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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 9. Major livestock feed resources and feeding systems in Metema district Feeding system and major feed sources CLFS SLFS Overall Wet Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry HHC % HHC % HHC % HHC % HHC % HHC% Major feeds for Cattle: 60 – Natural pasture 100.0 30 50.0 80 100.0 48 60.0 140 100.0 78 55.7 – Crop residues 14 23.3 15 18.8 29 20.7 – Aftermath 9 15.0 11 13.8 20 14.3 – Hay 7 11.7 6 7.5 13 9.3 Goat 60 – Trees and shrubs 100.0 45 75.0 80 100.0 57 71.3 140 100.0 102 72.9 – Crop aftermath 15 25.0 23 28.8 38 27.1 Sheep 60 – Natural pasture 100.0 41 68.4 80 100.0 62 77.5 140 100.0 103 73.6 – Crop residues 8 13.3 9 11.3 17 12.1 – Crop aftermath 11 18.3 9 11.3 20 14.3 Donkey 60 – Natural pasture 100.0 13 21.7 80 100.0 12 15.0 140 100.0 25 17.9 – Crop residues 35 58.3 57 71.3 92 65.7 – Crop aftermath – 12 20.0 11 13.8 23 16.4 Feeding system Cattle 60 – Tethering 6 10.0 2 3.3 4 5.0 4 5.0 10 7.1 6 4.3 – Free grazing 54 90.0 58 96.7 68 85.0 73 91.3 122 87.1 131 93.6 – Cut-and-carry – – – – 8 10.0 3 4.8 8 5.7 3 2.1 Goat 60 – Tethering 13 21.7 – – 11 13.8 – – 24 17.1 – Free browsing 47 78.3 60 100.0 69 86.3 80 100.0 116 82.9 140 100 Sheep 60 – Free grazing 60 100.0 60 100.0 80 100.0 80 100.0 140 100.0 140 100 Donkey 60 – Tethering 14 23.3 39 65.0 15 18.8 49 61.3 29 20.7 88 62.9 – Free grazing 46 81..7 21 35.0 65 81.3 26 32.5 111 79.3 47 33.6 – Cut-and-carry 5 6.3 5 3.5 HHC = household count, CLFS = cotton–livestock farming system, SLFS = sesame–livestock farming system. 4.6 Feed management and utilization practices Three types of feeding systems were practised in the district (Table 9). In the cotton– livestock farming system, 90 and 96.7% of the respondents practised free grazing for their cattle during the wet and the dry season, respectively; while the respective values were 85 and 91.3% in the sesame–livestock farming system. Overall, 87.1, 5.7 and 7.1% of the respondents use free grazing, cut-and-carry and tethering during the wet season, 28
espectively, while 93.6, 4.3 2.1% respectively practice these feeding management systems during the dry season. Variations in labour shortage, number of animals kept by herders and area covered by crops contribute to seasonal differences in herd management. Overall, about 82.9% of the respondents allowed their goats to browse while 17.1% tethered them. Sheep production is based on free grazing. There were some variations in feeding management between the two farming system. Donkeys are important animals in the district, and particularly male donkeys are bought from the neighbouring highland districts for the purpose of transportation services. Most of the respondents (62.9%) tethered their donkeys while some (33.6%) practised cut-and-carry system. This is because donkeys work hard during the day and are left to graze at night. Unlike the highlands, hyenas are not found in the district, making night time grazing possible. During the wet season, natural pasture is the sole feed resource for all species of livestock (Table 9). In the cotton–livestock farming system, the major feed resources for cattle during the dry season are natural pasture (50%), crop residues (23.3%), crop aftermath (15%) and grass hay (11.7%). Whereas, in the sesame–livestock farming system, the use of natural pasture is higher (60%; 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 and 38: Table 6. Mean ± SE land holding an
Page 39: Table 8. Livestock herd structures
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?