% . 0 . 1 Page 2 Page

1 downloads 0 Views 5MB Size Report
First of all, I would like to thank God for his miraculous deeds to let me ..... negative mental states such as fear, pain and distress as well as maximizing positive ... animal can produce is dependent on the speed at which it can work and the .... rugged rural tracks and on the narrow unpaved lanes of towns and villages.
     

                                                      

                   

                                               

 

   

       !"#$$ % & ' ( )* + %  &   ,*  

-    -*  %     )+.    (   % / %  .    0  .   1 

   



       

 

   

      

 

   

 

     

   

                                   

 !      "        #      $  !%  !      &  $   '      '    ($     '   # %  % )   % *   % '   $  '      +      " %        &  '  !#       $,  ( $        -     .                                      !   "-           (    %                              .          %     %   %   %    $        $ $ -           -                           - - // $$$    0   1"1"#23."         

4& )*5/ +) * !6 !& 7!8%779:9&  %  ) 2  ; !   *   &        /- 4& )*5/ +) "3   "    &  :=9>

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First of all, I would like to thank God for his miraculous deeds to let me accomplish anything I start and also for His help to go through every event successfully up to this minute.

I convey my deepest thanks to my major advisor Dr.Mussie H/Melekot for giving me constructive pieces of advice and guidance starting from the proposal writing to the completion of the research work. I thank him for his genuine and energetic encouragement, suggestion; insight, guidance and professional expertise to complete this work.

I am also thankful to my co-advisor Mengistie Taye (MSc, Ass prof) for his constructive, sharp and insightful comments, suggestion and guidance beginning from proposal development and up to thesis writing.

I would like to thank Mertule Mariam Agricultural, Technical, Vocational and Educational Training (ATVET) College their help for giving my study time and provision of various services. I am thankful for farmers participating in this study for providing their time and their animal for free.

I would like to extend my sincere appreciation to Bahir Dar University, College of Agriculture & Environmental Sciences for their contribution in the process of teaching and provision of various services. My special appreciation goes to the Department of Animal Production and Technology staffs for their kind treatment during my study.

I wish to extend my special thanks to the Agricultural office of Hulet Eju Enesie district that provided the necessary information for my study work. I am highly indebted to my brother Getasew Ayalew, who encouraged me to start a new life endeavour and supported me in all his capacities without reservations to complete the research and academic works. I wish to extend my special thanks to my lovely friend Shimelis Mingistu (DVM, MSc) inspired and fulfilled all my needs all through my way and gave constructive pieces of advice and guidance. I would like to extend my greatest thanks for my family and all friends particularly Ayalew Kasahun, Yenewebe Gela, Yesewlek Ayalew, Abatanhe Belay and all others who are the source of special strength towards the successful completion of this study.

“Lord, I am overflowing with your blessings, just as you promised.” Psalms 119:65

ACRONYMES A.S.L

Above sea level

ATNESA

Animal Traction Network for Eastern and Southern Africa

BoARD

Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development

CSA

Central Statistical Agency

DOD

Developmental Orthopedic Disease

EARO

Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization

FGDs

Focus Group Discussions

GLM

General Linear Model

PA

Peasant Associations

Pcs

pieces

Pkt

packet

SPSS

Statistical Package for Social Science

SSI

semi-structured questionnaire interviews

Vs

Verses

WAO

Woreda Agriculture Office

ii

MONITORING OF HUSBANDRY PRACTICES AND HARNESSING OF WORKING EQUINES IN HULET EJU ENESE DISTRICT, EAST GOJJAM,AMHAR REGION, ETHIOPIA By: Habtamu Ayalew (BSC)1,Mussie H/melkot (DVM, MSc)1, Mengistie Taye (Ass prof)1 1

Bahir Dar University, College of Agriculture and Environmental Science, P.O.Box.79, Bahir dar, Ethiopia

ABSTRACTS A monitoring activity was performed in Hulet Eju Enese district to describe management practices, working performance constraint, harnessing system and causes for the occurrences of injury for working equines from November 2012 to June 2013. Hulet Eju Enese district was selected purposively due to its equine population and accessibility of road. Two urban and three rural kebeles were selected randomly from a total of six urban and forty four rural kebeles, respectively based the proportion of equine abundance. Thirty house hold from each kebele were selected purposively. Semi structured questionnaire survey was carried out on 150 interviewees with main issues of equine management, constraint, injury occurrence, harnessing system and visual observation was made on body condition and location of injury in different body parts. To supplement questionnaire survey, three focus group discussions were made. Monitoring of body weight and body condition scoring of equines was made three times. Data collected in the field were managed and analyzed using GLM, Tukey HSD, ANOVAs and X2 procedures of SPSS. The amount of feed and water which offered for equines, household ownership of equines was analyzed on ANOVAs. The body weight of equines were analyzed on GLM and the major utilized feed resource, type of supplementary feed, management of external injury, major causes of external injury of equines and body condition of equines were analyzed on chi square test. The household owner ship of donkeys and mules in urban and rural area were significantly different (p9 hrs) Sl= fixed effects of the lth sex type (1= female and 2= male) Am= fixed effects of the mth age group (1= less than 5 years, 2= 5-15 years and 3= greater than 15 years) İijklm= is the random error

35

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISSCUSSION 4.1. Household Characteristics

Sex, age and education background of the respondents in the study area are presented in Table 4.1. The survey revealed that the majority of the households in both urban and rural kebeles were headed by males which accounted for 88.66%. In line with the present finding in Ethiopia the number of female household heads who owned equines was very small as compared to male household heads (Berhanu Admassu and Yoseph Shiferaw, 2011). Female headed household in this particular study would indicate either the husband has died or they are divorced. The majority of equine owners were within age range of 19-40 (42.0%) and 41-65 (43.33%). Similarly, according to Ahmed Hassen (2010) study in central highlands of Ethiopia the age of the respondents varied between 29 and 68 years with an average of 40.25 years. About 48.3% of equine owners were illiterate (who cannot read and write) and 51.7% of them were literate (who can read and write). Similarly, according to Ahmed Hassen (2010) in central highlands of Ethiopia 42.5% of equine owners were illiterate and the rest 56.5% were literate. The majorities (76.7%) of the household heads in rural area were illiterates. In contrast, in the urban area the majorities (80.0%) of the household heads were literate, who can read and write. The majority of the households were Orthodox Christians (73.3%) followed by Muslims (21.7%).

36

Table 4.1. Household characteristics of equine owners in Hulet Eju Enese district House hold characteristic

Sex

Age

Educational back ground Religion

Urban

Rural

Overall

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

Male

50 (83.3)

83 (92.2)

133(88.66)

Female

10 (16.7)

7 (7.8)

17 (11.33)

Less than 18

2 (3.3)

3 (3.3)

5 (3.33)

19-40

40 (66.6)

23 (25.6)

63 (42.00)

41-65

15 (25.0)

56 (63.4)

71(47.33)

Greater than 65

3 (5.0)

8 ( 7.7 )

11 (7.33)

Illiterate

12 (20.0)

69 (76.7)

81 (48.3)

Literate

48 (80.0)

21 (23.33)

69 (51.67)

Orthodox

47 (78.3)

77 (85.6)

124(82.67)

Muslim

13 (21.7)

13 (14.4)

26 (17.33)

N=number of respondents

4.2. Land holding of Household

The overall land holding shows that 38.05%, 19.2% and 13.9% own 0.51-1ha, 0.100.5 ha and 1.01-2.0 ha, respectively. In line to this in the Amhara Region the average land holding per household were 1.27 ha (CSA, 2009). The major land holding pattern in rural area were 54.4% with the range of 0.51-1.0 ha while in urban area the major land holding pattern were 31.7% with the range of 0.10-0.5 ha this difference in urban and rural area might be due to crop cultivation practices in rural area needs more land for each house hold.

37

Table 4.2. Household land holding of equine owners in Hulet Eju Enese district Land holding characteristics

Study area

No of HH who don’t have land

Land owned

Rural

Urban

Overall

HHN -90

HHN-60

HHN-150

N (Percent)

N (Percent)

N (Percent)

5 (5.5)

8 (13.3)

13 (9.45)

Under 0.1 ha

3 (3.3)

14 (23.3)

17 (13.3)

0.10 -0.5 ha

6 (6.7)

19 (31.7)

25 (19.2)

0.51-1.0 ha

49 (54.4)

13 (21.7)

62 (38.05)

1.01-2.0 ha

19 (21.1)

4 (6.7)

23 (13.9)

2.01-5.0 ha

8 (8.9)

2 (3.3)

10 (6.1)

N=number of respondents

4.3. Household Ownership of Different Livestock Species

The mean and the standard deviation of livestock holding in the study area are tabulated in Table 4.3. The numbers of horse per household were lower than donkey and mule this is due to the presence of African horse sickness in the area and the power of horse is lower than mules. In line with the present study, Fesseha Gebreab et al. (2003) reported that in the highlands of Ethiopia farmers own an average of 2-3 donkeys per HH. A number of donkeys which owned by household had highly significant difference (P< 0.01) in urban and rural area. In urban area donkeys (3.63 ± 1.76) were higher than rural area of donkeys (2.46 ± 1.22) this might due to equines were more utilized in urban area as daily income source and the presence of better road access leads more utilization of donkeys in urban areas. A number of mules which is owned by household had significant difference (P< 0.05) in urban and rural area. In urban area mules (1.13 ± 0.34) were higher than rural area of mules (1.03 ± 0.18) this might be due to equines were more utilized in urban area as daily income source and the presence of better road access leads more utilization of mules for different work in urban areas.

38

Table 4.3. Mean livestock holding of households by species in Hulet Eju Enese district

Species

Urban

Rural

HHN=60

HHN=90

Mean ± S.D

Mean ± S.D

Overall (150)

Mean ± S.D

Significance level

Cattle

3.3 ± 0.3

4.57 ±1.20

3.79 ± 0.75

*

Sheep

3.8 ± 2.70

4.11 ± 2.86

2.65 ± 3.96

ns

Goat

0.08 ± 3.39

0.63 ± 0.80

0.36 ± 2.10

**

Donkey

3.63 ± 1.76

2.46 ± 1.22

3.05 ± 1.49

**

Mule

1.13 ± 0.34

1.03 ± 0.18

1.08 ± 0.26

*

Horse

0.87 ± 0.50

0.96 ± 0.54

0.92 ± 0.52

ns

* = significant (P< 0.05); ** = highly significant (P < 0.01); NS – None significant HHN=House Hold Number

Correlation of land holding and equine ownership

In the study district the two species (donkey and mule) and landholding have negatively correlate with -0.088 and -0.031 values this is due to equine owners who has little land are used equines as income source through trading of commodity and renting of equines for different work. In rural area the numbers of equines were lower than urban area but the land holding of owner in rural area were higher than rural due to this equine were not mainly used as income source rather used for transportation of farm commodity.

39

4.4. Purpose of Keeping Donkeys and Mules

4.4.1. Purpose of keeping donkeys

In Hulet Eju Enese district, donkeys were kept for different purposes (Table 4.4). Donkeys were kept for pack (100%), cart service (20.67%) and renting out (6.0%). Group discussion participants and key informants in the area, reported that donkeys were kept for income generation by selling them through production. In the district donkey are not kept for riding and traction purpose, this might be due to tradition, perception of owners and the presence of mule as a choice. In contrast to this in Türkiye donkeys are used as traction animals in rural areas for small-scale farmers (Orhan et al., 2012). Beside this Solomon Mekuria and Rahmeto Abebe (2010) finding in Meskan district, southern Ethiopia 44.1% donkey owners were engaged in draught type of work. In contrast to the present finding, 100 % of the working donkeys in Africa were used to pull carts while 14.9 % were used for pack work and 6.4 % for riding (Krecek and well, 2001). This finding is in line with other study in Ethiopia 56% of households kept donkeys mainly for pack services (to generate income and homestead use), 26% for cart use (to generate income), and 14% for pack use but exclusively for homestead use and 4% exclusively for renting (Berhanu Admassu and Yoseph Shiferaw, 2011).

4.4.2. Purpose of keeping mules

In Hulet Eju Enese district, mules were kept for different purpose (Table 4.4). In the district mule owners kept them for cart service (83.33%), pack (56.67%), riding (46%), renting out and traction (9.33%). In Ethiopia 78.3% of households kept mules mainly for riding, 13% for pack services (to generate income and homestead use), 4.3% exclusively for renting out, and 4.3% for cart use (Berhanu Admassu and Yoseph Shiferaw, 2011). In the rural kebeles of the district 9.33% of respondents of mule owner kept them for traction purpose. But in the urban kebeles mule did not 40

used for traction (Table 4.4), this might be the agronomic activities mainly practiced in rural area. Table 4.4. Purpose of keeping equines in Hulet Eju Enese district Species

Donkey

Mule

Work type

Urban

Rural

Overall

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

Pack service

60 (100)

90 (100)

150 (100)

Renting out

8 (13.3)

1 (1.1)

9 (6)

Cart service

28 (46.67)

3 (3.3)

31 (20.67 )

Pack service

52 (86.7)

33 (36.7)

85 (56.67)

Riding

56 (93.3)

13 (14.4)

69 (46.0)

Renting out

7 (11.7)

7 (7.8)

14 (9.33)

Cart service

55 (91.67)

64 (71.7)

119 (83.33)

14 (15.6)

14 (9.33)

Traction

-

N=Household Number; Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

4.5. Equines Husbandry Practices

Equines production is a combination of different activities such as, feed and feeding, watering, grazing management, duration of working hrs, housing system, harnessing systems and welfare of animals.

4.5.1 Feed and feeding of equines

The major feed resources in the area were natural pasture (100%), crop residue (53.33%) and hay (48.67%) Table 4.5. Similarly, the major sources of feed for livestock in Dandi District, Oromia Regional State, Central Ethiopia were natural pasture grazing, crop residue, conserved hay, stubble grazing and non conventional feeds (Sere et al., 2008; Belay Duguma et al., 2012). But the availability varies on season and areas. The availability of natural pasture is not significantly different (P> 0.05) in urban and rural area. In line with the present study, Mesfin Abebe (1992) 41

reported that grazing and browsing account for nearly 88 % of the total feed supply in Ethiopia. Aganga and Tsopito (1998) stated that traditionally in Botswana donkeys that graze freely on rangeland throughout the year obtain enough roughage when they are not working.

According to this finding crop residues were the second most utilized feed resources for equines followed by natural pasture. But crop residues were highly significant (P< 0.01) in rural areas this might be most equine owners in rural areas were apply agronomic practices which is important as crop residue source. Among the feed resources, natural pasture and crop residues contribute the largest source of feed to livestock in dandi district, oromia regional state, central Ethiopia which is the case in most developing countries (Sere et al., 2008). Hay supplementation of equines in urban area were highly significant (P< 0.01). According to group discussion hay was cheaper than other feed resource in the area. Table 4.5. Major feed resources for donkeys and mules in Hulet Eju Enese district

Feed resources

Rural

Urban

Total

Chi square Significant level

HHN=90

HHN=60

HHN=150

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

Natural pasture

90 (100)

60 (100)

150 (100)

-

ns

Stubble

29 (32.22)

14 (23.33)

43 (27.78)

1.39

*

Maize grain

25 (27.78)

22 (36.67)

47 (31.33)

1.32

*

Crop residue

59 (65.56)

21 (35.0)

80 (53.33)

13.50

**

Atela

15 (16.67)

22 (36.67)

37 (24.67)

7.75

**

Weeds

13 (14.44)

7 (11.67)

20 (13.33)

0.24

*

Concentrate

-

18 (30.0)

18 (15.0)

30.68

**

Hay

35 (38.89)

38 (63.33)

73 (48.67)

8.61

**

*P < 0.05; **P< 0.01 value within the row indicates significant and highly significant on different feed resources, respectively; NS- Non Significant; HHN=Household Number; Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

42

Season and frequency of supplementation

The research result showed that 71.78% of donkey and mule owners in the district were practices supplementary feeding. Similarly more than half (57%) of respondent farmers in the Central district of Botswana supplement their donkeys (Aganga et al, 2000). According to Solomon Mekuriaw and Rhamot Abebe (2010) in Meskan district, Southern Ethiopia 100% of equines was provided feed. In contrast to the present findings, Aganga and Tsopito (1997) reported that in the Gaborone Region of Botswana, most of the owners (90%) of their respondent farmers did not provide supplementary feeds for their equines. Similarly, according to Khalil Makki and Omer Mohammed (2013), small holder farmers in Sudan 88% of respondents did not give supplementary feed to their donkeys and mules. As can be seen from Table 4.6 donkey were more supplemented than mule in both urban and rural area, this might be due to over loading and overworking activities of donkey.

The majority of the households’ equines supplemented during dry seasons (43.58%) followed by during working day (29.9%) and minimally wet season (14.78%) and both season (12.38%) that may be in the dry season there is shortage of feed and in the dry season there might be work availability of owners and income generation. In agreement to this research result some farmers fed supplements in the dry season, since communal grazing areas are overgrazed especially at the start of the ploughing season (Aganga et al., 2000). According to key informants and group discussions in rural kebeles of the districts there was relatively better feeds are available in wet season. The major frequency of supplementations was done whenever available (51.65%), daily (35.85%), twice a day (9.73%) and other time of supplementation was (2.75%) with respective rank of percentage (Table 4.6). In contrast to this Shelima et al. (2007) reported that the majority of the respondents (98.6%) provided feed at different frequencies in a day. Accordingly, 46% of the respondents provided feed for equines once daily while 24%, 24% and 3% of the respondents gave twice, three and four times daily, respectively. 43

Table 4.6. Season and frequency of supplementation of equines in Hulet Eju Enese district Urban

Rural

HHN =60 Particulars

Overall

HHN =90

N =150

Donkey

Mule

Donkey

Mule

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

50 (83.3)

47 (78.3)

59 (65.6)

54 (60)

210 (71.78)

Dry season

32 (53.3)

32 (53.3)

27( 30)

34 (37.7)

125 (43.58)

Wet season

2 (3.3)

6 (10)

24 (26.7)

15 (16.7)

47 (14.78)

Both season

4 (6.7)

9 (15)

16 (17.8)

9 (10)

38 (12.38)

During working day

22 (36.7)

13 (21.7)

23 (25.6)

32 (35.6)

90 (29.9)

Daily

32 (53.3)

30 (50)

10 (11.1)

26 (28.9)

98 (35.83)

Twice a day

7 (11.7)

11 (18.3)

2 (2.2)

6 (6.7)

26 (9.73)

Whenever available

21 (35)

17( 28.3)

74 (82.2)

55 (61.1)

167 (51.65)

Other

-

2 (3.3)

4 (4.4)

3 (3.3)

9 (2.75)

Practice of supplementary

N (%)

feeding Season of supplementation

Frequency of supplementation

HHN=Household number

Amount of supplementary feed

Working animals require more and better feed than animals that are not working. This is especially important when there is little or poor grazing. The amounts of supplementary feed that donkey and mule need to be given depend on many things including the size of animals, the amount of work done, the quantity and quality of pasture available and type and quality of feed used for supplementation. According to this research finding the amount of supplementary feed given to donkey per day in the district were 3.80 ±1.48 kg roughages like hay and different straw. Similarly, where grazing is poor, or there is not enough time for grazing, a donkey that weighs 150 kg must be given supplementary feed about 3 to 4 kg of roughage (Morgane, 1999). The amounts of feed given to mules were 4.04 ± 1.73 kg of with different 44

supplementary feed. The amounts of feed offered to donkey per day in urban were highly significant (P< 0.01) than in rural area. The amounts of feed given for mules were significant in the district. In urban area more feeds were offered for equines that might be the animal spent their time on work and the majority of households were literate (80%) which will be important for feeding management. Table 4.7. Amount of supplementary feed of equines in kg in Hulet Eju Enese district Amount of feed

Urban

Rural

Total

given

HHN=60

HHN=90

HHN=150

Mean ± S.D

Mean ± S.D

Mean ± S.D

Donkey

4.41 ± 1.66

3.60 ± 1.01

3.80 ±1.48

**

Mule

4.28 ± 1.88

3.68 ± 1.42

4.04 ± 1.73

*

Significant level

*P < 0.05; **P< 0.01 value within the row indicates significant and highly significant on amount of feed, respectively; HHN=Household Number

Type of supplementary feed of mules and donkeys Virtually, the type of supplementary feed in the study district varies between urban and rural areas. The majority of feeds utilized in the district were teff straw (82.5%), wheat straw (82.5%), chickpea straw (70.25%), hay (48.67%), Atela (24.67%) and other type of feed (38.0%) (Table 4.8). Similarly among the feed resources, natural pasture and crop residues contribute the largest source of feed to livestock in the study which is the case in most developing countries (Sere et al., 2008). The result showed that the major type of supplementary feed in the urban area were teff straw (85.0%), chick pea straw (78.3%), wheat straw (70.0%), hay (63.33%), Atela (local brewery residues) (36.67%) and other type of feed (42.3%). Whereas in the rural area the major type of supplementation were wheat straw (90.0%), teff straw (80.0%), chickpea straw (62.2%), hay (38.89%), Atela (16.67%) and other type of feed (30.76%). Hay and atela (local brewery residues) were highly significant (P< 0.01) in urban area that might be the availability and cost of feed in the urban area. Teff 45

straw supplementation were not significant (P> 0.05) in the study area that might be the availability were not vary in the area. Wheat straw and chick pea straw supplementation were significant (P< 0.05) in urban area that might be feed resource source were from market and they will be cheap. Table 4.8. Type of supplementary feed of mules and donkeys in Hulet Eju Enesie district Type of feed

Urban

Rural

HHN=60

HHN=90

Total

N Chi square

Significance

(%)

value

level

0.61

ns

Teff straw

51 (85.0 )

72 (80.0 )

123 (82.5)

Chick pea straw

47 (78.3)

56 (62.2)

103 (70.25) 4.34

*

Wheat straw

42 (70.0)

81 (90.0)

123 (82.5)

9.76

*

Hay

38 (63.33)

35 (38.89)

73 (48.67)

8.61

**

Atela

22 (36.67)

15 (16.67)

37 (24.67)

7.75

**

Others

30 (42.3)

27 (30.76)

57 (38.0)

1.48

ns

*P < 0.05; **P< 0.01 value within the row indicates significant and highly significant on type of supplementary feed, respectively; HHN=Household Number

Feeding practices for donkeys and mules An interview was administered on urban and rural equine owners about the main feeding practices they undertook while at home and also when travelling to markets. It was noticed that some feeding practices were common to both rural and urban, while others were more common in one group than the other.

Apparently, there was difference between urban and rural owners of mule and donkey on grazing day/week (Table 4.9). The owner of donkeys stated that donkey were graze five day (29.75%), four day (25.85%), two day (25%) and greater than five day (14.15%) per week. Whereas the grazing time of mule were five day( 22.8%), four day (19.2%), two day (19.15%), one day (15.85%),> five day (15.55%) and three day (7.55%) per week. 46

The finding showed that donkey had different grazing day per week in urban and rural area Table 4.9. In rural area the majority of owners (47.8%) graze their donkeys five days/week. Where as in urban areas the majority of donkey owners (50.0%) graze two days/week. Similarly mule had different grazing day per week in urban and rural area. In rural area the majority of mule owners (35.6%) were graze five day/week. Whereas in urban areas the majority of owner (38.3%) were two days/week. This difference might rise due to the variation of accessibility of road, work type and supplementary feeding practices in both areas. Table 4.9. Grazing day per week of equines in Hulet Eju Enesie district Species

Donkey

Mule

Grazing Day/week

Urban

Rural

Overall

HHN=60

HHN=90

HHN=150

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

One/week

3 (5.0)

1 (1.1)

4 (3.5)

Two/week

30 (50.0)

-

30 (25)

Three/week

2 (3.3)

1 (1.1)

3 (2.2)

Four/week

15 (25.0)

24 (26.7)

39 (25.85)

Five/week

7 (11.7)

43 (47.8)

50 (29.75)

> five

3 (5.0)

21 (23.3)

24 (14.15)

Total N (%)

60 (100)

90 (100)

150 (100)

One/week

19 (31.7)

-

19 (15.85)

Two/week

23 (38.3)

-

23 (19.15)

Three/week

3 (5.0)

9 (10.00)

12 (7.55)

Four/week

7 (11.7)

24 (26.7)

31(19.2)

Five/week

6 (10.0)

32 (35.6)

38 (22.8)

> five

2 (3.3)

25( 27.8)

27 (15.55)

Total N (%)

60 (100)

90 (100)

150 (100)

HHN=Household Number

Working hour of donkeys

The working hours of donkeys per day is shown in (fig 4.1). The working hours of donkeys vary in urban and rural areas. The majority of donkeys (60.0%) in urban area 47

were working in the time duration of > 9 hrs per day this might be in urban area donkey are utilized to generate income as daily source, access of road and aim of keeping them and the rest equine owners 13.3% and 26.7% were use their equines < 6 hrs and 6-9 hrs per day, respectively. Similarly, Demlash Biffa and Moges Woldemeskel, (2006) reported that in Ethiopia donkeys were work from 4 to 12 hours/day, depending on the season and type of work. Whereas in rural area donkey owners 48.9%, 23.3% and 27.8% were work 6- 9 hrs, less than 6 hrs and greater than 9 hrs per day, respectively. This difference might be in rural area most of equine owners use their donkey for transportation of farm commodity and other work in

ϲϬ

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

ϱϬ

percent

percent

short period of time.

ϰϬ ϯϬ ϮϬ ϭϬ Ϭ

< 6 hrs 6-9hrs > 9 hrs

фϲŚƌƐ

ϲͲϵŚƌƐ

хϵŚƌƐ

working hour in urban

ǁŽƌŬŝŶŐŚŽƵƌƐŝŶƌƵƌĂů

Figure 4. 1.Working hrs/day of donkeys in the study district

Working hours of mules

Figure 4.2 shows that the working time of mule per day. This research revealed that the major working hours of mules per day (45.6%) in rural area were in the range of 6-9 hrs of time duration and the rest mule owners and rest mule owners 22.2% and 32.2% were < 6 hrs and > 9 hrs per day, respectively. Similarly, Demlash Biffa and Moges Woldemeskel, (2006) reported that in Ethiopia mules were work from 4 to 12 hours/day, depending on the season and type of work. In the urban area the majority 48

of mules (63.3%) were work in the range of > 9 hrs of time duration this difference in urban and rural area might be difference of work type and urban mule use for daily income source and the rest mule owners 16.7% and 20.0% were use their mule < 6

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

50 40 percent

percent

hrs and 6-9 hrs per day, respectively.

30 20 10 0

< 6 hrs 6-9hrs > 9 hrs

< 6 hrs

working hour in urban

6-9hrs

> 9 hrs

working hour in rural

Figure 4. 2.Working hrs/day of mules in the study district

4.5.2. Water sources and watering

The current study indicated that the amount of water offered to donkey and mule were not varying with in species (Table 4.10). It was noticed that donkeys were drinking 13.12 ± 3.6 litter water per day in urban area. While in rural area donkeys drink 12.83 ± 4.60 litter water per day this showed that there was no significant difference across area (P> 0.05). Similarly, Zinash Sileshi et al.(2002) the water requirement of donkeys are vary on season, in wet season air temperature (27°C) total water requirement are 16 litter whereas in dry cold season air temperature 15–21°C total water requirement are 12 litter. However, the water consumption of mules per day in urban area were 18.0 ± 5.01 litter and rural 15.04 ± 4.70 litter this showed that there were highly significant difference (P< 0.01) that might be the work type, feeding activities and working hour difference of mules in urban and rural area of the district. Similarly normally a fully-grown adult equines consume anywhere from 10 to 25 liters of water per day (Fielding and Krause, 1998; Orhan et al., 2012). 49

Table 4.10 . Amount of water offered for equines in litter in Hulet Eju Enese district

Amount of water given

Urban, HHN=60

Rural, HHN=90

M±S.D

Mean ± S.D

Significance level

Donkey

13.12±3.6

12.83±4.60

ns

Mule

18.0±5.01

15.04±4.70

**

NS=non significant within rows; HHN=Household numbers

Water source in the district

In the rural and urban area of Hulet Eju Enesie district the available of water sources during wet season were found different (Table 4.11). In rural area the major water source during rainy season were river (85.6%), rain water (13.3%) and pond (1.1%). Whereas in urban kebeles the major water source during rainy season were rain water (55.0%), pipe (16.7%) and river (10.0%).

The present research finding showed that the major water source for donkey and mule in the district during dry season were river (41.65%), deep well (23.15%) and pipe (15.85%). Similarly, Belay Deguma et al. (2011) reported that river water source is the major source of drinking water according to, 50 % of respondents during dry season, 52.6 % during short rainy season and 51.3% during main rainy season consider Lega Batu and pond, respectively. River as main source of water for their livestock in Ginchi Watershed, Ethiopia. According to this research result in the rural and urban area of the district the available of water sources during dry season vary (Table 4.11). In rural area the major water source during dry season were river (73.3%), deep well (22.3%) and water harvest (4.4%). Whereas in urban kebeles the major water source during dry season were deep well (40.0%), pipe (31.7%), Water harvest (13.3%), river (10.0%) and pond (5%).

50

Table 4.11. Water sources for equines in Hulet Eju Enese district Water sources

Wet season

Dry season

Urban

Rural

Overall

Urban

Rural

Overall

HHN=60

HHN=90

HHN=150

HHN=60

HHN=90

HHN=150

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

River

6 (10.0)

77 (85.6)

83 (47.8)

6 (10)

66 (73.3)

72 (41.65)

Pond

4 (6.7)

1 (1.1)

5 (3.9)

3 (5)

-

3 (2.5)

Rain water

33 (55.0)

12 (13.3)

45 (34.15)

-

-

-

Water harvest

2 (3.3)

-

2 (1.65)

8 (13.3)

4 (4.4)

12 (8.85)

Deep well

5 (8.3)

-

5 (4.25)

24 (40)

20 (22.3)

44 (23.15)

Pipe

10 (16.7)

-

10 (8.25)

19 (31.7)

-

19 (15.85)

Total N (%)

60 (100)

90 (100)

150 (100)

60 (100)

90 (100)

150 (100)

HHN=Household Number

Distance to watering point

Generally the watering point of donkey and mule owner in the district 60.83%, 32.5%, and 6.65% of donkey and mule owners in Hulet Eju Enese district were found to be at a distance of 15years

12.05

Male

3.3

17.78

6-9 hrs

>9 hrs

3.33

-

19.7

-

Pack

Ridden

Cart service

Renting out

Feeding p

33.33

Traction

Work types

-

< 6 hrs

Working hours

8.96

Female

Sex

16.0

10.10

0.05) between body weight of male and female donkeys. Supplementary feeding of donkey had significant difference on body weight (P< 0.05) which was supplemented (104.36 ± 30.08 kg) donkey higher than not supplemented donkey (98.97 ± 32.10 kg) in the district.

The body weight of donkey on working hrs >9 hrs (92 ± 17.18 kg) had significant difference (P< 0.05) lower than body weight of donkey in range of less than 6 66

working hrs and 6-9 hrs were 128.05 ± 34.60 kg and 123.35 ± 41.69 kg, respectively this might be due to long working hrs restrict grazing and high weight lose due to high energy utilization. The research result showed that the body weight of mules on age group had significant difference (P< 0.05) in all age range of less than 5 years, 5-15 years and greater than15 years were 437.35 ± 45.72 kg, 488.27 ± 30.18 kg and 466.47 ± 34.55 kg, respectively this might be due to the physiological maturity development. On the work type this research result showed that cart service (467.38 ± 34.18 kg) had significant difference (P< 0.05) as compared with pack (487.14 ± 39.50 kg), riding (486.04 ± 25.50 kg), but no significant difference (P> 0.05) with traction (435.28 ± 23.00 kg) and renting out (467.68 ± 38.49 kg) this might be cart service, renting out and traction have high work load that leads weight loss. But not significant different with mules engaged with pack work (487.14 ± 39.50 kg), riding (486.04 ± 25.50 kg) and renting out (467.68 ± 38.49 kg). The sex of mules had significant difference on body weight (p15 years *

466.47 ± 34.55b

107.17 ± 32.61a

5-15 years

a

488.27 ± 30.18a

92.7 ± 19.30

437.35 ± 45.72

*

Mean ± S.D

Mean ± S.D b

No=90

No=90

*

Donkey

Mule

Donkey

b

127.35 ± 44.69a

120.05 ± 34.60a

*

104.97 ± 33.88

107.09 ± 35.12

ns

110.01 ± 37.17

101.86 ± 36.91

-

-

111.62 ± 34.16

ns

94.56 ± 15.31b

117.66 ± 36.80a

86.85 ± 8.95

**

Mean ± S.D

No=90

Urban

Rural