Academic Journal of Nutrition 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

ISSN 2309-8902
© IDOSI Publications, 2023
DOI: 10.5829/idosi.ajn.2023.25.50

Assessment of Feed Resources, Determination of the Feed Balance

and Analysis of Chemical Compositions of the Most Commonly
Used Feeds in Sankura District, Silte Zone, Southern Ethiopia

Ahmednur Negash Juhar

Silte Zone, Sankura District Agricultural Office, Ethiopia

Abstract: This study was conducted to assess feed resource availability, feed balance, chemical composition
and dry matter digestibility of major feedstuffs in Sankura district, Siltie Zone of Southern Nation Nationalities
and Peoples Regional State. One hundred thirty two, (94 from lowland and 38 from midland agro ecologies)
were selected for the study purposively based on their livestock rearing experience, number and types of
livestock holding in consultation with districts’ livestock experts. A structured questionnaire was prepared and
an interview of each household was carried out to collect data on demographic and socio-economic
characteristics of households, livestock holding and composition, available feed resources and feeding
practices, livestock feeding management practices and constraints of livestock production. The common feed
samples that were used in lowland and midland agro ecologies available in one season (July to August) were
randomly collected and analysed for chemical composition. Descriptive statistics was used to analyze the data
using SPSS. The average family size of the households was 7.74±0.298 for lowland and 5.92±0.305 for midland
agro ecologies. Average farm size of households in the lowland and midland agro ecologies was 2.38±0.08 ha,
respectively. The total land holding per household was 1.32 ha for lowland and 1.01 ha for midland
agro-ecology. There was a significant difference (p<0.05) in livestock holding between lowland and midland
agro ecology. The major feed resources available were natural pastures, crop residues and improved forages
and pasture. About 136,569.867 tons total dry matters (tDM) per year were produced in the study district,
whereas about 202,834.8 t DM was the total annual requirement. Hence, there was a deficit of about 32.6% DM
in the district. The major constraints hindering livestock feeding were land shortage, lack of irrigation system
and inaccessibility of concentrate feeds. In the study, area with the exception of natural pasture roughages
evaluated as higher CP contents than the minimum level of 7% CP required for optimum rumen microbial
function. The NDF content for all feedstuffs in the current study is higher than the critical level of 45% and also
the IVDMD value in the current were lower than 65%. In conclusion, unless efforts are made to meet the nutrient
requirements of livestock through proper feed management and supplementation. It is necessary to supply
adequate amount of feed all year round through treatment of crop residues, which are the dominant feedstuff
and supplementation with tree legumes.

Key words: Feed Resource Livestock Feed Balance Chemical Composition Feed Management

INTRODUCTION farmers and pastoralist societies. The importance of

livestock in the provisioning of food, incomes,
Livestock is an important segment of the agriculture employment, nutrients and provision of insurance during
sector in Ethiopia. The contribution of livestock to the times of crises and uncertainty to millions of rural
agriculture economy accounts for 47 % [1]. Livestock households is widely appreciated. In developing
production is among the most important agricultural countries including Ethiopia, livestock provide the
enterprises in the developing countries of the world. majority of the livestock domestic products for
It contributes significantly to the livelihood of smallholder households. Keeping livestock have served the poor as

Corresponding Author: Ahmednur Negash Juhar, Silte Zone, Sankura District Agricultural Office, Ethiopia.

25
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

a social safety net, providing insurance for times of need. of cultivated land at expense of grazing land for crop
Livestock are also important providers of nutrients and production to provide food for the ever-increasing human
draught power for crop production in smallholder crop- population. Limited extension services of forage
livestock production systems. Livestock also serve as production and utilization; inadequate availability of
food security, human nutrition and economic growth for forage seeds and planting material of desired species and
developing countries including Ethiopia. In response to a lack of suitable forage options that are well adapted to
a variety of drivers including human population growth, local biotic (pests and diseases) and a biotic (edaphic and
rising income and urbanization, livestock production climatic) stresses contribute to low productivity.
systems in developing countries such as Ethiopia are Furthermore, improper management (e.g., no fertilizer or
changing rapidly which could be seen as an opportunity manure application and overgrazing) of natural pastures
to benefit from the livestock sector [2]. has also lead to soil nutrient depletion and pasture
Livestock feed resources are classified as natural degradation and limit livestock production. As a result,
pasture, crop residue, improved pasture and forage, agro there is always likely to be limited feed resources for the
industrial by products, other by-products like food and existing livestock population in the country. This
vegetable refusal, of which the first two contribute the condition calls for improving the supply and availability
largest feed type [3, 4]. The contribution to these feed of feed. Improving pasture quality and productivity is
resources, however, depends up on the agro-ecology, the especially important if we are to address feed constraints
type of crop produced, accessibility and production and sustainably increase feed and food production. In
system [5]. In the mixed farming systems of mid altitude this regard, intensive utilization of the available feed
areas of the country, the main permanent natural resources through improved management, production and
pasturelands are found on upper slopes of hills, farm utilization is highly recommended as one of the major
margins and seasonally water logged areas. Due to poor strategies for feasible livestock productivity in Ethiopia [9,
management and overstocking, natural pastures are 10]. The objective of current study is to assess feed
highly overgrazed resulting in sever land degradation, resource availability, feed balance, chemical composition
loss of valuable species and dominance by unpalatable and dry matter digestibility of major feedstuffs in the
species [6]. study area.
Feed scarcity of both quantitative and qualitative
dimensions is the major bottleneck for the promotion of MATERIALS AND METHODS
the livestock sub-sector in the country. Much of the
available feed resources is utilized to support maintenance Description of Sankura District
requirement of the animals with little surplus left for Area Coverage and Location: The study was carried out
production. There are marked seasonality in quantity and in six kebeles of Sankura district of Siltie Zone Southern
quality of available feed resources due to various Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State
environmental determinants (drought, frost etc.) [7]. (SNNPRS), Ethiopia. The district is located 215 km south
Ethiopia has a large livestock population and diverse of Addis Ababa and about 127 km south west of the
agro-ecological zones suitable for livestock production Regional capital, Hawassa in the Great Rift Valley; it is
and for growing of diverse types of food and forage bordered on the west by Hadiya Zone, on the north by
crops. However, livestock production has mostly been Wulbareg district, on the northeast by Dalocha and
subsistence oriented and characterized by low production Lanfuro district and on the southeast by Alaba zone. The
and productivity, which is reflected by low output of district is geographically located 7°29' 14.68'' north latitude
meat, milk, drought power and other animal products. and 38°6' 20.415 ’’ east longitudes and it is found at
Feed constraint both interns of quantity and quality, is altitudinal range of 1799 to 2001 m a.s.l, most of it being
among the main challenges to improve livestock 1800 m a.s.l.
production in Ethiopia. Natural pasture and crop residues The total land area is 33723.47 hectar; out of these
are the major sources of feed for livestock in most parts of 77.25% is suitable for agriculture. Land use data of district
the country, which for most part are inadequate to supply showed 75.35% arable, 9.6% grazing land, 2.08% forest,
maintenance level of feeding for the existing livestock 1.9% potentially cultivable, 0.94% uncultivable land (hills)
population [8, 9]. Furthermore, at present, grazing areas and 10.11% others like rivers, inaccessible lands and
have been shrinking and declining due to rapid expansion gorges.

26
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

Fig. 1: Satellite map of study area

Table 1: Major Crop production and Livestock population

District Major Crop Production(QT) Land in Hector Major Livestock Pop.
Sankura Maize 306,344.5 5621.5 Cattle 106,926
Wheat 172,188.45 4315.5 Sheep 31,076
Teff 23,220.1 1304.5 Goat 24,273
Sorghum 10,147.5 521.5 Poultry 204,400
Barley 4,655.6 306 Donkey 16,010
Haricot bean 28,810 1473.5 horses 553
Mule 125
Total 545,366.15 14428.75 106,926
Source: - Agriculture and natural resource and livestock and fishery offices, 2021 [12].

Climate: Agro ecologically, the district has two agro rain may Begin earlier/later and lasts before the usual time.
ecological conditions those are lowland and midland. This has an impact on growing period and reliability of
The annual rainfall varies from 1000 to 1490 mm, while the rainfall.
average Annual temperature is 23 degree centigrade.
The area receives the reliability of rainfall for crop Population: There is no recent human population census
production and duration of growing periods, the three of the district, but according to 1999 E.C National
seasonal patterns of rainfall in this district experienced population and Housing census results, the total
Summer (Dec., Jan. and Feb.) Provide rain for limited population of Sankura district was 112,710, of which
part of the region, Belg (little rain season) (March, April) 56,556 were Males and 56,154 were females. Of the total
the amount of rainfall received is relatively lower population in the district, 94.8% resides in rural areas
than the winter Rainfall that occurred in June, July, while only 5.2% are located in urban areas. The data
August. September However, in each of the seasons the indicated further that there were 21,997 households in the

27
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

district with an average of 5.0 persons per household with Table 2: Selected household unity of the study area
1,560 households in urban areas and 20,462 households No Kebele Total HH Sample HH

in rural areas. 1 Menzo- Gumbi 472 23

2 Layi- Kemo 450 22
3 Getem 452 22
Livestock Population and Major Crops Growing in the 4 Deneb 330 16
District: Farmers in the district has an estimated total 5 Gutancho 620 30
74,848 head of cattle, 31,076 sheep, 24,273 goats, 553 6 Regdina 400 19
horses, 125 mules, 16,010 asses, 204,400 poultry of all Total 2724 132
species and 5535 beehives for the district [11]. Selected household unity of the study area

Design and Sampling Procedures: A cross sectional n = 1.962*0.1*0.9*2724/0.052 (2724-1) +1.962*0.1*.09 =

survey (non-experimental) study design was employed 131.6 rounded to 132
with households using semi structured questionnaires,
focus group discussion (FGDs), key informant interview Finally, from a total of 2724 households 23, 22, 22, 16,
(KIs), field observation to assess livestock feed resources 30 and 19 from Menzo-gunbi, Layi-kemo, Getem, Deneb,
and for analysis of chemical compositions of the most Gutancho and Regdina kebeles respectively, were
commonly used feeds and Multi stage sampling design purposively selected for the study.
was employed to collected the data. To determine representative samples from each
kebeles, sampling proportion to population was used.
Sampling Technique and Sample Size Determination:
Sankura district was selected purposively because of its Pi = ni /N
livestock production potential. Then after it was stratified
into two, based on agro-ecology (as per the conventional where:
classification method used) namely; mid land and lowland Pi = proportion of population included in the study area.
agro ecologies. The district consists of 29 rural kebeles ni = the number of sample
with 25 of them located in the lowland and 4 in the mid N = the total number of the population
land. Four out of the 25 in the lowland and 2 of the four in Based on this, proportion from each kebele was Pi =
the mid land were used for the survey assuming that they 132/2724 = 0.048
would represent the kebeles in each agro ecology.
Accordingly, the six representative kebeles namely, Data Collection
Menzo Gumbi, Regdina, Gutancho and Layi Kemo) from Types and Sources of Data: Both primary and secondary
the lowland (4 kebeles) and Getem and Deneb from
sources were used to collect the data. Secondary
midland (2 kebeles) were selected randomly. List of the
information was obtained from Sankura district livestock
target households in each kebele were selected
and fishery office (SDLFO) and Agriculture and natural
purposively based on their livestock rearing experience,
resource office (SDANRO) by holding discussions and
number and types of livestock holding in consultation
interviews with experts of district office agriculture,
with districts livestock experts. Hence, a total of 132
livestock and fishery office. Primary data sources were
respondents were selected from six kebeles according to
household survey, focus group discussions (FGD) and
Solomon et al. [13], sample size determination formula.
key informants interviews (KII) in which the data were
collected using questionnaires. Moreover, laboratory
Z2 .p.q.N
n= chemical analysis was conducted to estimate the nutrient
e 2 (N − 1) + Z2 .p.q
composition of the most commonly used feed stuffs..
where; n = sample size, Z = 95% confidence limit (interval)
that is 1.96 given or constant, P = 0.1 (population Household Survey: The actual household survey was
proportion to be included in the sample that is 10%) =it conducted from May 2021 to October 2021 with a pre-
depends, q = None occurrence of event = 1-p= 1- 0.1 that tested questionnaire along with focus group discussion
is (0.9), N = total number of (household) found in the and key informants interviews. Household level data and
study area and e = level of accuracy or sampling error feed resource were collected from the sampled
(Where, = 0.05). households employing semi-structured questionnaires.
To get the sample size; The questionnaires was pre-tested and rearranged before

28
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

the actual data collection started. Primary data on Determination of the Feed Balance in the Study Area
household education level, household size, household Estimation of Annual Feed Availability in the District:
herd size and composition, land holding and utilization The quantity of feed DM obtained annually from different
pattern, major feed resources, production of grain and land use type was determined by multiplying the hectare
crop residues, seasonality of feed availability, constraints under each land use type by conversion factor of each
in feed production, conservation and supply were the crop [14]. Conversion factors of 2.0, 0.5, 2.0, 2.0, 1.8 and
major ones among others. The contents of the 0.7 t DM/ha/year was used for natural pasture, crop
questionnaires focused primarily on livestock feed aftermath grazing, private grazing land, communal grazing
resource and feed related constraints of livestock land, fallow land and forest/wood land respectively.
production in the study areas. The quantity of available crop residues produced by
farmers was estimated by converting crop yield to straw
Focus Groups: One focus group discussions which yield [14- 17]. Accordingly, for a ton of wheat, barley and
comprises of 8 participants (4 male and 2 female farmers teff straws a multiplier of 1.5 was used, for haricot bean a
ranging between 30-42 years of age; 2 development multiplier of 1.2 was used [14], for noug seed and linseed
agents (DA), who have better experience in livestock and a multiplier of 4.0 was used [14, 15], for maize a multiplier
feed production, was held at each study kebele to clarify of 2.0 [17] and sorghum a multiplier of 2.5 was used [16].
and check issues not well indicated by interviewed According to Adugna et al. [18], the total quantity of
households. The discussions focused on the livestock potentially available crop residues for animal consumption
feed resources, feed resource availability, feed was estimated by multiplying the crop residue yield by
conservation practice, feed conservation method, 90% assuming that 10% wastage of feed mostly occurs
livestock feed resource utilization, major livestock feed during feeding and/or used for other purposes shown in
constraints and opportunities existing in the study area appendix.
and feed shortage alleviation strategies.
Estimation of Dry Matter Requirement of the Animals in
Key Informant Interview: Fifteen key informant's three the District: Data of livestock population in the selected
livestock production experts from the district and 12 households was obtained from the interview of household
livestock developmental agents from interviewed kebeles heads during the survey. Total annual DM produced from
were identified and interviewed. Livestock feed resources, natural pasture, crop residues and improved forages and
feed resource availability, major livestock feed constraints concentrate was compared with annual DM requirements
and opportunities for livestock feed production existing of the livestock population in the sampled households.
in the area, feed shortage improvement strategies, The number of livestock population was converted into
alternative livestock feed and extension services on tropical livestock unit (TLU) for local and crossbred
livestock feed production to societies were also key animals using the recommended conversion factors of
issues that had been discussed during the discussions Funte et al.[19], Gryseels and Goe [20] and Seyoum and
with key informants in the study area. Zinash [21]. Therefore, livestock Species-specific TLU
conversion factors of 0.7 for cattle, 0.1 for sheep and
Secondary Data Collection: Secondary data sources, goats, 0.5 for donkeys 0.8 for horses and 0.7 for mule were
namely, research reports, official reports and plans, used. The DM requirement of livestock population was
information pack/basic information records and calculated according to Kearl [22] where the daily DM
stakeholders’ meeting were used to support and requirement for maintenance of 1 TLU (equivalent to 250
triangulate data from primary sources. Most of these were kg livestock) which consumes 2.5% of its body weight is
obtained from government officials and experts by 6.25 kg DM/day or 2281 kg DM/ year/animal or
holding discussions and interviews with experts of district 2.28tones/year/TLU [19].
office agriculture, livestock and fishery office.
Secondary sources of information employed in this Chemical Composition and in Vitro Dry Matter
study were included published and unpublished materials Digestibility
such as reports, plans, official records, project proposals Sampling of Feeds for Chemical Analysis: Representative
and reports, research papers and websites and these samples of feed resources commonly used by farmers,
sources were used carefully by counter checking for their which are available, were collected randomly from both
accuracy/validity. agro ecologies in one season (July to August). Then

29
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

representative samples of roughage feeds like natural For parameters, which required ranking, indices were
pasture, elephant grass, desho grass were thoroughly calculated to provide ranking of major feed types and
mixed and divided into quarters by its type and feeding practices for dairy cattle production in the study
representative of each sample was taken. For crop area and coping strategies to feed scarcity. The indices
residues samples like wheat straw, maize stover and teff were calculated as follows:
straw were randomly taken by ten (10) farmers thoroughly Index = (5×number of responses for the first rank+4
mixed and divided in to quarters by its type and ×number of responses for the second rank+3×numberof
representative of each sample were taken to determine responses for the third rank + 2 × number of responses for
chemical composition of feedstuffs. fourth + 1 × number of responses for the fifth) / (5 × total
responses for the first rank + 4 × total responses for the
Chemical Analysis and In vitro Dry Matter Digestibility: second rank + 3 × total responses for the third rank + 2 ×
The feed samples were oven-dried at 60 0C for 48h and total responses for the fourth rank + 1 × number of
ground to pass through 1 mm sieve size for chemical responses for the fifth) n number of respondents.
analysis and in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD).
The ground samples were kept in air-tight containers until RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
used for analysis. The determination of dry matter (DM),
ash and ether extract (EE) was conducted according to Socio-demographic Characteristics of the Respondents:
AOAC [23]. Nitrogen (N) content was determined by The socio demographic characteristics of the households
AOAC [23] method and crude protein (CP) was calculated included in the survey are presented in Table 3 below.
as N*6.25. The neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid Gender equality makes good sense. This study
detergent fiber (ADF) were analyzed following the shows no significant difference in the sex of HH heads
procedure of Van Soest et al.[24]. In vitro dry matter between agro ecologies. The proportions of male headed
digestibility (IVDMD) was estimated using a Daisy II households were 74.5% in lowland and 81.6% in midland
Incubator based on the modified two stages in vitro Tilley with the overall male headed households being 78%,while
and Terry procedure [25], as modified by Van Soest and 24.5% and 18.4% were female headed in lowland and
Robertson [26]. Analyses were carried out at Hawassa midland agro-ecologies, respectively. The overall female-
University, College of Agriculture and animal Nutrition headed households were 22%. The higher number of male
laboratory. headed respondents compared with female headed in
lowland and midland agro ecologies is in agreement with
Statistical Analysis: The survey data were analyzed by that of Azage [27] who reported the majority (67%) of the
using SPSS (version 20). Descriptive statistics such as respondents were male household heads in Addis Ababa.
mean, standard error (SE), frequency, percentage, were Assefa et al. [9] also reported higher proportion (85%) of
used to summarize different qualitative and quantitative male household heads in Adami Tullu Jiddo Kombolicha
variable. The means of quantitative data between agro district.
ecologies and seasons were compared by employing Overall mean age of the household heads was found
two-way analysis of variance. Spearman correlation to be 38.09±0.406 with the minimum value of 28 and the
coefficient was used to realize the relationship between maximum value of 48 years. This result is lower than the
factors of importance. Level of significance was findings of [27] (42.82±1.37) for Alaba district and there
considered at P<0.05. The statistical differences between was no significant difference (P>0.05) between the agro
qualitative variables that were analyzed followed cross ecologies.
tabulation (chi-square procedure) was also proclaimed Educational background of sampled household
significant at P<0.05. The statistical model used for heads is believed to be an important feature that
analyzing data on feed resource was: determines the readiness of the household head to accept
new ideas and innovations.
The model: Yijk = µ + i + eijk As educational status of a household head increases,
it is assumed to increase the transfer of relevant
Yijk = Response variable/Dependent variable information and as a result increase farmers’ knowledge
µ = Overall mean about the use of feed for livestock to increase the
i = the effect of location (agro-ecology) productivity of livestock. Out of the households included
eijk = The error term in the current study, about 31.9% and 29% were illiterate

30
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

Table 3: Household characteristics of the respondents

Location
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowland Midland Overall
Variables N= 94 N= 38 N=132 P value
Sex of the household head (%)
Males 74.5 81.6 78 0.383
Females 25.5 18.4 22
Educational status (%) 0.150
Illiterate 31.9 29 31.8
Primary 54.3 60.5 55.3
Secondary 3.2 2.6 3.03
College and above 3.2 2.6 3.03
Can read and write 7.4 5.3 6.8
Income (%)
Low 24.5 34.2 29.3
Medium 72.5 61.1 67.8
High 3 2.7 2.9
Age of the household head ((Mean±SE) 37.91±0.47 38.53±0.805 38.09±0.406 0.639
Average family size per household (Mean±SE) 7.74±0.298 5.92±0.305 7.22±0.240 0.157
N=Number of respondents, SE=Standard error, % = percentage

in lowland and midland areas, respectively, while 54.3 % Landholding and Land Use Pattern of the Households:
in lowland and 60.5% in midland attended primary Land is the most important limiting production factor in
education. The rest of them, which accounted for the the study area and the quality and quantity of land
smaller proportions, have attended either high school or available greatly determines the amount of production.
college education; or can read and write. There were no However, as opposed to family size, the land holding per
significant differences among household heads of household is decreasing from time to time affecting the
the agro ecologies in the level of education (P > 0.05). production of crop and rearing livestock. The landholding
This was attributed to better chances of education and and land use pattern of the study area are shown in
establishment of schools uniformly both agro ecology. Table 4. The study revealed that the total land holding per
Majority of the respondents (61.4%) in the present study household was 1.32 ha for lowland and 1.01 ha for midland
had formal education and is important to understand agro-ecology. The overall land holding per household
extension messages and to realize the importance of new was 1.175 ha. The total land holding of the household was
technologies within a short time. According to Ofukou significantly (P<0.05) different between the two study
et al. [28], farmers with high educational levels usually sites. The main reason for the higher land holding in the
adopt new technologies more rapidly than lower educated lowlands is that the land is flat and most of the land is
farmers. In general, the proportion of educated farmers used for agriculture and the midland area is relatively
(61.4%) in the study area was in agreement with the small due to the low terrain and high mountains and
finding of Mergia [29] and higher than the finding of valleys. The land holding obtained in the current study is
Bedasa [30], who reported 50% for highlands of the Blue agreement with the land holdings of 1.1 ha/HH in
Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Shashemene-Dilla area [32] and the national average land
The overall average family size of the households holdings of 1.22ha/HH [4].
was 7.22±0.240 (ranging from 2-14). This value was greater The average cropland holding per household was
than both the regional and National values report of 5.2 1.02±0.04 ha for lowland and 0.85±0.096 ha for midland
(SNNPR) and 5.1 CACC, 2003 [31], respectively. This is agro ecologies and there was a significant (P<0.05)
highly attributed to the polygamous marriage of the difference between both sites. The overall average
society in the district and low awareness of family cropland holding per household was 0.93±0.48 ha/HH.
planning. The values of family size between the two study The average land allocated for private grazing land was
sites are comparable; being 7.74±0.298 in lowland and 0.12±0.017 ha and 0.06±0.23 ha/HH in lowland and
6.61±0.367 in midland; declaring non-significant difference midland agro ecologies, respectively. The overall
(P>0.05). average private grazing land was 0.09±0.14 ha and the

31
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

Table 4: Land holding (ha) and land use pattern of the sampled households in study area
Agro Ecology mean,±SEM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowland Midland Overall
Variables N= 94 N= 38 N=132 P value
Total land (ha) 1.32±0.09 1.03±0.15 1.175±0.08 0.004
Crop land (ha 1.02±0.04 0.85±0.96 0.93±0.035
Private grazing (ha) 0.12±0.017 0.06±0.23 0.09±0.14 0.000
Forage and pasture (ha) 0.03±0.012 0.02±0.023 0.025±0.011
Others (ha) 0.15±0.07 0.1±0.11 0.125±063
Land allocation for field crop (ha)
Maize 0.48±0.018 0.27±0.026 0.375±0.016
Teff 0.1±0.006 0.15±0.013 0.125±0.005
Wheat 0.35±0.014 0.26±0.029 0.305±0.013
Barley 0.010±0.0004 0.037±0.016 0.015±0.094
Haricot bean 0.07±0.005 0.063±0.007 0.066±0.004
Sorghum 0.08±0.006 0.07±0.010 0.08±0.005
N=Number of respondents, SE=Standard error, ha = hectare

two agro-ecologies were significantly (P<0.05) different maize in the current study was larger than the average
in this regard. However, areas of private and communal land holdings for maize is 0.13ha/HH in Kedida Gamel
grazing lands were very small and decreasing from time to district, Southern Ethiopia [33].
time in the two agro-ecologies compared to TLU per
household due to population pressure and redistribution Livestock Holding and Composition: Table 5 shows the
of land for investments. Improved forage and pasture livestock holding per household in the study area in
landholding per HH was 0.03±0.012 ha and 0.02±0.023 ha tropical livestock units (TLU). The total livestock holding
for lowland and midland agro-ecologies, respectively. The per household in lowland and midland agro ecologies was
overall average improved forage and pasture not significantly different (P>0.05). The overall mean TLU
landholding/HH was 0.025±0.011 ha and there was no of livestock per household in the study area was 4.413,
significant difference (P>0.05) among the agro ecologies. 0.409, 0.415, 0.698, 0.238 and 6.175 for cattle, sheep, goats,
According to 34.1% of the respondent forages could be donkeys, poultry and total livestock, respectively. with
grown as pure stand on the field, while 65.9% respondent some variations to the current study, an average TLU of
reported that planting tree legumes as border and live 7.97, 0.74, 0.46, 0.78 and 0.07 for cattle, sheep, goats,
fence was practiced which includes intercropping with donkeys and poultry, respectively in Meta Robi district
cereals and alley cropping as a possible means of was reported by [29]; and 5.35, sheep 0.49, goats 0.03,
establishing improved forages. donkeys 0.22 and poultry 0.02 in Jeldu district were
In the study area, the large proportion (79%) of the reported by Bedasa [30]. Cattle and sheep holding per
land is used for annual crop production and perennial household in lowland and midland agro-ecologies were
crop production, indicating the limitations of pasture significantly different (P<0.05), while sheep and goat
supply from grazing land or fallow land implying the holding of the household at wet season were significantly
dependence of farmers on crop residues for livestock larger (P<0.05) than at dry season. This is due to the fact
feeding. Overall, the mean landholding for maize was that during wet season there is better-feed availability
0.375±0.016 ha per household but there was a significant than dry season.
difference (P<0.05) between the two agro ecologies in this The average livestock holding per household in
regard. Land allocation for maize, teff and barley in midland agro ecology was 4.69, while it was 6.77 in
midland was higher than a lowland. Overall, the mean lowland agro ecology. Cattle were the most important
landholdings for wheat were 0.305±0.013 ha per species in both study areas, which could be observed
household and the land holding for these two crops was from total cattle holding per household. The cattle holding
significantly different (P<0.05) between agro-ecologies. per household in highland and midland agro-ecology were
The annual crop production holding obtained in the not significantly different (P>0.05). This is due to that
current study is agreement with the annual crop farmers in the study area buy more cattle at wet season
production holdings of large proportion (70%) in Kedida because there is better- feed availability during wet
Gamel district Fiseha [33] and the mean land holding for season. The cattle holding of households in the study

32
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

Table 5: Livestock species holding and composition per household (TLU)

Agro Ecology mean,±SEM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lowland (N=94) Midland (N= 38) Overall (N=132)
Livestock mean,±SEM mean,±SEM mean,±SEM P value
Total livestock 6.772±0.290 4.697±0.364 6.175±0.245 0.066
Cattle 4.856±0.245 3.315±0.300 4.413±0.203 0.035
Sheep 0.458±0.023 0.289±0.039 0.409±0.021 0.000
Goat 0.443±0.037 0.347±0.242 0.415±0.029 0.570
Donkey 0.744±0.035 0.585±0.234 0.698±0.014 0.130
Poultry 0.26±0.180 0.159±0.110 0.238±0.144 0.005
TLU=Total livestock unit,; N=Number; SE= standard error..

Table 6: Major Feed resources available in the study area

Availability level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feed resources First Second Third Fourth Fives Index Rank
Natural pasture 63 10 34 30 0 0.260 2th
Crop residues 64 24 15 43 29 0.289 1st
Hay 6 51 18 6 0 0.151 4nd
Forage and pasture 0 40 42 27 13 0.178 3th
Fodder trees 0 7 21 7 17 0.060 5th
Aftermath 0 0 3 8 0 0.011 7th
AIBP 0 0 0 13 74 0.050 6rd
Others 0 0 0 0 0 0.000
Total 132 132 132 132 132
*Index = [(5 * rank 1)+(4 * rank 2)+(3 * rank 3)+ (2 * rank 4)+ (1 * rank 5)] divided by sum of all feed resources mentioned by respondents, AIBP = Agro-
Industrial By Products

area was higher than the finding of Mergia et al. [29], who teff and barley were the major feed resource in the area.
reported 3.3 TLU/HH in Baresa watershed and Mengistu The importance of natural pasture and crop residue in this
et al. [34] which was 3.05±0.15 TLU per household in study is in agreement with report of Ahmed et al. [5],
Kedida Gamela district. It is, however, lower than the Adugna et al. [39] and Belay et al. [40] in the central
finding of Sisay [35] in Debark (5.1±0.35TLU/HH), zones of Ethiopia, in the central highlands of Ethiopia and
Layarmachiho (5.6±0.38TLU/HH) and (9.4±1.03TLU/HH) in Dandi district, respectively.
in Metema district of North Gonder and Yishitile [36] for
Alaba district which was 7.38TLU/HH. Feed Resources during Dry and Wet Seasons: Table 7
depicts the seasonal feed availability. During the dry
Major Livestock Feeds in the Study Area: Table 6 season, 90.9% of the respondents in the study district use
indicates major feed resources available to livestock in the crop residues as number one feed resource followed by
study area. Crop residues, Natural pasture, improved hay (73.5%) and 56% of them use agro-industrial by
forages and pasture; and hay are ranked as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and product. In wet seasons, all the respondents (100%) in
4th, respectively. There is limited improved forage both agro ecologies use natural pasture followed by
production to supplement livestock feeds in the study improved forage, pasture and fodder tree to feed their
area. Conventional and non- conventional feed sources animals.
are not used to feed livestock in both agro-ecologies of During dry season feeds that grouped under crop
the study area. residues, hay and natural pasture were ranked 1st, 2nd and
During the group discussion, it was pointed out that 3rd in the study area with index values of 0.327, 0.229 and
crop residues, natural pasture, improved forages and hay 0.145, respectively. In contrast, during wet season
are major available feed resources. This finding is in natural pasture was ranked 1st both in the study area
agreement with the report of Zinash et al. [37] and with index values of 0.494 which was in line with the
Terefe [38] for the Ethiopian central highlands. In general, report of Jimma et al. [7]; Andualem et al. [41] for Essera
natural pasture and crop residues are the major feed District, Southern Ethiopia; Belay et al. [40] in Dandi
resources. Crop residues from cereals like maize, wheat, district and Shitahun [42] for Bure district, Ethiopia. It was

33
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

Table 7: Feed resources during dry and wet seasons in the study area
Availability level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season Feed types First Second Third Fourth Fives Index Rank
Dry season Natural pasture 0 0 61 52 0 0.145 3rd
Crop residues 120 12 0 0 0 0.327 1st
Hay 12 87 15 0 0 0.229 2nd
Forage and pasture 0 23 32 30 25 0.138 4th
Fodder trees 0 0 0 6 33 0.023 8th
Aftermath 0 0 8 15 0 0.029 7th
AIBP 0 0 10 29 74 0.082 5rd
Others 0 10 6 0 0 0.027 6th
Total 132 132 132 132 132
Wet season Natural pasture 132 41 30 32 0 0.494 1st
Crop residues 0 0 0 7 58 0.036 5rd
Hay 0 0 13 11 0 0.031 6th
Forage and pasture 0 68 47 50 0 0.259 2nd
Fodder trees 0 23 42 12 0 0.122 3rd
Aftermath 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 7th
AIBP 0 0 0 20 74 0.058 4th
Others 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 7th
132 132 132 132 132
*Index= [(5 * rank 1)+(4 * rank 2)+(3 * rank 3)+ (2 * rank 4)+ (1 * rank 5)] divided by sum of all feed resources mentioned by respondents, AIBP=Agro
Industrial By-Product

generally accepted by all respondents that there is The status of communal grazing land differs in the
seasonal shortage of feed resources in the study areas. study agro-ecologies. Overall, 50% of HHs used
The availability of feed resources varied in seasons with communal grazing land to graze their livestock. About
respect to quality, quantity and type of feed. During the 47% and 3% of the respondent used tree covered
wet season, the feed resources available to livestock in grassland and open grass land in the study area,
the study area were mainly natural pasture. Whereas, respectively. All of the respondents (100%), in the study
during the dry season feed resources available to areas replied that the size of communal grazing land was
livestock include, crop-residue, hay and natural pasture in decreasing over the years. They believed population
their descending order. growth and settlement (37.5%) and the consequent
explanation of farming land (62.5%) were the major
Natural Pasture Availability: Natural pasture is the major reasons.
feed resource of the study area during wet season, which The mean private grazing land owned by the
was in agreement with the report of Alemayehu and Sisay respondents in the study area was 0.2±0.017 and 0.12±0.23
[43] who reported that natural pasture and crop residue hectares per household for lowland and midland agro
are the major feed resources in most areas of Ethiopia. ecology, respectively (Table 4). As shown in the table, the
These feed resources are generally poor in quality and mean private grazing land of natural pasture was
their productivity and supply is seasonal, particularly a significantly different (P<0.05) in the study area. This was
critical problem during the dry season. During the group probably due to the larger area of private grazing land
discussion, Households mentioned that there was feed holding per household in lowland than midland area.
shortage during dry season in the area, which was similar The availability of natural pasture during wet season was
with the finding of Kechero et al. [44] for Jimma zone and significantly larger (P<0.05) than dry season. This is due
Andualem et al. [8] for Essera district, southern Ethiopia. to the adequate availability of rainfall during wet season.
Results from the current study showed that there were Traditional livestock production in the study area is
less effects of the agro-ecology on livestock feeds predominantly based on crop residue followed by natural
availability, but season had great effect on livestock feed pasture which was in line with the report of Mergia et al.
availability. [29] andualem et al. [41] and Zewdie and Yoseph [45].

34
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

Table 8: Utilization of agro industrial by product in the study area

Variables Lowland (N=94) Midland (N=38) Overall (N=132) P value
Practice of AIBP (%) 0.235
Yes 86.4 92.3 90.6
No 15.6 7.7 9.4
Types of AIBP (%) 0.625
Wheat bran 79.7 83.6 82.5
Molasses 12.1 10 10
Concentrate mix 8.2 6.4 7.5
AIBP= Agro industrial by-product, N = number of respondent

Crop Residues Availability: In the study area, crop Agro-Industrial by Products: During severe feed
residues such as maize stover, wheat, teff, barley and shortage the Concentrates mix and molasses used for
haricot bean straws, become major livestock feed milked cows, fattening beef, sheep and goat and also
resources during dry season which was in agreement with wheat bran supplements are also used for equines by
the report of Alemayehu and Sisay [43] who reported that majority (90.6%) of farmers in the study area.
natural pasture and crop residue are the major feed Concentrates mix and wheat bran is normally purchased
resources in most areas of Ethiopia. Moreover, crop from the nearby town, Worabe Melik farmers union and
residue is known as dominant feed resource in all wheat flour industry. And molasses purchased from Sugar
livestock production systems in Ethiopia [43]. However, industry by district livestock and fishery office. The use
their contributions to the total feed resource base varies of AIBP in the two ecologies was not significantly
from place to place based on cropping intensity [46] different (P>0.05). In agreement with the report of Belay
and the nature of crop residues produced depends on and Geert [48] concentrates mix and wheat bran are
the amount and type of crops grown in the area [35]. purchased from the nearby market of Durame town.
The available crop residues in the study area are excess In contrast, Mergia et al. [29] for Baresa watershed
from November to February and adequate available from reported that only about (21.7%) of respondents were
March to June. This shows that the production of crop using agro industrial by products as supplement.
residues is high due to land allocated for crop production Moreover, out of the total respondent farmers, 12%, 18%
being large and cropping is twice per year for most of the and 4% of the farmers use supplement feed during severe
crops. Moreover, less attention has been given to feed feed shortages in Debark, Layarmachiho and Metema
storage generally across the agro-ecologies districts, respectively [35]. Overall, about 82.5% of
respondents use wheat bran as supplement with average
Crop Aftermath Availability: Crop aftermath/stubble amount of 50 kg/month per household in the study area
grazing was an important feed resource of livestock feed (Table 8). However, the amount varied depending up on
during dry season in the study area. After harvesting the season and production levels of the animals. Only about
crops, livestock were allowed to graze on the aftermath, 10% and 7.5% of respondents used Molasses and
which was available after the harvest of cereal crops from concentrate mix as supplements with average amount of
late November to late March, being accessible to all 25 and 20 kg/month per household, respectively (Table 8).
livestock classes without any restriction for in the This is due to the price of concentrate mix per kilogram
locality.. Farmers used aftermath grazing as one means to being too high and the limited availability of molasses in
sustain their livestock before they started feeding of the town as compared to wheat bran that majority of
collected crop residues. The landowners only allowed farmers use wheat bran.
their livestock to graze on the stubbles for first two
months. Then other neighboring community could Improved Forages and Pastures: There were relatively
graze their livestock after two months. In agreement, good adoption and availability of improved forage crops
stubbles are accessible to livestock owned by grown in the study area, which was introduced by the
individual farmers for the first two months in central Safety net program in collaboration with the district
highlands of Ethiopia and later it becomes accessible to agriculture office. According to the respondents
all animals in the community [35]. Crop aftermaths are the report, the majority (91.3%) of households planted
major feed source in dry season in South Western improved forage crops; the remaining 8.7% of the
Ethiopia [47, 48]. households did not cultivate improved forage crops

35
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

Table 9: Forage type and production practice in the study area

% of responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variables Lowland (N=94) Midland (N=38) Overall (N=132) P value
Production practice 0.062
Yes 89.1 92.7 91.3
No 10.9 7.3 8.7
Forage types 0.223
Desho grass 68.1 78.9 71.2
Elephant grass 31.9 21.1 28.8
N = number of respondent

Table 10: Seasonal supply of available feeds in study area

Feed resources Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Natural pasture * - - - - X X X X X * *
Improved forage * - - - - X X X X X * *
Hay * * * * * - - - - - - *
Crop residue X X * * * * - - - - X X
Aftermath * * - - - - - - - - - *
AIBP * * * * * - - - - - * *
Others * * * * * * * * * * * *
r=period of excess availability; *= period of limited availability; - = period of shortage

(Table 9). In agreement with the results of this research, Moreover, all FGD and key informant explained that
58% and 67 % of dairy farmers in Nekemte and Bako the adoption rate of the forage technologies in the study
towns of the western Oromia have been reported to have area were found to be relatively better due to strong
practiced improved forage production [49]. Contrary to extension support and currently with rapid improved
the current findings, all households (100%) in Dandi forage development, the district was recognized and
district of Oromia do not cultivate improved forages to awarded at zonal level (information from livestock and
feed their livestock [40]. It was also reported that only fishery expert). Forage development strategies such as
13.3% households cultivate and use improved forages in planting in pure stand, intercropped with the cereals and
Daro Labu district, Western Hararghe Zone [50]. Majority alley cropping have a chance of better acceptance by the
of the respondents (68.4%) in South Western Ethiopia do community. According to my personal observations
not practice forage cultivation [47]. livestock owners in the surveyed area practice growing of
However, the proportion of land allocated for multipurpose legume trees, such as Sesbania and others
improved forage and pastureland was 0.02±0.012 ha and as a live fence. These feeds are good sources of protein
0.02±0.023 ha in lowland and midland agro-ecology, and minerals for dry season feeding.
respectively. The overall average improved forage and
pastureland was 0.02±0.011 ha and there was no Feed Resources Calendar: Respondents in the current
significant difference (P>0.05) among the agro ecologies. study classified months of the year according to feed
Furthermore, 34.1% of the respondents practiced planting availability (Table 10). Excess availability of feed
improved forages as pure stand, 65.9% of them do resources vis-à-vis months of the year were associated
plant tree legumes as a border and live fence, intercropped with rainy season and crop harvesting season. Grazing on
with cereals as well as alley cropping was a possible private grazing lands and using improved forage was a
practice. Overall, the major available improved forages common practice from June to October. In the rest of the
in the study area as reported by respondents were seasons, grazing lands did not provide feed for livestock.
Desho grass (71.2%) and Elephant grass (28.8%). Crop residues were the major sources of feed from
This forage species have been tested and were found to November to February. During the dry season, livestock
be well adapted, productive and accepted by the farmers. largely depend on crop residues in the study area. This is
In addition to the forage the farmers have practiced line with the reports of Belay and Geert [48] that stated
species various forage technologies such as backyard, crop residues and stubble grazing are the major feed
soil band particularly associated with the natural resource resources during the dry season in Burie Zuria District,
conservation. North Western Ethiopia.. The maximum shortage of feed

36
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

Table 11: Crop residues utilization in the study area

% of respondents (N = 132)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variables Feed Fuel Selling Plastering Other
Maize stover 76.5 18.2 5.3 0 0
Wheat straw 94.7 0 0 3.8 1.5
Teff straw 61.4 0 25 18 0
Barley straw 81.1 0 7.6 11.4 0
Haricot bean straw 87.1 0 8.3 0 4.5
n = number of respondents

in the study area was observed from March to May. Crop Residue Utilization and Feed Preservation Practice
In these months, the availability of natural pasture, Crop Residues Utilization: Table 11 presents the
improved forage, hay, crop residues and aftermath grazing utilization of crop residues in the study area. The
is reduced. The type and quantity of available feeds in the important share of crop residues as feed resource in the
study area appeared to be strongly influenced by study area, as illustrated earlier in this study revealed that
seasons. The type of feeds available in each month varies crop residues are under competitive uses. About 77.5% of
according to the season. The current results were in households stated that the residues from wheat straw,
agreement with that of Husen et al. [51] who reported that teff straw and maize stover are used primarily for feed.
feed resources availability has shown seasonal variations In addition, 21.8% of the respondents indicated that teff
in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia. As a result serious straw and wheat straw are used for construction of local
livestock body weight loss and production reduction was houses by mixing it with mud, which is then used to
a common phenomenon in the study area. Seasonal plaster the wall. A good proportion of households (18.2%)
variations in feed quality and quantity are the main stated that the residues from maize crop are used as a
limitation to animal production and cause fluctuation in source of firewood. The only crop residues sold in the
productivity throughout the year in Belesa district of study area are wheat straw and teff straw. It was reported
Amhara Region [52]. by the HHs that no crop residue is completely consumed
As it was revealed by the majority (97.5%) of by animals without leaving some for other purposes.
respondents in the current study, most severe feed They are used as a fuel, roof shatter, fences and any of
shortage was occurring from March to May, which was their combinations as the need arises besides their use as
comparable with the study of Andualem et al. [41] for livestock feeds. Crop residues use as fuel source and
Essera District who reported that according to 51.1% of plaster of walls are highly competing with feeding of
respondents feed shortage existed between February to livestock and hence an alternative means should be
April. Similarly, Mengistu et al. [29] has also reported that assessed to minimize this competition through awareness
severe feed shortage occurred in April to May for the creation of the farmers. The result of this study agrees
current study area. Mergia et al. [29] for Baresa watershed with the report of Bedasa [53] in the highlands of the Blue
reported that 100% of the respondents replied feed Nile Basin, Ethiopia, which illustrated crop residues are
shortage is very critical during the month of April to under competitive uses.
May. Furthermore, utilization efficiency has great problems
In general, relatively feed is in good supply during when it comes to crop residues because of less attention
the months of June to October, as a result of better is given to proper collection of crop residue, storage and
growth of pasture, improved forage and weeds grown as crop residues are excessively dumped during harvest
annual and perennial crops are available during this time period in addition to competition of alternative uses of
which also confers with the report of Mergia et al. [29]. crop residues. Indeed, majority of farmers had no a great
Thus, effective collection, conservation and proper concern to store the crop residues in a separate cottage
utilization of crop residues and hay making might increase constructed merely for storages of crop residues or on the
the quantity of available feeds while looking for other roof in their cottages. On the other hand, some farmers
alternatives options such as use of urea treatments and efficiently utilize these feed resources which they give to
scale-up of improved forage species with participatory their animals group by group or some even soak with
approach to improve the nutritional quality of available water to improve palatability and digestibility, still few
feeds for dry season in the study area. others chop browses like Acacia and wanza to give to

37
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

their animals with these crop residues and this is what is Kindokoisha and Humbo district, Southern Ethiopia
called efficient utilization of locally available feed reported that about 57.1% of respondents conserved
resources and is worth appreciation to be favored to be feeds for dry season in form of hay. The result of this
practiced by farmers. Farmers have to even develop not study is comparable with the report of Andualem et al.
only proper collection, storage and minor quality [41]. They mainly used a cut and carry system to feed
improvements but also have to reach a level where they their livestock as fresh due to inadequacy of natural
can formulate their own ration from mixes of crop residues, pasture. Silage preparation for their livestock was not
indigenous browse and a salty rift valley soil (local name practiced by farmers in the study area due to mainly lack
of bolet) abundantly available in the nearby since crop of knowledge for how to prepare it and inadequacy of
residues and stubble constitute the major feed for the forage. In a similar research, Jimma et al. [7] in Angetcha
area. district, Southern Ethiopia reported that there were no
The value of crop residues as animal feed becomes respondents that conserved feed resource in form of
more important because of the long dry season of about silage.
6 months with no green fodder. There is, however, an
abundant supply of crop residues; particularly cereal Feed Quality Improvement Practice in the Study Area:
straw during this period because the dry season normally There are different techniques by which the quality of a
coincides with the harvesting time of cereal crops in feed could be improved. To mention some of these
addition to the 69% dry matter production being from crop techniques; physical treatment from a simple soaking with
residues at district overall. water, chopping, grinding and pelleting up to the highest
technique of chemical treatment, especially the latter
Feed Storage Practice: The feeding value of crop improves the nutritive value of crop residues by 30%
residues could be greatly improved if they were stored there by removing the hard cover of plant cellulose. In
soon after harvest. Cutting and storing will minimize this case, crop residues are not exposed to such
wastage from grazing and if done soon after maturity, will treatments in the survey areas. There is no doubt that the
retain relatively good quality feed for livestock. One of the effect of sodium hydroxide on digestibility and intake of
utilization efficiency of feed resources is providing roughages is one of the techniques used to improve
storage house. Moreover, less attention has been given quality of roughages. In general, digestibility increases
to feed storage generally across the agro-ecologies; thus, between 10-20% and can be expected to improve the
51.5% of the respondent reported that crop residues are intake by 30-50% [54]. The overall feed quality
stored stacked outside, while 48.5% of the respondent improvement practices in the study area as reported by
said crop residues are stored stacked under shade in the 30.4% of respondents was soaking with water, 63.65%
study area. Not storing properly the feed during ample chopping, 3.45% urea treatment and 4.5% grinding
production for use during dry period, especially crop (Table 13). The current study identified that chopping of
residue was major factor that related with utilization leaf and crop residue (mainly maize Stover) were major
efficiency. Both crop residues and hay were stored feed quality improvements strategies that are practiced
outside which are exposed to solar radiation and rain. commonly in the study area, which was followed by about
This implies there is a need of awareness creation for 30.4% of respondents who use socking feeds (such as
farmer. wheat bran and crop residues) into water to improve
Preservation of pasture during ample production for palatability and digestibility.
use during dry period in the form of hay was practiced by The techniques by which the different households
about 22.2% and 13.5% of the respondents for lowland use in trying to efficiently utilize the feed resources for
and midland agro ecology, respectively. This reveals that almost the available feed resources starting from
haymaking is not widely practiced in the study area due collection, storage, preservation and improving the feed
to scarcity of grazing land, despite that, available grasses quality are depicted below in Table 13. As a result, worth
are used for roof cover which was in line with the report to employ all the techniques by which efficient utilization
of Mergia et al. [29]. of feed resources could be achieved. In addition to this
The rest of them (77.8%) and (86.5%) of the proper storage of crop residues, upgrading the quality of
respondents for lowland and midland, respectively were the feed including chemical treatment maximizes the
not practicing haymaking. In contrast, Jimma et al. [7] for efficiency of utilization.

38
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

Table 12: Feed preservation practice in the study area

Lowland (n=94) Midland (n= 38)
% of responses % of responses
--------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------
Variable Yes No Yes No
Crop residue 100 0 100 0
Hay 22.2 77.8 13.5 86.5
Silage 0 100 0 100
N = number of respondents

Table 13: Feed quality improvement attempts made by farmers in the study area
%, Responses
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variables Lowland (n = 94) Midland (n = 38) Overall (n = 132) p value
Socking with water 26.6 34.2 30.4 0.229
Chopping 62.8 64.5 63.65
Urea treatment 4.3 2.6 3.45
Grinding 6.4 2.6 4.5
Pelleting 0 0 0
n = number of respondents

Table 14: Livestock Feeding System in the Study Area

% of response
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season Feeding system Lowland (n=94) Midland (n=38) Overall (n=132) P value
Dry season Herded 12.8 13.1 12.8 0.798
Stall feeding 60.6 65.8 62.2
Tethering 26.6 21.1 25
Wet season Herded 34 23.7 31 0.378
Stall feeding 15.9 13.1 15
Tethering 50.1 63.2 54
n = number of respondents

Livestock Feeding Systems in the Study Area: Table 14 Brandt et al. [54] stated that there was variation in
depicts livestock feeding practices of the study area. livestock management according to wealth category;
Feeding systems of livestock in the study area were wealthier HHs possesses more livestock and requires
herded grazing on natural pastures, stall feeding and greater access to additional labor and grazing land.
tethering at the backyard and roadside. The overall Reduction of communal grazing lands was caused by
feeding systems during dry season in the study using the grazing lands for crop production; enclosures
area were; 12.8% herded grazing, 62.2% stall-feeding of vast areas as result of severe overgrazing, land
(zero grazing) and 25% tethering Overall feeding degradation and deforestation.
systems during wet season in the study area were Tethering is also the common way of managing
31% herded grazing, 15% stall feeding and 54% animals in the study area. Tolera [55] earlier reported the
tethering. Feeding systems of livestock both during increasing practice of cut-and-carry system (feeding of
wet and dry seasons for the two agro ecologies in the grasses and weed from crop field and roadsides) in
study were not significantly different (P>0.05). Grazing southern Ethiopia. Tethering or herding depends on size
natural pasture was the major feeding practice but it is of herd and land per HH and season. Those HH with small
now shifting to zero grazing because of continuing herd size tether their animals in front of their houses.
shrinkage of grazing land. Animals are grazing around Stall-feeding is practical during the dry season in the
homestead and are supplemented with weed, chat leftover study area when the availability of natural pasture
and crop residues. Herding depends on size of land per decreased. This result was also in agreement with the
HH and season. Those HHs with large number of findings of previous studies by Brandt et al. [54] reported
livestock allow their animals to graze around the that stall-feeding is practiced during the dry season in
homestead or nearby communal grazing land. Similarly most enset growing areas of Ethiopia.

39
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

Table 15: Water source for livestock in the study area

% of responses
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season Water source Lowland (n=94) Midland (n=38) Overall (n=132)
Dry season River 41.5 12.4 26.9
Pond 58.5 81.4 69.9
Spring and water pipe 0 6.2 3.1
Rain water 0 0 0
Wet season River 21.3 2.5 11.9
Pond 0 0 0
Spring and water pipe 0 0 0
Rain water 78.7 97.5 88.1
n = number of respondents

Table 16: Feed and water scarcity in the study area

% of responses
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Season Variable Lowland (n= 94) Midland (n= 38) Overall (n= 132) P value
Dry season Feed shortage
Yes 98.5 96.8 97.5 0.023
No 1.5 3.2 2.5
Water shortage
Yes 98.4 88.5 92.7 0.020
No 1.6 11.5 7.4
Wet season Feed shortage
Yes 7.5 1.2 3.4 0.017
No 92.5 98.8 96.6
Water shortage
Yes 7.8 2 4.2 0.030
No 92.2 98 95.8
n = number of respondents

Livestock Watering Practice in the Study Area: Shortage of water is a critical problem in the study
There are about two rivers and many local ponds as area particularly during the dry season. Problems of water
water sources in the study area. The greatest source of shortages are highly dictated by seasonality where it
water for Sankura is the Bilate River a dependable becomes more pronounced during dry period. During this
perennial river of the district where majority of the period, farmers will be obliged to travel distances of a day
households rely on for livestock production. Other rivers and normally watering frequency decreases. Shortages of
like dijo are also main stay of for animals’ as a source of water supplemented with poor quality roughages
water but because they are seasonal, farmers will be undermine physiological performances of the animals,
required to look for water during dry period. Apart from reduction in productions, anestrous and ultimately ends
these, locally dug ponds are good sources of water for in emaciation. Therefore, both fertility and fecundity of
humans and livestock in Sankura district. Overall, the the animals will be affected.
majority (92.7%) of respondents were experiencing water
shortage during dry season (Table 15). The main sources Constraints, Opportunities and Coping Strategies to
of water for livestock during wet season are rainwater and Scarcity of Feed: Feed scarcity and major constraints
river. The overall water source during wet season in the of livestock feeding in the study area are depicted in
study area were; 11.9% river, 88.1% rainwater. Water Table 16. About 97.5% of all respondents in the study
sources at wet season for the two agro ecologies were area experience feed shortage during dry season in the
not significantly different (P>0.05). The main sources of same extent in both agro-ecologies, while overall about
water for livestock during dry season are river and pond. 96.6% of respondents reported that they did not
The overall water sources during dry season in the study experience feed shortage during wet season. However,
area were 69.9% pond water and 26.9% river (Table 15). there was a significant (P<0.05) difference gin feed

40
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

Table 17: Major constraints of livestock feeding in the study area

Lowland (n = 94) Midland (n = 38)
-------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Variable Index value Rank Index value Rank
Land shortage 0.3766 1 0.3842 1
Lack of irrigation system 0.2489 2 0.2789 2
Inaccessibility of concentrate feeds 0.2181 3 0.2184 3
Occupation of communal grazing land 0.1564 4 0.1184 4
*Index= [(5 * rank 1)+(4 * rank 2)+(3 * rank 3)+ (2 * rank 4)+ (1 * rank 5)] divided by sum of all feed resources mentioned by respondents, n = number of
respondents

Table 18: Major opportunities of livestock feeding in the study area

Lowland (n = 94) Midland (n = 38)
-------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------
Variable Index value Rank Index value Rank
Keeping limited stocks 0.3500 1 0.2184 3
Development of forage production 0.2606 2 0.3974 1
Cut and carry feeding system 0.1426 4 0.1474 4
Availability of concentrate mix and wheat bran 0.2468 3 0.2368 2
*Index value= [(5 * rank 1)+(4 * rank 2)+(3 * rank 3)+ (2 * rank 4)+ (1 * rank 5)] divided by sum of all feed resources mentioned by respondents, n = number
of respondents

availability between both agro ecologies (higher in reproductive performance of livestock unless the animals
midland than the lowland during wet season. This is are adequately supplemented. In the study area regardless
probably due to farmers in midland had better improved to agro ecologies, the grazing land amount was
forage production and access to purchase green feed decreasing from year to year, because of the communal
(grass, forage) and concentrates near from market. and private grazing land was expanded by crop cultivation
Majority of the respondents (97.5%) in the study area due to the increment of human population. This result was
reported that they experience feed shortages during the similar with Adugna and Aster [56] and Alemayehu [57],
dry seasons (P>0.05), mainly because of, land shortage has also reported that grazing lands are steadily shrinking
(1st), lack of irrigation system and water sources for and being converted in to arable land in the mixed farming
irrigation (2nd ), inaccessibility of concentrate feeds (3 rd) and mid altitudes of Ethiopia.
and occupation of communal grazing land (4th ) in both Woldeamlak [58] of Gojam and Wollo, northern
lowland and midland agro ecology (Table, 17). feed Ethiopia has also reported similar trends of expansion of
shortages during the dry seasons in the study area there cultivated area. Moreover, the communal grazing lands
is not significantly different (P? 0.05) in both agro were distributed to investors and occupied by
ecologies. The respondents stated shortage of land as the investment activities particularly in midland agro ecology.
most important cause of low feed availability because it The utilization rate and need of concentrate feeds were
affects the production of DM from natural pasture, crop high in the study area. However, the availability and
residues and forages since landholding per household accessibility of concentrate feeds were very low except for
was positively associated with total DM matter wheat bran and concentrate mix [59].
production per household. This result is in agreement Based on the output of focused group discussion
with the finding of Belay and Geert [48] for Jimma town and key informants feed shortage, water scarcity during
Ethiopia, that lack of access to land was stated by the the dry season, inaccessibility of concentrate feed,
respondents as the most important cause of low feed Occupation of communal grazing land and animal disease
availability. were the major challenges in a decreasing order for
Lack of irrigation system and water sources for livestock production and productivity in the study area.
irrigation is another important problem for improved
forage production, thus forage production in the study Major Opportunities of Livestock Feeding in the Study
area is entirely based on rain fed in wet season. As a Area: Majority (87.9%) of the respondents reported that
result, during the dry seasons, there is shortage of green they were practicing improved forage production
feeds, which were widely used as basal diet during the (Table 18). The result was comparable with the reports of
rainy season. The low availability and quality of feeds in Diriba et al. [49], which stated that 58% and 67% of dairy
the dry seasons tends to affect the productive and farmers in Nekemte and Bako towns in western Oromia

41
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

Table 19: Major coping strategies to scarcity of feed in the study area
Lowland (n = 94) Midland (n = 38)
----------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
Variable Index value Rank Index value Rank
Dry season Feed preservation as straw and hay 0.342 1 0.301 1
Using browse trees 0.174 3 0.135 4
Use of improved forage production 0.096 5 0.142 3
AIBP 0.212 2 0.195 2
Destocking 0.100 4 0.134 5
Forage purchase 0.076 6 0.093 6
Wet season Feed preservation as straw and hay 0.425 1 0.434 1
Using browse trees 0.185 3 0.109 3
Use of improved forage production 0.231 2 0.246 2
AIBP 0.078 4 0.077 5
Destocking 0.032 6 0.039 6
Forage purchase 0.049 5 0.095 4
*Index value= [(5 * rank 1)+(4 * rank 2)+(3 * rank 3)+ (2 * rank 4)+ (1 * rank 5)] divided by sum of all feed resources mentioned by respondents, n = number
of respondents

practiced improved forage production. In my personal Jimma town, Ethiopia. They reported that farmers’
observations, focus group discussion and key informants adopted coping strategies for dry season feed scarcity by
interview it was visible that farmers in the surveyed area increasing use of agro-industrial byproducts and
could grow forages such as Desho grass, Elephant grass concentrate mix, increasing use of conserved hay,
and few of them also grow multipurpose legume tree such increasing use of non-conventional feeds, purchasing
as, Sesbania as live fence. This feeds are good sources of green feeds when available and reducing herd size.
protein and minerals for dry season feeding. However,
farmers lack knowledge on the importance of this tree Consequence of Feed Shortage on the Performance of
legume. Livestock: The major consequences of feed shortage for
Farmers could keep limited number of livestock in the livestock in the study areas include weight loss,
study area. The main feeding system in the study area production reduction, increased mortality and weakness
was stall feeding (zero grazing) (Table 18); thus it allows (Figure 2). The overall consequences of feed shortage in
farmers to utilize the existing feed resources especially the study area were 24% weight loss, 33% production
natural pasture and forage efficiently and effectively reduction, 20% increased mortality and 23% weakness.
through minimizing wastage. Availability of concentrate The current study is line with the finding of Andualem et
mix and wheat bran in the study area was also another al. [41] and Zewdie [60] with the exception of absence of
opportunity of livestock feeding thus farmers obtain heat.
wheat bran and concentrate mix from local environment by
reasonable cost. Estimation of Annual Feed Availability and Feed Balance
Access to extension service and training; farmers are Dry Matter Production from Different Land Types:
supported by extension workers and know well about the According to agriculture and natural resource Office
benefit of livestock keeping, the probability of using and (2021) [11], report, there are different land use types;
maintaining the livestock production and productivity will private (individual) grazing land (6,200 ha), protected land
increase, this is another opportunity in the study area. (1272 ha), forestland (1742.42 ha) and open/communal
land (2934 ha) in the study area, which are feed resource
Major Coping Strategies to Scarcity of Feed in the Study for livestock. From this area of land, the highest tons of
Area: 97.5% of respondents stated that farmers dry matter (18,600 ton) were produced from private
implemented coping strategies during the dry season of (individual) grazing land, whereas approximately the
feed scarcity, which occurred in the study area. To lowest tons of dry matter (636 ton) feed was produced
mitigate the existing shortage of feed by increasing the from protected land [12]. Productivity (t/ha) were obtained
use of conserved straw and hay, agro-industrial by- by multiplying the hectare of land under each land use
products and concentrate mix, production and purchased types by its conversion factors for private (individual)
of improved forage and reducing herd size. The present grazing land (3.0), open (communal) grazing land (2.0),
study is similar to the finding of Belay and Geert [48] for protected land (0.5) and forest land (0.7) according to

42
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

Fig. 2: Consequence of feed shortage on the performance of livestock

Dry matter production from different land

communal land, use types
5868 tDM

forest land,
1219.694 tDM

protected land,
636 tDM

private grazing
land, 18600 tDM

Fig. 3: Total DM productivity (tons) from different land use types in the study area

FAO [14]. The total DM (t/ha) from different land types in the cropping land. The quantities of available DM in crop
Sankura district was 26,323.694 tons. DM Productivity of aftermath grazing were determined by multiplying the
different land use types is shown in Figure 3. available land by the conversion factors of 0.5 for grazing
aftermath [14]. Accordingly, 7,214.375 tons of DM/ha/year
Crop Residues Dry Matter Production: The agriculture was produced from crop aftermath.
and natural resource office of Sankura district [11], report
had demonstrated that 14428.75 ha of land are covered by Contribution of Improved Forage: According to livestock
cropping land. In the study area currently have been and fishery development office [11], currently improved
produced crop residues from maize, wheat, teff, barley and forages such as desho grass, elephant grass, dismodium
sorghum and haricot bean. The total area of different crop sesbania and Rodes grass are produced in the study area.
types grown is 5621.5, 4315.5, 1304.5, 306, 521.5 and 1473.5 The total area of different improved forage types grown is
ha, for maize, wheat, teff, barley, sorghum and haricot 543, 235, 11.5, 65 and 5.5 ha, for Desho grass, Elephant
bean, respectively. The crop residues (94,418.4 tons of grass, Dismodium, Sesbania and Rodes grass
DM) are the first dominant feed resource in Sankura respectively. Totally, 6,343 tons of DM was obtained from
district as livestock feed. The dry matter production of improved forage in the study area [14].
crop residues in the study district is shown in Figure 4.
Contribution of Wheat Bran and Concentrate Mix Feed:
Crop Aftermath Dry Matter Production: Rendering to The quantity (DM basis) of wheat bran and concentrates
agriculture and natural resource office report of 2021 [11], mix available for each household was obtained by
it was demonstrated that 14,428.75 ha of land covered by interviewing the farmers during questionnaires survey.

43
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

Fig. 4: Crop residues dry matter production in the study area

Fig. 5: Different species of livestock population (TLU) in the study area

Based on the annual report from livestock and fishery Assuming that DM requirement for maintenance of
development office [11] was 11500 k/g wheat bran and one TLU is 6.25 kg/day (2.28 ton/year/TLU) [61], the
1598 k/g concentrate mix distributed in the district. estimated total annual requirements of DM for the
Accordingly, 11.5 tons of DM was obtained from wheat dominant livestock species: cattle (170,653.4), goat
bran and 1.598 tons of DM was obtained from concentrate (5,534.429), sheep (7,085.426), donkey (18,252.22), horse
mix in the study area; the contribution of wheat bran and (1,007.7) and mule (198.3) will be about 202,731.475 tons of
concentrate mix was very little as compared to other feed DM per year in the district. The population (TLU) of
resource. different species of livestock in the study area is shown
in Table 20.
Total Tropical Livestock Unit (TLU) and Their Dry
Matter Requirement: Based on the reported data of Feed Balance Analysis in the Study Area: The open
livestock and fishery development office [11] of Sankura grazing land, private grazing land, protected land and
district, the district had on average 88,917 tropical forest land, crop residues improved forage, concentrate
livestock unit (TLU); comprising 74,848 cattle, 2,427 goats, mix feed and wheat bran were used to calculate feed
3,108 sheep, 8,005 donkey, 442 horse and 87 mule supply for livestock in the study area. Accordingly,
(Figure 5). 94,418.4 tons of DM per year was produced from cropland

44
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

Table 20: TLU and annual feed requirement in the study area
Species Livestock pop. Conversion factors TLU DM requirement (tone)
Cattle 106,926 0.7 74,848 170,653.4
Goat 24,273 0.1 2,427 5,534.429
Sheep 31,076 0.1 3,108 7,085.426
Donkey 16,010 0.5 8,005 18,252.22
Horse 553 0.8 442 1,007.7
Mule 125 0.7 87 198.3
Total 88,917 202,731.475
TLU= Tropical Livestock Unit, DM= dry matter

Table 21: Feed balance analysis from different land, crop residue, crop aftermath and improved forage
Feed supply Area (ha) DM (tones)
Different land use 12,148.42 26,323.694
Crop land 14,428.75 94,418.4
Improved forage 860 6,343
Crop aftermath 7,214.375
Wheat bran 11.5
Concentrate mix 1.598
Total feed supply 134,312.57
Feed requirement
Total no of TLU 88,917
DM required/TLU/year 2.28 given
Total annual DM required 202,731.475
Feed balance -68,418.905
Proportion of feed gap (%) 33.7
TLU= Tropical Livestock Unit, %= percentage

with exception of different land use types, improved Chemical Composition and Digestibility of Different
forage, aftermath grazing, wheat bran and concentrate mix Feedstuffs: The chemical composition of different
feed which produce 26,323.694, 6,343, 7,214.375, 11.5 and roughages in midland agro-ecology is presented in
1.598 tons of DM per year, respectively. Therefore, a total Table 22. In midland agro-ecology the chemical analysis
of 134,312.57 tons of DM per year was produced in the shows that desho and elephant grass had the lowest ash
study district. content and desho and natural pasture had highest NDF
As it had been calculated the total DM produced in content when compared with elephant grass. The highest
the study area from different feed resources was CP content was observed in desho grass and elephant
134,313.367 tons and the demand for maintenance grass and the lowest CP content in natural pasture.
requirement of the livestock population in the district was Natural pasture had the lowest ADF when compared with
202,731.475 tons DM/ year. The feed balance for the desho grass and elephant grass while elephant grass had
district was estimated by subtracting the demand for highest ADL content when compared with desho and
maintenance requirement of the livestock population in natural pasture. Natural pasture had the highest IVDMD
the district (tons DM/ year) from the available feed DM when compared with desho grass and elephant grass.
(tons DM/ year) and this showed that a deficit off Among the crop residues in midland agro ecology, maize
68,418.905 (33.7 %) tons of DM per year in the district. stover had the highest ash content compared with wheat
In general, the feed balance data showed that the DM straw and teff straw. The CP content of teff straw was the
produced in the study area per year was imbalanced with highest compared with wheat straw and maize stover.
the minimum maintenance requirements of dominant Wheat straw had the lowest IVDMD compared with maize
livestock species. Similarly, in previous studies, stover and teff straw.
challenges in Ethiopia showed that the dry season is The chemical composition of different roughages in
characterized by inadequacy of grazing resources, lowland agro-ecology is presented in Table 22. Among
because of which animals are not able to meet even their the roughage feeds, natural pasture had the lowest CP
maintenance requirements and lose of substantial amount content as compared with desho and elephant grass.
of their weight [62]. This further recalls that there is need Also, natural pasture was highest in EE content when
to introduce the feed improvement interventions in the compared other feedstuffs. Natural pasture had the
study area in order to save the livestock. highest NDF and IVDMD content as compared with

45
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

Table 22: Chemical composition and in vitro dry matter digestibility of different feedstuffs in midland agro-ecology
Chemical composition (%DM)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agro-ecology Feed category Feed type Ash CP EE NDF ADF ADL IVDMD (%)
Natural pasture 10.31 6.61 13.21 73.21 40.21 6.86 62.54
Roughages Desho grass 8.89 13.35 8.11 74.05 45.25 7.51 36.23
Midland Elephant grass 8.41 12.56 8.27 72.35 42.37 9.12 37.71
Crop residue Wheat straw 6.49 4.58 1.2 76.5 52.24 6.2 38.45
Maize stover 10.62 4.22 1.01 67.15 34.41 10.31 56.46
Teff straw 7.52 5.23 1.2 68.51 33.41 8.43 53.22
Natural pasture 10.11 6.01 14.76 74.08 39.45 7.32 57.41
Roughages Desho grass 8.37 12.25 9.79 73.75 38.45 8.56 41.25
Lowland Elephant grass 8.58 12.31 8.19 70.47 39.51 9.42 42.27
Crop residue Wheat straw 6.38 3.84 1.22 74.2 49.6 5.7 40.23
Maize stover 9.77 3.97 1.14 70.25 37.28 11.22 60.52
Teff straw 6.95 4.78 1.3 69.24 35.18 9.01 62.47
CP= crude protein; NDF= neutral detergent fiber; ADF=acid detergent fiber; ADL= acid detergent lignin; IVDMD=in vitro dry matter digestibility; DM=
dry matter; %= percentage

desho and elephant grass. Among the crop residue in higher CP contents than the minimum level of 7% CP
lowland agro ecology maize stover had the highest ash required for optimum rumen microbial function.
content compared with wheat straw and teff straw. The CP The NDF content for all feedstuffs (roughages and
content of teff straw had the highest compared with wheat crop residue) in the current study in midland and lowland
straw and maize stover. Wheat straw had the lowest agro ecology is higher than the critical level of 45%,
IVDMD compared with maize stover and teff straw. above which the voluntary feed intake and feed
The ash content of roughages, natural pasture has conversion efficiency will decrease due to longer
highest value 10.31% and 10.11% from midland and rumination time [68]. Roughage feeds with NDF content
lowland agro ecologies, respectively and from crop of less than 45% are categorized as high quality
residue, maize stover has 10.62% and 9.77% from midland Roughage feeds and with NDF content between 45% to
and lowland agro ecologies, respectively. 65% are categorized as medium quality.
The ash content for roughage feeds in the current The ADF content for all roughages in the present
study was lower than the value reported by Tesfaye [63] study is comparable with the reports by Terefe [38] and
and Wondatire et al. [64] for roughage feeds However, Kidane [69]. The ADF content for all roughages in
the ash value in the current study was higher than the lowland is lower than 40% and higher than 40% in midland
values reported by Solomon et al. [65] and Fekede [66] agro ecology. The ADF contents for teff straw and maize
The CP value for roughage feeds in the current study stover in the current study was lower than the value
areas was greater than the values reported by Wondatir recorded critical range. Roughages with ADF content less
[64] and Terefe [38]. Generally, with the exception of than 40% are high quality and above 40% as low quality
natural pasture roughages evaluated in the current study [69].
had higher CP contents than the minimum level of 7% CP The IVDMD values in the current study in midland
required for optimum rumen microbial function [67]. and lowland agro ecologies, all roughages and crop
Feeds with CP content less than 7% inhibits voluntary residue were lower than 65%. According to Meissner et
intake and microbial activity, resulting in poor digestibility al. [70], feeds with in vitro digestibility of greater than
[67]. The CP value in the present study for all crop 65% indicate good nutritive value and values below this
residues is lower than the critical level 7% for optimum level result in reduced intake due to lowered digestibility.
rumen microbial function. The IVDMD in the current study was between the two
The CP content of roughages desho grass and agro ecologies was lower than the critical value of 65%,
elephant grass 10.35% and 12.56% in midland and 12.5% this indicates that all feed types poor nutritive value in the
and 12.31% in lowland agro ecologies, respectively. study area. It needs to treat the feed for upgrading the
This indicates that desho grass and elephant grass had nutritive value of the feed.

46
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS forage production widely on their own farmland and
collect crop residues during crop harvesting times and
Generally, the major feed resources in the study areas store it under shed. In the study area, training should be
regardless of agro-ecologies were natural pastures, crop given on effective utilization strategies of available feed
residues, agro-industrial by products (wheat bran and resources such as use of urea treatment, nutrient block
concentrate mix),and improved forages. The commonly and silage making, in order to improve the quality of feed.
practiced feeding systems in the study areas were herded Livestock feeding and watering practices were poor in the
grazing on private grazing land and roadsides around the study area. To improve this management practices for the
village, stall feeding (zero grazing) and tethering around future, development agents and office experts of the
homestead on natural pasture. Livestock feeding in the district should provide intensive extension services and
study area constrained by shortage of land, lack of continuous follow-up of the management practices.
grazing land, lack of irrigation system and water sources
for irrigation and occupation of communal grazing land by REFFERENCES
investment activities. As it was disclosed by majority of
respondents, feed availability and seasonality were the 1. IGAD-LPI (Inter-Governmental Authority on
most commonly occurring problems and constraints that Development-Livestock Policy Initiative), 2011.
might affect the development of the livestock production The contribution of livestock to the Ethiopian
in the study area; there were also opportunities to economy- part I
improve livestock feeding and production for the future 2. Thornton, P.K., 2010. Review livestock production:
times, such as, pseudo stem plants production, recent trends, future prospects. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B,
development of forage production, cut and carry feeding 365: 2853-2867
system and availability of wheat bran and concentrate mix. 3. Alemayehu, M., 2003. Country pasture/forage
On the other hand, farmers adopted coping strategies with resources profiles: Ethiopia. Food and Agriculture
dry season feed scarcity are increased use of feed Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
conserved as straw and hay, AIBP, improved forage 4. CSA, 2012. Federal democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
production, transferring stocks to relatives and reducing Central Statistical Agency. Statistical Abstract (CSA),
herd sized. The total DM produced in the study area from Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
different feed resources was 134,312.57 tons and the 5. Ahmed, H., E. Abule, K. Mohammed and
demand for maintenance requirement of the livestock A.C. Tredate, 2010. Livestock feed resources
population in the district was 202,731.475 tons DM/ year. utilization and management as influenced by altitude
The annual feed DM production in the district could not in central highlands of Ethiopia. Livestock Research
satisfy (33.7% less) the DM requirement of livestock kept Rural Development, 2(12): 125-132.
in the area. In general, the feed balance data showed that 6. Admasu, Y., 2008. Assessment of livestock feed
the DM produced in the study area per year was resource utilization in Alaba Woreda, Southern
imbalanced with the minimum maintenance requirements Ethiopia. MSc Thesis. Haramaya University, Harar,
of dominant livestock species. The study described that Ethiopia.
the contribution of the open grazing area is declining from 7. Jimma, A., F. Tessema, D. Gemiyo and Z. Bassa,2016.
time to time and livestock may not fulfill the DM Assessment of Available Feed Resources, Feed
requirements. Therefore, this calls for interventions that Management and Utilization Systems in SNNPRS of
improve the productivity of declining grazing areas. Ethiopia. Journal of Fisheries and Livestock
The nutritive value of roughages and crop residue with Production, 4: 183.
the exception of desho rass and elephant grass the CP 8. Alemayehu Mangst, 2006. Country Pasture/Forage
content was lower than the critical value 7% and the NDF Resource Profiles: Ethiopia. Available at
and IVDMD content of all roughage and crop residue was AlemayehuMengistu, 2006. Country Pasture/Forage
poor nutritive quality. In order to solve, the shortage of Resource Profiles: Ethiopia. Available at http://
feed availability and poor nutritive quality, farmers should www.fao.org/AGp/agpc/doc/counprof Ethiopia.htm.
practice feed conservation methods, particularly hay and Accessed on 05/01/2015 http ://www. fao. org/ AGp/
silage making during excess of feed resources availability. agpc/ doc/ counprofEthiopia.htm. Accessed on
Moreover, farmers should practice improved legume 05/01/2015.

47
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

9. Assefa Getachew, T Ano, T. Aba and Z. Ebrahim, 19. Funte, S., T. Negesse and G. Legesse, 2010. Feed
2015. Assessment of improved forage types and their Resources and their Management Systems in
utilization in ShashogoWoreda, Hadiya Zone, Ethiopian Highlands: The case of UmbuloWacho
Southern Ethiopia. Global J Anim Sci Livestock Prod Watershed in Southern Ethiopia. Tropical and
Anim Breed, 6: 227-230. Subtropical Agroeco-systems, 12(1): 47-56.
10. Asmare Berihun, S. Demeke, T. Tklemariam, Tegegne 20. Gryseels, G. and M.R. Goe, 1984. Energy flows on
Firew, W. Jane and R. Barbara, 2016. Determinants of smallhoder farms in the Ethiopian highlands.
the utilization of desho grass (Pennisetum International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA),
pedicellatum) by farmers in Ethiopia. Tropical Grass Bulettin, 17: 2-9.
lands-Forrajes Tropical’s 4: 112-121. DOI: 21. Seyoum, B. and S. Zinash, 1989. The Composition of
10.17138/TGFT (4)112-121. Ethiopian Feeds. Research Report No. 6. Institute of
11. Endale Y.D., 2015. Assessment of feed resources and Agricultural Research, Ethiopia.
determinations of mineral status of livestock feed in 22. Kearl, L.C., 1982. Nutrient Requirement of
Meta Robi district,West Shewa Zone, Oromia Ruminants in Developing Countries International
Regional state, Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis. Ambo Feedstuffs Institute, Utah Agricultural Experiment
University. Ambo, Ethiopia. Station, Utah State University, Longman 84322. USA,
12. Assefu, G., 2012. Comparative Feedlot Performance of pp: 381.
Washera and Horro sheep fed different roughage to 23. AOAC (Association of Analytical chemists), 2005.
concentrate ratio. An MSc. thesis submitted to the Official methods of analysis of the official analytical
school of graduate studies Haramaya University, chemists, 2 vol. 18 Edition. Horwitz W, Ed.
pp: 129. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC),
13. Solomon, B., M. Solomon and A. Yami, 2004. Arlington, V A, USA.
Influence of rainfall pattern on grass/legume 24. Van Soest P.J., J.B. Robertson and B.A. Lewis, 1991.
composition and nutritive value of natural pasture in Methods of dietary fiber, neutral Detergent fiber and
Bale High lands of Ethiopia, pp: 1-11. non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal
14. FAO (Food and organization of United nations), nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74: 3583-3597.
1987. Master land use plan, Ethiopia Range Livestock 25. Fentie, B. and M. Solomon, 2007. Effect of
Consultancy Report prepared for the Government of supplementation of Farta Sheep fed hay with sole or
the peoples, Republic development Ethiopia technical mixs of noug seed meal and wheat bran on feed
report.AG/ETH/82/020/FAO, Rome, pp: 94. intake, digestibility and body weight change.
15. Dawit A., N. Ajebu and B. Sandip, 2013. Assessment Tropical Animal Health and Production,
of feed resource availability and livestock Production 40(8): 597-606.
constraints in selected Kebeles of AdamiTullu Jiddo 26. Van Soest P.J., 1982. Nutritional Ecology of the
Kombolcha District, Ethiopia. African Journal of Ruminant. O and B books, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
Agricultural Research, 8(29): 4067-4073. pp: 373.
16. Beckmann, E., 1921. Conversion of grain straw and 27. Azage, T., 2004. Urban Livestock Production and
lupins into feeds of high nutritive value. Festscher. Gender in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia urban Agriculture
Kasier Whilhelm Ges. Ford. Wiss. Zehnjaherigen Magazine (The Netherlands) ILRI (International
Jubilaum, pp: 18-26. Livestock Research Institute) Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
17. Wondatir, Z., 2010. Livestock production system in pp: 31-32.
relation to feed availability in the highlands and 28. Ofukou, A.U., E.O. Egho and E. Enujeke, 2009.
central rift valley of Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis. Haramaya Integrated Pest Management (IPM) adoption among
University. Dire Dewa, Ethiopia, pp: 31. farmers in Central Agro-ecological Zone of Delta
18. Adugna, T. and A. Aster, 2007. Livestock production State, Nigeria. Adv. Biol. Res, 3(1-2): 29-33.
in pastoral and agro-pastoral production systems of 29. Mergia, A., T. Adugna and A. Getnet, 2014. Feed
southern Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Resource Assessment and Utilization in Baresa
Development. http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd Watershed, Ethiopia. International Journal of Science
19/12/cont1912.htm, (Accessed on January 5, 2009). and Research (IJSR), 3(2): 66-72.

48
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

30. Bedasa, E., 2012. Study of smallholder farms livestock 41. Andualem, T., T. Berhan and G. Gebeyehu, 2015.
feed sourcing and feeding strategies andtheir Assessment of Cattle Feed Resources; Chemical
implication on livestock water productivity in mixed Composition and Digestibility of Major Feeds in
crop livestock systems in the highlands of the Blue Essera District, Southernn Ethiopia. Science
Nile Basin. M.Sc. Thesis. Haramaya University. Technology and Arts Research Journal, 4(2): 89-98.
Harar, Ethiopia. 42. Shitahun, M., 2009. Feed Resources Availability,
31. CACC, 2003. Statistical Report on Socio-Economic Cattle Fattening Practices and Marketing System in
Characteristics of the Population in Agricultural Bure Woreda, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. M.Sc
Households: SNNPR. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Thesis, Mekelle University, Mekelle, Ethiopia.
32. Yigrem, S., F. Beyene, A. Tegegne and 43. Alemayehu, M. and A. Sissay, 2003. Integrated
B. Gebremedhin, 2008. Dairy production, processing Livestock Development Project (ILDP). Livestock
and marketing systems of Shashemene-Dilla area, Feed Resources Survey. North Gondar, Ethiopia,
South Ethiopia. pp: 75.
33. Fiseha, T., 2018. Feed resources, feeding practices 44. Kechero Y., T. Tolemariam and A. Haile, 2013.
and nutrient balance of dairy cattle in Kedida Gamela Characteristics and Determinants of Livestock
woreda of Kembata Tembaro Zone, South Central Production in Jimma Zone /Southwestern Ethiopia.
Ethiopia. An M.Sc. Thesis submitted to the school of African J. Basic & Applied Sciences, 5(2): 69-81.
graduate studies. Arba Minch University, pp: 32. 45. Zewdie, W. and M. Yoseph, 2014. Feed resources
34. Mengistu, L., N. Tegene and N. Ajebu, 2016. availability and livestock production in thecentral rift
Assessment of Feed Resource Availability and valley of Ethiopia. International Journal of Livestock
Quality in KedidaGamela District, Southern Ethiopia. Production, 5(2): 30-35.
46. Seyoum, B., A. Getinet, T. Abate and F. Dereje, 2001.
International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and
Present status and future direction in feed resources
Biotechnology (IJEAB), 1(1): 31-39.
and nutrition research targeted for wheat based crop
35. Sisay, A., 2006. Qualitative and Quantitative Aspects
livestock production system in Ethiopia. In: P. C.
of Animal Feed in Different Agro ecological Areas of
Wall (eds.). Wheat and Weed: Food and Feed.
North Gonder. M.Sc. Thesis. Alemaya University,
Proceedings of Two Stakeholder Workshops.
Dire Dawa, Ethiopia.
CIMMYT, Mexico City. Improving the productivity
36. Yeshitila Admassu, 2008. Assessment of Livestock
of Crop Livestock Production in Wheat-based
Feed Resources Utilization in Alaba Woreda,
Farming Systems in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,
Southern Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Haramya
10-11 October 2000. pp: 207-226.
University. Dire Dawa, Ethiopia.
47. Biratu, K. and S. Haile, 2017. Assessment of livestock
37. Zinash, S., B. Seyoum, G. Lulseged and T. Tadesse,
feed availability, conservation mechanism and
1995. Effect of harvesting stage on yield and quality utilization practices in South Western Ethiopia.
of natural pasture in the central high lands of Academic Research J. Agricultural Science and
Ethiopia. In: Proceedings of 3rd national conference of Research, 5(7): 461-470, DOI: 10.14662/
the Ethiopian society of animal production. 27-29, ARJASR2017.074.
April, 316-322. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 48. Belay, D. and P.J.J. Geert, 2016. Assessment of feed
38. Terefe, B., 2007. Assessement of available feed resources, feeding practices and copingstrategies to
resources for dairy cattle in the Sululta District North feed scarcity by smallholder urban dairy producers in
Shoa of Oromia. M.Sc Thesis, AAU-FVM Debrezeit, Jimma town, Ethiopia. Journal of Springer open
Ethiopia. Research, 5: 717.
39. Adugna, T., Alemu Yami and D. Alemu, 2012. 49. Diriba, G., H. Mekonnen, M. Ashenafi and
Livestock feed resources in Ethiopia: Challenges, T. Adugna, 2012. Analysis of fluid milk chains at two
Opportunities and the need for transformation. peri-urban sites in western Oromia Ethiopia: current
Ethiopia Animal Feed Industry Association, Addis status and suggestions on how they might evolve.
Ababa, Ethiopia. Global Veterinary, 12(1): 104-120.
40. Belay, D., T. Azage and B.P. Hegde, 2012. Smallholder 50. Debela, M., G. Animut and M. Eshetu, 2017.
Livestock Production System in Dandi District, Assessment of Feed Resources Availability and
Oromia Regional State, Central Ethiopia. Global Utilization in Daro Labu district, Western Hararghe
Veterinaria, 8(5): 472-479. Zone. J. Natural Sciences Research, 7(13): 50-57.

49
 Acad. J. Nutr., 12 (2): 25-50, 2023

51. Husen, M., Y. Kechero and M. Molla, 2016. 61. ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa),
Assessment of Livestock Feed Resources Utilization 1990. Livestock System Research manual, ILCA
in Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia. Academic J. Working Paper No. 1, Volume 1.International
Nutrition, 5(1): 01-17. Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA), Addis Ababa,
52. Tessema, Z., A. Aklilu and S. Ameha, 2003. Ethiopia, pp: 287.
Assessment of the Livestock Production System, 62. Aster, A., T. Adugna, Ø. Holand, T. Ådnøy and
Available Feed Resources and Marketing Situation in O. Eik Lars, 2012. Seasonal variation in nutritive value
Belesa Woreda: A Case Study in Drought Prone of some browses and grass species in Borana
Areas of Amhara Region 2003. In: YilmaJobre and rangeland, southern Ethiopia. Journal of Tropical and
GetachewGebru (Eds). Challenges and Opportunities Subtropical Agro ecosystems, 15(2): 261-271.
of Livestock Marketing in Ethiopia. Proceedings of 63. Tesfaye, D., 2008. Assessment of feed resources and
the 10th Annual conference of the Ethiopian Society rangeland Condition in Metema district of north
of Animal Production (ESAP) Held in Addis Ababa, gondar zone, Ethiopia. An M.Sc. Thesis submitted to
August 22-24, 2002.ESAP, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. the department of Animal Sciences, School of
407. Graduate Studies Haramaya University, pp: 161.
53. Rebole, A., J. Trevino and R. Caballero, 1996. 64. Wondatir, Z., Y. Mekasha and W. Bram, 2011.
Chemical change associated with the field drying of Assessment of productive performance of dairy cattle
oat forage. Field Crops Research, 47: 221-226. nexus with feed availability in selected peri-urban
54. Brandt, A.S., A. Spring, C. Hiebsch, J.T. MacCabe, areas of Ethiopia, pp: 313.
E. Tabogie, M. Diro, G. Wolde-Michael, G. Yontiso, 65. Solomon, B., S. Melaku and A. Yami, 2008. Potential
M. Shigeta and S. Taye, 1997. The tree against use of crop residues as livestock feed resources
hunger, enset based agricultural system in Ethiopia, under smallholder farmers’ conditions in bale
American Association for Advancement of Science highlands of Ethiopia. Tropical and Subtropical
and Hawassa Research Center, University of Florida. Agro-ecosystems, 8: 107-114.
55. Tolera, A., 1990. Animal production and feed 66. Fekede, F., 2004. Evaluation of potential forage
resource constraints in Welayita Sodo and the production qualities of selected oats (Avena sativa
supplementary value of Desmodium intortum, L.) genotypes. M.Sc. Thesis, Presented to the School
Stylosanthes guianensis and Macratyloma axillare of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University, pp: 190.
when fed to growing sheep on a basal diet of Maize 67. Topps, J.H., 1995. Forage legumes as protein
Stover. M.Sc. Thesis. Agricultural University of supplements to poor quality diets in semi-arid
Norway. Norway. tropics. In: Wallace, R.J., A. Lahloukassi (eds.).
56. Kellems, R.O. and D.C. Church, 1998. Livestock Feeds Rumen Ecology Research Planning. Proceeding of a
and Feeding. (4th edition.). Prentice-Hall, Inc., New workshop held at ILRI. Addis Ababa. Ethiopia. 13-18
Jersey, USA, pp: 573. march 1995. 183-190.
57. Alemayehu, M., 2004. Pasture and Forage Resource 68. Singh, G.P. and S.J. Oosting, 1992. A model for
profiles of Ethiopia.Ethiopia/FAO. Addis Ababa, describing the energy value of straws. Indian
Ethiopia. Dairyman XLIV: 322-327.
58. Woldeamlak, B., 2002. Land cover dynamics since the 69. Kidane, G., 1993. Effects of cutting date on botanical
1950s in Chemoga watershed, Blue Nile basin, composition and nutritive value of native pasture in
Ethiopia. Mountain Research and Development, central highlands of Ethiopia. An M.Sc. Thesis
22: 263-269. presented to Alemaya University, Ethiopia, pp: 105.
59. Belay, T., 2002. Land cover/land use changes in the 70. Meissner, H.H., P.J.K. Zacharias and P.J. Reagain,
Derekolli catchment of the south Wello Zone of 2000. Forage quality (Feed value). pp: 66-88. In: N.M.
Amhara region, Ethiopia. East African Social Science Tainton (eds.). Pasture Management in South Africa.
Research Review, 18: 1-20. University of Natal press, Pietermaritzburg.
60. Zewdie, W., 2010. Livestock Production Systems in
Relation with Feed Availability in the Highlands and
Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis,
Haramaya University. Harar, Ethiopia.

50