Journal homepage: www.gjasr.

com
Print ISSN:2345-4377 Online ISSN:2345-4385

Original Article

Assessment on Production Objectives, Breeding Practices and

Farmer’s Trait Preference of Indigenous Goat in Three Districts
of South Gondar Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia
Alebel Mulia
Department of Animal Science, Bonga University, Ethiopia

ABSTRACT
The study was conducted three districts of South Gondar zone, Amhara region,
Ethiopia with the objective of identifying production objectives, breeding practice and
farmer’s trait preference of indigenous goat. The zone was stratified into highland,
midland and lowland agro-ecology and then selected one district from each agro-
ecology. Data were collected from 171 households through semi structured and
structured questionnaires, focal group discussions and secondary sources. The data
were analyzed using SPSS version 20 and SAS version 9.3 (2014). Mixed crop-
livestock production system which accounted for 98.8% was the main agricultural
production system in the study area. Results revealed that source of income generation
(0.48) was the primary production objectives of framers in the study area followed by
meat for home consumption (0.34), saving (0.10), ceremony (0.05) and manure (0.03).
Body conformation was the most preferable trait in all agro-ecology of the study area
followed by reproduction rate and adaptability in highland, while coat color and
reproduction rate for midland and lowland. Most (72.22%) of the farmers in the study
area were used uncontrolled mating system. About 32.35% of farmers in the study
area had their own breeding buck while 67.65% of farmers shared breeding bucks
with their neighbors. The inbreeding coefficient of indigenous goat in private and
communal grazing system of the study area was 0.14 and 0.10, respectively. In
general, from the current study, it could be concluding that trait preference and

Corresponding Author: Alebel Mulia < [email protected] >

Cite this Article: Mulia, A. (2021). Assessment on Production Objectives, Breeding Practices and
Farmer’s Trait Preference of Indigenous Goat in Three Districts of South Gondar Zone, Amhara
Region, Ethiopia. Global Journal of Animal Scientific Research, 9(1), 126-140.
Retrieved from http://www.gjasr.com/index.php/GJASR/article/view/79
Article History: Received: 2021.05.31 Accepted: 2021.07.14
Copyright © 2021 World Science and Research Publishing. All rights reserved

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No

Derivatives 4.0 International License.
126
 Alebel Mulia

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 9(1), 126-140

breeding practice of farmers in the study area was traditional, and inbreeding
coefficient of indigenous goat in the private and communal grazing system was high
comparable with the maximum acceptable level of 0.063 (Armstrong, 2006). Therefor
further investigation should be undertaken to minimize inbreeding coefficient of
indigenous goat.
Keywords: Breeding practice, inbreeding, production objective, trait preference,
South Gondar

INTRODUCTION
Ethiopia has the largest livestock population in Africa, and is endowed with different
agro-ecological zones of highlands, sub-humid, semi-arid and arid environments
(FARM Africa, 1996). Goats (Capra hircus) are the most abundant domesticated
livestock species widely found all over the world (Galal, 2005). Ethiopia is home for
diverse indigenous goat populations, numbering 30.20 million heads (CSA, 2016) and
15 breeds of goat (IBC, 2004) that have traditionally been an integral part of the
farming systems in all agro-climatic conditions. It has been estimated that about 70%
of the goat population is found in the low lands and the rest 30% is found in the high
lands (Alemayehu, 1993). In Ethiopia goat production contributes about 16.8% of
total meat supply and 16.7% of milk consumed in the country (Tsedeke, 2007).
The indigenous goat population dominates the herd in Ethiopia as a whole and has
developed some important genetic traits such as ability to perform better under low
input condition and climatic stress, tolerance to infectious diseases and parasites, and
heat stresses (Philipsson et al., 2006; Kosgey and Okeyo, 2007). Moreover, goats play
an important role in the livelihood of resource-poor farmers and they provide a wide
range of products and services such as meat, milk, cash income, skin, manure and
security (insurance), banking, gifts, etc. (Adane and Girma, 2008).
Morphological differences of goat have important socio-cultural and economic values
to the Ethiopian communities; as a result, most farmers have specific consideration
and choices for goat coat colour followed by body sizes. Community-based breeding
programs have now emerged as a promising approach in the tropics where farmers are
actively involved in the design and implementation of the programs. However, the
sustainability of these programs depends on the producer’s interest, which can be
influenced by social, cultural, economic and geographical factors (Ilatsia et al., 2012).
An understanding of producer’s trait preferences allows breeders in the region to
efficiently formulate sustainable genetic development programs that would make
possible to develop and promote appropriate goat genotypes that match with the
prevailing socioeconomic and cultural environments (Bett et al., 2011).
127

According to CSA (2016), the population of goat in the south Gondar zone is
relatively high and the area is suitable for goat production; besides this, most of the
Page

farmers in the area were highly dependent on the rearing of goat and other related
 Alebel Mulia

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 9(1), 126-140

livestock population. While it is important in terms of meat, cash income, and leather
development, information on production objectives, breeding practice and trait
preference of framers were limited, and further research is needed to design and
develop the most promising and widely used sustainable development programs.
Therefore, the objective of the study was to characterize goat production objectives,
breeding practices, and trait preferences of goat farmers in South Gondar Zone,
Amhara region, Ethiopia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Description of the Study Areas
Farta District
Farta is one of the districts in South Gondar Zone which is located 100 km north-east
of Bahir Dar city and 667 km from Addis Ababa. It represents a district for highland
agro-ecology with an altitude range of 1920-4135 masl and the climate condition of
this district is 56% highland, 41.5% midland and 2.5% lowland. This district is located
between 11°32’ to 12°03’N latitude and 37°31’ to 38°43’E longitude. The district
receives an average annual rain fall of 1250 -1599 mm and a mean-range temperature
of 90-250C.

East Este District

East Este is one of the districts in South Gondar Zone which is located 109.9 km
North West of Bahir Dar city and 675.9 km from Addis Ababa which is capital city of
Ethiopia. It represents a district for midland agro-ecology with an altitude range of
1500-4000 masl and the climate condition of this district is 19% highland, 70%
midland and 11% lowland. This district is located between 11° 37' N latitude and 38°
4'E longitudes. The minimum and maximum mean annual rainfall of the area is 900-
1100 mm and the mean annual minimum and maximum temperature is 8.30C-250C
(ENMA, unpublished).

Tach Gayint District

Tach Gayint is one of the districts in south Gondar Zone, and located 194.9 km North
West of Bahir Dar city and 760.9 km from Addis Ababa. It represents a district for
lowland agro-ecology with an altitude range of 750-2800 masl and the climate
condition of this district is 22.3% highland, 23% midland and 54.7% lowland. This
district is located between 11° 22' to 11° 42'N latitude and 28° 19' to 38° 43'E
longitudes. The mean minimum and maximum annual rainfall ranges from 900 to
1000 mm per annum and the mean minimum and maximum annual temperature
ranges from 13oc to 27oc (ENMA, unpublished).
128
Page
 Alebel Mulia

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 9(1), 126-140

Sample Size Determination and Sampling Techniques

Before selecting the sample districts, secondary data sources were used and discussion
with South Gondar Zone Livestock and Fishery Resources Development Office
expertise was held to stratify districts based on agro-ecology. Multistage sampling
techniques were employed for this study. At the first stage the three districts were
selected purposively based on agro-ecology and relatively high goat population. In the
Second stage three kebeles from each district were selected purposively based on goat
population and willingness of the farmers to participate in the study. From each
kebeles, Sample farmers having at least two goats were selected randomly using
systematic sampling procedure and interviewed with semi-structured questionnaire on
production objectives, breeding practice and farmer’s trait preferences of indigenous
goat in the study area. A total of 171 households 57 from each district and 19 from
each kebele were selected for the interview.

Method of Data Collection

For each household survey, structured and pre-tested questionnaires were used. The
structured questionnaires were developed to collect all the pertinent information in a
single visit. The questionnaire was designed to obtain information from respondents
about production system, production objective, flock structure, trait preference and
animal health condition. Focal-group discussions were also carried out with DAs,
model farmers, village leaders, women and socially respected individuals. Secondary
data like climatic data (temperature and rainfall), and human and livestock
demography were collected from the zone administrative office, the district office of
livestock and fishery resources and other written documents.

Statistical Analyses Techniques

All data gathered during the study period were coded and recorded in Microsoft Excel
2010. All the collected data was double-checked for any types of errors occurred
during data collection and entry. Different types of statistical analysis were used
depending upon the nature of the data. Data generated from questionnaires were
described and summarized by using descriptive statistics and general linear model
(GLM); and chi-square (x2) and Tukey test was carried out to assess the statistical
difference among categorical variables using agro-ecology as a fixed effect. Index was
calculated for data which need ranking like reasons for purpose keeping goat and trait
preferences by farmers for breeding goat.
Indexes were calculated according to a formula:
Index = sum of (3 for rank 1 + 2 for rank 2 + 1 for rank 3) given for an
129

individual attribute divided by the sum of (3 for rank 1 + 2 for rank

2 + 1for rank 3) for overall attributes.
Page
 Alebel Mulia

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 9(1), 126-140

Inbreeding Coefficient
Inbreeding coefficient was calculated on the basis of effective population size
according to Falconer and Mackay (1996). The effective population size was
estimated as:
4(𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁)(𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁)
Ne =
(𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁+𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁)
Where:
Ne = effective population size
Nm = number of breeding male population
Nf = number of breeding female population
1
𝐹𝐹 =
2(𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁)
Where: 𝐹𝐹= coefficient of inbreeding

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Production system
The agricultural production system in the study area was mixed crop-livestock
production system. Integration of crop and Livestock production were the main
agricultural activity for the livelihood of the smallholder farmers in highland, midland
and lowland agro-ecology. The majority of the farmers (98.8%) in the study area were
highly depended on mixed crop-livestock production system while the rest 2.2% of
the respondents were depended on agro pastoral production system. The key farmers
revealed, during group discussion, that the major crops grown in the study area
include barely, wheat, grass pea, field pea and potato in all agro-ecology of the study
area. Especially in the highland area livestock and crop production complement each
other in such a way that livestock were used as a source of draft and manure for crop
production and from crop production, the crop residues, straws and aftermath serve as
main components of livestock feed. This was in agreement with Mengistie et al.(2010)
who reported that livestock and crop production complement each other; livestock
used as source of draft and manure while crop production were used for livestock as a
source feed in Amhara region.

Table 1: Production System in the Study Area

Highland Midland Lowland Overall p-value
Production system:
N % N % N % N % 4.047Ns
Crop livestock 57 100 57 100 55 96.5 169 98.8
Agro pastoralists 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 3.5 2 1.2
N=number of household and NS=non-significant (p>0.05)
130
Page
 Alebel Mulia

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 9(1), 126-140

Production Objectives of farmers

The purposes of keeping goat by farmers in the study area were presented in Table 2.
In the present study farmers keep their goat for generation of income, meat for human
consumption, saving (to be used as an asset), for the purpose of manure and skin. As
presented in Table 10 the primary purpose of goat for all agro-ecology is income
generating. The current study is in agreement with the report of Yadeta (2016) who
reported that generating of income is the primary purpose of keeping goat. On the
contrary Belete (2013) reported the primary purpose of goat rearing in Bale Zone
Oromia Region was milk for human consumption. The primary purpose of keeping
goat in highland and midland farmers was income generating with an index value of
0.47 and 0.50 followed by meat (0.32 and 0.29) and saving (to be used as an asset)
with an index value of 0.15 and 0.18 respectively. Lowland farmers keep their goat
primarily for income with an index value of 0.36 followed by saving and meat with an
index value of 0.33 and 0.28, respectively. The finding was in disagreement with
report of Gurmesa et al. (2011), who reported that farmers in Arsi Negelle district rear
their goats for milk, cash income and meat in order of their importance. Generally, in
all agro ecology of the study area, most of the farmers reared their goats primarily for
generating income which is used for emergency cases, exchange of different material
and for household expenses. Farmers in all agro ecology also use their goat as a source
manure and skin rarely.

Table 2: Purpose of Keeping Goat by Farmers

Purpose of High land Mid land Low land
keeping goat 1st 2nd 3 rd
Index 1st 2nd 3 rd
Index 1st 2nd 3rd Index
Income 47 10 0 0.47 55 3 0 0.50 28 15 10 0.36
Meat 10 33 14 0.32 2 39 16 0.29 4 32 21 0.28
Saving 0 12 29 0.15 0 15 31 0.18 25 10 17 0.33
Manure 0 2 7 0.03 0 0 7 0.02 0 0 5 0.01
Skin 0 0 7 0.02 0 0 3 0.01 0 0 4 0.01

Flock Structure
The flock structure by sex and age group of goat in all agro-ecology are presented in
Table 3. The current study revealed both sexes with age groups of goat were
significantly different by agro-ecology except Kids less than one year. The pair-wise
comparison of means in goat population per household was significantly different
among highland-midland, highland-lowland and midland-lowland agro-ecology in
Kids < 6 month, breeding buck and breeding doe. Similarly, the pair-wise comparison
of means in goat population per household showed significant difference among all
131

three agro- ecology for Woyto-Guji goat in northern Omo and small ruminant in West
showa Zone (Yaekob et al., 2015 and Yadeta, 2016), respectively. The difference of
Page

castrated male between highland-lowland and midland-lowland agro-ecology of south

 Alebel Mulia

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 9(1), 126-140

Gondar zone were significant, whereas differences in the castrated male in highland-
midland were not significant. The number of castrated male in highland and midland
were less than lowland. This might possibly be due to the fact that highland and
midland goat keepers have relatively less number of breeding male as a result the
farmer in these agro-ecology keep those breeding male without castrate for a long
period of time for breeding purpose.
Perusal of table 3 showed that number of goats across all ages in both sexes was
higher for lowland followed by midland and highland. In lowland agro-ecology,
breeding doe accounted for the largest number (4.74±0.26); followed by Kids <6-
month (2.78±0.18), Kids less than one year (1.14±0.5), breeding buck (0.93±0.08) and
Castrated male (0.89±0.12). The Possible reason for higher number of goats in
lowland agro-ecology might be that goat showed good adaptation in lowland area than
highland and midland; and as they are browsing animal the lowland agro-ecology has
sufficient browsing feed.
The overall mean of goat per household were small in Castrated male (0.42±0.05),
breeding buck (0.68±0.04) and Kids less than one year (0.91±0.08) compared to other
groups. However, the overall means number of goat per household was high in mature
female > one year (3.35±0.12) and Kids < 6 month (1.98±0.09). In fact, the proportion
of breeding buck and doe can determine the production of kids in a flock. Generally,
the current results were lower than the reports of Solomon (2014) who reported that
breeding doe were accounted higher number than the rest flock structure and (4.2, 3.1,
0.6) and (25.9, 9.5 and 2.8) for breeding does, kids and breeding buck in lowland
Metema district and highland Abergelle goat of the Amhara National Regional State
of Ethiopia respectively.

Table 3: Flock Structure of Goat per Household in the Study Area

High land Mid land Low land Overall
Goat flock p-value
structure Mean±SE Mean±SE Mean±SE Mean±SE
Kids < 6 month 1.26c±0.12 1.91b±0.09 2.78a±0.18 1.98±0.09 0.000
Kids < 1 year 0.75±0.12 0.84±0.12 1.14±0.14 0.91±0.08 0.088
Breeding buck 0.54b±0.07 0.58b±0.07 0.93a±0.08 0.68±0.04 0.000
Breeding doe 2.18c±0.09 3.12b±0.13 4.74±0.26 3.35±0.12 0.000
Castrated male 0.07b±0.03 0.30b±0.06 0.89 ±0.12
a
0.42±0.05 0.000
Total 4.80 ±0.18
c
6.75b±0.20 10.48a±0.62 7.34±0.28 0.000
a,b,c means on the same row with different superscripts (for mean ±SD) are significantly different
(P<0.05)

Inbreeding Coefficient
The effective population size (Ne) and the inbreeding coefficient (F) calculated for
132

goats in highland, midland and lowland area are presented in Table 4. In private
grazing system, the inbreeding coefficient of goat in highland, midland and lowland
Page
 Alebel Mulia

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 9(1), 126-140

agro-ecologies were 0.19, 0.15 and 0.09, respectively. However, 0.18, 0.11 and 0.08
of inbreeding coefficient were calculated for goat population in communal grazing
land. This indicates that the inbreeding coefficients are not much different whether the
populations are mixed or not. The current finding was lower than the report of Bekalu
(2014) who reported that inbreeding coefficient of indigenous goat population at
Bahirdar Zuria, Yilmana-densa and Gonji-Kolela were 0.30, 0.19 and 0.22,
respectively. On the contrary these values were higher than the maximum acceptable
level of 0.063 (Armstrong, 2006). The effective population size (Ne) in both types of
flocks (individual flocks; mixed flocks) was higher in lowland compared to the other
two agro-ecology (Highland and midland), and thus the inbreeding coefficient (F) is
low in lowland compared to the other two agro-ecology. This was in agreement with
the report of Yadeta (2016) who reported that the inbreeding coefficient of goat in
lowland area were lower than that of the two agro-ecologies (highland and midland).
The possible reason for high inbreeding coefficient in highland and midland, may be
low effective population size of both sexes in general and male goats in particular.
The high inbreeding coefficient in individual flocks compared to mixed flocks may
possibly be due to low effective population size of male goat and prolong use of same
bucks over a long period of time resulting in mating of closely related individuals. The
utilization of breeding buck(s) born within the flock, uncontrolled mating, lack of
awareness about inbreeding and small flock size may lead to accumulation of
inbreeding and decreased genetic diversity (Kosgey, 2004).

Table 4: Effective population size and level of inbreeding in the study area
In private grazing (Not mixed) Communal grazing (Mixed)
Agro-
Nm Nf Ne F Nm Nf Ne f
ecology
Highland 0.47 2.22 2.69 0.19 0.83 2.00 2.83 0.18
Midland 0.31 2.97 3.29 0.15 1.00 3.36 4.36 0.11
Lowland 0.80 4.60 5.40 0.09 1.07 4.88 5.96 0.08
Overall 0.53 3.26 3.78 0.14 0.97 3.22 4.20 0.10
Nm = Number of male; Nf = Number of female; Ne = effective population size; F = coefficient of
inbreeding;

The result presented in Table 5 revealed that respondent farmers in the study area
were used bucks from their own and/or same village flocks for breeding purpose;
there was no exchange / purchase of bucks from different areas. This may possibly be
a reason for high inbreeding coefficient in the present study. Therefore, periodic
changing of breeding buck, increasing effective population size, and implementation
133

of controlled mating, regular culling of unwanted bucks (either by castration or sale)

and initiation of pedigree recording is recommended to decrease the rate of inbreeding
and improve productivity.
Page
 Alebel Mulia

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 9(1), 126-140

Breeding System
The result on breeding management in the study areas is presented in Table 5. Perusal
of results showed that in lowland area higher proportion (78.9%) of respondents
owned their breeding bucks whereas this proportion was around 50% (54.4 and 57.9%
in highland and midland, respectively). In overall, 67.3% of the respondent were had
their own breeding buck which was not comparable with the report of Bekalu (2014)
who reported that almost all respondent in west Gojjam zone had their own breeding
buck. On the contrary this was contradicted to the report of Ahmed (2013) who
reported that majority (67.7%) of the goat owners in Horro Gudruu Wollega zone do
not have own breeding bucks.

Table 5: Breeding practice of farmers in the study area

Highland Midland Lowland Overall
Variable X2-value
N % N % N % N %
(A) Breeding buck ownership: 8.704*
Own 31 54.4 33 57.9 45 78.9 109 63.7
Others 26 45.6 24 42.1 12 21.1 62 36.3
(B) Objectives of keeping buck: 6.842NS
Mating 16 51.6 20 60.6 18 40.0 54 49.5
Socio-cultural 2 6.5 4 12.1 11 24.4 17 15.6
Fattening 13 41.9 9 27.3 16 35.6 38 34.9
(C) Source of breeding buck: 24.198*
Own buck (bred) 21 36.8 30 52.6 44 77.2 95 55.6
Own buck (bought) 10 17.5 3 5.3 1 1.8 14 8.2
Neighbor’s buck 24 42.1 22 38.6 10 17.5 56 32.7
Communal buck 2 3.5 2 3.5 2 3.5 6 3.5
(D) Breeding or mating system: 6.107*
Controlled 13 22.8 7 12.3 4 7.0 24 14.0
Uncontrolled 44 77.2 50 87.7 53 93.0 147 86.0
(E) Reason for uncontrolled mating: 8.123*
Goat browse
30 68.2 24 48.0 21 39.6 75 51.0
together
Lack of
14 31.8 26 52.0 32 60.4 72 49.0
awareness
(F) Do you allow another buck to mate your
2.608NS
flock?
Yes 53 93.0 48 84.2 52 91.2 153 89.5
No 4 7.0 9 15.8 5 8.8 18 10.5
(G) Do you give special management to your
3.410NS
buck?
134

Yes 5 8.8 2 3.5 1 1.8 8 4.7

No 52 91.2 55 96.5 56 98.2 163 95.3
N=Number of household, *significant difference at p < 0.05, NS=non-significant (p>0.05)
Page
 Alebel Mulia

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 9(1), 126-140

The respondents reported that the objectives of keeping buck were mating, socio-
cultural and fattening purposes. The bucks were kept for mating (51.6, 60.6 and 54%
in highland, midland and lowland respectively) and fattening (41.9, 27.3 and 35.6% in
highland, midland and lowland respectively). The present results were in agreement
with reports of Bekalu (2014) wherein majority of the respondent used their local
buck for mating followed by fattening in West Gojjam zone of Amhara region.
The study showed that breeding buck (produced in their flock) were owned by 52.6
and 77.2% of respondent in lowland and midland, whereas only 36.8% of respondents
owned breeding buck in highland agro-ecology. The remaining respondents used
neighbor' buck (42.1, 38.6 and17.5% in highland, midland and lowland, respectively);
purchased from neighbor (17.5, 5.3 and 5.3% in highland, midland and lowland,
respectively); and communal buck (3.5% in highland, midland and lowland,
respectively) for mating. These results indicated that respondent farmers were using
bucks produced in their flocks and there was no exchange / purchase of bucks from
different areas. This may possibly be a reason for high inbreeding coefficient (Table
5).
In the study area, 77.2%, 87.7% and 93.0% of the respondent farmers in highland,
midland and lowland, respectively, reported that mating system of goats was
uncontrolled. This was in agreement with Ahmed (2013) who reported that most of
the farmers (72.22%) practiced uncontrolled mating system in Horro Guduru Wollega
zone of Oromia region. The reason for uncontrolled mating, as reported by
respondents, was either mixed grazing of goat flock or lack of awareness of demerits
of uncontrolled mating.
The majority (91.2, 96.5 and 98.2% in highland, midland and lowland areas,
respectively) of the households in the study area were not practiced any special
management for breeding bucks which was in agreement with the finding of Bekalu
(2014) who reported that majority (91.1%) of the respondent farmers were no
practiced special management for breeding buck. Only a small proportion of farmers
(8.8, 3.5 and 1.8% in highland, midland and lowland, respectively) were practiced any
special management for their breeding bucks by providing additional feed and water.
This clearly showed that farmers were not aware of the special requirement of
breeding bucks and this will be affecting goat productivity.

Trait Preferences of Farmers

Trait preferences of farmers for breeding of indigenous goat are presented in Table 6.
Farmers in the study area prefer body conformation, reproduction rate, adaptability,
longevity, disease tolerance and feed shortage tolerance. Hulunim (2014) reported
135

similar finding wherein goat owners across the selected areas were highly interested in
body size (conformation), adaptability, and reproduction rate and disease tolerance but
Page

were not interested milk yield. The ranking of trait preference in order of descent was
 Alebel Mulia

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 9(1), 126-140

body conformation (0.20), reproduction rate (0.17), adaptability (0.16), disease

tolerance (0.14), feed shortage tolerance (0.14), coat color (0.12) and longevity (0.07)
in highland agro-ecology. Similarly, the sampled respondents in midlands ranked
traits in descending order as body conformation (0.21), coat color (0.19), reproduction
rate (0.17), feed shortage tolerance (0.17) disease tolerance (0.13), adaptability (0.09)
and longevity (0.04). In lowland agro-ecology of the study area body conformation
(0.23), coat color (0.21), reproduction rate (0.19), feed shortage tolerance (0.16),
disease tolerance (0.12), adaptability (0.07) and longevity (0.02) were ranked 1st, 2nd,
3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th by the respondents. This indicated that body conformation
across all three agro-ecologies of the study area were ranked first for the next
generation followed by reproduction rate and adaptability in highland; and coat color
and reproduction rate both in midland and lowland. Similarly, the finding of Yaekob
et al. (2015) reported that body conformation, reproduction rate, and coat color type
was the most preferable traits in Northern Omo. The finding of current study was also
in line with the report of Ahmed (2013) who reported as body conformation and coat
color is the most preferable trait. Preference of body conformation across all three
agro-ecology was mainly associated with meat production (i.e. a goat having high
body conformation were expected to produce high amount of meat), and preference of
coat color in midland and lowland farmers might be associated with socio-cultural
practices and market demand.

Table 6: Farmer’s Trait Preference in the Study Area

High land Mid land Low land

Trait preference
Inde
of farmers 1st 2nd 3rd Index 1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd Index
x
Body
16 9 3 0.20 15 9 9 0.21 17 13 0 0.23
conformation
Reproduction
10 6 17 0.17 14 6 5 0.17 5 13 23 0.19
rate
Adaptability 7 10 13 0.16 3 9 5 0.09 3 5 6 0.07
Disease tolerance 9 8 4 0.14 8 6 9 0.13 5 9 8 0.12
Feed shortage
10 5 7 0.14 7 11 14 0.17 10 6 12 0.16
tolerance
Coat color 5 11 5 0.12 10 16 3 0.19 17 11 0 0.21
Longevity 0 8 8 0.07 0 0 12 0.04 0 0 8 0.02

Major Disease and Veterinary Service of the Study Area

Healthy animals which have normal physiological function and structure might
produce maximum product of their potential. The major diseases reported by the
136

respondents in the study area were Pasteurellosis, FMD, anthrax, diarrhea, shoat pox,
internal and external parasites in order of their importance are presented in Table 7.
Page

The prevalence of disease was somewhat different across the three agro-ecologies of
 Alebel Mulia

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 9(1), 126-140

the study area. Among these listed major disease: Pasteurellosis, FMD, diarrhea and
anthrax were the most frequently occurring disease with an index value of 0.24, 0.20,
0.19, and 0.15, respectively in highland; and 0.20, 0.18, 0.17 and 0.17, respectively, in
midland whereas in lowland internal and external parasites (0.22), shoat-pox (0.22),
FMD (0.17), and anthrax (0.16) were occurring frequently in order of importance.
This study was similar with the report of Bekalu (2014) in West Gojjam Zone where
Pasteurellosis were the most commonly affecting diseases of goats and causing most
losses. The great production loss caused by disease problems could be due to climatic
condition of the study area, which might aggravate the prevalence of disease and poor
nutrition for goats. Key informants, during group discussion in the study area,
reported that most of the farmers were using modern drugs from government clinics,
and some other farmers used traditional mode of treatments.

Table 7: Major Disease of Goat Production System

High land Mid land Low land

Major disease
1st 2nd 3
rd
Index 1st 2nd 3rd
Index 1st 2nd 3rd Index
Pasteurellosis 23 4 3 0.24 13 4 22 0.20 6 2 7 0.08
FMD 11 10 15 0.20 13 8 8 0.18 11 8 14 0.17
Anthrax 5 11 16 0.15 5 14 14 0.17 4 17 10 0.16
Diarrhea 12 10 8 0.19 11 12 2 0.17 0 18 8 0.13
Shoat pox 2 16 1 0.11 4 8 4 0.09 18 7 7 0.22
Internal and external
4 6 14 0.11 11 11 7 0.18 18 5 11 0.22
parasite

The status of veterinary services (Table 8) showed that majority of respondent (94.7%
in highland and 91.2% in midland and 56.1% in lowland) farmers take sick goat to
veterinary service. In addition to taking sick goat to veterinary service, a small
proportion of farmers treat their sick goat by local traders using different traditional
knowledge in all agro-ecology; this is in line with Bekalu (2014) which showed that
farmers treat their sick goat by a means of traditional methods in West Gojjam Zone.
The respondents stated that all (100%) of farmers get veterinary service for their goat
population in the study area. Out of the total majority (60.8%) of the goat owners get
their veterinary service from government veterinary services and the rest 28.7 and
10.5% get it from private and both government and private veterinary services.
Regarding the distance of veterinary service facility, 45.6% of the farmers travelled
not more than 5 km with their goats to get veterinary services while 32.7% of them
travelled 6 to10 km to get veterinary services. The remaining 21.6% of farmers can
accesses veterinary services by moving greater than 10 km. This leads to death of
137

many goats before getting the service especially in lowland agro-ecology of the study
area. This was in line with Ahmed (2013) wherein majority (65.02%) and (39.87%) of
Page
 Alebel Mulia

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 9(1), 126-140

the farmers in the study area accessed to only government veterinary clinics and
travelled 1 to 5 km with their goats to get veterinary service, respectively.

Table 8: Status of Veterinary Services

Highland Midland Lowland Overall
Variables X2value
N % N % N % N %
(A) What would you do when your goat is sick? 36.586*
Sales immediately 0 0.0 2 3.5 2 3.5 4 2.3
Slaughter immediately 1 1.8 2 3.5 15 26.3 18 10.5
Takes to veterinary
54 94.7 52 91.2 32 56.1 138 80.7
center
Treat with treatments
2 3.5 1 1.8 8 14.0 11 6.4
from local traders
(B) Do you have access veterinary service? NS
Yes 57 100.0 57 100.0 57 100.0 171 100.0
(C) If yes, what type of service? 12.551*
Government 28 49.1 35 61.4 41 71.9 104 60.8
Private 19 33.3 14 24.6 16 28.1 49 28.7
Government and private 10 17.5 8 14.0 0 0.0 18 10.5
(D) Distance to veterinary service facility: 14.240*
<5km 36 63.2 26 45.6 16 28.1 78 45.6
6-10km 13 22.8 19 33.3 24 42.1 56 32.7
>10km 8 14.0 12 21.1 17 29.8 37 21.6
N=Number of household, *significant difference at p < 0.05, NS=non-significant (p>0.05)

CONCLUSION
The current study was aimed to generate information on production objective,
breeding practice and farmer’s trait preference of indigenous goat in South Gondar
Zone of Amhara region, Ethiopia that help to design important breeding program.
Income generation and meat for consumption in highland and midland whereas
income generation followed by saving in lowland agro-ecology is the most production
objectives of keeping goat in the study area. The study shows that trait preferences
reflect the general production environment and market preferences operating in their
respective area of the study site. Results also show that adaptation traits need to be put
into consideration especially in highland and midland agro-ecologies apart from
productive traits in designing breeding programs for three agro ecologies of south
Gondar zone of Amhara region, Ethiopia. Trait preference and breeding practice of
farmers in the study area was traditional, and inbreeding coefficient of indigenous
goat in the private and communal grazing system was high comparable with the
maximum acceptable level of 0.063 (Armstrong, 2006). Based on the results of the
138

traditional way of breeding practice and inbreeding coefficient, breeding system and
ranking of trait preference by farmers should be given consideration while planning
Page

schemes for conservation, genetic improvement and sustainable utilization of

 Alebel Mulia

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 9(1), 126-140

indigenous goats. Therefor further investigation should be undertaken to minimize

inbreeding coefficient of indigenous goat.

REFERENCES
Adane Hirpa and Girma Abebe. 2008. Economic significance of sheep and goats. Pp.
325-340. In: Alemu Yami and R C Merkel (eds.). Sheep and Goat Production
Handbook of Ethiopia.ESGPIP (Ethiopian sheep and goat productivity
improvement program). Branna Printing Enterprise. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Ahmed, S., 2013. On-farm phenotypic and production system characterization of
indigenous goats in Horro Guduru Wollega zone, western Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis
Submitted to School of Graduate Studies, Haramaya University, Ethiopia
Alemayehu, R., 1993. Characterization (phenotypic) of indigenous goats and goat
husbandry practices in East and South East Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Alemaya
University of Agriculture, Alemaya, Ethiopia. pp135.
Armstrong, J.B., 2006. Inbreeding: Why we will not do it? Accessed on June 13,
2010from http://www.parispoodles.com/Inbreeding.html.
Bekalu M. (2014). Phenotypic characterization of indigenous goat types and their
production system in West Gojam Zone of Amhara region, Ethiopia. MSc Thesis
Haramaya university.109p.
Belete, A., 2013. On farm phenotypic characterization of indigenous goat types and
their production system in bale zone of Oromia region, Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis.
School of Graduate Studies in Haramaya University. Haramaya, Ethiopia.
Bett RC, Kosgey IS, Kahi AK, Peters KJ .2011. Definition of breeding objectives and
optimum crossbreeding levels for goats in the smallholder production systems.
Small Rumin. Res. 96:16-24.
CSA (Central Statistics Agency). 2016. Agricultural sample survey. Volume II,
Report on livestock and livestock characteristics. Statistical bulletin, 570, April
2013, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. CSA (Central Statistics Agency).
FARM-Africa, 1996. Goat Types of Ethiopia and Eritrea. Physical description and
management systems. Published jointly by FARM-Africa, London, UK and
International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya. 76pp.
Galal, S., 2005.Biodiversity in goats. Small Ruminant Research. 60(1-2):pp75-81. Ain
Shams University. Cairo, Egypt.
Gurmessa, U, G., Hundesa, F., Duguma, M. and Muleta, M., 2011. Analysis of goat
production situation at Arsi Negele Woreda, Ethiopia. Journal of Stored Products
and Postharvest Research, 2(8), pp.156-163.
Hulunim Gatew, 2014. On-farm phenotypic characterization and performance
139

evaluation of Bati, Borena and Short eared Somali goat populations of Ethiopia.
M.Sc. Thesis submitted to the School of Animal and Range Sciences, School of
Page

Graduate Studies in Haramaya University. Haramaya, Ethiopia. Pp55-56.

 Alebel Mulia

GLOBAL JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, 9(1), 126-140

IBC (Institute of Biodiversity Conservation), 2004. The State of Ethiopia’s Farm

animal Genetic Resources: Country Report. A Contribution to the First Report on
the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources. IBC, May 2004. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
Ilatsia ED, Roessler R, Kahi AK, Piepho HP, Zárate V (2012). Production objectives
and breeding goals of Sahiwal cattle keepers in Kenya and implications for a
breeding program, Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 44:519-530.
Kosgey, I.S. and Okeyo, A.M., 2007. Genetic improvement of small ruminants in
low-input, smallholder production systems: Technical and infrastructural
issues. Small Ruminant Research, 70(1), pp.76-88.
Kosgey, I.S., 2004. Breeding objectives and breeding strategies for small ruminant in
the tropics. PhD Thesis, Animal Breeding and Genetics Group. Wageningen
University, the Netherlands.
Mengistie, T., 2008.On-farm performances of Washera sheep at Yilmanadensa and
Quarit districts of the Amhara National Regional State. MSc Thesis, Hawssa
University, Ethiopia. pp: 62.
Philipsson, J, Rege JEO, Okeyo AM., 2006. Sustainable breeding programmes for
tropical farming systems. In: J. M. Ojango, B. Malmfors and A.M. Okeyo (eds.).
AGTR - version 2, International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi and
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Solomon, A., 2014. Design of community based breeding programs for two
indigenous goat breeds of Ethiopia. Doctoral Thesis. Universitat fur Bodenkultur
Wien University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna.Pp34-35.
Yadeta, N., 2016. Production and reproduction performances, producers’ trait
preferences and marketing system of small ruminants in Ada Barga and Ejere
Districts of west Shoa Zone, Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Jimma University.
Yaekob, L., Kirmani, M. A. and Birhanu, B., 2015.Participatory Characterization of
the Woyto-Guji Goat and Its Production Environment around Northern Omo,
Ethiopia. The Journal of Agriculture and Natural Resources Sciences, 2(2), 455-
465.
140
Page