This study was conducted in the Fentale District, East Shoa Zone, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. The geographical district of the area is located at 80°01′ to 90°00′N latitudes and 30°03′ to 40°01′E longitudes (Figure 1). Metehara town is one of the administrative towns of the district, located 200 km away from Addis Ababa, and the district has 18 rural villages (kebele) (Mekuyie and Mulu, 2021). The study area includes undulating plains, hills, and mountainous landscapes. The elevation ranges from 862 to 1997 m.a.s.l. The area is characterized by arid and semi-arid environments. The mean minimum and maximum monthly temperatures of the area ranged from 12.80 °C to 21.90 °C and 28.0 °C–36.70 °C, respectively. The district receives annual rainfall of 400–700 mm (Mekuyie and Mulu, 2021). The livelihood and income of the communities strongly depend on livestock production.

A cross-sectional study design was conducted to assess livestock production, productivity, and sustainability in the Ethiopian pastoral system: Evidence from the Fentale district. Individual pastoralists were interviewed using semi-structured questionnaires, key informants, and focus group discussions.

A multi-stage sampling procedure combining both random and purposive sampling techniques were used. In the first stage, secondary information was obtained from East shoa Zone and Fentale Woreda Livestock Development and Fisheries Offices, which served as the sampling frame for selecting villages (kebele’s). This official registry provided a complete list of all 18 kebeles within the district, from which 11 representative kebeles were randomly selected using a simple random sampling method. The selection was further guided purposively based on the degree of pastoralism extent and availability of livestock population in each kebele, as confirmed by district-level experts. In the second stage, the sample size was determined using the formula, which was adopted from (Yamane, 1967). n = N 1 + N e 2

Where n = is the sample size.

N = total population size (HH)

e = marginal error.

The marginal error (e) taken for this study was 5.3%–6%, which is equal to 0.053 with 95% CI.

Total sample size was estimated as follows. n = 10000 1 + 10000 0.053 2

n = 344.

In the third stage, the 344 respondents were proportionally allocated across the 11 selected kebeles, with 25–35 participants selected from each kebele using systematic random sampling from the household register of each kebele. This ensured representative coverage across all selected study sites.

To strengthen the mixed methods approach, qualitative findings from key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and field observations were systematically integrated with quantitative survey results during analysis, providing deeper contextual explanation of the diverse dynamics behind the quantitative findings such as constraints in livestock marketing, climate adaptation strategies, and sustainability of traditional social networks. Community leaders, Elders, Development agent and experts were used to triangulate the survey data. The primary data was collected through household interview, key informant interview along with focus group discussion and field observation for period of 6 months. The survey questions mainly focus on the demographic characteristics of pastoralists, livestock production and management practices, livestock marketing and constraints, livestock extension service and dissemination of information and early climate warning practices and awareness. Sustainability was assessed indirectly using proxy indicators, including grazing land quality, water security, and the resilience of traditional social networks, within the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework. All data were collected with the verbal informed consent of participants and cross-checked with local veterinary records for accuracy. Key informant interview along with focus group discussion were also used. Thus, twenty (20) key informants’ interviews were purposely selected from the district along with focus group discussion for the qualitative information of this study. From field observation checklist analysis, available resource, potential risk and challenges, livestock husbandry practices and market pattern and possible challenges were observed. All the information obtained from field observations were further analysed and triangulated with result obtained from questionnaire, key informant interview and focus group discussion.

The data were mainly analyzed using descriptive statistics, including means, percentages, standard errors, frequencies, and ranking indices. Because several variables were based on rankings, multiple responses, or highly uneven categories, inferential statistical analysis was not considered appropriate for this dataset. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the main characteristics and key parameters of the study area, and the analyses were performed using SPSS version 29. Index ranking was used to identify the relative importance of selected variables. The index was calculated as: Index = ∑ 3 * R a n k   1 + 2 * R a n k   2 + 1 * R a n k   3   f o r   e a c h   r e a s o n / ∑ 3 * R a n k   1 + 2 * R a n k   2 + 1 * R a n k   3   f o r   a l l   r e a s o n s .

The livestock population was converted to Tropical Livestock Units (TLU) using the following conversion factors: 0.70 for cows, 0.20 for calves, 1.00 for oxen, 0.70 for heifers, 1.00 for bulls, 1.25 for camels, 0.10 for ewes, 0.10 for rams, 0.05 for lambs, 0.10 for does, 0.10 for bucks, 0.05 for kids, and 0.80 for equines (Rothman-Ostrow et al., 2020).

The socio demographic characteristics of pastoralists household can influence the livestock production, productivity and sustainability were presented in the Supplementary Table S1. Most respondents in the study area were male (89.5%), and a large proportion of respondents had no formal education level (87.5%). The study area mainly dominated by the Muslim religious (90.4%).

Livestock are key to determining the wealth and social status of pastoralists. The total livestock population was determined by the tropical livestock unit (TLU) as presented in Table 1. Camels represented the largest distribution in the tropical livestock unit (9.86), followed by the cattle in the combined tropical livestock unit (7.91) for cows, calves, heifers, and bulls. The contribution of the goat population was also largest in the areas next to cattle, with a combined TLU of 3.24 for the does, bucks, and kids. The mean of the goat’s distribution was particularly higher at 25.33 ± 10.26. Supplementary Table S2 summarizes the primary livelihood purposes of pastoralist households in the study area, emphasizing the keeping and rearing of diverse livestock species. The pastoralists ranked cattle on the top for milk compared to other livestock, with 0.46, 0.29, 0.25, and 0.11 for cattle, camel, goat, and sheep, respectively. Whereas they kept livestock for meat at a ranked index of 0.29, 0.15, 0.08, and 0.01 for sheep, goats, camels, and cattle, respectively. In addition, pastoralists kept camels largely for prestige, as camels are often regarded as symbols of wealth, social status, and cultural value, which may explain their prestige ranking of 0.22 relative to other livestock.

Figure 6 presents the diversity of marketing systems adopted by pastoralists in the study area. As a result, the primary marketing system was the dominant marketing system in the area, followed by the secondary market, tertiary market, and bush market, accounting for 72%, 13%, 12%, and 3%, respectively. The result indicates that most of the respondent pastoralists had to travel a long distance from their residential area to access livestock markets, which accounts for nearly 20 km, as shown in Figure 7. This considerable distance represents a significant physical capital limitation within the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, as inadequate market infrastructure and road connectivity increase transaction costs, reduce market participation frequency, and ultimately constrain the financial capital accumulation of pastoral households. It demonstrates that 52% of the pastoralists are not benefiting from the marketing centre (Supplementary Table S4). Small ruminants were the primary animals to be sold, followed by the cattle and camels, which are ranked in the index as 0.49, 0.35, and 0.25, respectively, as presented in Table 8. Selling dairy products was not a common practice in the area (92%) unless they were intended for home consumption (Supplementary Table S4). The respondents commonly sold their livestock during the spring and dry seasons, accounting for 44% and 39%, respectively, as presented in Supplementary Figure S4. The live livestock and livestock products marketing system in the study areas was observed to be very weak due to numerous constraints related to the marketing system. Thus, as ranked in the index Table 8, lack of market information, weak market linkage, presence of illegal brokers, and lack of a market account are 0.33, 0.27, 0.20, and 0.15, respectively.

Supplementary Table S5 indicates that 75% of the respondents had not accessed extension services for their livestock production. Even for those who did receive information, its accessibility was insufficient, as reflected by 81% of the respondents. The lack of access to extension services in the area was primarily due to the unavailability of extensions nearby (49%) and refusal to use them (39%). Extension workers do not frequently contact pastoralists, as 83% reported meeting them only occasionally. The government extension center was the main extension provider for livestock breed improvement, market and feed management, and climate early warning, as presented in Supplementary Table S6. The Pastoralists Training Center (PTC) was the key route for disseminating information to pastoralist communities among other routes. However, the level of satisfaction of pastoralists with such extension services was very low (dissatisfied).

Herd management practices and the adoption of improved technologies may be influenced by socio-demographic factors, particularly education level. In the present study, the proportion of male respondents was higher (89.5%), and most of the pastoralists in the area did not have formal education (87.5%). This indicates that the vulnerability of communities in the study area to climate variability and change was high, as households with low literacy levels were less likely to adopt new adaptive technologies and extension and had limited employment opportunities in non-farming activities compared to their counterparts. This finding is consistent with studies conducted in the Fentale district, which reported that 72% of respondents had no formal education level, indicating that they were illiterate (Mekuyie and Mulu, 2021). Likewise, additional research in the Afar region demonstrated that education bolsters households' resilience to climate-induced shocks and stress (Fenta et al., 2019).

As documented throughout the Horn of Africa (Marty, 2024), formal education has remained rare, with most respondents reporting there is no formal educational system. In relation to occupational status in the study area, almost 99% of respondents were categorized as pastoralists. This means that the livelihood of the households mainly relies on keeping livestock rather than on any other farming systems. This phenomenon might be because the livelihoods of pastoralists in the area fully rely on pastoralism, and they lack experience in practising other farming systems, which makes it difficult for them to build resilience against drought outbreaks in the area (Ayele et al., 2020; Bekele and Amsalu, 2012).

Livestock population in the study area has an implication for the livelihood sustenance of the pastoral communities and helps to identify the gaps and potentials to have a clearer understanding for the development planning aimed at transforming the livelihood of the pastoral community and poverty alleviation in the future. Accordingly, the total TLU per pastoralist household is characterised by a high degree of species diversification. Camels accounted for the largest share of total livestock units (TLU = 9.86), whereas cattle contributed TLU of 7.91 across cows, heifers, bulls, and calves. This indicates that camels make the greatest contribution to total livestock biomass in the study area, while cattle remain important in terms of cultural and economic value. The higher camel TLU may reflect their better adaptation to arid pastoral environments. (CSA, 2023), reported there an increasing trend in the annual livestock population. The livelihood of most pastoralists worldwide, specifically in Ethiopia, mainly relies on livestock keeping. The present study revealed that most pastoralists keep cattle and camels primarily for the milk production, while sheep and goats are mainly raised for meat and for cash as rural banking. This multi-species strategy reflects a diversification of natural capital assets, serving as a risk-spreading mechanism within the SLF vulnerability context of recurrent drought. Likely (Mutono et al., 2025), studied that milk production from cattle and camels supported by the livestock feed programmes improved the women’s and children’s dietary diversity in Kenyan pastoralist households. In addition, small ruminants, particularly sheep and goats, have served as mobile savings and insurance and can easily be sold or exchanged to cover costs such as medical care, education and food purchases during shortages (Sabahelzain et al., 2025).

Livestock breeding improvement is a crucial parameter for sustaining the future generation of livestock. A natural breeding service (usually uncontrolled) using a bull is widely practised in smallholder and pastoralist systems (Assefa et al., 2026). In the present study area, 99% of respondents used bulls for mating purposes. However, most of the respondents did not have their own bull; only around 13% did, while others brought bulls from their neighbours. This finding is inconsistent with a previous study in Somalia (Mumin et al., 2025), which reported that bull ownership exceeded 88% and that mating was largely uncontrolled, with 53%–76% of bulls servicing both owner and neighbour herds. In the area, it is common to castrate male animals in order to make them fatter and less aggressive. A similar study revealed that most pastoralists in Somalia castrated their male animals for the purposes of fattening (Mumin et al., 2025).

Traits selection for animal production is among the most important criteria for sustaining livestock for future generations. In this regard, the present findings focus on traditional selection practices based on trait preferences of breeding bulls and cows, where cows’ selection criteria mainly emphasize milk yield, while bulls’ selection is primarily based on coat colour. This emphasis is reflected in most selection criteria among pastoralists and agro pastoralist in Africa, where cows’ selection for future generations largely relies on milk production. For instance, studies conducted in Somalia (Abdi-Soojeede et al., 2024; Mumin et al., 2025) and in Tanzania (Gillah et al., 2014); indicate that pastoralists place significant importance on milk production as a key trait in the selection of cows. Selection traits for bulls mainly focus on the coat colour because the pastoralists prefer aesthetically pleasing colours for next-generation. This finding aligns with the study by (Mumin et al., 2025), which reported that pastoralists in Somalia preferred coat colour during bull selection.

Natural grazing was the primary feed resources for livestock, followed by the crop residue in the study area. Based on information obtained from the key informant interview and focus group discussion, pastoralists in the Fentale district feed their livestock using resources from the communal rangelands, individual pastureland around homestead, and by product from sugar factories, such as those from the Wenji sugar factory. This is consistent with the recent livestock feed resource assessment in Ethiopia indicating that natural pasture and crop residues are contribute the largest share of annual livestock feed resources (Begna and Masho, 2024). Free grazing is a common feeding systems like as other pastoralists are, with consistent with the previous work reported that pastoralists adopt mainly extensive grazing systems including free grazing as mechanisms for providing livestock with feed in rangelands (Dong, 2016).

Feed is a major input in the livestock sector and covers almost up to 70% of the total cost of producing meat, milk and eggs (Makkar, 2016). Feed scarcity was identified as a major constraint affecting livestock productivity in the study area. Survey results showed that high index of rank of respondents reported seasonal feed shortages. This finding is consistent with evidence from Ethiopian livestock systems, where feed shortages in both quantity and quality are reported as a major factor limiting livestock-sector development (Fenta et al., 2019). In pastoral areas, drought-related feed shortages have also been linked to high livestock mortality and rangeland degradation. Recent household-level evidence from Ethiopia further shows that feed shortage is associated with increased livestock deaths and higher livestock production expenses (Dejene et al., 2024). Consequently, feed shortage is one of the primary factors hampering the livestock production and productivity among other factors. As a result, shortage of grazing land and poor palatability of pasture due excessive invasive plants or bush encroachments were identified as the primary constraints contributing of feed shortage in area. However, destocking and herd mobility during dry season, when feed shortage exist, were the two major coping mechanisms used to build resilience to these problems.

Livestock get water basically from three main sources: drinking water, water contained in feed and metabolic water. Its critical input for the direct consumption of livestock and the production of animal feed. Shortage of water forces pastoralists to increase walking long distances, prone to wasted body condition and reduced production and reproductive efficiency (Weindl et al., 2017). Water scarcity and recurrent of drought was the primary constraints which makes reduce the livestock production, productivity, and sustainability in the study area. This result is aligned with the previous study in which reported that the main constraints of livestock production was because of frequently observed of the drought vulnerability (Bogale and Erena, 2022). A result, low milk production from cows might be because of shortage of grazing land and presence of bush encroachment in area. In consistently, milk production is related to feed availability (Kebede et al., 2020), and environmental factors like seasonality and rainfall, water availability and heat stress (Beyene and Gudina, 2009).

As the study was conducted in a warm area, the livestock were susceptible to various types of diseases prevalent and disease-causing vectors. Blackleg locally called “Abbaa Gorbaa”, Anthrax locally “Abbaa Sangaa,” Foot and mouth diseases, Pasteurellosis, sheep pox, Contagious Caprine Pleuro Pneumonia, Peste des Petits Ruminants, Brucellosis and Africa horse sickness were the most economically important diseases frequently occurring in livestock. A study in Afar region revealed that livestock were mainly prone to similar diseases frequently observed in livestock (Fenta et al., 2019). The reasons why most such diseases were often observed in the area were the limited accessibility of veterinary clinics and insufficiency of livestock vaccination services.

Improving the accessibility of livestock markets nearby is the single most effective non-biological intervention for improving pastoralist livelihoods. Thus, proximity to markets makes pastoralists transition from subsistence-based accumulation to market-oriented production, which provides the cash liquidity needed to survive the droughts (Biswas et al., 2025; Ndiritu and Gichuki, 2025). The market proximity to livestock from the pastoralists’ residential area was mainly within 20 km. The data indicates that, although the market is far from the residential area, it directly and indirectly impacts the price of livestock due to weight loss from trekking long distances. According to (Lkhanaa, 2024) a household’s income from livestock usually goes down by about 1.0% for every ten km (10 km) they live away from a market center. Results obtained from key informant interviews and focus group discussions revealed that livestock and livestock product marketing in the study area is perceived as fragile due to several factors: the absence of an organized marketing system, a lack of market infrastructure (such as marketplaces with full facilities), long distances from the source, insufficient facilitated stock routes, unattractive prices, and inadequate financial institutions. This indicated pastoralists prone to limited access to livestock markets and unfair pricing. These constraints reflect vulnerabilities in financial capital accumulation, limiting livelihood diversification options available to pastoral households. These challenges contribute to the overall instability of livestock marketing, making it difficult for producers to sustain their income and engage effectively in the market. Consequently, the economic viability of livestock farming in these areas suffers significantly.

Extension service delivery encompasses institutions that provide extension methods, tools and aids, organizational arrangements, training for relevant stakeholders, transferable technologies, technology demonstration, and knowledge and technology transfer centers (Khwidzhili and Worth, 2019). There was limited accessibility to extension services, and the means for disseminating information to pastoralist communities were also insufficient in the area. Based on the information obtained from the key informant interview and focus group discussion, it was revealed that the central reason why there were few numbers of trained manpower working on livestock development, including (development agents, livestock production experts, and veterinarians, in the studied districts was due to remoteness, poor access to infrastructures and high turnover of trained manpower. Additionally, the integration between research centers, technology innovation organizations, stakeholders, and extension service delivery institutes were very weak, highlighting an urgent need for improvement in this area. Another important institution in the district like traditional social institutions such as the Gadaa system played a key role in resource governance. These networks constitute critical social capital assets that enhance community resilience under the SLF framework. Previous study evidence stated that weak linkage between research centers and extension services disseminates to communities (Alemnew and Abebe, 2023); poor infrastructure is a bottleneck of extension services (Kibrom et al., 2025); and a lack of awareness and “separation between developers and users” prevents adoption in livestock sectors (Schillings et al., 2024).