Evaluation of flock structure and performances of Bonga sheep under extensive management conditions in Kaffa Zone, South Western Ethiopia

Abstract

This study was conducted in Adiyo and Telo districts of Kaffa Zone, South Western Peoples Regional State (SWEPRS) of Ethiopia with the aim of evaluating the performance of Bonga sheep under farmer’s management conditions. To this end, the farmers who have ewes were registered and 200 respondents were randomly selected. The study revealed that both participant and non-participant farmers have been rearing sheep for the purpose of income generation, followed by saving, social value, meat and wealth in decreasing order. The current study also revealed that disease and parasites are the major constraints for both groups, followed by predator and shortage of fodder. Lambing interval (LI) was 9.4 ± 0.18 months, days open (DO) were 20.2 ± 0.13 days and liter size (LS) was 1.4 ± 0.04, and lambing interval (LI) was shorter (8.5 ± 0.22 months) in Community based breeding program (CBBP) participants than in non-participants (10.5 ± 0.28 months). The birth, weaning and six month weight were 3.8 ± 0.06, 16.0 ± 0.10 and 27.8 ± 0.33 kg. The preweaning average daily weight gain and postweaning average daily weight gain were 136.0 and 133.0 ± 0.02 g/day respectively. Both participants and non-participants’ reproductive and growth performances have shown a remarkable progression. In conclusion, engagement of farmer in CBBP improved lambing interval, birth weight, weaning weight, six month weight, pre-weaning weight average daily gain, and post weaning average daily gain of bonga sheep. Hence, CBBP strategy is likely to be important to attain the designed benefit from sheep production in the area.

Keywords:

• Bonga sheep
• ewe flushing
• reproductive performance
• community based breeding program (CBBP)
• estrus synchronization

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Pedro González-Redondo, University of Seville, Spain

SUBJECTS:

• Agriculture & Environmental Sciences; Nutrition; Biotechnology

1. Introduction

In Ethiopia, there are about 42.9 million heads of sheep among which 70% of them are females and 30% are males (CSA, 2020–2021). Small ruminants make up over 13% of the nation’s livestock biomass and, in spite of their poor productivity, they nevertheless provide a significant contribution (2%) to the total nation Gross Domestic Product (GDP) annually (Jemberu et al., 2022).

The sheep production system is not effective due to different constraints such as shortage of feed and water, diseases occurrence, parasite infestation, lack of genetic improvement, lack of market access and information (Eshetu et al., 2018). According to Tezera (2015) uncontrolled mating practices have a significant impact on inadequate genetic resources and negatively impact on sheep productivity and this is primarily owing to traditional free grazing management techniques.

Due to these limiting factors ICARDA and other organizations created the community based breeding program (CBBP) in four regions that represent various agro-ecologies and four indigenous sheep breeds: Afar, Bonga, Horro and Menz (Haile et al., 2011). The strategy is performing well in this community based breeding program such as Bonga, Menz, and Horro (Gutu et al., 2015).

Bonga sheep are primarily found in the Kafa zone and nearby areas like Dawuro, Konta and Bench Sheko zones in Ethiopia, which are part of the Kaffa Biosphere Reserve. The sheep have adapted to the local environment and are well-suited to the forested and hilly terrain of the region. According to Edea et al. (2012), Bonga sheep breed is one of Ethiopia’s most well-known and largest breeds, with a long and wide fat tail with a tapering and twisted end, polled males and females, short and smooth hair, a predominantly convex facial profile of males, and a predominantly light red coat color. When compared to other Ethiopian indigenous sheep breeds, it has the best litter size, high growth rate or weight gain, and good edible quality and palatability of meat under comprehensive management, even with low feeding or natural pasture grazing. Although ICARDA has been developing community based breeding program in partnership with International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), and Ethiopian Research and Development Institutions(ERDI) in 2009 (Tesfaye & Haile, 2021), there was a lack of well recorded data on the structure and performance of bonga sheep flocks that would have been useful to the scientific community and policy makers. Therefore, this study was aimed to evaluate the flock characterstics, production performance and production constraints of bong sheep under extensive management conditions in Kaffa zone in southwestern Ethiopia.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Description of the study area

The study was carried out in Adiyo and Telo districts of Kaffa Zone, South West Ethiopian people’s Regional State, as shown in Figure 1. Kaffa Zone is situated in the southwestern part of Ethiopia (7° 34′ N latitude and 37° 6′ E longitude) and is 473 km away from capital city, Addis Ababa. It has a total area of 10,602.7 km². There are 12 rural districts and 5 administrative towns in the province. The area is characterized by mixed crop-livestock production system. There is one major rainy season, which extends from May to October, and a dry season from October to April (Mirkena et al., 2012). There are three distinct agro-ecological climatic zones: highland, mid-altitude and lowland. Its typical annual temperature ranges from 10 to 27.5 °C, with annual rainfall ranging from 1001 to 2200 millimeters (Debalke & Abebe, 2022). The livestock population in Kaffa Zone is 21,424,463 heads, which accounts 3,717,115 (17.3%) for sheep population (Kaffa Zone Finance & Economic Development Office, 2020). To get back to the point, Adyo and Telo districts were selected purposefully among other administrative districts of the zone because of the availability of Bonga sheep CBBP cooperatives and the potential of the sheep population. And then, a total of eight kebeles, four (Boka, Madiwuta, A/geta, and Buta) from Adyo and the remaining four (Guta, Shosha, Yama and Dacha) from Telo districts were selected randomly

Figure 1. Map of study area.

2.2. Data sources and methods of data collection

2.2.1. Source and type of data

This study was conducted on Bonga sheep breeding under farmers’ management conditions. Data were collected from both CBBP participants and non-participants. A semi-structured questionnaire was prepared for the survey of sheep breeds, which was supplemented with secondary data from kebeles, woreda, and zonal organizations of the study area. Prior to administration, the questionnaire had a pre-test, by which it was reorganized, reframed, and corrected in light of respondents’ feedback. Under careful supervision of the researcher, a team of enumerators were recruited and trained, specifically for the task distributing the questionnaire to the randomly selected household heads or representatives. The possession of livestock, the breeding system and management techniques, the castrating of sheep, the main opportunities and restrictions for production, and the size of the respondents’ flocks of sheep were all recorded based on the questionnaire.

2.3. Sampling techniques and sample size determination

Purposive and random sampling techniques were used for this investigation. This indicate that the study districts were selected and categorized purposefully by their sheep population and availability of Bonga sheep CBBP. From these two districts, eight (8) representative kebeles were randomly selected (4 kebeles from Adiyo and 4 kebeles from Telo district). One thousand ninety (1090) owners of sheep from both CBBP participants and non-participants who have more than three ewes were registered, and among them representative samples were selected using Kothari’s (2004) formula of sample size determination. Accordingly, a total of 200 (41 females) owners of ewes was selected by simple random sampling technique for survey data. The formula used to compute sample size for each study kebele is the following: $$n=\frac{{\mathrm{Z}}^2\mathrm{p}\mathrm{\text{qN}}}{{\mathrm{e}}^2\left(\mathrm{N}-1\right)+{\mathrm{Z}}^2\mathrm{p}\mathrm{q}}$$ $$\begin{array}{l}n=\frac{{(1.96)}^2\left(0.8\right)\left(0.2\right)\left(1090\right)}{{\left(0.05\right)}^2\left(1090-1\right)+{\left(1.96\right)}^2\left(0.8\right)\left(0.2\right)}\\ \hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}=669.9/3.34=200\end{array}$$ where n: sample size; N: total population in the study; e: level of acceptable error of 5%, which show e value will be assigned as 0.05, p & q are proportion of the population to be sampled p = (0.8), q= (0.2), q = 1 − p, z: the value of standard variance at a given level of significance and to be worked out from table showing area under normal curve which is shown Z= (1.96).

2.4. Performance data

The study for both reproductive and growth performances was conducted for about 10 months, from September 2021 to July 2022, so as to procure detailed data.

2.4.1. Ewes identification

Data was collected from naturally mated pregnant ewes in CBBP and non-CBBP participants. A total of 156 pregnant ewes in Bonga was identified from 156 households based on the following criteria: body condition score which was equal to 3, body weight, which was equal to 30 kg and health condition of ewes. Of 156 pregnant ewes, 103 and 53 ewes were drawn from CBBP participants and non-participants respectively. The pregnancy was detected by ultrasound (Handheld Wireless Mini tub GmbH; Tiefenbach, Germany). The ewes were managed under farmer condition and routine management practices like feeding, watering, frequent checking of ewes’ health conditions.

2.4.2. Reproductive performance

Lambing interval (LI), days open (DO) birth type, birth season, parity, management (CBBP participant and non participant) and Liter size (LS) were included in the study.

2.4.3. Growth performance

Each experimental animal was identified with animal records to give complete information on lamb sex, management, birth type, parity, birth season, birth weight and lamb weight at different ages. Birth weight was recorded within 12 hours of birth by enumerators. Monthly weights were also recorded to derive weight gains. Body weight of lambs: Birth Weight (BW), weaning weight and 6-Month Weight was measured using spring balance having 50 kg capacity while average preweaning daily weight gain (PrWADG) and post weaning daily weight gain (PoWADG) were computed as ADG_t2-t1=(W_t2−W_t1)/t2₋t1 where ADG_t2-t1 is the weight gain between periods t1 and t2,W_t2 the weight at age t2, W_t1 the weight at age t1 and t2₋t1 is the number of days between ages t1 and t2.

2.5. Statistical analysis

The data was collected and entered to Microsoft Office Excel 2010 computer software and was analyzed by using Statistical Program for Social Sciences SPSS (2015) and SAS 9.3 (2014). Chi-square test was used to assess the statistical significance level (at p < 0.05 or p < 0.01) among categorical variables using study management CBBP participants or non-participants as fixed effect, and an index was used for qualitative data ranking and calculated by using formula. Data of reproductive performance (LI, DO and LS), growth performance (birth weight, weaning weight, 6 month weight PrWADG, PoWADG) were subjected to General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS 9.3. The fixed effects of management (CBBP participant: non participant); birth type (single: twin), parity (1, 2, 3, 4 and ≥5) and birth season (dry, wet) on reproductive traits were investigated.

The statistical model 1:– $${\mathrm{Y}}_{\text{ijkl}}=\mathrm{\mu }+{\mathrm{A}}_{\mathrm{i}}+{\mathrm{S}}_{\mathrm{j}}+{\mathrm{L}}_{\mathrm{k}}+{\mathrm{S}}_{\mathrm{l}}+{\mathrm{e}}_{\text{ijkl}},$$ where: Y_ijkl is a given reproductive performance (LI, LS, DO…), μ: overall mean; A_i: the effect of the ith management CBBP participants or non-participants, S_j: the effect of jth season of lambing; (seasons or months in year), L_k: the effect of ith type of birth: (single and twin), S_l: the fixed effect Ith sex of lamb: (male and female), e_ijkl: the random error.

The formula used to compute index = The value of the index corresponds to the order of ranks (the highest index value, the most desired/favoured variable). According to Musa et al. (2006), the index is calculated by dividing the total number of responses under each rank summation of (n − 1 times total response ranked first + n − 1 times total response ranked second + n − 1 times total response ranked nth) for all qualitative variables (criteria) considered. The formula for the index is given for specific qualitative variables: $$\text{Index}=\frac{\begin{array}{l}\Sigma \hspace{0.17em}\left(\text{n}\hspace{0.17em}\times \hspace{0.17em}\text{ranked}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\text{1st}\right)\hspace{0.17em}+\hspace{0.17em}\left(n-1\right)\hspace{0.17em}\times \hspace{0.17em}\text{ranked}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\text{2nd})\hspace{0.17em}+\dots \\ +1\times \hspace{0.17em}\text{ranked}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\text{last})\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\text{for}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\text{specific}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\text{criteria}\end{array}}{\begin{array}{l}\Sigma \hspace{0.17em}\left(\text{n}\hspace{0.17em}\times \hspace{0.17em}\text{ranked}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\text{1st}+\hspace{0.17em}\left(n-1\right)\hspace{0.17em}\times \hspace{0.17em}\text{ranked}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\text{2nd}+\dots +\right)\hspace{0.17em}\\ 1\times \hspace{0.17em}\text{ranked}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\text{last}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\text{for}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\text{all}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\text{criteria}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\text{in}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\text{contemplation}\end{array}}$$ where: n = the number of criteria ranks in concern.

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Livestock possession

Livestock owned by CBBP participants and non-participants are presented in Table 1. This study considered only those households who had Bonga sheep breed. There was highly significant (p < 0.01) difference in sheep population, donkey and mule, while significant (p < 0.05) difference in cattle population across participation type. The current study which conducted on community based breeding program, examined the sheep flock structure and found out that almost all farmers kept the sheep at their residences. Members of the participants of CBBP made more money per family than non-members, according to a comparison of the yearly mean revenue from sheep sales (Haile et al., 2019, 2020; Kassa et al., 2022). It was evident how the groups’ average yearly sheep-keeping incomes differed from one another. Further evidence for this distinction comes from the FGD discussion sessions with participant members. In agreement to this, Zelelam et al. (2015) reported that there was a great deal of space for non-members to get involved in CBBP given the beneficial effects of participants on farmers’ revenue. The current findings are also consistent with the finding of Yadeta (2016) who found significant difference in sheep and cattle population in West Shoa Zone. On the contrary, no significant difference was reported by Hizkel (2017) for cattle in Bensa district, southern Ethiopia. The result obtained for sheep population (10.8 ± 0.43) was higher than the finding of Hizkel (2017) who found (4.4 ± 0.27) sheep population in Bensa district, southern Ethiopia. But it was lower than Mengestu’s (2018) who reported 20.3 ± 0.77 sheep population in Atsbi Wenberta district, Tigray, Ethiopia for highland sheep. Sheep was dominant among livestock species of the study area. The difference in sheep flock size among CBBP participants and non-participants was likely be attributed to the fact that the initial flock size required to be a member of the CBBP intervention (associations at the beginning) was at least four animals. Therefore, the larger flock size owned by CBBP participants could be due to various factors suggesting cautious interpretation of results like management practices given to sheep in both participants and non-participants, and it indicates CBBP participants had proper management to their sheep flocks and they give high emphasis for sheep production.

Table 1. Livestock size owned by community based breeding program (CBBP) participants and non-participants.

	Participation type (CBBP)
	CBBP participants (N = 102)	Non–participants (N = 98)	Overall (N = 200)	Test
Species	Mean ± SE	Mean ± SE	Mean ± SE	F-value	p-Value
Cattle	5.1 ± 0.20^b	6.6 ± 0.34^a	5.8 ± 0.22	4.41	0.031
Sheep	10.8 ± 0.43^a	7.4 ± 0.26^b	9.1 ± 0.28	11.32	0.002
Goat	2.5 ± 0.20	2.5 ± 0.19	2.5 ± 0.14	0.53	0.458
Horse	1.5 ± 0.08	1.2 ± 0.05	1.3 ± 0.06	0.11	0.742
Donkey	0.4 ± 0.27^b	1.2 ± 0.51^a	0.8 ± 0.35	7.68	<0.001
Mule	0.02 ± 0.15^b	0.6 ± 0.10^a	0.31 ± 0.12	6.12	<0.001
Chickens	6.6 ± 0.33	6.3 ± 0.26	6.4 ± 0.29	1.01	0.313

N: number of households; SE: standard error; ^a,bdifferent superscript letters indicate indicate significant differences between CBBP participants and non-participants.

3.2. Sheep flock structure owned by respondents

The sheep flock structure owned by CBBP participants and non-participants obtained in this study are presented in Table 2. There was highly significant (p < 0.01) difference in sheep flock structure of female less than 6 months, female above1 year, female of 1 year and 6 months, male above 1 year and castrates across type of participants. This result matches with Yadeta’s (2016) report which shows the presence of a highly significant difference in sheep flock structure of female less than 6 months, female above 1 year, female 1 year and 6 months and male above 1 year in West Shoa Zone, Ethiopia. The result 4.9 ± 0.20 obtained in CBBP participants was higher than 2.8 ± 0.18 which indicated for non-participants in current study for sheep flock females from 6 months to 1 year old. Current report noted for CBBP participants was higher than the report of Mengestu (2018) who found 4.1 ± 10.06 for the same age females owned by CBBP participants for highland sheep in Atsbi Wenberta district, Tigray, Ethiopia. On the contrary, Amare et al. (2019) reported 5.06 ± 10.35 females from 6 to 12 months age in Setit Humera in northern Ethiopia. This result indicates that CBBP participants had good experiences of selecting breeding ewes from their flock. The sheep flock size obtained in this study for male less than 6 month, and 1 year and 6 months was 2.2 ± 0.11 and 2.9 ± 0.09, respectively. The present finding is higher than the result of Hizkel (2017) who found 0.6 ± 0.09 flock size of sheep for male less than 6 months and 0.4 ± 0.07 for male of 1 year and 6 months in Bensa district, southern Ethiopia.

Table 2. Sheep flock structure owned by community based breeding program (CBBP) participants and non-participants.

	Participation type (CBBP)						Test
	Participant (N = 102)		Non-participant (N = 98)		Overall (N = 200)		F-value	p-Value
Class of sheep	Mean ± SE	%	Mean ± SE	%	Mean ± SE	%
Male <6 months	2.0 ± 0.19	12.50	1.8 ± 0.13	10.47	2.2 ± 0.11	11.50	0.02	0.867
Female <6 months	2.9 ± 0.13^a	11. 01	2.0 ± 0.11^b	10.15	2.0 ± 0.09	10.50	7.41	<0.001
Male 6 month to 1 year	3.3 ± 0.14	14.72	2.7 ± 0.12	15.41	2.8 ± 0.09	15.00	1.58	0.763
Female 6 month to 1 year	4.9 ± 0.20^a	16.00	2.8 ± 0.18^b	14. 81	3.0 ± 0.13	15.70	2.10	<0.001
Male >1 year	4.1 ± 0.17^a	24.20	2.4 ± 0.16^b	17.96	3.2 ± 0.12	17.00	6.80	<0.001
Female >1 year	3.2 ± 0.09^a	17.34	1.2 ± 0.16^b	16.50	4.0 ± 0.11	21.26	7.81	<0.001
Castrates	1.1 ± 0.03^b	6.12	2.2 ± 0.06^a	12.47	1.7 ± 0.04	9.00	7.85	0.001

N: number of observation; SE: standard error; different superscripted letters indicates significance difference across participation type.

The result variation among different studies was due to different factors like difference in management practice, environmental condition and sheep flock size in study areas. The present study indicates that CBBP participants owned a large sheep population as compared to non-participants for the former had a high awareness about how to breed and manage sheep. Besides, they were more beneficial from sheep production as they were linked with market through cooperative. The study further reveals that breeding ewes (female above 1 year) was higher (4.0 ± 0.11) flock size than other flock size of sheep in the study area. The implication of the present finding is that most of the time farmers saved their ewes for breeding until they culled or removed from the flock, but they sold and changed their rams for different purposes.

3.3. Purpose of sheep production

The purposes of sheep keeping in the study area are presented in Table 3. The result of current study indicate that the primary reasons of sheep keeping by the farmers were for source of income generations through the sale of live animals, with an index value of 0.4 in CBBP participants and 0.3 in non-participants, followed by saving with an index value of 0.3 and 0.1 in CBBP participants and non-participants respectively. The cash obtained might be used to buy clothing and food items, pay taxes and other household supplies (e.g. children’s school fee). The index value corroborates the finding of Tesfaye et al. (2019) in western Amhara who reported that cash income was the first purpose of sheep production with an index value of 0.4, which further supports the report of Kiflay et al. (2019) who noted that income generation was the first in the rank order scale, with an index value of 0.3 in Tigray region of northern Ethiopia.

Table 3. Purpose of sheep production by community based breeding program (CBBP) participants and non-participants.

	Participation type (CBBP)
	Participants (N = 102)					Non-participants (N = 98)					Overall (N = 200)
Purpose	R1	R2	R3	I	R	R1	R2	R3	I	R	R1	R2	R3	I	R
Cash income	64	21	8	0.4	1st	45	35	18	0.3	1st	109	56	26	0.4	1st
Saving	20	31	47	0.3	2nd	12	13	20	0.1	4th	32	44	67	0.2	2nd
Social value	11	28	34	0.2	3rd	15	16	18	0.1	3rd	26	44	52	0.2	3rd
Meat	0	6	10	0	5th	6	12	14	0.09	5th	6	18	24	0.1	5th
Wealth	0	10	2	0	4^th	17	19	25	0.1	2nd	17	29	27	0.1	4th

Index: sum of (3 × number of household ranked first(R1) + 2 × number of household ranked second (R2) + 1 × number of household ranked third (R3)) given for each species of each Districts divided by sum of (3 × number of household ranked first(R1) + 2 × number of household ranked second(R2) + 1 × number of household ranked third (R3)) for all crateria.

In the area, farmers keep sheep for various purposes, such as for social value which means owning a considerable flock of sheep gives a sense of wealth. Sheep production functioning for income source was the first rank in both study districts. One can say that the life trend of the farmers in these study areas was mostly similar to that of farmers who get financial income by selling agricultural products.

3.4. Sheep breeding and management practice

The breeding management of sheep are presented in Table 4. There was highly significant (p < 0.01) association on breeding rams ownership between participant groups. The result complies with the finding of Hizkel (2017) who found significant association between breeding ram ownership in Bensa district, southern Ethiopia. A huge difference was observed in ram ownership between CBBP participant and non-participants. In CBBP participants, 76.50% had their own breeding rams and 23.50% had no breeding ram. Sheep breeders without a breeding ram got their ewes mated through ram sharing; specifically 62.50, 20.83 and 16.66% by using neighbor ram, communal grazing areas and unknown ram source respectively, whereas 31.63% of non-CBBP participants of Bonga sheep breeders had breeding ram and 68.37% had no breeding ram. Sheep breeders without a breeding ram indicated in current study used neighboring ram (75.00%), or got their ewe mated with breeding ram from other flock in communal grazing land (19.11%) and (5.80%) from unknown ram source.

Table 4. Breeding management by community based breeding program (CBBP) participants and non-participants.

	Participation type (CBBP)						Test
	Participant (N = 102)		Non-participant (N = 98)		Overall (N = 200)
Breeding management	N	%	N	%	N	%	X^2	p-Value
Do you have breeding ram?							40.51	<0.001
Yes	78	76.50	31	31.63	109	54.50
No	24	23.50	67	68.37	91	45.50
Unknown	4	16.67	3	4.49	7	7.70
Allow your ram/s to serve ewes other than yours							71.82	<0.001
Yes	11	10.78	68	69.40	79	39.50
No	91	89.22	30	30.60	121	60.50
Do you allow your ewe to be served by any ram?							109.50	0.001
Yes	12	11.76	84	85.70	96	48.00
No	90	88.24	14	14.30	104	52.00
Mating systems							24.86	0.001
Uncontrolled	33	32.40	65	66.30	98	49.00
Controlled	69	67.60	33	33.70	102	51.00
Purpose of keeping breeding ram/s							9.24	0.013
Mating only	28	27.50	2	2.04	30	15.00
Mating and fattening	54	52.90	70	71.42	124	62.00
Mating and socio-cultural	20	19.60	26	26.50	46	23.00

N: number of observation; X²: Chi-square.

Percentage of breeding ram ownership in current study for CBBP participants was higher than the report of CSA. (2015) which stated 27.09% of breeding ram for entire sheep population in Ethiopia. Such variation in ram ownership are believed to be due to improvements in reproduction of sheep in CBBP participants that the shortage of breeding rams was solved, improvement in the level of management in CBBP flocks (due to training and continuous follow-up from implementers) and the initial flock size required to be a member of the breeding cooperatives (as it was at least four animals). The presence of breeding ram was very important for effective breeding, and the use of own breeding ram was important to reduce inbreeding and unwanted mating. Thus, facilitating and helping the farmers to have own breeding ram either by participating in CBBP or by any other means was indispensible to maximize flock size of the breed.

3.5. Major constraints of sheep production

Ranking of major constraints in sheep production is presented in Table 5. This study result identified the major constraints for sheep production in the study area, such as diseases and parasites, which ranked first with overall index value of 0.40, followed by predators with an index value of 0.35. Similarly, EIAR (2017) reported the prevalence of infectious diseases and parasites, which was considered to be the major constraints for local breeds. On the other hand, Hizkel (2017) reported feed shortage as a common constraint and ranked first with index of 0.35 in Bensa district, southern Ethiopia. Also, current result was in line with Mengestu (2018), Addis et al. (2015) and Getachew et al. (2014), who confirmed the fact that the major constraint for sheep production was feed shortage in their study areas. The result variation among different authors might be due to different factors like climatic condition of the environment as well as the agro-ecology of the study area.

Table 5. Major sheep production constraints of community based breeding program (CBBP) participants and non-participants.

	Participation type (CBBP)
	Participants					Non-participants					Overall
Constraints	R1	R2	R3	I	R	R1	R2	R3	I	R	R1	R2	R3	I	R
Disease and parasite	92	10	0	0.57	1st	36	26	18	0.30	2nd	128	36	18	0.40	1st
Predator	10	52	12	0.28	2nd	62	32	18	0.46	1st	72	84	30	0.35	2nd
Feed shortage	0	0	35	0.07	3rd	0	28	18	0.13	3rd	0	28	53	0.09	3rd
Water shortage	0	0	20	0.04	5th	0	0	24	0.04	5th	0	0	44	0.04	4th
Labor	0	0	25	0.05	4th	0	12	15	0.07	4th	0	12	40	0.05	5th

Index: sum of (3 × number of household ranked first(R1) + 2 × number of household ranked second (R2) + 1 × number of household ranked third(R3)) given for each species of each Districts divided by sum of (3 × number of household ranked first(R1) + 2 × number of household ranked second(R2) + 1 × number of household ranked third(R3)) for all constraints.

3.6. Opportunities for sheep production in study area

The opportunities for sheep production in the study area are presented in Table 6. In the current study area, respondents mentioned different opportunities that lead them to engage in sheep production. Presence of selected sheep breed and increased market demand in the area were the major opportunities among the listed ones. Increased market demand was the highest ranked opportunity to participate in sheep production with an index value of 0.41, followed by presence of selected sheep breeds ranks 2nd with an index value of 0.33 in study area. This result was in agreement with the finding of Mengestu (2018), who reported that the mutton taste of highland sheep was the first ranked opportunity of sheep production, with an index value of 0.33 in Atsbi Wenberta district, Tigray, Ethiopia. Similarly, Yadeta (2016) reported that the major opportunity of sheep production was the low startup cost to expand sheep production in west Shoa Zone. The opportunity of increased market demand was ranked first in both CBBP participants and non-participants but it has highest (0.48) index value in CBBP participants than it has (0.38) index value in non-participants. Similarly, the presence of selected sheep breed in the study area was ranked 2nd in both management conditions with index value of 0.32 and 0.35 for CBBP participants and non-participants respectively. Hence, farmers have an exciting opportunity to enhance sheep production and generate more cash.

Table 6. Opportunities of sheep production in the study.

	Participation type (CBBP)
	Participation (N = 102)					Non–participant (N = 98)					Overall
Opportunities	R1	R2	R3	I	R	R1	R2	R3	I	R	R1	R2	R3	I	R
High market demand	67	27	8	0.43	1st	45	36	17	0.38	1st	112	63	25	0.41	1st
Low initial cost	1	27	49	0.17	3rd	16	9	28	0.16	3rd	17	36	77	0.17	3rd
Presence of selected sheep breed	34	28	35	0.32	2nd	37	31	30	0.35	2nd	71	59	65	0.33	2nd
Availability of feed and water	0	6	7	0.03	5th	0	10	15	0.06	4th	0	16	22	0.05	4th
Need less labor	0	12	2	0.04	4th	0	7	2	0.03	5th	0	19	4	0.04	5th
Need less land	0	2	1	0.01	6th	0	5	1	0.02	6th	0	7	2	0.01	6th

Index: sum of (3 × number of household ranked first (R1) + 2 × number of household ranked second (R2) + 1 × number of household ranked third (R3)) given for each species of each Districts divided by sum of (3 × number of household ranked first (R1) + 2 × number of household ranked second (R2) + 1 × number of household ranked third (R3)) far all opportunities; CBBP: community based breeding program.

3.7. Performances of Bonga sheep

3.7.1. Reproductive performance

Reproductive performances of the Bonga sheep breed are presented in Table 7. Reproductive performances investigated in this study were 9.4 ± 0.18 months (284 days) for lambing interval (LI), 20.2 ± 0.13 days for days open (DO), and 1.4 ± 0.04 for litter size (LS). The current study result obtained for LI was comparable with the previous finding of Ebadu et al. (2021) who reported 9.43 months for LI of Bonga ewes. Similarly, Hizkel (2017) also reported 9.59 ± 0.10 for indigenous sheep at Bensa district, southern Ethiopia. Likewise, Ayele and Urge (2019) reported that the LI for most Ethiopian indigenous sheep managed under traditional management was between 210 days (7 months) and 300 days (10 months). Contrary to this, the result of the present study was longer than the result obtained by Mengestu (2018) who reported 8.89 months for LI for highland sheep in Atsbi Wenberta district, Tigray, Ethiopia. The result obtained from this study for LS was in agreement with the finding of Teramaj (2020), who reported 1.3 ± 0.03 LS at Lagambo district for local sheep breed in south Wollo zone of the Amhara region. Current LS reported was higher than the report of Edea et al. (2012) who found 1.36 LS for Bonga sheep breed. Mengestu (2018) reveals 1.12 ± 0.15 was LS for highland sheep in Atsbi Wenberta district, Tigray, Ethiopia. This report indicates Bonga sheep breeds had good ability to give multiple births; however, it needs hard work to improve it. Factors like scarcity and deterioration of available feeds, poor breeding management, disease, and poor management practices in the study area might have contributed considerably to the long day open and longer lambing interval in this study. Therefore, proper feeding, an appropriate breeding program, and improved management practices should enormously improve reproductive performance traits. The differences in the reproductive performance of the different sheep breeds reported by different researchers might be attributed to the existing differences in genetic make-up, nutritional, and reproductive management among the smallholder sheep keepers in different parts of the country.

Table 7. Lambing interval, days open and litter size (mean ± SE) for the effect of management, birth type, parity and birth season for Bonga sheep.

		LI (months)	DO (days)	LS
Fixed effects	N	Mean ± SE	Mean ± SE	Mean ± SE
Overall	156	9.4 ± 0.18	20.2 ± 0.13	1.4 ± 0.04
Management		**	Ns	Ns
CBBP participants	103	8.5 ± 0.22^b	20.1 ± 0.20	1.4 ± 0.06
Non-participants	53	10.5 ± 0.28^a	20.4 ± 0.18	1.4 ± 0.69
Birth type	156	Ns	Ns	Ns
Single	89	8.3 ± 0.16	20.0 ± 0.16	1.3 ± 0.06
Twin	67	8.2 ± 0.31	19.2 ± 0.25	1.3 ± 0.10
Parity of dam	156	*	Ns	*
1	45	9.4 ± 0.23^a	20.0 ± 2.70	1.3 ± 0.09^bc
2	42	8.0 ± 0.26^c	19.8 ± 0.27	1.4 ± 0.09^b
3	41	8.0 ± 3.00^c	19.5 ± 0.50	1.0 ± 0.00^c
4	15	8.4 ± 0.41^b	19.9 ± 0.26	1.6 ± 0.16^a
≥5	13	8.2 ± 0.32^bc	19.7 ± 0.26	1.2 ± 0.11^c
Birth season	156	*	*	Ns
Dry	33	7.9 ± 0.44^b	20.7 ± 0.46^a	1.3 ± 0.18
Wet	123	9.3 ± 0.15^a	19.0 ± 0.14^b	1.3 ± 0.05

^a–cMeans with different superscripts within the same column are significantly different *significant at p < 0.05; **highly significant at p < 0.01; Ns: non-significant at p > 0.05; N: number of observations; LI: Lambing interval; DO: days open; LS: litter size; SE: standard error; CBBP: community based breeding program.

3.7.2. Growth performance

The growth performance of Bonga sheep is presented in Table 8. The BWT, WWT, and 6MWT of sheep observed in current study were 3.8 ± 0.06, 16.1 ± 0.10, and 27.8 ± 0.33 kg, respectively, and the values for PrWADG and PoWADG were 136.0 ± 0.01 and 133.0 ± 0.02 gm/day, respectively. The result obtained from this study for BWT of lamb was comparable with the previous report of Metsafe (2015) who found BWT of Bonga sheep was 3.6 ± 0.01 kg. Contrary to this, Esubalew et al. (2018) reported lighter values of 2.8 ± 0.11 kg for Washera and Farta sheep breeds in Farta and Lay Gayint districts of the western Amhara region of Ethiopia.

Table 8. Mean ± SE for fixed effects of sex, management, birth type, parity and birth season on growth performance.

	BWT (kg)		WWT (kg)	6MWT (kg)	PrWADG (gm)	PoWADG (gm)
Fixed effects	N	Mean ± SE	Mean ± SE	Mean ± SE	Mean ± SE	Mean ± SE
Overall	156	3.8 ± 0.06	16.0 ± 0.10	27.8 ± 0.33	136.0 ± 0.00	133.0 ± 0.02
Sex of lamb	156	**	**	Ns	*	Ns
Male	186	4.0 ± 0.70^a	17.0 ± 0.13^a	27.7 ± 0.42	135.0 ± 0.03^a	132.0 ± 0.00
Female	36	3.8 ± 0.07^b	16.1 ± 0.13^b	27.8 ± 0.45	124.0 ± 0.01^b	133.0 ± 0.00
Management	156	**	*	Ns	Ns	*
CBBP	103	3.9 ± 0.94	16.3 ± 0.15	27.8 ± 0.44	137.0 ± 0.01	132.0 ± 0.03^a
NCBBP	53	2.6 ± 0.72	15.8 ± 0.12	27.8 ± 0.50	135.0 ± 0.04	127.0 ± 0.23^b
Birth type	156	**	*	**	*	Ns
Single	99	3.8 ± 0.70^a	17.3 ± 0.07^a	29.7 ± 0.62^a	135.0 ± 0.00^a	133.0 ± 0.02
Twin	57	2.8 ± 0.12^b	16.2 ± 0.12^b	27.9 ± 0.39^b	118.0 ± 0.00^b	133.0 ± 0.03
Parity	156	Ns	**	**	Ns	*
1	22	4.2 ± 0.40	16.9 ± 0.25^a	28.8 ± 3.36^ab	141.0 ± 0.00	136.0 ± 0.01^cb
2	43	3.7 ± 0.10	16.1 ± 0.16^b	26.9 ± 0.57^c	137.0 ± 0.01	128.0 ± 0.00^d
3	43	3.9 ± 0.96	16.0 ± 0.18^b	29.1 ± 0.55^a	134.0 ± 0.01	140.0 ± 0.00^a
4	15	3.6 ± 0.21	16.1 ± 0.41^b	26.0 ± 0.84^d	138.0 ± 0.03	124.0 ± 0.00^e
≥5	27	3.8 ± 0.13	15.0 ± 0.20^c	28.3 ± 0.76^b	134.0 ± 0.02	135.0 ± 0.00^c
Birth season	156	*	**	*	*	*
Dry	68	2.7 ± 0.09^b	16.0 ± 0.15^b	25.0 ± 0.71^b	126.0 ± 0.01^b	127.0 ± 0.00^b
Wet	88	3.9 ± 0.06^a	18.1 ± 0.13^a	27.8 ± 0.36^a	135.0 ± 0.01^a	132.0 ± 0.00^a

N: number of observation; BWT: birth weight; WWT: weaning weight; 6MWT: six months weight; PrWADG; pre weaning average daily weight gain; PoWADG: post weaning average daily weight gain; *significant at p < 0.05; **highly significant at p < 0.01; SE: standard error; CBBP: community based breeding program; NCBBP: non participant community based breeding program; ^a–dmeans with different superscripts within the same column are significantly different across variables.

Regarding WWT, the values obtained in the current study were heavier than the WWT values of 8.5 ± 0.79 and 7.4 ± 1.26 kg reported for Washera and Gumuz sheep, respectively which were reported by Asmare et al. (2021) in Burie and Mandura districts, northern Ethiopia. This result was in line with Mekuriaw et al. (2012), who reported 11.7 ± 0.50 kg for Washera sheep. The current study result shows that the Bonga sheep breed shows promising weight gain at weaning as compared with other breeds, which were reported by different authors.

As indicated in the current study, the 6MWT obtained for the Bonga sheep breed was consistent with the report of Ebadu (2019), who found 24.7 ± 0.02 kg for the same breed. Contrary to this, the lightest 18.9 ± 0.30 kg of 6MWT was reported by Addisu et al. (2021) for Doyogena sheep in Doyogena district, southern Ethiopia. The resultant variation among different researchers might be due to different factors like the type of breed, management, and environmental conditions of the study areas. The current study indicates the Bonga breed has a unique character to attain satisfactory weight gain, as it was also approved by different researchers previously due to the genetic potential of the breed.

As to PrWADG, the result obtained from this finding was comparable with the finding of Ebadu et al. (2021), who reported that PrWADG of Bonga sheep was 141.9 ± 0.80 gm/day in Kaffa zone. This was in agreement with the result of Esubalew et al. (2018) who reported 101.8 ± 7.09 gm, 88.8 ± 3.21 gm, and 103.2 ± 11.75 gm/day of PrWADG for Washera, Farta, and crossed sheep breeds, respectively, in Farta and Lay Gayint districts of western Amhara region, Ethiopia. Similarly 84.8 ± 4.70 gm/day of PrWADG was reported by Mekuriaw et al. (2012) for Washera sheep. PoWADG of Bonga sheep obtained from this study was heavier than PoWDG of 87.6 ± 4.30 kg which reported by Ebadu (2019) for Bonga sheep breed. Similarly, 67.3 ± 1.90 gm/day PoWADG of lambs was reported by Addisu et al. (2021) for Doyogena sheep in Doyogena district, southern Ethiopia. Pre-weaning and post-weaning growth performance of lambs depends on the inherent genetic potential, the adaptability and mothering ability of ewes. As the current result indicates Bonga sheep breed had high and compensatory growth performance as compared with different sheep breeds therefore using sheep breeds, which have such outstanding breed helps to increase productivity of sheep.

4. Conclusions

The current study revealed that among different breeding systems controlled mating was highest in CBBP participants, whereas uncontrolled mating was practiced in herd grazing together and free grazing practices. The breeding rams were distributed to the majority of the farmers engaged in sheep production to enhance reproductive and growth performance hence the goal of sheep production was directly related to the performances. The reproductive performances obtained in current study indicate the LI in CBBP participants was shorter (8.5 ± 0.22 months) than 10.5 ± 0.28 months in non-participants. The studied growth performances birth weight, weaning weight, six-month weight, pre-weaning average daily gain and Post weaning average daily gain shows best performances in CBBP participants as compared with non-participants. So that encouraging farmers to be engage in CBBP is very important in order to attain to get good benefit from sheep production.

Author contributions

HA: contributed in designing study, collecting data, statistical analysis and manuscript writing. RB: contributed in designing study, coordinating and supervising the study, analyzing the data, manuscript writing and reviewing. WM: contributed in designing study, coordinating and supervising the study, analyzing the data, manuscript writing and reviewing. EB: Contributed in designing study and manuscript writing and review. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethical approval

Animal care and ethical issue were careful evaluated and the experiment was approved (1958ET-2/2021) by Mizan Tepi University, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources ethics Committee. Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Union guidelines (2010) concerning the treatment and use of animals in research and development purposes were employed. Additionally the experiment was approved by Animal Science department post graduate executive committee during starting time and ending of study.

Public interests

Community Based Breeding Program (CBBP) is an initiative that focused in conservation, education, local economies, scientific advancements, and community empowerment. The public interest of such a program lies in following key aspects: (1) Conservation: The breeding program aims to conserve and protect Bonga sheep that are important to the country. (2) Education: These programs provide a platform for learning about the importance of conservation, biology, and the role of various breed in the ecosystem. (3) Economic benefits: Community-based breeding programs can stimulate the local economy and provide income and employment opportunities for community members. (4) Research and innovation: Knowledge gained through these initiatives can be shared with the scientific community, contributing to broader scientific knowledge and potentially leading to improvements in related fields like genetics, ecology, or conservation biology, and (5) Community engagement and empowerment: Participating in a breeding program can foster a sense of community pride and togetherness.

Acknowledgements

Authors of this paper would like to acknowledge Kefa zone Agricultural office for providing, research facilities and providing all necessary information. The authors also greatly acknowledge International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) for their financial support and providing all necessary information. Mizan Tepi University also greatly acknowledged for providing scholarship. No special funding was obtained for this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Data used and analyzed for this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Habtamu Arega

Habtamu Arega is MSc student in Animal Breeding and Genetics at Mizan Tepi University. He received a bachelor degree from Mizan Tepi University. His research mainly focused on Animal breeding, and Animal Nutrition

Regasa Begna

Regasa Begna is an Assistant professor of Animal Nutrition, Lecturer and Researcher of Mizan Tepi University, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Department of Animal Sciences. He published various papers in the area of Animal Nutrition, Animal Production and Animal Breeding.

Worku Masho

Worku Mashob is a Lecturer and researcher of Mizan Tepi University, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Department of Animal Sciences. He published various papers in the area of Animal breeding and Animal Production.

Elias Bayou

Elias Bayou is an Assistant professor of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Lecturer and Researcher of Mizan Tepi University, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Department of Animal Sciences. He published different papers in the area of Animal Breeding and Genetics, and Animal Production.