Abstract

The objective of the study was to assess on smallholder dairy cattle production management, feed resources and feeding practices in rural and urban of Horro district, Horro Guduru Wollega Zone in the Oromia regional state of Ethiopia. According to the study’s findings, the result showed that the overall proportion of sex in the study area, the majority of the average dairy cattle owning households were male headed (84.8%) while females headed (15.2%). The educational status of the respondents was majority (31.9%) of farm household heads were illiterate. The total land holding size of the respondents in the rural area (2.15 ha per household) was found to be significantly (P<0.05) different from that of the urban area (0.79 ha per household) and rural area (1.47 ha per household). In addition, the overall percentage of household owning local breed cow, crossbreed cow and both were (79%, 13% and 8%), respectively. Almost all respondents (97.8%) provide traditional barn, in study area, which is made from locally available materials, and (2.2%) respondents provide modern barn. The main source of water in the study of site is river for (62.3%) and as well as followed by, taps water (20%), spring water (11.6%), and pond (5.8%) of dairy cattle. Natural pasture, crop residues, improved forage, trees or shrubs, and agro industrial byproducts are the main feed resources that are readily available. In the study areas, free grazing represented most feeding systems (61.6%), with the tethering coming in second (13.8%) and both were third (24.6%). Overall, the study reveals that improper housing, feed constraints, nutritional disorders, poor breeding, water scarcity, disease problem, and limited access to extension services contribute to low production management of dairy cattle in the study area. Therefore, improvements in housing, feed, water, breed, disease, calf rearing, extension services, and dairy production and management techniques, feed resource and feed practices information.

Keywords:Crop-residue; Crossbreed; dairy cattle; feed resources; Local cows; Smallholder.

Introduction

Large numbers of animals reside in Ethiopia, which also has a variety of agro-ecological zones ideal for raising livestock and cultivating a wide range of food and feed crops (Demise, 2017). The livestock population of the countries is estimated to be 70 million, which is almost entirely composed of local (97.4%), hybrid (3.2%) and exotic (0.31%) (CSA, 2021) and (Demelash, 2023). The security of livestock farmers’ livelihoods in the nation is significantly influenced by the cattle industry. Landless, small, and marginal farmers rely heavily on agriculture and related sectors to augment their income, with animal husbandry and dairy development playing a major role in the rural economy (Thakkar, 2021).

In Ethiopia animal production is often a secondary activity within the subsistence farming system. However, commercial dairy farming in Ethiopia is expanding due to income increase, rapid urbanization and changing dietary habits based on climate, land holding and integrated with crop production; dairy production can be; pastoralist, highland smallholder, urban and peri-urJournal ban and intensive dairy farming system are recognized in Ethiopia (Abera, 2018) [1]. According to Futassa [2] and Tsegaye [3], about majority of the total milk production in Ethiopia is produced by the smallholder dairy farmers living in the rural community and exercising, in most instances, traditional dairying. In the country dairy production is constrained by various factors including genotype, inadequate feed resources, inadequate veterinary services and milk market. A group of no more than seven milking cows are kept on less than one hectare of land in smallholder dairy farming, which is an economic activity (Abrahim, 2023).

About 20% of the global population, mostly those living in rural and per urban areas across the globe, especially in developing nations, depend on smallholder dairy farming as their primary source of income [4]. The scarcity of crossbred dairy cows, the lack of capital for dairy farmers, the quantity and quality of inadequate animal feed resources, the lack of improved husbandry systems, the ineffectiveness and inadequacy of milk processing equipment and supplies, and the absence of market-oriented production are the main causes of Ethiopia’s dairy sector’s lower productivity [5].

Livestock feed resources available in Ethiopia are natural pasture, crop residues, improved forage, hay, industrial by-products [6,7] Moreover, [8,9] stated that in Ethiopia the major available dairy feed resources include natural pastures, crop residues and pasture crops as well as agro industrial by-products. The contribution of these feed resources, however, depends on the agro ecology, the types of crops produced and accessibility and production system. Residues from cereals (for example wheat, teff and barely) are the main source of forage but these are low in protein and have poor digestibility. The availability of feed resources is the most important factor that determine the productivity of dairy. The role of natural pasture grazing as a major dairy feed resource is diminishing from time to time due to shrinking of the grazing land size [10].

Several factors contribute to the imbalance of nutrients and improper feeding of livestock, especially dairy cattle. These include the need for databases at both the feed and animal levels, as well as the lack of appropriate technologies that can optimize the use of available feed resources and replace traditional practices [11]. Ethiopia is well-known for producing cereal crops, and the crop leftovers that are left over could be fed to dairy calves to increase milk output, just like natural pasture does. Despite the nation’s expected vast supply of crop residues, improper handling and a lack of knowledge regarding crop residue improvement may exist [12]. There is no information on conservation techniques, the nutritional makeup of accessible feed supplies, feeding techniques, or dairy feed resources available in the Horro areas. Appropriate dairy feeding practices have an issue. Thus, this study is designed to fill the gap the the objective of assessing smallholder dairy cattle production management, feed resources and feeding practices in rural and urban areas.

Materials and Methods

Description of the study area

Horro area of the Horro Guduru Wollega zone, in the Oromia regional State of Ethiopia, was the site of these investigations. The district is situated with latitude 9º 34´N and longitude 37°5’60’’ E, 314 kilometers west of Finfinne (Addis Ababa). There are 114,532 people living in the Horro district and Shambu town out of 58,450 men, 56,082 females and 24,346 households (Abba warra), (Horro agricultural office, 2023). Horro district shares borders with the following districts: Jimma Geneti district in the south, Abay Chomen and Guduru districts in the east, Abe Dongoro districts in the west, Amuru and Jarte districts in the north. Horro district was stratified into one depending on heights Dega (high altitude), consisting of two urban kebeles (Shambu town) and eleven rural kebeles (Horro District annual report unpublished, 2023; [13].

The district experiences just one lengthy wet season, which lasts from March to mid-October and has mean temperatures of 22°C and 1,800 mm of precipitation annually [14]. The district is where the ecotypes of Horro cattle acquired their name. The terrain of most of the district is undulating, with hills and mountainous features predominating. There are forests—both man-made and natural. The district mostly grows wheat, maize, teff, barley, beans, peas, sorghum, and oats. Horro District agricultural office of agricultural and natural recourse states that land continues to make up most the district’s land use types. Horro District has a variety of soil types. Specifically, according to the Horro District Finance and Economic Development Report (2023), loam soil makes up 65%, black soil makes up 25%, and clay soil makes up 10%.

Sources and Methods of Data Collection

Both primary and secondary data were collected. The primary date was collected on one-to one interview using structured survey questionnaire with pre-tested and administrated to well trained and experience enumerators who have knowledge of the dairy cattle management and feed by local language (Afaan Oromo). During the personal interview, information on dairy cattle management and feeds, socioeconomic elements (age, gender, sex, marital status and education level) factors were collected.

Secondary data source includes books, journals and other published and unpublished documents from Wallaga University for about dairy cattle management and feed resources, zonal and agricultural offices, and internet relate sources to supplement primary date. Elders, village leaders and individuals who have experience about the dairy cattle management, feed resource and feed practices in the area were selected by the help of agricultural extension workers as a complementary to survey work. One focus group discussion was consisted of seven (involving four male and three female) people were made per each identified study site to support questionnaires data and the researcher facilitates the discussion at all sites. The main points included in the discussion were the history of dairy cattle production management, feed resources and feeding practices in the study area.

Sampling size and Sampling procedure

Smallholder dairy farmers in the Horro district were the subject of a cross-sectional study utilizing formal surveys, field observations, focus groups, and key informant interviews to gather data. A multistage sampling process was used; in the first stage, a district was chosen using the purposive sampling method from the administrative zone, considering its potential for feeding and management of dairy cattle. In the second step, the district’s two urban kebeles, 01 and 02, and four rural kebeles, Didibe kistana, Doyo bariso, Laku iggu, and Kombolcha canco, were chosen at random based on their potential for managing dairy production and dairy feeders. In the third stage, a random selection of 20 household in rural area and 29 household in urban area of dairy producers and feeder was data collected from each kebeles.

A total of 138 homes with dairy cattle were chosen from the district; these households were chosen from all kebeles. Structured questionnaires about feed resources, feeding procedures, and dairy cattle production management were used to interview the chosen owners of dairy cattle and dairy feeders. Using the probability proportional to sample size-sampling technique, the total sample size for household interviews was calculated [15].
𝑛 = 𝑍 2 (𝑃) (𝑞)/ 𝑑 2……………………………………………. (1)
= (1.96) 2 (0.1) (0.9)/ (0.05) 2
= 138.2976
=138
Where
n = desired sample size Cochran (1997) when population (HH) greater than 10,000.
Z = standard normal deviation (1.96 for0.25 in each tail at 95% confidence level).
p = 0.1(estimated proportion of population to be include in sample i.e. (10%).
q = 1-P i.e. (0.9) estimated of variance.
N = is the total number of populations.
d = degree of accuracy desire (0.05) or 5%.
HH=household.

Then 138 respondents were selected by systematic randomly sampled for survey.

Estimation of Available Feed Resource

The information gathered from the respondents regarding crop production/yield and area coverage was used to determine the amount of feed resource available in the research area. In addition, to supplement the main data, secondary data on the area of land used for growing annual and perennial crops as well as the quantity of grain produced were gathered from the Kebeles administration’s annual report and the woreda Agriculture and Natural Resources Office. By multiplying the average value of grazing land holding by the per hectare DM output of the natural pasture with a conversion factor of two tDM/ha/year, the total quantity of DM accessible from natural pastures in the study region was calculated [16].

According to the [17] conversion factor for the Ethiopian condition, the amount of available agricultural residues (DM basis) was determined from the total crop yields of the households, which were acquired from questionnaire surveys. For barley, wheat, and teff, the conversion factor is 1.5; for maize, it is 2. The average value of cultivated improved forage land holding was multiplied by the per-hectare DM production of the improved forage with a conversion factor of 8tDM/ha/year to determine the total quantity of dry matter (DM) available in improved forage [18].

Available Feed Resource Ranking

To rank the comparative value, greater frequency, number, and percent of respondents in each rank according to its proportion are used in the descriptive statistics.

The research area’s dairy cattle production required a ranking of primary feed kinds, feeding practices, and coping of mechanisms against feed scarcity [19].

To meet this requirement, indices were calculated as follows:
Index=(5×number of responses for the first rank+4 ×number of responses for the second rank+3×number of responses for the third rank + 2 × number of responses for fourth + 1 × number of responses for the fifth) / (5 × total responses for the first rank + 4 × total responses for the second rank + 3 × total responses for the third rank + 2 × total responses for the fourth rank + 1 × number of responses for the fifth) n number of respondents [20].

Data Analysis

Microsoft excel spreadsheets were used to store the information gathered from individual farms. The statistical program SPSS version 20 was used to examine the data [16]. Tables, frequencies, percentages, averages, and standard deviations were used to display the analysis data. A two-way analysis of variance was used to compare the means of quantitative data between urban and rural areas. A significant threshold of P < 0.05 was applied. Following cross tabulation (chi square approach), the statistical differences between the qualitative variables that were evaluated were likewise declared as a significant at P < 0.05 [21].

Results and Discussion

Household Characteristics

Table (1) summarized the socioeconomic characteristics of the households and showed that there was a significant difference in family size, a statically significant difference in age group and educational level, but no significant difference in sex and marital status between the rural and urban respondents in the research area. In the study area, female heads made up 84.8 percent of average dairy cattle-owning households in the research area, compared to male heads of 15.2%. This result showed that most of the dairy cattle producers in the area were led by men, which suggests that most women are not as valuable when making decisions as most men are, and that most men act as the only owners of their dairy cattle, using them primarily to generate cash income and drink for food. This suggests that males in the current study region are responsible for raising dairy cattle. The present results were like those of [22], who reported that in their study area in Kersa Malima Woreda, there were 80% males and 20% females. Similarly, [23] found that in urban dairy production systems in Central Oromia, Ethiopia, most respondents are male rather than female. A statistically significant (P < 0.05) distinction was found between the age group and educational level of participants in rural and urban dairy production. Most respondents (46.3%) in rural areas and (12.1%) in urban areas were illiterate, according to the respondents’ educational status in the study area’s rural dairy production management. Families managing dairy production in rural areas were less likely to be illiterate than those in the urban area. The present outcome was comparable to that of [24].

The age group comprising the greatest number of respondents (70.3%) was 41–60 years old, followed by 20–40 years old (15.2%), >60 years old (12.3%), and the youngest respondents (2.2%) were those under 20 years old. This suggests that most responders were discovered to be in the age range where they might be productive. 82.6% of respondents who worked in the dairy producers were married and lived in both rural and urban areas. The results are comparable to their findings of [25]. The average family size in the Horro district was 4.82, with 5.250±0.3031 for rural areas and 3.96±0.376 for urban areas, respectively. This disparity in family planning was the reason why there were more family members in rural areas than in urban ones. This outcome is similar with Teshome, (2019); Tsegaye, (2022) and [26] findings, which indicated that the average family size in rural areas was 6.22, in Bona Zuria district, Sidama zone was 5.73, and in Addis Ababa and Hawassa town was 4.8 respectively.

Landholding and Land Use Pattern of the Households

For dairy cattle production in the studied locations, land is the primary limiting issue. The quantity of production is mostly dependent on the available land area. Table 2 presents a summary of the landholdings of the households in the study area. The total land holding size of the respondents in the rural area (6.15 ha per household) was found to be significantly (P<0.05) different from that of the urban area (4.51 ha per household). According to [27], this research study was comparable which reported that in Damboya District of Kembata Zone, Southern Ethiopia. The quantity of grazing land was 1.2 ha, whereas the amount of cultivated land held by each household was 1.52 ha, indicating a significant difference between urban and rural areas. This result was consistent with the findings by [28], which stated that in the Bossona Worana area of the North Shoa zone, 1.7 ha (or 70%) of the land was set aside for agricultural production, while 0.4 ha (16.6%) was set aside for grazing. In the research area, the respondents’ total holdings of forests and woodlands were 1.095 hectares. Regarding forest and woodland holdings, there were significantly (P>0.05) variations between rural and urban areas. The outcome and the report by (Juhar et al., 2022), [28], and Desta et al., 2019) were comparable.

Smallholder Dairy Cattle Husbandry Management Practices Dairy Cattle holding per household in the study area

The most common type of livestock in the research area is cattle, particularly dairy cattle (Table 3). In the study area, there was a significantly (P<0.05) difference in the management of dairy production between rural and urban areas based on local breeds cows, crossbreed cows, and both types of cows. In rural areas, the percentages of local breed cows, crossbred cows, and both types of cows were 88.8%, 7.5%, and 3.7%, respectively; in urban areas, the percentages were 65.5%, 20.7%, and 13.8%. Accordingly, the study area, the percentage of cross-bred cows in rural areas is lower than that of cross-bred cows in urban areas, and overall, 79% of all cattle in the study area were local cows. Total in all, there are more local breed cows in rural areas than in urban areas. The findings in line with those of [29,30] in the Bako Tibe, West Shoa zone, who indicated that 97% of the dairy cattle originated from local cattle and in North-West parts of Ethiopia majority of dairy cattle were indigenous breed respectively.

Housing Management and Barn Cleaning Frequency

When high moisture and high temperatures can cause stress, proper housing management is crucial in lowering that stress, which in response improves performance. In the study area, there was a significant difference (P >0.05) in the types of housing used, ways housing arrangements, and the availability of separate space based on cow stage between urban and rural areas. Whereas 5.2% of respondents utilize modern barns in urban areas, all respondents provide traditional barns in rural areas that are made from materials available nearby and (94.8%) of respondents provide traditional barns in urban areas and then the overall greater part of (97.8%) were used traditional barn house type and only (2.2%) were used modern barn. The result with like by [31] in Welmare district, Oromia region, Ethiopia who indicted that majority (3.2%) of the respondents were used traditional barn type made from local materials.

There is a significant difference (P <0.05) in the common with family and isolated between dairy producers in urban and rural areas. When it came to their living conditions, most respondents (65.9%) reported that dairy cows shared a common housing, while just 34.1% of respondents used separate housing in overall. So, dairy cows shared a common place with their families in 93.8 percent of rural areas, while only 6.2% of respondents used a separate house; in contrast, 27.6 percent of respondents in urban ar eas with common house and (72.4%) used a separate house. The current result corresponds with that reported by [32] who found that only 11% of households provided a separate home while 89% of households housed their dairy cow together in a shared family home.

Between dairy producers in rural and urban areas, there was a significant difference (P <0.05) in the frequency of barn cleaning. While 69 percent of urban dairy producers cleaned their barns daily, most rural farmers (67.5%) only cleaned their barns once a weak and in the field, observations indicated that many dairy producers’ cow housing conditions were dirty, damp, as well as were having several holes in the floor, which made the animals uncomfortable. This result is in line with the findings of (Duguma et al., 2020). Table 4

Source of water and water management practices

Regarding water sources such rivers, waterholes, ponds, and tap water, as well as the distance and frequency of watering, there was a significant difference (P <0.05) between dairy farmers in rural and urban areas (Table 5). For 41.4% of the dairy cattle at the study of site, tap water serves as the primary supply of water for urban production management. However, rivers provide 83.8% of the water used by cattle in rural production management and so overall the majority (62.3%) of the respondents was used to river. This finding corresponds with that of (Dessalegn et al., 2020). The result study area was indicating that, 51.7% of respondents in urban areas watered their cows three times a day, most respondents in rural areas (60%) did not know how much water they provided for their dairy cows (Getaneh et al., 2023).

Milk and milking equipment management practices

In the research area, there was a highly significant difference (P <0.05) in hand cleaning, udder washing, and milk equipment between dairy producers in rural and urban areas. While all urban respondents (93.1%) stated they wash their hands before milking, the majority of rural dairy producers (68.7%) stated they do not wash their hand before milking, which is similar to my observations from other study areas (Sanbato et al., 2022), (Gebremedhin, 2022) , [33-35], reported.

As indicated in table 6, a greater number of milkier washed their udder and equipment, in the urban area majority (82.6%) was washing the udder with warm water pre-milking to facilitate washing and kills some microorganisms, to keep milkier hand temperatures during the cold season and to suddenly remove the milk remains on the hands and equipment. Only (13.8%) of households were washing before milking, while, the rest (86.2%) do not clean the udder, teats, and hind quarters of cows, which allows contamination of the milk and milk products. This result is adjacent to [36,37] who reported (16.7% and 83.3%), (10.6% and 89.4%) yes and no washed the udder and teats respectively, before milking cows in Bench Maji Zone, Southwest and East Gojjam Amhara region.

In the research locations, there was a significant difference (P <0.05) in the usage of plastic, aluminum containers, and Orobo (Elemtu) between dairy farmers in rural and urban areas. About 70.7% of urban milk producers utilize their milk as plastic, most of rural dairy farmers (73.8%) use milk made from Orobo (Elemtu) around materials like woven grass. This result reported here similarly with that of (Abdissa, 2020), in which the respondents used plastic buckets, metal bucket utensils, and “Okole” fashioned from woven grass for milking. Table 6

Breed and Breeding management practices

In the study area, there was no significant difference in the breeding system, In the rural study area, dairy cow owners mostly used natural mating (92.5%), while in the urban area; they used it only (39.7%) of natural mating during their observation (Table 7). The present result is similar to [38] who found that natural mating was used by the majority of farmers in the Aleta Wondo District. But there was a significant difference (P < 0.05) in the bull source between dairy producers in rural and urban areas. The research area’s farmers kept local breeds of bulls, which they obtained from several sources. These sources included free from neighbors (69.6%), home grown bulls (5.1%), and neighbor rent (25.3%). According to research [39], just 37.8% of young people were reared at home, with the other kids obtaining free from their neighbors (50.4%) and paid rent (11.8%).

Major diseases and health management practices

The health issues with dairy cattle that respondents in the research area mentioned are shown in Table (8) bellow and the results showed an extremely significant variation (P<0.005) in the kind of nutritional or metabolic disease occurrence among the study area. The respondents said that it had much problem animal health, including limited availability of veterinary supplies, insufficient access to animal health services, an absence of knowledgeable and reliable animal health technicians, and a shortage in laboratory services. Dairy cattle in the research region were vaccinated against common diseases at least once a year by every household and majority (50.7%) was used of veterinary treatment and (49.3%) was used traditional treatment. The study results similarly with [40,41] in the two pastoral districts in Southern Ethiopia, and in Bale and West Arsi Zones, Southwestern Ethiopia respectively.

The respondents stated that the biggest obstacles to the area’s dairy production as well as efficiency were parasites, illnesses, and inadequate management. According to the responders of study area, tick infestations (32.6%), mastitis (29.0%), bloat (16.7%), lumpy skin disease (LSD, 10%), blackleg (1.4%), brucellosis (3.6%), foot-and-mouth disease (1%), and anthrax (5.7%) were the most frequently dairy cattle diseases and parasites. The results reported by (Tulu, 2018) indicate that most farmers in Sheka and Benchi-Maji Zones of southwestern Ethiopia are Black leg (66.5%), ticks (46.5%), bloat (39%), Trypanosomiasis (37%), leech/Hurdiasis (30.5%), FMD (29.5%), LSD (28.5%) and Anthrax (21.5%), Pneumonia (20.5%) and abortion (16%) were the next important diseases. Table 8

Calf-rearing management practices

Table 9 displays the practice of calf-rearing in the research area. The partial suckling feeding strategy and bucket feeding for weaning were shown to differ highly significantly (P<0.05) among the study areas. While partial suckling was mostly used with homes that had dairy cows in the area, bucket feeding was also used with households that owned crossbred cows. Most respondents (97.5%) practiced partial suckling milk before milking in a rural setting, and 63.8% of respondents did the same in an urban setting. In general, (83.3%) and (16.7%) of respondents in the study area used partial suckling and bucket feeding milk, respectively. The findings of [42] from Jimma zone (80%) and [43] from Hadiyya zone, southern Ethiopia (80.7%) line up with this conclusion.

Constraints of dairy management in the study area

In the rural dairy management system, poor management ranks first among the key constraints, whereas in the urban management systems, feed scarcity is the primary restriction in study area under the (Table 10). Similar reported were identified by Duguma et al. [19] in Jimma town, Oromia regional state, Ethiopia and Begna et al. [44] in Bambasi, Benishangul Gumuz, Ethiopia and [45] research, which found that the primary challenges to dairy production in both urban and rural areas were disease, a lack of feed supplies, and water problems.

Feeds and Availability of Feed Resources

Natural pastures, crop residues, agro-industrial byproducts, improved forage, stubble/crop aftermath, grazing from fallow lands, and woodland and shrub areas were the primary feed resources in the research locations The dairy feed sources that were identified and ranked by the respondents based on their level of participation were cultivated fodders, natural pastures, crop residues, agro-industrial byproducts, fodder and tree shrubs feeds. Like this research area, several previous investigations showed that feeds from different sources were utilized by smallholder farmers in mixed crop-livestock farming areas [46, 28, 47]. In both rural and urban areas, crop residences had index values of 0.425 and 0.410 during the dry season, respectively, ranking them first. With follow index values of 0.275, 0.200, 0.075, and 0.025, respectively, feeds that categorized under natural pasture, fodder trees and shrubs, improved forage, and agro industrial byproducts were ranked second, third, fourth, and fifth in rural areas. With index values of 0.212, 0.190, 0.155, and 0.033, respectively, natural pasture, agro-industrial byproducts, improved forage, and fodder trees and shrubs were ranked second, third, fourth, and fifth in urban areas.

During wet season feeds classified as natural pasture, crop residues, fodder trees and shrubs, improved forage, and agro-industrial byproducts were ranked first, second, third, fourth, and fifth in rural areas, with index values of 0.529, 0.220, 0.101, 0.087, and 0.063 respectively. Therefore, in urban area, crop residues, natural pasture, agro-industrial byproducts, improved forage, and fodder trees and shrubs were ranked first, second, third, fourth, and fifth, with index values of 0.380, 0.328, 0.155, 0.103, and 0.034 respectively. This similar reported with, natural pasture ranked first in both the highland and the midland during the wet season, with an index value of 0.333. This was according to reports by Wote et al. (2018) for Gamela Woreda, Kambata Tambaro zone, Ethiopia; [43]; [42] in Jimma zone, Ethiopia (Table 11). While agro-industrial byproducts like wheat bran can be used little in urban areas but can’t be used in rural focus areas, natural pastures and crop residue provided most of the feed resources in the study areas. The material both wheat bran and noug cake concentrations were available to the responders and it’s coming from the areas of Nekemte, and Addis Ababa. The result was similar [7, 28]. Most respondents in the study area did not have improved forages on their farmland as dairy cattle feed source. Like the current findings, [48] reported that all households (100%) interviewed in Northwestern Ethiopia, did not cultivate improved forage species for their livestock production. Table 11

Grazing land availability

There overall communal grazing land in the study area was 86.2% and 13.8% respondents said they did not have communal grazing land (Table 12). According to the respondents, open grasslands make up the largest percentage of community grazing areas (81.9%), followed by grasslands covered in trees (12.3%), bush land grass land (4.3%), and swampy grasslands (1.5%). This reported like (Hirut et al., 2020) in Farta district, Ethiopia .

Grazing land system

In the research area, grazing systems were used below (Table 13). The three main grazing system were rotational feeding (9.4%), continuous grazing (54.4%) and the cut and carry system (36.2%). This similar reported [49] and (Getaneh et al., 2023) it reported that feeding cattle through rotational grazing is better than continuous grazing in the district of South Ari and Malle of South Omo, Ethiopia.

Dairy Cattle Feeding Practices, Feed Storage, and Feeding Transportation Dairy cattle feeding practices

The feeding strategy and feed source highly difference significantly (P <0.05) between dairy farmers in rural and urban areas. In the study areas, free grazing represented most feeding systems (61.6%), with the tethering coming in second (13.8%) and both was third (24.6%), (Table 14), this reported were similar by (Zewdu et al.,2022) and (Getaneh et al., 2023) In the research area, grazing or cut-and-carry systems with restricted mobility have been found. The importance of free grazing is greater in these study areas, most likely because the natural pasture did not produce enough biomass. The results that source of feeding was communal grazing (60.1%), own grazing (5.1%), and purchased (34.8%) from farmers, school and university or college compounds. As a result, farmers chose to feed their dairy cattle with crop residues, supplements, and browse trees and shrubs during the dry season, and purchased fodder from school and church compounds and other sources during the wet season. It also used a cut and carry system, which was important in reducing free grazing, this outcome line up with the [50, 51] report. Table 14

a-b Means with similar superscripts within a row are not significantly different (P>0.05); n=number of observations, percentage= percentage; M=mean; SEM=standard error of mea X²= Chi-skewer.

a-bMeans with different superscripts within a row are significantly different (P<0.05); n=number of respondents; SEM=standard error of mean; ha=hectare, X²= Chi-skewer.

n= number of respondents, %= percent respondents, X²= Chi-skewer

n= number of observations; % = percentage, X²= Chi-skewer

n=number of observations, %= percentage, X²= Chi-skewer

n=number of observations, %= percentage, X²= Chi-skewer

n=number of observations, %= percentage, DH=Dhukkuba (Disease), d^+se =disease, X²= Chi-skewer

n=number of observations, %= percentage, X²= Chi-skewer

Index= (5×number of responses for the first rank) + (4×number of responses for the second rank) + (3×numberof responses for the third rank) + ( 2× number of responses for fourth) + (1 × number of responses for the fifth) for each constraints / (5 × total responses for the first rank) + ( 4 × total responses for the second rank) + (3 × total responses for the third rank) + (2 × total responses for the fourth rank) + (1 × number of responses for the fifth) for all constraints (Hundie, 2023), n=number of respondents, %= percentage

Index= (5×number of responses for the first rank+4×number of responses for the second rank+3×numberof responses for the third rank + 2× number of responses for fourth + 1 × number of responses for the fifth) / (5 × total responses for the first rank + 4 × total responses for the second rank + 3 × total responses for the third rank + 2 × total responses for the fourth rank + 1 × number of responses for the fifth) n number of respondents. This reported of calculation with similar by (Zelalem et al., 2023) reported, n=number of respondents, %= percentage

n=number of observations, %= percentage, X²= Chi-skewer

n=number of observations, %= percentage, X²= Chi-skewer

n=number of observations, %= percentage, X²= Chi-skewer

Dairy cattle feed storage system

There was a highly significant difference in the feeding storage system and feeding forms. In the study location, 60.9% of respondents stored their feed within a shed, whereas 39.1% of respondents stored it outside in the shed (Table 15). As the table below indicates, majority household were stored crop residues (85.5%), and 15.5% hay, and silage of respondents in the study area, respectively, reported practicing feed preservation during production. Similar findings were reported by [28], who found that of the respondents stored their hay outside, and kept it in the shade, as well as covered it with plastic in Bossona Worana district, North shoa, of Ethiopia. According to Table 15, respondents fed crop residue to their animals in a variety of ways: 34.1% mixed crop residues with other feeds, 8.7% processed (treated) the feed, and 57.2% of respondents fed their animal’s whole. According to [51], who completed research in the stated that feeding crop residues in whole (55%) and treated straw (10%), found results that were like the current findings in East Gojjam zone, Ethiopia. Farmers in the study area did not prepare silage for their dairy cattle because of inadequate pasture and a lack of information about the process. [52] and [19] found in a comparable study done at Gilgel gibe, Southern Ethiopia, that none of the respondents had saved feed resource information related to silage. Table 15

Dairy cattle feeding transportation mechanisms

There was highly significant difference (P <0.05) in feed transport strategy or feed transport problem between dairy farmers in rural and urban locations. Among the most common forms of transportation in the studied areas were human power (18.1%), horses and donkeys (68.1%), and cars (13.8%). Regarding of the study area there were transport problem; no road access (23.2%), lack of materials (29.7%) and the absence of transportation facilities (47.1%) were the three primary problems with the transportation of dairy cattle feed in the study areas (Table 16). Dekebo, [53] and Diriba, [54] found similar things and indicated that transportation was a problem in the East Shoa zone.

Coping Strategies to Scarcity and Factor Affecting of Feed Quality Coping strategies to feed scarcity

Regarding ways to prepare for feed scarcity, there was a significant difference (P <0.05) between dairy farmers in rural and urban areas. They reported that farmers adopted coping strategies with dry season feed scarcity by increasing use of agro-industrial byproducts and concentrate mix, increasing use of conserved hay, increasing use of non-conventional feeds, purchasing green feeds when available and reducing herd size [19].

In the study area, the overall around 31.3% in the rural and 39.7% in urban of respondents said conserving crop residues and hay of feed scarcity and first ranked during the wet season, whereas 37.5% in rural and 27.6% in the urban of respondents overall said conserving crop residues and hay of feed scarcity and first ranked in the dry season and also follow by decreasing order of importance, conserving crop residues and hay, purchasing roughages, reducing herd size, and renting grazing land were the main coping strategies to feed scarcity adopted by the farmers. The results are like [55]. Perceived indicators of feed scarcity on livestock performance included poor productivity, increased mortalities, and slow growth rate and delayed puberty of young animals [19]. Table 17

Factor affecting of feed quality resources

The factors that affected feed quality in relation to dairy cow feed in the rural study region were overgrazing (1^st), Oder of feed (2^nd), maturity stage (3^rd), insects (4^th), weed (5^th), drought (6^th), soil erosion (7^th), and composition ingredient (8th). As well as in urban area, the feed Oder comes in (first), followed by the maturity stage (2^nd), insects (3^rd), composition (4^th), weeds (5^th), soil erosion (6^th), overgrazing (7^th) and drought (8^th). In contrast, [56, 57]. Table 18

?

Estimation of Annual Available Feed Resource in the Study of District Dry matter yield of natural pasture

In the district general about 165.6 ha of grazing land were available in the rural and urban study of sampled households (Annual report of Agricultural office of the district 2023). Therefore, the total dry matter production from natural pastures (private and communal grazing areas) was 331.2 tons per year (165.6*2 tons/ha). The amounts of natural pastures produced by the respondents were estimated from the pasture landholding of the respondents [58]. The pastureland holding of the total respondents in rural and lower urban area was 115.2 and 50.4 ha, respectively. Therefore, the pasture production in the rural and urban area was 230.4 and 100.8 tons/year, respectively which sums up to a total of 331.2 tons dry matter per year (Table 19).

Dry matter yield of crop residues

The total amount of dry matter from all crop residue produced by the sampled households was 1,246,151.8 ton/year (Table 20). However, Ayele [59] reported 10% of the crop residue loss was expected due to several factors.

Dry matter yield of crop aftermath

The contribution of crop aftermath in livestock feeding is great, especially when feed availability is limited to crop residues, hay and aftermath grazing. In the study areas, a total of 226.55 ha of land were covered by different crop types in the sampled households. The conversion factor of stubble gazing/crop aftermath into total dry matter yields is 0.5 [59]. Therefore, 113.275 tons of feed was obtained per year from crop aftermath in the respondents. These crops were majorly obtained from wheat, barley, teff, wheat and maize stover in both rural and urban area [60].

n=number of observations, %= percentage, X2= Chi-skewer

n=number of observations, %= percentage, X2= Chi-skewer

Index=(5×number of responses for the first rank+4×number of responses for the second rank+3×numberof responses for the third rank + 2× number of responses for fourth + 1 × number of responses for the fifth) / (5 × total responses for the first rank + 4 × total responses for the second rank + 3 × total responses for the third rank + 2 × total responses for the fourth rank + 1 × number of responses for the fifth) n number of respondents n=number of observations, %= percentage

Index=(5×number of responses for the first rank+4×number of responses for the second rank+3×numberof responses for the third rank + 2× number of responses for fourth + 1 × number of responses for the fifth) / (5 × total responses for the first rank + 4 × total responses for the second rank + 3 × total responses for the third rank + 2 × total responses for the fourth rank + 1 × number of responses for the fifth) n number of respondents (Zelalem et al., 2023), n=number of observations, %= percentage

*Source: Sampled households

Dry matter yield of forest land

In the study of district, farmers used different forest land as source of feed for animals especially at times of drought and feed shortage. About 151.11 ha of land were covered by trees and shrubs used for livestock feeding in the sample households. The conversion factor used to get total dry matter production from forest/ tree land was 0.7 [60], therefore a total of 105.777 tons of dry matter production per year.

Dry matter yield from fallow land

In the study of the district, the total area of land covered by fallow land was 146.28 ha. The conversion factor used to get total dry matter production from fallow land was 1.8 [60]. Therefore, a total of 263.304 tons of feed dry matter was produced in the respondents.

Dry matter requirement of livestock in the study district

The total livestock population of the district was 189,838.58 TLU of which cattle were (130,561.1 TLU), sheep (6032.08 TLU), goats (5710.5 TLU), horses (10,549.5 TLU), donkeys (6590.3 TLU), mules (223 TLU), poultry (11,012.1 TLU) and bee colonies (20,060) (Horro annual report of Agricultural office of the district 2023). About 63.9% of the respondents indicated that the total number of livestock and herd composition was declining from time to time due to shortage of grazing land, shortage of livestock feeds, water and diseases outbreak (Horro annual report of Agricultural office of the district 2023). The DM requirement is calculated based on the daily DM requirement of 250 kg dual purpose tropical cattle (an equivalent of one TLU) for maintenance requirement that needs 6.25kg/day/animal or 2281 kg/year/animal [60, 43]. Therefore, the total dry matter requirement of 178,826.48 TLU is 407,903.14 tons per year (poultry was excluded because of mono gastric nature of the animal).

Estimated annual feed balance

The current dry matter production of feed from natural pasture grazing, crop residues, crop aftermath grazing and forest and uncultivated land in the district was 261,194.42 tons per year. The total dry matter requirement for 178,826.48 TLU (poultry is excluded because it is mono gastric) is 407,903.14 tons per year. The total dry matter produced per year in the district, can only supply the animals for 6.54 months. In the rest of the year, animals suffer from feed shortage. In Horro district, the existing feed supply on a year-round basis satisfies only 83.9% of the maintenance DM requirement of livestock [60-74].

Conclusion

In the research area, dairy production management included water management, disease control, breeding, feed management, house management, and management of milk and calf rearing. The constraints related to dairy cattle were characterized by limited external effects and significant issues such as inadequate management, animal illnesses, scarcity of feed, and low productivity of dairy cows. Within part of the study location, natural pastures, crop wastes, agro-industrial byproducts (such as wheat bran and noug cake), improved forages, trees, and shrubs were the main sources of feed in the study areas. The most popular feeding practices were tethering around homesteads on natural pasture and communal grazing on private grazing land. Factors such as soil erosion, feed testing, weeds, droughts, overgrazing, maturation stage, and ingredient mix. However, farmers have been using hay, concentrated feed, unconventional feeds, improved forage production, stock transfers to relatives, and smaller herd sizes as are major coping strategies for the dry season feed constraint. Generally, to improve the management of dairy production and increase the productivity of dairy cows, farmers need to improve husbandry management techniques, feed resource development, and crop residue treatment during periods of feed scarcity. As well as capacitating skill of farmers on crop residue improvement is a solution.

Authors Contribution

Conceptualization, Negasa Tamasgen; Data curation, Diriba Dereje and Galata Gobena; Formal analysis, Diriba Dereje; Investigation, Negasa Tamasgen and Diriba Dereje; Methodology, Negasa Tamasgen and Galata Gobena; Software, Diriba Dereje and Galata Gobena; Validation, Diriba Dereje; Writing – original draft, Negasa Tamasgen; Writing – review & editing, Negasa Tamasgen.

References

1. Oluwole O, Ibidapo O, Arowosola T, Raji F, Zandonadi RP, et al. (2023) Sustainable transformation agenda for enhanced global food and nutrition security: a narrative review. Frontiers in Nutrition 10.
2. Futassa MB (2018) Assessment of Dairy Cattle Production, Handling and Marketing Systems of Milk and Milk Products in Bako Tibe District of West Showa Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia (Doctoral Dissertation).
3. Tsegaye K, Nurfeta A, Mekasha Y (2022) Dairy production and marketing systems in urban/peri-urban and rural dairy production systems in Bona Zuria district of Sidama Region, Ethiopia. International Journal of Livestock Production 13(3): 66-78.
4. Gitau KJ (2019) Factors Influencing Milk Production Among Small Scale Dairy Farmers in Mirangine in Nyandarua County and Mauche in Nakuru County, Kenya. Journal of Animal Science 18-34.
5. Denbi WB (2019) Evaluation of Productive and Reproductive Performances of Local And Their Crossbred Dairy Cattle Under Farmers’ management In Agarfa District Of Bale Zone, Oromia, Ethiopia (Doctoral Dissertation).
6. Belay G, Negesse T (2019) Livestock feed dry matter availability and utilization in burie zuria district, North Western Ethiopia. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 22(1).
7. Boloche D, Wato T (2022) Assessment of major dairy cattle feed resource availability and their chemical composition in Soro district of Hadiya zone, Southern Ethiopia. International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology 7(4): 253-264.
8. Boroje ZJ (2016) Assessment of Livestock Feed Resources and Nutritional Qualities of Major Livestock Feeds in Aleta Chuko Woreda, Southern Ethiopia (Doctoral Dissertation).
9. Mamo B, Mengistu A, Shenkute B (2023) Feed resources potential, and nutritional quality of major feed stuffs in the three agro-ecological zone of mixed farming system in Arsi zone, Ethiopia. Asian Journal of Research Animal Veterinary Science 6(3): 241-252.
10. Genzebu GH (2019) Evaluation of Farmers Adaptation Strategy to Decrease Degradation and Effect of Climate Change on Livestock Feed Production in Alaje District, Southern Zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia (Doctoral Dissertation, Hu).
11. Jimma A, Tessema F, Gemiyo D, Bassa Z (2016) Assessment of Available Feed Resources, Feed Management and Utilization Systems in SNNPRS of Ethiopia. Journal of Fisheries and Livestock Production 4: 183.
12. Adinew DH, Abegaze B, Kassahun D (2020) Assessment of feed resources feeding systems and milk production potential of dairy cattle in Misha district of Ethiopia. J Appl Sci Technol 11(1): 13-22.
13. Gemechu T, Girma M, Eshetu M (2020) Effect of Elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum) ensiled with different proportions of Dolichos lablab (Lablab purpureus) on intake, digestibility and growth performance of Horro sheep. Nigerian Journal of Animal Science and Technology (NJAST) 3(4): 1-19.
14. Bekana K, Jembere T, Duguma G (2022) On-Farm and On-Station Comparison of Early Growth and Survival Performances of Horro Sheep in Western Ethiopia. Anim. Prod 22(1): 1-12.
15. Cochran W (1997) Sampling Techniques. 3rd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
16. Tadele F, Aysheshim B, Guja A, Kechero Y (2021) Dairy Cattle Feed Quantity, Nutrient Balance and Feed Scarcity Coping Mechanism in Kedida Gamela Woreda, Kembata Zone, Southern Ethiopia. OMO International Journal of Sciences 4(1): 19-33.
17. Hassan H, Beyero N, Bayssa M (2020) Estimation of major livestock feed resources and feed balance in Moyale district of Boran Zone, Southern Ethiopia. International Journal of Livestock Production 11(1): 43-51.
18. Ayele J, Tolemariam T, Beyene A, Tadese DA, Tamiru M (2022) Biomass composition and dry matter yields of feed resource available at Lalo kile district of Kellem Wollega Zone, Western Ethiopia. Heliyon 8(2).
19. Duguma B, Janssens GP (2021) Assessment of livestock feed resources and coping strategies with dry season feed scarcity in mixed crop–livestock farming systems around the gilgel gibe catchment, Southwest Ethiopia. Sustainability 13(19): 1-28.
20. Zelalem T, Nurfeta A, Melesse A (2023) Effect of Replacing Soybean Meal with Brewery Dried Grain on Feed Intake, Egg Production and Egg Quality Parameters of Bovans Brown Chickens. Journal of Science & Development (JSD) 11(1).
21. Safaei M, Bashari H, Kleinebecker T, Fakheran S, Jafari R, Grope-Stoltenberg A (2023) Mapping terrestrial ecosystem health in dry lands: comparison of field-based information with remotely sensed data at watershed level. Landscape Ecology 38(3): 705-724.
22. Tefera, Wubshet, Gerd Elisabeth Vegarud, Mestawet Taye, and Tolosa Taye (2022) "Aflatoxin contamination in cow milk during wet and dry season in selected rural areas of Sidama zone Southern Ethiopia." International Journal of Food Properties 25(1): 2425-2434.
23. Sanbato S (2022) Assessment of Feed Resources, Feeding Pracitce, Milk Production and Evaluation of Microbial Quality of Milk in Malga District, Sidama Regional State, Ethiopia (Doctoral Dissertation).
24. Didanna HL, Wossen AM, Worako TK, Shano BK (2018) Factors Influencing Intensification of Dairy Production Systems in Ethiopia. Outlook on Agriculture 47(2): 133-140.
25. Kadiro (2021) Smallholder Dairy Production Characteristics and Physico-Chemical Quality of Raw Cow Milk and Traditional Fermented Dairy Product in Adami Tulu Jido Kombolcha Woreda of East Shoa Zone, Oromia Region, Ethiopia (Doctoral Dissertation, Haramaya University).
26. Duressa D, Yigrem S, Tola YB, Tolemariam T (2022) Contribution of Dairy Products to Farm Household Nutrition in Addis Ababa and Hawassa-Dilla Milk Sheds in Ethiopia. East African Journal of Sciences 16(1): 31-46.
27. Abo S (2020) Assessment of Smallholder Dairy Cattle Production and Dairy Products Marketing Systems and Major Challenges and Opportunities of Dairying in Damboya District of Kembata Tembaro Zone, Southern Ethiopia (Doctoral Dissertation).
28. Yared D (2021) Assessment of Dairy Cattle Feed Resources and Feeding Management Systems, In Bassona Worana Woreda, North Shoa Zone (Doctoral Dissertation).
29. Tegegne MT (2023) Evaluation of the Nutritional Profile of Common Livestock Feeds; Milk Yield And Composition Of Crossbred And Indigenous Boran Cows Supplemented With Different Levels Of Energy Diets (Doctoral Dissertation).
30. Benti M, Yigrem S, Jembere T (2021) Assessment of Dairy Cattle Production, Handling and Marketing Systems of Milk and Milk Products in Bako Tibe District of West Showa Zone, Ethiopia. International Journal of Food Science and Agriculture 5(3): 538-549.
31. Ketema H, Bekuma A (2018) Study on on-farm dairy cattle husbandry practices in Walmera district of Oromia regional state. Current Investigations in Agriculture and Current Research 4(4): 000195.
32. Mengistu L, Tegegne N, Ajebu N (2016) Assessment of Feed Resource Availability and Quality in Kedida Gamela District, Southern Ethiopia. International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) 1(1): 31-39.
33. Debela D (2023) Determinants of Milk Production Among Smallholder Dairy Farmers: The Case of Wachale District, North Shewa Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia (Doctoral Dissertation, St. Mary’s University).
34. Markos A, Begna F, Afera Y, Tolosa T (2023) Staphylococcus aureus isolates from cow’s milk in dairy farms at Shinshicho town, Kembata Tembaro Zone, Southern Ethiopia: Prevalence, risk factors, and antimicrobial susceptibility profile. Ethiopian Veterinary Journal 27(2): 23-44.
35. Asefa I, Legabo E, Wolde T, Fesseha H (2023) Study on Salmonella isolates from fresh Milk of dairy cows in selected districts of Wolaita zone, southern Ethiopia. International Journal of Microbiology 2023: 6837797.
36. Maru TD, Wari LF, Fufa, AJ, Mekete B (2023) Milk Handling Practices, Processing Methods, and Microbial Quality 11(2).
37. Ayalew H, Abatenhe A (2018) Dairy cattle production, processing and handling of milk and milk products in Enemay District, East Gojjam, Amhara, Ethiopia. J Adv Dairy Res 6(214): 2.
38. Debalke GE (2023) Assessment of Reproductive and Productive Performance of Crossbreed and Local Dairy Cattle Under Smallholders Management Practices In Urban And Peri-Urban Dairy Production System In Aleta Wondo District, Sidama Region, Ethiopia (Doctoral Dissertation).
39. Desta A (2021) Assessment of Dairy Cattle Production Practices, Traditional Milk Processing, Consumption and Marketing in Mirab Badewacho District of Hadiyya Zone, Southern Ethiopia (Doctoral Dissertation).
40. Balemi A, Gumi B, Amenu K, Girma S, Gebru MU, Tekle M, Kerro Dego O (2021) Prevalence of mastitis and antibiotic resistance of bacterial isolates from CMT positive milk samples obtained from dairy cows, camels, and goats in two pastoral districts in Southern Ethiopia. Animals 11(6): 1530.
41. Elemo KK, Abdurahiman K, Jata FB, Ukula MD (2022) Study on Prevalence and Risk Factors of Major Reproductive Health Problems in Dairy Cows of Bale and West Arsi Zones, Southeastern Ethiopia. Animal and Veterinary Sciences 10(5): 155-160.
42. Talera MA (2018) Evaluation of Efficiency of Estrus Synchronization and Assessment of Breeding Practice of Dairy Cattle in Jimma Zone, Southwestern Ethiopia.
43. Desta MA, Zeleke G, Payne WA, Shenkoru T, Dile Y (2019) The impacts of rice cultivation on an indigenous Fogera cattle population at the eastern shore of Lake Tana, Ethiopia. Ecological processes 8: 1-15.
44. Begna F (2022) Challenges and opportunities of indigenous dairy production and management: the case of selected rural villages in Bambasi District, Benishangul Gumuz Regional State, Western Ethiopia. International journal of agricultural science and food technology 8(2): 105-124.
45. Getachew Bekele (2020) Review on Characterization of Dairy Cattle Production Systems and Constraints in tropics, in Case of Ethiopia. International Journal of Animal Science, Husbandry and Livestock Production 6(5): 322-327.
46. Betamo MS (2022) Assessment of the Major Livestock Feed Resources, Evaluation Of Their Chemical Compositions And Estimation Of Feed Balance In Misrak Silti Woreda, Siltie Zone, Southern Ethiopia (Doctoral Dissertation).
47. Ararsa Derara KD, Molla M (2018) Assessment of Livestock Feed Resources in Weliso District Southwest Shoa Zone Central Ethiopia. American-Eurasian Journal of Agriculture and Environment Science 18(3): 145-167.
48. Shiferaw M, Asmare B, Tegegne F, Molla D (2018) Farmers’ perception and utilization status of improved forages grown in the natural resource areas of northwestern Ethiopia. Biodiversities Journal of Biological Diversity 19(4): 1568-1578.
49. Leggesse G, Gelmesa U, Jembere T, Degefa T, Bediye S, et al. (2023) Ethiopia National Dairy Development Strategy 2022-2031.
50. Bedada KW, Kechero Y, Janssens GPJ (2021) Seasonal and agro-ecological associations with feed resource use and milk production of ranging dairy cows in the Southern Ethiopian Rift Valley. Tropical animal health and production 53(4): 411.
51. Desta AG (2023) Research article Nutritional Content Analysis of Crop Residues in Three Agro ecologies in East Gojjam Zone.
52. Folla MM (2022) Assessment of Available Feed Resources, Feed Management and Utilization Practice In Douro Zone, Loma Distract, Southern Ethiopia (Doctoral Dissertation).
53. Dekebo D, Kebede IA (2023) Review on Dairy Cattle Production in Ethiopia. Mathews Journal of Veterinary Science 7(4): 1-17.
54. Diriba L, Urge M (2020) Status and challenges of available feed resources and its quality under the changing climate in Adami Tulu districts of east Shoa zone, Ethiopia. Am J Basic Appl Sci 3: 15.
55. Begna R, Asfaw Y, Masho W (2023) Evaluation of trait preferences and effect of parity, season and lactation stage on production performance of indigenous dairy cow in kaffa zone, southwest Ethiopia. Heliyon 9(12): e22380.
56. Yoseph D, Didanna HL, Ayza A (2022) Household characteristics, production and quality of bovine milk from crossbred dairy stock in the rural dairy production system of Ethiopia. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 10: 100453.
57. Birhanu M, Ashenafi M, Belete S (2023) Feed resources potential, and nutritional quality of major feed stuffs in the three agro-ecological zone of mixed farming system in Arsi zone, Ethiopia. Asian Journal of Research in Animal and Veterinary Sciences 6(3): 241-252.
58. Adicha A, Darcho D, Ermias G, Kuse K, Kelifa Z (2023) Analysis on crop-livestock and agro-pastoral farming system. Journal of Innovative Agriculture 10(3): 1-21.
59. Ayele J, Tolemariam T, Beyene A, Tadese DA, Tamiru M (2021) Assessment of livestock feed supply and demand concerning livestock productivity in Lalo Kile district of Kellem Wollega Zone, Western Ethiopia. Heliyon 7(10).
60. Yadessa E, Ebro A, Fita L, Asefa G (2016) Livestock feed production and feed balance in Meta-Robi district, west Shewa zone, Oromiya regional state, Ethiopia. Academic Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Research 4: 45-54.
61. Abebe Belete Kuraz, Mulugeta Tesfaye Alemayehu (2022) A review of the nutritional use of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) for human and animal diets. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research.
62. Admasu Lakew (2020) Study on Dairy Cattle Production Systems, Milk Quality And Major Disease Problems In: Debre Berhan Milkshed, Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
63. Alemu T (2019) Assessment of Livestock Feed Resources, Feeding System and Nutritional Evaluation Of Major Feed Resources In Aleta Chuko District, Sidama Zone, South Ethiopia (Doctoral Dissertation).
64. Borche TT (2021) Assessment of Breeding Practices, Trait Preferences, Productive and Reproductive Performance of Crossbred Dairy Cattle Reared in Arbegona District of Sidama Regional State, Ethiopia (Doctoral Dissertation).
65. CSA (Central Statistical Agency) 2021 Ethiopia Livestock Systems: Overview and Areas of Inquiry. Gainesville, FL, USA: Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock Systems.
66. Dessalegn N (2020) Assessment of Dairy Cattle Production System in Meskan District of Gurage Zone, Southern Ethiopia (Doctoral Dissertation).
67. Emana M, Ashenafi M, Getahun A (2017) Nutritional Characterization of Selected Fodder Species in Abol and Lare Districts of Gambella Region, Ethiopia Nutr Food Sci 7(581): 2.
68. Galmessa U, Meseret Kumela AB, Fita L (2019) Gender Roles in Dairy Cattle Production, Processing and Marketing in Two Selected Districts of West Shoa Zone of Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. EC Agriculture 5(12): 01-14.
69. Gezahegn G (2022) Impacts of Climate Change on The Livelihoods and Coping Strategies of The Pastoral Communities Of Dasenech Woreda, South Omo Zone, Snnpr, Ethiopia (Doctoral Dissertation).
70. Hundie D, Duguma H, Mekonnen A (2023) Dairy Cattle Production and Milk Handling Practices under Different Management Systems in Bako-Tibe District, Western Oromia, Ethiopia. Journal of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources 1(1): 12-21.
71. Jilo MB (2020) Assessment of Feed Resources Availability, Constraints and Livestock-Feed Balance in Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples ‘region, Ethiopia (Doctoral Dissertation).
72. Juhar AN (2022) Assessment of Feed Resources, Analysis of Chemical Compositions of The Most Commonly Used Feeds and Determination of The Feed Balance in Sankura District Silte Zone Southern Ethiopia (Doctoral Dissertation).
73. Kiros Abebe (2019) Characterization of Smallholder Dairy Production and Cow Milk Quality in Kombolcha District, South Wolo, Ethiopia. Addis Ababa University, Bishoftu, Ethiopia.
74. Mitiku Eshetu, Abebe Bereda, Zelalem Yilma, Mohammed Yousuf, Getenet Assefa (2017) Socio-economic characteristics of dairy production in the selected areas of Ethiopian central highlands. Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health 9(8): 193-203.