Open Journal of Animal Sciences, 2022, 12, 366-379 https://www.scirp.org/journal/ojas ISSN Online: 2161-7627 ISSN Print: 2161-7597 Identification and Chemical Composition of Major Camel Feed Resources in Degahbur District of Jarar Zone, Somali Regional State, Ethiopia Guled Hassen1*, Kawnin Abdimahad1, Berhan Tamir2, Abdihakin Ma’alin1, Tadele Amentie1 1 Department of Animal and Range Sciences, College of Dryland Agriculture, Jigjiga University, Jigjiga, Ethiopia Department of Animal Production, College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 2 How to cite this paper: Hassen, G., Abdimahad, K., Tamir, B., Ma’alin, A. and Amentie, T. (2022) Identification and Chemical Composition of Major Camel Feed Resources in Degahbur District of Jarar Zone, Somali Regional State, Ethiopia. Open Journal of Animal Sciences, 12, 366-379. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojas.2022.123028 Received: April 2, 2022 Accepted: June 24, 2022 Published: June 27, 2022 Copyright © 2022 by author(s) and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access Abstract This study was conducted to identify major available camel feed resources and determine their chemical composition in Degahbur district. A total of 120 respondents were selected using purposive sampling technique. Data from the selected actors were collected using a semi-structured questionnaire survey, focus group discussion and field observations. The study revealed that the majority (82.5%) of the respondents in the study area were male headed households. Browsing trees and shrubs were the major available livestock feed resources both in dry (51.6%) and wet (68%) season, and followed by herbaceous species (26.6 and 23.7% for dry and wet season, respectively). The study identified about 20 herbaceous, 24 trees, 11 shrubs, 7 bush and 17 grass species which are used as camel feed in the study area. Chemical composition analyses of the sampled feeds indicated that there was a significant difference in crude protein (CP), neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) between species in different seasons. The NDF contents in the current study were above the critical value of 60% which was reported to result in decreased voluntary feed intake, feed conversion efficiency and longer rumination time. In general, the findings indicated that the use of improved forages and agro-industrial by-products as camel was minimal; thus, camels were fed on available feed resources which are poor in nutritional quality without any supplementation. Therefore, the study suggests the need for improving camel feeding practices in the study area to enhance camel productivity. Keywords Camel, Feed, Browse Species, Grass Species, Herbaceous DOI: 10.4236/ojas.2022.123028 Jun. 27, 2022 366 Open Journal of Animal Sciences G. Hassen et al. 1. Introduction Camel (Camelus dromedaries), being the most climate resilient livestock, play a significant role in the livelihood of pastoral and agro-pastoral communities in Ethiopia [1]. The current world camel population number is estimated to be 35 million heads [2], most of which are in Somalia, Niger, Kenya, Chad, Ethiopia, Mali, Mauritania and Pakistan. Five bordering Countries: Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, and Djibouti hold 84% of African and more than half of the world’s camel population [3]. Camels are very important domestic animals that have uniquely adapted to arid and semiarid zones in Asia and Africa [4]. In Ethiopia, 8.1 million heads of dromedary camels are reared in arid and semi-arid regions [5] and the majority of these camels are found in eastern part of the country. Camels contribute to household food security through meat and milk [6] [7] [8], are used as pack animals for transport, hides and wool are products that emanate from camels [3] [9] [10] [11]. Camel milk has a great economic role on pastoralists’ livelihoods as well as those engaged in marketing of camel milk and its products in Ethiopia. Camels are the major livelihood alternative in the arid and semi-arid areas since other animals’ species are less adapted to the harsh and dry climate [12] [13]. Although camel plays a significant role in supporting livelihood of pastoral and agro-pastoral communities in Ethiopia including the study area, its production and productivity are affected by a number of factors [14]. Among which, feed shortage (both in quality and quantity) is the most important one, as camel in arid and semi-arid areas of Ethiopia feed mainly on natural pasture (like browser of a broad spectrum of fodder plants, including trees, shrubs, and sometimes hard-thorny, bitter and halophytic (salty) plants that grow naturally in the desert and other semi-arid areas) which poor in their nutritional quality [15]. Even, these poor quality natural pastures are low in their quantity, and become more acute in the dry season [16]. This forces camel and their keepers to trek long distances in search of feed. These expose camels and their herders to different risk factors like livestock disease, clan conflict and others; and decrease the productivity of camels [17] [18]. To overcome this problem, undertaking exhaustive studies and providing documented information on camel feed resources is critically important. This is because, such information may be important for governmental, non-governmental and other developmental organizations to undertake relevant development interventions, which improve feeding system of camel, and thus, increase its productivity in lowland areas including the study area. However, currently, there is no well documented information available on camel feed resources in the study area where the majority of camel and its product produced is supplied to both domestic and cross-border markets. Therefore, the objective of the study was to identify major available camel feed resources and determine their chemical composition in Degahbur district of Somali regional state, Ethiopia. DOI: 10.4236/ojas.2022.123028 367 Open Journal of Animal Sciences G. Hassen et al. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Description of the Study Area The study was conducted in Degahbur district of Jarar zone, Somali regional state, Ethiopia. The district is located at 8˚13’ North of longitude and 43˚34’ East latitude at the distance of about 160 km south of Jigjiga town. The altitude of the district is 1044 meters above sea level. It has mean annual minimum and maximum temperatures of 11 and 33˚C, respectively. The mean annual rainfall and humidity of the area ranges from 300 to 400 mm and 31% to 36%, respectively. The rainfall pattern is erratic and has uneven distribution. The farming system in the district is primarily pastoralists, who mainly keep livestock, particularly cattle (672,956), sheep (2,726,526), goat (3,981,852), and camels (1,087,831) heads; and to some extent crop (like sorghum and maize) production is also practiced in the district [5]. According to Central Statistical Agency [19], the total human population of the district is estimated at 150,000 of whom 85,000 are men and 65,000 are women. 2.2. Sampling of Camel Herders Degahbur district was stratified into pastoral and agro-pastoral production systems. Each production system was further stratified into rural kebeles (RKs) (RK, the lowest administration unit in Ethiopia). Thus, a total of four RKs (2 from pastoral and 2 from agro-pastoral systems) with high camel production potential were purposively selected for the study. Then the lists of camel producer households in each selected RK were collected from their respective administrations. Eventually, thirty camel producer households from each RK were selected randomly. Thus, the total number of camel producer households selected to study camel production practices in the district was 120 (2 production systems * 2 RKs * 30 households). The sampling technique was multistage stratified sampling. 2.3. Sampling of Camel Feeds First five commonly used grazing lands were identified from each selected RK, and then feed for laboratory analysis were identified two times during the wet and dry seasons according to the preference rank given by the respondents. Natural pasture from each grazing land was harvested randomly from 10 quadrates (with size of 1 × 1 m2) at stubble height (5 cm) to resemble natural grazing by using sickle by selecting the grasses, herbaceous, browse trees and shrubs in the area which was identified by the respondents during survey part accordingly their preference by livestock Moreover, browse leaves and twigs (with less than 5 mm stem diameter) were hand plucked. 2.4. Data Collection Procedure After stratification and identification of camel producer household, focused group discussions were held with key informants (such as producers having good exDOI: 10.4236/ojas.2022.123028 368 Open Journal of Animal Sciences G. Hassen et al. perience on the subject under study, community leaders and experts) in each production system to generate information on camel production practices in the study area. The resulting information were then used for the development of a survey questionnaire which were pre-tested before administration, and this was be followed by questionnaire survey. Moreover, field observations were made to collect some data which properly not described during the questionnaire survey. For the evaluation of the nutritive value of major available natural feed resources, a total of 12 feed samples (3 from each RK) were collected. The samples were kept under shade until collection for the day will be completed. After then, samples were sun dried until the field work will be completed, and all sub-samples harvested from the same grazing lands were thoroughly mixed to make one composite sample of one kilo gram, leveled and stored in the sample bags. The samples were dried by air to prevent spoilage before being placed in the laboratory oven. For a feed obtained from grass and browse plant their specimens were collected, pressed, labeled, dried and then were transported to Haramaya University central laboratory for the analysis. Moreover, identification of different grass and browse species were undertaken following the guide provided in the Flora of Ethiopia [20] [21] and the Flora of Tropical East Africa [22]. 2.5. Chemical Composition Analysis of Feeds Feed samples were air dried in a well-ventilated room and transported to the nearby laboratory and further dried in an oven at 105˚C for 24 hours. Then the samples were separately ground in a grinding mill to pass through 1 mm sieve and were equilibrated to room temperature for 24 hours. The samples were then put in plastic bags and sealed for further nutrient analysis. Analysis of feed samples was undertaken at Haramaya University Central Laboratory. The dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP) and ash contents were determined according to the standard methods of AOAC [23]. CP was estimated as N × 6.25. Neutral detergent fibre (NDF), acid detergent fibre (ADF) and acid detergent lignin (ADL) were analyzed according to the procedure of Van Soest et al. [24]. The data collected using a questionnaire survey and field observations were analyzed using SPSS (version 20). Descriptive statistics were used to quantitatively express the responses of the study participants with respect to their demographic characteristics and natural feed resource management practices. Chisquare test was employed to examine the difference among the categorical variables. Differences were considered to be significant at the level P < 0.05. Moreover, data on chemical composition of natural feed resources were analyzed using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS (Version 9.1). Mean comparison was made using Tukey’s adjustment. The following model was used for the analysis of chemical composition of feeds: Yij = µ + Si + eij where, Yij = observations; DOI: 10.4236/ojas.2022.123028 369 Open Journal of Animal Sciences G. Hassen et al. μ = overall mean; Si = effect of ith the season; eij = random error. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Characteristics of the Respondents Table 1 shows sex, age and educational level of the respondents in the study area. Majority of the respondents were males (81.7%) while the rest (18.3%) were females. Majority of the respondents in the study area belonged to the age group of 30 - 60 years; indicating that the strongest and active age groups were carrying out camel herding activities in the study area. The study also indicated that the overall observed level of illiteracy was 79.1%, the proportion of respondents who were capable of reading and writing only was 15.9%, whereas 5% of the respondents were educated completing their primary education. The higher percentage of illiteracy is similar to the findings of Wendimu [25] who reported a higher proportion of illiteracy for Godey and Adadle districts of Somali region. Similarly, Ma’alin et al. [26] reported higher illiteracy in Godey, Adadle, Dhanan and Ber’ano districts of Shabele zone, Somali regional state. The role of education is obvious in affecting household income, adopting technologies, demography, health, and as a whole the socio-economic status of the family as well [27]. This demonstrates the need of providing training and extension services to the local community. 3.2. Major Feed Resources Utilized by Camels The major available feed resources for camels in the study area are given in Table 2. Table 1. Table Sex, age and educational level of the respondents in the study area. Pastoral Variables Agro-pastoral Overall N % N % N % Male 52 86.7 46 76.7 98 81.7 Female 8 13.3 14 23.3 22 18.3 <30 17 28.3 22 36.7 39 32.5 31 - 60 37 61.7 34 56.7 71 59.2 >60 6 10 4 6.7 10 8.3 Illiterate 53 88.3 42 70 95 79.1 Read and write 7 11.7 12 20 19 15.9 Primary school 0 0 6 10 6 5 Sex Age (years) Educational level N = number of respondents. DOI: 10.4236/ojas.2022.123028 370 Open Journal of Animal Sciences G. Hassen et al. Table 2. Major avaialable feed resources for camels in the study area Pastoral Agro-pastoral Overall Feed resource N % N % N % Herbaceous species 20 33.3 25 41.7 45 37.5 Browsing trees and shrubs 32 53.3 22 36.7 54 45 Grass species 8 13.3 13 21.6 21 17.5 Herbaceous species 16 26.7 12 20 28 23.4 Browsing trees and shrubs 44 73.3 33 55 77 64.1 Wet season Dry season Sorghum Stover - 5 8.3 5 4.2 Maize Stover - 10 16.7 10 8.3 In the wet season, camels preferred to browse trees and shrubs (45%), followed by herbaceous species (37.5%), and grass forage (17.5%). In the dry season, however, browsing trees and shrubs (64.1%), herbaceous species (23.4%), maize Stover (8.3%), and sorghum Stover (8.3%) were the most common feed sources for camels (4.2%). The study revealed that browsing trees and shrubs and herbaceous species were the common feed resources for camels in the study area. This is in line with the report of Mirkena et al. [28] who reported that the major feed resources for camels are browsing trees or bushes, but grasses may be consumed when shrubs or trees are not available. Feed problem is one of the major factors that hinder camel production. In the study area, browsing plants like trees and shrub species were the major feed resources utilized as camel feed. In the study area, browsing plants like trees and shrub species were the major feed resources utilized as camel feed. In the district, most of the land was covered with woody vegetation. Trees and shrubs were important sources of camel feed thought out the year and browsing was the main form of camel feed utilization. During wet season, browsing trees and shrubs were the major feed resource followed by herbaceous species. This is in agreement with the findings of other studies [29] [30] that indicated browse forage to be the main feed resource for livestock in Ethiopia. Although the availability of crop residues was low, straws of maize and sorghum were fed mainly to agro-pastoralists during the dry season, which is in line with the study of Abate et al. [31], who reported that Stover from maize and sorghum was used mainly during the dry season in south eastern parts of the country. 3.3. Major Herbaceous Species Utilized by Camels According to focus group discussions and key informants interview, twenty herbaceous plants were used as a camel feed were identified in the study area as shown in Table 3. The most widely utilized herbaceous species were Blepharis DOI: 10.4236/ojas.2022.123028 371 Open Journal of Animal Sciences G. Hassen et al. Table 3. Available herbacecous species utilized by camels in the study area. Local name (Somali) Scientific name Family name Yamaarug Blepharis ciliaris Acanthaceae Wancad Abutilon fruticosum Acanthaceae Jid Actiniopteris radiata Adiantaceae Sarin Cadaba ruspolii Capparidaceae Rugumbay Cadaba longifolia Capparidaceae Qodah-tol Maytenus somalensis Celstraceae Ga-gabood Vernonia mogadoxensis Compositae Maadathe Dicoma Somalensis Compositae Fari-hood Sclerostephane adenophora Compositae Hiil Vernonia cinerascens Compositae Madooya Cadaba longifolia Convolvulacaeae Saar Coccinia grandis Cucurbitaceae Qarari Citrullus lanatus Cucurbitaceae Buuhiso Croton gillettii Euphorbiaceae Dhikri Acalypha fruticosa Euphorbiaceae Kab-gal Hibiscus meyeri Malvaceae Baar Hyphaene benadirensis Palmae Haqa-qaro Tephrosia villosa Papilionaceae Jilab Indigofera uspolii Papilionaceae Labi-yar Sesbania somalensis Papilionaceae ciliaris, Indigofera ruspolii, Vernonia mogadoxensis, Abutilon fruticosum and Hyphaene benadirensis. 3.4. Major Bush Species Utilized by Camels Table 4 shows a list of bush species that have been identified as locally important camel feeds, along with their scientific and common names. About seven indigenous bush species were identified as being used as feed sources by camels. According to the group discussions, camel browsed more trees and shrubs during the wet season compared to bush species. However, during the dry season, the herbaceous components are less abundant and often become more fibrous. As the dry season progresses, however, less palatable species like bushes were browsed by camel during the critical dry season. The pastoralist elders also indicated that the less palatable species and/or some dried or wilted plants, which are assumed to be poisonous, are eaten by camels during the critical feed shortage time in dry season. DOI: 10.4236/ojas.2022.123028 372 Open Journal of Animal Sciences G. Hassen et al. 3.5. Major Tree Species Utilized by Camels Table 5 shows a list of tree species that have been identified as locally available Table 4. Available bush species utilized by camels in the study area. Local name (Somali) Scientific name Family name Jaleelo-geel Cassia somalensis Caesalpinaceae Balan-baal Abutilon anglosomaliae Malvaceae Gamo-dheere Entada leptostachya Mimosaceae Kariiri Solanum somalensis Solanaceae Dhalaan-duuh Euphorbia longetuberculosa Euphorbiaceae Adda-adeey Sida ovata Malvaceae Geed-hamar Cucumis halabrada Cucurbitaceae Table 5. Available tree species utilized by camels in the study area. DOI: 10.4236/ojas.2022.123028 Local name (Somali) Scientific name Family name Gaheydh Blepharispermum Fruticosum Composite Bilcil Acacia Mellifera Mimosoceae Adaad Acacia Senegal Mimosaceae Dhamaajo Commiphora Incise Burseaceae Adey Salvadora Persica Salvadoraceae Hagar Commiphora Agar Burseraceae Feedho-qandhol Hildebrandtia Linearifolia Convolvulaceae Galool Acacia Bussei Mimosacaea Garbi Acacia Albida Del Mimosaceae Garas Dobera Glabra Poir Salvadoraceae Jeerin Acacia Edgeworthii Mimosaceae Gob Ziziphus Mauritiana Rhaminaceae Madheedh Cordia Sinensis Boragginaceae Hadi Commiphora Erlangeriana Burseraceae Qudhac Acacia Tortilis Mimosaceae Maanyo Sonneratia Alba Lythraceae Mey-gaag Boscia Minimifolia Capparidaceae Maraa Acacia Nilotica Mimosaceae Sarman Acacia Hoodia Mimosacea Qansax Acacia Reficiens Mimosaceae Gumar Acacia nubica Mimosaceae Xagar madow Commiphora allophylla Burseraceae Cadaad-geri Acacia ogadensis Mimosaceae Sogsog Acacia Etbiaca Mimosacea 373 Open Journal of Animal Sciences G. Hassen et al. along with their scientific and common names. A total of twenty-four indigenous tree species have been identified as camel feed sources. 3.6. Major Grass Species Utilized by Camels Table 6 shows a list of grass species that have been identified as locally important, along with their scientific and common names. A total of seventeen indigenous grass species have been identified as camel feed sources. 3.7. Major Shrub Species Utilized by Camels Table 7 shows a list of shrub species that have been identified as locally important, along with their scientific and common names. A total of twelve indigenous shrub species have been identified as camel feed sources. The study indicated that, camel browsed more shrubs during the wet season compared to herbaceous and grass species. However, during the dry season, the herbaceous components are less abundant and often become more fibrous. 3.8. Nutritional Values of Camel Feeds The nutritive value of plants consumed by foraging animals is one of the criteria used to select and prioritize them. During both seasons, nutritional fractions (dry matter, crude protein, neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber, acid Table 6. Available grass species utilized by camels in the study area. DOI: 10.4236/ojas.2022.123028 Local name (Somali) Scientific name Family name Daba adde Aerva Spp Amarahthaceae Biile Jatropha dichtar Euphorbiaceae Weylo-qab ChiorissSomalensis Gramineae Badhoole Afrotrichloris hyaloptera Gramineae Birqin(bire) Aristida sieberiana Gramineae Dareemo Chrysopogon aucheri Gramineae Dhurbay Bothriochloa insculpta Gramineae Dihi Paspalum vaginatum Gramineae Dooyo Coelachyrum stoloniferum Gramineae Duur Schizachyrium kelleri Gramineae Eir-dhuq Cenchrus ciliaris Gramineae Gargood Panicum Sp Gramineae Harfo Digitaria ternate Gramineae Maadh Aristida papposa Gramineae Maajeen Aristida magiurtina Gramineae Ramaas/Dhikil Sporobolus spicatus Gramineae Timo gabdhoodle Letothrium senegalense Gramineae 374 Open Journal of Animal Sciences G. Hassen et al. detergent lignin, and ash) have an impact on herbivorous animals’ acceptance of forage plants. The chemical composition of Sporobolus spicatus, Indigofera ruspolii, Acacia mellifera, Grewia tenex, Dobera glabra and Acacia bussei, of range pasture species were collected for analysis in both wet and dry seasons and are given in Table 8. There was significant difference in crude protein (CP), Table 7. Available shrub species utilized by camels in the study area. Local name (Somali) Scientific name Family name Dhafaruur Grewia tenax Tiliaceae Hanjo-mukh Sarcostemma adongense Asclepiadaceae Dhebi Grewia bicolour Tiliaceae Hob-hob Grewia penicillata Tiliaceae Dhirindhir Euphorbia cuneata Euphorbiaceae Madheedh Cordia gharaf Boraginaceae Gomosh Grewia villosa Tiliaceae Salalma Sesamothamnus busseanus Pedaliaceae Tiire Clerodendrum Sp. Verbenaceae Higlo Cadaba heterotricha Capparidaceae Qalaan-qal Boscia coriacea Capparidaceae Table 8. Mean chemical composition of preferred forage species in wet and dry seasosn. Chemical composition (% DM) Feed stuff Feed type Season DM% Sporobolus spicatus Tephrosia villosa Acacia mellifera Acacia gussei 65.2b 45.4 90.3 10.7 Dry 92.4 3.9b 75.5a 51.2 a 7.6 11.5 15.2 6.8 14.6 Dry 90.5 9.4b 63.3a 52.5a 8.8 4.2 Wet 90.9 12.4a 56.8b 41.7b 9.4 8.4 Dry 92.2 6.8b 68.7a 46.4a 13.8 5.7 Wet 88.5 14.3a 53.3b 36.8b 22.6 11.2 Dry 91.1 5.5b 62.3a 53.7a 17.9 Wet 93.2 13.7a 40.5b 20.8b 13.2 14.3 Dry 95.3 Wet 92.4 Shrubs Shrubs 9b 90.6 8.3 64.8a 35.4a 9.9 9.1 12.1a 45.4b 33.3b 9.8 9.9 11.6 8.6 Browse trees Dry 40.4 b 89.2 Browse trees 55.8 b 10.5 14.9 Wet Herbaceous Dobera glabra NDF ADF ADL Ash a Wet Grasses Grewia tenex CP 7.7 b 57.7 a 45.7 a Means followed by different superscripts within a column are significantly different at P < 0.05, DM= dry matter; CP = crude protein; ADF = acid detergent fiber; ADL = acid detergent lignin, NDF = neutral detergent fiber. DOI: 10.4236/ojas.2022.123028 375 Open Journal of Animal Sciences G. Hassen et al. neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) between seasons however there was no significant difference in dry matter, acid detergent lignin and ash in both seasons. In the wet season, the average DM content of selected feeds ranged from 88.5% to 93.2%, while during the dry season, it ranged from 90.5% to 95.3%. The DM content of identified feeds in this study area agreed with the report of Muhyadin [32] in Kebribeyah district. In the wet season, there was no significant difference in CP content among the species, whereas in the dry season, a significant drop was observed, particularly in Sporobolus spicatus and Grewia tenex. During the dry season, the high CP content of forage species may be an advantage for feeding livestock as the nutritional value of rangeland grasses declines. This finding is in line with the report of Muhyadin [32], who stated that, some herbaceous and browsers in Kebribayah district are suitable as protein supplements to low-quality pasture and fibrous crop residues because of their high CP content. However, the CP values in this study were higher than the critical value of 7.5 percent for optimal rumen function [33]. In general, as forages mature in the dry season, their ash content decreases. This was in agreement with Ahamefule et al. [34] and Derero and Kitaw [35], who found that different plants increased or decreased ash content in all pasture lands. This could be due to differences in soil and other habitat features, which need to be investigated further. Moreover, Sisay [36] observed that ash contents of rangeland pasture in Metema district were influenced by seasonal changes. The reported NDF contents of the current study lie above the critical value of 60% which was reported to result in decreased voluntary feed intake, feed conversion efficiency and longer rumination time [34]. The mean NDF content found in this study is similar to that found in Metema by Sisay [36], but higher than that found in Kebribeyah by Muhyadin [32]. If the roughage contains more than 65% NDF, it is considered poor quality feed, according to Singh and Oosting [37]. Furthermore, while Norton [38] claimed that NDF content of 67% 78% was sufficient to limit DM intake and digestibility, Linn et al. [39] found that Neutral detergent fiber is the most important determinant of overall forage quality and digestibility, and has a direct impact on animal performance. In this study, the mean ADF content of rangeland pasture ranged from 20.8 in the wet season to 53.7 in the dry season. Natural pasture ADF content was low during the rainy season and high during the dry season, which is in agreement with the finding of Sisay [36]. According to McDoland et al. [40], forage species with high ADF content may have lower digestibility because feed digestibility and ADF content are negatively correlated. 4. Conclusion and Recommendations This study identified about 20 herbaceous plants, 11 shrub species, 7 bush species, 24 tree species and 17 grass species used as a camel feed in the study area. The study also revealed that browsing trees and shrubs were the main feed reDOI: 10.4236/ojas.2022.123028 376 Open Journal of Animal Sciences G. Hassen et al. sources utilized by camels. The chemical composition analysis of feeds indicated that there was a significant difference in crude protein, neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber among selected forage species in different seasons, indicating the importance of improving the feeding system of camels in the study area. Therefore, the study suggests educating, awareness creation and training camel herders about basic management and conservation techniques of feed resources. Furthermore, further studies are needed to evaluate the nutritive value of the other feed resources which are utilized by camels. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Jigjiga University for funding the research project. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper. References DOI: 10.4236/ojas.2022.123028 [1] Alemnesh, Y., Mitiku, E. and Kibebew, B. (2020) Current Status of Camel Dairy Processing and Technologies: A Review. Open Journal of Animal Sciences, 10, 362-377. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojas.2020.103022 [2] FAO (2019) Camel Population. FAOSTAT, Rome. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home [3] Mwinyikione, M. and Mekonnen, H. (2016) Pre-Review of Camel (Camelus dromedarius) Hides Marketing and Challenges in Eastern Africa. Journal of Africa Leather and Leather Products Advances, 3, 18-27. https://doi.org/10.15677/jallpa.2016.v3i1.12 [4] Faraz, A. (2020) Food Security and Socio-Economic Uplift of Camel Herders in Southern Punjab, Pakistan. Land Science, 2, 8-11. https://doi.org/10.30560/ls.v2n2p8 [5] CSA (Central Statistics Agency) (2021) Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Agricultural Sample Survey on Livestock and Livestock Production (Private Peasant Holdings). Statistical Bulletin No. 589, Addis Ababa, Vol. 2, 40-41. [6] Ahmad, S., Yaqoob, M., Hashmi, N., Ahmad, S., Zaman, M.A. and Tariq, M. (2010) Economic Importance of Camel: Unique Alternative under Crisis. Pakistan Veterinary Journal, 30, 191-197. [7] Yosef, T., Mengistu, U., Solomon, A., Mohammed, K., Kefelegn, K. and Tadelle, D. (2014) Husbandry and Breeding Practices of Dromedary Camels among Pastoral Communities of Afar and Somali Regional States, Ethiopia. Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development, 108, 167-189. [8] Faraz, A., Waheed, A., Mirza, R.H., Ishaq, H.M. and Tariq, M.M. (2019) Socio Economic Status and Associated Constraints of Camel Production in Desert Thal Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of Fisheries and Livestock Production, 7, Article No. 1000288. [9] Aujla, K.M., Rafiq, M. and Hussain, A. (2013) The Marketing System of Livecamels and Camel Products in the Desert Ecologies of Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research, 26, 130-142. 377 Open Journal of Animal Sciences G. Hassen et al. DOI: 10.4236/ojas.2022.123028 [10] Faye, B., Abdelhadi, O., Ahmed, A.I. and Bakheit, S.A. (2010) Camel in Sudan: Future Prospects. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 23, 11 p. [11] Faraz, A., Waheed, A., Mirza, R.H. and Ishaq, H.M. (2019) Role of Camel in Food Security: A Perspective Aspect. Journal of Fisheries and Livestock Production, 7, Article No. 1000290. [12] Aklilu, B., Madalcho, B., Abera, T., Kefyalew, G. and Gebremedhin, G. (2019) Camel Feed Characterization of Ethiopian Somali Region Rangelands through Traditional Knowledge. Journal of Agriculture and Ecology Research International, 19, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.9734/jaeri/2019/v19i330083 [13] Faraz, A., Waheed, A., Mustafa, A.B., Tauqir, N.A., Mirza, R.H., Ishaq, H.M., Bilal, R.M. and Nabeel, M.S. (2021) Milk Production Potential of Marecha Camel (Camelus dromedarius) in Extensive and Semi-Intensive Management Systems. Pakistan Journal of Zoology, 53, 273-280. https://doi.org/10.17582/journal.pjz/20200227090212 [14] Getahun, T. and Kassa, B. (2002) Camel Husbandry Practices in Eastern Ethiopia: The Case of Jigjiga and Shinile Zones. Nomadic Peoples New Series, 6, 158-179. https://doi.org/10.3167/082279402782311040 [15] Field, C.R. (2009) Where There Is No Development Agency: A Manual for Pastoralists and Their Promoters: (With Special Reference to the Arid Regions of the Greater Horn of Africa). NR International, Aylesford. [16] Mehari, Y., Mekuriaw, Z. and Gebru, G. (2007) Potentials of Camel Production in Babilie and Kebribeyah Woredas of the Jijiga Zone, Somali Region, Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 19, Article No. 58. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/4/meha19058.htm [17] Khanna, N.D., Rai, A.K. and Tandon, S.N., (2004) Camel Breeds of India. Journal of Camel Science, 1, 8-15. [18] Kuria, S.G., Wanyoike, M.M., Gachuiri, C.K. and Wahome, R.G. (2005) Nutritive Value of Important Range Forage Species for Camels in Marsabit District, Kenya. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 5, 15-24. [19] CSA (2007) National Statistics (Table 2.2). Wayback Machine. [20] Hedberg, I. and Edwards, S. (1989) Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea. Pittosporaceae to Araliaceae. Vol. 3. The National Herbarium, Addis Ababa, and Department of Systematic Botany, Uppsala. [21] Edwards, S., Tadesse, M. and Hedberg, I. (1995) Flora of Ethiopia and Eritrea. Vol. 2:2. Canellaceae to Euphorbiaceae. The National Herbarium, Addis Ababa, and Department of Systematic Botany, Uppsala. [22] Cufodontis, G. (1996) Flora of Tropical East Africa: [Angiospermae]. [23] AOAC (Association of Analytical Chemists) (2016) Minerals in Animal Feed. Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometric Method. Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 15th Edition. [24] Van Soest, P.J., Robertson, J.B. and Lewis, B.A. (2010) Methods for Dietary Fiber, Neutral Detergent Fiber, and Nonstarch Polysaccharides in Relation to Animal Nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74, 3583-3597. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2 [25] Wendimu, B. (2013) On-Farm Phenotypic Characterization of Black Head Somali Sheep and Their Role for Pastoral and Agro-Pastoral Community in Gode Zone, Somali Region. MSc Thesis, the School of Graduate Studies of Haramaya University, Haramaya. [26] Ma’alin, A., Abdimahad, K., Hassen, G., Mahamed, A. and Hassen, M. (2022) Man378 Open Journal of Animal Sciences G. Hassen et al. agement Practices and Production Constraints of Indigenous Somali Cattle Breed in Shabelle Zone, Somali Regional State, Ethiopia. Open Journal of Animal Sciences, 12, 103-117. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojas.2022.121008 [27] Kerealem, E. (2005) Honeybee Production System, Opportunities and Challenges in EnebseSar Midir Woreda (Amhara Region) and Amaro Special Wereda (Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State), Ethiopia. MSc Thesis, Alemaya University, Alemaya. [28] Mirkena, T., Walelign, E., Tewolde, N., Gari, G., Abebe, G. and Newman, S. (2018) Camel Production Systems in Ethiopia: A Review of Literature with Notes on MERSCoV Risk Factors. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, 8, Article No. 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13570-018-0135-3 [29] Tsedeke, K. (2007) Production and Marketing of Sheep and Goats in Alaba, SNNPR. MSc Thesis, Hawassa University, Awassa, Ethiopia. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/726 [30] Getachew, T.M. (2008) Characterization of Menz and Afar Indigenous Sheep Breeds of Smallholders and Pastoralists for Designing Community-based Breeding Strategies in Ethiopia. MSc Thesis, Haramaya University, Ethiopia. [31] Abate, D., Belete, S., Wegi, T., Usman, S., Wamatu, J. and Duncan, A. (2012) Characterization of the Livestock Production Systems and the Potential of Feed-Based Interventions for Improving Livestock Productivity in Sinana District, Bale Highlands. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya. [32] Muhyadin, M. (2010) Assessment of Livestock Husbandry Practices, Available Feed Resources and Utilization in Kebribeyah District of Somali Regional State, Eastern Ethiopia. [33] Larbi, A., Thomas, D. and Hanson, J. (1993) Forage Potential of Erythrina abyssinica: Intake, Digestibility and Growth Rates for Stall-Fed Sheep and Goats in Southern Ethiopia. Agroforestry Systems, 21, 263-270. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00705245 DOI: 10.4236/ojas.2022.123028 [34] Ahamefule, F.O., Obua, B.E., Ibeawuchi, J.A. and Udosen, N.R. (2006) The Nutritive Value of Some Plants Browsed by Cattle in Umudike, Southeastern Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 5, 404-409. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjn.2006.404.409 [35] Derero, A. and Kitaw, G. (2018) Nutritive Values of Seven High Priority Indigenous Fodder Tree Species in Pastoral and Agro-Pastoral Areas in Eastern Ethiopia. Agriculture and Food Security, 7, Article No. 68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-018-0216-y [36] Sisay, A. (2006) Qualitative and Quantitative Aspects of Animal Feed in Different Agro-Ecological Areas of North Gonder. MSc Thesis, Alemaya University, Alemaya. [37] Singh, G.P. and Oosting, S.J. (1992) A Model for Describing the Energy Value of Straws. Indian Dairyman, 44, 322-327. [38] Norton, B.W. (1998) The Nutritive Value of Tree Legumes. In: Gutteridge, R.C. and Shelton, H.M., Eds., Forage Tree Legume in Tropical Agriculture, CAB Intemational, Wallinford, 1-10. [39] Linn, J., Trulla, T., Casper, D.L. and Raeth-Knight, M. (2004) Feed Efficiency of Lactating Dairy Cows. 65th Minnesota Nutrition Conference and Preconference Symposium “On the Cutting Edge of Direct Fed Microbials” Proceedings, 21-22 September 2004, St. Paul MN. https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/201836 [40] McDonald, P., Edwards, A.R., Greenhalgh, J.F.J. and Morgan, C.A. (2002) Animal Nutrition. Sixth Edition, Longman, London. 379 Open Journal of Animal Sciences