform
Black
White/crème
Grey
Brown
21
–
27
–
1
White/crème
9
10
–
–
2
Grey
1
–
–
–
–
Blue grey
1
1
–
–
–
Brown
7
–
2
–
–
Black
Red brown
10
1
5
1
1
Yellow brown
1
–
–
–
–
Beige
–
–
1
1
–
Table 53. Percentages of animals with different ear tips and tail switch colour combinations
of Guji breed
Body part (%)
Colour
Ear tips
Tail switch
No. of householdsa
94
93
Black
42
45
White/crème
16
27
Grey
3
2
Blue grey
5
4
Brown
Red brown
9
7
22
13
Yellow brown
1
Beige
2
c
2
Numbers of households are presented in Italics to distinguish them from the percentages
32
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
Table 54. Physical characteristics of Guji breed type (adult female animals)
No. of
Characteristics (%)
Body part
Item
Coat
Pattern
94
Uniform
56
Pied
26
Spotty
Hair
94
Short
71
Medium
28
Long
–
Hair type
94
Straight
54
Curly
45
Not reported
1
Height at withers
94
Short
46
Dewlap
94
Absent
Size
94
Absent
Shape
94
Erect
93
Dropping
Position
94
Thoracic
79
Cervico-thoracic
Face
94
Flat
75
Convex
8
Back
94
Curved
11
Straight
87
Not reported
Rump
94
Flat
32
Sloping
53
Roofy
Size
94
Small
54
Large
44
Not reported
2
Shape
94
Rounded
18
Straight-edged
81
Not reported
1
Orientation
93
Upright
20
Lateral
77
Dropping
2
Present
94
Yes
97
No
2
Not reported
1
Dehorned
94
Yes
4
No
90
Not reported
5
Shape
94
Straight
48
Curved
50
Lyre-shaped
1
Orientation
94
Forward
29
Lateral
26
Upright
Spacing
94
Narrow
44
Wide
54
Not reported
1
Length
94
Short
40
Medium
50
Long
9
Horn shaping
94
Natural
97
Traditional
Not reported
1
Tail
Length
93
Short
11
Medium
32
Long
57
Udder
Size
93
Small
48
Medium
46
Large
5
Teats
93
Small
38
Medium
57
Large
Navel flap
92
Absent
26
Small
46
Medium
Body
Hump
Profile
Ears
Horns
households
11
6
Not reported
1
Not reported
1
Medium
45
Long
Not reported
1
3
Small
44
Medium
49
Large
3
Not reported
1
–
Small
62
Medium
36
Large
1
Not reported
1
Not reported
1
Not reported
2
Not reported
–
Not reported
1
Dropping
2
Not reported
–
Not reported
1
Large
2
Not reported
–
5
Not reported
20
Not reported
2
Concave
9
Shaded
2
1
17
2
13
44
5
26
33
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
10.
CONCLUSIONS
The results presented in this report attempt to describe the cattle genetic resources of Oromiya
Region and their production system. This only represents a small proportion of the total
amount of results on cattle generated by this survey. It does not even include results from the
other species.
The results demonstrate the diversity between zones, agro-ecological zones, and production
systems for the genetic resources and their environment. Production system was not used as a
stratification criterion, but results show that it is important in that it is responsible for
substantial differences among genetic resources and their characteristics. Type of production
system should, in the future be included as criterion for stratification.
Characterisation of the genetic resources and their environment can contribute to planning of
livestock development or conservation activities. One could now decide to target activities at
zone level, agro-ecological zone, livestock density, or at production system level.
Alternatively, one could decide to target activities directly at breed types. It is, therefore, up to
the livestock experts or the policy makers concerned with livestock development or
conservation, to decide how to use this information for planning of livestock development or
conservation activities. As indicated at the beginning of the report, the amount of data
collected from this survey is substantial and can be analysed in different ways to address
different questions. It is a database, which should be maintained and updated with regular
surveys.
34
Livestock Breed Survey of Oromiya Regional State
REFERENCES
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation). 1999. The global strategy for the management of farm
animal genetic resources. Executive brief.
OADB (Oromiya Agricultural Development Bureau). 1998. Brief highlights in agricultural investment
potentials of Oromiya. March 1998.
Physical Planning Department. 2000. Physical and socio-economic profiles of 180 districts of Oromiya
Region. Council of the Regional State of Oromiya, Bureau of Planning and Economic
Development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
35