Printer Friendly

Efficacy of cactus pear (Opuntia ficus-indica) varieties as a source of food and feed in Endamehoni District, Northern Ethiopia.


Semi-arid and arid regions are a challenge to conventional cropping systems because of limited or erratic rainfall, poor soils, and high temperature. Therefore, the search for the appropriate plant species that could be grown in these areas is of great importance. Previous studies showed that the future of arid and semi-arid regions depend on the development of sustainable agricultural systems and cultivation of appropriate crops [1, 2]. The types of crops to be cultivated must withstand water shortage, high temperature and poor soil fertility. Plant adaptability to marginal lands, ease of propagation, persistency, Dry Matter (DM) yield, digestibility and nitrogen content are also important aspects for nutrition [3]. In this regard, Cacti, particularly Opuntia species, meet all of the above requirements as a source of food for humans and feed for domestic animals and wildlife in arid and semi-arid regions [4]. These plants are adapted to withstand severe drought conditions and still produce fodder at low cost [5]. Opuntia spp. can also be used in agro-forestry systems with legumes and annual crops [6].

Within the genus Opuntia, Cactus Pear (Opuntia ficus-indica) is the most agronomically important species for the production of edible fruits and cladodes, which can be used as a vegetable and valuable forage resource in arid and semi-arid lands [7]. It is an efficient water utilizing xerophyte, and both the young cladodes and fruits are suitable for human consumption [8]. If developed further, this crop could contribute to sustainable food and feed production in countries, like Ethiopia, with large areas of semiarid and arid lands [9].

Tigray, a region in north Ethiopia, is a semi-arid area with limited agricultural potential, and is also well known for its livestock resource with critical feed shortage. More than 85% of the population in the region lives in rural areas with their main source of livelihood based on agriculture [10]. The people being directly dependent on agriculture for livelihood, with the unreliable rainfall compounded by ever-increasing human and livestock pressures on the land are food insecure [10]. Livestock production in such environments also faces challenges due to feed shortage.

Cactus Pear in Tigray is a good source of food, animal feed, and a means of additional income. Utilizing it in many ways is of paramount importance for the farmers [11]. The main production areas of Cactus Pear, in Tigray Region, are the eastern and southern zones [12]. However, to our knowledge, no study was conducted on the available varieties and their use (food/feed value) in the southern zone of the region. Considering this, our study was designed to identify and characterize the local Cactus Pear varieties with the help of farmers' indigenous knowledge and to further illustrate their efficacy and nutritional values as food and feed.


Description of the Study Area

The study was conducted in Endamehoni District, northern Ethiopia (Fig. 1). The District has an estimated total population of 84,726, of whom 2,985 (3.5%) are urban-dwellers [13]. It is divided into 18 "Tabias" (local administrative units of the district) and 70 sub-Tabias. The district is situated at an altitude ranging between 1700 and 3488 masl. The rainfall is bimodal, the Kremt season (June - September) and Belg season (January - March). The temperature varies from 6[degrees]C to 32[degrees]C [14]. Agricultural production, particularly mixed farming is the basis for the livelihoods of the people in the district and it is rainfed, relying on the Belg and the Kremt rains. Wheat and Barley are the main food crops, while Sorghum, Teff, Maize and Faba Bean are minor food crops. Pulses are the main cash crops. Natural pastures, cereal straws and Cactus (locally called Beles) are the major forages. The main livestock types are cattle, sheep and goats.

Study Design

Site selection

Selection of Tabias and Kushets was purposive, based on the diversity of Cactus varieties and accessibility to transport. Three Tabias, namely Hizba Teklehaimanot, Mekhan and Tahtai-Haya (Fig. 1) and nine Kushets (three Kushets from each Tabia) were taken as sample sites. These main potential Cactus-growing areas were identified in collaboration with the Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development of the District.

Selection of informants

Systematic random sampling was used to select households for interviews. The sampled households were grouped into cactus-growers (CG = 96) and non-cactus growers (NCG = 24). The growers of Cactus Pear were also stratified into male and female household heads in order to include female household heads so that the data is representative of the whole community. Secondary data from the District administrative office assisted in developing the sampling frame. Fifty-three (n = 53), thirty-seven (n = 37) and thirty (n = 30) household heads from each Tabia (Hizba Teklehaimanot, Mekhan and Tahtai-Haya) were sampled, respectively. Sample sizes were proportional to total household size of each area.

Cactus Pear Variety Selection for Nutrient Content Analysis

Cladode samples of four local Cactus Pear varieties, namely: Kille, Limo, Wadwada and Magalla, which were widely distributed, frequently used as feed and more palatable to most of the livestock were taken as sample varieties purposively for nutrient analysis.

Data Collection

Baseline information was collected based on distribution, uses of the species, production, and utilization with particular emphasis on local farmers' traditional classification. The questionnaire was framed in such a way that the households could give information that was recent, easy to recall and could be filled directly by interviewing the selected households.

The Cactus varieties were identified and characterized with particular emphasis on their phenotypes based on the farmers' traditional knowledge, coupled with the Cactus morphological descriptor traits developed by IPGRI [15].

The respondents were asked to assign values for the degree of abundance, as very often distributed (76% or above), often distributed (between 51 and 75%), rarely distributed (between 26 and 50%) and very rarely distributed (25% or less). The most preferred varieties for food (humans) and feed (animals) were determined. Each informant was asked to assign the highest value (5) for most preferred variety and the lowest value (1) for the least preferred one [16]. These values were summed up, averaged and ranks given to each variety.

Nutrient Analysis

Nutrient content analysis of Cactus Pear varieties was conducted at Mekelle University. The samples were subjected to analysis for proximate feed components (dry matter, ash and organic matter) [17], and crude protein content by the Dumas method of combustion [18]. All chemical analyses were carried out in triplicates for each sample.

Data Processing and Analysis

The collected raw data through field observation, household and key informant interviews, were summarized and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Data for quantitative chemical traits were subjected to analysis of variance using SAS (version 6) software.


Demographic Description of the Households

A total of 84% male and 16% female household respondents were interviewed. More than half of the respondents had family size between five and nine and age 30-50 years (Table 1). Accordingly, average family size of the households was 5.6 persons. Majority of the respondents (74.2%) were married. Almost all the households were farmers without additional occupation. With regard to literacy, 22.5% household heads were literate.

Local Cactus Pear Varieties in Endamohoni District

The farmers of Endamehoni District identified thirteen locally grown varieties of Cactus Pear that varied in their morphological characteristics (Appendix). Each identified variety had a specific local name (Table 2). This traditional classification was based on outstanding phenotypes like fruit characteristics that included taste, color, size and shape, which are basic fruit quality parameters (Table 3). Nearly 62% of the identified varieties in this study were with ovoid fruit shape. Farmers also used internal quality parameters such as total seed and water content for classification. The presence or absence of spines, amount of spine per fruit and cladode, height of the plant, size and shape of cladode were some of the additional criteria used.

Distribution and Uses of Cactus Pear Varieties as Food and Feed

Cactus was utilized for different purposes in Endamehoni. The community ranked the use of Cactus for human consumption and animal feed first, followed by live fence and source of income. Of the total 13 recorded local Cactus varieties in the area, nine varieties were found widely distributed and highly productive (Table 4). Based on the vote of informants, Limo, Kille, Magalla, Ashauh and Tesmi were the most preferred varieties for food, respectively (Table 5).

Similar to the Cactus fruit preferences by humans, differences in palatability preferences of cladodes of Cactus varieties by different animals were observed. The feed palatability preference of the selected Cactus varieties by different farm animals in Endamehoni District is presented in Table 4. Ninety seven percent of respondents used cactus cladode as forage, with Limo and Kille, two highly palatable varieties browsed by all livestock types. Limo was highly palatable (92%) to all livestock types followed by Kille (88%), and Kulkual-Bahri and Wadwada (80% each). Two varieties, Cheguar (40%) and Chewchawa (32%), were least palatable.

Perception of the Community on Use Value of Cactus Varieties

The socioeconomic survey revealed that the different household respondents had different views/degrees of perception, attitude and knowledge regarding the use value of Cactus Pear. This resulted in rank value difference of Cactus use in the selected study sites of the District. The respondents from the different sites (Tabias) were asked to rank the degree of importance of Cactus for their use as human food, animal feed, source of income, live fence and other additional values (Fig. 2). Cactus is mostly used as feed (forage).

Nutrient Content of Cactus Pear Varieties

1. Dry matter content (DM)

The dry matter content of the four selected Cactus varieties varied between 11.04 and 14.04% (Table 6). Highest dry matter content was recorded for Wadwada (14.04%) followed by Limo and Kille, 13.4% and 12.42%, respectively. The lowest average dry matter content (11.04 %) was observed for Magalla.

2. Ash content

The results in Table 6 indicate that the ash content of the Cactus varieties in the current study varied between 20.15 and 22.79%. The highest average ash content of 22.79% was noted for Wadwada variety. Likewise, least amount of ash was found in Kille (20.15%).

3. Organic matter content (OM)

The organic matter content of different Cactus varieties ranged between 77.21% and 79.85% (Table 6). The highest and lowest average organic matter content of 79.85% and 77.21% were recorded for Kille and Wadwada varieties, respectively. The average OM content of the cladodes of different Cactus Pear varieties analyzed in this study was 78.94% of DM.

4. Crude protein content (CP)

The results shown in Table 6 indicate that the CP content of the varieties varied between 5.38% and 6.02%. Highest CP content was recorded for Limo (6.02%). However, the analysis of variance showed that there are no significant (P>0.05) differences in CP content among the Cactus varieties grown in the study area.


Germplasm characterization involved the compilation and maintenance of accurate records of the identifying traits. The traits included outstanding phenotypes like fruit characteristics, quality and cladode morphology [19]. Chessa and Nieddu [15] developed such descriptors for Cactus Pear.

Fruit Characteristics

Cactus Pear fruits are appreciated for their characteristic taste and aroma as well as their dietetic properties [20]. The varieties considered in this study showed variation in their fruit taste, peel and pulp fruit color. The community differentiates the varieties traditionally into two major categories by spine as "spiny" and "smooth". Peel and pulp color are also important for variety identification. These methods were used to identify cactus varieties in Mexico [19]. Cactus Pear fruits are also classified according to shapes, namely: round, elliptic, ovoid, and oblong [15, 21]. Size and shape of Cactus fruit are important considerations when choosing a variety for cultivation. Varieties that have large fruit size and ovoid/oval shape are commercially accepted [22]. Oval fruits are easier to handle than elongated fruits. In addition, oval shaped fruits undergo less damage to the stem end during harvesting [20]. One of the attributes of the perfect Cactus Pear fruit is glochids that are easily removable by mechanical brushing [23].

Seed size of majority of the varieties was medium. One of the leading U.S. importers of Cactus Pears [24] as well as marketing surveys released in Italy [25] have suggested that one of the most important breeding objectives should be the development of low seedy varieties. Low seedy Cactus varieties are commercially acceptable because the fruits consisted almost entirely of pulp tissue. Consumers assess fruit quality on the appearance of the fruit at the point of sale, and thereafter by its taste [26]. Appearance in turn is determined by fruit size and color [27]. Cantwell [20] also suggested that in Cactus Pear fruit quality is based on sugar content, peel color, fruit weight, pulp weight, and seed content. Accordingly, from the current study it is concluded that Limo, Kille and Magalla were the varieties that remarkably fulfill the criteria for quality fruit described by the above authors.

Plant Height and Cladode Characteristics

Majority of the identified varieties were with medium plant height, cladode number and size. Cladode spine abundance of the local varieties also contributed to their variability. Spine type and number, food- and feed-use preference of Cactus varieties seem to be inversely related. The degree of difficulty in removing these spines can influence the food and feed value preference of Cactus varieties. Spineless cladodes are preferred since spine removal from the cladode area is easier than for spiny cladodes [28]. The present study revealed that four varieties with good spineless cladode number or with easily removable spines, namely Limo, Kille Wadwada (for animal feed only), and Magalla could be well-preferred varieties for human food and animal feed.

Distribution of Cactus Varieties

Cactus cultivation in northern Ethiopia is predominantly found on marginal lands, of which about half is planted while the remainder is wild [29]. Both spiny and spineless varieties occur on rangelands of the region [29]. The reason for differences in distribution could be the varieties' ecological adaptation, ease of accessibility, productivity, multipurpose use values of the plant, and farmers' indigenous knowledge of each Cactus Pear variety. Magalla, Kille, Limo, Wadwada, Ashahau and Cheguar were identified as varieties commonly planted in farmers' backyards for their food and feed value and for fencing home gardens. The thorny varieties of Cheguar and Ashauh were planted on homesteads and prescribed mainly for boundary demarcation and protection of home gardens.

Uses of Cactus Pear Varieties as Food and Feed

Based on the vote of informants, Limo and Kille were best used as food and feed. The fruit taste, size, nature of spines and lower seed number made them preferred over others. There were nevertheless slight differences in preference of edible fruit of Cactus varieties between study Kushets within the district, which could be mainly because of productivity. Different livestock were also reported to browse different Cactus varieties for feed with different degree of preference; Camel was ranked first as the best browser of all the listed varieties, followed by equine and cattle. Sheep browsed on eight varieties and Goat browsed on seven varieties. The local farmers believed that selectivity and palatability preference of Cactus cladodes by different animals is mainly based on the morphological nature of the plant, like spine abundance and cladode age. The results revealed that at Hizba Teklehaimanot about 59% of the respondents gave priority ranking to the use of Cactus as a source of animal feed. Cactus delivers human food as fruit and vegetable, fresh and processed, animal fodder including even water supply, medicine and cosmetic, erosion control, fencing as well as wind break [30]. However, in Endamohoni the main uses are for food (fruit), feed (cladode), live fence and source of income.

Commercial Value

The consumption of Cactus fruit is the most common form of Cactus use in the study area. The fruit was also source of income to school children and women engaged in fruit selling. The plant has high commercial potential as it can be processed easily. It has also international market that may serve as source of foreign currency for the country. People in Tigray, especially in eastern zone, are now involved in preparing and selling Cactus products like juice, cacke, marmalade (from fruit and stem) and even salad from Cactus products [29]. Nevertheless, in the current study site these products were not processed and utilized, which needs the attention and encouragement of the concerned bodies.

Chemical Analysis of Cactus Pear Varieties

Dry matter is the component left in feed after drying and is strongly influenced by many factors including species genotype, soil, climate, and season. The cladodes of different Cactus Pear varieties analyzed in this study had a high average moisture content (89.96%), which could hamper the dry matter (DM) intake by animals. This result is quite similar with the moisture content (mean value, 90.87%) of different O. ficus-indica recorded in South Africa by Hugh Mciteka [31]. Younger cladodes have the highest moisture content, and are more palatable due to their low fiber composition. The intake of DM can, therefore, be increased if the fresh cladodes are wilted or dried before feeding. Animals consume more DM in the form of hay compared to wet material [3]. However, watering animals during summer and drought periods is a serious challenge in arid regions and as a result feeding animals with Cactus cladodes supply additional water in dry areas.

Feedstuffs with high protein content are considered high quality fodders. The results of this study indicate that the CP content of the varieties varied between 5.38 and 6.02% on a DM basis. An average of 5.5% CP values for different O. ficus-indica cladode varieties were recorded in South Africa by Hugh Mciteka [31]. Pimienta [32] also reported average mean values of 5.4% and 4.2% of CP for cladodes with one year and two years age. Similarly, in this study low CP mean values of 5.78% on DM basis were noted. However, Tegegne [33] believed Ethiopian Opuntia to be moderate in CP in relation to ruminant requirements for a diet. He recorded an average of 9.15% CP for two-year-old cladodes of Cactus, which is higher than that obtained in this study. The difference could be explained by harvesting time, topography, agro-climatic conditions, soil type and the like of the selected area. Moreover, the CP content of the varieties in Endamehoni district is less than the 7% requirement for efficient ruminant function [34].


The widespread use of Cactus varieties in Endamehoni District is attributed to cultural acceptability, efficacy as livestock feed and human consumption, physical accessibility and economic affordability. The study clearly showed that varieties Limo and Kille were equally best as food and feed followed by Magalla as food and Wadwada as feed. Limo and Kille are not only preferred for food and feed but also have the best organic matter and crude protein content. Mean values for organic matter content of these varieties was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than some of the other varieties. Cattle, camel and equines feed on cactus varieties most, compared to goats and sheep.


Based on the findings of this study, the community is advised to cultivate Limo, Kille, Wadwada and Magalla. However, part of this study done on variety identification using farmers' traditional knowledge and Cactus morphological descriptor traits needs to be further refined and confirmed with physiological and molecular studies.


We are pleased to acknowledge the local people of Endamehoni District for their hospitality and kind response to our inquiries on information related to Cactus distribution, plantation, production and utilization. The District Agricultural and Rural Development Office staff are acknowledged for various secondary data on climate. Further, our colleagues Haftu Hindaya and Berhanu Woldeyes are duly acknowledged for reading the manuscript and enriching it from their knowledge of the area and the local plant names.


[1.] Le Houerou HN The role of Cacti (Opuntiaspp.) in erosion control, land reclamation, rehabilitation and agricultural development in the Mediterranean Basin. Journal of Arid Environments. 1996;33: 135-159.

[2.] Farrukh H and JD Mufakhirah Seasonal availability, palatability and animal preferences of forage plants in Harbori range land, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Botany. 2009;41(2): 539-554.

[3.] Martin FW Forages. Tropical agriculture, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, USA. 1993.

[4.] FAO. Cactus (Opuntia spp.) as forage. FAO plant production and protection paper. Rome, Italy.2001.

[5.] Le Houerou HN Cacti (Opuntia spp.) as a fodder crop for marginal lands in Mediterranean basin. In: Nefzaoui, A. and Inglese, P. (Eds.), Acta Horticulturae. 2002; 581: 21-46.

[6.] Potgier JP The Cactus Pear (Opuntia ficus-indica) in South Africa. Cultivation and research in Northern Province (Review paper). Sixth National and third International Cactus Pear congress, Guadalajara, Mexico.1995.

[7.] Scheinvar L Taxonomy of utilized Opuntias. In: Barbera, G., Inglese, P. and Pimienta, B.E. (Eds.), Agroecology, cultivation and uses of Cactus Pear. FAO Plant production and protection paper 132. Rome, Italy.1995.

[8.] Barabara K Characterization of Cactus Pear germplasm in South Africa. PhD. thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontien, South Africa. 2007.

[9.] Felker P and P Inglese Short-term and long-term research needs for Opuntia ficus-indica(L.) Mill. Utilization in arid areas. Journal of the Professional Association for Cactus Development. 2003;5: 131-152.

[10.] TARI Tigray Agricultural Research Institution documents. (Unpublished).2004.

[11.] Nefzaoui A, Inglese P and T Belay Improved utilization of Cactus Pear for food, feed, soil and water conservation and other products in Africa. Proceedings of International Workshop. Mekelle, Ethiopia.2010.

[12.] Tegegne F, Peters KJ and C Kijora Current uses of Cactus Pear (Opuntia ficus-indica) as forage in Northern Ethiopia and Farmers' Indigenous Knowledge on its utilization. Ethiopian Journal of Animal Production. 2008; 8 (1): 10-21.

[13.] Central Statistics Authority (CSA) National Statistics of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 2007.

[14.] CSAE. Agricultural sample survey. Report on area and production - Tigray region, Ethiopia. 2001. (accessed on 03, Feb 2010).

[15.] Chessa I and G Nieddu Descriptors for Cactus Pear (Opuntiaspp). Newsletter CACTUSNET. FAO, Special issue. Rome.1997.

[16.] Martin GJ Ethnobotany: A method Manual. Chapman and Hall, London.1995.

[17.] AOAC. Official methods of analysis (14th Ed.). Arlington, USA.1984.

[18.] Dumas JBA Procedes de l'Analyse Organique. Ann. Chem. Phys. 247:198 213. 1831.

[19.] Mondragon JC Genetic characterization of Cactus collection (Opuntia spp.) in central Mexico. Agricultural institute of Mexico.2002.

[20.] Cantwell M Post-harvest management of fruits and vegetable stems. In: Barbera, G., P Inglese, and BE Pimienta (Eds.), Agroecology, cultivation and uses of Cactus Pear. FAO Plant production and protection paper 132. Rome. 1995.

[21.] Ochoa J Cactus Pear (Opuntiaspp.) varieties main characteristics at Republica Argentina. In: Inglese, P. and Nefzaoui, A. (Eds.), CACTUSNET-FAO. Rome.1997.

[22.] Parish J and P Felker Fruit quality and production of Cactus Pear (Opuntia spp.) fruit clones selected for increased frost hardiness. Journal of Arid Environments. 1997; 37:123-143.

[23.] Felker RP, Casoliba RM, Filippini R, Medina D and R Zapata Comparison of Opuntia ficus-indica varieties of Mexican and Argentine origin for fruit yield and quality in Argentina. Journal of Arid Environments. 2005; 60: 405-422.

[24.] Caplan K Marketing strategies for Cactus Pears and Cactus leaves. Proceedings of First Annual Texas Prickly Pear Council. Kingsville, Texas.1990.

[25.] Battaglia G A study of consumers of Cactus Pear in the catering industry in Central and Northern Italy. ActaHorticulturae. 1997;438: 171-180.

[26.] Kader AA Fruits in the global market. In: Knee, M. (Ed.), Fruit quality and its biological basis. Sheffield Academic press, Sheffield, UK.2002.

[27.] Callahan AN Breeding for fruit quality. In: Janick, J. (Ed.), Genetics and breeding of tree fruits and nuts. ActaHorticulturae. 2003;622: 295- 302.

[28.] Zimmermann HG, Moran VC and JH Hoffmann Invasive Cactus species (Cactaceae). In: Muniappan, R., Reddy, G.V.P. and Raman, A. (Eds.), Biological Control of Tropical Weeds using Arthropods. Cambridge University Press, UK.2008.

[29.] SAERT. Prickly Pear Cactus production and processing. UNDP/ECA/TDA and the Regional government of Tigray. 1994; 7:45-52.

[30.] Barbera G, Inglese P and B Pimienta Agro-ecology, cultivation and uses of Cactus Pear. FAO Plant Production and Protection paper. Rome. 1995;132: 111.

[31.] Hugh Mciteka. Fermentation characteristics and nutritional value of Opuntiaficus-indicavar. fusicaulis cladode silage. M.Sc. thesis, University of the Free State. Bloemfontein, South Africa.2008.

[32.] Pimienta B El Nopal Tunero. Guadalajara University, Guadalajara, Mexico.1990.

[33.] Tegegne F Nutritional value of Opuntiaficus-indicaas a ruminant feed in Ethiopia. In: Mondragon-Jacobo, C. and Perez-Gonzalez, S. (Eds.), Cactus (Opuntia spp.) as forage. CACTUSNET. FAO, Rome.2001.

[34.] Tarawali G and von RKaufmann Fodder banks: Benefits to ruminant and crop production. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.1987.

Appendix: Morphological features of Cactus pear varieties in Endamohoni District

Gebreegziabher Z (1) and BA Tsegay * (2)

* Corresponding author email:, (1) Department of Biology, Jigjiga University, Ethiopia (2) Department of Biology, Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia

Table 1: Distribution of sampled household heads by age,
family size, marital status, educational status and

Tabia    Age of household head         Family size

        < 30   30-50   > 50    < 3    3-4     5-9    > 9

T1       7%    21.7%   13.3%    4%    11%     27%     1%
T2      3.4%    19%    9.6%    7.3%   3.1%   16.3%   1.3%
T3      4.6%    11%    10.4%    2%    5.9%    20%     1%
Total    18     62      40      16     24     76      4

Tabia         Marital status          Education
                   (%)                   (%)

        Single   Married   Divorced   Literate

T1       11.3     69.8       18.9       26.4
T2       2.7      78.4       18.9       18.9
T3       16.7     76.7       6.7         20
Total     10      74.2       15.8       22.5

Tabia   Education         Occupation
           (%)               (%)

        Illiterate   Farming   Off farm

T1         73.6       96.2       3.8
T2         81.1       86.5       13.5
T3          80        96.7       3.3
Total      77.5       93.3       6.7


[T.sub.1] = Hizba T/haimanot; [T.sub.2] = Mekhan;
[T.sub.3] = Tahtai-Haya

Table 2: List of Cactus Pear varieties identified by
the community and their local nomenclature

S.N   Vernacular name               Reason for Naming

1     Tesmi/Tesemsema (Shum)        Response after eating
2     Brki-Abo berhe (Wadwada)      After a person
3     Magalla hailu (Magalla)       After a person
4     Tinkish (Shenkor/Karemelle)   After taste
5     Kulkual-Bahri                 Origin
6     Ashauh (Keyh Beles)           Spine abundance and color
7     Kille (Atsamo)                Pulp firmness
8     Cheguar                       Glochid abundance
9     Chewchawa                     Color and taste
10    Tsaeda Aona                   Color and appearance
11    Menchaba                      After taste
12    Limo                          Spine abundance
13    Lematse                       Cladode texture and absence
                                      of spines

S.N   Meaning

1     Oily
2     Berhe's choice
3     Hailu's choice
4     Sweet/candy
5     Introduced (exotic)
6     Spiny and Red
7     Firm
8     Hairy
9     White and Salty
10    White building
11    Boiled milk
12    Spineless
13    Smooth and Spine less

Table 3: Fruit characteristics used by the community
for the identification of O. ficus-indica varieties

Morphological trait descriptors        Variety

Fruit taste       Sweet (delicious)    Limo, Kille, Magalla,
                  Watery (not sweet)   Tesemi, Lematse, Karmelle
                                       Kulkual-Bahri, Wadwada,
                                       Menchaba, Cheguar,
                  Slightly salty       Chewchawa, Ashauh

Fruit peel        Yellow-orange        Tesmi, Wadwada, Ashauh,
and pulp                               Kille, Limo
color             Yellow-green         Cheguar, Menchaba
                  Red-orange           Magallaa, Lematse
                  white                Kulkual Bahri, Tsaeda aona,
                  Yellow-red           Karmelle

Fruit shape       Round                Karemelle, KulkualBahri,
                  Ovoid                Menchaba, Lematse
                                       Tesmi, Wadwada, Megalla,
                                       Kille, Limo, Ashauh,
                                       Chguar, Chewchawa
                  Oblong               Tsaeda aona

Fruit size        Small to medium      Karemelle, KulkualBahri,
                                       Chewchaw, Tsaeda aona
                  Large                Tesmi, Wadwada, Cheguar,
                                       Menchaba, Limo, Kille

Seed size         Small seed size      Lematse
and number        Medium seed size     Kille, Limo, Tesmi, Ashauh,
                                       Cheguar, Chewchawa
                  Large seed size      Wadwada, Magalla,
                  Few seed number      Tesmi, KulkualBahri,
                                       Tsaeda aona, Limo
                  Large seed number    Kille, Chewchawa, Wadwada,

Plant             Tall                 Limo, Lematse
height            Medium               Kille, Wadwada, Magalla,
                                       Ashauh, Cheguar
                  Short                Kulkual Bahri, Chewchawa

Cladode           Few Spines           Limo and Lematse
characteristics   Spiny but easily     Magallaa, Wadwada and Kille
                  More spines and      Ashauh, Cheguar and
                  hard to remove       Kulkual-Bahri

Table 4: Preference ranking of nine selected Cactus Pear
varieties based on their degree of palatability (feed for
animals) as perceived by the informants

Variety/                 Livestock type
Local name

                Cattle   Goat   Sheep   Camel     Equine

Limo            5        5      5       4         4
Cheguar         3        --     1       3         3
Wadwada         4        3      4       5         4
Tesmi           3        2      2       3         3
Magalla         3        3      3       4         4
Chewchawa       3        3      1       2         2
Ashauh          2        --     --      5         4
Kulkual-Bahri   4        3      3       5         5
Kille           5        4      3       5         5

  Mean value    3.6      2.6    2.6     4         3.8

    Rank        3rd      4th    4th     1st       2nd

Remark          V.good   Good   Good    V. good   V. good

Variety/        Mean    Rank   Remark
Local name      Value

Limo            4.6     1st    Best
Cheguar         2       th     Poor
Wadwada         4       3rd    V. good
Tesmi           2.6     6th    Good
Magalla         3.4     4th    Good
Chewchawa       1.6     8th    Poor
Ashauh          3       5th    Good
Kulkual-Bahri   4       3rd    V. good
Kille           4.4     2nd    V. good

  Mean value    Overall mean

    Rank                3.3

Remark                  Good

Key: Highly Palatable (HP) = 5; Most Palatable (MP) = 4;
Little Palatable (LP) = 3; Rarely Palatable (RP) = 2 and Not
Palatable (NP) = 1

Table 5: Preference of fruits of Cactus Pear varieties
for food

Tabia list                     Variety name

                   Limo   Kille   Wadwada   Magalla

Hizba T/haimanot    5       5        1         4
Mekhan              5       5        1         4
Tahtai-Haya         5       5        1         5
Mean value          5       5        1        4.3
Rank               1st     1st      7th       2nd

Tabia list                    Variety name

                   Ashauh   Menchaba   Tesmi   Cheguar

Hizba T/haimanot     4         2         3        2
Mekhan               5         2         4        2
Tahtai-Haya          3         2         3        2
Mean value           4         2        3.3       2
Rank                3rd       5th       4th      5th

Tabia list          Variety    Mean    Rank


Hizba T/haimanot       1        3       2nd
Mekhan                 2       3.3      1st
Tahtai-Haya            1        3       2nd
Mean value            1.3      Overall Mean
Rank                  6th      3.1

Key: Highly Edible (HE) = 5; Most Edible (ME) = 4;
Little Edible (LE) = 3; Rarely Edible (LE) = 2 and
Not Edible (NE) = 1

Table 6: The average cladode chemical composition of four
selected Cactus Pear varieties based on dry matter content
(Mean values based on three replicates)

Variety   DM %                            Composition (%)

                                               Ash %

Limo      13.4 (a,c) [+ or -] 0.22   20.89 (a,b) [+ or -] 1.25
Kille     12.42 (c) [+ or -] 0.46     20.15 (b) [+ or -] 0.19
Wadwada   14.04 (a) [+ or -] 0.63     22.79 (a) [+ or -] 1.16
Magalla   11.04 (b) [+ or -] 0.62     20.42 (b) [+ or -] 0.36
Means       12.73 [+ or -] 1.26         21.06 [+ or -] 1.31

Variety        Composition (%)

                    OM %                       CP %

Limo      79.11 (a,b) [+ or -] 1.25   6.02 (a) [+ or -] 0.35
Kille      79.85 (b) [+ or -] 0.19    5.79 (a) [+ or -] 0.16
Wadwada    77.21 (a) [+ or -] 1.16    5.38 (a) [+ or -] 0.29
Magalla    79.58 (b) [+ or -] 0.36    5.94 (a) [+ or -] 0.27
Means        78.94 [+ or -] 1.31        5.78 [+ or -] 0.35

(a, b, c), = Columns with different superscripts are
significantly different (P < 0.05)
COPYRIGHT 2015 Rural Outreach Program
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Gebreegziabher, Z.; Tsegay, Berhanu Abraha
Publication:African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development
Geographic Code:6ETHI
Date:Dec 1, 2015
Previous Article:Reflecting on Norman Borlaug's legacy.
Next Article:Malawi: boosting sustainable nutritional intake through native tree reforestation.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |