Rangeland condition and feed resources in Metema District, North ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 7. Livestock holdings in TLU of the sampled households in Metema Species CLFS Mean ± SE SLFS Mean ± SE Cattle 6.24 ± 0.45 6.34 ± 0.59 Goats 0.36 ± 0.04 0.43 ± 0.60 Sheep 0.01 ± 0.1a 0.11 ± 0.03b Donkey 0.34 ± 0.03 0.31 ± 0.04 Camel 0.00a 0.06 ± 04b Poultry (No.) 15.7a 17.2b CLFS = cotton–livestock farming system; SLFS = sesame–livestock farming system; TLU = Tropical Livestock Unit. Means followed by different superscripts differ significantly (P
Table 8. Livestock herd structures in surveyed households by farming system in Metema Variables Mean ± SE Mean ± SE CLFS SLFS Cattle Oxen 1.19 ± 0.09 1.06 ± 0.15 Cow 2.04 ± 0.19 2.08 ± 0.26 Heifer 1.02 ± 0.13 1.17 ± 0.15 Steer 0.71 ± 0.13 0.73 ± 0.11 Calves 1.30 ± 0.13 1.30 ± 0.18 Total 6.24 ± 0.45 6.34 ± 0.59 Goats He-goat 0.03 ± 0.01 0.01 ± 0.01 She-goat 0.23 ± 0.03 0.22 ± 0.03 Kids 0.11 ± 0.02 0.20 ± 0.04 Total 0.36 ± 0.04 0.43 ± 0.60 Sheep Male 0.01 ± 0.01 0.06 ± 0.02 Female 0.0 0.01 ± 0.01 Lambs 0.01 ± 0.0 0.04 ± 0.01 Total 0.01 ± 0.1 0.11 ± 0.03 Donkeys 0.34 ± 0.03 0.31 ± 0.04 Camels 0.0 0.06 ± 0.04 Total 13.60 ± 0.9a 14.11 ± 1.24b Poultry (No.) 15.7a 17.2b CLFS = cotton–livestock farming system; SLFS = sesame—livestock system; SE = standard error. Means followed by different superscripts differ significantly (P
Page 1 and 2: www.ipms-ethiopia.org www.eap.gov.e
Page 3 and 4: Authors’ affiliations Tesfaye Des
Page 5 and 6: 4.7 Availability of natural pasture
Page 7 and 8: Table 20. Common and dominant grass
Page 9 and 10: Abbreviations ADF ADL AEZ ANOVA ANR
Page 11 and 12: Abstract The study was conducted in
Page 13 and 14: 1 Introduction Ethiopia, with its d
Page 15 and 16: 2 Background 2.1 Livestock resource
Page 17 and 18: availability of rainfall. Alemayehu
Page 19 and 20: fauna composition or a transition f
Page 21 and 22: change. A change in plant compositi
Page 23 and 24: The four classes of range condition
Page 25 and 26: 2.8 Biomass estimation methods Biom
Page 27 and 28: are the Gumuz people. Until recentl
Page 29 and 30: Enclosures used as benchmark was se
Page 31 and 32: the distribution was assessed as fo
Page 33 and 34: samples for herbaceous species and
Page 35 and 36: The overall educational status of t
Page 37: Table 6. Mean ± SE land holding an
Page 41 and 42: espectively, while 93.6, 4.3 2.1% r
Page 43 and 44: 4.7.2 Crop residues production and
Page 45 and 46: Table 13. Percentages of respondent
Page 47 and 48: than in P. spheslatum and C. ciliar
Page 49 and 50: of the respondents (69.3%) water th
Page 51 and 52: Table 20. Common and dominant grass
Page 53 and 54: owsing height of the animals. Accor
Page 55 and 56: Grazing types Herbaceous species Ca
Page 57 and 58: Table 25. Herbaceous species compos
Page 59 and 60: low density a decade ago, but curre
Page 61 and 62: 2004). Based on the results of this
Page 63 and 64: at the landscape scale; short tempo
Page 65 and 66: Soil compaction also directly restr
Page 67 and 68: Dry matter biomass 18000 16000 1400
Page 69 and 70: i.e. 312,300 ha, about 71% is natur
Page 71 and 72: • Transhumance production system
Page 73 and 74: Beruk Yemane and Tafesse Mesifin, 2
Page 75 and 76: van der Westhuizen, HC van Rensburg
Page 77 and 78: Appendix Table 2. Criteria for the
Page 79 and 80: Appendix Table 4. Herbaceous specie
Page 81 and 82: Appendix Table 5. Correlation matri
Page 87 and 88: Source: IPMS (2005). Appendix Figur
Page 89 and 90:
Appendix Figure 5. Partial view of
Page 91 and 92:
Appendix Figure 9. Communal grazing
show all

Rangeland condition and feed resources in Metema District, North ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?