Morphometric traits and structural indices of indigenous cattle reared in Bench Sheko zone, southwestern Ethiopia.

This study was carried out with the aim of applying morphometric traits and structural indices in assessing the type and function of indigenous cattle in the Gidi-Bench (GB) and Debub-Bench (DB) districts of the Bench-Sheko zone. The study included two hundred forty (240) households (120 from each district). About 660 matured cattle (60 male and 600 female) were selected for morphometric measurement, from which 14 structural indices were computed. For cattle linear body measurement, 15 characters were assessed, whereas 16 traits were considered for qualitative observation. The finding indicated that, except for tail length (TL), cattle in DB had higher (p < 0.05) values for Body Weight (BW), chest girth (CG), head length (HDL), height at wither (HW), Body length (BL), Horn length (HL), height at rump (HAR), height at rump (RL), RW (rump width), Neck Width (NW), Neck length (NL) Chest depth (CD), ear length (EL) and neck circumference (NC) than those of GB district. GB bulls had higher (p < 0.05) Body Index (BI), cephalic index (CI), and Balance (Ba) than DB districts. Conversely, the Height Index (HI), Rump Length Index (RLI), Body Index (BI), Body Weight Index (BWI), Body Ratio (BR), and Height Slope (HS) of DB bulls were higher (p < 0.05) than those of GB districts. The HI, RLI, BWI, Ba, and BR values were higher (p < 0.05) for cows of DB than those of GB districts. However, cows in GB had higher (p < 0.05) Length Index_1 (LI_1), CI, Pelvic Index (PI), Over increase Index (OVII), Length Index_1 (LI_2), and HS values compared to DB district. Therefore, morphometric features and body indices revealed that cattle reared in DB could be categorized as a small-sized and angular-shaped body frame with the ability to graze in rough terrain. In contrast, cattle in GB were categorized under small-sized animals whose morphology corresponds to dual-type, specifically bulls with the light draft.

Introduction

Cattle in Ethiopia offer a traction force for the rural agricultural population, provide milk, meat, and manure to farm households, provide a source of financial income, and play a fundamental role in socio-cultural values (Tefera, 2011). The estimated cattle population is about 60.4 million, of which 98.2% are indigenous breeds, and the other 1.5 % and 0.2 % are cross and pure breeds, respectively (CSA, 2018). Twenty-eight cattle breeds are native to Ethiopia (EBI, 2016). Those breeds are reared by traditional small-scale livestock producers in varied agroecologies (high altitude, arid mount, low altitude, dry woodland) and are believed to have peculiar genomic characteristics (CSA, 2015). Few recognized cattle breeds, however, have accurate morphological descriptions and data on their performance levels, reproductive rates, and genetic traits (Ayalew et al., 2004). Thus, for genetic development and suitable breeding plans, a fundamental grasp of a livestock species' or breed’s distinguishing traits that set it apart from other breeds is necessary (Oguntunji and Ayorinde, 2015).

Characterizing livestock’s genetic potential is a method for identifying various breeds or populations in a given production environment by specifying their physical and productive ability (FAO, 2012). It has been discovered that the country’s livestock breed diversity would likely increase due to distinctive breeds (Gizaw et al., 2007). The type and purpose of livestock breeds have been identified using morphometric measures, which may provide preliminary support for selecting a particular breed (Mwacharo et al., 2006). Morphometric indices are correlations between linear body measures used to define animal proportions and size and could be generated using linear body measures. These indices are a mixture of many linear body measures used to analyze animal breeds' type, weight, and function and help breeders choose appropriate breeding stock in their existing production system (Chacón et al., 2011). Such indices give empirical values based on morphometric features and are limited in using single measurements (Barragán, 2017; Chacón et al., 2011; Khargharia et al., 2015).

Few studies were conducted regarding the phenotypic characterization of indigenous cattle in Chena and Gesha districts of keffa zone (Areb et al., 2017) and Sheko district of Bench-Sheko zone (Taye, 2005) in southwest regions of Ethiopia. However, there is scanty information on cattle’s physical traits and recorded information on phenotypic characterization and structural indices in the study area. Therefore, the goal of this study was to apply morphometric traits and structural indices to evaluate the type and function of indigenous cattle reared in two potential districts of Bench-Sheko Zone.

Method and materials

Description of the research areas

The study was conducted in Debu-Bench (DB) and Gidy-Bench (GB) districts of Bench-sheko zone, Southwest Ethiopia (Figure 1). Bench-Sheko zone (BSZ) is divided into six districts and two town administration. It is located 561Km away from Addis Ababa, the political city of Ethiopia. The altitude of the areas ranges from 850 to 3000 m.a.s.l. The average annual rainfall and temperature are 120–2000 mm and 20–40 °C, respectively. Keffa zone bounds the zone in the North, West-Omo in the East, Sheka in the West, and Gambela in the South. It has 918,959 cattle, 343,110 goats, 596,390 sheep, 23,759 horses, 6,687 donkeys, 9,817 mules, and 1,440,626 chickens. Agro-ecologically, BSZ, consists of 28.042 % lowland (500–1500 m.a.s.l), 56.73 % in mid-highland (1500–2300 m.a.s.l) and 15.44 % highland (>2300 m.a.s.l). The detailed description of the districts is summarized in Table 1.

Figure 1

Map of the research area.

Table 1

Description of the research location.

Description	Debub- Bench district	Giddy Bench districts
Temperature (C°)	11 °C–23 °C	13 °C–28 °C
Annual rainfall (mm)	900–1600	900–1800
Rainfall pattern	Bimodal	Bimodal
Altitude (m.a.s.l)	1300–2250	1248–2177
Cattle population (head)	196, 600	164,842
Livestock production System	Mixed livestock and crop farming	Mixed livestock and crop farming

Sampling method

To know more about the genetic variety of local cattle in the research area, primary stakeholders, zonal animal, and fishery resource specialists were consulted before choosing the study sites. A rapid informal field assessment was also carried out to create a sampling framework from which sampling units were drawn and ascertain the dispersion of local cattle breeds in the research locations. Multistage purposive sampling methodology was employed in the sampling procedure, including the selected zone’s hierarchical administrative structure. From Bench-sheko zone, Debub-Benchi and Giddy-Benchi districts were chosen purposively based on indigenous cattle distribution. Then, six rural kebeles were chosen, three from each district, based on their suitability for cattle production, relatively larger cattle population size, knowledge of maintaining indigenous cattle, road access, security, and farmers' willingness to participate in the study. So Gelltin, Kite, and Zemika kebeles were chosen from Debub-Bench district, and Donadale, Gacha, and Temantn kebeles were chosen from Giddy-Bench district.

The morphometric analysis included cattle from 240 families, and the samples were taken in accordance with FAO (2012) rules. One hundred ten (110) mature animals (10 intact male cattle and 100 mature female cattle) were examined from each kebele for linear body measurements and morphological measurements. Hence, six hundred sixty (660) mature cattle were taken for both morphological and morphometric trait investigation. To prevent genetic similarity, approximately equal to 4 cattle per family were selected.

Data collection

Morphometric characterization

Morphological and morphometric traits related data were collected and recorded using a format based on standard breed descriptor list developed by FAO (2012). All the measured data were collected at early break of the day to eliminate the impact of eating and drinking on actual body size and while standing correctly. A tape measure was used to capture the linear attributes, while body weight was estimated with a tool called a ‘chest girth tape’, which is mainly prepared for zebu cattle. The same investigator were collected all measurements to reduce subjective error during the experiment. Two investigators performed the measurements, one of whom took the measures and the other gathered the data.

A total of 16 morphological features were recorded on the basis of subjective visual assessment separately for males and females, including coat color and pattern, horn presence and color, horn form and orientation, Facial profile, hair length, ear shape and orientation, hump size and orientation, Dewlap width and Muzzle color and head profile, and tail length. Similarly, 15 morphometric features were precisely recorded using a measuring stick and tape, which included Chest girth (CG), head length (HDL), height at wither (HAW), body length (BL), horn length (HL), muzzle circumference (MC), chest width (CW), height at rump (HAR), rump length (RL), rump width (RW), neck length (NL), chest depth (CD), ear length (EL), tail length (TL), and neck circumference (NC). Each cattle was separated based on sex, dentition (age), and study location. The animals' ages were determined by observing at their teeth, as recommended by Pace and Wakeman (2003).

Structural indices

The structural indices were calculated to assess and identify the kind and role of local cattle in the research area using the recommended formula (Alderson, 1999; Salako, 2006; Banerjee et al., 2014), as revealed in Table 2.

Table 2

Formulas used to analyze structural indices.

Indices types	Calculation Methods
Length index_1 (LI_1)	Body length/Wither height
Height index (HI)	Height at Wither/body length × 100
Cephalic index (CI)	Head width/head length × 100
Rump length index (RLI)	Rump length/body length × 100
Pelvic index (PI)	Rump width/Rump length × 100
Body index (BI)	Body length × 100/Chest girth
Over increase index (OVII)	Height at rump/Height at wither × 100
Width slope (WS)	Rump width – Chest width
Body weight index (BWI)	Body weight/Height at wither × 100
Depth index (DI)	Chest depth/Withers height
Balance (Ba)	(Rump Width × Rump Length)/(Chest Depth × Chest Width)
Body ratio (BR)	Height at wither/Height at the rump
Length index_2 (LI_2)	Body length/Chest depth
Height slope (HS)	Height at rump – Height at withers

Ethics and animal care

After carefully inspecting ethical and animal welfare concerns, the experiment was permitted by the Mizan-Tepi University, College of Agriculture and Natural Resource ethics committee (1956ET-18/2021). The European Union’s (2010) recommendations on the treatment and utilization of animals in experiment and development have been followed.

Data analysis

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software, version 21.0 (2012), was used to analyze the quantitative and qualitative characteristics that were assessed and gathered in the field using morphologic and morphometric measures. The Chisquare test was used to see if there was a significant difference in observed frequencies in two or more categories at a 5% significance level. The F test was used to compare means between study locations or populations. Means were separated using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test method, and the data were pronounced significant at P < 0.05.

The influence of district and sex on linear body measurement was analyzed by the following linear model:where:

Yijk = the value pertaining to the ith District (i = Debub Bench and Giddy Bench)

= Overall mean

ai = Effect of location (i = Debub Bench and Giddy Bench)

bj = Effect of sex (j = Male, Female)

ck = effect of age (k = 4, 5, 6,≥7)

eijk = Standard error

Results and Discussions

Phenotypic characterization of indigenous cattle

Qualitative characteristics

The qualitative characteristics of indigenous cattle in the study districts are summarized in Table 3. The coat color pattern of male cattle and the study districts were significantly related (p < 0.05). Plain coat color pattern was predominant among the bulls in Debub-Bench (73.3%) and Gidi-Bench district (80 %). Similar reports were found by Eshetu et al. (2016) for local cattle in the Babile district, Tenagne et al. (2016) for local cattle in the west Gojjam zone, and Gebru et al. (2017) for Begait cattle in Tahtay Adiabo district.

Table 3

Description of qualitative characteristics of indigenous cattle in the research areas.

Phenotypic Variables	Male				Female
	DBN (%)	GBN (%)	Over all	X2	DBN (%)	GBN (%)	Over all	X2
Coat color pattern				8.36**				77.65**
Plain	22(73.3)	24(80)	46(76.6)		229(76.3)	116(38.6)	345(57.5)
Plaid	-	-	-		1(0.33)	1(0.33)	2(0.33)
Spotted	8(26.7)	6(20)	14(23.3)		70(23.3)	183(61)	253(42.1)
Hair coat color				10.41**				74.04**
White	-	1(3.3)	1(1.6)		16(5.3)	10(3.3)	26(4.3)
Black	1(3.3)	2(6.6)	3(5)		25(8.3)	7(2.3)	32(5.3)
Red	12(40)	10(33.3)	22(36.6)		70(23.3)	62(20.6)	132(22.5)
Roam	1(3.3)	5(16.6)	6(10)		39(13)	15(5)	54(9)
Brown	2(6.6)	3(10)	6(10)		41(13.6)	6(2)	47(7.8)
Fawn	1(3.3)	1(3.3)	2(3.3)		33(11)	21(7)	54(9)
Red & white	9(30)	5(16.7)	13(21.6)		37(12.3)	98(32.6)	135(22)
Gray	4(13.3)	3(10)	7(11.6)		39(13)	81(27)	120(20)
Facial profile(Head)				0.18*				2.92*
Flat (Strait)	26(86.6)	27(90)	53(88.4)		252(84)	266(88.6)	518(86.4)
Slightly concave	4(13.4)	3(10)	7(11.6)		48(16)	34(11.4)	82(13.6)
Horn orientation				8.28*				4.69*
Forward	10(33.4)	14(46.6)	24(40)		128(42.6)	136(45.3)	264(44)
Upward	14(46.6)	11(36.6)	25(41.6)		125(41.6)	133(44.3)	258(43)
Dawn ward	2(6.6)	1(3.3)	3(5)		2(0.66)	3(1)	5(0.8)
Lateral	4(13.3)	4(13.3)	8(13.3)		45(15)	28(9.3)	73(12.2)
Horn shape				12.3**				11.14**
Curve	9(30)	14(46.6)	23(38.3)		125(41.6)	147(49)	272(45.5)
Spiral	-	1(3.3)	1(1.6)		15(5)	2(0.66)	17(2.8)
Straight	7(23.3)	2(6.6)	9(15)		17(5.6)	21(7)	38(6.3)
Lateral (u)shape	14(46.6)	13(43.3)	27(45)		143(47.6)	130(43.3)	273(45.3)
Horn presentation				Ns				Ns
Present	30(100)	30(100)	60(100)		300(100)	300(100)	600(100)
Horn color				1.27*				135.25**
Black	-	30(100)	30(50)		104(34.6)	212(70.6)	316(52.6)
Brown	30(100)	-	30(50)		196(65.3)	79(26.3)	275(45.8)
White	-	-	-		-	10(3.3)	10(1.7)
Eyelid color				Ns				Ns
Pigmented	30(100)	30(100)	60(100)		300(100)	300(100)	600(100)
Ear shape				2.06*				16.1**
Straight	19(63.4)	29(96.6)	48(80)		205(68.3)	246(82)	451(75.2)
Rounded	11(36.6)	1(3.4)	12(20)		95(31.6)	54(18)	149(24.8)
Ear orientation				Ns
Lateral	30(100)	29(96.6)	59(98.3)		286(95.3)	299(99.7)	585(97.5)
Dropping	-	1(3.3)	1(1.6)		14(4.7)	1(0.33)	15(2.5)
Hump position				342.8**				3.88*
Dropping	14(46.7)	6(20)	20(33.3)		-	-
Erect	16(53.3)	24(80)	40(66.7)		45(15)	31(10.3)	76(12.7)
Small	-	-			255(85)	269(89.7)	524(87.3)
Hoof color				1.08*				69.6**
Black	19(63.4)	23(76.7)	42(70)		136(45.3)	234(78)	370(61.7)
Brown	11(36.6)	7(23.3)	18(30)		164(54.7)	66(22)	230(38.3)
Muzzle color				5.91*				11.8**
Pigmented	26(86.7)	27(90)	53(88.3)		204(68)	241(80.3)	445(74.2)
Not pigmented	4(13.3)	3(10)	7(11.7)		96(32)	59(19.7)	155(25.8)
Tail length				9.49*				73.1**
Short (above hook)	2(6.7)	6(20)	8(13.3)		37(12.3)	99(33)	136(22.7)
Medium( at hook)	5(16.7)	9(30)	14(23.3)		87(29)	121(40.3)	208(34.7)
Long (below hook)	23(76.7)	15(50)	38(63.3)		176(58.7)	80(26.7)	256(42.7)
Dewlap width				12.4**				15.5**
Small	7(23.3)	-	7(11.7)		99(33)	89(29.7)	188(31.3)
Medium	23(76.7)	30(100)	53(88.3)		201(67)	197(65.7)	398(66.3)
Large	-	-	-		-	14(4.6)	14(2.3)

GB = Gidi bench; DB = Debub Bench; The results of the same row in various age groups differ significantly * Significant at (P < 0.05); **significant at (P < 0.01); *** = p value < 0.001; N = 30 male & 300 Female in each districts; x2 = chi-square test; Number in bracket = %.

The coat color of the local cattle population in the research location shows great variety (Table 3). Of the eight observed coat colors, red (36.6 %), red & white (21.6 %), and grey (11 %) were the most frequent coat colors of bulls in the research location. Similarly, in female cattle, red (22.5 %), red & white (22 %), and grey (20 %) were also the most common coat colors in the research location. The current result for coat color is similar with those of Belay and Zeleke (2021), who observed indigenous Sidama cattle in midland and lowland agroecology and paid for highland agroecology. Conversely, Mekonnen and Meseret (2020) found that pied and spotted coat color patterns were the most commonly observed body color patterns in Begait cows. Koirala et al. (2011) also indicated that roan coat color was dominant for indigenous sylhat cattle. Cattle with lighter coat colors can dissipate body heat better than their black-coated counterparts (Gebru et al., 2017). Coat color is used in cattle choice, ownership recognition, and calling (Alebachew, 2017). The heterogeneity in the coat color revealed the presence of several ecotypes within the breed, which need advanced research at a molecular level.

The facial profile of male cattle ranged from flat (88.4 %) to slightly concave (11.6 %). Female cattle, on the other hand, ranged from flat (86.4 %) to slightly concave (13.6 %). The present results were consistent with Getaneh et al. (2019) for Malle cattle. Conversely, Gebru et al. (2017) observed that convex facial shapes dominated the facial profiles of Begait cattle.

The presence of horns was familiar for male (100%) and female (100%) cattle populations. The current result was comparable to Arado cattle breed as indicated by Genzebu (2009), who found in the Northwestern zone of Tigray region and (Lomillos and Alonso, 2020) for the Lidia cattle breed. This may be linked to a breed’s character, as well as having an aesthetic appeal for the breed’s owners. Horned cattle are visually attractive and may protect themselves and other groups of animals from attackers (Kugonza et al., 2012).

The most common horn shapes in male and female cattle populations were curved (45.5%) and U-shaped (45%). The horn shape of male cattle was consistent with those of Woldeyohannes, (2020), who reported that most indigenous cattle were in the Hadiya zone. The horn orientation of cows in the Debub Bench was (42.6%) front, (41.6%) upward, and (15%) lateral, whereas in the Giddy Bench district was (45.3%) forward, (44.3%) upward, and (9.3%) lateral. Getaneh et al. (2019) reported dominantly upward horn orientation in male cattle, which contradicts our findings.

The horn orientation of male cattle in the Debub Bench district was lateral (U-shaped) (47.6%), curved (41.6%), whereas, in the Giddy Bench district (43.3%), lateral (U-shaped) and (49%) curved according to the present evaluation. In contrast to the current finding Getaneh et al. (2019) and Gebru et al. (2017) observed curved horn orientation on Malle and Begait cattle, respectively. The male cattle population has black hoofs (50%) and horns (70 %) color. Similarly, female cattle populations have 52.6% and 61.7% black hoof and horn color.

The male cattle population has pigmented muzzle (88.3 %) and eyelid (100%) color. Likewise, female cattle have 74.3% and 100% pigmented muzzle and eyelid color, respectively. Similarly, Lorato et al. (2017) indicated that most female cattle’s muzzle color was pigmented, followed by non-pigmented in both locations, which was noted in both sexes in cattle from Gamo Gofa Zone South West Ethiopia. The same author also reported that Melanin had been found in the muzzles, hooves, and region surrounding the eyes of many zebu cattle breeds.

The male and female cattle population’s dominant ear orientation and shape was the lateral orientation with 98.3% and 97.5%, respectively. Straight ear shape was the dominant ear shape in male (80%) and female (68.3%) cattle population. The current research output agreed with those of Yimamu and Kebede (2014) for Arsi-Bale cattle, Getaneh et al. (2019) for Malle cattle, and Woldeyohannes et al. (2019) for local animal in the Hadiya zone. Cattles with medial ears have strong muscles in the spot that enable them to shift their ears to pick up faint sounds from a distance (Eshetu et al., 2016).

The prominent hump position for male cattle was erect, with values of (53.3%) for the Debub Bench and (80%) for the Giddy Bench districts, respectively, followed by drops of (46.7%) and (20%) for the Debub Bench and Giddy Bench districts. The current observation for hump position was similar to those of Ftiwi and Tamir (2015) for Begait cattle. Bulls with humps are well-structured and often moderate in size, while most cows have smaller humps (Tenagne et al., 2016; Getaneh et al., 2019). This is because bulls with medium-sized and erect humps can withstand the pressure of the yolk from the ploughs, allowing them to draw more efficiently with less damage to the bulls' hides. In both places, the male cattle’s hoof’s colors were primarily black, followed by brown in both districts. Like this study, Woldeyohannes et al. (2019) reported that indigenous cattle kept in the Hadiya zone have black hoof color. In both the study locations, male cattle had pigmented muzzle color, followed by non-pigmented muzzle color.

The tail length of the male cattle population varied from short (13.3%) to long (63.3%) tail. Similarly, females varied from short (22.7%) to long (42.6%) tails. In contrast, Bekele (2015) reported that the cattle having well-developed tails that are moderate to long (slightly under and at the hock). Animals with longer tails are more effective in chasing flies and biting insects than animals with shorter tails (Banerjee et al., 2014). On the other hand, cattle with extremely long tails are unwanted, and hence they are readily entangled while moving through thorny plants (Getachew, 2006). Medium-sized dewlap was a standard feature for bull and cow with 88.3 % and 66.3 %, respectively.

Quantitative characteristics of indigenous cattle

The mean live weight (kg) and linear body measures (cm) taken at the two sites are shown in Table 4. Body weights (BW) of local cattle in the both districts were 204.21 ± 0.455 kg and 203.4 ± 90.33 kg, respectively, having a statistical difference (p < 0.05) across the studied locations. Cattle in the Debub-Bench district were heavier than in the Giddy Bench district, which might be ascribed to better cattle management and husbandry techniques in that region, leading to improved muscle building and growth rate. The body weights of the animals examined in the current research were consistent with Woldeyohannes et al. (2019) and smaller than those indicated by Masho et al. (2022) for Hadiya sheka indigenous cattle, respectively.

Table 4

Average live body weight (Kg) and Linear body measurement (cm) of ingenious cattle in the study location.

Effect and level	N	BW	CG	HDL	HDW	HW	BL	HL	MC	CW
		LSM ± SE	LSM ± SE	LSM ± SE	LSM ± SE	LSM ± SE	LSM ± SE	LSM ± SE	LSM ± SE	LSM ± SE
Over all	660	198.80 ± 0.28	132.07 ± 0.19	36.48 ± 0.03	18.04 ± 0.03	103.78 ± 0.08	108.8 ± 0.15	17.10 ± 0.11	36.53 ± 0.04	34.20 ± 0.03
CV%	660	3.145	3.66	1.97	4.26	1.35	3.42	10.12	2.93	1.91
R2	660	0.04	0.44	0.32	0.24	0.48	0.10	0.67	0.22	0.57
District		∗∗∗	Ns	∗∗∗	∗∗∗	∗∗∗	∗∗∗	Ns	∗∗∗	∗∗∗
Debub Bench		204.21 ± 0.45a	133.74 ± 0.08a	37.35 ± 0.05a	18.80 ± 0.05a	106.51 ± 0.11a	108.43 ± 0.05a	15.94 ± 0.18a	37.12 ± 0.08a	35.25 ± 0.05a
Giddy Bench		203.49 ± 0.33b	133.204 ± 0.37a	37.02 ± 0.04b	18.43 ± 0.03b	106.14 ± 0.11b	107.58 ± 0.36b	15.61 ± 0.15a	37.05 ± 0.05a	35.00 ± 0.04b
Sex		∗∗∗	∗∗∗	∗∗∗	∗∗∗	∗∗∗	∗∗∗	∗∗∗	∗∗∗	∗∗∗
Male	60	209.85 ± 0.85a	134.82 ± 0.19a	37.91 ± 0.14a	19.23 ± 0.11a	109.36 ± 0.24a	107.10 ± 0.6b	14.69 ± 0.35b	37.67 ± 0.17a	36.24 ± 0.15a
Female	600	197.94 ± 0.26b	131.92 ± 0.20b	36.38 ± 0.02b	17.98 ± 0.03b	103.25 ± 0.04b	108.89 ± 0.03a	16.85 ± 0.11a	36.50 ± 0.04b	34.01 ± 0.02b
Age		∗∗∗	∗∗∗	∗∗∗	∗∗∗	∗∗∗	∗∗∗	∗∗∗	∗∗∗	∗∗∗
4 year		202.98 ± 0.74	133.37 ± 0.17	36.97 ± 0.08	18.50 ± 0.06	105.74 ± 0.27	107.03 ± 0.12	13.19 ± 0.08	37.12 ± 0.10	34.83 ± 0.09
5 year		203.58 ± 0.41	133.08 ± 0.10	37.51 ± 0.06	18.44 ± 0.04	106.49 ± 0.17	108.45 ± 0.04	14.52 ± 0.08	36.28 ± 0.07	35.28 ± 0.06
6 year		204.60 ± 0.49	133.50 ± 0.44	36.95 ± 0.04	18.26 ± 0.01	106.40 ± 0.08	108.66 ± 0.35	17.49 ± 0.13	37.05 ± 0.05	35.00 ± 0.04
≥7 year		204.26 ± 0.54	133.51 ± 0.17	37.16 ± 0.12	19.21 ± 0.12	106.60 ± 0.15	109.86 ± 0.07	17.89 ± 0.22	37.88 ± 0.17	35.38 ± 0.12
LSM = Least squares means; SE = Standard error; N = number of cattle; The result of the same row in various age groups differ significantly ∗∗∗ Highly significant difference (P < 0.001); NS = non-significant; BW = Body weight; CG = heart girth; HDL = head length; HDW = head width; HW = height at wither; BL = Body length; HL = Horn length; MC = Muzzle circumference; CW = Chest Width.

LSM = Least squares means; SE = Standard Error; N = number of cattle; The result of the same row in various age groups differ significantly ∗∗∗ Highly significant difference (P < 0.001); NS = non-significant; HAR = height at rump; RL = rump length; RW = rump width; NL = neck length; CD = Chest depth; EL = ear length; TL = tail length; NC = neck circumference.

Chest girth (CG) measurement of cattle in Debub Bench and Giddy Bench was 133.74 ± 0.08 cm and 133.04 ± 0.37cm, respectively, with no significant difference (p > 0.05) across the districts. The current finding for chest girth was smaller than the values indicated by Banerjee et al. (2014), Getaneh et al. (2019) and Woldeyohannes et al. (2019) for indigenous cattle in Ethiopia. However, Getachew (2006) and Said et al. (2017) indicated that the highest chest girth for indigenous cattle is under varied age clusters in the East, and West Gojjam zone, respectively. The present chest girth value was smaller compared to those indicated by Gebru et al. (2017) and Ftiwi and Tamir (2015) for Begait cattle. Animals with a broader chest circumference often have an immense live weight because the pleural cavity contains numerous essential organs, and the growth of which determines its body mass (Gebru et al., 2017; Getaneh et al., 2019).

In the present research, head length (HDL) of cattle in Debub Bench and Giddy Bench were 37.9 ± 10.14 cm and 36.3 ± 80.02 cm, respectively, and statistically different (p < 0.05) across the districts. The HDL values indicated in the present research were comparable to those of Terefe et al. (2015) and Woldeyohannes et al. (2019) for indigenous Mursi and Hadiya cattle, respectively. Contrarily, Banerjee et al. (2014) and Taye (2005) reported larger values of this character for Boran bulls and endangered Sheko breed cattle, respectively. In the Debub Bench and Giddy Bench districts, the head width (HDW) values were 18.80 ± 0.05cm and 18.43 ± 0.03cm, respectively. The head widths at the several study sites varied significantly (p < 0.05). The HDW values obtained in the present research were in agreement with those of Banerjee et al. (2014) for the Boran breed and Bene et al. (2007) for the Red Angus breed. The HDW values of the Limousin breed are lower than that of other beef breeds, as indicated by Bene et al. (2007). The size of the head is a defining characteristic of the breed, and bulls with larger head are often selected since the characteristic is linked to muscling ability (Banerjee et al., 2014).

The height at withers (HAW) of cattle in Debub Bench was 106.5 ± 10.11cm, whereas the value for Giddy Bench was 106.14 ± 0.11cm. Similar to the present finding, Banerjee et al. (2014) and Said et al. (2017) indicated that the maximum withers height for Boran Bulls under various age classes of feedlot and pasundan cattle in Indonesia, respectively. Conversely, Terefe et al. (2015) found greater HAW values for Mursi cattle than the current observation. The scapula, humerus, radius, carpus, metacarpus, phalanges, and accessory bones all contribute to the skeletal dimension of a given cattle (Banerjee et al., 2014; Getaneh et al., 2019; Woldeyohannes et al., 2019). It has been shown that cattle having elongated front and rear legs get a higher HAW and are more likely to be able to graze for more extended periods and move longer distances (Banerjee et al., 2014; Getaneh et al., 2019).

The Body length (BL) of cattle in Debub Bench and Giddy-Bench was 108.43 ± 0.05cm and 107.58 ± 0.36cm, respectively. A significant difference (p < 0.05) was observed between the body length and the two research locations. The current study was consistent with those of Tenagne et al. (2016) for local cattle in West Gojam. As observed by Getaneh et al. (2019), Woldeyohannes et al. (2019) and Yimamu and Kebede (2014), the BL of indigenous cattle were shorter than those obtained in the present study. However, Said et al. (2017) indicated the highest BL under varied age categories for pasundan cattle in West Java, Indonesia. Cattle with a lengthy body have a more significant carcass weight because the internal organs have more room to develop. The animal’s body weight is directly related to the BL (Gebru et al., 2017). Since animals having larger body frame are more expensive than those with lower body frames (Getaneh et al., 2019). However, such animals demand more space and a higher maintenance feed (Woldeyohannes et al., 2019).

The horn length (HRL) of indigenous cattle for Debub Bench and Giddy Bench were 15.94 ± 0.18 cm and 15.61 ± 0.15 cm, respectively. The values found in the current research output were lower compared to Ftiwi and Tamir (2015) and Getaneh et al. (2019) for indigenous Begait and Malle cattle, respectively. However, the HRL values were higher than the finding (Taye, 2005) for indigenous Sheko cattle, and many cattle producers favoured longer-horned animals for their aesthetic appeal (Kugonza et al., 2012).

Muzzle circumference (MC) of cattle in Debub Bench and Giddy Bench districts was 37.12 ± 0.08 cm and 37.05 ± 0.05 cm, respectively. Similar results were found by Tenagne et al. (2016) for indigenous cattle in the West Gojjam administrative zone and Woldeyohannes et al. (2019) for indigenous cattle in the Hadiya zone. Conversely, Getachew (2006) found higher muzzle circumference (MC) in the Awi zone. Muzzle circumference is essential since it is linked to the cattle’s body weight (Tenagne et al., 2016).

The chest width (CW) of cattle for the Debub Bench and Giddy Bench was 35.25 ± 0.05cm and 35.00 ± 0.04cm, respectively, and significantly different (p < 0.05) across the districts. The CW values in this research were smaller compared to the value obtained by Banerjee et al. (2014) for Boran cattle (bulls). Woldeyohannes et al. (2019) reported the CG values for local cattle in Soro district (age class of 1 and 2 PPI), which are in good agreement with the current findings, while the values were higher than Misha district under age class of 1 and 2 PPI under the same author. Because such bulls' thoracic cavities are often wider, their working capacity is directly proportional to chest width (Banerjee et al., 2014). Chest depth is measured by how far the ribs extend from the thoracic vertebrae to the sternum and is referred to as chest depth (Banerjee et al., 2014; Woldeyohannes et al., 2019). A deeper chest cavity is beneficial for animals because it has a wider pleural cavity, which helps to facilitate lung expansion. The Chest Depth (CD) values for Debub Bench and Giddy Bench cattle were 52.33 ± 0.07cm and 51.72 ± 0.06cm, respectively, and statistically differ (p < 0.05) across the districts. The present research agreed with Woldeyohannes et al. (2019) for indigenous Hadiya cattle. The CD values found in this research were smaller than those reported by Banerjee et al. (2014) and Woldeyohannes et al. (2019).

The height at rump (HAR) of cattle in Debub Bench and Giddy Bench was 108.04 ± 0.12 cm and 107.87 ± 0.010 cm, respectively. HAR followed a similar trend to the other morphometric features, which was consistent with the result of Eshetu et al. (2016) found for indigenous cattle in Babile district, East Harargie zone. On the contrary, height at the rump for Boran bull under different feedlot and age class were higher than the current finding, as stated by Banerjee et al. (2014). The HAR represents the lengths of the ileum, femur, tibia, tarsus, metatarsus, and phalanges. Cattle with a long HAR and well-developed bones can travel a longer distance in search of feed and water (Banerjee et al., 2014). Higher HAR implies that vital body parts are located far from the surface and can withstand higher temperatures, resulting in less damage from ground radiation (Banerjee et al., 2014; Woldeyohannes et al., 2019). The rump length (RL) of cattle in Debub Bench and Giddy Bench was 34.18 ± 0.09 cm and 34.13 ± 0.07 cm, respectively (Table 4). The value of RL in the present research agreed with the observation of Yimamu and Kebede (2014).

The rump width (RW) of cattle in the Debub Bench and Giddy Bench was 36.43 ± 0.08 cm and 35.57 ± 0.06 cm, respectively. The width between the two pelvic bones is measured by rump width, and the value is closely related to the incidence of birth difficulty in cows (Woldeyohannes et al., 2019). A smaller pelvic girth in animals raise the chance of occurrence of dystocia, while the traits of sexual dimorphism are shown by cows having greater values of pelvic girth (Bekele, 2015; Gebru et al., 2017; Woldeyohannes et al., 2019).

The neck length (NL) of cattle in Debub-Bench and Giddy Bench was 33.45 ± 0.13 cm and 33.37 ± 0.09 cm, respectively, with the values slightly varying between study locations. According to Banerjee et al. (2014), the findings were consistent with Boran Bulls. However, the value for neck length was lower than Getaneh et al. (2019) for indigenous Malle cattle and Belay and Zeleke (2021) for indigenous Sidama cattle. The values for NL were higher than Taye, (2005) for endangered Sheko cattle. The cattle’s neck length (NL) is equivalent to the span of the cervical bones, which begins at the Atlas area and ends at the last cervical bone (Kugonza et al., 2012), since the neck length of bulls is shorter and has a broader neck circumference (NC) (FAO, 2012; Woldeyohannes et al., 2019).

Ear length (EL) measurement was 17.75 ± 0.06 cm and 17.45 ± 0.04 cm for cattle in Debub Bench and Giddy Bench districts, respectively. The values of EL were consistent with the finding of Genzebu (2009), who found for Arado cattle breed in the Northwestern zone of Tigray. Cattle with longer EL acclimate to hot conditions (Banerjee et al., 2014). The Tail length (TL) value of cattle in Debub-Bench and Giddy-Bench was 71.40 ± 0.27 cm and 71.95 ± 0.13 cm, respectively, with a bit of variation between the two locations. The tail length values of the current research were comparable to those of Terefe et al. (2015). Cattle having elongated tails are more likely to be able to chase away flies, making them less vulnerable to parasite assaults (Banerjee et al., 2014). The neck circumferences (NC) of local cattle in Debub Bench and Giddy Bench were 70.49 ± 0.17 cm and 69.73 ± 0.12 cm, respectively, which differed significantly between the two locations.

The NC found in the present research was comparable to the value reported for Borana bulls (Banerjee et al., 2014).

Structural indices of indigenous cattle

The structural parameters of indigenous bulls and cows of various age ranges in the research locations are summarized in Tables 5 and 6. The current research results revealed that the height index (HI) did not differ among bulls of both age groups within the study districts. In the current research, the indices suggested that indigenous cattle in DB and GB are Mesomorphic since the height index (HI) was somewhat shorter than their body length (BL) for both sexes. The finding was consistent with Bene et al. (2007) for the Limousin, Blonde d’Aquitaine, and Red Angus breeds. Contrarily, Masho et al. (2022) reported that sheka indigenous cattle have longer HI than BL. Cattle with short legs and extended bodies are likelier to have sliding disc issues. The chances of this happening are low since the values didn’t significantly differ from one another (Peter and Egbu 2016). Since an imbalance in the animal’s gravity centre may impair its ability to balance on the ground, there should usually be a balance between its height, body length, and heart girth. The values of a cephalic index (CI) shows that head length (HL) was bigger than head width (HW), in line with the report of Bene et al. (2007) and Chacón et al. (2011). The rump length index (RLI) value in the present research was similar to Bene et al. (2007) for Red Angus, Aberdeen Angus, Lincoln Red, Blonde d’Aquitaine, and Charolais breeds. However, it was lower than the values reported by Gudeto et al. (2022) and Lomillos and Alonso (2020) for indigenous Arsi and Lidia indigenous cattle breeds, respectively. This indicates the compactness of indigenous cattle found in DB and GB districts (Alderson, 1999).

Table 5

Body indices of indigenous bulls with different age classes to identify the kind and purpose across the districts.

Indices	Age 4,5			Age 6, ≥7
	DB	GB	Overall	DB	GB	Overall
HI	93.14 ± 2.27	90.77 ± 1.08	91.95 ± 0.99	92.65 ± 0.44	93.80 ± 0.36	93.19 ± 0.3
LI_1	1.9 ± 0.03	1.1 ± 0.01	1.51 ± 0.01	1.08 ± 0.005	1.07 ± 0.004	1.075 ± 0.01
CI	49.26 ± 0.63	50.41 ± 0.29	50.09 ± 0.3	50.92 ± 0.1∗	50.18 ± 0.19	50.57 ± 0.1
RLI	30.01 ± 0.79	28.90 ± 0.72	29.45 ± 0.56	29.85 ± 0.27	29.46 ± 0.31	29.66 ± 0.20
PI	114.68 ± 3.5	111.62 ± 2.8	112.47 ± 2.2	117.22 ± 1.15	114.72 ± 1.27	116.03 ± 0.8
BI	85.39 ± 2.98	88.93 ± 0.79∗	87.16 ± 0.98	82.87 ± 0.43	82.17 ± 0.34	82.54 ± 0.28
OVII	102.46 ± 0.27	102.09 ± 0.14	102.19 ± 0.1	102.33 ± 0.1∗	101.90 ± 0.10	102.12 ± 0.1
WS	1.70 ± 0.54	3.42 ± 0.52	2.94 ± 0.44	4.43 ± 0.296	2.44 ± 0.27	3.48 ± 0.21
BWI	172.82 ± 7.4	151.14 ± 2.10	157.16 ± 3.4	196.90 ± 1.29	199.24 ± 1.71	198.01 ± 1.0
Ba	0.65 ± 0.01	0.71 ± 0.02	0.69 ± 0.02	0.72 ± 0.01	0.67 ± 0.0096	0.70 ± 0.01
DI	0.51 ± 0.01	0.49 ± 0.01	0.49 ± 0.01	0.50 ± 0.003	0.50 ± 0.003	0.50 ± 0.01
BR	0.98 ± 0.003	0.98 ± 0.001	0.98 ± 0.001	0.98 ± 0.001	0.98 ± 0.01∗	0.98 ± 0.01
LI_2	2.151 ± 0.04	2.29 ± 0.03	2.25 ± 0.03	2.16 ± 0.14	2.13 ± 0.012	2.14 ± 0.01
HS	2.60 ± 0.25	2.15 ± 0.14	2.25 ± 0.129	2.524 ± 0.11∗	2.10 ± 0.107	2.32 ± 0.079

GB = Gidi bench; DB = Debub Bench; The result of the same row in various age groups differ significantly∗(P < 0.05); HI = Height index; LI_1 = Length Index_1; CI = Cephalic Index; RLI = Rump Length Index; PI = Pelvic Index; BI = Body Index; OVI = Over increase Index; WS = Width Slope; BWI = Body Weight Index; Ba = Balance; DI = Depth Index; BR = Body Ratio; LI_2 = Length Index_2.

Table 6

Body indices of indigenous cows with different age classes to identify the kind and purpose across the districts.

Indices	Age group 1 (4,5)			Age group 2 (6,≥7)
	DB	GB	Overall	DB	GB	Overall
HI	94.95 ± 0.83∗	92.58 ± 3.52	93.75 ± 0.57	93.19 ± 0.19	91.43 ± 0.21	92.34 ± 0.15
LI_1	1.08 ± 0.01	1.09 ± 0.01∗	1.09 ± 0.01	1.07 ± 0.002	1.095 ± 0.00	1.08 ± 0.002
CI	48.94 ± 0.34	50.99 ± 0.46	50.32 ± 0.37	50.25 ± 0.11	51.27 ± 0.14∗∗	50.75 ± 0.09
RLI	29.81 ± 0.46∗	27.92 ± 0.63	28.53 ± 0.47	30.17 ± 0.22	28.61 ± 0.21	29.41 ± 0.15
PI	115.51 ± 2.86	120.05 ± 2.71	118.58 ± 2.06	117.28 ± 0.96	124.33 ± 1.00	120.71 ± 0.7
BI	86.71 ± 1.59∗	86.50 ± 0.73	86.57 ± 0.69	80.93 ± 0.26	82.32 ± 0.21∗∗	81.61 ± 0.08
OVII	101.81 ± 0.13	102.35 ± 0.3∗	102.18 ± 0.16	102.003 ± 0.1	102.5 ± 0.17∗∗	102.25 ± 0.06
WS	4.50 ± 0.965	3.24 ± 0.55	3.65 ± 0.49	3.90 ± 0.22	4.88 ± 0.246	4.38 ± 0.17
BWI	160.74 ± 6.8∗∗	157.57 ± 2.52	158.59 ± 2.72	192.41 ± 1.17	188.4 ± 0.8∗∗	190.47 ± 0.71
Ba	0.73 ± 0.02	0.69 ± 0.02	0.70 ± 0.02	0.72 ± 0.00	0.70 ± 0.007	0.71 ± 0.005
DI	0.50 ± 0.01	0.49 ± 0.01	0.49 ± 0.01	0.50 ± 0.00	0.51 ± 0.001	0.51 ± 0.001
BR	0.98 ± 0.001∗	0.98 ± 0.002	0.98.0.00	0.98 ± 0.00	0.98 ± 0.01∗∗	0.98 ± 0.001
LI_2	2.15 ± 0.026	2.25 ± 0.28	2.22 ± 0.02	2.14 ± 0.00	2.15 ± 0.007	2.14 ± 0.005
HS	1.91 ± 0.15	2.39 ± 0.26∗	2.24 ± 0.18	2.11 ± 0.811	2.60 ± 0.08∗∗	2.35 ± 0.58

GB = Gidi bench; DB = Debub Bench; The values of the same row in various age groups differ significantly∗(P < 0.05); highly significant∗∗ (P < 0.01); HI = Height index; LI_1 = Length Index_1; CI = Cephalic Index; RLI = Rump Length Index; I = Pelvic Index; BI = Body Index; OVI = Over increase Index; WS = Width Slope; BWI = Body Weight Index; Ba = Balance; DI = Depth Index; BR = Body Ratio; LI_2 = Length Index_2.

The pelvic index (PI) is a diagnostic measure used to examine the uniformity of the hind limbs and, as a result, might be linked to female animals' reproductive capability (Cerqueira et al., 2011). As indicated from the pelvic index (PI), the rump of such indigenous cattle had concave curve-shaped, and the rump width was more significant than the rump length (RL). The body index (BI) result of male cattle and female cattle kept in both study sites revealed that the chest circumference was more expanded compared to the BL. When bulls are intended for draft purposes, a well-developed chest girth (CG) is crucial, but the character is also instrumental in indicating cattle foraging capability, particularly on rugged topography (Banerjee et al., 2014; Khargharia et al., 2015).

The results for over-increased indices (OVI) recorded in this research were smaller than the values indicated. The OVI results showed that the rump height (RH) is somewhat higher than the HAW, implying the animals' hindquarter is raised. As indicated by the current result for width slope (WS), the rump width (RW) was broader compared to the chest width (CW), that implies the cattle’s body is angular in shape, and it is advantageous to cows for milk production (Khargharia et al., 2015). Similarly, Bene et al. (2007) reported that the values of the width slope showed that the cows' rump width was more prominent than their chest width, with the cows' values being higher.

The body weight index (BWI) finding indicates that the results were somewhat nearly with the actual body weight for bulls and cows as measured using the measuring tape; hence it is essential in determining the animal’s market value. The chest depth index (DI) is critical for fitness and a healthy respiratory system, especially in cattle accustomed to higher elevations. DB cattle (bulls) have a more excellent DI value than GB cattle, indicating that they have a superior thoracic capacity, allowing them to thrive in relatively high-altitude terrains. According to the depth index values of Banerjee et al. (2014), the chest depth is roughly ½ of the withers height, indicating healthy lung capacity in both sexes. The body ratio (BR) also indicated that the height at wither (HAW) is shorter than the RL, indicating that such cattle tend to lean somewhat forward. It was consistent with the finding reported by Chacón et al. (2011). The length index 2 (LI_ 2) also shows that body length is double chest depth, familiar characteristics in cattle. The current results are consistent with those of Banerjee et al. (2014). According to the height slope (HS) values, the height at the rump (HAR) is greater than the HAW, which is consistent with the body ratio results of Banerjee et al. (2014). As a result of the research findings, the cattle are dual-type and well adapted to moderate grazing in the bush.

Conclusion

Overall, the predominant plain coat color pattern, hair color pattern, facial profile, horn presentation, horn color, ear shape, ear orientation, hump position, hoof color, muzzle color, tail length, and dewlap width were plain, red, flat, horned, black, straight, lateral, erect, black, pigmented, long below hook, and medium in both sexes and locations. All the linear body measurements of indigenous cattle except CG, RL NC, and HL showed a significant variation between the study location and sexes. The differences may be attributable to changes in location or agroecology. As a result, there are opportunities for within-breed selection among the cattle raised in the study areas.

Cattle’s of Debub-Bench were higher in BW, CG, HDL, HDW, HW, BL, HL, MC, CW, HAR, RL RW, NL, CD, RW, NL, CD, EL, TL, and NC than those of Gidi-Bench District while the latter only showed higher TL values than the former. The estimated morphometric traits and their indices indicated that cattle reared in DB can be categorized as a small-sized and angular-shaped body frame corresponding to the ability for milk production and graze in rough terrain. Conversely, cattle in GB were categorized under small-sized animals whose morphology corresponds to dual types, specifically bulls with the light draft. As a result, the milk production of DB cattle could be investigated to determine their potential within the current production system.

Declarations

Author contribution statement

Mekuanent Baye: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Wrote the paper.

Worku Masho, Genet Gelaye, Regassa Begna: Conceived and designed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data.

Zelalem Admasu: Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Funding statement

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability statement

Data will be made available on request.

Declaration of interest’s statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.