Indigenous sheep resources of Ethiopia: types, …quantitative sheep breed descriptor list was used...

25

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

AGRI 2008, 43: 25-39

Summary

Ethiopia has a diverse sheep population,numbering 23.6 million, in parallel with its diverseecology, production systems and communities. Acomprehensive phenotypic and geneticcharacterization of Ethiopian sheep populationswas initiated in 2005 to provide a nationwideframework for the management of sheep geneticresources. In this paper, we describe the indigenoussheep types in terms of physical characteristics,eco-regional distribution and community affinity.We also present relationships of sheep types withagricultural production systems, andfarmers’/pastoralists’ assessment of their sheeptypes. Fourteen traditionally recognized sheep typeswere identified and physically described.

The sheep types could be categorized into fourgroups (sub-alpine short-fat-tailed, highlandlong-fat-tailed, lowland fat-rumped and lowlandthin-tailed) based on their ecological distribution,tail types (fat-tail versus thin-tail), tail form/shape,and fiber type. There is high morphological andecological diversity among the major sheep groupsas well as among the sheep types. There is also astrong relationship between sheep types, ethnicgroups and production systems. Assessment of thegenetic distinctiveness of the traditional sheep typesis important for developing rationalconservation-based improvement programs.Molecular genetic assessment of the populationstructure is a follow up activity.

Résumé

L’Ethiopie possède différentes populations ovines,23,6 millions, selon les différentes écologies,systèmes de production et communautés. En 2005 a

Indigenous sheep resources of Ethiopia: types, production systemsand farmers preferences

S. Gizaw1,2,3, H. Komen2, O. Hanotte4, J.A.M. Van Arendonk2

1Debre Birhan Agricultural Research Center, P.O.Box 112, Debre Birhan, Ethiopia2Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen University,

P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands3International Livestock Research Institute, P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

4International Livestock Research Institute, P.O. Box 30709, Nairobi, Kenya

été mis en place un programme de caractérisationphénotipique et génétique des populations ovinesen Ethiopie dans le but de créer un cadre nationalpour la gestion des ressources génétiques ovines.Dans cet article nous décrivons les types d’ovinsindigènes du point de vue des caractéristiquesphysiques, de distribution eco-régionale, et affinitésentre communautés. Nous présentons également lesrelations des types d’ovins avec les systèmes deproduction agricole et une enquête menée parmi leséleveurs/pastoralistes. Nous avons identifié14 types traditionnels d’ovins qui sont décrits dupoint de vue physique.

Les différents types se divisent en 4 groupes:sous-alpine à queue grasse courte; haute montagneà longue queue grasse; plaine gras postérieur; etplaine queue fine, et selon leur distributionécologique, types de queues (queue grasse versusqueue fine), forme de la queue, et type de fibre. Ilexiste une grande diversité morphologique etécologique entre la plupart des groupes principauxovins ainsi qu’entre les types d’ovins même. Il existeaussi une forte relation entre les types d’ovins, lesgroupes ethniques et les systèmes de production.L’évaluation des différences génétiques des typesd’ovins traditionnels est importante pour ledéveloppement des programmes de conservationbasés sur l’amélioration. L’évaluation génétiquemoléculaire de la structure de la population seral’activité de suivi.

Resumen

Etiopía posee diversas poblaciones de ovinos,23,6 millones, que varían según la ecología, lossistemas de producción y las comunidades. En el2005 se inició un programa de caracterizaciónfenotípica y genética des las poblaciones ovinas enEtiopía con el fin de crear un marco nacional para

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

26Indigenous resources of Ethiopia

la gestión de los recursos genéticos ovinos. En esteartículo se describen los tipo de razas indígenasdesde el punto de vista de las características físicas,de la distribución eco-regional, y de las afinidadesentre comunidades. Presentamos también lasrelaciones de los tipos de ovinos con los sistemas deproducción agrícola y una encuesta realizada entrelos ganaderos y pastores.

Se han identificado 14 tipos tradicionales deovinos que se describen desde el punto de vistafísico. Los diferentes tipos se dividen en 4 grupos:sub-alpinos con cola gorda corta; alta montaña concola gorda larga; llanura con cuarto posterior graso;y llanura con cola delgada, y según su distribuciónecológica, tipos de cola (cola grasa versus coladelgada), forma de la cola y tipos de fibra. Existeuna gran diversidad morfológica y ecológica entrela mayor parte de los grupos principales de ovinosasí como entre los tipos de ovinos mismos. Tambiénhay une relación importante entre los tipos deovinos, los grupos étnicos y los sistemas deproducción. La evaluación de las diferenciasgenéticas de los tipos de ovinos tradicionales esimportante para el desarrollo de los programas deconservación basados en la mejora. La evaluacióngenética molecular de la estructura de la poblaciónserá una de las actividades de seguimiento..

Key words: Ethiopia, Sheep resources, Characterization,Physical characteristics.

Introduction

Ethiopia has a diverse indigenous sheeppopulation, numbering 23.6 million head (CSA,2006), in parallel with its diverse ecology,production systems and ethnic communities. At thenational level, sheep and goats account for about90% of live animals/meat (FAO, 2004) and 92% ofskin and hide (FAO, 1994) export trade value. At thefarm level, sheep contribute as much as 22-63% tothe net cash income derived from livestockproduction in the crop-livestock production system(Gryseels, 1988; Zelalem and Fletcher, 1993). In thelowlands sheep, with other livestock, are amainstay of pastoral livelihoods.

Characterization of sheep resources is aprerequisite for their rational utilization. Indeveloping regions, there exist types of farm animalspecies which owe their distinct identity to acombination of traditional ‘breeding objectives’ andgeographical and/or cultural separation by

communities which own them (Rege 2002). African(Epstein, 1971) and Ethiopian sheep (MOA, 1975)have been traditionally classified based on tail typeand fiber type because of the evolutionarysignificance of these characters. Galal (1983) andSisay (2002) described the physical characteristicsand eco-regional distribution of some of the sheeptypes in Ethiopia. However, earlier classificationsand descriptions were incomplete at a nationallevel. A comprehensive nationwide phenotypic andgenetic characterization of Ethiopian sheep wastherefore initiated in 2005. In this paper, wedescribe and synthesize the indigenous sheep typesin terms of physical characteristics, eco-regionaldistribution and ethnic affinity. We also presentrelationships of sheep types with agriculturalproduction systems, and farmers’/pastoralists’assessment of their sheep types.

Materials and Methods

An Ethiopian sheep breed survey was conducted in2005. Fourteen traditionally recognized,phenotypically distinct, and/orgeographically/ecologically isolated populationswere surveyed. Depending on the trait, 18 to40 full-mouth adult ewes from each populationwere sampled. The FAO (1986) qualitative andquantitative sheep breed descriptor list was used tocharacterize the populations phenotypically.Qualitative variables observed included coat color,fiber type, face profile, ear form, presence of horn,tail type and tail shape. Quantitative charactersmeasured were body weight, withers height, bodylength, heart girth, substernal height, ear length, taillength, tail width and hair length. Informationregarding flock size and composition was collectedthrough a questionnaire. Data on ewe litter size wascollected using farmer recall method. Farmers wereasked to recall the reproductive history of eachfull-mouth breeding female. Using the Rapid RuralAppraisal technique, informal group and keyinformant discussions with farmers and livestockexperts were conducted to gather information onbreed distribution, farmers’ assessments of theirsheep types and farming practices. In addition, wemade extensive field observations, reviews of greyand published literature and personalcommunications. Population estimates of sheeptypes were extracted, based on their geographicdistribution, from regional and zonal sheeppopulation estimates (CSA, 2005).

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

27

Animal Genetic Resources Information, No. 43, 2008

Gizaw et al.

Results and Discussion

Sheep types

The fourteen sheep types were categorized into fourgroups (sub-alpine short-fat-tailed, highlandlong-fat-tailed, lowland fat-rumped, lowlandthin-tailed) based on their ecological distribution,geographic proximity, tail types and tailform/shape (short vs long). Earlier studies used tailtype (MOA, 1975) and eco-regional distribution(Sisay, 2002) to describe some of the sheep types.Inclusion of tail form/shape in the current studyenabled identification of two groups of fat-tailedsheep which differ in other importantcharacteristics.

Sub-alpine short-fat-tailed

Sub-alpine short-fat-tailed sheep inhabit acontiguous central-northern highland area

(2 000 - 3 600 m) between 9.11 and 14.59° N and36.31 and 39.81° E (Figure 1). The group includesseven sheep types (Figures 4 and 5) which arecharacterized by their short fat tail well above thehocks (Table 1). They are also characterized bysmall size (Table 2), coarse wool and low ewereproduction. Litter size ranges from 1.0±0.01 inMenz (Figure 4) to 1.09±0.05 in Farta. Theshort-fat-tailed Washera sheep are an exception. Itis short-haired, large-sized and prolific (littersize = 1.8). Hair coat is found in several EastAfrican fat-tailed sheep that have interbred withhairy thin-tailed sheep (Epstein, 1971).

Highland long-fat-tailed

The group is distributed over the southern andsouth-western mid-highlands (1 500 to 2 500 m)between 10.40 – 5.85° N and 34.50 – 40.29° E(Figure 1). The tail is fat and long reaching thehocks, broad at the base and upper third with a

Black Head Somali

Afar Menz

Horro Wollo

Arsi Tikur

Adilo Sekota

Bonga Semien

Gumz Farta

Washera LakeTana

— Regional state boundary

Somali

Oromia

Gambela

Amhara

Ben

isha

ngul

-

G

umz

Southern

Tigray

Afar

Figure 1. Geographic distribution of sheep types

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Tab

le 1

. She

ep ty

pes

and

thei

r ec

olog

y, g

eogr

aphi

c di

stri

buti

on, d

isti

ngui

shin

g ph

ysic

al fe

atur

es a

nd p

opul

atio

n si

zes.

Shee

p ty

pes

Oth

er n

ames

E

colo

gy

Geo

grap

hic

dis

trib

utio

n Im

port

ant p

hysi

cal f

eatu

res1

Po

pula

tion

(0

00)

Sub-

alpi

ne s

hort

-fat

-tai

led

grou

p M

enz

Leg

egor

a, S

hoa,

A

byss

inia

n,

Eth

iopi

an

high

land

she

ep

Sub-

moi

st/d

ry,

sub-

alpi

ne

high

land

s (2

500

and

3

200

m);

Nor

th S

hoa

zone

of

Am

hara

Sta

te

Shor

t fat

tail

turn

ed-u

p at

end

; sm

all b

ody

size

; sho

rt-l

egge

d;

long

flee

ce w

ith

coar

se w

ool;

com

mon

ly b

lack

wit

h w

hite

p

atch

es, w

hite

, bro

wn,

whi

te w

ith

brow

n pa

tche

s; s

trai

ght-

face

d; h

orne

d m

ales

; sho

rt s

emi-p

end

ulou

s ea

rs w

ith

12%

ru

dim

enta

ry e

ars

in th

e po

pula

tion

. Kep

t by

Am

hara

co

mm

uni

ty

971.

4

Seko

ta

Tig

ray

high

land

, A

berg

elle

C

ool,

dry

/sub

-m

oist

hig

hlan

ds

(2 0

00 m

); se

mi-

arid

riv

er v

alle

y

Wag

Him

ra z

one

of

Am

hara

Sta

te a

nd

Tig

ray

Stat

e

Shor

t fat

tail

turn

ed-u

p at

end

and

fuse

d w

ith

mai

n pa

rt;

med

ium

-siz

ed; P

red

omin

antly

bro

wn

or w

hite

coa

t, fe

w b

lack

s w

ith

brow

n be

lly; w

hite

ani

mal

s ha

ve fi

ner

hair

or

woo

ly

ud

der

-coa

t; se

mi-

pen

du

lou

s or

rud

imen

tary

ear

s in

Wag

H

imra

and

Tig

ray,

pre

dom

inan

tly r

udim

enta

ry in

Tek

eze

valle

y. R

eare

d by

Age

w, T

igra

y an

d A

mha

ra c

omm

uni

ties

732.

3

Sem

ien

A

lpin

e m

ount

ains

(3

000

-4 0

00 m

) in

clud

ing

Sem

ien

Wild

life

park

;

Nor

th G

ond

ar z

one

of

Am

hara

Sta

te

(Deb

ark,

Dab

at,

Jana

mor

a, W

eger

a)

Shor

t fat

tail;

wel

l dev

elop

ed w

ooly

und

erco

at; p

lain

bro

wn,

p

lain

whi

te, b

row

n/w

hite

with

whi

te/b

row

n p

atch

es, p

lain

bl

ack

and

blac

k w

ith

brow

n be

lly; u

niqu

e lo

ng la

tera

lly s

pira

l ho

rn in

mal

es a

nd s

hort

hor

ns in

mos

t fem

ales

; lar

gest

of t

he

high

land

woo

led

she

ep. R

eare

d b

y A

mha

ra c

omm

unity

347.

6

Tik

ur

Su

b-al

pine

hi

ghla

nds

(3 0

00 m

)

Nor

th W

ollo

zon

e of

A

mha

ra S

tate

Sh

ort f

at ta

il; w

ooly

und

erco

at; P

redo

min

antl

y bl

ack

(60%

) co

at; s

mal

l bod

y si

ze; m

ajor

ity s

hort

sem

ipen

dul

ous

ears

, 24%

ru

dim

enta

ry e

ars.

Rea

red

by A

mha

ra c

omm

uniti

es

525.

3

Wol

lo

C

ood

hig

hlan

d

(2 0

00-3

200

m)

Sout

h W

ollo

zon

e of

A

mha

ra S

tate

Sh

ort-

fat-

tail

wit

h sh

ort t

wis

ted/

coile

d en

d, o

ccas

iona

lly

turn

ed u

p at

end

; Sm

all s

ize;

wel

l dev

elop

ed w

ooly

und

erco

at;

Pre

dom

inan

tly

blac

k, w

hite

or

brow

n, e

ithe

r p

lain

or

wit

h p

atch

es o

f whi

te, b

lack

or

brow

n; lo

ng h

air

wit

h w

ooly

u

nder

coat

; hor

ned

mal

es. R

eare

d b

y A

mha

ra c

omm

uniti

es

1 39

5.9

Fart

a

Sub-

moi

st

high

land

(2

000

-2 5

00 m

)

Sout

h G

ond

ar z

one;

G

ond

ar z

uria

, Bel

esa,

D

embi

a d

istr

icts

Shor

t fat

tail;

med

ium

siz

e; w

ooly

und

er c

oat;

Com

mon

ly

whi

te (3

7.5%

), br

own

(27.

5%) a

nd b

lack

wit

h br

own

belly

(1

5%),

whi

te/b

row

n w

ith

brow

n/w

hite

pat

ches

; mal

es a

re

horn

ed. R

eare

d b

y A

mha

ra c

omm

unit

ies

555.

6

Was

hera

A

gew

, dan

gilla

W

et, w

arm

er

mid

-hig

hlan

ds

(1 6

00-2

000

m)

Wes

t and

Eas

t Goj

am

and

Age

w A

wi z

ones

of

Am

hara

sta

te;

Dan

gur,

Mad

ura

and

Ale

fa T

aku

sa d

istr

icts

Shor

t fat

tail;

larg

e bo

dy

size

; sho

rt-h

aire

d; p

red

omin

antly

br

own;

bot

h m

ales

and

fem

ales

are

pol

led

; rea

red

by

Am

hara

an

d A

gew

com

mu

nitie

s

1 22

7.7

1 Coa

t col

ors

are

in o

rder

of f

requ

ency

in th

e po

pula

tion

.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

29


Gizaw et al.

Shee

p ty

pes

O

ther

nam

es

Eco

logy

G

eogr

aphi

c d

istr

ibut

ion

Impo

rtan

t phy

sica

l fea

ture

s1

Popu

lati

on

(000

) H

ighl

and

long

-fat-

taile

d gr

oup

A

dilo

Wet

, war

mer

m

id-h

ighl

and

(1

800

-2 0

00 m

)

Nor

th O

mo,

Der

ashi

e,

Ged

io a

nd A

mar

o zo

nes

of S

outh

ern

stat

e; s

ome

nort

hern

B

oren

a d

istr

icts

(1

300

– 2

400

m)

Lon

g fa

t tai

l; L

arge

siz

e; s

hort

-hai

red

; mal

es a

re s

hort

-ho

rned

and

18.

4% o

f ew

es a

re h

orne

d; p

red

omin

antl

y br

own

(943

%),

brow

n w

ith

whi

te p

atch

es (3

2%),

blac

k (1

6%),

blac

k (1

9%) a

nd b

lack

wit

h br

own

patc

h (9

%).

Rea

red

by

sout

hern

nat

iona

litie

s

407.

7

Ars

i-Bal

e

Mai

nly

wet

, coo

l an

d w

arm

er

high

land

s (2

000

-3 3

00);

sub-

moi

st

low

land

s

Ars

i, Ba

le, E

. Sho

a,

W. H

arer

ghie

zon

es,

som

e d

istr

icts

in

Bor

ena

zone

s of

O

rom

ia; H

adya

, G

ura

ge, K

emba

ta &

Si

dam

a zo

nes

Long

fat t

ail w

ith

twis

ted

end

in s

ome

anim

als;

med

ium

si

ze; h

airy

fibe

r, e

spec

ially

in a

dul

t ew

es, m

ales

hav

e m

inor

w

ool g

row

th in

som

e pa

rts

of b

ody;

Mal

es a

nd m

ost

fem

ales

(52%

) are

hor

ned

; Lar

ge s

ize;

coa

t col

ors

are

brow

n (3

5.1%

), br

own

wit

h w

hite

pat

ches

(24.

3%),

blac

k, w

hite

, an

d c

ombi

nati

ons

of a

bove

col

ors.

Rea

red

by

Oro

mo

com

mun

ities

6345

.1

Hor

ro

C

ool,

wet

hi

ghla

nds

(2 9

91

m) t

o hu

mid

m

id-h

ighl

and

s (1

600

m).

Eas

t Wel

ega,

Wes

t W

eleg

a, Il

luba

bor,

Ji

mm

a an

d W

est S

hoa

zone

s of

Oro

mia

, and

so

me

bord

erin

g G

ambe

lla a

nd

Ben

isha

ngu

l dis

tric

ts

Long

fat t

ail e

xten

din

g be

low

hoc

k, e

ithe

r st

raig

ht (5

1.4%

) or

coi

led/

twis

ted

(48.

6%) a

t the

tap

erin

g en

d; p

rom

inen

t fa

t tai

l in

mal

es; L

arge

, leg

gy a

nd p

rolif

ic; d

omin

ant c

olor

s ar

e br

own

and

faw

n, b

elly

is li

ghte

r es

peci

ally

in a

dul

t ew

es, l

ess

freq

uen

t are

bla

ck, w

hite

, bro

wn

wit

h w

hite

pa

tche

s; b

oth

sexe

s ar

e po

lled.

Rea

red

by O

rom

o,

Ben

isha

ngu

l and

Gam

bella

com

mun

ities

3409

.3

Bon

ga

Ges

ha, M

enit

Hum

id

mid

-hig

hlan

d

zone

(1

200

– 2

500

)

Kef

fa, S

heka

and

B

ench

zon

es o

f So

uthe

rn S

tate

Long

fat t

ail w

ith

stra

ight

tap

erin

g en

d (9

8.4%

); ha

ir s

heep

; L

arge

siz

e; p

red

omin

antl

y pl

ain

brow

n (5

7.9%

) or

wit

h bl

ack

(.9%

) or

whi

te (5

.3%

) sha

de,

pla

in w

hite

(10.

5%) o

r w

ith

brow

n pa

tche

s (1

0.5%

), an

d b

lack

(2.6

%);

both

sex

es

are

polle

d. R

eare

d b

y K

effa

, She

ka a

nd B

ench

com

mun

itie

s

517.

5

(... c

ontin

ued)

1 Coa

t col

ors

are

in o

rder

of f

requ

ency

in th

e po

pula

tion

.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Shee

p t

yp

es

Oth

er n

ames

E

colo

gy

G

eog

rap

hic

d

istr

ibu

tion

Im

por

tan

t p

hy

sica

l fea

ture

s1

Po

pu

lati

on

(000

) L

owla

nd

fat-

rum

ped

grou

p

A

far

Ad

al, D

anak

il

Mai

nly

ari

d

low

lan

d(<

1 00

0 m

);

mid

-hig

hla

nd

(1

200

–1 9

00 m

)

Afa

r st

ate;

bo

ard

erin

g

Tig

ray

, Am

har

a; E

. &

W. H

arer

gh

e an

d E

. Sh

oa

of

Oro

mia

Wid

e fa

t ta

il, i

n s

om

e la

rge

fat

tail

rea

chin

g b

elow

th

e h

ock

; hai

r fi

ber;

med

ium

siz

e; c

har

acte

rist

ical

ly

un

ifor

m c

ream

y w

hit

e/ b

eig

e co

at; r

ud

imen

tary

ear

; p

oll

ed; d

ewla

p. R

eare

d b

y A

far,

Am

har

a, t

igra

y

com

mu

nit

ies

681.

9

BH

S W

ank

e, O

gad

en,

Ber

bera

bla

ck

hea

d

Mai

nly

ari

d

low

lan

ds

(215

-900

m);

h

igh

lan

ds

(up

to

2

000

m)

Som

ali s

tate

; lo

wla

nd

s of

Bal

e,

Bor

ena

and

so

uth

O

mo

zo

nes

; par

t of

ea

st H

arer

gh

e

Sho

rt f

at r

um

p w

ith

a s

tum

py

ap

pen

dag

e; u

nif

orm

w

hit

e bo

dy

an

d b

lack

hea

d a

nd

nec

k; p

olle

d; c

onv

ex

face

, esp

ecia

lly

in m

ales

; sh

ort,

ou

twar

d f

orw

ard

d

roo

pin

g e

ar; w

ell d

evel

op

ed d

ewla

p. R

eare

d b

y

Som

al, O

rom

o, K

on

so a

nd

Sou

th O

mo

com

mu

nit

ies

906.

2

Low

lan

d th

in-t

aile

d gr

oup

Gu

mz

M

ois

t lo

wla

nd

s

(< 1

000

m)

Ben

ish

ang

ul-

Gu

mz

stat

e; l

owla

nd

s o

f N

orth

Go

nd

ar

Lon

g t

hin

tai

l; so

me

wh

at d

war

f; c

on

vex

fac

e p

rofi

le;

lon

g p

end

ulo

us

ear;

com

mo

nly

pla

in b

row

n o

r w

ith

p

atch

(39

.4%

), w

hit

e w

ith

bro

wn

or

blac

k p

atch

(21

%),

bl

ack

(15

.8%

), w

hit

e, b

lack

wit

h w

hit

e p

atch

, bro

wn

w

ith

bla

ck p

atch

; pol

led

. Rea

red

by

Gu

mz

and

Am

har

a co

mm

un

itie

s

50.9

(... c

ontin

ued)

1 Coa

t col

ors

are

in o

rder

of f

requ

ency

in th

e po

pula

tion

.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

31


Gizaw et al.

Tab

le 2

. Bod

y w

eigh

t (kg

) and

line

ar b

ody

mea

sure

men

ts (c

m) o

f ful

l-mou

th a

dult

ew

es (±

Sta

ndar

d D

evia

tion

). Sh

eep

type

N

o.

Bod

y w

eigh

t W

ither

s he

ight

B

ody

leng

th

Hea

rt

girt

h Su

bste

rnal

he

ight

E

ar

leng

th

Tai

l le

ngth

T

ail

wid

th

Hai

r le

ngth

A

dilo

36

28

.1±.

5 65

.5±.

4 62

.1±.

5 71

.8±6

35

.8±.

5 11

.7±.

5 28

.1±1

6.

7±.3

4.

4±.2

A

rsiB

ale

34

28.6

±.6

64.1

±.6

62.3

±.8

73.3

±.6

35.3

±.4

11.0

±.1

28.4

±.6

6.2±

.3

4.2±

.1

Bon

ga

38

34.2

±.8

66.7

±.6

69.4

±.5

73.5

±.7

36.4

±.4

9.8±

.2

25.9

±.9

8.1±

.3

2.9±

.1

Fart

a 39

28

.3±.

7 67

.9±.

5 65

.7±.

7 72

.0±.

7 37

.3±.

4 9.

9±.3

22

.9±.

8 9.

6±.2

7.

5±.3

G

umz

38

31.0

±.8

62.9

±.7

65.8

±.7

72.1

±.7

32.9

±.5

11.2

±.2

31.6

±.5

7.2±

.2

3.6±

.3

Hor

ro

37

35.4

±.8

70.0

±.6

71.6

±.6

76.9

±.8

38.1

±.4

10.8

±.2

35.6

±.6

9.9±

.3

2.6±

.1

Men

z 40

20

.1±.

3 57

.5±.

5 58

.5±.

4 65

.7±.

4 30

.9±.

3 6.

8±.4

17

.0±.

6 7.

9±.2

7.

9±.3

Se

kota

40

26

.6±.

7 62

.3±.

6 62

.2±.

6 69

.9±.

5 33

.5±.

4 4.

4±.5

19

.9±.

8 9.

5.3

6.5±

.5

Sem

ien

33

26.9

±.4

66.6

±.6

64.7

±.6

73.2

±.6

35.9

±.5

8.3±

.5

12.8

±.6

9.6±

.2

8.2±

.3

Afa

r 18

31

.0±1

63

.6±.

8 58

.3±.

8 70

.6±.

6 35

.6±.

6 3.

8±.4

19

.1±.

7 16

±.9

3.2±

.3

Tik

ur

34

25.4

±.6

64.1

±.6

63.6

±.6

69.7

±.6

35.9

±.5

6.8±

.5

17.3

±.6

8.9±

.3

7.4±

.3

Was

hera

44

32

.8±.

9 69

.4±.

3 66

.7±.

5 74

.1±.

6 38

.6±.

3 10

.6±.

1 n.

a n.

a 6.

3±.3

B

HS

22

27.9

±.8

63.3

±.6

59.9

±.9

71.5

±.6

35.1

±.6

9.6±

.4

14.7

±.6

14±.

9 4.

0±.3

W

ollo

37

21

.7±.

5 62

.7±.

6 61

.2±.

5 67

.6±.

5 34

.3±.

4 8.

7±.3

20

.4±.

6 7.

2±.2

7.

9±.4

n.

a.: d

ata

not a

vaila

ble.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Figure 2. Highland long-fat-tailed ewe (e.g. here is Horro sheep).

Figure 3. Highland long-fat-tailed rams (e.g. here is Horro sheep).

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

33


Gizaw et al.

Figure 4. Sub-alpine short-fat-tailed ewe (e.g. here is Menz sheep).

Figure 5. Sub-alpine short-fat-tailed ram (e.g. here is Simien sheep).

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Figure 6. Lowland thin-tailed ewes (e.g. here is Gumz sheep).

Figure 7. Lowland thin-tailed ram (e.g. here is Gumz sheep).

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

35


Gizaw et al.

long tapering end. The group is large-sized(Table 2), short-haired, predominantly brown andprolific (litter size = 1.29±0.06 - 1.55±0.12).

The group includes Horro (Figure 2 and 3),Arsi-Bale, Bonga and Adilo. An earlier study (MOA,1975) described Horro as thin-tailed and Arsi-Balaas fat-tailed, while Galal (1983) and Epstein (1971)described Horro and Arsi-Bale as fat-tailed. Suchinconsistencies could be due to the unique tailshape in this group which could be the result ofinfluence from a thin-tailed ancestor.

Lowland fat-rumped

Afar and Black-Head-Somali (BHS) sheep constitutethe lowland fat-rumped group (Figures 8 and 9).BHS has been classed with the fat-tailed(Hilzheimer cited by Epstein, 1971) and fat-rumpedgroup (Epstein, 1971), while Galal (1983) describedthe tail as short and fat, with the rump being alsofatty. Adal (Adal and Afar are synonymous) sheepare also traditionally described as fat-tailed, butcategorized as fat-rumped (Epstein 1971). Ourobservation is that BHS be classified as fat-rumpedand Afar as fat-tailed sheep. Here, BHS and Afar areclassified under the same group as, from asystematic point of view, fat-rumped and fat-tailedsheep are more closely related than other sheep

types (Epstein, 1971). Physical characteristics anddistribution are given in table 1.

Lowland thin-tailed

This group is represented by a single population(Table 1) and is found adjacent to the thin-tailedsheep region of the Sudanese desert (Figures 6and 7). They are moderately prolific (littersize = 1.28±0.06).

Sheep types and production systems

For this study, the classification of livestockproduction systems by Alemayehu (www.fao.org)was adapted. There appears to be a strongrelationship between the sheep types andproduction systems (Table 3). Breeds with highgrowth rate and prolificacy, like Adilo and Bongasheep, are associated with tethering systems wherefew breeding ewes and/or fattening males are kept.Good milking and long-legged Black Head Somalisheep are suited to the nutrition and nomadic habitof the pastoral community. Flock size andcomposition by sheep types and production systemis presented in table 4.

Figure 8. Lowland fat-rumped ewe (e.g. here is BHS sheep).

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Farmers’ assessment of sheep types

The farmers’/pastoralists’ assessment of theirsheep is presented in table 5. Farmers owninglarge-sized sheep with uniform coat color,particularly brown, valued their breed as good orexcellent. There is a tendency to select against blacksheep among the heterogeneous sub-alpine woolbreeds. This is due to a decreased market demandfor black sheep and black wool. The sub-alpinesheep types were evaluated as highly adapted to theharsh natural environment and low inputproduction systems. The socio-economic roles ofmost of the breeds were ranked as high. This isbecause of their high market value, including theexport market for BHS and Afar, and their role as asource of family food like milk among pastoralists.The importance of these roles for a given breed,

however, varies according to the production system.Under highland perennial/cash crop systems, forinstance, sheep contribute less to the farmlivelihood.

Conclusion

This study provided an overview of thecharacteristics of Ethiopian sheep. Fourmorphologically distinct categories of Ethiopiansheep were recognized: sub-alpine short-fat-tailed,highland long-fat-tailed, lowlandfat-rumped/tailed and lowland thin-tailed.Morphological diversity in Ethiopian sheep isrelated to ecological zones, ethnic communities andproduction systems. Assessment of the geneticdistinctness of the traditional sheep types is

Table 3. Sheep types and major sheep production systems in Ethiopia.

Characteristic features of production systems

Production systems Environment Main

products Scale of production and management Sheep breeds

Sub-alpine sheep-barley system

Sub-alpine (> 3000 m)

Meat, fiber, manure, skin; unreliable, long-season barley

Medium scale sheep production; Semi-intensive, low-input1

Simien2, Tikur2, Menz2, Wollo2, Farta3, Arsi-Bale4, Horro4

Highland cereal-livestock system

Highlands (1 500-3 000 m)

Mainly cereal cropping; meat, manure, skin

Small scale sheep production; semi-intensive, low-input

Washera2, Sekota2, Horro3, Arsi-Bale3, Wollo4, Farta2, BHS4

Highland perennial crop system

Highlands (1 500-2 000 m)

Mainly perennial cash crops (coffee, inset, khat); meat, skin

Minor sheep production; semi-intensive, low-input; some practice tethering

Bonga2, Adilo2, Horro3, Arsi-Bale3

Lowland crop-livestock system

Wet lowland (Up to 1 000 m)

Cereals, sesame, cotton; meat, skin

High level of livestock keeping; semi-intensive, low-input

Gumz2, Afar4, Arsi-Bale4, BHS4

Pastoral/agro-pastoral system

Semi-arid/arid (up to 1 000 m)

Meat, milk, skin; minimal or no cropping

Rangeland-based large-scale sheep production; extensive, low-input

Afar2, BHS2

1Based on feeding, veterinary care, housing. 2Major portion of or the whole sheep population is managed under the system. 3Significant portion of the sheep population is managed under the system. 4Minor portion of the sheep population is managed under the system. Source: based on Alemayehu (www.fao.org).

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

37


Gizaw et al.

Table 4. Average flock size and flock structure.

Sheep type/production system No. of flocks

Average flock size

Average no. of ewes

Average no. of rams

Average no. of lambs

Alpine sheep-barley 50 23.32 13.95 1.22 5.91 Menz 19 25.89 16.94 1.45 4.71 Tikur 10 16.11 10.45 1.00 3.50 Wollo 12 16.40 10.40 1.20 6.00 Simien 10 9.21 5.80 0.25 2.50

Highland crop-livestock 53 10.37 5.90 0.47 3.01 Horro 29 9.43 5.31 0.34 2.10 Sekota 12 11.18 6.64 1.00 3.00 Farta 12 10.45 6.73 0.27 3.80 Washera Arsi-Bale 15 27.14 13.64 1.07 9.15

Highland perennial crop 53 3.45 1.77 0.02 1.64 Adilo 22 3.24 1.71 0.09 2.14 Bonga 31 3.60 1.80 0.07 1.44

Lowland crop-livestock 11 11.80 7.50 0.70 5.14 Gumz 11 11.80 7.50 0.70 5.14

Pastoral system 99 54.37 27.37 8.47 18.54 BHS 99 54.37 27.37 8.47 18.54 Afar n.a.

n.a.: data not available.

Figure 9. Lowland fat-rumped ram (e.g. here is BHS sheep).

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


Tab

le 5

. Far

mer

s’ a

sses

smen

t of s

heep

typ

es o

n ph

ysic

al, p

rodu

ctio

n an

d ad

apta

tion

trai

ts a

nd s

ocio

-eco

nom

ic im

port

ance

. T

rait

s/ty

pes

H

orro

M

enz

Seko

ta

Sim

ien

Fa

rta

Tik

ur

Gu

mz

Was

her

Wol

lo

Ad

ilo

Ars

i B

onga

B

HS

Afa

r C

olor

4

2 3

4 41

1

4 4

2 4

2 4

4 4

Ap

pea

ranc

e/si

ze

3 1

4 4

4 2

3 4

1 42

4

4 4

3 G

row

th r

ate

3 1

3 4

4 2

3 4

1 4

4 4

3 3

Fert

ility

4

4 4

3 3

4 2

4 4

3 4

4 3

4 P

rolif

icac

y 4

1 2

2 2

1 2

4 1

4 3

4 2

3 M

eat q

ual

ity

3 4

3 4

4 3

4 4

4 3

4 4

4 3

Skin

qu

alit

y 4

4 4

4 4

2 2

4 3

3 2

3 3

3 W

ool

n.a.

2

2

2 1

n.a.

n.

a.

1 n.

a.

1 n.

a.

n.a.

n.

a.

Tem

per

amen

t 4

3 4

3 4

4 4

4 4

2 1

4 4

4 M

othe

ring

abi

lity

4 3

2 3

4 2

2 4

4 4

4 4

4 4

Dis

ease

tole

ranc

e 2

3 3

4 4

3 2

3 3

2 4

2 4

4 H

ard

ines

s 2

4 4

4 4

4 3

2 4

2 4

2 4

4 M

arke

t val

ue

4 4

3 3

4 1

2 4

2 4

4 4

2 3

Soci

oeco

nom

ic

imp

orta

nce

H

H

H

H

H

I

N

H

H

N

H

N

H

H

1 =

Poo

r, 2

= A

vera

ge, 3

= G

ood

, 4 =

Exc

elle

nt.

H =

Hig

hly

impo

rtan

t, I =

Impo

rtan

t, N

= N

ot m

uch

imp

orta

nt.

n.a.

= d

ata

not a

pplic

able

. 1 A

ll co

at c

olor

s ex

cept

bla

ck w

ere

pre

ferr

ed.

2 Far

mer

s pr

efer

to h

ave

fatt

enin

g m

ales

wit

h lo

ng h

orns

, whi

ch m

ost A

dilo

ram

s la

ck.

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

39


Gizaw et al.

important for developing rationalconservation-based improvement programs.Molecular genetic assessment of the populationstructure is a follow up activity.

Acknowledgements

This project is funded by The NetherlandsFoundation for the Advancement of TropicalResearch (WOTRO). The project is a collaborationbetween Wageningen University and InternationalLivestock Research Institute (ILRI). We sincerelythank farmers and pastoralists who spared theiranimals and time for free for this study.

List of References

Alemayehu, M. Country pasture/forageresource profile, Ethiopia. www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/agricult/agp/agpc/doc/Counprof/Ethiopia, FAO,Rome, Italy.

CSA, Central Statistical Authority. 2003.Ethiopian Agricultural Sample Enumeration for theyear 2004/2005, Statistical Report on FarmManagement Practices, Livestock and FarmImplements, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

CSA, Central Statistical Authority. 2006.Ethiopian agricultural sample Survey. Vol II. Reporton livestock and livestock characteristics. StatisticalBulletin 388, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Epstein, H. 1971. The Origin of DomesticAnimals of Africa, Vol.2. Africana PublicationCorporation, New York, pp. 719.

FAO. 1994. Production Yearbook, Volume 48.FAO, Rome, Italy.

FAO. 2004. Livestock sector brief: Ethiopia.Livestock Information, Sector Analysis and PolicyBranch (AGAL).

FAO. 1986. Animal Genetic Resources DataBanks. 2. Descriptor Lists for Cattle, Buffalo, Pigs,Sheep and Goats. Animal Production and HealthPaper 59/2. FAO, Rome, Italy, pp. 96-129.

Galal, E.S.E. 1983. Sheep germplasm inEthiopia. Animal Genetic Resources InformationBulletin, 1/83, FAO, pp. 6-13.

Gryseels, G. 1988. Role of Livestock onMixed Smallholder Farms in the EthiopianHighlands: A case study from the Baso and WoranaWereda near Debre Berhan. Dissertation,Agricultural University of Wageningen, TheNetherlands.

MOA, Ministry of Agriculture-Ethiopia.1975. National policy on sheep research anddevelopment. Report of The Technical Committee.Mimeograph. MOA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Rege, J.E.O. 2002. Defining livestock breedsin the context of community-based management offarm animal genetic resources. In: Animal geneticResources Virtual Library CD-ROM. GTZ, SACCARand ILRI, ILRI-Ethiopia.

Sisay, L. 2002. Phenotypic classification anddescription of indigenous sheep types in theamhara national regional state of ethiopia. MScthesis, Department of Genetics, University of Natal,Pietermaritzburg, South Africa.

Zelalem, A. & I.C. Fletcher. 1993.Smallruminant productivity in the centralhighlands of Ethiopia. Proceedings of the4th National Livestock Improvement Conference(NLIC), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 13-15 November,1991. IAR (Institute of Agricultural Research),Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Indigenous sheep resources of Ethiopia: types, …quantitative sheep breed descriptor list was used...

Documents

Transcript of Indigenous sheep resources of Ethiopia: types, …quantitative sheep breed descriptor list was used...