Small-Scale Cattle Farming in Dendi Woreda, Oromia Region, Ethiopia

SMALL-SCALE CATTLE FARMING IN DENDI WOREDA, OROMIA REGION, ETHIOPIA

MITIKU LELISA AMENTE

AUGUST, 2018 ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA

SMALL-SCALE CATTLE FARMING IN DENDI WOREDA, OROMIA REGION, ETHIOPIA

MITIKU LELISA AMENTE

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OFGEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES, SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES, ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY IN PARTIALFULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS IN GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

AUGUST, 2018 ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA

DECLARATION

I, Mitiku Lelisa declare that this MA thesis is my original work and has not been presented for a degree in any other university, and all sources of material used for thesis have been duly acknowledged.

Name: Mitiku Lelisa Amente Signature: ______Date: ______

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Small-Scale Cattle farming in Dendi Woreda, Oromia Region, Ethiopia” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master’s in Geography and Environmental Studies, the Graduate Program of the Department/School of Geography and Environmental Studies, and has been carried out by Mitiku Lelisa Id. No SMA/026/06, under my/our supervision. Therefore I/we recommend that the student has fulfilled the requirements and hence hereby can submit the thesis to the department for defense.

Name of Principal advisor Abera Uncha (PhD) ______Signature Date Name of co-advisor Getu Lemma (MA) ______Signature Date

APPROVAL PAGE We the examiners’ board approve that this thesis has passed through the defense and review process.

______Chairperson Signature Date ______External Examiner Signature Date ______Internal Examiner Signature Date ______Principal advisor Signature Date ______(DGC/SGC) Signature Date ______

Signature and Stamp of the Department/School

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all I would like to thank the Almighty God for giving me the strength and courage to complete this study, be glory to him forever. Next I am very much indebted to express my heartfelt gratitude and my honest thanks to my advisors Abera Uncha (PhD) and Mr. Getu Lemma (MA) for their valuable guidance, constructive comments, fatherly treatment and important correction from the very beginning to the end. Without their guidance and comments, the study would have remained incomplete.

Thirdly, I would like to acknowledge my beloved wife Sifan Jabessa and my son Rebira Mitiku for their consistent encouragement and moral support throughout and all the persons that have helped me in one way or another in the process of conducting this study. Above all, I am greatly indebted to kebele administrators, agricultural experts and Development Agents for their help during data collection period at the study sites. Without their support this research thesis would have not reached this stage. In addition, I would like to thank all of my key informants, group discussion participants, and respondent households who provided me with the necessary information in the study kebeles.

Lastly but not least, I am deeply grateful to my friends and colleagues: Ato Kebede Dinka, Azeb Girma, Abdisa Bayisa, Terefe Ebisa, Nigusie Kebede, Sebsibe Haile, Tafesse Bosha and others who helped me in providing different materials for the accomplishment of this paper.

ACRONYMS ADLI Agricultural Development Led-Industrialization ARDO Agricultural and Rural Development Office CSA Central Statistical Authority DAs Development Agents ESAP Ethiopian Society of Animal Production FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations FED Finance and Economic Development GDP Gross Domestic Product GOE Government of Ethiopia GTP Growth and Transformation plan FGD Focus Group Discussion Ha Hectare HHs Households IGAD-LPI Inter-Governmental Authority on Development-Livestock Policy Initiative ILRI International Livestock Research Institute PASDEP Plan for Accelerated and Sustainable Development to Eradicate Poverty RDPS Rural Development Policies and Strategies SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science WB World Bank

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENT PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... i

ACRONYMS ...... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... iii

LIST OF TABLES ...... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... viii

ABSTRACT ...... ix

CHAPTER ONE ...... 1

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 Background of the Study ...... 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ...... 2

1.3 Objectives of the Study...... 4

1.3.1 General Objective ...... 4

1.3.2 Specific Objectives ...... 4

1.4 Research Questions...... 4

1.5 Significance of the Study ...... 4

1.6 Scope of the Study ...... 5

1.7 Definition of Key Terms ...... 5

1.8 Organization of the Thesis ...... 5

iii

CHAPTER TWO ...... 6

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ...... 6

2.1 Definition of Smallholders ...... 6

2.2 Livestock and Socio-economic Development ...... 7

2.3 Mixed Crop-livestock Production System ...... 8

2.3.1 Livestock Production Systems in Ethiopia ...... 9

2.4 Socio-Economic Importance of Cattle in Ethiopia ...... 10

2.5 Cattle Breed Type ...... 11

2.6 Feed Resources and Feeding System ...... 12

2.7 Animal Housing ...... 13

2.8 Watering Management ...... 14

2.9 Constraints Limiting Cattle Production ...... 14

2.9.1 Shortage of feed resources ...... 14

2.9.2 Shortage of Water ...... 16

2.9.3 Livestock Disease ...... 16

2.10 Livestock Policies and Strategies in Ethiopia ...... 17

2.11 Conceptual Framework...... 18

CHAPTER THREE ...... 19

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 19

3.1 Description of the Study Area ...... 19

3.1.1 Livelihood of the Households...... 20

3.2 Research Design ...... 20

3.3 Data Type and Sources ...... 20

3.4 Sampling Procedures and Sampling Size ...... 21

3.5 Instruments of Data Collection ...... 22

3.6 Data Analysis and Interpretation ...... 23

3.7 Ethical Consideration ...... 23

CHAPTER FOUR ...... 24

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS ...... 24

4.1 Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Households ...... 24

4.1.1 Land Holding Size ...... 26

4.2 Cattle Holding Size ...... 27

4.3 Causes for Declining Cattle Number ...... 29

4.4 Cattle Rearing Purposes ...... 30

4.4.1 Cattle Sales (Marketing) ...... 33

4.4.2 Reasons for Selling Cattle ...... 34

4.5 Cattle Feed Resources and Feeding Systems ...... 35

4.5.1 Types of Crop Residue ...... 37

4.5.2 Months of Feed Availability and Shortage ...... 38

4.5.3 Reason for Fodder Shortage ...... 39

4.6 Water Resources and Quality ...... 40

4.6.1 Water Related Problems ...... 41

4.7 Cattle Housing Condition and Housing Time ...... 42

4.8 Cattle Health Related Factors ...... 42

CHAPTER FIVE ...... 44

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ...... 44

5.1 Conclusion ...... 44

5.2 Recommendations ...... 44

REFERENCES ...... 46

APPENDICES ...... 54

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

3.1 Sample Size of Study Population …...... 21

4.1 Socio-Economic Characteristics of Sample HHs ...... 24

4.2 Distribution of Landholding Size of HHs...... 26

4.3 Causes for Declining Cattle Number ...... 29

4.4 Purpose of Cattle Rearing ...... 31

4.5 Major Economic Activity of Sample HHs ...... 31

4.6 Amount of Milk Produced per cow per day in litre ...... 33

4.7 Number of Cattle’s sold by HHs since October last year...... 33

4.8 Cattle Grazing System during Wet and Dry seasons ...... 35

4.9 Months of Critical Feed Shortage ...... 37

4.10 Major Reason for Cattle Feed Shortage ...... 38

4.11 Sources of Water for Cattle ...... 39

4.12 Cattle Housing Condition ...... 40

4.13 Number of Cattle loses this year ...... 41

vii

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE

3.1 Map of Dendi Wereda...... 18

4.1 Marital Status of Respondents ...... 25

4.2 Cattle Number in 2005 E.C ...... 28

4.3 Cattle Number in 2010 E.C ...... 28

4.4 Oxen used for farming ...... 30

4.5 Major Income of Sample HHs ...... 32

4.6 Reasons for Cattle Sale ...... 34

4.7 Types of Cattle Feed ...... 35

4.8 Free Grazing or Free Roaming Cattle during Dry Season ...... 36

4.9 Types of Crop residue used by Sample HHs ...... 36

4.10 Water Related Problem ...... 40

viii

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study is to identify the socio-economic and environmental factors affecting small-scale cattle farming in Dendi Woreda, West Shewa Zone, Central Ethiopia. To do so, firstly the study Woreda was stratified by agro-ecology into two (Dega and Woina- Dega). Secondly, three rural kebeles namely Dano Ejersa Gibe, Golole Bolo and Galesa Koftu were selected using lottery method from Woina-Dega and Dega agro-ecological zone respectively. Thirdly, 300 sample respondents were selected by using random sampling techniques from selected kebeles including both male and female headed households. To achieve the objective, the researcher used a survey design. The primary data were collected through questionnaire, semi-structured interview, and observation from the field. To support the primary data, secondary data also collected from different documents and studies and all were analyzed qualitatively. Simple statistical descriptions like frequency and percentages were employed with the aid of Statistical Packages for Social Studies for analyzing and interpreting the data collected. The analysis of the study was also supplemented with visual photographs recorded during field observation. From the findings of the study it is simple to conclude that, Dendi Woreda has various livestock resource that played a vital role for economic development. However, this sector has not grown significantly when compared to the cattle resource of the Woreda. The finding also indicates that a cattle farming in Dendi Woreda has several constraints. The constraints of cattle rearing system were feed shortage, water impurity, diseases and parasites particularly tick (silmi), shortage of grazing land, veterinary services and extension services. Therefore, more emphasis should be given to improving cattle productivity through strong extension services in proper management of the grazing lands, feed conservation, crop residues treatment and healthcare provision. Based on the findings, the study forwards some suggestions and recommendations for researchers, policy makers and development practitioners for future action.

Keywords: Small-scale, cattle farming, Socio-economic, Constraints, factors.

CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

Livestock production is the key to food security for many farmers in most developing countries, and an increase in livestock production is invariably associated with an increase in livestock numbers (Salem and Smith, 2008). Livestock production contributes to food security both directly and indirectly, and plays a crucial role in the livelihoods of almost 1 billion of the world’s poorest people (Smith et al., 2013a). Important products and by- products derived from livestock farming include meat, milk ,eggs, manure, feathers, hides and skins, fiber and wool. Keeping livestock is an important risk-reduction strategy for vulnerable communities, and livestock are important providers of nutrients and traction for growing crops in smallholder system (Thornton, 2010).

According to Morton(2007) livestock production especially on small-scale, is critical for many poor in developing world often contributing to multiple livelihood objectives and offering a pathway out of poverty through its impact on their nutrition and health. Schultze et al. (2007) believe that cattle are the best instrument for financing smallholder farmers and that they are the best option for large and flexible cash reserves; they also maintain the food security of the smallholder farmers by providing emergency finance. Livestock is an integral part of the agriculture and the contribution of live animals and their products to the agricultural economy accounts for 47% (IGAD-LPI, 2011).

Among livestock species, cattle contribute significantly to the livelihoods of farmers. They serve as a source of draught power for the rural farming population, supply farm families with milk, meat, manure, and also as a source of cash income, playing a significant role in the social and cultural values of the society. Cattle contribute nearly all the draught power for agricultural production at smallholder level in Ethiopia (Melaku, 2011). They are also used to generate critical cash in times of scarcity, provide collateral for local informal credit and serve other socio-cultural function in Ethiopia (Ulfina et al., 2005). The small-scale livestock farmers, sometimes referred to as smallholder farmers, are mainly categorized by the livestock numbers, land size and household inputs. Smallholder farmers in developing countries have multiple goals for their livestock enterprises.

Apart from cash benefits, livestock are closely linked to the social and cultural lives of smallholder farmers, for whom animal ownership ensures varying degrees of household economic stability (Lubungu et al., 2012). In Ethiopia, agriculture is the main economic activity and more than 80% of population is dependent on agriculture in which livestock play a very important role (CSA, 2009). Agriculture contributes about 50% to the overall gross domestic product (GDP) of the country (CSA, 2009). Despite the importance of cattle to the farming community in particular and to the national economy at large, the sector has remained under developed and underutilized.

According to CSA (2011), Ethiopia has about 52.1 billion heads of cattle that produce a total of 3.2 billion liters of milk and 0.331 million tons of meat annually (FAO, 2005; CSA, 2008). In addition, 14 million tons of manure are used annually primarily for fuel and 6 million oxen provide the draught power required for the cultivation of crops (Befekadu and Birhanu, 2000). Ethiopia has an immense potential for increasing livestock production, both for local use and for export purposes. However, expansion and productivity was constrained by quantitatively and qualitatively inadequate and imbalanced nutrition, sporadic disease outbreak, scarcity of water, lack of appropriate livestock extension services, insufficient and unreliable data to plan the services, and inadequate information to improve animal performance, marketing, processing and integration with crop and natural resources for sustainable productivity and environmental health (Aynalem et al., 2011).

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Livestock farming has been faced with many negative factors in various countries globally. According to Mupawenda et al., (2009), livestock production is affected by several social, economic, biological and management factors. Climate change and variability are key drivers for environmental degradation, through their effects will be most severely felt in coming decades. Its key effects will be increased dryness and higher temperatures, reductions in primary productivity, land use changes, changing animal disease distributions, land degradation in some cases, changes in species composition (and there by animal diets and feeding strategies), livestock productivity, income and food security (Ayantunde et al., 2011).

According to Smith et al. (2013b), smallholder livestock keepers rely mostly on food that is not available to people (grass, fodder, residues and waste) to feed their livestock. Another study conducted in Southern Ethiopia by Tolera and Abebe (2007), revealed that lack of water during the dry season and drought are the main constraints affecting livestock production.

Currently, with increasing human population and demand for crop production, grazing lands are shrinking and livestock are kept in low potential lands that are not suitable for crop production and other purposes (Alemayehu, 2005). This condition is evident in the mixed- farming systems of the highlands and mid-altitude zones of Ethiopia. Improvement in cattle productivity can be achieved through identification of production constraints and introduction of new technologies or by refining existing practices in the system. In Ethiopia, the cattle husbandry practice in different agro-ecological zones is not studied fully and farmers’ needs and production constraints have not been identified. Identification of overall management activities with their constraints and opportunities associated to cattle production are conditions for designing suitable cattle production development strategies (Haffernan, 2004).

However, this study mainly focuses on the challenges faced by small-scale cattle farmers in respect to socio-economic and environmental aspects that have great impact on cattle productivity. The small-scale cattle farmers’ productivity is too low to support the livelihood of the communities mainly due to these socio-economic and environmental challenges prevalent among small-scale farmers in the district. The small-scale cattle rearing practices has been characterized by traditional method of farming with poor farming technologies. Low cattle productivity of small-scale farmers can be attributed to limited access by small-scale farmers of the Woreda to modern agricultural technologies, improved genetic livestock and extension services. Low level of education among the small-scale farmers about modern cattle rearing technologies and adoption and poor grazing land management practices of small-scale farmers are the main challenges that threaten the sustainability of cattle production in the study Woreda.

Although similar studies are conducted in other parts of the country, this study specifically focuses on socio-economic and environmental constraints among the small-scale cattle farmers of the study area. In general, the above mentioned constraints negatively affect cattle productivity of small-scale farmers in the district. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the major constraints that affect small-scale cattle farming in Dendi Woreda, West Shewa Zone, Ethiopia.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

1.3.1 General Objective

The general objective of this study is to assess the socio-economic and environmental factors that affect small-scale cattle farming in the Dendi Wereda, West Shewa, Ethiopia.

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

 To examine the current status of cattle rearing practices in the study area.  To evaluate the benefit of cattle farming in the livelihood of households in the study area.  To assess the major socio-economic and environmental factors that affect small-scale cattle farming in the study area.

1.4 Research Questions To achieve the intended objectives stated above, the following research questions are formulated.

1. What is the current status of cattle rearing in the study area? 2. What are the benefits of cattle farming in the livelihood of households in the study area? 3. What are the major socio-economic and environmental factors that affect small- scale cattle farming in the study area?

1.5 Significance of the Study The main objective of this study is to provide relevant and valuable information on socio- economic and environmental factors affecting small-scale cattle farming in the study area.

The information gathered through this study may initiate the citizens to prevent or reduce factors that affect their cattle. It may also provide information for the government and stake holders to make intervention. In addition, the output of this study may also give important information for other researchers who will like to conduct detailed and comprehensive studies on cattle farming either in Dendi Woreda or other study area.

1.6 Scope of the Study

This study was focused on the socio-economic and environmental factors affecting small- scale cattle farming in Dendi Woreda. The study was carried out by surveying a sample of small-scale cattle farmers including both male and female households. This study was confined to three kebeles of Dendi Woreda, West Shewa Zone, Oromia Regional State. However, the result of this study can also be used as a reference for other similar areas.

1.7 Definition of Key Terms

Livestock: Within the context of this research, livestock will be limited to domesticated animals reared for home use or for profit within Dendi Woreda.

Cattle: Within the context of this research, cattle will be limited to cows and oxen reared for meat, milk, skin and other farming activity.

Small-scale farming: Within the context of this study, small scale farming will be limited to rearing of cattle and crop production on small plot of farm land.

1.8 Organization of the Thesis

The thesis is divided into five chapters. Chapter one provides on outline of the study and articulates the significance of the study, which includes; background of the study, statement of the problem, objective of the study, research question, significance of the study, scope and organization of the study. Chapter two emphasized on reviews of the literature which are related to the specific objective. Chapter three provides description of the study area and methodology of the study which includes, research approach and design, sources of data, data collection instruments, sampling techniques and methods of data analysis. In addition to this, chapter four deals about the study’s result and discussion a full description of the major socio-economic and environmental constraint of small-scale cattle farming. Finally, the last not the least chapter five included the conclusion and recommendation of the study. 5

CHAPTER TWO

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Definition of Smallholders

The term “smallholder” refers to their limited resource endowments relative to other farmers in the sector (FAO, 2004a). African smallholder farmers can be categorized on the basis of the agro ecological zones in which they operate the type and composition of their farm portfolio and landholding or on the basis of annual revenue they generate from farming activities (Dixon et al, 2003). The most common measure is farm size: many sources define small farms as those with less than hectare of crop land. Others describe small farms as those depending on household members for most of the labor or those with a subsistence orientation, where the primary aim of the farm is to produce the bulk of the household’s consumption of staple foods (Hazell et al., 2007).

In areas with high population densities, smallholder farmers usually cultivate less than one hectare of land, which may increase up to 10 ha or more in sparsely populated semi-arid areas, sometimes in combination with livestock of up to 10 animals (Dixon et al, 2003). Yet, others define small farms as those with limited resources including land, capital, skills and labor. The World Bank’s Rural Development Strategy defines smallholders as those with a low asset base, operating less than 2 hectares of cropland (World Bank, 2003). The agricultural sectors of many African countries are characterized by smallholder farmers and smallholder agriculture remains to be the key and leading sector in overall economic development Quan (2011).

East African countries like Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and Tanzania, are agriculture based countries that agriculture is the backbone of these economies and smallholder farming accounts for about 75 percent of agricultural production (Salami et al., 2010). Like many other African countries Ethiopian agriculture is also dominated by smallholder farmers who occupy the majority of land and produce most of the crop which includes cereals, pulses and oilseeds. In Ethiopia, about 11.7 million smallholder farmers cultivate on approximately 95 percent of the total farmland area and produce more than 95 percent of the total agricultural output (Mahlet, 2007; Tafesse et al., 2007; MoARD, 2010). This confirms the dominant contribution of smallholder farmers to the overall agricultural growth in the country.

2.2 Livestock and Socio-economic Development

Globally, smallholder livestock systems play a very important role in supporting rural livelihoods. In smallholder systems, livestock fulfill many function in addition to producing meat, milk and egg, including the provision of fertilizers, fuel, draught power and transport; a means of savings and investment; a buffer against crop failure; and diverse cultural and religious roles (FAO, 2009). According to Lubungu et al. (2012), livestock are closely linked to the social and cultural lives of smallholder farmers, for whom animal ownership is to ensure varying degrees of economic stability. Most smallholder farmers rely on family labor to carry out their farming activities, and this helps them to reduce the cost of production. Livestock provides 50 percent of the value of agricultural output globally and one-third of the value in developing countries (Nouman et al., 2014).

Several factors have contributed both positively and negatively to changes in livestock numbers. Some of these factors are economic growth and increased incomes (Steinfeld et al., 2006a); increase in demand for livestock products arising from rapid growth in human population and urbanization (Delgado et al., 1999; Thornton, 2010); developments in breeding, nutrition and animal health(Thornton,2010); rapid technology invasion(Nouman et al.,2014; Rae, 2008); changing food preferences (FAO,2009); changes in climatic conditions(Mandleni, 2011)and genetic improvements (Adkinson,2013). Mwangi (2013) add that socio-economic and environmental factors such as population growth, urbanization and economic development, changing livestock market demands, impacts of climate variability and science and technology trends have contributed to the changes in livestock numbers.

According to Ilea (2009), global livestock production is expected to double by 2050, growing faster than any other agricultural sub-sector. Over the last six decades, livestock production has increased substantially across the globe; this increase in production has been driven mostly by animal science and technology, as well as by scientific and technological development in the areas of breeding, nutrition and animal health. People who live in highly industrialized countries derive more than 40 percent of their dietary protein intake from livestock (Steinfield et al.; 2006b). It is projected that people who live in the rapidly emerging economies and developing countries will demand better animal based foods in the future (Smith et al., 2013). 7

Thornton (2010) is of the opinion that the future demand for livestock products, especially in developed countries, could be heavily moderated by socio-economic factors such as human health and changing socio-cultural competition between food and feed production for land use. Concerning the importance of livestock systems for food security, and their potential to impact on poverty, livelihood, health and nutrition as well as the environment, the livestock still receives limited attention in the global agriculture and food debate.

2.3 Mixed Crop-livestock Production System

In the mixed crop-livestock systems of the Ethiopian highlands and mid-altitudes, livestock production is subordinate, but economically complementary to crop production. In this agro- ecological zone, livestock, especially cattle, provide traction, which is a vital contribution to the overall farm labor requirement. Within the integrated crop-livestock production systems, animals play a particular vital role, the extent of which is dependent on the type of production system, animal species and scale of the operation. Particularly highland mixed crop-livestock farming system of Ethiopia support 2/3 of the livestock population and hold about 95% of the cropped area. It is estimated that the highlands contain nearly 75 to 80% of the national cattle and sheep, and 30% of the national goat flock (Zinash et al., 2001).

In the mixed crop-livestock system of Ethiopian highlands, farm size is an effective constraint for efficiency of production as well as improving the living condition of the rural family. Because, increasing population pressure needs additional cropland to produce food crops, it has contributed to the decline in availability of grazing lands which in turn affects livestock productivity (Alemayehu, 2002). Livestock products, especially dairy, can make a unique contribution to human nutrition to the poor in developing countries by providing micronutrients in bio-available form such as vitamin A, carbohydrates, protein and calcium (Ahmed et al., 2003). In the highlands of Ethiopia, milk produced by smallholders is used for family consumption. For butter making, milk is collected over a period of three or four days in a clay pot. When the milk has soured and sufficient milk has been collected, the clay pot is shaken back and forth until butter granules are formed.

This method of butter manufacture may take from two to three hours, depending on such factors as temperature, the fat content of the milk, the acidity of the milk and the amount of milk in the clay pot. The time taken to make the butter together with the time involved in taking this butter to the market place is a considerable drain on the already limited time of the smallholder, or specifically on that of his wife and family (Zelalem and Inger, 2000). In mixed production systems where animals are used for draught and transport, the proportion of mature oxen or donkeys in herds tends to be relatively high. In arid areas where pastoral system of production is dominant, livestock population has increased overtime following the demand for both water and feed availability (Belaynesh, 2006).

2.3.1 Livestock Production Systems in Ethiopia

The diversity of Ethiopia's topography, climate and cultural conditions make it difficult to generalize about cattle production systems in the country. Numerous authors used different criteria to classify livestock production systems in Ethiopia. In the highland areas, agricultural production system is predominantly smallholder mixed farming, with crop and livestock husbandry typically practiced within same management unit. The highland crop- livestock mixed farming system encompasses nearly 40% of the country’s land area and is located above1, 500m.a.s.l (NEPAD-CAAD, 2005).

It is featured by a mixed farming system where crop cultivation and livestock production are undertaken side by side and complementing each other. According to the same source, about 80% of cattle, 75% of sheep, and 25% of goats from the total national livestock holdings are found in this production system. Despite the contribution of livestock to the economy and to smallholders’ livelihood, the production system is not adequately market-oriented (Ayele et al., 2003). There is little evidence of strategic production of livestock for marketing except some sales targeted to traditional Ethiopian festivals.

According to the same authors, the primary reason for selling livestock is to generate income to meet unforeseen expenses. Sales of oxen are taken as a last resort and large ruminants are generally sold when they are old, culled, or barren. In the highlands, large numbers of cattle are kept to supply draft power for crop production. Cattle in Ethiopia are almost entirely of the zebu type and are sources of milk and meat.

However, these cattle do relatively well under the traditional production system. About 70% of the cattle are in the highlands, and the remaining 30 are kept by pastoralists in the lowland areas (Solomon et al., 2003). Cattle production details including husbandry practices, feed resources, purposes of keeping cattle, production systems and environments interacting under smallholder settings required for improving productivity and profitability of the cattle were not properly studied in different parts of the country (Alemayehu et al.,2000). Similarly, cattle and cattle product markets and marketing situations crucial for enhancing incomes and livelihood of the smallholder livestock keepers were also not described in various parts of the country (Solomon et al., 2003). Cattle production systems differ markedly due to differences in resource endowments, climate, human population, disease incidences, level of economic development, research support and government economic policies (Devendra and Thomas, 2002).

2.4 Socio-Economic Importance of Cattle in Ethiopia

In the mixed crop-livestock systems of the Ethiopian highlands, livestock are subordinate but economically complementary to crop production in providing draft power, which is a vital contribution to the overall farm labor requirement. Cattle also provide meat, milk, cash income and manure, and serve as a capital asset against risk. In the semi-arid low lands, cattle are the most important species because they supply milk for the subsistence pastoral families. In the more arid areas, however, goats and camels are the dominant species reared. The former provide milk, meat and cash income, while the latter population for milk, transport and, to a limited extent, meat. Cattle are kept for all purpose. However, the purposes of keeping cattle vary with production systems. Traction ranked highest followed by milk and reproduction/breeding (males and females) in both crop livestock and agro pastoral systems (Alemayehu, 2004).

Manure production also considered important by most crop/livestock and agro-pastoralist farmers, but as secondary rather than a primary purpose. In contrast, reproduction/breeding requirements received higher ranks in pastoralist systems and, for female, requirements for breeding outranked the importance of milk production (Workneh and Rowlands, 2004). In Ethiopia, 45% of livestock owners are women and 33% of livestock keepers households are headed by women in Addis Ababa city (Azage, 2004). 10

Women are usually responsible for feeding large animals, cleaning the barns, milking dairy cattle, processing milk and marketing livestock products, but they receive assistance of men, female children and/or other relatives. Young children, especially girls between the ages of 7 and 15, are mostly responsible for managing calves, chicken and small ruminants and older boys are responsible for treating sick animals, constructing shelter, cutting grass and grazing of cattle and small ruminants. The role of women in managing animals that are confined during most of the year is substantial. They are critically involved in removing and managing manure, which is made in to cakes and used or sold as fuel (Azage, 2004).

The potential of livestock to reduce poverty is enormous. Livestock contribute to the livelihoods of more than two-thirds of the world’s rural poor and to a significant minority of the peri-urban poor. The poorest of the poor often do not have livestock, but if they can acquire animals, their livestock can help start them along a pathway out of poverty. Livestock also play many other important roles in people’s lives. They contribute to food and nutritional security; they generate income and are an important, mobile means of storing wealth; they provide transport and on-farm power; their manure helps maintain soil fertility; and they fulfill a wide range of socio-cultural roles (ILRI, 2002).

Livestock in Ethiopia provide draught power, income to farming communities, means of investment and important source of foreign exchange earning to the nation. Of the total household cash income from crop and livestock, livestock account for 37 to 87% in different parts of the country (Ayele et al., 2003), and the higher the cash income, the higher is the share of livestock, indicating that increased cash income comes primarily from livestock, particularly in the pastoral areas.

2.5 Cattle Breed Type

The tropical African indigenous breeds have special adaptive traits for disease resistance, heat tolerance and ability to utilize poor quality feed (Tedonkenk-pamo and pieper, 2000). The livestock genetic resources of Ethiopia have involved largely as a result of natural selection influenced by environmental factors. This has made the stock better conditioned to withstand feed and water shortages, diseases challenges and harsh climates. Nevertheless, the capacity for the high level of production has remained low (IPS, 2000).

About 99% of the cattle population in Ethiopia are indigenous that are adapted to feed and water shortages, disease challenges and harsh climates. The productivity of indigenous livestock is, however, believed to be poor even if no practical recording scheme at national level has been used to judge their merit. Crossbreeding has been practiced with encouraging results, however, a strictly controlled breeding program has not been practiced and there has been no dairy herd recording scheme at national level. Less than 1% of the 49.3 million cattle populations of Ethiopia are exotic or crossbred dairy cows (CSA, 2009).

In Ethiopia, genetic improvement of the indigenous cattle for dairy production, focusing on crossbreeding, has been practiced for the last five decades, albeit with little success. Selection as an improvement tool has been given less emphasis and as such there have been no systematic and organized selection schemes for cattle genetic improvement in Ethiopia. In addition, little or no genetic improvement work targeted at improving beef production has been undertaken so far. Therefore, there is a need to develop effective and sustainable genetic improvement schemes for indigenous cattle breeds of Ethiopia (Aynalem et al., 2011).

2.6 Feed Resources and Feeding System

Livestock feed resources in Ethiopia are mainly natural grazing lands and browses, crop residues, forage crop and agro-industrial by products. Feeding systems include grazing or browsing on communal or private natural pasture and rangelands cut and carry feeding, hay and crop residues. At present, livestock are fed almost entirely on natural pasture and crop residues. Using of improved forages and agro-industrial by-products is minimal and most of agro-industrial byproducts are concentrated in urban and peri-urban areas (Alemayehu, 2005).

In the mixed cereal livestock farming systems of the Ethiopian highlands, crop residues provide on average about 50% of the total feed source for ruminant livestock. The contributions of crop residues reach up to 80% during the dry seasons of the year (Adugna, 2007). The availability of feed resources in the highlands depends on the intensity of crop production, population pressure, the amount of rainfall, and distribution pattern of rainfall and seasons of the year. Pasture growth is a reflection of the annual rainfall distribution pattern (Seyoum et al., 2001).

However, with the decline in the size of the grazing land and degradation through overgrazing and the expansion of arable cropping, agricultural byproducts have become increasingly important (Alemayehu, 2004). Seasonality in feed availability and lack of knowledge on feed conservation has created feed shortage both in the highland and lowland ecologies of Ethiopia. The population pressure and expansion of crop land calls for alternative ways of feed production, conservation and utilization. The seasonally surplus total dry matter biomass could be effectively utilized to support market-oriented ruminant production (Tesfaye et al., 2010). The quantity of feed is inadequate in the dry season for the existing livestock, while there is surplus in the wet season. Cereal crop residues (straws and stovers) are mostly stacked and fed to livestock during the dry season when the quantity and quality of available fodder from natural pasture declines drastically (Getachew, 2002).

2.7 Animal Housing

Housing is very important for animals and the rearing system determines the kind of provision to be made. The housing systems of different livestock species in Ethiopia is predominantly open fenced barn that do not have roofing to shelter larger livestock; like cattle (except calves), camel and donkey during night time(Tesfaye, 2007). Animals were housed in open and closed type of houses (in house hold hut) depending on age and types of animal. Those young cattle and young and mature goats are housed separately in the family hut. It is constructed inside the family hut with wood and walled by a mud. Mature cattle, young and mature camels were housed in the open field around their encampment by fencing it with available piece of thorn wood and different bush plants. This type of house is locally called as “Mora”. Mora and mud house are constructed with the main objectives of protecting the animals from predators during night time.

However, if the animals were sick, the enclosure was used to prevent movement of animals during day time. The herders believes that the major reason that the goats of all ages groups kept in the family house during night time is due to the fact that goats are not able to defend themselves from predators while other animals, cattle and camels, are able to defend themselves first by giving sign for their herders when predators come. Housing of animals is practiced only during night time and Mora cleaning performed by married women.

Cattle calves were housed in well-protected enclosures until they reach one month old. However, after one month of age, they are tethered in Mora on the day time and occasionally taken out to graze. During the dry season women sometimes cut grass and carry it home for calves. The more severely of the dry season, the more important this becomes. In case of camel calves, they are always kept in the Mora from the time of birth up to the time they go out for grazing after one month (Kedija, 2007). On the other hand, most of the farmers keep their calves and small ruminants in closed barns that had roof cover. Provision of closed barns for calves and small ruminants varies from place to place. Overall calves are most favored in getting roofed night time shelter followed by goats and sheep (Tesfaye, 2007).

2.8 Watering Management

Temporary surface water, ponds, rivers, streams traditional well “Ellas”, hand dug wells like hand and solar pumps and bore holes are the main source of water for cattle in Ethiopia. In highland areas water sources of cattle is rivers, streams and temporary surface water both in dry and wet seasons. In all pastoral areas, temporary surface water and ponds are used in the wet seasons. Livestock watering frequency varies from season to season, species to species and accessibility of water sources. During the wet seasons most of the livestock are watered every 1-2 days. But during dry seasons cattle are watered every 2-3 days and camels every 3- 5 days based on availability and accessibility of watering points. During dry seasons the pastoralist with their livestock travel more than 6-8 hours per day for looking of water source (CARE-Ethiopia, 2009).

2.9 Constraints Limiting Cattle Production

2.9.1 Shortage of feed resources

The major constraints of Ethiopian farmers are feed shortage, diseases and parasites, drought, shortage of grazing land, market access, veterinary services, extension services and other infrastructure. Livestock production in Ethiopia suffers from feed shortages at all levels. It is estimated that there is a 40% deficit in the national feed balance. This is again aggravated by seasonal availability of forage and crop residues in the highlands and by erratic rainfall in the lowlands.

The problem is further exacerbated by the associated poor husbandry practices that lower productivity further (Firew, 2007). Communal lands are resources of livelihood for rural peoples of Ethiopia. Especially, communal grazing lands are important sources of livestock feed and most of the livestock population are mainly dependent on natural pasture and secondly on crop residue. Such communal resources are not managed based on the collective action of communities from complete disappearance. Thus, communal grazing lands are decreasing in size and its productivity at a faster rate, faced with severe land degradations, subject to competition with another type of land-uses and becoming a source of frequent conflicts. Therefore, major communal grazing land problems and its impact on agricultural communities’ life is highly dependent on it (CSA, 2003).

Lack of market-oriented production, lack of adequate information on livestock resources, inadequate permanent trade routes and other facilities like feeds, water, holding grounds, lack or non-provision of transport, ineffectiveness and inadequate infrastructural and institutional set-ups, prevalence of diseases, illegal trade and inadequate market information (internal and external) are generally mentioned as some of the major reasons for the poor performance of this sector (Belachew and Jemberu, 2003).

In order to make timely and well-informed decisions, sellers and buyers need access to a wide range of market information, including prices, sales volumes, disease status and the levels of national and international demand. Despite the low productivity of traditional animal production system in the mixed crop livestock system of Ethiopian highlands, there are substantial potentials for development. There is a considerable potential for increasing crop yield, and the quantity as well as the quality of forage through adoption of different strategies that integrate livestock and cropping systems. This can be achieved by the production of more feeds under sustainable cropping system and preparation of better mix of nutrients for livestock from these sources, and by improving utilization efficiency of the available feed resources (Alemayehu, 2002).

Availability, quality and quantity of feeds vary among varies production systems. Cattle largely depend on rangeland grazing or crop residues that are of poor nutritive value. Feed is not uniformly supplied and the quality is poor. Natural pasture, browses and bushes account to the major food sources of livestock owned by pastoralists. 15

Seasonal fluctuations in the availability and quality of feed have been a common phenomenon, inflecting serious changes in livestock production (Alemayehu, 2005). Dry season feed supply is the paramount problem. The feed shortages and nutrient deficiencies are more acute in dry seasons (Tedonkenk-pamo and pieper, 2000). In contrast, under normal circumstances, in lowlands when there are sufficient feed for cows, milk tends to be adequate for home consumption as well as for market (Bruke and Tafesse, 2000). The natural pastures of the tropics have significant seasonal variations of productivity and nutritive value. Livestock feed resource in Ethiopia are mainly natural pasture, crop residues, improved pastures, forage crops and agro-industrial by products (Alemayehu, 2004).

2.9.2 Shortage of Water

Ruminates as any other animal require water to maintain the water content of the body, and water availability affects voluntary feed intake; less water leads to inadequate intake of dry matter. For animals kept under pastoral production system, the frequency of watering is very important. During the dry season, water is available only from wells and some lakes and streams (Ibrahim and Olaloku, 2002).This leads to over grazing around watering points. Water intake increases as watering frequency is decreased and feed conversion efficiency becomes lower as watering interval increase (Ibrahim and Olaloku, 2002).

2.9.3 Livestock Disease

Animal healthcare and improved health management is also one of the major constraints of cattle production in Ethiopia. Contact of livestock brought from various localities through the use of communal pastures and watering as well as marketing places play an important role in the transmission of economically significant infectious and parasite diseases. Such livestock movements could be cause of direct or indirect transmission of various economically important livestock diseases (Zinash, 2004). The low veterinary service performance in the lowlands is the outcome of the government monopolized services. Government veterinary staffs are few in number and cannot cover a vast area to adequately address the veterinary needs of livestock keepers. Besides government staffs need adequate mobile facilities for which currently the government does not have the capacity to provide (Tafesse, 2001).

2.10 Livestock Policies and Strategies in Ethiopia

In Ethiopian policy and strategy documents livestock development is indicated as one of the focus areas of the government. Since 1992 the government of Ethiopia has introduced a range of policies and strategies to guide economic development and address the food insecurity problem. The policies and strategies for agriculture and rural development reflect the potential of the agricultural sector in the nation’s development. The Agricultural Development Led-Industrialization (ADLI) strategy was the first comprehensive strategy launched by GOE and it has continued to influence the formulation of successive policy, strategy and development plans, including the Rural Development Policies and Strategies (RDPS 2003), the Plan for Accelerated and Sustainable Development to Eradicate Poverty (PASDEP 2005/06–2009/10) and the current Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP 2010/11–2014/15).

The basic policy directions related to livestock and pastoralist are directly and indirectly treated under the indicated strategic directions. Specifically livestock development related strategies are detailed in relation to development paths with different agro-ecological zones and integrated development. The RDPS also recognizes that pastoralism is an important social system which can make a significant contribution to agricultural growth. The policy seeks to ensure pastoral livelihoods and their asset bases and addresses issues of drought; livestock marketing; veterinary; livestock feed; water development; and environmental protection and management.

2.11 Conceptual Framework

Challenges of small-scale cattle farming

Economic Environmental Social  Lack of capital  Lack of water  Population size  Shortage of grazing  Water impurity  Traditional rearing system land  Land degradation  Over grazing

Low Productivity

Source: Researcher’s Own construction, 2018

CHAPTER THREE

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Description of the Study Area

Location: The study area is located in West Shewa Zone, Oromia Regional State. Dendi Woreda is one of the eighteen Woredas of west Shewa zone, the woreda's capital; Ginchi is located seventy five kilometers west of Addis Ababa on the Addis Ababa–Nekemte road. The Woreda has a total area of 109,729 hec with altitudinal range from 2000-3200 m a.s.l. The Woreda is located between 8o47’30’’N to 9010’0’’ N latitude and 37o50’0’’E to 38o20’0’’ E longitude. The population of the Woreda is 209,554, it has 48 rural kebeles and seven urban and semi-urban out of which four towns like Ginchi, Olonkomi, Asgori and Boda have municipal status (Dendi Woreda FED Report, 2013).

Figure3.1: Map of the Study Area

Source: Ethio-GIS and CSA Data, 2017 19

Climate and Agro-ecology It is important to realize that temperature and altitude are the two important factors which are strongly correlated to reflect the climatic condition the study area. Dendi Woreda has a tropical climate that is modified by altitude and the mean maximum temperature is 23.3oc while the minimum temperature is 9.6oc (Holeta research center, Dendi branch 2014). The diverse topographic features of the area represent a diverse climatic condition. The Woreda encompasses Dega and Woina-Dega agro-ecological zones.

3.1.1 Livelihood of the Households

The economic activities for the majority of the population of the Woreda are characterized by mixed farming. Like all rural parts of Ethiopian regions, in Dendi Woreda the dominant economic activity is agricultural sector where 85% the population is engaged in and followed by service sector. Agriculture is dominantly relied up on the seasonal rainfall and uses old traditional method of farming. On the other hand, cash crops such as potato on the highland use small irrigations. The farmers making their livelihood by producing food crops are leading their lives with poverty. The major crops grown in the district are: Teff, Wheat, Chickpea, Sorghum and Barley are the major one. Domesticated animals are also found in Woreda with greater proportion. Among these Sheep 87, 235, Cattle 160,641, Goats17,729, Poultry 801, 444, Horses 21,744, Mule 1,123, and 16, 395 Donkeys which serves as the major income sources for the population of the study Woreda (Dendi Woreda ARDO, 2014).

3.2 Research Design

In this study the researcher used qualitative approach. In addition to this Survey design was the type of research design that was employed in the study. This design was employed to collect qualitative data that help address a wide and more defined range of research questions.

3.3 Data Type and Sources

For this research, both qualitative and quantitative data were collected to attain the stated objectives. The primary data sources were male and female respondents, Key Informants, as well as DAs and Agricultural experts.

Secondary data were collected from registered documents at the respective sampled kebeles offices, Articles, Journals, Websites, Reports of Government and Non-Government bodies. 3.4 Sampling Procedures and Sampling Size Multi-stage sampling procedures (purposive and random) were employed to select the study sites and households (HHs) of the Woreda. Firstly, forty-eight kebeles of Dendi Woreda were stratified into two agro-ecological zones (i.e. Dega and Woina-dega). Secondly, the researcher put the names of 15 Dega and 33 Woina-Dega kebeles on slips of paper and conducts a lottery to select a representative kebeles from both agro-ecology. Accordingly, two kebeles (Dano Ejersa Gibe and Golole Bolo) were selected from midland (“Woina- Dega”) and one kebele (Galesa Kofitu) were selected from highland (“Dega”) areas. Three Kebeles namely: Galesa Kofitu, Dano Ejersa Gibe, and Golole Bolo were selected based on proportion of kebeles exist in each altitude and purposely from each altitude zones.

The researcher has selected 300 sample respondents out of the total 1204 households of the three kebeles purposely. This means the selected respondents were one fourth (25%) of the total households of the study area.

The sample HHs was selected using Systematic Sampling technique from the total 1204 HHs of the three kebeles. The researcher has used the following formula: K = N/n to determine interval size

Where, N = is the total HHs of sample kebeles

n = is the sample HHs then, 1204/300 = 4th

Table 3.1: Distribution of sample respondents per each kebeles

Total HHs of sample Percent Sample Name of sample kebeles kebeles HHs Male Female Total Dano Ejersa Gibe (Woina-Dega) 438 17 455 38 113 Galesa Kofitu(Dega) 331 6 337 28 84 Golole Bolo (Woina-Dega) 401 11 412 34 103 Total 1170 34 1204 100 300 Source: Own Survey, 2017 21

3.5 Instruments of Data Collection

I) Questionnaire

For this research, questionnaire was the major instrument to collect data. Open-ended and close-ended questions were developing. Questionnaire was employed to gather valuable information from small-scale cattle farmers of the study area (those who were selected as a sample).The original questionnaire prepared for small-scale cattle farmers were translated from English into Afan Oromo language to make it easily understandable.

II) Key Informant Interview

Interviews were carried out with three rural kebeles administrators, the head of Woreda Agriculture office, Agricultural and Rural Development experts, Animal Health Professionals and DAs of sample kebeles. From local small-scale cattle farmers’ six respondents (two male and female farmers from each sample kebeles) were selected purposely. The researcher was used structured and semi-structured interview.

III) Field Observation

Field observation was used to gather primary information and one of the most common methods for qualitative data collection since the researcher becomes a participant on the context being observed. Field observation were made to gather primary information with regard to the current condition of cattle farming practices, agricultural farm land size, grazing land, cultivated land and the overall surrounding socio-economic relating to the agricultural practice of the study area.

IV) Focus Group Discussion

Focus group discussion was also another qualitative method of data collection instrument that were employed for this study. Accordingly, FGD was done with 12 informants four from each sample kebeles (two males and two females) selected considering their age and experience with cattle rearing activities. The participants in each focus group were the so- called model farmers of the sample kebeles because, these people is assumed to have detail knowledge on practices of cattle farming and encountered problems. Finally, the data obtained were described and narrated qualitatively.

3.6 Data Analysis and Interpretation

Data obtained were coded and captured using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS version 20) and Microsoft Excel Software. Variables that were the most representative of the prevailing conditions in the study area were selected for analysis. Because the data collected were qualitative in nature, it was subjected to descriptive statistics, presented in the form of tables.

The data generated from primary and secondary sources through questionnaires, key informant interview, observation and formal and informal discussions were presented, analyzed and interpreted qualitatively depending on the available data obtained. Simple statistical descriptions like graphs, charts, frequency and percentages were employed to interpret the collected data. The remaining data were discussed, described and narrated qualitatively.

3.7 Ethical Consideration

To accomplish the research, initial approval were from concerned bodies. Efforts were made to make the research process professional and ethical. The researcher was tried to implement all ethical issues that are expected to be respected and clearly informed the respondents about the purpose of the study. To go in line with the attitude, culture, religion differences and other behaviors of the respondents’ the researcher was fully take the responsibility.

CHAPTER FOUR

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter deals with the analysis and interpretation of the collected data. It discusses about the socio-economic and environmental factors that affects small-scale cattle farming in Dendi Woreda.

4.1 Demographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics of Households

The demographic characteristics of sample households such as Sex, Family size, Age and Educational status plays a great role in the agricultural practice and food security situation of small-scale farmers in the study area. Cattle production practices of the study area were characterized based on different parameters. One of the tools used was socio- economic aspects of households. These include sex, age, and family size of households (HHs), labor force, educational level, livestock holding, landholding, and cattle holding together with other management practices.

Table4.1: Socio-Economic Characteristics of Sample HHs

Variables Sample HHs Frequency Percent (%) Male 279 93.0 Sex of respondents Female 21 7.0 Total 300 100 15-24 19 6.3 25-34 39 13.0 Age of respondents 35-44 122 40.3 45-54 89 29.7 55-64 24 8.0 >64 8 2.7 Total 300 100 Source: Own Survey, 2018

As indicated in table4.1 above, out of 300 interviewed sample households, 93% of them were male headed and the remaining 7% were female headed households. Similarly, out of 300 respondents, about 40.3% of respondents found in the age between 35 and 44 years and about 29.7% of sample respondent had age between 45 and 54 years. Whereas, about 13%, 8%,6.3% and 2.7% of the total respondents were in the age between 25 - 34, between 55 – 64, 15 - 24 and above 64 years, respectively.

Marital Status

Married Divorced Widowed

93%

Figure4.1: Marital status of respondents

Source: Own field survey, 2018

Regarding marital status, majority of sample respondents 93% were married, while the remaining 5% and 2% were divorced and widowed respectively. The survey result shows that about 59.7% of the households had 7- 10 family members, where as 31.7%, 6.7% and 2% households had 4-6, 0-3 and >10persons per household, respectively. As livestock production is labor intensive activity, livestock production in general and production of cattle in particular is a function of labor. Since large family size need large amount of production for consumption, farmers may give more attention to cereal crops production than cattle rearing in order to satisfy family need. This might lead to degradation of cattle production resource derived from such intensive production system.

In developing countries like Ethiopia education is characterized by low level of education and high illiteracy rate. According to data obtained from survey conducted in the study area the distribution of Educational backgrounds of the sampled households were 51.3% illiterates, 39% formally educated and 9.7% write and read.

Generally, the distribution of Educational status among the sampled respondents indicated the majority are illiterate that have direct impact on the agricultural practices and production in the study area. Similarly, according to data obtained from survey conducted in the study area literate farmers are more likely to adopt the use of farm inputs and better in using agricultural information delivered from extension agents than those who are illiterate.

4.1.1 Land Holding Size

In a country like Ethiopia where agriculture employs the vast majority of the population, land is an important economic resource for the development of rural livelihoods. Agricultural landholding size under subsistence agriculture also plays a significant role in the household food security situation. Many study revealed that, landholdings in many rural parts of the country are too small for adequate agricultural production to meet the minimum household consumption requirements. The average land holding is only about 1 hectare per household and the population growth rate is creating increasing pressure on land and other natural resources (Belay &Maning, 2004).

Table 4.2: Distribution of Landholding size of HHs

Land size Percent No farmland 2.0 0.1-1.0ha 6.3 1.01-2.0ha 61.3 2.01-3.0ha 17.3 3.01-4.0ha 11.3 4.0-5.0ha 1.7 Total 100.0 Source: Own field survey, 2018

As illustrated in table 4.2 above, majority of sample households (61.3%) owned 1.01- 2.0ha/hh whereas, (17.3%) owned 2.10- 3.0ha/hh farmland. The remaining, 11.3%, 6.3% and 1.7% respondents’owned3.01-4.0ha/hh,0.1-1.0ha/hh and 4.0-5.0ha/hh farm land respectively. Only (2%) of the total sampled HHs did not possess their own land. The mean landholding size of the farmers in the study area is 1.85ha per household. The findings of this study clearly show that most of the farmers in the study area owned small farmland. This condition, forced farmers allot their farm land either for cultivation of crops or grazing land or for both purposes depending on their objective.

Accordingly, the survey showed that majority of respondents allotted their land both for cultivation of crops and for grazing as pasture land. The average landholding reported in this study area is less than the report of (Zelalem, 1999) who observed 4.9 ha/hh and 3.0 ha/hh for Holeta and Selale areas of Central Ethiopia, respectively and larger than 1.55 ha/hh reported for Bure district (Shitahun et al., 2009). Larger landholding is assumed to provide an opportunity for land allocation to grazing lands, while the current study and overall scenario in Ethiopia tends to prioritize the available small land size for crop production.

4.2 Cattle Holding Size

The average numbers of Cattle holdings per household is presented in Figure4.2 and Figure 4.3. Cattle have multiple roles in the smallholder systems in addition to food source for the farmer including plowing and threshing. Cattles also confer a certain degree of security in time of crop failure, as they are the “near cash” capital stock in the study area. They also provide farmyard manure commonly applied to improve soil fertility.

Source: Own field survey, 2018

As shown in figure4.2 above, in 2012 about 32.7% of the sample HHs owned 7-10 cattle, 28.7% sample HHs owned 10-13 cattle, 22%, and 16.7% of sample HHs owned 4-6 and 1-3 cattle respectively. Accordingly, about 31.3% of the sample HHs owned 7-10 cattle, while the remaining 28%, 20.7% and 20% sample HHs owned10-13, 4-6 and 1-3 cattle respectively in 2018(Figure4.3). The mean cattle holding size of the respondents in 2012 and 2018 is 7.5 and 7.3 cattle per household, respectively.

The overall mean cattle holding of the current study was less than cattle holdings in most highland areas of the country such as in Mekele, 8.01 heads/hh reported by (Negussie,2006) and in Burji, 12.65 heads/hh reported by (Seid Guyo, 2012), but higher than that the values reported for Awassa area, 6.85 heads/hh reported by (Ike, 2002). The results of the current study clearly indicated that the number of cattle owned by the sample HHs decreasing within these five years.

4.3 Causes for Declining Cattle Number

Number of cattle in a given region declined due to a number of reasons. The major causes for the declining cattle number in many countries of the world include shortage of feed, water, lack of capital, labor and animal diseases.

Table 4.3: Causes for declining cattle number/HHs

Reasons Percent

Declining of grazing land 88.7

Lack of labor 3.0

Need to change in species 7.0

Disease 1.3

Total 100.0

Source: Own field survey, 2018

As indicated in Table 4.3 above, about 88.7% of respondent’s replied that their cattle number was highly decreased within these five years due to the declining of grazing land. Whereas, the remaining7.0%, 3.0% and 1.3% of sample respondents are explained that their cattle number decreased due to need to change in species, lack labor and disease respectively. In view of the respondents, the causes of feed shortage were land shortage; certain grazing areas with potential for grazing cannot be utilized due to water logging problems during the main rainy season in middle altitude and increased human and livestock population and intensive crop production that in turn resulted in reduced pastureland.

The key informants indicated that, “feed shortage is the most important constraints to cattle rearing in Dendi Woreda‖. They stressed feed shortage both in quality and quantity as the first important constraint to cattle production in the study area.

According to the key informants, “because of poor traditional farming practice and shortage of land due to expansion of croplands, crop residues produced from their crops only supplement to feed cattle for short period‖. Similarly, FGD participants’ indicated that, “the major reason for the declining of cattle number in the study area is shortage of grazing land which is resulted from population pressure‖.

4.4 Cattle Rearing Purposes Cattle are the most important component of the mixed crop-livestock production system of the study area; in that oxen are used for traction to cultivate food crops. Cows are used for milking which can serve as source of income. Respondent ranking indicated that cattle is primarily kept for traction followed by threshing, for milk production, as source of income from direct selling of cattle or from sale of cattle products, as source of manure and source of meat.

Figure 4.4: Oxen used for farming

Source: Photo taken by Researcher during field survey, 2018

Table 4.4: Distribution of cattle keeping purpose of HHs

Purpose of keeping cattle Percent Self-consumption 7.7 Selling 7.3 Farming activity 85.0 Total 100.0 Source: Own field survey, 2018

The survey result indicated that about 85% of the sample HHs reared cattle for farming activities, 7.7%, and 7.3% sample households reared cattle for self-consumption and selling, respectively. HHs do not slaughter cattle for home consumption in normal times but consume cattle products such as milk, meat and by-products (butter and yogurt). However, HHs slaughter animal during cultural ceremonies such as wedding and funeral days (Table 4.4).

In addition to milk and milk products the sample respondents used cattle dung for heat energy (dung cake) followed by cattle dung as natural fertilizer.

Table 4.5: Major economic activity of sample HHs

Major economic activity Percent

Livestock keeping 1.0

Crop production 94.7

Trade 3.7

Employed 0.7

Total 100.0

Source: Own field survey, 2018

According to survey results obtained, the majority of sample households engaged in crop production. As shown in table 4.5 above, 94.7% of the sample respondent’s economic activity is production of crops; the remaining 3.7%, 1%, and 0.7% households depend on trade, livestock keeping and formal employment respectively.

Major source of income 3%

9% Sale of crop Sale of cattle Milk sell

88%

Figure 4.5: The major income of sample HHs Source: Own field survey, 2018 As indicated in the figure 4.5 above, about 88% of respondents get their income from sale of crops, 9% and 3% respondents’ income is cattle and milk sales, respectively. From this it is simple to conclude that production of crops has significant importance in the household livelihood both as home consumption and income generation. Table4.6: The amount of milk produced per cow per day (in litre)

Amount of milk/cow/day Percent

No milk 45.3

1-5 litres 51.3

6-10 litres 3.4

Total 100.0

Source: Own field survey, 2018 32

As indicated in table 4.6 above, out of the total sample respondents about 51.3% produce1- 5litre milk per cow per day, whereas 45.3% and 3.4% produced no milk and 6-10 litre milk/cow/day respectively. Regarding milk sell the majority of respondents (93%) do not sell milk rather they sell milk products such as butter and cheese. Only7% of the respondents sells milk. This clearly shows that, farmers of the study area does not benefited from milk and milk products.

4.4.1 Cattle Sales (Marketing)

Cattle are used as cash generating next to cereal crops in the study area. The availability of different types of infrastructures in a given area play an important role in improving the agricultural practice of small-scale farmers as well as rural agricultural productivity and access to market. The availability and affordability of physical infrastructures is an important in connecting rural agricultural producer’s access to market. Access to markets is a key constraint to smallholder farmer’s agricultural practice in the study area. The problems of market accessibility in the study area mainly attached with poor rural infrastructure such rural roads that connect rural kebeles with the market areas and small-scale farmers market information for their agricultural products.

Table4.7: Number of cattle’s sold by HHs since October last year

Number of sold Cattle Percent

Not sell 22.3

1 75.3

2 2.3

Total 100.0

Source: Own field survey, 2018

As indicated in this study (Table 4.7), the majority of respondents (75.3%) sold 1cattle head per household since last October. According to FGD participants stated that, ―most of the farmers in the study area do not sell their cattle for small expenditures rather they used crops and other livestock such as sheep, goats and poultry.

4.4.2 Reasons for Selling Cattle

According to focus group discussion respondents indicated that cattle were sold to cover household food gaps, clothing, school and medical fees, social events, to buy other animals, and to purchase crop inputs. In pastoral area, since the area is drought prone, the main reasons for selling animals is to cover cash needs to buy food grains and to cope up seasonal feed shortage and disease problems. They also sold to replace the old one with young stock. In mid and highland altitude, filling food gap, loan repayment and forced sales during dry period and crop planting seasons were mentioned as the most important reasons for selling. Farmers and traders estimate the age of the animals by checking their teeth and visual estimation.

Percent

38.7 32 24.7

1.7 3 Pay school Pay tax fees Purchase Purchase fertilizer other household items

Figure4.6. Reasons for cattle sale Source: Own field survey, 2018

As presented in figure 4.6 above, out of the total HHs of the study area 38.7% sold their cattle to purchase fertilizer, the remaining 32%, 24.7% and 3% to pay school fees, pay tax and other expenditure, respectively. Only 1.7% of the respondents sold cattle to purchase household items. According to focus group discussion participants indicated that, ―cattle were sold to cover household food gaps, clothing, school and medical fees, social events, to buy other animals, and to purchase crop inputs. ―They also sold to replace the old one with young stock and loan repayment.‖

4.5 Cattle Feed Resources and Feeding Systems

Cattle feed resources in Ethiopia are mainly natural grazing lands and browses, crop residues, forage crop and agro-industrial by products. Feeding systems include grazing or browsing on communal or private natural pasture and rangelands cut and carry feeding, hay and crop residues. At present, cattle are fed almost entirely on natural pasture and crop residues.

Types of cattle feed

3% 1%

Natural Pasture 36% Crop Residue 60% On-farm grazing Harvested browse

Figure 4.7: Distribution of types of cattle feed

Source: Own field survey, 2018

Cattle feed resources were ranked depending on the abundance of feed resources for their cattle. The survey results indicated that majority of HHs used natural pasture and crop residues as feed resources. Natural pasture was ranked 1st (60%), crop residues 2nd (36%), on- farm grazing 3rd (3%) and Harvested browse 4th (1.0%) in all altitude of the study area.

Table 4.8: Cattle grazing system during wet and season

Grazing systems Season

Wet Dry

Percent Percent

Tethering grazing of cattle 79.7 0.0

Cut and carry or zero grazing 20.3 0.0

Free grazing or free roaming cattle 0.0 26.0

Extensive grazing (with shepherd) 0.0 74.0

Total 100.0 100.0

Source: Own field survey, 2018

Regarding grazing system, about 79.7% of the sample household practiced tethering grazing of cattle and the remaining 20.3% practiced cut and carry or zero grazing during wet season. Similarly during dry season, about 74% of the sample HHs practiced extensive grazing (with shepherd) and 26% practiced free grazing or free roaming cattle (See Table 4.8).

Figure 4.8: Free grazing or free roaming cattle during dry season

Source: Picture taken during field survey, 2018

4.5.1 Types of Crop Residue

Poor traditional farming practice and shortage of land due to expansion of croplands, crop residues produced from their crops will only supplement to feed livestock for short period. Increased utilization of crop residues, cultivation of high yielding improved forage, allocating part of their cropland for grazing and reducing number of their stock are strategies used to cope up with feed shortage.

Percent

68.7

3.3

Teff straw Barley Straw Guayo Straw

Figure4.9: Types of crop residue used by sample HHs Source: Own field survey, 2018

The result of this study indicates that sample HHs of the study area used crop residue such as Teff straw, Barley straw and Guayo straw to feed their cattle. As presented in figure 4.9 above, Teff straw ranked 1st and followed by Guayo straw in the midland (Woina-Dega) zone of the study area. Barley straw constituted the largest share of crop residue fed to cattle in highland (Dega) area. The key informants indicated that availability of feed resources and crop residues varied among the altitude zones. The major crops grown by farmers in the highland (Dega) zone were barley, wheat, pea and bean, while teff, wheat, and chickpea are the main crops grown in mid-altitude (Woina-Dega) zone. Barley constituted the largest share of crop residue fed to cattle in highland. Teff straw was the 1st feed resource in mixed farming areas of mid-altitude followed by Guayo straw and wheat straw.

4.5.2 Months of Feed Availability and Shortage Seasonality in feed availability and lack of knowledge on feed conservation has created feed shortage both in the mid-land and highland ecologies of Ethiopia.

Table4.9: Months of feed shortage Months of severe feed shortage Percent Jan.- May 70.3 June - Aug. 29.7

Total 100.0 Source: Own field survey, 2018 38

According to the result of this study, 70.3% of sample HHs responded that critical feed shortage is occurred from Jan. to May and 29.3% while, responded June to August feed shortage time (Table4.9). Similarly FGD stated that, “the natural pasture were abundantly available to animals in mid-altitude area starting from April to mid-July (main rainy season) and from mid-September to November (short rainy season) including crop harvesting periods of both seasons‖.

― Many of the farmers who live in mid-altitude involved in crop production practice uses stubble grazing and fallow land as an animal feed resource during crop harvesting time (half of December to end of February) and during severe dry season from half of January to end of May; farmers use crop residues as an animal feed‖. This study result is in agreement to the study of (Seyoum et al., 2001) indicated that the availability of feed resources in the highlands depends on the intensity of crop production, population pressure, the amount of rainfall, and distribution pattern of rainfall and seasons of the year.

4.5.3 Reason for Fodder Shortage As grazing was main source of cattle feeding, scarcity of grazing land could be a limiting factor for provision of feed. In connection to this, respondents reported shortage of feed as the first major constraint for cattle production resulted mainly from grazing land scarcity. During FGD participants’ mentioned that:-―the main feed resources for cattle production relied on private grazing lands‖. During field observation it was observed that feed resources were commonly managed in a traditional way and all species of livestock graze together and this could be additional contributing factor for the scarcity of natural pasture. Poor knowledge of the farmers on management of the grazing land was also another factor. However, with the decline in the size of the grazing land and degradation through overgrazing and the expansion of arable cropping, agricultural by-products have become increasingly important (Alemayehu, 2004).

Table4.10: Major reason for cattle feed shortage of the study area

Reasons Percent (%)

Declining of grazing lands 80.0

Cultivation on grazing land 16.3

Drought 1.0

Increase in human population 2.7

Total 100

Source: Own field survey, 2018

According to this study, about 80% of sample HHs believed that the status of grazing land in their areas was decreasing, which is in agreement with reports of (ESAP, 2002) as the decline in grazing land production has become one of the most important causes of feed shortage and drop in livestock productivity. The remaining16.3%, 2.7%, 1% of sample HHs responded that major reason for cattle feed shortage is cultivation on grazing land, increase in human population and drought respectively (Table4.10). Regarding cattle feed preservation the majority of sample respondents 97% do not preserve feed. Only the remaining 3% of sample respondents preserve their cattle feed by making hay. On the other hand, about 98.7% of sample HHs do not preserve feed due to the shortage of grass to preserve and 1.3% them did not practice it due to the lack of enough labor to harvest grass.

4.6 Water Resources and Quality

Table4.11: Sources of water for cattle Water sources Percent

Pipelines 2.3

Nearby river 81.3

Spring/stream 16.3

Total 100.0 Source: Own field survey, 2018

The survey result indicated that major sources of water for livestock were rivers and springs/streams. As presented in table 4.11 above, the main sources of water in the study area were rivers ranked 1st followed by springs/streams. Accordingly, 81.3% of sample HHs used rivers and 16.3% of them used springs/streams as sources of water for their cattle. Only 2.3% of the total HHs pipeline water.

4.6.1 Water Related Problems

In Ethiopia almost all rural areas farmers used rivers, streams and lakes as a source of water for their cattle. This condition exposes their livestock’s for various water born diseases.

Percent 81.7 100 80 60

40 12.3 6 20 0 Parasites Impurity Scarcity

Figure4.10: Water related problem Source: Own field survey, 2018

According to survey result the major water related problem of the study area is parasites followed by unhygienic/impurity and scarcity. As shown in figure4.10, about 81.7% of sample HHs replied that parasites are the major problem, 12.3% and 6% HHs responded impurity and scarcity respectively.

4.7 Cattle Housing Condition and Housing Time

House is basically important to protect animals from predators, theft and from adverse weather conditions. Animals were housed in open and closed type of houses (in house hold hut) depending on age and types of animal. Those young cattle and young and mature goats are housed separately in the family hut. It is constructed inside the family hut with wood and walled by a mud. However, mature cattle, young and mature camels were housed in the open field around their encampment by fencing it with available piece of thorn wood and different bush plants.

Table4.12: Cattle Housing condition

Cattle housing Percent

In a house 79.0

Tethered in the yard 21.0

Total 100.0

Source: Own field survey, 2018

The result of this study indicated that, about 79% HHs live their animals in a homestead shade and 21% HHs kept their cattle on field and tie with rope on head and feet at night (Table4.12). All sample respondents housed their cattle only at night time.

4.8 Cattle Health Related Factors

Major animal diseases and parasites were discussed through involving key informant farmers, and veterinary technicians. They indicated that diseases such as internal parasites (Ramo Kessa), Skin disease (Chitto), Ticks (Silmi), Bloat (Bokoka) and Pneumonia (Qufa) were major prevalent cattle diseases in the study area.

According to the data obtained from Dendi Woreda Agricultural Office, Developmental Agent workers and Animal health experts; ―Ticks (Silmi) ranked 1st, Internal parasites (Ramo Kessa) ranked 2nd, and Bloat (Bokoka) ranked 3rd were the most ranked diseases in terms of distribution and frequency of occurrence‖. According to the survey result indicated that, about 100% HHs in the study area have access to veterinary service, but the service was characterized by inadequate or shortage of veterinarians and veterinary supplies. Therefore, sample farmers used alternative measures of private veterinary treatments and indigenous knowledge. Overall the survey results on animal health services indicated that, about 88.3% of the respondents used the government medication center and 11.7% of respondents used government, private and traditional medications.

Table 4.12: Number of Cattle loses this year

Cattle number Percent

No lose 96.3

1-2 3.0

2-3 0.7

Total 100.0

Source: Own field survey, 2018

As shown in table 4.12, 96.3% of sample HHs did not lose any cattle this year, while 3% and 0.7% of HHs lose 1-2 and 2-3 cattle respectively. This shows that cattle disease is not the critical problem in the study area.

Generally as addressed by the majority of sample respondents and key informant interviewer shortage of grazing land is the major factors that constrained small-scale cattle farmers of the study area. In addition to this, lack of feed preservation, water impurity and poor extension services are also presented as factors affecting cattle rearing practices in the area under study. Therefore, necessary measures should be taken by all stakeholders to alleviate such problems and increase productivity of cattle in the study area.

CHAPTER FIVE

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1 Conclusion

The study showed that smallholder mixed crop-livestock production system is the most common in the study area. Natural pasture grazing and crop residues were the main sources of feed for cattle. From the findings, it is concluded that, feed shortage, water scarcity and poor quality during the dry season, shortage of labor, low-genetic potential of local cattle and cattle diseases, were the major constraints limiting cattle production respectively. Farmers ranked feed shortage as key constraint to cattle production.

The reasons for feed shortage were land shortage, increased human population, increased crop production, long dry season, water logging, lack of information and inputs on forage development technologies. In addition to this, the study revealed shortage of feed supply and that the available feed resources are dominated by poor quality crop residues, aftermath grazing and low quality pasture. This is reflected in low growth, production and reproduction performance of cattle.

The presence of high proportion of clover in the natural pasture causes cattle health problem such as bloating when fed wet and at a young age. The reasons mentioned for cattle diseases were internal and external parasites, feed shortage, water logging, lack of capital to buy medicine, poor health services and poor extension services, etc. Therefore, it was concluded that technical intervention to support small-scale cattle production need targeting improving technical and institutional constraints via adequate delivery of veterinary services, improved fodder cultivation, proper conservation and improvement of crop residues, adequate extension service and improved availability of water.

5.2 Recommendations

According to assessment of cattle rearing practices were conducted in mixed-crop livestock production system of the highlands and mid-altitude; crop production is common and day to day activities of the people of the study area. Cattle are the most important livestock species of households for their day to day activities such as cultivation, threshing, manure and income source.

Overall, the main constraints of cattle production and productivity can be summed up as feed shortage, water impurity, livestock disease and parasites, backward breeding practice and lack of marketing and unwise utilization of feed and feed resources. Therefore, to sustain the production system in the study area the following points are recommended:-

 Government give should trainings to the farmers in order to minimize feed shortage through conservation of forage/pasture in the form of hay at the end of rainy season due to abundant pasture existence in wet season.  Agricultural Research Centers must give more emphasis to alleviate dry season feed shortage through investigation of improved forages.  Awareness creation on the production and use of improved forages should be done by Development Agents in each kebeles.  Government should encourage farmers in order to use different options such as utilization of non-conventional feeds, forages development program, use of irrigation, alternative means of crop residue utilization and conservation practices.  Government should improve animal health service delivery including training, increasing health service centers and drug supply system with close monitoring and supervision.  Government should improve infrastructural and institutional set-ups, which improve the access of households to the potential markets whereby they could supply more volumes with higher share of the end market price.  Government should increase accessibility of water and quality during the dry season.  The extension and research system need to provide improved forage seeds for the farmers.  Farmers need to be committed to learn and practice improved feed technology.  Farmers need to keep small number and more productive cattle type to avoid overgrazing and practice so that to tie and feed those animals on smaller grazing lands.  All concerned governmental and non-governmental organizations that have working in the area must focus to work on and plan their efforts accordingly. In general, there is a need from government to provide extension services with the capacity, support and physical means to expose small scale farmers to markets and by so doing, efficiency in production and marketing of cattle to achieve huge profit.

REFERENCES

Adugna T. (2007): Feed resources for producing export quality meat and livestock in Ethiopia(Examples from selected Woredas in Oromia and SNNPS) regional States. Adikson A. and Adikson, R. (2013). The FecB (Booroola) gene and implications for the Turkish Sheep industry. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Science 37: 621- 624. Ahmed M., Ehui, S. and Yemsrach, A. (2003b): Dairy development in Ethiopia. Socio- economic and Policy Research Working paper 58. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.pp47-49. Alemayehu Y., Azage Tegegne and Kurtu, M. (2000).The livestock production system in three peasant associations of Hawassa Woreda. In: Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP), August 24- 26, 2000, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.pp155-167. Alemayehu Mengistu (2002). Forage Production in Ethiopia: A Case Study with multiplications for Livestock Production. Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.pp106. ______(2004).Rangeland Biodiversity: Concepts, Approaches and the Way Forward. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. ______(2004).Pasture and Forage Resource profiles of Ethiopia. Ethiopia/FAO. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.pp19. ______(2005).Feed resources base of Ethiopia: Status and opportunities for integrated development. Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal production (ESAP). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.pp377-386. Ayantude, Augustin, ShirlyTarawali and Iain Wright.―Rangeland-based livestock Production‖. International Livestock Research Institute. November Brief (2011). Ayele S., Assegid W, Belachew H, Jabbar A, Ahmed M (2003). Livestock marketing in Ethiopia: A review of structure, performance and development initiatives. Socio- economic and Policy Research Working Paper 52. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.

Aynalem H., Workneh A, Noah K, Tadele D, Azage T (2011). Breeding strategy to improve Ethiopian Boran Cattle for meat and milk production. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project. Working Paper No.26. ILRI(International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. Azage Tegegne (2004).Urban livestock production and gender in Addis Ababa. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Urban Agric. Mag.12:3. Azage Tegegne, Berhanu, G. and Hoekstra, D. (2010): Livestock input supply and service provision in Ethiopia: Challenges and opportunities for market oriented development. Improving Productivity and Marketing Success of Ethiopian farmers. Project Working Paper 20. (ILRI) International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.pp48. Befekadu D, Birhanu N (2000). Annual report on the Ethiopian economy. Volume1. The Ethiopian Economics Association, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.p429. Belachew H. and Jemberu, E. (2003).Challenges and opportunities of livestock marketing in Ethiopia. In: Proceedings of the 10th annual conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP) held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, August 21-23, 2002. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.pp1-13. Belay &Maning (2004).Access to Rural Land in Eastern Ethiopia: Mismatch between Policy and Reality. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics Volume 105, No.2, 2004.pp123-138. Belaynesh D. (2006).Floristic Composition and Diversity of the Vegetation, Soil Seed Bank Flora and Condition of the Rangelands of the Jijiga Zone, Somali Regional State, Ethiopia. MSc Thesis, Alemaya University, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia. Bruke Y., Tafesse M (2000). Pastoralism and Agro-pastoralism: Past and Present. In: Pastoralism Agro-pastoralim which way forward? Proceeding of the 8th Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP) held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. CARE-Ethiopia (2009): CARE-Ethiopia has contracted out YONAD Business Promotion and Consultancy Service in May 2009 to analyze the milk and milk products value chain in Borana pastoral community.

CSA (Central Statistical Authority), (2003).Statistical Report in characterization of Agricultural household and land use, Part 1. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. ______(2008).Livestock and Livestock Characteristics, Agricultural Sample Survey. Statistical Bulletin, 2(446)18:188. ______(2009).Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Agricultural Sample Survey. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. ______(2009).Agricultural Sample Survey 2008/2009, Volume II Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics (Private and Peasant Holdings) Statistical Bulletin 446.Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. ______(2011).Agricultural Sample Survey. Volume II report on livestock and livestock characteristics. Devendra C. and Thomas D. (2002).Crop-animal systems in Asia importance of livestock and characterization of agro-ecological zones.71:pp5-15. Delgado C., Rosegrant, M., Steinfield, H., Ehui, S. and Courbois, C. (1999). Livestock to 2020:the next food revolution. Food, Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper 28.International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington DC. Dixon J., A. Tanyeri-Abur, and H. Wattenbach (2003).Approaches to Assessing the Impact of Globalization on African Smallholders: Household and Village Economy Modeling, Proceedings of Working Session Globalization and the African Smallholder Study, FAO and World Bank, Rome, Italy, Food and Agricultural Organization United Nations. ESAP (2002). Livestock in Food Security Role and Contributions. In: Proceedings of 9th annual conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP), August 30- 31, 2001. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. FAO (2004a).Smallholder, Globalization and Policy analysis: Agricultural Management, Marketing and Finance Occasional Paper. Rome. ______(2008).International commodity prices database. Available at www.fao.org/es/esc/prices/PricesServlet.jsp?lang=en

______(2009). Livestock keepers - guardians of biodiversity. Paper prepared by the food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Animal Production and Health Division, FAO, Rome. Firew Tegegne (2007). Evaluation of alternative feed resources for ruminants under arid zones of the tropics and sub-tropics: the case of cactus pear (Oppuntiaficus-indica) in Ethiopia. Ph.D. Thesis. Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany. Getachew E. (2002). An Assessment of Feed Resources, their management and impact on livestock productivity in the Ginchi watershed Area. MSc Thesis Haramaya University Dire Dawa, Ethiopia.pp172. Haffernan C. (2004). Livestock and the poor issues in poverty focused livestock development. In: Responding to the Livestock Revolution: the role of globalization and implications poverty alleviation. University of Reading, Reading, United Kingdom.p33. Hazell P., C. Poulton, S.Wiggins, and A. Dorward. (2007). The Future of Small Farms for Poverty Reduction and Growth. 2020 Discussion Paper 42.Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Ibrahim H., Olaloku E.(2002). Improving cattle for milk, meat and traction. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. IGAD-LPI (2011).(Inter-Governmental Authority on Development-Livestock Policy Initiative).The contribution of Livestock to the Ethiopian Economy Part I. Ike A. (2002): Urban dairying in Awassa, Ethiopia. University of Hohenheim. Institute of Animal production in the tropics and sub tropics. Stuttgart-Hohenheim, Germany. Ilea R. (2009).Intensive livestock farming: global trends, increased environmental concerns and ethical solutions. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,22(2): 153- 167. IPS (2000).Resource Potential Assessment and Project Identification study of the Somalia Region. Socio-economic Assessment. Investment Office of the Somalia Regional State. Research Report.3:51. Kedija Husen (2007).Characterization of milk production system and opportunity for market orientation: a case study of Mieso district, Oromia region, Ethiopia. MSc. Thesis. Haramaya University.

Lemma F., Fekadu Beyene and Hegde P. (2005).Rural Smallholders Milk and Dairy Products Production, Utilization and Marketing Systems in East Shoa Zone of Oromia. In: Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production, August 12-14, 2004. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp17-28. Lubungu M., Chapoto A. and Tembo G. (2012).Smallholder farmers’ participation in livestock markets: the case of farmers. IAPRI working paper 66.August 2012,Lusaka, Zambia. Mahelet G.F. (2007). Factors Affecting Commercialization of Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia: the case of North Omo Zone, SNNP region. Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on the Ethiopian Economy, Addis Ababa, June 7-9, 2007. Melaku T. (2011). Oxenization versus Tractorization: Options and Constraints for Ethiopian Farming System. International Journal Sustainable Agriculture.3(1):11-20. MoFED. 2003. Rural Development Policy and Strategy. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. ______2006.Building on progress—A Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDEP) (2005/06–2009/10).Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. ______2010. Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP) (2010/11–2014/15).Volume I. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Morthon J.F. (2007). The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence Agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).104(50):19680-19685. Mupawenda et al., A. C., Chawatama, S. and Muvavarirwa, P. (2009).Gender Issues Livestock Production: a case study of Zimbabwe. Tropical Animal Health and Production.41(7):1017-1021. Mwangi J.G (2013). Developing a vibrant livestock industry in East Africa through market driven research. Journal of US-China Public Administration.10(6):608-617. New Partnership for Africa’s Development -Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (NEPAD- CAADP), (2005). Ethiopia: Investment Project Profile ―Live Animal and Meat Export‖ Preliminary Options Outline. Negussie G. (2006): Characterization and evaluation of urban dairy production system of Mekele city, Tigray Region, Ethiopia. M.Sc.thesis, Hawassa University. Awassa Ethiopia.

Nouman W., Basra S., Siddiqui M., Yasmeen A., Gull T. and Alcayde M.A.C. (2014). Potential of Moringa Oleifera L. as livestock fodder crop: a review. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry.38(1):1-14. Quan (2011).A future for small-scale farmers, Science Review: SR25, Foresight Projection Global Food and Farming Futures, University of Greenwich, London. Rae A. (2008). China’s agriculture, smallholder and trade: driven by the livestock revolution? Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics.52(3):283- 302. Salami, Adeleke; B. Kamara, Abdul; and Brixiova, Zuzana (2010).Smallholder Agriculture in East Africa: Trends, Constraints and Opportunities, African Development Bank Group, Working Paper Series No. 105, April 2010. Salem B.H. and Smith T. (2008).Feeding strategies to increase small ruminant production in dry environments. Journal of Ruminant Research.77:174-194. Schultze M.S., Rischkowsky B., Da Veiga J.B. and King J.M. (2007).Cattle are cash- generating assets for mixed smallholder farms in East Amazon. Journal of the Agricultural System.94:738-749. Seyoum Bediye, Getnet A. and Abate T. (2001). Present Status and Future Direction in Feed Resources and Nutrition Research Targeted for Wheat Based Crop-Livestock Production System in Ethiopia. In: Wheat and Weeds: Food and Feed. Proceeding of the Two Stake-Holder Workshops, CIMMYT, Santa Cruz, Bolivia.pp207-227. Seid Guyo (2012). Assessment of Cattle Husbandry and Marketing Practices in Burji Woreda, Segen Zuria Zone of SNNPRS, Ethiopia. Shitahun M. (2009). Feed Resources Availability, Cattle Fattening Practices and Marketing System in Bure Woreda, MSc. thesis. Faculty of Dry Land Agriculture and Natural Resources. Livestock Production and Pastoral Development. Mekelle University, Ethiopia. Smith J. Tarawali S., Grace, D. and Sones K. (2013a).Feeding the world in 2050: trade-offs, synergies and tough choices for the livestock sector. Tropical Grasslands- Forajes Tropicales,1:125-136.

Smith J., Sones K., Grace D., Macmillan S., Tarawali S. and Herrero M. (2013b).Beyond meat, milk and eggs: role of livestock in food and nutrition security. Animal Frontiers,3(1):1-8. Solomon A., Workalemahu A., Jabbar M., Ahmed M. and Hurissa B. (2003).Livestock marketing in Ethiopia: A review of structure, performance and development initiatives. Socio-economic and Policy Research Working Paper 52.ILRI(International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. Steinfeld H., Gerber P., Wassenaar T., Castel V., Rosales M. and De Haan C. (2006).Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options, FAO. Tedonkeng PE, Pieper D. (2000).Introduction to range Management in free and open access environments of Sub-Saharan Africa. Tesfaye M., (2007). Characterization of cattle milk and meat production, Processing and marketing system in Metema district, Ethiopia. MSc. Thesis. Awassa College of agriculture, school of graduate studies Hawassa University Awassa, Ethiopia. Tesfaye D., Azage Tegegne, Lisanework N. and Worku T. (2010).Opportunities for exploiting Underutilized feed resources to enhance market oriented animal production in Northwestern Ethiopia, International Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Tafesse M. (2001). What should a pastoralist development strategy continue towards poverty reduction among pastoral communities in Ethiopia? In: proceedings of the 2ndAnnual Conference on pastoral development in Ethiopia. Pastoral Forum in Ethiopia. May 22-23, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.p136. Thorton P.K. (2010). Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philosophical Transaction: Biological Sciences.365(1554):2853-2867. Tolera A. and Abebe A. (2007).Livestock Production in Pastoral and agro-pastoral production systems in Southern Ethiopia. Livestock research for rural development.19(12). Ulfina G., Zelalem B., Jemal D., Gemeda D., Chala M., Jiregna D., Diriba G., Lemma G., Workneh A. and Adam D. (2005). Survey of cattle production and marketing practices in Dano District, Western Ethiopia using PRA tools.PRA Report. USAID/Ethiopia. 2010. Agricultural Growth Program (AGP)—Livestock Growth Program (LGP). Section C. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Workneh A., Rowlands J. (2004). Design, execution and analysis of the livestock breed survey in Oromiya regional State, Ethiopia. OADB (Oromia Agricultural Development Bureau), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya.p260. World Bank. (2003). Reaching the rural poor: A renewed strategy for rural development. Washington, DC. Yamana (1967).Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd Edition., New York: Harper and Row. Zelalem Yilma (1999). Smallholder Milk Production Systems and Processing Techniques in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden. Zelalem Yilma and Inger L. (2000).Efficiency of smallholder butter making in the Ethiopian Central Highland. In: Proceeding of the 8th annual conference of Ethiopian Society of Animal Production, August 14-29 2000, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.pp192-205. Zinash Silashi, Aschalew T., Alemu Y. and Azage Tegegne (2001).Status of Livestock Research and Development in the highlands of Ethiopia. In: Proceedings of the Two Stakeholder Workshops. Improving the Productivity of Crop-Livestock Production in Wheat Based Farming Systems in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa Ethiopia.pp227-250. Zinash Silashi (2004). Livestock Production System. Short-term Course in Awassa University. Awassa, Ethiopia.p47.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX-I ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Questions for Sample Households I. Personal Information of Respondents 1. Agro-ecology: (Dega ______Woina-Dega______) 2. Kebele Name______3. Date of interview: ______II. Socio-economic and Demographic Characteristics of Households 1. Sex of household head: 1) Male 2) Female 2. Age: 1) 15 – 24 2) 25 – 34 3) 35 – 44 4) 45 – 54 5) 55 – 64 6) > 64 3. Marital status: 1) single 2) Married 3) Divorced 4) Widowed 5) Others specify____ 4. Family size: 1) 0-3 members 2) 4-6 members 3) 7-10 members 4) >10 5. Educational status: 1) Illiterate 2) Read and Write only 3) Formal Education 6. What is your Occupation? 1) Farming 2) Employed 3) Housewife 4) Own Business 7. Besides crop farming and small-scale cattle productions, what other type of economic activity work do you do? 1) Private own non-farm business 2) Salaried/paid worker 3) None 4) Others (Specify) ___ 8. How did you acquire your cultivated farmland? 1) Own/Family 2) Lease 3) Purchase 4) Free communal land 5) Do not have access to land 6) Others (specify) ______9. How much farmland do you have? 1) 0.1-1.0ha 2) 1.01-2.0ha 3)2.01-3.0ha 4) 3.01-4.0ha 5) 4.0-5.0ha 10. How long have you been keeping cattle (years)? 1) 1-5yrs 2) 6-10yrs 3) 11-16yrs 4) 17-22yrs 5) Above 22yrs

III. Economic Importance of Cattle 11. For what purpose do you keep cattle? (Tick as deemed appropriate)

Purpose of Keeping the Cattle Strongly Agree Agree Disagree

Self-consumption Source of income Traction Harvest Prestige Source of wealth Security/insurance Others(specify)

12. What is your major occupational activity? 1) Livestock keeping 2) Crop production 3) Trader 4) Formal employment 5) others (specify) ______13. What is your major source of income? ...... 14. What are your other sources of income? 1) Sale of Cattle 2) Milk Sales 3) Butter/ghee 4) Hides and Skins 5) Sale of crops 6) others (specify) ---- 15. How much milk is produced per cow per day in your herd on average, this year? 1) No milk 2) 1-5 liters 3) 6-10 liters 4) >10 liters 16. Do you sell milk and milk products? 1) Yes 2) No 17. If your answer for question number 16 is “yes”, please complete the table.

Outlet Quantity sold per day Price per litre Immediate Neighbor Local Market Cooperative Society Others (specify)

VI. Cattle Sales (Marketing) 18. Have you sold any cattle since October last year? 1) Yes 2) No 19. If your answer for question number 18 is “yes”, complete the table. Category Number Sold Average Price Local Exotic Bulls Bullocks Weaner Bulls Weaner Heifer Cows

20. Major reasons for sell your cattle? 1) Pay School fees 2) Pay tax 3) Purchase fertilizer 4) Animal sick 5) Purchase household items 6) Others (Specify) ______21. Over the previous year in which season did you sell most/less cattle and why? Category Season Number of sold cattle Average price Bull Autumn Bullock Winter Cow Spring Heifer Summer

V. Feed Resources 22. What are the major feed resources available to your Cattle? Feed Source Put it in rank On-farm grazing Natural Pasture Crop Residue Conserved feeds Harvested browse Communal lands Other(Specify)

23. Please specify the grazing system you practice during wet and dry seasons?

Season Grazing System Dry Season Wet Season Free grazing or free roaming animals Extensive grazing (with shepherd) Tethering grazing of animals Cut and carry or zero grazing Others ( Specify)______

24. Do you use crop residue for feed your cattle? 1) Yes 2) No 25. If your response to question N0 24 above is “yes”, which crop residue are using for feed? 1) Teff straw 2) Barley straw 3) Guayo straw 4) Others (Specify) 26. If you do not practice feed conservation, please explain? 1) I do not have skills or the experience 2) There is a shortage of grass/fodder 3) I do not have enough labor to harvest grass/fodder 4) There is abundant of feeds all year round 27. If applicable, please indicate the feed preservation method you practice. 1) Do not practice feed preservation 2) Hay 3) Silage 4) Other (specify) ______28. Please indicate the severity of feed shortage for Cattle in the last year on your farm? 1) Very low severity 2) Low severity 3) High severity 4) Very high severity 29. Have you encountered food shortage within the last five years? 1) Yes 2) No

30. If your answer to question no.29 is “yes”, what reasons account for the shortage? (Put it in rank 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th).

Reasons Rank Declining of grazing lands Cultivation on grazing land Drought Increase in human population Other(specify)------

31. Please indicate which months of the year you experience the most severe feed shortage for your Cattle farm?

Months Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Tick

VI. Water Resources and Quality

32. What sources of water are you using for your cattle? 1) The pipeline 2) The nearby river 3) Pond 4) Others (Specify) ______33. Is there water related problem in your area? 1) Yes 2) No 34. If your response to question no. 33 is “yes”, what is your main water related problem? 1) Scarcity 2) Parasites 3) Unhygienic/impurity 4) Others (Specify) ______

VII. Cattle Housing Condition

35. How do you house your animals? 1) In a house 2) Tethered in the yard 3) Not housed at all 36. When do house them? 1) All the time 2) Only at night 37. How do you dispose the cattle dung from the barn? 1) By drainage system 2) By manual labor 38. How many times are you disposing manure from the barn? 1) Once per day 2) twice per day 3) three times per day 4) More than three times

39. How are you utilizing it most of the time? 1) I do not use it at all 2) It is made into cow dung cake 3) It is used for soil fertilization 4) It is used for construction purposes 40. Do you also sell the animals dung cake or decomposed dung? 1) Yes 2) No 41. If your response to question no. 40 is “yes”, where do you usually sell your decomposed dung or cake? 1) At the farm gate 2) On the nearby market

VIII. Cattle Health Related Factors

42. What are the major prevalent cattle diseases in your area? Put in rank.

Diseases Vernacular name (Afan Oromo) Rank Internal parasite RamoKessa Ticks Silmi Bloat Bokoka Pneumonia Qufa Skin disease Chitto Others (Specify) ------

43. Do you have veterinary services in your community? 1) Yes 2) No 44. If your response to question no. 43 is “yes”, where do you get veterinary services? 1) Government institution 2) Private Veterinary 3) NGOs extension services 4) Others-- 45. Do you use any traditional or herbal remedies for your cattle? 1) Yes 2) No 46. If your response to question no. 45 is “yes”, why? 1) Veterinary Services are not available 2) Veterinary costs are high 3) Veterinary medicaments are not effective for such disease 4) Others (Specify) _____ 47. How many animals did you lose the last one-year because of diseases? 1) 1 2) 2 3) 3 4) 4 IX. STOCK INCREASE 48. How many Cattles (Cows, heifers, Bulls, Calves, and Oxen) altogether did you keep in the year 2005 E.C? 1) 1-3 2) 4-6 3) 7-10 4) 11-13 49. How many Cattles do you have right now (2010 E.C)? 1) 1-3 2) 4-6 3) 7-10 4) 11-13

50. What is the number of your cattle within five year (2005-2010E.C.)? 1) Increasing 2) Decreasing 3) Remain the same 52. If your answer for question number 50 is, “decreasing‖ what is the reason? 1) Declining of grazing land 2) Lack of labor 3) Need to change in species 4) Disease 5) Others (Specify) ______

Thank you for giving me your time and valuable information!!!

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

Questions for Focus Group Discussion

I. Cattle production system, Trend and Constraints

1. Can you describe the overall condition of cattle production system? 2. What are your views on cattle feeding system? What was it like in the past 10 years? Do you believe that there has been change in the past 10 years? What are the major changes you observe and what do you think is/are reasons for the change? 3. What can you say in general about the major available cattle feeding resources? What were major feed resources in the past 10 years? Do you believe that there has been any difference in kind of feeding resource you provide compared with the past? What do you think the reasons for these changes? 4. Can you say about the trend of cattle number and breeds? Do you think that there has been change both in number and breed type? What do you think are reasons for these change? 5. Can you tell me about the benefits you get from your cattle in terms of economic and social advantage? 6. Are you satisfied with the current amount of cattle production? Do you think that there are cattle production constraints? What are these constraints and why? 7. Do you have any support from government solve the constraints? Are you satisfied with the support?

Thank you for giving me your time and valuable information!!!

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

Questions of Interview for Key Informants

1. Can you tell a bit about the mission and vision of your office? 2. What kind of support do you usually offer for farmers to improve Cattle production? What have you done to promote cattle production in your Wereda? 3. What are the contribution of your intervention in terms of quantity and quality of products? 4. What constraints do you encounter? What are the major prevalent cattle diseases in your area? How do you solve the problems? 5. What do you think about the constraints in the future? 6. Is there anything you would like to say before we end up our discussion?

Thank you for giving me your time and valuable information!!!