GET THE APP

Characterization of Dairy Production Constraints, Existing Feeding Practices and Mineral Supplementation in Dairy Feeds in Two Districts of East Shoa Zone, Ethiopia
Advances in dairy Research

Advances in dairy Research
Open Access

ISSN: 2329-888X

Research Article - (2019)Volume 7, Issue 1

Characterization of Dairy Production Constraints, Existing Feeding Practices and Mineral Supplementation in Dairy Feeds in Two Districts of East Shoa Zone, Ethiopia

Wondewsen Bekele1*, Gebeyehu Goshu2, Berhan Tamir2, Tilaye Demissie2 and Zemelak Sahle3
 
*Correspondence: Wondewsen Bekele, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Dilla University, P.O. Box 33, Dilla, Ethiopia, Email:

Author info »

Abstract

Study was carried out in Adaa and Adama zuria districts of Oromia Regional State with objective of assessing the existing dairy feeding practices, major dairy feeds and mineral resource at farm level. A cross-sectional study design was employed to assess dairy cattle feed and mineral resources. Then multistage sampling method was employed to select the study sample units, which had expected to be representative of the whole population, found in the study area. The districts were selected purposively, based on the number of dairy farm concentration. The result showed that the primary constraints for dairy owners were shortage of land (17.3, 14.6%); followed by feed shortage (13.4, 11.4%) in Ada’a and Adama Zuria districts, respectively. In the current study, 67.7% of respondents from Ada’a and, 89.4% from Adama zuria district did not grow any improved forages due to different cases. The survey indicated that 48.8% of dairy farmers from Ada’a and 43.9% from Adama zuria district did not supplement dairy animals with minerals due to lack of awareness and mineral availability.

The results showed that feed type difference and feeding practice variability based on feed availability and season of the study area. Therefore, Alternative feed production awareness and skills such as development of improved forages, proficient feed application technologies and natural pastureland improvement measures should be taken. The contribution of improved forage in dairy feed was very low due to lack of awareness and shortage of improved forage seeds and land in the area. To alleviate this problem, awareness creation and model nursery sites should be established for demonstration in potential districts so that dissemination and utilization of these feeds are very important. Due to unaffordable costs of commercial dairy feeds including concentrate feeds and, minerals, provision of common salt and locally available natural soil/bole as mineral source should be encouraged.

Keywords

Dairy cow; Dairy feed; Minerals; Adama zuria; Mineral Deficiency; Ada’a; Forage

Introduction

Livestock feed resources are classified as natural pasture, crop residue, improved pasture and forage, agro industrial by products, other by-products like food and vegetable refusal, of which the first two contribute the largest feed type [1]. Understanding type of feed resources and its nutritional quality are important for improving production and productivity for enhancing food security. Dairy productivity is the function of nutrition, health status and genetic potential of the animal. Among these factors, nutrition plays the most important role as it represents the major cost dairy production. Seasonal inadequacy of the quantity and quality of available feeds are the major problems facing dairy cattle production [2]. Additionally the efficiency with which the available feed is utilized is constrained by failure to use recommended management practices that could improve dairy output. Dietary nutrition plays a substantial role in any dairy development and the best appearance of genetic potential for milk production depends on satisfactory supply of nutrients. Dietary nutrients favor the metabolic pathways that empower the animal to catch up its genetic potential. The, nutrients (minerals, vitamins, carbohydrate, proteins and fat) are equally important as imbalances or deficiencies of one or more of these nutrients barricade the production, productivity and health status. Micronutrients, chiefly the mineral elements considered inevitable for the normal metabolic and physiological processes in animals’ body. In tropical countries, grazing livestock often do not obtain minerals in required quantities and must depend almost exclusively upon forages for their requirements. Forages grown on tropical soils have shown to be highly deficient in a number of macro and micro mineral elements needed by the animal [3].

In Ethiopia, dairy cattle are chiefly fed on crop residues, natural pasture (grazing and/or hay), different agro-industrial, and locally available by-products as supplementary feeds. Such feeds are often lacking adequate macro and micro mineral concentrations.

Information on the mineral content of feeds of the central and western parts of Ethiopia as influenced by season and altitude are scanty [4,5]. When dietary concentrations of the feeds are unknown or highly variable due to availability, season, location, forage species and animal potentials, it is important to determine mineral concentrations in animals. To estimate needs, assessment of the quantity and quality of available feed resources in relation to livestock requirement has not been yet well addressed in most livestock production areas of the country [6].

To obtain improvement in animal production and productivity, an assessment should be done on the types and sources of dairy feed resources and feed requirement as well as mineral nutrition, whether the animal is in a free ranging system or under confinement. Therefore, the current study was conducted with objective of characterizing on the types and sources of dairy feed including mineral resources, and challenges in improvement of dairy production in the study area.

Materials and Methods

Description of the study area

The study was conducted in East Shoa Zone with total area of approximately 10241 km2. Of which two districts namely Adama zuria, and Ada’a, were purposively selected based on dairy farm availability. Urban and peri-urban production systems of selected districts were included. The temperature of the zone varies from 10°C-30°C with the mean annual temperature of 20°C and the rain fall varies from 600 mm to 1000 mm with mean annual rain fall of 816 mm [7].

The Adaa district experiences a bimodal pattern of rainfall with the main rainy season extending from June to September (of which 84% of rain is expected) and a short rainy season from March to May with an average annual rainfall of 800 mm. The mean annual minimum and maximum temperatures are 12.3°C and 27.7°C, respectively, with an overall average of 18.7°C. The highest temperatures are recorded in May and the mean relative humidity is 61.3%. The adama district receives an average annual rainfall ranging from about 600 to 1150 mm, which is erratic in nature. There is a significant seasonal variation for rainfall. More than 67% of the mean annual rainfall occurs in the four rainy months: Juneto September. Some additional rains (about 23%) occur in the remaining dry months. The minimum and maximum daily temperatures of the area are 12°C and 33°C, respectively [7].

Sample size and sampling method

Study design: A cross-sectional study design was employed to assess dairy cattle feed and mineral resources. Before starting formal data gathering, a mini or reconnaissance survey and discussions were held with districts agricultural extension workers on socio-economic characteristics, farmland characteristics, dairy feed and mineral resource.

Study population and sample size determination: Then multistage sampling method was employed to select the study sample units, which were expected to be representative of the whole population, found in the study area. The sampling frame comprises those farmers keeping crossbred dairy cows and willing to participate in the study. A total of 250 households were included in the study according t the formula given by [8]. As a standard error of 0.063 was taken to calculate the total households to be involved in the questionnaire survey. Therefore, in order to have a 93.7% confidence level with a 6.3% margin of error in our results, we would need to survey at least 250 of our 600 population. Selection of households was in collaboration with Adaa and Adama zuria District Agricultural Office livestock experts from a total of four production systems a list of 600 households were used as sampling frame. Then, using simple random sampling 250 households were selected to be included in the study.

N=0.25/SE2

Where, N: Sample Size; SE: Standard Error

Method of data collection and sources of data: Both primary and secondary data were collected following qualitative and quantitative research methodologies involving surveys, focus group discussions and feed composition analysis and farm visits.

Questionnaire survey: Semi-structured questionnaires were prepared and used to collect the information in one visit interview. The questionnaire was pre-test for clarity and appropriateness of the questions. The data were collected by interview, personal observation and group discussion. Moreover, field observations on feed resource type, feeding practice, and mineral resources for dairy cows were an important component of the study process.

Data analysis

Data collected were entered in Microsoft excel. Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize data on household characteristics; feeds and feeding systems with respect to farm management and mineral supplementation. For analysis of the data Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) (version 20) was used.

Results

Socio economic characteristics of the households

Results indicated that from household members involved in dairy production activities, 70.9% were male and 29.1% were female from Adaa district while 75.6% were male and 24.4% female in Adama district. The details of households involved in dairy production activities at urban and peri-urban dairy productions were indicated in Table 1.

Variable Adaa (n=127), n (%) Total Adamazuria (n=123), n= (%) Total Overall total N =250
  Urban (60) Peri-urban (67)   Urban (55) Peri-urban (68)    
Sex
Female 13 (21.7)* 24 (35.8) 37 (29.1) 14 (25.5) 16 (23.5) 30 (24.4) 67 (26.8)
Male 47 (74.5) 43 (76.5) 90 (70.9) 41 (74.5) 52 (76.5) 93 (75.6) 183 (73.2)
Age
≤ 30 12 (20.0) 7 (10.4) 19 (15.0) 13 (81.2) 3 (18.8) 16 (6.4) 35 (14)
 1-3 28 (46.7) 28 (41.8) 56 (44.1) 24 (50.0) 24 (50.0) 48 (19.2) 104 (41.6)
 4-6 11 (18.3%) 20 (29.9) 31 (24.4) 10 (35.7) 18 (64.3) 28 (11.2) 59 (23.6)
≥ 51 9 (15.0%) 12 (17.9) 21 (16.5) 8 (25.8) 23 (74.2) 31 (12.4) 52 (20.8)
Education
Illiterate - 8 (11.9) 8 (6.3) - 1 (1.5) 1 (0.8) 9 (3.6)
Basic education 3 (5.0) 15 (22.4) 18 (14.2) 1 (1.8) 4 (5.9) 5 (4.1) 23 (9.2)
primary school** 17 (28.3) 31 (46.3) 48 (37.8) 9 (16.4) 19 (27.9) 28 (22.8) 76 (30.4)
Junior school*** 9 (15.0) 7 (10.4) 16 (12.6) 23 (41.8) 31 (45.6) 54 (43.9) 70 (28)
high [email protected] 18 (30.0) 3 (4.5) 21 (16.5) 10 (18.2) 8 (11.8) 18 (14.6) 39 (15.6)
Diploma 8 (13.3) 2 (3.0) 10 (7.9) 7 (12.7) 3 (4.4) 10 (8.1) 20 (8)
Degree & above  5 (8.3) 1 (1.5) 6 (4.7)  5 (9.1) 2 (2.9)  7 (5.7) 13 (5.2)
Family
1-3 28 (46.7) 29 (43.3) 57 (44.9) 18 (32.7 ) 35 (51.5) 53 (43.1) 110 (44)
4-6 4-6 24 (40.0) 21 (31.3) 45 (35.4) 26 (47.3) 27 (39.7) 53 (43.1) 98 (39.2)
≥ 7 8 (13.3 ) 17 (25.4) 25 (19.7) 11 (20.0) 6 (8.8) 17 (13.8) 42 (16.8)
Marital status
Single 3 (5.0) 2 (3.0) 5 (3.9) - 3 (4.4) 3 (2.4) 8 (3.2)
Married 56 (93.3) 63 (94.0) 119 (93.7) 52 (94.5) 64 (94.1) 116 (94.3) 235 (94)
Divorce 1 (1.7) 2 (3.0) 3 (2.4) 3 (5.5) 1 (1.5) 4 (3.3) 7 (2.8)

Table 1: Composition of age, sex, education family size and marital status, of individuals involved in dairy production.

Survey result revealed the age of farmers involved in dairy cattle production activities ranged from 27 to 60 years old. The details of household ages involved in dairy cattle production in Adaa and Adama zuria, were indicated in Table 1.

The percentage of households with 1-3 family members involved in dairy cattle production was 31.3%, for Adaa district and 43.1% for Adama zuria district, and those with 4-6 family members were 25.4% for Adaa district and, 13.8% for Adama zuria district (Table 1). Depending on household responses, family size is considered as an asset and a factor, which guarantees social security at the household level.

In the current study, based on the educational status households involved in dairy production 6.3% were illiterate from Adaa district and, 0.8% from Adama zuria district while 4.7% were degree graduates in Adaa district and 5.7%) in Adama zuria district (details of education level of individuals involved in diary production were indicated in Table 1.

Concerning the dairy cattle breeds owned by dairy producers in the study area, 45.7% were, pure Holstein Friesian in Ada’a district while it was 8.1%, in Adama zuria district. However, the highest proportions of dairy cattle breed were composed of cross local breed with Holstein Friesian (45.7%, 48.8%) Adaa and Adama zuria district. Details of dairy cattle breed composition in the study areas were indicated in Table 2.

Variable Adaa (n=127) n (%) Adamazuria (n=123) n (%) Overall total N=250
  Urban (60) Peri-urban (67) Total Urban (55) Peri-urban (68) Total  
Dairy cow breeds
Pure Holstein 34 (56.7) 24 (35.8) 5 8 (45.7) 6 (10.9) 4 (5.9) 10 (8.1) 68 (27.2)
Pure Jersey 3 (35.0 ) 1 (1.5) 4 (3.1) 5 (9.1) 1 (1.5) 6 (4.9) 10 (4.0)
Holstein´ Jersey 4 (6.7) 3 (4.5) 7 (5.5) 10 (18.2) 37 (54.4) 47 (38.2) 54 (21.6)
Family income
Civil servant 2 (3.3) 2 (3.0) 4 (3.1) 3 (5.5) 15 (22.1) 18 (14.6) 22 (8.8)
Extrabusiness (trader)* 37 (61.7) 36 (53.7) 73 (57.5) 34 (61.8) 37 (54.4) 71 (57.7) 144 (57.6)
Retired employees 6 (10.0) 1 (1.5) 7 (5.5) 2 (3.6) 6 (8.8) 8 (6.5) 15 (6.0)
Full time Dairy farmers 15 (25.0) 28 (41.8) 43 (33.9) 16 (29.1) 10 (14.7) 26 (21.1) 69 (27.6)

Table 2: Composition of dairy breed and source of family income in Adaa and AdamaZuria districts.

survey result indicated that (33.9%, 21.1%) respondents were engaged on full time dairy activities as source of income, whereas (3.1%, 14.6%) of the respondents, were civil servant and among the respondents (5.5%, 6.5%) were found under retirements in the study area of Adaa and Adamazuria districts, respectively (Table 2). Majority of the respondents (57.7%) in both districts relied on extra business.

Among the major constraints of dairy production in the study areas as reported by respondents, shortage of land was first in Adaa district (17.3%) and Adama Zuria (14.6%) followed by feed shortage 13.4%, and 11.4%, respectively in Adaa and Adama Zuria district, which are the most important limiting factor for productivity of their dairy cattle, and indicated the importance of improving their feeding regime as an essential step towards any improvement program (Table 3).

Variable Adaa n=127 n (%) Adamazurian=123 n (%) Overall total N=250
Urban (60) Peri urban (67) Total Urban (55) Peri-urban (68) Total  
Dairy Problems
shortage of land 19 (31.7) 3 (4.5) 22 (17.3) 17 (30.9) 1 (1.5) 18 (14.6) 40 (16.0)
Feed shortage 12 (20.0) 5 (7.5) 17 (13.4) 11 (20.0) 3 (4.4) 14 (11.4) 31 (12.4)
Diseases 6 (10.0) 17 (25.4) 23 (18.1) 5 (9.1) 9 (13.2) 14 (11.4) 37 (14.8)
Lack of extension service 3 (5.0) 7 (10.4) 10 (7.9) - 10 (14.7) 10 (8.1) 20 (8.0)
Inefficient AI service 3 (5.0) 16 (23.9) 19 (15.0) 7 (12.7) 14 (20.6) 21 (17.1) 40 (16.0)
Market problem - 13 (19.4) 13 (10.2) 3 (5.5) 13 (19.1) 16 (13.0) 29 (11.6)
Shortage of labor 14 (23.3) 2 (3.0) 16 (12.6) 10 (18.2) 7 (10.3) 17 (13.8) 33 (13.2)
Inadequate veterinary service 3 (5.0) 4 (6.0) 7 (5.5)  2 (3.6) 11 (16.2) 13 (10.6) 20 (8.0)

Table 3: Dairy cows production constraints in the study area.

Feeding system and dairy feed sources

Concerning the feeding practice 40.9% of respondents from Ada’a and 34.1% from Adama districts used stall feeding/ zero-grazing while, 13.4% from Ada’a and 16.3% from Adama district totally use free grazing (Table 4).

Variables Adaa (n=127) n (%) Adamazuria (n=123) n (%) Overall total N=250
  Urban (60) Peri-urban (67) Total Urban (55) Peri-Urban (68) Total  
Type of feeding
Free grazing - 17 (25.4) 17 (13.4) 5 (9.1) 15 (22.1) 20 (16.3) 37 (14.8)
Stall feeding 51 (85.0) 1 (1.5) 52 (40.9) 25 (45.5) 17 (25.0) 42 (34.1) 94 (37.6)
Free grazing & stall feeding 9 (15.0) 49 (73.1) 58 (45.7) 25 (45.5) 36 (52.9) 61 (49.6) 119 (47.6)
Source of feed
Local feed source 5 (8.3) 14 (20.9) 19 (15.0) 15 (27.3) 21 (30.9) 36 (29.3) 55 (22.0)
Purchased source  38 (63.3) 21 (31.3) 59 (46.5) 11 (20.0) 1 (1.5) 12 (9.8) 71 (28.4)
Both local &purchased 17 (28.3) 32 (47.8) 49 (38.6) 29 (52.7) 46 (67.6) 75 (61.0) 124 (49.6)
Available feeds
 Natural pasture - 14 (20.9) 14 (11.0) 1 (1.8) 20 (29.4) 21 (17.1) 35 (14.0)
 Grass hay 18 (30.0) 14 (20.9) 32 (25.2) 11 (20.0) 12 (17.6) 23 (18.7) 55 (22.0)
 Crop residue* 8 (13.3) 11 (16.4) 19 (15.0) 2 (3.6) 15 (22.1) 17 (13.8) 36 (14.4)
 Concentrate** 16 (26.7) 15 (22.4) 31 (24.4) 27 (49.1) 10 (14.7) 37 (30.1) 68 (27.2)
 Industrial brewery by products  10 (16.7) 6 (9.0) 16 (12.6) 9 (16.4) 2 (2.9) 11 (8.9) 27 (10.8)
Nonconventional (attela)  8 (13.3) 7 (10.4) 15 (11.8) 5 (9.1) 9 (13.2) 14 (11.4) 29 (11.6)
Source of water
 Natural pasture - 14 (20.9) 14 (11.0) 1 (1.8) 20 (29.4) 21 (17.1) 35 (14.0)
 Grass hay 18 (30.0) 14 (20.9) 32 (25.2) 11 (20.0) 12 (17.6) 23 (18.7) 55 (22.0)
 Crop residue* 8 (13.3) 11 (16.4) 19 (15.0) 2 (3.6) 15 (22.1) 17 (13.8) 36 (14.4)
 Concentrate** 16 (26.7) 15 (22.4) 31 (24.4) 27 (49.1) 10 (14.7) 37 (30.1) 68 (27.2)
 Industrial brewery by products  10 (16.7) 6 (9.0) 16 (12.6) 9 (16.4) 2 (2.9) 11 (8.9) 27 (10.8)
Nonconventional (attela)  8 (13.3) 7 (10.4) 15 (11.8) 5 (9.1) 9 (13.2) 14 (11.4) 29 (11.6)

Table 4: Dairy cattle feed type, feed and water resource and feeding practices.

The major feed sources for dairy cows were grass hay (25.2%, 18.7%), natural pasture (11%, 17.1%), crop residue (15.0%, 13.8%), concentrates (24.4%, 30.1%), and industrial brewery by products (12.6%, 8.9%) in Ada’a and Adama zuria districts, respectively (Table 4).

Improved forage production practices

In the current study, the majority of respondents, 67.7% from Ada’a and 89.4% from Adama zuria district didn’t growing improved forages. The major limitations to grow improved forages were land scarcity for forage development (45.7%, 52.0%), lack of awareness (11.0%, 13.0%), both scarcity of land and lack of awareness (6.3%, 8.1%) and lack of input supply (3.9%, 5.7%) and shortage of labor (33.1%, 21.1%) in Ada’a and Adama zuria, respectively (details on practice of growing improves forage (Table 5).

Variables Adaa (n=127) n (%) Adamazuria (n=123) n (%) Overall total N=250
  Urban (60) Peri-urban (67) Total Urban (55) Peri-rban (68) Total  
Type of feeding
Free grazing - 17 (25.4) 17 (13.4) 5 (9.1) 15 (22.1) 20 (16.3) 37 (14.8)
Stall feeding 51 (85.0) 1 (1.5) 52 (40.9) 25 (45.5) 17 (25.0) 42 (34.1) 94 (37.6)
Free grazing & stall feeding 9 (15.0) 49 (73.1) 58 (45.7) 25 (45.5) 36 (52.9) 61 (49.6) 119 (47.6)
Source of feed
Local feed source 5 (8.3) 14 (20.9) 19 (15.0) 15 (27.3) 21 (30.9) 36 (29.3) 55 (22.0)
Purchased source  38 (63.3) 21 (31.3) 59 (46.5) 11 (20.0) 1 (1.5) 12 (9.8) 71 (28.4)
Both local &purchased 17 (28.3) 32 (47.8) 49 (38.6) 29 (52.7) 46 (67.6) 75 (61.0) 124 (49.6)
 Available feeds
 Natural pasture - 14 (20.9) 14 (11.0) 1 (1.8) 20 (29.4) 21 (17.1) 35 (14.0)
 Grass hay 18 (30.0) 14 (20.9) 32 (25.2) 11 (20.0) 12 (17.6) 23 (18.7) 55 (22.0)
 Crop residue* 8 (13.3) 11 (16.4) 19 (15.0) 2 (3.6) 15 (22.1) 17 (13.8) 36 (14.4)
 Concentrate** 16 (26.7) 15 (22.4) 31 (24.4) 27 (49.1) 10 (14.7) 37 (30.1) 68 (27.2)
 Industrial brewery by products  10 (16.7) 6 (9.0) 16 (12.6) 9 (16.4) 2 (2.9) 11 (8.9) 27 (10.8)
Nonconventional (attela)  8 (13.3) 7 (10.4) 15 (11.8) 5 (9.1) 9 (13.2) 14 (11.4) 29 (11.6)
Source of water
 Pipe water 53 (88.3) 12 (17.9) 65 (51.2) 44 (80.0) 23 (33.8) 67 (54.5) 132 (52.8)
 bore holes 6 (10.0) 23 (34.3) 29 (22.8) 1 (1.8) 11 (16.2) 12 (9.8) 41 (16.4)
Pipe & Pond 1 (1.7) 15 (22.4) 16 (12.6) 10 (18.2) 24 (35.3) 34 (27.6) 50 (20.0)
Spring water - 10 (4.5) 10 (7.9) - 4 (5.9) 4 (3.3) 14 (5.6)
River water - 3 (14.9) 3 (2.4) - 3 (4.4)  3 (2.4) 6 (2.4)
Other source (rain) - 4 (6.0) 4 (3.1) - 3 (4.4) 3 (2.4) 7 (2.8)

Table 5: Dairy cattle feed resource and feeding practices.

According to the respondents frequently grown improved forages in Adama and Adama zuria districts were Alfalfa (Medicago sativa), (17.3%, 16.2%); Elephant grass (Pennisetumpurpureum), (11.0%, 4.4%); vetch (Viciadasycarpa), (25.2%, 10.3%); cow pea (Vignaunguiculata) (3.1%, 11.4%); vetch (Viciadasycarpa) and cow pea (Vignaunguiculata) together (15.0% ,19.5%) and Sasbania sesban (0%, 4.9%) (Table 5).

The survey indicated that majority of dairy owners didn’t supplement minerals for their dairy,the reasons were lack of mineral source (48.8%, 43.9%); no idea about minerals (31.5%, 28.5%) and both lack of mineral sources and absence of awareness (19.7%, 27.6%) in Ada’a and Adama zuria, respectively (Table 6). Of those farmers that supply mineral, the frequently supplied minerals were sodium chloride (29.1%, 40.7%), and calcium powder with sodium chloride (26.0%, 17.1%) while others use undefined lake soil mineral (locally named as Bole) (Table 6).

Variable Adaa (n=127) n (%) Adamazuria (n=123) n (%) Overall total N=250
Urban (60) Peri-urban (67) Total Urban (55) Peri-urban (68) Total
Reason for not feeding M
lack of mineral source 42 (70.0) 20 (29.9) 62 (48.8) 29 (52.7)  25 (36.8) 54 (43.9) 116 (46.4)
no idea about minerals 8 (13.3) 32 (47.8) 40 (31.5) 22 (40.0)  13 (19.1) 35 (28.5) 75 (30.0)
shortage of mineral &lack of awareness 10 (16.7) 15 (22.4) 25 (19.7) 4 (7.3)  30 (44.1) 34 (27.6) 59 (23.6)
Knowledge about mineral
Through education 14 (23.3) 19 (28.4) 33 (26.0) 4 (7.3) 15 (22.1) 19 (15.4) 52 (20.8)
Cultural knowledge 2 (3.3) 5 (7.5) 7 (5.5) 1 (1.8) 2 (2.9) 3 (2.4) 10 (4.0)
From friends  (0.0) 1 (1.5) 1 (0.8) 2 (3.6) 25 (36.8) 27 (22.0) 28 (11.2)
Through extension workers 17 (28.3) 4 (6.0) 21 (16.5) 12 (21.8) 2 (2.9) 14 (11.4) 35 (14.0)
From different sources 7 (11.7) 9 (13.4) 16 (12.6) 9 (16.4) 4 (5.9) 13 (10.6) 29 (11.6)
 No idea 20 (33.3) 29 (43.3) 49 (38.6) 27 (49.1) 20 (29.4) 47 (38.2) 96 (38.4)
Source of minerals
Cultural/local source 14 (23.3) 24 (35.8) 38 (29.9) 1 (1.8) - 1 (0.8) 39 (15.6)
Commercial source 40 (66.7) 40 (59.7) 80 (63.0) 24 (43.6) 25 (36.8) 49 (39.8) 129 (51.6)
Both cultural &commercial 6 (10.0) 3 (4.5) 9 (7.1) 30 (54.5) 43 (63.2) 73 (59.3) 82 (32.8)
Types of minerals supplem.
Salt /common salt only 18 (30.0) 19 (28.4) 37 (29.1) 10 (18.2) 39 (57.4 ) 49 (39.8) 86 (34.4)
Calcium powder &Salt 9 (15.0) 21 (31.3) 30 (23.6) 11 (20.0) - 11 (8.9) 41 (16.4)
Bole*/ lake soil alone 20 (33.3) 13 (19.4) 33 (26.0) 11 (20.0) 10 (14.7) 21 (17.1) 54 (21.6)
Mineral mix** & Salt 7 (11.7) 6 (9.0) 13 (10.2) 10 (18.2) 12 (17.6) 22 (17.9) 35 (14.0)
Salt &bole 2 (3.3) 8 (11.9) 2 (1.6) 1 (1.8) - 1 (0.8) 3 (1.2)
Mineral lick*** , Salt &bole 3 (5.0) - 3 (2.4) 1 (1.8) - 1 (0.8) 4 (1.6)
Limestone &Salt - - 8 (6.3) 8 (14.5) 1 (1.5) 9 (7.3) 17 (6.8)
Partially all 1 (1.7) - 1 (0.8) 3 (5.5) 6 (8.8) 9 (7.3) 10 (4.0)
Mineral deficiency knowledge
Yes 40 (66.7) 35 (52.2) 75 (59.1) 32 (58.2) 23 (33.8) 55 (44.7) 130 (52)
 No 20 (33.3) 32 (47.8) 52 (40.9) 23 (41.8) 45 (66.2) 68 (55.3) 120 (48)

Table 6: Source of mineral information and types of mineral supplementation.

The current study indicated that 59.1% of respondents from Ada’a and 44.7% from Adama zuria districts have knowledge about mineral deficiency diseases with their respective symptoms whereas, (40.9%, 55.3%) haven’t idea about deficiency diseases in Adaa and Adama zuria, respectively (Table 7).

Variables Adaa (n=127) n (%) Adamazuria (n=123) n (%) Overall total N=250
Urban (60) Peri-urban (67) Total Urban (55) Peri-urban (68) Total
Seasonal Occurrence Mineral Deficiency
Dry season 42 (70.0) 47 (70.1) 89 (70.1) 36 (65.5) 29 (42.6) 65 (52.8) 154 (61.6)
Wet season 1 (1.7) - 1 (0.8) 1 (1.8) 2 (2.9) 3 (2.4) 4 (1.6)
Both season 4 (6.7) 1 (1.5) 5 (3.9) 2 (3.6) - 2 (1.6) 7 (2.8)
No idea 13 (21.7) 19 (28.4) 32 (25.2) 16 (29.1) 37 (54.4) 53 (43.1) 85 (34)
Mineral deficiency
Loss of hair coat 10 (16.7) 2 (3.0) 12 (9.4) 3 (5.5) 6 (8.8) 9 (7.3) 21 (8.4)
Licking of human urine 11 (18.3) 7 (10.4) 18 (14.2) 11 (20.0) 4 (5.9) 15 (12.2) 33 (13.2)
Lameness 2 (3.3) 4 (6.0) 6 (4.7) 3 (5.5) 3 (4.4) 6 (4.9) 12 (4.8)
Soil licking 1 (1.7) 6 (9.0) 7 (5.5) 7 (12.7) 8 (11.8) 15 (12.2) 22 (8.8)
Delayed onset of puberty - 4 (6.0) 4 (3.1) - 3 (4.4) 3 (2.4) 7 (2.8)
Silent heat 2 (3.3) 4 (6.0) 6 (4.7) 2 (3.6) 4 (5.9) 6 (4.9) 12 (4.8)
Irregular estrous 2 (3.3) 6 (9.0) 8 (6.3) 2 (3.6) 4 (5.9) 6 (4.9) 14 (5.6)
Failure of estrous 2 (3.3) 1 (1.5) 3 (2.4) 4 (7.3) 2 (2.9) 6 (4.9) 9 (3.6)
Long period of calving interval 2 (3.3) 3 (4.5) 5 (3.9) 3 (5.5) 4 (5.9) 7 (5.7) 12 (4.8)
Embryonic death 2 (3.3) 1 (1.5) 3 (2.4) - 1 (1.5) 1 (0.8) 4 (1.6)
Increase incidence of dystocia 2 (3.3) 2 (3.0) 4 (3.1) 1 (1.8) 3 (4.4) 4 (3.3) 8 (3.2)
Retention of placenta 3 (5.0) 2 (3.0) 5 (3.9) 1 (1.8) 4 (5.9) 5 (4.1) 10 (4.0)
Blind of eyes of new born - 1 (1.5) 1 (0.8) 7 (12.7) 7 (10.3) 14 (11.4) 15 (6.0)
 Emaciation - 3 (4.5) 3 (2.4) - 1 (1.5) 1 (.8) 4 (1.6)
Milk fever incidence 17 (28.3) 19 (28.4) 36 (28.3) 9 (16.4) 12 (17.6) 21 (17.1) 57 (22.8)