Effects of Season and Agro Ecology on the Nutritional Quality of Browse Species for the Dromedary Camels (Camelus Dromedarius) in Borana Plateau, Southern Ethiopia

The nutritional value of browsing species is being affected, camel movement is being disrupted, and camel feed resources appear to be being substantially degraded by climate change and its variations. This study explores the effects of season and location on the composition of nutrients and in vitro dry matter digestibility of the main browse species utilized as camel feed. Using an ANOVA model. Lannea rivae had an average DM content of 87.23% while Acacia brevispica had a range of 95.58%. There are no statistically significant variations (p>0.05) in the ash content of browsing species, which ranges from 2.56% in Acacia mellifera to 18.66% in Grewia evolute. The CP content of Lannea rivae in Maerua triphylla ranged from 6.19% to 27.24%. During the wet season, there is a statistically significant difference (p<0.05). On the other hand, Grewia evolute's CP contents varied from 24.56% to 10.44%, showing a significant difference (p<0.05). The results showed that Acacia etabaica had an NDF content that ranged from 25.63% to 72.10% Lannea rivae. Lannea rivae had the greatest ADF content (30.53%), and Grewia tembensis had the lowest (8.20%), with the difference being statistically significant (p<0.05). Grewia villosa in Lannea rivae had an ADL content that ranged from 2.82% to 15.86%. There is a statistically significant difference (p<0.05) during the dry season. During the wet season, the NDF concentration of Maerua triphylla in Boscia mossambicensis varied from 38.33% to 62.43%. The lowest ADF content was found in Acacia etabaica (22.47%), while the highest was found in Boscia mossambicensis (42.56%). The distinction is statistically significant (p<0.001). Grewia evolute contained 2.82% to 15.86% Acacia tortilis ADL. During the dry season, Dichrostachys cinerea had the lowest cellulose concentration (3.68%), whereas Euphorbia nubica had the greatest (18.77%). The study's conclusions indicate that the location is irrelevant. NDF, ADF, and ADL fiber fractions and chemical composition (DM, Ash, and CP) did not differ substantially (P<0. 05). The effects of location and season on the chemical and fiber compositions and nutritional value of browse species for dromedary camels (Camelus dromedarius) are clarified by this study. To identify other variables that affect the nutritional composition of browsing species, more investigation is required

Characterization of smallholder mixed crop–livestock systems in integration with spatial information: In case Ethiopia

The mixed crop–livestock systems are acknowledged as sustainable due to its complementarity and synergy, contribution to welfare, food security, income, and poverty alleviation. The lack of efforts in the long-term impact for increased and more efficient food production, however, threatens the livelihoods and food security of smallholder producers. This paper provides a description on smallholder crop–livestock systems in the dominant system unit of crop and livestock production discretely subdividing in different agroecological zones (AEZs) into land-use land-cover class for considering factors influencing socioeconomic and agricultural intensification. A linear mixed-effects model was carried out to fit the relationship between the land-cover measurement and the corresponding farm enterprise in land use. The repeated measurements of linear predictors that fit in full and reduced model analysis were conducted in the system framework. The landscape slope (%), elevation (m) and market distance (minute) analysis were used in spatial adjustment in the specific system. The overall area of land-use system of the peasant holdings was 599.86 ha. The area covered by annual crops was 56%, which was higher (p < 0.01) compared to the area covered by natural pasturelands (17%), perennial crops (15%), vegetable (1%) and the tree or grass cover (2%). Distinct six farming systems were characterized, each being significantly different from other. The difference within a similar AEZ could probably be a result of a minor level of farm systems manipulation. The major difference associated could essentially be with a difference in agroecology and spatial variability of the farm households