By Lemessa, F (2024).

Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences

ISSN: 2276-7770

Vol. 14(2), pp. 86-101, 2024

$Description: C:\Users\user\Documents\GJOURNALS\GJAS Logo.jpg$

Click on Play button...

Phenotypic Characterization and Assessment of Farmer’s Husbandry Practices of Hararghe Cattle Breed, in the Hararghe Highland of Ethiopia

Feyisa Lemessa

Department of Animal and Range Sciences, Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, P. O. Box 81265, Finfinne, Ethiopia

ARTICLE INFO	ABSTRACT
*Article No.:* 051324062 *Type: Research* *Full Text:* PDF, PHP, HTML, EPUB, MP3	The study was carried out in three districts of East Hararghe zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia, from August 2022 through April 2023, with the objectives of phenotypic and production system characterizing and to assess breeding and husbandry practices of the communities in the study areas (Fadis, Gursum and Goro districts). Field observations, semi-structured questionnaires, focus groups, interviews with key informants, linear body measurements of sample indigenous cattle, and secondary data gathering from various sources were used to acquire the data. Using non-parametric methods interviews were conducted with a total of 168 households (56 from each district), and 345 matured cattle were sampled for morphological description and linear body measurements. The average number of cattle per family was 5.91±0.35, and there were highly significant differences (p< 0.0001) between districts. Female Harar cattle on average had 71.5% white-gray, 8.9% white, 14.6%red and 1.2% white and red coat colors, whereas, white-gray 72.7%, type followed by red (12.1%), white (9.1%), and white and red 1.7% male. In coat color pattern, the plain was 85.8% and 90.2% male and female and the remaining patterned were 4.2% and 2.2% shade; 7.0% and 3.0% spotted female and male respectively. Female cattle linear body measurement on major linear body measure variables was Body length (115.7±0.93), Heart girth (150.5±0.76), Height at rump (116.6±0.82), Height at withers (107±0.51), whereas in male cattle population a linear measurement of 120.8±1.4, 153.5±1.2, 118.7±1.31, 109±0.81cm respectively. These measures had a moderate correlation, r=0.64, 0.67, 0.60 on female cattle, whereas, r=0.68, 0.67 and 0.66 respectively and matured female and male cattle were weighed 265.27Kg and 268.24Kg respectively.
*Accepted:* 15/05/2024 *Published:* 21/06/2024
Corresponding Author Feyisa Lemessa* *E-mail:* fayelem24@gmail.com
*Keywords:* Husbandry practices, linear body measures, phenotypic characterization, traits selection system.

1. INTRODUCTION

Beginning with animal domestication, livestock populations have been constantly disrupted by selective breeding or intervention in response to the needs of the owners, as well as natural selection to adapt to the local production environment (Berhane, 2017). Southwest Asia was thought to be the origin of the majority of these domestic animals. Previous research has looked into the origins and evolution of African livestock, and some of the findings have revealed the majority of African cattle breeds in the Horn of Africa are descended and domesticated through long horn hump-less cattle, zebu and crossbreeding between cattle (B. Taurus and B. Indicus) imported from Asia around 700 A.D (Grigson, 1991; Stock and Fifford-Gonzalez, 2013, Decker et al., 2014; Okeyo et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2017). This interbreeding took place primarily between 1000-200BC in Ethiopia and is divided into five major cattle types (Epstein, 1971): large and small East African Zebu, Sanga, Zenga (a cross between Sanga and Zenga), and Touraine types, which can be found in all agro-ecological zones, ranging from arid tropical to afro-alpine ecosystems, depending on their suitability for a particular production system (Rege, 1999). This domestication of cattle was started as a means of obtaining usable products or services, as well as for socio-cultural reasons. Although knowledge-based selective breeding may have existed since the dawn of time, the Romans (around 2000 bp) were the first to use it (Buffum, 1909). However, the commercial cattle industry is confronted with several new issues. In recent decades, there has been a rapid shift in livestock breeds used in developing countries due to global drivers, such as increasing demand for livestock products and market-oriented production (Zewdu, 2010). On the other hand, local breeds have been replaced by exotic breeds, leading to a loss of genetic resources Rege et al. (2011) as a result of human intervention. Changes in economic, social, and environmental factors affecting the population of local livestock breeds might offer opportunities but also pose threats to the livelihoods of poor farmers (Rege et al., 2011).

Ethiopia, with 70 million cattle, 40 million sheep, 51 million goats, 8 million camels, and 49 million chickens in 2021, makes it to have the largest livestock population in Africa (CSA, 2021). Between 2000 and 2016, the average livestock stock per 100 inhabitants, measured in tropical livestock units (TLU), was 51 TLU, more than double the continental median of 23 TLU. During the same period, the average gross production value growth rate was 4.5 percent, which was also higher than the continental median of 2.2 percent (FAO, 2019). The national herd supports, at least in part, the livelihoods of more than 11.3 million rural households, including 27– 35 percent of the highland livestock keepers, and a large proportion of the lowland herders, who live below the established poverty line (Shapiro et al., 2017).

Livestock is an important source of animal protein, crop cultivation power, transportation, export commodities, manure for agriculture and household energy, crop failure security, and wealth creation. In 2017, the industry provided up to 40 percent of agricultural GDP, over 20 percent of total GDP, and 20 percent of national foreign currency earnings (World Bank, 2017). Even though encouraging work has been done to document the extent of diversity in many of these species for the past two decades, evidence from earlier studies of cattle diversity in the area (Rey et al., 1997) indicated that some indigenous breeds are endangered in Ethiopia. As a result, numerous research studies have been undertaken to date and 32 indigenous cattle breeds have been recognized (DAGRIS, 2019). There is, however, a livestock population in some remote areas that has yet to be recognized. Increasing transhumance and migration in lower altitude places has resulted in extensive interbreeding between previously isolated animal populations according to Workneh et al. (2003).

Thus, the breed may be production-stress tolerant. Many sorts of research has been done on phenotypic and genetic characterization of the cattle to identify, characterize, and conserve the diversity of various classes of cattle in Ethiopia; However, little work has been done to characterize the Hararghe cattle population/ subtype. There is also inadequate breed-level characterization information (Rowlands, 2018). Therefore, the characterization of the cattle population is necessary for the proper identification of breeds and to suggest an appropriate breeding program for sustainable improvement, conservation, and sustainable utilization of animal genetic resources (FAO, 2015). Hence, based on these backgrounds, the current study was undertaken with the objective of phenotypically characterizing Hararghe Highland cattle and assessing breeding and husbandry practices of the communities in selected districts of East Harerghe zone, Oromia region, Ethiopia.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Sampling Techniques and Data Collection

A reconnaissance was made in advance together with the local staff of Livestock Development to get familiarized with the range of agroecological conditions and the existing farming systems in the study area. Meetings were held with local farmers and all opportunities were taken for wayside informal talks, key informant contact, and focal group discussions. Before choosing the survey districts, zonal experts from the rural and agricultural development office and farmer representatives had discussions regarding the area's native cattle as well as the region's existing production practices and locations where the pure Harar cow breed predominates. A multistage sampling technique was employed through purposive and random sampling of farmers. After discussion, three districts were chosen based on the potential production (population), distribution, and movements of this livestock [one from each lowland (Gursum), midland (Fadis), and highland (Goro gutu)]. In light of this, two kebeles (PA) from each district were randomly chosen. In Ethiopia, a peasant association is the smallest unit of an administrative structure below a district; it often has 500–1500 households (Mulu et al, 2022). Finally, 168 households were selected from the three districts using simple random and systematic random sampling procedures, respectively. The number of respondents was taken based on probability proportional to the population size of each kebele. The list of households from each kebeles to get the sampling frame and the sample size was determined following (Cochran, 1977; Kothari et al.,2004, Thrusfield, 2007).

where N is the total households; Z, confidence level 95% (1.96); P, sample proportion, 50 percent (0.5); q= 1 − p and e, the desired level of precision 5 percent (0.05).

To study livestock breeds, a modified version of an ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute, 2012) questionnaire was followed. It is used to gather data on the general socioeconomic features of households, the herd structure, breeding management, feed and feeding management, the prevalence of diseases, and production limits. Before execution, the questionnaires were pre-tested, and certain adjustments, reframing, and corrections were made in following the respondent's perception. A group of enumerators who had been specially hired and trained for the job and were under the researcher's direct supervision the questionnaire was administered to the randomly chosen household heads or representatives. Local agricultural development agents, local leaders, and cattle owners were also interviewed informally to incorporate local knowledge about cattle breeds to validate the information collected from the formal interview.

To gather information on cattle husbandry practices and desirable and undesirable characteristics of Hararghe cattle, a semi-structured questionnaire was also given to farmers who owned Hararghe cattle in six kebeles that were identified through focus group discussions. Questionnaire interviews were developed to learn about the feeding and watering system, breeding system, housing, culling and other major husbandry practices including health systems, major purpose of cattle keeping (objectives), and constraints of cattle production in general. To support the data gathered through individual farmer interviews, focus groups were convened with older farmers, village leaders, and socially respected farmers who were thought to have a greater understanding of the current and previous social and economic situation of the study areas. Information on the current state and main restraints facing the breed, indigenous knowledge on the management of breeding, major constraints, and alternative approaches to solving these issues were gathered through group discussions. Additionally, secondary information on the number of people and animals, agroecology, patterns of land use, topography, and climate was acquired from district and zonal agriculture and rural development offices. The study was conducted August 2022 through April 2023.

3.1.1. Linear Body Measures and Morphological Traits

Body measurements and physical characteristics were recorded qualitatively and quantitatively using a format adapted from the FAO standard description list (2012). When choosing morphological criteria, the standard breed descriptor list for cattle created by FAO (2012) was rigorously observed. Using measuring tape, the following quantitative characteristics were determined: body length, height at the withers, heart (chest) girth, height at the rump, forehead width, rump length, horn length, ear length, tail length, pelvis width, neck length, and muzzle circumference. The animals' dentitions and information from cattle owners were used to estimate their ages. For the linear measurements, animals with above two permanent pairs of incisors or more than two years of age were chosen. In this regard, ninety-nine (99) mature males and 246 breeding females in the sample families holding cattle from the three districts; qualitative and quantitative features were noted. These procedures were done by following FAO (2012) guidelines, which recommend a sample size of approximately 10–30 males and 100–300 females, the sample size was set. Approximately on average (0.59 to 1) bull and (1.46) female cattle were used for the current study from each sample of 56 households of each district. During physical measurements, was before feeding, only mature animals that were not related and pregnant animals were excluded.

3.2. Method of Data Analysis

3.2.1. Descriptive Statistics

The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to examine the qualitative phenotypic data and survey results (SPSS for Windows, release 25.0, 2018). Descriptive statistics and association of categorical variables were carried out. Chi-square analysis was used to compare the mean for non-parametric survey data and their significance was tested using the Pearson method.

3.2.2. Univariate Analysis

A general linear model procedure (PROC GLM) of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS 9.4, version 2016) was employed for quantitative variables to detect statistical differences among sampled cattle populations. Separation of means was determined by a one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey’s honestly significant difference. Statistical significance was separated (assessed) at (p<.05). The effects of sex, districts and sex interaction with district or ecology on linear body size measures were evaluated using the following linear model.

Where; Y_ijkl = the observed l^th (linear body measurements) in the i^th sex and j^th district and the interaction of ij^th combined (interaction) sex and districts effects; μ = overall mean;

Si= effect of the i^th sex (Male, Female)

D_j= the effect of the j^th district on linear body measurement (3 districts)

e_ijk = random residual error associated with the record of each animal

A sampled households’ index of responses was calculated as the following method used by Musa et al. (2006) and Tilahun et al. (2016)

Ranking index

Whereas,

R_n= Value of the least rank of constraint a (if the least rank is 7th, then R_n = 7, R_n-1= 6, R₁ = 1)

C_n = Counted value of the least ranked level (in the above example, the counts of the 7th rank=Cn, and C₁= the count of the 1st rank)

(R *C +R *C …. +R *C) = *W= weighted summation of each constraint (a, b, c...,). The index formula was employed to calculate a ranking index for the disease and their services, selection criteria for breeding purposes, and major production constraints.

The normality test was done by reclassifying statistics for the sample populations of female and male, districts, and ages, to remove the outliers (Table 10) from the raw data. The measured data was tested for normality and homogeneity using the Shapiro Wilt test and there was no violation of normality for all data from all districts across animal types.

Effective population sizes (Ne) per research site and combinedd population were estimated following (Falconer and Mackay, 1996); Caballero (1994), Hedrick (2000), and Frankham, Ballou, and Briscoe (2004)

(Falconer and Mackay, 1996)

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Livestock Holding and Species Compositions

The average number of livestock species per household in the study area is indicated in Table 2. In the current finding, it was revealed that there was a significant difference among the smallholder farmers in the average number of livestock species held in all the study areas at (p <0.05). Accordingly, cattle were the most important livestock species, followed by goats, sheep, donkeys, and chickens. Goro Gutu district had the fewest livestock as crop mixing livestock (commonly sorghum, maize, groundnut, and k’hat) for their subsistence was more practiced than the rest of the study areas. On the other hand, in the Fadis district (6.86±0.42) a higher number of livestock was observed in smallholder’s households and showed lower at Goro gutu (5.55±0.33) as the farmers in the area have integrated livestock with crop production whereas, crop integration was less in comparisons and farmers more of used feedlot to fattening their cattle. Besides, personal observation and key informant interviews notified that households in Fadis district are more dependent on aid and foreign NGOs participate in improving the food security and livelihood of smallholders in the area (Shumetie and Mamo, 2019). This average number of herds in the study areas shows far less than the reports which was from Chali (2014), 11.33 cattle holding per household in the Arsi highlands, 7.8 Habtamu in the Benishangul gumuz, 11.12 Andualem (2015), in the Essera district, Dawuro Zone of Ethiopia.

Table 2. Average number of Livestock holbdings per households in the study districts

Livestock species	Fadis N= 56	Gursum (N=56)	Goro gutu (N=56)	Overall (N=168)	Prob>F
Cattle	6.86±0.42	5.55±0.33	5.32±0.31	5.91±0.35	0.003
Goat	10.63±0.58	5.32±0.39	7.11±0.44	7.46±0.47	<0.0001
Sheep	4.02±0.23	4.86±0.26	4.45±0.33	3.78±0.27	0.015
Donkey	2.09±0.12	1.02±0.10	2.05±0.11	1.72±0.11	Ns
Mule	-	-	-	-
Horse	-	-	-	-
Camel	1.57±0.35	1.89±0.46	-	1.51±0.3	0.0004
Poultry	24.61±0.92	5.91±0.39	8.41±0.43	13±0.58	<0.0001
Beehive(traditional)	2.1±0.49	1.79±0.24	1.89±0.49	1.93±0.41	Ns

Note: N = Number of respondents; *** = significant at (p < 0.001); ** = significant at (p < 0.01); * = significant at (p < 0.05)

4.3. Cattle Management and Husbandry.

4.3.1. Source of Animal Feeds and watering

Healthy cattle can tolerate a wide range of temperatures if they are acclimatized and have adequate feed and water. There was no significant difference among districts in terms of cattle feeding and water sources and grazing patterns among districts. In the study areas, Tethering feed practice was 37.1 and 43.3% in Fadis, 10.3 and 38.5% in Gursum, and 7.2 and 47.8% in Goro gutu during both the dry and wet seasons respectively followed by cut-and-carry feedings, 6.8 and 22.2% in Fadis, 9 and 11.2% in Gursum and 26.0 and 28.6% in Goro gutu in both seasons (Table 4) which was consistent with Dugassa (2021) reported Cut and carry feeding and Tethering in East and West Hararghe zones. A similar survey by Bikila and Tigist (2016) found that in the Haramaya district majority of the respondents (73%) utilize cut-and-carry (zero grazing). In all study districts tethering was more practiced during the rainy seasons of the year and less in dry seasons and cut and carry supplying was done in wet seasons when the natural pastures and trees are abundant which is higher in Goro gutu following availability and its ecology. Nonetheless, the crop residues, kitchen overleft, and concentrate feeds were supplied in limited amounts during the dry seasons.

In terms of grazing pattern, the interviewed households had utilized 91 and 99.1% of private (kalo) grazing land in Fadis during dry and wet seasons, whereas, 84.1 and 63.3% in Gursum, 94.6 and 86.5% in Goro gutu in both seasons respectively. The rest proportion was shared with communal gazing (9 and 0.9% in Fadis, 14.9 and 35.7% in Gursum, and 5.4 and 13.5% in Goro gutu) in dry and wet seasons. Moreover, animals are privately grazed and were normally tethered both during the dry and wet seasons because of the growth of agricultural land and the restricted communal grazing (Goro gutu and Fadis), and because this study found that cattle herding was rarely done during dry seasons except in Gursum pastoral areas.

Generally, in the study areas, natural pastures were the major feed resource available though, it was continuously grazed (degrading issues were there). During the wet season (June-August) local cattle depend on natural pastures while during the dry season (December-February) they mainly depend on conserving hay and crop residues available after crop harvest. It was reported that during the wet season pastures are abundant, and is when kalos (open enclosures where animals were kept) are full of mud and the animals (young and adults) spend the whole day in the kalo while standing. In dry season usually oxen gain weight because of limited draft work and the presence of crop residues and they were used for fattening during this season (Fadis and Goro gutu).

Results from the three surveyed districts show that supplementation using commercial feeds (high energy and protein concentrates) was rarely supplied in Goro gutu except in Fadis (4.4%) and Gursum (11.1%), implying the availability and affordability issue was the matters. Young calves (< 3 weeks) were usually tethered and left around homesteads. The cattle's primary source of water was always dams or reservoirs (ponding) water (48.3 and 39.6%; 60.5 and 90.2%; 52.6 and 46.9% in Fadis, Gursum, and Goro gutu during both dry and wet seasons) respectively which was more available and utilized during the rainy seasons and the water wells or pumps was provided (41 and 21.6%; 39.5 and 9.8; 36.9 and 42.7% in Fadis, Gursum, and Goro gutu) in both dry and wet seasons respectively. This implies artificial ponds and water wells were man-created and not easy to afford for farmers and had a resource limit and less ease for supplying cattle at Adlib due limited number of springs. Besides, Households in the study areas commonly agreed that the stimulant crop and livestock were a crucial and main source of cash if there was a consistent water supply. This asset creates a visible wellbeing difference between those who have it and not (Shumetie and Mamo, 2019). Overall, water sources from dams/reservoirs and water pumps had the major contribution for local Hararghe highland cattle in dry and wet seasons.

Table 4: Sources of animal feed and watering systems in the study areas

Parameters	Fadis (N= 56)		Gursum (N= 56)		Goro gutu N= 56
Periods of year	Dry season (%)	Wet season (%)	Dry season (%)	Wet season (%)	Dry season (%)	Wet season (%)	Prob>X²
Communal grazing land	9	0.9	14.9	35.7	5.4	13.5	0.2303
Private grazing land	91	99.1	84.1	64.3	94.6	86.5
Grazing aftermath	12.4	-	8.3	12.6	17.8	-
Grazing fallow land	15.1	34.5	20.2	37.7	13.8	23.6
Crop residue	17.1	-	28.2	-	18.5	-
Cut grass and browses	6.8	22.2	9.0	11.2	26.0	28.6
Tethering	37.1	43.3	10.3	38.5	7.2	47.8
Concentrate	4.4	0	11.1	-	-	-
Hay	7.1	0	11.9	-	16.7	-
Water	*		**		***
Lake	10.7	38.9	-	-	- -		0.2133
Artificial water Reservoirs (ponding)	48.3	39.6	60.5	90.2	52.6	46.9
River	-	-	-	-	10.5	10.4
Water well	41	21.6	39.5	9.8	36.9	42.7

Table 5: Prevalence status of common livestock diseases and health services in the study areas

Districts	Parameters		1stR	2^nd R	3^rd R	4^th R	5^th R	6^th R	Index	*Rank*
Fadis	Name of local	Blackleg	24	13	14	4	0	1	0.12	5
	diseases	Brucella	21	10	13	6	2	4	0.17	3
		Mastitis	14	11	9	12	6	4	0.20	2
		Ecto-parasite	31	10	9	6	0	0	0.13	6
		Skin diseses	23	16	9	8	0	0	0.16	4
		Pasteurellosis	10	9	12	18	6	1	0.21	1
Gursum		Blackleg	21	15	14	4	0	1	0.14	6
		Brucella	18	5	13	8	0	4	0.15	5
		Mastitis	18	11	10	11	6	0	0.18	2
		Ecto-parasite	26	5	13	8	0	4	0.16	4
		Skin diseses	20	10	9	4	13	0	0.19	1
		pasteurellosis	15	18	12	4	6	1	0.17	3
Goro gutu		Skin diseses	23	8	9	9	7	0	0.18	2
		Ecto-parasite	13	10	21	6	2	4	0.17	3
		Blackleg	12	11	9	14	6	4	0.15	5
		Brucella	10	9	31	6	0	0	0.14	6
		Mastitis	13	27	11	4	0	1	0.16	4
		pasteurollosis	11	8	13	17	6	1	0.20	1
Fadis	The Service provided by local gov't extensions	Vaccination	0	15	11	0	0	0	0.49	1
	The Service provided by local gov't extensions	Treatment	25	20	11	0	0	0	0.42	2
Gursum		Vaccination	25	25	6	0	0	0	0.40	2
		Treatment	20	15	8	10	5	0	0.60	1
Goro gutu		Vaccination	40	10	6	0	0	0	0.40	2
		Treatment	30	10	9	0	2	5	0.60	1
Fadis	Stakeholders	Agricultural offices	16	8	14	12	4	2	0.52	1
		Private veterinary	12	23	9	5	6	1	0.48	2
gursum		Agricultural offices	14	10	15	11	4	2	0.49	1
		NGO	6	2	3	0	0	1	0.08	3
		Private veterinary	12	23	9	7	4	1	0.44	2
Goro gutu		Agricultural offices	20	8	10	12	6	0	0.50	1
		Private veterinary	15	20	7	7	4	3	0.50	2

Table 6: Housing system of cattle and their types in the study areas

Type of house provided and their systems		Fadis N=56 (%)	Gursum N=56 (%)	Goro gutu(N=56) (%)		Prob>X²
The Do you separate calve with cow	Yes	91.1	92.9	98.2	0.2425
	No	8.9	7.1	1.8
Type of shelter provided for the herd	No Shelter		-	-
	A separate house for a herd for each spp.	3.6	14.3	10.7
	A shelter was constructed inside the house	42.9	57.2	55.4
	shelter constructed expansion of the main house	44.6	21.4	32.1
Species of Animals housed together	Cows + calves	8.9	-	-
	Cattles+ equines	28.6	26.8	31.1
	Sheep + goat	53.6	66.1	67.1

Table 7: Culling system, type of cattle, and their causes in the study areas

Culling Strategies		Fadis (%)	Gursum (%)	Goro gutu (%)	Prob>X²
Trends of culling practices	Yes	87.5	89.3	81.8	0.2335
	No	12.5	10.7	18.2
Reason for culling	Diseased	12.0	10.2	17.8
	Old age	16.2	14.7	10.8
	Sterility (female)	15.8	13.4	11.1
	Poor physical condition	3.5	5.8	12.3
	Low milk yield	14.2	20.5	13.7
	Poor mothering ability	11.7	12.2	6.0
	Bad color	10.3	4.3	3.6
	Poor libido (male)	3.8	8.2	6.5
Means of culling	sale	44.0	62.1	42.3
	Slaughter	7.5	4.8	4.8
	Exchange	36.0	22.4	34.7

4.6. Qualitative Characteristics of the Hararghe Cattle Population, both Female and Male

Table 8 lists the qualitative traits of female and male Hararghe cattle. Short and thick horned; the dewlap is well developed; coat colour is mainly black, roan, and red (Rege and Tawah, 1999, DAGRIS, 2023).

The overall summary frequencies of morphological features of Hararghe highland cattle were almost the same on average in all study areas except in Goro gutu which showed a difference in coat color to the rest of the study districts. In female cow populations, white-grey, white, white, and red, black (rare) was the most often seen coat colors. In the studied population of male cattle, white-gray 72.7% was the most prevalent coat color type followed by red (12.1% frequently observed in Goro gutu), white (9.1%), and white and red 1.7% whereas 71.5%, 8.9%, 14.6 and 1.2% respectively in the female sampled population. In coat color pattern, the plain was 85.8% and 90.2% male and female, and the remaining patterns were 4.2% and 2.2% shade; 7.0% and 3.0% spotted female and male respectively. Plain coat color patterns were more frequently seen in the sampled female population. The majority of the sample Hararghe cattle population in the study areas 93.1% female and 84.8% male had pigmented body skin coats, whereas the rest did not. For females, the pigment was present in the muzzle (78.9%), hoof (91.9%), and eyelid (90.7%). Males had pigmented muzzles, hooves, and eyelids to varying degrees 72.7%, 81.8%, and 63.6% respectively.

Females had a 22.0% small, 65.9% medium, and 12.2% large naval flap. In the sample of males, there were 19.2% small (little), 75.8%medium, and 5.1% large permanent sheaths. The majority 92.7% of the female and over 93.7% of the male cattle in the research areas had horns, whereas 18.2% of the female cow and 6.2% male population were poled out of a sampled population. Among the population of horned male and female cattle, 37.4% were straight, 35.7% were curved, 5.2% were loose, 5.5% were stump horned, and over 7% were polled cattle. Out of the sampled male population, 60.6%, 29.3 and 10.1 had a large, medium, and small hump size and of these cattle, 90.9% rounded from front to back oriented and 9.1 thoracic. The overall sampled cattle population had 66.1% straight and 19.5% concave facial profiles and the rest were in between.

The current finding is very in line with the report of Dugassa (2021) on phenotypic characterization for Harar cattle in Eastern and West Hararghe zones, Jarso, Tullo, Oda bultum and Goro gutu districts and coat colors; male cattle, white-gray (26.2%) followed by red 20.2%, (11.2%) white, (13.1%), and black (6%). The plain 95% and the remaining patterned shade and spotted 5% female and (94% plain and 6% spotted) were male respectively; female (94.1%) and male (92.9%) had pigmented body skin coats, pigmented muzzle (66.3%), hoof (91.1%), and eyelid (11.6%). Males had pigmented muzzles, hooves, and eyelids to varying degrees (64.3, 94, and 21.4%, respectively); (93.3%) of the female and (100%) of the male cattle had horns according to his previous report.

Table 8: Qualitative traits description for indigenous Hararghe cattle in the study area

		Female N=246		Male N=99		Overall N=345
Variables		N	%	N	%	N	%
Facial profile	straight	186	75.6	84	84.8	228.0	66.1
Facial profile	concave	60	24.4	15	15.2	67.5	19.5
Dewlap size	Small	88	35.8	10	10.1	93.0	27.0
	medium	146	59.3	64	64.6	178.0	51.6
	large	12	4.9	25	25.3	24.5	7.1
Coat color pattern	plain	185	75.2	79	79.8	224.5	65.1
	Shade/patch	25	4.2	17	2.2	33.5	1.9
	spotted	30	7.0	3.0	3.0	37.5	2.9
Coat color type	Red	22	8.9	12	12.1	28.0	8.1
	white	36	14.6	9	9.1	40.5	11.7
	White grey	176	71.5	72	72.7	212.0	61.4
	White and Red	3	1.2	6	6.1	6.0	1.7
	Black	9	3.7	0	0.0	9.0	2.6
Body coat color	Pigment	229	93.1	84	84.8	271.0	78.6
Body coat color	Not pigment	17	6.9	15	15.2	24.5	7.1
Muzzle color	pigment	194	78.9	72	72.7	230.0	66.7
Muzzle color	Not pigment	52	21.1	27	27.3	65.5	19.0
Eyelid color	pigment	223	90.7	63	63.6	254.5	73.8
Eyelid color	Not pigment	23	9.3	36	36.4	41.0	11.9
Hoof color	pigment	226	91.9	81	81.8	266.5	77.2
Hoof color	Not pigment	20	8.1	18	18.2	29.0	8.4
Horn condition	Present	228	92.7	93	93.9	274.5	79.6
Horn condition	Absent	18	7.3	6	6.1	21.0	6.1
Horn shape	Straight	158	64.2	63	63.6	189.5	54.9
	curved	60	24.4	30	30.3	75.0	21.7
	loose	9	3.7	6	6.1	12.0	3.5
	stump	19	7.7	0	0.0	19.0	5.5
H. Orientation	Pointing laterally	195	79.3	80	80.8	235.0	68.1
	Upward	42	17.1	10	10.1	47.0	13.6
	Downward	9	3.7	0	0.0	9.0	2.6
Ear orientation/shape	lateral	213	86.6	81	81.8	253.5	73.5
Ear orientation/shape	dropping	33	13.4	18	18.2	42.0	12.2
Hump size	Small	196	79.7	10	10.1	201.0	58.3
	medium	50	20.3	29	29.3	64.5	18.7
	Large	0	0.0	60	60.6	30.0	8.7
Hump orientation	Rounded from front to back	176	71.5	90	90.9	221.0	64.1
Hump orientation	Thoracic	70	28.5	9	9.1	74.5	21.6
Perpetual sheath	small	0	0.0	19	19.2	9.5	2.8
	medium	0		75	75.8	37.5	10.9
	large	0	0.0	5	5.1	2.5	0.7
Naval flap (for cows)	small	54	22.0	0	0.0	54.0	15.7
Naval flap (for cows)	medium	162	65.9	0	0.0	162.0	47.0
	Large	30	12.2	0	0.0	30.0	8.7

N= Number of breeding female and male cattle

4.7. Quantitative Traits in male and female Hararghe Cattle.

Table 9 provides summary statistics for quantitative characteristics of both male and female Hararghe cattle populations in the study areas. The sex of the animal (on some variables) and the districts had a significant impact on the phenotypic variation in all quantitative dependent variables at (p<0.05). The cows' linear body dimensions between sexes showed that there was a significant difference in all the major variables body length, heart girth, height at rump, and height for the cattle that finished their growth (matured) and were lower in female cattle population and relatively higher in males, Table 9. This might be due to the production stress and physiological adaptation difference between female cattle with males. Whereas linear measures on major variable showed higher, that farmers were owed special management for male cattle and existed between good to average body condition. On the other hand, all ecologies or study districts showed highly significance differences in all major linear measures. Accordingly, the body length of the cattle population at Fadis was higher than the population at Goro gutu and showed lower values than the population of cattle at Gursum, had a higher heart girth than that of Gursum cattle population but less than those in Goro gutu, and showed a lower value in height at rump and height at withers than the rest of the districts. This implied cattle population in this ecology relatively showed longer body and fat body conditions. Furthermore, a morphometrical trait of the cattle population in Gursum (arid – semi-arid areas) showed higher values in the measurable linear body compared with the rest of the study areas Whereas, heart girth was higher than in study areas, but the height at the rump and height at withers was only higher than Gursum cattle populations.

This implies cattle populations in highland areas relatively larger and shorter which is the reverse for the lowland cattle population for physiological adaptations. The current finding was in line with previous reports on the relationship between ecological diversity and body size variation in indigenous cattle populations (Marume et al., 2014), and the authors found that cattle populations in different ecological zones have distinct morphological characteristics, including variation in linear body measures such as height, length, and girth due to the result of natural selection pressures and adaptation to specific environmental conditions, such as temperature, humidity, and availability of food and water. Therefore, the current finding provides evidence to support the idea that cattle in different ecological environments have differences in their linear body measures according to specific environmental conditions or productions.

Furthermore, the Hararghe highland cattle population was compared to those of other indigenous cattle raised in different parts (ecology) of Ethiopia for their morphometric traits. For instance, the results reported by Habtamu (2017) for the indigenous cattle breed of Benishangul Gumuz, western Ethiopia, had a body length of (149.93± 0.68 cm), a chest circumference of (115.49± 0.59 cm), and a height at the withers of (120.9± 0.70 cm), respectively which were longer and larger in than the current finding. Additionally, (Endashew, 2015) reported that Mursi cattle in the Bodi and Mursi pastoral districts of the south Omo zone, southwestern Ethiopia, had body lengths, chest girths, and heights at the withers that were, respectively, 122.01 cm, 144.5 cm, and 113.0 cm. The current result, however, was less favorable than Mulugeta's (2015) 137.0±0.10, 136.0±0.09, 168.9±0.10 and for male Begait cattle, the following measurements, Height at withers; Body length; Chest girth implied that there’s a significance difference as well with the northern Tigrai of Ethiopia, Begait cattle breed.

However, the current findings were very consistent with those of average measured values for body length, except chest girth (131.53 cm), and height at withers of Horro cattle found to be (99.42 cm), 107.18 cm, respectively, reported by (Dereje and Endashaw, 2015) respectively. The study by Fasil et al. (2014) for indigenous female Ogaden cattle, In the Eastern ecology of Ethiopia, near the border of Hararghe plateau, showed lower values for body length (104.1±0.50) except higher in height at withers (113.5±0.39 of ogaden) than the current findings, but higher values for chest girth (149.1±0.66). In the ecology of southern parts of Ethiopia, the findings of Ebadu et al. (2017) for Bonga cattle were nearly in line with those of the present study in terms of body length (110.52±0.33 cm), except higher in chest girth (135.04±0.42 cm), and height at withers (100.48±0.29). Implied ecology impacts in variation for linear body dimensions of cattle irrespective of the breed type.

Table 9: The Summary of linear body measurements in female and male Hararghe cattle population

	EL	BL	HG	HR	RL	HW	PW	WFH	NL	TL	MC
Effects		Mean+ SE	mean+ SE	mean+ SE	mean+ SE	mean+ SE	mean+ SE	mean+ SE	mean+ SE	mean+ SE	mean+ SE
Districts	*	***	***	***	***	***	***	***	**	***	**
Fadis	19.5±0.14^a	116.3+1.38^b	148.5±1.13^b	114.4±1.21^b	41.4±0.71^a	107.7±0.76^b	32.6±0.35^a	43.7±0.45^a	52.8±0.75^b	92±0.84a	33±0.30^a
Gursum	19±0.15^ab	123.2±1.44^c	145.6±1.22^b	122.5±1.31^b	41±0.74^a	115.7±0.79^b	28.7±0.37^c	22±0.47^c	52±0.78^b	81.3±0.91c	31.5±0.31^b
Goro gutu	18.9±0.15^b	110.3±1.42^a	152±1.22^a	115.7±1.25^a	27.5±0.73^b	109.6±0.78^a	30.6±0.36^b	23.7±0.47^b	55.5±0.77^a	84.5±0.86^b	30.6±0.31^b
Sex	ns	***	**	**	ns	*	**	ns	ns	**	ns
Female	19±0.11^a	115.7±0.93^a	150.5±0.76b	116.6±0.82^a	36.5±0.51^a	107±0.51^a	30±0.24^b	29.4±0.30^a	53.5±0.50a	85±0.57^b	31.9±0.20^a
Male	19±0.15^a	120.8±1.47^a	153.5±1.21a	118.7±1.31^a	37±0.75^a	109±0.81^a	31.7±0.38^a	31±0.48^a	53.5±0.81a	88±0.91^a	31.8±0.32^a
District*Sex	ns	ns	ns	ns	*	ns	ns	*	ns	ns	ns
F,Fadis	19.6±0.21^a	115.2±1.70b^cd	147.1±1.40^b	113.2±1.35^c	40.7±0.87^a	104.0±0.94^b	32.1±0.44^a	43.6±0.56^a	52.8±0.93^a	92.0±1.03^a	33.7±0.37^a
M,Fadis	19.3±0.23^ab	118.1±2.25^abc	150.8±1.85^b	116.1±1.79^bc	42.5±1.15^a	103.0±1.23^b	33.3±0.58^a	44.0±0.74^a	52.7±1.22^a	92.5±1.37^a	32.9±0.49^ab
F,Gursum	18.9±0.21^b	110.3±1.54^d	144.8±1.27^b	115.0±1.23^c	41.1±0.79^a	102.4±0.85^b	28.4±0.41^c	22.56±0.51^bc	52.4±0.84^a	80.8±0.94^c	31.6±0.34^bc
M,Gursum	19.0±0.31^ab	1109.8±2.85^cd	148.5±2.35^b	117.3±2.30^abc	41.2±1.46^a	103.6±1.57^b	29.4±0.74^bc	21.1±0.94^c	51.8±1.55^a	82.8±1.74^bc	31.2±0.62^bc
F,Goro gutu	19.2±0.21^ab	115.2±1.59^ab	159.6±1.31^a	122.4±1.26^a	28.1±0.81^b	115.4±0.87^a	30.2±0.41^b	24.2±0.52^b	55.4±0.86^a	83.4±0.97^bc	30.5±0.35^c
M,Gorogutu	18.95±0.27^ab	127.3±2.9^a	161.3±2.15^a	123.4±2.10^ab	26.2±1.34^b	116.2±1.44^a	31.4±0.67^ab	22.5±0.86^bc	56.0±1.42^a	87.7±1.59^ab	30.7±0.57^c
Overall mean	19.1±0.14	116.86±1.33	151.6±1.12	117±1.18	36.7±0.69	107.2±0.73	30.7±0.34	30±0.43	53.5	86±0.82	31.8±0.31
CV	8	13.29	8.9	14.44	26.91	9.22	13.36	36.5	14.9	11.6	10.6
R²	0.09	0.31	0.56	0.54	0.68	0.62	0.32	0.88	0.55	0.61	0.18

Note: ns = not significant ; EL: Ear length; HG: Heart girth; HR: Height at rump; HW: Height at withers; PW: Pelvic width; WFH: Width of forehead; NL: Neck length; TL: Tail length; MC: Mouth circumference; a, b = means with different letter superscript across the column differ significantly; SE = standard error; CV: coefficient of variation; R²:Amount of y expressed by categorical variables (x factors) error; N = Number of respondents; *** = significant at (p < 0.001); ** = significant at (p < 0.01); * = significant at (p < 0.05)

Table 16: Major constraints of Cattle production ranked in the order of their importance in the study areas

Districts	Parameters	Ranks							Index	Rank
Districts	Parameters	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	Index	Rank
Fadis	Feed and water scarcity	6	7	10	7	5	7	14	0.18	1
	Ls disease	10	8	8	8	8	7	7	0.16	2
	Genotype	8	12	11	4	6	7	8	0.15	4
	Poor market	12	13	10	12	5	0	4	0.12	7
	Lack of credit service	12	6	8	15	8	2	5	0.14	6
	Lack of improved forage	10	9	9	7	7	9	5	0.15	5
	Drought	8	10	9	8	7	8	6	0.16	3
Gursum	Feed and water scarcity	2	5	10	7	5	10	17	0.21	1
	Ls disease	6	9	7	9	0	11	14	0.19	3
	Genotype	6	14	10	7	5	7	7	0.16	4
	Poor market	18	15	8	5	7	2	1	0.11	7
	Lack of credit service	15	15	11	8	4	0	3	0.11	6
	Lack of improved forage	12	8	7	11	10	3	5	0.15	5
	Drought	5	10	7	10	10	8	10	0.19	2
Goro gutu	Feed and water scarcity	4	7	12	5	0	13	15	0.20	1
	Ls disease	9	6	8	8	6	5	14	0.18	2
	Genotype	14	6	11	6	7	6	6	0.15	3
	Poor market	16	17	10	3	6	3	1	0.11	7
	Lack of credit service	9	13	10	9	4	5	6	0.15	4

6. CONCLUSION

The study was conducted in three districts (Fadis, Gursum, and Goro gutu) in the East Hararghe zone,) Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia, with the objectives to phenotypically characterize of local cattle population and to characterize the breeding, and husbandry practices of Hararghe cattle in the study areas. Data collection was carried out using a semi-structured questionnaire, focus group discussions, discussion with key informants, field observations, and measurement of quantitative and qualitative traits. Moreover, secondary data was collected from different sources and used in the study. Totally 345 heads of Hararghe cattle (246 female and 99 male) kept in an on-farm system were successfully characterized for morphological and morphometrical traits at their population level. The result of the study revealed that the majority of respondents were male-headed households (92.9%). The most important source of household income was from mixed crop-livestock production (66.7%).

The overall mean livestock holding per household were 5.91±0.35, 7.46±0.47, 3.78±0.27, 1.72±0.11and 13±0.58 cattle, goats, sheep, donkey, and chicken, respectively. The coat colour of cattle was white grey, white, and red in females and white grey, and white, white, and red in males. The size of the hump varies from small to large in male cattle. Whereas horns are curved and straight. The polled was (7.3%) in females and (6.1%) in males. Ear shape is straight-edged and laterally oriented. The dewlap is medium and straight facial profile. Perpetual sheaths for bulls are small to medium and naval flaps for cows are also small to medium. The male Hararghe cattle possess large hump sizes (60.6%) and medium (29.3%), while the majority of female cattle possess small hump sizes (79.7%). The average Body length (116.3±1.38), Heart girth (148.5±1.13), Height at rump (114.4±1.21), Height at withers (107±0.76), Neck length (52.8±0.75), and Mouth circumference was (33±0.30) at Fadis which varied from 123.2±1.44 BL, 145.6±1.22HG, 122.5±1.31HR, 115.7±0.79HW, 52±0.78NL, and 31.5±0.31cm MC at Gursum and 110.3±1.42, 152±1.22, 122.7±1.25, 109.6±0.78, 55.5±0.77, 30.6±0.31years, at Goro gutu respectively, with a body weight of (265.27Kg for those less than 5 years) female cattle which was 268.24Kg for male cattle for those less than five years. For female Hararghe cattle age at first mating, age at first calving, calving interval, reproductive lifetime of cow and total calves born per cow lifetime were 3.66±0.06, 3.96±0.12, 1.87±0.03, 12.6±0.4 and 4.68±0.12 years respectively. In the study areas, Tethering feed practice was 37.1 and 43.3% in Fadis, 10.3 and 38.5% in Gursum, and 7.2 and 47.8% in Goro gutu during the dry and wet seasons respectively followed by cut-and-carry feedings, 6.8 and 22.2% in Fadis, 9 and 11.2% in Gursum and 26.0 and 28.6% in Goro gutu in both seasons. The majority of respondents (61.7%) utilize primary water from dams or reservoirs (ponding) (48.3 and 39.6%; 60.5 and 90.2%; 52.6 and 46.9% in Fadis, Gursum and Goro gutu during both dry and wet seasons) respectively whereas water wells (spring) or pumps (41 and 21.6%; 39.5 and 9.8; 36.9 and 42.7% in Fadis, Gursum and Goro gutu) in both dry and wet seasons. The majority of respondents kept their animals (inside the main house) (42.9% Fadis, 57.2% Gursum, and 55.4% Goro gutu), whereas, the expansion of the main house or homestead shades (44.6, 21.4, and32.1% respectively in all districts. The major prevalent diseases described by respondents in Fadis according to index ranking order were pasteurellosis (0.21), mastitis (0.20), brucella (0.17), Skin disease (LSD) (0.16), ectoparasite (0.13), and blackleg (0.12), ranked first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth respectively, whereas, skin disease, mastitis, pasteurellosis, ectoparasite, Brucella and Blackleg was prevalent in Gursum while pasteurellosis, skin disease (LSD), ectoparasite, Mastitis, Blackleg, and Brucella widely assessed in Goro gutu according to their importance.

The major challenges that faced the cattle farmers in the study areas were shortage of feed and water, disease and parasites, genotype, and lack of credit service identified as the major problems that deferred cattle productivity in the study areas. Generally, phenotypic qualitative characteristics of the Hararghe cattle populations are alike, while their quantitative characteristics in the three districts revealed that cattle populations of Fadis and Gursum are closer than that of Goro gutu which could be because of proximities. The linear body measurement results showed that Harar cattle are larger compared to other cattle like Gamo-gofa cattle, Arsi cattle, and Mursi cattle. Production system characterization revealed that cattle are mainly used for fattening purposes (37.3%). Based on the results of the present study the following recommendations are forwarded:

§ Further on-station study should be employed to characterize and investigate the trait of production that will be used in selecting the best and enhancing in improvement and conservation program

§ Further study should be conducted on molecular characterization and reproductive performance traits of Hararghe cattle type.

§ The major serious problem in cattle fattening is the availability and quality of feed, therefore, there should be a strategy for improving animal feeds by introducing feed processing technologies. Additionally, proper feed conservation enhancement of crop residues and improved fodder cultivation should be also considered.

§ Developing natural resource conservation mechanism improve the availability of water in the areas

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Administrative support, statistical analysis, and writing assistance were provided by Haramaya University. Financial support, administrative support, equipment, or supplies, travel, and writing assistance were provided by Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, OARI. The relationship of the Institute with Haramaya University, Department of Animal and Rangeland Sciences includes board membership, non-financial support, paid expert testimony, and speaking and lecture fees. Co-authors were previously employed at Haramaya University and The Corresponding author was from Oromia Regional Agricultural Researchers Institute. Dr. Yosef Tadesse and Dr. Takele Wolkaro were Major and Co-Advisors of this paper respectively, while Dr. Silesh Gadissa, Dr. Kefena Effa, and Dr. Temesgen Jemberu were the members of the supervisors and examiner board hired by Harmaya University. Whereas, Feyisa Lemessa was the corresponding Author of the paper. Therefore, I declare that there are no potential conflicts of interest between authors. The current study was done following the FAO (2012) set of guidelines for local animal phenotypic and production system characterization and I sincerely declare that there are no violations of ethics in the entire study.

7. REFERENCES

Abate, and Abiye, 1993. Some Methods of Introducing forage Legumes into the smallholder Mixed Farms in the Ethiopian Highlands. In Proceedings of Symposium on environmental degradation. Mekele University, Mekele, Ethiopia.

Abate, Belete, Wegi, Usman, Wamatu, and Duncan. 2012. Characterization of the livestock production systems and the potential of feed-based interventions for improving livestock productivity in Sinana district, Bale highlands. International Livestock Research Intitute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya

Abeygunawardena H and Dematewewa C M B. 2004. Pre-pubertal and postpartum anestrus in tropical Zebu cattle. Animal Reproduction Science 82–83 2004 pp 373–387.

Adam Bekele, Dawit Alemu, Tilaye Teklewold, Henrietta L. Moore, Catherine Hodge and Stefan Berg, 2018. Strategies for animal disease control in Ethiopia: A review of policies, regulations and actors. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330534722

Adugna, Tolera. and Said, A.N., 1994. Assessment of feed resources in Welayta Sodo. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Science. 14(1/2): 69-87.

Alemayehu 2012. Review on emerging and re-emerging bacterial zoonotic diseases. American Eurasian Journal of Scientific Research. 7(4):176-186

Alemu, Zinash, and Seyoum, 1989. The Potentials of Crop Residue and AgroIndustrial by-products as animal feed. Proceedings of the Third National Livestock Improvement Conference. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR).

Alwyn Heyredin 2014. Comparative Study of Reproductive and Productive Performance of Holstein Friesian Dairy Cows at Holeta Bull Dam Station and Genesis Farms, a Thesis Submitted to the College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture of Addis Ababa University, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.

Amsalu Tolera and Addisu, 2014. Assessment of grazing land and livestock feed balance in Gummara-Rib watershed, Ethiopia. Current Agriculture Research Journal. 2(2):114-122. http://dx.doi.org/10.12944/CARJ.2.2.08

Andarge Zewdu, Kefyalew Alemayehu and Zewdu Wondifraw, 2018. Breeding Practices
and Farmers Trait Preferences on Indigenous Dairy Cattle Production in East
Gojjam Zone, Ethiopia. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences (ISSN:
2321 – 1571) Volume 06 – Issue 01, February 2018.

Arega Shumetie and Kassahun Mamo 2019. Effect of cropland and livestock ownership on child labour in eastern Ethiopia: Empirical examination of the Wealth Paradox: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-019-0061-x

Armstrong, J.B., 2006. Inbreeding: Why we will not do it? Accessed on September 15,
2008 from http://www.parispoodles.com/Inbreeding.html

Assefa Getie, Mussie Hilemelekot, Mengistie Taye, Zewdu Wuletaw and Assemu Tesfa ,2015. survey on breeding practice, and productive performance of Simada cattle in Tach Gayint District, Ethiopia. Journal of Life Science and Biomedicine, 5(6),
pp.171-180.

Assemu Tesfa, Dilip Kumar, Solomon Abagaz, Getinet Mekuriaw 2016. Evaluations of
Reproductive Performances of Fogera Cattle Breed in Selected Districts of Amhara Region, Ethiopia. International Journal of Pharma Medicine and Biological Sciences 5(1):52.

Asfaw, W., 1997. Livestock Development Policy in Ethiopia. In: Livestock development policies in Eastern and Southern Africa. Proceedings of a seminar organized by CTA, OAU/IBAR, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Mbabane, Swaziland.

A. J. Heinrichs, G. W. Rogers, and J. B. Cooper: “Prediction body weight and wither height in Holstein heifers using body measurements”, Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 75, pp. 3576-3581, 1992

Ayalew, Rege, J. E. O., Getahun, Tibbo, M., and Mamo, 2003. Delivering Systematic Information on Indigenous Animal Genetic Resources – the development and prospects of DAGRIS Proceedings. The Deutscher Tropentag 2003: Technological and Institutional Innovations for Sustainable Rural Development. Goettingen, Germany.

Ayantu Mokonen, Haile, Dessie and Mekasha , 2012. On farm characterization of Horro cattle breed production systems in western Oromia, Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Development 24 (100). Retrieve June 25, 2015 from http.//www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/6/meko24100.htm.

Ayele, Assegid, Jabbar, Ahmed, M and Belachew, 2003. Livestock marketing in Ethiopia: A review of structure, performance and development initiatives. Socio-economics and Policy Research Working Paper 52. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya, for Integrated development. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP) held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Azage Tegegn, Tesfaye, Tesfaye, Worku, Eshete, 2009. Transhumance cattle production system in North Gondar, Amhara Region, Ethiopia: Is it sustainable IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project. Working Paper No. 14. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.

Azage Tegegn, Berhanu, Hoekstra, 2010. The livestock input supply and service provision in Ethiopia: Challenges and opportunities for market-oriented development. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 20. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 062 - 072, July, 2017.