DAIRY CATTLE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING SYSTEMS IN

THREE SELECTED DISTRICTS OF WOLAITA ZONE, SOUTHERN

ETHIOPIA.

M.Sc. THESIS

ABRAHA HAILU BAHTA

FEBRUARY, 2014

JIMMA, ETHIOPIA
DAIRY CATTLE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING SYSTEMS IN
THREE SELECTED DISTRICTS OF WOLAITA ZONE, SOUTHERN
ETHIOPIA.

MSC. THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

JIMMA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND

VETERINARY MEDICINE

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ANIMAL SCIENCES
(SPECIALIZATION: ANIMAL PRODUCTION)

BY

ABRAHA HAILU BAHTA

FEBRUARY, 2014

JIMMA UNIVERSITY
 APPROVAL SHEET

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

As thesis research advisor we hereby certify that we have read and evaluated the thesis prepared,
under our guidance, by Abraha Hailu, entitled “Dairy cattle production and marketing systems in
selected districts of Wolaita Zone, southern Ethiopia.’’ We recommend that it can be submitted
as fulfilling thesis requirement.

Taye Tolemariam (Ph.D) ________________ _________________

Major Advisor Signature Date

Abegaz Beyene (Ph.D) _________________ _________________

Co-advisor Signature Date

As members of Board of Examiners of the M.Sc. thesis open defense examination, we certify that
we have read, evaluated the thesis prepared by Abraha Hailu and examined the candidate. We
recommended that the thesis could be accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirement for the Degree
of Master of Science in Animal science (Animal Production).

___________________________ _________________ _______________

Chair Person Signature Date

___________________________ _________________ _______________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

___________________________ ________________ _______________

External Examiner Signature Date

i
 DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to my beloved father, kesist Hailu Bahta, whom I lost at the time of my
child hood on 26 February 1992/2000. May God rest his soul in peace!

ii
 STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR

I declare that this thesis is my original work and all sources of materials used for this thesis have
been duly acknowledged. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for M.Sc. degree at Jimma University, College of Agriculture and Veterinary
Medicine and put at the University Library to be made available to borrowers under the rules of
library.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission provided that an
accurate acknowledgment of the source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation
from or production of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the Dean or V/Dean
of the college or Coordinator of the Graduate Program or Head of the Department of Animal
Science, when the proposed use of material is in the interest of scholarship. In all other cases,
however, permission must be obtained from the author.

Name: Abraha.Hailu

Signature: _________________________

Place: Jimma University, Collage of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine

Date of Submission: ____________________________

iii
 BIO GRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author, Abraha.Hailu was born in Gulomekada district, eastern zone of Tigray National
Regional state in 1986 G.c., He attended his primary and junior secondary school at Zala, from
1993-2000. The author attended 9th –11th grade at Zala-Anbessa senior secondary school from
2001-2003G.C. He continued and completed his preparatory school at Adigrat, Agazi
Compressive High School in 2004. He joined Awassa college of Agriculture in 2005 and
completed his B.Sc degree in Animal and Range Sciences in 2007/08 G.C. Then after, he was
employed in Damot Sore district (Wolaita Zone in Southern Ethiopia) Bureau of Agriculture in
2008 and working as expert of animal production until he joined Jimma University, School of
Graduate Studies for the Degree of Master of Science in Animal Production in 2012.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First of all, I would like to express my heart feel thanks to the almighty God; without his
assistance nothing would be happened. My Special thanks and heartfelt appreciation goes to my
major advisor: Dr.Taye Tolemariam, for his absolute support and guidance during thesis
proposal writing, research work and thesis write up. My special appreciation should also go to
my co-advisor Dr. Abegaze Beyene for his constructive and invaluable comments,
encouragements and polite behavior. I am also highly indebted to Mr.Teshager Ayalew and Mr.
Muez Mehari who helped me in undertaking the statistical analysis and has given his precious
time starting from developing the proposal to the final write up of this thesis. They were always
available whenever assistance was needed.

I to acknowledge and express my honest thanks to all surveyed dairy cattle owner farmers of the
study area, development agents of the selected farmer kebeles, livestock experts of the respective
study districts (Damot Sore, Damot Woyde and Kindo Koisha) for their great role they have
played during research site selection, registration of dairy cattle producer farmer and data
collection.
I would like to express my deep gratitude from the inner core of my heart to my mother W/ro
Letegebriael Tikua, my eldest brother kesist Brhane Hailu, my sister Mtslal Hailu and Lemlem
Wolday who helped me in providing strong moral and financial support throughout my academic
career. Words fall short to express my unique appreciation to my elder brother Dr.Hailemariam
Hailu for his inspiration, hospitality and unquantifiable support rendered, day-to-day
encouragement and over all assistance. Really, without his committed support it would have
been difficult for me to successfully complete my study work.

Finally , but not the least I have grateful thanks to Jimma University , College of Agriculture and
Veterinary Medicine Information Communication Technology (ICT) Office and staff members
in providing the computer internet service which have crucial roles for fulfillment of the thesis.

v
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AFC Age at First Calving

AI Artificial insemination

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

BoARD Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development

BoFED Bureau of Finance and Economics Development

CI Calving Interval

CSA Central Statistical Agency

DAs Development agents

DWARD, Damot Weyde District Office of Agriculture rural development

EARO Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization

ETB Ethiopian birr

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GDP Gross Demos tic Product

GLM General Liner Model

HA Hectare

HHH Household head

ILCA International Livestock Center for Africa

KDARD Kindo koisha District office of Agriculture and Rural Development

LL&MY Lactation Length and Milk Yield

LSD List Significance Difference

MoARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

MOFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

vi
 ABREVIATIONS (Continued…)

KM Kilometer
N Number of respondents
NGOs Non-governmental organizations

OARD Office of Agriculture and Rural development

PA Peasant Association

PLC Personal limited company

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

SNNPRS South Nations Nationalities and People Regional States

SPSS Statistical package for Social Sciences

Sq.k Square Kilometer

TMP Total Milk Production

USD United States Dollar

WCBMC Wolaita Cattle Breeding and Multiplication centre

WFP World Food Program

WBISPP Woody Biomass Inventory Strategic Planning Project.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

APPROVAL SHEET ....................................................................................................................... i

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ ii
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR ............................................................................................... iii
BIO GRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................................................................................ iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENT................................................................................................................. v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ vi
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF TABLE IN THE APPENDIX ....................................................................................... xii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. xiv
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 4
2.1. Economic Importance of livestock in Ethiopia .................................................................... 4
2.2. Milk Production Systems in Ethiopia .................................................................................. 5
2.2.1. Urban dairy production system ..................................................................................... 5
2.2.2. Peri-urban dairy production system............................................................................... 6
2.2.3. Rural milk production system ....................................................................................... 6
2.3 .Milk-marketing System in Ethiopia ..................................................................................... 7
2.4 .Milk Consumption in Ethiopia ............................................................................................. 7
2.5 Some of the Productive and Reproductive Performances of Dairy cattle in Ethiopia .......... 8
2.5.1. Days open ...................................................................................................................... 8
2.5.2. Lactation Length and Milk Yield (LL&MY) ................................................................ 9
2.5.3. Calving interval (CI) ...................................................................................................... 9
2.5.4. Age at first calving (AFC) ........................................................................................... 10
2.6. Major Constraints of Dairy cattle Production in Ethiopia ................................................. 10
2.6.1. Shortage of feed ........................................................................................................... 10
2.6.2. Lack of productive breeds ........................................................................................... 11
2.6.3 Animal health care ........................................................................................................ 11

viii
 2.6.4 Shortage of water .......................................................................................................... 11
2.6.5 Land holding and crop Production ............................................................................... 12
3. MATERIAL AND METHODS ................................................................................................ 13
3.1 Description of the Study Area ............................................................................................. 13
3.2 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size .............................................................................. 15
3.2.1 Sampling procedure ...................................................................................................... 15
3.2.2 Method of data collection ............................................................................................. 16
Secondary data ................................................................................................................... 16
3.3 Data analysis ....................................................................................................................... 17
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 18
4.1 Socio demographic characteristics of households............................................................... 18
4.1.1 Family profile of the studied households ..................................................................... 18
4.1.2. Land holding ................................................................................................................ 21
4.1.3. Income source of respondents ..................................................................................... 22
4.1.4. Major Sources of information for milk production in the study districts .................... 23
4.1.5. Labor allocation for different dairy cattle activity practices ....................................... 24
4.1.6. Housing and waste management of dairy cattle .......................................................... 27
4.2. Cattle Type and Herd Composition.................................................................................... 28
4.2.1. Cattle breeds and breeding techniques in the study districts ....................................... 31
4.2.1.1 .Type of cattle Breeds kept by the respondent households .................................... 31
4.3.1.2 Sources of the Cross breed cattle ........................................................................... 32
4.3.1.3 Breeding techniques ............................................................................................... 33
4.3.1.4 Major AI service related problems in the study area ............................................. 34
4.3. Feed Sources in the Study Districts ................................................................................... 35
4.3.1. Feed sources used for cattle in the study areas ............................................................ 35
4.3.2. Types of crop residues and feeding practices .............................................................. 36
4.3.3. Improved forage cultivation practice........................................................................... 37
4.3.4 .Types of feed supplements .......................................................................................... 39
4.4 Water Source ....................................................................................................................... 40
4.5 Productive and reproductive performance of dairy cattle ................................................... 41
4.5.1 Milk yield ..................................................................................................................... 42

ix
 4.5.2 Lactation length ............................................................................................................ 43
4.5.3 Age at first calving ....................................................................................................... 44
4.5.4 Calving interval ............................................................................................................ 45
4.5.5 Weaning age ................................................................................................................. 46
4.6. Milking Practice ................................................................................................................. 48
4.7 Milk Utilization Pattern....................................................................................................... 49
4.8. Marketing of Milk Products at Studied Districts ............................................................... 51
4.9 Major Constraints of Milk production and Marketing in the Study Areas ......................... 54
4.9.1 Feed shortage ................................................................................................................ 55
4.9.2. Strategies to cop up feed shortage ............................................................................... 57
4.9.3 Water shortage .............................................................................................................. 58
4.9.4 Major cattle disease types and method of control strategies ........................................ 58
4.10 Major Opportunities for Milk Production (dairy development in the Study districts ....... 62
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 64
6. RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................................ 67
7. REFERANCE ........................................................................................................................... 68
8. APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... 81

x
 LIST OF TABLES
Table Page

1. Average family size, Sex of family head and age distribution of the family........................... 19
2. Religion and marital status of the households in the study districts ........................................ 20
3. Education status of the household head in the study districts .................................................. 21
4. Average farm size and land use patterns of respondents in the study districts ........................ 22
5. Major sources of information for milk production in the study districts ................................. 24
6: Share of responsibilities in the dairy cattle activities among the family members in the study
districts ........................................................................................................................... 26
7: Cattle housing and waste disposal system in the study districts .............................................. 28
8.Harmonic mean and standard error of cattle herd size and composition in the studied districts
........................................................................................................................................ 30
9: Type of cattle breed kept by the sampled respondents in the study districts ........................... 32
10. Means of getting the first crossbreed cattle by the respondents in the study districts ............ 33
11: Types of breeding techniques used by the dairy participants in the study districts ............... 34
12: Major AI service related problems mentioned by the households in the study districts ....... 35
13: Types of crop residues used for cattle feed in the study districts .......................................... 37
14: Improved forage cultivation practice and reasons for lack of forage cultivation .................. 38
15: Type of feed supplements used for cattle in the study districts ............................................. 40
16: Sources of water and water related problems in the study districts ........................................ 41
18: Milking practices and milk processing in the study districts ................................................. 49
17: Productive and Reproductive performance of dairy cattle in the study districts .................... 47
19: Total volume of milk production per household and utilization pattern in the study districts 51
20: Marketing practice of milk and milk products by household in the study district ................ 53
21: Households distance to dairy products market points in the studied districts ....................... 54
22, Ranks of dairy cattle production and marketing constraints by the household in the study
district ............................................................................................................................ 56
23: Rank of common cattle disease by the household in the study districts ................................. 61

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page

1: Map of the study districts.......................................................................................................... 15

2. Major sources of income of households in the study districts .................................................. 23
3. Money spent for feed per month for dairy cattle in the study districts .................................... 36
4: Strategies followed by households to cope up during period of feed scarcity in the study
districts ........................................................................................................................... 57

xii
 LIST OF TABLE IN THE APPENDIX

List of Appendix Page

1.ANOVA test on family size per household between the study districts ................................. 822
2: ANOVA test type of breed cows in the cattle herd structure in the study districts ............... 822
3: ANOVA test on landholdings of households in the study district ........................................... 83
4: ANOVA test type of breeding bull herd in the study districts................................................. 83
5 .ANOVA test type of cattle Breeds kept by the respondent households .................................. 84
6: ANOVA test on landholdings of the study districts ................................................................ 84
7: ANOVA test type of breeding techniques of households in the study districts ...................... 85
8: ANOVA test major AI service related problems in the study districts ................................... 85
9: ANOVA test total milk production per day per household in the study districts .................... 85
10: ANOVA test on Productive and Reproductive (daily milk yield, lactation length, age at first
calving, calving interval and weaning age ) performances of the local cow in the study
districts. .......................................................................................................................... 86
11: ANOVA test on Productive and Reproductive (daily milk yield, lactation length, age at first
calving, calving interval and) performance of the Holstein cross cow in the study
districts. .......................................................................................................................... 87
12: ANOVA test on reproductive performances (lactation length, age at first calving, calving
interval and milk produced per cow per day) of the Jersey cross cow in the study
districts ........................................................................................................................... 88
13: ANOVA milk utilization pattern among the study districts .................................................. 89
14: ANOVA test on average distance travelled to search water in Km in the study areas. ......... 89
15: ANOVA test on average distance to health clinic in Km in the study areas ......................... 90
16: ANOVA test animal health service used by the HHs in the study areas ............................... 90

xiii
 DAIRY CATTLE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING SYSTEMS IN THREE SELECTED
DISTRICTS OF WOLAITA ZONE, SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA

ABSTRACT

The study assessed in three selected districts of Wolaita Zone Southern, Ethiopia during 2012/13.The
objectives of the study were to assess dairy cattle production and product marketing and to identify the major
constraints and opportunities for dairy cattle production in the study area. A stratified sampling method was
employed to select representative districts from three Agra ecological zones. From each agro- ecology one
district was selected purposively based on cattle production potential (.i.e. from highland Damot Sore, from
midland Damot Woyde and from lowland Kindo Koisha). From each district, two peasant associations (PA)
were selected purposively based on cattle potential. The overall family size of the study was 7.47±2.37
(Mean±SE) and not significant difference was observed among the studied districts. Furthermore, for 70% of
dairy producers sale of the crop was the main sources of income even if the butter were predominantly
marketable though out the year. The average landholdings of the sampled households were 1.21±0.05
(Mean±SE).of which pasture land was 0.32±0.02 (Mean±SE).The average cattle holding in the study area was
8.15±0.47 heads per household. But it varied significantly (P<0.001) among the study districts. From the total
cattle herd structure, the average numbers of cows (3.03±0.12) was higher. Of which 2.64±0.12 was local
breed cows, 0.15±0.03 Holstein cross and 0.19±0.04 was Jersey cross cows. In the study districts, artificial
insemination was used to improve their local breed cattle. However, for most (38.97%) respondents distance
to AI station is the main problem. For the majority (42.38%) of respondents’ source of cross breed cattle were
from markets places. The total mean milk yield/cow/day of Holstein cross, Jersey cross and local breed cows
were (5.7±0.21), (2.85±0.12) and (1.79±0.05) litters, respectively. The average lactation length of Holstein
cross, Jersey cross and local bred cows were (9.63±0.34), (8.65±0.36) and (8.65±0.36) months, respectively.
Average Mean age at first calving of local cow, Holstein cross and Jersey cross was (49.29±1.13),
(39.55±1.34), and (35.8±1.43) months, respectively. On the other hand overall mean calving interval of local
cow, Holstein cross and Jersey cross-bred cows were (18.48±0.5), (16.17±0.5) and (14.9±0.6) months,
respectively. The average volume of milk produced/day/household in the studied districts was
4.05±0.32Littre.Out of total milk produced the largest (65.58%) volume of milk was used for processing. In the
study area, 85.1% of the respondents preferred to sell butter than other dairy products. Some of the
respondents (40%) used river water for their cattle. Maize stalk (42.2%) and wheat straw (41.7%) were the
major crop residues used for cattle feeding. In the study area, farmers widely used crop residues and Enset
leave (71.8%), when a feed shortage occurs during the dry season. Anthrax, Tripanosomiasis, Blackleg, Tick
and Pneumonia were the major reported cattle diseases .In general the main problems of milk production &
marketing in the studied districts were lack of feed, disease outbreak, lack of credit, market access and
infrastructures.

Key words: cattle production, feed sources, cattle disease, constraints to cattle production and marketing
systems.

xiv
 1. INTRODUCTION

Ethiopia has the largest cattle population in Africa estimated about 52.13 million heads of cattle
(CSA, 2012) and contributes 40% to the annual agricultural output and 15% total gross domestic
product. Cattle produce a total of 1.5 million tones of milk and 0.331 million tones of meat
annually (FAO, 2005).

According to the 2010 report of the Central Statistical Agency (CSA) the total the indigenous
breeds accounted for 99.19 percent, while the hybrids and pure exotic breeds were represented
by 0.72 and 0.09 percent, respectively (CSA, 2010). The major species used for milk production
in Ethiopia are cattle, camel and goats. Cattle produce 83% of the total milk and 97 % of the cow
milk comes from indigenous cattle breeds (MOARD, 2004).

Ethiopia’s stricken economy is based on subsistence agriculture accounting for almost half of the
gross domestic product (GDP), 60% of exports, and 80% of total employment (Exxun, 2008).
Livestock production contributes an estimated 16 percent to the total GDP and over 40 percent to
the agricultural GDP (Diao et al., 2007), 15% of export earnings and 30% of agricultural
employment (Staal et al, 2008). Livestock contributes to the livelihoods of 60-70% of the
population (Michael, 2004).

Despite its huge number, the livestock sub-sector in Ethiopia is less productive in general, and
compared to its potential, the direct contribution to the national economy is limited. The poor
genetic potential for productive traits, in combination with the sub-standard feeding, health care
and management practices are the main contributors to the low productivity (Zegeye, 2003).

In Ethiopia, the human and animal populations are very much affected by nutritional problems,
primarily due to lack of food of high nutritional value. Therefore, to solve this problem and to
ameliorate the nutritional status of the population, measures should be taken to improve animal
production to ensure better supply of animal protein of high nutritive value (Ashebir, 1992).

The milk production potentials of the zebu cattle breeds in the highlands of Ethiopia cannot
exceed 400-500kg of milk per lactation per cow. Milk production potential of indigenous cattle

1
of Boran, Horro, Barca, Arsi and Fogera is low, ranging from 494 to 809 kg per lactation
(EARO, 1999; Zelalem, 2000).

The national milk production remains among the lowest in the world, even by African standard,
approximately produces about 3.2 billion liters of milk from 10 million milking cows, which is
translated in 1.54 liters per cow per day (CSA, 2008). Consequently, the national milk
production and the overall milk consumption in Ethiopia are very low, even compared with other
least developed African countries (Zegeye 2003; Melesse and Beyene 2009).Per capita
consumption of milk in the country is as low as 17 kg per head while the average figure for
Africa is 26 kg per head (Gebrewold et al 1998). This indicates the existence of a wide gap
between potential demands of the growing population of Ethiopia. In order to meet the demand
of the growing population of Ethiopia, milk production has to grow at least at a rate of 4 % per
annum (Azage, 2003)

To be effective, the efforts to improve the productivity of smallholder dairy production and
improve its market orientation needs to be supported and informed by a detailed understanding
of the current and dynamic conditions of production, marketing, processing and consumption of
milk and dairy products (Asfaw, 2009).

In general, more than 75% of the produce is absorbed locally for consumption (Getachew and
Gashaw 2001). However, in the country, milk production, handling, processing, consumption
and marketing are traditional and constrained by multiple problems.

SNNPRS is one of the region’s second largest milk producing from the country. According to the
SNNPRS Basic Socio-Economic and Demographic Information About the region (2007), the
livestock population of the region is estimated 9.9 million cattle 3.4 million sheep, 2.4million
Goat 0.86 million Sheep and goat, 0.9 million equines 7.6 million poultry. Despite the huge
potential in the region, livestock productivity is low. It is estimated that total milk producing of
572 million liters annually from an average daily milk yield per cow of 1.2 litters (CSA, 2008).

Wolaita Zone has high potential for livestock production with greater access to market for
quality agricultural products including milk products. In the zone dairy development projects
have also been launched. To achieve Wolaita Agricultural Development Unit (WADU)

2
established the farms in 1971 and 1987 with the financial aid Dairy Rehabilitation and
Development Project (DRDP) with an introduction of 90 Jersey breed heifers and 2 Jersey bulls
as initial foundation stock for the farm. The Zone has also the accessibility of cattle breeding and
multiplication centers and Veterinary Service Center as well as a huge supply of crop-residues
science the Zone is two the main cropping seasons.

Although, the aforementioned intervention along the dairy production were implemented in the
Zone, there is no any such study has been done, especially in Damot woyde, Damot sore, and
kindo koisha districts of Wolaita Zone .So far concerning with the study areas, there was no
compiled document on milk production, processing, breeding, housing, feeding, health service
and including marketing system of cattle and their products. Therefore, evaluation of the
prevailing production system, identification of limitation on production and marketing of cattle
was assisted to design appropriate improvement strategies, and suggests appropriate area of
intervention for improvement of cattle husbandry. Therefore, the study was mainly conducted
with the following objectives

 To asses dairy cattle production system in the study area

 To assess dairy cattle product marketing system in the study area
 To identify constraints and opportunities of milk production and marketing in the
Study area

3
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Economic Importance of livestock in Ethiopia

Livestock performs multiple functions in the Ethiopian household economy by providing food,
input for crop production and soil fertility management, cash income as well as in promoting
savings, fuel, social functions, and employments. The multiple purposes and the emphases on
use vary with the production system. Both in crop–livestock and agro-pastoral systems, animal
traction ranked first, followed by milk and reproduction. Most crop–livestock farmers and agro-
pastoralists farmers also consider manure production as a secondary important by-product. In
contrast, in pastoralist systems, reproduction/breeding requirements received higher ranks and
for female animals, breeding out ranked the importance of milk production (Workneh and
Rowlands, 2004).

Within the integrated crop–livestock production systems, livestock plays a particular role to
provide milk, meat, cash income, manure, and serves as capital asset against risk. In the extent of
which is dependent on the type of production system, animal species and scale of the operation.
Dairy production is becoming an increasingly important integrated system in many countries, in
which this component generates significant, and more importantly, daily cash income, as well as
contributing to the improvement of the livelihoods of very poor people and the stability of farm
households. In the highlands of Ethiopia, smallholders rear cattle, primarily for the supply of
oxen power for crop production. Milk production, cash source, manure and fuel are considered
as secondary. Cattle and equine play a vital role in smallholder farms for crop cultivation and
transportation (Alemu, 1998)

The value of output from livestock in Ethiopia was estimated at around ETB 12 billion in 2000
and accounted for about 45% of the value of all agricultural output excluding the contribution of
animal draught power. It was also noted that, at constant prices (1995 USD), the value of output
of livestock grew nearly by 22% between 1980 and 2000 and this increase (1.1% per annum)
compares well with the growth of the value of agricultural output (FAO, 2003)

4
Similarly, the Ethiopian Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED) estimated
the gross value of ruminant livestock production in 2008/09 at Birr 32.64 billion. The estimate
includes the values of livestock off-take (Birr 9.653 billion), milk and milk products (Birr 19.471
billion) and other products, e.g. wool, dung and change in stock inventory.

2.2. Milk Production Systems in Ethiopia

In the highland areas, agricultural production system is predominantly smallholder mixed

farming, with crop and livestock husbandry typically practiced the same management unit.
Among the systems, milk production system is the most biologically efficient systems that
convert large quantities of roughage, the most abundant feed in the Ethiopia, to milk, the most
nutritious food (Belete, 2006).

Milk production system can be broadly categorized into three based on marketing situations,
such as urban, per urban and rural milk production system (Tsehay, 2002). The main source of
milk production in Ethiopia is from the cow, but small quantities of milk obtained from goat and
camel is also used in some regions particularly in pastoralist areas (IPS, 2000).

Out of the total milk production of the country, rural milk production system contributes to 98%,
while the peri-urban and urban dairy farms produce only 2% (Ketema 2000).

2.2.1. Urban dairy production system

The urban dairying, like most urban dairying of Ethiopia and other east African countries is
characterized by market orientation and by the types of inputs, particularly feeds (Sintayehu
2008).The main feeds resources are agro-industrial byproducts (Oil Seed Cakes, Bran, etc) and
purchased roughage (Ketema and Tsehay,1995; Sintayehu, 2008).Currently, a number of
smallholder and commercial dairy farms are emerging mainly in and around the capital Addis
Ababa (Felleke and Geda, 2001; Azage, 2004) and most regional cities and towns (Ike, 2002;
Nigussie, 2006).

The urban milk production system inside and around Addis Ababa consists of 5167 small,
medium and large dairy farms producing about 35 million liters of milk annually (Tsehay ,2002).
Out of the total volume of milk produced in and around Addis Ababa, 73%,10%, 9.4%, 7.6%

5
were marketed, left for household consumption, goes to calves and processed into butter and ayib
(Ethiopian cottage cheese), respectively (Azage and Alemu, 1998).

Although some farmers produce good quality milk, hygienic quality and composition of most
milk marketed in such production systems is poor (Tsehay, 2002). Moreover, price is high even
when quality of milk is low. No standards and quality control mechanisms or dairy policy exists
to safeguard consumers.

2.2.2. Peri-urban dairy production system

This system is found in the outskirts of the capital city and regional cities and mostly
concentrated within a radius of 100 km around Addis Ababa, which includes dairy farms ranging
from smallholder to commercial farmers (Felleke and Geda, 2001). The main feed resources in
this system include agro-industrial by-products and purchased roughage. The system comprises
small and medium sized dairy farms that own crossbreed dairy cows. Dairy farmers use all or
part of their land for forage production. The primary objective of milk production in this system
is generating additional income to the household (Hizkias and Tsehay, 1995; Azage et al., 2000).
The most specialized and high-tech system is an intensive milk production system. State sector
and very few individuals on commercial basis practice it. These are concentrated in and around
Addis Ababa. Urban, peri-urban and intensive systems account 2% of the total milk production
of the country (Belete, 2006).

2.2.3. Rural milk production system

Rural dairy production system is part of the subsistence farming system which is the first system
(pastoralists, agro pastoral and mixed crop–livestock producers) contributes about 98%. The
livestock is kept under traditional management conditions and generally obtain most of their feed
from native vegetation, aftermath grazing and crop residues (Tsehay, 2002).This sector is largely
dependent on low producing indigenous breeds of cattle, which produce about 400-680 kg of
milk/cow per lactation period (Gebre-Wold et al., 2000). The household mainly consumes the
milk produced in the traditional system. Processing is usually done using traditional technology
in to products such as butter, ghee, ayib and sour milk. Milk and milk products are usually
marketed through the informal market after the households satisfy their needs (Tsehay, 2002).

6
2.3 .Milk-marketing System in Ethiopia

As common in other African countries (e.g., Kenya and Uganda), dairy products in Ethiopia are
channeled to consumers through both formal and informal dairy marketing systems (Mohammed
et.al. 2004). However, Ethiopian milk marketing system is not well developed. This can be
reflected from the fact that only 5% of milk produced in rural areas are marketed as liquid milk.
In fact, the vast majority of milk produced outside urban centers in Ethiopia is processed into
products by the farm household and sold to traders or other households in local markets
(Holloway et al., 2000). This has resulted in difficulties of marketing of fresh milk where
infrastructures, especially transportation facilities are extremely limited and market channels
have not been developed. In the absence of an organized rural fresh milk market, marketing in
any volume is restricted to the urban and peri-urban areas (Getachew, 2003)

Formal marketing system, is usually controlled by the government, includes organized

collection, processing and distribution of fresh milk and other dairy products at official,
government-controlled prices. The Dairy Development Enterprise of Ethiopia is an example of
formal marketing systems in Africa. The formal marketing system, in which the milk from the
state farms, private farms and subsistence producers within the radius of 150 km around Addis
Ababa, is collected at the roadside (milk collection and chilling centers) and taken to a central
processing plant (Bennett, 2001).

In any marketing channels and outlets, various actors participate in marketing of commodities
and process of transactions made. These include itinerant /mobile traders, semi-whole sellers,
retailers, cooperatives and consumers. Marketing outlet is the final market place to deliver the
milk product, where it may pass through various channels. A network (combination) of market
channels gives rise to the market chain. A marketing survey in Hawassa, Shashemene and
Yergalem depicted that milk producers sold milk through different principal marketing channels
(Woldemichael, 2008)

2.4 .Milk Consumption in Ethiopia

Ethiopia produces approximately 3.2 billion liters of milk from 10 million milking cows and
average of 1.54 liters per cow per day over a lactation period of 180 days (CSA,2008 quoted by
Tefera, 2010).About 83% of the total milk produced is consumed at the household level and only
7
7% is supplied to the formal and informal markets. The remaining balance is distributed between
in-kind wages (0.43%), and used for processing (10.06%) primarily as a means of extending the
shelf-life during times of surplus (GOE, 2007). The consumption of milk and milk products
varies geographically between the highlands and the lowlands and the level of urbanization
(Ahmed et al., 2003).

As compared to other countries, Ethiopia has a low level of milk consumption in the region
(Kenya with 90 lt/cap, and Uganda with 50 lt/cap). Even though Ethiopia has the largest
inventory of milk producing animals, (cattle, sheep, goats and camels), per capita consumption
of milk is low compared to Kenya with fewer livestock and Sudan. The national per capita
consumption of milk and milk products is estimated at 17 kg (Ahmed et al., 2003).

2.5 Some of the Productive and Reproductive Performances of Dairy cattle in Ethiopia

The reproductive performance of the breeding females is probably the single most important
factor that is prerequisite for sustainable dairy production system and influencing the
productivity. Both production traits (like daily milk yield and lactation length) and reproductive
traits (such as age at first calving and calving interval) are crucial factors determining the
profitability of dairy production (Peters and Ball, 1995; Lobago et al., 2007)

The main contributors to poor performance of animals are their genetic merit, feed standard, poor
health care and management practices (Zegeye, 2003). According to Lemma et al. (2005),
average milk off-take of local Arsi cows was about 1.0 liter/head/day. Brokken and Senait (1992)
reported that the average daily yield of local cows was about 2 liters, compared with about 6
liters for crossbred cows. As a result, the livestock sector contribution to both the national and
household level is below its potential level (Berhanu et al., 2007).

2.5.1. Days open

An increase in the number of days between calving and conception, also known as days open,
influences profitability of the dairy industry. This influence is partly attributed to factors such as
increased breeding cost, increased risk of culling and replacement costs, and reduced milk
production (de Vries and Risco, 2005). Days open affects lifetime production and the generation

8
interval (Ababu, 2002). Days open should not exceed 80 to 85 days, if a calving interval of 12
months is to be achieved (Peters, 1984; Enyew, 1992).

2.5.2. Lactation Length and Milk Yield (LL&MY)

Indigenous breed of cows are generally considered low milk producers. However, their
adaptability and survival under the traditional management system is excellent when compared
with the introduced exotic cattle species ( Zegeye, 2003) .The total annual milk yield of Ethiopia
from about 10 million milking cows is estimated 3.2 billion litters and this translated to an
average production of 1.54 liters/cow per day (CSA,2008) Milk production per day per head is
very low and this is further affected by relatively short lactation length and extended short
lactation length and extended post-partum anoestrus resulting in low production efficiencies
(Azage and Alemu, 1998).

Research findings on Ethiopian indigenous cattle types indicated that lactation length is less than
100 days of lactation period under average to good management conditions in the Ethiopian
context (Zelalem et al., 2006). Lemma (2005) however reported a longer lactation length of 9.5
months for local cows in the East Showa zone of Oromia.

2.5.3. Calving interval (CI)

Calving interval refers to the period between two consecutive calving and is a function of days
open and gestation length (Gidey, 2001; Kedja, 2007). The Economic return from milk
production is maximized with a calving interval of 12 months, a dry period of approximately 60
days and days open of 85 days. The duration of this period is influenced by nutrition, season,
milk yield, parity, suckling and uterine involution. The previous study indicated that calving
interval for Ethiopian Zebu ranged from 12 to 24 months, which varies among breeds and
animals within a breed (Gifawosen et al., 2003). A days open of 248.4, 211.1, 253.0 for Boran,
Horro and Barka cattle, respectively, has been reported (Gifawosen et al., 2003)
Research conducted in Abernosa Ranch with Boran x Holstein- Friesian F1 crossbred dairy cows
showed long calving interval (534.3 days), with average breeding efficiency of 44.6%, average
calving rate of 72% and heifer reproduction efficiency of only 38% (Ababu et al.,2006)

9
2.5.4. Age at first calving (AFC)

Age at first calving is the age at which heifers calve for the first time (Gidey, 2001). It is closely
related to the rearing intensity, and in a breeding program has an impact on generation Interval
and response to selection. Acceptable and optimum performance of age at first calving under the
improved smallholder system in the tropics is less than 30 and 36 months, respectively (Perera,
1999). Heritability of Age at first calving is generally low, indicating that this trait is highly
influenced by environmental factors such as feed and health (Mukasa-Mugerwa, 1989). For
instance, age at first calving of Borana cattle ranged between 45.5-51.1 months (IAR, 1991). But
under better management in Kenya, the Borena breed calved remarkably at the early age of 34-
36 months. In general, the ages at first calving for local cows in the same area were 52 months
and for crossbreed were 31.06 months (Kurtu, 2003).

2.6. Major Constraints of Dairy cattle Production in Ethiopia

The traditional smallholder dairy system makes up the largest characterized mode of milk
production, and uses low input feeding, management requirement, and the indigenous genotypes
(Jabbar et al., 1997). The characteristics of the improved dairy production system vary
substantially in terms of intensification, management systems; genotype used, type and method
of marketing and processing of milk and dairy products.

2.6.1. Shortage of feed

Availability, quality and quantity of feed vary among varied production systems. Cattle mainly
depend on rangeland grazing or crop residues that are of poor nutritive value. Feed is not
uniformly supplied and the quality is poor (Ibrahim and Ololaku, 2002)
Improvements of genetic make up only contribute up to 30% to production, while the 70% is
dependent on nutrition and management. Unfortunately, indigenous animals are low milk
producers because of the shortage of nutrition. Poor nutritive values of feeds lower the
production capacity and fertility potential of animals. If fed well, 20-25% more milk could be
produced from the same livestock (Sethumadhavan, 2004).

10
2.6.2. Lack of productive breeds

As compared to breeds originated from temperate areas, cattle breeds originate from the Tropics
generally have a limited genetic potential for milk production. The large cattle population of
Ethiopia has relatively limited numbers of exotic dairy cattle and their crosses. Less than one
percent of the total cattle population is exotic or crossbred dairy cows (Muriuki and Thorpe,
2002).Consequently, milk production in Ethiopia is low. The indigenous zebu breed produces
about 400-680 kg of milk/ cow per lactation period, compared to grade animals that have the
potential to produce 1,120-2,500 liters over 279-day lactation (Muriuki and Thorpe, 2002). Even
under a research center management condition, average milk yield did not exceed 500 liters
(Zelalem et al., 2006). The other research findings reported that Barca cattle type produced the
lowest for both total milk (672 kg) and Annual milk yield (673kg) (Million and Tadelle, 2003)

2.6.3 Animal health care

Animal health care and improved health management is also one of the major constraints of
dairy development in Ethiopia, which caused poor performance across the production system.
The most serious animal disease constraints to livestock productivity are the parasitic and viral
diseases, mainly vector-transmitted that have a wide geographic distribution and who’s severities
are strongly influenced by the environment (Tedonkenk and Pieper, 2000). For instance a
research conducted at Metema area indicated that LSD, Babesiosis, Trypanosomosis, Mastitis,
and Entritis were the major cattle diseases, which contributed to decrease the productivity of
livestock (Gizachew, 2007).

2.6.4 Shortage of water

Since rainfall rather than livestock, density determines net primary production and vegetation
cover, its variability is the most important climatic factors determining the state of the natural
resource base. Hence, rainfall variability and net primary productivity of the vegetation
correspondingly determines livestock production (Sere et al., 1996). One unusual feature of the
Borana is the highest degree of water restriction of cattle during the dry seasons such that
animals may be watered once every three, two, or four days (Coppock, 1994).

11
During the dry season, water is available only from wells and some lakes and streams (Ibrahim
and Olaloku, 2002). This leads to overgrazing around watering points. Water intake increases as
watering frequency is decreased and feed conversion efficiency becomes lower as watering
interval increase (Ibrahim and Olaloku, 2002).

2.6.5 Land holding and crop Production

The land size allotted to individual farmers by a Peasant Association (PA) as per the land reform
declaration of 1975, depended on family size, fertility of the land, the number of PA members
and the total land area available within the PA (Getachew et al., 1993). Most farms in Ethiopia
are fragmented and smallholder mixed crop–livestock systems are interdependent. Increasing
human population coupled with diminishing land resources and increasing urbanization are
creating a growing number of landless people who also have to produce their own subsistence
(Kebreab et al., 2005).

In Southern Ethiopia at Alaba district, Yeshitila (2008) reported that the average land size
owned by a farmer is about 2.5 ha. The same report indicated that land and livestock holdings
have a direct linear relationship, where farmers with large land holdings have higher livestock
holdings and when land holdings became smaller there is a trend of keeping more numbers of
small ruminants than cattle. According to (CACC 2003) the average land holdings of the small
holder farmers in the country and SNNPRS is 2.0 to 5 ha for 32.6% and 16.2% respectively and
1.1 ha in Shashemene-Dilla area (Yigrem et al 2008)

12
 3. MATERIAL AND METHODS

3.1 Description of the Study Area

This study was conducted in Damot weyde, Damot Sore and Kindo Koisha district of the
Wolaita Zone of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and People Regional State, South Western
Ethiopia. Wolaita Zone is one of the 13 administrative Zones in SNNPR State found at the
South- Western part of Ethiopia. The Zone has 438,370 hectares of land. Out of the total land, 9
% is highland (Dega), 56% medium land (Woina dega) and 35 % is low land (Kolla). The
elevation of the area ranges from 1200 to 2950 m.a.s.l. and the annual average temperature is 15-
o
20 C while average rainfall is 1200 to 1300 mm. The human population of zone is about
1,527,908 million of which 49.3% are male and 51.7% are female (CSA, 2007) Out of these,
11.7% live in towns and the rest 88.3% live in rural areas. The average annual population growth
rate of the Zone is 2.3%. It is one of the most densely populated areas in the country with an
average of 290 people per km2.Of the total land area of the zone 54 % is currently cultivated, 11
% employed for grazing and 21 % under bush, shrubs and forest cover (Dessalegn, 2007)

Sodo is the biggest and the capital city of the zone. It is among the 18 growth- pole town selected
in the region. It is located at a distance of 350 Km away from Addis Ababa, South-West of
Ethiopia. Primary occupation of the Wolaita Zone is farming. Mixed crop-livestock production
predominates, but there are some pastoralists in the lowland area. According to (CSA, 2006) the
livestock potential of the Zone is 808,211 cattle, 177,702 sheep, 121,849 goats, 1,153 mules,
26,894 donkeys, 643,049 poultry and 20,466 traditional bee hives. Major crops grown in the
Zone are Enset, root crops, maze, wheat, fruits and vegetables. Accessibility of Enset (false
banana) in the zone is a further factor affecting the severity of seasonal food shortages for human
and livestock.

Wolaita zone is subdivided into twelve districts and one administration town. Out of the total
districts Damot Sore, Damot Woyde and Kindo Koisha districts were selected based on
difference in agro ecology and potential for cattle productions.

Demote Sore district is located at a distance of 336 South -West of Addis Ababa, capital of
Ethiopia. The altitude of the district varies from 1900 to 2350 m.a.s.l and the surface area

13
coverage estimates 400-600 sq km. The area is densely populated with very small farm size
(averaging 0.25 ha per farming family). The area receives a mean annual rainfall of 1350 mm
and has a mean annual air temperature of 18.5 ºC. Based on the BoARD (2011) the district has a
total population of 116,048 of whom 58,011 were men and 58037 women. In the District wide
varieties of crops are grown such as cereals (Teff, maize, wheat, and barley), pulses (faba bean,
field pea, haricot bean) and root and tuber crops such as potato, sweet Potato and enset. The
livestock productions are: cattle (44,660) poultry (41,585) sheep (10,004), equines (3,278), and
goats (2165) (BoARD, 2011).

Damot Woyde is one of the districts of Wolaita zone located at a distance of 365 Km Southwest
of Addis Ababa, capital of Ethiopia. The district is found at in the altitude of 1300 – 2100 m.a.s.l
and the area coverage of 783.44 sq km. The annual rainfall ranges from 700–1300 mm. with
0
daily temperature ranges 160C – 30 c. Based on the (CSA, 2005) the district has a total
population of 212,341, of whom 107,281 are men and 105,060 are women’s. The livestock
potential of the district is cattle 109,254, sheep 84,435 goats 9,449 and equines 2,356 (BoARD,
2011). Concerning of dairy products such as milk, cheese and butter are marketing dairy
products of the districts. Though marketing of milk and cheese is limited within the district,
butter is highly traded outside of the district. Cereals (maize, sorghum, Teff), pulses (haricot
bean, chick-pea) root crops such as sweet potato, Irish potato, enset, and coffee and different
fruit trees are important as the main crops grown in the districts (BoARD, 2006).

Kindo Kosha district is located at a distance of 392 km South -West of Addis Ababa, capital of
Ethiopia. The altitude of the district varies from 700-2280 m.a.s.l with an average annual rainfall
ranging from 900–1300 mm. The minimum and maximum daily temperature of the area is 250C
– 400C, respectively. Based on the KWARD (2011), the district has total population of 120,911
of whom 61,700 are women and 59,111 are men. The surface area of the district is 77,641
hectare. The major economic activity of the district is intensive mixed farming, whereby crop
production is combined with animal husbandry and off-farm activities. The district is lowland
dominated endowed by high livestock population. Having large numbers of cattle ownership in
the area believed to be an indicator of wealth. In the district wide variety of crops are grown,
such as ensets, Maize, Teff, Cotton, Haricot bean, Sweet potato, Irish potato, Taro, Yam, Chick-
pea, Ginger, Pumpkin, Coffee and Fruit trees

14
Kindo Koia
Damot Sore Damot Woyde

Figure 1: Map of the study districts

3.2 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size

3.2.1 Sampling procedure

Stratified sampling method was used based on the agro-ecological zone (high land, medium land
and low land) altitude. The three districts were stratified to farmers association’s /kebeles/
according to their dairy cattle keeping potential (i.e. Damot Sore from highland, Damot Woyde
from midland and Kindo Koisha from lowland). From each district of each agro ecology two
PA’s were selected purposively based on cattle producing potential and again from each selected
PA’s 30 households were selected randomly from those farmers who have dairy cattle.
Therefore, systematic random sampling method was used for selecting individual household.

15
3.2.2 Method of data collection

Both primary and secondary data were used to study used to study dairy cattle production and
marketing systems in the three selected districts of Wolaita zone Ethiopia collect the data

Primary data

Primary data was collected directly from each selected households in each agro ecology. These
primary data include:

Household socio-demographic characteristics: age category, sex, religion cultural taboos,

ethnic group, family size, educational background, primary occupation, income sources, and
farm information among others.
Dairy cattle production and reproductive performance; Type of cattle breeds (Local,
Holstein cross and Jersey cross), productive and reproductive performance (Age at first calving,
milk yield, lactation length and weaning age), amount of milk produced, consumed and milk
utilization pattern and processing, input utilization (Improved feed and breeding techniques),
milk and milk product marketing and main constraints of dairy production.
Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Based on the information generated through PRA, the
questionnaire and record sheets was developed for the formal interview / main survey. The PRA
mainly focus Group discussion (FGD) was used with different key informants like; development
agents(DAs), livestock experts in the respective districts and representatives of cattle breeding
and multiplication centers , elders, dairy cattle owners and youth delegates.

Secondary data
Secondary data sources were used from Office of Agriculture and Rural Developments of each
study district (Damot Sore, Damot Woyde and Kindo Koisha), Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGOs), PAs and other relevant institutions who played significant role in the dairy development
of the district. Cattle population and major constraints of dairy cattle production and marketing
of the respective study districts were among the data collected

16
3.3 Data analysis

Data (both qualitative and quantitative) were cleaned and entered into Microsoft office Excel
sheet. All the surveyed data were analyzed using statistical procedures for social science (SPSS)
version 16 (SPSS, 2007). Statistical variations in categorical data were tested by means of cross
tabs, with significant differences at P< 0.05; while the descriptive statistics for the numerical data
was subjected to one way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) using the general linear model
procedure of SPSS and Level of significance was also considered at P<0.05.The analyzed data
was presented and summarized using tables, percentages and graphs. The following model was
used for the quantitative variables
Yij= µ + A i + eij where; Yij= the dependent variable; µ = the overall mean; Ai = the altitude
variations effect and eij = the error term.

For parameters required ranking, indices were also calculated to provide a ranking of the major
constraints of dairy cattle production and marketing systems in the study areas. The indices were
calculated as follows; Index = Sum of (3 * number of HH ranked first + 2 * number of HH
ranked second + 1 *number of HH ranked third) given for an individual reason, criteria or
preference divided by the sum of (3 * number of HH ranked first + 2* number of HH ranked
second + 1 X number of HH ranked third) for overall reasons, criteria or preferences.

17
 4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Socio demographic characteristics of households

4.1.1 Family profile of the studied households

The results for the social, demographic characteristics of dairy producers in the study area are
presented in Table (1). The average family size in Damot Sore, Damot Woyde and Kindo Koisha
districts were 7.57±0.31, 7.35±33 and 7.5±2.21 persons/household, respectively. Proportionally
lowest family size was found in Damot Woyde district than the two study districts. The overall
mean family sizes of sampled households in the study areas were 7.47±2.37. This value is higher
than 7.26 persons/ household registered so far in Delbo watershed of the wolaita zone by Ayantu
(2006), However it is much similar to the (7.39) heads per household obtained in the
Shashemene–Dilla (Sintayehu, 2007) and (7.5) Dale district of Sidama Zone (Endeshaw, 2007).
But it is considerably higher than the average 4.9 persons in rural areas of SNNPRS (CSA,
2007).

Regarding the age distribution of family, majority of them are between16 and 60 years followed
by 6 to 15 years. Generally, majorities (49.6%) of the respondents were in the productive age
than that of the non productive age groups (1.5%) and this in turn implies that households have a
good source of family labor for different farm activities. The average mean age of the household
heads in the three studied districts were not significant (P >0.05) different (Table1).The overall
mean age of the households in the study areas were 44.91±0.8years. This result was smaller than
the average age of 47.6±1.7 in the highland areas of Ethiopia (Zewdie, 2010).

18
Table 1. Average family size, Sex of family head and age distribution of the family

Study Districts
Variables Damot Sore Damot Woyde Kindo Koisha Overall
N % N % N % N %
Sex of HH
Male 57 95 51 85 54 90 162 90
Female 3 5 9 15 6 10 18 10
Mean age (SE) of HH 44.57±1.49 44.2±1.22 45.95±1.46 44.91±0.8
Age category
<6years 47 10.58 79 17.9 80 17.9 216 16.1
6-15 years 137 30.78 158 35.8 146 32.7 441 32.8
16-60years 253 56.85 201 45.6 212 47.7 666 49.6
>60years 8 1.79 3 0.7 9 2 20 1.5
Average family size 7.57±0.31 7.35±0.33 7.5±2.21 7.47±2.37
HH=household head, N= number of household’s, SE=Standard error

The majorities of respondents (70.6%) in the study areas were Protestants followed by Orthodox
(27.2%) and Islam (2.2%). Nearly all households in the Kindo Koisha district were protestant
followers (93.3%) and the lowest were in Damot Sore (55%) followed by Damot Woyde
(63.3%).Respondents (27.2%) followed Orthodox Christian for this study was much smaller than
respondents followed Orthodox Christian (98.9%) in the Bure woreda (Habtemariam, 2010).
Regarding the marital status of the household heads most of (90.6%) were married, whereas the
remaining 4.4% and 5% were widowed and divorced respectively.

19
Table 2. Religion and marital status of the households in the study districts

Study districts
Variables Damot Sore Damot Woyde Kindo Koisha Over all
N % N % N % N %
Religion
Protestant 33 55 38 63.3 56 93.3 127 70.6
Orthodox 26 43.3 20 33.3 3b 5 49 27.2
Muslim 1 1.7 2 3.3 1 1.7 4 2.2
Marital status
Married 55 91.7 54 90 54 90 163 90.6
Widow 2 3.3 2 3.3 4 6.7 8 4.4
Divorced 3 5 4 6.7 2 3.3 9 5
N=number of households,
Education is an important entry point for empowerment of their production and productivities of
the rural societies. The result of this study (Table, 3) showed that comparatively there was more
adult education in Damot Woyde (53.3%) than kindo Koisha (45%) and Damot Sore (38.3%).
However, the highest proportion of the household received the primary level of education was in
Damot Sore district (40%) followed by Damot Woyde (23.3%) and Kindo Koisha (21.7%).The
difference could be attributed better access to schools of Damot Sore starts from an earlier time
and more accessible to urban center due to the area is close to the zonal administrative town
(Sodo town). This indicates that with higher education levels and near to the urban center, ability
to adopt new technologies is observed more rapidly than lower educated farmers. As reported by
Kuastros (2007), the uneducated respondents in Alaba district were (42.5%), which were much
higher than the total respondents had not received any education in the current study. In general,
the overall adult educational status of the study districts (45.6%) was higher than the regional
literacy rate (30%). Of them, 43% were men and 17% were women
(http://sepdc.com/Comment.html).

20
Table 3. Education status of the household head in the study districts

Study Districts

Educational level of HH Damot Sore Damot Woyde Kindo koisha Over all

N % N % N % N %

No formal 6 10 9 15 14 23.3 29 16.1

Adult literacy 23 38.3 32 53.3 27 45.0 87 45.6

Primary school 24 40 14 23.3 13 21.7 51 28.3

Secondary school 5 8.3 4 6.7 6 10 15 8.3

Diploma and above 2 3.3 1 1.7 0 0.0 3 1.7

N=number of households, HH=household head,

4.1.2. Land holding

The average private landholding size in the study districts is presented in (Table 4).The highest
proportion of the land was used for crop production activity followed to grazing lands than
perennial crops. The mean land holding of households in Damot Sore, Damot Woyde and Kindo
Koisha were (0.63±0.03), (0.96 ±0.04) and (1.88± 0.09) hectares. The total mean land holdings
of the households among the study districts were significantly different (P<0.001). This is due to
high population density in the highland and midland districts of the zone. As reported by Eyasu
(2003), the overall average density of the zone is 360 persons/km2. This indicated that land is one
of the big challenges for the dairy producers. According to the result of this study survey (Table,
4) mean land allocated of annual crops was (0.63±0.04) hectare. There was a significant
difference among the three districts in allocating their land for annual crops. This study showed
that respondents in Kindo Koisha and Damot Woyde districts had more land size for annual
crops than Damot Sore District. In addition, respondents in Kindo Koisha had higher land
allocation for perennial crops than the two other (Damot Sore and Damot Woyde) study areas.
The total mean land holding size of the respondents in the current study area was (1.21±0.05ha).
This study result was similar with the reported 1.223 ha (ranged 0.84-1.52), land
holding/household of Bure woreda, North-west Amhara (Fisseha, 2009).

21
Table 4. Average farm size and land use patterns of respondents in the study districts

Study districts

Land holding Damot sore Damot woyde Kindo koisha Over all p

Total land holding (ha) 0.63±0.03a 0.96±0.04b 1.88±0.09c 1.21±0.05 ***

Annual crop land (ha) 0.3±0.01a 0.46±0.03b 1.13±0.08c 0.63±0.04 ***

Pasture land (ha) 0.129±0.01a 0.3±0.02b 0.52±0.04c 0.32±0.02 ***

Perennial crop land (ha) 0.19±0.01 0.19±0.02 0.24±0.19 0.21±0.21 ns

Means on the same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P<0.05);
ha=hectare; ns = not significant; ***P<0.001

4.1.3. Income source of respondents

Contribution of sale of the crops, animal and animal products were the major income sources of
the farmers. The main sources of income in the study area for 70%, 23.3% and 6.7% of farmers
were sales of crops, live animal and animal products and others pottery, carpentry and petty
trading respectively. The area is a mixed farming production system, but dairying is not the
main income source even if the butter were predominantly marketable throughout the year in the
study area. Shortage of land and high population density were the main challenges affecting the
income of the farmers, especially in the highland and midland of the areas. But the farmers
obtain income from sale of crop is higher in Damot sore and Damot woyde than Kindo koisha
district. The reason is comparatively farmers produce more than two or more seasons per year by
using intercropping in a small plot of land in addition to better soil fertility for crop production in
the area. As a result, coffee sales are the biggest source of household income, especially in the
highland study area.

22
 78.3 75
80 70
70
56.7 Crop production
60
50 40
40
30 21.7 23.3
16.7 Livestock production
20 8.3
3.3 6.7
10 0
0
Others

Other income =pottery, carpentry and petty trading

Figure 2. Major sources of income of households in the study districts

4.1.4. Major Sources of information for milk production in the study districts

The source of information is a base to increase production and productivity in the small-scale
farmers, especially in the rural part of the country. In the study area, implementation of different
agricultural technologies has been launched for the development of mechanized agriculture. As a
result, the dairy producers have to get better access to different sources of information to enhance
dairy production. The Majority (67.8%) of the respondents can access to knowledge on dairy
production through development agents (DAs).Higher extension service was getting in Damot
Woyde (75%) and Damot Sore (73.3%) than Kindo Koisha (55%). Farmers have got lower
extension service in Kindo Koish was probably due to the topography (infrastructure), and Agro
ecology of the district makes difficulty to give extension service to dairy producers.
None of the respondents got information from radio in Damot Sore study site, but higher
information was getting from farmers association (16.7%) and other sources (8.3%) like visiting
research centers, technology exhibition and experience sharing from neighbors and trainings
.The reason was that dairy producers in Damot Sore had comparatively better access to farm
inputs such as a cross breed animals and commercial feeds. Whereas higher proportion of dairy
producers (23.3%) in Kindo koisha study site was obtained information from traditional

23
knowledge of their parents. This showed that a number of households inadequate capacity of
extension service in Kindo Koisha areas .The overall respondents had got access information
from extension agents in the study area was higher than Respondents had access to extension
services (45.5%) in the Bure district (Adebabay, 2009)

Table 5. Major sources of information for milk production in the study districts

Study of the district

Information sources Damot Sore Damot Weyde Kindo Koisha Over all

N % N % N % N %

Radio 0 0.0 4 6.7 10 16.7 14 7.8

Farmers association 10 16.7 3 5 3 5 16 8.9

Parents 1 1.7 7 11.7 14 23.3 22 12.2

Extension agents 44 73.3 45 75 33 55 122 67.8

Other sources 5 8.3 1 1.7 0 0.0 6 3.3

N= Number of households

4.1.5. Labor allocation for different dairy cattle activity practices

According to group discussion all members of the family can participate in all types of dairy
cattle related activities except milking, processing the milk and selling dairy products but their
level of participation varies across the types of activity. The respondents said that cultural taboo
was restricted males from involving in milk selling and processing activities. Due to this reason,
females (wives) perform milking, processing the milk and selling dairy products alone or in
some households with the help of girl children. In the whole study districts wives (86.7%) and
the rest by girls (13.3%) mainly performed milking. In contrary Milking was largely performed
by husbands (44.7%) in the Amhara Region Metema district (Tesfaye, 2007)

The frequency of cleaning animals’ barn varies from area to area and type of production system
(Table, 7). According to the respondents in the study area barn cleaning was largely done by

24
females followed by males .slightly larger proportion of females are involved in barn cleaning in
Damot Sore (45%) than Damot Woyde (43.3%) followed by Kindo Koisha (40%) district.
Whereas the involvement of boys (10.6 %) and girls (17.8 %) was comparatively less (Table, 6)

Similarly, in all study areas females are the largest shares of responsibilities undertake in the
feeding of dairy cattle, which are carried out inside and around homestead. In Damot Woyde, the
proportion of responsibility of female (48.3%) was higher. whereas duties of females in Damot
woyde (45%) and Kindo koisha (45%) areas were similar proportion. In the other hand boys
were higher responsibilities mainly for herding and watering cattle’s with the considerable share
of males (fathers). Relatively task of boy children in the herding is lower in Kindo Koisha
(33.3%) district than the two study districts (Damot Sore and Damot Woyde). In the lowland
area (Kindo Koisha) the livestock herding particularly outside of the homestead in the large
communal pasture land is done by groups a practice known as wudea, where Task of males
(fathers) were shared larger responsibilities.

25
Table 6: Share of responsibilities in the dairy cattle activities among the family members in the study districts

study district s % over all

Labor Damot Sore Damot Woyde Kindo Koisha

allocation Female Male Boy Girl Female Male Boy Girl Female Male Boy Girl Female Male Boy Girl

Milking (%) 90 - - 10 91.7 - - 8.3 78.3 - - 21.7 86.7 - - 13.3

Selling and 73.3 - - 26.7 71.7 - - 28.3 76.7 - - 23.3 73.9 - - 26.1
Processing (%)

Barn cleaning 45 26.7 10 18.3 43.3 31.7 6.71 18.3 40 28.3 15 16.7 42.8 28.9 10.6 17.8

Herding% 11.7 28.3 43.3 16.7 8.3 25 51.7 15 8.3 40 33.3 18.3 9.4 31.1 42.8 16.7

Feeding 48.3 31.7 11.7 8.3 45 35 11.7 8.3 45 30 18.3 6.7 46.1 32.2 13.9 7.8
Management%

Watering % 21. 7 10 46.7 21.7 28.3 21.7 41.7 8.3 16.7 36.7 41.7 5 22.2 22.8 43.3 11.7

26
4.1.6. Housing and waste management of dairy cattle

The experience of cattle housing in the three districts was presented in (Table, 7). Nearly all the
households (93.3%) in the studied districts kept their cattle within the family house except for
some (6.7%) of the respondents housed in separated home. Majority of the Respondents keeps
their cattle with in family house were due to lack of space to construct separate shelter outside
the main family house and fear of theft. Housing of cattle in the three districts was not
statistically different (P>0.05). However, relatively used separate house from the main family
residence was higher in the Kindo koisha than the other two study districts. Similar housing
conditions were also reported by Asrat et al (2012) in Boditti and Bereda et al (2012) in Guraghe
area. In contrary, 75.9% of households used isolated pen houses for their animals in Bure district
reported by (Habtemariam, 2010).

Majority of the farmers (56.1%) used grass, (37.2%) corrugated iron and others (6.7%) such as
plastic and plant leaves as a roofing material. In addition, all of the farmers (100%) the floor of
the house were compacted soil or earth floor without any kind of pavement this leads to
difficulty in effective manure removal in addition to high labor needed to clean the barn.

According to group discussion, farm yard manure was not commonly used as a source of fuel but
they were used to fertilize homestead crops mainly for coffee, enset, maize, root crops and fruits
This condition magnifies the importance of cattle dung in relation to land scarcity of the studied
area. Waste management is one of the major routine activities in dairy production. So it is a must
to properly clean manure and urines from the dairy house/shelter to assure good and hygienic
environments. Majority of the respondents (56.7%) in the study areas were disposing dung from
the barn once per day and this result is higher than (43.3%) reported by Teshager (2012)

27
Table 7: Cattle housing and waste disposal system in the study districts

District of the study

Factors Damot Sore Damot Woyde Kindo koisha Over all
N % N % N % N %
Type of housing
keep cattle with people home 55 96.7 57 95 53 53 168 93.3
Others 2 3.3 3 5 7 11.7 12 6.7
Roofing material
Corrugated iron 28 46.7 22 36.7 17 28.3 67 37.2
Grass 29 48.3 36 60 36 60 101 56.1
Others 3 5 2 3.3 7 11.7 12 6.7
Flooring material
Mud 60 100 60 100 60 100 60 100
Concert 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Frequency of disposing dung
Once per day 44 73.3 38 63.8 20 33.3 102 56.7
Every two day 1 1.7 5 8.3 3 5 9 5
Evert three-day 15 25 22 28.3 17 36.7 54 30
Every four to five day 0 0.0 0 0.0 15 25 15 8.3
N=number of households

4.2. Cattle Type and Herd Composition

The mean cattle holdings with different breeds and herd structures in the three districts are
presented in (Table, 8). The average numbers of cattle were higher in Kindo koisha with (12.1
heads/HH) than Damot woyde (6.57 heads/HH) and Damot sore (5.8heads/HH). The mean cattle
holding difference is due to the availability of the vast communal grazing area and private
landholding in the lowland area may account to higher cattle holdings than highland and midland
areas. The overall mean cattle holding per household (8.15heads/ HH) and significantly differ
among the three study districts (P<0.001).This result is comparable with mean cattle holding of
(8.01) reported by Negussie (2006) for Mekelle area and much higher than (3.9) heads per
household in Shashemene-Dilla areas reported by Nebiyu (2008)

28
Out of the mean cattle holding with different breeds (local and cross bred cattle’s ) per
household in the study areas, cows (3.03heads/HH), calves (1.78 heads/HH) and oxen (1.31heads
/HH) were found higher than the other herd types. On the other hand, heifers (0.86heads/HH)
and breeding bulls (0.98heads/HH) were found in less proportion in the herd structure. When
comparison is made, the mean holding of cow in the study area was smaller than (3.55±0.18)
heads /HH reported by Teshager (2012) in the Illu Aba Bora Zone.

As indicated in the Table 8, out of the mean holding of different cattle breeds, local cow is the
major one in the household herd structure with the value of (2.64±0.12). The result of this
finding agrees with that of (Adebabay, 2009) in Bure district, (2.6 head/HH) and higher than
1.89 head/HH reported by Habtemariam, (2010) for Bure District, West Gojjam Zone

As survey revealed that, crossbred blood types of cattle (Holstein crosses and Jersey crosses) in
the herd composition were fewer than local Zebu cattle in the whole study districts. Among the
cross breed (Holstein cross and Jersey cross) cattle herd composition in the area, Jersey cross
cows were higher proportion (0.19±0.04) followed by Holstein cross cow (0.15±0.03). However
the contribution of Holstein cross cow in Demote sore (0.3) was highest, followed by Damot
woyde (0.12) than Kindo koisha (0.03).This difference is probably due to dairy farmer’s better
access to get improved genotype cattle breeds, better awareness of artificial insemination (AI)
and resistance to agro ecology.

The mean of local, Holstein cross and Jersey cross breed cows in the three study districts were
2.64, 0.15 and 0.19 per household, respectively. The result of this finding for local and Holstein
cross cow agrees with the finding of Adebabay (2009) in Bure district which was reported that
mean holding of local and Holstein cross cows were 2.6 and 0.2 per household, respectively.
However, the total mean of local cow holding in the Illu Aba Bora Zone was 3.55±0.18 heads
per household (Teshager, 2012), which is higher than the current finding.

29
Table 8.Harmonic mean and standard error of cattle herd size and composition in the studied
districts

Study districts
Herd type Damot Sore Damot Woyde Kindo Koish Over all P
Total cows 2.12±0.13a 2.32±0.15a 4.65±0.19b 3.03±0.12 ***
Local cow 1.62±0.01a 2±0.13a 4.32±0.19b 2.64±0.12 ***
a b b
Holstein cross cow 0.30±0.07 0.12±0.0 0.03±0.02 0.15±0.03 ***
Jersey cross cow 0.22±0.01 0.2±0.06 0.15±0.06 0.19±0.04 ns
Total heifers 0.73±0.09 0.82±0.09 1.02±0.15 0.86±0.07 ns
Local heifer 0.38±0.07a 0.57±0.08a 0.92±0.13b 0.62±0.06 ***
Holstein cross heifer 0.23±0.07a 0.1±0.04b 0.02±0.02b 0.12± 0.04 **
Jersey cross heifer 0.12±0.41 0.17±0.06 0.08±0.04 0.12± 0.08 ns
a a b
Total local calves 1.28±0.11 1.33±0.11 2.73±0.15 1.78± 0.09 ***
Total cross calves 0.27±0.06 0.2±0.06 0.12±0.05 0.19± 0.03 ns
Total oxen 0.72±0.09a 0.98±0.11a 2.23±0.17b 1.31±0.03 ***
Local oxen 0.72±0.09a 1±0.11a 2.23±0.11b 1.32±0.09 ***
Holstein cross oxen 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - --
Jersey oxen 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.02±0.02 ns
a a b
Total bull 0.68±0.09 0.92±0.1 1.35±0.14 0.09±0.07 ***
Local bull 0.42±0.07a 0.75±0.09b 1.27±0.14c 0.81±0.07 ***
Holstein cross bull 0.12±0.05a 0.03±0.02b 0.02±0.02b 0.06±0.03 **
Jersey cross bull 0.08±0.04 0.13±0.05 0.08±0.04 0.1±0.03 ns
Mean Cattle holding 5.8±0.57a 6.57±0.62b 12.1±0.85c 8.15±0.47 ***
per household
Means in the same row having different superscript are statistically different (P<0.05),
HH=household; ns= not significant;*p<0.05, **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

30
4.2.1. Cattle breeds and breeding techniques in the study districts

4.2.1.1 .Type of cattle Breeds kept by the respondent households

Dairy cattle breed improvement program, was launched in different parts of Ethiopia,
particularly in the Wolaiyta zone in collaboration with the World Bank to achieve WADU
(Hailemariam, 1994). Among the development effort was establishment of cattle breeding and
multiplication center, introduction of AI, and distribution of cross breed bulls and heifers to the
farmers. Supply of cross breed in Wolaita zone was in two phases: the first phase was in1971 and
the second was 1987 by imported 90 Jersey breed heifers and two Jersey breed bulls from
Zimbabwe and Kenya, respectively. As a result, the current study showed a number of farmers
owned crossbred cattle (Holstein and Jersey cross breeds).Accordingly, out of the sampled
respondents (N=180) the predominant cattle breeds in the study areas were local/indigenous
breeds (56%), followed by both local and Jersey cross (17.8%), and both local and Holstein cross
(15%).

Across all the study districts, majority of the farmers used local breeds, but proportionally higher
in Kindo Koisha District (75%) than Damot Woyde (60%) and Damot Sore (35%). On the other
hand, higher proportions of households owned a pair of local and Jersey cross breeds around
Damot Woyde (20%) but less comparable proportion were found in Damot Sore (16.7%) and
Kindo Koisha (16.7%). Households who owned pair of Holstein cross and local bred cattle were
significantly higher in Damot Sore (31.7 %) than Damot Woyde (10%) and Kindo Koisha (3.3%)
district (P<0.001). This might be due to farmers’ better use of Artificial insemination (breeding
technology), existence of more breeding Holstein cross bulls and better access to get Holstein
cross heifers since the district is near to government ranch (Table 8).Among the reasons
mentioned by the dairy farmers why they kept Jersey cross bred better than Holstein cross bred
cattle were due to easy to manage ( do not require lot of feed) and less frequent disease
incidences and size of the bred that they have lack of space cattle house. The other reasons
explained by respondents were due to better milk fat and short reproductive performance. This
agrees with the earlier study reported by Tesfaye (1990) that the choice of the Friesian and Jersey
breeds was suggested to be linked to feed availability and the potential market for liquid milk. In

31
addition the policy recommends Jersey cross for areas where milk had to be processed before
reaching the market and where the feed availability is less promising.

Table 9: Type of cattle breed kept by the sampled respondents in the study districts

Study districts
Variables Damot Sore Damot Woyde Kindo Koisha Over all
N % N % N % N %
Type of cattle breed
Local breed 21 35 36 60 45 75 102 56.7
Local and Jersey cross 10 16.7 12 20 10 16.7 32 17.8
Local and Holstein cross 19 31.7 6 10 2 3.3 27 15
Jersey cross 1 1.7 1 1.7 0 0.0 2 1.1
Holstein cross 3 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.6
Local and both crosses 6 10 5 8.3 3 5 14 7.8
N=number of households head

4.3.1.2 Sources of the Cross breed cattle

The source of cross breed (Holstein and Jersey cross breed) in the studied districts were of the
respondents were summarized in Table 10. Out of the total cross breed users majority of the
respondents has got from local market/private owners (43%). The use of AI in the study area is
higher than 24.1% of reported around Debrezeit milk shad, Ada District (Anteneh, 2008) and
25% reported for Bure Woreda (Habtemariam, 2010)

32
Table 10. Means of getting the first crossbreed cattle by the respondents in the study districts

Study districts
Source of cross breed Damot sore Damot woyde Kindo koisha Over all
N % N % N % N %
From AI 15 37 11 31.4 2 12.5 28 27
From neighbors cross bull 8 19.5 7 20 2 12.5 17 17.3
From WCB&MC 3 7.3 3 8.6 1 6.3 7 7.4
From local market 15 37 12 34.3 9 56.3 36 43
From MOARD 0 0.0 1 1.9 0 0.0 1 0.6
From NGO 0 0.0 1 1.9 2 12.5 3 4.8
AI=Artificial insemination, WCB&MC=Wolaita cattle breeding and multiplication centre,
MOARD=Ministry of agriculture and rural development.NGO=none governmental organization

4.3.1.3 Breeding techniques

Different initiative has been made to improve the local dairy cattle particularly in Ethiopia. Out
of the different initiatives, established by AI service as early as in the late 1960s was mentioned
by assistance of different developmental projects in different part of the country were mentioned.
Out of them wolaita Zone is one of the semen distributer sub-centers out of the nine sub centers
in Ethiopia. According to the current study in the three districts, the dairy producers used two
types of breeding techniques .These are natural breeding and artificial insemination. Out of the
sampled respondents (N=180) in the current study (52.8 %) of the households use natural mating.
there was significantly higher (p<0.05) in the lowland study district than the two study districts
in using the natural mating (Table 11). Science breeding technology was implemented in the
study area there is better accessibility of breeding technology in all the study districts. However,
among the reasons lowland farmers used natural mating was due to farmer’s knowledge of
AI/lack of awareness, due to the far distance to the AI station from farmers homestead with up
and down topography and the other main reason mentioned by respondents were due to the
unfavorable environment to the cross breeds. Using of natural mating for the current study is
lower than (92.7%) of the respondents use natural mating for the study area in the Bure district
(Adebabay, 2009).

33
Respondents in the study area were used either AI or both breeding techniques. About (12.2%)
of the households used AI technique; whereas (35%) of the respondents used either of the two
techniques (Table, 12). In the three districts, there is significant variation in using AI service
(P<0.05) .The use of only AI in the current study was higher than the study conducted in Fogera
Woreda (9.4%) by Belete (2006) and Bure woreda (1.75%) by (Adebabay, 2009)

Table 11: Types of breeding techniques used by the dairy participants in the study districts

Study districts
Parameter Dmot Sore Damot Woyde Kindo Koisha Over all
N % N % N % N %

Breeding mechanism
natural mating 28 a 46.7 27a 45 40b 66.7 95 52.8
AI 11 b 18.3 6a 10 5a 8.3 22 12.2
Both techniques 21 35 27 45 15 25 63 35
N=number of household, Both technique=Natural mating and artificial insemination (AI)

4.3.1.4 Major AI service related problems in the study area

The AI service in the study Districts were solely provided by the Office of Agriculture and Rural
Development (OARD). Based on the responses of respondents, personal observations and
discussion with kebele DAs, the dairy producers were not used AI technique effectively. Among
the reasons mentioned by the farmers for not using AI (Table 12) for majorities (39%) of the
respondents in the studied area was due to AI station was very far from their residence .This was
due to the AI service is provided by one AI technician in the AI station (Woreda town).
However, Adebabay (2009) reported that lack of access to AI (77.3%) was the main problem for
Bure district farmers. But very few (4.3%) farmers replied that distance to AI station was the
main problem for access AI service. About (16%) respondents reported that the unwillingness of
AI technicians and logistical problems were reasons for not using AI. Some farmers also
mentioned other reasons such as lack of information/awareness (13.6%), environment disfavor to
management of the cross breed (10.3%) , none effectiveness (7.4%), don’t have any interest due
to taboo based on cultural values (4.8%) and (7.9%) of the households raised other different

34
reasons such as fear of Dystocia by the assumption of the small Zebu cow not capable of bearing
crossbreed fetus ,lack choice of Holstein Frisian semen and price of AI service were also
mentioned by little respondents

Table 12: Major AI service related problems mentioned by the households in the study districts
Study districts
Factor Damot sore Damot woyde Kindo koisha Over all
N % N % N % N %
Reasons not using AI
Distance from AI 14 33.3 15 35.7 23 47.9 52 39
Non effectiveness 4 9.5 1 2.4 5 10.4 10 7.4
Lack of interest 4 9.5 2 4.8 0 0.00 6 4.8
Lack of awareness/information 6 14.3 5 11.9 7 14.6 18 13.6
Environment disfavor them 1 2.4 5 11.9 8 16.7 14 10.3
Unwillingness of AI technician 8 19 10 20.8 4 8.3 22 16
and logistics
multiple responses 5 11.9 4 9.5 1 2.4 10 7.9
N=numbere of households, AI=Arteficial insemination,

4.3. Feed Sources in the Study Districts

4.3.1. Feed sources used for cattle in the study areas

Animal feeds represent the major input in any dairy operation. Common feed resources in the
studied areas varied between production systems. In the mixed crop/livestock production system,
grazing and crop residues are the major feed resource. In addition, about (35.6 %) of respondents
use purchased feeds in addition to their own production, while few (10.6 %) proportion of
respondents their source of cattle feed were purchased from the market. The overall, majority of
respondents use animal feed resources only from their own production (49.97%) in the current
study was slightly lower than households use animal feeds from their own crop farm (53.7%) in
Shashemene–Dilla area, South Ethiopia Sintayehu, et. al, (2008) .The study survey revealed that
about (12.26 %) of the respondents spent more than 300 ETB per month , while others (34.06 %)
and (49.97%) spent 201-300 ETB and 100-200 ETB, respectively for the purchase of feed.

35
Results of the study revealed that about 11 (12.26 %) of the respondents spent more than 300
ETB, while others 29 (34.06 %) and 36 (49.97%) spent 201-300 ETB and 100-200 ETB,
respectively for the purchase of feed in the studied districts

66.67
70
60 53.84
47.06 49.97
100-200 (ETB)
50
38.46
40 34.06
29.41
30 23.53 201-300 (ETB)
16.67
20 12.26
7.69 5.56
10
>300 (ETB)
0

Figure 3. Money spent for feed per month for dairy cattle in the study districts

4.3.2. Types of crop residues and feeding practices

Crop residue was the major feed sources in the present study areas as is the case in most parts of
the country as reported by Tolera (2009). In the current study area, annual food crops particularly
cereals and root crops are dominant, and crop farming is highly integrated with livestock
production, particularly with cattle. However, the availability and importance of each type of
crop residue varied among the studied districts due to varied in agro ecologies. Accordingly,
higher proportion of maize stalk was used around low land area (63.3%) than in mid altitude
(33.3%) and highland area (30%). However, higher proportion of wheat (65%) was used in
highland district whereas sorghum has no any contribution to the highland study area, again due
to the variation in suitability of altitudes for growing the various crops. Likewise, Teff straw is
the main source of crop residue but their importance is very limited in the studied districts. The
reason was Teff straw in the area is used for construction of local house by mixed with mud, so it
is much cost either to buy or purchase. In general, the majority of the respondents use crop

36
residues cattle feed specially in the late dry season and early wet season (Table, 13). This is
because of low herbage yield obtained from natural pasture

Table 13: Types of crop residues used for cattle feed in the study districts

districts of the study

Variables Damot Sore Damot Woyde Kindo Koisha Overall
N % N % N % N %
Type of crop residue
Teff strew 1 1.7 4 6.7 3 5.0 8 4.4
Sorghum 0 0.0 2 3.3 9 15 11 6.1
Faba bean straw 1 1.7 0 0.0 6 10 7 3.9
Maize stalk 18 30 20 33.3 38 63.3 76 42.2
Wheat straw 39 65 32 53.3 4 6.7 75 41.7
Others 1 1.7 2 3.3 0 0.0 3 1.7
N=number of households,

4.3.3. Improved forage cultivation practice

Improved forages have been introduced so far to wolaita zone through different developmental
projects. However, the main reason for forage developments in the study areas were supply of
forage seed to the farmers by the respective district Office of agriculture with Safety net project.
The seeds were multiplied in demonstration centers and on farmer’s road side farms and water
harvesting. Farmers make use of the forages and at the same time harvest the seed and sale it to
the respective district of agricultural Office. Accordingly, a number of farmers cultivated
improved grasses species like Elephant grass, Rhodes grass and Desho grasses. Relatively,
numbers of farmers (92.5%) in the highland areas have improved grasses followed by midland
(77.5%) and lowland (75%) areas. There were significantly different (P<0.001) concerning
cultivation of improved forage grass. This is might be due to difference varied in agro ecology
and active participation of the farmers in forage development.

Among the improved legumes forages, Desmodium, Lucerne, and Lablab species had better
contribution to dairy farmers in the areas. Proportionally, dairy farmers (6.1%) in midland were

37
cultivated forage legume than highland dairy producers (3.8%), but there was no any respondents
replied for legume forage development in lowland area. With regard to tree legumes,
comparatively less proportion respondents (3.8%) in highland studied areas have legume trees
than the two-study sites (Table, 14).

Generally, majority (81.7%) of the respondents in the study areas had cultivated-improved grass
followed by tree forage (15%) and legume forages (3.3%). The result on the proportion of the
households experienced on improved grass development for the current study is higher than 61.7
% of the households in Illu Aba Bora Zone by Teshager (2012). In the study area, there are also
problems related to improved forage availability. Among the reasons mentioned by the farmers
for not growing forages in their lands were due to farmers owned small size of land (49.1%),
lack of input (19.2%) and lack of labor (6%), and (25.7%) of respondents gave multiple
responses such as drought( poor adaptability), lack of awareness and poor quality seeds.

Table 14: Improved forage cultivation practice and reasons for lack of forage cultivation
Study districts
Parameters Damot sore Damot woyde Kindo koisha Over all

N % N % N % N %
Type of forage Grown
Grass 49 92.5 38 77.5 24 75 111 81.7
Forage legumes 2 3.8 3 6.1 0 0.0 5 3.3
Tree legumes 2 3.8 8 16.3 8 25 18 15
Reasons for not growing
Insufficient of land 5 71.4 6 54.6 6 21.4 17 49.1
Lack of labor 1 14.3 0 0.0 1 3.6 2 6
Lack of input 0 0.0 2 18.2 11 39.3 13 19.2
Multiple response 1 14.3 3 27.1 10 35.7 14 25.7
N=number of household, Multiple response=such as drought, lack awareness and poor quality seeds

38
4.3.4 .Types of feed supplements

Supplemental feeding practice of cattle exercised in the area is presented (Table, 15). From the
total sampled respondents (N=180) about 42.8% supplemented their cattle’s .The most important
feed resources used for supplements were wheat bran, corn bran oilseed cake, boiled maize and
haricot bean. The overall, majorities (57.2%) of them supplemented wheat bran and corn bran,
followed by oil seed cake (28.3%). According to the respondents and personal observation, the
reason for the higher proportion of farmer supplied wheat bran and corn bran than Oil seed cake
was due to the availability of large flour mills (Hashshu Flour Mill PLC) in the administrative
town (Sodo town) in addition to wheat bran retail shops in the study district towns.

The order of importance to the different class of cattle’s goes with the purpose of cattle in the
areas. Among the class of cattle’s the largest number of farmers supplied for both lactating and
beef animals (81.7%) followed by lactating cows (8.2%) ,while few supplied class of cattle’s
were beef animals (6.9%), calves(1.9%) and pregnant cows (1.3%). This indicated that the
primary aim of supplementing cattle was for better milk production and fattening.

39
Table 15: Type of feed supplements used for cattle in the study districts

Study districts
Parameters Damot Sore Damot Woyde Kindo Koisha Over all
N % N % N % N %
Do you provide feed supplements?
Yes 34 56.7 26 43.3 17 28.3 77 42.8
No 26 43.3 34 56.7 43 71.7 103 57.2
Type of supplements
Wheat bran and corn bran 26 76.5 17 65.4 5 29.4 48 57.1
Oil seed cake 3 8.8 6 23.1 9 52.9 18 28.3
Boiled maize and haricot bean 5 14.7 3 11.5 3 17.6 11 14.6
Class of cattle fed the supplements
For lactating cow 5 14.7 1 4 1 5.8 6 8.2

For pregnant cow 0 0.0 1 4 0 0.0 1 1.3

For calves 2 5.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.9
For beef animals 1 3 0 0.0 3 17.6 4 6.9
For lactating and beef animal 26 76.5 24 92.3 13 76.4 63 81.7
N=number of households

4.4 Water Source

Source of water, water related problem and distance to search water in the study area are
presented in (Table, 16). Dairy producers’ used different water resources for their animals.
Majority of the farmers used river water sources (40%), followed by own well (Ella) (27.2%),
pond (17.8%), pipe (13.3%) and other sources (1.7%). The total average of households use the
river of the current study is similar with (40%) of the households in the Highlands and Central
Rift Valley (CRV) of Ethiopia (Zewdie, 2010). However, respondents explained that the biggest
problem for their animals, not accessing water, especially from the wells because they required
labor to supply or lift water from the ground every time.

40
With regard to water related problem in the study area, scarcity of water was the major problem
(63.3%), unhygienic /impurity (18.3%), lack of water resources (1.7%) and other problems
(16.1%) such as parasite problems in addition to scarcity and accessibility due to lack of labor to
supply water. Scarcity of water, especially in the lowland study area was a serious problem for
peoples and animals. The scarcity, water (63%) under this study was higher than (53%) reported
by Tsedeke (2007) for Alaba woreda. As indicating (Table 16), majority (60%) of the
respondents travelled less than a kilometer from homestead to search water sources for their
animals while 31.7% ,7.2% and 1.1% of the interviewed households indicated that they travelled
(1-2 km), (3 -5 Km) and greater than 5 kms in getting the watering point, respectively.

Table 16: Sources of water and water related problems in the study districts

Study districts
Damot Sore Damot Woyde Kindo Koisha Over all
N % N % N % N %
Sources of water
Pipe 16 26.7 7 11.7 1 1.7 24 13.3
River 21 35 24 40 27 45 72 40
Pond 4 6.7 5 8.3 23 38.3 32 17.8

Own well(Ella) 19 31.7 24 40 6 10 49 27.2

Others (spring water ) 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 5 3 1.7
Water related problem
Scarcity 29 48.3 39 65 46 76.7 114 63.3
Unhygienic /impurity 13 21.7 10 16.7 11 18.3 34 18.9
Lack of water 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 5 3 1.7
resources
Other problems 18 30 11 18.3 0 0.0 29 16.1
Animals moved for
searching water
Less than 0.5km 45 75 40 66.7 23 38.3 108 60
From 1to2 km 15 25 17 28.3 25 41.7 57 31.7
From 3 to 5km 0 0.0 3 5 10 16.7 13 7.2
Greater than 5 km 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 3.3 2 1.1
N=number of households

41
4.5 Productive and reproductive performance of dairy cattle

4.5.1 Milk yield

The average milk yield/day of local cows in Damot Sore (2.11±0.09 liters /cow/day) was higher
than Damot Woyde (1.89±0.05 liters/cow/day) and Kindo Koisha (1.38±0.02liters/cow/day)
study districts. Similarly the milk yield of Holstein cross cow in Damot Sore was significantly
higher (7.79±0.33liters/cow/day) than the two study districts (Table, 17). This relatively higher
milk yield observed in the highland area might be due to the difference in the level of
management and the farmers get other farm inputs, because the area is closer to zone town. The
overall mean milk yield of local cows in the studied area was (1.79±0.05liters/cow/day).Similar
result was reported (1.82 litter/cow/day) in Bure District (Adebabay, 2009). On the other hand,
the milk yield of local cows for the present study was higher than (1.67 Littre/cow/day) in North
Shoa zone, Amhara Region (Mulugeta and Belayneh., 2013).But the result is slightly lower
than the average milk off take of 1.9±0.045 liter/cow/day in Metema district (Tesfaye, 2007).

The average milk yield obtained from Holstein cross cow in Damot Sore district was
(7.79±0.33liters/cow/day).This value was more or less comparable to (7.8kg/day/cow) and
(7.6±0.3litres/cow/day) reported for Northwestern highlands of Ethiopia (Yitaye, 2007) and in
the highland areas (Debreberhan, Jimma and Sebeta) of Ethiopia by Zewdie (2010) respectively.

In addition the average milk yield of Jersey crossbred cows (4.06±0.19littre/cow/day) in Damot
Sore District was significantly (P<0.05) higher than Damot Woyde (2.43±0.1litre/cow/day) and
Kindo Koisha (2.06±0.07 Liters/cow/day) (Table 17). The higher milk yield produced from
Jersey cross cow in Damot sore (4.06±0.19) was comparative with earlier reports with mean milk
yield of 3.9 Littre for local Barka x jersey at Bako (Tesfaye, 1991) and 3.8 litter/day/cow for
Jersey cross cow at Zimbabwe (Ngongoni et-al, 2006).But less than the average milk yield
produced from Jersey x local Arsi (4.67 litter/cow/day) (ILCA, 1983).In general the present
study showed that, milk production potential of indigenous cattle breeds was very low can
temperate breeds .whereas Holstein crosses cows were better milk production than Jersey cross
bred cows. The current finding was supported by Kefena et al, (2011) where Frisian crossbred
dairy cows produced more milk than Jersey-bred cows.

42
4.5.2 Lactation length

The Average lactation length of indigenous cow in Damot Sore (9.8±0.38 months) was higher
than Damot Woyde (8.64±0.27 months) and Kindo Koisha (7.23±0.13 months) studied areas.
The reason for the short lactation length in the midland and lowland areas were might be due to
availability of poor nutritional (encroachment feeds), prevalence of diseases and seasonal
availability of water. The average lactation length of local cows (9.8±0.38months) in highland
studied area was agree with study conducted in Bure (9.8 months) reported by (Adebabay, 2009).
The overall lactation length of local cows in the studied area was (8.56±0.26 months). This value
was closer to the recent study (8.87±0.12month) at the Ilu Aba Bora Zone (Teshager, 2012).
However, higher than the value reported by Tesfaye (2007), Kedija (2007) for the indigenous
cows at Metema district North Gonder Zone (5.9±0.14 months) and Meiso District (7.29
months), respectively. Similarly, the lactation length of jersey cross cow in the highland area was
higher than midland and lowland area with (9.88±0.46 months), (8.71±0.34months) and
(7.36±0.27 months) respectively. While the lactation length of Holstein cross cow was
(10.8±0.45months), (9.58±0.38months) and (8.5±0.2 months) in highland, midland and lowland
study areas respectively.
As indicted (Table 17) the overall mean lactation length of local cow, Jersey cross and Holstein
cross cows was (8.56±0.26months), (8.65±0.36months) and (9.63±0.34 months), respectively.
The overall lactation length of Jersey cross cow was almost similar but higher than that of local
cow but shorter than lactation length of Holstein cross cow. This study is supported by (Kefena
et al 2011), which is Jersey crossbred dairy cows have shorter lactation lengths and calving
interval than Frisian crossbred dairy cows that reflects better reproduction efficiencies in Jersey
crosses.

The overall mean lactation length of Jersey cross cow in the studied area was 8.65±0.36months.
This result is less than the report of (EARO, 2001) which indicated that the average lactation
length of Jersey crossbred cow was 276 day (9.2 months) .However, this is less than the average
lactation length of Jersey cross cow in the highland studied area (9.8 0.46 months (Table
17).while, the overall mean lactation length for Holstein cross cow in the studied areas was
(9.63±0.34months) which is higher than study conducted in Jimma town that is 9.13±1.99

43
months (Belay.et al., 2012). In contrary, the result is smaller than 333.9days (11months) of the
study in North Showa Zone by (Mulugeta and Belayneh, 2013)

4.5.3 Age at first calving

As indicated in (Table 17) the average AFC for local the cow in Damot Sore, Damot Woyde,
and Kindo Koisha study area was (46.54±1.71months), (49.3±1.19months) and (52.03±0.5
months), respectively. Whereas the AFC for Holstein cross was (34±1.42 months),
(38.94±1.52months), (45.7±1.07months) in the highland, midland and lowland study areas,
respectively. There were significant (P ≤ 0.05) variations among the breeds within the three
study areas AFC of the local cow, Jersey cross, and Holstein cross cows. The overall mean age at
first calving of local cow and Holstein cross cow in the studied areas were (49.29±1.13 months)
and (39.55±1.34 months) respectively. This result is similar to the mean AFC of (49.37±0.25
months) for local cow reported by Teshager (2012). The finding of the average mean AFC in the
present study was slightly higher than (47.16 ± 8.7 months) and (37.95 ± 9.4 months) for local
cow and Holstein cross cow in smallholder dairy producer in North showas zone, Amhara,
Region (Mulugeta etal, 2013). By contrast, higher AFC was reported for Boran x Holstein-
Friesian F1 crossbred dairy cows (53.9 months) at the Abernosa Ranch (Ababu et al., 2006) and
4.5year (54.4 months) for AFC of local cow in Metema District (Tesfaye, 2007).

In this study, Jersey cross breed cows are younger at AFC than Local and Holstein cross breed
cows in the three studied districts. In addition, AFC varied between study areas. The variation in
the AFC between breeds and locations is probably due to the difference in genotype,
management, feeding systems, occurrence disease and draught especially in the lowland study
areas. As indicated in (Table 17) the average AFC of Jersey cross breed cow in Damot Sore ,
Damot Woyde and Kindo Koisha areas were (29.33±1.37 months ) ,( 35.68 ±1.40 months) and
(42.4±1.53 months), respectively. The average AFC of Jersey cross cow in the Damot Sore area
is slightly higher than 28.5 months and the 29.2 months reported for Jersey xArsi and Friesian x
Arsi, respectively, at Assela, Ethiopia (Negussie et al 1998). On the other hand, the finding of
AFC in the present study was lower than 36.7 and 40.1 months estimated for crossbred dairy
heifers in smallholder dairy farms in Malawi (Agyemang and Nkhonjera 1990).

44
4.5.4 Calving interval

As shown in (Table, 17), the average calving interval of local cows in Damot Sore, Dmot Woyde
and Kindo Koisha was (16.92±0.69 months), (17.83±0.53 months) and (20.69±0.27 months)
months, respectively .While the mean calving interval for Jersey cross bred cow in Damot sore,
Damot Woyde and Kindo Koisha area was (12.59±0.59 months),(15.12±0.59 months) and
(17±0.62 months),respectively. Likewise calving interval for Holstein cross were (14.7±0.62
months), (16.46±0.64 months) and (17.35±0.45 months) in Damot Sore, Damot Woyde and
Kindo Koisha respectively. There were variations among the breed and within the breeds in the
three studied districts. Ingenious cows were generally longer calving interval than exotic blood
cattle’s. However, Jersey crossbred cow was better and shorter calving interval than Holstein
Frisian cross. This variation could be associated with genotype difference, lack of breeding
management, agro ecology to particular area, disease prevalence, lack of own bull and improper
use of inputs (AI and Feeds)

The overall mean calving interval of local cow, Holstein cross and Jersey crossbred cows were
(18.48±0.5), (16.17±0.5) and (14.9±0.6) months, respectively. The value obtained mean calving
interval for local cow (18.48±0.5 months) in the present study was almost similar with
(18.76±0.23) months for indigenous cow in the Ilu Aba Bora Zone, (Teshager, 2012) and (18.6
month) in Oromia region Workneh and Rowland (2004) and18.6 months (559 days) for Fogera
cows at the Metekle Ranch (Addisu and Hegede, 2003). But the average mean calving interval of
Holstein cross in this study was slightly higher than (15.4 months) conducted in Selale area
Gashaw (1992) and 14.3 months (kiwuwa, et al. 1983). In contrary, the result found in the
current finding is smaller than 748.2 days (24.9 months) and 660 days (22 months) of indigenous
cow and their cross Holstein Frisians in North Showa Zone (Mulugeta and Belayneh, 2013).The
average mean calving interval for Jersey cross in the study area was 14.9±0.6 months. Similar
results were reported by Omar (2008) which indicates the calving interval of Jersey x Local were
(14.08±0.62 months). In the other hand slightly lower calving interval were reported for Jersey x
Local Arsi and Holstein Friesian x Local Arsi which is 411 days (13.7 months) and 456 days
(15.2 months) respectively (Gabriel, et al.1983).

45
4.5.5 Weaning age

There was significant variations (Table, 7) among the studied district on weaning age of the local
calves at (P<0.05). While the weaning age of Holstein cross and jersey cross calves among the
studied districts did not significantly different. The total weaning age of local, Holstein cross and
Jersey cross calves were(8.34±0.25),(9.1±0.2)and (7.66±0.31) months , respectively .The result
of weaning age of local calves in the current study were smaller than (9.9± 0.283 ) months
reported by Tesfaye (2007). The survey revealed that, Holstein cross calves were longer
weaning age, followed by local breed calves, while Jersey cross calves were shorter weaning age
in the whole study districts. (Table, 17)

46
Table 17: Productive and Reproductive performance of dairy cattle in the study districts

Variables District of the study Overall P

Damot Sore Damot Woyde Kindo Koisha
Daily milk yield (kg)
Local cow 2.11±0.09a 1.89±0.05a 1.38±0.02b 1.79±0.05 ***
Holstein cross 7.79±0.33a 6.3±0.25ab 3.03±0.07b 5.7±0.21 *
Jersey cross 4.06±0.19a 2.43±0.1b 2.06±0.07b 2.85±0.12 *
Lactation length (months)
Local cow 9.8±0.38a 8.64±0.27a 7.23±0.13b 8.56±0.26 ***
Holstein cross 10.8±0.45 9.58±0.38 8.5±0.2 9.63±0.34 ns
Jersey cross 9.88±0.46 8.71±0.34 7.36±0.27 8.65±0.36 ns
Age at first calving (months)
Local cow 46.54±1.71a 49.3±1.19b 52.03±0.5c 49.29±1.13 ***
Holstein cross 34±1.42 38.94±1.52 45.7±1.07 39.55±1.34 ns
Jersey cross 29.33±1.37a 35.68±1.40a 42.4±1.53a 35.8±1.43 ns
Calving interval (months)
Local cow 16.92±0.69a 17.83±0.53b 20.69±0.27c 18.48±0.5 ***
Holstein cross 14.7±0.62 16.46±0.64 17.35±0.45 16.17±0.57 ns
Jersey cross 12.59±0.59a 15.12±0.59a 17±0.62a 14.9±0.6 ns
Weaning age of calves (months)
Local calves 9.17±0.35a 8.21±0.25a 7.63±0.14b 8.34±0.25 *
Holstein cross 9.6±0.4 8.52±0.34 9.25±0.22 9.1±0.2 ns
Jersey cross 8.3±0.39 7.63±0.3 7.05±0.25 7.66±0.31 ns
Means in the same row having different superscript are statistically different (P<0.05); ns= not
significant;*P<0.05, **P<0.01; ***P<0.001

47
4.6. Milking Practice

Calves were allowed to practically suckle their dams prior to milking this is due to producers
believe calf suckling for milk let-down. Udder and hand washing prior to milking was unknown.
And cows were hand milked after the milk wet their hands with a strip of milk plastic jug was
used for milking while clay pot was used for storage and processing. As indicated (Table, 18) the
frequencey of milking in the study area was performed two to three times per day. For cows
milking twice, a day was during morning (6-7 am) and early evening (4-5 pm) while for the three
times milking cows was at morning (6-7 am), midday (12 am-1 pm) and evening (7-8:30 pm).
This indicates that they did not bother about the regularity of milking time or there is no fixed
time schedule for milking though it affects yield.

Out of the interviewed dairy producers, higher proportions of the respondents (62.2%) were
milking their cows thrice a day. The current result for milking frequency thrice a day was almost
similar with the result in around Boditi, Southern Ethiopia, where (65%) of the respondents
milking their cows was thrice a day (Asrat et al., 2012). In addition Beyene (1994), noted that, in
some Enset producing areas of the Wolaita Zone, farmers milk their cows thrice a day. As
opposed, this Yigrem (2008) noted that very few farmers (3.3%) in Shashemene and Dilla areas
milking their cows thrice day.

Farmers who have experience fermented milk in the study area were used different ways to know
whether the fermented milk is ready for churning or not. Among these techniques, 52%, 29.1%,
17.2% and 1.7 % of the total respondents used by physical compactness of the fermented milk ,
milk volume , others like smell of milk and the color of milk , respectively. Majority of the
farmers decided the milk to be ready for churning by the way of physical compactness of the
fermented milk. To process fermented milk different local materials was used such as clay pot
and others like plastic bottles (jerikan). Farmers also used several types of plants/herbs for
smoking milking equipments, while commonly four plants were used for smoking purposes
Table (18)

48
Table 18: Milking practices and milk processing in the study districts

Study districts
Factors Damot Sore Damot Woyde Kindo Koisha Over all
N % N % N % N %
Frequency of milking per day
Morning and evening 14 23.3 20 33.3 34 56.7 68 37.8
Morning ,mid day and evening 46 76.7 40 66.7 26 43.3 112 62.2
Experience of processing milk
Yes 60 100 58 96.7 46 76.7 164 91.1
No 0 0.0 2 3.3 14 23.3 16 8.9
Indicator for processing
Volume of FM 26 43.3 18 31 6 13 50 29.1
The color of the FM 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 5.2 3 1.7
Physical compactness of FM 27 45 32 55.2 25 54.3 84 52
Others 7 11.7 8 13.8 12 26.1 27 17.2
Smoking plants
Gulluwa 30 50 38 63.3 18 30 86 47.8
Guccachchaa 10 16.7 12 20 25 41.7 47 26.1
Kosorotya 14 23.3 2 3.3 16 26.7 32 17.8
Shaashshaa 6 10 8 13.3 1 1.7 15 8.3
N=Number of households, FM=fermented milk

4.7 Milk Utilization Pattern

Source of milk used for regular consumption and processing by households in the study districts
were totally from cows unlike many lowland areas where households commonly utilize goat
milk. In the Kindo koisha district goat milk is considered to have medicinal values and only
given to elders and children. The average volume of milk produced per day/HH in Damot Sore
area (4.35±0.43litter) was relatively higher than the average volume of milk produced/day/HH in
Kindo koisha (4±0.23Litter) and Damot woyde (3.8±0.3littre) districts .This is might be due to
higher number Holstein and Jersey cross milking cows available in Damot Sore and it may
happened increased volume of milk produced per day per household than the two studied

49
districts (Table,19) .The overall milk volume per day per household in the study area was
(4.05±0.32littre ) .This is higher than (3.0 Litters) reported for East Shoa Zone of Oromia
(Lemma et al., 2005) as well as in Shahsemene-Dilla areas (1.97±0.24 liters to 2.84±0.28 liters)
(Sintayehu, 2007).

Milk produced in the household was utilized either fresh or after being processed into other
products .Out of the total fresh whole milk volume produced per day per household the large
proportion of milk (65.6%) was used for processing mainly into butter. About half of the total
processed milk (34.6%) was consumed directly as fresh whole milk. while little (2.1%) portion
of milk was used for sale. Among the reasons explained by the respondents to the high
proportion of milk processed was due to distance and lack of access to market to low price of
whole milk prefers processing mainly for butter. The sale of fresh milk was, as a bit higher in
Damot Sore (4.82%) than Damot Woyde (1.32%).While none of respondent’s completely fresh
milk was a sale in the Kindo Koisha district. In general, this survey revealed that in the three
study districts a little portion of milk was sold to milk market outlets. This clearly points out that
dairy production in the current study area with fresh whole milk is not market oriented.
According to group discussing with the key informants it was explained that that sale of fresh
milk and consumption was uncommon due to the low quantity of milk produced particularly
during the dry season and cultural believes particularly sell of fresh milk.

50
Table 19: Total volume of milk production per household and utilization pattern in the study
districts

Study of the district

Variables Damot Sore Damot Woyde Kindo Koish Over all P
Mean (SE) Mean (SE) Mean ( SE) Mean (SE)
TMprd/HH 4.35±0.43 3.8±0.3 4±0.23 4.05±0.32 ns
Milk utilization (%)
For home consumption 26.9a 25.26a 49.5b 34.6 ***
a a b
For processing 67.82 78.42 50.5 65.58 *
For sale 4.82 1.32 0.0 2.0 ns
Means in the same row having different superscript are statistically different (P<0.05); ns=not
significant;*P<0.05;***P<0.001, SE= standard errors, HH= Households, TMPrd/HH = Total
milk produced per household

4.8. Marketing of Milk Products at Studied Districts

Experience of selling milk and milk products in three study districts were presented (Table 20).
Most of (83.3%) of the Households in the study districts had experience of selling milk and milk
products, while fewer (16.1%) proportion of respondents did not sell. Comparatively more
inhabitants (98.3%) in the highland study areas were involved in selling milk and milk products
than mid land (86%) and low land study areas with (P<0.001).This difference result might be due
to farmers in the highland area owned a higher number of high yielding exotic blood cows and
access good market opportunities due to the nearness the rural kebeles to the market sites this
results large number of traders engaged in the area.

According to the survey result (Table, 20), the largest number of respondents (85.1%) was sold
butter followed by a local cheese (31.5%). This is may be due to absence of milk collection
centers and traditional beliefs. This survey result for sold butter is lower than (95.1%) reported
for Ilu Aba Bora Zone by (Teshager, 2012) and more than (90%) of the respondents sold their
butter in Metema district, (Tesfaye, 2007) and higher than (56%) Butter was the main product
sold in the Central Rift valley (Zewdie, 2010).
Out of (83.9%) experience of selling dairy products in the studied area very few respondents (
3.4%) in the highland study area involved in selling raw milk and none of them were sold raw

51
milk in midland and lowland studied areas .This indicates that the households who participate on
the large amount of butter sale in the highland area participate more on milk sale. the reason
why not sell the raw milk in mid land and low land is Difficulty in market access ( absence of
milk collection centers),traditional beliefs, need to process, Remoteness and seasonal variation in
milk production .The same result was reported by Lemma et al. (2005) indicated that about
96.7% of the respondents in Adami Tulu and Arsi Negelle as well as about 93.3% in Lume
districts did not sell fresh milk largely due to cultural taboo and market limitation. in contrary
(78%) of the respondents in around Mekele area were sold milk in fresh form,(Negussie, 2006).

As gathered from dairy producers and other marketing agents, the dairy marketing system in the
studied areas was entirely informal. The price butter was set through negotiation between
producers and buyers and varies considerably depending upon fasting and non-fasting period.
The potential buyer of butter in the studied areas were traders (66.8%) followed by urban
consumers (27.9%), where as tea houses and hotels (5.9%) had insignificant contribution as a
potential buyer of butter in the studied area. This finding is almost similar to the study conducted
in Metema District (Tesfaye, 2007).

According to the difference butter-marketing agents and personal observation, butter is highly
traded outside of the Zone in Addis Ababa, Shashamane, Hawassa, Yirgalem, Dila, among other
towns. There are traders who are engaged in butter transaction within and out of the Zone.
Furthermore, Wolaita butter is formally processed and has brand name called Wolaita Kibe‟.The
current study is similar with studies conducted in Fogera woreda similar marketing structure
where butter produced in rural areas is Sold and consumed locally but also sold in external
markets (Addis Ababa) through a system of inerrant traders. The other thing is most of (83.3%)
of the respondents to deliver milk and milk products to market place was used by traveling on
foot, while the rest 16.1% and 0.6% were using pack animals and public transports respectively .

52
Table 20: Marketing practice of milk and milk products by household in the study district

Study districts
Type of products Damot Sore Damot Woyde Kindo Koisha Over all
N % N % N % N %
Do you sell dairy products?
Yes 59 98.3 52 86.7 40 66.7 151 83.9
No 1 1.7 8 13.3 20 33.3 20 16.1
Type of dairy product s sold
Row milk 6 10.17 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 3.36
Fermented milk 2 3.39 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.13
Butter milk 4 6.78 0 0.0 4 10 8 5.59
Butter 55 93.22 44 84.62 31 77.5 130 85.11
Cheese 16 27.12 22 42.3 10 25 48 31.47
Others 2 3.39 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.13
Who is your butter buyer
Trader 33 60 32 72.73 21 67.74 86 66.82
Tea house and hotels 5 9 1 2.27 2 6.45 8 5.9
Urban customer 17 30.9 12 27.27 8 25.81 37 27.99
Means of delivery
Traveling by foot 39 65 52 86.7 59 98.3 150 83.3
Using draft animals 20 33.3 8 13.3 1 1.7 29 16.1
Public transport 1 1.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6

N=number of households

Price of butter and distance to market milk and milk products in the study areas are presented in
(Table, 21). During the survey period, the minimum and maximum price of butter in Damot Sore
area was 90 ETB and 118 ETB per kg, respectively, Which was higher price than the two study
areas,(P<0.05). This is probably due to the area is closely to zone town may higher demand,
comfortable environment (availability of infrastructure) and number of external traders engaged
in the area and farmers sell their products in the marketplace rather than farm gate . The overall
mean price of butter in the study area was between the minimum of 85 ETB per kg and
maximum of 98.3 ETB per Kg. This is much expensive than the recent price of butter

53
(60.99±0.71) ETB in Ilu Aba Bora Zone (Teshager, 2012). In addition the current surveyed price
of butter was quite expensive than earlier reported by Ayantu (2006) in around Wolaita area.
That was 23.7 ETB in the wet season and 29.7 ETB in dry season.

Average distance to milk and milk product market centers was analyzed as an indicator of access
to market (Table 21).Dairy producers at Kindo Koisha were relatively traveled long distance
(14.99±0.46 km) to milk and milk product market .while dairy farmers in Damot Sore district
had easy access to dairy product market with a average distance of (8.99±0.42 km) followed by
dairy farmers in Damot Woyde (12.27±0.52 km) .This indicates that the three districts were
differed significantly at (P<0.05) in distance travel to milk and milk product market .The overall
average distance traveled to market milk and milk products in the study areas were 12.08±0.46
Km, and which ranged from 3.5-21km .

Table 21: Households distance to dairy products market points in the studied districts

Variables District Of the study N Mean ± SE Minimum Maximum p

Price of butter ***
Damot Sore 55 100.6±0.6a 95 118
Damot Woyde 44 85.68±0.33b 90 99
Kindo Koisha 31 68.34±0.46c 70 78
Overall mean 130 84.87±0.46 85 98.3
Distance to ***
Damote Sore 60 8.99±0.42a 3.5 16
market
Damot Woyde 60 12.27±0.52b 5 19
Kindo Koisha 60 14.99±0.46c 6 21
Overall mean 180 12.08±0.46 3.5 21
N=Number of households, SE=standard error

4.9 Major Constraints of Milk production and Marketing in the Study Areas

Dairy production and marketing in the studied area were constrained by different factors.
Producers in the studied area identified the major problems and constraints according to their

54
degree of importance as shown in Table 22, below. These include feed shortage, land shortage,
water shortage, shortage of genetically improved dairy animals, poor animal health services,
poor extension services (credit) regarding improved dairying.

4.9.1 Feed shortage

Wolaita zone is one of the populated areas in the region. Due to high population density of
farmers holding of grazing land is none or very small particularly in the highland and the
midland area of the studied districts. In addition, grazing land have been continuously taken to
croplands. This has led to overgrazing of pastures and land degradation. For these reasons, feed
shortage has become a serious problem for the dairy producer’s particularly in the dry season. As
indicated in Table 22, about 24.4% of the total respondents in the studied districts were reporting
a feed shortage as first for cattle productivity particularly in the dry season. In Bure district by
(Adebabay, 2009), 47.5 % of the respondents faced feed a shortage, which is higher than the
current study. The availability of feed resources is relatively better during the wet season. On the
other hand, there is scarcity of feed during the dry season (i.e. from January to May).

55
 Table 22, Ranks of dairy cattle production and marketing constraints by the household in the study district

Study districts %

Damote Sore Damot Woyde Kindo Koisha Over all

R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3

Feed shortage 35 38.3 13.3 38.3 21.6 15 0.0 10 30 24.43 23.3 19.4

Water shortage 0.0 3.3 16.7 18.3 28.3 11.7 30 28.3 18.3 24.15 19.96 15.6

Disease 10 11.7 16.7 6.7 26.7 13.3 43 28.3 5 19.9 22.23 11.7

Shortage of land 43.3 28.3 13.3 26.7 8.3 26.7 8.3 11.7 6.7 26.1 16.1 6.7

Lack of capital 8.3 13.3 8.3 5 5 5 1.7 1.7 3.3 5 6.7 5.5

breed improvement 1.7 3.3 6.7 3.3 1.7 0.0 8.3 10 10 4.43 5 5.6

Market access 1.7 1.7 10 1.7 5 13.3 6.7 16.7 13.3 3.4 7.8 12.2

Other 1.7 1.7 10 0.0 3.3 15 1.7 8.3 13.3 1.1 4.43 12.8

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

R1, R2and R3 are the first, second and third ranked constraints, respectively

56
4.9.2. Strategies to cope up feed shortage

Respondents faced feed shortage to their cattle and methods of alleviation are presented in
(Figure 4). Out of the total sampled respondents (66.3%) of them faced a feed shortage to their
cattle particularly in the dry season. Majority (71.8%) of the farmers used, stored feed (crop
residues) and enset leaves to alleviate feed shortage. This study revealed that farmers in midland
(86.5%) and highland (71.79%) agro ecologies were highly dependent on crop residues and enset
leaves as a means of alleviation feed shortage than the lowland (57.58% ) ,studied areas . About
(10%) of the respondents in the lowland areas were transferring their animals to neighbors kebele
near to Omo river which is found at the border of the studied district (Kindo Koisha) and
Dawro Zone ,where large communal pasture ( stand hay ) land is available. On the other hand,
out of the total respondents (18.09%) of them used multiple mechanisms such as grow improved
forages, provider of soil salt by mixing with left over from human consumptions, some
respondents were used sale of animals as a last option during feed scarce period.

86.05
90
80 71.79 71.8
Storage ,farm residue
70 57.58 (Enset leaves)
60
50
40 28.21 30.3
30 18.09 Transferring to other areas
20
13.95 12.12 10.1
10 0 0
0
Multiple responses

Figure 4: Strategies followed by households to cope up during period of feed scarcity in the
study districts

57
4.9.3 Water shortage

Out of the total respondents (24.15%) of them are ranked the water scarcity in the first major
constraints of livestock production (Table 22). According to the survey data water shortage was a
serious problem in kindo Koisha compare to the two-studied districts (Damot Sore and Damot
Woyde). Due to this reason majority of the respondents in Kindo Koisha area was ranked the
second most cattle production constraint followed by disease prevalence.

4.9.4 Major cattle disease types and method of control strategies

As Table 22, showed, about (43.3%) of the respondents in Kindo Koisha, disease was ranked
first as a major problem of cattle production in the area. This is higher than the highland (10%)
and the midland (6.7%) areas. In the studied districts the intensity and type of disease are
different.

The survey data revealed that, the occurrence of different types of animal disease in the three
study districts were ranked Based on their relative degree of importance .For instance Black leg
(30%) and Pneumonia (26.7%) were ranked as first and second major prevalent diseases in
Damot Sore area while Anthrax (26.7%) and Black leg (21.7%) were ranked the major diseases
in Damot Woyde district. Similarly, Responses by farmers indicate that Tripanosomosis
infection was the third major prevalence diseases’ in Damot Woyde (16.7%) and Damot Sore
(13.3%). By contrary the Occurrence of this disease was first highly damaging animals in Kindo
Koisha (38.3%) followed by Anthrax (25%) and Ticks (23.3%). From this study result, it is
possible to conclude that agro-ecology to the variation in the distribution and abundance of the
diseases in animals. Respondents were calling the diseases by the local name. Based on the
overall data and obtained secondary data from veterinary experts the major health problem of
cattle in the study area were Dulo (Antrax), Shihula (Tripanosomosis), Tilikia (Blackleg), Tick
and Pneumonia. In addition, other Disease was reported with minor a degree of importantance
includes; Mastitis, FMD, Liver fluke, Lungworm and Dystocia. Among the least economically
important diseases, mastitis is the major prevalence disease in milking cows that causes
decreased milk production (Table, 23)

58
In order to minimize the economic losses due to diseases, farmers were using different control
and prevention measures. The overall result showed that (Table, 23) out of the total respondents
(78.3%) were using both modern and traditional veterinary practices, very significant proportion
of the farmers (4.4%) were useing modern veterinary service only, and (17.2%) were used only
traditional medicine to treat their animals. similar results were reported for Metema district by
(Tesfaye, 2007), 17.8% of respondents were used cultural medicine to treat sick animals

As gathered from key informants, traditional treatment mostly involves plant extracts
administered differently depending on the type of disease. For instance Pneumonia was treated
by orally given extracted herbs (like godareuta, dachi marachia, chaltia, bosha and mimia) with
temusha.This kind of treatment measure was practiced in the whole studied areas. However
mostly practiced in the highland studied District .Because pneumonia was a serious problem in
the highland studied district (Table, 23). In the other hand, respondents were treated as external
parasites of cattle by practicing mixture of Butter and naphtha (Disel) while Trypanosomiasis
was treated by crushing the leaves of Tenadam, bud of Bisana and pepper mixed with water and
give orally to the animal. AS explained by the respondents Anthrax has no any traditional
treatment and it is transmitted from animals to humans by eating infected animal meat.
Respondents said that when animal death is infected with Anthrax, the only option was burning
/disposal/ of the carcass.

In addition, in whole study districts the farmers were made effort to control and treat the diseases
by vaccination and treatments in governmental and other institutions. The major reported sources
of veterinary services were government (73.9%), private (16.3%), both government and private
clinics (9.3%) and very significant proportion of farmers (0.62%) were obtained veterinary
service from NGO specially to minimize the risk of Trypanosomiasis infection in lowland study
district. Relatively, respondents that used animal health services from private clinics were higher
in the lowland study district (42.59%) than midland (3%) and none in highland district.

According to the respondents and district animal health experts reported, the main animal health
problem were lack of enough medicine for all diseased animals, less frequent animal health

59
service, remoteness of animal health centers, lack of skilled animal health technicians. In
addition, lack of budget Perdium and chemicals were also mentioned as limiting factors affect
animal health in the whole study districts. On the average Largest number of farmers (53.3%)
travel about 1to 1.5 Kms, (27.8%) of them were travel 1.6 to 3km km, (15%) of them travelled
3.1 to 5 and (3.9%) of the respondents were travelling more than 5 Kms to get an animal health
center.

60
Table 23: Rank of common cattle disease by the household in the study districts
Study districts

Type of Disease Damot Sore Demot Woyde Kindo Koisha Over all

R1 R2 R3 Index R1 R2 R3 Index R1 R2 R3 Index R1 R2 R3 Iindex

FMD 0.0 1 9 0.031 3 3 8 0.069 2 5 5 0.064 1.7 3 7.3 0.054

Liver fluke 0.0 3 11 0.047 3 5 10 0.087 0 1 10 0.031 1 3 10.3 0.055

Lung worms 3.33 0 9 0.042 1 0 3 0.018 0 0 6 0.017 1 0 6 0.026

Black leg 30 12 3 0.225 13 18 7 0.209 5 14 9 0.146 12 14.7 6.3 0.193

Anthrax 20 17 2 0.2 16 0 5 0.161 15 15 5 0.224 14.3 16.3 4 0.581

Pneumonia 26.7 3 1 0.152 5 3 0 0.063 0 1 0 0.005 7 2.3 0.3 0.073

Tick 3.33 2 12 0.061 7 10 2 0.161 14 12 3 0.193 7.6 8 5.7 0.138

Dystocia 0.0 2 1 0.014 1 3 1 0.030 0 2 6 0.028 0.33 2.3 3 0.024

Mastitis 3.33 7 10 0.083 1 3 4 0.039 0 3 2 0.022 4.3 4.3 5 0.048

Tripanosomiasis 13.3 13 2 0.144 10 15 10 0.212 23 7 12 0.266 13.7 11.7 8 0.207

Index = [3 for rank 1) + (2 for rank 2) + (1 for rank 3)] for each of the factor divided by sum of all of the factors

61
4.10 Major Opportunities for Milk Production (dairy development in the Study districts

 According to the key informants , the major opportunities for dairy cattle production in the
study areas include availability of good agro ecological zone, water sources, emphasis for
infrastructure by government, availability of cattle breeding and multiplication center,
presence of research centers, higher educational institutes, training availability, the presence
of governmental and non- governmental organizations who are involved partially in dairy
cattle improvement are good opportunity for dairy producers to access information for milk
production and use of the farm inputs. As the result, majorities of dairy producers are
accessing knowledge on dairy production improvement from other dairy producers.
 Presence of regional veterinary laboratory in the zone is also important to develop strategic
diseases control scheme especially to commonly occurring infectious diseases like anthrax,
black leg and tripanosomiasis as well as to maximize health service coverage of the area.
 The area is very densely populated in addition to rapidly growing urbanization from time to
time. This makes the dairy producers more profitable as a result of high market demand
for animal products and ever increasing the price in general the income level of households
will increase by success of market-led dairy development

 Farmers in the study area were found to have two to three main cropping seasons per year
and good habit of cropping by intercropping different crops. This is the best opportunity to
supplement their cattle’s by crop residues. In addition, implementations of forage
development practice have been started so far by the dairy development projects, and then
farmers are easily accessed to supplement their cattle’s.

 Availability of greater land holding and firing for the encroachment feeds to improve the
range land pasture in the large communal grazing lands, particularly in the lowland area
good opportunity for efficient utilization of the resource and favorable for livestock
production.
 Importation of different improved genotype breeds (Holstein and Jersey) to the area of
government is suitable to use preferable breed of cattle by the farmers and to make them
profitable.

62
 In general due to different implementations of change made in the area the farmers have
important opportunities for dairy improvement. such implementations were provided for
technical knowledge through capacity building and knowledge management, supply of
inputs (especially crossbred cows, veterinary medicines and equipments and fodder seed),
delivery of extension service: AI service, fodder development and animal health related
services and availability of credit services.

63
 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The study was assessed in Damot Sore, Damot Woyde and Kindo Koisha districts. In these study
areas, two peasant associations (PAs) were selected from each district of each Agro ecology
based on cattle potential and again from each selected PAs 30 households were selected and a
total of 180 households were used for data collection and analysis.

The overall mean family sizes of the sampled households in the study areas was 7.47±2.37, with
no differ significantly (P>0.05) in the studied districts. The average mean land holding was
1.21±0.05ha.Out of which 0.32±0.02 was allocated for grazing lands. The Area is mixed farming
production system, but dairying is not the main income source even if the butter were
predominantly marketable throughout the year. Accordingly, as reported by the majority (70%)
of dairy producers, source of incomes was from sale of crop.
The average cattle holding in the study area was 8.15±0.47 heads/HH. Snice the cattle herd
structure total numbers of cows (3.03±0.12) were higher most of which was a local breed cow
(2.64±0.12).Total numbers of oxen (1.31±0.09) in the studied districts were higher in the cattle
herd. This showed that reflection of the importance of cropping in the areas. Whereas total
number of bulls (0.98±0.07) and heifers (0.86±0.07) were considerable proportion in the cattle
herd.

In the study area majority (56.7%) of the dairy producers were using local breed cattle followed
by pair of local and Jersey cross (17.8%) and a pair of Local and Holstein cross (15%). Whereas
few respondents (1.7%), (1.1%) and 7.8% were owned only Holstein cross, Jersey cross and pair
Local and both crosses (Holstein cross and jersey cross) respectively. There were significantly
different (P<0.05) in farmers holding breed of cattle types in the study area. Large numbers of
Farmers (75%) in Kindo Koisha districts were kept only local breed cattle. Farmers owned pair
Local and jersey cross breed (20%) in Damot Woyde districts was higher. While farmers
inhabitant in Damot Sore and Kindo Koisha districts were owned comparable proportion
(16.7%), However farmers found in Damot Sore district were mainly kept pair of Holstein and
local breed cattle (31.7%). None of respondents were kept only Holstein cross and jersey cross in
Kindo Koisha. Inanition no farmers also kept only Holstein cross in Damot Woyde.

64
Dairy producers were used two types of breeding techniques. Most of the farmers (52.8%) were
used natural mating and only (12%) bred their cows with artificial insemination. The remaining
(35%) of them respondents were use both artificial insemination and natural mating. There were
also artificial insemination related problems in the area. For (38.9%) of the farmers in the study
area were due to the artificial insemination station is very far from their homestead followed by
Unwillingness of technicians and logistic problems(16.1%)and lack of information
(13.6%).Likewise about (10.3%),(7.4%),(4.8%),(7.6%) of the farmers were not used AI due to
environment disfavor to management, none effectiveness, Lack of interest (cultural believes )
and Multiple responses(lack of prefer Holstein Frisian semen, price of the service and the small
size zebu cows not bearing cross breed fetus).

The overall mean milk yield of Local, Holstein cross and Jersey cross bred cows in the study
area was 1.79±0.05 liters/day/cow), (5.7±0.21 liters) and (2.85±0.12litter/day/cow), respectively.
Average milk yield of local cow in Damot Sore district was (2.11±0.09 liters/cow/day). It was
significantly (P<0.05) higher than Damot Woyde (1.89±0.05 liters/cow/day) and Kindo Koisha
(1.38±0.02liters/cow/day) areas .Similarly average milk yield of Holstein cross cow was higher
in Damot sore (7.79±0.33 litters/cow/day) than Damot Woyde (6.3±0.25littere/day/cow) and
Kindo Koisha 3.03±0.0 litters/cow/day).Inanition the average milk yield of Jersey cross cow
was (4.06±0.19 litters/cow/day), (2.43±0.1 litters/cow/day) and (2.06±0.07 litters/cow/day) in
Damot Sore, Damot Woyde, and Kindo Koisha study districts, respectively.

Among the studied dairy cattle breeds types in the area, the longest lactation length was Holstein
cross with the overall mean of (9.63±0.34 months).in the other hand the overall lactation length
of Jersey cross cow was (8.65±0.36 months).This was shorter than the overall mean of Holstein
cross cow but it was slightly longer than lactation length of local cow (8.56±0.26 months). From
the overall data Jersey cross breed cow was the better reproductive performance that is shorter
age at first calving (35.8±1.43 months) Followed by Holstein cross (39.55±1.34months).Were as
Local cow was longer (49.29±1.13months) age at first calving. Mean calving interval of Jersey
cross cow was (14.9±0.6 months).This was shorter than the average mean calving interval of
Holstein cross (16.17±0.57months) followed by Local breed cow (18.48±0.5 months) .With
regard to weaning age of the calves, Holstein cross calves were longer weaning age (9.1±0.2

65
months) followed by Local calves (8.34±0.25 months) while Jersey cross calves (7.66±0.31
months) were shortage weaning age.
The total volume of milk production / Day /HH in the study area was (4.05±0.32littres). From
the total volume of milk produced/day/HH the largest volume of milk was (65.6%) used for
processing followed by consumed directly as fresh whole milk (34.6%), while little (2.1%)
portion of milk was used for sale. About 83.9% of the respondents in the study areas had
experience of selling milk and milk products. Among the salable dairy products, butter (85.1%)
takes first and followed by cheese (31.47%) and buttermilk (5.59%)

Farmers in the study areas used river, own well (Ella), Ponds, Pipe and spring water as major
sources of water. In the study area, (40%), of the respondents use the river as the sources of
water for cattle, though the availability drastically declines during the dry season. Nearly all the
households (93.3%) in the studied districts was kept their cattle within the family house except
for some (6.7%) of the respondents housed in separated home .This was due to lack of space to
construct separate shelter outside the main family house and fear of theft

Different types of Crop residues were used as a source of cattle feed. However, the availability
and importance of each type of crop residue varied among the studied districts .From the total
majority of the dairy producers were used a maize stalk (42.2%) and wheat straw (41.7%) .
while few proportion of respondents was used sorghum (6.1%),Teff straw (4.4%) and faba bean
straw (3.9%) .In addition to crop residue farmers were cultivated improved forage. From the
overall data most (61.7%) of the farmers were growing improved grass followed by tree
legumes’ (10%) and forage legumes (2.8%). There were also problems for growing the improved
forage in the study area such small size of land (49.1%), lack of input (19.2%) and lack of labor
(4.9%), and multiple responses (24.7%) such poor adaptability, lack of awareness and poor
quality seeds.

In general dairy producers in the studied areas were identified the major problems and
constraints of milk production and marketing according to their degree of importance .These
includes a shortage of land, availability feeds, water shortage, shortage of genetically improved
dairy animals poor animal health services, poor extension services (credit) regarding improved
dairy ,infrastructure and market access .

66
 6. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the findings of this research the following recommendations are pointed out

 Provide capacity building of AI technicians and employee, additional trained AI technicians,

allocation of credit for farmers are the key to provide the service at the kebele level.
 Farmers in the area should get Jersey semen in addition to Holstein cross semen
 Strengthen of government ranches (Wolaita cattle breeding and multiplication center)
important to sustainable supply/distribute / exotic blood breeds to the farmers

 Since shortage of land is the big challenge in the dairy producers Cultivation of improved
forage crops suitable for the different agro-ecological zones and farming systems with
accompany technologies should be encouraged. Such forages that are nutritionally superior
and yield more biomass per unit area

 Dairy cattle owners must receive basic training regarding animal disease prevention and
modern cattle management systems

 Promotion of efficient use of alternative feed sources such as silage, hay, crop and vegetable
by-products and local beverage by-products is also essential.

 The dairy producers should be organized to form cooperative/or union so that they can sell their
milk and milk product at the right place and time for optimum benefit in addition to
 There need to be milked processing plant in the study areas so that the producers and processors
get optimal benefit from these areas

67
 7. REFERANCE

Ababu Dekeba, Workneh Ayalew, P.B. Hegede and Zerihun Taddes, 2006. Performance of the
Abernosa Ranch in the Production of Ethiopian Boran X HolsteinCrossbreed Dairy
Heifers In Ethiopia. In: Ethiopian Journal of Animal Production (EJAP). 6(1), 33-55.

Aberaham H 2009. Phenotypic characteristics of Begait cattle breed and their traditional
production systems in West zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. MSc thesis, Mekelle
University, Ethiopia.

Adebaby K. 2009. Characterization of milk production system, Marketing and On-farm

evaluation of the Effect of Feed Supplement on Milk Yield and Milk Composition of
Cows at Bure district, Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis.Bahirdar University, Ethiopia, 47p

Ahmed, M.M., S.Ehui and Yemsrach Assefa, 2003. Dairy development in Ethiopia.
Socioeconomic and Policy Research working paper 58.ILRI (International Livestock
Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya, 47p.

Alemu G/Wold. 1998. Role of draft oxen power in Ethiopian agriculture. In: First national oxen
Traction research review and strategy workshop organized by the Ethiopian Agricultural
Research Organization, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and ILRI (International Livestock
Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya, 3–5 December 1997. pp. 9–15

Anteneh, 2008 Dairy services delivery in Debrezeit milk shed of ada’a district, central
Ethiopia: analyzing options to develop pluralistic service delivery in the dairy
Sector.Msc.Thesis. Haramaya University, Ethiopia

Asaminew Tassew 2007. Production, Handling, Traditional Processing Practices And Quality
Of Milk In Bahir Dar Milk Shed Area, Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis. Haramaya University,
Ethiopia.

68
Asfaw Negassa, 2009. Improving smallholder farmers’ marketed supply and market access for
dairy products in Arsi Zone, Ethiopia. Research Repo5. Summary and Conclusion RT
21. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). Nairobi, Kenya.

Asheber Sewalem, 1992. Evaluation of the reproductive and pre-weaning growth performance
of Fogera and their F1 Fresian crosses at Andassa cattle breeding station, Ethiopia.
M.Sc. Thesis. Alemaya University, Ethiopia.

Asrat A, Zelalem Y and Ajenu N 2012 Quality of fresh whole milk produced in and around
Boditti town, Wolaita, South Ethiopia. African Journal of Animal and Biomedical
Sciences,
Ayantu Mekonnen, 2006. Women’s role in production, processing and marketing of milk and
Milk products in Delbo watershed of Wolayta Zone, Ethiopia. MSc thesis. Awassa
College of Agriculture, School of Graduate Studies, Hawassa University, Awassa,
Ethiopia.

Azage Tegegne and Alemu G. 1998. Prospects for peri-urban dairy development in Ethiopia.In:
Fifth national conference of ESAP (Ethiopian Society of Animal Production). ESAP
AddisAbaba, Ethiop.

Azage Tegegne, Tsehay Reda, Alemu Gebrewold and Hizkias Ketema, 2000, Milk Recording
and Herd Registration; in Ethiopia In: Pastoral and Agropastoralism: Which way
forward Proceedings of the 8th annual conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal
Production. (ESAP) held in Addis Ababa, 24-26 August 2000, Addis Ababa. P90

Azage Tegegne. 2001. Milk recording and herd registration in Ethiopia: an essential step
towards Genetic improvement for milk production. In: Proceeding of the eighth Annual
Conference of the ESAP, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 90-104PP

Belay Duguma, Azage Tegene and B.P.Hegde, 2012. Smallholder Livestock Production
System in Dandi District, Oromia Regional State, Central Ethiopia.

69
Belay Duguma, Yisehak Kechero and G.P.J. Janssen’s, 2012.Productive and Reproductive
Performance of Zebu X Holstein-Friesian Crossbred Dairy Cows in Jimma Town,
Oromia, Ethiopia

Behnke, Roy. “The Contribution of Livestock to the Economies of IGAD Member States
Study. Findings, Application of the Methodology in Ethiopia and Recommendations for
Further Work.” Odessa Centre, Great Wolford, United Kingdom, October 2010.

Belete Anteneh, 2006. Studies on cattle, milk and meat production in Fogera district:
Production systems, constraints and opportunities for development. M.Sc. Thesis.
University of Hawassa, Awassa, Ethiopia, P79

BoFED (Bureau of Finance and Economic Development), 2006.Development indicators of

Amhara region. Fourth Ed. Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.

Berhanu Gebremedhin, Fernandez-Rivera S., Mohammed Hassena, Mwangi W., Seid Ahmed,
2007. Maize and livestock: Their inter-linked roles in meeting human BoANRD (Bureau
of Agriculture and Natural Resources Development), 1997. Tigray
Bereda A, Yilma Z and Nurfeta A 2012 Hygienic and microbial quality of raw whole cow’s
milk Produced in Ezha district of the Gurage zone, Southern Ethiopia. Wudpecker
Journal of Agricultural Research, Vol. 1(11), 459 PP.

Beyene, F. 1994, Present situation and future aspects of milk production, milk handling and
Processing of dairy products in Southern Ethiopia. PhD thesis. Agricultural University
of Norway, Ås, Norway.

Brokken Ray, F. and Senait Seyoum. 1992. Dairy marketing in sub-Saharan Africa. In:
Proceedings of a symposium held at ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 26-30 November
1990. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

70
 CACC 2003 Central Agricultural Census Commission. Ethiopian Agricultural sample
Enumeration, 2001/02. Results of country level: Statistical Report on socio-economic
Characteristics of the population in agricultural household, land use, area and production
of Crops. Part I. (July 2003), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Coppock, D.L. 1994. The Borana Plateau of Southern Ethiopia, Synopsis of Pastoral Research,
Development and Change (1980-1991). International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia

CSA (Central Statistical Agency) 2006 Agricultural sample survey of livestock and livestock
Characteristics of 2006/07. Statistical Bulletin 388. Volume II, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
CSA (Central Statistical Authority), 2007. Summary and statistical report of 2007 population and

Housing census. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia population and census

commission.P29

CSA (Central Statistics Authority). 2008. Agricultural sample survey 2008/09. Report on
livestock and livestock characteristics. Statistical bulletin 446, volume2. Federal
Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency, Addis Ababa, Development
Board), Anand, India, and ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi,
Kenya.

CSA (Central Statistical Authority). 2012. Federal democratic republic of Ethiopia, central
statics agency, agricultural sample survey: report of livestock and livestock characteristics.
Volume ii. March 2012, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Daniel Tewodros, 2008. Beef cattle production system and opportunities for market orientation
In Borena Zone, Southern Ethiopia. MSc thesis. Haramaya College of Agriculture, School
of Graduate Studies, Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia.

Dessalegn Rahmato (2007). Development Interventions in Wollaita, 1960s-2000s: A Critical

Review. Addis Ababa: Forum for Social Studies

71
De Vries, A., Steenholdt, C., & Risco, C. A. (2005). Pregnancy rates and milk production in
Natural service and artificially inseminated dairy herds in Florida and Georgia. Journal
of dairy science, 88(3), 948-956.

DWARD (Damote weyde Woreda Office of Agriculture and Rural Development), 2011 Annual
Report of Damotweydie Woreda, SNNPRS

EARO. 2001. Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO) 2001. 1. Background paper
on developing animal breeding policy working paper. January, 2001, 21pp

EARO (Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization) 2001. 2. Livestock breeding policy. A

Working paper. January 2001. 14p

Endrias Geta, 2003. Adoption of improved sweet potato varieties in Boloso sore Woreda, southern Ethiopia: A
Thesis Presented to The School of Graduate Studies Alemaya University.

Enyew, N., 1992. Reproductive performance of local and crossbred dairy cattle at the Asella
Livestock farm. MSc. Thesis Alemaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia. 58p

Exxun, 2008. Economy overview. http:/www.exxun.co /Ethiopia/e-ec.html. Retrieved on22

Sept2008
Eyasu Elias. 2003, Case Studies on Genetic Diversity, Coffee and Soil Erosion in Ethiopia
Paper prepared for the Roles of Agriculture International Conference 20-22 October,
2003 – Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2003. Production yearbook.
FAO,Rome, Italy. 233 pp.

Felleke, G. and Geda, G., 2001. The Ethiopian dairy development policy: A draft policy
document. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Ministry of Agriculture/ AFRDRD/AFRDT. Food and
Agriculture Organization/SSFF. 105p

72
Fisseha, 2009 Studies on production and marketing systems of local chicken ecotypes in Bure
Woreda, north-west amhara m.sc. Thesis Hawassa University, awassa, Ethiopia

Gabriel HK, et al,. (1983). Crossbred dairy cattle productivity in Arsi Region, Ethiopia. ILCA
Research Report No. 11

Gashaw Geda (1992). Assessment of the feed resource base and performance of crossbred dairy
Cows distributed to smallholder in the Selale dairy development project area. M. Sc
Thesis, Alemaya University of Agriculture, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia.

GebreEgziabher Gebre Yohannes, Tesfay Kumsa, Alganesh Tola and Chernet Asfaw. 2000.
Effect of suckling on calf preweaning growth and cow reproduction Horro and crossbred
cows. In: Proceedings of the seventh Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of
Animal Production (ESAP) held in 26 - 27 May 1999, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Getachew, A., Hailu, B., Werkneh, N. and Gezahegn, A., 1993. A survey of farming systems of
vertisol areas of the Ethiopian highlands. PP.29-49. in: Improved Management of
Vertisols. For Sustainable Crop-livestock Production in the Ethiopian Highlands:
Synthesis report. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Gebrewold A, Alemayehu M, Demeke S, Bediye S and Tadesse A 1998 Status of dairy research.
In Ethiopia. In the role of village dairy co-operatives in dairy development. Smallholder
Dairy Development Project (SDDP) proceeding, Ministry of Agriculture (MOA). Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia

Getachew Feleke and Gashaw Geda, 2001, The Ethiopian Dairy Development Policy document.

Getachew Felleke, 2003.A Review of small-scale milk sector in Ethiopia.FAO prevention of

food losses A Review of the small-scale milk sector in Ethiopia. FAO Prevention of food
losses program. Milk and milk products, post-harvest losses and food safety in Sub-
sahranAfricaNearEast.Availableon:http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/projects/en/pf1/docs/P
1assessmentcoverethiopia.pdf.

73
Gidey, 2001. Assessment of calf crop productivity and total herd life of fogera cows at Andassa
Ranch in North Western Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Alemaya University, Ethiopia.

Gifawosen Tessema, Alemu G/Wold and Jayaparakash, 2003. Study on Reproductive

Efficiency of Boran and its Crosses at Holetta Research Farm: Effect of genotype,
Management and environment. In: Ethiopian Journal of Animal Production (EJAP).
Volume: 3 Numbers: 1 2003 ISSN: 1607-3835

Gizachews Bayeleyegn. 2007. Major animal health problems in market oriented Livestock
Development in Metema Woreda. DVM Thesis. Addis Ababa University Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.

GoE, 2007. The Livestock Master Plan Study Report. Addis Ababa.

Gizachew Geteneh, 2005. Dairy Marketing Patterns and Efficiency: The Case of Ada’ Liben
District, eastern Oromia. M.Sc. Thesis presented to Alemaya University, Ethiopia.

Habtemariam Assefa 2010. Agricultural Knowledge Management: the Case of Dairy Production
Improvement in Bure Woreda, West Gojjam Zone, Amhara Region. M.Sc. Thesis.
University of Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.22pp

Hailemariam, M. 1994. Genetic analysis of Boran, Friesian and crossbred cattle in Ethiopia. A
PhD thesis submitted to the Swedish university of agricultural sciences, department of
Animal breeding and genetics, Sweden

Hizkias, K. and Tsehay, R., 1995. Dairy production systems in Ethiopia. In: Proceedings of a
Workshop entitled Strategies for Market Orientation of Small Scale Milk Producers and
Their Organizations. 20-24 March 1995, Morogoro, Tanzania.

Holloway, G., C. Nicholson, C. Delgado, S. Staal and S. Ehui, 2000. Agro-industrialization

through Institutional Innovation Transaction Costs, Cooperatives and Milk-market
Development in the Eastern African Highlands. Agricultural Economics. 23: 279-288

IAR (Institute of Agricultural research), 1991. Results of cattle crossbreeding program in the
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

74
Ibrahim, H. and E. Olaloku, 2002. Improving cattle for milk, meat and traction. ILRI, Manual 4.
ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. P135. Ike A., 2002.
Urban dairying in Awassa, Ethiopia. MSc thesis, University of Stuttgart-Hohenheim,
Germany. 113p

Ike A., 2002. Urban dairying in Awassa, Ethiopia. MSc thesis, University of Hohenheim,
Stuttgart-Hohenheim, Germany. 113p

ILCA, International Livestock Center for Africa, 1990Livestock system research manual
Working paper 1.Volume 1. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. p 287.

IPS, international Project Service, 2000. Resource potential assessment and project,
Identification study of the Somalia Region: Socio-economic assessment. Investment
Office of the Somalia regional state. Research Report. Vol.III. Somalia, Ethiopia. 351p.

Jabbar M., T. Emmanuael and M,Gary, 1997. A methodology for characterizing dairy marketing
Systems: Market oriented smallholder dairying research. Working document No 3. ILRI
(International Livestock Research Institute). ILRI, Addis Ababa. Ethiopia. 62

Kebreab, E., T.Smith, J.Tanner and P.Osuji., 2005. Review of under nutrition in smallholder
Ruminant production system in the tropics. In coping with feed scarcity in smallholder
Livestock systems in developing countries, International Livestock Research Institute
Nairobi, Kenya. PP. 3-95.

Kedija Hussen, 2007. Characterization of Milk Production System and Opportunity for Mark
Orientation: A case study of Meiso District, Oromia Region, Ethiopia. MSc thesis,
Haramaya University, Ethiopia.
Kefena Effa, Zewdie Wondatir, Tadelle Dessie and Aynalem Haile, 2011 Genetic and
Environmental trends in the long-term dairy cattle genetic improvement programmes in
The Central tropical highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of Cell and Animal Biology 5(6): 96-
104.

75
Kiwuwa, G. H., J.C. Trial., M.Y. Kurtu., F.M. Anderson and J. Durkin, 1983. Cross breed dairy
Cattle production, Ethiopia, ILCA, and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. ILCA Research Report
No 11. Arsi Rural Development Unit, Assela, Ethiopia.

Ketema Hizkias. 2000. Dairy development in Ethiopia. In: The role of village dairy co-
Operatives in dairy development. SDDP (Smallholder Dairy Development Project)
Proceedings, MOA (Ministry of Agriculture), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ketema, H. and Tsehay, R. (1995). Dairy production system in Ethiopia. Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the United Nations Rome Sokoine University of Agriculture.
Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Morogoro Hotel, Morogoro Tanzania, 20 - 24th
March, 1995.

Kuastros, M. (2007): Major animal health problems of market oriented livestock development in
Alaba Woreda, Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Region, DVM thesis,
Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Addis Ababa University, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia.

Kurtu, M.Y., 2003. Certain aspects of the dairy system in the Harar milk shed, Eastern Ethiopia.
Ph.D Thesis dissertation submitted to University of the Free State, Bloemfontein,
Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal, wildlife and
Grassland Sciences. South Africa. P195.

KWAR (Kindo Koisha Woreda Office of Agriculture and Rural Development), 2011 Annual Report of
Kindo koisha, SNNPRS

Lemma Fita, Fikadu Beyene and P.B. Hegede. 2005. Rural smallholders Milk and Dairy
products. Production, utilization and Marketing systems in East Shoa Zone of Oromia. In:
Proceedings of the 12th Annual conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal
Production (ESAP) held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, August 12-14, 2004. ESAP, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.pp29-37.

76
MEDAC Agricultural Development Department, Muriuki, H.G.and W. Thorpe, 2001.
Smallholder dairy production and marketing in Eastern and Southern Africa. In the
Proceedings of the South. South Workshop on Smallholder Dairy Production and
Marketing. Constraints and Opportunities. March 12 .16. Ann and, India

MillionTadesse and Tadelle Dessie. 2003. Milk production performance of Zebu, Holstein
Friesian and their crosses in Ethiopia, Livestock research in rural Development, Ethiopia.
(http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd)

MoARD Livestock Master Plan Study Phase I Report, Volume T – Sociological Aspects, 2007
Mogessie Ashenafi. 2002. The microbiology of Ethiopian foods and beverages: A
Review SINET:Ethiopian Journal of Science 25(1):100–140.

Mohamed, A.M., Ahmed, Simeon Ehui and Yemesrach Assefa, 2004. Dairy Development. In
Ethiopia. EPTD Discussion Paper No. 123. International Food Policy Research Institute,
NW Washington, D.C, U.S.A. Holloway G., C., Nicholson, C.

Mukasa-Mugerwa, E., 1989.A review of reproductive performance of Boss indicus Cattle. ILCA
Monograph No.6, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia O’Connor, C.B. 1995. Rural Dairy Technology.
ILRI Training Manual 1, International. Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.

Mulugeta Assefa, 1990. Borena cattle herds: Productivity, constraints, and possible
Interventions. MSc Thesis, Department of Range Science, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. p154.

Mulugeta Kebede, Tesfaye Kumsa and Gebre Egziabher Gebre Yohannes. 1993. Some
Productive and reproductive performances of Horro cattle at Bako Research Centre. In:
Proceedings of the fourth National Livestock Improvement Conference. 13-15 November
1991. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp78.

Mulugeta, A., and Belayeneh, A., 2013, Reproductive and lactation performances of dairy cows
In Chacha Town and nearby selected kebeles, north Shoa zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia.
World J. A

77
Mulugeta, K., Tesfaye, K., and Gebre-Egziabher, G., 1991. Some productive and reproductive
Performance of Horro cattle at Bako Research Centre. PP.78-82. Proceedings of the
fourth National Livestock Improvement Conference. 13-15. Nov. 1991, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.

Mulugeta kebede, Tesfaye Kumsa and Gebre Egziabher Gebre Yohannes. 1993. SomeProductive
and reproductive performances of Horro cattle at Bako Research Centre. In: Proceedings
of the fourth National Livestock Improvement Conference. 13 – 15 November 1991.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp78.

Muriuki, H.G. and W. Thorpe. 2002. Smallholder dairy production and marketing in eastern and
Southern Africa: Regional synthesis. In: Proceedings of a South–South workshop held at
NDDB, An and, India, 13–16 March 2001. NDDB (National Dairy Development Board),
Anand, India, and ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi,
Kenya.538pp
Negussie Gebreselassie. 2006. Characterization and evaluation of urban dairy production system
Of Mekelle city, Tigray Region, Ethiopia. M.Sc. thesis, Hawassa University. Awassa,
Ethiopia.

Nebiyu R 2008 Traditional and improved milk and milk products handling practices and
Compositional and microbial quality of milk and buttermilk in Delbo watershed of
Wolaita Zone, Ethiopia. MSc. Thesis. Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia.

Negussie E, Brannang,E, Banjaw K and Rottmann O U 1998 Reproductive performance of dairy

Cattle on Assella livestock farm. Arsi. Ethiopia. I: Indigenous cows versus their F1
crosses. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 115: 267-280

Ngongoni, N T. C Mapiye, M Mwale and B Mupeta, 2006 Factors affecting milk production in
the Smallholder dairy sector of Zimbabwe.

Omar, F. 2008. Productive and reproductive performance of crossbred and indigenous dairy
cows Under rural conditions in Camilla, Bangladesh Univ. j. zool. Rajshahi Univ. Vol.
26, 2007. Pp.67-70

78
Perera, O., 1999. Management of reproduction. 241-264pp. In: small holder dairying in the
Tropics. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. p 462

Place, F., J. Njuki, F. Murithi and F. Mugo, 2003. Agricultural land management in the highlands
of. Kenya. 90-95pp. In: Policy for sustainable land management in the East Africa
highland: Summary of papers and proceeding of a conference held at the United Nations
Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, And 24-26 April
2002. Socio economics and Policy Research Working Paper 50. ILRI Nairobi, Kenya.

Peters A R 1984 Reproductive activity of a cow in a postpartum period: Factors affecting the
length of the postpartum cyclic period. British Veterinary Journal 140: 76-83.

Scarpa R, Drucker A G, Anderson S, Ferraes-Ehuan N, Gómez V, Risopatrón C R and Rubio-

Leonel O 2003 valuing genetic resources in peasant economies: the case of 'hairless'
Creole Pigs in Yucatan. Ecological Economics, 45: 427-443.

Sere, C., H. Feld and G. Jan, 1996. Pastoralists an overview of practice, processes, and policy.
Vol 127. FAO. (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nation). Italy, Rome. p82.

Sethumadhavan. T. P., 2004. Sustainable milk farming: An overview. New Delhi, India.

Sintayehu Yigrem Mersha. 2007. Dairy production, processing and marketing systems of
Shashemene–Dilla area, South Ethiopia. MSc thesis. Awassa College of Agriculture,
School of Graduate Studies, Hawassa University, Awassa, Ethiopia.

Some Basic Information on Southern Peoples of Ethiopia n (http://sepdc.com/Comment.html)

SPSS (Statistical Procedures for Social Sciences) 2007. SPSS (Version 16). Statistical
Procedures for Social Sciences (SPSS) INC. Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Syrstad, O. and Ruane, J., 1998. Prospects and strategies for genetic improvement of the dairy
Potential of tropical cattle by selection. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 30
(1998):257-268.

Tedonkeng Pamo, E. and D. Pieper Rex. 2000. Introduction to range Management in free and
Open access environments of Sub-Saharan Africa. The Netherlands

79
Tesfaye, A. 1990. Livestock development in the peasant sector of highland of Ethiopia: Some
Policy issues and implications. In: African Livestock Policy Analysis Network (ALPAN),
Network paper No 24, June, 1990, ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Tesfaye Kumsa. 1991. Livestock system of the western region of Ethiopia. IAR Research Report
12. JAR, Addis Ababa. pp. 10-12.

Tesfaye, M., 2007. Characterization of cattle milk and meat production, processing and
marketing system in Metema district, Ethiopia. MSc. Thesis, Hawassa University,
Awassa, Ethiopia.
Teshager Ayalew, 2012. Characterization of cattle production and marketing system in Ilu Aba
Bora zone, south western Ethiopia. M.Sc. thesis presented to Jimma University, Jimma,
Ethiopia
Tolera A, 2009 Livestock feed supply situation in Ethiopia. Commercialization of Livestock
Agriculture in Ethiopia: Proceedings of the 16th annual conference of the Ethiopian
Society of Animal Production (ESAP) held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, October 8 -10,
2008. Part I:

Topps, J. H and Oliver, J., 1993. Animal foods of Central Africa. Zimbabwe Agricultural
Journal, Technical Handbook, No. 2. Zimbabwe, Harare. 154p
Tsedeke, K., 2007. Production and marketing system of sheep and goat in Alaba, southern
Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Hawasa University, Awassa, Ethiopia

Tsehay, R., 2002. Small-scale milk marketing and processing in Ethiopia. PP.352 367.In:
Smallholder dairy production and market opportunity and constraints. Proceeding of
Asouth-south workshop held at NDDB, Anand, India, and 13-16 march 2001. NDDB
(National Dairy Development Board), Anand, India, and ILRI (International Livestock
Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.

Woldemichael Somano, 2008. Milk marketing chain analysis: The Case of Shashemane,
Hawassa and Dale district’s milk shed, Southern Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis. Hawassa
University, Ethiopia.

80
Workneh Ayalew and Rowlands J. 2004. Design, execution and analysis of the livestock breed
Survey in Oromia regional State, Ethiopia. OADB (Oromia Agricultural Development

Bureau), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi,
Kenya. 260 pp.

Yayneshet Tesfaye, 2010. Feed resources availability in Tigray region, northern Ethiopia, for
Production of export quality meat and livestock. PhD, Mekelle University, Ethiopia.P 35-37

Yeshitila, A., 2008. Efficiency of livestock feed resources utilization and forage development in
Alaba Woreda, Southern Ethiopia. MSc. Thesis, Haramaya University, Dire Dawa
Ethiopia. 128p

Yigrem S, Beyene F, Tegegne A and Gebremedhin B 2008 Dairy production, processing and
Marketing systems of Shashemene-Dilla area, South Ethiopia.

Yitaye, A., M. Wurziger, T. Azage and W. Zollitsch, (Zebu) cattle. ILCA Monograph No. 6.
International 2007. Urban and peri-urban farming system and Livestock Center for
Africa, Addis Ababa, utilization of the natural resources in the northwestern Ethiopia.

Zegeye Yigezu, 2003. Challenges and opportunities of livestock marketing in Ethiopia. In:
Proceeding of the 10th Annual Conference of Ethiopian Society of Animal Production
(ESAP) 22-24 August 2002. ESAP, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 47-54 pp.

Zelalem Yilma and Faye B. 2006. Handling and microbial load of cow’s milk and Irgo
fermented milk Collected from different shops and producers in the central Highlands of
Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Animal Production 6(2):7–82.

Zelalem Yilma, Yohannse Gojjam and M. Shumye. 2006. Milk production level and Calf
rearing system-affecting Boran, Ethiopian zebu cattle breed, cow-calf Performance.
Livestock research for rural development research for rural, Ethiopia.
(http://www.cipav.org.co/lrr

Zewdie Wondatir. 2010. Livestock Production Systems in relation to the Feed availability in the
Highlands and Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. MSc Thesis Haramaya University,
Ethiopia.

81
 8. APPENDICES

8.1. Appendix I. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and other tables

Appendix Table 1.ANOVA test on family size per household between the study districts

Source of variation SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 1.478 2 .739 .131 ns

Error 1001.383 177 5.658

Total 1002.861 179

SS= Sum of Squares, Ms= Mean Square, Sig. = Significant value, ns=non significance
*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

Appendix Table 2: ANOVA test type of breed cows in the cattle herd structure in the study
districts
Parameters Source of variation SS DF MS F Sig

Total cow Agro ecology 238.044 2 119.022 73.451 ***

Error 286.817 177 1.620

Total 524.861 179

Local cow Agro ecology 256.078 2 128.039 97.196 ***

Error 233.167 177 1.317
Total 489.244 179
Holstein cross cow Agro ecology 2.233 2 1.117 7.398 ***
Error 26.717 177 .151
Total 28.950 179
Jersey cross cow Agro ecology .144 2 .072 .281 ns
SS= Sum of Squares, Ms= Mean Square, Sig. = Significant value; ns=non significance; *p<0.05;
**p<0.01; ***p<0.001

82
Appendix Table 3: ANOVA test on landholdings of households in the study district
Source of variation SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 50.787 2 25.393 127.935 ***

Error 35.132 177 .198
Total 85.919 179

SS= Sum of Squares, Ms= Mean Square, Sig. = Significant value; *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

Appendix Table 4: ANOVA test type of breeding bull herd in the study districts
Parameters Source of variation

SS DF MS F Sig

Total bull Agro ecology 13.733 2 6.867 8.858 ***

Error 137.217 177 .775
Total 150.950 179
Local bull Agro ecology 11.00
22.011 2 16.292 ***
6
Error 119.567 177 .676
Total 141.578 179
Holstein cross bull Agro ecology .811 2 .406 5.418 **
Error 13.250 177 .075
Total 14.061 179
Jersey cross bull Agro ecology .100 2 .050 .440 ns
Error 20.100 177 .114
Total 20.200 179
SS= Sum of Squares, Ms= Mean Square, Sig. = Significant value; ns=non significance; *p<0.05;
**p<0.01; ***p<0.001

83
Appendix Table 5 .ANOVA test type of cattle Breeds kept by the respondent households

study districts Total P-

value
Damot sore Damot woyde Kindo koisha

Variables N P N P N P N P

Type of cattle breed in HH ***

Local breed 21 35 a 36 60 b 45 75 b 102 56.7

Local and jersey cross 10 16.7 12 20 10 16.7 32 17.8

Local and Holstein cross 19a 31.7 6b 10 2b 3.3 27b 15

Jersey cross 1 1.7 1 1.7 0 0.0 2 1.1

Holstein cross 3 5 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.7

Local and both crosses 6 10 5 8.3 3 5 14 7.8

N= number of household, P=percent. = Significant value at *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

Appendix Table 6: ANOVA test on landholdings of the study districts

Source of variation SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 50.787 2 25.393 127.935 ***

Error 35.132 177 .198
Total 85.919 179
SS= Sum of Squares, Ms= Mean Square, Sig. = Significant value; *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

84
Appendix Table 7: ANOVA test type of breeding techniques of households in the study districts
Source of variation SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 5.544 2 2.772 3.343 *

Error 146.767 177 .829

Total 152.311 179

SS= Sum of Squares, Ms= Mean Square, Sig. = Significant value; *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

Appendix Table 8: ANOVA test major AI service related problems in the study districts
Source of variation SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 4.844 2 2.422 .423 ns

Error 1014.733 177 5.733

Total 1019.578 179

SS= Sum of Squares, Ms= Mean Square, Sig. = Significant value; ns=non significance

Appendix Table 9: ANOVA test total milk production per day per household in the study
districts

Source of variation SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 8.829 2 4.415 .675 ns

Error 1157.107 177 6.537

Total 1165.936 179

SS= Sum of Squares, Ms= Mean Squared; Sig. = Significant value, ns=non significance

85
Appendix Table 10: ANOVA test on Productive and Reproductive (daily milk yield, lactation
length, age at first calving, calving interval and weaning age) performances of the local cow in
the study districts.

Parameters Source of Sum of Mean

variation Squares df Square F Sig.

DMY Agro ecology 10.202 2 5.101 25.581 ***.

Error 35.295 177 .199
Total 45.497 179
LL Agro ecology 94.786 2 47.393 9.948 ***
Error 843.225 177 4.764
Total 938.011 179
AFC Agro ecology 2640.667 2 1320.333 14.344 ***
Error 16292.863 177 92.050
Total 18933.530 179
CI Agro ecology 835.260 2 417.630 25.485 ***
Error 2900.560 177 16.387
Total 3735.819 179
WA Agro ecology 32.875 2 16.437 4.017 *
Error 724.251 177 4.092
Total 757.125 179
SS= Sum of Squares, Ms= Mean Square, Sig. = Significant value; *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

86
Appendix Table 11: ANOVA test on Productive and Reproductive (daily milk yield, lactation
length, age at first calving, calving interval and) performance of the Holstein cross cow in the
study districts.

Parameters Source of Sum of Mean

variation Squares df Square F Sig.

DMY Agro ecology 20.150 2 10.075 2.876 *

Error 620.001 177 3.503
Total 640.151 179
LL Agro ecology 30.014 2 15.007 1.940 ns
Error 1369.099 177 7.735
Total 1399.113 179
AFC Agro ecology 231.920 2 115.960 1.058 ns
Error 19396.001 177 109.582
Total 19627.921 179
CI Agro ecology 44.852 2 22.426 1.137 ns
Error 3490.856 177 19.722
Total 3535.708 179
WA Agro ecology 20.520 2 10.260 1.591 ns
Error 1141.552 177 6.449
Total 1162.072 179
SS= Sum of Squares, Ms= Mean Square, Sig. = Significant value; ns=non significance; *p<0.05;
**p<0.01; ***p<0.001

87
Appendix Table 12: ANOVA test on reproductive performances (lactation length, age at first
calving, calving interval and milk produced per cow per day) of the Jersey cross cow in the study
districts

Parameters Source of Sum of Mean

variation Squares df Square F Sig.

DMY Agro ecology 6.619 2 3.309 3.216 *

Error 182.150 177 1.029
Total 188.769 179
LL Agro ecology 23.869 2 11.934 1.498 ns
Error 1410.091 177 7.967
Total 1433.959 179
AFC Agro ecology 28.880 2 14.440 .117 ns
Error 21881.723 177 123.626
Total 21910.603 179
CI Agro ecology 7.490 2 3.745 .175 ns
Error 3793.195 177 21.430
Total 3800.685 179
WA Agro ecology 14.067 2 7.034 1.150 ns
Error 1082.251 177 6.114
Total 1096.318 179
SS= Sum of Squares, Ms= Mean Square, Sig. = Significant value; ns=non significance; *p<0.05;
**p<0.01; ***p<0.001

88
 Appendix Table 13: ANOVA milk utilization pattern among the study districts

Parameters Source of
variation SS DF MS F Sig.

Volume of milk use for Agro ecology

home consumption 40.324 2 20.162 6.988 ***

Error 510.676 177 2.885

Total 551.000 179
Volume of milk use for Agro ecology
processing 35.029 2 17.515 3.748 *

Error 827.204 177 4.673

Total 862.233 179
Volume of milk use for sale Agro ecology 1.454 2 .727 .919 ns
Error 140.046 177 .791
Total 141.500 179

SS= Sum of Squares, Ms= Mean Square, ns=non significance *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

Appendix Table 14: ANOVA test on average distance travelled to search water in Km in
the study areas.

Source of variation SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 11.911 2 5.956 14.830 ***

Error 71.083 177 .402

Total 82.994 179

SS= Sum of Squares, Ms= Mean Square, Sig. = Significant value; *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001

89
Appendix Table 15: ANOVA test on average distance to health clinic in Km in the study areas
Source of variation SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 47.244 2 23.622 48.087 ***

Error 86.950 177 .491

Total 134.194 179

SS=Sum of Squares, Ms=Mean Square, Sig. = Significant value,*p<0.05;**p<0.01;***p<0.001

Appendix Table 16: ANOVA test animal health service used by the HHs in the study areas

Source of variation SS DF MS F Sig.

Agro ecology 2.344 2 1.172 2.026 ns

Error 102.433 177 .579

Total 104.778 179

SS=Sum of squared, DF=degree of freedom, MS = mean square, Sig=significance value,

ns=non significance

90
QUESTIONNAIRE –DAIRY CATTLE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING SYSTEMS
IN SELECTED DISTRICTS OF WOLAITA ZONE, SOUTHERN NATIONS,
NATIONALITIES, AND PEOPLES REGIONAL, STATE ETHIOPIA.

Enumerator’s name _____________________ Respondent name _______________

Respondent name number ____________________Region _____________________

District _______________________ Keble ______________________

Date interviewed _____Time of interview started ______ Time of interview end____

I. House hold characteristics

1) Respondent’s Status in family: 1. Head 2. Wife 3. Son 4. Daughter 5. Others__________

2) Who is the head of the households /family? 1. Male 2. Female

3) Age of head of household ___________________ Years

4) Education of the head of household:

1. No formal 2 .Adult literacy 3. Primary 4. Secondary 5. Beyond secondary

5) Religion of head of the household: 1 .Orthodox 2. Muslim 3. Catholic 5.protistant 4. Other

6) Ethnic group of head of the household: ____________________________

7). Family Size

No of members in the household

Age group(years) Male Female Total
>60
16-60
6-15
<6

91
8) Who participates in the activities in the dairy farming with regards to?

1.Father
2.Mother
Activities 3.Daughter
4.Son
Milking and processing
Milk and product marketing
Herding
Feed collection
Watering

9). what kind of agricultural activities are you undertaking?

1. Crop and livestock 2. Only livestock production 3. Crop only

10) Which part of your agricultural activity contributes most of the family income?

1. Crop Production 2. Live stock production 3. If others specify_______________

11. is there farmers’ association and are you a member?

1. There is and I am a member 2. There is but I am not 3. There is none

12. If you are a member what benefits do you get? 1. Credit Service 2. Input Supply 3. If others

13. Did u have access to credit for dairy production purpose? 1. Yes 2. No

14. If yes, from where did you get the credit? (Multiple responses is possible)

1. Omo microfinance 2. Individuals 3. NGOs 4. Credit

5. Cooperatives and saving association 6. Other (specify)

15. In what way does credit help in developing the dairy sector?

16. What is the background of the owner or the head of the household?

92
 1. Farmer 2. Business person 3. Government employee 4. Retired personnel 5. Other

17. When did you start the dairy farming? 1. A year ago, 2. A month ago, 3. A few weeks ago

18. How do you get information on dairying most of the time?

1. Radio 2. Newspaper 3. From farmer’s association 4. From extension agents, 5. None

19. What are your reasons for doing dairy production?

1. To increase the household income

2. To safeguard the family against risk such as drought

\3. To use the animal products as the source of food

II. Herd Structure

20) Major purpose of keeping animals?

1. for milk purpose 2. For meat purpose 3. For traction 4. For all above purposes

21) How many of each of the following cattle do you have in your herd?

Type of breed
No Cattle group Local Holstein cross Jersey cross Exotic
1 Milking cow s
2 Dry cows
3 Heifer
4 M
Calves F
5 Oxen/sterile
6 Cow
7 Bull
8 Others

93
20. How much land do you have under control in hectares?

NO Descriptions Owned Rented Total

1 Area under crops
2 Area under pasture
3 Perennials
4 Others

III. Housing

23) Do you have an experience of housing your dairy animals? 1. Yes 2. No

24) If yes, what type of housing system?

1. Simply crashes 2. Open with roof on the top only 3. I keep the animals with the people
residence 4. I tethered at the yard 5. Others please specify _________________

25) If no, why you don’t use house for the dairy animals?

1. They are great in number 2. We don’t have stationary place 3. If they acclimatize the outside
environment, they became strong enough4. If others please specify _______________

26) Do you have a selection of species for housing? 1. Yes 2. No

25) If yes, what are the species privileged (Advantage) for housing? 1. Cattle 2. Sheep 3.
Goat 4.Equines 5. If others specify Rank them with priority: 1.__ 2. ___3.__ 4._ 5.______

27) Do you have an experience of age of cattle selecting in housing? 1. Yes 2. No

28) If yes, for what age group you give priority?

1. Small calf 2. Milking cows 3. Oxen 4. Dry Cows 5. Fattened animals 6. Heifers

Rank them with the priority given: 1____ 2.____3. ____4. ____ 5.___6_____

94
29) What are the materials which the house made from?

No Types of the materials Roof Wall Floor

1 Corrugated Iron
2 Grass
3 Wood
4 Wood
5 Mud
6 If Others

30) When do house them? 1. All the time2. Only at night 3.If others please specify

31) Do you have any conflict with your neighbor’s because of your livestock activities?

1. Yes 2. No 3. Sometimes but it is not usual

32) How do you dispose the cattle dung from the barn?

1. By drainage system 2. By manual labor 3. If others please specify

33) How many times you are disposing manure from the barn?

1. Once per day 2. Twice per day 3. Three times per day 4. More than three times

34) How you are utilizing it most of the time?

1. I do not use it at all 2. It is made in to cow dung cake 3. It is used for soil fertilization

4. It is used for construction purposes 5. If others please specify

35) Do you also sell the animals dung cake or decomposed dung? 1. Yes 2.No

36) Where do you usually sell your decomposed dung or cake?

1. at the farm gate 2. On the nearby market 3.others

37) What is your labor source in the dairy production?

95
1. Family labor 2. Hired (employ) labor 3. Both 4.if other specify

38). When is your high labor demand? 1. During the peak of lactation 2. During hay harvest

3. during cow dung preparation 4. If others please specify

IV. Feed and feeding

39) What type of grazing system are you using?

1. Zero grazing 2. Semi-grazing 3. Full grazing 4. 1nad 2__________

40) What is the source of your cattle feed? 1. Own production 2. Purchased 3. Both

41). what are the sources of feed? 1. Natural grazing land 2. Crop residue 3. Crop after math
4. Concentrate 5. Brewery product (atela) 6. Hay 7. Others

Rank them: 1______2.______3.____ 4.____5.____6._____7_____8___

42). what are your major feed resources for your animals? Rank them in order of importance

43). which crop residues being used for feed?

1. Teff straw 2. Barley straw 3. Rice straw 4. Maize stalk 5. Others

44) Do you have an experience of making hay? 1. Yes 2. No

45) If yes, from which land?

1 .Individual Pasture land, 2. Crop land (after math), 3.Cultivated grass 4. Roadside grass

5. Community pasture land 6. Other (specify) _____________________

46) If no, what was your major reason? 1. We did not know about its importance.

2. We don’t have any feed shortage 3. We can let our animals simply to the dried grass.

4. Since we do have large number of cattle, we cannot accommodate all. 5. It has no importance.

47. Do you grow forage crops? 1. Yes 2. No

96
48. If yes, which forage crops? 1. Grass 2. Forage legume 3. Tree legume

49) If No, what are your major reasons for not growing fodder crops?

1. Insufficient land 2. Insufficient labor 3. Insufficient inputs (seed, fertilizer, and cash)

4. Lack of rain 5. Feed for animals is adequate 6. Insufficient information 7. Others

50) Do you buy any feed supplements for your animals? 1. Yes 2. No

51) Which feed supplements (concentrate) do you buy? 1. Oil seed cake 2. Cotton seed cake

3. Wheat and corn bran and middling 4. If others specify

52) From where do you buy the supplementary feeds?

1. from the farmers’ association 2. From the Ministry of Agriculture (ARDO)

3. from private retailers 4. From the industries 5. From others please specify

53) How much do you spend on feed per month? 1. 100-200 Birr/month 2. 201-300
Birr/month 3. >300 Birr/month

54) Did you come across shortage of animal feed? 1. Yes 2. No

55) If yes, Can you mention at what months feed shortages exist? 1._____2.______3______

56) If yes, what was your solution to alleviate your problem? 1. Conserve crop residues 2. Use
Of small amount of feed 3. Purchase crop residues 4. Sell animals 5.use other mechanism

V. Water Resources and Quality

57) What sources of water are you using for your dairy animals and/or beef cattle?

1. The city pipeline 2. The nearby river 3. Pond 4. Walls 5. If others please specify

58) Do you usually transport the water or bringing the animals to the rivers or pond?

1. Transport the water 2. Bringing the animals to the river or pond 3. Others______________

97
59. What is the frequency of watering your animals?

Breed type Frequency

No Wet season Dry season
1 Local
2 Holstein cross
3 Jersey cross
4 Exotic

Codes: Frequency: 1 = Once in a day 2 = Twice in a day 3 = Three times in a day 4 = other

60) What is your main water related problem?

1. Scarcity 2. Parasites such as leaches 3. Unhygienic/impurity 4. Others _____________

VI. Breeds and breeding

61) What is the breed of your dairy and/or beef animals? 1 Local/indigenous. 3. Cross 4.Exotic
breeds 5. Mixed (specify)

62) Do you know the pedigree of your animals? 1. Yes 2. No.

63). If yes, indicate it 1. From the seller’s information 2. From the Governmental Ranches
history card 3. If other specify

64. Do you know the exotic blood type, which is present in your herd? 1. Yes 2. No

65) If yes, indicate it. 1. Holstein Frisian 2. Jersey 3. Guernsey 4.if other specify

66) What is your breeding system? 1. Natural breeding 2. Artificial breeding 3. Both

67) How do you get your bull? 1. Own bull, 2. Bull owned in common 3. Bull owned by a
neighbor 4. From bull station 5. None

68. When you want to dispose your own(s), what criterion do you use in

Selecting the one(s) to dispose? 1. Old age, 2. Sickness, 3. Low milk production, 4. Infertility

98
69. Why do you use AI?

1. I do have access to AI service

2. It is simpler than raising a bull

3. It is more economical than a bull service

4. I do not have a bull 5. All

70. Why do you not use AI?

1. I have no access to AI service 2. The efficiency of AI service is not good

3. I do not want to use AI services because of cultural reasons

4. I have a bull, which I can also use for other purposes

71) If your breeding system is natural, what are its mechanisms?

1. We select the best type of bull and we inseminate our cattle

2. We don’t have any selection activity; simply we used uncontrolled breeding

3. Others ______________________________________.

72) Do you have an experience of selection the best cattle type for breeding purpose?

1. Yes 2 No.

73) If yes what are your parameters used to select the best cattle for breeding purpose?

1. Color coat 2. Behavior of the animals 3. Body conformation 4. Milk production potential

5. Drought power potential 6. If others specify

74. From where did you get the cross bred animals originally? 1. The use of AI from cross
breeding from the ministry of agriculture 2. Purchase of cross breed bull 3. Purchase of cross
breed cow or heifer from Tigray credit crevice 4. The use of cross breed bull from the
surrounding 5. Government ranches 6.if other (Specify)

99
71) When you start having cross bred cows? 1. One years ago, 2. Two years ago 3. Six

Months ago, 4. Three years ago 5.if others specify

72) Why do you keep crossbreed animals in your farm?

1. Better milk production 2. Higher growth rate 3. Higher weaning weight

4. Better body conformation 5.All 6.If others please specify

73) Why you only stick with Local cows?

1. Better disease resistance quality 2. Better resistance on heat stress.

3. Better fat content 4. I don’t get cross breed cows/heifers 5.others

5. Better body conformation 6. They can fit for Drought purpose

7. I don’t know other means

74) Do you have an experience of using AI? 1. Yes 2. No

75) If no, why did not use it? 1. We did not know its advantages 2. We did not have any option

To get AI service 3. We did not have interest for Crossbreeding 4. Environment will disfavor

Them. 5. If other specify

76) If you are only sticking on local animals, what was the source of your bull?

1. Own source 2. From neighbors 3. From everywhere source 4. Others________________

77) What type of a local bull you prefer?

1. begait(barka) type 2. Horro type 3. I used the unknown 5.Others__________

78) Do you have any major reason for your preference?

1. Body conformation 2. Milk production 3. Better milk quality 4. Better traction power

5. Others Rank the reasons: 1. ----- 2. ------ 3. ------- 4. -------- 5. -------

100
79) What are the major problems in managing crossbred dairy cows? 1. Feed problem 2.

Disease problem 3. Lack of labor 4. Lack of water 5. Lack of money 6 other

80) Why did you want cross breeding services? 1 .To gets more milk 2. To get more drought
power. 3. Other

VII. Calf rearing practices

84. At what age do you normally wean your calf?

Breed type Age of calf weaning

A Local
B Holstein cross breed
C Jersey cross
D Exotic

81. Which method do you use for pre-weaning milk feeding?

Breed Feeding system

No Bucket Feeding If bucket feeding Partial feeding
how much L/Day
A Local
B Holstein Cross
C Jersey cross
D Exotic

82) After weaning, what do you do with male calves?

No Breeds 1.Sell 2.Fatten Them 3.Sell as sire

A Local
B Cross
C Exotic

101
VIII. Health condition

83) Do you have any animal health problems? 1 .Yes 2. No

84) If yes, what are the major animal health problems? Please rank in order of importance.

1. Foot and Mouth 5. Anthrax 8. Diarrhea

2. Liver Fluke 6. Pneumonia 9. Dystocia

3. Lung Worm 7. Ticks 10. Mastitis

4. Black Leg 11. Tripanosomiosis and others ________________________

Rank: 1 ____ 2 ___ 3 ___ 4 ____ 5 ___ 6 ____ 7 ___ 8 _____

85. Do you have any chance of having health clinic in nearby your residence? 1. No 2.Yes

86. If yes, how many km you will go to get this health clinic? --------- Kms

87. Do you have incidence of human beings infected with any of the diseases?

1. Yes 2. No

88. If yes, which disease indicate it______________________________

89. Do you use any traditional or herbal remedies for your cattle? 1. Yes 2. No

90. If yes, what are the local plants used for medication to livestock?__________________

91. If yes, why you use these traditional medicines?

1. Veterinary services are not available 2. Veterinary costs are high

3. Veterinary medicaments are not effective for such disease

4. No regular visit by veterinarians 5. Long distance to animal health stations

92. Do you use a combination of veterinary services and traditional medicines? 1. No 2.Yes

93. From where do you get veterinary Services?

102
 1. Government institution 2. Private Veterinary services 3. NGOs extension services 4. 1 and 2

94. How many animals did you lose the last one-year because of diseases? Number Them?

1. Calves____2. Heifers___3. Milking cows____4. Steer___ 5. Oxen

VIII. Dairy Animals performance

95) How many times do you milk your cows per day?

1. Morning only 2. Morning and evening 3. Morning, mid day and evening

96) How many months of lactation do you normally have? Just put a tick sign (√).

No Breeds Period of lactation (months)

1-3 4-6 7-9 9-10 11-12
A Local
B Holstein cross breed
C Jersey cross breed
D Exotic

97. How much the daily milk yield per head (liter)

NO Breed Dry season Wet season

1 Local
2 Holstein cross
3 Jersey cross
4 exotic

99) Do you intend to increase your level of milk production? 1. Yes 2. No

100) If yes, indicate, 1. It maintains food production for the household) 2. It is profitable
(income generation 3 if other specify _________________

101) if no indicate 1. It is not as the crop production 2. It is not profitable 3. If other specify____

103
102) what are the main constraints for your dairy production?

1. Feed shortage 2. High feed prices 3. Disease 4. High Medicament cost

5. Shortage of land for grazing or forage development 6. Lack of capital

7. Inefficient breeding services 8. Market availability 9. All 10. Others ______

103) could you rank the most important ones from those constraints?

1. Feed shortage____2. Diseases ___3. Shortage of land____4 .Capital___ 5. Market__

104. Productive and reproductive performance.

Breed cattle’s type

Local Holstein cross Jersey cross Exotic
parameter
Age at first calving(months)
Lactation length( months)
Calving interval (months )
Daily milk yield/cow( litter)
Average lactation
yield(litter)
Weaning age (months)

IX. Milk production and utilization

105. How much produced per household?

Volume produced Unit Dry season Wet season

Milk/day
Butter/week
Cheese/week
Fermented milk

104
106. Who makes decision in the dairy product with regard?

1).to consumption? 1. Male 2. Female

2.) Regard to production/processing pattern 1. Male 2. Female

107. How is the milk consumed? 1. Alone 2. With meals 3. As an additional

108. How is it utilized from the total amount of milk produced proportion in percent?

No Milk utilization Proportion in percent

Total milk production/HH Dry season Wet season
Calf feeding
Home consumption
Processing
Selling
Other purpose

109. Are there seasonal variations in consumption pattern? 1. Yes 2. No

110. If yes, indicate____________________________________

XII. Milk Processing

111) Do you have an experience of processing the dairy products? 1. Yes 2. No

112) If yes, what are the processed products?

1. Butter 2. Butter milk 3. Chees 4. Fermented milk 5.Ghee 6. Others

113) Do you know the purpose of fermenting milk for a certain period of time? 1. Yes 2. NO

114) If yes, what was the reason? 1. It gives us good flavor and taste. 2. It helps for churning of

Fermented milk. 3. It is a means of preservation. 4. Other reasons __________

Rank them with priority: 1._____ 2.______ 3._______ 4_________

105
115) How long does the milk will be stored for fermentation before it is processed in to butter?

No Length of time (days) Dry season Wet season

Minimum day
Maximum day
Average day

116) what materials do you use to process the milk? 1. Clay pot 2. Other_______________

117) do you have an experience of smoking your milking cans and other related

Materials? 1. Yes 2. No

118) If yes, what are its advantages? 1. for good and pleasant flavor and taste 2 .For good shelf
life of the products 3. For killing microorganisms. 4. Others.______________

Rank them; 1.________ 2.______ 3.__________ 4.________

119) what are the plants or the materials used for smoking your milking equipments?

1_____________2____________ 3_____________4___________

120) what matters whether the processing is ready or not? 1. Milk volume 2. The color of the

Fermented milk 3. Physical compactness of the fermented milk 4.if other (specify)

121. How many hours does it take to churn fermented milk into butter?

122) what are the materials used for churning of milk in the process of butter making? 1.___2__

123) give the volume of fermented milk churned to produce 1 kg butter?

No Total amount(local unit) Dry season Wet season

1 Minimum amount
2 Maximum amount
3 Average amount

106
124) what about the frequency of churning of fermented milk into butter during wet season?

1. Every two weeks 3. Every 24 hours 5. Within the four days interval

2. Once in a week 4. Within three days interval 6 .specify if others

125) what about the frequency of churning of fermented milk into butter during dry season?

1. Every two weeks 2. Once in a week 3. Every three weeks

4. Within the three days interval 5.within four days interval 6. Specify _________________

126) for how long do you store butter before selling (months)? Minimum ____ Maxim_____

127) If, you store your butter for a certain period, do you have an experience of adding

Something in it? 1. Yes 2. No

128) If yes, what are the materials added? 1. Salt 2. Spices 3. Only cook with heat 4. Other

129) what are its advantages? 1. for coloring 2. For taste 3.Others _______________

130) Do you process butter milk into cheese? 1. Yes 2. No

131). If yes, what matters the time of cooking?

1. The amount of butter milk 2. The type of material used for cooking 3. The amount of heat

Is given 4 if .others specifies __________

132) If yes, how much butter milk is required to produce 1 kg cheese? _________ Liters

133) If no, what should be your reason?

1. It will be consumed by the family 2. There is no cheese market

3. We don’t want to produce cheese 4.It will be consumed by the calves 5. If others specify

134) Do you process butter in to other product? 1. Yes 2. No

135) If yes, what are the products? 1. Cooked butter 2.spiced butter 3.salted product

107
136) If yes, what are the materials used to process butter? 1_______2_____3._____4_____

137) what is the importance of processing butter? 1. For preservation 2. For long period of
storage 3. for good flavor and taste 4.for good market value 5. If others ___________

Rank them: 1_______________2._______________ 3.____________4______

IVX. Dairy product marketing

138) Do you have an experience of selling raw milk? 1. Yes 2. No

139) if yes, what are the dairy products you are going to sell? 1. Raw milk 2. Fermented milk
(Ergo) 3. Butter 4. Butter milk 5. Cheese 6. Whey milk

Rank them in the order priority given: 1._____ 2.____3. ___4.___5.____ 6._____

140) If no, what was your reason?

1. Milk is forbidden to sell due to traditional problem 2. There is no excess milk for selling.

3. No market access 4. Market place is too far. 5. If others please specify_________

141) Sales of the dairy Products and Prices:

142) How much is sale a liter of milk in your village ___________________ Birr/Litter?

143) How much is a liter of milk in your nearby town __________________Birr/litter?

144) who from the household delivers the milk to the buyers? 1. Husband 2. Wife 3. Adult male
children 4. Adult female children 5. Child 6. All members of the HH 7. Hired labor 8.others
Rank them: 1_____2. ______3._______ 4_______ 5._______ 6.__

145) has any of your milk intended for sale been rejected 1. Yes 2. No

146) If yes, what percent of the time?

1) 75 % of the time 2) 50 % of the time 3)25 % of the time 4 .Specify (other) _______

147) which milking is mostly rejected? 1. Morning 2. Evening

108
148) what should be the main reason? 1. It will be sour 2. Others (specify)

149) what is the main reason for being sour?

1 .Non availability of buyers. 2. Because of the distance to the delivery point

3 .Because of preservation problem 4. 2 and 3 5. Specify (other) ________

150) How much do you get from sale of the following product/year?

No Commodity type Maximum Birr Minimum birr

Raw milk

Butter

cheese

109
Appendix II: Focal group discussion checklist

Part I. Production aspect

1. Major dairy cattle production system of the area?

2. Major dairy cattle production constraints and mechanisms to allivate the problems

3. The overall Trends of dairy development in the last ten years?

4. Available cattle feed resources and way of feeding system

5. Main source of water and water related problems during different seasons

6. Types extension services in dairy cattle production

Part II. Market aspect

1. Dairy product marketing system of the area in general.

2. Sources of marketing information. Is the source available, reliable, recent and accurate?

3. What are the main Problems/constraints in relation to dairy product marketing (price, buyer’s
problem, accessibility, market structures etc.)?

Part III. Health aspect

10. The most common dairy cattle diseases and measures taken?

2. Known disease outbreaks emerging frequently. Losses due to the out breaks

3. Indigenous knowledge in coping different diseases

4. Problems related with health input and service provision

Part IV .Credit service

1. Is credit crevice available? Is it profitable, is it beneficial?

2. What are the major Problems associated with credit and opportunities

110