Volume 10, Issue 1: 25-35; January 25, 2020  
ISSN 2228-7701  
PHENOTYPIC CHARACTERIZATION OF DONKEYS IN  
BENISHANGUL GUMUZ NATIONAL REGIONAL STATE  
Amine MUSTEFA1 , Abraham ASSEFA1, Manaye MISGANAW1, Fasil GETACHEW2, Solomon  
ABEGAZ3, Abebe HAILU1 and Yibrehu EMSHAW1  
1Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute, P. O. Box 30726, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia  
2ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), P. O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia  
3EIAR (Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Debre-Zeit Agricultural Research Center), P. O. Box Bishoftu, Ethiopia  
Email: aminemustefa32@gmail.com;  
Supporting Information  
ABSTRACT: Fifteen morphometric measurements and eighteen qualitative traits were recorded on 323  
randomly sampled adult donkeys (123 jacks and 200 jennets) to meet an objective of characterizing a  
heterogeneous donkey population of three phenotypic types (Sinnar, the locals and their crosses) found in  
Benishangul Gumuz region of Ethiopia. The General Linear Model and non-parametric test (chi-square)  
procedures of SAS software were used for the analysis of the morphometric data and qualitative traits,  
respectively. Means were separated using the Tukey-Kramer test. The studied morphometric measurements  
were significantly affected by the phenotypic type and partially affected by sex and sample location /district.  
Sinnar donkeys were significantly bigger and heavier than the local and the crosses. However, for some of the  
morphometric measurements no significance difference was observed between Sinnar and crosses implying  
the presence of heterosis. Heart girth measurements for Sinnar, local and crosses were 110.61±0.436,  
106.18±0.448 and 108.87±1.251, respectively. Body weight estimates of 127.26±1.277, 113.40±1.312 and  
121.13± 3.665 kg were obtained for Sinnar, the local and the crosses. There was sexual size dimorphism and  
depending on the type of morphometric trait either jacks or jennets show significantly (P<0.05) higher values  
as compared to the opposite sex. Jacks had wider chest (22.61 vs 22.09 cm.), thicker (24.40 vs 23.24 cm.),  
and longer cannon bone (31.00 vs 31.32 cm) than jennets, while the jennets possess wider hip (33.00 vs  
31.69 cm.) and longer body (90.49 vs 88.52 cm.), back (67.37 vs 66.17), ear (24.42 vs 23.90 cm) and heavier  
estimated weight (122.47 vs 118.71 kg) than the jacks. Limited location effect was recorded showing  
donkeys from Guba district were comparatively the largest. Majority of the studied donkeys possess white  
abdominal color, unpigmented hoof and muzzle, short and medium hair size, plain body color pattern with  
long dorsal stripe without leg stripe, straight face and sloppy rump profile, medium tail length and thickness at  
the base of the tail. Qualitative differences (P<0.05) were also observed among the class categories. Further  
molecular level studies could supplement the current study and provide more refined classification of the  
various genotypes in the studied area. Similarly, characterization of the local donkeys found in other parts of  
the region and the Abyssinian donkeys in the adjoining areas is required.  
Keywords: Heart girth, Morphometric, Qualitative, Phenotypic types, Sinnar  
INTRODUCTION  
Ethiopia is endowed with diverse domestic, aquatic and wild animal genetic resources. The diverse ecology Ethiopia has  
and its position as a route of entry to domestic animals from Asia to Africa has resulted in the presence of diverse animal  
genetic resources. Despite the presence of the resources adequate characterization work is lacking and the information  
on the state of the animal genetic resources is incomplete to support sustainable utilization and conservation of the  
resources (EBI, 2016). This is more so for the equine genetic resources of the country.  
Donkeys, like other livestock species, have an important place in rural and urban communities in Ethiopia. Even if  
donkeys have not been serving as a food source to humans in Ethiopia due to religious and cultural taboos, they make  
significant economic contribution in all the regions. Donkeys specifically are important for transport of goods in urban,  
peri-urban and rural areas. In the latter case they also serve in transporting humans, threshing cereal crops and plowing  
of land pairing with oxen.  
The donkey (Equus asinus) is indigenous to the African continent and its wild progenitor is usually considered to be  
the Nubian wild ass (Blench, 2000). Ethiopia possesses the largest donkey population in the world with 8,439,220  
donkeys (CSA, 2017; FAO, 2015). Even if, donkey is the least studied species in the country, previously four types of  
donkeys were recognized; namely Jimma, Abyssinian, Ogaden and Sinnar based on their phenotypic and physical  
characteristics like average size and coat colour (Befikadu et al., 2015). However, more recent nationwide study identified  
six distinct domestic donkey populations namely Abyssinian, Afar, Hararghe, Ogaden, Omo and Sinnar (Kefena 2012,  
Kefena 2014; EBI 2016). The same study showed that, most of the variations in the parameters of morphological  
25  
Citation: Mustefa A, Assefa A, Misganaw M, Getachew F, Abegaz S, Hailu A and Emshaw Y (2020). Phenotypic characterization of donkeys in Benishangul Gumuz  
National Regional State. Online J. Anim. Feed Res., 10 (1): 25-35.www.ojafr.ir  
characteristics vary with eco-geographical patterns and biophysical resources. Therefore, other morphometric variables  
and corporal indices need to be further incorporated and used to fully characterize and describe donkey populations in  
Ethiopia (Befikadu et al., 2015). Like all the other regions found within the country, Benishangul Gumuz region possess  
different donkey phenotypes and their crosses including the country’s largest donkey type (Sinnar). Hence this study was  
aimed at revealing the phenotypic characteristics (qualitative and quantitative parameters) of the different donkey breeds  
found in the region to be used as input for a further conservation and sustainable utilization of the resources  
MATERIALS AND METHODS  
Description of the study areas  
The study was conducted in Benishangul Gumuz Regional State. Benishangul Gumuz Regional State is one of the  
nine regional states which is located in the western part of Ethiopia between longitude 34° 10’N and 37° 40’E; and  
latitude 09° 17’N and 12° 06’ N. It shares border with Amhara Region in the north and north east, South Sudan in the  
west, Gambella Region in the south, Oromia Region in the south east. The total area of the Region is approximately  
50,380 square kilometers with altitude ranging from 580 to 2731 meters above sea level. About 75% of the Region is  
low land, 24% is semi-high land and 1% is high land. The capital city of the Region is Asossa, located at a distance of 659  
kms west of Addis Ababa (Chekol and Getnet, 2010).  
Figure 1 - Map of the study areas  
Sampling technique and sample size  
The studied animals (adult donkeys for phenotypic characterization; morphometric and qualitative records) were  
sampled randomly from five districts (Guba, Menge, Wenbera, Sirba Abay and Kurmuk) within the region. Heterogeneous  
donkey populations of three phenotypic types (Sinnar, the local donkey and their crossbreds) were used for the qualitative  
records and morphometric measurements. A total of 323 full-mouthed adult donkeys (123 jacks and 200 jennets)  
composed of 157 Sinnar, 148 local and 18 crossbred donkeys were measured for linear and circular morphometric traits  
and described for the qualitative traits.  
Measurement and data collection  
The sample size determination and identification of traits for morphometric measurements and qualitative  
description were based on FAO guideline (FAO, 2012). Fifteen quantitative/ morphometric measurements (Heart girth,  
Height at wither, Height at back, Height at rump, Body length, Back length, Neck length, Head length, Canon bone length,  
Fore leg length, Hip width, Chest width, Chest depth, Canon circumference and Ear length) and 18 qualitative  
characteristics (coat hair size, body color pattern, body (coat) color, abdominal color, head color, ear tip color, tail switch  
color, hoof color, and muzzle color, ear shape, dorsal stripe, leg stripe, shoulder stripe, face profile, back profile, rump  
26  
Citation: Mustefa A, Assefa A, Misganaw M, Getachew F, Abegaz S, Hailu A and Emshaw Y (2020). Phenotypic characterization of donkeys in Benishangul Gumuz  
National Regional State. Online J. Anim. Feed Res., 10 (1): 25-35.www.ojafr.ir  
profile, tail length and thickness at the base of the tail) were recorded from each individual.  
Donkeys were carefully handled by trained laborers and made to stand squarely on flat grounds. Morphometric  
measurements and qualitative data recording were made by separate individuals. According to a study by Kosťuková  
(2015), who reported that the growth of donkeys terminates after the age of 5 years and all donkeys in the study were  
past this age. Body weight was estimated from the above measurements by the formula from Pearson and Ouassat  
(2000).  
Live weight (kg) = (heart girth [cm] 2.12) x (body length [cm] 0.688)/3801  
Table 1 - Sampled number of animals by sex and by breed and proportion of each breeds.  
Breed /genotype  
Sinnar  
Local  
Crosses  
Total  
Jacks  
57  
58  
8
123  
0.38  
Jennets  
100  
90  
10  
200  
0.62  
Total  
157  
148  
18  
323  
1.00  
Proportion  
0.48  
0.46  
0.06  
1.00  
--  
Proportion  
Statistical analysis  
Data entry and management were done using Microsoft Excel. Analysis of data on quantitative measurements was  
carried out using the GLM procedure of SAS 9.0 software. Means were compared using Tukey-Kramer (SAS, 2002).  
Similarly, analysis of qualitative traits was carried out using the non-parametric test (chi-square) procedure of SAS 9.0  
software. The model used for the analysis of quantitative data: Yijk = μ + Ai + Bj +Ck + eijk, where Yijk is an observation, μ  
is the overall mean, Ai is the fixed effect of sex, Bj is the fixed effect of the breed group, Ck is the fixed effect of district  
and eijk is the random error attributed to the nth observation. Interaction effects were found to be non-significant in most  
cases and were removed from the analysis model.  
RESULTS  
Morphometric measurements  
The overall mean, standard error (SE), minimum and maximum value, and coefficients of variation (CV) of the  
collected morphometric measurements are presented in table 2. For all morphometric traits measured the coefficient of  
variation was within the range of 5.11 and 8.27%. Relatively higher coefficient of variation (13.11%) was calculated for  
estimated body weight implying higher variation in terms of body weight. The difference between the minimum and  
maximum value is sizeable in most cases. A range of 40 cm for height at wither, 37 cm for body length, and a range of  
about 104 kg for body weight were observed.  
Table 2 - Overall least square mean , SE, CV, Minimum and Maximum of body measurements of the donkey  
populations in Benishangul Gumuz region.  
Traits  
Overall Mean ± SE  
Minimum  
Maximum  
CV (%)  
Hearth girth (cm)  
Height at wither (cm)  
Height at back (cm)  
Height at rump (cm)  
Body length (cm)  
Back length (cm)  
Neck length (cm)  
Head length (cm)  
Canon bone length (cm)  
Fore leg length (cm)  
Hip width (cm)  
108.7 ± 0.31  
100.2 ± .030  
102.0 ± 0.31  
102.3 ± 0.30  
89.9 ± 0.30  
67.3 ± 0.24  
49.2 ± 0.23  
42.9 ± 0.12  
31.4 ± 0.12  
68.3 ± 0.26  
32.6 ± 0.11  
22.3 ± 0.09  
49.1 ± 0.15  
23.7 ± 0.09  
23.9 ± 0.10  
121.2 ± 0.93  
93.0  
79.0  
89.0  
90.0  
68.0  
57.0  
38.0  
36.0  
26.0  
54.0  
27.0  
18.0  
42.0  
20.0  
19.0  
77.8  
128.0  
119.0  
122.0  
121.0  
105.0  
86.0  
5.18  
5.31  
5.41  
5.22  
6.00  
6.34  
8.27  
5.11  
6.92  
6.92  
6.60  
7.63  
5.65  
6.70  
7.27  
13.82  
60.0  
50.0  
39.0  
86.0  
40.0  
Chest width (cm)  
29.0  
Chest depth (cm)  
Canon circumference (cm)  
Ear length (cm)  
59.0  
29.0  
28.0  
Body weight (kg)  
181.6  
SE=Standard error, SD=Standard deviation, CV=Coefficient of variation and cm=Centimeter.  
27  
Citation: Mustefa A, Assefa A, Misganaw M, Getachew F, Abegaz S, Hailu A and Emshaw Y (2020). Phenotypic characterization of donkeys in Benishangul Gumuz  
National Regional State. Online J. Anim. Feed Res., 10 (1): 25-35.www.ojafr.ir  
Table 3 - Least square means (cm) and pairwise comparison of body measurements with standard error in each  
breeds/populations: 1) jakes.  
Breed groups/ phenotypic types  
Traits  
p value  
Sinnar  
Local  
Cross  
N
57  
58  
8
Heart girth  
110.4±0.72a  
104.0±0.61a  
106.5±0.65a  
106.2±0.67a  
90.9±0.70a  
67.9±0.52a  
50.4±0.53a  
43.9±0.27a  
33.0±0.30a  
70.7±0.59a  
32.0±0.26  
23.0±0.21a  
50.1±0.33a  
24.8±0.21a  
24.0±0.25a  
126.3±2.14a  
104.9±0.71b  
96.5±0.60b  
98.8±0.64b  
98.9±0.66b  
86.2±0.69b  
64.7±0.51b  
46.9±0.53b  
42.2±0.26b  
30.8±0.30b  
66.4±0.58b  
31.4±0.26  
22.1±0.20b  
47.2±0.33b  
23.9±0.20b  
22.9±0.24b  
108.9±2.10b  
107.9±1.89ab  
101.4±1.60a  
103.1±1.70a  
102.3±1.74ab  
86.9±1.82ab  
65.9±1.36ab  
50.1±1.39ab  
43.7±0.69ab  
32.3±0.78ab  
68.1±1.55ab  
31.0±0.68  
22.0±0.53ab  
49.9±0.86a  
24.6±0.54ab  
25.8±0.64a  
116.4±5.57ab  
***  
***  
***  
***  
***  
***  
***  
***  
***  
***  
NS  
**  
***  
*
**  
***  
Height at wither  
Height at back  
Height at rump  
Body length  
Back length  
Neck length  
Head length  
Canon bone length  
Fore leg length  
Hip width  
Chest width  
Chest depth  
Canon circumference  
Ear length  
Body weight  
N= Number of observations, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.0001, NS=Not Significant  
In jacks, with the exception of hip width, donkey phenotypic type had a significant (P<0.01) effect on the measured  
traits and it is indicated that almost all body measurements were highest for Sinnar jacks (Table 3) followed by the  
crossbred type. In almost all cases the difference between the Sinnar and the crossbred jacks is not significant while the  
difference between the Sinnar and the local is significant in all cases.  
The difference between the local and the crosses reached significance level only for height at wither and at back,  
chest depth and ear length. The Sinnar and crossbred jacks have larger chest depth and taller height at withers than the  
local jacks. Positive heterosis of more than one percent was calculated for height at withers, neck length, head length,  
canon bone length, chest depth and ear length. The highest heterosis of close to ten per cent was observed for ear length.  
In jennets, significant (P<0.05) difference was observed between phenotypic types for all morphometric traits (Table  
4). In all cases Sinnar jennets along with the crosses have significantly higher values than the local donkeys. No  
significant difference was observed between Sinnar jennets and the crossbreds. Despite the fact that the crosses would of  
various types (F1, F2, F3, back cross etc.) and blood levels heterosis of more than one per cent was calculated for body  
length, fore leg length, hip width, chest width, chest depth, ear length and body weight of jennets.  
Table 4 - Least square means (cm) and pairwise comparison of body measurements with standard error in each  
breeds/populations: 2) jennets.  
Breed groups/ phenotypic types  
Traits  
p value  
Sinnar  
100  
Local  
90  
Cross  
10  
N
Heart girth  
110.8±0.53a  
102.6±0.6a  
104.3±0.46a  
104.7±0.44a  
92.4±0.50a  
69.0±0.42a  
50.7±0.39a  
43.7±0.20a  
107.1±0.56b  
97.4±0.49b  
98.9±0.49b  
99.6±0.47b  
89.7±0.53b  
66.8±0.45b  
48.6±0.42b  
41.8±0.21b  
109.8±1.66ab  
100.7±1.43ab  
101.3±1.43ab  
102.4±1.39ab  
92.0±1.56ab  
66.2±1.32ab  
48.9±1.22ab  
43.2±0.62ab  
***  
***  
***  
***  
**  
Height at wither  
Height at back  
Height at rump  
Body length  
Back length  
Neck length  
Head length  
Canon bone length  
**  
**  
***  
32.1±0.18a  
70.1±0.42a  
30.4±0.20b  
66.8±0.45b  
31.4±0.58ab  
69.2±1.33ab  
***  
***  
Fore leg length  
Hip width  
33.6±0.21a  
22.6±0.17a  
50.2±0.26a  
23.6±0.15a  
24.6±0.16a  
128.6±1.54a  
32.5±0.23b  
21.6±0.19b  
48.2±0.28b  
23.0±0.16b  
23.7±0.17b  
117.1±1.64b  
33.4±0.67ab  
22.6±0.54ab  
50.1±0.82ab  
22.9±0.47ab  
24.4±0.50ab  
125.5±4.83ab  
**  
**  
Chest width  
Chest depth  
***  
*
Canon circumference  
Ear length  
**  
Body weight  
***  
N= number of observations, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.0001, NS=Not Significant  
28  
Citation: Mustefa A, Assefa A, Misganaw M, Getachew F, Abegaz S, Hailu A and Emshaw Y (2020). Phenotypic characterization of donkeys in Benishangul Gumuz  
National Regional State. Online J. Anim. Feed Res., 10 (1): 25-35.www.ojafr.ir  
The combined data analysis has revealed that there is significant difference between the phenotypic types for all  
traits and Sinnar donkeys were superior in all cases but the differences between Sinnar and the crosses in some cases  
was not significant (Table 5). Sinnar donkeys and their crosses have significantly higher (P<0.05) chest depth, ear length,  
canon bone length and height at withers. The three types were significantly different from each other for height at back  
and rump. Positive heterosis as calculated from the combined data was found to be more than one per cent for head  
length, canon bone length, chest depth and ear length. The highest (4.22%) was calculated for ear length.  
Comparison of jacks and jennets have shown that for some of the morphometric variables there is sexual size  
dimorphism where either the jack or jennet could show higher values as compared to the other sex (Table 6). Jacks have  
shown significantly (P<0.05) higher values for height at back, cannon bone length, chest width and cannon bone  
circumference while jennets have significantly higher values for body length, back length, hip width, ear length and body  
weight. There was no significant (P>0.05) difference between the sexes for heart girth, height at withers, height at rump,  
neck length, head length, fore leg length and chest depth.  
The donkeys were sampled from five locations /districts to consider if there are environmental differences; however,  
location effects were limited to few of the recorded traits. Body length, back length, neck length, head length, fore leg  
length and ear length are the traits which have shown significant (P<0.05) fluctuations as the sampling location /district  
differs. Based on this, foreleg length of donkeys from Wenbera district and head length of donkeys from Sirba Abay  
district were the shortest among the donkey populations from the other districts. More or less, the results show  
measurements of donkey populations from Guba district were comparably the largest showing above mean  
performances.  
Table 5 - Least square means (cm) and pairwise comparison of body measurements with standard error in each  
breeds/populations: 3) all sexes.  
Breed groups/ phenotypic types  
p value  
Traits  
Sinnar  
Local  
Cross  
N
157  
148  
18  
Heart girth  
110.6 ± 0.44a  
103.2 ± 0.37a  
105.3 ± 0.38a  
105.3 ± 0.38a  
91.5 ± 0.41a  
68.5 ± 0.33a  
50.5 ± 0.32a  
43.9 ± 0.16a  
32.5 ± 0.16a  
70.3 ± 0.35a  
32.8 ± 0.17a  
22.8 ± 0.14a  
50.2 ± 0.21a  
24.2 ± 0.12a  
24.3 ± 0.14a  
127.3 ± 1.28a  
106.2 ± 0.45b  
97.1 ± 0.38b  
98.9 ± 0.39c  
99.4 ± 0.39c  
88.0 ± 0.43b  
65.9 ± 0.34b  
47.8 ± 0.33b  
42.0 ± 0.16b  
30.6 ± 0.17b  
66.7 ± 0.36b  
31.9 ± 0.17b  
21.9 ± 0.14b  
47.8 ± 0.22b  
23.5 ± 0.13b  
23.4 ± 0.14b  
113.4 ± 1.31b  
108.9 ± 1.25ab  
101.0 ± 1.07a  
102.2 ± 1.10b  
102.4 ± 1.09b  
89.7 ± 1.19ab  
65.9 ± 0.96b  
49.4 ± 0.91ab  
43.5 ± 0.46a  
31.9 ± 0.47a  
68.8 ± 1.04ab  
32.3 ± 0.48ab  
22.4 ± 0.39ab  
50.0 ± 0.60a  
23.7 ± 0.35ab  
24.8 ± 0.39a  
121.1 ± 3.67ab  
***  
***  
***  
***  
***  
***  
***  
***  
***  
***  
**  
***  
***  
**  
***  
***  
Height at wither  
Height at back  
Height at rump  
Body length  
Back length  
Neck length  
Head length  
Canon bone length  
Fore leg length  
Hip width  
Chest width  
Chest depth  
Canon circumference  
Ear length  
Body weight  
N= Number of observations, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.0001  
Table 6 - Least square means and pairwise comparison of body measurements with standard error in each sexes.  
Sex  
Body variables  
p value  
Jacks  
Jennets  
N
123  
200  
Heart girth  
108.2±0.59  
100.7±0.51  
102.9±0.52  
102.7±0.51  
88.5±0.56  
66.2±0.45  
48.9±0.43  
43.3±0.22  
32.0±0.22  
68.7±0.48  
31.7±0.23  
22.6±0.18  
49.2±0.28  
24.4±0.17  
23.9±0.19  
118.7±1.73  
108.9±0.53  
100.1±0.46  
101.4±0.47  
102.1±0.46  
90.9±0.51  
67.4±0.41  
49.6±0.39  
42.9±0.20  
31.3±0.20  
68.5±0.43  
33.0±0.21  
22.1±0.17  
49.5±0.26  
23.2±0.15  
24.4±0.17  
122.5±1.56  
NS  
NS  
**  
NS  
***  
**  
NS  
NS  
**  
NS  
***  
**  
NS  
***  
**  
*
Height at wither  
Height at back  
Height at rump  
Body length  
Back length  
Neck length  
Head length  
Canon bone length  
Fore leg length  
Hip width  
Chest width  
Chest depth  
Canon circumference  
Ear length  
Body weight  
N= Number of observations, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.0001, NS=Not Significant  
29  
Citation: Mustefa A, Assefa A, Misganaw M, Getachew F, Abegaz S, Hailu A and Emshaw Y (2020). Phenotypic characterization of donkeys in Benishangul Gumuz  
National Regional State. Online J. Anim. Feed Res., 10 (1): 25-35.www.ojafr.ir  
Table 7 - Least square means (cm) and pairwise comparison of body measurements with standard error in each  
districts.  
Sampled Location /District  
Traits  
p value  
Guba  
58  
Menge  
84  
Wenbera  
89  
Sirba Abay  
59  
Kurmuk  
33  
N
Heart girth  
108.7±0.81  
100.2±0.69  
101.9±0.71  
102.7±0.70  
89.0±0.77ab  
66.8±0.62ab  
49.8±0.59ab  
43.3±0.30a  
31.8±0.30  
69.5±0.65a  
32.5±0.31  
22.7±0.25  
49.0±0.39  
23.7±0.23  
24.8±0.25a  
120.2±2.48  
108.8±0.64  
100.4±0.55  
101.7±0.56  
102.1±0.56  
89.8±0.61ab  
66.4±0.49b  
48.1±0.47b  
43.6±0.24a  
31.2±0.24  
69.1±0.52a  
32.6±0.25  
22.5±0.20  
49.9±0.31  
23.9±0.18  
23.8±0.20b  
121.1±1.88  
108.5±0.68  
99.9±0.58  
101.9±0.59  
101.8±0.59  
88.5±0.64b  
66.4±0.52b  
49.0±0.49ab  
43.0±0.25a  
31.5±0.25  
66.1±0.55b  
32.5±0.26  
21.9±0.21  
49.2±0.32  
23.8±0.19  
23.9±0.21b  
119.4±1.98  
109.7±0.77  
101.8±0.66  
102.8±0.68  
103.1±0.67  
91.3±0.73a  
68.4±0.59a  
49.9±0.56a  
41.9±0.28b  
31.7±0.29  
69.2±0.62a  
31.6±0.30  
22.3±0.24  
48.9±0.37  
23.7±0.22  
24.3±0.24ab  
124.8±2.25  
107.1±0.97  
99.8±0.83  
102.4±0.86  
102.1±0.85  
90.0±0.93ab  
65.9±0.74b  
49.3±0.71ab  
43.7±0.36a  
32.1±0.36  
69.1±0.79a  
32.5±0.37  
22.3±0.30  
49.5±0.47  
23.9±0.27  
23.9±0.31ab  
117.5±2.85  
NS  
NS  
NS  
NS  
*
*
*
***  
NS  
***  
NS  
NS  
NS  
NS  
**  
NS  
Height at wither  
Height at back  
Height at rump  
Body length  
Back length  
Neck length  
Head length  
Canon bone length  
Fore leg length  
Hip width  
Chest width  
Chest depth  
Canon circumference  
Ear length  
Body weight  
N= Number of observations, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.0001, NS=Not Significant  
Qualitative characteristics  
The qualitative characteristics of the studied donkey population under the effect of breed, sex and source of the  
animals is presented in Table 8 and 9. Genotype and environmental factors like sex, animal source and district affects the  
qualitative characteristics of the studied donkeys. The donkey populations studied possess the following qualitative  
characteristics; white abdominal color, unpigmented hoof and muzzle, short and medium hair coat cover, plain body color  
pattern with long dorsal stripe (leg stripe in some cases), straight face and sloppy rump profile, medium tail length and  
thickness at the base of the tail. The studied qualitative characteristics were affected by different genetic and  
environmental factors. Breed group has a significant effect on the studied traits except on coat description, abdominal  
color, face profile and tail length while sex affects few of the qualitative characteristics recorded like coat description,  
back profile and tail thickness at the base. Similarly source of the animal affects most of the traits except body color  
pattern, ear shape, leg strip and rump profile.  
The results showed dorsal body color of the studied donkey populations was affected (P<0.05) by breed group of the  
donkeys. Based on this result, dorsal body color of Sinnar donkeys were 18% brown, 17% dark brown, 15% white, 13%  
light red, 8% dark gray, 8% gray dun and 21% others. While the locals were 24% gray dun, 23% bay dun, 16% dark gray  
dun, 13% gray/roan, 9% brown and 15% others. Similarly, the crossbreds were 22% bay dun, 22% dark gray dun, 17%  
light red, 11% black, 11% dark brown and 17% other colors. The head color of the Sinnar donkeys was 31% white, 11%  
brown, 10% light red, 10% dark brown, 9% black and 29% others. However, the head color of the local donkeys was 21%  
gray dun, 18% bay dun, 16% dark gray dun, 14% gray/roan, 10% brown and 21% others. The crossbreds were also 28%  
dark gray dun, 17% bay dun, 17% white, 11% light red, 11% dark brown, 11% gray/roan and 5% others in head color. The  
ear tips color of Sinnar donkeys was 47% dark brown, 21% black, 10% brown, 9% light red and 13% others, while the  
local donkeys were 63% dark brown, 28% black and 9% other colors. Similarly, the crossbreds were 44% dark brown,  
39% black and 17% other in colors of their ear tips. The dominant tail switch color of the studied donkeys was black, with  
dark brown; almost all (89%) of the crossbreds possess black tail switch color, similarly most (81%) of the locals tail  
switch color was black with 16% dark brown. The results also showed that 60% of the Sinnar donkeys had black tail  
switch color with 20% dark brown and 20% other colors.  
The study revealed that local and cross donkeys possess plain body color pattern while some of the Sinnar donkeys  
were shaded. Almost 70 percent of the Sinnar donkey breeds ear shape was round edged while most of the local and  
crossbreds ear was straight edged in shape. Almost all local (93%) and crossbreds (83%) possess long dorsal stripe while  
this feature was observed on half of the Sinnar donkey breeds. 40 % of the local donkeys had leg stipe, however, it was  
not seen on most of the Sinnar and its crossbred donkeys. Most local donkeys and the crossbreds had either short or long  
shoulder stripe, while, it was absent on more than half of the Sinnar donkeys. Almost 50% of the Sinnar donkeys back  
profile was convex, however, in most of the crossbreds and local donkeys it was hollow.  
The results also showed that most of the short coat hair size was possessed by jacks while the jennets had medium  
coat description. Most of the jacks back profile was hollow while the jennets were hollow. Most of the jacks had small to  
medium thickness at the base of their tail, however it was medium to large for the jennets. Purchased animals had short  
coat hair size while the born ones had medium coat description.  
There was no dorsal stripe on half of the purchased donkeys while half of them possess long. On the other hand,  
most of the donkeys born on-farm possess long dorsal stripe. Similarly, there was no shoulder stripe on more than half  
(52%) of the purchased donkeys while there was either short or long shoulder stripe for the donkeys born there. Most of  
the purchased donkeys back profile was convex while half of the borne ones possess hollow back profile. Short and  
medium tail length was observed on the donkeys born there while the purchased donkeys tail length was medium to long.  
30  
Citation: Mustefa A, Assefa A, Misganaw M, Getachew F, Abegaz S, Hailu A and Emshaw Y (2020). Phenotypic characterization of donkeys in Benishangul Gumuz  
National Regional State. Online J. Anim. Feed Res., 10 (1): 25-35.www.ojafr.ir  
Animals were sampled from different locations/districts to have a representative picture of the study area  
(Benishangul Gumuz region). Most of the qualitative characteristics of the studied donkey populations were significantly  
(P<0.05) influenced by location /district. Based on this, ear shape, leg stripe, shoulder stripe, back profile, rump profile,  
tail length and thickness at the base of the tail are some of the traits which show significant differences among districts.  
The results show most of the donkeys from Kurmuk district had round edged ear shape while straight edged ear shape  
was seen on most of the donkeys sampled from Menge district. Most of the donkey populations from the sampled  
locations do not possess leg stripe while 50% of the donkeys from Guba and Kurmuk districts had a leg stripe.  
The results also revealed that most of the donkeys from Sirba Abay district had a hollow back profile while straight  
back profile was observed on above half of the donkeys from Guba district. On the other hand, above half of the donkeys  
from Menge district had convex back profile.  
Table 8 - Percentage of qualitative traits in each breed/populations, sexes and animal sources.  
Breeds/populations  
Sex  
Jennets  
Animal source  
Born Purchased  
Traits  
Sinnar  
Local  
148  
NS  
39  
53  
8
Cross  
Jacks  
123  
N
157  
18  
200  
232  
91  
Coat hair size (Chi-square)  
***  
**  
Short  
48  
47  
5
39  
61  
0
63  
36  
1
31  
60  
9
38  
55  
7
57  
38  
5
Medium  
Long  
Body color pattern (Chi-square)  
***  
100  
0
NS  
NS  
NS  
NS  
NS  
Plain  
75  
25  
94  
6
89  
11  
87  
13  
90  
10  
81  
19  
Shaded  
Ear shape (Chi-square)  
***  
22  
78  
***  
7
Rounded  
69  
31  
28  
72  
48  
52  
43  
57  
42  
58  
53  
47  
Straight  
Dorsal strip (Chi-square)  
***  
Absent  
50  
49  
1
17  
83  
0
29  
70  
1
27  
72  
1
22  
77  
1
45  
55  
0
Long  
93  
0
Short  
Leg strip (Chi-square)  
**  
39  
61  
***  
9
NS  
NS  
NS  
Present  
19  
81  
17  
83  
29  
71  
27  
73  
30  
70  
22  
78  
Absent  
Shoulder stripe (Chi-square)  
***  
Absent  
52  
21  
27  
17  
44  
39  
30  
32  
38  
31  
35  
34  
22  
39  
39  
52  
21  
27  
Long  
46  
45  
Short  
Face profile (Chi-square)  
NS  
38  
61  
1
NS  
*
*
**  
NS  
*
Convex  
27  
72  
1
33  
67  
0
36  
63  
1
31  
68  
1
37  
62  
1
22  
78  
0
Straight  
Concave  
Back profile (Chi-square)  
**  
47  
23  
30  
**  
36  
59  
5
Hollow  
32  
19  
49  
61  
0
32  
20  
48  
45  
20  
35  
47  
20  
33  
24  
19  
57  
Straight  
Convex  
39  
Ramp profile (Chi-square)  
NS  
*
Flat  
22  
65  
13  
39  
61  
0
37  
56  
7
25  
65  
10  
33  
59  
8
22  
68  
10  
Sloppy  
Roofy  
Tail length (Chi-square)  
NS  
30  
40  
30  
*
Short  
25  
50  
25  
33  
22  
45  
26  
37  
37  
30  
48  
22  
32  
43  
25  
18  
46  
36  
Medium  
Long  
Tail base thickness (Chi-square)  
***  
*
Narrow  
Medium  
Wide  
33  
44  
23  
17  
56  
27  
17  
55  
28  
34  
59  
7
19  
45  
36  
20  
53  
27  
36  
44  
20  
N= number of observations, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.0001, NS=Not Significant  
31  
Citation: Mustefa A, Assefa A, Misganaw M, Getachew F, Abegaz S, Hailu A and Emshaw Y (2020). Phenotypic characterization of donkeys in Benishangul Gumuz  
National Regional State. Online J. Anim. Feed Res., 10 (1): 25-35.www.ojafr.ir  
Table 9 - Percentage of qualitative traits in each districts.  
Location /district  
Traits  
Guba  
58  
Menge  
84  
Wenbera  
89  
Sirba Abay  
59  
Kurmuk  
33  
Chi-square  
NS  
N
Coat hair size  
Short  
53  
40  
7
39  
54  
7
43  
50  
7
44  
51  
5
39  
61  
0
Medium  
Long  
Body color pattern  
Plain  
NS  
***  
NS  
84  
16  
90  
10  
89  
11  
83  
17  
91  
9
Shaded  
Ear shape  
Rounded  
Straight  
Dorsal strip  
Absent  
43  
57  
26  
74  
52  
48  
47  
53  
73  
27  
26  
74  
0
32  
68  
0
34  
64  
2
17  
83  
0
27  
73  
0
Long  
Short  
Leg strip  
Present  
Absent  
Shoulder stripe  
Absent  
***  
**  
43  
57  
27  
73  
11  
89  
31  
69  
42  
58  
33  
22  
45  
35  
39  
26  
35  
25  
40  
15  
56  
29  
30  
27  
42  
Long  
Short  
Face profile  
Convex  
Straight  
Concave  
Back profile  
Hollow  
Straight  
Convex  
Ramp profile  
Flat  
**  
***  
**  
26  
74  
0
27  
70  
3
48  
52  
0
20  
80  
0
39  
61  
0
16  
55  
29  
30  
13  
57  
40  
24  
36  
76  
0
24  
45  
0
56  
21  
77  
2
32  
55  
13  
27  
66  
7
42  
54  
4
24  
55  
21  
Sloppy  
Roofy  
Tail length  
Short  
Medium  
Long  
Tail base thickness  
Narrow  
***  
***  
21  
45  
34  
11  
55  
34  
29  
38  
33  
44  
37  
19  
55  
39  
6
31  
48  
21  
36  
44  
20  
21  
59  
20  
3
49  
48  
33  
49  
18  
Medium  
Wide  
N= number of observations, *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.0001, NS=Not Significant  
DISCUSSION  
Effect of breed group  
The results revealed that there were differences among the studied breeds/populations indicating Sinnar donkeys  
were significantly bigger than the local donkeys while some similarities were observed with the crosses which might be  
due to heterosis effect. Heterosis of various magnitude was calculated for the various traits studied. However, as the  
crosses are of diverse type (F1, F2, back cross etc.) and blood level it will be difficult to interprete the heterosis effect  
obtained in this study in both sexes. The big body size, height and length in the measured traits of Sinnar indicated that  
the breed is highly adaptable to the hot environment with good reproduction ability (Beja-Pereira et al., 2004; Marshall  
who reported Sinnar donkeys are the tallest of all donkey populations in Ethiopia and they are also an excellent desert  
adapted animals used for riding and breeding. Therefore, due to these special characteristics of the Sinnar donkey,  
Kefena et al. (2011) has reported that its ancestral trunk might be different from the rest of the donkey  
breeds/populations but this needs to be supported by further genetic studies. Some of the characteristics of desert  
adapted donkeys include fairly bigger body sizes and similarities in coat color patterns among donkey populations of arid  
and semi-arid lowlands (Beja-Pereira et al., 2004; Marshall, 2007; Rossel et al., 2008). Differences in breed groups in this  
study were in line with the results of Kosťuková et al. (2015). The possible cause of differences among the studied breed  
groups might be due to the differences in domesticated ancestors, ecology and biophysical resources for the overall body  
build and local environment and history (Beja-Pereira et al., 2004; Kefena et al., 2014; Gubitz et al., 2000). The local  
breeds were smaller and lighter than the Sinnar donkeys which is suitable for different purposes which is in line with the  
32  
Citation: Mustefa A, Assefa A, Misganaw M, Getachew F, Abegaz S, Hailu A and Emshaw Y (2020). Phenotypic characterization of donkeys in Benishangul Gumuz  
National Regional State. Online J. Anim. Feed Res., 10 (1): 25-35.www.ojafr.ir  
results of Sargentini et al. (2018) who reported that the Amiata donkeys’ biometrics (small-medium sized) was suitable  
for different purposes.  
The dominant body colors of Sinnar donkeys from this study were white and light colors with short to medium hair  
while, most of the locals and crossbreds possess gray dun and bay dun with medium hair size. These results are in line  
with the results of study by Tsega and Lemma (2015) in Gondar, Ethiopia, who reported Sinnar donkeys possess white  
body color with short hair and crossing them with Abyssinian donkeys often results in hairier, longer, saggy and dark  
colored hybrids.  
Effect of sex  
Eight of the fifteen morphometric measurements were significantly affected by sex; jacks were dominant over the  
jennets in four traits (height at back, chest width, canon bone length and canon circumference) while the jennets were  
dominant over jacks in five traits (body length, back length, ear length, hip width and body weight). These results were in  
line with the results of Kosťuková et al., (2015) and partially with the results of Folch and Jordana (1997) on Catalonian  
donkeys. The magnitude of sexual dimorphism in the current study is quite higher than what has been reported for  
Catalonian donkeys where only Eight out of twenty-six morphometric measurements showed significant differences  
between sexes (Folch and Jordana, 1997). The report of Koubek (1933) also showed that male donkeys have lower heart  
girth and stronger shin than the jennets. Jacks in this study were stronger (wide chest and thick canon) than the jennets  
which is in line with the results of Andersson (1994 cit. in Purzyc et al., 2007) who reported that, there are specific  
physiological and biochemical processes in jacks, which results in them being stronger than the jennets. In line with the  
current study the chest circumference and hip width in female individuals is mainly influenced by physiological processes  
during gestation and by metabolic traits that differ from those in males (Koubek, 1933). Similarly, height at wither and at  
rump were not significantly different among the sexes while the jennets had shorter height at back than the jacks which  
might be due to the fetus load which pull their belly down during the pregnancy period. On the other hand, it might also be  
due to their loss of strength to hold up the load they carry in comparison to jacks.  
Effect of location  
Location affects only six traits (body, back, head, neck, ear and fore leg length) out of the eighteen morphometric  
measurements. In the study by Tsega and Lemma (2015) on Sinnar donkeys in Gondar, Ethiopia, differences in  
morphometric measurements and qualitative characteristics were recorded among different sampling location due to  
differences in ecological selection regimes, history or both. However, such huge significant differences were not recorded  
in the present study which may be due to the closeness of the locations sampled. However also, the donkeys from the  
locations/ districts which are on the border with South Sudan shows some dominance over the others as these districts  
may serve as the gate ways of the Sinnar donkeys to the region. Most of the qualitative characteristics of the purchased  
donkeys approaches the characteristics of Sinnar donkeys, showing most of the farmers were purchasing Sinnar donkeys  
preferring their heaviness. The white color and short hair size of the Sinnar donkeys might help them in physiological  
adaptation of the hot environments.  
Local Male  
Sinnar Male  
Cross Male  
Local Female  
Sinnar Female  
Cross Female  
33  
Citation: Mustefa A, Assefa A, Misganaw M, Getachew F, Abegaz S, Hailu A and Emshaw Y (2020). Phenotypic characterization of donkeys in Benishangul Gumuz  
National Regional State. Online J. Anim. Feed Res., 10 (1): 25-35.www.ojafr.ir  
CONCLUSION  
The donkeys in Benishangul Gumuz region were characterized based on FAO guidelines. Accordingly, three phenotypic  
types were covered; the Sinnar, the locals and their crossbreds. Significant differences were recorded among the three  
breed groups on the studied morphometric measurements and qualitative characteristics. Based on these results the  
Sinnar donkeys were the tallest, widest and strongest with some similarities with their crosses. Some sex effect was  
observed on the overall performances while, its effect was limited on the interaction effect with the breed groups.  
However, jacks and jennets were dominating each other on equal basis. Jacks had wide chest, thick canon and long  
height at rump and cannon bone, while the jennets possess wide hip and long body, back, neck and ear. Significant  
differences were observed between sampled location for some of the studied traits. Qualitative differences were also  
recorded among the studied class categories. Further molecular level studies are required to characterize the differences  
among the studied donkey breed groups. Similarly, characterization of the local donkeys found in other parts of the region  
and the Abyssinian donkeys in adjoining areas is required.  
DECLARATIONS  
Corresponding Author  
E-mail: aminemustefa32@gmail.com; ORCID: 0000-0003-3788-4156  
Acknowledgements  
The authors are highly indebted to the animal owners as without their permission the completion of this work  
would not have been possible. Our special appreciation also goes to the head and staff of Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute  
(especially Animal Biodiversity Directorate), and the district agricultural offices found in the study area who actively  
participated during the data collection process.  
Authors’ Contribution  
AM contribute on data analysis and the write up of the manuscript, AA, MM, FG conceived the study and collect  
data, SA review the manuscript, AH and YE contribute on entering data. All authors read and approved the final  
manuscript.  
Funding  
This research was funded by the Ethiopian biodiversity institute.  
Conflict of interests  
The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.  
REFERENCES  
Befikadu Z, Kiflay W and Sanjoy KP (2015) Conservation of Indigenous Donkey Breeds of Ethiopia: A Review.  
International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies, 2 (6): 13-22.  
Beja-Pereira A, England P R, Ferrand N, Jordan S, Bakhiet A O, Abdalla M A, Mashkour M, Jordana J, Taberlet P and  
Luikart G (2004) African origin of domestic donkey. Science, 304: 1781.  
Blench RM (2000) A history of donkeys, wild asses and mules in Africa. In: Blench, Roger M., MacDonald, Kevin C. (Eds.),  
The origin and development of African livestock: archaeology, genetics, linguistics and ethnography. UCL Press, pp.  
339354.  
Chekol K and Getnet A (2010) Public Finance Review: Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State Pp. 83  
CSA (Central Statistical Agency) (2017) Agricultural sample survey 2016/2017. Report on livestock and livestock  
characteristics. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp. 188  
EBI (Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute) (2016) Ethiopian National Strategy and Plan of Action for conservation and utilization  
of Animal Genetic Resources, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Pp. 114  
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) (2015) In: Scherf B. & Pilling D. (Eds.), The second report  
on the state of world´s: animal genetic resources for food and agriculture. FAO, Rome, Italy.  
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations) (2012) Phenotypic characterization of animal genetic  
resources. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations. Rome, Italia. Animal Production and Health  
Guidelines 11, 144.  
Folch P and Jordana J (1997) Characterization, reference ranges and the influence of gender on morphological  
parameters of the endangered Catalonian donkey breed. Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, 17 (2): 102111.  
Gubitz T, Thorpe R S and Malhotra A (2000) Phylo-geographic and natural selection in the Tenerife gecko Tarentoal  
delalandii: testing historical and adaptive hypothesis. Molecular Ecology, 9: 12131221.  
Kefena E, Beja-Pereira A, Han JL, Haile A, Mohammed YK and Dessie T (2011) Eco-geographical structuring and  
morphological diversities in Ethiopian donkey populations. Livestock Science 141, 232241  
34  
Citation: Mustefa A, Assefa A, Misganaw M, Getachew F, Abegaz S, Hailu A and Emshaw Y (2020). Phenotypic characterization of donkeys in Benishangul Gumuz  
National Regional State. Online J. Anim. Feed Res., 10 (1): 25-35.www.ojafr.ir  
 
Kefena E, Dessie T, Tegegne A, Beja-Pereira A, Yusuf Kurtu M, Rosenbom S and Han JL (2014) Genetic diversity and  
matrilineal genetic signature of native Ethiopian donkeys (Equus asinus) inferred from mitochondrial DNA  
sequence polymorphism. Livestock Science, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.06.006  
Kefena E (2012) Equine genetic resources of Ethiopia. PhD. dissertation Haramaya University, Dire Dawa. Ethiopia.  
Kosťuková M, Černohorská H, Bihuncová I, Oravcová I, Sobotková E and Jiskrová I (2015) Characteristics of morphological  
parameters of donkeys in the czech republic. acta universitatis agriculturae et silviculturae mendelianae  
Koubek K (1933) Speciální zootechnika – Chov koní. Praha: Státní zemědělské nakladatelství Praha.  
Marshall F. (2007) African pastoral perspectives on domestication of the donkey: a first synthesis. In: Denham, T., Iriarte,  
J., Vrydaghs, L. (Eds.), Rethinking Agriculture: Archaeological and Ethnoarchaeological Perspectives. Left Coast  
Press, Walnut Creek, California, USA.  
Pearson R A and Ouassat M (2000) A Guide to Body Condition Scoring and Live Weight Estimation of Donkeys. Centre for  
Tropical Veterinary Medicine, University of Edinburgh, p. 21  
Purzyc H, Kobryn H, Komosa M and Bojarski J (2007) Ocena eksterieru konia huculskiego na podstawie wybranych  
wskaźników morfometrycznych (część i). Acta Scientarum Polonorum Medicina Veterinaria, 6: 4764.  
Rossel S, Marshall F, Peters J, Pilgram T, Adams M D and O'Connor D. (2008) Domestication of the donkey: timing,  
processes and indicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105:  
37153720.  
Sargentini C, Tocci R, Martini A and Bozzi R (2018) Morphological characterization of Amiata donkey through Multivariate  
analyses. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia, 47: e20170310, https://doi.org/10.1590/rbz4720170310  
SAS (Statistical Analysis System). (2002) Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.  
Tsega A and Lemma A (2015) Phenotypic characteristics and sexual behavior of Sennar Jacks (Equus asinus). Ethiopian  
Veterinary Journal, 19 (1): 11 21.  
35  
Citation: Mustefa A, Assefa A, Misganaw M, Getachew F, Abegaz S, Hailu A and Emshaw Y (2020). Phenotypic characterization of donkeys in Benishangul Gumuz  
National Regional State. Online J. Anim. Feed Res., 10 (1): 25-35.www.ojafr.ir